Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 49 references

Flux control of measurement back-action and Leggett-Garg correlations in chiral quantum walks

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One return amplitude fixes sequential measurement statistics in chiral quantum walks.

desk verdict Exact two-time return statistics and a flux-engineering criterion for the Lüders bound; clean derivations, with the localized-initial-state idealization the only real caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12519 v1 pith:7ZPQ4EPB submitted 2026-08-12 quant-ph

Paolo Luppi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords chiralcontinuous-timequantumwalksgauge-invariantfluxmeasurementback-actionLeggett-GarginequalitiesLuedersboundrootedreturnamplitudeKrylovsubspacewindingnumberexpansion
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 argues that in a chiral continuous-time quantum walk, if the walker starts exactly on one vertex $\nu$ and one measures only whether it has returned to $\nu$, the full two-time statistics are captured by a single gauge-invariant quantity, the rooted return amplitude $A_\nu(t;\Phi)$. Because that amplitude is built from interference among closed walks, the graph's fluxes become tunable controls on measurement back-action and on temporal correlations of the Leggett\textendash Garg type. The paper proves the exact bound $L_3 \le 1 + 2K_{\nu,\Phi}$, so any Leggett\textendash Garg violation in this protocol certifies that the intermediate measurement disturbed the walk. It also proves a graph-independent criterion under which flux engineering saturates the L\"uders bound $L_3 = 3/2$, and exhibits two exact realizations: a two-flux diamond graph and the four-cycle at half flux. A winding-number expansion gives a parity-dependent onset of flux effects, at order $t^N$ on even cycles and $t^{2N}$ on odd cycles.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the rooted return amplitude $A_\nu(t;\Phi)=\langle \nu|e^{-iH_\chi(\Phi)t}|\nu\rangle$ together with its rooted spectral measure $\mu_{\nu,\Phi}=\sum_r w_r\delta_{\lambda_r}$. Every two-time return probability, the back-action $K_{\nu,\Phi}$, and the Leggett\textendash Garg functional $L_3$ reduce to exact algebraic combinations of this single function. The saturation mechanism is the operator condition $(H_\Phi-a_\nu I)^2|\nu\rangle=\gamma_\nu|\nu\rangle$, which makes the rooted Krylov subspace two-dimensional with equal spectral weights; the cycle analysis uses the Jacobi\textendash Anger expansion to reorganize $A_N(t;\phi)$ into winding sectors $J_{\ell N}(2t)\cos(\ell\phi)$ whose short-time orders control the parity-dependent flux onset.

What would settle it

On a four-site chiral cycle with flux $\phi=\pi$, implement the equally spaced protocol and search over $\tau$; the paper predicts the maximum of $L_3$ is exactly $3/2$ at $\tau=\pi/(6\sqrt{2})$. A second decisive test: prepare the walker in a superposition with a small weight on a neighboring vertex and check whether the two-time probabilities still depend only on $A_\nu(t)$; any visible dependence on other transition amplitudes would refute the exact reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the joint probabilities of the dichotomic return measurement are exactly $P_{++}=p_\nu(t_1)p_\nu(\tau)$, $P_{+-}=p_\nu(t_1)[1-p_\nu(\tau)]$, $P_{-+}=|A_\nu(t_2)-A_\nu(\tau)A_\nu(t_1)|^2$, and $P_{--}=1-p_\nu(t_1)-P_{-+}$, for any finite graph, any hopping phases, and any time-independent Hamiltonian. Thus the two-time correlators, the Kolmogorov inconsistency $K_{\nu,\Phi}$, and the equally spaced Leggett\textendash Garg functional $L_3(\tau)$ are exact functionals of $A_\nu(t;\Phi)$ only. From these identities the paper derives that $L_3 \le 1+2K_{\nu,\Phi}$, that the leading short-time disturbance is flux-independent with flux sensitivity first entering through rooted closed-walk sums at quartic or higher order, and that balanced two-dimensional rooted Krylov dynamics, enforced by the operator condition $(H_\Phi-a_\nu I)^2|\nu\rangle=\gamma_\nu|\nu\rangle$, saturates the L\"uders bound. On flux-threaded cycles the same framework yields a winding-number expansion in which the leading flux contrast is of order $t^N$ for even $N$ and $t^{2N}$ for odd $N$, with half flux on the four-cycle reaching $L_3=3/2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the walker starts exactly localized on the measured vertex and that the measurement is an ideal, perfectly efficient projection onto return-versus-complement; any weight on other vertices or any measurement inefficiency would introduce extra terms beyond the return amplitude and break the bound and the parity onsets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any Leggett\textendash Garg violation measured with this protocol implies nonzero measurement back-action at the intermediate time, since $L_3 \le 1+2K_{\nu,\Phi}$.
  • Local single-vertex measurements become a complete probe of the rooted spectral measure: optimizing $L_3$ over $\tau$ reveals the spectral weights $w_r$ and gaps $\lambda_r$ seen from $\nu$.
  • Flux can be designed to make rooted modes dark: on the diamond graph with $(\Phi_1,\Phi_2)=(0,\pi)$ the outer vertex saturates $L_3=3/2$ at $\tau=\pi/(6\sqrt{2})$, a gain of about $0.0410$ over zero flux.
  • On cycles the leading flux contrast in back-action is order $t^N$ for even $N$ with sign $(-1)^{N/2}$, and order $t^{2N}$ for odd $N$.
  • On larger cycles flux mainly advances temporal accessibility: for $C_{10}$ at half flux the earliest time to reach 99% of the zero-flux optimized violation drops from about $31.4$ to about $10.2$, a speedup factor around $3.1$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the same reduction is recursive. Adding a third intermediate measurement should express the three-time joint distribution through products of return amplitudes $A_\nu(t_i)A_\nu(t_j-t_i)\cdots$, so flux-engineering criteria for higher-order Leggett\textendash Garg functionals $L_n$ would follow from the same Krylov argument.
  • Inference: the exact dependence of $L_3$ on $A_\nu$ suggests a flux-metrology protocol. The quantum Fisher information of the dichotomic return statistics is likely an explicit functional of $A_\nu$ and its derivatives, so single-vertex return measurements could estimate a flux with precision governed by the local spectral measure; the paper raises the question but does not compute this.
  • Inference: because odd-cycle return statistics are $\pi$-periodic in the flux, a single odd cycle cannot distinguish $\phi$ from $\phi+\pi$. A two-flux graph like the diamond, where the protocol separates relative flux configurations, would be needed to lift that ambiguity.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies continuous-time quantum walks on finite graphs with complex hopping amplitudes (chiral CTQWs) and analyzes sequential measurements of the dichotomic return observable Qν = 2|ν⟩⟨ν| − I at a single vertex ν, for a walker initially localized at ν. The central result (Proposition 1, Sec. III) states that the complete two-time joint distribution, and hence the correlators entering the Leggett–Garg functional, are determined exactly by the rooted return amplitude Aν(t;Φ); the derivation is given in Appendix A. From this exact reduction the authors obtain an expression for the Kolmogorov inconsistency Kν,Φ(s,t) (Eq. (30)), an exact identity relating the equally spaced Leggett–Garg functional L3 to the signed measurement disturbance δν,Φ and to the probability P−+ of returning after an intermediate 'complement' outcome (Eq. (56)), and the bound L3 ≤ 1 + 2Kν,Φ (Eq. (58)). Short-time expansions show that the leading disturbance is O(t²) and independent of the Peierls phases, while flux sensitivity generically enters at O(t⁴) (Sec. IV). Section V develops a graph-independent operator criterion (Eqs. (71)–(74)) for balanced two-dimensional rooted Krylov dynamics, under which the Lüders bound L3 = 3/2 is saturated at finite time; this is realized exactly on the diamond graph for the relative-flux configuration (Φ1,Φ2) = (0,π). For flux-threaded cycles, the winding-number expansion (Eq.

Significance. Assuming the results hold, this is a valuable contribution to chiral quantum walks and to the theory of temporal quantum correlations. The paper's main strength is that the central chain is self-contained, exact, and checkable: Proposition 1 follows from the Lüders instrument algebra, Eqs. (29)–(31) and (54)–(58) are consistent with direct recomputation, the balanced-Krylov criterion in Eq. (71) is a clean operator condition, and the diamond and C4 saturation examples are exact spectral statements rather than numerical fits. The parity-dependent onset in Proposition 4 is a falsifiable, graph-specific prediction. The numerical results are evaluations of the exact closed-form return amplitude in Eq. (84), so the absence of a code deposit is not a correctness issue. The explicit scope—localized initial preparation and ideal dichotomic Lüders instrument—is stated as a setup condition and used consistently; the paper does not claim robustness to delocalized preparations or inefficient measurements. The main limitation is therefore one of scope, not of internal consistency.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI.A, Eq. (86)] The combination of the ℓ and −ℓ winding sectors in Eq. (86) uses J−n(z) = (−1)^n Jn(z); stating this identity explicitly immediately before Eq. (86) would remove a potential point of confusion for readers who verify the derivation.
  2. [Sec. VII] The paper correctly states the localized-initial-state and ideal-Lüders assumptions in Sec. II.B, but a one-sentence reminder in the Conclusions that all central identities, including L3 ≤ 1 + 2Kν, would acquire additional terms for delocalized preparations or inefficient measurements would help prevent overgeneralization.
  3. [Sec. VI.D and Figs. 3–4] The observation windows and grid resolutions for the numerical survey (for example, T = 40 for C10 and the 501 × 4001 grid in Fig. 3) are given in the text and Appendix E; including the key values directly in the figure captions would improve readability and reproducibility.
  4. [Abstract and Secs. V–VI] There are minor typographical inconsistencies in the rendering of the name 'Lüders' (for example, 'L\"uders' in the abstract) and in the use of 'Lüders bound' versus 'Lüders value'; these should be harmonized in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims follow from explicit Hamiltonian and Lüders-rule computations, and the one self-citation is only a protocol comparison, not a load-bearing input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Proposition 1 (Eqs. (25)-(28)) is derived in Appendix A from the localized initial state, the dichotomic Lüders instrument, and the time-homogeneous unitary propagator; the result is a theorem about those stated assumptions, not a restatement of them. The back-action identity (Eq. (30)), the Leggett-Garg functional (Eq. (54)), and the bound L3 <= 1 + 2K (Eq. (58)) all follow algebraically from the same exact joint probabilities. The short-time expansions in Eqs. (40), (62), and the parity-dependent cycle onsets in Eqs. (92)-(93) are obtained by Taylor and Bessel-function expansions of the exact return amplitude; they are not fitted to any dataset. The Krylov saturation criterion (Eq. (71)) is derived by direct spectral reasoning and then verified exactly on the diamond graph and C4 at half flux. The only self-citation, Ref. [36], is explicitly used as a comparison with a different measurement protocol, not as an input to any derivation. The numerical results are evaluations of the exact finite-size spectral return amplitude (84), with no free parameters. The localized-initial-state and ideal-Lüders-measurement idealization is stated as a setup condition and is the acknowledged scope limitation; it is a fragility of the claims' domain, not a circular step. No prediction is equivalent by construction to its inputs, and no load-bearing conclusion is imported from an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters. The model inputs are the graph, hopping amplitudes, and flux configuration; all derived quantities are exact functions of these. Numerical examples choose fluxes and windows without fitting. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard unitary evolution and Lüders projection rule for sequential measurements.
    Eqs. (15)-(18) define the measurement protocol; all later probabilities use this.
  • domain assumption The chiral CTQW Hamiltonian is Hχ=D-Aχ with antisymmetric Peierls phases θjk=-θkj.
    Eqs. (5)-(6); the whole paper studies this model.
  • standard math Gauge invariance: only cycle fluxes matter; phase choices are pure gauge.
    Eqs. (7)-(10) and Appendix C; used to justify flux variables and closed-walk interpretation.
  • domain assumption The walker starts exactly localized at the measured vertex ν.
    Sec. II.B; Proposition 1 and all derived identities fail without this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flux control of measurement back-action and Leggett-Garg correlations in chiral quantum walks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ZPQ4EPB

@misc{pith2026260812519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flux control of measurement back-action and Leggett-Garg correlations in chiral quantum walks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ZPQ4EPB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12519}
}
abstract

Gauge-invariant fluxes control interference in chiral continuous-time quantum walks. We investigate how they affect sequential measurements at a single vertex, using a dichotomic observable that distinguishes return to that vertex from occupation of its complement. For a walker initially localized at the measured vertex, the complete two-time statistics, including measurement back-action and Leggett--Garg correlators, are determined exactly by the return amplitude, connecting temporal correlations to the local spectral measure and gauge-invariant closed-walk interference. At short times, the leading disturbance is independent of the Peierls phases, whereas flux sensitivity enters at higher orders through interference among closed walks. We further identify a graph-independent sufficient mechanism for saturating the L\"uders bound: flux can reduce the rooted dynamics to a balanced two-dimensional Krylov subspace with equal spectral weights, yielding a constructive flux-engineering criterion for attaining the L\"uders bound of $3/2$ at finite times. The mechanism is realized exactly on a two-flux diamond graph, where destructive interference renders additional rooted modes dark and the local back-action depends on relative combinations of the two independent fluxes. For flux-threaded cycles, an exact winding-number expansion reveals a parity-dependent onset: the leading flux contrast occurs generically at order $t^N$ for even cycles and $t^{2N}$ for odd cycles. Across the cycles examined, flux can either enhance the maximal Leggett--Garg violation or shift strong violations to earlier measurement times, with half flux driving the four-site cycle to the L\"uders bound. These results establish gauge-invariant flux as a resource for engineering local measurement back-action and temporal quantum correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diamond graph with the oriented fluxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Leggett–Garg violation regions for the cycle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Flux dependence of the Leggett–Garg violation strength and its temporal accessibility for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    P. P. Nath, D. Saha, D. Home, and U. Sinha, Single- system-based generation of certified randomness using Leggett–Garg inequality, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 020802 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    ForC6 and C10, the optimized violation varies by less than one percent over the flux range in the observation windows considered below

    The largest value in the displayed window isL3,10≃ 1.4931, attained nearτ≃35.2andϕ/π≃0.445. ForC6 and C10, the optimized violation varies by less than one percent over the flux range in the observation windows considered below. The dominant effect is instead temporal: flux can move a prescribed violation to an earlier recurrence. To quantify this, assumeV...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Hence, for sufficiently small positivet, Kν,Φ(αt,t ) = δν(αt,t), which proves Eq. (38). Finally, expanding the centered fourth moment gives eµ(ν) 4 =µ (ν) 4 −4µ(ν) 1 µ(ν) 3 +6 µ(ν) 1 2 µ(ν) 2 −3 µ(ν) 1 4 .(B8) Appendix C: Rooted spectral moments and gauge-invariant closed walks We provide here the graph-theoretic interpretation of the rooted spectral mome...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Portugal,Quantum Walks and Search Algorithms (Springer, New York, 2013)

    R. Portugal,Quantum Walks and Search Algorithms (Springer, New York, 2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    Mülken and A

    O. Mülken and A. Blumen, Continuous-time quantum walks: Models for coherent transport on complex net- works, Phys. Rep.502, 37 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    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

  7. [6]

    Schreiber, A

    A. Schreiber, A. Gábris, P. P. Rohde, K. Laiho, M. Šte- faňák, V. Potoček, C. Hamilton, I. Jex, and C. Silberhorn, A 2D quantum walk simulation of two-particle dynamics, Science336, 55 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    Peierls, Zur Theorie des Diamagnetismus von Leitungselektronen, Z

    R. Peierls, Zur Theorie des Diamagnetismus von Leitungselektronen, Z. Phys.80, 763 (1933), [On the theory of diamagnetism of conduction electrons]

    work page 1933

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    J. M. Luttinger, The effect of a magnetic field on electrons in a periodic potential, Phys. Rev.84, 814 (1951)

    1951

  2. [9]

    P. G. Harper, Single band motion of conduction electrons in a uniform magnetic field, Proc. Phys. Soc. A68, 874 (1955)

    1955

  3. [10]

    D. Lu, J. D. Biamonte, J. Li, H. Li, T. H. Johnson, V. Bergholm, M. Faccin, Z. Zimborás, R. Laflamme, J. Baugh, and S. Lloyd, Chiral quantum walks, Phys. Rev. A93, 042302 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    Cedzich, T

    C. Cedzich, T. Geib, A. H. Werner, and R. F. Werner, Quantum walks in external gauge fields, J. Math. Phys. 60, 012107 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Frigerio, C

    M. Frigerio, C. Benedetti, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Generalized quantum-classical correspondence for random walks on graphs, Phys. Rev. A104, L030201 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Aidelsburger, S

    M. Aidelsburger, S. Nascimbene, and N. Goldman, Artifi- cial gauge fields in materials and engineered systems, C. R. Phys.19, 394 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    Razzoli, M

    L. Razzoli, M. G. A. Paris, and P. Bordone, Continuous- time quantum walks on planar lattices and the role of the magnetic field, Phys. Rev. A101, 032336 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    Zimborás, M

    Z. Zimborás, M. Faccin, Z. Kádár, J. D. Whitfield, B. P. Lanyon, and J. Biamonte, Quantum transport enhance- ment by time-reversal symmetry breaking, Sci. Rep.3, 2361 (2013)

    2013

  9. [16]

    Yu and X

    Y.-C. Yu and X. Cai, Controlled transport in chiral quan- tum walks on graphs, New J. Phys.25, 083034 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Acuaviva, A

    A. Acuaviva, A. Chan, S. Eldridge, C. Godsil, M. How- Chun-Lun, C. Tamon, E. Wright, and X. Zhang, State transfer in chiral quantum walks, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A383, 20240420 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    Bottarelli, M

    A. Bottarelli, M. Frigerio, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum routing of information using chiral quantum walks, AVS Quantum Sci.5, 025001 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Annoni, M

    E. Annoni, M. Frigerio, and M. G. A. Paris, Enhanced quantum transport in chiral quantum walks, Quantum Inf. Process.23, 117 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    Frigerio and M

    M. Frigerio and M. G. A. Paris, Swift chiral quantum walks, Linear Algebra Appl.673, 28 (2023). 17

    2023

  14. [21]

    Forghieri, V

    G. Forghieri, V. Dubovitskii, M. A. C. Rossi, and M. G. A. Paris, Link prediction with swarms of chiral quantum walks, Adv. Quantum Technol.9, e70320 (2026)

    2026

  15. [22]

    Cavazzoni, G

    S. Cavazzoni, G. Ragazzi, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Perfect chiral quantum routing, Phys. Rev. A111, 032439 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Ragazzi, S

    G. Ragazzi, S. Cavazzoni, C. Benedetti, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Scalable structure for chiral quantum routing, Entropy27, 498 (2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    Benedetti, G

    C. Benedetti, G. Ragazzi, S. Cavazzoni, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Routing qubits on noisy networks, J. Phys. Complex.7, 025001 (2026)

    2026

  18. [25]

    Cavazzoni, G

    S. Cavazzoni, G. Ragazzi, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum walks as a tool to design robust quantum bat- teries: The role of topology and chirality, Adv. Quantum Technol.9, 2500897 (2026)

    2026

  19. [26]

    Kofler and Č

    J. Kofler and Č. Brukner, Condition for macroscopic realism beyond the Leggett–Garg inequalities, Phys. Rev. A87, 052115 (2013)

    2013

  20. [27]

    Clemente and J

    L. Clemente and J. Kofler, Necessary and sufficient con- ditions for macroscopic realism from quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. A91, 062103 (2015)

    2015

  21. [28]

    J. J. Halliwell, Comparing conditions for macrorealism: Leggett–Garg inequalities versus no-signaling in time, Phys. Rev. A96, 012121 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    Smirne, D

    A. Smirne, D. Egloff, M. G. Díaz, M. B. Plenio, and S. F. Huelga, Coherence and non-classicality of quan- tum Markov processes, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 01LT01 (2019)

    2019

  23. [30]

    A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, Quantum mechanics versus macroscopicrealism: Isthefluxtherewhen nobodylooks?, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 857 (1985)

    1985

  24. [31]

    Lambert, C

    N. Lambert, C. Emary, and F. Nori, Leggett–Garg in- equalities, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 016001 (2014)

    2014

  25. [32]

    Vitagliano and C

    G. Vitagliano and C. Budroni, Leggett–Garg macroreal- ism and temporal correlations, Phys. Rev. A107, 040101 (2023)

    2023

  26. [33]

    M. Kim, J. Bang, and H. S. Moon, Exact no- signaling-in-time without temporal classicality (2026), arXiv:2607.14583 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Smirne, T

    A. Smirne, T. Nitsche, D. Egloff, S. Barkhofen, S. De, I. Dhand, C. Silberhorn, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Experimental control of the degree of non-classicality via quantum coherence, Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 04LT01 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    Robens, W

    C. Robens, W. Alt, D. Meschede, C. Emary, and A. Al- berti, Ideal negative measurements in quantum walks disprove theories based on classical trajectories, Phys. Rev. X5, 011003 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Rybotycki, T

    T. Rybotycki, T. Białecki, J. Batle, B. Zglinicki, A. Sz- ereszewski, W. Belzig, and A. Bednorz, Testing time order and Leggett–Garg inequalities with noninvasive measure- ments on public quantum computers, EPJ Quantum Tech- nol.13, 8 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    Luppi, C

    P. Luppi, C. Benedetti, and A. Smirne, Temporal non- classicality in continuous-time quantum walks, Phys. Rev. A113, 042212 (2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

    Varbanov, H

    M. Varbanov, H. Krovi, and T. A. Brun, Hitting time for the continuous quantum walk, Phys. Rev. A78, 022324 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Friedman, D

    H. Friedman, D. A. Kessler, and E. Barkai, Quantum walks: The first detected passage time problem, Phys. Rev. E95, 032141 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    S. Roy, S. Gupta, and G. Morigi, Causality, localization, and universality of monitored quantum walks with long- range hopping, Phys. Rev. E112, 044146 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    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, Phys. Rev. E 112, 054142 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Thiel, I

    F. Thiel, I. Mualem, D. Meidan, E. Barkai, and D. A. Kessler, Dark states of quantum search cause imperfect detection, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043107 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    R. Yin, Q. Wang, S. Tornow, and E. Barkai, Resonances of recurrence time of monitored quantum walks, J. Chem. Phys.162, 244114 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Fritz, Quantum correlations in the temporal Clauser– Horne–Shimony–Holt (CHSH) scenario, New J

    T. Fritz, Quantum correlations in the temporal Clauser– Horne–Shimony–Holt (CHSH) scenario, New J. Phys.12, 083055 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Budroni, T

    C. Budroni, T. Moroder, M. Kleinmann, and O. Gühne, Bounding temporal quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 020403 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Budroni and C

    C. Budroni and C. Emary, Temporal quantum correlations and Leggett–Garg inequalities in multilevel systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 050401 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Emary, Decoherence and maximal violations of the Leggett–Garg inequality, Phys

    C. Emary, Decoherence and maximal violations of the Leggett–Garg inequality, Phys. Rev. A87, 032106 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Abboud, Y

    N. Abboud, Y. Guan, B. Bradlyn, and J. Noronha, Leggett–Garg inequality violations bound quantum Fisher information (2026), arXiv:2604.09772 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.