Cited by 481Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsQuantum Information and Cryptography

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Example of the Difference Between Quantum and Classical Random Walks

Open access
Childs, Andrew M., Farhi, Edward, Gutmann, Sam·2002·Quantum Information Processing

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1019609420309

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The continuous-time quantum walks model has not been thoroughly investigated for Dirac dynamics.

    “While DTQW and DCA are well-explored for Dirac dynamics, the continuous-time quantum walks (CTQW) [18] model has not been thoroughly investigated.”
  • Many works have compared properties of stochastic and quantum random walks on complex networks.

    “many works have compared properties of stochastic 68,69 and quantum random walks 63 -65 on complex networks 70 .”

    From Complex networks from classical to quantum (2019) · cites this paper as [63]

  • For some graphs, hitting time of quantum walks can be exponentially less than their classical counterparts.

    “For some graphs, hitting time of quantum walks can be exponentially less than their classical counterparts. 48,49”

    From Quantum algorithms: an overview (2016) · cites this paper as [48]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. D. Aharonov, A. Ambainis, J. Kempe, and U. Vazirani, quant-ph/0012090. · arXiv
  2. A. Ambainis, E. Bach, A. Nayak, A. Vishwanath, and J. Watrous, in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (ACM Press, New York, 2001), p. 37.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Childs, A. M., Farhi, E., & Gutmann, S.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Venue
Quantum Information Processing
Published
2002-04
Volume
1
Issue
1-2
Pages
35-43
ISSN
  • 1570-0755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1332
OpenAlex
W1519689626
Cited by
481
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 19
FWCI
26.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quantum Information Processing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
quantum walks, classical random walks, graphs, exponential speedup

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review