Density Matrix-based Dynamics for Quantum Robotic Swarms
Extracted source text · arXiv 2509.08002
\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}
% Packages
\usepackage{lineno,hyperref}
\modulolinenumbers[5]
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb}
\usepackage{tikz-cd}
\usepackage{tabto}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{cprotect}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{balance}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{xpatch}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{amsthm}
% Custom theorem styles
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newcommand{\prooflabelfont}{\bfseries}
\xpatchcmd{\proof}{\itshape}{\prooflabelfont}{}{}
\xpatchcmd{\remark}{\itshape}{\prooflabelfont}{}{}
\xpatchcmd{\definition}{\itshape}{\prooflabelfont}{}{}
% Custom command
\newcommand{\bl}{\textcolor{black}}
% Bibliography style
\bibliographystyle{plain} % you can adjust as needed
% Title and author info
\title{A Novel Theoretical Approach on Micro-Nano Robotic Networks Based on Density Matrices and Swarm Quantum Mechanics}
\author{
Maria Mannone$^{1,2}$\thanks{Corresponding author: maria.mannone@uni-potsdam.de} \and
Mahathi Anand$^{3}$ \and
Peppino Fazio$^{4,5}$ \and
Abdalla Swikir$^{6}$
}
\date{
{\small
$^{1}$ICAR, National Research Council (CNR), Palermo, Italy\\ $^{2}$Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, Germany \\
$^{3}$Chair of Robotics and Systems Intelligence,\\Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany \\
$^{4}$Department of Molecular Sciences and Nanosystems (DSMN), \\Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy\\
$^{5}$VSB, Technical University of Ostrava, Czechia \\
$^{6}$Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI),\\Abu Dhabi, UAE
}
}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
In a robotic swarm, parameters such as position and proximity to the target can be described in terms of probability amplitudes. This idea led to recent studies on a quantum approach to the definition of the swarm, including a block-matrix representation. Here, we propose an advancement of the idea, defining a swarm as a mixed quantum state, to be described with a density matrix, whose size does not change with the number of robots. We end the article with some directions for future research.
\end{abstract}
\noindent\textbf{Keywords:} quantum mechanics; swarm intelligence; multi-robot coordination \\
\noindent\textbf{MSC (2025):} 03.65.Ca, 87.85.St
%\linenumbers
%\begin{document}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction}
% Il titolo va bene, pensandoci un po' mi era venuto in mente anche questo: \textcolor{black}{On The Stability of Micro/Nano Robotic Networks: a Novel Theoretical Approach Based on Density Matrices and Swarm Quantum Mechanics}.
In the last decades, there \bl{has} been a growing interest in studying, analyzing and deploying teams of robots to accomplish a wide variety of \bl{challenging} tasks such as target monitoring, surveillance, environmental sensing, disaster recovery and exploration \cite{tlc_survey1}. \bl{On the other hand, nature has been a source of inspiration for the development of several bio-inspired algorithms~\cite{bio-main,bio_1,bio_2,bio_3}. In particular, natural phenomena such as flocks of birds, insects and oceans have since long fascinated engineers and researchers, leading to the fascinating advancements made in the development and deployment of robotic swarms~\cite{schranz,swarm_robotics}. Specifically, researchers have made progress in understanding and imitating the behavior and communication patterns in natural swarms through swarm robots. For example,} the imitation of ants led to terrestrial robotics swarms \cite{ants_robot} and ant routing/ant colony optimization \cite{ant_01}, the imitation of flocking bird to aerial swarms \cite{oung}, the observation of fish to aquatic swarms~\cite{aquatic_swarm}, and the fascination toward the microscopic world led to microscopic \cite{sitti} systems.
%\bl{On the other hand, engineers have been significantly been inspired by nature which has correspondingly resulted in the development and deployment of \emph{bio-inspired} control algorithms.} }
%For example, weather and other astronomical predictions in ancient Greece and Rome were linked to observations of flocks of birds. Today, }
%Independently from the acting environment (aerial, terrestrial or underwater), the team members form an ad-hoc network of robots \cite{tlc_2}.
%In such scenarios, many works in literature have been inspired by nature, basing their theory and proposal on the so-called \textit{bio-inspired} networking \cite{bio_1, bio_2, bio_3}.
%In Ancient Greece and Roman Empire, for example, people were used to observe the flying of storms of birds to predict future conditions. The contemplation of complexity in nature, well-represented by swarms, and the wish to control the events are constants throughout the history of humanity. Today, we are inspired by natural swarms to develop artificial systems such as robotic swarms \cite{schranz}. Also, the wish for control is achievable, in the case of artificial systems, through suitable techniques, assessing a degree of stability.
%Today, we have the mathematical language to properly talk of them, the biology knowledge to better understand them, the technology to imitate them and also to make them communicate with each other. The imitation of ants led to terrestrial robotics swarms \cite{ants_robot} and ant routing/ant colony optimization \cite{ant_01}, the imitation of flocking bird to aerial swarm \cite{oung}, the observation of fish to aquatic swarm,
% cite{cocoro2}
%and the fascination toward the microscopic world led to microscopic \cite{sitti} systems.
The progressive miniaturization of the robots can lead to several applications, especially in medical technology~\cite{med_tech1,med_tech_2}. \bl{Telecommunication technologies are also quickly adapting to the micro/nano scales of devices and the related research activity is increasing \bl{progressively} \cite{wireless01, wireless02}, making it possible for micro/nano devices to communicate via electromagnetic fields or through molecules as information relay systems.}
However, the smaller the robotic system, the harder it is to control. \bl{Moreover, to control such
systems, one needs to first accurately model them. }
% For example, for hypothetical robots interacting with particles, a stability-control strategy based on quantum mechanics can be helpful.
% Applications of control theory to the quantum domain may be extended to other domains, for instance to quantum cryptography.
%Often, control is preceded by formalization, and formalization is preceded by curiosity toward the organization of nature.
%Another source of curiosity is constituted by the smallest foundations of the matter.
\bl{Inspired by quantum mechanics, the field of quantum computing uses quantum bits (\textit{qubit}) to extend the values of the standard $0,\,1$ to all the real values comprised between them (the interval $[0,1])$ \cite{stolze}. This makes it possible to precisely model the behavior of micro/nano systems.} There are some pioneering applications of quantum computing to artificial intelligence \cite{wichert,QRL2}, robotics \cite{QRL1,mechatronics}, vehicle communication \cite{SHU202356}, information security \cite{HAMDOUN2020463}, and swarm robotics \cite{koukam,quantum_fish,qRobot}. \bl{However there are significant challenges in utilizing quantum algorithms in the context of swarm robotics. For example, problems concerning stability~\cite{dasgupta_stability_2024} and robustness~\cite{berberich_robustness_2024} of the algorithms have not been well-investigated, though it has been suggested that algorithms such as quantum particle swarm optimization can lead to improvements in path-planning convergence~\cite{qian_optimal_2019}. This is due to the lack of appropriate modeling formalisms for quantum swarms. Therefore, in this article, we prepare the necessary ground for advanced control problems for quantum swarms by suggesting appropriate techniques to model them mathematically. }
%\bl{However, we are only at the beginning of the quantum era, there is still a huge gap between the advanced concepts and formalism in quantum physics, the quantum-computing applications for computer science and robotics, and the challenges posed by specific robotic systems. }
%Application of quantum algorithms, such as quantum particle swarm optimization, can lead to improvements in different scenarios, including path-planning convergence, \cite{qian_optimal_2019}, and this is an example of the impact of quantum applications for stability.
% https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00779-019-01216-1
%However, to the best of our knowledge, stability is not well-investigated for quantum-robotic swarms. %\textcolor{black}{One reason is the lack of an overall, flexible, yet precise formalism to describe them, from the local level to the global one.}
%\textcolor{black}{However, several important problems such as stability or robustness are not well-investigated for quantum swarms. Before delving into stability for quantum swarms, it is necessary to prepare the ground with the appropriate formalism; and this is the topic of this article.}
%Most recent developments of robots swarms deal with nano and micro robots. However, the smaller the robots, the more likely they are to be affected by quantum effects, and the use of quantum computing for them may become a need, as posited in \cite{nano}. Thus, a formal description of such swarms cannot rely on classical physics, it has to take to be adapted to quantum physics.
\bl{In quantum mechanics, \textit{density matrices} were introduced for the treatment of epistemic uncertainty on systems and their noisiness. Such a description can applied, under some assumptions and suitable variable adaptation, to a swarm of robots.}
\textcolor{black}{In \cite{swarm_paper}, a description of a robotic swarm is proposed, not as a density matrix, but in terms of a nested matrix. The diagonal submatrices contain the parameters of a single robot, while the off-diagonal elements contain the information exchange between the robots. Thus, the size of the matrix depends upon the degrees of freedom of each robot, the exchanged information, and the number of robots. In particular, the size of the matrix increases with the number of robots, which constitutes a computational problem for large swarms.} \bl{ Though the article does not specifically concern quantum robots, the authors leverage quantum computing to quantize some information (e.g., position as well as proximity to the target) to model local interactions between the robots. Moreover, ~\cite{swarm_paper} only considers only the local-to-global approach, i.e., the global swarm behavior emerged from the local pairwise interactions, but not the vice-versa. }%Finally, the nested matrix approach in~\cite{swarm_paper} is not very scalable as the size of the matrices can grow quite large with the size of the swarm.
% We need to quantize the properties of a swarm, and describe its components in terms of probability amplitude of having a certain position and a certain degree of ``success'' in a search-and-rescue mission, as done in \cite{swarm_paper}.
%Also, in \cite{swarm_paper} only the local-to-global approach was considered, where \textcolor{black}{\textit{local} denotes pairwise interactions between robots, and \textit{global} the emergence of the swarm behavior)}, while the inverse was rather impractical.
% If we use an approach with the density matrix for a mixed state (seeing the swarm as a quantum mixed state), the matrix size remains the same independently from the swarm size. Also, the matrix model is difficult to use in the case of multiple robots, and the matrix system wasn't actually used in \cite{swarm_paper}, but only the pairwise terms.
\textcolor{black}{As a solution to the problems emerging in \cite{swarm_paper}, in this article we propose a different approach for modeling quantum robotic swarms. Particularly, we use the notion of \textit{density matrices}, which have previously been applied for the treatment of cases of epistemic uncertainty on quantum systems, for describing a swarm of robots. Particularly, we model a quantum robotic swarm as a mixed state given by a superposition of pure states that represent individual robots, mathematically indicating them with a density matrix. By shaping the density matrix for a robotic swarm, one can develop a suitable overall dynamics for the whole swarm as an operator acting on the corresponding density matrix. It is important to note that in our approach, the size of the density matrices is rendered independent from the swarm size. In fact, it only depends on the number of degrees of freedom of the system, at the condition of treating robots as particles within a ``cloud'': the swarm is thus investigated as a whole, rather than as a collection of distinguishable objects. Moreover, information of local robots can also be extracted from the density matrices through partial trace operation, thus also facilitating a global-to-local approach in the modeling of quantum swarms.}
%\textcolor{black}{In this article, we also propose a matrix formalism, but of different nature. The matrix size does not grow with the number of robots. In fact, it only depends on the number of degrees of freedom of the system, at the condition of treating robots as particles within a ``cloud'': the swarm is thus investigated as a whole, rather than as a collection of distinguishable objects. In analogy with \cite{swarm_paper}, also in our case, we need to introduce a quantization, concerning position and proximity to the target.}
%But it can also be applied, and more properly, to a swarm of \textit{small} robots, so small as to be subject to quantum effects. We thus consider
%a \textit{Quantum Swarm (QS)}.}
% For this reason, we propose here an adaptation of density matrices to the swarms of robots. In particular, in this article,
%We propose a description of robots in terms of a mixed quantum state, mathematically indicating them with a \textit{density matrix}. Recalling that a density operator is a mathematical object which contains the statistical information on a quantum state, which can be represented with the corresponding matrix, called \textit{density matrix}, we can build it through the tensor product of the single operators. \bl{On the other hand,} we can isolate a single robot from the swarm through the operation of partial trace, considering all the other robots as environment.
%\bl{This operation also} reduces the dimension of a matrix \bl{by} cutting some information.
%\textcolor{black}{In this article, we present a matrix description of a robotic swarm,} in part inspired by a former matrix description, the nested-matrix formalism proposed in \cite{swarm_paper}, here modified and overcome.
% and as a second, but essential difference, we choose to} describe each robot in terms of density operator.
\bl{Another crucial difference of our approach with \cite{swarm_paper} is the neglection of interaction terms. In particular, while~\cite{swarm_paper} considers the pair-wise interaction terms between the robots, which contribute to the size of matrices obtained for the swarm, in our paper, we can neglect these interactions. This is rooted in the fact that the density matrices already consider the effect of the interaction terms through the mixing of pure quantum states. Therefore, our approach offers a scalable yet efficient solution for modeling the information contained in the swarm without introducing any unnecessary redundancies.}
%in addition, here we neglect the interaction terms and re-define the swarm matrix via the density matrices, used in quantum mechanics to characterize the properties of physical systems. \textcolor{black}{Interaction terms were heavily contributing to the size of the matrix in \cite{swarm_paper}; here are no longer needed, also because the formalism is completely changed, and more grounded in the physics-like thinking.}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{quantum_swarm_pictorial}
\caption{Pictorial representation of the transition from a classic robotic swarm to a quantum-robotic swarm: in a given arena, each robot is considered in terms of a probability amplitude to be found in a certain space position.}
\label{robotic_waves}
\end{figure}
% We adopt the formalism proposed in this article, and extend it to a swarm of quantum robots.
% The same formalism proposed in \cite{emzir} can be extended to sets of swarms, and multi-layer swarms, applying the paradigm of control engineering to recent studies on swarm-robotic telecommunications in hierarchical systems \cite{VTC} and multi-layer networks \cite{wivace}.
The article is organized as follows.
% \textcolor{black}{I moved two sections later, and changed the paper organization accordingly. }
In Section \ref{bases} we present the necessary preliminaries from quantum computing, such as density matrices and their operations, that are useful for our results. %We also summarize [to do] the matrix approach proposed in \cite{swarm_paper}.
Then, in Section \ref{new_model} we propose our modeling framework and present its advantages.
\begin{comment}
Introducing a discussion on possible developments of our idea toward a definition of a quantum robotic swarm (QS) stability (Section \ref{how_stability?}), we summarize the key points of a recent study, \cite{emzir}, in subsection \ref{stability_paper_summary}, and in subsection \ref{our_development_possible} we propose a possible adaptation of these results to our swarm approach, discussing caveats, and citing also other approaches on quantum control.
\end{comment}
In Section \ref{examples} we demonstrate the application of our results through simple examples and case studies. Finally, in Section \ref{future} we summarize our results and present some extensions and applications of our approach to be considered in the future.
\section{Notations and Preliminaries}\label{bases}
\subsection{Notations}
\bl{The set of real numbers are denoted by $\mathbb{R}$, and $\mathbb{R}^n$ denotes the $n$-dimensional real space. The set of complex numbers is denoted by $\mathbb{C}$, and a complex matrix $A \in \mathbb{C}^{m \times n}$ is of size $m \times n$.
We use the standard bra-ket notation to describe a quantum state: $|\psi\rangle$ is the ket vector, a quantum pure state in a (complex) inner product vector space $V$ corresponding to an eigenstate of an operator, and $\langle\psi|$ is the bra vector, the complex conjugate of $|\psi\rangle$. Moreover, the notation $\langle\psi|\psi\rangle$ indicates the inner product, i.e., the product of bra and ket vectors, while $|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ denotes the outer product.}
\bl{For a matrix $A$, $Tr(A)$ is the trace operation, the sum of diagonal elements of a matrix. The operator $Tr$ indicates the Trace operation, defined as the sum of the diagonal elements of the matrix, that is $\sum_i T_{i,i}$, which is indicated as $Tr(T):=\Sigma_i\langle i|T|i\rangle$ in quantum mechanics. $A_t$ is a generic time-dependent operator; its complex conjugate is $A_t^{\dag}$, such that $(A^{\dag}_t)^{\dag}=A_t$.
If $A$ is Hermitian (self-adjoint), thus it is equal to its complex conjugate: $A_t^{\dag}=A_t$. Finally, we use $\otimes$ to describe the tensor product.}
% CONSIGLIO: DIREI DI INSERIRE TUTTE LE INFORMAZIONI IN ORDINE SEQUENZIALE, AL POSTO DI ANTICIPARE IL CONCETTO E DARE LA DEFINIZIONE DOPO... CREDO CHE CIO' POSSA FAVORIRE IL LETTORE... OVVIAMENTE E' SOLO UNA MIA OPINIONE -- Applied :)
\subsection{Preliminaries}
In quantum mechanics, the behavior of a quantum state is described by the Schr\"{o}dinger equation~\cite{Schr01}:
\begin{equation}
i\hbar\frac{d}{dt}|\psi(t)\rangle=\mathbf{H}|\psi(t)\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{H}$ is the Hamiltonian operator,
$i$ is the imaginary unit, $\hbar$ is the \bl{reduced Planck constant} \textcolor{black}{that will be set equal to 1 here, as often done in quantum physics,} and $|\psi(t)\rangle$ represents the wavefunction \bl{at time t} as a mathematical description of the \emph{pure quantum state} in terms of its probability amplitude. %, better explained later.
\bl{When dealing with an ensemble of quantum states, such as in a quantum robotics swarm, one considers a
mixture of different pure quantum states, known as \emph{mixed states}. In this case, one uses the more general master equation}~\cite{Naka01, nielsen}
%When dealing with general quantum states, system dynamics are described by the master equation \cite{Naka01, nielsen}:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\rho(t) = \mathcal{L}(\rho(t)),
\end{equation}
where $\rho(t)$ is the density operator, generalizing the mathematical description of \bl{the mixed quantum states, and $\mathcal{L}$ is the Lindblad operator given by
%\begin{equation}\label{lindblad_operator}
%\mathcal{L}(\rho(t))\equiv - \frac{i}{\bl{\hbar}}[H,\rho(t)]+L^{T}\rho(t)L^{\ast}-\frac{1}{2}L^{\dag}L\rho(t)-\frac{1}{2}\rho(t)L^{\dag}L,
%\end{equation}
%where the operator $L$ represents the interaction \bl{of the system} with the environment.} Eq. \eqref{lindblad_operator} corresponds to a Markovian dynamics. In general:
\begin{equation} \label{lindblad_operator}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{L}
(\rho(t))=-i[H,\rho(t)] + \\&\sum_{\alpha}\gamma_{\alpha}(t)\left(L^{T}\rho(t)L^{\ast}-\frac{1}{2}L^{\dag}L\rho(t)-\frac{1}{2}\rho(t)L^{\dag}L\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the operator $L$ represents the interaction \bl{of the system} with the environment.} Eq. \eqref{lindblad_operator} corresponds to a Markovian dynamics when $\gamma_\alpha \geq 0$, for all $\alpha$.
%if $\gamma_{\alpha}\geq0,\,\forall\alpha$, the dynamics is Markovian \cite{andersson}.
%\begin{definition}\label{def:sys1}
\definition{
\textbf{Definition.}
\textit{A \textit{density operator} \cite{resource,nielsen}, described by a \textit{density matrix}, is a Hermitian operator ($\rho(t)=\rho(t)^{\dag}$), positive ($\rho(t)>0$) and with unit trace ($Tr[\rho(t)]=1$).
}}
%\end{definition}
% Let us present the needed notation:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item $\rho(t)$: we use this Greek letter to indicate the density matrix and the corresponding density operator, used to describe a general quantum state. More details are provided later;
% \item $Tr$: we use the trace operation, that is, the sum of diagonal elements of a matrix;\footnote{The operator $Tr$ indicates the Trace operation, defined as the sum of the diagonal elements of the matrix, that is $\sum_i T_{i,i}$, which is indicated as $Tr(T):=\Sigma_i\langle i|T|i\rangle$ in quantum mechanics.}
% \item $|\psi(t)\rangle$: this is the ket, a quantum pure state in quantum mechanics, corresponding to an eigenstate of an operator;
% \item $\langle\psi(t)|$: this is the bra, the complex conjugate of $|\psi(t)\rangle$. Thus, the notation is called bra-ket, also called Dirac notation;
% \item $\otimes$: this symbol denotes the tensor product;
% \item the notation $\langle\psi(t)|\psi(t)\rangle$ indicates the product of the state $\psi(t)$ with itself;
% \item $A_t$: this is a generic time-dependent operator; its complex conjugate is $A_t^{\dag}$, such that $(A^{\dag}_t)^{\dag}=A_t$.
% If $A$ is Hermitian (self-adjoint), thus it is equal to its complex conjugate: $A_t^{\dag}=A_t$.
% \end{itemize}
% where the operator $L$ represents the interaction with the environment.
% (it will be thoroughly described in the following of this Section), and $\mathcal{L}$ acting on $\rho$ will be presented in Eq. \ref{lindblad_operator} as the Lindblad operator.
% Here, we first define the adopted notation, and then we provide some basic definitions.
% LASCIARE LA DIPENDENZA DAL TEMPO NELLE DEFINIZIONI?
% \textcolor{black}{Potrei toglierla, non è necessaria. Posso semplicemente dire all'inizio che ogni cosa dip dal tempo}
% IO DIREI CHE PER COMPLETEZZA DI NOTAZIONE NELL'ELENCO CHE SEGUE CONVERREBBE AGGIUNGERE (t) A TUTTE LE VARIABILI TEMPO-DIPENDENTE -- OK!
% \textcolor{black}{LA CONDIZIONE $\rho>0$ può essere generalizzata per ogni elemento di $\rho$? Intendo dire se scrivere $rho>0$ generalizza il fatto che tutti gli elementi lo siano. Inoltre direi di numerare tutte le equazioni, anche se non verranno riferite nel seguito.}. Posso fare io, ma attendo un tuo feedback. :)
% Credo... che tutti gli elementi lo siano, per definizione di matrice positiva.
% \textcolor{black}{PERFETTO! grazie mille} -- OK :) Commento
% $\rho$ is a density operator iff $\rho^{\dag}=\rho$ and $\rho v=\lambda v\iff\lambda\geq0$ and $Tr[\rho]=1$.
\bl{We now analyze some properties} of the density operator and the corresponding matrix.
%At this point, having the necessary notation, we can analyze some properties of the density operator and the corresponding matrix.
For a pure state, the density matrix is defined as a projector
\begin{equation}
\rho(t)=|\psi(t)\rangle\langle\psi(t)|,
\end{equation}
while for a mixed state we have
\begin{equation}
\rho(t)=\Sigma_ip_i|\psi_i(t)\rangle\langle\psi_i(t)|,
\end{equation}
where $p_i$ is the $i$-th weight, $p_i\in\mathbb{R}$, and $\Sigma_ip_i=1$.
The \textcolor{black}{index $i$ denotes the $i$-th robot. }% can range between $0$ or $1$ according to the value of the qubit. %A \textit{mixed state} is the more general kind of quantum state; it is constituted by the mixture of different \textit{pure states}
\bl{It can be easily observed from the above that a} pure state cannot be represented as the mixture of other states. Moreover, while a pure state is described by the wavefunction $|\psi(t)\rangle$, a mixed state is given by a superposition $\Sigma_ip_i|\psi_i(t)\rangle$.
Note that for a pure state, we have $\rho^2(t)=\rho(t)$ and $Tr[\rho^2(t)]=1$.
As a general note: to \bl{each} quantum state, \bl{one can determine} a corresponding a density matrix, but given a density matrix, there \bl{can be more than a single quantum state} that corresponds to it, up to a phase difference \cite{nielsen}. In fact, the density matrix is \bl{only} a statistical object which captures the distribution of qubit information. \bl{The process of mapping a density matrix to a possible quantum state} is called \textit{quantum state tomography}, but it is a complex process that presents no particular advantage to us and therefore, irrelevant to this work ~\cite{nielsen}.
% Having introduced the necessary notation, we present here the so-called master equation in Lindblad form \cite{emzir, nielsen}: \begin{equation}\label{lindblad_operator}
% \mathcal{L}(\rho(t))\equiv-i[H,\rho(t)]+L^{T}\rho(t)L^{\ast}-\frac{1}{2}L^{\dag}L\rho(t)-\frac{1}{2}\rho(t)L^{\dag}L,
% \end{equation}
% where the operator $L$ represents the interaction with the environment.
We present now the following remark that will be useful for our research.
%\begin{remark} \label{fidelity}
%\begin{theorem}
\remark{
\textbf{Remark.}
%\remark{
\textit{ \bl{Two quantum states with similar density matrices are themselves similar, even though multiple states can correspond to a single density matrix. This similarity, or \emph{closeness} between the density matrices is quantified using a metric known as fidelity, with with values comprised between $0$ (low fidelity) and $1$ (high fidelity) \cite{nielsen}.} A commonly used metric for this is the \textit{trace distance}, which provides information on how distinguishable two quantum states are. The trace distance between two density matrices $\rho_1(t)$ and $\rho_2(t)$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
D[\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t)] = \frac{1}{2}Tr|\rho_1(t)-\rho_2(t)|,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
|\rho_1(t)-\rho_2(t)| \coloneq \sqrt{(\rho_1(t)-\rho_2(t))^t(\rho_1(t)-\rho_2(t))}.
\end{equation}
%}
}
}
% \begin{remark}\label{fidelity}
% \textcolor{black}{Two states with density matrices that are close to each other (having a small distance between them) are themselves similar, even though multiple states can correspond to a single density matrix. This similarity is quantified using the metric known as fidelity.}
% %Two states having similar (with a small distance) density matrices, then are similar themselves (considering that there are more than one state corresponding to the density matrix). This information is computed via the \textit{fidelity},
% % defined for two matrices $\rho_1,\rho_2$ as $F(\rho_1,\rho_2) = Tr[\sqrt(\sqrt{\rho_1}\rho_2\sqrt{\rho_1})]$,
% with values comprised between $0$ (low fidelity) and $1$ (high fidelity) \cite{nielsen}.
% \end{remark}
% \begin{remark}
% A commonly-used metric to measure the distance between two density matrices is the \textit{trace distance}, providing information on how distinguishable two quantum states are.
% The trace distance between two density matrices $\rho_1(t)$ and $\rho_2(t)$ is defined as:
% \begin{equation}
% D[\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t)] = \frac{1}{2}Tr|\rho_1(t)-\rho_2(t)|,
% \end{equation}
% where $|\rho_1(t)-\rho_2(t)|$ is the distance between matrices, that can be defined as:
% \begin{equation}
% \sqrt{(\rho_1(t)-\rho_2(t))^t(\rho_1(t)-\rho_2(t))}.
% \end{equation}
% % the absolute difference between the two density matrices.
% The trace distance is always positive $D[\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t)]\geq0$: if zero, it means that the two density matrices are equal, and it satisfies the triangle inequality: $D[\rho_1(t),\rho_3(t)]\leq D[\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t)] + D[\rho_2(t),\rho_3(t)]$.
% \end{remark}
For a system that consists of two parts (e.g. two \bl{swarm} particles, a particle and an agglomerate of particles, or two agglomerates of particles)
% (\textcolor*{OR PARTICLES?}),
A and B, each of them described by density matrices $\rho_A(t)$ and $\rho_B(t)$ respectively, \bl{one can describe the density matrix of the system by}
\begin{equation}
\rho_{AB}(t)=\rho_A(t)\otimes\rho_B(t).
\end{equation}
To recover the information on state A from the matrix $\rho_{AB}(t)$, we need to compute its partial trace with respect to the state B, which is defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Tr_B[\rho_{AB}(t)]& = \Sigma_B[\rho_{AB}(t)] \\ & = \Sigma_i\rho_A(t)\otimes \langle i|\rho_B(t) | i\rangle \\
&=\rho_A(t),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $i$ indicates the qubit which can be $0$ or $1$, and thus the sum involves the elements $\langle 0| ... |0\rangle$ and $\langle 1| ... |1\rangle$, that is, the measurement of the density operator along states $0$ and $1$, respectively.
The operation of partial trace is helpful, for example, to detach the information of a system from its environment. When we have a system composed by multiple elements, we can consider the sub-system of interest as \textit{the} system, and the other elements as part of the environment (as stated in the previous section).
%This concept will be helpful for our model of a swarm of robots.
\begin{comment}
The concept of density matrix is fundamental to understand the notion of stability in open quantum systems, presented in Section \ref{stability_paper_summary}.
\end{comment}
In Section \ref{new_model}, we use the idea of tensor product to build up a density matrix for the robotic swarm starting from individual density matrices, and the partial trace to achieve the inverse result, i.e., recovering information on single robots from the overall matrix.
\section{The Proposed Theoretical Approach: Density matrix for a robotic swarm}
\label{new_model}
Let us here propose a density-matrix depiction of the swarm of robots. \bl{To do so, similarly to~\cite{swarm_paper}}, we consider the position of each robot and its success in target finding as probability amplitudes. \bl{Specifically, these amplitudes are used the construct the density matrices of the single robots.} Then, the density matrix of the swarm can be obtained via the tensor product of the individual density matrices.
%Following the hint of \cite{swarm_paper}, we can consider the position of each robot and its success in target finding as probability amplitudes. In our article, these amplitudes populate the density matrices of single robots. We can obtain the density matrix of the overall swarm through the tensor product of individual density matrices.
Let us consider an $\mathcal{R}^2$ mobility plane ($x$ and $y$ axes), with a certain degree of success in reaching the target. Let $|\psi_{R_i}(t)\rangle$ be the state of robot $R_i$ at time $t$, defined as
\begin{equation}\label{caso_completo}
\begin{split}
|\psi_{R_i}(t)\rangle = &\alpha_i^1(t)|111\rangle + \alpha_i^2(t)|110\rangle + \alpha_i^3(t)|100\rangle + \\&\alpha_i^4(t)|000\rangle + \alpha_i^5(t)|001\rangle + \alpha_i^6(t)|010\rangle+
\\& \alpha_i^7(t)|101\rangle+
\alpha_i^8(t)|011\rangle.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\bl{$|\psi_{R_i}(t)\rangle$ is the superimposition state vector of 3 qubits,} \textcolor{black}{of the form $|a,b,c\rangle$, with qubits $a,\,b,\,c$,} where the first qubit indicates the position projection along a segment $[0,1]$ on the x-axis ($0$ and $1$ are the two extremes), the second qubit denotes the projection of the position along a segment $[0,1]$ on the y-axis (similarly defined); the coefficients $\alpha_i^j(t)$, with $i$ indicating the robot, and $j$ indicating the eigenvector,
denote the probability amplitudes for the respective eigenstates/eigenvectors, satisfying $\sum_{j=1}^8|\alpha_i^j(t)|^2=1$.
% segment $[0,1]$ on the x-axis ($1$ or $0$ are the two extremes), the second qubit denotes the success ($1$) or not ($0$) in finding the target, and $\alpha_1,\beta_1,\gamma_1,\delta_1$ are the probability amplitudes for the respective eigenstates/eigenvectors, satisfying $|\alpha_1|^2+|\beta_1|^2+|\gamma_1|^2+|\delta_1|^2=1$.
% To extend the motion of robots to the plane, we can add another qubit, characterizing the position along the y-axis.
% \textcolor{black}{If it does not affect the whole proposal, I would already start from the plane representation and then say that the variable z can be associated to another qubit -- ok}
\bl{Then, for a robot $R_i$, the density operator is thus
\begin{equation}\label{density_Ri}
\rho_{R_i}(t)=|\psi_{Ri}(t)\rangle\langle\psi_{R_i}(t)|,
\end{equation}
and the state of $R_i$ can be written as a column matrix
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{R_i}(t)\rangle=\left(\begin{matrix} \alpha_i^1(t) \\ \alpha_i^2(t) \\ \dots \\ \alpha_i^8(t) \\ \end{matrix} \right).
\end{equation}
The density matrix is thus obtained via the product between the column matrix and the row matrix of complex conjugates coefficients, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{R_i}(t) = \left(\begin{matrix} \alpha_i^1(t)\\ \alpha_i^2(t) \\ \vdots \\ \alpha_i^8(t) \\ \end{matrix} \right)\left(\alpha_i^{1,\ast}(t),\;\alpha_i^{2,\ast}(t),\; \dots,\;\alpha_i^{8,\ast}(t) \right).
\end{equation}}
%\begin{remark}
\remark{
\textbf{Remark.}
\textit{ \bl{In this article, we only} consider real values for the probability amplitudes, so the complex conjugates are equal to the original values. The time evolution of a single robot can be obtained via a suitable time-evolution operator acting on the corresponding density operator. Such an operator can include a dependence on the state of the other robots, acting according to the scope of the robotic mission. In \cite{swarm_paper}, the swarm behavior emerged from pairwise robotic interactions modeled upon a quantum circuit. Here, we consider a more quantum-mechanics style approach. \textcolor{black}{Also, the matrix size does not increase when the swarm becomes bigger (with more units).}
}
}
%\end{remark}
%Similarly, one defines the density operator for a second robot, $R_2$, as $\rho_{R_2}(t)=|\psi_{R2}(t)\rangle\langle\psi_{R_2}(t)|$.
%The density matrix of the toy swarm constituted by the two robots $R_1$, $R_2$ is then computed as
%\begin{equation}
%\rho_{swarm}(t)=\rho_{R_1}(t)\otimes\rho_{R_2}(t).
%\end{equation}
%To recover the information on $R_1$ from the density operator of the toy swarm of two robots, we compute the partial trace with respect to the other robot as
%\begin{equation}
%\rho_{R_1}(t) = Tr_{R_2(t)}(\rho_{swarm}(t)).
%\end{equation}
Then, the density matrix of a swarm of $N$ robots is computed as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{swarm}(t)=\rho_{R_1}(t)\otimes...\otimes\rho_{R_N}(t),
\end{equation}
and, the information on the $i^{\text{th}}$ robot can be retrieved performing the partial trace on all the other robots using
\bl{\begin{equation}
\rho_{R_i}(t) = Tr_{R_{j \neq i}(t)}(\rho_{swarm}(t)),
\end{equation}}
\bl{where $Tr_{R_{j \neq i}(t)}$ \textcolor{black}{denotes the sum of the diagonal elements of $\rho(t)$ with the exclusion of the ones indexed as $i$, that is, corresponding to the $i$-th robot.}}
\bl{The formulation of a quantum swarm in terms of tensor products of density matrices unfortunately has a major drawback: it results in large matrix sizes for large swarm sizes.
An alternate approach to alleviate this problem is to consider the swarm as a mixed state given by the superposition of pure states that represent single robots. This reduces the size of the matrix associated with the robot swarm, making the description more concise, compared to~\cite{swarm_paper}. Indeed, one can also consider single robots as mixed states, in which case, one needs to resort once again to consider the tensor product of density matrices for a clear representation of density matrix of the swarm.}
%With a slightly different approach, we can consider the swarm as a mixed state, given by the superposition of pure states representing single robots. Or, if already the single robots are in mixed states, the tensor product of their density matrices will provide a clearer representation of the density matrix of the swarm.
%However, the formalization of a QS in terms of tensor product has one important drawback: the more the robots in the swarm, the bigger the size of the matrix. To overcome the issue, we can consider the overall swarm as a whole system, and its overall state, as a mixed state. In this way, we would propose the most important advancement with respect to the matrix depiction of a robotic swarm proposed in \cite{swarm_paper}.
\bl{To illustrate this, consider an $N$-robot swarm, where the density matrix of the $i^{\text{th}}$ robot is given by $\rho_i(t) = |\psi_{R_i}(t)\rangle\langle\psi_{R_i}(t)|$. Considering the swarm as a \emph{mixed state}, its density matrix can be simply computed as}
\bl{\begin{equation}\label{mixture_abstract}
\rho_{swarm}(t) = \sum_{i=1}^N w_i \rho_i(t),
\end{equation}}
%\bl{To illustrate this}, let us consider \bl{N} robots $R_1,\,R_2, \ldots, R_N$, whose density matrices are, as seen before, $\rho_1(t)=|\psi_{R_1}(t)\rangle\langle\psi_{R_1}(t)|$ and $\rho_2(t)=|\psi_{R_2}(t)\rangle\langle\psi_{R_2}(t)|$ respectively, and let us consider again a toy swarm constituted only by these two robots. Considering the swarm as a \textit{mixed state}, its density matrix is simply computed as:
%\begin{equation}\label{mixture_abstract}
%\rho_{swarm}(t) = w_1\rho_1(t) + w_2\rho_2(t),
%\end{equation}
\bl{where $w_i$, with $i \in \{1,\ldots,N\}$ robots, are constant weights such that $\sum_i w_i = 1$.}
%where $w_1$ and $w_2$ are two constant weights, such that $w_1+w_2=1$, \textcolor{black}{where we are considering the two density matrices for each one of the robots of a 2-robot swarm.}.
If the contribution of \bl{all the robots} \bl{is equal}, eq. \eqref{mixture_abstract} becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rho_{swarm}(t) &= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \rho_i(t) = \\
&=\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N |\psi_{R_i}(t)\rangle\langle\psi_{R_i}(t)| %+ \frac{1}{2}|\psi_{R_2}(t)\rangle\langle\psi_{R_2}(t)|.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Eq. \eqref{mixture_abstract} involves the sum of matrices, not their tensor product, and thus the dimension of the density matrix of the swarm, while seen as a mixed state, remains the same, as the dimensions of the single density matrices for the robots.
\bl{Moreover, while the swarm modeling approach presented in~\cite{swarm_paper} utilizes interaction terms in the swarm submatrices to describe the interactions between robots, in this work, we neglect the interaction terms by considering that each robot sends all information to all the other robots, and each robot receives information from all the other robots. Thus, copying this information in the interaction sub-matrices would just be redundant. } Note that the effect of ``interaction'' are automatically included in the density-matrix depiction of the swarm, seen as a whole system in a mixed state, resulting from the mixing of single states of the single robots. \bl{However, the utilization of explicit interation terms largely depends on the size of the considered devices: while bigger robots may use classical wireless communications, for micro/nano scale devices, newer opportunities arise \cite{wireless03}, since they are nearer to quantum systems \cite{wireless04}.}
%In addition, with respect to \cite{swarm_paper}, here we also neglect the interaction terms by considering that each robot sends all information to all the other robots, and each robot receives information from all the other robots. Thus, copying this information in the interaction sub-matrices would just be redundant.This aspect also depends on the size of the considered devices: bigger robots may use classical wireless communications, but for micro/nano scale devices newer opportunities arise \cite{wireless03}, since they are nearer to quantum systems \cite{wireless04}.
% \textcolor{black}{Aggiunti un po' di riferimenti su TLC e ho scoperto che c'è un'intera area di ricerca sulle nano-wireless communications, addirittura l'informazione può essere trasmessa tramite molecole/cellule, quindi non emettendo alcuna onda EM. Fin qui il paper mi sembra molto ben strutturato e ho eliminato gran parte del testo colorato}. \textcolor{black}{Super, grazie! quindi ci colleghiamo ad ampie aree di ricerca.\\Assolutamente si, inoltre mi piace molto la linea di ricerca legata alla comunicazione tra micro/nano robots!!! credo che possa essere trasversale a molti ambiti di ricerca del dipartimento.}
%In this work, we can neglect the interaction sub-matrices as defined in \cite{swarm_paper}, since the effect of ``interaction'' are automatically included in the density-matrix depiction of the swarm, seen as a whole system in a mixed state, resulting from the mixing of single states, that are the single robots.
In the following section, we illustrate our proposed method with several examples.
%The tensor product allows one to build up a swarm from single robots. Vice versa, the operation of partial trace goes in the inverse direction, helping in recover information on the single robot from the density matrix of the swarm.
% The condition of stability with respect to the shape of the swarm, in terms of maximal distance allowed between the robots and the swarm centroid, can be included in eq. (\ref{swarm_stability}), and can be the object of further research. Eq. (\ref{lyapunov_}) can also be used.
%There are several possible definitions of distances between matrices. In Section \ref{examples}, we will also consider the sum of absolute values of element-wise distances of two matrices and the difference between matrices.
% for an example of target-reaching stability, and the difference between matrices for the examples of shape-keeping stability.
\begin{comment}
\section{A possible development concerning the Stability of Open Quantum Systems}\label{how_stability?}
In this Section, we discuss a possible development of our approach toward the definition of stability, and criteria to verify it, for a QS. First of all, in subsection \ref{stability_paper_summary}, we summarize the key points of a recent study. Then, in subsection \ref{our_development_possible}, we sketch their possible adaptation to our model.
Our key observation is that we can apply the distinction between the quantum system and its environment to robots, considering each robot of the swarm as a system, and all the other robots as part of the ``environment.''
The stability of robotic swarms is also discussed in the literature, mainly concerning two elements: keeping the unity of the swarm \cite{kumar} and ensuring the convergence toward a target \cite{deLaCroix}. The first element in \cite{gasparri} is formalized as a balance between the global long-range attractive force toward the center of mass of the swarm, and the local short-range repulsive force to avoid collisions. These studies focus on a classical formalism, but we are interested here in defining useful techniques for a quantum-robotic swarm.
% \textcolor{black}{rivedere la definizione di QS che abbiamo dato prima, potrebbe essere identica a questa, quindi conviene uniformare o qui o prima} \textcolor{black}{L'acronimo in fondo non serve, l'ho tolto.}
% \textcolor{black}{OK.... però se definiamo QS come Quantum Swarm, quando parliamo di quantum robotic swarm converrebbe scrivere robotic QS... se non è utile definire QS possiamo toglierlo sopra...}\textcolor{black}{Ok, allora sostituisco con l'acronimo.}
% \textcolor{black}{Thus, we consider the key points of \cite{emzir}, sketching a possible adaptation to our model.}
\subsection{Summary of a recent stability criterion for open quantum systems}\label{stability_paper_summary}
We summarize here the core ideas proposed in \cite{emzir}. Our work will consist in their extension to a robotic swarm.
%\begin{remark}
There are examples in the literature about the controllability of quantum systems, that do not interact with their environment. However, the controllability of Open Quantum Systems (OQS) is more difficult \cite{Peterson2011}.
Recently, the problem has been addressed \cite{emzir} in terms of density matrices.
%\end{remark}
In OQS, a system ($s$) interacts with its external environment, also called bath ($b$). %The Hamiltonian contains three terms: one for the system, one for the bath, and one as the interaction between them, $H_{s,b}$ (eq. \ref{hamiltonian_OQS}).\begin{equation}\label{hamiltonian_OQS}H=H_s+H_b+H_{s,b}\end{equation}
The dynamics of the system can be obtained via the partial trace, tracing the whole density matrix ($\rho_{sb}$) with respect to the bath:
\begin{equation}\label{density_matrix_1}
\rho_{s}(t)=Tr_b(\rho_{sb}(t)),
\end{equation}
where $t$ indicates the time.
%******************************************
%ELIMINARE
%In case of Markovian dynamics \cite{merkli}, at time $t=0$, the density matrix of a quantum system is defined as the tensor product of the density matrices of system and bath, respectively:
%\begin{equation}\label{markovian_dynamics}
%\rho_{0}=\rho_s\otimes\rho_b.
%\end{equation}
%\textcolor{black}{Si fa riferimento ai processi markoviani poiché potrebbero riguardare il caso che stiamo considerando? Se si, si deve motivare la scelta... non so se nel paper riferito c'è qualcosa.}
%\textcolor{black}{Potrei omettere il riferimento, perché nella parte nuova non parlo di fatto della dinamica.}
%*********************************************
We now focus on quantum states and the environment (bath) in which they live and with which that they interact.
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space, $\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{H})$ the class of density operators on $\mathcal{H}$, and $\Gamma$ the space of definition of the bath, that is, the environment where the quantum state lives. The extended Hilbert space can thus be defined as $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}=\mathcal{H}\otimes\Gamma$. The density matrix of a state is $\rho(t)\in\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{H})$, and the environment can be described by $\Psi(t)\in\mathcal{G}(\Gamma)$, where $\Psi(t)$ is the density operator of the environment. At time $t=0$, the matrix description of system + bath is given by $\rho(0)\otimes\Psi(0)$, and at time $t$ by $U_t(\rho(t)\otimes\Psi(t))U^{\dag}_t$, where $U_t$ is a time evolution operator, and $U^{\dag}_t$ is its Hermitian conjugate.
The time evolution of the density matrix describing the system at time $t$ can be obtained taking the partial trace of the former expression on the bath:
\begin{equation}
\label{time_evolution}
S_t[\rho(t)]=Tr_{\Gamma}{U_t[\rho(t)\otimes\Psi(t)]U^{\dag}_t}.
\end{equation}
To introduce some general definitions of control of open quantum systems, we first introduce here the required notation.
Let $\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon}$ be a sphere % (\textcolor{black}{should be better sphere?})
of radius $\epsilon$ centered on a density matrix $\rho^{\ast}(t)$, and defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon}[({\rho^{\ast}(t)}]=\left\{\rho(t)\in\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{H}),\,s.t.\,||\rho(t)-\rho^{\ast}(t)||\leq\epsilon\right\}.
\end{equation}
We consider the family of bounded linear maps $\mathcal{T}_t:\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})\rightarrow\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. A density operator $\rho(t)$ is \textit{invariant} with respect to time evolution if, $\forall$ operator $A\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, at $t\geq0$, we have
\begin{equation}
Tr[\rho(t)\mathcal{T}_t(A)]=Tr[\rho(t) A].
\end{equation}
We denote the set of invariant density operators as $\mathcal{C}^{\ast}\subset\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{H})$.
We present here the main result from \cite{emzir}, a theorem concerning stability of open quantum systems.\begin{theorem}\label{theorem_Lyapunov_OQS} (From \cite{emzir})
A set of density operators is \textit{Lyapunov invariant} if, for every $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\delta(\epsilon)>0$ such that the distance $d(\rho(0), \mathcal{C}^{\ast})<\delta(\epsilon)$ implies $d(\rho_t, \mathcal{C}^{\ast})<\epsilon$ for all $t\geq0$. The Lyapunov operator can finally be defined as $V\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ such that:
\begin{equation}\label{lyapunov_condition_on_OQS}
\inf_{\rho^{\ast}(t)\in\mathcal{C}^{\ast}} Tr(V(\rho(t)-\rho^{\ast}(t)))>0,\forall\rho(t)\in\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{H})\mbox{\textbackslash}\mathcal{C}^{\ast},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{H})\mbox{\textbackslash}\mathcal{C}^{\ast}$ indicates the quotient set of those density operators describing quantum systems that are invariant.
The Lyapunov stability is verified if eq. (\ref{lyapunov_}) is verified:
\begin{equation}\label{lyapunov_}
Tr[\mathcal{L}(V)\rho(t)]\leq0, \forall\rho(t)\in\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{H})
\mbox{\textbackslash}\mathcal{C}^{\ast},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L}$ is defined in eq. \ref{lindblad_operator}.
\end{theorem}
We neglect here the definition on asymptotic and exponential stability, and the cases where it is not possible to find a Lyapunov function, discussed in detail in \cite{emzir}.
Summarizing, the idea of Lyapunov stability is related with the distance between density matrices, and in particular, between the density matrix of the considered state and the elements of the class of invariant density operators. The larger the distance, the smaller the stability. The distance between density matrices of open quantum systems, characterizes the degree of similarity between the (up to a phase) states that correspond to them. The more similar the states, the less easy their distinction. Thus, we can talk about \textit{distinguishability} of the states. When, at time 0, we have two well-distinct states, and such a distinguishability is preserved across time, then memory of their structure is preserved; otherwise, it is lost \cite{breuer,rivas}. This information has been used to characterize the degree of memory across time: the smaller the distance, the smaller the memory \cite{physics_first}. We could define an ``inner degree of memory'' of an open quantum system using the Lyapunov stability: the closer the system to itself across time, the greater the stability, the larger the memory of its ``identity.''
\subsection{Definition of a stability criterion for a quantum-defined robotic swarm}\label{our_development_possible}
In this Section, we discuss how a stability criterion might be defined for a QS. We sketch a possible approach inspired by \cite{emzir}, mentioning \textit{caveats} and citing other possible lines of development.
Having defined a density matrix for a swarm of robot, we propose here three definitions of stability, catching three aspects of swarm shape and action.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
%\framebox{\parbox{3in}{
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{general_idea.png}
\caption{Pictorial representation of the swarm compactness, in terms of distance between the swarm's units and the swarm barycenter (a), and convergence toward a target in terms of its distance from the swarm barycenter (b). %\textcolor{black}{[add another subfigure with the swarm approximate shape-respecting over time]}
}
\label{general_idea}
\end{figure}
% we can adopt the core idea of \cite{emzir} to define a control strategy of the swarm stability, proposing Theorem \ref{our_theorem}. \textcolor{black}{[modify with the definitions...]}
\begin{definition}\label{shape_stability} \textbf{Swarm shape stability.}
Given a quantum-robotic swarm $s$, its \textit{shape} is \textit{stable} across time if the distance between the position of each robot of the swarm and a density matrix representing a fictitious entity centered in the center of the swarm $s$, at each time point $t$, is smaller than a positive number $\epsilon$:
\begin{equation}\label{shape_stability_condition}
D(\rho_i(t),\rho_{\textcolor{black}{C}})<\epsilon,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_i(t)$ indicates the density matrix of each robot traced on the non-spatial parameters (e.g., in our case, traced on the \textit{success} qubit).
\end{definition}
% $D(\rho(t),\rho(t\rightarrow\infty))<\epsilon$, where $D$ is the distance between the density matrices at the two times. \textcolor{black}{The notation $t\rightarrow\infty$ indicates...} \end{definition}
% \begin{definition}\label{shape_compactness}
%\textbf{Swarm shape compactness.}
%Given a quantum-robotic swarm $s$, its \textit{shape} is \textit{compact}...
%\textcolor{black}{[some kind of inner distance inside the density matrix, to check if some elements are too far away from the center.]}
%\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{target_reaching_}
\textbf{Target reaching.}
Given two density matrices $\rho_S(t)$ and $\rho_T$, where $\rho_{\textcolor{black}{S}}(t)$ describes a quantum-robotic swarm $s$, and $\rho_T$ is a fictitious and compact entity on a target $T$, we say that $s$ reached the target $T$ if their distance is smaller than a positive number $\delta$:
\begin{equation}\label{swarm_stability_def}
D(\rho_{S}(t),\rho_T))<\delta.
\end{equation}
% $\rho_{swarm}$ is the density matrix of the considered swarm, $\rho_T$ is the density matrix of an almost ``perfect'' swarm reaching to the target and whose robots present minimal distance between them, and
$\delta$ is a positive number.
% Eq. (\ref{swarm_stability}) denotes a possible condition for swarm success in a search mission.
\end{definition}
In a nutshell, swarm stability can be addressed toward two main points:
\begin{itemize}
\item keeping ``together'' the swarm and maintain an approximated shape of the swarm over time;
\item reaching the target.
\end{itemize}
See Figure \ref{general_idea} for their pictorial representation.
The first point leads to a condition on the first qubit, with a maximal distance between the space coordinate(s) of each robot and the centroid of the swarm.
% \textcolor{black}{The second point ...}
The second point includes the same condition on distance, and also the minimization of the distance between the centroid of the swarm and the target point of the mission, if we are consider a search mission. The requirement of the second point can be included inside the distance $
d(\rho_{swarm}(t),\rho_T)$,
where $\rho_T$ denotes the class of density matrices of swarms ``well-centered'' on the target, that is, inside a ball of minimal $\epsilon$ centered on the target, and with the robots at minimal distance between each other.
To check if these conditions are met, we formulate the following Theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{our_theorem}
\textit{Let us consider a quantum-robotic swarm $s$, that is, a team of small robots acting at the quantum level, described by a suitable density matrix.
\textcolor{black}{We want to prove that, if \eqref{swarm_stability} holds (where $\mathcal{C}_T$ denotes the class of equivalence of density operators of successful swarms),}
}
\begin{equation}\label{swarm_stability}
\inf_{\rho_T\in\mathcal{C}_T} Tr (V(\rho_{\textcolor{black}{S}}(t)-\rho_T))<0,
\end{equation}
\textit{\textcolor{black}{then the swarm's stability condition concerning target reaching, expressed in \eqref{swarm_stability_def} holds. Also, we can replace to the $\rho_S$ the density matrices of the individual robots $\rho_i$ obtaining Eq. \eqref{swarm_stability_target}:}
}
\begin{equation}\label{swarm_stability_target}
\inf_{\rho_T\in\mathcal{C}_C} Tr (V(\rho_{\textcolor{black}{i}}(t)-\rho_C))<0,
\end{equation}
\textit{\textcolor{black}{ If \eqref{swarm_stability_target} holds, then the swarm's shape stability, expressed by \eqref{shape_stability_condition}, holds.}
}
\end{theorem}
%If \eqref{shape_stability_condition} holds, then the swarm's shape is said to be stable. If \eqref{swarm_stability_def} holds, the swarm is reaching the target.
\subsubsection*{Proof.}\noindent We propose here a scheme of a possible proof.
Following Remark \ref{fidelity} (on state similarity from density-matrix similarity),
Definition \ref{shape_stability} of shape stability, and Definition \ref{target_reaching_} of target reaching,
we can adapt to the QS the conditions of Lyapunov invariance for OQSs from Theorem \ref{theorem_Lyapunov_OQS} in \cite{emzir}.
% Thus, to prove \eqref{swarm_stability_def}, we should prove that \eqref{swarm_stability} holds:
%\begin{equation}\label{swarm_stability}
%\inf_{\rho_T\in\mathcal{C}_T} Tr (V(\rho_{\textcolor{black}{S}}(t)-\rho_T))<0,
%\end{equation}}
%\textcolor{black}{In short, let us indicate the density matrix of the swarm at time $t$ with $\rho_s$, and the density matrix at $t=0$ with $\rho_s(t=0)$ Credo che sia ridondante, secondo me non necessario}. \textcolor{black}{Sì, è vero. Possiamo commentare}
\textcolor{black}{According to Section 2 and 5.2 in \cite{emzir2},}
$
Tr(\mathcal{L}(V)\rho_{s}(0))=\mathbb{P}[\mathcal{G}(V_t)],$
%\textit{Since $Tr(\mathcal{L}(V)\rho_{s}(0))=\mathbb{P}[\mathcal{G}(V_t)]$ (Section 2 and 5.2 in \cite{emzir2}),
where $\mathcal{G}$ is a quantum generator,
%Markovian generator PUO' ANDARE BENE VISTO CHE NON NE ABBIAMO PARLATO? associated with the time evolution,
we notice that
$
Tr(\mathcal{L}(V) \rho_{s}(t)) \leq 0\Rightarrow \mathbb{P}[\mathcal{G}(V_t)] \leq 0.$
Integrating both sides of the last inequality from $0$ to $t$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\int_{0}^t \mathbb{P}[\mathcal{G}(V_t)] d\tau = \mathbb{P}\left[\int_{0}^t \mathcal{G}(V_t) d\tau\right] = \mathbb{P}(V_t) - \mathbb{P}(V)= \\&= {Tr}(V \rho_{S}(t)) - {Tr}(V \rho_T) = {Tr}\left[V (\rho_{S}(t) - \rho_T)\right] \le 0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
hence ${Tr}(V \rho_{S}(t)) \le {Tr}(V \rho_T)$, and \eqref{swarm_stability} follows.
%\textcolor{black}{From it, we have:}
%The same scheme of proof can be followed to prove \eqref{shape_stability_condition}.
\textcolor{black}{Let us now consider that, given two real matrices $A,\,B$, their trace distance is always less than equal to the Frobenius norm: $Tr|A-B|\leq||A-B||_F$, and the Frobenius norm is less than equal the trace of the matrix difference: $||A-B||_F\leq Tr(A-B)$ \cite{horn}. Thus, the following inequality holds:}
\begin{equation}\label{blabla}
D(\rho_S(t),\rho_T)=\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(|\rho_S(t)-\rho_T|\right)\leq\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)
\end{equation}
%\textcolor{black}{where the second term is the Frobenius norm. XXX We need here a comparison between $|| \rho_S(t)-\rho_T ||$ and the trace of the difference $Tr\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)$, so that:}
\textcolor{black}{Considering the property (for two matrices $A$, $B$ and a positive scalar $c$):}
\begin{equation}\label{rule_traces}
Tr(A - B) < Tr [c (A - B)] = c Tr [A - B],
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{and treating the function $V$, once having been computed it on a point, as a scalar on the second member of \eqref{blabla}, we obtain:}
\begin{equation}\label{ancora}
\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right) \leq \frac{1}{2}Tr\left[V\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)\right]
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{If $V$ is a matrix, an equivalent of line \eqref{rule_traces} can be applied if $V$ commutes with $(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T)$, yielding $Tr\left[V\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)\right]=Tr(V)Tr\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)$. If they are not commuting, that is, $[V,\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)]\neq0$, but $V$ does not depend on $\rho_S(t)$ and $\rho_T$, we have:}
\begin{equation}
Tr\left[V\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)\right]=Tr(V)Tr\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right),
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{and thus:}
% considered that $V$ is positive, and also its trace:
\begin{equation}
Tr\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)\leq Tr(V)Tr\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)=Tr\left[V\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)\right]
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{
The last passage can also be proved as follows.
Let us first consider the commutativity of $\rho_S(t)$ and $\rho_T$:
}
\begin{equation}
Tr(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T)=Tr(\rho_T-\rho_S(t))
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{We now define the $Y$, and indicate the identity matrix as $\mathbb{I}$:}
\begin{equation}
Y = Tr(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T)\mathbb{I}
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{whose trace is:}
\begin{equation}
Tr(Y) = Tr(Tr(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T)\mathbb{I})=Tr(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T)
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{Including $V$ and applying commutativity:}
\begin{equation}
Tr(YV) = Tr(VY)
\end{equation}
Tracing out the constant:
\begin{equation}
Tr(VY)=Tr(V)Tr(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T) = Tr(YV)
\end{equation}
Finally we get:
\begin{equation}
Tr(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T)=Tr(Y)\leq Tr(V)Tr(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T)
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{The last term of \eqref{ancora} is $\leq 0$ or strictly $<0$ (Eq. \ref{swarm_stability}), and thus, substituting it in \eqref{blabla}, we obtain:}
\begin{equation}
D(\rho_S(t),\rho_T)\leq \frac{1}{2}Tr\left[V\left( \rho_S(t)-\rho_T \right) \right]\leq 0\Rightarrow D(\rho_S(t),\rho_T) \leq 0 < \delta,
\end{equation}
%\textcolor{black}{A property that holds is:}
%\begin{equation}
%D(\rho_S,\rho_T)\leq \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{Tr[V(\rho_S-\rho_T)]}
%\end{equation}
%\textcolor{black}{But the radicand is $\leq0$, thus, to not have an imaginary result, we need that it is exactly zero. Thus:}
%\begin{equation}
%Tr(V(\rho_S-\rho_T))=0\Rightarrow D(\rho_S-\rho_T)=0<\delta,
%\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{and \eqref{swarm_stability_def} is proved.}
\textcolor{black}{Similarly, we can prove that \eqref{swarm_stability_target} leads to \eqref{shape_stability_condition}.}
%In fact, in general:
%\begin{equation}
%\begin{split}
%&Tr\left[V\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)\right] = Tr\left[\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)V\right];
%\\&\mbox{if }[V,\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)]=0\Rightarrow Tr\left[V\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right)\right]=Tr\left(\rho_S(t)-\rho_T\right).
%\end{split}
%\end{equation}
%}
%\end{proof}
%}
\subsubsection*{Caveat.}
As a \textit{caveat}, the study in \cite{emzir} has been developed for quantum optics, with a number of degrees of freedom considerably higher that the scenarios we considered here. However, our scenarios are only helpful to provide some simple example of application, but the core ideas we discussed are general, and with a wide applicability. In addition, the field of quantum strategies for control systems is relatively unexplored.
In other pioneering studies,
As other examples, although less recent, of connections between quantum mechanics and stability, we mention the application of Lyapunov functions for the assessment of the photon number stability in a cavity \cite{rouchon}, and the suitable choice of Lindblad operator, with an added feedback term, to control the stability of open quantum systems \cite{ticozzi}. In the case of the swarm, the feedback term may result from the sum of different contributions, one for each element of the swarm, in order to take into account, at each time point, of the information resulting from the individual exploration. Once more, the adoption of a density matrix for the swarm allows for a top$\rightarrow$down and bottom$\rightarrow$up information exchange and control of the swarm.
Further research can in fact explore the role of dynamics of the swarm, and the possibility to fine-tuning it according to the considered swarm mission.
% \textcolor{black}{The equation for shape compactness is: \begin{equation}\label{shape_compactness}
% XXX
% \end{equation}}
% \textcolor{black}{According to Theorem \ref{our_theorem}, we can consider the condition of target stability as follows:
% \begin{equation}\label{target_reaching_eq}
% \inf_{\rho_T\in\mathcal{C}_T} Tr (V(\rho_{swarm}(t)-\rho_{swarm}(t\rightarrow\infty)))<0.
%\end{equation}}
%we define quantum-robot swarm stability in terms of shape stability and target-reaching precision:
%\begin{itemize}
%\item Given a quantum-robotic swarm described by the density matrix $\rho$ at time $t$, and the same swarm at time $t\rightarrow\infty$, the swarm shape is stable across time if $D(\rho(t),\rho(t\rightarrow\infty))<\epsilon$, where $D$ is the distance between the density matrices at the two times,
%\item Given two density matrices $\rho_S$ and $\rho_T$, where $\rho_1$ describes a quantum-robotic swarm $S$, and $\rho_T$ is a fictitious and compact entity on a target $T$, we say that $S$ reached the target $T$ if $D(\rho_S,\rho_T)<\epsilon$.
%\end{itemize}
\end{comment}
\section{Examples}\label{examples}
%\bl{We now show how density matrices can be obtained for robot swarms through several examples.}
%\textcolor{black}{Let us show how the matrices for the single robots, and for the swarm, can be obtained.}
% In this Section, we propose some examples of computation of density matrices for single robots, for their swarm organizations, as well as some basic tests to check the applicability of our sketch for a stability criterion.
\subsection{Pure States}
As a first example, we consider a toy-swarm of two robots, $R_1$ and $R_2$, moving along a line of length $1$, i.e., from $x=0$ to $x=1$. Suppose that the target is located in $x=1$.
% For the sake of simplicity, let us consider a 1-dimensional motion.
% Thus,
From Eq. \eqref{caso_completo}, we can write
\begin{equation}\label{state1}
|\psi_{R_i}(t)\rangle = \alpha_i^1(t)|11\rangle +
\alpha_i^2(t)|10\rangle +
\alpha_i^3(t)|01\rangle +
\alpha_i^4(t)|00\rangle,
\end{equation}
where the first qubit indicates the position along the $x$ axis, and the second qubit the degree of success in target finding, and $\sum_j^4|\alpha_i^j(t)|^2=1$.
\bl{With a slight abuse of notation, we represent the position of the robot instead with the peak amplitude of the wavefunction of the position~\cite{swarm_paper}. Moreover, we remove the time argument from the state for notational simplicity by assuming that the positions are considered at a pre-defined time instant.} Now suppose that $R_1$ is at along $x=0.5$ (the peak of the wavefunction is centered in $0.5$), and it has $0$ success (the peak of the ``success'' wavefunction is in $0$). On the other hand, $R_2$ at $x=1$ and with a successful result in target finding ($1$); it is thus in an eigenstate. Substituting the non-null coefficients $\alpha^2_1=\alpha^4_1=\sqrt{1/2}$ and $\alpha^1_2=1$ for the two robots, respectively, we obtain
%As positions of the robots, we do a slightly abuse of notation, indicating as ``position'' the peak of the wavefunction for the position \cite{swarm_paper}.In addition, a precise time instant $t=t^*$ is considered so, for the sake of notation simplicity, the variable $t$ is not carried out. $R_1$ is in $0.5$ along $x$ (the peak of the wavefunction is centered in $0.5$), and it has $0$ success (the peak of the ``success'' wavefunction is in $0$). $R_2$ is in $1$ along $x$ and with a successful result in target finding ($1$); it is thus in an eigenstate. Substituting in eq. (\ref{state1})
%the non-null coefficients, $\beta_1=\delta_1=\sqrt{1/2}$ and $\alpha_2=1$ for the two robots, respectively, we obtain:
\begin{align}
|\psi_1\rangle & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|10\rangle + |00\rangle),\, \\
|\psi_2\rangle & =|11\rangle,
\end{align}
Correspondingly, the density matrix of $R_1$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho_1=|\psi_1\rangle\langle\psi_1|=\frac{1}{2}(|10\rangle\langle 10|
+
|10\rangle\langle 00|
+
|00\rangle\langle 10|
+
|00\rangle\langle 00|
),
\end{equation}
and that of $R_2$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho_2=|\psi_2\rangle\langle\psi_2|=|11\rangle\langle 11|.
\end{equation}
In matrix form, we have
\begin{equation*}
\rho_1=\frac{1}{2}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right),\,
\rho_2=
\left(
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right).
\end{equation*}
%\textcolor{black}{Per questo esempio di R1 e R2, si può dire che abbiamo fissato un certo istante temporale? \textcolor{black}{Yes!} Nel senso che la struttura delle matrici che si considerano è valida per $t=t^*$ per esempio? Cosi potremmo non portare la (t) nelle varie equazioni.}
The density matrix of the toy swarm is obtained as their tensor product.
If we have the state as the initial information, and we want to recover the probability of the robot to be in $x=1$, we compute:
\begin{equation}\label{param}
|\langle1_{x}|\psi_1\rangle|^2=0.5,\,|\langle1_{x}|\psi_2\rangle|^2=1.
\end{equation}
The probability amplitude that the swarm barycenter is in $x=1$ is the mean of the two terms in Eq. \eqref{param}, i.e., $0.75$.
An ideal swarm with two robots, both centered on the target in $1$ and successful, of course has a barycenter with probability $1$ to be found on $1$. A measure of distance between the swarm barycenter and the ideal-swarm barycenter is the difference $|0.75-1|$.
The information on positions of single robots can also be retrieved from the density matrix; this is useful in cases where we only have access to the density matrix. The partial trace of the individual density matrices with respect to the second qubit (taking away the information on ``success'', in short $s$) provides information on the individual robot's position.
Concerning $R_1$, after a few passages we obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{reduced1}
\begin{split}
&Tr_{s}\rho_1=\langle1_{s}|\rho_1|1_{s}\rangle+\langle0_{s}|\rho_1|0_{s}\rangle=\\
&=\frac{1}{2}(|1\rangle\langle 0|+|0\rangle\langle 0|),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
while for $R_2$ we simply have
\begin{equation}\label{reduced2}
Tr_{s}\rho_2=\langle1_{s}|\rho_2|1_{s}\rangle+\langle0_{s}|\rho_2|0_{s}\rangle=|1\rangle\langle1|.
\end{equation}
We notice that $R_1$ has $1/2$ probability of being in $1$, while $R_2$ has probability $1$. Thus, the barycenter of the swarm is their mean, $0.75$. In this way, we prove that the same information can be recovered from density matrices. Tracing the overall density matrix $\rho_{swarm}=\rho_{12}=\rho_1\otimes\rho_2$ with respect to the second qubit, we can also recover the position of the swarm barycenter. The same applies to the ideal swarm centered on the target. The comparison between the values for the given swarm and the ideal one, gives a measure of the precision with which the target has been reached.
%We can also define an opportune distance between matrices as the trace of the difference between the reduced matrices, that is $Tr(|\langle1_s|\rho_{12}|1_s\rangle|-|\langle1_s|\rho_{12(T)}|1_s\rangle|)$, where we focus on the probability of finding the barycenter close to $x=1$, and where $\rho_{12}$ is the density matrix of the ideal swarm. It is clear that we can think of a whole class of ``successful'' swarms, whose robots are inside a small neighbor of the target.
We can define an opportune distance between matrices as the trace of the difference between the reduced matrices, that is $Tr(|\langle1_s|\rho_{12}|1_s\rangle|-|\langle1_s|\rho_{12(T)}|1_s\rangle|)$, where we focus on the probability of finding the barycenter close to $x=1$, and where $\rho_{12}$ is the density matrix of the ideal swarm. It is clear that we can think of a whole class of ``successful'' swarms, whose robots are inside a small neighbor of the target. \bl{In addition, using our modeling framework, one may also consider stability problems. Specifically, one may define a Lyapunov as the Hamiltonian of the barycenter of the swarm, which is a function of the robot's position displacements (potential term) and momentum (speed term). Stability will be investigated in future research.}
%Moving from this concept, concerning stability, we can consider a Lyapunov function as the Hamiltonian of the barycenter of the swarm, thus, as a function of the robots' position displacements (potential term) and momentum (speed term), depending on the chosen time evolution, \textcolor{black}{and investigating stability in future research.}
\begin{comment}
An even simpler choice can involve the displacement only. Computing $\mathcal{L}(V)=\mathcal{L}(\mathbb{H})$, that is, the master equation in the Lindblad form, and $\mathbb{H}$ is the Hamiltonian, according to Example 5.1 in \cite{emzir} we obtain $\mathcal{L}(V)<0$. Because the elements of $\rho_{swarm}$ are positive, then $Tr(\mathcal{L}(V)\rho_{swarm})\leq 0$, indicating the ``compactness'' stability of the swarm in the case of simple translation of all its robotic components, and thus of its barycenter. The condition of search-success can be represented by $Tr(\mathcal{L}(V)\rho_T)\leq 0$, where $\rho_T$ refers again to (an) ideal swarm. This condition can be related with a maximal threshold of the difference between the center of the given swarm and the center of the ideal swarm, as computed before.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Mixed States}
\bl{Consider again the 2-robot swarm described above. As discussed previously, one can significantly benefit in formalizing the robot swarm as a mixed state consisting of robots that are described as pure states. In this case, the density matrix of the swarm would be defined as the weighted sum of the states, rather than as their tensor product.}
\begin{equation}\label{mixed}
%\begin{split}
\rho_{swarm} = \frac{1} %&
{2}|\psi_1\rangle\langle\psi_1| + \frac{1}{2}|\psi_2\rangle\langle\psi_2|%=
%&
%\end{split}
\end{equation}
%One of the main advantages of the density matrix formalism is the treatment of mixed states. We can propose examples of mixed states for the single robots. Or, with a slightly different approach, we can describe the whole swarm as a mixed state, where the state of single robots are pure states. In this case, the matrix of the swarm would be defined as the weighted sum of the states, rather than as their tensor product:
The information on a single robot can still be recovered via the partial trace, tracing the $\rho_{swarm}$ with respect to the other robot(s). In matrix form, Eq. (\ref{mixed}) would give
\begin{equation}
\rho_{swarm}=
\left(
\begin{matrix}
1/2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1/4 & 0 & 1/4 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1/4 & 0 & 1/4 \\
\end{matrix}
\right).
\end{equation}
We verify that $Tr(\rho_{swarm})=1$; to check that $\rho_{swarm}$ is a mixed state, we compute the trace of the squared matrix, verifying that it is smaller than 1
\begin{equation*}
Tr(\rho_{swarm}^2)=
Tr\left(
\begin{matrix}
1/4 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1/8 & 0 & 1/8 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1/8 & 0 & 1/8 \\
\end{matrix}
\right)=\frac{1}{2}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{comment}
To discuss stability, we can choose a Lyapunov operator as a Hamiltonian defined only in terms of potential energy, dependent on the distance of the $i$-th robot from the swarm barycenter.
For instance, we can define the potential energy of the $i$-th robot as: $E_i = k(x_i-B)^{-1}$, where $k$ is a constant; $B$ is the position of the swarm barycenter, and $x_i$ is the position of the $i$-th robot, indicated as the peak of the wavefunction. For our 2-dimensional case, it could correspond to the coefficient $\beta_i$, the probability amplitude of being in $x=1$, from Eq. (\ref{state1}).
\end{comment}
For the swarm we \textcolor{black}{compute the overall energy $E$ as} $E=\Sigma_{i=1}^NE_i$, with $N=2$ in our example, and $E_i$ the energy of each single robot. Then, we compute $\Delta E= E(t)-E(t')$, where the time dependence is related with the instantaneous peak position, and we can finally choose the Hamiltonian as
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{\Delta E}{2}\sigma_z=\frac{\Delta E}{2}(|0\rangle\langle0|-|1\rangle\langle1|).
\end{equation}
To reduce the dimensions of the problem, we can perform the partial trace operation on $\rho_{swarm}$ with respect to the \textit{success} information. We also perform this operation beforehand on the density matrices of single robots, as showed in Eq. (\ref{reduced1}, \ref{reduced2}). The reduced density matrix of the swarm as a mixed state is thus
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rho_{swarm}^{r}&=\frac{1}{2}Tr_s(\rho_1)+\frac{1}{2}Tr_s(\rho_2)=\\&=\frac{1}{4}(|1\rangle\langle0|+|0\rangle\langle0|+2|1\rangle\langle1|).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If we consider the ideal situation where the interaction of the swarm with the environment is absent or negligible, the $L$ operators of the master equation in Lindblad form are negligible as well, and the master equation is reduced to
\begin{equation}\label{first_term}
\mathcal{L}(\rho_{swarm}^r)=-i[H,\rho_{swarm}^r]=-i\frac{\Delta E}{2}(|0\rangle\langle0|-|1\rangle\langle1|).
\end{equation}
To consider the interaction with the environment, we have to include non-null $L$ operators. For the sake of simplicity, we can choose $L=|0\rangle\langle0|$.
Thus, the remaining terms of the master equation are computed as
\begin{equation}\label{other_terms}
\begin{split}
L^T\rho_{swarm}^r L^{\ast} =&\frac{1}{4}|0\rangle\langle 0|
\\
-\frac{1}{2}L^{\dag}L\rho_{swarm}^r =&
-\frac{1}{8}|0\rangle\langle0|\\
-\frac{1}{2}\rho_{swarm}^r L^{\dag}L =&-\frac{1}{8}(|1\rangle\langle0|+|0\rangle\langle0|).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Summing up the terms of Eqq. (\ref{first_term},\ref{other_terms}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(\rho_{swarm}^r)=-i\frac{\Delta E}{2}(|0\rangle\langle0|-|1\rangle\langle1|)-\frac{1}{8}|1\rangle\langle0|.
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
We find $Tr(\mathcal{L}(\rho)\rho)=0$; the equality does also satisfy the stability condition expressed in Eq. (\ref{lyapunov_}).
However, in the considered example, we have been writing $\mathcal{L}(\rho_{swarm}^r)$ and not directly $\mathcal{L}(V)$, as we considered the density matrix of the system and a suitable Hamiltonian.
Re-computing the master equation with the Lyapunov function written as a potential energy instead of the $\rho$ of the system, choosing $\sigma_z$ as previously done for $H$, the commutator $[H,V]$ vanishes, and also the $L$-terms give $0$. The stability condition, for the considered system and energy, is trivially verified.
\end{comment}
% [To do: verify if, for a slighlty different choice of V function (e.g., without the $\sigma_z$), the master equation does not vanish, and the stability condition is also verified.]
% [graph: in the theoretical section, stability of the shape of the swarm and stability concerning the target reaching]
% [qualitative comparison with some other technique?]
% https://learn.qiskit.org/course/quantum-hardware/density-matrix
\subsection{Other computational examples}
\textcolor{black}{In the next few examples, we} consider another toy swarm, constituted by two robotic fish $R_1,\,R_2$, moving along the segment $[0,1]$ of the $x$ axis, as shown in Figure \ref{cases_A_B_b}. For the sake of simplicity, we neglect here information about success in target reaching, focusing only on information about position.
Case A presents two robots maintaining a constant distance between them, while case B presents two robots getting distant from each other.
Let us focus on case A, an example of swarm compactness over time.
Figure \ref{cases_A_B_b} exemplifies the passage to a quantum representation, where the positions are substituted by the peaks of the wavefunctions. \textcolor{black}{As an example, we choose to write} the density operator of the swarm as a mixed state:
\begin{equation}
\rho^A(t_0)=\frac{1}{2}|0\rangle\langle0|+\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{0.8}|0\rangle+\sqrt{0.2}|1\rangle)(\sqrt{0.8}\langle0|+\sqrt{0.2}\langle1|).
\end{equation}
The swarm at the following time point is represented by the density operator:
\begin{equation}
\rho^A(t_1)=\frac{1}{2}|1\rangle\langle1|+\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{0.8}|1\rangle+\sqrt{0.2}|0\rangle)(\sqrt{0.8}\langle1|+\sqrt{0.2}\langle0|).
\end{equation}
The respective matrices, for the swarm at $t_0$ and at $t_1$, are:
\begin{equation}
\rho^A(t_0)=\left(
\begin{matrix}
0.9 & 0.2 \\
0.2 & 0.1
\end{matrix}
\right),\,\,\,\,
\rho^A(t_1)=\left(
\begin{matrix}
0.1 & 0.2 \\
0.2 & 0.9
\end{matrix}
\right).
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{To obtain these results, we have to multiply bra-kets, and sum the terms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rho^A(t_0)=\frac{1}{2}|0\rangle\langle0|+\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{0.8}|0\rangle+\sqrt{0.2}|1\rangle)(\sqrt{0.8}\langle0|+\sqrt{0.2}\langle1|) = \\
\frac{1}{2}|0\rangle\langle0| + \left(\frac{0.8}{2}|0\rangle\langle0|+\frac{\sqrt{1.6}}{2}|0\rangle\langle1|+\frac{\sqrt{1.6}}{2}|1\rangle\langle0|+\frac{0.2}{0}|1\rangle\langle1|\right) =\\ 0.9|0\rangle\langle0|+0.2|0\rangle\langle1|+0.2|1\rangle\langle0|+0.1|1\rangle\langle1|,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and then, organizing the coefficients $0.9,\,0.2,\,0.2,\,0.1$ inside the matrix with columns $|0\rangle,\,|1\rangle$ and rows $\langle0|,\,\langle1|$, we get the result.}
\begin{comment}
The product between the difference $(\rho^A(t_1)-\rho^A(t_0))$ and $\sigma_z$, considered in our examples as part of the Hamiltonian, has negative trace, suggesting the convergence:
\begin{equation}
Tr(\Delta\rho^A|_{t_0,t_1}.\sigma_z)=Tr\left(\begin{matrix} -0.8 & 0 \\ 0 & -0.8 \end{matrix} \right) = -1.6 < 0.
\end{equation}
Neglecting the interaction with the environment, the master equation is $\mathcal{L}=-i\Delta E[H,\rho_{t_1}]$.
\end{comment}
\textcolor{black}{Supposing that the variation of energy is positive}, we obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{condition_stab}
Tr[\mathcal{L}(\rho^A_{t_1})\Delta\rho^A] = -0.16 i\Delta E <0.
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{Recalling the definition of $\rho$-based stability in \cite{emzir}, in the case of positive $\Delta E$, the condition of Eq. \eqref{condition_stab} denotes stability for the case $A$. In this article, we chose to just present a general approach to a quantum swarm, but this formalism can be helpful for future technological developments of the research.}
% We have thus proved the stability for the case $A$. As expected, for $B$, the computation gives a positive value, and in this case, we cannot say if there is stability or not.
% \subsection{Target-reaching stability}
We conclude the section of Examples with a case of target-reaching application.
Let us start from the
previously-found swarm density matrix
\begin{equation}
\rho^S=\left(
\begin{matrix}
0.9 & 0.2 \\
0.2 & 0.1
\end{matrix}
\right),
\end{equation}
and let us consider a target in $|0\rangle\langle0|$, as an ideal swarm centered on the target, described by a state $\rho^T$ having density matrix
\begin{equation}
\rho^T=\left(
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right).
\end{equation}
The distance between the swarm and the target can be computed
\begin{comment}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&d(\rho_S, \rho_T)=\Sigma_{i=1}^2\Sigma_{i=1}^2|\rho^S_{ij}-\rho^T_{ij}|=\\&
\,\,\,\,=|0.9-1| + |0.2| + |0.2| + |0.1| = 0.6.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{comment}
with the trace distance definition:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
d(\rho_S, \rho_T)=
\frac{1}{2}Tr[\sqrt{(\rho_S, \rho_T)^t(\rho_S, \rho_T)}] = 0.05.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
% in R: > 0.5*sum(diag((t(matrix1 - matrix2)) %*% (matrix1 - matrix2)))
However, if we consider a target in $|0\rangle\langle0|$, computing the corresponding density matrix $\rho^{T,\ast}$ and using the same formula we obtain the distance $d(\rho^S, \rho^{T,\ast})=2.2$, higher than the former one. Thus, this straightforward computation shows the applicability of our stability criterion for target reaching.
\end{comment}
\textcolor{black}{The adoption of density matrices for swarms of quantum robots can pave the way toward applications in control theory, adapting to our cases criteria of stability for open quantum systems, that are based on density matrices and suitable choices of Lyapunov functions \cite{emzir}.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{cases_A_B_b}
\caption{Quantum-like representation of a toy 2-robot swarm, where the position of the robot is considered as the weighted peak of the corresponding wavefunction.}\label{cases_A_B_b}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\textcolor{black}{Time evolution and enhanced representations}}\label{time_evolution}
We propose here a working example to visualize a toy swarm of two robots as surfaces representing the wavefunctions. We also sketch a procedure to compute the time evolution from one swarm configuration to another one.
\bl{The process describes a global-local approach, wherein density matrices of the swarm and a time evolution operator are computed to determine the evolution of the swarm. Then, local distribution of the individual robots are updated accordingly. Such a process, as opposed to the local-to-global approach proposed in \cite{swarm_paper}, allows to streamline local information of the robots from global information on the swarm.}
Suppose that the initial state of particle 1 at time $t_0$ is
\begin{equation}
|\psi_1(t_0)\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle + |11\rangle),
\end{equation}
and the initial state of particle 2 is
\begin{equation}
|\psi_2(t_0)\rangle = |00\rangle
\end{equation}
Thus, the density matrix for the first particle-robot is
\begin{equation}
\rho_1(t_0) = \frac{1}{2}(|00\rangle\langle00|+|11\rangle\langle11|)=\frac{1}{2}\left( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{matrix}\right),
\end{equation}
and the density matrix for the second particle-robot is
\begin{equation}
\rho_2(t_0) = |00\rangle\langle00|=\left( \begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{matrix}\right).
\end{equation}
From this, we obtain the mixed density matrix as
\begin{equation}\label{density_matrix_initial_state_working}
\rho_{mix}(t_0)=\frac{\rho_1(t_0) + \rho_2(t_0)}{2} =
\left(\begin{matrix}
0.75 & 0. & 0. & 0.25 \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.25 & 0. & 0. & 0.25
\end{matrix}
\right)
\end{equation}
We choose the final state of particle 1 at $t_1$ as
\begin{equation}
|\psi_1(t_1)\rangle = \frac{\sqrt{0.2}}{\sqrt{0.8^2 + 0.2^2}}|00\rangle + \frac{\sqrt{0.8}}{\sqrt{0.8^2 + 0.2^2}}|11\rangle,
\end{equation}
and that of particle 2 as
\begin{equation}
|\psi_2(t_1)\rangle = \frac{\sqrt{0.1}}{\sqrt{0.9^2 + 0.1^2}}|00\rangle + \frac{\sqrt{0.9}}{\sqrt{0.9^2 + 0.1^2}}|11\rangle.
\end{equation}
Finally, the density matrix of the mixed state is given by
\begin{equation}\label{density_matrix_final_state_working}
\rho_{mix}(t_1)=\left(\begin{matrix}
0.15 & 0. & 0. & 0.35 \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.35 & 0. & 0. & 0.85
\end{matrix}\right).
\end{equation}
Figure \ref{3D} shows the robots corresponding to the two ``particles'' as surfaces, whose height along the $z$-axis denotes the probability amplitude. Such a representation is an additional overcoming of the visualizations of \cite{swarm_paper}, where a classic position was considered in correspondence to the peak of the wavefunctions. These visualizations have been obtained through Python - Jupyter Notebook.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{3D_rep}
\caption{Surface visualization of the probability amplitudes to find the two robots-particles described in Eq. \eqref{density_matrix_initial_state_working} and \eqref{density_matrix_final_state_working}, respectively.}\label{3D}
\end{figure}
\textcolor{black}{We are also interested in finding a method to approximate the time evolution operator, that is, a unitary matrix $O(t)$ such that:}
\begin{equation}
O(t_1)\rho_{mix}(t_0) = \rho_{mix}(t_1).
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{A possible technique is the singular value decomposition (SVD). We first compute the SVD of $\rho_{mix}(t_0)$ obtaining two matrices $U$ and $V^{\dag}$ and then the SVD of $\rho_{mix}(t_1)$ obtaining two other matrices $U'$ and $V'^{\dag}$, such as:}
\begin{equation}
\rho_{mix}(t_0) = U S V^{\dag},\,\,\rho_{mix}(t_1) = U' S' V'^{\dag},
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{where $S$ (respectively $S'$) is a diagonal matrix with the singular values of $\rho_{mix}(t_0)$ (respectively $\rho_{mix}(t_1)$).
These new matrices can be used to reconstruct the process from $\rho_{mix}(t_0)$ to $\rho_{mix}(t_1)$. In fact, the needed time-evolution operator is:}
\begin{equation}
O = U'(V'^{\dag})^{-1}VU^{\dag}.
\end{equation}
%The SVD decomposition can be approximated with np.linalg.svd in Python.
%For instance, for the considered example we get:
%\begin{equation}
%O(t_1)\rho_{mix}(t_0)\sim\left(\begin{matrix}
%0.64 & 0. & 0. & 0.21 \\
%0.25 & 0. & 0. & 0.25 \\
%0.29 & 0. & 0. & 0.096 \\
%0.26 & 0. & 0. & 0.088
%\end{matrix}
%\right).
%\end{equation}
%\textcolor{black}{In this example, we approximated the dynamics given the density matrices at two time points.
The choice of the dynamics is fundamental to shape the global motion of a swarm. This can be useful in a search-and-rescue scenario, when the robots exchange information about individual target proximity, and then the overall swarm reaches a point in space. The point in space is represented as an ideal swarm centered on it. In our case, it can be the target density matrix. The approximation of the time operator represented the required overall transformations to let the swarm approximately reach that region.
%}
We can also apply to $\rho_{mix}(t_0)$ some given specific dynamics, and observe how the swarm is moving accordingly. A classic example is $U = e^{- i H t}$.
%Choosing $U' = e^{- H t}$, we get:}
%\begin{equation}
%U'(t_1)\rho_{mix}(t_0) = \left(\begin{matrix}
%0.53 & 0.87 & 0.87 & 0.65 \\
%0.87 & 1.50 & 1.50 & 1.18 \\
%0.87 & 1.50 & 1.50 & 1.18 \\
%0.65 & 1.18 & 1.18 & 0.97
%\end{matrix}\right).
%\end{equation}
%\textcolor{black}{
The systematic definition of density matrices for a swarm, and a set of subsequent computations of the dynamics between pairs of time points, can allow one to approximate the functions inside the dynamics. Such an approach can foster precise applications in the domain of global-to-local control of the swarms.%}
In particular, we can define the algorithm illustrated in Figure \ref{algo}. Our formalism can thus give some theoretical prediction on target reaching that can be experimentally verified.
Let us describe the idea of Figure \ref{algo}. We start with the local dimension, defining an initial distribution of robots in terms of $|\psi_i\rangle$. Then we compute their density matrix distribution, thus going into the Global dimension. We also need a target position defined as an estimated probability density (expressed inside a $\rho_T$), which is estimated, and thus we call it $\rho_T^e$. This information will be progressively refined. At this point \textcolor{black}{we can} approximate a dynamics $U$ such as $U\rho_{swarm}\sim\rho_T^e$. We can update the swarm distribution in terms of density matrix. And we also have to update the distribution of robots at the local dimension. Since more individual configuration correspond to the same density matrix distribution, the robots can be shifted with the smallest displacements such that their $\psi_i$ approximate the new $\rho_{swarm}$. The robots activate their sensors, and detect their individual proximity to the target. This information allow us to update the target distribution $\rho_T^e$, which allows for a new dynamics computation. The cycle continues until the swarm reaches the target with a great precision. This method, inspired by optimization techniques, can help yield prediction on the number of passages for target reaching.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{algo.pdf}
\caption{An algorithm for swarm-robotic target reaching based on the defined matrices, and including an interaction between local and global.}
\label{algo}
\end{figure}
%Let us consider the same initial swarm configuration for case B, and the density operator for the swarm at $t_1$ as:
%$$
%\rho^B(t_1)=\frac{1}{2}|0\rangle\langle0|+\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{0.8}|1\rangle+\sqrt{0.2}|0\rangle)(\sqrt{0.8}\langle1|+\sqrt{0.2}\langle0|).
%$$
%The two density matrices are now
%$$
%\rho^B(t_0)=\left(
%\begin{matrix}
%0.9 & 0.2 \\
%0.2 & 0.1
%\end{matrix}
%\right),\,\,\,\,
%\rho^B(t_1)=\left(
%\begin{matrix}
%0.6 & 0.2 \\
%0.2 & 0.4
%\end{matrix}
%\right),
%$$
%and the following product has positive trace, suggesting the divergence:
%$$
%Tr(\Delta\rho^B|_{t_0,t_1}.\sigma_z)=Tr\left(\begin{matrix} 0.5 & 0 \\ 0 & 0.5 \end{matrix} \right) = 1 < 0.
%$$
%However, the commutator between the Hamiltonian and $\rho^B(t_1)$ has trace zero. Thus, further refinement of the proposed techniques are required.
%\begin{figure}[ht!]
%\centering
%\begin{minipage}{\columnwidth}
%\centering
%\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{cases_A_B_a}
%\caption{Classic representation of a toy swarm with two units. A: the swarm is considered compact because the distance between its units is not increasing from $t_0$ to $t_1$. B: the elements move away from each other.}\label{cases_A_B_a}
%\end{minipage}
%\begin{minipage}{\columnwidth}
%\centering
%\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{cases_A_B_b}
%\caption{Quantum-like representation of the cases in Figure \ref{cases_A_B_a}, where the position of the robot is considered as the weighted peak of the corresponding wavefunction.}\label{cases_A_B_b}
%\end{minipage}
%\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and Discussions}\label{future}
\bl{In this article, we proposed a new modeling methodology for a quantum robotic swarm using density matrices to describe swarms of micro and nano robots under quantum effects in a compact yet precise manner. We also proposed some toy examples illustrating applications of our modeling formalism. The computations are straightforward and have been performed by hand. More complex computations including the computation of density matrices may also be performed via \textcolor{black}{the open-source software} Qiskit,\footnote{\url{https://www.ibm.com/quantum/qiskit}} automatizing the approach. }
\bl{In the future, one may consider the application of our approach to describe the motion of single robots as well as the center of mass of the quantum swarm. Experiments on physical robots may also help investigate the limits of our approach,} especially concerning the necessary calibration of parameters representing divergence and convergence, which also depend upon the size of the swarm, the amplitude of movements of their components. Future research can focus on the matrix definition of multiple swarms and hierarchical approaches. In fact, we can define the density matrix of a system with multiple swarms as the tensor product of the density matrices of each swarm, or as the density matrix of the whole swarm seen as a mixed state of individual swarms. The information on the single swarm can vice versa be recovered performing the operation of partial trace with respect to all the other swarms, considered as ``environment,'' to the overall density matrix.
\textcolor{black}{Further studies can exploit the density-matrix based formalism to develop control approaches for quantum robots \cite{emzir}.}
\textcolor{black}{In fact, our formalism with density matrices for robotics swarms can pave the way toward future applications of stability criteria to the robotics swarms, adapting control criteria defined for open quantum systems to the robots} \cite{emzir}. Moreover, one can also address the matrix depiction of multi-layer systems, recently used to characterize hierarchical systems of swarms communicating with mobile computing centrals \cite{wivace}, whose information-sharing systems are shaped according to the protocols of telecommunications \cite{VTC}.
\section*{Funding}
The work by M. A. is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) as part of Germany's Excellence Strategy – EXC 2050/1 – Project ID 390696704 – Cluster of Excellence ``Centre for Tactile Internet with Human-in-the-Loop'' (CeTI) of Technische Universität Dresden.
%Refined future examples should include the application of specific dynamics for the motion of single robots and for the motion of the swarm center of mass. Experiments with physical robots can help investigate the limits of our approach, especially concerning the necessary calibration of parameters representing divergence and convergence, which also depend upon the size of the swarm, the amplitude of movements of their components, the portion of space to be explored.
%In this article, started from recent studies on a block matrix-based formulation of a robotics swarm \cite{swarm_paper}
%\textcolor{black}{and we proposed a new swarm robotic description using density matrices from theoretical physics. We considered density matrices to inherit all the formalism developed for quantum computing, being able to describe in a compact yet precise way swarms of nano and micro robots, affected by quantum effects, and thus not efficiently described by the classical formalism.}
% and on the control of open quantum systems \cite{emzir}.
%We thus developed a formalization of a robotic swarm based on density matrices, mathematical objects widely used in quantum mechanics, whose properties and techniques can be inherited here. In particular, we considered quantum robots, that is, robots of the future so small to be affected by quantum effects.
% we started from a recent study on the stability of open quantum systems, used in quantum mechanics \cite{emzir}. Inspired by another study on the quantum definition of parameters for a robotic swarm, and its depiction through a block matrix \cite{swarm_paper}, we defined here a criterion of stability for a swarm of robots. We overcame the formalism of the former article, re-defining the matrices in more general terms as density matrices. We extended the Lyapunov-stability criterion presented in the recent literature, adapting it to a swarm of robots. We concluded the analysis with a few simple examples of application.
%We also proposed some examples of applications. The computations are straightforward and have been performed by hand. The density matrices and the subsequent computations can also be computed via \textcolor{black}{the opensource software} Qiskit,\footnote{\url{https://www.ibm.com/quantum/qiskit}} automatizing the approach, and adapting the proposed techniques to more complex case studies.
% Our discussion may, in the future, lead to acriterion for evaluating the stability of a robotic QS (Figure \ref{robotic_waves}). In particular, the control strategy of a QS needs to be quantum-based as well.
% \section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
% We proposed in this article a formalization of quantum robotic swarms based on density matrices- first via their tensor products and then via mixed states. \bl{To do so, we drawn upon recent studies on quantum formalization of parameters of classic-robot swarms, we borrowed some formalism used in quantum mechanics, and propose a formalization of density matrices for a swarm of quantum robots of the future, that is, robots small enough to be subject to quantum effects. % In addition, we summarized some details of a recent study on control of open quantum systems, discussing its possible extensions to a swarm of quantum robots.
% A possible development of our approach can be the development of a technique to control swarms of miniaturized robots affected by quantum effects, and quantum robots of the future. We also briefly discussed some implications of our work in the domain of telecommunications, whose quantum development is an emerging research field in itself. Thus, our research aims to help bridge different research areas, from theoretical physics to control theory to telecommunications and swarm robotics. Further developments will deal with more computationally complex examples and first experiments.
% The abstract formalism of quantum mechanics can help us connect different fields of human knowledge, developing unification approaches, and fostering new potential technological applications.
% Quantum mechanics started from the curiosity of physicists to learn about the inner core of the physical reality, and its applications to domains such as robotics are still to be explored. Swarm robotics itself is often inspired by the organization and elegance of natural swarms.
% Ultimately, the beauty and richness of nature is our neverending source of inspiration and thinking.
%$$
%\alpha + \beta = \chi \eqno{(1)}
%$$
%\begin{table}[h]
%\caption{An Example of a Table}
%\label{table_example}
%\begin{center}
%\begin{tabular}{|c||c|}
%\hline
%One & Two\\
%\hline
%Three & Four\\
%\hline
%\end{tabular}
%\end{center}
%\end{table}
% \begin{figure}[thpb]
% \centering
%\framebox{\parbox{3in}{We suggest that you use a text box to insert a graphic (which is ideally a 300 dpi TIFF or EPS file, with all fonts embedded) because, in an document, this method is somewhat more stable than directly inserting a picture.
%}}
%\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{figurefile}
%\caption{Inductance of oscillation winding on amorphous
% magnetic core versus DC bias magnetic field}
%\label{figurelabel}
%\end{figure}
%\addtolength{\textheight}{-12cm} % This command serves to balance the column lengths
% on the last page of the document manually. It shortens
% the textheight of the last page by a suitable amount.
% This command does not take effect until the next page
% so it should come on the page before the last. Make
% sure that you do not shorten the textheight too much.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\section*{APPENDIX}
%Appendixes should appear before the acknowledgment.
%\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
%\balance
%\begin{adjustwidth}{-\extralength}{0cm}
%\printendnotes[custom] % Un-comment to print a list of endnotes
%\reftitle{References}
%\begin{thebibliography}{00}
\bibliography{egbib}
%\end{adjustwidth}
%\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{wireless03}
A.~M. Abbas.
\newblock Molecular nano communication networks: Architectures.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Multimedia, Signal Processing and Communication Technologies (IMPACT)}, pages
1--5. Protocols and Technologies, 2012.
\bibitem{qRobot}
P.~Atchade-Adelomou, P.~Alonso-Linaje, J.~Albo-Canals, and D.~qRobot:~A
Casado-Fauli.
\newblock Quantum computing approach in mobile robot order picking and batching
problem solver optimization.
\newblock {\em Algorithms}, 14, 2021.
\bibitem{berberich_robustness_2024}
Julian Berberich, Daniel Fink, and Christian Holm.
\newblock Robustness of quantum algorithms against coherent control errors.
\newblock 109(1):012417, 2024.
\newblock Publisher: American Physical Society.
\bibitem{ants_robot}
S.~Berman, Q.~Lindsey, M.~Sakar, V.~Kumar, and S.~Pratt.
\newblock Experimental study and modeling of group retrieval in ants as an
approach to collective transport in swarm robotic systems.
\newblock {\em Proceedings Of The IEEE}, 99:1470--1481, 2011.
\bibitem{dasgupta_stability_2024}
Samudra Dasgupta.
\newblock Stability of quantum computers, 2024.
\bibitem{tlc_survey1}
E.~Debie, K.~Kasmarik, and M.~Garratt.
\newblock Swarm robotics: A survey from a multi-tasking perspective.
\newblock {\em ACM Comput. Surv}, 56(2), 2023.
\bibitem{QRL1}
D.~Dong, C.~Chen, H.~Li, and T.~Tarn.
\newblock Ieee transactions on systems man and cybernetics part b
(cybernetics).
\newblock {\em {Quantum Reinforcement Learning}}, 38, 2008.
\bibitem{sitti}
X.~Dong and M.~Sitti.
\newblock Controlling two-dimensional collective formation and cooperative
behavior of magnetic microrobot swarms.
\newblock {\em The International Journal Of Robotic Research}, 39, 2020.
\bibitem{aquatic_swarm}
Miguel Duarte, Vasco Costa, Jorge Gomes, Tiago Rodrigues, Fernando Silva,
Sancho~Moura Oliveira, and Anders~Lyhne Christensen.
\newblock Evolution of {{Collective Behaviors}} for a {{Real Swarm}} of
{{Aquatic Surface Robots}}.
\newblock 11(3):e0151834, 2016.
\bibitem{emzir}
M.~F. Emzir, M.~J. Woolley, and I.~R. Petersen.
\newblock Stability analysis of quantum systems: A lyapunov criterion and an
invariance principle.
\newblock {\em Automatica}, 146, 2022.
\bibitem{wireless02}
L.~Ferranti and F.~Cuomo.
\newblock Nano-wireless communication for microrobotics: bridging the gap.
\newblock In {\em {\em Proceedings of the Second Annual International
Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication}}, pages 1--6, 2015.
\bibitem{wireless01}
L.~Ferranti and F.~Cuomo.
\newblock Nano-wireless communications for microrobotics: An algorithm to
connect networks of microrobots.
\newblock {\em Nano Commun. Networks}, 12:53--62, 2017.
\bibitem{ant_01}
N.~Frías, F.~Johnson, and C.~Valle.
\newblock {Hybrid Algorithms for Energy Minimizing Vehicle Routing Problem:
Integrating Clusterization and Ant Colony Optimization}.
\newblock {\em IEEE Access}, 11:125800--125821, 2023.
\bibitem{med_tech1}
Stefano Fusco, Franziska Ullrich, Juho Pokki, George Chatzipirpiridis, Berna
Özkale, Kartik~M. Sivaraman, Olgaç Ergeneman, Salvador Pané, and
Bradley~J. Nelson.
\newblock Microrobots: A new era in ocular drug delivery.
\newblock 2014.
\bibitem{swarm_robotics}
Heiko Hamann.
\newblock {\em Swarm {{Robotics}}: {{A Formal Approach}}}.
\newblock Springer International Publishing, 2018.
\bibitem{HAMDOUN2020463}
Hala Hamdoun and Alaa Sagheer.
\newblock Information security through controlled quantum teleportation
networks.
\newblock {\em Digital Communications and Networks}, 6(4):463--470, 2020.
\bibitem{bio-main}
Arpan~Kumar Kar.
\newblock Bio inspired computing – {{A}} review of algorithms and scope of
applications.
\newblock {\em Expert Systems with Applications}, 59:20--32, 2016.
\bibitem{koukam}
A.~Koukam, A.~Abbas-Turki, V.~Hilaire, and Y.~Ruichek.
\newblock Towards a quantum modeling approach to reactive agents.
\newblock {\em 2021 IEEE International Conference On Quantum Computing And
Engineering (QCE)}, 2021.
\bibitem{QRL2}
Y.~Kwak, W.~Yun, S.~Jung, J.~Kim, and J.~Kim.
\newblock {\em Introduction to Quantum Reinforcement Learning: Theory and
PennyLane-based Implementation}.
\newblock International Conference On Information And Communication Technology
Convergence (ICTC), 2021.
\bibitem{mechatronics}
L.~Lamata, M.~Quadrelli, C.~Silva, P.~Kumar, G.~Kanter, M.~Ghazinejad, and
F.~Khoshnoud.
\newblock {Quantum Mechatronics}.
\newblock {\em Electronics}, 10:2483, 2021.
\bibitem{bio_3}
M.~Luo, X.~Hou, and S.~X. Yang.
\newblock A multi-scale map method based on bioinspired neural network
algorithm for robot path planning.
\newblock {\em IEEE Access}, 7:11, 2019.
\bibitem{wivace}
M.~Mannone, N.~Marwan, V.~Seidita, A.~Chella, A.~Giacometti, and P.~Fazio.
\newblock {\em Entangled Gondolas: Design of Multi-Layer Networks of
Quantum-Driven Robotic Swarms}, volume 1977 of {\em Communications in
Computer and Information Science}.
\newblock in Proceedings of Wivace workshop, Venice, to appear, 2023.
\bibitem{swarm_paper}
M.~Mannone, V.~Seidita, and A.~Chella.
\newblock Modeling and designing a robotic swarm: a quantum computing approach.
\newblock {\em Swarm and Evolutionary Computation}, 79, 2023.
\bibitem{VTC}
M.~Mannone, V.~Seidita, A.~Chella, A.~Giacometti, and P.~Fazio.
\newblock Energy and snr-aware robotic swarm coordination for aquatic cleaning
operations.
\newblock {\em in Proceedings of the IEEE VTC Conference}, 97:1--7, 2023.
\bibitem{Naka01}
S.~Nakajima.
\newblock On quantum theory of transport phenomena: Steady diffusion.
\newblock {\em in Progress of Theoretical Physics}, 20(6):948--959, 1958.
\bibitem{bio_2}
P.~Ngamkajornwiwat, J.~Homchanthanakul, P.~Teerakittikul, and P.~Manoonpong.
\newblock Bio-inspired adaptive locomotion control system for online adaptation
of a walking robot on complex terrains.
\newblock {\em IEEE Access}, 11:91587--91602, 2020.
\bibitem{nielsen}
M.~A. Nielsen and I.~L. Chuang.
\newblock {\em {Quantum Computation and Quantum Information}}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, 2010.
\bibitem{oung}
R.~Oung and R.~D’Andrea.
\newblock {The distributed flight array}.
\newblock {\em Mechatronics}, 21:908--917, 2011.
\bibitem{wireless04}
F.~Phillipson.
\newblock Quantum computing in telecommunication---a survey.
\newblock {\em MDPI Mathematics}, 11:15, 2023.
\bibitem{qian_optimal_2019}
Qingwen Qian, Junfeng Wu, and Zhe Wang.
\newblock Optimal path planning for two-wheeled self-balancing vehicle pendulum
robot based on quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization algorithm.
\newblock 23(3):393--403, 2019.
\bibitem{resource}
R.~La Rose.
\newblock {Quantum Information and Computation Seminar at Michigan State
University, QuIC Seminar 6, Quantum States and Partial Trace}.
\newblock
https://www.ryanlarose.com/uploads/1/1/5/8/115879647/quic06-states-trace.pdf,
2023.
\bibitem{med_tech_2}
Christine~K. Schmidt, Mariana Medina-Sánchez, Richard~J. Edmondson, and
Oliver~G. Schmidt.
\newblock Engineering microrobots for targeted cancer therapies from a medical
perspective.
\newblock 11(1):5618, 2020.
\bibitem{schranz}
M.~Schranz, M.~Umlauft, M.~Sende, and W.~Elmenreich.
\newblock Swarm robotic behaviors and current applications.
\newblock {\em Frontiers In Robotics And AI}, 7, 2020.
\bibitem{Schr01}
E.~Schroedinger.
\newblock Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem.
\newblock {\em Annalen der Physik}, 79, 1926.
\bibitem{SHU202356}
Wanneng Shu and Yan Li.
\newblock Joint offloading strategy based on quantum particle swarm
optimization for mec-enabled vehicular networks.
\newblock {\em Digital Communications and Networks}, 9(1):56--66, 2023.
\bibitem{stolze}
J.~Stolze and D.~Quantum Computing:~A Suter.
\newblock {\em {Short Course from Theory to Experiment}}.
\newblock Wiley, 2004.
\bibitem{bio_1}
B.~Sun, D.~Zhu, C.~Tian, and C.~Luo.
\newblock Complete coverage autonomous underwater vehicles path planning based
on glasius bio-inspired neural network algorithm for discrete and centralized
programming.
\newblock {\em IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems},
11(1):73--84, 2019.
\bibitem{wichert}
A.~Wichert.
\newblock {\em {Principles of Quantum Artificial Intelligence}}.
\newblock World Scientific, 2020.
\bibitem{quantum_fish}
K.~Zhu and M.~Jiang.
\newblock Quantum artificial fish swarm algorithm.
\newblock {\em Proceedings Of The 8th World Congress On Intelligent Control And
Automation}, 2010.
\end{thebibliography}