Philipp M. Preiss,
1
Ruichao Ma,
1
M. Eric Tai,
1
Alexander Lukin,
1
Matthew
Rispoli,
1
Philip Zupancic,
1
Yoav Lahini,
1, 2
Rajibul Islam,
1
and Markus Greiner
1,
1
Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02138, USA
2
Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139, USA
Full control over the dynamics of interacting, indistinguishable quantum particles is an important
prerequisite for the experimental study of strongly correlated quantum matter and the implemen
tation of highdelity quantum information processing. Here we demonstrate such control over the
quantum walk  the quantum mechanical analogue of the classical random walk  in the strong in
teraction regime. We directly observe fundamental eects such as the emergence of correlations due
to quantum statistics and interactions in twoparticle quantum walks, as well as strongly correlated
Bloch oscillations in tilted optical lattices. Our approach can be scaled to larger systems, greatly
extending the class of problems accessible via quantum walks, which can now serve as a basis for
universal quantum computation and as a quantum simulator for strongly correlated manybody
dynamics.
Quantum walks are the quantummechanical ana
logues of classical random walk processes, describing the
propagation of quantum particles on periodic potentials
[1, 2]. Unlike classical objects, particles performing a
quantum walk can be in a superposition state and take all
possible paths through their environment simultaneously,
leading to superior properties such as faster propaga
tion and enhanced sensitivity to initial conditions. These
properties have generated considerable interest in using
quantum walks for the study of positionspace quantum
dynamics and for quantum information processing [3].
Two distinct models of quantum walk were devised, and
later shown to be equivalent: the discrete time quan
tum walk [1], in which the particle propagates in discrete
steps determined by a dynamic internal degree of free
dom, and the continuous time quantum walk [2], in which
the dynamics is described by a timeindependent lattice
Hamiltonian.
Experimentally, quantum walks have been imple
mented for photons [4], trapped ions [5, 6], and neutral
atoms [79], among other platforms [4]. Until recently,
most experiments were aimed at observing the quantum
walks of a single quantum particle, which are described
by classical wave equations.
An enhancement of quantum eects emerges when
more than one indistinguishable particle participates in
the quantum walk simultaneously. In such cases, quan
tum correlations develop due to Hanbury Brown and
Twiss (HBT) interference and quantum statistics, as
was investigated theoretically [10, 11] and experimentally
[1217]. In the absence of interactions this problem lacks
full quantum complexity, but can become intractable by
classical computing [11].
The inclusion of interaction between indistinguishable
quantum walkers [18, 19] will grant access to a much
wider class of computationally hard problems. For exam
ple, manybody quantum walks oer a route to a system
atic and direct study of outstanding and computationally
intractable problems in condensed matter physics, such
Position x (sites)
T
i
m
e
(
)
a
b
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
10 0 10
0.0
0.1
0.05
t=0
t=6.6 ms
10 0 10
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
J
T
i
m
e
(
)
II
t=5 ms
t=11 ms
t=0
I
J
III
I
II
II
I
II
III
I
FIG. 1. Coherent singleparticle quantum walks. (a) Left:
Individual atoms performing independent quantum walks in
an optical lattice. Right: The singleparticle density distri
bution expands linearly in time, and atoms delocalize over
20 sites (lower panel, t to equation (2) with the tunneling
rate J as a free parameter). Error bars: standard error of the
mean. (b) In the presence of a gradient, a single particle un
dergoes Bloch oscillations. The atom initially delocalizes but
maintains excellent coherence and reconverges to its initial
position after one period. Densities are averages over 700
and 200 realizations for a) and b), respectively.
as manybody localization and the role of interactions
in dynamics of quantum disordered systems [20]. Simi
larly, in the presence of interactions the quantum walk
a
r
X
i
v
:
1
4
0
9
.
3
1
0
0
v
1
[
c
o
n
d

m
a
t
.
q
u
a
n
t

g
a
s
]
1
0
S
e
p
2
0
1
4
2
can yield universal and ecient quantum computation
[21].
Here we implement the twoparticle quantum walk
with strong interactions for ultracold bosonic atoms in
an optical lattice. Our system realizes the fundamental
building block of interacting manybody systems with
atomresolved access to the strongly correlated dynamics
in a quantum gas microscope [22]. We directly measure
the spatial correlations arising due to quantum statistics
and interactions in multiparticle quantum walks and de
tect the fermionization of strongly repulsive bosons in
one dimension [23]. In the presence of a lattice tilt, we ob
serve highdelity Bloch oscillations in position space [24]
and coherent dynamics of individual repulsively bound
pairs [2527]. Our techniques, including the determinis
tic preparation of fewbody states and the atomresolved
measurements of correlations, establish quantum walks
of ultracold atoms as a tool for the study of correlated
manybody dynamics and as a platform for quantum in
formation processing devices.
In our experiment, ultracold atoms of bosonic
87
Rb
perform quantum walks in decoupled onedimensional
tubes of an optical lattice with spacing d = 680 nm. The
atoms may tunnel in the xdirection with amplitude J
and experience a repulsive onsite interaction U, realiz
ing the BoseHubbard Hamiltonian
H
BH
=
i,j
Ja
i
a
j
+
i
U
2
n
i
(n
i
1) +
i
E i n
i
(1)
Here a
i
(a
i
) is the bosonic creation (annihilation) oper
ator and n
i
= a
i
a
i
gives the atom number on site i. J
and U are tunable via the depth V
x
of the optical lattice,
specied in units of the recoil energy E
r
= 2
h
8md
2
2 1240 Hz, where h is Plancks constant and m is the
mass of
87
Rb. The energy shift per lattice site E is set
by a magnetic eld gradient. We measure time in units
of inverse tunneling rates, = tJ, and dene the dimen
sionless interaction u = U/J and gradient = E/J.
We set the initial motional state of the atoms through a
highly adaptable singlesite addressing scheme, enabling
the deterministic preparation of a wide range of few
body states: Using a digital micromirror device (DMD)
as an amplitude hologram in a Fourier plane, we gener
ate arbitrary diractionlimited potentials in the plane of
the atoms. Starting from a lowentropy twodimensional
Mott insulator with a xed number of atoms per site,
we project a repulsive HermiteGauss prole to isolate
atoms in selected rows while a short reduction of the op
tical lattice depth ejects all other atoms from the system
(see Methods). For the quantum walk, we prepare one or
two rows of atoms along the ydirection of a deep optical
lattice (V
x
= V
y
= 45E
r
), as shown in Figure 1 a). The
quantum walk is performed at a reduced lattice depth
V
x
, while the ylattice and the outofplane connement
are xed at V
y
= 45E
r
and
z
= 27.2 kHz. The atom
positions are recorded with singlesite resolution using
uorescence imaging in a deep optical lattice, giving the
parity of the local atom number [22]. We employ a den
sity mapping along the direction of the quantum walk to
record outcomes with two atoms on the same site and
obtain the full twoparticle correlator
i,j
= a
i
a
j
a
i
a
j
i
(t) = J
i
(2Jt)
2
(2)
where J
i
is a Bessel function of the rst kind on lattice
site i.
If a potential gradient is applied to ultracold atoms
in an optical lattice, net transport does not occur due
to the absence of dissipation and the separation of the
spectrum into discrete bands. Instead, the gradient in
duces a positiondependent phase shift and causes atoms
to undergo Bloch oscillations [28]. For a fully coher
ent singleparticle quantum walk with gradient , the
atom remains localized to a small volume and undergoes
a periodic breathing motion in position space [24] with
a maximal half width L
B
= 4/ and temporal period
T
B
= 2/ in units of the inverse tunneling. Figure 1 b)
shows a singleparticle quantum walk with = 0.56, re
sulting in Bloch oscillations over 14 lattice sites. We
observe a high quality revival after one Bloch period with
a peak density of n = 0.88(2), limited by the tempo
ral resolution of the measurements and inhomogeneous
broadening across the lattice. For individual rows, we
observe revival probabilities of 0.96(3) at = T
B
. The
timeaverage of the delity, dened as
F(t) =
p
x
(t)q
x
(t) (3)
for the measured and expected probability distributions
p
x
(t) and q
x
(t), is 98.1(1)%, indicating that an excep
tional level of coherence is maintained while the particle
delocalizes over 10 m in the optical lattice.
If two particles undergo a quantum walk simultane
ously, the dynamics are sensitive to the underlying parti
cle statistics due to Hanbury Brown and Twiss interfer
ence [12, 13]. All twoparticle processes in the system add
3
T
h
e
o
r
y
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
10 0 10
10
0
10
10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 10
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
(II) strongly interacting bosons
fermionized regime
time t time t
constructive for bosons
destructive for fermions constructive for fermions
destructive for bosons a b
c
(I) (II)
L RL R
L R L R
10 0 10
10
0
10
10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Position i (sites)
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
j
(
s
i
t
e
s
)
(I) u = 0.7 (II) u = 1.4 (III) u = 2.4 (IV) u = 5.1
0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2
2n steps 2n steps 2n+2 steps 2n steps
(I) weakly interacting bosons
=0 =0
FIG. 2. Hanbury Brown and Twiss interference and fermionization. (a) Processes connecting the initial and nal twoparticle
states interfere coherently. Each tunneling step contributes a phase i. For noninteracting bosons, processes of the same
length add constructively (I), while processes diering in length by two steps interfere destructively (II). (b) Weakly interacting
bosons display strong bunching (I). Strong, repulsive onsite interactions cause bosons in one dimension to fermionize and
develop longrange anticorrelations (II). Measured correlator i,j at time max 2 0.5, averaged over 3200 realizations.
The interactions are tuned from weak (u < 1) to strong (u 1) by choosing Vx = 1 Er, 2.5 Er, 4 Er, and 6.5 Er.
coherently, leading to quantum correlations between the
particles, shown in Figure 2 a): For bosons, the processes
bringing both particles into close proximity of each other
add constructively, leading to bosonic bunching, as ob
served in expanding atomic clouds [29, 30] and photonic
implementations of quantum walks [12, 13].
In our experiment, the bunching of free bosonic atoms
is apparent in single shot images of quantum walks with
two particles starting from adjacent sites in the state
a
0
a
1
0. For weak interactions, the two atoms are very
likely to be detected close to each other due to HBT in
terference, as shown in raw images in Figure 2 b). We
characterize the degree of bunching using the density
density correlator
i,j
in Figure 2 c), measured at time
max
2 0.5. Panel I shows the twoparticle correla
tor for a quantum walk with weak interactions (u = 0.7).
Sharp features are due to quantum interference and
demonstrate the good coherence of the twoparticle dy
namics. The concentration of probability on and near the
diagonal of the correlator
i,j
indicates HBT interference
of nearly free bosonic particles.
For a quantum walk of fermions, a reversal of the HBT
logic is expected: exchange of fermionic particles leads
to an additional phase shift of , causing characteristic
antibunching of free fermions [13, 30]. In one dimen
sion, a link exists between bosonic and fermionic sys
tems, captured by the concept of fermionization: In the
limit of innite, hardcore repulsive interactions, the
densities and spatial correlations of a onedimensional
bosonic system are predicted to be identical to those
of noninteracting spinless fermions [23]. Signatures of
this behavior have been observed in equilibrium through
the paircorrelations and momentum distributions of
large onedimensional BoseEinstein Condensates in the
TonksGirardeau regime [31, 32].
We directly probe the process of fermionization in
the dynamics of two particles by repeating the quantum
walk from initial state a
0
a
1
0 at increasing interaction
strengths [18]. Figure 2 c) shows
i,j
for increasing values
of u. At intermediate values of the interaction u = 1.4
and u = 2.4, the correlation distribution is relatively uni
form, as repulsive interactions compete with HBT inter
ference. For the strongest interaction strength u = 5.1,
most of the weight is concentrated on the antidiagonal
of
i,j
, corresponding to pronounced antibunching. The
anticorrelations are strong enough to be visible in raw
images of the quantum walk as in panel II of Figure
2 b), and
i,j
is almost identical to the expected out
come for noninteracting fermions. Note that while the
correlations change dramatically with increasing inter
4
Position i (sites)
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
j
(
s
i
t
e
s
)
(I) u = 0.7 (II) u = 1.4 (III) u = 2.4 (IV) u = 5.1
10 0 10
10
0
10
10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.5 1.0
10
0
10
0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.5 1.0
0 0.07 0.14 0.21 0 0.05 0.1 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
T
h
e
o
r
y
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
FIG. 3. Formation of repulsively bound pairs. Twoparticle correlations at max 2 0.5 for two particles starting on site 0
in state
1
2
a
0
a
0
0. For weak interactions (u = 0.7), the atoms perform independent singleparticle quantum walks. As the
interaction strength is increased, repulsively bound pairs form and undergo an eective singleparticle quantum walk along the
diagonal of the twoparticle correlator. Experimental parameters are identical to those in Figure 2.
action, the densities remain largely unchanged. At all
interaction strengths, the observed densities and corre
lations are in excellent agreement with a numerical in
tegration of the Schrodinger equation with Hamiltonian
(1) (see Methods). Our measurements directly reveal the
correspondence between strongly interacting bosons and
noninteracting fermions for dynamics in one dimension.
The precise control over the initial state in our sys
tem enables the study of strongly interacting bosons in
scenarios not described by fermionization, such as the
quantum walks of two atoms prepared in the same state.
Figure 3 shows the correlations and densities for the ini
tial state
1
2
a
0
a
0
0. Since both atoms originate from
the same site, HBT interference terms are not present.
In the weakly interacting regime (u = 0.7), both parti
cles undergo independent free dynamics and the correla
tor is the direct product of the singleparticle densities.
As the interaction increases, separation of the individ
ual atoms onto dierent lattice sites becomes energet
ically forbidden. The two atoms preferentially propa
gate through the lattice together, reected in increas
ing weights on the diagonal of the correlation matrix.
For the strongest interactions, the particles form a repul
sively bound pair with eective singleparticle behavior
[25]. The twoparticle dynamics may be described as a
quantum walk of the bound pair [18, 19] at a decreased
tunneling rate J
pair
, which reduces to the secondorder
tunneling [33] J
pair
=
2J
2
U
J for large values of u.
The formation of repulsively bound pairs and their co
herent dynamics can be observed in twoparticle Bloch
oscillations. We focus on the dynamics of two parti
cles initially prepared on the same site with a gradient
0.5, as shown in Figure 4. In the weakly interact
ing regime (u = 0.3), both particles undergo symmetric
Bloch oscillations as in the singleparticle case, and we
observe a highquality revival after one Bloch period. For
intermediate interactions (u = 2.4), the density evolution
is very complex: In this regime where J, U, and E are
similar in magnitude, states both with and without dou
ble occupancy are energetically allowed and contribute to
the dynamics. The skew to the right against the applied
force is due to resonant longrange tunneling of single
particles over several sites [26, 34] and agrees with nu
merical simulation.
When the interactions are suciently strong (u = 3.5),
the pairs of atoms are tightly bound by the repulsive
interaction and behave like a single composite parti
cle. However, the eective gradient has doubled with
respect to the singleparticle case, and the pairs perform
Bloch oscillations at twice the fundamental frequency
and reduced spatial amplitude. The frequencydoubling
of Bloch oscillations was predicted for electron systems
[35] and cold atoms [26] and has recently been simulated
with photons in a waveguide array [27]. Throughout
the breathing motion, the repulsively bound pairs them
selves undergo coherent dynamics and delocalize without
unbinding. The clean revival after half a Bloch period
directly demonstrates the spatial entanglement of atom
pairs.
5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(I) u = 0.3 (II) u = 2.4 (III) u = 3.5
U
Position (sites)
10 0 10
0.0
0.5
1.0
Experiment
Theory
10 0 10
T
i
m
e
(
)
T
i
m
e
(
)
10 0 10
FIG. 4. Bloch oscillations of repulsively bound pairs. (I) In
the weakly interacting regime, two particles initialized on the
same site undergo clean, independent Bloch oscillations. (II)
Increasing the interaction strength leads to complex dynam
ics: Pairs of atoms remain bound near the origin or separate,
breaking leftright symmetry via longrange tunneling. (III)
For the largest interactions, repulsively bound pairs perform
coherent, frequencydoubled Bloch oscillations. Densities are
averages over 220 independent quantum walks.
In summary, we have experimentally realized quantum
walks of strongly interacting bosons in an optical lat
tice. Our work extends the class of problems accessible
via quantum walks to strongly correlated systems and
enables a bottomup approach to manybody dynam
ics: We observe excellent quantum coherence over more
than 10 m, sensitivity to particle statistics in HBT in
terference, and strong correlations due to interactions,
thus combining all aspects of strongly correlated systems
in a fully controlled setting. Our techniques will enable
detailed studies of condensed matter problems, such as
the interplay of interactions and disorder [20], as well as
quantum information processing with ultracold atoms in
optical lattices.
We acknowledge helpful discussions with Manuel En
dres. This work was supported by grants from the Army
Research Oce with funding from the DARPA OLE pro
gram and a MURI program, an AFOSR MURI program,
the Moore Foundation, and by grants from the NSF.
M.E.T. was supported by the DoD through the NDSEG
program. Y.L. is supported by the Pappalardo Fellow
ship in Physics.
Email: greiner@physics.harvard.edu
[1] Y. Aharonov, L. Davidovich, and N. Zagury, Phys. Rev.
A 48, 1687 (1993).
[2] E. Farhi and S. Gutmann, Phys. Rev. A 58, 915 (1998).
[3] S. E. VenegasAndraca, Quantum Inf. Process. 11, 1015
(2012).
[4] K. Manouchehri and J. Wang, Physical Implementation
of Quantum Walks (SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2014).
[5] H. Schmitz, R. Matjeschk, C. Schneider, J. Glueckert,
M. Enderlein, T. Huber, and T. Schaetz, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 103, 090504 (2009).
[6] F. Z ahringer, G. Kirchmair, R. Gerritsma, E. Solano,
R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 100503
(2010).
[7] M. Karski, L. Forster, J.M. Choi, A. Steen, W. Alt,
D. Meschede, and A. Widera, Science 325, 174 (2009).
[8] C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau,
P. Schau, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Nature
471, 319 (2011).
[9] T. Fukuhara, P. Schau, M. Endres, S. Hild, M. Cheneau,
I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Nature 502, 76 (2013).
[10] Y. Bromberg, Y. Lahini, R. Morandotti, and Y. Silber
berg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 253904 (2009).
[11] S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, Proc. 43rd ACM STOC ,
333 (2011).
[12] A. Peruzzo, M. Lobino, J. C. F. Matthews, N. Matsuda,
A. Politi, K. Poulios, X.Q. Zhou, Y. Lahini, N. Ismail,
K. W orho, Y. Bromberg, Y. Silberberg, M. G. Thomp
son, and J. L. OBrien, Science 329, 1500 (2010).
[13] L. Sansoni, F. Sciarrino, G. Vallone, P. Mataloni,
A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, and R. Osellame, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 108, 010502 (2012).
[14] M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, S. RahimiKeshari, J. Dove,
S. Aaronson, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Science
339, 794 (2013).
[15] J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P. C. Humphreys,
W. S. Kolthammer, X.M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta,
N. ThomasPeter, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys, J. C.
Gates, B. J. Smith, P. G. R. Smith, and I. A. Walm
sley, Science 339, 798 (2013).
[16] M. Tillmann, B. Dakic, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Sza
meit, and P. Walther, Nature Photon. 7, 540 (2013).
[17] A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, D. J. Brod, E. F.
Galv ao, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, E. Maiorino, P. Mat
aloni, and F. Sciarrino, Nature Photon. 7, 545 (2013).
[18] Y. Lahini, M. Verbin, S. D. Huber, Y. Bromberg, R. Pu
gatch, and Y. Silberberg, Phys. Rev. A 86, 011603
(2012).
[19] A. Ahlbrecht, A. Alberti, D. Meschede, V. B. Scholz,
A. H. Werner, and R. F. Werner, New J. Phys. 14,
073050 (2012).
[20] D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2607 (1994).
[21] A. M. Childs, D. Gosset, and Z. Webb, Science 339, 791
(2013).
[22] W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F olling, and
M. Greiner, Nature 462, 74 (2009).
[23] M. A. Cazalilla, R. Citro, T. Giamarchi, E. Orignac, and
M. Rigol, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1405 (2011).
[24] T. Hartmann, F. Keck, H. J. Korsch, and S. Mossmann,
New J. Phys. 6, 2 (2004).
[25] K. Winkler, G. Thalhammer, F. Lang, R. Grimm,
6
J. Hecker Denschlag, A. J. Daley, A. Kantian, H. P.
B uchler, and P. Zoller, Nature 441, 853 (2006).
[26] R. Khomeriki, D. O. Krimer, M. Haque, and S. Flach,
Phys. Rev. A 81, 065601 (2010).
[27] G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, G. Della Valle, S. Longhi, and
R. Osellame, Nat. Commun. 4, 1555 (2013).
[28] M. B. Dahan, E. Peik, J. Reichel, Y. Castin, and C. Sa
lomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4508 (1996).
[29] S. F olling, F. Gerbier, A. Widera, O. Mandel, T. Gericke,
and I. Bloch, Nature 434, 481 (2005).
[30] T. Jeltes, J. M. McNamara, W. Hogervorst, W. Vassen,
V. Krachmalnico, M. Schellekens, A. Perrin, H. Chang,
D. Boiron, A. Aspect, and C. I. Westbrook, Nature 445,
402 (2007).
[31] B. Paredes, A. Widera, V. Murg, O. Mandel, S. F olling,
I. Cirac, G. Shlyapnikov, T. H ansch, and I. Bloch, Na
ture 429, 277 (2004).
[32] T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, Science 305,
1125 (2004).
[33] S. F olling, S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, M. Feld, R. Saers,
A. Widera, T. M uller, and I. Bloch, Nature 448, 1029
(2007).
[34] F. Meinert, M. J. Mark, E. Kirilov, K. Lauber, P. Wein
mann, M. Gr obner, A. J. Daley, and H.C. N agerl, Sci
ence 344, 1259 (2014).
[35] W. S. Dias, E. M. Nascimento, M. L. Lyra, and F. A.
B. F. de Moura, Phys. Rev. B 76, 155124 (2007).
[36] J. Simon, W. S. Bakr, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, P. M. Preiss,
and M. Greiner, Nature 472, 307 (2011).
[37] R. Ma, M. E. Tai, P. M. Preiss, W. Bakr, J. Simon, and
M. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 095301 (2011).
7
METHODS
State Initialization.
We start with a twodimensional Mott insulator in the
F, m
F
= 1, 1 hyperne state with one or two atoms
per site, prepared in a deep lattice (V
x
= V
y
= 45 E
r
).
Using a digital micromirror device (DMD) in a Fourier
plane as an amplitude hologram, we generate arbitrary
optical potentials with singlesite resolution. We su
perimpose a bluedetuned beam ( = 760 nm) with a
HermiteGauss prole along x (waist 700 nm) and a at
top prole along y (half length 5 m), with a typical
peak depth of 25 E
r
. Subsequently, we switch o the
xlattice in the presence of a large anticonning beam
for 40 ms. Only atoms in rows coinciding with the nodes
of the HermiteGauss beam are retained, while all other
atoms are expelled from the system before the xlattice is
ramped back on. We thus deterministically prepare one
or two rows of atoms along y (length 10 sites), with a
typical singlesite loading delity of 98%. In each experi
mental run, we realize 68 independent onedimensional
quantum walks in decoupled adjacent tubes.
Data Analysis.
We postselect outcomes for which the atom distribu
tion after the quantum walk is consistent with the par
ity projection of our imaging scheme. For singleparticle
quantum walks, we keep only onedimensional tubes with
exactly one atom. For twoparticle quantum walks, we
retain outcomes with either two or zero atoms, and as
sume the latter always corresponds to atom loss due to
parity projection only.
The twoparticle correlator is obtained from a his
togram of the imaged atom positions. Parity projection
prevents us from observing pairs of atoms and from di
rectly obtaining the onsite correlation
i,i
. To circum
vent this, we apply a density mapping prior to imaging
for half of the data set: Pairs of atoms are converted
into two atoms on neighbouring sites along x and vice
versa ((2, 0) (1, 1)) with high delity by ramping a
magnetic eld gradient from 0.5u to 2u at a re
duced lattice depth of V
x
= 16 E
r
in 200 ms [36]. There
fore the onsite correlation
i,i
is obtained from the rst
odiagonal elements of the histogram with the density
mapping, while
i,i+1
is extracted from the histogram
without the density mapping. To get the full correlator,
we combine the two histograms weighted by the number
of postselected realizations in each half of the data set.
The aforementioned assumption in postselection en
sures the proper normalization of the histograms and is
veried by comparing the far odiagonal elements in the
two weighted histograms, which typically dier by less
than 3%.
For two particles, the density distribution n
i
is then
obtained by summing the correlator along one axis:
n
i
=
j
i,j
.
BoseHubbard Parameters.
We initially calibrate lattice depths using Kapitza
Dirac scattering with an uncertainty of 10%. Single
particle Bloch oscillations serve as our most sensitive
probe of the tunneling J with a typical uncertainty of
5%, in agreement with a band structure calculation. The
interaction U is measured at 14 E
r
with photonassisted
tunneling in a tilted lattice [37], and extrapolated to
other lattice depths using a numerical calculation.
All theory plots are obtained from a direct numerical
solution of the Schrodinger equation with Hamiltonian
(1) in the Fock space of two particles on 23 lattice sites.
The values of U and t
max
are xed, while J (and E in the
case of Bloch oscillations) are left as free parameters to
minimize the rms error between measured and calculated
densities.
The minimization is performed simultaneously on data
sets from Figures 2 and 3, except for panel IV. Param
eter values for all data sets are listed in Table I. The
tted values J
fit
are generally in good agreement with
the measurements from singleparticle dynamics. At low
lattice depths of 13 E
r
, nextnearestneighbor hopping
is signicant, resulting in dynamics up to 20% faster than
expected from Hamiltonian (1). For the deep lattice at
6.5 E
r
, residual gradients of 20 Hz/site aect the dy
namics, leading to a slower quantum walk than for = 0
and to the strong peak near the origin in panel IV of Fig
ure 2 c).
8
Data Set Vx [Er] Jsp/(2) [Hz] U/(2) [Hz] J
t
/(2) [Hz] E
t
/(2) [Hz] tmax[ms]
Fig. 1 a 4.5 97(6)  107  6.6
Fig. 1 b 2.5 160(9)  166 93 14
Fig. 2 & 3 (I) 1 227(12) 161 274  2.1
Fig. 2 & 3 (II) 2.5 160(9) 216 168  3.0
Fig. 2 & 3 (III) 4 108(4) 255 109  5.0
Fig. 2 (IV) 6.5 59(3) 299 42  10.9
Fig. 3 (IV) 6.5 59(3) 299 34  10.9
Fig. 4 (I) 2.5 160(9) 53 173 97 12.8
Fig. 4 (II) 4 108(4) 255 101 54 22.8
Fig. 4 (III) 5 80(6) 279 81 34 34
TABLE I. BoseHubbard parameters used for theory plots. Vx are approximate lattice depths. Jsp is the nearestneighbor
tunneling obtained from singleparticle Bloch oscillations or directly from a band structure calculation. Typical errors on U
are 3% from the uncertainty in the calibration. J
t
and E
t
are the results from tting density distributions.