Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Superactivation of memory effects in a classical Markov environment

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A classical Markov chain can superactivate memory effects in two-qubit collisions.

desk verdict Useful collision-model construction of SBFI in a classical environment, but the discrete-time witness is asserted rather than constructed; Appendix F has a fixable bias-parameter typo. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17396 v2 pith:VZPCAGJE submitted 2024-11-26 quant-ph

Fabio Benatti , Giovanni Nichele This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords superactivationofbackflowinformationcollisionmodelsclassicalMarkovchainenvironmentP-divisibilityHelstromdistinguishabilityopenquantumsystemsdiscordflow
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that superactivation of backflow of information (SBFI) is real and physically transparent: two qubits, each independently coupled to its own classical Markov-chain environment, can show a revival of joint distinguishability even though each single-qubit reduced dynamics is P-divisible (every step is a positive map, so one-qubit distinguishability cannot increase). Backflow of information is read off the Helstrom norm, the trace-norm distance between two candidate states that controls how well they can be told apart by measurement. In the unitary collision model, the authors find that when the correlation $\Delta$ between successive chain sites exceeds half the collision probability $p$, the single-step channel on two qubits ceases to be positive, so the two-qubit Helstrom norm can increase. They interpret the effect through the system-environment mutual information, which decreases exactly when the two-qubit entropy rises, and the same mechanism appears in a continuous-time limit. They further show that the resource required is not entanglement but the quantumness of the Helstrom ensemble, quantified by discord.

What carries the argument

The central object is the collisional model on the algebra $A_S\otimes A_E$, where a completely positive unital map $\Phi[O_S\otimes A_{i_0}]=\sum_i \phi_i[O_S]\otimes \Pi_i A_{i_0}\Pi_i$ acts at site $0$ and is followed by a right shift $\Theta$ along the infinite chain. The reduced dynamics is $\Lambda_n[\rho_S]=\sum_{i[1,n]}p_{i[1,n]}\phi^{\ddagger}_{i[1,n]}[\rho_S]$, with Pauli eigenvalues $\lambda_n^{(j)}$ obeying recurrences (24) and (25). The load-bearing step is the intertwiner $\Lambda_{n,n-1}=\Lambda_n\circ\Lambda_{n-1}^{-1}$: P-divisibility of one qubit is equivalent to $|\lambda_{n,n-1}^{(j)}|\le 1$, while positivity of $\Lambda_{n,n-1}\otimes\Lambda_{n,n-1}$ is decided by acting on $P_+^2$ and checking the Choi condition (B17). The algebraic formulation also gives the system-environment mutual information, whose decrease with time provides the stated physical interpretation of SBFI.

What would settle it

One can settle the discrete-time claim by searching, for $r=0$ and $Q>1/2$, for two-qubit density matrices $\rho$ and $\sigma$ such that $\Lambda_n^{-1}\otimes\Lambda_n^{-1}[\mu\rho-(1-\mu)\sigma]$ is the non-contracting direction growing under the intertwiner; if no such Helstrom pair exists at any finite $n$, the norm increase would be unphysical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the collision model with Pauli maps $\phi_k[\sigma_j]=\varphi^{1-\delta_{jk}}\sigma_j$, $\varphi=-1$, a four-state Markov chain with transition matrix carrying nearest-neighbour correlation $\Delta$, invariant probabilities $(p_0,2p,r)$, and $r=0$, the single-qubit dynamics $\Lambda_n$ is P-divisible for all $0\le p\ll 1$. The two-qubit dynamics $\Lambda_n\otimes\Lambda_n$ is P-divisible at leading order only if $Q=\Delta/p\le 1/2$. For $Q>1/2$, the intertwined step $\Lambda_{n,n-1}\otimes\Lambda_{n,n-1}$ fails to be positive: applied to the totally symmetric projector $P_+^2$ it gives trace-norm excess $4p^2(2Q-1)>0$. Because $\Lambda_n\otimes\Lambda_n$ is invertible, the authors conclude that the collisional dynamics of two qubits exhibits SBFI, with a suitably constructed Helstrom pair as witness. The same mechanism appears in a stroboscopic continuous-time limit whose generator has one negative rate, and the authors prove a general bound relating the Helstrom-norm increase to the discord of the Helstrom ensemble.

Load-bearing premise

The two-qubit backflow conclusion rests on the assumption that the non-contracting Hermitian matrix produced by $\Lambda_{n,n-1}\otimes\Lambda_{n,n-1}$ can always be reached from a genuine pair of two-qubit states; the discrete-time paper asserts this through invertibility rather than constructing the pair.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, P-divisibility of a single-qubit dynamics no longer rules out memory effects once tensor products are considered; each bipartite extension must be checked separately.
  • Environment correlations become a quantitative resource: in the unitary model, SBFI appears exactly when $Q=\Delta/p>1/2$, so the threshold can be compared with other collision models.
  • The decrease of system-environment mutual information during SBFI gives a concrete direction of information flow: correlations with the chain are consumed to build two-qubit correlations.
  • The continuous-time limit with a negative Pauli rate shows that the discrete-time mechanism is not an artefact of stroboscopic time, and connects the model to the familiar eternally non-Markovian evolution.
  • Because separable Helstrom ensembles suffice, experiments looking for SBFI do not need entangled probes, only ensembles whose quantum-classical state has nonzero discord.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same algebraic collision framework could be used to test longer-range or multi-site chain correlations, which may lower the threshold for SBFI or change the divisibility hierarchy.
  • Because the environment is classical and stationary while the system is quantum, the model offers a controlled setting to separate information genuinely released to the system from information merely reshuffled among classical degrees of freedom.
  • The discord-based bound in Proposition 4 suggests a family of monotonicity inequalities: any measure of ensemble quantumness that is non-increasing under local operations would provide analogous upper bounds for other multipartite Helstrom witnesses.
  • A direct numerical scan over two-qubit states in the discrete-time regime with $Q>1/2$ would produce an explicit Helstrom pair and turn the norm inequality into a ready-to-run experimental witness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a collisional model in which two open qubits each interact with an independent but identically prepared classical Markov chain environment. The reduced single-qubit dynamics is shown to be P-divisible for a range of parameters, while the two-qubit tensor-product dynamics is claimed to exhibit superactivation of backflow of information (SBFI). The authors derive explicit recurrences for the Pauli eigenvalues (Proposition 2), give necessary and sufficient conditions for P-, CP-, and tensor-power-P-divisibility (Proposition 3), and interpret the effect through system-chain mutual information. A continuous-time stroboscopic limit is also analyzed, and a general bound relating SBFI to the quantumness of the Helstrom ensemble is proved (Proposition 4). The paper concludes with an explicit construction intended to show that SBFI does not require entanglement.

Significance. If the SBFI claim is fully established, the paper provides a valuable microscopic model of superactivation with a classical environment, backed by analytic divisibility conditions and mutual information calculations. The derivations of the eigenvalue recurrences and divisibility thresholds are self-contained and detailed, and the proposed physical interpretation in terms of system-environment correlations is clearly articulated. The bound in Proposition 4 is a useful general result connecting SBFI to the quantumness of the Helstrom ensemble. The paper also makes a conceptual contribution by providing a classical-environment realization of a phenomenon previously studied mainly through abstract arguments.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1.1] The inference from non-contractivity of the intertwiner Λ_{n,n−1}⊗Λ_{n,n−1} to the existence of SBFI is not justified as written. The operator P_+^2 on which non-contractivity is demonstrated is positive semidefinite, so it is not a valid Helstrom matrix for any μ∈(0,1); a Helstrom matrix must have both positive and negative spectral parts unless μ=1, in which case the distinguishability is trivially constant. Invertibility of Λ_n only guarantees a Hermitian preimage under Λ_{n−1}⊗Λ_{n−1}, but it does not ensure that this preimage can be written as μρ−(1−μ)σ for physical states ρ,σ. The paper should either construct an explicit two-qubit Helstrom pair whose distinguishability increases between times n−1 and n, or provide a rigorous existence argument that the non-contractive direction can be chosen within the set of Helstrom matrices.
  2. [Appendix F] The stated bias μ(a)=a/(1−a) does not make Λ_s⊗Λ_s[Δ_μ(a)] proportional to P_+^2. Solving the condition that the identity component vanishes in μ(a)ρ_a − (1−μ(a))I/4 gives μ(a)=1/(2−a), not a/(1−a). With the value printed in the paper, an identity component survives, so the subsequent norm-increase calculation (F10) does not follow. The construction appears repairable by replacing μ(a) with 1/(2−a), but as written the explicit witness without entanglement is incorrect.
  3. [§2.1.1 and Appendix B] The small-p expansion leading to the conclusion that Λ_{n,n−1} is contractive for a single qubit is stated without giving the explicit coefficients K_1 and K_2(Δ). Since the central claim requires contractivity for all time steps n, the uniformity of the remainder o(p^2) in n should be made precise; otherwise the claim that there is no single-qubit BFI in the regime 0≤Δ≤p≪1 rests on an uncontrolled truncation. This issue is secondary to the missing Helstrom witness but still needs attention for a complete proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (17)] The composition order in the definition of ϕ‡_{i[1,n]} should be clarified; the text writes ϕ‡_{i[1,n]} = ϕ‡_{i_n}⋯ϕ‡_{i_1}, which may be ambiguous about the order of application.
  2. [Eq. (19)] The exponent φ1−δjk is typographically ambiguous; it should be written as φ^{1−δ_{jk}} to avoid confusion with a product of φ and an index.
  3. [Section 2.1.1] After Eq. (41), the statement 'λ1 = λ2 = α' relies on the specific choice Δ=(1−2p)/2; this is correct but would benefit from a brief derivation to help the reader, since the formula for λ_2 in (32) is not immediately transparent.
  4. [Appendix D] The stroboscopic limit sends p→1/2 and r→0, which makes p0=0; the resulting transition matrix in Eq. (E3) has zero rows for states 1 and 4. This is consistent with the invariant distribution but could be mentioned explicitly to avoid the impression of a non-stochastic matrix.
  5. [Numerous places] There are several typographical errors and inconsistent notations, e.g., 'µ(j) k = φ1−δjk' in (19) and the use of both Λ_{n,n−1} and Λ_{n−1,n} to denote intertwiners. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SBFI threshold and divisibility conditions are derived from the Markov-chain model; self-citations [13,14] are framing only. Appendix F contains a parameter error, but that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Proposition 2, Proposition 3, and the perturbative analysis in Section 2.1.1 compute the single- and two-qubit Pauli eigenvalues directly from the transition matrix (22) and the Pauli ansatz (19); no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The step from non-positivity of Lambda_{n,n-1} tensor Lambda_{n,n-1} to SBFI is the standard invertibility-plus-rescaling argument: any Hermitian operator on which the intertwiner increases the trace norm can be scaled down to a valid Helstrom matrix, so the paper's terse statement that being Lambda_n tensor Lambda_n invertible certainly exhibits SBFI does not reduce to its own input. The self-citations [13,14] frame the phenomenon and supply the external theorem that invertible P-divisible non-CP maps have non-P tensor powers; that theorem is parameter-free and its assumptions do not include this collision model, so it constitutes independent support rather than load-bearing circularity. The apparent error in Appendix F, where the stated bias mu(a)=a/(1-a) does not make Lambda_s tensor Lambda_s[Delta_mu(a)] proportional to P+2 (mu=1/(2-a) would), is a genuine correctness gap in an illustrative explicit witness, but it concerns the proof of a physical-state construction, not the logical equivalence of the claim to its inputs. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the model choice, and no fitted input is later presented as a prediction. Therefore the paper has no significant circularity, with only a minor deduction for reliance on the authors' own prior framework in the presentation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are derived analytically from an explicitly chosen model. All listed parameters are model choices, not numbers fitted to external data; the only external inputs are standard open-systems theorems and the authors' prior SBFI framework. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • p = 0 <= p <= 1/2; small-p limit (e.g., p = 1/4 + epsilon)
    Transition probability in the Markov matrix T; the small-p regime is used to guarantee single-qubit P-divisibility and to derive the SBFI condition Q > 1/2.
  • Delta = 0 <= Delta <= p; Q = Delta/p
    Strength of correlations between successive environment sites; the central control parameter for SBFI, which appears for Q > 1/2 in the unitary case.
  • r = r = 0 in main examples
    Transition probability; set to zero to simplify the divisibility conditions and to saturate the P-divisibility bound in Eq. (34).
  • phi = phi = -1 (unitary) or phi = exp(-2 gamma tau) (dissipative)
    Parameter of the unital Pauli maps in Eq. (19); determines whether the system-environment collisions are unitary or dissipative.
  • kappa = kappa >= 0; kappa = 0 for eternally non-Markovian case
    Exponential decay rate of Delta in the stroboscopic limit; controls the memory kernel in the integro-differential equation (44).
  • gamma, tau = gamma > 0, tau > 0
    Dissipative coupling strength and collision duration in the continuous-time limit; only gamma sets the physical time scale after the limit.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Standard CPTP map, divisibility, and trace-norm contractivity theory for open quantum systems.
    Used throughout, especially in the definitions of BFI, P-divisibility, and CP-divisibility in the Introduction and in the contractivity arguments in Sections 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption The environment is a commutative quantum spin chain with a stationary Markov-chain state, Eqs. (11) and (12).
    This classicality and stationarity is the modeling basis for the whole paper; it allows the Markov chain description and the stationary-environment result (18).
  • ad hoc to paper The system-environment coupling has the unital Pauli controlled form in Eqs. (13) and (19).
    This specific interaction (controlled-unitary or dissipative Pauli map) is chosen to make the dynamics analytically tractable and is not derived from a more fundamental Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Initial system-environment state is factorized and the environment state is shift-invariant.
    Used to derive the reduced dynamics Lambda_n in Proposition 1 and the stationary environment state (18).
  • standard math Theorem of Benatti-Filippov [13]: for invertible P-divisible but not CP-divisible maps, the tensor square is not P-divisible and shows SBFI.
    External theorem invoked to conclude SBFI from non-positivity of the two-qubit intertwiners in Section 2.1.1 and the continuous-time case.
  • standard math Criterion [45]: for qubit Pauli maps, Lambda tensor Lambda is positive iff Lambda^2 is completely positive.
    Used in Appendix B to convert the positivity of Lambda_{n,n-1} tensor Lambda_{n,n-1} into the Choi-matrix condition in Eq. (B17).
  • ad hoc to paper Specific parameter choices p = 1/4 + epsilon, r = 0, Delta = (1 - 2p)/2 for the entropy example.
    These choices saturate the single-qubit P-divisibility bound and allow a perturbative entropy expansion in Appendix E.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superactivation of memory effects in a classical Markov environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VZPCAGJE

@misc{pith2026241117396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superactivation of memory effects in a classical Markov environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VZPCAGJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17396}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate a phenomenon known as Superactivation of Backflow of Information (SBFI); namely, the fact that the tensor product of a non-Markovian dynamics with itself exhibits Backflow of Information (BFI) from environment to system even if the single dynamics does not. Such an effect is witnessed by the non-monotonic behaviour of the Helstrom norm and emerges in the open dynamics of two independent, but statistically coupled, parties. We physically interpret SBFI by means of the discrete-time non-Markovian dynamics of two open qubits collisionally coupled to an environment described by a classical Markov chain. In such a scenario SBFI can be ascribed to the decrease of the qubit-qubit-environment correlations in favour of those of the two qubits, only. We further prove that the same mechanism at the roots of SBFI also holds in a suitable continuous-time limit. We also show that SBFI does not require entanglement to be witnessed, but only the quantumness of the Helstrom ensemble.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17396 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scheme of the model for one party. The CPTP map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System-chain mutual information for the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dynamical maps beyond Markovian regime

    D. Chruściński. “Dynamical maps beyond Markovian regime”. In: Physics Reports 992 (2022), pp. 1–85.doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.003

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.003 2022

  2. [2]

    Concepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierar- chy

    L. Li, M. J. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman. “Concepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierar- chy”. In:Physics Reports759 (2018), pp. 1–51.doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.07.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.07.001 2018

  3. [3]

    EntanglementandNon-MarkovianityofQuantum Evolutions

    Á.Rivas, S.F.Huelga, andM.B.Plenio.“EntanglementandNon-MarkovianityofQuantum Evolutions”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.105 (5 July 2010), p. 050403.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 105.050403

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2010

  4. [4]

    Assessing Non-Markovian Quantum Dynamics

    M. M. Wolf et al. “Assessing Non-Markovian Quantum Dynamics”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 101.15 (Oct. 2008), p. 150402.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.150402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.150402 2008

  5. [5]

    Measure for the Degree of Non-Markovian Behavior of Quantum Processes in Open Systems

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo. “Measure for the Degree of Non-Markovian Behavior of Quantum Processes in Open Systems”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.103 (21 Nov. 2009), p. 210401. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.210401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.210401 2009

  6. [6]

    Dynamical role of system-environment correlations in non-Markovian dynamics

    L. Mazzola et al. “Dynamical role of system-environment correlations in non-Markovian dynamics”. In: Phys. Rev. A 86 (1 July 2012), p. 010102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.86. 010102

    doi:10.1103/physreva.86 2012

  7. [7]

    Witness for Initial System-Environment Correla- tions in Open-System Dynamics

    E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and H.-P. Breuer. “Witness for Initial System-Environment Correla- tions in Open-System Dynamics”. In:Europhysics Letters92.6 (Jan. 2011), p. 60010.doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/92/60010. 24

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/92/60010 2011

  8. [8]

    Entropic bounds on information backflow

    N. Megier, A. Smirne, and B. Vacchini. “Entropic bounds on information backflow”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.127.3 (2021), p. 030401.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.030401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.030401 2021

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Holevo skew divergence for the characterization of information backflow

    A. Smirne, N. Megier, and B. Vacchini. “Holevo skew divergence for the characterization of information backflow”. In:Phys. Rev. A106 (1 July 2022), p. 012205.doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevA.106.012205

    2022

  2. [10]

    Mixing-induced quantum non-Markovianity and information flow

    H.-P. Breuer, G. Amato, and B. Vacchini. “Mixing-induced quantum non-Markovianity and information flow”. In:New Journal of Physics20.4 (Apr. 2018), p. 043007.doi: 10.1088/ 1367-2630/aab2f9

    2018

  3. [11]

    Degree of Non-Markovianity of Quantum Evolution

    D. Chruściński and S. Maniscalco. “Degree of Non-Markovianity of Quantum Evolution”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (12 Mar. 2014), p. 120404.doi: PhysRevLett.112.120404

    2014

  4. [12]

    Generalized trace-distance measure connecting quantum and classical non-Markovianity

    S. Wißmann, H.-P. Breuer, and B. Vacchini. “Generalized trace-distance measure connecting quantum and classical non-Markovianity”. In:Phys. Rev. A92 (4 Oct. 2015), p. 042108

    2015

  5. [13]

    Tensorpowerofdynamicalmapsandpositiveversuscompletely positive divisibility

    F.Benatti, andS.Filippov.“Tensorpowerofdynamicalmapsandpositiveversuscompletely positive divisibility”. In:Phys. Rev. A95 (1 2017), p. 012112.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.95. 012112

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Open Quantum Dynamics: Memory Effects and Superactivation of Backflow of Information

    F. Benatti and G. Nichele. “Open Quantum Dynamics: Memory Effects and Superactivation of Backflow of Information”. In:Mathematics 12.1 (1 2023), p. 37.doi: math12010037

    2023

  7. [15]

    Eternal non-Markovianity: from random unitary to Markov chain realisa- tions

    N. Megier et al. “Eternal non-Markovianity: from random unitary to Markov chain realisa- tions”. In: Scientific reports7.1 (1 2017), p. 6379.doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06059-5

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Revival of quantum correlations without system-environment back- action

    R. Lo Franco et al. “Revival of quantum correlations without system-environment back- action”. In: Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics85.3 (1 2012), p. 032318. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.032318

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    Information revival without backflow: non-causal explanations of non- Markovianity

    F. Buscemi et al. “Information revival without backflow: non-causal explanations of non- Markovianity”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.0532695 (1 2024), p. 012112.doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2405.05326

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Information backflow may not indicate quantum memory

    M. Banacki et al. “Information backflow may not indicate quantum memory”. In:Phys. Rev. A107.3 (1 2023), p. 032202.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.106.012205

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Local disclosure of quantum memory in non- Markovian dynamics

    C. Bäcker, K. Beyer, and W. T. Strunz. “Local disclosure of quantum memory in non- Markovian dynamics”. In: Physical Review Letters 132.6 (1 2024), p. 060402. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevLett.132.060402

    2024

  12. [20]

    Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated in- teractions

    F. Ciccarello et al. “Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated in- teractions”. In: Physics Reports 954 (1 2022), pp. 1–70.doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022. 01.001

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Collision Models in Open System Dynamics: A Versatile Tool for Deeper Insights?

    S. Campbell and B. Vacchini. “Collision Models in Open System Dynamics: A Versatile Tool for Deeper Insights?” In: Europhysics Letters 133.6 (1 May 2021), p. 60001. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/133/60001

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Collision model for non-Markovian quantum dynamics

    S. Kretschmer, K. Luoma, and W. T. Strunz. “Collision model for non-Markovian quantum dynamics”. In: Physical Review A94.1 (1 2016), p. 012106.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94. 012106

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Divisibility of quantum dynamical maps and collision models

    S. N. Filippov et al. “Divisibility of quantum dynamical maps and collision models”. In: Phys. Rev. A96 (3 Sept. 2017), p. 032111.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.032111. 25

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Multipartite correlations in quantum collision models

    S. Filippov. “Multipartite correlations in quantum collision models”. In:Entropy 24.4 (1 2022), p. 508.doi: 10.3390/e24040508

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    A scattering theory for Markov chains

    B. Kümmerer and H. Maassen. “A scattering theory for Markov chains”. In:Infinite Di- mensional Analysis, Quantum Probability and Related Topics3.01 (1 2000), pp. 161–176. doi: 10.1142/S0219025700000091

    doi

  18. [26]

    Simulation of Indivisible Qubit Channels in Collision Models

    T. Rybár et al. “Simulation of Indivisible Qubit Channels in Collision Models”. In:Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics45.15 (1 Aug. 2012), p. 154006.doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/45/15/154006

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    Environmental correlations and Markovian to non-Markovian transitions in collisional models

    N. K. Bernardes et al. “Environmental correlations and Markovian to non-Markovian transitions in collisional models”. In: Phys. Rev. A 90 (3 Sept. 2014), p. 032111. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.032111

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Bratteli and D

    O. Bratteli and D. W. Robinson.Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1. Vol. 95. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1987, p. 012112.doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-02520-8

    1987 doi

  21. [29]

    Unitarity, feedback, interactions—dynamics emergent from repeated measurements

    N. Altamirano et al. “Unitarity, feedback, interactions—dynamics emergent from repeated measurements”. In: New Journal of Physics 19.1 (1 2017), p. 013035. doi: 10.1088/ 1367-2630/aa551b

    2017

  22. [30]

    P. M. Alberti and A. Uhlmann.Stochasticity and partial order. Vol. 95. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften Berlin, 1982, p. 012112.doi: 10.1007/BF00419927

    1982 doi

  23. [31]

    Characterizing the dynamical semigroups that do not de- crease a quantum entropy

    P. Aniello and D. Chruściński. “Characterizing the dynamical semigroups that do not de- crease a quantum entropy”. In:Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49.34 (1 2016), p. 345301.doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/49/34/345301

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Monotonicity of the Quantum Relative Entropy Un- der Positive Maps

    A. Müller-Hermes and D. Reeb. “Monotonicity of the Quantum Relative Entropy Un- der Positive Maps”. In: Ann. Henri Poincaré 95 (18 2017), 1777–1788. doi: 10.1007/ s00023-017-0550-9

    2017

  25. [33]

    Canonical form of master equations and characterization of non- Markovianity

    M. J. W. Hall et al. “Canonical form of master equations and characterization of non- Markovianity”. In:Phys. Rev. A89 (4 Apr. 2014), p. 042120.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.89. 042120

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Colloquium: non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems

    H.-P. Breuer et al. “Colloquium: non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems”. In: Rev. Mod. Phys.88 (2 Apr. 2016), p. 021002.doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021002

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    " Quantumness

    B. Groisman, D. Kenigsberg, and T. Mor. “" Quantumness" versus" Classicality" of Quantum States”. In: arXiv preprint quant-ph/0703103 95 (1 2007), p. 012112. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0703103

    2007 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    How quantum is a quantum ensemble?

    S. Luo, N. Li, and W. Sun. “How quantum is a quantum ensemble?” In:Quantum Infor- mation Processing9 (1 2010), pp. 711–726.doi: 10.1007/s11128-010-0162-5

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    Quantumness of quantum ensembles

    S. Luo, N. Li, and S. Fu. “Quantumness of quantum ensembles”. In:Theoretical and Math- ematical Physics169 (1 2011), pp. 1724–1739.doi: 10.1007/s11232-011-0147-2

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    Measures and applications of quantum correlations

    G. Adesso, T. R. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso. “Measures and applications of quantum correlations”. In: Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49.47 (1 2016), p. 473001. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/49/47/473001

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Quantumness of Correlations, Quantum- ness of Ensembles and Quantum Data Hiding

    M. Piani, V. Narasimhachar, and J. Calsamiglia. “Quantumness of Correlations, Quantum- ness of Ensembles and Quantum Data Hiding”. In:New Journal of Physics16.11 (1 Oct. 2014), p. 113001.doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/11/113001. 26

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    J. Watrous. The Theory of Quantum Information. Vol. 95. Cambridge University Press, 2018, p. 012112.doi: 10.1017/9781316848142

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Precursors of non-Markovianity

    S. Campbell et al. “Precursors of non-Markovianity”. In:New Journal of Physics21.5 (1 2019), p. 053036.doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/ab1ed6

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Equivalence between divisibility and monotonic decrease of information in classical and quantum stochastic processes

    F. Buscemi and N. Datta. “Equivalence between divisibility and monotonic decrease of information in classical and quantum stochastic processes”. In:Phys. Rev. A93 (1 Jan. 2016), p. 012101.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.012101

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    Constructive method for detecting the information backflow of non-Markovian dynamics

    B. Bylicka, M. Johansson, and A. Acin. “Constructive method for detecting the information backflow of non-Markovian dynamics”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.118.12 (1 2017), p. 120501.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.120501

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    C-Finite Sequences

    M. Kauers and P. Paule. “C-Finite Sequences”. In: The Concrete Tetrahedron: Sym- bolic Sums, Recurrence Equations, Generating Functions, Asymptotic Estimates. Vol. 95. Springer Vienna, 2011, p. 012112.doi: 10.1007/978-3-7091-0445-3_4

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    Positive Tensor Products of Maps and N-Tensor-Stable Positive Qubit Maps

    S. N. Filippov and K. Y. Magadov. “Positive Tensor Products of Maps and N-Tensor-Stable Positive Qubit Maps”. In:Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50.5 (1 Jan. 2017), p. 055301.doi: 10.1088/1751-8121/aa5301. 27

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.