pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.13930 · v2 · pith:LYXLKZZVnew · submitted 2025-02-19 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.stat-mech· hep-th· nlin.CD

Diagnosing chaos with projected ensembles of process tensors

Peter O'Donovan , Neil Dowling , Kavan Modi , Mark T. Mitchison This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 02:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechhep-thnlin.CD
keywords process tensorprojected ensemblesquantum chaosentanglement structuresmany-body dynamicsintegrable dynamicsspatiotemporal correlations
0
0 comments X

The pith

The projected process ensemble reveals higher-moment entanglement structures that distinguish chaotic from integrable quantum dynamics.

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

This paper defines the projected process ensemble as the collection of pure output states obtained when a process tensor is measured in a fixed basis of local interventions. Its first moment recovers several existing chaos indicators such as dynamical entropy and spatiotemporal entanglement, yet the higher moments display entanglement patterns that separate chaotic evolution from integrable evolution more cleanly in numerical tests. The authors demonstrate this separation across non-interacting, integrable, chaotic, and many-body-localized spin-chain regimes and argue that the same construction applies equally to unitary and monitored dynamics. A sympathetic reader would therefore see a single statistical object that unifies and refines previous probes of many-body complexity.

Core claim

The central claim is that characteristic entanglement structures appear in the higher moments of the projected process ensemble and that these structures sharply distinguish chaotic from integrable dynamics, overcoming deficiencies of the quantum dynamical and spatiotemporal entropies. The claim is supported by extensive numerical simulations of many-body dynamics for a range of spin-chain models, including non-interacting, interacting-integrable, chaotic, and many-body localized regimes.

What carries the argument

The projected process ensemble, an ensemble of pure output states of a process tensor in a chosen basis of local interventions, whose moment statistics encode the distinction between chaotic and integrable behavior.

If this is right

  • The first moment of the ensemble already contains the Alicki-Fannes quantum dynamical entropy, butterfly flutter fidelity, and spatiotemporal entanglement.
  • Higher moments supply finer-grained probes that succeed where the lower-moment quantifiers are inconclusive.
  • The same construction supplies a unified description for both unitary evolution and monitored dynamics.
  • The approach directly links the fingerprints of chaos to spatiotemporal correlations inside quantum stochastic processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the structures prove universal, the ensemble could serve as a diagnostic for chaos in systems larger than those simulated here without requiring full process tomography.
  • The same moment hierarchy might be used to classify the complexity of open-system trajectories beyond the spin-chain setting.
  • Experimental protocols that repeatedly apply local interventions could extract these higher-moment signatures directly from measurement statistics.

Load-bearing premise

That the entanglement patterns observed for the chosen intervention bases and finite-size spin chains will appear in the same way across other quantum many-body systems and intervention choices.

What would settle it

Numerical or experimental observation that the higher-moment entanglement structures fail to appear in a demonstrably chaotic system or appear in a demonstrably integrable system would falsify the diagnostic claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.13930 by Kavan Modi, Mark T. Mitchison, Neil Dowling, Peter O'Donovan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Quantities considered in this work using the Rényi-2 entropy, denoted as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. [(a), (b), (c)] Quantum dynamical entropy (QDE) as a function of the time between interventions, with system size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Temporal mutual information between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spatiotemporal entanglement (STE) for increasing number of interventions with time between interventions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Distribution of the bipartite entanglement entropy distribution of the PPE for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. System size scaling of the mean [(a), (b)] and standard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The process tensor provides a general representation of a quantum system evolving under repeated interventions and is fundamental for numerical simulations of local many-body dynamics. In this work, we introduce the projected process ensemble, an ensemble of pure output states of a process tensor in a given basis of local interventions, and use it to define increasingly more fine-grained probes of quantum chaos. The first moment of this ensemble encapsulates numerous previously studied chaos quantifiers, including the Alicki-Fannes quantum dynamical entropy, butterfly flutter fidelity, and spatiotemporal entanglement. We discover characteristic entanglement structures within the ensemble's higher moments that can sharply distinguish chaotic from integrable dynamics, overcoming deficiencies of the quantum dynamical and spatiotemporal entropies. These conclusions are supported by extensive numerical simulations of many-body dynamics for a range of spin-chain models, including non-interacting, interacting-integrable, chaotic, and many-body localized regimes. Our work elucidates the fingerprints of chaos on spatiotemporal correlations in quantum stochastic processes, and provides a unified framework for analyzing the complexity of unitary and monitored many-body dynamics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the projected process ensemble as an ensemble of pure output states obtained from a process tensor in a fixed basis of local interventions. It shows that the first moment of this ensemble recovers several existing chaos quantifiers (Alicki-Fannes quantum dynamical entropy, butterfly flutter fidelity, spatiotemporal entanglement). The central claim is that higher moments contain characteristic entanglement structures that sharply distinguish chaotic from integrable (including MBL) dynamics, overcoming limitations of the lower-order measures; this is supported by numerical simulations across non-interacting, interacting-integrable, chaotic, and MBL spin-chain regimes.

Significance. If the higher-moment entanglement structures prove robust, the work supplies a unified, process-tensor-based framework for diagnosing chaos in both unitary and monitored many-body dynamics. The explicit recovery of prior quantifiers in the first moment is a clear strength, and the numerical coverage of multiple dynamical regimes lends concrete support to the distinction claim.

major comments (1)
  1. [Numerical results and discussion of higher moments] The central claim that higher-moment entanglement structures are characteristic (rather than artifacts) rests on the specific local intervention basis and the modest-length 1D spin chains used in the numerics. The manuscript should include explicit checks of basis dependence (e.g., rotated single-qubit measurement bases) and finite-size scaling to confirm that the reported distinction survives these variations; without such checks the generality asserted in the abstract remains open.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction / Methods] Clarify the precise definition of the projected process ensemble (including the normalization and sampling procedure over intervention outcomes) in the main text rather than relying solely on the abstract phrasing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and positive overall assessment of our work. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that higher-moment entanglement structures are characteristic (rather than artifacts) rests on the specific local intervention basis and the modest-length 1D spin chains used in the numerics. The manuscript should include explicit checks of basis dependence (e.g., rotated single-qubit measurement bases) and finite-size scaling to confirm that the reported distinction survives these variations; without such checks the generality asserted in the abstract remains open.

    Authors: We agree that explicit checks of basis dependence and finite-size scaling would further strengthen the generality of our claims. In the revised manuscript we will add (i) a supplementary analysis of rotated single-qubit intervention bases for the smallest system sizes where exact diagonalization remains feasible, and (ii) finite-size scaling plots of the higher-moment entanglement measures for the integrable and chaotic regimes up to the largest accessible chain lengths. These additions will be placed in the numerical-results section and will be accompanied by a brief discussion of computational limitations for larger systems. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation relies on independent numerical evidence

full rationale

The paper defines the projected process ensemble from the process tensor and examines its moments. The first moment is stated to encapsulate prior independent quantifiers (Alicki-Fannes entropy, butterfly flutter fidelity, spatiotemporal entanglement), while higher-moment entanglement structures are presented as newly discovered diagnostics, validated through numerical simulations across multiple spin-chain models. No equations, definitions, or claims in the provided text reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes; the central distinction between chaotic and integrable regimes rests on explicit simulation outputs rather than tautological renaming or imported uniqueness theorems. This is the expected non-finding for a numerically driven proposal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the introduction of the projected process ensemble as a new object whose higher moments carry chaos-discriminating information; this is an invented conceptual entity whose independent evidence is the numerical distinction on spin chains.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Quantum mechanics and the process tensor formalism provide a complete description of open-system dynamics under local interventions.
    Invoked implicitly when defining the process tensor and its output states.
invented entities (1)
  • projected process ensemble no independent evidence
    purpose: To generate an ensemble of pure states whose moments serve as chaos probes.
    Newly defined object whose higher-moment entanglement structures are the claimed diagnostic.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5721 in / 1326 out tokens · 32730 ms · 2026-05-23T02:19:19.027464+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Mesoscopic Regimes of Temporal Entanglement in Ergodic Quantum Systems

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Generic ergodic Hamiltonian dynamics in quantum Ising chains exhibits a long mesoscopic regime in temporal entanglement that deviates from random-circuit universality, suggesting slow spectral reorganization of the in...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 152 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Equilibration The QDE shows distinctive behavior as a function of the time intervalδt for chaotic and non-chaotic dynam- ics, as shown in Figs. 2a–2c. We can understand the long-time behavior in these plots in terms of equilibra- tion (or lack thereof). In this subsection, we use existing results on the second law in isolated systems [113] and the equilib...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The behavior of Haar random process ten- sors has previously been studied and is shown to be typ- ically Markovian for large environment dimensions [126]

    Temporal Correlations and Markovianization By comparing with the Haar average process, we have interpreted the QDE as a measure of the randomness of the dynamics. The behavior of Haar random process ten- sors has previously been studied and is shown to be typ- ically Markovian for large environment dimensions [126]. Additionally, systems locally coupled t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (c) We observe similar behavour of the variance with the chaotic cases agreeing more closely with the Haar ensemble

    The localized IAA and the free fermion model disagree substantially from the Haar mean for allf. (c) We observe similar behavour of the variance with the chaotic cases agreeing more closely with the Haar ensemble. pend on the basis of interventions. We compare the PPE constructedusingdeterministicand non-deterministicin- terventions. The deterministic int...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Inserting this into the integral we get ⟨Υ⟩Haar = 1 dR ∑ x,y ∫ U2∶n+1 Un+1Axn ...U2Ax1 1A† y1 U † 2 ...A† xn U † n+1 ⊗ ∣x1...xn⟩⟨y1...yn∣

    (D3) Here, dR the dimension of the remainder space. Inserting this into the integral we get ⟨Υ⟩Haar = 1 dR ∑ x,y ∫ U2∶n+1 Un+1Axn ...U2Ax1 1A† y1 U † 2 ...A† xn U † n+1 ⊗ ∣x1...xn⟩⟨y1...yn∣. (D4) Taking the average overU2, we get ∫ U2 U2 [1E ⊗ Ax1 A† y1 ]U2 = 1 dR 1R trE(1E)trS(Ax1 A† y1 ) = dE dR δx1y1 1R. (D5) Here, dE = dR/dS and is the dimension of th...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Bohigas, M

    O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1 (1984)

    work page 1984

  6. [6]

    Borgonovi, F

    F. Borgonovi, F. M. Izrailev, L. F. Santos, and V. G. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rep.626, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Adv. Phys.65, 239 (2016)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Vidmar and M

    L. Vidmar and M. Rigol, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 220603 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Bianchi, L

    E. Bianchi, L. Hackl, M. Kieburg, M. Rigol, and L. Vid- mar, PRX Quantum3, 030201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, C. Jonay, and V. Khemani, Phys. Rev. X14, 031014 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    M. Fava, J. Kurchan, and S. Pappalardi, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011031 (2025)

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Hosur, X.-L

    P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D. A. Roberts, and B. Yoshida, J. High Energy Phys.2016, 4 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Y. D. Lensky and X.-L. Qi, J. High Energy Phys.2019, 25 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Sünderhauf, L

    C. Sünderhauf, L. Piroli, X.-L. Qi, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, J. High Energy Phys.2019, 38 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, F. Hernández, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, M. Endres, and S. Choi, PRX Quantum 4, 010311 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    W. W. Ho and S. Choi, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 060601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Ippoliti and W

    M. Ippoliti and W. W. Ho, PRX Quantum4, 030322 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Bhore, J.-Y

    T. Bhore, J.-Y. Desaules, and Z. Papić, Phys. Rev. B 108, 104317 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Kaneko, E

    K. Kaneko, E. Iyoda, and T. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042126 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Ippoliti and W

    M. Ippoliti and W. W. Ho, Quantum6, 886 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida, J. High Energy Phys. 2017, 121 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    E. B. Rozenbaum, S. Ganeshan, and V. Galitski, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 086801 (2017)

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    T. Xu, T. Scaffidi, and X. Cao, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 140602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Balachandran, L

    V. Balachandran, L. F. Santos, M. Rigol, and D. Po- 21 letti, Phys. Rev. B107, 235421 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Balachandran and D

    V. Balachandran and D. Poletti, Entropy25, 59 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Dowling, P

    N. Dowling, P. Kos, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 180403 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes,Quantum Dynamical Systems (Oxford University Press, 2001)

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    Benatti, Dynamics, Information and Complexity in Quantum Systems (Springer, Cham, 2009)

    F. Benatti, Dynamics, Information and Complexity in Quantum Systems (Springer, Cham, 2009)

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    Schuster and W

    H. Schuster and W. Just,Deterministic Chaos: An In- troduction (Wiley, 2006)

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    Bianchi, L

    E. Bianchi, L. Hackl, and N. Yokomizo, J. High Energy Phys. 2018, 25 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Hallam, J

    A. Hallam, J. G. Morley, and A. G. Green, Nat Com- mun 10, 2708 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Lindblad,Dynamical Entropy for Quantum Systems (Springer, Berlin, 1988)

    G. Lindblad,Dynamical Entropy for Quantum Systems (Springer, Berlin, 1988)

    work page 1988

  34. [34]

    Słomczyński and K

    W. Słomczyński and K. Życzkowski, J. Math. Phys.35, 5674 (1994)

    work page 1994

  35. [35]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Lett. Math. Phys. 32, 75 (1994)

    work page 1994

  36. [36]

    F. A. Pollock, C. Rodríguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. A97, 012127 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    S.Milz, F.Sakuldee, F.A.Pollock, andK.Modi,Quan- tum 4, 255 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Milz and K

    S. Milz and K. Modi, PRX Quantum2, 030201 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Strathearn, P

    A. Strathearn, P. Kirton, D. Kilda, J. Keeling, and B. W. Lovett, Nat Commun9, 3322 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    M. R. Jørgensen and F. A. Pollock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 240602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    M. R. Jørgensen and F. A. Pollock, Phys. Rev. A102, 052206 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Cygorek, M

    M. Cygorek, M. Cosacchi, A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and E. M. Gauger, Nat. Phys.18, 662 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Dowling, K

    N. Dowling, K. Modi, R. N. Muñoz, S. Singh, and G. A. L. White, Phys. Rev. X14, 041018 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Alicki, D

    R. Alicki, D. Makowiec, and W. Miklaszewski, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 838 (1996)

    work page 1996

  45. [45]

    Alicki, A

    R. Alicki, A. Łoziński, P. Pakoński, and K. Życzkowski, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.37, 5157 (2004)

    work page 2004

  46. [46]

    Cotler, C.-M

    J. Cotler, C.-M. Jian, X.-L. Qi, and F. Wilczek, J. High Energy Phys.2018, 93 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    Dowling and K

    N. Dowling and K. Modi, PRX Quantum 5, 010314 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Strasberg, T

    P. Strasberg, T. E. Reinhard, and J. Schindler, Phys. Rev. X14, 041027 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Wang and P

    J. Wang and P. Strasberg, arXiv:2406.15577

    work page arXiv

  50. [50]

    Lindblad, Commun

    G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys.65, 281 (1979)

    work page 1979

  51. [51]

    S. Milz, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. A98, 012108 (2018)

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    E. D. Schultz, K. Furuya, and L. Nie, arXiv:2502.04442

    work page arXiv

  53. [53]

    Figueroa-Romero, K

    P. Figueroa-Romero, K. Modi, and F. A. Pollock, Quantum 3, 136 (2019)

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1291 (1993)

    work page 1993

  55. [55]

    Bianchi and P

    E. Bianchi and P. Donà, Phys. Rev. D 100, 105010 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    S. C. Morampudi, A. Chandran, and C. R. Laumann, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 050602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031009 (2019)

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B100, 134306 (2019)

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    A. Chan, R. M. Nandkishore, M. Pretko, and G. Smith, Phys. Rev. B99, 224307 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B98, 205136 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, I. S. Madjarov, X. Xie, R. Finkel- stein, J. P. Covey, J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, A. Kale, H. Pichler, F. G. S. L. Brandão, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Nature613, 468 (2023)

    work page 2023

  62. [62]

    I. A. Luchnikov, S. V. Vintskevich, H. Ouerdane, and S. N. Filippov, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 160401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  63. [64]

    Bou-Comas, C

    A. Bou-Comas, C. R. Marimón, J. T. Schneider, S. Carignano, and L. Tagliacozzo, arXiv:2409.05517

    work page arXiv

  64. [65]

    Lerose, M

    A. Lerose, M. Sonner, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035137 (2021)

    work page 2021

  65. [66]

    Giudice, G

    G. Giudice, G. Giudici, M. Sonner, J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, D. A. Abanin, and L. Piroli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 220401 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [67]

    Foligno, T

    A. Foligno, T. Zhou, and B. Bertini, Phys. Rev. X13, 041008 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [68]

    M. C. Bañuls, M. B. Hastings, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 240603 (2009)

    work page 2009

  68. [69]

    Lerose, M

    A. Lerose, M. Sonner, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021040 (2021)

    work page 2021

  69. [70]

    Carignano, C

    S. Carignano, C. R. Marimón, and L. Tagliacozzo, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033021 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [71]

    C. D. White, M. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. B97, 035127 (2018)

    work page 2018

  71. [72]

    T.Rakovszky, C.W.vonKeyserlingk, andF.Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B105, 075131 (2022)

    work page 2022

  72. [73]

    S. Milz, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 24, 1740016 (2017)

    work page 2017

  73. [74]

    F. A. Pollock, C. Rodríguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 040405 (2018)

    work page 2018

  74. [75]

    S. Milz, M. S. Kim, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 040401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  75. [76]

    Taranto, F

    P. Taranto, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, npj Quantum Inf 7, 149 (2021)

    work page 2021

  76. [77]

    Taranto, S

    P. Taranto, S. Milz, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. A99, 042108 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [78]

    Taranto, F

    P. Taranto, F. A. Pollock, S. Milz, M. Tomamichel, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 140401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  78. [79]

    G. A. L. White, C. D. Hill, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hol- lenberg, and K. Modi, Nat Commun11, 6301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  79. [80]

    A.L.White, F.A.Pollock, L.C.L.Hollenberg, C

    G. A.L.White, F.A.Pollock, L.C.L.Hollenberg, C. D. Hill, and K. Modi, arXiv:2107.13934

    work page arXiv

  80. [81]

    G. A. L. White, F. A. Pollock, L. Hollenberg, K. Modi, and C. Hill, PRX Quantum3, 020344 (2022)

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.