Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

This paper argues that the pointer states selected by an environment for a particle's motion are minimum-uncertainty states, so the decoherence regime — Markovian or non-Markovian — is encoded in the time-dependence of a single variance-cov

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:00 UTC pith:VA5Y2LU3

load-bearing objection The central det G = ℏ²/4 identity is false for generic two-channel couplings, so the paper's geometric Markov/non-Markov criterion is unsupported. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.22297 v2 pith:VA5Y2LU3 submitted 2025-12-25 quant-ph

Decoherence challenges in Nanoscience: A Quantum Phase Space perspective

Ravo Tokiniaina Ranaivoson , Angelo Mamitiana Ralaikoto , Diary Lova Ratsimbazafy , Rivo Herivola Manjakamanana Ravelonjato , Roland Raboanary , Raoelina Andriambololona , Nomenjanahary Tanjonirina Manampisoa , Fanamby Sahondraniandriana This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81S3081S22 PACS 03.65.Yz
keywords quantum decoherencepointer statesquantum phase spaceminimum-uncertainty statesvariance-covariance matrixMarkovian / non-Markovian dynamicsmaster equationsnanoscience
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Quantum decoherence — the loss of coherence that turns quantum superpositions into classical mixtures — is the main obstacle to nanoscale quantum devices. This paper argues that for a particle's motion, the states that survive environmental monitoring are not position or momentum eigenstates, which violate the uncertainty principle, but minimum-uncertainty wave packets, the closest quantum analogues to classical phase-space points. The shape of these packets is summarized by a variance-covariance matrix G, and the paper's central claim is that the environment's properties are imprinted directly onto G: constant diffusion and friction coefficients give a time-independent G (Markovian decoherence), while memory effects make G time-dependent (non-Markovian decoherence). If correct, this turns the abstract question 'which decoherence regime is this device in?' into a geometric question about how the uncertainty ellipse in phase space evolves. That is useful for nanoscience because it connects microscopic environmental parameters to observable coherence decay and suggests how to design environments that preserve or harness coherence.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that pointer states for particle motion are the minimum-uncertainty states |<z>>, which saturate the uncertainty relation det G = ℏ²/4 and are the closest quantum analogues to a classical phase-space point. For a Lindblad master equation with linear couplings Vj = aj p + bj x, matching master-equation dynamics to the internal dynamics of these states gives P = Dpp/Λ, X = Dxx/Λ, Q = Dpx/Λ, where the D's are diffusion coefficients and Λ is friction. In the Markovian regime G is constant, and these coefficients freeze a fixed uncertainty ellipse; in the non-Markovian generalization with simultaneous position and momentum couplings, the same relations hold with time-

What carries the argument

The variance-covariance matrix G = [[P,Q],[Q,X]] of the minimum-uncertainty pointer states, with its saturation condition PX − Q² = ℏ²/4, is the central object. The identification P = Dpp/Λ, X = Dxx/Λ, Q = Dpx/Λ is the mechanism linking environment to geometry: diffusion coefficients Dpp, Dxx, Dpx and friction Λ fix the shape of the uncertainty ellipse, and whether dG/dt is zero (Markovian) or nonzero (non-Markovian) is the regime criterion. The states themselves are eigenstates of z = p − (2i/ℏ)Bx, which is what lets the paper read classical-like trajectories directly off the expectation values (<p>, <x>).

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes without derivation that the particle's reduced state remains a pure minimum-uncertainty wave packet whose covariance is set by the bath coefficients; if that pure-state ansatz fails, the central identification and the Markovian/non-Markovian criterion collapse.

What would settle it

Take an exactly solvable damped oscillator coupled to a thermal bath, solve the full master equation for the reduced state, and compute its covariance matrix; if det G is ever greater than ℏ²/4, or if G varies in time over timescales where the bath correlation time is short, the paper's central claim is refuted.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Pointer states for particle motion are not position or momentum eigenstates; they are minimum-uncertainty packets, so models that start from ρ(x,x′,t) with position eigenstates are approximations to the QPS description.
  • In the Markovian (stationary environment) limit, G is constant and coherence decays exponentially; in the non-Markovian (reactive) regime, G changes in time and decoherence becomes non-exponential, with possible recoherence — so the time-dependence of G is a geometric criterion for information backflow.
  • The diffusion and friction coefficients determine the pointer-state ellipse through P=Dpp/Λ, X=Dxx/Λ, Q=Dpx/Λ, so changing the spectral density or the coupling structure directly reshapes the pointer basis.
  • The generalized non-Markovian master equation for simultaneous position and momentum coupling gives time-dependent diffusion and friction coefficients; the resulting 'breathing' or rotation of the uncertainty ellipse provides a visual model of memory effects relevant to quantum dots, nanomechanical resonators, and motional qubits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A practical diagnostic suggests itself: track the measured position and momentum variances of a motional qubit over time; constant versus drifting variances would classify the bath as Markovian versus non-Markovian without needing full state tomography.
  • Because det G = ℏ²/4 is much stronger than the usual uncertainty bound, realistic thermal states (with PX > ℏ²/4) would violate it; checking this in experiment would delimit how long the pure minimum-uncertainty description can hold.
  • The identification P = Dpp/Λ, X = Dxx/Λ, Q = Dpx/Λ could be inverted as a design rule: choose a target uncertainty ellipse and solve for coupling coefficients, informing reservoir engineering in structured environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a 'Quantum Phase Space' (QPS) framework for decoherence, identifying pointer states for particle motion with minimum-uncertainty states |⟨z⟩⟩ that saturate det G = ℏ²/4. It claims that the variance-covariance matrix G of these pointer states is determined by environmental diffusion and friction coefficients (P = D_pp/Λ, X = D_xx/Λ, Q = D_px/Λ) and that Markovian versus non-Markovian regimes are characterized by dG/dt = 0 versus dG/dt ≠ 0. The framework is illustrated with a Lindblad master equation and a non-Markovian time-convolutionless-type master equation with two position-momentum coupling channels. The paper further asserts that equations (33) and (41) follow from direct comparison of the time derivative of the QPS density matrix with the master-equation coefficients.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would provide a simple geometric criterion for decoherence regimes and a direct mapping from microscopic environment parameters to phase-space uncertainty. The explicit attempt to connect Lindblad and non-Markovian coefficients to a variance-covariance matrix is a useful direction. However, the central algebraic identity (42) is not a consequence of the paper's own definitions, and the pure-state ansatz on which the derivation rests is not justified. These problems affect the main claim that G provides a universal indicator of Markovianity, so the framework is not established in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (24)] Equation (42) is stated as an identity, but with the definitions in Eq. (32) it is not true in general. For two channels, D_pp D_xx − D_px² = (ℏ²/4)[(Σ|a_j|²)(Σ|b_j|²) − (Re Σ a_j* b_j)²], while (ℏ²/4)Λ² = (ℏ²/4)(Im Σ a_j* b_j)². Equality requires (Σ|a_j|²)(Σ|b_j|²) = |Σ a_j* b_j|², i.e., an alignment condition on the vectors {a_j} and {b_j} that is never stated. A concrete counterexample is a₁=b₁=1, a₂=1, b₂=−i: then D_pp=D_xx=ℏ, D_px=−ℏ/2, Λ=1, so P=X=ℏ, Q=−ℏ/2 and P X − Q² = 3ℏ²/4 ≠ ℏ²/4. Thus Eq. (42) is an additional constraint on the environment, not a derived consequence. Since the central identifications (33) and (41) rely on this determinant identity, they do not follow from the master equations.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (24)] The derivation assumes that the reduced system state remains the pure minimum-uncertainty state |⟨z0(t)⟩⟩⟨⟨z0(t)| with the same variance-covariance structure throughout. This is not derived from the Lindblad or non-Markovian master equations. For generic initial states, especially thermal states, the evolved state is mixed and det G > ℏ²/4. The inversion of G in Eq. (26) uses det G = ℏ²/4, so the comparison of Eq. (27) with master-equation coefficients imposes the desired conclusion rather than deriving it.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (22)–(23)] The criterion dG/dt = 0 versus dG/dt ≠ 0 is not an independent characterization of Markovianity. Since G is identified with D/Λ in Eqs. (33) and (41), time-independence of G is equivalent to constancy of the coefficients. Conversely, time-dependent coefficients can arise in Markovian settings with time-dependent Hamiltonians, and non-Markovian dynamics need not always produce time-dependent G. Without a direct connection to standard non-Markovianity measures, the proposed criterion is largely tautological.
  4. [Section 5.2, Eqs. (35)–(40)] The non-Markovian coefficients in Eqs. (37)–(40) assume that the Heisenberg-evolved operators V_j(τ−t) rotate with simple phases cos(ω_j τ) and sin(ω_j τ). For the general quadratic Hamiltonian (31), p(s) and x(s) mix under H_S, so the coefficients involve nontrivial time-dependent combinations of a_j and b_j. The simplified forms require an additional approximation that is not stated, undermining the generality of Eq. (41).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (31)] The Hamiltonian is written as H = A_pp(p)² + A_xx(x)² + A_px(xp+px) + A_pp + A_xx + A. The last three terms are almost certainly meant to be linear terms A_p p + A_x x + A, given the later identification A_P = −ḟ0 and A_x = ẋ0. Please correct the typo.
  2. [Eq. (26)] Equation (26) is difficult to parse: the definitions of ⟨y0⟩ and ⟨y′0⟩ are inconsistent, and the use of row/column vectors is ambiguous. The notation should be clarified so the Gaussian exponent is unambiguous.
  3. [References] References [14] and [29] share the same arXiv identifier (2510.06867), which is likely an error. Please check all references for duplication.
  4. [General] There are several typos, e.g., 'witting' should be 'writing' after Eq. (8), and 'negaton' is used without definition; if it is intended for 'electron' or a quasiparticle, please define it clearly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The QPS 'predictions' are installed by definition: G is set equal to D/Λ, so Markovian ⇔ dG/dt=0 is tautological, and Eq. (42) restates the min-uncertainty defining property of the chosen states.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (19); Sec. 5.2, Eq. (42)]
    "P, X and Q correspond to the saturation of the uncertainty relation (14), det[G] = PX − (Q)^2 = (ℏ)^2/4 where G = (P Q; Q X) (19) ... They always satisfy the minimum uncertainty condition P(t)X(t) − Q(t)^2 = ℏ^2/4 . (42)"

    The states |⟨z⟩⟩ were introduced in Sec. 4.1 as the states saturating Eq. (14); det G=ℏ²/4 is therefore their defining property. Eq. (42) merely repeats this definition after substituting P=Dpp/Λ, X=Dxx/Λ, Q=Dpx/Λ; it is not derived from Eqs. (32)/(37)-(40). For the paper's two-channel Lindblad model, DppDxx−Dpx²=(ℏ²/4)[Σ|a|²Σ|b|²−(Re S)²] and Λ²=(Im S)², so the claimed identity holds only under the nongeneric alignment condition |S|²=Σ|a|²Σ|b|², which is never stated. Hence Eq. (42) is imposed by the choice of pointer states, and for generic two-channel couplings it is not even true under the paper's own definitions.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (22)-(23); Sec. 5.1, Eq. (33); Sec. 5.2, Eq. (41)]
    "The mathematical signature of this limit within our quantum phase-space framework is that the corresponding variance-covariance matrix for the environmental noise is time-independent... ˙G = (˙P ˙Q; ˙Q ˙X) = (0 0; 0 0) (22) ... using the relations (22),(27),(28),(30),(31) and (32) we can deduce the following identification P = Dpp/Λ, X = Dxx/Λ, Q = Dpx/Λ (33) ... The parameters defining the pointer states and the structure of the QPS are then P(t) = Dpp(t)/Λ(t), X(t) = Dxx(t)/Λ(t), Q(t) = Dpx(t)/Λ(t). (41)"

    Once P, X, Q are identified with D/Λ, the criterion ˙G=0 vs ˙G≠0 is just the statement that the Lindblad/TCL coefficients are constant vs time-dependent. In the Markovian Lindblad equation the coefficients are constant by definition of that regime; in the non-Markovian TCL equation they are time-dependent by construction. The 'universal indicator of decoherence regimes' is therefore the Markovian/non-Markovian dichotomy restated in the new variables G, not an independent consequence of the dynamics. The identification itself is only a consistency condition under the pure-state ansatz of Eq. (24), which the paper assumes, not derives.

full rationale

The paper performs nontrivial algebraic manipulations with Gaussian states and Lindblad/TCL master equations, but the two results advertised as predictions are not derived from the dynamics. The Markovian/non-Markovian criterion dG/dt=0/≠0 is built into the identification G=D/Λ, and the min-uncertainty condition det G=ℏ²/4 is the defining property of the |⟨z⟩⟩ states chosen in Sec. 4.1, restated as Eq. (42). The latter is not even an identity for the two-channel couplings used in the paper, revealing an unstated constraint. No external benchmark or independent theorem is invoked to justify these steps; the central content is therefore substantially definitional. Because these are the paper's central claims, I score it 7 rather than 0-2. The self-citations to the authors' previous work on joint momentum-coordinate states are load-bearing for the initial identification, but the more direct circularity is the definitional reduction of G to the master-equation coefficients.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central trace of the environment is carried by hand-selected Lindblad coefficients and free noise/dissipation kernels; no independent microscopic input is used. The minimum-uncertainty and pure-state assumptions are load-bearing and not derived from the decoherence dynamics.

free parameters (5)
  • Lindblad coupling coefficients a_j, b_j (j=1,2)
    Chosen by hand in V_j = a_j p + b_j x (Eqs. 31-32); they define Dxx, Dpp, Dpx, Λ and therefore G via Eq. (41). No derivation from a microscopic environmental Hamiltonian is given.
  • Markovian diffusion/friction coefficients Dxx, Dpp, Dpx, Λ
    Introduced as free constants in Eq. (32); central relations P=Dpp/Λ, X=Dxx/Λ, Q=Dpx/Λ depend on them.
  • Non-Markovian kernels C_j(t), D_j(t) and frequencies ω_j
    Introduced in Eqs. (37)-(40) as arbitrary noise correlations/dissipation kernels; time-dependent G(t) is constructed from these.
  • Quadratic Hamiltonian coefficients A_pp, A_xx, A_px, A_p, A_x, A
    The general Hamiltonian Eq. (31) has free coefficients; some are then set by identifications in Eq. (33), which constrains but does not derive them.
  • Initial covariance matrix G(0) with entries P,Q,X
    For the Markovian case G is fixed as time-independent by Eq. (22) and then identified with D/Λ; for non-Markovian G(t) carries arbitrary initial G(0), which is not specified.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Pointer states for particle motion are exactly the minimum-uncertainty states that saturate the uncertainty relation (14).
    Sec. 4.1 assumes this based on the classical analogy to phase-space points; it is not derived from the environment's selection dynamics or an optimization criterion such as the predictability sieve.
  • ad hoc to paper The decohering system state remains the pure state |<z0(t)>><<z0(t)| with the same covariance matrix as a pointer state (Eq. 24).
    This excludes mixed/thermal states produced by realistic decoherence and is what allows the P=Dpp/Λ identifications to be made.
  • domain assumption Markovian environment iff dG/dt=0; non-Markovian iff dG/dt≠0 (Eqs. 22-23).
    This 'mathematical signature' is imposed as the definition of the regimes, not proven from microscopics.
  • ad hoc to paper The determinant of G equals ℏ²/4 always (Eqs. 19 and 42).
    This is the saturation condition for the chosen pointer states; it is not a consequence of the master equation and fails for generic a_j,b_j unless an unstated alignment condition holds.
  • standard math Lindblad and TCL master equations are valid for the respective regimes.
    Standard open-systems background (refs [8,41,42,44]) used to compute rates.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13354 in / 17984 out tokens · 173107 ms · 2026-08-03T14:00:13.621769+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum decoherence is both the fundamental mechanism underlying the quantum-to-classical transition and a major challenge for the development of scalable nanoscale quantum technologies. This work introduces a Quantum Phase Space (QPS) framework that provides a unified geometric description of decoherence. The framework is based on a dual structure consisting of an overcomplete continuous frame of minimum-uncertainty states that defines the QPS geometry, and an orthonormal basis that satisfies the strict mathematical requirements for decoherence within the Spectrum Broadcast Structure (SBS) objectivity criterion for pointer states. Within this framework, the variance-covariance matrix of the QPS ground states serves as a universal indicator of decoherence regimes:it is time-independent for Markovian (memoryless) dynamics, and time-dependent for non-Markovian dynamics with memory and information backflow. To illustrate the formalism, the Hu-Paz-Zhang (HPZ) model is generalized to include simultaneous position and momentum couplings to the environment, leading to a generalized non-Markovian master equation characterized by a spectral-density matrix. The corresponding evolution equations for the first moments$\ (\left\langle p(t) \right\rangle,\left\langle x(t) \right\rangle)$ and for the ground covariance matrix establish a direct connection between microscopic environmental properties, classical-like trajectories and the QPS geometry. The proposed framework provides a unified theoretical foundation for modeling decoherence in nanoscale systems involving simultaneous position and momentum interactions with the environment. The QPS framework may thus bridge fundamental theory and practical quantum engineering, offering a promising coherent pathway to understand, control, and exploit decoherence at the nanoscience frontier.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R. T. Ranaivoson, V. S. Hejesoa, Raoelina Andriambololona, N. G. Rasolofoson, H. Rakotoson, J. Rabesahala, L. Rarivomanantsoa, and N. Rabesiranana (2022).arXiv:2205.08538quant-ph]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.08538

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.08538 2022

  2. [2]

    Manampisoa, R.T

    N.T. Manampisoa, R.T. Ranaivoson, R. Raboanary, Raoelina Andriambololona, R. H. M. Ravelonjato, N. Rabesiranana (2025). Joint momenta-coordinates states as pointer states in quantum decoherence arXiv:2509.18206[quant-ph]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.18206

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.18206 2025

  3. [3]

    Schlosshauer (2004)

    M. Schlosshauer (2004). Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum me- chanics.Reviews of Modern Physics76:1267-1305

    2004

  4. [4]

    W. H. Zurek (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical.Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(3), 715–775. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.75.715 2003

  5. [5]

    Schlosshauer (2007)

    M. Schlosshauer (2007). Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition.Springer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-35775-9

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-35775-9 2007

  6. [6]

    J. A. Wheeler, and W. H. Zurek (1983). Quantum Theory and Measurement.Princeton University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400854554

    work page doi:10.1515/9781400854554 1983

  7. [7]

    T. D. Ladd, et al. (2010). Quantum computers.Nature, 464(7285), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08812

    doi:10.1038/nature08812 2010

  8. [8]

    Breuer,and Petruccione, F

    H.-P. Breuer,and Petruccione, F. (2007). The Theory of Open Quantum Systems.Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001

    arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    A. M. Tyryshkin, et al. (2012). Electron spin coherence exceeding seconds in high-purity silicon.Nature Materials, 11(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3182

    doi:10.1038/nmat3182 2012

  10. [10]

    Raoelina Andriambololona. Mécanique Quantique.Collection Livres Interdisciplines Raoelina Andri- ambololona ( LIRA )LaboratoiredePhysiqueNucléaireetdePhysiqueAppliquée(LPNPA),Université de Madagascar, (1990)

    1990

  11. [11]

    W. H. Zurek (1991). Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical, revisited.Physica Scripta, T34, 151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.881293

    doi:10.1063/1.881293 1991

  12. [12]

    C. A. Brasil, & L. A. de Castro (2015). Understanding the pointer states.European Journal of Physics, 36(6), 065024. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/36/6/065024

    work page doi:10.1088/0143-0807/36/6/065024 2015

  13. [13]

    Duruisseau, A

    P. Duruisseau, A. Touil, S. Deffner (2023). Pointer states and quantum Darwinism with 2-body inter- actions.Entropy, 25, 1573. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25121573

    work page doi:10.3390/e25121573 2023

  14. [15]

    Breuer, E.-M.Laine, and J

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M.Laine, and J. Piilo (2009). Measure for the Degree of Non-Markovian Behavior of Quantum Processes in Open Systems.Physical Review Letters, 103(21), 210401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.210401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.210401 2009

  15. [16]

    de Vega,and D

    I. de Vega,and D. Alonso, (2017). Dynamics of non-Markovian open quantum systems.Reviews of Modern Physics, 89(1), 015001. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.015001 2017

  16. [17]

    K. L. Ekinci, and M. L. Roukes (2005). Nanoelectromechanical systems.Review of Scientific Instru- ments, 76(6), 061101. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1927327

    doi:10.1063/1.1927327 2005

  17. [18]

    Seoanez, F

    C. Seoanez, F. Guinea, and A. H. Castro Neto (2007). Dissipation in graphene and nanotube resonators. Physical Review B, 76(12), 125427. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.125427 13

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.76.125427 2007

  18. [19]

    Hayashi, T

    T. Hayashi, T. Fujisawa, H. D. Cheong,Y. H. Jeong, and Y. Hirayama (2003). Coherent manip- ulation of electronic states in a double quantum dot.Physical Review Letters, 91(22), 226804. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.226804

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.226804 2003

  19. [20]

    Ishizaki, and G

    A. Ishizaki, and G. R. Fleming (2009). Unified treatment of quantum coherent and incoherent hopping dynamics in electronic energy transfer: Reduced hierarchy equation approach.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 130(23), 234111. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3155372

    doi:10.1063/1.3155372 2009

  20. [21]

    R. T. Ranaivoson,Raoelina Andriambololona, R. Hanitriarivo, and R. H. M. Ravelonjato (2022). Invariant Quadratic Operators Associated with Linear Canonical Transformations and Their Eigen- states.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.10602

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.10602 2022

  21. [22]

    R. H. M. Ravelonjato, R. T. Ranaivoson, Raoelina Andriambololona, R. Raboanary, R. Hanitriarivo, and N. Rabesiranana, (2023). Quantum and Relativistic corrections to Maxwell-Boltzmann ideal gas model from a Quantum Phase Space approach. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.13973

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13973 2023

  22. [23]

    R. T. Ranaivoson, Raoelina Andriambololona, Hanitriarivo Rakotoson, Roland Raboanary, Joel Ra- jaobelison, P. M. Randriantsoa (2025). Quantum phase space symmetry and sterile neutrinos.Journal of Subatomic Particles and Cosmology, 3, 100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspc.2025.100039

    arXiv 2025

  23. [24]

    Dalvit, J

    D. Dalvit, J. Dziarmaga, and W. Zurek (2005). Predictability Sieve, Pointer States, and the Classicality of Quantum Trajectories.Physical Review A, 72(6), 062101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.062101

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.72.062101 2005

  24. [25]

    Macroscopic superposition states and decoherence by quantum telegraph noise.München, den 19

    Benjamin Simon Abel (2008). Macroscopic superposition states and decoherence by quantum telegraph noise.München, den 19. Dezember 2008. https://doi.org/10.5282/edoc.9828

    work page doi:10.5282/edoc.9828 2008

  25. [26]

    Stickler, Klaus Hornberger (2024)

    Jonas Schäfer, Benjamin A. Stickler, Klaus Hornberger (2024). Decoherence of dielectric particles by thermal emission.Phys. Rev. Research, 6, 043307. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043307

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.043307 2024

  26. [27]

    Probing non-Markovian qubit noise and modeling Post Markovian Master Equation

    Chun-Tse Li, Jingming Tan, Vasil Gucev, Daniel Lidar (2025). Probing non-Markovian qubit noise and modeling Post Markovian Master Equation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.12894

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.12894 2025

  27. [28]

    Decoherence and fidelity enhancement during shuttling of entangled spin qubits

    Yu-Ning Zhang, Aleksandr S. Mokeev, Viatcheslav V. Dobrovitski. Decoherence and fidelity enhance- ment during shuttling of entangled spin qubits. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.19671

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.19671

  28. [29]

    Jiaming Liu, Yizhe Lin, Han Cai, Xingfan Chen, Nan Li, Huizhu Hu and Cheng Liu (2025) Cooling of Optically Levitated Particles: Principles, Implementations, and ApplicationsPhotonics, 12(10), 953 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.06867

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.06867 2025

  29. [30]

    H. Z. Shen, Cheng Shang,Yan-Hui Zhou4, and X. X. Yi (2025.) Emergent Non-Markovian Gain in Open Quantum Systems https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.21739

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    Malekakhlagh , A

    M. Malekakhlagh , A. Petrescu , E. Türeci Hakan (2016). Non-Markovian dynamics of a superconducting qubit in an open multimode resonator.Physical Review A, 94, 063848. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.063848

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.063848 2016

  31. [32]

    Lidar (2024)

    Kumar Saurav, Daniel A. Lidar (2024). Quantum Property Preservation.Phys. Rev. X Quantum, 6, 010335 https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.6.010335

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010335 2024

  32. [33]

    Decoherence: A Numerical Study

    Chris Nagele, Oliver Janssen, Matthew Kleban. Decoherence: A Numerical Study. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.04803

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.04803 2010

  33. [34]

    Suter, and G

    D. Suter, and G. A. Alvarez (2016). Colloquium: Protecting quantum information against environmen- tal noise.Reviews of Modern Physics, 88(4), 041001. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.041001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.041001 2016

  34. [35]

    Non-Markovian decoherence dynamics of strong- coupling hybrid quantum systems: A master equation approach.Phys

    Kai-Ting Chiang and Wei-Min Zhang (2021). Non-Markovian decoherence dynamics of strong- coupling hybrid quantum systems: A master equation approach.Phys. Rev. A, 103, 013714.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.013714 14

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.103.013714 2021

  35. [36]

    C.-M. Li, N. Lambert,Y.-N. Chen, , G.-Y. Chen, and F. Nori (2012). Witnessing quantum coherence: from solid-state to biological systems.Scientific Reports, 2, 885. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00885

    work page doi:10.1038/srep00885 2012

  36. [37]

    Lacroix ,B

    T. Lacroix ,B. W. Lovett, and A. W. Chin (2024). From Non-Markovian Dissipation to Spatiotemporal Control of Quantum Nanodevices.Quantum, 8, 1305.https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-04-03-1305

    doi:10.22331/q-2024-04-03-1305 2024

  37. [38]

    S. L. Wu, W. Ma, Zhao-Ming Wang, P. Brumer, Lian-Ao Wu (2025). Steady-State Coherences under Partial Collective non-Markovian Decoherence. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.02557

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.02557 2025

  38. [39]

    R. T. Ranaivoson, R. Andriambololona, H. Rakotoson, and R. Raboanary (2021), Linear Canonical Transformations in relativistic quantum physics,Physica Scripta96 (6),

    2021

  39. [40]

    Ravelonjato, Ravo T

    Rivo Herivola M. Ravelonjato, Ravo T. Ranaivoson (2024). Quantum Phase Space Approach to the Ideal Fermi and Bose Gases. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.09998

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.09998 2024

  40. [41]

    Rivas , and S

    Á. Rivas , and S. F. Huelga, (2011). Open Quantum Systems: An Introduction.Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23354-8

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23354-8 2011

  41. [42]

    Manzano (2020)

    D. Manzano (2020). A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation.AIP Advances, 10(2), 025106. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115323

    doi:10.1063/1.5115323 2020

  42. [43]

    Isar(1999)

    A. Isar(1999). Uncertainty, Entropy and Decoherence of the Damped Harmonic Oscillator in the Lind- blad Theory of Open Quantum Systems.Fortschritte der Physik47 (1999) 855-879

    1999

  43. [44]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, B. Vacchini (2016).Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems.Reviews of Modern Physics88, 021002 15

    2016