Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 64 references

Quantum reference frames reshape open-system dynamics: some noise is environmental, some is just a degrading phase standard.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 05:31 UTC pith:SXTHEWFS

load-bearing objection Solid, well-proved channel framework for how pure-dephasing structure and decoherence rates transform under ideal QRFs; the dynamical-compatibility theorem and additive rate split are the real payload.

arxiv 2607.05578 v1 pith:SXTHEWFS submitted 2026-07-06 quant-ph gr-qc

Reduced Quantum-Reference-Frame Channels for Open Quantum Systems

Paolo Luppi , Viktoria Kabel , Flaminia Giacomini , Andrea Smirne This is my paper
classification quant-ph gr-qc
keywords quantum reference framesopen quantum systemsreduced channelspure dephasingdecoherence ratesRamsey interferometryframe-induced decoherencegravitational dephasing
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.

Once reference frames are treated as quantum systems, the very notion of which subsystem is the "open system" becomes frame-dependent. This paper introduces reduced quantum-reference-frame channels: the effective maps that remain after a quantum frame change when the old reference and environment are inaccessible and must be traced out. It shows which features of reduced dynamics (block populations, pure-dephasing structure, decoherence rates) survive the change and which are artifacts of the physical reference used to define the system. For pure dephasing, a precise dynamical compatibility condition is necessary and sufficient for populations to stay preserved. When the frame symmetry respects the system's energy structure, coherences pick up a multiplicative frame factor, so the locally measured decoherence rate splits cleanly into an environmental piece plus a reference-induced piece. Ramsey interferometry makes the split operational: the same physical interferometer has frame-invariant statistics when preparation and measurement are transformed together, while local experiments tied to different phase standards can report different rates. A gravity-motivated model then shows that a degrading phase reference can produce the same energy-gap scaling usually taken as a signature of gravitational decoherence.

Core claim

A reduced quantum-reference-frame channel preserves the population structure of pure-dephasing dynamics for every factorized initial state if and only if it is dynamically compatible with the controlled joint evolution: the dual-channel effects that encode the inaccessible degrees of freedom must commute with the conditional unitaries that generate the dephasing. When the frame representation is Hamiltonian-symmetric, transformed coherences acquire a multiplicative frame factor, and the locally inferred decoherence rate therefore splits additively into an environmental contribution and a reference-induced contribution.

What carries the argument

The reduced QRF channel Q: the CPTP map obtained by conjugating the joint state with a unitary quantum-reference-frame transformation and then tracing out the old reference and environment. Its dual action on projectors defines block-preservation and dynamical compatibility; under Hamiltonian-symmetric classical misalignment it multiplies each coherence by a frame factor F_nm(t).

Load-bearing premise

The main theorems assume ideal quantum reference frames that carry the left regular representation of a locally compact group with perfectly orthogonal orientation states, and, for the rate-splitting results, that the group action and the initial state factorize cleanly between the system and the inaccessible degrees of freedom.

What would settle it

In a pure-dephasing Ramsey experiment whose laboratory-frame rate is known, deliberately degrade a controllable phase reference (e.g., by increasing its phase-diffusion rate) while holding the system-environment coupling fixed; if the additive split is correct, the excess decoherence rate measured in the new frame must track the independently calibrated degradation of that reference and vanish when the reference is restored.

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

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper defines reduced quantum-reference-frame channels as the CPTP maps obtained by conjugating a joint system–reference–environment state by a perspectival QRF unitary and then tracing out the inaccessible degrees of freedom. It characterizes their block-preserving structure (Lemma 3.5), proves a reduced entropy–coherence conservation law under strong block-preservation (Theorem 3.8), and distinguishes classical random-misalignment actions from genuinely quantum reduced-frame effects via a unitality witness (Proposition 3.11). For pure-dephasing dynamics generated by a controlled joint propagator, Theorem 4.2 gives a necessary and sufficient dynamical-compatibility condition for preservation of a fixed population decomposition for every factorized initial state. In the Hamiltonian-symmetric classical-misalignment regime, coherences acquire a multiplicative frame factor and the locally inferred decoherence rate splits additively into environmental and reference-induced contributions; Ramsey interferometry and a gravity-motivated dephasing model make this split operationally concrete.

Significance. The work supplies a clean operational object—the reduced QRF channel—that sits between global QRF unitaries and ordinary open-system maps, and it converts several previously qualitative frame-dependence statements into precise channel-theoretic criteria. Theorem 4.2 is a genuine if-and-only-if result with an explicit dual-map proof; the entropy–coherence conservation law is a reduced-system counterpart of recent QRF trade-offs; and the additive rate decomposition plus Ramsey analysis gives a concrete experimental handle on reference-induced decoherence. The gravity-motivated case study shows that a degrading phase reference can mimic the quadratic energy-gap signature often attributed to gravitational decoherence, which is a useful caution for that literature. The derivations are self-contained under clearly stated ideal-frame and factorization assumptions, with proofs collected in the main text and Appendices A–D.

minor comments (5)
  1. The ideal-QRF and factorization assumptions that underwrite Theorems 3.8 and 4.2 and the frame-factor decomposition are stated clearly, but a short dedicated paragraph (or a table) early in Sec. 3 listing which results survive for non-ideal or non-factorizing frames would help readers who primarily care about those regimes.
  2. In Sec. 3.1 the two PVMs entering Definition 3.3 are formally arbitrary; a sentence emphasizing that in applications they are typically the same physical criterion (energy, pointer, symmetry sector) expressed in each frame would reduce possible confusion.
  3. Figures 2–4 are conceptually clear but would benefit from slightly more explicit captions that name the quantities plotted or the operational distinction (same interferometer vs local phase standards).
  4. A few minor notational inconsistencies appear (e.g., occasional omission of the frame superscript on projectors, and the dual-map notation Q† vs the dual of the dynamical map Φ†). A quick pass for uniformity would help.
  5. The discussion of non-ideal frames and non-factorizing actions in Sec. 3.3 and the outlook is useful but remains qualitative; even a single explicit low-dimensional counter-example of a non-unital reduced QRF channel would strengthen the unitality-witness claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: theorems follow from channel definitions and controlled unitaries without fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper defines reduced QRF channels as unitary conjugation followed by partial trace (Def. 3.1), then derives block-preservation (Lemma 3.5), the entropy-coherence conservation law under strong block-preservation (Thm. 3.8), dynamical compatibility as necessary and sufficient for population preservation under controlled pure dephasing (Thm. 4.2), and the multiplicative frame-factor / additive rate split in the Hamiltonian-symmetric classical-misalignment regime (Eqs. 76-77). Each step is an algebraic consequence of those definitions and the stated assumptions (ideal left-regular QRFs, factorized group action and initial state for the classical regime). Self-citations supply background QRF formalism and related conservation laws; they are not used to force uniqueness of the present theorems or to smuggle an ansatz that is then re-derived. The gravity case study inserts free phenomenological rates only for illustration. No prediction is a fit renamed as a result, and no central claim reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard mathematical apparatus of CPTP maps, dual maps, Haar measure, and spectral projectors, plus the domain assumptions of the perspectival ideal-QRF framework. The only new entity is the reduced QRF channel itself, introduced by definition. No free parameters are fitted to data; phenomenological rates in the gravity example are illustrative only.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal QRFs carry the left regular representation of a locally compact group G with orthogonal orientation states |g⟩ and Haar measure dg.
    Stated in Sec. 2.2 and used throughout the definition of the QRF transformation (Eq. 14/21) and the classical-misalignment reduction.
  • domain assumption The QRF transformation is unitary and (except for brief remarks) time-independent; the reduced channel is obtained by unitary conjugation followed by partial trace over inaccessible degrees of freedom.
    Definition 3.1 and surrounding text; time-dependent extensions are deferred to remarks and Appendix C.
  • domain assumption Pure dephasing is generated by a controlled joint propagator U(t) = ∑_m P_m ⊗ U_m(t) that preserves the energy projectors of the system.
    Sec. 2.1 and Eq. (63); used as the dynamical input to Theorem 4.2.
  • standard math Standard properties of CPTP maps, dual maps, pinching maps, von Neumann entropy, and relative entropy of coherence.
    Used for block-preservation (Lemma 3.5), the conservation law (Theorem 3.8), and unitality witness (Proposition 3.11).
  • domain assumption For the classical-misalignment regime and frame-factor decomposition: factorization of the group action V_SE(g) = V_S(g) ⊗ V_E(g) and of the state with respect to the B–SE cut at the moment of the frame change.
    Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 5.1; required to obtain the random-unitary form and the multiplicative frame factor F_nm(t).
invented entities (1)
  • Reduced quantum-reference-frame channel Q independent evidence
    purpose: Maps the joint SBE state in frame A to the reduced system state in frame B after the unitary QRF transformation and partial trace over inaccessible AE degrees of freedom.
    Introduced by Definition 3.1; all subsequent structure theorems are statements about this map. It is a definitional construct rather than a new physical particle or force; independent evidence is the operational accessibility of the reduced system alone.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 38075 in / 3088 out tokens · 26645 ms · 2026-07-11T05:31:45.196862+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

When reference frames are treated quantum mechanically, the subsystem structure of quantum systems is no longer absolute, but depends on the choice of the quantum reference frame (QRF). This raises a basic question: which dynamical properties are preserved across QRFs, and which depend on the physical reference used to define the system? We study this question in the general setting of open quantum systems. At the operational level, after a QRF transformation, the old reference frame and environmental degrees of freedom may be inaccessible and must therefore be traced out. This motivates the definition of reduced quantum-reference-frame channels: maps that connect the joint description in one frame to the accessible subsystem in another. We characterize their symmetry-constrained structure and define a regime in which a reduced entropy-coherence conservation law holds. We also identify when the induced reduced action on the open system admits a classical interpretation as random frame misalignment, and when it instead reflects quantum reduced-frame effects. We then apply the framework to pure-dephasing dynamics and derive a necessary and sufficient compatibility condition for population preservation. When the frame symmetry commutes with the open system's free Hamiltonian, coherences acquire a multiplicative frame factor, so that locally inferred decoherence rates split into environmental and reference-induced contributions. Ramsey interferometry gives this split a direct operational meaning. Finally, a gravity-motivated dephasing model illustrates how degradation of a phase reference can mimic signatures usually attributed to intrinsic decoherence mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05578 by Andrea Smirne, Flaminia Giacomini, Paolo Luppi, Viktoria Kabel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Block preservation. A block population p (B) n in frame B may receive contributions from different blocks m of S in frame A, with the dependence on inaccessible degrees of freedom encoded in the effects Πnm. Inter-block coherences of S in frame A do not contribute to these populations. A one-to-one permutation correspondence between input and output blocks gives the stronger condition of strong block-prese… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same physical interferometer. Alice performs a Ramsey experiment M(A) on system S. Bob has access to A’s phase record and outcomes and describes the same physical interferometer from his point of view. The operational Ramsey visibility (and the associated rate) is frame-invariant: γ (B | access A) nm = γ (A) nm . The shadowed images represent possible superpositions of relative configurations between the s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Local Ramsey (different phase standards). Observers Alice and Bob perform Ramsey experiments M(A) resp. M(B) using their own phase references A and B. The inferred decoherence rates can differ. In the Hamiltonian-symmetric regime, the difference is captured by a frame factor, i.e. VB(t) = |Fnm(t)| VA(t). This is the operational meaning of frame-induced decoherence. A fixed physical interferometer has frame… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reference-induced contributions to the locally inferred decoherence rate in the gravity-motivated pure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ramsey protocol on the effective qubit {|n⟩, |m⟩} (σ (nm) z = |n⟩⟨n| − |m⟩⟨m|). The pulses U1, U2(φ) and the free evolution Ufree,SE(t) map the coherence ρnm onto a measurable population imbalance; the transverse Bloch-vector length equals the Ramsey visibility Vnm = 2|ρnm|, from which the decoherence rate is obtained. measurement of σ (nm) z on the effective qubit {|n⟩, |m⟩} of S. The corresponding measur… view at source ↗

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

64 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The theory of open quantum systems

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione. “The theory of open quantum systems”. Oxford University Press. Oxford (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Open quantum systems: An introduction

    Á. Rivas and S.F. Huelga. “Open quantum systems: An introduction”. SpringerBriefs in Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    Open quantum systems

    B. Vacchini. “Open quantum systems”. Graduate Texts in Physics. Springer Nature Switzer- land. Cham (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    A note on covariant dynamical semigroups

    A. S. Holevo. “A note on covariant dynamical semigroups”. Rep. Math. Phys.32, 211– 216 (1993)

    1993

  5. [5]

    Covariant quantum Markovian evolutions

    A. S. Holevo. “Covariant quantum Markovian evolutions”. J. Math. Phys.37, 1812– 1832 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    Covariant mappings for the description of measurement, dissipation and deco- herence in quantum mechanics

    B. Vacchini. “Covariant mappings for the description of measurement, dissipation and deco- herence in quantum mechanics”. Lect. Notes Phys.787, 39 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    General Galilei covariant Gaussian maps

    G. Gasbarri, M. Toroš, and A. Bassi. “General Galilei covariant Gaussian maps”. Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 100403 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Strong symmetries in collision models and physical dilations of covariant quan- tum maps

    M. Cattaneo. “Strong symmetries in collision models and physical dilations of covariant quan- tum maps”. Phys. Rev. A111, 022209 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens. “Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information”. Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 555–609 (2007)

    2007

  10. [10]

    Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner. “Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames”. Nat. Commun.10(2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    A change of perspec- tive: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Höhn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz. “A change of perspec- tive: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework”. Quantum 4, 225 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Perspective- neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general symmetry groups

    A.-C. de la Hamette, T. D. Galley, P. A. Höhn, L. Loveridge, and M. P. Müller. “Perspective- neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general symmetry groups” (2021). arXiv:2110.13824

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Relative subsystems and quantum reference frame trans- formations

    E. Castro-Ruiz and O. Oreshkov. “Relative subsystems and quantum reference frame trans- formations”. Commun. Phys.8, 187 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Relativity of quantum states and observables

    L. Loveridge, P. Busch, and T. Miyadera. “Relativity of quantum states and observables”. EPL117, 40004 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Operational quantum reference frame transfor- mations

    T. Carette, J. Głowacki, and L. Loveridge. “Operational quantum reference frame transfor- mations”. Quantum9, 1680 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups

    A.-C. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley. “Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups”. Quantum4, 367 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Quantum relativity of subsystems

    A. S. Ahmad, T. D. Galley, P. A. Höhn, M. P. E. Lock, and A. R. H. Smith. “Quantum relativity of subsystems”. Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 170401 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Quantum frame relativity of subsystems, correlations and thermodynamics

    P. A. Höhn, I. Kotecha, and F. M. Mele. “Quantum frame relativity of subsystems, correlations and thermodynamics” (2023). arXiv:2308.09131

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Degradation of a quantum reference frame

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. Turner. “Degradation of a quantum reference frame”. New J. Phys.8, 58 (2006)

    2006

  20. [20]

    Changing quantum reference frames

    M. C. Palmer, F. Girelli, and S. D. Bartlett. “Changing quantum reference frames”. Phys. Rev. A89, 052121 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    Decoherence and information encoding in quantum reference frames

    J. Tuziemski. “Decoherence and information encoding in quantum reference frames” (2020). arXiv:2006.07298

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Blurred quantum Darwinism across quantum reference frames

    T. P. Le, P. Mironowicz, and P. Horodecki. “Blurred quantum Darwinism across quantum reference frames”. Phys. Rev. A102, 062420 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Sum of entangle- ment and subsystem coherence is invariant under quantum reference frame transformations

    C. Cepollaro, A. Akil, P. Cieśliński, A.-C. de la Hamette, and Č. Brukner. “Sum of entangle- ment and subsystem coherence is invariant under quantum reference frame transformations”. Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 010201 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Observer-dependent entropy and diagonal rényi invariants in quantum reference frames

    A.-C. de la Hamette. “Observer-dependent entropy and diagonal rényi invariants in quantum reference frames” (2026). arXiv:2603.23598

    arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Gravity and the crossed product

    E. Witten. “Gravity and the crossed product”. J. High Energy Phys.10, 008 (2022). arXiv:2112.12828. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    An algebra of observables for de Sitter space

    V. Chandrasekaran, R. Longo, G. Penington, and E. Witten. “An algebra of observables for de Sitter space”. J. High Energy Phys.2023, 82 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Gravitational entropy is observer- dependent

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P. A. Höhn, and J. Kirklin. “Gravitational entropy is observer- dependent”. J. High Energy Phys.07, 146 (2025). arXiv:2405.00114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Crossed products and quantum reference frames: on the observer-dependence of gravitational entropy

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P. A. Höhn, and J. Kirklin. “Crossed products and quantum reference frames: on the observer-dependence of gravitational entropy”. J. High Energy Phys.07, 063 (2025). arXiv:2412.15502

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Decoherence of flux qubits due to1/fflux noise

    F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, A. O. Niskanen, Y. Nakamura, and J.-S. Tsai. “Decoherence of flux qubits due to1/fflux noise”. Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 167001 (2006)

    2006

  30. [30]

    Decoherence of two entangled spin qubits coupled to an interacting sparse nuclear spin bath: Application to nitrogen vacancy centers

    D. Kwiatkowski and Ł. Cywiński. “Decoherence of two entangled spin qubits coupled to an interacting sparse nuclear spin bath: Application to nitrogen vacancy centers”. Phys. Rev. B 98, 155202 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Pure dephasing of light-matter systems in the ultrastrong and deep-strong coupling regimes

    A.Mercurio, S.Abo, F.Mauceri, E.Russo, V.Macrì, A.Miranowicz, S.Savasta, andO.DiSte- fano. “Pure dephasing of light-matter systems in the ultrastrong and deep-strong coupling regimes”. Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 123601 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Pure dephasing of magnonic quantum states

    H. Y. Yuan, W. P. Sterk, A. Kamra, and R. A. Duine. “Pure dephasing of magnonic quantum states”. Phys. Rev. B106, L100403 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Effective field theory approach to gravitationally induced decoherence

    M. P. Blencowe. “Effective field theory approach to gravitationally induced decoherence”. Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 021302 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation

    I. Pikovski, M. Zych, F. Costa, and Č. Brukner. “Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation”. Nat. Phys.11, 668–672 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Gravitational decoherence

    A. Bassi, A. Großardt, and H. Ulbricht. “Gravitational decoherence”. Class. Quantum Grav. 34, 193002 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    Generalising gravitationally induced decoherence beyond linear environmental interactions in a microscopic quantum mechanical toy model

    M. J. Fahn, R. Ferrero, K. Giesel, and R. Kemper. “Generalising gravitationally induced decoherence beyond linear environmental interactions in a microscopic quantum mechanical toy model” (2026). arXiv:2605.25936

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Open quantum dynamics: complete positivity and entangle- ment

    F. Benatti and R. Floreanini. “Open quantum dynamics: complete positivity and entangle- ment”. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B19, 3063–3139 (2005)

    2005

  38. [38]

    Entanglement and objectivity in pure dephasing models

    K. Roszak and J. K. Korbicz. “Entanglement and objectivity in pure dephasing models”. Phys. Rev. A100, 062127 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Observability of the sign change of spinors under2πrotations

    Y. Aharonov and L. Susskind. “Observability of the sign change of spinors under2πrotations”. Phys. Rev.158, 1237–1238 (1967)

    1967

  40. [40]

    Quantum frames of reference

    Y. Aharonov and T. Kaufherr. “Quantum frames of reference”. Phys. Rev. D30, 368– 385 (1984)

    1984

  41. [41]

    Physics within a quantum reference frame

    R. M. Angelo, N. Brunner, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and P. Skrzypczyk. “Physics within a quantum reference frame”. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.44, 145304 (2011)

    2011

  42. [42]

    Kinematics and dynamics in noninertial quantum frames of reference

    R. M. Angelo and A. D. Ribeiro. “Kinematics and dynamics in noninertial quantum frames of reference”. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.45, 465306 (2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    Quantum reference systems

    C. Rovelli. “Quantum reference systems”. Class. Quantum Grav.8, 317–331 (1991)

    1991

  44. [44]

    Relational observables in gravity: a review

    J. Tambornino. “Relational observables in gravity: a review”. SIGMA8, 017 (2012). arXiv:1109.0740

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    The perspectives of non-ideal quantum reference frames

    S. C. Garmier, L. Hausmann, and E. Castro-Ruiz. “The perspectives of non-ideal quantum reference frames” (2025). arXiv:2512.19343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Quantum information theory: Mathematical foundation

    M. Hayashi. “Quantum information theory: Mathematical foundation”. Graduate Texts in Physics. Springer. Berlin, Heidelberg (2017). 2nd edition

    2017

  47. [47]

    Quantifying coherence

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio. “Quantifying coherence”. Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Relativistic quantum reference frames: The operational meaning of spin

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner. “Relativistic quantum reference frames: The operational meaning of spin”. Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090404 (2019)

    2019

  49. [49]

    Infer- ence of gravitational field superposition from quantum measurements

    C. Overstreet, J. Curti, M. Kim, P. Asenbaum, M. A. Kasevich, and F. Giacomini. “Infer- ence of gravitational field superposition from quantum measurements”. Phys. Rev. D108, 084038 (2023). arXiv:2209.02214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields

    N. F. Ramsey. “A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields”. Phys. Rev.78, 695–699 (1950)

    1950

  51. [51]

    Quantum optics

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn. “Quantum optics”. Springer. Berlin (2008). 2nd edition. 33

    2008

  52. [52]

    Dephasing of a non- relativistic quantum particle due to a conformally fluctuating spacetime

    P. M. Bonifacio, C. H.-T. Wang, J. T. Mendonça, and R. Bingham. “Dephasing of a non- relativistic quantum particle due to a conformally fluctuating spacetime”. Class. Quantum Grav.26, 145013 (2009)

    2009

  53. [53]

    Quantum sensing from gravity as a universal dephasing channel for qubits

    A. V. Balatsky, P. Roushan, J. Schaltegger, and P. J. Wong. “Quantum sensing from gravity as a universal dephasing channel for qubits”. Phys. Rev. A111, 012411 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    A gravitationally induced decoherence model using ashtekar variables

    M. J. Fahn, K. Giesel, and M. Kobler. “A gravitationally induced decoherence model using ashtekar variables”. Class. Quantum Grav.40, 094002 (2023). arXiv:2206.06397

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Zero-dimensional models for gravitational and scalar QED decoherence

    Q. Xu and M. P. Blencowe. “Zero-dimensional models for gravitational and scalar QED decoherence”. New J. Phys.24(2022)

    2022

  56. [56]

    The Fokker–Planck Equation: Methods of solution and applications

    H. Risken. “The Fokker–Planck Equation: Methods of solution and applications”. Springer. (1996). 2nd edition

    1996

  57. [57]

    Stochastic methods: A handbook for the natural and social sciences

    C. W. Gardiner. “Stochastic methods: A handbook for the natural and social sciences”. Springer. (2009). 4th edition. url:https://link.springer.com/book/9783540707127

    arXiv 2009

  58. [58]

    Decoherenceinasuperconductingquantumbitcircuit

    G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P. J. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Esteve, F. Chiarello, A. Shnirman, Y.Makhlin, J.Schriefl, andG.Schön. “Decoherenceinasuperconductingquantumbitcircuit”. Phys. Rev. B72, 134519 (2005)

    2005

  59. [59]

    How to enhance dephasing time in superconducting qubits

    Ł. Cywiński, R. M. Lutchyn, C. P. Nave, and S. Das Sarma. “How to enhance dephasing time in superconducting qubits”. Phys. Rev. B77, 174509 (2008)

    2008

  60. [60]

    Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Naka- mura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver. “Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit”. Nat. Phys.7, 565–570 (2011)

    2011

  61. [61]

    Decoherence due to gravitational time dilation: Analysis of com- peting decoherence effects

    M. Carlesso and A. Bassi. “Decoherence due to gravitational time dilation: Analysis of com- peting decoherence effects”. Phys. Lett. A380, 2354–2358 (2016)

    2016

  62. [62]

    Dynamical maps beyond Markovian regime

    D. Chruściński. “Dynamical maps beyond Markovian regime”. Phys. Rep.992, 1 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    Introduction to the representation theory of compact and locally compact groups

    A. Robert. “Introduction to the representation theory of compact and locally compact groups”. Volume 80 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press. (1983)

    1983

  64. [64]

    Fourier analysis on groups

    W. Rudin. “Fourier analysis on groups”. Wiley-Interscience. (1962). 34

    1962