Emergent Non-Markovian Nonlinear Qubit From Collective Spin Interactions

Andre Erpenbeck; Gregory T. Carroll; Michael R. Geller

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Emergent Non-Markovian Nonlinear Qubit From Collective Spin Interactions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Finite-size corrections to collective spin dynamics produce non-Markovian qubit dephasing.

desk verdict The core derivation is sound and the Gaussian dephasing result is real, but the claimed O(N^{-2}) accuracy is not uniform on the decoherence timescale and the 'exactly reproduced' phrasing overstates what the master equation actually captures. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07723 v1 pith:NC7JP36C submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph

Gregory T. Carroll , Michael R. Geller , Andre Erpenbeck This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords non-Markoviandephasingone-axistwistingcollectivespindynamicsfinite-sizecorrectionsnonlinearmean-fieldqubitGaussiancoherencedecayopenquantumsystemsKitagawa-Uedamodel

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

This paper claims that a closed interacting spin system can generate its own open-system noise channel without any external environment. Studying the Kitagawa-Ueda one-axis twisting model with interaction strength scaled as $\chi = 2g/(N-1)$, the authors show that the leading finite-size corrections to the nonlinear mean-field limit appear as a Gaussian decay of transverse qubit coherence with timescale $t_\varphi \propto \sqrt{N}$. They further show this decay is exactly reproduced by a time-local non-Markovian dephasing master equation, and that this effective description matches exact finite-$N$ dynamics for ensembles of about one hundred qubits. If correct, this gives a rare microscopic derivation of non-Markovian, beyond-Lindblad noise from a Hamiltonian, linking phase diffusion in atomic ensembles to noise modeling in quantum hardware.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the coherence factor $f(t)$, defined as the ratio of the exact finite-$N$ transverse magnetization to its mean-field value. Because $f(t)$ is analytic, its Maclaurin coefficients are computed to order $1/N$ by mapping them to moments of a binomial distribution (Eqs. 27-37), and resumming the series yields the Gaussian envelope with timescale $t_\varphi$ in Eq. (42). The effective channel is the time-local non-Markovian dephasing master equation (Eq. 46) with rate $\gamma(t) = t/t_\varphi^2$, whose Bloch-vector form shows precession around the $z$-axis plus transverse Gaussian decay with a conserved $z$-component.

What would settle it

Compute the exact finite-$N$ coherence factor $f(t)$ from Eq. (14) at time $t = t_\varphi$ for, say, $N=100$, $g=1$, and $z_0 = 0.9$, and compare $|f(t_\varphi)|$ to the Gaussian prediction $e^{-1/2}$; if the deviation grows like $1/\sqrt{N}$ rather than $1/N$, the central result fails. Alternatively, measure the transverse coherence decay of a roughly 100-atom ensemble under one-axis twisting and check whether the decay envelope is Gaussian with timescale $t_\varphi = \sqrt{N}/(2g\sqrt{1-z_0^2})$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Eq. (42): for $\chi = 2g/(N-1)$, the transverse coherence factor is $f(t) = e^{-(1/2)(t/t_\varphi)^2} e^{2 i z_0 g t} (1 + O(N^{-2}))$, with $t_\varphi = \sqrt{N/(4(1-z_0^2)g^2)}$. Thus finite-size effects beyond the nonlinear mean-field qubit manifest as Gaussian dephasing of the Bloch vector on a $\sqrt{N}$ timescale, vanishing as $N \to \infty$. The paper then shows this reduced dynamics is exactly reproduced by a time-local non-Markovian master equation with dephasing rate $\gamma(t) = t/t_\varphi^2$, and validates numerically that this effective non-Markovian open-qubit description becomes quantitatively accurate for $N$ on the order of 100.

Load-bearing premise

The Gaussian decay formula is derived from a Maclaurin expansion whose coefficients are known only to order $1/N$, and the paper does not prove that the neglected $O(N^{-2})$ terms stay small on the dephasing timescale $t_\varphi$; numerical validation covers a single parameter set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For ensembles of about 100 qubits, the reduced single-qubit dynamics matches exact finite-$N$ evolution, so large collective systems can be simulated as one nonlinear qubit coupled to a memory channel.
The dephasing timescale grows as $\sqrt{N}$ and diverges near the classical states $z_0 \to \pm 1$, meaning larger ensembles and near-axis initial states are more coherent.
The emergent channel is pure dephasing, not isotropic depolarization, so a phenomenological Lindblad ansatz would mis-model the collective-spin dynamics.
The non-Markovian master equation with $\gamma(t) = t/t_\varphi^2$ exactly reproduces the Gaussian envelope, providing a microscopic example where memory effects arise without an external bath.
In the thermodynamic limit the dephasing vanishes and unitary nonlinear qubit dynamics are recovered.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: the same binomial-moment technique could be applied to other permutation-symmetric Hamiltonians, such as collective $XYZ$ models, to derive their leading non-Markovian channels, provided the Maclaurin series has a resummable form.
My inference: because the Gaussian envelope arises from phase dispersion of independent single-particle phases, a measurement of $|f(t)|$ at different $N$ and $z_0$ would directly test the $\sqrt{N}$ scaling and the $1/(1-z_0^2)$ divergence, offering a clean experimental signature in Bose-Einstein condensate or cavity-QED setups.
My inference: the time-dependent rate $\gamma(t)$ grows linearly in time, so the effective channel is non-Markovian in the sense of a time-local generator with a time-dependent rate; checking the divisibility of the channel could connect this result to standard non-Markovianity measures.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is worth reading for the clean derivation: exact finite-N expression for the KU model, rewritten via binomial moments, gives the Gaussian coherence decay and the closed-form t_phi = sqrt(N)/[2 sqrt(1-z0^2) g] without fitting. The comparison between pure dephasing and isotropic depolarization is also a genuinely useful pedagogical point—symmetry alone does not fix the channel, and the numerics show the depolarizing ansatz fails while dephasing works. Credit where due: the math in Sec. II D is correct, and the validation against exact dynamics for N around 100 is convincing evidence that the leading-order description is quantitatively good.

The soft spots are real but addressable. First, Eq. (42)'s (1 + O(N^{-2})) is not uniform in time. The stress-test expansion is right: at t ~ t_phi, the phase correction is O(1/sqrt(N)) and the magnitude exponent correction is O(1/N), not O(N^{-2}). So the Gaussian channel is a leading-order approximation, not an exact finite-N reduction. The authors should state this and either prove a uniform bound or soften the claim. Second, the master equation's gamma(t) = t/t_phi^2 is chosen to reproduce the derived envelope, not itself derived from the microscopic dynamics. The paper says the channel is 'derived rather than fit'—that is true for the operator structure (dephasing beats depolarization) but not for the rate function. That distinction should be explicit. Third, 'non-Markovian' is used loosely: a time-local generator with positive rate is CP-divisible and thus Markovian by standard divisibility criteria. The authors need to either justify the label or drop it. Fourth, no code or data are released; the extraction procedure in Eq. (45) is reproducible in principle but the paper would be stronger with the scripts.

The central physical message—finite-size corrections to a closed collective spin system produce Gaussian dephasing on a sqrt(N) timescale—holds up. It is not a new result in the sense that the Gaussian phase-diffusion envelope appears in refs. [23-25], but the framing as an emergent channel in the chi = g/N double limit and the explicit connection to beyond-Lindblad noise modeling is a useful synthesis. For a reader working on BEC phase diffusion, collective spin squeezing, or noise modeling in hardware, the paper is a worthwhile read. The overclaims are fixable in revision.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but require the authors to correct the uniform-error claim, clarify the status of gamma(t), and address the Markovianity terminology before acceptance.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Kitagawa-Ueda one-axis twisting model H = χ J_z^2 in the scaling χ = 2g/(N-1), which yields a well-defined nonlinear mean-field limit. Starting from the exact finite-N coherence factor f(t) = [cos(ωt) + i z0 sin(ωt)]^{N-1}, the authors derive the leading finite-size correction as a Gaussian decay of transverse coherence with timescale t_φ = sqrt(N/(4(1-z0^2)g^2)), Eq. (42). They then propose an effective time-local dephasing master equation, Eq. (46), with rate γ(t) = t/t_φ^2, and claim that this non-Markovian channel exactly reproduces the reduced dynamics and is quantitatively accurate for N of order 100, supported by comparisons with exact finite-N calculations for one parameter set (g = 1, θ = 0.4, φ = 0.6).

Significance. The leading physical result is valuable and likely correct: finite-size corrections to the nonlinear mean-field torsion model appear as a Gaussian decay of Bloch-vector coherence on a sqrt(N) timescale, and the binomial-moment derivation of Eq. (37) is elegant and transparent. The exact finite-N expression (14) allows direct verification, and the comparison in Figs. 1 and 2 is a concrete strength. However, the paper's central claims are currently overstated in two load-bearing ways: the O(N^{-2}) error estimate in Eq. (42) is not uniform in time, and the 'exactly reproduced' statement for the master equation is tautological with respect to that approximation. The 'non-Markovian' terminology is also questionable under the standard divisibility criterion cited in the paper. With careful reparameterization of the error claims and additional validation, this would be a solid contribution; in its present form the quantitative claims exceed what is proven.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II.D, Eq. (42)] The claimed remainder O(N^{-2}) in Eq. (42) is not uniform in time. Expanding the exact f(t) of Eq. (14) with s = t/t_φ and A = sqrt(1-z0^2) gives log f(t) = 2 i z0 g t - s^2/2 + i z0 s^3/(3 A sqrt(N)) + (3z0^2-1) s^4/(12 A^2 N) + O(N^{-3/2}). Thus on the decoherence timescale s = O(1), the phase differs from 2 i z0 g t by O(N^{-1/2}) and the magnitude exponent differs by O(1/N), both much larger than O(N^{-2}). The passage from Eq. (40) to Eq. (41) replaces 1-x by e^{-x} with x = 2(1-z0^2)g^2 t^2/N; this is justified only when x = O(1/N), i.e. for fixed t, not for t ~ t_φ where x = O(1). Consequently Eq. (42) should not be advertised as O(N^{-2})-accurate on the timescale where the Gaussian decay is actually observable.
[Sec. III.B, Eq. (46)] The claim that the non-Markovian master equation 'exactly reproduces' the reduced dynamics is circular with respect to Eq. (42). The rate γ(t) = t/t_φ^2 is chosen precisely so that exp(-∫_0^t γ(s) ds) = exp(-t^2/(2 t_φ^2)), and Figure 3 compares the master-equation solution with the large-N expression in Eq. (42), not with the exact finite-N f(t). Since Eq. (42) carries the nonuniform remainder identified above, this comparison does not establish that the master equation quantitatively reproduces the exact finite-N dynamics at t ~ t_φ. The authors should compare the master-equation solution directly with the exact f(t) and report the phase and magnitude errors as functions of N and s = t/t_φ.
[Sec. III.A, Figs. 1 and 2] The numerical validation uses a single parameter set (g = 1, θ = 0.4, φ = 0.6) and an estimator t_extracted that averages [-2/t^2 log|f(t)|]^{-1/2} over the window 1 ≤ t ≤ 5 t_φ. If log|f(t)| contains the O(1/N) correction from the exact expansion, this estimator is biased, and a time-window average cannot distinguish a Gaussian envelope from a non-Gaussian one. Given the nonuniform remainder in Eq. (42), the claim that the effective description is 'quantitatively accurate' for N ~ 100 needs concrete error bounds at s = O(1), and the dependence on z0 should be tested, especially for z0 near 0 and near ±1 where the behavior of t_φ changes.
[Title and Sec. III.B] The channel is called non-Markovian solely because the dephasing rate γ(t) is time-dependent. Under the standard CP-divisibility criterion used in the cited reviews [1,2], the pure-dephasing map generated by Eq. (46) with γ(t) = t/t_φ^2 ≥ 0 is CP-divisible and hence Markovian; a time-dependent but nonnegative rate is not the defining feature of non-Markovianity. If the authors intend a different notion of non-Markovianity, they should state that definition explicitly, or revise the terminology.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. II.D, Eqs. (35)-(37)] The expansion in Eq. (35) divides by z0 and therefore assumes z0 ≠ 0; the case z0 = 0 requires a separate treatment, even though the final Gaussian result is continuous across z0 = 0. This should be noted or handled explicitly.
[Sec. III.A, Eq. (45)] The sentence around Eq. (45) reads awkwardly: 'averaging over N timesteps sampled times' appears to be a typo, and the definition of the time window should be stated more clearly.
[Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'exactly reproduced' overstates the relation between the master equation and the exact finite-N dynamics; it would be more accurate to say 'reproduced at the level of the leading Gaussian approximation.'
[Sec. III.B, Fig. 3] The Euler integration with timestep 1e-5 is not accompanied by a convergence check; given that t_φ scales as sqrt(N) and the simulation extends to 5 t_φ, a brief convergence statement would strengthen the numerical claims.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central Gaussian-decoherence result is independently derived, but the effective non-Markovian master equation reproduces it by construction because its rate is chosen to match the target envelope.

self definitional [Sec. III B, Eq. (49), with the 'exactly reproduced' claim in Sec. I]
"We further show that this reduced dynamics is exactly reproduced by a time-local non-Markovian dephasing master equation ... the time-dependent rate is chosen as γ(t)=t/t_φ^2, such that the resulting coherence decay reproduces the Gaussian envelope e^{−1/2 (t/t_φ)^2} of the large-N solution."

With γ(t) from Eq. (49), the dephasing master equation (46) has transverse-coherence solution ρ_{01}(t)=e^{−∫_0^t γ(s)ds}=e^{−t^2/(2t_φ^2)}, exactly the envelope that defines t_φ in Eq. (43). Thus the 'exactly reproduced' claim is true by construction, not by independent derivation: the time-dependent rate is an input fitted to the target envelope rather than computed from H=χJ_z^2 by an open-system reduction. The comparison in Fig. 3 therefore verifies only numerical integration, not the model. The operator structure (dephasing vs depolarization) is selected by a legitimate comparison with exact dynamics, so the circularity is confined to the rate and to the 'derived rather than fit' wording, which overstates the status of γ(t).

full rationale

The central result Eq. (42) is derived from the exact finite-N expression f(t)=[cos(ωt)+i z0 sin(ωt)]^{N-1} via Maclaurin coefficients computed to order 1/N; t_φ is a closed-form function of N, z0, and g, with no fitted parameters. The validation in Sec. III A compares that formula with independently evaluated exact dynamics and with t_φ extracted from exact f(t), so it is a genuine consistency check, not a circular fit. Self-citations [22] and [26] are not load-bearing: the limit (19) is proved in Sec. II D, and [26] is cited only additionally. The only construction-by-definition step is the effective master equation: γ(t)=t/t_φ^2 is chosen precisely to reproduce the Gaussian envelope, so the master equation's agreement with Eq. (42) is an identity. Because this affects a secondary (though emphasized) representation claim while the central Gaussian-decoherence derivation is independent, the score is moderate. Separately, the O(N^{-2}) remainder in Eq. (42) is not uniform as t→t_φ~√N, and at those times neglected cumulant terms contribute larger corrections; that is an accuracy/correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not raise this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation introduces no fitted constants: t_φ is a closed-form function of N, z0, and g. The effective master equation rate γ(t)=t/t_φ^2 is chosen to reproduce the derived Gaussian envelope (Eq. 49), so the channel rate is a repackaging of the microscopic result rather than an independent prediction. The expansion relies on permutation symmetry and on a truncation whose uniform validity on the t_φ timescale is not proved.

free parameters (1)

γ(t) = t/t_φ^2 (effective dephasing rate function) = t/t_φ^2, with t_φ = sqrt(N/(4(1-z0^2)g^2)) derived, not fitted
Introduced in Eq. (49) to reproduce the Gaussian envelope of Eq. (42). The functional form is chosen by hand, but its parameter t_φ is a derived microscopic quantity, so this is a representation rather than a data-fit constant.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Initial state is a permutation-symmetric product state |ψ>⊗N
Used in Sec. II A to obtain the exact expression (5). The effective channel description is derived only for such states, not for entangled or spin-squeezed initial states.
ad hoc to paper The truncated Maclaurin/binomial-moment series (Eqs. (35)-(41)) can be resummed to a Gaussian envelope with small remainder on the decoherence timescale
The truncation at order 1/N omits third- and fourth-cumulant terms that contribute at t ~ t_φ as O(1/√N) in phase and O(1/N) in decay exponent. The paper does not prove these are small; it relies on numerical agreement for a single parameter set in Sec. III A.
domain assumption The effective channel is pure dephasing rather than isotropic depolarization
Sec. III B, Eqs. (46)-(47). The comparison in Fig. 3 supports dephasing by matching exact dynamics, but the channel structure is identified by validation, not derived a priori from the Hamiltonian.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent Non-Markovian Nonlinear Qubit From Collective Spin Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NC7JP36C

@misc{pith2026260807723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent Non-Markovian Nonlinear Qubit From Collective Spin Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NC7JP36C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07723}
}

abstract

Open-system descriptions are typically introduced by coupling a quantum system to an external environment. Here we show that a closed interacting many-body system can itself generate a controlled non-Markovian quantum channel acting on a reduced nonlinear qubit through finite-size corrections to a nonlinear mean-field limit. We demonstrate this using the Kitagawa-Ueda one-axis twisting model, $H=\chi J_z^2$, a paradigmatic model of collective spin dynamics, spin squeezing, and two-component Bose-Einstein condensates. Although the large-$N$ regime of this model has been extensively studied, the conventional fixed-$\chi$ scaling does not yield a nontrivial dynamical large-$N$ limit. In this paper, we investigate a complementary large-$N$ formulation obtained from the double limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ and $\chi\rightarrow O(g/N)$, where $g$ is a coupling constant. We derive the leading finite-$N$ corrections to this limit and show that they correspond to an emergent non-Markovian dephasing process, producing a Gaussian decay of the Bloch-vector coherence with characteristic timescale $t_\varphi\geq\sqrt{N}/(2g)$. Exact finite-$N$ calculations demonstrate that this effective open-system description becomes quantitatively accurate for systems containing on the order of one hundred qubits. The resulting framework provides a microscopic realization of non-Markovian dephasing generated intrinsically by a closed many-body system and enables efficient simulation of collective quantum dynamics beyond unitary mean-field theory. These results link the long-studied phenomenon of phase diffusion in atomic ensembles and Bose-Einstein condensates to the growing effort to characterize non-Markovian, beyond-Lindblad noise in quantum computing hardware, providing a rare case in which such a noise channel is derived from microscopic dynamics rather than fit phenomenologically.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07723 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Normalized collective-spin expectation values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Rivas, S

A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non- markovianity: characterization, quantification and detec- tion, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 094001 (2014)

work page 2014
[2]

Breuer, E.-M

H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Col- loquium: Non-markovian dynamics in open quantum sys- tems, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021002 (2016)

2016
[3]

Agarwal, L

A. Agarwal, L. P. Lindoy, D. Lall, F. Jamet, and I. Rung- ger, Modelling non-markovian noise in driven supercon- ducting qubits, Quantum Sci. Technol.9, 035017 (2024)

work page 2024
[4]

Nakamura and J

K. Nakamura and J. Ankerhold, Qubit dynamics beyond lindblad: Non-markovianity versus rotating wave approx- imation, Phys. Rev. B109, 014315 (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

J. Zou, S. Bosco, and D. Loss, Spatially correlated clas- sical and quantum noise in driven qubits, npj Quantum Inf.10, 46 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Kitagawa and M

M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A47, 5138 (1993)

1993
[7]

J. Hald, J. L. Sørensen, C. Schori, and E. S. Polzik, Spin squeezed atoms: A macroscopic entangled ensemble cre- ated by light, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1319 (1999)

work page 1999
[8]

Kuzmich, L

A. Kuzmich, L. Mandel, and N. P. Bigelow, Generation of spin squeezing via continuous quantum nondemolition measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1594 (2000)

work page 2000

Show all 35 references

[9]

Wang and B

X. Wang and B. C. Sanders, Spin squeezing and pair- wise entanglement for symmetric multiqubit states, Phys. Rev. A68, 012101 (2003)

2003
[10]

Jin and S

G.-R. Jin and S. W. Kim, Storage of spin squeezing in a two-component bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 170405 (2007)

2007
[11]

J. Ma, X. Wang, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Phys. Rep.509, 89 (2011)

2011
[12]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[13]

Est` eve, C

J. Est` eve, C. Gross, A. Weller, S. Giovanazzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Squeezing and entanglement in a bose– einstein condensate, Nature455, 1216 (2008)

2008
[14]

Pezz` e, A

L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

2018
[15]

X. Chai, D. Lao, K. Fujimoto, R. Hamazaki, M. Ueda, and C. Raman, Magnetic solitons in a spin-1 bose- einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 030402 (2020)

2020
[16]

L. Xin, M. S. Chapman, and T. A. B. Kennedy, Fast generation of time-stationary spin-1 squeezed states by nonadiabatic control, PRX Quantum3, 010328 (2022)

2022
[17]

L. Xin, M. Barrios, J. T. Cohen, and M. S. Chapman, Long-lived squeezed ground states in a quantum spin en- semble, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 133402 (2023)

2023
[18]

Barberena, A

D. Barberena, A. Chu, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, Trade-offs between unitary and measurement in- duced spin squeezing in cavity qed, Phys. Rev. Research 6, L032037 (2024). 9

2024
[19]

C. Luo, H. Zhang, A. Chu, C. Maruko, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Hamiltonian engineering of collective xyz spin models in an optical cavity, Nature Physics21, 916 (2025)

2025
[20]

Mielnik, Mobility of nonlinear systems, J

B. Mielnik, Mobility of nonlinear systems, J. Math. Phys. 21, 44 (1980)

1980
[21]

A. M. Childs and J. Young, Optimal state discrimination and unstructured search in nonlinear quantum mechan- ics, Phys. Rev. A93, 022314 (2016)

2016
[22]

M. R. Geller, Fast quantum state discrimination with nonlinear ptp channels, Adv. Quantum Technol. , 2200156 (2023)

2023
[23]

Lewenstein and L

M. Lewenstein and L. You, Quantum phase diffusion of a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3489 (1996)

1996
[24]

Javanainen and M

J. Javanainen and M. Wilkens, Phase and phase diffusion of a split bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 4675 (1997)

1997
[25]

Castin and J

Y. Castin and J. Dalibard, Relative phase of two bose- einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A55, 4330 (1997)

1997
[26]

M. R. Geller, From spin squeezing to fast state discrimi- nation, Quantum10, 2108 (2026)

2026
[27]

Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun

G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

1976
[28]

Gorini, A

V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level sys- tems, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

1976
[29]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, England, 2010)

2010
[30]

W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery,Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Com- puting, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007)

2007
[31]

Coffman, J

V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Distributed entanglement, Phys. Rev. A61, 052306 (2000)

2000
[32]

T. J. Osborne and F. Verstraete, General monogamy inequality for bipartite qubit entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 220503 (2006)

2006
[33]

Yang, A simple proof of monogamy of entanglement, Phys

D. Yang, A simple proof of monogamy of entanglement, Phys. Lett. A360, 249 (2006)

2006
[34]

Greiner, O

M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Collapse and revival of the matter wave field of a bose– einstein condensate, Nature419, 51 (2002)

2002
[35]

C.-T. Li, J. Tan, V. Gucev, and D. A. Lidar, Probing qubit noise with a channel-resolved post-markovian mas- ter equation (2026), arXiv:2510.12894 [quant-ph]

2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Rivas, S

A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non- markovianity: characterization, quantification and detec- tion, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 094001 (2014)

work page 2014

[2] [2]

Breuer, E.-M

H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Col- loquium: Non-markovian dynamics in open quantum sys- tems, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021002 (2016)

2016

[3] [3]

Agarwal, L

A. Agarwal, L. P. Lindoy, D. Lall, F. Jamet, and I. Rung- ger, Modelling non-markovian noise in driven supercon- ducting qubits, Quantum Sci. Technol.9, 035017 (2024)

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Nakamura and J

K. Nakamura and J. Ankerhold, Qubit dynamics beyond lindblad: Non-markovianity versus rotating wave approx- imation, Phys. Rev. B109, 014315 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [5]

J. Zou, S. Bosco, and D. Loss, Spatially correlated clas- sical and quantum noise in driven qubits, npj Quantum Inf.10, 46 (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Kitagawa and M

M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A47, 5138 (1993)

1993

[7] [7]

J. Hald, J. L. Sørensen, C. Schori, and E. S. Polzik, Spin squeezed atoms: A macroscopic entangled ensemble cre- ated by light, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1319 (1999)

work page 1999

[8] [8]

Kuzmich, L

A. Kuzmich, L. Mandel, and N. P. Bigelow, Generation of spin squeezing via continuous quantum nondemolition measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1594 (2000)

work page 2000