Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Non-Markovian to Markovian decay in structured environments with correlated disorder

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By tuning the correlation exponent of on-site disorder in a coupled-cavity array, spontaneous emission switches from non-Markovian population trapping to nearly exponential decay, with the crossover between $\alpha=1$ and $\alpha=2$.

desk verdict Correlated disorder exponent α plausibly tunes spontaneous emission toward Markovian decay in a coupled-cavity array, but the ensemble-averaged non-Markovianity measure does not yet support the single-shot probe claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14304 v1 pith:3RQVWK67 submitted 2024-11-21 quant-ph

Mariana O. Monteiro , Nadja K. Bernardes , Eugene M. Broni , Francisco A. B. F. de Moura , Guilherme M. A. Almeida This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords openquantumsystemsnon-Markoviandynamicsspontaneousemissioncoupled-cavityarraycorrelateddisorderAndersonlocalizationlocalization-delocalizationtransitionprobing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies a two-level atom coupled to an array of coupled cavities whose on-site frequencies carry long-range correlated disorder, and asks whether the atom's spontaneous emission can be steered between memory-laden and memoryless decay by changing only the correlation exponent $\alpha$. It shows that raising $\alpha$ at fixed disorder strength progressively removes the population trapping caused by Anderson localization, and that the decay becomes nearly exponential once $\alpha$ exceeds 2. That crossover coincides with the known localization-delocalization transition of the cavity modes, where delocalized states create a flat spectral density near the band center. A sympathetic reader should care because it turns a disordered photonic environment into a tunable reservoir and makes the qubit's decay curve a witness of the environment's phase.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the localization-delocalization transition of the one-dimensional Anderson model with long-range correlated disorder, generated by the fractional-Brownian-motion series $\epsilon_n \propto \sum_k k^{-\alpha/2}\cos(2\pi nk/L+\varphi_k)$. In this model, $\alpha=2$ marks the appearance of delocalized states with mobility edges, and the spectral density $G(\omega)=g^2(\omega)\rho(\omega)$ becomes flat in the center of the band; a flat spectral density is what produces Markovian exponential decay in the weak-coupling regime. The non-Markovianity is quantified by $N=N_V/|\tilde N_V|$, built from the positive and negative slopes of $p_e^2(t)$, and two effective models - an emitter coupled to a Markovian bath plus one auxiliary mode, and an emitter in a Lorentzian bath - reproduce $N(\alpha)$ from a single ratio $r=\gamma/g_\ell$ that combines the local decay rate with the localization length via the participation ratio.

What would settle it

Compute the ensemble-averaged $N$ and $p_e(t)$ for $\alpha=2.5$ using a longer time window (for example $tJ>2000$) and larger arrays; if the distribution of $p_e(t)$ develops revivals or if $N$ does not stay near its short-time value as the window grows, the Markovian classification would fail. Likewise, a single typical realization with $\omega_a$ at the band center could be monitored: if revivals recur after the apparent exponential decay, the flat-spectral-density argument is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the degree of memory in the atomic decay is controlled by $\alpha$, the exponent of the power-law spectrum $k^{-\alpha}$ of the on-site disorder. For uncorrelated disorder ($\alpha=0$) the field modes are localized and the atomic population is trapped in oscillatory non-Markovian dynamics; as $\alpha$ increases toward 2 and beyond, the modes delocalize around the band center, the spectral density there flattens, and the atom releases more than 90% of its excitation in a nearly exponential curve close to the homogeneous-chain benchmark $p_e(t)=e^{-g^2t/J}$. The authors establish the Markovian regime for $\alpha>2$, while noting that $N=0$ strictly holds only for an infinite homogeneous chain and that small bound-state remnants survive.

Load-bearing premise

The Markovian-regime claim for $\alpha>2$ rests on the assumption that the ensemble-averaged non-Markovianity computed over a finite time window ($tJ\le 600$, $10^3$ realizations) represents the asymptotic dynamics, even though the cavity array has a discrete spectrum and bound-state contributions keep the excitation from ever fully decaying.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\alpha>2$, the disordered coupled-cavity array acts as a memoryless reservoir: an initially excited atom decays nearly exponentially, releasing more than 90% of its excitation, despite unaltered disorder strength.
  • The same decay curve can be read as a probe of the environment's phase: the onset of Markovianity between $\alpha=1$ and $\alpha=2$ marks the localization-delocalization transition of the field modes.
  • The non-Markovianity $N(\alpha)$ is captured by simple effective models whose only material input is the ratio $r=\gamma/g_\ell$ computed from the free-field spectrum, so the environment's phase is encoded in one scalar parameter.
  • Keeping the atomic frequency at the band center is the condition for Markovian behavior; away from the center, localized modes and band-edge states reintroduce memory effects and trapping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Markovian label refers to an ensemble-averaged, finite-time measure, a longer-time or single-realization experiment could show residual recurrences from bound states; the sharp $\alpha=2$ transition is therefore an operational boundary, not an exact equality.
  • The same probe logic could be tested in other settings with tunable localization transitions, such as quasiperiodic or flat-band lattices, where the spectral density near the probe frequency can be flattened by delocalization.
  • A direct superconducting-circuit realization - one transmon coupled to a chain of resonators with engineered on-site disorder - could map $N$ versus $\alpha$ in real time and test whether the crossover region between 1 and 2 is as narrow as the simulations suggest.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies spontaneous emission of a two-level atom placed at the center of a one-dimensional coupled-cavity array with on-site disorder generated by a fractional Brownian motion with power-law spectrum k^{-alpha}. The authors compute the atomic excitation probability and the non-Markovianity measure N of Eq. (6) for ensembles of 10^3 disorder realizations and show that increasing alpha from 0 to larger values turns the decay from population trapping toward an approximately exponential decay. They associate the transition between alpha=1 and alpha=2 with the localization-delocalization transition of the 1D Anderson model with long-range correlated disorder, propose that the atom can be used as a probe of the environment phase, and present two effective models (Markovian bath plus auxiliary mode, and Lorentzian bath) that reproduce the dependence of N on alpha using the participation ratio and the spectral density at the band center.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would provide a simple, tunable platform in which a localization-delocalization transition in the environment is mirrored by the Markovian/non-Markovian character of a single emitter, with potential applications in reservoir engineering and quantum probing. The numerical methods are solid: large arrays (N=6201), long time windows (tJ<=600), small time step, norm conservation, and averaging over 10^3 realizations are appropriate for the ensemble-averaged quantities. The effective models are analytically transparent and give a useful phenomenological benchmark. However, the significance is moderated by the fact that the central 'Markovian regime' claim is made for ensemble averages rather than for the single-realization dynamics that a probe atom would actually experience, and by the lack of a quantitative convergence analysis in time and system size.

major comments (3)
  1. [III A, Fig. 4] The central claim that a Markovian regime is reached for alpha>2 is based on the ensemble-averaged non-Markovianity N and the ensemble-averaged excitation pe. As the paper notes in the discussion of Fig. 3(a), each realization has a band that is offset from omega=0, so localized modes can appear near omega_a=0 for some realizations even when alpha>2. Because N is defined for a single realization's reduced dynamics, a small average over 10^3 realizations could be produced by a mixture of mostly Markovian realizations and a minority of strongly non-Markovian ones. The text reports that N is 'numerically evaluated for each realization and averaged afterwards,' but no distribution, histogram, or typical/outlier statistics are shown. Please provide the per-realization distribution of N (e.g., percentiles or the fraction of realizations with N below a threshold) and, if the probe interpretation in the introduction is retained, demonstrate that a single realization reliably yields near-Markovian dynamics for alpha>2.
  2. [III A, Figs. 2 and 4] The finite simulation window tJ<=600 and the finite chain size N=6201 do not by themselves establish an asymptotic Markovian regime. The paper acknowledges that for alpha>=2 bound-state contributions persist at long times, that more than (but not all) 90% of the excitation is released, and that N=0 only for an infinite homogeneous CCA. The observed small N could therefore be a finite-time/finite-size effect rather than a genuine Markovian limit. To support the phrase 'Markovian regime is reached for alpha>2', the manuscript should either define an operational criterion (e.g., N below a specified threshold that is stable under increasing N and t_max) or study the long-time limit more directly, including an estimate of pe(infinity) and its dependence on N and alpha.
  3. [III B, Fig. 4] The effective-model curves are not fitted to the direct N data, but they depend on two choices that are not derived from the microscopic model: the unit proportionality constant in g_l = g/sqrt(xi) and the spectral bin width 0.1J used to define gamma(omega_a=0). Since both choices enter r=gamma/g_l, and r fully determines the model predictions N(r), the reported 'remarkable agreement' in Fig. 4 could be partly by construction. Please show the sensitivity of the model curves to these choices (e.g., varying the bin width and the proportionality constant over a reasonable range), or derive the constant and bin width from the Hamiltonian. In addition, Eqs. (12) and (14) are derived under exact resonance, while the actual mode frequency omega_l is detuned from omega_a=0; the text asserts this does not matter 'on average' but does not quantify the effect.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II C, Eq. (6)] The quantity eNV is never explicitly defined; please give its definition as eNV = -∫_{∂t pe<0} (d pe^2/dt) dt. Also, the simplification eNV = NV + 1 assumes pe(infinity)=0, which is not strictly valid for a finite disordered CCA; please state this assumption or use the exact expression eNV = NV + 1 - pe(infinity)^2.
  2. [III B, Eq. (14)] The symbol Δ is carried over from Eq. (12), where Δ = sqrt(16-r^2), but the Lorentzian model's NV formula is stated to be valid for r∈[0,2), which suggests a different Δ (likely sqrt(4-r^2)). Please define Δ separately for each model or use distinct notation.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] 'Symbols are fittings originated from the effective models' is misleading; the symbols are evaluations of the analytic formulas with r(alpha) as input, not fits to the direct N data. Please rephrase.
  4. [II C, p. 3] The sentence 'We refer to the reader the reviews in Refs.' should read 'We refer the reader to the reviews in Refs.'; similarly, 'our goal here resumes to find' should be 'our goal here reduces to finding'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-Markovianity transition is obtained from direct full-Hamiltonian simulation, and the effective-model symbols use independently computed environmental inputs rather than fits to the target data.

full rationale

The central result, namely the decrease of non-Markovianity with the correlation exponent alpha and the apparent Markovian regime for alpha > 2, is obtained by numerically integrating the full single-excitation Hamiltonian of the CCA plus the atom, with N computed realization-by-realization and averaged over 10^3 samples (Figs. 2 and 4). No parameter is fitted to this N curve. The effective-model curves in Fig. 4 are generated by first constructing r(alpha) = gamma(alpha)/g_l(alpha) from exact diagonalization of the free-field Hamiltonian: gamma is the spectral density at omega_a = 0 computed by binning g_k^2, and g_l = g/sqrt(xi) with xi the participation ratio; the unit proportionality constant is explicitly stated. These inputs are then inserted into closed-form expressions for N, and the resulting curves are compared with the full simulation. This is a genuine comparison rather than a reduction, because N in the full simulation is not used to fix gamma or g_l. The localization-delocalization transition at alpha = 2 is imported from Refs. [57,67,68], which include prior work by co-authors, but those are externally established results about the 1D Anderson model with correlated disorder and are not re-imported to define the non-Markovianity measure; they only motivate the interpretation. The paper also explicitly acknowledges that exact N = 0 occurs only for an infinite homogeneous CCA and that bound-state remnants remain for alpha >= 2, so the 'Markovian regime' label is a stated interpretive judgment on averaged finite-time data. Any concerns about ensemble averaging versus single-realization Markovianity, or the finite time window tJ <= 600, are scientific-validity issues rather than circularity. Under the hard rules, self-citation alone without a definitional reduction does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard open-quantum-system model (RWA, single-excitation subspace, weak coupling) and on the known localization-delocalization transition of the correlated-disorder model [57]. The main hand-chosen ingredients are the unit proportionality constant in g_l and the spectral bin width for gamma. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Unit proportionality constant in g_l = g/sqrt(xi) = 1 (assumed)
    Chosen by hand rather than fitted; if varied it would shift the effective-model N curves in Fig. 4, so the reported agreement depends on this choice (Section III B).
  • Spectral bin width for gamma(omega_a) = 0.1J
    Hand-chosen bin size used to convert the discrete sum over g_k^2 into a decay rate; gamma and hence r = gamma/g_l change with this choice (Fig. 4 inset).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation and single-excitation subspace for the Jaynes-Cummings interaction
    Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) neglects counter-rotating terms and multiple excitations; standard when g << J and only one initial excitation is present.
  • domain assumption The correlated disorder model of Eq. (4) undergoes a localization-delocalization transition at alpha = 2
    Imported from Ref. [57]; the paper uses this to associate alpha > 2 with delocalized modes and a flat central spectral density, but does not re-derive or directly measure the transition.
  • domain assumption The non-Markovianity measure satisfies N = NV/(NV + 1), which holds when pe(infinity) = 0
    Section II C; the finite disordered CCA has bound states and saturated population, so the relation is approximate; the paper acknowledges this in Section III B.
  • domain assumption Effective models are evaluated under exact resonance omega_a = omega_l and with pe(infinity) = 0
    Eqs. (12) and (14) are derived for resonance; the paper argues that the average detuning is small and does not affect N much (Section III B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Markovian to Markovian decay in structured environments with correlated disorder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RQVWK67

@misc{pith2026241114304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Markovian to Markovian decay in structured environments with correlated disorder},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RQVWK67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14304}
}
read the original abstract

Manipulating the dynamics of open quantum systems is a crucial requirement for large-scale quantum computers. Finding ways to overcome or extend decoherence times is a challenging task. Already at the level of a single two-level atom, its reduced dynamics with respect to a larger environment can be very complex. Structured environments, for instance, can lead to various regimes other than memoryless Markovian spontaneous emission. Here, we consider an atom coupled to an array of coupled cavities in the presence of on-site correlated disorder. The correlation is long-ranged and associated with the trace of a fractional Brownian motion following a power-law spectrum. With the cavity modes playing the role of the environment, we study the dynamics of the spontaneous emission. We observe a change from non-Markovian to Markovian decay in the presence of disorder by tuning the correlation parameter. This is associated with a localization-delocalization transition involving the field modes. Two dissipative models that effectively reproduce the behavior of the non-Markovianity are discussed. The dissipation dynamics of the atom can thus be used to extract information about the phase of the environment. Our results provide a direction in the engineering of disordered quantum systems to function as controllable reservoirs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14304 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Array of optical cavities coupled with tunnel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time evolution of the atomic excitation probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Non-Markovianity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Typical realization of the spectral density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Effective schemes that capture the non-Markovianity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Breuer and F

    H. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quan- tum Systems (Clarendon, 2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Shor, Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science (1996) pp

    P. Shor, Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science (1996) pp. 56–65

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    C. P. Koch, Controlling open quantum systems: tools, achievements, and limitations, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 28, 213001 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Engi- neered dissipation for quantum information science, Na- ture Reviews Physics 4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254- 022-00494-8 (2022)

    doi:10.1038/s42254- 2022

  6. [6]

    C. J. Myatt, B. E. King, Q. A. Turchette, C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Decoherence of quantum superpositions through coupling to engineered reservoirs, Nature 403, https://doi.org/10.1038/35002001 (2000)

    work page doi:10.1038/35002001 2000

  7. [7]

    D. F. Urrego, J. Fl´ orez, J. Svozil ´ ık, M. Nu˜ nez, and A. Valencia, Controlling non-markovian dynamics using a light-based structured environment, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053862 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Longhi, Photonic simulation of giant atom decay, Opt

    S. Longhi, Photonic simulation of giant atom decay, Opt. Lett. 45, 3017 (2020). 8

    work page 2020

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    V. S. Ferreira, J. Banker, A. Sipahigil, M. H. Matheny, A. J. Keller, E. Kim, M. Mirhosseini, and O. Painter, Collapse and revival of an artificial atom coupled to a structured photonic reservoir, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041043 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    McEndoo, P

    S. McEndoo, P. Haikka, G. D. Chiara, G. M. Palma, and S. Maniscalco, Entanglement control via reservoir engi- neering in ultracold atomic gases, Europhysics Letters 101, 60005 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. I. Cirac, Quantum emitters in two-dimensional structured reservoirs in the nonper- turbative regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 143602 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Lira and L

    J. Lira and L. Sanz, Schrodinger cats coupled with cav- ities losses: the effect of finite and structured reservoirs, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 41, C254 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Barreiro, M

    J. Barreiro, M. M¨ uller, and P. t. Schindler, An open- system quantum simulator with trapped ions, Nature 470, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09801 (2011)

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Semin and F

    V. Semin and F. Petruccione, Dynamical and thermody- namical approaches to open quantum systems, Scientific Reports 10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59241-7 (2020)

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engi- neering driven by dissipation, Nature Physics 5, https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1342 (2009)

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    B.-H. Liu, L. Li, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, E.-M. Laine, H.-P. Breuer, and J. Piilo, Experimental control of the transition from markovian to non-markovian dy- namics of open quantum systems, Nature Physics 7, 931 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    T. J. G. Apollaro, C. Di Franco, F. Plastina, and M. Pa- ternostro, Memory-keeping effects and forgetfulness in the dynamics of a qubit coupled to a spin chain, Phys. Rev. A 83, 032103 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Tufarelli, M

    T. Tufarelli, M. S. Kim, and F. Ciccarello, Non- markovianity of a quantum emitter in front of a mirror, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012113 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Lombardo, F

    F. Lombardo, F. Ciccarello, and G. M. Palma, Photon lo- calization versus population trapping in a coupled-cavity array, Phys. Rev. A 89, 10.1103/PhysRevA.89.053826 (2014)

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Campbell, F

    S. Campbell, F. Ciccarello, G. M. Palma, and B. Vac- chini, System-environment correlations and markovian embedding of quantum non-markovian dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012142 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Gribben, A

    D. Gribben, A. Strathearn, G. E. Fux, P. Kirton, and B. W. Lovett, Using the Environment to Understand non-Markovian Open Quantum Systems, Quantum 6, 847 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Gaikwad, D

    C. Gaikwad, D. Kowsari, C. Brame, X. Song, H. Zhang, M. Esposito, A. Ranadive, G. Cappelli, N. Roch, E. M. Levenson-Falk, and K. W. Murch, Entanglement assisted probe of the non-markovian to markovian transition in open quantum system dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 200401 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Benedetti, F

    C. Benedetti, F. Buscemi, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum probes for the spectral properties of a classical environment, Phys. Rev. A 89, 032114 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Sone and P

    A. Sone and P. Cappellaro, Exact dimension estimation of interacting qubit systems assisted by a single quantum probe, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062334 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Benedetti, F

    C. Benedetti, F. Salari Sehdaran, M. H. Zandi, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum probes for the cutoff frequency of ohmic environments, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012126 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    M. Bina, F. Grasselli, and M. G. A. Paris, Continuous- variable quantum probes for structured environments, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012125 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Lyyra, O

    H. Lyyra, O. Siltanen, J. Piilo, S. Banerjee, and T. Ku- usela, Experimental quantum probing measurements with no knowledge of the system-probe interaction, Phys. Rev. A 102, 022232 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Tamascelli, C

    D. Tamascelli, C. Benedetti, H.-P. Breuer, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum probing beyond pure dephasing, New Journal of Physics 22, 083027 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Blair, G

    S. Blair, G. Zicari, A. Belenchia, A. Ferraro, and M. Pa- ternostro, Nonequilibrium quantum probing through lin- ear response, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013152 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    black-box

    I. A. Luchnikov, E. O. Kiktenko, M. A. Gavreev, H. Ouer- dane, S. N. Filippov, and A. K. Fedorov, Probing non- markovian quantum dynamics with data-driven analy- sis: Beyond “black-box” machine-learning models, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043002 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    J. Barr, G. Zicari, A. Ferraro, and M. Paternostro, Spec- tral density classification for environment spectroscopy, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 5, 015043 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Haikka, J

    P. Haikka, J. Goold, S. McEndoo, F. Plastina, and S. Maniscalco, Non-markovianity, loschmidt echo, and criticality: A unified picture, Phys. Rev. A 85, 060101 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Gessner, M

    M. Gessner, M. Ramm, H. H¨ affner, A. Buchleitner, and H.-P. Breuer, Observing a quantum phase transition by measuring a single spin, Europhysics Letters 107, 40005 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Lin, P.-Y

    Y.-C. Lin, P.-Y. Yang, and W.-M. Zhang, Non- equilibrium quantum phase transition via entangle- ment decoherence dynamics, Scientific Reports 6, 34804 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    G. L. Giorgi, S. Longhi, A. Cabot, and R. Zambrini, Quantum probing topological phase transitions by non- markovianity, Annalen der Physik 531, 1900307 (2019), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.201900307

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Yao and W.-M

    C.-Z. Yao and W.-M. Zhang, Probing topological states through the exact non-markovian decoherence dynamics of a spin coupled to a spin bath in the real-time domain, Phys. Rev. B 102, 035133 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Rossini and E

    D. Rossini and E. Vicari, Coherent and dissipative dy- namics at quantum phase transitions, Physics Reports 936, 1 (2021), coherent and dissipative dynamics at quantum phase transitions

    2021

  30. [38]

    ´Angel Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non-markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 094001 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Alicki and K

    R. Alicki and K. Lendi, Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications (2007) pp. 1–129

    2007

  32. [40]

    K. H. Madsen, S. Ates, T. Lund-Hansen, A. L¨ offler, S. Reitzenstein, A. Forchel, and P. Lodahl, Observation of non-markovian dynamics of a single quantum dot in a micropillar cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 233601 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Pastawski, L

    F. Pastawski, L. Clemente, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum memories based on engineered dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012304 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Z.-X. Man, N. B. An, and Y.-J. Xia, Non-markovian dy- namics of a two-level system in the presence of hierarchi- cal environments, Opt. Express 23, 5763 (2015). 9

    2015

  35. [43]

    Y.-L. L. Fang, F. Ciccarello, and H. U. Baranger, Non- markovian dynamics of a qubit due to single-photon scat- tering in a waveguide, New Journal of Physics20, 043035 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    H. Z. Shen, S. Xu, H. T. Cui, and X. X. Yi, Non- markovian dynamics of a system of two-level atoms cou- pled to a structured environment, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032101 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Z. Y. Li and H. Z. Shen, Non-markovian dynamics with a giant atom coupled to a semi-infinite photonic waveguide, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023712 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Lambropoulos, G

    P. Lambropoulos, G. M. Nikolopoulos, T. R. Nielsen, and S. Bay, Fundamental quantum optics in structured reser- voirs, Reports on Progress in Physics 63, 455 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    Longhi, Bound states in the continuum in a single-level fano-anderson model, The European Physical Journal B 57, 45 (2007)

    S. Longhi, Bound states in the continuum in a single-level fano-anderson model, The European Physical Journal B 57, 45 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    Sapienza, H

    L. Sapienza, H. Thyrrestrup, S. Stobbe, P. D. Garcia, S. Smolka, and P. Lodahl, Cavity quantum electrody- namics with anderson-localized modes, Science 327, 1352 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    for details) dρe,ℓ dt = −i[ ˆHℓ, ρe,ℓ(t)] + γ ˆLρe,ℓ ˆL† − 1 2 n ˆL† ˆL, ρe,ℓ o , (11) where ˆHℓ = ωa ˆσ+ ˆσ− + ωℓ ˆϕ† ℓ ˆϕℓ + gℓ(ˆσ+ ˆϕℓ + h.c.) and the jump operator ˆL = ˆσ−. Here, the dissipation rate is defined as γ = γ(ωa) = π P k̸=ℓ g2 kδ(ωk − ωa), which basically depen...

  42. [50]

    Lorenzo, F

    S. Lorenzo, F. Ciccarello, and G. M. Palma, Non- markovian dynamics from band edge effects and static disorder, International Journal of Quantum Information 15, 1740026 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Lorenzo, F

    S. Lorenzo, F. Lombardo, F. Ciccarello, and G. M. Palma, Quantum non-markovianity induced by ander- son localization, Sci. Rep. 7 42729, 10.1038/srep42729 (2017)

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    M. J. Hartmann, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and M. B. Ple- nio, Strongly interacting polaritons in coupled arrays of cavities, Nature Physics 2, 849 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    Cosco and S

    F. Cosco and S. Maniscalco, Memory effects in a quasiperiodic fermi lattice, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053608 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    G. M. A. Almeida, F. Ciccarello, T. J. G. Apollaro, and A. M. C. Souza, Quantum-state transfer in staggered coupled-cavity arrays, Phys. Rev. A 93, 032310 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    A. D. Greentree, C. Tahan, J. H. Cole, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Quantum phase transitions of light, Nature Physics 2, 856 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    Meher and S

    N. Meher and S. Sivakumar, A review on quantum in- formation processing in cavities, The European Physical Journal Plus 137, 985 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    J. P. Mendon¸ ca, F. A. B. F. de Moura, M. L. Lyra, and G. M. A. Almeida, Generation and distribution of atomic entanglement in coupled-cavity arrays, Phys. Rev. A102, 062416 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Izrailev, A

    F. Izrailev, A. Krokhin, and N. Makarov, Anomalous lo- calization in low-dimensional systems with correlated dis- order, Physics Reports 512, 125 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    F. A. B. F. de Moura and M. L. Lyra, Delocalization in the 1d anderson model with long-range correlated disor- der, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3735 (1998)

    1998

  52. [60]

    de Vega and D

    I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Dynamics of non-markovian open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015001 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    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

  54. [62]

    Mouloudakis and P

    G. Mouloudakis and P. Lambropoulos, Coalescence of non-markovian dissipation, quantum zeno effect, and non-hermitian physics in a simple realistic quantum sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A 106, 053709 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Lorenzo, F

    S. Lorenzo, F. Plastina, and M. Paternostro, Geometrical characterization of non-markovianity, Phys. Rev. A 88, 020102 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    John and J

    S. John and J. Wang, Quantum electrodynamics near a photonic band gap: Photon bound states and dressed atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2418 (1990)

    1990

  57. [65]

    Mouloudakis, T

    G. Mouloudakis, T. Ilias, and P. Lambropoulos, Arbitrary-length xx spin chains boundary-driven by non- markovian environments, Phys. Rev. A 105, 012429 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Xiong, P.-Y

    H.-N. Xiong, P.-Y. Lo, W.-M. Zhang, D. H. Feng, and F. Nori, Non-markovian complexity in the quantum-to- classical transition, Scientific Reports 5, 13353 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    A. G. Kofman, G. Kurizki, and B. Sherman, Spontaneous and induced atomic decay in photonic band structures, Journal of Modern Optics 41, 353 (1994)

    1994

  60. [68]

    C. V. C. Mendes, G. M. A. Almeida, M. L. Lyra, and F. A. B. F. de Moura, Localization-delocalization tran- sition in discrete-time quantum walks with long-range correlated disorder, Phys. Rev. E 99, 022117 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Santos, L

    B. Santos, L. Viana, M. Lyra, and F. de Moura, Diffusive, super-diffusive and ballistic transport in the long-range correlated 1d anderson model, Solid State Communica- tions 138, 585 (2006)

    2006

  62. [71]

    Sakurai, M

    A. Sakurai, M. P. Estarellas, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Quantum extreme reservoir computation uti- lizing scale-free networks, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 064044 (2022)

    2022

  63. [103]

    (10) thus, the state ket can be obtained at recursively any time t

    we will solve the time evolution of the system using a high-order Taylor expansion of the evolution operator: ˆU (∆t) = exp(−i ˆH∆t) = 1 + n0X l=1 (−i ˆH∆t)l l! . (10) thus, the state ket can be obtained at recursively any time t. We use a time step of ∆ t = 0 .1J and truncate...

Pith tools

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