Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

The transfer of nonlocality between two- and three-qubit dissipative systems with counter-rotating-wave terms

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 Nonlocality shuttles between a three-qubit state and its pair

desk verdict A useful numerical extension of common-bath dissipative dynamics to three qubits, with a plausible but under-specified central claim about nonlocality transfer. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13905 v2 pith:5S2OM7VP submitted 2024-11-21 quant-ph

Zi-Yu Xiong , Yong-Jun Xiao , Ye-Qi Zhang , Qi-Liang He This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords counter-rotatingwavetermsgenuinetripartitenonlocalitySvetlichnyinequalityCHSHhierarchicalequationsofmotionnon-MarkovianopenquantumsystemsWstateultrastrongcoupling
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 when three qubits share a common bosonic bath, the counter-rotating wave terms qualitatively change the evolution of nonlocality. In the strong coupling regime those terms suppress the rebirth of genuine tripartite nonlocality and genuine tripartite entanglement, while a two-qubit subsystem can show a sudden birth of Bell nonlocality because information flows back more efficiently to the more strongly coupled pair. In the ultrastrong coupling regime the authors find a periodic back-and-forth transfer: the three-qubit state violates the Svetlichny inequality while its subsystem is local, then the subsystem violates the CHSH inequality while tripartite nonlocality disappears, and then the pattern repeats. These results come from a hierarchical equations of motion treatment that avoids the Born-Markovian, perturbative, and rotating-wave approximations, so the claimed role of the counter-rotating terms is not an artifact of those approximations.

What carries the argument

The model is three non-interacting qubits coupled to a common bosonic bath, with a Hamiltonian that includes the counter-rotating terms $\hat{V} \otimes \sum_k g_k (\hat{a}_k^\dagger + \hat{a}_k)$ and a Lorentzian spectral density. The central objects are: the Svetlichny inequality, whose maximal violation $N(\rho_{abc}) = \max_S \mathrm{tr}(S\rho_{abc})$ signals genuine tripartite nonlocality when it exceeds 4; the CHSH expression $N(\rho_{ab}) = 2\sqrt{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2}$, which signals bipartite Bell nonlocality when it exceeds 2; and the $\pi$-tangle for genuine tripartite entanglement. The main machinery is the hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM), a numerically exact method that keeps the counter-rotating terms and treats system-bath memory without Born-Markovian, perturbative, or rotating-wave approximations; the hierarchy is truncated at a level $L$ and solved by a fourth-order Runge-Kutta method. Under the rotating-wave approximation the same model is solved exactly in Laplace space, giving the amplitude equations for the W state that serve as the comparison case.

What would settle it

Recompute the evolution of $\rho_{abc}(t)$ and $\rho_{ab}(t)$ for the parameters of Fig. 5 with an independent numerically exact method (e.g., tensor networks or quantum trajectories) and check whether the Svetlichny and CHSH violations alternate at the reported times; alternatively, increase the HEOM truncation level $L$ and refine the Runge-Kutta step and confirm the oscillation pattern in Fig. 5 is stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, in the ultrastrong coupling regime, nonlocality is transferred back and forth between a three-qubit system and one of its two-qubit subsystems as a function of time. Starting from a W state, the three-qubit state $\rho_{abc}$ initially violates the Svetlichny inequality ($N(\rho_{abc}) > 4$) while the subsystem $\rho_{ab}$ is local. Around $\omega_0 t \approx 20$ the pair $\rho_{ab}$ violates the CHSH inequality ($N(\rho_{ab}) > 2$) while genuine tripartite nonlocality has vanished; around $\omega_0 t \approx 40$ the Svetlichny inequality is violated again without detectable bipartite nonlocality; and later the bipartite nonlocality returns. The paper interprets this as a dynamical realization of the complementarity and monogamy relations for multipartite nonlocality. A second discovery is that counter-rotating terms reverse their role with coupling strength: in the strong coupling regime they accelerate decay and reduce the revival amplitude of both GTE and GTN, whereas in the ultrastrong regime they significantly enhance the sudden-birth amplitude of genuine tripartite nonlocality while still slightly suppressing genuine tripartite entanglement. A third finding is that starting from the zero-excitation initial state $|ggg\rangle$ the counter-rotating terms generate bipartite concurrence but almost no genuine tripartite entanglement or nonlocality, so the generation power of virtual excitations does not extend from two-party to three-party correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical optimization of the Svetlichny inequality returns the true global maximum for the three-qubit state, and the HEOM hierarchy is converged at the chosen truncation; if either fails, the predicted nonlocality transfer could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At ultrastrong coupling, multipartite nonlocality is not merely degraded by a common bath: it can migrate to a subsystem, return to the whole three-qubit state, and migrate again, obeying the complementarity and monogamy relations of multipartite nonlocality at each stage.
  • The rotating-wave approximation misses the ultrastrong enhancement of genuine tripartite nonlocality sudden birth, so quantitative predictions about strong- and ultrastrong-coupling dissipative dynamics need the full counter-rotating terms.
  • Counter-rotating terms cannot be treated as a universal resource for generating multipartite correlation: starting from an excitation-free state they generate bipartite concurrence but almost no genuine tripartite entanglement or nonlocality.
  • In a three-qubit system with asymmetric couplings, only the more strongly coupled pair develops Bell-nonlocal correlations, and the timing of this sudden birth is set by the bath's information backflow.
  • The HEOM dynamics provides a reference benchmark that perturbative and Markovian master-equation treatments must reproduce before being trusted in the strong and ultrastrong regimes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct cross-check would be to compute the same evolution with an independent nonperturbative method, such as a tensor-network or quantum-trajectory approach; the transfer effect is confirmed only if the alternating Svetlichny and CHSH violations survive.
  • Because the oscillation period is set by the bath spectral width and coupling asymmetry, tuning $\alpha_3/\alpha_1$ or $\gamma$ in a circuit-QED ultrastrong-coupling experiment could produce a periodic source of Bell-nonlocal pairs extracted from a tripartite-nonlocal state.
  • The dynamical realization of the complementarity relations suggests that simultaneous, time-resolved measurements of the Svetlichny and CHSH inequalities would offer a new way to witness monogamy of nonlocality in dissipative many-body systems.
  • The W state is one of two inequivalent three-qubit entangled classes; testing whether a GHZ-class initial state shows the same nonlocality transfer would show whether the effect is universal or specific to the W class.
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. The paper studies three noninteracting qubits coupled to a common bosonic bath, comparing the rotating-wave-approximation (RWA) solution with a numerical hierarchical-equations-of-motion (HEOM) treatment that retains counter-rotating-wave (CRW) terms. Using the π-tangle for genuine tripartite entanglement (GTE), the Svetlichny inequality for genuine tripartite nonlocality (GTN), and the CHSH expression for bipartite nonlocality (BN), the authors report: (i) in the strong-coupling regime CRW terms accelerate decoherence and suppress revival of GTE and GTN; (ii) in the ultrastrong-coupling regime CRW terms enhance the sudden-birth amplitude of GTN; (iii) a back-and-forth transfer of nonlocality between the three-qubit state and a two-qubit subsystem occurs, with Svetlichny and CHSH violations appearing in alternating time windows; and (iv) starting from a zero-excitation state, CRW terms generate only weak GTE.

Significance. If the reported nonlocality-transfer phenomenon is reliable, it is a genuinely interesting dynamical manifestation of CRW terms at ultrastrong coupling and would go beyond earlier two-qubit studies. The paper uses an appropriate nonperturbative method (HEOM) and provides an independent analytic RWA benchmark, which strengthens the comparison. The HEOM code is benchmarked against an earlier independent calculation by Ma Ji et al. in Fig. 7, and the CHSH result for two qubits uses the closed-form Horodecki expression, so part of the numerical pipeline is externally grounded. However, the central tripartite quantity N(ρ_abc) is computed by an unspecified numerical maximization, and no convergence parameters are reported; because the claimed transfer consists of small-amplitude threshold crossings around the Svetlichny bound, the current manuscript does not yet provide sufficient evidence that the phenomenon is physical rather than numerical.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A, Eq. (6)] The quantity N(ρ_abc) is load-bearing for the central nonlocality-transfer claim, but the manuscript does not describe the maximization over Svetlichny operators beyond calling it an "exact" numerical method and citing Ref. [58]. It does not state the parametrization of the Svetlichny operator, the number of random starts, the local refinement procedure, or any test that the reported maxima are global. Since Fig. 5(a) oscillates around the Svetlichny bound with amplitude of order 0.1-0.2, a local maximizer that underestimates the true maximum could make genuine GTN windows appear local and could shift the revival times. Please provide the full algorithm and a global-optimality check, for example by comparing with semidefinite-programming relaxations or with multiple independent optimization heuristics.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A6)] The HEOM truncation level L is never reported for any figure; the text only says that auxiliary matrices with l1+l2 > L are dropped for a "sufficiently large" L. Likewise, no time step, integrator order, tolerance, or convergence criterion is given. Figure 7 benchmarks the code only for two-qubit concurrence against Ma Ji et al. [34], so it does not validate the three-qubit Svetlichny values used in Figs. 1, 4, and 5. Please report L and integration parameters for each coupling regime and show convergence of N(ρ_abc) and N(ρ_ab) with respect to L and the time step, especially in the ultrastrong-coupling regime.
  3. [Sec. III B, Fig. 5] The nonlocality-transfer claim is inferred from threshold crossings of quantities whose numerical uncertainty is not reported. Near ω0t ≈ 20 and ω0t ≈ 40 the displayed Svetlichny values are within a few percent of the bound 4, so the intervals in which GTN is claimed to be absent are exactly the intervals where an unconverged hierarchy or a small optimization error could flip the conclusion. Please provide error bars or explicit convergence data for the threshold-crossing times, or otherwise quantify the sensitivity of the transfer intervals to numerical parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption contains "λ = 0" and "λ = 5λ", which appear to be typographical errors; the intended comparison parameters should be stated unambiguously.
  2. [Sec. II B and Eq. (B3)] The ratio R = α_t √λ / γ is introduced to mark the Markovian/non-Markovian boundary, but no numerical values of R are given for the regimes studied, and its relation to the quantity R appearing in Ω = √(λ² − 4R²) in Eq. (B3) should be clarified.
  3. [Sec. II A] The sentence "if N(ρab) > 2, the two-qubit state must be nonlocal" has a lowercase "if" after the displayed equation; this is a trivial typo, but the notation N(ρab) and its relation to Eq. (2) could be stated more cleanly.
  4. [Sec. II A, Ref. [58]] The numerical maximization procedure is delegated to an arXiv preprint by the same authors; the present manuscript should be self-contained with respect to the algorithm, or at least include a summary of the method and its accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity is found; the claimed nonlocality transfer is a threshold comparison of independently computed Svetlichny and CHSH values, and the self-citation to Ref. [58] supplies a numerical method rather than the conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against the claimed outputs: the reduced dynamics come from the HEOM hierarchy in Appendix A and from the analytic RWA solution in Appendix B, the bipartite quantities use the closed-form Horodecki expression in Eq. (2) and the π-tangle formulas in Eqs. (3)-(4), and the tripartite nonlocality is obtained from the definition of N(ρabc) in Eq. (6). No parameter is fitted to the quantities being presented as results, and the back-and-forth transfer in Fig. 5 is a direct threshold comparison (N > 4 for Svetlichny, N > 2 for CHSH) of states evolved independently by HEOM and by the RWA solution. The only self-citation is Ref. [58], invoked for the numerical maximization of the Svetlichny expression; the paper does not reproduce that algorithm, and Appendix A drops auxiliary matrices with l1+l2 > L without reporting L, which is a reproducibility and convergence concern rather than a circular reduction. The benchmark in Fig. 7 checks only bipartite concurrence and so does not validate the tripartite Svetlichny maxima, but no equation in the manuscript defines the predicted quantity in terms of an input or renames a fitted parameter as a prediction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to the target results; the model parameters (alpha_i, lambda, gamma, omega0) are physical settings varied to explore regimes. The central claim depends on standard open-system assumptions (factorized initial state, Lorentzian bath, zero temperature, HEOM truncation) and on an unverified global optimization over Svetlichny operators.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The total initial state is a product state |W> tensor |0>_R at zero temperature.
    Used throughout Section II B and Appendix A; the HEOM derivation assumes this factorized initial condition.
  • domain assumption The bath is a single bosonic continuum with Lorentzian spectral density J(w) = lambda gamma / (pi ((w - w0)^2 + gamma^2)), whose correlation function decomposes into two exponentials.
    Eq. (8) and Eq. (A5); this decomposition is what makes the hierarchy finite and the HEOM applicable.
  • ad hoc to paper HEOM truncation at hierarchy level L is sufficient for convergence; no L or tolerance is specified.
    Appendix A states that auxiliary matrices with l1 + l2 > L are dropped but does not report L, so the numerical reliability of every plotted curve rests on this unstated choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The numerical maximization over Svetlichny operators for general three-qubit states finds the global maximum.
    Section II A uses an 'exact' numerical method without describing the optimization algorithm; under-optimization would change GTN claims.
  • domain assumption The RWA solution is restricted to the single-excitation subspace and assumes at most one bath quantum is populated.
    Eq. (10) uses only the one-photon bath state |1_k>; this is exact under RWA for a zero-temperature one-excitation initial state, but it is an assumption of the comparison.
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and the measures pi-tangle, concurrence, CHSH, and Svetlichny are accepted as quantifying the correlations.
    Used throughout; these are established results not re-derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The transfer of nonlocality between two- and three-qubit dissipative systems with counter-rotating-wave terms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5S2OM7VP

@misc{pith2026241113905,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The transfer of nonlocality between two- and three-qubit dissipative systems with counter-rotating-wave terms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5S2OM7VP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13905}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the effect of counter-rotating-wave terms on nonlocality and entanglement for three qubits coupled with a common bath for strong and ultrastrong coupling regimes beyond the traditional treatment of Born-Markovian, perturbative and rotating wave approximations by employing the numerical hierarchical equations of motion approach. Our findings are as follows: (i) In the strong coupling regime, the counter-rotating terms accelerate the decay of genuine three-party correlations, and the obvious sudden birth of BN is found; (ii) In the ultrastrong coupling regime, we observe a novel phenomenon where nonlocality is consistently transferred between a three-qubit and its subsystem. Besides, the inclusion of counter-rotating wave terms obviously enhances genuine tripartite nonlocality; and (iii) These counter-rotating terms cannot effectively generate genuine three-party correlations in zero-excitation cases, which differs from previous studies involving only two qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13905 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) GTE of the three-qubit system obtained by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) GTE of the three-qubit system is obtained using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The dynamics of GTE and concurrence for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) GTE of the three-qubit system is obtained using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) GTN of the three-qubit system is obtained by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The time evolution of the concurrence is calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [58]

    Quantum Zeno Effect on Genuine Tripartite Nonlocality and Entanglement in Quantum Dissipative System

    Z.-Y. Xiong, Y.-J. Xiao, Y.-Q. Zhang, and Q.-L. He, Quantum zeno effect on genuine tripartite nonlocality and entanglement in quantum dissipative system, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19664 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19664 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19664 2024

  2. [34]

    J. Ma, Z. Sun, X. Wang, and F. Nori, Entanglement dy- namics of two qubits in a common bath, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062323 (2012)

    2012

  3. [1]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  4. [2]

    J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  5. [3]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  6. [4]

    L. K. Shalm, Y. Zhang, J. C. Bienfang, C. Schlager, M. J. Stevens, M. D. Mazurek, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, M. W. Mitchell, M. A. Alhejji, et al., Device-independent randomness expansion with entangled photons, Nature Physics 17, 452 (2021)

    2021

  7. [5]

    M.-H. Li, X. Zhang, W.-Z. Liu, S.-R. Zhao, B. Bai, Y. Liu, Q. Zhao, Y. Peng, J. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. J. Munro, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, J. Fan, and J.-W. Pan, Exper- imental realization of device-independent quantum ran- domness expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 050503 (2021)

    2021

  8. [6]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Bian, Z. Li, S. Yu, and H. Guo, Continuous- variable quantum key distribution system: Past, present, and future, Applied Physics Reviews 11, 011318 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 66 references
  1. [7]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s the- orem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  2. [8]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky- 9 rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  3. [9]

    Z. Su, H. Tan, and X. Li, Entanglement as upper bound for the nonlocality of a general two-qubit system, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042112 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    S. G. A. Brito, B. Amaral, and R. Chaves, Quantifying bell nonlocality with the trace distance, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022111 (2018)

    2018

  5. [11]

    Elben, R

    A. Elben, R. Kueng, H.-Y. R. Huang, R. van Bij- nen, C. Kokail, M. Dalmonte, P. Calabrese, B. Kraus, J. Preskill, P. Zoller, and B. Vermersch, Mixed-state en- tanglement from local randomized measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 200501 (2020)

    2020

  6. [12]

    Gour and C

    G. Gour and C. M. Scandolo, Dynamical entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 180505 (2020)

    2020

  7. [13]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000)

    2000

  8. [14]

    Xie and J

    S. Xie and J. H. Eberly, Triangle measure of tripartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040403 (2021)

    2021

  9. [15]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. Shang, Geometric mean of bipartite concur- rences as a genuine multipartite entanglement measure, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023059 (2022)

    2022

  10. [16]

    Dong, L.-J

    D.-D. Dong, L.-J. Li, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Quantifying genuine tripartite entanglement by reshap- ing the state, Phys. Rev. A 110, 032420 (2024)

    2024

  11. [17]

    Ma, Z.-H

    Z.-H. Ma, Z.-H. Chen, J.-L. Chen, C. Spengler, A. Gabriel, and M. Huber, Measure of genuine multipar- tite entanglement with computable lower bounds, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062325 (2011)

    2011

  12. [18]

    Svetlichny, Distinguishing three-body from two-body nonseparability by a bell-type inequality, Phys

    G. Svetlichny, Distinguishing three-body from two-body nonseparability by a bell-type inequality, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3066 (1987)

    1987

  13. [19]

    Ajoy and P

    A. Ajoy and P. Rungta, Svetlichny’s inequality and gen- uine tripartite nonlocality in three-qubit pure states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052334 (2010)

    2010

  14. [20]

    Ghose, N

    S. Ghose, N. Sinclair, S. Debnath, P. Rungta, and R. Stock, Tripartite entanglement versus tripartite non- locality in three-qubit greenberger-horne-zeilinger-class states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 250404 (2009)

    2009

  15. [21]

    Huang, X.-M

    L. Huang, X.-M. Gu, Y.-F. Jiang, D. Wu, B. Bai, M.- C. Chen, Q.-C. Sun, J. Zhang, S. Yu, Q. Zhang, C.- Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental demonstration of genuine tripartite nonlocality under strict locality condi- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 060401 (2022)

    2022

  16. [22]

    Kang, Y.-H

    Y.-H. Kang, Y.-H. Chen, Q.-C. Wu, B.-H. Huang, J. Song, and Y. Xia, Fast generation of w states of super- conducting qubits with multiple schr¨ odinger dynamics, Scientific reports 6, 36737 (2016)

    2016

  17. [23]

    Wei and M.-F

    X. Wei and M.-F. Chen, Preparation of multi-qubit w states in multiple resonators coupled by a superconduct- ing qubit via adiabatic passage, Quantum Information Processing 14, 2419 (2015)

    2015

  18. [24]

    Neeley, R

    M. Neeley, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, A. O’connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Wei- des, J. Wenner, et al., Generation of three-qubit entan- gled states using superconducting phase qubits, Nature 467, 570 (2010)

    2010

  19. [25]

    S. Sami, I. Chakrabarty, and A. Chaturvedi, Complemen- tarity of genuine multipartite bell nonlocality, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022121 (2017)

    2017

  20. [26]

    Arnon-Friedman, F

    R. Arnon-Friedman, F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi, R. Renner, and T. Vidick, Practical device-independent quantum cryp- tography via entropy accumulation, Nature communica- tions 9, 459 (2018)

    2018

  21. [27]

    Jozsa and N

    R. Jozsa and N. Linden, On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Phys- ical and Engineering Sciences 459, 2011 (2003)

    2003

  22. [28]

    Rodriguez-Blanco, A

    A. Rodriguez-Blanco, A. Bermudez, M. M¨ uller, and F. Shahandeh, Efficient and robust certification of gen- uine multipartite entanglement in noisy quantum error correction circuits, PRX Quantum 2, 020304 (2021)

    2021

  23. [29]

    Breuer and F

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

    2002

  24. [30]

    de Vega and D

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

    2017

  25. [31]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  26. [32]

    Weiss, Quantum dissipative systems(World Scientific, 2012)

    U. Weiss, Quantum dissipative systems(World Scientific, 2012)

    2012

  27. [33]

    Wu and M

    W. Wu and M. Liu, Effects of counter-rotating-wave terms on the non-markovianity in quantum open systems, Phys. Rev. A 96, 032125 (2017)

    2017

  28. [35]

    Sun, X.-Q

    Z. Sun, X.-Q. Xu, and B. Liu, Creation of quantum steer- ing by interaction with a common bath, Phys. Rev. A97, 052309 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Maniscalco, F

    S. Maniscalco, F. Francica, R. L. Zaffino, N. Lo Gullo, and F. Plastina, Protecting entanglement via the quan- tum zeno effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 090503 (2008)

    2008

  30. [37]

    Nourmandipour, M

    A. Nourmandipour, M. K. Tavassoly, and M. A. Bolorizadeh, Quantum zeno and anti-zeno effects on the entanglement dynamics of qubits dissipating into a com- mon and non-markovian environment, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 33, 1723 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    Francica, S

    F. Francica, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, F. Plastina, and K.- A. Suominen, Off-resonant entanglement generation in a lossy cavity, Phys. Rev. A 79, 032310 (2009)

    2009

  32. [39]

    X. Cao, J. Q. You, H. Zheng, A. G. Kofman, and F. Nori, Dynamics and quantum zeno effect for a qubit in either a low- or high-frequency bath beyond the rotating-wave approximation, Phys. Rev. A 82, 022119 (2010)

    2010

  33. [40]

    Zheng, S

    H. Zheng, S. Y. Zhu, and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum zeno and anti-zeno effects: Without the rotating-wave approx- imation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200404 (2008)

    2008

  34. [41]

    Q. Ai, Y. Li, H. Zheng, and C. P. Sun, Quantum anti- zeno effect without rotating wave approximation, Phys. Rev. A 81, 042116 (2010)

    2010

  35. [42]

    Tanimura and R

    Y. Tanimura and R. Kubo, Time evolution of a quantum system in contact with a nearly gaussian-markoffian noise bath, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 58, 101 (1989)

    1989

  36. [43]

    Xu and Y

    R.-X. Xu and Y. Yan, Dynamics of quantum dissipation systems interacting with bosonic canonical bath: Hierar- chical equations of motion approach, Phys. Rev. E 75, 031107 (2007)

    2007

  37. [44]

    Tanimura, Numerically “exact” approach to open quantum dynamics: The hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM), The Journal of Chemical Physics 153, 020901 (2020)

    Y. Tanimura, Numerically “exact” approach to open quantum dynamics: The hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM), The Journal of Chemical Physics 153, 020901 (2020)

    2020

  38. [45]

    A. G. Dijkstra and Y. Tanimura, Non-markovian entan- glement dynamics in the presence of system-bath coher- ence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 250401 (2010). 10

    2010

  39. [46]

    Wu and H.-Q

    W. Wu and H.-Q. Lin, Quantum zeno and anti-zeno ef- fects in quantum dissipative systems, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042132 (2017)

    2017

  40. [47]

    Wu and H.-Q

    W. Wu and H.-Q. Lin, Effect of bath temperature on the decoherence of quantum dissipative systems, Phys. Rev. A 94, 062116 (2016)

    2016

  41. [48]

    Altintas and R

    F. Altintas and R. Eryigit, Creation of quantum corre- lations between two atoms in a dissipative environment from an initial vacuum state, Physics Letters A376, 1791 (2012)

    2012

  42. [49]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of en- tanglement, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  43. [50]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Quantum discord: A mea- sure of the quantumness of correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001)

    2001

  44. [51]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  45. [52]

    Wu and H.-S

    S.-M. Wu and H.-S. Zeng, Genuine tripartite nonlocality and entanglement in curved spacetime, The European Physical Journal C 82, 4 (2022)

    2022

  46. [53]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theo- ries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  47. [54]

    Y. Guo, Y. Jia, X. Li, and L. Huang, Genuine multipar- tite entanglement measure, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 55, 145303 (2022)

    2022

  48. [55]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Distributed entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000)

    2000

  49. [56]

    Ou and H

    Y.-C. Ou and H. Fan, Monogamy inequality in terms of negativity for three-qubit states, Phys. Rev. A75, 062308 (2007)

    2007

  50. [57]

    A. J. Torres-Arenas, Q. Dong, G.-H. Sun, W.-C. Qiang, and S.-H. Dong, Entanglement measures of w-state in noninertial frames, Physics Letters B 789, 93 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Kumari, J

    S. Kumari, J. Naikoo, S. Ghosh, and A. K. Pan, Inter- play of nonlocality and incompatibility breaking qubit channels, Phys. Rev. A 107, 022201 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    K. Wang, Y. Liang, and Z.-J. Zheng, Genuine tripartite nonlocality of ghz state in noninertial frames, Quantum Information Processing 19, 1 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Wang and Z.-J

    K. Wang and Z.-J. Zheng, Violation of svetlichny inequal- ity in triple jaynes-cummings models, Scientific Reports 10, 6621 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Salem, A

    V. Salem, A. A. Silva, and F. M. Andrade, Multipartite entanglement sudden death and birth in randomized hy- pergraph states, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012416 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    You and F

    J.-Q. You and F. Nori, Atomic physics and quantum optics using superconducting circuits, Nature 474, 589 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    Niemczyk, F

    T. Niemczyk, F. Deppe, H. Huebl, E. Menzel, F. Hocke, M. Schwarz, J. Garcia-Ripoll, D. Zueco, T. H¨ ummer, E. Solano, et al., Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime, Nature Physics 6, 772 (2010)

    2010

  57. [65]

    Frisk Kockum, A

    A. Frisk Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 19 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Y. Tanimura, Stochastic liouville, langevin, fokker- planck, and master equation approaches to quantum dis- sipative systems, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 75, 082001 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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