The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.00346 · v1 · pith:6MYQZW5W · submitted 2026-07-01 · quant-ph

Extreme volume monogamy via bound-state engineering

Wen-Jie Zhang , Jun-Hong An This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-07-02 12:41 UTCgrok-4.3pith:6MYQZW5Wopen to challenge →

classification quant-ph
keywords quantum steering ellipsoidvolume monogamybound statestripartite quantum systemsquantum steeringopen quantum systemssecure quantum communication
0
0 comments X

The pith

Selective bound-state engineering drives the untrusted party's quantum steering ellipsoid volume to zero while keeping the trusted party's volume finite.

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

The paper shows that bound states engineered only in the local subsystems of trusted parties and their environments cause the quantum steering ellipsoid volume of an untrusted third party to decay completely to zero. At the same time the volume between the trusted parties stays finite, achieving what the authors call extreme volume monogamy. This matters for secure quantum communication because it closes a potential channel for information leakage through steering without disrupting the desired correlations among trusted parties. The approach relies on independent local engineering of qubit-environment interactions in a tripartite setup.

Core claim

When bound states are formed in the subsystems formed by the trusted parties and their environments but absent in the untrusted one, the untrusted party's QSE volume decays to zero, while the trusted party's QSE volume remains finite. This selective bound-state engineering suppresses residual steerability from the untrusted party without compromising steering between the trusted parties.

What carries the argument

Selective bound-state engineering in local qubit-environment subsystems that controls the decay rates of quantum steering ellipsoid volumes independently for each party.

If this is right

  • The total volume monogamy is strengthened to individual elimination of steerability from the untrusted party.
  • Secure quantum communication protocols can incorporate an untrusted third party without residual steering leakage.
  • The method preserves finite steerability volumes between trusted parties under the same dynamics.
  • Local subsystem engineering suffices to achieve the effect without global changes to the tripartite state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same selective engineering principle might apply to other quantum correlation measures such as entanglement or discord in similar open-system setups.
  • Experimental platforms with controllable environments, such as trapped ions or superconducting circuits, could test the predicted volume decay rates directly.
  • If the independent engineering assumption holds, the technique could extend to larger networks with multiple untrusted parties.

Load-bearing premise

The local qubit-environment subsystems can be engineered independently such that bound states appear only in the trusted subsystems without altering the overall tripartite correlations or the steering between trusted parties.

What would settle it

Measure a non-zero QSE volume for the untrusted party after engineering bound states exclusively in the trusted subsystems; any such observation would show the claimed selective suppression does not occur.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00346 by Jun-Hong An, Wen-Jie Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Energy spectrum of each qubit-environment sub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Steering diagram with Alice as the measurer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Steering diagram with Alice as the measurer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum steering ellipsoid (QSE) provides a faithful representation of a two-qubit state. When extended to tripartite systems, the steerability from a trusted party to different receivers is subject to volume monogamy relations, which only constrain the total steerability but cannot individually eliminate the steerability of an untrusted third party, leaving a potential channel for information leakage via steering. Here, we show that this residual steerability can be completely suppressed by selectively engineering bound states in local qubit-environment subsystems, without compromising the steerability between trusted parties. Specifically, when bound states are formed in the subsystems formed by the trusted parties and their environments but absent in the untrusted one, the untrusted party's QSE volume decays to zero, while the trusted party's QSE volume remains finite. Our results establish selective bound-state engineering as a mechanism for extreme volume monogamy, with potential applications in secure quantum communication with an untrusted third party.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that by selectively engineering bound states in the local qubit-environment subsystems of two trusted parties (but not the untrusted party), the quantum steering ellipsoid (QSE) volume of the untrusted party decays to zero while the trusted parties' QSE volumes remain finite. This is presented as a mechanism for extreme volume monogamy in tripartite systems that suppresses residual steerability to an untrusted party without compromising steering between trusted parties, with suggested applications in secure quantum communication.

Significance. If the central mechanism holds, the result supplies a concrete physical route to make volume monogamy relations extreme by controlling non-Markovian dynamics via bound states. This could be useful for protocols that must eliminate information leakage through steering to an untrusted third party while preserving trusted-party correlations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Model/Hamiltonian and dynamics sections (where the selective engineering is defined)] The central claim (abstract) requires that local spectral-density engineering induces bound states only in the trusted qubit-environment subsystems while leaving the three-qubit reduced density matrix and the trusted-party steering ellipsoid unchanged. No explicit demonstration is provided that the partial trace over the environments remains invariant under these local modifications; because the environments couple to the qubits, alterations to the bath operators or spectral densities generically modify the effective decoherence channels and therefore the reduced tripartite state. This assumption is load-bearing for the claimed selective decay of only the untrusted QSE volume.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and the detailed comment on our manuscript. We address the concern below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the model and dynamics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model/Hamiltonian and dynamics sections (where the selective engineering is defined)] The central claim (abstract) requires that local spectral-density engineering induces bound states only in the trusted qubit-environment subsystems while leaving the three-qubit reduced density matrix and the trusted-party steering ellipsoid unchanged. No explicit demonstration is provided that the partial trace over the environments remains invariant under these local modifications; because the environments couple to the qubits, alterations to the bath operators or spectral densities generically modify the effective decoherence channels and therefore the reduced tripartite state. This assumption is load-bearing for the claimed selective decay of only the untrusted QSE volume.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee identifying this point for clarification. Our model consists of three qubits with independent environments, where the total Hamiltonian is the sum of local qubit-environment terms H_k = ω_k σ_z^k/2 + σ_x^k ⊗ B_k + H_{E_k} with local spectral densities J_k(ω). The reduced tripartite state ho_ABC(t) is obtained by tracing over the three environments separately after unitary evolution under the full Hamiltonian. We do not assume or require that ho_ABC(t) remains invariant under changes to the J_k; on the contrary, the selective choice of J_k (such that a bound state exists in the trusted subsystems but not the untrusted one) produces distinct non-Markovian channels that cause the untrusted QSE volume to decay to zero while the trusted volumes remain finite. To make this explicit, the revised manuscript will add derivations of the time-dependent reduced density matrix elements (in Section II and a new appendix) under the bound-state condition, confirming consistency of the partial trace and the resulting volume monogamy. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation follows from open-system dynamics

full rationale

The paper derives extreme volume monogamy from the physical condition that bound states form selectively in trusted qubit-environment subsystems (but not the untrusted one), causing the untrusted QSE volume to decay while the trusted one remains finite. No equations or claims in the abstract reduce a prediction to a fitted input, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the mechanism is presented as a consequence of non-Markovian dynamics and spectral engineering. The central result has independent content from the bound-state condition and is not forced by renaming or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard framework of open quantum systems and the existence of bound states that can be controlled locally; no explicit free parameters or new entities are named in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and Markovian or non-Markovian open-system dynamics govern the qubit-environment interactions.
    The steering ellipsoid and bound-state formation are defined within this framework.
invented entities (1)
  • Selective bound states in trusted qubit-environment subsystems no independent evidence
    purpose: To drive untrusted QSE volume to zero while preserving trusted volumes
    Introduced as the control mechanism; no independent evidence outside the paper is mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5680 in / 1217 out tokens · 22015 ms · 2026-07-02T12:41:44.834281+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schr¨ odinger, Discussion of probability relations be- tween separated systems, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society31, 555–563 (1935)

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Discussion of probability relations be- tween separated systems, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society31, 555–563 (1935)

    work page 1935

  2. [2]

    Schr¨ odinger, Probability relations between separated systems, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society32, 446–452 (1936)

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Probability relations between separated systems, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society32, 446–452 (1936)

    work page 1936

  3. [3]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky- rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140402 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    D. J. Saunders, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Experimental EPR-steering using Bell-local states, Nature Physics6, 845 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, Quantum discord and steering in top quarks at the lhc, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 221801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne, Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    R. Uola, C. Budroni, O. G¨ uhne, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, One-to-one mapping between steering and joint measur- ability problems, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 230402 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    M. D. Reid, Demonstration of the einstein-podolsky- rosen paradox using nondegenerate parametric amplifi- cation, Phys. Rev. A40, 913 (1989)

    work page 1989

  9. [9]

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Fine, Hidden variables, joint probability, and the bell inequalities, Phys

    A. Fine, Hidden variables, joint probability, and the bell inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 291 (1982)

    work page 1982

  11. [11]

    Kogias, P

    I. Kogias, P. Skrzypczyk, D. Cavalcanti, A. Ac´ ın, and G. Adesso, Hierarchy of steering criteria based on mo- ments for all bipartite quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 210401 (2015)

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    H. C. Nguyen, H.-V. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne, Geometry of einstein-podolsky-rosen correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 240401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Gallego and L

    R. Gallego and L. Aolita, Resource theory of steering, 8 Phys. Rev. X5, 041008 (2015)

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    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- rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

    work page 1993

  15. [15]

    Jevtic, M

    S. Jevtic, M. Pusey, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Quan- tum steering ellipsoids, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 020402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Milne, S

    A. Milne, S. Jevtic, D. Jennings, H. Wiseman, and T. Rudolph, Quantum steering ellipsoids, extremal phys- ical states and monogamy, New Journal of Physics16, 083017 (2014)

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Hu and H

    X. Hu and H. Fan, Effect of local channels on quantum steering ellipsoids, Phys. Rev. A91, 022301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    M. Shi, C. Sun, F. Jiang, X. Yan, and J. Du, Optimal measurement for quantum discord of two-qubit states, Phys. Rev. A85, 064104 (2012)

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    M. Shi, F. Jiang, C. Sun, and J. Du, Geometric picture of quantum discord for two-qubit quantum states, New Journal of Physics13, 073016 (2011)

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    H. C. Nguyen and T. Vu, Nonseparability and steerabil- ity of two-qubit states from the geometry of steering out- comes, Phys. Rev. A94, 012114 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Jevtic, M

    S. Jevtic, M. J. W. Hall, M. R. Anderson, M. Zwierz, and H. M. Wiseman, Einstein–podolsky–rosen steering and the steering ellipsoid, Journal of the Optical Society of America B32, A40 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    McCloskey, A

    R. McCloskey, A. Ferraro, and M. Paternostro, Einstein- podolsky-rosen steering and quantum steering ellipsoids: Optimal two-qubit states and projective measurements, Phys. Rev. A95, 012320 (2017)

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Q.-C. Song, T. J. Baker, and H. M. Wiseman, On the power of one pure steered state for epr-steering with a pair of qubits, New Journal of Physics25, 053005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Ku, S.-L

    H.-Y. Ku, S.-L. Chen, C. Budroni, A. Miranowicz, Y.-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Einstein-podolsky-rosen steering: Its geometric quantification and witness, Phys. Rev. A97, 022338 (2018)

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    H. C. Nguyen and K. Luoma, Pure steered states of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering, Phys. Rev. A95, 042117 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Milne, D

    A. Milne, D. Jennings, S. Jevtic, and T. Rudolph, Quan- tum correlations of two-qubit states with one maximally mixed marginal, Phys. Rev. A90, 024302 (2014)

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    H. C. Braga, C. C. Rulli, T. R. de Oliveira, and M. S. Sarandy, Monogamy of quantum discord by multipartite correlations, Phys. Rev. A86, 062106 (2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    G. L. Giorgi, Monogamy properties of quantum and clas- sical correlations, Phys. Rev. A84, 054301 (2011)

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Allegra, P

    M. Allegra, P. Giorda, and A. Montorsi, Quantum dis- cord and classical correlations in the bond-charge hub- bard model: Quantum phase transitions, off-diagonal long-range order, and violation of the monogamy prop- erty for discord, Phys. Rev. B84, 245133 (2011)

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    Coffman, J

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

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

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

    work page 2006

  33. [33]

    Koashi and A

    M. Koashi and A. Winter, Monogamy of quantum entan- glement and other correlations, Phys. Rev. A69, 022309 (2004)

    work page 2004

  34. [34]

    T. R. de Oliveira, M. F. Cornelio, and F. F. Fanchini, Monogamy of entanglement of formation, Phys. Rev. A 89, 034303 (2014)

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Bai, M.-Y

    Y.-K. Bai, M.-Y. Ye, and Z. D. Wang, Entanglement monogamy and entanglement evolution in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A80, 044301 (2009)

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    Yu and H.-s

    C.-s. Yu and H.-s. Song, Entanglement monogamy of tri- partite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A77, 032329 (2008)

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Guo and G

    Y. Guo and G. Gour, Monogamy of the entanglement of formation, Phys. Rev. A99, 042305 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    J. S. Kim, A. Das, and B. C. Sanders, Entanglement monogamy of multipartite higher-dimensional quantum systems using convex-roof extended negativity, Phys. Rev. A79, 012329 (2009)

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    Eltschka and J

    C. Eltschka and J. Siewert, Monogamy equalities for qubit entanglement from lorentz invariance, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 140402 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    M. C. Tran, R. Ramanathan, M. McKague, D. Kasz- likowski, and T. Paterek, Bell monogamy relations in ar- bitrary qubit networks, Phys. Rev. A98, 052325 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    R. Y. Teh, M. Gessner, M. D. Reid, and M. Fadel, Full multipartite steering inseparability, genuine multipartite steering, and monogamy for continuous-variable systems, Phys. Rev. A105, 012202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Xiang, I

    Y. Xiang, I. Kogias, G. Adesso, and Q. He, Multipartite gaussian steering: Monogamy constraints and quantum cryptography applications, Phys. Rev. A95, 010101(R) (2017)

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Xiang, Y

    Y. Xiang, Y. Liu, Y. Cai, F. Li, Y. Zhang, and Q. He, Monogamy relations within quadripartite einstein- podolsky-rosen steering based on cascaded four-wave mixing processes, Phys. Rev. A101, 053834 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    L.-J. Li, X. G. Fan, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Einstein-podolsky-rosen steering criterion and monogamy relation via correlation matrices in tripartite systems, Phys. Rev. A110, 012418 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    M. D. Reid, Monogamy inequalities for the einstein- podolsky-rosen paradox and quantum steering, Phys. Rev. A88, 062108 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Z.-Y. Hao, K. Sun, Y. Wang, Z.-H. Liu, M. Yang, J.-S. Xu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Demonstrating shareabil- ity of multipartite einstein-podolsky-rosen steering, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 120402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    X. Deng, Y. Xiang, C. Tian, G. Adesso, Q. He, Q. Gong, X. Su, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Demonstration of monogamy relations for einstein-podolsky-rosen steering in gaussian cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 230501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Zhang, Y

    M. Zhang, Y. Long, S. Zhao, and X. Zhang, Einstein- podolsky-rosen steering and monogamy relations in con- trollable dynamical casimir arrays, Phys. Rev. A105, 042435 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Y. Cai, Y. Xiang, Y. Liu, Q. He, and N. Treps, Ver- satile multipartite einstein-podolsky-rosen steering via a quantum frequency comb, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 032046(R) (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    He and Z

    Q. He and Z. Ficek, Einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox and quantum steering in a three-mode optomechanical sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A89, 022332 (2014)

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    Scarani and N

    V. Scarani and N. Gisin, Quantum communication be- tweenNpartners and bell’s inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 117901 (2001)

    work page 2001

  52. [52]

    Kurzy´ nski, T

    P. Kurzy´ nski, T. Paterek, R. Ramanathan, W. Laskowski, and D. Kaszlikowski, Correlation 9 complementarity yields bell monogamy relations, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 180402 (2011)

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    Kurzy´ nski, A

    P. Kurzy´ nski, A. Cabello, and D. Kaszlikowski, Funda- mental monogamy relation between contextuality and nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 100401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    Barrett, A

    J. Barrett, A. Kent, and S. Pironio, Maximally nonlocal and monogamous quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 170409 (2006)

    work page 2006

  55. [55]

    Saha and R

    D. Saha and R. Ramanathan, Activation of monogamy in nonlocality using local contextuality, Phys. Rev. A95, 030104(R) (2017)

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, M. Piani, and D. Bruß, Are general quantum correlations monogamous?, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 050503 (2012)

    work page 2012

  57. [57]

    Augusiak, M

    R. Augusiak, M. Demianowicz, M. Paw lowski, J. Tura, and A. Ac´ ın, Elemental and tight monogamy relations in nonsignaling theories, Phys. Rev. A90, 052323 (2014)

    work page 2014

  58. [58]

    X.-s. Ma, B. Dakic, W. Naylor, A. Zeilinger, and P. Walther, Quantum simulation of the wavefunction to probe frustrated Heisenberg spin systems, Nature Physics 7, 399 (2011)

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    Garc´ ıa-S´ aez and J

    A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez and J. I. Latorre, Renormalization group contraction of tensor networks in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. B87, 085130 (2013)

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    Meichanetzidis, J

    K. Meichanetzidis, J. Eisert, M. Cirio, V. Lahtinen, and J. K. Pachos, Diagnosing topological edge states via en- tanglement monogamy, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 130501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Lloyd and J

    S. Lloyd and J. Preskill, Unitarity of black hole evapo- ration in final-state projection models, Journal of High Energy Physics2014, 126 (2014)

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    Cheng, A

    S. Cheng, A. Milne, M. J. W. Hall, and H. M. Wise- man, Volume monogamy of quantum steering ellipsoids for multiqubit systems, Phys. Rev. A94, 042105 (2016)

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Cheng, L. Li, Q.-Y. Liang, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, M. J. W. Hall, H. M. Wise- man, and G. J. Pryde, Experimental validation of quan- tum steering ellipsoids and tests of volume monogamy relations, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 070402 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    Maleki and B

    Y. Maleki and B. Ahansaz, Maximal-steered-coherence protection by quantum reservoir engineering, Phys. Rev. A102, 020402 (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Horodecki and M

    R. Horodecki and M. Horodecki, Information-theoretic aspects of inseparability of mixed states, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1838 (1996)

    work page 1996

  67. [67]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Dynamics of the dissi- pative two-state system, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 1 (1987)

    work page 1987

  68. [68]

    F. F. Fanchini, M. C. de Oliveira, L. K. Castelano, and M. F. Cornelio, Why entanglement of formation is not generally monogamous, Phys. Rev. A87, 032317 (2013)

    work page 2013

  69. [69]

    Radhakrishnan, P.-W

    C. Radhakrishnan, P.-W. Chen, S. Jambulingam, T. Byrnes, and M. M. Ali, Time dynamics of quantum coherence and monogamy in a non-Markovian environ- ment, Scientific Reports9, 2363 (2019)

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    Wu, S.-Y

    W. Wu, S.-Y. Bai, and J.-H. An, Non-markovian sens- ing of a quantum reservoir, Phys. Rev. A103, L010601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Wang, Y.-K

    G.-X. Wang, Y.-K. Wu, R. Yao, W.-Q. Lian, Z.-J. Cheng, Y.-L. Xu, C. Zhang, Y. Jiang, Y.-Z. Xu, B.-X. Qi, P.-Y. Hou, Z.-C. Zhou, L. He, and L.-M. Duan, Simulating the spin-boson model with a controllable reservoir in an ion trap, Phys. Rev. A109, 062402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    M. L. Andersen, S. Stobbe, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lo- dahl, Strongly modified plasmon–matter interaction with mesoscopic quantum emitters, Nature Physics7, 215 (2011)

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    Yang and J.-H

    C.-J. Yang and J.-H. An, Suppressed dissipation of a quantum emitter coupled to surface plasmon polaritons, Phys. Rev. B95, 161408 (2017)

    work page 2017

  74. [74]

    Haikka, S

    P. Haikka, S. McEndoo, G. De Chiara, G. M. Palma, and S. Maniscalco, Quantifying, characterizing, and con- trolling information flow in ultracold atomic gases, Phys. Rev. A84, 031602 (2011)

    work page 2011

  75. [75]

    Liu and A

    Y. Liu and A. A. Houck, Quantum electrodynamics near a photonic bandgap, Nature Physics13, 48 (2017)

    work page 2017

  76. [76]

    Krinner, M

    L. Krinner, M. Stewart, A. Pazmi˜ no, J. Kwon, and D. Schneble, Spontaneous emission of matter waves from a tunable open quantum system, Nature559, 589 (2018)

    work page 2018