Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 76 references

Extreme volume monogamy via bound-state engineering

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-07-02 · grok-4.3

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

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

desk verdict The paper claims selective bound-state engineering can null the untrusted party's QSE volume while keeping the trusted party's finite, but this rests on an unverified assumption that local bath changes leave the tripartite reduced state unchanged. read the letter →

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

Wen-Jie Zhang , Jun-Hong An This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumsteeringellipsoidvolumemonogamyboundstatestripartitesystemsopensecurecommunication
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 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.

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.

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.

Watch

Extended reading notes

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.

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

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 · score 0.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 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.

assumptions (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
    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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extreme volume monogamy via bound-state engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6MYQZW5W

@misc{pith2026260700346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extreme volume monogamy via bound-state engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6MYQZW5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.00346}
}
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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00346 by the authors.

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. 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. FIG. 3. (a) Steering diagram with Alice as the measurer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

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

    2017

  2. [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)

    1982

  3. [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)

    2015

  4. [12]

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

    2019

  5. [13]

    Gallego and L

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

    2015

  6. [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)

    1993

  7. [15]

    Jevtic, M

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

    2014

  8. [16]

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

    2010

  9. [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)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Hu and H

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

    2015

  11. [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)

    2012

  12. [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)

    2011

  13. [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)

    2016

  14. [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)

    2015

  15. [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)

    2017

  16. [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)

    2023

  17. [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)

    2018

  18. [26]

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

    2017

  19. [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)

    2014

  20. [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)

    2012

  21. [29]

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

    2011

  22. [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)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Coffman, J

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

    2000

  24. [32]

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

    2006

  25. [33]

    Koashi and A

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

    2004

  26. [34]

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

    2014

  27. [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)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Yu and H.-s

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

    2008

  29. [37]

    Guo and G

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

    2019

  30. [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)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Eltschka and J

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

    2015

  32. [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)

    2018

  33. [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)

    2022

  34. [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)

    2017

  35. [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)

    2020

  36. [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)

    2024

  37. [45]

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

    2013

  38. [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)

    2022

  39. [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)

    2017

  40. [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)

    2022

  41. [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)

    2020

  42. [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)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Scarani and N

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

    2001

  44. [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)

    2011

  45. [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)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Barrett, A

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

    2006

  47. [55]

    Saha and R

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

    2017

  48. [56]

    Streltsov, G

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

    2012

  49. [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)

    2014

  50. [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)

    2011

  51. [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)

    2013

  52. [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)

    2016

  53. [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)

    2014

  54. [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)

    2016

  55. [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)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Breuer and F

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

    2007

  57. [65]

    Maleki and B

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

    2020

  58. [66]

    Horodecki and M

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

    1996

  59. [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)

    1987

  60. [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)

    2013

  61. [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)

    2019

  62. [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)

    2021

  63. [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)

    2024

  64. [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)

    2011

  65. [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)

    2017

  66. [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)

    2011

  67. [75]

    Liu and A

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

    2017

  68. [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)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed July 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.