Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Does decoherence violate decoupling?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Tracing out heavy fields preserves purity in the energy basis

desk verdict A genuinely useful resolution of the decoherence/decoupling puzzle, with a real but non-fatal gap: the practical iϵ diagnostic is argued rather than proven for general interacting theories. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09000 v1 pith:JIATEREE submitted 2024-11-13 hep-th gr-qc

C.P. Burgess , Thomas Colas , R. Holman , Greg Kaplanek This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc PACS 03.65.Yz11.10.Ef11.10.Gh
keywords decoherencedecouplingeffectivefieldtheorypurityi-epsilonprescriptionopenquantumsystemsheavyintegrationWightmanfunctions
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

Effective field theory says that integrating out heavy degrees of freedom should leave behind Hamiltonian time evolution, so pure low-energy states stay pure. Explicit calculations that trace out a heavy scalar instead find purity loss at order $1/M$, which no local effective Hamiltonian can produce. This paper's resolution is that the two statements describe different projections: tracing out the field operator is not the same as projecting onto exact energy eigenstates. When the heavy mass $M$ is taken to infinity before the regulator $\epsilon$ is removed, the state remains pure up to exponentially small corrections; the apparent power-law decoherence appears only when $\epsilon$ is removed first. The $i\epsilon$ prescription in Wightman functions provides a practical way to perform the correct energy projection without first diagonalizing the heavy sector.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the $i\epsilon$ prescription: Wightman functions are defined with time differences carrying a small negative imaginary part, $t-t'\to t-t' - i\epsilon$, which suppresses large-energy intermediate states and acts as a detector resolution scale $\epsilon\sim 1/\Lambda$. The paper's key observation is that this regulator automatically implements the projection onto exact energy eigenstates, so expanding in $1/M$ first and only then taking $\epsilon\to 0$ selects the 'decoupled basis' (energy eigenbasis), while the opposite order selects the 'decohered basis' (field basis). These two bases are related by field redefinitions that move $1/M$ corrections from one basis to the other; the non-commutativity of the two limits is what reconciles decoupling with decoherence calculations.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier: compute the purity of a light scalar coupled to a heavy scalar through a non-Gaussian interaction such as $\sigma^2\phi^2$, expanding in $1/M$ first with the $i\epsilon$ regulator held fixed. If the purity deficit contains any term polynomial in $1/M$ rather than exponentially suppressed, the proposed diagnostic does not implement decoupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the decoupling-decoherence paradox is an artifact of basis choice, resolved by the non-commutativity of the limits $\epsilon\to 0$ and $M\to\infty$. Projecting onto the decoupled basis of exact energy eigenstates --- implemented by taking $M\to\infty$ with the $i\epsilon$ regulator fixed --- keeps the low-energy state pure up to exponentially small corrections, in agreement with the EFT theorem. Tracing out the field $\phi$ in the decohered basis (taking $\epsilon\to 0$ first) produces the power-law $1/M$ purity loss reported in prior work. Both answers are correct for different physical questions, and the relevant one depends on whether the heavy mass $M$ is above or below the EFT resolution scale $\Lambda\sim 1/\epsilon$. The same non-commuting limit structure also controls when ultraviolet divergences appear in purity calculations and how they can be renormalized.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on the claim that using a small negative imaginary part in time differences automatically selects the exact energy eigenstates, so that taking $M\to\infty$ first keeps states pure; this is checked in examples but not proven for arbitrary interacting theories.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Purity calculations that trace out fields answer a different question from the one EFT decoupling addresses, so a power-law purity deficit is not evidence that decoupling fails.
  • For heavy masses $M$ above the EFT cutoff $\Lambda$, low-energy states stay pure up to exponentially small corrections, so a local effective Hamiltonian suffices and no non-Hamiltonian open-system terms are needed.
  • For $M$ below $\Lambda$, $1/M$ corrections to purity are physically resolvable and the decohered-basis calculation applies.
  • UV divergences can genuinely appear in decoherence calculations when the regulator is removed first, and they are absorbed by standard counterterms, including operator mixing and field redefinitions.
  • In in-in (Schwinger-Keldysh) evolution, the choice of which fields are the 'system' changes the purity, so that choice carries physical information.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same basis dependence should affect other entanglement measures computed by tracing out heavy fields, such as entanglement entropy, so those quantities need the same energy-projection diagnostic.
  • Time-dependent couplings that switch off at late times can realign the decohered and decoupled bases, which offers an interpretation of recoherence phenomena as the environment effectively decoupling.
  • A stress test for the proposal would be a fully non-Gaussian model with a $\sigma^2\phi^2$ interaction: if purity loss at order $1/M$ survives the '1/M first, $\epsilon$ later' ordering, the diagnostic would fail outside the worked examples.
  • The clean separation between energy-based and field-based tracing suggests a general guideline for open effective field theories: define the environment by an energy threshold, not by field content.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the apparent conflict between EFT decoupling and decoherence. In a two-scalar model with m << M, computing the purity of the light field after tracing out the heavy field in the field basis yields purity loss of order 1/M^n in both gaussian-mixing and cubic-interaction examples. The paper argues that this purity loss is an artifact of tracing in the 'decohered basis' of the field phi rather than the 'decoupled basis' of exact energy eigenstates. Section 1.1 proves that projection onto low-energy exact eigenstates gives Hamiltonian evolution and therefore preserves purity. Section 3.2 claims that the i-epsilon prescription automatically implements this projection, so that the limits epsilon -> 0 and M -> infinity do not commute, and only the order that keeps epsilon finite while expanding in 1/M respects decoupling. Section 4 discusses UV divergences in purity calculations and their conjectured renormalization. Appendices provide interaction-picture, Schrodinger-picture, and Schwinger-Keldysh cross-checks of the main examples.

Significance. If correct, the paper would resolve an active tension in recent decoherence calculations in flat space and in inflation, and would provide a practical diagnostic for identifying decoupling-respecting purity evolution. The projection theorem is exact under its stated assumptions, the gaussian and leading-order cubic calculations are carefully carried out, and the paper is unusually explicit about which statements are proven and which are conjectured. The main significance is conditional: the practical i-epsilon prescription is the load-bearing new element, but its equivalence to exact energy projection is established only in worked examples. The paper's strength lies in the clarity of the paradox, the explicit catalog of calculations, and the recognition that different bipartitions answer different physical questions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.4)] The central claim that the i-epsilon prescription 'automatically' carries out the energy projection of Sec. 1.1 is not established for interacting theories. The regulator in (3.4) suppresses states according to the free-field dispersion omega(p) = (p^2 + M^2)^{1/2}, i.e., the free Hamiltonian eigenvalue, whereas the decoupled basis of Sec. 1.1 is defined by eigenstates of the full interacting Hamiltonian. In the cubic examples of Sec. 2.2 the Wightman functions (2.22) and (2.27) are computed at leading order in the couplings using free-field mode functions, so they never test whether e^{-i omega epsilon} projects onto the exact eigenbasis. The manuscript should either prove this equivalence to the order claimed, or under stated conditions such as perturbative diagonalization, or explicitly limit the practical diagnostic to gaussian and/or sudden-switching situations. As written, the practical method of Sec. 3.2 does not yet close the gap between the exact but impractical projection and the concrete calculations.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, bullets after Eq. (A.16)] The claimed non-commutativity of the limits epsilon -> 0 and M -> infinity is exhibited only in the sudden-switching approximation. The sudden purity integrals keep the lower endpoint t0 fixed and use epsilon = -Im(t - t0), so e^{-i omega_phi (t-t0)} is exponentially small when M epsilon is fixed. The adiabatic results in (2.13), (2.20), (2.25), and (2.29), by contrast, are obtained from (A.17)-(A.18) with t0 -> -infinity (1 + i epsilon) and are finite and epsilon-independent at leading order; taking the 1/M expansion first and then epsilon -> 0 still gives a power-law purity deficit. Thus the advertised result that the state remains pure up to exponentially small corrections does not follow in the adiabatic in-out setup, which is the standard Wilsonian setup. The paper must either explain why the sudden prescription is the relevant one for decoupling, or reformulate the non-commutativity claim so that it also applies to the adiabatic results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, opening paragraph] The sentence containing 'Thes examples' contains a typo; it should read 'These examples'.
  2. [Eqs. (2.5)-(2.6)] The environmental and system correlation functions are written with nearly identical typography; please use clearly distinct calligraphic or bold symbols so the reader can distinguish W^k from W^k at a glance.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, after Eq. (3.2)] The statement that the cubic interaction coefficient becomes g m^2/(2M^2) is easy to misread: the displayed formula shows the original g phi^2 sigma term acquiring the factor (1 + a + b m^2/M^2). Please specify whether the remark refers to the phi^2 sigma term or to a different cubic interaction generated by the field redefinition.
  4. [Sec. 4, final paragraph] The body explicitly states that proving renormalizability of the divergent purity contributions 'remains an open question', but the introduction and abstract present the UV-divergence implications more assertively; please align the wording with the acknowledged open status.
  5. [Eq. (2.24)] The integration variable u appears in the displayed integral before being defined; please define u (e.g., u = omega_phi/M or an equivalent rescaling) before or immediately after the equation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the resolution rests on an explicit basis-dependence argument and self-contained calculations, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that purity is preserved when heavy states are integrated out in the energy eigenbasis—is not a circular reduction. Section 1.1 proves a conditional statement (unitary evolution of a projected state preserves purity) whose assumptions are explicitly stated, and the explicit purity calculations of Section 2 and Appendix A are independent evaluations of the field-basis trace. The iϵ prescription is introduced as a smooth energy-resolution regulator, and its equivalence to energy projection is demonstrated in exactly solvable gaussian mixing examples, where the exact energy eigenbasis is known; the extension to general interacting theories is an unproven assumption, which is a limitation but not a circular identification of input with output. The citation to [4] for the non-commutativity of the limits is a self-citation with overlapping authors, but the relevant integrals are re-derived in Appendix A, so the citation is not load-bearing. No parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction, and the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks. The low score reflects the minor self-citation and the unproven generality of the iϵ diagnostic, not a circular derivation.

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

The central claim rests on the exact projection argument of Section 1.1 and on the proposed iepsilon implementation of the decoupled basis. No free parameters are fitted; couplings and masses are model inputs. No new entities are postulated. The main assumptions are adiabaticity, weak coupling, factorized initial states, and the new interpretive claim that the iepsilon prescription realizes the energy projection.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Projection onto the low-energy subspace using exact energy eigenstates yields Hamiltonian evolution U_LE = exp(-i P_Lambda H P_Lambda (t - t0)).
    Invoked in Section 1.1, Eq. (1.6). This is exact given the spectral theorem and that P_Lambda commutes with H.
  • domain assumption The environment remains in its instantaneous adiabatic vacuum during evolution, and the initial state factorizes as rho = varrho tensor |0>_phi <0|.
    Stated in Section 1.1 as one of the three key assumptions for interacting systems. It fails for strongly time-dependent backgrounds where particle production occurs.
  • domain assumption Interactions are weak enough for first-order perturbation theory in the system-environment coupling to be valid.
    Used throughout Section 2 and Appendices A and B; the purity deviations from unity are computed to leading order in the coupling.
  • ad hoc to paper The iepsilon prescription in Wightman functions acts as a UV regulator that suppresses contributions of high-energy eigenstates based on energy eigenvalue.
    Introduced in Section 3.2 as the practical implementation of the decoupled-basis projection. This is the load-bearing new assumption, demonstrated in examples but not proven generally.
  • domain assumption epsilon can be interpreted physically as an inverse detector resolution scale, epsilon ~ 1/Lambda, with the order of limits epsilon -> 0 and M -> infinity determining which basis is relevant.
    Argued in Section 3.2 and the Conclusions; underlies the claim that the decoupled and decohered bases answer different physical questions.
  • ad hoc to paper UV divergences in purity calculations can be absorbed by counterterms and nonlinear field redefinitions in the standard way for composite operators.
    In Section 4, the authors show an explicit divergence and argue it can be cancelled by counterterms, but state that proving this remains an open question.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Does decoherence violate decoupling?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JIATEREE

@misc{pith2026241109000,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Does decoherence violate decoupling?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JIATEREE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09000}
}
abstract

Recent calculations in both flat and de Sitter spacetimes have highlighted a tension between the decoupling of high-energy physics from low-energy degrees of freedom and the expectation that quantum systems decohere due to interactions with unknown environments. In effective field theory (EFT), integrating out heavy fields should lead to Hamiltonian time evolution, which preserves the purity of low-energy states. This is consistent with the fact that we never observe isolated quantum states spontaneously decohering in the vacuum due to unknown high-energy physics. However, when a heavy scalar of mass $M$ is traced out, the resulting purity of a light scalar with mass $m$ typically appears to scale as a power of $1/M$ (when $m\ll M$), an effect that cannot be captured by a local effective Hamiltonian. We resolve this apparent paradox by showing that the purity depends on the resolution scale of the EFT and how the environment is traced out. We provide a practical method for diagnosing the purity of low-energy states consistent with EFT expectations, and briefly discuss some of the implications these observations have for how ultraviolet divergences can appear in decoherence calculations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Stochastic inflation from a non-equilibrium renormalization group

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stochastic inflation is the leading infrared limit of a coarse-grained Schwinger–Keldysh effective theory, and the same Fokker–Planck dynamics follows from a Polchinski-type renormalization-group flow for the reduced ...

  2. Effective Field Theory and In-In Correlators

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Matching in-in correlators between a full theory and its effective theory requires extra boundary terms in flat space, but those terms fade away in de Sitter space.

  3. Inflationary Decoherence from the Gravitational Floor

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gravitational self-interactions alone decohere super-Hubble inflationary fluctuations with purity loss growing as (aH/k)^5, faster than the a^3 growth of earlier calculations.

  4. An Open Effective Field Theory for light in a medium

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dissipative open EFT for photons in a medium is constructed, featuring a deformed advanced gauge symmetry and a noise constraint vμ(jμ+ξμ)=0.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Phenomenological Lagrangians,

    S. Weinberg, “Phenomenological Lagrangians,” Physica A 96 (1979) no.1-2, 327-340

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory,

    C. P. Burgess, “Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory,” Living Rev. Rel. 7 (2004), 5-56 [arXiv:gr-qc/0311082 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Introduction to Effective Field Theory,

    C. P. Burgess, “Introduction to Effective Field Theory,” Cambridge University Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-139-04804-0, 978-0-521-19547-8 (see here for the first 6 chapters on general formalism)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Cosmic Purity Lost: Perturbative and Resummed Late-Time Inflationary Decoherence,

    C. P. Burgess, T. Colas, R. Holman, G. Kaplanek and V. Vennin, “Cosmic Purity Lost: Perturbative and Resummed Late-Time Inflationary Decoherence,” [arXiv:2403.12240 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    In-in formalism for the entropy of quantum fields in curved spacetimes,

    T. Colas, J. Grain, G. Kaplanek and V. Vennin, “In-in formalism for the entropy of quantum fields in curved spacetimes,” JCAP 08, 047 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/047 [arXiv:2406.17856 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Minimal decoherence from inflation,

    C. P. Burgess, R. Holman, G. Kaplanek, J. Martin and V. Vennin, “Minimal decoherence from inflation,” JCAP 07 (2023), 022 [arXiv:2211.11046 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Decoherence of cosmological perturbations from boundary terms and the non-classicality of gravity,

    C. M. Sou, D. H. Tran and Y. Wang, “Decoherence of cosmological perturbations from boundary terms and the non-classicality of gravity,” JHEP 04, 092 (2023) [arXiv:2207.04435 [hep-th]]. 13For the linear case, the self-energy simply reads Σ K σ = µ4GK ϕ . In Fourier space GR σ .ΣK σ .GA σ = µ4 1 (ω − iϵ)2 − ω2σ 2  2iϵωϕ 1 (ω − iϵ)2 − ω2 ϕ 2  (C.44) wher...

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    On the decoherence of primordial gravitons,

    S. Ning, C. M. Sou and Y. Wang, “On the decoherence of primordial gravitons,” JHEP 06, 101 (2023) [arXiv:2305.08071 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Cosmological Bell Tests with Decoherence Effects,

    C. M. Sou, J. Wang and Y. Wang, “Cosmological Bell Tests with Decoherence Effects,” [arXiv:2405.07141 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Keldysh field theory for driven open quantum systems,

    L.M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold and S. Diehl, “Keldysh field theory for driven open quantum systems,” Reports on Progress in Physics 79 (2016) 096001

    2016

  3. [11]

    Divergences in open quantum systems,

    C. Ag´ on and A. Lawrence, “Divergences in open quantum systems,” JHEP 04 (2018), 008 [arXiv:1709.10095 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Effective field theory in time-dependent settings,

    H. Collins, R. Holman and A. Ross, “Effective field theory in time-dependent settings,” JHEP 02, 108 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2013)108 [arXiv:1208.3255 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The Theory of Open Quantum Systems,

    H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, “The Theory of Open Quantum Systems,” Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-19-170634-9, 978-0-19-921390-0 doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001

    2007

  6. [14]

    The Open Effective Field Theory of Inflation,

    S. A. Salcedo, T. Colas and E. Pajer, “The Open Effective Field Theory of Inflation,” [arXiv:2404.15416 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Super-Hubble de Sitter Fluctuations and the Dynamical RG,

    C. P. Burgess, L. Leblond, R. Holman and S. Shandera, “Super-Hubble de Sitter Fluctuations and the Dynamical RG,” JCAP 03 (2010), 033 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/03/033 [arXiv:0912.1608 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Unified description of corpuscular and fuzzy bosonic dark matter II: Dissipation and stochastic forces,

    N. P. Proukakis, G. Rigopoulos and A. Soto, “Unified description of corpuscular and fuzzy bosonic dark matter II: Dissipation and stochastic forces,” [arXiv:2407.08860 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Lectures on non-equilibrium effective field theories and fluctuating hydrodynamics,

    H. Liu and P. Glorioso, “Lectures on non-equilibrium effective field theories and fluctuating hydrodynamics,” PoS T ASI2017(2018), 008 doi:10.22323/1.305.0008 [arXiv:1805.09331 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The Analytic Wavefunction,

    S. A. Salcedo, M. H. G. Lee, S. Melville and E. Pajer, “The Analytic Wavefunction,” JHEP 06, 020 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)020 [arXiv:2212.08009 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Benchmarking the cosmological master equations,

    T. Colas, J. Grain and V. Vennin, “Benchmarking the cosmological master equations,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.12, 1085 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11047-9 [arXiv:2209.01929 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Decoherence out of fire: purity loss in expanding and contracting universes,

    T. Colas, C. de Rham and G. Kaplanek, “Decoherence out of fire: purity loss in expanding and contracting universes,” JCAP 05, 025 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/025 [arXiv:2401.02832 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Quantum recoherence in the early universe,

    T. Colas, J. Grain and V. Vennin, “Quantum recoherence in the early universe,” EPL 142, no.6, 69002 (2023) doi:10.1209/0295-5075/acdd94 [arXiv:2212.09486 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    On Loops in Inflation,

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, “On Loops in Inflation,” JHEP 12, 008 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2010)008 [arXiv:0912.2734 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Schwinger-Keldysh Diagrammatics for Primordial Perturbations,

    X. Chen, Y. Wang and Z. Z. Xianyu, “Schwinger-Keldysh Diagrammatics for Primordial Perturbations,” JCAP 12, 006 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/12/006 [arXiv:1703.10166 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Many-body theory of non-equilibrium systems,

    A. Kamenev, “Many-body theory of non-equilibrium systems,” [arXiv:cond-mat/0412296 [cond-mat.dis-nn]]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Renormalization,

    J. C. Collins, “Renormalization,” Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Cosmological Consequences of Initial State Entanglement,

    A. Albrecht, N. Bolis and R. Holman, “Cosmological Consequences of Initial State Entanglement,” JHEP 11, 093 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)093 [arXiv:1408.6859 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Decoherence due to Casimir effect?,

    A. Gundhi, “Decoherence due to Casimir effect?,” [arXiv:2409.03866 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Time-Convolutionless Master Equation Applied to Adiabatic Elimination,

    M. Tokieda and A. Riva, “Time-Convolutionless Master Equation Applied to Adiabatic Elimination,” [arXiv:2409.08332 [quant-ph]]. – 41 –

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    The ’in-in’ Formalism and Cosmological Perturbations,

    P. Adshead, R. Easther and E. A. Lim, “The ’in-in’ Formalism and Cosmological Perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 083521 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.083521 [arXiv:0904.4207 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Power-counting and the Validity of the Classical Approximation During Inflation,

    C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee and M. Trott, “Power-counting and the Validity of the Classical Approximation During Inflation,” JHEP 09, 103 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/103 [arXiv:0902.4465 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixture Does the Wave Packet Collapse?,

    W. H. Zurek, “Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixture Does the Wave Packet Collapse?,” Phys. Rev. D 24, 1516-1525 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1516 665 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 17 Sep 2024

    1981 doi

  24. [32]

    Environment induced superselection rules,

    W. H. Zurek, “Environment induced superselection rules,” Phys. Rev. D 26, 1862-1880 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1862

    1982 doi

  25. [33]

    The Emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment,

    E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, “The Emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment,” Z. Phys. B 59, 223-243 (1985) doi:10.1007/BF01725541

    1985 doi

  26. [34]

    Black holes decohere quantum superpositions,

    D. L. Danielson, G. Satishchandran and R. M. Wald, “Black holes decohere quantum superpositions,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31, no.14, 2241003 (2022) doi:10.1142/S0218271822410036 [arXiv:2205.06279 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Killing horizons decohere quantum superpositions,

    D. L. Danielson, G. Satishchandran and R. M. Wald, “Killing horizons decohere quantum superpositions,” Phys. Rev. D 108, no.2, 025007 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.025007 [arXiv:2301.00026 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Decoherence by warm horizons,

    J. Wilson-Gerow, A. Dugad and Y. Chen, “Decoherence by warm horizons,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.4, 045002 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.045002 [arXiv:2405.00804 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Comparing the decoherence effects due to black holes versus ordinary matter,

    A. Biggs and J. Maldacena, “Comparing the decoherence effects due to black holes versus ordinary matter,” [arXiv:2405.02227 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Local Description of Decoherence of Quantum Superpositions by Black Holes and Other Bodies,

    D. L. Danielson, G. Satishchandran and R. M. Wald, “Local Description of Decoherence of Quantum Superpositions by Black Holes and Other Bodies,” [arXiv:2407.02567 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Renormalization in open quantum field theory. Part I. Scalar field theory,

    A. Baidya, C. Jana, R. Loganayagam and A. Rudra, “Renormalization in open quantum field theory. Part I. Scalar field theory,” JHEP 11, 204 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2017)204 [arXiv:1704.08335 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Von Neumann entropy, mutual information and total correlations of Gaussian states,

    A. Serafini, F. Illuminati and S. De Siena, “Von Neumann entropy, mutual information and total correlations of Gaussian states,” J. Phys. B 37, L21 (2004) doi:10.1088/0953-4075/37/2/L02 [arXiv:quant-ph/0307073 [quant-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  33. [41]

    On iϵ Prescription in Cosmology,

    A. Kaya, “On iϵ Prescription in Cosmology,” JCAP 04, 002 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/04/002 [arXiv:1810.12324 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Perturbative unitarity and the wavefunction of the Universe,

    S. Albayrak, P. Benincasa and C. Duaso Pueyo, “Perturbative unitarity and the wavefunction of the Universe,” SciPost Phys. 16, no.6, 157 (2024) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.16.6.157 [arXiv:2305.19686 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Proof of the Weak Gravity Conjecture from Black Hole Entropy,

    C. Cheung, J. Liu and G. N. Remmen, “Proof of the Weak Gravity Conjecture from Black Hole Entropy,” JHEP 10, 004 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)004 [arXiv:1801.08546 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Entropy Bounds on Effective Field Theory from Rotating Dyonic Black Holes,

    C. Cheung, J. Liu and G. N. Remmen, “Entropy Bounds on Effective Field Theory from Rotating Dyonic Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D 100, no.4, 046003 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.046003 [arXiv:1903.09156 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Entropy Bound and Unitarity of Scattering Amplitudes,

    G. Dvali, “Entropy Bound and Unitarity of Scattering Amplitudes,” JHEP 03, 126 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)126 [arXiv:2003.05546 [hep-th]]. – 42 –

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Positivity bounds on effective field theories with spontaneously broken Lorentz invariance,

    P. Creminelli, O. Janssen and L. Senatore, “Positivity bounds on effective field theories with spontaneously broken Lorentz invariance,” JHEP 09, 201 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)201 [arXiv:2207.14224 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Entropy growth in perturbative scattering,

    C. Cheung, T. He and A. Sivaramakrishnan, “Entropy growth in perturbative scattering,” Phys. Rev. D 108, no.4, 045013 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.045013 [arXiv:2304.13052 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Positivity in Amplitudes from Quantum Entanglement,

    R. Aoude, G. Elor, G. N. Remmen and O. Sumensari, “Positivity in Amplitudes from Quantum Entanglement,” [arXiv:2402.16956 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Perturbative unitarity bounds from momentum-space entanglement,

    C. Duaso Pueyo, H. Goodhew, C. McCulloch and E. Pajer, “Perturbative unitarity bounds from momentum-space entanglement,” [arXiv:2410.23709 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Consistency of EFT illuminated via relative entropy: A case study in scalar field theory,

    D. Ueda and K. Tatsumi, “Consistency of EFT illuminated via relative entropy: A case study in scalar field theory,” [arXiv:2410.21062 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Entanglement Entropy is Elastic Cross Section,

    I. Low and Z. Yin, “Entanglement Entropy is Elastic Cross Section,” [arXiv:2410.22414 [hep-th]]. – 43 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

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