Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 98 references

Non-Markovianity vs athermality: perturbation-enhanced information backflow

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Perturbing a quantum system's Hamiltonian can enhance non-Markovianity; three new measures quantify the gain, with first-order bounds for entanglement and distance and an exact linear response for total correlation.

desk verdict The paper's claim that athermality enhances non-Markovianity fails because the proposed maximized entanglement- and distance-based measures are invariant under the perturbation; the numerical examples test different quantities. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05010 v1 pith:PIYAGK65 submitted 2025-02-07 quant-ph

Anindita Sarkar , Debarupa Saha , Ujjwal Sen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P4081S22
keywords non-Markovianitythermaloperationsapproximateathermalityinformationbackflowsystem-environmententanglementquantummutualperturbationtheory
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 asks whether the unavoidable perturbation of a quantum system's Hamiltonian—the imperfection that turns an ideal thermal operation into an approximate one and breaks strict energy conservation—can change how non-Markovian the dynamics is, meaning how much information flows back from the environment into the system. The authors' answer is yes: they define three measures of non-Markovianity for thermal operations and their approximate counterparts, and prove that the perturbation-induced change is at most linear in the perturbation strength for entanglement- and distance-based measures and exactly linear for total correlation. In explicit qubit-qubit and qubit-qutrit examples, the perturbation increases the system-environment entanglement and mutual information generated during the evolution, so athermality can act as an enhancer of information backflow rather than a purely harmful effect. This matters in practice because non-Markovianity is a resource in quantum technologies while Hamiltonian perturbations are unavoidable in real devices; the paper thereby puts two useful notions into a quantitative relation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the approximate thermal operation, $TO_\epsilon$: a thermal operation generated by an energy-preserving unitary $U_{SB}$ acting on system plus thermal bath, but with the system Hamiltonian shifted to $H'_S = H_S + \epsilon H'$, so that $[U_{SB}, H'_T] = \epsilon[U_{SB}, H'\otimes I_B]\neq 0$ and the process no longer conserves total energy. The mechanism that carries the argument is the fixed-unitary, shifted-basis construction: the perturbed initial state is $\rho_S^\epsilon = \sum_{ij} P_{ij}|i'\rangle\langle j'|$, with the first-order corrected eigenstates $|i'\rangle = |i\rangle + \epsilon\sum_{k\neq i}(\langle k|H'|i\rangle/(E_i-E_k))|k\rangle$, so that $\rho_S^\epsilon = \rho_S + \epsilon\tilde{\rho}$. Substituting this expansion into the relative entropy of entanglement, the quantum mutual information between system and environment, and the Choi-state trace distance between the operation and its nearest Markovian counterpart, then expanding to first order in $\epsilon$, produces Propositions 1–3. The same perturbation theory shows that the parameter constraints characterizing approximate Markovian thermal operations coincide with those for the unperturbed Markovian thermal operations, which is what allows the distance-based bound to go through.

What would settle it

Recompute the qubit-qubit example with the global unitary replaced by one that commutes with the perturbed total Hamiltonian $H_T + \epsilon H'\otimes I_B$, so the perturbation genuinely reshapes the dynamics instead of only shifting the initial state; if $\Delta E_N$ turns negative or violates $\Delta E_\Lambda \leq \epsilon\gamma_\Lambda$, the enhancement is tied to the fixed-unitary construction. On the experimental side, the same check is a direct measurement of trace-distance revivals in a system whose Hamiltonian is perturbed while the system-bath interaction is held fixed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a deviation from ideal thermal operations—athermality—can enhance non-Markovianity. The argument keeps the same global system-bath unitary $U_{SB}$ that generates the unperturbed thermal operation, and lets the perturbation act only by replacing the system's initial state with the same density matrix written in the first-order perturbed eigenbasis, $\rho_S^\epsilon = \rho_S + \epsilon\tilde{\rho}$. Expanding each measure to first order in $\epsilon$ yields three relations: the entanglement-based measure changes by at most $\Delta E_\Lambda \leq \epsilon\gamma_\Lambda$; the total-correlation measure changes exactly linearly, $\Delta I_\Lambda = \epsilon\theta_\Lambda$; and the distance-based measure changes by at most $\Delta D_\Lambda \leq (\epsilon/d_1)\max_{\Lambda^M}\|\chi_\Lambda\|_1$, where $\gamma_\Lambda$, $\theta_\Lambda$, and $\chi_\Lambda$ depend on the global unitary and the perturbing Hamiltonian $H'$. In the qubit-qubit example the entanglement-based difference $\Delta E_N$ is positive and grows with the bath temperature, and in the qubit-qutrit example $\Delta I$ is positive and grows as the temperature falls; the paper also finds a distance-based example where $\Delta D$ stays near $10^{-4}$, showing the enhancement is not universal across measures.

Load-bearing premise

The entire derivation assumes the perturbation changes only the system's initial state—rebuilt in the shifted eigenbasis—while the global system-bath unitary stays exactly the same as in the unperturbed thermal operation, and it assumes non-degenerate spectra so that first-order perturbation theory applies; if a real perturbation also modified the unitary itself, every bound and formula in the paper would need re-derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any perturbation-induced gain in non-Markovianity measured by entanglement or by distance is at most linear in the perturbation strength $\epsilon$, so departing further from ideal thermal operations does not buy unlimited enhancement.
  • For the total-correlation measure the response is exactly linear, $\Delta I_\Lambda = \epsilon\theta_\Lambda$, so the sign of $\theta_\Lambda$—computed from the unitary, the bath, and the perturbing Hamiltonian—decides whether a given perturbation helps or hurts.
  • In the qubit-qubit example the entanglement-based gain grows with the bath temperature, while in the qubit-qutrit example the correlation-based gain grows as the temperature falls, making temperature a tuning knob for athermality-enhanced backflow.
  • Enhancement is not universal: in the qubit-qubit distance-based example the change stays at order $10^{-4}$, so some measures barely respond to the same perturbation.
  • Athermality can therefore act like 'order from disorder': an imperfection in the thermal operation, instead of merely degrading the resource, can strengthen the backflow of information from the environment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exact relation $\Delta I_\Lambda = \epsilon\theta_\Lambda$ suggests a rate-like interpretation the paper leaves implicit: athermality of size $\epsilon$ is converted into correlation-based non-Markovianity at a rate $\theta_\Lambda$, and asking whether $\theta_\Lambda$ can be negative for all perturbations would single out Hamiltonians that are insensitive to this effect.
  • The same fixed-unitary, shifted-basis template could be applied to other monotones of the thermal-operations resource theory, such as free energy or coherence, which would connect perturbation-enhanced non-Markovianity to the thermodynamic cost of the perturbation.
  • Because the construction deliberately keeps the global unitary fixed, a natural next step is to let the perturbation also rotate the unitary; if the enhancement survives that change, the conclusion extends beyond basis-shifted initial states to genuinely perturbed dynamics.
  • Since the enhanced quantities are one-time system-bath entanglement and mutual information, the effect could plausibly be detected in a single correlation measurement on system and bath after the interaction, rather than through full process tomography.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes three measures of non-Markovianity for thermal operations (TO) and approximate thermal operations (TO_epsilon): an entanglement-based measure E_Lambda (Eq. 8-9), a mutual-information-based measure I_Lambda (Eq. 10-11), and a distance-based measure D_Lambda (Eq. 13-14). It claims that a small perturbation of the system Hamiltonian, leading to athermality, can enhance non-Markovianity, and it derives response formulas: Delta E_Lambda <= epsilon gamma_Lambda (Prop. 1), Delta I_Lambda = epsilon theta_Lambda (Prop. 2), and Delta D_Lambda <= (epsilon/d1) max ||chi_Lambda||_1 (Prop. 3). Numerical examples for qubit-qubit and qubit-qutrit systems are presented as evidence of perturbation-enhanced information backflow.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would establish a useful bridge between two quantum resource frameworks: athermality and non-Markovianity. The manuscript is clearly organized, and the appendices contain explicit derivations of the Markovianity constraints on thermal operations and approximate thermal operations. The authors also honestly include a counterexample for the distance-based measure, which indicates that the enhancement is not universal. However, the central claim is not supported by the proposed measures: the entanglement- and distance-based measures are maximized over all system states, and under the paper's own definition of the perturbed initial state this maximization set is unchanged by the perturbation. Consequently, Propositions 1 and 3 bound quantities that are identically zero, and the numerical examples test fixed initial states with different entanglement quantifiers rather than the proposed measures. The mutual-information result is only first order in epsilon despite being advertised as exact. These issues are load-bearing, so the paper cannot be accepted in its current form.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. V.A, Eqs. (8)-(9), Prop. 1] The claimed enhancement is not established because the two measures are equal by definition. The perturbed initial state is rho^epsilon_S = sum_{ij} P_{ij} |i'><j'|, and the set {|i'>} is a complete basis. As the coefficients P_{ij} range over all valid density matrices, rho^epsilon_S ranges over exactly the same set L_S as rho_S. Since the same global unitary U_SB appears in Eqs. (8) and (9), the two maximizations are over identical sets and E^epsilon_Lambda = E_Lambda, hence Delta E_Lambda = 0. Proposition 1 therefore gives an upper bound on a quantity that is identically zero. The numerical example in Fig. 2 sidesteps this by fixing a = 0.9 and using logarithmic negativity (Eq. 25) instead of the relative entropy of entanglement (Eq. 7), so it does not test the proposed measure E_Lambda.
  2. [Sec. V.C, Eqs. (13)-(14), Prop. 3] The same substitution argument applies to the outer maximization in D_Lambda and D^epsilon_Lambda. Since both definitions maximize over all input states and the same unitary U_SB is used, the operations Lambda and Lambda^epsilon are the same CPTP map applied to differently labeled input states; the maximization sets coincide. The proof's step in Eq. (40), replacing the minimization over Lambda^M_epsilon by a minimization over Lambda^M, requires the sets of maps to coincide, which is asserted on the basis of Appendix C but not established in the main text. Even granting that step, the bound (33) concerns a difference that is zero, and the numerical example in Sec. V.C explicitly finds no enhancement. Thus Proposition 3 does not support the paper's central claim of perturbation-enhanced non-Markovianity.
  3. [Sec. V.A, proof of Prop. 1] The max/min manipulation in the proof is internally inconsistent. Equation (23) contains the term epsilon max_{Pij} max_sigma X_Lambda, but gamma_Lambda is later defined in Eq. (16) as max_{Pij} min_sigma X_Lambda. Since max max >= max min in general, the stated bound Delta E_Lambda <= epsilon gamma_Lambda does not follow from the derivation unless X_Lambda has special properties that are not proved. This is an independent technical error from the invariance issue, and it makes the provenance of the advertised bound unclear.
  4. [Sec. II.D and Sec. V] The physical modeling of the perturbation is problematic. The paper keeps the same global unitary U_SB that commutes with the unperturbed total Hamiltonian H_T, and only changes the system's initial state from rho_S = sum P_{ij}|i><j| to rho^epsilon_S = sum P_{ij}|i'><j'|. However, if the system Hamiltonian is perturbed to H_S + epsilon H', the total Hamiltonian changes to H_T + epsilon H' ⊗ I_B, so a unitary generated by the perturbed dynamics would not be the same U_SB. Using the unperturbed U_SB means that Lambda^epsilon is literally the same CPTP map as Lambda, with the input state expressed in a different basis. The numerical examples therefore compute the response to a change of initial state, not the response of the dynamics to athermality. This assumption undermines the claimed connection between athermality and enhanced information backflow.
  5. [Sec. V.B, Prop. 2] The claim of an exact response is overstated. The proof of Proposition 2 uses first-order expansions of the von Neumann entropy, e.g., S(rho'^epsilon_S) = S(rho'_S) - epsilon Tr[beta_1(I + log rho'_S)], dropping terms of order epsilon^2. The result should be stated as Delta I_Lambda = epsilon theta_Lambda + O(epsilon^2), not as the exact equality in Eq. (26). The abstract's phrase 'we are able to compute the exact response' is therefore not supported by the presented derivation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (17) and proof of Prop. 1] In the second summation of Eq. (17), the energy denominator should be E_j - E_l rather than E_i - E_k; the same typo appears in the expression for B in the proof.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The inset text mentions 'Delta I_N' where the main text uses Delta I; the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Sec. V.A, first example] The symbol I is used both for the identity operator and for the imaginary unit in the definition of U_SB; this creates ambiguity and should be disambiguated with different notations.
  4. [Sec. IV.B] The statement that unitaries corresponding to operations in X_M or X^M_epsilon 'ensure' the system and environment remain uncorrelated is a condition imposed on the unitaries, not an automatic property; the wording could be clarified.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Entanglement- and distance-based measures are invariant under the perturbation by construction; the formal enhancement bounds are vacuous.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IV.B, Eqs. (8)-(9); Sec. V (initial state definitions)]
    "EΛ := max_{ρS∈LS} min_{σ∈SEP} S(USBρS ⊗ τBU†SB || σ) ... EϵΛ := max_{ρϵS∈LS} min_{σ∈SEP} S(USBρϵS ⊗ τBU†SB || σ). For the perturbed system, |i⟩⟨j| is simply replaced by |i′⟩⟨j′|, so that the initial state in this case is given by ρϵS = Σ_{ij} P_{ij} |i′⟩⟨j′|."

    Because {|i′⟩} is a complete basis, the map P_{ij} ↦ ρϵ_S is a bijection onto L_S; hence the maximization in Eq. (9) is over exactly the same set as in Eq. (8). The unitary U_SB is identical in both definitions, so Eϵ_Λ = E_Λ for every Λ. Therefore ΔE_Λ := Eϵ_Λ − E_Λ ≡ 0, and Proposition 1's bound ΔE_Λ ≤ εγ_Λ bounds an identically zero quantity. The perturbation only re-labels the input state; it does not alter the set of states over which the measure is maximized, so the claimed 'response' is built out of the definition.

  2. self definitional [Sec. IV.B, Eqs. (13)-(14); Sec. V.C (proof of Proposition 3)]
    "DΛ := max_ρ [min_{ΛM} ||Λ(ρ) − ΛM(ρ)||1] ... DϵΛ := max_ρ [min_{ΛMϵ} ||Λϵ(ρ) − ΛMϵ(ρ)||1]. ... minimization over ΛMϵ in the first term of the RHS of the inequality (39) can be equivalently written as minimization over ΛM."

    In the perturbed case the global unitary is the same ('evolved via the same global unitaries USB'), and the input states in the maximization range over all of L_S; hence Λϵ is the same CPTP map as Λ. Since the paper itself states that the MTO and MTOϵ parameter constraints coincide, the inner minimization sets are the same. Therefore the two max-min optimizations in Eqs. (13) and (14) are identical, so Dϵ_Λ = D_Λ and ΔD_Λ ≡ 0. Proposition 3's bound (33) is vacuous: it upper-bounds zero. The claimed response of this measure to athermality is fixed to zero by the way the perturbed measure was defined.

full rationale

The paper contains two formal self-definitional collapses. The entanglement-based measure E is maximized over all system states; since the perturbed input state ρϵ_S = Σ P_{ij} |i′⟩⟨j′| ranges over the full state space L_S when P_{ij} ranges over all density matrices, and the same U_SB is used, Eq. (9) is exactly Eq. (8). Hence ΔE_Λ = 0 and Proposition 1 is vacuous. The distance-based measure D suffers the same collapse: Λϵ(ρ) = Λ(ρ) as a map, and the MTO/MTOϵ constraint sets are identified in the proof, so Eq. (14) equals Eq. (13) and ΔD_Λ = 0. These are the paper's own 'upper bounds on the response' for two of its three measures. The total-correlation result (Proposition 2) is a first-order Taylor expansion of entropies, not a fit, and the numerical examples for fixed input states show positive differences; they are independent content, though they use log-negativity and discord rather than the formally proposed maximized measures. Self-citations [66] and [95] introduce definitions and a standard Choi identity; they are not load-bearing circularity because the propositions reduce by the definitions above. Overall, partial circularity: two of three formal 'responses' are zero by construction, so the central claim of perturbation-enhanced non-Markovianity is not established for those measures, even though the state-dependent examples retain some independent evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the perturbed-state model (same global unitary, basis change), first-order perturbation theory, and non-degenerate spectra assumptions. The examples introduce hand-chosen parameters (a, alpha_i, epsilon) rather than generic or optimized values.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial state population a = 0.9 in both examples
    Chosen by hand; the examples use a=0.9 to produce positive Delta E_N and Delta I, and the paper does not maximize over a despite defining the entanglement measure as a maximum over states.
  • Unitary phases alpha_i = alpha1=105, alpha2=2e5, alpha3=3e5, alpha4=4e5 (qubit-qubit); alpha1=18e7, alpha2=30e7, alpha3=60e7, alpha4=80e7…
    Chosen by hand; these phases determine the global unitary and affect the sign and magnitude of the response.
  • Perturbation strength epsilon = 0.1, 0.15, 0.2; correlation example 0.2
    Small parameter chosen by hand for the examples; the bounds use epsilon as a formal expansion parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The unperturbed system Hamiltonian has non-degenerate spectra.
    Stated in Sec. II.D: 'we will assume that the system's original, unperturbed Hamiltonian has non-degenerate spectra so that the tools of non-degenerate time independent perturbation theory can be applied.' Used for the first-order eigenvector corrections in all three propositions.
  • domain assumption The system Hamiltonian has non-degenerate Bohr spectra.
    Stated in Sec. III and used in Appendix B and C to simplify off-diagonal transformation conditions (omega_ki != 0 unless i=k). Required for the MTO and MTO_epsilon constraints to be identical.
  • domain assumption First-order perturbation theory is sufficient; higher-order terms in epsilon are neglected.
    Stated in Sec. V ('considering weak perturbation, we have neglected the higher order terms in epsilon'). Underlies the bounds and the 'exact' response, which is actually only first-order.
  • domain assumption The environment is initialized in the thermal state tau_B and remains in that state under Markovian thermal operations.
    Defines MTO in Sec. II.C; used in the proofs of the parameter constraints.
  • standard math The operator A = U(rho_S tensor tau_B)U^dagger is positive definite so that log A and the linear expansion Tr[(A+epsilon B) log(A+epsilon B)] approximately Tr[A log A] + epsilon Tr[B(I+log A)] are well-defined.
    Used in Proposition 1 proof (equation 22); if A has zero eigenvalues, log A is singular and the expansion needs justification.
  • standard math Choi-state identity: max_rho ||Lambda(rho)-Lambda_M(rho)||_1 = ||(Lambda tensor I - Lambda_M tensor I)|Phi><Phi|||_1.
    Used in Proposition 3 proof, following ref [95] by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Markovianity vs athermality: perturbation-enhanced information backflow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIYAGK65

@misc{pith2026250205010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Markovianity vs athermality: perturbation-enhanced information backflow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIYAGK65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05010}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Markovianity and athermality are useful resources in quantum technologies, and it is therefore important to understand the relations between the two, for general quantum dynamics. We propose three measures of non-Markovianity, first within the ambit of thermal operations, and then beyond it, that result from unavoidable perturbations in system's Hamiltonian and that leads to violations of conservation of total energy characterizing any thermal operation. The proposed measures are based respectively on system-environment entanglement, total correlation in the system-environment partition, and on a concept of distance defined on the sets of usual and approximate thermal operations. We investigate the response of non-Markovianity to the athermality-inducing perturbations, using all the three measures. For the entanglement and distance-based measures, we derive upper bounds on the response by a quantity that depends on the perturbative Hamiltonian. For the total correlation-based measure, we are able to compute the exact response. We present examples of qubit-qubit and qubit-qutrit systems for which perturbation leads to enhancement of non-Markovianity, as quantified by the entanglement and total correlation-based measures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05010 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram showing the relationship between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plot depicting the variation of the difference in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The outer plot depicts the behavior of the differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (43) Next we calculate DΛ by minimizing overMTO which en- tails minimizing over the parameters of the corresponding global unitary U M SB , subject to the condition (43)

    = eI(α′ 2−α′ 3). (43) Next we calculate DΛ by minimizing overMTO which en- tails minimizing over the parameters of the corresponding global unitary U M SB , subject to the condition (43). The parameters αk, with k = 1, 2, 3, 4. corresponding to TO are fixed to α1 = 10 4, α2 = 2 × 104, α3 = 3 × 104, α4 = 4 × 104. For the perturbed case, system’s new Hamilt...

  2. [2]

    Lecture notes on the theory of open quan- tum systems,

    D. A. Lidar, “Lecture notes on the theory of open quan- tum systems,” arxiv:1902.00967 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Rivas and S

    A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga, Open Quantum Systems: An Introduction (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

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

    2007

  5. [5]

    Non-markovianity through flow of in- formation between a system and an environment,

    S. Haseli, G. Karpat, S. Salimi, A. S. Khorashad, F. F. Fanchini, B. Cakmak, G. H. Aguilar, S. P. Walborn, and P. H. S. Ribeiro, “Non-markovianity through flow of in- formation between a system and an environment,” Phys. Rev. A 90, 052118 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Delineating incoher- ent non-markovian dynamics using quantum coherence,

    T. Chanda and S. Bhattacharya, “Delineating incoher- ent non-markovian dynamics using quantum coherence,” Annals of Physics 366, 1 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Experimental investigation of spectra of dynamical maps and their relation to non-markovianity,

    S. Yu, Y. T. Wang, Z. J. Ke, W. Liu, Y. Meng, Z. P. Li, W. H. Zhang, G. Chen, J. S. Tang, C. F. Li, and G. C. Guo, “Experimental investigation of spectra of dynamical maps and their relation to non-markovianity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 060406 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Detecting non-markovianity of quantum evolution via spectra of dynamical maps,

    D. Chru´ sci´ nski, C. Macchiavello, and S. Maniscalco, “Detecting non-markovianity of quantum evolution via spectra of dynamical maps,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 080404 (2017)

    2017

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Construc- tive method for detecting the information backflow of non-markovian dynamics,

    B. Bylicka, M. Johansson, and A. Acin, “Construc- tive method for detecting the information backflow of non-markovian dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 120501 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Non-markovianity hierar- chy of gaussian processes and quantum amplification,

    P. Liuzzo-Scorpo, W. Roga, L. A. M. Souza, N. K. Bernardes, and G. Adesso, “Non-markovianity hierar- chy of gaussian processes and quantum amplification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 050401 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Information re- trieval and criticality in parity-time-symmetric systems,

    K. Kawabata, Y. Ashida, and M. Ueda, “Information re- trieval and criticality in parity-time-symmetric systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 190401 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Operational characterization of divisibility of dynamical maps,

    J. Bae and D. Chru´ sci´ nski, “Operational characterization of divisibility of dynamical maps,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 050403 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Non- markovian effects on the dynamics of entanglement,

    B. Bellomo, R.L. Franco, and G. Compagno, “Non- markovian effects on the dynamics of entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 160502 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Non-markovian entan- glement dynamics in the presence of system-bath coher- ence,

    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)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Non-markovian evolution: a quantum walk perspective,

    N. P. Kumar, S. Banerjee, R. Srikanth, V. Jagadish, and F. Petruccione, “Non-markovian evolution: a quantum walk perspective,” OSID 25, 1850014 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Exact master equation for a spin interacting with a spin bath: Non-markovianity and negative entropy pro- duction rate,

    S. Bhattacharya, A. Misra, C. Mukhopadhyay, and A. K. Pati, “Exact master equation for a spin interacting with a spin bath: Non-markovianity and negative entropy pro- duction rate,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 012122 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Dynamics and thermodynamics of a central spin immersed in a spin bath,

    C. Mukhopadhyay, S. Bhattacharya, A. Misra, and A. K. Pati, “Dynamics and thermodynamics of a central spin immersed in a spin bath,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 052125 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Markovianity and non-markovianity in quan- tum and classical systems,

    V. Bassano, S. Andrea, E. M. Laine, J. Piilo, and H. P. Breuer, “Markovianity and non-markovianity in quan- tum and classical systems,” New J. Phys. 13, 093004 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Colloquium: Non-markovian dynamics in open quantum systems,

    H. P. Breuer, E. M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, “Colloquium: Non-markovian dynamics in open quantum systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021002 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Dynamics of non-markovian open quantum systems,

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

    2017

  13. [21]

    Non- markovianity-assisted steady state entanglement,

    S. F. Huelga, A. Rivas, and M. B. Plenio, “Non- markovianity-assisted steady state entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 160402 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Quantum metrology in non-markovian environments,

    Alex W. Chin, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio, “Quantum metrology in non-markovian environments,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 233601 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Mag- netic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit un- der the effect of decoherence,

    Y. Matsuzaki, S. C. Benjamin, and J. Fitzsimons, “Mag- netic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit un- der the effect of decoherence,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 012103 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Non- markovianity as a resource for quantum technologies,

    B. Bylicka, D. Chru´ sci´ nski, and S. Maniscalco, “Non- markovianity as a resource for quantum technologies,” arXiv:1301.2585 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Nonlocal mem- ory effects allow perfect teleportation with mixed states,

    E. M. Laine, H. P. Breuer, and J. Piilo, “Nonlocal mem- ory effects allow perfect teleportation with mixed states,” Sci. Rep. 4, 4620 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Continuous-variable quantum key distribution in non- markovian channels,

    R. Vasile, S. Olivares, M. G. A. Paris, and S. Maniscalco, “Continuous-variable quantum key distribution in non- markovian channels,” Phys. Rev. A 83, 042321 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Non- markovianity benefits quantum dynamics simulation,

    Y-Q. Chen, S-X. Zhang, and S. Zhang, “Non- markovianity benefits quantum dynamics simulation,” arxiv:2311.17622 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Thermodynamic power of non- markovianity,

    B. Bylicka, M. Tukiainen, D. Chruscinski, J. Piilo, and S. Maniscalco, “Thermodynamic power of non- markovianity,” Sci. Rep. 6, 27989 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Com- munication advantage of quantum compositions of chan- nels from non-markovianity,

    J. W. Cheong, A. Pradana, and L. Y. Chew, “Com- munication advantage of quantum compositions of chan- nels from non-markovianity,” Phys. Rev. A 106, 052410 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Non-markovianity as a resource for quantum correlation teleportation,

    A. Motavallibashi, H. Mohammadi, and A. Akhound, “Non-markovianity as a resource for quantum correlation teleportation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 38, 1200 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Measure for the degree of non-markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems,

    H. P. Breuer, E. Laine, and J. Piilo, “Measure for the degree of non-markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Measure for the non-markovianity of quantum processes,

    E. M. Laine, J. Piilo, and H. P. Breuer, “Measure for the non-markovianity of quantum processes,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 062115 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Gener- alized trace-distance measure connecting quantum and classical non-markovianity,

    S. Wibmann, H. P. Breuer, and B. Vacchini, “Gener- alized trace-distance measure connecting quantum and classical non-markovianity,” Phys. Rev. A 92, 042108 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Kraus representation of quantum evolution and fi- delity as manifestations of markovian and non-markovian forms,

    A. K. Rajagopal, A. R. Usha Devi, and R. W. Ren- dell, “Kraus representation of quantum evolution and fi- delity as manifestations of markovian and non-markovian forms,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 042107 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Quantifying non-markovianity of continuous-variable gaussian dynamical maps,

    R. Vasile, S. Maniscalco, G. A. Paris, Matteo, H. P. Breuer, and J. Piilo, “Quantifying non-markovianity of continuous-variable gaussian dynamical maps,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 052118 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Entan- glement and non-markovianity of quantum evolutions,

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, “Entan- glement and non-markovianity of quantum evolutions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 050403 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Mea- sures of non-markovianity: Divisibility versus backflow of information,

    D. Chru´ sci´ nski, A. Kossakowski, and A. Rivas, “Mea- sures of non-markovianity: Divisibility versus backflow of information,” Phys. Rev. A 83, 052128 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Quantifying non- markovianity via correlations,

    S. Luo, S. Fu, and H. Song, “Quantifying non- markovianity via correlations,” Phys. Rev. A 86, 044101 18 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Quantum fisher information flow and non-markovian processes of open systems,

    X. M. Lu, X. Wang, and C. P. Sun, “Quantum fisher information flow and non-markovian processes of open systems,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 042103 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    As- sessing non-markovian quantum dynamics,

    M. M. Wolf, J. Eisert, T. S. Cubitt, and J. I. Cirac, “As- sessing non-markovian quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 150402 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Alternative non-markovianity measure by divisibility of dynamical maps,

    S. C. Hou, X. X. Yi, S. X. Yu, and C. H. Oh, “Alternative non-markovianity measure by divisibility of dynamical maps,” Phys. Rev. A 83, 062115 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Foundations and measures of quantum non-markovianity,

    H. P. Breuer, “Foundations and measures of quantum non-markovianity,” J. Phys. B 45, 154001 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Nonunital non- markovianity of quantum dynamics,

    J. Liu, X. M. Lu, and X. Wang, “Nonunital non- markovianity of quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 042103 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Geometri- cal characterization of non-markovianity,

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

    2013

  37. [45]

    Degree of non- markovianity of quantum evolution,

    D. Chru´ sci´ nski and S. Maniscalco, “Degree of non- markovianity of quantum evolution,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120404 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Canonical form of master equations and character- ization of non-markovianity,

    M. J. W. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li, and E. Anders- son, “Canonical form of master equations and character- ization of non-markovianity,” Phys. Rev. A 89, 042120 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Quantification and control of non-markovian evolution in finite quantum systems via feedback,

    N. Chancellor, C. Petri, Campos V. L., A. F. J. Levi, and S. Haas, “Quantification and control of non-markovian evolution in finite quantum systems via feedback,” Phys. Rev. A 89, 052119 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Non-markovianity through accessible information,

    F. F. Fanchini, G. Karpat, B. Cakmak, L. K. Castelano, G. H. Aguilar, O. J. Farias, S. P. Walborn, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, and M. C. de Oliveira, “Non-markovianity through accessible information,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 210402 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Non- markovianity and reservoir memory of quantum chan- nels: a quantum information theory perspective,

    B. Bylicka, D. Chruscinski, and S. Maniscalco, “Non- markovianity and reservoir memory of quantum chan- nels: a quantum information theory perspective,” Sci. Rep. 4, 5720 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Quan- tum non-markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection,

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, “Quan- tum non-markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 094001 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Measuring non- markovianity based on local quantum uncertainty,

    Z. He, C. Yao, Q. Wang, and J. Zou, “Measuring non- markovianity based on local quantum uncertainty,” Phys. Rev. A 90, 042101 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Characterizing non-markovianity via quantum interferometric power,

    H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera, and G. Adesso, “Characterizing non-markovianity via quantum interferometric power,” Phys. Rev. A 91, 032115 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Quantifying non-markovianity with temporal steering,

    S. L. Chen, N. Lambert, C. M. Li, A. Miranowicz, Y. N. Chen, and F. Nori, “Quantifying non-markovianity with temporal steering,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 020503 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Measuring and using non- markovianity,

    C. Pineda, T. Gorin, D. Davalos, D. A. Wisni- acki, and I. Garcia-Mata, “Measuring and using non- markovianity,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 022117 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Non-markovianity measure based on brukner–zeilinger invariant information for uni- tal quantum dynamical maps,

    H. Zhi, L. Q. Zhu, and L. Li, “Non-markovianity measure based on brukner–zeilinger invariant information for uni- tal quantum dynamical maps,” Commun. Theor. Phys. 67, 255 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Non- markovianity measure based on the relative entropy of co- herence in an extended space,

    H. Zhi, H. S. Zeng, Y. Li, Q. Wang, and C. Yao, “Non- markovianity measure based on the relative entropy of co- herence in an extended space,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 022106 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Concepts of quantum non-markovianity: A hierarchy,

    L. Li, M. J. W. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, “Concepts of quantum non-markovianity: A hierarchy,” Phys. Rep. 759, 1 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Correlation measure detecting almost all non-markovian evolutions,

    D. D. Santis, M. Johansson, B. Bylicka, N. K. Bernardes, and A. Acin, “Correlation measure detecting almost all non-markovian evolutions,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 012303 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Quantifying non- markovianity: a quantum resource-theoretic approach,

    N. Anand and T. A. Brun, “Quantifying non- markovianity: a quantum resource-theoretic approach,” arxiv:1903.03880 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Non-markovianity, information backflow, and system- environment correlation for open-quantum-system pro- cesses,

    Y. Y. Hsieh, Z. Y. Su, and H. S. Goan, “Non-markovianity, information backflow, and system- environment correlation for open-quantum-system pro- cesses,” Phys. Rev. A 100, 012120 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Quantum causal correlations and non- markovianity of quantum evolution,

    S. Utagi, “Quantum causal correlations and non- markovianity of quantum evolution,” Phys. Lett. A 386, 126983 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Quantum non- markovianity: Overview and recent developments,

    U. Shrikant and P. Mandayam, “Quantum non- markovianity: Overview and recent developments,” Frqst 2 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    The thermodynamic cost of reliability and low temperatures: Tightening landauer’s principle and the second law,

    J. Dominik, W. Pawel, Z. Robert, G. Rubino, and B. Thomas, “The thermodynamic cost of reliability and low temperatures: Tightening landauer’s principle and the second law,” arXiv:quant-ph/0002048 (2000)

    2000 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Resource theory of quan- tum states out of thermal equilibrium,

    F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, J. M. Renes, and R. W. Spekkens, “Resource theory of quan- tum states out of thermal equilibrium,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 250404 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    Fundamental limita- tions for quantum and nanoscale thermodynamics,

    M. Horodecki and J. Oppenheim, “Fundamental limita- tions for quantum and nanoscale thermodynamics,” Nat. Commun. 4 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    R. F. Streater, Statistical dynamics: a stochastic ap- proach to nonequilibrium thermodynamics(World Scien- tific Publishing Company, 2009)

    2009

  59. [67]

    Approximate second laws and energy extraction from quantum batter- ies,

    D. Saha, A. Bhattacharyya, and U. Sen, “Approximate second laws and energy extraction from quantum batter- ies,” arxiv:2409.05971 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Quantumness in the context of resource theories,

    M. Horodecki and J. Oppenheim, “Quantumness in the context of resource theories,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 27, 1345019 (2013)

    2013

  61. [69]

    Resource theory of quantum thermodynamics: Thermal operations and sec- ond laws,

    N. H. Ng. Ying and M. P. Woods, “Resource theory of quantum thermodynamics: Thermal operations and sec- ond laws,” in Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions(Springer In- ternational Publishing, 2018) p. 625

    2018

  62. [70]

    An introductory review of the resource theory approach to thermodynamics,

    M. Lostaglio, “An introductory review of the resource theory approach to thermodynamics,” Rep. Prog. Phys 82, 114001 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    Dis- order overtakes order in information concentration over quantum networks,

    R. Prabhu, S. Pradhan, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “Dis- order overtakes order in information concentration over quantum networks,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 042334 (2011)

    2011

  64. [72]

    Beating no-go theorems by engineering defects in quantum spin models,

    D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “Beating no-go theorems by engineering defects in quantum spin models,” New J. Phys. 17, 043013 (2015)

    2015

  65. [73]

    Quantum discord length is enhanced while entanglement length is not by introduc- ing disorder in a spin chain,

    D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, D. Rakshit, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “Quantum discord length is enhanced while entanglement length is not by introduc- ing disorder in a spin chain,” Phys. Rev. E 93, 012131 (2016)

    2016

  66. [74]

    Quantum correlations in quenched disordered spin mod- els: Enhanced order from disorder by thermal fluctua- tions,

    D. Sadhukhan, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “Quantum correlations in quenched disordered spin mod- els: Enhanced order from disorder by thermal fluctua- tions,” Phys. Rev. E 93, 032115 (2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    Disorder-induced enhancement and criti- cal scaling of spontaneous magnetization in random-field 19 quantum spin systems,

    A. Bera, D. Rakshit, M. Lewenstein, A. Sen(De), U. Sen, and J. Wehr, “Disorder-induced enhancement and criti- cal scaling of spontaneous magnetization in random-field 19 quantum spin systems,” Phys. Rev. B 94, 014421 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    Constructive interference between disordered couplings enhances multiparty entanglement in quantum heisenberg spin glass models,

    U. Mishra, D. Rakshit, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “Constructive interference between disordered couplings enhances multiparty entanglement in quantum heisenberg spin glass models,” New J. Phys. 18, 083044 (2016)

    2016

  69. [77]

    Response of entanglement to annealed vis-` a-vis quenched disorder in quantum spin models,

    A. Bera, D. Sadhukhan, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “Response of entanglement to annealed vis-` a-vis quenched disorder in quantum spin models,” EPL 127, 30003 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    Pop- ulation inversion and entanglement in single and dou- ble glassy jaynes-cummings models,

    A. Ghoshal, S. Das, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “Pop- ulation inversion and entanglement in single and dou- ble glassy jaynes-cummings models,” Phys. Rev. A 101, 053805 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Glassy disorder-induced effects in noisy dynamics of bose–hubbard and fermi–hubbard systems,

    S. Sarkar and U. Sen, “Glassy disorder-induced effects in noisy dynamics of bose–hubbard and fermi–hubbard systems,” J. Phys. B 55, 205502 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Enhancing precision of atomic clocks by tuning disorder in acces- sories,

    A. Bhattacharyya, A. Ghoshal, and U. Sen, “Enhancing precision of atomic clocks by tuning disorder in acces- sories,” Phys. Rev. A 110, 012620 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Relaxation phenomena in spin and harmonic oscillator systems,

    J. Rau, “Relaxation phenomena in spin and harmonic oscillator systems,” Phys. Rev. 129, 1880 (1963)

    1963

  74. [82]

    Quantum collision models: Open system dynam- ics from repeated interactions,

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V. Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, “Quantum collision models: Open system dynam- ics from repeated interactions,” Phys. Rep.954, 1 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    Limitations on the evolution of quantum co- herences: Towards fully quantum second laws of thermo- dynamics,

    P. ´Cwikli´ nski, M. Studzi´ nski, M. Horodecki, and J. Op- penheim, “Limitations on the evolution of quantum co- herences: Towards fully quantum second laws of thermo- dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 210403 (2015)

    2015

  76. [84]

    A hierarchy of ther- mal processes collapses under catalysis,

    S. Jeongrak and H. Y. Ng. Nelly, “A hierarchy of ther- mal processes collapses under catalysis,” QST 10, 015011 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    Capacity of non-markovianity to boost the efficiency of molecular switches,

    G. Spaventa, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, “Capacity of non-markovianity to boost the efficiency of molecular switches,” Phys. Rev. A 105, 012420 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    Entanglement measures and purification procedures,

    V. Vedral and M. B. Plenio, “Entanglement measures and purification procedures,” Phys. Rev. A 57, 1619 (1998)

    1998

  79. [87]

    Statistical inference, distinguishability of quan- tum states, and quantum entanglement,

    V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, K. Jacobs, and P. L. Knight, “Statistical inference, distinguishability of quan- tum states, and quantum entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 56, 4452 (1997)

    1997

  80. [88]

    Quantifying entanglement,

    V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, “Quantifying entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997)

    1997

  81. [89]

    Quantum, classical, and total amount of correlations in a quantum state,

    B. Groisman, S. Popescu, and A. Winter, “Quantum, classical, and total amount of correlations in a quantum state,” Phys. Rev. A 72, 032317 (2005)

    2005

  82. [90]

    Total versus quantum correlations in quantum states,

    N. Li and S. Luo, “Total versus quantum correlations in quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 76, 032327 (2007)

    2007

  83. [91]

    Computable measure of entanglement,

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, “Computable measure of entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  84. [92]

    Logarithmic negativity: A full entangle- ment monotone that is not convex,

    M. B. Plenio, “Logarithmic negativity: A full entangle- ment monotone that is not convex,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  85. [93]

    Observable measure of bi- partite quantum correlations,

    D. Girolami and G. Adesso, “Observable measure of bi- partite quantum correlations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 150403 (2012)

    2012

  86. [94]

    Classical, quantum and to- tal correlations,

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, “Classical, quantum and to- tal correlations,” J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 34, 6899 (2001)

    2001

  87. [95]

    Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators,

    A. Jamio lkowski, “Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators,” Rep. Math. Phys. 3, 275 (1972)

    1972

  88. [96]

    Nearly markovian maps and entanglement-based bound on cor- responding non-markovianity,

    S. Das, S.S. Roy, S. Bhattacharya, and U. Sen, “Nearly markovian maps and entanglement-based bound on cor- responding non-markovianity,” J. Phys. A-Math 54, 395301 (2021)

    2021

  89. [97]

    Separability criterion for density matrices,

    A. Peres, “Separability criterion for density matrices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  90. [98]

    Sepa- rability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient condi- tions,

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “Sepa- rability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient condi- tions,” Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996)

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.