Tripartite Entanglement dynamics: the influence of intrinsic decoherence and decoherence channels

S. V. Mousavi

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 82 references

Tripartite Entanglement dynamics: the influence of intrinsic decoherence and decoherence channels

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under non-Markovian dephasing, mixing a GHZ state with separable noise keeps tripartite entanglement alive at long times, even though the pure GHZ state's entanglement dies out.

desk verdict The paper's headline nonzero steady-state entanglement claim is inconsistent with its own definition, so the central result is false; the rest is a mix of plausible and unchecked algebra. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21961 v1 pith:TON462DX submitted 2025-05-28 quant-ph

S. V. Mousavi This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Mn03.65.Yz

keywords tripartiteentanglementXXZHeisenbergchainDzyaloshinskii-MoriyainteractionintrinsicdecoherenceMilburnequationnon-Markoviandephasingphasedampingchannelsuddendeath

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 studies three coupled qubits in an XXZ Heisenberg chain with a magnetic field and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, asking how tripartite entanglement behaves under intrinsic (Milburn) decoherence, single-qubit quantum channels, and a non-Markovian dephasing environment. Its central claim is that in the Milburn framework only the magnetic field controls the entanglement decay rate, and that the one-to-two-qubit tangle usually decreases with noise, except for a W state under single-qubit phase damping, where it reaches a minimum but never vanishes. The most striking result is that under non-Markovian dephasing the pure GHZ state's I-tangle shows dark periods and goes to zero, whereas a mixture of GHZ with fully separable states settles at a nonzero value. If correct, this gives a simple recipe for protecting tripartite entanglement from dephasing: start with a slightly mixed state rather than a pure one.

What carries the argument

The paper's central tool is an analytic formula for the squared one-to-other concurrence of any three-qubit state with at most two nonzero eigenvalues. The formula adds a correction term built from the smallest eigenvalue of a 3×3 matrix $M$ and the state's linear entropy, so each entanglement computation reduces to linear algebra. For the non-Markovian dephasing mixture, that smallest eigenvalue is given explicitly in Eq. (85), and it is the input that makes the I-tangle plateau differ from zero. In the pure-GHZ limit the minimum eigenvalue is $-1/2$, so the I-tangle is simply $Λ^6(t)$, which vanishes; for $w>0$ the eigenvalue (85) changes the long-time value.

What would settle it

Recompute the minimum eigenvalue of the matrix $M$ for the non-Markovian dephased mixture (82) and compare it with Eq. (85); any discrepancy for some $w$ and $Λ$ removes the plateau. Alternatively, prepare the three-qubit state $(1-w)|GHZ⟩⟨GHZ|+w|000⟩⟨000|$ under random-telegraph-noise dephasing and measure $C^2_{A|BC}$ at long times: a decay to zero for $w>0$ would disprove the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a three-qubit XXZ Heisenberg chain with DM interaction and an external magnetic field, the paper obtains exact entanglement dynamics for states whose density matrices have rank one or two, using the analytic formula for the squared concurrence between one qubit and the other two, $C^2_{A|BC}$. It finds that the gGHZ state's entanglement is static under Schrödinger evolution, that the gW state's entanglement is periodic with frequencies set by the coupling $J$ and DM strength $D$ while its residual entanglement is zero, and that under Milburn intrinsic decoherence the gGHZ I-tangle decays as $e^{-4γt sin^2(3B/γ)}$, so only the magnetic field $B$ matters. For channels, phase damping on one qubit maps the W state to a rank-2 state whose one-to-other concurrences have minima but never vanish; amplitude damping on one qubit damps the gGHZ state more when it acts on the first qubit than on the third; and generalized amplitude damping produces entanglement sudden death in reduced states of the W-type families while the spectral-decomposed W states keep a nonzero I-tangle at full damping. The central qualitative claim is the non-Markovian dephasing result: pure GHZ I-tangle shows dark periods and asymptotically vanishes, but the mixture $(1-w)|GHZ⟩⟨GHZ|+w|000⟩⟨000|$ retains a nonzero steady-state I-tangle.

Load-bearing premise

The nonzero steady-state I-tangle of the mixture rests on Eq. (85), the paper's unproved formula for the minimum eigenvalue $m_{min}(t)$; if that eigenvalue expression is wrong, the plateau in entanglement is an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under intrinsic decoherence the gGHZ I-tangle factorizes into an initial-amplitude factor and $e^{-4γt sin^2(3B/γ)}$, so a magnetic field satisfying $3B/γ = nπ$ freezes entanglement while other field values exponentially suppress it.
Single-qubit phase damping alone cannot fully destroy the W state's one-to-other entanglement: the squared concurrences have minima at finite decoherence strength but stay positive, even at $d=1$.
Mixtures of GHZ and fully separable states under non-Markovian dephasing reach a nonzero plateau, so adding separable noise to the initial state converts asymptotic decoherence death into survival.
The generalized amplitude damping channel causes entanglement sudden death in reduced bipartite states of W-type initial states, with the smallest ESD damping strength around $0.35$-$0.38$ depending on the channel parameter $p$, whereas the spectral-decomposed W states retain a nonzero I-tangle at $d=1$ for $p=1/2$.
The analytical formulas for the non-Markovian dephasing mixture provide a direct relation between the steady-state I-tangle and the initial mixture weight $w$, allowing the plateau value to be predicted before an experiment.

Reading between the lines

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

Eq. (83) depends on time only through $Λ^6(t)$; if correct, the nonzero plateau for $w>0$ follows for any dephasing with $Λ(t) → 0$, including Markovian dephasing, so the survival effect may be a property of the mixture's rank-2 structure rather than of non-Markovian memory.
The same formulas suggest a concrete experiment: prepare $(1-w)|GHZ⟩⟨GHZ|+w|000⟩⟨000|$ with $w≈0.1$ and measure the I-tangle at times much longer than the dephasing time; the plateau should be close to $(1-w^2)/4=0.2475$, while the pure GHZ state should read zero.
The dark periods and plateau value could be used as a probe of the dephasing environment: the number of revivals before the plateau encodes the random-telegraph parameters $b$ and $τ$, and the plateau encodes the initial mixture weight $w$.
The same rank-2 analytic strategy could be applied to other X-shaped or second-rank mixtures to identify initial states that trade a small amount of initial entanglement for asymptotic robustness against dephasing.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, this one is a straightforward reject, but not because it is sloppy in every respect. The paper works through a series of analytical calculations of tripartite entanglement measures under different noise channels. The genuinely new items are the specific state-channel combinations: GHZ under ADC-I, W under PDC-I, and the generalized WW state under GADC. Those are routine extensions of de Oliveira's framework, but they are carried out carefully and some of the closed forms, like Eq. (63) for W plus |000> under ADC and Eq. (67) for GHZ under ADC-I, look right. The problem is the headline result. Section 5.5 claims that under non-Markovian dephasing, the mixture (1-w)|GHZ><000| keeps a nonzero steady-state I-tangle, even though the pure GHZ state does not. That claim is false. As t goes to infinity, Lambda(t) goes to zero, and Eq. (82) becomes a convex mixture of |000><000| and |111><111|, which is fully separable. By the paper's own condition (i), C^2_A|BC must be zero. But plugging Lambda=0 into Eqs. (83)-(85) gives (1-w^2)/4. The mmin expression in Eq. (85) is given without derivation and cannot be right. A similar inconsistency shows up in Eq. (69) for the generalized GHZ state under ADC-III: at d=1 the channel maps qubit C to |0>, and the state becomes a mixture of |000> and |110>, which is separable across the A|BC partition, yet Eq. (69) gives 2a^2(1-a^2). So the two main quantitative results that the abstract advertises, the nonzero steady-state mixture entanglement and the ADC-III formula, fail even the most basic consistency check. The rest of the paper is a reasonable calculational exercise, but the reliability of the central claims is not established. The derivations are self-contained, with no fitting and no circularity. The problem is not that the framework is wrong; the algebra just goes wrong somewhere in the M-matrix computation. If the author can correct these formulas, the paper could be a useful benchmark collection. As it stands, the headline results should not be trusted. For peer review: yes, it deserves referee time, because a competent referee will catch the same inconsistency and the paper has enough correct auxiliary material that a revision could be substantive. I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies tripartite entanglement measures (I-tangle, genuine tripartite concurrence, concurrence fill) for three qubits under Schrödinger evolution with an XXZ Heisenberg Hamiltonian, intrinsic decoherence via the Milburn equation, and several decoherence channels. Analytical formulas are derived for gGHZ, gW, W, W-bar, and mixtures of these with separable states. The headline results are that under non-Markovian dephasing the pure GHZ state exhibits dark periods and vanishing steady-state entanglement, while a mixture of GHZ with |000> retains nonzero steady-state I-tangle, and that under generalized amplitude damping the reduced bipartite states of W states exhibit entanglement sudden death.

Significance. If the steady-state entanglement result were correct, it would be an interesting decoherence-avoidance effect. The paper is self-contained and analytical, with no fitting parameters and a clearly stated set of entanglement axioms. These are strengths. However, the central claim is contradicted by the manuscript's own definition of entanglement: the final state of the mixture under non-Markovian dephasing is separable, so its I-tangle must vanish. Similar internal contradictions appear in the PDC-I and ADC-III formulas. Because the advertised results are false as stated, the paper's current significance is not realized.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.5, Eqs. (82)-(85)] The claimed nonzero steady-state I-tangle for the mixture under non-Markovian dephasing is inconsistent with the paper's own definition of entanglement. Setting Λ(t)=0 in Eq. (82) gives ρ∞ = ((1+w)/2)|000><000| + ((1-w)/2)|111><111|, a convex mixture of product states and hence fully separable. Condition (i) of Section 2 then requires C²_A|BC(ρ∞)=0. However, substituting Λ=0 into Eqs. (83) and (85) yields mmin=-1/4 and C²_A|BC=(1-w²)/4, which is strictly positive for 0<w<1. This is exactly the result advertised in the abstract, Section 5.5, and Fig. 8, so the central novel claim is not merely underived; it is false.
[Section 5.3, Eq. (69)] Equation (69) for the gGHZ state under ADC-III fails at d=1. At d=1, the amplitude damping channel maps |1> on qubit C to |0>, so the gGHZ state becomes (a|0>+sqrt(1-a²)|1>)_A ⊗ |00>_BC, a fully product state. By condition (i) of Section 2, C²_A|BC must vanish for all a. Equation (69) instead gives 2a²(1-a²), which is positive for 0<a<1. This also contradicts Eq. (70), which gives CGTC=0 at d=1. The internal inconsistency invalidates the comparison of ADC-I versus ADC-III in Section 6 and the corresponding panels of Figs. 5 and 6.
[Section 5.1, Eq. (55)] Equation (55) for the W state under PDC-I is also inconsistent with separability at d=1. When d=1, the phase damping channel on qubit A leaves the state as (1/3)(|001>+|010>)(<001|+<010|) + (1/3)|100><100|. Both terms are product states with respect to the A|BC split, so condition (i) requires C²_A|BC=0. Direct substitution into Eq. (55) gives 2/9. This contradicts the text in Section 6 that the one-to-other entanglements 'never vanish' and indicates that the mmin expression in Eq. (54) is not valid for this state.

minor comments (3)

[Section 5.5, Eq. (78)] The density matrix in Eq. (78) is labeled 'GADC', but the channel being applied is the non-Markovian dephasing channel; the label should be corrected to avoid confusion with the generalized amplitude damping channel of Section 5.6.
[Section 5.6, Eqs. (95)-(98)] The quantity defined in Eq. (96) is the I-tangle of the spectral decomposition of the mapped state, which is an upper bound on the convex-roof I-tangle of ρ', not necessarily the I-tangle itself. This distinction should be stated clearly in the text and in the caption of Fig. 10.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical issues, including 'Heisnberg' (p. 3), 'bee' (p. 3), 'sysytem' (p. 19), and missing spaces in expressions such as 'valid forw ≪ 1' in Eq. (75); these should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all entanglement results are derived analytically from stated master equations and Kraus operators, with no fitted parameters, imported uniqueness theorems, or self-citation load-bearing arguments.

full rationale

The paper derives its entanglement dynamics from explicit, stated inputs: the Milburn master equation (23), the Schrödinger evolution with Hamiltonian (11), and the Kraus representations of the decoherence channels (49), (50), (60), (76), and (86). The I-tangle results are obtained by applying the rank-two formula (3) from Osborne [19] to the explicitly written evolved density matrices, such as (35), (45), (72), (78), and (82). No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, and no claim is justified only by a self-citation: the author's prior works cited (e.g., [36], [48], [49]) are contextual and not load-bearing. The skeptic's concern about Eq. (85) is a correctness or derivational-support issue, not circularity: the expression for mmin(t) is asserted without derivation and may violate the paper's own separability condition at t→∞, but that would be a mathematical error rather than a reduction of the result to its inputs. Similarly, the concern about Eq. (69) at d=1 indicates an inconsistency with the stated measure, but again it is not an example of circular reasoning or of a fitted input being renamed as a prediction. All central predictions are computed, not assumed, from the stated dynamical equations and channel maps. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard quantum mechanical models and known entanglement measures. The main burden is the correctness of the closed-form expressions for eigenvalues and concurrences, which are derived but contain apparent errors.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Milburn master equation (23) is the correct model of intrinsic decoherence.
The paper adopts Milburn's equation without independent empirical validation, relying on it as the physical model throughout Section 4.
standard math The I-tangle formula (3) for rank-2 states from Osborne [19] is valid.
The paper uses this formula as the basis for most of its one-to-other concurrence computations; it is a known result from prior literature.
domain assumption The Hamiltonian (11) has the given eigen-decomposition and eigenenergies (26).
The derivation of the Milburn evolution and the unitary matrix U relies on this diagonalization.
domain assumption The Kraus operator representations for PDC, ADC, GADC, and non-Markovian dephasing are standard.
These are taken from the cited literature and used without modification in Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tripartite Entanglement dynamics: the influence of intrinsic decoherence and decoherence channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TON462DX

@misc{pith2026250521961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tripartite Entanglement dynamics: the influence of intrinsic decoherence and decoherence channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TON462DX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21961}
}

abstract

This study examines a system of three coupled qubits, focusing on entanglement measures in the presence of decoherence. It utilizes an XXZ Heisenberg chain with an external magnetic field and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, considering intrinsic decoherence. The results reveal that only the magnetic field strength affects entanglement, while intrinsic decoherence suppresses it, with stronger decoherence leading to greater suppression. Various decoherence channels are analyzed, showing that the $I$-tangle typically decreases with increased decoherence, except for the generalized W state under phase damping channel, where only one qubit is affected. Interestingly, dark periods of $I$-tangle occur for the GHZ state under non-Markovian dephasing, and while steady-state entanglement disappears in this channel, it remains nonzero when starting from a mixture of GHZ and fully separable states. Additionally, under generalized amplitude damping channel, reduced bipartite states of a W state exhibit entanglement sudden death, while the steady-state $I$-tangle for the spectral decomposed state stays nonzero.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

[1]

K.: Quantum entanglement as a quantifiable resource

Wootters, W. K.: Quantum entanglement as a quantifiable resource. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 356(1743), 1717-1731 (1998) 28

1998
[2]

Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, K.: Quantum entangle- ment. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81(2), 865-942
[3]

A., Wootters, W

Hill, S. A., Wootters, W. K.: Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78(26), 5022 (1997)

work page 1997
[4]

K.: Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits

Wootters, W. K.: Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(10), 2245 (1998)

work page 1998
[5]

M.: Concurrence-based entanglement measures for isotropic states

Rungta, P., Caves, C. M.: Concurrence-based entanglement measures for isotropic states. Phys. Rev. A, 67(1), 012307 (2003)

work page 2003
[6]

F.: Computable measure of entanglement

Vidal, G., Werner, R. F.: Computable measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 65(3), 032314 (2002)

work page 2002
[7]

Plenio. M. B.: Logarithmic negativity: a full entanglement monotone that is not convex. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005)

work page 2005
[8]

Streltsov, A. (2015). Quantum Correlations Beyond Entanglement. In: Quantum Correlations Beyond Entanglement. Springer Briefs in Physics. Springer, Cham

work page 2015

Show all 82 references

[9]

M., Hillery, M., Milburn, G

Rungta, P., Buzek, V., Caves, C. M., Hillery, M., Milburn, G. J.: Universal state inversion and concurrence in arbitrary dimensions. Phys. Rev. A, 64(4), 042315 (2001)

2001
[10]

Fundamental Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2024.03.031

Ma, M., Li, Y., Shang, J.: Multipartite entanglement measures: A review. Fundamental Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2024.03.031

2024 doi
[11]

Dhar, H.S., Pal, A.K., Rakshit, D., Sen(De), A., Sen, U. (2017). Monogamy of Quantum Correlations - A Review. In: Fanchini, F., Soares Pinto, D., Adesso, G. (eds) Lectures on General Quantum Correlations and their Applications. Quantum Science and Technology. Springer, Cham

2017
[12]

G¨ ohne, O., T´ oth, G.: Entanglement detection. Phys. Rep.,474(1-6), 1-75 (2009)

2009
[13]

Szalay, S.: Separability criteria for mixed three-qubit states. Phys. Rev. A, 83(6), 062337 (2011)

2011
[14]

Ajoy, A., Rungta, P.: Svetlichny’s inequality and genuine tripartite nonlocality in three-qubit pure states. Phys. Rev. A, 81(5), 052334 (2010)

2010
[15]

G¨ uhne O., Seevinck M.: Separability criteria for genuine multiparticle entangle- ment. New J. Phys. 12, 053002 (2010)

2010
[16]

Sab ´ ın, C., Garc ´ ıa-Alcaine, G. (2008). A classification of entanglement in three- qubit systems. Eur. Phys. J. D, 48, 435-442. 29

2008
[17]

K.: Distributed entanglement

Coffman, V., Kundu, J., Wootters, W. K.: Distributed entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 61(5), 052306 (2000)

2000
[18]

C., Fan, H.: Monogamy inequality in terms of negativity for three-qubit states

Ou, Y. C., Fan, H.: Monogamy inequality in terms of negativity for three-qubit states. Phys. Rev. A, 75(6), 062308 (2007)

2007
[19]

J.: Entanglement measure for rank-2 mixed states

Osborne, T. J.: Entanglement measure for rank-2 mixed states. Phys. Rev. A, 72(2), 022309 (2005)

2005
[20]

H., Chen, Z

Ma, Z. H., Chen, Z. H., Chen, J. L., Spengler, C., Gabriel, A., Huber, M.: Measure of genuine multipartite entanglement with computable lower bounds. Phys. Rev. A, 83(6), 062325 (2011)

2011
[21]

H.: Triangle measure of tripartite entanglement

Xie, S., Eberly, J. H.: Triangle measure of tripartite entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 127(4), 040403 (2021)

2021
[22]

Ge, X., Liu, L., Cheng, S.: Tripartite entanglement measure under local operations and classical communication. Phys. Rev. A, 107(3), 032405 (2023)

2023
[23]

W., Li, L

Li, Y. W., Li, L. J., Song, X. K., Wang, D., Ye, L.: Genuine tripartite entanglement in three-flavor neutrino oscillations. Euro. Phys. J. C, 82(9), 799 (2022)

2022
[24]

J., Li, Y

Wang, G. J., Li, Y. W., Li, L. J., Song, X. K., Wang, D: Monogamy properties of quantum correlations in neutrino oscillations. Eur. Phys. J. C, 83(9), 801 (2023)

2023
[25]

K., Sen, A., Sen, U.: Conditions for monogamy of quantum correlations: Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger versus W states

Prabhu, R., Pati, A. K., Sen, A., Sen, U.: Conditions for monogamy of quantum correlations: Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger versus W states. Phys. Rev. A, 85(4), 040102 (2012)

2012
[26]

K., Xu, Y

Bai, Y. K., Xu, Y. F., Wang, Z. D.: General monogamy relation for the entan- glement of formation in multiqubit systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 113(10), 100503 (2014)

2014
[27]

J., Li, B.: General monogamy and polygamy properties of quantum systems

Xie, B., Zhao, M. J., Li, B.: General monogamy and polygamy properties of quantum systems. Quantum Inf. Process., 22(2), 124 (2023)

2023
[28]

Q., Wu, W., Xu, J

Cheng, J. Q., Wu, W., Xu, J. B.: Multipartite entanglement in an XXZ spin chain with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction and quantum phase transition. Quantum Inf. Process., 16, 1-20 (2017)

2017
[29]

K., and Pandey, S

Sharma, K. K., and Pandey, S. N.: Entanglement dynamics in two-parameter qubit-qutrit states under Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. Quantum Inf. Pro- cess., 13, 2017-2038 (2014)

2014
[30]

K., and Pandey, S

Sharma, K. K., and Pandey, S. N.: Influence of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction on quantum correlations in two-qubit Werner states and MEMS. Quantum Inf. Process., 14, 1361-1375 (2015) 30

2015
[31]

K., and Pandey, S

Sharma, K. K., and Pandey, S. N.: Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction as an agent to free the bound entangled states. Quantum Inf. Process., 15, 1539-1551 (2016)

2016
[32]

K., and Pandey, S

Sharma, K. K., and Pandey, S. N.: Robustness of Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger and W states against Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. Quantum Inf. Process., 15(12), 4995-5009 (2016)

2016
[33]

L., Yin, H

Zong, X. L., Yin, H. H., Song, W., Cao, Z. L.: Monogamy of quantum entanglement. Frontiers in Physics, 10, 880560 (2022)

2022
[34]

Cambridge university press, (2006)

Le Bellac, M.: A short introduction to quantum information and quantum computation. Cambridge university press, (2006)

2006
[35]

A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information

Nielsen, M. A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

2000
[36]

V.: Quantum correlations under environmental decoherence

Mousavi, S. V.: Quantum correlations under environmental decoherence. Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 139(12), 1-16 (2024)

2024
[37]

Ban, M., Kitajima, S., Shibata, F.: Decoherence of quantum information in the non-Markovian qubit channel. J. Phys. A: Math. and General,38(32), 7161 (2005)

2005
[38]

W., Yin, Z

Yao, Y., Li, H. W., Yin, Z. Q., Guo, G. C., Han, Z. F.: The effect of channel decoherence on entangled coherent states: A theoretical analysis. Phys. Lett. A, 375(43), 3762-3769 (2011)

2011
[39]

M., Wang, D., Ye, L.: The dynamic behaviors of complementary correlations under decoherence channels

Du, M. M., Wang, D., Ye, L.: The dynamic behaviors of complementary correlations under decoherence channels. Sci. Rep., 7(1), 40934 (2017)

2017
[40]

Slaoui, A., Daoud, M., Ahl Laamara, R.: The dynamic behaviors of local quan- tum uncertainty for three-qubit X states under decoherence channels. Quant. Inf. Proces. 18:250 (2019)

2019
[41]

C., Xiao, Y., Han, X

Li, W. C., Xiao, Y., Han, X. H., Fan, X., Hei, X. B., Gu, Y. J.: Dynamics of multipartite quantum steering for different types of decoherence channels. Sci. Rep., 13(1), 3798 (2023)

2023
[42]

X., Wang, X., Sun, C

Ma, J., Huang, Y. X., Wang, X., Sun, C. P.: Quantum Fisher information of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state in decoherence channels. Phys. Rev. A, 84(2), 022302 (2011)

2011
[43]

K., Bhosale, S

Chandra, N. K., Bhosale, S. S., Panigrahi, P. K.: Dissipative dynamics of quantum correlation quantifiers under decoherence channels. Euro. Phys. J. Plus, 137(4), 415 (2022)

2022
[44]

N., Yang, C., Tian, Q

Guo, Y. N., Yang, C., Tian, Q. L., Wang, G. Y., Zeng, K.: Local quantum uncertainty and interferometric power for a two-qubit system under decoherence channels with memory. Quantum Inf. Process., 18, 1-13 (2019) 31

2019
[45]

Q., Fang, J

Chen, H., Fu, Y. Q., Fang, J. X.: Geometric discord of non-X-structured state under decoherence channels. Int. J. Theor. Phys., 53, 2967-2979 (2014)

2014
[46]

N., Zeng, K., Chen, P

Guo, Y. N., Zeng, K., Chen, P. X.: Teleportation of quantum Fisher information under decoherence channels with memory. Laser Phys. Lett.,16(9), 095203 (2019)

2019
[47]

J.: Intrinsic decoherence in quantum mechanics

Milburn, G. J.: Intrinsic decoherence in quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. A, 44(9), 5401 (1991)

1991
[48]

V., Miret-Art´ es, S.: Different routes to the classical limit of backflow

Mousavi, S. V., Miret-Art´ es, S.: Different routes to the classical limit of backflow. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 55(47), 475302 (2022)

2022
[49]

V., Miret-Art´ es, S.: Different theoretical aspects of the intrinsic decoherence in the Milburn formalism

Mousavi, S. V., Miret-Art´ es, S.: Different theoretical aspects of the intrinsic decoherence in the Milburn formalism. Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 139(10), 1-14 (2024)

2024
[50]

Essakhi, M., Khedif, Y., Mansour, M., Daoud, M.: Intrinsic decoherence effects on quantum correlations dynamics. Opt. Quant. Electron., 54, 1-15 (2022)

2022
[51]

Mohamed, A. B. A., Khedr, A. N., Haddadi, S., Rahman, A. U., Tammam, M., Pourkarimi, M. R.: Intrinsic decoherence effects on nonclassical correlations in a symmetric spin–orbit model. Results in Physics, 39, 105693 (2022)

2022
[52]

Hashem, M., Mohamed, A. B. A., Haddadi, S., Khedif, Y., Pourkarimi, M. R., Daoud, M.: Bell nonlocality, entanglement, and entropic uncertainty in a Heisen- berg model under intrinsic decoherence: DM and KSEA interplay effects. Appl. Phys. B, 128(4), 87 (2022)

2022
[53]

Dahbi, Z., Oumennana, M., Mansour, M.: Intrinsic decoherence effects on cor- related coherence and quantum discord in XXZ Heisenberg model. Opt. Quant. Electron., 55(5), 412 (2023)

2023
[54]

K.: Intrinsic decoherence effects on measurement-induced nonlocality

Muthuganesan, R., Chandrasekar, V. K.: Intrinsic decoherence effects on measurement-induced nonlocality. Quantum Inf. Process., 20, 1-15 (2021)

2021
[55]

Quantum Inf

Ait Chlih, A., Habiballah, N., Nassik, M.: Dynamics of quantum correlations under intrinsic decoherence in a Heisenberg spin chain model with Dzyaloshinskii- Moriya interaction. Quantum Inf. Process., 20, 1-14 (2021)

2021
[56]

Oumennana, M., Chaouki, E., Mansour, M.: The intrinsic decoherence effects on nonclassical correlations in a dipole-dipole two-spin system with Dzyaloshinsky- Moriya interaction. Int. J. Theor. Phys., 62(1), 10 (2022)

2022
[57]

Oumennana, M., Mansour, M.: Quantum correlations and coherence in a mixed spin-Heisenberg dimer under intrinsic decoherence. Phys. Scr., 99(2), 025117 (2024) 32

2024
[58]

Mohamed, A. B. A., Rahman, A. U., Eleuch, H.: Measurement uncertainty, purity, and entanglement dynamics of maximally entangled two qubits interact- ing spatially with isolated cavities: intrinsic decoherence effect. Entropy, 24(4), 545 (2022)

2022
[59]

Mohamed, A. B. A., Eleuch, H.: Quasi-probability information in a coupled two-qubit system interacting non-linearly with a coherent cavity under intrinsic decoherence. Sci. Rep., 10(1), 13240 (2020)

2020
[60]

K.: Effects of intrinsic deco- herence on quantum correlations in a two superconducting charge qubit system

Naveena, P., Muthuganesan, R., Chandrasekar, V. K.: Effects of intrinsic deco- herence on quantum correlations in a two superconducting charge qubit system. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 592, 126852 (2022)

2022
[61]

Chaouki, E., Mansour, M.: Skew information correlations and bipartite entan- glement in hybrid qubit–qutrit system under intrinsic decoherence effect. Appl. Phys. B, 129(7), 118 (2023)

2023
[62]

M., Seyed-Yazdi, J., Norouzi, M., Livreri, P.: Quantum teleportation in Heisenberg chain with magnetic-field gradient under intrinsic decoherence

Hosseiny, S. M., Seyed-Yazdi, J., Norouzi, M., Livreri, P.: Quantum teleportation in Heisenberg chain with magnetic-field gradient under intrinsic decoherence. Sci. Rep., 14(1), 9607 (2024)

2024
[63]

H., Ibrahim, T

Abdel-Wahab, N. H., Ibrahim, T. A. S., Amin, M. E., Salah, A.: Exploring the influence of intrinsic decoherence on residual entanglement and tripartite uncertainty bound in XXZ Heisenberg chain model. Euro. Phys. J. D, 78(3), 28 (2024)

2024
[64]

W., Wan, M

Hou, X. W., Wan, M. F., Ma, Z. Q.: Tripartite entanglement dynamics for mixed states in the Tavis-Cummings model with intrinsic decoherence. Euro. Phys. J. D, 66, 1-10 (2012)

2012
[65]

Q., Shao, B., Zou, J.: Tripartite states Bell-nonlocality sudden death with intrinsic decoherence

Liu, B. Q., Shao, B., Zou, J.: Tripartite states Bell-nonlocality sudden death with intrinsic decoherence. Phys. Lett. A, 374(19-20), 1970-1974 (2010)

2010
[66]

E., Livesey, K

Camley, R. E., Livesey, K. L. (2023). Consequences of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. Surface Science Reports, 78(3), 100605

2023
[67]

Yang, H., Liang, J., Cui, Q. (2023). First-principles calculations for Dzyaloshin- skii–Moriya interaction. Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1), 43-61

2023
[68]

M., Zeng, H

Wu, S. M., Zeng, H. S.:. Genuine tripartite nonlocality and entanglement in curved spacetime. Eur. Phys. J. C, 82(1), 4 (2022)

2022
[69]

Quantum Inf

Campbell, S.: Predominance of entanglement of formation over quantum discord under quantum channels. Quantum Inf. Process., 12(7), 2623-2636 (2013)

2013
[70]

R.: Monogamy inequality and residual entanglement of three qubits under decoherence

de Oliveira, T. R.: Monogamy inequality and residual entanglement of three qubits under decoherence. Phys. Rev. A, 80(2), 022331 (2009) 33

2009
[71]

W.: Frozen discord for three qubits in a non-Markovian dephasing channel

Hou, X. W.: Frozen discord for three qubits in a non-Markovian dephasing channel. Physica A, 646 129884 (2024)

2024
[72]

Shrikant, U., Srikanth, R., Banerjee, S.: Non-Markovian dephasing and depolar- izing channels. Phys. Rev. A, 98(3), 032328 (2018)

2018
[73]

R., Freitas, J

Teles, J., DeAzevedo, E. R., Freitas, J. C., Sarthour, R. S., Oliveira, I. S., Bonagamba, T. J.: Quantum information processing by nuclear magnetic reso- nance on quadrupolar nuclei. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 370, 4770-4793 (2012)

2012
[74]

G., Panwar, E., Banerjee, S., Srikanth, R.: Hierarchy of quantum correlations under non-Markovian dynamics

Paulson, K. G., Panwar, E., Banerjee, S., Srikanth, R.: Hierarchy of quantum correlations under non-Markovian dynamics. Quantum Inf. Process. 20, 1-26 (2021)

2021
[75]

Quantum Inf

Park, D.: Tripartite entanglement dynamics in the presence of Markovian or non- Markovian environment. Quantum Inf. Process., 15(8), 3189-3208 (2016)

2016
[76]

M.: Information-theoretic aspects of the generalized amplitude-damping channel

Khatri, S., Sharma, K., Wilde, M. M.: Information-theoretic aspects of the generalized amplitude-damping channel. Phys. Rev. A, 102(1), 012401 (2020)

2020
[77]

Das, D., Dogra, S., Dorai, K., Arvind.: Experimental construction of a W super- position state and its equivalence to the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state under local filtration. Phys. Rev. A, 92(2), 022307 (2015)

2015
[78]

U., Rajagopal, A

Sudha, Devi, A. U., Rajagopal, A. K.: Monogamy of quantum correlations in three-qubit pure states. Phys. Rev. A, 85(1), 012103 (2012)

2012
[79]

U., Sudha, Rajagopal, A

Devi, A. U., Sudha, Rajagopal, A. K.: Majorana representation of symmetric multi-qubit states. Quantum Inf. Process. 11(3), 685-710 (2012)

2012
[80]

Radhakrishnan, C., Chen, PW., Jambulingam, S., Byrnes, T., Ali, M. M.. Time dynamics of quantum coherence and monogamy in a non-Markovian environment. Sci Rep 9, 2363 (2019)

2019
[81]

Ficek, Z., Tana´ s, R.: Dark periods and revivals of entanglement in a two-qubit system. Phys. Rev. A 74(2), 024304 (2006)

2006
[82]

Bellomo, B., Lo Franco, R., Compagno, G.: Non-Markovian effects on the dynamics of entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 99(16), 160502 (2007) Appendix A Matrix M for the generalized GHZ state under the intrinsic decoherence Consider ρ to be a state of a three-qubit system having at...

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

K.: Quantum entanglement as a quantifiable resource

Wootters, W. K.: Quantum entanglement as a quantifiable resource. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 356(1743), 1717-1731 (1998) 28

1998

[2] [2]

Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, K.: Quantum entangle- ment. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81(2), 865-942

[3] [3]

A., Wootters, W

Hill, S. A., Wootters, W. K.: Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78(26), 5022 (1997)

work page 1997

[4] [4]

K.: Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits

Wootters, W. K.: Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(10), 2245 (1998)

work page 1998

[5] [5]

M.: Concurrence-based entanglement measures for isotropic states

Rungta, P., Caves, C. M.: Concurrence-based entanglement measures for isotropic states. Phys. Rev. A, 67(1), 012307 (2003)

work page 2003

[6] [6]

F.: Computable measure of entanglement

Vidal, G., Werner, R. F.: Computable measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 65(3), 032314 (2002)

work page 2002

[7] [7]

Plenio. M. B.: Logarithmic negativity: a full entanglement monotone that is not convex. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005)

work page 2005

[8] [8]

Streltsov, A. (2015). Quantum Correlations Beyond Entanglement. In: Quantum Correlations Beyond Entanglement. Springer Briefs in Physics. Springer, Cham

work page 2015