A Breakdown Case Study of the Lindblad Approach via Entanglement and Purity

Aniello Quaranta; Antonio Capolupo; Fabio Franchini; Raoul Serao; Salvatore Marco Giampaolo

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

A Breakdown Case Study of the Lindblad Approach via Entanglement and Purity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Constant-coefficient Lindblad dynamics cannot reproduce Gaussian decoherence from coherent many-body dephasing.

desk verdict Solid exact solution of a two-qubit dephasing model, but the paper's central impossibility claim is overbroad as stated and needs a missing lemma; with that fix it is worth publishing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10668 v2 pith:UV4VC735 submitted 2025-07-14 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gashep-th

Raoul Serao , Aniello Quaranta , Antonio Capolupo , Fabio Franchini , Salvatore Marco Giampaolo This is my paper

classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gashep-th MSC 81S2281P4082C10

keywords LindbladmasterequationGKSLpuredephasingGaussiandecoherencepuritydecayentanglementmany-bodyenvironmentMarkovianity

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 a standard Lindblad master equation with constant coefficients can reproduce the reduced dynamics of two qubits embedded in a larger coherent many-body environment. Working with a model in which every interaction is a commuting pure-dephasing term, the authors obtain an exact expression for the reduced density matrix and identify two distinct Gaussian decay stages: a fast collective dephasing at short times, with coherences $\Gamma_\alpha \simeq e^{-2\sigma^2 t^2}$ and purity $P(t) \simeq 1 - 4\sigma^2 t^2$, and a slower relative-dephasing stage at intermediate times, with $\Lambda_- \simeq e^{-2\sigma_{\Lambda_-}^2 t^2}$. They then show that no time-homogeneous Gorini–Kossakowski–Sudarshan–Lindblad generator can reproduce these decays, because such a generator always produces exponential decay that is linear in time at short times. The mismatch is structural, independent of the choice of Lindblad operators or rates, and the paper reads it as a controlled example of the breakdown of Markovian effective descriptions for dephasing-driven decoherence.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the reduced density matrix $\rho_{AB}(t)$ of Eq. (10), expressed in terms of three decoherence functions $\Gamma_\alpha$, $\Lambda_+$, and $\Lambda_-$; these are weighted sums of phases $e^{-2i\chi_k t}$ over the environmental eigenstates, with weights $|f_k|^2$. Because every term in the total Hamiltonian of Eq. (5) is diagonal in the joint basis, the environment's own Hamiltonian $H_E$ cancels from the reduced dynamics, and only the populations $|f_k|^2$ matter. When the environment is uniformly populated the sums factor into products of cosines, $\Gamma_\alpha = \prod_j \cos(\omega_{j\alpha} t)$ and $\Lambda_\pm = \prod_j \cos[(\omega_{jA}\pm\omega_{jB}) t]$, which produces the two Gaussian regimes and the separation of timescales between collective and relative decoherence. This exact solvability is what lets the authors compare the unitary-dynamics prediction with the Lindblad prediction without approximations.

What would settle it

Prepare two qubits inside a large spin bath whose couplings depend on the internal state of each qubit, with the bath initially in a uniform superposition of its eigenstates, and measure the purity of the two-qubit reduced state at short times. The exact model predicts $\ln P(t) \simeq -4\sigma^2 t^2$, so a plot of $\ln P$ versus $t^2$ is initially a straight line, whereas any constant-coefficient Lindblad equation predicts $\ln P(t) \simeq -\lambda t$, a straight line in $t$. Favoring the $t^2$ form would confirm the Gaussian mechanism; a linear-in-$t$ short-time decay would refute it for that setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the exact reduced dynamics of two qubits coupled pairwise to a many-body environment through purely dephasing interactions is governed by Gaussian decays in two separated time windows, and that a time-homogeneous GKSL master equation cannot reproduce either window. At short times the collective dephasing suppresses single-qubit coherences as $\Gamma_\alpha \simeq e^{-2\sigma^2 t^2}$ and the anti-diagonal coherence as $\Lambda_+ \simeq e^{-8\sigma^2 t^2}$, making the purity decay quadratically, $P(t) \simeq 1-4\sigma^2 t^2$. In the intermediate window the surviving relative coherence decays as $\Lambda_- \simeq e^{-2\sigma_{\Lambda_-}^2 t^2}$, while the purity sits on a plateau at $3/8$ before sliding to $1/4$. Because the GKSL generator is time homogeneous, any Lindblad solution has a short-time expansion linear in $t$, so the quadratic and Gaussian behaviors are impossible to match, no matter how the dissipators are chosen. The paper concludes that the incompatibility is structural and traces it to the semigroup property of time-homogeneous Markovian dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that all system–environment interactions are pure dephasing terms that commute with the diagonal basis of the two qubits, so that only relative phases, rather than energy exchange, generate the reduced evolution. If transverse or energy-exchange couplings are added, relaxation processes enter the reduced dynamics and the demonstrated incompatibility with Lindblad equations may no longer hold; the paper lists this as a direction for future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any constant-coefficient Lindblad fit to the early-time purity or coherence of this model will fail at order $t^2$: the exact dynamics has no linear-in-time term, while every GKSL solution has one.
A phenomenological Lindblad description can reproduce which matrix elements decay in each regime, but cannot reproduce how they decay; matching the functional form requires giving up time homogeneity.
The two-stage decay — fast collective dephasing followed by slow relative dephasing — is robust within the model and is tied to the near-identity of the environments seen by the two qubits.
The reduced dynamics passes standard trace-distance Markovianity tests, so the failure of the Lindblad description is not a signature of non-Markovianity in that usual sense.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper's claims, the Gaussian-versus-exponential distinction could serve as an experimental signature for coherent dephasing in platforms built to detect gravitationally induced entanglement: a short-time purity curve with zero initial slope would point to this dephasing mechanism rather than to Markovian dissipation.
Also beyond the paper, a time-dependent GKSL generator with a rate growing linearly in time could formally mimic the Gaussian decays, but that amounts to abandoning the time-homogeneous semigroup structure the paper identifies as the source of the mismatch.
As a further inference, the result suggests that Lindblad fits to decoherence in disordered or dense many-body environments may systematically underestimate early-time coherence loss even when they reproduce late-time rates.

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,

The exact solution in this paper is real and worth knowing: two qubits in a random 1/r spin bath, with the environment's own Hamiltonian dropping out entirely, give an exact reduced density matrix where coherences decay as products of cosines, hence Gaussian at short times and a slower Gaussian in the intermediate regime. The split into collective and relative dephasing is physically clean, and the short-time expansions check out. That part is the paper's value.

The soft spot is the impossibility claim. The paper states repeatedly that any time-homogeneous GKSL generator forces a linear-in-time decay at short times. That statement is false. A single qubit with H=(omega/2) sigma_z and Lindblad operator sqrt(gamma) sigma_x, starting from |+>, has d/dt=0 and d^2/dt^2 = -omega^2, so the coherence decays quadratically initially even with constant coefficients. I checked the algebra; it holds. The populations in the energy basis stay 1/2 for that initial state, but not for all initial states—z(t) decays if z(0) is nonzero—so this generator is not consistent with the exact model's conservation of all four diagonal populations. The stress-test example therefore does not directly refute the paper's specific model. But the paper's proof is missing the step that matters: a lemma that any GKSL generator preserving the four diagonal populations must have dissipators diagonal in the product basis, which in turn forces each coherence to decay as a single exponential with a constant rate. That lemma is easy to prove and, I believe, true. Without it, the paper only shows that a specific Lindblad Ansatz fails, not that no Lindblad equation can work.

Other issues are minor by comparison. The numerical figure is a single realization with no error bars and no code or data; the model is simple enough to reproduce, but shipping it would help. Appendix B's trace-distance test is a standard BLP check, but it does not resolve the loose 'non-Markovian' language in the conclusions.

If the missing lemma is added and the universal claim is scoped to population-preserving generators, this becomes a clean, useful counterexample. As written, the central result is not fully proven, but the exact solution stands on its own. I would send it to a serious referee with the expectation of a major revision, and I would cite the exact solution in my own work on spin-bath dephasing.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two interacting two-level systems (A and B) embedded in a many-body environment of N two-level systems, with pairwise interactions that are all diagonal in the joint basis. The authors derive the exact reduced density matrix (Eq. (10)), in which the coherences are controlled by the functions Γ_α and Λ_±. Under a uniform-population assumption these functions factorize into products of cosines (Eq. (12)). They identify a short-time regime with Gaussian suppression of coherences and quadratic purity decay, and an intermediate-time regime with a slower Gaussian decay of Λ_-, followed by complete decoherence. They then construct a phenomenological time-homogeneous GKSL master equation and, comparing functional forms, conclude that no such Lindblad dynamics can reproduce the Gaussian behaviors, because constant-coefficient GKSL generators enforce exponential decay that is linear at short times. The paper claims this is a structural breakdown of the Lindblad approach for coherent dephasing environments.

Significance. The exact treatment is a clear strength: Eq. (10) is derived explicitly in Appendix A, the factorization in Eq. (12) makes the timescale separation transparent, and the purity and concurrence diagnostics are presented carefully. If the no-go statement were proven, the paper would provide a useful counterexample to the routine assumption that a Lindblad master equation with constant coefficients can faithfully describe dephasing dynamics induced by coherent many-body environments. However, the proof of the no-go statement is incomplete: the authors analyze one particular Lindblad ansatz, and the blanket lemma that all constant-coefficient GKSL generators give linear short-time decay is false. The central conclusion therefore needs either a rigorous derivation under explicitly stated symmetry assumptions or a reformulation of the claim.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV A, claim after Eq. (25) and Sec. V] The assertion that 'any time-independent GKSL generator necessarily produces a linear-in-time decay at short times' is false as stated. A simple counterexample is the single-qubit generator with H=(ω/2)σ_z and L=√γ σ_x, starting from |+⟩: the Bloch equations give r_x'(0)=0 and r_x''(0)=-ω², so the coherence r_x=⟨σ_x⟩ decays quadratically at short times despite the generator having constant coefficients, and the σ_z populations remain constant for this initial state. The authors only test a specific Lindblad ansatz (Eqs. (24)-(27)) rather than the most general generator compatible with the model's conservation laws. To sustain the structural-breakdown claim, the manuscript must prove the missing lemma: any time-homogeneous GKSL generator that conserves all four diagonal populations of ρ_AB for all initial states must act as diagonal dephasing in the energy basis, forcing exponential decay of each coherence. Without this lemma, the conclusion that the Gaussian short-time behaviour 'cannot be reproduced by a Lindblad dynamics with constant coefficients' is not established.
[Sec. IV A, Eqs. (26)-(28)] The anti-diagonal sector is modelled by the two-parameter system in Eq. (26), and the choice ϕ=δ=λ is imposed to obtain Eq. (28). The manuscript does not show that this is the most general Lindblad form allowed in that sector, nor does it check whether a single GKSL generator can simultaneously reproduce the second-order coefficients of Γ_α, Λ_+, and Λ_- with the relative weights dictated by the exact expansion (e.g., the factors 2, 8, and 0 in Eq. (17)). A parameter scan over all possible time-homogeneous generators, or an explicit no-go proof, is required before the incompatibility can be called structural.
[Sec. III C, Eq. (21) and Table I] The intermediate-time Gaussian form Λ_-(t)≈exp(-2σ_Λ² t²) is a second-order cumulant approximation of the exact quasiperiodic function Λ_-(t)=∑_k |f_k|²e^{-2i(χ_k^A-χ_k^B)t}, which is a product of cosines under the equal-population assumption. The paper's central comparison therefore contrasts an approximate Gaussian with an exact exponential. The authors should state explicitly that the no-go claim concerns the short-time and truncated functional forms, and should discuss how the mismatch behaves beyond the validity window of the second-order expansion. As it stands, the claim in Table I that the unitary dynamics 'always' yields Gaussian decay is an overstatement.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix A and Eq. (3)] The symbol ω is used both for the coupling strength in H_AB and for the frequency parameter 2ω=g12-g11 in Appendix A; please unify the notation to avoid confusion.
[Sec. III A, Eq. (12)] The factorization in Eq. (12) relies on the equal-population choice |f_k|=2^{-N/2}; this assumption should be stated in the main text before Eq. (12), not only in the figure caption.
[Appendix B and Sec. V] The trace-distance monotonicity criterion used in Appendix B is sufficient but not necessary for Markovianity; the statement that the plot 'confirms the expectation of Markovian behavior' should be softened, and the discussion in Section V should connect this to the claim about non-Markovianity.
[Eq. (17)] The coefficient 8 in Λ_+≈e^{-8σ²t²} follows from the assumptions σ_A=σ_B=σ and σ_c²=σ²; the authors should state this covariance input explicitly to avoid an apparent factor-of-four jump.
[Reference [17]] Reference [17] is missing its year information; please complete the bibliographic data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exact unitary microscopic solution and the Lindblad effective comparison are independently constructed, and the claimed Gaussian-vs-exponential mismatch is not fitted into the model input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The exact reduced dynamics in Eq. (10) follows from direct tracing of the unitary evolution generated by the commuting Hamiltonian in Eq. (5); the short- and intermediate-time Gaussian forms in Eqs. (17) and (21) are Taylor expansions of independently defined dephasing sums. The Lindblad comparison in Sec. IV does not fit parameters to the exact data and then relabel them as predictions: the dissipator ansatz in Eqs. (24) and (26) is solved for arbitrary rate parameters, and the exponential forms e^{-λt/2}, e^{-2λt} are derived from that generator. The claimed incompatibility is the functional-form mismatch between these independently obtained e^{-const·t²} and e^{-const·t} behaviors, not an identity-by-construction. Self-citations such as Refs. [29], [30], and [32] appear only as motivational examples for physical scenarios, not as load-bearing mathematical premises. The one potentially overreaching statement, that any time-homogeneous GKSL generator necessarily gives linear-in-time short-time decay, is asserted rather than proved from the most general generator; that is a rigor or correctness concern, not a circularity, because the exact Gaussian result and the Lindblad equations do not presuppose that conclusion. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and has no parameters fitted to data. The exact model depends on the choice of initial state and an assumed statistical equivalence of the two environments; the effective Lindblad model depends on hand-chosen decay rates whose values are irrelevant to the structural mismatch. No circular fitting is present.

free parameters (3)

Lindblad decay rate lambda
Phenomenological rate in the short-time effective model (Eqs. 24-25); introduced by hand, and the argument is independent of its value.
Lindblad coefficients phi and delta
Phenomenological coefficients for the anti-diagonal sector (Eqs. 26-27); chosen as phi = delta = lambda for comparison.
Intermediate-time Lindblad rate tilde_lambda
Phenomenological decay rate for the intermediate regime; not written explicitly but exponential by construction. Its value is irrelevant to the structural mismatch.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Total Hamiltonian has the form H = H_AB ⊗ I + H_AE + H_BE + H_E with all pairwise interactions commuting (Eqs. 5-8).
The dephasing-only structure is what makes the exact solution with Gaussian coherences possible; non-commuting terms are excluded.
domain assumption Initial state is fully factorized: |ψ(0)> = |ψ_A>|ψ_B>|ψ_E> with |ψ_A>, |ψ_B> as in Eq. (4) and |ψ_E> = Σ f_k |e_k> (Eq. 9).
No initial correlations between system and environment; this is standard for open system derivations.
standard math The environmental states |e_k> form an eigenbasis of H_E, so |f_k(t)| = |f_k| and the environment self-Hamiltonian does not affect the reduced dynamics.
Follows from unitarity; stated in Sec. III.
domain assumption In the numerical example all environmental states are equally populated, |f_k|^2 = 2^{-N}, giving Γ_α = Π cos(ω_jα t) and Λ_± = Π cos[(ω_jA ± ω_jB)t] (Eq. 12).
A specific choice of environment state that factorizes the sums; not generic but sufficient for the counterexample.
domain assumption The two effective environments are statistically equivalent with μ_A = μ_B, σ_A = σ_B, and perfect covariance σ_c^2 = σ^2 (Sec. III B).
Load-bearing for the separation of timescales and the 3/8 purity plateau; justified by spatial proximity and self-averaging, but not exact for finite N.
domain assumption The GKSL generator is time-homogeneous with constant coefficients (Sec. IV).
This is the framework under test; the paper's claim is precisely that this assumption fails for the model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Breakdown Case Study of the Lindblad Approach via Entanglement and Purity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UV4VC735

@misc{pith2026250710668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Breakdown Case Study of the Lindblad Approach via Entanglement and Purity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UV4VC735}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10668}
}

read the original abstract

The Lindblad master equation is widely used to describe the reduced dynamics of open quantum systems under Markovian assumptions. Here, we investigate its ability to reproduce the reduced evolution emerging from a microscopic many-body model in which two interacting two-level subsystems are embedded in a larger environment and evolve under fully unitary dynamics. The exact evolution exhibits a clear separation of timescales. At short times, decoherence arises from environmentally induced dephasing, leading to a Gaussian suppression of coherences and a quadratic decay of purity. At intermediate times, collective decoherence channels saturate and a slower, still Gaussian, decay driven by relative environmental fluctuations dominates. At later times the system settles in a complete decohered state. The first two behaviors cannot be reproduced by a Lindblad dynamics with constant coefficients, which always results in an exponential decay: Our work provides a simple example of the breakdown of the effective description relevant in many realistic settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10668 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The deviations observed at longer times can be at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** We consider the unitary evolution of two random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003), arXiv:quant- ph/0105127

arXiv 2003
[2]

Breuer and F

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

2007
[3]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019), arXiv:1806.06107 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2019
[4]

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9604024

arXiv 1996
[5]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

arXiv 2009
[6]

Baumgratz, M

T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. . Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014), arXiv:1311.0275 [quant-ph]. 11

arXiv 2014
[7]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017), arXiv:1609.02439 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2017
[8]

Bravyi and A

S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025

arXiv 2005

Show all 45 references

[9]

Emerson, D

J. Emerson, D. Gottesman, S. A. H. Mousavian, and V . Veitch, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014), arXiv:1307.7171 [quant-ph]

2014 arXiv
[10]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2012)

2012
[11]

Bengtsson and K

I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski,Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017)

2017
[12]

Gorini, A

V . Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

1976
[13]

Lindblad, Commun

G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976). [14]´. Rivas and S. F. Huelga,Open Quantum Systems, Springer- Briefs in Physics (Springer, 2012) arXiv:1104.5242 [quant-ph]

1976 arXiv
[15]

de Vega and D

I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015001 (2017), arXiv:1511.06994 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[16]

Stefanini, A

M. Stefanini, A. A. Ziolkowska, D. Budker, U. Poschinger, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Browaeys, A. Imamoglu, D. Chang, and J. Marino, Is lindblad for me? (2025), arXiv:2506.22436 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[17]

Benatti and R

F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, JHEP02, 032, arXiv:hep- ph/0002221
[18]

Benatti and R

F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Phys. Rev. D64, 085015 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0105303

2001 arXiv
[19]

Benatti and R

F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Nucl. Phys. B488, 335 (1997)

1997
[20]

Benatti and R

F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Nucl. Phys. B511, 550 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711240

1998 arXiv
[21]

Benatti and R

F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Annals Phys.273, 58 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9811196

1999 arXiv
[22]

G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D76, 033006 (2007), arXiv:0704.2568 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[23]

Capolupo, S

A. Capolupo, S. M. Giampaolo, and G. Lambiase, Phys. Lett. B792, 298 (2019), arXiv:1807.07823 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[24]

M. B. Plenio, S. F. Huelga, and ´A. Rivas, Rept. Prog. Phys.77, 094001 (2014), arXiv:1405.0303 [quant-ph]

2014 arXiv
[25]

Breuer, E.-M

H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210401 (2009), arXiv:0908.0238 [quant-ph]

2009 arXiv
[26]

Rivas, S

´A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 050403 (2010), arXiv:0911.4270 [quant-ph]

2010 arXiv
[27]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toro ˇs, M. Paternostro, A. Geraci, P. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Mil- burn, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017), arXiv:1707.06050 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[28]

Marletto and V

C. Marletto and V . Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240402 (2017), arXiv:1707.06036 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[29]

S. M. Giampaolo and T. Macr `ı, Sci. Rep.9, 11362 (2019), arXiv:1806.08383 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[30]

Capolupo, S

A. Capolupo, S. M. Giampaolo, and A. Quaranta, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136489 (2021), arXiv:2008.08119 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[31]

Paganelli, F

S. Paganelli, F. de Pasquale, and S. M. Giampaolo, Phys. Rev. A66, 052317 (2002)

2002
[32]

Simonov, A

K. Simonov, A. Capolupo, and S. M. Giampaolo, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 902 (2019), arXiv:1903.10266 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[33]

Kiefer, Annalen Phys.15, 129 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0508120

C. Kiefer, Annalen Phys.15, 129 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0508120

2005 arXiv
[34]

Rovelli, Living Rev

C. Rovelli, Living Rev. Rel.1, 1 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9710008. [35]Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Toward a New Understand- ing of Space, Time and Matter(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

1998 arXiv
[36]

Blau and S

M. Blau and S. Theisen, Gen. Rel. Grav.41, 743 (2009)

2009
[37]

V . R. Frignanni,Classical and quantum gravity: Theory, Anal- ysis and Applications, Physics Research and Technology (Nova Sci. Publ., New York, USA, 2012)

2012
[38]

Ashoorioon, P

A. Ashoorioon, P. S. Bhupal Dev, and A. Mazumdar, Mod. Phys. Lett. A29, 1450163 (2014), arXiv:1211.4678 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[39]

Capolupo, G

A. Capolupo, G. Lambiase, A. Quaranta, and S. M. Giampaolo, Phys. Lett. B804, 135407 (2020), arXiv:1910.01533 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[40]

Marletto, V

C. Marletto, V . Vedral, and D. Deutsch, New J. Phys.20, 083011 (2018), arXiv:1804.02662 [quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[41]

M. B. Plenio and S. S. Virmani, Quant. Inf. Comput.7, 001 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0504163

2007 arXiv
[42]

Hill and W

S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 5022 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9703041

1997 arXiv
[43]

W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998), arXiv:quant- ph/9709029

1998
[44]

Zanardi and M

P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3306 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705044

1997 arXiv
[45]

D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2594 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807004

1998 arXiv
[46]

T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A66, 032110 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0202162

2002 arXiv
[47]

Breuer, J

H.-P. Breuer, J. Phys. B45, 154001 (2012), arXiv:1206.5346 [quant-ph]

2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003), arXiv:quant- ph/0105127

arXiv 2003

[2] [2]

Breuer and F

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

2007

[3] [3]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019), arXiv:1806.06107 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2019

[4] [4]

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9604024

arXiv 1996

[5] [5]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

arXiv 2009

[6] [6]

Baumgratz, M

T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. . Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014), arXiv:1311.0275 [quant-ph]. 11

arXiv 2014

[7] [7]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017), arXiv:1609.02439 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

Bravyi and A

S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025

arXiv 2005