Non-Markovianity of subsystem dynamics in isolated quantum many-body systems

Aditya Banerjee

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Non-Markovianity of subsystem dynamics in isolated quantum many-body systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a quenched Ising chain, small subsystems can be strongly non-Markovian when the quench runs from paramagnetic to ferromagnetic order, while the reverse quench is effectively Markovian.

desk verdict The quench-direction asymmetry in trace-distance revivals is real and cleanly shown, but the paper's identification of those revivals with non-Markovianity rests on an unproven and possibly false assumption about the measure. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18476 v2 pith:NIK54YLK submitted 2025-01-30 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Aditya Banerjee This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech

keywords non-Markovianityinformationbackflowtracedistancequantumquenchmixed-fieldIsingchainsubsystemdynamicsopensystemsmatrixproductstates

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

An isolated quantum many-body system does not have to relax like a memory-less environment: this paper argues that after a quench, the reduced state of a small subsystem can measurably remember its own past. In the mixed-field Ising chain, the author follows the trace distance $T_d(\rho^\ell_{t+\delta}, \rho^\ell_t)$ between reduced density matrices of a contiguous block of $\ell=1,\dots,4$ spins at two times separated by a lag $\delta$. The distance revives strongly and persistently when the quench goes from the paramagnetic regime $(J,h_x,h_z)=(0.2,1,0)$ to the ferromagnetic regime $(1,0.1,0.5)$, and is roughly 50 times weaker for the reverse quench, making the reverse dynamics effectively Markovian. These revivals, the paper claims, are information backflow from the rest of the chain into the subsystem, i.e., non-Markovianity, giving an information-theoretic handle on how far-from-equilibrium many-body systems relax. A separate classical distance between ordered eigenvalue spectra shows systematic oscillations whose origin the paper leaves open.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the trace distance between the reduced states of the same subsystem at two times separated by a lag, $T_d(\rho^\ell_{t+\delta}, \rho^\ell_t)$. Because trace distance is contractive under every completely positive and trace-preserving (CPTP) map, any increase, or revival, of this distance during the evolution signals information backflow from the environment, here the rest of the chain, back into the subsystem. The paper quantifies the effect through the discrete slope $\alpha(t,\delta)$ of this distance and the cumulative degree of non-Markovianity $\mathcal{N}(\delta)=\sum_t \alpha(t,\delta)$ over all positive slopes, with a same construction for the total-variation distance between ordered eigenvalue spectra. The Markovian-versus-non-Markovian reading is tied to CP-divisibility of the dynamical maps $\Lambda_{t,s}$; because the numerics only check that the maps are invertible, the paper's stated working assumption is that information backflow and indivisibility coincide for invertible maps.

What would settle it

A direct numerical calculation would settle the claim: extract the intermediate maps $\Lambda_{t,s}$ for the one- and two-spin subsystems in the paramagnetic-to-ferromagnetic quench and compute their Choi representations (whose positivity is equivalent to complete positivity) at the times when the trace distance revives; if any Choi matrix has negative eigenvalues, the revivals cannot be attributed to a violation of divisibility, so the claimed non-Markovianity would need re-qualification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that subsystem dynamics in an isolated, non-integrable quantum many-body system can be strongly non-Markovian, and that the effect is controlled by the direction of the quench in parameter space. For the mixed-field Ising chain with $N=200$ sites quenched from $(J,h_x,h_z)=(0.2,1,0)$ to $(1,0.1,0.5)$, the trace distance $T_d(\rho^\ell_{t+\delta}, \rho^\ell_t)$ between temporally separated reduced states of contiguous blocks of $\ell=1,\dots,4$ spins is highly non-monotonic and revives repeatedly, which the author interprets as significant information backflow into the subsystem. The cumulative degree of non-Markovianity $\mathcal{N}(\delta)$ is about 50 times smaller for the reverse quench $(1,0.1,0.5)\to(0.2,1,0)$, making that direction effectively Markovian; for the non-Markovian direction, smaller subsystems are considerably more non-Markovian than larger ones. The paper also reports that the total-variation distance between the ordered eigenvalue spectra of the time-separated reduced states is strongly oscillatory, with timescales of about 0.78 in evolution time and about 1.55--1.6 in lag $\delta$, essentially independent of subsystem size; the author states that no interpretation of this classical-distance pattern is offered. A heuristic explanation is given for the asymmetry: the paramagnetic ground state is a product state while the ordered target state is highly entangled and GHZ-like, so the forward quench demands a difficult global restructuring, whereas the reverse quench lets quasiparticles spread almost ballistically through weak couplings.

Load-bearing premise

The non-Markovianity reading rests on the assumption that the reduced dynamics of a subsystem is a legitimate completely positive and trace-preserving (CPTP) process with invertible intermediate maps, so that information backflow can be equated with CP-indivisibility, and the paper explicitly states that it does not verify complete positivity of the intermediate maps $\Lambda_{t,s}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For quenches from the paramagnetic side into the non-integrable ferromagnetic regime, even single-site reduced dynamics in an isolated chain is strongly non-Markovian, meaning information about a subsystem's past flows back from the rest of the system.
Smaller subsystems (one and two spins) show markedly larger degrees of non-Markovianity than three- and four-spin blocks, so the memory effect is strongest for the smallest experimentally accessible probes.
In the opposite quench direction, the subsystem dynamics is effectively Markovian, with a degree of non-Markovianity about 50 times smaller, so the direction of the quench in parameter space acts as a switch for memory effects.
Persistent revivals of the trace distance accompany slow relaxation and anomalous thermalization in the confined ferromagnetic regime; non-Markovianity is an obstruction to fast equilibration.
The total-variation distance between ordered eigenvalue spectra of the subsystem states shows systematic oscillations with timescales of about 0.78 in evolution time and about 1.55--1.6 in lag, largely independent of subsystem size, a pattern the paper reports but does not explain.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension: the paper's heuristic implies a testable general principle, that quenches requiring assembly of long-range entangled ordered target states should generically produce subsystem non-Markovianity, while quenches into weakly coupled paramagnetic-like regimes should look Markovian; this could be checked in Heisenberg or long-range Ising chains, where the author says similar signatures alread
Extension: the unexplained TVD periodicities look like natural fingerprints of confined domain-wall, or meson, oscillations in the ferromagnetic regime; computing the revival spectrum as a function of the longitudinal field $h_z$ would test whether the period tracks the confinement energy scale.
Extension: because the paper's degree of non-Markovianity $\mathcal{N}(\delta)$ is computed for one fixed initial state rather than maximized over pairs of initial states, the reported asymmetry may be state-dependent; a maximization over initial pairs could confirm the factor-of-50 contrast or reveal hidden non-Markovianity in the reverse quench.
Extension: the protocol requires only reduced density matrices of a few sites, so the directional asymmetry is in principle measurable with quantum-gas microscopes on cold-atom or Rydberg arrays, where local site-resolved tomography is becoming routine.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. The numerical evidence for a strong quench-direction asymmetry in trace-distance revivals is real and cleanly shown. Standard MPS/TEBD2 with N=200, bond dimension 50, and explicit convergence checks; the data look believable. The finding directly challenges the "almost Markovian" claim of Figueroa-Romero et al. for generic closed dynamics, and the systematic TVD timescales are a genuinely new observation. The author also deserves credit for stating plainly in Sec. III that the numerics only measure information backflow and do not establish CPTP-ness of the intermediate maps. That caveat is honest.

The main weakness is more basic than the caveat suggests. The quantity T_d(rho_{t+delta}, rho_t) is not a standard non-Markovianity witness. The BLP-type measures use pairs of initial states evolved by the same map. Here, the paper compares states of a single trajectory separated by a time lag. For a Markovian but time-inhomogeneous divisible process, this time-lag distance need not decrease monotonically; simple dephasing with a time-dependent rate already gives a nonmonotone curve. So revivals in this measure do not by themselves imply non-Markovianity. The paper's Eq. (6) assumes a family of CPTP maps Λ(t) that is independent of the reference time, which is not true for reduced dynamics of a closed system after a quench, especially when the initial global state is correlated. The DMRG ground state is not a product state, so even the existence of a unique CPTP map from the initial reduced state to later times is not assured. The author acknowledges not checking intermediate maps, but the issue goes deeper: the measure itself may not be a faithful witness even when all maps are CPTP.

The missing error bars and lack of reproduction artifacts are minor by comparison. The TVD part rests on an explicitly unproven hypothesis about classical data-processing inequalities for eigenvalues; the author flags this, and it is presented as an open question rather than a result.

If the paper were reframed as reporting non-monotonic distinguishability of temporally separated states and its dependence on quench direction, the numerical content would be solid. As a claim about non-Markovianity in the established sense, it is not yet supported. Still, the question is important and the data are worth taking seriously. I would send this to a serious referee rather than desk reject, with the expectation of heavy revision on the interpretation.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the (non-)Markovian nature of small-subsystem dynamics in an isolated spin-1/2 chain after quantum quenches. Using MPS/TEBD2 simulations with N=200 and Trotter step 0.01, it computes the trace distance T_d(ρ_l_{t+δ}, ρ_l_t) between temporally separated reduced density matrices of l=1..4 sites in the mixed-field Ising chain. It defines a degree of non-Markovianity by summing positive increments of this distance (Eq. 8), and claims that paramagnetic-to-ferromagnetic quenches produce strong revivals (hence strong subsystem non-Markovianity), while the reverse quench is effectively Markovian. The paper also studies the total variation distance between descendingly-ordered eigenvalue vectors of the same reduced states, reporting systematic revivals and two timescales, and offers heuristic arguments based on confinement and quasiparticle propagation.

Significance. If the interpretation were sound, the paper would provide a concrete, numerically accessible signature of whether small subsystems of a closed many-body system behave as Markovian or non-Markovian open systems, with potential implications for thermalization and for ultracold-atom experiments with site-resolved readout. The numerical machinery is standard, convergence checks with smaller Trotter steps are reported, and the directionality of the quench effect is an interesting observation. However, the central interpretation rests on two structural assumptions that are not established: the equivalence between revivals of T_d(ρ_{t+δ},ρ_t) and non-Markovianity, and the existence of a well-defined CPTP dynamical map for the subsystem. The TVD analysis additionally relies on an explicit hypothesis that is in fact false. These gaps prevent the paper, in its current form, from supporting its stated conclusions.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III, Eq. (6) and surrounding text] The paper asserts that for a divisible process the quantity T_d(ρ_{t+δ},ρ_t) must be non-increasing in t, and therefore any revival signals non-Markovianity. This does not follow from the data-processing inequality (Eq. 3), which bounds T_d(Λ(ρ),Λ(σ)) for two states ρ,σ, not T_d(Λ(ρ),ρ). In fact, for a divisible unitary process T_d(U_{t+δ}ρU_{t+δ}†, U_tρU_t†) is constant rather than necessarily decreasing, and no general monotonicity of T_d(Λ_{t+δ,t}(ρ),ρ) under divisible maps is known or proven here. Since Eq. (8) defines the degree of non-Markovianity entirely through revivals of this quantity, the central claim that the observed revivals establish non-Markovianity is not justified by the arguments given.
[Sec. III, Eq. (6) and the paragraph starting 'Consider then a subsystem'] The reduced evolution ρ_l(t)=Tr_E[U_t ρ_global(0) U_t†] is written as Λ(t)[ρ_l(0)] with Λ(t) a CPTP map. For a correlated global initial state, such as the DMRG ground state used here, this linear map is not generally well defined: the mapping from ρ_l(0) to ρ_l(t) depends on the correlations with the environment, so a unique CPTP map independent of the subsystem state does not exist. The paper acknowledges that it only measures information backflow and does not verify CPTP divisibility, but it does not describe how the intermediate maps are constructed or how numerical invertibility is checked in a way that would resolve the ambiguity. Without a legitimate dynamical map, revivals of T_d(ρ_{t+δ},ρ_t) cannot be cleanly attributed to non-Markovianity rather than to initial correlations or the absence of a proper CPTP description.
[Sec. IV, 'Let us hypothesize for the moment...' and Figs. 3-4] The hypothesis that the total variation distance between descendingly-ordered eigenvalue vectors is non-increasing under CPTP maps is not only unproven but false. A concrete counterexample is provided by single-qubit dephasing: for ρ_1=|+><+| and ρ_2=|0><0|, both have eigenvalue vectors (1,0), so the eigenvalue TVD is 0. Under the dephasing channel D(ρ)=(1-p)ρ+p diag(ρ) with p>0, D(ρ_1) has eigenvalues (1-p/2, p/2) while D(ρ_2) remains |0><0|, giving eigenvalue TVD p/2>0. Thus the TVD can increase under a CPTP map. Consequently, the TVD revivals in Figs. 3-4 and the associated timescales do not constitute evidence of a 'classical characteristic of quantum non-Markovianity,' and the interpretational claim in that section should be removed or replaced with a justified quantity.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. IV, Fig. 2] The reported factor-of-50 difference between quench directions is not accompanied by error bars or a sensitivity analysis; since the reverse quench yields degrees near zero, a statement of numerical uncertainty based on Trotter step and bond dimension would strengthen the claim.
[Sec. III, 'invertible maps are not generally CPTP either'] The distinction between invertibility and reversibility is appropriate, but the text could clarify that numerical invertibility of a matrix representation does not imply physical positivity of the inverse map.
[Throughout] The notation for the degree of non-Markovianity varies between 𝒩, N, and script forms, and the sub/superscript for 𝒩_1 is introduced without a formal definition; a table of symbols or consistent notation would improve readability.
[Sec. III, Eq. (6)] The symbol Λ(t) is used both for the map from time 0 to t and in the divisibility discussion; an explicit two-argument notation Λ_{t,s} throughout would avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-Markovianity claims are direct numerical observations under a standard operational definition, and the sole self-citation is contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are operational: trace distance (Eq. 1), the discrete slope alpha(t,delta) (Eq. 7), and the degree of non-Markovianity N(delta) (Eq. 8) defined as the cumulative positive revivals of T_d. No parameter is fitted to data and then used to predict a closely related quantity; the claimed direction-dependent asymmetry is a direct restatement of the computed revivals, not a prediction forced by construction. The only inferential bridge is the equivalence between information backflow and CP-indivisibility, which the paper explicitly justifies by numerical invertibility and external references [18,32-34], and it openly concedes that the numerics measure backflow rather than establish CPTP-ness of intermediate maps. That concession is a limitation, not a circular step. The self-citation [61] appears only as context for related entanglement dynamics in Sec. V and the Conclusion; it is not used to justify the non-Markovianity measure or the main numerical findings. The observed timescales (e.g., ~0.78, ~1.55) are extracted from the data rather than inserted as inputs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the paper's stated definitions and standard external criteria.

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

The central claim rests on the assumption that the subsystem reduced dynamics is a legitimate CPTP map, which is not verified. The TVD revival results depend on an unproven classical contractivity hypothesis. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The reduced dynamics of a subsystem from a fixed initial global state is described by a family of linear maps Λ(t) satisfying ρ^l_{t+a} = Λ(t)[ρ^l_a] (Eq. 6).
This assumes the map depends only on the time difference and not on the initial state of the environment, which is non-trivial for a closed system with initial correlations.
domain assumption The intermediate maps Λ_{t,s} are invertible and, for the Markovianity interpretation to be valid, the relevant maps are CPTP wherever no revivals occur.
The paper explicitly checks invertibility numerically but does not verify complete positivity, as noted in Sec. III.
ad hoc to paper The total-variation distance between descendingly-ordered eigenvalues of density matrices is non-increasing under CPTP maps (hypothesized, not proven).
The paper states in Sec. IV that no such result is known and treats the classical contractivity as a hypothesis.
domain assumption Numerical truncation (bond dimension 50, cutoff 1e-9, Trotter step 0.01) is sufficient to capture the exact dynamics.
Standard TEBD2 convergence assumptions; the paper reports checks with smaller time step and other sizes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Markovianity of subsystem dynamics in isolated quantum many-body systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NIK54YLK

@misc{pith2026250118476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Markovianity of subsystem dynamics in isolated quantum many-body systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NIK54YLK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18476}
}

abstract

It is believed that an isolated and far-from-equilibrium quantum many-body system should try to attain equilibrium via a mechanism whereby any given subsystem acts as an open quantum system that is coupled to an environment, which is the complementary part of the full system, and undergoes a complicated equilibration process such that all the subsystems in the long-time limit attain equilibrium states compatible with the global equilibrium state. This picture begs the question whether the dynamics of any given subsystem is Markovian (monotonic loss of information and memory) or non-Markovian. In this work, by numerically probing the dynamical behaviour of the quantum distances between $\textit{temporally-separated}$ states of small subsystems, we reveal the telltale signatures of (non-)Markovianity of the dynamics of subsystems of an isolated quantum spin system brought in the far-from-equilibrium regime, exemplified with the mixed-field Ising spin chain quenched between parameter regimes deep inside its magnetically ordered and disordered regimes. Additionally, remarkably systematic behaviour is seen in a measure of classical distances between the quantum states of the considered subsystems. These features strongly depend on the direction of quenching in the parameter space, with paramagnetic-to-ferromagnetic quenches offering considerably stronger signatures of subsystem non-Markovianity, for which we offer heuristic arguments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18476 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Degree of subsystem non-Markovianity for TD distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Strongly non-monotonic behaviour of total variation dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[1]

A. P. Luca D’Alessio, Yariv Kafri and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016)

2016
[2]

Gogolin and J

C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Equilibration, thermalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 056001 (2016)

2016
[3]

T. Mori, T. N. Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, and M. Ueda, Thermalization and prethermalization in isolated quantum systems: a theo- retical overview, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 112001 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

J. M. Deutsch, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 082001 (2018)

2018
[5]

D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Collo- quium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entangle- ment, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019)

2019
[6]

Nandkishore and D

R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 15 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Serbyn, D

M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papić, Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Nature Physics 17, 675–685 (2021)

work page 2021
[8]

Chandran, T

A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moessner, Quan- tum many-body scars: A quasiparticle perspective, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 443 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 81 references

[9]

F. H. L. Essler and M. Fagotti, Quench dynamics and relaxation in isolated integrable quantum spin chains, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2016, 064002 (2016)

2016
[10]

Vidmar and M

L. Vidmar and M. Rigol, Generalized gibbs ensemble in inte- grable lattice models, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2016, 064007 (2016)

2016
[11]

A. C. Cassidy, C. W. Clark, and M. Rigol, Generalized thermal- ization in an integrable lattice system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 140405 (2011)

2011
[12]

M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2017)

2017
[13]

Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foun- dation (Springer-Verlag, 2017)

M. Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foun- dation (Springer-Verlag, 2017)

2017
[14]

Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

2018
[15]

Rivas, S

A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non- markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 094001 (2014)

2014
[16]

Breuer, E.-M

H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Colloquium: Non-markovian dynamics in open quantum systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 88, 10.1103/revmodphys.88.021002 (2016)

2016 doi
[17]

L. Li, M. J. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, Concepts of quantum non- markovianity: A hierarchy, Physics Reports 759, 1–51 (2018)

2018
[18]

Chruściński, Dynamical maps beyond markovian regime, Physics Reports 992, 1 (2022)

D. Chruściński, Dynamical maps beyond markovian regime, Physics Reports 992, 1 (2022)

2022
[19]

Shrikant and P

U. Shrikant and P. Mandayam, Quantum non-markovianity: Overview and recent developments, Frontiers in Quantum Sci- ence and Technology 2, 10.3389/frqst.2023.1134583 (2023)

2023
[20]

Figueroa-Romero, K

P. Figueroa-Romero, K. Modi, and F. A. Pollock, Almost marko- vian processes from closed dynamics, Quantum 3, 136 (2019)

2019
[21]

Ott, Single atom detection in ultracold quantum gases: a review of current progress, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 054401 (2016)

H. Ott, Single atom detection in ultracold quantum gases: a review of current progress, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 054401 (2016)

2016
[22]

Kuhr, Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold- atom quantum simulators, National Science Review3, 170–172 (2016)

S. Kuhr, Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold- atom quantum simulators, National Science Review3, 170–172 (2016)

2016
[23]

Gross and W

C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Quantum gas microscopy for single atom and spin detection, Nature Physics 17, 1316–1323 (2021)

2021
[24]

A. S. Holevo, Quantum Systems, Channels, Information (De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2019)

2019
[25]

M. M. Wolf and J. I. Cirac, Dividing quantum channels, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 279, 147–168 (2008)

2008
[26]

Rivas, S

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

2010
[27]

S. Milz, M. S. Kim, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Completely pos- itive divisibility does not mean markovianity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 040401 (2019)

2019
[28]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems (Oxford University Press, USA, 2002)

2002
[29]

Vacchini, Open Quantum Systems: Foundations and Theory (Springer Nature, 2024)

B. Vacchini, Open Quantum Systems: Foundations and Theory (Springer Nature, 2024)

2024
[30]

Breuer, E.-M

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

2009
[31]

Laine, J

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

2010
[32]

Bylicka, M

B. Bylicka, M. Johansson, and A. Acín, Constructive method for detecting the information backflow of non-markovian dy- namics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 120501 (2017)

2017
[33]

Chruściński, A

D. Chruściński, A. Rivas, and E. Størmer, Divisibility and infor- mation flow notions of quantum markovianity for noninvert- ible dynamical maps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 080407 (2018)

2018
[34]

Chakraborty, Generalized formalism for information back- flow in assessing markovianity and its equivalence to divisi- bility, Phys

S. Chakraborty, Generalized formalism for information back- flow in assessing markovianity and its equivalence to divisi- bility, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032130 (2018)

2018
[35]

Jeknić-Dugić, M

J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Arsenijević, and M. Dugić, Invertibility as a witness of markovianity of the quantum dynamical maps, Brazilian Journal of Physics 53, 10.1007/s13538-023-01274-0 (2023)

2023 doi
[36]

Pfeuty, The one-dimensional ising model with a transverse field, Annals of Physics 57, 79 (1970)

P. Pfeuty, The one-dimensional ising model with a transverse field, Annals of Physics 57, 79 (1970)

1970
[37]

B. M. McCoy and T. T. Wu, Two-dimensional ising field the- 9 ory in a magnetic field: Breakup of the cut in the two-point function, Phys. Rev. D 18, 1259 (1978)

1978
[38]

Delfino, G

G. Delfino, G. Mussardo, and P. Simonetti, Non-integrable quantum field theories as perturbations of certain integrable models, Nuclear Physics B 473, 469 (1996)

1996
[39]

Fonseca and A

P. Fonseca and A. Zamolodchikov, Ising field theory in a mag- netic field: analytic properties of the free energy, Journal of statistical physics 110, 527 (2003)

2003
[40]

S. B. Rutkevich, Energy spectrum of bound-spinons in the quantum ising spin-chain ferromagnet, Journal of Statistical Physics 131, 917–939 (2008)

2008
[41]

M. C. Bañuls, J. I. Cirac, and M. B. Hastings, Strong and weak thermalization of infinite nonintegrable quantum systems, Physical Review Letters 106, 10.1103/physrevlett.106.050405 (2011)

2011 doi
[42]

Kormos, M

M. Kormos, M. Collura, G. Takács, and P. Calabrese, Real-time confinement following a quantum quench to a non-integrable model, Nature Physics 13, 246–249 (2016)

2016
[43]

Lin and O

C.-J. Lin and O. I. Motrunich, Quasiparticle explanation of the weak-thermalization regime under quench in a nonintegrable quantum spin chain, Phys. Rev. A 95, 023621 (2017)

2017
[44]

O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, M. Lencsés, I. M. Szécsényi, and J. Viti, Entanglement oscillations near a quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 230601 (2020)

2020
[45]

F. Liu, R. Lundgren, P. Titum, G. Pagano, J. Zhang, C. Monroe, and A. V. Gorshkov, Confined quasiparticle dynamics in long- range interacting quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 150601 (2019)

2019
[46]

N. J. Robinson, A. J. A. James, and R. M. Konik, Signatures of rare states and thermalization in a theory with confinement, Phys. Rev. B 99, 195108 (2019)

2019
[47]

Scopa, P

S. Scopa, P. Calabrese, and A. Bastianello, Entanglement dy- namics in confining spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 105, 125413 (2022)

2022
[48]

Birnkammer, A

S. Birnkammer, A. Bastianello, and M. Knap, Prethermaliza- tion in one-dimensional quantum many-body systems with confinement, Nature Communications13, 10.1038/s41467-022- 35301-6 (2022)

2022 doi
[49]

Knaute, Meson content of entanglement spectra after inte- grable and nonintegrable quantum quenches, Phys

J. Knaute, Meson content of entanglement spectra after inte- grable and nonintegrable quantum quenches, Phys. Rev. B107, L100303 (2023)

2023
[50]

data processing

The ground states were obtained with the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) algorithm [53], also imple- mented with the same cutoffs as mentioned above. The unit of time is 𝐽−1 for paramagnetic-to-ferromagnetic quenches, andℎ−1 𝑥 for ferromagnetic-to-paramagnetic quen...
[51]

Kaneko and I

R. Kaneko and I. Danshita, Dynamics of correlation spreading in low-dimensional transverse-field ising models, Physical Re- view A 108, 10.1103/physreva.108.023301 (2023)

2023 doi
[52]

J. H. Robertson, R. Senese, and F. H. L. Essler, Decay of long- lived oscillations after quantum quenches in gapped interact- ing quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032208 (2024)

2024
[53]

Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems, Phys

G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004)

2004
[54]

Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics326, 96–192 (2011)

U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics326, 96–192 (2011)

2011
[55]

Paeckel, T

S. Paeckel, T. Köhler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Scholl- wöck, and C. Hubig, Time-evolution methods for matrix- product states, Annals of Physics 411, 167998 (2019)

2019
[56]

Fishman, S

M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITen- sor Software Library for Tensor Network Calculations, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

2022
[57]

Fishman, S

M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Codebase re- lease 0.3 for ITensor, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

2022
[58]

T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of information theory (John Wiley & Sons, 1999)

1999
[59]

when is a non-markovian quan- tum process classical?

S. Milz, D. Egloff, P. Taranto, T. Theurer, M. B. Plenio, A. Smirne, and S. F. Huelga, "when is a non-markovian quan- tum process classical?", Phys. Rev. X 10, 041049 (2020)

2020
[60]

A. J. A. James, R. M. Konik, and N. J. Robinson, Nonthermal states arising from confinement in one and two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130603 (2019)

2019
[61]

De Nicola, A

S. De Nicola, A. A. Michailidis, and M. Serbyn, Entanglement view of dynamical quantum phase transitions, Physical Review Letters 126, 10.1103/physrevlett.126.040602 (2021)

2021 doi
[62]

Banerjee, Fine features of entanglement dynamics in quenches across the ising quantum critical point (2025), arXiv:2504.15203 [quant-ph]

A. Banerjee, Fine features of entanglement dynamics in quenches across the ising quantum critical point (2025), arXiv:2504.15203 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[63]

Calabrese and J

P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2005, P04010 (2005)

2005
[64]

Rieger and F

H. Rieger and F. Iglói, Semiclassical theory for quantum quenches in finite transverse ising chains, Phys. Rev. B 84, 165117 (2011)

2011
[65]

Alba and P

V. Alba and P. Calabrese, Entanglement dynamics after quan- tum quenches in generic integrable systems, SciPost Physics4, 10.21468/scipostphys.4.3.017 (2018)

2018 doi
[66]

Moudgalya, T

S. Moudgalya, T. Devakul, D. P. Arovas, and S. L. Sondhi, Exten- sion of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis to nonequilib- rium steady states, Phys. Rev. B 100, 045112 (2019)

2019
[67]

Shirai and T

T. Shirai and T. Mori, Thermalization in open many-body sys- tems based on eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Phys. Rev. E 101, 042116 (2020)

2020
[68]

Ptaszyński and M

K. Ptaszyński and M. Esposito, Open-system eigenstate ther- malization in a noninteracting integrable model, Phys. Rev. E 111, 014129 (2025)

2025
[69]

Purkayastha, G

A. Purkayastha, G. Guarnieri, J. Anders, and M. Merkli, On the difference between thermalization in open and isolated quantum systems: a case study (2024), arXiv:2409.11932 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

2024
[70]

O’Donovan, P

P. O’Donovan, P. Strasberg, K. Modi, J. Goold, and M. T. Mitchi- son, Quantum master equation from the eigenstate thermaliza- tion hypothesis (2024), arXiv:2411.07706 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[71]

Tasaki, From quantum dynamics to the canonical distribu- tion: General picture and a rigorous example, Physical Review Letters 80, 1373–1376 (1998)

H. Tasaki, From quantum dynamics to the canonical distribu- tion: General picture and a rigorous example, Physical Review Letters 80, 1373–1376 (1998)

1998
[72]

Goldstein, J

S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì, Canon- ical typicality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 050403 (2006)

2006
[73]

Linden, S

N. Linden, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Quantum me- chanical evolution towards thermal equilibrium, Physical Re- view E 79, 10.1103/physreve.79.061103 (2009)

2009 doi
[74]

A. J. Short, Equilibration of quantum systems and subsystems, New Journal of Physics 13, 053009 (2011)

2011
[75]

Gemmer, M

J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler,Quantum thermodynam- ics: Emergence of thermodynamic behavior within composite quantum systems, Vol. 784 (Springer, 2009)

2009
[76]

Akhouri, S

U. Akhouri, S. Shandera, and J. Henry, Open-systems tools for non-thermalizing closed quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2505.00116 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[77]

Žnidarič, C

M. Žnidarič, C. Pineda, and I. García-Mata, Non-markovian be- havior of small and large complex quantum systems, Physical Review Letters 107, 10.1103/physrevlett.107.080404 (2011)

2011 doi
[78]

T. J. G. Apollaro, C. Di Franco, F. Plastina, and M. Paternostro, Memory-keeping effects and forgetfulness in the dynamics of a qubit coupled to a spin chain, Phys. Rev. A83, 032103 (2011)

2011
[79]

Garrido, T

N. Garrido, T. Gorin, and C. Pineda, Transition from non- markovian to markovian dynamics for generic environments, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012113 (2016)

2016
[80]

Bhattacharya, A

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 production rate, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012122 (2017). 10

2017
[81]

Kimura, The bloch vector for n-level systems, Physics Let- ters A 314, 339–349 (2003)

G. Kimura, The bloch vector for n-level systems, Physics Let- ters A 314, 339–349 (2003)

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A. P. Luca D’Alessio, Yariv Kafri and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016)

2016

[2] [2]

Gogolin and J

C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Equilibration, thermalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 056001 (2016)

2016

[3] [3]

T. Mori, T. N. Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, and M. Ueda, Thermalization and prethermalization in isolated quantum systems: a theo- retical overview, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 112001 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

J. M. Deutsch, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 082001 (2018)

2018

[5] [5]

D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Collo- quium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entangle- ment, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019)

2019

[6] [6]

Nandkishore and D

R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 15 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Serbyn, D

M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papić, Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Nature Physics 17, 675–685 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Chandran, T

A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moessner, Quan- tum many-body scars: A quasiparticle perspective, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 443 (2023)

work page 2023