Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Detecting and quantifying non-Markovianity via quantum direct cause

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pseudo-density-matrix measures catch non-Markovianity other witnesses miss

desk verdict The comparison of witnesses is useful, but the paper's central new measure is ill-defined as written; a serious revision is needed before the main claims can be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23267 v1 pith:BPJ3ZUQK submitted 2025-06-29 quant-ph

Shrikant Utagi , Prateek Chawla This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords non-Markovianitypseudo-densitymatrixtemporalsteeringCP-indivisibilityinformationbackflowquantumdirectcauseChoidivisibility
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 claims that two witnesses built from the pseudo-density matrix—a two-time object assembled from Pauli correlation measurements—faithfully detect and quantify non-Markovian memory in any indivisible quantum process. Using counterexamples from the literature, it shows these PDM-based measures register non-Markovianity where trace distance, quantum Jensen-Shannon divergence, and temporal steering do not, including eternally non-Markovian channels that are P-divisible but not completely-positive-divisible. If the claim is right, the measures fill a practical gap: they are optimization-free witnesses of CP-indivisibility and sharpen the distinction between weak quantum direct cause (temporal steering, tied to information backflow) and strong quantum direct cause (temporal non-separability, tied to total memory).

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-point pseudo-density matrix $R_{t+\epsilon,t} = (I \otimes V_{t+\epsilon,t})[\{\rho \otimes \mathbb{1}_2/2, S\}]$ built from the intermediate dynamical map $V_{t+\epsilon,t}$, the input state $\rho$, and $S = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=0}^3 \sigma_i\otimes \sigma_i$. Its trace norm $\|R\|_1$ gives the logarithmic causality measure, and its right-derivative defines the continuous causality measure $\mu(t)$. Because the PDM is the partial transpose of the corresponding Choi matrix, $\mu(t)$ diagnoses whether the intermediate map is completely positive, and it does so without optimizing over initial states or measurement bases.

What would settle it

Evaluate $\mu(t)$ from Eq. (14) for a channel known to be CP-divisible, such as pure dephasing with a non-negative decay rate, using an input state other than the maximally mixed one. If any such CP-divisible step yields $\mu(t)>0$, the measure reports non-Markovianity for a Markovian process and the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the logarithmic causality measure and the new continuous causality measure capture complete-positivity indivisibility and quantify total quantum memory, because a pseudo-density matrix is the partial transpose (up to normalization) of the corresponding channel's Choi matrix. The continuous witness is the instantaneous growth rate $\mu(t) = \lim_{\epsilon\to 0^+} (\|R_{t+\epsilon,t}\|_1 - 1)/\epsilon$ of the trace norm of the intermediate PDM; a positive $\mu(t)$ signals a non-completely-positive intermediate map. On the standard eternal non-Markovian channel, trace distance, quantum Jensen-Shannon divergence, and temporal steerable weight all stay flat while the PDM measures detect the always-negative decay rate. The paper reads this as evidence that temporal steerable correlations express a weaker form of quantum direct cause than PDM correlations: the former track P-indivisibility (information backflow), the latter track CP-indivisibility (total memory).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, under the normalization used in Eq. (13), a completely positive intermediate map always leaves the trace norm of the intermediate pseudo-density matrix non-increasing, so any positive growth rate $\mu(t)$ is a sure sign of CP-indivisibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The PDM-based measures provide optimization-free witnesses of CP-indivisibility, unlike temporal steerable weight, which requires solving a semidefinite program.
  • Eternal non-Markovianity, which is invisible to trace distance, quantum Jensen-Shannon divergence, and temporal steering, becomes detectable and quantifiable.
  • For the maximally mixed input state, the continuous causality measure reduces to the standard ancilla-based divisibility measure, giving a known benchmark within the new formalism.
  • The weak-versus-strong direct-cause distinction gives a principled ordering: temporal steering witnesses information backflow (P-indivisibility), while PDM witnesses total memory (CP-indivisibility), so a process can be weakly but not strongly non-Markovian.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The continuous measure could be turned into an experimental calibration tool on current platforms, since it needs only two-time Pauli measurements rather than an entangled ancilla.
  • Once the normalization of the continuous witness is fixed sharply, the PDM-to-Choi relation could yield direct temporal-correlation estimators for other channel properties, not just non-Markovianity.
  • The weak/strong direct-cause split suggests a natural grading of non-Markovianity measures: weak witnesses certify information backflow, strong witnesses certify CP-indivisibility, and no single distance measure can do both in full generality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares two temporal-correlation witnesses of non-Markovianity—pseudo-density-matrix (PDM) causality measures and temporal steerable weight (TSW)—against trace-distance and entropic measures. It introduces a continuous PDM-based witness μ(t), defines a normalized measure N_CCM, and claims that PDM-based measures faithfully capture CP-indivisibility, including eternal non-Markovianity, while TSW captures only P-indivisibility. The paper also presents numerical examples for a non-unital generalized amplitude damping channel, a phase-covariant channel, and an eternally non-Markovian unital channel, and interprets the results in terms of weak versus strong forms of quantum direct cause.

Significance. If the proposed continuous causality measure were properly defined and accompanied by a proof of its monotonicity under CP intermediate maps, the paper would provide an optimization-free witness of CP-indivisibility that catches eternal non-Markovianity where trace distance, entropic measures, and temporal steering fail. The comparison between TSW and Choi-matrix-based measures is a useful contribution to the hierarchy of temporal quantum correlations. The relation between PDM negativity and the Choi matrix is also a valuable observation. However, the central new measure is not well defined as written, so the main claim currently rests on an unstated normalization and unproved monotonicity.

major comments (4)
  1. [II A, Eqs. (12)–(13)] The continuous causality measure is not defined as written. For the intermediate map V=I and input ρ=11/2, Eq. (12) gives R_{t,t} = {11/4, S} = SWAP/2, whose trace norm is 2. Hence the numerator in Eq. (13) tends to 1, and μ(t) diverges for every process, regardless of whether the process is CP-divisible. The sentence after Eq. (14) saying that the witness 'requires to be normalized appropriately' is the only acknowledgment, but the normalization is never given; Figure 1 therefore cannot be reproduced from the formulas in the text. This is load-bearing because the CCM is the new measure claimed to 'faithfully capture eternal non-Markovianity'.
  2. [II A, Eq. (13) and Definition 1] No theorem establishes the sign of μ(t) for general CP intermediate maps. The positivity of μ is asserted to indicate CP-indivisibility, but the only evidence is a few channel examples. For an arbitrary input ρ, R_{t+ε,t} is an input-dependent partial transpose of the Choi operator of V; it is not a positive operator, and no monotonicity result for its trace norm under CP maps is supplied. Since the trace norm of a partial-transposed Choi matrix can exceed 1 for perfectly CP maps (e.g., dephasing with ρ=11/2 gives ||R||1=2−2εγ), even a normalized version would require a separate proof that the derivative is non-positive in the CP case. Without that, the witness could flag CP-divisible dynamics as non-Markovian.
  3. [II A, after Eq. (15)] The claimed reduction to the Rivas-Huelga-Plenio (RHP) measure is not correct as stated. For ρ=11/2, R_{t,t} is proportional to the partial transpose of the Choi matrix, not to the Choi matrix itself; for a CP dephasing intermediate map the trace norm of this partial-transposed object is greater than 1, whereas the RHP witness is based on the trace norm of the Choi state (which equals 1 for CP maps). The relation between μ(t) and decay-rate negativity therefore needs to be stated through the correct normalized object, or the claim of equivalence to RHP should be withdrawn.
  4. [II A, Eq. (15)] The definition of N_CCM is incomplete: the integrals in Eq. (15) have an upper limit t that is also the time variable in the integrand, and the denominator ∫χ(t) divides by the total duration of positive-μ intervals, but the limit t→∞ is never specified. Moreover, with μ divergent as written, tanh(μ)=1 and the measure saturates at 1 for any process, which makes the numerical results in Figs. 3–5 impossible to interpret. The 0/0=0 convention and the ε-regularization of χ need to be made explicit and shown to be independent of the regularization parameter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV B] The statement that the logarithmic form's failure to detect the phase-covariant channel 'implies it is a stronger measure than the continuous case' is unclear and appears to contradict the usual meaning of stronger as more sensitive; please rephrase.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption gives p(t)=sin 2(5t), while the text defines p(t)=sin 2t; the two should be reconciled.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The notation I4 and I2 is used without defining the relevant Hilbert-space dimensions, and the statement that a first-order Taylor expansion suffices for the limit needs justification, since higher-order terms can affect the limit when the trace norm is not analytic.
  4. [Introduction and throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical issues, including 'temoprality', 'vis-versa', and the incomplete sentence 'see e.g,' in the Introduction; the manuscript should be carefully proofread.
  5. [Conclusions] The claim that 'PDM-based LCM is found to be stronger than TSW-based measure' is not supported by Fig. 3, where TSW detects the phase-covariant non-Markovianity while LCM does not; please clarify which notion of strength is intended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Maximally-mixed-input causality measure reduces to RHP; otherwise measures are computed directly and self-citation is disclosed.

  1. renaming known result [Sec. IIA, Eqs. (12)-(15); Sec. IVC]
    "for ρ = 11/2 in Eq.(12), N causality reduces to a well-known measure due to Rivas-Huelga-Plenio proposed in Ref. [8] ... Here, it is obvious that PDM-based measures capture the eternal non-Markovianity of a P-divisible channel since PDM is proportional to the Choi matrix of a given channel."

    For ρ=11/2, R_{t+ε,t} is (up to normalization) the partial-transposed Choi matrix of the intermediate map, so ||R||_1−1 is exactly the RHP Choi-matrix witness. The paper explicitly says N_causality reduces to RHP at this input and then uses the Choi-matrix proportionality to conclude that PDM measures faithfully capture eternal non-Markovianity. Thus, for the maximally mixed input, the claimed prediction is a restatement, under PDM vocabulary, of the known RHP result rather than a new derivation. The generalization to arbitrary ρ is a new object, so the circularity is partial and limited to the maximally-mixed-input benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is only partially circular. The new continuous measure N_causality in Eq. (13) is defined directly from the trace norm of R_{t+ε,t} in Eq. (12), and the examples compute it from the channel's intermediate map; no parameter is fitted to the predicted quantity. However, for the maximally mixed input the paper itself states that N_causality reduces to the Rivas-Huelga-Plenio measure, which is a known Choi-matrix witness. The subsequent claim that PDM-based measures faithfully capture eternal non-Markovianity then relies on the proportionality between the PDM and the Choi matrix, so at that input the 'prediction' is a renaming of a known result rather than an independent derivation. The LCM benchmark is taken from the first author's earlier Ref. [36], but it is disclosed and its behavior on the new examples is computed numerically, so that self-citation is not load-bearing. The principal additional weakness is technical, not circular: Eq. (13) is not normalized, and the paper's only acknowledgment is 'requires to be normalized appropriately,' leaving the trace-norm derivative potentially divergent for the identity intermediate map. Overall, the maximally-mixed-input case is a genuine reduction by construction to RHP, but the general-input measure retains independent content, hence a partial circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The CCM measure is the only genuinely new artifact; it adds no physical entities, but it rests on an unproven faithfulness premise (mu(t) signals non-CP intermediate maps), an unspecified input state, and hand-chosen channel parameters. The LCM measure is the first author's own 2021 measure (Ref. [36]), so part of the benchmark re-uses the authors' tool. The eternal channel results depend on the Hall et al. fact that Choi witnesses detect that channel.

free parameters (5)
  • phase-covariant counterexample parameters = A_parallel = 0.01, A_perp = 1.01, mu1 = 5, mu2 = 4, alpha = 5; A_kappa not stated
    Hand-chosen constants in Eqs. (25)-(26) that construct a channel where trace distance detects non-Markovianity but QJSD does not (Fig. 3); A_kappa appears in Eq. (26) but its value is missing from the text.
  • eternal channel constant c = 3.0
    Hand-chosen rate scale in the generator of Eq. (27) for Fig. 5, stated without justification.
  • input state rho for PDM measures = unspecified in text
    N_LCM (Eq. 11) and N_CCM (Eq. 13) depend on rho through Eq. (9); without rho the plotted measures are not defined and could be input-dependent rather than channel-only.
  • GAD channel driving frequency = sin(2 x 5t) in Fig. 2
    From Ref. [16] but rescaled for the figure; a presentation choice rather than a fit.
  • regularization threshold epsilon for the 0/0 convention = epsilon -> 0+ (not quantified)
    Eq. (15) notes 0/0 = 0, implemented in practice with chi(t) = epsilon at vanishing witness; the finite value used in the numerics is not given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-time maps are defined only for product system-environment initial states, so the full map is always CPTP and non-CP behavior is confined to intermediate maps.
    Stated as a restrictive assumption in Sec. I before the divisibility definitions; without it the intermediate-map picture is not valid (Pechukas-type failures).
  • domain assumption The dynamical map Lambda(t,0) is invertible or has a Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse, so the intermediate map V(t+epsilon,t) in Eq. (4) is well defined.
    Invoked in Sec. IA with a footnote to Ref. [3]; all P-indivisibility and CP-indivisibility analysis uses this intermediate map.
  • standard math F(t) = log ||R(t)||1 is nonincreasing under CPTP maps, making LCM a legitimate non-Markovianity witness.
    Assumed from Ref. [24] in Sec. IIA; used to justify N_LCM in Eq. (11).
  • ad hoc to paper The growth rate mu(t) of the trace norm of the intermediate PDM is positive if and only if the intermediate map is not CP, for any input rho.
    Central premise of the CCM measure (Eqs. 12-15); demonstrated on dephasing and phase-covariant examples and asserted for the eternal channel, but not proven for general inputs; for rho = 11/2 it reduces to the known RHP measure (stated in Sec. IIA).
  • standard math CP-divisible implies P-divisible, and monotonic decrease of distinguishability measures is equivalent to P-divisibility.
    Background from Refs. [10-13] used in Sec. I to set up the problem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting and quantifying non-Markovianity via quantum direct cause." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPJ3ZUQK

@misc{pith2026250623267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting and quantifying non-Markovianity via quantum direct cause},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPJ3ZUQK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23267}
}
read the original abstract

We study the efficacy of the two recently introduced witnesses of non-Markovianity, namely that based on temporal correlations in pseudo-density matrix and temporal steering correlations in detecting information backflow. We show, through specific counterexamples taken from existing literature, that they can witness a process to be non-Markovian where trace distance and entropic distinguishability measures may fail. We further show that, since the pseudo-density matrix is directly related to the Choi matrix of a channel via the partial transpose, it can be generalized to quantify the total quantum memory in any indivisible process. Moreover, we make an interesting observation that temporal steerable correlations-based measure may not capture eternal non-Markovianity hence may not be proportional to Choi-matrix-based methods, while pseudo-density matrix-based measures introduced in this work faithfully capture eternal non-Markovianity. Our work highlights important distinction between weak and strong forms of quantum direct cause in quantum mechanics when applied to open system dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Figure showing the equivalence between negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Various witnesses against a non-Markovian GAD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The non-Markovianity measures corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Oxford University Press, 2002

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione.The the- ory of open quantum systems. Oxford University Press, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  3. [3]

    Quantum non-markovianity: characterization, quantifi- cation and detection

    Angel Rivas, Susana F Huelga, and Martin B Plenio. Quantum non-markovianity: characterization, quantifi- cation and detection. Rep. Prog. Phys, 77(9):094001, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Colloquium: Non-markovian dy- namics in open quantum systems

    Heinz-Peter Breuer, Elsi-Mari Laine, Jyrki Piilo, and Bassano Vacchini. Colloquium: Non-markovian dy- namics in open quantum systems. Rev. Mod. Phys, 88(2):021002, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Dynamics of non- markovian open quantum systems

    Inés de Vega and Daniel Alonso. Dynamics of non- markovian open quantum systems. Rev. Mod. Phys., 89:015001, Jan 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Hall, and Howard M

    Li Li, Michael J.W. Hall, and Howard M. Wiseman. Concepts of quantum non-markovianity: A hierarchy. Physics Reports, 759:1 – 51, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Shrikant and Prabha Mandayam

    U. Shrikant and Prabha Mandayam. Quantum non- markovianity: Overview and recent developments.Fron- tiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Entanglement and non-markovianity of quantum evolu- tions

    Ángel Rivas, Susana F Huelga, and Martin B Plenio. Entanglement and non-markovianity of quantum evolu- tions. Phys. Rev. Lett, 105(5):050403, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

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

    Heinz-Peter Breuer, Elsi-Mari Laine, and Jyrki Piilo. Measure for the degree of non-markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems. Phys. Rev. Lett, 103(21):210401, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Measures of non-markovianity: Divisibil- ity versus backflow of information

    Dariusz Chruściński, Andrzej Kossakowski, and Án- gel Rivas. Measures of non-markovianity: Divisibil- ity versus backflow of information. Physical Review A, 83(5):052128, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Degree of non-markovianity of quantum evolution.Physical review letters, 112(12):120404, 2014

    Dariusz Chruściński and Sabrina Maniscalco. Degree of non-markovianity of quantum evolution.Physical review letters, 112(12):120404, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Detectingnon-markovianityofquantumevo- lution via spectra of dynamical maps

    Dariusz Chruściński, Chiara Macchiavello, and Sabrina Maniscalco. Detectingnon-markovianityofquantumevo- lution via spectra of dynamical maps. Physical review letters, 118(8):080404, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Divisibility and information flow notions of quantum markovianity for noninvertible dynamical maps

    Dariusz Chruściński, Ángel Rivas, and Erling Størmer. Divisibility and information flow notions of quantum markovianity for noninvertible dynamical maps. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:080407, Aug 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Informa- tion flow versus divisibility for qubit evolution.Physical Review A, 99(4):042105, 2019

    Sagnik Chakraborty and Dariusz Chruściński. Informa- tion flow versus divisibility for qubit evolution.Physical Review A, 99(4):042105, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Michael J. W. Hall, James D. Cresser, Li Li, and Erika Andersson. Canonical form of master equations and characterization of non-markovianity. Phys. Rev. A, 89:042120, Apr 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Nonuni- tal non-markovianity of quantum dynamics.Phys

    Jing Liu, Xiao-Ming Lu, and Xiaoguang Wang. Nonuni- tal non-markovianity of quantum dynamics.Phys. Rev. A, 87:042103, Apr 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Trace decreasing quantum dynamical maps: Divisibility and entanglement dynamics

    Sergey N Filippov. Trace decreasing quantum dynamical maps: Divisibility and entanglement dynamics. InInter- national Conference on Quantum Probability & Related Topics, pages 121–133. Springer, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Quantum entanglement.Reviews of modern physics, 81(2):865, 2009

    Ryszard Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. Quantum entanglement.Reviews of modern physics, 81(2):865, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    Quantum steering

    Roope Uola, Ana CS Costa, H Chau Nguyen, and Otfried Gühne. Quantum steering. Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(1):015001, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Quantum superpo- sitions of ‘common-cause’and ‘direct-cause’causal struc- tures

    Adrien Feix and Časlav Brukner. Quantum superpo- sitions of ‘common-cause’and ‘direct-cause’causal struc- tures. New Journal of Physics, 19(12):123028, 2017. 9

    2017

  13. [21]

    Quantifying causal influences in the presence of a quantum common cause

    Mariami Gachechiladze, Nikolai Miklin, and Rafael Chaves. Quantifying causal influences in the presence of a quantum common cause. Physical Review Letters, 125(23):230401, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    non-unital non-Markovianity

    that temporal quantum correlations form a hierar- chy, namely temporal non-separability [23, 24], temporal steering [25, 26], and temporal nonlocality [27, 28], and that temporally non-separable correlations in pseudo- density matrix (PDM) are a form of correlations with stron...

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Quantum correlations which imply causation.Sci- entific reports, 5:18281, 2015

    Joseph F Fitzsimons, Jonathan A Jones, and Vlatko Ve- dral. Quantum correlations which imply causation.Sci- entific reports, 5:18281, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Hierarchy in temporal quan- tum correlations.Physical Review A, 98(2):022104, 2018

    Huan-Yu Ku, Shin-Liang Chen, Neill Lambert, Yueh- Nan Chen, and Franco Nori. Hierarchy in temporal quan- tum correlations.Physical Review A, 98(2):022104, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Temporal steering inequality

    Yueh-Nan Chen, Che-Ming Li, Neill Lambert, Shin- Liang Chen, Yukihiro Ota, Guang-Yin Chen, and Franco Nori. Temporal steering inequality. Physical Review A, 89(3):032112, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Causal limit on quantum communication

    Robert Pisarczyk, Zhikuan Zhao, Yingkai Ouyang, Vlatko Vedral, and Joseph F Fitzsimons. Causal limit on quantum communication. Physical review letters, 123(15):150502, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    A. J. Leggett and Anupam Garg. Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the flux there when no- body looks? Phys. Rev. Lett., 54:857–860, Mar 1985

    1985

  20. [28]

    H. S. Karthik, J. Prabhu Tej, A. R. Usha Devi, and A. K. Rajagopal. Joint measurability and temporal steering.J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, 32(4):A34–A39, Apr 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Dominic Horsman, Chris Heunen, Matthew F Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, and Robert W Spekkens. Can a quan- tum state over time resemble a quantum state at a single time? Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 473(2205):20170395, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Leggett– garg inequalities

    Clive Emary, Neill Lambert, and Franco Nori. Leggett– garg inequalities. Reports on Progress in Physics , 77(1):016001, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Certifying temporal correlations.AVS Quantum Science, 6(4), 2024

    Harshank Shrotriya, Leong-Chuan Kwek, and Kishor Bharti. Certifying temporal correlations.AVS Quantum Science, 6(4), 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Quantum direct cause across the cherenkov threshold in circuit qed.Phys- ical Review A, 102(4):042223, 2020

    Jhen-Dong Lin and Yueh-Nan Chen. Quantum direct cause across the cherenkov threshold in circuit qed.Phys- ical Review A, 102(4):042223, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Temporal steering and security of quantum key distribution with mutually un- biased bases against individual attacks.Physical Review A, 93(6):062345, 2016

    Karol Bartkiewicz, Antonín Černoch, Karel Lemr, Adam Miranowicz, and Franco Nori. Temporal steering and security of quantum key distribution with mutually un- biased bases against individual attacks.Physical Review A, 93(6):062345, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Causal classification of spatiotemporal quantum correlations

    Minjeong Song, Varun Narasimhachar, Bartosz Regula, Thomas J Elliott, and Mile Gu. Causal classification of spatiotemporal quantum correlations. Physical Review Letters, 133(11):110202, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Quantify- ing non-markovianity with temporal steering

    Shin-LiangChen, NeillLambert, Che-MingLi, AdamMi- ranowicz, Yueh-Nan Chen, and Franco Nori. Quantify- ing non-markovianity with temporal steering. Physical review letters, 116(2):020503, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Ob- servation of a full hierarchy of temporal quantum corre- lations with a superconducting qubit

    Hao-Cheng Weng, Chen-Yeh Wei, Huan-Yu Ku, Shin- Liang Chen, Yueh-Nan Chen, and Chih-Sung Chuu. Ob- servation of a full hierarchy of temporal quantum corre- lations with a superconducting qubit. Physical Review A, 111(5):052439, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Inequivalence of correlation-based measures of non-markovianity

    Alaor Cervati Neto, Göktuğ Karpat, and Felipe Fer- nandes Fanchini. Inequivalence of correlation-based measures of non-markovianity. Physical Review A , 94(3):032105, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Quantum causal correlations and non- markovianity of quantum evolution.Physics Letters A, 386:126983, 2021

    Shrikant Utagi. Quantum causal correlations and non- markovianity of quantum evolution.Physics Letters A, 386:126983, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Reduced dynamics need not be com- pletely positive.Physical review letters, 73(8):1060, 1994

    Philip Pechukas. Reduced dynamics need not be com- pletely positive.Physical review letters, 73(8):1060, 1994

    1994

  32. [40]

    Correlation measure detecting almost all non-markovian evolutions

    Dario De Santis, Markus Johansson, Bogna Bylicka, Nadja K Bernardes, and Antonio Acín. Correlation measure detecting almost all non-markovian evolutions. Physical Review A, 99(1):012303, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Pechukas replies.Physical Review Let- ters, 75(16):3021, 1995

    Philip Pechukas. Pechukas replies.Physical Review Let- ters, 75(16):3021, 1995

    1995

  34. [42]

    reduced dynamics need not be completely positive

    Robert Alicki. Comment on “reduced dynamics need not be completely positive”. Physical review letters, 75(16):3020, 1995

    1995

  35. [43]

    Pollock, César Rodríguez-Rosario, Thomas Frauenheim, Mauro Paternostro, and Kavan Modi

    Felix A. Pollock, César Rodríguez-Rosario, Thomas Frauenheim, Mauro Paternostro, and Kavan Modi. Non- markovian quantum processes: Complete framework and efficient characterization. Phys. Rev. A, 97:012127, Jan 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Quantum causal mod- elling

    Fabio Costa and Sally Shrapnel. Quantum causal mod- elling. New Journal of Physics, 18(6):063032, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Quantum stochastic pro- cesses and quantum non-markovian phenomena

    Simon Milz and Kavan Modi. Quantum stochastic pro- cesses and quantum non-markovian phenomena. PRX Quantum, 2(3):030201, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Pollock, César Rodríguez-Rosario, Thomas Frauenheim, Mauro Paternostro, and Kavan Modi

    Felix A. Pollock, César Rodríguez-Rosario, Thomas Frauenheim, Mauro Paternostro, and Kavan Modi. Op- erational markov condition for quantum processes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:040405, Jan 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Entanglement, non- markovianity, and causal non-separability.New Journal of Physics, 20(3):033033, 2018

    Simon Milz, Felix A Pollock, Thao P Le, Giulio Chiribella, and Kavan Modi. Entanglement, non- markovianity, and causal non-separability.New Journal of Physics, 20(3):033033, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Adrián A. Budini. Quantum non-markovian processes break conditional past-future independence.Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:240401, Dec 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Quantum causal inference with extremely light touch

    Xiangjing Liu, Yixian Qiu, Oscar Dahlsten, and Vlatko Vedral. Quantum causal inference with extremely light touch. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10544, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Witnessing quan- tum memory in non-markovian processes

    Christina Giarmatzi and Fabio Costa. Witnessing quan- tum memory in non-markovian processes. Quantum, 5:440, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Completely positive maps and entropy inequalities

    Göran Lindblad. Completely positive maps and entropy inequalities. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 40(2):147–151, 1975

    1975

  44. [52]

    Divis- ibility of qubit channels and dynamical maps.Quantum, 3:144, 2019

    David Davalos, Mario Ziman, and Carlos Pineda. Divis- ibility of qubit channels and dynamical maps.Quantum, 3:144, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    In case when such an inverse does not exist, one may resort to Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse [3]

  46. [54]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan, P. M. Mathews, and Jayaseetha Rau. Stochastic dynamics of quantum-mechanical sys- tems. Phys. Rev., 121:920–924, Feb 1961

    1961

  47. [55]

    Dynamical maps beyond markovian regime

    Dariusz Chruściński. Dynamical maps beyond markovian regime. Physics Reports, 992:1–85, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Measure for the non-markovianity of quantum processes

    Elsi-Mari Laine, Jyrki Piilo, and Heinz-Peter Breuer. Measure for the non-markovianity of quantum processes. Phys. Rev. A, 81(6):062115, 2010

    2010

  49. [57]

    En- tropic bounds on information backflow.Physical Review Letters, 127(3):030401, 2021

    Nina Megier, Andrea Smirne, and Bassano Vacchini. En- tropic bounds on information backflow.Physical Review Letters, 127(3):030401, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    Bounds for the divisibility-based and distinguishability-based non-markovianity measures

    Harri Mäkelä. Bounds for the divisibility-based and distinguishability-based non-markovianity measures. Physical Review A, 91(1):012108, 2015

    2015

  51. [59]

    Entropic and trace-distance-based measures of non-markovianity

    Federico Settimo, Heinz-Peter Breuer, and Bassano Vac- chini. Entropic and trace-distance-based measures of non-markovianity. Physical Review A, 106(4):042212, 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    Holevo skew divergence for the characterization of in- formation backflow

    Andrea Smirne, Nina Megier, and Bassano Vacchini. Holevo skew divergence for the characterization of in- formation backflow. Physical Review A, 106(1):012205, 2022. 10

    2022

  53. [61]

    The spatiotem- poral doubled density operator: a unified framework for analyzingspatialandtemporalquantumprocesses

    Zhian Jia and Dagomir Kaszlikowski. The spatiotem- poral doubled density operator: a unified framework for analyzingspatialandtemporalquantumprocesses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15649, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Superdensity operators for spacetime quantum mechanics

    Jordan Cotler, Chao-Ming Jian, Xiao-Liang Qi, and Frank Wilczek. Superdensity operators for spacetime quantum mechanics. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(9):1–57, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Theoretical framework for quantum networks

    Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, and Paolo Perinotti. Theoretical framework for quantum networks. Physical Review A, 80(2):022339, 2009

    2009

  56. [64]

    Quantum correlations with no causal order.Nature com- munications, 3(1):1–8, 2012

    Ognyan Oreshkov, Fabio Costa, and Časlav Brukner. Quantum correlations with no causal order.Nature com- munications, 3(1):1–8, 2012

    2012

  57. [65]

    Geometry of quantum correlations in space-time.Physical Review A, 98(5):052312, 2018

    Zhikuan Zhao, Robert Pisarczyk, Jayne Thompson, Mile Gu, Vlatko Vedral, and Joseph F Fitzsimons. Geometry of quantum correlations in space-time.Physical Review A, 98(5):052312, 2018

    2018

  58. [66]

    Quantum correlations in time

    Tian Zhang, Oscar Dahlsten, and Vlatko Vedral. Quantum correlations in time. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10448, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Andersen, J

    M. Andersen, J. Dahl, , and K. Vandenberghe. Cvxopt: Python software for convex optimization. www.cvxopt.org, 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Quantum steer- ing: a review with focus on semidefinite programming

    Daniel Cavalcanti and Paul Skrzypczyk. Quantum steer- ing: a review with focus on semidefinite programming. Reports on Progress in Physics, 80(2):024001, 2016

    2016

  61. [69]

    Telescopic relative entropy– ii triangle inequalities

    Koenraad MR Audenaert. Telescopic relative entropy– ii triangle inequalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1102.3041, 2011

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Ultimate precision limits for noisy frequency estimation

    Andrea Smirne, Jan Kołodyński, Susana F Huelga, and Rafał Demkowicz-Dobrzański. Ultimate precision limits for noisy frequency estimation. Physical review letters, 116(12):120801, 2016

    2016

  63. [71]

    Cambridge university press, 2017

    Ingemar Bengtsson and Karol Życzkowski.Geometry of quantum states: an introduction to quantum entangle- ment. Cambridge university press, 2017

    2017

  64. [72]

    Phase covariant qubit dynamics and divisibil- ity.Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics, 41(4):617–630, 2020

    Sergey N Filippov, AN Glinov, and Leevi Lep- päjärvi. Phase covariant qubit dynamics and divisibil- ity.Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics, 41(4):617–630, 2020

    2020

  65. [73]

    Markovian semigroup from non-markovian evolutions.Physical Re- view A, 93(4):042120, 2016

    Filip A Wudarski and Dariusz Chruściński. Markovian semigroup from non-markovian evolutions.Physical Re- view A, 93(4):042120, 2016

    2016

  66. [74]

    Signatures of non- markovianity of a superconducting qubit

    Balázs Gulácsi and Guido Burkard. Signatures of non- markovianity of a superconducting qubit. Physical Re- view B, 107(17):174511, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    Non- markovianity degree for random unitary evolution.Phys- ical Review A, 91(1):012104, 2015

    Dariusz Chruściński and Filip A Wudarski. Non- markovianity degree for random unitary evolution.Phys- ical Review A, 91(1):012104, 2015

    2015

  68. [76]

    Non- markovian random unitary qubit dynamics.Physics Let- ters A, 377(21-22):1425–1429, 2013

    Dariusz Chruściński and Filip A Wudarski. Non- markovian random unitary qubit dynamics.Physics Let- ters A, 377(21-22):1425–1429, 2013

    2013

  69. [78]

    Constructive method for detecting the information back- flow of non-markovian dynamics

    Bogna Bylicka, Markus Johansson, and Antonio Acín. Constructive method for detecting the information back- flow of non-markovian dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118:120501, Mar 2017

    2017

  70. [211]

    In such unital cases, the Kraus operators (see Eq

    – this oc- curs when there is no displacement,i.e., κ = 0. In such unital cases, the Kraus operators (see Eq. (21)) become notably simpler, especially whenϕ =π/4. Now, we consider an example of a dynamical mapΛ of a counterexample that is non-Markovian according to trace dista...

Pith tools

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