Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 122 references

This paper argues that a quantum state's resilience to thermal decoherence is set by the size of its phase-space features: sub-Planck-scale details erode first, so the very structures that enable high-sensitivity sensing are the most fragil

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:47 UTC pith:NXUYFF7J

load-bearing objection The closed-form Wigner evolution and the isotropic sub-Planck example are real contributions, but the general phase-space-area decoherence law in Sec. IV does not follow from the equations as written, so Table II and the universality claim need rework. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.15513 v2 pith:NXUYFF7J submitted 2025-12-17 quant-ph

Decoherence across phase-space scales: From compass states to general quantum states

Naeem Akhtar , Jia-Xin Peng , Tan Hailin , Xiaosen Yang , Dong Wang This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81S30 PACS 03.65.Yz03.65.-w42.50.Dv
keywords decoherenceWigner functionsub-Planck structurecompass statethermal reservoirphase-space patchFokker-Planck equationquantum sensing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies how a compass state and its photon-added and photon-subtracted variants lose coherence in a thermal reservoir, and claims a general rule: the smaller the phase-space feature, the faster it decays. Using the Wigner function's Fokker-Planck evolution, it derives rates for the volume and area of localized Wigner patches, then shows numerically that sub-Planck structures shrink faster than larger ones. If true, this quantifies a tradeoff between quantum metrological sensitivity, which benefits from fine phase-space structure, and robustness to environmental noise. The claim is extended from specific compass states to any pure state in the same reservoir.

Core claim

For a pure state in a thermal reservoir, the decoherence of any phase-space feature is governed by its area: the relative rates of volume loss (v-dot/v) and area loss (a-dot/a) are more negative for smaller patches. The central patch of a compass state with amplitude X0=5 loses volume at v-dot(0)/v(0)=-96, versus -35 for X0=3 (at n=0.5), and photon-added variants with finer features show similarly larger magnitudes. The authors conclude that fine-scale, sub-Planck structures are inherently more fragile than coarse ones, so parameters that improve sub-Planck sensitivity also accelerate decoherence; photon subtraction, which enlarges features, slows it.

What carries the argument

The Fokker-Planck equation for the Wigner function of a damped oscillator in a thermal bath, split into a contracting drift term and a diffusion term. Applied to a moving patch through the Reynolds transport theorem, it yields the boundary-flux formula for patch volume, v-dot = ((n+1)/2) ∮ ∇W·n dl, and the area-rate formula, a-dot = -2a - 2π((n+1)/2) - ((n+1)/2)∮ ∇(ln|∇W|)·n dl, whose constant terms encode contraction and boundary geometry. These rate formulas convert the phenomenological observation that small features die faster into a quantitative, state-independent statement.

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on an asserted sign property — that the Wigner gradient's boundary flux always opposes the patch volume, so small structures inevitably shrink — together with consistency of the diffusion coefficients across Eqs. (12), (26), and (28); if either fails, the universal decay claim needs re-derivation.

What would settle it

Directly integrate the full thermal-reservoir master equation (12) for a non-compass pure state, such as a squeezed cat state, extract the volume v(τ) of a small negative Wigner patch, and compare with Eq. (28). If any patch's volume grows at τ=0, or if Table II changes sign when recomputed with the coefficient (1+n+ωn)/2 from Eq. (26) rather than (n+1)/2, the claim that small features are inevitably prone to disruption is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Sub-Planckian sensitivity and environmental robustness are in tension: improving one worsens the other in a thermal reservoir.
  • Photon addition to compass states yields finer features and faster decoherence, while photon subtraction coarsens features and slows decoherence.
  • Increasing the amplitude X0 of the superposed coherent states both sharpens sub-Planck structure and raises the early linear-entropy rate (S0 rises from 38.9 to 102.0 when X0 goes from 3 to 5 at n=0.5).
  • In the long-time limit all considered states relax to the same thermal state, so differences appear only in the transient, which slows as feature size grows.
  • The patch-rate formulas are claimed to apply to any pure state, not just compass states, provided the sign assumption on the boundary flux holds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The geometric term -2π((n+1)/2) in the area-rate formula suggests a universal, shape-independent diffusion floor: every phase-space patch, regardless of its boundary, shrinks at a rate set only by the reservoir temperature and decay rate.
  • The framework hints at a controllable phase-space low-pass filter: tuning temperature and coupling could selectively erase sub-Planck detail while leaving coarse features intact, a testable engineering strategy for protecting mesoscopic coherence.
  • If the boundary-sign premise fails for off-center or multiply-connected patches, the universal claim might still hold for the central structures that dominate metrological sensitivity, even if not for every patch.
  • A direct test on a non-compass state, such as a squeezed cat or a Schrödinger-cat superposition, would reveal whether the tradeoff is truly state-independent or an artifact of the compass family's symmetric geometry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies decoherence of compass states and their photon-added/photon-subtracted ('optimized') variants in a thermal reservoir. It gives a closed-form time-evolved Wigner function (Eq. 16) and diagnoses decoherence through four complementary quantities: the central peak height d(τ), Wigner negativity, linear entropy, and tomogram distortion. The central claim is that smaller phase-space features—in particular sub-Planckian structures—decay faster than larger features, and that this is a general property of any pure state in this reservoir. Section IV attempts to prove the general claim by deriving equations for the volume and area of Wigner patches from the Fokker–Planck form of the master equation, and Table II quantifies the rates for several parameter choices.

Significance. If the general claim is established, the paper would quantify a tradeoff between sub-Planckian phase-space resolution (useful for sensing) and environmental fragility, extending Zurek's original compass-state analysis to a broader class of states. The analytical Wigner-evolution formula for the optimized compass family is a useful technical contribution, and the multi-diagnostic numerical study (central-peak decay, negativity, linear entropy) gives convergent evidence for the qualitative trend in the examples studied. However, the paper's universal claim for 'any arbitrary pure quantum state' rests entirely on the derivation in Section IV, and that derivation has load-bearing gaps and apparent inconsistencies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (26)-(28)] Equation (28) is not a valid consequence of Eq. (26) as printed. Integrating Eq. (26) over a moving patch yields ˙v = ∮ (1+n−ωn)(β·n)W dl + (1/2)(1+n+ωn)∮ ∇W·n dl plus the boundary-motion term from Reynolds' theorem. The printed Eq. (28) omits the contraction/advection term and uses diffusion coefficient (n+1)/2 instead of (1+n+ωn)/2. The same coefficient error appears in Eq. (31). Since Table II is computed from Eqs. (28) and (31), the quantitative entries—including the central comparison ˙v(0)/v(0) = −35 vs −96—are not supported by the derivation as written.
  2. [Sec. IV, after Eq. (28)] The assertion that 'the signs of v(τ) and any ∇W·n on the boundary must be opposite' is not generally true and is not proved. For a patch whose boundary passes through a saddle point, or for a patch that is not a level-set region of W, the boundary flux integral can have the same sign as the patch volume. The argument therefore does not establish the conclusion that tiny-scale structures are 'inevitably prone to disruption.' This is a load-bearing step for the universality claim.
  3. [Sec. IV–V and Table II] The generalization from the examples to 'any arbitrary pure quantum state' is not justified. The Fokker–Planck equation is linear, with state-independent coefficients, but the rate of change of a patch's volume or area depends on the boundary values of W and its gradients—not on the patch's area alone. Table II samples only one central positive patch for three states (two compass states and one optimized state). No argument is given that a single simply connected patch of these special states is representative of all pure states. A broader set of examples or a rigorous bound is needed before the universal statement in Sec. V can stand.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The notation T is used both for the scaled temperature (1+2n)T and for T=1−e^{−2ωt}. This is confusing; use different symbols (e.g., T_scaled and τ-dependent factor).
  2. [Eq. (12)] The first term has coefficient (n+1) while the second has ωn. In the standard thermal-reservoir master equation both terms are multiplied by the same damping rate. As written, this is dimensionally/operationally inconsistent; a reader cannot verify the Fokker–Planck coefficients in Eq. (26) without a stated convention (e.g., ω=1 for the first term).
  3. [Eq. (16)] The sum over n′ from 0 to ∞ contains factorials (p−n−n′)!, which are undefined for n+n′>p unless a truncation or convention is specified. The convergence/domain of the double sum should be stated.
  4. [Table II] The column headers are not fully self-explanatory. For instance, the relation between ˙v(0) and v(0) and the normalization of ˙a+(0) should be defined explicitly in the caption or the surrounding text.
  5. [General] There are several typographical issues and duplicated references (e.g., Refs. [18]–[20] and [112], Refs. [80] and [87]); the reference list should be cleaned before submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the scale-fragility law is derived from the Fokker–Planck/master-equation dynamics and evaluated numerically, not fitted to itself.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain in Sec. IV. The central claim that smaller phase-space features decohere faster is obtained by applying Reynolds transport and boundary arguments to the Wigner Fokker–Planck equation Eq. (26), which is the standard phase-space form of the thermal-reservoir master equation Eq. (12). No parameter is fitted to the conclusion; the quantities a_+(0), v(0), vdot(0), and adot(0) in Table II are computed from the analytic Wigner functions and the same differential equation. The small-scale/more-fragile relation is therefore a computed consequence of diffusion, not an input. The paper cites prior work by the same group ([43], [59]) for the optimized compass states and related reservoir studies, but those citations are not load-bearing for the universal claim: the states are redefined in the text, and the Fokker–Planck derivation does not depend on those papers. The genuinely weak points are the unproved sign assertion after Eq. (28) and the apparent inconsistency between the diffusion coefficient in Eq. (26) and the coefficients appearing in Eqs. (28) and (31). Those are correctness and derivation-validity concerns, not circularity: they concern whether the printed equations follow from the master equation, not whether an output is equivalent to an input by construction. No load-bearing step reduces the conclusion to its own assumptions, so no circularity step is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on (i) the standard thermal-reservoir Lindblad dynamics, (ii) a chain of standard integral/Hermite identities used to obtain closed forms, (iii) Section IV's transport-theorem analysis whose sign and coefficient steps are partly asserted rather than proven, and (iv) the implicit assumption that the compass-family central patches are representative of 'any pure quantum state.' No new physical entities are introduced — the Wigner 'patches' A(τ) are mathematical constructs of the analysis, not physical postulates. X0, p, q, and n are physical state/reservoir parameters scanned by hand, not fit to data.

free parameters (3)
  • X0 (coherent-state amplitude) = scanned 0.5–5; 1.5, 3, 5 in Tables I–II
    State-preparation knob controlling phase-space feature scale; the central fragility claim is parameterized by it. It is a physical input scanned by hand, not fitted to data.
  • p, q (photon addition/subtraction counts) = p=q=14 and 20 in Tables I–II
    Multiphoton operation counts generating the optimized compass states; scanned by hand; the claim that addition (subtraction) shrinks (enlarges) features and increases (decreases) fragility is parameterized by them.
  • n (mean thermal photon number) = 0.5 and 1.0 in Tables I–II
    Reservoir temperature parameter; scanned, not fitted. Larger n accelerates all decay measures.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Thermal-reservoir master equation (12) in Lindblad form, and its Fokker-Planck rewriting (26)
    Standard Born-Markov single-mode thermal bath. The paper does not verify the coefficient consistency between (12), (26), and (28): ω is mixed with the dimensionless n differently in each equation.
  • ad hoc to paper Sign opposition of patch volume v(τ) and boundary flux ∮∇W·n for the central patch
    Sec. IV states 'the signs of v(τ) and any ∇W·n on the boundary must be opposite' and uses it to conclude tiny structures are 'inevitably prone to disruption'; no proof is given for generic, possibly non-simply-connected patches.
  • standard math Gaussian integral formula (14) with stated convergence conditions
    Standard complex-Gaussian integration from Puri's textbook [120]; used to reach the closed form (15)-(16).
  • standard math Reynolds transport theorem and the constant boundary integral ∮∇·(∇W/|∇W|)dl = 2π for a closed level curve
    Standard vector calculus / curvature formula (Goldman [124]); the 'geometric effect' term -2π(n+1/2) in Eq. (31) relies on it.
  • standard math Hermite-polynomial operator-ordering identities from Refs. [118, 119]
    Used to reorder â^q â†^p and to evaluate the time-evolved Wigner function of the optimized compass state.
  • domain assumption Representativeness of the central-patch analysis for 'any arbitrary pure quantum state'
    Section IV derives patch dynamics for a single simply connected positive patch, and Table II checks only the compass family; the Summary's universality claim extrapolates from these examples plus the asserted boundary sign behavior.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21783 in / 24430 out tokens · 253381 ms · 2026-08-03T15:47:03.058648+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Environmental decoherence occurs when a quantum system interacts with its surroundings, progressively reducing quantum interference and coherence, complicating the preservation of critical quantum features over time, especially during experimental implementation. The quantum features of a state can be represented in phase space via the Wigner function, which manifests across multiple scales, with decoherence potentially influencing each scale differently, as examined in this work. We consider the compass state and its photon-added and photon-subtracted variants (optimized compass states) as our representative examples, each of which exhibits phase-space features with dimensions beyond the Planck scale, making them suitable for quantum sensing applications. We investigate the interaction of these states with a heat reservoir by employing a range of well-established theoretical tools. We observe that compass states with finer-scale phase-space features are more fragile to decoherence, with parameters favoring greater sub-Planckness in phase space concomitantly increasing the fragility of these compass states to decoherence. Our findings are then validated for generic quantum states interacting with the heat reservoir, for which we provide analytical and numerical investigations, exploring the relationship between quantum state robustness to decoherence and the sizes of their phase-space features; that is, phase-space features at smaller scales decay faster under decoherence, and vice versa.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.15513 by Dong Wang, Jia-Xin Peng, Naeem Akhtar, Tan Hailin, Xiaosen Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: depicts heat maps of the Wigner functions of the compass state and its optimized variant, illustrating the variations in associated phase-space features by varying the parameters X0, p, and q. The central region empha￾sized in the black box [panels (a)-(c) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Variation of negativity in the Wigner function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The evolution over time of the Wigner functions cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Tomogram function for the case when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a). We now explore the scenario where the parameter X0 is held constant while p and q varies (optimized compass state), as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The temporal evolution of the Wigner negativity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Linear entropy evolution of the compass states in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Gerry and P

    C. Gerry and P. Knight,Introductory Quantum Op- tics(Cambridge University Press, England, Cambridge, 2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    Ficek and S

    Z. Ficek and S. Swain,Quantum Interference and Co- herence: Theory and Experiments, Vol. 100 (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Germany, 2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    Malnou, D

    M. Malnou, D. A. Palken, B. M. Brubaker, L. R. Vale, G. C. Hilton, and K. W. Lehnert, Squeezed vacuum used to accelerate the search for a weak classical signal, Phys- ical Review X9, 021023 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, G. J. Milburn, and S. L. Braunstein, Weak-force detection with superposed co- herent states, Physical Review A66, 023819 (2002)

    2002

  5. [5]

    Walther, J.-W

    P. Walther, J.-W. Pan, M. Aspelmeyer, R. Ursin, S. Gasparoni, and A. Zeilinger, De Broglie wavelength of a non-local four-photon state, Nature429, 158 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Super-resolving phase measurements with a multipho- ton entangled state, Nature429, 161 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    H. Kwon, K. C. Tan, T. Volkoff, and H. Jeong, Nonclas- sicality as a quantifiable resource for quantum metrol- ogy, Physical Review Letters122, 040503 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    W. Ge, K. Jacobs, S. Asiri, M. Foss-Feig, and M. S. Zubairy, Operational resource theory of nonclassicality via quantum metrology, Physical Review Research2, 023400 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Jeong, M

    H. Jeong, M. S. Kim, and J. Lee, Quantum-information processing for a coherent superposition state via a mixe- dentangled coherent channel, Physical Review A64, 052308 (2001)

    2001

  10. [10]

    Fr¨ owis, P

    F. Fr¨ owis, P. Sekatski, W. D¨ ur, N. Gisin, and N. Sangouard, Macroscopic quantum states: Measures, fragility, and implementations, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025004 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Fabre and N

    C. Fabre and N. Treps, Modes and states in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 035005 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    G. J. Milburn, Quantum and classical Liouville dynam- ics of the anharmonic oscillator, Physical Review A33, 674 (1986)

    1986

  13. [13]

    Yurke and D

    B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Generating Quantum Mechan- ical Superpositions of Macroscopically Distinguishable States via Amplitude Dispersion, Physical Review Let- ters57, 13 (1986)

    1986

  14. [14]

    J. Liu, W. Ge, and M. S. Zubairy, Classical-nonclassical polarity of Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 240201 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Kienzler, C

    D. Kienzler, C. Fl¨ uhmann, V. Negnevitsky, H.-Y. Lo, M. Marinelli, D. Nadlinger, and J. P. Home, Observation of quantum interference between separated mechanical oscillator wave packets, Physical Review Letters116, 140402 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    Navarrete-Benlloch,An Introduction to the Formal- ism of Quantum Information with Continuous Variables (Morgan & Claypool/IOP, Bristol, 2015)

    C. Navarrete-Benlloch,An Introduction to the Formal- ism of Quantum Information with Continuous Variables (Morgan & Claypool/IOP, Bristol, 2015)

    2015

  17. [17]

    W. P. Schleich,Quantum Optics in Phase Space(Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, 2001)

    2001

  18. [18]

    Davis, M

    J. Davis, M. Kumari, R. B. Mann, and S. Ghose, Wigner negativity in spin-jsystems, Physical Review Research 3, 033134 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Chabaud, P.-E

    U. Chabaud, P.-E. Emeriau, and F. Grosshans, Wit- nessing Wigner Negativity, Quantum5, 471 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Delfosse, P

    N. Delfosse, P. Allard Guerin, J. Bian, and R. Raussendorf, Wigner function negativity and con- textuality in quantum computation on Rebits, Physical Review X5, 021003 (2015)

    2015

  21. [21]

    H. P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle, Physical Review34, 163 (1929)

    1929

  22. [22]

    W. H. Zurek, Sub-Planck structure in phase space and its relevance for quantum decoherence, Nature412, 712 (2001)

    2001

  23. [23]

    L. A. Howard, T. J. Weinhold, F. Shahandeh, J. Combes, M. R. Vanner, A. G. White, and M. Ring- bauer, Quantum hypercube states, Physical Review Let- ters123, 020402 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Zheng, Y

    P. Zheng, Y. Cai, B. Xu, S. Wen, L. Zhang, Z. Ni, J. Mai, Y. Zeng, L. Lin, L. Hu, X. Deng, S. Liu, J. Shu, Y. Xu, and D. Yu, Quantum-enhanced dark matter detection using Schr¨ odinger cat states (2025), arXiv:2507.23538 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    D. A. R. Dalvit, R. L. de Matos Filho, and F. Toscano, Quantum metrology at the Heisenberg limit with ion trap motional compass states, New Journal of Physics 8, 276 (2006)

    2006

  26. [26]

    Toscano, D

    F. Toscano, D. A. R. Dalvit, L. Davidovich, and W. H. Zurek, Sub-Planck phase-space structures and Heisenberg-limited measurements, Physical Review A 73, 023803 (2006)

    2006

  27. [27]

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z.-J. Chen, Z. Ni, Y. Cai, J. Mai, L. Zhang, P. Zheng, H. Yu, C.-L. Zou, and et al., Quantum-enhanced metrology with large Fock states, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    K. Park, P. Marek, U. L. Andersen, and R. Filip, Quan- tum Rabi interferometry of motion and radiation, Quan- tum7, 1024 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Jacobs, P

    K. Jacobs, P. L. Knight, and V. Vedral, Determining the state of a single cavity mode from photon statistics, inQuantum Electronics and Laser Science Conference (Optica Publishing Group, 1997) p. QWD17

    1997

  30. [30]

    Chen, H.-Y

    Y.-R. Chen, H.-Y. Hsieh, J. Ning, H.-C. Wu, H. L. Chen, Z.-H. Shi, P. Yang, O. Steuernagel, C.-M. Wu, and R.-K. Lee, Generation of heralded optical cat states by photon addition, Physical Review A110, 023703 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Wenger, R

    J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Non- Gaussian statistics from individual pulses of squeezed light, Physical Review Letters92, 153601 (2004)

    2004

  32. [32]

    Dakna, T

    M. Dakna, T. Anhut, T. Opatrn´ y, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.- G. Welsch, Generating Schr¨ odinger-cat-like states by means of conditional measurements on a beam splitter, 14 Physical Review A55, 3184 (1997)

    1997

  33. [33]

    X.-B. Tang, F. Gao, Y.-X. Wang, J.-G. Wu, and F. Shuang, Non-Gaussian features from excited squeezed vacuum state, Optics Communications345, 86 (2015)

    2015

  34. [34]

    S. M. Barnett, G. Ferenczi, C. R. Gilson, and F. C. Speirits, Statistics of photon-subtracted and photon- added states, Physical Review A98, 013809 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Guerrini, M

    S. Guerrini, M. Z. Win, and A. Conti, Photon-varied quantum states: Unified characterization, Physical Re- view A108, 022425 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Zavatta, V

    A. Zavatta, V. Parigi, M. S. Kim, and M. Bellini, Sub- tracting photons from arbitrary light fields: experimen- tal test of coherent state invariance by single-photon annihilation, New Journal of Physics10, 123006 (2008)

    2008

  37. [37]

    M. M. Lund, F. Yang, V. R. Christiansen, D. Kornovan, and K. Mølmer, Subtraction and addition of propagat- ing photons by two-level emitters, Physical Review Let- ters133, 103601 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Takase, J.-i

    K. Takase, J.-i. Yoshikawa, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, and A. Furusawa, Generation of optical Schr¨ odinger cat states by generalized photon subtraction, Physical Re- view A103, 013710 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Hertz, N

    A. Hertz, N. J. Cerf, and S. De Bi` evre, Relating the entanglement and optical nonclassicality of multimode states of a bosonic quantum field, Physical Review A 102, 032413 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    Akhtar, J

    N. Akhtar, J. Wu, J.-X. Peng, W.-M. Liu, and G. Xi- anlong, Sub-Planck structures and sensitivity of the su- perposed photon-added or photon-subtracted squeezed- vacuum states, Physical Review A107, 052614 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Generating optical Schr¨ odinger kittens for quantum information processing, Science312, 83 (2006)

    2006

  42. [42]

    J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, B. M. Nielsen, C. Hettich, K. Mølmer, and E. S. Polzik, Generation of a Superposi- tion of Odd Photon Number States for Quantum Infor- mation Networks, Physical Review Letters97, 083604 (2006)

    2006

  43. [43]

    Akhtar, X

    N. Akhtar, X. Yang, J.-X. Peng, I. Ul Haq, Y. Xie, and Y. Chen, Sub-shot-noise sensitivity via superpositions of two deformed kitten states, Physical Review A111, 032407 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    D. C. Brody, E.-M. Graefe, and R. Melanathuru, Phase-space measurements, decoherence, and classical- ity, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 120201 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Twamley, Phase-space decoherence: A comparison between consistent histories and environment-induced superselection, Physical Review D48, 5730 (1993)

    J. Twamley, Phase-space decoherence: A comparison between consistent histories and environment-induced superselection, Physical Review D48, 5730 (1993)

    1993

  46. [46]

    Tsubouchi, Y

    K. Tsubouchi, Y. Mitsuhashi, R. Takagi, and N. Yosh- ioka, Symmetric channel verification for purifying noisy quantum channels, PRX Quantum6, 040310 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Ullah, T

    A. Ullah, T. M. Naseem, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Mix- ing thermal coherent states for precision and range en- hancement in quantum thermometry, Quantum Science and Technology10, 015044 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Braun, F

    D. Braun, F. Haake, and W. T. Strunz, Universality of decoherence, Physical Review Letters86, 2913 (2001)

    2001

  49. [49]

    J. C. Retamal and N. Zagury, Stability of quantum states under dissipation, Physical Review A63, 032106 (2001)

    2001

  50. [50]

    Pellizzari, S

    T. Pellizzari, S. A. Gardiner, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Decoherence, continuous observation, and quantum computing: A cavity QED model, Physical Review Let- ters75, 3788 (1995)

    1995

  51. [51]

    Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Re- ports831, 1 (2019)

    M. Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Re- ports831, 1 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  53. [53]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence and the transition from quan- tum to classical, Physics today44, 36 (1991)

    1991

  54. [54]

    K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Vedral, The classical-quantum boundary for correla- tions: Discord and related measures, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 1655 (2012)

    2012

  55. [55]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise 2nd Edition (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1999)

    1999

  56. [56]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quan- tum computer memory, Physical Review A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  57. [57]

    Fr¨ owis, P

    F. Fr¨ owis, P. Sekatski, W. D¨ ur, N. Gisin, and N. Sangouard, Macroscopic quantum states: Mea- sures, fragility, and implementations, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics90, 025004 (2018)

    2018

  58. [58]

    M. S. Kim and V. Buˇ zek, Schr¨ odinger-cat states at fi- nite temperature: Influence of a finite-temperature heat bath on quantum interferences, Physical Review A46, 4239 (1992)

    1992

  59. [59]

    Akhtar, X

    N. Akhtar, X. Yang, M. Asjad, J.-X. Peng, G. Xianlong, and Y. Chen, Compasslike states in a thermal reservoir and fragility of their nonclassical features, Physical Re- view A109, 053718 (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    B. D. Hauer, J. Combes, and J. D. Teufel, Nonlinear sideband cooling to a cat state of motion, Physical Re- view Letters130, 213604 (2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    C. J. Myatt, B. E. King, Q. A. Turchette, C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Decoherence of quantum superpositions through coupling to engineered reservoirs, Nature403, 269 (2000)

    2000

  62. [62]

    Deleglise, I

    S. Deleglise, I. Dotsenko, C. Sayrin, J. Bernu, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Reconstruction of non- classical cavity field states with snapshots of their deco- herence, Nature455, 510 (2008)

    2008

  63. [63]

    Brune, E

    M. Brune, E. Hagley, J. Dreyer, X. Ma ˆ ıtre, A. Maali, C. Wunderlich, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Ob- serving the progressive decoherence of the “Meter” in a quantum measurement, Physical Review Letters77, 4887 (1996)

    1996

  64. [64]

    F.-X. Sun, Y. Fang, Q. He, and Y. Liu, Generating op- tical cat states via quantum interference of multi-path free-electron–photons interactions, Science Bulletin68, 1366 (2023)

    2023

  65. [65]

    Kol´ aˇ r and R

    M. Kol´ aˇ r and R. Filip, Negative Wigner function by decaying interaction from equilibrium, Quantum8, 1566 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    G. S. Agarwal, Brownian motion of a quantum oscilla- tor, Physical Review A4, 739 (1971)

    1971

  67. [68]

    Q. A. Turchette, C. S. Wood, B. E. King, C. J. My- att, D. Leibfried, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Deterministic entanglement of two trapped ions, Physical Review Letters81, 3631 (1998). 15

    1998

  68. [69]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum reser- voir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions, Physical Review Letters77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  69. [70]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Dynamics of the dis- sipative two-state system, Reviews of Modern Physics 59, 1 (1987)

    1987

  70. [71]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Erratum: Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system, Reviews of Modern Physics67, 725 (1995)

    1995

  71. [72]

    A. L. A.O Caldeira, Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system, Annals of Physics149, 374 (1983)

    1983

  72. [73]

    Caldeira and A

    A. Caldeira and A. Leggett, Path integral approach to quantum Brownian motion, Physica A: Statistical Me- chanics and its Applications121, 587 (1983)

    1983

  73. [74]

    A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Influence of damp- ing on quantum interference: An exactly soluble model, Physical Review A31, 1059 (1985)

    1985

  74. [75]

    A. J. Leggett, Schr¨ odinger’s cat and her laboratory cousins, Contemporary Physics25, 583 (1984)

    1984

  75. [76]

    Sackett, C

    C. Sackett, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Decoherence of motional superpositions of a trapped ion, Chaos, Soli- tons & Fractals16, 431 (2003)

    2003

  76. [77]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Effect of dissipation on quantum coherence, Physical Review A31, 2403 (1985)

    1985

  77. [78]

    Jeong and T

    H. Jeong and T. C. Ralph, Quantum superpositions and entanglement of thermal states at high temperatures and their applications to quantum-information process- ing, Physical Review A76, 042103 (2007)

    2007

  78. [79]

    Schleich and J

    W. Schleich and J. A. Wheeler, Oscillations in photon distribution of squeezed states and interference in phase space, Nature326, 574 (1987)

    1987

  79. [80]

    X. Yu, B. Wilhelm, D. Holmes, A. Vaartjes, D. Schwien- bacher, M. Nurizzo, A. Kringhøj, M. R. v. Blankenstein, A. M. Jakob, P. Gupta,et al., Schr¨ odinger cat states of a nuclear spin qudit in silicon, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  80. [81]

    I. Yang, T. Agrenius, V. Usova, O. Romero-Isart, and G. Kirchmair, Hot Schr¨ odinger cat states, Science Ad- vances11, eadr4492 (2025)

    2025

Showing first 80 references.