pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05015 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Dephasing Effects on the Dynamical Evolution of Quantum Correlations and Coherence in Neutrino Oscillations

Omar Bachain , Elhabib Jaloum , Mohamed Amazioug , Nazek Alessa , Wedad R. Alharbi , Rachid Ahl Laamara , Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Aty
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords neutrino oscillationsquantum steeringlogarithmic negativityquantum coherencedecoherenceopen quantum systemsMarkovian dynamicsnon-Markovian dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

In neutrino oscillations treated as open two-level systems, quantum steering decays fastest under decoherence while coherence persists longest.

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

The paper models neutrino oscillations as an effective two-level quantum system interacting with its environment through amplitude damping, phase flip, and phase damping channels. It computes the time evolution of quantum steering, logarithmic negativity as a measure of entanglement, and quantum coherence for both Markovian and non-Markovian dynamics. A clear ordering appears in which steering is suppressed most quickly, entanglement lasts longer, and coherence survives the longest. In the two dephasing channels the negativity and coherence measures follow exactly the same curves. Memory effects produce partial revivals for entanglement and coherence but leave steering suppressed throughout.

Core claim

By representing neutrino flavor transitions as the dynamics of an open two-level system subject to amplitude-damping, phase-flip and phase-damping noise, the authors establish that quantum steering vanishes under the weakest decoherence, logarithmic negativity decays at an intermediate rate, and quantum coherence remains finite over the largest interval of parameters; furthermore, in phase-flip and phase-damping channels the negativity and coherence exhibit identical functional dependence on time.

What carries the argument

The open-system evolution of the two-flavor neutrino density matrix under the amplitude-damping, phase-flip, and phase-damping channels, from which the decay rates of steering, logarithmic negativity, and coherence are extracted.

If this is right

  • Steering signatures in neutrino systems are lost at shorter distances or lower energies than entanglement or coherence signatures.
  • Phase-flip and phase-damping noise produce indistinguishable dynamics for entanglement and coherence.
  • Non-Markovian memory allows temporary restoration of entanglement and coherence but not of steering.
  • Coherence can serve as a more robust witness of nonclassicality in noisy neutrino propagation than entanglement measures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Experiments at longer baselines might still detect coherence even after steering and entanglement have decohered.
  • The shared behavior under phase noise points to a common dependence on off-diagonal phase relations in the density matrix.
  • Generalizing the model to three neutrino flavors could reveal whether the robustness hierarchy survives additional mixing angles.

Load-bearing premise

The physical decoherence experienced by propagating neutrinos is well approximated by the combination of amplitude-damping, phase-flip, and phase-damping channels acting on an effective two-level system.

What would settle it

Detection of steering that survives longer than quantum coherence for any choice of neutrino energy, baseline, or noise strength would falsify the reported robustness ordering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05015 by Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Aty, Elhabib Jaloum, Mohamed Amazioug, Nazek Alessa, Omar Bachain, Rachid Ahl Laamara, Wedad R. Alharbi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Plot of the quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and quantum coherence as a function of view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Quantum steering view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a), quantum steering SA→B decreases monotonically with increasing decoherence parameter τ for all neutrino experiments and vanishes at large τ, indicating the loss of steerability. One can see that the KamLAND shows the highest robustness against phase noise, while the JUNO is the most sensitive. A direct comparison between the AD and PF channels shows that, although quantum steering decreases monotonical… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plot of the quantum steering view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: illustrates the dependence of quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and quantum coherence on the parameter ϕ view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: presents the behavior of quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and quantum coherence as functions of the parameter ϕ under the Phase Flip (PF) channel for the KamLAND, Daya Bay, and JUNO experiments. Panels (a)-(c) illustrate the variation of quantum steering SA→B for several values of the decoherence parameter τ. In all configurations, steering is suppressed in the vicinity of ϕ = 0 and ϕ = π, while a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: displays the evolution of quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and quantum coherence as functions of the parameter ϕ under the Phase Damping (PD) channel for the KamLAND, Daya Bay, and JUNO experiments. Quantum steering, shown in panels (a)–(c), is suppressed near ϕ = 0 and ϕ = π and attains its maximum around ϕ = π/2, while its magnitude decreases steadily as the decoherence parameter τ increases. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and quantum coherence under the amplitude damping (AD), phase flip (PF), view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Dynamical evolution of quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and quantum coherence in the Markovian regime as functions of view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Dynamical evolution of quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and quantum coherence in the non-Markovian regime as functions view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Neutrino oscillations confirm the presence of mode entanglement, as each flavor eigenstate is composed of a coherent superposition of distinct mass eigenstates. In this work, we investigate the dynamics of quantum resources in neutrino oscillation systems by analyzing quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and quantum coherence within a two-flavor framework. Treating neutrino oscillations as an effective two-level quantum system, we study the influence of environmental decoherence on these nonclassical features by modeling the system as an open quantum system. Three representative noise channels are considered, namely amplitude damping (AD), phase flip (PF), and phase damping (PD), allowing us to capture both dissipative and dephasing mechanisms. We examine the evolution of quantum resources in both Markovian and non-Markovian regimes, highlighting the role of memory effects in the system-environment interaction. The results reveal a clear hierarchy in the robustness of quantum resources under decoherence. Steering is the most sensitive correlation in the hierarchy under decoherence effects. while logarithmic negativity exhibits intermediate robustness. Quantum coherence displays the highest resilience, persisting over a wider range of parameters. In the PF and PD channels, logarithmic negativity and coherence are shown to exhibit identical dynamical behavior, reflecting their common dependence on phase-related noise. In contrast, the non-Markovian regime leads to delayed decoherence and partial revivals of entanglement and coherence due to information backflow, whereas quantum steering remains strongly suppressed. These findings provide a comparison of different quantum resources in neutrino oscillation systems and offer new insights into the interplay between decoherence mechanisms and quantum correlations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript models two-flavor neutrino oscillations as an effective qubit and evolves the state under amplitude-damping, phase-flip, and phase-damping channels in both Markovian and non-Markovian regimes. It computes the time dependence of quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and quantum coherence, reporting a robustness hierarchy (steering most fragile, negativity intermediate, coherence most resilient), identical dynamics of negativity and coherence under PF and PD, and partial revivals of entanglement and coherence (but not steering) due to non-Markovian backflow.

Significance. If the chosen noise channels are accepted as representative, the work supplies a concrete comparison of how standard quantum-information measures respond to dissipative versus dephasing noise and to memory effects in a neutrino-oscillation context. The explicit demonstration that steering is suppressed while coherence persists, together with the PF/PD equivalence, is a clear, falsifiable result that could be checked by other groups using the same Kraus maps.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model section] §2 (or the section introducing the open-system model): the physical motivation for replacing neutrino propagation decoherence with the Kraus operators of AD, PF, and PD is not supplied. The dominant mechanisms in the literature (wave-packet separation yielding a Gaussian factor exp[−(Δm²L/2E)²σ²/2], MSW matter effects, or stochastic magnetic fields) produce baseline- or energy-dependent damping that is not equivalent to the exponential or oscillatory decay generated by these channels. Because the abstract and conclusions present the hierarchy as a feature of “neutrino oscillation systems,” this modeling choice is load-bearing and requires explicit justification or a comparative calculation.
  2. [Results] Results section (figures showing the three measures): the reported identity between logarithmic negativity and coherence under PF and PD is stated but not derived from the explicit evolved density-matrix elements. The paper should show that the off-diagonal terms that enter both measures are damped by exactly the same factor in these two channels, or supply the algebraic reason for the coincidence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction cite no prior works on decoherence in neutrino oscillations (e.g., wave-packet or matter-effect treatments). Adding two or three key references would clarify how the present channel-based approach relates to existing literature.
  2. [Numerical results] Parameter values (mixing angle, mass-squared difference, baseline L, energy E, and the decoherence rates Γ) are not listed in the text or figure captions. Supplying a table of the numerical values used for all plots would make the results reproducible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model section] §2: the physical motivation for replacing neutrino propagation decoherence with the Kraus operators of AD, PF, and PD is not supplied. The dominant mechanisms in the literature (wave-packet separation yielding a Gaussian factor exp[−(Δm²L/2E)²σ²/2], MSW matter effects, or stochastic magnetic fields) produce baseline- or energy-dependent damping that is not equivalent to the exponential or oscillatory decay generated by these channels. Because the abstract and conclusions present the hierarchy as a feature of “neutrino oscillation systems,” this modeling choice is load-bearing and requires explicit justification or a comparative calculation.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript did not sufficiently articulate the rationale for selecting these particular channels. In the revised Section 2 we have added an explicit statement clarifying that the amplitude-damping, phase-flip and phase-damping maps are employed as standard phenomenological models that separately capture dissipative and dephasing effects within an effective two-level description of neutrino oscillations. This choice permits a controlled comparison of the robustness of steering, negativity and coherence under Markovian and non-Markovian dynamics, which is the central aim of the work. While we acknowledge that realistic neutrino decoherence (e.g., Gaussian wave-packet damping) is baseline- and energy-dependent and not identical to the exponential or oscillatory factors produced by the chosen Kraus operators, the paper does not claim equivalence to any specific physical mechanism; it reports the hierarchy that emerges for these representative channels. A quantitative comparison with microscopic neutrino decoherence models would constitute a separate study and is therefore left for future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: the reported identity between logarithmic negativity and coherence under PF and PD is stated but not derived from the explicit evolved density-matrix elements. The paper should show that the off-diagonal terms that enter both measures are damped by exactly the same factor in these two channels, or supply the algebraic reason for the coincidence.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The original text noted the numerical coincidence but did not supply the algebraic origin. In the revised Results section we now present the explicit time-evolved density matrices for both the phase-flip and phase-damping channels. For both maps the off-diagonal element ρ_{12}(t) acquires the identical damping factor (1−2λ(t)), where λ(t) is the channel parameter. Because the logarithmic negativity is determined by the singular values involving |ρ_{12}| and the l1-norm coherence is exactly 2|ρ_{12}|, the two quantities necessarily share the same functional dependence on time. This algebraic identity is now derived and displayed explicitly in the manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper models neutrino oscillations as an effective two-level system and evolves the state under the Kraus operators of standard amplitude damping, phase flip, and phase damping channels (both Markovian and non-Markovian). Quantum steering, logarithmic negativity, and coherence are then evaluated using their conventional definitions. The reported hierarchy and identical PF/PD behavior emerge directly as outputs of these explicit time-evolution calculations; no parameter is fitted to the target results, no quantity is defined in terms of itself, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or ansatz smuggled from prior work by the same authors. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the stated model assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the two-flavor approximation for neutrinos and the assumption that standard quantum noise channels adequately represent environmental effects during oscillation; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • decoherence rates
    Rates governing the strength of amplitude damping, phase flip, and phase damping are required to evolve the system but are not specified in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Neutrino oscillations can be accurately modeled as an effective two-level quantum system
    Explicitly stated when the authors treat the system within a two-flavor framework.
  • domain assumption Environmental decoherence is captured by the amplitude damping, phase flip, and phase damping channels in Markovian and non-Markovian regimes
    The three representative noise channels are chosen to model both dissipative and dephasing mechanisms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5613 in / 1560 out tokens · 56373 ms · 2026-05-08T16:14:36.822886+00:00 · methodology

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

69 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Einstein, B

    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N.,Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, Phys. Rev.47, 777–780 (1935), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.47.777 1935

  2. [2]

    Cambridge Philos

    Schr¨odinger, E.,Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.31, 555–563 (1935), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100013554

    work page doi:10.1017/s0305004100013554 1935

  3. [3]

    S.,On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, Physics1, 195–200 (1964), https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654

    Bell, J. S.,On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, Physics1, 195–200 (1964), https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654

    1964

  4. [4]

    Aspect, P

    Aspect, A., Grangier, P. and Roger, G.,Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell’s Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 460–463 (1981), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.460

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.47.460 1981

  5. [5]

    Experimental test of B ell's inequalities using time-varying analyzers

    Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. and Roger, G.,Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1804–1807 (1982), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.49.1804 1982

  6. [6]

    Horodecki, P

    Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M. and Horodecki, K.,Quantum Entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865–942 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.865 2009

  7. [7]

    In:Physical Review Letters98.14, p

    Wiseman, H. M., Jones, S. J. and Doherty, A. C.,Steering, Entanglement, Nonlocality, and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140402 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.140402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.140402 2007

  8. [8]

    and Skrzypczyk, P.,Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite programming, Rep

    Cavalcanti, D. and Skrzypczyk, P.,Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite programming, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 024001 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/80/2/024001

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/80/2/024001 2017

  9. [10]

    B.,Logarithmic Negativity: A Full Entanglement Monotone That Is Not Convex, Phys

    Plenio, M. B.,Logarithmic Negativity: A Full Entanglement Monotone That Is Not Convex, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 090503 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.090503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.090503 2005

  10. [11]

    Baumgratz, M

    Baumgratz, T., Cramer, M. and Plenio, M. B.,Quantifying Coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.140401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.140401 2014

  11. [12]

    Streltsov, G

    Streltsov, A., Adesso, G. and Plenio, M. B.,Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.041003

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.041003 2017

  12. [13]

    Cavazzoni, B

    S. Cavazzoni, B. Teklu and M. G. Paris,Frequency estimation by frequency jumps, npj Quantum Inf.11, 174 (2025), doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00974-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00974-5 2025

  13. [14]

    He and M

    J. He and M. G. Paris,Scrambling for precision: optimizing multiparameter qubit estimation in the face of sloppiness and incompati- bility, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.58, 325301 (2025), doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad8f0a

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad8f0a 2025

  14. [15]

    Asjad, B

    M. Asjad, B. Teklu and M. G. Paris,Joint quantum estimation of loss and nonlinearity in driven-dissipative Kerr resonators, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013185 (2023), doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013185. 19

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.013185 2023

  15. [17]

    Breuer, H.-P. and Petruccione, F.,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002), https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-theory-of-open-quantum-systems-9780199213900

    2002

  16. [18]

    M., Suominen, K.-A

    Palma, G. M., Suominen, K.-A. and Ekert, A. K.,Quantum Computers and Dissipation, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A452, 567–584 (1996), https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1996.0029

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1996.0029 1996

  17. [19]

    and Piilo, J.,Measure for the Degree of Non-Markovian Behavior of Quantum Processes, Phys

    Breuer, H.-P., Laine, E.-M. and Piilo, J.,Measure for the Degree of Non-Markovian Behavior of Quantum Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 210401 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.210401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.210401 2009

  18. [20]

    Rivas, A., Huelga, S. F. and Plenio, M. B.,Quantum non-Markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 094001 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/77/9/094001

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/77/9/094001 2014

  19. [21]

    de Vega \ and\ author D

    de Vega, I. and Alonso, D.,Dynamics of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015001 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015001

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.015001 2017

  20. [22]

    Pontecorvo, B.,Mesonium and Antimesonium, Sov. Phys. JETP6, 429–431 (1957), http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi- bin/dn/e 006 03 0429.pdf

    1957

  21. [23]

    Pontecorvo, B.,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge, Sov. Phys. JETP26, 984–988 (1968), http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e 026 05 0984.pdf

    1968

  22. [24]

    M. M. Ettefaghi, Z. S. Tabatabaei Lotfi and R. Ramezani Arani,Quantum correlations in neutrino oscillation: Coherence and entan- glement, Europhys. Lett.132, 31002 (2020), doi:10.1209/0295-5075/132/31002

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/132/31002 2020

  23. [25]

    Dixit and A

    K. Dixit and A. K. Alok,New physics effects on quantum coherence in neutrino oscillations, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 310 (2021), doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01375-3

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01375-3 2021

  24. [26]

    Blasone, S

    M. Blasone, S. De Siena and C. Matrella,Wave packet approach to quantum correlations in neutrino oscillations, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 660 (2021), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09451-6

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09451-6 2021

  25. [27]

    V . A. S. V . Bittencourt, M. Blasone, S. De Siena and C. Matrella,Complete complementarity relations for quantum correlations in neutrino oscillations, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 566 (2022), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10448-1

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10448-1 2022

  26. [28]

    X. K. Song, Y . Huang, J. Ling and M. H. Yung,Quantifying quantum coherence in experimentally observed neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. A98, 050302 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.050302

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.050302 2018

  27. [29]

    A. K. Alok, T. J. Chall, N. R. S. Chundawat, S. Gangal and G. Lambiase,Quantum coherence in neutrino spin-flavor oscillations, Phys. Rev. D111, 036015 (2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.036015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.036015 2025

  28. [30]

    Yadav and A

    B. Yadav and A. K. Alok,Impact of scalar NSI on spatial and temporal correlations in neutrino oscillations, J. Phys. G52, 125004 (2025), doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad3c8f

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad3c8f 2025

  29. [31]

    and Sakata, S.,Remarks on the Unified Model of Elementary Particles, Prog

    Maki, Z., Nakagawa, M. and Sakata, S.,Remarks on the Unified Model of Elementary Particles, Prog. Theor. Phys.28, 870–880 (1962), https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.28.870

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.28.870 1962

  30. [32]

    Rezzolla and O

    Giunti, C. and Kim, C. W.,Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198508717.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198508717.001.0001 2007

  31. [33]

    and Smirnov, A

    Blennow, M. and Smirnov, A. Yu.,Neutrino propagation in matter, Adv. High Energy Phys.2017, 1681575 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1681575

    work page doi:10.1155/2017/1681575 2017

  32. [34]

    A. K. Alok, M. Blasone, T. J. Chall, N. R. S. Chundawat and G. Lambiase,Coherent dynamics of flavor mode entangled neutrinos, arXiv:2501.06311 [hep-ph], DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06311 (2025)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.06311 2025

  33. [35]

    and Skrzypczyk, P.,Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite programming, Rep

    Cavalcanti, D. and Skrzypczyk, P.,Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite programming, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 024001 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aa7fca

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aa7fca 2017

  34. [36]

    Amazioug and M

    M. Amazioug and M. Daoud,Quantum steering vs entanglement and extracting work in an anisotropic two-qubit Heisen- berg model in presence of external magnetic fields with DM and KSEA interactions, Phys. Lett. A493, 129245 (2024), doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2023.129245

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2023.129245 2024

  35. [37]

    Jaloum and M

    E. Jaloum and M. Amazioug,Controlling the dynamical evolution of quantum coherence and quantum correlations in e +e− →Λ ¯Λ processes at BESIII, Phys. Rev. D113, 016024 (2026), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.113.016024

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.113.016024 2026

  36. [38]

    Jaloum and M

    E. Jaloum and M. Amazioug,Quantum teleportation, entanglement, LQU and LQFI in e +e− → ¯YY processes at BESIII through noisy channels, Nucl. Phys. B117255(2026), DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117255

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117255 2026

  37. [39]

    Y ., Metwally, N., Ahmed, M

    Abd-Rabbou, M. Y ., Metwally, N., Ahmed, M. M. A. and Obada, A. S.,Modern Physics Letters A37(22), 2250143 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1142/S021773232250143X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021773232250143x 2022

  38. [40]

    Peres, A.,Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.1413 1996

  39. [41]

    Computable measure of entanglement,

    Vidal, G. and Werner, R. F.,Computable measure of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032314

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.65.032314 2002

  40. [42]

    and Grudka, A.,Ordering two-qubit states with concurrence and negativity, Phys

    Miranowicz, A. and Grudka, A.,Ordering two-qubit states with concurrence and negativity, Phys. Rev. A70, 032326 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.032326

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.70.032326 2004

  41. [43]

    Pirandola, S

    S. Pirandola, S. Mancini, S. L. Braunstein and D. Vitali,Minimal qudit code for a qubit in the phase-damping channel, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032309 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.77.032309

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.77.032309 2008

  42. [44]

    bang-bang

    S. Damodarakurup, M. Lucamarini, G. Di Giuseppe, D. Vitali and P. Tombesi,Experimental inhibition of decoherence on flying qubits via “bang-bang” control, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 040502 (2009), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.040502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.040502 2009

  43. [45]

    M. Y . Abd-Rabbou, S. Khan and M. Shamirzaie,Quantum Fisher information and quantum coherence of an entangled bipartite state interacting with a common classical environment in accelerating frames, Quantum Inf. Process.21, 194 (2022), doi:10.1007/s11128- 022-03455-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128- 2022

  44. [46]

    Nielsen, M. A. and Chuang, I. L.,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010), 20 https://www.cambridge.org/9781107002173

    work page arXiv 2010

  45. [47]

    Daya Bay Collaboration,Study of the wave packet treatment of neutrino oscillation at Daya Bay, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 606 (2017), DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5220-2

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5220-2 2017

  46. [48]

    Araki, K

    T. Araki, K. Eguchi, S. Enomoto, K. Furuno, K. Ichimura, H. Ikeda (KamLAND Collaboration),Measurement of neutrino oscillation with KamLAND: evidence of spectral distortion, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 081801 (2005), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.081801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.081801 2005

  47. [49]

    Gando, Y

    A. Gando, Y . Gando, H. Hanakago, H. Ikeda, K. Inoue, K. Ishidoshiro (KamLAND Collaboration),Reactor on-offantineutrino mea- surement with KamLAND, Phys. Rev. D88, 033001 (2013), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.033001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.033001 2013

  48. [50]

    Adamson, C

    P. Adamson, C. Andreopoulos, K. E. Arms, R. Armstrong, D. J. Auty, D. S. Ayres, J. L. Thron,Measurement of neutrino oscillations with the MINOS detectors in the NuMI beam, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 131802 (2008), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.131802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.131802 2008

  49. [51]

    A. B. Sousa (MINOS and MINOS+Collaborations),MINOS and MINOS+results, in AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1666, no. 110004 (2015), p. 35, DOI: 10.1063/1.4915568

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4915568 2015

  50. [52]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Nucl

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration),The T2K experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A659, 106–135 (2011), arXiv:1106.1238 [physics.ins- det]

    work page arXiv 2011

  51. [53]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration),Observation of Electron Neutrino Appearance in a Muon Neutrino Beam, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 211803 (2013), arXiv:1308.0465 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2013

  52. [54]

    An et al

    F. An et al. (JUNO Collaboration),Neutrino Physics with JUNO, J. Phys. G43, 030401 (2016), arXiv:1507.05613 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2016

  53. [55]

    Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), Prog

    A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO Collaboration),The JUNO Experiment: Status and Prospects, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.103, 92 (2021), arXiv:2104.02565 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [56]

    Acciarriet al.(DUNE Collaboration), arXiv:1512.06148

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE Collaboration),Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv

  55. [57]

    Abiet al.(DUNE Collaboration), Eur

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration),Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 978 (2020), arXiv:2006.16043 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  56. [58]

    M. M. Guzzo, P. C. de Holanda and R. L. N. Oliveira,Quantum dissipation in neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D93, 093006 (2016), arXiv:1512.09038

    work page arXiv 2016

  57. [59]

    Stankevich and A

    K. Stankevich and A. Studenikin,Quantum decoherence of neutrino mass states, arXiv:2301.13522 [hep-ph] (2023), arXiv:2301.13522

    work page arXiv 2023

  58. [60]

    B. J. P. Jones,Decoherence by wave packet separation in neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D91, 053002 (2015), arXiv:1501.03056

    work page arXiv 2015

  59. [61]

    Authoret al.,Mathematical Anatomy of Neutrino Decoherence in Red Turbulence, arXiv:2601.20313 [hep-ph] (2026), arXiv:2601.20313

    A. Authoret al.,Mathematical Anatomy of Neutrino Decoherence in Red Turbulence, arXiv:2601.20313 [hep-ph] (2026), arXiv:2601.20313

    work page arXiv 2026

  60. [62]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010, DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511976667

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976667 2010

  61. [63]

    Hu and H

    M. Hu and H. Fan,Quantum coherence of multiqubit states in correlated noisy channels, Science China: Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy63, 230322 (2020), DOI: 10.1007/s11433-019-1462-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1462-9 2020

  62. [64]

    Hu and W

    M. Hu and W. Zhou,Quantum correlations in laser physics, Laser Physics Letters16, 045201 (2019), DOI: 10.1088/1612- 2011/16/4/045201

    work page doi:10.1088/1612- 2019

  63. [66]

    Macchiavello and G

    C. Macchiavello and G. M. Palma,Entanglement-enhanced information transmission over a quantum channel with correlated noise, Phys. Rev. A65, 050301(R) (2002), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.050301

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.65.050301 2002

  64. [67]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, and F. Illuminati,Entanglement in neutrino oscillations, Europhys. Lett.85, 50002 (2009), DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/85/50002

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/85/50002 2009

  65. [68]

    A. K. Alok, S. Banerjee, and S. U. Sankar,Quantum correlations in neutrino oscillations, Nucl. Phys. B909, 65 (2016), DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.05.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.05.021 2016

  66. [69]

    Banerjee, A

    S. Banerjee, A. K. Alok, and R. Srikanth,Quantum coherence, entanglement and neutrino oscillations, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 772 (2020), DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8292-5

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8292-5 2020

  67. [70]

    R. A. Bertlmann and W. Grimus,Quantum mechanics, neutrino oscillations and entanglement, Phys. Rev. D64, 056004 (2001), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.056004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.056004 2001

  68. [71]

    Brunner, A

    N. Brunner, A. Friedenauer, M. Navascu ´es, and A. Ac ´ın,Bell nonlocality in particle physics, Phys. Rev. D89, 015017 (2014), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.015017

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.015017 2014

  69. [72]

    Abubakaret al.(NOvA Collaboration),Precision Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation Parameters with 10 Years of Data from the NOvA Experiment, Phys

    S. Abubakaret al.(NOvA Collaboration),Precision Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation Parameters with 10 Years of Data from the NOvA Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 011802 (2026), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.136.011802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.136.011802 2026