arXiv:2109.09571v2 [quant-ph] 25 Sep 2021
Adri´an A. Budini
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas y T´ecnicas (CONICET), Centro At´omico Bariloche, Avenida E. Bustillo Km 9.5, (8400) Bariloche,
Argentina, and Universidad Tecnol´ogica Nacional (UTN-FRBA), Fanny Newbery 111, (8400) Bariloche, Argentina
(Dated: September 28, 2021)
Quantum memory effects can be induced even when the degrees of freedom associated to the environment are not affected at all during the system evolution. In this paper, based on a bipartite representation of the system-environment dynamics, we found the more general interactions that lead to this class of quantum non-Markovian “casual bystander environments.” General properties of the resulting dynamics are studied with focus on the system-environment correlations, a collisional measurement-based representation, and the quantum regression hypothesis. Memory effects are also characterized through an operational approach, which in turn allows to detect when the studied properties apply. Single and multipartite qubits dynamics support and exemplify the developed results.
I. INTRODUCTION
Both in classical and quantum realms, memory ef- fects emerge whenever a set of dynamical degrees of free- dom is not considered as part of the system of inter- est [1–4]. In classical systems (or incoherent ones), the presence of memory effects can be related to departures from a Markov property defined in a probabilistic frame.
In contrast, the definition of memory effects and non- Markovianity is much more subtle in a quantum regime.
Given that any quantum system is affected by a mea- surement process, a reasonable approach to defining quantum non-Markovianity is to study the properties of the (unperturbed) system density matrix propagator. In fact, the theory of quantum semigroups [5] is usually taken as a landmark of quantum Markovianity. Thus, any departure of the propagator properties with respect to that of a Lindblad evolution can be proposed as a signature of quantum non-Markovianity [6, 7]. This ap- proach has shown to be a very fruitful tool to study memory effects in quantum systems, leading to the for- mulation of many, in general inequivalent, memory wit- nesses (see for example Refs. [8–14]). One interesting per- spective that these studies provide is the understanding of memory effects through an “environment-to-system backflow of information” [8–11]. Information stored in the environment degrees of freedom may influence the system at later times, giving a solid and clear under- standing of memory effects.
In spite of the simplicity and efficacy of the previous theoretical perspective, it has been shown that memory effects may emerge even when the degrees of freedom as- sociated to the environment are not affected at all during the system evolution, which implies the absence of any
“physical” environment-to-system backflow of informa- tion. A clear situation where this occurs is in quantum systems coupled to incoherent degrees of freedom that have a fixed classical stochastic dynamics [15, 16].
While the previous drawback in the definition of infor- mation flows remains under debate [15–22], alternative
operational approaches to quantum memory effects [23–
32] furnish a possible solution. For example, by subject- ing a system to three successive measurements, a con- ditional past-future correlation [27] provides a memory witness that is consistent with the usual probabilistic approach to non-Markovianity. This object is defined by the correlation between the first and last outcomes conditioned to a given intermediate value. It vanishes in a (probabilistic) Markovian regime. In addition, by randomizing the intermediate post-measurement system state, even in presence of memory effects, the conditional past-future correlation vanishes when the environment is not affected by the system evolution [32]. Thus, it de- tects the presence or absence of “bidirectional system- environment information flows.” This last property pro- vides a solution to the previous drawback. In fact, a solid experimental procedure for distinguishing between mem- ory effects induced by environments that are affected or not by their interaction with the system is established.
The previous advancements left open an interesting is- sue whose formulation is independent of any memory wit- ness definition. Besides environments consisting of inco- herent degrees of freedom with a fixed classical stochastic dynamics, in which other situations it may occur that the environment is not affected at all by its interaction with the system? More specifically, we ask about the most general system-environment interactions that guarantee this property. The resolution of this problem is relevant for achieving a clear understanding of intrinsically differ- ent memory effects, that is, those where the environment is or not altered by its interaction with the system.
The main goal of this work is to answer the previ- ous question. We characterize the most general system- environment interactions that, even when the system de- velops memory effects, guarantee that the environment self-dynamics and state remain independent of the sys- tem degrees of freedom. For these “casual bystander environments,” special interest is paid to the resulting system dynamics, the system-environment correlations, a collisional measurement-based representation [33–40],
and the validity of the quantum regression hypothe- sis when analyzing system operator correlations [41–44].
General expressions for the conditional past-future cor- relation [27, 32] are also provided. The main results are exemplified by studying these properties and indicators for a class of qubit dynamics with single and multipartite dephasing channels.
The paper is outlined as follows. In Sec. II we derive the most general interaction consistent with a causal by- stander environment. General properties of the resulting system dynamics are analyzed in Sec. III. In Sec. IV we study single and multipartite examples. The conclusions are provided in Sec. V. Calculus details are presented in the Appendix.
II. QUANTUM “CASUAL BYSTANDER”
ENVIRONMENTS
We consider a system (s) interacting with uncontrol- lable quantum degrees of freedom that constitute the environment (e). Correspondingly, in the total Hilbert space Hs⊗ He, the bipartite density matrix is denoted as ρset . Its evolution is written as
d
dtρset = (Ls+ Le+ Lse)[ρset ], (1) where Lsand Ledefine the system and environment iso- lated dynamics respectively, while Lse introduce their mutual interaction. As usual, the marginal system and environment states follow by tracing out the complemen- tary degrees of freedom,
ρst= Tre[ρset ], ρet = Trs[ρset ], (2) where Tr[· · · ] is the trace operation. By definition, a ca- sual bystander environment is characterized by a density matrix ρet that is completely independent of the system state and dynamics. Consequently, its time-evolution (dρet/dt) must also fulfill the same property. From Eq. (1) we get (dρet/dt) = Le[ρet] + Trs(Lse[ρset ]), leading to the condition
Trs(Lse[ρset ]) = A[ρet], (3) where A is an arbitrary superoperator acting on ρet. This criterion allows us to find which kind of system- environment couplings fulfill the proposed definition.
A. Unitary coupling
A unitary coupling is set by a bipartite Hamiltonian Hse such that
Lse[•] = −i[Hse, •]. (4) In order to check condition (3), we introduce a complete orthogonal basis {|si} of the system Hilbert space such
thatP
s|sihs| = Is, where Is is the system identity ma- trix. We get,
Trs(Lse[ρset ]) = −iX
s,s′
[hs|Hse|s′i, hs′|ρset |si] . (5)
Thus, independence of the environment state of the sys- tem degrees of freedom requires hs|Hse|s′i = δs,s′Qe, which in turn implies Hse = Is⊗ Qe, where Qe = Q†e is an arbitrary operator acting on He. Nevertheless, this solution implies that system and environment do not in- teract. Consequently, it is impossible to obtain a casual bystander non-Markovian environment if it interacts uni- tarily with the system of interest.
The previous result is not valid when a Born-Markov approximation applies [2], where the environment state can be approximated by a stationary one, ρet = ρe0. Nev- ertheless, in this situation memory effects do not develop.
B. Dissipative coupling
After discarding the unitary property, now we consider dissipative system-environment couplings. Thus, the en- vironment is defined by a set of quantum degrees of free- dom whose interaction with the system can be approxi- mated by an arbitrary (non-diagonal) Lindblad superop- erator [2],
Lse[•] =X
i,j
γi,j(Ti• Tj†−1
2{Tj†Ti, •}+), (6) where {a, b}+≡ ab + ba. The complex parameters {γi,j} define the (diagonal and nondiagonal) rate coefficients of the dissipative channels corresponding to the bipar- tite operators {Ti}. Thus, they constitute an Hermi- tian positive definite matrix [5]. Under the replacements Ti → Vk ⊗ Bα, Tj → Vl⊗ Bβ and γi,j → γkα,lβ, where {Vk} and {Bα} are arbitrary operators acting on Hsand He respectively, Lse can be rewritten as
Lse[•] =X
kα,lβ
γkα,lβ(VkBα• B†βVl†−1
2{Vl†VkB†βBα, •}+).
(7) Here, the indexes run in the intervals k, l = 1, · · · , (dim Hs)2− 1, and α, β = 1, · · · , (dim He)2− 1.
By taking the trace to the interaction superoperator Lse[ρset ], we get
Trs(Lse[ρset ]) = X
α,β,s
Bαhs|Dα,βρset |siB†β−1 2Bβ†Bα
×hs|Dα,βρset |si −1
2hs|ρset Dα,β|siBβ†Bα
, where as before {|si} is a complete base in Hs. Further- more, we introduced the system operators {Dα,β},
Dα,β≡X
k,l
γkα,lβVl†Vk, D†α,β= Dβ,α. (8)
The Hermitian property is inherited from condition ρset = (ρset )† in Eq. (1). It is simple to realize that the con- straint (3) is fulfilled if
hs|Dα,β = Γα,βhs|, Dα,β|si = Γα,β|si, (9) where Γα,β are, in general, complex coefficients. Apply- ing P
s′|s′i and P
s′hs′| to the left and right equalities, using that D†α,β= Dβ,α, we get the equivalent conditions Dα,β = Γα,βIs, Γ∗α,β= Γβ,α. (10) Introducing the final constraints (10) into Eq. (7), we can write the bipartite interaction generator as
Lse[•] =X
α,β
Γα,β (BαSα,β[•]Bβ†−1
2{Bβ†Bα, •}+), (11) where the coefficients {Γα,β} define an Hermitian posi- tive definite matrix. Furthermore, {Sα,β} is a set of ar- bitrary completely positive system superoperators that fulfill the symmetry S†α,β = Sβ,α and are trace preserv- ing, Trs[Sα,β[ρs]] = Trs[ρs]. Hence, they can be written in a Kraus representation [2] as
Sα,β[•] =X
k
Vkαβ• Vk†αβ, X
k
Vk†αβVkαβ= Is, (12) where Vkαβ are (arbitrary) system operators. The bipar- tite system-environment evolution [Eq. (1)] can finally be written as
d
dtρset = (Ls+ Le)[ρset ] +X
α,β
Γα,β BαSα,β[ρset ]Bβ†
−1 2
X
α,β
Γα,β{B†βBα, ρset }+, (13)
where Lsand Leare arbitrary. This equation is the main result of this section. It defines the most general dis- sipative system-environment coupling that is consistent with a quantum non-Markovian casual bystander envi- ronment. In fact, after applying the (system) trace oper- ation to Eq. (13), and using the property (12), the density matrix ρet of the environment [Eq. (2)] evolves as
d
dtρet= Le[ρet] +X
α,β
Γα,β (BαρetBβ† −1
2{B†βBα, ρet}+).
(14) As expected, this Lindblad equation does not depend on the system degrees of freedom. On the other hand, the time evolution of the system state, ρst= Tre[ρset ], assum- ing uncorrelated initial conditions ρse0 = ρs0⊗ ρe0, from Eq. (13) can formally be written as a time-convoluted equation,
d
dtρst = Ls[ρst] + Z t
0
dt′Ks(t − t′)[ρst′], (15)
where the superoperator Ks(t) is defined in a Laplace domain [f (z) = R∞
0 dte−ztf (t)] from the relation Tre[Gzse(Le + Lse)ρ0e][•] = Tre[Gzseρe0]Ks(z)[•], where Gzse = [z − (Ls+ Le+ Lse)]−1 is the bipartite system- environment propagator.
Both, Eqs. (13) and (14) can always be reduced to a standard diagonal form [2, 5], which can be read by tak- ing Γα,β = δα,βΓα, where {Γα} are positive rate coeffi- cients. Furthermore, Eq. (15) can always be transformed into a convolutionless form [45].
III. GENERAL PROPERTIES
On the basis of Eq. (13), it is possible to establish gen- eral properties that characterize the system-environment dynamics.
A. System-environment correlations
Even for uncorrelated initial conditions, the evolu- tion (13) induces correlations between the system and the degrees of freedom associated to the environment.
These correlations can be characterized from the bipar- tite state ρset . Here, we show that, for uncorrelated initial conditions, ρse0 = ρs0⊗ ρe0, it always assumes the structure
ρset =X
c
ρc(t) ⊗ |ctihct|, (16)
where {ρc(t)} are states (matrixes) in Hs and {|ctihct|}
are orthogonal time-dependent projectors in He, that is, hct|c′ti = δcc′. Consistently, the system and environment states read
ρst =X
c
ρc(t), ρet=X
c
pc(t)|ctihct|, (17)
where pc(t) ≡ Trs[ρc(t)]. From these expressions, it fol- lows that {|cti} is the base in which ρet becomes diagonal at time t. Furthermore, ρc(t) is the conditional state of the system given that the environment is in the state
|ctihct|.
The formal solution (16) implies that ρset is a sepa- rable state [46] with a null system-environment discord [47]. Hence, not any quantum entanglement (between the system and the environment) is produced during the evolution.
The validity of Eq. (16) can be established from the bipartite evolution (13). From these equations, for the system conditional states {ρc(t)}, we get the evolution
D
Dtρc(t) = Ls[ρc(t)] +X
˜ c
φc˜c(t)ρ˜c(t) −X
˜ c
φcc˜(t)ρc(t)
+X
˜ c
γc˜c(t)Sc˜c(t)[ρ˜c(t)] −X
˜ c
γcc˜(t)ρc(t). (18)
Here, a “total-time-derivative” was introduced, D
Dtρc(t) ≡ d
dtρc(t) +X
˜ c
hct|d
dt[Π˜ct]|ctiρ˜c(t), (19) where Πct ≡ |ctihct|. Furthermore, the time-dependent rates are
φc˜c(t) = hct|Le[Π˜ct]|cti ≥ 0, (20) and similarly
γcc˜(t) =X
α,β
Γα,β hct|Bα|˜ctih˜ct|Bβ†|cti ≥ 0, (21)
where the inequality follows straightforwardly from the diagonal rate representation Γα,β = δα,βΓα. Finally, in Eq. (18) the system superoperators Sc˜c(t)[•] read
Sc˜c(t)[•] = P
α,βΓα,β hct|Bα|˜ctih˜ct|Bβ†|ctiSα,β[•]
P
α,βΓα,β hct|Bα|˜ctih˜ct|B†β|cti , (22) which are trace preserving, Trs[Sc˜c(t)[ρ]] = Trs[ρ]. The system superoperators Sα,β[•] are defined by Eq. (12).
On the other hand, the evolution of the probabilities {pc(t)} [Eq. (17)] follows by taking the trace of Eq. (18), which yields
D
Dtpc(t) = +X
˜ c
φc˜c(t)p˜c(t) −X
˜ c
φ˜cc(t)pc(t)
+X
˜ c
γc˜c(t)pc˜(t) −X
˜ c
γ˜cc(t)pc(t). (23)
Here, (D/Dt)pc(t) follows from Eq. (19) under the re- placement ρc(t) → pc(t). Consistently, this equation does not depend on the system degrees of freedom.
The consistence of the time evolution of ρc(t) and pc(t) [Eqs. (18) and (23) respectively] supports the structure defined by Eq. (16). The physical meaning of these re- sults can be easily understood by analyzing an incoherent environment case.
B. Incoherent environment
If the degrees of freedom of the environment do not develop any (quantum) coherence, at any time its density matrix ρet is diagonal in a fixed base {|ci}. Thus, the previous results must be read under the replacement
|ctihct| → |cihc|. (24) In consequence, the total-time-derivative [Eq. (19)] be- comes an usual time-derivative, (D/Dt) → (d/dt), and the rates φc˜c(t) and γ˜cc(t) do not depend on time. In this situation, the probabilities {pc(t)} obey a standard clas- sical master equation [Eq. (23)]. Similarly, the evolution of the states {ρc(t)} [Eq. (18)] involves the same classical coupling with rates φc˜c, while the coupling with rates γc˜c
are endowed by the application of the superoperators Sc˜c
in each environment transition c ← ˜c. Thus, the evolu- tion becomes a particular case corresponding to a system driven by incoherent degrees of freedom that follows their own stochastic dynamics (see Eq. (27) in Ref. [16]).
When condition (24) is not fulfilled, the interpretation of Eqs. (18) and (23) remains the same as in the incoher- ent case. Nevertheless, the base {|cti} associated to the environment become time-dependent due to the intrinsic quantum nature of the environment degrees of freedom.
This effect is taken into account through the total-time- derivative D/Dt [Eq. (19)].
C. Measurement based stochastic representation
A clear understanding of the system-environment cou- pling can be achieved by representing their dynamics with a measurement-based [48, 49] stochastic bipartite state ρsest(t). Thus, in average over realizations (denoted with an overbar symbol) it follows
ρset = ρsest(t). (25) In principle, the state ρsest(t) can be formulated from the incoherent-like representation (18). A deeper un- derstanding is achieved by assuming that the degrees of freedom of the environment are subjected to continuous- in-time measurement process that resolves the transitions induced by the (bath) operators {Bα}. Thus, ρsest(t) fol- lows from the standard quantum jump approach [48, 49]
(for simplicity we consider in Eqs. (13) and (14) the di- agonal case Γα,β = δα,βΓα, denoting Sα,α ↔ Sα). The environment state is recovered as ρet = ρest(t), where ρest(t) = Trs[ρest(t)]. For a casual bystander environment, the evolution of ρest(t) is independent of the system dy- namics, being defined by the transitions associated to {Bα}. Similarly, from the evolution (13) it follows that the bipartite state (assuming uncorrelated initial condi- tions), must to take the form
ρsast(t) = ρsst(t) ⊗ ρest(t). (26) It is simple to realize that the dynamics of the system state ρsst(t) must include the action of the superoperator Sαwhenever the environment suffers a transition (jump) corresponding to the operator Bα. In this way, the bipar- tite system-environment correlations [Eq. (16)] are built up in average. On the other hand, between environment transitions, the state ρsst(t) evolves under the action of Ls. Thus, the system dynamics can be seen as a colli- sional one [33, 34], where the occurrence of the sudden (collisional) changes ρsst → Sα[ρsst] are dictated by the environment transitions associated to the operator Bα. We notice that this representation recover the results of Ref. [34], which can be read as a particular case of the general dynamics (13).
D. Quantum regression hypothesis
The underlying system-environment dynamics is Markovian [Eq. (13)]. Thus, the quantum regression the- orem (QRT) [48] is valid in the bipartite space Hs⊗ He. Introducing a vector of system operators A ↔ A ⊗ Ie, where A = (A1, A2,· · · , Adim(Hs)2), their expectation value at a time τ (for simplicity, also denoted with an overbar symbol) can be written as
A(τ ) = Trse(Gτ,0se[ρse0 ]A). (27) The bipartite propagator is Gτ,τse0≡ exp[(τ − τ0)LT], with LT ≡ (Ls+ Le+ Lse), where Lse follows from Eq. (13).
Given an extra system operator O ↔ O ⊗ Ie, the cor- relations O(t)A(t + τ ) follow from the QRT, which im- plies [48]
O(t)A(t + τ ) = Trse(AGt+τ,tse [ρset O]). (28) Now, we search conditions under which the QRT is valid on Hs. Thus, we explore if the previous (system) operator correlations can be written only in terms of the system propagator. Assuming uncorrelated initial condi- tions, ρse0 = ρs0⊗ ρe0, the system propagator Gτ,0s can be written as
Gτ,0s [•] ≡ Tre(Gτ,0se[•] ⊗ ρe0]). (29) Thus, from Eq. (27), the operator expectation values can be rewritten as
A(τ ) = Trs(Gτ,0s [ρs0]A). (30) On the other hand, it is simple to realize that the correla- tions (28) cannot be written only in terms of the system propagator Gt+τ,ts , which implies that the QRT is not valid in general on Hs. Nevertheless, assuming that the environment begins in its stationary state (ρe∞), and that the stationary bipartite state (limt→∞ρset ) do not involve system-environment correlations,
ρse0 = ρs0⊗ ρe∞, limt→∞ρset = ρs∞⊗ ρe∞, (31) in the long time limit the operator correlations become
limt→∞O(t)A(t + τ ) = Trs(AGτ,0s [ρs∞O]). (32) Thus, if the conditions (31) are fulfilled the QRT is valid in the stationary regime even when the system dynamics is non-Markovian. Interestingly, the same property arises in quantum systems coupled to arbitrary incoherent de- grees of freedom [42]. In fact, given that none condition on Gτ,0se was demanded in the previous derivation, this result is valid in general whenever the bipartite (system- environment) dynamics is a Markovian (Lindblad) one.
The explicit meaning of the restricted validity of the QRT becomes clear by writing A(τ ) = ˆT (τ )A(0), and the stationary correlations as limt→∞O(t)A(t + τ ) = T (τ ) limˆ t→∞O(t)A(t), where ˆT (τ ) is a matrix in the space corresponding to the vector of operators A(0) [48].
E. Operational memory witness
Memory effects can alternatively be characterized from measurement-based approaches. A conditional past- future (CPF) correlation [27] is defined by a set of three successive measurements performed over the system of interest. Here, they are taken as projective ones, cor- responding to Hermitian operators Om, denoted in suc- cessive order with m = x, y, z. Their eigenvectors and eigenvalues read Om|mi = m|mi, where correspondingly {m} = {x}, {y}, {z}. The measurements are performed at the initial time t = 0 (past), at time t (present) and t + τ (future) respectively. After the intermediate mea- surement at time t, the system post-measurement state is externally modified [32] as ρy = |yihy| → ρy˘= |˘yih˘y|.
A deterministic scheme (d) is defined by the condition
˘
y = y. Thus, not any change is introduced. A random scheme (r) is defined by a random election of ˘y (over the set {y}) with and arbitrary probability ℘(˘y|x), which may depend on the outcomes {x} of the first measure- ment performed at time t = 0. The CPF correlation de- pends on the chosen scheme. In both cases, it reads
Cpf(t, τ )|y˘ d/r= X
z,x
zx[P (z, x|˘y) − P (z|˘y)P (x|˘y)], (33)
where {z} and {x} are the eigenvalues of Ozand Ox re- spectively. With P (a|b) we denote the conditional prob- ability of a given b.
In the deterministic scheme, the CPF correlation van- ishes in a Markovian regime, where past and future outcomes are conditionally independent: P (z, x|˘y) = P (z|˘y)P (x|˘y) [27]. Thus, Cpf(t, τ )|y˘
d
6= 0 detects mem- ory effects independently of their underling mechanism.
This last property can be understood from the change of the bipartite state ρseafter the intermediate (projective) measurement,
ρse→ |yihy| ⊗ hy|ρse|yi
Trse[|yihy|ρse]. (34) The dependence of the environment post-measurement state hy|ρse|yi/Trse[|yihy|ρse] on the previous system his- tory (measurement outcomes at the initial time) allows to detect memory effects.
In the random scheme, even in presence of memory effects, the CPF correlation vanishes when the environ- ment is not affected during the system evolution [32].
Consequently, the presence of a (non-Markovian) ca- sual bystander environment implies that Cpf(t, τ )|˘y
=r
0. Alternatively, in the random scheme, the condition Cpf(t, τ )|y˘
r
6= 0 indicates departures with respect to a casual bystander environment, here defined by the con- dition Eq. (3).
The previous features of the random scheme can be understood from Eq. (34) by introducing the random system transformation |yihy| → |˘yih˘y| and averaging (marginating) the environment post-measurement states
(associated to the outcomes {y}) with their probabilities {Trse[|yihy|ρse]}. Thus, after the intermediate measure- ment the bipartite state transform as
ρse → |˘yih˘y| ⊗X
y
hy|ρse|yi = |˘yih˘y| ⊗ Trs[ρse]. (35)
From the definition of a casual bystander environment [see also Eq. (3)], it follows that the (bath) state Trs[ρse] does not depend on the previous (system) history, which implies that a Markov property characterize the outcome statistics. Consequently, the CPF correlation vanishes.
The conditional probabilities appearing in Eq. (33) can explicitly be calculated from the joint outcome prob- ability P (z, ˇy, x) ↔ P (z, t + τ ; ˇy, t; x, 0). As shown in Refs. [27, 32], this object can be calculated after knowing the system-environment propagator. In order to main- tain a description as simple as possible, we consider Eq. (13) in the diagonal case Γα,β = δα,βΓα (denoting Sα,α ↔ Sα) and assuming that the composition of two arbitrary superoperators can be written as a superopera- tor included in the master equation, that is, SαSα′ = Sα′′. Under these two conditions, the bipartite propagator, ρset = Gt,0se[ρs0⊗ ρe0], can be written in a general way as
ρset = ρs0⊗ F0(t)[ρe0] +X
α6=0α
Sα[ρs0] ⊗ Fα(t)[ρe0]. (36)
Here, the environment superoperators {Fα(t)}, which act on the initial environment state ρe0, depend on each spe- cific problem.
1. Deterministic scheme
In the deterministic scheme, the joint outcome proba- bility can be written as [32]
P (z, ˘y, x) P (x)
= Trd se(EzGset+τ,t[ρy˘⊗ Trs(Ey˘Gt,0se[ρsex])]). (37)
Here, Em ≡ |mihm|, ρm ≡ |mihm| [m = z, ˘y, x] and ρsex ≡ ρx⊗ ρe0. Furthermore, P (x) = hx|ρs0|xi. From this expression, using the bipartite propagator (36), we get
P (z, ˇy, x) P (x)
=d X
α,β
hz|Sα[ρˇy]|zihˇy|Sβ[ρx]|ˇyi
×Tre[Fα(τ )Fβ(t)ρe0]. (38) Using that P (z, x|˘y) = P (z, ˘y, x)/P (˘y), where P (˘y) = P
z,xP (z, ˘y, x), the CPF correlation (33) reads Cpf(t, τ )|y˘ d
= 1
P (˘y)2 X
α,β,µ
Θαβµ|y˘Λαβµ(t, τ ). (39)
The time-independent coefficients Θαβµ|yonly depend on the chosen observables,
Θαβµ|y˘= h˘y|S#α[Oz]|˘yih˘y|Sβ[Oxρx]|˘yih˘y|Sµ[ρx]|˘yi, (40)
where the dual superoperator S#α is defined from Trs(OSα[ρ]) = Trs(ρS#α[O]). Furthermore, we defined the state ρx≡P
xP (x)|xihx| =P
xhx|ρs0|xi|xihx|. The time- dependence in Eq. (39) follows from
Λαβµ(t, τ ) = +Tre[Fα(τ )Fβ(t)ρe0] Tre[Fµ(t)ρe0] (41)
−Tre[Fα(τ )Fµ(t)ρ0e] Tre[Fβ(t)ρe0], which only depends on the initial environment state ρe0 and environment superoperators {Fα(t)}. The probabil- ity P (˘y) is
P (˘y) =X
α
h˘y|Sα[ρx]|˘yiTre[Fα(t)ρe0]. (42)
The previous formula give an exact analytical expression for the CPF correlation that is valid for a broad class of problems (see Sec. IV below).
2. Random scheme
In the random scheme, P (z, ˘y, x) reads [32]
P (z, ˘y, x) P (x)
= Trr se(EzGt+τ,tse [ρy˘⊗ Trs(Gt,0se[ρsex])])℘(˘y|x), (43) where as before Em ≡ |mihm|, ρm ≡ |mihm| [m = z, ˘y, x], and ρsex ≡ ρx⊗ ρe0, while P (x) = hx|ρs0|xi. Fur- thermore, the conditional probability ℘(˘y|x) can be freely chosen. Using the propagator expression (36), it follows
P (z, ˇy, x) P (x)
=r X
α
hz|Sα[ρyˇ]|ziTre[Fα(τ )ρet]℘(ˇy|x). (44)
Consequently, independently of the chosen measurement observables, it is confirmed that the CPF correlation [Eq. (33)] vanishes identically in this scheme,
Cpf(t, τ )|y˘
= 0.r (45)
In fact, the sum term [P
α· · · ] in Eq. (44) can be read as P (z|ˇy), leading to the Markovian structure P (z, ˇy, x) = P (z|ˇy)℘(ˇy|x)P (x) → P (z, x|ˇy) = P (z|ˇy)P (x|ˇy).
IV. EXAMPLES
In order to exemplify the developed results, we con- sider different single and multipartite system dynamics interacting with a quantum casual bystander environ- ment.
A. Single qubit system
The system is a qubit, while the quantum degrees of freedom of the environment correspond to a two-level flu- orescent system with decay rate γ and Rabi frequency Ω
[48]. Their mutual evolution [Eq. (13)] is written as d
dtρset = −iΩ
2[σx, ρset ] + γ
σS[ρset ]σ†−1
2{σ†σ, ρset }+
. (46) The operators σx, σ†, and σ are respectively the x-Pauli matrix and the raising and lowering operators in the two- dimensional environment Hilbert space He. The unique system contribution is the superoperator [see Eq. (12)]
S[•] = σz[•]σz, (47) where σzis the z-Pauli matrix in the system Hilbert space Hs. Thus, the system is subjected to a dephasing process driven by the transitions of the fluorescent system.
1. System-environment propagator
Considering (bipartite) uncorrelated initial conditions, ρse0 = ρs0⊗ ρe0, the propagator of Eq. (46) can be written with the structure (36),
ρset = ρs0⊗ F+(t)[ρ0e] + S[ρs0] ⊗ F−(t)[ρe0]. (48) At any time, this bipartite state is a separable one [Eq. (16)]. Consistently, a positive partial transpose cri- terion [46] is fulfilled. On the other hand, the environ- ment superoperators F± can be written as
F±(t)[•] =1
2(Gt,0+[•] ± Gt,0−[•]), (49) where the auxiliary superoperators Gt±[•] are defined by the evolutions,
d
dtG±t,t0=−iΩ
2[σx, Gt,t±0] + γ
± σGt,t±0σ†−1
2{σ†σ, Gt,t±0}+
, (50) with the initial conditions Gt±0,t0 = Ie. These equations can be solved in an analytical way.
Both superoperators Gt,t±0 define the system and envi- ronment dynamics,
ρet = Gt,0+[ρe0], f (τ |t) ≡ Tre(Gt+τ,t− [ρet]). (51) In fact, from Eqs. (46) and (50) it is simple to realize that Gt,t+0 is the propagator of the environment degrees of freedom. Furthermore, from Eq. (48) it is simple to show that the function f (τ |t) sets the system coherence decay,
ρst =
pup f (t|0)cup
f (t|0)cdn pdn
, (52)
where pupand pdnare the initial upper and lower system populations while the nondiagonal contributions cup and cdn are the initial system coherences. Furthermore,
f (τ |t) = e−γτat+ e−γτ /4h
btcosh(∆τ ) + ct
sinh(∆τ )
∆ i
, (53) where for shortening the expression we introduced the co- efficient ∆ ≡p(γ/4)2− Ω2. Explicit expressions for the time-dependent coefficients at, bt, and ct, can be found in the Appendix.
2. Operator correlations
From Eq. (48), using that limt→∞Gt,t+0[ρe0] = ρe∞ and limt→∞Gt,t−0[ρe0] = 0, it follows
limt→∞ρset = ρs∞⊗ ρe∞, ρs∞= 1
2(ρs0+ S[ρs0]), (54) where ρe∞is the stationary state of a two-level fluorescent system (see Appendix). Thus, when the environment at the initial time begins in its stationary state, the condi- tions (31) are fulfilled, indicating the validity of the QRT in the stationary regime. This conclusion is corroborated by the following explicit calculation of operator expecta- tion values and correlations. Nevertheless, we also found that for some operator correlations, the QRT is valid at all times.
Introducing the vector of system operators σ ≡ {σx, σy, σz}, their expectation values, from Eq. (27), read σ(τ ) = ˆT (τ |0) σ(0), (55) where σ(0) = Trs[σ(0)ρs0]. Similarly, for the Pauli oper- ators there are nine possible correlations σi(t)σj(t + τ ).
For six of them, from Eq. (28) we get
σx(t)σ(t + τ ) = ˆT (τ |t) σx(t)σ(t), (56a) σy(t)σ(t + τ ) = ˆT (τ |t) σy(t)σ(t). (56b) In these expressions, the matrix ˆT (τ |t) reads
T (τ |t) = diag{f (τ |t), f (τ |t), 1}.ˆ (57) When the environment begins in its stationary state ρe0 = ρe∞ = limt→ρet, it follows that f (τ |t) = f (τ |0) [see Eq. (51)], and consequently ˆT (τ |t) = ˆT (τ |0). Thus, the six correlations (56) at any time (t and τ ) evolve as the expectation values [Eq. (55)] indicating the absence of any departure with respect to the QRT.
The unique correlations [Eq. (28)] that depart (at any finite time) from the predictions of the QRT are
σz(t)σ(t + τ ) = ˜T (τ, t)σz(t)σ(t), (58) where the matrix ˜T (τ, t) is
T (τ, t) = diag˜ f (t + τ |0)
f (t|0) ,f (t + τ |0) f (t|0) , 1
. (59) If the semigroup property f (t + τ |0) = f (τ |t)f (t|0) be- comes valid, the QRT is recovered. This happens when the system coherence can be approximated by an ex- ponential decay behavior. On the other hand, using that σz(t)σ(t) = diag{f (t|0), f (t|0), 1}σz(0)σ(0) we get limt→∞σz(t)σ(t) = {0, 0, 1}. Thus, consistently with Eq. (31), in the long time limit the correlations (58) obey the same evolution as the operator expectation values [Eq. (55)], limt→∞σz(t)σ(t + τ ) = ˆT (τ |0){0, 0, 1}, indi- cating the validity of the QRT in the stationary regime.
0 50 100 150 200 0.00
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0 2 4 6 8 10
-10 -5 0 5 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
0 5 10 15 20
0.00 0.01 0.02
/=1/10 t
/
t /=1/4
t
t
/
/=1
t (c)
t
/
(a)
/=10 t
(d) (b)
t
/
FIG. 1: Time dependence of the decoherence rate Eq. (60) corresponding to the underlying dynamics (46). The environ- ment begins in its stationary state. In each plot, the param- eters are (a) Ω/γ = 1/10, (b) Ω/γ = 1/4, (c) Ω/γ = 1, and (d) Ω/γ = 10.
3. Memory witnesses
A deeper understanding of the memory effects devel- oped in the studied model can be achieved by comparing operational and non-operational memory witnesses.
For non-operational approaches, the central ingredient to analyze is the system density matrix evolution. From Eq. (52), straightforwardly we get
d dtρst =1
2γt(S[ρst] − ρst), γt= −d
dtln[f (t|0)], (60) where f (t|0) follows from Eq. (53).
The negativity of γt can be used as an indicator of memory effects [14]. We assume that the environment begins in its stationary state, ρe0 = ρe∞. Thus, f (τ |t) = f (τ |0) [see Eq. (51)]. In Fig. 1 we plot γt for different values of the quotient Ω/γ. For Ω/γ ≤ 1/4 the rate is always positive, while for Ω/γ > 1/4 it develops period- ical divergences. Thus, the dynamics is non-Markovian in this last regime. The same conclusion follows from the trace distance between two initial states [8]. On the other hand, for Ω/γ ≫ 1/4, the rate γt approach a con- stant value, implying that a Markovian regime is reached again.
The previous rate behaviors can be understood from the underlying environment dynamics. For Ω/γ ≪ 1/4, the probability distribution of the elapsed time between environment (fluorescent) transitions approach an expo- nential function with average time [2Ω2/γ]−1[48]. Con- sequently, the coherence decay function (induced by the application of the superoperator S) can be approximated as f (τ |0) ≈ exp[−t(2Ω2/γ)], which implies γt ≈ 2Ω2/γ [Fig. 1(a)]. This regime changes drastically when Ω/γ = 1/4 [Fig. 1(b)], where the environment starts to develop Rabi oscillations. Around Ω/γ ≈ 1, the system coher-
0 25 50 75 100
-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00
0 5 10 15 20
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
0 5 10 15
-30 -20 -10 0 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
-1 0 1 2 3
(b) /=1/10
Cpf (t,t)|y
t
x10 -2 x10
-2
t Cpf
(t,t)|y
(a)
/=1
(c) Cpf
(t,t)|y
t
x10 -2
(d) /=10 x10
-2
/=1/4
t Cpf
(t,t)|y
FIG. 2: CPF correlation [Eq. (62)] with equal time intervals τ = t corresponding to the system-environment model (46).
The parameters Ω/γ are the same than in Fig. 1. Similarly, the environment begins in its stationary state. In all cases, the system initial condition is such that hxi = 0.
ence f (t|0) vanishes in a oscillatory way. Consequently, γt[Eq. (60)] develops periodic divergences [Fig. 1(c)]. For Ω/γ ≫ 1, the effect of the (fast) environment Rabi os- cillations over the system cancel out in average, leading to the coherence decay f (τ |0) ≈ exp(−tγ). Thus, γt≈ γ.
This tendency is clearly seen in Fig. 1(d) at the initial stage.
The previous dynamical regimes can be analyzed from the operational approach. For the dynamics (46), us- ing the explicit propagator Eq. (48), all statistical ob- jects that define the CPF correlation can explicitly be evaluated. We consider that the three consecutive mea- surements are performed in the ˆx-direction of the system Bloch sphere. Thus, in all cases, the possible measure- ment outcomes (eigenvalues) are m = ±1 (m = x, y, z), while the corresponding eigenvectors are |mi = |upi + m|dni, where |upi and |dni are respectively the upper and down states of the system [see Eq. (52)].
In the deterministic scheme, the joint outcome proba- bility Eq. (38) becomes
P (z, ˘y, x)=d 1
4[1+z ˘yf (τ |t)+zxf (t+τ |0)+ ˘yxf (t|0)]P (x).
(61) The CPF correlation Eq. (39) reads
Cpf(t, τ )|y˘ d
= 1 − hxi2
4[P (˘y)]2[f (t + τ |0) − f (τ |t) f (t|0)], (62) with P (˘y) = [1 + ˘yhxif (t|0)]/2, jointly with hxi = P
x=±1xP (x) and P (x) = hx|ρs0|xi where {|xi} are the eigenvectors of the ˆx-Pauli matrix.
In Fig. 2, for the same parameter regimes shown in Fig. 1, we plot the CPF correlation at equal time inter-
vals, τ = t. The environment also begins in its stationary state, ρe0= ρe∞.
Contrarily to the non-operational memory witnesses, the CPF correlation indicates the presence of memory effects for all parameter regimes, even when the rate γt
is positive at all times. Consistently, for Ω/γ ≪ 1/4, the maximal absolute value of the CPF correlation dimin- ishes [Fig. 2(a)], indicating the proximity of a Markovian regime. When Ω/γ = 1/4 [Fig. 2(b)], the CPF is nega- tive at all times and does not develop oscillations. For Ω/γ ≈ 1, it develops oscillations and its absolute value is maximal [Fig. 2(c)], indicating strong memory effects.
Consistently, when Ω/γ ≫ 1, the CPF correlation oscil- lates but with a smaller amplitude [Fig. 2(d)], indicating again the approaching of a Markov regime.
Contrarily to memory witnesses based only on the un- perturbed system dynamics, the CPF correlation indi- cates a Markovian regime only in the limits Ω/γ → 0 and Ω/γ → ∞. In addition, the operational approach gives a much deeper characterization when considering the ran- dom scheme. From Eq. (44), for the joint probabilities we get
P (z, ˘y, x)=r 1
2[1 + z ˘yf (τ |t)]℘(˘y|x)P (x). (63) As expected, a Markovian property is fulfilled, leading consistently to Cpf(t, τ )|y˘ r
= 0 [Eq. (45)] for arbitrary initial environment states. This result indicates the pres- ence of a casual bystander environment, property that cannot be resolved with non-operational approaches.
B. Multipartite qubit systems
The developed formalism also allows to study the cou- pling of multipartite systems with a casual bystander en- vironment. In contrast to Eq. (46), here we consider a set of N qubits. For simplicity, we assume the system- environment evolution
d
dtρset = −iΩ
2[σx, ρset ] + γ
σSa[ρset ]σ†−1
2{σ†σ, ρset }+
+ϕ
σ†Sb[ρset ]σ −1
2{σσ†, ρset }+
, (64)
As before, σx, σ†, and σ are respectively the x-Pauli ma- trix and the raising and lowering operators in the two- dimensional environment Hilbert space He. Thus, the en- vironment corresponds to a two-level fluorescent-like sys- tem with Rabi frequency Ω, decay rate γ, while the rate ϕ scales the presence of thermally induced excitations [2].
Each of the system superoperators Sα[•] ≡ σα• σα
(α = a, b) are defined by an arbitrary (multipartite) Pauli string σα = σα1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ σαN, which consists in the external product of N arbitrary Pauli operators act- ing on each qubit. These superoperators are applied over the system whenever the environment suffers a transition between its (two) states. From Eq. (64), it follows that
Sais applied when an environmental transition between the upper and lower states occurs, while Sbis applied for the inverse (thermally-induced) transition.
The bipartite propagator associated to Eq. (64) can be written with the structure Eq. (36). The label of the su- peroperators {Fα(t)} runs over the values α = 0, a, b, c, where Sc= SbSa. The calculations that lead to explicit solutions for the environment superoperators {Fα(t)} are presented in the Appendix. From these expressions and Eq. (36), it follows that
limt→∞ρset = ρs∞⊗ ρe∞, ρs∞=1
4(ρs0+X
α
Sα[ρs0]), (65) where ρs∞ is the multipartite system stationary state while the (two-level) state ρe∞ follows by tracing out the system degrees of freedom in Eq. (64). In consequence, as in the previous example, the QRT is valid for stationary correlations of the system.
From Eq. (36) the system state at any time, ρst = Tre(ρset ), can straightforwardly be written as a statistical superposition of Kraus maps,
ρst = p0tρ0+ X
α=a,b,c,
pαtSα[ρ0], (66)
where the weights are pαt ≡ Tre[Fα(t)[ρe0]]. Similarly, the density matrix evolution can be written as
dρst
dt = X
α=a,b,c,
γαt(Sα[ρst] − ρst). (67)
Simple expressions for the probabilities {pαt} and rates {γtα} are obtained when ϕ = γ in Eq. (64). We get
p0t = 1 2e−γth
cosh(γt) + γ2
χ2cos(χt) +Ω2 χ2
i, (68a)
pat = pbt = 1
4[1 − e−2γt], (68b)
pct = 1 2e−γth
cosh(γt) − γ2
χ2cos(χt) −Ω2 χ2
i, (68c)
where χ ≡pγ2+ Ω2. From these expressions, the rates in Eq. (67) are
γta= γtb= 1
2γ, γtc=1 2
χ sin(χt)
(Ω/γ)2+ cos(χt). (69) Notice that γtc presents an oscillatory behavior at any time, which develops divergences only when (Ω/γ)2< 1.
When Ω = 0, it reduces to γtc = (1/2)γ tan(γt), re- covering the rates of the “trigonometric eternal non- Markovian” dynamics introduced in Ref. [50], where the environment dynamics is an incoherent one. Thus, we can read Eq. (64) as a quantum (coherent) generalization (Ω 6= 0) of the incoherent environment studied in [50].
The CPF correlation can also be obtained in the present case. Assuming that the three measurements cor- respond to the observable σα(α = a or b), from Eq. (39)
we get (with ϕ = γ) Cpf(t, τ )|y˘ d
= −(1 − hxi2)
[2NP (˘y)]2e−(t+τ )γ/2hγ2
χ2sin(tχ) sin(τ χ)
−4γ2Ω2
χ4 sin2(tχ/2) sin2(τ χ/2)i
, (70)
where as before χ = pγ2+ Ω2, and P (˘y) = 2−N{1 +
˘
yhxie−γt[Ω2 + γ2cos(tχ)]/χ2}. Furthermore, hxi = P
xxhx|ρs0|xi, where {x} and {|xi} are respectively the eigenvalues and eigenvectors associated to the first mea- surement observable. When the three measurements cor- respond to the observable σc, we get the accidental van- ishing Cpf(t, τ )|y
= 0. On the other hand, in the randomd
scheme Eq. (45) guarantee that Cpf(t, τ )|y r
= 0 for any system observables and initial environment states.
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Quantum memory effects can be induced by environ- ments whose state and dynamical behavior are not af- fected at all by their interaction with the system of inter- est. Based on a bipartite representation of the system- environment dynamics, in this paper we have explored the most general interaction structures that are consis- tent with this class of non-Markovian casual bystander environments.
While unitary interactions must be discarded, we have found the most general dissipative coupling structures [Eq. (13)] that are consistent with the demanded con- straint. The degrees of freedom associated to the en- vironment are governed by a Lindblad evolution. The corresponding system dynamic turns out to be defined by a set of arbitrary completely positive transformations whose action is conditioned to the environment dynam- ics.
The bipartite system-environment state can always be written as a separable one [Eq. (16)], indicating the absence of quantum entanglement between both parts.
Nevertheless, in contrast to a purely incoherent case, the environment may develop quantum coherent behaviors.
Consistently, by subjecting the degrees of freedom of the environment to a continuous-in-time measurement pro- cess, a product state characterizes the bipartite stochas- tic dynamics [Eq. (26)], where a collisional dynamics de- fines the stochastic system evolution.
Similarly to incoherent environments, here the QRT is not valid in general. Nevertheless, stationary (system) operators correlations evolves in the same way as ex- pectation values when the bipartite system-environment stationary state is an uncorrelated one [Eq. (31)]. Con- sequently, outside the stationary regime operator corre- lations can be used as a witness of memory effects. Nev- ertheless, given that the absence of stationary system- environment correlations may emerges in different mod- els, a deeper characterization of non-Markovianity can be achieved through an operational approach.
The CPF correlation is an operational memory witness that relies on performing three consecutive measurement processes over the system of interest. This object was explicitly calculated in terms of a bipartite propagator [Eq. (36)] associated to the studied system-environment coupling. In a deterministic scheme, where the system state is not modified after the intermediate measurement, the CPF correlation detects departure with respect to a (probabilistic) Markovian regime [Eq. (39)]. In a ran- dom scheme, where the intermediate post-measurement state is selected in a random way, the CPF correlation vanishes when the environment is a casual bystander one [Eq. (45)]. This feature provides an explicit experimen- tal procedure for detecting when the studied properties apply.
All previous conclusions were supported by the ex- plicit study of single and multipartite qubits dynamics.
The developed approach furnishes a solid basis for con- structing alternative underlying mechanisms that lead to quantum memory effects. On the other hand, added to incoherent environments with a classical self fluctuating dynamics, the studied dynamics define the most general situation where quantum memory effects are not endowed with a physical environment-to-system backflow of infor- mation. While unitary system-environment interactions were discarded, the present results motivate us to ask about different dynamical regimes where an effective non- Markovian casual bystander environmental action could be recovered.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks to Mariano Bonifacio for a crit- ical reading of the manuscript. This paper was sup- ported by Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas y T´ecnicas (CONICET), Argentina.
Appendix A: Auxiliary expressions and calculus details
Auxiliary expressions and calculation details are pro- vided.
1. Coefficients of the coherence decay function
The coherence decay function f (τ |t) ≡ Tre(Gt+τ,t− [ρet]), where Gt+τ,t− is defined by the evolution (50), can be writ- ten as in Eq. (53), where the time-dependent coefficients
