- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Verifying quantum memory in the dynamics of spin-boson models

Charlotte Bäcker1,*,†, Valentin Link2,*,‡, and Walter T. Strunz1,§

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: charlotte.baecker@tu-dresden.de
  • ‡Contact author: valentin.link@tu-berlin.de
  • §Contact author: walter.strunz@tu-dresden.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 023106 – Published 4 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/5bfc-znkj

Abstract

We investigate the nature of memory effects in the non-Markovian dynamics of spin-boson models. Local quantum memory criteria can be used to indicate that the reduced dynamics of an open system necessarily requires a quantum memory in its environment. We focus on two such criteria, one based on the dynamical map and the other on single-intervention process tensors, and discuss their connection. We apply these criteria to quench dynamics in spin-boson and two-spin-boson models, computed using a numerically exact method for non-Markovian open-system dynamics based on matrix product operator influence functionals. This method is ideally suited to simulate quantum multitime processes in spin-boson models across broad parameter regimes. We find that, with access to single-intervention process tensors, one can generally predict quantum memory in the dynamics at low temperatures. Given instead only the dynamical map, it is still possible to detect quantum memory in the case of resonant environments at short evolution times. Moreover, we confirm quantum memory in the stationary dynamical regime using process tensors with the correlated steady state of system and environment as initial condition.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (93)

  1. V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976).
  2. G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976).
  3. I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Dynamics of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015001 (2017).
  4. B. Vacchini, Open Quantum Systems (Springer, Cham, 2024).
  5. D. M. Reich, N. Katz, and C. P. Koch, Exploiting non-Markovianity for quantum control, Sci. Rep. 5, 12430 (2015).
  6. M. Puviani, S. Borah, R. Zen, J. Olle, and F. Marquardt, Non-Markovian feedback for optimized quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 020601 (2025).
  7. A. Motavallibashi, H. Mohammadi, and A. Akhound, Non-Markovianity as a resource for quantum correlation teleportation, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 38, 1200 (2021).
  8. A. Orieux, A. D’Arrigo, G. Ferranti, R. L. Franco, G. Benenti, E. Paladino, G. Falci, F. Sciarrino, and P. Mataloni, Experimental on-demand recovery of entanglement by local operations within non-Markovian dynamics, Sci. Rep. 5, 8575 (2015).
  9. H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 210401 (2009).
  10. Á. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement and non-Markovianity of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 050403 (2010).
  11. A. Pernice, J. Helm, and W. T. Strunz, System–environment correlations and non-Markovian dynamics, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 45, 154005 (2012).
  12. M. J. W. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li, and E. Andersson, Canonical form of master equations and characterization of non-Markovianity, Phys. Rev. A 89, 042120 (2014).
  13. H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Colloquium: Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021002 (2016).
  14. S. Milz and K. Modi, Quantum stochastic processes and quantum non-Markovian phenomena, PRX Quantum 2, 030201 (2021).
  15. S. Milz, M. S. Kim, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Completely positive divisibility does not mean Markovianity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 040401 (2019).
  16. K. H. Hughes, C. D. Christ, and I. Burghardt, Effective-mode representation of non-Markovian dynamics: A hierarchical approximation of the spectral density. I. Application to single surface dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 131, 024109 (2009).
  17. A. Kolli, A. Nazir, and A. Olaya-Castro, Electronic excitation dynamics in multichromophoric systems described via a polaron-representation master equation, J. Chem. Phys. 135, 154112 (2011).
  18. D. P. S. McCutcheon, N. S. Dattani, E. M. Gauger, B. W. Lovett, and A. Nazir, A general approach to quantum dynamics using a variational master equation: Application to phonon-damped Rabi rotations in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 84, 081305 (2011).
  19. D. Suess, A. Eisfeld, and W. T. Strunz, Hierarchy of stochastic pure states for open quantum system dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 150403 (2014).
  20. A. Strathearn, P. Kirton, D. Kilda, J. Keeling, and B. W. Lovett, Efficient non-Markovian quantum dynamics using time-evolving matrix product operators, Nat. Commun. 9, 3322 (2018).
  21. D. Tamascelli, A. Smirne, J. Lim, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Efficient simulation of finite-temperature open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 090402 (2019).
  22. N. Makri, Small matrix disentanglement of the path integral: Overcoming the exponential tensor scaling with memory length, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 041104 (2020).
  23. Y. Tanimura, Numerically “exact” approach to open quantum dynamics: The hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM), J. Chem. Phys. 153, 020901 (2020).
  24. M. Cygorek, M. Cosacchi, A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and E. M. Gauger, Simulation of open quantum systems by automated compression of arbitrary environments, Nat. Phys. 18, 662 (2022).
  25. V. Link, K. Luoma, and W. T. Strunz, Non-Markovian quantum state diffusion for spin environments, New J. Phys. 25, 093006 (2023).
  26. N. Anto-Sztrikacs, A. Nazir, and D. Segal, Effective-Hamiltonian theory of open quantum systems at strong coupling, PRX Quantum 4, 020307 (2023).
  27. T. Lacroix, B. Le Dé, A. Riva, A. J. Dunnett, and A. W. Chin, MPSDynamics.jl: Tensor network simulations for finite-temperature (non-Markovian) open quantum system dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 084116 (2024).
  28. V. Link, H.-H. Tu, and W. T. Strunz, Open quantum system dynamics from infinite tensor network contraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 200403 (2024).
  29. T. J. G. Apollaro, C. Di Franco, F. Plastina, and M. Paternostro, Memory-keeping effects and forgetfulness in the dynamics of a qubit coupled to a spin chain, Phys. Rev. A 83, 032103 (2011).
  30. B.-H. Liu, L. Li, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, E.-M. Laine, H.-P. Breuer, and J. Piilo, Experimental control of the transition from Markovian to non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems, Nat. Phys. 7, 931 (2011).
  31. G. A. L. White, C. D. Hill, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and K. Modi, Demonstration of non-Markovian process characterisation and control on a quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 11, 6301 (2020).
  32. T. Grotz, L. Heaney, and W. T. Strunz, Quantum dynamics in fluctuating traps: Master equation, decoherence, and heating, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022102 (2006).
  33. N. Megier, D. Chruściński, J. Piilo, and W. T. Strunz, Eternal non-Markovianity: From random unitary to Markov chain realisations, Sci. Rep. 7, 6379 (2017).
  34. J. D. Cresser and C. Facer, Master equations with memory for systems driven by classical noise, Opt. Commun. 283, 773 (2010).
  35. B. Vacchini, A classical appraisal of quantum definitions of non-Markovian dynamics, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 45, 154007 (2012).
  36. J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. Šoda, and Z. Weller-Davies, Objective trajectories in hybrid classical-quantum dynamics, Quantum 7, 891 (2023).
  37. S. Milz, D. Egloff, P. Taranto, T. Theurer, M. B. Plenio, A. Smirne, and S. F. Huelga, When is a non-Markovian quantum process classical? Phys. Rev. X 10, 041049 (2020).
  38. C. Giarmatzi and F. Costa, Witnessing quantum memory in non-Markovian processes, Quantum 5, 440 (2021).
  39. G. D. Berk, A. J. P. Garner, B. Yadin, K. Modi, and F. A. Pollock, Resource theories of multi-time processes: A window into quantum non-Markovianity, Quantum 5, 435 (2021).
  40. P. Abiuso, Verification of continuous-variable quantum memories, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 01LT02 (2023).
  41. M. Banacki, M. Marciniak, K. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki, Information backflow may not indicate quantum memory, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032202 (2023).
  42. C. Bäcker, K. Beyer, and W. T. Strunz, Local disclosure of quantum memory in non-Markovian dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 060402 (2024).
  43. P. Taranto, M. T. Quintino, M. Murao, and S. Milz, Characterising the hierarchy of multi-time quantum processes with classical memory, Quantum 8, 1328 (2024).
  44. C. Bäcker, K. Beyer, and W. T. Strunz, Entropic witness for quantum memory in open system dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033256 (2025).
  45. M. Yu, T.-A. Ohst, H.-C. Nguyen, and S. Nimmrichter, Quantum memory in spontaneous emission processes, arXiv:2504.08605.
  46. M. Vojta, Impurity quantum phase transitions, Philos. Mag. 86, 1807 (2006).
  47. A. C. Hewson, The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
  48. M. R. Jørgensen and F. A. Pollock, Exploiting the causal tensor network structure of quantum processes to efficiently simulate non-Markovian path integrals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 240602 (2019).
  49. N. Ng, G. Park, A. J. Millis, G. K.-L. Chan, and D. R. Reichman, Real-time evolution of Anderson impurity models via tensor network influence functionals, Phys. Rev. B 107, 125103 (2023).
  50. J. Thoenniss, I. Vilkoviskiy, and D. A. Abanin, Efficient pseudomode representation and complexity of quantum impurity models, Phys. Rev. B 112, 155114 (2025).
  51. M. Sonner, V. Link, and D. A. Abanin, Semigroup influence matrices for nonequilibrium quantum impurity models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 170402 (2025).
  52. F. A. Pollock, C. Rodríguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Non-Markovian quantum processes: Complete framework and efficient characterization, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012127 (2018).
  53. M.-D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra Appl. 10, 285 (1975).
  54. A. Jamiołkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep. Math. Phys. 3, 275 (1972).
  55. P. Taranto, S. Milz, M. Murao, M. T. Quintino, and K. Modi, Higher-order quantum operations, arXiv:2503.09693.
  56. A. Colla, N. Neubrand, and H.-P. Breuer, Initial correlations in open quantum systems: Constructing linear dynamical maps and master equations, New J. Phys. 24, 123005 (2022).
  57. G. A. L. White, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hollenberg, K. Modi, and C. D. Hill, Non-Markovian quantum process tomography, PRX Quantum 3, 020344 (2022).
  58. C. Ortega-Taberner, E. O’Neill, E. Butler, G. E. Fux, and P. R. Eastham, Unifying methods for optimal control in non-Markovian quantum systems via process tensors, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 124119 (2024).
  59. G. E. Fux, E. P. Butler, P. R. Eastham, B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling, Efficient exploration of Hamiltonian parameter space for optimal control of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 200401 (2021).
  60. A. Lerose, M. Sonner, and D. A. Abanin, Influence matrix approach to many-body Floquet dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021040 (2021).
  61. R. Chen, X. Xu, and C. Guo, Grassmann time-evolving matrix product operators for quantum impurity models, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045140 (2024).
  62. J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Nonequilibrium quantum impurity problems via matrix-product states in the temporal domain, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195101 (2023).
  63. F. Kahlert, V. Link, R. Hartmann, and W. T. Strunz, Simulating the Landau–Zener sweep in deeply sub-Ohmic environments, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 184108 (2024).
  64. R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965).
  65. M. Sonner, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Influence functional of many-body systems: Temporal entanglement and matrix-product state representation, Ann. Phys. 435, 168677 (2021).
  66. I. Vilkoviskiy and D. A. Abanin, Bound on approximating non-Markovian dynamics by tensor networks in the time domain, Phys. Rev. B 109, 205126 (2024).
  67. H. Nguyen, N. Ng, L. P. Lindoy, G. Park, A. J. Millis, G. Kin-Lic Chan, and D. R. Reichman, Correlation functions from tensor network influence functionals: The case of the spin-boson model, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 104111 (2024).
  68. M. B. Hastings and R. Mahajan, Connecting entanglement in time and space: Improving the folding algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 91, 032306 (2015).
  69. A. Foligno, T. Zhou, and B. Bertini, Temporal entanglement in chaotic quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041008 (2023).
  70. S. Cerezo-Roquebrún, A. Bou-Comas, J. T. Schneider, E. López, L. Tagliacozzo, and S. Carignano, Spatio-temporal tensor-network approaches to out-of-equilibrium dynamics bridging open and closed systems, Front. Quantum Sci. Technol. 4 (2025).
  71. D. Wellnitz, G. Preisser, V. Alba, J. Dubail, and J. Schachenmayer, Rise and fall, and slow rise again, of operator entanglement under dephasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 170401 (2022).
  72. S. Milz, C. Spee, Z.-P. Xu, F. A. Pollock, K. Modi, and O. Gühne, Genuine multipartite entanglement in time, SciPost Phys. 10, 141 (2021).
  73. L. Li, M. J. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, Concepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierarchy, Phys. Rep. 759, 1 (2018).
  74. Á Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non-Markovianity: Characterization, quantification and detection, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 094001 (2014).
  75. Y. Huang, Computing quantum discord is NP-complete, New J. Phys. 16, 033027 (2014).
  76. K. Chen, S. Albeverio, and S.-M. Fei, Concurrence of arbitrary dimensional bipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 040504 (2005).
  77. A. Uhlmann, Fidelity and concurrence of conjugated states, Phys. Rev. A 62, 032307 (2000).
  78. P. Rungta, V. Bužek, C. M. Caves, M. Hillery, and G. J. Milburn, Universal state inversion and concurrence in arbitrary dimensions, Phys. Rev. A 64, 042315 (2001).
  79. W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998).
  80. Z.-G. Li, S.-M. Fei, S. Albeverio, and W. M. Liu, Bound of entanglement of assistance and monogamy constraints, Phys. Rev. A 80, 034301 (2009).
  81. R. Hartmann and W. T. Strunz, Accuracy assessment of perturbative master equations: Embracing nonpositivity, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012103 (2020).
  82. M. Xu, Y. Yan, Q. Shi, J. Ankerhold, and J. T. Stockburger, Taming quantum noise for efficient low temperature simulations of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230601 (2022).
  83. J. Iles-Smith, O. Diba, and A. Nazir, Capturing non-Markovian polaron dressing with the master equation formalism, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 134111 (2024).
  84. B. Le Dé, A. Jaouadi, E. Mangaud, A. W. Chin, and M. Desouter-Lecomte, Managing temperature in open quantum systems strongly coupled with structured environments, J. Chem. Phys. 160, 244102 (2024).
  85. N. Dowling, K. Modi, R. N. Muñoz, S. Singh, and G. A. L. White, Capturing long-range memory structures with tree-geometry process tensors, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041018 (2024).
  86. S. Lorenzo, F. Plastina, and M. Paternostro, Geometrical characterization of non-Markovianity, Phys. Rev. A 88, 020102 (2013).
  87. F. Buscemi, R. Gangwar, K. Goswami, H. Badhani, T. Pandit, B. Mohan, S. Das, and M. N. Bera, Causal and noncausal revivals of information: A new regime of non-Markovianity in quantum stochastic processes, PRX Quantum 6, 020316 (2025).
  88. L. Santos, O. Gühne, and S. Nimmrichter, Two-point measurement correlations beyond the quantum regression theorem, arXiv:2507.06088.
  89. M. C. Bañuls, M. B. Hastings, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states for dynamical simulation of infinite chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 240603 (2009).
  90. M. Frías-Pérez and M. C. Bañuls, Light cone tensor network and time evolution, Phys. Rev. B 106, 115117 (2022).
  91. F. Mintert and A. Buchleitner, Observable entanglement measure for mixed quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 140505 (2007).
  92. H.-F. Wang and S.-M. Fei, Symmetric measurement-induced lower bounds of concurrence, Phys. Rev. A 111, 032432 (2025).
  93. Y. Lu, M. Su, Z.-X. Shen, H.-X. Wu, S.-M. Fei, and Z.-X. Wang, Mutually unbiased measurements-induced lower bounds of concurrence, arXiv:2504.14160.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 023106– Published 4 May, 2026
  • Received 16 July 2025
  • Accepted 25 November 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation