Quantum Information & Computation
Volume 26
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open access

Engineering a Non-Markovian Environment to Enhance Entanglement and To Generate Hidden Quantum Networks

Kenneth Mui, Da-Wei Luo, Duan Wang, Ting Yu

Author affiliations
  • Kenneth Mui1
  • Da-Wei Luo1
  • Duan Wang1
  • Ting Yu1
  1. Center for Quantum Science and Engineering, Department of Physics, Stevens Institute of Technology, Castle Point on the Hudson, Hoboken, USA

pp. 210-229 · 10.2478/qic-2026-0011

Read PDF View on Reference Global
On this page

Abstract

We contribute further to recent theoretical studies of entanglement dynamics in open quantum systems to include a continuous variable N-harmonic oscillator ring system bathed in Ornstein–Uhlenbeck noise. Despite the fact that harmonic oscillator systems are one of the most studied systems in physics, we believe that our work here is unique and sheds a new perspective in terms of a potential application. We present two sets of differential equations that govern the dynamics of N harmonic oscillators derived from first principles, one for a Markovian environment and the other for non-Markovian one. With these two sets, we are able to compare their entanglement dynamics between environments given an initial state of our oscillators. Across several system and environmental parameters, we show that the entanglement dynamics between oscillator pairs in a non-Markovian environment may be significantly enhanced in both magnitude and duration when compared to its Markovian approximation. We showcase this by numerically simulating a specific solution, i.e., we choose N = 4 oscillators, where two harmonic oscillators are initialized as a two-mode squeezed state while the remaining oscillators are vacuum states. By leveraging our N = 4 results, we consider a slightly larger number of oscillators, i.e., N = 6, and show how we can generate a hidden quantum network, in the absence of direct coupling, that may allow multiple parties to secretly and passively entangle oscillators in their possession. This is accomplished by exploiting the environmental memory effect and maintaining resonance with other oscillators or the central frequency in a shared non-Markovian bath, which may allow for autonomous entanglement distribution over a network of oscillators and aid in future quantum technologies.
Open accessCC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Keywords

  • environmental memory
  • quantum open system
  • non-Markovian noise
  • entanglement
  • quantum network

Suggested citation

Kenneth Mui, Da-Wei Luo, Duan Wang, Ting Yu (2026). Engineering a Non-Markovian Environment to Enhance Entanglement and To Generate Hidden Quantum Networks. Quantum Information & Computation, 26(1), 210-229. https://doi.org/10.2478/qic-2026-0011

Download BibTeX

References (50)

  1. Y. Chen, J. Q. You and T. Yu (2014). Exact non-Markovian master equations for multiple qubit systems: Quantum-trajectory approach. Phys. Rev. A, 90, 052104. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.052104.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.052104Google Scholar
  2. R.-X. Xu, P. Cui, X.-Q. Li, Y. Mo and Y. Yan (2005). Exact quantum master equation via the calculus on path integrals. J. Chem. Phys., 122, 041103. DOI: 10.1063/1.1850899.DOI: 10.1063/1.1850899Google Scholar
  3. X. Li, S.-X. Lyu, Y. Wang, R.-X. Xu, X. Zheng and Y. Yan (2024). Toward quantum simulation of non-Markovian open quantum dynamics: A universal and compact theory. Phys. Rev. A, 110, 032620. DOI: 10.1103/Phys-RevA.110.032620.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.032620Google Scholar
  4. B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz and Y. Zhang (1992). Quantum Brownian motion in a general environment: Exact master equation with nonlocal dissipation and colored noise. Phys. Rev. D, 45, 2843–2861. DOI: 10.1103/Phys-RevD.45.2843.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2843Google Scholar
  5. D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I.-O. Stamatescu and H. D. Zeh (2013). Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory; Springer: Berlin, ISBN: 978-3-662-03263-3.Google Scholar
  6. W. H. Zurek (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 715–775. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715.DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715Google Scholar
  7. A. Levy, A. Kiely, J. G. Muga, R. Kosloff and E. Torrontegui (2018). Noise-resistant quantum control using dynamical invariants. New J. Phys., 20, 025006. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/aaa9e5.DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/aaa9e5Google Scholar
  8. A. Soare, H. Ball, D. Hayes, J. Sastrawan, M. C. Jarratt, J. J. Mcloughlin, X. Zhen, T. J. Green and M. J. Biercuk (2014). Experimental noise filtering by quantum control. Nat. Phys., 10, 825–829. DOI: 10.1038/nphys3115.DOI: 10.1038/nphys3115Google Scholar
  9. M. Hartmann, F. G. S. L. Brandão and M. Plenio (2008). Quantum many-body phenomena in coupled cavity arrays. Laser Photonics Rev., 2, 527–541. DOI: 10.1002/lpor.200810046.DOI: 10.1002/lpor.200810046Google Scholar
  10. D. E. Browne, M. B. Plenio and S. F. Huelga (2003). Robust creation of entanglement between ions in spatially separate cavities. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91, 067901. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.067901.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.067901Google Scholar
  11. N. Khaneja and S. J. Glaser (2002). Efficient transfer of coherence through Ising spin chains. Phys. Rev. A, 66, 060301. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.060301.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.060301Google Scholar
  12. X. Zhao, J. Jing, B. Corn and T. Yu (2011). Dynamics of interacting qubits coupled to a common bath: Non-Markovian quantum-state-diffusion approach. Phys. Rev. A, 84, 032101. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.032101.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.032101Google Scholar
  13. Q. Mu, X. Zhao and T. Yu (2016). Memory-effect-induced macroscopic-microscopic entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 94, 012334. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.012334.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.012334Google Scholar
  14. Z.-X. Man, Y.-J. Xia and R. Lo Franco (2015). Harnessing non-Markovian quantum memory by environmental coupling. Phys. Rev. A, 92, 012315. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.012315.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.012315Google Scholar
  15. K. H. Lim, W.-K. Mok and L.-C. Kwek (2023). Oscillating bound states in non-Markovian photonic lattices. Phys. Rev. A, 107, 023716. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.107.023716.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.107.023716Google Scholar
  16. J. Agustí, C. M. F. Schneider, K. G. Fedorov, S. Filipp and P. Rabl (2025). Non-Markovian thermal reservoirs for autonomous entanglement distribution. arXiv, arXiv:2506.20742.DOI: 10.22331/q-2026-04-15-2066Google Scholar
  17. A. Serafini, S. Mancini and S. Bose (2006). Distributed quantum computation via optical fibers. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 010503. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.010503. :contentReference[oaicite:0]index=0DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.010503Google Scholar
  18. J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble and H. Mabuchi (1997). Quantum state transfer and entanglement distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 3221–3224. DOI: 10.1103/Phys-RevLett.78.3221.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.3221Google Scholar
  19. K.-L. Liu and H.-S (2007). Goan, Non-Markovian entanglement dynamics of quantum continuous variable systems in thermal environments. Phys. Rev. A, 76, 022312. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.022312.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.022312Google Scholar
  20. J. S. Prauzner-Bechcicki (2004). Two-mode squeezed vacuum state coupled to the common thermal reservoir. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 37, L173–L179. DOI: 10.1088/0305-4470/37/15/L04.DOI: 10.1088/0305-4470/37/15/L04Google Scholar
  21. J.-H. An and W.-M. Zhang (2007). Non-Markovian entanglement dynamics of noisy continuous-variable quantum channels. Phys. Rev. A, 76, 042127. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042127.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042127Google Scholar
  22. G.-X. Li, L.-H. Sun and Z. Ficek (2010). Multi-mode entanglement of N harmonic oscillators coupled to a non-Markovian reservoir. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 43, 135501. DOI: 10.1088/0953-4075/43/13/135501.DOI: 10.1088/0953-4075/43/13/135501Google Scholar
  23. J. P. Paz and A. J. Roncaglia (2008). Dynamics of the entanglement between two oscillators in the same environment. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 220401. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.220401.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.220401Google Scholar
  24. K. Audenaert, J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio and R. F. (2002). Werner, Entanglement properties of the harmonic chain. Phys. Rev. A, 66, 042327. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.042327.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.042327Google Scholar
  25. T. A. Brun and J. B. Hartle (1999). Classical dynamics of the quantum harmonic chain. Phys. Rev. D, 60, 123503. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.123503.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.123503Google Scholar
  26. D. Portes, H. Rodrigues, S. B. Duarte and B. Baseia (2013). Perfect transfer of quantum states in a network of harmonic oscillators. Eur. Phys. J. D, 67, 156. DOI: 10.1140/epjd/e2013-40161-y.DOI: 10.1140/epjd/e2013-40161-yGoogle Scholar
  27. C.-H. Chou, T. Yu and B. L. Hu (2008). Exact master equation and quantum decoherence of two coupled harmonic oscillators in a general environment. Phys. Rev. E, 77, 011112. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.77.011112.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.77.011112Google Scholar
  28. C.-H. Chou, B. L. Hu and T. Yu (2008). Quantum Brownian motion of a macroscopic object in a general environment. Physica A, 387, 432–444. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2007.09.025.DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2007.09.025Google Scholar
  29. K. Mui, A. Couvertier and T. Yu (2025). Enhanced quantum state swapping via environmental memory. APL Quantum, 2, 016126. DOI: 10.1063/5.0253875.DOI: 10.1063/5.0253875Google Scholar
  30. T. Yu, L. Diósi, N. Gisin and W. T. Strunz (2000). Post-Markov master equation for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Phys. Lett. A, 265, 331–336. DOI: 10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00014-1.DOI: 10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00014-1Google Scholar
  31. T. Yu, L. Diósi, N. Gisin and W. T. Strunz (1999). Non-Markovian quantum-state diffusion: Perturbation approach. Phys. Rev. A, 60, 91–103. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.91.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.91Google Scholar
  32. L. Diósi, N. Gisin and W. T. Strunz (1998). Non-Markovian quantum state diffusion. Phys. Rev. A, 58, 1699–1712. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.58.1699.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.58.1699Google Scholar
  33. W. T Strunz, L. Diósi and N. Gisin (1999). Open system dynamics with non-Markovian quantum trajectories. Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, 1801–1804. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1801.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1801Google Scholar
  34. G. Ritschel and A. Eisfeld (2014). Analytic representations of bath correlation functions for ohmic and super ohmic spectral densities using simple poles. J. Chem. Phys., 141, 094101. DOI: 10.1063/1.4893931.DOI: 10.1063/1.4893931Google Scholar
  35. P. Chen (2007). Dynamical decoupling-induced renormalization of non-Markovian dynamics. Phys. Rev. A, 75, 062301. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.062301.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.062301Google Scholar
  36. C. Uchiyama (2002). Aihara, M. Multipulse control of decoherence. Phys. Rev. A, 66, 032313. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.032313.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.032313Google Scholar
  37. R. Simon, E. C. G. Sudarshan and N. Mukunda (1987). Gaussian-Wigner distributions in quantum mechanics and optics. Phys. Rev. A, 36, 3868–3880. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.36.3868.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.36.3868Google Scholar
  38. R. F. Werner, M. Wolf and M. Bound (2001). entangled Gaussian states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 3658–3661. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3658.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3658Google Scholar
  39. G. Adesso and F. Illuminati (2005). Gaussian measures of entanglement versus negativities: Ordering of twomode Gaussian states. Phys. Rev. A, 72, 032334. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.032334.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.032334Google Scholar
  40. M. Hillery and M.S. Zubairy (2006). Entanglement conditions for two-mode states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 050503. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.050503.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.050503Google Scholar
  41. R. Simon (2000). Peres-Horodecki separability criterion for continuous variable systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 2726–2729. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2726.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2726Google Scholar
  42. L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller (2000). Inseparability criterion for continuous variable systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 2722–2725. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2722.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2722Google Scholar
  43. E. Shchukin and W. Vogel (2005). Inseparability criteria for continuous bipartite quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 230502. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.230502.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.230502Google Scholar
  44. M. B. Plenio, J. Hartley and J. Eisert (2004). Dynamics and manipulation of entanglement in coupled harmonic systems with many degrees of freedom. New J. Phys., 6, 36. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/036DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/036Google Scholar
  45. J. Eisert and M. B. Plenio (2003). Introduction to the basics of entanglement theory in continuous-variable systems. Int. J. Quantum Inf., 1, 479–506.DOI: 10.1142/S0219749903000371Google Scholar
  46. G. Vidal and R. F. Werner (2002). Computable measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 65, 032314. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032314DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032314Google Scholar
  47. A. K. Ekert and P. L. Knight (1989). Correlations and squeezing of two-mode oscillations. Am. J. Phys., 57, 692–697. DOI: 10.1119/1.15922.DOI: 10.1119/1.15922Google Scholar
  48. C. Shang and H. Li (2024). Resonance-dominant optomechanical entanglement in open quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Appl., 21, 044048. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevAppl.21.044048. :contentReference[oaicite:1]index=1DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.21.044048Google Scholar
  49. T. Hiroshima, G. Adesso and F. Illuminati (2007). Monogamy inequality for distributed Gaussian entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 050503. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.050503.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.050503Google Scholar
  50. G. Adesso and F. Illuminati (2006). Continuous variable tangle, monogamy inequality, and entanglement sharing in Gaussian states of continuous variable systems. New J. Phys., 8, 15. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/8/1/015.DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/8/1/015Google Scholar