Arxiv:2004.11208V2

Home , Open quantum system

arXiv:2004.11208v2 [quant-ph] 7 May 2021 8 niewd teto o h xlrto fmore bipartite of in exploration correlations the non-classical [16– teleportation of for QIP for forms attention optimum resource general a wide as attain invite QC not of to 18] is cases these entanglement 15] All fidelity. of [14, degree necessary maximum that reveals envi- noisy in are states estimation [13]. entangled parameter ronment bound quantum PPT for that useful Recently, shown been process. has states, the it separable enables state using discord remote achieved quantum wherein quantum be can for [12] fidelity aforementioned non-critical preparation the Non-zero a of some as pro- of protocols. considered realization information is the quantum in it resource of whereas number (QIP), possi- a maximum tocols for achieving success for 11] ble [10, in- resource an both is evitable Entanglement [1–9], experimentally. and metrology theoretically cryp- distribution, estimation, key parameter tography, teleportation, of coding, implementation dense protocols successful like, computation the and for information quantum resource various non- widely a are of and as forms explored, used general been more have in- correlations quantum times, classical the recent manipulating In for resource formation. from a piv- as of Right a role exercised field otal has entanglement technology. the quantum and inception, in its science advances enabled the quantum triggered principle, sition ∗ § ‡ † [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] h td nmliatt unu teleportation quantum multipartite on study The superpo- the with along (QC) correlations Quantum yaiso unu orltosudrteiflec f(non of influence the under correlations quantum of Dynamics ninIsiueo cec dcto n eerhKolkata Research and Education Science of Institute Indian unu orltosfrnnMroinqatmchannels. quantum non-Markovian qua for backflow, correlations the information analyze quantum between to connection used the is dynamics establish corresponding the and noise, h unu pe ii ie( quantum time non-unital limit and speed unital quantum of The types different for checked h irrh fqatmcreain ntesaesae No space. d state the the enviro in that noisy correlations shown quantum is of of it hierarchy influence the and the considered, are under channels other Markovian inequality each su Bell-CHSH with teleportation of connected quantum violation implementing tasks fidelity, computation for teleportation and used information are quantum systems for resource a as eivsiaetednmc fqatmcreain Q)un (QC) correlations quantum of dynamics the investigate We .INTRODUCTION I. orarjaIsiueo cetfi eerh Sadashivna Research, Scientific of Institute Poornaprajna ..Paulson K.G. ninIsiueo ehooyJdpr ohu-401 I Jodhpur-342011, Jodhpur, Technology of Institute Indian a,b nttt fPyis hbnsa-505 India Bhubaneswar-751005, Physics, of Institute , ∗ kaPanwar Ekta nniomna interactions inenvironmental τ QSL sivsiae rmteprpcieo eoyo quantum of memory of perspective the from investigated is ) Dtd a 0 2021) 10, May (Dated: c , † uhsihBanerjee Subhashish orltoso unu aue fteteleportation the If of measures nature. or quantum nonclassicality of of correlations aspects reveals different fidelity teleportation as two teleportation, used for are resource states more a quantum are correlated When correlations for quantum prominent. separable, of the to order or states, respect aforementioned with entangled pure classification distinctive either For states, mixed are entanglement, states [39–41]. as: quantum nonlocality identified and the was increasing strength steerability the their with, in to of correlations order quantum begin according of considered. hierarchy were of to correlations The nonlocality states and quantum steering known; of entanglement, of is correlations classifications quantum systems of composite hierarchy [32–38]. The protocols quantum computation of and implementation states information successful as quantum the of for of well essential study correlations is as detailed and Markovian the dynamics correlations since coherence general, both pertinent, quantum In system, is non-Markovian quantum of [29–31]. open dynamics reveals of QC channel the of quantum investigating features non-Markovian intriguing system given many the The to a or reservoir non-unital. the for Markovian from as information be well of as backflow can Quantum unital effects dynamics. both of non-Markovian, the these range of modeling wide as or Coupling a channels weak either to relativistic be leading [22–28]. can strong, reservoir and the with physics system [21], quantum sub-atomic information, as systems quantum well of matter facets various condensed in to extensively times applied been recent have systems quantum Open interact the of phe- under perspective systems studied a is broader quantum and environment, is ambient when their decoherence with occurs Quantum that dynamics nomenon their decoherence. and systems, under quantum multipartite and unu teigadetnlmn are entanglement and steering quantum , oapr714,Ws egl India Bengal, West Mohanpur-741246, , s oeac fqatmcreain are correlations quantum of tolerance ise tmsedlmttm n yaisof dynamics and time limit speed ntum vlto fqatmcreain.We correlations. quantum of evolution cyadrvvlo orltosfollow correlations of revival and ecay hnes ihadwtotmemory. without and with channels, csfly n o netgtn how investigating for and ccessfully, unu orltoso two-qubit of correlations Quantum . mns ohMroinadnon- and Markovian Both nments. a,Bnauu508,India Bengaluru-560080, gar, e h ffcso eevi memory, reservoir of effects the der c , ‡ n .Srikanth R. and a pnQatmSystems Quantum Open ndia c -)Markovian d § d b 1,20]. [19, 2

2 fidelity is greater than 3 (classical limit), the state is of noise on a quantum system are not always detrimental non-classically correlated in the sense that it is useful in nature, the revival of quantum correlations occurs due for quantum teleportation. In addition to this, if the to the backflow of information from the environment fidelity is greater than Flhv 0.87 [39], then the state to the system. We show that the decay and revival is nonlocal in the sense that≈ its teleportation fidelity of quantum correlations under non-unitary evolution is incompatible with local hidden variable descriptions, follow the order of hierarchy of QC. Also, we study and a state with fidelity greater than Flhv satisfies the quantum speed limit time as a witness of the all the measures of quantum correlations. In [42, 43], memory effects of quantum channels. It is shown that connection among the different measures of quantum dynamics of quantum correlations can be described using correlations for achieving quantum teleportation fidelity, τQSL. Markovian and non-Markovian noisy models of and the order of hierarchy of quantum correlations were amplitude damping which are non-unital, as well as discussed. unital channels such as phase damping, depolarizing and random telegraph noise (RTN) are considered, and noise Decoherence of quantum states occurs due to the influ- tolerance of QC in these cases are discussed. ence of noise, and it is known that the order of hierarchy of quantum correlations is preserved [40, 42, 44] under The work is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly Markovian noisy channels for different class of pure and define different measures of quantum correlations, quan- mixed states. The decay of quantum correlations hap- tum speed limit time in noisy environment, and methods pens in such a way that higher degree quantum correla- to quantify them. In Sec. III, the effect of noisy channels tions are lost for a lower value of noise, whereas lower on a quantum system taken to be in a pure entangled degree QC are lost for higher noise parameters [44]. state is described, followed by the investigation of the The classification of quantum channels based on the dynamics of QC and τQSL under the influence of various divisibility properties is quite noteworthy in open sys- channels. We establish the connection among different tem dynamics. According to the divisibility criterion, measures of quantum correlations when they are used as a quantum channel is Markovian if any intermediate a resource for quantum teleportation. A corresponding map is completely positive (i.e., if the channel is CP- analysis for initial mixed states is made in Sec. IV. We divisible) [45]. In [46, 47], a broader concept of mem- show that quantum speed limit time can be availed to ory is introduced, whereby CP-divisible quantum pro- describe the dynamics of quantum correlations. Results cesses can occur in non-Markovian regimes as well. CP- and discussions in Sec. V are followed by the concluding divisibility of a quantum process always indicates the lack section (Sec. VI). of information backflow. On the other hand, the absence of P-divisibility can manifest in the form of oscillations in correlation measures such as quantum mutual infor- II. QUANTUM CORRELATIONS mation, and trace distance, which are monotonic func- tions of time if the dynamics is P-divisible [34]. These Quantum correlations and quantum speed limit time, oscillations indicate the backflow of information from the that can serve as indicators of quantumness in a sys- environment to the system. Here, we take into account tem are defined. Quantum correlations are used as a Markovian as well as CP-divisible and P-indivisible non- resource for quantum teleportation. The connections be- Markovian channels, and their dynamics are investigated tween quantum entanglement, steering and violation of and compared Bell-CHSH inequality with two different aspects of non- Quantum speed limit time (τQSL) [48, 49], the minimal classicality associated with the teleportation fidelity are evolution time between two states, is another quantity established. In this section, we discuss the methods to that captures Markovianity of the quantum processes. estimate different QC for a two-qubit state, ρAB and the The role of τQSL as a witness of non-Markovianity asso- derivation of τQSL in open system dynamics. ciated with the non-unitary quantum evolution has been studied [50, 51]. We investigate the dynamics of τQSL, and avail its connection with the information backflow to A. Teleportation fidelity and Bell-CHSH inequality analyse the behavior QC. We consider entanglement, quantum steering, and In general, a two qubit state is given as, Bell-CHSH nonlocality as a resource for quantum teleportation [52], and establish their connection with the 3 3 3 1 teleportation fidelity for different class of pure and mixed ρAB = (I2⊗I2+ riσi⊗I2+ siI2⊗σi+ ti,j (σi⊗σj )). 4 X X X states in the presence of unital and non-unital noisy i=1 i=1 i,j=1 channels. This points to the significance of considering (1) 3 3 the dynamics of two different aspects of nonclassicality/ We have i=1 ri = 1 and i=1 si = 1. The correlation 2 measures of QC (F > and F > Flhv) associated with matrix is defined as T = ti,j and the matrix elements 3 P {P } the teleportation fidelity along with the entanglement, ti,j = T r[σi σj ρ]. Two-qubit entangled states are used steering and Bell-nonlocality. It is known that the effects as a resource⊗ for quantum teleportation, and the telepor- 3 tation fidelity [52] is calculated, whose evolution is governed by general quantum channels is, 1 N(ρ) F (ρ)= 1+ , (2) 2 2 2θ trρ0 2 3 ! τQSL , (5) ≥ π2 ˙ α Kα(pt, 0)ρ0Kα† (t, 0) 3 || || ′s where N(ρ) = i ui; ui are the square root of the τ 1 P ′s eigenvalues of T †T . The given state is useful for quan- where X = τ − 0 Xdt. ρ0 is the initial state, Kα tum teleportationP iff N(ρ) > 1, i.e., F (ρ) > 2 (classical are the Kraus operators characterizing the channel re- 3 R limit). sponsible for the evolution of the quantum state, A = || || The violation of Bell-CHSH inequality can be checked by tr(A†A) is the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of A, and θ = 1 2 estimating the expectation value of Bell observable B [52] cos (T r[ρ0ρt]/T r[ρ ]). In this work, we investigate the p − 0 2 2 dynamics of τQSL for various noisy quantum channels, for a given state ρ, and Bmax = 2 maxj>k(u + u ). j k and the relationship between quantum correlations and The state ρ violates Bell-CHSH inequalityq for B(ρ) > 2. speed limit time is demonstrated.

III. ACTION OF NOISY CHANNELS B. Quantum Steering

Quantum steering [53, 54] makes a reference to the fact 3 that, in the case of biseparable quantum systems, the F(q) B(q) state of a quantum system can be changed by the action S (q) 2 2.5 S (q) of local measurements on the other system. The degree 3 C(q) of steerability of a given quantum state is estimated by F(q)=0.87 B(q)=2 considering the amount by which a steering inequality 2 S (q)=0 2 S (q)=0 is maximally violated [6]. The formula for two qubit- 3 F(q)=2/3 steering is, 1.5

Λn 1 Sn(ρ) = max 0, − , (3) { √n 1} 1

− Quantum Correlations

2 2 0.5 Λ2 = c cmin and Λ3 = c are steering values in which measurements,− n = 2, 3 per party are involved, called p two measurement and three measurement steering, re- 0 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 spectively. Here, c = √~c , ci′s are the eigenvalues of cor- t relation matrix T = ti,j (Eq. 1), and cmin min ci . { } ≡ {| |} FIG. 1. Quantum correlations are plotted as a function of γt (Γ=0.01γ) in the case of non-Markovian amplitude damping C. Quantum Entanglement quantum channel acting on maximally entangled bell state.

We use concurrence [55, 56] as a measure to estimate The effect of noise on a system can be described us- the entanglement of a quantum state. The concurrence ing the operator-sum formalism. We consider various of a state ρ is defined, noisy models, both quantum and classical in nature, for example, the amplitude damping channel, phase damp- C(ρ)= max 0, λ1 λ2 λ3 λ4 , (4) { − − − } ing, depolarizing and random telegraph noise (RTN). The evolution of a quantum system interacting with its envi- where λ ′s are the eigenvaluesp p of ρρ˜pin thep descending i ronment is, order andρ ˜ = σy σyρ∗σy σy, ρ∗ is the complex conju- gate of the state ⊗ρ. We have⊗ 0 < C(ρ) 1 for entangled ρ(t)= E (t)ρ(0)E†(t), (6) states and C = 0 for separable states. ≤ i i i X where, Ei′s are the Kraus operators characterizing the D. Quantum speed limit time (τQSL) noise. They satisfy the completeness relation i Ei†Ei = 1. In general, local interactions of a two qubit system Quantum speed limit time defines a bound on the with noisy environments can be described asP follows, minimum time required for a quantum system to evolve between two states [57–59]. The bound on the quan- ρ(t)= Ei(t) Ej (t)ρ(0)E†(t) E†(t). (7) ⊗ i ⊗ j tum speed limit time for open quantum systems [60, 61], i,j X 4

quantum channel [62] are given as, 3 F(q) B(q) S (q) E0 = 0 0 + √q 1 1 , E1 = 1 q 0 1 , (8) 2 2.5 S (q) | ih | | ih | − | ih | 3 C(q) dt pΓ dt 2 F(q)=0.87 we have q = exp( Γt) cos( 2 ) + d sin( 2 ) , d = B(q)=2 2 − { } 2 S (q)=0 2 2γΓ Γ . Where Γ is the line width that depends S (q)=0 − 1 3 on the reservoir correlations time (τr Γ− ) and γ is F(q)=2/3 p ≈ 1.5 the coupling strength related to qubit relaxation time 1 τs γ− . The Kraus operators of the amplitude damp- ≈ 1 ing channel in the Markovian regime [63–65] can be ob- tained by assuming q = 1 ν, where ν is a Markovian Quantum Correlations exponential decay function− . 0.5

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4.5 t QSL 4

FIG. 2. Quantum correlations of Bell state are plotted as a 3.5 function of γt for Markovian amplitude damping channel. 3

2.5

Here, we consider the scenario wherein the first qubit QSL interacts with the noisy channel, whereas the second 2 qubit evolves under the noise free condition. We con- 1.5 sider the dynamics of quantum correlations under the influence of different noisy models, both Markovian and 1 non-Markovian (unital as well as non-unital), and τQSL 0.5 is analyzed for both pure and mixed entangled initial 0 states. A similar dynamics can be observed for the cases 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 where both qubits evolve under noisy quantum channels. t

FIG. 4. Dynamics of quantum speed limit time of maximally entangled Bell state for Markovian amplitude damping chan- A. Amplitude damping channel nel.

Let’s consider the pure entangled state as initial state,

ψ = α 00 + β 11 , (9) 10 | i | i | i QSL 9 where α 2 + β 2 = 1. Quantum correlations are calcu- | | | | 8 lated, and their dynamics are investigated for maximally 1 7 entangled Bell state (α = β = √2 ). In Fig. 1, the behavior of quantum correlations of max- 6 imally entangled Bell state as a function of dimensionless 5 QSL quantity γt under the influence of non-Markovian ampli- 4 tude damping channel is depicted. We investigate the dynamics of two different aspects of nonclassicality asso- 3 2 ciated with the quantum teleportation fidelity ( F (ρ) > 3 2 and F (ρ) > Flhv(ρ) 0.87) along with entanglement, ≈ 1 quantum steering and the violation of Bell-CHSH in-

0 equality. QC of Bell state evolving under the influence 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 of the non-Markovian amplitude damping channel decay t initially and revive back after all quantum correlations reach their minimum values, and this process continues. FIG. 3. Dynamics of quantum speed limit time of maximally It is clear from Fig. 1 that, the decay and revival of entangled Bell state for non-Markovian amplitude damping quantum correlations follows a particular order, higher channel (Γ = 0.01γ). degree quantum correlations are lost for small values of channel parameter compared to the lower degree quan- The Kraus operators of non-Markovian dissipative tum correlations. The decay of QC, as a function of 5 channel parameter occurs in the following decreasing or- 3 3 der, state’s teleportation fidelity less than Flhv 0.87, F(q) F(q) ≈ B(q) B(q) non-violation of Bell-CHSH inequality, vanishing two and S (q) S (q) 2 2 2.5 S (q) 2.5 S (q) three measures of quantum steering, fidelity less than 3 3 C(q) C(q) the classical limit and vanishing entanglement. Thus, F(q)=0.87 F(q)=0.87 B(q)=2 B(q)=2 2 S (q)=0 2 S (q)=0 qFlhv qB qS2 qS3 qT qE, where qFlhv , qB, 2 2 ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ S (q)=0 S (q)=0 qS2 , qS3 , qT and qE are the channel parameter values at 3 3 F(q)=2/3 F(q)=2/3 which, teleportation fidelity becomes less than 0.87, the 1.5 C(q)=0 1.5 C(q)=0 states stop violating Bell-CHSH inequality, non-violation of two measure steering inequality, disappearance of three 1 1 measure quantum steering, teleportation fidelity of states less than the classical limit ( 2 ) and vanishing entan- Quantum Correlations 3 0.5 0.5 glement (zero concurrence) respectively. Hereafter, we use qFlhv , qB , qS2 , qS3 , qT and qE as the channel pa- 0 0 rameter values at which corresponding measure of quan- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 tum correlation fails to capture the quantumness of the t t state, i.e., qFlhv ,qB, qS2 , qS3 , qT and qE are the channel parameter values at which F (q)=0.87, B(q) = 2, FIG. 5. Quantum correlations are plotted as a function of 2 γt for maximally entangled Bell state in the case of phase S2(q) = 0, S3(q) = 0, F (q) = 3 and C(q) = 0, respectively. This is considered for both the cases of decay and damping channel. a) non-Markovian (Γ = 0.01γ) and b) revival of QC interchangeably for all noisy models used Markovian. in this work. The revival of the quantum correlations occurs in the reverse order, i.e., quantum correlations with lowest degree revives first followed by the restora- 35 25 tion of QC with increasing degree of their strength. The QSL QSL 30 revival of quantum correlations follows the order: entan- 20 glement, teleportation fidelity greater than the classical limit, steerability of quantum states, violation of Bell- 25

CHSH inequality and teleportation fidelity greater than 15 20 Flhv (qE qT qS3 qS2 qB qFlhv ).The dynamics ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ of quantum correlations under the Markovian amplitude QSL 15 channel are shown in Fig. 2, sudden death occurs for 10 all quantum correlations except entanglement. The decay of quantum correlations follows the above discussed 10 order of QC. Here, as expected, revival of QC is not ob- 5 served. From Figs. 1 and 2, it is clear that the decay and 5 revival of quantum correlations preserve the hierarchy of 0 0 non-classical correlations. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 The dynamics of τQSL has been considered as a signa- t t ture of information backflow to the principle system from the reservoir [50]. From the dynamics of quantum speed FIG. 6. Dynamics of quantum speed limit of maximally en- limit time (Fig 3) for non-Markovian amplitude damping tangled Bell states for (a) non- Markovian (Γ = 0.01γ) and channel, it is clear that τQSL increases initially, and starts (b) Markovian phase damping channels. decreasing after a certain time. The time at which a shift appears in the dynamics of τQSL exactly matches with the time at which revival of lowest degree of quantum and the revival of quantum correlations for a Markovian correlations starts (Fig. 1). This is interesting, since the approximation. investigation of τQSL reveals the details of non-classical correlations’ evolution in the non-Markovian regime. The connection between the dynamics of quantum correla- B. CP-divisible phase damping channel tions and the speed limit time ascertain the importance of using the latter to analyze the behavior of QC in the We now discuss dephasing quantum channel and its case of non-Markovian quantum channels. For Marko- influence on the evolution of quantum correlations. The vian noise, the coupling between the system and reser- Kraus operators for a dephasing channel that is histori- voir is weak, and hence there is no information backflow cally taken to be non-Markovian [66] but is nevertheless and no revival of QC occurs. This could be inferred from P-divisible [47] are: the dynamics of τQSL. The steady increase of τQSL in Fig. 4 warrants the absence of both information backflow 2 E0 = 0 0 + q 1 1 , E1 = 1 q 1 1 . (10) | ih | | ih | − | ih | p 6

γ 1 1 We have q = exp[ −2 t + Γ (exp( Γt) 1) ]. Γ− τr Bell state, the evolution of quantum correlations in the defines reservoir’s finite{ correlation− time− and}γ is the≈ cou- non-Markovian regime is depicted in Fig. 7. Differently pling strength related to qubit’s relaxation time. In the from non-Markovian phase damping channel, both de- limit Γ , phase damping channel reduces to the cay and revival of non-classical correlations happen for Markov→ case, ∞q = √1 ν identify the Kraus operators non-Markovian depolarizing noise. The decay and re- for Markovian dephasing− quantum channel. The behavior of QC of maximally entangled Bell state 3 as a function of γt in the non-Markovian and Marko- F(q) B(q) S (q) vian regimes are given in Fig. 5. In both cases, re- 2 2.5 S (q) vival of non-classical correlations does not occur, and 3 C(q) the order of decay satisfies the same hierarchy as in F(q)=0.87 B(q)=2 2 S (q)=0 the case of amplitude damping channel, i.e., we have 2 S (q)=0 3 qFlhv qB qS2 qS3 qT qE. Due to the mem- ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ F(q)=2/3 ory effects of the non-Markovian phase damping channel, 1.5 C(q)=0 decay of QC occur slowly as compared to their Marko- vian counterparts. The non-revival of QC for the non- 1 Markovian regime here is due to the noise being CP- Quantum Correlations divisible and hence also P divisible [47], which indi- 0.5 cates the absence of backflow. The dynamics of quantum speed limit time for non-Markovian and Markovian 0 phase damping channels is given in Fig. 6, and in the 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 absence of revival of QC, τQSL increases steadily in both t the cases. FIG. 7. Quantum correlations are plotted as a function of Γt for damped oscillating non-Markovian depolarizing quantum C. Depolarizing quantum channel channel. The values of coupling strengths are chosen as γi = 0.2Γi, i ∈ {1, 2}, γ3 = 5Γ3 and Γi = Γ. The Kraus operators of non-Markovian depolarizing quantum channel [67] are, 0.18 Ei = √qiσi, (11) QSL 0.16 where σ0 = I, rest of the σi′s are the three Pauli’s ma- 0.14 trices. The complete positivity condition is ensured by 0.12 identifying the values of qi′s as positive, and are given as, 0.1 1 q0 = [1 + Ω1 +Ω2 +Ω3], QSL 4 0.08

1 0.06 q1 = [1 + Ω1 Ω2 Ω3], 4 − − 1 0.04 q2 = [1 Ω1 +Ω2 Ω3], 4 − − 0.02 1 q3 = [1 Ω1 Ω2 +Ω3]. (12) 0 4 − − 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 t Γt Γdit 1 Γdit Here, Ωi = exp( 2 )[cos( 2 ) + di sin( 2 )], di = − FIG. 8. Dynamics of quantum speed limit time for depo- ( 4µi )2 1 with µ2 = γ2 + γ2 for i = j = k. Here, Γi − i j k 6 6 larizing quantum channel in the fluctuating non-Markovian qγ is the coupling strength of the system with the ex- regime. The values of coupling strengths are chosen as 1 ternal environment and Γ− determines the most prefer- γi = 0.2Γi, i ∈ {1, 2}, γ3 = 5Γ3 and Γi = Γ. able frequency of the system. The function Ω has two µ regimes-pure damping and damped oscillations. Γ deter- vival dynamics of quantum correlations of an entangled µ mines the behavior of the dynamics. When 0 Γ 1/4 initial state under the influence of depolarizing channel ≤ µ ≤ the behavior is purely damping. In the regime Γ > 1/4 is seen to be consistent with the hierarchy of QC. The damped oscillations exist along with the pure damp- channel parameter values for which measures of QC fail ing. The parameters for which the depolarizing quantum to capture the quantumness of the state are in the or- νit channel is in the Markovian regime are, Ωi = e− and der qFlhv qB qS2 qS3 qT qE . The restora- 4 2 2 ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ νi = Γ (γj + γk), here the positivity condition in Eq.12 tion of quantum correlations occurs in the reverse order is satisfied if and only if νi νj + νk. For an initial (qE qT qS3 qS2 qB qFlhv ). Initially, for a ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ 7 small value of noise parameter the state become entan- D. Random telegraph noise (RTN): P-indivisible gled followed by the creation of other correlations in the phase damping increasing order of their strength. Fig. 8 brings out the effect of non-Markovian depolarizing quantum channel on The quantum dephasing induced by random telegraph the evolution of quantum speed limit time for Bell state; noise is now discussed. The Kraus operators representing the oscillatory nature of τQSL is the signature of infor- random telegraph noise [34, 68–70], a P-indivisible phase mation backflow. In the case of unital non-Markovian damping channel are depolarizing channel, we do not find a connection between τQSL and QC as seen for the non-unital amplitude 1+ q(t) E0 = ( 0 0 + 1 1 ), damping channel. The decay of QC and the behavior of 2 | ih | | ih | τ for depolarizing channel in the Markovian regime r QSL 1 q(t) are given in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. Purely damp- E1 = − ( 0 0 1 1 ). (13) 2 | ih | − | ih | ing behavior of QC and non-fluctuation of τQSL are due r to the lack of backflow of information. Where q(t) is the noise parameter based on the damped

3 F(q) 3 B(q) F(q) S (q) B(q) 2 S (q) 2.5 S (q) 2 3 2.5 S (q) C(q) 3 F(q)=0.87 C(q) B(q)=2 F(q)=0.87 2 S (q)=0 B(q)=2 2 2 S (q)=0 S (q)=0 2 3 S (q)=0 F(q)=2/3 3 F(q)=2/3 1.5 C(q)=0 1.5 C(q)=0

1 1 Quantum Correlations Quantum Correlations 0.5 0.5

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 t t

FIG. 9. Quantum correlations of Bell state are plotted as a FIG. 11. Dynamics of quantum correlations of maximally t function of Γ for depolarizing quantum channel in the Marko- entangled Bell state under the inﬂuence of non-Markovian vian regime (γi = 0.1Γ). a random telegraph noise ( γ = 40).

harmonic oscillator model that accounts the eﬀects of

14 both Markovian and non-Markovian noise limits on quan-

QSL tum states,

10 sin [( 2a )2 1]γt γ − γt 2a 2 ! 8 q(t)= e− cos [( ) 1]γt + q . γ − 2a 2

QSL ! ( ) 1 h r γ i 6 − q (14) 2a 2 4 The frequency of the harmonic oscillators is ( ) 1. γ − The noise parameter describes two regimesq of systems 2 a dynamics, for γ < 0.5, the channel corresponds to the Markovian dynamics, the purely damping regime and 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 a damped oscillations for γ > 0.5 (damped oscillations) t corresponds the non-Markovian evolution. The dynamics of quantum correlations in the non-Markovian regime FIG. 10. Dynamics of quantum speed limit time of Bell state of RTN channel is shown in Fig. 11. Initially all QC ﬂuc- for depolarizing quantum channel in the Markovian regime tuate and decay afterwards. In the Markovian regime (γ = 0.1Γ). i (Fig. 12), these non-classical correlations decay without ﬂuctuating. The noise parameter values at which each 8

3 25 F(q) B(q) QSL S (q) 2 2.5 S (q) 3 20 C(q) F(q)=0.87 B(q)=2 2 S (q)=0 2 S (q)=0 3 15 F(q)=2/3 1.5 C(q)=0 QSL

10 1 Quantum Correlations 5 0.5

0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 t t

FIG. 12. Dynamics of quantum correlations of Bell state for FIG. 14. Dynamics of τQSL of maximally entangled Bell state a a Markovian random telegraph noise ( γ = 0.4) . for Markovian random telegraph noise( γ = 0.4). measure of QC reaches its classical threshold limit obeys maximally mixed separable state the order qFlhv qB qS2 qS3 qT qE. The oscil- ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ 1 p latory behavior of τQSL for non-Markovian RTN channel ρw = − I4 + p B B . (15) in Fig. 13 captures the presence of information backflow, 4 | ih | whereas quantum speed limit time increases (Fig. 14) Here B can be any one of the four maximally entangled without fluctuation in the Markovian regime. | i 1 Bell diagonal states. ρw is entangled for p > 3 and it violates Bell-CHSH inequality and ST2 steering for the 1 values p > √2 . Here, we mainly focus on the the deco- 0.025 herence effects of amplitude damping and RTN channels QSL on ρw, for a fixed value of mixedness. In Figs. 15 and 16, 0.02

3 F(q) 0.015 B(q) S (q) 2 2.5 S (q) 3 QSL C(q) F(q)=0.87 0.01 B(q)=2 2 S (q)=0 2 S (q)=0 3 F(q)=2/3 0.005 1.5

1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 t Quantum Correlations 0.5

FIG. 13. Dynamics of τQSL of maximally entangled Bell state a 0 for non-Markovian random telegraph noise( γ = 40). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 t

FIG. 15. Dynamics of quantum correlations of maximally entangled mixed Werner state for p = 0.9 (Γ=0.01γ) under IV. MIXED ENTANGLED STATES non-Markovian amplitude damping channel.

The dynamics of quantum correlations and speed limit the effect of amplitude damping channel with and with- time for a class of initial mixed states under the influence out memory on Werner state for a state parameter value of different quantum channels are investigated. The ini- p =0.9 is depicted. As in the case of a pure state (Fig. 1), tial mixed state we consider is the Werner state, given in the presence of memory, decay of QC takes place, as the convex sum of maximally entangled Bell state and followed by the revival (Fig. 15). Quantum correla- 9

3 10 F(q) QSL B(q) 9 S (q) 2 2.5 S (q) 3 8 C(q) F(q)=0.87 B(q)=2 7 2 S (q)=0 2 S (q)=0 3 6 F(q)=2/3 1.5 5 QSL

4 1 3 Quantum Correlations 2 0.5 1

0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 t t

FIG. 16. Dynamics of quantum correlations of maximally en- FIG. 17. Dynamics of quantum speed limit time of Werner tangled mixed Werner state for p = 0.9 under the Markovian state for p = 0.9 (Γ= 0.01γ) for non-Markovian amplitude amplitude damping channel. damping channel.

state noise Markovian non-Markovian decay/revival 4 X decay QSL AD X both 3.5 X decay PD Bell X decay 3 state X decay DP X both 2.5 X decay RTN 2 X both QSL X decay Werner AD X both 1.5 state X decay (p=0.9) RTN X both 1

TABLE I. The evolution of quantum correlations under the 0.5 inﬂuence of various unital and non-unital Markovian and non- 0 Markovian quantum channels. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 t

FIG. 18. Dynamics of quantum speed limit time of Werner tions decay and do not revive (Fig. 16) in the Markovian state for p = 0.9 for Markovian amplitude damping channel. regime. The deterioration of QC of mixed state under (non-) Markovian regimes upholds the hierarchy order. V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Similar to the pure state scenario, τQSL (Fig. 17) can be used to analyze the dynamics of non-classical correlations for the non-Markovian amplitude damping chan- In this paper, we systematically investigated the dy- nel. It can be seen that the shift in the nature of τQSL namics of quantum correlations of two qubit states that matches exactly with the revival of lowest degree quan- are used as a resource for quantum teleportation in a tum correlation (quantum entanglement in the present noisy environment. We established the connection be- case) (Fig. 15). In the absence of information backflow tween quantum correlations and two different aspects τQSL increases steadily for Markovian noise (Fig.18). QC of non-classicality associated with the teleportation fi- and τQSL of Werner state for non-Markovian RTN chan- delity. The dynamics of quantum speed limit time can nel are depicted in Figs. 19 and 20, respectively. It can be availed to demonstrate the decay and revival of quan- be seen from Fig. 19, that the strength of QC initially tum correlations in the case of memory and memory decreases, but due to the system-reservoir coupling and less quantum channels. We considered the case of QC the backflow of information, restoration of non-classical in Markovian as well as CP-divisible and P-indivisible properties of states takes place. The dynamics of non- non-Markovian regimes. From the study of Markovian classical correlation of mixed states under non-Markovian and non-Markovian channels, it can be inferred that the channel is consistent with the order of hierarchy of QC. longevity of quantum correlations gets enhanced due to 10

channel, quantum speed limit time increases as time in- 3 F(q) creases, i.e., there occurs no oscillation of τQSL. This B(q) S (q) brings forth the marked diﬀerences in the behavior of 2 2.5 S (q) 3 τQSL for Markovian, CP-divisible and P-indivisible non- C(q) F(q)=0.87 Markovian dynamics [51]. This is highlighted by the shift B(q)=2 2 S (q)=0 2 in τQSL coinciding with the revival of entanglement, for S (q)=0 3 non-Markovian evolution that are P indivisible, exempli- F(q)=2/3 1.5 C(q)=0 ﬁed by the non-Markovian amplitude damping channel.

Quantum Correlations VI. CONCLUSIONS

0.5 We investigated the effects of reservoir memory on the 0 dynamics of quantum correlations of two qubit quantum 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 t states. We considered quantum teleportation fidelity, Bell-CHSH function, quantum steering and entanglement as various measures that capture the non-classical as- FIG. 19. Dynamics of quantum correlations of maximally entangled mixed Werner state for p = 0.9 for non-Markovian pects of quantum states. We discussed how these mea- Random Telegraph Noise ( a = 40). sures of QC are connected with each other under the γ influence of memory of quantum channels. We showed the existence of an order of hierarchy in the decay and revival of quantum correlations under both Markovian 0.02

QSL and non-Markovian noises, which is consistent with the 0.018 previous works. The channel parameter values at which 0.016 decay of non-classical correlations occur follows the or-

0.014 der qFlhv qB qS2 qS3 qT qE, whereas the revival of quantum≤ ≤ correlations≤ ≤ occurs≤ in the reverse or- 0.012 der (qE qT qS3 qS2 qB qFlhv ) i.e., QC with 0.01 ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤

QSL lowest degree of strength revives ﬁrst, followed by the re-

0.008 vival of correlations in the increasing order of strength. QC revives under all non-Markovian noisy models (P- 0.006 indivisible) considered except for the CP-divisible chan- 0.004 nels, which could be ascribed to the lack of backﬂow.

0.002 Noise tolerance of QC under non-Markovian noise is seen to be high compared to that of their Markovian counter- 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 part. We estimated the quantum speed limit time of t states under different noises and showed that the study of τQSL can be used to explain the characteristic dynam- FIG. 20. Quantum speed limit time of Werner state for p = ics of QC. Dynamics of QC and τQSL were examined 0.9 as a function of γt for non-Markovian Random Telegraph for both pure and mixed states in Markovian and non- Noise ( a = 40.). γ Markovian regimes. Under Markovian noise, there exists no information backflow and this can be witnessed from the dynamics of quantum speed limit time, as it increases the memory effects of system-reservoir interaction. The steadily as time increases without fluctuations. Among dynamics of QC under the effect of various channels is the non-Markovian noisy models studied here, except tabulated in Table I. The revival of quantum correla- for the CP-divisible phase damping noise, fluctuation of tions occurs for all considered non-Markovian channels τQSL was observed for P-indivisible non-Markovian am- in the case of both pure and mixed states, except for CP- plitude damping, depolarizing and RTN channels, which divisible channels. The non-revival of QC in CP-divisible could be attributed to the (non-)existence of information channels is due to the absence of backflow of informa- backflow. It was seen that, for a given non-Markovian tion. In the case of non-unital non-Markovian amplitude non-unital amplitude damping channel, the dynamics of damping channel, τQSL exactly describes the decay and quantum speed limit time sheds light into the behav- revival of quantum correlations. This is not true for uni- ior of quantum correlations. We showed that for non- tal non-Markovian quantum channels, and is consistent Markovian amplitude damping noise, the time at which with [51]. For unital P-indivisible non-Markovian chan- the lowest degree QC decays exactly matches with the nels, fluctuating τQSL and QC imply the existence of in- time at which a shift in the behavior of τQSL occurs. The formation backflow, whereas this is absent in CP-divisible connection between QC and τQSL as seen for non-unital non-Markovian regime. For a given Markovian quantum channels cannot be easily established for unital quantum 11 channels and requires further studies. the Department of Science and Technology (DST), In- dia, Grant No.: DST/ICPS/QuST/Theme-1/2019/6.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

SB and RS acknowledge the support from Interdisci- plinary Cyber Physical Systems (ICPS) programme of

[1] A. K. Ekert, Physical review letters 67, 661 (1991). [25] J. Naikoo, A. K. Alok, and S. Banerjee, Physical Review [2] C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Physical review letters D 97, 053008 (2018). 69, 2881 (1992). [26] J. Naikoo and S. Banerjee, The European Physical Jour- [3] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, nal C 78, 602 (2018). A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters [27] K. Dixit, J. Naikoo, S. Banerjee, and A. K. Alok, The 70, 1895 (1993). European Physical Journal C 79, 96 (2019). [4] L. Goldenberg and L. Vaidman, Physical Review Letters [28] A. K. Alok, S. Banerjee, and S. U. Sankar, Phys. Lett. 75, 1239 (1995). B 94, 749 (2015). [5] J. Suzuki, Physical Review A 94, 042306 (2016). [29] H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Physical review [6] A. Costa and R. Angelo, Physical Review A 93, 020103 letters 103, 210401 (2009). (2016). [30] E.-M. Laine, H.-P. Breuer, and J. Piilo, Scientific reports [7] N. Srinatha, S. Omkar, R. Srikanth, S. Banerjee, and 4, 4620 (2014). A. Pathak, Quantum information processing 13, 59 [31] H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, (2014). Reviews of Modern Physics 88, 021002 (2016). [8] V. Sharma, U. Shrikant, R. Srikanth, and S. Banerjee, [32] Z.-D. Liu, H. Lyyra, Y.-N. Sun, B.-H. Liu, C.-F. Li, G.- Quantum Information Processing 17, 207 (2018). C. Guo, S. Maniscalco, and J. Piilo, Nature communi- [9] K. Thapliyal, S. Banerjee, and A. Pathak, Annals of cations 9, 1 (2018). Physics 366, 148 (2016). [33] K. Thapliyal, A. Pathak, and S. Banerjee, Quantum [10] S. Banerjee, V. Ravishankar, and R. Srikanth, The Eu- Information Processing 16, 115 (2017). ropean Physical Journal D 56, 277 (2010). [34] N. P. Kumar, S. Banerjee, R. Srikanth, V. Jagadish, and [11] S. Banerjee, V. Ravishankar, and R. Srikanth, Annals of F. Petruccione, Open Systems & Information Dynamics Physics 325, 816 (2010). 25, 1850014 (2018). [12] B. Dakić, Y. O. Lipp, X. Ma, M. Ringbauer, [35] G. Thomas, N. Siddharth, S. Banerjee, and S. Ghosh, S. Kropatschek, S. Barz, T. Paterek, V. Vedral, Physical Review E 97, 062108 (2018). A. Zeilinger, C.ˇ Brukner, et al., Nature Physics 8, 666 [36] U. Shrikant, R. Srikanth, and S. Banerjee, Physical Re- (2012). view A 98, 032328 (2018). [13] G. Tóth and T. Vértesi, Physical review letters 120, [37] J. Naikoo, S. Dutta, and S. Banerjee, Physical Review 020506 (2018). A 99, 042128 (2019). [14] A. Barasiński and J. Svozil´ık, Physical Review A 99, [38] J. Naikoo and S. Banerjee, Quantum Information Pro- 012306 (2019). cessing 19, 29 (2020). [15] K. G. Paulson and P. K. Panigrahi, Physical Review A [39] N. Gisin, Physics Letters A 210, 157 (1996). 100, 052325 (2019). [40] H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Physical [16] I. Chakrabarty, S. Banerjee, and N. Siddharth, Quantum review letters 98, 140402 (2007). Information and Computation 11, 0541 (2011). [41] G. Adesso, T. R. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso, Journal [17] H. S. Dhar, S. Banerjee, A. Chatterjee, and R. Ghosh, of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49, 473001 Annals of Physics 331, 97 (2013). (2016). [18] S. Bhattacharya, S. Banerjee, and A. K. Pati, Quantum [42] K. G. Paulson and S. V. M. Satyanarayana, Quant. Inf. Information Processing 17, 236 (2018). Compt., 14, 1227 (2014). [19] H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione, et al., The theory of open [43] K. G. Paulson and S. V. M. Satyanarayana, Physics let- quantum systems (Oxford University Press on Demand, ters A 381, 1134 (2017). 2002). [44] K. G. Paulson and S. V. M. Satyanarayana, Quantum [20] S. Banerjee, Open Quantum Systems: Dynamics of Non- Information Processing 15, 1639 (2016). classical Evolution, Vol. 20 (Springer, 2018). [45] A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Reports on [21] U. Weiss, Quantum dissipative systems, Vol. 13 (World Progress in Physics 77, 094001 (2014). scientific, 2012). [46] S. Milz, M. Kim, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Physical [22] S. Omkar, S. Banerjee, R. Srikanth, and A. K. Alok, review letters 123, 040401 (2019). Quantum Information and Computation 16, 0757 (2016). [47] S. Utagi, R. Srikanth, and S. Banerjee, Scientific Reports [23] S. Banerjee, A. K. Alok, S. Omkar, and R. Srikanth, 10, 15049 (2020). Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 82 (2017). [48] L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 249 [24] S. Banerjee, A. K. Alok, and R. MacKenzie, The Euro- (1945). pean Physical Journal Plus 131, 129 (2016). [49] N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, Physica D: Nonlinear Phe- nomena 120, 188 (1998). 12

[50] M. Cianciaruso, S. Maniscalco, and G. Adesso, Physical [61] M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. Review A 96, 012105 (2017). de Matos Filho, Physical review letters 110, 050402 [51] J. Teittinen, H. Lyyra, and S. Maniscalco, New Journal (2013). of Physics 21, 123041 (2019). [62] B. Bellomo, R. L. Franco, and G. Compagno, Physical [52] R. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki, Physics Review Letters 99, 160502 (2007). Letters A 222, 21 (1996). [63] R. Srikanth and S. Banerjee, Physical Review A 77, [53] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Physical review 012318 (2008). 47, 777 (1935). [64] S. Banerjee and R. Srikanth, The European Physical [54] H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Physical Journal D 46, 335 (2008). review letters 98, 140402 (2007). [65] S. Omkar, R. Srikanth, and S. Banerjee, Quantum in- [55] W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters 80, 2245 formation processing 12, 3725 (2013). (1998). [66] T. Yu and J. Eberly, Optics Communications 283, 676 [56] W. K. Wootters, Quantum Information & Computation (2010). 1, 27 (2001). [67] S. Daffer, K. Wódkiewicz, J. D. Cresser, and J. K. [57] A. Borras, M. Casas, A. Plastino, and A. Plastino, Phys- McIver, Physical Review A 70, 010304 (2004). ical Review A 74, 022326 (2006). [68] N. G. Van Kampen, Stochastic processes in physics and [58] J. Kupferman and B. Reznik, Physical Review A 78, chemistry, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, 1992). 042305 (2008). [69] J. P. Pinto, G. Karpat, and F. F. Fanchini, Physical [59] S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Physical review letters 111, Review A 88, 034304 (2013). 010402 (2013). [70] L. Mazzola, J. Piilo, and S. Maniscalco, International [60] A. Del Campo, I. Egusquiza, M. B. Plenio, and S. F. Journal of Quantum Information 9, 981 (2011). Huelga, Physical review letters 110, 050403 (2013).