ArticleScientific reports2023
Quantum violation of LGI under an energy constraint for different scenarios systems.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing the quantum witness, the entropic Leggett-Garg inequality and the NCGD.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper, we consider a qubit in four scenarios: with drive, without drive, and in the presence of dissipation and dephasing, to investigate the quantum violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality (LGI) in an energy constraint. In the case of the energy constraint, we find that under the coarsening measurement in reference and final resolution, the quantum violation of the LGI for the pure qubit is the most robust; on the other hand, the quantum violation of the LGI for the dephasing qubit is the most vulnerable, and the quantum violation of the LGI for driven qubit lies between that of pure qubit and dissipation qubit. Under the coarsening of measurement temporal reference, the quantum violation of the LGI for the pure qubit is more robust than that of the qubit with driven. Moreover, in the case of a qubit that is subjected to driving and is in the presence of dissipation and dephasing, the robustness of quantum violations of the LGI for these scenario systems will become vulnerable, with the driven intensity and the rate of spontaneous emission increasing, respectively, for coarsening measurement both in reference and in final resolution. In addition, in the energy constraint and the projective measurement, the LGI can attain its maximum violation value, 1.5, for the coherent dynamics; while for drive, dissipative and dephasing qubits, the LGI cannot attain the value of 1.5. For systems in the presence of dissipation and dephasing, we find that in the energy constraint, the robustness of the coarsening measurement in final resolution exhibits more vulnerable than that of the coarsening measurement in reference. And for systems with drive and without drive, the robustness of the coarsening measurement in temporal reference is the most robust, and the robustness of the coarsening of measurement final measurement resolution is the most vulnerable.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.