1: % Artur's final corrections.

2: 

3: \documentclass[12pt,pre,eqsecnum,aps,epsfig,floats]{revtex4}

4: 

5: \bibliographystyle{prsty}

6:    

7: \usepackage{graphics}

8: \usepackage{epsfig}

9: \usepackage{amsfonts}

10: \usepackage{amsmath}

11: \usepackage{theorem}

12: 

13: \def\mybox{\,\vrule height7pt width6.2pt depth-1pt}

14: 

15: \newcommand{\one}{\mbox{\tt 1}\hspace{-0.057 in}\mbox{\tt l}}

16: 

17: \newcommand{\Ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}

18: 

19: \newcommand{\ba}{\mbox{\boldmath $a$}}

20: \newcommand{\g}{\mbox{\boldmath $g$}}

21: \newcommand{\f}{\mbox{\boldmath $f$}}

22: \newcommand{\gs}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle g$}}

23: \newcommand{\bu}{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}

24: \newcommand{\us}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle u$}}

25: \newcommand{\bv}{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}

26: \newcommand{\vs}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle v$}}

27: \newcommand{\w}{\mbox{\boldmath $w$}}

28: \newcommand{\ws}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle w$}}

29: \newcommand{\x}{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}

30: \newcommand{\xs}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle x$}}

31: \newcommand{\y}{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}

32: \newcommand{\ys}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle y$}}

33: \newcommand{\z}{\mbox{\boldmath $z$}}

34: \newcommand{\zs}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle z$}}

35: \newcommand{\as}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle a$}}

36: \newcommand{\at}{\mbox{\boldmath $a$}}

37: \newcommand{\bs}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle b$}}

38: \newcommand{\bt}{\mbox{\boldmath $b$}}

39: \newcommand{\xibold}{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}

40: \newcommand{\xibolds}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle \xi$}}

41: \newcommand{\gammas}{\mbox{$\scriptstyle \gamma$}}

42: \newcommand{\boldarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $\swarrow$}}

43: 

44: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mbox{\rm\small Tr\ }}

45: \newcommand{\balpha}{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}

46: \newcommand{\balphas}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle \alpha$}}

47: \newcommand{\bbeta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}

48: \newcommand{\bbetas}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle \beta$}}

49: 

50: \newcommand{\bgamma}{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}

51: \newcommand{\bdelta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}

52: \newcommand{\bsigma}{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

53: \newcommand{\bxi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}

54: \newcommand{\bxis}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle\xi$}}

55: \newcommand{\boldeta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\eta$}}

56: \newcommand{\boldetas}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle\eta$}}

57: \newcommand{\bzeta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\zeta$}}

58: \newcommand{\bzetas}{\mbox{\boldmath $\scriptstyle\zeta$}}

59: 

60: \newcommand{\bnabla}{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

61: 

62: \theoremstyle{break}

63: 

64: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

65: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}

66: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

67: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

68: \newtheorem{ThProof}{Proof of Theorem}

69: \newtheorem{example}{Example}

70: \newtheorem{identity}{Identity}

71: 

72: \begin{document}

73: 

74: 

75: \title{Classical predictability and coarse-grained      

76: evolution of the quantum baker's map}

77: \author{Artur Scherer}

78: \author{Andrei N. Soklakov}

79: \author{R\"udiger Schack}

80: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, 

81: Royal Holloway, University of London,

82: Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK}

83: 

84: \date{\today}

85: 

86: \begin{abstract}

87:   We investigate how classical predictability of the coarse-grained evolution

88:   of the quantum baker's map depends on the character of the coarse-graining.

89:   Our analysis extends earlier work by Brun and Hartle [Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf

90:     60}, 123503 (1999)] to the case of a chaotic map. To quantify 

91:   predictability, we compare the rate of entropy increase for a family of

92:   coarse-grainings in the decoherent histories formalism. We find that the

93:   rate of entropy increase is dominated by the number of scales characterising

94:   the coarse-graining.

95: \end{abstract}

96: 

97: \maketitle

98: 

99: \section{Introduction}

100: 

101: 

102: The concept of coarse-graining plays an important role in the emergence of

103: classical evolution from the fundamental quantum-mechanical equations of

104: motion~\cite{Gell-MannHartle1993,BrunHartle1999-PRD}.  The form of the

105: effective classical equations of motion is as much influenced by the character

106: of the coarse-graining as by the fundamental quantum-mechanical equations of

107: motion themselves.  A systematic way to study coarse-grained quantum evolution

108: is provided by the decoherent histories

109: formalism~\cite{Griffiths1984,Omnes1988,Gell-MannHartle1990,DowkerHalliwell1992,Gell-MannHartle1993}.

110: Within this approach to quantum theory a quantum mechanical system is said to

111: exhibit classical behaviour when histories with correlations in time that are

112: implied by classical deterministic laws have high

113: probability~\cite{Gell-MannHartle1993,BrunHartle1999-PRD}.

114: 

115: Coarse-grained descriptions are also used in classical physics to reduce the

116: number of variables when the number of degrees of freedom is large. This leads

117: to effective equations of motion for the coarse-grained variables.  The

118: character of the coarse-graining is important here. Although a given physical

119: system may be described by many alternative sets of coarse-grained variables,

120: some coarse-grained descriptions are more useful for prediction than others.

121: For a practical set of coarse-grained variables, the observables of interest

122: should be simple and slowly varying functions.

123: 

124: In quantum theory, the nonuniqueness of the coarse-graining procedure motivates

125: this question: what distinguishes coarse-grainings leading to predictable,

126: deterministic effective classical evolution from other coarse-grainings?  In

127: general, arbitrarily many sets of alternative coarse-grained histories

128: decohere and so can be assigned probabilities.  Moreover, two such decoherent

129: sets of histories are in general mutually incompatible.  Which of these many

130: possible coarse-grainings lead to predictable evolution of the coarse-grained

131: variables, i.e., useful regularities in time governed by effective,

132: phenomenological equations of motion?  

133: 

134: These questions have been addressed by Brun and Hartle in

135: Ref.~\cite{BrunHartle1999-PRD}, where they investigate the origin of classical

136: predictability by considering the simplest linear system with a continuum

137: description---the linear one-dimensional harmonic chain regarded as a closed

138: quantum mechanical system.  In their analysis a chain of $\mathcal{N}$ atoms

139: is divided up into groups of $N$ atoms each. Each such group is then itself

140: further subdivided into $N/d$ equally spaced clumps of $d$ atoms each, with a

141: distance between clumps of $(\mathcal{N}/N)\cdot d$.  A family of

142: coarse-grained descriptions is introduced by restricting attention to the

143: average positions of the atoms in a group, which are regarded as the relevant

144: variables defining the system under consideration, and ignoring the internal

145: coordinates within each group, which are regarded as the ``environment''. In

146: the case $d=N$ the $N$ atoms of each group are all neighbours. The

147: corresponding coarse-grained description is therefore entirely local. As $d$

148: decreases from $N$ to $1$ the coarse-grained description becomes more and more

149: nonlocal. In the case $d=1$ the $N$ atoms of each group are dispersed over

150: the whole chain. Brun and Hartle analyse how decoherence, noise and

151: computational complexity of the coarse-grained evolution depends on the

152: nonlocality parameter $d$ and thus show that local coarse-grainings are

153: characterised by a higher degree of classical predictability.

154: 

155: The dynamical system studied by Brun and Hartle is linear. In this paper we

156: analyse classical predictability for a family of coarse grainings for a {\em

157:   nonlinear\/} chaotic map, the quantum baker's

158: map~\cite{Balazs1989,Saraceno1990}.  To quantify predictability, we compute

159: the entropy increase for the evolution: the greater the rate of entropy

160: increase, the less predictable is the evolution. We consider a family of 

161: hierarchical multi-scale coarse grainings and show that predictability

162: decreases as the number of scales characterising the coarse-graining increases.

163: 

164: The paper is organised as follows.  We start with a short introduction

165: to the quantum baker's map (Sec.~\ref{sec:baker}) and the decoherent histories

166: formalism (Sec.~\ref{sec:DecHist}). We then introduce the family of coarse grainings

167: (Sec.~\ref{sec:DifferentCoarse-grainedDescriptions}), describe how the rate

168: of entropy increase depends on the coarse-graining (Sec.~\ref{sec:Results}),

169: and finally present detailed derivations of our results

170: (Sec.~\ref{sec:Derivations}).

171:  

172: \section{Background}

173: \subsection{Quantum baker's map} \label{sec:baker}

174: 

175: The quantum baker's map \cite{Balazs1989,Saraceno1990} is a prototypical

176: quantum map invented for the theoretical investigation of quantum chaos. 

177: It was introduced as a quantised version of the classical

178: baker's transformation \cite{Arnold1968}. There is, however, no unique

179: quantisation procedure \cite{Berry1979}. The original definition of the

180: map~\cite{Balazs1989,Saraceno1990} is based on Weyl's

181: quantisation~\cite{Weyl1950} of the unit square. In

182: \cite{Schack2000a} a class of quantum baker's maps has been defined by

183: exploiting formal similarities between the symbolic dynamics

184: \cite{Alekseev1981} for the classical baker's map on the one hand and the

185: dynamics of strings of quantum bits (qubits) on the other hand. These maps

186: admit a symbolic description in terms of shifts on strings of qubits similar

187: to classical symbolic dynamics~\cite{Alekseev1981}. Their symbolic description

188: has been further developed in~\cite{Soklakov2000a}.

189: 

190: Let us give a short introduction following~\cite{Schack2000a}.  

191: Quantum baker's maps are defined on the 

192: $D$-dimensional Hilbert space of the quantised unit square \cite{Weyl1950}. 

193: For consistency of units, we let the quantum scale on ``phase space''  be 

194: $2\pi\hbar=1/D$. Following Ref.~\cite{Saraceno1990}, we choose half-integer 

195: eigenvalues $q_j=(j+{1\over2})/D$, $j=0,\ldots,D-1$, and $p_k=(k+{1\over2})/D$,

196: $k=0,\ldots,D-1$, of the discrete ``position'' and ``momentum''

197: operators $\hat q$ and $\hat p$, respectively, corresponding to

198: antiperiodic boundary conditions.  We further assume that $D=2^N$,

199: which is the dimension of the Hilbert space of $N$ qubits.

200: 

201: The $D=2^N$ dimensional Hilbert space modelling the unit square can be 

202: identified with the product space of $N$ qubits via

203: \begin{equation}

204: \Ket{q_j} =

205: \Ket{\xi_1}\otimes\Ket{\xi_2}\otimes\cdots\otimes\Ket{\xi_N}  \;,

206: \label{eq:tensor1}

207: \end{equation}

208: where $j=\sum_{l=1}^N \xi_l2^{N-l}$, $\xi_l\in\{0,1\}$,

209: and where each qubit has basis states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$.

210: We can write $q_j$ as a binary fraction, $q_j=0.\xi_1\xi_2\ldots\xi_N1$. 

211: Let us define the notation 

212: \begin{equation}

213: \Ket{.\xi_1\xi_2\ldots \xi_N} = e^{i\pi/2} \Ket{q_j} \;;

214: \label{eqtensor}

215: \end{equation}

216: see Ref.~\cite{Schack2000a} for the reason for the phase factor $e^{i\pi/2}$.

217: Momentum and position eigenstates are related through the quantum Fourier

218: transform operator $\hat F$ {\cite{Saraceno1990}}, i.e., 

219: $\hat F\Ket{q_k}=\Ket{p_k}$.

220: 

221: By applying the Fourier transform operator to the $n$ rightmost bits of

222: the position eigenstate $|.\xi_{n+1}\ldots\xi_N\xi_n\ldots\xi_1\rangle$, 

223: one obtains the family of states  \cite{Schack2000a}

224: \begin{eqnarray}                                                 \label{baker8}

225: |\xi_1\ldots\xi_n.\xi_{n+1}\ldots\xi_N\rangle&\equiv&

226: 2^{-n/2}e^{i\pi(0.\xi_n\ldots\xi_11)}

227: |\xi_{n+1}\rangle

228:             \otimes\cdots\otimes

229:             |\xi_N\rangle \otimes\cr

230:     & & (|0\rangle+e^{2\pi i(0.\xi_11)}|1\rangle)

231:                      \otimes(|0\rangle+e^{2\pi i(0.\xi_2\xi_11)}|1\rangle)

232:                      \otimes\cr

233:     & & (|0\rangle+e^{2\pi i(0.\xi_3\xi_2\xi_11)}|1\rangle)

234:                       \otimes\cdots\otimes\cr

235:     & & (|0\rangle+e^{2\pi i(0.\xi_n\ldots\xi_11)}|1\rangle)\;,

236: \end{eqnarray}

237: where $1\leq n\leq N-1$. 

238: For fixed values of $n$ and $N$ we will use the notation 

239: \begin{equation} \label{Eq:basis_n}

240: |\xi_1\ldots\xi_N\rangle_n\equiv

241: |\xi_1\ldots\xi_n.\xi_{n+1}\ldots\xi_N\rangle\,.

242: \end{equation}

243: These states form an orthonormal basis of the Hilbert space.  

244: The state (\ref{baker8}) is localised in both 

245: position and momentum: it is strictly localised within a position region 

246: of width $1/2^{N-n}$, centred at position 

247: $q=0.\xi_{n+1}\ldots\xi_N1$, and it is approximately localised within 

248: a momentum region of width $1/2^{n}$, centred at momentum 

249: $p=0.\xi_n\ldots\xi_11$.

250: 

251: For each fixed $n$, $0\leq n\leq N-1$, the quantum

252: baker's map $B_n$ is defined by

253: \begin{equation}                                                 \label{baker9}

254: B_n|\xi_1\ldots\xi_n.\xi_{n+1}\ldots\xi_N\rangle =

255:                     |\xi_1\ldots\xi_{n+1}.\xi_{n+2}\ldots\xi_N\rangle \;,

256: \end{equation}

257: i.e.

258: \begin{equation}                                                \label{baker10}

259: B_n|\xi_1\ldots \xi_N\rangle_n =|\xi_1\ldots\xi_N\rangle_{n+1}\;.

260: \end{equation}

261: \noindent

262: The action of the map $B_n$ on the basis states

263: (\ref{baker8}) is thus given by a shift of the dot by one

264:  position. In phase-space language, the map $\hat B_n$ takes a state 

265: localised at

266: $(q,p)=(0.\xi_{n+1}\ldots\xi_N1,0.\xi_n\ldots\xi_11)$ to a state localised at

267: $(q',p')=(0.\xi_{n+2}\ldots\xi_N1,0.\xi_{n+1}\ldots\xi_11)$, 

268: while it stretches the

269: state by a factor of two in the $q$ direction and squeezes it by a

270: factor of two in the $p$ direction.

271: For $n=N-1$, the map is the original quantum baker's map

272: as defined in Ref.~\cite{Saraceno1990}. 

273: 

274: 

275: For the sake of clarity, it will be convenient to simplify our

276: notation slightly. Throughout the paper $n$ and $N$ are fixed. 

277: So we may omit the index $n$ and denote the quantum baker's map 

278: simply by $B$, always keeping in mind that we are dealing 

279: with the special baker's map $B_n$ for the given value of $n$.

280: 

281: \subsection{Decoherent histories formalism} \label{sec:DecHist}

282: 

283: The decoherent histories

284: formalism~\cite{Gell-MannHartle1993,Griffiths1984,Omnes1988,

285:   Gell-MannHartle1990,DowkerHalliwell1992} provides a framework for

286: investigating classicality in quantum

287: theory~\cite{DowkerHalliwell1992,Gell-MannHartle1993}.

288: The formalism assigns probabilities to quantum histories, 

289: i.e.\ ordered sequences of quantum-mechanical ``propositions''. 

290: Mathematically, these propositions are represented by projectors. 

291: An exhaustive set of mutually exclusive propositions

292: corresponds to a complete set of mutually orthogonal projectors.

293: In this approach to quantum theory a quantum mechanical system is 

294: said to exhibit classical behaviour when the probability distribution 

295: over histories is strongly peaked about histories

296: having correlations in time implied by classical deterministic 

297: laws~\cite{Gell-MannHartle1993,BrunHartle1999-PRD}.  Due to quantum 

298: interference one cannot always assign probabilities 

299: to a set of histories in a consistent way. For this to be possible, 

300: the set of histories must be decoherent. Decoherence of histories 

301: is therefore a prerequisite for classical behaviour. In general, only

302: coarse-grained sets of histories are decoherent.

303: 

304: For our purpose it will be sufficient to consider a slightly 

305: simplified version of the general decoherent histories 

306: framework, tailored  to a system dynamics 

307: induced by a fixed unitary quantum map $U$ and restricted to 

308: the special but natural case, in which histories are constructed 

309: from a fixed exhaustive set of mutually exclusive propositions.

310: 

311: A {\em projective partition\/} of a Hilbert space $\cal H$ is

312: a complete set of mutually orthogonal projection operators $\,\{P_{\mu}\}$ on

313: ${\cal H}$, i.e., $P_{\mu}P_{\mu'}=\delta_{\mu\mu'}P_{\mu}\:$ and 

314: $\:\sum_{\mu}P_{\mu}=\one_{\cal H}\:$, where $\one_{\cal H}$ denotes

315: the unit operator on $\cal H$. 

316: A projective partition is {\em

317:   fine-grained\/} if all projectors are one-dimensional, 

318: i.e.,  $\,\forall\,\mu\;$

319: $\mbox{rank}(P_{\mu})=\mbox{dim}\big(\mbox{supp}(P_{\mu})\big)=1$

320: \footnote{The support of a Hermitian operator $A$ is defined to 

321: be the vector space spanned by the eigenvectors of $A$ corresponding 

322: to its non-zero eigenvalues.}, and {\em coarse-grained} otherwise. 

323: 

324: Given a projective partition $\{P_{\mu}\}$ of a Hilbert space $\cal H$, 

325: a string of length $k$ of projectors $P_{\alpha}\in\{P_{\mu}\}$ 

326: defines a history of length $k$:

327: \begin{equation}

328: h_{\balphas} \equiv \left(P_{\alpha_1},P_{\alpha_2},\dots,P_{\alpha_k}\right)\;,

329: \end{equation}

330: where $\balpha\equiv\alpha_1\alpha_2\dots\alpha_k$. The set of all 

331: such histories, $\mathbb{H}[\{P_{\mu}\}\,;\,k\,]\equiv\big\{h_{\balphas}\,:\:

332: h_{\balphas}\in\{P_{\mu}\}^k\big\}$, forms the 

333: exhaustive set of mutually exclusive histories of length

334: $k$. Histories are ordered sequences of projection

335: operators, corresponding to quantum-mechanical propositions. 

336: Note that we restrict attention to histories constructed from a 

337: fixed exhaustive set of mutually exclusive propositions: 

338: the projectors $P_{\alpha_{j}}$ within the 

339: sequences are all chosen from the same projective partition, 

340: for all times $j=1,\ldots,k$. 

341: 

342: A set of histories  $\mathbb{H}[\{P_{\mu}\}\,;\,k\,]$ 

343: is called {\em fine-grained\/} ({\em coarse-grained\/}) if it is 

344: constructed from a fine-grained (coarse-grained) projective partition.

345: A single history $h_{\balphas}\in\mathbb{H}[\{P_{\mu}\}\,;\,k\,]$ 

346: is called {\em fine-grained}, if it is represented by 

347: a sequence of 1-dimensional projectors, and {\em coarse-grained\/} otherwise.

348: 

349: An initial state represented by a density operator $\rho_0$ on ${\cal H}$ and

350: a unitary dynamics generated by a unitary map $U:\cal H\rightarrow\cal H$

351: induce a probabilistic structure on the event algebra associated with

352: $\mathbb{H}[\{P_{\mu}\}\,;\,k\,]$, if the following decoherence conditions are

353: satisfied.  These are given in terms of properties of the {\em decoherence

354:   functional\/} $\mathcal{D}_{U,\,\rho_0}\,[\cdot,\cdot]$ on

355: $\mathbb{H}[\{P_{\mu}\}\,;\,k\,]\times\mathbb{H}[\{P_{\mu}\}\,;\,k\,]$,

356: defined by

357: \begin{equation} 

358: \mathcal{D}_{U,\,\rho_0}\,[h_{\balphas},h_{\bbetas}]\equiv 

359: \mbox{Tr}\left[C_{\balphas}\,\rho\,C_{\bbetas}^{\dagger}\right]\:,

360: \end{equation}

361: where 

362: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Classoperators}

363: C_{\balphas}\equiv C_{h_{\mbox{\tiny{$\balpha$}}}}

364: & \equiv &\left(U^{\dagger\,k}P_{\alpha_k}U^k\right)

365: \left(U^{\dagger\,k-1}P_{\alpha_{k-1}}U^{k-1}\right)\dots

366:  \left(U^{\dagger}P_{\alpha_1}U\right)\nonumber\\

367: &=& U^{\dagger\,k}P_{\alpha_k}UP_{\alpha_{k-1}}U\dots

368:   P_{\alpha_2}UP_{\alpha_1}U\;.

369: \end{eqnarray}

370: The set of histories $\mathbb{H}[\{P_{\mu}\}\,;\,k\,]$ is said to be 

371: decoherent with respect to a given 

372: unitary map $U:\cal H\rightarrow\cal H$ and a given initial 

373: state $\rho_0$, if 

374: \begin{equation}  \label{eq:consistency}

375: \mathcal{D}_{U,\,\rho_0}\,[h_{\balphas},h_{\bbetas}]

376: \propto \delta_{\balphas\bbetas}\equiv

377: \prod_{j=1}^k\delta_{\alpha_j \beta_j}

378: \end{equation}

379: for all $h_{\balphas},h_{\bbetas}\in

380: \mathbb{H}[\{P_{\mu}\}\,;\,k\,]$. 

381: If this decoherence condition is satisfied, the diagonal elements 

382: of the decoherence functional, 

383: $p[h_{\balphas}]=\mathcal{D}_{U,\,\rho_0}\,[h_{\balphas},h_{\balphas}]$,

384: can be interpreted as the probabilities of the histories.

385: For a decoherent set of histories, the entropy, $H[\{h_{\balphas}\}]$,

386: can be defined as follows \cite{Gell-MannHartle1990,Hartle1998,BrunHartle1999-PRE}:

387: \begin{eqnarray}        \label{def:Entropy}

388: H[\{h_{\balphas} \}] 

389:  &\equiv& -\sum_{\balphas}p[h_{\balphas}]\log_2p[h_{\balphas}]\nonumber\\

390: &=&-\sum_{\balphas}\mathcal{D}_{U,\,\rho_0}\,[h_{\balphas},h_{\balphas}]

391: \log_2\Big(\mathcal{D}_{U,\,\rho_0}\,[h_{\balphas},h_{\balphas}]\Big)\;.

392: \end{eqnarray}

393: 

394: 

395: \section{Predictability for different coarse-grainings of the quantum baker's map } 

396: \label{sec:coarse}

397: 

398: This section is organised as follows.

399: Subsection~\ref{sec:DifferentCoarse-grainedDescriptions}, which discusses

400: coarse-grained descriptions of the quantum baker's map, contains two parts:

401: part~1 introduces a family of coarse-grained projective partitions of the

402: Hilbert space, which are then used in part~2 to construct a class of

403: coarse-grained sets of histories.  Subsection~\ref{sec:Results}

404: summarises the main results of this paper, which are then derived and

405: illustrated in detail in Subsection~\ref{sec:Derivations}.

406: 

407: \vspace{-2mm}

408: \subsection{Coarse-grainings}

409: \label{sec:DifferentCoarse-grainedDescriptions}

410: \vspace{-1mm}

411: 

412: \subsubsection{Coarse-grained partitions}

413: \label{sec:Coarse-grained_partitions}

414: 

415: Let us first introduce two different types of coarse-grained 

416: projective partitions of the $2^N$-dimensional Hilbert space modelling 

417: the unit square, which later will be regarded as special cases

418: of a family of more general coarse-grained descriptions. 

419: We refer to the definitions and notations of Sec.~\ref{sec:baker}. 

420: In particular we use the orthonormal basis (\ref{Eq:basis_n}) of 

421: the Hilbert space to construct the partitions. 

422: 

423: For a fixed binary string $\y=y_1\ldots y_{N-l-r}\in \{0,1\}^{N-l-r}$ 

424: we define the ``local'' projection operators by 

425: \begin{equation}                     \label{coarseProjectorsloc}

426:   {P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}\equiv

427: \sum_{a_1,\ldots,a_l\atop b_1,\ldots,b_r}

428: |a_1\dots a_l\ \y\ b_1\dots b_r\rangle_n\,_n

429: \langle a_1\dots a_l\ \y\ b_1\dots b_r|\,

430: \equiv\sum_{\as\in \{0,1\}^{l} \atop \bs\in \{0,1\}^{r}} 

431: |\at\ \y\ \bt\ \rangle_n\,_n

432: \langle \at\ \y\ \bt|\,,

433: \end{equation} 

434: \noindent

435: and for fixed strings $\y^1\in \{0,1\}^{s_1}$ and $\y^2\in

436: \{0,1\}^{s_2}$ we define the ``nonlocal'' 

437: projection operators by

438: \begin{eqnarray}                     \label{CheckerboardProjectors}

439:   {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}&\equiv &

440: \sum_{\as\in \{0,1\}^{l}}\:\sum_{\bs\in \{0,1\}^{r}}\:

441: \sum_{\,\xibolds\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}|\at\ \y^1\ \xibold\ \y^2\ \bt\ \rangle_n\,_n

442: \langle\at\ \y^1\ \xibold\ \y^2\ \bt\ |\;\\

443:  &\equiv&\sum_{a_1,\ldots,a_l\atop b_1,\ldots,b_r}

444: \sum_{\xi_1\ldots\xi_{m_l}\atop \xi_{m_l+1}\ldots\xi_{m_l+m_r}}

445: |a_1\dots a_l\ \y^1\ \xi_1\ldots\xi_{m_l}\,.\,\xi_{m_l+1}\ldots\xi_{m_l+m_r}

446:  \y^2\ b_1\dots b_r\rangle\times\nonumber\\ && \hspace{3.5cm}\langle a_1\dots a_l\ \y^1\

447: \xi_1\ldots\xi_{m_l}\,.\,\xi_{m_l+1}\ldots\xi_{m_l+m_r}  \y^2\ b_1\dots

448: b_r|\nonumber

449: \end{eqnarray}

450: What the terms ``local'' and  ``non-local'' mean 

451: in this context, will be explained below. 

452: Throughout this paper, bold variables denote binary strings.  

453: Furthermore, lower indices label individual bits of a

454: string, whereas upper indices will label different strings. 

455: It will be convenient to abbreviate a substring

456: $\alpha_{\kappa}\dots\alpha_{\sigma}$ of a string 

457: $\balpha=\alpha_1\dots\alpha_{\kappa}\alpha_{\kappa+1}\dots\alpha_{\sigma}

458: \alpha_{\sigma+1}\dots\alpha_{\gamma}$ by $\balpha_{\kappa:\sigma}$. 

459: Concatenation of strings is defined in the usual way. 

460: Taking the just mentioned example we can, for instance, express 

461: the string $\balpha$ as a concatenation of three substrings, 

462: $\balpha=\balpha_{1:\kappa-1}\balpha_{\kappa:\sigma}\balpha_{\sigma+1:\gamma}$. 

463: The length of a string $\balpha$ will be denoted by $|\balpha|$. 

464: 

465: For simplicity, we will always assume in the following 

466: that $l<n$ and $r<N-n$ in the first case, and 

467: $l+s_1\le n$ and $r+s_2\le N-n$ in the second case. 

468: In both cases $l$ and $r$ acquire the specific

469: meaning as the number of ``momentum'' and ``position'' bits 

470: ignored in the coarse-graining. In the second case, 

471: in addition $m_l$ most significant momentum 

472: bits and $m_r$ most significant position 

473: bits are coarse-grained over. 

474: 

475: The operator ${P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}$ is a projector on a

476: $2^{l+r}$-dimensional subspace labelled by the string $\y$. 

477: The projector ${P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}$ projects 

478: on a $2^{l+m_l+m_r+r}$-dimensional subspace labelled by the pair 

479: of strings $(\y^1, \y^2)$. 

480: In both cases we are dealing with complete sets of

481: mutually orthogonal projectors, i.e., with projective partitions, as

482: \begin{equation}

483: {P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}{P}_{\ys'}^{(l,r)}=\delta_{\ys,\ys'}{P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}\quad 

484: \mbox{and}\quad\sum_{\ys}{P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}=\one\;,

485: \end{equation}

486: \begin{equation}

487: {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}{P}_{\ys^{'1},\,\ys^{'2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}=

488: \delta_{\ys^1,\,\ys^{'1}}\delta_{\ys^2,\,\ys^{'2}}

489: {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r,r)}\quad\mbox{and}\quad

490: \sum_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}{P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}=\one\;.

491: \end{equation}

492: 

493: 

494: Let us explain what is meant  by ``local'' and ``nonlocal'' 

495: regarding the just introduced projection operators.  

496: The projection operators ${P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}$ and

497: ${P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}$ 

498: project on subspaces of the Hilbert space associated 

499: with phase-space regions of the unit square in which 

500: the corresponding eigenstates with eigenvalue 1  are localised. 

501: In the case of the projectors ${P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}$  

502: these regions are connected cells whose location 

503: within the unit square of the phase space is determined 

504: by the specified most significant position and momentum 

505: bits given by the binary string $\y=y_1\ldots y_{N-l-r}$. 

506: The size of these cells depends on the significance of 

507: the scales which are not resolved and therefore ignored, i.e.\ coarse-grained over.   

508: In the case of the projectors ${P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}$, 

509: on the other hand, there is coarse-graining also at 

510: the most significant scales:  a number of the most significant

511: position and  momentum bits are not specified.  The  associated phase space domains

512: must therefore consist of disconnected parts spread over the whole 

513: unit square, the number depending on how many most significant

514: position and momentum bits are coarse-grained over, i.e.\ on the 

515: parameter $m\equiv m_l+m_r$.  For an illustration see Fig.~\ref{fig1}. 

516: 

517: \begin{figure}[bt]

518: \begin{center}

519: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{checkerb.eps}

520: \bigskip

521: \bigskip

522: \caption{A schematic illustration of the projectors  ${P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}$ and

523: ${P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}$. {\bf (a)} Let 

524:   $n-l=2$, $N-l-r=4$, and $\y=y_1\ldots y_4=1110$. The projector

525:   ${P}_{\ys=1110}^{(l,r)}$ is then in approximate correspondence with

526:   the phase space region shaded in grey. {\bf (b)} Let $n-l=4$, $m_l=2$,

527:   $m_r=2$, $\y^1=10$ and $\y^2=01$. The projector

528:   ${P}_{\ys^1=10,\,\ys^2=01}^{(l,2,2, r)}$ is then in approximate

529:   correspondence with the disconnected phase space region given by the 16

530:   black cells.}

531: \label{fig1}

532: \end{center}

533: \end{figure}

534: 

535: 

536: We will also use the diagram notation for the introduced projectors: 

537: \begin{eqnarray} 

538: \label{coarseProjectorsloc_diagram}

539: {P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}&\equiv&(\,\underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}

540: \ \y\ \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\,)\;,\\

541: \label{CheckerboardProjectors_diagram}

542:  {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}&\equiv& (\,\underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}

543: \ \y^1\ \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{m_l}\ .\ \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{m_r}\

544: \y^2\ \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\,)\;,

545: \end{eqnarray}

546: where the empty boxes indicate the bits which are coarse-grained

547: over. We can write the projectors of the second type as 

548: sums over projectors of the first type: 

549: \begin{equation}    \label{nonlocal=sumoverlocal}

550: {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}= \sum_{\,\xibolds\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}  

551: {P}_{\ys^1\xibolds\ys^2}^{(l,r)}\;,

552: \end{equation}

553: where $\y^1\xibold\y^2$ means the concatenation of the three strings

554: $\y^1$, $\xibold$ and $\y^2$. Remember that in the definition of 

555: the projectors ${P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}$ 

556: we assume that $l+|\y^1|\le n$ and 

557: $r+|\y^2|\le N-n$. 

558: 

559: The projectors (\ref{coarseProjectorsloc_diagram}) and 

560: (\ref{CheckerboardProjectors_diagram}) are special cases 

561: of the family of all projection operators, which define the 

562: scales at which information is lost in the symbolic 

563: representation. In general such projectors exhibit 

564: structure on many different scales, and the most 

565: general projector of this type would be of the form

566: \begin{equation}

567: \label{multi-scales_coarse-graining_diagram}

568: {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2,\dots,\ys^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1, m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}

569: =

570: \bigg( \,\underbrace{\Box\dots\Box}_{l}

571: \ \y^{1}\ \underbrace{\Box\dots\Box}_{m_1}\,\y^{2}\ 

572: \underbrace{\Box\dots\Box}_{m_2}\ \,\dots\dots\,

573: \y^{\lambda-1}\ \underbrace{\Box\dots\Box}_{m_{\lambda-1}}\

574: \y^{\lambda}\  \underbrace{\Box\dots\Box}_{r}\,\bigg)\;. 

575: \end{equation}

576: The projector (\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_diagram}) 

577: defines a coarse-graining in which information is lost on 

578: several different scales. We will call this a {\em multi-scale

579:   coarse-graining\/} or {\em hierarchical coarse-graining}.

580: Accordingly, the special cases  

581: (\ref{coarseProjectorsloc_diagram}) and 

582: (\ref{CheckerboardProjectors_diagram}) will be called 

583: 1-scale and 2-scale coarse-graining, respectively. 

584: The  2-scale coarse-graining (\ref{CheckerboardProjectors_diagram}) 

585: we introduced above is a special 2-scale coarse-graining, 

586: as we assumed that the coarse-grained {\em island\/} of 

587: size $m_l+m_r$ between the specified strings $\y^1$ and 

588:  $\y^2$ lies around the dot separating the momentum and 

589: position bits in the symbolic representation. The first step 

590: towards a generalisation is to combine the two parameters 

591: $m_l$ and $m_r$ (i.e.\ the number of 

592: most significant momentum and position bits that 

593: are coarse-grained over in the symbolic representation)  

594: to a single parameter $m=m_l+m_r$ and allow the corresponding 

595: coarse-grained island of size $m$ between the specified strings $\y^1$ and 

596:  $\y^2$ to lie anywhere, not necessarily at 

597: the most significant region around the dot. 

598: The next step is to introduce several 

599: coarse-grained islands of this kind, on several scales.

600: An event will then be specified by bit strings $\y^1$, $\y^2$, 

601: $\dots$, $\y^{\lambda}$ of length $|\y^i|=s_i$ at a time, separated by 

602: $(\lambda-1)$  coarse-grained islands of size $m_i$ each, where $\lambda>1$,

603: as in Eq.~(\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_diagram}). 

604: 

605: More precisely, the most general family of coarse-grained descriptions is  

606: represented by sets of projection operators defined as follows:

607: \begin{eqnarray}                     \label{multi-scales_coarse-graining_projectors}

608:   {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2,\dots,\ys^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1, m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}&\equiv &

609: \sum_{\as\in \{0,1\}^{l}}\:\sum_{\bs\in \{0,1\}^{r}}\:

610: \sum_{\,\xibolds^1\in \{0,1\}^{m_1}}\dots

611: \sum_{\,\xibolds^{\lambda-1}\in \{0,1\}^{m_{\lambda-1}}}\nonumber\\

612: &&|\at\ \y^1\ \xibold^1\ \y^2\ \xibold^2\ \dots \xibold^{\lambda-1}

613: \y^{\lambda}\bt\ \rangle_n\,_n\langle

614: \at\ \y^1\ \xibold^1\ \y^2\ \xibold^2\ \dots

615: \xibold^{\lambda-1}\y^{\lambda}\bt\ |\nonumber\\

616: &=&

617: \sum_{\,\xibolds^1\in \{0,1\}^{m_1}}\dots

618: \sum_{\,\xibolds^{\lambda-1}\in \{0,1\}^{m_{\lambda-1}}}

619: {P}_{\ys^1\xibolds^1\ys^2\xibolds^2\dots

620: \ys^{\lambda-1}\xibolds^{\lambda-1}\ys^{\lambda}}^{(l,r)}\;,

621: \end{eqnarray}

622: \noindent

623: where $\y^1\xibold^1\y^2\xibold^2\dots

624: \y^{\lambda-1}\xibold^{\lambda-1}\y^{\lambda}$ 

625: means the concatenation of the particular strings 

626: $\y^1$, $\xibold^1$, $\y^2,\dots,\xibold^{\lambda-1}$,

627: $\y^{\lambda}$. We still assume $l<n$ and $r<N-n\,$. 

628: Eq.~(\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_diagram}) 

629: is a diagram notation of

630: Eq.~(\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_projectors}). 

631: It is easily seen that for fixed $m_1,\dots,m_{\lambda-1}$  the 

632: set $\;\{{P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2\,,\dots ,\, \ys^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1,

633:   m_2\,,\dots ,\,m_{\lambda-1}, r)}\}$ forms 

634: a projective partition of the Hilbert space, as

635: \begin{eqnarray}

636: {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2\,,\dots ,\, \ys^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1,

637:   m_2\,,\dots ,\,m_{\lambda-1}, r)}

638: {P}_{\ys^{'1},\,\ys^{'2}\,,\dots ,\, \ys^{'\lambda}}^{(l,m_1,

639:   m_2\,,\dots ,\,m_{\lambda-1}, r)}&=&

640: \delta_{\ys^1,\,\ys^{'1}}\delta_{\ys^2,\,\ys^{'2}}\times\dots

641: \times\delta_{\ys^{\lambda},\,\ys^{'\lambda}}

642: {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2\,,\dots ,\,\ys^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1,

643:   m_2\,,\dots ,\,m_{\lambda-1}, r)}\nonumber\\

644: \quad\mbox{and}\quad

645: \sum_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2,\dots, \ys^{\lambda}}

646: {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2\,,\dots ,\, \ys^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1,

647:   m_2\,,\dots ,\,m_{\lambda-1}, r)}&=&\one\;.

648: \end{eqnarray}

649: 

650: 

651: \subsubsection{Coarse-grained histories}

652: 

653: In order to investigate coarse-grained  evolution we now construct 

654: coarse-grained  histories. By considering different types of histories 

655: constructed from different types of coarse-grained projective partitions 

656: we obtain different coarse-grained effective evolutions.

657: Our investigation of the coarse-grained  evolution of the 

658: quantum baker's map starts with 

659: the special cases of 1-scale and 2-scale coarse-grainings as

660: defined in Eqs.~(\ref{coarseProjectorsloc_diagram}) and 

661: (\ref{CheckerboardProjectors_diagram}). We first  compare

662: the different members of the family 

663: \begin{eqnarray}

664: \label{family_ofcoarse-grainings:set}

665: \bigg\{\left\{{P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}\,:\,

666: \y^1\in \{0,1\}^{s_1}\,,\,\y^2\in

667: \{0,1\}^{s_2}\right\}\,&:&\:l,r,m_l,m_r,s_1,s_2\in

668: \{0,1,2,\dots\}\;\;\phantom{\bigg\}}\nonumber\\

669: \phantom{\bigg\{}\mbox{such that}\quad l+s_1\le n\,,\,r+s_2\le N-n

670: &\mbox{and}&

671: l+r+s_1+s_2+ m_l+m_r=N\bigg\}\nonumber\\&&

672: \end{eqnarray}

673: of coarse-grained descriptions, parameterised by 

674: $l$, $r$, $s_1$, $s_2$,  $m_l$ and $m_r$,   

675: with respect to predictability of the evolution. 

676: Our results will concern only such members of this family

677: for which $s_1$ and $s_2$ are significantly greater than $1$, and $s_1\ge m_l+m_r$. 

678: Furthermore, in order to obtain the classical limit of the quantum 

679: baker's map, we will be considering only members with very large 

680: value for the parameter $l$, as $\hbar\rightarrow 0$ will correspond 

681: to $l \rightarrow \infty$. Finally, the results will show that only 

682: $m=m_l+m_r$ matters, and the specification ``$m_l$ most 

683: significant momentum bits and $m_r$ most significant position bits are 

684: coarse-grained over'' therefore  be unnecessary. Note that the local 1-scale 

685: coarse-graining (\ref{coarseProjectorsloc}) is included  in 

686: this family as the special case $m_l+m_r=0$. 

687: 

688: The histories corresponding to 1-scale and 2-scale coarse-graining 

689: (\ref{coarseProjectorsloc_diagram}) and 

690: (\ref{CheckerboardProjectors_diagram}) will be 

691: labelled by finite sequences of strings in the first case and pairs of  

692: finite sequences of strings in the second case, respectively:

693: \begin{eqnarray}                                      \label{LocalHistories}

694: h_{\vec{\ys}}&\equiv&

695:                 \big({P}^{(l,r)}_{\ys^1},{P}^{(l,r)}_{\ys^2},

696: \dots,{P}^{(l,r)}_{\ys^k}\big)_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_{|_|}}}}}\;, 

697: \end{eqnarray}

698: where $\vec{\y}= (\y^1, \dots ,\y^k)$ is a sequence of strings

699: $\y^j\in\{0,1\}^{N-l-r}$, $j=1, \dots , k$;

700: \begin{eqnarray}                                      \label{CheckerboardHistories}

701: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}&\equiv&

702:                 \big({P}_{\ys^{1,1},\,\ys^{1,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}, 

703:                      {P}_{\ys^{2,1},\,\ys^{2,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}, \dots,

704:                      {P}_{\ys^{k,1},\,\ys^{k,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r,

705:                 r)}\big)_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_{|_|}}}}}\;,  

706: \end{eqnarray}

707: where $(\vec{\y}^1,\vec{\y}^2) = ((\y^{1,1}, \dots ,\y^{k,1}),(\y^{1,2}, \dots ,\y^{k,2}))$

708: is a pair of finite sequences of strings $\y^{j,i}\in\{0,1\}^{s_i}$,

709: $j=1, \dots , k$, $i=1,2$, labelling the history. 

710: 

711: 

712: To examine decoherence of this set of histories and calculate its probability

713: distribution we will evaluate  the decoherence functional

714: \begin{equation}                                      \label{dfunc_local}

715: {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}},

716:                                     h_{\vec{\zs}}   ]

717: =

718:                 \Tr[P^{(l,r)}_{\ys^k}B P^{(l,r)}_{\ys^{k-1}}

719:                 B\cdots P^{(l,r)}_{\ys^1}

720: B\rho_0 B^\dag P^{(l,r)}_{\zs^1}

721:    \cdots

722:          B^\dag P^{(l,r)}_{\zs^{k-1}}B^\dag P^{(l,r)}_{\zs^k}] \;,

723: \end{equation}

724: and           

725:  \begin{equation*}                           \label{checkerboard-dfunc}  

726: {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2},

727:   h_{\vec{\zs}^1,\,\vec{\zs}^2} ]

728: \equiv \hspace{11cm}

729: \end{equation*}

730:  \begin{equation}  \label{checkerboard-dfunc}  

731:                = \Tr[{P}_{\ys^{k,1},\,\ys^{k,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}B

732:                     {P}_{\ys^{k-1,1},\,\ys^{k-1,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)} B\cdots

733:                     {P}_{\ys^{1,1},\,\ys^{1,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}

734:                     B\rho_0 B^\dag

735:                     {P}_{\zs^{1,1},\,\zs^{1,2}}^{(l,m_l,m_r,r)}B^\dag\cdots

736:                     B^\dag

737:                     {P}_{\zs^{k,1},\,\zs^{k,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}] \;,

738: \end{equation}

739: respectively. 

740: 

741: 

742: Whether the decoherence functional is diagonal or not depends

743: on the initial state $\rho_0$. In order to check decoherence 

744: of a given set of histories and assign probabilities 

745: to them  we therefore need to specify the initial state from which 

746: the histories start. 

747: Here we choose a certain class of states as the initial states 

748: for the histories, namely the discrete set of states that are 

749: induced via normalisation by the set of projectors defining the histories. 

750: We therefore assume the initial state $\rho_0$ to be of the same form 

751: as the events in the histories, i.e.\ to be proportional to one of 

752: the projection operators of the set $\{  {P}_{\ys}^{(l,r)}\}$ or 

753: $\{  {P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}\}$, respectively:  

754: \begin{equation}        

755: \label{LocalInitialstate}               

756: \rho_0 = \rho_{\xs}^{(l, r)}\equiv

757: 2^{-(l+r)} {P}_{\xs}^{(l,r)}\\

758: \equiv 2^{-(l+r)} (\,\underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}

759: \ \x\ \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\,)\;,

760: \end{equation}

761: or

762: \begin{eqnarray}        \label{CheckerboardInitialstate}               

763: \rho_0 &=& \rho_{\xs^1,\,\xs^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}\equiv

764: 2^{-(l+m_l+m_r+r)} {P}_{\xs^1,\,\xs^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}\\

765: &\equiv& 2^{-(l+m_l+m_r+r)} (\,\underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}

766: \ \x^1\ \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{m_l}\ .\ 

767: \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{m_r}\

768: \x^2\ \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\,)\;.\nonumber

769: \end{eqnarray}

770: The normalisation factor $2^{-(l+r)}$ or $2^{-(l+m_l+m_r+r)}$, 

771: respectively,  ensures that 

772: $\rho_0$ is a density operator, i.e.\ $\Tr[\rho_0]=1$. 

773: All calculations in Sec.~\ref{sec:Derivations} will be based 

774: on this choice for the initial states, which we regard 

775: as the most natural choice within our framework of sets of 

776: histories constructed from a given, fixed projective 

777: partition.   

778: 

779: We now generalise the family of sets of coarse-grained 

780: histories from the 1-scale and 2-scale coarse-grained 

781: descriptions considered above to the general case 

782: of multi-scale (or hierarchical) coarse-grainings. The corresponding 

783: projective partitions have already been introduced 

784: in Eqs.~(\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_diagram}) 

785: and (\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_projectors}). 

786: The generalised family of coarse-grained descriptions 

787: is therefore given by the set:

788: \begin{eqnarray}

789: \label{family_hierarchical_coarse_grainings}

790: \bigg\{\left\{{P}_{\ys^1,\,\ys^2\,,\dots ,\, \ys^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1,

791:   m_2\,,\dots ,\,m_{\lambda-1}, r)}\,\right\}_{\y^j\in \{0,1\}^{s_j}}\,&:&\:\:

792: l,r,m_j, s_j\in\{0,1,2,\dots\}\phantom{\bigg\}}

793: \,,\;\lambda\in\{1,2,3,\dots\}\nonumber\\

794: \phantom{\bigg\{}\mbox{such that}

795: &&l+r+\sum_{j=1}^{\lambda-1} m_j+\sum_{j=1}^{\lambda}s_j=N

796: \bigg\} \;.

797: \end{eqnarray}

798: The members of this family are represented by coarse-grained projective partitions

799: displaying coarseness on several different scales in the symbolic

800: representation.  The family is parameterised by $l,r, m_1,\dots

801: ,\,m_{\lambda-1}$, $s_1,\dots,s_{\lambda}$ and $\lambda$   

802: with the  constraint 

803: $l+r+\sum_{j=1}^{\lambda-1} m_j+\sum_{j=1}^{\lambda}s_j=N$.  

804: Again, our results will involve only such members of this family,  

805: for which $s_1,\dots,s_{\lambda}$ have values significantly greater 

806: than $1$, and the value of $l$ is very large (classical limit). 

807: 

808: Our generalised type of histories is  labelled by (finite) sequences 

809: of finite sequences of binary strings: 

810: \begin{equation}\label{set:hierarchically-coarse-grained-histories}

811: \bigg\{h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}\;:\;\vec{\y}^{\,i}= 

812: (\y^{1,i}, \dots ,\y^{k,i})\quad\mbox{with}\quad \y^{j,i}\in\{0,1\}^{s_i}\;,\;

813: j=1,\dots,k\;,\;  i=1,\dots,\lambda\bigg\}\;.

814: \end{equation}

815: They are explicitely defined by time-ordered sequences of 

816: (\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_projectors})-type projection 

817: operators: 

818: \begin{equation} 

819: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}

820: \equiv

821: \Big({P}_{\ys^{1,1},\,\ys^{1,2},\dots,\ys^{1,\lambda}}

822:            ^{(l,m_1, m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}\;,\;

823:        {P}_{\ys^{2,1},\,\ys^{2,2},\dots,\ys^{2,\lambda}}

824:            ^{(l,m_1, m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}\;,\dots,\;

825: {P}_{\ys^{k,1},\,\ys^{k,2},\dots,\ys^{k,\lambda}}

826:            ^{(l,m_1,

827:   m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}\Big)_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_{|_|}}}}} \;.

828: \end{equation}

829: 

830: To examine decoherence of the set of 

831: histories~(\ref{set:hierarchically-coarse-grained-histories}) and calculate

832: its probability distribution we will evaluate  the decoherence functional            

833:  \begin{equation*}                     

834: \hspace*{-10cm}{\mathcal

835:   D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}},

836: h_{\vec{\zs}^1,\,\vec{\zs}^2,\dots,\vec{\zs}^{\lambda}} ]

837: \equiv

838: \end{equation*}

839: \begin{eqnarray}

840:  \label{hierarchical-dfunc}  

841: &=\mbox{Tr}\Big[{P}_{\ys^{k,1},\,\ys^{k,2},\dots,\ys^{k,\lambda}}

842:            ^{(l,m_1,

843:   m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}B

844: {P}_{\ys^{k-1,1},\,\ys^{k-1,2},\dots,\ys^{k-1,\lambda}}

845:            ^{(l,m_1,

846:   m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}B\cdots

847: {P}_{\ys^{1,1},\,\ys^{1,2},\dots,\ys^{1,\lambda}}

848:            ^{(l,m_1,

849:   m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}B\rho_0 B^\dag\times&\nonumber\\

850: &\times {P}_{\zs^{1,1},\,\zs^{1,2},\dots,\zs^{1,\lambda}}

851:            ^{(l,m_1,

852:   m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}B^\dag\cdots

853: {P}_{\zs^{k-1,1},\,\zs^{k-1,2},\dots,\zs^{k-1,\lambda}}

854:            ^{(l,m_1,

855:   m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}B^\dag

856: {P}_{\zs^{k,1},\,\zs^{k,2},\dots,\zs^{k,\lambda}}

857:            ^{(l,m_1,

858:   m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}\Big] \;,& 

859: \end{eqnarray}

860: Again we will choose the initial state to be proportional to one 

861: of the projection operators defining our coarse-grained 

862: description, i.e.\ to one of the 

863: (\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_projectors})-type projectors:

864: \begin{equation}

865:   \label{Hierarchical_coarse-grainingInitialstate}      

866: \rho_0 = \rho_{\xs^1,\,\xs^2,\dots,\xs^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1, m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}\equiv 

867: 2^{-(l+r+m_1+m_2+\dots+m_{\lambda-1})} 

868: {P}_{\xs^1,\,\xs^2,\dots,\xs^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1, m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}\;,

869: \end{equation}

870: with the normalisation factor ensuring $\Tr[\rho_0]=1$.

871: 

872: 

873: 

874: \subsection{Main results}

875: \label{sec:Results}

876: 

877: To characterise and quantify predictability, we use the rate of the entropy

878: production.  The greater the rate of the entropy production, the more

879: unpredictable is the evolution. 

880: We begin by stating the results for the

881: family~(\ref{family_ofcoarse-grainings:set}) of 1-scale and 2-scale

882: coarse-grainings.  

883: First of all we find that in the asymptotic limit $l\to \infty$ 

884: all the corresponding members of this family 

885: (i.e., all members with very large parameter value $l$),  

886: provided that $m_l+m_r$ is finite,  

887: lead to  decoherent sets of histories, which is the 

888: prerequisite for classicality. For finite, but very large $l$ 

889: the decoherence functional is approximately diagonal, which 

890: means approximate decoherence of histories. 

891: For very large  $l$, the diagonal elements of the decoherence 

892: functional,  $\mathcal{D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}, 

893: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2} ]$, may therefore be interpreted 

894: as probabilities of the corresponding histories. 

895: Furthermore we find that for very large $l$,  

896: for all members of the corresponding subset within this family, 

897: for which $s_1$ and $s_2$ are significantly greater than $1$,  

898: the probabilities of the individual alternative histories 

899: of a set are peaked at histories which display 

900: regularities according to the {\em classical shift property}. 

901: 

902: We have compared the rates of entropy increase of the different sets 

903: within the family~(\ref{family_ofcoarse-grainings:set}) of

904: coarse-grainings. The result for the local coarse-graining 

905: (\ref{coarseProjectorsloc}), i.e.\ for the case $m_l+m_r=0$, 

906: was obtained in an earlier work of two of 

907: us~\cite{Soklakov2002}. In~\cite{Soklakov2002} it was 

908: shown that in this case the coarse-grained quantum baker's map 

909: exhibits a linear entropy increase at an asymptotic rate given by the 

910: Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy~\cite{Alekseev1981} of the classical 

911: chaotic baker's map, namely 1 bit per iteration step: 

912: \begin{equation}               \label{EntropyLocal}

913: H[\{h_{\vec{\ys}} \}] = k+

914: O(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+k)}})\,, 

915: \end{equation}

916: where the set $\{h_{\vec{\ys}} \}$ consists of histories of 

917: length $k$.

918: 

919: For nonlocal coarse-grainings $m_l+m_r\not=0$, 

920: the derivation in the next section give these results:

921: \begin{itemize}

922: \item Entropy after $k$ iteration steps in case  $k\le m_l+m_r$:

923: \begin{equation}

924: H[\{ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}\}] =

925: 2k\;+\;{\cal

926:   O}(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_l+m_r)k)}})\;

927: \end{equation}

928: \item Entropy after $k$ iteration steps in case  $k\ge m_l+m_r$:

929: \begin{equation}

930: H[\{ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}\}] 

931: =k+\;(m_l+m_r)\;+\;{\cal

932:   O}(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_l+m_r)k)}})\;.

933: \end{equation}

934: \end{itemize}

935: 

936: The entropy increase is 2 bits per iteration step as long as the number of

937: iterations $k$ of the quantum baker's map is smaller than $m=m_l+m_r$.  As

938: soon as the number of iterations exceeds the parameter $m$, the rate of

939: entropy increase drops to 1 bit per iteration step. Both short-term and

940: long-term rates of entropy increase are thus independent of the 

941: non-locality parameter $m$. The parameter $m$ determines the duration of

942: the short-term regime for which the entropy increases

943: at a rate of 2 bits per iterations.

944: 

945: Higher rates of entropy increase become possible for hierarchical

946: coarse-grainings, i.e.\ coarse-grained histories with coarse-graining on

947: several different scales of the phase space.  As before we find approximate

948: decoherence for such sets of histories and a probability distribution which is

949: peaked at histories displaying regularities according to the classical shift

950: property. The following results are valid for large $l$

951: (classical limit) and values for $s_j$ $(j=1,2,\dots,\lambda)$ that are

952: significantly greater than $1$.

953: \begin{itemize}

954: \item Entropy after $k$ iteration steps in the case  

955: $k<\mbox{min}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$:

956: \begin{equation}

957: H[\{ 

958: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}\}] 

959: = 

960: \lambda\cdot k\;+\;{\cal

961:   O}(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_1+m_2+\dots+m_{\lambda-1})k)}})\;

962: \end{equation}

963: \end{itemize}

964: \begin{itemize}

965: \item Entropy after $k$ iteration steps in the case  

966: $k>\mbox{max}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$:

967: \begin{equation}

968: H[\{ 

969: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}\}] =

970: k+\sum_{i=1}^{\lambda-1}m_i\;+\;{\cal

971:   O}(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_1+m_2+\dots+m_{\lambda-1})k)}})\;.

972: \end{equation}

973: \end{itemize}

974: We see that in the long-term regime, 

975: $k>\mbox{max}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$, 

976: the rate of entropy increase is again 1 bit per iteration, independently of 

977: the character of the coarse-graining. In the short-term regime, 

978: $k<\mbox{min}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$, however, 

979: the rate of entropy increase is $\lambda$ bits per iteration. The short-term

980: regime is thus characterised by $\lambda$,  the number of coarse-graining 

981: scales. The parameters $m_1,\ldots,m_{\lambda-1}$ determine the duration 

982: of the  short-term regime. Classical predictability decreases with increasing number

983: of coarse-graining scales.

984: 

985: Finally, we note how the above results for the entropy

986: production in the various coarse-grained descriptions can be understood using

987: the shift property of the coarse-grained evolution of the quantum baker's map,

988: which is explained and illustrated in detail in the next section. For this we

989: make use of our diagram notation~(\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_diagram}).

990: The shift property implies that the only histories with significant

991: probabilities are those that satisfy the shift condition, i.e., the projectors

992: of the histories have to be related to the initial state via a shift.  For

993: instance, if $ \rho_0 \propto {P}_{\xs^1,\,\xs^2,\dots,\xs^{\lambda}}^{(l,m_1,

994:   m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}\;$, then only such histories can arise with

995: significant probabilities whose first event, represented by the projector

996: ${P}_{\ys^{1,1},\ys^{1,2},\dots, \ys^{1,\lambda}}^{(l,m_1,

997:   m_2,\dots,m_{\lambda-1},r)}$, satisfies the shift constraint. Unless

998: $\y^{1,1}_{1:(s_1-1)}=\x^1_{2:s_1}$ and $\y^{1,2}_{1:(s_2-1)}=\x^2_{2:s_2}$

999: and $\dots$ and $\y^{1,\lambda}_{1:(s_{\lambda}-1)}=\x^\lambda_{2:s_\lambda}$

1000: is satisfied by the first event the whole history will have a vanishing

1001: probability. On the other hand the last bits $y^{1,1}_{s_1}$, $y^{1,2}_{s_2}$,

1002: $\dots$, $y^{1,\lambda}_{s_\lambda}$ of the strings $\y^{1,1}$, $\y^{1,2}$,

1003: $\dots$, $\y^{1,\lambda}$, which denote the first event of the history, remain

1004: undetermined, because the unspecified bits of the empty boxes

1005: in~(\ref{multi-scales_coarse-graining_diagram}), which are coarse-grained

1006: over, are shifted onto them. The bits $y^{1,1}_{s_1}$, $y^{1,2}_{s_2}$,

1007: $\dots$, $y^{1,\lambda}_{s_\lambda}$ may therefore be chosen arbitrarily,

1008: corresponding to a branching into $2^\lambda$ possible histories with

1009: non-vanishing probabilities.  This branching into $2^\lambda$ alternatives

1010: repeats with each iteration step of the evolution, as long as

1011: $k<\mbox{min}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$, leading to an entropy

1012: production of $\lambda$ bits per iteration step. As soon as the number of

1013: iterations $k$ starts to exceed, step by step, the values of $m_1,m_2, \dots,

1014: m_{\lambda-1}$, the rate of entropy production goes down, step by

1015: step, from the value $\lambda$ to the value $1$ in the long-term regime.

1016: Consider, for instance, the case in which $k>m_{\lambda-1}$. Only in the first

1017: $m_{\lambda-1}$ iteration steps coarse-grained bits (the empty boxes of our

1018: diagram notation) are shifted onto the last bits of the strings

1019: $\y^{j,\lambda-1}$, thereby making them arbitrarily

1020: chose-able for the history, causing a branching into two

1021: alternatives, and increasing the entropy by 1 bit.  In the subsequent

1022: $k-m_{\lambda-1}$ iterations the string $\x^\lambda$ of the

1023: initial condition enters the scale of the $\y^{j,\lambda-1}$-strings, with the

1024: consequence that the last bits of the strings

1025: $\y^{m_{\lambda-1}+1,\lambda-1},\dots,\y^{k,\lambda-1}$ become determined by

1026: the initial condition, meaning no branching and therefore no entropy

1027: increase.

1028: 

1029: 

1030: \subsection{Derivation and illustration of the results} 

1031: \label{sec:Derivations}

1032: 

1033: \subsubsection{1-scale and 2-scale coarse-grainings}

1034: \label{sec:1-scale and 2-scale coarse-grainings}

1035: 

1036: The decoherence functional for the locally 

1037: coarse-grained histories (\ref{dfunc_local}) was 

1038: calculated in an earlier work of two of the 

1039: authors~\cite{Soklakov2002}. We briefly review 

1040: the corresponding result, which is:  

1041: 

1042: \begin{equation}              \label{dfunc_local_result}

1043: {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho^{\scriptscriptstyle (l,r)}_{\xs}}[h_{\vec{\ys}},

1044:                                     h_{\vec{\zs}}   ]

1045: =2^{-k}

1046: \underbrace{

1047:            \left(\prod_{j=1}^{k}\delta_{\ys^j}^{\zs^j}\right)

1048: }_{{\rm diagonal}}

1049: \cdot

1050: \underbrace{\left(

1051: \delta{}_{\ys^1_{1:\gamma-1}}^{\xs_{2:\gamma}}

1052: \prod_{j=1}^{k-1}

1053: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1}_{1:\gammas-1}}^{\;\ys^{j}_{2:\gammas}}

1054: \right)}_{{\rm step-by-step\ shift}}

1055: \cdot

1056: \underbrace{ \Bigg{(}

1057: \delta{}_{\ys^k_{1:\gamma-k}}^{\xs_{k+1:\gamma}}

1058: \Bigg{)} }_{k{\rm th\ shift }} 

1059: \;\; +\,O(\frac{l+r-k}{2^{l-2(k^2+k)}})\;, 

1060: \end{equation}  

1061: where $\gamma\equiv |\x|=|\y^j|=|\z^j|=N-(l+r)$.

1062: The expression in the first parentheses is zero for all

1063: off-diagonal elements of the decoherence functional.

1064: In the limit of very large $l$ all off-diagonal elements 

1065: of the decoherence functional vanish, the decoherence condition 

1066: being therefore established. The diagonal elements of the decoherence 

1067: functional can therefore be interpreted as probabilities of the corresponding

1068: histories (see Ref.~\cite{DowkerHalliwell1992} for a discussion of approximate

1069: decoherence). Asymptotically, only $2^{k}$ diagonal elements 

1070: survive. Moreover, the error terms are exponentially small.

1071: We therefore get $2^{k}$ histories with asymptotically

1072: equal probabilities. The number of such histories doubles after 

1073: each iteration step resulting in a loss of information

1074: at the rate of 1 bit per step. This information loss 

1075: is quantified by the entropy increase of the set of histories. 

1076: Since in the limit of large $l$ the set of histories 

1077: $\{h_{\vec{\ys}}\}$ is decoherent, the individual alternative 

1078: histories may be assigned probabilities, which are then given by 

1079: $p[h_{\vec{\ys}}] = {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho^{\scriptscriptstyle

1080:     (l,r)}_{\xs}}[h_{\vec{\ys}},h_{\vec{\ys}} ]$. Having found 

1081: the probability distribution we may also define the entropy 

1082: of the set of all possible alternative histories:  

1083: \begin{eqnarray}

1084: H[\{h_{\vec{\ys}} \}] 

1085:  &\equiv&  -\sum_{\vec{\ys}}p[h_{\vec{\ys}}]\log_2p[h_{\vec{\ys}}]\nonumber\\

1086:  &\equiv& -\sum_{\vec{\ys}}{\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho^{\scriptscriptstyle

1087:     (l,r)}_{\xs}}[h_{\vec{\ys}},h_{\vec{\ys}} ]\log_2

1088: \left({\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho^{\scriptscriptstyle

1089:     (l,r)}_{\xs}}[h_{\vec{\ys}},h_{\vec{\ys}} ]\right)\;.

1090: \end{eqnarray}

1091: With (\ref{dfunc_local_result}) we obtain:

1092: \begin{equation}               \label{EntropyLocal}

1093: H[\{h_{\vec{\ys}} \}] = k+

1094: O(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+k)}})\,.

1095: \end{equation}

1096: In the limit of large $l$, for any fixed number of iterations, $k$, the

1097: entropy of the coarse-grained quantum baker's map approaches the value of $k$

1098: bits, i.e., 1 bit per iteration. 

1099: 

1100: What kind of histories arise with significant probabilities? 

1101: This is determined by the expressions within the second and 

1102: third parentheses of the result (\ref{dfunc_local_result}). 

1103: Accordingly only histories that satisfy a

1104: {\em step-by-step shift condition\/}

1105: arise with significant probabilities.

1106: This can be illustrated using the diagram notation introduced above:

1107: \begin{eqnarray}

1108: & \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}\;

1109:                      \ \x_1

1110:                   \underline{\x_2\dots\x_{\gamma-2}\x_{\gamma-1} \x_\gamma } \;

1111:    \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\ , \cr

1112: & \ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}} \cr

1113: & \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}\;

1114:              \overline{ \ \y^1_1\underline{\y^1_2\dots\y^1_{\gamma-2} \y^1_{\gamma-1}}}

1115:                      \underline{\; y^1_\gamma}\;

1116:    \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\ , \cr

1117: & \ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}} \cr

1118: & \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}\;

1119:              \overline{ \ \y^2_1 \underline{\y^2_2\dots\,\y^2_{\gamma-2} y^2_{\gamma-1}}}

1120:                      \underline{\; y^2_\gamma}\;

1121:    \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\ , \cr

1122: & \ \ \ \ \boldarrow \cr

1123: & \ \ \ \ \dots \cr

1124: & \ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}} \cr

1125: & \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}\;

1126:              \overline{ \y^k_1 \dots\y^k_{\gamma-k} y^k_{\gamma-k+1}

1127:                        \!\dots}\, y^k_\gamma\,

1128:    \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\ .

1129: \end{eqnarray}

1130: The first line of this diagram represents the initial condition 

1131: $\rho^{{\scriptscriptstyle{(l,r)}}}_{\xs}$. The subsequent lines

1132: correspond to the projectors $P^{(l,r)}_{\ys^1},\dots,P^{(l,r)}_{\ys^k}$

1133: constituting the history $h_{\vec{\ys}} $. 

1134: The step-by-step shift condition is depicted by arrows and lines. 

1135: Underlined substrings are shifted onto those overlined substrings 

1136: which are indicated by arrows.  

1137: In order to fulfil the step-by-step shift condition 

1138: all underlined and overlined substrings that are connected by 

1139: an arrow have to be equal. In this way it becomes clear which 

1140: bits of the symbolic specification of a history are completely 

1141: determined by the initial condition. These bits are in bold face. 

1142: The other bits may be chosen arbitrarily. For instance, in the first iteration 

1143: step the initial condition substring 

1144: $\x_{2:\gamma}\equiv x_2\dots x_{\gamma}$ is 

1145: shifted onto the substring $\y^{1}_{1:\gamma-1}

1146: \equiv y^1_1\dots y^1_{\gamma-1}$.

1147: The first $\gamma-1$ bits of the string $\y^1$ of the 

1148: first event in the history $h_{\vec{\ys}} $  are therefore 

1149: determined by the initial condition. 

1150: Unless $\y^{1}_{1:\gamma-1}=\x_{2:\gamma}$ is satisfied by 

1151: the first event, the whole history will have a vanishing 

1152: probability. On the other hand the last bit $y^{1}_{\gamma}$ 

1153: of the string $\y^{1}$, which denotes the first event of the history, 

1154: remains undetermined, because the unspecified bit of the empty box is 

1155: shifted onto it, which is coarse-grained (i.e.\ summed) over. 

1156: The bit $y^{1}_{\gamma}$ may therefore be chosen arbitrarily, corresponding

1157: to a branching into two possible histories with non-vanishing 

1158: probabilities and therefore an entropy increase of 1 bit.  This 

1159: procedure repeats with each iteration step of the evolution.

1160: For the entire history, therefore, there are only $k$ independent 

1161: bits which can be chosen arbitrarily, given the step-by-step shift 

1162: constraint.

1163: 

1164: The calculation of the decoherence functional (\ref{checkerboard-dfunc}) 

1165: for the non-locally coarse-grained histories can be traced back to using ´

1166: the above result for the local ones. To do so, we may express 

1167: all the nonlocal projection operators appearing in the 

1168: decoherence functional as sums over suitable local ones: 

1169: \begin{eqnarray}

1170: \rho_{\xs^1,\,\xs^2}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}&=& 2^{-(l+m_l+m_r+r)} 

1171: \sum_{\,\bxis\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}  {P}_{\xs^1\bxis\xs^2}^{(l,r)}\;,\\

1172: {P}_{\ys^{j,1},\,\ys^{j,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}&=&

1173: \sum_{\,\boldetas^j\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}

1174:     {P}_{\ys^{j,1}\boldetas^j\ys^{j,2}}^{(l,r)}\;\;,\;\; j=1,2,\dots,k\;,\\

1175: {P}_{\zs^{j,1},\,\zs^{j,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}&=&

1176: \sum_{\,\bzetas^j\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}

1177:     {P}_{\zs^{j,1}\bzetas^j\zs^{j,2}}^{(l,r)}\;\;,\;\;\; j=1,2,\dots,k\;.

1178: \end{eqnarray}

1179: By inserting these expressions into the decoherence functional 

1180: (\ref{checkerboard-dfunc}) we arrive at:

1181: \begin{eqnarray}

1182: &&\hspace*{-1.3cm}

1183: {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2},

1184:   h_{\vec{\zs}^1,\,\vec{\zs}^2} ]=\nonumber\\&=&

1185: \sum_{\,\boldetas^1\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}\dots

1186: \sum_{\,\boldetas^k\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}

1187: \sum_{\,\bxis\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}

1188: \sum_{\,\bzetas^1\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}\dots

1189: \sum_{\,\bzetas^k\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}

1190: \nonumber\\&&

1191: 2^{-(m_l+m_r)}\Tr\Big[ \phantom{\Big]}

1192: {P}_{\ys^{k,1}\boldetas^k\ys^{k,2}}^{(l,r)}B

1193:                     {P}_{\ys^{k-1,1}\boldetas^{k-1}\ys^{k-1,2}}^{(l,r)} 

1194:                     B\cdots B

1195:                     {P}_{\ys^{1,1}\boldetas^1\ys^{1,2}}^{(l,r)}\times \nonumber \\

1196:                      &&\times   \phantom{\Big[} B

1197:                     \big(\frac{1}{2^{l+r}}{P}_{\xs^1\xibolds\xs^2}^{(l,r)} \big)

1198:                     B^\dag {P}_{\zs^{1,1}\bzetas^1\zs^{1,2}}^{(l,r)}

1199:                     B^\dag\cdots

1200:                      {P}_{\zs^{k-1,1}\bzetas^{k-1}\zs^{k-1,2}}^{(l,r)}B^\dag

1201:                      {P}_{\zs^{k,1}\bzetas^{k}\zs^{k,2}}^{(l,r)}\Big]\nonumber\\&&

1202: \end{eqnarray}

1203: Each term of the sum over all possible strings $\bxi$, $\{\boldeta^j\}$

1204: and $\{\bzeta^j\}$ is, apart from the factor $2^{-(m_l+m_r)}$, a

1205: decoherence functional with respect to histories composed of 

1206: local projectors. Each such term, therefore, results in an expression 

1207: of the form (\ref{dfunc_local_result}), and we obtain: 

1208: \begin{eqnarray}

1209: &&\hspace*{-1.3cm}

1210: {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2},

1211:   h_{\vec{\zs}^1,\,\vec{\zs}^2} ]=\nonumber\\&=&

1212: \sum_{\,\boldetas^1\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}\dots

1213: \sum_{\,\boldetas^k\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}

1214: \sum_{\,\bxis\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}

1215: \sum_{\,\bzetas^1\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}\dots

1216: \sum_{\,\bzetas^k\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}2^{-(m_l+m_r)}\times\nonumber\\&&

1217: \times\Bigg\{  \phantom{\Bigg\} }  2^{-k}  

1218: \underbrace{

1219: \left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\delta_{\ys^{i,1}\boldetas^i\ys^{i,2}}

1220:                            ^{\zs^{i,1}\bzetas^i\zs^{i,2}}\right)

1221: }_{{\rm diagonal}}\cdot

1222: \underbrace{\left(

1223: \delta{}_{\ys^{1,1}\boldetas^1\ys^{1,2}_{1:s_2-1}}

1224: ^{\xs^1_{2:s_1}\bxis\,\xs^2}

1225: \prod_{j=1}^{k-1}

1226: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1,1}\boldetas^{j+1}\ys^{j+1,2}_{1:(s_2-1)}}

1227: ^{\ys^{j,1}_{2:s_1}\boldetas^{j}\ys^{j,2}}\right)}_{{\rm step-by-step\

1228:   shift}}\times

1229: \nonumber\\&&\times \phantom{\Bigg\{ }

1230: \underbrace{ \Bigg{(}

1231: \delta{}_{(\ys^{k,1}\boldetas^k\ys^{k,2})_{1:\gamma-k}}

1232: ^{(\xs^1\bxis\,\xs^2)_{k+1:\gamma}}

1233: \Bigg{)} }_{k{\rm th\ shift }} 

1234: \;\; +\,{\cal O}(\frac{l+r-k}{2^{l-2(k^2+k)}})\;

1235: \Bigg\}\;\nonumber\\

1236: &=&

1237: \sum_{\,\boldetas^1\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}\dots

1238: \sum_{\,\boldetas^k\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}

1239: \sum_{\,\bxis\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}\Bigg\{  \phantom{\Bigg\} }

1240: 2^{-(m_l+m_r)}\cdot 2^{-k}\cdot\underbrace{

1241: \left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\delta_{\ys^{i,1}\boldetas^i\ys^{i,2}}

1242:                            ^{\zs^{i,1}\boldetas^i\zs^{i,2}}\right)

1243: }_{{\rm diagonal}}\times\nonumber\\ &&\times

1244: \underbrace{\left(

1245: \delta{}_{\ys^{1,1}}^{\xs^1_{2:s_1}\xi_1}

1246: \delta{}_{\boldetas^1}^{\bxis_{2:(m_l+m_r)}\xs^2_1}

1247: \delta{}_{\ys^{1,2}_{1:s_2-1}}^{\xs^2_{2:s_2}}\cdot

1248: \prod_{j=1}^{k-1}

1249: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1,1}}^{\ys^{j,1}_{2:s_1}\eta^j_1}

1250: \delta{}_{\boldetas^{j+1}}^{\boldetas^{j}_{2:(m_l+m_r)}\ys^{j,2}_1}

1251: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1,2}_{1:s_2-1}}^{\ys^{j,2}_{2:s_2}}

1252: \right)}_{{\rm step-by-step\ shift}}\times \nonumber\\&&\times

1253: \underbrace{ \Bigg{(}

1254: \delta{}_{(\ys^{k,1}\boldetas^k\ys^{k,2})_{1:\gamma-k}}

1255: ^{(\xs^1\bxis\,\xs^2)_{k+1:\gamma}}

1256: \Bigg{)} }_{k{\rm th\ shift }} \phantom{\Bigg\{ } \Bigg\}

1257: \;\; +\,\,\Big( 2^{m_l+m_r}\Big)^{2k}\cdot\, 

1258: {\cal O}(\frac{l+r-k}{2^{l-2(k^2+k)}})\;

1259: \nonumber\\

1260: \end{eqnarray}

1261: Here $\gamma$ denotes the length of the strings 

1262: $\y^{j,1}\boldeta^j\y^{j,2}$ and 

1263: $\x^1\bxi\,\x^2$, respectively, 

1264: i.e.\  $\gamma=|\x^1\bxi\,\x^2|=|\y^{j,1}\boldeta^j\y^{j,2}|=

1265: s_1+(m_l+m_r)+s_2$. 

1266: 

1267: First of all the sum over all possible $\bzeta^j\in

1268: \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}$, $j=1,\dots, k$, collapses due to the term 

1269: $\prod_{i=1}^{k}\delta_{\ys^{i,1}\boldetas^i\ys^{i,2}}^

1270: {\zs^{i,1}\bzetas^i\zs^{i,2}}\,$, apart from contributing a 

1271: factor $2^{k(m_l+m_r)}$ to the error term. Secondly we note 

1272: that the step-by-step shift condition causes the whole sum 

1273: $\sum_{\boldetas^1}\sum_{\boldetas^2}\dots\sum_{\boldetas^k}$ 

1274: to collapse, apart from contributing a further factor 

1275: $2^{k(m_l+m_r)}$ to the bound on the error term, 

1276: which is furthermore enlarged  by a factor $2^{(m_l+m_r)}$ 

1277: stemming from the sum $\sum_{\bxis}$. Let us comprehend the 

1278: collapse of the sums $\sum_{\boldetas^j}$. For a given fixed string 

1279: $\bxi$ out of the sum  $\sum_{\bxis}$ all $\boldeta^1, \boldeta^2, 

1280: \dots, \boldeta^k$ are through the $\delta$'s determined by the 

1281: string $\bxi$ and the given fixed string $\x^2$ of the initial 

1282: condition. The first shift leads to a determination of $\boldeta^1$: 

1283: according to $\delta{}_{\boldetas^1}^{\bxis_{2:(m_l+m_r)}\xs^2_1}$ 

1284: the sum over all possible $\boldeta^1\in\{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}$ collapses 

1285: and only the string $\boldeta^1=\hspace{-3.3mm}^!\;\;

1286: \bxi_{2:(m_l+m_r)}\x^2_1$ survives. The second shift determines 

1287: $\boldeta^2$, since according to $\delta{}_{\boldetas^{2}}^

1288: {\boldetas^{1}_{2:(m_l+m_r)}\ys^{1,2}_1}$ the sum over all possible

1289: $\boldeta^2\in\{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}$ collapses and only the string 

1290: $\boldeta^2= \;\boldeta^1_{2:(m_l+m_r)}\y^{1,2}_1

1291: \equiv\bxi_{3:(m_l+m_r)}\x^2_1\x^2_2$ does lead to a non-vanishing 

1292: contribution to the decoherence functional. It is easy to see that 

1293: due to the step-by-step shift condition all the sums

1294: $\sum_{\boldetas^j}$, $j=1,\dots, k$, collapse and only the strings 

1295: \begin{eqnarray}\label{determinationetas}

1296: \boldeta^j=\bxi_{(j+1):(m_l+m_r)}\x^2_{1:j}

1297: \end{eqnarray}

1298: out of these sums survive leading together to a non-vanishing 

1299: contribution to the decoherence functional. In fact the step-by-step 

1300: shift condition can also be expressed in the following way:

1301: \begin{equation}

1302: \prod_{j=1}^{k} \delta{}_{(\ys^{j,1}\boldetas^j\ys^{j,2})_{1:\gamma-j}}

1303: ^{(\xs^1\bxis\,\xs^2)_{j+1:\gamma}}\;\:,

1304: \end{equation}

1305: meaning that only such strings $\boldeta^j$ out of the

1306: corresponding sums $\sum_{\boldetas^j}$, $j=1,\dots, k$, 

1307: lead to a non-vanishing contribution to the decoherence functional 

1308: which are determined by $\bxi$ and $\x^2$ according to (\ref{determinationetas}).

1309: Next we note that as a consequence of the step-by-step shift condition  

1310: also the sum over all possible $\bxi\in\{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}$ collapses. 

1311: It collapses only {\em partially} in case $k< m_l+m_r$ and it

1312: collapses {\em completely} in case $k \ge m_l+m_r$. Let us first consider 

1313: the case $k< m_l+m_r$. After the first shift the first bit of $\bxi$ 

1314: is determined by the last bit of the string $\y^{1,1}$ of the given 

1315: history, i.e.\ $\xi_1=\hspace{-3.4mm}^!\;\;y^{1,1}_{s_1}$, 

1316: according to the term  $\delta{}_{\ys^{1,1}}^{\xs^1_{2:s_1}\xi_1}$. 

1317: The second shift leads to

1318: $\delta{}_{\ys^{2,1}}^{\ys^{1,1}_{2:s_1}\eta^1_1}$, 

1319: so that $\eta_1^1= \;y^{2,1}_{s_1}$. 

1320: But we have $\eta_1^1=  \;\xi_2$ due to the 

1321: first shift, so we arrive at a determination of  $\xi_2$, 

1322: namely $\xi_2= \;y^{2,1}_{s_1}$. In this 

1323: way the sum over all possible $\bxi\in\{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}$ collapses 

1324: to a sum over all possible

1325: $\bxi_{(k+1):(m_l+m_r)}\in\{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r-k}$, 

1326: \begin{equation}

1327: \sum_{\,\bxis\in \{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}}\longrightarrow 

1328: \sum_{\,\bxis_{(k+1):(m_l+m_r)}\in\{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r-k}}\;,

1329: \end{equation}

1330: since the first $k$ bits $\xi_1, \dots, \xi_k$ out of the sum $\sum_{\bxis}$ 

1331: have to fulfil the step-by-step shift condition and are therefore 

1332: determined by $\xi_j= \;y^{j,1}_{s_1}$. 

1333: That the first $k$ bits of the string $\bxi$ out of the sum

1334: $\sum_{\bxis}$ are determined by the given history 

1335: $h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}$ and therefore the sum over 

1336: the first  $k$ bits of $\bxi= \xi_1\xi_2\dots\xi_{m_l+m_r}$ 

1337: collapses can also be seen by looking at the $k$-th shift factor 

1338: which in fact appears as a redundant factor in the result: according 

1339: to $ \delta{}_{(\ys^{k,1}\boldetas^k\ys^{k,2})_{1:\gamma-k}}

1340: ^{(\xs^1\bxis\,\xs^2)_{k+1:\gamma}}$ only such strings $\bxi$ 

1341: out of the sum $\sum_{\bxis}$ lead to a non-vanishing contribution to

1342: the decoherence functional for which $\bxi_{1:k}= \;

1343: \y^{k,1}_{(s_1-k+1):s_1}$ holds. The remaining $m_l+m_r-k$ bits of 

1344: $\bxi= \xi_1\xi_2\dots\xi_{m_l+m_r}$ remain undetermined and are 

1345: still summed over. There are $2^{m_l+m_r-k}$ possible different 

1346: substrings $\bxi_{k+1:m_l+m_r}\in\{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r-k}$ in this 

1347: remaining sum leading to a non-vanishing contribution to the

1348: decoherence functional. Since the contributions of all these strings 

1349: are equal, as can be seen by looking at the result, we may replace

1350: the remaining sum over all possible $\bxi_{k+1:m_l+m_r}$ by the factor 

1351: $2^{m_l+m_r-k}$. Furthermore all the $\delta$-terms containing bits of the

1352: unspecified strings $\bxi$ and $\boldeta^j$, $j=1,\dots,k$, which are 

1353: summed over, may now be replaced by $1$ after having been exploited 

1354: for the determination of that strings $\bxi$ and $\boldeta^j$ out 

1355: of the sums $\sum_{\bxis}$ and $\sum_{\boldetas^1}\sum_{\boldetas^2}

1356: \dots\sum_{\boldetas^k}$ which lead to a non-vanishing contribution 

1357: to the value of the decoherence functional. In case $k<m_l+m_r$ we 

1358: therefore arrive at the following result:

1359: 

1360: \begin{itemize}

1361: \item Decoherence functional in case  $k<m_l+m_r$:

1362: \begin{eqnarray}\label{result_k<(m_l+m_r)}

1363: {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2},

1364:   h_{\vec{\zs}^1,\,\vec{\zs}^2} ]&=&

1365: \underbrace{2^{m_l+m_r-k}\cdot 2^{-(m_l+m_r)}\cdot 2^{-k}}_{=\,2^{-2k}}

1366: \cdot\underbrace{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\delta_{\ys^{i,1}}^{\zs^{i,1}}

1367: \delta_{\ys^{i,2}}^{\zs^{i,2}}\right)}_{{\rm diagonal}}\times\nonumber\\ 

1368: &&\times

1369: \underbrace{\left(

1370: \delta{}_{\ys^{1,1}_{1:s_1-1}}^{\xs^1_{2:s_1}}

1371: \delta{}_{\ys^{1,2}_{1:s_2-1}}^{\xs^2_{2:s_2}}\cdot

1372: \prod_{j=1}^{k-1}

1373: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1,1}_{1:s_1-1}}^{\ys^{j,1}_{2:s_1}}

1374: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1,2}_{1:s_2-1}}^{\ys^{j,2}_{2:s_2}}

1375: \right)}_{{\rm step-by-step\ shift}}\times \\&&\times

1376: \underbrace{ \Bigg{(}

1377: \delta{}_{\ys^{k,1}_{1:s_1-k}}^{\xs^1_{k+1:s_1}}

1378: \delta{}_{\ys^{k,2}_{1:s_2-k}}^{\xs^2_{k+1:s_2}}

1379: \Bigg{)} }_{k{\rm th\ shift }}

1380: \;\; +\,\, {\cal

1381:   O}(\frac{l+r-k}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_l+m_r)k)}})\;.

1382: \nonumber

1383: \end{eqnarray}

1384: \end{itemize}

1385: 

1386: \noindent

1387: Let us now consider the case $k\ge m_l+m_r$. As already mentioned in

1388: this case the whole sum $\sum_{\bxis}$ collapses to a single string 

1389: $\bxi\in\{0,1\}^{m_l+m_r}$ satisfying the step-by-step shift

1390: condition. This can be seen, again, by looking at the $k$-th shift 

1391: condition  given by the factor $\delta{}_{(\ys^{k,1}\boldetas^k

1392: \ys^{k,2})_{1:\gamma-k}}^{(\xs^1\bxis\,\xs^2)_{k+1:\gamma}}$; 

1393: according to it each string $\bxi$ out of the sum $\sum_{\bxis}$ 

1394: is shifted onto $(m_l+m_r)$ bits of the string $\y^{k,1}$, but since 

1395: $\y^{k,1}$ is a {\em fixed} string specifying the last event of the 

1396: {\em given} history, only  the string 

1397: $\bxi= \;\y^{k,1}_{(s_1-k+1):(s_1-k+m_l+m_r)}$ 

1398: out of the sum  $\sum_{\bxis}$ survives. Of course we presupposed,

1399: or had to require, that $s_1\ge k\ge m_l+m_r$.

1400: In case $k\ge m_l+m_r$ we therefore get: 

1401: 

1402: 

1403: \begin{itemize}

1404: \item Decoherence functional in case  $k\ge m_l+m_r$:

1405: \begin{eqnarray} \label{result_k>(m_l+m_r)}

1406: {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2},

1407:   h_{\vec{\zs}^1,\,\vec{\zs}^2} ]&=&

1408: 2^{-(m_l+m_r)} \cdot 2^{-k}

1409: \cdot\underbrace{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\delta_{\ys^{i,1}}^{\zs^{i,1}}

1410: \delta_{\ys^{i,2}}^{\zs^{i,2}}\right)}_{{\rm

1411:   diagonal}}\times\nonumber\\&& 

1412: \times

1413: \underbrace{\left(

1414: \delta{}_{\ys^{1,1}_{1:s_1-1}}^{\xs^1_{2:s_1}}

1415: \delta{}_{\ys^{1,2}_{1:s_2-1}}^{\xs^2_{2:s_2}}\cdot

1416: \prod_{j=1}^{k-1}

1417: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1,1}_{1:s_1-1}}^{\ys^{j,1}_{2:s_1}}

1418: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1,2}_{1:s_2-1}}^{\ys^{j,2}_{2:s_2}}

1419: \right)}_{{\rm step-by-step\ shift}}\times \\&&\times

1420: \underbrace{ \Bigg{(}

1421: \delta{}_{\ys^{k,1}_{1:s_1-k}}^{\xs^1_{k+1:s_1}}

1422: \delta{}_{\ys^{k,1}_{s_1-k+(m_l+m_r)+1\,:\,s_1}}^{\xs^2_{1:\,k-(m_l+m_r)}}

1423: \delta{}_{\ys^{k,2}_{1:s_2-k}}^{\xs^2_{k+1:s_2}}

1424: \Bigg{)} }_{k{\rm th\ shift }}\nonumber\\

1425: &&\;\; +\,\, {\cal

1426:   O}(\frac{l+r-k}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_l+m_r)k)}})\;.

1427:  \nonumber

1428: \end{eqnarray}

1429: \end{itemize}

1430: 

1431: 

1432: Let us now discuss the  results (\ref{result_k<(m_l+m_r)}) 

1433: and (\ref{result_k>(m_l+m_r)}) for the decoherence functional 

1434: (\ref{checkerboard-dfunc}). First of all we get approximate 

1435: decoherence: for very large $l$ the decoherence functional is 

1436: approximately diagonal. In the asymptotic limit 

1437: $l \rightarrow \infty $ our set of histories 

1438: $\{ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}\}$ becomes decoherent. 

1439: The diagonal elements of the functional, 

1440: $\mathcal{D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}, 

1441: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2} ]$, may therefore be interpreted 

1442: as probabilities of the corresponding histories, i.e.\ 

1443: $p(h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2},)=

1444: \mathcal{D}_{B,\,\rho_0}[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}, 

1445: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2} ]$. 

1446: Again there is no single dominant history. 

1447: Several different histories arise with significant probabilities$\,$. 

1448: In case $k<m_l+m_r$ we get $2^{2k}$ different histories with

1449: asymptotically equal probabilities (given by $2^{-2k}$). The number 

1450: of histories with asymptotically nonzero probabilities becomes 

1451: four times larger after each iteration step of the quantum 

1452: baker's map resulting in a {\em loss of information of $2$ bits per step}. 

1453: The entropy increase is therefore {\em $2$  bits per iteration step}, 

1454: which can also be seen by calculating the entropy of the 

1455: approximately decoherent set of histories $\{ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}\}$:

1456: 

1457: \begin{itemize}

1458: \item Entropy after $k$ iteration steps in case  $k\le m_l+m_r$:

1459: \begin{eqnarray}

1460: H[\{ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}\}] 

1461: & = & -\sum_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2 }p[ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}]

1462: \log_2p[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}]\nonumber\\

1463:  &=& 

1464: 2k\;+\;{\cal

1465:   O}(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_l+m_r)k)}})\;.

1466: \end{eqnarray}

1467: \end{itemize}

1468: 

1469: \noindent

1470: Again, only such histories are allowed to arise with significant 

1471: probabilities that satisfy the shift condition: the projectors 

1472: of the histories have to be related to the initial state via a shift. 

1473: Let us illustrate this issue once again by means of our diagram

1474: notation:

1475: 

1476: \begin{eqnarray}

1477: & \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}\;

1478:                      \ \x_1^1

1479:                   \underline{\x^1_2\dots\x^1_{s_1-2}\x^1_{s_1-1}

1480:                      \x^1_{s_1}}\;\;\underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{m_l+m_r} \;\ \x^2_1

1481:                   \underline{\x^2_2\dots\x^2_{s_2-2}\x^2_{s_2-1}\x^2_{s_2}} \;

1482:    \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\  \cr

1483: &\hspace{-0.5cm} \ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}} 

1484: \hspace{4.5cm}\ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}}

1485: \cr

1486: & \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}\;

1487:              \overline{ \

1488:              \y^{1,1}_1\underline{\y^{1,1}_2\dots\y^{1,1}_{s_1-2}

1489:              \y^{1,1}_{s_1-1}}}  \underline{\; y^{1,1}_{s_1}}\;\;

1490: \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{m_l+m_r} \;\  \overline{ \

1491: \y^{1,2}_1\underline{\y^{1,2}_2\dots\y^{1,2}_{s_2-2}

1492:  \y^{1,2}_{s_2-1}}}  \underline{\; y^{1,2}_{s_2}}\;\;

1493:    \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\  \cr

1494: &\hspace{-0.5cm} \ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}} 

1495: \hspace{5.5cm}\ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}}\cr

1496: & \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}\;

1497:              \overline{ \

1498:              \y^{2,1}_1\underline{\y^{2,1}_2\dots\y^{2,1}_{s_1-2}

1499:              y^{2,1}_{s_1-1}}}  \underline{\; y^{2,1}_{s_1}}\;\;

1500: \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{m_l+m_r} \;\  \overline{ \

1501: \y^{2,2}_1\underline{\y^{2,2}_2\dots\y^{2,2}_{s_2-2}

1502:  y^{2,2}_{s_2-1}}}  \underline{\; y^{2,2}_{s_2}}\;\;

1503:    \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\  \cr

1504: &\hspace{-0.5cm} \ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}} 

1505: \hspace{5.5cm}\ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}}\cr

1506: & \hspace{-0.5cm}\ \ \ \ \dots\hspace{6cm}\ \ \ \ \ \dots  \cr

1507: &\hspace{-0.5cm} \ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}} 

1508: \hspace{5.5cm}\ \ \ \ \ \ \boldarrow_{\phantom{|_{|_{|_|}}}}\cr

1509: & \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{l}\;

1510:  \overline{ \y^{k,1}_1 \dots\y^{k,1}_{s_1-k} y^{k,1}_{s_1-k+1}

1511:                        \!\dots}\, y^{k,1}_{s_1}\;\;

1512: \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots\Box}_{m_l+m_r} \;\  

1513:  \overline{ \y^{k,2}_1 \dots\y^{k,2}_{s_2-k} y^{k,2}_{s_2-k+1}

1514:                        \!\dots}\, y^{k,2}_{s_2}\;\;

1515:    \underbrace{\Box\Box\dots \Box}_{r}\  \cr \nonumber

1516: \end{eqnarray}

1517: \begin{equation}

1518: \end{equation}

1519: 

1520: This diagram illustrates symbolically the content of the result

1521: (\ref{result_k<(m_l+m_r)}). Again, the first line of this diagram represents

1522: the initial condition $\rho_0 = \rho_{\xs^1,\,\xs^2}^{{\scriptstyle{(l,m_l,

1523:       m_r, r)}}}$.  The subsequent lines correspond to the projectors

1524: ${P}_{\ys^{1,1},\,\ys^{1,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)},\dots,

1525: {P}_{\ys^{k,1},\,\ys^{k,2}}^{(l,m_l, m_r, r)}$ representing the subsequent

1526: propositions of the history $ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}$. The

1527: coarse-grained islands in the middle of each line, with $m_l+m_r$ empty boxes

1528: each, subsequently represent the sums $\sum_{\bxis}$, $\sum_{\boldetas^1},

1529: \sum_{\boldetas^2},\dots\,\sum_{\boldetas^k}$ in our calculation.  Again, the

1530: step-by-step shift condition is depicted by arrows and lines.  Underlined

1531: substrings are shifted onto those overlined substrings which are indicated by

1532: arrows.  In order to fulfil the step-by-step shift condition all underlined

1533: and overlined substrings that are connected by an arrow must be equal. In this

1534: way we immediately see which bits of the symbolic specification of a history

1535: are completely determined by the initial condition. In the diagram these bits

1536: are indicated by using bold face. The remaining bits, which are not in bold

1537: face, may be chosen arbitrarily. For instance, in the first iteration step the

1538: initial condition substrings $\;\x^1_{2:s_1}\equiv x^1_2\dots x^1_{s_1-2}

1539: x^1_{s_1-1} x^1_{s_1}\;$ and $\;\x^2_{2:s_2}\equiv x^2_2\dots x^2_{s_2-2}

1540: x^2_{s_2-1} x^2_{s_2}\;$ are shifted onto the substrings

1541: $\;\y^{1,1}_{1:(s_1-1)}\equiv y^{1,1}_1 y^{1,1}_2\dots

1542: y^{1,1}_{s_1-2}y^{1,1}_{s_1-1}\;$ and $\;\y^{1,2}_{1:(s_2-1)}\equiv y^{2,2}_1

1543: y^{2,2}_2\dots y^{2,2}_{s_2-2}y^{2,2}_{s_2-1}\;$, respectively. The first

1544: $(s_1-1)$ bits of the string $\y^{1,1}$ and the first $(s_2-1)$ bits of the

1545: string $\y^{1,2}$ of the first event in the history are therefore determined

1546: by the initial condition. Unless $\y^{1,1}_{1:(s_1-1)}=\x^1_{2:s_1}$ and

1547: $\y^{1,2}_{1:(s_2-1)}=\x^2_{2:s_2}$ is satisfied by the first event the whole

1548: history will have  vanishing probability. On the other hand the last bits

1549: $y^{1,1}_{s_1}$ and $y^{1,2}_{s_2}$ of the strings $\y^{1,1}$ and $\y^{1,2}$,

1550: which denote the first event of the history, remain undetermined, because the

1551: unspecified bits of the empty boxes are shifted onto them, which are

1552: coarse-grained (i.e.\ summed) over. The bits $y^{1,1}_{s_1}$ and

1553: $y^{1,2}_{s_2}$ may therefore be chosen arbitrarily resulting in a branching into

1554: four possible histories with non-vanishing probabilities.  This procedure

1555: repeats with each iteration step of the evolution. The second step leads to a

1556: determination of the first $(s_1-1)$ bits of the string $\y^{2,1}$ and the

1557: first $(s_2-1)$ bits of the string $\y^{2,2}$ symbolising the second event of

1558: the history, whereas, again, the last bits of these strings remain unspecified

1559: and may be chosen arbitrarily implicating a branching into further four

1560: alternatives with non-vanishing probabilities. And so on. It becomes clear

1561: from the above picture which histories arise with significant probabilities

1562: during the evolution and why the number of alternative equiprobable histories

1563: is quadruplicated after each iteration step. After $k$ iteration steps---we

1564: still assume $k<m_l+m_r$---there are therefore $2k$ independent bits which can

1565: be chosen arbitrarily, given the step-by-step shift constraint.  This

1566: implicates $2^{2k}$ alternative, equiprobable histories that may arise with

1567: significant probability after $k$ iteration steps.

1568: 

1569: 

1570: Our result for $k>m_l+m_r$, Eq.\ (\ref{result_k>(m_l+m_r)}),

1571:  may be interpreted in the following way. 

1572: As long as the number of iterations $k$ is smaller than $m=m_l+m_r$ 

1573: the number of histories with asymptotically non-vanishing

1574: probabilities becomes four times larger after each iteration step of 

1575: the quantum baker's map resulting in an entropy increase 

1576: of $2$ bits per iteration 

1577: step. As soon as the number of iterations becomes greater than 

1578: $m=m_l+m_r$, the entropy increase becomes $1$ bit per iteration 

1579: step. This is what is expressed by the result $2^{-(m_l+m_r)}\cdot 

1580: 2^{-k}= 2^{-2(m_l+m_r)}\cdot 2^{-(k-(m_l+m_r))}$ for the probability 

1581: of the histories which are allowed to occur. The first  

1582: $m_l+m_r$ iteration steps lead to an entropy increase of $2$ bits 

1583: per step involving $2^{2(m_l+m_r)}$ asymptotically equiprobable 

1584: histories. The remaining $k-(m_l+m_r)$ iteration steps produce 

1585: an entropy increase of $1$ bit per step only, with the number of 

1586: histories with significant probabilities being doubled at each step,

1587: implicating  a branching factor $2^{k-(m_l+m_r)}$. The entire number 

1588: of histories arising with significant probabilities after 

1589: $k$ iteration steps therefore becomes $2^{2(m_l+m_r)}\cdot 2^{k-(m_l+m_r)}

1590: =2^{(m_l+m_r)}\cdot 2^k$, the histories being asymptotically

1591:  equiprobable. Again the issue becomes clearer when using our diagram 

1592: picture. The size of the middle coarse-grained islands 

1593: is now only   $m_l+m_r<k$. So only in the first $m_l+m_r$ iteration 

1594: steps coarse-grained  bits are shifted onto the last bits 

1595: of the strings $\y^{j,1}$, making them by this means unspecified, i.e.\  

1596: arbitrarily chose-able for the history. In the subsequent, 

1597: remaining $k-(m_l+m_r)$ iteration steps the string $\x^2$ of the 

1598: initial condition enters the scale of the $\y^{j,1}$-strings,  

1599: with the consequence that the last bits of the strings  

1600: $\y^{m_l+m_r+1,1},\dots,\y^{k,1}$ 

1601: become determined by the initial condition. 

1602: At the end, after the $k$-th iteration step, only  $m_l+m_r$ bits 

1603: of the string $\y^{k,1}$ may be chosen arbitrarily, the first 

1604: $s_1-k$ bits and the last $k-(m_l+m_r)$ bits of it being determined 

1605: by the initial condition. On the other hand only the first $s_2-k$ 

1606: bits of the string $\y^{k,2}$ become determined by the initial

1607: condition, whereas all the last $k$ bits of it remain 

1608: arbitrarily chose-able for the history, provided that $k<r$. 

1609: This explains the result  $2^{(m_l+m_r)}\cdot 2^k$ for the 

1610: number of alternative histories satisfying the shift constraint. 

1611: For the entropy of the approximately 

1612: decoherent set of histories $\{ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}\}$

1613: we get the result:

1614: \begin{itemize}

1615: \item Entropy after $k$ iteration steps in case  $k\ge m_l+m_r$:

1616: \begin{eqnarray}

1617: H[\{ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}\}] 

1618:  &=& -\sum_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2 }p[ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}]

1619: \log_2p[h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2}] \nonumber \\

1620: &=&k+\;(m_l+m_r)\;+\;{\cal

1621:   O}(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_l+m_r)k)}})\;.

1622: \end{eqnarray}

1623: \end{itemize}

1624: 

1625: 

1626: \subsubsection{Hierarchical (multi-scale) coarse-grainings} 

1627: \label{sec:Derivations_Hierarchical_coarse-grainings}

1628: 

1629: We will see in the following that by introducing more and more 

1630: scales that are coarse-grained over in the symbolic representation of 

1631: the dynamics the short-term behaviour of the coarse-grained 

1632: evolution of the quantum baker's map will exhibit a growing 

1633: entropy increase per iteration step, i.e., growing unpredictability. 

1634: 

1635: So let us now look at the generalised type of 

1636: histories~(\ref{set:hierarchically-coarse-grained-histories}). 

1637: The evaluation of the corresponding decoherence 

1638: functional~(\ref{hierarchical-dfunc})  is done in a similar

1639: way as for the case $\lambda=2$. We first state the result for 

1640: the short-term regime which we now define to be given by 

1641: $k<\mbox{min}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$:  

1642: \begin{itemize}

1643: \item Decoherence functional in the case  

1644: $k<\mbox{min}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$:

1645: \begin{eqnarray}\label{result_[k<min_m_j]}

1646: {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho_0}

1647: [h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}\,,\,

1648: h_{\vec{\zs}^1,\,\vec{\zs}^2,\dots,\vec{\zs}^{\lambda}}]

1649: &=&

1650: 2^{-\lambda k}

1651: \cdot\underbrace{\left(\,\prod_{j=1}^{k}

1652: \prod_{i=1}^{\lambda}

1653: \delta_{\ys^{j,i}}^{\zs^{j,i}}

1654: \right)}_{{\rm diagonal}}\cdot

1655: \underbrace{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{\lambda}

1656: \delta{}_{\ys^{1,i}_{1:s_i-1}}^{\xs^i_{2:s_i}}

1657: \right)}_{{\rm first \; shift}}\times

1658: \nonumber\\

1659: && \times

1660: \underbrace{\left(\,\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}\prod_{i=1}^{\lambda}

1661: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1,i}_{1:s_i-1}}^{\ys^{j,i}_{2:s_i}}

1662: \right)}_{{\rm step-by-step\ shift}}\cdot

1663: \underbrace{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{\lambda}

1664: \delta{}_{\ys^{k,i}_{1:s_i-k}}^{\xs^i_{k+1:s_i}}

1665: \right)}_{k{\rm -th\ shift }}\\&&

1666: \;\; +\,\, {\cal

1667:   O}\Big(\frac{l+r-k}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_1+m_2+\dots+m_{\lambda-1})k)}}\Big)\;.

1668: \nonumber

1669: \end{eqnarray}

1670: \end{itemize}

1671: 

1672: In the limit of large $l$ the off-diagonal elements of the 

1673: decoherence functional vanish and the set of histories becomes 

1674: decoherent. The diagonal elements of the functional may therefore 

1675: be interpreted as probabilities. The coarse-grained evolution is 

1676: again governed by shift constraints. Only such histories are allowed 

1677: to arise with significant probabilities that satisfy the shift

1678: condition, which has been illustrated in detail for the case

1679: $\lambda=2$ above. Here we are mainly interested 

1680: in the rate of the entropy increase. The result

1681: (\ref{result_[k<min_m_j]}) shows that in the short-term regime, 

1682: i.e.\ as long as $k<\mbox{min}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$, 

1683: the coarse-grained evolution exhibits 

1684: an entropy increase of $\lambda$ bits per iteration step, 

1685: provided that $l$ is very large (classical limit).  

1686: This is quantitatively expressed by the entropy of the  

1687: approximately decoherent set of histories:  

1688: 

1689: \begin{itemize}

1690: \item Entropy after $k$ iteration steps in case  

1691: $k<\mbox{min}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$:

1692: \begin{eqnarray}

1693: H[\{ 

1694: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}\}] 

1695: & = & -\sum_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}

1696: p[ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}]

1697: \log_2

1698: p[ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}]

1699: \nonumber\\ 

1700: &=&

1701: \lambda\cdot k\;+\;{\cal

1702:   O}(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_1+m_2+\dots+m_{\lambda-1})k)}})\;,

1703: \end{eqnarray}

1704: \end{itemize}

1705: where we used $p[ h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}]

1706: ={\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho_0}

1707: [h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}\,,\,

1708: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}]$.

1709: 

1710: For the long-term regime, which we 

1711: define  by $k>\mbox{max}\{m_1, \dots,m_{\lambda-1}\}$, 

1712: our analysis yields the following results:

1713: \begin{itemize}

1714: \item Decoherence functional in case  

1715: $k>\mbox{max}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$:

1716: \begin{equation*}\hspace*{-9cm}

1717: {\mathcal D}_{B,\,\rho_0}

1718: [h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}\,,\,

1719: h_{\vec{\zs}^1,\,\vec{\zs}^2,\dots,\vec{\zs}^{\lambda}}]

1720: =

1721: \end{equation*}

1722: \begin{eqnarray}\label{result_[k>min_m_j]}

1723: &=&

1724: 2^{-k-(m_1+\dots+m_{\lambda-1})}

1725: \cdot\underbrace{\left(\,\prod_{j=1}^{k}

1726: \prod_{i=1}^{\lambda}

1727: \delta_{\ys^{j,i}}^{\zs^{j,i}}

1728: \right)}_{{\rm diagonal}}\cdot

1729: \underbrace{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{\lambda}

1730: \delta{}_{\ys^{1,i}_{1:s_i-1}}^{\xs^i_{2:s_i}}

1731: \right)}_{{\rm first \; shift}}\times

1732: \nonumber\\

1733: &&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \times

1734: \underbrace{\left(\,\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}\prod_{i=1}^{\lambda}

1735: \delta{}_{\ys^{j+1,i}_{1:s_i-1}}^{\ys^{j,i}_{2:s_i}}

1736: \right)}_{{\rm step-by-step\ shift}}\cdot

1737: \underbrace{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{\lambda}

1738: \delta{}_{\ys^{k,i}_{1:s_i-k}}^{\xs^i_{k+1:s_i}}

1739: \right)}_{k{\rm -th\ shift }}\\&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad

1740: \;\; +\,\, {\cal

1741:   O}\Big(\frac{l+r-k}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_1+m_2+\dots+m_{\lambda-1})k)}}\Big)\;

1742: \nonumber

1743: \end{eqnarray}

1744: \item Entropy after $k$ iteration steps in case  

1745: $k>\mbox{max}\{m_1,m_2, \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$:

1746: \begin{equation}

1747: H[\{ 

1748: h_{\vec{\ys}^1,\,\vec{\ys}^2,\dots,\vec{\ys}^{\lambda}}\}] =

1749: k+\sum_{i=1}^{\lambda-1}m_i\;+\;{\cal

1750:   O}(\frac{(l+r-k)\log_2(l+r-k)}{2^{l-2(k^2+(1+m_1+m_2+\dots+m_{\lambda-1})k)}})\;.

1751: \end{equation}

1752: \end{itemize}

1753: The interpretation of these results is similar to the special case $\lambda=2$

1754: of the last section. Whereas in the short-term regime, $k<\mbox{min}\{m_1,

1755: \dots, m_{\lambda-1}\}$, the entropy production rate is $\lambda$ bits per

1756: iteration, in the long-term regime $k>\mbox{max}\{m_1,\dots,m_{\lambda-1}\}$,

1757: the entropy production drops to $1$ bit per iteration, independently of the

1758: values of the parameters $m_1,\dots,m_{\lambda-1}$, which determine the border

1759: between the regimes. In the intermediate regime, the entropy production rate

1760: decreases each time $k$ exceeds one of the values $m_1,\dots,m_{\lambda-1}$.

1761: 

1762: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1763: 

1764: We would like to thank Todd Brun for helpful

1765: discussions. 

1766: This work was supported in part by the European Union IST-FET project EDIQIP. 

1767: 

1768: 

1769: 

1770: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1771: 

1772: 

1773: \bibitem{Gell-MannHartle1993}

1774: M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 3345 (1993).

1775: 

1776: \bibitem{BrunHartle1999-PRD}

1777: T.~A. Brun and J.~B. Hartle, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60},  123503  (1999).

1778: 

1779: \bibitem{Griffiths1984}

1780: R. Griffiths, J. Stat.\ Phys.\ {\bf 36},  219  (1984).

1781: 

1782: \bibitem{Omnes1988}

1783: R. Omn\`{e}s, J. Stat.\ Phys.\ {\bf 53},  893, 933, 957  (1988).

1784: 

1785: \bibitem{Gell-MannHartle1990}

1786: M. Gell-Mann and J.~B. Hartle,  in {\em Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of

1787:   Information}, edited by W.~H. Zurek (Addison Wesley, Redwood City, CA, 1990).

1788: 

1789: \bibitem{DowkerHalliwell1992}

1790: H.~F. Dowker and J.~J. Halliwell, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46},  1580  (1992).

1791: 

1792: \bibitem{Balazs1989}

1793: N.~L. Balazs and A. Voros, Ann.\ Phys.\ {\bf 190},  1  (1989).

1794: 

1795: \bibitem{Saraceno1990}

1796: M. Saraceno, Ann.\ Phys.\ {\bf 199},  37  (1990).

1797: 

1798: \bibitem{Arnold1968}

1799: V.~I. Arnold and A. Avez, {\em Ergodic Problems of Classical Mechanics}

1800:   (Benjamin, New York, 1968).

1801: 

1802: \bibitem{Berry1979}

1803: M.~V. Berry, N.~L. Balazs, M. Tabor, and A. Voros, Ann.\ Phys.\ {\bf 122},  26

1804:   (1979).

1805: 

1806: \bibitem{Weyl1950}

1807: H. Weyl, {\em The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics} (Dover, New York,

1808:   1950).

1809: 

1810: \bibitem{Schack2000a}

1811: R. Schack and C.~M. Caves, Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and

1812:   Computing (AAECC) {\bf 10},  305  (2000).

1813: 

1814: \bibitem{Alekseev1981}

1815: V.~M. Alekseev and M.~V. Yakobson, Phys.\ Reports {\bf 75},  287

1816: (1981).

1817: 

1818: \bibitem{Soklakov2000a}

1819: A.~N. Soklakov and R. Schack, Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 61},  5108  (2000).

1820: 

1821: \bibitem{Hartle1998}

1822: J.~B. Hartle, Physica Scripta {\bf T76},  67  (1998).

1823: 

1824: \bibitem{BrunHartle1999-PRE}

1825: T.~A. Brun and J.~B. Hartle, Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 59},  6370  (1999).

1826: 

1827: \bibitem{Brun1995}

1828: T.~A. Brun, Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 206},  167  (1995).

1829: 

1830: \bibitem{Scherer2004b}

1831: A.\ Scherer and A.~N.\ Soklakov, J.~Math.\ Phys.~46, 042108 (2005).

1832: 

1833: \bibitem{Soklakov2002}

1834: A.~N.\ Soklakov and R.\ Schack, Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 66}, 036212 (2002).

1835: 

1836: \end{thebibliography}

1837: 

1838: 

1839: \end{document}

1840: 

1841: 

1842: 

1843: