text:
# A study on quantum decoherence phenomena with three generations of neutrinos

## I Introduction

In the open quantum system approach, the evolution of a system interacting with an environment is described in an effective way, that is, the interaction with the environment is incorporated in the description of the evolution of the system. In general, the effects produced by the interaction cause dissipation and irreversibility. This treatment was originally developed for quantum optics, in order to take into account the system-reservoir (environment) interaction, and it has already been applied to elementary particle systems. Recently, it has also been used in the study of two neutrino oscillations, modifying the well known oscillation probability, due to the presence of dissipative effects. One very interesting feature of the oscillation probability in this situation is that even in the case that neutrinos are massless, we can have neutrino flavor conversion. It has been pointed out that this mechanism is able to explain well, in the context of two generations, the atmospheric neutrino data collected by the Super-Kamiokande (SK) experiment, as long as the damping parameter is $`1/\text{E}_\nu `$, $`E_\nu `$ being the neutrino energy.

The main goal of this paper is to extend this formalism of mass, mixing and quantum decoherence to three generations. This is rather well motivated since nowadays the atmospheric and solar neutrino observations can only be explained by the introduction of some neutrino flavor conversion mechanism which must be understood, specially after the recent impressive SNO results, in terms of three generations. Therefore, this extension will be very useful, because it will permit us to study the decoherence contributions on top of the oscillation induced by mass (OIM) in a complete three neutrino context.

We have developed this three neutrino formalism using the powerful technique of quantum dynamical semigroups, which makes our analysis independent of any hypothesis about the interaction between the neutrino system and the environment. Quantum open systems can also be treated using the master equation formalism, but in this case, a previous knowledge about the interaction with the environment is required. This is an important point since it is not clearly established which is the origin of the pervasive medium, the most likely possibilities at the moment are quantum gravity effects described by strings at low energy range. In this way, our results are broader from the phenomenological point of view. Based on motivations coming from the master equation formalism using the weak coupling limit in two generations, we have casted the most relevant decoherence effects in a diagonal dissipation matrix, as a result we have obtained manageable probability expressions.

Additionally, as a phenomenological application of this three neutrino extension for the decoherence phenomena, we have performed a qualitative study to inspect the agreement between the average behaviour of relevant neutrino data and the decoherence solution to the atmospheric neutrino anomaly in two generations, embodied within this enlarged neutrino framework. We have done this study assuming different alternatives for the introduction of the two generations decoherence solution in our three neutrino scheme. Basically we have divided the study in two parts. On the first part we use only PD to fully describe three neutrino flavor conversions, and on the second we deal with a hybrid case, where we assume decoherence plus OIM take place in the $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu (\tau )}`$ sector.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we describe the quantum dynamical semigroup formalism for a three level quantum system. In Sec. III we apply this formalism for the neutrino system, explicitly calculating the survival and conversion probabilities among neutrino flavors under the influence of decoherence effects. In Sec. IV we analyze the consistence of the decoherence solution to the atmospheric neutrino problem in the three generation framework. Finally in Sec. V we present our conclusions.

## II Quantum dynamical semigroups and three level systems

Hamiltonian evolution, that is, the time evolution of a physical system described by the Schrödinger equation in the case of pure ensembles, or by the Liouville equation for mixed ones, is a characteristic of systems isolated from their surroundings. The time evolution of an isolated quantum system with Hamiltonian $`H`$ is given by the continuous group of unitary transformations $`U_t=e^{iHt}`$, where $`t`$ is the time. From the mathematical point of view, the existence of the inverse of the infinitesimal generator $`H`$, a consequence of the algebraic structure of a group, gives rise to reversible processes in Hamiltonian systems.

We know that the time evolution of a quantum open system is characterized by the presence of dissipative effects which, in turn, give rise to the irreversible nature of the evolution. So, if a given family of transformations should be responsible for the evolution in time of a quantum open system, this family will certainly not be a group. A rigorous mathematical treatment of quantum open systems is provided by the so called quantum dynamical semigroups.

The evolution generated by the operators in these semigroups has the property of being forward in time, as a consequence of the lack of inverse in a semigroup. Physically, this property can be interpreted as the existence of an arrow of time which in turn makes possible the connection with thermodynamics via an entropy.

According to Ref., if $``$ is the Hilbert space of a given open quantum system, and $`()`$ the space of bounded operators acting on $``$, the infinitesimal generator $``$, defined through its action on the density matrix $`\rho (t)`$, is given by

$$\rho (t)=\frac{\rho (t)}{t}=i[H_{\mathrm{eff}},\rho (t)]+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}\left([A_j,\rho (t)A_j^{}]+[A_j\rho (t),A_j^{}]\right),$$
(1)
where $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}=H+H_\mathrm{d}`$ is the “effective” Hamiltonian of the system, $`H`$ being its free Hamiltonian and $`H_\mathrm{d}`$ accounts for possible additional dissipative contributions which can be incorporated to $`H`$, in other words, which can be put in the Hamiltonian form. $`A_j`$ is a sequence of bounded operators of $``$ ($`A_j()`$) satisfying $`_jA_j^{}A_j()`$. The first term in Eq. (1) constitutes the Hamiltonian part of the evolution, whereas the second term is responsible for the irreversible (non-hamiltonian) nature of an open system evolving in time.

Therefore, if we interpret the last expression as an effective equation describing the reduced dynamics of an open system interacting with a certain “environment”, the second term in Eq. (1), in a certain sense, represents the interaction between the open system and the mentioned environment. However, the generator $``$ does not depend on a particular interaction, being constructed based on very general hypothesis about the time evolution, that is, irreversible dynamics, conservation of probability and a less intuitive hypothesis known as complete positivity.

For a N-level system it is possible to construct an explicit parameterization of Eq. (1), provided that a suitable basis of $`()`$, viewed as a vector space, is chosen . From now on, we will restrict ourselves to a three-level system, whose evolution is governed by Eq. (1) and our approach will essentially follow Ref.. The bounded operators in $`()`$ can be represented by $`3\times 3`$ matrices of $`M_3(𝐂)`$, which in turn, can be generated by a basis $`\{F_\mu ,\mu =0,1,\mathrm{}8\}`$, endowed with the scalar product $`F_\mu ,F_\nu =\text{Tr}(F_\mu ^{}F_\nu )`$ and satisfying

$$F_\alpha ,F_\beta =\frac{1}{2}\delta _{\alpha \beta }.$$
(2)
We adopt here the standard basis of hermitian matrices

$$F_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟑},F_i=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(i=1,\mathrm{},8),$$
(3)
where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ are the Gell-Mann matrices  ***There is a standard method of constructing a set of matrices satisfying Eq. (2) in $`M_n(𝐂)`$.. Using this choice, $`F_i`$’s satisfy the Lie algebra

$$[F_i,F_j]=i\underset{k}{}f_{ijk}F_k,1i,j,k8,$$
(4)
where $`f_{ijk}`$ are the structure constants of $`SU(3)`$. Expanding the operators in Eq. (1) in the adopted basis we get From now on, Greek indices will range from 0 to 8, while Latin indices will range from 1 to 8, unless otherwise stated.

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{\mu }{}h_\mu F_\mu ,\rho =\underset{\mu }{}\rho _\mu F_\mu ,A_j=\underset{\mu }{}a_\mu ^{(j)}F_\mu .$$
(5)
As pointed out in Ref., the hermiticity of $`A_j`$ is a condition that assures the increasing with time of the von Neumman entropy $`S=\text{Tr}(\rho \text{ln}\rho )`$, with this choice, the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (1) can be written as

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}\left\{[A_j,\rho A_j]+[A_j\rho ,A_j]\right\}=\underset{\mu ,\nu }{}L_{\mu \nu }\rho _\mu F_\nu ,$$
(6)
where

$$L_{\mu 0}=L_{0\mu }=0,L_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k,l,m}{}\left(\stackrel{}{a}_m\stackrel{}{a}_k\right)f_{iml}f_{lkj},$$
(7)
and in the last equation we have introduced the vectors $`\stackrel{}{a}_\mu =\{a_\mu ^{(1)},a_\mu ^{(2)},\mathrm{},a_\mu ^{(8)}\}`$ of $`𝐑^8`$ with the usual scalar product $`\stackrel{}{a}_\mu \stackrel{}{a}_\nu =_ja_\mu ^{(j)}a_\nu ^{(j)}`$. $`L_{\mu \nu }`$ is a real The real nature of its entries can be easily deduced from the hermiticity of $`A_j`$., symmetric matrix, defined according to Eqs. (6) and (7). The elements of $`L_{\mu \nu }`$ are not totally arbitrary, but satisfy some relations due to the presence of the scalar product, which in turn, should obey the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Introducing the remaining expansions of Eq. (5) into Eq. (1) we get finally

$$\dot{\rho }_\mu =\underset{i,j}{}h_i\rho _jf_{ij\mu }+\underset{\nu }{}L_{\mu \nu }\rho _\nu \mu =0,\mathrm{},8.$$
(8)
The system of first order differential equations above describes the time evolution of a three-level quantum open system. Such an evolution is governed by the laws of quantum dynamical semigroups. The physical processes exhibit an arrow of time as a consequence of the monotonical increase of the von Neumman entropy as a function of time. The evolution also allows the interpretation of the eigenvalues of $`\rho (t)`$ at any instant of time as the probability of finding the open system in the eigenstate associated with the eigenvalue.

As already mentioned, the theoretical approach provided by quantum dynamical semigroups is a very general one to treat open quantum systems in the sense that no explicit hypothesis has to be made about the possible interactions causing the loss of quantum coherence. On the other hand, there is another approach to deal with systems of the same nature, in which a well defined form of the interaction ought to be provided in order to derive the reduced dynamics of the open quantum system. This approach is known as the master equation formalism and its rigorous mathematical formulation can be found in a series of papers . Furthermore, it is possible to show that the master equation formalism applied to an open system weakly coupled to some environment leads to an evolution equation for the reduced density matrix of the open system compatible of that obtained from Eq. (1) , in other words, in this situation, the master equation and the quantum dynamical semigroup formalism are equivalent.

Coming back to Eq. (8), we see that the differential equation for the $`\rho _0(t)`$ component and conservation of probability imply $`\rho _0(t)=\sqrt{2/3}`$. The remaining differential equations have the form

$$\dot{\rho }_k=\underset{j}{}\left(\underset{i}{}h_if_{ijk}+L_{kj}\right)\rho _j=\underset{j}{}M_{kj}\rho _j,$$
(9)
which in the matrix form can be written as §§§Note that $`\varrho \rho `$, the first being a column vector with components $`\rho _k`$.

$$\dot{\varrho }=𝐌\varrho ,$$
(10)
so that the formal solution is given by

$$\varrho (t)=e^{𝐌t}\varrho (0).$$
(11)
If $`\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _8\}`$ and $`\{𝐯_1,\mathrm{},𝐯_8\}`$ are the set of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`𝐌`$, respectively, the matrix $`𝐃`$, with entries $`D_{ij}=(𝐯_i)_j`$, diagonalizes $`𝐌`$,

$$𝐌^{}=𝐃^1\mathrm{𝐌𝐃}=diag(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _8).$$
(12)
Applying the inverse transformation, $`e^{𝐌t}=𝐃e^{𝐌^{}t}𝐃^1`$, we get

$$\rho _i(t)=\underset{k,j}{}e^{\lambda _kt}D_{ik}D_{kj}^1\rho _j,$$
(13)
so that the complete solution of the system of differential equations (8) is equivalent to a problem of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. In the case of a matrix of order 8, with all non null entries, the solution is too complicated to allow for direct physical interpretations.

## III Dissipative effects and neutrinos

In this section we present an expression for the probability of neutrino flavor conversion assuming that the dynamics responsible by this process is constituted by the already known standard OIM mechanism, as well as by dissipative effects according to quantum dynamical semigroups.

### A The probability of conversion

The hamiltonian $`H`$ for a free relativistic neutrino with momentum $`𝐩`$ and rest mass $`m`$ is given by

$$H=\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2},$$
(14)
so that in the basis of mass eigenstates

$$𝐩|\nu _k=𝐩_k|\nu _k\text{and}m|\nu _k=m_k|\nu _k,$$
(15)
and we can write for relativistic neutrinos ($`p=|𝐩|`$),

$$Hp^2+\frac{m^2}{2p}\nu _k|H|\nu _l=\delta _{kl}\left(p_k+\frac{m_k^2}{2p_k}\right).$$
(16)
The expansion of $`H`$ in the basis $`F_\mu `$ is

$$H=\frac{1}{2p}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\left(6p^2+m^2\right)F_0+\frac{1}{2p}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2\right)F_3+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}p}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2\right)F_8,$$
(17)
where $`m^2=m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2=m_i^2m_j^2,i,j=1,2,3`$.

As already mentioned at the end of the preceding section, an analysis considering the most general form of $`𝐌`$ would certainly not provide information subject to direct physical interpretation. From this point of view, its reasonable to begin the analysis introducing simplifications which allow a direct physical interpretation of the results. Of course, these simplifications cannot be completely arbitrary, because all the physics depends on them. In this way, motivations coming from the formalism of master equation, in the so called weak coupling limit, applied to the problem of neutrino flavor conversion in the two generation case, lead us to assume a diagonal matrix $`L_{\mu \nu }`$, that is,

$$[L_{\mu \nu }]=diag(0,\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3,\gamma _4,\gamma _5,\gamma _6,\gamma _7,\gamma _8),$$
(18)
where the diagonal elements are given by

$$\gamma _i=L_{ii}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k,l,m}{}(\stackrel{}{a}_m\stackrel{}{a}_k)f_{iml}f_{ikl}.$$
(19)
In the case of two generations, the diagonal form of $`L_{\mu \nu }`$ can be deduced via the master equation formalism in the weak coupling limit, provided that a gas of quanta, satisfying infinite statistics (for example a D0-brane) is adopted as the dissipative medium. These quanta should also be in thermodynamic equilibrium at a finite temperature $`\beta =1/M`$, where $`M`$ defines an energy scale at which the dissipative effects are believed to become important (possibly the Planck scale if the effects have quantum gravity as their source). The diagonal form is finally obtained if one further imposes the condition of entropy increase for finite $`\beta `$, for details see Ref.. We stress that here Eq. (18) is just an Ansatz motivated by the results in the two generation case.

Using this parameterization of $`L_{\mu \nu }`$ we can construct the matrix $`𝐌`$ defined in Eq. (9), and its eigenvalues and eigenvectors can be obtained. The explicit form of $`𝐌`$, its eigenvalues and associated eigenvectors can be found in Appendix A.

If at $`t=0`$ a neutrino of flavor $`\nu _\alpha `$ is produced, the probability of its conversion, after a time $`t`$, to a flavor $`\nu _\beta `$ can be written as

$$P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta }(t)=\text{Tr}[\rho ^\alpha (t)\rho ^\beta ]=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,k,j}{}e^{\lambda _kt}D_{ik}D_{kj}^1\rho _j^\alpha (0)\rho _i^\beta .$$
(20)
In a more explicit form, the probability of conversion can be written as

$`P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{[(\rho _1^\alpha \rho _1^\beta +\rho _2^\alpha \rho _2^\beta )\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}t}{2}}+e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}t}{2}}}{2}}\right)`$ (21)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}\left(\rho _1^\alpha \rho _2^\beta \rho _2^\alpha \rho _1^\beta \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{12}\left(\rho _1^\alpha \rho _1^\beta \rho _2^\alpha \rho _2^\beta \right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}t}{2}}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}t}{2}}}{2}}\right)]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)t}`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`[(\rho _4^\alpha \rho _4^\beta +\rho _5^\alpha \rho _5^\beta )\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}t}{2}}+e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}t}{2}}}{2}}\right)`$ (23)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}\left(\rho _4^\alpha \rho _5^\beta \rho _5^\alpha \rho _4^\beta \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{45}\left(\rho _4^\alpha \rho _4^\beta \rho _5^\alpha \rho _5^\beta \right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}t}{2}}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}t}{2}}}{2}}\right)]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _4+\gamma _5)t}`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`[(\rho _6^\alpha \rho _6^\beta +\rho _7^\alpha \rho _7^\beta )\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}t}{2}}+e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}t}{2}}}{2}}\right)`$ (25)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}\left(\rho _6^\alpha \rho _7^\beta \rho _7^\alpha \rho _6^\beta \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{67}\left(\rho _6^\alpha \rho _7^\beta \rho _7^\alpha \rho _7^\beta \right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}t}{2}}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}t}{2}}}{2}}\right)]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _6+\gamma _7)t}`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`e^{\gamma _3t}\rho _3^\alpha \rho _3^\beta +e^{\gamma _8t}\rho _8^\alpha \rho _8^\beta \},`$ (27)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{ij}=\gamma _j\gamma _i`$ and the definition of the new variables $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$ can be found in Appendix A.

It is easy to verify that: Eq. (27) exhibits conservation of probability at any instant of time; reducing the number of dimensions from 3 to 2, we get the results for decoherence in two generations ; and in the limit $`\gamma _i0(1i8)`$, the standard OIM mechanism is recovered.

## IV Phenomenological application

In this section we will use the just developed three neutrino framework for OIM mechanism plus the decoherence effects, to analyze the robustness of the decoherence solution to the atmospheric neutrino problem in two generations  envisaged within this enlarged scheme. This will be done for different selections of the mixing matrix, first for PD and second for decoherence plus masses and mixing.

### A Pure Decoherence

In order to obtain the probabilities that correspond to the PD case it is enough to eliminate the usual oscillatory terms. This can be easily done by setting the mixing matrix $`U`$ equal to the unity matrix. Applying this to Eq. (27) we get the following expressions:

$$P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta }^{\text{PD}}(t)=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{2}(e^{\gamma _3t}\rho _3^\alpha \rho _3^\beta +e^{\gamma _8t}\rho _8^\alpha \rho _8^\beta ),$$
(28)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =e,\mu ,\tau `$, so consequently

$`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}^{\text{PD}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (29)
$`P_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }^{\text{PD}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (30)
$`P_{\nu _e\nu _\tau }^{\text{PD}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (31)
$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }^{\text{PD}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (32)
$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\text{PD}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{\gamma _8t}.`$ (33)
Despite the fact that mixing is not included, we can observe from these probabilities, that it is possible to have non-null neutrino flavor conversion only taking into account the decoherence phenomena. Indeed, these results were expected, since the same was obtained in two generations .

The atmospheric neutrino data can be interpreted well using the PD phenomena in the two generation framework . Thus, we can investigate if the pure decoherence mechanism extrapolated to three generations is still able to explain the current data. A qualitative analysis of the behavior of the above probabilities in the present data context can clearly demonstrate that this is not so. The explanation goes as follows.

Since we aim to test the decoherence solution to the atmospheric neutrino data in the three generations scheme, we will have to consider the damping parameters with the dependence $`\gamma _j\gamma _j/E_\nu `$, in accordance with the two generations assumption. Thus, the probabilities defined in Eqs. (29)-(33) will be sensitive only to the ratio $`L/E_\nu `$ In our formulae you can make the substitution $`tL`$ (for c=1). similar to vacuum case for the OIM mechanism. Here $`L`$ is the distance between the source of neutrinos and the detector. Note also that these probabilities will not be modified by the presence of matter, since there is no mixing involved.

The conjunction of all of these properties of the probabilities with the fact that $`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}=P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }`$, makes the three neutrino PD mechanism incompatible with the actual neutrino data. One can exemplify this inconsistency by confronting the results of the neutrino experiments CHOOZ  and K2K  with our theoretical predictions. Both experiments have similar $`L/E_\nu `$, but their results for $`P_{\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e}`$ and $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }`$ are not compatible with our theoretical expectation. The CHOOZ experiment with $`L/E_\nu 1000/3(\text{m/MeV})`$ observed $`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}1`$ The probabilities defined in Eq. (27) satisfy $`P_{\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\alpha }P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha }`$. and the K2K experiment with $`L/E_\nu 250/1.3(\text{km/GeV})`$ has observed events compatible with $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }0.7`$. Therefore the relation $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }=P_{\nu _e\nu _e}`$ given by our probabilities, is in contradiction with the results of CHOOZ and K2K.

Another example that reinforces this contradiction is the multi-GeV SK data sample  in combination with the CHOOZ constraint. In order to illustrate this fact, we consider the SK normalized $`e`$-like and $`\mu `$-like event samples, which can be computed as follows

$`R_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}P_{\nu _e\nu _\mu },`$ (34)
$`R_e`$ $`=`$ $`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}+rP_{\nu _\mu \nu _e},`$ (35)
where $`R_\mu `$ and $`R_e`$ are the normalized $`\mu `$-like and $`e`$-like event samples defined as the ratios of the expected number of events considering neutrino conversion over the expected number of events without neutrino flavor conversion, $`r`$ is the original proportion between the muon and electron neutrino fluxes. We can observe that for ranges of $`L/E_\nu 1000/3`$ compatible with CHOOZ and corresponding to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\text{zenith}}0.22`$ \**\**\**The relation between the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\text{zenith}}`$ and $`L`$ is given by $`L=\sqrt{(R_T+h)^2(R_T\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_Z)^2}R_T\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\text{zenith}}`$, where $`R_T`$ is the earth radius and $`h`$ is the height of the neutrino production point.  in the multi-GeV sample, $`E_\nu 10\text{GeV}`$ , $`R_\mu =0.60.7`$ and $`R_e=1`$. Thus, crossing this information with the CHOOZ bound, we find that $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}=P_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }0`$ (in fact, for a real mixing matrix, $`P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta }=P_{\nu _\beta \nu _\alpha }`$ as can be seen from Eq. (27)) and consequently $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }0.60.7`$, which is again in conflict with our theoretical prediction.

### B Decoherence $``$ Oscillation

Here we will study two different cases also admitting the presence of the oscillatory terms in the probability expressions, therefore we have here a mixed situation of decoherence $``$ oscillation (D$``$O). In both cases the oscillation will be included through non-null mixing matrix elements, which connect $`\nu _e`$ with $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _e`$ with $`\nu _\tau `$. This is chosen in order to preserve the possibility to explain the solar neutrino data through of the OIM mechanism. In addition, another fact in our strategy of analysis will be to adjust the parameters in the $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }`$, the leading channel for the explanation of the atmospheric data, to be similar to its form in the two generations decoherence solution to the atmospheric neutrino problem.

When we introduce non-zero masses for the neutrinos, two different situations may arise according to the magnitudes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{kl}`$: either $`2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}||\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{kl}|`$ or $`2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}|<|\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{kl}|`$. In our analysis we will assume the first situation, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$ is imaginary so that Eq. (27) takes the form

$`P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{[(\rho _1^\alpha \rho _1^\beta +\rho _2^\alpha \rho _2^\beta )\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|t}{2}}\right)`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}\left(\rho _1^\alpha \rho _2^\beta \rho _2^\alpha \rho _1^\beta \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{12}\left(\rho _1^\alpha \rho _1^\beta \rho _2^\alpha \rho _2^\beta \right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|t}{2}}\right)]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)t}`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`[(\rho _4^\alpha \rho _4^\beta +\rho _5^\alpha \rho _5^\beta )\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}|t}{2}}\right)`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}\left(\rho _4^\alpha \rho _5^\beta \rho _5^\alpha \rho _4^\beta \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{45}\left(\rho _4^\alpha \rho _4^\beta \rho _5^\alpha \rho _5^\beta \right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}|t}{2}}\right)]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _4+\gamma _5)t}`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`[(\rho _6^\alpha \rho _6^\beta +\rho _7^\alpha \rho _7^\beta )\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}|t}{2}}\right)`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}\left(\rho _6^\alpha \rho _7^\beta \rho _7^\alpha \rho _6^\beta \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{67}\left(\rho _6^\alpha \rho _7^\beta \rho _7^\alpha \rho _7^\beta \right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}|t}{2}}\right)]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _6+\gamma _7)t}`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`e^{\gamma _3t}\rho _3^\alpha \rho _3^\beta +e^{\gamma _8t}\rho _8^\alpha \rho _8^\beta \}.`$ (42)
In the case $`2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}|<|\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{kl}|`$, we would have an analogous expression, but with hyperbolic sines and cosines.

#### 1 Mixing in the $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _\mu `$ sector

In this case we switch on only the non-null mixing matrix elements in the $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _\mu `$ sector, so that the mixing matrix is defined as

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta & 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(43)
Due to the form adopted for the mixing matrix, oscillatory terms will not appear in the transition probability between $`\nu _\tau `$ and the other flavors, remaining only the decoherence terms for generating non-zero neutrino conversion related to $`\nu _\tau `$.

The survival and conversion probabilities of interest for the case $`2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}||\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{kl}|`$ can be explicitly built now and are given by

$`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|t}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{12}}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|t}{2}}\right)\right]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)t}`$ (45)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^22\theta e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$
$`P_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|t}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{12}}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|t}{2}}\right)\right]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)t}`$ (47)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^22\theta e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$
$`P_{\nu _e\nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (48)
$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|t}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{12}}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}|t}{2}}\right)\right]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)t}`$ (50)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^22\theta e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$
$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (51)
and analogous expressions can be written for the case $`2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}|<|\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{kl}|`$, through the substitutions $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{cosh}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{sinh}`$.

Once we have defined these probabilities we will check their consistency with the tendency indicated by the atmospheric neutrino data. Our test will be based upon the definitions for the normalized $`e`$-events and $`\mu `$-events given in the Eqs. (34) and (35).

Since our probabilities involving mixing with $`\nu _e`$ are going to be applied for the atmospheric neutrino data, matter effects must be considered. This is because the atmospheric neutrino data involve neutrinos which travel different distances through the Earth. The inclusion of matter effects in the probability expressions is really straightforward in the case where constant matter density is considered . Basically, we only need to replace $`\theta \theta _m`$ (in the corresponding sines and cosines), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^m`$ where

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _m(x)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta +(x\mathrm{cos}2\theta )^2},$$
(52)
and,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^m=\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta +(x\mathrm{cos}2\theta )^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{13},$$
(53)
where $`x`$ is given by

$$x=\frac{2\sqrt{2}G_Fn_eE_\nu }{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2}0.76\frac{\rho (\text{g}\text{cm}^3)E_\nu (\text{GeV})}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2(10^4\text{eV}^2)},$$
(54)
$`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`n_e`$ the electron number density, $`E_\nu `$ the neutrino energy and $`\rho `$ the matter density.

For evaluating how these matter effects affect our probabilities, we will choose the following values for the relevant parameters: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^23\times 10^4\text{eV}^2`$, consistent with the large mixing angle (LMA) solution to the solar neutrino problem , $`E_\nu 10\text{ GeV}`$, consistent with the mean neutrino energy for multi-GeV events, and $`\rho (\text{g}\text{cm}^3)2.75`$ , this value is one of the lowest values in the Earth matter density profile. Using these values we estimate that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _m0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}^22\theta _m1`$. Note that this will happen even faster for higher values of matter density. As a result, we can write simplified probabilities for this case

$`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (55)
$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (56)
$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (57)
here we go one step further and assume $`\gamma _8t0`$,

$$P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}e^{\gamma _3t},$$
(58)
thus we mimic completely the two generation expression for decoherence in $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }`$.

At this point we have $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }=P_{\nu _e\nu _e}=P`$, $`P_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }=1P`$ and $`P_{\nu _e\nu _\tau }=P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }=0`$. Writing Eqs. (34) and (35) as a function of $`P`$, we obtain

$`R_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)P+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}},`$ (59)
$`R_e`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1r\right)P+r.`$ (60)
Now we can check, in a model independent way, the consistency of these expressions with the atmospheric neutrino observations. To make an analysis consistent with our assumption on the neutrino energy, we will look at the tendencies of multi-GeV events, this implies $`r3`$. The $`e`$-like multi-GeV events are consistent with $`R_e1`$ for any neutrino trajectory, so that

$$R_e=2P+31P1,$$
(61)
and consequently,

$$R_\mu =\frac{2}{3}P+\frac{1}{3}1,$$
(62)
which is in strong disagreement with the behavior of neutrinos coming from below the horizon, since $`\mu `$-like multi-GeV events are indicating in average that $`R_\mu 0.50.6`$. Therefore this case is also in conflict with the present data.

#### 2 Mixing in the $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _\tau `$ sector

In this case we turn on only the mixing matrix elements that connect $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _\tau `$, which implies the following mixing matrix

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0& 1& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(63)
so that the mass induced oscillation terms do not appear in any transition involving $`\nu _\mu `$.

Then, for the case $`2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}||\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{kl}|`$, we obtain the probability formulae

$`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^4\theta e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^2e^{\gamma _8t}`$ (65)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}|t}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{45}}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}|}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}|t}{2}}\right)\right]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _4+\gamma _5)t},`$
$`P_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (66)
$`P_{\nu _e\nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )e^{\gamma _8t}`$ (68)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}|t}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{45}}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}|}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}|t}{2}}\right)\right]e^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _4+\gamma _5)t},`$
$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (69)
$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta e^{\gamma _3t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^2e^{\gamma _8t},`$ (70)
and once again, the case $`2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}|<|\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{kl}|`$ can be obtained just by substituting the harmonic functions by their hyperbolic partners.

Before analyzing the probabilities in this case, we will make some further assumptions. First, we will take $`3\times 10^5\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2/\text{eV}^219\times 10^5`$ and $`0.25\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.65`$, both consistent with the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem , second we will neglect all the decoherence parameters for the $`L/E_\nu `$ at the range of the atmospheric neutrino scale, with the exception of $`\gamma _3`$, which is needed in order to make $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }`$ similar to its form in the decoherence solution to the atmospheric neutrino anomaly in two generations.

Once we have accepted these assumptions, we can study the compatibility of these probabilities with the current data. We will not use the atmospheric neutrino data to test the viability of the decoherence solution in the three generations scheme. This is because the probabilities are written as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, which makes it difficult to extract correct conclusions without introducing refinements to the qualitative analysis we have used up to now. Instead, we will simply look at CHOOZ data. This will be enough to give us a good idea about the compatibility of the decoherence solution in the three neutrino scheme, through the observations in the channel $`\nu _e\nu _e`$. Since we are going to use for this study $`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}`$, it is convenient to write it down after the assumptions mentioned above are taken into account

$$P_{\nu _e\nu _e}^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{O}}(L)=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}^4\theta e^{\gamma _3^{}L/E_\nu }+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}L)\right)+\frac{1}{6}(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^2.$$
(71)
We have obtained excluded regions in the plane ($`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,\gamma _3^{}`$), with $`\gamma _3=\gamma _3^{}/E_\nu `$, following the statistical procedure described in Ref. . We must point out that variations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2`$ will not affect these excluded regions, since $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}L)1`$ in the CHOOZ range.

The results are shown in Fig. 1, where the points to the right of the contours are excluded. We observe that the point in this plane which corresponds to the value of the decoherence parameter which best explains the atmospheric neutrino data, $`\gamma _3^{}=1.2\times 10^{21}`$ GeV2, as well as $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ which corresponds to the best fit value for the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem, $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 0.73`$ ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 0.8`$), denoted by a black dot, is excluded at 99 % C.L. In general, if $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 0.5`$ we can exclude $`\gamma _3^{}7.0\times 10^{22}`$ GeV2 at 99 % C.L. In this way we observe that CHOOZ data also highly disfavor this three neutrino scheme, since it excludes a large region of $`\gamma _3^{}`$ compatible with the atmospheric neutrino solution for values of $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ consistent with the LMA solution to the solar neutrino deficit.

## V Conclusions

Under the assumption that the neutrino system can interact with a pervasive environment, we have obtained neutrino probability formulae for three neutrino generations, taking into account quantum dissipative effects coming from the interaction with the medium on top of the OIM mechanism. The damping terms were brought in through the quantum dynamical semigroup formalism. This approach is very useful, since no a priori assumption on the form of neutrino-medium interaction has to be made. Some simplifications of the form of the dissipative matrix were adopted based on results in two generations.

We have performed a qualitative analysis to test if the two generation decoherence solution to the atmospheric neutrino problem viewed in this hybrid three neutrino framework, can still explain the tendencies of the current experimental neutrino data.

We have analyzed two different cases, the first one considering only PD and the second including a mixture of both conversion mechanisms, that is, decoherence plus OIM. The second case was further subdivided into two cases, according to the choice of mixing matrix: i) mass and mixing contributions connecting $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$; ii) mass and mixing contribution connecting $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$. We have observed that all of these cases are clearly disfavored by recent relevant experimental neutrino data. Particularly, in the PD case, the fact that $`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}=P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }`$ is not compatible with the constraint given by CHOOZ combined with SK data ($`R_e`$ and $`R_\mu `$) or with K2K results. For the hybrid case of decoherence plus non-null mixing in $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$, the same prediction $`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}=P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }`$ arises which is clearly not supported by SK data. In the case of decoherence plus mixing in $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$, we have made a statistical analysis of CHOOZ data using our theoretical expression for $`P_{\nu _e\nu _e}`$, with some simplifications. We have obtained that the best fit value for the decoherence solution to the atmospheric neutrino problem, $`\gamma _3^{}=1.2\times 10^{21}`$ GeV2, is highly disfavored by data. Values of $`\gamma _3^{}>3.\times 10^{22}`$ GeV2 for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ consistent with the LMA solution to the solar neutrino deficit are, in general, excluded at 99 % C.L..

Although, the tests we have performed in the three neutrino scheme indicate a disagreement between data and theoretical expectations, this does not mean that dissipative effects can not exist as subleading processes, with the full three neutrino OIM as the main mechanism for neutrino flavor conversion. In fact, the formulae developed here are interesting to be used to help establishing limits on the decoherence parameters or to try to detect their effects using an appropriate three neutrino description.

Also it is worth to stress that we have worked here in a simplified situation in which the dissipative matrix is diagonal. The presence of off-diagonal terms can certainly produce interesting effects on the probability expressions. Our formulae can be easily modified to include these off-diagonal terms. However, any further qualitative or quantitative analysis in three generations will not be so direct.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP).

## A Explicit form of $`𝐌`$

We present here the explicit form of the matrix $`𝐌`$, its eigenvalues and eigenvectors, as well as the diagonalizing matrix $`𝐃`$ and its inverse defined in Eq. (12). Starting from the definition of $`𝐌`$ in Eq. (9), taking as valid the approximation $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}H`$, we can write

$$𝐌=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\gamma _1& \mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& \gamma _2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \gamma _3& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \gamma _4& \mathrm{\Delta }_{13}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_{13}& \gamma _5& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _6& \mathrm{\Delta }_{23}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_{23}& \gamma _7& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \gamma _8\end{array}\right),$$
(A1)
with the definitions

$$h_3=\mathrm{\Delta }_{12},h_8=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{23})\text{and}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2}{2p},i,j=1,2,3.$$
(A2)
Now solving the secular equation $`\text{det}(𝐌\lambda \mathrm{𝟏})=0`$, we get

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)\sqrt{(\gamma _2\gamma _1)^24\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^2}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}\right]`$ (A3)
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)+\sqrt{(\gamma _2\gamma _1)^24\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^2}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)+\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}\right]`$ (A4)
$`\lambda _3`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _3`$ (A5)
$`\lambda _4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _4+\gamma _5)\sqrt{(\gamma _5\gamma _4)^24\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^2}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _4+\gamma _5)\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}\right]`$ (A6)
$`\lambda _5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _4+\gamma _5)+\sqrt{(\gamma _5\gamma _4)^24\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^2}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _4+\gamma _5)+\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}\right]`$ (A7)
$`\lambda _6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _6+\gamma _7)\sqrt{(\gamma _7\gamma _6)^24\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^2}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _6+\gamma _7)\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}\right]`$ (A8)
$`\lambda _7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _7+\gamma _8)+\sqrt{(\gamma _7\gamma _6)^24\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^2}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\gamma _6+\gamma _7)+\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}\right]`$ (A9)
$`\lambda _8`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _8`$ (A10)
The associated eigenvectors are in turn

$`𝐯_1^T`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1+\gamma _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}},1,0,0,0,0,0,0)`$ (A11)
$`𝐯_2^T`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2+\gamma _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}},1,0,0,0,0,0,0)`$ (A12)
$`𝐯_3^T`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0)`$ (A13)
$`𝐯_4^T`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _4+\gamma _5}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}}},1,0,0,0)`$ (A14)
$`𝐯_5^T`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _4+\gamma _5}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}}},1,0,0,0)`$ (A15)
$`𝐯_6^T`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _6+\gamma _7}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}}},1,0)`$ (A16)
$`𝐯_7^T`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _7+\gamma _7}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}}},1,0)`$ (A17)
$`𝐯_8^T`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1),`$ (A18)
where the superscript $`T`$ denotes transposition. One can now construct the diagonalizing matrix $`𝐃`$ and its inverse

$$𝐃=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\frac{\lambda _1+\gamma _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}& \frac{\lambda _2+\gamma _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{\lambda _4+\gamma _5}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}}& \frac{\lambda _5+\gamma _5}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{\lambda _6+\gamma _7}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}}& \frac{\lambda _7+\gamma _7}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(A19)
$$𝐃^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}}& \frac{\lambda _2+\gamma _2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}}& \frac{\lambda _1+\gamma _2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}}& \frac{\lambda _5+\gamma _5}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}}& \frac{\lambda _4+\gamma _5}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}}& \frac{\lambda _7+\gamma _7}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}}& \frac{\lambda _6+\gamma _7}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(A20)
## B Explicit form of the coefficients $`\rho _\mu ^\alpha `$

Flavor eigenstates $`|\nu _\alpha ,\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ can be written as a function of mass eigenstates $`|\nu _k,k=1,2,3`$ through a unitary matrix $`U`$

$$|\nu _\alpha =\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{\alpha k}^{}|\nu _k\text{and}\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{k\beta }U_{k\alpha }^{}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{\beta k}U_{\alpha k}^{}=\delta _{\alpha \beta },$$
(B1)
we can express the density matrix of a flavor state $`|\nu _\alpha `$ as

$`\rho ^\alpha =|\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha |`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}U_{\alpha k}^{}|\nu _k\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}U_{\alpha k}\nu _k|\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}U_{\alpha k}^{}U_{\alpha l}|\nu _k\nu _l|.`$
In the mass eigenstates basis we have

$$\nu _m|\rho ^\alpha |\nu _n=\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{\alpha k}^{}U_{\alpha l}\nu _m|\nu _k\nu _l|\nu _n=U_{\alpha m}^{}U_{\alpha n},$$
(B2)
so that

$$[\rho ^\alpha ]=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|U_{\alpha 1}|^2& U_{\alpha 1}^{}U_{\alpha 2}& U_{\alpha 1}^{}U_{\alpha 3}\\ U_{\alpha 2}^{}U_{\alpha 1}& |U_{\alpha 2}|^2& U_{\alpha 2}^{}U_{\alpha 3}\\ U_{\alpha 3}^{}U_{\alpha 1}& U_{\alpha 3}^{}U_{\alpha 2}& |U_{\alpha 3}|^2\end{array}\right).$$
(B3)
Therefore, the coefficients $`\rho _\mu ^\alpha =2\text{Tr}[\rho ^\alpha F_\mu ]`$ can be explicitly written as

$`\rho _0^\alpha =\sqrt{2/3}`$ (B4)
$`\rho _1^\alpha =2\mathrm{R}e(U_{\alpha 1}^{}U_{\alpha 2})`$ (B5)
$`\rho _2^\alpha =2\mathrm{I}m(U_{\alpha 1}^{}U_{\alpha 2})`$ (B6)
$`\rho _3^\alpha =|U_{\alpha 1}|^2|U_{\alpha 2}|^2`$ (B7)
$`\rho _4^\alpha =2\mathrm{R}e(U_{\alpha 1}^{}U_{\alpha 3})`$ (B8)
$`\rho _5^\alpha =2\mathrm{I}m(U_{\alpha 1}^{}U_{\alpha 3})`$ (B9)
$`\rho _6^\alpha =2\mathrm{R}e(U_{\alpha 2}^{}U_{\alpha 3})`$ (B10)
$`\rho _7^\alpha =2\mathrm{I}m(U_{\alpha 2}^{}U_{\alpha 3})`$ (B11)
$`\rho _8^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|U_{\alpha 1}|^2+|U_{\alpha 2}|^22|U_{\alpha 3}|^2)`$ (B12)


format: text

text:
# Bohmian trajectories and quantum phase space distributions

## 1 Introduction

In addition to the standard canonical and path integral quantizations there is an alternative method for quantizing classical theories, namely deformation quantization -. The virtue of this method resides in its formal representation which, in many respects, mimics that of classical statistical mechanics. A phase-space quasi-distribution , which describes the state of the system, plays the role of the wave function. Instead of operators, observables are represented by ordinary functions in phase space. With hindsight, the results hitherto obtained in this context can be summarized in a nutshell: quantum mechanics is obtained from classical statistical mechanics by replacing the ordinary abelian product of functions by some appropriate non-commutative associative star product. To be more precise, the previous quantization prescription permits a complete specification of all the relevant objects of phase space quantum mechanics with (thus far) the notorious exception of the quasi-distribution.

The arbitrariness in the choice of star product is related to ordering ambiguities of operators in quantum mechanics. We may choose e.g. to symmetrize operator products completely (Weyl order ), or else to normal order them (creation operators precede annihilation operators). To this myriad of ordering prescriptions there is a corresponding number of star products and quasi-distributions. In his work, Cohen  has sought to construct a general formalism where all possible quasi-distributions (and, consequently, all star products) are related by a sort of gauge transformation which leaves physically relevant quantities (mean values, probabilities) unscathed.

Another alternative formulation of quantum mechanics is the de Broglie-Bohm theory which displays a set of remarkable properties that are not shared by the quasi-distribution formulation - namely that it is based on a positive defined distribution and that it allows for a causal interpretation in terms of the so-called ”Bohmian trajectories”. Both the de Broglie-Bohm and the quasi-distribution formulation attempt to provide a ”classical-like” description of quantum mechanics. The two formulations are obviously equivalent as their predictions are identical to those of standard operator quantum mechanics. This notwithstanding, it does not diminish the conceptual and practical interest of each individual formulation. Firstly, because in some cases it may be advantageous to perform a specific calculation in one formulation rather than another, and secondly, because they provide conceptual insights in the interpretation of quantum phenomena.

In this letter we show that some key features of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation are shared by the quasi-distribution formulation, enforcing the idea that these features play a key role in the foundations of the quantum theory (previous work studying the relation between the two formulations, but exploring different points of view can be found in ). We will prove that: 1) the dynamics of all quasi-distributions (and in particular of the Wigner function) can be cast in terms of the de Broglie-Bohm causal trajectories, 2) the classical pure state is the semiclassical limit of all pure state quasi-distributions, 3) all quasi-distributions are $``$-deformations of a classical pure state.

From a more technical point of view, these results yield new calculation tools that may find interesting applications in a wide range of specific problems: 1) they constitute a more intuitive and explicit realization of Cohen’s classification, providing a straightforward relation between a particular star-product and the corresponding quasi-distribution, 2) they formulate the dynamics of all quasi-distributions in terms of a system of two second order partial differential equations, 3) they provide an alternative implementation of the Wigner-Weyl map for density matrices, 4) they yield a (previously missing) quantization prescription for classical distributions.

## 2 Quasi-distributions

We will consider for simplicity one-dimensional systems. Let $`\psi (x,t)`$ be the wave function representing the state of the system at any given time $`t`$. The wave function is a solution of the Schrödinger equation, with Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}+V(\widehat{x})`$. Let $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})`$ be any observable, with a complete orthonomal set of eigenvectors $`\left\{|a>\right\}`$ associated with the eigenvalues $`\left\{a\right\}`$333We will consider for simplicity nondegenerate spectra, although this is not crucial. The spectra can be continuous or discrete.. The average value of $`\widehat{A}`$ is evaluated according to: $`<\widehat{A}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})>=𝑑x\psi ^{}(x)\widehat{A}(x,i\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dx})\psi (x)`$, where we assume that $`|\psi (x)|^2`$ is properly normalized. Moreover the probability for the measurement of the observable $`\widehat{A}`$ yielding the eigenvalue $`a`$ is given by:

$$|<\psi |a>|^2=\left|𝑑x\psi ^{}(x)\psi _a(x)\right|^2,$$
(1)
where $`\psi _a(x)=<x|a>`$ is the eigenvector $`|a>`$ in the position representation.

Alternatively, the previous postulates of quantum mechanics can be reformulated in terms of phase-space quasi-distributions. According to Cohen’s classification , the $`f`$-quasi-distribution $`F^f(x,p,t)`$ for a pure state is given by:

$$F^f(x,p,t)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta 𝑑x^{}\psi ^{}(x^{}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\eta ,t)\psi (x^{}+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\eta ,t)f(\xi ,\eta ,t)e^{i\xi (x^{}x)i\eta p},$$
(2)
where $`f(\xi ,\eta ,t)`$ is an arbitrary analytic function of $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$. For notational convenience, we will henceforth omit the time dependence. In terms of $`F^f`$ the average value of $`\widehat{A}`$ is given by the very appealing formula:

$$<\widehat{A}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})>=𝑑x𝑑pF^f(x,p)A_f(x,p),$$
(3)
where $`A_f(x,p)`$ is a c-number known as the ”$`f`$-symbol” associated with the operator $`\widehat{A}`$:

$$A_f(x,p)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta Tr\left\{\widehat{A}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})e^{i\xi \widehat{x}+i\eta \widehat{p}}f^1(\xi ,\eta )\right\}e^{i\xi xi\eta p}.$$
(4)
The ”$`f`$-map” $`V_f:\widehat{𝒜}()𝒜(T^{}M)`$ attributes to any operator $`\widehat{A}`$ in the quantum algebra $`\widehat{𝒜}`$, acting on the Hilbert space $``$, the corresponding $`f`$-symbol in the ”classical” algebra $`𝒜`$ over the phase space $`T^{}M`$. It can be viewed as a Lie algebra isomorphism, provided $`𝒜(T^{}M)`$ is endowed with a suitable Lie algebraic structure. Indeed, the $`f`$-map renders $`T^{}M`$ into a non-commutative Lie algebra with an associative $``$-product and a $`f`$-bracket according to:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}V_f\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\right)=\hfill & A_f(x,p)_fB_f(x,p)\hfill \\ & \\ V_f\left([\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]\right)=\hfill & [A_f(x,p),B_f(x,p)]_f=A_f_fB_fB_f_fA_f\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
We could equally define a ”dual $`f`$-symbol” for the operator $`\widehat{A}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_f\left(\widehat{A}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})\right)=\stackrel{~}{A}_f(x,p)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta Tr\left\{\widehat{A}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})e^{i\xi \widehat{x}+i\eta \widehat{p}}f(\xi ,\eta )\right\}e^{i\xi xi\eta p}.$$
(6)
In particular, the quasi-distribution $`F^f`$ is proportional to the dual $`f`$-symbol of the density matrix: $`F^f=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_f(\widehat{\rho })=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_f(|\psi ><\psi |)`$ . We can obviously define a dual $``$-product and a dual $`f`$-bracket, according to:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{V}_f\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\right)=\hfill & \stackrel{~}{A}_f(x,p)_f^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_f(x,p)\hfill \\ & \\ \stackrel{~}{V}_f\left([\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]\right)=\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{A}_f(x,p),\stackrel{~}{B}_f(x,p)]_f^{}=\stackrel{~}{A}_f_f^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_f\stackrel{~}{B}_f_f^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_f\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
We shall call the sector of observables associated with the star product $`_f`$ and the $`f`$-map $`V_f`$, the observable’s sector. Likewise, the sector of the quasi-distribution, associated with the dual star product $`_f^{}`$ and the dual $`f`$-map $`\stackrel{~}{V}_f`$ will be designated by dual sector.

There is an arbitrariness in the choice of function $`f(\xi ,\eta )`$, or otherwise stated, in the choice of quasi-distribution $`F^f`$ and the corresponding $`f`$-symbols . The physically relevant results such as eq.(1) remain unaltered. This constitutes the ”gauge” invariance mentioned in the introduction.

It is worth assembling all the formulae concerning a change from a function $`f_1(\xi ,\eta )`$ to another function $`f_2(\xi ,\eta )`$ (or, from a quasi-distribution $`F^1(x,p)`$ to another quasi-distribution $`F^2(x,p)`$) :

$$\{\begin{array}{c}F^1(x,p)=f_1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})f_2^1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})F^2(x,p)\hfill \\ \\ A_1(x,p)=f_1^1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})f_2(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})A_2(x,p)\hfill \\ \\ \stackrel{~}{A}_1(x,p)=f_1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})f_2^1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})\stackrel{~}{A}_2(x,p)\hfill \\ \\ A_1(x,p)_1B_1(x,p)=f_1^1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})f_2(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})A_2(x,p)_2B_2(x,p)\hfill \\ \\ \stackrel{~}{A}_1(x,p)_1^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_1(x,p)=f_1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})f_2^1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})\stackrel{~}{A}_2(x,p)_2^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_2(x,p)\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The most celebrated example corresponds to the self-dual case $`f_W(\xi ,\eta )=1`$, also known as the Wigner-Weyl formulation of quantum mechanics. The $``$-product (the Groenewold $``$-product ) and the corresponding bracket (the Moyal bracket ) are given by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V_W\left(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\right)\hfill & =A_W_WB_W\hfill & =A_W(x,p)e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\widehat{𝒥}}B_W(x,p),\hfill \\ & & \\ V_W\left([\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]\right)\hfill & =[A_W,B_W]_M\hfill & =2iA_W(x,p)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\widehat{𝒥}\right)B_W(x,p),\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`\widehat{𝒥}`$ is the ”Poisson” operator: $`\widehat{𝒥}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{q}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{p}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{p}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{q}`$, the derivatives $`\stackrel{}{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{}`$ acting on $`A_W`$ and $`B_W`$, respectively. The corresponding quasi-distribution is the celebrated Wigner function . We shall discuss some of its properties in section 4.

Finally, to obtain the counterpart of eq.(1), we first need to introduce the $``$-delta function, which is a non-commutative generalization of the ordinary delta function :

$$\delta _{}^f\left(A(x,p)\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑ke__f^{ikA(x,p)}.$$
(10)
The $``$-exponential is defined by: $`e__f^{B(x,p)}=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left[B(x,p)\right]^{n_f}`$, where $`\left[B(x,p)\right]^{n_f}`$ is the $`n`$-fold $`f`$-star product of $`B(x,p)`$. The $``$-delta function is a solution of the $``$-genvalue equation , i.e: $`A_f(x,p)_f\delta _{}^f\left(A_f(x,p)a\right)=\delta _{}^f\left(A_f(x,p)a\right)_fA_f(x,p)=a\delta _{}^f\left(A_f(x,p)a\right)`$, where $`A_f=V_f\left(\widehat{A}\right)`$. The stargenvalue equation can be obtained upon application of the $`f`$-map to the eigenvalue equation: $`\widehat{A}|a><a|=a|a><a|`$. In the Wigner-Weyl representation the $``$-delta function is a $`\mathrm{}`$-deformation of the ordinary delta function :

$$\delta _{}^W\left(A(x,p)\right)=\delta \left(A(x,p)\right)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}\mathrm{\Theta }_1(x,p)\delta ^{\prime \prime }\left(A(x,p)\right)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{24}\mathrm{\Theta }_2(x,p)\delta ^{\prime \prime \prime }\left(A(x,p)\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{}^4),$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1(x,p)=\frac{^2A}{x^2}\frac{^2A}{p^2}\left(\frac{^2A}{xp}\right)^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2(x,p)=\frac{^2A}{x^2}\left(\frac{A}{p}\right)^22\frac{^2A}{xp}\frac{A}{x}\frac{A}{p}+\frac{^2A}{p^2}\left(\frac{A}{x}\right)^2`$. In particular, we get for the position and momentum variables: $`\delta _{}^W\left(xx_0\right)=\delta \left(xx_0\right)`$ and $`\delta _{}^W\left(pp_0\right)=\delta \left(pp_0\right)`$.

We are now in a position to write a formula for $`|<\psi |a>|^2`$ in the phase space formulation444Here $`A`$ denotes generically the observable $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})`$ irrespective of the particular representation, i.e. irrespective of the choice of function $`f(\xi ,\eta )`$.:

$$𝒫\left(A=a\right)=𝑑x𝑑pF^f(x,p)\delta _{}^f\left(A_f(x,p)a\right).$$
(12)
## 3 De Broglie-Bohm interpretation

In the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics -, the wave function is written in the form:

$$\psi (x,t)=R(x,t)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S(x,t)\right),$$
(13)
where $`R(x,t)`$ and $`S(x,t)`$ are some real functions. Substituting this expression in the Schrödinger equation we obtain the dynamics of $`R`$ and $`S`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{𝒫}{t}+\frac{}{x}\left(\frac{𝒫}{m}\frac{S}{x}\right)=0,\hfill \\ \\ \frac{S}{t}+\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{S}{x}\right)^2+V(x)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}\left[\frac{1}{𝒫}\frac{^2𝒫}{x^2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{𝒫^2}\left(\frac{𝒫}{x}\right)^2\right]=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`𝒫(x)|\psi (x)|^2=R^2(x)`$, is the probability distribution. The first equation is a statement of probability conservation, with associated flux $`\frac{𝒫}{m}\frac{S}{x}`$. The second equation is interpreted as a Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The solution $`S(x,t)`$ represents an ensemble of trajectories, known as Bohmian trajectories, for particles under the influence of a classical potential $`V(x)`$ and a quantum potential:

$$Q(x,t)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{1}{R}\frac{^2R}{x^2}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}\left[\frac{1}{𝒫}\frac{^2𝒫}{x^2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{𝒫^2}\left(\frac{𝒫}{x}\right)^2\right].$$
(15)
Moreover, the momenta $`p`$ of the particles are subject to the constraint: $`p=\frac{S}{x}`$. The ensemble of Bohmian trajectories stem from the position $`x`$ at time $`t=0`$ with momentum $`p=\frac{S}{x}(x,0)`$ and probability $`𝒫(x,0)=R^2(x,0)`$. Consequently, an ensemble of Bohmian trajectories can be described statistically by the phase-space distribution function :

$$F^B(x,p,t)R^2(x,t)\delta \left(p\frac{S}{x}(x,t)\right),$$
(16)
its dynamics being governed by the equation:

$$\frac{F^B}{t}(x,p,t)=\{\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(x)+Q(x,t),F^B(x,p,t)\}_P,$$

where $`\{,\}_P`$ is the Poisson bracket.

## 4 $``$-deformed causal form of quasi-distributions

In this section we study some common features of the de Broglie-Bohm and the quasi-distribution formulations as well as their relation with classical statistical mechanics. For simplicity we shall provisionally focus on the self-dual Wigner-Weyl case ($`f_W(\xi ,\eta ,t)=1`$).

The Wigner function  associated with $`\psi (x,t)`$ is given by:

$$F^W(x,p,t)\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑ye^{iyp}\psi ^{}(x\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}y,t)\psi (x+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}y,t).$$
(17)
From the Schrödinger equation and eq.(17), it is possible to obtain the differential equation that dictates the dynamics of $`F^W`$:

$$\frac{F^W}{t}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[H^W,F^W]_M,$$
(18)
where $`H^W(x,p)=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(x)`$ is the Weyl symbol of the quantum Hamiltonian. The Wigner function is a real function and admits the marginal distributions:

$$𝒫(x)_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑pF^W(x,p)=|\psi (x)|^2,𝒫(p)_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xF^W(x,p)=|\varphi (p)|^2,$$
(19)
where $`\varphi (p)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\psi (x)`$555This result is a consequence of the fact that $`\delta _{}^W(xx_0)=\delta (xx_0)`$ and $`\delta _{}^W(pp_0)=\delta (pp_0)`$.. From eq.(19) one could be tempted to interpret the Wigner function as a true probability distribution in phase space. However, this interpretation is immediately spoiled, if one realizes that it can take on negative values. Furthermore, and contrary to what happens in the de Broglie-Bohm formulation, the dynamics of the Wigner function does not, in general, allow for an interpretation in terms of causal trajectories (except for quadratic potentials).

We will now show that the Wigner distribution (17) and the de Broglie-Bohm distribution (16) are in fact an $`\mathrm{}`$-deformation of each other. To do this it will prove useful to expand the Wigner function in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}F^W(x,p,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{(1)^n}{n!m!}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\right)^{n+m}\frac{^n\psi ^{}}{x^n}\frac{^m\psi }{x^m}𝑑ye^{iyp}y^{n+m}=\\ \\ =\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{}{p}\left(\frac{}{x}\frac{}{x^{}}\right)\right]\delta (p)\psi ^{}(x^{},t)\psi (x,t)|_{x^{}=x}.\end{array}$$
(20)
If we substitute $`\psi =Re^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S}`$ in the previous equation, we obtain to order $`\mathrm{}^3`$:

$$F^W(x,p,t)=R^2(x,t)\delta \left(p\frac{S}{x}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\left[\left(\frac{R}{x}\right)^2R\frac{^2R}{x^2}\right]\delta ^{\prime \prime }\left(p\frac{S}{x}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{24}R^2\frac{^3S}{x^3}\delta ^{\prime \prime \prime }\left(p\frac{S}{x}\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{}^4).$$
(21)
Notice that odd powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ do not appear in the previous expansion, because the Wigner function is real. We conclude that the Wigner function can be regarded as a $`\mathrm{}`$-deformation of the Bohmian distribution. If we want the two to match, we have to impose successive corrections to vanish, i.e. $`R\frac{^2R}{x^2}\left(\frac{R}{x}\right)^2=0`$ and $`\frac{^3S}{x^3}=0`$. There are other conclusions that can be drawn from the expansion (21) of the Wigner function:

(i) If the corrections to the de Broglie-Bohm distribution in eq.(21) and the quantum potential in eq.(15) are negligible (this corresponds to a formal $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit), we conclude that:

$$F_{cl}^W(x,p)=R_{cl}^2(x;t)\delta \left(p\frac{S_{cl}}{x}(x;t)\right),$$
(22)
where $`R_{cl}`$ and $`S_{cl}`$ obey the classical continuity and Hamilton-Jacobi equations, respectively. Consequently, this $`F_{cl}^W`$ is positive defined and obeys the classical Liouville equation. The expression on the right-hand side of eq.(22) is usually regarded as the classical limit of a quantum mechanical pure state .

(ii) In most cases two distinct quasi-distributions can be expressed as $`\mathrm{}`$-deformations of each other. Equation (21) could then be a hint that the de Broglie-Bohm distribution (16) is actually just another quasi-distribution. Indeed, we proved in a previous work that it can be implemented in quantum phase-space with a particular choice of Cohen’s $`f`$-function .

(iii) Perhaps it is possible to re-express the $`\mathrm{}`$-expansion (21) in terms of the star product $`_W`$.

Indeed, the conjecture stated in (iii) is a particular case of the following, more general theorem:

Theorem: Consider any of Cohen’s functions $`f(\xi ,\eta )`$, such that:

$$f(\xi ,0)=1,\frac{f}{\eta }(0,0)=0.$$
(23)
Then the following formula holds:

$$F^f(x,p,t)=R(x,t)_f^{}\delta _{^{}}^f\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x,t)\right)_f^{}R(x,t),$$
(24)
where $`R(x,t)`$ and $`S(x,t)`$ are the solutions of the Bohm equations (14)..

The proof of the theorem can be found in the appendix. The previous formula constitutes an alternative (and, hopefully, more intuitive) formulation of Cohen’s classification of quasi-distributions, which can be stated as follows. Consider an arbitrary pair of real and continuous functions $`R`$ and $`S`$ satisfying the usual requirements of the causal interpretation . Given an arbitrary non-commutative associative $`^{}`$-product, such that $`A(x)^{}B(x)=A(x)B(x)`$, then the corresponding pure state quasi-distribution associated with $`\psi =Re^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S}`$ is given by equation (24).

Furthermore, this formula provides (i) a reformulation of the $`f`$-dual-map for density matrices (i.e. given $`R`$ and $`S`$, we automatically have the pure state $`f`$-quasi-distribution (24) which is the $`f`$-dual-map of the corresponding density matrix.), (ii) a previously missing quantization procedure for distributions. The statement that quantization is formally just a substitution of the standard product by a non-local star-product has so far only applied to the observable’s sector. Now its validity has been extended to the dual sector as well. In the de Broglie-Bohm formulation quantum and classical pure states differ only in that the Hamilton-Jacobi functions $`S`$ and $`S_{cl}`$ appearing in equations (16,22) obey Hamilton-Jacobi equations with or without quantum potential, respectively. Likewise, any quasi-distribution is a $``$-deformed quantization of a classical pure state plus a replacement of $`S_{cl}`$ by $`S`$. Notice also that the de Broglie-Bohm quantization prescription is perfectly compatible with the deformation procedure. In fact, we can recover (16) from (24) for a particular choice of $`f`$-function and associated $``$-product . Finally, in this context we also see that the concept of classical pure state is a common feature of the semiclassical limit of all quasi-distributions.

Moreover, the ”quasi-causal” form of the quasi-distributions (24) provides an alternative formulation of the dynamics in terms of Bohmian trajectories. To obtain the time evolution we just have to solve eqs.(14) and substitute the solutions $`R(x,t)`$ and $`S(x,t)`$ in eq.(24). In our opinion this is a much more elegant approach. In the usual quasi-distribution formalism, time evolution is obtained by solving the $``$-deformed Liouville equation: $`\frac{F^f}{t}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\stackrel{~}{H}^f,F^f]_f^{}`$, which is typically an infinite order partial differential equation and displays a set of solutions that do not allow for an interpretation in terms of causal trajectories. Equation (24), on the other hand, casts the time evolution of a quasi-distribution as the solution of a system of two second order partial differential equations and allows for a straightforward interpretation in terms of ”interfering” Bohmian trajectories. Moreover, expansions like the one in eq.(21), seem to be related to the topic of Wigner trajectories, which correspond to order-by-order quantum corrections to the classical Hamilton trajectories.

Finally, let us make a comment on the non-commutability of star products. Let us start with the de Broglie-Bohm distribution (16). It corresponds de facto to an abelian star product in equation (24). Under a gauge transformation we obtain say the Wigner function with the non-commutative Groenewold star product (9). What have we benefited from this gauge transformation? We have removed the wave function from the observable’s sector , and the price to pay was to introduce a non-commutative star-product in the dual sector. So, apparently, the role of non-commutativity is to replace the action of the pilot wave on the observable’s sector, i.e. on quantities such as kinetic energy or angular momentum.

## 5 Example

To illustrate the previous result (24), we consider the simple example of a free gaussian wave packet. At $`t=0`$ the wave function reads :

$$\psi _0(x)=\left(2\pi \sigma _0^2\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{x^2}{4\sigma _0^2}+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_0x\right].$$
(25)
After a lapse of time $`t`$, we get from the free Schrödinger equation:

$$\psi (x,t)=\left(2\pi s_t^2\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(xut)^2}{4\sigma _0s_t}+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_0\left(x\frac{1}{2}ut\right)\right],$$
(26)
where $`s_t=\sigma _0\left(1+\frac{i\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}\right)`$ and $`u=\frac{p_0}{m}`$. The amplitude and the phase function read:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}R(x,t)=\left(2\pi \sigma ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(xut)^2}{4\sigma ^2}\right],\hfill \\ \\ S(x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}\right)+p_0\left(x\frac{1}{2}ut\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2t}{8m\sigma _0^2\sigma ^2}(xut)^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
where $`\sigma |s_t|`$. They solve the de Broglie-Bohm system (14). Substituting the previous expression for $`S(x,t)`$ in eq.(24) with $`f=f_W=1`$, we obtain:

$$F^W(x,p,t)=R(x,t)_W\delta _{}^W\left[pp_0\frac{\mathrm{}^2t}{4m\sigma _0^2\sigma ^2}(xut)\right]_WR(x,t).$$
(28)
Given the fact that $`\frac{S}{x}`$ is (in this case) a linear function of $`x`$, we conclude from (11) that the $``$-delta function reduces to the ordinary delta function. Furthermore, if we execute the first $``$-product, we get:

$$\begin{array}{c}F^W(x,p,t)=\left\{_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\right)^n\frac{^nR}{x^n}\delta ^{(n)}\left[pp_0\frac{\mathrm{}^2t}{4m\sigma _0^2\sigma ^2}(xut)\right]\right\}_WR(x,t)=\\ \\ =\left\{\frac{1}{2\pi }_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\right)^n\frac{^nR}{x^n}𝑑y(iy)^n\mathrm{exp}\left[iy\left(pp_0\frac{\mathrm{}^2t}{4m\sigma _0^2\sigma ^2}(xut)\right)\right]\right\}_WR(x,t)=\\ \\ =\left\{\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑yR(x\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y,t)\mathrm{exp}\left[iy\left(pp_0\frac{\mathrm{}^2t}{4m\sigma _0^2\sigma ^2}(xut)\right)\right]\right\}_WR(x,t).\end{array}$$

A similar procedure for the second $``$-product yields:

$$\begin{array}{c}F^W(x,p,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\right)^n𝑑yR(x\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y,t)(iy)^n\frac{^nR}{x^n}\mathrm{exp}\left[iy\left(pp_0\frac{\mathrm{}^2t}{4m\sigma _0^2\sigma ^2}(xut)\right)\right]=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑yR(x\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y,t)R(x+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y,t)\mathrm{exp}\left[iy\left(pp_0\frac{\mathrm{}^2t}{4m\sigma _0^2\sigma ^2}(xut)\right)\right]\end{array}$$
(29)
A brief calculation shows that (cf.(27)):$`\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[S(x+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y,t)S(x\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y,t)\right]=iy\left(p_0+\frac{\mathrm{}^2t}{4m\sigma _0^2\sigma ^2}(xut)\right)`$. Upon substitution of the previous expression in equation (29), we recover (17).

## 6 Appendix

To derive eq.(24), let us first prove the ensuing lemma. Let us start by considering the Mehta function ,

$$F^S(x,p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\psi ^{}(x)\varphi (p)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}xp},$$
(30)
corresponding to $`f_S(\xi ,\eta )=e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\xi \eta }`$. This rule is associated with the standard ordering according to which all powers of the operator $`\widehat{x}`$ precede all powers of the operator $`\widehat{p}`$ . Here $`\varphi (p)`$ stands for the Fourier transform of $`\psi (x)`$: $`\varphi (p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}}}𝑑x\psi (x)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}xp}`$. We now claim that the following lemma holds:
Lemma: The quasi-distribution $`F^S(x,p)`$ can be written in the form:

$$F^S(x,p)=R(x)_S^{}\delta _{^{}}^S\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)_S^{}R(x),$$
(31)
where666Notice that $`_S^{}`$ is the dual star product of $`_{AS}`$, since $`f_{AS}(\xi ,\eta )=e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\xi \eta }=f_S^1(\xi ,\eta )`$. It corresponds to the anti-standard ordering according to which the $`p`$’s precede the $`x`$’s.:

$$A(x,p)_S^{}B(x,p)=A(x,p)e^{i\mathrm{}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{p}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{x}}B(x,p)._{\mathrm{}}$$
(32)
Proof of the lemma: Let us start by expressing $`\psi (x)`$ in the polar form (13):

$$F^S(x,p)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}R(x)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S(x)}𝑑x^{}R(x^{})e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S(x^{})\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p(x^{}x)}.$$
(33)
On the other hand, if we expand $`S(x^{})`$ in powers of $`(x^{}x)`$ we obtain:

$$\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left\{S(x^{})p(x^{}x)\right\}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left\{S(x)\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)(x^{}x)+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{^nS}{x^n}(x)(x^{}x)^n\right\}.$$
(34)
Consequently:

$$\begin{array}{c}F^S(x,p)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}R(x)𝑑yR(x+y)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}y\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{^nS}{x^n}(x)y^n}=\\ \\ =R(x)_S^{}\left\{\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑ye^{iy\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{^nS}{x^n}(x)(\mathrm{}y)^n}\right\}_S^{}R(x),\end{array}$$
(35)
where we expanded $`R(x+y)`$ in powers of $`y`$ and used the definition of $`_S^{}`$ (eq.(32)). It remains to prove that the term in curly brackets is indeed equal to:

$$\delta _{^{}}^S\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑ye__S^{}^{iy\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)}.$$
(36)
Let $`A(x,p)=iy\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)`$. We then have: $`e__S^{}^{iy\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)}=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{n!}\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}=A_S^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\left(A\mathrm{}y\frac{}{x}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$. We conclude that: $`e__S^{}^{iy\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)}=e^{A\mathrm{}y\frac{}{x}}\mathrm{\Omega }_0=e^{iyp}\left(e^{\widehat{B}+\widehat{C}}\mathrm{\Omega }_0\right)`$, where $`\widehat{B}=iy\frac{S}{x}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{C}=\mathrm{}y\frac{}{x}`$. Now notice that: $`[\widehat{B},\widehat{C}]=i\mathrm{}y^2\frac{^2S}{x^2}`$. Moreover, any multiple commutator involving $`[\widehat{B},\widehat{C}]`$ and any non zero number of $`\widehat{B}`$’s vanishes, e.g. $`[[\widehat{B},\widehat{C}],\widehat{B}]=[[[\widehat{B},\widehat{C}],\widehat{C}],\widehat{B}]=\mathrm{}=0.`$ The Baker-Campbel-Hausdorff formula  then reduces to:

$$e^{\widehat{B}+\widehat{C}}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{n!}[[\mathrm{}[[\widehat{B},\widehat{C}],\widehat{C}],\mathrm{},\widehat{C}],\widehat{C}]\right\}e^{\widehat{B}}e^{\widehat{C}},$$
(37)
where for each $`n`$, the operator $`\widehat{C}`$ appears $`n1`$ times in the multiple commutator. A straightforward calculation yields: $`[[\mathrm{}[[\widehat{B},\widehat{C}],\widehat{C}],\mathrm{},\widehat{C}],\widehat{C}]=i\mathrm{}^{n1}y^n\frac{^nS}{x^n}(x)`$. Consequently:

$$e__S^{}^{iy\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)}=e^{iyp}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{}y)^n}{n!}\frac{^nS}{x^n}(x)\right\}e^{iy\frac{S}{x}(x)}e^{\mathrm{}y\frac{}{x}}\mathrm{\Omega }_0.$$
(38)
Finally, taking into account that $`e^{\mathrm{}y\frac{}{x}}\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$, we get:

$$\delta _{^{}}^S\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑ye^{iy\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{(\mathrm{}y)^n}{n!}\frac{^nS}{x^n}(x)},$$
(39)
which is in perfect agreement with equation (35).

As a consistency check, we can verify, using the previous equation, that: $`p_S^{}\delta _{^{}}^S\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)=\frac{S}{x}(x)_S^{}\delta _{^{}}^S\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)`$. We are now in a position to prove the theorem.
Proof of the Theorem: Let us start by proving formula (24) for the time-independent case. First of all let us verify what are the implications of the constraints (23). For $`f(\xi ,0)=1`$, it is easy to check that $`F^f(x,p)`$ admits the marginal distribution: $`𝑑pF^f(x,p)=|\psi (x)|^2=R^2(x)`$. Moreover, this constraint entails that any $`p`$-independent function $`g(x)`$ remains unaltered under a change of function $`f(\xi ,\eta )`$: $`f(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})g(x)=f(i\frac{}{x},0)g(x)=g(x)`$. Finally, the second constraint (23) means that $`p`$ is also invariant under a change of $`f(\xi ,\eta )`$: $`f(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})p=f(0,i\frac{}{p})p=f(0,0)p+i\frac{f}{\eta }(0,0)=p`$. The sole purpose of these constraints is to leave $`R(x)`$, $`\frac{S}{x}(x)`$ and $`p`$ unchanged under a ”gauge” transformation. The ”gauge” transformation will thus only act on the star product. In particular, $`f_W(\xi ,\eta )`$, $`f_S(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`f_B(\xi ,\eta )`$  satisfy both constraints. From (8) we then have:

$$\begin{array}{c}F^f(x,p)=f(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})f_S^1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})F^S(x,p)=\\ \\ =f(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})f_S^1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})\left[R(x)_S^{}\delta _{^{}}^S\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)_S^{}R(x)\right].\end{array}$$
(40)
But, from (8) and (23) we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}F^f(x,p)=f(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})\left\{f_S^1(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})\left[R(x)_S^{}\delta _{^{}}^S\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)_S^{}R(x)\right]\right\}=\\ \\ =f(i\frac{}{x},i\frac{}{p})\left\{R(x)_W\delta _{}^W\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)_WR(x)\right\}=R(x)_f^{}\delta _{^{}}^f\left(p\frac{S}{x}(x)\right)_f^{}R(x).\end{array}$$
(41)
As a consistency check, let us verify that for $`f=f_W`$, the previous expression coincides up to order $`\mathrm{}^3`$ with eq.(21). From equation (11), we get for $`A(x,p)=p\frac{S}{x}(x)`$: $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1(x,p)=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2(x,p)=\frac{^3S}{x^3}(x)`$. Consequently: $`\delta _{}^W\left(p\frac{S}{x}\right)=\delta \left(p\frac{S}{x}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{24}\frac{^3S}{x^3}\delta ^{\prime \prime \prime }\left(p\frac{S}{x}\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{}^4)`$. Substituting in eq.(41), we do indeed recover (21). Moreover, notice that for $`S(x)=a+bx+cx^2`$, the $``$-delta function reduces to the ordinary delta function.

To obtain the time-evolution of $`F^f(x,p)`$ (eq.(24)) we just have to follow all the previous steps, except that we now use the explicit time dependent polar form of the wavefunction $`\psi (x,t)=R(x,t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S(x,t)\right]._{\mathrm{}}`$

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank João Marto for useful suggestions and for reading the manuscript. This work was partially supported by the grants ESO/PRO/1258/98 and CERN/P/Fis/15190/1999.