Daily Papers

The Redfield equation with time-dependent coefficients (or TCL2 equation) gives one of the simplest perturbative descriptions of open quantum system dynamics derived from a microscopic theory. Its status as an approximation is nevertheless subtle: while perturbation theory fixes the reduced dynamics order-by-order in the system-environment coupling, solving the Redfield equation yields a particular resummation that need not preserve complete positivity. Here we compare Redfield evolution with an exponentiated (Magnus) resummation of the same second-order perturbative map, which is completely positive and trace preserving (CPTP) for a broad class of physical conditions. We also construct a simple CPTP resolvent resummation, illustrating the non-uniqueness of resummations of the same perturbative map. The Redfield and Magnus prescriptions agree to second order but differ through time-ordering corrections at higher orders. We exhibit a weak-coupling criterion which guarantees that Redfield evolution, even when non-Markovian, remains close to a CPTP map. We illustrate the criterion in two examples, focusing on finite-dimensional (qubit) systems. Our results clarify when, and why, Redfield evolution can remain reliable even when it is highly non-Lindbladian.

In quantum mechanics the modulus square of the wave function is the probability of an event --- positivity is self-evident. Quantum field theory corresponds to quantum mechanics one-to-one: the wave function corresponds to the matrix element, so the probability of a process should be the modulus square of the matrix element, positive by construction. In the founding era of perturbative quantum field theory, however, Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga treated inclusive processes in quantum electrodynamics, where the truncation of the squared amplitude was forced by infrared cancellations and rendered harmless by the small coupling αsimeq1/137. Carried over to exclusive processes in quantum chromodynamics, where the coupling is large, this practice produced negative decay and production rates already at NLO, persisting at NNLO. We point out that for exclusive processes, whose initial and final states are colorless for QCD and electrically neutral for QED, the infrared divergences cancel amplitude by amplitude and the KLN constraint is absent, so the complete modulus square of the truncated amplitude is the proper, manifestly positive definition of the probability. We formulate amplitude-level NRQCD factorization as the systematic prescription that restores positivity, show that every amplitude-level truncated observable admits the effective representation Γ^{amp}=Γ_{LO}bigl|1+α_sπ(c_1+ic_2)+α_s^2{π^2}(c_3+ic_4)bigr|^2, and demonstrate, with the complete NNLO QCD corrections to J/ψto3γ, Υto3γ, e^+e^-to J/ψ+J/ψ and the eight exclusive charmonium production channels at B factories, that the prescription yields positive and better-converging predictions.

Existing alignment research is dominated by concerns about safety and preventing harm: safeguards, controllability, and compliance. This paradigm of alignment parallels early psychology's focus on mental illness: necessary but incomplete. What we call Positive Alignment is the development of AI systems that (i) actively support human and ecological flourishing in a pluralistic, polycentric, context-sensitive, and user-authored way while (ii) remaining safe and cooperative. It is a distinct and necessary agenda within AI alignment research. We argue that several existing failures of alignment (e.g., engagement hacking, loss of human autonomy, failures in truth-seeking, low epistemic humility, error correction, lack of diverse viewpoints, and being primarily reactive rather than proactive) may be better addressed through positive alignment, including cultivating virtues and maximizing human flourishing. We highlight a range of challenges, open questions, and technical directions (e.g., data filtering and upsampling, pre- and post-training, evaluations, collaborative value collection) for different phases of the LLM and agents lifecycle. We end with design principles for promoting disagreement and decentralization through contextual grounding, community customization, continual adaptation, and polycentric governance; that is, many legitimate centers of oversight rather than one institutional or moral chokepoint.