Using open system dynamics to define a quantum state

Background

The density matrix of a closed quantum system with Hilbert space $mathscr H$ evolves according to the von Neumann equation
begin{align*}
ihbardotrho=[H,rho].
end{align*}
Given a solution $rho(t)$ to the above equation, the time-evolution of density matrices associated with subsystems can be obtained by taking the trace of $rho$. Specifically, if $S$ is a subsystem (with complement $S^C$, which can be thought of as the ‘bulk’ of the full system) then $rho_S(t)=text{tr}_{S^C} (rho(t))$.

Under reasonable assumptions, the long-time dynamics of $rho_S(t)$ typically involves equilibration to a thermal state. However, memory effects are apparent at intermediate times, which can be thought of as echos of the initial state of $rho_S$ that reflect the state of the bulk.
Using essentially a sort of scattering theory, it should be possible to use the dynamics of multiple instances of $rho_S(t)$ to characterize the state of the bulk.

Question

More fundamentally, I’m interested in the extent to which the full state $rho$ together with the time-evolution generator $H$ can be inferred from a generic single instance of $rho_S(t)$. The most basic version of the question is this: given a physically valid trajectory of a density matrix $rho_S(t)$, what is the ‘simplest’ solution $(mathscr H, rho(t),H)$ to the von Neumann equation that induces the dynamics of $rho_S(t)$?

For example, if you looked at the dynamics of a single classical particle from an ensemble of hard spheres, you could theoretically enumerate the possible many-particle trajectories that would induce the dynamics of the single particle you can actually see. Of course, you can always add auxiliary particles that never produce an observable effect, so we are interested in ‘simple’ or irreducible auxiliary ensembles.

[You can think of the problem as ‘inverting’ the hypothetical quantum master equation that $rho_S(t)$ satisfies. One challenge is that the dimension of the Hilbert space that contains the solution $rho(t)$ to the inverse problem must be inferred from $rho_S(t)$ as well.]

Bonus questions:

1) Is it possible to express candidate solutions $(mathscr H, rho(t),H)$ as functionals of $rho_S(t’)$ for $t’leq t$?

2) How much regularity of $rho_S(t)$ is needed to ensure that a candidate $(mathscr H , rho(t),H)$ valid up to time $tau$ will correctly predict the behavior of $rho_S(t’)$ for $t’>tau$?

The reason I ask this question is that it seems like a tentative brute-force framework for quantizing any system based only on the dynamics of local operators.

Progress

Ok, here’s ‘the physicist’s’ approach. The idea here is to find a way of constructing moments of the full density matrix (and associated Hamiltonian) as a functional of $rho_S(t)$. The equations to be solved are $rho_S(t)=text{tr}_{S^C}(rho(t))$ and $ihbardotrho(t)=[H,rho(t)]$, for some suitable $rho$ and $H$ and identification of $S$, where we are given $rho_S(t)$. Hence, we can introduce formal delta functions
$$
delta^infty(rho_S(t)-text{tr}_{S^C}(rho(t))),quad delta^infty(ihbardotrho-[H,rho])
$$
and weights
$$
exp(-beta F[H]),quad exp(-beta G[mathscr H])
$$
that penalize candidate $mathscr H$, $H$ pairs that are too ‘large’ or ‘contrived’ in a certain sense. In the limit as $betarightarrow infty$, it seems reasonable that there is a way to frame the problem such that a unique optimal choice of $H$ and $mathscr H$ exists.

We can then perform formal averages over solutions via
begin{align*}
langlemathcal O[rho]rangle=frac{1}{Z}intmathscr D mathscr H Bigg{mathscr Drho(t)mathscr DHbigg[&exp[-beta F[H]-beta G[mathscr H]]timesdots&delta^infty(rho_S-text{tr}_{S^C}rho)delta^infty(ihbardotrho-[H,rho])mathcal O[rho]bigg]Bigg}
end{align*}
where $Z$ is the associated partition function. Implicitly, we also have the constraints $rho=rho^dagger$, $text{tr}(rho)=1$, and that $rho$ must be nonnegative.

To make sense of $text{tr}_{S^C}(rho)$ we need some standard way of identifying the subsystem $S$ in $mathscr H$. This could be done, for example, by summing only over Hilbert spaces obtained by sequentially adding new degrees of freedom to $mathscr H_S$ (and summing over the ‘cardinalities’ of the new degrees of freedom). Once this has been done, we can use a formal version of the Fourier representation of the delta function in order to make the integrand look more like a path integral. This entails introducing a large number of auxiliary fields, depending on the size of the subsystem and the size of the ‘ambient space’ $mathscr H$. When $rho_S(t)$ is finite dimensional and has a finite discrete Fourier transform, we expect $mathscr H$ to be finite dimensional.