pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.22436 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-27 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.quant-gas· cond-mat.stat-mech· cond-mat.str-el

Is Lindblad for me?

Martino Stefanini , Aleksandra A. Ziolkowska , Dmitry Budker , Ulrich Poschinger , Ferdinand Schmidt-Kaler , Antoine Browaeys , Atac Imamoglu , Darrick Chang
show 1 more author
Jamir Marino
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el
keywords Lindblad master equationopen quantum systemsBorn approximationMarkov approximationRotating Wave Approximationquantum many-body systemsquantum simulatorsnon-Markovian dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Lindblad master equation has narrower validity than common lore suggests, especially in many-body and driven systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This review re-examines the standard Born, Markov, and Rotating Wave approximations that underpin the Lindblad master equation. It uses concrete examples to show where each approximation can fail in modern settings such as open quantum many-body systems and driven-open simulators. The central contribution is a checklist that replaces loose rules of thumb with more precise conditions for when the Lindblad description remains reliable. A reader would care because incorrect use of the equation can produce misleading predictions for experiments that are now feasible in quantum simulators.

Core claim

The folklore that the three standard approximations are broadly safe needs refinement; through accessible case studies the paper shows that the Markov approximation can break in strongly correlated or driven systems, the Born approximation requires sufficiently weak coupling that is often violated in many-body contexts, and the Rotating Wave Approximation can fail when driving frequencies are not well separated from system timescales, and it synthesizes these insights into a practical checklist for assessing applicability.

What carries the argument

A checklist that contrasts common lore with refined expectations about the validity of the Born, Markov, and Rotating Wave approximations in the Lindblad master equation.

If this is right

  • In open quantum many-body systems the Markov approximation often fails earlier than textbooks suggest.
  • Driven-open simulators provide direct tests that can expose the limits of the Rotating Wave Approximation.
  • The Born approximation requires weaker system-bath coupling than is commonly assumed when interactions are strong.
  • Practitioners should check all three approximations separately rather than invoking the full Lindblad framework by default.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Experimenters could design targeted measurements to quantify the error introduced by each approximation in a given platform.
  • The checklist suggests a systematic way to decide when non-Markovian or non-perturbative master equations are required instead.
  • Similar refinement exercises could be applied to other standard approximations in quantum optics and condensed-matter theory.

Load-bearing premise

The selected examples and case studies are representative enough of open quantum many-body systems and driven-open simulators to support generalized expectations about when the approximations break.

What would settle it

An experiment on a driven-open quantum simulator in which the checklist predicts the Lindblad equation should hold yet measured dynamics show clear non-Lindblad features such as non-exponential decay or unexpected correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22436 by Aleksandra A. Ziolkowska, Antoine Browaeys, Atac Imamoglu, Darrick Chang, Dmitry Budker, Ferdinand Schmidt-Kaler, Jamir Marino, Martino Stefanini, Ulrich Poschinger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of the relevant timescales in the derivation of the Lindblad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Sketch of a typical solution to the toy model corresponding to a repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Typical behavior of the spectral density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Cartoon of a two-level atom embedded in a photonic crystal, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cartoon representing different types of transitions in open quantum sys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Breakdown of RWA. (a) Cartoon of the spectrum of a few-body system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Solution to the toy model of non-Markovian dynamics. (a) Contour of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectral function equation (C.8) computed numerically for the spectral function ρ(ϵ) = ρF (1 − ϵ 2 /W2 )θ(W − |ϵ|) for increasing temperatures. The spectral density displays a bosonic (Ohmic) character (compare with Fig. 3b) at low temper￾ature while revealing a more fermionic character at very high temperature (compare with Fig. 3a). where we have introduced the density of states at the chemical potential… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Lindblad master equation is a foundational tool for modeling the dynamics of open quantum systems. As its use has extended far beyond its original domain, the boundaries of its validity have grown opaque. In particular, the rise of new research areas including open quantum many-body systems, non-equilibrium condensed matter, and the possibility to test its limits in driven-open quantum simulators, call for a critical revision of its regimes of applicability. In this pedagogical review, we re-examine the folklore surrounding its three standard approximations (Born, Markov, and Rotating Wave Approximation), as we build our narrative by employing a series of examples and case studies accessible to any reader with a solid background on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. As a synthesis of our work, we offer a checklist that contrasts common lore with refined expectations, offering a practical guideline for assessing the breakdown of the Lindblad framework in the problem at hand.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a pedagogical review of the Lindblad master equation that re-examines the Born, Markov, and Rotating Wave Approximations through accessible examples and case studies drawn from open quantum systems. It contrasts common folklore with refined expectations and synthesizes the discussion into a practical checklist for assessing when the Lindblad framework breaks down, with emphasis on emerging areas such as open quantum many-body systems, non-equilibrium condensed matter, and driven-open quantum simulators.

Significance. If the examples are representative and the refined expectations hold, the checklist could serve as a useful practical guideline for researchers applying the Lindblad equation outside its original regime. The narrative, example-driven approach is well-suited to a review and aids accessibility for readers with standard quantum mechanics background. The work synthesizes established results rather than deriving new theorems, so its value lies in clarifying boundaries for modern applications.

major comments (1)
  1. [Checklist synthesis and case studies section] The central claim that the checklist provides a general guideline for open quantum many-body systems and driven-open simulators rests on the representativeness of the selected case studies. If regimes involving long-range interactions or critical slowing are omitted, the refined expectations for breakdown mechanisms (non-Markovian effects, strong coupling, many-body correlations) may not transfer reliably to the targeted new research areas.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The notation distinguishing the three approximations could be introduced more explicitly in the opening sections to aid readers following the narrative.
  2. [Figures] A few figure captions would benefit from additional labels clarifying which approximation is being tested in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive feedback. We address the major comment below and indicate the changes made to strengthen the discussion of the checklist's applicability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Checklist synthesis and case studies section] The central claim that the checklist provides a general guideline for open quantum many-body systems and driven-open simulators rests on the representativeness of the selected case studies. If regimes involving long-range interactions or critical slowing are omitted, the refined expectations for breakdown mechanisms (non-Markovian effects, strong coupling, many-body correlations) may not transfer reliably to the targeted new research areas.

    Authors: We agree that the representativeness of the case studies is important for supporting the checklist as a general guideline. The examples were selected for pedagogical accessibility while illustrating the core breakdown mechanisms tied to the Born, Markov, and rotating-wave approximations. Although long-range interactions and critical slowing are not treated as dedicated case studies, the checklist itself is formulated in terms of general physical criteria (timescale separation, coupling strength, and correlation structure) that remain relevant in those regimes. In the revised manuscript we have added a paragraph in the checklist synthesis section that explicitly discusses how long-range couplings can modify the Markovian assumption through altered bath correlation functions and how critical slowing can exacerbate non-Markovian effects. We also cite representative literature on open quantum many-body systems with long-range interactions to indicate where the checklist may require supplementary checks. A fully exhaustive survey of every possible regime lies outside the scope of this pedagogical review, but the added discussion clarifies the intended range of applicability. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in pedagogical review of Lindblad approximations

full rationale

This is a review paper that re-examines established approximations (Born, Markov, RWA) through examples and case studies to produce a practical checklist. No new derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are presented that could reduce to self-definitional inputs or self-citation chains. The synthesis relies on accessible narrative from fundamentals rather than any load-bearing reduction to prior author results as unverified inputs, rendering the work self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review rests on standard quantum mechanics and open-system theory; no free parameters are fitted, no new entities are postulated, and the axioms invoked are the usual background assumptions of the field.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard assumptions of quantum mechanics and the theory of open quantum systems as stated in the abstract
    The narrative builds directly on fundamentals of quantum mechanics mentioned in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5716 in / 1193 out tokens · 45438 ms · 2026-05-19T07:34:37.928449+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Kinetically constrained superradiance

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Kinetically constrained superradiance splits Dicke superradiance into selective collective decay channels that trap finite-momentum spin waves and produce dissipation-generated entanglement.

  2. One knob to tune them all: Phase-controlled photon statistics and linewidth in partially pumped atomic ensembles

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    In partially pumped atomic ensembles, a tunable relative phase between pumped and unpumped emission contributions allows control of linewidth scaling and photon statistics from antibunched to bunched.

  3. One knob to tune them all: Phase-controlled photon statistics and linewidth in partially pumped atomic ensembles

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    In a minimal model of partially pumped atomic ensembles, collective dissipation induces interference that allows tuning linewidth from size-independent to extensive and photon statistics from antibunched to bunched vi...

  4. Quantum Dynamics: A Dilation-Based Approach

    math-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    This thesis reviews and organizes dilation-based representations of quantum channel curves as an alternative to standard reduced dynamics in finite dimensions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

195 extracted references · 195 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, G

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, G. Grynberg and J. Dupont-Roc, Atom-Photon Interac- tions: Basic Processes and Applications , John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527617197 (1998)

    work page doi:10.1002/9783527617197 1998

  2. [2]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cam- bridge University Press, doi:https: //doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667 (2000)

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976667 2000

  3. [3]

    E. Joos, H. D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. J. Giulini, J. Kupsch and I.-O. Stamatescu, Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory, Springer Science & Business Media, doi:https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05328-7 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-05328-7 2013

  4. [4]

    Quantum Noise in Quantum Optics: the Stochastic Schr\"odinger Equation

    P . Zoller and C. W . Gardiner, Quantum Noise in Quantum Optics: the Stochastic Schrödinger Equation (1997), quant-ph/9702030

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  5. [5]

    The many facets of geometry , PAGES =

    H.-P . Breuer and F . Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, doi:10.1093 /acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001 (2002)

    work page arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy , Quantum Optics , Cambridge University Press, doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813993 (1997)

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813993 1997

  7. [7]

    com/doi/abs/10.1142/8334

    U. Weiss, Quantum dissipative systems , World Scientific, doi:https://doi.org/10.1142/8334 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1142/8334 2012

  8. [8]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza and M. Schirò,Many-body open quantum systems (2024), 2409.10300

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Weimer, A

    H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum and R. Orús, Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems , Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015008 (2021), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015008

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.015008 2021

  10. [10]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, J. Marino and S. Diehl,Universality in driven open quantum matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 025004 (2025), doi:10.1103 /RevModPhys.97.025004. 62 SciPost Physics Lecture Notes Submission

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Reitz, C

    M. Reitz, C. Sommer and C. Genes, Cooperative quantum phenomena in light-matter platforms, PRX Quantum 3, 010201 (2022), doi:10.1103 /PRXQuantum.3.010201

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Mitrano, S

    M. Mitrano, S. Johnston, Y.-J. Kim and M. P . M. Dean, Exploring Quantum Ma- terials with Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering , Phys. Rev. X 14, 040501 (2024), doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.14.040501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.040501 2024

  13. [13]

    de la Torre, D

    A. de la Torre, D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, S. Gerber, J. W . McIver and M. A. Sentef, Colloquium: Nonthermal pathways to ultrafast control in quantum materials, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 041002 (2021), doi:10.1103 /RevModPhys.93.041002

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Žuti´c, J

    I. Žuti´c, J. Fabian and S. Das Sarma, Spintronics: Fundamentals and applications , Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004), doi:10.1103 /RevModPhys.76.323

    work page 2004

  15. [15]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T . J. Kippenberg and F . Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014), doi:10.1103 /RevModPhys.86.1391

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Measurement and Control , Cambridge University Press, doi:https: //doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813948 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813948 2010

  17. [17]

    Gorini, A

    V . Gorini, A. Kossakowski and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynam- ical semigroups of N-level systems , Journal of Mathematical Physics 17(5), 821 (1976), doi:10.1063/1.522979, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/17/5/821/ 19090720/821_1_online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/1.522979 1976

  18. [18]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48(2), 119 (1976), doi:10.1007 /BF01608499

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48(2), 119 (1976), doi:10.1007 /BF01608499

    work page 1976

  19. [19]

    E. B. Davies, Markovian master equations, Communications in Mathematical Physics 39(2), 91 (1974), doi:https: //doi.org/10.1007/BF01608389

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01608389 1974

  20. [20]

    E. B. Davies,Markovian Master Equations. II., Mathematische Annalen219, 147 (1976), doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01351898

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01351898 1976

  21. [21]

    Spohn, Kinetic equations from hamiltonian dynamics: Markovian limits , Rev

    H. Spohn, Kinetic equations from hamiltonian dynamics: Markovian limits , Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 569 (1980), doi:10.1103 /RevModPhys.52.569

    work page 1980

  22. [22]

    Dümcke and H

    R. Dümcke and H. Spohn, The proper form of the generator in the weak cou- pling limit , Zeitschrift fur Physik B Condensed Matter 34(4), 419 (1979), doi:10.1007/BF01325208

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01325208 1979

  23. [23]

    Thompson and A

    F . Thompson and A. Kamenev,Field theory of many-body Lindbladian dynamics, Annals of Physics 455, 169385 (2023), doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2023.169385

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2023.169385 2023

  24. [24]

    Hartmann and W

    R. Hartmann and W . T . Strunz, Accuracy assessment of perturbative mas- ter equations: Embracing nonpositivity , Physical Review A 101(1) (2020), doi:10.1103/physreva.101.012103

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.101.012103 2020

  25. [25]

    P . R. Eastham, P . Kirton, H. M. Cammack, B. W . Lovett and J. Keeling, Bath- induced coherence and the secular approximation , Phys. Rev. A 94, 012110 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.012110

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.012110 2016

  26. [26]

    Suárez, M

    G. Suárez, M. Łobejko and M. Horodecki, Dynamics of the nonequilibrium spin-boson model: A benchmark of master equations and their validity , Phys. Rev. A 110, 042428 (2024), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevA.110.042428. 63 SciPost Physics Lecture Notes Submission

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Nathan and M

    F . Nathan and M. S. Rudner,Universal lindblad equation for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B102, 115109 (2020), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevB.102.115109

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    D. A. Lidar, Lecture notes on the theory of open quantum systems (2020), 1902.00967

    work page arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Haake,On a non-markoffian master equation , Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and nuclei 223, 353–363 (1969)

    F . Haake,On a non-markoffian master equation , Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and nuclei 223, 353–363 (1969)

    work page 1969

  30. [30]

    Rivas, A

    A. Rivas, A. D. K. Plato, S. F . Huelga and M. B. Plenio, Markovian master equations: a critical study, New Journal of Physics 12(11), 113032 (2010), doi:10.1088 /1367- 2630/12/11/113032

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    J. I. Cirac, P . Zoller, H. J. Kimble and H. Mabuchi,Quantum state transfer and entangle- ment distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network , Physical Review Letters 78(16), 3221 (1997), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.78.3221

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    C. M. Bender and S. A. Orszag, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and En- gineers I: Asymptotic Methods and Perturbation Theory , Springer, New York, NY, ISBN 978-0-387-98931-0, doi:10.1007 /978-1-4757-3069-2 (1999)

    work page 1999

  33. [33]

    S. Milz, M. Kim, F . A. Pollock and K. Modi, Completely positive divisi- bility does not mean markovianity , Physical Review Letters 123(4) (2019), doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.040401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.040401 2019

  34. [34]

    Reimer, M

    V . Reimer, M. R. Wegewijs, K. Nestmann and M. Pletyukhov, Five ap- proaches to exact open-system dynamics: Complete positivity, divisibility, and time- dependent observables , The Journal of Chemical Physics 151(4), 044101 (2019), doi:10.1063/1.5094412, https: //pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1. 5094412/15562533/044101_1_online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5094412 2019

  35. [35]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F . Huelga and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non-markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection , Reports on Progress in Physics 77(9), 094001 (2014), doi:10.1088/0034-4885/77/9/094001

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/77/9/094001 2014

  36. [36]

    Vacchini, A

    B. Vacchini, A. Smirne, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo and H.-P . Breuer, Markovianity and non- markovianity in quantum and classical systems, New Journal of Physics 13(9), 093004 (2011), doi:10.1088 /1367-2630/13/9/093004

    work page 2011

  37. [37]

    Canturk and H.-P

    B. Canturk and H.-P . Breuer, On positively divisible non-markovian processes (2024), 2401.12715

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    An Ontology-based Representation for Shaping Product Evolution in Regulated Industries,

    R. Bhattacharya and E. Waymire, Semigroup Theory and Markov Processes, pp. 17–34, Springer International Publishing, Cham, ISBN 978-3-031-33296-8, doi:10.1007/978- 3-031-33296-8_2 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 2023

  39. [39]

    Trushechkin, Unified Gorini-Kossakowski-Lindblad-Sudarshan quantum master equation beyond the secular approximation , Phys

    A. Trushechkin, Unified gorini-kossakowski-lindblad-sudarshan quantum master equation beyond the secular approximation , Phys. Rev. A 103, 062226 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.103.062226

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.103.062226 2021

  40. [40]

    The Impressive Power of Stopwatches

    R. Alicki, Invitation to quantum dynamical semigroups , vol. 597 of Lecture notes in Physics, Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, doi:https: //doi.org/10.1007/3- 540-46122-1 (2002)

    work page doi:10.1007/3- 2002

  41. [41]

    C. S. Tello Breuer, T . Becker and A. Eckardt, Benchmarking quantum mas- ter equations beyond ultraweak coupling , Phys. Rev. B 110, 064319 (2024), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.110.064319. 64 SciPost Physics Lecture Notes Submission

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.064319 2024

  42. [42]

    Majenz, T

    C. Majenz, T . Albash, H.-P . Breuer and D. A. Lidar,Coarse graining can beat the rotating- wave approximation in quantum markovian master equations, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012103 (2013), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevA.88.012103

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    Gorini, A

    V . Gorini, A. Frigerio, M. Verri, A. Kossakowski and E. Sudarshan, Properties of quan- tum markovian master equations, Reports on Mathematical Physics 13(2), 149 (1978), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4877(78)90050-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0034-4877(78)90050-2 1978

  44. [44]

    Suárez, R

    A. Suárez, R. Silbey and I. Oppenheim,Memory effects in the relaxation of quantum open systems, The Journal of Chemical Physics 97(7), 5101 (1992), doi:10.1063/1.463831, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/97/7/5101/19001972/5101_1_online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/1.463831 1992

  45. [45]

    Hepp and E

    K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, Phase Transitions in Reservoir-Driven Open Systems with Appli- cations to Lasers and Superconductors, pp. 145–175, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3-662-06390-3, doi:10.1007 /978-3-662-06390-3_13 (1973)

    work page 1973

  46. [46]

    P . F . Palmer,The singular coupling and weak coupling limits , Journal of Mathematical Physics 18(3), 527 (1977), doi:10.1063 /1.523296, https: //pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/ article-pdf/18/3/527/19127035/527_1_online.pdf

    work page 1977

  47. [47]

    Mori,Strong markov dissipation in driven-dissipative quantum systems (2024), 2404

    T . Mori,Strong markov dissipation in driven-dissipative quantum systems (2024), 2404. 10195

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Marché, G

    A. Marché, G. Morettini, L. Mazza, L. Gotta and L. Capizzi, Exceptional stationary state in a dephasing many-body open quantum system (2024), 2412.13820

    work page arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Barchielli, Measurement theory and stochastic differential equations in quantum me- chanics, Phys

    A. Barchielli, Measurement theory and stochastic differential equations in quantum me- chanics, Phys. Rev. A 34, 1642 (1986), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevA.34.1642

    work page 1986

  50. [50]

    Kiely ,Exact classical noise master equations: Applications and connections, Europhysics Letters 134(1), 10001 (2021), doi:10.1209 /0295-5075/134/10001

    A. Kiely ,Exact classical noise master equations: Applications and connections, Europhysics Letters 134(1), 10001 (2021), doi:10.1209 /0295-5075/134/10001

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Groszkowski, A

    P . Groszkowski, A. Seif, J. Koch and A. A. Clerk, Simple master equations for describ- ing driven systems subject to classical non-Markovian noise , Quantum 7, 972 (2023), doi:10.22331/q-2023-04-06-972

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-04-06-972 2023

  52. [52]

    Schnell, Global becomes local: Efficient many-body dynamics for global master equa- tions (2025), 2309.07105

    A. Schnell, Global becomes local: Efficient many-body dynamics for global master equa- tions (2025), 2309.07105

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    C. H. Fleming and N. I. Cummings, Accuracy of perturbative master equations , Phys. Rev. E83, 031117 (2011), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevE.83.031117

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, third edition edn., ISBN 978-0-08-057046-4, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08- 057046-4.50005-1 (1980)

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08- 1980

  55. [55]

    Rivas and S

    A. Rivas and S. F . Huelga, Open quantum systems: An Introduction , vol. 10, Springer, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23354-8 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23354-8 2012

  56. [56]

    & Rigol, M

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov and M. Rigol,From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics 65(3), 239 (2016), doi:10.1080 /00018732.2016.1198134

    work page arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

    Kleinherbers, N

    E. Kleinherbers, N. Szpak, J. König and R. Schützhold, Relaxation dynamics in a hub- bard dimer coupled to fermionic baths: Phenomenological description and its microscopic foundation, Phys. Rev. B 101, 125131 (2020), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevB.101.125131. 65 SciPost Physics Lecture Notes Submission

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    X. Li, J. Marino, D. E. Chang and B. Flebus, Solid-state platform for cooperative quantum dynamics driven by correlated emission , Phys. Rev. B 111, 064424 (2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.111.064424

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.064424 2025

  59. [59]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes , Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.93.99

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.93.99 1954

  60. [60]

    Fritzsch, M

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective sponta- neous emission, Physics Reports93(5), 301 (1982), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0370- 1573(82)90102-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0370- 1982

  61. [61]

    Guerin, M

    W . Guerin, M. O. Araújo and R. Kaiser,Subradiance in a large cloud of cold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 083601 (2016), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.116.083601

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    S. J. Masson, I. Ferrier-Barbut, L. A. Orozco, A. Browaeys and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many- body signatures of collective decay in atomic chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 263601 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.263601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.263601 2020

  63. [63]

    Shahmoon, D

    E. Shahmoon, D. S. Wild, M. D. Lukin and S. F . Yelin, Cooperative resonances in light scattering from two-dimensional atomic arrays , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 113601 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.113601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.113601 2017

  64. [64]

    Scala, B

    M. Scala, B. Militello, A. Messina, J. Piilo and S. Maniscalco, Microscopic derivation of the jaynes-cummings model with cavity losses , Phys. Rev. A 75, 013811 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.013811

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.75.013811 2007

  65. [65]

    Beaudoin, J

    F . Beaudoin, J. M. Gambetta and A. Blais,Dissipation and ultrastrong coupling in circuit qed, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043832 (2011), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevA.84.043832

    work page 2011

  66. [66]

    Hu, S.-Y

    D. Hu, S.-Y. Huang, J.-Q. Liao, L. Tian and H.-S. Goan,Quantum coherence in ultrastrong optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A 91, 013812 (2015), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevA.91.013812

    work page 2015

  67. [67]

    Betzholz, B

    R. Betzholz, B. G. Taketani and J. M. Torres, Breakdown signatures of the phenomeno- logical lindblad master equation in the strong optomechanical coupling regime, Quantum Science and Technology 6(1), 015005 (2020), doi:10.1088 /2058-9565/abc39d

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    P . P . Hofer, M. Perarnau-Llobet, L. D. M. Miranda, G. Haack, R. Silva, J. B. Brask and N. Brunner, Markovian master equations for quantum thermal machines: local versus global approach, New Journal of Physics 19(12), 123037 (2017), doi:10.1088 /1367- 2630/aa964f

    work page 2017

  69. [69]

    M. T . Mitchison and M. B. Plenio, Non-additive dissipation in open quantum networks out of equilibrium, New Journal of Physics 20(3), 033005 (2018), doi:10.1088 /1367- 2630/aa9f70

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    J. O. González, L. A. Correa, G. Nocerino, J. P . Palao, D. Alonso and G. Adesso, Testing the Validity of the ‘Local’ and ‘Global’ GKLS Master Equations on an Exactly Solvable Model , Open Systems & Information Dynamics 24(04), 1740010 (2017), doi:10.1142/S1230161217400108, https: //doi.org/10.1142/S1230161217400108

    work page doi:10.1142/s1230161217400108 2017

  71. [71]

    Shiraishi, M

    K. Shiraishi, M. Nakagawa, T . Mori and M. Ueda, Quantum master equation for many- body systems based on the Lieb-Robinson bound , Phys. Rev. B 111, 184311 (2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.111.184311. 66 SciPost Physics Lecture Notes Submission

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.184311 2025

  72. [72]

    Werlang, M

    T . Werlang, M. A. Marchiori, M. F . Cornelio and D. Valente, Optimal recti- fication in the ultrastrong coupling regime , Phys. Rev. E 89, 062109 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.89.062109

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.89.062109 2014

  73. [73]

    Li, J.-M

    A. Levy and R. Kosloff, The local approach to quantum transport may violate the second law of thermodynamics, Europhysics Letters 107(2), 20004 (2014), doi:10.1209/0295- 5075/107/20004

    work page doi:10.1209/0295- 2014

  74. [74]

    Tupkary , A

    D. Tupkary , A. Dhar, M. Kulkarni and A. Purkayastha,Fundamental limitations in lind- blad descriptions of systems weakly coupled to baths, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032208 (2022), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.105.032208

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.032208 2022

  75. [75]

    E. V . Goldstein and P . Meystre,Dipole-dipole interaction in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. A 56, 5135 (1997), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevA.56.5135

    work page 1997

  76. [76]

    Kamenev, Field theory of non-equilibrium systems , Cambridge University Press, doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108769266 (2023)

    A. Kamenev, Field theory of non-equilibrium systems , Cambridge University Press, doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108769266 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1017/9781108769266 2023

  77. [77]

    D. A. Steck, Quantum and Atom Optics , Available online at http: //steck.us/teaching (revision 0.10.0,3 September 2014)

    work page 2014

  78. [78]

    Albash, S

    T . Albash, S. Boixo, D. A. Lidar and P . Zanardi, Quantum adiabatic markovian mas- ter equations, New Journal of Physics 14(12), 123016 (2012), doi:10.1088 /1367- 2630/14/12/123016

    work page 2012

  79. [79]

    R. E. A. C. Paley and N. Wiener, Fourier transforms in the complex domain , vol. 19, American Mathematical Society , Providence, Rhode Island, Theorem XII (1934)

    work page 1934

  80. [80]

    L. A. Khalfin, Contribution to the decay theory of a quasi-stationary state , Sov. Phys. JETP 6 (1958)

    work page 1958

Showing first 80 references.