pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.04057 · v2 · pith:H2ZN7YV3new · submitted 2025-09-04 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum Zeno effect versus adiabatic quantum computing and quantum annealing

Naser Ahmadiniaz , Dennis Kraft , Gernot Schaller , Ralf Sch\"utzhold This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 07:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum Zeno effectadiabatic quantum computingdecoherenceGrover searchquantum annealingLandau-Zener transition
0
0 comments X

The pith

A generic environment induces the quantum Zeno effect that inhibits or slows quantum transitions in adiabatic algorithms.

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

The paper analyzes decoherence in the adiabatic Grover search algorithm of Roland and Cerf under a rather general system-environment coupling. It shows that the environment acts as a continuous measurement of the instantaneous eigenstates, triggering the quantum Zeno effect that blocks the required transitions and removes the expected quantum speed-up. The same limitation is argued to hold for any adiabatic quantum algorithm or annealing scheme that relies on isolated avoided level crossings of Landau-Zener type. The authors note that smoother, second-order-like changes or techniques such as spin-echo error correction could reduce the effect.

Core claim

For the adiabatic version of Grover's quantum search algorithm as proposed by Roland and Cerf, a rather general coupling to some environment produces the quantum Zeno effect that effectively measures the state of the system permanently and thereby inhibits or slows down quantum transitions. Similar restrictions apply universally to adiabatic quantum algorithms and quantum annealing schemes based on analogous isolated Landau-Zener type transitions at avoided level crossings.

What carries the argument

Quantum Zeno effect arising from permanent effective measurement of computational basis states (or instantaneous eigenstates) during adiabatic evolution.

If this is right

  • The expected quantum speed-up vanishes or is strongly reduced for the Roland-Cerf adiabatic search under generic decoherence.
  • Any adiabatic algorithm whose schedule contains isolated Landau-Zener crossings at avoided level crossings faces the same Zeno slowdown.
  • More gradual state evolution resembling a second-order phase transition evades the strongest form of the limitation.
  • Error-correction methods such as spin echo can partially restore performance by interrupting the continuous measurement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Practical adiabatic quantum devices may need explicit protection against Zeno-type freezing even when the hardware noise appears moderate.
  • Annealing protocols that deliberately avoid sharp first-order-like crossings could offer better scaling in noisy hardware than standard schedules.
  • Hybrid schemes that combine short adiabatic segments with active reset or measurement could test whether the Zeno bound can be circumvented.

Load-bearing premise

The system-environment coupling remains generic enough throughout the schedule to produce continuous effective measurement of the relevant states.

What would settle it

Observation of the full quadratic speed-up in an adiabatic Grover search experiment performed in the presence of a calibrated generic decoherence source.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04057 by Dennis Kraft, Gernot Schaller, Naser Ahmadiniaz, Ralf Sch\"utzhold.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Top: Shifted spectrum of the Grover Hamiltonian (5) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

For the adiabatic version of Grover's quantum search algorithm as proposed by Roland and Cerf, we study the impact of decoherence caused by a rather general coupling to some environment. For quite generic conditions, we find that the quantum Zeno effect poses strong limitations on the performance (quantum speed-up) since the environment effectively measures the state of the system permanently and thereby inhibits or slows down quantum transitions. Generalizing our results, we find that similar restrictions should apply universally to adiabatic quantum algorithms and quantum annealing schemes which are based on analogous isolated Landau-Zener type transitions at avoided level crossings (similar to first-order phase transitions). As a possible resort, more gradual changes of the quantum state (as in second-order phase transitions) or suitable error-correcting schemes such as the spin-echo method may alleviate this problem.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the impact of decoherence from a rather general system-environment coupling on the Roland-Cerf adiabatic version of Grover's search algorithm. It concludes that under generic conditions the quantum Zeno effect imposes strong limitations on quantum speed-up because the environment continuously measures the system and inhibits transitions; the result is then generalized to claim that similar restrictions apply universally to adiabatic quantum algorithms and quantum annealing schemes based on isolated Landau-Zener crossings.

Significance. If the central claim is rigorously established, the work would identify a potentially fundamental open-system obstacle to adiabatic quantum speed-up, motivating the exploration of mitigation strategies such as spin-echo techniques or schedules resembling second-order phase transitions. The concrete treatment of the Roland-Cerf schedule provides a useful anchor for the broader generalization.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and generalization paragraph] The central claim that 'quite generic conditions' produce permanent effective measurement of the instantaneous eigenstates (or computational basis) throughout the adiabatic schedule, including at avoided crossings, is stated without an explicit derivation of the required conditions on the coupling operators. The manuscript should specify the form of the interaction Hamiltonian and demonstrate under which spectral or commutation properties the Zeno freezing occurs continuously rather than only for selected couplings.
  2. [Generalization section] The generalization to 'all' AQC/QA schemes based on Landau-Zener transitions rests on the universality of the measurement effect. If the coupling includes operators that commute with the driving Hamiltonian or preserve coherences in the instantaneous basis (e.g., collective or conserved quantities), the effective measurement may fail and transitions may proceed; the paper should provide a concrete test or counter-example exclusion to support the universal restriction.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it briefly indicated the explicit model (Hamiltonian form, Markovian or non-Markovian) used for the environment coupling before stating the generic-conditions result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating where revisions have been made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and generalization paragraph] The central claim that 'quite generic conditions' produce permanent effective measurement of the instantaneous eigenstates (or computational basis) throughout the adiabatic schedule, including at avoided crossings, is stated without an explicit derivation of the required conditions on the coupling operators. The manuscript should specify the form of the interaction Hamiltonian and demonstrate under which spectral or commutation properties the Zeno freezing occurs continuously rather than only for selected couplings.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation of the conditions strengthens the presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the methods section specifying the interaction Hamiltonian in the standard form H_int = sum_k A_k ⊗ B_k, where the A_k are local system operators (typically Pauli matrices). We derive that continuous Zeno projection onto the instantaneous eigenstates occurs whenever the A_k fail to commute with the time-dependent Hamiltonian in a manner that would preserve coherences in the adiabatic frame; this holds under the generic spectral condition that the bath correlation functions decay sufficiently fast to suppress off-diagonal elements throughout the schedule, including near avoided crossings. The derivation follows from transforming the master equation to the instantaneous eigenbasis and showing that the decoherence rates remain finite and non-vanishing for generic local couplings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Generalization section] The generalization to 'all' AQC/QA schemes based on Landau-Zener transitions rests on the universality of the measurement effect. If the coupling includes operators that commute with the driving Hamiltonian or preserve coherences in the instantaneous basis (e.g., collective or conserved quantities), the effective measurement may fail and transitions may proceed; the paper should provide a concrete test or counter-example exclusion to support the universal restriction.

    Authors: We maintain that the claim applies under quite generic conditions, meaning couplings without special symmetries that would enforce commutation with the driving Hamiltonian or exact conservation of quantities in the instantaneous basis. Couplings to collective or perfectly conserved operators represent fine-tuned, non-generic cases that are not representative of typical open-system environments in physical realizations of AQC or QA. In the revised generalization paragraph we have added an explicit qualification stating that the restriction holds when the system-bath operators break the relevant symmetries, which is the generic situation; we note that perfectly conserved quantities would require unphysical isolation from all other environmental degrees of freedom and therefore do not undermine the broad applicability of the result. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper applies standard open-system master equations and the quantum Zeno effect to the Roland-Cerf adiabatic schedule and Landau-Zener crossings. No equations redefine inputs in terms of outputs, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation. The central claim follows directly from generic decoherence assumptions applied to established adiabatic evolution, remaining self-contained against external quantum-optics benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The analysis implicitly relies on standard open quantum systems theory and the Landau-Zener framework.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and Markovian or non-Markovian open-system dynamics govern the system-environment interaction.
    Required for any treatment of decoherence and the Zeno effect.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5670 in / 1141 out tokens · 37246 ms · 2026-05-25T07:49:32.190972+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Misra and E

    B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan. The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 18(4):756–763, 04 1977

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    Itano, D

    Wayne M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland. Quantum Zeno effect. Phys. Rev. A, 41:2295– 2300, Mar 1990

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Hackenbroich, B

    G. Hackenbroich, B. Rosenow, and H. A. Weidenm¨ uller. Quantum Zeno effect and parametric resonance in meso- scopic physics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:5896–5899, Dec 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´ errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen. Observation of the quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects in an unstable system. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 87:040402, Jul 2001

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    S. A. Gurvitz, L. Fedichkin, D. Mozyrsky, and G. P. Berman. Relaxation and the Zeno effect in qubit mea- surements. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:066801, Aug 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Streed, Jongchul Mun, Micah Boyd, Gretchen K

    Erik W. Streed, Jongchul Mun, Micah Boyd, Gretchen K. Campbell, Patrick Medley, Wolfgang Ketterle, and David E. Pritchard. Continuous and pulsed quantum Zeno effect. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97:260402, Dec 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Bernu, S

    J. Bernu, S. Del´ eglise, C. Sayrin, S. Kuhr, I. Dotsenko, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche. Freezing coherent field growth in a cavity by the quantum zeno effect. Phys. Rev. Lett., 101:180402, Oct 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Quantum Zeno effect in the strong measure- ment regime of circuit quantum electrodynamics

    D H Slichter, C M¨ uller, R Vijay, S J Weber, A Blais, and I Siddiqi. Quantum Zeno effect in the strong measure- ment regime of circuit quantum electrodynamics. New Journal of Physics , 18(5):053031, may 2016

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Blumenthal, C

    E. Blumenthal, C. Mor, A. A. Diringer, L. S. Martin, P. Lewalle, D. Burgarth, K. B. Whaley, and S. Hacohen- Gourgy. Demonstration of universal control between non- interacting qubits using the quantum Zeno effect. npj Quantum Information, 8:88, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Ahmadiniaz, M

    N. Ahmadiniaz, M. Geller, J. K¨ onig, P. Kratzer, A. Lorke, G. Schaller, and R. Sch¨ utzhold. Quantum Zeno manipulation of quantum dots. Phys. Rev. Research , 4:L032045, Sep 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, and Avshalom C. Elitzur. Foundations and applications of weak quantum measurements. Phys. Rev. A , 89:052105, May 2014

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    R. E. Kastner. Demystifying weak measurements. Foun- dations of Physics , 47(5):697–707, 2017

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    The The- ory of Open Quantum Systems

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione. The The- ory of Open Quantum Systems . Oxford University Press, 01 2007

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn. Quantum Measure- ment and Control . Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2010

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information . Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2000

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    van Dam, M

    W. van Dam, M. Mosca, and U. Vazirani. How powerful is adiabatic quantum computation? In Proceedings 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 279–287, 2001

    work page 2001

  17. [17]

    A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to ran- dom instances of an NP-complete problem

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, Joshua Lapan, Andrew Lundgren, and Daniel Preda. A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to ran- dom instances of an NP-complete problem. Science, 292(5516):472–475, 2001

    work page 2001

  18. [18]

    Tameem Albash and Daniel A. Lidar. Adiabatic quantum computation. Rev. Mod. Phys., 90:015002, Jan 2018

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    M. S. Sarandy, L.-A. Wu, and D. A. Lidar. Consistency of the adiabatic theorem. Quantum Information Processing, 3(6):331–349, 2004

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applica- tions to quantum computation

    Sabine Jansen, Mary-Beth Ruskai, and Ruedi Seiler. Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applica- tions to quantum computation. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48(10):102111, 10 2007

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Lov K. Grover. Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Phys. Rev. Lett., 79:325–328, Jul 1997

    work page 1997

  22. [22]

    J´ er´ emie Roland and Nicolas J. Cerf. Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution. Physical Review A, 65:042308, Mar 2002

    work page 2002

  23. [23]

    General error estimate for adiabatic quantum computing

    Gernot Schaller, Sarah Mostame, and Ralf Sch¨ utzhold. General error estimate for adiabatic quantum computing. Physical Review A, 73:062307, 2006

    work page 2006

  24. [24]

    Childs, Edward Farhi, and John Preskill

    Andrew M. Childs, Edward Farhi, and John Preskill. Ro- bustness of adiabatic quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A, 65:012322, Dec 2001

    work page 2001

  25. [25]

    Robust- ness of the adiabatic quantum search

    Johan ˚Aberg, David Kult, and Erik Sj¨ oqvist. Robust- ness of the adiabatic quantum search. Phys. Rev. A , 71:060312, Jun 2005

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    Peter W. Shor. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quan- tum computer memory. Physical Review A , 52:R2493– R2496, Oct 1995

    work page 1995

  27. [27]

    Multiple-particle interference and quan- tum error correction

    Andrew Steane. Multiple-particle interference and quan- tum error correction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences, 452(1954):2551–2577, 1996

    work page 1954

  28. [28]

    Perfect quantum error correct- ing code

    Raymond Laflamme, Cesar Miquel, Juan Pablo Paz, and Wojciech Hubert Zurek. Perfect quantum error correct- ing code. Phys. Rev. Lett., 77:198–201, Jul 1996

    work page 1996

  29. [29]

    Fowler and John M

    Austin G. Fowler and John M. Martinis. Quantifying the effects of local many-qubit errors and nonlocal two-qubit errors on the surface code. Phys. Rev. A, 89:032316, Mar 2014

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Correlation functions and master equa- tions of generalized (non-Markovian) Langevin equa- tions

    Peter H¨ anggi. Correlation functions and master equa- tions of generalized (non-Markovian) Langevin equa- tions. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter , 31(4):407–416, 1978

    work page 1978

  31. [31]

    Tiersch and R

    M. Tiersch and R. Sch¨ utzhold. Non-Markovian decoher- ence in the adiabatic quantum search algorithm. Physical Review A, 75:062313, 2007

    work page 2007

  32. [32]

    Non-Markovian correlation functions for open quantum systems

    Jinshuang Jin, Christian Karlewski, and Michael Marthaler. Non-Markovian correlation functions for open quantum systems. New Journal of Physics, 18(8):083038, aug 2016

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Note that the geometrical phase vanishes for the adia- batic Grover search

    work page

  34. [34]

    U. Weiss. Quantum Dissipative Systems , volume 2 of Series of Modern Condensed Matter Physics . World Sci- entific, Singapore, 1993

    work page 1993

  35. [35]

    Schlosshauer

    M. Schlosshauer. Decoherence and the Quantum-To- Classical Transition. Springer, Berlin, 2007. 10

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    On Quantum Theory of Transport Phenomena: Steady Diffusion

    Sadao Nakajima. On Quantum Theory of Transport Phenomena: Steady Diffusion. Progress of Theoretical Physics, 20(6):948–959, 12 1958

    work page 1958

  37. [37]

    Ensemble method in the theory of irre- versibility

    Robert Zwanzig. Ensemble method in the theory of irre- versibility. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 33(5):1338– 1341, 1960

    work page 1960

  38. [38]

    Schaller and T

    G. Schaller and T. Brandes. Preservation of positiv- ity by dynamical coarse-graining. Physical Review A , 78:022106, 2008

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    Christian Majenz, Tameem Albash, Heinz-Peter Breuer, and Daniel A. Lidar. Coarse graining can beat the rotating-wave approximation in quantum markovian master equations. Phys. Rev. A , 88:012103, Jul 2013

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    M¨ akel¨ a and M

    H. M¨ akel¨ a and M. M¨ ott¨ onen. Effects of the rotating-wave and secular approximations on non-Markovianity. Phys. Rev. A, 88:052111, Nov 2013

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    Search for optimal driving in finite quantum systems with precursors of criticality

    Felipe Matus, Jan Stˇ releˇ cek, Pavel Str´ ansk´ y, and Pavel Cejnar. Search for optimal driving in finite quantum systems with precursors of criticality. Phys. Rev. A , 107:012216, Jan 2023

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Benatti, R

    F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and U. Marzolino. Environment-induced entanglement in a refined weak- coupling limit. epl, 88(2), 2009

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Refined weak-coupling limit: Coherence, entanglement, and non-Markovianity

    ´Angel Rivas. Refined weak-coupling limit: Coherence, entanglement, and non-Markovianity. Physical Review A, 95:042104, Apr 2017

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    A. G. Redfield. Advances in Magnetic and Optical Res- onance, chapter The Theory of Relaxation Processes, pages 1–32. Advances in Magnetic and Optical Reso- nance. Academic Press, New York, 1965

    work page 1965

  45. [45]

    Exponential com- plexity of an adiabatic algorithm for an NP-complete problem

    Marko Znidaric and Martin Horvat. Exponential com- plexity of an adiabatic algorithm for an NP-complete problem. Physical Review A, 73:022329, 2006

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    Ising formulations of many NP problems

    Andrew Lucas. Ising formulations of many NP problems. Frontiers in Physics, 2:5, 2014

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    Ander- son localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail

    Boris Altshuler, Hari Krovi, and J´ er´ emie Roland. Ander- son localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 107(28):12446–12450, 2010

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum com- putation

    Dorit Aharonov, Wim van Dam, Julia Kempe, Zeph Lan- dau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev. Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum com- putation. SIAM Journal on Computing , 37(1):166–194, 2007

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    Lidar, and Morgan Mitchell

    Ari Mizel, Daniel A. Lidar, and Morgan Mitchell. Simple proof of equivalence between adiabatic quantum compu- tation and the circuit model. Phys. Rev. Lett., 99:070502, Aug 2007

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    Adiabatic quan- tum computation and quantum phase transitions

    Jos´ e Ignacio Latorre and Rom´ an Or´ us. Adiabatic quan- tum computation and quantum phase transitions. Phys. Rev. A, 69:062302, Jun 2004

    work page 2004

  51. [51]

    Sch¨ utzhold and G

    R. Sch¨ utzhold and G. Schaller. Adiabatic quantum algo- rithms as quantum phase transitions: First versus second order. Physical Review A, 74:060304(R), 2006

    work page 2006

  52. [52]

    M. H. S. Amin and V. Choi. First-order quantum phase transition in adiabatic quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A, 80:062326, Dec 2009

    work page 2009

  53. [53]

    Schaller and R

    G. Schaller and R. Sch¨ utzhold. The role of symmetries in adiabatic quantum algorithms. Quantum Information and Computation, 10:0109–0140, 2010

    work page 2010

  54. [54]

    J. D. Biamonte, V. Bergholm, J. D. Whitfield, J. Fitzsi- mons, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. Adiabatic quantum simu- lators. AIP Advances, 1(2):022126, 05 2011

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    Stirring the false vacuum via interacting quantized bub- bles on a 5,564-qubit quantum annealer

    Jaka Vodeb, Jean-Yves Desaules, Andrew Hallam, An- drea Rava, Gregor Humar, Dennis Willsch, Fengping Jin, Madita Willsch, Kristel Michielsen, and Zlatko Papi´ c. Stirring the false vacuum via interacting quantized bub- bles on a 5,564-qubit quantum annealer. Nature Physics, 21(3):386 –392, 2025

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system

    A.O Caldeira and A.J Leggett. Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system. Annals of Physics , 149(2):374–456, 1983

    work page 1983

  57. [57]

    Quantum adiabatic Markovian master equa- tions

    Tameem Albash, Sergio Boixo, Daniel A Lidar, and Paolo Zanardi. Quantum adiabatic Markovian master equa- tions. New Journal of Physics , 14(12):123016, dec 2012

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    Landi, Dario Poletti, and Gernot Schaller

    Gabriel T. Landi, Dario Poletti, and Gernot Schaller. Nonequilibrium boundary-driven quantum systems: Models, methods, and properties. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 94:045006, Dec 2022

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    Electronic Maxwell demon in the co- herent strong-coupling regime

    Gernot Schaller, Javier Cerrillo, Georg Engelhardt, and Philipp Strasberg. Electronic Maxwell demon in the co- herent strong-coupling regime. Phys. Rev. B , 97:195104, May 2018

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    P. F. Palmer. The singular coupling and weak coupling limits. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 18(3):527–529, 1977

    work page 1977

  61. [61]

    M. G. Schultz and F. von Oppen. Quantum transport through nanostructures in the singular-coupling limit. Physical Review B, 80:033302, 2009

    work page 2009

  62. [62]

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

    Anton Trushechkin. Unified Gorini-Kossakowski- Lindblad-Sudarshan quantum master equation beyond the secular approximation. Phys. Rev. A , 103:062226, Jun 2021. Appendix A: Freezing via Lindblad dissipation We can write Eq. (2) also as d dt ⟨ˆσ⟩ = M ⟨ˆσ⟩ with ma- trix M =   −2Γ 0 2Ω 0 −2Γ 0 −2Ω 0 0   , (A1) and the eigenvalues of this matrix λ0 = −2Γ ...

    work page 2021