pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13876 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🪐 quant-ph

Transient entanglement generation in driven chiral networks beyond the secular approximation

Yan Xi Foo , Kian Hwee Lim , Jia-Bin You , Leong Chuan Kwek , Davit Aghamalyan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 13:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords transient entanglementchiral networkssecular approximationmaster equationconcurrencedriven quantum systemsquantum opticsnonsecular dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Continuous driving and ground-state initialization raise transient concurrence above the 2/e limit in chiral networks by breaking the secular approximation.

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

The paper examines entanglement generation between two nodes linked by a chiral one-dimensional channel under continuous driving. It demonstrates that an initial ground state combined with driving produces a higher maximum transient concurrence than the 2/e benchmark of the undriven single-excitation case. This occurs because strong driving causes nearby dressed transitions to overlap on the dissipation timescale, allowing nonsecular terms to mix coherences that the secular approximation would suppress. Comparisons with exact simulations confirm that the nonsecular master equation captures the envelope and first peak, with discrepancies mainly from beyond-Born correlations rather than other effects. The work also checks robustness against positional disorder, imperfect chirality, and loss into nonguided modes.

Core claim

In an emitter-only Born-Markov treatment, continuous driving from an initial ground state generates transient concurrence exceeding the 2/e value of the undriven effectively single-excitation model; the enhancement traces to nonsecular mixing of dressed-state coherences when the secular approximation fails under strong driving, as verified by comparing the TCL-2 master equation to matrix-product-state simulations of an XX spin-chain channel.

What carries the argument

The nonsecular time-convolutionless master equation (TCL-2) that retains terms mixing dressed-state coherences when driving makes nearby transitions non-separable on the dissipative timescale.

If this is right

  • The familiar 2/e upper bound on transient concurrence no longer applies once driving strength violates the secular approximation.
  • Nonsecular contributions can increase rather than reduce peak entanglement in driven dissipative networks.
  • Chiral entanglement protocols must incorporate dressed-state coherence mixing when operating in the strong-drive regime.
  • Sensitivity analysis shows the enhancement persists under moderate positional disorder and imperfect chirality but degrades with significant nonguided losses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar driving-induced mixing might enhance transient correlations in other open quantum systems where secular approximations are routinely applied.
  • The dependence on initial ground state suggests testing whether other low-excitation preparations yield comparable gains in multi-node chiral setups.
  • Extending the comparison to longer times could reveal whether memory effects beyond TCL-2 further modify later entanglement revivals.

Load-bearing premise

The nonsecular TCL-2 master equation remains accurate up to the first transient concurrence peak, with any mismatch due only to beyond-Born system-bath correlations.

What would settle it

An exact simulation or experiment that measures whether the first transient concurrence peak stays below or rises above 2/e when the drive strength is increased until secular breakdown occurs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13876 by Davit Aghamalyan, Jia-Bin You, Kian Hwee Lim, Leong Chuan Kwek, Yan Xi Foo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two possible realizations of a quantum one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Concurrence C(t) as a function of time obtained from the exact-root solution for four guided-dissipation config￾urations, (γL, γR) = (0, 1), (0.2, 0.8), (0.4, 0.6), and (0.5, 0.5), with γtot := γL + γR = 1. The left panel shows the undriven case, Ω = 0, and the right panel the weakly driven case, Ω = 0.1. The effects of weak driving are only appreciable for the near-bidirectional regimes beyond the first e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Maximum fidelity to the Bell state (|eg⟩ − |ge⟩)/ √ 2 as a function of Ω1 and Ω2 in the transient regime, starting from |eg⟩. Here we take d mod 4 = 0 and γL = 0. Within the parameter range shown, the largest Bell-state fidelity is 2/e, attained at Ω1 = Ω2 = 0; in this case, it coincides with the maximal concurrence of the undriven chiral protocol. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Rt 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 concur… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Concurrence as a function of γRt for the values of Ω1 and Ω2 that maximize the concurrence in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A digrammatic representation of the TCL-ME. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Concurrence C(t) versus JBt for inter-emitter separa￾tions d = 1 (left) and d = 9 (right). The horizontal red dashed line marks 2/e, used as a benchmark. The non-secular TCL-2 and Redfield (beyond early-time) treatment show qualitative agreement with MPS results for both separation values, while the secular approximation gives distance-invariant results with no oscillatory structure and a broader, weaker c… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Bath-site excitation density, with emitter sites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spatially-resolved bath observables. Upper panel: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Concurrence dynamics in the presence of positional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left: concurrence versus time JBt for imperfect coupling to the guided channel, parameterized by a with leg￾end values a = 1.00, 0.95, 0.90, and 0.80. The three rows correspond to β1 = β2 = a (upper), β2 = 1, β1 = a (middle), and β1 = 1, β2 = a (lower). Right: corresponding maximum concurrence Cmax (upper) and steady-state concurrence Css (lower) as functions of a for the same three dissipation config￾ura… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study transient entanglement generation between two quantum nodes coupled through a chiral one-dimensional channel. In an emitter-only Born-Markov description, we show that continuous driving and an initial ground state can raise the maximum transient concurrence above the undriven $2/e$ benchmark associated with the effectively single-excitation model. We then consider a more microscopic XX spin-chain channel with triangular plaquette couplings and compare a nonsecular time-convolutionless master equation (TCL-ME) with matrix-product-state (MPS) simulations. In the optimal driven regime, the nonsecular TCL-2 treatment reproduces the concurrence envelope and first transient peak qualitatively, while the remaining discrepancy is mainly attributable to beyond-Born system-bath correlations. The enhancement is traced to the failure of the secular approximation under strong driving, where nearby dressed transitions are not well separated on the dissipative timescale and nonsecular terms mix dressed-state coherences. Finally, we examine within TCL-2 the sensitivity of the protocol to positional disorder, imperfect chirality, and loss into nonguided modes. These results clarify when the familiar $2/e$ limitation ceases to apply and separate the roles of secular breakdown, Born-factorization error, and reduced-state memory in driven chiral entanglement generation; we believe that our study contributes to one of the first studies where the breakdown of the secular approximation is useful rather than detrimental.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies transient entanglement generation between two nodes coupled by a chiral 1D channel. In an emitter-only Born-Markov model it claims that continuous driving from the ground state can produce a maximum transient concurrence exceeding the undriven 2/e benchmark of the effective single-excitation model. For a microscopic XX spin-chain channel with triangular plaquettes, a nonsecular TCL-2 master equation is compared to MPS simulations; the nonsecular treatment reproduces the concurrence envelope and first peak only qualitatively, with the residual discrepancy attributed to beyond-Born correlations. The enhancement is traced to secular-approximation breakdown under strong driving, and the protocol is tested for robustness against positional disorder, imperfect chirality, and nonguided loss.

Significance. If the central claim is confirmed, the work is significant because it shows that nonsecular terms can be beneficial rather than detrimental for entanglement generation in driven chiral networks, thereby relaxing the familiar 2/e limit. The direct MPS benchmark for the TCL-ME is a methodological strength that helps separate secular breakdown from Born-factorization error and reduced-state memory effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (TCL-ME vs MPS comparison): the nonsecular TCL-2 result lies above 2/e at the first transient peak while MPS lies closer to or below it; the paper provides only qualitative agreement and attributes the difference to beyond-Born correlations without a quantitative bound or error estimate on the peak height. Because the central claim requires the exact (MPS) maximum to exceed 2/e, this discrepancy is load-bearing and must be resolved.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1 (emitter-only Born-Markov derivation): the analytic claim that driving raises the peak concurrence above 2/e is shown only for a restricted set of driving amplitudes and detunings; the manuscript does not delineate the full parameter region in which the inequality holds or demonstrate that the result survives small variations in initial phase or driving strength.
  3. [§5] §5 (robustness analysis): the sensitivity plots for disorder and loss are performed exclusively within the TCL-2 approximation; given the already-noted TCL-ME/MPS discrepancy, it is unclear whether the reported robustness margins remain valid once beyond-Born corrections are included.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Fig. 2] Figure 2 caption and axis labels should explicitly list the numerical values of the driving strength, detuning, and coupling used for the driven versus undriven curves.
  2. [§2] The definition of the triangular-plaquette interaction terms appears only in the supplemental material; a brief inline reminder in the main text would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We appreciate the recognition of the methodological value in the TCL-ME versus MPS comparison. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments. We will revise the manuscript accordingly to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (TCL-ME vs MPS comparison): the nonsecular TCL-2 result lies above 2/e at the first transient peak while MPS lies closer to or below it; the paper provides only qualitative agreement and attributes the difference to beyond-Born correlations without a quantitative bound or error estimate on the peak height. Because the central claim requires the exact (MPS) maximum to exceed 2/e, this discrepancy is load-bearing and must be resolved.

    Authors: We respectfully clarify that the central claim of transient concurrence exceeding the 2/e benchmark is established analytically within the emitter-only Born-Markov model in §3.1, which is exact in that approximation. The microscopic model in §4 uses the nonsecular TCL-2 master equation to capture the same mechanism (secular breakdown under strong driving), with MPS serving as a benchmark for validation. The manuscript already notes qualitative agreement on the concurrence envelope and first peak, attributing the quantitative offset to beyond-Born correlations. We agree that a quantitative error bound would strengthen the presentation. In the revision we will add an explicit discussion emphasizing the analytic demonstration of the enhancement, clarify that the MPS comparison supports the persistence of the nonsecular effect, and include a rough estimate of the Born-approximation error derived from the observed deviation between TCL-2 and MPS. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3.1] §3.1 (emitter-only Born-Markov derivation): the analytic claim that driving raises the peak concurrence above 2/e is shown only for a restricted set of driving amplitudes and detunings; the manuscript does not delineate the full parameter region in which the inequality holds or demonstrate that the result survives small variations in initial phase or driving strength.

    Authors: We agree that a more systematic exploration of the parameter space is desirable. In the revised manuscript we will expand the analysis in §3.1 to include a broader scan over driving amplitudes and detunings, explicitly delineating the region where the maximum transient concurrence exceeds 2/e. We will also add supplementary figures or text demonstrating that the enhancement persists under small variations in the initial phase and driving strength, confirming robustness within the analytic model. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (robustness analysis): the sensitivity plots for disorder and loss are performed exclusively within the TCL-2 approximation; given the already-noted TCL-ME/MPS discrepancy, it is unclear whether the reported robustness margins remain valid once beyond-Born corrections are included.

    Authors: This is a fair observation. The robustness analysis in §5 is performed within the TCL-2 framework, which already incorporates nonsecular terms but still relies on the Born approximation. In the revision we will add an explicit caveat stating that the reported margins are valid within this approximation and discuss how the observed TCL-ME/MPS discrepancy in §4 might affect them. Where computationally practical, we will include limited MPS checks for representative disorder and loss values to provide additional support. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation relies on independent MPS benchmark and standard master-equation methods

full rationale

The paper's central claim is established first in an emitter-only Born-Markov model and then cross-checked by comparing a derived nonsecular TCL-2 master equation against independent matrix-product-state simulations of the microscopic XX chain. No parameters are fitted to the target concurrence value, the 2/e benchmark is taken from the separate undriven single-excitation case, and the residual TCL-2/MPS discrepancy is explicitly attributed to beyond-Born effects rather than used to define the result. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard open-quantum-system approximations and numerical methods without introducing new free parameters or postulated entities beyond those in the cited literature.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation holds for the emitter-bath coupling in the emitter-only model
    Invoked for the initial simplified description of driven entanglement generation
  • domain assumption Time-convolutionless master equation remains valid beyond the secular approximation under strong driving
    Central to the TCL-2 treatment and its comparison with MPS

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5558 in / 1412 out tokens · 86376 ms · 2026-05-10T13:33:07.248747+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, A

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, A. Gonzalez-Tudela, F. J. Garcia- Vidal, and E. Moreno, Chiral route to spontaneous en- tanglement generation, Physical Review B92, 155304 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Quantum state transfer and entanglement distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network, Physical Review Letters78, 3221 (1997)

    1997

  6. [6]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Long- distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics, Nature414, 413 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Orieux and E

    A. Orieux and E. Diamanti, Recent advances on integrated quantum communications, Journal of Optics18, 083002 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Physical Review A69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  9. [9]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Atomic-waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Physical Review Research2, 043213 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Ramos, H

    T. Ramos, H. Pichler, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Quantum spin dimers from chiral dissipation in cold-atom chains, Physical review letters113, 237203 (2014)

    2014

  11. [11]

    Bose, Quantum communication through spin chain dy- namics: an introductory overview, Contemporary Physics 48, 13 (2007)

    S. Bose, Quantum communication through spin chain dy- namics: an introductory overview, Contemporary Physics 48, 13 (2007)

    2007

  12. [12]

    W. A. Coish, J. Fischer, and D. Loss, Exponential decay in a spin bath, Phys. Rev. B77, 125329 (2008)

    2008

  13. [13]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  14. [14]

    Nikolopoulos and I

    G. Nikolopoulos and I. Jex, Quantum State Transfer and Network Engineering, Quantum Science and Technology (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013)

    2013

  15. [15]

    Pichler, T

    H. Pichler, T. Ramos, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Quantum optics of chiral spin networks, Physical Review A91, 042116 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Chiral quantum optics, Nature541, 473 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    Ramos, B

    T. Ramos, B. Vermersch, P. Hauke, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Non-markovian dynamics in chiral quantum networks with spins and photons, Physical Review A93, 062104 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    S¨ ollner, S

    I. S¨ ollner, S. Mahmoodian, S. L. Hansen, L. Midolo, A. Javadi, G. Kirˇ sansk˙ e, T. Pregnolato, H. El-Ella, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, et al., Deterministic photon–emitter cou- pling in chiral photonic circuits, Nature nanotechnology 10, 775 (2015)

    2015

  19. [19]

    Mahmoodian, P

    S. Mahmoodian, P. Lodahl, and A. S. Sørensen, Quantum networks with chiral-light–matter interaction in waveg- uides, Physical review letters117, 240501 (2016)

    2016

  20. [20]

    N. V. Hauff, H. Le Jeannic, P. Lodahl, S. Hughes, and N. Rotenberg, Chiral quantum optics in broken-symmetry and topological photonic crystal waveguides, Physical Review Research4, 023082 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Petersen, J

    J. Petersen, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Chiral nanophotonic waveguide interface based on spin-orbit interaction of light, Science346, 67 (2014)

    2014

  22. [22]

    Scheucher, A

    M. Scheucher, A. Hilico, E. Will, J. Volz, and A. Rauschen- beutel, Quantum optical circulator controlled by a single chirally coupled atom, Science354, 1577 (2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    Liedl, F

    C. Liedl, F. Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach, S. Pucher, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, Observation of su- perradiant bursts in a cascaded quantum system, Physical Review X14, 011020 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Le Kien and A

    F. Le Kien and A. Rauschenbeutel, Nanofiber-mediated chiral radiative coupling between two atoms, Physical Review A95, 023838 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Arcari, I

    M. Arcari, I. S¨ ollner, A. Javadi, S. Lindskov Hansen, S. Mahmoodian, J. Liu, H. Thyrrestrup, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, S. Stobbe, et al., Near-unity coupling efficiency of a quantum emitter to a photonic crystal waveguide, Physical review letters113, 093603 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    Mok, J.-B

    W.-K. Mok, J.-B. You, L.-C. Kwek, and D. Aghamalyan, Microresonators enhancing long-distance dynamical entan- glement generation in chiral quantum networks, Physical Review A101, 053861 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    J.-B. You, J. F. Kong, D. Aghamalyan, W.-K. Mok, K. H. Lim, J. Ye, C. E. Png, and F. J. Garc´ ıa-Vidal, Generation and optimization of entanglement between atoms chirally coupled to spin cavities, Physical Review Research7, L012058 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    K. H. Lim, W.-K. Mok, J.-B. You, J. F. Kong, and D. Aghamalyan, Exponentially faster preparation of quan- tum dimers via driven-dissipative stabilization, Physical Review Research6, L032047 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    W.-K. Mok, D. Aghamalyan, J.-B. You, T. Haug, W. Zhang, C. E. Png, and L.-C. Kwek, Long-distance 14 dissipation-assisted transport of entangled states via a chiral waveguide, Physical Review Research2, 013369 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement and non-markovianity of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 050403 (2010)

    2010

  31. [31]

    Nakajima, On quantum theory of transport phenomena: Steady diffusion, Progress of Theoretical Physics20, 948 (1958)

    S. Nakajima, On quantum theory of transport phenomena: Steady diffusion, Progress of Theoretical Physics20, 948 (1958)

    1958

  32. [32]

    Breuer, B

    H.-P. Breuer, B. Kappler, and F. Petruccione, Stochastic wave-function method for non-markovian quantum master equations, Physical Review A59, 1633 (1999)

    1999

  33. [33]

    Breuer, B

    H.-P. Breuer, B. Kappler, and F. Petruccione, The time- convolutionless projection operator technique in the quan- tum theory of dissipation and decoherence, Annals of Physics291, 36 (2001)

    2001

  34. [34]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems (OUP Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  35. [35]

    Haikka and S

    P. Haikka and S. Maniscalco, Non-markovian dynamics of a damped driven two-state system, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics81, 052103 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Haikka, J

    P. Haikka, J. Cresser, S. Maniscalco, et al., Comparing different non-markovianity measures: A case study, arXiv preprint arXiv:1011.5328 (2010)

    work page arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Farina and V

    D. Farina and V. Giovannetti, Open-quantum-system dynamics: Recovering positivity of the redfield equation via the partial secular approximation, Physical Review A 100, 012107 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Measure for the degree of non-markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  39. [39]

    Laine, J

    E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and H.-P. Breuer, Measure for the non-markovianity of quantum processes, Phys. Rev. A81, 062115 (2010)

    2010

  40. [40]

    H. C. Torrey, Transient nutations in nuclear magnetic resonance, Phys. Rev.76, 1059 (1949)

    1949

  41. [41]

    D. A. Steck, Quantum and atom optics (2007)

    2007

  42. [42]

    D. A. Lidar, Lecture notes on the theory of open quantum systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.00967 (2019)

    work page arXiv 1902

  43. [43]

    J. Chen, E. Crowder, L. Xiang, and D. Davidovic, Bench- marking tcl4: Assessing the usability and reliability of fourth-order approximations, APL Quantum2(2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    Kumar, K

    P. Kumar, K. Athulya, and S. Ghosh, Asymptotic tcl4 generator for the spin-boson model: Analytical deriva- tion and benchmarking, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.17009 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Crowder, L

    E. Crowder, L. Lampert, G. Manchanda, B. Shoffeitt, S. Gadamsetty, Y. Pei, S. Chaudhary, and D. Davidovi´ c, Invalidation of the bloch-redfield equation in the sub- ohmic regime via a practical time-convolutionless fourth- order master equation, Physical Review A109, 052205 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Lampert, S

    L. Lampert, S. Gadamsetty, S. Chaudhary, Y. Pei, J. Chen, E. Crowder, and D. Davidovi´ c, Sixth-order time- convolutionless master equation and beyond: Late-time resummations, two types of divergences, and the limits of validity, Physical Review A111, 042214 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Pizorn, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-dependent variational principle for quantum lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 070601 (2011)

    2011

  48. [48]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and optimiza- tion with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B94, 165116 (2016)

    2016

  49. [49]

    Haegeman, T

    J. Haegeman, T. J. Osborne, and F. Verstraete, Post- matrix product state methods: To tangent space and beyond, Phys. Rev. B88, 075133 (2013). 15 Appendix A: Detailed calculations for the undriven emitters and the weakly driven emitters Here we present the derivations for the results obtained in Sec. III

    2013

  50. [50]

    (1) and hence derive some analytical results by working in the single-excitation subspace using a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian approach

    Analytical results for the concurrence in the undriven and weakly driven regimes In the undriven and weakly driven regimes, we can neglect jump terms in the master equation in Eq. (1) and hence derive some analytical results by working in the single-excitation subspace using a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian approach. Here, we follow the method outlined in grea...

  51. [51]

    (B8) ˜Z2(s) =A 41 = γR sin 2kd[s2 −2γ RγL cos 2kd) (s2 −α 2 1)(s2 +α 2 2] (B9) After implementing the inverse Laplace transformation with initial conditions ρ11 = 1, ρ22 = 0, Z1 = 0, Z2 = 0 we obtain: Z1(t) = −e−2¯γt 4γL [(2γRγL sin2 2kd+α 2 1 cos 2kd) α1 sinhα 1t + (−2γRγL sin2 2kd+α 2 2 cos 2kd) α2 sinα 2t] (B10) Z2(t) =− sin 2kd 4γL e−2¯γt[(−2γRγL cos ...

  52. [52]

    strong-enough

    Introduction to the TCL protocol To briefly describe, the TCL protocol is a perturbative projection-operator technique that can be used to derive analytic equations-of-motion within the transient regime. Taking P and Q to be the projection superoperators of the relevant and irrelevant parts of the system respectively, we begin with the exact time-local eq...

  53. [53]

    Let x∈Z label the bath sites

    Microscopic model and low-excitation reduction Having discussed the TCL protocol, we begin calculation proper from an XX spin chain and then specialize to its one-magnon sector. Let x∈Z label the bath sites. In the rotating frame relevant to the main matter, the bath Hamiltonian may be written as: HB = ∆ X x σ+ cx σ− cx +J X x σ+ cx+1 σ− cx +σ + cx σ− cx+...

  54. [54]

    Propagator and emitter-resolved kernel of the bath The infinite homogeneous chain is diagonalized by the plane-wave transform,c x = 1√ 2π ´ π −π dk eikxck, to give: HB = ˆ π −π dk εk c† kck, ε k = ∆ + 2Jcosk, v g(k) = dεk dk =−2Jsink.(C12) The interaction-picture evolution of the bath operator is thus: cx(t)≡e +iHB tcxe−iHB t = 1√ 2π ˆ π −π dk eikxe−iεktc...

  55. [55]

    (C7) to the first term (i.e

    Definition and explicit evaluation of the TCL-2 kernel With the bath correlator identified, we truncate Eq. (C7) to the first term (i.e. TCL-2) and move to the interaction picture for convenience, thus receiving: d dt ˜ρS(t) =− ˆ t 0 dτTr B h ˜HI(t), h ˜HI(t−τ),˜ρ S(t)⊗ρ B ii ,(C21) where all interaction picture objects have been accented with a tilde, an...

  56. [56]

    Redfield limit and secular approximation The time-local Redfield equation is obtained by taking the long-time limit of the TCL-2 coefficients, ΓR ij(ω)≡lim t→∞ Γij(t;ω) = ˆ ∞ 0 dτ C ij(τ)e −iωτ .(C34) Using Eq. (C33) and the distributional identity: lim t→∞ 1−e −ixt ix =πδ(x)−iP 1 x ,(C35) 25 we obtain: ΓR ij(ω) =g igj X α,β ei(sαφi−sβ φj) 1 2π ˆ π −π dk ...

  57. [57]

    III.C.1 follows directly from the spin-chain dispersion

    Mid-band estimate of the delay phase The simple estimate for the delay phase quoted in Sec. III.C.1 follows directly from the spin-chain dispersion. We first note that the resonant momenta satisfy ω + ∆ + 2Jcosk ω = 0. Additionally, at the band centre and on resonance, ∆ = 0 andk 0 =π/2. Expanding aboutk 0 thus gives cosk≈cos π 2 +δk ≈ −δk, so that: ω−2J ...

  58. [58]

    (D3) reduces to: In(t) = (−i)m ˆ t 0 ds Jm(2J s).(D4) 26 a

    Band center:ω ′ = 0 At the band center, Eq. (D3) reduces to: In(t) = (−i)m ˆ t 0 ds Jm(2J s).(D4) 26 a. Short-time behavior.For small argument, Jm(z)∼ 1 m! z 2 m , z→0.(D5) Substitutingz= 2J sinto Eq. (D4), we obtain: Jm(2J s)∼ (J s)m m! ,(D6) and therefore In(t)∼(−i) m ˆ t 0 ds (J s)m m! = (−i)m J m m! tm+1 m+ 1 , t→0.(D7) Note that this short-time resul...

  59. [59]

    Inside the band:|ω ′|<2J The long-time limit here is most cleanly derived from the Abel-regularized integral: I(∞) n (ω′) := (−i)m lim η→0+ ˆ ∞ 0 ds e−(η+iω ′)sJm(2J s).(D11) This allows us to use the Laplace transform identity: ˆ ∞ 0 ds e−psJm(as) = p p2 +a 2 −p m am p p2 +a 2 ,ℜp >0.(D12) Settingp=η+iω ′ anda= 2J, Eq. (D11) becomes: I(∞) n (ω′) = (−i)m ...

  60. [60]

    Consider firstω ′ = 2J

    Band edge:|ω ′|= 2J This is the singular case. Consider firstω ′ = 2J. Then Eq. (D3) gives: In(t) = (−i)m ˆ t 0 ds e−i2Js Jm(2J s).(D22) Using the large-sasymptotic: Jm(2J s)∼ r 1 4πJ s h e i(2Js− mπ 2 − π 4 ) +e −i(2Js− mπ 2 − π 4 ) i ,(D23) we obtain: e−i2Js Jm(2J s)∼ r 1 4πJ s h e−i( mπ 2 + π 4 ) +e −i(4Js− mπ 2 − π 4 ) i .(D24) The second term is osci...

  61. [61]

    Near the band edge:ω ′ =±2J+ ∆,|∆| ≪2J We now consider the crossover regime close to the band edge. a. Approach from inside the band.Suppose ∆<0 and writeω ′ = 2J+ ∆ with|∆| ≪2J. Then 4J2 −ω ′2 =−(4J∆ + ∆ 2)∼4J|∆|,(D28) since ∆<0. Hence from the inside-band formula, In(∞) = e−imq √ 4J2 −ω ′2 ∼ e−imq p 4J|∆| .(D29) Thus the amplitude diverges as: In(∞)∼ 1p...

  62. [62]

    (D13) becomes imaginary

    Outside the band:|ω ′|>2J Outside the band, the square root in Eq. (D13) becomes imaginary. We define: Λ := p ω′2 −4J 2, κ:= arcosh |ω′| 2J .(D35) Then e−κ = |ω′| −Λ 2J .(D36) 29 a. Caseω ′ >2J.Using the Abel-regularised prescription in Eq. (D13), we find: p (η+iω ′)2 + (2J)2 − − − − → η→0+ iΛ.(D37) Hence iΛ−iω ′ 2J =−i ω′ −Λ 2J =−i e −κ.(D38) Raising thi...

  63. [63]

    Summary of regimes The asymptotic behavior of In(t) is controlled by the position of ω′ relative to the tight-binding band. In particular, the band center is a simple special case of the inside-band regime, while the band edge separates oscillatory propagating behavior from exponentially localized evanescent behavior. The full picture is summarized in Tab...

  64. [64]

    Model on linear topology with absorbing boundary conditions Assuming a rotating frame, the coherent part of the dynamics can be described by the Hamiltonian: H= N−1X i=0 ∆iσ+ i σ− i + N−1X i=0 Ωiσ− i + Ω∗ i σ+ i + N−2X i=0 J1,iσ+ i+1σ− i +J ∗ 1,iσ+ i σ− i+1 + N−3X i=0 J2,iσ+ i+2σ− i +J ∗ 2,iσ+ i σ− i+2 , (E1) where σ± i are the raising and lowering operat...

  65. [65]

    Liouville-space formulation and MPS/MPO representations Since the evolution is dissipative, it is natural to represent the density operator directly rather than work with wavefunctions. The density matrix is vectorized according to |ρ⟩⟩= vec(ρ),(E5) so that the master equation becomes a linear equation in Liouville space, ∂t|ρ⟩⟩=L|ρ⟩⟩.(E6) Using the stand...

  66. [66]

    [ 47, 48] and, for the tangent-space formulation, Ref

    Dynamical evolution via the time-dependent variational principle in Liouville space Our time-evolution scheme is the one-site projector-splitting time-dependent variational principle (TDVP) algorithm for finite MPS, adapted from Hamiltonian real-time evolution to Liouville-space evolution of a vectorized density operator; see Refs. [ 47, 48] and, for the ...

  67. [67]

    To justify the parameter choice, we assign {N, n1, n2} = {16, 3, 13} and inspect the trace drift in Fig

    Effectiveness of chiral implementation and absorbing boundary conditions For all MPS simulations used in the main matter, we set Dmax = 18, ∆t = 0.1JB. To justify the parameter choice, we assign {N, n1, n2} = {16, 3, 13} and inspect the trace drift in Fig. E.1 with varying Dmax and find that trace drift is contained up to 10 −2 within the transient regime...