Microscopic and phenomenological models of driven systems in structured reservoirs

Astghik Saharyan; Bruno Bellomo; Dominique Sugny; Gian Luca Giorgi; St\'ephane Gu\'erin

Microscopic and phenomenological models of driven systems in structured reservoirs

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In the secular limit, a driven qubit in a structured reservoir reaches steady states fixed by the spectral density at $\omega_L\pm\nu$, so the fixed-dissipator model and the microscopic master equation disagree.

desk verdict A careful, honest paper that shows the fixed-dissipator shortcut systematically mispredicts steady states for driven qubits in structured reservoirs; the central claim holds up and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03002 v1 pith:C5EKMTSS submitted 2019-08-08 quant-ph

Gian Luca Giorgi , Astghik Saharyan , Stéphane Guérin , Dominique Sugny , Bruno Bellomo This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Yz

keywords openquantumsystemsdrivenqubitstructuredenvironmentfixed-dissipatorapproximationmicroscopicmasterequationreservoirengineeringcontrolsecular

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the standard fixed-dissipator (FD) model, which takes the dissipation of a driven qubit to be exactly the dissipation of the undriven qubit, still predicts the right steady states when the environment spectrum is structured. In the secular limit, the answer is no: the microscopic master equation yields a steady state diagonal in the dressed basis whose populations are set by the sideband rates $\gamma^\theta_-$ and $\gamma^\theta_+$, i.e. by the spectral density at $\omega_L+\nu$ and $\omega_L-\nu$, not just at $\omega_0$. For a flat spectrum the two models coincide, so the discrepancy is a structured-environment effect. The practical consequence is that a suitably shaped spectral density can send the qubit to target states the FD model cannot reach, including states with higher coherence, which is relevant for quantum control and reservoir engineering.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the secular dissipator of Eq. (9), built from the Lindblad operators $\tilde\sigma_\pm$ and $\tilde\sigma_z$ in the dressed basis, with rates $\gamma^\theta_-$, $\gamma^\theta_+$, and $\gamma^\theta_z$ given in Eq. (10). These rates are combinations of the spectral density $J(\omega)$ evaluated at the carrier frequency $\omega_L$ and at the two sidebands $\omega_L\pm\nu$, each weighted by the dressed-state amplitudes $C^4$ and $S^4$. The argument then turns on Eq. (17): the secular steady state is the population ratio $\gamma^\theta_-/(\gamma^\theta_++\gamma^\theta_-)$ in the dressed basis. Because the ratio depends on how $J(\omega)$ is shaped across the sidebands, a structured spectrum changes the reachable steady-state surface, while a flat spectrum collapses the rates to a common $\gamma_{fd}$ and recovers the fixed-dissipator ellipsoid.

What would settle it

Compute the steady state of the full non-secular microscopic master equation, Eq. (8) with $D_{\rm nsec}$, for a Lorentzian spectral density with $\lambda\sim\Delta$ at the parameters of Fig. 2(b), and compare it with Eq. (17); if the non-secular steady state stays close to the FDME ellipsoid (or turns unphysical before the deviation appears), the reported widening of target states is an artifact of the secular approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for a driven qubit coupled to a structured bosonic reservoir, the asymptotic state predicted by a microscopic master equation can differ from the fixed-dissipator prediction even in the secular limit. Concretely, the secular steady state is diagonal in the dressed basis $|\phi_\pm\rangle$ with populations $\gamma^\theta_-/(\gamma^\theta_++\gamma^\theta_-)$ and $\gamma^\theta_+/(\gamma^\theta_++\gamma^\theta_-)$, where $\gamma^\theta_\pm$ sample $J(\omega_L\pm\nu)$ and $\gamma^\theta_z$ samples $J(\omega_L)$. The fixed-dissipator model, by contrast, depends only on $J(\omega_0)$. When the spectral density varies on the scale of the dressed frequency $\nu$, the zero-temperature ratio $x=\gamma_-/\gamma_+=J(\omega_L-\nu)/J(\omega_L+\nu)$ deforms the ellipsoid of reachable steady states, producing states with larger coherence or population inversion; for a flat spectrum $x=1$ and the microscopic and fixed-dissipator models coincide.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the Born-Markov and secular approximations: if the oscillating non-secular dissipator terms are not negligible at the parameters plotted, Eq. (17) is not the true steady state and the claimed widening of the target-state family would need to be re-evaluated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In a structured reservoir, a control protocol designed with the FDME will miss the true asymptotic state; the error grows with $\Omega/\Delta$ and with the asymmetry $x=\gamma_-/\gamma_+$, with fidelity between FDME and MME steady states falling below $3/4$ for $\Omega/\Delta\gtrsim1$.
By choosing a spectral density with $J(\omega_L+\nu)\neq J(\omega_L-\nu)$, one can reach steady states outside the FDME ellipsoid, including states with higher coherence and population inversion at fixed control parameters.
For a flat spectrum, the MME and FDME coincide, so the fixed-dissipator model is safe there; the discrepancies are a structured-environment effect.
At finite temperature, an asymmetric structured environment can be compensated by thermal excitation: for $0\le x\le1$ there is a value $n_{fd}(x)$ such that the MME steady state equals the zero-temperature flat-spectrum FDME state.
Since the steady-state manifold deforms continuously with $x$, slowly sweeping control parameters should trace a continuous family of target states, preserving the structured-environment difference from FDME.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the central claim holds, the same sideband mechanism should appear in driven multilevel systems: each dressed transition samples its own pair of frequencies $\omega_L\pm\nu_{ij}$, so a shaped spectral density could steer a ladder of states, not just a qubit.
One experimental signature would be to hold the drive fixed, vary the spectral-density asymmetry, and observe the steady-state Bloch vector move along a curve that tracks $J(\omega_L+\nu)-J(\omega_L-\nu)$; this would distinguish the microscopic prediction from the FDME ellipsoid directly.
The thermal-compensation result points to a practical inverse protocol: by measuring which temperature $n_{fd}$ restores a desired zero-temperature target, one could infer the sideband ratio $x$ of an unknown structured reservoir; the restriction $0\le x\le1$ means this thermometer works only on one slope of the spectral feature.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, it gives more than the familiar warning that the fixed-dissipator (FD) model is an approximation: for a driven qubit in a structured reservoir it writes down the secular steady state explicitly (Eq. 17), shows it is determined by the spectral density at the laser frequency and the sidebands omega_L +/- nu, and quantifies how far the FD steady-state ellipsoid lies from the microscopic answer (Figs. 2 and 4). Second, the paper is honest about its limits. It flags the secular-regime validity, the Markovianity condition lambda >> gamma_l, and the n_+ ~ n_- ~ n_0 ~ n_fd approximation used in Eq. (18), rather than burying them in footnotes.

The genuinely new items are the structured-reservoir comparison, the sideband-rate steady-state formulas, and the thermal-compensation condition (Eq. 22) that lets a tailored bath temperature reproduce the zero-temperature FD states. The flat-spectrum coincidence between MME and FDME is verified, and the appendix derivation is standard but complete. I checked the eigenoperator expansion and the flat-spectrum limit; both hold.

Soft spots, in proportion: the paper reports that the non-secular MME goes unphysical for Omega/Delta above roughly 100 (at gamma_fd/Delta = 0.001) and refers to Ref. [41], but it never gives a general criterion for the secular regime. For the plotted parameters this does not matter, but a reader who wants to push to stronger drives must go to the literature. The n_+ ~ n_- ~ n_0 ~ n_fd approximation is needed for the closed form of Eq. (18); for strongly structured spectra at finite temperature it deserves a check. Eq. (17) does not rely on it, so the main claim stands either way. Minor: the phrase "well behind the weak-coupling limit" is ambiguous, likely meaning "well below," and "observed widening" in the abstract is a model prediction, not an experiment.

The citation pattern is clean, with prior MME and FD literature cited where relevant. There is no data fitting, so circularity is not a concern.

This is a paper for the quantum-control and open-quantum-systems readers who routinely use the FD shortcut. It deserves a serious referee: the derivation is checkable, the limitations are disclosed, and the conclusion is more modest than the abstract suggests. I agree with the ACCEPT-level verdict. I would send it to review and expect minor revisions, mainly tightening the secular and temperature approximation statements. I would cite it if I worked on driven qubits in structured baths.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares two ways of modeling a driven qubit coupled to a structured bosonic reservoir: a microscopic Born-Markov master equation derived in the dressed-state basis, and a phenomenological fixed-dissipator (FD) master equation in which the dissipator is the undriven one. The authors derive explicit secular rates in Eq. (10), depending on the spectral density at $ {} {} {}omega_L$, $ {} {} {}omega_L\pm\nu$, and obtain the secular steady state in Eq. (17). For a flat spectrum they recover the FD steady state to the expected accuracy; for a structured spectrum the steady states differ from the FD ellipsoid, which opens the possibility of reservoir engineering of the asymptotic state. The paper illustrates this with fixed sideband ratios, a Lorentzian spectral density, time-dependent trajectories, a fidelity map, and a finite-temperature compensation formula.

Significance. If the result is correct, it is a useful caution for quantum control: the fixed-dissipator assumption mispredicts asymptotic target states in structured environments, and the family of microscopic steady states can be broadened by shaping the spectral density. The derivation is transparent and self-contained in the Appendix, the flat-spectrum limit is checked, and the secular approximation is numerically benchmarked against non-secular terms with explicit parameter ranges. The predictions are falsifiable through the rates in Eq. (10) and the steady-state formula Eq. (17).

minor comments (6)

[Sec. V B, Eq. (18)] The approximation $n_+\approx n_-\approx n_0\approx n_{\rm fd}$ is used without stating its range of validity for a structured reservoir; at low temperature the thermal factors at the sidebands can differ substantially from $n(\omega_0)$. Please add a validity condition or give the exact expression before specializing.
[Eq. (11)] There is a stray closing bracket in the displayed formula for $\gamma^\theta_z$: it reads $\gamma^\theta_z = S^2C^2\gamma_0(1+2n_0)]$, which should be corrected.
[Eq. (16)] The expression for $\rho^{\rm fd}_{eg}$ is ambiguous as typeset; the numerator should be written with parentheses, e.g. $-\Omega\left(2\Delta/(1+2n_{\rm fd})+i\gamma_{\rm fd}\right)$, so that the separation of the real and imaginary parts is clear.
[Sec. V A] The numerical comparison with non-secular terms is reported for $\gamma_{\rm fd}/\Delta=0.001$, but the caption of Fig. 2(b) does not state the value of $\gamma_{\rm fd}/\Delta$ used for the plotted curve; please state it explicitly.
[Sec. V B] There is a typo in the sentence "they coincide the with the steady states"; it should read "they coincide with the steady states".
[Abstract] The phrase "remarkably practically coincide" is redundant; consider simplifying to "practically coincide" or "coincide to a very good approximation".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the secular steady state follows from the microscopically derived rates of Eq. (10), with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that, for a structured reservoir, the secular microscopic master equation (MME) yields steady states different from those of the fixed-dissipator (FD) model. This is a derived consequence, not an input. The MME rates in Eq. (10) are obtained by applying Born, Markov, and secular approximations to the dressed-qubit interaction Hamiltonian, with the spectral density evaluated at the laser and sideband frequencies ω_L, ω_L ± ν. The steady state in Eq. (17) is then obtained by solving D_sec(ρ)=0 and [ρ, H_S+H_LS]=0, giving populations proportional to γ_θ_- and γ_θ_+. No experimental data are fitted, and the parameters Ω, Δ, λ, T are model inputs or scanning parameters. The flat-spectrum limit is shown to reduce the MME steady states to the FDME results, which is a consistency check rather than a circular step. The self-citations in the paper—e.g., Refs. [17,18,23,35]—are used for background context and examples of reservoir engineering or open-system thermodynamics, not as the logical basis for the steady-state comparison. The only substantive caveats concern the validity of the secular and Markov approximations, and the paper explicitly discusses these limits in Sec. V A, citing independent literature. Thus the central derivation is self-contained and no reduction of a prediction to an input or to a self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard open-quantum-system assumptions (Born-Markov, secular, RWA) rather than on tuned parameters. There are no free parameters fitted to data; the ratio x = gamma_-/gamma_+ and the Lorentzian profile parameters are varied inputs, not fits.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Born-Markov approximation: weak system-bath coupling and negligible bath memory.
Used to derive the microscopic master equation Eq. (8) in Sec. III and the Appendix; the paper requires lambda much larger than gamma_l for the Lorentzian profile to keep Markovianity.
domain assumption Secular approximation: oscillating terms at frequencies nu and 2 nu are dropped.
Central steady-state Eq. (17) is the secular-limit solution; validity limits are cited to Ref. [41], and the paper itself notes non-secular terms become unphysical for large Omega/Delta.
domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation with omega_L much larger than Delta and Omega.
Used to obtain the time-independent driven Hamiltonian Eq. (2) and to discard fast-oscillating terms in the Appendix around Eq. (A.3).
domain assumption Control-field independence of the system-bath interaction.
Equation (3) assumes the coupling to the environment does not depend on the driving field, following Ref. [40]; this is an input to the model, not derived.
domain assumption Factorized initial system-bath state.
Assumed in the Born-Markov master equation derivation in the Appendix (A.7); standard for weak-coupling open quantum systems.
domain assumption Thermal equilibrium bath state.
Bath correlation functions Eq. (A.8) use a Gibbs state at temperature T; the steady states and thermal-compensation results depend on the Bose-Einstein factors n(omega).
domain assumption Approximation n+ close to n- close to n0 close to nfd in the finite-temperature secular formulas.
Used to reduce Eq. (17) to Eq. (18) and to derive the thermal-compensation condition Eq. (22); the paper does not quantify its validity as T and nu vary.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic and phenomenological models of driven systems in structured reservoirs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5EKMTSS

@misc{pith2026190803002,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic and phenomenological models of driven systems in structured reservoirs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5EKMTSS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03002}
}

read the original abstract

We study the paradigmatic model of a qubit interacting with a structured environment and driven by an external field by means of a microscopic and a phenomenological model. The validity of the so-called fixed-dissipator (FD) assumption, where the dissipation is taken as the one of the undriven qubit is discussed. In the limit of a flat spectrum, the FD model and the microscopic one remarkably practically coincide. For a structured reservoir, we show in the secular limit that steady states can be different from those determined from the FD model, opening the possibility for exploiting reservoir engineering. We explore it as a function of the control field parameters, of the characteristics of the spectral density and of the environment temperature. The observed widening of the family of target states by reservoir engineering suggests new possibilities in quantum control protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03002 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Families of steady states (components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: The Bloch vector components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Thermal factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[41]

Weiss, Quantum Dissipative systems , 4th ed

U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative systems , 4th ed. (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 2012)

work page 2012
[1]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007)

2007
[2]

In- vestissements d’Avenir

In Fig. 4, an important discrepancy may be observed for Ω/∆ & 1. In particular, for a given value of Ω/∆, smaller values of ﬁdelity are obtained when x moves away from 1. The behavior for Ω /∆ < 1 is in- stead reminiscent of the fact that for small angles θ the microscopic dissipator tends to the FD one, as shown before Eq. (15). One may raise doubts abou...

work page 2020
[3]

C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2000)

work page 2000
[4]

D’Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007)

D. D’Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007)

work page 2007
[5]

Carlini, A

A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 060503 (2006)

2006
[6]

Sugny, C

D. Sugny, C. Kontz, and H. R. Jauslin, Phys. Rev. A 76, 023419 (2007)

2007
[7]

Lapert, Y

M. Lapert, Y. Zhang, M. Braun, S. J. Glaser, and D. Sugny, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 083001 (2010)

work page 2010

Show all 45 references

[8]

Shapiro and P

M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, Quantum Control of Molec- ular Processes, 2nd ed. (Wiley Interscience, 2012)

2012
[9]

S. J. Glaser et al., Eur. Phys. J. D 69, 279 (2015)

2015
[10]

C. P. Koch, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 28, 213001 (2016)

2016
[11]

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, B. M. Terhal, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 077902 (2001)

2001
[12]

N. A. Peters, J. T. Barreiro, M. E. Goggin, T.-C. Wei, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 150502 (2005)

2005
[13]

Viola and S

L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998)

1998
[14]

Viola, E

L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999)

1999
[15]

Addis, F

C. Addis, F. Ciccarello, M. Cascio, G. M. Palma, and S. Maniscalco, New J. Phys. 17, 123004 (2015)

2015
[16]

Hartmann, W

L. Hartmann, W. D¨ ur, and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 74, 052304 (2006)

2006
[17]

Krauter, C

H. Krauter, C. A. Muschik, K. Jensen, W. Wasilewski, J. M. Petersen, J. I. Cirac, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080503 (2011)

2011
[18]

Bellomo, R

B. Bellomo, R. Messina, D. Felbacq, and M. Antezza, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012101 (2013)

2013
[19]

Bellomo and M

B. Bellomo and M. Antezza, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042124 (2015)

2015
[20]

Lindblad, Commun

G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976)

1976
[21]

Gorini, A

V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G: Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976)

1976
[22]

J. O. Gonz´ alez, L. A. Correa, G. Nocerino, J. P. Palao, D. Alonso, and G. Adesso, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 24, 1740010 (2017)

2017
[23]

M. T. Naseem, A. Xuereb, and ¨O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. A 98, 052123 (2018)

2018
[24]

Cattaneo, G

M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zam- brini, arXiv:1906.08893

1906 arXiv
[25]

Lacour, S

X. Lacour, S. Gu´ erin, and H. R. Jauslin, Phys. Rev. A 78, 033417 (2008)

2008
[26]

Sauer, C

S. Sauer, C. Gneiting, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 030405 (2013)

2013
[27]

Lapert, E

M. Lapert, E. Ass´ emat, S. J. Glaser, and D. Sugny, Phys. Rev. A 88, 033407 (2013)

2013
[28]

Mukherjee, A

V. Mukherjee, A. Carlini, A. Mari, T. Caneva, S. Mon- tangero, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. A 88, 062326 (2013)

2013
[29]

Sauer, C

S. Sauer, C. Gneiting, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022327 (2014)

2014
[30]

Scala, B

M. Scala, B. Militello, A. Messina, J. Piilo, and S. Man- iscalco, Phys. Rev. A 75, 013811 (2007)

2007
[31]

Rivas, A

´A. Rivas, A. Douglas, K. Plato, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, New J. Phys. 12, 113032 (2010)

2010
[32]

Beaudoin, J

F. Beaudoin, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043832 (2011)

2011
[33]

Werlang, M

T. Werlang, M. A. Marchiori, M. F. Cornelio, and D. Valente, Phys. Rev. E 89, 062109 (2014)

2014
[34]

Ko lody´ nski, J

J. Ko lody´ nski, J. B. Brask, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and B. Bylicka, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062124 (2018)

2018
[35]

Levy and R

A. Levy and R. Kosloﬀ, Europhys. Lett. 107, 20004 (2014)

2014
[36]

De Chiara, G

G. De Chiara, G. Landi, A. Hewgill, A. Ferraro, A. J. Roncaglia, and M. Antezza, New J. Phys. 20, 113024 (2018)

2018
[37]

Addis, E.-M

C. Addis, E.-M. Laine, C. Gneiting, and S. Maniscalco, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052117 (2016)

2016
[38]

Shavit, B

G. Shavit, B. Horovitz, and M. Goldstein, arXiv:1907.06945

1907 arXiv
[39]

Kowalewska-Kudlaszyk and R

A. Kowalewska-Kudlaszyk and R. Tana´ s, J. Mod. Opt. 48, 347 (2001)

2001
[40]

Haikka and S

P. Haikka and S. Maniscalco, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052103 (2010)

2010
[42]

H. Z. Shen, M. Qin, Xiao-Ming Xiu, and X. X. Yi, Phys. Rev. A 89, 062113 (2014)

2014
[43]

Recht, Y

B. Recht, Y. Maguire, S. Lloyd, I. L. Chuang, and N. A. Gershenfeld, arXiv:quant-ph/0210078

arXiv
[44]

M. H. Levitt, Spin Dynamics: Basics of Nuclear Mag- netic Resonance (Wiley, New York, 2008)

2008
[45]

R. R. Ernst, G. Bodenhausen, and A. Wokaun,Principles of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in one and two dimen- sions, Vol. 14 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987)

1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [41]

Weiss, Quantum Dissipative systems , 4th ed

U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative systems , 4th ed. (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 2012)

work page 2012

[2] [1]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007)

2007

[3] [2]

In- vestissements d’Avenir

In Fig. 4, an important discrepancy may be observed for Ω/∆ & 1. In particular, for a given value of Ω/∆, smaller values of ﬁdelity are obtained when x moves away from 1. The behavior for Ω /∆ < 1 is in- stead reminiscent of the fact that for small angles θ the microscopic dissipator tends to the FD one, as shown before Eq. (15). One may raise doubts abou...

work page 2020

[4] [3]

C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2000)

work page 2000

[5] [4]

D’Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007)

D. D’Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007)

work page 2007

[6] [5]

Carlini, A

A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 060503 (2006)

2006

[7] [6]

Sugny, C

D. Sugny, C. Kontz, and H. R. Jauslin, Phys. Rev. A 76, 023419 (2007)

2007

[8] [7]

Lapert, Y

M. Lapert, Y. Zhang, M. Braun, S. J. Glaser, and D. Sugny, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 083001 (2010)

work page 2010