Variational study of two-impurity spin-boson model with a common Ohmic bath: Ground-state phase transitions

Nengji Zhou; Yang Zhao; Yuyu Zhang; Zhiguo Lu

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 54 references

Variational study of two-impurity spin-boson model with a common Ohmic bath: Ground-state phase transitions

T0 review · 1 major / 1 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 This paper claims that two spins sharing one Ohmic bosonic bath localize only at dissipation strength $\alpha_c=0.316(8)$ for tunneling $\Delta=0.025$, well above earlier estimates, and that the transition is Kosterlitz-Thouless for…

desk verdict A serious but not-yet-conclusive variational claim for the two-impurity Ohmic spin-boson critical coupling; the central number depends on a data-selection rule that needs an independent check. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09245 v1 pith:AFKWP5NH submitted 2019-08-25 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elphysics.chem-phquant-ph

Nengji Zhou , Yuyu Zhang , Zhiguo Lu , Yang Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elphysics.chem-phquant-ph

keywords two-impurityspin-bosonmodelOhmicbathKosterlitz-Thoulesstransitionground-statephasemulti-D1ansatzvariationalmethodquantumdissipationcoherent-stateexpansion

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

The paper argues that the ground state of two spins coupled to a common Ohmic bath undergoes a sharp localization transition at $\alpha_c = 0.316(8)$ for tunneling $\Delta = 0.025$, considerably larger than the values $0.18$, $0.22$, and $0.125$ reported by earlier NRG, QMC, and variational studies. The discrepancy is attributed to small bias fields that smooth the magnetization jump and to variational minimization becoming trapped in metastable states. Using a high-dimensional coherent-state trial wave function and a linear discretization of the bath spectrum, the authors find that the transition is of Kosterlitz-Thouless type when the spin-spin coupling is ferromagnetic or absent, but becomes first order for sufficiently strong antiferromagnetic coupling. If correct, the result revises the phase diagram of a basic two-qubit dissipation model and identifies bias and metastability as the causes of the earlier scatter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multi-D1 variational ansatz: a trial ground state built as a superposition of up to six coherent bosonic states for each of the four spin configurations ($\uparrow\uparrow$, $\uparrow\downarrow$, $\downarrow\uparrow$, $\downarrow\downarrow$), with independent displacement parameters per bath mode, giving more than 12,000 variational parameters for $M = 500$ bath modes. Minimizing the energy with simulated annealing and a strict convergence criterion is meant to escape the metastable states that the paper argues have contaminated earlier estimates. A second, equally important choice is the linear discretization of the Ohmic spectral density ($\Lambda_k = k/M$) instead of the logarithmic grids with $\Lambda > 1$ used in earlier work; the paper claims the linear grid yields lower energies and the correct continuum limit, and it is this combination of ansatz and grid that produces the sharp magnetization jump at $\alpha_c = 0.316(8)$.

What would settle it

An unbiased, continuum-extrapolated calculation of the same model at $\Delta = 0.025$, $K = 0$, $\varepsilon = 0$ that finds the magnetization jump at $\alpha_c$ below $0.25$, or a variational run with more coherent states and modes that moves the jump by more than the quoted uncertainty, would falsify the central value. A simpler partial test is the Bethe-ansatz slope: the paper fits $\Delta/\langle\sigma_x\rangle = (2\alpha - 1)\omega_c$ with slope $3.83$ rather than $2$, so a calculation reproducing slope $2$ while keeping the jump near $0.316$ would settle the issue.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the two-impurity spin-boson model with a common Ohmic bath localizes at $\alpha_c = 0.316(8)$ for $\Delta = 0.025$, $K = 0$, $\varepsilon = 0$, with a discontinuous jump of $\langle\sigma_z\rangle$ from $0$ to $-1$ marking the transition. All derivatives of the ground-state energy remain continuous, while bath observables such as the basis correlation $\langle B_{\uparrow\uparrow}|B_{\downarrow\downarrow}\rangle$ and the renormalized tunneling $\Delta_r$ change sharply, supporting a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition. The same variational machinery yields a phase diagram in which ferromagnetic spin-spin coupling barely moves the boundary, while strong antiferromagnetic coupling pushes it to $\alpha_c = K/4$ and switches the transition to first order, as signaled by a kink in the ground-state energy. The paper also reports power-law critical behavior of bath observables, such as $2\Delta X_b - 1 \sim 1/\omega_k$ with exponent $1.00(1)$ and $\mathrm{CorX} \sim 1/\sqrt{\omega_k}$ with exponent $0.500(3)$, connecting the Ohmic criticality to the two-dimensional XY universality class.

Load-bearing premise

The entire location of the transition rests on trusting that the variational trial wave function with 500 linear-grid modes and six coherent states is fully converged, and that discarding solutions whose magnetization does not rise monotonically with coupling removes metastable states rather than genuine ground states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Earlier NRG and QMC boundaries ($0.18$ and $0.22$) would be underestimates caused by small bias fields smoothing the magnetization jump and by metastable states; the true boundary in the unbiased continuum limit would be near $\alpha_c = 0.316(8)$.
For two qubits sharing an Ohmic bath, delocalized coherence would survive up to $\alpha \approx 0.31$ at weak tunneling, roughly 40% stronger dissipation than the previously quoted QMC value.
At $K \le 0$ the transition is Kosterlitz-Thouless: no energy-derivative discontinuity, but abrupt order-parameter jumps in $\langle\sigma_z\rangle$ and bath correlations, analogous to the universal jump in the two-dimensional XY model.
For strong antiferromagnetic coupling the boundary follows $\alpha_c = K/4$ and the transition is first order; the delocalized phase is then the antiparallel spin state with energy $-K/4$ and noninteracting bath modes, while the localized phase is the parallel state with energy $-2\alpha + K/4$.

Reading between the lines

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

As an extension the authors do not pursue: re-running unbiased QMC or NRG with continuum extrapolation at $\Delta = 0.025$ should move $\alpha_c$ toward $0.32$ if the paper's attribution of all lower values to bias and metastable trapping is right; if it does not, the variational selection rule is the culprit.
The slope mismatch in the Bethe-ansatz check ($3.83$ versus the expected $2$ for $\Delta/\langle\sigma_x\rangle$) is reported but not resolved; I infer that the ansatz is not yet quantitatively exact near criticality, so an independent calculation is needed before $\alpha_c = 0.316(8)$ hardens.
The optimal-displacement form $|f_k| = |p_k| = \lambda_k/(\omega_k + \chi)$ with $\chi \propto \Delta_r$ suggests a concrete testable extension: measure $\chi$ in the single-impurity Ohmic spin-boson model, where the exact Kosterlitz-Thouless boundary is known from the anisotropic Kondo mapping, and check whether the same variational machinery recovers $\alpha_c \approx 1$.

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

The paper you should know about reports a large-scale variational (multi-D1 ansatz, linear discretization) study of the two-impurity spin-boson model in a common Ohmic bath. The headline claim is that the localization transition sits at alpha_c ~ 0.316(8) for Delta = 0.025, well above the NRG 0.18 and QMC 0.22 estimates, and that strong antiferromagnetic coupling (K = 3) makes the transition first order with alpha_c = K/4.

What is genuinely new here is the numerical phase diagram and the consistent set of bath observables. The trial wave function is a legitimate extension of the authors' earlier work, with more than 12,000 variational parameters and a linear grid, and it does produce lower variational energies than the log-grid ED and Silbey-Harris-style comparisons. The power-law scaling of bath correlation functions in the delocalized phase and the collapse of the data onto a KT-like picture are reasonable as far as they go. The alpha_c = K/4 line for large antiferromagnetic K is also a nice consistency check, even if it follows from their own energy-balance argument.

The soft spot the stress-test note puts its finger on is real. Section 3.1 states that data from metastable states are discarded when || is not monotonically increasing in alpha and the jump is not unique. That same filtered is then used to read off alpha_c. At alpha = 0.292 the competing states differ in energy by 3e-7 but in magnetization by about 0.85, so energy alone cannot choose. Without a demonstration that the filtering is harmless, alpha_c = 0.316(8) is not independent of the selection rule. The Bethe-ansatz slope discrepancy (3.83 vs 2) further suggests the ansatz is not quantitatively converged in the weak-tunneling regime. The ED benchmark is small (M = 12, Ntr = 4, log grid) and gives a somewhat different alpha_c ~ 0.26. No code or data is shipped, so the error bars overstate confidence.

I would not call this a rejection-level paper. The method is serious, the controversy is real, and the authors are honest about the metastability problem; they just do not yet resolve it. A serious referee should be engaged, but the letter should ask for an independent method (e.g., VMPS or unbiased QMC) or at least transparent reporting of raw and filtered data plus systematic error estimates. This is a paper for the spin-boson and open-quantum-systems community, and the true critical coupling will only be settled by a method that does not rely on the same order parameter it filters.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a variational study of the two-impurity spin-boson model with a common Ohmic bath, using a multi-D1 coherent-state ansatz with up to 500 bath modes and 6 coherent-state superpositions (over 12,000 variational parameters). The central claim is a ground-state localization transition at alpha_c = 0.316(8) for tunneling Delta = 0.025 and zero spin-spin coupling, which the authors assign to the Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class, and a first-order transition for strong antiferromagnetic coupling. The paper also computes bath observables such as variances, correlation functions, renormalized tunneling, and coherent-state displacements, extracting critical exponents and a phase diagram in the (alpha, K) plane. The authors argue that previous estimates (NRG 0.18, QMC 0.22, VM2 0.125) are underestimated due to bias, lack of continuum convergence, or trapping in metastable states.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper would resolve a long-standing controversy by placing the transition at significantly stronger dissipation than most earlier estimates, and it would provide a consistent picture of both spin and bath critical properties across the transition. The work is valuable for introducing a high-dimensional variational approach with a linear discretization grid, which yields lower ground-state energies than logarithmic-grid calculations, and for systematically studying bath correlation functions near a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition. The claimed alpha_c = 0.316(8) and the proposed first-order behavior for large antiferromagnetic coupling are falsifiable predictions that could be checked by independent methods. However, the central value rests on a post-hoc data-exclusion rule and on convergence benchmarks that are not fully quantitative; these issues must be resolved before the main claims can be considered established. The paper does not provide code or raw data, so reproducibility is limited.

major comments (1)

[Section 3.1, Fig. 1(b)] The first-order transition claimed for strong antiferromagnetic coupling (K = 3.0) is inferred in Fig. 10(a) from two straight-line fits to E_g with slopes of 0.00 and 2.00, with no quoted uncertainties or statistical test for the discontinuity of dE_g/dalpha. The accompanying analytical estimate alpha_c = K/4 uses the classical displacement f_k = lambda_k/omega_k and neglects renormalization effects and the residual tunneling Delta_r, so it is only a heuristic. To support the first-order claim, the authors should provide a quantitative measure of the discontinuity (e.g., the jump in dE_g/dalpha with error bars), demonstrate that it is robust to the variational convergence, and confirm with an independent observable such as a bimodal order-parameter distribution or a symmetry-breaking indicator in the variational wave function.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract and conclusions] The derivation of the second derivative of the ground-state energy and the exponential fit (inset of Fig. 1(a)) would benefit from explicit error bars on the fitted exponent b = 23.2(2) and a justification of the exponential form, given that the paper then uses the absence of a discontinuity to infer the Kosterlitz-Thouless class.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the Section 3.1 data-selection rule imposes the sharp-jump signature that is then used to locate alpha_c; the alpha_c value itself retains numerical content.

self definitional [Section 3.1, data-selection rule after Fig. 3; used in Fig. 1(b) and Fig. 4]
"some data from the metastates have to be discarded according to the criterion that the absolute value of ⟨σz⟩ monotonically increases with α, and the sharp jump in ⟨σz⟩ is unique."

The filter is applied to the same order parameter whose discontinuity is the diagnostic for the transition. The paper then states 'The transition point αc ≈ 0.32 of NVM with linear grid is then located by the discontinuity' (Sec. 3.1) and later determines 'αc = 0.316(8) ... according to the sudden jump of ⟨B↑↑|B↓↓⟩' (Sec. 3.2) on the same filtered runs. Retaining only states with monotone |⟨σz⟩| and a unique sharp jump guarantees that the cleaned curve has exactly the qualitative shape interpreted as the KT/first-order-like transition; the jump's position is not an independent prediction but a property of the selected branch.

full rationale

No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present here. The multi-D1 ansatz is checked by lower variational energy and by ED comparison, and the Bethe-ansatz slope mismatch (3.83 vs expected 2) is a convergence/correctness concern rather than a circularity. The main circularity is the Section 3.1 selection rule: data are discarded unless |⟨σz⟩| is monotone in α with a unique sharp jump, and the same filtered magnetization is then used to locate the transition. This makes the qualitative jump signature an input rather than an output. The reported value αc=0.316(8) is nevertheless still read from variational data and is not fixed by the filter, and the partial ED agreement (αc≈0.26) plus the analytic αc≈K/4 consistency estimate provide some independent content. Hence partial circularity: the transition's sharp-jump character is imposed by the selection criterion, while its location retains limited numerical independence.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities. The model parameters (alpha, Delta, K, epsilon, omega_c, s) are taken from the prior spin-boson literature, not fit here. The variational ansatz, convergence choices, and the data-selection rule are the real assumptions; the most fragile is the ad hoc exclusion rule used to pick ground states near the transition.

free parameters (4)

Number of bath modes M = 500
Chosen via convergence tests quoted in the Supporting Information; the linear grid spacing 1/M sets the infrared cutoff and the transition point depends on it.
Number of coherent states N = 6
Chosen via convergence tests; larger N increases variational flexibility and could change the magnetization jump location.
Annealing temperature / relaxation factor = relaxation factor t=0.1
The simulated annealing schedule determines which metastable states are visited; the paper's central claim depends on escaping them.
Effective energy scale chi = fit to |f_k| = lambda_k/(omega_k + chi); exponential slope 27.3(3)
Fitted to the displacement data; used to characterize bath criticality but not to set alpha_c.

assumptions (4)

standard math Variational theorem: minimizing the energy expectation over the multi-D1 ansatz yields an upper bound to the exact ground-state energy, and the minimizing state approximates the true ground state.
Standard variational principle; the paper uses it to argue lower energy implies better state.
domain assumption The Ohmic two-impurity SBM at s=1 is in the same universality class as the anisotropic Kondo model, so KT behavior is expected for K=0.
Invoked in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.3; based on Refs 1,16,37.
domain assumption In the localized phase the bath modes are approximately classical, f_k approx lambda_k/omega_k, used to derive alpha_c = K/4.
Used in Sec. 3.3 after Fig. 10 to estimate energy shifts; approximation valid only for strong coupling and weak tunneling.
ad hoc to paper The data-exclusion rule (<sigma_z> increasing monotonically with alpha, unique sharp jump) identifies true ground states and removes metastable states.
Introduced in Sec. 3.1 to discard variational solutions; this assumption is not derived and could bias the transition location.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational study of two-impurity spin-boson model with a common Ohmic bath: Ground-state phase transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AFKWP5NH

@misc{pith2026190809245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational study of two-impurity spin-boson model with a common Ohmic bath: Ground-state phase transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AFKWP5NH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09245}
}

abstract

By means of a trial wave function, the multi-D$_1$ ansatz, extensive variational calculations with more than ten thousand parameters have been carried out to study quantum phase transitions in the ground states of a two-impurity system embedded in a common Ohmic bath of bosons. Quantum criticality in both the impurity system and the Ohmic bosonic bath is investigated with relevant transition points and critical exponents determined accurately. With the linear grid of the Ohmic spectral density, our numerical calculations produce a much better description of the ground states with lower energies than other calculations employing a logarithmic grid with a discretization factor far greater than unity. It offers a possible solution to the considerable controversy on the critical coupling in the literature. Moreover, the ground-state phase transition is inferred to be of first order in the presence of strong antiferromagnetic spin-spin couplin}, at variance with that in the ferromagnetic regime or in the absence of spin-spin coupling where the transition belongs to the Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09245 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** As ∆ increases, 〈B↑↑|B↓↓〉is found in the delocalized phase to deviate substantially from the exponential decay. However, data from different values of ∆ all collapse onto a single curve in the localized phase, where the tunneling amplitude seems to be irrelevant. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

[1]

A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T . Dorsey, M. P . A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W . Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 1–85 (1987)

work page 1987
[2]

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

work page 2007
[3]

K. L. Hur, in: Understanding Quantum Phase Tran- sitions, edited by L. D. Carr (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2010), chap. 9, pp. 217–240

work page 2010
[4]

Golding, M

B. Golding, M. N. Zimmerman, and S. N. Copper- smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 998–1001 (1992)

work page 1992
[5]

Vojta and R

M. Vojta and R. Bulla, Phys. Rev. B 65, 014511 (2001)

work page 2001
[6]

Rza ˙zewski, K

K. Rza ˙zewski, K. Wódkiewicz, and W . ˙Zakowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 432–434 (1975)

work page 1975
[7]

Garbe, I

L. Garbe, I. L. Egusquiza, E. Solano, C. Ciuti, T . Coudreau, P . Milman, and S. Felicetti, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053854 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

G. S. Engel, T . R. Calhoun, E. L. Read, T . K. Ahn, T . Mancal, Y. C. Cheng, R. E. Blankenship, and G. R. Fleming, Nature 446, 782–786 (2007)

work page 2007

Show all 54 references

[9]

Collini and G

E. Collini and G. D. Scholes, Science 323, 369–373 (2009)

2009
[10]

del Valle, S

E. del Valle, S. Zippilli, F . P . Laussy, A. Gonzalez- Tudela, G. Morigi, and C. T ejedor, Phys. Rev. B81, 035302 (2010)

2010
[11]

Y. Ota, S. Iwamoto, N. Kumagai, and Y. Arakawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 233602 (2011)

2011
[12]

Didier and F

N. Didier and F . W . J. Hekking, Phys. Rev. B 85, 104522 (2012)

2012
[13]

Baksic and C

A. Baksic and C. Ciuti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 173601 (2014)

2014
[14]

Z. K. Huang and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013803 (2018)

2018
[15]

Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems, 3 edition (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 2007)

U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems, 3 edition (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 2007)

2007
[16]

K. L. Hur, Annals of Physics 323, 2208 – 2240 (2008)

2008
[17]

Goldstein, M

M. Goldstein, M. H. Devoret, M. Houzet, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 017002 (2013)

2013
[18]

Peropadre, D

B. Peropadre, D. Zueco, D. Porras, and J. J. García- Ripoll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 243602 (2013)

2013
[19]

Snyman and S

I. Snyman and S. Florens, Phys. Rev. B 92, 085131 (2015)

2015
[20]

Vojta, N

M. Vojta, N. H. T ong, and R. Bulla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 070604 (2005)

2005
[21]

Alvermann and H

A. Alvermann and H. Fehske, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 150601 (2009)

2009
[22]

Winter, H

A. Winter, H. Rieger, M. Vojta, and R. Bulla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 030601 (2009)

2009
[23]

Y. Y. Zhang, Q. H. Chen, and K. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 81, 121105 (2010)

2010
[24]

A. W . Chin, J. Prior, S. F . Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 160601 (2011)

2011
[25]

C. Guo, A. Weichselbaum, J. von Delft, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 160401 (2012)

2012
[26]

Zheng and Z

H. Zheng and Z. G. Lü, J. Chem. Phys. 138, 174117 (2013)

2013
[27]

S. Bera, A. Nazir, A. W . Chin, H. U. Baranger, and S. Florens, Phys. Rev. B 90, 075110 (2014)

2014
[28]

E. A. Muljarov and R. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 237401 (2004)

2004
[29]

N. Zhou, L. Chen, Y. Zhao, D. Mozyrsky, V . Chernyak, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B90, 155135 (2014)

2014
[30]

N. Zhou, L. Chen, D. Xu, V . Chernyak, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B 91, 195129 (2015)

2015
[31]

M. L. Wall, A. Safavi-Naini, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. A 94, 053637 (2016)

2016
[32]

J. Liu, H. Xu, B. Li, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. E 96, 012135 (2017)

2017
[33]

Bonart, Phys

J. Bonart, Phys. Rev. B 88, 125139 (2013)

2013
[34]

T . R. Deng, Y. Y. Yan, L. P . Chen, and Y. Zhao, J. Chem. Phys. 144, 144102 (2016)

2016
[35]

A. P . Orioli, A. Safavi-Naini, M. L. Wall, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. A 96, 033607 (2017)

2017
[36]

P . P . Orth, D. Roosen, W . Hofstetter, and K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B 82, 144423 (2010)

2010
[37]

Guinea, V

F . Guinea, V . Hakim, and A. Muramatsu, Phys. Rev. B 32, 4410–4418 (1985)

1985
[38]

D. P . S. McCutcheon, A. Nazir, S. Bose, and A. J. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B81, 235321 (2010). 12 Copyright line will be provided by the publisher August 27, 2019 Original Paper

2010
[39]

Winter and H

A. Winter and H. Rieger, Phys. Rev. B 90, 224401 (2014)

2014
[40]

Henriet and K

L. Henriet and K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B 93, 064411 (2016)

2016
[41]

Zheng, Z

H. Zheng, Z. G. Lü, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. E 91, 062115 (2015)

2015
[42]

Nazir, D

A. Nazir, D. P . S. McCutcheon, and A. W . Chin, Phys. Rev. B 85, 224301 (2012)

2012
[43]

M. F . Frenzel and M. B. Plenio, New J. Phys. 15, 073046 (2013)

2013
[44]

Z. G. Lü, L. W . Duan, X. Li, P . M. Shenai, and Y. Zhao, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 164103 (2013)

2013
[45]

Bruognolo, A

B. Bruognolo, A. Weichselbaum, C. Guo, J. von Delft, I. Schneider, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B 90, 245130 (2014)

2014
[46]

Blunden-Codd, S

Z. Blunden-Codd, S. Bera, B. Bruognolo, N. O. Lin- den, A. W . Chin, J. von Delft, A. Nazir, and S. Florens, Phys. Rev. B 95, 085104 (2017)

2017
[47]

N. J. Zhou, Z. K. Huang, J. F . Zhu, V . Chernyak, and Y. Zhao, J. Chem. Phys. 143, 014113 (2015)

2015
[48]

L. Wang, L. P . Chen, N. J. Zhou, and Y. Zhao, J. Chem. Phys. 144, 024101 (2016)

2016
[49]

L. Wang, Y. Fujihashi, L. P . Chen, and Y. Zhao, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 124127 (2017)

2017
[50]

Fujihashi, L

Y. Fujihashi, L. Wang, and Y. Zhao, J. Chem. Phys. 147, 234107 (2017)

2017
[51]

Bulla, H

R. Bulla, H. J. Lee, N. H. T ong, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B 71, 045122 (2005)

2005
[52]

Silbey and R

R. Silbey and R. A. Harris, J. Chem. Phys. 80, 2615– 2617 (1984)

1984
[53]

J. M. Kosterlitz, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 7, 1046 (1974)

1974
[54]

Harada and N

K. Harada and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. B 55, R11949–R11952 (1997). Copyright line will be provided by the publisher 13

1997

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T . Dorsey, M. P . A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W . Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 1–85 (1987)

work page 1987

[2] [2]

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

work page 2007

[3] [3]

K. L. Hur, in: Understanding Quantum Phase Tran- sitions, edited by L. D. Carr (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2010), chap. 9, pp. 217–240

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Golding, M

B. Golding, M. N. Zimmerman, and S. N. Copper- smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 998–1001 (1992)

work page 1992

[5] [5]

Vojta and R

M. Vojta and R. Bulla, Phys. Rev. B 65, 014511 (2001)

work page 2001

[6] [6]

Rza ˙zewski, K

K. Rza ˙zewski, K. Wódkiewicz, and W . ˙Zakowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 432–434 (1975)

work page 1975

[7] [7]

Garbe, I

L. Garbe, I. L. Egusquiza, E. Solano, C. Ciuti, T . Coudreau, P . Milman, and S. Felicetti, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053854 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

G. S. Engel, T . R. Calhoun, E. L. Read, T . K. Ahn, T . Mancal, Y. C. Cheng, R. E. Blankenship, and G. R. Fleming, Nature 446, 782–786 (2007)

work page 2007