Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Making Quantum Collision Models Exact

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that quantum collision models become numerically exact when the collision time step is set to Δt = π/ωc, and identifies the previously unquantified spectral-density sampling error that breaks this equivalence for larger…

desk verdict Real error analysis and useful numerics, but the main theorem's delta limit is uncontrolled; the exactness claim needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13166 v2 pith:KYWDRGOK submitted 2024-11-20 quant-ph

Thibaut Lacroix , Dario Cilluffo , Susana F. Huelga , Martin B. Plenio This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Yz
keywords collisionmodelschainmappingnon-Markovianopenquantumsystemsspectraldensitysamplingerrorspin-bosonmodeltime-binmodesnumericallyexactsimulation
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

Quantum collision models simulate an open system by letting it interact sequentially with small environmental ancillae, but until now no complete error bounds certified them. The paper claims that collision models can be derived exactly from chain mapping, a numerically exact technique that turns a continuous bosonic bath into a chain of modes. The derivation yields a precise prescription for the collision time step, Δt = π/ωc where ωc is the bath cutoff frequency, and uncovers an error source that was previously missed: an unfaithful sampling of the spectral density when the step is too large. With this error characterized, the paper argues that all collision-model errors are identified and quantified, so collision models join the class of numerically exact methods. A spin-boson simulation confirms the predicted threshold between a Trotter-dominated regime and a new undersampling regime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interaction-picture chain mapping with time-dependent couplings γn(t) = g√(2π) F[Pn J](t), where Pn are the orthogonal polynomials of the spectral density. Lemma 2 shows that for a flat spectrum the couplings are spherical Bessel functions, √(π/(ωc t)) J_{n+1/2}(ωc t/2), which for large cutoff become δ(t − nπ/ωc). Convolving these pulses with F[√J] turns the continuum bath into a train of time-bin modes; redefining these modes as ancillae ân = 2π/√Δt b̂n yields the collision-model Hamiltonian with rates Wmn of Eq. (33). This object carries the argument because it converts the exactness of chain mapping into a statement about collision models without any perturbative averaging.

What would settle it

Run the spin-boson collision model at strong coupling with a finite cutoff and time steps between 2/ωc and π/ωc: if the error scales as O(Δt³) the theorem's exactness holds, while O(Δt²) scaling would show that the finite-cutoff delta approximation sets a different threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for any positive spectral density, chain mapping is equivalent to a non-Markovian collision model with Δt = π/ωc. The proof maps the bath using orthogonal polynomials defined against a flat reference spectrum; for a flat spectrum each chain-mode coupling γnM(t) tends to a Dirac delta at tn = nπ/ωc, so after convolution with the Fourier transform of √J the full dynamics is a sequence of time-bin interactions. The ancillae of the collision model are precisely those time-bin chain modes, and the collision rates Wmn are the integrated convolution weights, derived with no averaging over the spectrum. The Markovian case follows as a corollary when the spectrum is flat and the cutoff is large. The paper then quantifies the new error: for an Ohmic spectral density the sampling error is bounded by 2π²α((ωcΔt/π)² − 1), grows as O(Δt²), and dominates the O(Δt³) truncation/Trotter error once Δt exceeds the threshold, which the numerical simulations place at 2/ωc rather than π/ωc for finite cutoffs.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the idealization that the bath cutoff is infinite, so each chain mode touches the system at exactly one instant; with a finite cutoff the touches are spread out, and the claimed exact step size is only approximate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any collision model run at Δt ≤ π/ωc inherits the numerical exactness of chain mapping for any positive spectral density; the only remaining errors are the known truncation, time-step-splitting, local-dimension, and tensor-network truncation errors.
  • A previously unidentified spectral-density sampling error is now quantified: for an Ohmic spin-boson bath it is bounded by 2π²α((ωcΔt/π)²−1), scales as O(Δt²), and dominates the O(Δt³) Trotter error for time steps above the threshold.
  • The prescription supplies a physical interpretation of chain modes as temporal modes: each chain mode is an ancilla colliding at time tn = nπ/ωc, giving a microscopic derivation of non-Markovian collision models from a general Hamiltonian without the rotating-wave approximation.
  • Because chain mapping is defined for any positive spectral density, collision models become applicable to structured and experimentally measured spectral densities in regimes beyond weak coupling and the rotating-wave approximation.
  • The equivalence suggests practical algorithmic improvements: ancillae that have finished colliding can be discarded, potentially side-stepping the linear growth in the number of chain modes that limits chain-mapping simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The formal proof of Lemma 2 uses the infinite-cutoff limit to obtain exact delta pulses, while the paper's own numerics place the empirical threshold at Δt_th = 2/ωc, not π/ωc; a conservative reading is that the true exactness boundary for finite cutoffs may require a cutoff-dependent correction to Δt = π/ωc.
  • The same time-bin construction should extend to fermionic baths, since chain mapping for fermionic environments already exists; a fermionic collision model with a quantifiable sampling error would be a natural test of the equivalence's generality.
  • The reported cases where the error falls below the Trotter bound hint at systematic error cancellations; analyzing them could yield tighter, instance-specific error bounds than the generic O(Δt³) scaling.
  • If the sampling-theorem reading is right, the collision time step is fixed by the bath bandwidth alone, so for very broadband environments the number of collisions per unit time diverges and collision models would need a different sampling strategy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that both Markovian and non-Markovian collision models can be recovered exactly from chain mapping of the microscopic system-bath Hamiltonian. The central result, Theorem 1, states that for any positive spectral density J(ω), chain mapping is equivalent to a non-Markovian collision model with time step Δt = π/ωc, where ωc is the bath cutoff frequency. The derivation relies on Lemma 2, which asserts that for a flat spectral density the chain-mode coupling γM_n(t) is a Dirac delta located at t_n = nπ/ωc. From this equivalence the authors identify a new 'sampling error' in non-Markovian collision models, derive an upper bound for an Ohmic spectral density, and numerically validate a threshold time step using the Spin Boson Model with TEDOPA as reference. The paper concludes that collision models can be promoted to numerically exact methods.

Significance. If Theorem 1 were correct, it would provide an appealing conceptual unification of two widely used open-system methods, yield a principled prescription for coarse-graining time steps, and give a quantitative error taxonomy for collision models. The authors are to be credited for constructing the comparison against an independent TEDOPA benchmark and for using analytical derivations rather than fitting the claimed equivalence; the numerical SBM implementation is reproducible via referenced open-source packages. However, the central exactness claim is not supported as stated. The paper itself contains the evidence against Lemma 2: for finite cutoff, the numerically evaluated maxima of |γn(t)| in Appendix E occur with spacing ≈2/ωc, not π/ωc, and the simulations in Sec. V B adopt Δt_th = 2/ωc. Consequently the announced promotion of collision models to numerically exact methods, as well as the claim in the abstract that all collision-model errors are now identified and quantified, are premature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Lemma 2, Eqs. (23)–(25)] The identification of γM_n(t) with 2πg δ(t - nπ/ωc) is an uncontrolled limit. The asymptotic expansion in Eq. (24) is used for large ωc t but is not uniform in the order n; at the claimed support point ωc t = nπ, the argument and order of J_{n+1/2} are comparable, so the asymptotic form does not apply. For finite ωc, Eq. (23) is a finite-width oscillatory function whose maxima, as the paper's own Appendix E shows, satisfy ωc t_n ≈ 2.05123 n + 1.85029, i.e., spacing ≈2/ωc rather than π/ωc. Taking ωc→∞ at fixed n sends nπ/ωc→0 and does not produce a discrete sequence at finite spacing, yet Δt = π/ωc is subsequently used with finite ωc. Lemma 2 and therefore Theorem 1 are not established.
  2. [Section III, proof of Theorem 1, Eqs. (27) and (34)] The step from Eq. (17) to Eq. (27) replaces the convolution F[√J] * γM_n by 2πg F[√J](t - t_n), which is valid only if γM_n is exactly a delta. Since Lemma 2 fails for all finite ωc, Eq. (27) and the subsequent Wmn in Eq. (33) are approximations. The claim immediately after Eq. (34) that 'Eq. (34) is an exact result' is therefore not justified; this exactness is the basis for the paper's title and abstract.
  3. [Section V B and Eq. (43)] The numerical validation does not use the predicted threshold. The text states 'the threshold time-step in these simulations is Δt_th = 2/ωc instead of π/ωc,' and Fig. 2 shows the error-scaling transition at 2/ωc. This contradicts Eq. (43), which bounds the sampling error to zero for Δt ≤ π/ωc. The paper's own explanation in Appendix E (maxima spacing ≈2/ωc) confirms that the observed threshold corresponds to the finite-cutoff behavior, not to Theorem 1. Thus the numerics validate a threshold different from the theorem's central prediction.
  4. [Section V A, Eqs. (40)–(43)] The sampling-error bound is derived only for the Ohmic spectral density and only provides a nonzero upper bound for Δt ≥ π/ωc. It says nothing about error sizes in the interval π/ωc < Δt < 2/ωc, which is the interval where the simulations already show a change of scaling away from the Trotter regime. The statement that 'all collision models errors are now identified and quantified' is broader than the presented result, which covers one spectral density and one observable expectation value.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The first sentence reads 'Quantum collision describe open quantum systems'; it should be 'Quantum collision models describe open quantum systems.'
  2. [Section V A] There is a typo, 'Troterrization', in the sentence about matching the Trotter error with the truncation error; it should be 'Trotterization'.
  3. [Section V B] The parenthetical example of ancilla counts ('35 for Δt = 1/ωc, 70 for Δt = 2/ωc, and 280 for Δt = 1/2ωc') is not consistent with the statement that the number of ancillae is inversely proportional to Δt; under that relation the 70 for Δt = 2/ωc should be smaller than the 35 for Δt = 1/ωc.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No core circularity: the chain-mapping equivalence is derived from an independent framework and benchmarked against TEDOPA; the finite-cutoff threshold discrepancy is a post-hoc validation correction, not a by-construction reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Theorem 1 constructs the non-Markovian collision model from the chain-mapping (TEDOPA) representation of the same microscopic Hamiltonian (Eqs. (17)-(34)); the rates Wmn in Eq. (33) and the ancilla identification â_n = 2π/√Δt b̂_n are explicit constructions from chain-mode couplings, not quantities fitted to the data being predicted. The numerical validation benchmarks against TEDOPA as an independent reference, so the main claim is not fitted into existence. Self-citations [20]-[22] supply the underlying TEDOPA framework and a separately published error bound (Mascherpa et al., PRL 2017); they are not uniqueness theorems and are backed by the paper's own TEDOPA comparison. The genuine caveat is a validation/correctness issue rather than a circular reduction: Sec. V B states that 'the threshold time-step in these simulations is Δtth = 2/ωc instead of π/ωc', and Appendix E rationalizes this with a numerical fit of finite-cutoff spherical-Bessel maxima (slope ≃2), while Theorem 1 and Eq. (43) predict Δt = π/ωc. The paper explicitly flags the mismatch instead of renaming the fitted 2/ωc as the predicted π/ωc, so this is a post-hoc adjustment of the comparison point, not a by-construction identity. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input; circularity score is therefore low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests mainly on the polynomial chain mapping and on the delta-limit identification of the flat-spectrum couplings. The latter is an ad hoc asymptotic approximation that is not controlled for finite cutoffs, and the numerical threshold is adjusted by a fit in Appendix E.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective threshold slope for t_n = 2.05 (linear fit ω_c t_n ≈ 2.05123 n + 1.85029)
    Appendix E uses a numerical linear fit of the maxima of spherical Bessel functions to define Δt_th; this fit replaces the theorem's π/ω_c spacing and enters the numerical validation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The bosonic environment is linearly coupled to the system through a spectral density J(ω) with a hard cutoff, Hamiltonian Eq. (1).
    All derivations start from this Hamiltonian; the equivalence results are stated for this class.
  • standard math Orthogonal polynomial chain mapping is unitary and maps the star environment to a chain; this is taken from standard results (Refs. [20,21]).
    Invoked in Sec. II B and Appendix B; the collision model rates depend on this transformation.
  • ad hoc to paper The flat-spectrum chain-mode coupling γ^M_n(t) can be replaced by 2πg δ(t - nπ/ω_c) in the limit of large cutoff (Lemma 2).
    This is the load-bearing approximation used to derive Eq. (27) and the exact rates in Eq. (33); it is only asymptotically valid, and the paper does not bound the correction for finite ω_c.
  • domain assumption The discrete-time generators of the Markovian collision model commute, either because [H_S,A_S] = 0 or through a Trotter step (footnote [48]).
    Needed to factor the time-evolution operator into a product of single-collision unitaries in Corollary 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Making Quantum Collision Models Exact." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYWDRGOK

@misc{pith2026241113166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Making Quantum Collision Models Exact},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYWDRGOK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13166}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum collision describe open quantum systems through repeated interactions with a coarse-grained environment. However, a complete certification of these models is lacking, as no complete error bounds on the simulation of system observables have been established. Here, we show that Markovian and non-Markovian collision models can be recovered analytically from chain mapping techniques starting from a general microscopic Hamiltonian. This derivation reveals a previously unidentified source of error -- induced by an unfaithful sampling of the environment -- in dynamics obtained with collision models that can become dominant for small but finite time-steps. With the complete characterization of this error, all collision models errors are now identified and quantified, which enables the promotion of collision models to the class of numerically exact methods. To confirm the predictions of our equivalence results, we implemented a non-Markovian collision model of the Spin Boson Model, and identified, as predicted, a regime in which the collision model is fundamentally inaccurate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13166 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) A quantum system (blue disk) is interact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Numerical evaluation of the time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Time-dependent coupling strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Equilibrium and nonequilibrium steady states with the repeated interaction protocol: Relaxation dynamics and energetic cost

    quant-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a repeated-interaction (collision) model, a qubit with Heisenberg coupling to thermal ancillas relaxes to a calculable nonequilibrium steady state, with thermalization only in special limits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Another important consequence of this mapping is that now the system only interacts with the first mode n = 0 of the chain-mapped environment

    (13) Hence, this mapping transforms the normal bath Hamiltonian into a tight-binding Hamiltonian with 3 on-site energies εn and hopping energies tn. Another important consequence of this mapping is that now the system only interacts with the first mode n = 0 of the chain-mapped environment. Figure 1(c) shows a schematic drawing of this new topology. The c...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Rau, Phys

    J. Rau, Phys. Rev. 129, 1880 (1963)

    1963

  3. [3]

    T. A. Brun, American Journal of Physics 70, 719–737 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum mea- surement and Control(Cambridge university press,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Strasberg, G

    P. Strasberg, G. Schaller, T. Brandes, and M. Es- posito, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Franklin, S

    L. Franklin, S. Rodrigues, G. De Chiara, M. Pa- ternostro, and G. T. Landi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 140601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Ciccarello, Quantum Measurements and Quan- tum Metrology 4, 53 (2018)

    F. Ciccarello, Quantum Measurements and Quan- tum Metrology 4, 53 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Filipowicz, J

    P. Filipowicz, J. Javanainen, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A 34, 3077 (1986)

    work page 1986

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Filipowicz, J

    P. Filipowicz, J. Javanainen, and P. Meystre, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 3, 906 (1986)

    1986

  2. [10]

    Cilluffo, A

    D. Cilluffo, A. Carollo, S. Lorenzo, J. A. Gross, G. M. Palma, and F. Ciccarello, Phys. Rev. Re- search 2, 043070 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Ziman, P

    M. Ziman, P. ˇStelmachoviˇ c, V. Buˇ zek, M. Hillery, V. Scarani, and N. Gisin, Physical Review A 65, 042105 (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    Scarani, M

    V. Scarani, M. Ziman, P. ˇStelmachoviˇ c, N. Gisin, and V. Buˇ zek, Physical Review Letters88, 097905 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    Ziman, P

    M. Ziman, P. ˇStelmachoviˇ c, and V. Buˇ zek, Open Systems & Information Dynamics 12, 81 (2005), publisher: World Scientific Publishing Co

    2005

  6. [14]

    Ziman and V

    M. Ziman and V. Buzek, in Quantum Dynamics and Information (World Scientific, 2010) pp. 199–227

    2010

  7. [15]

    Cattaneo, G

    M. Cattaneo, G. De Chiara, S. Maniscalco, R. Zam- brini, and G. L. Giorgi, Physical Review Letters 126, 130403 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Pellegrini and F

    C. Pellegrini and F. Petruccione, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 42, 425304 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Bodor, L

    A. Bodor, L. Di´ osi, Z. Kallus, and T. Konrad, Phys- ical Review A 87, 052113 (2013), publisher: Amer- ican Physical Society

    2013

  10. [18]

    Ciccarello, G

    F. Ciccarello, G. M. Palma, and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. A 87, 040103 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Cilluffo and F

    D. Cilluffo and F. Ciccarello, in Advances in Open Systems and Fundamental Tests of Quantum Me- chanics, edited by B. Vacchini, H.-P. Breuer, and A. Bassi (Springer International Publishing, Cham,

  12. [20]

    Ciccarello, S

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V. Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Physics Reports 954, 1 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    A. W. Chin, A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Ple- nio, Journal of Mathematical Physics 51, 092109 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    M. P. Woods, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 130401 (2015). 10

    2015

  15. [23]

    Mascherpa, A

    F. Mascherpa, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 100401 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021002 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 094001 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    L. Li, M. J. W. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, Physics Reports 759, 1 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    F. A. Pollock, C. Rodriguez-Rosario, T. Frauen- heim, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Physical Re- view Letters 120, 040405 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    A. W. Chin, J. Prior, R. Rosenbach, F. Caycedo- Soler, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Nature Phys 9, 113 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    A. M. Alvertis, F. A. Y. N. Schr¨ oder, and A. W. Chin, The Journal of Chemical Physics 151, 084104 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    A. J. Dunnett, D. Gowland, C. M. Isborn, A. W. Chin, and T. J. Zuehlsdorff, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 144112 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Caycedo-Soler, A

    F. Caycedo-Soler, A. Mattioni, J. Lim, T. Renger, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Nat Commun 13, 2912 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Orus, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    R. Orus, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Paeckel, T

    S. Paeckel, T. K¨ ohler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollw¨ ock, and C. Hubig, Annals of Physics 411, 167998 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Prior, A

    J. Prior, A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 050404 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Tamascelli, A

    D. Tamascelli, A. Smirne, J. Lim, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review Letters 123, 090402 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    A. J. Dunnett and A. W. Chin, Front. Chem. 8, 600731 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Lacroix, A

    T. Lacroix, A. Dunnett, D. Gribben, B. W. Lovett, and A. Chin, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052204 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Prior, I

    J. Prior, I. de Vega, A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 87, 013428 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    A. J. Dunnett and A. W. Chin, Entropy 23, 77 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Oviedo-Casado, J

    S. Oviedo-Casado, J. Prior, A. W. Chin, R. Rosen- bach, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 93, 020102 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Le D´ e, S

    B. Le D´ e, S. Huppert, R. Spezia, and A. W. Chin, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 20, 8749 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    K. E. Hunter, Y. Mao, A. W. Chin, and T. J. Zuehls- dorff, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters15, 4623 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Lambertson, D

    E. Lambertson, D. Bashirova, K. E. Hunter, B. Hansen, and T. J. Zuehlsdorff, The Journal of Chemical Physics 161, 114101 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Lorenzoni, N

    N. Lorenzoni, N. Cho, J. Lim, D. Tamascelli, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 100403 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Nuomin, D

    H. Nuomin, D. N. Beratan, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032406 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    R¨ atsep and A

    M. R¨ atsep and A. Freiberg, Journal of Luminescence 127, 251 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechan- ics: Non-Relativistic Theory(Elsevier, 2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    F. W. J. Olver, Asymptotics and Special Functions (A. K. Peters, Wellesley, MA, 1997)

    1997

  41. [49]

    In the ‘worse’ case scenario the evolution operator can be Trotterized

    This is the same situation as in the derivation of collision models, either h ˆHS, ˆAS i = 0, or we move to the interaction picture with respect to the sys- tem and bath free Hamiltonians. In the ‘worse’ case scenario the evolution operator can be Trotterized

  42. [50]

    Grimmer, D

    D. Grimmer, D. Layden, R. B. Mann, and E. Martin-Martinez, Phys. Rev. A 94, 032126 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Suzuki, Commun.Math

    M. Suzuki, Commun.Math. Phys. 51, 183 (1976)

    1976

  44. [52]

    Shannon, Proceedings of the IRE 37, 10 (1949)

    C. Shannon, Proceedings of the IRE 37, 10 (1949)

    1949

  45. [53]

    E. T. Whittaker, Interpolatory Function Theory, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics and Mathemati- cal Physics ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, United Kingdom, 1935)

    1935

  46. [54]

    Br´ emaud,Mathematical Principles of Signal Pro- cessing, 1 (Springer New York, NY, 2002)

    P. Br´ emaud,Mathematical Principles of Signal Pro- cessing, 1 (Springer New York, NY, 2002)

    2002

  47. [55]

    Breuer and F

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

    2007

  48. [56]

    Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems, 4th ed

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

    2012

  49. [57]

    A. E. Feiguin and S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B 72, 220401 (2005)

    2005

  50. [58]

    G. D. l. Cuevas, N. Schuch, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. I. Cirac, New J. Phys. 15, 123021 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Vidal, Phys

    G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004)

    2004

  52. [60]

    In a different spirit, colli- sion models and chain mapping have already been used together in the periodically refreshed baths (PReB) approach [68, 69]

    We would like to note that in this work chain map- ping has been used as an analytical tool to derive exact collision models. In a different spirit, colli- sion models and chain mapping have already been used together in the periodically refreshed baths (PReB) approach [68, 69...

  53. [61]

    Tamascelli, Entropy 22, 1320 (2020)

    D. Tamascelli, Entropy 22, 1320 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    N¨ ußeler, D

    A. N¨ ußeler, D. Tamascelli, A. Smirne, J. Lim, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 140604 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    N¨ ußeler, I

    A. N¨ ußeler, I. Dhand, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Ple- nio, Phys. Rev. B 101, 155134 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Kohn and G

    L. Kohn and G. E. Santoro, Phys. Rev. B 104, 014303 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Ferracin, A

    D. Ferracin, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, M. B. Plenio, and D. Tamascelli, The Journal of Chemical Physics 161, 174114 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Suess and M

    D. Suess and M. Holz¨ apfel, Journal of Open Source Software 2, 465 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    A. J. Dunnett, T. Lacroix, A. Riva, and B. Le D´ e, shareloqs/MPSDynamics: v1.1 (2024), Zenodo

    2024

  60. [68]

    Lacroix, B

    T. Lacroix, B. Le D´ e, A. Riva, A. J. Dunnett, and A. W. Chin, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 084116 (2024). 11

    2024

  61. [69]

    Purkayastha, G

    A. Purkayastha, G. Guarnieri, S. Campbell, J. Prior, and J. Goold, Phys. Rev. B 104, 045417 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Purkayastha, G

    A. Purkayastha, G. Guarnieri, S. Campbell, J. Prior, and J. Goold, Quantum 6, 801 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    J. A. Gross, C. M. Caves, G. J. Milburn, and J. Combes, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 024005 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Appel, Mathematics for Physics and Physicists (Princeton University Press, 2007)

    W. Appel, Mathematics for Physics and Physicists (Princeton University Press, 2007)

    2007

  65. [73]

    Gautschi, ACM Trans

    W. Gautschi, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 20, 21 (1994)

    1994

  66. [74]

    M¨ uhlpfordt, F

    T. M¨ uhlpfordt, F. Zahn, V. Hagenmeyer, and T. Faulwasser, IF AC-PapersOnLine 21st IF AC World Congress, 53, 7210 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, NBS Applied Mathemat- ics Series No. 55 (National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1964). Appendix A: Collision model derivation In the derivation of the micr...

    1964

  68. [76]

    Two polynomials are said to be orthonormal with respect to a measure dJ(ω) = J(ω)dω if Z ∞ 0 Pn(ω)Pm(ω)J(ω)dω = δn,m

    Orthogonality , recurrence relation and bath chain mapping Let Pn(ω) be a real polynomial of order n Pn(ω) = nX k=0 akωk , (B1) where ak are real coefficients. Two polynomials are said to be orthonormal with respect to a measure dJ(ω) = J(ω)dω if Z ∞ 0 Pn(ω)Pm(ω)J(ω)dω = δn,m ...

  69. [77]

    (B8) we obtain a new expression where the system couples only to the first mode with the coupling strength ||p0|| def. = κ. The same transformation applied to the bath Hamiltonian yields, thanks to the recurrence relation, to the following nearest neighbours hopping Hamiltonia...

  70. [78]

    (B2)) becomes Z ωc 0 Pn(ω)Pm(ω)dω = ωcδn,m , (B13) where the system-environment coupling strength g has been absorbed in the system operator ˆAS → g ˆAS for convenience

    Polynomials for a flat SD For a flat SD with a hard cut-off at the frequencyωc, the defining orthogonality relation of the polynomials (Eq. (B2)) becomes Z ωc 0 Pn(ω)Pm(ω)dω = ωcδn,m , (B13) where the system-environment coupling strength g has been absorbed in the system opera...

  71. [79]

    Asymptotic limit of γn(t) The asymptotic expansion of the spherical Bessel function q π ωct Jn+ 1 2 ( ωct 2 ) for large ωc is [47] r π ωct 2 Jn+ 1 2 ωct 2 ωc→∞ = 2 ωct + O ωct 2 −3!! sin ωct 2 − πn 2 + n(n + 1) 2( ωct 2 )2 + O ωct 2 −4!! cos ωct 2 − πn 2 (D1) ωc→∞ = 2 ωct sin ...

  72. [80]

    Alternative calculation of γ0(t) From Eq. (15), the coupling coefficient between the first chain mode n = 0 and the system is given by the convolution of the Fourier transform of the first polynomial P0 = 1 and the Fourier transform of the 15 rectangular function γn(t) = √ 2πg...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.