Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Markovian dissipation can stabilize a (localization) quantum phase transition

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a driven spin-boson model, Markovian boson loss whose rate fades at low frequency stabilizes a steady-state localization phase transition that freezes the spin.

desk verdict A serious, honest paper that gives a clean argument for a dissipation-stabilized localization transition, but the analytic core is a least-squares variational projection with uncontrolled error and the original-model numerics are not converged. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22721 v1 pith:7ZY6JJHQ submitted 2025-05-28 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Naushad A. Kamar , Mostafa Ali , Mohammad Maghrebi This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords spin-bosonmodellocalizationquantumphasetransitionMarkoviandissipationdrivenopensystemssteady-statepolaronvariationalansatzmatrixproductstatespurity
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

Markovian dissipation, normally a destroyer of quantum coherence, can here act as the stabilizing agent for a sharp quantum phase transition. The paper studies a driven spin-boson model—a two-level system coupled to a continuum of bosonic modes—in which each mode decays at a rate $\kappa_k = r\omega_k$, so low-frequency modes decay slowly. It argues that the steady state undergoes a localization transition at $\alpha_c = 1+r^2$: the spin's effective tunneling $\Delta_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is driven to zero and the spin's dynamics freezes. The transition is quantum rather than effectively classical: the steady state becomes increasingly pure as the transition is approached, and the emerging pure state is not a dark state of the dissipation. If correct, this provides a counterexample to the common expectation that driven-dissipative systems are generically classical.

What carries the argument

The central object is a variational polaron ansatz for the steady state: the density matrix is restricted to an incoherent mixture of two spin-displaced coherent states, $\rho = \tfrac12\left(|+\rangle\langle+|\otimes|Z_+\rangle\langle Z_+| + |-\rangle\langle-|\otimes|Z_-\rangle\langle Z_-|\right)$, and the coherent-state displacements are fixed by minimizing the nonnegative functional $\mathrm{Tr}\left((\mathcal{L}(\rho))^2\right)$, which vanishes only at a steady state. Minimizing this functional yields a self-consistent equation for $\Delta_{\mathrm{eff}}$; for an Ohmic bath with $\kappa_k=r\omega_k$ that equation closes to give the exponent $\tilde{\alpha}/(1-\tilde{\alpha})$ and the critical coupling $\alpha_c=1+r^2$. The numerical side is carried by mapping the model to a semi-infinite bosonic chain with single-site and correlated two-site dissipation, then evolving the vectorized density matrix with matrix-product-state time evolution in an optimal bosonic basis.

What would settle it

Numerically, converge the matrix-product-state bond dimension and the local bosonic cutoff at couplings just below $\alpha_c=1+r^2$ in the original all-sites-loss model and check whether $\langle\sigma_z\rangle$ still decays; if the magnetization plateau develops only at couplings much larger than $1+r^2$, or if a finite $\Delta_{\mathrm{eff}}$ persists when coherence terms are added to the variational ansatz, the predicted transition line fails. Experimentally, prepare the spin in $|+\rangle$ with bosons in vacuum, apply loss $\kappa_k=r\omega_k$ for a fixed $r$, and measure the asymptotic magnetization as a function of $\alpha$: a transition at a coupling clearly different from $1+r^2$ would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' central claim is that the steady state of the driven spin-boson model $$H = -\frac{\$\Delta$}{2}\sigma_x + \sum_k \omega_k a_k^\dagger a_k + \frac{\sigma_z}{2}\sum_k \lambda_k(a_k + a_k^\dagger)$$ with an Ohmic spectral function $J(\omega)=2\pi\alpha\,\omega\,\Theta(\omega_c-\omega)$ and Markovian boson loss $\kappa_k = r\omega_k$ undergoes a localization quantum phase transition. The variational solution gives $\Delta_{\mathrm{eff}} \propto \Delta(\Delta/\omega_c)^{\tilde{\alpha}/(1-\tilde{\alpha})}$ with $\tilde{\alpha}=\alpha/(1+r^2)$, so the renormalized tunneling $\Delta_{\mathrm{eff}}$ vanishes as $\alpha$ approaches $\alpha_c = 1+r^2$; beyond that coupling the spin is frozen. This is a transition of the nonequilibrium steady state, not of a ground state, and the pure state that appears near the transition is not a dark state of the Liouvillian but results from the renormalization of tunneling by low-frequency bosonic modes. Numerical matrix-product-state simulations on a mapped bosonic lattice show the magnetization approaching a stationary value close to 1 at large coupling, with the purity rising toward 1 near the transition.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the steady state is an incoherent mixture of two spin-up and spin-down branches each dressed by a displaced boson cloud, with the quantum interference between the two branches decaying so quickly that it can be omitted; near the transition this interference decay is slow, so the predicted critical coupling rests on that neglect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For fixed loss strength $r$, the spin freezes for $\alpha > 1+r^2$; increasing $r$ pushes the critical coupling upward, so the same microscopic coupling can be tuned across the transition by changing the loss strength.
  • The soft form $\kappa_k = r\omega_k$ is essential: a frequency-independent loss rate only renormalizes $\Delta_{\mathrm{eff}}$ to a smaller but finite value and produces no transition.
  • As the transition is approached, the steady-state purity rises toward one even though $\Delta \neq 0$, and the emerging pure state is not a dark state; it arises from the renormalization of tunneling by low-frequency modes.
  • In the large-spin mean-field analogue, the same soft dissipation gives an effectively classical transition: spin excitations scale as $1/\delta$ and the purity vanishes, in contrast to the quantum $1/\sqrt{\delta}$ scaling of the ground state.
  • The bosonic lattice representation with correlated two-site dissipation, including a version with no loss on the site directly coupled to the spin, preserves the $1/t^2$ bath correlator and can be realized in superconducting circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication left implicit is that $r$ could serve as an experimental tuning knob: a spin-boson system whose coupling is below the ground-state threshold might be pushed into the localized phase by increasing the loss rate, since $\alpha_c = 1+r^2$ grows with $r$.
  • Because the coherence damping rate $\Gamma_\phi = 2\alpha r\,\omega_c/(1+r^2)$ vanishes as $r\to0$, the ansatz's neglect of coherences is least justified in precisely the limit where it predicts $\alpha_c\to1$; including coherence terms in the variational family would test whether the transition line bends at small $r$.
  • The purity growth near the transition suggests a possible practical endpoint: a dissipation-stabilized pure localized state might serve as a noise-resistant computational or metrological resource, though the paper does not assess coherence times or gate performance and this remains speculative.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the steady state of a driven-dissipative spin-boson model with bosonic Markovian loss κ_k = rω_k. It proposes a variational ansatz (a mixture of two displaced coherent states without coherences) and minimizes Tr((L(ρ))^2) to obtain a self-consistent equation for the renormalized tunneling Δ_eff. For an Ohmic bath the equation predicts a localization phase transition at α_c = 1+r^2 with Δ_eff ∝ Δ (Δ/ω_c)^{α/(1+r^2-α)}. The authors support this with MPS/TEBD simulations on a lattice representation, using a modified model without dissipation at site n=0 for the converged numerics, and argue that the steady state becomes increasingly pure at the transition. A large-spin mean-field variant is shown to exhibit classical critical fluctuations and vanishing purity.

Significance. If established, this is an interesting counterexample to the common expectation that Markovian dissipation drives driven-dissipative systems toward classical behavior. The analytical calculation is self-contained and has no adjustable parameter fitted to the transition: the critical coupling emerges from the self-consistent equation. The lattice mapping, the third-quantization computation of the bath correlator for the tweaked model, and the large-spin comparison provide useful tools and a testable experimental proposal in superconducting circuits. The main results, however, rest on an uncontrolled truncation of the density matrix (omission of coherences) and on converged numerics for a modified model whose critical point differs from the analytical one. The paper is therefore a promising but not yet conclusive demonstration of the claimed transition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Variational ansatz; Eqs. (8)-(9), (14)-(16), SM Eq. (S.12)] The ansatz in Eq. (8) is a mixture of two displaced coherent states with no spin coherences and no spin-bath correlations beyond a displacement, and the minimization of Tr((L(ρ))^2) in Eq. (9) is a least-squares projection rather than a variational bound on any physical observable. Because the exact steady state for Δ≠0 necessarily contains coherences and bath correlations, the truncation error is uncontrolled. The stated justification, the coherence damping rate Γ_φ = 2αr/(1+r^2)ω_c in Eq. (S.12), is not parametrically large near the predicted critical point: at α_c=1+r^2 one has Γ_φ=2rω_c, which can be smaller than Δ when r≲Δ/ω_c. The authors themselves note that the r→0 limit α_c→1 is likely an artifact of setting coherences to zero. No control parameter is given for the validity of the coherence-free ansatz, so Eq. (16) and the associated exponent in Eq. (15) are not established for the original model.
  2. [Numerical simulation; Fig. 2, SM Fig. S.4, Eq. (16)] The numerical evidence does not currently validate the analytical critical coupling. For the original model with dissipation on all sites, SM Fig. S.4 shows the transition at α=4 for r=0.5 and db=12, and the same figure shows strong dependence on db; the authors state that more intensive numerics could reveal a transition at smaller α. For the tweaked model without dissipation at site n=0, the converged main-text Fig. 2 places the transition at α_c≈2, not at 1+r^2=1.25. The argument that the tweaked model has the same qualitative transition rests on the asymptotic 1/t^2 decay of C(t) in SM Sec. S.II C, but that argument does not quantify how the critical coupling shifts. Thus the numerics support the existence of a transition in a neighboring model, but neither confirm nor sharply constrain α_c for the original model.
  3. [Nature of phase transition; Eq. (8), Fig. 2] The claim that the steady state becomes increasingly pure and remains almost perfectly pure at the transition is not supported by the variational calculation: the ansatz in Eq. (8) is an equal-weight mixture of |+⟩⟨+| and |−⟩⟨−| with orthogonal spin states, so its purity is identically 1/2 for all parameters. The purity shown in Fig. 2 is computed only for the tweaked model, and the SM original-model simulations do not report purity. Therefore the advertised connection between the localization transition and emergent purity is, at present, a property of the tweaked model rather than of the model for which Eq. (16) is derived.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The typesetting of bras and kets is corrupted in several places (e.g., 'ðï' instead of '⟩⟨' in Eqs. (6)-(8) and elsewhere); this should be fixed in the production version.
  2. [References] Reference [19] appears as '[19? –23]' with a question mark; the citation seems incomplete and should be corrected.
  3. [Nature of phase transition] There is a typo 'Beretzinski' in the discussion of the BKT nature; it should be 'Berezinskii'.
  4. [SM Eq. (S.39)] In SM Eq. (S.39), the solution to the self-consistent equation is stated without derivation; a few intermediate steps would make the reduction to the standard Silbey-Harris form easier to verify.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract mentions potential applications in quantum computation, but the paper does not discuss any concrete application; this sentence should be either substantiated or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variational prediction is self-contained and not fitted to its target.

full rationale

The central claim alpha_c = 1 + r^2 is derived, not assumed. Equations (8)-(14) define an explicitly stated variational ansatz; minimizing Tr((L(rho))^2) over the coherent-state variational parameters determines zeta_k by the self-consistent equation (12), and the critical coupling emerges from solving the resulting equation (14). No parameter is fitted to the target transition, and no data are used to set alpha_c. The reduction of the self-consistent equation to the standard Silbey-Harris form via the rescaling in Eq. (S.37) is an algebraic identity, and the final exponent follows from solving that equation; this is a derivation step, not a definitional circularity. The self-citations in the paper (e.g., Refs. [16], [22], and [61]) support background statements or the large-spin comparison and are not load-bearing for the transition prediction. The acknowledged limitations, including the coherence-free ansatz's uncontrolled error, the authors' statement that the r-to-0 limit is 'likely an artifact of our ansatz', and the unconverged original-model MPS results in Fig. S.4, are accuracy and validity concerns rather than circularity: they do not make the predicted critical coupling an input of the calculation. The purity claim is supported by the tweaked-model MPS rather than by the ansatz, whose equal-weight mixture has fixed purity 1/2, but this is again an evidence gap, not a circular reduction. Therefore no circular step meets the standard of Eq. X being equivalent to Eq. Y by construction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on a variational ansatz and on a model modification used in the numerics, rather than on an exact solution or a rigorously controlled approximation. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the soft-dissipation model kappa_k = r omega_k is a tuning of existing dissipators.

free parameters (1)
  • Variational displacement parameters zeta_{k+-} (or zeta_k, beta_k) = Determined self-consistently by minimizing Tr((L(rho))^2), Eq. (12)
    Introduced ad hoc in the trial density matrix Eq. (8); they are not fixed by external data but are chosen by the variational principle, so they are listed for transparency.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lindblad dynamics with Markovian particle loss L_k = sqrt(kappa_k) a_k provides a faithful description of the driven open spin-boson system
    Used throughout the paper; assumes Born-Markov and rotating-wave approximations, standard for the superconducting-circuit and trapped-ion platforms cited.
  • domain assumption The bath spectral function is Ohmic with a hard cutoff, J(omega) = 2 pi alpha omega Theta(omega_c - omega)
    Eq. (3). The result is sensitive to the low-frequency behavior, so the Ohmic form is load-bearing rather than a purely illustrative choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimizing Tr((L(rho))^2) over trace-1 density matrices is a valid variational principle for the steady state
    Eq. (9) in the main text. The quantity is non-negative and vanishes only at a steady state, but minimizing over a restricted ansatz is not proven to locate the true steady-state transition.
  • ad hoc to paper Coherences between the two spin branches decay fast and can be omitted from the variational ansatz
    Between Eqs. (7) and (8) in the main text. The coherence damping rate Gamma_phi is large for r of order one, but it vanishes as r goes to 0; the authors note the r to 0 limit alpha_c to 1 is likely an artifact of this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified lattice with no dissipation on site n = 0 shares the qualitative phase transition of the original model
    SM Sec. S.II C. The bath correlator remains proportional to 1/t^2 with a different prefactor, but the critical coupling shifts; the only converged MPS evidence for a transition is obtained in this tweaked model.
  • standard math The spin-boson model maps exactly to a semi-infinite tight-binding bosonic chain via orthogonal polynomials
    SM Sec. S.II A. This mapping underlies the MPS simulations and is a standard exact result for the Ohmic bath.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Markovian dissipation can stabilize a (localization) quantum phase transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ZY6JJHQ

@misc{pith2026250522721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Markovian dissipation can stabilize a (localization) quantum phase transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ZY6JJHQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22721}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum phase transitions are a cornerstone of many-body physics at low temperatures but have remained elusive far from equilibrium. Driven open quantum systems -- a prominent non-equilibrium platform where coherent dynamics competes with Markovian dissipation from the environment -- often exhibit an effective classical behavior. In this work, we present a nontrivial quantum phase transition that is stabilized, rather than destroyed, by Markovian dissipation. We consider a variant of the paradigmatic spin-boson model where the spin is driven and bosons are subject to Markovian loss proportional to frequency (hence, vanishing at low frequencies). We show that the steady state exhibits a localization phase transition where the spin's dynamics is frozen, to be contrasted with the ground-state transition in the absence of dissipation. Furthermore, this transition occurs when the steady state becomes pure. The latter is not simply a dark state of dissipation but rather emerges from a nontrivial renormalization of the spin dynamics by low-frequency bosonic modes. Our work provides a nontrivial example where quantumness, typically reserved for ground states, also emerges in dynamical settings, with potential applications in quantum computation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic picture depicting the spin-boson model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics 4, 878–883 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    With Markovian dissipation, the bosonic bath can be still integrated out, but resulting in a different coupling in time

    provide the Ohmic bath while they are also cou- pled to a Markovian bath. With Markovian dissipation, the bosonic bath can be still integrated out, but resulting in a different coupling in time. Using the Feynman-Vernon formalism [ 31], this coupling is given by (the real and imaginary parts of) the correlator C(t) ∼ ∫ dωJ (ω )e− iωt − κ (ω )t; here, we ha...

    work page

  3. [3]

    J. G. Bohnet, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, M. L. Wall, A. M. Rey, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Science 352, 1297 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    We note that the single-site dissipation κ 1,n vanishes as n → ∞ and thus the dissipative dynamics 4 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 ω ct

    and ( 5), we find both single-site and correlated two-site dissipators as L1,n = √ κ 1,n bn, L 2,n = √κ 2,n (bn + bn+1), (18) where κ 1,n = r(ω n − tn − tn− 1) with t− 1 ≡ 0 and κ 2,n = rtn. We note that the single-site dissipation κ 1,n vanishes as n → ∞ and thus the dissipative dynamics 4 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 ω ct

    work page

  5. [5]

    0 FIG. 2. Magnetization ïσ z(t)ð (solid lines) and purity (dashed lines) as a function of time for different values of α ; we take ∆ = 1 , ω c = 10, r = 0 . 5. For α = 2, the magnetization quickly approaches a constant close to unity, signaling a lo- calization phase transition. The purity follows a similar trend as the magnetization, with the spin-boson s...

    work page

  6. [6]

    We note that the resulting pure state is not simply a dark state of the Liouvillian, as ∆ ̸= 0 generally induces nontrivial tunneling between the spin states

    We observe that, as the transition is approached, the purity follows a trend similar to the magnetization: the system becomes par- tially mixed below the transition but retains almost per- fect purity at the transition. We note that the resulting pure state is not simply a dark state of the Liouvillian, as ∆ ̸= 0 generally induces nontrivial tunneling bet...

    work page

  7. [7]

    C. Carr, R. Ritter, C. G. Wade, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 113901 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Nature Physics 5, 633 (2009)

    2009

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    A. A. Houck, H. E. T¨ ureci, and J. Koch, Nature Physics 8, 292–299 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Schindler, M

    P. Schindler, M. M¨ uller, D. Nigg, J. T. Barreiro, E. A. Martinez, M. Hennrich, T. Monz, S. Diehl, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Nature Physics 9, 361–367 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Peyronel, O

    T. Peyronel, O. Firstenberg, Q.-Y. Liang, S. Hofferberth, A. V. Gorshkov, T. Pohl, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuleti´ c, Nature 488, 57–60 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    ( 7) upon setting ∆ = 0, and gives a nontrivial result when ∆ ̸= 0

    reproduces Eq. ( 7) upon setting ∆ = 0, and gives a nontrivial result when ∆ ̸= 0. The above two equations result in a self-consistent equation for ∆ eff as ∆ 2 eff = ∆ 2 exp[− ∫ dω π J(ω ) ω 2 + κ(ω )2 (ω 2 + κ(ω )2 + ∆ 2 eff )2 ] . (14) For an Ohmic bath and κ(ω ) = rω , this e...

  5. [13]

    Firstenberg, T

    O. Firstenberg, T. Peyronel, Q.-Y. Liang, A. V. Gor- shkov, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuleti´ c, Nature 502, 71–75 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Malossi, M

    N. Malossi, M. M. Valado, S. Scotto, P. Huillery, P. Pillet , D. Ciampini, E. Arimondo, and O. Morsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 023006 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    and the critical value of α are now explicitly de- pendent on the dissipation (via the parameter r). Even in the limit of vanishing dissipation, the steady state is typically far from the ground state [ 45]; the fact that α c → 1 as r → 0 coincides with the standard localizati...

  8. [16]

    Fitzpatrick, N

    M. Fitzpatrick, N. M. Sundaresan, A. C. Y. Li, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011016 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Shirizly, G

    L. Shirizly, G. Misguich, and H. Landa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 010601 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    R. Ma, B. Saxberg, C. Owens, N. Leung, Y. Lu, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Nature 566, 51–57 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Mi et al

    X. Mi et al. , Science 383, 1332 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    J. D. Guimar˜ aes, J. Lim, M. I. Vasilevskiy, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, PRX Quantum 4, 040329 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Sierant, G

    P. Sierant, G. Chiriac` o, F. M. Surace, S. Sharma, X. Turkeshi, M. Dalmonte, R. Fazio, and G. Pagano, Quantum 6, 638 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Haack, N

    C. Haack, N. A. Kamar, D. Paz, M. Maghrebi, and Z. Gong, arXiv preprint , arXiv:2311.06199 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    E. G. D. Torre, S. Diehl, M. D. Lukin, S. Sachdev, and P. Strack, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023831 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    ¨Oztop, M

    B. ¨Oztop, M. Bordyuh, ¨O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, and H. E. T¨ ureci,New Journal of Physics 14, 085011 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    M. F. Maghrebi and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. B 93, 014307 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Wouters and I

    M. Wouters and I. Carusotto, Phys. Rev. B 74, 245316 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    Mitra, S

    A. Mitra, S. Takei, Y. B. Kim, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 236808 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    J. T. Young, A. V. Gorshkov, M. Foss-Feig, and M. F. Maghrebi, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011039 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, J. Marino, and S. Diehl, arXiv preprint , arXiv:2312.03073 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. G. Dalla Torre, E. Demler, T. Giamarchi, and E. Alt- man, Nat. Phys. 6, 806 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Marino and S

    J. Marino and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 070407 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    R. Rota, F. Minganti, C. Ciuti, and V. Savona, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 110405 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    ˇZnidariˇ c,Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2010, L05002 (2010)

    M. ˇZnidariˇ c,Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2010, L05002 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    E. G. Dalla Torre, E. Demler, T. Giamarchi, and E. Alt- man, Phys. Rev. B 85, 184302 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Schollw¨ ock,Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011) , january 2011 Special Issue

    U. Schollw¨ ock,Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011) , january 2011 Special Issue

    2011

  28. [36]

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

    1987

  29. [37]

    Weiss, Quantum dissipative systems (World Scientific, 2012)

    U. Weiss, Quantum dissipative systems (World Scientific, 2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. 187, 732 (1969)

    1969

  31. [39]

    P. W. Anderson and G. Yuval, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 4, 607 (1971)

    1971

  32. [40]

    F. J. Dyson, Communications in Mathematical Physics 21, 269 (1971)

    1971

  33. [41]

    Peierls (1934) pp

    R. Peierls (1934) pp. 81–83

    1934

  34. [42]

    P. W. Anderson, G. Yuval, and D. R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. B 1, 4464 (1970)

    1970

  35. [43]

    V. J. Emery and A. Luther, Phys. Rev. B 9, 215 (1974)

    1974

  36. [44]

    Aizenman, J

    M. Aizenman, J. T. Chayes, L. Chayes, and C. M. New- man, Journal of Statistical Physics 50, 1 (1988)

    1988

  37. [45]

    De Filippis, A

    G. De Filippis, A. de Candia, L. M. Cangemi, M. Sassetti, R. Fazio, and V. Cataudella, Phys. Rev. B 101, 180408 (2020). 6

    2020

  38. [46]

    J. M. Kosterlitz, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 026001 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    See Supplemental Material containing more details on the calculations done under the varitional ansatz. The supplemental material also includes the mapping of the spin-boson model to a lattice model, its potential real- ization in supercondutiong-qubit systems, the detailes of...

  40. [48]

    Silbey and R

    R. Silbey and R. A. Harris, The Journal of Chemical Physics 80, 2615 (1984)

    1984

  41. [49]

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

    2011

  42. [50]

    J. Cui, J. I. Cirac, and M. C. Ba˜ nuls, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 220601 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Shirai and T

    T. Shirai and T. Mori, Phys. Rev. E 101, 042116 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Prior, A

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

    2010

  45. [53]

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

    2010

  46. [54]

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

    2012

  47. [55]

    F. A. Schr¨ oder and A. W. Chin, Physical Review B 93, 075105 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    S. E. Begg and R. Hanai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 120401 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Vidal, Phys

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

    2004

  50. [58]

    Brockt, F

    C. Brockt, F. Dorfner, L. Vidmar, F. Heidrich-Meisner, and E. Jeckelmann, Phys. Rev. B 92, 241106 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    Stolpp, J

    J. Stolpp, J. Herbrych, F. Dorfner, E. Dagotto, and F. Heidrich-Meisner, Phys. Rev. B 101, 035134 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Prosen and T

    T. Prosen and T. H. Seligman, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 43, 392004 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    Ballester, G

    D. Ballester, G. Romero, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, F. Deppe, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. X 2, 021007 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    Braum¨ uller, M

    J. Braum¨ uller, M. Marthaler, A. Schneider, A. Stehli, H. Rotzinger, M. Weides, and A. V. Ustinov, Nature Communications 8, 779

  55. [63]

    Marino and S

    J. Marino and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. B 94, 085150 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Marcos, A

    D. Marcos, A. Tomadin, S. Diehl, and P. Rabl, New Jour- nal of Physics 14, 055005 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Reiter and A

    F. Reiter and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. A 85, 032111 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 096001 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Lundgren, A

    R. Lundgren, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. F. Maghrebi, Phys. Rev. A 102, 032218 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Markovian dissipation can stabilize a (localization) quantum phase trans ition

    G. Adesso, A. Serafini, and F. Illuminati, Physical Re- view A 70, 022318 (2004) . Supplemental Material for “Markovian dissipation can stabilize a (localization) quantum phase trans ition” Naushad A. Kamar, 1, 2 Mostafa Ali, 1 and Mohammad Maghrebi 1 1Department of Physics and...

    2004

  61. [69]

    ), (S.41) where b(b ) represents the bosonic operator in the new basis

    + ∞∑ n=0 ω nb nbn + ∞∑ n=0 tn(b nbn+1 + h.c. ), (S.41) where b(b ) represents the bosonic operator in the new basis. For a bath characteri zed by the spectral function J(ω ) = 2 παω sω 1−s c Θ( ω − ω c), the parameters ω n, tn, and c0 are explicitly given by ω n = ω c 2 ( 1 + ...

  62. [70]

    − Ω 1(eiω p1tσ − + H. c. ) − Ω 2(eiω p2tσ − + H. c. )+ J01(b0b 1 + H. c. ) + J12(b1b 2 + H. c. ) + ω 1b 1b1 + ω 2b 2b2 + ω q2 2 τz + Ω[( b1 + b2)τ+ + H. c. ], (S.68) where σ ±, τ ± represent the raising/lowering spin operators corresponding to the first and second qubits, respe...

  63. [71]

    0 db = 12

    00 ⟨σ z(t)⟩ α = 1. 0 db = 12

  64. [72]

    0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 ω ct

  65. [73]

    0 db = 5 8 12 FIG

    00 ⟨σ z(t)⟩ α = 4. 0 db = 5 8 12 FIG. S.4. The magnetization dynamics, ïσ z(t)ð as a function of time with dissipation acting on all sites; we s et r = 1 / 2, ω c = 10, ∆ = 1. Left Panel: For a fixed local Hilbert space dimension o f bosonic modes db = 12, we observe a transiti...

  66. [74]

    0 db = 8 12 FIG

    000 ⟨σ z(t)⟩ α = 2. 0 db = 8 12 FIG. S.5. The magnetization dynamics, ïσ z(t)ð, with dissipation on all sites except n = 0; parameters as in Fig. S.4, with α = 2 and two values of db = 8 , 12. Numerical results are nearly converged, with magnetization t ending slightly closer ...

    1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.