Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Mixed State Entanglement Via the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces a sufficient entanglement condition based on violations of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality by 2×2 principal minors of the partial transpose, and shows that it tracks negativity closely in the Jaynes-Cummings and…

desk verdict The sufficiency theorem and the JCM analytics are solid; the QRM and open-system applications lean on an unproven S-versus-N correspondence that the paper's own numbers already contradict by a factor of five. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00334 v1 pith:LX6YFFEW submitted 2025-08-01 quant-ph

Nishaant Jacobus , Paul Brumer , Chern Chuang This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords mixed-stateentanglementCauchy-SchwarzviolationnegativitypartialtransposeJaynes-CummingsmodelquantumRabiZ2symmetryopensystems
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 proposes a new, easy-to-compute probe of mixed-state entanglement: the Cauchy-Schwarz Violation (CSV), defined by summing, over pairs of indices, how far the partially transposed density matrix violates 2×2 Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities. Any nonzero value of this sum guarantees the partial transpose is not positive semidefinite, so the state is entangled by the positive partial transpose criterion. Because the sum only inspects 2×2 principal minors, the CSV condition is sufficient but not necessary for entanglement. The authors argue that the CSV quantity tracks the entanglement negativity closely enough to act as a surrogate, and use it to explain qualitative entanglement features of the Jaynes-Cummings and Quantum Rabi models in terms of symmetry. This matters because negativity is a global quantity that requires diagonalizing the whole density operator, whereas the CSV condition is built from individual populations and coherences, making the physical source of entanglement visible.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Cauchy-Schwarz Violation $S(\rho)$, a sum over index pairs $i>j$ of the amount by which the partial transpose fails the inequality $\rho^{PT}_{ii}\rho^{PT}_{jj}\ge|\rho^{PT}_{ij}|^2$. By Sylvester's criterion, these $2\times2$ principal minors are the most local possible sources of non-positive-semidefiniteness, since the $1\times1$ minors are just the nonnegative diagonal populations of $\rho$. The machinery works by converting the global spectral problem of negativity into a sum of pairwise population-coherence comparisons, which can be read directly from the partially transposed density operator and reasoned about from symmetry alone. In the Jaynes-Cummings model this yields the analytic identity $N=\sqrt{S}$ away from degeneracies; in the Quantum Rabi model the same machinery supports the symmetry arguments that predict which parity populations can or cannot support partial-transposed coherences.

What would settle it

Compute both $S$ and the exact negativity $N$ on a fine grid of $\lambda/\Delta$ and $\beta$ for thermal Quantum Rabi states; any region in the strong-coupling regime where $\sqrt{S}$ and $N$ move in opposite directions beyond numerical error would break the paper's claim that $S$ tracks $N$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any density matrix $\rho$, the quantity $$S(\rho)=\sum_{i>j}\max\{|\$rho^{{PT}}$_{ij}|^2-\$rho^{{PT}}$_{ii}\$rho^{{PT}}$_{jj},0\}$$ is a sufficient entanglement condition: if $S>0$, then some $2\times2$ principal minor of the partial transpose is negative, so $\rho^{PT}$ is not positive semidefinite and the negativity $N(\rho)$ is nonzero. This is sufficient but not necessary, since larger principal minors could also contribute to negativity. The paper further claims that $S$ is not merely a yes/no test but a quantitative proxy: in the low-temperature non-degenerate Jaynes-Cummings model the exact relation $N=\sqrt{S}$ holds, and in the Quantum Rabi model and the open-system settings used here, $N$ and $\sqrt{S}$ remain close across the parameter regimes studied. The interpretive claim is that this proximity is powered by symmetry: conserved excitation number in the Jaynes-Cummings model and $\mathbb{Z}_2$ parity in the Rabi model determine whether partial-transposed coherences have populations to support them, which in turn predicts thresholds, dips at degeneracies, non-monotonic coupling dependence, strong-coupling suppression of negativity, and even temperature-induced enhancement when symmetry-respecting baths unevenly populate the parity sectors. Breaking the symmetry is shown to undo these predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the local $2\times2$ principal-minor violations summed by $S$ faithfully represent the full negativity $N$ in the regimes studied, since the exact relation $N=\sqrt{S}$ is proven only for the non-degenerate low-temperature Jaynes-Cummings model and otherwise the correspondence rests on numerics and symmetry arguments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The CSV condition provides an inexpensive sufficient test: whenever one pair of diagonal populations of the partial transpose is smaller in product than the corresponding squared coherence, the state is entangled.
  • In thermal Jaynes-Cummings states, entanglement appears only above a coupling threshold $\lambda_0$ and dips at the degeneracy points $\lambda_n$; the CSV reasoning traces this to the conserved excitation number.
  • In the Quantum Rabi model, entanglement is nonzero for arbitrarily weak coupling and falls again at strong coupling, which the paper attributes to the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ parity symmetry; the counterrotating terms therefore affect entanglement even where they are energetically small.
  • With symmetry-respecting baths, unevenly populating the even and odd parity sectors, or holding them at different temperatures, can produce large strong-coupling negativity, and a hotter odd bath can increase rather than destroy entanglement.
  • Adding a symmetry-breaking term $\varepsilon\sigma_x$ suppresses all of these symmetry-driven entanglement enhancements in the computed steady states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 'unsupported coherence' mechanism should generalize to any conserved quantity that the partial transpose shuffles between sectors, making the CSV condition a symmetry-based design rule for engineering entanglement in larger open systems.
  • Editorial inference: because $S$ is built from pairwise populations and coherences, it may be estimable from low-order tomography or local correlation measurements without full state reconstruction, a practical option the paper does not discuss.
  • Editorial inference: if the temperature-enhancement effect survives in more realistic ultrastrong-coupling settings with the same parity symmetry, it would challenge the default assumption that hotter baths always suppress entanglement; a finite-temperature circuit-QED experiment would be a direct test.
  • Editorial inference: one natural extension is to include larger principal-minor corrections to $S$, using the gap between $S$ and $N^2$ to quantify how much 'delocalized' entanglement is missed by the local condition.
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 introduces the Cauchy-Schwarz Violation (CSV) quantifier S(ρ)=Σ_{i>j} max{|ρ^PT_{ij}|^2−ρ^PT_{ii}ρ^PT_{jj},0} and proves that S>0 implies that ρ^PT is not positive semidefinite and hence that the negativity N(ρ)>0. The authors apply this sufficient condition to thermal states of the Jaynes-Cummings model (JCM) and the Quantum Rabi model (QRM), and to steady states of an open QRM with parity-respecting baths. For the JCM they derive exact low-temperature formulas, including N=√S in the non-degenerate case; for the QRM they use symmetry arguments and numerical calculations (Figs. 1 and 2) to argue that S tracks N closely, predicting non-monotonic coupling dependence of entanglement in the QRM and symmetry- and temperature-enhanced negativity in the open-system setting.

Significance. The sufficient-condition theorem is rigorous, elementary, and parameter-free, and the exact JCM relation N=√S for non-degenerate low-temperature states is a genuine analytical validation. The symmetry-based narrative—that unsupported partial-transposed coherences produce negativity—is intuitive and generative, and it leads to concrete, falsifiable predictions. However, the paper's application-level conclusions depend on an unproven quantitative correspondence between S and N, and the numerical support for the QRM and open-system claims is not reproducible as presented. If the quantitative claims are either proven with bounds or appropriately downgraded to statements about S, the work would be a useful contribution to the study of mixed-state entanglement in physically motivated models.

major comments (3)
  1. [CSV Condition and Fig. 1 (supplemental QRM numbers)] The central quantitative claim is that S "has a close correspondence with" N (Conclusion) and that N and √S are "quantitatively similar" for the QRM (main text, QRM paragraph). This is not supported by the paper's own numbers: for λ=2.3, Δ=2, β=90, the supplement reports S=0.00334 and N=0.0122, so √S≈0.0578 is about 4.7 times larger than N. The CSV Condition section explicitly disclaims that the S–N correspondence is "not make this latter correspondence mathematically precise." Since negativity can be supported by principal minors larger than 2×2 (as the Sylvester-criterion discussion concedes), a decrease or vanishing of S does not imply a decrease or vanishing of N. Consequently, the predictions that strong coupling suppresses negativity in the QRM and that symmetry-respecting baths enhance negativity are conditional on an unproven quantitative relationship; they should either be backed by a bound for the states considered or be presented strictly as predictions about S, not about N.
  2. [Computational Details and Redfield Theory] The QRM and open-system results in Figs. 1 and 2 rest on numerical computations, but the manuscript provides no code, no data release, and no convergence analysis. The statement that truncation at 45 excitations "was found to be sufficient for convergence" is not quantified (no comparison with higher truncations is shown). The Redfield steady state is obtained by solving for the kernel of L without reporting checks of positivity, trace preservation, or dependence on the parameters γe=γo=10^{-5} and the spectral cutoff. Without these details, the numerical curves cannot be independently verified, and the open-system conclusions in particular are not reproducible as presented.
  3. [Application: Low-Temperature JCM and QRM (degenerate case)] At the JCM degeneracy points λ=λ_n, the paper asserts that "S scales as a sum of squares ... should therefore be approximately halved" and uses this to infer that N also decreases. But S decreasing by roughly a factor of two does not by itself imply N decreases, since S is a sum of squares while N is a sum of absolute negative eigenvalues; the supplement's exact Eq. (3) allows a direct check, but the qualitative argument is not a proof. This is a separate instance of the general problem that statements about S are used as statements about N without a quantitative bridge. Please either prove the relevant monotonicity or explicitly frame the dips as dips in S only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text and Supplement Eq. (2)] The notation λ^2n is ambiguous: in the JCM formulas it should read λ² n (coupling squared times excitation number n) rather than λ_n^2; as written it resembles the critical-coupling notation and the distinction matters near the degeneracies.
  2. [Main text, JCM section] The symbol N is used both for entanglement negativity and for the excitation-number operator N=(σ_z+1)+a†a; this overloading is confusing and should be changed (for example, using 𝒩 for negativity).
  3. [Supplement, Eq. (4)] The Redfield equation is written as ρ̇_mn = −iω_mn + Σ R_mn,op σ_op; presumably it should be ρ̇_mn = −iω_mn ρ_mn + Σ R_mn,op ρ_op. Please correct this typo and define σ_op.
  4. [Figures 3–5] The captions for the density-operator plots do not specify which matrix elements are displayed in panels (b)–(d); the text refers to "certain matrix entries" without defining the axes. Please make the plotted quantities explicit.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including "Schr¨ odinger" and "the partial transposed coherences"; a careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CSV condition is defined independently of negativity, the JCM relation N = sqrt(S) is derived rather than fitted, and the numerical S/N comparisons are consistency checks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The central object S(rho) = sum over i>j max(|rho^PT_ij|^2 - rho^PT_ii rho^PT_jj, 0) is defined directly from the partial transpose and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, while negativity N(rho) is defined independently as the sum of the absolute values of the negative eigenvalues of rho^PT. The sufficient-condition step, a nonzero S indicates that rho^PT is not positive semidefinite and hence N(rho) > 0, is a direct mathematical implication from positive-semidefiniteness to the nonnegativity of all 2x2 principal minors; it does not define N in terms of S. For the JCM, the relation N = sqrt(S) is derived analytically from the explicit low-temperature eigenstates in the Supplemental Material, not imposed or fitted. The QRM and open-system sections use symmetry arguments about populations and coherences to predict the qualitative behavior of S, and then compare those predictions with independently computed N; this is a consistency check rather than circular reasoning. The paper explicitly states that it does not make the S-N correspondence mathematically precise, which is a caveat about the strength of the correspondence, not a circular step. Self-citations appear as background or technical references and are not load-bearing for the CSV criterion. No fitted parameter is dressed up as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work. Therefore, no significant circularity is present.

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

The CSV condition is defined directly from the standard Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the partial transpose; no numerical fitting is used. The model parameters (Δ, λ, β, γ, ε, p_e, p_o) are physical or illustrative inputs, not fitted free parameters. The paper's nontrivial assumptions are the low-temperature thermal-state ansatz, the parity-respecting bath structure, the validity of Redfield theory, and the bosonic truncation at 45 excitations; all are stated but not all are independently verified.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math For any positive semidefinite Hermitian matrix A, |A_ij|^2 <= A_ii A_jj.
    Invoked in the CSV Condition section to define S as a sum of violations.
  • standard math A Hermitian matrix is positive semidefinite iff all principal minors are nonnegative (Sylvester's criterion).
    Used to identify 2x2 principal minors as the most local source of negativity.
  • domain assumption A state with negative partial transpose is entangled (Peres-Horodecki criterion).
    Connects nonzero S, which implies the partial transpose is not positive semidefinite, to entanglement.
  • domain assumption At low temperature (beta=90) the thermal state is dominated by the ground state(s), and in the QRM strong-coupling regime the two lowest states of opposite parity are both significantly populated.
    Underlies the symmetry-based explanations of the QRM curves in Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption The Redfield master equation is valid for the open-system calculations with gamma=10^-5 and inverse temperatures 90 and 1.
    Used in the Supplemental Material to compute the non-equilibrium steady states in Fig. 2; no validity check is given.
  • domain assumption Truncating the bosonic Fock space at 45 excitations gives converged results for the parameters studied.
    Stated in Computational Details; no convergence data are shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixed State Entanglement Via the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LX6YFFEW

@misc{pith2026250800334,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixed State Entanglement Via the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LX6YFFEW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00334}
}
read the original abstract

The entanglement properties of mixed states are of great importance in the study of open quantum systems and quantum information science, but commonly used entanglement measures, such as negativity, can be difficult to apply or connect to physical properties of the system. We introduce the Cauchy-Schwarz Violation (CSV) Condition, which has a simple dependence on the populations and coherences of the density operator. A sufficient condition for entanglement, it provides a more direct connection to the physical characteristics of the system such as its symmetries. We illustrate the often surprising insights gained from the CSV condition by applying it to the Jaynes-Cummings Model, the Quantum Rabi Model, and an open-system Quantum Rabi Model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00334 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Numerically calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Numerically calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Numerical results for the thermal state of the QRM for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schr¨ odinger

    E. Schr¨ odinger. Die gegenw¨ artige Situation in der Quantenmechanik.Naturwissenschaften, 23(48):807–812, 1935

    work page 1935

  2. [2]

    Preskill

    J. Preskill. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Benenti, G

    G. Benenti, G. Casati, D. Rossini, and G. Strini. Principles of Quantum Computation and Information . World Scientific, 12 (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 3: Numerical results for the thermal state of the QRM for λ = 0.3, ∆ = 2, β= 90. (a): Numerically calculated thermal energy eigenstate populations. (b), (c), (d): Numerically calculated magnitudes of certain matri...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Molina-Esp ´ ıritu, R

    M. Molina-Esp ´ ıritu, R. O. Esquivel, S. L´ opez-Rosa, and J. S. Dehesa. Quantum Entanglement and Chemical Reactivity. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation , 11(11):5144–5151, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Li and S

    J. Li and S. Kais. Entanglement classifier in chemical reactions. Science Advances, 5(8):eaax5283, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    K. B. Whaley, M. Sarovar, and A. Ishizaki. Quantum entanglement phenomena in photosynthetic light harvesting com- plexes. Procedia Chemistry, 3(1):152–164, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Caruso, S

    F. Caruso, S. Chin, A. Datta, S. Huelga, and M. Plenio. Entanglement and entangling power of the dynamics in light- harvesting complexes. Physical Review A , 81(6):062346, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Karimi and R

    E. Karimi and R. W. Boyd. Classical entanglement? Science, 350(6265):1172–1173, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Paneru, E

    D. Paneru, E. Cohen, R. Fickler, R. W. Boyd, and E. Karimi. Entanglement: Quantum or Classical? Reports on Progress in Physics , 83(6):064001, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Korolkova, L

    N. Korolkova, L. S´ anchez-Soto, and G. Leuchs. An operational distinction between quantum entanglement and classical non-separability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 13 (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 4: Same as Fig. ...

    2024

  3. [11]

    M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani. An introduction to entanglement measures. arXiv, 2006. arXiv:quant-ph/0504163

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Elben, R

    A. Elben, R. Kueng, H.-Y. Huang, R. Van Bijnen, C. Kokail, M. Dalmonte, P. Calabrese, B. Kraus, J. Preskill, P. Zoller, and B. Vermersch. Mixed-State Entanglement from Local Randomized Measurements.Physical Review Letters, 125(20):200501, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    A. Peres. Separability Criterion for Density Matrices. Physical Review Letters, 77(8):1413–1415, 1996

    1996

  6. [14]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki. Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions. Physics Letters A, 223(1):1–8, 1996

    1996

  7. [15]

    Benabdallah, M

    F. Benabdallah, M. Y. Abd-Rabbou, M. Daoud, and S. Haddadi. Quantum information resources in spin-1 Heisenberg dimer systems. Quantum Information Processing, 24(1):1–20, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Brenes, B

    M. Brenes, B. Min, N. Anto-Sztrikacs, N. Bar-Gill, and D. Segal. Bath-induced interactions and transient dynamics in open quantum systems at strong coupling: Effective Hamiltonian approach. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 160(24):244106, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Parez and W

    G. Parez and W. Witczak-Krempa. Entanglement negativity between separated regions in quantum critical systems. 14 (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 5: Same as Fig. 3, but now for λ = 2.3. Physical Review Research, 6(2):023125, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    A. Nitzan. Chemical Dynamics in Condensed Phases: Relaxation, Transfer, and Reactions in Condensed Molecular Sys- tems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    G. A. Skorobagatko. Universal separability criterion for arbitrary density matrices from causal properties of separable and entangled quantum states. Scientific Reports, 11(1):15866, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo¨ e. Quantum Mechanics, Volume 1: Basic Concepts, Tools, and Applications . John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    C. D. Meyer. Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 2000

    2000

  14. [22]

    Mirzaee and M

    M. Mirzaee and M. Batavani. Atom–field entanglement in the Jaynes–Cummings model without rotating wave approxi- mation. Chinese Physics B , 24(4):040306, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Akella, K

    S. Akella, K. Thapliyal, H. S. Mani, and A. Pathak. Dynamics of single-mode nonclassicalities and quantum correlations in the Jaynes-Cummings model. Journal of the Optical Society of America B , 39(7):1829, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    K. Mandal. Entanglement dynamics in double Jaynes-Cummings model and intensity-dependent double Jaynes-Cummings 15 model for squeezed coherent thermal states. arXiv, 2024. arXiv:2405.10564v5

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Boukobza and D

    E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor. Entropy exchange and entanglement in the Jaynes-Cummings model. Physical Review A, 71(6):063821, 2005

    2005

  18. [26]

    Fan, Y.-H

    L.-B. Fan, Y.-H. Zhou, F. Zou, H. Guo, J.-F. Huang, and J.-Q. Liao. Quantum Thermalization and Vanishing Thermal Entanglement in the Open Jaynes–Cummings Model. Annalen der Physik , 532(8):2000134, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Yang and H.-G

    Y.-T. Yang and H.-G. Luo. Characterizing Superradiant Phase of the Quantum Rabi Model. Chinese Physics Letters , 40(2):020502, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    M. Bina, S. Maffezzoli Felis, and S. Olivares. Entanglement generation in the ultra-strongly coupled Rabi model. Interna- tional Journal of Quantum Information , 12(07n08):1560016, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Y.-Q. Shi, L. Cong, and H.-P. Eckle. Entanglement resonance in the asymmetric quantum Rabi model. Physical Review A, 105(6):062450, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Z.-J. Ying, M. Liu, H.-G. Luo, H.-Q. Lin, and J. Q. You. Ground-state phase diagram of the quantum Rabi model. Physical Review A, 92(5):053823, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Liu, L.-B

    W.-Y. Liu, L.-B. Fan, Y.-X. Zeng, J.-F. Huang, and J.-Q. Liao. Quantum Thermalization and Thermal Entanglement in the Open Quantum Rabi Model. Annalen der Physik , 535(2):2200502, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    D. Z. Rossatto, C. J. Villas-Bˆ oas, M. Sanz, and E. Solano. Spectral classification of coupling regimes in the quantum Rabi model. Physical Review A , 96(1):013849, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Chuang, A

    C. Chuang, A. Kapulkin, A. Pattanayak, and P. Brumer. Parametric hypersensitivity in many-body bath-mediated transport: The quantum Rabi model. Physical Review A , 108(2):022213, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Scala, R

    M. Scala, R. Migliore, and A. Messina. Dissipation and entanglement dynamics for two interacting qubits coupled to independent reservoirs. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 41(43):435304, October 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Wang and Y.-J

    M.-J. Wang and Y.-J. Xia. Steady-state entanglement and heat current of two coupled qubits in two baths without rotating wave approximation. Chinese Physics B , 28(6):060303, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Kawabata, R

    K. Kawabata, R. Sohal, and S. Ryu. Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorem in Open Quantum Systems. Physical Review Letters , 132(7):070402, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Kawabata, A

    K. Kawabata, A. Kulkarni, J. Li, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu. Symmetry of Open Quantum Systems: Classification of Dissipative Quantum Chaos. PRX Quantum , 4(3):030328, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    V. V. Albert and L. Jiang. Symmetries and conserved quantities in Lindblad master equations. Physical Review A , 89(2):022118, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Buˇ ca and T

    B. Buˇ ca and T. Prosen. A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equation: transport in constrained open spin chains. New Journal of Physics , 14(7):073007, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    L. S´ a, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen. Symmetry Classification of Many-Body Lindbladians: Tenfold Way and Beyond.Physical Review X, 13(3):031019, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Y.-N. Zhou, X. Li, H. Zhai, C. Li, and Y. Gu. Reviving the Lieb–Schultz–Mattis theorem in open quantum systems. National Science Review , 12(1):nwae287, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    W. T. Pollard and R. A. Friesner. Solution of the Redfield equation for the dissipative quantum dynamics of multilevel systems. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 100(7):5054–5065, 1994

    1994

  35. [43]

    Liao, J.-F

    J.-Q. Liao, J.-F. Huang, and L.-M. Kuang. Quantum thermalization of two coupled two-level systems in eigenstate and 16 bare-state representations. Physical Review A , 83(5):052110, 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    T. V. Tscherbul and P. Brumer. Quantum coherence effects in natural light-induced processes: cis–trans photoisomerization of model retinal under incoherent excitation. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics , 17(46):30904–30913, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.