Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 80 references

The paper introduces a recipe that turns the exact dynamical map of a finite open quantum system into a master equation, and uses it to derive exact phase-covariant and random-telegraph-noise channels for the central spin model, with applic

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:10 UTC pith:GRPL24IB

load-bearing objection Useful exact master equation for the collective central spin model, but the advertised generality to an N-spin thermal bath is overstated because the derivation lives in the Dicke sector. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2511.07180 v2 pith:GRPL24IB submitted 2025-11-10 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Finite-Bath Open Quantum Systems: Exact Dynamics

Devvrat Tiwari , Subhashish Banerjee This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords central spin modelexact master equationminimal dissipatorphase-covariant channelrandom telegraph noisenon-Markovian dynamicsquantum batteryfinite-bath open quantum systems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The authors develop a general technique for converting the exact dynamical map of a finite open quantum system into a time-local master equation, by choosing the dissipator of minimal norm so the Hamiltonian part carries as much of the evolution as possible. Applying it to the central spin model with Heisenberg coupling, they derive an exact, phase-covariant master equation valid at arbitrary temperature and coupling strength, and identify the associated quantum channel. For a stochastic pure-dephasing coupling, the same technique yields the exact non-Markovian random telegraph noise (RTN) master equation, providing a microscopic foundation for a model previously treated semiclassically. They then use these master equations to compute heat currents and charging powers of quantum batteries, showing a direct relation between heat current and charging power and that RTN dephasing can store coherence.

Core claim

Treating the generator of an open-system evolution as an operator on the space of states, the authors project it onto the subspace of Hamiltonian generators, defining the canonical Hamiltonian and the minimal dissipator that accounts for everything else. For the Heisenberg-coupled central spin, this yields a phase-covariant master equation of the form dρ/dt = -i[H_can, ρ] + Σ_k ν_k (σ_k ρ σ_k† - ½{σ_k†σ_k, ρ}) with rates ν_+ = Γ_t, ν_- = -ζ_t and ν_z = (ζ_t - Γ_t - 2 Re Θ_t)/4, exact for a finite spin bath at any temperature. For the stochastic interaction, the same procedure gives a pure-dephasing master equation whose dephasing factor is exactly the random-telegraph-noise factor Λ(t) = e^{

What carries the argument

The minimal-dissipation decomposition: from the Choi matrix of the generator L_t = Φ̇_t Φ_t^{-1}, one reads off real coefficients γ_k and pseudo-Kraus operators E_k; traceless Lindblad operators L_k = E_k - (Tr E_k / d) I and the canonical Hamiltonian H_can = -i/(2d) Σ_k γ_k (Tr{E_k} E_k† - Tr{E_k†} E_k) give the unique master equation with the smallest dissipator. This construction carries the whole argument, turning any CPTP map of a finite system into a time-local Lindblad form.

Load-bearing premise

For the RTN result, the entire derivation rests on the assumption that the system-bath coupling is a symmetric random telegraph process that switches between ±ε√N with a single rate γ, and that the bath starts in its ground state; if the switching statistics or the bath state differ, the dephasing factor will not take the RTN form and the 'microscopic derivation' claim loses its target.

What would settle it

Simulate or experimentally measure the full reduced dynamics of the Heisenberg central spin model with finite N at finite temperature, and compare the evolution of all density-matrix elements with the solution of Eq. (3) using the stated rates; if any element deviates, the rate assignment or the master equation is incorrect. For the RTN case, measure the visibility of a coherent superposition vs. time under a stochastically switching coupling and check whether it matches Eq. (4) at all times, especially its zero crossings, which a bosonic-bath dephasing factor cannot reproduce.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the Heisenberg master equation is correct, finite-bath central spin systems can serve as controllable platforms for phase-covariant channels, with applications in quantum metrology and quantum information protocols.
  • The RTN master equation provides a microscopic route to a widely used non-Markovian noise model, so experiments with spin baths (NV centers, NMR, Rydberg atoms) can realize and test RTN dynamics in a fully quantum setting.
  • The direct link between heat current and charging power means thermodynamic quantities can be inferred from the master equation alone, and vice versa, simplifying quantum battery analysis.
  • The exactness at any coupling and temperature, in contrast to perturbative and secular approximations, allows the study of strong-coupling quantum thermodynamics and non-Markovianity in regimes where standard master equations fail.
  • Because the method works for any finite-system map, it opens a route to exact master equations for more complex finite baths, multiple central spins, and systems with tunneling terms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The minimal-dissipation principle is a gauge choice; an alternative dissipator could shift parts of the evolution between the Hamiltonian and dissipative terms, so the physical interpretation of the rates ν_k may depend on this convention unless a direct measurement fixes the Hamiltonian part.
  • The RTN derivation assumes the bath is in its ground state and the coupling is a symmetric telegraph process; a natural extension to asymmetric switching or thermal bath states would likely produce a generalized dephasing factor and reveal memory effects beyond the standard RTN form.
  • For the Heisenberg model, the rate assignment in Eq. (3) can be tested by comparing the time evolution of coherences and populations with the original map; a mismatch would indicate a sign error or ordering issue in the Choi eigenvalue decomposition.
  • The quantum-battery analysis suggests that the RTN channel stores charge when coherences are present; a testable prediction is that the ergotropy of a coherent state under RTN dephasing decreases slowly for small γ while the charging power oscillates, which could be observed in NMR spin systems with controlled fluctuations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a method for constructing a time-local master equation from an arbitrary CPTP dynamical map of a finite system, using the Hayden–Sorce minimal-dissipator decomposition. It applies the method to two central-spin models: a Heisenberg XX coupling with constant strength, for which it derives a phase-covariant master equation (Eq. (3)) with explicit rates and Kraus operators, and a stochastic pure-dephasing coupling, for which it derives the RTN dephasing factor and master equation. It then uses the master equations to compute heat currents and quantum-battery charging powers. The main claims are that Eq. (3) is the exact master equation for a finite spin bath at arbitrary temperature, and that the RTN channel is obtained from a microscopic spin-bath model.

Significance. The minimal-dissipator construction is clearly laid out, and the algebraic steps leading to Eq. (3) are internally consistent once the convention for the Pauli raising/lowering operators is fixed. The closed-form expressions for α_t, η_t, δ_t and the explicit Kraus operators are useful, and the RTN section provides a concrete spin-bath realization of the RTN channel together with an instructive comparison with bosonic dephasing. If the model is understood as a collective spin-N/2 bath, the results give an exact non-Markovian phase-covariant master equation and a spin-bath route to RTN, which would be a useful contribution. However, the paper's presentation of the bath initial state overstates the domain of applicability of the exactness claim.

major comments (1)
  1. [Dissipative dynamics of the central spin model; Supplemental Eqs. (A18)–(A27)] The thermal bath state in Eq. (A18) is written as a single sum over n=0..N with one state |n> per eigenvalue. This is not the Gibbs state of H_B=(ω/N)J_z on the N-spin-1/2 Hilbert space: the true thermal state has binomial degeneracy C(N,n) for each n and support in all total-spin sectors j=N/2, N/2−1, ... . Because the interaction V commutes with J^2, each total-spin sector evolves independently, and the exact reduced dynamics is a weighted average over sectors. The spectral decomposition in Eqs. (A19)–(A23) and the resulting α_t, η_t, δ_t in Eqs. (A25)–(A27) use one state per n, i.e. only the fully symmetric j=N/2 sector. Consequently Eq. (3) is exact for a collective spin-N/2 bath, not for the N spin-1/2 thermal bath claimed in the main text ('exact for a finite bath and for a reservoir at any temperature'). This should be fixed either by explicitly restricting the model to the symmet
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (3) and surrounding text] Please define σ_+ and σ_- explicitly. With the convention used in the derivation (σ_+ = |0><1|), Eq. (3) reproduces the population and coherence equations of the map; with the more common convention σ_+ = |1><0|, the rate assignment appears to have the wrong sign. A one-line definition would remove this ambiguity.
  2. [Supplement, Eq. (A18)] The text calls |n> the 'standard computational basis', but the derivation uses exactly one state per n, i.e. the Dicke (fully symmetric) states. Please rename the basis to avoid confusion with the full N-spin product basis.
  3. [Main text, 'Dissipative dynamics...'] The sentence 'the total Hilbert space of all N bath spins is conveniently reduced to an (N+1)-dimensional space using the collective angular momentum operators' should state explicitly that this reduction is valid only for permutation-symmetric initial states, and that the thermal Gibbs state used here is not of that form for N spin-1/2 particles.
  4. [RTN section and Supplement 'RANDOM TELEGRAPH NOISE MASTER EQUATION'] The 'microscopic derivation' of RTN should be qualified: the random telegraph switching is an input assumption (symmetric RTP with rate γ), and the bath is taken in its ground state. The derivation shows that a spin-bath model can reproduce RTN, not that the stochastic switching is derived from a deterministic quantum environment.
  5. [Eq. (3) and RTN master equation Eq. (5)] The generator L_t = dot Φ_t Φ_t^{-1} and the rates Θ_t, dot Λ/Λ become singular when δ_t or Λ(t) vanish. The paper does not discuss these zeros (e.g., Λ(t) has zeros in the non-Markovian RTN regime). A remark on the domain of validity would be helpful.
  6. [Supplement, Eq. (A9)] The quantity Δ in the inverse-matrix elements is not defined; the text jumps from 'where Δ =' to the next paragraph. Please supply the missing expression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: exact master equations follow from the dynamical map by a standard decomposition; the RTN factor is an explicit stochastic-modeling input, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. For the Heisenberg central-spin model, the map elements α_t, η_t, δ_t are obtained from an exact spectral decomposition of H (Supplemental Eqs. A25–A27). The generator L_t = dΦ_t Φ_t^{-1} is then decomposed using the minimal-dissipation construction of Hayden–Sorce (Ref. [61]) and the canonical Hamiltonian/dissipator are formed from the Choi eigenvectors. The rates in Eq. (3) are algebraic combinations of ζ_t, Γ_t, Θ_t; substituting them reproduces the map's population and coherence equations. No parameter is fitted to the target master equation, and no external result is invoked to forbid alternatives: the minimal-dissipation principle is a stated convention, and it is cited to independent work, not to the authors' prior papers. The self-citations [12,40,63] provide context or point to the supplemental derivation within the same paper; they are not load-bearing. The RTN section is also formally non-circular: the paper explicitly assumes ε(t) is a symmetric random telegraph process (Supplemental 'RANDOM TELEGRAPH NOISE...') and then solves the resulting differential equation for Λ(t). This is a transparent modeling input rather than a hidden fit. A separate non-circularity concern is that the central-spin calculation's 'Gibbs state' is written as a single sum over Dicke states and therefore describes the symmetric sector rather than the full 2^N thermal bath; this is a question of the model being solved, not of the derivation being equivalent to its input. Overall, the exact master equations are independently grounded within the paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data. The central spin model uses physical inputs (ω0, ω, N, ε, β) and the RTN model adds a stochastic switching rate γ; none of these are tuned to force the target results. The main load-bearing assumptions are the minimal dissipation theorem (standard) and the phenomenological RTN switching process.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Minimal dissipation decomposition theorem: any HPTA superoperator can be uniquely split into a Hamiltonian part and a dissipator with traceless jump operators.
    The paper's step 5 relies on this theorem from [61,22] to define H_can and D; it is cited, not proved.
  • domain assumption Bath initial state is a Gibbs (thermal) state at inverse temperature β.
    Used to compute α_t, η_t, δ_t in the Heisenberg central spin model; Eq. (A18).
  • ad hoc to paper The interaction strength ϵ(t) in the pure-dephasing model switches between ±ε√N as a symmetric random telegraph process with rate γ.
    This stochastic assumption is imposed to obtain the RTN dephasing factor; the 'microscopic derivation' depends on it.
  • domain assumption For the RTN model the bath is initialized in its ground state.
    Used to write Λ(t)=⟨exp(i√N∫ϵ(s)ds)⟩; a thermal bath would change the dephasing factor.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25481 in / 44800 out tokens · 423835 ms · 2026-08-03T23:10:22.344843+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we introduce a method for deriving exact master equations from the dynamical map for finite open quantum systems coupled to (in)finite reservoirs, using the principle of minimal dissipation. The exact dynamics of the central spin model, which models a finite-bath open quantum system, is developed for two interaction types: Heisenberg and stochastic pure-dephasing interactions. The Heisenberg interaction yields a novel phase-covariant quantum channel in the strong-coupling regime, offering a new platform for studying a range of quantum information protocols. The stochastic pure-dephasing interaction provides the microscopic derivation of the paradigmatic non-Markovian random telegraph noise (RTN) channel, establishing its quantum foundation and offering insight into stochastic couplings. We derive the closed-form master equations for both models. As a demonstration, we explore the thermodynamic performance of these systems as quantum batteries. A direct relationship between quantum heat current and charging power is revealed, and RTN quantum batteries are shown to have advantages in charge storage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.07180 by Devvrat Tiwari, Subhashish Banerjee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Variation of the heat current, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Variation of the matrix elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Given the mapΦ t of the reduced state of a system of finite size (obtained either analytically or numerically), such that arXiv:2511.07180v1 [quant-ph] 10 Nov 2025 2 ρ(t)= Φ t[ρ(0)], the generatorL t becomes ˙ΦtΦ−1 t , which is Hermiticity-preserving and trace-annihilating (HPTA)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Next, the generatorL t is used to obtain the Choi matrix C= (Lt⊗I )|ψ⟩⟨ψ|, where|ψ⟩= P i|ii⟩is the non-normalized maximally entangled state in the space of the generatorL t

  3. [3]

    In step 2, if in the place of the generatorL t, the map Φt is used, we get the usual Kraus operators of evolution

    The Choi matrix is, in general, Hermitian and its spectral decomposition is given byC= P jγ j|j⟩⟨j|, whereγ j and |j⟩are its eigenvalues and eigenvectors (normalized), respec- tively. In step 2, if in the place of the generatorL t, the map Φt is used, we get the usual Kraus operators of evolution

  4. [4]

    Using theE K’s, the generator of the master equation has the decompositionL t (ρ) = P kγkEkρE† k

    The eigenvectors of the Choi matrix after de-vectorization (devec{|i j⟩} =|i⟩⟨j|) become the pseudo-Kraus operators Ek, and their eigenvalues become the real coefficientsγ k. Using theE K’s, the generator of the master equation has the decompositionL t (ρ) = P kγkEkρE† k

  5. [5]

    Now, we particularize to the master equation for the most general dynamical map for a two-level system

    Finally, the pseudo-Kraus operators are used to obtain the canonical HamiltonianH can = − i 2d P kγk h Tr{Ek} E† k−Tr n E† k o Ek i ,and the minimal dissipatorD (ρ) = P kγk h LkρL† k− 1 2 n L† kLk,ρ oi , where Lk =E k− Tr{Ek} d Iand thus the master equation dρ(t) dt =−i[H can,ρ(t)]+D ρ(t) =L t ρ(t) .(1) See [63] for an explanation. Now, we particularize t...

  6. [6]

    Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics48, 119 (1976), ISSN 1432-0916, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01608499

    G. Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics48, 119 (1976), ISSN 1432-0916, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01608499

    1976

  7. [7]

    Weiss,Quantum Dissipative Systems(WORLD SCIEN- TIFIC, 2011), ISBN 9789814374927, URLhttp://dx.doi

    U. Weiss,Quantum Dissipative Systems(WORLD SCIEN- TIFIC, 2011), ISBN 9789814374927, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1142/8334

    doi:10.1142/8334 2011

  8. [8]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007), ISBN 9780199213900, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001

    arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    S. Banerjee,Open Quantum Systems: Dynamics of Nonclassical Evolution, Texts and Readings in Physi- cal Sciences (Springer Nature Singapore, 2018), ISBN 9789811331824, URLhttps://books.google.co.in/ books?id=s-11DwAAQBAJ

    2018

  10. [10]

    W. H. Louisell,Quantum statistical properties of radiation, Pure & Applied Optics S. (John Wiley & Sons, Nashville, TN, 1973)

    1973

  11. [11]

    Gorini, A

    V . Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudar- shan, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821 (1976), ISSN 0022-2488, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/17/5/821/19090720/821 1 online.pdf, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1063/1.522979

    doi:10.1063/1.522979 1976

  12. [12]

    Tiwari, B

    D. Tiwari, B. Bose, and S. Banerjee, The Journal of Chemical Physics162(2025), ISSN 1089-7690, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1063/5.0254029

    doi:10.1063/5.0254029 2025

  13. [13]

    de Vega and D

    I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015001 (2017), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.89.015001

    2017

  14. [14]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Reports on Progress in Physics77, 094001 (2014), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0034-4885/77/9/094001. 6

    2014

  15. [15]

    Chru ´sci´nski, Physics Reports992, 1 (2022), ISSN 0370- 1573, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370157322003428

    D. Chru ´sci´nski, Physics Reports992, 1 (2022), ISSN 0370- 1573, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370157322003428

    2022

  16. [16]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021002 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.021002 2016

  17. [17]

    Utagi, R

    S. Utagi, R. Srikanth, and S. Banerjee, Scientific Reports10, 15049 (2020), ISSN 2045-2322, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/s41598-020-72211-3

    2020

  18. [18]

    Kosloff, Entropy15, 2100 (2013), ISSN 1099-4300, URL https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/6/2100

    R. Kosloff, Entropy15, 2100 (2013), ISSN 1099-4300, URL https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/6/2100

    2013

  19. [19]

    Brenes, J

    M. Brenes, J. Garwoła, and D. Segal, Phys. Rev. B 111, 235440 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/m18l-t1hk

    2025

  20. [20]

    M. J. W. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li, and E. Andersson, Phys. Rev. A89, 042120 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.042120

    doi:10.1103/physreva.89.042120 2014

  21. [21]

    S. N. Filippov, A. N. Glinov, and L. Lepp ¨aj¨arvi, Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics41, 617–630 (2020), ISSN 1818-9962, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1995080220040095

    work page doi:10.1134/s1995080220040095 2020

  22. [22]

    The corresponding pseudo-Kraus operators, which are derived from the eigenvec- tors of the Choi matrix, areE 1 = 1√ 2 −l22/|l22|0 0 1 ! andE 2 = 1√ 2 l22/|l22|0 0 1 !

    The eigenvalues of the resulting Choi matrix are given byλ 1 =−|l 22|,λ 2 =|l 22|, andλ 3 =λ 4 =0. The corresponding pseudo-Kraus operators, which are derived from the eigenvec- tors of the Choi matrix, areE 1 = 1√ 2 −l22/|l22|0 0 1 ! andE 2 = 1√ 2 l22/|l22|0 0 1 ! . The canonical Hamiltonian for this model is thus given byH can =ω 0σz/2. The Lindblad jum...

  23. [23]

    J. F. Haase, A. Smirne, J. Kołody ´nski, R. Demkowicz- Dobrza´nski, and S. F. Huelga, New Journal of Physics 20, 053009 (2018), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1367-2630/aab67f

    2018

  24. [25]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynamics, 2053-2571 (Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2019), ISBN 978-1-64327-658-8, URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 2053-2571/ab21c6

    2053

  25. [26]

    G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035008 (2021), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.93.035008

    2021

  26. [27]

    G. T. Landi, D. Poletti, and G. Schaller, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045006 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.94.045006

    2022

  27. [29]

    Thomas, N

    G. Thomas, N. Siddharth, S. Banerjee, and S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. E97, 062108 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.062108

    doi:10.1103/physreve.97.062108 2018

  28. [30]

    Tiwari, S

    D. Tiwari, S. Bhattacharya, and S. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 020404 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/5x8m-bhgd

    2025

  29. [31]

    del Campo, I

    A. del Campo, I. L. Egusquiza, M. B. Plenio, and S. F. Huelga, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 050403 (2013), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.050403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.050403 2013

  30. [32]

    M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 050402 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 110.050402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2013

  31. [33]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical50, 453001 (2017), URLhttps://doi. org/10.1088/1751-8121/aa86c6

    doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa86c6 2017

  32. [34]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  33. [35]

    G. S. Agarwal,Quantum optics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2012)

    2012

  34. [36]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, PRX Quantum5, 020201 (2024), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020201

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020201 2024

  35. [37]

    N. V . Prokof’ev and P. C. E. Stamp, Reports on Progress in Physics63, 669 (2000), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0034-4885/63/4/204

    2000

  36. [38]

    Esposito and P

    M. Esposito and P. Gaspard, Phys. Rev. E68, 066112 (2003), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE. 68.066112

    doi:10.1103/physreve 2003

  37. [39]

    Riera-Campeny, A

    A. Riera-Campeny, A. Sanpera, and P. Strasberg, Phys. Rev. E 105, 054119 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevE.105.054119

    2022

  38. [40]

    Jahnke, S

    T. Jahnke, S. Lan ´ery, and G. Mahler, Phys. Rev. E 83, 011109 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevE.83.011109

    2011

  39. [41]

    J. P. Pekola, S. Suomela, and Y . M. Galperin, Journal of Low Temperature Physics184, 1015 (2016), ISSN 1573-7357, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-016-1618-5

    doi:10.1007/s10909-016-1618-5 2016

  40. [42]

    Riera-Campeny, A

    A. Riera-Campeny, A. Sanpera, and P. Strasberg, PRX Quan- tum2, 010340 (2021), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010340

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.010340 2021

  41. [43]

    J. P. Pekola, B. Karimi, M. Cattaneo, and S. Maniscalco, Open Systems & Information Dynamics30, 2350009 (2023), URL https://doi.org/10.1142/S1230161223500099

    work page doi:10.1142/s1230161223500099 2023

  42. [44]

    Arenz, G

    C. Arenz, G. Gualdi, and D. Burgarth, New Journal of Physics16, 065023 (2014), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/1367-2630/16/6/065023

    2014

  43. [45]

    Mukhopadhyay, S

    C. Mukhopadhyay, S. Bhattacharya, A. Misra, and A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A96, 052125 (2017), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.052125

    doi:10.1103/physreva.96.052125 2017

  44. [46]

    Tiwari, S

    D. Tiwari, S. Datta, S. Bhattacharya, and S. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. A106, 032435 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.032435

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.106.032435 2022

  45. [47]

    Biswas and S

    H. Biswas and S. Choudhury,The floquet central spin model: A platform to realize eternal time crystals, entanglement steer- ing, and multiparameter metrology(2025), 2501.18472, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18472

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [48]

    Krovi, O

    H. Krovi, O. Oreshkov, M. Ryazanov, and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A76, 052117 (2007), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.052117

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.76.052117 2007

  47. [49]

    Rashid, R

    M. Rashid, R. A. Mala, S. Bashir, and M. Q. Lone, Phys- ica Scripta100, 095119 (2025), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/1402-4896/ae06d8

    2025

  48. [50]

    Dobrzyniecki and M

    J. Dobrzyniecki and M. Tomza, Phys. Rev. A108, 052618 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.108.052618

    2023

  49. [51]

    Hanson, V

    R. Hanson, V . V . Dobrovitski, A. E. Feiguin, O. Gy- wat, and D. D. Awschalom, Science320, 352 (2008), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1155400, URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.1155400

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1155400 2008

  50. [52]

    E. M. Kessler, S. Yelin, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and G. Giedke, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 143601 (2010), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.143601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.143601 2010

  51. [53]

    Fuchs, F

    M. Fuchs, F. Krauß, D. Hetterich, and B. Trauzettel, Phys. Rev. B92, 035310 (2015), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.035310

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.92.035310 2015

  52. [55]

    Mihailescu, S

    G. Mihailescu, S. Campbell, and A. K. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042614 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.107.042614

    2023

  53. [56]

    Daffer, K

    S. Daffer, K. W ´odkiewicz, J. D. Cresser, and J. K. McIver, 7 Phys. Rev. A70, 010304 (2004), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.010304

    doi:10.1103/physreva.70.010304 2004

  54. [57]

    S. O. Rice, The Bell System Technical Journal23, 282 (1944)

    1944

  55. [58]

    Y . M. Galperin, B. L. Altshuler, J. Bergli, and D. V . Shant- sev, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 097009 (2006), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.097009

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.097009 2006

  56. [59]

    Bergli, Y

    J. Bergli, Y . M. Galperin, and B. L. Altshuler, New Journal of Physics11, 025002 (2009), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1367-2630/11/2/025002

    2009

  57. [60]

    Cheng, Q.-H

    B. Cheng, Q.-H. Wang, and R. Joynt, Phys. Rev. A 78, 022313 (2008), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.78.022313

    2008

  58. [61]

    Cai, Scientific Reports10, 88 (2020), ISSN 2045-2322, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57081-8

    X. Cai, Scientific Reports10, 88 (2020), ISSN 2045-2322, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57081-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-019-57081-8 2020

  59. [62]

    Barkai, Y

    E. Barkai, Y . Jung, and R. Silbey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 207403 (2001), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.87.207403

    2001

  60. [63]

    Cialdi, C

    S. Cialdi, C. Benedetti, D. Tamascelli, S. Olivares, M. G. A. Paris, and B. Vacchini, Phys. Rev. A100, 052104 (2019), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.100.052104

    2019

  61. [64]

    Cowie, P

    M. Cowie, P. C. Constantinou, N. J. Curson, T. J. Z. Stock, and P. Gr ¨utter, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences121, e2404456121 (2024), URLhttps://www.pnas. org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2404456121

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2404456121 2024

  62. [65]

    Paladino, L

    E. Paladino, L. Faoro, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 228304 (2002), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.88.228304

    2002

  63. [66]

    Cialdi, M

    S. Cialdi, M. A. C. Rossi, C. Benedetti, B. Vacchini, D. Tama- scelli, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Applied Physics Letters 110, 081107 (2017), ISSN 0003-6951, URLhttps://doi. org/10.1063/1.4977023

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4977023 2017

  64. [67]

    Hayden and J

    P. Hayden and J. Sorce, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical55, 225302 (2022), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1751-8121/ac65c2

    doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac65c2 2022

  65. [68]

    Colla, F

    A. Colla, F. Hasse, D. Palani, T. Schaetz, H.-P. Breuer, and U. Warring, Nature Communications16, 2502 (2025), ISSN 2041-1723, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-025-57840-4. [63]See the supplemental material for details

    2025

  66. [69]

    Smirne and B

    A. Smirne and B. Vacchini, Phys. Rev. A82, 022110 (2010), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 82.022110

    doi:10.1103/physreva 2010

  67. [70]

    Kraus, Annals of Physics64, 311 (1971), URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0003491671901084

    K. Kraus, Annals of Physics64, 311 (1971), URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0003491671901084

    arXiv 1971

  68. [71]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev.58, 1098 (1940), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev. 58.1098

    doi:10.1103/physrev 1940

  69. [72]

    Bhattacharya, A

    S. Bhattacharya, A. Misra, C. Mukhopadhyay, and A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A95, 012122 (2017), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.012122

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.95.012122 2017

  70. [73]

    Colla, H.-P

    A. Colla, H.-P. Breuer, and G. Gasbarri,Unveiling coherent dy- namics in non-markovian open quantum systems: exact expres- sion and recursive perturbation expansion(2025), 2506.04097, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.04097

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [74]

    A. B. Zorin, F.-J. Ahlers, J. Niemeyer, T. Weimann, H. Wolf, V . A. Krupenin, and S. V . Lotkhov, Phys. Rev. B 53, 13682 (1996), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.53.13682

    1996

  72. [75]

    Nakamura, Y

    Y . Nakamura, Y . A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, and J. S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 047901 (2002), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.047901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.047901 2002

  73. [76]

    N. P. Kumar, S. Banerjee, R. Srikanth, V . Jagadish, and F. Petruccione, Open Systems & Information Dynamics 25, 1850014 (2018), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1142/ S1230161218500142

    2018

  74. [77]

    Funo and A

    K. Funo and A. Ishizaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 170402 (2024), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.132.170402

    2024

  75. [78]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 031001 (2024), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.96.031001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.96.031001 2024

  76. [79]

    Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y . L ¨u, and C. Shang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 180401 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.134.180401

    2025

  77. [80]

    Gyhm and U

    J.-Y . Gyhm and U. R. Fischer, A VS Quantum Science6, 012001 (2024), ISSN 2639-0213, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1116/ 5.0184903

    2024

  78. [81]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Euro- physics Letters67, 565 (2004), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/ 10.1209/epl/i2004-10101-2

    doi:10.1209/epl/i2004-10101-2 2004

  79. [82]

    T. S. Mahesh,Work in progress. 8 End Matter Appendix A: The general dynamical map of a two-level sys- tem—Consider the evolution of the reduced state of a two- level system ρS (t)=φ t ρS (0) ,(A1) whereρ S (0) is given byρ S (0)= P1 j,k=0ρ jk(0)|j⟩⟨k|,with |0⟩≡ (1 0 )T and|1⟩≡ (0 1 )T , andφ t maps the initial state of the system to the final state, and i...

  80. [83]

    A Comprehensive Approach to Finite-Bath Open Quantum Systems: Exact Dynamics

    These relations reduce the number of unknowns in the form ofϕjk in the above equation. Further, the right side of the above equation can be split asΦ t ·|ρS (0)⟩⟩, where the matrix form of the general two- level dynamical mapΦ t takes the following form Φt =  ϕ11 ϕ12 ϕ∗ 12 1−ϕ 44 ϕ21 ϕ22 ϕ23 ϕ24 ϕ∗ 21 ϕ∗ 23 ϕ∗ 22 ϕ∗ 24 1−ϕ 11 −ϕ12 −ϕ∗ 12 ϕ44...