Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

How you model dissipation decides whether a quantum active particle keeps a valid quantum state or reproduces the classical active limit—one model can't do both.

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 ↗

Comparing three quantum master equations reveals a trade-off: the translated Lindblad dissipator keeps probabilities positive and follows the moving trap, while the Agarwal dissipator recovers classical active-particle motion, but neither choice does both.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful comparison of three dissipators for quantum AOUP, but the Agarwal classical-limit claim is undercut by internal equation errors; worth reviewing after a careful fix. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.21502 v3 pith:BJ7ULUKC submitted 2025-11-26 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Modeling dissipation in quantum active matter

Alexander P. Antonov , Sangyun Lee , Benno Liebchen , Hartmut L\"owen , Jannis Melles , Giovanna Morigi , Yehor Tuchkov , Michael te Vrugt This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords quantum active matteropen quantum systemsLindblad master equationAgarwal dissipatorWigner functionOrnstein-Uhlenbeck noisemean squared displacementdissipative quantum dynamics
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 reading

The paper asks which dissipator—the term describing a quantum particle's interaction with its environment—should be used when modeling quantum active matter. It considers a quantum harmonic oscillator whose trap center follows the colored-noise trajectory of a classical active particle, and compares three master equations. The central finding is a trade-off: a Lindblad dissipator translated to follow the moving trap guarantees a valid quantum density matrix and makes the particle track the trap even under strong dissipation, but it fails to reproduce classical active-matter dynamics in the classical limit. The Agarwal dissipator does recover the classical limit but does not guarantee a positive density matrix. This choice determines observable signatures such as short-time mean-squared-displacement scaling and whether the particle follows the moving trap at strong dissipation, which matters for designing experiments.

Core claim

The paper argues that for a quantum active particle—a quantum harmonic oscillator whose trap center follows the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck trajectory of a classical active particle—the choice of dissipator determines whether the dynamics is completely positive (always maps density matrices to valid density matrices) or reduces to classical active-matter dynamics in the classical limit, but not both. The static Lindblad dissipator fails to follow the moving trap at strong dissipation, since its steady-state Wigner function localizes near the origin instead of the trap minimum. Translating the Lindblad dissipator by the unitary displacement operator T(x_c) repairs this: the steady state is centered at

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the translated Lindblad dissipator, obtained by conjugating the standard harmonic-oscillator Lindblad dissipator with the unitary translation operator T(x_c)=exp(-i x_c p_hat/ℏ), so that the creation and annihilation operators are displaced by the trap-center position x_c(t). This construction makes the instantaneous steady state a Boltzmann state centered at the moving minimum. The comparison is carried out using the Wigner–Weyl transform, which maps each master equation to a Fokker–Planck equation for the Wigner quasi-probability distribution; the force fields and diffusion coefficients of these equations reveal which dissipator produces the classical limit and w

Load-bearing premise

The central trade-off rests on assuming that the translated Lindblad dissipator is physically realizable—i.e., that some real environment coupled to a moving trap produces this dissipator—even though it is constructed by formally translating the static Lindblad operators rather than derived from a system-bath Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

Measure the short-time mean-squared displacement of a harmonically trapped ultracold atom (or trapped ion) whose trap center follows an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck trajectory, at strong dissipation. If the short-time exponent is t^3, the environment behaves like the Agarwal dissipator; if a diffusive regime appears, it behaves like the translated Lindblad dissipator. Alternatively, check whether complete positivity is maintained for non-Gaussian initial states; a violation would rule out Lindblad-type models.

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

If this is right

  • If the translated Lindblad dissipator is the correct model, a quantum active particle can track its moving trap even at strong dissipation while keeping a valid density matrix, opening strongly dissipative quantum-optics realizations.
  • If the Agarwal dissipator is the correct model, experiments should observe the classical active-matter short-time scaling (t^3) of the mean squared displacement, with the particle following the trap with an inertial delay.
  • The two models give identical steady states for a fixed trap center, so steady-state measurements alone cannot identify the dissipator; time-resolved measurements are essential.
  • The short-time mean-squared-displacement exponent is a direct experimental discriminator: a diffusive regime signals a Lindblad-type dissipator, while t^3 scaling signals Agarwal-type friction.
  • Because no single dissipator in the considered set satisfies both requirements, any quantum-active-matter experiment must decide which property—positive density matrix or classical limit—is essential for its purpose.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An inference the authors do not draw: since the translated Lindblad and Agarwal dissipators share the same steady state for a fixed trap center, any experiment that samples only steady-state spatial distributions cannot tell which dissipator is realized; only time-resolved measurements can.
  • I infer that the core trade-off may generalize: for a harmonic trap driven by a stochastic center, any time-local master equation that follows the drive and is completely positive may be forced to deviate from the classical Fokker–Planck structure in the ℏ→0 limit, while any equation that matches the classical structure cannot stay completely positive—a stronger no-go statement worth testing for o
  • A testable extension: in a cold-atom realization with a moving optical trap, vary the dissipation strength and measure the short-time mean-squared-displacement exponent; the exponent (diffusive vs t^3) would report which dissipator class the environment actually implements.
  • The paper leaves open whether the translated Lindblad dissipator can be derived from an underlying system–bath Hamiltonian; if it cannot, the comparison is between a phenomenological and a microscopic model, and the 'one or the other' conclusion might not apply to physically realizable environments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a single quantum particle confined by a harmonic trap whose center follows an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck trajectory, and compares three time-local master equations for dissipation: a static Lindblad dissipator, a translated Lindblad dissipator whose instantaneous steady state is centered on the moving trap, and the Agarwal (Caldeira-Leggett-type) dissipator. For each model the authors derive a Wigner-function Fokker-Planck equation, compute stationary states for fixed trap center, and evaluate the mean squared displacement numerically at weak, intermediate, and strong dissipation. The central claim is a trade-off: Lindblad-type dissipators preserve complete positivity but do not recover the classical active-OUP dynamics in the classical limit, whereas the Agarwal dissipator supposedly recovers that classical limit but is not CPTP. The paper is clearly written and the comparison is systematic, but the Agarwal branch of this trade-off is not supported by the displayed equations.

Significance. The question addressed is timely for the emerging field of quantum active matter, and the paper offers a useful side-by-side comparison of three dissipator models. The Lindblad Wigner calculations in Appendix B.1 are detailed and reproducible, the stationary solutions (18) and (21) are explicit and plausible, and the numerical MSD comparison across dissipation regimes is informative. If the advertised trade-off were rigorously established, it would give concrete guidance for experiments with moving optical traps. However, as submitted the central claim rests on an algebraic derivation that contains inconsistencies and on a classical-limit statement that is contradicted by the paper's own equations. The paper therefore needs substantial revision before the trade-off can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B.2, Eq. (B25) and Eq. (22)] Using the Moyal product convention adopted in the paper, one has [x,{p,ρ}]_W = 2iℏ(W+p∂_pW). The first term in Eq. (B25) should therefore be (γ/4)(W+p∂_pW), not (ℏγ/4)(W+p∂_pW). In addition, the intermediate results (B18) and (B21) do not agree with a direct Moyal evaluation: (x p ρ)_W contains a +ℏ²/4 ∂²_{xp}W term absent from (B18), and (ρ p x)_W has the opposite sign of the W term from (B21). Thus Eq. (B25) does not follow from its premises and also disagrees with the drift in Eq. (22b). This is load-bearing, not typographical.
  2. [Section III, Eqs. (17), (22) and the ℏ→0 limit] Even after deleting the spurious ℏ from (B25), Eq. (22) does not reduce to the classical Fokker-Planck equation (17) in the limit ℏ→0. The friction coefficient in Eq. (22b) is γ/4 rather than γ, and the p-diffusion coefficient implied by Eqs. (22a),(22c) is ℏ×γmω/8 coth(ℏω/2k_BT) → γmk_BT/4 (or γk_BT/4 when m=ω=1), not γk_BT. The sentence claiming that 'force fields and diffusion coefficient are identical' is therefore contradicted by the displayed equations. Since this equivalence is the basis for the classical-active branch of the central trade-off, the derivation must be corrected and Fig. 6 with its conclusions re-examined.
  3. [Section II.B.2, Eq. (11)] The translated Lindblad dissipator is introduced by translating the system operators, but no underlying system-bath Hamiltonian is given. Appendix C only discusses differentiability of x_c(t), not the physical realizability of this time-dependent generator. Because the paper contrasts this model with the Agarwal/Caldeira-Leggett dissipator, the central trade-off is weakened unless the translated Lindblad dissipator is either derived from a microscopic model or explicitly labeled and defended as a phenomenological model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (20b), (22b)] After Section II.C the calculations appear to use units with m=ω=1, but this is not stated explicitly. Equations such as (20b) and (22b) contain mω(x−x_c), whereas the classical reference (17b) contains mω²(x−x_c); in dimensionless units with ω=1 these agree, but the manuscript should state this convention.
  2. [Eqs. (15a), (20a), (22a)] The notation ∂tW = ∂_i(f_iW) + ℏ∂²_{ij}(g_ijW) is ambiguous: it should be made explicit that the actual diffusion coefficient in the Fokker-Planck equation is ℏg_ij, not g_ij.
  3. [Figures 2, 4, 6] The term 'Dynamic Lindblad dissipator' in the captions is inconsistent with the text's 'translated Lindblad dissipator'; use one name throughout.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B7)] The star-product expansion is written to O(ℏ³) while the subsequent applications retain only ℏ² terms. This is acceptable but should be stated for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No fitted-parameter circularity; only the translated-Lindblad trap-following property is built in by construction. The Agarwal classical-limit derivation has an internal consistency problem, but that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section II.B.2, Eqs. (11)-(12); Section III, Eqs. (20)-(21) and Fig. 4]
    "One possible extension of the framework is to modify the dissipator (6) in such a way that the new quantum master equation has its instantaneous steady-state as a Boltzmann state with the harmonic potential centered at x_c(t). ... For this purpose, we consider a dissipator D translated by x_c. This translation is mediated by a translation operator ŽT(x_c) = e^{-ix_c Žp/ħ} ..."

    The translated Lindblad dissipator is deliberately constructed by conjugating the static dissipator with the translation operator T(x_c), shifting the creation/annihilation operators to the instantaneous trap position x_c(t). The stationary Wigner solution, which the paper states is 'ensuring that the quantum particle follows the active protocol x_c', is therefore an input of the construction rather than an emergent prediction. This is a self-definitional element for that specific model. However, the MSD scalings, the short-time regimes, and the comparison among dissipators are computed consequences rather than fits, so the circularity is partial and does not by itself invalidate the central comparison.

full rationale

No parameter is fitted to any MSD curve or to the classical Fokker-Planck equation: the static Lindblad dissipator (6), the translated Lindblad dissipator (11), and the Agarwal dissipator (13) are specified independently, and the Wigner-Fokker-Planck equations (15), (20), and (22) are derived from them. The main trade-off, CPTP positivity versus classical-limit behavior, is a comparison of independent model dynamics rather than a reduction of one result to another. The self-citations to Ref. [5] for the t^6 and t^6-t^4 scaling laws and for the sufficiency of 200 trajectories are supporting references; the paper's own simulations exhibit these scalings, so the citations are not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. One minor by-construction element is the translated-Lindblad trap-following property, which is designed into the dissipator and then presented as the behavior of the model. Separately, the claim that the Agarwal Wigner equation (22) reduces exactly to the classical Fokker-Planck equation (17) in the ħ→0 limit is not supported by the displayed algebra: comparing Eq. (B25) with Eq. (22b) shows a factor-of-ħ discrepancy in the drift term, and the resulting friction and diffusion coefficients differ from Eq. (17) by factors of 1/4. This is an internal consistency/correctness issue in the Agarwal branch, not a circularity, but it should be corrected before the classical-limit claim is relied upon.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on standard open-quantum-system assumptions (Markovianity), on the prescribed OU drive, and on the ad hoc construction of the translated Lindblad dissipator. No new physical entities are postulated, and no parameter is fitted to the target results; the simulation parameters D, τ, ν± are regime-setting inputs.

free parameters (2)
  • dissipation rates ν+ and ν- = ν+=1e-8; ν-=1e-2, 1, 10 for weak/intermediate/strong dissipation
    Chosen by hand to set dissipation strength regimes; not fitted to data.
  • OU process parameters D, τ = D=0.01, τ=10
    Inputs defining the active drive, adopted from Ref. [5]; not fitted.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Time-local (Markovian) master equation with the Born-Markov approximation is valid for the driven quantum particle coupled to the bath.
    Invoked in Section II.A (Eq. 5) without a microscopic derivation for the moving trap; validity is only argued via the Nakajima-Zwanzig short-memory limit.
  • domain assumption The active drive x_c(t) is a prescribed Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process unaffected by the quantum particle and differentiable in time.
    Set by Eq. (1); differentiability is required for the translated-frame Hamiltonian (Appendix C).
  • ad hoc to paper The translated Lindblad dissipator (Eq. 11) represents a legitimate time-local generator for the particle in a moving trap, despite no underlying system-bath Hamiltonian being specified.
    Section II.B.2; this is an assumption about physical realizability, not derived from a microscopic model.
  • standard math Wigner-Weyl transforms of the dissipators are computed with linear response; higher-order Moyal corrections vanish for the harmonic potential.
    Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Initial state is the ground state of the static harmonic oscillator.
    Section II.C; chosen for the numerics.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling dissipation in quantum active matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJ7ULUKC

@misc{pith2026251121502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling dissipation in quantum active matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJ7ULUKC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.21502}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Active matter is characterized by a constant influx and dissipation of energy that gives rise to directed motion. Dissipation requires interactions with an external environment, such that extending the paradigm of active matter to a quantum framework requires an appropriate description of this environment. In this work, we consider a driven quantum particle undergoing noise and dissipation, with external driving exhibiting characteristics of classical activity. We model the non-unitary dynamics with time-local master equations and analyze the particle motion at different time scales for different forms of the master equations, satisfying different criteria. We systematically compare predictions on the dynamics of particle trajectories and thereby we uncover how the particle motion evolves under the interplay of quantum effects, dissipation, and active-like dynamics. These results are essential for guiding possible experiments aimed at realizing quantum analogues of classical active systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.21502 by Alexander P. Antonov, Benno Liebchen, Giovanna Morigi, Hartmut L\"owen, Jannis Melles, Michael te Vrugt, Sangyun Lee, Yehor Tuchkov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic representation of a possible experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. MSD of quantum-active particle with static Lindblad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. MSD of quantum-active particle for translated Lind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Steady-state Wigner function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. MSD of quantum-active particle with Agarwal dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Steady-state Wigner function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Entanglement capacity of complex networks from quantum walks

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Source-target entanglement in quantum walks on arbitrary networks is upper-bounded by connectivity, with graph matchings controlling its generation and higher connectivity reducing the maximum in random graphs.

  2. Anomalous Mean-Squared Displacement in Quantum Active Matter from a Wigner Phase-Space Framework

    cond-mat.soft 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Quantum active matter shows mean-squared displacement scaling as t^6 or t^7 derived analytically from a Wigner phase-space master equation.

  3. Anomalous Mean-Squared Displacement in Quantum Active Matter from a Wigner Phase-Space Framework

    cond-mat.soft 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    Hybrid Wigner analysis of quantum active matter produces analytical MSD with t^6 (and under specific ICs t^7) scaling for long persistence and large active noise, plus explicit onset times.

  4. Phase-dependent role of dissipation across the Aubry-Andr\'e-Harper transition

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bath memory reshapes transport patterns in the extended phase of the AAH transition but mainly renormalizes timescales in the localized phase.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Static Lindblad dissipator We start from the static Lindblad dissipator ˆDL [31], ˆDL ≡ ˆD(ˆρ(t)) = γ 2 ¯n ˆa† ˆρ(t)ˆa−1 2 ˆaˆa†,ˆρ(t) (6) + γ 2 (¯n+ 1) ˆaˆρ(t)ˆa† − 1 2 ˆa†ˆa,ˆρ(t) , where{· · ·,· · · }is an anti-commutator defined byn ˆA, ˆB o = ˆA ˆB+ ˆB ˆA. The annihilation ˆaand creation operators ˆa† are defined as ˆa= r mω 2ℏ ˆx+ i mω ˆp ,(7a) ˆa† ...

  2. [2]

    This modification would allow the dynamics to properly account for the trap motion on long timescales

    Translated Lindblad master equation One possible extension of the framework is to modify the dissipator (6) in such a way that the new quantum master equation has its instantaneous steady-state as a Boltzmann state with the harmonic potential centered atx c(t). This modification would allow the dynamics to properly account for the trap motion on long time...

  3. [3]

    Agarwal dissipator As an alternative to Lindblad dynamics, we con- sider the Agarwal dissipator [40–43], which in the high- temperature limit recovers the well-known Caldeira- Leggett model [29]. While not strictly CPTP and thus not positivity-preserving, the Agarwal dissipator allows (in contrast to the Lindblad ones) to reproduce the clas- sical Fokker-...

  4. [4]

    Takasan, K

    K. Takasan, K. Adachi, and K. Kawaguchi, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023096 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    The potential has fixed frequencyωbut the center follows the prescribed Ornstein-Uhlenbeck trajectoryx c(t)

    a quantum particle of massmis confined by a time-dependent harmonic potential. The potential has fixed frequencyωbut the center follows the prescribed Ornstein-Uhlenbeck trajectoryx c(t). Thereby, the quan- tum particle is governed by a time-dependent Hamilto- nian of the form ˆH(x c(t)) = ˆp2 2m + 1 2 mω2 (ˆx−xc(t))2 ,(2) wherex c(t) is a classical varia...

  6. [6]

    Nadolny, C

    T. Nadolny, C. Bruder, and M. Brunelli, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011010 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Adachi, K

    K. Adachi, K. Takasan, and K. Kawaguchi, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013194 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Khasseh, S

    R. Khasseh, S. Wald, R. Moessner, C. A. Weber, and M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Yamagishi, N

    M. Yamagishi, N. Hatano, and H. Obuse, Sci. Rep.14, 28648 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Elgeti, R

    J. Elgeti, R. G. Winkler, and G. Gompper, Rep. Prog. Phys.78, 56601 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    A. P. Antonov, Y. Zheng, B. Liebchen, and H. L¨ owen, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033008 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    M. Das, C. F. Schmidt, and M. Murrell, Soft Matter16, 7185 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Penner, L

    A.-G. Penner, L. Viotti, R. Fazio, L. Arrachea, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B112, L180303 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    te Vrugt, B

    M. te Vrugt, B. Liebchen, and M. E. Cates, arXiv:2507.21621 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Marchetti, J

    M. Marchetti, J. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1143 (2013)

    2013

  16. [16]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(OUP Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  17. [17]

    Bechinger, R

    C. Bechinger, R. Di Leonardo, H. L¨ owen, C. Reichhardt, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 045006 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    Zwanzig, J

    R. Zwanzig, J. Chem. Phys.33, 1338 (1960)

    1960

  19. [19]

    Mart ´ ınez-Prat, R

    B. Mart ´ ınez-Prat, R. Alert, F. Meng, J. Ign´ es-Mullol, J.-F. Joanny, J. Casademunt, R. Golestanian, and F. Sagu´ es, Phys. Rev. X11, 031065 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Fodor, R

    ´E. Fodor, R. L. Jack, and M. E. Cates, Annu. Rev. Con- dens. Matter Phys.13, 215 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Bebon, J

    R. Bebon, J. F. Robinson, and T. Speck, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021050 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Nathan and M

    F. Nathan and M. S. Rudner, Phys. Rev. B102, 115109 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Nakajima, Progr

    S. Nakajima, Progr. Theor. Phys.20, 948 (1958)

    1958

  24. [24]

    Stefanini, A

    M. Stefanini, A. A. Ziolkowska, D. Budker, U. Poschinger, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Browaeys, A. Imamoglu, D. Chang, and J. Marino, arXiv:2506.22436 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    te Vrugt and R

    M. te Vrugt and R. Wittkowski, Eur. J. Phys.41, 045101 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Lindblad, Commun

    G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  27. [27]

    Carmichael,An open systems approach to quantum optics: lectures presented at the Universit´ e Libre de Brux- elles October 28 to November 4, 1991(Springer, 1993)

    H. Carmichael,An open systems approach to quantum optics: lectures presented at the Universit´ e Libre de Brux- elles October 28 to November 4, 1991(Springer, 1993)

    1991

  28. [28]

    Hewgill, G

    A. Hewgill, G. De Chiara, and A. Imparato, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013165 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    S. M. Barnett and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A33, 2444 (1986)

    1986

  30. [30]

    B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D45, 2843 (1992)

    1992

  31. [31]

    Ford and R

    G. Ford and R. O’Connell, Physica A243, 377 (1997)

    1997

  32. [32]

    Soret, V

    A. Soret, V. Cavina, and M. Esposito, Phys. Rev. A106, 062209 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    S.-Y. Wang, Q. Yang, and F.-L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E 107, 014108 (2023). 9

    2023

  34. [34]

    Maggi, M

    C. Maggi, M. Paoluzzi, N. Pellicciotta, A. Lepore, L. An- gelani, and R. Di Leonardo, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 238303 (2014)

    2014

  35. [35]

    A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Physica A121, 587 (1983)

    1983

  36. [36]

    Y. Fily, J. Chem. Phys.150, 174906 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Rivas and S

    A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga,Open quantum systems, Vol. 10 (Springer, 2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    De Vega and D

    I. De Vega and D. Alonso, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015001 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Szamel, Phys

    G. Szamel, Phys. Rev. E90, 012111 (2014)

    2014

  40. [40]

    G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A2, 2038 (1970)

    2038

  41. [41]

    Caprini and U

    L. Caprini and U. M. B. Marconi, Soft Matter14, 9044 (2018)

    2018

  42. [42]

    G. S. Agarwal and S. Chaturvedi, Phys. Rev. E88, 012130 (2013)

    2013

  43. [43]

    Martin, J

    D. Martin, J. O’Byrne, M. E. Cates, ´E. Fodor, C. Nar- dini, J. Tailleur, and F. Van Wijland, Phys. Rev. E103, 032607 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Y.-E. Keta, R. L. Jack, and L. Berthier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 048002 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Sch¨ uttler, R

    J. Sch¨ uttler, R. Garcia-Millan, M. E. Cates, and S. A. M. Loos, Phys. Rev. E112, 024119 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Wigner, Phys

    E. Wigner, Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  47. [47]

    G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A4, 739 (1971)

    1971

  48. [48]

    te Vrugt, G

    M. te Vrugt, G. I. T´ oth, and R. Wittkowski, J. Comput. Electron.20, 2209 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    S. Lee, M. Ha, J.-M. Park, and H. Jeong, Phys. Rev. E 101, 022127 (2020)

    2020

  50. [50]

    G. P. Nguyen, R. Wittmann, and H. L¨ owen, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat.34, 035101 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS M.t.V

    and dissipative [52] environments will be crucial for bridging the gap between abstract models and experi- mentally accessible setups. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS M.t.V. is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemein- schaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – SFB 1551, Project-ID 464588647. S.L. thanks R. Kosloff for a dis- cussion on modeling an open quantum system

  52. [52]

    te Vrugt, Encyclopedia5, 118 (2025)

    M. te Vrugt, Encyclopedia5, 118 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    te Vrugt and R

    M. te Vrugt and R. Wittkowski, Ann. Phys. (Berlin)532, 2000266 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Hillery, R

    M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rep.106, 121 (1984). Appendix A: T ranslation of the quantum dissipators We consider the evolution equation (6) translated by xc, i.e., we apply the translation generator ˆT(x c), ˆT(x c) =e −ixc ˆp/ℏ (A1) to the Hamiltonian ˆH0 ≡ ˆp2 2m + 1 2 mω2 ˆx2,(A2) and the dissipator ˆD. In other w...

    1984

  55. [55]

    Tanimura and P

    Y. Tanimura and P. G. Wolynes, Phys. Rev. A43, 4131 (1991)

    1991

  56. [56]

    T. A. Savard, K. M. O’Hara, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. A56, R1095 (1997)

    1997

  57. [57]

    Beyer and W

    M. Beyer and W. Paul, Universe7, 166 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    Briegel and B.-G

    H.-J. Briegel and B.-G. Englert, Phys. Rev. A47, 3311 (1993)

    1993

  59. [59]

    Zachos, D

    C. Zachos, D. Fairlie, and T. Curtright,Quantum me- chanics in phase space: an overview with selected papers (World Scientific, 2005)

    2005

  60. [61]

    For the Hamiltonian part, the Wigner-Weyl transform is well known [54]

    Lindblad dissipator We consider here the creation-annihilation operators in the form ˆ˜a(t) = r mω 2ℏ ˆx−δˆxc(t) + i mω ˆp ,(B1a) ˆ˜a†(t) = r mω 2ℏ ˆx−δˆxc(t)− i mω ˆp ,(B1b) whereδ= 0 for ˆDL (7) andδ= 1 for ˆDT L(12). For the Hamiltonian part, the Wigner-Weyl transform is well known [54]. Here we first show the full expression with the Moyal product; si...

  61. [62]

    Agarwal dissipator The Wigner-Weyl transform for the Agarwal dissipator is performed analogously by using manipulations performed in Eqs. (B7)-(B8): (ˆxˆpˆρ)W =xpW+ iℏ 2 (W+p∂ pW−x∂ xW) ; (B18) (ˆxˆρˆp)W =xpW+ iℏ 2 (W+p∂ pW+x∂ xW)− ℏ2 4 ∂2 xpW; (B19) (ˆpˆρˆx)W =xpW− iℏ 2 (W+p∂ pW+x∂ xW)− ℏ2 4 ∂2 xpW; (B20) (ˆρˆpˆx)W =xpW+ iℏ 2 (W−p∂ pW+x∂ xW) ; (B21) (ˆxˆ...

  62. [101]

    The green dashed lines indicate the position (x=x c) of the fixed (p= 0) harmonic potential

    The amplitude of the Wigner function values is given by the corresponding color representation; the graphs on the left and right correspond to the peak of the Wigner function at the extremum inxandp, respectively. The green dashed lines indicate the position (x=x c) of the fixed (p= 0) harmonic potential. The dissipation strengthγ= 2(ν − −ν +) (9b) is set...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.