Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 81 references

Encoding complex-balanced thermalization in quantum circuits

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a quantum-circuit protocol in which repeated collisions with engineered, non-Hermitian reservoir qubits make complex-balanced thermalization Markovian and controllable, giving access to out-of-equilibrium states at prescr

desk verdict Novel collision-model mechanism for complex-balanced thermalization, but the flagship applications run at parameters where the derived master equation is not controlled and trace preservation is unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.04998 v2 pith:U7RNADEH submitted 2026-01-08 quant-ph

Yiting Mao , Peigeng Zhong , Haiqing Lin , Xiaoqun Wang , Shijie Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords complex-balancedthermalizationquantumcircuitsreservoirengineeringnon-HermitianqubitsKubo-Martin-SchwingerrelationLiouvillianexceptionalpointsynchronizationdichromaticphotonemission
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

The paper is trying to show that a quantum circuit built from a target system repeatedly colliding with engineered reservoir qubits can realize complex-balanced thermalization in a strictly Markovian way. By using reservoir qubits whose eigenstates are not orthogonal, the circuit generates two distinct spectral functions, and their difference produces simultaneous dissipation and amplification. A modified Kubo-Martin-Schwinger relation then sets an effective temperature, so the system can be driven towards out-of-equilibrium steady states rather than ordinary Boltzmann equilibrium. The authors demonstrate the protocol on two concrete tasks: temporally correlated dichromatic photon emission and finite-temperature quantum synchronization protected by a Liouvillian exceptional point. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a route to programmable out-of-equilibrium state preparation with a clear microscopic accounting.

What carries the argument

Reservoir qubits with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians of the form H_q = ω(σ_x cosh θ + i σ_y sinh θ)/2. Their right eigenstates are non-orthogonal, so the transition amplitudes В_ab and В_ba are not complex conjugates. This makes the dual spectral functions γ_ω and ̄γ_ω different, producing effective dissipation and amplification rates δ_ω = ̄γ_ω − γ_ω. The modified KMS relation ̄γ_{-ω}/γ_ω = e^{-β̄ω} ties the ratio of these rates to an effective inverse temperature, turning a simple circuit collision step into a controllable thermalization engine.

What would settle it

Run the collision map at the synchronization parameters g=2, ̄t=0.05, θq=0.55 and monitor Tr ρs at every step. If the trace deviates substantially from 1 at any point, the circuit is not a trace-preserving thermalization channel, and the QME-based predictions for the photon correlations and synchronized steady state would not describe a physically realizable probability-conserving process.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that non-orthogonality of reservoir-qubit eigenstates is a resource: it breaks the equality between the two spectral functions γ and ̄γ that a conventional thermal reservoir would enforce, and this breaking is exactly what converts ordinary damping into balanced amplification–dissipation dynamics. Combined with Boltzmann-like preparation of the reservoir qubits, this yields a modified KMS relation that fixes an effective temperature β̄ ≠ β for the non-equilibrium steady state. The resulting quantum master equation is Markovian and, within the weak-coupling and short-collision limits, provides a solvable rate-equation description of the platf

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes weak coupling (g≪1) and a short collision interval (̄t≪1), but the applications are run with g=2 and ̄t=0.05; the paper itself notes in End Matter A that the collision map can fail to be trace-preserving and the generator may not be CPTP, so the whole predictive framework rests on the quantum master equation remaining valid in that parameter regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A small set of reservoir qubits can act as a programmable thermal reservoir, with the effective temperature set by the reservoir angle θq and coupling parameters rather than by the physical temperature of the environment.
  • The same platform can produce photon pairs with non-thermal temporal correlations—enhanced bunching at short delays and suppressed emission at long delays—suggesting a direct route to correlation-based sensing such as ghost imaging or two-photon lidar with engineered light.
  • Finite-temperature quantum synchronization can be made robust by sitting at a Liouvillian exceptional point, where two oscillation modes coalesce and protect the synchronized in-phase or anti-phase spin motion.
  • The collision model and the quantum master equation agree quantitatively in the short-collision and weak-coupling limits; the paper also notes that full agreement in some synchronization regimes requires an additional van Hove limit g→0.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same non-orthogonality mechanism should transfer to any platform where non-Hermitian qubit Hamiltonians and partial traces are available, so the protocol is portable in principle beyond the specific circuit implementation shown.
  • The paper’s explicit caveat about non-trace-preserving collision maps suggests a testable boundary: at stronger coupling the circuit’s predictions should deviate from a true CPTP quantum channel, and locating that boundary would sharpen the range of validity.
  • Because the modified KMS relation derives the effective temperature from the ratio of dual spectral functions, the emitted photon correlations themselves could serve as an experimental thermometer for the effective reservoir temperature.
  • The LEP-protected synchronization result implies that exceptional points in Liouvillians can be used as a control knob for robust quantum synchronization, an idea that could be exported to oscillator networks and quantum metrology.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum-circuit platform in which a system repeatedly collides with engineered non-Hermitian reservoir qubits, described by the collision map in Eq. (1). In the short-time and weak-coupling limits the authors derive the quantum master equation (QME) of Eq. (2) with dual spectral functions γ and γ̄, and they argue that non-orthogonality of the reservoir qubit eigenstates breaks detailed balance and produces complex-balanced thermalization with a modified KMS relation. Two applications are presented: temporally correlated dichromatic photon emission from a three-level system, and Liouvillian-exceptional-point-protected quantum synchronization of two spins at finite temperature. The paper claims predictive control over out-of-equilibrium state preparation.

Significance. If the central claim is valid, the platform is a valuable modular construction: it connects non-Hermitian reservoir engineering, collision models, and complex-balanced thermalization, and the two applications (dichromatic photon correlations and LEP-protected synchronization) are nontrivial and potentially useful. The analytical derivation of the QME is standard in structure and the paper provides numerical comparisons between collision model and QME in the Supplemental Material, which is a strength. However, the validity of the derivation at the parameters used in the applications is not established, and the paper itself concedes that the collision map may not be trace-preserving and the QME may not generate a CPTP semigroup. Since the advertised predictive control rests on the QME/collision-map description, this is a load-bearing gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (1), End Matter A, Fig. 4, SM Fig. S2] The collision map in Eq. (1) is not shown to be trace-preserving in the application regimes. The paper states in the main text that "this collision map may not preserve the trace of ρ_s" and later that the QME "does not necessarily generate a completely positive, trace-preserving quantum dynamical semigroup." Yet the application figures use g=1 (Fig. 3) and g=2 (Fig. 4) with t̄=0.05, and no trace-conservation check is reported. Observables such as ⟨s_x^1⟩, C12 in Eq. (9), and G^(2) in Eq. (8) are normalized by tr_s ρ_s; if the trace drifts, these quantities are not physical expectation values. The SM (Fig. S2) explicitly shows that in the QS regime reducing t̄ does not improve collision-model/QME agreement, and only reducing g restores agreement. Therefore the QME used for the LEP analysis may not describe the actual circuit at g=2. The authors should provide quantitative data on Tr ρ_s
  2. [End Matter A, Eq. (A2)–(A3)] The QME derivation assumes both t̄ ≪ 1 and g ≪ 1, but the applications use g=1 and g=2. The paper's own SM (Fig. S2) shows that for g=1 and t̄=0.05 the collision map and QME agree for the dichromatic emission, but for the synchronization setup with g=2 the agreement only improves when g is reduced, not when t̄ is reduced. This means the Liouvillian exceptional point and the associated protected quantum synchronization in Fig. 4 may be properties of the approximate QME rather than of the actual collision circuit. The authors should demonstrate the LEP (rank-2 zero-eigenvalue coalescence) directly in the collision map, or present the synchronization results in a parameter regime where the weak-coupling assumption is satisfied.
  3. [End Matter A, stability condition] The derivation removes the linear-in-H_sq term by the "stability condition" tr_q[B^(n) ρ_q^(n)] = 0 and claims this can always be enforced by redefining B = B' − μ_b. Redefining B changes H_sq from g A⊗B' to g A⊗(B' − μ_b I) = g A⊗B' − g μ_b A⊗I, which adds an effective system Hamiltonian term. This term is not included in the QME of Eq. (2), and the claim that it "only influences the rate towards long-term states" is not justified. A Hamiltonian shift can affect oscillation frequencies and therefore the synchronization and LEP predictions. The authors should either include this term explicitly or prove that it does not affect the reported observables.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] Typo: "circ uits" should be "circuits".
  2. [Fig. 1] The label "Reservior" should be "Reservoir".
  3. [Eq. (A2)] The notation with a dagger outside the anticommutator, { ... }†, is nonstandard and should be clarified. In particular, it is not immediately clear whether the adjoint applies to the whole anticommutator or to each term.
  4. [Eq. (8)] The operator ordering in the definition of G^(2) is confusing. Please specify the normal ordering and the time arguments of p1 and p2 more precisely, especially for the cross-correlation G^(2)_12.
  5. [Fig. 4] The labels "2ndLEP" and "4thLEP" are not explained in the caption or text. What defines the order of the LEP, and which one is shown in panel (a)?
  6. [Reference [58]] The Supplemental Material reference uses a placeholder "URL will be inserted by publisher". This should be completed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: QME follows from a short-time expansion of the collision map; the applications are numerical outputs, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the collision map Eq. (1) to the QME Eq. (2). End Matter A and SM Eqs. (1)-(5) expand U^{(n)I}_{sq} to second order in \bar t, impose tr_q[B^{(n)}ρ_q^{(n)}]=0, keep resonant terms, and obtain the dissipator with the dual spectral functions γ, γ̄ of Eq. (3). The modified KMS relation (7) is a closed analytic consequence of the biorthonormal eigenstructure and Boltzmann weights, not an imposed ansatz. The steady-state flux condition J=0 (Eq. (6)) follows from the PME rather than being inserted as the target. The two applications solve the derived QME/collision model and report outputs (photon numbers, G^(2), C_12) without fitting parameters to those outputs; no external data set is predicted from a subset of itself. The only overlap with prior work by the authors is Ref. [47], cited in footnote 56 for the peripheral statement that diagonal populations decay more slowly than coherences, and among Refs. [44-47] for preparing a non-Hermitian reservoir qubit in a Boltzmann right-eigenstate; this is not load-bearing. I also weighed the paper's own caveats: the Summary states the collision map 'may fail to be trace-preserving' and the QME does not necessarily generate a CPTP semigroup, and SM Fig. S2 admits that in the QS regime reducing \bar t does not improve collision-map/QME agreement because dynamics deviate from the standard Born-Markov approximation. Those are validity concerns about whether the QME describes the circuit at the application parameters (g=1-2, \bar t=0.05), not a case where a result reduces to its own input by construction. I found no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard open-quantum-systems approximations (Born-Markov, rotating-wave) and on the assumption that the engineered non-Hermitian reservoir can be prepared and traced out as described. The application-specific parameters are chosen by hand, not fitted to data. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'reservoir qubits' are engineered systems and the effective amplification/dissipation rates are derived model quantities.

free parameters (6)
  • θq (reservoir qubit non-Hermitian angle) = π/6, 0.55, arctanh(sin φc)≈1.317
    Chosen by hand to set the non-orthogonality of eigenstates; controls dissipation/amplification rates and positions of Liouvillian exceptional points.
  • θ(n) (coupling angle) = π/3 (Fig. 3), φc and φ0=π/3 (Fig. 4)
    Chosen per transition to tune the mixture of relaxation and dephasing; directly sets the transition rates.
  • g (coupling strength) = 1 (Fig. 3), 2 (Fig. 4)
    Chosen for numerical demonstration; applications violate g≪1 assumed in the QME derivation.
  • ¯t (collision interval) = 0.05 (Figs. 3,4), 0.2 (SM scans)
    Chosen to approximate the short-time limit; not all values show good QME agreement.
  • β (inverse temperature of reservoir qubits) = 1
    Chosen for simulations; the modified KMS relation shifts the effective temperature of the system.
  • System and photon parameters (J, hx, hz, g_int, κ) = J=0.2, hz=2hx=1, g_int=0.4, κ=0.1
    Chosen to make the two examples work; not fitted to external data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov/weak-coupling expansion to second order in g¯t with resonant terms only is valid.
    Used to obtain QME Eq. (2) in End Matter A; not valid for g=1,2 unless the collision-map agreement is separately verified.
  • domain assumption Reservoir qubit can be described by a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H_q in the PT-unbroken regime and prepared in a Boltzmann right-eigenstate density matrix.
    Rely on post-selection techniques (refs [38-41]) and thermal-state preparation (refs [44-47]); no experimental implementation is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Stability condition tr_q[B ρ_q]=0 can be enforced by redefining B without changing long-term dynamics.
    Stated in End Matter A; used to eliminate linear/Lamb-shift terms from the QME.
  • domain assumption The partial trace over non-orthogonal reservoir-qubit bases is experimentally realizable and yields a Markovian completely positive reduced map in the trace-preserving regime.
    Central to the platform; the paper admits the map may fail to preserve trace and the QME may not be CPTP, so this assumption is not proven.
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation selects only energy-conserving subprocesses with ω=±ω_l.
    Standard weak-coupling QME step; used in End Matter A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Encoding complex-balanced thermalization in quantum circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7RNADEH

@misc{pith2026260104998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Encoding complex-balanced thermalization in quantum circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7RNADEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.04998}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems often invalidates the complex-balanced thermalization framework, hindering predictive control of quantum simulation platforms designed to prepare out-of-equilibrium states at prescribed temperatures. We resolve this bottleneck by engineering reservoir qubits as modular microscopic units coupled to a target quantum system and constructing a quantum-circuit platform that enforces strictly Markovian complex-balanced thermalization. The platform exploits the non-orthogonality of reservoir qubit eigenstates to drive inhomogeneous heating through a modified Kubo-Martin-Schwinger relation, and uses tunable microscopic time-reversibility breaking to generate amplification-dissipation dynamics. We demonstrate two applications: temporally correlated dichromatic emission and Liouvillian exceptional-point-protected quantum synchronization at finite temperatures, displaying predictive control over out-of-equilibrium state preparation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A protocol for quantum circuits. (a) An overview: A quantum system interacts with a qubit set over N time periods. (b) A period: The system collides in turn with Nq reservoir qubits, labeled Q1, · · · , QNq . (c) Collision step n = (m − 1)Nq + l − 1: The non-unitary two-qubit gate U (n) couples the system to the qubit ql. After performing the “trace out” operation, only the resulting system state partic￾ipates in su… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Under time reversal, microscopic subprocesses at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Dichromatic photon alternative emission setu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) A LEP-protected quantum synchronization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ( 2) are in excellent agreement, quantitatively describing time evolution towards non-equilibrium steady states in the long- term [Fig

    and QME in Eq. ( 2) are in excellent agreement, quantitatively describing time evolution towards non-equilibrium steady states in the long- term [Fig. 3(b)]. Calculation details are provided in Supplemental Material (SM) [ 58]. During time evolution, we monitor the second-order time-correlation function [ 59, 60] G(2) x1x2(n′) = ⟨px1p(n′) x2 p(n′)† x2 p† ...

    2000

  2. [2]

    + → − ” (from level “+

    then simplifies to a Pauli master equation (PME) ∆ρ(n) s = g2¯t ( χ(n) + Γ+→− + χ(n) − Γ−→+ ) , where we focus only on the diagonal population χ(n) + = ⟨+|ρ(n) s |+⟩ t > 0 t < 0 t→− tγ(n) ω1 ¯γ(n) ω1 ¯γ(n) −ω1 γ(n) −ω1 δ(n) −ω1 δ(n) ω1 (a) (b) δ(n) ω1 δ(n) −ω1γ(n) ω1 ¯γ(n) ω1 ¯γ(n) −ω1 γ(n) −ω1 Figure 2. Under time reversal, microscopic subprocesses at (a)...

  3. [3]

    may fail to be trace-preserving, meaning that the quantum mas- ter equation in Eq. (

  4. [4]

    This suggests that a more comprehensive the- ory, involving dual spectral functions, merits further ex- ploration

    does not necessarily generate a completely positive, trace-preserving quantum dynami- cal semigroup [ 68], it is noteworthy that the Markovian dynamics of the collision model can still be effectively captured. This suggests that a more comprehensive the- ory, involving dual spectral functions, merits further ex- ploration. Moreover, this investigation coul...

  5. [5]

    Georgescu, S

    I. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simula- tion, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Friesdorf, and C. Gogolin, Quantum many- body systems out of equilibrium, Nature Physics 11, 124 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digi- tal quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future chal- lenges, Nature Communications 15, 2123 (2024)

    B. Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digi- tal quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future chal- lenges, Nature Communications 15, 2123 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    G. T. Craven and A. Nitzan, Electrothermal Transistor Effect and Cyclic Electronic Currents in Multithermal Charge Transfer Networks, Physical Review Letters 118, 207201 (2017)

    2017

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    G. T. Craven, D. He, and A. Nitzan, Electron- Transfer-Induced Thermal and Thermoelectric Rectifica- tion, Physical Review Letters 121, 247704 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Maier, T

    C. Maier, T. Brydges, P. Jurcevic, N. Trautmann, C. Hempel, B. P. Lanyon, P. Hauke, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Environment-Assisted Quantum Transport in a 10-qubit Network, Physical Review Letters 122, 050501 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    L. Wang, Z. Wang, C. Wang, and J. Ren, Cycle Flux Ranking of Network Analysis in Quantum Thermal De- vices, Physical Review Letters 128, 067701 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Biehs and G

    S.-A. Biehs and G. S. Agarwal, Breakdown of Detailed Balance for Thermal Radiation by Synthetic Fields, Physical Review Letters 130, 110401 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    S. Wang, C. Zeng, G. Zhu, H. Wang, and B. Li, Control- ling heat ratchet and flow reversal with simple networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043009 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Horn, Necessary and sufficient conditions for complex balancing in chemical kinetics, Archive for Rational Me- chanics and Analysis 49, 172 (1972)

    F. Horn, Necessary and sufficient conditions for complex balancing in chemical kinetics, Archive for Rational Me- chanics and Analysis 49, 172 (1972)

    1972

  7. [15]

    Feinberg, Complex balancing in general kinetic sys- tems, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 49, 187 (1972)

    M. Feinberg, Complex balancing in general kinetic sys- tems, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 49, 187 (1972)

    1972

  8. [16]

    Caloz, A

    C. Caloz, A. Al` u, S. Tretyakov, D. Sounas, K. Achouri, and Z.-L. Deck-L´ eger, Electromagnetic Nonreciprocity, Physical Review Applied 10, 047001 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    F. S. Gnesotto, F. Mura, J. Gladrow, and C. P. Broed- ersz, Broken Detailed Balance and Non-equilibrium Dy- namics in Living Systems: a Review, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 066601 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    I. A. Mart ´ ınez, G. Bisker, J. M. Horowitz, and J. M. R. Parrondo, Inferring Broken Detailed Balance in the Ab- sence of Observable Currents, Nature Communications 10, 3542 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    T. Yu, J. Zou, B. Zeng, J. Rao, and K. Xia, Non-Hermitian Topological Magnonics, Physics Reports 1062, 1 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    T. Shi, D. E. Chang, and J. I. Cirac, Multiphoton- scattering theory and generalized master equations, Phys. Rev. A 92, 053834 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Manzano, F

    G. Manzano, F. Galve, G. L. Giorgi, E. Hern´ andez- Garc ´ ıa, and R. Zambrini, Synchronization, quantum cor- relations and entanglement in oscillator networks, Scien- tific Reports 3, 1439 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Koppenh¨ ofer, C

    M. Koppenh¨ ofer, C. Bruder, and A. Roulet, Quantum synchronization on the ibm q system, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023026 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Schmolke and E

    F. Schmolke and E. Lutz, Noise-induced quantum syn- chronization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 250601 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    C. W. Lynn, E. J. Cornblath, L. Papadopoulos, M. A. Bertolero, and D. S. Bassett, Broken Detailed Balance and Entropy Production in the Human Brain, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 066601 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Nartallo-Kaluarachchi, M

    R. Nartallo-Kaluarachchi, M. Asllani, G. Deco, M. L. Kringelbach, A. Goriely, and R. Lambiotte, Broken De- tailed Balance and Entropy Production in Directed Net- works, Physical Review E 110, 034313 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    J. M. Monti, Y. S. Perl, E. Tagliazucchi, M. L. Kringel- bach, and G. Deco, Fluctuation-dissipation theorem and the discovery of distinctive off-equilibrium signatures of brain states, Physical Review Research 7, 013301 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Gladrow, N

    J. Gladrow, N. Fakhri, F. C. MacKintosh, C. F. Schmidt, and C. P. Broedersz, Broken Detailed Balance of Fil- ament Dynamics in Active Networks, Physical Review Letters 116, 248301 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Battle, C

    C. Battle, C. P. Broedersz, N. Fakhri, V. F. Geyer, J. Howard, C. F. Schmidt, and F. C. MacKintosh, Broken Detailed Balance at Mesoscopic Scales in Active Biolog- ical Systems, Science 352, 604 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Denisov, H

    A. Denisov, H. M. Castro-Beltran, and H. J. Carmichael, Time-Asymmetric Fluctuations of Light and the Break- down of Detailed Balance, Physical Review Letters 88, 243601 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    S´ anchez, R

    R. S´ anchez, R. L´ opez, D. S´ anchez, and M. B¨ uttiker, Mesoscopic Coulomb Drag, Broken Detailed Balance, and Fluctuation Relations, Physical Review Letters 104, 076801 (2010) . 6

    2010

  23. [31]

    H. Kim, Y. Park, K. Kim, H.-S. Sim, and J. Ahn, De- tailed Balance of Thermalization Dynamics in Rydberg- Atom Quantum Simulators, Physical Review Letters 120, 180502 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Breuer and F

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

    2007

  25. [33]

    Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems (WORLD SCI- ENTIFIC, 2011)

    U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems (WORLD SCI- ENTIFIC, 2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Ichiki and M

    A. Ichiki and M. Ohzeki, Violation of Detailed Balance Accelerates Relaxation, Physical Review E 88, 020101 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews 6, 10.1063/1.5089550 (2019)

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Y.-H. Shi, Y. Liu, Y.-R. Zhang, Z. Xiang, K. Huang, T. Liu, Y.-Y. Wang, J.-C. Zhang, C.-L. Deng, G.-H. Liang, Z.-Y. Mei, H. Li, T.-M. Li, W.-G. Ma, H.-T. Liu, C.-T. Chen, T. Liu, Y. Tian, X. Song, S. P. Zhao, K. Xu, D. Zheng, F. Nori, and H. Fan, Quantum simulation of topologi...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Manovitz, S

    T. Manovitz, S. H. Li, S. Ebadi, R. Samajdar, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, H. Zhou, N. U. Koylu- oglu, J. Feldmeier, et al. , Quantum coarsening and col- lective dynamics on a programmable simulator, Nature 638, 86 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Jing and L.-A

    J. Jing and L.-A. Wu, Decoherence and control of a qubit in spin baths: an exact master equation study, Scientific Reports 8, 1471 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Cusumano, Quantum collision models: A beginner guide, Entropy 24, 1258 (2022)

    S. Cusumano, Quantum collision models: A beginner guide, Entropy 24, 1258 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Di Bartolomeo, M

    G. Di Bartolomeo, M. Vischi, T. Feri, A. Bassi, and S. Donadi, Efficient quantum algorithm to simulate open systems through a single environmental qubit, Physical Review Research 6, 043321 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    G¨ unther and B

    U. G¨ unther and B. F. Samsonov, Naimark-dilated PT - symmetric brachistochrone, Physical Review Letters 101, 230404 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    W. Chen, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Quantum Jumps in the Non-Hermitian Dynamics of a Superconducting Qubit, Physical Review Letters 127, 140504 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Zhang, D

    G.-L. Zhang, D. Liu, and M.-H. Yung, Observation of exceptional point in a pt broken non-hermitian system simulated using a quantum circuit, Scientific Reports 11, 13795 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Jebraeilli and M

    A. Jebraeilli and M. R. Geller, Quantum simulation of a qubit with a non-hermitian hamiltonian, Physical Review A 111, 032211 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    C. E. R¨ uter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, Observation of Parity–Time Symmetry in Optics, Nature Physics 6, 192 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Naghiloo, M

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Quantum State Tomography across the Excep- tional Point in a Single Dissipative Qubit, Nature Physics 15, 1232 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Q. Du, K. Cao, and S.-P. Kou, Physics of PT -symmetric Quantum Systems at Finite Temperatures, Physical Re- view A 106, 032206 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    S. S. Roy, S. Bandyopadhyay, R. C. de Almeida, and P. Hauke, Unveiling Eigenstate Thermalization for Non- Hermitian systems (2023), arXiv:2309.00049 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Cipolloni and J

    G. Cipolloni and J. Kudler-Flam, Non-Hermitian Hamil- tonians Violate the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothe- sis, Physical Review B 109, l020201 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Y. Mao, P. Zhong, H. Lin, X. Wang, and S. Hu, Di- agnosing Thermalization Dynamics of Non-Hermitian Quantum Systems via GKSL Master Equations, Chinese Physics Letters 41, 070301 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    M. Blok, V. Ramasesh, T. Schuster, K. O’Brien, J. Kreikebaum, D. Dahlen, A. Morvan, B. Yoshida, N. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Quantum information scrambling on a superconducting qutrit processor, Physical Review X 11, 021010 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    N. Goss, A. Morvan, B. Marinelli, B. K. Mitchell, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, L. Chen, C. J¨ unger, J. M. Kreike- baum, D. I. Santiago, J. J. Wallman, and I. Siddiqi, High- fidelity qutrit entangling gates for superconducting cir- cuits, Nature Communications 13, 7481 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    K. Luo, W. Huang, Z. Tao, L. Zhang, Y. Zhou, J. Chu, W. Liu, B. Wang, J. Cui, S. Liu, F. Yan, M.-H. Yung, Y. Chen, T. Yan, and D. Yu, Experimental realization of two qutrits gate with tunable coupling in superconduct- ing circuits, Physical Review Letters 130, 030603 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Z. Chen, W. Liu, Y. Ma, W. Sun, R. Wang, H. Wang, H. Xu, G. Xue, H. Yan, Z. Yang, J. Ding, Y. Gao, F. Li, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y. Jin, H. Yu, J. Chen, and F. Yan, Efficient implementation of arbitrary two-qubit gates using unified control, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-025-02990-x (2025)

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum Reser- voir Engineering with Laser Cooled Trapped Ions, Phys- ical Review Letters 77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  49. [57]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum States and Phases in Driven Open Quantum Systems with Cold Atoms, Na- ture Physics 4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    B´ acsi, C

    A. B´ acsi, C. P. Moca, and B. D´ ora, Dissipation-Induced Luttinger Liquid Correlations in a One-Dimensional Fermi Gas, Physical Review Letters 124, 136401 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Wang and C.-M

    Y.-P. Wang and C.-M. Hu, Dissipative Couplings in Cav- ity Magnonics, Journal of Applied Physics 127, 130901 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    ( 2) evolve independently

    The diagonal and off-diagonal terms of ρ(n) s for the system qubit in Eq. ( 2) evolve independently. It can be shown that the diagonal terms decay more slowly than the off- diagonal terms, resulting in inevitable decoherence of the qubit in the long term [ 44, 47]

  53. [61]

    Roberts, A

    D. Roberts, A. Lingenfelter, and A. Clerk, Hidden Time- Reversal Symmetry, Quantum Detailed Balance and Ex- act Solutions of Driven-Dissipative Quantum Systems, PRX Quantum 2, 020336 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for the analytical derivation of the quantum master equation, detailed calculations for the temporally - correlated dichromatic emission, and systematic tests for the optimal choice of intial states and model par...

  55. [63]

    R. H. Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Correlation between pho- tons in two coherent beams of light, Nature 177, 27 (1956)

    1956

  56. [64]

    R. J. Glauber, The quantum theory of optical coherence, Physical Review 130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

  57. [65]

    Gatti, E

    A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, Ghost imaging with thermal light: Comparing entangle- ment and classicalcorrelation, Physical Review Letters 93, 093602 (2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    Valencia, G

    A. Valencia, G. Scarcelli, M. D’Angelo, and Y. Shih, Two-photon imaging with thermal light, Physical Review Letters 94, 063601 (2005)

    2005

  59. [67]

    Zhang, Y.-H

    D. Zhang, Y.-H. Zhai, L.-A. Wu, and X.-H. Chen, Corre- lated two-photon imaging with true thermal light, Optics Letters 30, 2354 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    P. K. Tan, X. J. Yeo, A. Z. W. Leow, L. Shen, and C. Kurtsiefer, Practical range sensing with thermal light, Physical Review Applied 20, 014060 (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    C.-H. Lee, Y. Kim, D.-G. Im, U.-S. Kim, V. Tamma, and Y.-H. Kim, Coherent two-photon lidar with incoherent light, Physical Review Letters 131, 223602 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    D. C. Burnham and D. L. Weinberg, Observation of si- multaneity in parametric production of optical photon pairs, Physical Review Letters 25, 84 (1970)

    1970

  63. [71]

    Couteau, Spontaneous Parametric Down-conversion, Contemporary Physics 59, 291 (2018)

    C. Couteau, Spontaneous Parametric Down-conversion, Contemporary Physics 59, 291 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Lindblad, On the Generators of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the Generators of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  65. [73]

    L. Pan, X. Chen, Y. Chen, and H. Zhai, Non-Hermitian Linear Response Theory, Nature Physics 16, 767 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    K. T. Geier and P. Hauke, From Non-Hermitian Linear Response to Dynamical Correlations and Fluctuation- Dissipation Relations in Quantum Many-Body Systems, PRX Quantum 3, 030308 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Terashima and M

    H. Terashima and M. Ueda, Nonunitary Quantum Cir- cuit, International Journal of Quantum Information 03, 633 (2005)

    2005

  68. [76]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum Al- gorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Physical Re- view Letters 103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    a” to level “ b

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne, Quantum Steering, Review of Modern Physics 92, 015001 (2020). END MATTER A: QUANTUM MASTER EQUATION At the nth collision step in the quantum circuits [Fig. 1(c)], the non-interacting Hamiltonian is given by H (n) 0 = Hs + ...

    2020

  70. [78]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semi classical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  71. [79]

    Filippov, Multipartite correlations in quantum coll ision models, Entropy 24, 508 (2022)

    S. Filippov, Multipartite correlations in quantum coll ision models, Entropy 24, 508 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    I. A. Luchnikov and S. N. Filippov, Quantum evolution in t he stroboscopic limit of repeated measurements, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022113 (2017)

    2017

  73. [81]

    S. N. Filippov, G. N. Semin, and A. N. Pechen, Quantum mast er equations for a system interacting with a quantum gas in the low-density limit and for the semiclassical collision m odel, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012114 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.