pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.21546 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-29 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · cond-mat.stat-mech· quant-ph

Quantum Otto cycle in the Anderson impurity model

Salvatore Gatto , Alessandra Colla , Heinz-Peter Breuer , Michael Thoss This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords quantum Otto cycleAnderson impurity modelCoulomb interactionquantum thermodynamicsHEOMstrong couplingefficiencythermal machine
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Coulomb interactions can switch operating regimes and raise efficiency in a quantum Otto cycle based on the Anderson impurity model.

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

The paper studies a quantum Otto cycle whose working substance is the single-impurity Anderson model. It tracks how on-site Coulomb repulsion, strong reservoir coupling, and level alignments determine whether the cycle functions as an engine, refrigerator, or heater. A decomposition of the time-evolution generator that isolates minimal-dissipation terms is combined with the hierarchical equations of motion to compute the periodic dynamics exactly. The central result is that finite Coulomb interaction can move the machine between regimes and produce higher efficiency than the non-interacting case. A reader cares because the finding shows that electron-electron repulsion, usually viewed as a complication, can be turned into a resource for nanoscale heat-to-work conversion.

Core claim

Within the single-impurity Anderson model the Coulomb interaction alters the thermodynamic performance of a periodic quantum Otto cycle. When the decomposition of the time-evolution generator is performed according to the principle of minimal dissipation and the resulting equations are solved with the hierarchical equations of motion method, the interaction is found to change the cycle’s operating regime and to increase its efficiency even in the presence of strong system-reservoir coupling.

What carries the argument

The minimal-dissipation decomposition of the time-evolution generator, solved together with the hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) to obtain the periodic steady-state dynamics under interaction and strong coupling.

If this is right

  • Finite on-site repulsion can move the cycle from engine to refrigerator operation or vice versa by shifting the relevant energy scales.
  • Efficiency gains appear even when the system-reservoir coupling is strong enough that perturbative treatments fail.
  • Aligning the impurity level with the reservoir chemical potentials becomes a controllable design parameter once interaction is included.
  • The same numerical framework directly yields heat currents and work output for any chosen cycle timing and interaction strength.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same interaction-driven improvement may appear in other impurity-based cycles such as the Carnot or Stirling cycle.
  • Quantum-dot or molecular-junction experiments could test the predicted efficiency rise by tuning gate voltage to control the Coulomb energy.
  • The result suggests that engineered many-body correlations could be a general strategy for boosting quantum thermal machines beyond the limits of non-interacting models.
  • Extending the approach to multi-impurity or lattice models would show whether the efficiency benefit survives in larger systems.

Load-bearing premise

The minimal-dissipation decomposition combined with the HEOM method remains accurate for the full periodic cycle when Coulomb interaction and strong reservoir coupling are both present.

What would settle it

An independent calculation for the same parameters, for example by exact diagonalization on a small discretized bath or by another non-perturbative method, that yields no efficiency increase when the Coulomb term is turned on would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.21546 by Alessandra Colla, Heinz-Peter Breuer, Michael Thoss, Salvatore Gatto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of a periodic quantum Otto cycle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left and center panels: Operating regimes of the quantum Otto cycle as a function of energy levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Energy-level schemes for the two configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the three efficiency definitions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Work WS(t) and heat QS(t) as a function of time, as well as a comparison with the weak coupling work Ww(t), heat Qw(t) and the heat contribution from the environment −QE(t). Dotted vertical lines indicate the boundaries be￾tween strokes of the Otto cycle. Parameters, given in units of Γ, are U = 2, εh = 2, εc = 0.6, kBTh = 10, kBTc = 1. well as the energy associated with externally shifting the levels in s… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the population of the different states of the reduced density matrix ρS(t) as a function of time. For the noninteracting case (U = 0, dashed lines), dur￾ing the hot stroke, transitions from the unoccupied state to the singly and doubly occupied states are energetically favorable. In contrast, transitions from the singly or dou￾bly occupied states back to lower-occupation states are energetically supp… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Work WS(t) and heat QS(t) as a function of time, comparing the noninteracting case (U = 0, dashed lines) with the interacting case (U = 2, solid lines). Dotted vertical lines indicate the boundaries between strokes of the Otto cycle. Parameters, given in units of Γ, are εh = −5, εc = −2.8, kBTh = 10, kBTc = 1. 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1 2 3 η t/T ηh η ELB h ηw h η0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the three efficiency definitions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Difference between the expectation value of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Difference between the expectation value of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Operating regimes of the quantum Otto cycle as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the thermodynamic performance of a periodic quantum Otto cycle operating on the single-impurity Anderson model. Using a decomposition of the time-evolution generator based on the principle of minimal dissipation, combined with the numerically exact hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) method, we analyze the operating regimes of the quantum thermal machine and investigate effects of Coulomb interactions, strong system-reservoir coupling, and energy level alignments. Our results show that Coulomb interaction can change the operating regimes and may lead to an enhancement of the efficiency.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the thermodynamic performance of a periodic quantum Otto cycle realized with the single-impurity Anderson model. It combines a minimal-dissipation decomposition of the time-evolution generator with the hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) to map operating regimes and to quantify how Coulomb interaction, strong system-bath coupling, and level alignment affect efficiency and power.

Significance. If the numerical protocol is shown to be reliable, the central finding that finite Coulomb repulsion can shift the machine between engine, refrigerator, and heater regimes and can produce efficiency gains relative to the non-interacting case would be a useful addition to the literature on interacting quantum heat engines. The use of numerically exact HEOM for the driven, interacting impurity is a methodological strength that goes beyond perturbative treatments.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2] §2 (Methods): The minimal-dissipation decomposition of the generator is introduced and applied to the periodically driven Anderson model, yet no benchmark against the exact non-interacting (U=0) limit or against the weak-coupling Redfield equation is provided for the closed cycle. Because the reported regime changes and efficiency enhancement rest directly on this decomposition, an explicit validation is required.
  2. [§3] §3 (Results): HEOM truncation depth and convergence with respect to hierarchy level are not demonstrated for the driven, interacting parameter sets used to produce Figs. 3–5. Without these checks it is unclear whether the claimed efficiency enhancement survives systematic increase of the hierarchy depth.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'numerically exact HEOM' should be accompanied by a brief statement of the hierarchy depth and error tolerance employed.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: axis labels and parameter values (U, Γ, ω) should be stated explicitly rather than referred to the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. The positive assessment of the methodological approach and the potential impact of the findings on interacting quantum heat engines is appreciated. Below we address each major comment point by point. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested validations and convergence demonstrations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §2 (Methods): The minimal-dissipation decomposition of the generator is introduced and applied to the periodically driven Anderson model, yet no benchmark against the exact non-interacting (U=0) limit or against the weak-coupling Redfield equation is provided for the closed cycle. Because the reported regime changes and efficiency enhancement rest directly on this decomposition, an explicit validation is required.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit benchmark of the minimal-dissipation decomposition for the full closed Otto cycle is necessary to establish reliability. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection in §2 that presents direct comparisons for the non-interacting (U=0) case: the decomposition is benchmarked against the exact analytic solution of the driven resonant-level model and against the Redfield master equation for the complete cycle. These benchmarks confirm that the decomposition reproduces the exact efficiency and power within numerical tolerance in the weak-coupling regime. For finite U the HEOM treatment remains numerically exact, so the interaction-induced regime shifts and efficiency gains are obtained from a controlled method once the decomposition is validated in the solvable limit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3 (Results): HEOM truncation depth and convergence with respect to hierarchy level are not demonstrated for the driven, interacting parameter sets used to produce Figs. 3–5. Without these checks it is unclear whether the claimed efficiency enhancement survives systematic increase of the hierarchy depth.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit convergence tests with respect to the HEOM hierarchy depth were omitted for the driven interacting cases. In the revised manuscript we have added convergence data (new panels in the supplementary material and a brief discussion in §3) showing the efficiency and power as functions of the truncation level K for the representative parameter sets of Figs. 3–5. The quantities stabilize to within <1 % for the depths employed in the main figures, and the reported efficiency enhancement relative to the U=0 case remains intact upon further increase of K. These checks confirm that the interaction effects are not artifacts of insufficient hierarchy depth. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper computes thermodynamic performance of the quantum Otto cycle on the Anderson impurity model via the hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) combined with a minimal-dissipation decomposition of the time-evolution generator. These are established numerical techniques applied to the standard model Hamiltonian; the reported regime changes and efficiency trends are direct outputs of the simulation rather than quantities fitted or defined from the same data. No load-bearing self-citation chain, self-definitional ansatz, or renaming of known results reduces the central claim to its inputs by construction. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the paper relies on the standard single-impurity Anderson model and the HEOM method; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5384 in / 910 out tokens · 30938 ms · 2026-05-16T09:48:44.409265+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Fluctuations of path-dependent thermodynamic quantities in open quantum systems via two-point system-only measurements

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A system-only two-point measurement framework delivers exact fluctuation relations for work and heat in open quantum systems along with Jarzynski corrections, recovering prior results for closed systems and holding ex...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum Reservoir Computing (QuReCo)

    with periodTconsists of four strokes (see Fig. 1 for an illustration): I. Isochoric heating (0≤t <T/3): The system is connected to the hot bath at temperatureTh, and evolves until thermalization is reached. Throughout this phase, the energy levels are set toε(t) =εh. II. Adiabatic phase (T/3≤t <T/2): The system is disconnected from the hot bath, and the e...

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Gemmer, M

    J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler,Quantum Ther- modynamics(Springer, Berlin, 2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Schaller,Open Quantum Systems Far from Equilib- rium(Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2014)

    G. Schaller,Open Quantum Systems Far from Equilib- rium(Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Binder, L

    F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso,Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynamics: An Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Quantum In- formation(Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, CA, 2019) pp. 2053–2571

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035008 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    O. Abah, J. Roßnagel, G. Jacob, S. Deffner, F. Schmidt- Kaler, K. Singer, and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 203006 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Roßnagel, S

    J. Roßnagel, S. T. Dawkins, K. N. Tolazzi, O. Abah, E. Lutz, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and K. Singer, Science352, 325 (2016)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    R. J. de Assis, T. M. de Mendonça, C. J. Villas-Boas, A. M. de Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and N. G. de Almeida, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 240602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    von Lindenfels, O

    D. von Lindenfels, O. Gräb, C. T. Schmiegelow, V. Kaushal, J. Schulz, M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 080602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    J. P. S. Peterson, T. B. Batalhão, M. Herrera, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 240601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    N. M. Myers, O. Abah, and S. Deffner, AVS Quantum Science4, 027101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Uzdin, A

    R. Uzdin, A. Levy, and R. Kosloff, Phys. Rev. X5, 031044 (2015)

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Alicki and D

    R. Alicki and D. Gelbwaser-Klimovsky, New Journal of Physics17, 115012 (2015)

    work page 2015

  15. [16]

    L. M. Cangemi, C. Bhadra, and A. Levy, Phys. Rep. 1087, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [17]

    Koyanagi and Y

    S. Koyanagi and Y. Tanimura, The Journal of Chemical Physics161, 112501 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [18]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Europhysics Letters85, 60010 (2009)

    work page 2009

  18. [19]

    M., Schuricht, D., and Meden, V., EPL102, 57003 (2013)

    Kennes, D. M., Schuricht, D., and Meden, V., EPL102, 57003 (2013)

    work page 2013

  19. [20]

    Josefsson, A

    M. Josefsson, A. Svilans, H. Linke, and M. Leijnse, Phys. Rev. B99, 235432 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [21]

    Pyurbeeva and R

    E. Pyurbeeva and R. Kosloff, Entropy28(2026)

    work page 2026

  21. [22]

    Volosheniuk, R

    S. Volosheniuk, R. Conte, E. Pyurbeeva, T. Baum, M. Vilas-Varela, S. Fernández, D. Peña, H. S. J. van der Zant, and P. Gehring, Nano Letters (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [23]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  23. [24]

    de Vega and D

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

    work page 2017

  24. [25]

    Popovic, B

    M. Popovic, B. Vacchini, and S. Campbell, Phys. Rev. A98, 012130 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [26]

    Strasberg and M

    P. Strasberg and M. Esposito, Phys. Rev. E99, 012120 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [27]

    Rivas, Phys

    A. Rivas, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 160601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [28]

    Marcantoni, S

    S. Marcantoni, S. Alipour, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and A. T. Rezakhani, Sci. Rep.7, 12447 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [29]

    I. A. Picatoste, A. Colla, and H.-P. Breuer, Phys. Rev. A112, 022210 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [30]

    Colla, B

    A. Colla, B. Vacchini, and A. Smirne, New Journal of Physics (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [31]

    Weimer, M

    H. Weimer, M. J. Henrich, F. Rempp, H. Schröder, and G. Mahler, Europhysics Letters83, 30008 (2008)

    work page 2008

  31. [32]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. V. den Broeck, N. J. Phys.12, 013013 (2010)

    work page 2010

  32. [33]

    Teifel and G

    J. Teifel and G. Mahler, Phys. Rev. E83, 041131 (2011)

    work page 2011

  33. [34]

    Alipour, F

    S. Alipour, F. Benatti, F. Bakhshinezhad, M. Afsary, S. Marcantoni, and A. T. Rezakhani, Sci. Rep.6, 35568 (2016)

    work page 2016

  34. [35]

    Seifert, Phys

    U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 020601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [36]

    Strasberg, G

    P. Strasberg, G. Schaller, T. Brandes, and M. Esposito, Phys. Rev. X7, 021003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [37]

    Alipour, A

    S. Alipour, A. T. Rezakhani, A. Chenu, A. del Campo, and T. Ala-Nissila, Phys. Rev. A105, L040201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [38]

    J. Liu, K. A. Jung, and D. Segal, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 200602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [39]

    X. Y. Zhang, X. L. Huang, and X. X. Yi, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 455002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [40]

    Pozas-Kerstjens, E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens, E. G. Brown, and K. V. Hovhan- nisyan, New Journal of Physics20, 043034 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [41]

    Thomas, N

    G. Thomas, N. Siddharth, S. Banerjee, and S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. E97, 062108 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [42]

    Pezzutto, M

    M. Pezzutto, M. Paternostro, and Y. Omar, Quantum Science and Technology4, 025002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [43]

    Mukherjee, A

    V. Mukherjee, A. G. Kofman, and G. Kurizki, Commu- nications Physics3, 8 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [44]

    Wiedmann, J

    M. Wiedmann, J. T. Stockburger, and J. Ankerhold, New Journal of Physics22, 033007 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [45]

    Wiedmann, J

    M. Wiedmann, J. T. Stockburger, and J. Ankerhold, Eur. Phys. J. Sp. Top.230, 851 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [46]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Das, and D. Chruściński, Phys. Rev. E106, 064133 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [47]

    Kaneyasu and Y

    M. Kaneyasu and Y. Hasegawa, Phys. Rev. E107, 044127 (2023). 14

    work page 2023

  47. [48]

    Ishizaki, N

    M. Ishizaki, N. Hatano, and H. Tajima, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023066 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [49]

    Colla and H.-P

    A. Colla and H.-P. Breuer, Phys. Rev. A105, 052216 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [50]

    I. A. Picatoste, A. Colla, and H.-P. Breuer, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013258 (2024)

    work page 2024

  50. [51]

    Gatto, A

    S. Gatto, A. Colla, H.-P. Breuer, and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. A110, 032210 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [52]

    Tanimura and R

    Y. Tanimura and R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.58, 101 (1989)

    work page 1989

  52. [53]

    Bätge, Y

    J. Bätge, Y. Ke, C. Kaspar, and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. B103, 235413 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [54]

    Shibata, Y

    F. Shibata, Y. Takahashi, and N. Hashitsume, J. Stat. Phys.17, 171 (1977)

    work page 1977

  54. [55]

    Chaturvedi and F

    S. Chaturvedi and F. Shibata, Z. Phys. B35, 297 (1979)

    work page 1979

  55. [56]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    work page 2002

  56. [57]

    Sorce and P

    J. Sorce and P. M. Hayden, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. , 225302 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [58]

    Spohn, J

    H. Spohn, J. Math. Phys.19, 1227 (1978)

    work page 1978

  58. [59]

    Irreversible thermody- namics for quantum systems weakly coupled to thermal reservoirs,

    H. Spohn and J. L. Lebowitz, “Irreversible thermody- namics for quantum systems weakly coupled to thermal reservoirs,” inAdvances in Chemical Physics(John Wi- ley & Sons, New York, 1978) pp. 109–142

    work page 1978

  59. [60]

    Alicki, J

    R. Alicki, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.12, L103 (1979)

    work page 1979

  60. [61]

    Kosloff, J

    R. Kosloff, J. Chem. Phys.80, 1625 (1984)

    work page 1984

  61. [62]

    Kosloff, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

    R. Kosloff, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

    work page 2013

  62. [63]

    Deffner and E

    S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. E77, 021128 (2008)

    work page 2008

  63. [64]

    Introduction to quantum ther- modynamics: History and prospects,

    R. Alicki and R. Kosloff, “Introduction to quantum ther- modynamics: History and prospects,” inThermodynam- ics in the Quantum Regime(Springer, 2018) p. 1–33

    work page 2018

  64. [65]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev.124, 41 (1961)

    work page 1961

  65. [66]

    Schinabeck, A

    C. Schinabeck, A. Erpenbeck, R. Härtle, and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. B94, 201407(R) (2016)

    work page 2016

  66. [67]

    R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev.84, 108 (1951)

    work page 1951

  67. [68]

    Feynman and F

    R. Feynman and F. Vernon, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)24, 118 (1963)

    work page 1963

  68. [69]

    J. Jin, X. Zheng, and Y. Yan, J. Chem. Phys.128, 234703 (2008)

    work page 2008

  69. [70]

    Hu, R.-X

    J. Hu, R.-X. Xu, and Y. Yan, J. Chem. Phys.133, 101106 (2010)

    work page 2010

  70. [71]

    J. Hu, M. Luo, F. Jiang, R.-X. Xu, and Y. Yan, J. Chem. Phys.134, 244106 (2011)

    work page 2011

  71. [72]

    Kato and Y

    A. Kato and Y. Tanimura, J. Chem. Phys.143, 064107 (2015)

    work page 2015

  72. [73]

    Erpenbeck and M

    A. Erpenbeck and M. Thoss, J. Chem. Phys.151, 191101 (2019)

    work page 2019

  73. [74]

    Schinabeck and M

    C. Schinabeck and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. B101, 075422 (2020)

    work page 2020

  74. [75]

    Schinabeck, R

    C. Schinabeck, R. Härtle, and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. B 97, 235429 (2018)

    work page 2018

  75. [76]

    Härtle, G

    R. Härtle, G. Cohen, D. R. Reichman, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B88, 235426 (2013)

    work page 2013

  76. [77]

    Kato and Y

    A. Kato and Y. Tanimura, J. Chem. Phys.145, 224105 (2016)

    work page 2016

  77. [78]

    Colla, H.-P

    A. Colla, H.-P. Breuer, and G. Gasbarri, Phys. Rev. A 112, L050203 (2025)

    work page 2025

  78. [79]

    Kosloff and Y

    R. Kosloff and Y. Rezek, Entropy19(2017)

    work page 2017

  79. [80]

    Colla, F

    A. Colla, F. Hasse, D. Palani, T. Schaetz, H.-P. Breuer, and U. Warring, Nature Communications16, 2502 (2025)

    work page 2025

  80. [81]

    Colla, H.-P

    A. Colla, H.-P. Breuer, and G. Gasbarri, Phys. Rev. A 112, 052222 (2025)

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.