pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14382 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mes-hall· cond-mat.stat-mech

Revealing the physical structure of the general quantum master equation

Eugenia Pyurbeeva , Ronnie Kosloff This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords Lindblad master equationopen quantum systemsgeneralised chargespure dephasingMarkovian dynamicsgeneralised Gibbs statetwo-level systemnon-Abelian effects
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Lindblad master equation decomposes into free evolution, generalised charge exchanges with the bath, and pure dephasing without extra assumptions on coupling strength.

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

The paper establishes that any Markovian quantum evolution given by the Lindblad equation can be rewritten exactly as the sum of three physical contributions: the system's free Hamiltonian evolution, the exchange of generalised charges between system and bath, and a pure dephasing process. These charges are physical quantities that need not commute with the Hamiltonian. The decomposition requires no weak-coupling limit or energy-conservation constraint. A reader would care because the same structure then accounts for phenomena previously treated as distinct, such as strong-coupling effects, particle exchange, and non-Abelian conservation laws, all arising from charge exchange.

Core claim

General quantum dynamics can be expressed through a combination of free evolution, exchanges of some physical quantities (generalised charges), not necessarily commuting with the Hamiltonian, between the system and the bath, and pure dephasing. This result comprises a novel perspective on quantum master equations, employing physical processes as elemental parts. We use it to explore the dynamics and stationary states of a two-level system and show that strong coupling, particle exchange, and non-Abelian effects all share the same physical origin. Moreover, we demonstrate that the generalised Gibbs state for all three cases contains a non-commutation term, which has not been previously考虑.

What carries the argument

The structural decomposition of the Lindblad generator into a Hamiltonian commutator term, generalised charge-exchange dissipators, and a pure dephasing superoperator.

If this is right

  • Strong coupling, particle exchange, and non-Abelian effects all trace to the same charge-exchange mechanism.
  • The stationary state for any such dynamics is a generalised Gibbs state that includes a non-commutation correction term.
  • The dynamics of a two-level system can be classified and solved by identifying which charges are exchanged and which dephasing channels are active.
  • Different interaction regimes become interchangeable once rewritten in this charge-exchange language.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Engineered baths could be designed by choosing which generalised charges to exchange, offering a route to target specific stationary states.
  • The same decomposition may clarify how thermodynamic relations extend when multiple non-commuting charges are present.
  • Experimental tests could look for the non-commutation term in the steady-state populations of systems with non-Abelian symmetries.

Load-bearing premise

That the Lindblad form already captures every Markovian evolution and that its algebraic structure directly factors into these three physical processes with no hidden restrictions on the system-bath interaction.

What would settle it

A concrete Lindblad operator whose stationary state, when the charges fail to commute with the Hamiltonian, lacks the predicted extra non-commutation term in the generalised Gibbs form.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14382 by Eugenia Pyurbeeva, Ronnie Kosloff.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A map of the types of dynamics of the system with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Lindblad (GKLS) master equation, which represents the mathematical form for the general evolution of a density matrix, is a versatile and widely-used tool in open quantum systems. In contrast with the typical approach of imposing additional conditions on the system, such as weak coupling or energy conservation, we explore the structure of the equation with no assumptions. We demonstrate that general quantum dynamics can be expressed through a combination of free evolution, exchanges of some physical quantities (generalised charges), not necessarily commuting with the Hamiltonian, between the system and the bath, and pure dephasing. This result comprises a novel perspective on quantum master equations, employing physical processes as elemental parts. We use it to explore the dynamics and stationary states of a two-level system and show that strong coupling, particle exchange, and non-Abelian effects all share the same physical origin. Moreover, we demonstrate that the generalised Gibbs state for all three cases contains a non-commutation term, which has not been previously considered.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the general Lindblad (GKLS) master equation, without additional assumptions such as weak coupling or energy conservation, can be rewritten as a sum of free evolution, exchanges of generalized charges (operators not necessarily commuting with the Hamiltonian) between system and bath, and pure dephasing. This decomposition is applied to a two-level system to argue that strong coupling, particle exchange, and non-Abelian effects share a common physical origin, and that the associated generalized Gibbs state contains a previously overlooked non-commutation term.

Significance. If rigorously established, the result offers an interpretive reparametrization of the dissipator that frames open-system dynamics in terms of concrete physical processes involving generalized charges. This perspective could facilitate classification of non-equilibrium steady states and unify phenomena previously treated separately in quantum thermodynamics and open-system theory. The explicit two-level-system analysis and identification of the non-commutation correction in the generalized Gibbs state are concrete strengths that may stimulate further work, though the overall novelty is limited by the fact that the decomposition is a rewriting of the standard Lindblad form rather than a derivation from microscopic principles.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Eq. (7)–(9)] §3, Eq. (7)–(9): The decomposition of the dissipator into charge-exchange and dephasing channels is presented as following directly from the structure of the Lindblad equation, but the proof does not explicitly demonstrate uniqueness of the charge operators or rule out alternative splittings that preserve the same dynamics; this is load-bearing for the claim that the form 'reveals the physical structure'.
  2. [§5.1] §5.1, the two-level-system stationary-state calculation: the assertion that strong coupling, particle exchange, and non-Abelian effects 'share the same physical origin' rests on a specific parametrization of the generalized charges; it is not shown that this equivalence survives under a general change of basis or for higher-dimensional systems, weakening the broader unification claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. The notation for generalized charges is introduced without an early, self-contained definition; a dedicated paragraph or box clarifying their algebraic properties relative to the Hamiltonian would improve readability.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (two-level-system trajectories) lacks error bars or comparison to direct numerical integration of the original Lindblad equation, making it harder to assess the practical utility of the decomposed form.
  3. [§5.2] The discussion of the non-commutation term in the generalized Gibbs state would benefit from an explicit comparison to existing literature on non-Abelian charges (e.g., works on approximate conservation laws), to clarify the precise increment in novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. The feedback helps clarify the scope of our claims. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve precision without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3, Eq. (7)–(9)] The decomposition of the dissipator into charge-exchange and dephasing channels is presented as following directly from the structure of the Lindblad equation, but the proof does not explicitly demonstrate uniqueness of the charge operators or rule out alternative splittings that preserve the same dynamics; this is load-bearing for the claim that the form 'reveals the physical structure'.

    Authors: We agree that the derivation shows existence of the decomposition but does not prove uniqueness of the charge operators. The splitting is chosen because it directly isolates exchanges of generalized charges (operators that need not commute with the Hamiltonian) plus a dephasing term, thereby giving a transparent physical reading of the dissipator. Alternative splittings are mathematically possible but typically obscure this interpretation. We will revise the text in §3 to state explicitly that the decomposition is canonical for the purpose of revealing charge-exchange processes, rather than claiming it is the only possible one, and add a short remark acknowledging the existence of other splittings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.1] the two-level-system stationary-state calculation: the assertion that strong coupling, particle exchange, and non-Abelian effects 'share the same physical origin' rests on a specific parametrization of the generalized charges; it is not shown that this equivalence survives under a general change of basis or for higher-dimensional systems, weakening the broader unification claim.

    Authors: The two-level system is presented as an illustrative example in which the three phenomena can be parametrized by appropriate choices of the generalized charges, thereby showing they all reduce to the same charge-exchange plus dephasing structure. Under a unitary change of basis the charges transform covariantly and the decomposition remains valid, preserving the physical content. The general framework of §3 applies to systems of any dimension; explicit stationary-state calculations become more involved but follow identically. We will add a clarifying sentence in §5.1 noting that the two-level case demonstrates the unification concretely while the broader claim rests on the general decomposition, not on basis-specific details. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper performs a direct algebraic decomposition of the standard Lindblad (GKLS) master equation into free evolution, generalized charge-exchange terms, and pure dephasing. This reparametrization follows from the structure of the dissipator without introducing fitted parameters, self-citations as load-bearing premises, or uniqueness theorems imported from prior work by the same authors. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs; the central claim is a structural rewriting whose validity can be verified independently against the Lindblad form. The derivation is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; the Lindblad equation is taken as the starting point and generalized charges are introduced as part of the decomposition.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Lindblad (GKLS) master equation represents the general evolution of a density matrix under Markovian dynamics.
    Stated explicitly in the abstract as the mathematical form for general evolution.
invented entities (1)
  • generalised charges no independent evidence
    purpose: Physical quantities exchanged between system and bath that need not commute with the Hamiltonian.
    Introduced to express the structure of the master equation in physical terms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5474 in / 1382 out tokens · 42263 ms · 2026-05-10T12:40:02.570581+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (Note that M2 ∼ ˆIis a general property of traceless operators, even non-Hermitian)

    IfL 1 andL 2 are non-collinear, the space is two-dimensional, and we can use it to define an in-plane orthonormal basis A1,A 2, whereA 2 1 =A 2 2 = ˆI, Tr(A1A2) = 0. (Note that M2 ∼ ˆIis a general property of traceless operators, even non-Hermitian). The third operator to complete the ba- sis, and extend it to the entire three-dimensional space of tracele...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The imaginary term of the dissipator First, we look at the imaginary part of the dissipator: LIm(ˆρ) =i A1 ˆρA2 −A 2 ˆρA2 − 1 2 {A2A1 −A 1A2,ˆρ} (8) Another property of the traceless operator space is that the anticommutator is proportional to identity (see Ap- pendix B). Applying it to the commutators ofA 1 and A2 with the density matrix, we obtain: {A1,...

    work page

  3. [3]

    noise” termsA i ˆρAi − 1 2 {A2 i ,ˆρ}represent dephas- ing orthogonal toA 1 andA 2 at differing rates [11, 14], while the “force

    The real term of the dissipator The real part of the dissipator can be written as: LR = X i,j Mij Ai ˆρAj − 1 2 {AjAi,ˆρ} (14) whereMis a real-valued symmetric matrix (see Eq. 7). As such, it can be diagonalised by an in-plane rotation, meaning that the original Lindblad equation, including both the real and imaginary terms can be written as: dρ dt =−i[ ˆ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The choice of jump operators In the previous section (Section II B) we found a form of the GKLS equation for a two-level system with two jump operators in an orthonormal basis{A 1, A2, A3} (Eq. 15). Our aim is to express it through an ex- change process with jump operatorsσ p andσ m following fermionic relations, and to this end we findσ p andσ m in the s...

    work page

  5. [5]

    This proves thatσ 2 p =σ 2 m = 0

    = 0 (17) asA 1 andA 2 are normalised and Tr(A 1A2) = 0. This proves thatσ 2 p =σ 2 m = 0. Moreover, {σp, σm}= 1 4 {(A1 +iA 2),(A 1 −iA 2)}= = 1 4 ({A1, A1}+{A 2, A2}+ 2i{A 1, A2}) = = 1 4 2A2 1 + 2A2 2 = 1 (18) And finally, [σp, σm] = 1 4[(A1 +iA 2),(A 1 −iA 2)] = = 1 4 (i[A2, A1]−i[A 1, A2]) =−2i[A 1, A2] =A 3 (19) We also note that our choice ofσ p andσ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    sand- wich

    The dissipators Using the expression of the fermionic jump operators σp andσ m through the Hamiltonian basis (Eq.16), we can expand the exchange dissipators from their standard form:    Lp(ˆρ) =σp ˆρσm − 1 2 {σmσp,ˆρ} Lm(ˆρ) =σm ˆρσp − 1 2 {σpσm,ˆρ} (20) into the basis Hermitian operators: Lp(ˆρ) =1 4 (A1 ˆρA1 +A 2 ˆρA2)− ˆρ 2 − − i 4 (A1 ˆρA2 −A 2 ˆ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    minimum dissipation principle

    represent third-order exceptional points. does not commute with it. For simplicity, we assume that it has a small additional contribution in the ˆDdirection, while the pure orthogonal dephasing is absent: dρ dt =−i[E ˆN+ε ˆD,ˆρ]−(γ p +γ m)(ρ− 1 2 ˆI)+ + (γp −γ m) ˆN+ (γ p +γ m)[ ˆN ,[ ˆN ,ˆρ]] 2 (47) (In this caseEis no longer the energy level spacing, bu...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Energy shift The transformation: ˆH→ ˆH−E ˆI(A2) corresponds to the shift of the zero energy and does not affect the dynamics

    work page

  9. [9]

    Lindblad operator scaling Li →α iLi;γ i → γi αiα∗ i (A3) The Lindblad jump operators can be scaled by a complex constantα, with the rate coefficients corrected accord- ingly

    work page

  10. [10]

    LetM= L−α ˆI

    Lindblad operator – identity shift The first non-trivial transform allows to shift terms between the jump operators and the Hamiltonian: Li →L i −α i ˆI; ˆH→ ˆH+ X i γi 2i α∗Li −α iL† i (A4) Proof:We look at the transform for a single dissipative term in the sum (and thus drop the indexi). LetM= L−α ˆI. Then the corresponding dissipator term forM is: ˆM(ˆ...

    work page

  11. [11]

    sandwich

    Unitary transform Another non-trivial transform is unitary mixing of the Lindblad operators. First, applying the rescaling transform (Sec.A 2) we absorb the rate coefficients into the jump operators, to have the GKLS equation in the form: dˆρ dt =−i[ ˆH,ˆρ] + X Li ˆρL† i − 1 2 {L† i Li,ˆρ} (A7) Then, we show that the transform: Mi = X k uikLk (A8) whereU=...

    work page

  12. [12]

    If we restrict our considerations to traceless Hermitian operators, the lin- ear space is three-dimensional, are the coefficients with σz,σ x, andσ y are real

    Properties of traceless operators The Pauli matrices,σ z,σ x, andσ y, together with the identity matrix ˆI, form a basis in the space of 2×2 Hermi- tian operators, over the real numbers. If we restrict our considerations to traceless Hermitian operators, the lin- ear space is three-dimensional, are the coefficients with σz,σ x, andσ y are real. Moreover, ...

    work page

  13. [13]

    To this end, we choose: A3 = 1 2i[A1;A 2] (B3) orthogonal to bothA 1 andA 2

    Operator basis In the beginning of Section II B, we have elected a Her- mitian orthonormal basis in the linear space ofL 1 +L † 1 andL 2 +L † 2,A 1 andA 2, such that: A2 1 +A 2 2 = ˆI TrA1A2 = 0 (B2) We need to complete it to the full three-dimensional space. To this end, we choose: A3 = 1 2i[A1;A 2] (B3) orthogonal to bothA 1 andA 2. AsA 1 andA 2 are tra...

    work page

  14. [14]

    If Y 2+4X 3 <0,λ 1 is real, whileλ 2 andλ 3 are complex and conjugates of each other

    (Y+Z) 1 3 6·2 1 3 (C5) For realZ(Y 2 + 4X3 >0) all eigenvalues are real. If Y 2+4X 3 <0,λ 1 is real, whileλ 2 andλ 3 are complex and conjugates of each other. The transitionY 2 + 4X3 = 0 corresponds to the second order exceptional points, in whichλ 2 =λ 3 and the eigenvectors coalesce. Finally, ifX=Y= 0 (in this caseZ= 0 as well), a triple degeneracy and ...

    work page

  15. [15]

    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)

    work page 1976

  16. [16]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level sys- tems, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821 (1976)

    work page 1976

  17. [17]

    R. Dann, N. Megier, and R. Kosloff, Non-markovian dy- namics under time-translation symmetry, Physical Re- view Research4, 043075 (2022). 11

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Allen and J

    L. Allen and J. H. Eberly,Optical resonance and two-level atoms(Courier Corporation, 2012)

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Rivas and S

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

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Kashyap, G

    V. Kashyap, G. Styliaris, S. Mouradian, J. I. Cirac, and R. Trivedi, Accuracy guarantees and quantum advantage in analog open quantum simulation with and without noise, Physical Review X15, 021017 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Breuer and F

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

    work page 2002

  22. [22]

    A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation.AIP Advances, 10(2):025106, 2020.doi:10.1063/1.5115323,arXiv:1906.04478

    D. Manzano, A short introduction to the lindblad master equation, AIP Advances10, 10.1063/1.5115323 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5115323 2020

  23. [23]

    Frigerio, Stationary states of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 63, 269 (1978)

    A. Frigerio, Stationary states of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 63, 269 (1978)

    work page 1978

  24. [24]

    E. B. Davies, Markovian master equations, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics39, 91 (1974)

    work page 1974

  25. [25]

    Dann and R

    R. Dann and R. Kosloff, Open system dynamics from thermodynamic compatibility, Physical Review Research 3, 023006 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Smirne and B

    A. Smirne and B. Vacchini, Nakajima-zwanzig ver- sus time-convolutionless master equation for the non- markovian dynamics of a two-level system, Physical Re- view A82, 022110 (2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    I. A. Picatoste, A. Colla, and H.-P. Breuer, Local and global approaches to the thermodynamics of pure deco- herence processes in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A112, 022210 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics and open-systems modeling, The Journal of Chemical Physics150, 10.1063/1.5096173 (2019)

    R. Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics and open-systems modeling, The Journal of Chemical Physics150, 10.1063/1.5096173 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5096173 2019

  29. [29]

    A. N. Korotkov and D. V. Averin, Continuous weak mea- surement of quantum coherent oscillations, Physical Re- view B64, 165310 (2001)

    work page 2001

  30. [30]

    Anto-Sztrikacs, A

    N. Anto-Sztrikacs, A. Nazir, and D. Segal, Effective- hamiltonian theory of open quantum systems at strong coupling, PRX Quantum4, 020307 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    P. C. Burke, G. Nakerst, and M. Haque, Structure of the hamiltonian of mean force, Physical Review E110, 014111 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Schaller,Open Quantum Systems Far from Equilib- rium, Vol

    G. Schaller,Open Quantum Systems Far from Equilib- rium, Vol. 881 (Springer International Publishing, 2014)

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    L. D. Site and A. Djurdjevac, An effective hamiltonian for the simulation of open quantum molecular systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 255002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    E. A. Carlen, D. A. Huse, and J. L. Lebowitz, Stationary states of boundary-driven quantum systems: Some exact results, Physical Review A111, 012210 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    B. M. Reible and L. D. Site, Open quantum systems and the grand canonical ensemble, Physical Review E112, 024130 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Guryanova, S

    Y. Guryanova, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, R. Silva, and P. Skrzypczyk, Thermodynamics of quantum systems with multiple conserved quantities, Nature Communica- tions7, 12049 (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    N. Y. Halpern, P. Faist, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Microcanonical and resource-theoretic derivations of the thermal state of a quantum system with noncommuting charges, Nature Communications7, 12051 (2016)

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Lostaglio, D

    M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Thermody- namic resource theories, non-commutativity and maxi- mum entropy principles (2017)

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Pyurbeeva and R

    E. Pyurbeeva and R. Kosloff, From the Bloch equation to the thermodynamically consistent master equation, New Journal of Physics 10.1088/1367-2630/ae3796 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ae3796 2026

  40. [40]

    Am-Shallem, R

    M. Am-Shallem, R. Kosloff, and N. Moiseyev, Excep- tional points for parameter estimation in open quantum systems: Analysis of the bloch equations, New Journal of Physics17, 113036 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Hayden and J

    P. Hayden and J. Sorce, A canonical hamiltonian for open quantum systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical55, 225302 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Colla and H.-P

    A. Colla and H.-P. Breuer, Open-system approach to nonequilibrium quantum thermodynamics at arbitrary coupling, Physical Review A105, 052216 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Gatto, A

    S. Gatto, A. Colla, H.-P. Breuer, and M. Thoss, Quan- tum thermodynamics of the spin-boson model using the principle of minimal dissipation, Physical Review A110, 032210 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Kranzl, A

    F. Kranzl, A. Lasek, M. K. Joshi, A. Kalev, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and N. Y. Halpern, Experimental observa- tion of thermalization with noncommuting charges, PRX Quantum4, 020318 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Majidy, W

    S. Majidy, W. F. Braasch, A. Lasek, T. Upadhyaya, A. Kalev, and N. Y. Halpern, Noncommuting conserved charges in quantum thermodynamics and beyond, Nature Reviews Physics5, 689 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    E. T. Jaynes, Information theory and statistical mechan- ics, Physical Review106, 620 (1957)

    work page 1957

  47. [47]

    E. T. Jaynes, Information theory and statistical mechan- ics. ii, Physical Review108, 171 (1957)

    work page 1957

  48. [48]

    D. K. Mark, F. Surace, A. Elben, A. L. Shaw, J. Choi, G. Refael, M. Endres, and S. Choi, Maximum entropy principle in deep thermalization and in hilbert-space er- godicity, Physical Review X14, 041051 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    G. S. Agarwal, Open quantum markovian systems and the microreversibility, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and nuclei258, 409 (1973)

    work page 1973

  50. [50]

    Alicki, On the detailed balance condition for non- hamiltonian systems, Reports on Mathematical Physics 10, 249 (1976)

    R. Alicki, On the detailed balance condition for non- hamiltonian systems, Reports on Mathematical Physics 10, 249 (1976)

    work page 1976

  51. [51]

    Scandi and ´Alvaro M

    M. Scandi and ´Alvaro M. Alhambra, Thermalization in open many-body systems and kms detailed balance, Physical Review X16, 011040 (2026)

    work page 2026

  52. [52]

    W. Chen, M. Abbasi, B. Ha, S. Erdamar, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Decoherence-induced exceptional points in a dissipative superconducting qubit, Physical Review Letters128, 110402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    M. V. Berry, J. F. Nye, and F. J. Wright, The elliptic um- bilic diffraction catastrophe, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences291, 453 (1979)

    work page 1979