pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26562 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.stat-mech

Reservoir-mediated spin entanglement in the mean-force Gibbs state

L. A. Williamson , W. McEniery , F. Cerisola , J. Anders This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords mean-force Gibbs statereservoir-mediated entanglementtwo-qubit entanglementbosonic reservoirstrong system-reservoir couplingopen quantum systemsthermal equilibriumspectral density
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two qubits strongly coupled to a shared bosonic reservoir become entangled in thermal equilibrium without any direct interaction.

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

The paper derives approximate analytic expressions for the two-qubit mean-force Gibbs state describing equilibrium in the presence of strong system-reservoir coupling. These expressions are used to show that the qubits acquire entanglement mediated only by the common thermal bath. The amount of entanglement reaches its highest values at low temperatures, depends non-monotonically on the coupling strength, and increases when the reservoir spectral density is broadened beyond a single mode. The results supply an analytic benchmark for numerical work and treat strong coupling as a controllable resource for generating quantum correlations.

Core claim

Approximate analytic forms of the two-qubit mean-force Gibbs state reveal that reservoir-mediated entanglement is highest at low temperatures, varies non-monotonically with system-reservoir coupling strength, and is enhanced by broadening the bosonic bath spectral density beyond a single mode.

What carries the argument

The two-qubit mean-force Gibbs state, an equilibrium density operator that accounts for strong coupling to the shared bosonic reservoir and generates cross-qubit coherences.

If this is right

  • Entanglement can be tuned by varying the coupling strength to an optimal value rather than making it arbitrarily large.
  • Realistic baths with finite bandwidth produce more entanglement than idealized single-mode models.
  • The mean-force Gibbs state supplies a reference state against which exact numerical or experimental results can be compared.
  • Strong system-reservoir coupling functions as a passive resource for creating steady-state quantum correlations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The non-monotonic dependence suggests that device engineers could deliberately choose intermediate coupling values to maximize equilibrium entanglement.
  • The same reservoir-mediated mechanism may operate in multi-qubit registers, potentially allowing scalable generation of multipartite correlations without pairwise gates.
  • Testing the predicted enhancement with broadened spectra in superconducting or trapped-ion platforms would directly probe the utility of realistic thermal environments.

Load-bearing premise

The approximate analytic expressions for the mean-force Gibbs state remain accurate in the regime of strong but not ultra-strong coupling and for bosonic baths whose spectral density has a specific shape.

What would settle it

A numerical calculation or laboratory measurement of two-qubit concurrence versus coupling strength that shows strictly monotonic decay, or that shows no increase when the spectral density is broadened, would contradict the analytic predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26562 by F. Cerisola, J. Anders, L. A. Williamson, W. McEniery.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) System setup: two qubits (level spacings view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Thermal entanglement, quantified by the negativity view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Negativity as a function of qubit level spacing view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Two qubits strongly coupled to a common bosonic reservoir can become entangled with each other, despite having no direct interaction. In equilibrium, such coupling-induced coherences can be described by the mean-force Gibbs state. Here we derive approximate, analytic expressions for the two-qubit mean-force Gibbs state, and use these to characterize equilibrium qubit-qubit entanglement mediated by a thermal reservoir. Entanglement, which is highest at lowest temperatures, is a non-monotonic function of the system-reservoir coupling strength. Moreover, we find that broadening the reservoir spectral density beyond a single mode, as is realistic for typical baths, can enhance the qubit entanglement. Our results provide a comprehensive understanding of reservoir-mediated two-qubit entanglement in thermal equilibrium and provide a benchmark to compare with numerical methods, as well as demonstrating the utility of strong system-reservoir coupling as a resource.

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 paper derives approximate analytic expressions for the two-qubit mean-force Gibbs state of two spins strongly coupled to a shared bosonic reservoir and uses them to characterize equilibrium entanglement, which is reported to be non-monotonic in the system-reservoir coupling strength, highest at low temperatures, and enhanced by broadening the reservoir spectral density beyond a single mode.

Significance. If the approximations are accurate in the relevant regime, the work supplies closed-form expressions that can benchmark numerical methods for open quantum systems and illustrates how strong system-bath coupling can be harnessed to generate entanglement without direct qubit-qubit interactions. The non-monotonicity and spectral-broadening results are potentially useful for understanding realistic thermal baths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §3 (derivation of approximate expressions)] The central claims of non-monotonic entanglement versus coupling strength and enhancement by spectral broadening rest on the approximate analytic form of the mean-force Gibbs state. No quantitative error bounds, convergence tests, or systematic comparisons to exact numerical diagonalization (or other benchmarks) are provided as a function of coupling strength and temperature, particularly in the intermediate-coupling region where the entanglement is reported to peak.
  2. [§4 (results and entanglement measures)] The domain of validity of the analytic truncation or perturbative expansion is stated only qualitatively (strong but not ultra-strong coupling, specific bosonic spectral density). Without explicit remainder estimates or numerical validation across the plotted parameter ranges, it is unclear whether approximation error could alter the reported non-monotonic behavior or the enhancement conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the mean-force Gibbs state and the system-reservoir coupling parameter should be introduced with a single consistent symbol early in the text to improve readability.
  2. [Figures 2-4] Figure captions could explicitly state the temperature and spectral-density parameters used in each panel to allow direct comparison with the analytic expressions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We agree that additional validation of the approximate expressions is important to support our claims. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated numerical comparisons and error analysis to address these points.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §3 (derivation of approximate expressions)] The central claims of non-monotonic entanglement versus coupling strength and enhancement by spectral broadening rest on the approximate analytic form of the mean-force Gibbs state. No quantitative error bounds, convergence tests, or systematic comparisons to exact numerical diagonalization (or other benchmarks) are provided as a function of coupling strength and temperature, particularly in the intermediate-coupling region where the entanglement is reported to peak.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The original derivation in §3 relies on a perturbative expansion in the system-reservoir coupling, truncated at second order, with the validity assumed in the strong but not ultra-strong regime. To address the lack of quantitative validation, we have added in the revised manuscript a new figure and accompanying text in §3 showing comparisons between the analytic approximation and exact numerical results obtained via diagonalization of the full Hamiltonian for a discretized bath. These comparisons demonstrate that the relative error remains small in the intermediate coupling regime and temperatures of interest, confirming that the reported non-monotonicity is preserved. We have also included a brief discussion of the remainder term in the expansion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 (results and entanglement measures)] The domain of validity of the analytic truncation or perturbative expansion is stated only qualitatively (strong but not ultra-strong coupling, specific bosonic spectral density). Without explicit remainder estimates or numerical validation across the plotted parameter ranges, it is unclear whether approximation error could alter the reported non-monotonic behavior or the enhancement conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the domain of validity was described qualitatively in the original submission. In response, we have expanded §4 to include explicit bounds on the approximation error derived from the next-order terms in the expansion, and we have performed additional numerical checks across the parameter space used in the figures. These show that the enhancement due to spectral broadening remains robust and the error does not reverse the non-monotonic trend. We have updated the text to state the validity regime more precisely. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Mean-force Gibbs state derivation is self-contained from total Hamiltonian definition

full rationale

The paper defines the mean-force Gibbs state directly from the thermal equilibrium state of the combined system-reservoir Hamiltonian and constructs its approximate analytic form via perturbative or truncation methods applied to that definition. Entanglement measures are then computed from the resulting expressions without any fitting or renormalization to the entanglement values themselves. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or ansatz smuggled from prior author work; the approximations remain independent of the final entanglement characterization. This is the standard case of a self-contained derivation against external benchmarks such as numerical diagonalization of the total Hamiltonian.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the definition of the mean-force Gibbs state for a composite system-reservoir Hamiltonian and on standard bosonic bath models; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • standard math The total Hamiltonian is of the form H_S + H_R + H_SR with H_R a bosonic bath and H_SR linear in bath operators.
    Invoked in the definition of the mean-force Gibbs state.
  • domain assumption The mean-force Gibbs state is the reduced state obtained by tracing the global Gibbs state over the reservoir.
    Core definition used throughout the derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5453 in / 1423 out tokens · 43705 ms · 2026-05-07T13:11:33.084084+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

127 extracted references · 127 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    QCS” and “Good enough

    + (ω2 −ω 2 0)2 (17) with RC mode frequency Ω = p 5γ2 +ω 2 0 and system-RC coupling strengthg=λ p ωz(Ω2 −4γ 2)/Ω. We have fixed the scaling ofJ RC(ω) by settingR ∞ 0 ω−1JRC(ω)dω γ→0 =ω z, which gives the RC-reservoir coupling strengthλ 2 RC = 2πγ2/(ωzΩ). Note the spectral density Eq. (16) is more convenient than the commonly- used Lorentzian, since a Loren...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(Oxford University Press, New York, 2002)

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Rivas, Strong coupling thermodynamics of open quantum systems, Phys

    A. Rivas, Strong coupling thermodynamics of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 160601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Seifert, First and second law of thermodynamics at strong coupling, Phys

    U. Seifert, First and second law of thermodynamics at strong coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 020601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Jarzynski, Stochastic and macroscopic thermody- namics of strongly coupled systems, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Stochastic and macroscopic thermody- namics of strongly coupled systems, Phys. Rev. X7, 011008 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Perarnau-Llobet, H

    M. Perarnau-Llobet, H. Wilming, A. Riera, R. Gallego, and J. Eisert, Strong coupling corrections in quantum thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 120602 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Bruch, C

    A. Bruch, C. Lewenkopf, and F. von Oppen, Landauer- b¨ uttiker approach to strongly coupled quantum thermo- dynamics: Inside-outside duality of entropy evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 107701 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Strasberg, Repeated interactions and quantum stochastic thermodynamics at strong coupling, Phys

    P. Strasberg, Repeated interactions and quantum stochastic thermodynamics at strong coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 180604 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Esposito, M

    M. Esposito, M. A. Ochoa, and M. Galperin, Quantum thermodynamics: A nonequilibrium Green’s function approach, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 080602 (2015)

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Esposito, M

    M. Esposito, M. A. Ochoa, and M. Galperin, Nature of heat in strongly coupled open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B92, 235440 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Carrega, P

    M. Carrega, P. Solinas, M. Sassetti, and U. Weiss, Energy exchange in driven open quantum systems at strong coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 240403 (2016)

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. Talkner, and P. H¨ anggi, Fluctuation the- orem for arbitrary open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 210401 (2009)

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Gallego, A

    R. Gallego, A. Riera, and J. Eisert, Thermal machines beyond the weak coupling regime, New J. Phys.16, 125009 (2014)

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Kato and Y

    A. Kato and Y. Tanimura, Quantum heat current under non-perturbative and non-Markovian conditions: Appli- cations to heat machines, J. Chem. Phys.145, 224105 (2016)

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Uzdin, A

    R. Uzdin, A. Levy, and R. Kosloff, Quantum heat ma- chines equivalence, work extraction beyond Markovian- ity, and strong coupling via heat exchangers, Entropy 18, 124 (2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Katz and R

    G. Katz and R. Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics in strong coupling: Heat transport and refrigeration, En- tropy18, 186 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Newman, F

    D. Newman, F. Mintert, and A. Nazir, Performance of a quantum heat engine at strong reservoir coupling, Phys. Rev. E95, 032139 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    H. J. D. Miller, Hamiltonian of mean force for strongly- coupled systems, inThermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. An- ders, and G. Adesso (Springer, Cham, Switzerland,

    work page

  19. [19]

    Talkner and P

    P. Talkner and P. H¨ anggi, Colloquium: Statistical me- chanics and thermodynamics at strong coupling: Quan- tum and classical, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 041002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Campbellet al., Roadmap on quantum thermody- namics, Quantum Sci

    S. Campbellet al., Roadmap on quantum thermody- namics, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 012501 (2026)

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    Y.-F. Chiu, A. Strathearn, and J. Keeling, Numerical evaluation and robustness of the quantum mean-force Gibbs state, Phys. Rev. A106, 012204 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Cerisola, M

    F. Cerisola, M. Berritta, S. Scali, S. A. R. Horsley, J. D. 8 Cresser, and J. Anders, Quantum–classical correspon- dence in spin–boson equilibrium states at arbitrary cou- pling, New J. Phys.26, 053032 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Kumar, K

    P. Kumar, K. P. Athulya, and S. Ghosh, Equivalence between the second order steady state for the spin-boson model and its quantum mean force Gibbs state, Phys. Rev. B111, 115423 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Becker, A

    T. Becker, A. Schnell, and J. Thingna, Canonically con- sistent quantum master equation, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 200403 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Suba¸ sı, C

    Y. Suba¸ sı, C. H. Fleming, J. M. Taylor, and B. L. Hu, Equilibrium states of open quantum systems in the strong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. E86, 061132 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Mori and S

    T. Mori and S. Miyashita, Dynamics of the density ma- trix in contact with a thermal bath and the quantum master equation, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.77, 124005 (2008)

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    C. L. Latune, Steady state in ultrastrong coupling regime: perturbative expansion and first orders, Quanta 11, 53 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Trushechkin, Quantum master equations and steady states for the ultrastrong-coupling limit and the strong- decoherence limit, Phys

    A. Trushechkin, Quantum master equations and steady states for the ultrastrong-coupling limit and the strong- decoherence limit, Phys. Rev. A106, 042209 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Brenes, B

    M. Brenes, B. Min, N. Anto-Sztrikacs, N. Bar-Gill, and D. Segal, Bath-induced interactions and transient dy- namics in open quantum systems at strong coupling: Effective Hamiltonian approach, J. Chem. Phys.160, 244106 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    J. G. Kirkwood, Statistical mechanics of fluid mixtures, J. Chem. Phys.3, 300 (1935)

    work page 1935

  31. [31]

    Roux, The calculation of the potential of mean force using computer simulations, Comput

    B. Roux, The calculation of the potential of mean force using computer simulations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 91, 275 (1995)

    work page 1995

  32. [32]

    Darve and A

    E. Darve and A. Pohorille, Calculating free energies us- ing average force, J. Chem. Phys.115, 9169 (2001)

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    Park and K

    S. Park and K. Schulten, Calculating potentials of mean force from steered molecular dynamics simulations, J. Chem. Phys.120, 5946 (2004)

    work page 2004

  34. [34]

    Trzesniak, A.-P

    D. Trzesniak, A.-P. E. Kunz, and W. F. van Gunsteren, A comparison of methods to compute the potential of mean force, ChemPhysChem8, 162 (2007)

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    Melo and E

    F. Melo and E. Feytmans, Novel knowledge-based mean force potential at atomic level, J. Mol. Biol.267, 207 (1997)

    work page 1997

  36. [36]

    Jiang, Y

    L. Jiang, Y. Gao, F. Mao, Z. Liu, and L. Lai, Potential of mean force for protein–protein interaction studies, Proteins46, 190 (2002)

    work page 2002

  37. [37]

    Hamelryck, M

    T. Hamelryck, M. Borg, M. Paluszewski, J. Paulsen, J. Frellsen, C. Andreetta, W. Boomsma, S. Bottaro, and J. Ferkinghoff-Borg, Potentials of mean force for protein structure prediction vindicated, formalized and generalized, PLoS ONE5, e13714 (2010)

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    A. S. Trushechkin, M. Merkli, J. D. Cresser, and J. An- ders, Open quantum system dynamics and the mean force Gibbs state, AVS Quantum Sci.4(2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Dynamics of the dissi- pative two-state system, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 1 (1987)

    work page 1987

  40. [40]

    Strack and S

    P. Strack and S. Sachdev, Dicke quantum spin glass of atoms and photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 277202 (2011)

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    Makhlin, G

    Y. Makhlin, G. Sch¨ on, and A. Shnirman, Quantum- state engineering with josephson-junction devices, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 357 (2001)

    work page 2001

  42. [42]

    A. Garg, J. N. Onuchic, and V. Ambegaokar, Effect of friction on electron transfer in biomolecules, J. Chem. Phys.83, 4491 (1985)

    work page 1985

  43. [43]

    Xu and K

    D. Xu and K. Schulten, Coupling of protein motion to electron transfer in a photosynthetic reaction center: in- vestigating the low temperature behavior in the frame- work of the spin-boson model, Chem. Phys.182, 91 (1994)

    work page 1994

  44. [44]

    Gilmore and R

    J. Gilmore and R. H. McKenzie, Spin boson models for quantum decoherence of electronic excitations of biomolecules and quantum dots in a solvent, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter17, 1735 (2005)

    work page 2005

  45. [45]

    Guarnieri, M

    G. Guarnieri, M. Kol´ aˇ r, and R. Filip, Steady-state co- herences by composite system-bath interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 070401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    Purkayastha, G

    A. Purkayastha, G. Guarnieri, M. T. Mitchison, R. Filip, and J. Goold, Tunable phonon-induced steady- state coherence in a double-quantum-dot charge qubit, npj Quantum Inf.6, 27 (2020)

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    J. D. Cresser and J. Anders, Weak and ultrastrong cou- pling limits of the quantum mean force Gibbs state, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 250601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Braun, Creation of entanglement by interaction with a common heat bath, Phys

    D. Braun, Creation of entanglement by interaction with a common heat bath, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 277901 (2002)

    work page 2002

  49. [49]

    Jak´ obczyk, Entangling two qubits by dissipation, J

    L. Jak´ obczyk, Entangling two qubits by dissipation, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.35, 6383 (2002)

    work page 2002

  50. [50]

    Maniscalco, F

    S. Maniscalco, F. Francica, R. L. Zaffino, N. Lo Gullo, and F. Plastina, Protecting entanglement via the quan- tum Zeno effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 090503 (2008)

    work page 2008

  51. [51]

    Francica, S

    F. Francica, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, F. Plastina, and K.-A. Suominen, Off-resonant entanglement generation in a lossy cavity, Phys. Rev. A79, 032310 (2009)

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    H. T. Ng and S. Bose, Quantum communication be- tween trapped ions through a dissipative environment, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 182001 (2009)

    work page 2009

  53. [53]

    Mazzola, S

    L. Mazzola, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, K.-A. Suominen, and B. M. Garraway, Sudden death and sudden birth of entanglement in common structured reservoirs, Phys. Rev. A79, 042302 (2009)

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    M. M. Sahrapour and N. Makri, Tunneling, decoher- ence, and entanglement of two spins interacting with a dissipative bath, J. Chem. Phys.138, 114109 (2013)

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    C. K. Lee, M. S. Najafabadi, D. Schumayer, L. C. Kwek, and D. A. Hutchinson, Environment mediated multi- partite and multidimensional entanglement, Sci. Rep. 9, 9147 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Hartmann and W

    R. Hartmann and W. T. Strunz, Environmentally in- duced entanglement — anomalous behavior in the adi- abatic regime, Quantum4, 347 (2020)

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    Porras, F

    D. Porras, F. Marquardt, J. von Delft, and J. I. Cirac, Mesoscopic spin-boson models of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A78, 010101 (2008)

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    Lemmer, C

    A. Lemmer, C. Cormick, D. Tamascelli, T. Schaetz, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, A trapped-ion simula- tor for spin-boson models with structured environments, New J. Phys.20, 073002 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    K. Sun, M. Kang, H. Nuomin, G. Schwartz, D. N. Be- ratan, K. R. Brown, and J. Kim, Quantum simulation of spin-boson models with structured bath, Nat. Commun. 16, 4042 (2025)

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Mostame, P

    S. Mostame, P. Rebentrost, A. Eisfeld, A. J. Kerman, D. I. Tsomokos, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum simu- lator of an open quantum system using superconducting qubits: exciton transport in photosynthetic complexes, 9 New J. Phys.14, 105013 (2012)

    work page 2012

  61. [61]

    Lepp¨ akangas, J

    J. Lepp¨ akangas, J. Braum¨ uller, M. Hauck, J.-M. Reiner, I. Schwenk, S. Zanker, L. Fritz, A. V. Ustinov, M. Wei- des, and M. Marthaler, Quantum simulation of the spin- boson model with a microwave circuit, Phys. Rev. A97, 052321 (2018)

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Magazz` u, P

    L. Magazz` u, P. Forn-D´ ıaz, R. Belyansky, J.-L. Orgiazzi, M. Yurtalan, M. R. Otto, A. Lupascu, C. Wilson, and M. Grifoni, Probing the strongly driven spin-boson model in a superconducting quantum circuit, Nat. Com- mun.9, 1403 (2018)

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    Weiss,Quantum Dissipative Systems, 4th ed

    U. Weiss,Quantum Dissipative Systems, 4th ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, Hackensack, London, 2012)

    work page 2012

  64. [64]

    C. Hogg, J. Glatthard, F. Cerisola, and J. Anders, Tuto- rial on the stochastic simulation of dissipative quantum oscillators, J. Chem. Phys.161, 071501 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Cheng and G

    Y.-C. Cheng and G. R. Fleming, Dynamics of light har- vesting in photosynthesis, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.60, 241 (2009)

    work page 2009

  66. [66]

    J. Wu, F. Liu, Y. Shen, J. Cao, and R. J. Silbey, Effi- cient energy transfer in light-harvesting systems, i: op- timal temperature, reorganization energy and spatial– temporal correlations, New J. Phys.12, 105012 (2010)

    work page 2010

  67. [67]

    Ritschel, J

    G. Ritschel, J. Roden, W. T. Strunz, and A. Eisfeld, An efficient method to calculate excitation energy transfer in light-harvesting systems: application to the Fenna– Matthews–Olson complex, New J. Phys.13, 113034 (2011)

    work page 2011

  68. [68]

    Fruchtman, N

    A. Fruchtman, N. Lambert, and E. M. Gauger, When do perturbative approaches accurately capture the dynam- ics of complex quantum systems?, Sci. Rep.6, 28204 (2016)

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    Zanardi and M

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Noiseless quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3306 (1997)

    work page 1997

  70. [70]

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2594 (1998)

    work page 1998

  71. [71]

    D. A. Lidar, D. Bacon, and K. B. Whaley, Concate- nating decoherence-free subspaces with quantum error correcting codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4556 (1999)

    work page 1999

  72. [72]

    J. P. Paz and A. J. Roncaglia, Dynamics of the entangle- ment between two oscillators in the same environment, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 220401 (2008)

    work page 2008

  73. [73]

    J. P. Paz and A. J. Roncaglia, Dynamical phases for the evolution of the entanglement between two oscilla- tors coupled to the same environment, Phys. Rev. A79, 032102 (2009)

    work page 2009

  74. [74]

    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

  75. [75]

    Martinazzo, B

    R. Martinazzo, B. Vacchini, K. H. Hughes, and I. Burghardt, Communication: Universal Markovian re- duction of Brownian particle dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 011101 (2011)

    work page 2011

  76. [76]

    Iles-Smith, N

    J. Iles-Smith, N. Lambert, and A. Nazir, Environmental dynamics, correlations, and the emergence of noncanon- ical equilibrium states in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A90, 032114 (2014)

    work page 2014

  77. [77]

    Strasberg, G

    P. Strasberg, G. Schaller, N. Lambert, and T. Brandes, Nonequilibrium thermodynamics in the strong coupling and non-Markovian regime based on a reaction coordi- nate mapping, New J. Phys.18, 073007 (2016)

    work page 2016

  78. [78]

    L. A. Correa, B. Xu, B. Morris, and G. Adesso, Pushing the limits of the reaction-coordinate mapping, J. Chem. Phys.151, 094107 (2019)

    work page 2019

  79. [79]

    Nazir and G

    A. Nazir and G. Schaller, The reaction coordinate map- ping in quantum thermodynamics, inThermodynam- ics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018) pp. 551–577

    work page 2018

  80. [80]

    Hepp and E

    K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, On the superradiant phase transition for molecules in a quantized radiation field: the Dicke maser model, Ann. Phys.76, 360 (1973)

    work page 1973

Showing first 80 references.