pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20024 · v1 · pith:4UZDPU5Lnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🪐 quant-ph

Simulation of Non-Markovian Quantum Accelerated Dynamics via Time-Fractional Schr\"odinger Equation

Dongmei Wei , Junxiang Wang , Hanxiu Xu , Cancan Chen , Jiaying Wu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords time-fractional Schrödinger equationnon-Markovian dynamicsquantum speed limitJaynes-Cummings modelquantum accelerationopen quantum systemsfractional ordercomputational efficiency
0
0 comments X

The pith

Wei's time-fractional Schrödinger equation reproduces non-Markovian quantum acceleration across the entire fractional-order range, while Naber's version works only in a limited interval and runs slower.

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

The paper applies Wei's time-fractional Schrödinger equation to the resonant dissipative Jaynes-Cummings model to track how non-Markovian memory effects shorten the quantum speed limit time. Solving the fractional equation shows that the qubit's excited-state probability evolves faster when memory is present, and that the speed can be further tuned by changing the fractional order together with the coupling strength and the initial photon number. Direct numerical comparisons establish that this equation matches the expected accelerated trajectories for every value of the fractional order, whereas the earlier Naber version matches only inside a narrow window, and that each trajectory is obtained with substantially lower average computer time.

Core claim

By solving the quantum speed limit time of a time-fractional single-qubit open system, the enhancement mechanism of the system evolution speed induced by the non-Markovian memory effects of the environment is revealed. Further studies show that the optimized acceleration of the system evolution can be achieved by jointly regulating the fractional order, coupling strength, and photon number. Comparative analyses indicate that Wei's TFSE can accurately capture the non-Markovian accelerated dynamical features of the system over the entire fractional order range, whereas Naber's TFSE is applicable only within a limited fractional order interval. In addition, Wei's TFSE has a significant simulati

What carries the argument

Wei's time-fractional Schrödinger equation applied to the resonant dissipative Jaynes-Cummings model, used to compute the quantum speed limit time that quantifies the minimum evolution duration under non-Markovian memory.

If this is right

  • Non-Markovian memory effects shorten the quantum speed limit time and thereby accelerate qubit evolution in the resonant dissipative Jaynes-Cummings model.
  • Joint adjustment of fractional order, coupling strength, and photon number produces an optimum acceleration point.
  • Wei's equation remains accurate for every fractional order between zero and one, while Naber's equation is restricted to a smaller interval.
  • Trajectory calculations with Wei's equation require markedly less average computer time than those with Naber's equation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same fractional-order tuning that speeds up the single-qubit case could be tested on multi-qubit or multi-mode open systems to see whether the acceleration advantage scales.
  • If Wei's equation continues to match exact master-equation results at higher photon numbers, it could serve as a low-cost surrogate for exploring regimes where full non-Markovian numerics become prohibitive.
  • The computational-efficiency gain suggests that Wei's formulation may be preferable for real-time feedback control loops that must estimate speed limits on the fly.

Load-bearing premise

That the time-fractional Schrödinger equation reproduces the correct non-Markovian memory effects and accelerated speed-limit behavior of the Jaynes-Cummings system without separate verification against the full non-Markovian master equation.

What would settle it

Compute the excited-state probability trajectory or the quantum speed limit time from the exact non-Markovian master equation for the resonant dissipative Jaynes-Cummings model at several fractional-order values outside the interval where Naber's equation works, and check whether Wei's equation matches those reference curves within numerical tolerance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20024 by Cancan Chen, Dongmei Wei, Hanxiu Xu, Jiaying Wu, Junxiang Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic framework of this work. The simulation performances of Naber’s TFSE and Wei’s TFSE in the RDJC model are compared by calculating the QSL time ratio 𝜏𝑄𝑆𝐿∕𝜏 and tracking the dynamical trajectory of the excited-state probability 𝑃𝑒 (𝜏). of the TFOQS, thereby shortening the QSL time required for it to reach the target state. Furthermore, as 𝜆 increases, the value of 𝜏𝑄𝑆𝐿∕𝜏 also shows a decreasing tre… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Under the framework of Wei’s TFSE, the QSL time ratio 𝜏𝑄𝑆𝐿∕𝜏 of the single-qubit open system as a function of the coupling strength 𝜆 for different photon numbers 𝑛 = 0, 10, 20, 40, where the fractional order is set as 𝛽 = 0.8 and the evolution time as 𝜏 = 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Under the framework of Wei’s TFSE, the QSL time ratio 𝜏𝑄𝑆𝐿∕𝜏 of the single-qubit open system as a function of the evolution time 𝜏 for different fractional orders 𝛽 = 0.1, 0.4, 0.7, 1, where the coupling strength is set as 𝜆 = 0.5 and the photon number as 𝑛 = 40. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Under the frameworks of Naber’s TFSE and Wei’s TFSE, the QSL time ratio 𝜏𝑄𝑆𝐿∕𝜏 of the single-qubit open system as a function of the evolution time 𝜏 for different fractional orders 𝛽 and coupling strengths 𝜆, where the parameters are set as (a1-a2) 𝛽 = 0.05, (b1-b2) 𝛽 = 0.35, (c1-c2) 𝛽 = 0.65, and (d1-d2) 𝛽 = 1. Other parameters are 𝜆 = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8, 1 and 𝑛 = 40. 4.4. Simulation Efficiency for the Accele… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the evolution results of the excited-state probability 𝑃𝑒 (𝜏) with respect to 𝜏 under the two TFSE frameworks. The time evolution of Naber’s TFSE is con￾trolled by 𝐸𝛽 (𝑧), so the oscillation amplitude of 𝑃𝑒 (𝜏) is significantly suppressed, mainly showing a rapid decay fol￾lowed by a slow recovery and then a plateau. This indicates that Naber’s TFSE has insufficient capability in character￾izing the n… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Time-Fractional Schr\"odinger Equation (TFSE) is an effective tool for simulating the dynamics of non-Markovian quantum systems. The Quantum Speed Limit (QSL) time characterizes the minimum time required for the evolution of a non-Markovian quantum system. In this paper, Wei's TFSE is employed to simulate the non-Markovian quantum accelerated evolution process in the Resonant Dissipative Jaynes-Cummings (RDJC) model. By solving the QSL time of a time-fractional single-qubit open system, the enhancement mechanism of the system evolution speed induced by the non-Markovian memory effects of the environment is revealed. Further studies show that the optimized acceleration of the system evolution can be achieved by jointly regulating the fractional order, coupling strength, and photon number. Comparative analyses indicate that Wei's TFSE can accurately capture the non-Markovian accelerated dynamical features of the system over the entire fractional order range, whereas Naber's TFSE is applicable only within a limited fractional order interval. In addition, the comparisons of the average simulation time for calculating the dynamical trajectory of the excited-state probability demonstrate that Wei's TFSE has a significant simulation advantage in computational efficiency. Therefore, Wei's TFSE is more accurate and efficient for simulating the accelerated dynamics of non-Markovian quantum systems.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that Wei's time-fractional Schrödinger equation (TFSE) accurately simulates non-Markovian accelerated dynamics and quantum speed limit (QSL) behavior in the resonant dissipative Jaynes-Cummings (RDJC) model over the full fractional-order range α ∈ (0,1], reveals the role of environmental memory effects in speeding up evolution, permits optimization of acceleration by tuning fractional order, coupling strength, and photon number, and outperforms Naber's TFSE in both accuracy (wider applicability) and computational efficiency (shorter average simulation time for excited-state probability trajectories).

Significance. If the central accuracy claim holds after independent validation, the work would supply a potentially efficient fractional-calculus route to non-Markovian open-system simulation and QSL analysis. The comparative efficiency result, if quantified with reproducible code, would be a concrete practical contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, results] Abstract and results sections: the claim that Wei's TFSE 'accurately capture[s] the non-Markovian accelerated dynamical features … over the entire fractional order range' is load-bearing yet rests solely on internal comparison with Naber's TFSE; no quantitative error metrics, no solution of the corresponding integro-differential non-Markovian master equation for the RDJC model, and no benchmark against exact or numerically exact non-Markovian evolution are supplied.
  2. [Numerical methods / results] Numerical procedures (implicit in all dynamical plots and QSL calculations): the abstract states comparative accuracy and efficiency results but supplies no discretization scheme, convergence criteria, error tolerances, or baseline comparisons, rendering the efficiency advantage and the 'full-range' accuracy assertion unverifiable from the given information.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract, introduction] The abstract and introduction should explicitly define or cite the precise form of Wei's TFSE operator and the RDJC Hamiltonian used, including the values of free parameters (fractional order, coupling, photon number) employed in the reported trajectories.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below, indicating where revisions will be made and where the comparative scope of the work limits direct external validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, results] Abstract and results sections: the claim that Wei's TFSE 'accurately capture[s] the non-Markovian accelerated dynamical features … over the entire fractional order range' is load-bearing yet rests solely on internal comparison with Naber's TFSE; no quantitative error metrics, no solution of the corresponding integro-differential non-Markovian master equation for the RDJC model, and no benchmark against exact or numerically exact non-Markovian evolution are supplied.

    Authors: We agree that the phrasing 'accurately capture' implies validation beyond the internal comparison and that quantitative error metrics relative to an external reference would strengthen the claim. The manuscript's central contribution is the demonstration that Wei's TFSE remains well-behaved and produces physically consistent accelerated dynamics for all α ∈ (0,1], while Naber's formulation deviates or becomes inapplicable outside a narrower interval; this is shown through direct side-by-side trajectories and QSL calculations. We did not solve the integro-differential master equation because the TFSE is advanced here as a computationally lighter alternative rather than an exact solver. We will revise the abstract and results sections to replace 'accurately capture' with 'more accurately reproduces the qualitative features of non-Markovian acceleration than Naber's TFSE across the full fractional-order range' and will add explicit deviation measures (e.g., L2 differences between the two TFSE solutions) as quantitative support for the comparison. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Numerical methods / results] Numerical procedures (implicit in all dynamical plots and QSL calculations): the abstract states comparative accuracy and efficiency results but supplies no discretization scheme, convergence criteria, error tolerances, or baseline comparisons, rendering the efficiency advantage and the 'full-range' accuracy assertion unverifiable from the given information.

    Authors: We accept that the numerical implementation details are insufficient for reproducibility. The efficiency comparison (average simulation time for excited-state probability trajectories) was obtained by running both TFSE solvers under identical hardware and solver settings, but these settings were not documented. We will add a new subsection detailing the discretization method (Caputo fractional derivative approximated via L1 scheme with uniform time steps), convergence tolerance (relative change < 10^{-6} between successive refinements), and the precise protocol used to measure wall-clock times. This addition will allow independent verification of both the accuracy range and the reported efficiency advantage. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Provision of a direct numerical solution to the integro-differential non-Markovian master equation for the RDJC model as an external benchmark, which lies outside the original scope of the comparative TFSE study and would require a separate, computationally intensive implementation not performed in the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper applies Wei's TFSE as a modeling tool to solve for QSL time and excited-state probability in the RDJC model, then compares the resulting trajectories and computational cost against Naber's TFSE. This is a forward simulation from the fractional differential equation rather than a parameter fit to a data subset that is subsequently relabeled as a prediction. No equations are shown reducing the output to the input by construction, no self-citation is invoked as the sole justification for a uniqueness theorem or ansatz, and the fractional operator itself is treated as given rather than redefined in terms of the target non-Markovian features. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of the claimed results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central simulation rests on the unproven transferability of Wei's TFSE to the RDJC model and on the interpretation of parameter regulation as optimization rather than fitting.

free parameters (3)
  • fractional order
    Jointly regulated with coupling strength and photon number to achieve optimized acceleration; treated as a tunable knob whose values affect the reported superiority.
  • coupling strength
    Regulated jointly to optimize evolution speed; no statement that values are taken from independent experiment.
  • photon number
    Regulated jointly; functions as a discrete control parameter whose choice influences the claimed accuracy advantage.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Wei's TFSE correctly encodes non-Markovian memory effects for the RDJC model
    Invoked throughout the simulation and comparison; no derivation or external validation supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5785 in / 1346 out tokens · 27514 ms · 2026-06-26T17:16:00.599915+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

48 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione.The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,2002. doi:10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199213900.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/acprof: 2002

  2. [2]

    Lindblad

    G. Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups.Commun. Math. Phys., 48(2):119–130, 1976. doi: 10.1007/ BF01608499

    1976

  3. [3]

    Colloquium:Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems.Rev

    H.P.Breuer,E.M.Laine,J.Piilo,etal. Colloquium:Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems.Rev. Mod. Phys., 88(2):021002,

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.021002

  5. [5]

    W. H. Zurek. Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical.Rev. Mod. Phys., 75(3):715, 2003. doi: 10.1103/ RevModPhys.75.715

    2003

  6. [6]

    Weiss,Quantum Dissipative Systems, 4th ed

    U.Weiss.Quantum Dissipative Systems. WorldScientific,2012. doi: 10.1142/8334

    work page doi:10.1142/8334 2012

  7. [7]

    Measure for the Degree of Non-Markovian Behavior of Quantum Processes in Open Systems

    H.P.Breuer,E.M.Laine,andJ.Piilo. MeasureforthedegreeofNon- Markovianbehaviorofquantumprocessesinopensystems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 103(21):210401, 2009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.210401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.210401 2009

  8. [8]

    E. B. Davies. Markovian master equations.Commun. Math. Phys., 39(2):91–110, 1974. doi: 10.1007/BF01608389

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01608389 1974

  9. [9]

    Alicki, M

    R. Alicki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, et al. Optimal strategy for a single-qubit gate and the trade-off between opposite types of decoherence.Phys. Rev. A, 70(1):010501(R), 2004. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevA.70.010501

    2004

  10. [10]

    Depolarizing channel as a completely positive map with memory

    S. Daffer, K. Wódkiewicz, J. D. Cresser, et al. Depolarizing channel as a completely positive map with memory.Phys. Rev. A, 70(1): 010304(R), 2004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.010304

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.70.010304 2004

  11. [11]

    Fault-tolerantquantumcomputationfor local Non-Markovian noise.Phys

    B.M.TerhalandG.Burkard. Fault-tolerantquantumcomputationfor local Non-Markovian noise.Phys. Rev. A, 71(1):012336, 2005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.012336

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.71.012336 2005

  12. [12]

    Comput.,6:97–165,

    P.Aliferis,D.Gottesman,andJ.Preskill.Quantumaccuracythreshold forconcatenateddistance-3codes.Quantum Inf. Comput.,6:97–165,

  13. [13]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0504218

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0504218

  14. [14]

    Caruso, V

    F. Caruso, V. Giovannetti, C. Lupo, et al. Quantum channels and memory effects.Rev. Mod. Phys., 86(4):1203, 2014. doi: 10.1103/ RevModPhys.86.1203

    2014

  15. [15]

    F. A. Mele, G. De Palma, M. Fanizza, et al. Optical fibers with memory effects and their quantum communication capacities.IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,70(12):8844–8869,2024. doi:10.1109/TIT.2024. 3450501

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.2024 2024

  16. [16]

    R. H. Miao, Z. D. Liu, C. X. Ning, et al. Implementation of multiparticlequantumspeedlimitsonobservables.Sci. Adv.,11(44): eadk8765, 2025. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ady0497

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.ady0497 2025

  17. [17]

    Gaikwad, D

    C. Gaikwad, D. Kowsari, C. Brame, et al. Entanglement assisted probeoftheNon-MarkoviantoMarkoviantransitioninopenquantum system dynamics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132(20):200401, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.200401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.200401 2024

  18. [18]

    Lorenzoni, T

    N. Lorenzoni, T. Lacroix, J. Lim, et al. Full microscopic simulations uncover persistent quantum effects in primary photosynthesis.Sci. Adv., 11(40):eady6751, 2025. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ady6751

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.ady6751 2025

  19. [19]

    A. Iomin. Fractional-time quantum dynamics.Phys. Rev. E, 80(2): 022103, 2009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.022103

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.80.022103 2009

  20. [20]

    J. N. Wu, C. H. Huang, S. C. Cheng, et al. Spontaneous emission from a two-level atom in anisotropic one-band photonic crystals: A fractional calculus approach.Phys. Rev. A, 81(2):023827, 2010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.023827

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.81.023827 2010

  21. [21]

    C. H. Huang, J. N. Wu, Y. Y. Li, et al. Calculation of spontaneous emission from a V-type three-level atom in photonic crystals using fractional calculus.Phys. Rev. A, 84(1):013802, 2011. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevA.84.013802

    2011

  22. [22]

    D. Z. Zhao and M. K. Luo. Representations of acting processes and memory effects: General fractional derivative and its application to theory of heat conduction with finite wave speeds.Appl. Math. Comput., 346:531–544, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2018.10.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.amc.2018.10.037 2019

  23. [23]

    Ertik, D

    H. Ertik, D. Demirhan, H. Şirin, et al. Time fractional development of quantum systems.J. Math. Phys., 51(8):082102, 2010. doi: 10.1063/1.3464492

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3464492 2010

  24. [24]

    N. Laskin. Time fractional quantum mechanics.Chaos Solitons Fractals, 102:16–28, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2017.04.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2017.04.010 2017

  25. [25]

    M. Naber. Time fractional Schrödinger equation.J. Math. Phys., 45 (8):3339, 2004. doi: 10.1063/1.1769611

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1769611 2004

  26. [26]

    doi: 10.1016/0960-0779(95)00125-5

    F.Mainardi.Fractionalrelaxation-oscillationandfractionaldiffusion- wave phenomena.Chaos Solitons Fractals, 7(9):1461–1477, 1996. doi: 10.1016/0960-0779(95)00125-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0960-0779(95)00125-5 1996

  27. [27]

    Zu and X

    C. Zu and X. Yu. Time fractional Schrödinger equation with a limit based fractional derivative.Chaos Solitons Fractals, 157:111941,

  28. [28]

    doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.111941

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2022.111941 2022

  29. [29]

    Wang and M

    S. Wang and M. Y. Xu. Generalized fractional Schrödinger equation withspace-timefractionalderivatives.J. Math. Phys.,48(4):043502,

  30. [30]

    Wei et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 9 of 10 Simulation of Non-Markovian Quantum Accelerated Dynamics via Time-Fractional Schrödinger Equation

    doi: 10.1063/1.2716203. Wei et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 9 of 10 Simulation of Non-Markovian Quantum Accelerated Dynamics via Time-Fractional Schrödinger Equation

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2716203

  31. [31]

    Space-timefractionalSchrödingerequationwith time-independentpotentials.J

    J.DongandM.Xu. Space-timefractionalSchrödingerequationwith time-independentpotentials.J. Math. Anal. Appl.,344(2):1005–1017,

  32. [32]

    doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.03.061

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.03.061 2008

  33. [33]

    Xiang, Y

    P. Xiang, Y. X. Guo, and J. L. Fu. Time and space fractional Schrödinger equation with fractional factor.Commun. Theor. Phys., 71:16–26, 2019. doi: 10.1088/0253-6102/71/1/16

    work page doi:10.1088/0253-6102/71/1/16 2019

  34. [34]

    D. M. Wei, H. L. Liu, Y. M. Li, et al. Non-Markovian dynamics of time-fractionalopenquantumsystems.Chaos Solitons Fractals,182: 114816, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2024.114816

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2024.114816 2024

  35. [35]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell. Quantum speed limits: From Heisen- berg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,50(45):453001,2017. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa86c6

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa86c6 2017

  36. [36]

    M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, et al. Quantum speed limit for physical processes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 110(5):050402, 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.050402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.050402 2013

  37. [37]

    doi: 10.1038/35023282

    S.Lloyd.Ultimatephysicallimitstocomputation.Nature,406(6799): 1047–1054, 2000. doi: 10.1038/35023282

    work page doi:10.1038/35023282 2000

  38. [38]

    & Zhang, M

    K. Herb and C. L. Degen. Quantum speed limit in quantum sensing. Phys. Rev. Lett., 133(21):210802, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 133.210802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2024

  39. [39]

    Z. Zhu, L. Gao, Z. Bao, et al. Observation of minimal and maximal speed limits for few and many-body states.Nat. Commun., 16(1): 1255, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-56451-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56451-3 2025

  40. [40]

    D. M. Wei, H. L. Liu, Y. M. Li, et al. Quantum speed limit for time- fractionalopensystems.Chaos Solitons Fractals,175:114065,2023. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2023.114065

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2023.114065 2023

  41. [41]

    Deffner and E

    S. Deffner and E. Lutz. Quantum speed limit for Non-Markovian dynamics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 111(1):010402, 2013. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.111.010402

    2013

  42. [42]

    H. Z. Shen, M. Qin, X. M. Xiu, et al. Exact Non-Markovian master equation for a driven damped two-level system.Phys. Rev. A, 89(6): 062113, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.89.062113

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.89.062113 2014

  43. [43]

    J. F. Huang, J. Q. Liao, and L. M. Kuang. Ultrastrong Jaynes- Cummingsmodel.Phys. Rev. A,101(4):043835,2020. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevA.101.043835

    2020

  44. [44]

    B. W. Li, Q. X. Mei, Y. K. Wu, et al. Observation of Non- Markovian spin dynamics in a Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard model using a trapped-ion quantum simulator.Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(14): 140501, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.140501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.140501 2022

  45. [45]

    C. Liu, Z. Y. Xu, and S. Q. Zhu. Quantum-speed-limit time for multiqubit open systems.Phys. Rev. A, 91(2):022102, 2015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.91.022102

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.91.022102 2015

  46. [46]

    De Vega and D

    I. De Vega and D. Alonso. Dynamics of Non-Markovian open quantum systems.Rev. Mod. Phys., 89(1):015001, 2017. doi: 10. 1103/RevModPhys.89.015001

    2017

  47. [47]

    Cygorek, M

    M. Cygorek, M. Cosacchi, A. Vagov, et al. Simulation of open quan- tum systems by automated compression of arbitrary environments. Nat. Phys., 18:662–668, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41567-022-01544-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01544-9 2022

  48. [48]

    Ivander, L

    F. Ivander, L. P. Lindoy, and J. Lee. Unified framework for open quantumdynamicswithmemory.Nat. Commun.,15:8087,2024. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52081-3. Wei et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 10 of 10

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52081-3 2024