Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 107 references

The paper shows the full secular approximation forces steady-state work to zero while heat flows; coarse-graining over a minimal time window restores consistent thermodynamics and matches exact simulations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:57 UTC pith:LUWWAVJD

load-bearing objection Full-secular zero-work result is clean and the coarse-graining is a useful practical fix, but the method's thermodynamic consistency claim is conditional on a time-scale separation that the construction does not guarantee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00225 v1 pith:LUWWAVJD submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Dissipation in Periodically Driven Quantum Systems: Partial Secularization and Thermodynamic Consistency

Lu\'isa T. Tude , Carlos Ortega-Taberner , Roberta Zambrini , Gonzalo Manzano This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords driven-dissipative systemsFloquet master equationssecular approximationcoarse-grainingcomplete positivityquantum thermodynamicsheat currentsKossakowski matrix
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Periodically driven quantum systems are usually modeled with Floquet–Born–Markov master equations that discard all rapidly oscillating terms through the full secular approximation. The paper establishes that this approximation has a hidden thermodynamic flaw: in the long-time periodic steady state it predicts zero mechanical power from the drive while still allowing heat to flow, which violates the first law unless an unphysical non-conservative work term is added. The proposed remedy is a partial secularization by coarse-graining the Floquet–Redfield equation over a time window Δt, choosing the smallest window that makes the Kossakowski matrix positive semidefinite. The resulting completely positive master equation carries work through steady-state coherences, defines heat consistently via full counting statistics, and matches exact non-Markovian simulations in a driven two-level system and a three-level maser. This matters because work and heat accounting is the basis for predicting the performance of driven quantum heat engines and refrigerators.

Core claim

The central claim is that the full secular approximation in Floquet master equations forces the periodic steady state to be diagonal in the Floquet basis and to evolve along a unitary orbit, so the period-averaged mechanical power Tr[Ḣ_S ρ] vanishes identically, while the dissipator still sustains a nonzero heat current. The first law can then only be saved by postulating an extra non-conservative work contribution whose physical origin is obscure. The paper shows this deficiency is an artifact of over-secularization: the off-diagonal elements of the Kossakowski matrix couple populations and coherences, and those coherences are what carry mechanical work. Coarse-graining the Floquet–Redfield

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kossakowski matrix K_{αα′}(t) = γ(α,α′) e^{i(α′−α)t}, whose positive semidefiniteness is necessary and sufficient for the dissipative dynamics to be completely positive. In the Floquet–Redfield equation this matrix has non-positive off-diagonal oscillatory entries. Coarse-graining over Δt replaces each off-diagonal entry by sinc[(α−α′)Δt/2] times the rate, turning the matrix into a tunable frequency filter. The prescription is to take the smallest Δt for which the filtered matrix is positive semidefinite, yielding a GKSL generator that retains the coherence-carrying non-secular terms. Work is read from Tr[Ḣ_S ρ], while heat is derived by introducing counting fields

Load-bearing premise

The approach is valid only if there exists a coarse-graining window Δt that is much longer than the bath memory time and much shorter than the system's intrinsic evolution time (τ_B ≪ Δt ≪ τ_S), and the paper's own benchmarks show that accuracy degrades as the Rabi frequency approaches the filter cutoff.

What would settle it

Compute, for a driven two-level system with parameters where the Rabi frequency approaches 2π/Δt_min (e.g., increasing the driving strength g toward the validity boundary), the period-averaged mechanical work predicted by the coarse-grained master equation and compare it with a numerically exact non-Markovian simulation; the claim fails if the two disagree beyond the stated O(λ^4) corrections or if W_cycle + Q_cycle ≠ 0. A complementary test: use a bath with memory time τ_B comparable to Δt_min, violating the left inequality in τ_B ≪ Δt ≪ τ_S; then the coarse-grained master equation should vis

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The full secular Floquet master equation should not be used to compute steady-state work or efficiency in driven-dissipative systems, because it yields identically zero drive power and requires an ad hoc non-conservative work term to balance the first law.
  • The coarse-grained master equation with the minimal positivity-preserving Δt provides a completely positive GKSL generator whose period-averaged work is nonzero and whose heat currents, defined by full counting statistics, satisfy the first and second laws.
  • In the driven two-level system, the minimal coarse-graining time is approximately half the driving period; in the three-level maser it is zero, so the Floquet–Redfield equation is already completely positive there, and both benchmarks match exact simulations.
  • The non-secular terms that couple populations and coherences materially change heat-engine performance: power-efficiency curves of the three-level maser differ from full-secular predictions near resonance and at moderate driving strengths.
  • Comparing Δt_min with the system timescale τ_S gives a practical criterion for when Markovian master equations are reliable and when non-Markovian simulations become necessary.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The minimal-window criterion doubles as a model-independent validity test: if the required Δt is not much smaller than the system's intrinsic evolution time, no Markovian GKSL master equation can be trusted for thermodynamics, and non-Markovian methods are mandatory.
  • Because the paper identifies steady-state coherences as the carriers of work, existing efficiency and power calculations for driven quantum engines that use secular master equations and impose the first law by hand should be re-examined; they will generically misestimate power, especially near resonance.
  • The coherence-interference terms in the three-level maser heat currents produce signatures with no classical rate-model counterpart, such as heat currents depending on Re(ρ12); measuring output power and heat as functions of drive strength near resonance could distinguish this formalism from both secular and semiclassical predictions.
  • The sinc-filter interpretation suggests a possible extension: adapt Δt dynamically by monitoring positivity of the coarse-grained Kossakowski matrix, potentially extending Markovian descriptions to borderline parameter regimes, though this goes beyond the paper's fixed-Δt analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes Markovian master equations for periodically driven open quantum systems. Starting from the Floquet–Redfield equation, the authors prove that under the full secular approximation the steady-state cycle-averaged mechanical power vanishes identically, W_cycle = 0 (Eq. (24)), and argue that this is generically unphysical because exact dynamics and weak-driving master equations give nonzero work. To repair this while retaining complete positivity, they propose a coarse-graining procedure: averaging the Floquet–Redfield equation over a time interval Δt, and choosing the smallest Δt for which the coarse-grained Kossakowski matrix K′(Δt) in Eq. (34) becomes positive semidefinite. The resulting master equation (31) is of GKSL form. Heat currents are defined via a full-counting-statistics calculation, Eq. (36), leading to claimed first- and second-law consistency. The method is benchmarked against numerically exact PT-TEMPO simulations in two examples: a driven two-level system coupled to one bath and a three-level maser coupled to hot and cold baths.

Significance. The paper contains a clean, explicit derivation of an important limitation of the full secular approximation for driven-dissipative thermodynamics (W_cycle = 0), and it offers a constructive, physically interpretable recipe for partial secularization. The positivity criterion based on the minimal coarse-graining window is simple and potentially useful, and the use of numerically exact non-Markovian simulations as external benchmarks is a real strength. There are no fitted parameters targeting the claimed results. However, the central positive claim—that the coarse-grained master equation retains enough coherence to give the correct work while being completely positive—is established only in a parameter window; the manuscript itself documents degradation outside that window. Several supporting statements (e.g., the numerical verification of Eq. (42)) are asserted but not shown.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eq. (28) and §6.1] The prescription Δt = Δt_min defined by positivity of K′ does not, by itself, guarantee the upper bound Δt_min ≪ τ_S in Eq. (28). In the driven two-level system, Fig. 2 gives ω_max ≈ 2Ω, so Δt_min ≈ π/Ω, while τ_S = 2π/Ω_R. When Ω_R approaches 2Ω (strong driving or near-resonant detuning), the sinc filter suppresses not only bath-induced fast oscillations but also the Rabi coherence dynamics that sustain nonzero work. The paper acknowledges this in §6.1 ('in the limit of very strong coupling, the coarse-graining approach with Δt_min filters all off-diagonal oscillations, recovering the full secular ME') and in Fig. 5 (right), where Δt > τ_S fails to capture work. This means the advertised advantage over the full secular approximation is conditional on an unproven separation Δt_min ≪ τ_S. A quantitative sufficient condition, or an explicit statement that the method is limited to regimes s
  2. [§6, Eq. (42)] The approximation of retaining only Re[Γ] in the dissipative part and Im[Γ] in the Lamb-shift part is used in both examples and underlies the positivity analysis and the heat-current expression Eq. (36). The text states 'We have verified numerically in the examples that it has a negligible impact on the results predicted by the master equation,' but no comparison is shown. Since the Born–Markov justification given in the text (smoothness of the spectral response) is not universally valid, the supporting numerical verification should be displayed or at least quantified. As it stands, this is a missing piece of evidence for a load-bearing approximation.
  3. [§5 and Appendix B] The first-law agreement W_cycle + Q_cycle ≈ 0 shown in Fig. 5 (right) is an internal consistency check: both quantities are computed from the same coarse-grained master equation, with work obtained from coherences and heat from the counting-field expression using the same generator. The exact PT-TEMPO benchmark is used for populations and coherences (Fig. 4), but the heat currents in Fig. 5 (left) are compared only between the different Markovian master equations, not against the exact simulation. Consequently, thermodynamic consistency with the exact non-Markovian dynamics is not directly demonstrated for heat. This should be stated explicitly, or an exact heat-current comparison should be added.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The manuscript contains several typos and placeholders: 'Authoret al' in the header, 'Kossakovski' vs 'Kossakowski', 'mentinoed' in §6.2, and the Data availability section still containing 'Sample text inserted for demonstration.' These should be corrected before publication.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption defines ω_max = 2π/Δt_min, while the text says the cutoff corresponds to the first zero of the sinc function. The relationship between these two definitions should be clarified, since the first zero of sinc[(α−α′)Δt/2] occurs at |α−α′| = 2π/Δt, not at 2π/Δt_min unless an additional factor is explained.
  3. [Eq. (25) and Appendix B] In Eq. (25), the prefactor (ω+qΩ)/ω assumes ω ≠ 0. The zero Bohr-frequency transitions (ω = 0) are included in some dissipators (e.g., A_{0,±1} = σ_z in the two-level example). The text should state how zero-frequency transitions are handled in the heat-current expression, or why they do not contribute in the cases shown.
  4. [Appendix A] The proof of diagonal steady states assumes a non-degenerate Hamiltonian, but the full secular Floquet master equation can have quasienergy degeneracies or near-degeneracies. A sentence clarifying how degeneracies affect the conclusion would be useful, especially because the paper emphasizes near-degeneracies in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: positivity fixing of Δt and external exact benchmarks make the central derivation self-contained.

full rationale

The central negative result (zero steady-state work under full secularization) is a direct mathematical consequence of the full-secular master equation's diagonal steady state, not an input assumption. The coarse-graining interval is fixed a priori by requiring positive semi-definiteness of the Kossakowski matrix, not fitted to the currents that are later compared. Work and heat are evaluated from independent expressions (work from Tr[Ĥ_Sρ], heat from full counting statistics), and the first-law check is a numerical consistency test with residuals O(λ^4), not an identity imposed by construction. The two examples are benchmarked against PT-TEMPO exact non-Markovian simulations, providing an external reference. The few self-citations ([42], [67], [98]) are supporting literature for counting statistics, coherence terms, and quantum enhancements; none is load-bearing for the main derivation. The acknowledged validity bound Eq. (28), and the noted degradation when Ω_R approaches the 2Ω filter cutoff, are limitations of the method rather than circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard Floquet and Born-Markov assumptions plus one simplifying approximation (Eq. 42) whose stated numerical verification is not displayed. No new physical entities are postulated. No free parameters are fitted to the claimed results; the model parameters in the examples are illustrative inputs.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Floquet theorem decomposition U_S(t)=P(t) exp(-i H_F t)
    Used in Sec. 2 to define quasienergies and Floquet modes.
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation and bath correlation decay
    Used in Sec. 2.1 to derive Floquet-Redfield; requires weak coupling and τ_B << τ_S.
  • domain assumption Full counting statistics heat current formula
    Appendix B derives heat currents; relies on standard FCS and coarse-graining.
  • domain assumption PT-TEMPO exact simulation is numerically exact and non-Markovian
    Benchmark relies on algorithm accuracy; no convergence evidence shown.
  • domain assumption Bath spectral density Ohmic with exponential cutoff
    Assumed in Sec. 6 for the examples; a standard but non-universal model choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Approximation Eq. (42) separating real/imag parts of rates
    Introduced to simplify analytical treatment; authors claim numerical verification but no comparison is shown.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40374 in / 14123 out tokens · 139028 ms · 2026-08-04T00:57:27.433935+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Periodically driven open quantum systems are central to quantum thermodynamics and quantum control. These systems are typically described using Floquet-Born-Markov master equations, derived with the use of a full secular approximation, and whose thermodynamic implications are often overlooked. In this context, we show that such a strong secular approximation may lead to unphysical predictions for steady state energy currents. We then demonstrate that a coarse-grained formulation of the master equation can regularize these issues while yielding completely positive dynamics and consistent energy currents. The coarse-graining time has a clear physical interpretation, as it defines the temporal resolution at which a Markovian master equation can describe the evolution of the periodically driven system. We show the consistency and validity of our approach by comparing to an exact non-Markovian simulation in paradigmatic examples: a driven two-level system and a three-level maser coupled to hot and cold thermal reservoirs. Our work provides a practical framework for correctly applying the secular approximation in periodically driven-dissipative systems and for assessing the accuracy of master equations of the GKSL form.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00225 by Carlos Ortega-Taberner, Gonzalo Manzano, Lu\'isa T. Tude, Roberta Zambrini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the effect of coarse-graining on the Kossakowski matrix for different averaging intervals. Three cases are displayed corresponding to different time intervals ∆t compatible with full secular approximation (gray), the Floquet-Redfield equation (blue) and an intermediate regime (orange). The sinc function leads to a damping of some of the off-diagonal elements Kα,α′ when the frequency differe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: a. Energy diagram of the driven two-level system in the bare basis and in the Floquet eigenbasis. The Floquet eigenstates are separated by ΩR, and the Floquet replicas are shifted by Ω. b. Maximum coarse-grain frequency resolution ωmax = 2π/∆tmin as a function of g is depicted in black dashed. The minimum ∆t is the finest time resolution for a Markovian master equation to yield a positive Kossakowski matri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Exact dynamics of the driven two-level system in the Schr¨odinger picture (left), and interaction picture (right). The top row has the populations and the bottom row coherences. We show curves calculated with the Floquet-Redfield (black dotted), and coarse-grained (solid gray) master equations, together with exact non-Markovian simulations (colored lines). In the long-time limit, the system exhibits oscill… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the averages over a period of the drive of work (a. and b.), steady state coherence (c. and d.), and population (e. and f.) given by the coarse-grained, the Floquet-Redfield, and the full secular master equations, and an exact non-Markovian simulation (see legend) as a function of detuning (left) and driving strength (right). The full secular approximation can describe the populations and rea… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Averaged steady state and heat per cycle as a function of the detuning (left) and coarse-grain time interval (right). The energy currents are consistent with the first law of thermodynamics for small ∆t. The inset of the right panel shows the sum W + Q, representing the accuracy with which the first law of thermodynamics is obtained. comparison, the upper timescale limit on the right-hand side of inequalit… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a. Schematic of the three-level maser showing the energy levels coupled to a hot and a cold reservoir and driven by an external periodic field. b. and c. Kossakowski matrix of the cold (b) and hot (c) baths, with the oscillation frequency of each element indicated at its position. Colors denote the type of contribution: gray for secular terms, blue for affecting only coherence, and green for terms coupling… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Steady state density matrix elements and thermodynamic fluxes of the three-level maser operating as a heat engine. The different curves are obtained using the coarse-graining approach (which reduces to the Floquet-Redfield equation in this case), the full secular master equation, the weak driving master equation, and an exact simulation (see legend). a). Population of state ρ22 in the interaction picture. … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Efficiency as a function of the output power of the three-level heat engine for a. g = 0.02 E1 and ∆ = 0.01 E1, and b. g = 0.1 E1 and ∆ = 1 × 10−3 E1. The curves are obtained by varying E2, while keeping the detuning fixed. All other parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between the rotating-wave approximation (RWA) and the exact dynamics. The left panel shows the time evolution of the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix in the interaction picture, with the RWA results shown in black and the exact results in color. The middle panel compares the period-averaged steady-state populations obtained from the two methods, in the Sch¨odinger picture. The right p… view at source ↗

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

107 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Martins W S, Carollo F, Li W, Brandner K and Lesanovsky I 2023Physical Review A108 L050201 ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.L050201

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.108.l050201

  2. [2]

    Ramsay A J 2010Semiconductor Science and Technology25103001 ISSN 0268-1242, 1361-6641 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0268-1242/25/10/103001

    work page doi:10.1088/0268-1242/25/10/103001

  3. [3]

    Kavokin A (ed) 2017Microcavitiessecond edition ed (Series on semiconductor science and technologyno 16) (Oxford ; New York, NY: Oxford University Press) ISBN 978-0-19-878299-5

  4. [4]

    Weimer H, M¨ uller M, Lesanovsky I, Zoller P and B¨ uchler H P 2010Nature Physics6 382–388 ISSN 1745-2481 publisher: Nature Publishing Group URL https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1614 30 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

  5. [5]

    Berloff N G, Silva M, Kalinin K, Askitopoulos A, T¨ opfer J D, Cilibrizzi P, Langbein W and Lagoudakis P G 2017Nature Materials161120–1126 ISSN 1476-4660 number: 11 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group URLhttp://www.nature.com/articles/nmat4971

  6. [6]

    Aedo I and Lamata L 2018Physical Review A97042317 publisher: American Physical Society URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.042317

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.97.042317

  7. [7]

    Cabot A, Carollo F and Lesanovsky I 2024Physical Review Letters132050801 ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.050801

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.050801

  8. [8]

    Pavlov V P, Porras D and Ivanov P A 2023Physica Scripta98095103 ISSN 0031-8949, 1402-4896 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ace99f

    work page doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ace99f

  9. [9]

    Breuer H P and Petruccione F 2002The theory of open quantum systems(Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press) ISBN 978-0-19-852063-4 oCLC: ocm49872077

  10. [10]

    Trushechkin A S and Volovich I V 2016EPL (Europhysics Letters)11330005 ISSN 0295-5075, 1286-4854 arXiv:1509.05754 [quant-ph] URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1509.05754

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Gonz´ alez J O, Correa L A, Nocerino G, Palao J P, Alonso D and Adesso G 2017Open Systems & Information Dynamics241740010 ISSN 1230-1612, 1793-7191 URL https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1230161217400108

    doi:10.1142/s1230161217400108

  12. [12]

    Levy A and Kosloff R 2014Europhysics Letters10720004 URL https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/107/20004

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/107/20004

  13. [13]

    Barra F 2015Scientific reports514873

  14. [14]

    De Chiara G, Landi G, Hewgill A, Reid B, Ferraro A, Roncaglia A J and Antezza M 2018 New Journal of Physics20113024 ISSN 1367-2630 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aaecee

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aaecee 2018

  15. [15]

    Farina D and Giovannetti V 2019Physical Review A100012107 ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.012107

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.100.012107

  16. [16]

    Cattaneo M, Giorgi G L, Maniscalco S and Zambrini R 2019New Journal of Physics21 113045 ISSN 1367-2630 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ab54ac

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab54ac

  17. [17]

    Kirˇ sanskas G, Francki´ e M and Wacker A 2018Physical Review B97035432 ISSN 2469-9950, 2469-9969 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.035432

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.97.035432

  18. [18]

    McCauley G, Cruikshank B, Bondar D I and Jacobs K 2020npj Quantum Information6 1–14 ISSN 2056-6387 publisher: Nature Publishing Group URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-020-00299-6

    2056

  19. [19]

    Nathan F and Rudner M S 2020Physical Review B102115109 ISSN 2469-9950, 2469-9969 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.115109

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.102.115109

  20. [20]

    Davidovic D 2020Quantum4326 ISSN 2521-327X arXiv:2003.09063 [quant-ph] URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.09063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  21. [21]

    D’Abbruzzo A, Cavina V and Giovannetti V 2023SciPost Physics15117 ISSN 2542-4653 URLhttps://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.3.117

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.15.3.117

  22. [22]

    Fern´ andez De La Pradilla D, Moreno E and Feist J 2024Physical Review A109062225 ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.062225

    doi:10.1103/physreva.109.062225

  23. [23]

    Potts P P, Kalaee A A S and Wacker A 2021New Journal of Physics23123013 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ac3b2f

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac3b2f

  24. [24]

    Boubakour M, Szikman T and Elouard C 2026arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.13504

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Whitney R S 2008Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41175304

  26. [26]

    Rev.138(4B) B979–B987 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.138.B979 31 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    Shirley J H 1965Phys. Rev.138(4B) B979–B987 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.138.B979 31 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    doi:10.1103/physrev.138.b979

  27. [27]

    Grifoni M and H¨ anggi P 1998Physics Reports304229–354 ISSN 0370-1573 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157398000222

  28. [28]

    Kohler S, Dittrich T and H¨ anggi P 1997Physical Review E55300–313

  29. [29]

    Breuer H P, Huber W and Petruccione F 2000Phys. Rev. E61(5) 4883–4889 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4883

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.61.4883

  30. [30]

    Alicki R, Lidar D A and Zanardi P 2006Physical Review A73052311 ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.052311

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.73.052311

  31. [31]

    Hone D W, Ketzmerick R and Kohn W 2009Phys. Rev. E79(5) 051129 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.79.051129

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.79.051129

  32. [32]

    Szczygielski K, Gelbwaser-Klimovsky D and Alicki R 2013Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics87012120

  33. [33]

    Szczygielski K 2014Journal of Mathematical Physics55083506 ISSN 0022-2488 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4891401

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4891401

  34. [34]

    Schnell A, Eckardt A and Denisov S 2020Physical Review B101100301 ISSN 2469-9950, 2469-9969 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.100301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.100301

  35. [35]

    Haddadfarshi F, Cui J and Mintert F 2015Phys. Rev. Lett.114(13) 130402 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.130402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.130402

  36. [36]

    Restrepo S, Cerrillo J, Bastidas V M, Angelakis D G and Brandes T 2016Phys. Rev. Lett. 117(25) 250401 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.250401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.250401

  37. [37]

    Nafari Qaleh Z and Rezakhani A T 2022Physical Review A105012208 ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.012208

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.012208

  38. [38]

    Tude L T, Murphy C N and Eastham P R 2024Physical Review Letters132266901

  39. [39]

    Kolisnyk D, Queißer F, Schaller G and Sch¨ utzhold R 2024Physical Review Applied21044050 ISSN 2331-7019 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.21.044050

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.21.044050

  40. [40]

    Jeske J, Ing D, Plenio M B, Huelga S F and Cole J H 2015The Journal of Chemical Physics 142ISSN 0021-9606, 1089-7690 arXiv:1408.2726 [physics] URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2726

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Purkayastha A, Dhar A and Kulkarni M 2016Physical Review A93ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 arXiv:1511.03778 [cond-mat] URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03778

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Murphy C N, Toledo Tude L and Eastham P R 2022Applied Sciences121620 ISSN 2076-3417 number: 3 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute URL https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/3/1620

    2076

  43. [43]

    Tello Breuer C S, Becker T and Eckardt A 2024Phys. Rev. B110(6) 064319 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.064319

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.064319

  44. [44]

    Rivas A and Huelga S F 2012Open quantum systemsvol 10 (Springer)

  45. [45]

    Eastham P R, Kirton P, Cammack H M, Lovett B W and Keeling J 2016Physical Review A 94ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 arXiv:1508.04744 [quant-ph] URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.04744

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    Hartmann R and Strunz W T 2020Physical Review A101ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 arXiv:1906.02583 [quant-ph] URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02583

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  47. [47]

    Kosloff R 2013Entropy152100–2128

  48. [48]

    Gelbwaser-Klimovsky D, Alicki R and Kurizki G 2013Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics87012140

  49. [49]

    Restrepo S, Cerrillo J, Strasberg P and Schaller G 2018New Journal of Physics20053063 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aac583 32 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aac583

  50. [50]

    Klatzow J, Becker J N, Ledingham P M, Weinzetl C, Kaczmarek K T, Saunders D J, Nunn J, Walmsley I A, Uzdin R and Poem E 2019Physical Review Letters122110601 ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.110601

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.110601

  51. [51]

    Szczygielski K, Gelbwaser-Klimovsky D and Alicki R 2013Physical Review E87012120 ISSN 1539-3755, 1550-2376 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.012120

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.87.012120

  52. [52]

    Langemeyer M and Holthaus M 2014Physical Review E89012101

  53. [53]

    Gasparinetti S, Solinas P, Braggio A and Sassetti M 2014New Journal of Physics16115001 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3507

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Cuetara G B, Engel A and Esposito M 2015New Journal of Physics17055002 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/17/5/055002

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/5/055002

  55. [55]

    Scovil H E D and Schulz-DuBois E O 1959Physical Review Letters2262–263 ISSN 0031-9007 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.2.262

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.2.262

  56. [56]

    Trushechkin A 2021Physical Review A103062226 ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.062226

    doi:10.1103/physreva.103.062226

  57. [57]

    Gorini V, Kossakowski A and Sudarshan E C G 1976Journal of Mathematical Physics17 821–825 ISSN 0022-2488 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.522979

    doi:10.1063/1.522979

  58. [58]

    Agredo J, Fagnola F and Poletti D 2022Open Systems & Information Dynamics292250005 ISSN 1230-1612, 1793-7191 arXiv:2503.23860 [quant-ph] URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23860

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Manzano G and L´ opez R 2023Physical Review Research5043041

  60. [60]

    Vorberg D, Wustmann W, Ketzmerick R and Eckardt A 2013Phys. Rev. Lett.111(24) 240405 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.240405

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.240405

  61. [61]

    Kohn W 2001Journal of Statistical Physics103417–423

  62. [62]

    Hotz R and Schaller G 2021Physical Review A104052219 ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.052219

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.052219

  63. [63]

    Geva E and Kosloff R 1994Phys. Rev. E49(5) 3903–3918 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.49.3903

    doi:10.1103/physreve.49.3903

  64. [64]

    Boukobza E and Tannor D J 2007Phys. Rev. Lett.98(24) 240601 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.240601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.240601

  65. [65]

    Hofer P P, Souquet J R and Clerk A A 2016Phys. Rev. B93(4) 041418 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.041418

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.93.041418

  66. [66]

    Mitchison M T, Huber M, Prior J, Woods M P and Plenio M B 2016Quantum Science and Technology1015001 ISSN 2058-9565 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-9565/1/1/015001

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/1/1/015001 2058

  67. [67]

    Almanza-Marrero J A and Manzano G 2025Quantum91878 ISSN 2521-327X URL https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-10-07-1878

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-10-07-1878 2025

  68. [68]

    Shirai T, Mori T and Miyashita S 2015Phys. Rev. E91(3) 030101 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.91.030101

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.91.030101

  69. [69]

    Elouard C, Herrera-Mart ´ ı D, Esposito M and Auff` eves A 2020New Journal of Physics22 103039 ISSN 1367-2630 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/abbd6e

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/abbd6e

  70. [70]

    Schaller G and Brandes T 2008Physical Review A78022106 ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.78.022106

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.78.022106

  71. [71]

    Majenz C, Albash T, Breuer H P and Lidar D A 2013Physical Review A88012103 ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.012103 33 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    doi:10.1103/physreva.88.012103

  72. [72]

    Esposito M, Harbola U and Mukamel S 2009Reviews of Modern Physics811665–1702 ISSN 0034-6861, 1539-0756 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1665

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.1665

  73. [73]

    Friedman H M, Agarwalla B K and Segal D 2018New Journal of Physics20083026 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aad5fc

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aad5fc

  74. [74]

    Kilgour M and Segal D 2018Physical Review E98ISSN 2470-0045, 2470-0053 arXiv:1804.10585 [cond-mat] URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1804.10585

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [75]

    Liu J and Segal D 2021Physical Review E103032138

  76. [76]

    Esposito M, Lindenberg K and Van den Broeck C 2010New Journal of Physics12013013

  77. [77]

    Manzano G, Horowitz J M and Parrondo J M 2018Physical Review X8031037

  78. [78]

    Geva E, Kosloff R and Skinner J L 1995The Journal of Chemical Physics1028541–8561 ISSN 0021-9606, 1089-7690 URLhttp://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.468844

    work page doi:10.1063/1.468844

  79. [79]

    Juan-Delgado A and Chenu A 2021Physical Review A104022219 ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022219

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.022219

  80. [80]

    Soret A and Esposito M 2025Physical Review A111062205 ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.062205

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.111.062205

Showing first 80 references.