Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 91 references

Thermalization of open quantum systems with pseudomodes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pseudomode models do not, in general, drive a weakly coupled system to the Gibbs state at the bath temperature, because the effective temperature they impose depends on the transition frequency.

desk verdict Solid, mostly correct paper: weak-coupling pseudomodes don't generically thermalize, but the 'in general' claim is broader than what is rigorously proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02517 v1 pith:Y7ZODWZR submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph

R. Kevin Kessing , Thibaut Lacroix , Susana F. Huelga , Martin B. Plenio This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechphysics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph MSC 81S2282C10
keywords pseudomodesthermalizationdetailedbalanceeffectivetemperaturebathcorrelationfunctionsnon-Hermitianweakcouplingquantumthermodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that pseudomode models of open quantum systems do not generically thermalize a weakly coupled system to the Gibbs state of its Hamiltonian at the residual-environment temperature. The obstruction is detailed balance: the finite-width line shapes of the pseudomode bath correlation functions produce frequency-dependent damping rates, leading to a frequency-dependent effective temperature T_eff(ω). The authors identify the specific conditions under which detailed balance is restored—matching the Bohr frequency to the pseudomode frequency under the rotating-wave approximation, fixing the pseudomode damping γ = 4ω_P/√(e^{βℏω_P}−1) at zero temperature without the RWA, or combining Hermitian and non-Hermitian pseudomodes to flatten T_eff(ω). These criteria matter because pseudomode methods are widely used to simulate strong-coupling dynamics, and thermodynamic consistency at weak coupling is a minimal requirement for such simulations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pseudomode bath correlation function, whose two-sided Fourier transform yields the damping rates Γ(ω) in the weak-coupling Markovian master equation. The decisive identity is the detailed-balance ratio Γ(ω)/Γ(−ω) and the resulting effective temperature T_eff(ω)=ℏω/(k_B ln(Γ(ω)/Γ(−ω))). Because the dissipator's thermal occupation number N=(e^{βℏω_P}−1)^{-1} depends on the pseudomode frequency, not on the system transition frequency, the ratio is generally not e^{βℏω}. The paper's analysis centers on this mismatch and on 'weak detailed balance', a near-equality of the ratio around ω_P, and shows how non-Hermitian pseudomodes, which contribute negative line shapes, can

What would settle it

Set up a single harmonic oscillator (frequency ω_0) weakly coupled to one non-RWA pseudomode at residual temperature T=0, choosing the pseudomode damping γ to violate Eq. (21) by a factor of 10. The paper predicts a squeezed steady state with nonzero effective temperature (Eq. 25). If the numerically exact or experimentally measured steady state is instead the ground state of the oscillator—the T=0 Gibbs state—the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the weak-coupling limit, the damping rate imposed on a system by a pseudomode is the Fourier transform of its bath correlation function. Because the thermal occupation number in the pseudomode dissipator is tied to the fixed pseudomode frequency rather than to the system transition frequency, the ratio Γ(ω)/Γ(−ω) generally differs from e^{βℏω}. For RWA couplings this ratio equals e^{βℏω_P}, so detailed balance holds only for transition frequencies near ω_P; for non-RWA x-x and z-x couplings the ratio contains an error term that destroys detailed balance even at resonance, unless the damping is tuned to γ = 4ω_P/√(e^{βℏω_P}−1) at T=0. Exact solutions for a harmonic oscillator confirm that

Load-bearing premise

The weak-coupling analysis rests on the assumption that the asymptotic dynamics of a system weakly coupled to damped pseudomodes is governed by a global Markovian master equation whose damping rates are the two-sided Fourier transforms of the pseudomode bath correlation functions; the paper itself notes formal difficulties in justifying this limit for unbounded system Hamiltonians such as the harmonic oscillator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In single-pseudomode simulations without the RWA, a weakly coupled system settles into a squeezed thermal state at a temperature that depends on the transition frequency, so attributing the steady state to the residual-environment temperature is generally incorrect.
  • Under the RWA, thermalization to the pseudomode (residual) temperature is restored for systems whose Bohr frequency matches the pseudomode frequency; the mapping between temperatures is T'_eff = (ω_0/ω_P)T.
  • Thermodynamically consistent non-RWA pseudomode models require either zero temperature and γ = 4ω_P/√(e^{βℏω_P}−1), or a multi-mode construction with non-Hermitian pseudomodes that flattens T_eff(ω) over the system's Bohr spectrum.
  • The quasi-Markovian limit γ→∞ drives the effective temperature to infinity, so treating a strongly damped pseudomode as simply a Markovian bath overestimates thermalization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct experimental test is possible in analog quantum simulators: weakly couple a multi-level system to a single engineered pseudomode and measure steady-state population ratios; the inferred temperature should vary with transition frequency, contradicting the behavior of a genuine thermal reservoir.
  • The same detailed-balance diagnostic could be applied to any effective-bath representation built from finite line shapes, suggesting a design criterion for collision models, chain mappings, and other bath-truncation schemes: match the effective-temperature profile over the system Bohr spectrum, not just the time-domain correlation function.
  • The divergence at the critical coupling g_c for the non-RWA harmonic oscillator implies a hard ceiling on pseudomode coupling strengths in ultrastrong-coupling simulations; counterterms shift but do not remove it, so highly truncated oscillator models may not be reliable near that boundary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper examines whether pseudomode models of structured environments thermalize a weakly coupled system to the Gibbs state of the system Hamiltonian. The authors derive effective damping rates from pseudomode bath correlation functions for three coupling types: RWA (5), non-RWA x-x (4), and z-x (6). They show that the detailed-balance ratio Γ(ω)/Γ(−ω) generally differs from e^{βℏω}, so the weak-coupling steady state is not the residual-environment Gibbs state. They identify tuning conditions: for RWA, Eq. (16) shifts the apparent temperature; for non-RWA x-x at T=0, Eq. (21) fixes γ = 4ω_P/√(e^{βℏω_P}−1) to restore weak detailed balance at ω_P. These results are validated with an exact third-quantization solution of a harmonic oscillator coupled to a single pseudomode (Sec. 3), including the g→0 limit (Eq. (25)). Finally, the authors construct a ten-pseudomode environment combining Hermitian and non-Hermitian modes that flattens T_eff(ω) over a wide frequency window (Sec. 4, Fig. 4) and verify it for a harmonic oscillator (Fig. 5).

Significance. If correct, the findings are important for quantum-thermodynamics applications that use pseudomodes: they show that weak coupling to a pseudomode does not automatically imply canonical equilibrium, and they give practical criteria for constructing thermodynamically consistent models. The exact steady-state calculations in Sec. 3 are a valuable contribution, as are the explicit γ_fixed formula and the non-Hermitian tail-suppression construction. The central result is well supported for finite-dimensional systems and for the harmonic-oscillator case; the main caveats are the formal status of the weak-coupling limit for unbounded Hamiltonians and the fitted nature of the flat-T_eff parameter set.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (17)] The dissipator written for the non-RWA x-x coupling is not the standard Davies/GKSL form for a Hermitian coupling operator. Since X_j = S_j + S_j† is Hermitian, its spectral components satisfy X_j(ω)† = X_j(−ω). The secular generator should contain terms X_j(ω)ρ_S X_j(−ω) − (1/2){X_j(−ω)X_j(ω), ρ_S}, not X_j(ω)ρ_S X_j(ω) as printed. This is a central equation for the non-RWA analysis; please correct it and verify that the rate formulas (18) and the following epsilon expression are unaffected.
  2. [Sec. 2 (after Eq. (12)); abstract] The claim that reducing system-pseudomode coupling to infinitesimal levels 'in general' does not restore detailed balance goes beyond what is proven. The derivation of the GKSL rates (14), (17)-(18) relies on the van Hove limit, which is rigorous for finite-dimensional systems; for unbounded Hamiltonians such as the harmonic oscillator the authors themselves note 'formal difficulties' (Sec. 2, after Eq. (12)). The exact oscillator solution in Sec. 3 validates the harmonic-oscillator case, but the universal statement for arbitrary unbounded, non-Gaussian H_S is not established. Please qualify the claim accordingly or extend the proof.
  3. [Sec. 4 (paragraph on physicality)] The statement that net-positive BCFs with Γ(|ω|) ≥ Γ(−|ω|) guarantee that the dynamics are 'physical' is only argued via equivalence to a Gaussian harmonic environment. This establishes consistency of the BCF and (for Gaussian states) the steady state, but it does not by itself prove that the reduced dynamics generated by the non-Hermitian pseudomode system is completely positive for all times and arbitrary system Hamiltonians. Please either provide such a proof or restate the claim as one about the BCF/weak-coupling steady state, which is sufficient for the paper's main conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Table 1 and Fig. 5] The ten-pseudomode parameters are chosen to flatten T_eff(ω); Fig. 5(b) therefore confirms by construction the weak-coupling T_eff rather than making an independent prediction. Please state this explicitly in the text.
  2. [Sec. 1.3, Eq. (9) versus Sec. 2.1, Eq. (15)] The effective temperature is defined via Γ(ω)/Γ(−ω), but in the RWA case the relevant ratio is Γ^{(r)}(ω)/Γ^{(e)}(−ω). Clarify the relation between the two notations.
  3. [General] There are numerous typographical and typesetting errors, e.g., 'F¨ur' and '¨Ulm' in the affiliations and stray characters in Eq. (14) and the Fig. 2 caption. A careful proofread is needed.
  4. [App. A] The extension to negative times via a Lindbladian with γ → −γ is unconventional; please add a sentence explaining why this is a valid way to compute the BCFs for t < 0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: single-pseudomode nonthermalization follows from an independent BCF-to-rate derivation, and the tuned-parameter constructions are transparent rather than disguised predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The pseudomode BCFs (10)-(11) are computed from the Lindbladian (2) in App. A; the weak-coupling damping rates (14) and (18) are the two-sided Fourier transforms of those BCFs; and the effective temperature (9) is simply the detailed-balance ratio Γ(ω)/Γ(−ω), so the single-mode result that a finite Lorentzian BCF does not yield a constant T_eff(ω) follows by direct algebra rather than from any fitted output. The exact harmonic-oscillator steady state is obtained independently via third quantization (App. D); e.g., the g→0 limit (25) reproduces the γ condition (21), which is a nontrivial consistency check, not a circular step. Equation (21) is explicitly an enforced design condition ('We can then enforce the weak detailed-balance condition ... This fixes γ_j to...'), so the later use of that γ is a parameter choice, not a hidden prediction. Likewise, the ten-pseudomode flat profile of Sec. 4 is transparently constructed ('we turn to combinations of several pseudomodes' to 'afford a flatter temperature profile'), with parameters tabulated in App. E; Fig. 5 then validates the weak-coupling BCF prediction against the full third-quantization dynamics. Because the parameters were chosen to flatten T_eff, Fig. 5 is a consistency check, but the paper does not present it as an independent discovery. Self-citations such as Ref. [17] are used to justify exactness of pseudomode representations, but the nonthermalization result itself does not reduce to that theorem; the uniqueness condition comes from an external source [90]. The acknowledged 'formal difficulties in applying existing theory to unbounded system Hamiltonians' is a limitation on the scope of the weak-coupling GKSL argument, not a circularity. Overall the claimed derivation does not reduce to its inputs, so no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's main tuning knobs—γ_fixed, the Table 1 multi-mode parameters, and α_j—are chosen to enforce detailed balance or flatten T_eff, so they are free parameters rather than derived quantities. The remaining axioms are standard open-systems mathematics plus domain assumptions about the pseudomode embedding, the weak-coupling limit, steady-state uniqueness, and the physicality of net-positive non-Hermitian BCFs.

free parameters (4)
  • γ_fixed (single-mode non-RWA damping) = γ_fixed = 4ω_P / sqrt(exp(βℏω_P) − 1)
    Chosen in Eq. (21) so that Γ(−ω_P)/Γ(ω_P)=exp(−βℏω_P). The resonant harmonic oscillator then thermalizes to T_target at weak coupling; this is a tuned value, not derived from an independent theory.
  • Multi-mode flat-Te parameter set (Table 1) = g-scaling factors (including imaginary parts), ω_P,j, γ_j, and T_j for 5 Hermitian + 5 non-Hermitian modes; see App. E,
    Tuned to produce a nearly flat effective temperature (~293 K) over roughly 0–1800 cm^-1 (Fig. 4). The paper provides no independent constraint that fixes these numbers.
  • RWA temperature scaling (Eq. 16) = β = β′ ω0/ω_P
    In the RWA case, the residual-environment temperature is chosen so that weak detailed balance holds at the system frequency ω0; this is a design relation, not a prediction.
  • Non-Hermitian tail-suppression amplitude α_j = α_j = γ_j/γ′_j for each H/NH pair
    Set to the largest value consistent with a net-non-negative BCF, maximizing tail suppression. It is a design choice rather than a derived quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A pseudomode model (Eqs. (1)–(2)) exactly reproduces the reduced system dynamics of a genuine structured bath whenever the pseudomode BCFs match those of the bath (Ref. [17]).
    Motivates the paper's object of study; the paper does not re-derive this embedding theorem.
  • standard math For a global GKSL generator, detailed balance Γ(ω)=e^{βℏω}Γ(−ω) plus uniqueness of the steady state implies convergence to the system Gibbs state (Refs. [3,4]).
    Used throughout Sec. 2 to translate detailed balance into thermalization.
  • domain assumption In the weak-coupling (van Hove) limit, the system dynamics are governed by a GKSL equation with rates given by two-sided Fourier transforms of the pseudomode BCFs (Eqs. (14), (17)–(18)).
    The paper acknowledges formal difficulties for unbounded Hamiltonians; this limit is the backbone of the Sec. 2 criteria.
  • domain assumption Uniqueness of the steady state holds under the conditions of Theorem B.1 and, for the T=0/non-Hermitian examples, via Gaussian-state uniqueness or Ref. [90] Thm 5.2.
    Needed to go from 'Gibbs state is a valid steady state' to 'system thermalizes to the Gibbs state'.
  • ad hoc to paper Net-positive BCFs satisfying Γ(|ω|)≥Γ(−|ω|) are equivalent to a physical harmonic environment in a Gaussian state, so the non-Hermitian flat-Te multi-mode model is physical.
    Stated in Sec. 4 without derivation or citation; it underpins the physicality claim of the 10-pseudomode construction.
invented entities (1)
  • Non-Hermitian pseudomode pairs with imaginary coupling g′_j = i√α_j g_j
    purpose: Subtract a negative Lorentzian to suppress the fat tails of ordinary pseudomode BCFs and flatten T_eff(ω).
    Taken from prior work (Refs. [35,70–72]); the paper offers no falsifiable handle outside the construction itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermalization of open quantum systems with pseudomodes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y7ZODWZR

@misc{pith2026260802517,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermalization of open quantum systems with pseudomodes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y7ZODWZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02517}
}
read the original abstract

Pseudomode approaches allow for an exact and unapproximated description of a quantum system interacting arbitrarily strongly with a bath. In general, a system coupled to pseudomodes will not thermalize to the system's Gibbs state: This is to be expected when the system-bath coupling is non-perturbative, but conflicts with common thermodynamic intuition when the system-bath coupling is asymptotically weak. We explore under which circumstances pseudomode models satisfy detailed balance (and subsequently thermalize to the system Gibbs state) and how specific choices of parameters can force "weak" detailed balance that is restricted to a limited frequency range. A combination of Hermitian and non-Hermitian pseudomodes that yields a flat effective-temperature profile is also considered. The results and criteria established here are relevant for the construction of pseudomode models in contexts where thermodynamic consistency is required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02517 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The basic idea behind pseudomode models for open [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Damping rates and effective-temperature profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Steady-state properties of a harmonic oscillator ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Fourier-transformed BCFs resulting from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The effective temperature Teff of the steady state of a harmonic oscillator with variable frequency ω0 when (a) coupled to a single non-RWA pseudomode with T = 0 and γ = γfixed as in (21), or when (b) coupled to the 10- pseudomode system shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Steady-state properties of a harmonic oscillator (at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An illustration of the tail suppression via non-Hermitian pseudomodes using the maximal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The theory of open quantum systems

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione. “The theory of open quantum systems”. Oxford University Press. (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation

    Daniel Manzano. “A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation”. AIP Adv.10, 025106 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Open quan- tum systems

    ´Angel Rivas and Susana F. Huelga. “Open quan- tum systems”. Springer. (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    An algebraic condition for the approach to equilibrium of an openN-level sys- tem

    Herbert Spohn. “An algebraic condition for the approach to equilibrium of an openN-level sys- tem”. Lett. Math. Phys.2, 33–38 (1977)

    1977

  5. [5]

    Stationary states of quantum dynamical semigroups

    Alberto Frigerio. “Stationary states of quantum dynamical semigroups”. Commun. Math. Phys. 63, 269–276 (1978)

    1978

  6. [6]

    Irre- versible thermodynamics for quantum systems weakly coupled to thermal reservoirs

    Herbert Spohn and Joel L. Lebowitz. “Irre- versible thermodynamics for quantum systems weakly coupled to thermal reservoirs”. In Adv. Chem. Phys. Pages 109–142. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (1978)

    1978

  7. [7]

    Open quantum sys- tem dynamics and the mean force Gibbs state

    Anton S. Trushechkin, Marco Merkli, James D. Cresser, and Janet Anders. “Open quantum sys- tem dynamics and the mean force Gibbs state”. A VS Quantum Sci.4, 012301 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Asymptotic relaxation in quan- tum Markovian dynamics

    Giovanni Di Meglio, Dariusz Chru´ sci´ nski, Koen- raad Audenaert, Martin B. Plenio, and Su- sana F. Huelga. “Asymptotic relaxation in quan- tum Markovian dynamics”. J Math. Phys.67, 062101 (2026)

    2026

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Environmental dynamics, correlations, and the emergence of noncanonical equilibrium states in open quantum systems

    Jake Iles-Smith, Neill Lambert, and Ahsan Nazir. “Environmental dynamics, correlations, and the emergence of noncanonical equilibrium states in open quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. A90, 032114 (2014). 12

    2014

  2. [10]

    Fixing detailed balance in ancilla-based dissi- pative state engineering

    Neill Lambert, Mauro Cirio, Jhen-Dong Lin, Paul Menczel, Pengfei Liang, and Franco Nori. “Fixing detailed balance in ancilla-based dissi- pative state engineering”. Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043229 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Elementary principles of statistical mechanics

    Josiah Willard Gibbs. “Elementary principles of statistical mechanics”. Charles Scribner’s Sons. (1902)

    1902

  4. [12]

    Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint

    Ronnie Kosloff. “Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint”. Entropy15, 2100– 2128 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Quantum thermodynamics

    Patrick P. Potts. “Quantum thermodynamics”. SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes Page 126 (2026)

    2026

  6. [14]

    Nonperturbative decay of an atomic system in a cavity

    Barry M. Garraway. “Nonperturbative decay of an atomic system in a cavity”. Phys. Rev. A55, 2290–2303 (1997)

    1997

  7. [15]

    Stochastic wave-function ap- proach to non-Markovian systems

    Ata¸ c˙Imamo˘ glu. “Stochastic wave-function ap- proach to non-Markovian systems”. Phys. Rev. A50, 3650–3653 (1994)

    1994

  8. [16]

    Optimized auxiliary representation of non-Markovian impu- rity problems by a Lindblad equation

    Antonius Dorda, Max E. Sorantin, Wolfgang von der Linden, and Enrico Arrigoni. “Optimized auxiliary representation of non-Markovian impu- rity problems by a Lindblad equation”. New J. Phys.19, 063005 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Nonperturba- tive treatment of non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems

    Dario Tamascelli, Andrea Smirne, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio. “Nonperturba- tive treatment of non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 030402 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    A trapped-ion simulator for spin-boson models with structured environ- ments

    Andreas Lemmer, Cecilia Cormick, Dario Tam- ascelli, Tobias Schaetz, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio. “A trapped-ion simulator for spin-boson models with structured environ- ments”. New J. Phys.20, 073002 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Optimized auxiliary os- cillators for the simulation of general open quan- tum systems

    Fabio Mascherpa, Andrea Smirne, Alejan- dro D. Somoza, Pelayo Fern´ andez-Acebal, San- dro Donadi, Dario Tamascelli, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio. “Optimized auxiliary os- cillators for the simulation of general open quan- tum systems”. Phys. Rev. A101, 052108 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Thermodynamic costs and finite- power efficiency of dephasing-assisted quantum heat engines

    Raphael Weber, Susana F. Huelga, and Mar- tin B. Plenio. “Thermodynamic costs and finite- power efficiency of dephasing-assisted quantum heat engines”. New J. Phys.28, 074513 (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    Quasi-Lindblad pseudomode theory for open quantum systems

    Gunhee Park, Zhen Huang, Yuanran Zhu, Chao Yang, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, and Lin Lin. “Quasi-Lindblad pseudomode theory for open quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. B110, 195148 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Pseudomode treatment of strong- coupling quantum thermodynamics

    Francesco Albarelli, Bassano Vacchini, and An- drea Smirne. “Pseudomode treatment of strong- coupling quantum thermodynamics”. Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 015041 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Theory of pseudomodes in quantum optical processes

    Bryan J. Dalton, Stephen M. Barnett, and Barry M. Garraway. “Theory of pseudomodes in quantum optical processes”. Phys. Rev. A64, 053813 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Few-mode field quantization of arbitrary elec- tromagnetic spectral densities

    Ivan Medina, Francisco J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, Anto- nio I. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, and Johannes Feist. “Few-mode field quantization of arbitrary elec- tromagnetic spectral densities”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 093601 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Few-mode field quantization for multiple emitters

    M´ onica S´ anchez-Barquilla, Francisco J. Garc ´ ıa- Vidal, Antonio I. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, and Jo- hannes Feist. “Few-mode field quantization for multiple emitters”. Nanophotonics11, 4363– 4374 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Lindblad master equation capa- ble of describing hybrid quantum systems in the ultrastrong coupling regime

    Maksim Lednev, Francisco J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, and Johannes Feist. “Lindblad master equation capa- ble of describing hybrid quantum systems in the ultrastrong coupling regime”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 106902 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Driving force and nonequilibrium vi- bronic dynamics in charge separation of strongly bound electron–hole pairs

    Alejandro D. Somoza, Nicola Lorenzoni, James Lim, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Ple- nio. “Driving force and nonequilibrium vi- bronic dynamics in charge separation of strongly bound electron–hole pairs”. Commun. Phys.6, 65 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Systematic coarse graining of en- vironments for the nonperturbative simulation of open quantum systems

    Nicola Lorenzoni, Namgee Cho, James Lim, Dario Tamascelli, Susana F. Huelga, and Mar- tin B. Plenio. “Systematic coarse graining of en- vironments for the nonperturbative simulation of open quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 100403 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Full microscopic simulations un- cover persistent quantum effects in primary pho- tosynthesis

    Nicola Lorenzoni, Thibaut Lacroix, James Lim, Dario Tamascelli, Susana F. Huelga, and Mar- tin B. Plenio. “Full microscopic simulations un- cover persistent quantum effects in primary pho- tosynthesis”. Sci. Adv.11, eady6751 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Quantum simulation of spin-boson models with structured bath

    Ke Sun, Mingyu Kang, Hanggai Nuomin, George Schwartz, David N. Beratan, Kenneth R. Brown, and Jungsang Kim. “Quantum simulation of spin-boson models with structured bath”. Nat. Commun.16, 4042 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Quantum simulation of charge and exciton transfer in multi-mode models using engineered reservoirs

    Visal So, Midhuna Duraisamy Suganthi, Mingjian Zhu, Abhishek Menon, George Tomaras, Roman Zhuravel, Han Pu, Peter G. Wolynes, Jos´ e N. Onuchic, and Guido Pagano. “Quantum simulation of charge and exciton transfer in multi-mode models using engineered reservoirs”. Nat. Commun....

    2025

  24. [32]

    Open quantum Markovian systems and the microreversibility

    Girish S. Agarwal. “Open quantum Markovian systems and the microreversibility”. Z. Phys. A 258, 409–422 (1973)

    1973

  25. [33]

    Quantum detailed balance and KMS condition

    Andrzej Kossakowski, Alberto Frigerio, Vittorio Gorini, and Maurizio Verri. “Quantum detailed balance and KMS condition”. Commun. Math. Phys.57, 97–110 (1977)

    1977

  26. [34]

    Ther- malization in open many-body systems and KMS detailed balance

    Matteo Scandi and ´Alvaro M. Alhambra. “Ther- malization in open many-body systems and KMS detailed balance”. Phys. Rev. X16, 011040 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    Modelling the ultra- 13 strongly coupled spin-boson model with unphys- ical modes

    Neill Lambert, Shahnawaz Ahmed, Mauro Cirio, and Franco Nori. “Modelling the ultra- 13 strongly coupled spin-boson model with unphys- ical modes”. Nat. Commun.10, 3721 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine

    Robert Alicki. “The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine”. J. Phys. A12, L103– L107 (1979)

    1979

  29. [37]

    Markovian master equations for quantum ther- mal machines: local versus global approach

    Patrick P. Hofer, Mart ´ ı Perarnau-Llobet, L. David M. Miranda, G´ eraldine Haack, Ralph Silva, Jonatan Bohr Brask, and Nicolas Brunner. “Markovian master equations for quantum ther- mal machines: local versus global approach”. New J. Phys.19, 123037 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Quan- tum Thermodynamics

    Sebastian Deffner and Steve Campbell. “Quan- tum Thermodynamics”. Morgan & Claypool. (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Hamiltonian of mean force for strongly-coupled systems

    Harry J. D. Miller. “Hamiltonian of mean force for strongly-coupled systems”. In Felix Binder, Luis A. Correa, Christian Gogolin, Janet Anders, and Gerardo Adesso, editors, Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions. Chapter 22, pages 531–549....

    2018

  32. [40]

    Quan- tum resource theories

    Eric Chitambar and Gilad Gour. “Quan- tum resource theories”. Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    An introductory review of the resource theory approach to thermodynamics

    Matteo Lostaglio. “An introductory review of the resource theory approach to thermodynamics”. Rep. Prog. Phys.82, 114001 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Ther- malization and breakdown of thermalization in photon condensates

    Peter Kirton and Jonathan Keeling. “Ther- malization and breakdown of thermalization in photon condensates”. Phys. Rev. A91, 033826 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Nonequilibrium effects of cavity leakage and vibrational dissipa- tion in thermally activated polariton chemistry

    Matthew Du, Jorge A. Campos-Gonzalez- Angulo, and Joel Yuen-Zhou. “Nonequilibrium effects of cavity leakage and vibrational dissipa- tion in thermally activated polariton chemistry”. J. Chem. Phys.154, 084108 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Thermalization of fluores- cent protein exciton–polaritons at room temper- ature

    Sitakanta Satapathy, Bin Liu, Prathmesh Desh- mukh, Paul M. Molinaro, Florian Dirnberger, Mandeep Khatoniar, Ronald L. Koder, and Vinod M. Menon. “Thermalization of fluores- cent protein exciton–polaritons at room temper- ature”. Adv. Mater.34, 2109107 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Quantum reservoir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions

    Juan F. Poyatos, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Peter Zoller. “Quantum reservoir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions”. Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 4728–4731 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Cavity-loss-induced generation of entangled atoms

    Martin B. Plenio, Susana F. Huelga, Almut Beige, and Peter L. Knight. “Cavity-loss-induced generation of entangled atoms”. Phys. Rev. A59, 2468–2475 (1999)

    1999

  39. [47]

    En- tangled light from white noise

    Martin B. Plenio and Susana F. Huelga. “En- tangled light from white noise”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 197901 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Dissipative preparation of en- tanglement in optical cavities

    Michael J. Kastoryano, Florentin Reiter, and An- ders S. Sørensen. “Dissipative preparation of en- tanglement in optical cavities”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090502 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Dis- sipative production of a maximally entangled steady state of two quantum bits

    Yiheng Lin, John P. Gaebler, Florentin Reiter, Ting Rei Tan, Ryan Bowler, Anders S. Sørensen, Dietrich Leibfried, and Dave J. Wineland. “Dis- sipative production of a maximally entangled steady state of two quantum bits”. Nature504, 415–418 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Dissipative ground-state preparation of a spin chain by a structured environment

    Cecilia Cormick, Alejandro Bermudez, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio. “Dissipative ground-state preparation of a spin chain by a structured environment”. New J. Phys.15, 073027 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Mesoscopic spin-boson models of trapped ions

    Diego Porras, Florian Marquardt, Jan von Delft, and J. Ignacio Cirac. “Mesoscopic spin-boson models of trapped ions”. Phys. Rev. A78, 010101(R) (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Analog quantum simulation of chemical dynamics

    Ryan J. MacDonell, Claire E. Dickerson, Clare J. T. Birch, Alok Kumar, Claire L. Edmunds, Michael J. Biercuk, Cornelius Hempel, and Ivan Kassal. “Analog quantum simulation of chemical dynamics”. Chem. Sci.12, 9794–9805 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Simulating open-system molecular dynamics on analog quantum computers

    Vanessa C. Olaya-Agudelo, Ben Stewart, Christophe H. Valahu, Ryan J. MacDonell, Maverick J. Millican, Vassili G. Matsos, Frank Scuccimarra, Ting Rei Tan, and Ivan Kassal. “Simulating open-system molecular dynamics on analog quantum computers”. Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023215 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    The quantum Rabi model: solution and dynamics

    Qiongtao Xie, Honghua Zhong, Murray T Batch- elor, and Chaohong Lee. “The quantum Rabi model: solution and dynamics”. J. Phys. A50, 113001 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification

    Aashish A. Clerk, Michel H. Devoret, Steven M. Girvin, Florian Marquardt, and Robert J. Schoelkopf. “Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification”. Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155–1208 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    The approach to equilibrium in quantum statistics: A perturbation treatment to general order

    Leon Van Hove. “The approach to equilibrium in quantum statistics: A perturbation treatment to general order”. Physica23, 441–480 (1957)

    1957

  49. [57]

    Thermodynamics in the quantum regime

    Felix Binder, Luis A. Correa, Christian Gogolin, Janet Anders, and Gerardo Adesso, editors. “Thermodynamics in the quantum regime”. Springer Nature. (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Strong coupling thermodynamics of open quantum systems

    ´Angel Rivas. “Strong coupling thermodynamics of open quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 160601 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Colloquium: Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics at strong coupling: Quantum and classical

    Peter Talkner and Peter H¨ anggi. “Colloquium: Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics at strong coupling: Quantum and classical”. Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 041002 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Markovian master equations

    E. Brian Davies. “Markovian master equations”. Commun. Math. Phys.39, 91–110 (1974)

    1974

  53. [61]

    Markovian master equations. II

    E. Brian Davies. “Markovian master equations. II”. Math. Ann.219, 147–158 (1976)

    1976

  54. [62]

    Completely positive dynamical semigroups ofN-level systems

    Vittorio Gorini, Andrzej Kossakowski, and E. C. George Sudarshan. “Completely positive dynamical semigroups ofN-level systems”. J. Math. Phys.17, 821–825 (1976). 14

    1976

  55. [63]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups

    G¨ oran Lindblad. “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups”. Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119–130 (1976)

    1976

  56. [64]

    Effect of friction on electron transfer in biomolecules

    Anupam Garg, Jos´ e Nelson Onuchic, and Vinay Ambegaokar. “Effect of friction on electron transfer in biomolecules”. J. Chem. Phys.83, 4491–4503 (1985)

    1985

  57. [65]

    Quan- tum computation and quantum information

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. “Quan- tum computation and quantum information”. Cambridge University Press. (2017). Second edi- tion

    2017

  58. [66]

    Quan- tization over boson operator spaces

    Tomaz Prosen and Thomas H. Seligman. “Quan- tization over boson operator spaces” (2010). arXiv:1007.2921

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Quantum continuous variables: A primer of theoretical methods

    Alessio Serafini. “Quantum continuous variables: A primer of theoretical methods”. CRC Press. (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system

    Amir O. Caldeira and Anthony J. Leggett. “Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system”. Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)149, 374–456 (1983)

    1983

  61. [69]

    Molecular vibrational polariton dy- namics: What can polaritons do?

    Wei Xiong. “Molecular vibrational polariton dy- namics: What can polaritons do?”. Acc. Chem. Res.56, 776–786 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Quantum-classical decomposition of Gaussian quantum environments: A stochas- tic pseudomode model

    Si Luo, Neill Lambert, Pengfei Liang, and Mauro Cirio. “Quantum-classical decomposition of Gaussian quantum environments: A stochas- tic pseudomode model”. PRX Quantum4, 030316 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Generalized theory of pseudomodes for exact descriptions of non- Markovian quantum processes

    Graeme Pleasance, Barry M. Garraway, and Francesco Petruccione. “Generalized theory of pseudomodes for exact descriptions of non- Markovian quantum processes”. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043058 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Non-Hermitian pseudomodes for strongly coupled open quantum systems: Unravelings, correlations, and thermo- dynamics

    Paul Menczel, Ken Funo, Mauro Cirio, Neill Lambert, and Franco Nori. “Non-Hermitian pseudomodes for strongly coupled open quantum systems: Unravelings, correlations, and thermo- dynamics”. Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033237 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Adiabatic speedup and quantum heat current in an open system

    Jing Wu, Feng-Hua Ren, Run-Hong He, Shen- Shuang Nie, and Zhao-Ming Wang. “Adiabatic speedup and quantum heat current in an open system”. Europhys. Lett.139, 48001 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Quantum thermodynamics with fast driving and strong coupling via the mesoscopic leads ap- proach

    Artur M. Lacerda, Archak Purkayastha, Michael Kewming, Gabriel T. Landi, and John Goold. “Quantum thermodynamics with fast driving and strong coupling via the mesoscopic leads ap- proach”. Phys. Rev. B107, 195117 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Minimal quantum heat pump based on high-frequency driving and non-Markovianity

    Manuel Alamo, Francesco Petiziol, and Andr´ e Eckardt. “Minimal quantum heat pump based on high-frequency driving and non-Markovianity”. Phys. Rev. E109, 064121 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    Pseudofermion method for the exact description of fermionic environments: From single-molecule electronics to the Kondo resonance

    Mauro Cirio, Neill Lambert, Pengfei Liang, Po-Chen Kuo, Yueh-Nan Chen, Paul Menczel, Ken Funo, and Franco Nori. “Pseudofermion method for the exact description of fermionic environments: From single-molecule electronics to the Kondo resonance”. Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033011 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    The re- action coordinate mapping in quantum ther- modynamics

    Ahsan Nazir and Gernot Schaller. “The re- action coordinate mapping in quantum ther- modynamics”. In Felix Binder, Luis A. Cor- rea, Christian Gogolin, Janet Anders, and Ger- ardo Adesso, editors, Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions. Ch...

    2018

  70. [78]

    Energy transfer in struc- tured and unstructured environments: Master equations beyond the Born–Markov approxima- tions

    Jake Iles-Smith, Arend G. Dijkstra, Neill Lam- bert, and Ahsan Nazir. “Energy transfer in struc- tured and unstructured environments: Master equations beyond the Born–Markov approxima- tions”. J. Chem. Phys.144, 044110 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    Strong coupling effects in quantum thermal transport with the reaction coordinate method

    Nicholas Anto-Sztrikacs and Dvira Segal. “Strong coupling effects in quantum thermal transport with the reaction coordinate method”. New J. Phys.23, 063036 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Strong system-bath coupling ef- fects in quantum absorption refrigerators

    Felix Ivander, Nicholas Anto-Sztrikacs, and Dvira Segal. “Strong system-bath coupling ef- fects in quantum absorption refrigerators”. Phys. Rev. E105, 034112 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Markovian mas- ter equations: a critical study

    ´Angel Rivas, A. Douglas K. Plato, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio. “Markovian mas- ter equations: a critical study”. New J. Phys. 12, 113032 (2010)

    2010

  74. [82]

    Quan- tum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions

    Francesco Ciccarello, Salvatore Lorenzo, Vittorio Giovannetti, and G. Massimo Palma. “Quan- tum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions”. Phys. Rep.954, 1– 70 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    Making quan- tum collision models exact

    Thibaut Lacroix, Dario Cilluffo, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio. “Making quan- tum collision models exact”. Commun. Phys.8, 268 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    Ancilla-train quantum algorithm for simulating non-Markovian open quantum systems

    Hans Michael Christensen, Johannes Agerskov, and Frederik Nathan. “Ancilla-train quantum algorithm for simulating non-Markovian open quantum systems” (2025). arXiv:2509.12717

    2025

  77. [85]

    Numerically “exact

    Yoshitaka Tanimura. “Numerically “exact” ap- proach to open quantum dynamics: The hierar- chical equations of motion (HEOM)”. J. Chem. Phys.153, 020901 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    Tensor network methods for non-perturbative dynamics of open quantum sys- tems

    Thibaut Lacroix, Adam Burgess, Nicola Loren- zoni, Julian Wiercinski, Kian Damezin, James Lim, Dario Tamascelli, Alex W. Chin, Moritz Cygorek, Brendon W. Lovett, Jonathan Keel- ing, Susana F. Huelga, Martin B. Plenio, and Erik M. Gauger. “Tensor network methods for non-perturb...

    2026

  79. [87]

    Exact mapping be- tween system-reservoir quantum models and semi-infinite discrete chains using orthogonal polynomials

    Alex W. Chin, ´Angel Rivas, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio. “Exact mapping be- tween system-reservoir quantum models and semi-infinite discrete chains using orthogonal polynomials”. J. Math. Phys.51, 092109 (2010)

    2010

  80. [88]

    Ef- ficient simulation of finite-temperature open 15 quantum systems

    Dario Tamascelli, Andrea Smirne, James Lim, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio. “Ef- ficient simulation of finite-temperature open 15 quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090402 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    Quantum noise

    Crispin W. Gardiner and Peter Zoller. “Quantum noise”. Springer. (2010). Third edition

    2010

  82. [90]

    Criteria for Davies irreducibility of Markovian quantum dynamics

    Yikang Zhang and Thomas Barthel. “Criteria for Davies irreducibility of Markovian quantum dynamics”. J. Phys. A57, 115301 (2024). A Thermal pseudomode bath correlation functions We shall compute the bath correlation function (BCF) of such a pseudomode for non-zero temperatures...

    2024

  83. [91]

    pseudo-Schr¨ odinger equation

    + 1 2HTa1 ) =a′ 0·Ha 0−a′ 1·H Ta1 +a′ 0· J(a′ 0 + 2a1)−a ′ 1·K(a′ 1 + 2a0), where we also used(37). This matches the right-hand side of(36), as desired. E.2 Tail suppression by combining resonant Hermitian and non-Hermitian modes Imaginary-valued system-pseudomode coupling res...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.