Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Heat transport in driven quantum systems: Comparison between the Floquet-Redfield equation and the master equation in the instantaneous eigenbasis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a periodically driven quantum system weakly coupled to a heat bath, the steady-state heat current is fixed by the nonsecular Floquet-Redfield equations (28) and (35); against this benchmark, the full secular approximation…

desk verdict A careful comparison paper with two genuinely new formulas; the instantaneous-eigenbasis benchmark is weaker than it looks because of an admitted rate-transfer inconsistency, but the nonsecular Floquet-Redfield derivation is solid and worth citing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13308 v1 pith:QPEJFZXM submitted 2026-08-13 quant-ph

Luca Magazzù , Christoforus Dimas Satrya , Aleksandr S. Strelnikov , Bayan Karimi , Jukka P. Pekola This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Floquet-Redfieldequationperiodicallydrivenqubitheatcurrentspin-bosonmodelsecularapproximationinstantaneouseigenbasismulti-photonresonancesweakcoupling
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 tries to establish which master-equation schemes correctly describe heat transport in a periodically driven quantum system weakly coupled to a thermal bath. Its benchmark is the Floquet-Redfield equation for the steady state, derived from the Nakajima-Zwanzig equation without Markovian or secular approximations. Against that benchmark, the paper shows that the commonly used full secular approximation distorts the driven-qubit heat current: it inflates the low-frequency multi-photon side peaks and cuts the main resonance peak to about half its true value. A simpler master equation in the instantaneous eigenbasis, solved numerically and analytically, matches the benchmark in the low-frequency, low-amplitude regime. Getting this right matters for designing quantum thermal machines and for interpreting heat measurements on driven superconducting qubits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Floquet-Redfield tensor $R^{k,k'}_{nmn'm'}$, built from the one-sided Fourier transform $W(\omega)$ of the bath correlation function and the Fourier components $Q^l_{nm}$ of the coupling operator in the Floquet basis. It couples populations, coherences, and different Fourier harmonics of the steady-state density matrix through Eq. (28); the heat current to the bath is then the weighted sum Eq. (35), with weights set by the transition frequencies $\omega^l_{nm} = \varepsilon_n - \varepsilon_m + l\omega_d$ and the bath power spectrum. The comparison uses two simplifications of this object: the full secular truncation that keeps only diagonal populations, Eqs. (37)-(39), and the instantaneous-eigenbasis master equation (55)-(57), whose rates are taken from the Floquet calculation but whose unitary evolution follows the instantaneous qubit levels. A second key piece is the weak-drive analytical solution of that equation, Eqs. (A1)-(A4), which reduces the dynamics to a Bloch-type equation with drive-induced harmonics and yields closed-form Lorentzian peaks at $\omega_d = \bar{\omega}_q/l$.

What would settle it

Compute the steady-state heat current with the instantaneous-eigenbasis master equation (55)-(57) using relaxation rates evaluated directly in the instantaneous eigenbasis rather than transferred from the Floquet basis, at parameters where $\delta = \omega_d A_d / \Delta^2$ is not small, e.g. $A_d = 0.4\Delta$ and $\omega_d = 1.5\Delta$, giving $\delta = 0.6$; if the resulting curve departs from the Floquet-Redfield benchmark of Eqs. (28) and (35), the reported agreement is an artifact of the rate transfer the paper itself flags as inconsistent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for a periodically driven quantum system weakly coupled to a heat bath, the steady-state heat current is given exactly, to second order in the coupling, by the nonsecular Floquet-Redfield equations (28) and (35), with no Markovian or secular approximation needed. Applied to a driven spin-boson qubit with $\hat{Q}=\hat{\sigma}_z$ coupling to an ohmic-Drude bath, this benchmark predicts multi-photon peaks at drive frequencies $\omega_d = \Delta/l$ once the qubit frequency is renormalized by the drive, and it predicts that even-fraction peaks are suppressed at zero static bias. The full secular approximation, which discards steady-state coherences and higher Fourier harmonics, overestimates the heights of the low-frequency fractional peaks and underestimates the resonant peak at $\omega_d = \Delta$ by roughly a factor of two. The master equation written in the instantaneous eigenbasis, Eqs. (55)-(57), reproduces the Floquet-Redfield heat current at low drive frequency and amplitude, and its weak-drive analytical solution captures the fractional peaks and the resonance. The paper also acknowledges that the rates entering the instantaneous-eigenbasis equation are computed in the Floquet basis, which coincides with the instantaneous eigenbasis only in the adiabatic limit $\delta = \omega_d A_d / \Delta^2 \ll 1$.

Load-bearing premise

The reported agreement of the instantaneous-eigenbasis master equation rests on borrowing relaxation rates computed in the Floquet basis, a step the paper itself calls inconsistent and valid only in the adiabatic limit $\delta \ll 1$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The nonsecular Floquet-Redfield equations (28) and (35) provide a steady-state heat-current formula for any periodically driven system at weak coupling, free of Markovian and secular assumptions, so they can serve as a benchmark for all simpler schemes.
  • For the driven spin-boson qubit, the full secular approximation is quantitatively unreliable for heat currents: it overestimates the fractional side peaks and underestimates the resonance peak by about a factor of two.
  • The instantaneous-eigenbasis master equation, despite its rate-transfer inconsistency away from the adiabatic limit, reproduces the Floquet-Redfield heat current at low drive frequency and amplitude and captures the magnitude of the resonant maximum.
  • Heat-current peaks appear at drive frequencies matching fractions of the renormalized qubit frequency, $\omega_d \simeq \bar{\omega}_q/l$, and at the symmetry point $\epsilon_0 = 0$ the even-fraction peaks are suppressed by the harmonic content of the drive-induced coupling.
  • The weak-drive analytical solution (A1)-(A4) reproduces the numerical heat current from the instantaneous-basis equation across the frequency range for not-too-large drive amplitude, giving a closed-form set of Lorentzian resonances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the Floquet-Redfield benchmark is trusted, studies of driven thermal machines that rely on secular master equations should quantify the nonsecular correction, because the resonant operating point is precisely where the secular value is off by a factor of two.
  • Editorial inference: The paper's own admitted inconsistency suggests a sharp numerical experiment: compute the relaxation rates in the instantaneous eigenbasis directly and rerun Fig. 3; sustained agreement at moderate $\delta$ would then be nontrivial, while breakdown would locate the rate transfer as the source of the match.
  • Editorial inference: The predicted factor-of-two difference at $\omega_d = \Delta$ is a measurable signature in superconducting-qubit heat-transport setups; a measured resonance peak near the secular value would indicate that the nonsecular corrections are less relevant than the model claims.
  • Editorial inference: The even-fraction suppression at $\epsilon_0 = 0$ could serve as an in-situ symmetry-point diagnostic in experiments, since any nonzero bias immediately activates even-harmonic peaks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops weak-coupling (Born, second-order) master-equation descriptions of steady-state heat transport in a periodically driven quantum system coupled to a bosonic bath. Its central object is a non-Markovian, nonsecular Floquet-Redfield equation and the corresponding heat-current formula, Eqs. (28) and (35), derived from the Nakajima-Zwanzig equation without secular or Markov approximations. The authors compare this benchmark with a fully secular Floquet master equation, Eqs. (37)-(39), finding that the secular approximation overestimates the low-frequency fractional peaks and underestimates the resonance peak. They then study a master equation in the instantaneous eigenbasis, Eqs. (55)-(57), together with an analytical weak-drive solution in Appendix A, and claim that the instantaneous-eigenbasis approach reproduces the Floquet-Redfield heat current at low drive frequency and amplitude. The paper also discusses the suppression of even-fractional resonances at zero static bias. The numerical results are for a driven qubit with an ohmic-Drude bath, and comparisons are shown in Figs. 1-4.

Significance. If the claims are established, the main value of the paper is a systematic derivation of a nonsecular Floquet-Redfield heat current with explicit formulas, and a clear diagnosis of secular-approximation errors: full secularization overestimates fractional peaks and roughly halves the resonance peak, while coherence contributions reduce the fractional-peak heights. The analytical weak-drive solution in Appendix A gives a compact explanation of the multiphoton peaks and of the odd-harmonic selection rule at zero bias. The paper is also commendably explicit about the rate-transfer inconsistency in the instantaneous-eigenbasis comparison. However, because of that inconsistency, the comparison in Fig. 3 does not support the broad claim that Eq. (55) is valid for any drive strength and frequency, and the numerical benchmark lacks a convergence study. The significance of the paper therefore depends on a substantial revision of these claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV C, Fig. 1 caption] The sentence "Eq. (55) is valid in principle for any drive strength/frequency and only assumes weak system-bath coupling" is not supported by the manuscript's own analysis. The relaxation rates entering Eq. (55) are taken from Eq. (50), which is a Floquet-basis expression, and the paper itself calls this an inconsistency. At the parameters of Fig. 3 with A_d = 0.4 Delta, the adiabaticity parameter delta = omega_d A_d / Delta^2 reaches 0.4 at resonance and is in the range 0.08-0.2 across the fractional-peak region, so the plotted agreement does not test the instantaneous-eigenbasis master equation at moderate drive. It tests, rather, that the nonadiabatic unitary corrections are small in that regime and that the Floquet-basis rates are transferable there. Because all the compared approaches are solutions of the same Born approximation, the agreement is also a consistency check rather than an independent validation. Please either derive rates consistently in the instantaneous eigenbasis, or explicitly restrict the claim and the Fig. 3 comparison to the adiabatic regime delta << 1 and remove or qualify the "any drive strength/frequency" statement. This is load-bearing for the abstract and introductory claim that the instantaneous-eigenbasis equation reproduces the Floquet-Redfield heat current.
  2. [Section IV C, Fig. 1 caption] The numerical benchmark relies on truncation parameters K = 6, L = 20, and N_Mats = 200, but no convergence study is reported. Since the Floquet-Redfield result is the reference against which the secular and instantaneous-eigenbasis approximations are judged, the paper should include a convergence check for these cutoffs at representative frequencies, including the resonance peak and a fractional peak, and state the resulting numerical tolerance. Without this, the quantitative claims such as the factor-of-two underestimation at resonance and the specific peak heights in Figs. 1-3 are not fully established.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A4) and Fig. 4] The claim that the analytical solution "essentially reproduces" the numerical solution in the whole frequency range is not quantified. The agreement is shown only graphically, and at A_d = 0.4 Delta the expansion parameter A_d/Delta is not small. Please provide a quantitative measure of the deviation (e.g., relative error as a function of omega_d for each drive amplitude) and state the range of parameters in which the analytical formula is intended to be quantitative rather than illustrative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] The text contains typos such as "time evolutio" and "and and" in the discussion of the bath correlation function; these should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption sentence "while is the number of terms retained in the sum over the Matsubara frequencies" is missing the symbol N_Mats and is grammatically incomplete. The phrase "The truncation of the sums over l in [-L,L] and k' in [-K,K] constants L and K" is also garbled.
  3. [Section IV A and IV C] There are typos such as "setady-state" and "het current" (should be "steady-state" and "heat current", respectively).
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains "master euqation" (should be "master equation"). Also, the abbreviation "ME" should be defined on first use in the caption or text.
  5. [Section IV B] The notation "full secular approximation" is used for Eqs. (37)-(39), but the relation between this approximation and the "secular approximation" in Eq. (48) could be made more explicit; in particular, Eq. (36) sets coherences to zero before the Markov approximation, while Eq. (48) is a secular Markovian equation for transients. Clarifying this distinction would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the heat-current formulas are derived from a common weak-coupling expansion, and the paper's own caveat about rate transfer is a correctness limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central heat-current formula, Eq. (35), is derived from the Nakajima-Zwanzig equation with a second-order kernel, Eq. (15), rather than from a fit or from a previously assumed result. The Floquet-Redfield tensor, Eq. (29), is constructed from the bath correlation function W and the Fourier components of the system operator; no parameter is tuned to reproduce the plotted currents. The secular and instantaneous-eigenbasis results, Eqs. (37)-(39) and (55)-(57), are distinct approximations built on the same weak-coupling bath correlation W, so their mutual agreement is a consistency check rather than an independent validation, but that is not circular. The even-fraction suppression is derived analytically from the expansion of lambda(t), Eq. (59), and is credited to prior work only as supporting context, not as a load-bearing uniqueness or existence claim. Self-citations [25] and [47-49] concern previously known master equations and multiphoton resonance structure; the present paper re-derives the relevant equations in Sections IV-V, so the cited results are not the sole justification of the central claim. The paper explicitly flags the one genuine weakness in the instantaneous-eigenbasis comparison: rates are computed in the Floquet basis and then used in the instantaneous eigenbasis, which coincides only in the adiabatic limit, with the text stating 'This constitutes an inconsistency.' That is an acknowledged validity limitation for Fig. 3, not a circular reduction of Eq. (35) to its own input. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no ansatz is smuggled in solely by self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed as a derivation. Therefore no circular step meeting the required evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formulas rest on the standard weak-coupling (Born) expansion, a time-periodic steady-state assumption, and a specified bath model. The only genuinely ad hoc element is using Floquet-basis rates in the instantaneous eigenbasis equation, which the paper itself labels an inconsistency. The three free parameters are numerical and analytical truncation orders, not physical fitting parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Fourier truncation orders K, L = K=6, L=20
    Chosen by hand for the numerical solution of the Floquet-Redfield tensor (Eq. 28) and heat current (Eq. 35); no convergence study is reported, so the plotted currents depend on these cutoffs.
  • Matsubara truncation N_Mats = N_Mats=200
    Number of Matsubara terms retained in the ohmic-Drude bath correlation function (Eq. 12); chosen without a stated convergence check.
  • Weak-drive expansion order n = n=2
    In the analytical solution (Appendix A), the expansion of lambda(t) keeps terms through the third harmonic, so fractional peaks are reproduced only up to l=3; this truncation sets the claimed range of validity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Second-order (Born) weak-coupling approximation in the system-bath interaction.
    The Nakajima-Zwanzig kernel is evaluated to leading order O(lambda^2); all master equations and heat currents are valid only when the bath coupling alpha is small. See Section III and Eq. (15).
  • domain assumption The steady-state reduced density matrix in the Floquet basis is time-periodic and memory kernel decays fast enough for the time-local limit to exist.
    Used in Section IV A to derive Eq. (28): 'Assume that the elements of the kernel superoperator vanish for large differences... and that the elements of the steady-state RDM are time-periodic.' This is an asymptotic regularity assumption, not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper In the instantaneous-eigenbasis master equation, rates computed in the Floquet basis are used in the instantaneous eigenbasis.
    Section V: 'This constitutes an inconsistency.' The equation is valid only if delta = omega_d A_d / Delta^2 << 1, yet it is presented as valid for any drive strength or frequency before this caveat.
  • standard math Floquet theorem for time-periodic Hamiltonians and Sokhotski-Plemelj evaluation of the bath correlation Fourier transform.
    Used in Sections III B and II to obtain quasienergies and W(omega); standard mathematical results, not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption The bath is modeled by an ohmic-Drude spectral density and the total system-bath state is initialized factorized at t=0.
    Standard spin-boson model setup (Eqs. 1 and 41); all numerical results depend on this bath model, and the projection operator formalism requires a factorized initial state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heat transport in driven quantum systems: Comparison between the Floquet-Redfield equation and the master equation in the instantaneous eigenbasis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPEJFZXM

@misc{pith2026260813308,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heat transport in driven quantum systems: Comparison between the Floquet-Redfield equation and the master equation in the instantaneous eigenbasis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPEJFZXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13308}
}
read the original abstract

We provide a comprehensive study of heat transport in periodically driven quantum systems using a combination of master equation and Floquet approach. We give exact results (within the weak coupling Redfield theory, with no Markovian or secular approximations) and compare them with alternative approaches involving further approximations. Numerical and analytical results obtained in their appropriate driving regimes are provided for the driven spin boson-model. The adiabatic regime, which is relevant to thermal machines, is discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13308 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Driven qubit. Steady-state heat current to the bath [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Impact of steady-state coherences in the Floquet-Redfield approach. Steady-state heat current to the bath [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time-averaged, steady-state value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. One-period average of the heat current to the bath [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Steady-state heat current Starting from Eqs. (17)-(18), and using the expansion (24) for the system coupling operator, and assuming that the steady-state density matrix in the basis of Floquet modes is time-periodic, we find for the steady state heat current, to leading order in the system-bath coupling, Pb(t) =− 1 ℏ X n,n′,m′ X l,l′,k′ Z ∞ 0 dτ2Im n ei(l...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Kohler, T

    S. Kohler, T. Dittrich, and P. H¨ anggi, Floquet-Markovian description of the parametrically driven, dissipative harmonic quantum oscillator, Phys. Rev. E55, 300 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Grifoni and P

    M. Grifoni and P. H¨ anggi, Driven quantum tunneling, Phys. Rep.304, 229 (1998)

    1998

  4. [4]

    K. M. Fonseca-Romero, S. Kohler, and P. H ˜A€nggi, Coherence control for qubits, Chemical Physics296, 307 (2004), the Spin-Boson Problem: From Electron Transfer to Quantum Computing ... to the 60th Birthday of Professor Ulrich Weiss

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    D. W. Hone, R. Ketzmerick, and W. Kohn, Statistical mechanics of Floquet systems: The pervasive problem of near degeneracies, Phys. Rev. E79, 051129 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Langemeyer and M

    M. Langemeyer and M. Holthaus, Energy flow in periodic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E89, 012101 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Gasparinetti, P

    S. Gasparinetti, P. Solinas, A. Braggio, and M. Sassetti, Heat-exchange statistics in driven open quantum systems, New J. Phys.16, 115001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    C. Deng, F. Shen, S. Ashhab, and A. Lupascu, Dynamics of a two-level system under strong driving: Quantum-gate optimization based on Floquet theory, Phys. Rev. A94, 032323 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Magazz` u, S

    L. Magazz` u, S. Denisov, and P. H¨ anggi, Asymptotic Floquet states of a periodically driven spin-boson system in the nonperturbative coupling regime, Phys. Rev. E98, 022111 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Reimer, K

    V. Reimer, K. G. L. Pedersen, N. Tanger, M. Pletyukhov, and V. Gritsev, Nonadiabatic effects in periodically driven dissipative open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A97, 043851 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Menczel and K

    P. Menczel and K. Brandner, Limit cycles in periodically driven open quantum systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.52, 43LT01 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Elouard, D

    C. Elouard, D. Herrera-Mart ´ ı, M. Esposito, and A. Auff` eves, Thermodynamics of optical Bloch equations, New J. Phys. 22, 103039 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    J. T. W. S. Teixeira, F. L. Semi˜ ao and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Assessment of weak-coupling approximations on a driven two-level system under dissipation, New J. Phys.24, 013005 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Mori, Floquet states in open quantum systems, Annu

    T. Mori, Floquet states in open quantum systems, Annu. Rev. Cond. Matt. Phys.14, 35 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Magazz` u, E

    L. Magazz` u, E. Paladino, and M. Grifoni, Unified diagrammatic approach to quantum transport in few-level junctions for bosonic and fermionic reservoirs: Application to the quantum Rabi model, Phys. Rev. B110, 085419 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Di Meglio, M

    G. Di Meglio, M. B. Plenio, and S. F. Huelga, Time dependent Markovian master equation beyond the adiabatic limit, Quantum8, 1534 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    X. Cao, C. Wang, G. Engelhardt, H. Zheng, and D. He, Steady-state quantum coherence in driven open quantum system: An optimal transformation analysis, J. Chem. Phys.164, 164307 (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    L. T. Tude, C. Ortega-Taberner, R. Zambrini, and G. Manzano, Dissipation in Periodically Driven Quantum Systems: Partial Secularization and Thermodynamic Consistency, arXiv:2608.00225 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Campbellet al., Roadmap on quantum thermodynamics (2025), arXiv:2504.20145 [quant-ph]

    S. Campbellet al., Roadmap on quantum thermodynamics (2025), arXiv:2504.20145 [quant-ph]. 18

    2025

  12. [20]

    C. D. Satrya, A. S. Strelnikov, L. Magazz` u, Y.-C. Chang, R. Upadhyay, J. T. Peltonen, B. Karimi, and J. P. Pekola, Heat measurement of quantum interference, arXiv:2510.23092 (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

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

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

    2012

  14. [22]

    T.-S. Ho, K. Wang, and S.-I. Chu, Floquet-liouville supermatrix approach: Time development of density-matrix operator and multiphoton resonance fluorescence spectra in intense laser fields, Phys. Rev. A33, 1798 (1986)

    1986

  15. [23]

    A. V. Shytov, D. A. Ivanov, and M. V. Feigelˆ aman, Landau-Zener interferometry for qubits, Eur. Phys. J. B36, 263 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    S. N. Shevchenko, A. S. Kiyko, A. N. Omelyanchouk, and W. Krech, Dynamic behavior of Josephson-junction qubits: crossover between Rabi oscillations and Landau-Zener transitions, Low Temp. Phys.31, 569 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Deppe, M

    F. Deppe, M. Mariantoni, E. P. Menzel, A. Marx, S. Saito, K. Kakuyanagi, H. Tanaka, T. Meno, K. Semba, H. Takayanagi, E. Solano, and R. Gross, Two-photon probe of the jaynes-cummings model and controlled symmetry breaking in circuit qed, Nature Physics4, 686 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    Thomas and J

    G. Thomas and J. P. Pekola, Dynamical phase and quantum heat at fractional frequencies, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L022036 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Influence of Dissipation on Quantum Tunneling in Macroscopic Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.46, 211 (1981)

    1981

  20. [28]

    A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system, Ann. Phys.149, 374 (1983)

    1983

  21. [29]

    Dittrich, P

    T. Dittrich, P. H¨ anggi, G. L. Ingold, B. Kramer, G. Sch¨ on, and W. Zwerger,Quantum Transport and Dissipation(Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 1998, ch 4)

    1998

  22. [30]

    Cuccoli, A

    A. Cuccoli, A. Fubini, V. Tognetti, and R. Vaia, Quantum thermodynamics of systems with anomalous dissipative coupling, Phys. Rev. E64, 066124 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    Rastelli, Dissipation-induced enhancement of quantum fluctuations, New J

    G. Rastelli, Dissipation-induced enhancement of quantum fluctuations, New J. Phys18, 053033 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    M. F. Gelin, R. Borrelli, and L. Chen, Hierarchical equations-of-motion method for momentum system-bath coupling, J. Phys. Chem. B125, 4863 (2021), pMID: 33929205

    2021

  25. [33]

    Thingna, J

    J. Thingna, J. L. Garc ´ ıa-Palacios, and J.-S. Wang, Steady-state thermal transport in anharmonic systems: Application to molecular junctions, Phys. Rev. B85, 195452 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

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

    1985

  27. [35]

    Iles-Smith, N

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

    2014

  28. [36]

    Iles-Smith, A

    J. Iles-Smith, A. G. Dijkstra, N. Lambert, and A. Nazir, Energy transfer in structured and unstructured environments: Master equations beyond the Born-Markov approximations, J. Chem. Phys.144, 044110 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Nakajima, On quantum theory of transport phenomena - steady diffusion, Prog

    S. Nakajima, On quantum theory of transport phenomena - steady diffusion, Prog. Theor. Phys.20, 948 (1958)

    1958

  30. [38]

    Zwanzig, Ensemble method in the theory of irreversibility, J

    R. Zwanzig, Ensemble method in the theory of irreversibility, J. Chem. Phys.33, 1338 (1960)

    1960

  31. [39]

    Donarini and M

    A. Donarini and M. Grifoni,Quantum Transport in Interacting Nanojunctions: A Density Matrix Approach(Springer, Berlin, 2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, Tutorial: projector approach to master equations for open quantum systems, Quantum8, 1454 (2024)

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, Tutorial: projector approach to master equations for open quantum systems, Quantum8, 1454 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Note that, as ¯Bis Hermitian,⟨ ˆB(t′) ¯B(t)⟩=K ∗(t−t ′)

  34. [42]

    Floquet, Sur la th´ eorie des ´ equations diff´ erentielles lin´ eaires, Ann

    G. Floquet, Sur la th´ eorie des ´ equations diff´ erentielles lin´ eaires, Ann. Ec. Norm. Suppl.8, 3 (1879)

  35. [43]

    M. Xu, J. T. Stockburger, and J. Ankerhold, Heat transport through a superconducting artificial atom, Phys. Rev. B103, 104304 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Hausinger and M

    J. Hausinger and M. Grifoni, Dissipative two-level system under strong ac driving: A combination of Floquet and Van Vleck perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. A81, 022117 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Blum,Density matrix theory and applications, Vol

    K. Blum,Density matrix theory and applications, Vol. 64 (Springer, Berlin, 2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

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

    2002

  39. [47]

    T. N. Ikeda and M. Sato, General description for nonequilibrium steady states in periodically driven dissipative quantum systems, Sci. Adv.6, eabb4019 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    J. P. Pekola, D. S. Golubev, and D. V. Averin, Maxwell’s demon based on a single qubit, Phys. Rev. B93, 024501 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Karimi and J

    B. Karimi and J. P. Pekola, Otto refrigerator based on a superconducting qubit: Classical and quantum performance, Phys. Rev. B94, 184503 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Karimi,Circuit Quantum Thermodynamics: from photonic heat transport to ultra-sensitive nanocalorimetry, Ph.D

    B. Karimi,Circuit Quantum Thermodynamics: from photonic heat transport to ultra-sensitive nanocalorimetry, Ph.D. thesis, Aalto University, School of Science (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.