Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 15 references

Towards Accurate Mixed Quantum Classical Simulations of Vibrational Polaritonic Chemistry

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

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

Pith's one-line read Treating the cavity mode as quantum and using surface hopping along the most populated state cuts simulation error in cavity-modified reaction rates to within about 50 percent of exact benchmarks.

desk verdict MASH with a quantum cavity mode looks like the most accurate practical MQC option for this single-molecule polaritonic model, but the rate extraction and hand-tuned epsilon cutoff need scrutiny before I'd trust the absolute numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04570 v1 pith:4WBB4VEA submitted 2025-02-06 quant-ph cond-mat.otherphysics.chem-ph

Muhammad R. Hasyim , Arkajit Mandal , David R. Reichman This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.otherphysics.chem-ph
keywords vibrationalpolaritonicchemistrymixedquantum-classicaldynamicsmappingapproachtosurfacehopping(MASH)quantumcavitymodehierarchicalequationsofmotionreactionrateenhancementpolarontransformstronglight-mattercoupling
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 asks how a confined optical cavity can change a ground-state chemical reaction rate, and whether affordable mixed quantum-classical (MQC) simulations can predict that change accurately. It argues that two upgrades to existing simulations—using the mapping approach to surface hopping (MASH) instead of Ehrenfest or older surface-hopping schemes, and treating the cavity mode as a quantum Fock-state subsystem instead of a classical oscillator—bring single-molecule rate profiles into close agreement with the numerically exact HEOM benchmark. In the tested model, the combined MASH+q scheme keeps errors in the resonant rate enhancement below about 50 percent, where earlier MQC results overestimated it several-fold. The paper also exposes a size-inconsistency in multi-state MASH at zero coupling and offers epsilon-MASH, a hopping threshold, to repair it. If these results hold, they provide a scalable simulation strategy for the many-molecule collective regime where exact quantum methods are intractable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-state mapping approach to surface hopping (MASH), in which the classical force follows the adiabatic state with the highest instantaneous population and an impulse is applied when populations cross, combined with a quantum cavity mode represented by Fock states. A polaron (polarized Fock-state) transformation dresses the photons by the reaction-coordinate displacement and makes the Fock basis converge with a single-excitation subspace even at strong coupling. The epsilon-MASH threshold, which forbids hops when the scalar nonadiabatic coupling falls below a chosen value, is the fix introduced for unphysical hopping between uncoupled states.

What would settle it

For the resonance case at the strongest coupling, eta_c = 2.5 x $10^{-3}$ a.u., use HEOM to compute k(t) over a time range long enough to reveal both the short-time plateau near 1 ps and the eventual long-time plateau; if the two plateau values differ by an amount comparable to the 50 percent error margin that separates MASH+q from the benchmark, then the reported ranking depends on choosing the short-time plateau rather than on the dynamics method itself. A second check would be to replace the nonequilibrium estimator in Eq. (15) with a reactive-flux correlation function and see whether MASH+q still falls within the same error band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the most accurate affordable simulation of vibrational polaritonic chemistry in the single-molecule limit comes from combining the mapping approach to surface hopping with a quantized cavity mode, a scheme the authors call MASH+q. Against numerically exact HEOM benchmarks, MASH+q reproduces the resonant rate enhancement and the absolute reaction rate at resonance within roughly 50 percent error across the tested coupling strengths, whereas Ehrenfest with a classical cavity deviates by up to 450 percent and MASH with a classical cavity by about 250 percent. Quantizing the cavity mode improves both methods, and MASH+q is the most accurate of the four; MASH also remains consistent with or without the polaron transform, while Ehrenfest+q needs the transform to see resonance. The paper further shows that multi-state MASH with a quantum cavity is size-inconsistent at zero coupling, producing unphysical photon-number-changing hops, and introduces epsilon-MASH, which rejects hops when the scalar nonadiabatic coupling falls below a threshold, to restore the correct long-time population dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the true reaction rate is the short-time plateau of the nonequilibrium estimator k(t) in Eq. (15); if that plateau is a transient artifact of mixed quantum-classical dynamics rather than the actual rate, the accuracy ranking against HEOM does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MASH+q can be carried into the collective many-molecule regime without changing the core machinery, since the molecule-plus-Fock-state subsystem size grows only linearly with the number of molecules.
  • The polaron transform makes strong-coupling calculations feasible with a single-excitation Fock subspace, so the cost of quantizing the cavity does not scale with the large Fock bases otherwise required.
  • Earlier MQC predictions based on a classical cavity mode, especially Ehrenfest, overstate resonant rate enhancement; MASH+q should replace them as the default affordable method for this model.
  • The epsilon-MASH threshold fixes the zero-coupling long-time population dynamics, restoring consistency between quantum-cavity and classical-cavity descriptions.
  • Because rates are read from the short-time plateau of the rate estimator k(t), the protocol is transferable to larger systems where full reactive-flux statistics are too expensive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One test this comparison suggests is to apply the same HEOM benchmark to a two-molecule version of the model; if MASH+q stays within the same error bound while classical-cavity methods worsen, the advantage generalizes beyond the single-molecule limit.
  • The epsilon threshold is tuned by hand; a systematic rule connecting epsilon to coupling strength or thermal energy would remove the trial-and-error and could be checked against the zero-coupling long-time populations.
  • The paper's benchmark could be reused to rank other MQC proposals, such as the size-consistent alternative MASH, on identical footing rather than on separate model tests.
  • If the short-time-plateau protocol is the real reason MASH+q succeeds, then methods that are more accurate at long times may still fail on rates unless they also reproduce the early committing dynamics; that is a testable prediction about which method features matter.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the accuracy of mixed quantum-classical (MQC) simulations for vibrational polaritonic chemistry in a single-molecule model. It introduces the mapping approach to surface hopping (MASH) and treats the cavity mode quantum mechanically (MASH+q), benchmarking reaction rate enhancements against hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) results from Ref. 16. The authors report that MASH+q yields the most accurate rate profiles, with errors below about 50% relative to HEOM (Figs. 3 and 4), and they propose an epsilon-MASH scheme to cure an apparent size-inconsistency at zero coupling (Fig. 5). The paper also shows that a polaron transform improves Fock-state convergence (Appendix D).

Significance. The work is a careful numerical study that compares several MQC methods on a well-defined model with an external HEOM benchmark, providing 99% confidence intervals and 10^6 trajectories per parameter set. The polaron-transform convergence analysis is a concrete technical contribution. If the rate-comparison methodology is sound, the identification of MASH+q as a scalable, reasonably accurate MQC method for polaritonic chemistry would be a useful advance. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a rate-extraction procedure whose validity is not demonstrated for this model, and the proposed epsilon-MASH fix is a fitted element whose role in the reported rate curves is ambiguous.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (15)] The central rate comparison in Figs. 3 and 4 uses rates extracted from the short-time plateau of the nonequilibrium estimator k(t) in Eq. (15). The paper justifies this by citing Refs. 34 and 38, but no evidence is given for the present double-well polaritonic model that this transient plateau equals the true rate constant. The footnote to Fig. 2 states that the plateau duration is method-dependent (about 1 ps for Ehrenfest vs nearly 10 ps for MASH), which raises the possibility that the ranking reflects transient MQC dynamics rather than actual rates. Please provide a validation, e.g., for at least one parameter set show that the short-time plateau value is consistent with a long-time reactive-flux rate or a direct HEOM k(t) curve, and discuss how the plateau is located systematically across methods.
  2. [Section 5, Figs. 3-4; Ref. 16] The HEOM benchmark is imported from Ref. 16 (Fig. 1c), but the manuscript does not state whether those HEOM rates were computed with the same estimator as Eq. (15), or whether they are long-time reactive-flux rates. If the HEOM values are true long-time rates while all MQC values are short-time plateaus, the comparison in Fig. 4 is not apples-to-apples and the reported errors could be dominated by the estimator mismatch. Please clarify the HEOM rate definition and, if needed, recompute or re-derive the benchmark with a consistent estimator.
  3. [Section 5, Fig. 5(c) and conclusion] The epsilon-MASH threshold is selected so that the zero-coupling long-time decay of MASH+q matches the classical-cavity MASH result; this is a hand-tuned parameter rather than a derived quantity. More importantly, the manuscript does not state whether the rate profiles labeled MASH+q in Figs. 3 and 4 are obtained with plain MASH+q or with epsilon-MASH+q. If they are with plain MASH+q, the proposed fix does not affect the central rate comparison and the size-inconsistency remains in the main results; if they are with epsilon-MASH+q, the reported accuracy depends on a fitted threshold. Please clarify this and, ideally, show rate profiles for epsilon-MASH+q alongside MASH+q.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (22)] Equation (22) defines the reorganization energy with the symbol lambda_s, but in context this should be the cavity-bath reorganization energy lambda_c; the same confusion appears in the line above Eq. (21), where J_S(omega_c) should presumably be J_c(omega_c).
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (29)] The text defining bar-E_1 states bar-E_1 = (E_2 + E_1)/2, but from the construction of the excited-state doublet from |nu_2> and |nu_3>, this should be (E_2 + E_3)/2.
  3. [Section 5, text near Fig. 4] The text refers to 'Fig. 4(a)' when discussing low-coupling errors, but the two panels in Fig. 4 are unlabeled in the presented figure; please add panel labels or correct the reference.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central MASH+q benchmark is independent and non-circular; only the epsilon-MASH threshold is a minor fitted element whose agreement is true by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, epsilon-MASH discussion after Fig. 5(c)]
    "By selecting ϵ = 7.5 × 10−4, ϵ-MASH ensures that the long-time decay of the quantum cavity mode aligns with the classical cavity mode in MASH at zero coupling, though minor discrepancies emerge at short times as a trade-off."

    The threshold ϵ is chosen specifically so that the zero-coupling quantum-cavity MASH population decay matches the classical-cavity MASH result. The statement that ϵ-MASH 'ensures' this alignment is therefore true by construction: the parameter was tuned to produce exactly that outcome. This is an acknowledged trial-and-error fit rather than an independent validation of the size-inconsistency fix. It does not affect the central MASH+q rate benchmark, because the rate results in Figs. 3 and 4 are computed with MASH+q before the epsilon correction and are compared against the external HEOM reference.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that MASH with a quantum cavity mode gives the most accurate rates, is benchmarked against HEOM data adapted from Ref. 16, an external quantum-mechanical reference that does not depend on the present authors' MQC results. The MASH method itself is imported from independent prior work (Refs. 18, 19, 24), and the polaron transform, while cited to a paper including a current author, is independently checked by convergence tests and by comparing with and without the transform in Figs. 6-9; for MASH the two versions agree, which is not built into the transformation. The short-time plateau choice for k(t) is a methodological caveat about transient vs. true rates, but it is not a circular derivation because it is not defined in terms of the target result and is supported by external precedents (Refs. 34, 38). The only fitted element is the epsilon-MASH threshold, which is tuned to match classical-cavity MASH at zero coupling; the resulting agreement is by construction, not by independent prediction. Because this fix is peripheral to the main externally benchmarked rate comparison, the overall circularity is minor, giving a score of 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central rate comparisons rest on imported domain assumptions: the four-state vibrational truncation, single-photon Fock truncation after polaron transformation, HEOM as exact benchmark, and extraction of rates from the short-time plateau. None of these is derived in this paper; they are justified by prior work and convergence checks. The only hand-fitted numerical constant introduced here is the epsilon-MASH threshold.

free parameters (1)
  • epsilon-MASH NAC cutoff (epsilon) = 7.5e-4 (atomic units)
    Threshold below which hops are rejected; selected by trial and error so that the zero-coupling long-time population decay of MASH+q matches classical-cavity MASH. The paper calls the procedure trial-and-error in the Conclusion.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The four-state diabatic subspace {|νL>, |νR>, |ν'L>, |ν'R>} captures the reaction dynamics.
    Section 4 and Eq. (29); the rate mechanism is assumed to proceed only through these states, excluding higher vibrational states.
  • domain assumption Single-excitation Fock subspace Np=2 is sufficient after the polaron transform.
    Section 5 and Appendix B, Figs. 6 to 8; convergence is shown for adiabatic energies, but dynamics could in principle populate higher photon numbers at strong coupling.
  • domain assumption HEOM provides an exact benchmark for this model.
    Used as the reference in Figs. 1(c), 3, and 4; exactness relies on converged hierarchy truncation, which is not demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption The short-time plateau of k(t) equals the true reaction rate.
    Section 5: 'we calculate rates from the short-time plateau of k(t)'; this follows earlier studies but is an assumption about timescale separation.
  • domain assumption The cavity loss bath can be treated in the Markovian limit with Drude-Lorentz spectral density and an effective bath mapping.
    Appendix A, Eqs. (20) to (26); requires gamma_c large with Gamma_c/gamma_c ~ 6e-3.
  • domain assumption The MASH active-state hopping and impulse force formalism of Ref. 19 is reliable for this model.
    Section 3, Eqs. (9) and (10); the method is imported from prior work and not rederived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Accurate Mixed Quantum Classical Simulations of Vibrational Polaritonic Chemistry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4WBB4VEA

@misc{pith2026250204570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Accurate Mixed Quantum Classical Simulations of Vibrational Polaritonic Chemistry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4WBB4VEA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04570}
}
abstract

Interest in vibrational polaritonic chemistry, where ground-state chemical kinetics are modified via confined optical modes in a cavity, has surged in recent years. Although models have been developed to understand cavity-modified reactions, fully quantum mechanical simulations remain out of reach for the collective regime that involves many molecules, a critical aspect of the phenomenon. Mixed quantum-classical (MQC) simulations offer a scalable alternative, but their accuracy requires testing and potential improvements even in the single-molecule limit. In this work, we take this step by first introducing the mapping approach to surface hopping (MASH) to address the limitations of traditional MQC methods. Second, we incorporate a quantum treatment of the cavity mode, moving beyond the classical approximations often employed in previous studies. Results for a single-molecule model of vibrational polaritonic chemistry show that combining MASH with a quantum cavity mode yields the most accurate rates. However, this scheme may produce different long-time population dynamics at zero coupling depending on whether the cavity mode is quantized; a problem known as size-inconsistency in MASH. We address this problem proposing the $\epsilon$-MASH approach, which forbids hopping between states with negligible nonadiabatic couplings (NACs). Combining MASH with a quantum cavity mode thus provides a promising approach for scalable and accurate MQC simulations in the collective regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Illustration of the model: A single molecule surrounded by a solvent bath is coupled to a lossy cavity mode. (b) Illustration of the double well along the reaction coordinate R with the first six eigenstates shown. Arrows indicate the reaction mechanism outside of a cavity. (c) The reaction rate enhancement at the resonant frequency ω0, calculated with HEOM20–23 at different coupling strengths. Adapted from Ref.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of k(t) using Ehrenfest dynamics off￾resonance where at short times (inset) a flat peak emerges representing a brief plateau region at t = tpl ∼ 1 ps, and at long times a new plateau emerges at t ≫ τrxn. Shaded blue region is 99% confidence interval. two-step transformation on the system: 1. The diabatic basis is first transformed into the Mulliken-Hush (MH) basis. By diagonalizing the reaction coordinate opera… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The rate profile as a function of cavity-mode frequency ωc calculated with Ehrenfest (a) and MASH (b) with a classical cavity mode. The corresponding rate profiles using a quantum cavity mode are found in (c) and (d), respectively. The dashed vertical line corresponds to the resonant frequency at ω0 = 1190 cm−1 . Error bars represent 99% confidence intervals. 0.625 1.250 2.500 ηc 10−3 a.u. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) The percent error in the predicted rate enhancement and (right) the difference in rate values at res￾onance, compared to HEOM. equilibrium product and reactant populations), PR de￾cays exponentially to P eq R with a reaction time con￾stant τrxn = 1 kP→R + 1 kR→P…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Multi-state MASH19 can enable hopping between uncoupled adiabats, illustrated here with the first and third adiabats, ignoring the strong coupling region between the first and second adiabats. 19 (b) Time series of adiabatic energies in MASH+q at zero coupling stre…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Convergence of the energy in the first eight adiabatic states at ηc = 2.5 × 10−3 a.u. 0 2000 4000 En cm −1 n = 1 0 2000 4000 n = 2 0 2500 5000 n = 3 0 2500 5000 n = 4 100 101 102 103 Np 0 2500 5000 En cm −1 n = 5 100 101 102 103 Np 2000 4000 6000 n = 6 100 101 102 103 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Convergence of the energy in the first eight adiabatic states at ηc = 2.5 × 10−2 a.u. 0 40000 80000 En cm −1 n = 1 0 40000 80000 n = 2 0 50000 100000 n = 3 0 50000 100000 n = 4 100 101 102 103 Np 0 80000 160000 En cm −1 n = 5 100 101 102 103 Np 0 60000 120000 n = 6 100…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Convergence of the energy in the first eight adiabatic states at ηc = 2.5 × 10−1 a.u. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The rate profile over cavity-mode frequency ωc in (top) Ehrenfest+q and (bottom) MASH+q, with and without the polaron transform. The dashed vertical line corresponds to the resonant frequency at ω0 = 1190 cm−1 . Error bars represent 99% confidence intervals; see Append…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D.; Simpkins, B

    (1) Dunkelberger, A. D.; Simpkins, B. S.; Vurgaftman, I.; Owrutsky, J. C. Vibration-cavity polariton chemistry and dynamics. Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2022, 73, 429–

    work page 2022

  2. [11]

    Calculation of elec- tron transfer rates using mixed quantum classical ap- proaches: Nonadiabatic limit and beyond

    (38) Xie, W.; Bai, S.; Zhu, L.; Shi, Q. Calculation of elec- tron transfer rates using mixed quantum classical ap- proaches: Nonadiabatic limit and beyond. J. Phys. Chem. A 2013, 117, 6196–6204. (39) Ying, W.; Huo, P. Resonance theory and quantum dy- namics simulations of vibrational polariton chemistry. J. Chem. Phys. 2023,

    work page 2013

  3. [15]

    L.; Allen, T

    (40) Walters, P. L.; Allen, T. C.; Makri, N. Direct de- termination of discrete harmonic bath parameters from molecular dynamics simulations.J. Comp. Chem. 2017, 38, 110–115. (41) Runeson, J. E.; Fay, T. P.; Manolopoulos, D. E. Ex- citon dynamics from the mapping approach to surface hopping: comparison with Förster and Redfield theo- ries. Phys. Chem. Che...

    work page 2017

  4. [64]

    Faraday Discuss

    13 (29) Miller,W.H.; Cotton,S.J.Classicalmoleculardynam- ics simulation of electronically non-adiabatic processes. Faraday Discuss. 2016, 195, 9–30. (30) Runeson, J. E.; Richardson, J. O. Spin-mapping ap- proach for nonadiabatic molecular dynamics.J. Chem. Phys. 2019,

    work page 2016

  5. [122]

    Dynamics of quantum dissipation systems interacting with bosonic canonical bath: Hi- erarchical equations of motion approach.Phys

    (23) Xu, R.-X.; Yan, Y. Dynamics of quantum dissipation systems interacting with bosonic canonical bath: Hi- erarchical equations of motion approach.Phys. Rev. E 2007, 75, 031107. (24) Lawrence, J. E.; Mannouch, J. R.; Richardson, J. O. A size-consistent multi-state mapping approach to sur- face hopping. J. Chem. Phys. 2024, 160, 244112. (25) Cotton, S. J...

    work page 2007

  6. [150]

    (26) Meyera, H.-D.; Miller, W. H. A classical analog for electronic degrees of freedom in nonadiabatic collision processes. J. Chem. Phys. 1979, 70, 3214–3223. (27) Stock, G.; Thoss, M. Semiclassical description of nona- diabaticquantumdynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 78,

    work page 1979

  7. [151]

    E.; Richardson, J

    (31) Runeson, J. E.; Richardson, J. O. Generalized spin mapping for quantum-classical dynamics. J. Chem. Phys. 2020,

    work page 2020

  8. [152]

    (32) Tully, J. C. Molecular dynamics with electronic tran- sitions. J. Chem. Phys. 1990, 93, 1061–1071. (33) Wang, L.; Trivedi, D.; Prezhdo, O. V. Global flux sur- face hopping approach for mixed quantum-classical dy- namics. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 3598–

    work page 1990

Show all 15 references
  1. [158]

    E.; Manolopoulos, D

    (19) Runeson, J. E.; Manolopoulos, D. E. A multi-state mapping approach to surface hopping.J. Chem. Phys. 2023,

    2023

  2. [159]

    Nonperturbative expansion method for a quantumsystemcoupledtoaharmonic-oscillatorbath

    (20) Tanimura, Y. Nonperturbative expansion method for a quantumsystemcoupledtoaharmonic-oscillatorbath. Phys. Rev. A 1990, 41,

    1990

  3. [451]

    J.; Moran, J.; Chervy, T.; Zhong, X.; De- vaux, E.; Genet, C.; others Ground-state chemical re- activity under vibrational coupling to the vacuum elec- tromagnetic field

    (2) Thomas,A.; George,J.; Shalabney,A.; Dryzhakov,M.; Varma, S. J.; Moran, J.; Chervy, T.; Zhong, X.; De- vaux, E.; Genet, C.; others Ground-state chemical re- activity under vibrational coupling to the vacuum elec- tromagnetic field. Angew. Chem. 2016, 128, 11634– 11638. (3) ...

    2016 arXiv

  4. [578]

    Mapping approach to the semi- classical description of nonadiabatic quantum dynam- ics

    (28) Thoss, M.; Stock, G. Mapping approach to the semi- classical description of nonadiabatic quantum dynam- ics. Phys. Rev. A 1999, 59,

    1999

  5. [2733]

    R.; Richardson, J

    (18) Mannouch, J. R.; Richardson, J. O. A mapping ap- proach to surface hopping.J. Chem. Phys. 2023,

    2023

  6. [3605]

    E.; Mannouch, J

    (34) Lawrence, J. E.; Mannouch, J. R.; Richardson, J. O. Recovering Marcus theory rates and beyond without the need for decoherence corrections: The mapping ap- proach to surface hopping.J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2024, 15, 707–716. (35) Mandal, A.; Montillo Vega, S.; Huo, P. Polari...

    2024

  7. [6676]

    Stochastic Liouville, Langevin, Fokker– Planck, and master equation approaches to quan- tum dissipative systems.J

    (21) Tanimura, Y. Stochastic Liouville, Langevin, Fokker– Planck, and master equation approaches to quan- tum dissipative systems.J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 2006, 75, 082001. (22) Xu, R.-X.; Cui, P.; Li, X.-Q.; Mo, Y.; Yan, Y. Ex- act quantum master equation via the calculus on path i...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.