Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Variational quantum simulation of a nonadditive relaxation dynamics in a qubit coupled to a finite-temperature bath

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a variational quantum simulation can reproduce a qubit's finite-temperature relaxation by encoding the decay probability in the state norm, and that a q-deformed Arrhenius law with smoother drive envelopes reduces…

desk verdict The central α-to-p mapping in Eq. (14) is inconsistent and yields a non-normalized density matrix, so the claimed VQS thermal-bath simulation is not supported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12013 v1 pith:77AOOJ6Q submitted 2025-05-17 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Lucas Q. Galvão , Clebson Cruz , Antonio Cesar do Prado Rosa Junior , Marcelo A. Moret This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords variationalquantumsimulationopensystemsgeneralizedamplitudedampingnonadditiverelaxationArrheniuslawLindbladmasterequationqubitthermalbath
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

The paper extends variational quantum simulation (VQS) to open-system dynamics at finite temperature. It embeds the generalized amplitude-damping channel into the effective nonunitary generator of a driven qubit, then reconstructs the thermal density matrix by setting the variational norm parameter $\alpha$ so that $\alpha^4 \approx 1 - e^{-\lambda t}$ carries the decay probability. The authors also introduce a nonadditive relaxation-time model, $\tau_q = \tau_0[1+(q-1)E_A\beta]^{1/(q-1)}$, which reduces to the Arrhenius law as $q\to 1$ and produces sub- and super-Arrhenius regimes for $q>1$ and $q<1$. They report that the simulated populations, trace distances, and coherence track exact Lindblad solutions for both an oscillatory drive and a composite field, with the composite field showing lower error for smoother nonadditive envelopes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reconstructed density matrix of Eq. (14), built from the VQS pure-state trajectory. The generalized amplitude-damping dissipator (the thermal channel that drives populations toward the bath's equilibrium occupation $f$) supplies the effective nonunitary generator $H_{\mathrm{eff}}$; the VQS variational principle, based on minimizing the difference between exact and ansatz time derivatives, turns this generator into equations of motion for the parameters $\vec{\theta}$ and the norm $\alpha$; and the q-deformed relaxation time $\tau_q = \tau_0[1+(q-1)E_A\beta]^{1/(q-1)}$ sets the damping scale $\lambda = 1/\tau_q$ for the mapping $\alpha^4 \approx 1-e^{-\lambda t}$. The role of this machinery is to let a closed-system circuit carry all dissipative information through the norm parameter, so that thermalization and coherence loss emerge from the assembled $\hat{\rho}(t)$ rather than from explicit bath qubits.

What would settle it

Simulate the protocol with known $\lambda$ and, at each time step, compare $\alpha^4$ from the variational state with $1 - e^{-\lambda t}$ and check whether the assembled $\hat{\rho}(t)$ of Eq. (14) satisfies the generalized amplitude-damping Lindblad equation for the chosen $J$ and $f$; the immediate mismatch at $t=0$ makes the approximate nature of the mapping directly observable, and replacing $\alpha^4$ by an independent decay parameter $p(t)$ with $p(0)=0$ should either reproduce the reported trace distances or reveal where the agreement comes from.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a closed-system variational circuit, which never explicitly represents the bath, can nonetheless simulate a qubit thermalizing with a finite-temperature bath. The construction uses the norm parameter $\alpha$ of the variational state as the carrier of dissipation: the density matrix is assembled in Eq. (14) from the simulated closed-system parameters $\vec{\theta}$ by setting $\alpha^4 \approx 1 - e^{-\lambda t}$, weighting the excited-state population by $\alpha^4$ and the coherences by $\alpha^2$, and mixing in the bath occupation fraction $f$. On this basis the paper claims that VQS accurately maps the effective nonunitary generator under generalized amplitude damping, that nonadditive parameters produce smoother drive envelopes which suppress high-frequency components and lower simulation errors, and that the variational manifold keeps its mapping fidelity even when the exact solution's sensitivity to $q$ grows.

Load-bearing premise

The entire dissipative content rests on the asserted identification $\alpha^4 \approx 1 - e^{-\lambda t}$ between the variational norm and the excited-state decay probability; at $t=0$ this gives $1$ rather than $0$, so the relation cannot be exact, and if it fails the assembled density matrix no longer describes thermal relaxation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mapping holds, a shallow variational circuit without ancilla bath qubits can simulate finite-temperature thermalization and coherence decay on near-term hardware.
  • The q-deformed relaxation law gives a single tunable knob for scanning sub-Arrhenius, Arrhenius, and super-Arrhenius activation regimes in one simulator.
  • Smoother drive envelopes produced by nonadditive relaxation laws reduce trace-distance error, so matching the drive bandwidth to the ansatz's low-frequency expressibility improves simulation fidelity.
  • The density-matrix reconstruction in Eq. (14) yields coherence terms and average Bloch-sphere coherence, quantities previous VQS open-system implementations did not extract, making the method a diagnostic probe of dissipative regimes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication left implicit in the paper is that the same norm-parameter encoding could be tested against other generalized relaxation laws, for example Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann or d-Arrhenius forms, simply by replacing $\tau_q$; the variational pipeline would then become a general benchmark for relaxation models.
  • Because the q-dependence enters mainly through the envelope of the composite field rather than through the Hamiltonian, the method's predictive power for a real bath depends on independently estimating q; a direct measurement of $\lambda$ from population decay would provide that estimate.
  • The coherence formula in Eqs. (21)-(23) suggests a concrete experimental probe: rotate the reconstructed state over the Bloch sphere and compare the measured average coherence with the VQS prediction; disagreement localized at particular $q$ values would reveal which relaxation regime the bath realizes.
  • If extended to multi-qubit systems, the same alpha-encoding trick would need validation for collective decay channels, since a single norm parameter may not capture correlations between simultaneously decaying qubits.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the variational quantum simulation (VQS) framework to a single qubit coupled to a finite-temperature bath, modeling the open dynamics through the generalized amplitude-damping channel. The authors introduce a nonadditive relaxation-time model with a tunable parameter q that generalizes the Arrhenius law, and they compare VQS population dynamics and trace-distance errors against exact qutip solutions for two driving protocols. The central claim is that the norm parameter of the variational state can be used to reconstruct the thermal density matrix, thereby yielding accurate simulation of the dissipative dynamics for both Arrhenius and non-Arrhenius regimes.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant problem—extending variational quantum simulation to finite-temperature open systems—and the proposed nonadditive relaxation model is an interesting phenomenological extension that recovers Arrhenius behavior as a limit. The numerical experiments cover two qualitatively different drive protocols and use a realistic noise model, which is a strength. However, the central derivation that connects the variational norm to the decay probability is not valid as written: the key relation α^4 ≈ 1 − e^{−λ t} is inconsistent at t = 0, and the resulting density matrix in Eq. (14) does not have unit trace. Because the dissipative content enters exclusively through this mapping, the numerical agreement with qutip does not validate the method as a simulation of the open-system dynamics. If a sound mapping were provided, the idea would be worth revisiting; in its current form, the central claim is unsupported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (14)] The mapping α^4 ≈ 1 − e^{−λ t} in Section III is ad hoc and internally inconsistent. At t = 0, the initial condition α(0) = 1 gives α^4 = 1, whereas 1 − e^0 = 0; the relation cannot hold at the initial time. Moreover, Eq. (14) replaces the factor (1 − p) in Eq. (4) with α^4 and the factor p with (1 − α^2); these two substitutions require α^2 + α^4 = 1, which no decaying norm satisfies. Thus Eq. (14) is not a valid transcription of the thermal density operator, and the claim that VQS "accurately maps the effective nonunitary generator" is not supported.
  2. [Eq. (14)] The operator in Eq. (14) is not a physical density matrix: its trace is 1 + 2(1 − α^2) f, which is greater than 1 for α^2 < 1 and f > 0. Since the populations extracted from this operator are used in all the comparisons in Section IV, the reported errors and conclusions are not based on valid quantum states.
  3. [Section IV, qutip comparison] The numerical validation against qutip is circular for the dissipative part. The exact solution is obtained from the Lindblad dissipator with the same damping parameter λ (or τ_q) that is inserted by hand into the mapping α^4 ≈ 1 − e^{−λ t}; the VQS density matrix is then constructed from that same p(t). Consequently, agreement between the two does not demonstrate that the VQS equations of motion reproduce the open-system dynamics. The paper would need to show that the variational equations with the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (15) independently generate the norm decay and coherences used in Eq. (14).
  4. [Section II and Section IV] The paper does not specify how the nonadditive relaxation time τ_q of Eq. (6) determines the damping constant λ used in the mapping and in the qutip reference. Without this connection, the dependence of the simulated dynamics on q is imposed through the ad-hoc relation rather than derived from the generalized amplitude-damping generator, so the claim of simulating nonadditive relaxation dynamics is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a duplicated sentence: the results list (i)–(iii) appears twice verbatim.
  2. [Section III] The phrase "Variation Quantum Algorithms" appears twice and should be "Variational Quantum Algorithms".
  3. [Section IV A] The text says "nonactive model" where it should say "nonadditive model".
  4. [Figure 3 and Figure 5 captions] The captions state that the nonadditive dynamics have little influence on the Hamiltonian of the system, but the text shows instead that the driving envelope h(t) is q-independent while the relaxation time changes; the captions should be clarified.
  5. [Eq. (3)] The stated range f ∈ [0, 0.5] is not the full domain of a Fermi-Dirac occupation factor; if a restriction is intended, it should be justified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Section III's α↔p mapping imports the exact decay probability into Eq. (14), so the VQS-vs-qutip comparison partially verifies that mapping by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section III, Eq. (14) and the paragraph preceding it]
    "The key idea is to use the norm parameter α to get a description of the probability decay p(t). Since α2 =⟨Ψ|Ψ⟩, we obtain α4 ≈ (1− e−λt), satisfying α(0) = 1 and p(0) = 0. Therefore, since the quantum circuit only simulates the evolution of closed systems, the simulation was made using the parameters ⃗θ to get the evolution {ρ00(⃗θt),ρ 01(⃗θt),ρ 10(⃗θt),ρ 11(⃗θt)}, while the norm parameter α was use to compute the decay probability p(t). Thus, Eq. (4) becomes Eq. (14)."

    Equation (4) is the exact generalized-amplitude-damping density matrix with p(t)=1−e^{−λt}, and Equation (14) is obtained by substituting p(t) with a function of the variational norm α. The qutip 'exact' comparison solves the same Lindblad dissipator (Eq. 3) with the same λ (from Eq. 6). Hence the population decay that VQS is claimed to predict is inserted through the α↔p identification; the comparison largely reduces to checking that asserted identity. The substitution is also internally inconsistent as printed: at t=0, α(0)=1 gives α^4=1, whereas 1−e^0=0, and Eq. (14) uses 1−α^2 in the f-terms and a plus sign, so its trace is not 1 for α<1, f>0.

full rationale

The central numerical claim is that VQS 'accurately maps the effective nonunitary generator under generalized amplitude damping'. In the paper, this claim is tested by comparing Eq. (14) against qutip's exact solution. Eq. (14) is not an independent density-matrix output: it is literally Eq. (4) with the channel decay probability p(t) replaced by the norm parameter α. Because Eq. (4) already contains p(t)=1−e^{−λt} and the exact solution uses the same λ and the same Lindblad dissipator, the comparison is partly self-referential. The paper provides no derivation of α^4≈1−e^{−λt}; the relation is asserted, and it is false at t=0 if α(0)=1. The printed Eq. (14) also fails to match Eq. (4) under the stated substitution (plus sign on the f-term, 1−α^2 instead of 1−α^4), which compounds the problem. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: the nonadditive relaxation formula is presented as a new parametric ansatz, and qutip is an external benchmark. The VQS equations of motion are standard and could in principle provide independent content, but as written the finite-temperature relaxation that is compared is entangled with the constructed α↔p mapping, so the circularity score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The norm parameter alpha is repurposed but is not an invented entity. The ledger highlights that the central dissipative behavior is carried by a free mapping (alpha to p), not by the variational optimization itself.

free parameters (5)
  • q (nonadditivity parameter) = 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5
    Phenomenological parameter in Eq. (6) controlling sub/super-Arrhenius behavior; varied by hand, not derived from microscopic data.
  • lambda (damping constant) = not specified numerically
    Appears in p(t)=1-e^{-lambda t}; the text never states how lambda is related to the relaxation time tau_q or to the bath parameters J and f, so it functions as a free input.
  • tau_0 (Arrhenius prefactor) = not specified numerically
    Prefactor in Eq. (6), said to be typically 10^-9 to 10^-11 but never assigned a value in the simulations.
  • alpha(t) norm mapping = alpha^4 approximately 1 - e^{-lambda t}
    The norm parameter is prescribed to reproduce the decay probability, effectively inserting the dissipative solution into the algorithm rather than deriving it.
  • f (bath occupation) = in [0,0.5], value for 10 K not given
    Fermi-Dirac occupation factor in the dissipator; the actual numerical value used in the runs is not reported.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation governs the open-system dynamics
    Used in Eq. (1) as the starting point; standard Markovian approximation.
  • domain assumption Linear quantum state diffusion averages to the Lindblad equation
    Invoked for the stochastic Schrodinger equation in Eq. (7), following refs. [14]-[17].
  • domain assumption The thermal state ansatz in Eq. (4) is the exact solution for the qubit under generalized amplitude damping
    Taken from ref. [44] and used as the template for Eq. (14).
  • domain assumption The q-exponential relaxation law in Eq. (6) describes nonadditive relaxation dynamics
    Phenomenological extension of Arrhenius, based on Tsallis statistics and earlier work by the same group (refs. [41], [56], [57], [60]).
  • ad hoc to paper alpha^4 approximately 1 - e^{-lambda t} maps the norm parameter to the decay probability
    Asserted without derivation in Section III; inconsistent at t=0, and essential for the construction of Eq. (14).
  • domain assumption The noisy simulator in Appendix A represents near-term device behavior
    T1, T2, frequency and gate errors are chosen to mimic a superconducting platform, but no hardware data are compared.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational quantum simulation of a nonadditive relaxation dynamics in a qubit coupled to a finite-temperature bath." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/77AOOJ6Q

@misc{pith2026250512013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational quantum simulation of a nonadditive relaxation dynamics in a qubit coupled to a finite-temperature bath},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/77AOOJ6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12013}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we present an application of the variational quantum simulation (VQS) framework to capture finite-temperature open-system dynamics on near-term quantum hardware. By embedding the generalized amplitude-damping channel into the VQS algorithm, we modeled the energy exchange with a thermal bath through its Lindblad representation and thereby simulated realistic dissipative effects. To explore a wide range of activation behaviors, we introduce a nonadditive relaxation-time model using a generalized form of the Arrhenius law, based on the phenomenological parameter q. We compare our method on a driven qubit subject to both static and composite time-dependent fields, comparing population evolution and trace distance errors against exact solutions. Our results demonstrate that (i) VQS accurately maps the effective nonunitary generator under generalized amplitude damping, (ii) smoother drive envelopes induced by nonaddtive parameters suppress high frequency components and yield lower simulation errors, and (iii) the variational manifold exhibits dynamical selectivity, maintaining mapping fidelity even as the exact solution's sensitivity to q increases. Our results demonstrate that (i) VQS accurately maps the effective nonunitary generator under generalized amplitude damping, (ii) smoother drive envelopes induced by nonaddtive parameters suppress high frequency components and yield lower simulation errors, and (iii) the variational manifold exhibits dynamical selectivity, maintaining mapping fidelity even as the exact solution's sensitivity to q increases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12013 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VQS workflow. Initially, the pure closed system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Regime i and ii using VQS for quantum simulation (dots) and qutip for exact results (dashed). (a) Simulation for regime i with τ ≫ 1/ω. (b) Simulation for regime ii with τ ≪ 1/ω. (c) Trace distance between the simulated (dots) and exact (dashed) results for both regimes. used in this work, we emphasize that their detailed physical interpretation is beyond the scope of this study. Our pri￾mary goal is to investigate … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Nonadditive model using VQS for noisy quantum simulation (dots with error-bar) and qutip for exact results (dashed). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Populations of ρ(t) considering the nonadditive model in regime iii simulated using VQS (dots) and qutip for exact results (dashed lines) considering the oscillatory driving field described in the Hamiltonian presented in Eq. (18). a) Population of ˆρ(t) considering q …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Nonadditive model using VQS for noisy quantum simulation (dots with error-bar) and qutip for exact results (dashed) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Populations of ρ(t) using the nonadditive model in regime iii simulated using VQS (dots) and qutip for exact results (dashed lines) considering the composite generalized field described in the Hamiltonian presented in Eq. (19). a) Population of ρˆ(t) considering q = 1 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average coherence in Eq. (21) considering the non￾additive model in regime iii simulated using VQS (dots) and qutip for exact results (dashed lines). As expected, the results show a gradual decay. IoT/Manufatura 4.0 of the MCTI grant number 053/2023, signed with EMBRAP…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 361, 1655 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Gyongyosi and S

    L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, Computer Science Review 31, 51 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Atzori and R

    M. Atzori and R. Sessoli, Journal of the American Chemical Society 141, 11339 (2019), pMID: 31287678, https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.9b00984

    doi:10.1021/jacs.9b00984 2019

  4. [5]

    Buluta, S

    I. Buluta, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Reports on Progress in Physics 74, 104401 (2011)

    2011

  5. [6]

    Somaroo, C

    S. Somaroo, C. H. Tseng, T. F. Havel, R. Laflamme, and D. G. Cory, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 5381 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [7]

    Buluta and F

    I. Buluta and F. Nori, Science 326, 108 (2009), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1177838

    doi:10.1126/science.1177838 2009

  7. [8]

    Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  8. [9]

    J. T. Barreiro, M. M ¨uller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Nature 470, 486 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 76 references
  1. [10]

    Breuer and F

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

    2002

  2. [11]

    R. P. Feynman, in Feynman and computation (cRc Press, 2018) pp. 133–153

    2018

  3. [12]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  4. [13]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al., Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  5. [14]

    X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y . Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Quan- tum 3, 191 (2019)

    2019

  6. [15]

    S. Endo, J. Sun, Y . Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Physical Review Letters 125, 010501 (2020)

    2020

  7. [16]

    Li and S

    Y . Li and S. C. Benjamin, Physical Review X7, 021050 (2017)

    2017

  8. [17]

    J. Luo, K. Lin, and X. Gao, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 15, 3516 (2024)

    2024

  9. [18]

    Jaksic and C

    V . Jaksic and C. Pillet, Journal of Mathematical Physics 38, 1757 (1997)

    1997

  10. [19]

    H. Wang, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 83, 062317 (2011)

    2011

  11. [20]

    Yamaguchi and Y

    F. Yamaguchi and Y . Yamamoto, Applied Physics A 68, 1 (1999)

    1999

  12. [21]

    X. Hu, R. de Sousa, and S. D. Sarma, in F oundations Of Quantum Mechanics In The Light Of New Technology: ISQM—Tokyo’01 (World Scientific, 2002) pp. 3–11

    2002

  13. [22]

    Tolunay, I

    M. Tolunay, I. Liepuoniute, M. Vyushkova, and B. A. Jones, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 25, 15115 (2023)

    2023

  14. [23]

    Arnold, Communications in Partial Di fferential Equations 21, 473 (1996)

    A. Arnold, Communications in Partial Di fferential Equations 21, 473 (1996)

    1996

  15. [24]

    Prester, I

    M. Prester, I. ˇZivkovi´c, D. Drobac, V . ˇSurija, D. Paji ´c, and H. Berger, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materi- als Physics 84, 064441 (2011)

    2011

  16. [25]

    Bochenek and P

    D. Bochenek and P. B. Niemiec, Archives of Metallurgy and Materials 58 (2013)

    2013

  17. [26]

    Ferbinteanu, H

    M. Ferbinteanu, H. Miyasaka, W. Wernsdorfer, K. Nakata, K. Sugiura, M. Yamashita, C. Coulon, and R. Cl ´erac, Journal of the American Chemical Society 127 9, 3090 (2005)

    2005

  18. [27]

    Yan-rong, L

    L. Yan-rong, L. Hai-qing, L. Ying, S. Shao-Kui, and W. Yun- Ping, Chinese Physics Letters 26, 077504 (2009)

    2009

  19. [28]

    Sirenko, F

    V . Sirenko, F. B. Usieto, and J. Bartolom ´e, Low Temperature Physics (2024), 10.1063 /10.0026056

    2024

  20. [29]

    Demsar, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 201, 676 (2020)

    J. Demsar, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 201, 676 (2020)

    2020

  21. [30]

    Erdem and G

    R. Erdem and G. G ¨ulpınar, IntechOpen , 255 (2011)

    2011

  22. [31]

    W. J. Blackmore, G. K. Gransbury, P. Evans, J. G. Kragskow, 12 D. P. Mills, and N. F. Chilton, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 25, 16735 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    Levit, J

    R. Levit, J. C. Martinez-Garcia, D. A. Ochoa, and J. E. Garc ´ıa, Scientific reports 9, 12390 (2019)

    2019

  24. [33]

    G. Liu, J. P. Wu, H. Dong, and H. Zhang, Journal of Non- crystalline Solids 528, 119761 (2020)

    2020

  25. [34]

    Geske, M

    J. Geske, M. Harrach, L. Heckmann, R. Horstmann, F. Klameth, N. M ¨uller, E. Pafong, T. Wohlfromm, B. Drossel, and M. V o- gel, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physikalische Chemie 232, 1187 (2018)

    2018

  26. [35]

    Huang and M.-K

    I.-S. Huang and M.-K. Tsai, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 122, 4654 (2018)

    2018

  27. [36]

    Stroka, Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 28, 259 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2011.561599

    J. Stroka, Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 28, 259 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2011.561599

    2011

  28. [38]

    Galamba, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 015101 (2016)

    N. Galamba, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 015101 (2016)

    2016

  29. [39]

    Nishiyama, S

    M. Nishiyama, S. Kleijn, V . Aquilanti, and T. Kasai, Chemical Physics Letters 482, 325 (2009)

    2009

  30. [41]

    Rosa Junior, C

    A. Rosa Junior, C. Cruz, W. S. Santana, and M. A. Moret, Physical Review E 100, 022139 (2019)

    2019

  31. [42]

    Lindblad, Communications in mathematical physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, Communications in mathematical physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  32. [43]

    Manzano, Aip advances 10 (2020)

    D. Manzano, Aip advances 10 (2020)

    2020

  33. [44]

    de Oliveira, R

    A. de Oliveira, R. Gomes, V . Brasil, N. R. da Silva, L. C ´eleri, and P. S. Ribeiro, Physics Letters A 384, 126933 (2020)

    2020

  34. [45]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987)

    1987

  35. [46]

    Fujiwara, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics 70, 012317 (2004)

    A. Fujiwara, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics 70, 012317 (2004)

    2004

  36. [47]

    N ¨ußeler, I

    A. N ¨ußeler, I. Dhand, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. B 101, 155134 (2020)

    2020

  37. [48]

    Nesbet, Reviews of Modern Physics 33, 28 (1961)

    R. Nesbet, Reviews of Modern Physics 33, 28 (1961)

    1961

  38. [49]

    N ¨ußeler, I

    A. N ¨ußeler, I. Dhand, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review B 101, 155134 (2020)

    2020

  39. [50]

    Ghosh, S

    A. Ghosh, S. S. Sinha, and D. S. Ray, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 86, 011138 (2012)

    2012

  40. [51]

    B. d. L. Bernardo, Physical Review E 102, 062152 (2020)

    2020

  41. [52]

    Topping and S

    C. Topping and S. Blundell, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 31, 013001 (2018)

    2018

  42. [53]

    D. G. Truhlar and A. Kohen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, 848 (2001)

    2001

  43. [54]

    Heitler and E

    W. Heitler and E. Teller, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A 155, 629 (1936)

    1936

  44. [55]

    Korringa, Physica 16, 601 (1950)

    J. Korringa, Physica 16, 601 (1950)

    1950

  45. [56]

    Rosa Jr, C

    A. Rosa Jr, C. Cruz, W. S. Santana, E. Brito, and M. A. Moret, Physical Review E 101, 042131 (2020)

    2020

  46. [57]

    Rosa Jr, P

    A. Rosa Jr, P. Vaveliuk, K. C. Mundim, and M. Moret, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 450, 317 (2016)

    2016

  47. [58]

    R. J. Beerends, F ourier and Laplace transforms (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    2003

  48. [59]

    Tsallis, Journal of statistical physics 52, 479 (1988)

    C. Tsallis, Journal of statistical physics 52, 479 (1988)

    1988

  49. [60]

    V . H. Silva, V . Aquilanti, H. C. de Oliveira, and K. C. Mundim, Chemical Physics Letters 590, 201 (2013)

    2013

  50. [61]

    Park and N

    C.-Y . Park and N. Killoran, Quantum8, 1239 (2024)

    2024

  51. [62]

    A. D. McLachlan, Molecular Physics 8, 39 (1964)

    1964

  52. [63]

    Okuma and Y

    N. Okuma and Y . O. Nakagawa, Physical Review B 105, 054304 (2022)

    2022

  53. [64]

    D. T. Gillespie, Physical review E 54, 2084 (1996)

    1996

  54. [65]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  55. [66]

    Christou, D

    G. Christou, D. Gatteschi, D. N. Hendrickson, and R. Sessoli, MRS bulletin 25, 66 (2000)

    2000

  56. [67]

    A. C. Santos, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics 51, 015501 (2017)

    2017

  57. [68]

    Oshima and K

    K. Oshima and K. Azuma, Physical Review A 68, 034304 (2003)

    2003

  58. [69]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer physics communications 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  59. [70]

    Meana-Pa ˜neda, D

    R. Meana-Pa ˜neda, D. G. Truhlar, and A. Fern ´andez- Ramos, The Journal of Chemical Physics 134, 094302 (2011), https: //pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3555763/13306303/094302 1 online.pdf

    2011 doi

  60. [71]

    Cavalli, V

    S. Cavalli, V . Aquilanti, K. C. Mundim, and D. De Fazio, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 118, 6632 (2014), pMID: 24893210, https://doi.org/10.1021/jp503463w

    2014 doi

  61. [72]

    R. V . Chamberlin, Phys. Rev. B48, 15638 (1993)

    1993

  62. [73]

    S. Roy, P. Schopf, and A. Warshel, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 121, 6520 (2017), pMID: 28613876, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b03698

    2017 doi

  63. [74]

    V . H. Carvalho-Silva, V . Aquilanti, H. C. B. de Oliveira, and K. C. Mundim, Journal of Computational Chemistry 38, 178 (2017), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jcc.24529

    2017 doi

  64. [75]

    Yahata and M

    H. Yahata and M. Suzuki, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 27, 1421 (1969)

    1969

  65. [76]

    D. S. Fisher, Physical review letters 56, 416 (1986)

    1986

  66. [77]

    Djurberg, P

    C. Djurberg, P. Svedlindh, P. Nordblad, M. F. Hansen, F. Bødker, and S. Mørup, Physical review letters 79, 5154 (1997)

    1997

  67. [78]

    Yadav, P

    K. Yadav, P. Koushik, S. Singh, M. Hagihala, and K. Mukher- jee, New Journal of Physics 25, 123030 (2023)

    2023

  68. [79]

    Kundu, T

    S. Kundu, T. Bar, R. K. Nayak, and B. Bansal, Physical Review Letters 124, 095703 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.