Tensor network methods for non-perturbative dynamics of open quantum systems

Adam Burgess; Alex W. Chin; Brendon W. Lovett; Dario Tamascelli; Erik M. Gauger; James Lim; Jonathan Keeling; Julian Wiercinski; Kian Damezin; Martin B. Plenio

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 120 references

Tensor network methods for non-perturbative dynamics of open quantum systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that tensor networks give a common formalism and toolbox for six non-perturbative, numerically exact methods for open quantum systems, converting exponential memory cost into controlled, compressible simulation.

desk verdict Useful method map that overuses the 'numerically exact' label; worth refereeing with a request to fix the convergence claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09850 v1 pith:CGGUZQ4T submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph

Thibaut Lacroix , Adam Burgess , Nicola Lorenzoni , Julian Wiercinski , Kian Damezin , James Lim , Dario Tamascelli , Alex W. Chin

show 6 more authors

Moritz Cygorek Brendon W. Lovett Jonathan Keeling Susana F. Huelga Martin B. Plenio Erik M. Gauger

This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Yz

keywords tensornetworksopenquantumsystemsnon-Markoviandynamicsnumericallyexactmethodsmatrixproductstatesinfluencefunctionalsprocesstensorschainmapping

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 review argues that tensor networks are not just one more numerical trick but a unified formalism for simulating open quantum systems beyond the Markovian and weak-coupling limits. Its target is the exponential scaling of memory kernels that makes non-perturbative dynamics intractable: six methods — ACE, DAMPF, HEOM, ML-MCTDH, TEDOPA, and TEMPO — are shown to compress the environment's influence into low-rank tensor networks, converting the exponential cost into polynomially scaling parameters with convergence that can be systematically checked. If the review's claim holds, practitioners gain a coherent way to choose among numerically exact methods based on environment structure, temperature, and system size, and a common language for benchmark comparisons. The significance is that strong-coupling, structured, finite-temperature environments — photonic crystals, molecular vibrations, quantum dots in phonon baths — become accessible to controlled simulation rather than approximation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the environment (bath) correlation function $C(t)$, which for Gaussian bosonic or fermionic environments completely determines the reduced system dynamics; because different microscopic environments sharing the same $C(t)$ produce identical dynamics, every method reviewed replaces the physical bath with an effective representation matched to $C(t)$: pseudomodes fitted by Prony-type exponential decompositions (DAMPF), orthogonal-polynomial chain mappings with thermalized spectral densities (T-TEDOPA), Matsubara or barycentric decompositions feeding a hierarchy of auxiliary density operators (HEOM), discretized mode sets compressed into process-tensor matrix product operators (ACE), and time-discretized influence functionals whose memory structure forms a causal tensor network (TEMPO, UniTEMPO). The compression engine throughout is the singular value decomposition used to truncate bond dimensions, and the matrix product and tree networks (MPS, MPO, TTN) are the representational framework that makes the truncation local and controllable.

What would settle it

A concrete test: run two of the reviewed methods with independent error sources (say T-TEDOPA and a tensor-network HEOM with barycentric spectral fitting) on the same spin–boson model with a highly structured, low-temperature bath, pushing all stated convergence parameters past the recommended settings — chain length $N_m = vT$, hierarchy depth, bond dimension, compression threshold. If the converged results disagree beyond the tolerance each method quotes, the claim that these methods form a unified family with controllable numerical accuracy fails. A sharper version targets the domain boundary: prepare the environment in a thermal state displaced away from equilibrium, so that $\mathrm{Tr}_E[H_I \rho_E(0)] \neq 0$, or with initial system–environment correlations; the frameworks assume a product initial state with vanishing interaction trace, and the comparative claims would need revision if the methods disagree there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The review's central claim is that tensor networks provide a single formalism and toolbox for numerically exact simulation of open quantum systems, unifying six methods developed over recent decades: ACE, DAMPF, HEOM, ML-MCTDH, TEDOPA, and TEMPO. Each method compresses the environment's influence — encoded either in a Nakajima–Zwanzig memory kernel, a Feynman–Vernon influence functional or process tensor, or an explicit extended-system Hamiltonian — into a low-rank matrix product state, matrix product operator, or tree tensor network, replacing exponential Hilbert-space growth with polynomially scaling parameters controlled by well-defined convergence parameters such as timestep, bond dimension, truncation threshold, memory cutoff, and chain length. The review further claims that the methods can be compared and selected by environment structure, temperature, and system size, and that the bond dimension of the compressed process tensor provides a quantitative measure of the environmental complexity that must be retained to reproduce the reduced dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on assuming the system and environment begin uncorrelated, with the environment in a thermal Gaussian state coupled to the system linearly; outside that setup the convergence guarantees and method comparisons do not directly apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Method choice becomes principled: structured, low-temperature baths favor pseudomode and chain-mapping approaches, while compact environmental memory favors TEMPO-type causal networks and process tensors, with explicit convergence parameters listed for each method.
Process-tensor formulations (ACE, PT-TEMPO) separate the computation of the environment's influence from the system dynamics, so one calculation serves many system Hamiltonians, initial conditions, and multi-time correlation functions.
T-TEDOPA's chain-length rule $N_m = vT$ makes the truncation error of a continuous bath explicit, and Markovian closures replace the long tail of the chain with Lindblad sinks, removing the linear-in-time growth of simulation cost.
Tensor-network HEOM (MPS, TTN, or tree structures) extends a method originally limited to exponentially decomposable correlation functions to large multi-site systems at low temperature.
The review's 'numerically exact' classification gives accuracy a concrete meaning: results improve monotonically as timestep, bond dimension, and memory cutoffs are refined, without uncontrolled approximations.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable consequence the review leaves implicit: the compressed process-tensor bond dimension can be used as a pre-simulation diagnostic — a quick ACE or PT-TEMPO run with modest truncation could predict which method will be cheapest for a given spectral density, long before full convergence scans.
The equivalence principle 'same $C(t)$ gives same dynamics' suggests building a public benchmark suite in which the same models (spin–boson, FMO-type aggregates, Anderson impurity) are solved by all six methods with reported convergence parameters; disagreement between converged results would be the most direct test of the review's unification claim.
Everything hinges on Gaussianity of the bath; the natural stress test is an anharmonic environment where the Feynman–Vernon factorization into $C(t)$ no longer holds — ACE and ML-MCTDH are claimed to handle some such cases, and extending the comparison framework there would sharpen the domain boundary the review draws.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a genuinely useful mapping review, and the stress-test note has a real point. The paper's "numerically exact" umbrella is wider than the evidence it assembles, but the flaw is in the packaging, not in the substance of the method descriptions. I would send it to review.

What is actually new is the organization: a common notation and derivation style for ACE, DAMPF, HEOM, ML-MCTDH, TEDOPA and TEMPO, explicit convergence-parameter lists for each, and software pointers. That is exactly the kind of map the fragmented open-quantum-systems field needs. The mathematics is standard and I saw no red flags. Several comparison figures, such as MPS versus TTN convergence for the spin-boson model, are original numerical illustrations with enough parameter detail to reproduce. The citations are heavy on the authors' own work, but most point to original sources with open-source implementations, so I do not read that as circularity.

The stress-test concern lands. The Sec. I definition of "numerically exact" requires a guaranteed, systematic route to the exact dynamics. DAMPF's accuracy rests on Prony-based fitting plus case-by-case benchmarks, and the review itself says the validity of those benchmarks must still be assessed in other parameter regimes. ML-MCTDH's tree structure is chosen by intuition and trial and error. ACE's mode-count criterion is explicitly heuristic. So "to controllable numerical accuracy" is an aspiration for part of the family, not an established property. The fix is simple: soften the abstract, and add a table that separates methods with proven convergence from methods that are empirically converged in benchmarks. The domain assumptions—product initial states, Gaussian baths—are clearly stated; they are a boundary, not a flaw. I also note the provided text cuts off before the end of the outlook, so I could not check the final synthesis; that is minor given the technical body.

This paper is for practitioners and newcomers who need to choose among non-Markovian methods, and it deserves a serious referee. The referee should ask for the "numerically exact" claim to be tightened before publication, but the review itself is worth engaging.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review aims to bring six tensor-network methods for non-perturbative open quantum system dynamics—ACE, DAMPF, HEOM, ML-MCTDH, TEDOPA, and TEMPO—under a single formalism, presenting for each its derivation, convergence parameters, applications, and open-source implementations. The central claim, stated in the abstract and Sec. I, is that these methods constitute a family of non-perturbative, numerically exact approaches with errors controllable by systematic refinement of well-defined convergence parameters. The paper also seeks to help practitioners choose among methods based on environment structure, temperature, and system size.

Significance. If the classification is accurate, this review fills a real need: the tensor-network open-systems literature has grown rapidly, and a unified presentation in one notation with explicit convergence parameters and software pointers is useful. The review is strong on structure: it derives each method from a common background (memory kernels, influence functionals, extended systems), includes concrete benchmark figures (e.g., Figs. 7, 14, 18), enumerates convergence parameters per method, and lists open-source packages. It is a synthesis rather than a source of new numerical results, but as a review its value depends directly on the correctness of the 'numerically exact' taxonomy. That taxonomy is partially undercut by the paper's own caveats for two of the six methods, as detailed below.

major comments (3)

[Sec. I and Sec. III.B.4] The working definition of 'numerically exact' in Sec. I requires errors that 'can be bounded and made arbitrarily small by systematically refining well-defined convergence parameters, without relying on uncontrolled approximations.' For DAMPF, however, Sec. III.B.4 states that the analytical error bound is loose, that the actual error often oscillates around zero and is 'significantly smaller than the analytical bound,' and that 'the validity of these benchmarks must still be assessed for different system-parameter regimes.' This is an admission that, as presented, increasing the number of pseudomodes Q is not a systematic refinement protocol with a guaranteed route to the exact dynamics; accuracy rests on numerical fitting (Prony-based and otherwise) and case-by-case benchmarks. The abstract's collective claim that the surveyed methods deliver 'numerically exact ... to controllable numerical accuracy' therefore overstates the status of DAMPF. Please either supply a constructive convergence guarantee for the pseudomode expansion or explicitly remove DAMPF from the 'numerically exact' category as defined.
[Sec. III.D.4] The same tension appears for ML-MCTDH. Sec. III.D.4 concedes that the tree structure is 'mostly guided by intuition and trial and error,' and the DVR/environment discretization is left to practitioner discretion. Since the method is included in the 'numerically exact' family identified in Sec. I, the review should state which of its convergence parameters (bond dimension, local mode truncation, DVR grid) carry a systematic guarantee and under what conditions. Without such a statement, the claim of 'to controllable numerical accuracy' is not supported for ML-MCTDH in the same sense as, for example, TEMPO's memory-cutoff convergence.
[Sec. III.A.3 and Sec. III.F.6] The treatment of convergence parameters is inconsistent in emphasis: for ACE, the mode-number criterion N_E >= 0.4(omega_max - omega_min)T is explicitly called heuristic; for TEMPO, the memory cutoff n_c is presented as a convergence parameter without noting that it is a practical rule justified by decay of the influence functional rather than a rigorous bound. If the review's definition of 'numerically exact' is to be applied uniformly, the paper should state explicitly which listed convergence parameters carry rigorous guarantees and which are practical heuristics. This would not weaken the review; it would make the 'numerically exact' classification precise.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. III.B.6, Eq. (61)] The expansion of the density matrix should read rho(t) = sum_{n,m} |n><m| ⊗ rho^{(n,m)}(t); the displayed formula omits the tensor product between the system projectors and the pseudomode density matrices.
[Sec. III.D.4, Fig. 15 caption] The notation 'SDJ(omega)' appears in the text near the figure; it should be 'spectral density J(omega)' or a properly defined abbreviation introduced before first use.
[Sec. III.F.6] The text near the end of the applications list contains 'perturbative Floque', which appears to be a typo for 'perturbative Floquet'.
[Sec. II.A.1, Eq. (14)] The transfer tensor T_k is used in Eq. (14) before it is defined; move the definition 'T_k is the k-th transfer tensor' before or immediately with the equation.
[Sec. III.B.2] The pseudomode parameter fitting via the Prony algorithm is described as giving 'valid pseudomode parameters or ... initial guesses,' but the later accuracy discussion in Sec. III.B.4 emphasizes that the quality of the fit must be assessed numerically. A single sentence connecting the fit quality to the convergence language of Sec. I would help the reader reconcile these two parts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review is expository and its claims rest on cited original sources, not on self-referential reductions.

full rationale

This is a review article rather than a derivation of new results, so the usual circularity patterns do not apply in their load-bearing form. The central claim—that tensor networks enable numerically exact, non-perturbative open-system simulations—is presented as a classification of existing methods, not as a conclusion derived from the paper's own assumptions. The paper's definition of 'numerically exact' in Sec. I is a stipulative definition, and applying it to the surveyed methods is a scope claim. Even where the review concedes that DAMPF and ML-MCTDH rely on benchmarks, heuristics, or practitioner-guided tree structures, this is an evidentiary or correctness concern about whether the 'numerically exact' label is fully earned, not a case where an output is identical to an input by construction. The many self-citations (Tamascelli et al., Mascherpa et al., Strathearn et al., Cygorek et al., etc.) function as pointers to the original papers that introduced the methods and proofs; several are accompanied by open-source implementations and independent numerical benchmarks, so they are not unverified authorities invoked to foreclose alternatives. No equation in the review reduces to its own input: for example, DAMPF fits pseudomode parameters to the bath correlation function and then predicts system dynamics, which is a legitimate model reduction rather than a fitted quantity being renamed as a prediction. The review's unification of the methods under the tensor-network formalism is an organizational claim, and its occasional overstatement about guaranteed convergence is a limitation, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on background assumptions standard in open quantum systems and tensor network theory. No free parameters are introduced by the review itself, and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Initial product state rho(0)=rho_S(0) rho_E(0) with Gibbs environment
Invoked in Sec. II.A and used in derivations of ACE, HEOM, TEDOPA, TEMPO; the review's 'numerically exact' classification inherits this assumption.
domain assumption Gaussian environment with linear coupling to the system
Stated in Sec. II.A (Eqs. (9)-(10)); underpins the bath correlation function formalism and most reviewed methods.
domain assumption Tensor network bond dimension grows slowly enough (area law or light cone) for efficiency
Sec. II.B argues physical relevance; the review's claim that the methods overcome exponential complexity depends on compressibility of environmental states.
domain assumption Finite memory time and convergence parameters can be systematically refined
Each method section defines convergence parameters; 'numerically exact' relies on the assumption that the relevant limits exist and are reachable in practice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tensor network methods for non-perturbative dynamics of open quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGGUZQ4T

@misc{pith2026260809850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tensor network methods for non-perturbative dynamics of open quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGGUZQ4T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09850}
}

read the original abstract

The description of open quantum system dynamics beyond the perturbative treatment (usually associated with Markovian master equations) is a computationally challenging task due to the unfavorable exponential scaling of memory kernels. Developed over recent decades in the context of quantum information and condensed matter, tensor networks provide both a new formalism and a toolbox for overcoming previous computational bottlenecks. This framework enables the formulation of non-perturbative, numerically exact methods for describing the dynamics of open quantum systems to controllable numerical accuracy. In this review, we present these methods and discuss their commonalities and differences to paint a comprehensive view of the field.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

[1]

Tensor Toolbox for MATLAB v3.8,

Albrecht, K. F., H. Wang, L. M¨ uhlbacher, M. Thoss, and A. Komnik (2012), Phys. Rev. B86, 081412. Alkabetz, R., and I. Arad (2021), Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023073. Alvertis, A. M., F. A. Y. N. Schr¨ oder, and A. W. Chin (2019), J. Chem. Phys.151, 084104. Anders, F. B., R. Bulla, and M. Vojta (2007), Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 210402. Anderson, E., Z. Bai, C. Bischof,...

2012
[4]

Weber, J

F¨ orstner, J., C. Weber, J. Danckwerts, and A. Knorr (2003), Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 127401. Fowler-Wright, P., B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling (2022), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 173001. Frenkel, Y. (1934),Wave mechanics, advanced general theory, Vol. 1 (Oxford). Fruchtman, A., N. Lambert, and E. M. Gauger (2016), Sci. Rep.6, 28204. Fux, G. E., E. P. Butler, P. R. Ea...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.04970 2003
[5]

Jizba, and G

Blasone, M., P. Jizba, and G. Vitiello (2011), inQuantum Field Theory and Its Macroscopic Manifestations(Imperial College Press) pp. 185–234. Bombelli, L., R. K. Koul, J. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin (1986), Phys. Rev. D34,

2011
[13]

Thoss, and W

Wang, H., M. Thoss, and W. H. Miller (2001), J. Chem. Phys. 115,

work page 2001
[15]

Cirac, J. I., D. P´ erez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete (2021), Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003. Cirio, M., P.-C. Kuo, Y.-N. Chen, F. Nori, and N. Lambert (2022), Phys. Rev. B105, 035121. Cirio, M., N. Lambert, P. Liang, P.-C. Kuo, Y.-N. Chen, P. Menczel, K. Funo, and F. Nori (2023), Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033011. 52 Cochin, E., J. Keeling, B. W. Lovett, and ...

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.06840 2021
[17]

Ma, Y.-C

Chen, Y.-Q., K.-L. Ma, Y.-C. Zheng, J. Allcock, S. Zhang, and C.-Y. Hsieh (2020), Phys. Rev. Applied13, 034045. Chen, Z.-H., Y. Wang, X. Zheng, R.-X. Xu, and Y. Yan (2022), J. Chem. Phys.156, 221102. Chin, A. W., A. Datta, F. Caruso, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2010a), New J. Phys.12, 065002. Chin, A. W., J. Prior, R. Rosenbach, F. Caycedo-Soler, S. F...

2020
[18]

Cygorek, M., and M. E. Gauger (2024), J. Chem. Phys.161, 074111. Cygorek, M., J. Keeling, B. W. Lovett, and E. M. Gauger (2024a), Phys. Rev. X14, 011010. Cygorek, M., B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and E. M. Gauger (2024b), Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043203. Dan, X., E. Geva, and V. S. Batista (2025), J. Chem. Theory Comput.21,

2024
[21]

Smirne, S

Gherardini, S., A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and F. Caruso (2022), Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 025005. Giri, K., E. Chapman, C. S. Sanz, and G. Worth (2011), J. Chem. Phys.135, 044311. Giudice, G., G. Giudici, M. Sonner, J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, D. A. Abanin, and L. Piroli (2022), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 220401. Goerigk, L., and S. Grimme (2011), Phys. Chem. Chem. P...

2022

Show all 120 references

[24]

Charara, D

Bayraktar, H., A. Charara, D. Clark, S. Cohen, T. Costa, Y.-L. L. Fang, Y. Gao, J. Guan, J. Gunnels, A. Haidar, A. Hehn, M. Hohnerbach, M. Jones, T. Lubowe, D. Lyakh, S. Morino, P. Springer, S. Stanwyck, I. Terentyev, S. Varad- han, J. Wong, and T. Yamaguchi (2023), in2023 IEE...

2023
[41]

Hayden, P., D. W. Leung, and A. Winter (2006), Commun. Math. Phys.265,

2006
[59]

Renor- malizer,

Li, W., J. Ren, T. Jiang, and contributors (2025), “Renor- malizer,”. Li, W., J. Ren, and J. Yan (2026), J. Chem. Theory Comput. 22,

2025
[62]

Li, W., J. Ren, H. Yang, H. Wang, and Z. Shuai (2024b), J. Chem. Phys.161, 054116. Liang, P., N. Lambert, S. Luo, L. Guo, and M. Cirio (2024), arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04264. Lieb, E. H., and D. W. Robinson (1972), Commun. Math. Phys.28, 251–257. Lindblad, G. (1976),...

2024 doi arXiv
[65]

Somoza, A. D., O. Marty, J. Lim, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2019), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 100502. Srednicki, M. (1993), Phys. Rev. Lett.71,

2019
[70]

Mangaud, T

Mendive-Tapia, D., E. Mangaud, T. Firmino, A. de la Lande, M. Desouter-Lecomte, H.-D. Meyer, and F. Gatti (2018), J. Phys. Chem. B122,

2018
[72]

Stein, K

Bashirova, D., J. Stein, K. Siegfried, and T. J. Zuehlsdorff (2026), J. Chem. Phys.164, 174308. Bauernfeind, D., and M. Aichhorn (2020), SciPost Phys.8,

2026
[73]

Link, and W

Mickiewicz, K., V. Link, and W. T. Strunz (2026a), arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2606.0631. Mickiewicz, K., V. Link, and W. T. Strunz (2026b), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 200201. Milz, S., M. S. Kim, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi (2019), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 040401. Mohseni, M., P. Rebe...

2026 doi
[76]

Pollock, F. A., C. Rodriguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Pa- ternostro, and K. Modi (2018a), Phys. Rev. A97, 012127. Pollock, F. A., C. Rodr´iguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Pa- ternostro, and K. Modi (2018b), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 040405. Popovic, M., M. T. Mitchison, A. Strath...

2018
[77]

MPSDynamics.jl v1.2.1,

Dunnett, A. J., D. Gowland, C. M. Isborn, A. W. Chin, and T. J. Zuehlsdorff (2021), J. Chem. Phys.155, 144112. Dunnett, A. J., T. Lacroix, A. Riva, and B. Le D´ e (2026), “MPSDynamics.jl v1.2.1,” Zenodo. Eisert, J., M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio (2010), Rev. Mod. Phys.82,

2021
[95]

Wolff, J

Hoeppe, U., C. Wolff, J. K¨ uchenmeister, J. Niegemann, M. Drescher, H. Benner, and K. Busch (2012), Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 043603. Hogg, C. R., F. Cerisola, J. D. Cresser, S. A. R. Horsley, and J. Anders (2024), Quantum8,

2012
[96]

Schr¨ oder, F. A. Y. N., D. H. P. Turban, A. J. Musser, N. D. M. Hine, and A. W. Chin (2019), Nat. Commun.10,

2019
[97]

(1994), ACM Trans

Gautschi, W. (1994), ACM Trans. Math. Softw.20,

1994
[101]

Tanimura, Y., and P. G. Wolynes (1992), J. Chem. Phys.96,

1992
[103]

Burgelman, Z

Brehmer, P., L. Burgelman, Z. Yue, and L. Devos (2026), 10.5281/zenodo.20628442, zenodo. Breuer, H.-P., E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo (2009), Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210401. Breuer, H.-P., E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini (2016), Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021002. Breuer, H.-P., and F....

2026 doi
[104]

Dhand, S

N¨ ußeler, A., I. Dhand, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2020), Phys. Rev. B101, 155134. N¨ ußeler, A., D. Tamascelli, A. Smirne, J. Lim, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2022), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 140604. Oh, E. K., T. J. Krogmeier, A. W. Schlimgen, and K. Head- Marsden (2024...

2020
[110]

(2015), J

Wang, H. (2015), J. Phys. Chem. A119,

2015
[113]

Chin, A. W., A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2010b), J. Math. Phys.51, 092109. Chiribella, G., G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti (2008), Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 060401. Chiribella, G., G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti (2009), Phys. Rev. A80, 022339. Ciccarello, F., S. Lo...

2010
[117]

Vidal (2008), Phys

Or´ us, R., and G. Vidal (2008), Phys. Rev. B78, 155117. ¨Ostlund, S., and S. Rommer (1995), Phys. Rev. Lett.75,

2008
[118]

W., and P

Fischer, E. W., and P. Saalfrank (2021), J. Chem. Phys.155, 134109. Fishman, M., S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire (2022), SciPost Phys. Codebases ,

2021
[119]

Uni- formtempo.jl,

Lindoy, L., D. Rodrigo-Albert, Y. Rath, and I. Rungger (2025a), J. Chem. Phys.163, 10.60893/figshare.jcp.30537221.v1. Lindoy, L. P., B. Kloss, and D. R. Reichman (2021a), J. Chem. Phys.155, 174108. Lindoy, L. P., B. Kloss, and D. R. Reichman (2021b), J. Chem. Phys.155, 174109....

2025 doi arXiv
[126]

Meyer, and O

Mendive-Tapia, D., H.-D. Meyer, and O. Vendrell (2023), J. Chem. Theory Comput.19,

2023
[158]

Pichler, H., S. Choi, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin (2017), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA114, 11362. Pleasance, G., B. M. Garraway, and F. Petruccione (2020), Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043058. Plenio, M. B., and S. F. Huelga (2008), New J. Phys.10, 113019. Pollock, F. A., and K. Modi (2018)...

2017
[181]

Huelga, S. F., ´A. Rivas, and M. B. Plenio (2012), Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 160402. Hunter, K. E., Y. Mao, A. W. Chin, and T. J. Zuehlsdorff (2024), J. Phys. Chem. Lett.15,

2012
[183]

(1985), J

Suzuki, M. (1985), J. Math. Phys.26,

1985
[205]

Matrix computa- tions (3rd ed.),

Golub, G. H., and C. F. Van Loan (1996), “Matrix computa- tions (3rd ed.),” Chap. Lanczos Methods (Johns Hopkins University Press, USA) pp. 470–507. 53 Gorini, V., A. Kossakowski, and E. C. Sudarshan (1976), J. Math. Phys.17, 821–825. Grasedyck, L. (2010), SIAM J. Matrix Anal....

1996
[217]

Manthe (2011), J

Hammer, T., and U. Manthe (2011), J. Chem. Phys.134, 224305. Hartmann, M. J., and G. Carleo (2019), Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 250502. Hastings, M. B. (2007), J. Stat. Mech.2007, P08024. Hauschild, J., J. Unfried, S. Anand, B. Andrews, M. Bintz, U. Borla, S. Divic, M. Drescher, J. G...

2011
[222]

Malz, and J

Trivedi, R., D. Malz, and J. I. Cirac (2021), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 250404. Trotter, H. F. (1959), Proc. Am. Math. Soc.10,

2021
[251]

(2003),Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics)

Saad, Y. (2003),Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics). Sakamoto, S., and Y. Tanimura (2017), J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8,

2003
[268]

Dunnett, D

Lacroix, T., A. Dunnett, D. Gribben, B. W. Lovett, and A. Chin (2021), Phys. Rev. A104, 052204. Lacroix, T., B. Le D´ e, A. Riva, A. J. Dunnett, and A. W. Chin (2024a), J. Chem. Phys.161, 084116. Lacroix, T., B. W. Lovett, and A. W. Chin (2024b), arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv....

2021 doi arXiv
[277]

Manthe (2018), J

Ellerbrock, R., and U. Manthe (2018), J. Chem. Phys.148, 224303. Engel, G. S., T. R. Calhoun, E. L. Read, T.-K. Ahn, T. Manˇ cal, Y.-C. Cheng, R. E. Blankenship, and G. R. Fleming (2007), Nature446, 782–786. Evenbly, G. (2018), Phys. Rev. B98, 085155. Evenbly, G. (2022), Front...

2018
[325]

Meyer (2011), J

Vendrell, O., and H.-D. Meyer (2011), J. Chem. Phys.134, 044135. Verstraete, F., M. M. Wolf, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. I. Cirac (2006), Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 220601. Vidal, G. (2003), Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 147902. Vidal, G. (2004), Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 040502. Walters, P. L., T. C. A...

2011
[335]

Tamascelli, J

Smirne, A., D. Tamascelli, J. Lim, M. B. Plenio, and S. F. Huelga (2022), Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.29(04), 2250019. So, V., M. Duraisamy Suganthi, M. Zhu, A. Menon, G. Tomaras, R. Zhuravel, H. Pu, P. G. Wolynes, J. N. Onuchic, and G. Pagano (2025), Nat. Commun.17(1),

2022
[351]

Gatti, and G

Meyer, H.-D., F. Gatti, and G. A. Worth (2009),Multidimen- sional Quantum Dynamics: MCTDH Theory and Applica- tions(John Wiley & Sons). Meyer, H.-D., U. Manthe, and L. Cederbaum (1990), Chem. Phys. Lett.165,

2009
[373]

(2019), J

Borrelli, R. (2019), J. Chem. Phys.150, 234102. Borrelli, R., and S. Dolgov (2021), J. Phys. Chem. B125,

2019
[376]

Dorda, A., M. Nuss, W. von der Linden, and E. Arrigoni (2014), Phys. Rev. B89, 165105. Dorfner, M. F. X., D. Brey, I. Burghardt, and F. Ortmann (2024), J. Chem. Theory Comput.20,

2014
[393]

O’Neill, E

Ortega-Taberner, C., E. O’Neill, E. Butler, G. E. Fux, and P. R. Eastham (2024), J. Chem. Phys.161, 124119. Orus, R. (2014), Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)349,

2024
[395]

Lee, N.-H

Bulla, R., H.-J. Lee, N.-H. Tong, and M. Vojta (2005), Phys. Rev. B71, 045122. Bulla, R., N.-H. Tong, and M. Vojta (2003), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 170601. Buser, M., J. Cerrillo, G. Schaller, and J. Cao (2017), Phys. Rev. A96, 062122. Butler, E. P., G. E. Fux, C. Ortega-Taberner,...

2005
[410]

Gribben, D., D. M. Rouse, J. Iles-Smith, A. Strathearn, H. Maguire, P. Kirton, A. Nazir, E. M. Gauger, and B. W. Lovett (2022), PRX Quantum3, 010321. Gribben, D., A. Strathearn, J. Iles-Smith, D. Kilda, A. Nazir, B. W. Lovett, and P. Kirton (2020), Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013265. Gu...

2022
[438]

Somoza, A. D., N. Lorenzoni, J. Lim, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2023), Commun. Phys.6,

2023
[443]

Fay, T. P. (2022), J. Chem. Phys.157, 054108. Ferracin, D., A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, M. B. Plenio, and D. Tamascelli (2024), J. Chem. Phys.161, 174114. Feynman, R. P., and F. L. Vernon (1963), Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 24,

2022
[455]

Thoss, and H

Kondov, I., M. Thoss, and H. Wang (2006), J. Phys. Chem. A110,

2006
[470]

MacDonell, R. J., C. E. Dickerson, C. J. T. Birch, A. Kumar, C. L. Edmunds, M. J. Biercuk, C. Hempel, and I. Kassal (2021), Chem. Sci.12(28),

2021
[482]

(1995), J

Makri, N. (1995), J. Math. Phys.36,

1995
[494]

Crowder, L

Chen, J., E. Crowder, L. Xiang, and D. Davidovic (2025), APL Quantum2, 026109. Chen, R., X. Xu, and C. Guo (2024), Phys. Rev. B109, 045140. Chen, X., and I. Franco (2024), J. Chem. Phys.160, 204116. Chen, X., and I. Franco (2025), J. Chem. Phys.163, 104109. Chen, X., and I. Fr...

2025
[545]

Ash, and G

Van Haeften, A., C. Ash, and G. Worth (2023), J. Chem. Phys.159, 194114. de Vega, I., and D. Alonso (2017), Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015001. de Vega, I., and M.-C. Ba˜ nuls (2015), Phys. Rev. A92, 052116. Velizhanin, K. A., H. Wang, and M. Thoss (2008), Chem. Phys. Lett.460,

2023
[601]

Svendsen, M. K., S. Ali, N. Stenger, K. S. Thygesen, and J. Iles-Smith (2023), Phys. Rev. Res.5, L032037. Szeg˝ o, G. (1975),Orthogonal polynomials(American Mathe- matical Society). Takahashi, H., and R. Borrelli (2024), J. Chem. Theory Com- put.20,

2023
[609]

Qarry, R

Poulin, D., A. Qarry, R. Somma, and F. Verstraete (2011), Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 170501. Prior, J., A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2010), Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 050404. Prior, J., I. de Vega, A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2013), Phys. Rev. A87, 013428. P...

2011
[662]

Cygorek, M., and E. M. Gauger (2025a), arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21017. Cygorek, M., and E. M. Gauger (2025b), SciPost Phys.18,

2025 doi arXiv
[666]

Stoian, M., R. M. Milbradt, and C. B. Mendl (2024), SIAM J. Sci. Comput.46(5), B647. Strasberg, P., G. Schaller, N. Lambert, and T. Brandes (2016), New J. Phys.18, 073007. Strathearn, A., P. Kirton, D. Kilda, J. Keeling, and B. W. Lovett (2018), Nat. Commun.9,

2024
[674]

Raab, A., G. A. Worth, H.-D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum (1999), J. Chem. Phys.110,

1999
[706]

Haegeman, J., J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Piˇ zorn, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete (2011), Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 070601. Haegeman, J., C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete (2016), Phys. Rev. B94, 165116. Halko, N., P. G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp...

2011
[751]

Bracht, T. K., M. Cygorek, T. Seidelmann, V. M. Axt, and D. E. Reiter (2023), Opt. Quantum1,

2023
[891]

Nachtergaele, and R

Fannes, M., B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner (1992), Com- mun. Math. Phys.144,

1992
[936]

Tirrito, C

Ran, S.-J., E. Tirrito, C. Peng, X. Chen, L. Tagliacozzo, G. Su, and M. Lewenstein (2020),Tensor network con- tractions: methods and applications to quantum many-body systems(Springer Nature). Rau, J. (1963), Phys. Rev.129,

2020
[948]

Navickas, T., R. J. MacDonell, C. H. Valahu, V. C. Olaya- Agudelo, F. Scuccimarra, M. J. Millican, V. G. Matsos, H. L. Nourse, A. D. Rao, M. J. Biercuk, C. Hempel, I. Kas- sal, and T. R. Tan (2025), J. Am. Chem. Soc.147(27), 23566. Nazir, A., and G. Schaller (2018), inThermody...

2025
[963]

Vacchini, K

Martinazzo, R., B. Vacchini, K. H. Hughes, and I. Burghardt (2011), J. Chem. Phys.134, 011101. Mascherpa, F., A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2017), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 100401. Mascherpa, F., A. Smirne, A. D. Somoza, P. Fern´ andez- Acebal, S. Donadi, D. Tamascelli...

2011
[1062]

Schuch, N., M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac (2008), Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 030504. Schulze, J., M. F. Shibl, M. J. Al-Marri, and O. K¨ uhn (2016), J. Chem. Phys.144, 185101. Sharir, O., A. Shashua, and G. Carleo (2022), Phys. Rev. B 106(20), 205136. Shi, Q., Y. Xu, Y....

2008 doi
[1144]

Meyer (2013), J

Meng, Q., and H.-D. Meyer (2013), J. Chem. Phys.138, 014313. Meng, Q., and H.-D. Meyer (2014), J. Chem. Phys.141, 124309. Meredith, S., O. Dudgeon, W. Bukalski, A. J. Brash, H. J. D. Miller, T. J. Elliott, and J. Iles-Smith (2026), arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2604.19621. Mey...

2013 doi arXiv
[1237]

R., and F

Jørgensen, M. R., and F. A. Pollock (2019), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 240602. Jørgensen, M. R., and F. A. Pollock (2020), Phys. Rev. A 102, 052206. Jouppi, N. P., C. Young, N. Patil, D. Patterson, G. Agrawal, R. Bajwa, S. Bates, S. Bhatia, N. Boden, A. Borchers, R. Boyle, P.-l. Ca...

2019
[1242]

Chen (2024), Phys

Guo, C., and R. Chen (2024), Phys. Rev. B110, 045106. Hackbusch, W., and S. K¨ uhn (2009), J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 15,

2024
[1289]

Thoss (2007), J

Wang, H., and M. Thoss (2007), J. Phys. Chem. A111, 10369. Wang, H., and M. Thoss (2009), J. Chem. Phys.131, 024114. Wang, H., and M. Thoss (2013), J. Phys. Chem. A117,

2007
[1305]

Ahmed, M

Lambert, N., S. Ahmed, M. Cirio, and F. Nori (2019), Nat. Commun.10,

2019
[1357]

Hu, J., M. Luo, F. Jiang, R.-X. Xu, and Y. Yan (2011), J. Chem. Phys.134, 244106. Huang, Z., G. Park, G. K.-L. Chan, and L. Lin (2026), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 090403. Huelga, S. F., and M. B. Plenio (2013), Contemp. Phys.54,

2011
[1364]

ˇC´iˇ zek, C

Kondov, I., M. ˇC´iˇ zek, C. Benesch, H. Wang, and M. Thoss (2007), J. Phys. Chem. C111, 11970. Kosionis, S. G., S. Biswas, C. Fouseki, D. Stefanatos, and E. Paspalakis (2025), Phys. Rev. B112, 075304. Kothe, S., and P. Kirton (2024), Phys. Rev. A109, 062215. 54 Krummheuer, B....

2007
[1375]

Zhou, L. K., G. R. Jin, and W. Yang (2024), Phys. Rev. A 110, 022221. Zwanzig, R. (1960), J. Chem. Phys.33, 1338

2024
[1530]

MP- SKit.jl v0.13.13,

Dan, X., M. Xu, J. T. Stockburger, J. Ankerhold, and Q. Shi (2023), Phys. Rev. B107, 195429. De Vega, I., U. Schollw¨ ock, and F. A. Wolf (2015), Phys. Rev. B92, 155126. Debecker, B., J. Martin, and F. Damanet (2024), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 140403. Debecker, B., L. Pausch, J. Lo...

2023 doi arXiv
[1755]

Benedetti, H.-P

Tamascelli, D., C. Benedetti, H.-P. Breuer, and M. G. A. Paris (2020), New J. Phys.22, 083027. Tamascelli, D., R. Rosenbach, and M. B. Plenio (2015), Phys. Rev. E91, 063306. Tamascelli, D., A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2018), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 030402. Tamascel...

2020
[1764]

H., and J

Jonsson, R. H., and J. Kn¨ orzer (2024), Quantum8,

2024
[1847]

(2008a), J

Manthe, U. (2008a), J. Chem. Phys.128, 164116. Manthe, U. (2008b), J. Chem. Phys.128, 064108. Manthe, U. (2017), J. Phys. Condens. Matter29, 253001. Manthe, U., and T. Weike (2017), J. Chem. Phys.146, 064117. Markov, I. L., and Y. Shi (2008), SIAM J. Comput.38(3),

2008
[1880]

(1965), inAdvances in Magnetic and Optical Res- onance, Vol

Redfield, A. (1965), inAdvances in Magnetic and Optical Res- onance, Vol. 1, edited by J. S. Waugh (Academic Press) pp. 1–32. Reina, J. H., L. Quiroga, and N. F. Johnson (2002), Phys. Rev. A65, 032326. Renger, T., and R. A. Marcus (2002), J. Chem. Phys.116,

1965
[1882]

Thoss (2003), J

Wang, H., and M. Thoss (2003), J. Chem. Phys.119,

2003
[2029]

Gray, J., and G. K.-L. Chan (2024), Phys. Rev. X14, 011009. Gray, J., and S. Kourtis (2021), Quantum5,

2024
[2164]

Cerrillo, S

Rosenbach, R., J. Cerrillo, S. F. Huelga, J. Cao, and M. B. Plenio (2016), New J. Phys.18, 023035. R¨ atsep, M., and A. Freiberg (2007), J. Lumin.127,

2016
[2430]

(2020), J

Makri, N. (2020), J. Chem. Theory Comput.16,

2020
[2514]

Jaouadi, E

Le D´ e, B., A. Jaouadi, E. Mangaud, A. W. Chin, and M. Desouter-Lecomte (2024b), J. Chem. Phys.160, 244102. Le D´ e, B., E. Mangaud, A. W. Chin, and M. Desouter- Lecomte (2026), J. Chem. Phys.165, 014101. Lemmer, A., C. Cormick, D. Tamascelli, T. Schaetz, S. F. Huelga, and M....

2024
[2863]

R., and A

White, S. R., and A. E. Feiguin (2004), Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 076401. Wiercinski, J., M. Cygorek, and E. M. Gauger (2024), Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033231. Wiercinski, J., E. M. Gauger, and M. Cygorek (2023), Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013176. Wilner, E. Y., H. Wang, M. Thoss, and E. Rabani (20...

2004
[2912]

A., and J

Cazalilla, M. A., and J. B. Marston (2002), Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 256403. Cerrillo, J., and J. Cao (2014), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 110401. Chekhovich, E. A., M. N. Makhonin, A. I. Tartakovskii, A. Yacoby, H. Bluhm, K. C. Nowack, and L. M. K. Van- dersypen (2013), Nat. Mater.12(6),

2002
[2979]

Benny, B

Wang, Y., A. Benny, B. Le D´ e, A. W. Chin, and G. D. Scholes (2025), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA122, e2416542122. Wang, Y., X. Li, X. Zheng, and J. Yang (2018), Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.20, 26396. Watad, T. M., and N. H. Lindner (2024), Quantum Sci. Tech- nol.9(2), 025015. Weber...

2025 doi arXiv
[3131]

Ivander, F., L. P. Lindoy, and J. Lee (2024), Nat. Commun. 15,

2024
[3151]

Grant, A

Banchi, L., E. Grant, A. Rocchetto, and S. Severini (2018), New J. Phys.20, 123030. Barthel, T., J. Lu, and G. Friesecke (2022), Lett. Math. Phys. 112,

2018
[3322]

Strathearn, A., B. W. Lovett, and P. Kirton (2017), New J. Phys.19, 093009. Suess, D., A. Eisfeld, and W. T. Strunz (2014), Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 150403. Sun, K., M. Kang, H. Nuomin, G. Schwartz, D. N. Beratan, K. R. Brown, and J. Kim (2025), Nat Commun16(1),

2017
[3365]

Maron, S

Meirom, E., H. Maron, S. Mannor, and G. Chechik (2022), inProceedings of the 39th International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, pp. 15278–15292. Menczel, P., K. Funo, M. Cirio, N. Lambert, and F. Nori (2024), Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033237. 55 Mendive-Tapia, D., T. Firmino, H.-D. ...

2022
[3518]

Wu, M.-H., C. U. Lei, W.-M. Zhang, and H.-N. Xiong (2010), Opt. Express18, 18407. Wu, Y., F. Jelezko, M. B. Plenio, and T. Weil (2016), Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.55,

2010
[3537]

Nalbach, E

Otterpohl, F., P. Nalbach, E. Paladino, G. A. Falci, and M. Thorwart (2025), Phys. Rev. Res.7, L042030. Oviedo-Casado, S., J. Prior, A. W. Chin, R. Rosenbach, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2015), Phys. Rev. A93, 020102(R). Paeckel, S., T. K¨ ohler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana,...

2025
[3592]

(2026), Commun

Gatti, F. (2026), Commun. Comput. Chem.8,

2026
[3650]

Ishizaki, A., and G. R. Fleming (2009), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA106, 17255. Ishizaki, A., and Y. Tanimura (2005a), J. Chem. Phys.123, 014503. Ishizaki, A., and Y. Tanimura (2005b), J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.74,

2009
[3721]

Bashirova, K

Lambertson, E., D. Bashirova, K. E. Hunter, B. Hansen, and T. J. Zuehlsdorff (2024), J. Chem. Phys.161, 114101. Larsson, H. R. (2019), J. Chem. Phys.151, 204102. Larsson, H. R. (2024), Mol. Phys.122, e2306881. Larsson, H. R., B. Le D´ e, and G. E. Gamboni (2026), J. Phys. Chem...

2024
[4042]

Shih, and Y.-C

Sun, S., L.-C. Shih, and Y.-C. Cheng (2024), Phys. Scr. 99(3), 035101. Suzuki, M. (1976), Commun. Math. Phys.51,

2024
[4080]

Cesa, and J

Dubertrand, R., A. Cesa, and J. Martin (2018), Phys. Rev. A97, 062126. Dumitrescu, E. F., A. L. Fisher, T. D. Goodrich, T. S. Hum- ble, B. D. Sullivan, and A. L. Wright (2018), PLoS One 13(12), e0207827. Dunnett, A. J., and A. W. Chin (2021a), Phys. Rev. B104, 214302. Dunnett,...

2018
[4412]

A., H.-D

Worth, G. A., H.-D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum (1998), J. Chem. Phys.109,

1998
[4491]

Garraway, B. M. (1997), Phys. Rev. A55,

1997
[4611]

Jaouadi, A

Mangaud, E., A. Jaouadi, A. Chin, and M. Desouter-Lecomte (2023), Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.232,

2023
[4623]

(2019),Tensor Network based simulation of Open Quantum Systems, Master’s thesis (Ulm University)

H¨ ob, F. (2019),Tensor Network based simulation of Open Quantum Systems, Master’s thesis (Ulm University). Ikeda, T., A. G. Dijkstra, and Y. Tanimura (2019), J. Chem. Phys.150, 114103. Ikeda, T., and G. D. Scholes (2020), J. Chem. Phys.152, 204101. Imamoglu, A. (1994), Phys. ...

2019
[4636]

M., and P

Garraway, B. M., and P. L. Knight (1996), Phys. Rev. A54,

1996
[4809]

Styliaris, S

Kashyap, V., G. Styliaris, S. Mouradian, J. I. Cirac, and R. Trivedi (2025), Phys. Rev. X15, 021017. Kato, A., and Y. Tanimura (2016), J. Chem. Phys.145, 224105. Ke, Y. (2023), J. Chem. Phys.158, 211102. Ke, Y., R. Borrelli, and M. Thoss (2022), J. Chem. Phys.156, 194102. Keel...

2025
[5390]

Dudgeon, A

Salamon, M., O. Dudgeon, A. Nazir, and J. Iles-Smith (2026), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 080401. Schindler, F., and A. S. Jermyn (2020), Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.1, 035001. Schlimgen, A. W., K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti (2022), Phys. Rev. Res.4, 0232...

2026
[5397]

Borrelli, R., and F. M. Gelin (2020), New J. Phys.22, 123002. Borrelli, R., M. Thoss, H. Wang, and W. Domcke (2012), Mol. Phys.110,

2020
[6301]

White, S. R. (1992), Phys. Rev. Lett.69,

1992
[6383]

Larsson, H. R., M. Schr¨ oder, R. Beckmann, F. Brieuc, C. Schran, D. Marx, and O. Vendrell (2022), Chem. Sci. 13, 11119. Larsson, H. R., and D. J. Tannor (2017), J. Chem. Phys.147, 044103. Laude, G., D. Calderini, R. Welsch, and J. O. Richardson (2020), Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys....

2022
[6586]

Zheng, and Z

Xie, Y., J. Zheng, and Z. Lan (2015), J. Chem. Phys.142, 084706. Xu, M., V. Vadimov, J. T. Stockburger, and J. Ankerhold (2026), Rev. Mod. Phys.98, 021002. Xu, M., Y. Yan, Q. Shi, J. Ankerhold, and J. T. Stockburger (2022), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 230601. Xu, X., C. Guo, and R. C...

2015
[6594]

Heidelberg MCTDH package,

de Wit, R., J. Keeling, B. W. Lovett, and A. W. Chin (2025b), Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013209. Woods, M. P., M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio (2015), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 130401. Woods, M. P., R. Groux, A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2014), J. Math. Phys.55, 032101. Woods, M....

2025
[6670]

Hansen, C

Goerigk, L., A. Hansen, C. Bauer, S. Ehrlich, A. Najibi, and S. Grimme (2017), Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.19(48), 32184. Golub, G., and W. Kahan (1965), SIAM J. Numer. Anal.2,

2017
[7052]

Borrelli (2025), J

Takahashi, H., and R. Borrelli (2025), J. Chem. Phys.163, 194105. Takahashi, H., S. Rudge, C. Kaspar, M. Thoss, and R. Borrelli (2024), J. Chem. Phys.160, 204105. Takahashi, Y., and H. Umezawa (1996), Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 10,

2025
[7431]

Thoss (2017), J

Wang, H., and M. Thoss (2017), J. Chem. Phys.146, 124112. Wang, H., and M. Thoss (2018), Chem. Phys.509,

2017
[7951]

Shao (2012), J

Wang, H., and J. Shao (2012), J. Chem. Phys.137, 22A504. Wang, H., and J. Shao (2019), J. Phys. Chem. A123,

2012
[8087]

Welack, J

Jin, J., S. Welack, J. Luo, X.-Q. Li, P. Cui, R.-X. Xu, and Y. Yan (2007), J. Chem. Phys.126, 134113. Jin, J., X. Zheng, and Y. Yan (2008), J. Chem. Phys.128, 234703. John, S., and T. Quang (1994), Phys. Rev. A50,

2007
[8485]

Machnes, E

Tannor, D., S. Machnes, E. Ass´ emat, and H. R. Larsson (2018), inAdv. Chem. Phys.(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd) 57 pp. 273–323. Taranto, P., S. Milz, M. Murao, M. T. Quintino, and K. Modi (2025), arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2503.09693. Thoenniss, J., M. Sonner, A. Lerose, and D. ...

2018 doi arXiv
[8749]

Huppert, R

Le D´ e, B., S. Huppert, R. Spezia, and A. W. Chin (2025), J. Phys. Chem. Lett.16,

2025
[8767]

Dowling, N., K. Modi, R. N. Mu˜ noz, S. Singh, and G. A. L. White (2024), Phys. Rev. X14, 041018. Duan, C., C.-Y. Hsieh, J. Liu, J. Wu, and J. Cao (2020), J. Phys. Chem. Lett.11,

2024
[9794]

Gatti, D

Mainali, S., F. Gatti, D. Iouchtchenko, P.-N. Roy, and H.-D. Meyer (2021), J. Chem. Phys.154, 174106. Makarov, D. E., and N. Makri (1994), Chem. Phys. Lett.221,

2021
[9997]

Garc ´ia-Gait´ an, D

Reyes-Osorio, F., F. Garc ´ia-Gait´ an, D. J. Strachan, P. Plech´ aˇ c, S. R. Clark, and B. K. Nikoli´ c (2026), Rep. Prog. Phys.89, 018002. Richter, M., and S. Hughes (2022), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 167403. Riva, A., D. Tamascelli, A. J. Dunnett, and A. W. Chin (2023), Phys. Rev...

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Tensor Toolbox for MATLAB v3.8,

Albrecht, K. F., H. Wang, L. M¨ uhlbacher, M. Thoss, and A. Komnik (2012), Phys. Rev. B86, 081412. Alkabetz, R., and I. Arad (2021), Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023073. Alvertis, A. M., F. A. Y. N. Schr¨ oder, and A. W. Chin (2019), J. Chem. Phys.151, 084104. Anders, F. B., R. Bulla, and M. Vojta (2007), Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 210402. Anderson, E., Z. Bai, C. Bischof,...

2012

[2] [4]

Weber, J

F¨ orstner, J., C. Weber, J. Danckwerts, and A. Knorr (2003), Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 127401. Fowler-Wright, P., B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling (2022), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 173001. Frenkel, Y. (1934),Wave mechanics, advanced general theory, Vol. 1 (Oxford). Fruchtman, A., N. Lambert, and E. M. Gauger (2016), Sci. Rep.6, 28204. Fux, G. E., E. P. Butler, P. R. Ea...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.04970 2003

[3] [5]

Jizba, and G

Blasone, M., P. Jizba, and G. Vitiello (2011), inQuantum Field Theory and Its Macroscopic Manifestations(Imperial College Press) pp. 185–234. Bombelli, L., R. K. Koul, J. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin (1986), Phys. Rev. D34,

2011

[4] [13]

Thoss, and W

Wang, H., M. Thoss, and W. H. Miller (2001), J. Chem. Phys. 115,

work page 2001

[5] [15]

Cirac, J. I., D. P´ erez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete (2021), Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003. Cirio, M., P.-C. Kuo, Y.-N. Chen, F. Nori, and N. Lambert (2022), Phys. Rev. B105, 035121. Cirio, M., N. Lambert, P. Liang, P.-C. Kuo, Y.-N. Chen, P. Menczel, K. Funo, and F. Nori (2023), Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033011. 52 Cochin, E., J. Keeling, B. W. Lovett, and ...

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.06840 2021

[6] [17]

Ma, Y.-C

Chen, Y.-Q., K.-L. Ma, Y.-C. Zheng, J. Allcock, S. Zhang, and C.-Y. Hsieh (2020), Phys. Rev. Applied13, 034045. Chen, Z.-H., Y. Wang, X. Zheng, R.-X. Xu, and Y. Yan (2022), J. Chem. Phys.156, 221102. Chin, A. W., A. Datta, F. Caruso, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio (2010a), New J. Phys.12, 065002. Chin, A. W., J. Prior, R. Rosenbach, F. Caycedo-Soler, S. F...

2020

[7] [18]

Cygorek, M., and M. E. Gauger (2024), J. Chem. Phys.161, 074111. Cygorek, M., J. Keeling, B. W. Lovett, and E. M. Gauger (2024a), Phys. Rev. X14, 011010. Cygorek, M., B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and E. M. Gauger (2024b), Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043203. Dan, X., E. Geva, and V. S. Batista (2025), J. Chem. Theory Comput.21,

2024

[8] [21]

Smirne, S

Gherardini, S., A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and F. Caruso (2022), Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 025005. Giri, K., E. Chapman, C. S. Sanz, and G. Worth (2011), J. Chem. Phys.135, 044311. Giudice, G., G. Giudici, M. Sonner, J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, D. A. Abanin, and L. Piroli (2022), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 220401. Goerigk, L., and S. Grimme (2011), Phys. Chem. Chem. P...

2022