Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Analytical solution of the open dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model and perturbative analytical solution of the open quantum Rabi model

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The open quantum Rabi model has a unique qubit steady state that is not thermal even at zero coupling, while the Jaynes-Cummings model's steady state is thermal.

desk verdict A genuinely useful exact solution for the dispersive JC model, plus a Rabi steady-state formula whose physical significance depends on how much you trust the local Lindblad equation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18310 v2 pith:CQ4P64PN submitted 2024-11-27 quant-ph

Antti Vaaranta , Marco Cattaneo , Paolo Muratore-Ginanneschi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords openquantumRabimodeldispersiveJaynes-CummingslocalLindbladmasterequationBargmannspaceholomorphicformalismmultiscaleperturbationtheorysteadystatequbit-bosoncoupling
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 derives exact and approximate analytical solutions for two foundational open light-matter models: a qubit coupled to a single bosonic mode that is damped by a thermal bath. In the dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model, the authors obtain the most general propagator for any separable initial state, assuming only that the qubit-boson system starts factorized. For the quantum Rabi model, they construct a second-order perturbative solution in the qubit-boson coupling $g$, regularized by multiscale perturbation theory to eliminate secular terms. The central result is that the two models, usually regarded as equivalent for small $g$, have genuinely different steady states: the Rabi qubit's polarization at zeroth order depends on both qubit and boson frequencies, while the Jaynes-Cummings qubit relaxes to the thermal Gibbs value. This difference is non-perturbative in $g$, since it survives in the limit $g\to 0$.

What carries the argument

The mathematical engine is the holomorphic (Bargmann) representation of bosonic states, in which creation and annihilation operators become multiplication by $z$ and differentiation with respect to $z$. The master equation becomes a set of complex partial differential equations for $2\times 2$ propagator kernels. For the dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model these PDEs are uncoupled and are solved exactly by a Gaussian ansatz, yielding closed-form kernels (Eqs. (30)-(35)). For the Rabi model the PDEs couple, and the solution is built as a perturbation series in $g$; the secular (time-divergent) terms at second order are removed by promoting the qubit's initial populations to slow functions of $\tau = g^2 t$, a multiscale perturbation technique. The steady state is then obtained by solving the static second-order equations, which yields a consistency condition that fixes the zeroth-order populations of the qubit.

What would settle it

Compute the long-time $\langle\sigma_z\rangle$ for the same Hamiltonian and bath using a global master equation (dressed jump operators, or a Redfield or mean-force Gibbs treatment) in the limit $g\to 0$ with fixed $\omega$, $\Omega$, $\gamma$, and $T$; if the result approaches the Jaynes-Cummings thermal value $-1/(1+2\bar n)$ instead of $-8\omega\Omega/[(1+2\bar n)(\gamma^2+4(\omega^2+\Omega^2))]$, the claimed non-perturbative difference collapses. Equivalently, a circuit-QED experiment measuring qubit polarization after a long thermalization should see a deviation from thermal equilibrium that depends on $\Omega$ if the paper's claim is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the steady state of the local Lindblad master equation for the open quantum Rabi model is unique and non-thermal already at zeroth order in the qubit-boson coupling. Specifically, Eq. (57) gives $\lim_{t\to\infty}\langle\sigma_z\rangle^{(\text{Rabi})} = -8\omega\Omega/[(1+2\bar n)(\gamma^2+4(\omega^2+\Omega^2))] + O(g^2)$, whereas the non-dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model yields the thermal value $-1/(1+2\bar n)$ of Eq. (58). Because both expressions are evaluated at $g=0$, the difference between the two models is independent of $g$ and therefore cannot be removed by making the coupling arbitrarily small. The paper argues that this sharp contrast arises because the Rabi Hamiltonian does not commute with $\sigma_z$, so the bath-mediated dissipation acts on the qubit even though the bath couples only to the bosonic mode. The result is stated within the local Lindblad approximation, whose validity is the subject of an open debate that the paper itself acknowledges.

Load-bearing premise

All results rest on treating the open dynamics with a local Lindblad master equation whose jump operators are the bare bosonic operators $a$ and $a^\dagger$; if a global master equation with dressed jump operators is the more faithful description for weak qubit-boson coupling, the predicted Rabi steady state of Eq. (57) could be an artifact rather than a physical property.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The open quantum Rabi model, even at infinitesimal coupling, has a qubit steady state that is diagonal but not Gibbs, with populations set by $\omega$, $\Omega$, $\gamma$, and the bath temperature.
  • The Jaynes-Cummings and Rabi models cannot both be used interchangeably at late times, even in the rotating-wave regime where their early-time dynamics agree.
  • The exact dispersive Jaynes-Cummings propagator provides a closed form for qubit coherence decay, giving an analytic expression for the dephasing rate $\Gamma_2$ and a benchmark for truncated numerical simulations.
  • The second-order multiscale solution supplies a finite-time expression for $\langle\sigma_z\rangle$ that remains accurate at intermediate and long times, not only asymptotically.
  • Since the difference is independent of $g$, any experiment probing the steady state at weak coupling can distinguish the two models without entering the ultra-strong coupling regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the local master equation's steady state is later shown to be an artifact of the local approximation in certain parameter regimes, the same Bargmann-kernel machinery can be rerun with global, dressed jump operators; the sharpest testable signature would be whether the $\Omega$-dependence of the qubit polarization survives in a Redfield or dressed-operator treatment.
  • The difference may have practical consequences for dispersive qubit readout in circuit QED, where the frequency-dependent steady-state shift could serve as a calibration signal or as a probe of which master-equation description is physically realized.
  • The same holomorphic-kernel method could be extended to multiple qubits or to additional qubit dissipation channels; one would expect the non-thermal correction to appear whenever $[H,\sigma_z]\neq 0$, that is, whenever counter-rotating or transverse terms open a bath-mediated decay path for the qubit.
  • An experiment with a tunable resonator frequency $\Omega$ at fixed qubit frequency $\omega$ could map the predicted curve of steady-state $\langle\sigma_z\rangle$ versus $\Omega$ and distinguish the Rabi prediction from the flat Jaynes-Cummings prediction even when $g$ is too small to detect dynamically.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript solves two open qubit-boson models within the local Lindblad master equation (10). For the dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model it obtains exact Bargmann-space propagation kernels, Eqs. (30)-(35), and derives qubit and boson dynamics for thermal and coherent initial states, recovering earlier zero-temperature and known-limit results. For the quantum Rabi model it develops perturbation theory in the qubit-boson coupling g up to second order, using multiscale perturbation theory to remove secular terms, and extracts a zeroth-order steady-state formula for the qubit, Eq. (57), that differs from the Jaynes-Cummings thermal value, Eq. (58). The analytical results are benchmarked against numerical solutions of the same local Lindblad equation in Figs. 2-6.

Significance. The exact dispersive-JC propagator is a useful technical advance: it removes earlier restrictions to coherent or thermal boson initial states and provides an analytical benchmark for truncation in numerical simulations. The Rabi steady-state formula Eq. (57) is an explicit, falsifiable prediction within the local-Lindblad model, and the numerical agreement in Figs. 4-6 supports the internal consistency of the perturbative calculation. The strengths of the paper are the detailed appendix derivations, the recovery of known limits (Refs. [21,24]), the absence of fitted parameters in the steady-state selection, and the clear statement of the assumptions (separable initial state; thermal boson state at second order). The main unresolved question is scope: the central late-time claim is a property of the local master equation with bare jump operators, and the manuscript itself flags the local/global master-equation debate in Sec. II B 1.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV B 2, after Eq. (55)] The O(1) non-thermal Rabi steady state, Eq. (57), is derived from the local Lindblad equation (10) with bare jump operators a and a†. The manuscript explicitly concedes in Sec. II B 1 that the steady state of local master equations is debated and that a global master equation with dressed jump operators can give different predictions. The numerical checks in Figs. 5 and 6 integrate the same local equation, so they do not test whether Eq. (57) survives a microscopically derived global/Redfield treatment, where the dissipator resolves bath correlations at frequencies Ω and Ω±ω instead of a single decay channel. Since the stated highlight of the paper (a non-perturbative difference between the late-time predictions of the Jaynes-Cummings and Rabi models) is load-bearing on this choice, I ask the authors either to compare Eq. (57) with the steady state of a global master equation for H_Rabi at leading order in g, or to reframe Eqs. (57)-(59) and the corresponding conclusions as statements about the local Lindblad dynamics only, removing the implication that they are generic late-time predictions of the open Rabi model.
  2. [Section IV B 2, after Eq. (55)] The manuscript states that 'we cannot rule out the presence of other terms of order g^2 that might arise from solvability conditions involved in higher orders of the multiscale perturbation theory.' This means the second-order dynamical solution is not proven to be complete at O(g^2). The numerical agreement in Fig. 4 supports the result but does not by itself close the analytic gap. Please either supply the missing solvability analysis or a bound on the omitted terms, or explicitly characterize Eq. (55) as a partial second-order result whose completeness is verified numerically rather than analytically.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV B 2, heading] The heading 'Pertubative solution' contains a typo; it should read 'Perturbative solution'.
  2. [Before Eq. (59)] The sentence 'This will yield' is ambiguous because Eq. (59) contains both the zeroth-order term and a g^2 correction, and the preceding text contains the typo 'inifinite' for 'infinite'; please rephrase.
  3. [Eq. (35)] The display of the 4x4 matrix H^(B)(t) is difficult to parse as typeset; standard aligned matrix formatting or explicit row/column labels would make the entries easier to check.
  4. [Sec. IV B 3, after Eq. (58)] The phrase 'non-perturbative difference' is potentially confusing, since Eq. (57) is the O(1) term of a perturbative expansion and receives O(g^2) corrections in Eq. (59); consider wording such as 'a difference that does not vanish as g → 0' instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the steady-state result follows from a solvability condition on the perturbative equations, not from a fitted parameter or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivations are self-contained. The open dispersive Jaynes-Cummings solution is obtained by inserting a Gaussian ansatz into the Bargmann-space PDEs (25a)-(25d) and solving the resulting ODEs for the coefficients; the only inputs are the Lindblad master equation (10), the Hamiltonian (7), and the initial condition (24). The Rabi steady-state formula (57) is not fitted: it emerges from the static second-order equations as a consistency/solvability condition on the initially free zeroth-order qubit populations in (56), and the same value is independently recovered by taking t→∞ in the multiscale dynamical solution (55)/(59). No step in the chain defines a target quantity in terms of itself. The numerical comparisons in Figs. 2-6 validate the analytic expressions against independent QuTiP integration of the same local master equation, not against data used to set parameters. The only self-citations (Refs. [15] and [19]) are used respectively as a benchmark-parameter source/numerical comparison and as a standard reference for the local master equation approximation; neither carries the derivation. The paper explicitly flags the local-vs-global master equation debate in Sec. II B 1, which is a modeling caveat about the physical interpretation of Eq. (57), not a circular step in the mathematical derivation. The uniqueness assertion for the Rabi stationary state is stated rather than proved, but it is not used as a self-referential substitute for the derivation. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; ω, Ω, γ and n̄ are physical inputs from the model and bath. The central claims rest on the domain assumptions of the local Lindblad equation and the perturbative expansion in g. No new particles, forces or entities are introduced.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The local Lindblad master equation (10) with bare jump operators a and a† accurately describes the open system dynamics.
    Used throughout Sections II B-IV. It is an approximation valid for weak qubit-boson coupling; all results in the paper solve this equation, not a global master equation with dressed jump operators.
  • domain assumption The bath is Markovian and thermal, with mean photon number n̄ = (1/2)(coth(βΩ/2)-1).
    Equation (11). Standard Born-Markov assumptions; the paper does not derive the master equation from a microscopic Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The initial state of the qubit-boson system is separable.
    Stated in Section I and used in Eq. (21). The 'most general solution' claim is for separable initial states; extension to general separable states follows by linearity of the Lindblad evolution.
  • domain assumption The dispersive Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian H_disp in Eq. (7) is accurate to O(λ²) with λ = g/Δ.
    Section II A 1. The exact solution for the open dispersive JC model is a solution for this approximate Hamiltonian, not the full JC Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption For the Rabi model, g is the smallest perturbative parameter and g/|Δ| ≲ 1.
    Eq. (45). This is the stated validity condition for the second-order perturbative solution and the steady-state formula. The paper nevertheless claims Eq. (57) holds at resonance where this condition is singular.
  • standard math The Gaussian ansatz (29) and the complex Gaussian integration identities in Bargmann space are valid for the propagation kernels.
    Section IV A and Appendices A-C. Standard coherent-state techniques; checked by re-inserting the solution into the PDEs.
  • standard math Multiscale perturbation theory, in which the initial qubit data qi j are promoted to slow-time functions Qi j(τ), correctly removes the secular terms at second order.
    Section IV B 2 and Appendix C. This is a standard singular perturbation method, but the paper notes that O(g²) terms from higher-order solvability conditions cannot be ruled out.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical solution of the open dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model and perturbative analytical solution of the open quantum Rabi model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQ4P64PN

@misc{pith2026241118310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical solution of the open dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model and perturbative analytical solution of the open quantum Rabi model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQ4P64PN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18310}
}
abstract

The Jaynes-Cummings and quantum Rabi models are fundamental to cavity and circuit quantum electrodynamics, as they describe the simplest form of light-matter interaction, where a single qubit is coupled to a single bosonic mode. A scenario that is commonly encountered in the experimental practice arises when the bosonic mode interacts with an external dissipative thermal bath, making the qubit-boson system open. In this work, we present new analytical solution of the Lindblad master equations for the open dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model and a perturbative analytical solution of the open quantum Rabi model in the limit of weak qubit-boson coupling $g$, using the holomorphic formalism in Bargmann space. Specifically, we derive the most general solution of the local Lindblad master equation for the open dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model coupled to a thermal bath, with the only assumptions that the initial state of the qubit-boson system is separable. Additionally, we obtain a perturbative analytical solution for the open quantum Rabi model up to second order in $g$. Notably, our findings include a new formula for the qubit's steady state at zeroth order, showing that the stationary populations depend on both qubit and boson frequencies in the quantum Rabi model, but not in the Jaynes-Cummings model, regardless of the value of $g$. Our results are of general interest to the study of open quantum systems in the context of light-matter interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18310 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Examples of some objects in the Fock space and their corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of the coherence measure for the qubit and of the average number of quanta in the bosonic mode as a function of normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerical results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Numerical results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Thermal rectification in a qubit-resonator system

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For a quantum Rabi model junction, as qubit-resonator coupling increases into the ultrastrong regime, the sign of heat rectification flips and the sub- or super-linear dependence on temperature bias also changes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The dispersive regime is widely employed in both cavity and circuit QED for the sake of qubit readout, qubit control, and many other tasks [10, 11]

    Dispersive regime of the Jaynes-Cummings model If the detuning ∆ is much larger than the qubit-boson inter- action g, then we are in the dispersive regime of the Jaynes- Cummings model. The dispersive regime is widely employed in both cavity and circuit QED for the sake of qubit readout, qubit control, and many other tasks [10, 11]. We introduce the pertu...

    work page

  2. [2]

    selected

    Steady state of the master equation In the case of the dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model, the local master equation Eq. (10) has a 2-dimensional family of steady states due to the conserved quantity σz, which can be written as: ρ (disp) ss = (p |g⟩⟨g| + (1 − p) |e⟩⟨e|) ⊗ exp(−β Ωa†a), (12) for p ∈ [0,1]. The boson is driven towards its Gibbs state, while t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Transformation of the ladder operators The holomorphic formalism is most useful when dealing with harmonic oscillators, which naturally give rise to creation and annihilation operators. By the direct use of the Fock-to- Bargmann transformation for operators (14), it can be shown that the ladder operators transform as follows: a → FB (a;z,z∗) =z∗ezz∗ , (18...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Using Eq

    Dynamics with thermal initial condition We have now solved for the propagation kernels A(t;z,z∗|w,v) to D(t;z,z∗|w,v). Using Eq. (21) we are able to compute the exact dynamics, once we specify the initial state FB(ρf(0);z,z∗) of the boson. Let us first take the boson to be in the thermal state, which in the holomorphic formalism is written as FB(ρTh;z,z∗)...

    work page

  5. [5]

    In the Bargmann space the coherent state can be written as FB (ρα;z,z∗) =e−|α|2+zα+z∗α ∗

    Dynamics with coherent initial condition Let us now assume that the boson is initially in a coherent state. In the Bargmann space the coherent state can be written as FB (ρα;z,z∗) =e−|α|2+zα+z∗α ∗ . (42) Next, using Eq. (21), with the propagation kernels given as the Gaussians like in Eq. (29), we find the time evolved density operator in Bargmann space a...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Perturbative solution: first order The details of the calculation for the first order correction A(1)(t;z,z∗|w,v) to the unperturbed propagator are given in Appendix B. Here we just refer to the final result, which can be written as a linear polynomial in the complex variables with some time dependent coefficients X (A) i as A(1) = iG h q12 X (A) 1 z∗ + X...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The direct application of regular pertur- bation theory, i.e

    Pertubative solution: second order with multiscaling To find the small- g contribution to the dynamics of a broader class of observables, including the expectation values of local Pauli operators of the qubit, we apply second order perturbation theory. The direct application of regular pertur- bation theory, i.e. computing the correction A(2)(t;z,z∗|w,v) ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    De Bernardis, A

    D. De Bernardis, A. Mercurio, and S. De Liberato, Tutorial on nonperturbative cavity quantum electrodynamics: is the Jaynes–Cummings model still relevant?, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B41, C206 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    (27a) to (27d)

    Zeroth-order perturbative solution for the steady state We can obtain a perturbative solution for the steady state of the local master equation for the quantum Rabi model by setting the time derivative to zero in Eqs. (27a) to (27d). As explained in Sec. II B 1, if g = 0 there...

  2. [10]

    The solution to this eigenvalue problem is given in the Fock space as [55] |z⟩ = e− |z|2 2 ∞ ∑ n=0 zn √ n! |n⟩ , (A1) where |n⟩ is the basis of excitation number in the Fock space

    Holomorphic representation of states and operators The quantum optical coherent states |z⟩ are constructed as eigenstates of the annihilation operator through a |z⟩ = z |z⟩ with z ∈ C. The solution to this eigenvalue problem is given in the Fock space as [55] |z⟩ = e− |z|2 2 ∞...

  3. [11]

    [56] or chapter 4 of [57])

    Holomorphic representation of linear maps on operators It is well known that a linear map on a matrix space can always be represented as matrix on the vector space defined by reshaping the matrix space (see e.g. [56] or chapter 4 of [57]). By reshaping we mean using the one-to...

  4. [12]

    Details on computing the dynamics with thermal initial state Having now computed the linear corrections to the propa- gators, we can apply them to compute, as an example, the time evolution of a system where the boson starts out in a thermal state. We can write the Bargmann sp...

  5. [13]

    fast” one t and a “slow

    Multiscale perturbation theoretic treatment In multiscale perturbation theory we assume that there ex- ist two separate timescales; a “fast” one t and a “slow” one τ = g2t, which becomes significant only at large timest ∝ g−2. The time scales are assumed to be separate variabl...

  6. [14]

    Recall that these solutions are valid when g ⪅ ∆

    Form of the coefficients x(a,b) i j and Qi j(T ) For all expressions below we have again that ψ± = γ + 2i(ω ± Ω). Recall that these solutions are valid when g ⪅ ∆. x(0,0) 11 (t) = " 8e− 1 2 ψ+t γ [( ¯n + 1)q22 − ¯nq11] ψ+|ψ+|2 − 4e− 1 2 ψ−t (2 ¯nγ + ψ ∗ −) [(¯n + 1)q11 − ¯nq22...

  7. [15]

    I. I. Rabi, On the process of space quantization, Phys. Rev. 49, 324 (1936)

    1936

  8. [16]

    I. I. Rabi, Space quantization in a gyrating magnetic field, Phys. Rev. 51, 652 (1937)

    1937

  9. [17]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semi- classical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  10. [18]

    Braak, Integrability of the Rabi model, Phys

    D. Braak, Integrability of the Rabi model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 100401 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Larson and T

    J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos, The Jaynes–Cummings Model and Its Descendants, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Braak, Q.-H

    D. Braak, Q.-H. Chen, M. T. Batchelor, and E. Solano, Semi- classical and quantum rabi models: in celebration of 80 years, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 300301 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Larson, T

    J. Larson, T. Mavrogordatos, S. Parkins, and A. Vidiella- Barranco, The Jaynes–Cummings model: 60 years and still counting, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 41, JCM1 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Obada, H

    A.-S. Obada, H. Hessian, and A.-B. Mohamed, The effects of thermal photons on entanglement dynamics for a dispersive jaynes–cummings model, Phys. Lett. A 372, 3699 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    Walther, B

    H. Walther, B. T. H. Varcoe, B.-G. Englert, and T. Becker, Cavity quantum electrodynamics, Rep. Prog. Phys. 69, 1325 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Haroche and J.-M

    S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond, Exploring the Quantum. Atoms, Cavities, and Photons(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for supercon- ducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum com- putation, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R. Huang, J. Ma- jer, S. Kumar, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quan- tum electrodynamics, Nature 431, 162 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Qubit-photon interactions in a cavity: Measurement-induced dephasing and number splitting, Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 74 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Vaaranta, M

    A. Vaaranta, M. Cattaneo, and R. E. Lake, Dynamics of a dis- persively coupled transmon qubit in the presence of a noise source embedded in the control line, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042605 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    D. S. Lvov, S. A. Lemziakov, E. Ankerhold, J. T. Peltonen, and J. P. Pekola, Thermometry based on a superconducting qubit (2024), arXiv:2409.02784 [quant-ph]. 20

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Breuer and F

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

    2002

  24. [32]

    Trushechkin and I

    A. Trushechkin and I. V . V olovich, Perturbative treatment of inter-site couplings in the local description of open quantum networks, Europhys. Lett. 113, 30005 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Cattaneo, G

    M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zambrini, Local versus global master equation with common and sepa- rate baths: Superiority of the global approach in partial secular approximation, New J. Phys. 21 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Forn-Díaz, L

    P. Forn-Díaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultra- strong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    J. G. Peixoto de Faria and M. C. Nemes, Dissipative dynamics of the Jaynes-Cummings model in the dispersive approxima- tion: Analytical results, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3918 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    Kevorkian and J

    J. Kevorkian and J. Cole, Multiple Scale and Singular Perturba- tion Methods, Applied Mathematical Sciences Series (Springer, 1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    perturbative region of the ultra-strong coupling regime

    and chapter 7 of [38]. For simplicity, we do not compute the second order correc- tions at the level of propagators. Instead, we directly assume that the initial state of the boson is thermal. Thus we solve for the elements [FB (ρ(t);z,z∗)]i j ≡ fi j of the Bargmann space dens...

  30. [38]

    Walls and G

    D. Walls and G. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    A. A. Clerk and D. W. Utami, Using a qubit to measure photon- number statistics of a driven thermal oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 75, 042302 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equi- librium, Phys

    E. Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equi- librium, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  33. [41]

    W. B. Case, Wigner functions and weyl transforms for pedestri- ans, Am. J. Phys. 76, 937 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (Wiley, 2011)

    W. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (Wiley, 2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Hwang, P

    M.-J. Hwang, P. Rabl, and M. B. Plenio, Dissipative phase tran- sition in the open quantum rabi model, Phys. Rev. A97, 013825 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Zinn-Justin, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics , Oxford graduate texts in mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2005)

    J. Zinn-Justin, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics , Oxford graduate texts in mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Hall, Quantum Theory for Mathematicians , Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer New York, 2013)

    B. Hall, Quantum Theory for Mathematicians , Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer New York, 2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    V ourdas and R

    A. V ourdas and R. F. Bishop, Thermal coherent states in the Bargmann representation, Phys. Rev. A 50, 3331 (1994)

    1994

  39. [47]

    V ourdas, Analytic representations in quantum mechanics, J

    A. V ourdas, Analytic representations in quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A. Math. Gen. 39 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Hall, Holomorphic methods in analysis and mathematical physics, Contemp

    B. Hall, Holomorphic methods in analysis and mathematical physics, Contemp. Math. 260 (2000)

    2000

  41. [49]

    Bargmann, On a hilbert space of analytic functions and an associated integral transform part i, Commun

    V . Bargmann, On a hilbert space of analytic functions and an associated integral transform part i, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 14, 187 (1961)

    1961

  42. [50]

    Bargmann, On a hilbert space of analytic functions and an as- sociated integral transform

    V . Bargmann, On a hilbert space of analytic functions and an as- sociated integral transform. part ii. a family of related function spaces application to distribution theory, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 20, 1 (1967)

    1967

  43. [51]

    Verhulst, Methods and Applications of Singular Perturba- tions: Boundary Layers and Multiple Timescale Dynamics , Texts in Applied Mathematics (Springer New York, 2006)

    F. Verhulst, Methods and Applications of Singular Perturba- tions: Boundary Layers and Multiple Timescale Dynamics , Texts in Applied Mathematics (Springer New York, 2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering (CRC Press, 2018)

    S. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering (CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    S. He, C. Wang, Q.-H. Chen, X.-Z. Ren, T. Liu, and K.-L. Wang, First-order corrections to the rotating-wave approxima- tion in the jaynes-cummings model, Phys. Rev. A 86, 033837 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    Q. Xie, H. Zhong, M. T. Batchelor, and C. Lee, The quantum Rabi model: Solution and dynamics, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 50, 40 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Zueco, G

    D. Zueco, G. M. Reuther, S. Kohler, and P. Hänggi, Qubit- oscillator dynamics in the dispersive regime: Analytical the- ory beyond the rotating-wave approximation, Phys. Rev. A 80, 033846 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    Tuorila, M

    J. Tuorila, M. Partanen, T. Ala-nissila, and M. Möttönen, Ef- ficient protocol for qubit initialization with a tunable environ- ment, npj Quantum Inf 3, 27 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Cattaneo and G

    M. Cattaneo and G. S. Paraoanu, Engineering Dissipation with Resistive Elements in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics, Adv. Quantum Technol. 4 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    K. Y . Tan, M. Partanen, R. E. Lake, J. Govenius, S. Masuda, and M. Möttönen, Quantum-circuit refrigerator, Nat. Commun. 8, 15189 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Ronzani, B

    A. Ronzani, B. Karimi, J. Senior, Y . C. Chang, J. T. Peltonen, C. D. Chen, and J. P. Pekola, Tunable photonic heat transport in a quantum heat valve, Nat. Phys. 14, 991 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Senior, A

    J. Senior, A. Gubaydullin, B. Karimi, J. T. Peltonen, J. Anker- hold, and J. P. Pekola, Heat rectification via a superconducting artificial atom, Commun. Phys. 3, 40 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Gubaydullin, G

    A. Gubaydullin, G. Thomas, D. S. Golubev, D. Lvov, J. T. Pel- tonen, and J. P. Pekola, Photonic heat transport in three terminal superconducting circuit, Nat. Commun. 13 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    H. J. Carmichael and D. F. Walls, Master equation for strongly interacting systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Nucl. Gen. 6, 1552 (1973)

    1973

  55. [63]

    Cresser, Thermal Equilibrium in the Jaynes-Cummings Model, J

    J. Cresser, Thermal Equilibrium in the Jaynes-Cummings Model, J. Mod. Opt. 39, 2187 (1992)

    1992

  56. [64]

    Trushechkin, Unified Gorini-Kossakowski-Lindblad- Sudarshan quantum master equation beyond the secular approximation, Phys

    A. Trushechkin, Unified Gorini-Kossakowski-Lindblad- Sudarshan quantum master equation beyond the secular approximation, Phys. Rev. A 103, 62226 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    A. S. Trushechkin, M. Merkli, J. D. Cresser, and J. Anders, Open quantum system dynamics and the mean force Gibbs state, A VS Quantum Sci.4, 12301 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying co- herence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip 2: A python frame- work for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  61. [69]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  62. [70]

    J. A. Gyamfi, Fundamentals of quantum mechanics in Liouville space, Eur. J. Phys. 41 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Topics in Matrix Analysis(Cam- bridge University Press, New York, NY , 1991)

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.