Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

A perturbative master equation with a partial secular approximation reproduces the measured heat flow through a quantum heat valve while eliminating the resonator double-counting problem of earlier models.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:28 UTC pith:NZD3FVGL

load-bearing objection A clean application of ME PSA to the heat valve with a sound double-counting critique, but the 'improves upon' claim rests on a single visual fit with re-fitted parameters, so it's not yet fully established. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.19908 v1 pith:NZD3FVGL submitted 2026-02-23 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Heat flow through the quantum heat valve coupled to ohmic baths via a master equation approach

Antti Vaaranta , Marco Cattaneo , Paolo Muratore-Ginanneschi , Jukka Pekola This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantum heat valveheat transportmaster equationpartial secular approximationohmic bathsopen quantum systemscircuit quantum electrodynamicsnon-equilibrium steady state
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that a global master equation, with the partial secular approximation and ohmic rather than Lorentzian baths, quantitatively captures steady-state heat flow through a superconducting quantum heat valve, matching or improving on both the original Fermi-golden-rule fit and the numerically heavy hierarchical equations of motion. It argues that the previous model double-counted the resonator by putting it both in the system Hamiltonian and inside the bath spectral density; treating the baths as ohmic and the resonator solely as part of the open system removes this inconsistency. The authors show that the full secular approximation fails qualitatively, so the slowly rotating cross terms kept by the partial secular approximation are essential; steady-state coherences are doing real work. The upshot is that a lightweight, physically interpretable master equation can replace expensive numerics for such devices.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Redfield master equation in the partial secular approximation, applied to a resonator–transmon–resonator chain weakly coupled to two ohmic baths, describes the measured non-equilibrium steady-state heat flow through the quantum heat valve as a function of applied magnetic flux. With the resonator kept in the system and the baths ohmic with a Drude cutoff, the model fits the experimental curve—including curvature near half and integer flux—at least as well as the previous Lorentzian-bath model, and it does so without the resonator double-counting. A completely positive variant, the unified master equation, reproduces the same curve ten times faster. The paper fur

What carries the argument

The central object is the global (Redfield) master equation in partial secular approximation: the Born–Markov dynamics of Eq. (11) with jump operators built from eigenstates of the full system Hamiltonian, keeping cross terms with unequal Bohr frequencies whose difference is below a chosen cutoff (C_PSA = 100). The ohmic spectral density J(omega)=chi*omega/(1+omega^2/omega_c^2) with Drude cutoff omega_c/Omega_L = 50 replaces the Lorentzian-peaked density of earlier work. Heat flow is computed as P^(b) = Tr[H_S D_b[rho]], which reduces to the usual Fermi-golden-rule sum only under the full secular approximation. The partial secular approximation preserves the slowly rotating coherence terms;

Load-bearing premise

The fit's agreement with experiment rests on the assumption that the specific numerical choices—weak coupling alpha = 0.04, three-level resonator truncation, and the partial-secular cutoff—are accurate enough that the fitted circuit parameters reflect the real device rather than compensating for approximation errors.

What would settle it

Run the same ME PSA code with the resonator truncated to four or five levels and with alpha scanned around 0.04; if the predicted heat-flow curve shifts by more than the experimental residual (about 0.02 fW) or the best-fit parameters drift outside physically reasonable ranges, the central claim fails. Alternatively, measure the heat flow at flux values where the two models differ most (near half-integer flux) with sub-0.01 fW precision and see which curve survives.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the quantum heat valve can be modeled quantitatively with a master equation at weak coupling (alpha = 0.04) and three-level resonators, without invoking structured Lorentzian baths.
  • The previous model's double-counted resonator is removed; all parameters have direct microscopic meaning, so fits are interpretable rather than phenomenological.
  • The full secular approximation is quantitatively wrong for this device, so future master-equation treatments of similar superconducting heat-transport experiments must retain slowly rotating terms or use a positively clustered variant.
  • The unified master equation's numerical speed-up (about tenfold) makes steady-state heat-flow scans over flux inexpensive enough for parameter exploration and design.
  • The same modeling strategy applies to other resonator–qubit–resonator heat-transport setups where system-bath coupling is weak but resonator–qubit coupling is not negligible.
  • The paper's demonstration that a perturbative master equation can outperform a Fermi-golden-rule fit suggests that similar corrections may be needed in other quantum thermal devices where coherence effects were previously ignored.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct testable extension is to measure heat flow with finer flux resolution and compare to the ME PSA curve; the model's distinctive curvature near half-integer flux could discriminate it from the Fermi-golden-rule model.
  • The paper relies on a single fitted data set, leaving open whether the parameter set (g/Omega_L = 0.015, g12/Omega_L = 0.007) is unique; re-fitting with uncertainty quantification would check whether the apparent improvement is overfitting.
  • Because the partial secular approximation keeps coherences, one could probe the steady-state density matrix directly, for example via qubit spectroscopy, to test the predicted coherence magnitudes—something the population-only Fermi model cannot address.
  • The framework suggests a general rule for modeling heat transport through multi-component superconducting circuits: keep every oscillator moderately coupled to the qubit in the system, and keep baths featureless (ohmic) provided system-bath coupling is weak; the boundary of validity as alpha increases is left open.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes to describe steady-state heat flow through a resonator-qubit-resonator quantum heat valve by a global Redfield master equation in partial secular approximation (ME PSA), with ohmic baths and no double counting of the resonators. The authors contrast this with the previous Lorentzian-bath, full-secular model of Ref. [9] and with the numerically heavier HEOM approach of Ref. [10]. They present results for the ME PSA and for the unified master equation, comparing both with the experimental data of Ref. [9]. Appendix A gives a concise derivation of the equivalence between the heating-power formula of Ref. [9] and the full-secular global master equation.

Significance. If substantiated, the claim would be significant: a relatively lightweight perturbative master equation, with a carefully applied partial secular approximation, could reproduce experimental heat-valve data and remove the conceptual double-counting issue present in earlier treatments, while also clarifying the role of steady-state coherences. The manuscript has several strengths: the derivation in Appendix A is clean and explicit, the model is physically motivated with all parameters microscopic, and the code is made available [29]. However, the experimental validation currently rests on a single visual comparison with a re-fitted parameter set, so the central claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 2] The central claim that ME PSA 'improves upon' the model of Ref. [9] is not supported because the two curves do not use the same model parameters. In Fig. 2 the ME PSA curve changes g/Ω_L from 0.0171 to 0.015 and E_J0/Ω_L from 27.54 to 28.75, and also flips the sign of g_12/Ω_L from −0.0217 to +0.007. A sign change in a direct coupling can materially alter the spectrum and coherence structure. Without a controlled comparison at fixed parameters (e.g., ME PSA evaluated with the original Ref. [9] parameters), a parameter-sensitivity analysis, and experimental error bars on the data, the visual improvement cannot be attributed to the partial secular approximation or to the ohmic-bath choice rather than to the extra fitting freedom. Please provide such a comparison or explicitly quantify the uncertainty ranges that justify the parameter changes.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The statement that the full secular approximation 'fails to capture the heat flow through the system even qualitatively' is load-bearing for the conclusion that steady-state coherences play a crucial role, yet the supporting plots are omitted 'for brevity.' This is not a detail: if the full-secular master equation with the same ohmic baths and the same fit parameters also gives a reasonable curve, the main physical conclusion would collapse. Please include the full-secular curve at the same parameters as Fig. 2, or at least quantify its disagreement with the data.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 2 footnote 2] The numerical results depend on α=0.04, ω_c/Ω_L=50, C_PSA=100, and a three-level truncation of each resonator. The manuscript asserts that these choices are valid but provides no convergence checks. In particular, α=0.04 is not asymptotically small, and the three-level truncation may cut off relevant transitions in a heat-transport problem. Please show convergence in the resonator Hilbert-space dimension, the bath cutoff, and the secular cutoff C_PSA, and quantify any positivity violations of the Redfield equation in this parameter regime.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (9)] The text in Sec. 3.2 states that the baths are ohmic 'with spectral density of the form in Eq. (9),' but Eq. (9) is the Lorentzian spectral density used by Ref. [9], not the ohmic form introduced as Eq. (10) in Sec. 3.1. This cross-reference error must be corrected; it is not merely cosmetic because the paper's main contrast depends on the two spectral densities being distinct.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] Stating that the parameters are 'shared by both models' is misleading because g, g_12, and E_J0 are different. Please list the parameters explicitly for each model, or explicitly state which parameters are shared and which are changed.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The claim that the unified approach is 'computationally ten times faster' would benefit from a brief benchmark definition (system size, number of jump operators, wall-clock time). This is a minor presentation issue.
  3. [Abstract/Introduction] The phrase 'double counting of the resonator' is clear conceptually, but a short formal definition would help readers who are not familiar with the earlier model. This is not essential but would improve clarity.
  4. [Fig. 3] The residual panel for the unified ME shows deviations on a much smaller scale than Fig. 2; indicating the residual scale explicitly in the caption would help the reader compare the two models.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The experimental agreement is obtained after re-fitting parameters to the same experimental data, so the claimed 'capture' and 'improvement' are fit-quality statements rather than validated predictions.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, paragraph after Fig. 2]
    "In our model, we use the same circuit parameters obtained from the fit to the theoretical model of Ref. [9], while slightly tuning some of them to better reproduce the experimental curves."

    The ME PSA curve in Fig. 2 is tuned to the same experimental data used for comparison. The abstract and Section 3.2 then claim that the model 'successfully captures the experimental results and improves upon the previous theoretical model.' Because g, g12 and EJ0 are adjusted to 'better reproduce the experimental curves', the agreement is a fitting consistency check, not an out-of-sample prediction. Moreover, the comparison with Ref. [9] is uncontrolled: the two models are evaluated with different fitted parameter sets, so the apparent improvement cannot be attributed to the partial secular approximation or ohmic baths rather than to the extra freedom of the re-fit.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Conclusion and outlook]
    "The perturbative master equation approach with partial secular approximation is able to capture the relevant behaviour of the heat flow even more accurately than the original approach [9], while being conceptually consistent (keep in mind, however, that in both cases the precise circuit parameters arise from a fit of the theory to the experiment)."

    This explicit admission states that the circuit parameters arise from a fit of the theory to the experiment. Thus the 'accurate description' and 'even more accurately' claims are not derived predictions; the success of the model is, by the paper's own admission, partly an effect of fitting parameters to the target data. The partial-secular versus full-secular distinction is therefore not isolated as the cause of the improvement.

full rationale

The master-equation construction itself (Hamiltonian Eq. (1), ohmic spectral density Eq. (10), Redfield equation Eq. (11), heat-flow formula Eq. (7)) is self-contained and not definitionally equivalent to the experimental heat-flow data. No circularity is found in the derivation of Eqs. (7)-(8) or in the use of the partial secular approximation cutoff. The only load-bearing circular element is the validation step: the experimental curves are not an out-of-sample test, because g, g12 and EJ0 are re-fit to those same curves ('slightly tuning some of them to better reproduce the experimental curves'), and the paper explicitly concedes 'the precise circuit parameters arise from a fit of the theory to the experiment.' Consequently the headline claim that the model 'successfully captures the experimental results and improves upon the previous theoretical model' is, at least in part, a fitted-input claim. The score is 6 rather than 8-10 because the underlying Redfield/PSA calculation still has independent theoretical content and the fit parameters are stated to lie in physically reasonable ranges; however, the central experimental-validation claim is partly circular, so the improvement over Ref. [9] remains unestablished as a controlled prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Redfield master equation and the assumption that ohmic baths with a Drude cutoff describe the resistors; most quantitative parameters are fitted to the same experimental curve used for validation, so the paper contributes a physically motivated fitting model rather than an independent prediction.

free parameters (7)
  • qubit-resonator coupling g = 0.015 ΩL (vs 0.0171 ΩL in Ref. [9])
    Tuned by about 10% to improve the fit; not independently determined with sufficient precision.
  • resonator-resonator coupling g12 = 0.007 ΩL (sign opposite to -0.0217 ΩL in Ref. [9])
    Phenomenological stray coupling; sign and magnitude treated as model-dependent fit parameters.
  • transmon Josephson energy scale EJ0 = 28.75 ΩL (vs 27.54 ΩL in Ref. [9])
    Tuned to the data through the flux-dependent qubit frequency.
  • bath-system coupling αL = αR = 0.04
    Dimensionless coupling strength; not independently measured, chosen/fitted.
  • ohmic bath cutoff ωc = 50 ΩL
    Hand-selected Drude cutoff; no sensitivity analysis shown.
  • partial secular cutoff CPSA = 100
    Hand-selected confidence threshold for neglecting fast-rotating terms.
  • resonator Hilbert-space truncation = 3 levels per resonator
    Numerical truncation; no convergence check is reported.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The circuit Hamiltonian Eq. (1), including the rotating-wave approximation and the phenomenological g12 coupling, faithfully represents the experimental device.
    Section 2.1; if the Hamiltonian misses relevant couplings or drives, the model cannot describe the experiment.
  • domain assumption The normal-metal resistors are accurately modeled as ohmic baths with a Drude cutoff, Eq. (10).
    Section 3.1; the central departure from Lorentzian-bath models depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Born-Markov and Redfield approximations are valid for α=0.04, and positivity violations are negligible.
    Section 3.1 and footnote 2; the perturbative expansion is the basis of the method.
  • domain assumption The partial secular approximation with CPSA=100 removes only fast-rotating terms and retains all terms relevant for steady-state heat flow.
    Section 3.1 footnote 2; the argument that coherences matter rests on the retained slowly rotating terms.
  • domain assumption The experimental data of Ref. [9] and the previously fitted shared parameters (ΩL, EC, d, temperatures) are accurate.
    Section 3.2; the fit inherits these values and the validation curve.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11272 in / 13347 out tokens · 120167 ms · 2026-08-02T21:28:19.274751+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We provide a theoretical model for the non-equilibrium steady state heat flow through a quantum heat valve. The model is based on a master equation approach, where the partial secular approximation has been carefully performed in order to obtain accurate results. Our study assumes an ohmic spectral density for the two thermal baths of the model. This is in contrast with previous treatments of the quantum heat valve, where the baths have been assumed as being structured with a peaked spectral density near the resonance frequency of the resonator. These studies have also taken the resonator to be a part of the open quantum system of interest, which results in double counting of the resonator, as the latter appears both in the spectral density of the bath and as a part of the open system. Although this model accounts for the observations in a satisfactory way, it raises issues regarding its physical interpretation. Our method solves this conceptual problem. We apply it to describe an experiment on a quantum heat valve, showing that it successfully captures the experimental results and improves upon the previous theoretical model, which suffered from the resonator double-counting issue. Our findings confirm that the careful application of the master equation approach, in particular when it comes to the secular approximation, is a useful tool for explaining realistic experimental setups.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2406

    Potts, P.P.: Quantum Thermodynamics (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2406. 19206

    2024

  2. [2]

    Entropy15(6), 2100–2128 (2013) https://doi.org/10.3390/e15062100

    Kosloff, R.: Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint. Entropy15(6), 2100–2128 (2013) https://doi.org/10.3390/e15062100

    doi:10.3390/e15062100 2013

  3. [3]

    Vinjanampathy, S., Anders, J.: Quantum thermodynamics. Contemp. Phys.57(4), 545–579 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2016.1201896 arXiv:1508.06099

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Cangemi, L.M., Bhadra, C., Levy, A.: Quantum engines and refrigerators. Phys. Rep.1087, 1–71 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.07.001 . Quantum engines and refrigerators

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.07.001 2024

  5. [5]

    Bhattacharjee, S., Dutta, A.: Quantum thermal machines and batteries. Eur. Phys. J. B94(12), 239 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00235-3

    doi:10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00235-3 2021

  6. [6]

    Pekola, J.P., Karimi, B.: Colloquium: Quantum heat transport in con- densed matter systems. Rev. Mod. Phys.93(4) (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/ RevModPhys.93.041001 arXiv:2107.12936

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Quantum Science and Technology10(2), 025018 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/adaee0

    Santiago-Garc´ia, M., Pusuluk, O., M¨ ustecaplio˘ glu,¨O.E., C ¸ akmak, B., Rom´ an- Ancheyta, R.: Quantum thermal machine as a rectifier. Quantum Science and Technology10(2), 025018 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/adaee0

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/adaee0 2025

  8. [8]

    Senior, J., Gubaydullin, A., Karimi, B., Peltonen, J.T., Ankerhold, J., Pekola, J.P.: Heat rectification via a superconducting artificial atom. Commun. Phys. 3(1), 40 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-020-0307-5

    doi:10.1038/s42005-020-0307-5 2020

  9. [9]

    Ronzani, A., Karimi, B., Senior, J., Chang, Y.C., Peltonen, J.T., Chen, C.D., Pekola, J.P.: Tunable photonic heat transport in a quantum heat valve. Nat. Phys. 14(10), 991–995 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Xu, M., Stockburger, J.T., Ankerhold, J.: Heat transport through a superconduct- ing artificial atom. Phys. Rev. B103, 104304 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevB.103.104304 14

    2021

  11. [11]

    Vool, U., Devoret, M.: Introduction to quantum electromagnetic circuits. Int. J. Circuit Theory Appl.45(7), 897–934 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1002/cta.2359 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cta.2359

    doi:10.1002/cta.2359 2017

  12. [12]

    PRX Quantum2(4), 40204 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040204 arXiv:2103.01225

    Rasmussen, S.E., Christensen, K.S., Pedersen, S.P., Kristensen, L.B., Bækkegaard, T., Loft, N.J.S., Zinner, N.T.: Superconducting Circuit Companion- an Introduction with Worked Examples. PRX Quantum2(4), 40204 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040204 arXiv:2103.01225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Krantz, P., Kjaergaard, M., Yan, F., Orlando, T.P., Gustavsson, S., Oliver, W.D.: A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits. Appl. Phys. Rev.6(2), 21318 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089550 arXiv:1904.06560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Blais, A., Grimsmo, A.L., Girvin, S.M., Wallraff, A.: Circuit quantum elec- trodynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/ RevModPhys.93.025005

    2021

  15. [15]

    Koch, J., Yu, T.M., Gambetta, J., Houck, A.A., Schuster, D.I., Majer, J., Blais, A., Devoret, M.H., Girvin, S.M., Schoelkopf, R.J.: Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box. Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys.76(4) (2007) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319 arXiv:0703002 [cond-mat]

    doi:10.1103/physreva.76.042319 2007

  16. [16]

    Karimi, B., Pekola, J.P.: Otto refrigerator based on a superconducting qubit: Classical and quantum performance. Phys. Rev. B94(18), 184503 (2016) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.184503 arXiv:1610.02776

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 58(1), 101–114 (1989)

    Tanimura, Y., Kubo, R.: Time evolution of a quantum system in contact with a nearly gaussian-markoffian noise bath. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 58(1), 101–114 (1989)

    1989

  18. [18]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002).https://academic.oup.com/book/27757

    Breuer, H.-P., Petruccione, F.: The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002).https://academic.oup.com/book/27757

    2002

  19. [19]

    Computer Physics Communications320, 109948 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cpc.2025.109948

    Vaaranta, A., Cattaneo, M.: Numerical implementation of the partial secular approximation and unified master equation in structured open quantum systems. Computer Physics Communications320, 109948 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cpc.2025.109948

    arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Cattaneo, M., Giorgi, G.L., Maniscalco, S., Zambrini, R.: Local versus global mas- ter equation with common and separate baths: Superiority of the global approach in partial secular approximation. New J. Phys.21(11) (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Trushechkin, A.: Unified Gorini-Kossakowski-Lindblad-Sudarshan quantum mas- ter equation beyond the secular approximation. Phys. Rev. A103(6), 62226 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.062226

    doi:10.1103/physreva.103.062226 2021

  22. [22]

    Cattaneo, M., Paraoanu, G.S.: Engineering Dissipation with Resistive Elements 15 in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics. Adv. Quantum Technol.4(11) (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Caldeira, A.O., Leggett, A.J.: Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system. Ann. Phys. (N. Y).149(2), 374–456 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(83) 90202-6

    doi:10.1016/0003-4916(83 1983

  24. [24]

    Alicki, R.: The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.12(5), 103 (1979) https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/12/5/007

    doi:10.1088/0305-4470/12/5/007 1979

  25. [25]

    Scientific Reports5(1), 14873 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14873

    Barra, F.: The thermodynamic cost of driving quantum systems by their bound- aries. Scientific Reports5(1), 14873 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14873

    work page doi:10.1038/srep14873 2015

  26. [26]

    Quantum Sci

    Karimi, B., Pekola, J.P., Campisi, M., Fazio, R.: Coupled qubits as a quantum heat switch. Quantum Sci. Technol.2(4), 44007 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 2058-9565/aa8330 arXiv:1703.10499

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    International Journal of Theoretical Physics16(5), 351–355 (1977)

    Alicki, R.: The markov master equations and the fermi golden rule. International Journal of Theoretical Physics16(5), 351–355 (1977)

    1977

  28. [28]

    Hartmann, R., Strunz, W.T.: Accuracy assessment of perturbative master equations: Embracing nonpositivity. Phys. Rev. A101(1), 12103 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.012103 arXiv:1906.02583

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    GitHub (2025)

    Vaaranta, A.:PSA-general: A code for the numerical implementation of the partial secular approximation and unified master equation in multipartite open quantum systems. GitHub (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Potts, P.P., Kalaee, A.A.S., Wacker, A.: A thermodynamically consistent marko- vian master equation beyond the secular approximation. New J. Phys.23(12), 123013 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ac3b2f

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac3b2f 2021

  31. [31]

    To be published in Phys

    Upadhyay, R., Karimi, B., Subero, D., Satrya, C.D., Peltonen, J.T., Chang, Y.-C., Pekola, J.P.: Strong-coupling quantum thermodynamics using a superconducting flux qubit. To be published in Phys. Rev. Applied (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2411.10774

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Pekola, J.P., Karimi, B.: Ultrasensitive calorimetric detection of single photons from qubit decay. Phys. Rev. X12, 011026 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevX.12.011026

    2022

  33. [33]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.16122

    M¨ akinen, I.K., Khaymovich, I.M., Pekola, J.P.: Quadratic Hamiltonian approach to heat transport in fermionic systems (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.16122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Physical Review B102(24), 245401 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.245401 2007.15923 16

    Donvil, B., Muratore-Ginanneschi, P., Golubev, D.: An exactly solvable model of calorimetric measurements. Physical Review B102(24), 245401 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.245401 2007.15923 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020