Quantum Brownian Motion: proving that the Schmid transition belongs to the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class

Antonio de Candia; Carmine Antonio Perroni; Francesco G. Capone; Giulio De Filippis; Naoto Nagaosa; Rosario Fazio; Vittorio Cataudella

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Quantum Brownian Motion: proving that the Schmid transition belongs to the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Schmid transition, the dissipation-driven localization of a quantum Brownian particle in a periodic potential, belongs to the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) universality class, according to numerically exact Monte Carlo simulatio

desk verdict A credible numerical case that the Schmid transition is BKT, but the 'proof' rests on a hand-tuned jump and no continuum limit—worth refereeing, not yet a settled result. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.16227 v2 pith:O7HF5IBU submitted 2026-03-17 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

Francesco G. Capone , Antonio de Candia , Vittorio Cataudella , Rosario Fazio , Naoto Nagaosa , Carmine Antonio Perroni , Giulio De Filippis This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

keywords quantumBrownianmotionSchmidtransitionBerezinskii-Kosterlitz-ThoulessuniversalityclassOhmicdissipationphaseWorld-LineMonteCarloJosephsonjunctionlocalization-delocalization

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 aims to settle the nature of the Schmid transition, a zero-temperature localization-delocalization quantum phase transition in a quantum Brownian particle coupled to an Ohmic bath and moving in a cosine potential. Using World-Line Monte Carlo and a binary order parameter that records which potential well the phase occupies in imaginary time, the authors argue that for Ohmic dissipation (s=1) and finite Josephson coupling (E_J/EC>0), the transition is governed by the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class: the order-parameter correlation decays logarithmically with imaginary time at criticality, and the critical coupling is renormalized by the cutoff. They further demonstrate that no such quantum phase transition occurs for sub-Ohmic or super-Ohmic dissipation, or when the cosine potential vanishes, meaning the transition requires both linear low-frequency dissipation and a periodic potential. If correct, this resolves a long-standing controversy about the existence and nature of the Schmid transition, with direct implications for resistively shunted Josephson junctions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the binary order parameter S(τ)=(-1)^{nint[φ(τ)/2π]}, which labels the sign of the potential well at imaginary time τ, converting the worldline into a sequence of instantons and anti-instantons. The argument is carried by the BKT scaling identity Ψ(α,β)=α m^2 with asymptotic form Ψ(α_c,β)/Ψ_c = 1 + 1/(2(ln β − ln β_0)), and the derived function G(α,β)=1/(Ψ/Ψ_c − 1) − 2 ln β, which becomes β-independent at criticality. This machinery extracts the logarithmic signatures of BKT universality from the Monte Carlo data, including the logarithmic decay of correlations and the logarithmic approach of the finite-size critical coupling.

What would settle it

Compute the jump Ψ_c directly from an independent instanton-gas renormalization-group calculation for the same Ohmic action; if the Monte Carlo collapse requires a value of Ψ_c that disagrees with that prediction, or if a model with a different short-time kernel but identical K(τ)~τ^{-2} long-time tail fails to exhibit the same BKT collapse, the BKT classification is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Schmid transition is a BKT-type transition. The supporting evidence is a finite-size scaling analysis of the order parameter m^2, defined via the binary mapping S(τ)=(-1)^{nint[φ(τ)/2π]}, which isolates phase slips between even and odd cosine wells. The scaling function Ψ(α,β)=α m^2 follows Ψ(α_c,β)/Ψ_c = 1 + 1/(2(ln β − ln β_0)) at criticality, the correlation function ⟨S(τ)S(0)⟩ decays as A + B/ln τ, and the finite-size critical coupling α_c(β) approaches the thermodynamic value logarithmically as α_c + D/(2 ln β + E). The same analysis shows that for s≠1, or for E_J=0, no finite-α transition exists: the variance σ^2 diverges (super-Ohmic), saturates (sub-Ohmi

Load-bearing premise

The BKT classification rests on assuming the specific scaling form Ψ(α_c,β)/Ψ_c = 1 + 1/(2(ln β − ln β_0)) and freely adjusting the jump Ψ_c to make the data collapse; if this functional form is wrong, or if the tuning is flexible enough to produce a spurious collapse, the claimed universality class is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The resistively shunted Josephson junction exhibits a genuine superconductor-to-insulator quantum phase transition only when the shunt is Ohmic and the Josephson coupling is finite; the critical resistance is renormalized away from R_Q by the cutoff.
At criticality, the binary order-parameter correlation decays logarithmically in imaginary time, a distinctive BKT signature that can be looked for in experiments on ultra-clean junctions or in continuous-variable quantum simulators.
Sub-Ohmic dissipation localizes the particle for any coupling, while super-Ohmic dissipation delocalizes it for any coupling, independent of the periodic potential amplitude, so no Schmid transition occurs in those regimes.
In the limit E_J→0, no quantum phase transition exists, so the phase diagram has a non-analytic boundary at zero Josephson coupling that is in principle observable.
The finite cutoff shifts the critical coupling but does not change the universality class, giving a concrete prediction for how measured critical resistances should vary with experimental cutoff frequency.

Reading between the lines

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

If the BKT classification is correct, the Schmid transition becomes a rare case of a BKT transition driven by temporal (imaginary-time) correlations rather than spatial ones, suggesting that an instanton-gas 'temporal Coulomb gas' description could yield a predictive value for the jump Ψ_c, which the paper currently treats as a free fitting parameter.
The paper's zero-E_J result implies that a measurement of the variance σ^2 as a function of temperature at fixed coupling could serve as a transition diagnostic that does not rely on the binary order parameter: for Ohmic with finite E_J it saturates, for super-Ohmic it diverges linearly with β, and for sub-Ohmic it converges.
A parameter-free check of the claim would be to independently fit the logarithmic coefficient B in ⟨S(τ)S(0)⟩=A+B/(ln τ+C) and verify that it equals the universal value 1/2 expected from the BKT scaling form, rather than adjusting Ψ_c to force collapse.

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

The main thing to know: this is a solid numerical study, not a proof, and the central claim—Schmid transition is BKT—is credible but built on a patch of careful fitting. The binary order parameter is a real improvement: it counts phase slips directly, and the m² observable behaves like a stiffness. The scaling collapse, the log-decaying correlation, and the α_c(β) drift align within the β range they show, and the E_J=0 no-transition result is a nice analytic anchor. I also appreciate the sub/super-Ohmic checks with the lower cutoff; they support the idea that only Ohmic dissipation gives a transition.

The soft spots are the usual ones for this kind of simulation, but they matter. Ψ_c is tuned to flatten the collapse, so the collapse is a check of the assumed functional form, not independent evidence. The stress-test note is right about that. The correlation function fit saturates to A≈0.9; that could be the BKT jump in m², but the paper doesn't explain why that's the expected form at criticality. There's no continuum limit—single cutoff, single Δτ—so you can't tell how much of the α_c shift is discretization. And there's no code or data, which makes it hard to audit. The E_J/E_C > 1 regime is speculation, as the authors concede.

I'd send this to a serious referee. The core result is worth examining, and the method is nontrivial. I'd ask for the code, a cutoff-dependence run, and a cleaner derivation of the log-decay form with the constant offset. If those checks hold, this is a valuable data point for the Schmid-transition literature.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This Letter studies the dissipative quantum Brownian motion model with a cosine potential and a power-law spectral density J(ω)=α ω^s ω_c^{1-s}Θ(ω_c−ω). Using world-line Monte Carlo, the authors introduce a binary order parameter S(τ)=(-1)^{nint[φ(τ)/(2π)]} and its squared average m², then define Ψ(α,β)=α m². For Ohmic dissipation (s=1) they claim that the Schmid transition is in the Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless universality class. The evidence is: (i) G(α,β)=1/(Ψ(α,β)/Ψ_c−1)−2 ln β becomes β-independent after adjusting Ψ_c; (ii) at the so-determined critical α_c the correlation ⟨S(τ)S(0)⟩ is fit to A+B/(ln τ+C); (iii) the finite-size critical coupling α_c(β) is fit to α_c + D/(2 ln β+E). They also argue that for E_J/E_C=0 no transition occurs and that sub-Ohmic (s<1) and super-Ohmic (s>1) baths do not produce a transition. The central conclusion is that the transition is BKT-like, with the critical coupling renormalized by the cutoff and with the universality class depending only on the low-frequency form of the bath.

Significance. If correct, the claim would resolve a long-standing controversy about the Schmid transition and would provide a numerically exact demonstration of BKT behavior in a quantum dissipative system, with direct implications for resistively shunted Josephson junctions. The manuscript has clear strengths: the E_J=0 case is treated analytically by Gaussian integration, the world-line Monte Carlo approach is appropriate for the imaginary-time path integral, and the authors present several complementary observables (G collapse, critical correlation decay, α_c(β) scaling). However, the central BKT classification rests on a self-consistent fitting procedure: Ψ_c is tuned until the assumed BKT form produces a collapse, and α_c is read off from that same collapse. No code or data are deposited, no continuum-limit extrapolation is performed, and the critical correlation fit saturates to a finite constant, which is not the standard BKT critical form. The result is plausible and worth taking seriously, but the current evidence is not yet sufficient to establish the claimed universality class.

major comments (1)

[General] No code or data are deposited, and the Monte Carlo error bars shown in the fits are not propagated to the derived quantities α_c, Ψ_c, D, and E. The text calls the Ψ_c estimate ‘rough but quantitative’ without reporting an uncertainty or a fitting procedure that accounts for the covariance among the free parameters. This is particularly important because the central inference depends on the uniqueness of the collapse.

minor comments (6)

[Title and abstract] The word ‘proving’ is too strong for a numerical finite-size scaling study with fitted parameters. A more cautious formulation would be appropriate for the Letter format.
[Text before Eq. (7)] The sentence ‘only this asymptotic temporal decay [K(τ)∼τ^{-2}] ensures the presence of a quantum phase transition’ is stated as a theorem-like claim, but the evidence is numerical and limited to the simulated parameter range. Please qualify.
[Fig. 1] The legends give Ψ_c values (1.001, 1, 0.995, 0.981) but no error bars. If these values are obtained by tuning, report the interval of Ψ_c for which the collapse is visually acceptable.
[Equation (10)] The definition S(τ)=(-1)^{nint[φ/(2π)]} is ambiguous at the boundaries of the intervals [(2n−1)π,(2n+1)π). Specify the convention for the exact half-integer cases.
[References] Some references are incomplete or non-standard (e.g., Ref. [10] and [11] are journal abbreviations; Ref. [13] cites a book without page numbers). The authors may also wish to cite the recent numerical literature on the Schmid transition beyond Refs. [14–22].
[General] The statement that the world-line Monte Carlo is ‘numerically exact’ should be qualified by the finite time step and finite β; it is exact in the limit Δτ→0, β→∞.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

BKT classification hinges on a freely adjusted jump Ψ_c: the G-collapse is a consistency check of the assumed scaling form, and Appendix B reuses the same fitted Ψ_c, so the central universality claim is only partially self-contained.

fitted input called prediction [Ohmic dissipation (s=1) section, after defining G(α,β), before Fig. 1]
"Since no renormalization-group prediction for Ψc is currently available, we adjusted its value until the curves became nearly independent of β in the vicinity of the expected critical point αc ≈ 1. This procedure provides a rough but quantitative estimate of the jump and supports the emergence of a BKT-like critical behavior in that region."

The scaling function G(α,β) is built from the assumed BKT form Ψ(αc,β)/Ψc = 1 + 1/[2(lnβ − lnβ0)]. With Ψc a free parameter, tuning it to flatten G at some α is equivalent to checking whether the data are proportional to that assumed form after one amplitude rescaling. The critical coupling αc is then read off from the same collapse, so the collapse cannot independently certify the BKT universality class; it is a fit of the ansatz, not a test of it.
fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'further evidence' paragraph; Appendix B 'BKT scaling']
"To provide further evidence for the universality class, we also employ a different scaling argument based on the estimate of the jump of the previous approach. Given Ψc, we interpolate Ψ(α, β) and determine αc(β) from the intersection. We then fit the resulting values using the functional form αc(β)=αc + D/(2 lnβ+E)."

Here αc(β) is defined as the point where Ψ(α,β) equals the previously fitted Ψ_c, and then fit by the logarithmic BKT law. The extrapolated αc therefore derives from the same fitted Ψ_c and the same assumed scaling form as the main-text estimate. The agreement between the two estimates is a consistency check within one fitting scheme, not an independent determination of the critical coupling or universality class.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial independent content: the analytic E_J = 0 variance calculation, the sub-Ohmic/super-Ohmic absence of a transition, and the direct Monte Carlo data are self-contained and do not reduce to the BKT ansatz. However, the central claim that the Schmid transition is in the BKT universality class is established through the assumed asymptotic form Ψ(α_c,β)/Ψ_c = 1 + 1/[2(lnβ − lnβ_0)] with Ψ_c freely adjusted until the G-collapse looks flat. The correlation-function log-decay fit at the resulting α_c is a partially independent observable, but α_c itself is not obtained independently. Appendix B's α_c(β) analysis reuses the same fitted Ψ_c, so it does not add independent evidence. The self-citations [39–42] used for the G construction are not load-bearing by themselves because the G construction is a direct algebraic consequence of the Minnhagen asymptotic form; the circularity is instead the fitted Ψ_c and the read-off of the critical point from the collapse it produces. Overall, the universality claim is only partially circular: it is a consistency check of an assumed form with one fitted constant, not a derivation forced by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis rests on standard path-integral formalism plus the BKT scaling forms, with Ψ_c and several fit constants as free parameters. The most consequential ad hoc input is the BKT functional form and the tuning of Ψ_c to make the collapse happen.

free parameters (4)

Ψ_c (jump of α m² at criticality) = 1.001, 1, 0.995, 0.981 for E_J/E_C = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7
Adjusted by hand until G(α,β) became β-independent near the expected critical point; no RG prediction used.
β_0 in BKT scaling form = Not quoted separately; absorbed into fits
The form Ψ(α_c,β)/Ψ_c = 1 + 1/(2(ln β − ln β_0)) contains β_0 as a free fitting constant.
A, B, C in correlation fits = e.g., A=0.8846, B=0.168, C=1.47 for E_J/E_C=0.4
Three-parameter fits of ⟨S(τ)S(0)⟩ = A + B/(ln τ + C) at criticality.
D, E in α_c(β) fits = e.g., D=0.44, E=-0.5 for E_J/E_C=0.4
Fitted constants in α_c(β) = α_c + D/(2 ln β + E).

assumptions (6)

standard math Imaginary-time path integral with harmonic bath integration yields the effective action Eq. (3) with kernel K(τ) from Eq. (4).
Standard Caldeira-Leggett/WLMC starting point; accepted background.
ad hoc to paper BKT asymptotic form Ψ(α_c,β)/Ψ_c = 1 + 1/(2(ln β − ln β_0)) holds for the binary order-parameter scaling function.
This is the exact assumption under test; the free parameter Ψ_c is tuned to force collapse.
ad hoc to paper At the critical point the correlation function has the form ⟨S(τ)S(0)⟩ = A + B/(ln τ + C).
Assumed BKT correlation form; used to fit the MC data.
ad hoc to paper For E_J/E_C > 1 the transition mechanism and universality class remain unchanged even though no reliable simulations are presented there.
The text argues 'there is no reason to conclude that the universality class changes'; this is extrapolation, not numerical evidence.
domain assumption The phenomenological spectral densities Eq. (6) and Eq. (7) capture the relevant physics; hard cutoff or lower cutoff do not affect universal properties.
Standard modeling choice for Ohmic/sub-Ohmic/super-Ohmic baths, but it is assumed rather than derived.
domain assumption m² can serve as a localization order parameter: m² → 0 when σ² → ∞ unless even/odd minima are preferentially occupied.
The authors themselves note the caveat [35] for quasiparticle-tunneling dissipation; for the present model they assume it does not apply.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Brownian Motion: proving that the Schmid transition belongs to the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7HF5IBU

@misc{pith2026260316227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Brownian Motion: proving that the Schmid transition belongs to the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7HF5IBU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.16227}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate the equilibrium properties of a quantum Brownian particle moving in a periodic potential, specifically addressing the nature of the dissipation-driven Schmid transition in the Ohmic regime. By employing World-Line Monte Carlo in the path-integral formalism and introducing a specific binary order parameter, we demonstrate that the transition belongs to the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class. This classification is substantiated through finite-size scaling analysis that reveals the characteristic logarithmic decay of the correlation functions associated with the order parameter at the critical point. Quantum phase transition turns out to be extremely fragile: it disappears in both over- and sub-Ohmic dissipation regimes. Crucially, we find that the presence of the periodic potential does not alter the localization properties in the sub-Ohmic and super-Ohmic regimes, where the system exhibits the same qualitative behavior as the free quantum Brownian particle. These findings highlight that the emergence of critical behavior is strictly governed by the low-frequency form of the environmental spectral function, which determines the long-range temporal decay of the dissipative kernel.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.16227 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Critical coupling at finite size (blue dots) and corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

andφ= 2πϕ/ϕ 0 is the dimen- sionless coordinate. The influence of the environment is fully encapsulated in the kernel function K(τ) = ℏ 8π2 +∞Z 0 dω J(ω)cosh ω(βℏ/2− |τ|) sinh(βℏω/2) ,(4) which is determined by the spectral density J(ω) = π 2 ϕ0 h NX j=1 ωj Lj δ(ω−ω j).(5) Hence, it is clear that the physics depends only on the behavior of the functionJ(ω...
[2]

and super-Ohmic (s >1) regimes of Eq. (6). Unlike the Ohmic case, a QPT is absent here [13, 46]. For any α >0 andE J /EC ≥0, the phase particle is always lo- calized fors <1 and delocalized fors >1. This follows from theK(τ)∝τ −1−s decay in Eq. (3): slowly decaying long-range interactions ensure localization even for small α(s <1), whereas rapid decay pre...
[3]

J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A361, 1655 (2003)

2003
[4]

Ac ´ ınet al., New J

A. Ac ´ ınet al., New J. Phys.20, 080201 (2018)

2018
[5]

W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

2003
[6]

Breuer and F

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

2002
[7]

A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Physica A121, 587 (1983)

1983
[8]

Grabert, P

H. Grabert, P. Schramm, and G.-L. Ingold, Physics Re- ports168, 115 (1988)

1988

Show all 49 references

[9]

A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett.46, 211 (1981)

1981
[10]

Chakravarty, Phys

S. Chakravarty, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 681 (1982)

1982
[11]

Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University Press, 2011)

S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University Press, 2011)

2011
[12]

Schmid, Phys

A. Schmid, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1506 (1983)

1983
[13]

Bulgadaev, ZhETF Pisma Redaktsiiu (1984)

S. Bulgadaev, ZhETF Pisma Redaktsiiu (1984)

1984
[14]

M. P. A. Fisher and W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. B32, 6190 (1985)

1985
[15]

Weiss,Quantum Dissipative Systems(World Scien- tific, 2021)

U. Weiss,Quantum Dissipative Systems(World Scien- tific, 2021)

2021
[16]

Werner and M

P. Werner and M. Troyer, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp.160, 395 (2005)

2005
[17]

Werner and M

P. Werner and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 060201 (2005)

2005
[18]

P. J. Hakonen and E. B. Sonin, Phys. Rev. X11, 018001 (2021)

2021
[19]

Remez, V

B. Remez, V. D. Kurilovich, M. Rieger, and L. I. Glaz- man, Phys. Rev. B110, 054508 (2024)

2024
[20]

Houzet and L

M. Houzet and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 267701 (2020)

2020
[21]

Kuzmin, N

R. Kuzmin, N. Grabon, N. Mehta, A. Burshtein, M. Goldstein, M. Houzet, L. I. Glazman, and V. E. Manucharyan, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 197701 (2021)

2021
[22]

Houzet, T

M. Houzet, T. Yamamoto, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B109, 155431 (2024)

2024
[23]

V. D. Kurilovich, B. Remez, and L. I. Glazman, Nature Commun.16, 1384 (2025)

2025
[24]

Yamamoto, L

T. Yamamoto, L. I. Glazman, and M. Houzet, Phys. Rev. B110, L060512 (2024)

2024
[25]

Murani, N

A. Murani, N. Bourlet, H. le Sueur, F. Portier, C. Altimi- ras, D. Esteve, H. Grabert, J. Stockburger, J. Ankerhold, and P. Joyez, Phys. Rev. X10, 021003 (2020)

2020
[26]

Murani, N

A. Murani, N. Bourlet, H. le Sueur, F. Portier, C. Altimi- ras, D. Esteve, H. Grabert, J. Stockburger, J. Ankerhold, and P. Joyez, Phys. Rev. X11, 018002 (2021)

2021
[27]

Altimiras, D

C. Altimiras, D. Esteve, C ¸ . Girit, H. Le Sueur, and P. Joyez, (2023), arXiv:2312.14754 [cond-mat.supr-con]

2023 arXiv
[28]

The Monte Carlo procedure proposed in Ref. [25], based on a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation and an auxil- iary random field, likely suffers from prohibitively slow convergence and fails to thermalize within accessible timescales. Furthermore, the authors argue that fixing ...
[29]

Masuki, H

K. Masuki, H. Sudo, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 087001 (2022)

2022
[30]

Masuki, H

K. Masuki, H. Sudo, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 199702 (2023)

2023
[31]

S´ epulcre, S

T. S´ epulcre, S. Florens, and I. Snyman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 199701 (2023)

2023
[32]

Vool and M

U. Vool and M. H. Devoret, Int. J. Circuit Theor. Appl. 45, 897 (2017), arXiv:1610.03438 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[33]

Sch¨ on and A

G. Sch¨ on and A. Zaikin, Phys. Rep.198, 237–412 (1990)

1990
[34]

Likharev and A

K. Likharev and A. Zorin, J. Low. Temp. Phys.59, 347–382 (1985)

1985
[35]

Averin, A

D. Averin, A. Zorin, and K. Likharev, Sov. Phys. - JETP 61, 407–413 (1985)

1985
[36]

See End Matter. It contains more details on the case of vanishing cosine potential, further evidences of the BKT nature of the Schmid transition, and the results of the proposed WLMC approach in the sub-Ohmic and super- Ohmic regimes
[37]

We emphasize thatm 2 may remain nonzero even in a delocalized phase if the particle preferentially occupies either even or odd minima of the potential as it happens in the case of a Josephson junction where dissipation is induced by quasi-particle tunneling [47]
[38]

Minnhagen, Phys

P. Minnhagen, Phys. Rev. B32, 3088 (1985)

1985
[39]

Minnhagen, Phys

P. Minnhagen, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 2351 (1985)

1985
[40]

Weber and P

H. Weber and P. Minnhagen, Phys. Rev. B37, 5986 (1988)

1988
[41]

Di Bello, A

G. Di Bello, A. Ponticelli, F. Pavan, V. Cataudella, G. De Filippis, A. de Candia, and C. A. Perroni, Com- mun. Phys.7, 364 (2024)

2024
[42]

De Filippis, A

G. De Filippis, A. de Candia, G. Di Bello, C. A. Perroni, L. M. Cangemi, A. Nocera, M. Sassetti, R. Fazio, and V. Cataudella, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 210404 (2023)

2023
[43]

De Filippis, A

G. De Filippis, A. de Candia, A. S. Mishchenko, L. M. Cangemi, A. Nocera, P. A. Mishchenko, M. Sassetti, R. Fazio, N. Nagaosa, and V. Cataudella, Phys. Rev. B104, L060410 (2021)

2021
[44]

De Filippis, A

G. De Filippis, A. de Candia, L. M. Cangemi, M. Sassetti, R. Fazio, and V. Cataudella, Phys. Rev. B101, 180408 (2020)

2020
[45]

Bhattacharjee, S

J. Bhattacharjee, S. Chakravarty, J. L. Richardson, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B24, 3862 (1981)

1981
[46]

Luijten and H

E. Luijten and H. Meßingfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5305 (2001)

2001
[47]

P. H. Nguyen and M. Boninsegni, Appl. Sci.11, 4931 (2021)

2021
[48]

Fabrizio, A

M. Fabrizio, A. O. Gogolin, and S. Scheidl, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 2235 (1994)

1994
[49]

F. G. Capone, A. de Candia, V. Cataudella, N. Na- gaosa, C. A. Perroni, and G. De Filippis, (2025), arXiv:2504.00258 [cond-mat.supr-con]. 7 End Matter Appendix A: V anishing cosine potential. Ana- lytic results In this section, we discuss in more detail the limiting case of a ...

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

andφ= 2πϕ/ϕ 0 is the dimen- sionless coordinate. The influence of the environment is fully encapsulated in the kernel function K(τ) = ℏ 8π2 +∞Z 0 dω J(ω)cosh ω(βℏ/2− |τ|) sinh(βℏω/2) ,(4) which is determined by the spectral density J(ω) = π 2 ϕ0 h NX j=1 ωj Lj δ(ω−ω j).(5) Hence, it is clear that the physics depends only on the behavior of the functionJ(ω...

[2] [2]

and super-Ohmic (s >1) regimes of Eq. (6). Unlike the Ohmic case, a QPT is absent here [13, 46]. For any α >0 andE J /EC ≥0, the phase particle is always lo- calized fors <1 and delocalized fors >1. This follows from theK(τ)∝τ −1−s decay in Eq. (3): slowly decaying long-range interactions ensure localization even for small α(s <1), whereas rapid decay pre...

[3] [3]

J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A361, 1655 (2003)

2003

[4] [4]

Ac ´ ınet al., New J

A. Ac ´ ınet al., New J. Phys.20, 080201 (2018)

2018

[5] [5]

W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

2003

[6] [6]

Breuer and F

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

2002

[7] [7]

A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Physica A121, 587 (1983)

1983

[8] [8]

Grabert, P

H. Grabert, P. Schramm, and G.-L. Ingold, Physics Re- ports168, 115 (1988)

1988