Semidefinite programming for understanding the limitations of Lindblad equations

Archak Purkayastha; Devashish Tupkary; Manas Kulkarni; Soumyadeep Sarma

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Semidefinite programming for understanding the limitations of Lindblad equations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A semidefinite program can decide whether any Lindblad master equation can describe a weakly coupled quantum system—and certify when none can.

desk verdict Solid SDP framework for testing whether local-conservation-preserving Lindblad equations can match Redfield-accurate NESS; numerical no-go results are plausible but the 'rigorous' label is a step too far without certified bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.01794 v2 pith:QM3PZZJS submitted 2026-02-02 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallmath-phmath.MP

Soumyadeep Sarma , Manas Kulkarni , Archak Purkayastha , Devashish Tupkary This is my paper

classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallmath-phmath.MP

keywords semidefiniteprogrammingLindbladmasterequationcompletepositivityRedfieldnon-equilibriumsteadystatelocalconservationlawsXXZqubitchainMarkovianapproximation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks a yes/no question: given a small quantum system weakly coupled to heat baths, is there any Lindblad master equation that is physically consistent, obeys local conservation laws, and reproduces the exact steady-state populations (and possibly coherences) to leading order in the coupling? The authors show this question is a convex optimization problem—a semidefinite program—whose optimal value gives a rigorous answer: below a tolerance, a suitable Lindblad equation may exist and the solver returns one; above it, no such equation exists, so a Markovian description is fundamentally unattainable. Applied to isotropic XXZ qubit chains, the method yields no-go results: with one boundary qubit per bath, even correct populations are impossible; with two, populations become possible at weak inter-qubit coupling but coherences still fail, except near equilibrium. The work turns a vague worry about Markovian approximations into a computable, certified statement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semidefinite program built from the most general form of a Markovian generator that is simultaneously CPTP and preserves local conservation laws: variable Hermitian Lamb-shift Hamiltonians on the left/right boundary and positive semidefinite rate matrices Γ^(L), Γ^(R). The conditions that the generator reproduce the Redfield zeroth-order populations (Eq. 25) or also the coherences (Eq. 27) are linear in these variables; hence minimizing the mismatch metrics τ_pop (Eq. 28) and τ_pop,coh (Eq. 32) is a convex SDP whose duality gives rigorous bounds. This machinery turns existence of a Lindblad description into a numerically certified decision.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit completely positive, trace-preserving Lindblad generator with Lindblad operators supported only on the boundary qubits that solves Eq. (25) [and Eq. (27)] in a parameter regime where the paper reports τ_pop^opt (or τ_pop,coh^opt) above δ_tol—for instance, for the N_L=N_R=1 XXZ chain at g=0.01 and β_L=β_R=1. Since the SDP optimum is a certified lower bound, any such construction directly contradicts the no-go claim. A cheaper check: run the same SDP on a system with a known exact Lindblad description and verify that τ_pop,coh^opt falls below tolerance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the existence of a completely positive, trace-preserving Lindblad equation that preserves local conservation laws and matches the exact leading-order non-equilibrium steady state can be decided by semidefinite programming. For a finite-dimensional system with a non-degenerate Hamiltonian, the authors define two mismatch metrics: τ_pop measures how far any such Lindblad equation's zeroth-order populations sit from the Redfield-accurate populations, and τ_pop,coh measures the distance between the candidate dissipator and the Redfield dissipator acting on ρ⁰_NESS. Minimizing these metrics over all Hermitian Lamb shifts and positive semidefinite rate matrices—the most g

Load-bearing premise

The whole no-go machinery treats the second-order Redfield dissipator as the exact leading-order dynamics: the target populations and coherences the Lindblad equation is required to match are the ones Redfield predicts, so if Redfield is not actually correct to leading order in the regime studied, the SDP is certifying impossibility against a mis-specified target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For isotropic XXZ chains with one qubit per bath, no completely positive, trace-preserving Lindblad equation preserving local conservation laws can give even correct leading-order populations, either in equilibrium or in a non-equilibrium steady state.
With two qubits per bath, an LE can give correct leading-order populations for small inter-qubit coupling (g ≲ 0.1), but correct coherences together with populations remain impossible except near equilibrium.
With all qubits attached to baths at the same temperature, a consistent LE is attainable; detaching a single site or making any bath temperature differ makes it unattainable.
Whenever the SDP certifies impossibility, the dynamics necessarily has non-Markovian features even at weak system-bath coupling.
The method is not restricted to XXZ chains: any finite-dimensional non-degenerate Hamiltonian with local baths can be plugged into the same SDP formulation.

Reading between the lines

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

The SDP criterion effectively gives a computable 'Markovianity certificate' for steady states; the same template could be extended to time-dependent dynamics or to other properties (correct currents, correlation functions) as long as they are linear in the generator variables.
The trace-distance lower bound suggests a quantitative grading: even when an LE is impossible, τ_pop^opt measures how badly the populations must be wrong, which could guide the choice between local and global master equations in practice.
Scanning the SDP over parameter space maps out the phase boundary of Markovian describability; near level crossings or large couplings the no-go results may weaken because the Redfield premise itself becomes questionable—an extension one could test with exact small-system simulations.
The method could be combined with exact microscopic simulations (beyond Redfield) to check whether the Redfield-defined 'exact' leading-order steady state is itself the right target in strongly coupled or near-degenerate regimes.

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

This paper does something useful: it turns the question 'does there exist a Lindblad equation that, at weak coupling, reproduces the exact NESS populations and coherences while preserving complete positivity and local conservation laws?' into a semidefinite program. That is a genuine extension of the authors' earlier thermalization-optimization work to non-equilibrium steady states, and the trace-distance lower bound in Lemma 1 is a nice addition. The SDP formulation itself is clean; Eqs. (29) and (33) are linear in the dissipator, and the decision rules in Eqs. (30) and (34) are sound in exact arithmetic.

The qualitative results are also credible and consistent with prior work: with only one boundary qubit per bath, even correct populations are impossible; with two boundary qubits, populations become feasible at weak coupling but coherences do not; and attaching baths to every qubit restores feasibility at equilibrium but not in the non-equilibrium case. These are the kind of no-go statements that people in the open-quantum-systems community will want to know about, even if they are not surprising in hindsight.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The main one is the 'rigorous no-go' language. The numerical results come from CVX with default solvers, and the paper reports neither primal-dual gaps nor certified lower bounds. A solver's approximate optimum does not by itself prove that the true optimum exceeds the tolerance delta_tol = 1e-6. In practice the plotted values are usually orders of magnitude above that tolerance, so I doubt the qualitative picture changes, but the word 'rigorous' is not earned for the numbers as presented. The fix is straightforward: report duality gaps, or provide an analytical certificate for at least one representative no-go regime.

Second, the abstract and Table I say 'impossible' and 'all parameter regimes' when the search is actually over LEs satisfying local conservation laws, with fixed bath parameters and no explicit time dependence. That is a well-defined class, and the authors correctly restrict to the most general local-conservation-preserving form, but it is still a restricted class. The abstract should not imply an unconditional statement about all Markovian embeddings.

Third, the target 'exact' NESS is taken from the Redfield accuracy results cited as Refs. [34] and [35]. One is the authors' own earlier paper, but the other is an independent result by Fleming and Cummings, so this is not a crippling circularity. Still, the no-go conclusions are conditional on Redfield being the correct leading-order steady state, and that caveat should be explicit.

Who is this for? Anyone constructing or benchmarking local Lindblad models for transport in small spin chains, and anyone interested in rigorous methods for open quantum systems. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to peer review with the expectation of a revision that tightens the claims and adds numerical certificates or an explicit disclaimer about solver precision.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether, for a finite-dimensional non-degenerate system weakly coupled to thermal baths, there exists a completely positive, trace-preserving Lindblad master equation that (i) preserves local conservation laws in the sense of Eq. (22), (ii) reproduces the exact NESS populations at leading order, and/or (iii) reproduces both leading-order populations and coherences. The authors formulate these questions as semidefinite programs. The quantities τ_pop and τ_pop,coh measure the violation of the population and coherence conditions, and the decision rule compares optimized values with a tolerance δ_tol. A lemma lower-bounds the trace distance between the exact zeroth-order NESS and the NESS of any allowed LE. The method is applied to isotropic XXZ chains with one, two, or all boundary qubits coupled to bosonic baths with Ohmic spectral functions. Numerical results are reported: for N_L=N_R=1, no LE satisfying local conservation laws can reproduce even leading-order populations; for N_L=N_R=2, populations are possible only for sufficiently small inter-qubit coupling, while coherences are generally impossible; attaching all qubits in equilibrium admits a consistent LE, but non-equilibrium settings do not. The paper presents these as rigorous no-go results.

Significance. The SDP formulation is a genuinely useful contribution. It recasts a difficult existence question about Lindblad descriptions as a convex optimization problem, provides candidate LEs when feasible, extends the earlier thermalization-only SDP of Ref. 19 to NESS and coherences, and the code is publicly available. If the numerical no-go statements are supported by certified bounds or by appropriately softened language, the results will be valuable for the open quantum systems community. The lower-bound lemma is also an interesting idea, but its proof currently needs correction.

major comments (4)

[§II E/F, Eqs. (30),(34); Figs. 2–5; Table I] The central claims of 'rigorous no-go' and 'fundamentally unattainable' are not established by the numerical results as presented. The SDP formulation is exact in exact arithmetic, and duality can in principle provide certified bounds, but the paper reports no primal-dual gaps, no dual certificates, and no verified lower bounds. CVX with default solvers returns approximate optima within solver tolerances; it does not prove τ_opt ≥ δ_tol. Since the decision rule (30)/(34) hinges on the comparison with δ_tol=10^-6, the classification at points near the threshold could be wrong. The qualitative picture may survive because many plotted margins are orders of magnitude above δ_tol, but the 'rigorous' language requires, at minimum, certified lower bounds for the no-go points or an analytic argument. Please either provide such certificates or revise the no-go statements to 'no LE found by numeri
[§II B/C, Eqs. (14)–(15), (19), (40)] The 'exact' NESS is defined through the second-order Redfield dissipator L2, and the no-go results inherit this benchmark. The paper should state prominently that the claims are conditional on the Redfield equation giving the exact leading-order populations and coherences. This is standard in the weak-coupling regime, but the phrase 'exact NESS' is stronger than what is computed; a reader could mistake the target for the exact microscopic NESS. A concrete check would be to compare the SDP target with exact TCL or numerically converged results for at least one parameter point, or to state the required conditions explicitly (non-degeneracy, small ϵ, no level crossings, etc.).
[§III, Table I, Figs. 2–5] The paper claims impossibility 'across all parameter regimes' in several places, but the numerical study samples only finite ranges of β_L and g. Extrapolation from those plots to 'all parameter regimes' is not justified. Please restrict the conclusions to the ranges actually computed, or provide an analytic or certified argument covering the full parameter space.
[Appendix B, Eq. (B12); Lemma 1] The proof of Lemma 1 appears to contain a normalization error. Eq. (B12) writes the prefactors as 1/[2(N_M+N_R)] and 1/[2(N_M+N_L)], but Eq. (23) uses Hilbert-space dimensions d_M d_R and d_L d_M in the denominators. If N_M,N_R denote numbers of qubits rather than dimensions, the displayed formula is inconsistent with the model. Please correct this and re-derive the bound. The lemma is not needed for the SDP decision rule itself, but as a main-text mathematical claim it must be correct.

minor comments (5)

[§II F, Eq. (32)] The norm in Eq. (32) is not defined; specify that it is the Hilbert–Schmidt norm on the operator space (or state the chosen p-norm explicitly).
[§III C, text before Eq. (40)] The text says 'or get τ_pop,coh [Eq. (29)]'; this should refer to Eq. (33), not Eq. (29).
[Appendix B, Eq. (B16)] The derivation uses several inequalities without fully specifying the intermediate steps. Clarify how the bound Σ_k |C_{ka}| ≤ α is obtained, especially the role of d_L/d and the δ_{ka} term.
[Table I and Fig. 3 captions] Minor inconsistencies: Fig. 2 uses 'orange circle' while Fig. 3 uses 'red circle' for the same β_R=5.0 marker; also Table I says 'energy biases' in the caption, but the main text treats zero-bias except in Appendix C. Please harmonize captions.
[General notation] The notation for ρ vs \barρ, L2 vs L'_2, and bracket symbols is sometimes inconsistent (e.g., L2[ρ] vs L2(ρ)). A unified notation summary would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SDP optimizes over an independently defined feasible set and the no-go verdicts are solver outputs, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The target exact NESS is defined by solving the Redfield second-order equations, Eqs. (14) and (15), and the feasibility conditions in Eqs. (25) and (27) compare an arbitrary local CPTP generator L'_2 to L2 only through its action on that fixed, independently computed rho0. The SDPs in Eqs. (29) and (33) minimize objective functions over the independent variables H_LS, Gamma_L, and Gamma_R; the reported tau_opt values are outputs of the convex solver, not parameters fitted to reproduce the no-go conclusions. The Redfield-accuracy premise is supported by Refs. [34] and [35], the latter being an external and independent source, and the local-conservation characterization Eq. (23) is cited to Ref. [19] as a parameter-free structural theorem rather than being assumed ad hoc in this paper. Using one's own prior theorems as building blocks is normal scientific practice and does not make the present SDP result equivalent to its inputs. The main caveats—lack of explicit primal-dual gap certificates for the CVX results and the conditional dependence on second-order Redfield accuracy in certain parameter regimes—are correctness and numerical-rigor concerns, not instances of circular reasoning. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction and no known result is merely renamed as a new finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or dimensions. Its central claim rests on standard open-quantum-system assumptions, a specific bath model, the self-cited Redfield-accuracy theorem, and the hand-chosen tolerance δ_tol. The no-go statements are therefore conditional on these inputs, not unconditional mathematical theorems.

free parameters (4)

δ_tol = 10^-6
Tolerance separating “possible” from “impossible” in Eqs. (30) and (34). Chosen by hand, following Ref. 19. The no-go conclusions depend on this threshold.
ω_c = 10
Cutoff frequency of the Ohmic Gaussian spectral function, set to 10 for all figures. The claim of “all parameter regimes” is actually at fixed cutoff frequency.
γ_ℓ = 1 for all ℓ in most figures
Bath coupling strengths are set to unity in the main scans. Results could change with different per-site coupling strengths; Fig. 5 varies them only for one equilibrium case.
ε = 0.01
System-bath coupling strength used in all numerical plots. The leading-order truncation assumes this is small enough that O(ε^4) corrections are negligible.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption H_S has no degeneracies (Sec. II A)
Needed so coherences are O(ε^2) and the order-by-order steady-state analysis applies. The method does not cover degenerate systems.
domain assumption The system reaches a unique NESS (Sec. II A)
Assumes finite system with thermodynamically large baths leads to a unique steady state; if multiple steady states exist, the target ρ_NESS is not well-defined.
domain assumption Redfield L2 gives exact leading-order populations and coherences (Sec. II C, Refs. 34, 35)
The entire SDP target is built from L2[ρ^(0)_NESS]. If Redfield is not correct to leading order for the model, the no-go conclusions are about the wrong object.
domain assumption Any Lindblad QME preserving local conservation laws has the form of Eq. (23) (Ref. 19)
Restricts the search space. The no-go results only rule out LEs of this form, not arbitrary non-local Lindblad equations.
domain assumption Baths are Ohmic with Gaussian cutoff J_ℓ(ω)=γ_ℓ ω exp(-(ω/ω_c)^2) (Eq. 42)
Specific bath model used for all numerics; the claimed “all parameter regimes” is conditional on this spectral function.
standard math NESS expansion contains only even powers of ε because Tr(H_SB ρ(0)⊗ρ_B)=0 (Sec. II A, Ref. 1)
Standard weak-coupling expansion; used to derive order-by-order equations and the O(ε^2) leading-order coherences.
standard math Primal-dual SDP solvers return rigorous optimal values and certificates (Sec. IV)
The paper claims rigorous no-go from numerical SDP solutions. Strictly, this requires reliable duality-gap certificates; these are not explicitly reported in the figures.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semidefinite programming for understanding the limitations of Lindblad equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QM3PZZJS

@misc{pith2026260201794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semidefinite programming for understanding the limitations of Lindblad equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QM3PZZJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.01794}
}

read the original abstract

Lindbladian quantum master equations (LEs) are the most popular descriptions for quantum systems weakly coupled to baths. But, recent works have established that in many situations such Markovian descriptions are fundamentally limited: they cannot simultaneously capture populations and coherences even to the leading-order in system-bath couplings. This can cause violation of fundamental properties like thermalization and continuity equations associated with local conservation laws, even when such properties are expected in the actual setting. This begs the question: given a physical situation, how do we know if there exists an LE that describes it to a desired accuracy? Here we show that, for both equilibrium and non-equilibrium steady states (NESS), this question can be succinctly formulated as a semidefinite program (SDP), a convex optimization technique. If a solution to the SDP can be found to a desired accuracy, then an LE description is possible for the chosen setting. If not, no LE description is fundamentally attainable, showing that a consistent Markovian treatment is impossible even at weak system-bath coupling for that particular setting. Considering few qubit isotropic XXZ-type models coupled to multiple baths, we find that in most parameter regimes, LE description giving accurate populations and coherences to leading-order is unattainable, leading to rigorous no-go results. However, in some cases, LE description having correct populations but inaccurate coherences, and satisfying local conservation laws, is possible over some of the parameter regimes. Our work highlights the power of semidefinite programming in the analysis of physically consistent LEs, thereby, in understanding the limits of Markovian descriptions at weak system-bath couplings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01794 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Plots for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Plots for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: highlights the results of this optimization by plotting τ pop opt (upper panel) and τ pop,coh opt (lower panel) versus different values of g. Most interestingly, we notice that when all the qubits of the system are connected to baths, it might be possible for the CVX-o…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Plots for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[34]

A. S. Trushechkin, M. Merkli, J. D. Cresser, and J. An- ders, Open quantum system dynamics and the mean force gibbs state, A VS Quantum Science4, 012301 (2022)

2022
[35]

Scali, J

S. Scali, J. Anders, and L. A. Correa, Local master equa- tions bypass the secular approximation, Quantum5, 451 (2021)

2021
[1]

The CPTP condition First, we wish to preserve complete positivity and trace (CPTP map) for which one requires a Lindbladian form as given in Eq. (1). This means thatL ′ 2 present in Eq. (21) has to have a Lindbladian form [Eq. (1)]
[2]

For this, consider the dynamical equation for the expectation value of any observableO M onH M [see Fig

Local conservation laws Second, for physical consistency, we require local con- servation laws. For this, consider the dynamical equation for the expectation value of any observableO M onH M [see Fig. 1], which is given by d dt ⟨IL ⊗O M ⊗I R⟩=−i⟨[I L ⊗O M ⊗I R, HS]⟩,(22) where⟨X⟩= Tr[Xρ]. Any effective QME obtained by integrating out the bath should satis...
[3]

34 and are also explained as follows: Using the same argument as in Sec

Accurate populations and thermalization Third, one might want the Markovian QME to recover the correct leading-order populations of the exact NESS ¯ρ(0) NESS =ρ (0) NESS (24) The conditions for this have been described in Ref. 34 and are also explained as follows: Using the same argument as in Sec. II B, we can conclude that ¯ρ(0) NESS is diagonal in ener...
[4]

Correct populations

Accurate populations and coherences Finally, to recover the leading-order coherences of the exact NESS, i.e. ⟨Eα|¯ρ(2) NESS |Eν⟩=⟨E α|ρ (2) NESS |Eν⟩,∀α̸=ν(26) given that one has obtained ¯ρ (0) NESS =ρ (0) NESS,L ′ 2 must yield exactly the same set of equations as Eq. (15). Therefore, ⟨Eα| L′ 2[ρ(0) NESS]|E ν⟩=⟨E α| L2[ρ(0) NESS]|E ν⟩ ∀α̸=ν. (27) These [...
[5]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006)

2006
[6]

Carmichael,Statistical Methods in Quantum Op- tics 1

H. Carmichael,Statistical Methods in Quantum Op- tics 1. Master Equations and Fokker–Planck Equations (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2002)

2002

Show all 58 references

[7]

Rivas and S

´A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga,Open Quantum Systems: An Introduction(Springer, 2012)

2012
[8]

Campaioli, J

F. Campaioli, J. H. Cole, and H. Hapuarachchi, Quan- tum master equations: Tips and tricks for quantum op- tics, quantum computing, and beyond, PRX Quantum5, 020202 (2024)

2024
[9]

Stefanini, A

M. Stefanini, A. A. Ziolkowska, D. Budker, U. Poschinger, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Browaeys, A. Imamoglu, D. Chang, and J. Marino, Is lindblad for me?, arXiv (2025), 2506.22436 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[10]

H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum measure- ment and control(Cambridge university press, 2009)

2009
[11]

Walls and G

D. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum optics(Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2008)

2008
[12]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

2010
[13]

Hacohen-Gourgy and L

S. Hacohen-Gourgy and L. S. Martin, Continuous mea- surements for control of superconducting quantum cir- cuits, Advances in Physics: X5, 1813626 (2020)

2020
[14]

Gambetta, A

J. Gambetta, A. Blais, M. Boissonneault, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, and S. M. Girvin, Quantum trajectory approach to circuit qed: Quantum jumps and the zeno effect, Phys. Rev. A77, 012112 (2008)

2008
[15]

H. J. Carmichael, Quantum trajectory theory for cas- caded open systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2273 (1993)

1993
[16]

Gorini, A

V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level sys- tems, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821 (1976)

1976
[17]

Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun

G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

1976
[18]

Bloch, Generalized theory of relaxation, Phys

F. Bloch, Generalized theory of relaxation, Phys. Rev. 105, 1206 (1957)

1957
[19]

A. G. Redfield, On the theory of relaxation processes, IBM Journal of Research and Development1, 19 (1957)

1957
[20]

Su´ arez, R

A. Su´ arez, R. Silbey, and I. Oppenheim, Memory effects in the relaxation of quantum open systems, The Journal of Chemical Physics97, 5101 (1992)

1992
[21]

Gnutzmann and F

S. Gnutzmann and F. Haake, Positivity violation and ini- tial slips in open systems, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Con- densed Matter101, 263 (1996)

1996
[22]

Hartmann and W

R. Hartmann and W. T. Strunz, Accuracy assessment of perturbative master equations: Embracing nonpositivity, Phys. Rev. A101, 012103 (2020)

2020
[23]

Tupkary, A

D. Tupkary, A. Dhar, M. Kulkarni, and A. Purkayastha, Searching for lindbladians obeying local conservation laws and showing thermalization, Physical Review A 107, 062216 (2023)

2023
[24]

Rivas, A

A. Rivas, A. D. K Plato, S. F. Huelga, and M. B Ple- nio, Markovian master equations: a critical study, New Journal of Physics12, 113032 (2010)

2010
[25]

A. S. Trushechkin and I. V. Volovich, Perturbative treat- ment of inter-site couplings in the local description of open quantum networks, EPL (Europhysics Letters)113, 30005 (2016)

2016
[26]

De¸ cordi and A

G. De¸ cordi and A. Vidiella-Barranco, Two coupled qubits interacting with a thermal bath: A comparative study of different models, Optics Communications387, 366 (2017)

2017
[27]

Kirˇ sanskas, M

G. Kirˇ sanskas, M. Francki´ e, and A. Wacker, Phenomeno- logical position and energy resolving lindblad approach to quantum kinetics, Phys. Rev. B97, 035432 (2018)

2018
[28]

Cattaneo, G

M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zam- brini, Local versus global master equation with common and separate baths: superiority of the global approach in partial secular approximation, New Journal of Physics 18 21, 113045 (2019)

2019
[29]

Davidovi´ c, Completely positive, simple, and possibly highly accurate approximation of the redfield equation, Quantum4, 326 (2020)

D. Davidovi´ c, Completely positive, simple, and possibly highly accurate approximation of the redfield equation, Quantum4, 326 (2020)

2020
[30]

Mozgunov and D

E. Mozgunov and D. Lidar, Completely positive master equation for arbitrary driving and small level spacing, Quantum4, 227 (2020)

2020
[31]

McCauley, B

G. McCauley, B. Cruikshank, D. I. Bondar, and K. Ja- cobs, Accurate lindblad-form master equation for weakly damped quantum systems across all regimes, npj Quan- tum Information6(2020)

2020
[32]

Kleinherbers, N

E. Kleinherbers, N. Szpak, J. K¨ onig, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Relaxation dynamics in a hubbard dimer coupled to fermionic baths: Phenomenological description and its microscopic foundation, Phys. Rev. B101, 125131 (2020)

2020
[33]

Davidovi´ c, Geometric-arithmetic master equation in large and fast open quantum systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical55, 455301 (2022)

D. Davidovi´ c, Geometric-arithmetic master equation in large and fast open quantum systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical55, 455301 (2022)

2022
[36]

Becker, L.-N

T. Becker, L.-N. Wu, and A. Eckardt, Lindbladian ap- proximation beyond ultraweak coupling, Phys. Rev. E 104, 014110 (2021)

2021
[37]

Schnell, Global becomes local: Efficient many-body dynamics for global master equations, Phys

A. Schnell, Global becomes local: Efficient many-body dynamics for global master equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 250401 (2025)

2025
[38]

Tupkary, A

D. Tupkary, A. Dhar, M. Kulkarni, and A. Purkayastha, Fundamental limitations in lindblad descriptions of sys- tems weakly coupled to baths, Phys. Rev. A105, 032208 (2022)

2022
[39]

C. H. Fleming and N. I. Cummings, Accuracy of pertur- bative master equations, Phys. Rev. E83, 031117 (2011)

2011
[40]

Vandenberghe and S

L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, Semidefinite programming, SIAM Review38, 49 (1996), https://doi.org/10.1137/1038003

1996 doi
[41]

M. M. Wolf, J. Eisert, T. S. Cubitt, and J. I. Cirac, As- sessing non-markovian quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 150402 (2008)

2008
[42]

T. S. Cubitt, J. Eisert, and M. M. Wolf, The complexity of relating quantum channels to master equations, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics310, 383 (2012)

2012
[43]

A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Multistate and multi- hypothesis discrimination with open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A97, 052113 (2018)

2018
[44]

Rivas and S

´A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga, Open quantum systems, SpringerBriefs in Physics (2012)

2012
[45]

Fleming, A

C. Fleming, A. Roura, and B. Hu, Exact analytical solu- tions to the master equation of quantum brownian mo- tion for a general environment, Annals of Physics326, 1207–1258 (2010)

2010
[46]

R. S. Whitney, Staying positive: going beyond lindblad with perturbative master equations, Journal of Physics a Mathematical and Theoretical41, 175304 (2008)

2008
[47]

Grant and S

M. Grant and S. Boyd, CVX: Matlab software for disci- plined convex programming, version 2.1,http://cvxr. com/cvx(2014)

2014
[48]

Purkayastha, A

A. Purkayastha, A. Dhar, and M. Kulkarni, Out-of- equilibrium open quantum systems: A comparison of approximate quantum master equation approaches with exact results, Phys. Rev. A93, 062114 (2016)

2016
[49]

Guarnieri, M

G. Guarnieri, M. Kol´ aˇ r, and R. Filip, Steady-state coher- ences by composite system-bath interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 070401 (2018)

2018
[50]

Znidariˇ c, Spin transport in a one-dimensional anisotropic heisenberg model, Physical review letters 106, 220601 (2011)

M. Znidariˇ c, Spin transport in a one-dimensional anisotropic heisenberg model, Physical review letters 106, 220601 (2011)

2011
[51]

ˇZnidariˇ c, Transport in a one-dimensional isotropic heisenberg model at high temperature, Phys

M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Transport in a one-dimensional isotropic heisenberg model at high temperature, Phys. Rev. E92, 042143 (2015)

2015
[52]

Prosen and M

T. Prosen and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Matrix product simulations of non-equilibrium steady states of quantum spin chains, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experi- ment2009, P02035 (2009)

2009
[53]

J. T. Barreiro, M. M¨ uller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, An open-system quantum simulator with trapped ions, Nature470, 486 (2011)

2011
[54]

Schindler, M

P. Schindler, M. M¨ uller, D. Nigg, J. T. Barreiro, E. A. Martinez, M. Hennrich, T. Monz, S. Diehl, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Quantum simulation of dynamical maps with trapped ions, Nature Physics9, 361 (2013)

2013
[55]

Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, M

G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, M. A. C. Rossi, and S. Maniscalco, Ibm q experience as a versatile experimental testbed for simu- lating open quantum systems, npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020)

2020
[56]

C. W. Kim, J. M. Nichol, A. N. Jordan, and I. Franco, Analog quantum simulation of the dynamics of open quantum systems with quantum dots and microelectronic circuits, PRX Quantum3, 040308 (2022)

2022
[57]

Sarma,https://github.com/lo568los/ LimitationLindbladians(2025)

S. Sarma,https://github.com/lo568los/ LimitationLindbladians(2025)

2025
[58]

R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [34]

A. S. Trushechkin, M. Merkli, J. D. Cresser, and J. An- ders, Open quantum system dynamics and the mean force gibbs state, A VS Quantum Science4, 012301 (2022)

2022

[2] [35]

Scali, J

S. Scali, J. Anders, and L. A. Correa, Local master equa- tions bypass the secular approximation, Quantum5, 451 (2021)

2021

[3] [1]

The CPTP condition First, we wish to preserve complete positivity and trace (CPTP map) for which one requires a Lindbladian form as given in Eq. (1). This means thatL ′ 2 present in Eq. (21) has to have a Lindbladian form [Eq. (1)]

[4] [2]

For this, consider the dynamical equation for the expectation value of any observableO M onH M [see Fig

Local conservation laws Second, for physical consistency, we require local con- servation laws. For this, consider the dynamical equation for the expectation value of any observableO M onH M [see Fig. 1], which is given by d dt ⟨IL ⊗O M ⊗I R⟩=−i⟨[I L ⊗O M ⊗I R, HS]⟩,(22) where⟨X⟩= Tr[Xρ]. Any effective QME obtained by integrating out the bath should satis...

[5] [3]

34 and are also explained as follows: Using the same argument as in Sec

Accurate populations and thermalization Third, one might want the Markovian QME to recover the correct leading-order populations of the exact NESS ¯ρ(0) NESS =ρ (0) NESS (24) The conditions for this have been described in Ref. 34 and are also explained as follows: Using the same argument as in Sec. II B, we can conclude that ¯ρ(0) NESS is diagonal in ener...

[6] [4]

Correct populations

Accurate populations and coherences Finally, to recover the leading-order coherences of the exact NESS, i.e. ⟨Eα|¯ρ(2) NESS |Eν⟩=⟨E α|ρ (2) NESS |Eν⟩,∀α̸=ν(26) given that one has obtained ¯ρ (0) NESS =ρ (0) NESS,L ′ 2 must yield exactly the same set of equations as Eq. (15). Therefore, ⟨Eα| L′ 2[ρ(0) NESS]|E ν⟩=⟨E α| L2[ρ(0) NESS]|E ν⟩ ∀α̸=ν. (27) These [...

[7] [5]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006)

2006

[8] [6]

Carmichael,Statistical Methods in Quantum Op- tics 1

H. Carmichael,Statistical Methods in Quantum Op- tics 1. Master Equations and Fokker–Planck Equations (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2002)

2002