Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Analytical Floquet Quantum Statistics from Nonequilibrium Green's Functions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a closed analytical Floquet Fermi distribution for the steady state of weakly driven, bath-coupled fermionic systems, and a Floquet Landauer formula for the DC current.

desk verdict The flat-bath Floquet Fermi distribution is a genuine and well-derived result; the advertised generalization to arbitrary bath spectra rests on an invalid matrix Sokhotski–Plemelj step, so that part needs serious revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04558 v1 pith:TDPVZNHC submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.stat-mech

Yuhua Ren , Gaomin Tang , Hui Pan , Jian-Sheng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech MSC 82C1081Q1582C70 PACS 05.30.-d05.60.Gg
keywords FloquetFermidistributionnonequilibriumGreen'sfunctionsmicromotionoperatorLandauerformulaperiodicallydrivenopenquantumsystemsKeldyshequationsidebands
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper derives a closed analytical formula for the steady-state occupation statistics of a weakly driven fermionic quantum system coupled to a heat bath. The result, called the Floquet Fermi distribution, expresses the steady-state occupation as a weighted sum of ordinary Fermi–Dirac functions whose energies are shifted by integer multiples of the driving frequency, with weights fixed by the Fourier components of the micromotion operator. The derivation proceeds through the nonequilibrium Green's function formalism in the Floquet representation and does not require the time-dependent Hamiltonian to commute with itself at different times. If correct, the formula gives a parameter-free description of Floquet sideband occupations and a Floquet generalization of the Landauer formula for DC transport.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Floquet representation of two-time Green's functions, a discrete Fourier transform in the average time and a continuous Fourier transform in the relative time, under which time convolutions become matrix multiplications via the Floquet convolution theorem. Combined with the micromotion operator $P(t)$ from Floquet's theorem, this representation diagonalizes the retarded and advanced Green's functions as $G^R_S = P(\hbar\Omega + i\Gamma/2 - H_F)^{-1}P^\dagger$ when the bath self-energy is proportional to the identity. Inserting the lesser self-energy $\Sigma^< = i\Gamma F$ into the Keldysh equation and taking the $\Gamma \to 0^+$ limit with the Sokhotski–Plemelj identity leaves only diagonal sideband terms, producing the weighted sum over $\xi$. The weights $D(P^\dagger_\xi P_\xi)$ are the squared column norms of the Fourier components of $P$, so they encode how much each Floquet replica contributes to the steady-state occupation.

What would settle it

Drive a multi-level system with parameters chosen so that two Floquet quasienergies differ by exactly one photon energy $\hbar\Omega$ (or are otherwise degenerate in the Floquet–Brillouin zone), then evaluate the Keldysh equation (56) at small but finite $\Gamma$; Eq. (58) then acquires off-diagonal $\alpha \neq \gamma$ terms that Eq. (62) omits, so a numerically exact Floquet master-equation or Green's-function calculation would show occupations deviating from the weighted-sum formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the weak-coupling limit the steady-state density matrix of a periodically driven system in contact with a thermal fermionic bath takes the form $\rho_F = \sum_\xi f(H_F + \xi\hbar\Omega)\, D(P^\dagger_\xi P_\xi)$, where $f$ is the Fermi–Dirac function, $H_F$ is the Floquet Hamiltonian, $\Omega$ is the driving frequency, $P_\xi$ is the $\xi$-th Fourier component of the micromotion operator $P(t)$, and $D(\cdot)$ retains only diagonal entries in the eigenbasis of $H_F$. The time-dependent density matrix rotates as $\rho_S(t) = U_S(t)\rho_F U_S(t)^\dagger$, so occupations are constant while the basis rotates when the Hamiltonian does not commute at different times. The formula holds for general non-commuting time-periodic Hamiltonians under weak coupling, extends to a broad class of frequency-dependent bath spectral functions, and reduces to the equilibrium Fermi–Dirac distribution when the drive vanishes. The paper further establishes a Floquet Landauer formula for the DC current, $\langle J\rangle_{\mathrm{DC}} = \frac{1}{\hbar}\frac{\Gamma_L\Gamma_R}{\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_L-\rho_R)$, in which the equilibrium Fermi functions are replaced by their Floquet-modified counterparts.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that no two quasienergies of the driven system differ by exactly an integer multiple of the driving quantum $\hbar\Omega$, so that off-resonant sideband terms can be dropped as the bath coupling vanishes, together with a symmetric coupling model in which each system level is identically attached to its own copy of the bath.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any weakly driven multi-level system whose quasienergies are non-degenerate modulo $\hbar\Omega$, the steady-state occupations are determined entirely by $H_F$ and the Fourier coefficients of $P(t)$, with no need to solve a master equation.
  • When the Hamiltonian commutes at different times, $\rho_S(t) = \rho_F$ is time independent; in general the density matrix rotates with $U_S(t)$, so the occupations are constant but the basis rotates.
  • The result extends earlier diagonal commuting and single-sideband Floquet–Gibbs approximations to all Floquet sidebands, with weights that sum to unity by Parseval's theorem.
  • In a two-terminal setup, the DC current obeys a Landauer-type formula with Floquet distributions replacing the equilibrium Fermi functions, and increasing driving strength generally suppresses the current.
  • The same Floquet distribution survives for frequency-dependent bath spectral functions in the weak-coupling limit, not only for the featureless wide-band bath.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the derivation takes the strict $\Gamma \to 0^+$ limit, the leading finite-broadening corrections should be of order $\Gamma$ and proportional to the off-diagonal coherent sideband terms that Eq. (62) discards; an explicit first-order-in-$\Gamma$ expression would give a practical correction for realistic couplings.
  • The formula suggests a direct experimental probe: spectroscopic reconstruction of the sideband weights $D(P^\dagger_\xi P_\xi)$ in a driven quantum dot or cold-atom system would effectively measure the Fourier components of the micromotion operator.
  • A bosonic analogue obtained by replacing Fermi–Dirac functions with Bose–Einstein functions is a natural extension, though the fermionic signs and the diagonalization step would need to be re-derived for bosonic baths.
  • The gauge-invariance argument implies that the physically robust quantities are the sideband weights rather than the Floquet Hamiltonian itself, which may clarify how effective temperatures extracted from driven-state occupancies should be interpreted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript embeds Floquet theory into the nonequilibrium Green's function formalism and derives an analytical steady-state occupation formula for a weakly driven open fermionic system. For a featureless bath, the retarded and advanced Green's functions factorize as P(...)^-1 P^dagger, and evaluation of the Keldysh equation in the Gamma -> 0+ limit gives the central result rho_F = sum_xi f(H_F + xi hbar Omega) D(P^dagger_xi P_xi), with rho_S(t) = U_S(t) rho_F U_S(t)^dagger. The derivation is cross-checked in Appendix A and reproduces the Bessel-weighted result for a sinusoidally driven resonant level, Eq. (65). The paper further claims that the formula is unchanged for a broad class of frequency-dependent bath spectral functions, using a matrix generalization of the Sokhotski-Plemelj formula in Appendix B, and derives a Floquet generalization of the Landauer formula, Eq. (81), for the DC current.

Significance. If Eq. (62) is correct, it provides a transparent, parameter-free description of Floquet sideband occupations for non-commuting, time-periodic Hamiltonians, going beyond the commuting case treated in Ref. [24]. The result has a clean physical interpretation through the Fourier components of the micromotion operator and reduces exactly to the Fermi-Dirac distribution in the undriven limit. The Landauer-type DC formula Eq. (81) is a testable prediction for two-terminal driven junctions. The featureless-bath derivation is internally consistent, with an independent time-domain derivation in Appendix A and explicit consistency with the known single-level Bessel result. However, the claimed robustness to arbitrary weakly coupled bath spectral functions is not established by the argument as written; only the featureless-bath result is fully supported in the present version.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B10)] The matrix inversion step leading to Eq. (B10) is not valid to first order in Gamma for non-commuting Gamma. Writing A = X - Lambda and B = i Gamma/2, the exact expansion is (A+B)^-1 = A^-1 - A^-1 B A^-1 + O(Gamma^2), whereas Eq. (B10) is equivalent to A^-1 / [1 + (i/2) Tr(Gamma A^-1)] = A^-1 - (i/2) A^-1 Tr(Gamma A^-1) + O(Gamma^2). The dropped term -(i/2) A^-1 Gamma A^-1 is of the same order and cannot be neglected unless Gamma commutes with A, which is precisely the case that Appendix B is intended to go beyond. Consequently, Eqs. (B12)-(B14) reduce the pole structure to delta((X-Lambda)_bb) in the eigenbasis of Gamma, but in the Keldysh integrand Eq. (67), X = hbar Omega - H_S does not generally commute with Gamma, so the claimed pole selection is not established. The statement in Section V that the final Floquet distribution is unchanged regardless of the specifics of Gamma(omega) is therefore unsupported by the derivation presented. The featureless-bath derivation of Eq. (62) is not affected by this issue.
  2. [Section V, Eqs. (57)-(58)] The central diagonal-selection step that converts the Keldysh equation into the closed form Eq. (62) relies on the assumption, stated before Eq. (58), that no two quasienergies differ by an integer multiple of hbar Omega. If this condition fails, the off-diagonal terms in Eq. (56) do not vanish in the Gamma -> 0+ limit, and the distribution acquires inter-sideband corrections. The authors explicitly note that the condition can fail for symmetry-protected degeneracies or a crowded Floquet-Brillouin zone, but the abstract and introduction claim the result for general periodically driven systems. The manuscript should state the precise theorem with the non-degeneracy condition explicitly listed, and should either discuss how Eq. (62) is modified in the degenerate case or clearly delimit the regime of validity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI, after Eq. (79)] The phrase "the assumption that the spectral function universally commutes" is undefined; since this section has already specialized to featureless baths, clarify what is being assumed and why it holds in that setting.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (75)] The sentence following Eq. (75) states that the first term yields the AC current and the second and third terms yield the DC current, but this is only explained after Eq. (82); moving the explanation earlier would improve readability.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (71)] The notation Tr_t A(omega)B(omega) is nonstandard and initially confusing because the trace is over internal indices only while the Floquet indices are treated differently; the index structure should be defined explicitly at first use.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The captions contain garbled control characters (e.g., sequences such as "/uni00000014/uni00000013/...") that appear to be rendering artifacts; these should be regenerated so that the captions are readable.
  5. [Eq. (B10)] The phrase "the desired form for applying the Sokhotski-Plemelj formula" should be qualified, because the scalar-like form in Eq. (B10) is only a valid first-order inverse when Gamma commutes with X - Lambda.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (62) is a genuine Keldysh derivation with no fitted weights; Appendix B is a correctness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

None of the claimed results is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The central distribution Eq. (62) is obtained by explicitly evaluating the Keldysh equation: Eq. (54) is expanded in Floquet blocks in Eq. (56), the Gamma->0+ limit is taken with the diagonal-selection identity Eq. (57), and the surviving terms are summed to Eq. (58) and transformed to Eqs. (59)-(62). The weights D(P^dag_xi P_xi) are determined by the micromotion Fourier components, not matched to target occupations; no parameter is fitted to any dataset. The result is cross-checked by an independent time-domain Keldysh evaluation in Appendix A and by the Bessel-function single-level limit Eq. (65), both of which are consistency checks rather than circular inputs. The only distributional input is the bath Fermi function f; the output is a weighted average of Fermi functions at shifted arguments, which is precisely the content of the derivation rather than an assumption smuggled into the premise. The stated quasienergy non-degeneracy condition preceding Eq. (58) is a validity condition, not a circular input. The self-citations (Ref. [30] for the Floquet representation, Ref. [38] for the effective-temperature remark) are not load-bearing: the Floquet representation is also supported by the standard Ref. [29], and the effective-temperature remark is peripheral to the central claim. A caveat on correctness, not circularity: the claimed extension to arbitrary weakly coupled bath spectra rests on Appendix B, whose matrix Sokhotski-Plemelj step Eq. (B10) drops the non-commuting first-order correction to the inverse and is therefore not justified as written; this would undermine the broad-class-of-spectra claim, but it is an unsupported mathematical step rather than a reduction of the conclusion to the premise. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim Eq. (62) rests on standard Floquet/NEGF machinery plus four domain assumptions: the non-degeneracy spectral condition, thermal initial bath state, the site-symmetric coupling model making the self-energy proportional to identity, and wide-band or smooth bath spectra. No parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are postulated. The heaviest burden is the robustness-to-structured-bath claim (Section V and Appendix B), which is asserted with a heuristic matrix limit rather than demonstrated; a numerical check with an energy-dependent spectral function would materially strengthen it. The Floquet replicas Pξ|χj⟩ in Eq. (66) are a bookkeeping interpretation, not independent physical entities.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Floquet's theorem: U(t) = P(t) exp(-iH_F t/ℏ) with P(t) unitary and 2π/Ω-periodic, H_F Hermitian (Eq. (1)).
    Foundation of the Floquet representation and of the gauge-invariance discussion; standard result cited to Refs. [4,27].
  • domain assumption Non-degeneracy: no two quasienergies differ by an integer multiple of ℏΩ, and all quasienergy differences are much larger than Γ (Section V, before Eq. (58)).
    Load-bearing: it forces the off-diagonal (α≠γ or a≠c) terms in the Keldysh equation to vanish in the Γ→0 limit, producing the simple weighted-sum form of Eq. (62). The authors note it fails for symmetry-protected degeneracies or crowded Floquet-Brillouin zones.
  • domain assumption Bath initially in thermal equilibrium with ρB(t0)=f(HB), and the t0-dependence of the dynamics drops out (Section III, Eqs. (21)-(24)).
    Standard NEGF steady-state initial condition; fermionic second quantization supplies the Fermi functions. Requires the coupling to be switched on in the infinite past.
  • domain assumption Non-interacting electrons; system and bath as a direct sum of non-overlapping Hilbert spaces; each system level couples through identical couplings λα to its own copy of the bath (Section III, Eqs. (12), (44)-(45)).
    This model makes the self-energy proportional to the identity in system space, which is what permits the simultaneous diagonalization in Eq. (51) and hence the closed Green's functions. Site-dependent couplings would break the derivation.
  • domain assumption Featureless bath: Γ(ω) = Γ over all energies in the wide-band limit, with the Lorentzian Γ(ω) = Γ/(1+ω²τ²) and τ→0+ as the rigorous version (Section IV, Eqs. (46)-(50)).
    The clean derivation path; the relaxation to smooth positive Γ(ω) is claimed in Section V and Appendix B rather than proven at the same level of rigor.
  • domain assumption System-bath coupling is static (no periodic time dependence) (Section III).
    The authors explicitly restrict to static coupling and leave time-dependent coupling to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper Generalized Sokhotski-Plemelj conditions: Γ(ω)=ηk(ω) with k continuous, bounded, positive at the pole (Appendix B, Eqs. (B1)-(B5)).
    The conditions are stated for the pole at ω=0 only; the extension to all Floquet sideband pole energies εa - αℏΩ with Γ(εa/ℏ - αΩ)>0 is not stated, so the conclusion 'regardless of the specifics of Γ(ω)' overreaches.
  • ad hoc to paper Matrix generalization of Sokhotski-Plemelj: in the basis where Γ is diagonal, only the 'diagonal' terms (i=b, j=b) survive the Γ→0 limit (Appendix B, Eqs. (B10)-(B14)).
    The appendix asserts that off-diagonal corrections are subleading and that δ((X-Λ)_bb) captures the poles, which presumes X-Λ is effectively diagonal in the pole region; this is the least rigorous step in the robustness claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical Floquet Quantum Statistics from Nonequilibrium Green's Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDPVZNHC

@misc{pith2026260804558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical Floquet Quantum Statistics from Nonequilibrium Green's Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDPVZNHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04558}
}
read the original abstract

We derive an analytical expression for the steady-state quantum statistics of periodically driven quantum systems coupled to a bath using the nonequilibrium Green's function (NEGF) formalism. By embedding Floquet theory into NEGF, we obtain closed expressions for the retarded, advanced, and lesser Green's functions in the Floquet representation, yielding the Floquet Fermi distribution in which the steady-state occupation is expressed as a weighted sum of Fermi functions shifted by integer multiples of the driving frequency. The weights are determined solely by the Fourier components of the micromotion operator, providing a transparent interpretation of Floquet sideband occupations. Our analysis extends beyond the diagonal commuting Hamiltonians treated in earlier work, and further shows that the robust Floquet distribution remains valid for a broad class of weakly coupled bath spectral functions beyond the ideal featureless-bath approximation. Finally, we establish a Floquet version of the Landauer formula for the DC part of the current, in which the equilibrium Fermi functions are replaced by their Floquet-modified counterparts. Together, these results provide a coherent description of Floquet quantum statistics and transport in periodically driven open quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04558 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the system-bath coupling for a hypo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Heatmaps of the Floquet Fermi function (Eq. (65)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Numerical computation of the current exiting from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    D. E. Liu, A. Levchenko, and R. M. Lutchyn, Keldysh approach to periodically driven systems with a fermionic bath: Nonequilibrium steady state, proximity effect, and dissipation, Physical Review B95, 115303 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Total”, “AC

    Thus, the self-energies for the infinite featureless bath can be summarized as ΣR(t, t′) =−i Γ 2 δ(t−t ′),Σ R(ω) =−i Γ 2 ,(50a) ΣA(t, t′) =i Γ 2 δ(t−t ′),Σ A(ω) =i Γ 2 .(50b) To be more rigorous, one can consider the family of Lorentzian functions Γ(ω) = Γ/(1 +ω 2τ 2), parameter- ized by the Drude timescaleτ. The corresponding inverse Fourier transform is...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Photovoltaic Hall effect in graphene, Physical Review B79, 081406 (2009)

    2009

  4. [3]

    N. H. Lindner, G. Refael, and V. Galitski, Floquet topo- logical insulator in semiconductor quantum wells, Nature Physics7, 490 (2011)

    2011

  5. [4]

    Y. H. Wang, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Observation of Floquet-Bloch States on the Surface of a Topological Insulator, Science342, 453 (2013)

    2013

  6. [5]

    Bukov, L

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, Universal high-frequency behavior of periodically driven systems: From dynamical stabilization to Floquet engineering, Ad- vances in Physics64, 139 (2015)

    2015

  7. [6]

    Jiao, W.-K

    C. Jiao, W.-K. Bai, J.-H. Zheng, and T. Yang, Floquet control of modulational instability in a spin-orbit cou- pled condensate, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals208, 118172 (2026)

    work page 2026

  8. [7]

    W. Wang, Z. Zhang, G.-X. Tang, and T. Wang, Floquet engineering tunable periodic gauge fields and simulat- ing real topological phases in a cold-alkaline-earth-metal- atom optical lattice, Physical Review A110, 023308 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, Band structure engi- neering and non-equilibrium dynamics in Floquet topo- logical insulators, Nature Reviews Physics2, 229 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    Castro, U

    A. Castro, U. De Giovannini, S. A. Sato, H. H¨ ubener, and A. Rubio, Floquet engineering the band structure of materials with optimal control theory, Physical Review Research4, 033213 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    E. J. Sie, J. W. McIver, Y.-H. Lee, L. Fu, J. Kong, and N. Gedik, Valley-selective optical Stark effect in mono- layer WS2, Nature Materials14, 290 (2015)

    2015

  4. [11]

    I. Esin, M. S. Rudner, and N. H. Lindner, Floquet metal-to-insulator phase transitions in semiconductor nanowires, Science Advances6, eaay4922 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Deng, J.-L

    C. Deng, J.-L. Orgiazzi, F. Shen, S. Ashhab, and A. Lu- pascu, Observation of Floquet States in a Strongly Driven Artificial Atom, Physical Review Letters115, 133601 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    S. K. Zhao, Z.-Y. Ge, Z. Xiang, G. M. Xue, H. S. Yan, Z. T. Wang, Z. Wang, H. K. Xu, F. F. Su, Z. H. Yang, H. Zhang, Y.-R. Zhang, X.-Y. Guo, K. Xu, Y. Tian, H. F. Yu, D. N. Zheng, H. Fan, and S. P. Zhao, Probing Operator Spreading via Floquet Engineering in a Super- conducting...

    2022

  7. [14]

    Jotzu, M

    G. Jotzu, M. Messer, R. Desbuquois, M. Lebrat, T. Uehlinger, D. Greif, and T. Esslinger, Experimental realization of the topological Haldane model with ultra- cold fermions, Nature515, 237 (2014)

    2014

  8. [15]

    Meinert, M

    F. Meinert, M. J. Mark, K. Lauber, A. J. Daley, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Floquet Engineering of Correlated Tunnel- ing in the Bose-Hubbard Model with Ultracold Atoms, Physical Review Letters116, 205301 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Miller, A

    C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, J. Lin, H. Hirzler, H. Gao, H. Zhou, M. D. Lukin, and J. Ye, Two-axis twisting using Floquet-engineered XYZ spin models with polar molecules, Nature633, 332 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    M. C. Rechtsman, J. M. Zeuner, Y. Plotnik, Y. Lumer, D. Podolsky, F. Dreisow, S. Nolte, M. Segev, and A. Sza- 14 meit, Photonic Floquet topological insulators, Nature 496, 196 (2013)

    2013

  11. [18]

    L. J. Maczewsky, J. M. Zeuner, S. Nolte, and A. Szameit, Observation of photonic anomalous Floquet topological insulators, Nature Communications8, 13756 (2017)

    2017

  12. [19]

    Dittrich, B

    T. Dittrich, B. Oelschl¨ agel, and P. H¨ anggi, Driven tunnelling with dissipation, Europhysics Letters22, 5 (1993)

    1993

  13. [20]

    Breuer, W

    H.-P. Breuer, W. Huber, and F. Petruccione, Quasista- tionary distributions of dissipative nonlinear quantum os- cillators in strong periodic driving fields, Physical Review E61, 4883 (2000)

    2000

  14. [21]

    C. A. Stafford and N. S. Wingreen, Resonant photon- assisted tunneling through a double quantum dot: An electron pump from spatial Rabi oscillations, Physical Review Letters76, 1916 (1996)

    1996

  15. [22]

    Camalet, J

    S. Camalet, J. Lehmann, S. Kohler, and P. H¨ anggi, Cur- rent noise in ac-driven nanoscale conductors, Physical Review Letters90, 210602 (2003)

    2003

  16. [23]

    Arrachea, Green-function approach to transport phe- nomena in quantum pumps, Physical Review B72, 125349 (2005)

    L. Arrachea, Green-function approach to transport phe- nomena in quantum pumps, Physical Review B72, 125349 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Matsyshyn, J

    O. Matsyshyn, J. C. W. Song, I. S. Villadiego, and L.-k. Shi, Fermi-Dirac staircase occupation of Floquet bands and current rectification inside the optical gap of met- als: An exact approach, Physical Review B107, 195135 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Shirai, T

    T. Shirai, T. Mori, and S. Miyashita, Condition for emer- gence of the Floquet-Gibbs state in periodically driven open systems, Physical Review E91, 030101 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Shirai, J

    T. Shirai, J. Thingna, T. Mori, S. Denisov, P. H¨ anggi, and S. Miyashita, Effective Floquet–Gibbs states for dis- sipative quantum systems, New Journal of Physics18, 053008 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    J. N. Bandyopadhyay and J. Thingna, Floquet engineer- ing of Lie algebraic quantum systems, Physical Review B105, L020301 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Blanes, F

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. A. Oteo, and J. Ros, The Magnus expansion and some of its applications, Physics Reports 470, 151 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Tsuji, T

    N. Tsuji, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, Correlated electron systems periodically driven out of equilibrium: Flo- quet+DMFT formalism, Physical Review B78, 235124 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Tang and J.-S

    G. Tang and J.-S. Wang, Modulating near-field thermal transfer through temporal drivings: A quantum many- body theory, Physical Review B109, 085428 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    J. H. Shirley, Solution of the Schr¨ odinger equation with a Hamiltonian periodic in time, Physical Review138, B979 (1965)

    1965

  25. [33]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, The Floquet engineer’s handbook (2020), arXiv:2003.08252 [cond-mat]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    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

  27. [35]

    Kohler, T

    S. Kohler, T. Dittrich, and P. H¨ anggi, Floquet-Markovian description of the parametrically driven, dissipative har- monic quantum oscillator, Physical Review E55, 300 (1997)

    1997

  28. [36]

    D. W. Hone, R. Ketzmerick, and W. Kohn, Statistical mechanics of Floquet systems: The pervasive problem of near degeneracies, Physical Review E79, 051129 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Ketzmerick and W

    R. Ketzmerick and W. Wustmann, Statistical mechan- ics of Floquet systems with regular and chaotic states, Physical Review E82, 021114 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Iadecola and C

    T. Iadecola and C. Chamon, Floquet systems coupled to particle reservoirs, Physical Review B91, 184301 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    H. Pan, Y. Ren, G. Tang, and J.-S. Wang, Asymmetry- induced radiative heat transfer in Floquet systems, Phys- ical Review B112, L041401 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Thakur and N

    A. Thakur and N. Sarkar, A tutorial on the NEGF method for electron transport in devices and defective materials, The European Physical Journal B96, 113 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Stefanucci and R

    G. Stefanucci and R. van Leeuwen,Nonequilibrium Many-Body Theory of Quantum Systems: A Modern Introduction(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Haug and A.-P

    H. Haug and A.-P. Jauho,Quantum Kinetics in Trans- port and Optics of Semiconductors, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    J.-S. Wang, J. Peng, Z.-Q. Zhang, Y.-M. Zhang, and T. Zhu, Transport in electron-photon systems, Frontiers of Physics18, 43602 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Dynamics of the dissi- pative two-state system, Reviews of Modern Physics59, 1 (1987)

    1987

  37. [45]

    Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems, Cambridge Studies in Semiconductor Physics and Mi- croelectronic Engineering (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    S. Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems, Cambridge Studies in Semiconductor Physics and Mi- croelectronic Engineering (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  38. [46]

    C. N. Raju and A. Chatterjee, Quantum dissipative effects on non-equilibrium transport through a single- molecular transistor: The Anderson-Holstein-Caldeira- Leggett model, Scientific Reports6, 18511 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Haughian, M

    P. Haughian, M. Esposito, and T. L. Schmidt, Quantum thermodynamics of the resonant-level model with driven system-bath coupling, Physical Review B97, 085435 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Kohn, Periodic thermodynamics, Journal of Statisti- cal Physics103, 417 (2001)

    W. Kohn, Periodic thermodynamics, Journal of Statisti- cal Physics103, 417 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Stefanucci, S

    G. Stefanucci, S. Kurth, A. Rubio, and E. K. U. Gross, Time-dependent approach to electron pumping in open quantum systems, Physical Review B77, 075339 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    B. H. Wu and J. C. Cao, A Floquet–Green’s function approach to mesoscopic transport under ac bias, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter20, 085224 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    Caroli, R

    C. Caroli, R. Combescot, P. Nozieres, and D. Saint- James, Direct calculation of the tunneling current, Jour- nal of Physics C: Solid State Physics4, 916 (1971)

    1971

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.