Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 82 references

Completely positive master equation for arbitrary driving and small level spacing

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a completely positive Markovian master equation that remains controlled under arbitrarily fast driving and arbitrarily small level spacing.

desk verdict A serious, largely convincing construction of a time-dependent CP master equation whose headline error bound is, as the authors admit, only proven for time-independent Hamiltonians. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01095 v2 pith:UL6FPG4Y submitted 2019-08-03 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Evgeny Mozgunov , Daniel Lidar This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP PACS 03.65.Yz
keywords openquantumsystemsmasterequationcompletepositivityLindbladcoarse-grainedtime-dependentdrivingdynamicaldecouplingerrorbounds
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 aims to resolve a long-standing trade-off in open quantum system theory. The Redfield master equation is valid for fast environments and for a broad range of coupling strengths, but it is not completely positive; the Davies-Lindblad equation is completely positive but requires ultra-weak coupling and a finite level spacing, and it breaks down under arbitrarily fast driving. The authors try to establish that a coarse-grained master equation (CGME), obtained from the Redfield equation by time-averaging over an intermediate scale and then neglecting a small corner of the integration domain, is manifestly completely positive and locally generated, with a controlled error bound for arbitrary time-dependent system Hamiltonians. Their central quantitative claim is that $\|\rho_{\mathrm{true}}(t)-\rho_C(t)\|_1 \le O\!\left(\sqrt{\tau_B/\tau_{SB}}\,e^{6t/\tau_{SB}}\right)$, with no dependence on level spacing or on the speed of driving. If correct, this gives a first-principles Markovian master equation suitable for fast gate-model operations, quantum error correction analyses, and dynamical decoupling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the continuous family of Lindblad operators $A_\epsilon(t)=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma(\epsilon)}{2\pi T_a}}\int_{-T_a/2}^{T_a/2}e^{i\epsilon t_1}A(t+t_1,t)\,dt_1$, where $\gamma(\epsilon)\ge 0$ is the bath spectral density, $A(t+t_1,t)$ is the system operator in the interaction picture, and $T_a$ is the coarse-graining time. These operators convert the non-CP Redfield generator into a manifestly Lindblad-form generator $\int d\epsilon\,(A_\epsilon\rho A_\epsilon^\dagger - \tfrac{1}{2}\{A_\epsilon^\dagger A_\epsilon,\rho\})$. Complete positivity follows from the positivity of $\gamma(\epsilon)$; the time-averaging over $T_a$ replaces the rotating-wave approximation, and the neglected integration corner supplies the $O(\tau_B/(T_a\tau_{SB}))$ error that buys complete positivity. Optimizing $T_a=\sqrt{\tau_B\tau_{SB}/5}$ balances the coarse-graining error against the positivity-restoring error and yields the $\sqrt{\tau_B/\tau_{SB}}$ bound.

What would settle it

Compute or simulate the exact reduced dynamics of an explicitly solvable finite bath, such as a two-level bath or a single oscillator, under a time-dependent drive with pulses much shorter than $\tau_B$, and check whether the trace-norm error against the time-dependent CGME, Eq. (110), violates $O(\sqrt{\tau_B/\tau_{SB}}\,e^{6t/\tau_{SB}})$ at fixed small $\tau_B/\tau_{SB}$; a violation, or a proven counterexample to the claimed extension of the Section 6 bounds, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the time-dependent coarse-grained master equation, Eq. (110), is a manifestly completely positive Markovian master equation valid for any time dependence of the system Hamiltonian, including instantaneous pulses. It is derived directly from the Redfield equation by coarse-graining the state over a time $T_a\sim\sqrt{\tau_B\tau_{SB}/5}$, then discarding a corner of the integration domain of area $\sim\tau_B^2$, an operation that restores complete positivity at a cost $O(\tau_B/(T_a\tau_{SB}))$. The paper claims rigorous error bounds for all three equations: Redfield, Davies-Lindblad, and CGME; the CGME bound, Eq. (28), is the only one that remains controlled as the level spacing $\delta_E$ goes to zero and as the drive becomes arbitrarily fast. The same bound is claimed for the multi-qubit generalization, with only polynomial prefactors in the system size for local observables.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rigorous error bound proved in Section 6 for a time-independent system Hamiltonian remains valid for arbitrary time-dependent driving; the authors explicitly note in footnote 5 after Eq. (28) that 'Strictly, our proof is only for the time-independent case, but there do not seem to be any obstacles for its generalization to the time-dependent case.'

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The time-dependent CGME can describe systems driven by $\delta$-function pulses, so dynamical decoupling can be analyzed and shown to extend coherence times within a strictly Markovian setting.
  • Because the Lindblad generators are spatially local when $[H,A]=O(1)$, the equation can be simulated with matrix product states or stochastic Schrödinger equations using polynomial resources, unlike the exponentially many Davies generators.
  • For multi-qubit systems the error bound degrades only polynomially in system size, with a $\sqrt{n}$ or $n$ prefactor depending on noise correlations, instead of exponentially as in the Davies case.
  • The bound is expressed in terms of two timescales $\tau_B$ and $\tau_{SB}$ only, so the equation's range of validity can be checked directly from the bath spectral density via $\gamma(\omega)\le 2/\tau_{SB}$ and $|\gamma'(\omega)|\le 2\tau_B/\tau_{SB}$.
  • As $T_a\to\infty$ the CGME reduces to the Davies-Lindblad equation, so the Davies equation gains a controlled derivation as a limiting case rather than via the uncontrolled rotating-wave approximation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the time-dependent extension of the error bound is made fully rigorous, the same coarse-graining construction may yield controlled Markovian approximations for other non-adiabatic regimes, including periodic driving beyond the Floquet-Born-Markov setup.
  • The two-parameter characterization suggests a practical experimental protocol: measure the bath spectral density around the system's operating frequencies, compute $\tau_B$ and $\tau_{SB}$, and certify the CGME's range without knowing the detailed bath microphysics.
  • The locality of the generators invites applying the CGME to finite-temperature many-body problems where Davies generators are nonlocal, such as energy transport or the lifetime of topologically ordered states under non-commuting couplings.
  • Because the error bound is not uniform in time, a plausible next step is combining the CGME with stability or mixing arguments to obtain long-time time-independent bounds for strongly relaxing systems.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives a coarse-grained master equation (CGME) in Lindblad form, both for time-independent and time-dependent system Hamiltonians, and claims that the time-dependent CGME is completely positive, locally generated, and a controlled approximation to the true evolution for arbitrary driving and arbitrarily small level spacing. The derivation starts from the Redfield equation, introduces a coarse-graining time Ta, and shows that dropping a corner of the integration domain restores complete positivity. Error bounds are presented for Redfield, Davies-Lindblad, and CGME equations in terms of the bath timescales tau_B and tau_SB, with the CGME bound allegedly independent of the level spacing. The paper also applies the time-dependent CGME to dynamical decoupling and compares the equations numerically.

Significance. If the central claim is established, this would be a substantial advance: a completely positive Markovian master equation whose controlled error does not degrade with small level spacing and that accommodates fast, non-adiabatic driving, with immediate relevance to dynamical decoupling and gate-model quantum computing. The paper's strengths include the explicit CP construction of the CGME by corner removal, the proof that the Davies equation arises as the infinite-Ta limit, the detailed time-independent error analysis with explicit constants, and the numerical comparison with the original Redfield equation. The authors also provide reproducible code for the numerics. However, the advertised arbitrary-driving result currently rests on an unproven generalization of the time-independent error analysis, which is a load-bearing gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (110) and Eq. (28), footnote 5] The central claim that the time-dependent CGME has the controlled error (28) for arbitrary time-dependent driving is not proven. Footnote 5 after Eq. (28) states 'Strictly, our proof is only for the time-independent case', and the entire error analysis in Sec. 6 relies on the time-independent spectral decomposition A(t)=sum_omega A_omega e^{-i omega t} (Eq. (5)), the time-independent time-averaging bound (Lemma 2, Eq. (220)), and the corner-removal bound (Eq. (66)). Section 4 merely asserts after Eq. (99) that the same estimates apply, without supplying a proof for non-adiabatic H(t). In particular, the requirement that Ta be small compared with the fastest timescale of rho_I(t) cannot be satisfied when the driving is arbitrarily fast, since the driving timescale can be much shorter than any fixed Ta. This gap is load-bearing because the headline result is precisely a controlled approximation for arbitrary driving.
  2. [Section 6.2, Eqs. (176)-(179)] The Born approximation error is not rigorously bounded as claimed in the abstract and introduction. The text explicitly states 'we make two assumptions': that the perturbative series has a finite radius of convergence [Eq. (178)] and that the true solution is the limit of the perturbative series [Eq. (179)]. Consequently, Eq. (28) and the other error bounds are conditional on these unproven convergence assumptions. The authors should either supply a proof, cite a proof under the stated conditions, or clearly label the bounds as estimates conditional on convergence, rather than as rigorous error bounds.
  3. [Section 5.1, Eq. (111) and following] The dynamical decoupling application uses delta-function driving H(t)=pi/2 sum_j delta(t-j Delta t) X. For such driving U(t+t1,t) is discontinuous and H(t) is unbounded, so the error analysis used elsewhere does not directly apply. In particular, the Markov error bound in Eq. (202) uses ||dot_rho||_1 <= 4c_B/tau_SB from Eq. (40), which is derived for bounded, well-behaved A(t), and Lemma 2 also assumes a sufficiently regular generator. Section 5.1.2 computes the DD suppression factor but does not verify the error bound (28) for this case. Thus the numerical DD example does not by itself support the claim of a controlled approximation for arbitrary driving.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (28), (33), (245), (249)] There are several typographical issues in the displayed equations: Eq. (28) and related places render square roots as an integral sign, and Eq. (33) has an unbalanced parenthesis. These should be corrected in production.
  2. [Section 4, text after Eq. (99)] The statement that the same estimates apply for the time-dependent case would benefit from at least a sketch of how the time-independent bounds generalize, and from an explicit statement of the regularity conditions on H(t) under which the generalization is expected to hold.
  3. [Section 5.3, Fig. 5] The numerical comparison with the original Redfield equation is informative, but the choice of the positivity interval for rho_OR and the use of adjusted Ta values should be described more explicitly in the figure caption so that the reader can distinguish what is fitted from what is predicted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CGME is rederived from the Redfield equation with explicit error bounds; the coarse-graining time is chosen by minimizing an analytic bound, not fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the Redfield equation (42b), applies time-averaging with a free parameter Ta, and bounds each approximation error (Born, Markov, time-averaging, corner removal) in Sec. 6. The final bound Eq. (28) is obtained by optimizing the analytic expression with Ta = sqrt(tau_SB tau_B/5), so it is not a fitted input dressed as a prediction. Self-citations to [40] (original CGME) and [32] (time-averaging error analysis) are not load-bearing: Sec. 3.4 rederives the CGME from Eq. (65a), and Lemma 2 is proved in Appendix F rather than assumed. Appendix C supplies the Davies-limit proof instead of merely citing [40]. The only substantive limitation is Footnote 5 after Eq. (28): 'Strictly, our proof is only for the time-independent case, but there do not seem to be any obstacles for its generalization to the time-dependent case.' This is an explicitly admitted extension gap for the arbitrary-driving error bound, not a circular reduction; it is a correctness/verification concern outside the circularity definition. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fast Gaussian bath, the unproved convergence of the perturbative Born analysis, and the asserted extension of error bounds to time-dependent driving. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Coarse-graining time Ta = sqrt(tau_B tau_SB / 5) in the theoretical bound; adjusted to 1.15 Ta and 2.87 Ta in numerical examples
    Ta is a genuine free parameter of the CGME. The paper chooses it by minimizing its own analytical error bound, and the numerical section adjusts it based on observed operator norms. The equation remains completely positive for any Ta.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The bath state is stationary, [rho_b, H_b] = 0.
    Used throughout to make the correlation function C(t) depend on a single time argument, Eq. (6a). Stated in Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption The bath is Gaussian, so Wick's theorem factorizes higher-order correlation functions.
    Required for the Born error estimate in Sec. 6.2, specifically Eq. (158). The paper notes the bound is not proven for non-Gaussian baths.
  • ad hoc to paper The perturbative series for the exact evolution converges, and the true solution is its limit.
    Assumptions 1 and 2 in Sec. 6.2, after Eq. (177), state this without proof. The paper acknowledges that a rigorous convergence proof is left to future study.
  • domain assumption The bath correlation time is much smaller than the fastest system decoherence timescale, tau_B << tau_SB.
    This is the fast-bath, weak-coupling condition that makes the error bounds small. Introduced in Sec. 2.2 and used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper The time-independent error-bound analysis extends to arbitrary time-dependent Hamiltonians without modification.
    The paper's footnote 5 after Eq. (28) states that the proof is strictly only for the time-independent case. The time-dependent result is asserted as a generalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Completely positive master equation for arbitrary driving and small level spacing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UL6FPG4Y

@misc{pith2026190801095,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Completely positive master equation for arbitrary driving and small level spacing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UL6FPG4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01095}
}
read the original abstract

Markovian master equations are a ubiquitous tool in the study of open quantum systems, but deriving them from first principles involves a series of compromises. On the one hand, the Redfield equation is valid for fast environments (whose correlation function decays much faster than the system relaxation time) regardless of the relative strength of the coupling to the system Hamiltonian, but is notoriously non-completely-positive. On the other hand, the Davies equation preserves complete positivity but is valid only in the ultra-weak coupling limit and for systems with a finite level spacing, which makes it incompatible with arbitrarily fast time-dependent driving. Here we show that a recently derived Markovian coarse-grained master equation (CGME), already known to be completely positive, has a much expanded range of applicability compared to the Davies equation, and moreover, is locally generated and can be generalized to accommodate arbitrarily fast driving. This generalization, which we refer to as the time-dependent CGME, is thus suitable for the analysis of fast operations in gate-model quantum computing, such as quantum error correction and dynamical decoupling. Our derivation proceeds directly from the Redfield equation and allows us to place rigorous error bounds on all three equations: Redfield, Davies, and coarse-grained. Our main result is thus a completely positive Markovian master equation that is a controlled approximation to the true evolution for any time-dependence of the system Hamiltonian, and works for systems with arbitrarily small level spacing. We illustrate this with an analysis showing that dynamical decoupling can extend coherence times even in a strictly Markovian setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01095 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The box outside the green line is neglected in the integration, which restores complete positivity. The area of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Definition of a MPS |ψ(t, r)i = U Trotter(r)|ψ(0)i. where the sum is over qubits and each Gi is a local operator of radius x = vTa/2 + δr and can be computed in O(1) time in the system size n. The time evolution is then given by a trotterization U Trotter(r) of U(r) = T e −i R t 0 G(τ,r)dτ . (84) U Trotter(r) is a geometrically local circuit of depth O(t) where each gate takes O(1) time to compute. Con￾traction of s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The DD suppression factor ξ [Eq. (126)] as a function of the pulse interval ∆t for different high-frequency cutoffs ωc, at two different inverse temperatures (a) β = 0.2 and (b) β = 5. We have set Ta = 4∆t and κ = 1. The sufficient condition (127) is satisfied everywhere, except for the case ωc = 2 × π/4 (purple line) for ∆t . 1, where indeed for the β = 5 case the suppression factor is slightly > 1. where ωc is a h… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The spectral density γ(ω) for a = 1.01, b = 0.6, β = 4 and τSB = 10.0. The position of the transition frequencies of the Hamiltonian defined by Eq. (137) is shown by the red tickmarks. (b) Populations, i.e., the probabilities of eigenstates (labeled by energy in th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Histogram of the norm of the right-hand side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Thick: the error kρC (t) − ρOR(t)k1 for Ta,adj. Thin: same for Davies kρD(t) − ρOR(t)k1. Dashed: The change in the solution kρOR,I (t) − ρOR,I (0)k1 induced by relaxation (our error should be small w.r.t. it). Dotted: the tightest upper bound derived in this paper …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Thin: the error kρC (t) − ρCL(t)k1 of dropping the Lamb shift HLS for Ta,adj. Thick: the maximum difference in the magnitude of the matrix elements maxij δ|ρC,ij |. Dashed: the maximum difference in the phase of the matrix elements. Dotted: the decay of the off-diagona…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Different possible pairings of TrbBtBτBθBmρb in Wick’s theorem. Note that the first and second order are in τB/τSB, not in the coupling strength itself, in which both diagrams are 4th order. where K(ρ) are corresponding linear superoperators. K2,B is the 2nd order (in …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagrams contributing to the second order of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Times contributing to Ep for (a) t > Ta/2 (b) t < Ta/2 so that: kEpk1 ≤ 4 Ta Z Ta/2 −Ta/2 dt0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Times contributing to δρ(t) for (a) t > Ta/2 (b) t < Ta/2. Z t 0 dθ Z Ta/2 −Ta/2 dτ = Z Ta/2 −Ta/2 dτ 0 Z t+τ 0 τ 0 dθ0 = Z Ta/2 −Ta/2 dτ 0 Z t 0 dθ0 + Z t+τ 0 t dθ0 − Z τ 0 0 dθ0 ! (345) After this change of variables and collecting all the contributions from the Lθρ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alicki and K

    R. Alicki and K. Lendi,Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications(Springer Science & Business Media, 2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    Gardiner and P

    C.W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise, Springer Series in Synergetics, Vol. 56 (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Markovian master equations,

    E. B. Davies, “Markovian master equations,” Communications in Mathematical Physics39, 91–110 (1974)

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups,

    G. Lindblad, “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups,” Comm. Math. Phys.48, 119–130 (1976)

    work page 1976

  6. [6]

    Consistency tests of classical and quantum models for a quantum annealer,

    T. Albash, W. Vinci, A. Mishra, P. A. Warburton, and D. A. Lidar, “Consistency tests of classical and quantum models for a quantum annealer,” Phys. Rev. A91, 042314– (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Computational multiqubit tunnelling in programmable quantum annealers,

    S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, A. Shabani, S. V. Isakov, M. Dykman, V. S. Denchev, M. H. Amin, A. Y. Smirnov, M. Mohseni, and H. Neven, “Computational multiqubit tunnelling in programmable quantum annealers,” Nat Commun7 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Reexamination of the evidence for entanglement in a quantum annealer,

    T. Albash, I. Hen, F. M. Spedalieri, and D. A. Lidar, “Reexamination of the evidence for entanglement in a quantum annealer,” Physical Review A92, 062328– (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Finite temperature quantum annealing solving exponentially small gap problem with non-monotonic success probability,

    A. Mishra, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, “Finite temperature quantum annealing solving exponentially small gap problem with non-monotonic success probability,” Nature Communications9, 2917 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Thetheoryofageneralquantumsysteminteractingwithalineardissipative system,

    R.FeynmanandF.Vernon,“Thetheoryofageneralquantumsysteminteractingwithalineardissipative system,” Annals of Physics24, 118 – 173 (1963)

    1963

  3. [11]

    Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system,

    A. Caldeira and A. Leggett, “Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system,” Annals of Physics149, 374 – 456 (1983)

    1983

  4. [12]

    Path integrals for dissipative systems by tensor multiplication. condensed phase quantum dynamics for arbitrarily long time,

    D. E. Makarov and N. Makri, “Path integrals for dissipative systems by tensor multiplication. condensed phase quantum dynamics for arbitrarily long time,” Chemical Physics Letters221, 482 – 491 (1994)

    1994

  5. [13]

    Quantum dynamics for a system coupled to slow baths: On-the-fly filtered propagator method,

    E. Sim, “Quantum dynamics for a system coupled to slow baths: On-the-fly filtered propagator method,” The Journal of Chemical Physics115, 4450–4456 (2001). Accepted in Quantum 2020-01-19, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 59

    2001

  6. [14]

    Kraus,States, Effects, and Operations(Springer, Berlin, 1983)

    K. Kraus,States, Effects, and Operations(Springer, Berlin, 1983)

    1983

  7. [15]

    Beyond complete positivity,

    J. M. Dominy and D. A. Lidar, “Beyond complete positivity,” Quant. Inf. Proc.15, 1349 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Properties of quantum Markovian master equations,

    V. Gorini, A. Frigerio, M. Verri, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, “Properties of quantum Markovian master equations,” Reports on Mathematical Physics13, 149–173 (1978)

    1978

  9. [17]

    On Quantum Theory of Transport Phenomena : Steady Diffusion,

    S. Nakajima, “On Quantum Theory of Transport Phenomena : Steady Diffusion,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 20, 948 (1958)

    1958

  10. [18]

    Ensemble Method in the Theory of Irreversibility,

    R. Zwanzig, “Ensemble Method in the Theory of Irreversibility,” J. Chem. Phys.33, 1338 (1960)

    1960

  11. [19]

    The theory of relaxation processes,

    A. Redfield, “The theory of relaxation processes,” inAdvances in Magnetic Resonance, Advances in Magnetic and Optical Resonance, Vol. 1, edited by J. S. Waugh (Academic Press, 1965) pp. 1 – 32

    1965

  12. [20]

    Robustness of decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,

    D. Bacon, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, “Robustness of decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A60, 1944–1955 (1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    Virtues and limitations of markovian master equations with a time-dependent generator,

    A. J. van Wonderen and K. Lendi, “Virtues and limitations of markovian master equations with a time-dependent generator,” J. Stat. Phys.100, 633–658 (2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    From completely positive maps to the quantum Markovian semigroup master equation,

    D. A. Lidar, Z. Bihary, and K. Whaley, “From completely positive maps to the quantum Markovian semigroup master equation,” Chem. Phys.268, 35 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    Depolarizing channel as a completely positive map with memory,

    S. Daffer, K. Wodkiewicz, J.D. Cresser, J.K. McIver, “Depolarizing channel as a completely positive map with memory,” Phys. Rev. A70, 010304(R) (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Completely positive post-markovian master equation via a measurement approach,

    A. Shabani and D. A. Lidar, “Completely positive post-markovian master equation via a measurement approach,” Phys. Rev. A71, 020101(R) (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Non-Markovian dynamics of a qubit,

    S. Maniscalco and F. Petruccione, “Non-Markovian dynamics of a qubit,” Phys. Rev. A73, 012111 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Non-markovian quantum jumps,

    J. Piilo, S. Maniscalco, K. Härkönen, and K.-A. Suominen, “Non-markovian quantum jumps,” Physical Review Letters 100, 180402– (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Quantum semi-markov processes,

    H.-P. Breuer and B. Vacchini, “Quantum semi-markov processes,” Physical Review Letters101, 140402– (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Staying positive: going beyond lindblad with perturbative master equations,

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

    2008

  21. [29]

    Master equation and control of an open quantum system with leakage,

    L.-A. Wu, G. Kurizki, and P. Brumer, “Master equation and control of an open quantum system with leakage,” Physical Review Letters102, 080405– (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Non-markovian quantum dynamics: Local versus nonlocal,

    D. Chruściński and A. Kossakowski, “Non-markovian quantum dynamics: Local versus nonlocal,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 070406 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Quantum adiabatic Markovian master equations,

    T. Albash, S. Boixo, D. A. Lidar, and P. Zanardi, “Quantum adiabatic Markovian master equations,” New J. of Phys.14, 123016 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Local master equation for small temperatures,

    E. Mozgunov, “Local master equation for small temperatures,” arXiv:1611.04188 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Theory of open quantum dynamics with hybrid noise,

    A. Y. Smirnov and M. H. Amin, “Theory of open quantum dynamics with hybrid noise,” New Journal of Physics 20, 103037 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Time-dependent markovian quantum master equation,

    R. Dann, A. Levy, and R. Kosloff, “Time-dependent markovian quantum master equation,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 052129 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Error reduction in quantum annealing using boundary cancellation: Only the end matters,

    L. C. Venuti and D. A. Lidar, “Error reduction in quantum annealing using boundary cancellation: Only the end matters,” Phys. Rev. A98, 022315 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Completely positive, accurate master equation for weakly-damped quantum systems across all regimes,

    G. McCauley, B. Cruikshank, D. I. Bondar, and K. Jacobs, “Completely positive, accurate master equation for weakly-damped quantum systems across all regimes,” arXiv:1906.08279 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Environment-induced entanglement in a refined weak- coupling limit,

    F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and U. Marzolino, “Environment-induced entanglement in a refined weak- coupling limit,” EPL (Europhysics Letters)88, 20011 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Entangling two unequal atoms through a common bath,

    F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and U. Marzolino, “Entangling two unequal atoms through a common bath,” Phys. Rev. A81, 012105 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Quantum markovian master equations: Resonance theory shows validity for all time scales,

    M. Merkli, “Quantum markovian master equations: Resonance theory shows validity for all time scales,” Annals of Physics412, 167996 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Coarse graining can beat the rotating-wave approximation in quantum markovian master equations,

    C. Majenz, T. Albash, H.-P. Breuer, and D. A. Lidar, “Coarse graining can beat the rotating-wave approximation in quantum markovian master equations,” Phys. Rev. A88, 012103– (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Stability of local quantum dissipative systems,

    T. S. Cubitt, A. Lucia, S. Michalakis, and D. Perez-Garcia, “Stability of local quantum dissipative systems,” Communications in Mathematical Physics337, 1275–1315 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices,

    E. Knill, “Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices,” Nature434, 39–44 (2005). Accepted in Quantum 2020-01-19, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 60

    2005

  35. [43]

    Internal consistency of fault-tolerant quantum error correction in light of rigorous derivations of the quantum markovian limit,

    R. Alicki, D. A. Lidar, and P. Zanardi, “Internal consistency of fault-tolerant quantum error correction in light of rigorous derivations of the quantum markovian limit,” Phys. Rev. A73, 052311 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    Lecture notes on the theory of open quantum systems,

    D. A. Lidar, “Lecture notes on the theory of open quantum systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.00967 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation,

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, “Decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A91, 062320– (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Dephasing-induced diffusive transport in the anisotropic heisenberg model,

    M. Žnidarič, “Dephasing-induced diffusive transport in the anisotropic heisenberg model,” New Journal of Physics 12, 043001 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Influence of dephasing on many-body localization,

    M. V. Medvedyeva, T. Prosen, and M. Žnidarič, “Influence of dephasing on many-body localization,” Phys. Rev. B93, 094205 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Bhatia,Matrix Analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathematics No

    R. Bhatia,Matrix Analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathematics No. 169 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997)

    1997

  41. [49]

    Slippage of initial conditions for the redfield master equation,

    P. Gaspard and M. Nagaoka, “Slippage of initial conditions for the redfield master equation,” Journal of Chemical Physics 111, 5668–5675 (1999)

    1999

  42. [50]

    Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,

    G. Vidal, “Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems,

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, “Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,

    E. H. Lieb and D.W. Robinson, “The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,” Commun. Math. Phys. 28, 251 (1972)

    1972

  45. [53]

    Quantumalgorithmforsimulatingrealtimeevolution of lattice hamiltonians,

    J.Haah, M.Hastings, R.Kothari, andG.H.Low,“Quantumalgorithmforsimulatingrealtimeevolution of lattice hamiltonians,” in2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (2018) pp. 350–360

    2018

  46. [54]

    Nonequilibrium dynamics of bosonic atoms in optical lattices: Decoherence of many-body states due to spontaneous emission,

    H. Pichler, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, “Nonequilibrium dynamics of bosonic atoms in optical lattices: Decoherence of many-body states due to spontaneous emission,” Phys. Rev. A82, 063605 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    Reducing decoherence in quantum-computer memory with all quantum bits coupling to the same environment,

    L.-M Duan and G.-C. Guo, “Reducing decoherence in quantum-computer memory with all quantum bits coupling to the same environment,” Phys. Rev. A57, 737 (1998)

    1998

  48. [56]

    Noiseless quantum codes,

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, “Noiseless quantum codes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3306–3309 (1997)

    1997

  49. [57]

    Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, “Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2594–2597 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    Decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems,

    D. A. Lidar and K. B. Whaley, “Decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems,” inIrreversible Quantum Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 622, edited by F. Benatti and R. Floreanini (Springer, Berlin,

  51. [59]

    Experimental Verification of Decoherence- Free Subspaces,

    P.G. Kwiat, A.J. Berglund, J.B. Altepeter, and A.G. White, “Experimental Verification of Decoherence- Free Subspaces,” Science290, 498 (2000)

    2000

  52. [60]

    Experimental realization of noiseless subsystems for quantum information processing,

    L. Viola, E. M. Fortunato, M. A. Pravia, E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and D. G. Cory, “Experimental realization of noiseless subsystems for quantum information processing,” Science293, 2059–2063 (2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    A decoherence-free quantum memory using trapped ions,

    D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, M. A. Rowe, C. A. Sackett, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, “A decoherence-free quantum memory using trapped ions,” Science291, 1013–1015 (2001)

    2001

  54. [62]

    Magnetic resonance realization of decoherence-free quantum computation,

    J. E. Ollerenshaw, D. A. Lidar, and L. E. Kay, “Magnetic resonance realization of decoherence-free quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 217904 (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems,

    L. Viola and S. Lloyd, “Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733–2744 (1998)

    1998

  56. [64]

    Symmetrizing evolutions,

    P. Zanardi, “Symmetrizing evolutions,” Physics Letters A258, 77–82 (1999)

    1999

  57. [65]

    Lidar and T

    D. Lidar and T. Brun, eds.,Quantum Error Correction(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    Colloquium: Protectingquantuminformationagainstenvironmentalnoise,

    D.SuterandG.A.Álvarez,“Colloquium: Protectingquantuminformationagainstenvironmentalnoise,” Reviews of Modern Physics88, 041001– (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Combining dynamical decoupling with fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    H. K. Ng, D. A. Lidar, and J. Preskill, “Combining dynamical decoupling with fault-tolerant quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A84, 012305– (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Markovian theory of dynamical decoupling by periodic control,

    K. Szczygielski and R. Alicki, “Markovian theory of dynamical decoupling by periodic control,” Physical Review A 92, 022349– (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    Can quantum markov evolutions ever be dynamically decoupled?

    J. E. Gough and H. I. Nurdin, “Can quantum markov evolutions ever be dynamically decoupled?” in 2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)(2017) pp. 6155–6160. Accepted in Quantum 2020-01-19, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 61

    2017

  62. [70]

    Dynamical decoupling efficiency versus quantum non-markovianity,

    C. Addis, F. Ciccarello, M. Cascio, G. M. Palma, and S. Maniscalco, “Dynamical decoupling efficiency versus quantum non-markovianity,” New Journal of Physics17, 123004 (2015)

    2015

  63. [71]

    Dynamical decoupling of unbounded hamiltonians,

    C. Arenz, D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, and R. Hillier, “Dynamical decoupling of unbounded hamiltonians,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, Journal of Mathematical Physics59, 032203 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Concepts of quantum non-markovianity: A hierarchy,

    L. Li, M. J. W. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, “Concepts of quantum non-markovianity: A hierarchy,” Concepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierarchy, Physics Reports759, 1–51 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    Effects of dissipation on an adiabatic quantum search algo- rithm,

    I. de Vega, M. C. Bañuls, and A. Pérez, “Effects of dissipation on an adiabatic quantum search algo- rithm,” New J. of Phys.12, 123010 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    https://github.com/mvjenia/CGMEcode, code for the numerical section of the paper

  67. [75]

    On certain probable errors and correlation coefficients of multiple frequency distributions with skew regression,

    L. Isserlis, “On certain probable errors and correlation coefficients of multiple frequency distributions with skew regression,” Biometrika11, 185 (1916)

    1916

  68. [76]

    Fluctuation theorems for quantum processes,

    T. Albash, D. A. Lidar, M. Marvian, and P. Zanardi, “Fluctuation theorems for quantum processes,” Phys. Rev. E88, 032146– (2013)

    2013

  69. [77]

    Adiabatic quantum computation,

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, “Adiabatic quantum computation,” Reviews of Modern Physics90, 015002– (2018)

    2018

  70. [78]

    A statistical mechanics view on kitaev’s proposal for quantum memories,

    R. Alicki, M. Fannes, and M. Horodecki, “A statistical mechanics view on kitaev’s proposal for quantum memories,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical40, 6451–6467 (2007)

    2007

  71. [79]

    Topological subsystem codes,

    H. Bombin, “Topological subsystem codes,” Physical Review A81, 032301– (2010)

    2010

  72. [80]

    Anderson localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail,

    B. Altshuler, H. Krovi, and J. Roland, “Anderson localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, 12446–12450 (2010)

    2010

  73. [81]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon,Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics: Fourier analysis, self-adjointness, Vol. 2 (Academic Press, 1975)

    1975

  74. [82]

    On some inequalities for the incomplete gamma function,

    H. Alzer, “On some inequalities for the incomplete gamma function,” Mathematics of Computation66, 771 (1997). Accepted in Quantum 2020-01-19, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 62

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.