Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Active Quantum Reservoir Engineering: Using a Qubit to Manipulate its Environment

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Repeatedly resetting a qubit can cool, polarize, or narrow the magnetization of its surrounding bath, and a new master equation makes such active reservoir engineering analytically tractable.

desk verdict A genuinely useful extension of correlated-projector master equations, with honest caveats—but the moment equations have typos and the nuclear-bath Markov assumption is the real limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16898 v4 pith:ZTYC32CS submitted 2025-05-22 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Marcelo Janovitch , Matteo Brunelli , Patrick P. Potts This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords activereservoirengineeringmasterequationcentralspinmodelnuclearbathtwo-level-systemsystem-environmentcorrelationsobservationalentropyquantumcontrol
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 develops a theoretical framework for active quantum reservoir engineering, in which a repeatedly initialized qubit is used not just as a receiver of noise but as a tool to shape its own environment. The central object is a master equation for the joint state of the qubit and the magnetization of a bath of spins or two-level systems. Unlike earlier correlated-projector master equations, the authors treat the magnetization-preserving part of the interaction nonperturbatively and the magnetization-changing part perturbatively, which lets them capture finite-size and correlation effects over many cycles. Applied to superconducting qubits with two-level-system baths and quantum-dot spin qubits with nuclear baths, the framework reproduces the qualitative behavior of existing cooling, polarization, and narrowing experiments. If correct, it provides a tractable, analytically solvable account of how repeated initialization redirects entropy from the environment into the qubit.

What carries the argument

The central object is the master equation for active reservoir engineering (MARE, Eq. (2)), a Lindblad-like equation for the joint state $\rho_m(t)$ of the qubit and the magnetization $m$ of its environment. It combines a unitary rotation around the magnetization-dependent field $\vec B_m$ with jump terms that flip the qubit from $|\uparrow_m\rangle$ to $|\downarrow_m\rangle$ while changing $m$ by $\pm 1$, weighted by the volume factors $V_m$ that count the number of states with a given magnetization. Because the total $M=m+\tfrac12(|\uparrow_m\rangle\langle\uparrow_m|-|\downarrow_m\rangle\langle\downarrow_m|)$ is conserved, the population dynamics split into independent two-dimensional blocks that can be exponentiated analytically.

What would settle it

Take a nuclear-spin bath engineered to have a coherence time longer than the Markov time assumed in the MARE, repeatedly initialize the qubit, and measure the magnetization distribution and the Ramsey visibility. If the data show reproducible revivals or interference fringes that cannot be generated by the MARE's classical rate equations, the central claim that active reservoir engineering in this regime is captured by a classical-environment master equation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that active reservoir engineering is governed by a magnetization-resolved master equation (MARE) that keeps the qubit's effective field $\vec B_m$ nonperturbative while treating only the spin-flip terms that change the bath magnetization as weak. The resulting dynamics conserve $M=m+\tfrac12(|\uparrow_m\rangle\langle\uparrow_m|-|\downarrow_m\rangle\langle\downarrow_m|)$, decouple populations from coherences, and reduce to a classical rate equation for the joint probability $p(\sigma,m)$ that can be solved analytically. The authors show that this single framework reproduces the qualitative features of experiments on superconducting-qubit two-level-system baths and on quantum-dot nuclear-spin baths, including cooling, population inversion, narrowing, and the creation of satellite peaks from Ramsey-correlated states. They present the MARE as the only currently tractable framework that captures finite-size effects and strong classical system-bath correlations in these platforms.

Load-bearing premise

The bath must lose its quantum coherence quickly compared with how fast it exchanges energy with the qubit; if the environment keeps long-lived coherence, the classical description of the magnetization at the heart of the derivation breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cooling or inverting a two-level-system bath by repeatedly preparing the qubit in $|\downarrow_z\rangle$ or $|\uparrow_z\rangle$ shifts the mean magnetization by one half per cycle, so a substantial effect requires a number of cycles comparable to the number of bath constituents.
  • An idealized correlated state whose Bloch vector points along $\vec B_m$ for negative $m$ and against it for positive $m$ narrows the magnetization distribution without polarizing the bath, reducing the variance by an amount set by the initial standard deviation.
  • In quantum-dot spin qubits, Ramsey-correlated states create periodic peaks in the nuclear magnetization distribution; sweeping the Ramsey time between repetitions suppresses all but the $m=0$ peak and extends the qubit coherence time by orders of magnitude.
  • Throughout each protocol, the observational entropy of the system and bath never decreases during their interaction, and each reset of the qubit removes entropy from the compound bit-by-bit.
  • The same conserved quantity that makes the MARE solvable also guarantees that each preparation cycle can change the bath magnetization by at most one, which is why repeated initialization is essential for substantial environment manipulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is to apply the same projection construction to other conserved bath observables, such as photon number or particle number, producing analogous master equations for active control of non-spin reservoirs.
  • The framework suggests a two-stage strategy the paper does not pursue: use uncorrelated preparation steps to move the mean magnetization and correlated Ramsey steps to compress the width, engineering both the center and the spread of the magnetization distribution.
  • An experiment that tunes the bath coherence time across the Markov threshold assumed by the MARE could map where the classical-environment description breaks down and where genuinely quantum bath coherence, such as dark states, takes over.
  • Because the MARE is analytically solvable, it could be used in reverse: fitting measured magnetization distributions after repeated initialization to infer the underlying effective field $\vec B_m$ and the bath spectral density.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper develops a correlated-projector master equation (the MARE) for a qubit coupled to a finite spin bath, treating the magnetization-changing part of the interaction perturbatively and the colinear part non-perturbatively. The framework tracks the joint dynamics of the qubit and the bath magnetization, yields analytic solutions for the populations via a conserved quantity, and is applied to two platforms: a superconducting qubit coupled to two-level systems and a quantum-dot spin qubit coupled to nuclear spins. In both cases the authors report qualitative agreement with previous experiments and propose protocols for cooling, narrowing, and creating multi-peaked magnetization distributions through repeated qubit initialization.

Significance. If the framework is correct, it fills a real gap: it provides a tractable microscopic description of active reservoir engineering that includes finite-size effects and system-bath correlations, going beyond earlier correlated-projector master equations in Refs. [38,39]. The paper ships a detailed derivation in the appendices, explicit analytic solutions (App. B.3), validity estimates for spin-qubit parameters (App. D.2), and concrete, falsifiable predictions for two experimental platforms. A notable strength is that the MARE is derived from a microscopic Hamiltonian with independently measured parameters, rather than fitted. However, the quantitative content of Sec. 4 is undermined by incorrect moment equations, and the spin-qubit application rests on a Markov/classical-bath assumption that the authors themselves acknowledge may fail when environmental coherence is long. The framework is novel and likely useful, but the present version contains load-bearing errors that require correction before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (15) and (17)] The moment equations do not follow from the MARE (13). A direct derivation from the rate equations (4)-(5) with Γ_m = κ V_m(1/2 + m/N) gives ∂t⟨m⟩ = κ(⟨S_z⟩ - ⟨m⟩/N) and ∂t⟨m²⟩ = κ/2 - (2κ/N)⟨m²⟩ + 2κ(1 - 1/N)⟨m S_z⟩. The published equations have incorrect N-scaling (e.g., a κN rate for the mean) and are inconsistent with the steady state (16), which is nevertheless correctly reproduced by the corrected mean equation. Since Eqs. (18), (20), and (22) are derived from the incorrect second-moment equation, the claimed variance reduction of 1/4 per cooling cycle is not supported. In fact, for a full-relaxation cycle starting from |↓z⟩ and a thermal bath, the exact steady state of Eqs. (4)-(5) leaves the variance unchanged to leading order in N, contradicting Eq. (22) and the linear decrease in Fig. 2(f).
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (26)] The variance reduction for the ideal correlated state is underestimated by a factor of two. Solving the stationary solution of the rate equations for the initial state (23) with a Gaussian P_m of variance ς² yields Δ⟨⟨m²⟩⟩ = -√(2/π)ς + O(ς²/N) at leading order in ς/N, not -ς/√(2π). The same issue propagates to Eq. (30). The qualitative conclusion that correlations narrow the distribution survives, but quantitative statements such as 'comparable to flipping ≈80 TLSs' for ς=50, N=10⁴ are off by roughly a factor of two and should be revised.
  3. [App. B, Eqs. (84)-(86) and (102)-(104); Sec. 6] The Markov/classical-bath assumption is the most delicate step for the spin-qubit application. The longitudinal δB^z correlation function is time-independent (Eq. (84)); it is regularized by a phenomenological e^{-|τ|/T1} decay (Eq. (86)) and the resulting dephasing rate γ_m is then dropped by neglecting the k-dependence in the system-bath coupling. For quantum-dot nuclear baths, inhomogeneous hyperfine coupling is significant, and App. D.1 explicitly concedes that the dominant nuclear dephasing may be electron-mediated and not captured by the Lorentzian width γ used in Eqs. (158)-(159). Because the quantitative spin-qubit predictions (Figs. 4-6, including the T₂* values in Fig. 6(c)) rely on this assumption, the authors should provide a microscopic estimate of the relevant environmental correlation time for GaAs/InGaAs parameters or clearly present these results as conditional on short bath-correlation times, as Sec. 6 already hints.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'Our framwork' should be 'Our framework.'
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The word 'illustraed' should be 'illustrated'; also, the notation '1 + 1/N2' in Eq. (18) is ambiguous and should be typeset as 1 + 1/N² (or corrected if a different expression is intended).
  3. [Eq. (38) and App. B.1] The formula for V_m contains unbalanced parentheses: '[4/3Ns(s+1))]!' should be written, for example, as [4Ns(s+1)/3]!; please check all related expressions.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption reads 'P_m at after N_r repetitions'; this should be 'P_m after N_r repetitions.'
  5. [Sec. 5.3] In the sentence 'For a Gaussian distribution P_m ≈ N(μ=0,ς)', the second argument should be the variance ς², not the standard deviation; otherwise the notation conflicts with Eq. (28).
  6. [App. B.3] There is a duplicated 'where' in the sentence 'where where G = ⊕_M G|_M'; delete one occurrence.
  7. [General] The acronym MARE is used throughout but never explicitly expanded; on first use it should be defined as 'master equation for active reservoir engineering.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MARE is derived from a microscopic Hamiltonian with stated approximations, and the claimed experimental agreement is an independent comparison, not an input to the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the MARE in Eq. (2), is derived in App. A from the microscopic central-spin Hamiltonian Eq. (1) via the Nakajima-Zwanzig equation plus weak-coupling, Markov, and secular approximations. None of the predicted quantities (e.g., the 1/4 variance reduction per cycle, the narrowing dynamics, or the coherence times) are inserted into this derivation as fit targets. The parameter values in Table 1 come from external experimental references [28, 73], and A_nc is estimated from g-factor anisotropy as suggested in external works [47, 66], not from the coherence times later compared with experiment. The paper explicitly states only qualitative agreement with Refs. [21, 27, 28, 31], which is a validation statement rather than a fitted input. The treatment of the non-decaying δB^z correlation function in App. B, including the phenomenological T_1 decay and the subsequent setting of γ_m = 0, is a modeling simplification rather than a circular reduction: it changes the rates entering the MARE but does not define the target predictions in terms of themselves. Likewise, the secular and Markov conditions in App. D.2 are stated validity checks, and Sec. 6 acknowledges that long environmental coherence times can invalidate the classical-environment description. These are limitations of the framework's regime of applicability, not circular reasoning. The few self-citations, such as Refs. [76, 83], are used for standard definitions or future-work remarks and are not load-bearing for the derivation or the comparison with experiment. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained, and I find no step where a prediction reduces by construction to its own inputs or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on standard open-quantum-system approximations (Born-Markov, secular) plus a classical-bath assumption and phenomenological parameters (Lorentzian width, estimated coupling A_nc). The qubit and bath are not new physical entities; the correlated states are theoretical constructions, not new entities.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma (Lorentzian width of nuclear spectral density) = omega_B/5 (Table 1)
    Chosen as a phenomenological spectral width for the nuclear bath; enters the flip-flop rates via Eq. (36). Not derived from first principles; affects narrowing dynamics and coherence time predictions.
  • A_nc (non-colinear hyperfine coupling) = 2*pi*3e-3 MHz (Table 1)
    Estimated from g-factor anisotropy per Refs. [47,66] and experimental data [73]; controls the energy-exchange rate between qubit and nuclear spins. Not directly measured in this paper.
  • kappa (system-bath coupling rate for superconducting TLS bath) = kappa/omega_S = 1e-5 (Fig. 2 caption)
    Weak-coupling rate chosen for the TLS bath simulations; sets the timescale of the cooling/narrowing dynamics but not the qualitative behavior.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The system-bath interaction terms that change the magnetization (proportional to J_x, J_y) are weak enough to treat perturbatively, while the colinear term (J_z) is treated exactly.
    Stated in Sec. 3.2 and used in App. A/B to split H_SB into delta-H and V; if the flip-flop coupling is strong, the perturbative MARE breaks down.
  • domain assumption The bath correlation functions decay on a timescale much shorter than the system-bath energy exchange rates (Markov approximation), and the secular approximation holds with energy splittings much larger than rates.
    Sec. 3.2 and App. A; this justifies replacing memory kernels by rates and decoupling populations from coherences; checked for the spin-qubit parameters in App. D.2.
  • domain assumption The environment is classical: it has no persistent quantum coherence, so it can be described by the probability distribution P_m over magnetization.
    Sec. 3.2; implies the MARE cannot capture nuclear dark states or quantum registers (Sec. 6).
  • ad hoc to paper The nuclear spectral density is Lorentzian with no support at negative or near-zero frequencies, and the Lamb shift and inhomogeneous-coupling dephasing gamma_m are neglected.
    App. B and D, Eqs. (100) and setting gamma_m=0 to arrive at Eq. (2); these are modeling choices not derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper For the spin-qubit example, the inhomogeneous nuclear spin bath is approximated by a single species with spin 3/2, and quadrupole terms (which would cause m to m+/-2 transitions) are neglected.
    Sec. 5.1; the authors note that strained quantum dots may have quadrupole terms and that the MARE would need adaptation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Active Quantum Reservoir Engineering: Using a Qubit to Manipulate its Environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTYC32CS

@misc{pith2026250516898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Active Quantum Reservoir Engineering: Using a Qubit to Manipulate its Environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTYC32CS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16898}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum reservoir engineering leverages dissipative processes to achieve desired behavior, with applications ranging from entanglement generation to quantum error correction. Therein, a structured environment acts as an entropy sink for the system and no time-dependent control over the system is required. We develop a theoretical framework for active reservoir engineering, where time-dependent control over a quantum system is used to manipulate its environment. In this case, the system may act as an entropy sink for the environment. Our framwork captures the dynamical interplay between system and environment, and provides an intuitive picture of how finite-size effects and system-environment correlations allow for manipulating the environment by repeated initialization of the quantum system. We illustrate our results with two examples: a superconducting qubit coupled to an environment of two-level systems and a semiconducting quantum dot coupled to nuclear spins. In both scenarios, we find qualitative agreement with previous experimental results, illustrating how active control can unlock new functionalities in open quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16898 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Actively engineering the environment of a qubit. (a) Cyclic operation implementing active reservoir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. TLSs bath cooling. We consider a bath with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TLSs reservoir engineering using correlated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Narrowing of nuclear-bath with uncorrelated states. We use nominal values for the electron spin of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Active reservoir engineering with Ramsey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum vs Classical Erasure: Equal Bounds but Unequal Costs

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    With finite resources, classical erasure via majority voting can be made arbitrarily accurate in one interaction by adding subsystems, while a single qubit is capped by a fidelity ceiling — the asymptotic Landauer bou...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Nat. Phys.5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Nat. Rev. Phys.4, 660 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Metelmann and A

    A. Metelmann and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. X5, 021025 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Bardyn, M

    C.-E. Bardyn, M. A. Baranov, C. V. Kraus, E. Rico, A. ˙Imamo˘ glu, P. Zoller, and S. Diehl, New J. Phys.15, 085001 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Leghtas, S

    Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge, M. Reagor, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Science 347, 853 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Lescanne, M

    R. Lescanne, M. Villiers, T. Peronnin, A. Sarlette, M. Delbecq, B. Huard, T. Kon- tos, M. Mirrahimi, and Z. Leghtas, Nat. Phys.16, 509 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    J. M. Gertler, B. Baker, J. Li, S. Shirol, J. Koch, and C. Wang, Nature590, 243 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Q. Xu, G. Zheng, Y.-X. Wang, P. Zoller, A. A. Clerk, and L. Jiang, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 78 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Kraus, H

    B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, S. Diehl, A. Kan- tian, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042307 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics 4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    J. T. Barreiro, M. M¨ uller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Nature 470, 486 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Y. Lin, J. P. Gaebler, F. Reiter, T. R. Tan, R. Bowler, A. S. Sørensen, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Nature504, 415 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Leghtas, U

    Z. Leghtas, U. Vool, S. Shankar, M. Ha- tridge, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Phys. Rev. A88, 023849 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Zapletal, A

    P. Zapletal, A. Nunnenkamp, and M. Brunelli, PRX Quantum3, 010301 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Kronwald, F

    A. Kronwald, F. Marquardt, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. A88, 063833 (2013). 14

    2013

  9. [17]

    E. E. Wollman, C. U. Lei, A. J. Weinstein, J. Suh, A. Kronwald, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and K. C. Schwab, Science349, 952 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Dassonneville, R

    R. Dassonneville, R. Assouly, T. Peronnin, A. Clerk, A. Bienfait, and B. Huard, PRX Quantum2, 020323 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Urbaszek, X

    B. Urbaszek, X. Marie, T. Amand, O. Krebs, P. Voisin, P. Maletinsky, A. H¨ ogele, and A. Imamoglu, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 79 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    P. V. Klimov, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, M. Neeley, A. Megrant, B. Burkett, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Chiaro, Y. Chen, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, C. Gid- ney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, J. Y. Mutus, O. Naa- man, C. Neill, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. ...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Spiecker, P

    M. Spiecker, P. Paluch, N. Gosling, N. Drucker, S. Matityahu, D. Gusenkova, S. G¨ unzler, D. Rieger, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, R. Gebauer, O. Sander, G. Catelani, A. Shnirman, A. V. Ustinov, W. Wernsdorfer, Y. Cohen, and I. M. Pop, Nat. Phys.19, 1320 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Spiecker, A

    M. Spiecker, A. I. Pavlov, A. Shnirman, and I. M. Pop, Phys. Rev. A109, 052218 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Stepanenko, G

    D. Stepanenko, G. Burkard, G. Giedke, and A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 136401 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    C. W. Lai, P. Maletinsky, A. Badolato, and A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 167403 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Latta, A

    C. Latta, A. H¨ ogele, Y. Zhao, A. N. Vamivakas, P. Maletinsky, M. Kroner, J. Dreiser, I. Carusotto, A. Badolato, D. Schuh, W. Wegscheider, M. Atature, and A. Imamoglu, Nat. Phys.5, 758 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    D. A. Gangloff, G. ´Ethier-Majcher, C. Lang, E. V. Denning, J. H. Bodey, D. M. Jack- son, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, C. L. Gall, and M. Atat¨ ure, Science364, 62 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    D. M. Jackson, U. Haeusler, L. Za- porski, J. H. Bodey, N. Shofer, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, M. Atat¨ ure, C. Le Gall, and D. A. Gangloff, Phys. Rev. X12, 031014 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, M. R. Hogg, L. Zhai, A. Javadi, C. A. Schrader, M. Erbe, M. Wyss, J. Ritzmann, H.-G. Babin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 210805 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    J. P. King, P. J. Coles, and J. A. Reimer, Phys. Rev. B81, 073201 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Khandelwal, S

    S. Khandelwal, S. Kumar, N. Palazzo, G. Haack, and M. Chipaux, Phys. Rev. B 108, 174418 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    M. Hogg, N. Antoniadis, M. Marczak, G. Nguyen, T. Baltisberger, A. Javadi, R. Schott, S. Valentin, A. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. Warburton, Fast optical control of a coherent hole spin in a microcavity (2024), arXiv:2407.18876 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    W. A. Coish, J. Fischer, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B77, 125329 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Esposito and P

    M. Esposito and P. Gaspard, Phys. Rev. E 68, 066112 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    Fischer and H.-P

    J. Fischer and H.-P. Breuer, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052119 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Breuer, J

    H.-P. Breuer, J. Gemmer, and M. Michel, Phys. Rev. E73, 016139 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Breuer, Phys

    H.-P. Breuer, Phys. Rev. A75, 022103 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Barnes, L

    E. Barnes, L. Cywi´ nski, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 140403 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Riera-Campeny, A

    A. Riera-Campeny, A. Sanpera, and P. Strasberg, PRX Quantum2, 010340 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Riera-Campeny, A

    A. Riera-Campeny, A. Sanpera, and P. Strasberg, Phys. Rev. E105, 054119 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Gaudin, M., J. Phys. France37, 1087 (1976)

    1976

  33. [41]

    Garajeu, J

    D. Garajeu, J. Math. Phys.43, 5732 (2002)

    2002

  34. [42]

    Schliemann, A

    J. Schliemann, A. Khaetskii, and D. Loss, J. Phys. : Cond. Mat.15, R1809 (2003)

    2003

  35. [43]

    Tsyplyatyev and D

    O. Tsyplyatyev and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 106803 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    W.-B. He, S. Chesi, H.-Q. Lin, and X.- W. Guan, Communications in Theoretical Physics74, 095102 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Ruskuc, C.-J

    A. Ruskuc, C.-J. Wu, J. Rochman, J. Choi, and A. Faraon, Nature602, 408 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Hildmann, E

    J. Hildmann, E. Kavousanaki, G. Burkard, and H. Ribeiro, Phys. Rev. B89, 205302 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    M. H. Appel, A. Ghorbal, N. Shofer, L. Za- porski, S. Manna, S. F. C. da Silva, U. Haeusler, C. Le Gall, A. Rastelli, D. A. 15 Gangloff, and M. Atat¨ ure, Nat. Phys.21, 368 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Szilard, Z

    L. Szilard, Z. Phys.53, 840 (1929)

    1929

  41. [49]

    H. S. Leff and A. F. Rex, eds.,Entropy, Information, Computing(Princeton Univer- sity Press, Princeton, 1990)

    1990

  42. [50]

    ˇSafr´ anek, J

    D. ˇSafr´ anek, J. M. Deutsch, and A. Aguirre, Phys. Rev. A99, 010101 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Strasberg and A

    P. Strasberg and A. Winter, PRX Quantum 2, 030202 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    X. Cai, H. Y. Walelign, and J. M. Nichol, Nat. Phys.21, 536 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    E. V. Denning, D. A. Gangloff, M. Atat¨ ure, J. Mørk, and C. Le Gall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 140502 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Wu and C

    J. Wu and C. C. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 247001 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Shalibo, Y

    Y. Shalibo, Y. Rofe, D. Shwa, F. Zeides, M. Neeley, J. M. Martinis, and N. Katz, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 177001 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    C. M. Quintana, Y. Chen, D. Sank, A. G. Petukhov, T. C. White, D. Kafri, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, R. Graff, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, P. Roushan, A. Shabani,...

    2017

  49. [57]

    F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, A. Kamal, J. Biren- baum, A. P. Sears, D. Hover, T. J. Gud- mundsen, D. Rosenberg, G. Samach, S. We- ber, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, J. Clarke, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, Nat. Com- mun.7, 12964 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    S. R. Salinas,Introduction to statistical physics, Graduate texts in contemporary physics (Springer, New York, 2001)

    2001

  51. [59]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  52. [60]

    Solomon, Phys

    I. Solomon, Phys. Rev.99, 559 (1955)

    1955

  53. [61]

    Cywi´ nski, R

    L. Cywi´ nski, R. M. Lutchyn, C. P. Nave, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B77, 174509 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    W. A. Coish and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B70, 195340 (2004)

    2004

  55. [63]

    Cywi´ nski, W

    L. Cywi´ nski, W. M. Witzel, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B79, 245314 (2009)

    2009

  56. [64]

    W. A. Coish and J. Baugh, Phys. Stat. Sol. (b)246, 2203 (2009)

    2009

  57. [65]

    M. S. Rudner and L. S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 036602 (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    Shofer, L

    N. Shofer, L. Zaporski, M. Hayhurst Ap- pel, S. Manna, S. Covre da Silva, A. Ghor- bal, U. Haeusler, A. Rastelli, C. Le Gall, M. Gawe lczyk, M. Atat¨ ure, and D. A. Gan- gloff, Phys. Rev. X15, 021004 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Paget, G

    D. Paget, G. Lampel, B. Sapoval, and V. I. Safarov, Phys. Rev. B15, 5780 (1977)

    1977

  60. [68]

    Paget, Phys

    D. Paget, Phys. Rev. B25, 4444 (1982)

    1982

  61. [69]

    W¨ ust, M

    G. W¨ ust, M. Munsch, F. Maier, A. V. Kuhlmann, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, D. Loss, M. Poggio, and R. J. Warburton, Nat. Nano.11, 885 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    H¨ ogele, M

    A. H¨ ogele, M. Kroner, C. Latta, M. Claassen, I. Carusotto, C. Bulutay, and A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 197403 (2012)

    2012

  63. [71]

    Danon and Y

    J. Danon and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 056603 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    Yang and L

    W. Yang and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. B88, 235304 (2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    G. N. B. Nguyen,Coherent photons and co- herent spins in a GaAs quantum dot(Uni- versit¨ at Basel, 2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappel- laro, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    Schaller and T

    G. Schaller and T. Brandes, Phys. Rev. A 78, 022106 (2008)

    2008

  68. [76]

    Annby-Andersson, F

    B. Annby-Andersson, F. Bakhshinezhad, D. Bhattacharyya, G. De Sousa, C. Jarzyn- ski, P. Samuelsson, and P. P. Potts, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 050401 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Barnes, L

    E. Barnes, L. Cywi´ nski, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B84, 155315 (2011)

    2011

  70. [78]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rep.525, 1 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    Nakajima, Prog

    S. Nakajima, Prog.. Theor. Phys.20, 948 (1958)

    1958

  72. [80]

    Zwanzig, J

    R. Zwanzig, J. Chem. Phys.33, 1338 (1960)

    1960

  73. [81]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The The- ory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2007)

    2007

  74. [82]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Collective atomic in- teractions, inOptical Coherence and Quan- tum Optics(Cambridge University Press,

  75. [83]

    P. P. Potts, Quantum thermodynamics (2024), arXiv:2406.19206 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Cover and J

    T. Cover and J. Thomas, Entropy, relative entropy, and mutual information, inEle- 16 ments of Information Theory(John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2005) Chap. 2, pp. 13–55

    2005

  77. [85]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    Lindblad, Com

    G. Lindblad, Com. Math. Phys.40, 147 (1975)

    1975

  79. [87]

    G. T. Landi, Eigenoperator approach to Schrieffer-Wolff perturbation the- ory and dispersive interactions (2024), arXiv:2409.10656 [quant-ph] . A General Theory In this Section we provide a derivation of the MARE for general quantum systems. We discuss important properties and...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.