Cited by 258Advanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsQuantum Information and Cryptography

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 22 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Markovian master equations: a critical study

Open access
Rivas, Ángel, K Plato, A Douglas, Huelga, Susana F, B Plenio, Martin·2010·New Journal of Physics

Abstract

We derive Markovian master equations for single and interacting harmonic systems in different scenarios, including strong internal coupling. By comparing the dynamics resulting from the corresponding master equations with numerical simulations of the global system's evolution, we delimit their validity regimes and assess the robustness of the assumptions usually made in the process of deriving the reduced Markovian dynamics. The results of these illustrative examples serve to clarify the general properties of other open quantum system scenarios subject to treatment within a Markovian approximation.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper critically tests Markovian master equations for damped harmonic oscillators by comparing them against exact numerical simulations of Gaussian dynamics. It finds that the global/local master equations are accurate in their respective regimes, but their validity depends on coupling strength, bath temperature, driving, and the approximations used.

Key findings

  • For a single damped oscillator, the Markovian master equation provides good accuracy regardless of bath temperature; low-temperature discrepancies from stimulated processes are negligible compared with spontaneous emission, with the correlation function at \(T=0.05\) being \(3.27391\times10^{-7}\) versus \(C_0(s=0)=0.018\).
  • For two coupled oscillators with local baths, the weak-intercoupling equation (58) and large-intercoupling equation (59) are complementary; for baths at the same temperature both work well, and in some cases the steady-state fidelity between them exceeds \(99.999\%\).
  • There is a small intermediate coupling range, \(\beta \sim 0.01\text{–}0.02\), where neither Markovian master equation achieves high precision, though this range shrinks as bath coupling decreases.
  • For a driven damped oscillator, differences between the master equations are generally small; the more elaborate equation (75) works better globally, equation (74) is preferable off resonance, and the simplest equation (73) is more accurate near resonance for small Rabi frequency.

Methods

  • The authors derive Markovian master equations using projection-operator/Nakajima–Zwanzig techniques, weak-coupling and secular approximations, and compare them with exact Heisenberg-picture dynamics of harmonic oscillators coupled to finite bosonic baths.
  • They simulate Gaussian states via covariance matrices for three systems: a single damped oscillator, two coupled damped oscillators with independent local baths, and a single driven damped oscillator; baths use an Ohmic spectral density \(J(\omega)=\alpha\omega e^{-\omega/\omega_c}\).
  • Accuracy is quantified by fidelity/Bures distance between the exact simulated state and the state generated by each Markovian master equation, with representative parameters such as \(\Omega=2\), \(\alpha=1/500\), \(\omega_c=3\), \(\omega_{\max}=20\), and bath oscillator numbers of 350, 700, or 1000.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the rotating-wave approximation is used; the Ohmic spectral density with exponential cutoff is a specific choice, and other spectral densities would require re-analysis; finite baths produce revivals after a recurrence time \(\tau_R \propto M\), so simulations are valid only before that time.
  • Stated in the paper: the factorized system-environment assumption \(\rho(t)\approx \rho_S(t)\otimes \rho_{\rm th}\) is an effective model rather than a physical description; for time-dependent driven systems, rigorous methods for completely positive Markovian master equations are lacking except in adiabatic regimes, and equations (74) and (75) fail near resonance due to the secular approximation and perturbative series.
  • Evident from the text: the numerical tests are restricted to harmonic oscillators and Gaussian states, so the authors’ expectation that non-harmonic systems behave similarly is not directly verified here.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1367-2630/12/11/113032

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

33 No basis given · 29 Own result · 27 Own interpretation · 17 Not checked yet · 3 Own method

Verify all 22 references — free account

Show all 55 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 45
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
54 of 54
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The dynamics of the whole system are given by the Hamiltonian H = H_S + H_E + αV, where V describes the interaction with coupling strength α.

    “We then assume that the dynamics of the whole system are given by the Hamiltonian H = H S + H E + αV , where H S and H E are the individual Hamiltonians of the system and environment, respectively, and V describes the interaction between them with coupling strength α.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    For the class of interactions considered, Tr_E[Ṽ(t)ρ_E] = 0, which implies PV(t)P = 0.

    “For the class of interactions that we are interested in, Tr E [ Ṽ (t)ρ E ] = Tr E [ Ṽ (t)ρ th ] = 0, which implies PV(t)P = 0,(2)”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The initial states of the system and bath are uncorrelated, so the total density operator factorizes as ρ(t0) = ρ_S(t0) ⊗ ρ_th.

    “We now assume that the initial states of the system and bath are uncorrelated, so that the total density operator is factorized into ρ(t 0 ) = ρ S (t 0 ) ⊗ ρ th .”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The weak coupling limit is taken by keeping the kernel at lowest order in α (Born approximation).

    “We now consider the weak coupling limit, by taking the kernel at lowest order in α, K(t, s) = α 2 PV(t)QV(s)P + O(α 3 ),(6)”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the limit α → 0, ρ_S changes very slowly and can be taken as constant inside a width τ_B around s = 0.

    “Moreover, as ρS changes very slowly in the limit α → 0, we can take it as a constant inside width τ B around s = 0, where Tr E [ Ṽ (t), [ Ṽ (ts), ρ B ]] is not zero, and so finally we obtain”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The whole state factorizes as ρ(t) ≈ ρ_S(t) ⊗ ρ_th at any time.

    “assuming that the whole state factorizes as ρ(t) ≈ ρ S (t) ⊗ ρ th at any time [3,10,18,20].”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The strength of coupling to each bath is identical.

    “for simplicity we have assumed that the strength of the coupling to each bath is identical (the reader will note afterwards that this is not a crucial assumption).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The initial state is factorized, Qρ(t0)=0.

    “again assuming an initial factorized state (Qρ(t 0 ) = 0)”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The detuning is large enough |ω_L-Ω| >> α, |ω_L-Ω| >> 2αr to make the secular approximation.

    “Next we assume that the detuning is large enough |ω L -| α, |ω L -| 2 αr in order to make the secular approximation”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Weak coupling implies α << β.

    “weak coupling implies α β”
10 of 10

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Shibata F, 1974, Z. Phys., 34, 197
  2. Breuer H-P, 2002, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems
  3. Haake F, 1973, Statistical Treatment of Open Systems by Generalized Master Equations (Springer Tracts in Modern Physics vol 66), 98
  4. Gardiner C W, 2004, Quantum Noise
  5. Cohen-Tannoudji C, 1992, Atom-Photon Interactions
  6. Nakajima S, 1958, Prog. Theor. Phys., 20, 984
  7. Chicone C, 2006, Ordinary Differential Equations with Applications
  8. Ince E L, 1956, Ordinary Differential Equations
  9. Reed M, 1980, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics I
  10. Bures D, 1969, Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 135, 199
  11. Apostol T, 1976, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 257

Metadata

Authors
Rivas, Á., K Plato, A. D., Huelga, S. F., & B Plenio, M.
Affiliations
Universität Ulm (DE)
Venue
New Journal of Physics
Published
2010-11-16
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
113032
ISSN
1367-2630 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001389172
Cited by
258
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • New Journal of Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Advanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
Markovian master equation, open quantum systems, reduced dynamics, harmonic systems, validity regimes, system-bath coupling, quantum dissipation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review