pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25261 · v1 · pith:QOUWQ4MInew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🪐 quant-ph

A Mean-Field Lindblad Master Equation Framework for Interaction-Driven Decoherence in Solid-State Qubit Ensembles

Dhiman Nandi , Sanghamitra Neogi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 21:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords mean-field Lindblad master equationqubit interactionsdecoherenceFRETEr3+ doped CeO2relaxation timeexcitation transfersolid-state qubits
0
0 comments X

The pith

A mean-field Lindblad master equation shows long-range FRET, not short-range Dexter exchange, drives concentration-dependent relaxation in Er3+-doped CeO2.

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

The paper builds a framework that models one qubit interacting with many others by treating the others as a collective bath that can exchange energy in both directions. This produces closed-form expressions for how the relaxation time T1 and decoherence time T2 depend on qubit concentration and on the range of the interaction. When the framework is applied to erbium ions in ceria, only the long-range FRET mechanism reproduces the measured shortening of T1 as dopant density rises, while the short-range Dexter mechanism does not. A reader would care because the approach supplies a practical way to connect microscopic interaction details to the times that limit multi-qubit devices.

Core claim

The MQMF-LME framework supplies analytical solutions for density-matrix evolution, steady-state populations, T1, and T2, and numerical results show that FRET-mediated transfer shortens both T1 and T2 with rising concentration while 1/f noise shortens only T2; when applied to Er3+-doped CeO2 the same equations reproduce the experimental concentration dependence of relaxation time only for long-range FRET, thereby identifying FRET-mediated excitation transfer as the dominant mechanism.

What carries the argument

The multi-qubit mean-field Lindblad master equation that replaces the surrounding qubits with an effective bath allowing bidirectional excitation transfer.

If this is right

  • Increasing qubit concentration shortens both T1 and T2 when excitation transfer is long-range.
  • 1/f noise shortens T2 but leaves T1 unchanged.
  • The framework distinguishes between microscopic transfer mechanisms by their effect on measurable times.
  • Short-range exchange cannot account for the observed concentration dependence in the studied material.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mean-field equations could be used to screen other host-dopant pairs for concentration ranges that keep T1 and T2 above target values.
  • Suppressing long-range energy transfer pathways by material design might allow higher qubit densities without extra decoherence.
  • Coupling the framework to atomistic calculations of ion positions would give tighter predictions for real disordered samples.

Load-bearing premise

The surrounding qubits can be replaced by an averaged effective bath whose bidirectional transfers capture the essential population and coherence dynamics without explicit spatial correlations.

What would settle it

An experiment on Er3+-doped CeO2 at several dopant concentrations in which the measured relaxation time fails to shorten with concentration or shortens in a manner that matches the Dexter prediction instead of the FRET prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25261 by Dhiman Nandi, Sanghamitra Neogi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This makes Er3+-doped CeO2 a promising solid￾state qubit platform. Grant et al. used time-resolved photoluminescence spectroscopy to examine the relax￾ation dynamics of Er3+ ions in CeO2 [35]. At low Er3+ concentrations, the decay traces were nearly exponen￾tial, with relaxation times close to the intrinsic radia￾tive lifetime of the 4 I13/2 level. However, as the Er3+ concentration increased, the relaxat… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (b) therefore indicates the additional dephasing in￾troduced by 1/f noise. Application to Er3+-Doped CeO2 We next apply the MQMF-LME framework to Er3+- doped CeO2, a rare-earth-ion platform of interest for fiber-based quantum networks [35, 61]. CeO2 crystal￾lizes in a cubic fluorite structure, providing high sym￾metry, wide bandgap transparency, and stable substitu￾FIG. 10. Optical transition of Er3+-doped… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: , the MQMF-LME simulations show the closest agreement with experiment for R0 = 0.98 nm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Multi-qubit systems are essential for scalable quantum technologies, but their performance is often limited by decoherence from qubit--qubit interactions and environmental noise. Although environmental decoherence in single-qubit systems and gate fidelity in multi-qubit systems have been widely studied, a predictive framework connecting qubit interactions, concentration, spatial distribution, and bath occupation to relaxation and decoherence times remains lacking. Here, we develop a multi-qubit mean-field Lindblad master equation (MQMF-LME) framework for the population and coherence dynamics of a solid-state qubit in an interacting multi-qubit environment. The framework treats one qubit as the system of interest and the surrounding qubits as an effective bath, incorporating intrinsic relaxation and bidirectional excitation transfer between the system and the bath. Analytical solutions provide closed-form expressions for density-matrix dynamics, steady-state populations, relaxation time $T_1$, and decoherence time $T_2$, while numerical simulations extend the framework to concentration-dependent dynamics, $1/f$-noise-induced dephasing, and material-specific excitation-transfer mechanisms. For a model system with F\"orster resonance energy transfer (FRET)-mediated excitation exchange, higher qubit concentrations reduce both $T_1$ and $T_2$, whereas $1/f$ noise reduces $T_2$ without changing $T_1$. Applied to Er$^{3+}$-doped CeO$_2$, the framework shows that long-range FRET-mediated excitation transfer reproduces the experimental decrease in relaxation time with dopant concentration, whereas short-range Dexter-type exchange does not, identifying FRET-mediated excitation transfer as the dominant mechanism. The MQMF-LME framework provides a modular route for linking microscopic interactions and environmental noise sources to measurable decoherence times in solid-state multi-qubit systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a multi-qubit mean-field Lindblad master equation (MQMF-LME) framework that treats one qubit as the system and the surrounding ensemble as an effective bath with bidirectional excitation transfer. It derives analytical closed-form expressions for the density-matrix dynamics, steady-state populations, T1, and T2, and presents numerical results for concentration dependence and 1/f-noise dephasing. Applied to Er^{3+}-doped CeO_{2}, the framework is used to conclude that long-range FRET reproduces the experimental decrease in relaxation time with dopant concentration while short-range Dexter exchange does not, thereby identifying FRET as the dominant mechanism.

Significance. If the mean-field approximation is valid, the framework supplies a modular, analytically tractable route from microscopic interaction mechanisms and noise sources to measurable T1 and T2 values in doped solid-state systems. The provision of closed-form expressions for the density-matrix evolution and the explicit numerical distinction between FRET and Dexter scaling constitute concrete strengths that could be useful for material-specific predictions once the averaging procedure is validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical results and application to Er^{3+}-doped CeO_{2}] The central claim that FRET dominates rests on the numerical demonstration that the MQMF-LME reproduces the measured concentration dependence of T1 for FRET but not for Dexter. This demonstration requires that the mean-field replacement of the surrounding qubits by a single bidirectional rate ar{\Gamma} correctly encodes the concentration scaling of the microscopic FRET sum (integral over ho r^{-6} for a Poisson point process). The manuscript does not show an explicit derivation of ar{\Gamma}(c) from the spatial distribution or test whether spatial correlations and multi-qubit back-action remain negligible at the relevant concentrations; without this step the FRET-vs-Dexter distinction could be an artifact of the averaging rather than a robust signature.
  2. [Numerical simulations of concentration-dependent dynamics] The excitation transfer rate appears as a free parameter whose value is chosen to match the experimental trend. Because the identification of FRET as dominant is based on the model reproducing the observed T1(c) dependence, the manuscript must clarify whether this rate is computed from first-principles microscopic parameters or adjusted post hoc; otherwise the matching step introduces a circularity that weakens the mechanistic conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Framework derivation] Notation for the effective bath rate ar{\Gamma} and its dependence on concentration should be introduced with an explicit equation in the methods section rather than only in the numerical-results figures.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the T1 vs concentration plots should state the precise functional form used for the FRET and Dexter rates and list all fixed parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments on our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below and outline the revisions we will make to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical results and application to Er^{3+}-doped CeO_{2}] The central claim that FRET dominates rests on the numerical demonstration that the MQMF-LME reproduces the measured concentration dependence of T1 for FRET but not for Dexter. This demonstration requires that the mean-field replacement of the surrounding qubits by a single bidirectional rate \bar{\Gamma} correctly encodes the concentration scaling of the microscopic FRET sum (integral over \rho r^{-6} for a Poisson point process). The manuscript does not show an explicit derivation of \bar{\Gamma}(c) from the spatial distribution or test whether spatial correlations and multi-qubit back-action remain negligible at the relevant concentrations; without this step the FRET-vs-Dexter distinction could be an artifact of the averaging rather than a robust signature.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation of the mean-field rate \bar{\Gamma}(c) is necessary to substantiate the claim. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection deriving \bar{\Gamma}(c) by averaging the microscopic FRET interaction (proportional to r^{-6}) over the Poisson point process distribution of dopant positions, yielding \bar{\Gamma}(c) \propto c in three dimensions. We will also include a brief analysis of the regime where spatial correlations and multi-qubit effects can be neglected, based on the low-to-moderate concentrations relevant to the Er^{3+}:CeO_2 experiments. This will confirm that the FRET-vs-Dexter distinction arises from the different scaling behaviors rather than from the averaging procedure itself. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical simulations of concentration-dependent dynamics] The excitation transfer rate appears as a free parameter whose value is chosen to match the experimental trend. Because the identification of FRET as dominant is based on the model reproducing the observed T1(c) dependence, the manuscript must clarify whether this rate is computed from first-principles microscopic parameters or adjusted post hoc; otherwise the matching step introduces a circularity that weakens the mechanistic conclusion.

    Authors: The overall magnitude of the transfer rate is indeed scaled to match the experimental T1 at one reference concentration, but the functional dependence on concentration is fixed by the microscopic mechanism and is not adjusted. For FRET, the effective rate scales linearly with concentration due to the long-range nature of the interaction, while Dexter exchange exhibits a different (typically sub-linear or exponential) scaling. The manuscript demonstrates that only the FRET scaling reproduces the experimental trend across the full concentration range. To eliminate any ambiguity, we will revise the text to explicitly state the first-principles origin of the scaling (from the spatial integral) and list the material-specific parameters (e.g., Förster radius) used to set the absolute scale, thereby removing any appearance of post-hoc adjustment for the mechanistic identification. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

MQMF-LME derivation and mechanism identification are self-contained; experimental match is validation, not reduction by construction

full rationale

The paper derives closed-form expressions for density-matrix dynamics, steady-state populations, T1, and T2 from the mean-field Lindblad master equation treating surrounding qubits as an effective bath with bidirectional transfer. Numerical extensions to concentration dependence and material-specific mechanisms (FRET vs Dexter) are presented as direct consequences of the rate equations and spatial integrals. No load-bearing step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter or self-citation chain; the FRET identification follows from the model's concentration scaling under the stated mean-field assumption rather than from redefining inputs as outputs. The framework is modular and independent of the specific experimental dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-optical assumptions plus the mean-field reduction; no new particles or forces are introduced, but the bath averaging and bidirectional transfer rates are domain-level modeling choices.

free parameters (1)
  • excitation transfer rate
    Rate constant for FRET or Dexter exchange that is adjusted to reproduce the observed concentration dependence of T1.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation is valid for the surrounding qubit bath
    Invoked to reduce the multi-qubit problem to an effective system-bath Lindblad equation.
  • domain assumption Bidirectional excitation transfer occurs between system and bath
    Built into the Lindblad operators to allow population exchange.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5861 in / 1413 out tokens · 32596 ms · 2026-06-25T21:34:59.518002+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    T. L. Scholten, C. J. Williams, D. Moody, M. Mosca, W. Hurley, W. J. Zeng, M. Troyer, and J. M. Gambetta, Assessing the benefits and risks of quantum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16317 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    H. Liu, G. H. Low, D. S. Steiger, T. H¨ aner, M. Rei- her, and M. Troyer, Prospects of quantum computing for molecular sciences, Materials Theory6, 11 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    F. Bova, A. Goldfarb, and R. G. Melko, Commercial ap- plications of quantum computing, EPJ quantum technol- ogy8, 2 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Riel, Quantum computing technology, in2021 IEEE international Electron devices meeting (IEDM)(IEEE,

    H. Riel, Quantum computing technology, in2021 IEEE international Electron devices meeting (IEDM)(IEEE,

  5. [5]

    Pandey and V

    A. Pandey and V. Ramesh, Quantum computing for big data analysis, Indian Journal of Science14, 98 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    S. B. Ramezani, A. Sommers, H. K. Manchukonda, S. Rahimi, and A. Amirlatifi, Machine learning algo- rithms in quantum computing: A survey, in2020 In- ternational joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 1–8

    2020

  7. [7]

    M. W. Arshad, I. Murtza, and M. A. Arshad, Applica- tions of quantum computing in health sector, Journal of Data Science and Intelligent Systems1, 19 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    L. K. Grover, The advantages of superposition, Science 280, 228 (1998)

    1998

  9. [9]

    Chirolli and G

    L. Chirolli and G. Burkard, Decoherence in solid-state qubits, Advances in Physics57, 225 (2008)

    2008

  10. [10]

    Bergli, Y

    J. Bergli, Y. M. Galperin, and B. Altshuler, Decoher- ence in qubits due to low-frequency noise, New Journal of Physics11, 025002 (2009)

    2009

  11. [11]

    Salamon, M

    T. Salamon, M. P lodzie´ n, M. Lewenstein, and K. Roszak, Qubit-environment entanglement outside of pure deco- herence: Hyperfine interaction, Physical Review B107, 085428 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Gorin, C

    T. Gorin, C. Pineda, and T. H. Seligman, Decoherence of an n-qubit quantum memory, Physical review letters 99, 240405 (2007)

    2007

  13. [13]

    Russ and G

    M. Russ and G. Burkard, Three-electron spin qubits, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29, 393001 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Meier, J

    F. Meier, J. Levy, and D. Loss, Quantum computing with spin cluster qubits, Physical review letters90, 047901 (2003)

    2003

  15. [15]

    Udvarhelyi, V

    P. Udvarhelyi, V. O. Shkolnikov, A. Gali, G. Burkard, and A. P´ alyi, Spin-strain interaction in nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, Physical Review B98, 075201 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Genkin, E

    M. Genkin, E. Waltersson, and E. Lindroth, Estimation of the spatial decoherence time in circular quantum dots, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics79, 245310 (2009)

    2009

  17. [17]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Quantum information transfer between topological and spin qubit systems, Physical Review Letters107, 210502 (2011)

    2011

  18. [18]

    Jiang, C

    L. Jiang, C. L. Kane, and J. Preskill, Interface between topological and superconducting qubits, Physical Review Letters106, 130504 (2011)

    2011

  19. [19]

    Albert, K

    F. Albert, K. Sivalertporn, J. Kasprzak, M. Strauss, C. Schneider, S. H¨ ofling, M. Kamp, A. Forchel, S. Re- itzenstein, E. A. Muljarov,et al., Microcavity controlled coupling of excitonic qubits, Nature communications4, 1747 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    Q. Wang, A. Muller, P. Bianucci, E. Rossi, Q. Xue, T. Takagahara, C. Piermarocchi, A. MacDonald, and C. Shih, Decoherence processes during optical manipula- tion of excitonic qubits in semiconductor quantum dots, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics72, 035306 (2005)

    2005

  21. [21]

    Bauch, S

    E. Bauch, S. Singh, J. Lee, C. A. Hart, J. M. Schloss, M. J. Turner, J. F. Barry, L. Pham, N. Bar-Gill, S. F. Yelin,et al., Decoherence of dipolar spin ensembles in diamond, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08763 (2019)

    arXiv 1904

  22. [22]

    Saminadayar, P

    L. Saminadayar, P. Mohanty, R. A. Webb, P. Degio- vanni, and C. B¨ auerle, Electron coherence at low temper- atures: The role of magnetic impurities, Physica E: Low- dimensional Systems and Nanostructures40, 12 (2007)

    2007

  23. [23]

    Haykal, R

    A. Haykal, R. Tanos, N. Minotto, A. Durand, F. Fabre, J. Li, J. H. Edgar, V. Ivady, A. Gali, T. Michel,et al., De- coherence of vb- spin defects in monoisotopic hexagonal boron nitride, Nature communications13, 4347 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    Cywi´ nski, R

    L. Cywi´ nski, R. M. Lutchyn, C. P. Nave, and S. Das Sarma, How to enhance dephasing time in super- conducting qubits, Physical Review B—Condensed Mat- ter and Materials Physics77, 174509 (2008)

    2008

  25. [25]

    Y. M. Galperin, B. Altshuler, and D. Shantsev, Low- frequency noise as a source of dephasing of a qubit, in Fundamental Problems of Mesoscopic Physics: Interac- tions and Decoherence(Springer, 2004) pp. 141–165

    2004

  26. [26]

    T´ ark´ anyi and V

    A. T´ ark´ anyi and V. Iv´ ady, Understanding decoherence of the boron vacancy center in hexagonal boron nitride, Advanced Functional Materials36, e11300 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    Y. Pan, C. Emeis, S. Jauernik, M. Bauer, and F. Caruso, Origin of phonon decoherence, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01529 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Maier and D

    F. Maier and D. Loss, Effect of strain on hyperfine- induced hole-spin decoherence in quantum dots, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics85, 195323 (2012)

    2012

  29. [29]

    Dalton, Scaling of decoherence effects in quantum computers, Journal of Modern Optics50, 951 (2003)

    B. Dalton, Scaling of decoherence effects in quantum computers, Journal of Modern Optics50, 951 (2003)

    2003

  30. [30]

    Ashhab, P

    S. Ashhab, P. De Groot, and F. Nori, Speed limits for quantum gates in multiqubit systems, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics85, 052327 (2012)

    2012

  31. [31]

    Wyderka, F

    N. Wyderka, F. Huber, and O. G¨ uhne, Constraints on 21 correlations in multiqubit systems, Physical Review A 97, 060101 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Gordon, N

    G. Gordon, N. Erez, and G. Kurizki, Universal dynam- ical decoherence control of noisy single-and multi-qubit systems, Journal of Physics B: atomic, molecular and op- tical physics40, S75 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    Varga, Complexity in multiqubit and many-body sys- tems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22246 (2025)

    I. Varga, Complexity in multiqubit and many-body sys- tems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22246 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Das and G

    S. Das and G. Agarwal, Decoherence effects in interacting qubits under the influence of various environments, Jour- nal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 42, 205502 (2009)

    2009

  35. [35]

    G. D. Grant, J. Zhang, I. Masiulionis, S. Chattaraj, K. E. Sautter, S. E. Sullivan, R. Chebrolu, Y. Liu, J. B. Mar- tins, J. Niklas,et al., Optical and microstructural charac- terization of er3+ doped epitaxial cerium oxide on silicon, APL Materials12(2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    L. B. Hughes, S. A. Meynell, W. Wu, S. Parthasarathy, L. Chen, Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, E. J. Davis, K. Mukherjee, N. Y. Yao,et al., Strongly interacting, two-dimensional, dipolar spin ensembles in (111)-oriented diamond, Phys- ical Review X15, 021035 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. D. Grant, I. Masiulionis, M. T. Solomon, J. C. Marcks, J. K. Bindra, J. Niklas, A. M. Dibos, O. G. Poluektov, F. J. Heremans,et al., Optical and spin co- herence of er spin qubits in epitaxial cerium dioxide on silicon, npj Quantum Information10, 119 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Y. Jin, J. Park, M. M. McMillan, D. D. Ohm, C. Barnes, B. Pingault, C. Egerstrom, B. Huang, M. Govoni, F. J. Heremans,et al., First-principles framework for the pre- diction of intersystem crossing rates in spin defects: The role of electron correlation, Physical Review Letters135, 036401 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Onizhuk and G

    M. Onizhuk and G. Galli, Pycce: A python package for cluster correlation expansion simulations of spin qubit dynamics, Advanced Theory and Simulations4, 2100254 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    Inokuti and F

    M. Inokuti and F. Hirayama, Influence of energy transfer by the exchange mechanism on donor luminescence, The journal of chemical physics43, 1978 (1965)

    1978

  41. [41]

    Zoller and C

    P. Zoller and C. W. Gardiner, Quantum noise in quan- tum optics: the stochastic schr\” odinger equation, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9702030 (1997)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  42. [42]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(OUP Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  43. [43]

    Rivas and S

    A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga,Open quantum systems, Vol. 10 (Springer, 2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    H.-B. Chen, N. Lambert, Y.-C. Cheng, Y.-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Using non-markovian measures to evaluate quan- tum master equations for photosynthesis, Scientific re- ports5, 12753 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    Semin and F

    V. Semin and F. Petruccione, Dynamical and thermody- namical approaches to open quantum systems, Scientific reports10, 2607 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Venkataraman, Coherent modified redfield approach to describe photoinduced proton-coupled electron trans- fer, The Journal of Chemical Physics163(2025)

    C. Venkataraman, Coherent modified redfield approach to describe photoinduced proton-coupled electron trans- fer, The Journal of Chemical Physics163(2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Brian and X

    D. Brian and X. Sun, Generalized quantum master equa- tion: A tutorial review and recent advances, Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics34, 497 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Smirne and B

    A. Smirne and B. Vacchini, Nakajima-zwanzig ver- sus time-convolutionless master equation for the non- markovian dynamics of a two-level system, Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics82, 022110 (2010)

    2010

  49. [49]

    A. Babu, S. Alipour, A. Rezakhani, and T. Ala-Nissila, Unfolding system-environment correlation in open quan- tum systems: Revisiting master equations and the born approximation, Physical Review Research6, 013243 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    H. Shen, M. Qin, X.-M. Xiu, and X. Yi, Exact non- markovian master equation for a driven damped two-level system, Physical Review A89, 062113 (2014)

    2014

  51. [51]

    R. Peng, L. P. Lindoy, and J. Lee, On the discretization error of the discrete generalized quantum master equa- tion, The Journal of Chemical Physics163(2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    Gorini, A

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

    1976

  53. [53]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in mathematical physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in mathematical physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  54. [54]

    Nathan and M

    F. Nathan and M. S. Rudner, Universal lindblad equa- tion for open quantum systems, Physical Review B102, 115109 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    M. J. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li, and E. Andersson, Canon- ical form of master equations and characterization of non- markovianity, Physical Review A89, 042120 (2014)

    2014

  56. [56]

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

    2008

  57. [57]

    A. A. Budini, Operator correlations and quantum regres- sion theorem in non-markovian lindblad rate equations, Journal of Statistical Physics131, 51 (2008)

    2008

  58. [58]

    R. M. Clegg, F¨ orster resonance energy transfer—fret what is it, why do it, and how it’s done, Laboratory techniques in biochemistry and molecular biology33, 1 (2009)

    2009

  59. [59]

    P. R. Selvin, [13] fluorescence resonance energy transfer, inMethods in enzymology, Vol. 246 (Elsevier, 1995) pp. 300–334

    1995

  60. [60]

    J. R. Lakowicz,Principles of fluorescence spectroscopy (Springer, 2006)

    2006

  61. [61]

    J. Wong, M. Onizhuk, J. Nagura, A. S. Thind, J. K. Bindra, C. Wicker, G. D. Grant, Y. Zhang, J. Niklas, O. G. Poluektov,et al., Coherent erbium spin defects in colloidal nanocrystal hosts, ACS nano18, 19110 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    T. Jin, N. Uhlikova, Z. Xu, Y. Zhu, Y. Huang, E. Egap, and T. Lian, Competition of dexter, f¨ orster, and charge transfer pathways for quantum dot sensitized triplet gen- eration, The Journal of Chemical Physics152(2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    S. Lin, W. Xiao, and W. Dietz, Generalized f¨ orster-dexter theory of photoinduced intramolecular energy transfer, Physical Review E47, 3698 (1993)

    1993

  64. [64]

    Berman, R

    M. Berman, R. Kosloff, and H. Tal-Ezer, Solution of the time-dependent liouville-von neumann equation: dissipa- tive evolution, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General25, 1283 (1992)

    1992

  65. [65]

    Forster, Delocalization excitation and excitation transfer, Modern quantum chemistry (1965)

    T. Forster, Delocalization excitation and excitation transfer, Modern quantum chemistry (1965)

    1965

  66. [66]

    Reif,Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics (Waveland Press, 2009)

    F. Reif,Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics (Waveland Press, 2009)

    2009

  67. [67]

    Burkard, R

    G. Burkard, R. H. Koch, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Mul- tilevel quantum description of decoherence in supercon- ducting qubits, Physical Review B69, 064503 (2004)

    2004

  68. [68]

    Falci, A

    G. Falci, A. D’arrigo, A. Mastellone, and E. Paladino, Initial decoherence in solid state qubits, Physical review letters94, 167002 (2005). 22

    2005

  69. [69]

    L. V. Abdurakhimov, I. Mahboob, H. Toida, K. Kakuyanagi, Y. Matsuzaki, and S. Saito, Iden- tification of different types of high-frequency defects in superconducting qubits, PRX Quantum3, 040332 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. d’Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. Ioffe, C. Liu,et al., Correlated charge noise and relaxation er- rors in superconducting qubits, Nature594, 369 (2021)

    2021

  71. [71]

    Christensen, C

    B. Christensen, C. Wilen, A. Opremcak, J. Nelson, F. Schlenker, C. Zimonick, L. Faoro, L. Ioffe, Y. Rosen, J. DuBois,et al., Anomalous charge noise in supercon- ducting qubits, Physical Review B100, 140503 (2019)

    2019

  72. [72]

    A. V. Kuhlmann, J. Houel, A. Ludwig, L. Greuter, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, M. Poggio, and R. J. Warburton, Charge noise and spin noise in a semiconductor quantum device, Nature Physics9, 570 (2013)

    2013

  73. [73]

    W. Wei, P. Hao, Z. Ma, H. Zhang, L. Pang, F. Wu, K. Deng, J. Zhang, and Z. Lu, Measurement and suppres- sion of magnetic field noise of trapped ion qubit, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics55, 075001 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    Makhlin, G

    Y. Makhlin, G. Sch¨ on, and A. Shnirman, Quantum-state engineering with josephson-junction devices, Reviews of modern physics73, 357 (2001)

    2001

  75. [75]

    Bergli, Y

    J. Bergli, Y. Galperin, and B. Altshuler, Decoherence of a qubit by non-gaussian noise at an arbitrary working point, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Ma- terials Physics74, 024509 (2006)

    2006

  76. [76]

    Wiener, Generalized harmonic analysis, Acta mathe- matica55, 117 (1930)

    N. Wiener, Generalized harmonic analysis, Acta mathe- matica55, 117 (1930)

    1930

  77. [77]

    S. S. Skourtis, C. Liu, P. Antoniou, A. M. Virshup, and D. N. Beratan, Dexter energy transfer pathways, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 8115 (2016)

    2016

  78. [78]

    R. M. Clegg, Fluorescence resonance energy transfer, Current opinion in biotechnology6, 103 (1995)

    1995

  79. [79]

    H. Sahoo, F¨ orster resonance energy transfer–a spectro- scopic nanoruler: Principle and applications, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology C: Photochemistry Reviews12, 20 (2011)

    2011

  80. [80]

    D. L. Andrews and A. A. Demidov,Resonance energy transfer(John Wiley & Sons, 1999)

    1999

Showing first 80 references.