Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Response kinetic uncertainty relation for Markovian open quantum systems

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a quantum response kinetic uncertainty relation showing that the response precision of a monitored Lindblad steady state is bounded by the quantum dynamical activity plus a perturbation-induced inter-subspace transition…

desk verdict A genuinely new quantum response KUR with a sound derivation, but the paper overclaims a symmetry-resolved decomposition that never appears and quietly assumes unstated spectral conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04895 v2 pith:V2WBLT44 submitted 2025-01-09 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Kangqiao Liu , Jie Gu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords quantumresponsekineticuncertaintyrelationLindbladmasterequationFisherinformationdynamicalactivitycontinuousmeasurementDrazinpseudoinversetwo-levelatom
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 establishes a quantum version of the response kinetic uncertainty relation, a bound that says how precisely an observable rate can track an external parameter change. For a Markovian open quantum system monitored through quantum jumps, the squared response sensitivity divided by the rate fluctuation is bounded from above by the quantum dynamical activity (the rate of quantum jumps) plus a perturbation-induced inter-subspace transition term that has no classical analogue. The proof runs through the quantum Cramér–Rao bound and a formula for the Fisher information of continuously monitored systems. This matters because it makes concrete a trade-off: improving both sensitivity and precision of a monitored quantum device requires paying either in more quantum jumps or in perturbation-driven transitions between the steady-state subspace and its complements. The authors verify the bound in a driven dissipative two-level atom, where the two contributions can be isolated and the bound is close to tight.

What carries the argument

The machine carrying the proof is the quantum Fisher information for a continuously monitored system, $F(\theta)=T(X+Z)$, obtained by second-order eigenvalue perturbation theory on the generalized Lindbladian $\mathcal{L}(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ at the eigenvalue that connects smoothly to the zero eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}(\theta)$. The positive contribution $X$ is bounded channel by channel by $a_{\max}^2A$, while $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are written with the Drazin pseudoinverse $L^+ = \sum_{j\neq0}\lambda_j^{-1} |x_j\rangle\!\rangle\langle\!\langle y_j|$, which resolves the non-invertibility caused by the zero eigenmode. What this machinery does is turn response precision into a transition budget: only quantum jumps inside the steady-state subspace and perturbation-induced transitions between the steady-state subspace and its complements appear on the right-hand side of the bound.

What would settle it

Test the inequality on a Lindblad system with a degenerate steady-state subspace (more than one zero eigenvalue) for a parameter entering both Hamiltonian and jump operators; if numerical evaluation gives $(\partial_\theta\langle\phi\rangle)^2 / \langle\!\langle\phi\rangle\!\rangle > a_{\max}^2 A + Z$, the QFI formula (13) and the bound fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is inequality (4): in the steady state of a Lindblad master equation and for a jump-counting observable, $(\partial_\theta\langle\phi\rangle)^2 / \langle\!\langle\phi\rangle\!\rangle \le a_{\max}^2 A + Z$, where $A$ is the quantum dynamical activity and $Z$ is a genuinely quantum term defined through the Drazin pseudoinverse of the Lindbladian. $Z$ collects perturbation-induced transitions between the subspace of the steady state and its complementary subspaces, and it is the part of the bound absent in the classical limit. The paper shows that either contribution can be the only one present: perturbing a parameter that appears only in the Hamiltonian sets $a_{\max}^2A$ to zero, while perturbing a parameter that appears only in the jump operators, with real scalar coupling, sets $Z$ to zero. It also recovers the classical R-KUR when the classical limit is taken, and it verifies the bound numerically and analytically in a driven two-level atom with dissipation.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes the quantum Fisher information formula $F(\theta)=T(X+Z)$ for a continuously monitored system holds, which requires the steady-state eigenvalue to stay non-degenerate and smooth under the perturbation; if that fails, the bound does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any Lindblad steady state, response precision is capped by the two transition costs in (4), so a monitored sensor that is both sensitive and precise must generate more quantum jumps or more inter-subspace transitions.
  • If the perturbed parameter enters only the Hamiltonian, the bound is carried entirely by $Z$, showing that a genuinely quantum response cost can dominate even when the dynamical activity term vanishes.
  • If the perturbed parameter enters only the jump operators through real scalar factors, $Z$ vanishes and the bound reduces to the classical-like $a_{\max}^2A$, recovering the classical R-KUR in the classical limit.
  • The two-level atom results show the bound can be nearly tight, so it identifies parameter regimes where a monitored quantum system operates close to the optimal trade-off between response and fluctuation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's outlook points to a group-theoretic reading of $Z$: if eigenmodes transform under representations and the perturbation under $R'$, selection rules on $R'\otimes R_i$ would predict which inter-subspace transitions are allowed, letting one design perturbations that avoid or enforce the $Z$ cost.
  • Because $Z$ is nonzero only when the perturbation links the steady-state subspace to its complement, dominance of $Z$ versus $a_{\max}^2A$ in a measured bound could serve as a diagnostic of which part of the dynamics carries the metrological cost.
  • The underlying Fisher-information formula was derived for jump-counting unravelings; extending the argument to homodyne or diffusive monitoring may yield a modified bound with a different inter-subspace term.
  • As the authors note, the bound assumes the validity of the Lindblad master equation, so applying it to strongly coupled many-body systems requires first deriving an appropriate GKSL description.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper derives a response kinetic uncertainty relation for the steady states of finite-dimensional Lindblad master equations under continuous jump measurement. The main result, Eq. (4), bounds the response-to-variance ratio (∂θ⟨ϕ⟩)²/⟨⟨ϕ⟩⟩ by a_max²A + Z, where A is the conventional quantum dynamical activity and Z is a perturbation-induced intersubspace transition term. The proof uses the quantum Cramér-Rao bound together with the long-time quantum Fisher information formula F = T(X+Z), which is rederived in the Supplemental Material by eigenvalue perturbation theory of the generalized Lindbladian. The paper gives sufficient conditions for each of the two contributions to vanish, illustrates the bound in a driven two-level atom both analytically and numerically, and compares the result with earlier quantum KURs.

Significance. If correct, Eq. (4) is a natural and useful quantum generalization of the classical response KUR, and the decomposition into intra-steady-state jump activity and perturbation-induced intersubspace transitions gives a physically appealing interpretation. Strengths include a transparent derivation that follows from a standard Cramér-Rao step plus a rederived QFI formula, a completely solved analytical two-level example, and numerical validation over all five parameters and two observable types. The principal weakness is that the QFI formula underlying the main inequality is derived under spectral assumptions that are never stated in the main text, so the theorem is currently broader than its proof supports. The abstract also advertises a symmetry-resolved analysis that does not appear in the text.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (13); Supplemental Material: 'Eigenvalue perturbation theory' and 'Derivation of the QFI'] The derivation of F(θ)=T(X+Z) uses eigenvalue perturbation theory for the eigenvalue λ(θ1,θ2) smoothly connected to the zero eigenvalue of L(θ). The formulas (S7)–(S9) and the spectral resolution (S3)–(S4) require 0 to be a simple, semisimple eigenvalue with a finite gap and require L to be diagonalizable on the nonzero subspace. None of these hypotheses is stated in the main text; the SM merely says that a Lindbladian 'usually' has a unique steady state. If the steady-state subspace is degenerate (conserved quantities, dark states) or the Lindbladian is not diagonalizable (exceptional points), the projector P=I−|π⟩⟩⟨⟨1| does not remove all singular directions, the Drazin-inverse eigenvector sums in Eqs. (6)–(7) are not the full pseudoinverse, and the second-order expression (13) is unjustified. Because the bound (4) rests entirely on this QFI formula, the theorem is currently narrower than the title and abstract claim. Please state the precise assumptions (unique gapped steady state, semisimple zero eigenvalue, diagonalizability on the nonzero subspace) and either prove Eq. (4) under weaker assumptions or explicitly restrict the statement.
  2. [Abstract and Outlook] The abstract promises 'a symmetry-resolved decomposition and exact sector-selection rules' for the intersubspace term Z. The main text contains only the schematic interpretation of Eqs. (6)–(7) and an Outlook paragraph saying that a group-theoretic analysis is 'an interesting possibility'; no decomposition or sector-selection rule is actually derived. The manuscript should either add the promised analysis or remove this claim from the abstract.
  3. [Eqs. (4), (5) and Eq. (14)] The definition a2_max := 4 max_c Tr[∂θLcπ∂θLc†]/Tr[LcπLc†] is not well-defined for channels with Tr[LcπLc†]=0, and such channels can occur if a jump operator annihilates the steady-state support. The inequality in Eq. (14) should be stated with the maximum restricted to channels with positive steady-state activity (or with an explicit convention for the 0/0 case); otherwise the theorem's domain is not fully specified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Eqs. (S25)–(S26)] The second displayed equation is labeled K1 x_j but should be K2 x_j.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The phrase 'the eigenvalue ... smoothly connected to the vanishing eigenvalue' is ambiguous when the generalized Lindbladian L(θ1,θ2) has level crossings; a short definition of the chosen analytic branch would improve rigor.
  3. [Comparison with previous results] The relation to Ref. [46], which also derives a quantum response KUR, is discussed in only one sentence; a short paragraph stating the precise overlap and difference would help readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the QR-KUR is derived from the quantum Cramér–Rao bound and a rederived QFI formula, with no fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Eq. (4), is obtained by combining the quantum Cramér–Rao bound (Eq. 12) with the long-time QFI formula F(θ) = T(X + Z) (Eq. 13), which is rederived in the Supplemental Material via eigenvalue perturbation theory rather than merely quoted as an input. The bound then follows by the elementary inequality X ≤ a²_max A (Eq. 14). No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction: the quantities a²_max, A, and Z are all explicit functionals of the Lindbladian and the perturbation. The only self-citation is the classical R-KUR [37] by the same authors, but that classical result is used as motivation and comparison, not as a premise in the proof of the quantum bound. The numerical verification on the driven two-level atom is an independent check, not a fitting procedure. The unstated spectral conditions (unique gapped steady state, diagonalizability of the Lindbladian) affect the scope of validity of Eq. (13) and are a correctness concern, not a circularity: the derivation would still be non-circular if those hypotheses were stated and imposed. Thus no circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted. The derivation uses standard perturbation theory and the Cramér-Rao bound; the only input assumptions are the Lindblad form, the uniqueness of the steady state, and the jump-unraveling formula for the QFI.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The system obeys a time-independent Lindblad (GKSL) master equation (Eq. 2-3).
    The entire setting is Markovian open quantum systems described by this master equation, stated in Setup.
  • domain assumption The Lindbladian has a unique steady state with an isolated zero eigenvalue, so the Drazin pseudoinverse is well-defined (SM Eq. S3).
    Needed for the definitions of Z1 and Z2 in Eqs. (6)-(7) and for the eigenvalue expansion.
  • domain assumption The quantum Fisher information for a continuously monitored system is F(θ) = 4T ∂θ1 ∂θ2 Re[λ] (Eq. 13), derived via eigenvalue perturbation theory of the generalized Lindbladian.
    The formula for F is the bridge between the Cramér-Rao bound and the QR-KUR; it is rederived in the SM, but its validity is restricted to the photon-counting unraveling.
  • standard math Standard quantum Cramér-Rao bound: ⟨⟨Φ⟩⟩ ≥ (∂θ⟨Φ⟩)² / F(θ) (Eq. 12).
    Used directly to convert QFI into a precision bound on the observable.
  • domain assumption The system is finite-dimensional and the measurement record is a jump process with well-defined jump rates.
    Setup restricts to finite-dimensional systems and photon-counting unraveling.
  • domain assumption For each channel, Tr[Lc π Lc†] > 0 so the perturbative rate a²_max is finite.
    Implicit in the definition of a²_max in Eq. (4); channels with zero steady-state activity are not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Response kinetic uncertainty relation for Markovian open quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V2WBLT44

@misc{pith2026250104895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Response kinetic uncertainty relation for Markovian open quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V2WBLT44}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04895}
}
read the original abstract

Response uncertainty relations in stochastic thermodynamics extend precision bounds to the sensitivity of observables under external perturbations. Here we derive a quantum response kinetic uncertainty relation for continuously monitored Markovian open quantum systems in the steady state of the Lindblad master equation. The response precision of a measured trajectory observable is bounded by two contributions: the conventional quantum dynamical activity and a perturbation-induced intersubspace transition term. The latter is absent in the classical limit and captures a genuinely quantum part of the response cost. We identify simple conditions under which either contribution vanishes, and we further clarify the structure of the intersubspace term through a symmetry-resolved decomposition and exact sector-selection rules. The bound and its structure are illustrated in a driven two-level atom.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the RHS of the QR-KUR ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The bound efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The bound efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Spectral Duality and Thermodynamic Bounds on Finite-frequency Fluctuation Responses

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Finite-frequency fluctuation-response inequalities for Markov jump processes bound spectral signal-to-noise ratios by dynamical activity and entropy production, enabling EPR inference from power spectra.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, Thermodynamic Uncertainty Rela- tion for Biomolecular Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 158101 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    J. M. Horowitz and T. R. Gingrich, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations constrain non-equilibrium fluctuations, Nat. Phys. 16, 15 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    K. Liu, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for arbitrary initial states, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 140602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Dieball and A

    C. Dieball and A. c. v. Godec, Direct route to thermodynamic uncertainty relations and their saturation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 087101 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Di Terlizzi and M

    I. Di Terlizzi and M. Baiesi, Kinetic uncertainty relation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 02LT03 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    J. Yan, A. Hilfinger, G. Vinnicombe, and J. Paulsson, Kinetic uncertainty relations for the control of stochastic reaction net- works, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 108101 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Macieszczak, Ultimate kinetic uncertainty relation and opti- mal performance of stochastic clocks (2024), arXiv:2407.09839 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    K. Macieszczak, Ultimate kinetic uncertainty relation and opti- mal performance of stochastic clocks (2024), arXiv:2407.09839 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty relation for continuous measurement, Phys

    Y . Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty relation for continuous measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 050601 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    M. J. Kewming, A. Kiely, S. Campbell, and G. T. Landi, First passage times for continuous quantum measurement currents, Phys. Rev. A 109, L050202 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Prech, P

    K. Prech, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Role of quantum coher- ence in kinetic uncertainty relations (2024), arXiv:2407.14147 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Z. Gong, Y . Ashida, and M. Ueda, Quantum-trajectory ther- modynamics with discrete feedback control, Phys. Rev. A 94, 012107 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Liu and J

    F. Liu and J. Xi, Characteristic functions based on quantum jump trajectory, Phys. Rev. E.94, 62133 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Carollo, R

    F. Carollo, R. L. Jack, and J. P. Garrahan, Unraveling the Large Deviation Statistics of Markovian Open Quantum Sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130605 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    D. A. Lidar, Lecture notes on the theory of open quantum sys- tems (2020), arXiv:1902.00967 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    X. He, P. Pakkiam, A. A. Gangat, M. J. Kewming, G. J. Mil- burn, and A. Fedorov, Effect of measurement backaction on quantum clock precision studied with a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 034038 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, Current fluctuations in open quantum systems: Bridging the gap between quantum continuous measurements and full counting statistics, PRX Quantum 5, 020201 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    M. A. C. Rossi, F. Albarelli, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Noisy quantum metrology enhanced by continuous nondemoli- tion measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 200505 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Ilias, D

    T. Ilias, D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Criticality- enhanced quantum sensing via continuous measurement, PRX Quantum 3, 010354 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Efficient information retrieval for sensing via continuous measurement, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031012 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    M. Ueda, N. Imoto, and T. Ogawa, Quantum theory for contin- uous photodetection processes, Phys. Rev. A 41, 3891 (1990)

    1990

  13. [21]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F ¨olling, and M. Greiner, A quantum gas microscope for detecting single atoms in a hubbard-regime optical lattice, Nature 462, 74 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single-atom-resolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic mott insulator, Nature 467, 68 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Y . S. Patil, S. Chakram, and M. Vengalattore, Measurement- induced localization of an ultracold lattice gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 140402 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Ashida and M

    Y . Ashida and M. Ueda, Diffraction-unlimited position mea- surement of ultracold atoms in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 095301 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    P. B. Wigley, P. J. Everitt, K. S. Hardman, M. R. Hush, C. H. Wei, M. A. Sooriyabandara, P. Manju, J. D. Close, N. P. Robins, and C. C. N. Kuhn, Non-destructive shadowgraph imaging of ultra-cold atoms, Opt. Lett. 41, 4795 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Gross and W

    C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Quantum gas microscopy for single atom and spin detection, Nat. Phys. 17, 1316 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Fuji and Y

    Y . Fuji and Y . Ashida, Measurement-induced quantum critical- ity under continuous monitoring, Phys. Rev. B 102, 054302 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    S.-K. Jian, C. Liu, X. Chen, B. Swingle, and P. Zhang, Measurement-induced phase transition in the monitored sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140601 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    M ¨uller, S

    T. M ¨uller, S. Diehl, and M. Buchhold, Measurement-induced dark state phase transitions in long-ranged fermion systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 010605 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Krishna, P

    M. Krishna, P. Solanki, M. Hajdu ˇsek, and S. Vinjanampa- thy, Measurement-induced continuous time crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 150401 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Yokomizo and Y

    K. Yokomizo and Y . Ashida, Measurement-induced phase tran- sition in free bosons (2024), arXiv:2405.19768 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ashida, K

    Y . Ashida, K. Saito, and M. Ueda, Thermalization and heating dynamics in open generic many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 170402 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    M. J. Kewming and S. Shrapnel, Entropy production and fluc- tuation theorems in a continuously monitored optical cavity at zero temperature, Quantum 6, 685 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Manzano and R

    G. Manzano and R. Zambrini, Quantum thermodynamics under continuous monitoring: A general framework, A VS Quantum Science 4, 025302 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    A. Das, S. Mahunta, B. K. Agarwalla, and V . Mukherjee, Preci- sion bound and optimal control in periodically modulated con- tinuous quantum thermal machines, Phys. Rev. E 108, 014137 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Ptaszy ´nski, T

    K. Ptaszy ´nski, T. Aslyamov, and M. Esposito, Dissipation bounds precision of current response to kinetic perturbations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 227101 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Liu and J

    K. Liu and J. Gu, Dynamical activity universally bounds pre- cision of response (2024), arXiv:2410.20800 [cond-mat.stat- mech]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aslyamov, K

    T. Aslyamov, K. Ptaszy ´nski, and M. Esposito, Nonequilib- rium fluctuation-response relations: From identities to bounds (2024), arXiv:2410.17140 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ptaszynski, T

    K. Ptaszynski, T. Aslyamov, and M. Esposito, Nonequilib- rium fluctuation-response relations for state observables (2024), 6 arXiv:2412.10233 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024

  32. [40]

    Hasegawa, Unifying speed limit, thermodynamic uncertainty relation and heisenberg principle via bulk-boundary correspon- dence, Nat

    Y . Hasegawa, Unifying speed limit, thermodynamic uncertainty relation and heisenberg principle via bulk-boundary correspon- dence, Nat. Commun. 14, 2828 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Nishiyama and Y

    T. Nishiyama and Y . Hasegawa, Exact solution to quantum dy- namical activity, Phys. Rev. E109, 44114 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Boeyens, B

    J. Boeyens, B. Annby-Andersson, P. Bakhshinezhad, G. Haack, M. Perarnau-Llobet, S. Nimmrichter, P. P. Potts, and M. Mehboudi, Probe thermometry with continuous measure- ments, New J. Phys. 25, 123009 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  36. [44]

    M. P. Drazin, Pseudo-inverses in associative rings and semi- groups, Am. Math. Mon. 65, 506 (1958)

    1958

  37. [45]

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted-by- publisher

  38. [46]

    T. V . Vu, Fundamental bounds on precision and response for quantum trajectory observables (2024), arXiv:2411.19546 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gammelmark and K

    S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, The Fisher information and the quantum Cramer-Rao sensitivity limit of continuous mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 170401 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    M. S. Dresselhaus, G. Dresselhaus, and A. Jorio, Group the- ory: application to the physics of condensed matter (Springer Science & Business Media, 2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    Yadin, B

    B. Yadin, B. Morris, and K. Brandner, Thermodynamics of permutation-invariant quantum many-body systems: A group- theoretical framework, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033018 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Cavina, A

    V . Cavina, A. Soret, T. Aslyamov, K. Ptaszy´nski, and M. Espos- ito, Symmetry shapes thermodynamics of macroscopic quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 130401 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Funo and H

    K. Funo and H. Tajima, Symmetry induced enhance- ment in finite-time thermodynamic trade-off relations (2024), arXiv:2408.04280 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Nakagawa, N

    M. Nakagawa, N. Kawakami, and M. Ueda, Exact liouvil- lian spectrum of a one-dimensional dissipative hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 110404 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    T. Haga, M. Nakagawa, R. Hamazaki, and M. Ueda, Liouvillian skin effect: Slowing down of relaxation processes without gap closing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 070402 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Response Kinetic Uncertainty Relation for Markovian Open Quantum System

    K. Shiraishi, M. Nakagawa, T. Mori, and M. Ueda, Quantum master equation for many-body systems: Derivation based on the lieb-robinson bound (2024), arXiv:2404.14067 [quant-ph]. 1 Supplemental Material for “Response Kinetic Uncertainty Relation for Markovian Open Quantum System...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.