- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review X

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Perspective
  • Open Access

Process Tensor Approaches to Non-Markovian Quantum Dynamics

Jonathan Keeling1, E. Miles Stoudenmire2, Mari-Carmen Bañuls3,4, and David R. Reichman5

PDF

Phys. Rev. X 16, 020502 – Published 22 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/1ncg-11hz

Abstract

The paradigm of considering open quantum systems—i.e., focusing only on the system of interest, and treating the rest of the world as an effective environment—has proven to be a highly effective way to understand a range of quantum systems, across areas of study such as quantum optics, cold atoms, superconducting qubits, and impurities in solid-state systems. A common approach in many of these contexts has been to consider simplified approaches based on the Born and Markov approximations. While these approximations are indeed often appropriate in contexts such as quantum optics, the widespread application of these approximations has been driven more by simplicity than by accuracy. In particular, these Markovian treatments will fail in many cases, such as when coupling to the environment is not weak, when the environment is structured and has resonances, when the system couples to low-frequency modes of the environment, or when the questions of interest involve the propagation of information through the environment. Despite the fact that many real problems are non-Markovian, the Markov approximation is still widely used, as it is often assumed that a fully non-Markovian treatment is too complex to be practical. In this Perspective we discuss a recently developed set of techniques that address this challenge. Centering our discussion around the notion of the process tensor, we demonstrate that the generality of the process tensor concept, coupled with efficient tensor-network methods, opens the door to the description of a wide range of observable non-Markovian processes in a wide range of open quantum systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (251)

  1. H. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, New York, 2002).

  2. Note here by time-local we exclude situations where memory effects may be hidden by the formalism. For example, the time-convolutionless master equation framework [1] appears to be local in time, but the time-dependent relaxation term depends in principle on the entire bath history starting from the initial time.

  3. I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Dynamics of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015001 (2017).
  4. R. Feynman and F. Vernon, The theory of a general quantum system interacting with a linear dissipative system, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 24, 118 (1963).
  5. G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Quantum circuit architecture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 060401 (2008).
  6. G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Theoretical framework for quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A 80, 022339 (2009).
  7. F. A. Pollock, C. Rodríguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Non-Markovian quantum processes: Complete framework and efficient characterization, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012127 (2018).
  8. S. Milz and K. Modi, Quantum stochastic processes and quantum non-Markovian phenomena, PRX Quantum 2, 030201 (2021).
  9. P. Taranto, S. Milz, M. Murao, M. T. Quintino, and K. Modi, Higher-order quantum operations, arXiv:2503.09693.
  10. F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. Cirac, Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems, Adv. Phys. 57, 143 (2008).
  11. U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 326, 96 (2011).
  12. R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 349, 117 (2014).
  13. J. C. Bridgeman and C. T. Chubb, Hand-waving and interpretive dance: An introductory course on tensor networks, J. Phys. A 50, 223001 (2017).
  14. P. Silvi, F. Tschirsich, M. Gerster, J. Jünemann, D. Jaschke, M. Rizzi, and S. Montangero, The tensor networks anthology: Simulation techniques for many-body quantum lattice systems, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 8 (2019).
  15. S.-J. Ran, E. Tirrito, C. Peng, X. Chen, L. Tagliacozzo, G. Su, and M. Lewenstein, Tensor Network Contractions, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer International Publishing, New York, 2020).
  16. J. I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021).
  17. K. Okunishi, T. Nishino, and U. Hiroshi, Developments in the tensor network—From statistical mechanics to quantum entanglement, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 91, 062001 (2022).
  18. M. C. Bañuls, Tensor network algorithms: A route map, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 173 (2023).
  19. N. Makri and D. E. Makarov, Tensor propagator for iterative quantum time evolution of reduced density matrices. I. Theory, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 4600 (1995).
  20. N. Makri and D. E. Makarov, Tensor propagator for iterative quantum time evolution of reduced density matrices. II. Numerical methodology, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 4611 (1995).
  21. M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997).
  22. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012).
  23. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013).
  24. S. Krämer, D. Plankensteiner, L. Ostermann, and H. Ritsch, quantumoptics.jl: A julia framework for simulating open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 227, 109 (2018).
  25. Á. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non-Markovianity: Characterization, quantification and detection, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 094001 (2014).
  26. M. Stefanini, A. A. Ziolkowska, D. Budker, U. Poschinger, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Browaeys, A. Imamoglu, D. Chang, and J. Marino, Is Lindblad for me?, arXiv:2506.22436.
  27. F. A. Pollock, C. Rodríguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Operational Markov condition for quantum processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 040405 (2018).
  28. A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996).
  29. J. Thoenniss, M. Sonner, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Efficient method for quantum impurity problems out of equilibrium, Phys. Rev. B 107, L201115 (2023).
  30. N. Ng, G. Park, A. J. Millis, G. K.-L. Chan, and D. R. Reichman, Real-time evolution of Anderson impurity models via tensor network influence functionals, Phys. Rev. B 107, 125103 (2023).
  31. M. Sonner, V. Link, and D. A. Abanin, Semigroup influence matrices for nonequilibrium quantum impurity models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 170402 (2025).
  32. L. M. J. Hall, L. S. Sirkina, A. Morreau, W. Langbein, and E. A. Muljarov, Controlling dephasing of coupled qubits via shared bath coherence, Phys. Rev. B 112, 045303 (2025).
  33. D. Nagy and P. Domokos, Nonequilibrium quantum criticality and non-Markovian environment: Critical exponent of a quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 043601 (2015).
  34. G. D. Scholes, G. R. Fleming, A. Olaya-Castro, and R. Van Grondelle, Lessons from nature about solar light harvesting, Nat. Chem. 3, 763 (2011).
  35. S. F. Huelga and M. B. Plenio, Vibrations, quanta and biology, Contemp. Phys. 54, 181 (2013).
  36. N. Lambert, Y.-N. Chen, Y.-C. Cheng, C.-M. Li, G.-Y. Chen, and F. Nori, Quantum biology, Nat. Phys. 9, 10 (2013).
  37. L. Wang, M. A. Allodi, and G. S. Engel, Quantum coherences reveal excited-state dynamics in biophysical systems, Nat. Rev. Chem. 3, 477 (2019).
  38. J. Cao, R. J. Cogdell, D. F. Coker, H.-G. Duan, J. Hauer, U. Kleinekathöfer, T. L. C. Jansen, T. Mančal, R. J. D. Miller, J. P. Ogilvie, V. I. Prokhorenko, T. Renger, H.-S. Tan, R. Tempelaar, M. Thorwart, E. Thyrhaug, S. Westenhoff, and D. Zigmantas, Quantum biology revisited, Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz4888 (2020).
  39. A. Hewson, The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions, Cambridge Studies in Magnetism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997).
  40. A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987).
  41. J. O. González, L. A. Correa, G. Nocerino, J. P. Palao, D. Alonso, and G. Adesso, Testing the validity of the “local” and “global” GKLS master equations on an exactly solvable model, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 24, 1740010 (2017).
  42. P. P. Hofer, M. Perarnau-Llobet, L. D. M. Miranda, G. Haack, R. Silva, J. B. Brask, and N. Brunner, Markovian master equations for quantum thermal machines: Local versus global approach, New J. Phys. 19, 123037 (2017).
  43. M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zambrini, Local versus global master equation with common and separate baths: Superiority of the global approach in partial secular approximation, New J. Phys. 21, 113045 (2019).
  44. P. Talkner and P. Hänggi, Colloquium: Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics at strong coupling: Quantum and classical, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 041002 (2020).
  45. G. W. Ford and R. F. O’Connell, There is no quantum regression theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 798 (1996).
  46. S. Milz, M. S. Kim, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Completely positive divisibility does not mean Markovianity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 040401 (2019).
  47. S. Mukamel, Principles of Nonlinear Optical Spectroscopy (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995).
  48. M. Cho, Coherent two-dimensional optical spectroscopy, Chem. Rev. 108, 1331 (2008).
  49. E. Collini, 2D electronic spectroscopic techniques for quantum technology applications, J. Phys. Chem. C 125, 13096 (2021).
  50. D. Pérez-García, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007).
  51. N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Entropy scaling and simulability by matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030504 (2008).
  52. R. Penrose, Applications of negative dimensional tensors, in Combinatorial Mathematics and Its Applications (Academic Press, London, 1971), p. 221.
  53. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066.
  54. Y.-Y. Shi, L.-M. Duan, and G. Vidal, Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022320 (2006).
  55. G. Vidal, Class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 110501 (2008).
  56. F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004).
  57. M. Zwolak and G. Vidal, Mixed-state dynamics in one-dimensional quantum lattice systems: A time-dependent superoperator renormalization algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207205 (2004).
  58. B. Pirvu, V. Murg, J. I. Cirac, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product operator representations, New J. Phys. 12, 025012 (2010).
  59. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Continuous matrix product states for quantum fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 190405 (2010).
  60. J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, and F. Verstraete, Calculus of continuous matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 88, 085118 (2013).
  61. J. Haegeman, T. J. Osborne, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Entanglement renormalization for quantum fields in real space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 100402 (2013).
  62. A. Tilloy and J. I. Cirac, Continuous tensor network states for quantum fields, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021040 (2019).
  63. I. V. Oseledets, Tensor-train decomposition, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33, 2295 (2011).
  64. R. J. Baxter, Dimers on a rectangular lattice, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 9, 650 (1968).
  65. B. Derrida, M. R. Evans, V. Hakim, and V. Pasquier, Exact solution of a 1D asymmetric exclusion model using a matrix formulation, J. Phys. A 26, 1493 (1993).
  66. J. J. García-Ripoll, Quantum-inspired algorithms for multivariate analysis: From interpolation to partial differential equations, Quantum 5, 431 (2021).
  67. N. Gourianov, M. Lubasch, S. Dolgov, Q. Y. van den Berg, H. Babaee, P. Givi, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, A quantum-inspired approach to exploit turbulence structures, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 30 (2022).
  68. E. Ye and Nuno F. G. Loureiro, Quantum-inspired method for solving the Vlasov-Poisson equations, Phys. Rev. E 106, 035208 (2022).
  69. Y. Núñez Fernández, M. Jeannin, P. T. Dumitrescu, T. Kloss, J. Kaye, O. Parcollet, and X. Waintal, Learning Feynman diagrams with tensor trains, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041018 (2022).
  70. V. Link, H.-H. Tu, and W. T. Strunz, Open quantum system dynamics from infinite tensor network contraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 200403 (2024).
  71. M. Cygorek, J. Keeling, B. W. Lovett, and E. M. Gauger, Sublinear scaling in non-Markovian open quantum systems simulations, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011010 (2024).
  72. M. Cygorek, M. Cosacchi, A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and E. M. Gauger, Simulation of open quantum systems by automated compression of arbitrary environments, Nat. Phys. 18, 662 (2022).
  73. M. R. Jørgensen and F. A. Pollock, Exploiting the causal tensor network structure of quantum processes to efficiently simulate non-Markovian path integrals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 240602 (2019).
  74. P. Taranto, F. A. Pollock, S. Milz, M. Tomamichel, and K. Modi, Quantum Markov order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140401 (2019).
  75. I. Vilkoviskiy and D. A. Abanin, Bound on approximating non-Markovian dynamics by tensor networks in the time domain, Phys. Rev. B 109, 205126 (2024).
  76. J. Thoenniss, I. Vilkoviskiy, and D. A. Abanin, Efficient pseudomode representation and complexity of quantum impurity models, Phys. Rev. B 112, 155114 (2025).
  77. A. Lerose, M. Sonner, and D. A. Abanin, Influence matrix approach to many-body Floquet dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021040 (2021).
  78. G. Giudice, G. Giudici, M. Sonner, J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, D. A. Abanin, and L. Piroli, Temporal entanglement, quasiparticles, and the role of interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 220401 (2022).
  79. A. Müller-Hermes, J. I. Cirac, and M. C. Bañuls, Tensor network techniques for the computation of dynamical observables in one-dimensional quantum spin systems, New J. Phys. 14, 075003 (2012).
  80. M. Frías-Pérez and M. C. Bañuls, Light cone tensor network and time evolution, Phys. Rev. B 106, 115117 (2022).
  81. T. Prosen and M. Žnidarič, Is the efficiency of classical simulations of quantum dynamics related to integrability?, Phys. Rev. E 75, 015202(R) (2007).
  82. S. Carignano, C. R. Marimón, and L. Tagliacozzo, Temporal entropy and the complexity of computing the expectation value of local operators after a quench, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033021 (2024).
  83. J. Dubail, Entanglement scaling of operators: A conformal field theory approach, with a glimpse of simulability of long-time dynamics in 1+1D, J. Phys. A 50, 234001 (2017).
  84. V. Alba, J. Dubail, and M. Medenjak, Operator entanglement in interacting integrable quantum systems: The case of the rule 54 chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250603 (2019).
  85. B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Operator entanglement in local quantum circuits I: Chaotic dual-unitary circuits, SciPost Phys. 8, 067 (2020).
  86. A. Foligno, T. Zhou, and B. Bertini, Temporal entanglement in chaotic quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041008 (2023).
  87. L. Rabiner and B. Juang, An introduction to hidden Markov models, IEEE ASSP Mag. 3, 4 (1986).
  88. S. Milz, F. Sakuldee, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Kolmogorov extension theorem for (quantum) causal modelling and general probabilistic theories, Quantum 4, 255 (2020).
  89. M. C. Bañuls, M. B. Hastings, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states for dynamical simulation of infinite chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 240603 (2009).
  90. G. Park, N. Ng, D. R. Reichman, and G. K.-L. Chan, Tensor network influence functionals in the continuous-time limit: Connections to quantum embedding, bath discretization, and higher-order time propagation, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045104 (2024).
  91. E. Ye and G. K.-L. Chan, Constructing tensor network influence functionals for general quantum dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 044104 (2021).
  92. O. Oreshkov, F. Costa, and Č. Brukner, Quantum correlations with no causal order, Nat. Commun. 3, 1092 (2012).
  93. M. Richter and S. Hughes, Enhanced tempo algorithm for quantum path integrals with off-diagonal system-bath coupling: Applications to photonic quantum networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 167403 (2022).
  94. V. Link, Tensor network influence functionals for open quantum systems with general Gaussian bosonic baths, arXiv:2603.23432.
  95. R. Orús and G. Vidal, Infinite time-evolving block decimation algorithm beyond unitary evolution, Phys. Rev. B 78, 155117 (2008).

  96. The algorithm in Ref. [71] has a worse scaling with Nm than the iTEBD algorithm of Ref. [70]; the cost to calculate the process tensor scales as O[NMlog(Nm)] instead of O(Nm).

  97. L. Magazzù and M. Grifoni, Feynman-vernon influence functional approach to quantum transport in interacting nanojunctions: An analytical hierarchical study, Phys. Rev. B 105, 125417 (2022).
  98. M. T. Fishman and S. R. White, Compression of correlation matrices and an efficient method for forming matrix product states of fermionic Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. B 92, 075132 (2015).
  99. G. Petrica, B.-X. Zheng, G. K.-L. Chan, and B. K. Clark, Finite and infinite matrix product states for Gutzwiller projected mean-field wave functions, Phys. Rev. B 103, 125161 (2021).
  100. J. Surace and L. Tagliacozzo, Fermionic Gaussian states: An introduction to numerical approaches, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 54 (2022).
  101. H.-K. Jin, R.-Y. Sun, Y. Zhou, and H.-H. Tu, Matrix product states for Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov wave functions, Phys. Rev. B 105, L081101 (2022).
  102. J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Nonequilibrium quantum impurity problems via matrix-product states in the temporal domain, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195101 (2023).
  103. C. Guo and R. Chen, Infinite Grassmann time-evolving matrix product operator method in the steady state, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045106 (2024).
  104. D. E. Parker, X. Cao, and M. P. Zaletel, Local matrix product operators: Canonical form, compression, and control theory, Phys. Rev. B 102, 035147 (2020).
  105. C. Ortega-Taberner, E. O’Neill, E. Butler, G. E. Fux, and P. R. Eastham, Unifying methods for optimal control in non-Markovian quantum systems via process tensors, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 124119 (2024).

  106. Note that this one-dimensional mapping requires only the free (noninteracting) nature of the bath Hamiltonian, independent of its actual spatial dimension.

  107. I. de Vega, U. Schollwöck, and F. A. Wolf, How to discretize a quantum bath for real-time evolution, Phys. Rev. B 92, 155126 (2015).
  108. R. Bulla, T. A. Costi, and T. Pruschke, Numerical renormalization group method for quantum impurity systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 395 (2008).
  109. J. Prior, A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Efficient simulation of strong system-environment interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 050404 (2010).
  110. A. W. Chin, Á. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Exact mapping between system-reservoir quantum models and semi-infinite discrete chains using orthogonal polynomials, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 51, 092109 (2010).
  111. S. Paeckel, T. Köhler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollwöck, and C. Hubig, Time-evolution methods for matrix-product states, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 411, 167998 (2019).
  112. I. de Vega and M.-C. Bañuls, Thermofield-based chain-mapping approach for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 92, 052116 (2015).
  113. N. Lyu, E. Mulvihill, M. B. Soley, E. Geva, and V. S. Batista, Tensor-train thermo-field memory kernels for generalized quantum master equations, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 1111 (2023).
  114. R. Hübener, V. Nebendahl, and W. Dür, Concatenated tensor network states, New J. Phys. 12, 025004 (2010).
  115. M. Sonner, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Influence functional of many-body systems: Temporal entanglement and matrix-product state representation, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 435, 168677 (2021).
  116. Y.-K. Huang, P. Chen, Y.-J. Kao, and T. Xiang, Long-time dynamics of quantum chains: Transfer-matrix renormalization group and entanglement of the maximal eigenvector, Phys. Rev. B 89, 201102(R) (2014).
  117. M. B. Hastings and R. Mahajan, Connecting entanglement in time and space: Improving the folding algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 91, 032306 (2015).
  118. A. Lerose, M. Sonner, and D. A. Abanin, Overcoming the entanglement barrier in quantum many-body dynamics via space-time duality, Phys. Rev. B 107, L060305 (2023).
  119. S. Cerezo-Roquebrún, A. Bou-Comas, J. T. Schneider, E. López, L. Tagliacozzo, and S. Carignano, Spatio-temporal tensor-network approaches to out-of-equilibrium dynamics bridging open and closed systems, Front. Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 1568471 (2025).
  120. B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Exact correlation functions for dual-unitary lattice models in 1+1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210601 (2019).
  121. A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017).
  122. A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Operator spreading in random unitary circuits, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021014 (2018).
  123. D. Tamascelli, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Nonperturbative treatment of non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 030402 (2018).
  124. A. Imamoglu, Stochastic wave-function approach to non-Markovian systems, Phys. Rev. A 50, 3650 (1994).
  125. B. M. Garraway, Nonperturbative decay of an atomic system in a cavity, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2290 (1997).
  126. P. Strasberg, G. Schaller, N. Lambert, and T. Brandes, Nonequilibrium thermodynamics in the strong coupling and non-Markovian regime based on a reaction coordinate mapping, New J. Phys. 18, 073007 (2016).
  127. G. Pleasance, B. M. Garraway, and F. Petruccione, Generalized theory of pseudomodes for exact descriptions of non-Markovian quantum processes, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043058 (2020).
  128. A. Dorda, M. Nuss, W. von der Linden, and E. Arrigoni, Auxiliary master equation approach to nonequilibrium correlated impurities, Phys. Rev. B 89, 165105 (2014).
  129. F. Mascherpa, A. Smirne, A. D. Somoza, P. Fernández-Acebal, S. Donadi, D. Tamascelli, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Optimized auxiliary oscillators for the simulation of general open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052108 (2020).
  130. M. Lednev, F. J. García-Vidal, and J. Feist, Lindblad master equation capable of describing hybrid quantum systems in the ultrastrong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 106902 (2024).
  131. Z. Huang, G. Park, G. K.-L. Chan, and L. Lin, Coupled Lindblad pseudomode theory for simulating open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 090403 (2025).
  132. Y. Tanimura and R. Kubo, Time evolution of a quantum system in contact with a nearly Gaussian-Markoffian noise bath, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 58, 101 (1989).
  133. Y. Tanimura, Numerically “exact” approach to open quantum dynamics: The hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM), J. Chem. Phys. 153, 020901 (2020).
  134. Q. Shi, Y. Xu, Y. Yan, and M. Xu, Efficient propagation of the hierarchical equations of motion using the matrix product state method, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 174102 (2018).
  135. E. Mangaud, A. Jaouadi, A. Chin, and M. Desouter-Lecomte, Survey of the hierarchical equations of motion in tensor-train format for non-Markovian quantum dynamics, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 232, 1847 (2023).
  136. D. Suess, A. Eisfeld, and W. T. Strunz, Hierarchy of stochastic pure states for open quantum system dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 150403 (2014).
  137. L. Diósi, N. Gisin, and W. T. Strunz, Non-Markovian quantum state diffusion, Phys. Rev. A 58, 1699 (1998).
  138. R. T. Grimm and J. D. Eaves, Accurate numerical simulations of open quantum systems using spectral tensor trains, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 234111 (2024).
  139. Q. Shi and E. Geva, A new approach to calculating the memory kernel of the generalized quantum master equation for an arbitrary system–bath coupling, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 12063 (2003).
  140. A. Montoya-Castillo and D. R. Reichman, Approximate but accurate quantum dynamics from the Mori formalism: I. Nonequilibrium dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 144, 184104 (2016).
  141. A. A. Golosov, R. A. Friesner, and P. Pechukas, Efficient memory equation algorithm for reduced dynamics in spin-boson models, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 138 (1999).
  142. J. Cerrillo and J. Cao, Non-Markovian dynamical maps: Numerical processing of open quantum trajectories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 110401 (2014).
  143. F. A. Pollock and K. Modi, Tomographically reconstructed master equations for any open quantum dynamics, Quantum 2, 76 (2018).
  144. N. Makri, Improved Feynman propagators on a grid and non-adiabatic corrections within the path integral framework, Chem. Phys. Lett. 193, 435 (1992).
  145. N. Makri, Small matrix disentanglement of the path integral: Overcoming the exponential tensor scaling with memory length, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 041104 (2020).
  146. N. Makri, Small matrix path integral for driven dissipative dynamics, J. Phys. Chem. A 125, 10500 (2021).
  147. S. Chatterjee and N. Makri, Real-time path integral methods, quantum master equations, and classical vs quantum memory, J. Phys. Chem. B 123, 10470 (2019).
  148. F. Ivander, L. P. Lindoy, and J. Lee, Unified framework for open quantum dynamics with memory, Nat. Commun. 15, 8087 (2024).

  149. Note that there exists some controversy over the derivation of this connection with respect to the nature of time discretization. See Refs. [150, 151].

  150. N. Makri, Discrete generalized quantum master equations, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 21, 5037 (2025).
  151. R. Peng, L. P. Lindoy, and J. Lee, On the discretization error of the discrete generalized quantum master equation, J. Chem. Phys. 163, 134101 (2025).
  152. A. Ivanov and H.-P. Breuer, Extension of the Nakajima-Zwanzig approach to multitime correlation functions of open systems, Phys. Rev. A 92, 032113 (2015).
  153. G. E. Fux, P. Fowler-Wright, J. Beckles, E. P. Butler, P. R. Eastham, D. Gribben, J. Keeling, D. Kilda, P. Kirton, E. D. C. Lawrence, B. W. Lovett, E. O’Neill, A. Strathearn, and R. de Wit, oqupy: A python package to efficiently simulate non-Markovian open quantum systems with process tensors, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 124108 (2024).
  154. M. Cygorek and E. M. Gauger, ace: A general-purpose non-Markovian open quantum systems simulation toolkit based on process tensors, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 074111 (2024).
  155. V. Link, https://github.com/uniformTEMPO/UniformTEMPO.jl.
  156. S. Kundu and N. Makri, pathsum: A c++ and fortran suite of fully quantum mechanical real-time path integral methods for (multi-)system + bath dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 158, 224801 (2023).
  157. A. Bose, quantumdynamics.jl: A modular approach to simulations of dynamics of open quantum systems, J. Chem. Phys. 158, 204113 (2023).
  158. T. Lacroix, B. Le Dé, A. Riva, A. J. Dunnett, and A. W. Chin, mpsdynamics.jl: Tensor network simulations for finite-temperature (non-Markovian) open quantum system dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 084116 (2024).
  159. D. Zhang, L. Ye, J. Cao, Y. Wang, R.-X. Xu, X. Zheng, and Y. Yan, heom-quick2: A general-purpose simulator for fermionic many-body open quantum systems—An update, Comput. Mol. Sci. 14, e1727 (2024).
  160. Y.-T. Huang, P.-C. Kuo, N. Lambert, M. Cirio, S. Cross, S.-L. Yang, F. Nori, and Y.-N. Chen, An efficient julia framework for hierarchical equations of motion in open quantum systems, Commun. Phys. 6, 313 (2023).
  161. W. Guan, P. Bao, J. Peng, Z. Lan, and Q. Shi, mpsqd: A matrix product state based python package to simulate closed and open system quantum dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 122501 (2024).
  162. G. A. Worth, M. H. Beck, A. Jäckle, and H.-D. Meyer, The heidelberg mctdh package, version 8.2 H.-D. Meyer, version 8.3 (2002), version 8.4 (2007). Current version: 8.6.2 (2022). See https://www.pci.uni-heidelberg.de/tc/mctdh.html for a description of the heidelberg mctdh package (2022).
  163. G. A. Worth, quantics: A general purpose package for quantum molecular dynamics simulations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 248, 107040 (2020).
  164. W. Li, J. Ren, H. Yang, H. Wang, and Z. Shuai, Optimal tree tensor network operators for tensor network simulations: Applications to open quantum systems, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 054116 (2024).
  165. L. P. Lindoy, D. Rodrigo-Albert, Y. Rath, and I. Rungger, pyttn: An open source toolbox for open and closed system quantum dynamics simulations using tree tensor networks, J. Chem. Phys. 163, 202501 (2025).
  166. B. Citty, J. K. Lynd, T. Gera, L. Varvelo, and D. I. G. B. Raccah, Mesohops: Size-invariant scaling calculations of multi-excitation open quantum systems, J. Chem. Phys. 160, 144118 (2024).
  167. C. H. Mak and D. Chandler, Coherent-incoherent transition and relaxation in condensed-phase tunneling systems, Phys. Rev. A 44, 2352 (1991).
  168. R. Egger and C. H. Mak, Low-temperature dynamical simulation of spin-boson systems, Phys. Rev. B 50, 15210 (1994).
  169. I. Vilkoviskiy and D. A. Abanin, Bound on approximating non-Markovian dynamics by tensor networks in the time domain, Phys. Rev. B 109, 205126 (2024).
  170. R. J. Silbey and R. A. Harris, Variational calculation of the dynamics of a two level system interacting with a bath, J. Chem. Phys. 80, 2615 (1984).
  171. K. Le Hur, Entanglement entropy, decoherence, and quantum phase transitions of a dissipative two-level system, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 323, 2208 (2008).
  172. R. Bulla, N.-H. Tong, and M. Vojta, Numerical renormalization group for bosonic systems and application to the sub-ohmic spin-boson model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 170601 (2003).
  173. S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, W. Köckenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen et al., Training Schrödinger’s cat: Quantum optimal control: Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe, Eur. Phys. J. D 69, 279 (2015).
  174. C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Filipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, D. Sugny et al., Quantum optimal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 9, 19 (2022).
  175. E. P. Butler, G. E. Fux, C. Ortega-Taberner, B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and P. R. Eastham, Optimizing performance of quantum operations with non-Markovian decoherence: The tortoise or the hare?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 060401 (2024).
  176. N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, J. Magn. Reson. 172, 296 (2005).
  177. P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1995).
  178. R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schirò, Many-body open quantum systems, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 99 (2025).
  179. Matthew P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition, Phys. Rev. B 40, 546 (1989).
  180. W. Krauth, M. Caffarel, and J.-P. Bouchaud, Gutzwiller wave function for a model of strongly interacting bosons, Phys. Rev. B 45, 3137 (1992).
  181. K. Hepp and E. Lieb, Equilibrium statistical mechanics of matter interacting with the quantized radiation field, Phys. Rev. A 8, 2517 (1973).
  182. P. Kirton, M. M. Roses, J. Keeling, and E. G. Dalla Torre, Introduction to the Dicke model: From equilibrium to nonequilibrium, and vice versa, Adv. Quantum Technol. 2, 21 (2019).
  183. F. Carollo and I. Lesanovsky, Exactness of mean-field equations for open Dicke models with an application to pattern retrieval dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 230601 (2021).
  184. P. Fowler-Wright, B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling, Efficient many-body non-Markovian dynamics of organic polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 173001 (2022).
  185. G. E. Fux, D. Kilda, B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling, Tensor network simulation of chains of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033078 (2023).
  186. R. de Wit, J. Keeling, B. W. Lovett, and A. W. Chin, Process tensor approaches to modeling two-dimensional spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013209 (2025).
  187. J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Complete characterization of a quantum process: The two-bit quantum gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 390 (1997).
  188. I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielsen, Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2455 (1997).
  189. I. A. Luchnikov, S. V. Vintskevich, D. A. Grigoriev, and S. N. Filippov, Machine learning non-Markovian quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 140502 (2020).
  190. C. Guo, K. Modi, and D. Poletti, Tensor-network-based machine learning of non-Markovian quantum processes, Phys. Rev. A 102, 062414 (2020).
  191. G. A. L. White, C. D. Hill, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and K. Modi, Demonstration of non-Markovian process characterisation and control on a quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 11, 6301 (2020).
  192. G. A. L. White, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hollenberg, K. Modi, and C. D. Hill, Non-Markovian quantum process tomography, PRX Quantum 3, 020344 (2022).
  193. I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, Quantum fluids of light, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 299 (2013).
  194. D. Sanvitto and S. Kéna-Cohen, The road towards polaritonic devices, Nat. Mater. 15, 1061 (2016).
  195. J. Keeling and S. Kéna-Cohen, Bose–Einstein condensation of exciton-polaritons in organic microcavities, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 71, 435 (2020).
  196. D. N. Basov, A. Asenjo-Garcia, P. J. Schuck, X. Zhu, and A. Rubio, Polariton panorama, Nanophotonics 10, 549 (2021).
  197. E. G. Dalla Torre, Y. Shchadilova, E. Y. Wilner, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Dicke phase transition without total spin conservation, Phys. Rev. A 94, 061802(R) (2016).
  198. P. Kirton and J. Keeling, Suppressing and restoring the Dicke superradiance transition by dephasing and decay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 123602 (2017).
  199. A. Mu, N. Ng, A. J. Millis, and D. R. Reichman, Beyond mean-field dynamics of the Dicke model with non-Markovian dephasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 093601 (2026).
  200. K. Müller, K. Luoma, and C. Schäfer, A hierarchical approach to quantum many-body systems in structured environments, arXiv:2405.05093.
  201. R. F. Ribeiro, L. A. Martínez-Martínez, M. Du, J. Campos-Gonzalez-Angulo, and J. Yuen-Zhou, Polariton chemistry: Controlling molecular dynamics with optical cavities, Chem. Sci. 9, 6325 (2018).
  202. F. Herrera and J. Owrutsky, Molecular polaritons for controlling chemistry with quantum optics, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 100902 (2020).
  203. F. J. Garcia-Vidal, C. Ciuti, and T. W. Ebbesen, Manipulating matter by strong coupling to vacuum fields, Science 373, eabd0336 (2021).
  204. B. S. Simpkins, A. D. Dunkelberger, and J. C. Owrutsky, Mode-specific chemistry through vibrational strong coupling (or a wish come true), J. Phys. Chem. C 125, 19081 (2021).
  205. A. Mandal, M. A. Taylor, B. M. Weight, E. R. Koessler, X. Li, and P. Huo, Theoretical advances in polariton chemistry and molecular cavity quantum electrodynamics, Chem. Rev. 123, 9786 (2023).
  206. J. C. Nelson and M. L. Weichman, More than just smoke and mirrors: Gas-phase polaritons for optical control of chemistry, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 074304 (2024).
  207. L. Lindoy, A. Mandal, and D. Reichman, Investigating the collective nature of cavity-modified chemical kinetics under vibrational strong coupling, Nanophotonics 13, 2617 (2024).
  208. F. Caycedo-Soler, A. Mattioni, J. Lim, T. Renger, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Exact simulation of pigment-protein complexes unveils vibronic renormalization of electronic parameters in ultrafast spectroscopy, Nat. Commun. 13, 2912 (2022).
  209. S. Kundu and N. Makri, Efficient matrix factorisation of the modular path integral for extended systems, Mol. Phys. 119, e1797200 (2021).
  210. S. Kundu, R. Dani, and N. Makri, Tight inner ring architecture and quantum motion of nuclei enable efficient energy transfer in bacterial light harvesting, Sci. Adv. 8, eadd0023 (2022).
  211. A. Ishizaki and G. R. Fleming, Theoretical examination of quantum coherence in a photosynthetic system at physiological temperature, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 17255 (2009).
  212. M. K. Lee, P. Huo, and D. F. Coker, Semiclassical path integral dynamics: Photosynthetic energy transfer with realistic environment interactions, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 67, 639 (2016).
  213. G. S. Engel, T. R. Calhoun, E. L. Read, T.-K. Ahn, T. Mančal, Y.-C. Cheng, R. E. Blankenship, and G. R. Fleming, Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems, Nature (London) 446, 782 (2007).
  214. E. Thyrhaug, R. Tempelaar, M. Alcocer, K. Žídek, D. Bína, J. Knoester, T. Jansen, and D. Zigmantas, Identification and characterization of diverse coherences in the Fenna–Matthews–Olson complex, Nat. Chem. 10, 780 (2018).
  215. G. E. Fux, E. P. Butler, P. R. Eastham, B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling, Efficient exploration of Hamiltonian parameter space for optimal control of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 200401 (2021).
  216. F. Schlawin, Entangled photon spectroscopy, J. Phys. B 50, 203001 (2017).
  217. F. Schlawin, K. E. Dorfman, and S. Mukamel, Entangled two-photon absorption spectroscopy, Acc. Chem. Res. 51, 2207 (2018).
  218. A. Eshun, O. Varnavski, J. P. Villabona-Monsalve, R. K. Burdick, and T. Goodson III, Entangled photon spectroscopy, Acc. Chem. Res. 55, 991 (2022).
  219. P. Massignan, M. Zaccanti, and G. M. Bruun, Polarons, dressed molecules and itinerant ferromagnetism in ultracold Fermi gases, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 034401 (2014).
  220. J. Levinsen and M. M. Parish, Strongly interacting two-dimensional Fermi gases, in Annual Review of Cold Atoms and Molecules (World Scientific, Singapore, 2015), Chap. 1, pp. 1–75.
  221. R. Schmidt, M. Knap, D. A. Ivanov, J.-S. You, M. Cetina, and E. Demler, Universal many-body response of heavy impurities coupled to a Fermi sea: A review of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 024401 (2018).
  222. F. Grusdt, N. Mostaan, E. Demler, and L. A. P. Ardila, Impurities and polarons in bosonic quantum gases: A review on recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 066401 (2025).
  223. M. M. Parish and J. Levinsen, Fermi polarons and beyond, in Quantum Mixtures with Ultra-Cold Atoms (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2025), pp. 221–245.
  224. Q. Gao and Y. Wan, Summing real time Feynman paths of lattice polaron with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 112, 165121 (2025).
  225. F. Wegner, Flow-equations for Hamiltonians, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 506, 77 (1994).
  226. J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Pižorn, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-dependent variational principle for quantum lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 070601 (2011).
  227. N. Dowling, K. Modi, R. N. Muñoz, S. Singh, and Gregory A. L. White, Capturing long-range memory structures with tree-geometry process tensors, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041018 (2024).
  228. L. P. Lindoy, B. Kloss, and D. R. Reichman, Time evolution of ML-MCTDH wavefunctions. I. Gauge conditions, basis functions, and singularities, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 174108 (2021).
  229. L. P. Lindoy, B. Kloss, and D. R. Reichman, Time evolution of ML-MCTDH wavefunctions. II. Application of the projector splitting integrator, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 174109 (2021).
  230. H. R. Larsson, A tensor network view of multilayer multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree methods, Mol. Phys. 122, e2306881 (2024).
  231. G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017).
  232. G. Torlai and R. G. Melko, Latent space purification via neural density operators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 240503 (2018).
  233. A. Nagy and V. Savona, Variational quantum Monte Carlo method with a neural-network ansatz for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250501 (2019).
  234. M. J. Hartmann and G. Carleo, Neural-network approach to dissipative quantum many-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250502 (2019).
  235. F. Vicentini, A. Biella, N. Regnault, and C. Ciuti, Variational neural-network ansatz for steady states in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250503 (2019).
  236. G. Park, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan, Simulating quantum dynamics in two-dimensional lattices with tensor network influence functional belief propagation, Phys. Rev. B 112, 174310 (2025).
  237. M. Cygorek, A. M. Barth, F. Ungar, A. Vagov, and V. M. Axt, Nonlinear cavity feeding and unconventional photon statistics in solid-state cavity QED revealed by many-level real-time path-integral calculations, Phys. Rev. B 96, 201201(R) (2017).
  238. M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump approach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101 (1998).
  239. K. Müller and W. T. Strunz, nuHOPS: A quantum trajectory method for highly excited environments in non-Markovian open quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 112, 033719 (2025).
  240. G. Cohen, E. Gull, D. R. Reichman, A. J. Millis, and E. Rabani, Numerically exact long-time magnetization dynamics at the nonequilibrium Kondo crossover of the Anderson impurity model, Phys. Rev. B 87, 195108 (2013).
  241. G. Cohen, E. Gull, D. R. Reichman, and A. J. Millis, Taming the dynamical sign problem in real-time evolution of quantum many-body problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 266802 (2015).
  242. M. Nayak, J. Thoenniss, M. Sonner, D. A. Abanin, and P. Werner, Steady-state dynamical mean field theory based on influence functional matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 112, 035103 (2025).
  243. H. Aoki, N. Tsuji, M. Eckstein, M. Kollar, T. Oka, and P. Werner, Nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field theory and its applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 779 (2014).
  244. E. Gull, A. J. Millis, A. I. Lichtenstein, A. N. Rubtsov, M. Troyer, and P. Werner, Continuous-time Monte Carlo methods for quantum impurity models, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 349 (2011).
  245. I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008).
  246. H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Orús, Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015008 (2021).
  247. A. Bose and P. L. Walters, A multisite decomposition of the tensor network path integrals, J. Chem. Phys. 156, 024101 (2022).
  248. L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, J. Marino, and S. Diehl, Universality in driven open quantum matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 025004 (2025).
  249. B. Keimer and J. E. Moore, The physics of quantum materials, Nat. Phys. 13, 1045 (2017).
  250. F. Schlawin, D. M. Kennes, and M. A. Sentef, Cavity quantum materials, Appl. Phys. Rev. 9, 011312 (2022).
  251. D. Basov, A. Asenjo-Garcia, P. J. Schuck, X. Zhu, A. Rubio, A. Cavalleri, M. Delor, M. M. Fogler, and M. Liu, Polaritonic quantum matter, Nanophotonics 14, 3723 (2025).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. X 16, 020502– Published 22 June, 2026
  • Received 12 September 2025
  • Revised 12 March 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation