English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The design and optimization of new-generation solid-state quantum hardware absolutely requires reliable dissipation versus decoherence models. Depending on the device operational condition, the latter may range from Markov-type schemes (both phenomenological- and microscopic- like) to quantum-kinetic approaches. The primary goal of this paper is to review in a cohesive way virtues versus limitations of the most popular approaches, focussing on a few critical issues recently pointed out (see, e.g., Phys. Rev. B 90 , 125140 (2014); Eur. Phys. J. B 90 , 250 (2017)) and linking them within a common framework. By means of properly designed simulated experiments of a prototypical quantum-dot nanostructure (described via a two-level electronic system coupled to a phonon bath), we shall show that both conventional (i.e., non-Lindblad) Markov models and density-matrix-based non-Markov approaches (i.e., quantum-kinetic treatments) may lead to significant positivity violations. While for the former case the problem is easily avoidable by choosing genuine Lindblad-type dissipation models, for the latter, a general strategy is still missing.

Energy Dissipation and Decoherence in Solid-State Quantum Devices: Markovian versus non-Markovian Treatments