Reply to "Comment on "Unified Framework for Open Quantum Dynamics with Memory""
Felix Ivander,Lachlan P. Lindoy,Joonho Lee
2024-10-19
Abstract:We present our response to the commentary piece by Makri {\it et al.} [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="2410.08239" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08239">arXiv:2410.08239</a>], which raises critiques of our work [Nat. Commun. 15, 8087 (2024)]. In our paper, we considered various settings of open-quantum system dynamics, including non-commuting, non-diagonalizable system-bath coupling, and bosonic/spin/fermionic baths. For these, we showed a direct and explicit relationship between the discrete-time memory kernel ($\mathcal K$) of the generalized quantum master equation (GQME) and the discrete-time influence functions ($I$) of the path integrals. As an application of this, we showed one can construct $\mathcal K$ without projection-free dynamics inputs that conventional methods require, and we also presented a quantum sensing protocol that characterizes the bath spectral density from reduced system dynamics. As the Comment focused on the relationship between ($\mathcal K$) and $I$ in one specific setup (i.e., commuting, diagonalizable system-bath coupling with a bosonic bath), we focus on that aspect in this response. In summary, we could not find a set of equations that explicitly connect $I$ and $\mathcal K$ from Makri's 2020 paper [J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 4038 (2020)]. Furthermore, while our analysis is specific to the choice of discretization of path-integral and GQME, we have not found issues with the GQME discretization employed. As per critiques on citations, in our paper, we note that we had acknowledged Makri's driven SMatPI work and Wang and Cai's tree-based SMatPI work for the number of Dyck paths needed for the computation of the memory kernel.
Quantum Physics