the markovian quantum master equation ( qme )  @xcite provides a key paradigm for the study of nonequilibrium statistical physics .
the structure of this framework is transparent , the generality of its derivation is sufficient , and the approximations applied are well defined , especially when the system hamiltonian is time - independent . in the last decades , therefore , the markovian qme has allowed a broad range of applications for the study of open quantum systems that have _ time - independent _ system hamiltonians  @xcite . in recent years , however , the quantum dynamics driven by _ time - dependent _ external field ( see also fig .  [
fig : schematic ] ) has been an area of growing importance in various contexts , such as adiabatic quantum computation ( aqc )  @xcite , quantum annealing ( qa )  @xcite , quantum heat engines  @xcite , bose - einstein condensates in optical lattices  @xcite , and semiconductor quantum dots  @xcite because the external driving is essential for the use of the quantum systems as nontrivial physical resources .
nevertheless , no general way of rigorously constructing the markovian qme is currently known for the time - dependent system hamiltonian , @xmath1  @xcite .
one therefore often comes across a fundamental problem of describing the open quantum dynamics simultaneously subject to the external driving .    one possible way to circumvent
this difficulty is the floquet formalism if the system hamiltonian is driven periodically in time  @xcite .
however , this approach is obviously inadequate in situations with no periodicity .
another natural approach is then to assume the slow temporal change of @xmath1 .
however , the following two questions immediately arise in turn : how can we quantify the temporal change timescale of @xmath1 , which we denote by @xmath0 , and what is the other timescale to be compared with @xmath0 when we say slow ? in relation to these questions , various different statements can be found in literature . in particular ,
an important assumption employed by many authors is the adiabatic regime that satisfies the ordinary adiabatic theorem  @xcite , in which any non - adiabatic transitions between instantaneous eigenstates are suppressed  @xcite .
however , under this assumption , any non - adiabatic effect can not be discussed despite the recent experimental demand ; in the context of the qa , for example , it is essential to consider the non - adiabatic transitions with dissipation in practice  @xcite .
alternatively , another assumption sometimes encountered is the slow temporal change of @xmath1 compared to the decay timescale of the bath correlation function , @xmath2 .
however , due to the lack of the general definition of @xmath0 , there is no consensus for this condition even if simple systems , e.g.  the dissipative landau - zener ( dlz ) models , are considered  @xcite .
the conditions for the markovian qme are thus subject to long - standing debate when the system hamiltonian depends on time , originally started from davies and spohn  @xcite .    in this article ,
our purpose is two - fold .
first , under the weak - coupling approximation ( wca ) , we settle this long - standing debate by studying the conditions to justify the markovian qme with @xmath1 in a general manner .
we introduce an explicit definition of @xmath0 and approximations required to obtain the qme under the wca . as a result , we shall see that the markovian qme is naturally derived _ without the adiabatic theorem_. our route of the formulation successfully removes the ambiguities of the relevant conditions .
second , in a broad range of situations , we further find that there is no need to even assume the slow temporal change of @xmath1 compared to @xmath2 .
this is in contrast to the common belief that the markovian description breaks down when the system hamiltonian changes more rapidly than @xmath2  @xcite . in consequence ,
the non - adiabatic regime becomes definitely accessible by the markovian qme .
our route of the formulation and the well - defined approximations allow us to clearly understand the structure of the framework with sufficient generality .
hence , the approach is immediately applicable to a wide range of physical systems . as an example
, the results are demonstrated by applying the framework to the dlz model .
our scheme thus resolves the contentious issue , achieves an extension of the applicable range , and as a result opens up a new avenue for exploring the frontier in driven open quantum systems beyond the adiabatic regime .
the paper is organized as follows . in section  [ sec : adiabaticity ] , we introduce @xmath0 that quantifies the temporal change of @xmath1 by assuming the _ closed system_. we also discuss the similarities and differences between the adiabaticity of @xmath1 and the ordinary adiabatic theorem .
next , in section  [ sec : qme ] , we study the general derivation of the markovian qme under the wca . to help explain the framework clearly
, we shall make a brief review of the _ time - independent _ hamiltonian case .
we then introduce an approximation based on the instantaneous eigenbasis and illustrate the validity beyond the adiabatic regime . in section  [ sec : dlz ] , we demonstrate the results by applying the framework to the dlz model . finally , in section  [ sec : conclusions ] , we conclude and give an outlook . throughout the paper
, we set @xmath3 for simplicity .
we consider an open quantum system with the time - dependent system hamiltonian @xmath1 .
although this topic has been studied by many authors in the past  @xcite , there is no discussion on how to quantify the temporal change timescale @xmath0 of the system hamiltonian .
therefore , in this section , we start with the definition of @xmath0 by considering the _ closed system_. for this purpose , it is convenient to consider a problem about in what condition @xmath4 remains unchanged from @xmath1 , @xmath5 where @xmath6 is an arbitrary time .
we note that this problem is different from the traditional adiabatic theorem  @xcite in the following sense . in the adiabatic theorem ,
the time evolution of the system s state @xmath7 is considered according to the schrdinger equation @xmath8 .
then , one finds that the transitions between the instantaneous eigenstates are suppressed when @xmath1 changes sufficiently slowly if there is no degeneracy .
in contrast , in eq .  , we do _ not _ focus on the time evolution of @xmath7 but our attention is paid to the time dependence of @xmath1 itself .
therefore , it is always possible to find @xmath9 that satisfies eq .
, no matter how fast @xmath1 changes when @xmath1 is analytic . in this context
, @xmath9 would be arbitrary as long as it is sufficiently small compared to a certain timescale . here
, in fact , it is natural to introduce @xmath10 by this certain timescale because , if @xmath10 denotes the temporal change timescale of @xmath1 , eq .
should be satisfied when @xmath9 is much shorter than @xmath10 , @xmath11 therefore , we can say that @xmath1 is adiabatic , or `` slow '' , within the time @xmath9 when @xmath9 satisfies the condition of eq .  .
in this sense , @xmath0 would give a clear measure for the adiabaticity of @xmath1 itself .
however , eqs .   and alone do not make much practical sense because we do not know how to estimate @xmath0 . as a convenient way to obtain @xmath10 ,
therefore , we use the instantaneous eigenbasis , defined by @xmath12 , where @xmath13 and @xmath14 denote the @xmath15-th instantaneous eigenstate and eigenenergy , respectively ; @xmath16 labels the ground state .
the states @xmath13 are assumed to be normalized and nondegenerate .
we then read eq .   in this basis as @xmath17 for all @xmath15
. here , in a similar manner to eq .
, we can separately introduce @xmath18 and @xmath19 that describe the temporal change timescales of the instantaneous eigenenergy and eigenstate .
hence , the first and second approximations in eq .
are appropriate , respectively , when @xmath20 as a result , @xmath10 is given by @xmath21 because @xmath22 and @xmath23 should both be satisfied for @xmath24 .
since the taylor expansion of @xmath25 up to the first order yields @xmath26 , we obtain @xmath18 as @xmath27 then , one can indeed obtain @xmath22 if @xmath28 . on the other hand , for @xmath29 , @xmath30 should be satisfied when @xmath23 because @xmath31 . therefore , since @xmath32 , @xmath19 is given by @xmath33 where the maximum is taken over all @xmath34 and @xmath15 except for @xmath35 .
thus , @xmath10 can be estimated from eqs .   with the instantaneous eigenbasis .
for the convenience of the reader , the timescales and the situations discussed in this paper are summarized in tables  [ tbl : timescales ] and [ tbl : conditions ] .
while there are a multitude of timescales , we should mention that @xmath0 , @xmath18 and @xmath19 are the only timescales essentially introduced in this paper .
the other timescales are just straightforward extensions of previously known timescales .    at this stage ,
let us discuss the time evolution of @xmath7 .
this is actually equivalent to discuss the evolution operator defined by @xmath36 where @xmath37 ( @xmath38 ) denotes the chronological ( anti - chronological ) time ordering operator .
the formal solution of the schrdinger equation is then given by @xmath39 with the initial time @xmath40 because @xmath41 satisfies    [ eq : evprop2 ] @xmath42    for @xmath43 later than @xmath44 ( @xmath45 ) .
we note , in addition , that the evolution operator also satisfies    [ eq : evprop1 ] @xmath46    by definition .
then , if @xmath6 satisfies eq .
, the evolution operator from @xmath47 to @xmath48 , i.e.  @xmath49 , can be approximated by @xmath50 where the integral variable is changed to @xmath51 [ see also eq .
] in the first line and eq
.   has been used in the second line .
this equation means that the evolution of the eigenstates can be approximated just by the dynamical phase shift , @xmath52 when @xmath9 is much shorter than @xmath0 .
these discussions based on the concept of the adiabaticity of @xmath1 will play an important role when we develop the markovian qme with @xmath1 in the following sections .    here , it would be instructive to see the similarities and differences between the adiabaticity of @xmath1 and the ordinary adiabatic theorem .
for this purpose , we introduce an _ intrinsic evolution timescale _ of @xmath1 by @xmath53 where @xmath54 denotes the instantaneous energy gap .
hence , @xmath55 also corresponds to the longest timescale of the intrinsic oscillation period in the off - diagonal density matrix elements .
one can then easily confirm that the adiabatic theorem is validated if @xmath56 is satisfied for all relevant time @xmath48 ( see ref .
, for example ) by using @xmath57 .
equation   means that all the eigenstates @xmath13 should be adiabatic with respect to @xmath58 . in other words , the eigenstates @xmath13 should remain unchanged at least within the intrinsic oscillation period @xmath58 to satisfy the adiabatic theorem . in that case , the evolution operator @xmath41 can be approximated by @xmath59 with  @xcite @xmath60 where @xmath61 and @xmath62 denotes the berry connection .
notice that , according to eq .  , the @xmath15-th eigenstate @xmath63 at time @xmath44 will evolve to the @xmath15-th eigenstate @xmath64 at time @xmath43 with the phase shift @xmath65 .
therefore , eq .   directly means that there are no transitions between the instantaneous eigenstates .
we refer to this type of dynamics as the _
adiabatic evolution_. by comparing eq .   with eq .
[ eq .   with eq .  ]
, the adiabaticity of @xmath1 is formally similar to the adiabatic theorem .
however , they are conceptually different from each other , as described below eq .  .
according to eq .  , we can indeed always find @xmath9 even if @xmath0 becomes short due to a rapid change of @xmath1 . as a result , eq .
is validated , in which the eigenstates are left unchanged except for their phase factors . in contrast , eq
.   fails when @xmath19 becomes short due to the rapid change of @xmath1 .
this is because @xmath55 is fixed once the structure of @xmath1 is determined .
therefore , the adiabatic evolution [ eq .  ] is valid only when @xmath1 varies slowly to satisfy eq .  .
with the help of this distinction , we shall see below that the markovian qme is naturally derived without the adiabatic theorem .
[ cols="^ , < , < , < " , ]
we now turn to the study of the markovian qme under the wca . here , in order to fix our notations as well as to give a self - contained presentation , let us shortly review the standard steps to obtain the markovian qme . in the schrdinger picture ,
the general hamiltonian we consider is @xmath66 where @xmath67 is the hamiltonian of the bath and @xmath68 is the system - bath interaction hamiltonian . without loss of generality , we assume that @xmath69 and @xmath70 are the hermitian operators acting only on the system and bath hilbert spaces , respectively  @xcite .
the total density operator @xmath71 evolves according to the von neumann equation ; @xmath72 $ ] .
let @xmath73 describe the evolution operator for @xmath74 that is defined in the same way as eq .   except for the replacement @xmath75 .
we then transform into the interaction picture with respect to @xmath74 by introducing @xmath76 where @xmath77 is an arbitrary operator . in the interaction picture , therefore , the von neumann equation is written as @xmath78 $ ] . as a result , the standard time - convolutionless technique using projection superoperators  @xcite yields the equation of motion for the reduced density operator @xmath79}$ ] , @xmath80 ] } , \label{eq : nmredfield1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] up to the second order in @xmath81 , or equivalently within the wca ; see also appendix  [ tcl ] . in the derivation
, we have assumed that the initial state is separable , @xmath82 , and that the odd moments of @xmath83 with respect to @xmath84 vanish ; @xmath85}=0 , \label{eq : oddmoments}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath86 . by inserting @xmath87 into eq .  , with a change of the integration variable to @xmath88 , we obtain @xmath89 where @xmath90 denotes the elapsed time from the initial time @xmath40 and @xmath91}$ ] is the bath correlation function .
the typical decay timescale of @xmath92 will be denoted by @xmath93 . in the derivation of eq .
, we have assumed that @xmath84 is in the steady state , i.e. @xmath94 = 0 $ ] , to obtain @xmath95 } = { \text{tr}_{\text{b } } [ \vb_{\alpha}(\tau ) \vb_{\beta}(0 ) \orho_{\b}]}$ ] for simplicity .
the thermal bath with the temperature @xmath96 is the most typical example ; @xmath97}$ ] .
we remark that eqs .   and are time - convolutionless in the sense that there is no time convolution in terms of @xmath98 .
however , the time convolution between @xmath99 and @xmath100 is still required , which will cause a practical difficulty when we consider the time - dependent hamiltonian explicitly .    _ the markovian approximation_here , in eq .  , @xmath99 decays to zero well after the decay timescale of the bath correlation function @xmath101 .
therefore , the upper limit of the integral may be approximated by infinity if we are only interested in the system dynamics over the time which is longer than @xmath2 ; @xmath102 under this approximation , known as the markovian approximation  @xcite , we finally obtain @xmath103 we note however that , in the vicinity of the initial time , @xmath104 , the markovian approximation is not validated because @xmath99 does not yet sufficiently decay . as a result , errors accumulated in @xmath104 sometimes largely affect the subsequent evolution even for @xmath105 .
this problem is nevertheless avoidable by using the renormalized or  slipped " initial condition  @xcite ( see also appendix  [ slp ] ) .
therefore , in the followings , we limit ourselves only to the markovian qme under the wca , which is equivalent to the qme under the born - markov approximation  @xcite .
we do not go into the non - markovian dynamics recently highlighted by several authors  @xcite but the concept of the markovianity is used in the same spirit that there is no memory effect coming back from the bath  @xcite .    _ time - independent
case_equation   can be rewritten in a more tractable form when the system hamiltonian is time - independent ; @xmath106 , @xmath107 , and @xmath108 . to see this ,
let us define @xmath109 where the summation in eq .
is taken over all @xmath34 and @xmath15 satisfying @xmath110 . then , the summation over all possible @xmath111 ( the bohr frequencies of the system ) yields the spectral decomposition , @xmath112 due to the completeness of the eigenbasis . since the evolution operator @xmath113 [ eq .  ] is simply described by @xmath114 for @xmath106 , @xmath100 in eq
is given by @xmath115 where @xmath116 is the interaction picture of @xmath117 ; @xmath118 . note that the key point in eq .
is that the @xmath119-dependence of @xmath120 is separated from the operator part .
therefore , by inserting eq .   into eq .  , the time convolution between @xmath99 and @xmath100 yields @xmath121 where @xmath122 denotes the one - sided fourier transform of the bath correlation function @xmath123 notice that this is an analogy to the ordinary convolution theorem , i.e.  the convolution in time domain is equivalent to the multiplication in the fourier domain . as a result ,
one obtains the standard form of the qme in the interaction picture , @xmath124 where the dissipator @xmath125 is defined by @xmath126 however , the dissipator @xmath125 is still not described by the lindblad form and this means that the complete positivity is not guaranteed .
therefore , the secular approximation ( sa ) , or equivalently the rotating wave approximation ( rwa ) , is often applied , where rapidly oscillating terms in eq .
is neglected ( averaged out to zero ) .
this is performed by putting @xmath127 [ cf .
] into eq .   and by neglecting all terms with @xmath128 .
we note that this approximation is based on the oscillating forms of @xmath129 and @xmath130 .
then , we finally arrive at @xmath131 with @xmath132 which indeed results in the lindblad form .
note however that the sa is justified only when all the differences of the bohr frequencies , i.e. @xmath133 for @xmath128 , are larger than the relaxation rate of the system  @xcite . on the one hand ,
the relaxation rate of the system @xmath134 is characterized by @xmath135 where @xmath136 .
on the other hand , we can define an intrinsic timscale @xmath137 by using the minimum of @xmath133 for @xmath128 ; @xmath138 therefore , the condition for the sa is described by @xmath139 , or equivalently , @xmath140 here , we refer to @xmath137 as the intrinsic beat timescale to distinguish from eq .  , while @xmath137 is also called the intrinsic evolution timescale  @xcite .
this is because the differences of the bohr frequencies correspond to the beat frequencies of the intrinsic oscillation of the off - diagonal density matrix elements .
if the condition is not satisfied , the sa sometimes leads to unphysical results and one often has to use @xmath125 or alternatively approximated lindblad qme  @xcite .
now , we return to the problem of the time - dependent system hamiltonian , @xmath1 . in this case
, our starting point is eq .  .
although this equation can be solved numerically in principle , the numerical cost would not be low in practice because eq .
requires the numerical @xmath119-integration at each time step .
it is therefore desirable to analytically reduce eq .   into a similar form to @xmath125 [ eq .  ] or @xmath141 [ eq .  ] . in this context
, one often assumes that @xmath1 is slowly varying , and then , replaces the bohr frequencies @xmath111 , the eigenenergies @xmath142 , and the eigenstates @xmath143 in the dissipators by the corresponding time - dependent ones , @xmath144 , @xmath14 , and @xmath13 , respectively .
indeed , such an approach has been employed by childs _
et al_.  @xcite and its microscopic derivation has recently been shown by albash _
et al_. , based on the ` ideal ' adiabatic evolution operator @xmath145 [ eq .  ] , or equivalently , the adiabatic theorem  @xcite . in contrast , our purpose below is to derive such dissipators _ without using the adiabatic theorem_.    to this end , we first introduce @xmath146 in the same manner as eqs .   and .
therefore , the summation over all possible @xmath144 yields the decomposition similar to eq .  , @xmath147 again due to the completeness of the ( instantaneous ) eigenbasis .
as illustrated in the previous section , the advantage to use such a decomposition was to separate the @xmath119-dependence from @xmath100 , based on the explicit calculation of the time dependence in the interaction picture [ see eq .  ] .
then , the time convolution between @xmath99 and @xmath100 becomes possible [ eq .  ] .
however , this approach is now _ not _ allowed for the time - dependent hamiltonian @xmath1 because the evolution operator @xmath113 includes the time integration of @xmath1 [ eq .  ] .    in order to avoid this difficulty , according to eq .
, we rewrite @xmath100 in the following form , @xmath148 where the evolution operator @xmath149 has been separated into two parts ; @xmath150 . since @xmath119 is positive in eq .
, the form of @xmath151 is reminiscent of eq .  .
by considering that the @xmath119-integration in eq .
converges for @xmath152 due to the decay of @xmath99 , we can indeed approximate @xmath151 by @xmath153 when @xmath154 as a result , eq .   yields @xmath155 where @xmath156 is the interaction picture of @xmath157 , @xmath158 , and we have used eqs .
. it is important here to notice that the @xmath119-dependence is separated from the operator part and eq
.   corresponds to a straightforward extension of eq .  .
we refer to eq .   as the instantaneous eigenbasis approximation ( iea ) .
note that the iea becomes exact and recovers eq .   when @xmath1 is time - independent .
this is consistent with the condition for the iea [ eq .  ] because @xmath0 goes to infinity based on eqs .
when @xmath106 .    by applying the iea [ eq .
] , we can then perform the same steps as eqs .   to obtain the qme in the interaction picture .
the result is @xmath159 where the dissipator @xmath160 is defined by @xmath161 these equations are formally the same as eq .   except that @xmath162 , @xmath163 , and @xmath164 .
it follows that eqs .   and do not guarantee the complete positivity due to the non - lindblad form .
therefore , the sa is again required to obtain the lindblad form in a similar manner to the time - independent case .
however , we remark that @xmath165 in @xmath160 even though @xmath130 holds true in @xmath125 because the interaction picture can not be explicitly obtained when the system hamiltonian is time - dependent .
actually , this difference between @xmath160 and @xmath125 makes the application of the sa more difficult than the time - independent case since the sa is based on the oscillating forms of @xmath166 and @xmath116 , as seen above eq .  .
nevertheless , we can show that the sa is still possible ( see also appendix  [ sec : sa ] ) when @xmath167 are simultaneously satisfied .
here , @xmath168 and @xmath169 are the straightforward extensions of eqs .   and , @xmath170 where @xmath168 and @xmath169 denote the characteristic relaxation timescale of @xmath98 and the intrinsic beat timescale between the different bohr frequencies @xmath144 and @xmath171 , respectively .
physically speaking , therefore , eq .
means that @xmath98 and @xmath1 must remain unchanged until the beat oscillations of @xmath166 and @xmath116 are sufficiently developed .
hence , eq .   is a natural extension of eq .   in the spirit of the sa . under this condition ,
we can obtain @xmath172 with @xmath173 which is again formally the same as @xmath141 [ eq .  ] .
thus , the dissipator can be described in the lindblad form .    finally , for practical use , it is better to transform back into the schrdinger picture . with the help of eq .  , eq .
gives @xmath174 + \od^{\i\e\a}_t\orho_{\s}(t ) , \label{eq : sp::qmeiea}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the dissipator @xmath175 is @xmath176 after the application of the sa , @xmath177 is justified with @xmath178 in the schrdinger picture .
these markovian qmes are the direct generalizations of the standard markovian qmes for the time - independent hamiltonian .
obviously , the obtained qmes recover the standard qmes if we assume @xmath106 .      in the previous section  [ subsec : iea ] ,
we have derived the markovian qmes within the iea .
however , we have to mention that the forms of the dissipators [ eqs .   and ]
have already been known or expected from a long time ago  @xcite .
this is _ not _ surprising because the derived dissipators can be obtained just by intuitively replacing the time - independent variables by the corresponding time - dependent ones .
however , it has been believed that the applicable range is limited to the adiabatic - evolution regime that satisfies the ordinary adiabatic theorem .
following the recent arguments in ref .  , for example , the evolution operator @xmath179 has been approximated by the ` ideal ' adiabatic - evolution operator @xmath180 [ eq .  ] to avoid the difficulty originating from the time convolution between @xmath99 and @xmath181 .
however , such an approximation is _ not _ needed at all in the formulation shown above . in this sense
, the applicable range is already extended beyond the adiabatic regime .
this is our first important result .
however , based on the formulation above , the iea is still limited to the time regime of @xmath48 satisfying @xmath182 .
this means that @xmath1 should remain unchanged at least within @xmath2 to justify @xmath175 .
nevertheless , in a broad range of situations , our claim of the validity is _ not _ restricted to just the regime of @xmath182 for the iea ; the @xmath175 is still well justified even if @xmath182 fails .    to show this result , we consider the time regime satisfying @xmath183 in this regime , @xmath1 is driven much more rapidly than the relaxation time scale .
this means that @xmath175 [ the second term in eq .
] has only a minor effect on the dynamics , compared to the hamiltonian dynamics [ the first term in eq .  ] .
in such a situation , only a rough evaluation of the superoperator @xmath175 would be sufficient .
in other words , the effect of the relaxation is negligible if we focus on the dynamics in the timescale of @xmath0 when @xmath184 .
we can therefore state that the qme with @xmath175 [ eqs .   and ]
strongly breaks down only when the iea is invalid [ @xmath185 , and simultaneously , the effect of the relaxation is non - negligible [ @xmath186 , namely , @xmath187 however , this condition can never be satisfied as long as the sufficient condition for the wca holds , as shown below .    for the wca , which is correct in the second order of @xmath81 , the fourth order contribution must sufficiently be small in comparison to the second order  @xcite because the third order contribution vanishes due to the assumption of eq .  . here
, the second order contribution is roughly estimated by @xmath188 in the @xmath119-integral of eq .  , whereas the corresponding forth order is similarly estimated by @xmath189 .
the wca therefore remains valid when @xmath190 , or equivalently , @xmath191 for all @xmath192 and @xmath193 .
here , due to the fourier - transform relation between @xmath194 and @xmath99 , the spectral bandwidth of @xmath194 , denoted by @xmath195 , satisfies @xmath196 .
we can therefore estimate @xmath197 , where @xmath198 is the peak value of @xmath194 . putting this into eq .
, we can find @xmath199 as the sufficient condition for the wca , where @xmath200 is defined by @xmath201 since @xmath202 holds by definition , the sufficient condition for the wca [ eq .  ] results in @xmath203 which is , however , incompatible with eq .  .
therefore , if we limit ourselves to the wca regime , eq
.   can never be satisfied .
thus , the strong breakdown of the qme with @xmath175 [ eqs .   and ]
is entirely avoidable as long as the wca condition is satisfied .
although it is well - known that simple hamiltonian evolution is sufficient to characterize the system dynamics for @xmath204 , the important point here is that @xmath204 is _ always _ satisfied when @xmath205 because @xmath206 under the wca . as a result
, we obtain our second important result ; @xmath175 is well justified even though @xmath0 is comparable to or even much shorter than @xmath2 , i.e.  @xmath207 . since @xmath175 is well justified also for @xmath208 [ eq .  ] as described in section  [ subsec : iea ] , this means that the markovian qme can be justified regardless of the speed of @xmath209 .
this is in contrast to the previous studies @xcite in which it is believed that the markovian description breaks down when @xmath209 changes more rapidly than @xmath210 .
the applicable range of the iea can thus be significantly extended to the regime where the temporal change of @xmath1 is faster than @xmath2 .
nevertheless , we have to take care the accumulated time of the iea being invalid , i.e.  @xmath207 .
this is because the markovian qme still weakly breaks down in this regime and the error would be accumulated .
therefore , the presented approach of @xmath175 would not be applicable if the accumulated time becomes comparable to the relaxation time . in that case
, we should return to eq .   even though its numerical cost is not low in general .
however , even in such a case , we stress that our discussions on the adiabaticity of @xmath1 ( section  [ sec : adiabaticity ] ) give a clear guide to reduce the numerical effort in the following way . since @xmath0 is now well defined by eqs .
, we can calculate @xmath0 simultaneously with the density operator @xmath211 .
then , if the iea is valid at this moment , @xmath182 , the next time step can be obtained , based on @xmath175 . if not , @xmath212 , the next time step will be calculated by eq .  .
thus , it is only the time region @xmath212 that requires eq .   and the numerical cost may be greatly reduced by this approach .
finally , let us mention the applicability of the sa in a similar line of thought to the above discussion . to perform the sa
, we showed that @xmath213 and @xmath214 [ eq .  ] are further required . the first condition is not related to the adiabaticity of @xmath1 , and therefore , we assume that @xmath213 is indeed satisfied .
in contrast , the second condition breaks down when @xmath1 rapidly varies within @xmath169 .
however , the dissipator plays only a minor role if @xmath184 [ eq .  ] as discussed above .
therefore , the qme with @xmath215 strongly breaks down only when @xmath214 fails [ @xmath216 , and simultaneously , the effect of the relaxation is non - negligible [ @xmath186 , namely , @xmath217 however , this condition can never be satisfied as long as the first condition , @xmath213 , holds . as a result , @xmath215 is still well justified as long as @xmath213 if the accumulated time of @xmath214 being invalid is still much shorter than the relaxation timescale .
to demonstrate the presented general ideas , in the following , we apply the markovian qme to the dlz model , in which the landau - zener ( lz ) transition in a dissipative environment is studied .
this model has been studied in various contexts  @xcite because it provides the simplest model to describe the adiabatic and non - adiabatic transitions at an avoided level crossing with dissipation .
especially , in the aqc and the qa , the dlz model plays a key role in understanding their computational ability .
this is because their practical performance is essentially determined by the non - adiabatic transitions at the minimum gap between the ground state and the first excited state in the presence of noise  @xcite .
furthermore , the model is appropriate for our purpose because the exact solution is known at @xmath218  @xcite .
the system hamiltonian of the dlz model is described by @xmath219 where @xmath220 is the lz sweep velocity , @xmath221 is the constant tunneling amplitude , and @xmath222 describe the pauli operators .
we denote the eigenstates of @xmath223 by @xmath224 , i.e. @xmath225 . a schematic illustration of the model is shown in fig .  [
fig : dlzmodel ] . here , @xmath226 denotes the difference between the two eigenenergies and we can see the avoided level crossing at @xmath227 .
the characteristic time for the eigenstates to pass through the minimum gap @xmath228 around @xmath227 is described by @xmath229 the quantities of our interest is then the adiabatic and non - adiabatic transition probabilities @xmath230 and @xmath231 with dissipation by assuming that the system is initially in @xmath232 at @xmath233 . note that @xmath234 by definition .    in this situation ,
the timescales related to @xmath1 ( section  [ sec : adiabaticity ] ) are analytically obtained as @xmath235 and @xmath236 according to the definitions listed in table  [ tbl : timescales ] .
then , @xmath0 is given by @xmath237 here , we note that @xmath19 reaches its minimum value @xmath238 at @xmath227 , while @xmath18 reaches the same minimum value @xmath238 at @xmath239 .
therefore , the minimum value of @xmath0 also becomes @xmath238 , which is achieved not only at @xmath240 but also at @xmath239 [ cf .
[ fig : evolution](d ) ] .
we remark that the expression of @xmath0 can not be obtained without eqs .   even in this simple model and this is why there has been no consensus in the previous studies when discussing the timescale of @xmath1 .     at @xmath241 .
then , the transition probability @xmath230 ( @xmath231 ) to find the system in the ground ( excited ) state at @xmath242 is discussed .
the difference between the two eigenenergies is given by @xmath243 .
@xmath244 denotes the characteristic time for the eigenstates to pass through the minimum gap @xmath228 around @xmath227 .
when the bath is at zero temperature ( @xmath245 ) , there is no thermal excitation and relaxation but only the spontaneous emission can occur due to the vacuum fluctuation . ]     ( blue ) and @xmath246 ( red ) at @xmath218 , as a function of the lz sweep velocity @xmath220 .
symbols : the results of the markovian qme .
we remark that the imaginary part of @xmath247 ( the lamb shift ) is not neglected in the calculation .
solid lines : the exact probabilities of @xmath248 with @xmath249  @xcite .
note that @xmath250 ( diagonal coupling ) gives @xmath251 , which results in @xmath252 .
this is exactly the same as the lz transition probability _ without dissipation _ , as pointed out in ref .  .
parameters : @xmath253 and @xmath254 .
the left arrows indicate the regimes by taking @xmath255 as @xmath256 for all @xmath48 ( @xmath257 , @xmath258 ) .
one is the ordinary adiabatic - evolution regime and the other is the adiabatic regime with respect to @xmath2 .
the green open squares correspond to the time evolutions in fig .
[ fig : evolution ] . ]
the system is further coupled to the bosonic bath @xmath259 with the interaction hamiltonian , @xmath260 where @xmath261 describes the coupling angle and @xmath262 is the system - bath coupling strength . for definiteness , in our analysis , the spectral density defined by @xmath263
is assumed to be the ohmic one , @xmath264 with a cutoff energy @xmath265 and a dimensionless coefficient @xmath266 . in comparison with the general form of @xmath81 [ eq .  ] , eq .
allows us to define @xmath267 where we have dropped the subscript ` @xmath192 ' .
therefore , by assuming that the bath @xmath84 is in the thermal equilibrium , @xmath268 with @xmath269}$ ] [ see below eq .
] is given by @xmath270 j(\omega)\vartheta(\omega ) , \label{eq : dlz::gamma}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath271 is the bose distribution , @xmath272 is the step function . here
, it is important to note that , if the sa is performed , one can find that @xmath273 and @xmath274 describe the excitation and relaxation of the system , respectively , while @xmath275 describes the pure dephasing .
this means that the terms proportional to @xmath276 and @xmath277 denote the thermal excitation and relaxation of the system , respectively .
in contrast , the ` @xmath278 ' term corresponds to the spontaneous emission due to the vacuum fluctuation of the bath . in particular , at @xmath245 , only the spontaneous emission term survives in eq .   and @xmath279 holds .
this situation is also depicted in fig .
[ fig : dlzmodel ] .        since the dissipative nature of the system
is essentially determined by @xmath280 , let us briefly discuss the two parameters @xmath266 and @xmath265 before studying numerical results . in the case of zero temperature , @xmath279 gives the bath correlation function @xmath281 by @xmath282 where the fourier transform relation between @xmath283 and @xmath281 has been used .
hence , we can estimate the decay time of the bath correlation function @xmath281 as @xmath284 we note that this is equivalent to the statement that the spectral band width of @xmath283 can be estimated by @xmath285 . as a result ,
if we set @xmath286 , there is no spectral density at the transition energy @xmath287 , i.e. @xmath288 , and the dissipative nature plays no significant role .
for our purpose , therefore , we should set @xmath289 .
moreover , by using eqs .   and , we can estimate the condition for the wca , @xmath290 due to eq .  .
the wca becomes valid when this condition is satisfied .
based on these considerations , we have performed numerical calculations by setting @xmath291 and @xmath292 . although the sa will not be applied in our calculation , we note that the sa ( @xmath177 ) does not show any significant difference in the parameter range presented below .    figure  [ fig : probabilities ] shows the transition probabilities @xmath293 and @xmath246 as a function of the lz sweep velocity @xmath220 . for comparison , the exact results are also shown by solid lines , where the transition probability for @xmath250 ( diagonal coupling ) is exactly the same as the lz transition probability _ without dissipation _  @xcite . in fig .
[ fig : probabilities ] , when @xmath294 for all @xmath48 ( the pink shaded area ) , the lz sweep velocity @xmath220 is slow enough to satisfy the adiabatic theorem . in this regime
, the spontaneous emission does not play any role because the state is always in the instantaneous ground state . as a result
, @xmath295 holds for all @xmath261 . by increasing the velocity @xmath220 ,
the condition for the adiabatic theorem is violated and the non - adiabatic transition becomes discernible . in this regime that still satisfies @xmath182 for all @xmath48 ( the aqua shaded region ) ,
@xmath230 decreases from one , and instead , @xmath231 increases . here
, we can notice that @xmath230 for @xmath296 and @xmath297 are greater than for @xmath250 .
this means that , for @xmath296 and @xmath297 , the ground state is recovered by the spontaneous emission even though the non - adiabatic transition is possible . by increasing the velocity @xmath220
further ( @xmath298 ) , the decrease of @xmath230 becomes pronounced for all @xmath261 and @xmath231 approaches one . in this regime ,
the recovery of the ground state becomes incomplete because the transition energy @xmath287 rapidly goes through the spectral bandwidth of @xmath283 before the ground state is sufficiently recovered .
now , it is important to point out that excellent agreements between the exact probabilities ( solid lines ) and the results of the markovian qme ( symbols ) are obtained , regardless of the speed of @xmath299 .
this is notable in the following two points .
first , it has been believed that the markovian description can not capture the exact probabilities of the dlz model due to the non - markovian effect  @xcite .
nevertheless , fig .
[ fig : probabilities ] clearly shows that the markovian description is sufficient at least in the weak coupling regime .
second , more importantly , the agreements are remarkable even if the temporal change of @xmath1 , i.e.  @xmath0 , is comparable to or even faster than @xmath2 .
this is in stark contrast to the conventional expectation that the markovian qme is applicable only when the system hamiltonian varies much more slowly than @xmath2 .
figure  [ fig : probabilities ] clearly shows that the markovian qme still works well not only beyond the ordinary adiabatic - evolution regime but also beyond the slowly - varying regime with respect to @xmath2 , which supports the validity of our general framework . here
, we note that the exact solutions ( for @xmath300 ) can not be reproduced if the simple hamiltonian evolution is just applied instead of the markovian qme although one may expect that there is no need of the markovian qme in such a rapid regime .    to further shed light on the underlying mechanism , in figs .
[ fig : evolution](a ) and [ fig : evolution](b ) , we show the time - dependent probabilities @xmath301 and @xmath302 to find the system in the instantaneous ground and excited states , respectively . in the calculation , we set @xmath303 and @xmath296 , the situation of which corresponds to the green open squares in the rapid regime of fig .
[ fig : probabilities ] . for @xmath304 in fig .
[ fig : evolution](a ) , @xmath305 and @xmath306 hold true and the values are almost the same as the corresponding probabilities without dissipation ( the dotted lines ) . in this regime ,
therefore , neither the non - adiabatic transition nor the dissipation play significant roles . in the vicinity of @xmath307 , @xmath301 changes from one toward zero and @xmath302 from zero toward one . the zoom around @xmath307 [ fig .
[ fig : evolution](b ) ] shows that this non - adiabatic transition occurs mainly in the regime @xmath308 ( the gray shaded area ) . here
, one finds that the non - adiabatic transition is still close to the behavior without dissipation .
this suggests that the non - adiabatic transition is essentially instantaneous with respect to the timescale of relaxation . finally , for @xmath309 in fig .
[ fig : evolution](a ) , @xmath310 gradually approaches the value of @xmath311 due to the dissipation .
however , in this time period , there is no non - adiabatic transition , as evidenced by the fact that the probabilities without dissipation ( the dotted lines ) do not show any change in time . as a result ,
we can notice that there is no time where the non - adiabatic transition and the dissipation simultaneously play significant role .
this situation can be studied more carefully and clearly from the viewpoint of the individual timescales summarized in table  [ tbl : conditions ] . in figs .
[ fig : evolution](c ) and [ fig : evolution](d ) , we therefore show @xmath312 with @xmath313 , according to eqs .   , eq .   and eq .  . for @xmath304 in fig .  [
fig : evolution](c ) , we can find @xmath294 .
this indicates that the ordinary adiabatic evolution is indeed validated , which is consistent with the above discussion .
in addition , we also find that @xmath182 holds true for @xmath304 .
therefore , according to table  [ tbl : conditions ] , we notice that the iea is also well justified in this time regime .
however , around @xmath307 , one finds that these conditions break down . as shown in fig .
[ fig : evolution](d ) , the adiabatic evolution is no longer safely ensured for @xmath314 because @xmath19 falls within one order of magnitude of @xmath55 and @xmath294 is not satisfied . in particular
, @xmath19 reaches its minimum value of @xmath238 at @xmath227 , which means that the instantaneous eigenstates change most rapidly at @xmath227 and its timescale is given by @xmath238 .
naturally , the non - adiabatic transition becomes pronounced around @xmath308 , as we have already seen in fig .
[ fig : probabilities](b ) .    in a similar manner , for the validity of the iea
, we can notice that @xmath0 is within one order of magnitude of @xmath2 over the entire region in fig .
[ fig : evolution](d ) .
hence , the iea is not ensured in this time regime ( @xmath315 ) due to the failure of @xmath182 .
nevertheless , one can also find that @xmath0 is much shorter than @xmath168 , i.e.  @xmath184 , in fig .
[ fig : evolution](d ) .
this means that the effect of relaxation is negligible compared to the non - adiabatic effect .
in particular , for @xmath308 , @xmath0 is two orders of magnitude shorter than @xmath168 even though @xmath0 becomes comparable to @xmath2 . as a result ,
the markovian qme still works well because @xmath175 plays only a minor role around @xmath307 .
this is actually what we have explained in the general discussion ( section  [ subsec : beyondadiabaticregime ] ) .
the important point is that such a situation is generally guaranteed as long as we are in the weak coupling regime ; the dlz model corresponds to one prominent example .
thus , the dlz model has been discussed to demonstrate the ability of the markovian qme in this section .
finally , it would be worth digressing from the main subject to point out that the spontaneous emission ( the vacuum fluctuation ) has a great importance in the context of the aqc and the qa . in this case
, the two states in the dlz model are regarded as the ground and the first excited states .
then , as illustrated in figs .
[ fig : dlzmodel ] and [ fig : probabilities ] , the spontaneous emission has the ability to recover the ground state when @xmath300 .
this means that the computational errors caused by the depopulation of the ground state will be naturally corrected . in other words ,
a self - healing mechanism is given to the system by the bath .
for finite temperature , according to eq .  , this mechanism can dominate when @xmath316 , whereas the thermal excitation and relaxation will activate when @xmath317 . in this sense
, the mechanism is different from the thermally - assisted qa in ref .
, the situation of which is focused on the latter case .    in order to effectively utilize this mechanism ,
however , the coupling angle @xmath261 in @xmath81 [ eq .  ] should be @xmath296 ( transverse coupling ) in principle for the following two reasons .
first , the thermal excitation is reduced around the minimum gap because @xmath318 = 0 $ ] at @xmath240 .
second , if @xmath316 is fulfilled , the spontaneous emission can dominate the relaxation process after the avoided crossing because @xmath318 \ne 0 $ ] for @xmath319 . in reality , however , it is difficult to directly control @xmath261 ( the form of @xmath81 ) in experiments . therefore , the past discussions were focused only on the diagonal coupling in most cases  @xcite .
nevertheless , the encoding direction of the target hamiltonian of the system would be allowed to be changed , which is physically equivalent to the change of the coupling angle @xmath261 . in this context
, we conjecture that the encoding direction also plays an important role to increase the computational performance of the aqc and the qa .
we have presented a detailed analysis of the markovian qme under the wca when the system hamiltonian is time - dependent .
while this problem has been discussed by many authors in the past , there has been no consensus for the condition to validate the formalism .
this fact indicates that the problem is non - trivial , while one may think it straightforward at first glance . in our view ,
one major reason was the complete lack of the way to explicitly quantify the temporal change of @xmath1 .
therefore , in this paper , we first introduced the timescale @xmath0 as a measure for the adiabaticity of @xmath1 itself . here
, the adiabaticity of @xmath1 is conceptually different from the ordinary adiabatic theorem , and therefore , enables us to derive the markovian qme without the adiabatic theorem .
furthermore , in a broad range of situations , it was also shown that the framework is well justified even if @xmath0 is much shorter than the decay timescale of the bath correlation function @xmath2 .
this result arises from the fact that there is no situation where the non - adiabatic effect and the dissipative nature play considerable roles simultaneously in time , as long as the wca is validated .
we have thus clearly shown that there is no need to restrict ourselves to either the adiabatic - evolution regime or the slowly - varying regime with respect to @xmath2 .
this is in stark contrast to the past understanding . as a result
, the markovian qme is justified well beyond the adiabatic regime .
we here remark that the presented route of the formulation and the well - defined approximations allow us to clearly understand the structure of the framework with sufficient generality .
hence , the scheme in this paper is immediately applicable to a wide range of physical systems .    as an example
, we have applied the framework to the dlz model and illustrated the ability of the markovian qme . even in this simple model
, we stressed that the expression of @xmath0 is difficult to obtain without eqs .   and this has been the very origin of the inconsistent quantification of the timescale of @xmath1 .
then , it was shown that the numerical results have good agreements with the exact transition probabilities .
furthermore , the relationship between the relevant timescales [ figs .
[ fig : evolution](c ) and [ fig : evolution](d ) ] indeed supports our general scenario .
it would be worth noting that such an approach generally enables an easy estimation of whether the individual approximations are justified or not at a certain time @xmath48 .
finally , a short digression has been made to discuss the importance of the spontaneous emission in the context of the aqc and the qa .
we discussed the possibility that the spontaneous emission provides the self - healing mechanism that naturally corrects the computational errors .
the results presented in this paper would be of interest to those who try to control quantum systems as a function of time  @xcite because in reality the quantum systems can not be free from uncontrolled interactions with environmental degrees of freedom ( bath ) .
although our demonstration in the dlz model was focused on the zero temperature limit , the framework is , of course , applicable to finite temperature cases .
interesting directions for future research are investigations of the non - adiabatic regime of the aqc and the qa in the presence of dissipation .
as conjectured from the dlz model , there are indeed possibilities to improve the computational performance .
the problem is , however , still non - trivial when the system size and the number of the relevant eigenstates become large . in that case
, we expect that our methodology will play a key role for the development of new schemes beyond the adiabatic regime .
we thank y. yamamoto , n. nagaosa , k. kamide , y. yamada and m. bamba for fruitful discussions and comments .
this work was funded by impact program of council for science , technology and innovation ( cabinet office , government of japan ) and by jsps kakenhi ( grants no .
26287087 ) .
here , in order to make the paper self - contained , we describe the time - convolutionless ( tcl ) framework and show a brief derivation of eq .   within the wca .
we note that the derivation is the same as ref .
even though the system hamiltonian @xmath1 is time - dependent .
this section also plays a preliminary role for the development of the slippage technique in appendix  [ slp ] .    for this purpose ,
we first rewrite the total hamiltonian as @xmath320 , where @xmath321 is a dimensionless parameter introduced only to easily measure the order of @xmath81 . in the interaction picture , the total density operator @xmath322 evolves according to @xmath323 \equiv \lambda\vl_{\s\b}(t)\vrho(t ) , \label{app : sch.eq.}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath324 denotes the liouville superoperator in the interaction picture . for notational convenience
, we will write @xmath325 and @xmath326 in the following . however , we will finally replace @xmath327 and @xmath328 after the formulation is completed , in order to eliminate the parameter @xmath321 .      before discussing the framework in detail ,
we summarize here the liouville superoperators .
we denote the liouville superoperator in the schrdinger picture by @xmath329 , \label{app : liouville_sch}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath330 is an arbitrary operator .
we note that there is no time dependence in the hamiltonian @xmath331 when @xmath332 but @xmath331 is described in the time - dependent way because there is no confusion .
the liouville superoperator satisfies a relation @xmath333 in the liouville space , where the adjoint superoperator @xmath334 for any superoperator @xmath335 is defined in such a way that @xmath336 } = { \text{tr}[\ox_1^{\dagger } \mathcal{a } \ox_2]}$ ] holds for arbitrary operators @xmath337 and @xmath338 .
it is then natural to introduce the evolution superoperator by @xmath339 where @xmath340 denotes the chronological ( anti - chronological ) time ordering for the superoperators .
the interaction picture of an arbitrary operator is , for example , easily described by using @xmath341 as @xmath342 by further introducing the interaction picture of the liouville superoperator @xmath343 , we can obtain @xmath344 , \label{app : liouville_int}\end{aligned}\ ] ] which is consistent with the definition of eq .  .
in the similar manner to @xmath341 , we therefore define the evolution operator for the interaction picture by @xmath345 note that @xmath322 can be written as @xmath346 when @xmath322 evolves according to eq .  .
we now derive the tcl form of the qme . to this end
, we first decompose eq .   as @xmath347 where @xmath348 and @xmath349 are the projection superoperators defined by @xmath350 }
\otimes \orho_{\b}$ ] and @xmath351 .
the formal solution of eq .   can then be described as @xmath352 where @xmath353 . by writing @xmath354
, we can readily obtain @xmath355 with @xmath356 .
then , we obtain @xmath357 here , we have assumed the existence of @xmath358 because @xmath359 and @xmath360 suggest that @xmath361 may be inverted for sufficiently small couplings and @xmath362  @xcite .
substitution of eq .   into eq .   finally yields the tcl form of the qme , @xmath363 } + { \text{tr}_{\text{b } } [ \vi(t ) \oq \vrho(t_0 ) ] } , \label{app : tcl}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with definitions of the superoperators @xmath364 where we have used @xmath365 } = \vrho_{\s}(t)$ ] .
eqs .  - are exact and local in time although the superoperators @xmath366 and @xmath367 are complicated in general . however , by assuming the separable initial state @xmath368 , the second term in eq .   becomes zero because of @xmath369 . in the next subsection , therefore , @xmath366 , called the tcl generator , will be estimated up to the second order in @xmath321 , which corresponds to the wca .      here , the tcl generator @xmath366 will be expanded in the power series @xmath370 and truncated to the second order in @xmath321 . for this purpose ,
@xmath358 in eq .
is expanded as @xmath371^n$ ] .
then , we obtain @xmath372^n \op.\end{aligned}\ ] ] therefore , further expansion of @xmath373 in the power series of @xmath374 gives @xmath375 with @xmath376 as a result , by assuming the vanishing odd moments of the system - bath interaction hamiltonian @xmath377 } = 0 $ ] [ eq .  ] , or equivalently , @xmath378
, we can find @xmath379 the tcl form of the qme [ eq .  ] then becomes @xmath380 ] } .\end{aligned}\ ] ] thus , up to the second order in @xmath81 , namely within the wca , eq .
has been derived .
the concept of the slippage technique is first proposed by surez _
et al_.  @xcite and expanded by gaspard and nagaoka  @xcite in order to cure the problem of the complete positivity when the secular approximation is not applied .
the slippage of the initial condition alters the original initial condition of the system @xmath381 to the slipped ( renormalized ) one @xmath382 , where @xmath383 is the slippage superoperator .    in this appendix  [ slp ] ,
the concept is generalized to the case of the time - dependent system hamiltonian and is employed to justify the markov approximation .
we note that the slipped initial condition has been used to obtain all of the numerical results presented in section [ sec : dlz ] .      to study the slippage superoperator @xmath383 , by using eq .  , we rewrite the first term of eq .   as @xmath384 }
\simeq \textstyle { \int_{t_0}^{t } \dd t ' } \du_{\s}(t , t_0 ) \oc_{\s}(t , t ' ) \ou_{\s}(t , t_0 ) \vrho_{\s}(t),\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath385 is the correlation superoperator defined as @xmath386}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the derivation , we have used @xmath387 we can therefore rewrite the tcl form of the qme [ eq .  ] within the wca as @xmath388 where @xmath389 .
this equation should be compared with eq .  .
one can then readily notice the following relation ; @xmath390 which will be used to derive the slippage superoperator in the next subsection . here , under the markovian approximation ( @xmath391 ) , eq .
gives @xmath392 where @xmath393 is distinguished from @xmath98 because @xmath393 may be different from @xmath98 especially in the time region of @xmath104 .
we are now ready to derive the slippage superoperator @xmath383 . to this end
, we formally integrate eq .   and eq .   in time ,
respectively , @xmath394 then , by assuming @xmath395 for @xmath105 , eqs .   and give @xmath396 up to the second order in @xmath81 , where @xmath397 is used since we have assumed @xmath105 .
this equation means that in the markovian qme we should use a ` slipped ' initial condition @xmath398 rather than the original one @xmath381 .
in other words , the markovian qme is fully justified in combination with the slipped initial condition .
then , transforming the integration @xmath399 , we find    @xmath400    finally , by inserting eq .   into eq .
, the specific form of the slippage superoperator is given by @xmath401 .
\label{app : slp2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here , it is possible to apply the iea @xmath402 [ eq .  ]
when @xmath403 .
however , we note that , even if @xmath403 is not satisfied , there is no difficulty to numerically evaluate eq .   because the integrand becomes negligible for @xmath404 due to the decay of @xmath99 .
we also remark that eq
.   recovers the results by gaspard and nagaoka  @xcite when the system hamiltonian is assumed to be time - independent .
in this appendix  [ sec : sa ] , we discuss the sa to obtain the dissipator @xmath405 [ eq .  ] from @xmath406 [ eq .  ] . as we have seen in the time - independent case [ eqs .   and ] , to perform the sa
, we have to extract the oscillating behaviors from @xmath407 and @xmath156 and have to average out the rapid oscillating terms in eq .  .
for this purpose , we formally integrate @xmath408 over @xmath409 from @xmath48 to @xmath410 , @xmath411 where @xmath412 is a certain timescale at time @xmath48 and the integration variable has been changed from @xmath409 to @xmath413 in the right - hand side . here , @xmath414 can be rewritten as @xmath415 by using eq .  .
in this equation , then , @xmath416 and @xmath417 are allowed if we assume @xmath418 due to eqs .   and .
equation   therefore results in @xmath419 and , similarly , we have @xmath420 these approximations have close analogies with the procedures for the iea [ eqs .   ] . as a result , one can indeed find the oscillatory behaviors in eqs .   and .
inserting these equations into eq .
, we obtain @xmath421    there are two functions in the integrand that depend on the variable @xmath422 .
one is the density operator @xmath423 , the temporal change timescale of which is characterized by the relaxation timescale @xmath168 [ eq .  ] .
the other one is @xmath424 that corresponds to the beat between the two different bohr frequencies @xmath144 and @xmath171 .
the intrinsic timescale of the oscillation period for @xmath425 is described by @xmath169 [ eq .  ] at time @xmath48 .
therefore , in the integral of eq .
, @xmath424 for @xmath425 oscillates rapidly when @xmath426 whereas @xmath423 remains unchanged when @xmath427 in such a situation , indeed , the non - secular terms of @xmath428 average out to zero . as a result ,
only the secular terms , @xmath429 , survive in the integration of eq .  . then , by retracing the steps [ eqs
.  - ] in reverse order , we again arrive at eq .   but without non - secular terms .
this means that the dissipator @xmath160 [ eq .  ] is well approximated by @xmath430 , where @xmath431 this equation is nothing but eq .  .
as is obvious from the above discussion , the sa is justified when the three conditions , @xmath432 [ eq .  ] , @xmath433 [ eq .  ] , and @xmath434 [ eq .  ] , are all satisfied . therefore , we need @xmath435 simultaneously , to perform the sa .
thus , eq .   is obtained .
60ifxundefined [ 1 ] ifx#1 ifnum [ 1 ] # 1firstoftwo secondoftwo ifx [ 1 ] # 1firstoftwo secondoftwo `` `` # 1''''@noop [ 0]secondoftwosanitize@url [ 0 ]
+ 12$12  & 12#1212_12%12@startlink[1]@endlink[0]@bib@innerbibempty @noop _
_  ( , ) @noop _ _  ( , ) @noop _ _  ( , ) @noop _ _ ( ,  ) link:\doibase    10.1103/physreve.76.031115 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/revmodphys.81.1665 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physreve.91.012143 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.7566/jpsj.83.123001 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physreva.90.023827 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1126/science.1057726 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physreva.80.022303 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physreva.79.022107 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physreve.58.5355 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1038/ncomms2920 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1038/ncomms4243 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevlett.100.060503 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physreva.65.012322 [ * * ,   ( ) ] http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/12/i=12/a=123010 [ * * , ( ) ] http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/14/i=12/a=123016 [ * * , ( ) ] http://stacks.iop.org/0305-4470/12/i=5/a=007 [ * * , ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physreve.65.055102 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevx.5.031044 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1038/nphys1801 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1038/nphys2170 [ * * , ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1126/science.1183628 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevlett.105.246804 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1038/ncomms2412 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physreve.55.300 [ * * ,   ( ) ] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0370157398000222 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physrevb.84.235140 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevb.92.245422 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1007/bf01343193 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1143/jpsj.5.435 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1007/bf01011696 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physreve.82.021921 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physreva.87.042111 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevlett.105.030401 [ * * ,   ( ) ] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arxiv151106994d [  ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.107.210402 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physreva.90.042112 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physreva.91.052103 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1007/s11128 - 004 - 7712 - 7 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physreva.55.1653 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1063/1.463831 [ * * ,   ( ) ] http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/111/13/10.1063/1.479867 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.101.150402 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.103.210401 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevlett.105.050403 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.113.200403 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevlett.116.120402 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/revmodphys.88.021002 [ * * , ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.7566/jpsj.84.014001 [ * * ,   ( ) ] http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/12/i=11/a=113042 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1143/jpsj.53.108 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevlett.62.3004 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevlett.97.200404 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevb.75.214308 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase    10.1103/physrevb.76.024310 [ * * ,   ( ) ] link:\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.103.220401 [ * * , ( ) ]