Reply to "Comment on "Unified Framework for Open Quantum Dynamics with Memory""

TL;DR

This paper responds to critiques of their unified framework for open quantum system dynamics, clarifying the relationship between memory kernels and influence functions, and addressing specific technical points raised in the commentary.

Contribution

The authors clarify the relationship between discrete-time memory kernels and influence functions in a specific quantum system setup, and defend their discretization approach.

Findings

No explicit equations connecting influence functions and memory kernels were found in Makri's 2020 paper.

The discretization method used in their GQME is not problematic.

Their framework enables constructing memory kernels without projection-free dynamics inputs.

Abstract

We present our response to the commentary piece by Makri {\it et al.} [arXiv:2410.08239], 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.