Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Symmetric Resourceful Steady States via Non-Markovian Dissipation

Baptiste Debecker, Eduardo Serrano-Ensástiga, Thierry Bastin, François Damanet, John Martin

Abstract

We prove a no-go theorem for symmetry-based dissipative engineering of collective-spin steady states: in spin-only Lindblad dynamics with jump operators linear in the collective-spin operators, any unique steady state exhibiting at least $\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry is necessarily the maximally mixed state. We then show that bath memory lifts this obstruction, enabling unique entangled steady states with a prescribed symmetry and a metrological gain, and providing a steady-state witness of non-Markovianity. Notably, this framework is largely insensitive to the microscopic details of the bath.

Symmetric Resourceful Steady States via Non-Markovian Dissipation

Abstract

We prove a no-go theorem for symmetry-based dissipative engineering of collective-spin steady states: in spin-only Lindblad dynamics with jump operators linear in the collective-spin operators, any unique steady state exhibiting at least symmetry is necessarily the maximally mixed state. We then show that bath memory lifts this obstruction, enabling unique entangled steady states with a prescribed symmetry and a metrological gain, and providing a steady-state witness of non-Markovianity. Notably, this framework is largely insensitive to the microscopic details of the bath.
Paper Structure (3 equations, 4 figures)

This paper contains 3 equations, 4 figures.

Figures (4)

  • Figure 1: A collective spin $\mathbf{S}$ couples linearly to its environment through linear spin operators $L_\mu$ (three shown), chosen so that the set ${L_\mu}$ is closed under $\mathbb{G}$. (a) Spin-only Markovian dynamics: if the Lindbladian has weak symmetry containing $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$, our no-go theorem implies that the MMS is the only possible unique steady state. (b) Non-Markovian case: the spin couples to damped auxiliary systems that provide bath memory.
  • Figure 2: (a): Hilbert-Schmidt distance between the non-Markovian steady state and the MMS reached in the Lindblad limit, as a function of $\kappa/\omega$ for fermionic, bosonic and two-level AS. The inset shows that for fermionic AS the Lindblad limit is approached with a different scaling from bosonic and two-level AS. (b): Negativity for the $2|3$ bipartition as a function of $\kappa/\omega$. Here, $H_S = (h/N)S_z^2$, with $\omega_1 = \omega_2 = \omega$, $h/\omega=10$, $\gamma/\omega = 2.5$, $g_1 = g_2 =\sqrt{\gamma \kappa/{2N}}$, $N=5$ and $\kappa = \kappa_1 = \kappa_2$.
  • Figure 3: Equatorial QFI for $H_S = (h/N) S_z^2$, $L_1 = S_-$ and $L_2 = S_+$ and with bosonic AS. The region of metrological gain ($F_\perp/N > 1$) is observed for $\kappa/\omega$ small enough; the white region corresponds to $F_\perp/N < 1$. The insets display the populations in the Dicke basis for the parameters indicated by the symbols (triangle and dot), showing a concentration around the state $m=0$ as the metrological gain increases. Other parameters: $\omega_1 = \omega_2 = \omega$, $g_1 = g_2 = \sqrt{\gamma \kappa/2N}$ with $\gamma = \omega$ and $N =6$.
  • Figure 4: (a) Wigner functions of spin steady states for bosonic AS, showing polyhedral symmetries: tetrahedral ($N=4$), octahedral ($N=6$), and icosahedral ($N=6$). All rotational symmetry axes are shown. Colors from green to blue correspond to values from minimum to maximum. (b) Quantum Fisher information per spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$, equal for all collective spin components $S_{\mathbf n}$ due to steady-state isotropy, as a function of the Hamiltonian strength $h/\omega$ (SMfor full models). The hatched region marks metrologically useful states. (c) Symmetry-deviation parameter versus relative rate mismatch $\Delta\kappa/\overline{\kappa}$ (in log–log scale), showing quadratic scaling $\Delta_\mathbb{G}\propto (\Delta\kappa/\overline{\kappa})^{2}$. Parameters: $\omega_k = \omega$ and $g_k = \sqrt{\gamma \kappa/2N}$ for all modes $k$, with $\gamma=\kappa = \omega/2$, and, for panel (c), $h=\omega$ for $\mathbb{T}$ and $\mathbb{O}$, and $h=\omega/6$ for $\mathbb{I}$.