- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Digital quantum simulations of the nonresonant open Tavis-Cummings model

Aidan N. Sims1,2, Dhrumil Patel2, Aby Philip1,3, Alex H. Rubin4,5,*, Rahul Bandyopadhyay4,6, Marina Radulaski4, and Mark M. Wilde1,7

  • *Contact author: ahrubin@ucdavis.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043302 – Published 16 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/yflv-3s7t

Abstract

The open Tavis-Cummings model consists of N quantum emitters interacting with a common cavity mode, accounts for losses and decoherence, and is frequently explored for quantum information processing and designing quantum devices. As N increases, it becomes harder to simulate the open Tavis-Cummings model using traditional methods. To address this problem, we implement two quantum algorithms for simulating the dynamics of this model in the inhomogeneous, nonresonant regime, with up to three excitations in the cavity. We show that the implemented algorithms have gate complexities that scale polynomially, as O(N2) and O(N3), while the number of qubits used by these algorithms (space complexity) scales linearly as O(N). One of these algorithms is the sampling-based wave matrix Lindbladization algorithm, for which we propose two protocols to implement its system-independent fixed interaction, resolving key open questions of Patel and Wilde [Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 30, 2350014 (2023)]. We benchmark our results against a classical differential equation solver in a variety of scenarios and demonstrate that our algorithms accurately reproduce the expected dynamics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (76)

  1. J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos, The Jaynes–Cummings Model and its Descendants: Modern Research Directions (IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK, 2021).
  2. H. J. Kimble, Strong interactions of single atoms and photons in cavity QED, Phys. Scr. T76, 127 (1998).
  3. A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature (London) 431, 162 (2004).
  4. T. Yoshie, A. Scherer, J. Hendrickson, G. Khitrova, H. Gibbs, G. Rupper, C. Ell, O. Shchekin, and D. Deppe, Vacuum Rabi splitting with a single quantum dot in a photonic crystal nanocavity, Nature (London) 432, 200 (2004).
  5. M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Exact solution for an N-molecule—radiation-field Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. 170, 379 (1968).
  6. T. Zhong, J. M. Kindem, J. Rochman, and A. Faraon, Interfacing broadband photonic qubits to on-chip cavity-protected rare-earth ensembles, Nat. Commun. 8, 14107 (2017).
  7. D. M. Lukin, M. A. Guidry, J. Yang, M. Ghezellou, S. Deb Mishra, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Ul-Hassan, and J. Vučković, Two-emitter multimode cavity quantum electrodynamics in thin-film silicon carbide photonics, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011005 (2023).
  8. R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954).
  9. M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission, Phys. Rep. 93, 301 (1982).
  10. M. Radulaski, K. A. Fischer, K. G. Lagoudakis, J. L. Zhang, and J. Vučković, Photon blockade in two-emitter-cavity systems, Phys. Rev. A 96, 011801 (2017).
  11. R. Trivedi, M. Radulaski, K. A. Fischer, S. Fan, and J. Vučković, Photon blockade in weakly driven cavity quantum electrodynamics systems with many emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 243602 (2019).
  12. A. D. White, R. Trivedi, K. Narayanan, and J. Vučković, Enhancing superradiance in spectrally inhomogeneous cavity QED systems with dynamic modulation, ACS Photonics 9, 2467 (2022).
  13. M. Lei, R. Fukumori, J. Rochman, B. Zhu, M. Endres, J. Choi, and A. Faraon, Many-body cavity quantum electrodynamics with driven inhomogeneous emitters, Nature (London) 617, 271 (2023).
  14. A. Walther, A. Amari, S. Kröll, and A. Kalachev, Experimental superradiance and slow-light effects for quantum memories, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012317 (2009).
  15. G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976).
  16. V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N‐level systems, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976).
  17. M. Radulaski, K. A. Fischer, and J. Vučković, Nonclassical light generation from III–V and group-iv solid-state cavity quantum systems, in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2017), Vol. 66, pp. 111–179.
  18. J. M. Torres, Closed-form solution of Lindblad master equations without gain, Phys. Rev. A 89, 052133 (2014).
  19. N. M. Bogoliubov, R. K. Bullough, and J. Timonen, Exact solution of generalized Tavis–Cummings models in quantum optics, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 29, 6305 (1996).
  20. N. Bogoliubov, I. Ermakov, and A. Rybin, Dynamic correlation funtions of the generalized Tavis–Cummings model, arXiv:1702.03740 [quant-ph].
  21. H. S. Dhar, M. Zens, D. O. Krimer, and S. Rotter, Variational renormalization group for dissipative spin-cavity systems: Periodic pulses of nonclassical photons from mesoscopic spin ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 133601 (2018).
  22. M. Zens, D. O. Krimer, H. S. Dhar, and S. Rotter, Periodic cavity state revivals from atomic frequency combs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180402 (2021).
  23. S. Tiwary, H. Sharma, and H. S. Dhar, Protecting information in a parametrically driven hybrid quantum system, Quantum 9, 1754 (2025).
  24. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  25. M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020).
  26. X.-Y. Huang, L. Yu, X. Lu, Y. Yang, D.-S. Li, C.-W. Wu, W. Wu, and P.-X. Chen, Qubitization of bosons, arXiv:2105.12563.
  27. M. Tudorovskaya and D. Muñoz Ramo, Quantum computing simulation of a mixed spin-boson Hamiltonian and its performance for a cavity quantum electrodynamics problem, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032612 (2024).
  28. M. Chiew and S. Strelchuk, Discovering optimal fermion-qubit mappings through algorithmic enumeration, Quantum 7, 1145 (2023).
  29. C. Derby, J. Klassen, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, Compact fermion to qubit mappings, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035118 (2021).
  30. M. K. Marinkovic and M. Radulaski, Singly-excited resonant open quantum system Tavis-Cummings model with quantum circuit mapping, Sci. Rep. 13, 19435 (2023).
  31. A. H. Rubin, B. Marinelli, V. A. Norman, Z. Rizvi, A. D. Burch, R. K. Naik, J. M. Kreikebaum, M. N. H. Chow, D. S. Lobser, M. C. Revelle, C. G. Yale, M. Ivory, D. I. Santiago, C. Spitzer, M. Krstic-Marinkovic, S. M. Clark, I. Siddiqi, and M. Radulaski, Digital quantum simulation of cavity quantum electrodynamics: Insights from superconducting and trapped ion quantum testbeds, Quantum Sci. Tech. 10, 045057 (2025).
  32. I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014).
  33. L. Clinton, T. Cubitt, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, J. Klassen, A. Montanaro, S. Piddock, R. A. Santos, and E. Sheridan, Towards near-term quantum simulation of materials, Nat. Commun. 15, 211 (2024).
  34. R. Cleve and C. Wang, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating Lindblad evolution, in Proceedings of the 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), edited by I. Chatzigiannakis, P. Indyk, F. Kuhn, and A. Muscholl (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2017), Vol. 80, pp. 17:1–17:14.
  35. A. Childs and T. Li, Efficient simulation of sparse Markovian quantum dynamics, Quantum Inf. Comput. 17, 0901 (2017).
  36. A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum simulation of the Lindblad equation using a unitary decomposition of operators, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023216 (2022).
  37. H. Kamakari, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Digital quantum simulation of open quantum systems using quantum imaginary–time evolution, PRX Quantum 3, 010320 (2022).
  38. N. Suri, J. Barreto, S. Hadfield, N. Wiebe, F. Wudarski, and J. Marshall, Two-unitary decomposition algorithm and open quantum system simulation, Quantum 7, 1002 (2023).
  39. D. Patel and M. M. Wilde, Wave matrix Lindbladization I: Quantum programs for simulating Markovian dynamics, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 30, 2350010 (2023).
  40. D. Patel and M. M. Wilde, Wave matrix Lindbladization II: General lindbladians, linear combinations, and polynomials, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 30, 2350014 (2023).
  41. A. Miessen, P. Ollitrault, F. Tacchino, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum algorithms for quantum dynamics, Nat. Comput. Sci. 3, 25 (2022).
  42. B. Olmos, I. Lesanovsky, and J. P. Garrahan, Facilitated spin models of dissipative quantum glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020403 (2012).
  43. T. Prosen, Open XXZ spin chain: Nonequilibrium steady state and a strict bound on ballistic transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 217206 (2011).
  44. D. Manzano, M. Tiersch, A. Asadian, and H. J. Briegel, Quantum transport efficiency and Fourier's law, Phys. Rev. E 86, 061118 (2012).
  45. A. Nitzan, Chemical Dynamics in Condensed Phases: Relaxation, Transfer and Reactions in Condensed Molecular Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2006).
  46. O. Kühn and V. May, Charge and Energy Transfer Dynamics in Molecular Systems (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023).
  47. C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics (Springer, Berlin, 2004).
  48. M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump approach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101 (1998).
  49. F. Reiter, D. Reeb, and A. S. Sørensen, Scalable dissipative preparation of many-body entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 040501 (2016).
  50. B. Kraus, H. P. Büchler, S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Preparation of entangled states by quantum Markov processes, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042307 (2008).
  51. M. J. Kastoryano, F. Reiter, and A. S. Sørensen, Dissipative preparation of entanglement in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090502 (2011).
  52. E. Magesan, D. Puzzuoli, C. E. Granade, and D. G. Cory, Modeling quantum noise for efficient testing of fault-tolerant circuits, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012324 (2013).
  53. F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nat. Phys. 5, 633 (2009).
  54. M. J. Kastoryano and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Quantum Gibbs samplers: The commuting case, Commun. Math. Phys. 344, 915 (2016).
  55. The code implementing our simulations can be found here: github.com/radulaski/QuantumAlgorithmsOpenTavis Cummings.
  56. M. Pocrnic, D. Segal, and N. Wiebe, Quantum simulation of Lindbladian dynamics via repeated interactions, J. Phys. A.: Mathe. Theor. 58, 305302 (2025).
  57. M. J. Stevens, Chapter 2—Photon statistics, measurements, and measurements tools, in Single-Photon Generation and Detection, Experimental Methods in the Physical Sciences, edited by A. Migdall, S. V. Polyakov, J. Fan, and J. C. Bienfang (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2013), Vol. 45, pp. 25–68.
  58. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
  59. M. Suzuki, General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics, J. Math. Phys. 32, 400 (1991).
  60. S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost, Quantum principal component analysis, Nat. Phys. 10, 631 (2014).
  61. S. Kimmel, C. Y.-Y. Lin, G. H. Low, M. Ozols, and T. J. Yoder, Hamiltonian simulation with optimal sample complexity, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 13 (2017).
  62. B. Go, H. Kwon, S. Park, D. Patel, and M. M. Wilde, Sample-based Hamiltonian and Lindbladian simulation: non-asymptotic analysis of sample complexity, Quantum Sci. Tech. 10, 045058 (2025).
  63. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012).
  64. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013).
  65. R. Wagner, Z. Schwartzman-Nowik, I. L. Paiva, A. Te’eni, A. Ruiz-Molero, R. Soares Barbosa, E. Cohen, and E. F. Galvão, Quantum circuits for measuring weak values, Kirkwood–Dirac quasiprobability distributions, and state spectra, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 015030 (2024).
  66. M. Lerasle, Lecture notes: Selected topics on robust statistical learning theory, arXiv:1908.10761.
  67. NISO, Credit—contributor roles taxonomy, https://credit.niso.org/, accessed 2025-01-12.
  68. A. M. Childs, A. Ostrander, and Y. Su, Faster quantum simulation by randomization, Quantum 3, 182 (2019).
  69. H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Orús, Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015008 (2021).
  70. T. F. Havel, Robust procedures for converting among Lindblad, Kraus and matrix representations of quantum dynamical semigroups, J. Math. Phys. 44, 534 (2003).
  71. G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, 4th ed. (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 2013), Chap. 7.5.
  72. J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Wave-function approach to dissipative processes in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 580 (1992).
  73. R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch, Monte Carlo simulation of the atomic master equation for spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. A 45, 4879 (1992).
  74. H. Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics: Lectures Presented at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, October 28 to November 4, 1991 (Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg, Germany, 2009), Vol. 18.
  75. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, New York, 2002).
  76. D. A. Lidar, Lecture notes on the theory of open quantum systems, arXiv:1902.00967.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043302– Published 16 December, 2025
  • Received 26 March 2025
  • Accepted 25 September 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation