Born, Markov, and secular approximations
Separate weak coupling, bath memory, and frequency resolution in a controlled master-equation derivation.
On this page
The question for today
What you’ll understand
- Identify the separate content of Born and Markov approximations.
- Test whether a secular coarse-graining window exists.
- Explain why an unsecularized Redfield generator need not preserve positivity.
A microscopic reduced evolution need not be a semigroup, even when each map from the initial preparation is a valid channel. Deriving a useful differential equation therefore requires physical scale estimates. Born, Markov, and secular approximations remove different information and can fail independently. Treating their names as interchangeable hides precisely the near-resonant and structured-environment cases where a familiar master equation becomes unreliable.
Weak coupling controls a perturbative closure
Write the joint Hamiltonian as system plus bath plus a weak interaction, and work in the interaction picture. Iterating the exact equation once creates a double commutator involving the joint density operator at an earlier time. The Born closure replaces this operator inside the second-order integral by a product of the corresponding reduced state and a fixed stationary bath state. The bath is assumed large enough that its properties are not appreciably changed by the system.
This replacement does not assert that the actual joint state remains unentangled. Small correlations generate the leading dissipative effect; the closure specifies which orders are retained after tracing. A nonzero average bath force can first be absorbed into the system Hamiltonian. Initial system–bath correlations can introduce additional terms, and strong coupling changes equilibrium as well as dynamics. One must assess the approximation on the relaxation times of interest, because small coupling does not justify truncating a short-time Taylor series at arbitrarily late times.
Memory loss and frequency averaging are distinct
Let the bath correlation decay on a time , while the reduced interaction-picture state changes on a much longer relaxation time . Replacing the delayed reduced state inside the integral by its present value gives a time-local approximation. Extending the integration limit to infinity is justified only after the bath correlation has decayed and before appreciable reduced relaxation. A large bath alone does not ensure fast correlation decay: narrow spectra and band edges can retain long memory.
The secular step additionally averages terms oscillating at differences of system Bohr frequencies. A coarse-graining time must resolve each discarded frequency difference while remaining short relative to relaxation. Exactly equal frequencies belong in the same block rather than being discarded. Near-degenerate transitions can violate this separation even when the bath is fast and the coupling weak. Partial secularization or another controlled treatment may then be needed; deleting all coherence couplings by habit can remove relevant dynamics.
What the approximations buy, and what they do not
Born and Markov steps often lead to a Redfield equation. Its trace and Hermiticity can be correct while some predicted eigenvalues become negative. Complete positivity is a stronger structural requirement. With stationary positive bath spectra, a properly resolved secular construction yields a positive coefficient matrix and hence a GKSL generator. That mathematical guarantee does not establish that the chosen generator accurately approximates the microscopic system: a perfectly valid channel can still model the wrong physics.
Useful diagnostics include comparing bath memory with observed decay, checking small transition separations against decay linewidths, and testing predictions against exact solvable limits. A constant-rate equation should not be trusted for times shorter than the coarse-graining window. Conversely, numerical positivity violations in a nominal channel solver may be integration errors, rather than evidence of physical memory. Separate the validity of the derivation, the mathematical properties of the equation, and the accuracy of its numerical solution before interpreting a discrepancy.
Work it through
Find a usable averaging window
A weakly coupled system has and . Distinct transition frequencies differ by . Assess and then a pair separated by only .
For the proposed window, and . The bath loses correlations well within the window, while reduced relaxation changes little across it. These estimates support the Markov scale separation.
The first frequency pair accumulates relative phase radians. Its inverse separation is , comfortably below the window, so secular averaging of that pair is plausible at this illustrative accuracy.
The near-degenerate pair accumulates only radians in the same window. Its inverse separation is , already longer than the relaxation time. There is no interval that is both much longer than this inverse separation and much shorter than relaxation.
The 1 μs window supports a Markov and secular treatment of the widely separated pair. It does not support full secularization of the near-degenerate pair; retain that block or justify a different approximation.
The living notebook
Explore the model
Interactive lab · markov
A memoryless population model with visible limits
Reset and set both controls to p = 0.20 and q = 0.30. Predict state-1 probability 0.20 after one Step and 0.30 after two Steps; each Step advances one transition. The stationary readout is 0.40. These are exact finite-step classical probabilities starting in state 0. The lab has no bath correlation time, frequency differences, or quantum coherences, so it illustrates a memoryless law without testing the microscopic approximations.
- P(state 1) at step 0
- 0%
- Stationary P(state 1)
- 60%
- Chain behavior
- Monotone convergence
Exact finite-step probabilities for a two-state chain starting in state 0, not sampled trajectories. Playback advances two transitions per second. When p = q = 0 every distribution is stationary; when p = q = 1 the chain alternates forever. A single zero transition creates an absorbing state. Parameter changes pause playback and recompute the model at the current elapsed time. Reset restores both parameters and returns time to zero. Playback starts paused. Adjust either parameter, then choose Play or Step.
Look forA memoryless reduced model is an assumption to justify physically, even when its finite-step probabilities are exact.
Pause & reason
Check your understanding
Your turn
Try it yourself
Let , , and . A discarded pair has separation . Compute the three dimensionless tests and assess strong separation.
Take a moment to make a prediction or work it out on paper. Open a hint when you need one.
Give me a hint
Compare the window to both times, and multiply it by the angular-frequency difference.
Compare with the solution
The time ratios are and , while the relative phase is radians. The memory and relaxation ratios give only a modest separation; the secular phase test fails clearly. The inverse splitting is 100 ns, only a factor two below relaxation, so no broad secular window exists. Changing the bath correlation time alone would not repair this unresolved transition pair.
Keep the idea
Take it with you
- Born, Markov, and secular steps use different assumptions.
- Near-degenerate transitions should remain coupled unless a resolution scale justifies their removal.
- GKSL structure guarantees channel properties, not microscopic accuracy.
Read further
Original sources and deeper explanations to follow at your own pace.
Optional progress, saved in this browser when available. Revisit any lesson at any time.
Lesson not marked complete.