Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Fast charging of an Ising spin pair quantum battery using optimal control

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A maximum-off-maximum pulse sequence is the fastest way to fully charge an Ising spin-pair quantum battery, and the paper gives exact equations for the pulse durations.

desk verdict A clean, checkable bang-singular-bang charging protocol for a two-spin Ising quantum battery, with honest caveats in the body but an overstated abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17087 v1 pith:BUYVDKQI submitted 2024-12-22 quant-ph math.OC

Vasileios Evangelakos , Emmanuel Paspalakis , Dionisis Stefanatos This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath.OC MSC 49K1549J1581Q93
keywords quantumbatteryoptimalcontrolIsingspinpairbang-singular-bangpulsesequenceswitchingfunctionmaximumprinciplecompletechargingtwo-levelreduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies how to maximize the energy stored in a quantum battery made of two Ising-coupled spins in a fixed charging time, when the transverse driving field is bounded in strength. It reduces the triplet-state dynamics to a single effective qubit and argues that the optimal charging protocol is a bang-singular-bang pulse sequence: maximum field, then an off interval, then maximum field, with the middle off pulse building the phase needed for full charging. For both control constraints considered, the paper derives transcendental equations for the durations of the three pulses and separate equations for the shortest time that achieves complete charging. The payoff is a design rule: given the coupling and the field bound, the fastest full-charging protocol comes from solving one equation rather than searching over waveforms.

What carries the argument

The key object is the reduction of the three triplet states to an effective spin-1/2 with Hamiltonian $\hat H'=-\frac{J}{2}\hat I_2+\frac{\Omega(t)}{2}\hat\sigma_x+\frac{J}{2}\hat\sigma_z$, which turns stored-energy maximization into steering a single qubit from the north pole back to the north pole with a $\pi$ phase. The argument follows Pontryagin's maximum principle through the switching function $\phi_x$, the coefficient of $\Omega(t)$ in the control Hamiltonian; bang segments occur where $\phi_x$ has a definite sign, and a singular segment occurs where $\phi_x=\phi_y=0$, which for nonzero $J$ forces the control to zero and gives the off pulse that accumulates the dynamic phase. Matching the boundary conditions at the singular arc yields the transcendental equations for the pulse durations.

What would settle it

Run a high-resolution numerical optimal-control search with arbitrary piecewise-constant controls for, say, $\Omega_0/J=2.5$ and $\chi=1/3$ at durations where the paper predicts the bang-singular-bang sequence is optimal; if any admissible waveform stores more energy than the value obtained from equations (60) and (62), or reaches full charge in less time than equations (65a) and (65b) predict, the central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that higher stored energy, including complete transfer into the spin-up state, requires a bang-singular-bang control rather than a single constant pulse, and this sequence is optimal in minimum time for control bounds above $\Omega_0=\sqrt{3}J$. With the control restricted to $0\le\Omega(t)\le\Omega_0$, the two bang pulses both sit at $\Omega_0$ but have unequal durations; with the control restricted to $-\Omega_0\le\Omega(t)\le\Omega_0$, the two bang pulses have equal durations and opposite signs. The durations follow from the transcendental equations (60) and (62), and the minimum full-charging times from (65a) and (65b), with the symmetric-domain sequence always faster. For full charging, all three switching functions $\phi_x,\phi_y,\phi_z$ vanish identically along the trajectory even though the adjoint ket is nonzero, a situation the maximum principle permits.

Load-bearing premise

The paper itself concedes in Sec. III that optimality of the bang-singular-bang form is supported by numerical evidence rather than a strict proof, and in Sec. V the maximum principle cannot select the full-charging control because all three switching functions vanish on the trajectory; if that form is not truly optimal, the duration equations lose their status as the answer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Given any admissible charging time, the optimal pulse durations come from solving equation (60) or (62), so no iterative waveform search is needed.
  • For a fixed upper bound, the fully symmetric control range $-\Omega_0\le\Omega(t)\le\Omega_0$ reaches complete charging in less time than the nonnegative range, because the two bang pulses rotate about opposite field axes.
  • Complete charging cannot be achieved by a single constant pulse within times shorter than the bang-singular-bang duration; the spin pair must pass through the off interval that builds the required $\pi$ phase.
  • Interchanging the initial and final bang pulses leaves the stored energy unchanged.
  • The charging curve has a plateau at the stored energy set by a single pulse, independent of the ratio $\chi=J/\Omega_z$, before the bang-singular-bang region lifts it to full charge.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct testable extension is to tabulate or approximate the full-charging time from equations (65a)-(65b) across $\Omega_0/J$ and $\chi$ and compare with a dense numerical search; the paper gives only the asymptotic slopes near the two ends of the range.
  • Because the effective two-level mapping also describes biexciton systems in quantum dots, the same bang-singular-bang protocol should transfer directly to that platform, a consequence the paper notes in passing.
  • Allowing the control field to carry an arbitrary phase breaks the two-level mapping and may admit even faster charging; the paper states this as its planned extension.
  • The vanishing of all switching functions at full charging suggests that proving global optimality there requires higher-order conditions or a geometric cut-locus argument rather than the maximum principle alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies optimal charging of a two-spin Ising quantum battery with bounded transverse field control. It maps the three-level dynamics to an effective two-level system and claims that, for sufficiently long charging durations, the optimal protocol is a bang-singular-bang pulse sequence with an intermediate Off pulse. For the two control domains (non-negative and symmetric) it derives transcendental equations for the individual pulse durations, and for full charging it derives equations for the minimum charging time. A notable reported feature is that for full charging the three switching functions vanish identically while the adjoint ket remains nonzero.

Significance. If the optimality claim were rigorously established, the paper would provide a useful example of singular arcs in a quantum battery control problem and explicit equations for the durations of the optimal pulses. The reduction to a two-level system is elegant, the constant-pulse analysis is internally consistent, and the algebraic derivations leading to the transcendental equations appear sound. The paper is also honest in the body about the lack of a strict mathematical proof. However, the central optimality claim is not proven, and the abstract presents the result more strongly than the body supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. I; Sec. III] The central claim that the bang-singular-bang pulse-sequence is optimal is not proven in the manuscript. In Sec. I the authors write that they provide 'strong evidence (without a strict mathematical proof)' for this sequence, and in Sec. III they state that the observations 'do not constitute a strict mathematical proof.' The abstract, however, states that 'using optimal control theory we show that ... higher levels of stored energy including complete charging are accomplished by a bang-singular-bang pulse-sequence' and that the sequence achieves complete charging 'in minimum time.' These statements overstate the status of the result. As a consequence, Eqs. (60), (62), and (65a)-(65b) are equations for the durations of a candidate family of controls, not established optimal controls.
  2. [Sec. V] For the full-charging case, the authors show at the end of Sec. V that φx(t)=φy(t)=φz(t)=0 along the entire trajectory while the adjoint ket is nonzero. When the switching-function vector vanishes identically, the control Hamiltonian in Eq. (31) is independent of Ω(t), so Pontryagin's maximum principle imposes no constraint on the control and cannot certify the bang-singular-bang sequence. The derivation of the minimum-time equations (65a)-(65b) via Eq. (64) is obtained from ∂Re[A(T)]/∂T=0 within the assumed pulse-sequence family, not from the maximum principle. The claim that the full-charging protocol is optimal in minimum time is therefore unsupported by the first-order conditions; the BOCOP results provide numerical evidence for a candidate, not a proof.
  3. [Sec. III] The justification for restricting attention to the bang-singular-bang sequences (41) and (44) is heuristic. The argument that the middle Off pulse should be singular because it yields more free optimization parameters does not exclude other switching patterns, such as a bang with an intermediate Off bang of duration different from π/J followed by another bang, or a control that is not piecewise constant. The paper should either provide a rigorous argument (for example, using the classification of extremals for the two-level system) or explicitly state that the optimality of this pulse-sequence family is an assumption supported by numerical evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV] In the sentence after Eq. (46), 'The product of propagators in Eq. (48) can be expressed as...' the reference is incorrect: the product U3U2U1 is defined in Eq. (46), not Eq. (48).
  2. [Appendix A] The abbreviation 'f.e.' should be 'e.g.'.
  3. [Sec. V] The statement that ∂Re[A(T)]/∂T=0 gives sin[J(T−τs/2)]=0 is terse; providing the intermediate algebra would help the reader verify this step.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'the spin-up state' for complete charging is clear from the context but could be made more explicit in the abstract by referring to the state |11⟩ defined in Sec. II.
  5. [General] Several equations contain missing spaces, such as 't =τ1 +τ2' appearing in Sec. IV and Sec. VII; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pulse-duration equations and full-charging times are derived from independent optimal-control conditions and physical input parameters, not from fitted outputs or self-citing premises.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The physical inputs are the coupling J, longitudinal field Ω_z, and control bound Ω_0; the outputs are transcendental equations (60), (62), (65a), and (65b) for pulse durations. These equations are obtained by applying the Pontryagin maximum principle to the effective two-level system: the switching-function dynamics (39), the singular-arc condition φx = φy = 0, the terminal adjoint condition (37), and the candidate bang-singular-bang sequences. No parameter is fitted to a data subset and then renamed as a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of the claimed result. The full-charging observation that all three switching functions vanish is a direct consequence of the terminal state and terminal adjoint condition, not an input used to force the minimum-time equations. The paper explicitly concedes in Sec. I and Sec. III that global optimality of the bang-singular-bang form is supported by 'strong evidence (without a strict mathematical proof)' and by BOCOP numerics rather than by a rigorous proof; this is a mathematical completeness limitation, not a circular reduction. Self-citations such as Ref. [62] (biexciton analogy) and Ref. [58] (qubit superposition work) appear only as ancillary remarks or context, and the load-bearing optimal-control results are attributed to external references such as Refs. [54], [55], [56], [57], and [60]. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data. The central claim rests on the standard quantum evolution, the triplet-manifold restriction, Pontryagin's principle, and crucially the unproven structural assumption that the optimal control is bang-singular-bang with a single Off pulse.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Unitarily evolving quantum system governed by the Schrodinger equation (Eqs. 1-6).
    Background for the state dynamics; used throughout Sec. II.
  • domain assumption The two-spin system is restricted to the triplet manifold; the singlet state is decoupled and never populated (Eqs. 3-4).
    This permits the mapping to a two-level system; it follows from the Hamiltonian structure but is a modeling assumption that the battery is initialized in the triplet subspace.
  • standard math Pontryagin's maximum principle provides necessary conditions for optimality (Appendix A, Refs. 63-64).
    Used to derive the bang-singular-bang structure and the switching function equations.
  • ad hoc to paper The optimal pulse-sequence is bang-singular-bang (On-Off-On for case I, On-Off-minus-On for case II) with the Off pulse singular (Sec. III).
    This is the load-bearing structural assumption. The paper admits it is not a strict mathematical proof and is supported by heuristic arguments and BOCOP numerics.
  • ad hoc to paper For the symmetric control domain, the bang-singular-bang sequence is optimal for all Omega_0 > sqrt(3) J (Sec. III).
    Based on extensive numerical simulations with BOCOP; no analytical proof is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast charging of an Ising spin pair quantum battery using optimal control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUYVDKQI

@misc{pith2026241217087,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast charging of an Ising spin pair quantum battery using optimal control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUYVDKQI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17087}
}
abstract

We consider the problem of maximizing the stored energy for a given charging duration in a quantum battery composed of a pair of spins-$1/2$ with Ising coupling starting from the spin-down state, using bounded transverse field control. We map this problem to an optimal control problem on a single qubit and using optimal control theory we show that, although a single bang pulse can quickly achieve considerable charging levels for relatively large upper control bounds, higher levels of stored energy including complete charging are accomplished by a bang-singular-bang pulse-sequence, where the intermediate singular pulse is an Off pulse. If the control is restricted between zero and a maximum value, the initial and final bang pulses attain the maximum bound but have different durations, while if it is restricted between symmetric negative and positive boundaries, the bang pulses have the same duration but opposite boundary values. For both cases we provide transcendental equations from which the durations of the individual pulses in the optimal pulse-sequence can be calculated. For the case of full charging we surprisingly find that the three ``switching" functions for the equivalent qubit problem become zero while the adjoint ket does not, in consistency with optimal control theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17087 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Minimum durations for full charging, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Stored energy as function of duration for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Stored energy as function of duration for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Optimal pulse-sequence and corresponding trajectory o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Optimal pulse-sequence and corresponding trajectory o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Optimal pulse-sequence and corresponding trajectory o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042123 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    The goal of a charging protocol Ω( t) applied during the time interval [0 T ] is to maximize the stored energy at the final time

    Note the normalization ‖ |Ψ ⟩ ‖ = 1/ √ 2 for the effective two-level system ( 16). The goal of a charging protocol Ω( t) applied during the time interval [0 T ] is to maximize the stored energy at the final time. Observe that transformation (

  3. [3]

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, New Journal of Physics 17, 075015 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, D. Rosa, M. Carrega, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 236402 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    J.-Y. Gyhm, D. ˇSafr´ anek, and D. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140501 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    (41) One question that immediately arises is the nature of the middle Off pulse, whether it is a bang or a singular pulse

    we see that a pulse Ω( t) = 0 does not change A(t) and the stored energy, thus the simplest non-trivial pulse-sequence beyond a constant pulse is Ω 0 − 0 − Ω 0 (Pulse-sequence I). (41) One question that immediately arises is the nature of the middle Off pulse, whether it is a bang or a singular pulse. During the Off pulse Ω( t) = 0 and Eqs. (

    work page

  7. [7]

    Gyhm and U

    J.-Y. Gyhm and U. R. Fischer, A VS Quantum Science 6, 012001 (2024) , https://pubs.aip.org/avs/aqs/article-pdf/doi/10.1116/5.0184903/18703178/012001 1 5.0184903.pdf

    work page doi:10.1116/5.0184903/18703178/012001 2024

  8. [8]

    Juli` a-Farr´ e, T

    S. Juli` a-Farr´ e, T. Salamon, A. Riera, M. N. Bera, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023113 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    G. M. Andolina, D. Farina, A. Mari, V. Pel- legrini, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205423 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    (57) If we substitute either expressions ( B2) or ( B4) in Eq

    Consequently, from the homogeneous system ( 56) we get xIyz =xzyI. (57) If we substitute either expressions ( B2) or ( B4) in Eq. (57) we end up with the same condition sin( ωτd/2) = 0, which leads to τd = 0 or τd = 2π/ω. To identify which value is optimal for each case, we co...

  3. [11]

    For pulse-sequence I ( 41), the de- pendence on τd is restricted in uz, as we can observe from Eq

    Since π/2 < JT/ 2 < π, thus sin( JT/ 2) > 0 and cos( JT/ 2) < 0, we see that uz should be as positive as possible and uI as negative as possible. For pulse-sequence I ( 41), the de- pendence on τd is restricted in uz, as we can observe from Eq. ( B1). Since J(T −τs)/2 < JT/2 <...

  4. [12]

    Using Eq

    preserves the populations of states, thus expression ( 9) for the stored energy remains valid if we replace ai with ci. Using Eq. ( 15) and the fact that C(t) is constant, thus C(T ) = C(0) = −1/ √ 2, we get c0(T ) = 1√ 2 [ A(T ) + 1√ 2 ] , (19a) c2(T ) = 1√ 2 [ A(T ) − 1√ 2 ]...

  5. [13]

    A. C. Santos, B. i. e. i. f. m. c. C ¸ akmak, S. Campbell, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. E 100, 032107 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    can be actually mapped to that of a spin-1/2 using the transformation A = c2 +c0√ 2 , (15a) B = c1, (15b) C = c2 −c0√ 2 . (15c) We easily find that ˙C = 0, while A,B satisfy the two-level system equation i ( ˙A ˙B ) = [ 0 Ω( t) 2Ω( t) 2 −J ] ( A B ) , (16) which can be expresse...

  7. [15]

    This region corresponds to the initial hillside in the diagrams

    or ( 30) for the control. This region corresponds to the initial hillside in the diagrams. We observe that the stored energy achieved with a constant pulse saturates after a threshold duration equal to 2 π/ω. The maxi- mum charging obtained with a constant pulse is higher for ...

  8. [16]

    From the previous analysis, we expect for shorter durations a single constant pulse to be optimal, while for T > π/J to come into play modified versions of pulse- sequences (

    is convex, thus the reachable set in finite time is compact and each point on its boundary can be reached by an optimal trajectory [54]. From the previous analysis, we expect for shorter durations a single constant pulse to be optimal, while for T > π/J to come into play modifie...

  9. [17]

    switching

    and the maximum princi- ple requirement that the optimal control maximizes the control Hamiltonian. Specifically, for pulse-sequence I, at t = τ1 +τ2 the control switches from 0 to Ω 0 and, since φx(τ1 +τ2) = 0 and φz(τ1 +τ2) > 0, we see from Eq. ( 39b) that ˙φy(τ1 +τ2) < 0. Bu...

  10. [18]

    Carrasco, J

    J. Carrasco, J. R. Maze, C. Hermann-Avigliano, and F. Barra, Phys. Rev. E 105, 064119 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Colloquium: Quantum batteries (2023), arXiv:2308.02277 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Barra, K

    F. Barra, K. V. Hovhannisyan, and A. Imparato, New Journal of Physics 24, 015003 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Shaghaghi, V

    V. Shaghaghi, V. Singh, G. Benenti, and D. Rosa, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 04LT01 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Rodr ´ ıguez, D

    C. Rodr ´ ıguez, D. Rosa, and J. Olle, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042618 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. C´ eleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Communications Physics 6, 322 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Hadipour, S

    M. Hadipour, S. Haseli, D. Wang, and S. Haddadi, Prac- tical scheme for realization of a quantum battery (2023), arXiv:2312.06389 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    We also study for both cases the problem of full charging in minimum time

    and ( 28) for finite Ω 0. We also study for both cases the problem of full charging in minimum time. III. DERIV ATION OF OPTIMAL CHARGING PROTOCOLS USING CONTROL THEOR Y We use the optimal control formalism as adapted to the study of quantum systems [55]. For the problem under ...

  19. [27]

    T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Pollock, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022106 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Zhang, T.-R

    Y.-Y. Zhang, T.-R. Yang, L. Fu, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. E 99, 052106 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    ( 30), for various values of the control bound Ω 0/J = 2.5, 4, 6 (Figs

    and with red solid line when is restricted as in Eq. ( 30), for various values of the control bound Ω 0/J = 2.5, 4, 6 (Figs. 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c), respectively) and ratio χ =J/Ω z = 1/3. For short durations the opti- mal pulse-sequence is a constant pulse, consequently the achi...

  22. [30]

    In the next section we find the optimal timings for the pulses in the bang-singular-bang charging protocol, for both cases I and II

    and the op- timal control can only take the values 0 and ±Ω 0, the bang-singular-bang sequence Ω 0 − 0 − (−Ω 0) (Pulse-sequence II) , (44) where note that the same effect is obtained if the se- quence starts with the negative bang pulse and ends with the positive one. In the ne...

  23. [31]

    Barra, Phys

    F. Barra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 210601 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, M. Campisi, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 047702 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Crescente, M

    A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. B 102, 245407 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    A. C. Santos, A. Saguia, and M. S. Sarandy, Phys. Rev. E 101, 062114 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    A. C. Santos, Phys. Rev. E 103, 042118 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Dou, Y.-Q

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-Q. Lu, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Phys. Rev. B 105, 115405 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    This condition, if used in Eqs

    and since A(T ) = −1/ √ 2 for full charging, we see that |λ(T )⟩ = − 2χ +1√ 2 (1 0) T . This condition, if used in Eqs. ( 32) along with |Ψ(T )⟩ = − 1√ 2 (1 0) T , leads to φx(T ) = φy(T ) = φz(T ) = 0 which, when combined with Eqs. ( 39), implies that φx(t) = φy(t) = φz(t) = ...

  30. [38]

    C.-K. Hu, J. Qiu, P. J. P. Souza, J. Yuan, Y. Zhou, L. Zhang, J. Chu, X. Pan, L. Hu, J. Li, Y. Xu, Y. Zhong, S. Liu, F. Yan, D. Tan, R. Bachelard, C. J. Villas-Boas, A. C. Santos, and D. Yu, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 045018 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    (42) Ift = 0 denotes the start of the Off pulse, then φx(0) = 0 and the solution of the above equation is φx(t) = ˙φx(0) sin(Jt) J

    give ¨φx = −J 2φx. (42) Ift = 0 denotes the start of the Off pulse, then φx(0) = 0 and the solution of the above equation is φx(t) = ˙φx(0) sin(Jt) J . (43) If the Off pulse is a bang pulse, then ˙φx(0) ⁄= 0 and the pulse lasts until the switching function φx becomes zero again,...

  32. [40]

    Kamin, Z

    F. Kamin, Z. Abuali, H. Ness, and S. Salimi, JOURNAL OF PHYSICS A MATHEMATICAL AND GENERAL 56, 10.1088/1751-8121/acdb11 (2023), funding Informa- 15 tion: S Salimi thanks research funded by Iran national science foundation (INSF) under Project No. 4003162. Publisher Copyright: ...

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Dou, Y.-J

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Europhysics Letters 131, 43001 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    L. F. C. Moraes, A. Saguia, A. C. Santos, and M. S. Sarandy, Europhysics Letters 136, 23001 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi, and A. C. Santos, Phys. Rev. E 102, 052109 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Pirmoradian and K

    F. Pirmoradian and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A 100, 043833 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Zhang and M

    X. Zhang and M. Blaauboer, Frontiers in Physics 10, 10.3389/fphy.2022.1097564 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Crescente, M

    A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, New Journal of Physics 22, 063057 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Joshi and T

    J. Joshi and T. S. Mahesh, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042601 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Mohan and A

    B. Mohan and A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A 104, 042209 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Niedenzu, V

    W. Niedenzu, V. Mukherjee, A. Ghosh, A. G. Kofman, and G. Kurizki, Nature Communications 9, 165 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina, V. Pellegrini, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 117702 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Zhao, F.-Q

    F. Zhao, F.-Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. A 103, 033715 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115142 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Zakavati, F

    S. Zakavati, F. T. Tabesh, and S. Salimi, Phys. Rev. E 104, 054117 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Zhao, F.-Q

    F. Zhao, F.-Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013172 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Ansel, E

    Q. Ansel, E. Dionis, F. Arrouas, B. Peaude- cerf, S. Gu´ erin, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and D. Sugny, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 57, 133001

  48. [56]

    I. M. de Buy Wenniger, S. E. Thomas, M. Maffei, S. C. Wein, M. Pont, N. Belabas, S. Prasad, A. Harouri, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, N. Somaschi, A. Auff` eves, and P. Senellart, Experimental analysis of energy transfers between a quantum emitter and light fields (2023), arXiv:2202...

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. Q. Quach, K. E. McGhee, L. Ganzer, D. M. Rouse, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, J. Keeling, G. Cerullo, D. G. Lidzey, and T. Virgili, Science Advances 8, eabk3160 (2022) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abk3160

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    artificial

    regarding the fast generation of a uniform super- position in a qubit. But in the present work we study a two-qubit quantum battery whose time evolution can be mapped to a single-qubit equation, as explained in Sec. II. This imposes different requirements on the fi- nal state of...

  51. [59]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c and J. K. Nauth, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012608 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    We get the transcenden- tal equation 2χ cos [ J 2 ( T − 2π ω )] + cosJT 2 = 0

    τs =τd, which trans- lates to τ3 = 0, we can find the threshold duration T at which pulse-sequence I appears. We get the transcenden- tal equation 2χ cos [ J 2 ( T − 2π ω )] + cosJT 2 = 0. (63) V. MINIMUM TIME FOR FULL CHARGING From Eq. ( 20) we can see that full charging is ac...

  53. [61]

    Dou, Y.-J

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Frontiers of Physics 17, 31503 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Dou, Y.-J

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Charging advan- tages of lipkin-meshkov-glick quantum battery (2022), arXiv:2208.04831 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    This region corresponds to the final hillside for both red solid and blue dashed curves, being present in all diagrams

    and the threshold of the latter being shorter. This region corresponds to the final hillside for both red solid and blue dashed curves, being present in all diagrams. Observe that the bang-singular-bang pulse-sequence is necessary to attain complete charging of the battery. In ...

  56. [64]

    Guo, F.-M

    W.-X. Guo, F.-M. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032201 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Mazzoncini, V

    F. Mazzoncini, V. Cavina, G. M. An- dolina, P. A. Erdman, and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032218 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    R. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, B. Ahmadi, G. Su´ arez, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, and P. Horodecki, New Journal of Physics 26, 043004 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Stefanatos and E

    D. Stefanatos and E. Paspalakis, Europhysics Letters 132, 60001 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Kr´ al, I

    P. Kr´ al, I. Thanopulos, and M. Shapiro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 53 (2007)

    2007

  61. [69]

    N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015006 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 453001 (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    Shrimali, B

    D. Shrimali, B. Panda, and A. Pati, Stronger speed limit for observables: Tight bound for capacity of entangle- ment, modular hamiltonian and charging of quantum battery (2024), arXiv:2404.03247 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Boscain, M

    U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and D. Sugny, PRX Quantum 2, 030203 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Boscain and P

    U. Boscain and P. Mason, Journal of Mathematical Physics 47, 062101 (2006) , https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2203236/139

    2006 doi

  67. [75]

    Mason, R

    P. Mason, R. Salmoni, U. Boscain, and Y. Chitour, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 47, 111 (2008) , https://doi.org/10.1137/060675988

    2008 doi

  68. [76]

    Evangelakos, E

    V. Evangelakos, E. Paspalakis, and D. Stefanatos, Phys. Rev. A 108, 062425 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Khaneja, R

    N. Khaneja, R. Brockett, and S. J. Glaser, Phys. Rev. A 63, 032308 (2001)

    2001

  70. [78]

    R. G. Unanyan, N. V. Vitanov, and K. Bergmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 137902 (2001)

    2001

  71. [79]

    Paspalakis, A

    E. Paspalakis, A. Smponias, and D. Stefanatos, Journal of Applied Physics 129, 223104 (2021) , https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0053859/1526

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    L. S. Pontryagin, V. G. Boltyanskii, R. V. Gamkrelidze, and E. F. Mishchenko, The Mathematical Theory of Op- timal Processes (Interscience Publishers, 1962)

    1962

  73. [81]

    Sch¨ attler and U

    H. Sch¨ attler and U. Ledzewicz, Geometric Optimal Control: Theory, Methods and Examples (Springer New York, NY, 2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Commands and I

    T. Commands and I. Saclay, Bocop: an open source tool- box for optimal control, http://bocop.org (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    S. Bao, S. Kleer, R. Wang, and A. Rahmani, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062343 (2018) . 0 1 2 3 40.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 T (Units of 1 /J) ΔΕ/Ωz 0 1 2 3 40.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 T (Units of 1 /J) ΔΕ/Ωz 0 1 2 3 4 50.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 T (Units of 1 /J) ΔΕ/Ωz

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.