Effects of noise-induced coherence on the performance of a four-level laser heat engine

Kirandeep Kaur

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Effects of noise-induced coherence on the performance of a four-level laser heat engine

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Noise-induced coherence breaks the left-right flux symmetry of a four-level laser heat engine, removing the universal η_C²/8 term from its efficiency at maximum power except in the high- and low-temperature limits.

desk verdict Useful new analytic results for a degenerate four-level engine, but the low-temperature EMP claim rests on an unexamined truncation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18476 v2 pith:2ZOLKQMP submitted 2024-12-24 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Kirandeep Kaur This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech PACS 05.70.Ln03.65.Yz07.20.Pe

keywords quantumheatenginenoise-inducedcoherenceefficiencyatmaximumpoweruniversalleft-rightsymmetryfour-levelmaserthermodynamicsLindbladmasterequation

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 analyzes a four-level laser heat engine whose two upper levels are degenerate, so the thermal bath itself generates coherence between them, and asks what this noise-induced coherence does to the efficiency at maximum power — the efficiency delivered when power output is maximized — and in particular to its 'universal' expansion $\eta_C/2 + \eta_C^2/8 + \cdots$ that many heat engines share. It claims the coherence breaks the left-right symmetry of the photon flux that is known to guarantee the universal quadratic term, so the $\eta_C^2/8$ term is lost under a general two-parameter optimization and is recovered only in the high-temperature limit with equal couplings and zero coherence, or in the low-temperature limit where the leading-order flux is automatically antisymmetric. In a one-parameter optimization the linear universal term $\eta_C/2$ holds consistently, but the quadratic coefficient depends on which frequency is held fixed and on whether a symmetric constraint such as $\omega_c + \omega_h = k$ is imposed. The paper further shows that the matter-field coupling strength decides whether coherence helps or hurts: strong coupling makes power and efficiency increase with the coherence parameter $p$, while weak coupling makes them decrease.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photon flux $I(x,y)$ extracted from the steady-state power formula (Eq. (A13) becomes Eq. (13)), with $x = \hbar\omega_c/k_B T_c$ and $y = \hbar\omega_h/k_B T_h$ the scaled cold and hot frequencies. The argument runs through the universal-efficiency formalism of Ref. [43]: for a tight-coupling engine whose energy flux is carried by photons, the efficiency at maximum power expands as $\eta = \eta_C/2 + (1 + M\,\partial_x L)\,\eta_C^2/4 + O(\eta_C^3)$, and the left-right symmetry condition $I(x,y) = -I(y,x)$ (flux reversal under exchange of $x$ and $y$) forces $2M = -\partial_x L$, reducing the quadratic term to $\eta_C^2/8$. The paper computes $L$ and $M$ from its flux and checks this condition, finding it broken in general and restored only in the high-temperature limit (with $\Gamma_c = \Gamma_h$, $p=0$) and the low-temperature limit. The coherence parameter $p$, which enters through the cross-terms coupling the two degenerate transitions $|1\rangle\leftrightarrow|g\rangle$ and $|2\rangle\leftrightarrow|g\rangle$ in the hot-bath dissipator, controls the deviation from symmetry. A second mechanism is the optimization of power with respect to $p$ itself, whose optimum $p^*$ (Eq. (28)) is governed by the ratio $\lambda/\Gamma_h$ of matter-field coupling to hot-bath coupling, deciding whether power rises or falls with coherence strength.

What would settle it

Numerically maximize the full steady-state power (Eq. (A13)) with respect to both $\omega_c$ and $\omega_h$ at small Carnot efficiency (say $\eta_C = 0.01$–$0.1$) for $\Gamma_c = \Gamma_h$ and $p = 0$ in the high-temperature regime, and fit the resulting efficiency series; if the quadratic coefficient is not $\eta_C^2/8$, the symmetry-breaking claim is wrong. Run the same check in the low-temperature regime to see whether Eq. (20) is the exact optimum of the full model or only of its leading-exponential approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that noise-induced coherence, parametrized by $p$ in the hot-bath Lindblad dissipator, breaks the left-right symmetry of the photon flux — $I(x,y) \neq -I(y,x)$ — for the degenerate four-level heat engine, and that this removes the universal quadratic term $\eta_C^2/8$ from the efficiency at maximum power in a near-equilibrium two-parameter optimization (Eq. (14)). The symmetry is restored only in special regimes: at high temperature with $\Gamma_c = \Gamma_h$ and $p = 0$, where the efficiency at maximum power becomes $\eta_C/2 + \eta_C^2(1+p)/[4(2+p)] + O(\eta_C^3)$, so that $\eta_C^2/8$ returns at $p=0$; and at low temperature, where the leading-order flux $e^{-y} - e^{-x}$ is exactly antisymmetric and, being independent of $p$ at that order, yields the full universal series $\eta_C/2 + \eta_C^2/8 + 7\eta_C^3/96 + \cdots$ (Eq. (20)). The paper notes that even at $p=0$ the flux fails the reversal condition, so the broken symmetry is not caused by the coherence cross-terms alone. In the one-parameter scheme (strong coupling, high temperature), the linear term $\eta_C/2$ is robust, but the quadratic coefficient is constraint-dependent: it is $\eta_C^2(1+p)\Gamma_h/[8(\Gamma_c+\Gamma_h(1+p))]$ when $\omega_h$ is fixed (Eq. (24)), reduces to $3\eta_C^2/16$ when $\omega_c$ is fixed with $\Gamma_c=\Gamma_h$ and $p=0$ (Eq. (25)), and equals $\eta_C^2/8$ only under a symmetric constraint such as $\omega_c+\omega_h=k$ or $\omega_c\omega_h=k$ with $\Gamma_c=\Gamma_h$ and $p=0$ (Eq. (26)). The paper further claims that the optimal coherence parameter is set by the ratio $\lambda/\Gamma_h$: strong matter-field coupling favors $p \to 1$, weak coupling favors $p \to -1$ (Eqs. (28)–(29)).

Load-bearing premise

The low-temperature result (Eq. (20)) rests on optimizing $P_{LT} = F T_h [y - x(1-\eta_C)](e^{-y} - e^{-x})$, which keeps only the leading exponential terms of the full power formula (Eq. (A13)); if the discarded terms shift the optimum, Eq. (20) is not the efficiency at maximum power of the full model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A two-parameter near-equilibrium optimization of the degenerate four-level engine yields the efficiency-at-maximum-power series $\eta_C/2 + c\,\eta_C^2/8 + O(\eta_C^3)$ with $c \neq 1$ in general (Eq. (14)), so the universal quadratic term is not a generic feature of this engine.
In the high-temperature regime with $\Gamma_c = \Gamma_h$, the universal term $\eta_C^2/8$ is recovered exactly at $p = 0$, while for $p \neq 0$ the quadratic coefficient $(1+p)/(4(2+p))$ grows with $p$ (Eq. (16)).
In the low-temperature regime the flux $e^{-y} - e^{-x}$ satisfies the reversal condition exactly and carries no $p$ dependence at leading order, giving the full universal series $\eta_C/2 + \eta_C^2/8 + 7\eta_C^3/96 + \cdots$ regardless of coherence strength (Eqs. (17)–(20)).
In one-parameter optimization the linear universal term $\eta_C/2$ survives under every condition (tight coupling), but the quadratic coefficient is constraint-dependent: fixing $\omega_h$ gives $(1+p)\Gamma_h/[8(\Gamma_c + \Gamma_h(1+p))]$, fixing $\omega_c$ gives a different value, and only a symmetric constraint such as $\omega_c + \omega_h = k$ or $\omega_c\omega_h = k$ with $\Gamma_c = \Gamma
The optimal coherence parameter is $p^* = \sqrt{2(1+3n_c+2n_h+4n_c n_h)/(1+3n_h+2n_c+4n_c n_h)}\,\lambda/[\Gamma_h(1+n_h)] - 1$, so under strong matter-field coupling ($\lambda \gg \Gamma_h$) power and efficiency increase with $p$ and the engine should run near $p = 1$, while under weak coupling it should run near $p = -1$ (Eqs. (28)–(29)).

Reading between the lines

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

A corollary the paper leaves implicit: statements that an engine shows the universal $\eta_C/2 + \eta_C^2/8$ behaviour are only meaningful together with the exact optimization protocol, since the same engine produces $1/16$, $3/16$, or $1/8$ as its quadratic coefficient under different schemes (Eqs. (24)–(26)).
Because the flux asymmetry already appears at $p = 0$, the degeneracy of the upper levels — not the coherence cross-terms alone — is the structural cause of the broken symmetry in the general regime; deleting the cross-terms while keeping the degeneracy should still fail to show $\eta_C^2/8$, which is a direct test of this attribution.
If the coherence parameter is governed by the dipole alignment between the two degenerate transitions (the cross-terms in the hot-bath dissipator carry the dipole-angle factor), the paper's regime analysis becomes a design rule: strong matter-field coupling calls for aligned dipoles, while weak coupling calls for suppressed coherence.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does something real: it derives new analytic expressions for efficiency at maximum power in a degenerate four-level laser heat engine with noise-induced coherence, and the results are not quoted from earlier work. The high-temperature and one-parameter optimization analyses are the strongest parts. The p-dependent coefficients in Eqs. (16), (24)-(26) and the optimal coherence parameter p* in Eq. (28) are internally consistent, reduce properly to known limits (η_C²/8 when p=0 in the high-T two-parameter case), and the observation that one-parameter optimization does not restore the universal quadratic term unless you impose an additional symmetric constraint is genuinely interesting. The connection to the Esposito symmetry formalism is handled cleanly in those sections.

The soft spot is Section III B. The paper calls Eq. (17) an 'exact solution' in the low-temperature limit, but that expression is only the leading-exponential truncation of Eq. (A13), keeping e^{-y} - e^{-x} in the numerator and dropping all O(e^{-x}, e^{-y}) corrections in the denominator. At the quoted optimum, x and y are around 2, so e^{-x} ≈ 0.135; the neglected terms are at the ten-percent level, not exponentially suppressed. Maximizing the truncated expression does not by itself locate the maximum of the full model, and the claim that Eq. (20) is the exact EMP of the low-temperature model is not supported by the derivation shown. This is a load-bearing gap for that subsection, not a minor annoyance. A careful asymptotic treatment or an explicit statement that Eq. (20) is only leading-order would fix it.

Two smaller issues: the abstract says noise-induced coherence breaks left-right symmetry, but the paper itself shows that even p=0 breaks it (the degeneracy alone does); the symmetry is only retained under specific extra conditions. That wording should be corrected. Also, Eq. (14) is a large expression presented without intermediate algebra, which makes independent checking harder.

Who is this for? People working on quantum heat engines and universal efficiency bounds, especially those interested in coherence effects. The high-T and one-parameter results are worth citing; the low-T claim should be treated with caution until revised. This deserves a serious referee, but the referee should be asked to focus on Section IIIB and demand either a proper asymptotic justification or a downgraded claim.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a degenerate four-level laser heat engine with noise-induced coherence, focusing on the universality of the efficiency at maximum power (EMP). For two-parameter optimization near equilibrium, it derives an analytic EMP expression (Eq. 14) and argues that noise-induced coherence breaks the left-right symmetry required for the universal η_C^2/8 term, except in the high-temperature (Eq. 16) and low-temperature (Eq. 20) regimes under specific conditions. For one-parameter optimization, it shows that the quadratic coefficient depends on the imposed constraint (Eqs. 24–26). It also studies power optimization with respect to the noise-induced coherence parameter p and discusses the role of matter-field coupling strength.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a concrete four-level model demonstrating how noise-induced coherence can modify the universal efficiency at maximum power, with analytic control over several regimes. Its strengths include explicit master-equation derivations, closed-form flux expressions, and a clear demonstration that one-parameter optimization constraints alter the quadratic universal term. The identification of operational regimes for maximizing power via coherence (strong vs. weak coupling) is also potentially useful. However, two load-bearing points are not currently established: the low-temperature EMP derivation uses an uncontrolled approximation, and the weak-coupling monotonicity claim contains an algebraic error. These issues need to be resolved before the paper's central claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)

[Section III B, Eqs. (17)–(20)] The low-temperature derivation is not self-consistent. Equation (17) is obtained from Eq. (A13) by dropping terms of relative order e^{-x} and e^{-y} in the denominator, as shown in Eqs. (A11)–(A12). However, optimizing Eq. (17) yields x,y ≈ 2 for η_C → 0 (Eq. 19), where e^{-x} ≈ 0.135 is not exponentially small. Thus the truncation is uncontrolled at the optimum, and maximizing Eq. (17) does not generally maximize the full power in Eq. (A13). The claim that Eq. (20) is the exact EMP of the full low-temperature model is therefore not established. The author should either solve the full optimization problem in the low-temperature regime or prove that the omitted corrections do not alter the η_C^2 coefficient.
[Section IV, Eq. (29) and following paragraph] The statement that p*_HT(LT) < -1 in the weak-coupling regime is algebraically impossible: p*_LT = √2 λ/Γ_h − 1 > −1 for any λ > 0, and similarly for p*_HT. Consequently, the conclusion that the power is a monotonically decreasing function of p over the physical range −1 ≤ p ≤ 1 is not supported; the optimum p* lies inside the interval for weak coupling, so the power increases for p up to p* and then decreases. This affects the recommended operating regime for weak matter-field coupling. Please correct the inequality and re-examine the monotonicity claim, for instance by evaluating ∂P/∂p at the boundaries p = ±1.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (14)] The analytic near-equilibrium EMP is presented without intermediate algebra, and α is defined only through a transcendental equation. Please provide the derivation or a supplementary file, as the expression is currently difficult to verify.
[Section III C] The text states 'even imposing the condition Γ_c = Γ_c along with p = 0'; this appears to be a typo and should read 'Γ_c = Γ_h'.
[Introduction and references] Reference [37] appears as an empty placeholder, and reference [40] is incomplete. Please complete these citations.
[Section II] There is a typo in the sentence introducing the Tannor–Boukobza formalism: 'develepoded' should be 'developed'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EMP results are analytic consequences of the stated Lindblad model and an external universality theorem, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper starts from a specified Lindblad master equation (Eqs. (1)-(3)) and solves the steady-state coherences in Appendix A, obtaining the exact power expression Eq. (A13). The matter flux I is identified from Eq. (A13) by comparison with Eq. (10); no parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted. The universal-efficiency analysis invokes the external theorem of Esposito et al. (Ref. [43], Eq. (11)), which gives eta_C/2 generally and eta_C^2/8 under flux reversal I(x,y) = -I(y,x). The paper checks flux reversal directly from the model-derived flux in the high-temperature limit (Eq. (15)) and the low-temperature limit (Eq. (18)), and the EMP formulas (Eqs. (14), (16), (23)-(26)) are obtained by explicit maximization of model power, not by imposing the desired coefficients. The only self-citation ([21]) is a general reference to prior three-level engine studies and is not load-bearing. The low-temperature section's Eq. (17) is a leading-exponential reduction of Eq. (A13); whether the neglected O(e^{-x}) terms shift the optimum is a technical correctness/approximation issue, not a circularity, because the truncated flux is not equivalent by construction to the predicted EMP. No step reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own input.

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

No data fitting or ad hoc parameters are introduced; all constants are standard model inputs. The main assumptions are the Lindblad form, the external EMP symmetry theorem, and the high/low-temperature and strong-coupling limits. The low-temperature assumption is the least secure because the optimizer sits at x,y around 2.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The open-system dynamics is governed by the Born-Markov-secular Lindblad master equation in Eqs. (1)-(3), with degenerate levels and cross-dissipator terms proportional to cos(theta).
Invoked at the start of Sec. II; if the secular approximation fails, the coherence terms and the resulting power formulas change.
standard math The Esposito-Lindenberg-Van den Broeck relation (Eq. 11) for the efficiency at maximum power applies to this engine, with energy flux proportional to matter flux (Eq. 10).
Used in Sec. III to translate flux symmetry into the universal eta_C^2/8 coefficient; assumes tight coupling and a two-variable optimization structure.
domain assumption In the high-temperature limit, e^x is approximately 1+x and e^y is approximately 1+y at the optimum.
Used to obtain Eqs. (15)-(16); assumes hbar omega << k_B T for both reservoirs.
domain assumption In the low-temperature limit, the power is dominated by the leading exponential term P_LT proportional to (e^{-y}-e^{-x})(y - x(1-eta_C)), with F independent of x and y.
Used in Sec. III B to obtain Eq. (17) and the claimed exact EMP; higher-order terms in e^{-x} and e^{-y} are neglected, and self-consistency at the optimum is not checked.
domain assumption For one-parameter optimization, the strong-coupling (lambda >> Gamma_c, Gamma_h) and high-temperature limits reduce the power to Eq. (21).
Used in Sec. III C; assumes the field coupling dominates dissipation and thermal occupations are large.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of noise-induced coherence on the performance of a four-level laser heat engine." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ZOLKQMP

@misc{pith2026241218476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of noise-induced coherence on the performance of a four-level laser heat engine},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ZOLKQMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18476}
}

abstract

In this work, we study the effect of noise-induced coherence on the performance analysis of a degenerate four-level quantum heat engine with particular focus on the universal nature of efficiency, which refers to the appearance of the first two universal terms $\eta_C/2$ and $\eta_C^2/8$ in series expansion of the efficiency at maximum power under a left-right symmetry in the system. Firstly, for a two-parameter optimization scheme, we derive an analytic expression for the efficiency at maximum power for the near-equilibrium condition and show that presence of noise-induced coherence breaks the left-right symmetry of the system. However, when the operation of the engine is restricted to either high-temperature or low-temperature regime, we discuss the conditions under which the left-right symmetry can be retained in each case, giving rise to the universal characteristic of efficiency. In case of one-parameter optimization, we show that while the universality of the first linear term $\eta_c/2$ is robust and holds consistently across all conditions, the universality of the quadratic term $\eta_C^2/8$ depends on the constraints imposed on the control parameters. Finally, we examine the behavior of power as a function of noise-induced coherence parameter highlighting the role of matter-field coupling in determining the suitable operation regime for the heat engine to reap the benefits of noise-induced coherence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18476 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Power as a function of noise-induced coherence pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. EMP (Eq. (23)) as a function of noise-induced coher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

H. E. D. Scovil and E. O. Schulz-DuBois, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2, 262 (1959)

1959
[2]

Insinga, B

A. Insinga, B. Andresen, and P. Salamon, Phys. Rev. E 94, 012119 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

Rezek and R

Y. Rezek and R. Kosloff, New J. Phys. 8, 83 (2006)

work page 2006
[4]

Deffner, Entropy 20, 875 (2018)

S. Deffner, Entropy 20, 875 (2018)

2018
[6]

J. Guo, J. Wang, Y. Wang, and J. Chen, J. Appl. Phys. 113, 143510 (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

Long and W

R. Long and W. Liu, Phys. Lett. A 379, 1979 (2015)

work page 2015
[8]

R. Wang, J. Wang, J. He, and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042119 (2013)

work page 2013
[9]

Humphrey and H

T. Humphrey and H. Linke, Physica E 29, 390 (2005)

work page 2005

Show all 55 references

[10]

Josefsson, A

M. Josefsson, A. Svilans, A. M. Burke, E. A. Hoffmann, S. Fahlvik, C. Thelander, M. Leijnse, and H. Linke, Nature Nanotechnology 10.1038/s41565-018-0200-5 (2018)

2018 doi
[11]

Yan-Chao and H

Z. Yan-Chao and H. Ji-Zhou, Chinese Physics Letters 30, 010501 (2013)

2013
[13]

Borga, M

F. Borga, M. Bekele, Y. B. Tatek, and M. Tsige, Phys. Rev. E 86, 032106 (2012)

2012
[14]

Thomas, N

G. Thomas, N. Siddharth, S. Banerjee, and S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. E 97, 062108 (2018)

2018
[15]

Altintas, A

F. Altintas, A. U. C. Hardal, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. A91, 023816 (2015)

2015
[16]

A. U. C. Hardal and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Sci. Rep.5, 12953 (2015)

2015
[17]

Altintas, A

F. Altintas, A. U. C. Hardal, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. E90, 032102 (2014)

2014
[18]

Geva and R

E. Geva and R. Kosloff, Phys. Rev. E 49, 3903 (1994)

1994
[19]

Geva and R

E. Geva and R. Kosloff, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 7681 (1996)

1996
[20]

Singh, Phys

V. Singh, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043187 (2020)

2020
[21]

K. Kaur, V. Singh, J. Ghai, S. Jena, and ¨O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications576, 125892 (2021)

2021
[22]

Jaseem, M

N. Jaseem, M. Hajduˇ sek, V. Vedral, R. Fazio, L.-C. Kwek, and S. Vinjanampathy, Phys. Rev. E 101, 020201 (2020). 9

2020
[23]

A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 158101 (2015)

2015
[24]

J. M. Horowitz and T. R. Gingrich, Nature Physics 16, 15 (2020)

2020
[25]

T. R. Gingrich, J. M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, and J. L. England, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120601 (2016)

2016
[26]

Singh, V

V. Singh, V. Shaghaghi, O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, and D. Rosa, Phys. Rev. A108, 032203 (2023)

2023
[27]

A. A. S. Kalaee, A. Wacker, and P. P. Potts, Phys. Rev. E 104, L012103 (2021)

2021
[28]

Van Vu and K

T. Van Vu and K. Saito, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140602 (2022)

2022
[29]

Kwon and J

E. Kwon and J. S. Lee, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04988 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[30]

T¨ urkpen¸ ce and O

D. T¨ urkpen¸ ce and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. E93, 012145 (2016)

2016
[31]

Rahav, U

S. Rahav, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Phys. Rev. A 86, 043843 (2012)

2012
[32]

C. L. Latune, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 025005 (2019)

2019
[33]

Altintas, A

F. Altintas, A. U. C. Hardal, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıog˘ glu, Phys. Rev. E90, 032102 (2014)

2014
[34]

Kilgour and D

M. Kilgour and D. Segal, Phys. Rev. E 98, 012117 (2018)

2018
[35]

M. O. Scully, K. R. Chapin, K. E. Dorfman, M. B. Kim, and A. Svidzinsky, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 15097 (2011)

2011
[36]

M. O. Scully, M. S. Zubairy, G. S. Agarwal, and H. Walther, 299, 862 (2003)

2003
[38]

K. E. Dorfman, D. V. Voronine, S. Mukamel, and M. O. Scully, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 2746 (2013), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1212666110

2013 doi
[39]

M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 207701 (2010)

2010
[41]

E. R. Bittner and C. Silva, Nature Communications 5, 10.1038/ncomms4119 (2014)

2014 doi
[42]

Klatzow, J

J. Klatzow, J. N. Becker, P. M. Ledingham, C. Weinzetl, K. T. Kaczmarek, D. J. Saunders, J. Nunn, I. A. Walmsley, R. Uzdin, and E. Poem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 110601 (2019)

2019
[43]

Esposito, K

M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 130602 (2009)

2009
[44]

F. L. Curzon and B. Ahlborn, American Journal of Physics 43, 22 (1975)

1975
[45]

Esposito, R

M. Esposito, R. Kawai, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. E 81, 041106 (2010)

2010
[46]

Esposito, R

M. Esposito, R. Kawai, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 150603 (2010)

2010
[47]

Singh and R

V. Singh and R. S. Johal, J. Stat. Mech. 2018, 073205 (2018)

2018
[48]

Z. C. Tu, J. Phys. A: Math. and Theor. 41, 312003 (2008)

2008
[49]

Schmiedl and U

T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, Europhys. Lett. 81, 20003 (2008)

2008
[51]

A. C. Hern´ andez, A. Medina, J. M. M. Roco, J. A. White, and S. Velasco, Phys. Rev. E 63, 037102 (2001)

2001
[52]

Van den Broeck, Phys

C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 190602 (2005)

2005
[53]

Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

G. Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

1976
[54]

Gorini, A

V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Journal of Mathematical Physics 17, 821 (1976)

1976
[55]

Boukobza and D

E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor, Phys. Rev. A 74, 063823 (2006)

2006
[56]

Boukobza and D

E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor, Phys. Rev. A 74, 063822 (2006)

2006
[57]

Boukobza and D

E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 240601 (2007)

2007
[58]

Uzdin and R

R. Uzdin and R. Kosloff, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 108, 40001 (2014)

2014
[59]

S. H. Lee, J. Um, and H. Park, Phys. Rev. E 98, 052137 (2018)

2018
[60]

K. E. Dorfman, D. Xu, and J. Cao, Phys. Rev. E 97, 042120 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

H. E. D. Scovil and E. O. Schulz-DuBois, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2, 262 (1959)

1959

[2] [2]

Insinga, B

A. Insinga, B. Andresen, and P. Salamon, Phys. Rev. E 94, 012119 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Rezek and R

Y. Rezek and R. Kosloff, New J. Phys. 8, 83 (2006)

work page 2006

[4] [4]

Deffner, Entropy 20, 875 (2018)

S. Deffner, Entropy 20, 875 (2018)

2018

[5] [6]

J. Guo, J. Wang, Y. Wang, and J. Chen, J. Appl. Phys. 113, 143510 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [7]

Long and W

R. Long and W. Liu, Phys. Lett. A 379, 1979 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [8]

R. Wang, J. Wang, J. He, and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042119 (2013)

work page 2013

[8] [9]

Humphrey and H

T. Humphrey and H. Linke, Physica E 29, 390 (2005)

work page 2005