Constructive impact of Wannier-Stark field on environment-boosted quantum batteries

Aditi Sen De; Animesh Ghosh; Leela Ganesh Chandra Lakkaraju; Tanoy Kanti Konar

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Constructive impact of Wannier-Stark field on environment-boosted quantum batteries

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a Wannier-Stark static field to the charging step raises the maximum average power of Bose- and Fermi-Hubbard quantum batteries once the field exceeds a critical strength, and can make bosonic batteries beat fermionic ones.

desk verdict Solid closed-system numerics and a clean two-site result, but the environment-assisted ergotropy claim is not credible: ergotropy is defined with max instead of min, and the alleged steady state is never checked against the thermal passive state. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01309 v1 pith:G36QDNA4 submitted 2025-01-02 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el

Animesh Ghosh , Tanoy Kanti Konar , Leela Ganesh Chandra Lakkaraju , Aditi Sen De This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el

keywords quantumbatteryWannier-StarkfieldBose-HubbardmodelFermi-Hubbardergotropymaximumaveragepoweropensystemsultracoldatoms

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

This paper studies quantum batteries built from ultracold atoms in an optical lattice, modeled by the Bose- and Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonians, and asks whether a static Wannier-Stark (WS) field—a linear tilt of the site energies—can help rather than hurt. The paper's central claim is that when the WS field is put into the charging Hamiltonian, the maximum average power rises once the field exceeds a critical strength, and bosonic batteries, which without the field lag behind fermionic ones at moderate interactions, overtake them. It also derives a closed-form expression for the stored work in two-site and effectively infinite lattices, and reports a new open-system effect: fermionic batteries with edge sites coupled to thermal baths reach a steady state with nonzero extractable work (ergotropy) even with no charging, while bosonic batteries show only transient ergotropy unless the WS field is present. If the claims hold, static fields and boundary thermal baths become resources for improving energy storage and extraction in cold-atom quantum batteries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Wannier-Stark field, the linear site-energy tilt $-r\sum_i i\,\hat n_i$ added to the Hubbard Hamiltonian, used in the charging step together with the onsite interaction $U^c_x$. The load-bearing identity is the periodic work formula for a two-site battery, $W_x(t)=1-\cos(r^c_x t)\cos(U^c_x t)$ (with the fermionic and bosonic expressions coinciding), whose fitted many-site generalization $W^N_x(t)=\alpha+\beta\cos(r^c_x t)+\gamma\cos(r^c_x t)\cos(U^c_x t)$ makes the threshold and activation visible; the maximum average power is $P^{\max}_x=\max_t W_x(t)/t$. In the open-system part, the machinery is a local dephasing GKSL master equation in which bosonic baths couple to the edge-site number operators with KMS (detailed-balance) transition rates, and extractable work is measured by ergotropy $\mathcal{E}(t)=\mathrm{Tr}[H_x(\hat\rho-\hat\rho_{\rm passive})]$.

What would settle it

Compute the steady state of the Lindblad equation (13)-(16) for a small fermionic chain (say $N=2$ or $4$) by exact diagonalization of the Liouvillian and evaluate its ergotropy; if the steady state is passive (zero ergotropy), environment-assisted ergotropy is absent. A second check is to replace the edge-only number coupling with a full coupling to a thermal reservoir and see whether the asymptotic ergotropy vanishes toward the Gibbs value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the Wannier-Stark potential is a constructive control knob for Hubbard-model quantum batteries. For a battery initialized in the ground state of the Bose- or Fermi-Hubbard model with hopping and onsite interactions, charging with a Hamiltonian that includes both an onsite interaction $U^c_x$ and a WS field $r^c_x$ yields maximum average power $P^{\max}_x$ that first dips and then rises with $|r^c_x|$; above a threshold $|r^{\prime c}_x|$ the power is higher than without the field. For two sites with a hopping-only ground state the stored work is exactly $W_x(t)=1-\cos(r^c_x t)\cos(U^c_x t)$ for both statistics, and for larger lattices the numerics support $W^N_x(t)=\alpha+\beta\cos(r^c_x t)+\gamma\cos(r^c_x t)\cos(U^c_x t)$. The field reverses the usual ordering $P^{\max}_F\ge P^{\max}_B$: for sufficient $r^c_x/U^c_x$, $\Delta P^{\max}_{F-B}=P^{\max}_F-P^{\max}_B$ becomes negative, an effect the paper calls activation of power, and the effect survives finite-temperature initial states. With edge baths, the paper claims 'environment-assisted ergotropy': fermions reach a steady state with nonzero ergotropy without any unitary charger, bosons reach it only transiently when the WS field is present, and under active charging both species show nonmonotonic steady-state ergotropy versus $U^c_x$ and $r^c_x$.

Load-bearing premise

The environment-assisted ergotropy claim rests on the assumption that the edge-coupled dephasing baths drive the chain to a steady state with positive ergotropy, rather than to the thermal Gibbs state at the bath temperature, which has zero ergotropy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A cold-atom battery designer can use the WS charging field as a switch: below threshold it hurts, above threshold it helps, and the threshold can be located from the ratio $r^c_x/U^c_x$.
Bosonic batteries, which are usually the weaker choice at moderate onsite interactions, become the better choice once the charging WS field exceeds the critical strength, even at finite temperature.
The WS field changes the scaling behavior of maximum average power: without it power falls with lattice size, with it power grows sublinearly with $N$, so larger optical lattices become beneficial.
In the open setting, attaching hot edge baths can store extractable work in fermionic batteries with no charging step, and moderate WS and onsite charging strengths can raise steady-state ergotropy after a threshold.
The closed-form work formula gives explicit periodic charging times and resonances, so the maximum-work and maximum-power times can be separated and tuned.

Reading between the lines

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

A consequence the authors leave implicit: the positive steady-state ergotropy in the fermionic battery requires the edge-bath dephasing model's steady state to be non-thermal; checking whether a full thermal bath coupling preserves the effect would settle how physical it is.
The two-site work formula suggests a resonance test: if $r^c_x$ and $U^c_x$ are commensurate, the work is periodic with the least common multiple of their periods, so a single lattice experiment could map the predicted revival structure.
The activation threshold likely tracks the tilt strength at which the Wannier-Stark ladder localizes single-particle eigenstates; if so, the boson-over-fermion inversion should persist for weak harmonic confinement or weak disorder, which could be probed in existing optical-lattice setups.
One could extend the environment-assisted idea to discharging: if edge baths can store work without a charger, the same steady state should be dischargeable by reversing the bath temperature bias, which the paper does not address.

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

Closed system, this paper is a decent piece of work. The two-site analytical result (Prop. 1) and the hopping-only closed form (Prop. 3) derive cleanly from the stated Hamiltonians, and the numerical observation that a Wannier-Stark field in the charging Hamiltonian can reverse the boson/fermion power ordering is new and worth reporting. The Eq. (5) ansatz with unspecified α, β, γ is unsatisfying but understandable if this is a numerical study; it doesn't undercut the main closed-system claims.

The open-system section is where things go wrong. First, Eq. (17) defines ergotropy with a max over unitaries; the correct definition uses a min. As written, the quantity is non-positive, so the positive values in Fig. 6 can't be the same quantity. This is a fixable typo, but it needs to be flagged. More seriously, the 'environment-assisted ergotropy' claim is not physically credible in its current form. The dissipator (13)-(16) is a Davies generator with KMS rates at a single temperature (T_E1 = T_E2 = 1 in Fig. 6). For such a generator, the canonical Gibbs state is stationary, and within the fixed particle-number sector the projected Gibbs state is passive, i.e., has zero ergotropy. The paper reports a positive steady-state ergotropy without ever computing the overlap with or distance to the thermal state. The likely resolutions are that the simulated time (t up to 300 with η=10^-2, so a relaxation scale around 100) is not long enough to reach the true steady state, or that some conserved quantity/decoherence-free structure blocks full thermalization. Either way, the authors need to demonstrate convergence to that state or identify the mechanism explicitly.

Net: the closed-system power results are a modest but honest contribution to the Hubbard-battery subfield. The environment-assisted ergotropy, which is the title's 'environment-boosted' part, is not supported as it stands. This paper deserves peer review, but with the strong expectation of major revision: fix Eq. (17), check the steady state against the Gibbs state (or explain the non-thermal steady state), and provide either longer-time convergence data or the simulation code. I would not cite the open-system claim as is.

For a reading group, it's a decent case study in what can go wrong with 'steady-state' claims in weak-coupling master equations. I'd say maybe bring it, mostly for the open-system discussion.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantum batteries modelled by Bose- and Fermi-Hubbard chains with Wannier-Stark (WS) fields, in both closed and open dynamics. In the closed case, it reports analytic results for two-site batteries (Proposition 1), a hopping-only charging result for arbitrary size (Proposition 3), and numerical evidence for a critical WS charging strength above which maximum average power increases and bosonic batteries can outperform fermionic ones. In the open case, it claims environment-assisted ergotropy: fermionic batteries reach nonzero steady-state extractable work when the edge sites are coupled to local thermal baths, even without any charging unitary, while bosons show this only transiently. The paper also studies scaling of power with lattice size and particle number, and discharging in the presence of baths.

Significance. If the closed-system results are correct, they provide a concrete and potentially testable mechanism for improving quantum-battery power by adding a WS field to the charging Hamiltonian, and they identify a reversal of the boson/fermion power ordering. The analytic propositions and the single-particle exact solution are useful and appear internally consistent. The open-system claim of environment-assisted ergotropy is more surprising and, if correct, would be a notable thermodynamic phenomenon. However, the environment-assisted result requires a direct reconciliation with Davies-bath thermalization, and the advertised arbitrary-size closed form is currently an ansatz with unspecified coefficients. The numerical scans are extensive, but the manuscript does not include reproducible code or machine-checked proofs.

major comments (4)

[Eq. (17), Figs. 6-8] The ergotropy definition in Eq. (17) uses a maximum over unitaries: E(t)=W_x(t)-max_U Tr[H_x U rho U^dagger]. The standard definition uses a minimum of Tr[H_x U rho U^dagger] (equivalently, a maximum of the extracted work Tr[H_x rho]-Tr[H_x U rho U^dagger]). As written, E(t) is bounded above by W_x(t)-Tr[H_x rho], which is non-positive for nonnegative initial energy, so the positive steady-state values in Figs. 6-8 cannot come from Eq. (17) as stated. Please correct the sign/order of the optimization and state the exact formula actually implemented in the numerics.
[Sec. IV, Eqs. (13)-(16), Fig. 6] The positive steady-state ergotropy for fermions at equal bath temperatures needs a thermalization check. For the Davies generator defined by Eqs. (14)-(16) with KMS rates and a single temperature (TE1=TEL=1), the canonical Gibbs state of the battery Hamiltonian H_x is stationary; within fixed particle-number sectors and under number-conserving unitaries, that state has zero ergotropy. The reported saturation of ergotropy therefore indicates either (i) the evolution time is too short and the state is a transient, (ii) the stationary state is non-thermal due to a conserved quantity or decoherence-free subspace, or (iii) the implemented master equation differs from Eqs. (14)-(16). The authors should compare the long-time state with e^{-beta H_x}/Z in each fixed particle-number sector and, if they differ, identify the symmetry or structure responsible.
[Sec. II, Eq. (5), and Abstract] The abstract promises a closed-form expression for the stored work when the battery is in the ground state of the hopping-only Hubbard model and is charged by onsite interactions and the WS field, irrespective of lattice size. The only arbitrary-size statement in the text is Eq. (5), which is introduced as an ansatz suggested by numerical simulation, with coefficients alpha, beta, and gamma left unspecified. This is not a closed form. Either provide explicit expressions for alpha, beta, and gamma with a derivation, or revise the abstract and the text to state that the arbitrary-size result is a fitted numerical form.
[Sec. II, Proposition 3] Proposition 3 claims that for batteries with only hopping, charged by the WS field, the normalized work is W_x(t)=1-cos(r_c^x t) for any lattice size and particle number. No proof is given. Since this proposition underlies the scaling analysis in Sec. III and the 'arbitrary particle number' aspect of the closed-form claim, a proof or at least a clear derivation is needed. Without it, the proposition is unsupported.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 1 and Sec. II] The caption of Fig. 1 labels the vertical axis as J_c^F/U_c^F and the text says Case 2 varies J_c^F and r_c^F; these conventions are inconsistent and should be clarified.
[References] References [50] and [62] appear to be the same paper (Konar et al., Phys. Rev. A 106, 022618 (2022)); merge or distinguish them to avoid duplicate citations.
[Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors, including 'femionic', 'explicitely', and 'All of them is computed'; the manuscript should be carefully proofread.
[Eq. (16)] The factor 2 on the right-hand side of Eq. (16) is unexplained; if the operators A_i(omega) are defined with an implicit normalization, this should be stated.
[Sec. IV and Eqs. (11)-(12)] The system-bath coupling is called a dephasing model, but the KMS rates in Eq. (15) allow energy exchange and thermalization; a less misleading term would be 'local number-coupling bath' or 'amplitude-damping-type dephasing bath'.
[Sec. II, Proposition 2] For the fermionic initial state in Proposition 2, the paper uses a mixture of only the two S_z=0 states of the degenerate ground-state manifold; this choice should be justified or explicitly stated as a particular preparation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: results are computed from stated Hamiltonians, and the open-system ergotropy issue is a physics-consistency question rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper's closed-system chain is self-contained: initial states are ground states of the Bose- and Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonians in Eqs. (1)-(2), the charging Hamiltonians are written explicitly in the proofs of Propositions 1-3, and the work output is computed as Tr[H_x(rho_f - rho_in)] in Eq. (3), with maximum average power defined by Eq. (4). No parameter appearing in the reported power or ergotropy values is fitted to the target quantity; the threshold in the Wannier-Stark charging strength and the boson-over-fermion activation are located by direct numerical scans of P_max in Figs. 2-5. The main self-citation, Ref. [62], supplies the no-WS baseline P_F >= P_B, but the paper's own rc=0 curves in Figs. 2-3 provide the same comparison, so the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain. Equation (5) is an empirical functional ansatz for finite-size work output, not a fit used to predict the same quantity, and no load-bearing result depends on its undetermined coefficients. The open-system section does raise a serious physics concern: a single-temperature Davies generator of the form in Eqs. (13)-(16) has the Gibbs state as a stationary state, so positive steady-state ergotropy in Fig. 6 requires validation, and Eq. (17) uses max where the standard ergotropy definition requires min. These are correctness and modeling risks, not circularity, because the reported steady-state ergotropy is not forced by construction or by a fitted parameter. Overall circularity score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Hubbard-model and open-quantum-system machinery. No free parameters are fitted to data; the system parameters J, U, r, and beta are scanned. The main unverified inputs are the numerical ansatz Eq. (5), the dephasing-bath master equation in Sec. IV, and the normalization convention. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The GKSL master equation with edge-local dephasing baths, Eqs. (13)-(16), accurately models the cold-atom battery coupled to thermal reservoirs.
All environment-assisted ergotropy results in Sec. IV rely on this master equation and its KMS transition rates.
ad hoc to paper The work-output for arbitrary lattice size has the trigonometric form of Eq. (5) with coefficients alpha, beta, gamma that are functions of the charging parameters.
This ansatz is asserted from numerical simulations but not derived; the claimed closed form for arbitrary N depends on it.
domain assumption The Hamiltonian normalization 1/(Emax-Emin)[2H-(Emax-Emin)I] gives a fair comparison across systems.
Used to make work output independent of hopping strength; affects all quantitative power claims and comparisons.
standard math Standard ergotropy is defined by minimization over unitaries, despite Eq. (17) writing a maximum.
The paper cites standard ergotropy references [1,2]; the written formula in Eq. (17) appears to be a typo, and the positive values in the figures indicate the authors likely used the standard minimum in computations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constructive impact of Wannier-Stark field on environment-boosted quantum batteries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G36QDNA4

@misc{pith2026250101309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constructive impact of Wannier-Stark field on environment-boosted quantum batteries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G36QDNA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01309}
}

read the original abstract

Using the ground states of the Bose- and Fermi-Hubbard model as the battery's initial state, we demonstrate that using the Wannier-Stark (WS) field for charging in addition to onsite interactions can increase the maximum power of the battery. Although the benefit is not ubiquitous, bosonic batteries are more affected by the WS field than fermionic ones. In particular, there exists a critical WS field strength above which the power gets increased in the battery. Further, we determine a closed form expression of the stored work when the battery is in the ground state of the Bose- and Fermi-Hubbard model with only hopping term and the charging is carried out with onsite interactions and WS field irrespective of lattice-size of the battery. Moreover, we exhibit that it is possible to extract work in the fermionic batteries even without charging when the edge sites are attached to two local thermal baths having high temperatures -- this process we refer to as {\it environment-assisted ergotropy}. Note, however, that the bosonic batteries are able to exhibit such an environmental benefit in the transient regime when the lattice-size is increased and when Wannier-Stark field is present. Nonetheless, if the onsite interaction or WS potential with a critical strength is utilized as a charger, energy can be stored and extracted from both bosonic and fermionic batteries in the presence of the thermal baths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01309 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Variation of maximum power, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Variation of maximum power, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Scaling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Scaling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Fluctuation in energy extraction from quantum batteries: How open should the system be to control it?
quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For fixed quantum batteries, random unitary, CPTP, and general quantum maps extract the same average energy, but fluctuations vanish only in a Cesàro limit over auxiliary dimensions; finite-ancilla scalings are 1/n (C...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

To achieve this goal, the initial state is pre- pared in the ground state of the battery Hamiltonian, HF = −JF P ⟨ij⟩ ˆc† iσˆcjσ + h.c

Environment-induced ergotropy for fermions Let us first demonstrate that the battery can provide the max- imal extractable work with the help of system-environment interactions – we call this concept as environment-induced ergotropy. To achieve this goal, the initial state is pre- pared in the ground state of the battery Hamiltonian, HF = −JF P ⟨ij⟩ ˆc† i...

work page
[2]

Therefore, it is crucial to exam- ine the charging Hamiltonian, which governs the unitary evo- lution of the system

Charging and discharging in presence of environment It is expected that the environment has a detrimental impact on the charging process of the quantum battery, reducing the amount of extractable work. Therefore, it is crucial to exam- ine the charging Hamiltonian, which governs the unitary evo- lution of the system. Specifically, the interplay between th...

work page 2021
[3]

irrespective of the filling factor). When the initial state of the battery is prepared in presence of strong hopping strength, the comparable (strong) Wannier-Stark field is required for bosons to outperform the femionic batteries. These results establish that Wannier-Stark field is essential in order to obtain more power from the bosonic batteries – we c...

work page
[4]

Alicki and M

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

2013
[5]

Campaioli, S

F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031001 (2024)

2024
[6]

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
[7]

Koffel, M

T. Koffel, M. Lewenstein, and L. Tagliacozzo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 267203 (2012)

2012
[8]

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

2018

Show all 80 references

[9]

Ghosh, T

S. Ghosh, T. Chanda, and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A 101, 032115 (2020)

2020
[10]

Ghosh and A

S. Ghosh and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A 105, 022628 (2022)

2022
[11]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

2009
[12]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017)

2017
[13]

Ferraro, M

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

2018
[14]

G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, V . Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B 99, 205437 (2019). 9

2019
[15]

A. C. Santos, B. i. e. i. f. m. c. C ¸ akmak, S. Campbell, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. E100, 032107 (2019)

2019
[16]

Rossini, G

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

2020
[17]

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)

2020
[18]

Sen and U

K. Sen and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A 104, L030402 (2021)

2021
[19]

Crescente, M

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

2020
[20]

Crescente, D

A. Crescente, D. Ferraro, M. Carrega, and M. Sassetti, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033216 (2022)

2022
[21]

Mondal and S

S. Mondal and S. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Rev. E 105, 044125 (2022)

2022
[22]

T. K. Konar, A. Patra, R. Gupta, S. Ghosh, and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A 110, 022226 (2024)

2024
[23]

T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, and A. Sen (De), Phys. Rev. A 109, 042207 (2024)

2024
[24]

Chaki, A

P. Chaki, A. Bhattacharyya, K. Sen, and U. Sen, arXiv (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2404.18745, 2404.18745

2024 doi arXiv
[25]

M. B. Arjmandi, A. Shokri, E. Faizi, and H. Mohammadi, Phys. Rev. A 106, 062609 (2022)

2022
[26]

T. F. F. Santos, Y . V . de Almeida, and M. F. Santos, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032203 (2023)

2023
[27]

Chaki, A

P. Chaki, A. Bhattacharyya, K. Sen, and U. Sen, arXiv (2023), 10.48550/arXiv.2307.16856, 2307.16856

2023 doi
[28]

Rodr ´ıguez, D

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

2023
[29]

Mitra and S

A. Mitra and S. C. L. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012227 (2024)

2024
[30]

Yan and J

J.-s. Yan and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064069 (2023)

2023
[31]

Song, H.-B

W.-L. Song, H.-B. Liu, B. Zhou, W.-L. Yang, and J.-H. An, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 090401 (2024)

2024
[32]

Topological quan- tum batteries,

Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y . L¨u, and C. Shang, “Topological quan- tum batteries,” (2024), arXiv:2405.03675 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Z. Niu, Y . Wu, Y . Wang, X. Rong, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 180401 (2024)

2024
[34]

Ergotropy, bound energy and entanglement in 1d long range kitaev model,

A. Mitra and S. C. L. Srivastava, “Ergotropy, bound energy and entanglement in 1d long range kitaev model,” (2024), arXiv:2408.05063 [cond-mat.str-el]

2024 arXiv
[35]

Extractable energy from quantum superposition of current states,

F. Perciavalle, D. Rossini, J. Polo, and L. Amico, “Extractable energy from quantum superposition of current states,” (2024), arXiv:2410.13934 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[36]

Floquet driven long-range interactions induce super-extensive scaling in quantum battery,

S. Puri, T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, and A. S. De, “Floquet driven long-range interactions induce super-extensive scaling in quantum battery,” (2024), arXiv:2412.00921 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[37]

Exper- imental analysis of energy transfers between a quantum emitter and light fields,

I. M. de Buy Wenniger, S. E. Thomas, M. Maffei, S. C. Wein, M. Pont, N. Belabas, S. Prasad, A. Harouri, A. Lema ˆıtre, I. Sagnes, N. Somaschi, A. Auff `eves, and P. Senellart, “Exper- imental analysis of energy transfers between a quantum emitter and light fields,” (2023), arX...

2023 arXiv
[38]

Dou and F.-M

F.-Q. Dou and F.-M. Yang, Phys. Rev. A107, 023725 (2023)

2023
[39]

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 Technology7, 045018 (2022)

2022
[40]

Gemme, M

G. Gemme, M. Grossi, D. Ferraro, S. Vallecorsa, and M. Sas- setti, Batteries 8 (2022), 10.3390/batteries8050043

2022 doi
[41]

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, Sci. Adv.8 (2022), 10.1126/sciadv.abk3160

2022 doi
[42]

Joshi and T

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

2022
[43]

Rojo-Franc `as, F

A. Rojo-Franc `as, F. Isaule, A. C. Santos, B. Juli ´a-D´ıaz, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. A110, 032205 (2024)

2024
[44]

Halder, S

P. Halder, S. Ghosh, S. Roy, and T. Guha, arXiv (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05956, 2403.05956

2024 doi arXiv
[45]

G. Zhu, Y . Chen, Y . Hasegawa, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 240401 (2023)

2023
[46]

M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, A. Saguia, M. S. Sarandy, and A. C. Santos, Phys. Rev. E 108, 064106 (2023)

2023
[47]

Mandel, M

O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. H¨ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature 425, 937 (2003)

2003
[48]

Lewenstein, A

M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V . Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Advances in Physics 56, 243 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018730701223200

2007 doi
[49]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

2008
[50]

Amico, D

L. Amico, D. Anderson, M. Boshier, J.-P. Brantut, L.-C. Kwek, A. Minguzzi, and W. von Klitzing, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 041001 (2022)

2022
[51]

Pezz `e, A

L. Pezz `e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

2018
[52]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb `ene, Nat. Phys.8, 267–276 (2012)

2012
[54]

Stark, Nature 92, 401 (1913)

J. Stark, Nature 92, 401 (1913)

1913
[55]

G. H. Wannier and A. Maradudin, Phys. Today 13, 60 (1960)

1960
[56]

G. H. Wannier, Phys. Rev. 117, 432 (1960)

1960
[57]

Sachdev, K

S. Sachdev, K. Sengupta, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. B 66, 075128 (2002)

2002
[58]

Buchleitner and A

A. Buchleitner and A. R. Kolovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 253002 (2003)

2003
[59]

A. R. Kolovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 213002 (2003)

2003
[60]

D. O. Krimer, R. Khomeriki, and S. Flach, Phys. Rev. E 80, 036201 (2009)

2009
[61]

Ribeiro, A

P. Ribeiro, A. Lazarides, and M. Haque, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110603 (2020)

2020
[62]

J. Gao, I. M. Khaymovich, A. Iovan, X.-W. Wang, G. Krishna, Z.-S. Xu, E. Tortumlu, A. V . Balatsky, V . Zwiller, and A. W. Elshaari, Phys. Rev. B 108, L140202 (2023)

2023
[63]

Udono, T

M. Udono, T. Kaneko, and K. Sugimoto, Phys. Rev. B 108, L081304 (2023)

2023
[64]

N. A. Boidi, K. Hallberg, A. Aharony, and O. Entin-Wohlman, Phys. Rev. B 109, L041404 (2024)

2024
[65]

T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, S. Ghosh, and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A 106, 022618 (2022)

2022
[66]

Tindall, B

J. Tindall, B. Bu ˇca, J. R. Coulthard, and D. Jaksch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 030603 (2019)

2019
[67]

Dissipation-induced long-range order in the one-dimensional bose-hubbard model,

A. L. S. Ribeiro, P. McClarty, P. Ribeiro, and M. Weber, “Dissipation-induced long-range order in the one-dimensional bose-hubbard model,” (2023), arXiv:2311.07683 [cond-mat.str- el]

2023 arXiv
[68]

Dephasing induced long- ranged entangled pairs,

A. Saha, S. Das, and D. Rakshit, “Dephasing induced long- ranged entangled pairs,” (2024), arXiv:2412.07876 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[69]

V orberg, W

D. V orberg, W. Wustmann, R. Ketzmerick, and A. Eckardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240405 (2013)

2013
[70]

V orberg, W

D. V orberg, W. Wustmann, H. Schomerus, R. Ketzmerick, and A. Eckardt, Phys. Rev. E 92, 062119 (2015)

2015
[71]

Kordas, D

G. Kordas, D. Witthaut, P. Buonsante, A. Vezzani, R. Burioni, A. I. Karanikas, and S. Wimberger, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.224, 2127 (2015)

2015
[72]

Wu and A

L.-N. Wu and A. Eckardt, Phys. Rev. B 101, 220302 (2020)

2020
[73]

Wu and A

L.-N. Wu and A. Eckardt, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L022045 (2022)

2022
[74]

Wu and A

L.-N. Wu and A. Eckardt, SciPost Phys. 13, 059 (2022)

2022
[75]

Schaller, F

G. Schaller, F. Queisser, N. Szpak, J. K¨onig, and R. Sch ¨utzhold, Phys. Rev. B 105, 115139 (2022). 10

2022
[76]

Carisch, A

C. Carisch, A. Romito, and O. Zilberberg, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L042031 (2023)

2023
[77]

Scarlatella, A

O. Scarlatella, A. A. Clerk, and M. Schir `o, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013033 (2024)

2024
[78]

Many-body open quantum systems,

R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schir `o, “Many-body open quantum systems,” (2024), arXiv:2409.10300 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[79]

Gl ¨uck, A

M. Gl ¨uck, A. R. Kolovsky, and H. J. Korsch, Physics Reports 366, 103 (2002)

2002
[80]

H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

2002
[81]

Rivas and S

A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga, Open Quantum Systems: An Intro- duction (SpringerBriefs in Physics, Springer, Spain, 2012)

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

To achieve this goal, the initial state is pre- pared in the ground state of the battery Hamiltonian, HF = −JF P ⟨ij⟩ ˆc† iσˆcjσ + h.c

Environment-induced ergotropy for fermions Let us first demonstrate that the battery can provide the max- imal extractable work with the help of system-environment interactions – we call this concept as environment-induced ergotropy. To achieve this goal, the initial state is pre- pared in the ground state of the battery Hamiltonian, HF = −JF P ⟨ij⟩ ˆc† i...

work page

[2] [2]

Therefore, it is crucial to exam- ine the charging Hamiltonian, which governs the unitary evo- lution of the system

Charging and discharging in presence of environment It is expected that the environment has a detrimental impact on the charging process of the quantum battery, reducing the amount of extractable work. Therefore, it is crucial to exam- ine the charging Hamiltonian, which governs the unitary evo- lution of the system. Specifically, the interplay between th...

work page 2021

[3] [3]

irrespective of the filling factor). When the initial state of the battery is prepared in presence of strong hopping strength, the comparable (strong) Wannier-Stark field is required for bosons to outperform the femionic batteries. These results establish that Wannier-Stark field is essential in order to obtain more power from the bosonic batteries – we c...

work page

[4] [4]

Alicki and M

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

2013

[5] [5]

Campaioli, S

F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031001 (2024)

2024

[6] [6]

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

[7] [7]

Koffel, M

T. Koffel, M. Lewenstein, and L. Tagliacozzo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 267203 (2012)

2012

[8] [8]

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

2018