Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

Efficient wireless charging of a quantum battery

T0 review · 0 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 This paper claims that, for a quantum battery charged wirelessly through a common lossy cavity, the strong-coupling regime gives the fastest and most efficient charging, with a single charging unit outperforming multiple units.

desk verdict Useful design rules for reservoir-mediated wireless QB charging, with a clean analytic anchor; the numerics lack convergence documentation but the central claims hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08843 v2 pith:BC4WMPGC submitted 2025-01-15 quant-ph

Ming-Liang Hu , Ting Gao , Heng Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumbatterywirelesschargingergotropypseudomodemasterequationLorentzianreservoirstrongcouplingcommontime
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 claims that a quantum battery can be charged wirelessly by one or more charger qubits that share a common lossy-cavity reservoir, with no direct charger-battery coupling, and that charging performance is governed mainly by the qubit-cavity coupling strength. In the strong-coupling regime the charging time becomes insensitive to how much energy the charger starts with, how many charger units are used, and whether the battery already holds residual ergotropy, while the amount of extractable work stored at the charging time grows with coupling and approaches the charger's total energy for a single unit. The authors find that residual ergotropy in the battery never helps: the battery must first discharge before it can be recharged. Multiple charging units help only in the weak and moderate coupling regimes, where they compensate for low per-unit energy, whereas in the strong-coupling regime a single unit is both faster and more efficient. These results matter because realistic chargers are not always maximally excited and batteries are not always empty, so charging protocols need to know which parameters actually control speed and capacity.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the pseudomode master equation for $N$ qubits in a common Lorentzian reservoir. A Lorentzian spectral density $J(\omega) = (\Omega^2/\pi)\,\lambda/((\omega-\omega_0)^2+\lambda^2)$ is equivalent to a single damped bosonic mode, the pseudomode, with decay rate $\lambda$ interacting with the qubits through $V = \Omega\sum_i (\sigma_i^+ a + \sigma_i^- a^\dagger)$. This converts the non-Markovian reservoir problem into a Lindblad master equation $\partial\rho/\partial t = -i[V,\rho] + \lambda(2a\rho a^\dagger - a^\dagger a\rho - \rho a^\dagger a)$, whose numerical solution with a truncated pseudomode Hilbert space yields the qubit dynamics. The dimensionless ratio $R = \sqrt{2}\,\Omega/\lambda$ marks the strong-coupling (good cavity, $R\gg 1$) versus weak-coupling (bad cavity, $R\ll 1$) regimes, and ergotropy $E$, split into incoherent and coherent components $E_i$ and $E_c$, is the figure of merit. This machinery lets the authors scan the charger excitation $c_i$, the residual battery ergotropy $e_1$, the unit number $n$, and the cell number $m$, and extract the charging time $\bar t$, maximal ergotropy $\bar E$, and efficiency $P_{\bar E} = \Delta\bar E/\Delta E_{\rm ch}$.

What would settle it

A cavity-QED experiment with one charger qubit prepared at two different excitation probabilities $c_1$ and a ground-state battery would settle the claim: in the strong-coupling regime the theory predicts a $c_1$-independent charging time $\lambda\bar t = 2\pi/\sqrt{4R^2-1}$ and an asymptotic charged ergotropy $\bar E = c_1\omega_0$; observing a charging time that depends on $c_1$, or a substantial deviation from the predicted $\bar E/c_1$ versus $R$ curve, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a set of control rules for cavity-mediated wireless charging of a quantum battery. Treating the first $n$ of $N$ qubits as chargers and the rest as the battery, all coupled to a zero-temperature Lorentzian reservoir, the authors solve the dynamics with a pseudomode master equation and evaluate the ergotropy $E$, the maximum work extractable by cyclic unitaries, at the first dynamical maximum, defining the charging time $\bar t$. They show that increasing the coupling strength $R = \sqrt{2}\,\Omega/\lambda$ monotonically shortens $\bar t$ and raises the charged ergotropy $\bar E$; in the strong-coupling (good-cavity) limit a single charger unit transfers essentially all its initial ergotropy into the battery, with $\bar E \to c_1\omega_0$ in scenario I and $\bar E \to \omega_0$ in scenario II, and with $\bar t$ independent of the charger excitation $c_1$ and nearly independent of the battery's residual ergotropy $e_1$. Adding a second or third charger unit shortens $\bar t$ slightly but lowers the asymptotic charged ergotropy and the charging efficiency $P_{\bar E} = \Delta\bar E/\Delta E_{\rm ch}$ below the single-unit values, so multiple units are beneficial only when the coupling is weak or moderate. The paper also derives analytic results for an $m$-cell battery charged by one unit, showing that the charging time scales as $\lambda\bar t \sim \sqrt{2}\,\pi/(\sqrt{m+1}\,R)$ and that the maximal ergotropy decreases with $m$, with different logarithmic scaling exponents for the collective battery and for each cell.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that replacing the reservoir by one damped auxiliary mode, the pseudomode, gives the exact N-qubit dynamics, with the numerical truncation of that mode's Hilbert space converged; if either assumption fails for states with more than one excitation, the multi-unit results would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a high-finesse cavity, one partially excited charger qubit can charge a ground-state quantum battery to nearly its own energy content at a speed set by the cavity, not by the charger's state.
  • Strong coupling makes the charging time robust to how the charger and battery are prepared, so precise state initialization is unnecessary for timing.
  • Adding more charger units is counterproductive in a good cavity: it lowers both the maximum stored ergotropy and the fraction of charger energy converted to extractable work.
  • In lossy, weak-coupling environments, multiple low-energy charger units are a practical way to compensate for the lack of energy in any single unit and improve the battery's charged ergotropy.
  • A battery with leftover ergotropy cannot be topped up immediately; it must pass through a fully discharged state first, and the best charging performance is achieved from the ground state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the state-insensitive charging time in the strong-coupling regime suggests a universal, coupling-limited charging rate that could be used to synchronize many quantum batteries charged from one cavity without per-battery state calibration.
  • Editorial inference: the $m$-cell scaling $\lambda\bar t \sim \sqrt{2}\,\pi/(\sqrt{m+1}\,R)$ implies that charging a large cell bank may be only logarithmically slower than charging a single cell, so parallel battery modules merit experimental testing beyond the paper's $n+m \le 4$ numerics.
  • Editorial inference: testing finite-temperature and non-Lorentzian reservoirs with the same pseudomode approach would show whether the strong-coupling advantage survives thermal noise and more realistic spectra; the paper's dissipative mechanism suggests the advantage degrades but may not erase the insensitivity.
  • Editorial inference: the efficiency drop with multiple units points to a speed-capacity trade-off, so a protocol that operates in weak coupling to accumulate energy and then switches to strong coupling for extraction might outperform any fixed-coupling protocol.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a set of control rules for cavity-mediated wireless charging of a quantum battery. Treating the first $n$ of $N$ qubits as chargers and the rest as the battery, all coupled to a zero-temperature Lorentzian reservoir, the authors solve the dynamics with a pseudomode master equation and evaluate the ergotropy $E$, the maximum work extractable by cyc

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a wireless charging protocol for a quantum battery (QB) in which n charger qubits and a QB are coupled to a common zero-temperature Lorentzian reservoir, with no direct charger-QB interaction. The authors solve the pseudomode master equation (Eq. (9)) for N=2,3,4 qubits and examine two scenarios: a charger with nonmaximal energy and an empty QB (scenario I), and a fully excited charger with a QB that has residual ergotropy (scenario II). The central findings are that stronger coupling reduces the charging time and increases the charged ergotropy; in the strong-coupling regime the charging time is insensitive to c1, e1, and n; residual ergotropy does not help; and multiple charging units are beneficial only in weak or moderate coupling. An analytic solution in Appendix A for the special case of one charger and an m-cell QB supports the c1-independence of the charging time.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides concrete design rules for cavity-mediated wireless QB charging: operate in the strong-coupling (good-cavity) regime for fast, high-capacity charging, and use multiple charger units only when the coupling is weak or moderate. The analytic special case in Appendix A is a genuine strength: it yields an exact, parameter-free expression for the charging time t-bar = 2*pi/|zeta| that is independent of the charger-state parameter c1, and it supports the large-R saturation of the charged ergotropy. The numerical implementation uses the standard pseudomode master equation, and the scanned parameters c1 and e1 are not fitted to force the conclusions; the only fitted quantities are descriptive scaling exponents in Fig. 12. The small system sizes (N<=4) and the analytic check make the central claims credible, although the numerical details are not fully documented.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (9)] The Fock-space truncation of the pseudomode and the numerical convergence checks for the N=3 and N=4 cases are not stated; because the interaction V in Eq. (10) and the Lindblad damping conserve or decrease the total excitation number, a cutoff at N+1 excitations is exact for the initial states considered, and the authors should state this explicitly and report a convergence check (e.g., cutoff N+1 versus N+2).
  2. [Section V and Fig. 12] The claim of a power-law scaling "in the large m region" is supported only by the four points m=1,...,4; since the analytic formulas in Appendix A allow larger m at no numerical cost, the authors should either extend the fit to larger m or weaken the claim.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The formulas for nu_1(t) and nu_2(t) should be written with explicit parentheses as (p(t)+m)/(m+1) and (p(t)-1)/(m+1); the current inline notation is ambiguous.
  4. [Section IV B, Fig. 9] Critical values such as c1,r approximately 0.6045 and 0.6575 are quoted without error estimates or a description of the interpolation method; please state how these digits were determined and provide a small uncertainty estimate.
  5. [Throughout] The phrase "we do not show them here" appears for the charger ergotropy and for the alternative efficiency P_E defined in Eq. (14); moving these results to an appendix or providing the corresponding figures would improve verifiability.
  6. [Abstract and Summary] The wording "the residual ergotropy in the QB does not help to enhance its performance" is accurate for E-bar and t-bar as defined, but the total final ergotropy naturally includes the initial residual value; a one-sentence qualification would prevent overgeneralization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are computed from the stated model equations with scanned parameters, not fitted to the target outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper defines the model in Eqs. (6)-(10), fixes Lorentzian reservoir parameters, and then computes the ergotropy dynamics and charging times from the pseudomode master equation without fitting any parameter to the claimed results. The initial-state parameters c1 and e1 are scanned over their ranges, and the reported charging-time insensitivity is derived analytically in Appendix A: for the special initial state, E(ρ) is a nondecreasing function of |ν2| when 2(m+1)R^2 > 1, so the charging time t̄ = 2π/|ζ| is independent of c1 by the explicit formula, not by construction of the claim. The multi-charging-unit comparisons are direct numerical differences of quantities computed from the same equations, and the scaling exponents in Fig. 12 are descriptive fits to already-computed points, not inputs used to generate the central results. The only self-citation in the paper is Ref. [70], a background reference on wireless charging that is not load-bearing, and the pseudomode method is attributed to independent prior literature [77-81]. The unspecified pseudomode truncation is a reproducibility concern, but it is bounded by excitation-number conservation for the few-excitation initial states considered, so it does not make the claims circular. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, mediators, or conserved quantities are introduced; the pseudomode is an established auxiliary representation from Refs. 77-79. The central results rest on the pseudomode master equation and scanned initial-state parameters c1 and e1. The only fitted numbers are the scaling exponents in Fig. 12, which are descriptive outputs and do not encode the central claims.

free parameters (2)
  • Scaling exponent for E(rho_ba) versus m = alpha = -1.2270, intercept 0.3899
    Obtained by linear regression on numerical data in Fig. 12(a) for R=20, c1=0.8. This is a descriptive scaling law and is not used to derive the central charging claims.
  • Scaling exponent for m*E(rho_ba,l) versus m = alpha = -0.9037, intercept -0.8425
    Obtained by linear regression on numerical data in Fig. 12(b) for R=20, c1=0.8. This is a descriptive scaling law and is not used to derive the central charging claims.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation and zero-temperature vacuum initial reservoir state (Eq. 7)
    Standard cavity QED modeling; excludes counter-rotating terms and thermal photons.
  • domain assumption Lorentzian spectral density J(omega) = (Omega^2/pi) lambda / ((omega-omega0)^2 + lambda^2) (Eq. 8)
    Specific structured reservoir model for a lossy cavity; all results pertain to this spectrum.
  • domain assumption Pseudomode master equation (Eq. 9) with a single damped mode exactly captures the N-qubit dynamics
    Established pseudomode method, but exactness for multi-excitation sectors and the numerical truncation are not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption Identical coupling of all qubits to the reservoir and no direct charger-battery interaction (Eqs. 7 and 10)
    Model assumption; the authors themselves list different coupling strengths and detuning as future work.
  • domain assumption Charging time is defined as the first dynamical maximum of ergotropy
    The paper notes that the global maximum can occur at a later dynamical maximum (Fig. 9 star), so performance conclusions depend on this convention.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient wireless charging of a quantum battery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BC4WMPGC

@misc{pith2026250108843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient wireless charging of a quantum battery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BC4WMPGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08843}
}
abstract

We explore the wireless charging of a quantum battery (QB) via $n$ charging units, whose coupling is mediated by a common bosonic reservoir. We consider the general scenarios in which the charger energy is not maximal and the QB has residual ergotropy initially. It is found that the charging performance improves with the increase of the coupling strength. In the strong coupling regime, the charging time is insensitive to the charger energy, the number of charging units, and the residual ergotropy in the QB, while the ergotropy charged on the QB strongly depends on the charger energy and ergotropy, and the residual ergotropy in the QB does not help to enhance its performance. Moreover, the multiple charging units help to enhance the charging performance in the weak and moderate coupling regimes, while they are less efficient in the strong coupling regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic representation of the wireless charging o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. , one can see that for this scenario, Ec ≡ 0 when e1 = 0, and when e1 ∈ (0, 1), the incoherent and coherent components of the ergotropy E dominate its dynamics alternately. Simi￾lar to that of scenario I, there is always a moment when E is zero or infinitesimal. Physically, this phenomenon for both scenarios is due to the fact that the indirect coupling between the charger and the QB is induced by the cavity mode th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: The ergotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The ergotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Dynamics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Comparison of the charging e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Scaling behaviors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.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

  1. Two-time weak measurement protocol for ergotropy protection in open quantum batteries

    quant-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-time weak measurement protocol can slow the self-discharge of open quantum batteries and yield a positive ergotropy gain with zero net measurement-induced energy and ergotropy shifts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and Th. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems, Euro- phys. Lett. 67, 565 (2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    7 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0E/ω 0 (a) c1,2 = 0

    Specifically, except the case of c1 = 1 and e1 = 0 for which Ec ≡ 0, for scenario I (II) with c1 /greaterorsimilar0.5078 (e1 /nequal0 and 1), the two components of ergotropy dominate its dynamics alternately, whereas for scenario I w ith c1 ≲ 0.5078, the coherent contribution is always dominant. 7 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0E/ω 0 (a) c1,2 = 0. 8 c1,2 = 1. 0 c1,2...

  3. [3]

    Lenard, Thermodynamical proof of the Gibbs formula fo r elementary quantum systems, J

    A. Lenard, Thermodynamical proof of the Gibbs formula fo r elementary quantum systems, J. Stat. Phys. 19, 575 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Pusz and S

    W. Pusz and S. L. Woronowicz, Passive states and KMS state s for general quantum systems, Commun. Math. Phys. 58, 273 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Entanglement boost for extracta ble work from ensembles of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042123 (2013). 12

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Alimuddin, T

    M. Alimuddin, T. Guha, and P . Parashar, Structure of pass ive states and its implication in charging quantum batteries, P hys. Rev. E 102, 022106 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Perarnau-Llobet, K

    M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. V . Hovhannisyan, M. Huber, P . Skrzypczyk, N. Brunner, and A. Ac´ ın, Extractable work from correlations, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041011 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    K. V . Hovhannisyan, M. Perarnau-Llobet, M. Huber, and A. Ac´ ın, Entanglement generation is not necessary for optima l work extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240401 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, M. Campisi, V . Giovan- netti, and M. Polini, Extratable work, the role of correlati ons, and asymoptotic freedom in quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 122, 047702 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Mukherjee, A

    A. Mukherjee, A. Roy, S. S. Bhattacharya, and M. Banik, Presence of quantum correlations results in a nonvanishing er- gotropic gap, Phys. Rev. E 93, 052140 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    and the m-cell QB is in the state |0⟩⊗m initially, one can obtain ana- lytically the ergotropy E(ρba) charged on the m-cell QB and the ergotropy E(ρba,l) charged on each battery cell (see Ap- pendix A). Based on these analytical results, one can show that in the strong couplin...

  4. [12]

    L. P . Garc´ ıa-Pintos, A. Hamma, and A. del Campo, Fluctu a- tions in extractable work bound the charging power of quantu m batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 040601 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Francica, F

    G. Francica, F. C. Binder, G. Guarnieri, M. T. Mitchison , J. Goold, and F. Plastina, Quantum coherence and ergotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 180603 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    C ¸ akmak, Ergotropy from coherences in an open quantu m system, Phys

    B. C ¸ akmak, Ergotropy from coherences in an open quantu m system, Phys. Rev. E 102, 042111 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, and S. Salimi, Entanglement, c oher- ence, and charging process of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 102, 052109 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    J. X. Liu, H. L. Shi, Y . H. Shi, X. H. Wang, and W. L. Yang, Entanglement and work extraction in the central-spin quant um battery, Phys. Rev. B 104, 245418 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Francica, Quantum correlations and ergotropy, Phys

    G. Francica, Quantum correlations and ergotropy, Phys . Rev. E 105, L052101 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    M. B. Arjmandi, A. Shokri, E. Faizi, and H. Mohammadi, Pe r- formance of quantum batteries with correlated and uncorrelated chargers, Phys. Rev. A 106, 062609 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    H. L. Shi, S. Ding, Q. K. Wan, X. H. Wang, and W. L. Yang, Entanglement, coherence, and extractable work in quantum bat- teries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 130602 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    X. Yang, Y . H. Yang, M. Alimuddin, R. Salvia, S. M. Fei, L. M. Zhao, S. Nimmrichter, and M. X. Luo, Battery capacity of energy-storing quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 030402 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    H. Y . Yang, H. L. Shi, Q. K. Wan, K. Zhang, X. H. Wang, and W. L. Yang, Optimal energy storage in the Tavis-Cummings quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012204 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    J. Y . Gyhm and U. R. Fischer, Beneficial and detrimental e n- tanglement for quantum battery charging, A VS Quantum Sci. 6, 012001 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    T. P . Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Poll ock, Spin-chain model of a many-body quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022106 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, and M. Polini, Many-body loc al- ized quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115142 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Chanda, and A. Sen(De), Enhancement in the p er- formance of a quantum battery by ordered and disordered inte r- actions, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032115 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    F. Q. Dou, H. Zhou, and J. A. Sun, Cavity Heisenberg-spin - chain quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 106, 032212 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Grazi, D

    R. Grazi, D. Sacco Shaikh, M. Sassetti, N. Traverso Zian i, and D. Ferraro, Controlling energy storage crossing quantum ph ase transitions in an integrable spin quantum battery, Phys. Re v. Lett. 133, 197001 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    W. Lu, J. Chen, L. M. Kuang, and X. Wang, Optimal state for a Tavis-Cummings quantum battery via the Bethe ansatz method, Phys. Rev. A 104, 043706 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Farina, G

    D. Farina, G. M. Andolina, A. Mari, M. Polini, and V . Giov an- netti, Charger-mediated energy transfer for quantum batte ries: an open-system approach, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035421 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    G. M. Andolina, D. Farina, A. Mari, V . Pellegrini, V . Gio van- netti, and M. Polini, Charger-mediated energy transfer in e x- actly solvable models for quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205423 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Y . V . de Almeida, T. F. F. Santos, and M. F. Santos, Cooperative isentropic charging of hybrid quantum batteries, Phys. Rev . A 108, 052218 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Fusco, M

    L. Fusco, M. Paternostro, and G. De Chiara, Work extract ion and energy storage in the Dicke model, Phys. Rev. E 94, 052122 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina, V . Pellegrini, a nd M. Polini, High-power collective charging of a solid-state quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 117702 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Y . Y . Zhang, T. R. Yang, L. Fu, and X. Wang, Powerful har- monic charging in a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. E 99, 052106 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    F. Q. Dou, Y . Q. Lu, Y . J. Wang, and J. A. Sun, Extended Dicke quantum battery with interatomic interactions and driving field, Phys. Rev. B 105, 115405 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    A. C. Santos, B. C ¸ akmak, S. Campbell, and N. T. Zinner, Stable adiabatic quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 100, 032107 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    D. L. Yang, F. M. Yang, and F. Q. Dou, Three-level Dicke quan- tum battery, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235432 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    F. M. Yang and F. Q. Dou, Resonator-qutrit quantum batte ry, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062432 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. C´ eleri, J.Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Pirmoradian and K

    F. Pirmoradian and K. Mølmer, Aging of a quantum battery , Phys. Rev. A 100, 043833 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    K. V . Hovhannisyan, F. Barra, and A. Imparato, Charging as- sisted by thermalization, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033413 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    A. C. Santos, A. Saguia, and M. S. Sarandy, Stable and cha rge- switchable quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E101, 062114 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    L. Peng, W. B. He, S. Chesi, H. Q. Lin, and X. W. Guan, Lower and upper bounds of quantum battery power in multiple centra l spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052220 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Ghosh and A

    S. Ghosh and A. Sen(De), Dimensional enhancements in a quantum battery with imperfections, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022628 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Crescente, M

    A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, U ltrafast charging in a two-photon Dicke quantum battery, Phys. Rev. B 102, 245407 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, A. Saguia, M. S. Sarandy, and A. C. Santos, Localization e ffects in disordered quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 108, 064106 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    P . Chen, T. S. Yin, Z. Q. Jiang, and G. R. Jin, Quantum en- hancement of a single quantum battery by repeated interacti ons with large spins, Phys. Rev. E 106, 054119 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Z. G. Lu, G. Tian, X. Y . L¨ u, and C. Shang, Topological quantum batteries, arXiv:2405.03675

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quanta- cell: powerful charging of quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 17, 075015 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, V . Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Quantum versus classical many-body batteries, Phy s. Rev. B 99, 205437 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, D. Rosa, M. Carrega, and M. Polini, Quantum advantage in the charging process of Sachde v- Ye-Kitaev batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 236402 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    A. C. Santos, Quantum advantage of two-level batteries in the self-discharging process, Phys. Rev. E 103, 042118 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    S. Seah, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack, N. Brunner, and S . 13 Nimmrichter, Quantum speed-up in collisional battery char g- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 100601 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    J. Y . Gyhm, D. ˇSafr´ anek, and D. Rosa, Quantum charging ad- vantage cannot be extensive without global operations, Phy s. Rev. Lett. 128, 140501 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    T. F. F. Santos, Y . V . de Almeida, and M. F. Santos, V acuum - enhanced charging of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032203 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Salvia, M

    R. Salvia, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack, N. Brunner, an d S. Nimmrichter, Quantum advantage in charging cavity and spin batteries by repeated interactions, Phys. Rev. Resear ch 5, 013155 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Juli` a-Farr´ e, T

    S. Juli` a-Farr´ e, T. Salamon, A. Riera, M. N. Bera, and M . Lewenstein, Bounds on the capacity and power of quantum bat- teries, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023113 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Zakavati, F

    S. Zakavati, F. T. Tabesh, and S. Salimi, Bounds on charg ing power of open quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 104, 054117 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Barra, Dissipative charging of a quantum battery, Ph ys

    F. Barra, Dissipative charging of a quantum battery, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 122, 210601 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    F. T. Tabesh, F. H. Kamin, and S. Salimi, Environment- mediated charging process of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052223 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi, F. Kheirandish, and A. C. Santos, Non-Markovian e ffects on charging and self- discharging process of quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 22, 083007 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Carrega, A

    M. Carrega, A. Crescente, D. Ferraro, and M. Sassetti, D issi- pative dynamics of an open quantum battery, New J. Phys. 22, 083085 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    J. Q. Quach and W. J. Munro, Using dark states to charge an d stabilize open quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 024092 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Chang, T

    W. Chang, T. R. Yang, H. Dong, L. Fu, X. Wang, and Y . Y . Zhang, Optimal building block of multipartite quantum batt ery in the driven-dissipative charging, New J. Phys. 23, 103026 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Chanda, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Fast chargin g of a quantum battery assisted by noise, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032207 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    M. L. Song, L. J. Li, X. K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Environment-mediated entropic uncertainty in charging qu an- tum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 106, 054107 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, and A. C. Santos, Enhanc- ing self-discharging process with disordered quantum batt eries, Phys. Rev. E 105, 054115 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    K. Xu, H. G. Li, Z. G. Li, H. J. Zhu, G. F. Zhang, and W. M. Liu, Charging performance of quantum batteries in a double- layer environment, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012425 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Mayo and A

    F. Mayo and A. J. Roncaglia, Collective e ffects and quantum coherence in dissipative charging of quantum batteries, Ph ys. Rev. A 105, 062203 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Carrasco, J

    J. Carrasco, J. R. Maze, C. Hermann-Avigliano, and F. Ba rra, Collective enhancement in dissipative quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 105, 064119 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Centrone, L

    F. Centrone, L. Mancino, and M. Paternostro, Charging b atter- ies with quantum squeezing, Phys. Rev. A 108, 052213 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    L. Wang, S. Q. Liu, F. L. Wu, H. Fan, and S. Y . Liu, Two-mode Raman quantum battery dependent on coupling strength, Phys . Rev. A 108, 062402 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    W. L. Song, H. B. Liu, B. Zhou, W. L. Yang, and J. H. An, Remote charging and degradation suppression for the quantu m battery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 090401 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    A. H. A. Malavazi, R. Sagar, B. Ahmadi, and P . R. Dieguez, Weak measurement-based protocol for ergotropy protection in open quantum batteries, arXiv:2411.16633

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Crescente, M

    A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, C harg- ing and energy fluctuations of a driven quantum battery, New J . Phys. 22, 063057 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Maniscalco, F

    S. Maniscalco, F. Francica, R. L. Za ffino, N. Lo Gullo, and F. Plastina, Protecting entanglement via the quantum Zeno e ffect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 090503 (2008)

    2008

  69. [77]

    Francica, S

    F. Francica, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, F. Plastina, and K .-A. Suominen, O ff-resonant entanglement generation in a lossy cavity, Phys. Rev. A 79, 032310 (2009)

    2009

  70. [78]

    Mazzola, S

    L. Mazzola, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, and K.-A. Suominen , Inter- play between entanglement and entropy in two-qubit systems , J. Phys. B 43, 085505 (2010)

    2010

  71. [79]

    B. M. Garraway, Nonperturbative decay of an atomic syst em in a cavity, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2290 (1997)

    1997

  72. [80]

    B. J. Dalton, S. M. Barnett, and B. M. Garraway, Theory of pseudomodes in quantum optical processes, Phys. Rev. A 64, 053813 (2001)

    2001

  73. [81]

    B. J. Dalton and B. M. Garraway, Non-Markovian decay of a three-level cascade atom in a structured reservoir, Phys. R ev. A 68, 033809 (2003)

    2003

  74. [82]

    Mazzola, S

    L. Mazzola, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, K.-A. Suominen, an d B. M. Garraway, Sudden death and sudden birth of entanglement in common structured reservoirs, Phys. Rev. A 79, 042302 (2009)

    2009

  75. [83]

    D. Z. Rossato, T. Werlang, L. K. Castelano, C. J. Villas- Boas, and F. F. Fanchini, Purity as a witness for initial syst em- environment correlations in open-system dynamics, Phys. R ev. A 84, 042113 (2011)

    2011

  76. [84]

    S. Kuhr, S. Gleyzes, C. Guerlin, J. Bernu, U. B. Ho ff, S. Del´ eglise, S. Osnaghi, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, S. Haroche , E. Jacques, P . Bosland, and B. Visentin, Ultrahigh finesse Fabry-P´ erot superconducting resonator, Appl. Phys. Lett . 90, 164101 (2007)

    2007

  77. [85]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P . A. Fish er, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987)

    1987

  78. [86]

    M. L. Hu, T. Gao, and H. Fan, Data for ”E fficient wireless charging of a quantum battery” [Data set], Zenodo (2025), do i: 10.5281/zenodo.15162165

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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