Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Improving Quantum Battery Capacity in Tripartite Quantum Systems by Local Projective Measurements

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any three-qubit X-state, a local projective measurement on one or two subsystems raises quantum battery capacity and restores its robustness to white and dephasing noise.

desk verdict Useful tripartite extension with explicit X-state formulas and clear examples, but Theorem 4's general-X-state proof has a real gap in Appendix C that the paper's own examples cannot fill. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15074 v1 pith:P2TD7DRN submitted 2025-06-18 quant-ph

Yiding Wang , Hui Liu , Shao-Ming Fei , Tinggui Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P45 PACS 04.70.Dy03.65.Ud04.62.+v
keywords quantumbatterycapacitylocalprojectivemeasurementtripartiteX-statesmajorizationSchur-convexitywhitenoisedephasingoptimaloperator
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 measuring one or two subsystems of a tripartite quantum battery can increase the battery capacity of the remaining subsystem and of the whole battery, even when the initial state is noisy. It works with general three-qubit X-states, derives explicit post-measurement capacity formulas in the computational basis, and defines an optimal local projective operator as the one whose post-measurement state majorizes all other measurement outcomes. The central result is that, for any three-qubit X-state, using this optimal operator improves capacity robustness against white noise and makes capacity completely insensitive to dephasing noise. A reader would care because it turns what looks like destructive measurement into a practical tool for storing more energy in multipartite quantum batteries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Schur-convex battery-capacity functional $C(\rho;H)$ together with majorization ordering of density-matrix spectra; the mechanism is a computational-basis local projective measurement, whose optimal operator is selected by the majorization criterion of Theorems 1 and 2. By collapsing the post-measurement state's support to at most four or two non-zero eigenvalues, the measurement produces a spectrum that majorizes the original's, and Schur convexity then forces capacity upward. This rank-reduction-majorization chain carries the entire argument, including the noise-robustness results.

What would settle it

Numerically sweep random three-qubit X-states: for each state, compute the capacity before and after every computational-basis rank-one projection on qubit C and on the pair BC, and check whether any post-measurement state has lower capacity than the original for the subsystem or the total system, including after white-noise and dephasing admixture. A single counterexample would disprove the claim that the optimal local projective operator always improves or preserves capacity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, quantum battery capacity, defined as $C(\rho;H)=\sum_i \epsilon_i (\lambda_i-\lambda_{d-1-i})$ for ordered eigenvalues and energy levels, is a Schur-convex functional of the state, so a state that majorizes another has no smaller capacity. For a general three-qubit X-state, projecting onto computational-basis states of one qubit (Scheme 1) or of two qubits (Scheme 2) produces diagonal post-measurement states with at most four or at most two non-zero eigenvalues, respectively. The paper proves in Theorem 4 that the optimal computational-basis local projective operator makes the post-measurement reduced state of the unmeasured subsystems and the post-measurement total state majorize their pre-measurement counterparts, hence their capacities increase; after white-noise admixture the same majorization survives, and under dephasing the post-measurement states are already diagonal, so dephasing leaves their capacity unchanged. In the W-state and GHZ-state examples, Scheme 2's capacity-recovery ratio is always at least Scheme 1's, which the paper attributes to the additional eigenvalue-rank reduction.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's load-bearing premise is a counting argument about the diagonal entries of the X-state: after the optimal local projection, the first k largest eigenvalues of the new state are claimed to be at least the first k of the old state for every k. If that counting around Eq. (C3) fails for some tripartite X-state, the general theorem loses its proof and only the numerical examples remain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any three-qubit X-state, a local projective measurement exists that increases both the measured subsystem's capacity and the total battery capacity over the unmeasured state.
  • Mixing in white noise does not remove the enhancement: the optimal operator's post-measurement state still majorizes the noised original, so capacity under noise is higher with measurement than without.
  • Under dephasing noise the enhancement is complete: because the post-measurement state is diagonal, the dephasing channel maps it to itself and capacity is unchanged.
  • Measuring two subsystems yields a total-capacity gain at least as large as measuring one subsystem in the examples examined, because the resulting state has at most two non-zero eigenvalues and stands higher in the majorization order.
  • The same majorization reasoning shows that while the capacity loss rate grows with noise intensity, the measurement scheme's recovery rate also grows, so the protocol acts as a partial counterweight to noise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof mechanism suggests the result should extend to any multiparty X-state with more than three parties, since rank reduction by local projectors and majorization are not special to three qubits, although the paper only proves the tripartite case.
  • Because the improvement is formulated purely through majorization, the same optimal-projector logic should transfer to any other Schur-convex figure of merit defined on density-matrix spectra, not only battery capacity.
  • The capacity gain is conditional on selecting the optimal measurement outcome; a feed-forward strategy that discards non-optimal branches or uses them to choose a different Hamiltonian could convert the branch improvement into a deterministic engineering resource.
  • Since dephasing leaves the optimal post-measurement state untouched, performing the local measurement before storage could serve as an inexpensive way to stabilize battery capacity against phase decoherence during later transmission.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two measurement-based protocols for tripartite quantum batteries: Scheme 1 applies a local projective measurement on subsystem C and examines the battery capacity of subsystem AB and the whole system, while Scheme 2 applies a local projective measurement on subsystem BC and examines subsystem A and the whole system. The authors define an optimal local-projective operator as one whose post-measurement state majorizes all other post-measurement states, and they state conditional theorems (Theorems 1 and 2) identifying such operators via majorization. They also prove that white noise reduces battery capacity (Theorem 3) and claim that, for any tripartite X-state, optimal local-projective operators improve the capacity robustness of the target subsystem and the whole system against white noise and provide complete robustness against dephasing noise (Theorem 4). The proofs rely on Schur-convexity of the capacity functional and on majorization arguments in Appendices B and C. Two numerical examples, based on W and GHZ states mixed with white noise, are presented to illustrate the protocols.

Significance. If the general-X-state claim of Theorem 4 were established, the paper would be a useful tripartite extension of the bipartite result in Ref. [47], and the explicit analytical expressions for three-qubit X-states in Appendix A would be a practical asset. The proof of Theorem 3 is correct and the reliance on the Schur-convexity of battery capacity is sound. However, the main general claim is not established: the whole-system majorization proof in Appendix C contains an unsupported combinatorial step, and the W-state example contains an incorrect majorization assertion. The conceptual contribution of Theorems 1 and 2 is also limited because they are essentially restatements of Schur-convexity rather than constructive identifications of optimal operators. The examples are only two special families of X-states and cannot substitute for a rigorous general proof. Strengths include the clear use of established capacity results, the explicit Bloch-representation calculations for X-states, and the correct proof of the noise-monotonicity theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, whole-system majorization] The proof that the optimal local-projective operator M1 satisfies rho1 majorizes rho for a general tripartite X-state is incomplete. The key step asserts that 'the first k* eigenvalues of rho in descending order correspond to a total of 2k* non-repeating diagonal elements, and at most k* of these diagonal elements belong to Ml rho Ml^dagger at the same time.' This is not generally true: eigenvalues of an X-state are obtained in pairs from 2x2 anti-diagonal blocks, so if two selected eigenvalues come from the same pair, they correspond to only two diagonal elements, not four; and there is no pigeonhole argument guaranteeing that a given measurement block contains at most k* of the selected diagonal elements. Since the subsequent partial-sum inequality sum_{i<=k*} lambda^1_i >= sum_{i<=k*} lambda_i is the only justification for rho1 majorizes rho, the whole-system part of Theorem 4, and hence the white-noise robustness claim for the total system, is not proven as written.
  2. [Section III, Example 1 (W state)] The assertion in Example 1 that 'rho0,AB_a majorizes rho1,AB_a' for the W state mixed with white noise is not correct. A direct calculation of the post-measurement reduced states on AB gives, for the measurement outcome C=0, eigenvalues ((8-5a)/(4(4-a)), (8-5a)/(4(4-a)), 3a/(4(4-a)), 3a/(4(4-a))) after normalization, and for C=1, eigenvalues ((8-5a)/(4(2+a)), 3a/(4(2+a)), 3a/(4(2+a)), 3a/(4(2+a))). For a=0.2 these sorted arrays are approximately (0.4605,0.4605,0.0395,0.0395) and (0.795,0.068,0.068,0.068); the first partial sum favors rho1 while the second favors rho0, so neither majorizes the other. Therefore Theorem 1 does not identify W0 as optimal in this example, and the numerical demonstration of Scheme 1 is unsupported.
  3. [Theorems 1 and 2] Theorems 1 and 2 are conditional statements that essentially restate the Schur-convexity of the capacity functional from Ref. [42]: if one post-measurement reduced state majorizes all others, then Schur-convexity immediately implies that it has the largest capacity. The theorems provide no existence result and no constructive procedure for identifying the optimal local-projective operator for a general state. Since Theorem 4 is also conditional on such an operator being identified, the practical scope of the protocol for general X-states is limited to checking a majorization condition case by case, and the paper does not supply such a procedure beyond the two examples.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix B] The eigenvalue ordering in Appendix B is written as 'lambda0 <= lambda2 <= ... <= lambda_{n-1}'; the second index should be lambda1.
  2. [Throughout] The identity operator is consistently rendered as '/BD' in the text; please replace it with a standard symbol such as I_d or blackboard-bold I.
  3. [Example 2] In the capacity expressions for the GHZ example, the subscript 'a' is used in 'C(rhoAB_a; HAB)' where the noise parameter is b; this should be 'rhoAB_b'.
  4. [Theorem 3] The phrase 'monotonic decreasing functional' should be 'monotonically nonincreasing functional', since the proof establishes that C((1-f)rho + f I/n; H) does not increase with f.
  5. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The arrays N_i are said to be in descending order before Eq. (C1), but the definition of the majorization relation in Eq. (C2) should explicitly state that the arrays are sorted in descending order, because the inequalities (C2) are only equivalent to majorization for sorted arrays.
  6. [Section III, Scheme 2 for the W state] The statement that 'I2 ⊗ V_i (i=0,1,2) are all optimal local projective operators' in Example 1 is not accompanied by the majorization check for the corresponding reduced states; this should be shown explicitly or the claim should be softened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims reduce to majorization plus Schur-convex capacity; the main caveat is an unproven converse in Appendix C, which is a proof gap rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The battery capacity is taken from Ref. [42] as a Schur-convex functional, and the enhancement claims are obtained by establishing majorization relations between pre- and post-measurement states. The optimal local-projective operator is defined in terms of capacity improvement, and Theorems 1 and 2 provide sufficient majorization criteria; the capacity ordering then follows from Schur-convexity, not from an assumed conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of the target result. The load-bearing issue in Appendix C is the assertion 'M1 is optimal implies that N1 ≻ Ni' (Eq. C3): the paper has not proved that capacity-optimality entails majorization-optimality, and this is an unsupported converse rather than a circular reduction. If 'optimal' were redefined as majorization-optimal, the subsystem result would be a direct consequence of the premise plus Schur-convexity, but that redefinition is not the paper's stated definition. The self-citations [47] and [64] are used for motivation and for a standard majorization fact about dephasing, respectively; neither is load-bearing in the sense of importing an unverified uniqueness or ansatz that forces the result. Accordingly, the paper is essentially self-contained against the Schur-convexity input, with no circularity beyond minor self-citation, so a low score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the battery capacity functional of Eq. (1) and its Schur-convexity from Ref. [42]. The optimality notion is restricted to computational-basis projective measurements, a modeling choice that limits the scope of the conclusions. The general-X-state theorem additionally assumes the combinatorial majorization argument in Appendix C, which is not fully rigorous. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Example Hamiltonian parameters = epsilon_A=0.5, epsilon_B=0.3, epsilon_C=0.1, J_XY=0.1 (J_ABC=0.25, 0.5, 0.75 in Example 2)
    Chosen for numerical illustration; the claimed ordering r2 >= r1 and the capacity recovery rates are observed only for these parameter choices and Hamiltonian forms, not proven in general.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Battery capacity C(rho; H) as defined in Eq. (1) is a Schur-convex functional of the state.
    This is the central tool used in Theorems 1, 2, and 3; it is taken from Ref. [42] and presented as a known result in Section II.
  • domain assumption All local projective measurements are restricted to the computational basis.
    Section II states 'we restrict all measurement bases in this work to the computational basis'. The claimed optimality is therefore only within this restricted set, not over all local projective measurements.
  • domain assumption For three-qubit X-states, the reduced states after partial trace are diagonal in the computational basis.
    This structural property is used throughout Appendix C to represent eigenvalues as arrays and to conclude that post-measurement states are diagonal, which underpins the dephasing robustness claim.
  • standard math A full dephasing channel maps a state to one that is majorized by the original state.
    Invoked in Appendix C for the dephasing noise result and credited to Ref. [64], which is written by the present first author and a co-author; the fact itself is standard in majorization theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Quantum Battery Capacity in Tripartite Quantum Systems by Local Projective Measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P2TD7DRN

@misc{pith2026250615074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Quantum Battery Capacity in Tripartite Quantum Systems by Local Projective Measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P2TD7DRN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15074}
}
read the original abstract

The impact of local von Neumann measurements on quantum battery capacity is investigated in tripartite quantum systems. Two measurement-based protocols are proposed and the concept of optimal local projective operators is introduced. Specifically, explicit analytical expressions are derived for the protocols when applied to general three-qubit X-states. Furthermore, the negative effects of white noise and dephasing noise on quantum battery capacity are analyzed, proving that optimal local projective operators can improve the robustness of subsystem and total system capacity against both noise types for the general tripartite X-state. The performance of different schemes in capacity enhancement are numerically validated through detailed examples and it is found that these optimized operators can effectively enhance both subsystem and total system battery capacity. The results indicate that the local von Neumann measurement is a powerful tool to enhance the battery capacity in multipartite quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15074 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The idea of tripartite measurement-based protocol fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Under fixed parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Figure 4 contains 12 sub-plots arranged in a 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The impact of changes in parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    Zhang, H

    T. Zhang, H. Yang and S.M. Fei, Local-projective- measurement-enhanced quantum battery capacity, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042424 (2024)

    2024

  2. [42]

    Yang, Y.H

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

    2023

  3. [1]

    Perarnau-Llobet, K

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

    2015

  4. [2]

    M. A. Ciampini, L. Mancino, A. Orieux, C. Vigliar, P. Mataloni, M. Paternostro and M. Barbieri, Experimental extractable work-based multipartite separability criter ia, npj Quant. Inf. 3, 10 (2017)

    2017

  5. [3]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, M. Campisi, V. Gio- vannetti and M. Polini, Extractable work, the role of cor- relations, and asymptotic freedom in quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 047702 (2019)

    2019

  6. [4]

    Monsel, M

    J. Monsel, M. Fellous-Asiani, B. Huard and A. Auff` e ves, The energetic cost of work extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 130601 (2020)

    2020

  7. [5]

    Opatrny, A

    T. Opatrny, A. Misra and G. Kurizki, Work generation from thermal noise by quantum phase-sensitive observa- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040602 (2021)

    2021

  8. [6]

    Alicki and M

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

    2013

Show all 64 references
  1. [7]

    M. Frey, K. Funo and M. Hotta, Strong local passivity in finite quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E 90, 012127 (2014)

    2014

  2. [8]

    E. G. Brown, N. Friis and M. Huber, Passivity and prac- tical work extraction using Gaussian operations, New J. Phys. 18, 113028 (2016)

    2016

  3. [9]

    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

  4. [10]

    Sparaciari, D

    C. Sparaciari, D. Jennings, and J. Oppenheim, Ener- getic instability of passive states in thermodynamics, Nat. Commun. 8, 1895 (2017)

    2017

  5. [11]

    Francica, J

    G. Francica, J. Goold, F. Plastina and M. Paternostro, Daemonic ergotropy: Enhanced work extraction from quantum correlations, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 12 (2017)

    2017

  6. [12]

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

    2018

  7. [13]

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

    2018

  8. [14]

    Rossini, G

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

    2019

  9. [15]

    Yao and X.Q

    Y. Yao and X.Q. Shao, Stable charging of a Rydberg quantum battery in an open system, Phys. Rev. E 104, 044116 (2021)

    2021

  10. [16]

    K. Xu, H.J. Zhu, G.F. Zhang and W.M. Liu, Enhancing the performance of an open quantum battery via envi- ronment engineering, Phys. Rev. E 104, 064143 (2021)

    2021

  11. [17]

    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

  12. [18]

    Dou, Y.Q

    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

  13. [19]

    Dou, Y.J

    F.Q. Dou, Y.J. Wang and J.A. Sun, Highly efficient charging and discharging of three-level quantum batter- ies through short cuts to adiabaticity, Front. Phys. 17, 31503 (2022)

    2022

  14. [20]

    Ferraro, M

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

    2018

  15. [21]

    Barra, Dissipative charging of a quantum battery, Phys

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

    2019

  16. [22]

    Friis and M

    N. Friis and M. Huber, Precision and work fluctuations in Gaussian battery charging, Quantum 2, 61 (2018)

    2018

  17. [23]

    Gherardini, F

    S. Gherardini, F. Campaioli, F. Caruso and F. C. Binder, Stabilizing open quantum batteries by sequential mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013095 (2020)

    2020

  18. [24]

    J. Q. Quach and W. J. Munro, Using dark states to charge and stabilize open quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 1 (2020)

    2020

  19. [25]

    D. Rosa, D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, M. Polini and M. Carrega, Ultra-stable charging of fast-scrambling SYK quantum batteries, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 67 (2020)

    2020

  20. [26]

    M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold and J. Prior, Charging a quan- tum battery with linear feedback control, Quantum 5, 500 (2021)

    2021

  21. [27]

    Her´ nandez-G´ omez, S

    S. Her´ nandez-G´ omez, S. Gherardini, N. Staudenmaier , F. Poggiali, M. Campisi, A. Trombettoni, F. Cataliotti, P. Cappellaro and N. Fabbri, Autonomous dissipative Maxwell’s demon in a diamond spin qutrit, PRX Quan- tum 3, 020329 (2022)

    2022

  22. [28]

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

    2019

  23. [29]

    F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi and A. C. Santos, Entanglement, coherence, and charging process of quan- tum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 102, 052109 (2020)

    2020

  24. [30]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Chanda and A. Sen(De), Enhancement in the performance of a quantum battery by ordered and disordered interactions, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032115 (2020)

    2020

  25. [31]

    Rossini, G

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

    2020

  26. [32]

    Sen and U

    K. Sen and U. Sen, Local passivity and entanglement in shared quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 104, L030402 (2021)

    2021

  27. [33]

    Ghosh, T

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

    2021

  28. [34]

    Zhao, F.Q

    F. Zhao, F.Q. Dou and Q. Zhao, Quantum battery of 8 interacting spins with environmental noise, Phys. Rev. A 103, 033715 (2021)

    2021

  29. [35]

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

    2022

  30. [36]

    Ghosh and A

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

    2022

  31. [37]

    Mayo and A

    F. Mayo and A. J. Roncaglia, Collective effects and quan- tum coherence in dissipative charging of quantum batter- ies, Phys. Rev. A 105, 062203 (2022)

    2022

  32. [38]

    Carrasco, J

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

    2022

  33. [39]

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

    2022

  34. [40]

    Tirone, R

    S. Tirone, R. Salvia, S. Chessa and V. Giovannetti, Quan - tum work capacitances: ultimate limits for energy extrac- tion on noisy quantum batteries, arXiv: 2211.02685

    arXiv

  35. [41]

    K. Xu, H.J. Zhu, H. Zhu, G.F. Zhang and W.M. Liu, Charging and self-discharging process of a quantum bat- tery in composite environments, Front. Phys. 18, 31301 (2023)

    2023

  36. [43]

    Tirone, R

    S. Tirone, R. Salvia, S. Chessa and V. Giovannetti, Work extraction processes from noisy quantum batteries: The role of non local resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 060402 (2023)

    2023

  37. [44]

    F. H. Kamin, S. Salimi and M. B. Arjmandi, Steady- state charging of quantum batteries via dissipative ancil- las, Phys. Rev. A 109, 022226 (2024)

    2024

  38. [45]

    Yang, H.L

    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

  39. [46]

    Bakhshinezhad, B

    P. Bakhshinezhad, B. R. Jablonski, F. C. Binder and N. Friis, Trade-offs between precision and fluctuations in charging finite dimensional quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 109, 014131 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Chaki, A

    P. Chaki, A. Bhattacharyya, K. Sen and U. Sen, Positive and non-positive measurements in energy extraction from quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 240401 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Song, X.K

    M.L. Song, X.K. Song, L. Ye and D. Wang, Evaluating extractable work of quantum batteries via entropic un- certainty relations, Phys. Rev. E 109, 064103 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Hyperbolic enhance- ment of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 109, 052206 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Z.G. Lu, G. Tian, X.Y. L¨ u and C. Shang, Topological quantum batteries, arXiv: 2405.03675v2

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. A. Satriani and F. Barra, Daemonic quantum bat- tery charged by thermalization, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9 045035 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Zhang, S.Q

    D.Y. Zhang, S.Q. Ma, Y.X. Jiang, Y.B. Yu, G.R. Jin and A.X. Chen, Entanglement and steering in quantum batteries, arXiv: 2406.06373

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Rojo-Franc` as, F

    A. Rojo-Franc` as, F. Isaule, A. C. Santos, B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz and N. T. Zinner, Stable SAP-like collective charging of ultracold atoms quantum batteries, arXiv: 2406.07397

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Yan and J

    J.S. Yan and J. Jing, Charging by quantum measure- ment, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064069 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    X.B. Zou, K. Pahlke and W. Mathis, Generation of an entangled four-photon W state, Phys. Rev. A 66, 044302 (2002)

    2002

  49. [57]

    V. N. Gorbachev, A. A. Rodichkina and A. I. Trubilko, On preparation of the W-states from atomic ensembles, Phys. Lett. A 310, 339 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    Tashima, T

    T. Tashima, T. Wakatsuki, S. K. Ozdemir, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi and N. Imoto, Local transformation of two EPR photon pairs into a three-photon W state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 130502 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    X.Y. Wu, Y. Cai, T. H. Yang, H. N. Le, J.-D. Bancal and V. Scarani, Robust self testing of the 3-qubit W state, Phys. Rev. A 90, 042339 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    Yadin, P

    B. Yadin, P. Bogaert, C. E. Susa and D. Girolami, Co- herence and quantum correlations measure sensitivity to dephasing channels, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012329 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Chen and H.K

    K. Chen and H.K. Lo, Multipartite quantum crypto graphic protocols with noisy GHZ states, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, (2004)

    2004

  54. [62]

    L. S. Bishop, L. Tornberg, D. Price, E. Ginossar, A. Nun- nenkamp, A. A. Houck, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, G. Johansson, S. M. Girvin and R. J. Schoelkopf, Proposal for generating and detecting multi-qubit GHZ states in circuit QED, New J. Phys. 11, 073040 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    G. J. Mooney, G. A. L. White, C. D. Hill and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Generation and verification of 27 qubit Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states in a supercon ducting quantum computer, J. Phys. Commun. 5, 095004 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Y. Wang, X. Huang and T. Zhang, Distribution relation- ship of quantum battery capacity, Adv. Quantum Tech- nol. 2400652 (2025). Appendix A: Three-qubit X states Consider the initial state be the three-qubit X states in the computational basis, ρx =             ρ11...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.