Quantum fluctuation relations in first-detection processes

A. Imparato

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 31 references

Quantum fluctuation relations in first-detection processes

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 First-detection time rewrites the quantum Jarzynski equality

desk verdict Eq. (18) is a solid new first-detection Jarzynski relation, but Eq. (20) as written is not a fluctuation relation for the extracted work and needs a major correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06194 v2 pith:CNSGZ6B3 submitted 2026-08-06 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

A. Imparato This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech

keywords quantumfluctuationrelationsfirst-detectiontimeJarzynskiequalityinformationenginerepeatedprojectivemeasurementsworkextractionergotropyfeedbackcontrol

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 derives two exact fluctuation relations for a quantum feedback engine whose controller performs repeated projective measurements and stops at the first detection of a specified outcome, then quenches the Hamiltonian to extract work. The first relation, eq. (18), states that the detection-conditioned average of $e^{-\beta W_{\rm tot}}$ equals $(Z_1/Z_0)$ times the mean first-detection step of the time-reversed process, which is the standard Jarzynski factor $e^{-\beta \Delta F}$ corrected by the entropic term $e^{+\beta T \log \langle \tilde{n}\rangle}$. The second relation, eq. (20), is the analogous statement for the extracted work alone. The author shows that Jensen's inequality converts these equalities into second-law-style bounds on the total work and on the extracted work, and illustrates the bounds on a two-spin model where the power output is optimized by tuning the sampling interval. A reader should care because the correction term is experimentally accessible: it requires only the mean detection time of the time-reversed dynamics, not the full statistics of every trajectory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the operator $G_\tau = U_\tau \Pi_\perp$, which evolves the state between null measurements, together with the survival probabilities $S_n$ and the first-detection ensemble. The proof's key step is the identity $f_n = (Z_1/Z_0)S_n[\tilde{\varrho}_1]$, which maps forward work contributions to backward survival probabilities through the time-reversal relations $\theta U_\tau \theta^{-1} = \tilde{U}_\tau^\dagger$; summing $S_n$ over $n$ gives the mean detection step $\langle \tilde{n}\rangle$ and converts the series into the compact exponential form of eq. (18).

What would settle it

Run the protocol on a single qubit with $H_0 = -h\sigma_z$, detection projector $\Pi = |\downarrow\rangle\langle\downarrow|$, and final Hamiltonian $H_1 = +h\sigma_z$, at several sampling intervals $\tau$ and inverse temperature $\beta$; measure $\langle e^{-\beta W_{\rm tot}}\rangle_{\rm det}$ from the detection-conditioned work statistics and compare it with $(Z_1/Z_0)\sum_{n=0}^\infty S_n[\tilde{\varrho}_1]$ computed from time-reversed dynamics. A reproducible disagreement beyond statistical error would falsify eq. (18).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the exact identity (18): for a system initialised in the thermal state of $H_0$, probed every $\tau$ by the projector $\Pi$, and quenched $H_0\to H_1$ at the first detection event, $\langle e^{-\beta W_{\rm tot}}\rangle_{\rm det} = (Z_1/Z_0)\sum_{n=0}^\infty S_n[\tilde{\varrho}_1] = e^{-\beta(\Delta F - T\log\langle \tilde{n}\rangle_{\tilde{\varrho}_1})}$. Here $S_n$ is the survival probability of the time-reversed first-detection process starting from $\tilde{\varrho}_1 = \Pi e^{-\beta H_1}\Pi/Z_1$, and $\langle \tilde{n}\rangle$ is its mean first-detection step; the analogous relation (20) holds for the extracted work with $\Delta H = H_1 - H_0$ in place of $H_1$. The proof rewrites the detection-conditioned work distribution (A2), identifies each term $f_n$ with $(Z_1/Z_0)S_n[\tilde{\varrho}_1]$, and uses the telescoping sum $\sum S_n = \langle \tilde{n}\rangle$. If correct, the work statistics of the forward feedback protocol are fully encoded in the first-detection-time statistics of the backward protocol.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes perfectly unitary evolution between the projective measurements; the exact equalities (18) and (20) are proved only for a closed system, and the paper's claim that eq. (18) holds unchanged for an open system is stated without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With a trivial detector, $\Pi = I$, the mean detection step is one and eq. (18) reduces exactly to the standard quantum Jarzynski equality, so the new relation generalises the QJE to first-detection feedback.
Jensen's inequality applied to eq. (18) yields the lower bound $w_{\rm tot} \ge \Delta F - T\log\langle \tilde{n}\rangle$ on the total work, and applied to eq. (20) yields an upper bound on the extracted work; both bounds contain the same first-detection entropic correction.
Evaluating either bound requires only the mean first-detection step of the time-reversed process, not reconstruction of the full forward and backward trajectory statistics.
For the two-spin example, the extracted-work bound implies a bound on the average power $\dot{w}_{\rm ex} = w_{\rm ex}/(\tau\langle n\rangle)$, and the numerical maxima of the power occur near the minima of the mean detection time.
The paper asserts that eq. (18) survives coupling to a bath unchanged when the measurement and quench act only on the system of interest, whereas eq. (20) is deferred to future work for open systems.

Reading between the lines

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

One could test eq. (18) on a single qubit by measuring forward detection-click statistics and backward survival probabilities, since the relation predicts the exponential work average without any two-point energy measurement at each step.
The presence of dark states, for which $\langle \tilde{n}\rangle$ diverges, implies parameter regions where the entropic correction makes the work bound arbitrarily loose; a natural check is whether the power output actually degrades near those $\tau$ values or is rescued by imperfect measurements.
Because $S_n$ is defined through powers of $G_\tau$, the fluctuation relation ties thermodynamic performance to the spectral properties of a non-normal operator; extending this to continuous monitoring would connect the result to first-passage-time statistics for quantum trajectories.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. First, the central total-work relation, Eq. (18), is real. The trace algebra in the appendix is coherent, the backward state is supported on the detection subspace, and the correction term -T log is a clean, experimentally accessible quantity. That alone is a useful addition to quantum thermodynamics. Second, the companion relation for the extracted work, Eq. (20), does not hold as stated. The stress-test note is right: replacing H1 by ΔH changes the measured operator from the post-quench Hamiltonian to H1-H0. The random variable whose exponential is averaged is W_Δ = ε_Δ - ε_0, not the extracted work W_ex = ε_0 - ε_1. In the commuting case the factors differ by e^{-β(ε1-2ε0)} versus e^{β(ε1-ε0)}. The 'shifted extracted work' defined in the text has average w'_ex = wex + 0, but the relation actually concerns the negative of (wex + ε0) on the same trajectory, so both the sign and the shift are off. This is not a minor notation issue; it invalidates the second central claim and the bound in Eq. (22) as written.

What is good: the first-detection ensemble and the survival-probability sum are handled carefully; the comparison with Ref. [15] is fair; the dark-state discussion is honest; and the claim that only the mean first-detection time of the reversed process is needed, rather than full trajectory statistics, is genuinely new. The citation pattern is clean and the example illustrates the bound, though the parameters J,h for Fig. 2 are not specified, which makes the numerics hard to reproduce.

Soft spots, in proportion: (i) Eq. (20) is load-bearing; either correct it to a relation for the actual extracted work or explicitly state that it concerns a different quantity. (ii) The open-system generalization in Section V is asserted without proof; Eq. (18) may survive, but Eq. (20) is deferred and should be qualified. (iii) The abstract and introduction overstate the result while Eq. (20) is in its present form. (iv) There are small typos in the appendix, notably the missing Uτ in Eqs. (A1)-(A5), that need cleaning but do not affect the theorem.

Verdict: Eq. (18) deserves publication and citation; Eq. (20) needs a major correction. This paper is for readers working on measurement-feedback thermodynamics and first-detection protocols. A serious editor should send it to peer review, with a clear instruction that the extracted-work relation must be fixed or removed. That is a conditional acceptance, not a reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a feedback protocol in which a quantum system evolves unitarily, is projectively measured at intervals τ, and the first detection of a prescribed subspace triggers an instantaneous quench H0→H1. The author defines a detection-conditioned ensemble and derives two integral fluctuation relations. The first, Eq. (18), states that the detection-conditioned average of e^{-βW_tot} equals (Z1/Z0)Σ_n S_n[ρ~1] = e^{-β(ΔF−T log⟨ñ⟩_{ρ~1})}, with S_n the survival probability in the time-reversed first-detection process. The second, Eq. (20), is claimed to be a fluctuation relation for the extracted work, with ΔH=H1−H0 replacing H1. Jensen's inequality yields bounds for w_tot and w_ex. The paper also introduces detection-averaged ergotropy and illustrates the bounds on a two-spin model. An appendix proves Eq. (18) by a trace identity connecting forward work cumulants to backward survival probabilities.

Significance. If Eq. (18) is correct, the paper gives a genuine quantum analogue of the Jarzynski equality for first-detection feedback, with the attractive feature that the information-theoretic correction is the mean first-detection time of the time-reversed process, an experimentally accessible quantity. The appendix trace algebra is compact and internally coherent, and the connection between forward work statistics and backward survival probabilities is elegant. The extracted-work relation, however, has a substantive identification problem that must be fixed before the paper's central claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)

[§IV, Eq. (20), and Appendix V] Eq. (20) is not a fluctuation relation for the extracted work defined in Eq. (16). The appendix obtains Eq. (20) by replacing H1 with ΔH in Eq. (A6); this changes the final measured observable from H1 to ΔH. The random variable whose exponential is averaged is therefore W_Δ = ε_Δ − ε_0, where ε_Δ is an eigenvalue of ΔH and ε_0 an eigenvalue of H0, not the per-detection extracted work W_ex = ε_0 − ε_1. Even in the commuting case the two differ: for a common eigenstate with energies ε_0 and ε_1, Eq. (20) contains e^{-β(ε_1−2ε_0)}, whereas the extracted-work exponential would be e^{-β(ε_0−ε_1)}. The Jensen bound (22) on w_ex can still be derived from Eq. (20) because the average of W_Δ equals −w_ex − ⟨H0⟩_0, but the manuscript should state this explicitly and should not present Eq. (20) as an extracted-work fluctuation relation. In addition, the text defines the average of the 'shifted extracted work' as w'_ex = w_ex + ⟨H0⟩_0, while the variable actually exponentiated in Eq. (20) has the opposite mean, −w'_ex; this sign inconsistency should be corrected.
[§V (open-system generalization)] The statement that Eq. (18) 'holds without modification' when the device is coupled to a bath is asserted without proof. The appendix derivation is written for a closed system with a projector on the full Hilbert space; when the measurement projects only on S and the bath is traced out, it is not immediate that the same trace identity survives. The manuscript should either supply the joint-system derivation or explicitly mark this as a conjecture rather than a derived result.
[§II, dark-state caveat] The claim that, when S∞[ρin]>0, the results 'remain unchanged' after normalizing P_n or projecting onto the bright subspace is not demonstrated and appears incompatible with the derivation of Eq. (18), which relies on the cancellation e^{βH0}ρ0 = 1/Z0; after projection this cancellation is lost. Since the main theorems are stated under the assumption S∞[ρin]=0, the caveat should be clarified, proved, or removed.

minor comments (3)

[Appendix, Eq. (A11)] The displayed equality f_n = (Z1/Z0) S_n[ρ~1] should read S_{n-1}[ρ~1]; otherwise the subsequent sum does not match the index in Eq. (18).
[§IV, after Eq. (17)] The free energy ΔF in Eq. (18) is defined with the projected partition function Z1 = Tr[Π e^{-βH1}Π], not the full partition function Tr[e^{-βH1}]; this should be emphasized to avoid confusion with the standard free-energy difference.
[Fig. 2 and surrounding text] The claim that the ergotropy bound is an upper bound for the other two quantities is stated as expected but not derived; a brief justification would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main fluctuation relations are derived from the stated first-detection ensemble and time-reversal trace identities, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Eq. (18) is obtained by writing the detection-conditioned average of exp(-beta W_tot) as the two-time correlation <exp(-beta H1(t_det)) exp(beta H0(0))>_det (Eqs. (A3)-(A8)), then using the time-reversal trace identity theta U_tau theta^{-1} = U_tilde_tau^dagger and the definition of rho_tilde_1 to show f_n = (Z1/Z0) S_n[rho_tilde_1] (Eqs. (A9)-(A11)). The final replacement sum_n S_n = <n_tilde> is a standard identity for an integer-valued first-passage time, so the logarithmic correction is a genuine dynamical quantity of the time-reversed protocol rather than an input fitted to the forward data. The limit Pi=I reproduces the ordinary quantum Jarzynski equality, which provides an external consistency check. The self-citations [11] and [27] are contextual or standard identities and are not load-bearing. I therefore find no step where a claimed prediction reduces by construction to its input. The open-system assertion in Section V is admittedly not proved, and Eq. (20) has an apparent sign or identification issue with W'_ex; these are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem is parameter-free. The only assumptions are the standard first-detection measurement formalism, thermal initial state, unitary evolution between measurements, and boundedness of Delta H. The open-system extension adds a finite-dimensional-bath restriction and is not fully proven. No new physical entities are introduced; the first-detection ensemble is a mathematical construction.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The first-detection formalism of Ref. [20] (P_n, S_n, dark states) is adopted as background.
Section II uses the definitions from Friedman, Kessler, and Barkai without re-deriving them.
domain assumption Initial states satisfy S_inf[rho_in]=0; otherwise normalized first-detection probabilities or projection onto the bright subspace are used.
Section II states this condition and gives a renormalization prescription. The backward initial states rho_tilde_1 and rho_tilde_Delta are supported on the detection subspace, so they have no dark component automatically.
domain assumption The system is initially in a thermal equilibrium state rho_0 = exp(-beta H0)/Z0.
Section IV assumes this to connect work statistics to free energy, as in the standard QJE.
domain assumption The spectrum of Delta H = H1 - H0 is bounded below.
Stated before eq. (20) to ensure the Boltzmann weight for Delta H is normalizable.
standard math Time-reversal relations theta U_tau theta^{-1} = U_tilde_tau^dagger and theta rho theta^{-1} = rho_tilde hold for the relevant operators.
Used in the Appendix eq. (A10) to map the forward trace to the backward first-detection probability.
ad hoc to paper For the open-system extension of eq. (20), the bath Hilbert space is finite-dimensional.
Section V notes that infinite-dimensional baths need a technical treatment deferred to future work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum fluctuation relations in first-detection processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNSGZ6B3

@misc{pith2026260806194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum fluctuation relations in first-detection processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNSGZ6B3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06194}
}

read the original abstract

We derive two quantum fluctuation relations for systems undergoing repeated projective measurements. These fluctuation relations characterize the work that can be extracted from a quantum device when a first-detection event triggers a mechanical operation leading to positive work production. The correction to the standard quantum Jarzynski equality depends logarithmically on the mean first-detection time for the time-reversed dynamics. Application of Jensen's inequality leads to fundamental limits on both the total work involved in the repeated measurements and final mechanical operation, and the extracted work alone. The general case of a device connected to an external environment is also considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06194 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Full lines: average extracted work rate ˙w [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[15]

S. K. Manikandan, C. Elouard, and A. N. Jordan, Fluc- tuation theorems for continuous quantum measurements and absolute irreversibility, Phys. Rev. A99, 022117 (2019)

2019
[1]

Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

R. Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

2013
[2]

Vinjanampathy and J

S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum ther- modynamics, Contemporary Physics57, 545 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2016.1201896

arXiv 2016
[3]

Binder, L

F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, eds.,Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime(Springer, 2018)

2018
[4]

Deffner and S

S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynamics: An introduction to the thermodynamics of quantum in- formation(Morgan & Claypool, 2019)

2019
[5]

Masuyama, K

Y. Masuyama, K. Funo, Y. Murashita, A. Noguchi, S. Kono, Y. Tabuchi, R. Yamazaki, M. Ueda, and Y. Nakamura, Information-to-work conversion by maxwell’s demon in a superconducting circuit quan- tum electrodynamical system, Nature Communications 9, 1291 (2018)

2018
[6]

Naghiloo, J

M. Naghiloo, J. J. Alonso, A. Romito, E. Lutz, and K. W. Murch, Information gain and loss for a quantum maxwell’s demon, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 030604 (2018)

2018
[7]

Dassonneville, C

R. Dassonneville, C. Elouard, R. Cazali, R. Assouly, A. Bienfait, A. Auff` eves, and B. Huard, Amplifying mi- crowave pulses with a single qubit engine fueled by quan- tum measurements, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013228 (2026)

2026

Show all 31 references

[8]

Elouard and A

C. Elouard and A. N. Jordan, Efficient quantum mea- surement engines, Physical Review Letters120, 260601 (2018)

2018
[9]

S. K. Manikandan, C. Elouard, K. W. Murch, A. Auff` eves, and A. N. Jordan, Efficiently fueling a quan- tum engine with incompatible measurements, Phys. Rev. E105, 044137 (2022)

2022
[10]

Manzano, D

G. Manzano, D. Subero, O. Maillet, R. Fazio, J. P. Pekola, and E. Rold´ an, Thermodynamics of gambling demons, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 080603 (2021)

2021
[11]

Archambault, C

A. Archambault, C. Crauste-Thibierge, A. Imparato, C. Jarzynski, S. Ciliberto, and L. Bellon, Information en- gine fueled by first-passage times, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 147101 (2025)

2025
[12]

M. J. Kewming, A. Kiely, S. Campbell, and G. T. Landi, First passage times for continuous quantum measurement currents, Physical Review A109, L050202 (2024)

2024
[13]

J. M. Ryan, S. Gorbaty, T. J. Kessler, M. G. Peaks, S. W. Teitsworth, and C. Noel, Experimental measurement of quantum first-passage time distributions, Physical Re- view Research8, L022025 (2026)

2026
[14]

Sagawa and M

T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Second law of thermodynamics with discrete quantum feedback control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 080403 (2008)

2008
[16]

Toyabe, T

S. Toyabe, T. Sagawa, M. Ueda, E. Muneyuki, and M. Sano, Experimental demonstration of information- to-energy conversion and validation of the generalized jarzynski equality, Nature Physics6, 988 (2010)

2010
[17]

J. M. R. Parrondo, J. M. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, Thermodynamics of information, Nature Physics11, 131 (2015)

2015
[18]

Elouard, D

C. Elouard, D. A. Herrera-Mart´ ı, M. Clusel, and A. Auff` eves, The role of quantum measurement in stochastic thermodynamics, npj Quantum Information3, 9 (2017)

2017
[19]

L. B. Oftelie and M. Campisi, Impact of information on quantum heat engines, Phys. Rev. A113, 052453 (2026)

2026
[20]

Friedman, D

H. Friedman, D. A. Kessler, and E. Barkai, Quantum walks: The first detected passage time problem, Phys. Rev. E95, 032141 (2017)

2017
[21]

Thiel, I

F. Thiel, I. Mualem, D. Meidan, E. Barkai, and D. A. Kessler, Dark states of quantum search cause imperfect detection, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043107 (2020)

2020
[22]

Q. Wang, S. Ren, R. Yin, K. Ziegler, E. Barkai, and S. Tornow, First hitting times on a quantum computer: Tracking vs. local monitoring, topological effects, and dark states, Entropy26, 10.3390/e26100869 (2024)

2024 doi
[23]

Tasaki, Jarzynski relations for quantum systems and some applications, arXiv:cond-mat/0009244 (2000)

H. Tasaki, Jarzynski relations for quantum systems and some applications, arXiv:cond-mat/0009244 (2000)

2000 arXiv
[24]

Kurchan, A quantum fluctuation theorem, arXiv:cond- mat/0007360 (2000)

J. Kurchan, A quantum fluctuation theorem, arXiv:cond- mat/0007360 (2000)

2000
[25]

Talkner, E

P. Talkner, E. Lutz, and P. H¨ anggi, Fluctuation theo- rems: Work is not an observable, Physical Review E75, 050102 (2007)

2007
[26]

K. Funo, M. Ueda, and T. Sagawa, Quantum fluctuation theorems, inThermodynamics in the Quantum Regime, Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 195, edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer, 2018) pp. 249–273

2018
[27]

De Chiara and A

G. De Chiara and A. Imparato, Quantum fluctuation the- orem for dissipative processes, Phys. Rev. Research4, 023230 (2022)

2022
[28]

Thiel, E

F. Thiel, E. Barkai, and D. A. Kessler, First detected arrival of a quantum walker on an infinite line, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 040502 (2018)

2018
[29]

J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano,Modern Quantum Me- chanics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

2017
[30]

Varbanov, H

M. Varbanov, H. Krovi, and T. A. Brun, Hitting time for the continuous quantum walk, Phys. Rev. A78, 022324 (2008)

2008
[31]

A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems, Europhysics Letters (EPL)67, 565 (2004)

2004

Pith tools

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

[1] [15]

S. K. Manikandan, C. Elouard, and A. N. Jordan, Fluc- tuation theorems for continuous quantum measurements and absolute irreversibility, Phys. Rev. A99, 022117 (2019)

2019

[2] [1]

Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

R. Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

2013

[3] [2]

Vinjanampathy and J

S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum ther- modynamics, Contemporary Physics57, 545 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2016.1201896

arXiv 2016

[4] [3]

Binder, L

F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, eds.,Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime(Springer, 2018)

2018

[5] [4]

Deffner and S

S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynamics: An introduction to the thermodynamics of quantum in- formation(Morgan & Claypool, 2019)

2019

[6] [5]

Masuyama, K

Y. Masuyama, K. Funo, Y. Murashita, A. Noguchi, S. Kono, Y. Tabuchi, R. Yamazaki, M. Ueda, and Y. Nakamura, Information-to-work conversion by maxwell’s demon in a superconducting circuit quan- tum electrodynamical system, Nature Communications 9, 1291 (2018)

2018

[7] [6]

Naghiloo, J

M. Naghiloo, J. J. Alonso, A. Romito, E. Lutz, and K. W. Murch, Information gain and loss for a quantum maxwell’s demon, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 030604 (2018)

2018

[8] [7]

Dassonneville, C

R. Dassonneville, C. Elouard, R. Cazali, R. Assouly, A. Bienfait, A. Auff` eves, and B. Huard, Amplifying mi- crowave pulses with a single qubit engine fueled by quan- tum measurements, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013228 (2026)

2026