Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

This paper claims that tuning a kicked two-rotor quantum battery to quantum resonance makes its stored energy grow as τ² with no oscillations, so charging power rises linearly, while the extractable fraction remains near unity even as entan

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 12:38 UTC pith:FIUSPR7D

load-bearing objection Nice application of quantum resonance to quantum batteries; the Ki=0 derivation is clean and the efficiency idea is interesting, but the near-unity efficiency claim rests on an unproven imported premise and the general scaling is a fitted ansatz. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19477 v1 pith:FIUSPR7D submitted 2026-07-21 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.CD

Quantum resonance-enhanced performance of quantum battery

Ankita Mazumdar , Shashi C. L. Srivastava , Sanku Paul This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.CD
keywords quantum batteryquantum resonancekicked rotorkicked topcharging powerergotropyentanglementquantum thermodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish a new resource for quantum batteries: quantum resonance, the rational-ratio condition between intrinsic and driving frequencies. Under this condition, a pair of kicked free rotors acting as batteries charge with stored energy growing quadratically in time, so the average power rises linearly, avoiding the usual oscillations and power drop-off. Despite generating strong entanglement, the extractable fraction remains near unity because the passive (inaccessible) energy is determined solely by the interaction between rotors, while the stored energy also includes each rotor's own kick. The authors derive analytic expressions for power and efficiency, confirm them numerically, extend the result to higher-order resonances, and show the same effect in an interacting kicked top, proposing it as an experimental platform. If correct, this separates performance from chaos and entanglement, which previously seemed to limit efficiency.

Core claim

At primary quantum resonance (ℏ_sT=4π), the interacting kicked-rotor battery's stored energy in one rotor is E(τ)=∑_n J_n²(K2τ/ℏ_s) n²ℏ_s²/2 + ∑_n J_n²(Kτ/ℏ_s) n²ℏ_s²/2, which for large time simplifies to (K2²+K²)τ²/4, giving linear power growth. The key discovery is that the passive-state energy—the part of the stored energy that cannot be extracted by unitary operations—depends only on the interaction strength K (through Bessel weights J_n²(Kτ/ℏ_s)), not on the individual kick strengths K_i. Hence, when K2≫K, the stored energy is dominated by the extractable part, yielding efficiency η≈1 at all times, even though the passive state itself drifts far from the initial pure state and entanglem

What carries the argument

The quantum resonance condition ℏ_sT=4πl/l' (rational ratio of intrinsic to driving frequency) turns the interaction kick into an effective single-particle kicked-rotor term after a coordinate change to sum/difference variables. The resulting state amplitudes are Bessel functions J_n(Kτ/ℏ_s), whose squared weights set both the stored energy and, after sorting them, the passive state spectrum. The load-bearing identity is that the passive energy Ẽ(τ)=∑_n \tildeλ_n²(τ) n²ℏ_s²/2 is governed only by the interaction strength K, independent of the K_i that appear in the stored energy, so the ratio η=ξ/E tends to 1 when K_i dominates K.

Load-bearing premise

The near-unity efficiency claim rests on the unproven assumption that the passive-state energy of each rotor is entirely set by the interaction strength K, with its spectrum given by the sorted Bessel weights J_n²(Kτ/ℏ_s) regardless of the individual kick strengths K_i; the stored-energy expression for K_i≠0 is likewise an empirically guided ansatz rather than a derivation.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the passive-state energy Ẽ(τ) of one rotor at resonance while varying K2 (with K fixed). If Ẽ(τ) changes with K2 by an amount comparable to the K2-dependent part of E(τ), then η(τ) will not approach 1 in the K2≫K regime; the paper's Fig. 1 and S3 currently support independence only in the parameter range shown. A more direct check is to test whether Eq. (5) fails when K2 is not much larger than K, or when the Hilbert-space cutoff L is increased.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At primary resonance, stored energy grows as τ² and charging power as τ, with no oscillations, so the battery charges faster over time rather than saturating.
  • Efficiency near unity persists even as entanglement grows superlinearly, meaning strong quantum correlations need not degrade extractable work.
  • The enhancement survives at higher-order resonances (ℏ_sT = 3π, 3.5π, 4.5π, 5π), so the rational condition is not limited to the simplest case.
  • In the finite-dimensional interacting kicked top, the same linear power growth and near-unit efficiency appear up to about 70% of the energy bandwidth, suggesting the effect is generic and experimentally accessible via collective-spin platforms.
  • The analytic formulas (Eqs. 5-6, 9) match numerics for the rotor model, giving quantitative predictions for power and efficiency under resonance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the separation between stored and passive energy holds generally, tuning a battery's driving to a rational frequency ratio might be a generic strategy to avoid the efficiency-power trade-off, even in other driven many-body systems beyond rotors and tops.
  • The Bessel-weight ansatz for K_i≠0 (Eq. 5) is not derived from first principles; an independent derivation would strengthen the result and might reveal correction terms that matter for finite systems or long times.
  • A direct test could be to measure the reduced density matrix spectrum of one rotor as a function of K2 at fixed K: if the sorted spectrum (and hence passive energy) shifts measurably with K2, the efficiency claim would be modified.
  • Because the effect relies on the passive energy being blind to the individual kicks, one might extend the idea to many coupled batteries or to continuous driving, searching for a non-perturbative rational-frequency condition that preserves extractability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that quantum resonance can enhance the performance of quantum batteries. Two interacting kicked rotors are used as a bipartite charger–battery system; at the primary resonance condition ℏ_sT=4π the authors claim the stored energy grows as τ² with no oscillations, the charging power grows linearly in time, and the extractable fraction (efficiency) remains near unity despite strong entanglement. The analytic result for vanishing individual kick strengths (Ki=0) is obtained via a coordinate transformation that reduces the interaction to a single kicked-rotor problem, yielding Bessel-function weights and E≈K²τ²/4. For Ki≠0, Eq. (5) extends this by adding the two Bessel contributions 'guided by numerical analysis'; Eq. (6) then gives P≈(K2²+K²)τ/4. Efficiency is analyzed in Eq. (9), where the passive-state energy is assumed to depend only on the interaction strength K and to be independent of the individual kicks, imported from Refs. [73,74]. The authors also present numerical evidence for higher-order resonances and for an interacting kicked-top model.

Significance. If correct, the result is significant: it would show that quantum resonance can overcome two well-known obstacles in quantum battery charging—oscillatory discharging and efficiency degradation under entanglement—thereby providing a concrete mechanism for stable, high-power, near-unity-efficiency charging in a classically chaotic regime. The Ki=0 derivation is clean and the numerics for the chosen parameters are consistent with the reported scalings. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions (E∝τ², P∝τ, η≈1) and goes beyond a single model by testing a kicked-top variant. However, the central claims for the realistic Ki≠0 case rely on an unproven ansatz and on an imported spectral-independence assumption; these gaps currently prevent the paper from fully establishing the advertised analytic framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM Eq. (S3)–(S4), Fig. 1 caption] The analytic derivation of Eq. (4) rests on the claim that at primary resonance ℏ_sT=4π the free-evolution factor in U simplifies to the identity. This is only true when μ_i^{-1}∈Z (e.g., μ1=0.5, μ2=1). The main-text Fig. 1 caption gives μ1=2, which violates this condition. For μ1=2 the free phase is exp(-iπn1²)=(-1)^{n1}, not 1; in the symmetric subspace n1=-n2 the period-2 evolution operator squares to the identity, so no quadratic energy growth would occur. SM Fig. S2 uses μ1=0.5, consistent with the resonance condition. The authors must correct the parameter in the main text and confirm that all simulations use the consistent value, or provide a generalized derivation that does not require U_free=1.
  2. [Eq. (5) and SM Sec. SI] The expression for the stored energy when Ki≠0 is not derived. The main text says Eq. (5) is 'guided by numerical analysis,' and SM Eqs. (S10)–(S11) determine the cross-coefficients by matching to numerics (γ=ϵ=c=0). Since Eq. (6) and the linear-power law for the experimentally relevant Ki≠0 case rest entirely on this expression, the central analytic claim is only as strong as this numerical ansatz. The authors should either derive f(n,K2,K,τ,ℏs) from the dynamics or clearly state that Eq. (5) is a numerical conjecture and adjust the wording accordingly.
  3. [Eq. (8)–(9), paragraph after Eq. (8)] The near-unity efficiency result depends on the assertion that the passive-state energy Ẽ(τ) is 'entirely governed by the interaction between the two batteries and independent of Ki.' This is imported from Refs. [73,74] and not derived or numerically verified in the present manuscript for Ki≠0. Fig. 1(b) only shows that Ẽ is small relative to E for one parameter set; it does not establish the structural spectral independence. Given Eq. (9), η≈1 reduces to η≈K2²/(K2²+K²), so the result is partly a consequence of the chosen regime K2≫K. The authors should provide a derivation of the reduced spectrum of ρ_i(τ) for Ki≠0, or at least a direct numerical test (e.g., compute Ẽ for several K2 at fixed K and show it is unchanged).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (6) and Fig. 1(a)] The charging power P is not explicitly defined. If P=E/τ then Eq. (6) follows from Eq. (5); if P=dE/dτ, there is a factor of 2 discrepancy. Please define P and ensure consistency between the text, Eq. (6), and the figure.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The notation 'J 2n' in Eq. (9) should be J_n², as in Eq. (5), to avoid confusion.
  3. [General notation] The condition 'μ_i^{-1}∈Z' is written as 'µ−1 i ∈Z'; please use proper math notation and reconcile it with the parameter values used in the figures.
  4. [Fig. 2] The higher-order resonance results are purely numerical. The statement 'This conclusively proves...' is stronger than what a finite set of parameter values can establish; consider softening the wording.
  5. [Fig. 3] The kicked-top efficiency remains near unity, but the linear power growth holds only up to E/E_max≈0.71. Please state this finite-Hilbert-space limitation in the main text, as it qualifies the universality claim.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Headline power law is the derivative of a numerical ansatz; near-unity efficiency is imported from a coauthor's prior result.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text Eq. (5)-(6); Supplemental Sec. SI, Eqs. (S10)-(S11)]
    "Guided by numerical analysis, we find f(n, K2, K, τ, ℏs) = J_n(K2τ/ℏs)^2 + J_n(Kτ/ℏs)^2. For L≫1, E(τ)≈ (K2^2+K^2)τ^2/4 [See supplemental material]. Therefore, we derive the charging power for our quantum battery to be, P(τ)≈ (K2^2+K^2)τ/4."

    The stored-energy expression Eq. (5) is not derived for K_i≠0; it is an ansatz 'guided by numerical analysis.' The supplemental makes the fitting explicit: Eq. (S10) starts from E=(αK²+βK2²+γKK2+ϵ(K+K2)+c)τ², fixes α=β=1/4 from limits, and sets γ=ϵ=c=0 'matching it with numerical data.' Eq. (6) is the time derivative of that fitted quadratic form, so P(τ)∝τ is imposed by the assumed E∝τ² input, not independently predicted. The K_i=0 case (Eq. 4) is genuinely derived, but the headline power claim for the actual battery (K_i≠0) reduces by construction to the ansatz.

  2. self citation load bearing [Main text after Eq. (8) and Eq. (9); Supplemental Sec. SII]
    "Importantly, it reveals that Ẽ(τ) is entirely governed by the interaction between the two batteries and independent of K_i. ... In the regime K_2 ≫ K, E(τ)≫ Ẽ(τ), which leads to η(τ)≈1."

    The η≈1 result in Eq. (9) is forced only after inserting the assertion that the sorted Schmidt eigenvalues remain J_n²(Kτ/ℏs) for all K_i, making the passive-state energy K-only. That assertion is not derived for K_i≠0. The supplemental attributes it to 'Ref. [S73]' (S. Paul et al., a paper with a coauthor of this manuscript) and calls it 'physically expected.' With that imported premise, Eq. (9) algebraically becomes η≈K2²/(K2²+K²), so the near-unity efficiency is just the regime choice K2≫K applied to an unverified self-cited structural result, not an independent derivation. The independent Ref. [74] is also cited for entanglement growth, but the specific K_i-independence used in the supplemental rests on Ref. [S73].

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine analytic derivation for the interaction-only case (K_i=0, Eq. 4 and Supplemental Eq. S7): the rotated-frame QKR Bessel solution gives E≈K²τ²/4 and the numerics agree. However, the two headline claims for the charged battery with both kicks and interaction do not have that status. The stored energy for K_i≠0 is an ansatz (Eq. 5) explicitly 'guided by numerical analysis' and completed by setting cross-coefficients to zero after matching numerics (S10-S11); the advertised linear power growth (Eq. 6) is the derivative of that fitted form. The efficiency claim η≈1 (Eq. 9) depends on the K_i-independence of the passive-state energy, which is imported from Ref. [73] (overlapping author S. Paul) and only justified as 'physically expected.' Thus both central analytic results reduce, respectively, to a numerical fit and to a load-bearing self-citation. Since the numerical data in Figs. 1-3 provide evidence that the fitted/imported forms are not wildly wrong, I do not call the paper entirely circular; the derivation chain is partially self-contained but the analytic support for the headline scaling and efficiency is substantially constructed rather than derived. Score 7.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities (particles, forces, conserved quantities) are postulated. The central free content is in the stored-energy ansatz of Eq. 5 / S10 (fit to numerics), the regime choice K2≫K that manufactures near-unity efficiency, and the imported entanglement-spectrum assertion from the authors' prior Ref [73]. The Ki=0 energy growth itself follows from a standard Bessel identity plus the coordinate transformation.

free parameters (3)
  • Ansatz coefficients in stored-energy expression E(K,K2,τ) = γ=ε=c=0; α=β=1/4
    Supplemental S10-S11: the form E=(αK²+βK2²+γKK2+ε(K+K2)+c)τ² is matched to numerics; γ,ε,c are set to zero 'after matching with numerical data' — fitting, not derivation, of the central power formula.
  • Stored-energy weights f(n,K2,K,τ,ℏs) = Jn²(K2τ/ℏs)+Jn²(Kτ/ℏs)
    Eq. (5): 'Guided by numerical analysis, we find f(n,K2,K,τ,ℏs)=Jn²(K2τ/ℏs)+Jn²(Kτ/ℏs)' — the analytic claim P∝τ for the interacting battery is a numerically guided ansatz.
  • Kick-hierarchy K2 ≫ K = K2=10, K=0.1 (Fig. 1)
    The near-unity efficiency is purchased in the regime K2≫K; with Ẽ depending only on K, Eq. 9 gives η ≈ K2²/(K2²+K²) ≈ 0.9999 for the chosen values. The η≈1 claim is a regime statement, not generic.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Resonance condition ℏsT=4πl/l′ with l,l′ coprime; primary resonance ℏsT=4π
    'Charging power' section; defines the resonance condition used throughout; standard kicked-rotor fact (Refs [63-67]).
  • domain assumption Inverse rotor masses are positive integers (μi⁻¹ ∈ Z)
    Eq. (1) setup: 'we consider unequal rotor masses, μ1≠μ2, with the inverse masses satisfying μi⁻¹∈Z'; needed for the coordinate transformation to the momentum-lattice picture.
  • domain assumption Setting Ki=0 without loss of generality (resonance independent of kick strengths)
    'As the resonance condition is independent of Ki [73], we set Ki=0 without loss of generality'; the independence is cited from Ref [73], and the Ki≠0 case is later reintroduced by the fitted ansatz Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption Coupled two-rotor purity at resonance equals the participation ratio of the transformed single-particle kicked rotor
    Supplemental SI: 'We know from Ref. [S73] that the purity of the coupled QKR is equivalent to the participation ratio of this coordinate-transformed single-particle QKR'; underpins the Bessel weights and Schmidt spectrum; from self-cited Ref [73].
  • domain assumption Reduced-state (Schmidt) spectrum of each rotor is Jn²(Kτ/ℏs), independent of Ki
    Paragraph following Eq. (8) and Eq. (9): the passive-state energy Ẽ is 'entirely governed by the interaction... and independent of Ki'; asserted via Refs [73,74], not derived here; load-bearing for η≈1.
  • standard math Bessel-function identities including Σ n² Jn²(x)=x²/2 and the finite-sum constant Q (Fig. S1)
    Used to close Eq. (4) into E≈K²τ²/4; the constancy of Q is certified numerically in Fig. S1, not proven analytically.
  • domain assumption For the interacting kicked top, primary resonance is βm=4πj and the truncation bounds energy growth
    Kicked-top section; the top result is purely numerical (Fig. 3, S4) with no analytic efficiency derivation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12213 in / 24088 out tokens · 218232 ms · 2026-08-01T12:38:06.444418+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum resonance arising whenever the ratio of the intrinsic system frequency to the driving frequency becomes a rational number has been demonstrated to generate super-linear entanglement, enhance transport, quantum metrology performance and communication. Here, we demonstrate that quantum resonance can also serve as a powerful resource for quantum batteries. We model the batteries as free rotors charged via a kicked protocol. When the individual batteries are at resonance, we show both analytically and numerically that charging power increases linearly with time while efficiency (defined as the fraction of stored energy that can be extracted) remains near unity despite strong entanglement generation. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this enhanced performance persists at higher-order resonances. Demonstrating the universality of this mechanism, we show that similar enhancements arise in the interacting kicked top model, and briefly note the feasibility of its experimental realization. In a broader context, resonant charging holds significant implications for energy storage, quantum computational resources, and quantum thermodynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19477 by Ankita Mazumdar, Sanku Paul, Shashi C. L. Srivastava.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Plot (a) illustrates the dynamics of charging power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) The exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows charging power and efficiency of the quantum battery, with quantum battery Hamiltonian, HB = J z 1 . It can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhang, W.-T

    T. Zhang, W.-T. Liu, P.-X. Chen, and C.-Z. Li, Phys. Rev. A75, 062102 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    M. O. Scully, M. S. Zubairy, G. S. Agarwal, and H. Walther, Science299, 862 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    H. Wang, S. Liu, and J. He, Phys. Rev. E79, 041113 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Kosloff and A

    R. Kosloff and A. Levy, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.65, 365 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    C. A. P´ erez-Delgado and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A83, 5 012303 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Maillette de Buy Wenniger, S

    I. Maillette de Buy Wenniger, S. E. Thomas, M. Maffei, S. C. Wein, M. Pont, N. Belabas, S. Prasad, A. Harouri, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, N. Somaschi, A. Auff` eves, and P. Senellart, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 260401 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Dou and F.-M

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

    2023

  9. [9]

    J. Q. Quach, K. E. McGhee, L. Ganzer, D. M. Rouse, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, J. Keeling, G. Cerullo, D. G. Lidzey, and T. Virgili, Sci. Adv.8, eabk3160 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Joshi and T

    J. Joshi and T. S. Mahesh, Phys. Rev. A106, 042601 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Phys. Rev. E87, 042123 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Perarnau-Llobet, M. Huber, and A. Ac ´ ın, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 240401 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, New J. Phys.17, 075015 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. Pollock, F. Binder, L. C´ eleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 150601

  15. [15]

    F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi, and A. C. Santos, Phys. Rev. E102, 052109 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    M. B. Arjmandi, A. Shokri, E. Faizi, and H. Mohammadi, Phys. Rev. A106, 062609 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Pollock, Phys. Rev. A97, 022106 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Ferraro, M

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

    2018

  19. [19]

    G. M. Andolina, D. Farina, A. Mari, V. Pellegrini, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B98, 205423 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    J. Q. Quach and W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 024092 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    Zhang, T.-R

    Y.-Y. Zhang, T.-R. Yang, L. Fu, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. E99, 052106 (2019)

    2019

  22. [23]

    Zhang and M

    X. Zhang and M. Blaauboer, Front. Phys.10, 1097564 (2023)

    2023

  23. [24]

    H.-L. Shi, S. Ding, Q.-K. Wan, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 130602 (2022)

    2022

  24. [25]

    B. n. Mula, E. M. Fern´ andez, J. E. Alvarellos, J. J. Fern´ andez, D. Garc ´ ıa-Aldea, S. N. Santalla, and J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Laguna, Phys. Rev. B107, 075116 (2023)

    2023

  25. [26]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Chanda, and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A101, 032115 (2020)

    2020

  26. [27]

    Zhao, F.-Q

    F. Zhao, F.-Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. A103, 033715 (2021)

    2021

  27. [28]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115142 (2019)

    2019

  28. [29]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Chanda, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A104, 032207 (2021)

    2021

  29. [30]

    Francica, J

    G. Francica, J. Goold, F. Plastina, and M. Paternostro, Npj Quantum Inf.3, s41534 (2017)

    2017

  30. [31]

    Francica, F

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

    2020

  31. [32]

    Francica, Phys

    G. Francica, Phys. Rev. A110, 062209 (2024)

    2024

  32. [33]

    Campaioli, S

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

    2024

  33. [34]

    Perarnau-Llobet, K

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

    2015

  34. [35]

    D. Rosa, D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, M. Polini, and M. Carrega, J. High Energy Phys.2020(11)

    2020

  35. [36]

    Shaghaghi, V

    V. Shaghaghi, V. Singh, G. Benenti, and D. Rosa, Quan- tum Sci. Technol.7, 04LT01 (2022)

    2022

  36. [37]

    A. G. Catalano, S. M. Giampaolo, O. Morsch, V. Giovan- netti, and F. Franchini, Frustrating quantum batteries (2023), arXiv:2307.02529 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [38]

    J.-Y. Gyhm, D. ˇSafr´ anek, and D. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140501 (2022)

    2022

  38. [39]

    Gyhm and U

    J.-Y. Gyhm and U. R. Fischer, A VS Quantum Sci.6, 012001 (2024)

    2024

  39. [40]

    H.-Y. Yang, K. Zhang, X.-H. Wang, and H.-L. Shi, Phys. Rev. B111, 085410 (2025)

    2025

  40. [41]

    Liu, H.-L

    J.-X. Liu, H.-L. Shi, Y.-H. Shi, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. B104, 245418 (2021)

    2021

  41. [42]

    F.-Q. Dou, H. Zhou, and J.-A. Sun, Phys. Rev. A106, 032212 (2022)

    2022

  42. [43]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B99, 205437 (2019)

    2019

  43. [45]

    Gherardini, F

    S. Gherardini, F. Campaioli, F. Caruso, and F. C. Binder, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013095 (2020)

    2020

  44. [46]

    Yao and X

    Y. Yao and X. Q. Shao, Phys. Rev. E104, 044116 (2021)

    2021

  45. [47]

    Grazi, F

    R. Grazi, F. Cavaliere, M. Sassetti, D. Ferraro, and N. Traverso Ziani, Chaos Solit. Fractals196, 116383 (2025)

    2025

  46. [48]

    S. V. Romero, X. Chen, and Y. Ban, (2025), arXiv:2511.17835 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [49]

    Mazumdar, A

    A. Mazumdar, A. Mitra, and S. C. L. Srivastava, (2025), arXiv:2511.22349 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [50]

    Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y. L¨ u, and C. Shang, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 180401 (2025)

    2025

  49. [51]

    Rinaldi, R

    D. Rinaldi, R. Filip, D. Gerace, and G. Guarnieri, Phys. Rev. A112, 012205 (2025)

    2025

  50. [52]

    R. K. Shukla, R. Kumar, U. Sen, and S. K. Mishra, (2025), arXiv:2505.08029 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [53]

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

    2019

  52. [54]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Europhys. Lett.67, 565 (2004)

    2004

  53. [55]

    Wang and F.-Q

    C.-J. Wang and F.-Q. Dou, (2025), arXiv:2512.21855 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [56]

    F. Yang, H. Wang, Y. Maleki, W. J. Munro, G. S. Agar- wal, and M. O. Scully, (2026), arXiv:2605.17700 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [57]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, M. Campisi, V. Gio- vannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 047702 (2019)

    2019

  56. [58]

    Mitra and S

    A. Mitra and S. C. L. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. A110, 012227 (2024)

    2024

  57. [59]

    Yang, H.-L

    H.-Y. Yang, H.-L. Shi, Q.-K. Wan, K. Zhang, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. A109, 012204 (2024)

    2024

  58. [60]

    M. S. Ukhtary, A. R. T. Nugraha, A. B. Cahaya, A. Rusydi, and M. A. Majidi, Appl. Phys. Lett.123, 5.0156618 (2023)

    2023

  59. [62]

    D. Qu, X. Zhan, H. Lin, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. B108, L180301 (2023)

    2023

  60. [63]

    F. M. Izrailev, Phys. Rep.196, 299 (1990)

    1990

  61. [64]

    Casati, B

    G. Casati, B. V. Chirikov, F. M. Izraelev, and J. Ford, in 6 Stochastic Behavior in Classical and Quantum Hamilto- nian Systems, edited by G. Casati and J. Ford (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1979) pp. 334–352

    1979

  62. [65]

    S. Paul, H. Pal, and M. S. Santhanam, Phys. Rev. E93, 060203(R) (2016)

    2016

  63. [66]

    F. L. Moore, J. C. Robinson, C. F. Bharucha, B. Sun- daram, and M. G. Raizen, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4598 (1995)

    1995

  64. [67]

    Paul and M

    S. Paul and M. S. Santhanam, Phys. Rev. E97, 032217 (2018)

    2018

  65. [68]

    S. Wu, A. Tonyushkin, and M. G. Prentiss, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 034101 (2009)

    2009

  66. [69]

    Daszuta and M

    B. Daszuta and M. F. Andersen, Phys. Rev. A86, 043604 (2012)

    2012

  67. [70]

    Lundh and M

    E. Lundh and M. Wallin, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 110603 (2005)

    2005

  68. [71]

    I. Dana, V. Ramareddy, I. Talukdar, and G. S. Summy, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 024103 (2008)

    2008

  69. [72]

    Delvecchio, F

    M. Delvecchio, F. Petiziol, and S. Wimberger, Condensed Matter5, 10.3390/condmat5010004 (2020)

    work page doi:10.3390/condmat5010004 2020

  70. [73]

    S. Paul, J. B. Kannan, and M. S. Santhanam, Phys. Rev. B110, 144301 (2024)

    2024

  71. [74]

    Zhou and J

    Y. Zhou and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B113, 144307 (2026)

    2026

  72. [75]

    Haake and D

    F. Haake and D. L. Shepelyansky, Europhysics Letters5, 671 (1988)

    1988

  73. [76]

    Chaudhury, A

    S. Chaudhury, A. Smith, B. E. Anderson, S. Ghose, and P. S. Jessen, Nature461, 768 (2009)

    2009

  74. [77]

    Neill, P

    C. Neill, P. Roushan, M. Fang, Y. Chen, M. Kolodru- betz, Z. Chen, A. Megrant, R. Barends, B. Campbell, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, J. Mutus, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. Polkovnikov, and J. M. Mar- tinis, Nat. Phys.12, 1037 (2016)

    2016

  75. [78]

    V. R. Krithika, V. S. Anjusha, U. T. Bhosale, and T. S. Mahesh, Phys. Rev. E99, 032219 (2019)

    2019

  76. [79]

    M. A. Norcia, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. R. K. Cline, B. Zhu, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Science361, 259 (2018)

    2018

  77. [80]

    R. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, R. Alicki, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A107, 042419 (2023)

    2023

  78. [81]

    Quantum resonance-enhanced performance of quantum battery

    G. M. Andolina, V. Stanzione, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 240403 (2025). 1 Supplemental Material for “Quantum resonance-enhanced performance of quantum battery” In this Supplemental Material, we provide additional details and calculations for the results stated in the main text. In Sec. SI, we have shown the analytical calculation ...

    2025