Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper claims that the extractable energy of a quantum battery—its ergotropy—decomposes into coherent and incoherent parts, and that population inversion, coherence, participation ratio, and purity control the size of each part.

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

2026-08-03 13:59 UTC pith:SFMZLZ4Q

load-bearing objection The qualitative story is plausible, but the advertised rigorous bounds are neither proved nor well-posed, and an arithmetic error in the SM undermines part of the main proposition. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.21855 v1 pith:SFMZLZ4Q submitted 2025-12-26 quant-ph

Ergotropy in Quantum Batteries

Cheng-Jie Wang , Fu-Quan Dou This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords ergotropyquantum batteriescoherent ergotropyincoherent ergotropypopulation inversionparticipation ratiocharging efficiencyquantum coherence
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.

The paper tries to establish a model-independent account of ergotropy—the maximum work extractable from a quantum battery through cyclic unitary operations—as the sum of two contributions: coherent ergotropy, which arises from quantum coherence, and incoherent ergotropy, which arises from the ordering of energy-level populations. Its central claim is that during charging, population inversion decides which contribution matters: with no inversion, ergotropy is purely coherent; with local or global inversion, the total is coherent plus incoherent. Based on large random sampling of states and Hamiltonians, it claims that coherence and participation ratio (how spread out the state is) enhance coherent ergotropy, while incoherent ergotropy can be enhanced, held constant, or suppressed depending on diagonal entropy (the entropy of the population distribution), participation ratio, and population ordering. It also claims that ergotropy is bounded below by incoherent ergotropy and above by stored energy, and that higher purity lowers locked energy and raises charging efficiency. If these claims hold, they give concrete design rules for building quantum batteries that release a larger fraction of stored energy.

Core claim

The core claim is Proposition 2: for a fixed amount of coherence, the coherent ergotropy of a battery state is bounded below by the coherent ergotropy of a pure state with that coherence, and bounded above by the coherent ergotropy of a completely delocalized state with the same coherence; both coherence and participation ratio push coherent ergotropy upward. The incoherent ergotropy is not monotone in any single resource: depending on the ordering of energy-level populations and on diagonal entropy or participation ratio, it can increase, stay the same, or decrease, with special extremal and critical points at diagonal entropy log n. The paper also establishes Proposition 1, that ergotropy

What carries the argument

The central object is the decomposition of ergotropy into coherent and incoherent parts: E(ρB) = Ec + Ei, where Ec is the difference between the energy of the dephased state's passive state and the passive state of ρB, and Ei is the work extractable from the dephased state. The split is carried by comparing the ordering of the eigenvalues of ρB and of its dephased version against the ordered energy levels of the battery Hamiltonian. The analysis is organized by three quantifiers—coherence C, participation ratio PR = 1/Tr[ρ^2], and purity P = Tr[ρ^2]—and is supported by random sampling of states and Hamiltonians plus verification in two standard cavity-QED battery models.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the unproved assertion that, for a fixed amount of coherence, the pure state and the completely delocalized state have the minimal and maximal participation ratios respectively and therefore bound the coherent ergotropy; if that extremality or the uniqueness of the delocalized state fails, the claimed bounds in Eq. (10) do not follow.

What would settle it

A numerical search over three-level systems that fixes the coherence C and finds a state whose coherent ergotropy lies outside the band between Ec for the pure state and Ec for the 'completely delocalized' state would falsify Proposition 2(i); a simpler check is whether the delocalized state is uniquely determined by C, since non-uniqueness would make the upper bound ambiguous. The Supplemental Material's tables S1 and S2 also give explicit population-change conditions for enhancement or suppression of incoherent ergotropy, so preparing those populations and measuring whether Ei rises, stays f

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

If this is right

  • In charging stages without population inversion, all extractable work is coherent; incoherent ergotropy vanishes, so coherence is the sole resource for extraction.
  • Whenever local or global population inversion develops, total ergotropy is the sum of coherent and incoherent contributions, giving a lower bound of Ei and an upper bound of stored energy for any fixed population distribution.
  • For fixed coherence, coherent ergotropy is bracketed between the pure-state and maximally delocalized-state values, so those two states define the achievable extraction window.
  • In global population inversion, smaller diagonal entropy or participation ratio generally yields larger incoherent ergotropy, while in local inversion the effect depends on population ordering and can switch behavior at diagonal entropy log n.
  • Increasing purity suppresses locked energy and improves charging efficiency, reaching full extractability for a pure battery state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's claimed upper bound depends on a 'completely delocalized state' that is not uniquely defined for a fixed coherence; a rigorous formulation would need to specify that state (e.g., as the maximum-participation-ratio state with given coherence) and then the bounds could be tested in dimension four and above.
  • One testable extension is to check whether the same coherent/incoherent decomposition and population-ordering rules control other work-extraction figures of merit, such as local ergotropy or extractable work under energy-conserving operations, which the paper does not address.
  • The random-sampling evidence suggests a practical recipe for battery design—keep the state pure and coherent, and choose population orderings that avoid suppression—but turning this recipe into a guarantee will require proving the extremality claims rather than relying on numerical sampling.
  • The critical points at diagonal entropy log n are a sharp, checkable prediction: preparing three-level populations near those points should show kinks in the incoherent ergotropy's response to small population changes.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes ergotropy and its decomposition into coherent (Ec) and incoherent (Ei) components for general quantum batteries. It proposes: (i) a stage classification of the charging process based on energy-population ordering (no/local/global inversion), with E = Ec + Ei and Ei = 0 in the absence of inversion; (ii) bounds on coherent ergotropy in terms of coherence and participation ratio, claimed to be attained at pure and 'completely delocalized' states (Eq. (10)); (iii) an 'enhance/maintain/suppress' phenomenology for incoherent ergotropy versus diagonal entropy and population ordering; and (iv) a relation between purity, locked energy, and charging efficiency. The claims are illustrated by random sampling (10^5–10^7 states) and by Jaynes–Cummings/Tavis–Cummings battery examples.

Significance. If proven, the bounds in Eq. (10) would be a useful addition to the ergotropy literature, whose existing bounds (e.g., Ref. [17]) are only partial. The paper's genuine strengths are its careful random-sampling methodology (SM Sec. I: HSRS, FERS, FPRS), the explicit JC/TC examples, and qualitative trends consistent with known results on coherence-enhanced extractable work. However, the central analytical claims are not established: the SM 'proof' of the bounds is an algebraic identity manipulation, and the claimed extremal states are not uniquely defined. The headline promise—'a rigorous framework for optimizing ergotropy'—is therefore not met; the reliable content is numerical and qualitative.

major comments (4)
  1. [Preliminaries, Eq. (6); Prop. 3] As typeset, Eq. (6) defines R(ρB) = E(ρB)/E(ρB), i.e., R ≡ 1. This contradicts the formula R(ρB) = 1 − Tr[ρ̃B HB]/E(ρB) used in the Proposition 3 paragraph and the non-trivial scatter plots in Figs. 3(c),(d). The root problem is notation: E denotes stored energy in Eq. (2) and ergotropy in Eq. (3). The definition must be repaired with distinct symbols; as printed, Proposition 3 and the abstract's 'boosts charging efficiency' claim are vacuous.
  2. [Prop. 2(i), Eq. (10); SM Sec. III] The bounds Ec(ρpur) ≤ Ec(ρB) ≤ Ec(ρdeloc) are asserted, with the premise that the pure state minimizes and the completely delocalized state maximizes the participation ratio at fixed coherence C deferred to the SM. SM Sec. III contains no extremality proof: Eqs. (S12)–(S15) merely verify algebraic identities—substituting p̃n = χn e^{−αεn} and rn = qn e^{−αεn} reproduces Ec(ρpur) and Ec(ρdeloc) exactly—using free parameters α, χn, qn. Both extremal states are non-unique at fixed C (for d=3, C=1 bit, pure states (0.8,0.1,0.1) and (0.5,0.5,0) give different Ec), and monotonicity of Ec in PR is not shown. The advertised rigorous bounds are therefore unproven and, as stated, not well-posed.
  3. [Proposition 1] Proposition 1 is true by construction: Eq. (5) defines Ec(ρB) = E(ρB) − Ei(ρB), so E = Ec + Ei is an identity, and Ei = 0 in the absence of population inversion follows immediately from the fact that the dephased state equals its passive state precisely when populations are non-increasing. The classification into stages I–III and the JC/TC dynamics exhibiting these stages are substantive and worth retaining, but presenting the additive decomposition as a 'proposition' overstates the result; the text should label it a definitional observation.
  4. [Prop. 2(ii); SM Sec. IV] The enhance/maintain/suppress classification is derived only as a local, infinitesimal-gradient analysis for three-level, equally spaced Hamiltonians (SM Eqs. (S16)–(S19), Tables S1–S2). The global statements—bounds for each population ordering, critical points at Sdiag = log n, and the claimed extension to d ≥ 4 (SM Sec. V)—are not proved; the scatter plots in Figs. 2(c)–(f) display trends but cannot certify bounds. If these are intended as rigorous claims, a complete proof is required; otherwise the proposition should be reframed as a numerical observation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10) notation] The sentence after Eq. (10) stating that rn = qn e^{−αεn} and p̃n = χn e^{−αεn} 'are the eigenvalues of ρpur_B and the dephased state corresponding to ρdeloc_B' is confusing and, as written, incorrect: a pure state has eigenvalues (1,0,…,0). Presumably rn are the eigenvalues of ρdeloc_B and p̃n the populations of the dephased state of ρpur_B; please clarify.
  2. [Prop. 3, analytical argument] The justification for Prop. 3—'stronger localization increases the population of ρ̃B in lower energy levels, thereby reducing locked energy'—is heuristic: participation ratio measures spread, not energy order. The numerics support a tendency, but the text should present this as a heuristic argument, not a derivation.
  3. [Corollary after Prop. 1] The corollary 'the lower bound of ergotropy is incoherent ergotropy' requires Ec ≥ 0 (equivalently E ≥ Ei), which is asserted without proof. If this is a standard result, a reference should be given; otherwise an argument is needed.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption; general typos] Minor presentation issues: 'tow- and three-level QBs' in the Fig. 3 caption should read 'two-'; the two uses of E for stored energy and ergotropy should be disambiguated throughout; and the claim that the new bounds are 'tighter' than Ref. [17] should be supported by a quantitative comparison.
  5. [SM Eq. (S22)] The eigenvalue labeling r1 ≤ r2 in SM Eq. (S22) is opposite to the ordering convention r1 ≥ r2 used in the main text near Eq. (3).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The advertised rigorous bounds on coherent ergotropy in Eq. (10) are not derived: the Supplemental Material only rewrites the target quantities via auxiliary parameters, while Proposition 1 is a definitional identity.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Preliminaries, Eq. (5); Proposition 1 (main text)]
    "Having defined the incoherent component of E, the coherent contribution to ergotropy can be readily given by the difference Ec (ρB) = E (ρB) − Ei (ρB). ... Proposition 1.—In the absence of population inversion, the ergotropy coincides with the coherent ergotropy–with the incoherent ergotropy being zero–i.e., E = Ec, Ei = 0. In the presence of population inversion, however, the ergotropy is governed by both coherent and incoherent contributions, such that E = Ec + Ei."

    Ec is defined in Eq. (5) as E − Ei, so the claimed decomposition E = Ec + Ei is true by construction and contains no dynamical content. The clause Ei = 0 in the absence of population inversion is likewise just the statement that the dephased state is already passive, which is how the passive state of the dephased state is defined. Presenting these definitions as Proposition 1 makes a tautology look like a derived result; later numerical checks of JC/TC dynamics merely re-display the definitions.

  2. other [Proposition 2(i), Eq. (10); SM Sec. III, Eqs. (S11)–(S15)]
    "Due to that the participation ratio of the pure state ρpur_B is minimal and that of the completely delocalized state ρdeloc_B is maximal for any given coherence, we can obtain bounds for the coherent ergotropy Ec: Ec(ρpur_B) ≤ Ec(ρB) ≤ Ec(ρdeloc_B). ... Considering the coherent ergotropy of pure state Ec(ρpur_B) = Σ p̃_n ε_n − ε1, we can obtain the low bound of coherent ergotropy Ec(ρpur_B) = 1/α [ C(ρpur_B) + Σ p̃_n log χ_n − αε1 ]."

    The SM 'derivation' does not compare Ec(ρB) with the two endpoint values. It sets p̃_n = χ_n e^{-αε_n}, rewrites C(ρpur_B) as αΣ p̃_n ε_n − Σ p̃_n log χ_n, and then solves for Ec(ρpur_B); the same maneuver is applied to ρdeloc_B. These are algebraic identities for the chosen states, not inequalities. The claimed inequality in Eq. (10) rests on the unproved assertion that the pure state minimizes and the delocalized state maximizes the participation ratio at fixed coherence, plus an implicit monotonicity of Ec in the participation ratio. The endpoint formulas are therefore rearrangements of the quantities to be bounded, and the bound itself is an extra assumption rather than a consequence of the derivation.

full rationale

The numerical portions of the paper—random sampling, the JC/TC dynamics, the purity/charging-efficiency scans, and the SM sensitivity analysis of incoherent ergotropy versus diagonal entropy—are not circular in themselves; they can illustrate trends even where they do not prove rigorous bounds. However, two load-bearing pieces of the claimed derivation chain reduce to definitions or to assumed extremality. First, Proposition 1 is an identity: since Ec is defined as E − Ei, the decomposition E = Ec + Ei is immediate, and Ei = 0 without population inversion follows from the definition of the passive state. Second, the central advertised result, the coherent-ergotropy bounds of Eq. (10), is not actually derived in SM Sec. III. The SM rewrites C(ρpur_B) and C(ρdeloc_B) with free auxiliary parameters and then solves for Ec of those states; this produces identities for the two chosen states, not a proof that every state of fixed coherence lies between them. The extremality of the participation ratio at fixed coherence is asserted, not proven, and the 'completely delocalized state' is not uniquely fixed by the coherence value, so Ec(ρdeloc_B) is ambiguous. Thus the paper's central claim of a rigorous optimization framework is partially circular/unsupported, though the paper also contains independent numerical content, so it is not wholly circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on model assumptions (closed unitary charging, random-state representativeness), an unproved extremality premise for the coherent-ergotropy bounds, and a local equal-spacing assumption for the incoherent-ergotropy conditions. Three auxiliary parameters (α, χ_n, q_n) are introduced in the bound formulas without being fixed, making the claimed bounds not quantitatively defined.

free parameters (3)
  • α
    Auxiliary 'inverse-temperature' parameter introduced in Eq. (10) and SM Sec. III to parametrize pure/delocalized state populations as p̃_n = χ_n exp(−α ε_n). Never determined; the claimed bounds depend on it.
  • χ_n
    Auxiliary weights in the pure-state parametrization; the lower-bound expression Ec(ρ_pur) = (1/α)[C + Σ p̃_n log χ_n − α ε_1] is a function of freely chosen χ_n.
  • q_n
    Auxiliary weights in the delocalized-state parametrization r_n = q_n exp(−α ε_n); the upper-bound expression depends on them and they are not specified.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Step-function charging Hamiltonian with a product initial state and unitary closed-system dynamics (Preliminaries, Eq. 1).
    All propositions are stated for this model; extension to open QBs is only illustrated numerically in the SM, not proven.
  • domain assumption Random sampling from Hilbert-Schmidt/GUE measures is representative of all QB states and Hamiltonians.
    The enhancement/monotonicity claims are inferred from these samples; no analytic proof is given for general states or Hamiltonians.
  • ad hoc to paper For fixed coherence C, the pure state minimizes and the 'completely delocalized' state maximizes the participation ratio, and these states bound the coherent ergotropy.
    This premise of Eq. (10) is asserted without proof and the delocalized state for fixed C is not uniquely defined.
  • domain assumption Incoherent-ergotropy derivations assume equally spaced battery levels and that infinitesimal population variations do not change the ordering.
    Tables S1/S2 are local differential results for the equal-spacing case; the paper asserts generality to arbitrary Hamiltonians without a proof.
  • standard math Majorization / von Neumann trace inequality: eigenvalues of ρ majorize its diagonal, implying E ≥ Ei.
    The lower-bound claim E ≥ Ei follows from this standard result, but the paper presents it as a corollary of its own Proposition 1 without invoking or proving the majorization step.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20944 in / 21610 out tokens · 192713 ms · 2026-08-03T13:59:47.313282+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Ergotropy--a key figure of merit for quantum battery (QB) performance--plays a crucial role. However, the dynamics and physical mechanisms governing ergotropy evolution remain open challenges. Here, we investigate the ergotropy of a general QB model and find that the charging process is accompanied by the variation and inversion of the energy level populations. In the absence of population inversion, the ergotropy is fully consistent with coherent ergotropy; in local and global population inversion, it is determined by both coherent and incoherent ergotropy. Via random sampling of quantum states and Hamiltonians, we show that coherence and the participation ratio enhance coherent ergotropy, whereas incoherent ergotropy--whether enhanced, unchanged, or suppressed--depends on diagonal entropy, the participation ratio, and energy level population ordering. We demonstrate that the ergotropy lower bound is incoherent ergotropy, the upper bound is the QB stored energy, and enhanced QB purity suppresses locked energy and boosts charging efficiency. Furthermore, we use the Tavis-Cummings (TC) and Jaynes-Cummings (JC) batteries as paradigms to validate our findings. Our work elucidates ergotropy underlying mechanisms in general QBs and establishes a rigorous framework for optimizing ergotropy and charging efficiency, paving the way for high-performance quantum energy-storage devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.21855 by Cheng-Jie Wang, Fu-Quan Dou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of the charging process, which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (c). For the three-level QBs, the relationship be￾tween the incoherent ergotropy and the diagonal entropy or participation ratio is no longer monotonic; it may in￾crease, remain, or suppress under different conditions (for example, when the variation of energy-level population satisfies ∆p1 > max{−1/2∆p2, −∆p2 log p3 p2 / log p3 p2 } or ∆p1 < min{−1/2∆p2, −∆p2 log p3 p2 / log p3 p2 }, the diagonal entropy … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The dependence of both (a),(b) the locked energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_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.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Scaling law of asymptotic freedom in collective charging of quantum batteries

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Establishes a universal ~N^{-1} scaling law for the ergotropy-to-energy ratio in collective quantum battery charging, with faster rates possible when the state is asymptotically pure.

  2. Quantum resonance-enhanced performance of quantum battery

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    At quantum resonance, kicked-rotor and kicked-top quantum batteries charge with power growing linearly in time and near-unity extractable-energy efficiency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Population evolution plays a crucial role in the charg- ing process, which is generally accompanied by popula- tion changes and inversion

    In the presence of population inversion, however, the ergotropy is governed by both coherent and incoherent contributions, such that E = Ec + Ei. Population evolution plays a crucial role in the charg- ing process, which is generally accompanied by popula- tion changes and inversion. As sketched in Fig. 1(a), the charging process can usually be divided in...

  2. [2]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Streltsov, G

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

    2017

  4. [4]

    Y. Yao, X. Xiao, L. Ge, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022112 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Designolle, R

    S. Designolle, R. Uola, K. Luoma, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 220404 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  7. [7]

    Giraldi and P

    F. Giraldi and P. Grigolini, Phys. Rev. A 64, 032310 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    ˙Zyczkowski, P

    K. ˙Zyczkowski, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012101 (2001)

    2001

  9. [9]

    Zanardi, Phys

    P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 63, 040304 (2001)

    2001

  10. [10]

    Brand˜ ao, M

    F. Brand˜ ao, M. Horodecki, N. Ng, J. Oppenheim, and S. Wehner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 3275 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    ´Cwikli´ nski, M

    P. ´Cwikli´ nski, M. Studzi´ nski, M. Horodecki, and J. Op- penheim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 210403 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwen- huizen, EPL 67, 565 (2004)

    2004

  13. [13]

    ˇSafr´ anek, D

    D. ˇSafr´ anek, D. Rosa, and F. C. Binder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 210401 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Castellano, D

    R. Castellano, D. Farina, V. Giovannetti, and A. Acin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 150402 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Salvia, G

    R. Salvia, G. De Palma, and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012405 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Francica, J

    G. Francica, J. Goold, F. Plastina, and M. Paternostro, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 12 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

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

    2024

  18. [18]

    Francica, F

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

    2020

  19. [19]

    Alicki and M

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

    2013

  20. [20]

    Campaioli, S

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

    2024

  21. [21]

    Quach, G

    J. Quach, G. Cerullo, and T. Virgili, Joule 7, 2195 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Quantum batteries,

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, and S. Vinjanampathy, “Quantum batteries,” in Thermodynamics in the Quan- tum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. An- ders, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018) pp. 207–225

    2018

  23. [23]

    N. A. Khan, X. Zhang, C. Huang, Y. Liu, and D. He, Phys. Rev. B 112, 104318 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Y. Wang, H. Wu, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. A 112, L030201 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

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

    2025

  26. [26]

    Rojo-Francas, F

    A. Rojo-Francas, F. Isaule, A. C. Santos, B. Julia-Diaz, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. A 110, 032205 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Zhang, S

    D. Zhang, S. Ma, Y. Jiang, Y. Yu, G. Jin, and A. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 110, 032211 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Joshi and T

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

    2022

  29. [29]

    Ferraro, M

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

    2018

  30. [30]

    G. M. Andolina, D. Farina, A. Mari, V. Pellegrini, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205423 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

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

    2019

  32. [32]

    Rossini, G

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

    2019

  33. [33]

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

    2019

  34. [34]

    Rossini, G

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

    2020

  35. [35]

    Peng, W.-B

    L. Peng, W.-B. He, S. Chesi, H.-Q. Lin, and X.-W. Guan, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052220 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Dou, Y.-J

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, EPL 131, 43001 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Dou, Y.-J

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Front. Phys. 17, 31503 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    A. C. Santos, A. Saguia, and M. S. Sarandy, Phys. Rev. E 101, 062114 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Qi and J

    S.-F. Qi and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032606 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

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

    2022

  41. [41]

    Ghosh, T

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

    2020

  42. [42]

    Song, L.-J

    M.-L. Song, L.-J. Li, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. E 106, 054107 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    R. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, R. Alicki, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042419 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Dou, Y.-Q

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-Q. Lu, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Phys. Rev. B 105, 115405 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Dou and F.-M

    F.-Q. Dou and F.-M. Yang, Phys. Rev. A 107, 023725 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Guo, F.-M

    W.-X. Guo, F.-M. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032201 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Yao and X

    Y. Yao and X. Q. Shao, Phys. Rev. E 104, 044116 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Song, H.-B

    W.-L. Song, H.-B. Liu, B. Zhou, W.-L. Yang, and J.-H. 7 An, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 090401 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Grazi, D

    R. Grazi, D. Sacco Shaikh, M. Sassetti, N. Traverso Ziani, and D. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 197001 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Commun. Phys. 6, 322 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Wang, S.-Q

    L. Wang, S.-Q. Liu, F.-l. Wu, H. Fan, and S.-Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 110, 062204 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. C´ eleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  53. [53]

    H.-B. Ma, K. Xu, H.-G. Li, Z.-G. Li, and H.-J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022433 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    F. H. Kamin, S. Salimi, and M. B. Arjmandi, Phys. Rev. A 109, 022226 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    Xu, H.-J

    K. Xu, H.-J. Zhu, H. Zhu, G.-F. Zhang, and W.-M. Liu, Front. Phys. 18, 31301 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Phys. Rev. A 109, 052206 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, and A. C. Santos, Phys. Rev. E 105, 054115 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    Xu, H.-G

    K. Xu, H.-G. Li, Z.-G. Li, H.-J. Zhu, G.-F. Zhang, and W.-M. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012425 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    S. Seah, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack, N. Brunner, and S. Nimmrichter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 100601 (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    P. A. Erdman, G. M. Andolina, V. Giovannetti, and F. No´ e, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 243602 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Medina, O

    I. Medina, O. Culhane, F. C. Binder, G. T. Landi, and J. Goold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 220402 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    M. A. Fasihi, R. Jafarzadeh Bahrbeig, B. Mojaveri, and R. Haji Mohammadzadeh, Phys. Rev. E 112, 024117 (2025)

    2025

  63. [63]

    D. Qu, X. Zhan, H. Lin, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180301 (2023)

    2023

  64. [64]

    Huang, K

    X. Huang, K. Wang, L. Xiao, L. Gao, H. Lin, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. A 107, L030201 (2023)

    2023

  65. [65]

    Zhang, S

    D. Zhang, S. Ma, Y. Yu, G. Jin, and A. Chen, Adv. Quantum Technol. 8, e2500243 (2025)

    2025

  66. [66]

    Crescente, M

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

    2020

  67. [67]

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

    2023

  68. [68]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzan- jeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 210402 (2024)

    2024

  69. [69]

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

    2023

  70. [70]

    Lai, J.-D

    P.-R. Lai, J.-D. Lin, Y.-T. Huang, H.-C. Jan, and Y.-N. Chen, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023136 (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    Gherardini, F

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

    2020

  72. [72]

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

    2022

  73. [73]

    Tirone, R

    S. Tirone, R. Salvia, S. Chessa, and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012204 (2025)

    2025

  74. [74]

    L. P. Garcia-Pintos, A. Hamma, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 040601 (2020)

    2020

  75. [75]

    Song, X.-K

    M.-L. Song, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. E 109, 064103 (2024)

    2024

  76. [76]

    Tirone, R

    S. Tirone, R. Salvia, S. Chessa, and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 060402 (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi, and A. C. Santos, Phys. Rev. E 102, 052109 (2020)

    2020

  78. [78]

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

    2022

  79. [79]

    R. P. A. Simon, J. Anders, and K. V. Hovhannisyan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 010408 (2025)

    2025

  80. [80]

    A. Ali, S. Al-Kuwari, M. I. Hussain, T. Byrnes, M. T. Rahim, J. Q. Quach, M. Ghominejad, and S. Haddadi, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052404 (2024)

    2024

Showing first 80 references.