pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22583 · v1 · pith:IBSJKRJ6new · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🪐 quant-ph

Optimal work extraction in measurement-based quantum Otto engines: Non-adiabaticity and generalized measurements can be beneficial

Arunabha Das , Sayan Mondal , Debarupa Saha , Ujjwal Sen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 05:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum Otto enginemeasurement-based enginePOVMPVMnon-adiabaticwork extractionquantum thermodynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Measurement-based quantum Otto engines can outperform conventional ones using POVMs and non-adiabatic operations.

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

This paper examines a qubit-based quantum Otto engine where quantum measurements replace the usual hot thermal bath. It demonstrates that optimizing over two-outcome POVMs extracts more work than over PVMs and that such engines can exceed the work output of standard quantum Otto cycles in selected parameter regimes. The net work advantage for POVM versions persists after subtracting the thermodynamic cost of resetting the auxiliary system, provided the spectral gaps and cold-bath temperature satisfy the stated conditions. Non-adiabatic finite-time driving is also shown to improve both extracted work and efficiency over adiabatic driving in certain regimes.

Core claim

In a measurement-based quantum Otto engine with a qubit working substance, optimization over all two-outcome POVMs yields higher work extraction than optimization over PVMs and can surpass conventional thermal Otto engines in specific regimes. After including the thermodynamic cost of resetting the auxiliary system required for POVM implementation, the net work output still exceeds that of PVM-based engines under suitable conditions on the spectral gaps and cold bath temperature. Regimes are identified in which non-adiabatic implementations produce higher work output and efficiency than their adiabatic counterparts.

What carries the argument

Optimization of the measurement stroke over all possible two-outcome POVMs versus PVMs in the quantum Otto cycle, with explicit accounting for the auxiliary-system reset cost.

If this is right

  • Measurement-based engines can achieve higher work than conventional quantum Otto engines in specific parameter regimes.
  • POVM-based engines provide higher optimal work extraction than PVM-based engines.
  • Net work after including POVM reset cost can exceed PVM-based engines for suitable spectral gaps and cold bath temperatures.
  • Non-adiabatic implementations can yield higher work output and efficiency than adiabatic counterparts in certain regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The controllability of measurements could be used to replace thermal baths in other quantum thermodynamic cycles.
  • The observed benefit of non-adiabatic driving suggests that finite-time effects deserve systematic optimization rather than being treated only as losses.

Load-bearing premise

The thermodynamic cost of resetting the auxiliary system for POVM implementation can be subtracted from the extracted work while still leaving a net advantage under the stated conditions on spectral gaps and cold-bath temperature.

What would settle it

A direct calculation or physical realization of the POVM-based engine at the identified spectral gaps and cold-bath temperature that shows whether the net work after reset cost exceeds the corresponding PVM-based work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22583 by Arunabha Das, Debarupa Saha, Sayan Mondal, Ujjwal Sen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the measurement-based quan￾tum Otto engine. The measurement-based quantum Otto engine consists of four strokes. In Stroke-I, the working medium thermal￾izes with a cold bath at temperature Tc. Stroke-II and Stroke-IV are unitary driving strokes, generated through adiabatic or non-adiabatic driving of the Hamiltonian. Since these strokes are entropy conserv￾ing, they correspond to the w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Extractable work: comparison between the PVM-based and conventional two-bath Otto engines. The non-adiabatic work output, W, is plotted as a function of the non-adiabaticity parameter P, where P = 1 corresponds to the adiabatic limit. The dashed turquoise curve denotes the maximum extractable work from the PVM-based Otto engine, WΠ M, obtained after optimization over all measurement settings. For compariso… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Extractable work: comparison between the PVM-based and POVM-based Otto engines. The non-adiabatic work output, W, is plotted as a function of the non-adiabaticity parameter P, where P = 1 corresponds to the adiabatic limit. The turquoise dashed curve denotes the maximum extractable work from the POVM-based Otto engine, WP M, obtained after optimization over all measurement settings. At the adiabatic limit,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the advantage of the POVM-based engine over the PVM-based engine and the corresponding aux￾iliary reset cost. The enhancement in work extraction offered by the POVM-based engine over the PVM-based engine is quantified by the difference between their respective optimal work outputs, ∆WPΠ [Eq. (41)], shown by the dashed blue curve. The solid or￾ange curve represents the auxiliary reset cos… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Measurement-based quantum heat engines have attracted significant interest as alternatives to conventional thermal engines, as they replace the hot thermal reservoir with quantum measurements, thereby offering greater controllability and simpler implementation. Motivated by these advantages, we investigate a measurement-driven quantum Otto engine with a qubit working substance and study the optimal work extractable from such engines, including whether their performance can surpass that of conventional quantum Otto cycles. We analyze the engine in both the infinite-time (adiabatic) and finite-time (non-adiabatic) regimes, considering two distinct implementations obtained through optimization over all projection-valued measurements (PVMs) and over all two-outcome positive operator-valued measurements (POVMs). We show that measurement-based engines can outperform conventional quantum Otto engines within specific parameter regimes and that POVM-based engines can yield higher optimal work extraction than PVM-based ones. Furthermore, by incorporating the thermodynamic cost associated with resetting the auxiliary system required for POVM implementation, we demonstrate that the resulting net work output can still exceed that of PVM-based engines under suitable conditions on the spectral gaps and cold bath temperature. We also identify regimes in which non-adiabatic implementations can yield higher work output and efficiency than their adiabatic counterparts. Our study provides operational guidelines for designing improved measurement-driven quantum Otto engines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes optimal work extraction in a measurement-based quantum Otto engine with a qubit working substance. It compares conventional thermal Otto cycles to measurement-driven variants implemented via optimized projection-valued measurements (PVMs) and two-outcome positive operator-valued measurements (POVMs), in both the adiabatic (infinite-time) and non-adiabatic (finite-time) regimes. The central claims are that measurement-based engines can outperform conventional ones in specific parameter regimes, that POVM-based engines extract more work than PVM-based ones, that the net work after subtracting the thermodynamic reset cost of the POVM auxiliary still exceeds the PVM case under suitable conditions on spectral gaps and cold-bath temperature, and that non-adiabatic driving can yield higher work and efficiency than adiabatic driving in identified regimes.

Significance. If the derivations and cost accounting hold, the work supplies concrete operational guidelines for designing measurement-driven quantum engines that exploit generalized measurements and finite-time effects. The explicit inclusion of auxiliary reset costs adds practical relevance beyond idealized models. The optimization over all POVMs and the direct comparison of adiabatic versus non-adiabatic performance constitute clear strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV.B] Section IV.B (Net work output after auxiliary reset): The thermodynamic cost subtracted from the extracted work is taken as the free-energy difference required to return the auxiliary to its initial thermal state. However, because the auxiliary is entangled with the working qubit during the joint POVM, the post-measurement reduced state of the auxiliary is in general neither diagonal in its energy basis nor fully thermalized. The minimal work cost to reset this state therefore depends on the specific Kraus operators and the instantaneous qubit state; the paper does not demonstrate that the fixed-cost subtraction remains valid or that the stated conditions on spectral gaps and cold-bath temperature continue to guarantee a net advantage once the state-dependent cost is used. A explicit calculation of the reset cost from the actual reduced density matrix is required to support the net-work-
  2. [Section III.C] Section III.C (Non-adiabatic regime): The claim that non-adiabatic implementations can outperform adiabatic ones rests on numerical optimization over finite-time driving protocols. It is unclear whether the reported efficiency and work gains survive when the same optimization is performed under the constraint that the working substance remains in a thermal state at the end of each stroke, or whether they arise only from transient coherences that would be dissipated in a full cycle. Clarification of the final-state thermalization assumption is needed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that POVM engines can yield higher optimal work extraction than PVM-based ones, yet the precise figure or table that quantifies the improvement (e.g., the maximal work difference as a function of temperature ratio) is not referenced in the abstract or introduction.
  2. [Section II] Notation for the two-outcome POVM elements (Eq. (12) or equivalent) should explicitly state whether the auxiliary is traced out before or after the work-extraction stroke.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our analysis. We address each major comment in detail below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section IV.B] Section IV.B (Net work output after auxiliary reset): The thermodynamic cost subtracted from the extracted work is taken as the free-energy difference required to return the auxiliary to its initial thermal state. However, because the auxiliary is entangled with the working qubit during the joint POVM, the post-measurement reduced state of the auxiliary is in general neither diagonal in its energy basis nor fully thermalized. The minimal work cost to reset this state therefore depends on the specific Kraus operators and the instantaneous qubit state; the paper does not demonstrate that the fixed-cost subtraction remains valid or that the stated conditions on spectral gaps and cold-bath temperature continue to guarantee a net advantage once the state-dependent cost is used. A explicit calculation of the reset cost from the actual reduced density matrix is required to suport

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing out this subtlety in the reset-cost accounting. The original analysis employed the free-energy difference to the auxiliary's initial thermal state as the minimal thermodynamic cost of reset, which is the standard lower bound when no additional information about the post-measurement state is used. We acknowledge that entanglement can make the reduced auxiliary state non-thermal, rendering the cost state-dependent. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit calculation of the minimal reset work from the actual post-measurement reduced density matrix of the auxiliary (using its von Neumann entropy and mean energy). The new results confirm that, for the optimized two-outcome POVMs and under the stated conditions on spectral-gap separation and sufficiently low cold-bath temperature, the net-work advantage over the PVM case is preserved. These calculations and the updated discussion have been incorporated into Section IV.B together with a short appendix containing the relevant derivations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section III.C] Section III.C (Non-adiabatic regime): The claim that non-adiabatic implementations can outperform adiabatic ones rests on numerical optimization over finite-time driving protocols. It is unclear whether the reported efficiency and work gains survive when the same optimization is performed under the constraint that the working substance remains in a thermal state at the end of each stroke, or whether they arise only from transient coherences that would be dissipated in a full cycle. Clarification of the final-state thermalization assumption is needed.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's request for clarification on the thermalization assumption. Our non-adiabatic optimizations were performed over complete engine cycles that include the final cold-bath contact, which enforces thermalization of the working substance before the next cycle. The reported work and efficiency gains therefore already incorporate the dissipation of any transient coherences generated during the finite-time strokes. To make this explicit, we have added a paragraph in Section III.C explaining the cycle structure and have included supplementary numerical results in which the optimization is repeated under an explicit constraint that the working-substance state at the end of each stroke is thermal. These constrained optimizations still exhibit regimes in which non-adiabatic driving yields higher net work and efficiency than the adiabatic limit, demonstrating that the advantage is not an artifact of undissipated coherences. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation proceeds from explicit optimization and stated modeling assumptions

full rationale

The paper derives optimal work by optimizing over all PVMs and two-outcome POVMs on a qubit working substance, then compares adiabatic vs non-adiabatic regimes and includes an explicit thermodynamic reset cost for the POVM auxiliary under stated conditions on spectral gaps and cold-bath temperature. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The net-work comparison after cost subtraction is a direct modeling choice whose validity is conditioned on external parameters rather than being tautological with the input definitions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the model's Hamiltonian, measurement operators, and reset accounting.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; ledger is therefore provisional. No free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are explicitly introduced in the provided text. The work rests on standard quantum mechanics and the quantum Otto cycle framework.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and the thermodynamic description of the quantum Otto cycle apply to the qubit working substance and the chosen measurements.
    Invoked throughout the abstract when defining the engine cycle, work extraction, and measurement implementations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5777 in / 1366 out tokens · 72162 ms · 2026-05-22T05:21:04.891677+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We show that measurement-based engines can outperform conventional quantum Otto engines... POVM-based engines can yield higher optimal work extraction than PVM-based ones... incorporating the thermodynamic cost associated with resetting the auxiliary system

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    dual annealing

    Measurement-based Otto engines In a measurement-based Otto cycle, one of the thermaliza- tion strokes is replaced by a quantum measurement stroke. The energy exchanged during this process is interpreted as heat, since the measurement changes the entropy of the work- ing medium while the Hamiltonian remains fixed. Depend- ing on the protocol, either the ho...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (A9)) whereτ x = tanh[(ℏ/2)βhωx]

    Comparison for the adiabatic implementation The work output of a conventional two-bath Otto engine is given byW C = (ℏ/2)(τ z −τ x)(ωx −ω z), (see Eq. (A9)) whereτ x = tanh[(ℏ/2)βhωx]. The work output is maximized in the limitβ h →0, corresponding to an infinitely hot bath, yieldingW C M = W C βh=0 = ℏ 2 τz(ωx −ω z). This coincides exactly with the maxima...

    work page

  3. [3]

    [55]] PVM-based POVM-based Efficiency (adiabatic) ηC =η 0 [Sec

    Comparison for the non-adiabatic implementation In the regime of non-adiabatic work strokes, the work out- put of the two-bath conventional Otto engine, after maximiz- 11 Conventional two-bath [Ref. [55]] PVM-based POVM-based Efficiency (adiabatic) ηC =η 0 [Sec. III]η Π =η 0 [Sec. III]η P =η 0 [Sec. III] Optimal work (adiabatic) W C M = ℏ 2∆ω∆τ[Eq.(A9)] ≤...

    work page

  4. [4]

    V A, we have presented the optimal work for the POVM-based Otto engineW P M in Eq

    Comparison for the adiabatic implementation In Sec. V A, we have presented the optimal work for the POVM-based Otto engineW P M in Eq. (36). On the other hand, the optimal work for the PVM-based Otto engineW Π M is de- rived in Sec. IV A as Eq. (14). The difference between the two is given by ∆W PΠ :=W P M −W Π M = ℏ 2 (ωx −ω z).(41) Sinceω x > ω z, we ha...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Comparison for the non-adiabatic implementation In Fig. 3, we compare the maximum work extractable from the PVM-based engine,W Π M (red small dot-dashed), with the net work extractable from the POVM-based engine, for a fixed cold-bath inverse temperatureβ c = 1. The quantity W P M −k BTc ln 2(blue large dot-dashed) is presented as a lower bound on the net...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The system is kept detached from the cold bath during this stroke

    =− ℏ 2 ωz tanhv z.(A2) The second stroke consists of a unitary evolution of the Hamiltonian toH (2) = (ℏωxσx)/2starting fromH (1), where σz represents the Pauli spin matrix along thexdirection. The system is kept detached from the cold bath during this stroke. The change of energy due to this stroke is considered as work according to the entropy-based def...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Gemmer, M

    J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler,Quantum Thermody- namics: Emergence of Thermodynamic Behavior Within Com- posite Quantum Systems(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermodynamics, Contemporary Physics57, 545 (2016). [3]Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental As- pects and New Directions(Springer International Publishing, 2018)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynamics, 2053- 2571 (Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2019)

    work page 2053

  10. [10]

    Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, Journal of Physics A12(1979)

    R. Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, Journal of Physics A12(1979)

    work page 1979

  11. [11]

    Kosloff, A quantum mechanical open system as a model of a heat engine, The Journal of Chemical Physics80, 1625 (1984)

    R. Kosloff, A quantum mechanical open system as a model of a heat engine, The Journal of Chemical Physics80, 1625 (1984)

    work page 1984

  12. [13]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. S. Johal, and G. Mahler, Work ex- tremum principle: Structure and function of quantum heat en- gines, Phys. Rev. E77, 041118 (2008)

    work page 2008

  13. [14]

    M. O. Scully, K. R. Chapin, K. E. Dorfman, M. B. Kim, and A. Svidzinsky, Quantum heat engine power can be in- creased by noise-induced coherence, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences108, 15097 (2011)

    work page 2011

  14. [15]

    Fialko and D

    O. Fialko and D. W. Hallwood, Isolated quantum heat engine, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 085303 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [16]

    Kosloff and A

    R. Kosloff and A. Levy, Quantum heat engines and refrigera- tors: Continuous devices, Annu. Rev. of Phys. Chem.65, 365 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [17]

    Niedenzu, D

    W. Niedenzu, D. Gelbwaser-Klimovsky, A. G. Kofman, and G. Kurizki, On the operation of machines powered by quantum non-thermal baths, New Journal of Physics18, 083012 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [18]

    Uzdin, Coherence-induced reversibility and collective oper- ation of quantum heat machines via coherence recycling, Phys

    R. Uzdin, Coherence-induced reversibility and collective oper- ation of quantum heat machines via coherence recycling, Phys. Rev. Appl.6, 024004 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [19]

    Friedenberger and E

    A. Friedenberger and E. Lutz, When is a quantum heat engine quantum?, Europhysics Letters120, 10002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [20]

    Niedenzu, V

    W. Niedenzu, V . Mukherjee, A. Ghosh, A. G. Kofman, and G. Kurizki, Quantum engine efficiency bound beyond the sec- ond law of thermodynamics, Nature Communications9, 165 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [21]

    L. M. Cangemi, C. Bhadra, and A. Levy, Quantum engines and refrigerators, Physics Reports1087, 1 (2024), quantum engines and refrigerators

    work page 2024

  21. [22]

    J. P. Palao, R. Kosloff, and J. M. Gordon, Quantum thermody- namic cooling cycle, Phys. Rev. E64, 056130 (2001)

    work page 2001

  22. [23]

    Rezek, P

    Y . Rezek, P. Salamon, K. H. Hoffmann, and R. Kosloff, The quantum refrigerator: The quest for absolute zero, Europhysics Letters85, 30008 (2009)

    work page 2009

  23. [24]

    Optimal Performance of Quantum Refrigerators

    T. Feldmann and R. Kosloff, Optimal performance of quantum refrigerators, arXiv:0906.0986 (2009)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [25]

    Linden, S

    N. Linden, S. Popescu, and P. Skrzypczyk, How small can ther- mal machines be? the smallest possible refrigerator, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 130401 (2010)

    work page 2010

  25. [26]

    Joulain, J

    K. Joulain, J. Drevillon, Y . Ezzahri, and J. Ordonez-Miranda, Quantum thermal transistor, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 200601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  26. [27]

    Riera-Campeny, M

    A. Riera-Campeny, M. Mehboudi, M. Pons, and A. Sanpera, Dynamically induced heat rectification in quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E99, 032126 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [28]

    Mandarino, K

    A. Mandarino, K. Joulain, M. D. G´omez, and B. Bellomo, Ther- mal transistor effect in quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 034026 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [29]

    Majland, K

    M. Majland, K. S. Christensen, and N. T. Zinner, Quantum ther- mal transistor in superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. B101, 184510 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [30]

    Ghosh, A

    R. Ghosh, A. Ghoshal, and U. Sen, Quantum thermal transis- tors: Operation characteristics in steady state versus transient regimes, Phys. Rev. A103, 052613 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [31]

    Bhargava, P

    D. Bhargava, P. Chaki, A. Bhattacharyya, and U. Sen, Quantum transistors for heat flux in and out of working substance parts: harmonic vs transmon and kerr environs, arXiv:2501.11629 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Tiwari, S

    D. Tiwari, S. Bhattacharya, and S. Banerjee, Quantum thermal analogs of electric circuits: A universal approach, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 020404 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [33]

    Maity, P

    A. Maity, P. Chaki, A. Ghoshal, and U. Sen, Quantum heat transformers, New Journal of Physics28, 014501 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [34]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Entanglement boost for extractable work from ensembles of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E87, 042123 (2013)

    work page 2013

  34. [35]

    Bhattacharjee and A

    S. Bhattacharjee and A. Dutta, Quantum thermal machines and batteries, The European Physical Journal B94, 239 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [36]

    Campaioli, S

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

    work page 2024

  36. [37]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and B. K. Meister, Entropy and tem- perature of a quantum carnot engine, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 458, 1519 (2002)

    work page 2002

  37. [38]

    Gelbwaser-Klimovsky, R

    D. Gelbwaser-Klimovsky, R. Alicki, and G. Kurizki, Mini- mal universal quantum heat machine, Phys. Rev. E87, 012140 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [39]

    H. T. Quan, Y .-x. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum ther- modynamic cycles and quantum heat engines, Phys. Rev. E76, 031105 (2007)

    work page 2007

  39. [40]

    Abiuso and M

    P. Abiuso and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Optimal cycles for low- dissipation heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 110606 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [41]

    M. J. Henrich, F. Rempp, and G. Mahler, Quantum thermody- namic otto machines: A spin-system approach, EPJ ST151, 157 (2007)

    work page 2007

  41. [42]

    O. Abah, J. Roßnagel, G. Jacob, S. Deffner, F. Schmidt-Kaler, K. Singer, and E. Lutz, Single-ion heat engine at maximum power, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 203006 (2012)

    work page 2012

  42. [43]

    Uzdin and R

    R. Uzdin and R. Kosloff, Universal features in the efficiency at maximal work of hot quantum otto engines, EPL108(2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [44]

    Leggio and M

    B. Leggio and M. Antezza, Otto engine beyond its standard quantum limit, Phys. Rev. E93, 022122 (2016)

    work page 2016

  44. [45]

    Kosloff and Y

    R. Kosloff and Y . Rezek, The quantum harmonic otto cycle, Entropy19(2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [46]

    Mehta and R

    V . Mehta and R. S. Johal, Quantum otto engine with exchange coupling in the presence of level degeneracy, Phys. Rev. E96, 032110 (2017)

    work page 2017

  46. [47]

    G. A. Barrios, F. Albarr ´an-Arriagada, F. A. C ´ardenas-L´opez, G. Romero, and J. C. Retamal, Role of quantum correlations in light-matter quantum heat engines, Phys. Rev. A96, 052119 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [48]

    N. F. Del Grosso, F. C. Lombardo, F. D. Mazzitelli, and P. I. Villar, Quantum otto cycle in a superconducting cavity in the nonadiabatic regime, Phys. Rev. A105, 022202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [49]

    Kosloff, A quantum mechanical open system as a model of a heat engine, J

    R. Kosloff, A quantum mechanical open system as a model of a heat engine, J. Chem. Phys.80, 1625 (1984). 20

    work page 1984

  49. [50]

    Geva and R

    E. Geva and R. Kosloff, On the classical limit of quantum ther- modynamics in finite time, J.Chem.Phys.97, 4398 (1992)

    work page 1992

  50. [51]

    Geva, E.and Kosloff, Three-level quantum amplifier as a heat engine: A study in finite-time thermodynamics, Phys

    R. Geva, E.and Kosloff, Three-level quantum amplifier as a heat engine: A study in finite-time thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E. 49, 3903 (1994)

    work page 1994

  51. [52]

    H. B. Mehta and O. Bharti, Performance analysis of an irre- versible otto cycle using finite time thermodynamics, inPro- ceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, V ol. 2 (WCE London, UK, 2009) p. 1

    work page 2009

  52. [53]

    F. Wu, J. He, Y . Ma, and J. Wang, Efficiency at maximum power of a quantum otto cycle within finite-time or irreversible ther- modynamics, Phys. Rev. E90, 062134 (2014)

    work page 2014

  53. [54]

    Alecce, F

    A. Alecce, F. Galve, N. L. Gullo, L. Dell’Anna, F. Plastina, and R. Zambrini, Quantum otto cycle with inner friction: finite-time and disorder effects, New.J.Phys17, 075007 (2015)

    work page 2015

  54. [55]

    J. Chen, C. Sun, and H. Dong, Boosting the performance of quantum otto heat engines, Phys. Rev. E100, 032144 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [56]

    Abah and M

    O. Abah and M. Paternostro, Shortcut-to-adiabaticity otto en- gine: A twist to finite-time thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E99, 022110 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [57]

    M. Kloc, P. Cejnar, and G. Schaller, Collective performance of a finite-time quantum otto cycle, Phys. Rev. E100, 042126 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [58]

    J. Wang, J. He, and Y . Ma, Finite-time performance of a quan- tum heat engine with a squeezed thermal bath, Phys. Rev. E 100, 052126 (2019)

    work page 2019

  58. [59]

    S. Lee, J. Ha, M.and Park, and H. Jeong, Finite-time quantum otto engine: Surpassing the quasistatic efficiency due to fric- tion, Phys. Rev. E101, 022127 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [60]

    Solfanelli, M

    A. Solfanelli, M. Falsetti, and M. Campisi, Nonadiabatic single- qubit quantum otto engine, Phys. Rev. B101, 054513 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [61]

    Das and V

    A. Das and V . Mukherjee, Quantum-enhanced finite-time otto cycle, Phys.Rev.R2, 033083 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [62]

    Saryal and B

    S. Saryal and B. Agarwalla, Bounds on fluctuations for finite- time quantum otto cycle, Phys. Rev. E.103, L060103 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [63]

    Shirai, K

    Y . Shirai, K. Hashimoto, R. Tezuka, C. Uchiyama, and N. Hatano, Non-markovian effect on quantum otto engine: Role of system-reservoir interaction, Phys.Rev.R3, 023078 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [64]

    D. Saha, A. Ghoshal, and U. Sen, Temperature- and interaction- tweaked efficiency boost of finite-time robust quantum otto en- gines, arXiv:2309.11483 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [65]

    H. T. Quan, Y . D. Wang, Y .-x. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Maxwell’s demon assisted thermodynamic cycle in supercon- ducting quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 180402 (2006)

    work page 2006

  65. [66]

    Uusn ¨akki, T

    T. Uusn ¨akki, T. M ¨orstedt, W. Teixeira, M. Rasola, and M. M ¨ott¨onen, Experimental realization of a quantum heat en- gine based on dissipation-engineered superconducting circuits, arXiv:2502.20143 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [67]

    Barontini and M

    G. Barontini and M. Paternostro, Ultra-cold single-atom quan- tum heat engines, New Journal of Physics21, 063019 (2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [68]

    J. P. S. Peterson, T. B. Batalh˜ao, M. Herrera, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Experimental charac- terization of a spin quantum heat engine, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 240601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [69]

    M. H. M. Passos, A. C. Santos, M. S. Sarandy, and J. A. O. Huguenin, Optical simulation of a quantum thermal machine, Phys. Rev. A100, 022113 (2019)

    work page 2019

  69. [70]

    Sheng, C

    J. Sheng, C. Yang, and H. Wu, Realization of a coupled- mode heat engine with cavity-mediated nanoresonators, arXiv:2110.13022 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [71]

    H.-G. Xu, J. Jin, N. G. de Almeida, and G. D. de Moraes Neto, Exploring the role of criticality in the quantum otto cycle fueled by the anisotropic quantum rabi-stark model, arXiv:2407.09027 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [72]

    Shende, M

    K. Shende, M. Kandpal, Arvind, and K. Dorai, Experimen- tal investigation of a quantum otto heat engine with shortcuts to adiabaticity implemented using counter-adiabatic driving, arXiv:2412.20194 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  72. [73]

    Uusn ¨akki, M

    T. Uusn ¨akki, M. Rasola, V . Vadimov, P. Singh, A. Dar- wish, and M. M ¨ott¨onen, Autonomous quantum heat engine, arXiv:2603.15355 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  73. [74]

    Hayashi and H

    M. Hayashi and H. Tajima, Measurement-based formulation of quantum heat engines, Phys. Rev. A95, 032132 (2017)

    work page 2017

  74. [75]

    J. Yi, P. Talkner, and Y . W. Kim, Single-temperature quan- tum engine without feedback control, Phys. Rev. E96, 022108 (2017)

    work page 2017

  75. [76]

    Das and S

    A. Das and S. Ghosh, Measurement based quantum heat engine with coupled working medium, Entropy21(2019)

    work page 2019

  76. [77]

    Chand and A

    S. Chand and A. Biswas, Critical-point behavior of a measurement-based quantum heat engine, Phys. Rev. E98, 052147 (2018)

    work page 2018

  77. [78]

    M. F. Anka, T. R. de Oliveira, and D. Jonathan, Measurement- based quantum heat engine in a multilevel system, Phys. Rev. E 104, 054128 (2021)

    work page 2021

  78. [79]

    Z. Lin, S. Su, J. Chen, J. Chen, and J. F. G. Santos, Suppress- ing coherence effects in quantum-measurement-based engines, Phys. Rev. A104, 062210 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [80]

    Purkait and A

    C. Purkait and A. Biswas, Measurement-based quantum otto engine with a two-spin system coupled by anisotropic inter- action: Enhanced efficiency at finite times, Phys. Rev. E107, 054110 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [81]

    Purkait, S

    C. Purkait, S. Dasgupta, and A. Biswas, Quasi-probability dis- tribution of work in a measurement-based quantum otto en- gine, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications673, 130650 (2025)

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.