Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Thermodynamic work and heat for a quantum process: Approach by Hamiltonian decomposition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that splitting the interaction Hamiltonian into effective local Hamiltonians gives well-defined work and heat for general open quantum processes.

desk verdict The closed-system decomposition is sound, but the open-system minimization is degenerate and the claimed unique effective Hamiltonian does not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00832 v1 pith:F5PTGAQ7 submitted 2025-01-01 quant-ph

Tao Zhou , Jiangyang Pu , Xiaohua Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 05.30.-d05.90.+m05.70.-a03.65.-w
keywords quantumthermodynamicsworkandheatopensystemseffectiveHamiltoniandecompositioninternalenergystrongcouplingnon-Markoviandynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims to resolve the long-standing controversy over how to split a quantum system's energy change into heat and work. The key is to let the Hamiltonian play two distinct roles: one piece $\bar H$ carries the energy observable, while the orthogonal piece $H^\perp$ generates evolution. For an open system coupled to an environment, the interaction Hamiltonian is decomposed into effective system and environment Hamiltonians plus a residual dissipative coupling, and a minimal-distance condition fixes the decomposition. The result is an explicit effective Hamiltonian $H_S^{eff}=H_S+H'_S$, with internal energy $U_S=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_S H_S^{eff})$, heat $\delta Q=\mathrm{Tr}(d\rho_S H_S^{eff})$, and work $\delta W=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_S dH_S^{eff})$. These are state-dependent and dynamics-dependent definitions that reduce to the standard ones for closed systems and extend to strong-coupling, non-Markovian processes.

What carries the argument

The paper's central machinery is the orthogonal decomposition of a Hamiltonian relative to the instantaneous density operator: any Hermitian operator $H$ splits as $\bar H+H^\perp$ with $[\bar H,\rho]=0$ and $\mathrm{Tr}(H^\perp\rho)=0$, obtained by projecting onto the subspace spanned by projection operators onto the eigenstates of $\rho$. For the open system the same split is applied to the reduced dynamics induced by $H_I$, producing the off-diagonal part $H'^\perp_S$ directly from the dynamical generator, and the diagonal part $\bar H'_S$ from the constrained minimization. This turns the question of the correct energy observable into a Hilbert-Schmidt projection problem.

What would settle it

Take a two-qubit model with $H_I=\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x$ and a correlated initial state, and compute the curvature of $\|H'\|^2$ along the direction that shifts $H'_S$ and $H'_E$ oppositely while preserving $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_{SE}H')=U_C$: zero curvature means the minimizer is not unique, so the paper's work-heat split is convention-dependent, while positive curvature would confirm the split is forced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that the ambiguity of work versus heat in open quantum systems disappears once the interaction Hamiltonian $H_I$ is split as $H_I=H'_S\otimes 1+1\otimes H'_E+H'_C$, where $H'_C$ produces only dissipative dynamics on the subsystems and has vanishing expectation in the total state, so no binding energy remains. The state-commuting parts $\bar H'_S$ and $\bar H'_E$ are fixed by minimizing the distance between the original and residual interaction Hamiltonians under the constraint that the interaction energy is preserved. This gives an effective Hamiltonian $H_S^{eff}=H_S+H'_S$ whose expectation defines the internal energy; heat is the part caused by state change and work is the part caused by the change of the effective Hamiltonian. The construction is carried out for nondegenerate instantaneous spectra and then extended to degenerate eigenspaces by choosing eigenvectors that diagonalize the relevant dynamical operator on each eigenspace.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the premise that the constrained minimization used to fix the state-commuting part of the interaction has exactly one solution, so the effective Hamiltonian is fixed rather than being one of many decompositions that satisfy the same constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For unitary processes the construction gives $\delta Q=0$ and $\delta W=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho\,dH_S^{eff})$, recovering the closed-system rule.
  • Heat and work become tied to the instantaneous eigenbasis of the reduced state: population changes contribute to heat, and changes in the effective Hamiltonian contribute to work.
  • The definitions apply at strong coupling and for non-Markovian dynamics, because they are built directly from the full Hamiltonian and the total state rather than from a master equation.
  • The total energy of system plus environment is exactly the sum of the two subsystem effective energies, since the binding energy term is forced to vanish.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The minimal-distance condition is best read as a gauge-fixing convention: a different Hilbert-Schmidt norm or an extra locality constraint would generally produce a different effective Hamiltonian, so the construction fixes a definition rather than measuring an invariant.
  • In the weak-coupling, product-state limit $\rho_{SE}\approx\rho_S\otimes\rho_E$, the construction should reduce to the standard local identification $\delta Q=\mathrm{Tr}(d\rho_S H_S)$ and $\delta W=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_S dH_S)$; a driven qubit coupled to a bosonic bath is a direct numerical test.
  • Because $H_S^{eff}$ depends on the full system-environment state, two preparations with the same reduced state but different correlations should exhibit different heat and work readings; this is a testable consequence of the framework.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a resolution of the long-standing ambiguity in defining heat and work for open quantum processes. For a closed system, the authors decompose the Hamiltonian into a part commuting with the density operator (which carries the internal energy) and an orthogonal part (which generates unitary evolution), giving a clean two-role picture. For an open system coupled to an environment, they decompose the interaction Hamiltonian H_I into H'_S ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ H'_E + H'_C, where the first two terms define effective local Hamiltonians. They impose that the remainder H'_C has zero expectation (binding energy zero), and choose the split by minimizing ||H'|| with H' = H'_S ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ H'_E under that constraint. This yields a claimed explicit effective Hamiltonian H_S^eff = H_S + H'_S, with internal energy U_S = Tr(ρ_S H_S^eff), heat δQ = Tr(dρ_S H_S^eff), and work δW = Tr(ρ_S dH_S^eff). The paper argues this gives a unique, systematic resolution of the work/heat controversy.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would supply a state-and-dynamics-dependent definition of internal energy, heat, and work for arbitrary open quantum processes, directly addressing a controversy that has persisted for decades. The closed-system lemma (Lemma 1 and Eqs. (4)-(11)) is a clean and correct Hilbert-Schmidt orthogonal decomposition, and the paper's criticism of the non-uniqueness of master-equation-based splittings (remark (v)) is a fair point that the community has recognized. However, the main result does not achieve the claimed uniqueness: the minimization that fixes the decomposition is degenerate, so the effective Hamiltonian is defined only up to an arbitrary constant, and the subsequent heat/work split inherits that arbitrariness. Because the paper offers no external benchmark (e.g., recovery of a known weak-coupling result, a fluctuation theorem, or a measured heat current) that would independently validate the split, the contribution does not currently meet the bar of a solution to the problem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (16)-(18) and remark (v)] The constrained minimization used to fix H'_S and H'_E is degenerate. The gauge transformation H'_S -> H'_S + c 1_S, H'_E -> H'_E - c 1_E leaves H' = H'_S⊗1 + 1⊗H'_E exactly unchanged, hence it leaves both the objective ||H'||^2 in Eq. (17) and the constraint Tr(ρ_SE H') = U_C in Eq. (16) invariant. The Lagrangian therefore has a flat direction, the stationary equations do not determine the split, and Eq. (18) selects one arbitrary representative. The effective Hamiltonian H_S^eff in Eq. (19) and the heat/work expressions in Eqs. (20)-(21) all depend on the arbitrary constant c through U_S = Tr(ρ_S H_S^eff) = Tr(ρ_S H_S) + Tr(ρ_S H'_S). This is exactly the kind of non-uniqueness that the authors invoke in remark (v) to reject master-equation-based definitions of heat and work, so the paper's own consistency criterion is violated.
  2. [Eq. (15) and remark (iv)] The main derivation assumes non-degenerate eigenvalues of ρ_S and ρ_E, because the denominators λ_i^S - λ_j^S in Eq. (15) vanish in degenerate cases. The extension to degenerate spectra in remark (iv) is only a sketch: it asserts that 'appropriate eigenvectors can be chosen' to make H_S diagonal on each degenerate subspace, but it neither proves existence, nor shows that the resulting H'_S^⊥ is independent of the choice of eigenvectors within the subspace, nor demonstrates that the final effective Hamiltonian is well-defined. A paper claiming to solve the problem for general quantum processes must provide a rigorous treatment of this case.
  3. [Condition (i) and Eq. (17)] The derivation of Eq. (18) uses only the trace constraint (16) and the minimal-distance condition (17); the requirement (i) that H'_C generates only dissipations and no unitary evolution on the subsystems is never used to derive the formula. Consequently, the paper does not show that its constructed H'_C actually satisfies the stated physical condition. The authors should either prove that the derived decomposition automatically fulfills (i) or explain how (i) could be imposed and how it would affect the minimization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The arXiv text contains many Unicode rendering artifacts (for example, /u1D446 for S and /u1D43B for H). The final published version must be properly typeset.
  2. [Eq. (18) and surrounding text] The symbols n_S and n_E denote the ranks of the reduced states, but the notation is not explicitly defined near Eq. (18); please clarify that these are ranks, not Hilbert-space dimensions, and check that all sums over eigenvalues are normalized consistently.
  3. [Remark (iii)] The discussion of parallel transport and geometric phases is interesting but tangential; the claim that H_bar and H_perp have 'deep connections' with dynamic and geometric phases is not developed or proved, so it reads as an unsupported remark.
  4. [Conclusions] The authors state that their definitions are 'all dynamics-dependent' but provide no consistency check against standard limiting cases (e.g., weak-coupling Markovian dynamics, where the heat current should reduce to the Alicki form). Adding such a benchmark would substantially strengthen the paper's case that the new definitions are physically meaningful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: work and heat are proposed definitions, not predictions, and the non-uniqueness of Eq. (18) is a correctness concern rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper does not fit a parameter to the quantity it then claims to predict. Equations (20) and (21) are the standard differentiation of the defined internal energy U_S = Tr(ρ_S H_S^eff); they are bookkeeping definitions, not independent empirical results, so their being consistent with the first law by construction is not circular in the sense of this review. The substantive content lies in constructing H_S^eff: the off-diagonal part is fixed by the reduced dynamics in Eq. (15), and the diagonal part is selected by a variational principle in Eqs. (16)-(18). Whether that variational problem has a unique solution is a mathematical correctness issue: the shift invariance H'_S -> H'_S + c 1_S, H'_E -> H'_E - c 1_E leaves H' and the constraint unchanged, making the solution underdetermined. Underdetermination is not equivalence-to-inputs, and the paper does not rename a fitted value as a prediction. The only self-citation, [53] by two of the authors, supports a side remark about dissipative generators and is not load-bearing for the central effective-Hamiltonian construction. No circular step satisfying the required quote-and-reduction standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central construction rests on several unproven premises. The mathematical decomposition of the Lie algebra is standard, but the physical decomposition of the interaction Hamiltonian and the uniqueness of the effective Hamiltonian are assumed rather than derived. The minimal-distance criterion is an ad hoc choice that does not resolve the degeneracy.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Lie algebra su(d) decomposes into a subspace commuting with the density operator and its orthogonal complement via the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product.
    Used in Lemma 1 and throughout the decomposition.
  • domain assumption The total system S+E is closed and autonomous (time-independent Hamiltonian).
    The derivation assumes the total Hamiltonian is time-independent; extensions to driven open systems are not treated.
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a decomposition H_I = H'_S ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ H'_E + H'_C satisfying conditions (i)-(iii) in the open system section.
    The existence and form of this decomposition is the core construction, not independently justified.
  • ad hoc to paper The minimal distance condition (Eq. 17) selects a unique decomposition.
    The paper asserts this criterion is 'reasonable', but does not prove uniqueness; the objective is degenerate under the shift H'_S → H'_S + a I, H'_E → H'_E - b I (with appropriate traces), so the effective Hamiltonian is not uniquely determined.
  • domain assumption Non-degenerate eigenvalues of the reduced density operator for the main derivation.
    The expression for H'_⊥_S involves differences λ_i - λ_j in the denominator; the degenerate case is only sketched in remark (iv).
invented entities (1)
  • Effective Hamiltonian H_S^eff = H_S + H'_S
    purpose: Defines the internal energy of the open quantum system, and enables splitting dU into heat and work.
    It is a state-dependent operator introduced by the paper; no independent experimental or theoretical handle is provided beyond the paper's own definitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamic work and heat for a quantum process: Approach by Hamiltonian decomposition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5PTGAQ7

@misc{pith2026250100832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamic work and heat for a quantum process: Approach by Hamiltonian decomposition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5PTGAQ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00832}
}
read the original abstract

The separation of internal energy into heat and work in quantum thermodynamics is a controversial issue for a long time, and we revisit and solve this problem in this work. It is shown that the Hamiltonian plays dual roles for a quantum system, and by decomposing the interaction Hamiltonian between system and environment accordingly, an ``effective Hamiltonian" for an open quantum system can be proposed. The explicit expression of the effective Hamiltonian is obtained systematically, and as a consequence, the internal energy of an open quantum system can be well defined, leading to the reasonable definitions of work and heat for a general quantum process.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. On Identification of Heat and Work in Quantum Many-Body Systems with Local Operations and Classical Communication

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Heat in QET is defined as the difference between actual and optimal local energy extraction, leading to a generalized Clausius inequality with an effective temperature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gemmer, M

    J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler, Quantum Thermody- namics (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    free Hamiltonian

    can be expressed as ¯ d/u1D444= Tr( d/u1D70C¯/u1D43B) , ¯ d/u1D44A= Tr( /u1D70Cd ¯/u1D43B) . (11) With Eq. ( 10), one can also have ¯ d/u1D444= 0 for the unitary pro- cess. Splitting the interaction Hamiltonian and solution for the open quantum system.— An open quantum system interacts with its environment, leading to extremely different dynam i- cal prop...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Esposito, U

    M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Nonequilibrium fluctuations, fluctuation theorems, and counting statistic s in quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1665 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    (5), where/u1D451/u1D446 is the rank of/u1D70C/u1D446 (/u1D461)

    and Eq. (5), where/u1D451/u1D446 is the rank of/u1D70C/u1D446 (/u1D461). Now,/u1D43B′ /u1D446 can be further decomposed as /u1D43B′ /u1D446 = ¯/u1D43B′ /u1D446 +/u1D43B′⊥ /u1D446 , with ¯/u1D43B′ /u1D446 ∈ ¯/u1D525/u1D446 and /u1D43B′⊥ /u1D446 ∈ /u1D525⊥ /u1D446 . Due to the facts [ |/u1D719/u1D446 /u1D456 ⟩⟨/u1D719/u1D446 /u1D457 |,/u1D70C/u1D446 ] = /u1...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Obviously, /u1D532(/u1D451) has a decomposition /u1D532(/u1D451) = ¯/u1D525 ⊕ /u1D525⊥

    constructed by the transition operators are all orthogonal to /u1D70C(/u1D461), and can span another subspace /u1D525⊥. Obviously, /u1D532(/u1D451) has a decomposition /u1D532(/u1D451) = ¯/u1D525 ⊕ /u1D525⊥. (6) Finally, both /u1D70C(/u1D461) and/u1D43B(/u1D461) are Hermitian operators on the Hilbert space H , and /u1D70C(/u1D461) ∈ ¯/u1D525 and/u1D43B(/u...

    work page

  6. [6]

    ( 5) are constructed with the transition-projection operators /u1D443/u1D456 /u1D457 = |/u1D719/u1D456 ⟩⟨/u1D719/u1D457 |

    and Eq. ( 5) are constructed with the transition-projection operators /u1D443/u1D456 /u1D457 = |/u1D719/u1D456 ⟩⟨/u1D719/u1D457 |. Since for any arbitrary real function /u1D703/u1D456 (/u1D461), /barex /barex/u1D719′ /u1D456 (/u1D461) ⟩ = /u1D452i /u1D703/u1D456(/u1D461 ) |/u1D719/u1D456 (/u1D461)⟩ can also be the eigenvectors of/u1D70C(/u1D461), one may ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    To clarify this, the new projection-transition operators /u1D443′ /u1D456 /u1D457 = |/u1D719′ /u1D456 ⟩⟨/u1D719′ /u1D457 | can be in- troduced

    is unique. To clarify this, the new projection-transition operators /u1D443′ /u1D456 /u1D457 = |/u1D719′ /u1D456 ⟩⟨/u1D719′ /u1D457 | can be in- troduced. Since /u1D443′ /u1D456/u1D456 = |/u1D719′ /u1D456 ⟩⟨/u1D719′ /u1D456 | = |/u1D719/u1D456 ⟩⟨/u1D719/u1D456 | =/u1D443/u1D456/u1D456 , the subspace ¯ /u1D525 constructed by the projection operators are th...

    work page

  8. [8]

    (iii) According to Lemma 1, the evolution of state /u1D70C(/u1D461) for a closed system is governed by /u1D43B⊥(/u1D461) only as in Eq

    is unique. (iii) According to Lemma 1, the evolution of state /u1D70C(/u1D461) for a closed system is governed by /u1D43B⊥(/u1D461) only as in Eq. ( 10). However, the eigenvectors |/u1D719/u1D456 (/u1D461)⟩ evolves as i| /dotacc/u1D719/u1D456 (/u1D461)⟩ =/u1D43B|/u1D719/u1D456 (/u1D461)⟩, showing that the evolution of |/u1D719/u1D456 (/u1D461)⟩ is governe...

    work page

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    B. L. Bernardo, Unraveling the role of coherence in the first l aw of quantum thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062152 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Deffner and S

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

    2019

  3. [11]

    ˚Aberg, Catalytic coherence, Phys

    J. ˚Aberg, Catalytic coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 150402 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    effective Hamiltonians

    drive the lo- cal systems/u1D446and/u1D438unitarily. The interaction /u1D43B/u1D43Cdrive a uni- tary evolution on the total system, and hence usually generates both unitary and dissipative evolutions on both subsystems , which leading to the work and the heat exchanges between...

  5. [13]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P . H¨ anggi, and P . Talkner, Colloquium: Quantum fluctuation relations: Foundations and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 771 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. del Rio, and P . Skrzypczyk, The role of quantum information in thermodynamics—a topica l review, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 143001 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    may be zeros and thus the Hamilto- nian/u1D43B′⊥ /u1D446 is ad hoc and required to be modified. Consider the case /u1D70C/u1D446 (/u1D461) = /summationdisplay.1 /u1D458 /u1D45B /u1D458/summationdisplay.1 /u1D707 =1 /u1D706/u1D446 /u1D458 (/u1D461) /barex /barex /barex/u1D719/u1...

  8. [16]

    T. D. Kieu, The second law, maxwell’s demon, and work deriv- able from quantum heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140403 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    Brand˜ ao, M

    F. Brand˜ ao, M. Horodecki, N. Ng, J. Oppenheim, and S. Wehner, The second laws of quantum thermodynamics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 3275 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Masanes and J

    L. Masanes and J. Oppenheim, A general derivation and quan- tification of the third law of thermodynamics, Nat. Commun. 8, 14538 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy 15, 2100 (2013)

    R. Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy 15, 2100 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Francica, J

    G. Francica, J. Goold, and F. Plastina, Role of coherence in the nonequilibrium thermodynamics of quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E 99, 042105 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    C. L. Latune, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, Quantum co- herence, many-body correlations, and non-thermal effects for autonomous thermal machines, Sci. Rep. 9, 3191 (2019). 5

    2019

  14. [22]

    Lostaglio, K

    M. Lostaglio, K. Korzekwa, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Quantum coherence, time-translation symmetry, and thermody- namics, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021001 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quan- tum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Hilt and E

    S. Hilt and E. Lutz, System-bath entanglement in quantum the r- modynamics, Phys. Rev. A 79, 010101 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    J. P . Santos, L. C. C´ eleri, G. T. Landi, and M. Paternostro, The role of quantum coherence in non-equilibrium entropy produ c- tion, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 23 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    C. Beny, C. T. Chubb, T. Farrelly, and T. J. Osborne, Energy cost of entanglement extraction in complex quantum systems , Nat. Commun. 9, 3792 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Brandner, M

    K. Brandner, M. Bauer, M. T. Schmid, and U. Seifert, Coherence-enhanced efficiency of feedback-driven quantum engines, New J. Phys. 17, 065006 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Korzekwa, M

    K. Korzekwa, M. Lostaglio, J. Oppenheim, and D. Jennings, The extraction of work from quantum coherence, New J. Phys. 18, 023045 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P . Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, Irreversible entropy production: From classical to quantum, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Weimer, M

    H. Weimer, M. J. Henrich, F. Rempp, H. Schr¨ oder, and G. Mahler, Local effective dynamics of quantum systems: A generalized approach to work and heat, Europhys. Lett. 83, 30008 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. V . den Broeck, Entropy production as correlation between system and reservoir, New J. Phys. 12, 013013 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Teifel and G

    J. Teifel and G. Mahler, Autonomous modular quantum sys- tems: Contextual jarzynski relations, Phys. Rev. E 83, 041131 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Alipour, F

    S. Alipour, F. Benatti, F. Bakhshinezhad, M. Afsary, S. Marcan- toni, and A. T. Rezakhani, Correlations in quantum thermody - namics: Heat, work, and entropy production, Sci. Rep. 6, 35568 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Strasberg, G

    P . Strasberg, G. Schaller, T. Brandes, and M. Esposito, Quantum and information thermodynamics: A unifying framework base d on repeated interactions, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021003 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Popovic, B

    M. Popovic, B. V acchini, and S. Campbell, Entropy production and correlations in a controlled non-markovian setting, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012130 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Strasberg and M

    P . Strasberg and M. Esposito, Non-markovianity and negativ e entropy production rates, Phys. Rev. E 99, 012120 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Rivas, Strong coupling thermodynamics of open quantum systems, Phys

    A. Rivas, Strong coupling thermodynamics of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 160601 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Alipour, A

    S. Alipour, A. T. Rezakhani, A. Chenu, A. del Campo, and T. Ala-Nissila, Entropy-based formulation of thermodynam ics in arbitrary quantum evolution, Phys. Rev. A 105, L040201 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Colla and H.-P

    A. Colla and H.-P . Breuer, Open-system approach to nonequi- librium quantum thermodynamics at arbitrary coupling, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052216 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and B. K. Meister, Quantum me- chanical carnot engine, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33, 4427 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    Abe, Maximum-power quantum-mechanical carnot engine, Phys

    S. Abe, Maximum-power quantum-mechanical carnot engine, Phys. Rev. E 83, 041117 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Polkovnikov, Microscopic diagonal entropy and its conne c- tion to basic thermodynamic relations, Ann

    A. Polkovnikov, Microscopic diagonal entropy and its conne c- tion to basic thermodynamic relations, Ann. Phys. (NY) 326, 486 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    T. D. Kieu, Quantum heat engines, the second law and maxwell’s daemon, Eur. J. Phys. D 39, 115 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    H. T. Quan, Y .-X. Liu, C. P . Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum ther- modynamic cycles and quantum heat engines, Phys. Rev. E 76, 031105 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, J

    R. Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 12, L103 (1979)

    1979

  39. [47]

    Spohn, Entropy production for quantum dynamical semi- groups, J

    H. Spohn, Entropy production for quantum dynamical semi- groups, J. Math. Phys. 19, 1227 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Talkner, E

    P . Talkner, E. Lutz, and P . H¨ anggi, Fluctuation theorems: Work is not an observable, Phys. Rev. E 75, 050102 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    J. M. G. Vilar and J. M. Rubi, Failure of the work-hamiltonian connection for free-energy calculations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 020601 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Gelbwaser-Klimovsky and A

    D. Gelbwaser-Klimovsky and A. Aspuru-Guzik, On thermody- namic inconsistencies in several photosynthetic and solar cell models and how to fix them, Chem. Sci. 8, 1008 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Niedenzu, M

    W. Niedenzu, M. Huber, and E. Boukobza, Concepts of work in autonomous quantum heat engines, Quantum 3, 195 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Sampaio, S

    R. Sampaio, S. Suomela, T. Ala-Nissila, J. Anders, and T. G. Philbin, Quantum work in the bohmian framework, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012131 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Elouard, D

    C. Elouard, D. A. Herrera-Mart´ ı, M. Clusel, and A. Auff` eve s, The role of quantum measurement in stochastic thermodynam- ics, npj Quantum Information 3, 9 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    L. R. T. Neves and F. Brito, Constraint on local definitions of quantum internal energy, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042209 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Schlienz and G

    J. Schlienz and G. Mahler, Description of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4396 (1995)

    1995

  48. [56]

    Carrega, P

    M. Carrega, P . Solinas, M. Sassetti, and U. Weiss, Energy ex- change in driven open quantum systems at strong coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 240403 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    B. d. L. Bernardo, Relating heat and entanglement in strong- coupling thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E 104, 044111 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Singh, D

    K. Singh, D. M. Tong, K. Basu, J. L. Chen, and J. F. Du, Ge- ometric phases for nondegenerate and degenerate mixed stat es, Phys. Rev. A 67, 032106 (2003)

    2003

  51. [59]

    D. M. Tong, E. Sj¨ oqvist, L. C. Kwek, and C. H. Oh, Kinematic approach to the mixed state geometric phase in nonunitary ev o- lution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 080405 (2004)

    2004

  52. [60]

    Nicacio and R

    F. Nicacio and R. N. P . Maia, Gauge quantum thermodynam- ics of time-local non-markovian evolutions, Phys. Rev. A 108, 022209 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Pu and T

    J. Pu and T. Zhou, Unitary and dissipative dynamics of an open quantum system, to be submitted

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.