Quantum information engines: Bounds on performance metrics by measurement time

Abraham Nitzan; Henning Kirchberg

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Quantum information engines: Bounds on performance metrics by measurement time

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a cyclic quantum information engine, total extractable work equals system temperature times the mutual information gained; measurement time and cost then bound power and efficiency.

desk verdict Careful model of a finite-time quantum measurement engine with an exact Wtot = TS I relation; worth refereeing, provided the zero-cost readout and infinite-time Carnot steps are clearly framed as idealizations. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00686 v1 pith:LEX2ZIRF submitted 2025-05-01 quant-ph

Henning Kirchberg , Abraham Nitzan This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantuminformationengineMaxwelldemonvonNeumannmeasurementmutualergotropytimeenergycostpowerandefficiencybounds

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

Information engines convert measurement into work, but a quantum measurement takes time and costs energy. This paper analyzes a cyclic engine in which a two-level system is monitored by a free-particle meter through a finite-time von Neumann interaction, so information is acquired gradually at a cost $W_{\mathrm{meas}}=b g^2 t_m^2/2$. Its central result is an exact bookkeeping identity: counting both the ergotropy $W_{\mathrm{erg}}$ and the maximum work $W_{\mathrm{th}}$ obtainable while the system rethermalizes, the total work extracted from the system's bath equals the system temperature times the mutual information acquired, $W_{\mathrm{erg}}+W_{\mathrm{th}}=T_S I(t_m)$. This matters because it turns the usual second-law upper bound $W\le T_S I$ into an equality that is actually reachable, and because the measurement time $t_m$ itself becomes the control parameter that sets upper bounds on power and efficiency.

What carries the argument

The central object is a finite-time von Neumann measurement, realized as a two-level system coupled to a free-particle meter through $V(t)=g\hat{x}\otimes|1\rangle\langle 1|$ during $0\le t\le t_m$. The meter's momentum distribution shifts only when the system is excited, so reading the meter's momentum yields a conditional system state; the information gain is the ensemble-averaged reduction in conditional entropy, $I(t_m)=S(0)-S(t_m)$, equal to the mutual information between measurement outcome and system state. The identity that carries the argument is $W_{\mathrm{erg}}+W_{\mathrm{th}}=T_S I(t_m)$, with $W_{\mathrm{th}}$ obtained by integrating Carnot work over the rethermalization path using the two-level system's heat capacity; this identity, together with the explicitly time-dependent measurement cost $W_{\mathrm{meas}}=b g^2 t_m^2/2$, turns $t_m$ into the control parameter for power and efficiency.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to realize or simulate the same engine with a finite-temperature classical meter, $T_{M1}>0$, so a Landauer cost $W_L=T_{M1}S$ must be paid: the paper predicts $W_{\mathrm{erg}}+W_{\mathrm{th}}=T_S I(t_m)$ at every $t_m$, so finding the left-hand side exceed $T_S I(t_m)$ once $W_L$ is included would show the zero-readout-cost assumption is load-bearing and locate the true resource bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Eq. (20): for the information-engine model with a two-level system and a free-particle meter coupled by $V(t)=g\hat{x}\otimes|1\rangle\langle 1|$ for a time $t_m$, the maximum work extractable from the system's bath on the basis of the measurement is exactly $W_{\mathrm{tot}}(t_m)=W_{\mathrm{erg}}(t_m)+W_{\mathrm{th}}(t_m)=T_S I(t_m)$, where $I(t_m)$ is the mutual information between the measured meter outcome and the system state. $W_{\mathrm{erg}}$ is the ergotropy of the post-measurement conditional state, extractable in the proposed realization by a $\pi$-pulse, and $W_{\mathrm{th}}$ is the additional Carnot-limited work obtainable while the two-level system rethermalizes. The equality saturates the second-law information bound and holds for all measurement times $t_m$, while the measurement itself costs $W_{\mathrm{meas}}=b g^2 t_m^2/2$ and, together with $t_m$ as a lower bound on the cycle time, sets upper bounds on power and efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated in Section II step (iii), is that the classical meter used to read out the quantum meter operates at zero temperature, so its Landauer erasure cost is zero and the only measurement expense is the system-meter coupling energy; if that classical readout costs time or energy, the numerical power and efficiency bounds change, although the $W_{\mathrm{tot}}=T_S I$ equality remains an upper bound on work extracted from the system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because the information gain saturates while the measurement cost grows as $b g^2 t_m^2/2$, there is an intermediate measurement time that maximizes net power; at very short times almost no work is available, and at very long times the cost dominates.
The bound $\Pi(t_m)\le [W_{\mathrm{erg}}(t_m)-W_{\mathrm{meas}}(t_m)]/t_m$ is an upper bound on any engine built on this measurement, because the measurement interval is the shortest possible cycle time.
With the full work $W_{\mathrm{tot}}=T_S I$ counted, the efficiency is maximal at vanishing measurement time where power is zero, the usual heat-engine trade-off; with realistic ergotropy-only extraction, power and efficiency peak together at finite $t_m$.
Lowering the meter temperature narrows its initial momentum distribution and improves both power and efficiency, since more information is acquired per unit time.
Gating photon pulses on the measured excited-state probability, as proposed for a photochemical realization, should increase the yield per incident photon relative to indiscriminate pulsing.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, if the classical readout is assigned a finite temperature $T_{M1}>0$, a Landauer contribution $W_L=T_{M1}S$ enters; the equality would become $W_{\mathrm{tot}}\le T_S I - W_L$, and the optimal finite measurement time would shorten. This is the direct implication of relaxing the paper's zero-temperature-readout assumption.
Beyond the paper, the identity suggests that $T_S I(t_m)$ is a protocol-independent measure of the value of a meter's accumulated information for a bath at temperature $T_S$, so different meter designs (discrete or continuous, strong or weak) could be compared by how fast they approach $I(t_m)$ per unit cost.
Beyond the paper, a direct experimental test in a cold-atom or molecular setup would monitor the meter momentum distribution in time, verify that $dI/dt_m$ is largest near $\sqrt{2k_BT_M}/g$, and check $W_{\mathrm{erg}}+W_{\mathrm{th}}=T_S I(t_m)$ by independent calorimetric and information measurements.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this paper gives a concrete continuous-variable measurement model for an information engine and proves, within that model, that the total extractable work satisfies Wtot = Werg + Wth = TS I(tm) exactly. The appendices do the algebra honestly, and the equality is derived rather than assumed. That is a real result, though its practical reach is narrower than the title suggests.

What is genuinely new: the finite-time von Neumann measurement with a free-particle meter yields explicit costs — Wmeas = b g^2 tm^2 / 2 — and the trade-off between information gain and this cost is worked out in detail. The paper also shows that the T_S I bound can be saturated when the Carnot thermalization work is included, and the efficiency/power figures illustrate the expected optimal operating window. The derivation of mutual information and its connection to work extraction is clean and reproducible from the given formulas.

The soft spots are exactly where the stress-test lands. Step (iii) in Section II sets the classical readout temperature TM1 = 0, so the Landauer erasure cost WL vanishes and Win reduces to Wmeas. That assumption is load-bearing for the efficiency and power bounds in Eqs. (22)–(23) and Figures 5–6. The authors state it, but it is doing real work: if the readout reservoir is finite temperature, the quantitative bounds tighten, even though Eq. (20) remains unchanged because it counts only work available from the system bath. Similarly, Wth is computed via an adiabatically slow Carnot process, so Eq. (20) is a theoretical maximum, not what a finite-time cycle will deliver. The paper acknowledges this in the text, but it should be more prominent. Also, the claim that this is the first examination of measurement-time effects is overstated; refs. [8,29–31] already address finite measurement time, and the novelty here is the specific model and exact relation, not the general idea. That should be repositioned.

Who gets value: researchers in quantum thermodynamics and information engines, especially those working on measurement-cost accounting. The paper is a solid model contribution with an exact result in a concrete setup. It deserves a serious referee; with revision that sharpens the idealized assumptions and tones down the novelty claim, it is publishable.

Recommendation: send to peer review. My own verdict is conditional — the central equality holds, but the performance bounds should be presented as upper limits under zero-cost readout and infinite-time thermalization.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies a cyclic quantum information engine in which a two-level system is measured by a free-particle meter during a finite interaction time t_m. The information gain is computed as the mutual information between system and meter, the measurement cost is computed as the work performed in suddenly switching the system-meter coupling, and work extraction is modeled as ergotropy plus work obtained from a Carnot rethermalization of the conditional state. The central result is Eq. (20), W_tot = W_erg + W_th = T_S I(t_m), derived in Appendix F. The paper then defines efficiency and an upper bound on power as functions of t_m and illustrates them numerically for a TLS with a Gaussian meter state.

Significance. If valid, the central equality is a clean, exactly solvable instance in which the information-theoretic work bound is saturated, and it quantifies the trade-off between information gain, measurement cost, and measurement time. The paper's strengths are the explicit analytical derivations in Appendices A-F, where the equality is derived rather than assumed, and the transparent model that yields concrete scalings for I(t_m) and W_meas(t_m). The paper also clearly separates the work available from the system-bath from the meter readout cost. The main limitations are the idealized zero-temperature instantaneous readout and the infinite-time Carnot restoration step; these affect the quantitative performance bounds but not the internal validity of Eq. (20).

major comments (1)

[Section IV.C, Eqs. (22)-(23), Figs. 5-6] The numerical bounds on efficiency and power rest on the assumption T_M1 = 0 and W_L = 0 made in Section II step (iii), together with sudden switching and an infinitely slow Carnot restoration. The paper states this assumption, but the title's promise of 'bounds on performance metrics' should be explicitly qualified: the plotted curves are best-case bounds for this idealized readout, not universal bounds for arbitrary measurement engines. Because a finite readout temperature or readout time would only decrease the right-hand sides of Eqs. (22)-(23), I do not regard this as an error in the central derivation, but the qualification should be stated in the conclusions.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (6) and Appendix D] The expression for W_meas in Eq. (6) is written as b g t_m^2/2 in the main text, while Appendix D derives b g^2 t_m^2/2. Please correct the missing factor g^2 and check that all figures use the same scaling.
[Section II step (i)] The text says the meter is 'characterized by a temperature TS' where it should read T_M; the subsequent definitions and Eq. (5) consistently use T_M.
[Section IV.A, observation (ii)] The claimed location of the maximal information-gain rate, t_m ~ sqrt(2 k_B T_M)/g, is stated without derivation; either derive it or label it as a numerical observation. The preceding formula also contains an apparent extra factor b.
[Eqs. (7)-(11) and (F2)-(F4)] The notation P_i(p,t_m) (joint distribution) and P_i(t_m|p) (conditional distribution) is used interchangeably between the main text and Appendix F. Please unify the notation so that the cancellation leading to Eq. (F5) is easier to verify.
[Eq. (22)] The identification Q_S(t_m) = W_out(t_m) should be justified in one sentence, since for the rethermalization contribution the heat drawn from the bath and the heat absorbed by the two-level system are not identical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: Eq. (20) is derived from the model's conditional probabilities, not assumed; the cited upper bound is external and the equality is a stronger model-level result.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: I(tm) is computed independently as the ensemble-averaged conditional entropy (Appendix C, Eqs. C1-C5); Werg is computed from the same conditional populations via ergotropy (Eqs. 13-15); Wth is computed by integrating incremental Carnot work along the rethermalization path (Eq. 19 and Appendix E). Appendix F then algebraically rearranges the Wth integral to obtain Wth = -Werg + TS I (Eqs. F4-F6), so Eq. (20) is an exact consequence of the model's definitions and dynamics, not an input or a fitted relation. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then presented as a prediction; all quantities are evaluated from the same stated microscopic model. The paper's use of the Carnot bound to compute Wth is an explicit modeling assumption, but it does not assume Eq. (20): the equality emerges only after integration and cancellation, and it is stronger than the cited external upper bound TSI from Sagawa-Ueda and Barato-Seifert. The zero-temperature classical readout assumption (TM1 = 0, WL = 0) is explicitly stated and affects the quantitative efficiency and power bounds, but it does not define the information gain or the extractable work identity. The only self-citation (a POVM review involving one of the authors) is not load-bearing for the central derivation. No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-by-citation is used. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the idealizations that the classical readout is free, the interaction is switched suddenly, and rethermalization work is extracted via an infinitely slow Carnot process. No fitted parameters or invented entities are introduced; the model parameters g and T_M are hand-chosen inputs that do not affect the exact equality W_tot = T_S I.

free parameters (2)

g
System-meter coupling strength, chosen by hand as a model input. It scales the momentum shift and the measurement cost W_meas; the central equality W_tot = T_S I is independent of its value.
T_M
Initial temperature of the free-particle meter, chosen by hand. It sets the momentum width of the meter wavepacket and thereby the measurement accuracy; it controls the rate of information gain and the achievable power.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper The classical meter performs a projective readout at zero temperature with zero Landauer erasure cost (TM1=0, WL=0).
Section II step (iii): this idealization makes Win=W_meas and removes readout costs from the performance bounds. It is justifiable only as a limiting case for upper-bound estimates.
domain assumption The system-meter interaction is switched on and off suddenly to a constant value g, with zero switching-on cost.
Section III (ii): the sudden-switch assumption underlies W_meas = b g^2 t_m^2 / 2; a realistic finite-time switching protocol could change the cost function.
domain assumption System and meter are prepared in thermal states and decoupled from their baths during the measurement interval.
Section III (i): standard assumption for an engine stroke; the baths act only during initialization and restoration.
domain assumption The maximum work during rethermalization is extracted by an adiabatically slow Carnot process, which takes infinite time.
Section III (iv): W_th is an idealized upper bound; it is excluded from power considerations.
domain assumption A pi-pulse achieves the ergotropy with no additional cost beyond the energy embedded in the pulse itself.
Section III (iv): the practical work extraction step is idealized; spontaneous emission losses are neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum information engines: Bounds on performance metrics by measurement time." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEX2ZIRF

@misc{pith2026250500686,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum information engines: Bounds on performance metrics by measurement time},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEX2ZIRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00686}
}

read the original abstract

Information engines, sometimes referred to as Maxwell Demon engines, utilize information obtained through measurement to control the conversion of energy into useful work. Discussions around such devices often assume the measurement step to be instantaneous, assessing its cost by Landauer's information erasure within the measurement device. While this simplified perspective is sufficient for classical feedback-controlled engines, for nanoengines that often operate in the quantum realm, the overall performance may be significantly affected by the measurement duration (which may be comparable to the engine's cycle time) and cost (energy needed to create the system-meter correlation). In this study, we employ a generalized von-Neumann measurement model to highlight that obtaining a finite amount of information requires a finite measurement time and incurs an energetic cost. We investigate the crucial role of these factors in determining the engine's performance, particularly in terms of efficiency and power output. Furthermore, for the information engine model under consideration, we establish a precise relationship between the acquired information in the measurement process and the maximum energy extractable through the measurement. We also discuss ways to extend our considerations using these concepts, such as in measurement-enhanced photochemical reactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00686 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (A) The conditional probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows two components of the measurement provided gain as discussed in Sec. III: the ergotropy Werg, Eq. (15), and the maximum work achievable in the subsequent thermalization, Wth, Eq. (E7), as well as their sum, Wtot = Werg +Wth, evaluated for different values of temperature and plotted against the measurement time tm. The extracted work is seen to increase with measurement time and reach a plateau as tm → ∞. Tw… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The upper bound on the output power Π( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

Sagawa and M

T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Fluctuation theorem with in- formation exchange: Role of correlations in stochastic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 180602 (2012)

work page 2012
[2]

M. D. Vidrighin, O. Dahlsten, M. Barbieri, M. S. Kim, V. Vedral, and I. A. Walmsley, Photonic maxwell’s de- mon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 050401 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

Cottet, S

N. Cottet, S. J. Jezouin, L. Bretheau, P. Campagne- Ibarcq, Q. Ficheux, J. Anders, A. Auff` eves, R. Azouit, P. Rouchon, and B. Huard, Observing a quantum maxwell demon at work, Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 7561 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

Cottet and B

N. Cottet and B. Huard, Maxwell’s demon in super- conducting circuits, 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. 959–981

work page 2018
[5]

Elouard, D

C. Elouard, D. Herrera-Mart´ ı, B. Huard, and A. Auff` eves, Extracting work from quantum measurement in maxwell’s demon engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 260603 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Elouard and A

C. Elouard and A. N. Jordan, Efficient quantum mea- surement engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260601 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

Monsel, M

J. Monsel, M. Fellous-Asiani, B. Huard, and A. Auff` eves, The energetic cost of work extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 130601 (2020)

2020
[8]

Bresque, P

L. Bresque, P. A. Camati, S. Rogers, K. Murch, A. N. Jordan, and A. Auff` eves, Two-qubit engine fueled by entanglement and local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 120605 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 45 references

[9]

J. C. Maxwell, Theory of Heat (Longmans, London, 1871). 9
[10]

Zurek, in Frontiers of Nonequilibrium Statistical Physics, Nato Sci

W. Zurek, in Frontiers of Nonequilibrium Statistical Physics, Nato Sci. Series B, Vol. 135, edited by G. Moore and M. O. Scully (Plenum, New York, 1986) p. 145

1986
[11]

Maruyama, F

K. Maruyama, F. Nori, and V. Vedral, Colloquium: The physics of maxwell’s demon and information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1 (2009)

2009
[12]

Mandal, H

D. Mandal, H. T. Quan, and C. Jarzynski, Maxwell’s refrigerator: An exactly solvable model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 030602 (2013)

2013
[13]

Deffner and C

S. Deffner and C. Jarzynski, Information processing and the second law of thermodynamics: An inclusive, hamil- tonian approach, Phys. Rev. X 3, 041003 (2013)

2013
[14]

Strasberg, G

P. Strasberg, G. Schaller, T. Brandes, and M. Espos- ito, Thermodynamics of a physical model implementing a maxwell demon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 040601 (2013)

2013
[15]

J. M. Horowitz, T. Sagawa, and J. M. R. Parrondo, Imi- tating chemical motors with optimal information motors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 010602 (2013)

2013
[16]

A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, An autonomous and reversible maxwell’s demon, Europhysics Letters 101, 60001 (2013)

2013
[17]

Landauer, Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process, IBM Journal of Research and Devel- opment 5, 183 (1961)

R. Landauer, Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process, IBM Journal of Research and Devel- opment 5, 183 (1961)

1961
[18]

de Oliveira Junior, J

A. de Oliveira Junior, J. B. Brask, and P. Lipka- Bartosik, Heat as a witness of quantum properties, (2024), arXiv:2408.06418 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton Univ

J. Von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton Univ. Press., Princeton, NJ, 1955)

1955
[20]

Guryanova, N

Y. Guryanova, N. Friis, and M. Huber, Ideal Projective Measurements Have Infinite Resource Costs, Quantum4, 222 (2020)

2020
[21]

Taranto, F

P. Taranto, F. Bakhshinezhad, A. Bluhm, R. Silva, N. Friis, M. P. Lock, G. Vitagliano, F. C. Binder, T. De- barba, E. Schwarzhans, F. Clivaz, and M. Huber, Lan- dauer versus nernst: What is the true cost of cooling a quantum system?, PRX Quantum 4, 010332 (2023)

2023
[22]

M. M. Mensky, Quantum Mesurements and Decoherence (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Nether- lands, 2000)

2000
[23]

Jacobs and D

K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, A straightforward introduc- tion to continuous quantum measurement, Contempo- rary Physics 47, 279 (2006)

2006
[24]

Annby-Andersson, F

B. Annby-Andersson, F. Bakhshinezhad, D. Bhat- tacharyya, G. De Sousa, C. Jarzynski, P. Samuelsson, and P. P. Potts, Quantum fokker-planck master equation for continuous feedback control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 050401 (2022)

2022
[25]

Ochoa, W

M. Ochoa, W. Belzig, and A. Nitzan, Simultaneous weak measurement of non-commuting observables: a general- ized arthurs-kelly protocol, Sci Rep 8, 15781 (2018)

2018
[26]

H. M. Wiseman, Quantum theory of continuous feedback, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2133 (1994)

1994
[27]

Sagawa and M

T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Generalized jarzynski equality under nonequilibrium feedback control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 090602 (2010)

2010
[28]

Toyabe, T

S. Toyabe, T. Sagawa, M. Ueda, E. Muneyuki, and M. Sano, Experimental demonstration of information- to-energy conversion and validation of the generalized jarzynski equality, Nature Phys , 988–992 (2010)

2010
[29]

G. C. Ghirardi, C. Omero, T. Weber, and A. Rimini, Small-time behaviour of quantum nondecay probability and zeno’s paradox in quantum mechanics, Il Nuevo Ci- mento 52, 421–442 (1979)

1979
[30]

F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, J. M. Renes, and R. W. Spekkens, Resource theory of quantum states out of thermal equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 250404 (2013)

2013
[31]

Bußhardt and M

M. Bußhardt and M. Freyberger, Timing in quantum measurements of position and momentum, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042117 (2010)

2010
[32]

J. K. Korbicz, E. A. Aguilar, P. ´Cwikli´ nski, and P. Horodecki, Generic appearance of objective results in quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A96, 032124 (2017)

2017
[33]

J. R. Hance and S. Hossenfelder, What does it take to solve the measurement problem?, Journal of Physics Communications 6, 102001 (2022)

2022
[34]

What is absolutely essential is that the working cycle ends with restoring the initial system and meter states, and thermal equilibrium represents easily restorable initial states

Starting from initial thermal states is not a fundamen- tal requirement. What is absolutely essential is that the working cycle ends with restoring the initial system and meter states, and thermal equilibrium represents easily restorable initial states
[35]

Supplemental Material
[36]

Jordan, C

A. Jordan, C. Elouard, and A. Auff` eves, Quantum mea- surement engines and their relevance for quantum in- terpretations, Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. , 203–215 (2020)

2020
[37]

Atmanspacher, Cartesian cut, heisenberg cut, and the concept of complexity, World Futures 49, 333 (1997)

H. Atmanspacher, Cartesian cut, heisenberg cut, and the concept of complexity, World Futures 49, 333 (1997)

1997
[38]

L Latune and C

C. L Latune and C. Elouard, A thermodynamically con- sistent approach to the energy costs of quantum measure- ments, Quantum 9, 1614 (2025)

2025
[39]

Arthurs and J

E. Arthurs and J. L. Kelly, B.s.t.j. briefs: On the simul- taneous measurement of a pair of conjugate observables, The Bell System Technical Journal 44, 725 (1965)

1965
[40]

Machluf, Y

S. Machluf, Y. Japha, and R. Folman, Coherent stern–gerlach momentum splitting on an atom chip, Nat Commun 4, 2424 (2013)

2013
[41]

Note that ”ensemble average” here refers to average over the meter outcome, in contrast to the standard meaning as average over initial conditions
[42]

C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communica- tion, The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379 (1948)

1948
[43]

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

2004
[44]

(S.5) and (S.6) in [35]

See Eqs. (S.5) and (S.6) in [35]
[45]

A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, Unifying three perspectives on information processing in stochastic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 090601 (2014). 10 APPENDIX In Section A, the dynamics of the coupled system-meter are investigated before calculating the expectation value of...

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Sagawa and M

T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Fluctuation theorem with in- formation exchange: Role of correlations in stochastic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 180602 (2012)

work page 2012

[2] [2]

M. D. Vidrighin, O. Dahlsten, M. Barbieri, M. S. Kim, V. Vedral, and I. A. Walmsley, Photonic maxwell’s de- mon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 050401 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Cottet, S

N. Cottet, S. J. Jezouin, L. Bretheau, P. Campagne- Ibarcq, Q. Ficheux, J. Anders, A. Auff` eves, R. Azouit, P. Rouchon, and B. Huard, Observing a quantum maxwell demon at work, Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 7561 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Cottet and B

N. Cottet and B. Huard, Maxwell’s demon in super- conducting circuits, 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. 959–981

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Elouard, D

C. Elouard, D. Herrera-Mart´ ı, B. Huard, and A. Auff` eves, Extracting work from quantum measurement in maxwell’s demon engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 260603 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Elouard and A

C. Elouard and A. N. Jordan, Efficient quantum mea- surement engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260601 (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Monsel, M

J. Monsel, M. Fellous-Asiani, B. Huard, and A. Auff` eves, The energetic cost of work extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 130601 (2020)

2020

[8] [8]

Bresque, P

L. Bresque, P. A. Camati, S. Rogers, K. Murch, A. N. Jordan, and A. Auff` eves, Two-qubit engine fueled by entanglement and local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 120605 (2021)

work page 2021