Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Global-Local Duality of Energetic Control Cost in Multipartite Quantum Correlated Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves an exact sum rule that sets the gap between global and local control costs by multipartite correlation change plus dissipated-work contrast, and a universal lower bound on that gap.

desk verdict The sum rule (2) is a clean exact identity worth knowing; the lower bound (3) is overclaimed because its proof assumes an undriven interaction, which the numerical model violates. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21881 v1 pith:YKGON2CF submitted 2025-05-28 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Rui Guan , Junjie Liu , Jian-Hua Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords quantumthermodynamicscontrolcostmultipartitecorrelationsmutualinformationdissipatedworkLandauerprincipleopensystemsqubitreset
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 aims to establish a universal thermodynamic description of the energetic cost of controlling multipartite quantum systems that are weakly coupled to a thermal bath and driven by arbitrary finite-time protocols. Its central object is an exact sum rule, $Q_g(t) = Q_l(t) + T\,\Delta I_g(t) + W^\Delta_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)$, that connects the globally evaluated control cost (heat leaving the whole system) with the locally evaluated control cost (sum of party-level heat flows), plus a change in multipartite mutual information and a contrast in dissipated work (the irreversible part of the energy input). The paper also proves a lower bound, $Q_g(t)-Q_l(t) \ge -W^g_{\mathrm{dis}}(t) - \Delta E_I(t)$, on how negative the global-local gap can be. If these relations are correct, they provide a general energy-information link that makes the thermodynamic role of multipartite correlation quantitative and shows that the relative magnitude of global versus local cost is not fixed. Numerical simulations of two- and four-qubit reset processes confirm the sum rule and exhibit cost gaps of both signs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the exact sum rule $Q_g(t) = Q_l(t) + T\,\Delta I_g(t) + W^\Delta_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)$, with the quantum multipartite mutual information $I_g(t)=\sum_i S_i(t)-S_g(t)$ defined as the total correlation of the composite: the sum of local von Neumann entropies minus the global von Neumann entropy. The mechanism behind the identity is the decomposition of the global nonequilibrium free-energy change into local free-energy changes plus the multipartite mutual-information change, combined with the first law at global and local levels. The lower bound $Q_g(t)-Q_l(t)\ge -W^g_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)-\Delta E_I(t)$ is generated by feeding the Clausius inequality $T\,\Delta S_g(t)+Q_g(t)\ge 0$ into that decomposition once the assumption $W_g(t)=\sum_i W_i(t)$ is imposed.

What would settle it

Run the paper's multi-qubit Lindblad simulation with the interaction coupling $\lambda_t$ actively swept while local fields are held fixed, so that $W_g(t)-\sum_i W_i(t)$ is nonzero and negative; if $Q_g(t)-Q_l(t)$ falls below $-W^g_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)-\Delta E_I(t)$ at any time, then Eq. (3) as stated fails in the driven-interaction regime. Separately, in any fixed-temperature weak-coupling experiment with full state tomography, the equality $Q_g(t)=Q_l(t)+T\,\Delta I_g(t)+W^\Delta_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)$ must hold at every time; a single time point violating it falsifies the sum rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is the pair of relations Eqs. (2) and (3), claimed to be universal for arbitrary multipartite quantum systems weakly coupled to a fixed-temperature bath. The sum rule decomposes the global heat cost into local heat cost, a correlation term $T\,\Delta I_g(t)$, and a dissipated-work contrast $W^\Delta_{\mathrm{dis}}(t) = W^g_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)-W^l_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)$; the inequality bounds the cost gap from below by $-W^g_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)-\Delta E_I(t)$. The derivation routes the first law through the global and local nonequilibrium free energies and identifies the quantum multipartite mutual information $I_g(t)=\sum_i S_i(t)-S_g(t)$ as the information quantity that carries the cost gap, while the lower bound follows from applying the Clausius inequality to the global system under the driving assumption $W_g(t)=\sum_i W_i(t)$. The paper further shows that in the noninteracting limit $H_I=0$ the two costs coincide, that in the reversible limit local dissipated work need not vanish, and that the sign of $Q_g(t)-Q_l(t)$ is indeterminate.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the lower bound requires that only the local Hamiltonians are driven, so the intra-system interaction is not actively controlled; if the interaction is driven, the inequality as stated may need an extra work term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Maintaining or building multipartite correlation during a finite-time process has an exact energetic price: $T\,\Delta I_g(t)$ appears one-for-one in the global-local cost gap, so correlation changes can be detected as a heat-cost difference.
  • The global-local cost gap has no definite sign; depending on whether interaction work and free-energy contrasts offset the correlation cost, global control can be cheaper or more expensive than controlling the parties separately.
  • Combining the sum rule with the lower bound gives a thermodynamic constraint on achievable correlation changes, $T\,\Delta I_g(t)\ge W^l_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)-2W^g_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)-\Delta E_I(t)$.
  • In the absence of intra-system interactions ($H_I=0$), global and local control costs coincide exactly even for strongly correlated states, so the interaction is the only source of the global-local gap.
  • For correlated systems the local Landauer-type bound is modified to $Q_l(t)\ge -T\sum_i \Delta S_i(t)-W^\Delta_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)$, so subsystem-level erasure bounds need correction in multipartite settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sum rule is exact, it gives a measurement route to multipartite correlation: $\Delta I_g(t)=[Q_g(t)-Q_l(t)-W^\Delta_{\mathrm{dis}}(t)]/T$, using heat and work accounting once the dissipated-work contrast is known; the paper does not develop this metrological reading.
  • Because the lower-bound proof assumes $W_g=\sum_i W_i$, the bound for actively driven interactions likely acquires an extra term $-W^\Delta(t)$ with $W^\Delta(t)=W_g(t)-\sum_i W_i(t)$; the paper's numerical model in Eq. (4) drives the interaction, so the universality of Eq. (3) in that regime is not established by the presented derivation.
  • For finite-size reservoirs with time-dependent effective temperatures, the sum rule survives in the generalized form $T(t)I_g(t)-T(0)I_g(0)$, while the lower bound does not carry over; this suggests nanoscale devices should be tested against the sum rule rather than the fixed-temperature bound.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies finite-time control costs of multipartite quantum systems weakly coupled to a thermal bath. It defines a global control cost Qg and a local control cost Ql and claims two universal relations: an exact sum rule Qg(t)=Ql(t)+TΔIg(t)+W_dis^Δ(t) and a lower bound Qg(t)−Ql(t)≥−W_dis^g(t)−ΔEI(t). The authors prove the sum rule from first-law and free-energy definitions and test both relations numerically in driven two- and four-qubit reset protocols. They use the relations to discuss how multipartite correlations and dissipated work determine whether the global cost exceeds the local cost.

Significance. The exact sum rule, if it stands, is a clean and useful energy-information identity with no fitted parameters: it directly connects the global/local cost difference to multipartite mutual information and to the contrast in dissipated work. The numerical validation of Eq. (2) in Fig. 2(a)-(b) is convincing, and the paper is careful to emphasize that the sign of Qg−Ql is not fixed. The lower bound Eq. (3) is the main advertised result that is not yet supported at the stated level of generality, because its proof uses an assumption that the numerical model itself violates. This is a localized, fixable issue rather than a failure of the sum rule.

major comments (2)
  1. [Proof of Eqs. (2) and (3), around Eq. (8)] The step from Eq. (7) to Eq. (8) uses the statement 'Wg(t)=Σ_i Wi(t) since only the local system Hamiltonian {Hi(t)} is being driven.' This assumption is not part of the setup in Eq. (1), where HI(t) may be time-dependent, and it contradicts the sentence in the proof summary that 'Eqs. (2) and (3) are derived without imposing assumptions on the details of the Hamiltonian.' Repeating the derivation without that assumption gives TΔSg(t)=−Ql(t)+ΔEI(t)+W_dis^g(t)−WΔ(t) with WΔ(t)=Wg(t)−Σ_i Wi(t), so the correct bound is Qg(t)−Ql(t)≥−W_dis^g(t)−ΔEI(t)+WΔ(t), not Eq. (3). The theorem should either include the WΔ(t) term explicitly or be restricted to protocols with dHI/dt=0.
  2. [Numerical demonstration, Eq. (4) and Fig. 2] The numerical verification of Eq. (3) in Fig. 2(c)-(d) uses the Hamiltonian in Eq. (4) with λt=λ cos(θt), so dHI/dt≠0 and, as stated in the text and shown in Fig. 3 of the Supplemental Material, WΔ(t)>0. The model therefore violates the assumption used in the proof of Eq. (3), and Fig. 2 does not test the bound as stated. What is shown is that Qg−Ql stays above the right-hand side of Eq. (3), which is a necessary but not sufficient check of the corrected bound Qg−Ql≥−W_dis^g−ΔEI+WΔ(t). A numerical run with time-independent λ or a direct comparison with the corrected bound is needed to support the claimed universality.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proof of Eqs. (2) and (3)] The heading 'To proof Eq. (2)' should read 'To prove Eq. (2)'.
  2. [Numerical demonstration and Supplemental Material] The intended thermal state has denominator Tr[e^{−βHg(0)}], but the text writes Tr[e^{βHg(0)}]; the same missing minus sign appears in Supplemental Sec. III B for the H′g(0) state.
  3. [Main text and Supplemental Material] The same assumption Wg(t)=Σ_i Wi(t) is used in Supplemental Eq. (15); if the main theorem is restricted to dHI/dt=0, the same caveat should be carried through there.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The abbreviation 'LB' should be defined explicitly as the right-hand side of Eq. (3).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (2) is a definitional identity honestly derived and independently checked; Eq. (3) follows from the second law under the stated condition Wg = Σi Wi, whose silent import (dHI/dt = 0) is a rigor/overclaim gap, not an input-fitted or self-referential reduction.

full rationale

Eq. (2) is derived in the 'Proof of Eqs. (2) and (3)' section by substituting the first law (ΔEi = Wi − Qi), the nonequilibrium free-energy definition F = E − TS, dissipated work Wdis = W − ΔF, and multipartite mutual information Ig = ΣiSi − Sg into the global free-energy change. The steps are definitional rearrangements; the relation holds identically for any ρg(t), with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing reliance on prior results whose content equals the conclusion. The numerics then integrate the Lindblad master equation (5) for models (4) and (17) and confirm both sides of Eq. (2); this is an honest consistency check, not a fit. Eq. (3) is derived from the global second law TΔSg + Qg ≥ 0 together with the assertion, quoted in the proof section, 'we have utilized the fact that Wg(t) = Σi Wi(t) since only the local system Hamiltonian {Hi(t)} is being driven.' That assertion requires the intra-system interaction to be undriven (dHI/dt = 0). The paper's universality claim — 'Eqs. (2) and (3) are derived without imposing assumptions on the details of the Hamiltonian' — is therefore unsupported for Eq. (3) when the interaction is actively controlled, and the validating model (4) has λt = λ cos(θt), i.e., a driven interaction, with WΔ(t) = Wg − ΣiWi > 0 shown in SM Fig. 3. Repeating the derivation without the silent assumption yields the weaker bound Qg − Ql ≥ −W^g_dis − ΔEI + WΔ(t); so Fig. 2(c,d) checks an inequality weaker than the one stated. This is a validity/overgeneralization gap, not a circular reduction: the bound is not fitted to data, and neither Eq. (2) nor Eq. (3) is equivalent to its own inputs by construction. Self-citations ([8], [56], [58], [59]) supply standard work/free-energy definitions, a control-field choice, and a finite-reservoir extension whose limitation the paper states explicitly ('the lower bound ... cannot be straightforwardly generalized'); none is load-bearing. Verdict: no significant circularity.

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

The central sum rule is an exact identity and introduces no free parameters or invented entities. The numerical parameters are illustrative, not fitted. The main assumptions are the standard first and second law forms for a weak-coupled open system, plus one unstated assumption in the proof of Eq. (3) that the interaction term is not driven.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The global system obeys the Clausius inequality TΔSg + Qg ≥ 0.
    Used in the proof of Eq. (3) (main text, paragraph after Eq. (8)); standard for weakly coupled thermal baths, but not valid for arbitrary finite reservoirs.
  • standard math First-law decompositions ΔEg = Wg − Qg and local ΔEi = Wi − Qi define work and heat.
    These definitions underlie the entire derivation and are standard in quantum thermodynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper Only local Hamiltonians are driven so that Wg(t) = Σ_i Wi(t).
    Explicitly used in the proof of Eq. (3): 'we have utilized the fact that Wg(t) = Σ_i Wi(t)'. This fails for the numerical model in Eq. (4) because λt = λ cos(θt) is time-dependent; the paper does not flag the restriction when claiming generality.
  • domain assumption The reduced dynamics is governed by the Lindblad master equation with collective jump operators.
    Used for the numerical demonstration in Eq. (5); standard weak-coupling Markovian approximation.
  • standard math Multipartite mutual information Ig = Σ_i Si − Sg is the relevant measure of total correlation.
    Definition adopted from refs [25,45,48]; the sum rule depends on this choice of correlation measure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global-Local Duality of Energetic Control Cost in Multipartite Quantum Correlated Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKGON2CF

@misc{pith2026250521881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global-Local Duality of Energetic Control Cost in Multipartite Quantum Correlated Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKGON2CF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21881}
}
read the original abstract

Multipartite quantum correlated systems (MQCSs) are widely utilized in diverse quantum information tasks, where their sophisticated control inherently incurs energetic costs. However, the fundamental characteristics of these control costs remain elusive, largely due to the lack of thermodynamic descriptions capable of capturing the full complexities of MQCSs. Here, we uncover universal thermodynamic relations for arbitrary MQCSs weakly coupled to a thermal bath, establishing an intrinsic global-local duality of control costs. Using these relations, we elucidate the exact role of multipartite correlation--a defining quantum feature of MQCSs--in shaping control costs at finite times. We also demonstrate that the relative magnitude between global and local control costs is undetermined, which perplexes the cost management of MQCSs under finite-time controls. Our results are numerically corroborated with applications to experimentally realizable multi-qubit systems undergoing finite-time qubit reset processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic picture of the study. We consider MQCSs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examining Eqs. (2) and (3) in multi-qubit systems with N = 2 (left panel) and N = 4 (right panel). (a)(b): Validity of the sum rule for the global cost Qg(t). (c)(d): The cost contrast Qg(t) − Ql(t) (solid line, left axis) and its lower bound (LB) (dashed line, right axis). Insets: Time-dependent quantum multipartite mutual information Ig(t). Other parameters are β = 1, λ = 0.02, γ = 0.02, ε0 = 0.4, ετ = 10 and τ = … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time-dependence of F ∆(t) (left axis) and W ∆(t) (right axis) for models studied in the main text. Left panel: Two-qubit system. Right panel: Four-qubit system. Parameters are β = 1, λ = 0.02, γ = 0.02, ε0 = 0.4, ετ = 10, N = 4 and τ = 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Behaviors of thermodynamic cost of erasing an open multiqubit system described by Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Minimum energy requirements for quan- tum computation,

    J. Gea-Banacloche, “Minimum energy requirements for quan- tum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 217901 (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Quantum technologies need a quantum energy initiative,

    A. Auff `eves, “Quantum technologies need a quantum energy initiative,” PRX Quantum 3, 020101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    On the decrease in entropy in a thermodynamic sys- tem by the intervention of intelligent beings,

    L. Szilard, “On the decrease in entropy in a thermodynamic sys- tem by the intervention of intelligent beings,” Z. Phys. 53, 840 (1929)

    work page 1929

  4. [4]

    Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Com- puting Process,

    R. Landauer, “Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Com- puting Process,” IBM J. Res. Dev.5, 183 (1961)

    work page 1961

  5. [5]

    Colloquium: The physics of maxwell’s demon and information,

    K. Maruyama, F. Nori, and V . Vedral, “Colloquium: The physics of maxwell’s demon and information,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1–23 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Thermodynamics of information,

    J. Parrondo, J. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, “Thermodynamics of information,” Nat. Phys. 11, 131 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    The role of quantum information in thermodynamicsa topical review,

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. del Rio, and P. Skrzypczyk, “The role of quantum information in thermodynamicsa topical review,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.49, 143001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Inferring general links between energetics and information with unknown envi- ronment,

    J. Liu, J. Lu, C. Wang, and J.-H. Jiang, “Inferring general links between energetics and information with unknown envi- ronment,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033202 (2024)

    2024

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Irreversible entropy produc- tion: From classical to quantum,

    G. Landi and M. Paternostro, “Irreversible entropy produc- tion: From classical to quantum,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Thermodynamic constraints on quantum information gain and error correction: A triple trade-off,

    A. Danageozian, M. Wilde, and F. Buscemi, “Thermodynamic constraints on quantum information gain and error correction: A triple trade-off,” PRX Quantum 3, 020318 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Information-theoretic approach to quantum error correction and reversible measurement,

    M. Nielsen, C. Caves, B. Schumacher, and H. Barnum, “Information-theoretic approach to quantum error correction and reversible measurement,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 454, 277 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    Minimal energy cost for thermody- namic information processing: Measurement and information erasure,

    T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, “Minimal energy cost for thermody- namic information processing: Measurement and information erasure,” Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 250602 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Energy cost of controlling meso- scopic quantum systems,

    J. Horowitz and K. Jacobs, “Energy cost of controlling meso- scopic quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 130501 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Thermodynamics of modularity: Structural costs beyond the landauer bound,

    A. Boyd, D Mandal, and J. Crutchfield, “Thermodynamics of modularity: Structural costs beyond the landauer bound,” Phys. Rev. X 8, 031036 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Energetic cost of quantum control proto- cols,

    O. Abah, R. Puebla, A. Kiely, G. De Chiara, M. Paternostro, and S. Campbell, “Energetic cost of quantum control proto- cols,” New J. Phys. 21, 103048 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Energetic cost of hamiltonian quantum gates,

    S. Deffner, “Energetic cost of hamiltonian quantum gates,” Eu- rophys. Lett. 134, 40002 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Measuring the thermodynamic cost of time- keeping,

    A. Pearson, Y . Guryanova, P. Erker, E. Laird, G. Briggs, M. Hu- ber, and N. Ares, “Measuring the thermodynamic cost of time- keeping,” Phys. Rev. X11, 021029 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    The nonequi- librium cost of accurate information processing,

    G. Chiribella, F. Meng, R. Renner, and M. Yung, “The nonequi- librium cost of accurate information processing,” Nat. Com- mun. 13, 7155 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Autonomous quantum devices: When are they realizable without additional thermodynamic costs?

    M. Woods and M. Horodecki, “Autonomous quantum devices: When are they realizable without additional thermodynamic costs?” Phys. Rev. X 13, 011016 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Many-body physics with ultracold gases,

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, “Many-body physics with ultracold gases,” Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Quantum metrology in non-markovian environments,

    A. Chin, S. Huelga, and M. Plenio, “Quantum metrology in non-markovian environments,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 233601 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Quantum simulation,

    I. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, “Quantum simulation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153–185 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Measures and applications of quantum correlations,

    G. Adesso, T. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso, “Measures and applications of quantum correlations,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 473001 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Controlling open quantum systems: tools, achieve- ments, and limitations,

    C. Koch, “Controlling open quantum systems: tools, achieve- ments, and limitations,” J. Phys.: Condensed Matter28, 213001 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Genuine quantum correlations in quantum many-body systems: a review of recent progress,

    G. Chiara and A. Sanpera, “Genuine quantum correlations in quantum many-body systems: a review of recent progress,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 074002 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Quantum correlations and global coherence in distributed quantum computing,

    F. Shahandeh, A. Lund, and T. Ralph, “Quantum correlations and global coherence in distributed quantum computing,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 052303 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Quantum information and algorithms for correlated quantum matter,

    K. Head-Marsden, J. Flick, C. Ciccarino, and P. Narang, “Quantum information and algorithms for correlated quantum matter,” Chem. Rev.121, 3061 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Engineered two-dimensional ising interactions in a trapped-ion quantum simulator with hun- dreds of spins,

    J. Britton, B. Sawyer, A. Keith, C. Wang, J. Freericks, H. Uys, M. Biercuk, and J. Bollinger, “Engineered two-dimensional ising interactions in a trapped-ion quantum simulator with hun- dreds of spins,” Nature 484, 489 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Tunable two-dimensional arrays of single rydberg atoms for realizing quantum ising models,

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de L ´es´eleuc, T. Macr, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, “Tunable two-dimensional arrays of single rydberg atoms for realizing quantum ising models,” Nature 534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions,

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V . Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Yao, “Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Programmable interactions and emergent geometry in an arrayof atom clouds,

    A. Periwal, E. Cooper, P. Kunkel, J. Wienand, E. Davis, and 6 M. Schleier-Smith, “Programmable interactions and emergent geometry in an arrayof atom clouds,” Nature 600, 630 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Cavity QED with quantum gases: new paradigms in many-body physics,

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, “Cavity QED with quantum gases: new paradigms in many-body physics,” Adv. Phys. 70, 1 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Colloquium: Advances in automation of quantum dot devices control,

    J. Zwolak and J. Taylor, “Colloquium: Advances in automation of quantum dot devices control,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 011006 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Stable quantum-correlated many-body states through engi- neered dissipation,

    X. Mi, A. Michailidis, S. Shabani, K. Miao, P. Klimov, J. Lloyd, E. Rosenberg, R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, and et. al., “Stable quantum-correlated many-body states through engi- neered dissipation,” Science 383, 1332 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Long-range interacting quantum systems,

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr `ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, “Long-range interacting quantum systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Continuous symmetry breaking in a trapped-ion spin chain,

    L. Feng, O. Katz, C. Haack, M. Maghrebi, A. Gorshkov, Z. Gong, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, “Continuous symmetry breaking in a trapped-ion spin chain,” Nature 623, 713 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Fluctuation theorem with information exchange: Role of correlations in stochastic thermodynamics,

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

    2012

  30. [38]

    Generalized laws of thermodynamics in the presence of correlations,

    M. Bera, A. Riera, M. Lewenstein, and A. Winter, “Generalized laws of thermodynamics in the presence of correlations,” Nat. Commun. 8, 2180 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Correlations as a resource in quantum thermodynamics,

    F. Sapienza, F. Cerisola, and A. Roncaglia, “Correlations as a resource in quantum thermodynamics,” Nat. Commun.10, 2492 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Thermodynamical approach to quantifying quantum correla- tions,

    J. Oppenheim, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “Thermodynamical approach to quantifying quantum correla- tions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 180402 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Extractable work from correlations,

    M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. Hovhannisyan, M. Huber, P. Skrzypczyk, N. Brunner, and A. Ac ´ın, “Extractable work from correlations,” Phys. Rev. X5, 041011 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Optimal work ex- traction and thermodynamics of quantum measurements and correlations,

    G. Manzano, F. Plastina, and R. Zambrini, “Optimal work ex- traction and thermodynamics of quantum measurements and correlations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 120602 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Reversing the direction of heat flow using quantum correlations,

    K. Micadei, J. Peterson, A. Souza, R. Sarthour, I. Oliveira, G. Landi, T. Batalh ˜ao, R. Serra, and E. Lutz, “Reversing the direction of heat flow using quantum correlations,” Nat. Com- mun. 10, 2456 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Fun- damental limits on anomalous energy flows in correlated quan- tum systems,

    P. Lipka-Bartosik, G. Diotallevi, and P. Bakhshinezhad, “Fun- damental limits on anomalous energy flows in correlated quan- tum systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 140402 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Thermodynamic cost of creating correlations,

    M. Huber, M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. Hovhannisyan, P. Skrzypczyk, C. Kl ¨ockl, N. Brunner, and A. Ac ´ın, “Thermodynamic cost of creating correlations,” New J. Phys. 17, 065008 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    The thermodynamic meaning of negative entropy,

    L. Rio, J. berg, R. Renner, O. Dahlsten, and V . Vedral, “The thermodynamic meaning of negative entropy,” Nature 474, 61 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Quantum, classical, and total amount of correlations in a quantum state,

    B. Groisman, S. Popescu, and A. Winter, “Quantum, classical, and total amount of correlations in a quantum state,” Phys. Rev. A 72, 032317 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    The classical-quantum boundary for correlations: Discord and related measures,

    K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V . Vedral, “The classical-quantum boundary for correlations: Discord and related measures,” Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1655 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences,

    G. Crooks, “Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences,” Phys. Rev. E 60, 2721 (1999)

    1999

  42. [50]

    Dissipation and lag in ir- reversible processes,

    S. Vaikuntanathan and C. Jarzynski, “Dissipation and lag in ir- reversible processes,” Europhys. Lett. 87, 60005 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    Role of mutual information in en- tropy production under information exchanges,

    T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, “Role of mutual information in en- tropy production under information exchanges,” New Journal of Physics 15, 125012 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Information-theoretic versus thermodynamic entropy production in autonomous sen- sory networks,

    A. Barato, D. Hartich, and U. Seifert, “Information-theoretic versus thermodynamic entropy production in autonomous sen- sory networks,” Phys. Rev. E87, 042104 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Thermodynamics with continu- ous information flow,

    J. Horowitz and M. Esposito, “Thermodynamics with continu- ous information flow,” Phys. Rev. X4, 031015 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Quantum thermodynamics of the driven resonant level model,

    A. Bruch, M. Thomas, S. Viola Kusminskiy, F. von Oppen, and A. Nitzan, “Quantum thermodynamics of the driven resonant level model,” Phys. Rev. B93, 115318 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Optimal energy conversion through antiadiabatic driving breaking time-reversal symmetry,

    L. Cangemi, M. Carrega, A. De Candia, V . Cataudella, G. De Filippis, M. Sassetti, and G. Benenti, “Optimal energy conversion through antiadiabatic driving breaking time-reversal symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Research3, 013237 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Periodically driven quantum thermal machines from warming up to limit cycle,

    J. Liu, K. Jung, and D. Segal, “Periodically driven quantum thermal machines from warming up to limit cycle,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 200602 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Information processing and the second law of thermodynamics: An inclusive, hamiltonian ap- proach,

    S. Deffner and C. Jarzynski, “Information processing and the second law of thermodynamics: An inclusive, hamiltonian ap- proach,” Phys. Rev. X3, 041003 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    Universal landauer-like inequality from the first law of thermodynamics,

    J. Liu and H. Nie, “Universal landauer-like inequality from the first law of thermodynamics,” Phys. Rev. A 108, L040203 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    See Supplemental Material for additional theoretical analysis as well as numerical results that complement the main text

  52. [60]

    Quan- tum fluctuations hinder finite-time information erasure near the landauer limit,

    H. Miller, G. Guarnieri, M. Mitchison, and J. Goold, “Quan- tum fluctuations hinder finite-time information erasure near the landauer limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 160602 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Impossibility of achieving landauer’s bound for almost every quantum state,

    P. Riechers and M. Gu, “Impossibility of achieving landauer’s bound for almost every quantum state,” Phys. Rev. A 104, 012214 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Coherent spin-state transfer via heisenberg ex- change,

    Y . Kandel, H. Qiao, S. Fallahi, G. Gardner, M. Manfra, and J. Nichol, “Coherent spin-state transfer via heisenberg ex- change,” Nature 573, 553 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Quantum transport and localization in 1d and 2d tight-binding lattices,

    A. Karamlou, J. Braum ¨uller, Y . Yanay, A. Di Paolo, P. Har- rington, B. Kannan, D. Kim, M. Kjaergaard, A. Melville, S. Muschinske, B. Niedzielski, A. Veps¨al¨ainen, R. Winik, J. Yo- der, M. Schwartz, C. Tahan, T. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. Oliver, “Quantum transport and ...

    2022

  56. [64]

    The physical implementation of quantum computation,

    D. DiVincenzo, “The physical implementation of quantum computation,” Fortschr. Phys. 48, 771 (2000)

    2000

  57. [65]

    Experimental repeti- tive quantum error correction,

    P. Schindler, J. Barreiro, T. Monz, V . Nebendahl, D. Nigg, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, “Experimental repeti- tive quantum error correction,” Science 332, 1059 (2011)

    2011

  58. [66]

    Realization of three-qubit quantum er- ror correction with superconducting circuits,

    M. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frunzio, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, “Realization of three-qubit quantum er- ror correction with superconducting circuits,” Nature 482, 382 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    Lo- cal versus global master equation with common and separate baths: superiority of the global approach in partial secular ap- proximation,

    M. Cattaneo, G. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zambrini, “Lo- cal versus global master equation with common and separate baths: superiority of the global approach in partial secular ap- proximation,” New J. Phys. 21, 113045 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    Efficient tomography of a quantum many-body system,

    B. Lanyon, C. Maier, M. Holz ¨apfel, T. Baumgratz, C. Hempel, P. Jurcevic, I. Dhand, A. S. Buyskikh, A. J. Daley, M. Cramer, M. Plenio, R. Blatt, and C. Roos, “Efficient tomography of a quantum many-body system,” Nat. Phys. 13, 1158 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Coherent spin qubit transport in silicon,

    J. Yoneda, W. Huang, M. Feng, C. Yang, K. Chan, T. Tanttu, W. Gilbert, R. Leon, F. Hudson, K. Itoh, A. Morello, S. Bartlett, A. Laucht, A. Saraiva, and A. Dzurak, “Coherent spin qubit transport in silicon,” Nat. Commun. 12, 4114 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Deterministic multi-qubit entanglement in a quantum network,

    Y . Zhong, H. Chang, A. Bienfait, E. Dumur, M. Chou, C. Con- ner, J. Grebel, R. Povey, H. Yan, D. Schuster, and A. Cle- land, “Deterministic multi-qubit entanglement in a quantum network,” Nature 590, 571 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Neural-network quantum state tomography,

    G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, M. Troyer, R. Melko, 7 and G. Carleo, “Neural-network quantum state tomography,” Nat. Phys. 14, 447 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Quantum state tomography with conditional generative adver- sarial networks,

    S. Ahmed, C. S ´anchez Mu ˜noz, F. Nori, and A. Kockum, “Quantum state tomography with conditional generative adver- sarial networks,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140502 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows,

    G. Struchalin, Ya. Zagorovskii, E. Kovlakov, S. Straupe, and S. Kulik, “Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows,” PRX Quantum 2, 010307 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Relaxation dynamics of meso-reservoirs,

    G. Schaller, C. Nietner, and T. Brandes, “Relaxation dynamics of meso-reservoirs,” New J. Phys. 16, 125011 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    Noninteracting many-particle quantum trans- port between finite reservoirs,

    G. Amato, H.-P. Breuer, S. Wimberger, A. Rodr ´ıguez, and A. Buchleitner, “Noninteracting many-particle quantum trans- port between finite reservoirs,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 022207 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Quantum systems correlated with a finite bath: Nonequilibrium dynamics and thermodynamics,

    A. Riera-Campeny, A. Sanpera, and P. Strasberg, “Quantum systems correlated with a finite bath: Nonequilibrium dynamics and thermodynamics,” PRX Quantum 2, 010340 (2021)

    2021

  69. [77]

    Colloquium: Quantum heat trans- port in condensed matter systems,

    J. Pekola and B. Karimi, “Colloquium: Quantum heat trans- port in condensed matter systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 041001 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Optimizing thermodynamic cycles with two finite-sized reservoirs,

    H. Yuan, Y .-H. Ma, and C. Sun, “Optimizing thermodynamic cycles with two finite-sized reservoirs,” Phys. Rev. E 105, L022101 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Two-level system hyperpolarization using a quantum szilard engine,

    M. Spiecker, P. Paluch, N. Gosling, N. Drucker, S. Matityahu, D. Gusenkova, S. G ¨unzler, D. Rieger, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, R. Gebauer, O. Sander, G. Catelani, A. Shnirman, A. Ustinov, W. Wernsdorfer, Y . Cohen, and I. Pop, “Two-level system hyperpolarization usin...

    2023

  72. [80]

    Stochastic thermo- dynamics of a quantum dot coupled to a finite-size reservoir,

    S. Moreira, P. Samuelsson, and P. Potts, “Stochastic thermo- dynamics of a quantum dot coupled to a finite-size reservoir,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 220405 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    Clausius in- equality for finite baths reveals universal efficiency improve- ments,

    P. Strasberg, M. D ´ıaz, and A. Riera-Campeny, “Clausius in- equality for finite baths reveals universal efficiency improve- ments,” Phys. Rev. E104, L022103 (2021). Supplemental material: Supplemental Material: Global-Local Duality of Energetic Control Cost in Multipartite Qu...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.