pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.19552 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-22 · 🪐 quant-ph

Upper bounds on charging power and tangible advantage in quantum batteries

Sreeram PG , J. Bharathi Kannan , M. S. Santhanam This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 04:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum batteriescharging powerquantum advantagespin chainupper boundsmultipartite entanglement2-local interactions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Upper bounds on charging power in quantum batteries can suggest advantages that vanish under tighter analysis of actual performance.

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

The paper studies an all-to-all coupled spin-chain model of a quantum battery that uses only 2-local interactions. When charging power is bounded by the uncertainty principle, the model shows super-extensive scaling with cell number, an apparent quantum advantage that draws contributions from both battery and charger while generating genuine multipartite entanglement. A tighter upper bound, however, shows this scaling does not appear in the actual energy transferred. Readers should care because many quantum-battery claims rest on power bounds alone; the work insists that bounds must be checked against real dynamics and resource use before advantage is asserted.

Core claim

In an all-to-all coupled spin-chain model of a quantum battery with 2-local interactions, the uncertainty-principle upper bound on charging power exhibits super-extensive scaling with the number of cells. The apparent quantum advantage receives contributions from both the battery and the charger, and the model produces genuine multipartite entanglement without requiring global couplings. A tighter bound demonstrates that the potential advantage is not realized in practice. Actual power transferred must therefore be evaluated together with proper characterization of the resources before any claim of quantum advantage is made.

What carries the argument

All-to-all coupled spin-chain model with 2-local interactions, used to compare an uncertainty-principle power bound against a tighter bound and thereby separate apparent from tangible quantum advantage.

If this is right

  • Super-extensive scaling appears in the uncertainty-principle bound for this model but does not survive in the actual charging dynamics.
  • Both the battery and the charger contribute to the apparent advantage.
  • A tighter power bound shows the quantum enhancement is intangible in practice.
  • Even tighter bounds can fail to reflect tangible gains in some physical regimes.
  • Quantum-advantage claims require direct evaluation of transferred power plus resource characterization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Other quantum-battery proposals that rely solely on power bounds may need similar direct-dynamics checks.
  • Locally coupled spin models like this one could be used in experiments to test when bounds predict real performance.
  • Device design may shift toward verifying actual energy flow rather than bound scaling alone.

Load-bearing premise

That the uncertainty-principle upper bound on charging power reliably indicates the performance that can actually be achieved in this spin-chain model.

What would settle it

Explicit computation of the time-dependent energy transferred to the battery cells in the all-to-all spin-chain model to determine whether the charging power actually scales super-extensively or stays within the tighter bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19552 by J. Bharathi Kannan, M. S. Santhanam, Sreeram PG.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: A schematic of an all-to-all interacting spin chain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) Mean eigenvalue and (b) variance of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Power scaling in the spin chain battery with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: KL divergence averaged over 50 time steps, as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum battery is expected to outperform its classical counterpart due to quantum effects. Usually, in a quantum battery made of $N$ cells, quantum advantage is demonstrated through super-extensive scaling of the upper bound to the charging power with $N$. In this work, we show that potential quantum advantage as measured by the power bounds need not translate to {\it tangible} advantage in practice. We demonstrate this by considering an all-to-all coupled spin-chain model of a quantum battery with 2-local interactions. It exhibits super-extensive charging when analyzed using the upper bound derived from the uncertainty principle. Unlike the previously studied models, the contribution to this apparent quantum advantage is two-fold -- arising from both the battery and the charger. The model is also experimentally friendly, as it does not require global couplings and yet generates genuine multipartite entanglement. However, we demonstrate that the potential quantum advantage in this scenario is not tangible by employing a tighter upper bound on power. Additionally, we show that even this tighter bound can fail in a range of physical situations and indicate a quantum enhancement that is intangible in practice. Hence, we argue that actual power transferred must be evaluated along with proper characterization of the resources before claiming quantum advantage.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper considers an all-to-all 2-local spin-chain model of a quantum battery and shows that the uncertainty-principle upper bound on charging power exhibits super-extensive scaling with N, with contributions from both battery and charger plus genuine multipartite entanglement. It then introduces a tighter upper bound on power and argues that this bound demonstrates the absence of tangible quantum advantage, while also showing that even the tighter bound can fail to reflect actual performance in some physical regimes. The central conclusion is that potential advantage from loose bounds does not imply tangible advantage and that actual power transfer must be evaluated with proper resource characterization.

Significance. If the tighter bound is rigorously derived and its relation to achievable dynamics is clarified, the work provides a concrete counter-example to the common practice of equating super-extensive scaling of uncertainty-principle bounds with quantum advantage in batteries. It also supplies an experimentally accessible model that generates multipartite entanglement without global couplings, which could be useful for future studies that directly optimize charging protocols.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section on tighter bound derivation and application] The central claim that the tighter bound renders the quantum advantage intangible rests on the assumption that this bound is a reliable indicator of achievable performance. However, the manuscript does not appear to solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation or optimize the charging protocol for the all-to-all Hamiltonian to check saturation; without such a comparison (e.g., in the section deriving or applying the tighter bound), it remains possible that the actual power scales differently due to the two-fold battery-charger contribution.
  2. [Discussion of bound failure cases] The abstract and model description state that the tighter bound 'can fail in a range of physical situations,' but no explicit parameter regime, figure, or inequality is cited showing where the bound is violated by actual dynamics. This weakens the argument that the bound reliably indicates intangibility.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and model section] Notation for the uncertainty-principle bound versus the tighter bound should be introduced with explicit equations early in the text to avoid ambiguity when comparing scalings.
  2. [Model description] The experimental friendliness claim (no global couplings yet multipartite entanglement) would benefit from a brief reference to existing spin-chain implementations or a short discussion of realizability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address the two major points below, clarifying the role of the tighter bound and indicating where the manuscript will be revised to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the tighter bound renders the quantum advantage intangible rests on the assumption that this bound is a reliable indicator of achievable performance. However, the manuscript does not appear to solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation or optimize the charging protocol for the all-to-all Hamiltonian to check saturation; without such a comparison (e.g., in the section deriving or applying the tighter bound), it remains possible that the actual power scales differently due to the two-fold battery-charger contribution.

    Authors: The tighter bound is obtained by a refined accounting of the available energy resources in both subsystems together with the 2-local interaction structure; it therefore constitutes a protocol-independent upper limit on the instantaneous power. Because the bound already incorporates the two-fold battery-charger contribution, any actual dynamics (optimized or otherwise) cannot exceed it. Consequently, the absence of super-extensive scaling in the tighter bound already demonstrates that the super-extensive scaling seen in the uncertainty-principle bound does not translate into a tangible advantage, without requiring explicit saturation. We have added a clarifying paragraph in the revised manuscript that spells out this reasoning and notes the computational cost of full TDSE optimization for large N as a direction for future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The abstract and model description state that the tighter bound 'can fail in a range of physical situations,' but no explicit parameter regime, figure, or inequality is cited showing where the bound is violated by actual dynamics. This weakens the argument that the bound reliably indicates intangibility.

    Authors: The statement is supported by an analytic argument identifying the regime (strong coupling relative to the local energy scales together with particular initial product states) in which the assumptions used to derive the tighter bound cease to hold. We agree, however, that an explicit numerical illustration would make the claim more concrete. In the revised manuscript we will add a small-N example together with the corresponding figure and inequality that shows the actual power exceeding the tighter bound in that regime. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on independent bounds and model analysis

full rationale

The paper derives super-extensive scaling from the uncertainty-principle upper bound applied to the all-to-all 2-local spin chain Hamiltonian, then introduces a separate tighter upper bound to argue that the advantage is not tangible. No step reduces by construction to a redefinition of inputs, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain whose validity depends on the target claim. The tighter bound is presented as an additional calculation rather than an ansatz or uniqueness result imported from the authors' prior work. The central argument remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as explicit dynamics or saturation checks, with no evidence of self-definitional loops or renaming of known results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-mechanical bounds and the assumption that the chosen spin-chain Hamiltonian is representative of experimentally accessible quantum batteries.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Charging power of a quantum battery can be meaningfully bounded using the uncertainty principle applied to the charger-battery interaction.
    Invoked to obtain the super-extensive scaling that is later shown to be non-tangible.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5749 in / 1204 out tokens · 43164 ms · 2026-05-18T04:50:32.628904+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In terms of individual spins, the HamiltonianH C can be explicitly written as HC = π 2 NX i=1 σi y +β PN i=1 σi z 2 2j X n δ(t−nτ).(6) InH C, the termJ z = PN i=1 σi z 2 leads to coupling of each spin with every other spin via two-body interactions as shown in Fig. 1. During the time interval between consecutive kicks, onlyJ y = PN i=1 σi y term is presen...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Col- loquium: quantum batteries

    Francesco Campaioli, Stefano Gherardini, James Q Quach, Marco Polini, and Gian Marcello Andolina. Col- loquium: quantum batteries. Reviews of Modern Physics, 96(3):031001, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Quantum batteries: The future of energy storage? Joule, 7(10):2195–2200, 2023

    James Q Quach, Giulio Cerullo, and Tersilla Virgili. Quantum batteries: The future of energy storage? Joule, 7(10):2195–2200, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Entanglement boost for extractable work from ensembles of quantum batter- ies

    Robert Alicki and Mark Fannes. Entanglement boost for extractable work from ensembles of quantum batter- ies. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 87(4):042123, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Spin-chain model of a many- body quantum battery

    Thao P Le, Jesper Levinsen, Kavan Modi, Meera M Parish, and Felix A Pollock. Spin-chain model of a many- body quantum battery. Physical Review A, 97(2):022106, 2018. 7

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Experimental analysis of energy transfers between a quantum emitter and light fields

    I Maillette de Buy Wenniger, SE Thomas, M Maffei, SC Wein, M Pont, N Belabas, S Prasad, A Harouri, A Lemaˆ ıtre, I Sagnes, et al. Experimental analysis of energy transfers between a quantum emitter and light fields. Physical Review Letters, 131(26):260401, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Stable adiabatic quantum batteries

    Alan C Santos, Barı¸ s C ¸ akmak, Steve Campbell, and Nikolaj T Zinner. Stable adiabatic quantum batteries. Physical Review E, 100(3):032107, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Highly efficient charging and discharging of three-level quantum batteries through shortcuts to adiabaticity

    Fu-Quan Dou, Yuan-Jin Wang, and Jian-An Sun. Highly efficient charging and discharging of three-level quantum batteries through shortcuts to adiabaticity. Frontiers of Physics, 17(3):31503, 2022

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Nonreciprocal quantum batteries

    Borhan Ahmadi, Pawe l Mazurek, Pawe l Horodecki, and Shabir Barzanjeh. Nonreciprocal quantum batteries. Physical Review Letters, 132(21):210402, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems

    Armen E Allahverdyan, Roger Balian, and Th M Nieuwenhuizen. Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems. Europhysics Letters, 67(4):565, 2004

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Quantum and classical ergotropy from relative entropies

    Akira Sone and Sebastian Deffner. Quantum and classical ergotropy from relative entropies. Entropy, 23(9):1107, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Quantum energy lines and the optimal output ergotropy problem

    Salvatore Tirone, Raffaele Salvia, and Vittorio Gio- vannetti. Quantum energy lines and the optimal output ergotropy problem. Physical Review Letters, 127(21):210601, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Dichotomy in the effect of chaos on er- gotropy

    Sreeram PG, J Bharathi Kannan, S Harshini Tekur, and MS Santhanam. Dichotomy in the effect of chaos on er- gotropy. Physical Review B, 111(5):054314, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Ergotropy from quantum and classical correlations

    Akram Touil, Barı¸ s C ¸ akmak, and Sebastian Deffner. Ergotropy from quantum and classical correlations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 55(2):025301, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Entanglement generation is not necessary for optimal work extraction

    Karen V Hovhannisyan, Mart´ ı Perarnau-Llobet, Mar- cus Huber, and Antonio Ac´ ın. Entanglement generation is not necessary for optimal work extraction. Physical review letters, 111(24):240401, 2013

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Quantacell: powerful charging of quantum batteries

    Felix C Binder, Sai Vinjanampathy, Kavan Modi, and John Goold. Quantacell: powerful charging of quantum batteries. New Journal of Physics, 17(7):075015, 2015

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Quantum charging advantage cannot be extensive with- out global operations

    Ju-Yeon Gyhm, Dominik ˇSafr´ anek, and Dario Rosa. Quantum charging advantage cannot be extensive with- out global operations. Physical Review Letters, 128(14):140501, 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Bounds on the capacity and power of quantum batteries

    Sergi Juli` a-Farr´ e, Tymoteusz Salamon, Arnau Riera, Manabendra N Bera, and Maciej Lewenstein. Bounds on the capacity and power of quantum batteries. Physical Review Research, 2(2):023113, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    High-power collec- tive charging of a solid-state quantum battery

    Dario Ferraro, Michele Campisi, Gian Marcello Andolina, Vittorio Pellegrini, and Marco Polini. High-power collec- tive charging of a solid-state quantum battery. Physical review letters, 120(11):117702, 2018

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Quantum advantage in the charging process of sachdev-ye-kitaev batteries

    Davide Rossini, Gian Marcello Andolina, Dario Rosa, Matteo Carrega, and Marco Polini. Quantum advantage in the charging process of sachdev-ye-kitaev batteries. Physical Review Letters, 125(23):236402, 2020

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries

    Francesco Campaioli, Felix A Pollock, Felix C Binder, Lucas C´ eleri, John Goold, Sai Vinjanampathy, and Ka- van Modi. Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries. Physical review letters, 118(15):150601, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Classical and quantum chaos for a kicked top

    Fritz Haake, M Ku´ s, and Rainer Scharf. Classical and quantum chaos for a kicked top. Zeitschrift f¨ urPhysik B Condensed Matter, 65(3):381–395, 1987

    work page 1987

  23. [23]

    Quantum signatures of chaos in a kicked top

    S Chaudhury, A Smith, BE Anderson, S Ghose, and Poul S Jessen. Quantum signatures of chaos in a kicked top. Nature, 461(7265):768–771, 2009

    work page 2009

  24. [24]

    Nmr studies of quantum chaos in a two-qubit kicked top

    VR Krithika, VS Anjusha, Udaysinh T Bhosale, and TS Mahesh. Nmr studies of quantum chaos in a two-qubit kicked top. Physical Review E, 99(3):032219, 2019

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Chaos, entanglement, and decoherence in the quantum kicked top

    Shohini Ghose, Rene Stock, Poul Jessen, Roshan Lal, and Andrew Silberfarb. Chaos, entanglement, and decoherence in the quantum kicked top. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 78(4):042318, 2008

    work page 2008

  26. [26]

    Quantum signatures of chaos, thermalization, and tunneling in the exactly solvable few-body kicked top

    Shruti Dogra, Vaibhav Madhok, and Arul Lakshmi- narayan. Quantum signatures of chaos, thermalization, and tunneling in the exactly solvable few-body kicked top. Physical Review E, 99(6):062217, 2019

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Out-of-time-ordered correlators and the loschmidt echo in the quantum kicked top: how low can we go? Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 54(27):274004, 2021

    PG Sreeram, Vaibhav Madhok, and Arul Lakshmi- narayan. Out-of-time-ordered correlators and the loschmidt echo in the quantum kicked top: how low can we go? Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 54(27):274004, 2021

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Ergodic dynamics and thermal- ization in an isolated quantum system

    Charles Neill, P Roushan, M Fang, Y Chen, M Kolo- drubetz, Z Chen, A Megrant, R Barends, B Camp- bell, B Chiaro, et al. Ergodic dynamics and thermal- ization in an isolated quantum system. Nature Physics, 12(11):1037–1041, 2016

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Enhanc- ing quantum metrology by quantum resonance dynamics

    Zhixing Zou, Jiangbin Gong, and Weitao Chen. Enhanc- ing quantum metrology by quantum resonance dynamics. Physical Review Letters, 134(23):230802, 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Geometry of quantum states: an introduction to quantum entanglement

    Ingemar Bengtsson and Karol ˙Zyczkowski. Geometry of quantum states: an introduction to quantum entanglement. Cambridge university press, 2017

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Cavity-assisted mea- surement and coherent control of collective atomic spin oscillators

    Jonathan Kohler, Nicolas Spethmann, Sydney Schrep- pler, and Dan M Stamper-Kurn. Cavity-assisted mea- surement and coherent control of collective atomic spin oscillators. Physical Review Letters, 118(6):063604, 2017

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Deterministic squeezed states with collective measurements and feedback

    Kevin C Cox, Graham P Greve, Joshua M Weiner, and James K Thompson. Deterministic squeezed states with collective measurements and feedback. Physical review letters, 116(9):093602, 2016

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Quantum spin dynamics and entangle- ment generation with hundreds of trapped ions

    Justin G Bohnet, Brian C Sawyer, Joseph W Britton, Michael L Wall, Ana Maria Rey, Michael Foss-Feig, and John J Bollinger. Quantum spin dynamics and entangle- ment generation with hundreds of trapped ions. Science, 352(6291):1297–1301, 2016

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Implementation of cavity squeezing of a collec- tive atomic spin

    Ian D Leroux, Monika H Schleier-Smith, and Vladan Vuleti´ c. Implementation of cavity squeezing of a collec- tive atomic spin. Physical Review Letters, 104(7):073602, 2010

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms

    Onur Hosten, Nils J Engelsen, Rajiv Krishnakumar, and Mark A Kasevich. Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms. Nature, 529(7587):505–508, 2016

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Quantum nondemolition measurements of collective atomic spin

    A Kuzmich, L Mandel, J Janis, YE Young, R Ejnisman, and NP Bigelow. Quantum nondemolition measurements of collective atomic spin. Physical Review A, 60(3):2346, 1999

    work page 1999

  37. [37]

    Quantum nondemolition measurement of large-spin ensembles by dynamical decoupling

    M Koschorreck, M Napolitano, B Dubost, and MW Mitchell. Quantum nondemolition measurement of large-spin ensembles by dynamical decoupling. Physical review letters, 105(9):093602, 2010

    work page 2010