Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Algebraic power scaling in a slowly-quenched bosonic quantum battery

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that slowly quenching the charger–battery coupling in a bosonic quantum battery makes maximum stored energy and peak power grow algebraically with quench duration, so slower charging runs give higher power.

desk verdict Solid slow-quench scaling result with two internal inconsistencies to fix; the main scaling law holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.23081 v2 pith:6JPHS4OB submitted 2025-11-28 quant-ph

Donny Dwiputra , Ahmad R. T. Nugraha , Sasfan A. Wella , Freddy Permana Zen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumbatterybosonicmodesslowquenchtemporalextensivityalgebraicpowerscalingTavis-CummingsmodelergotropyEmden-Fowlerequation
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

This paper claims that in a quantum battery consisting of a coherently driven charger mode and a harmonic-oscillator battery, slowly ramping up their coupling as g(t)=g_f (t/τ_Q)^r yields peak stored energy scaling as τ_Q^{2α} and peak power as τ_Q^α, where α=r/(r+1). The slow ramp suppresses the coherent Rabi oscillations that otherwise cap the energy transfer, so longer quenches paradoxically produce faster charging. The result is derived from an exact solution of the linear first-moment dynamics in the slow-quench regime, and it is shown that the stored energy is fully extractable as ergotropy in the closed protocol. Adding charger dissipation cuts the unbounded growth off at an optimal quench duration of about 2.5/γ, beyond which power decays as τ_Q^{-1}.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-dependent interaction Hamiltonian H(t)=g(t)(a b†+a† b)+F(a+a†) with the quenched coupling g(t)=g_f (t/τ_Q)^r during the ramp. The slow-quench charging dynamics reduces to a linear nonhomogeneous Emden-Fowler equation for the battery amplitude, whose solution is expressed through the generalized exponential integral E_α(z) with α=r/(r+1). The first maximum of this solution, located at t_m=(θ_m/g_f)^{1/(1+r)} τ_Q^{r/(1+r)}, yields the algebraic scaling of E_{B,m} and P_{B,m}.

What would settle it

For a fixed ramp exponent r (e.g., r=1) and τ_Q well above 1/g_f, compute the exact time evolution beyond τ_Q and locate the global maximum of E_B(t); if a subsequent maximum exceeds the ramp-phase value ~0.9π ω0 F^2 τ_Q/g_f, the claimed scaling fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Here the authors show that for a closed two-mode bosonic battery with a quenched coupling g(t)=g_f (t/τ_Q)^r (r>0), the maximum stored energy and maximum battery power obey E_{B,m} ∝ τ_Q^{2α} and P_{B,m} ∝ τ_Q^α with α=r/(r+1), where τ_Q is the quench duration. This algebraic temporal extensivity means the usual coherent-oscillation ceiling on oscillator-battery energy is lifted: arbitrarily high excited states become accessible as τ_Q grows. The authors derive this from an exact solution of the first-moment equations, which reduce to a nonhomogeneous Emden-Fowler equation whose solution involves the generalized exponential integral E_α. They further show that in the ideal closed protocol th

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the peak stored energy occurs during the ramp phase (t < τ_Q) and that the first maximum of the ramp-phase solution is the global maximum of the stored energy; if a larger peak appeared after the coupling reached its final constant value, the algebraic power scaling would not describe the true maximum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a closed system, arbitrarily slow quenches give unbounded peak power, so the usual Rabi-oscillation ceiling on oscillator-battery energy is lifted.
  • The stored energy at the optimum switch-off time t_m is fully extractable as ergotropy, so the algebraic scaling translates into usable work, not just trapped energy.
  • Charger dissipation with rate γ imposes a finite optimal quench duration τ_Q^max ≈ 2.5/γ; beyond it, power decays as τ_Q^{-1}.
  • The same temporal scaling appears in a coherently driven Tavis-Cummings model, suggesting the effect is shared by superradiant and many-body battery platforms.
  • Higher ramp exponents r give larger α (closer to 1) and thus faster power growth, but at the cost of larger energy fluctuations and sharper timing requirements near t_m.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same design principle—ramp the coupling instead of switching it—should apply to other linear bosonic networks, e.g., multiple battery modes or cascaded chargers, predicting similar algebraic exponents that could be tested without changing the core Hamiltonian.
  • The unbounded scaling in the closed system is an artifact of the infinite-dimensional harmonic-oscillator Hilbert space; any physical realization with a finite cutoff (e.g., a cavity with limited photon number) will show saturation, and the deviation point could be used to calibrate the effective Hilbert-space size.
  • The exponent α=r/(r+1) mirrors the familiar Landau-Zener and Kibble-Zurek exponent structures in driven critical systems, suggesting that the temporal extensivity here may be a single-particle instance of a more general scaling relation governing slow ramps across avoided crossings.
  • Because the optimal switch-off time t_m scales as τ_Q^{r/(r+1)}, the protocol requires increasingly precise timing for large r; this suggests a trade-off between power gain and control robustness that could be quantified experimentally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a two-mode bosonic quantum battery whose charger-battery coupling is switched on with a power-law ramp g(t)=g_f(t/τ_Q)^r for 0≤t≤τ_Q and kept at g_f afterwards. For a closed system the authors derive an analytic solution for the first moments, Eq. (8), and conclude that the maximum stored energy and maximum battery power scale as E_{B,m}∝τ_Q^{2α} and P_{B,m}∝τ_Q^α with α=r/(r+1), for 0<α≤1. They verify the exponent numerically for r=1, discuss how charger dissipation produces a finite optimal quench duration, and map the model to a driven Tavis-Cummings battery. The paper’s central claim is that slow ramps can counterintuitively increase charging power without bound in the ideal closed case.

Significance. If correct, the main result is significant for quantum battery research: it identifies a simple, solvable protocol in which a slow switch-on of the charger-battery interaction yields an algebraic temporal enhancement of stored energy and power, in contrast to the power-independent constant-coupling regime. The derivation is analytic rather than numerical, the exponent is not obtained by fitting, and the r=1 case is checked directly. The result is also falsifiable in cavity or circuit-QED systems. However, the published abstract contains a statement of the exponent bound inconsistent with the body, and several load-bearing technical justifications are missing, so the manuscript in its present form is not suitable for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Charging dynamics and temporal extensivity, Eqs. (8)–(9)] Eq. (9) is obtained by identifying E_{B,m} with the first maximum of the analytic solution Eq. (8), but Eq. (8) is derived only for t≤τ_Q. Hence the argument presupposes t_m<τ_Q. From t_m=(θ_m/k)^{1/(1+r)} with k=g_f/τ_Q^r, this requirement is exactly g_f τ_Q>θ_m. The paper merely states the slow-quench condition τ_Q≫g_f^{-1}, while θ_m is computed only for r=1, Eq. (10), and no bound or monotonicity property of θ_m(r) is provided. For fixed finite r this is repairable by requiring τ_Q≫θ_m(r)/g_f, but the statement is not uniform in r; in the r→∞ limit the battery is empty at t=τ_Q and its first maximum necessarily occurs after the ramp, so the domain of validity of Eq. (9) must be stated carefully and proved.
  2. [Effect of charger dissipation, Eqs. (11)–(13)] The r→∞ dissipative calculation misidentifies the battery power maximum. For g(t)=g_f θ(t−τ_Q), the battery is decoupled for t<τ_Q and E_B(τ_Q)=0; it therefore cannot reach its maximum at t_m=τ_Q as stated before Eq. (12). The quantity computed in Eqs. (11)–(12) is the charger energy at the ramp end divided by τ_Q, not the maximum average battery power P_{B,m}=E_B(t_m)/t_m used elsewhere in the paper. Consequently, the claimed optimal duration τ_Q^max≈2.513γ^{-1} describes the optimum of charger-energy-over-quench-time, not the maximum battery power. This undermines the dissipation-limited scaling window claimed in the abstract unless the calculation is redone with the actual post-ramp battery dynamics.
  3. [Abstract and Eq. (9)] The full-text abstract states P_{B,m}∝τ_Q^α with 0<α≤2, whereas the body and Eq. (9) give α=r/(r+1), hence 0<α<1 for r>0 and α→1 in the r→∞ limit. The metadata abstract also claims that in the ideal closed protocol the stored energy is fully extractable as ergotropy, but no ergotropy calculation appears anywhere in the body. These are inconsistencies in the central quantitative claim and in the advertised content; they must be fixed before the paper can be evaluated as a self-consistent Letter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The displayed equation is hard to parse: the first term appears to involve a third derivative rather than the second-order equation obtained by eliminating ⟨a⟩ from Eq. (6). Please correct the notation for ⟨b⟩̈ so the derivation is unambiguous.
  2. [Eq. (8) and r=0 limit] The generalized exponential integral E_α is not defined with an explicit sign convention, and the r=0 limit of Eq. (8) is not shown to recover Eq. (5). A reader cannot verify that the analytic solution is the same closed-system solution used for the numerical check.
  3. [Fig. 2 and surrounding text] The text says Fig. 2(b) confirms that the exponent approaches unity for large r, but the figure shows numerical data only for r=1. Either present numerical results for several r values or soften this statement.
  4. [Fast-quench paragraph] The statement that for τ_Q⪅πg_f^{-1} the maximum stored energy has the same value as Eq. (5) is only approximate for small but finite τ_Q; the finite ramp correction should be acknowledged.
  5. [Dissipative formalism] The claim that the quantum jump term is irrelevant for the quadratic problem deserves a short justification for the second-moment observables E_A and E_B. It is true for coherent states under this linear passive dynamics, but it is not self-evident from the first-moment equations alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling law Eq. (9) is derived analytically from the equations of motion, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central claim is derived, not fitted. From the decoupled equation of motion, Eq. (8) gives the stored energy as a function of θ(t)=k t^{1+r}, where k=g_f/τ_Q^r. Since E_B(t) depends on τ_Q only through θ, the maximum condition dE_B/dt=0 fixes a τ_Q-independent θ_m. Then t_m=(θ_m/k)^{1/(1+r)}∝τ_Q^{r/(1+r)}, and E_{B,m}∝k^{-2/(1+r)}=τ_Q^{2r/(1+r)}, with P_{B,m}=E_{B,m}/t_m∝τ_Q^{r/(1+r)}. No parameter is fitted to the target scaling law; θ_m is a fixed root such as Eq. (10) for r=1. The numerical plots integrate the same first-moment equations, so they are a consistency check rather than an independent test, but the exponent is not extracted from the numerics. The only self-citation with overlapping authorship, Ref. [32], appears in a literature list and is not load-bearing. The possible gap that the maximum occurs after the ramp ends, t_m<τ_Q for general r, is a validity-domain concern for the derivation, not a circularity: it does not reduce the prediction to an input or to a fitted parameter.

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

The scaling law is derived analytically with no fitted parameters; model inputs (g_f, F, ω0, γ, r) are protocol parameters. The main assumptions are Gaussian/coherent-state factorization, Markovian zero-temperature dissipation, the slow-quench ordering t_m<τ_Q, and the large-spin Holstein-Primakoff limit for the Tavis-Cummings mapping.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The joint state remains such that ⟨b†b⟩=|⟨b⟩|² (semiclassical factorization of normal-ordered moments) throughout the charging process.
    Used to obtain E_B from the first-moment equation Eq. (6) and cited to Ref. [31]; exact for passive linear systems starting from the vacuum, but not re-derived for the time-dependent g(t).
  • domain assumption The open-system dynamics is Markovian and zero-temperature, described by the GKSL master equation (3) with the single dissipator γD[a] on the charger, and the quantum-jump term is irrelevant.
    Eqs. (3)-(4); standard but restricts the dissipation analysis to zero-temperature Markovian baths.
  • domain assumption The first maximum of E_B(t) occurs inside the ramp interval t≤τ_Q for slow quenches.
    Implicit before Eq. (9); true when τ_Q≫g_f^{-1} and θ_m≈O(1), but the condition is not stated or proven.
  • domain assumption The Holstein-Primakoff replacement S_-≈√(2s)b, S_+≈√(2s)b† is valid in the large-spin limit.
    Used for the Tavis-Cummings mapping, Eq. (14); limits the universality of the extension.
  • domain assumption The external drive amplitude F is treated as an ideal, non-depleted classical source.
    Hamiltonian (1); the unbounded τ_Q-scaling in the closed system relies on the drive continuing to inject energy forever.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Algebraic power scaling in a slowly-quenched bosonic quantum battery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JPHS4OB

@misc{pith2026251123081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Algebraic power scaling in a slowly-quenched bosonic quantum battery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JPHS4OB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.23081}
}
abstract

Bosonic modes provide a promising platform for quantum batteries as a result of their unbounded energy spectrum. However, the energy that can be stored during a coherent charging process is limited due to coherent oscillations between the charger and battery. In this work, we show that by introducing a slow quench in the interaction between a coherently driven charger mode and a quadratic oscillator battery, the maximum stored energy and maximum battery power scale algebraically with the quench duration $\tau_Q$, namely $E_{B,m}\propto \tau_Q^{2\alpha}$ and $P_{B,m}\propto \tau_Q^\alpha$, where $\alpha=r/(r+1)$ for a time-dependent ramp profile $g(t)\propto (t/\tau_Q)^r$, so that $0<\alpha\leq1$. This finding implies that, quite counterintuitively, slower quenches lead to faster charging. Such a quench suppresses coherent energy oscillations between the battery and the charger, allowing an unbounded increase in power. We further show that, in the ideal closed protocol, the stored energy is fully extractable as ergotropy, while charger dissipation converts the algebraic enhancement into a finite-time scaling window with an optimal quench duration. We also show that the temporal extensive scaling occurs in a broader context by mapping the system to a coherently driven Tavis-Cummings battery. Finally, we discuss experimentally accessible signatures in superconducting circuit quantum electrodynamics and organic microcavity platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.23081 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the oscillator quantum battery with a con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Temporal extensivity of the charging process in a lossless [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Effect of charger dissipation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Farina, G

    D. Farina, G. M. Andolina, A. Mari, M. Polini, and V. Giovan- netti, Charger-mediated energy transfer for quantum batteries: An open-system approach, Phys. Rev. B99, 035421 (2019)

    2019

  2. [1]

    Gemmer, M

    J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler,Quantum thermodynam- ics: Emergence of thermodynamic behavior within composite quantum systems, Vol. 784 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009)

    2009

  3. [2]

    Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

    R. Kosloff, Quantum thermodynamics: A dynamical viewpoint, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

    2013

  4. [3]

    Millen and A

    J. Millen and A. Xuereb, Perspective on quantum thermody- namics, New J. Phys.18, 011002 (2016)

    2016

  5. [4]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermodynamics, Contemp. Phys.57, 545 (2016)

    2016

  6. [5]

    Goold, M

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

    2016

  7. [6]

    F. C. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, eds.,Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 195 (Springer, 2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    Alicki and R

    R. Alicki and R. Kosloff, Introduction to quantum thermody- 5 namics: History and prospects, inThermodynamics in the Quan- tum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, Fun- damental Theories of Physics, Vol. 195, edited by F. C. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer,

Show all 69 references
  1. [8]

    Campbell, I

    S. Campbell, I. d’ Amico, M. A. Ciampini, J. Anders, N. Ares, S. Artini, A. Auff`eves, L. B. Oftelie, L. Bettman, M. V. Bonanc ¸a, et al., Roadmap on quantum thermodynamics, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10.1088/2058-9565/ae1e27 (2025)

    doi

  2. [9]

    Alicki and M

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

    2013

  3. [10]

    K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Perarnau-Llobet, M. Huber, and A. Ac´ın, Entanglement generation is not necessary for optimal work extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 240401 (2013)

    2013

  4. [11]

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quantum thermodynamics of general quantum processes, Phys. Rev. E91, 032119 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quanta- cell: Powerful charging of quantum batteries, New J. Phys.17, 075015 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. C ´eleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina, V. Pellegrini, and M. Polini, High-power collective charging of a solid-state quan- tum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 117702 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Pollock, Spin-chain model of a many-body quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A97, 022106 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Henao and R

    I. Henao and R. M. Serra, Role of quantum coherence in the thermodynamics of energy transfer, Phys. Rev. E97, 062105 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, M. Campisi, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Extractable work, the role of correlations, and asymptotic freedom in quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 047702 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Barra, Dissipative charging of a quantum battery, Phys

    F. Barra, Dissipative charging of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 210601 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Juli `a-Farr´e, T

    S. Juli `a-Farr´e, T. Salamon, A. Riera, M. N. Bera, and M. Lewen- stein, Bounds on the capacity and power of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023113 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    J.-Y. Gyhm, D. ˇSafr´anek, and D. Rosa, Quantum charging ad- vantage cannot be extensive without global operations, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 140501 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    J. Q. Quach, G. Cerullo, and T. Virgili, Quantum batteries: The future of energy storage?, Joule7, 2195 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzanjeh, Nonre- ciprocal quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 210402 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y. L¨ u, and C. Shang, Topological quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 180401 (2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    Campaioli, S

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

    2024

  18. [25]

    A. C. Santos, Quantum advantage of two-level batteries in the self-discharging process, Phys. Rev. E103, 042118 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    Mohan and A

    B. Mohan and A. K. Pati, Reverse quantum speed limit: How slowly a quantum battery can discharge, Phys. Rev. A104, 042209 (2021)

    2021

  20. [27]

    M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, and A. C. Santos, Enhanc- ing self-discharging process with disordered quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E105, 054115 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    Xu, H.-J

    K. Xu, H.-J. Zhu, H. Zhu, G.-F. Zhang, and W.-M. Liu, Charging and self-discharging process of a quantum battery in composite environments, Front. Phys.18, 31301 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Song, J.-L

    W.-L. Song, J.-L. Wang, B. Zhou, W.-L. Yang, and J.-H. An, Self-discharging mitigated quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 020405 (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    G. M. Andolina, D. Farina, A. Mari, V. Pellegrini, V. Giovan- netti, and M. Polini, Charger-mediated energy transfer in exactly solvable models for quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. B98, 205423 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    M. S. Ukhtary, A. R. Nugraha, A. B. Cahaya, A. Rusydi, and M. A. Majidi, High-performance Kerr quantum battery, Appl. Phys. Lett.123, 10.1063/5.0156618 (2023)

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, A quantum battery with quadratic driving, Comm. Phys.6, 322 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Hyperbolic enhancement of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A109, 052206 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Energetics of a pulsed quan- tum battery, Europhys. Lett.146, 10001 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    C. A. Downing and V. A. Saroka, Exceptional points in oligomer chains, Commun. Phys.4, 254 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Two-photon charging of a quantum battery with a Gaussian pulse envelope, Phys. Lett. A 518, 129693 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Energy storage in a continuous-variable quantum battery with nonlinear coupling, Phys. Rev. E112, 044143 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, D. Rosa, M. Carrega, and M. Polini, Quantum advantage in the charging process of Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 236402 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    D. Rosa, D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, M. Polini, and M. Carrega, Ultra-stable charging of fast-scrambling SYK quantum batteries, J. High Energy Phys.2020, 1 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Francica, Quantum advantage in batteries for Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev interactions, Phys

    G. Francica, Quantum advantage in batteries for Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev interactions, Phys. Rev. A110, 062209 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    S. V. Romero, Y. Ding, X. Chen, and Y. Ban, Scrambling in the charging of quantum batteries, J. High Energy Phys.2025, 1 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    F. Divi, J. Murugan, and D. Rosa, Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev charging advantage as a random walk on graphs, Phys. Rev. B111, 075138 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Crescente, M

    A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, Charging and energy fluctuations of a driven quantum battery, New J. Phys.22, 063057 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Crescente, M

    A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, Ultrafast charging in a two-photon Dicke quantum battery, Phys. Rev. B 102, 245407 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Dou, Y.-Q

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-Q. Lu, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Extended Dicke quantum battery with interatomic interactions and driving field, Phys. Rev. B105, 115405 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Mazzoncini, V

    F. Mazzoncini, V. Cavina, G. M. Andolina, P. A. Erdman, and V. Giovannetti, Optimal control methods for quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A107, 032218 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    R. R. Rodriguez, B. Ahmadi, G. Su´arez, P. Mazurek, S. Barzan- jeh, and P. Horodecki, Optimal quantum control of charging quantum batteries, New J. Phys.26, 043004 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold, and J. Prior, Charging a quantum battery with linear feedback control, Quantum5, 500 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of𝑛-level systems, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976). 6

    1976

  43. [51]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  44. [52]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian physics, Adv. Phys.69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    J. S. W. Wong, On the generalized Emden–Fowler equation, SIAM Rev.17, 339 (1975)

    1975

  46. [54]

    W. Lu, J. Chen, L.-M. Kuang, and X. Wang, Optimal state for a Tavis-Cummings quantum battery via the Bethe ansatz method, Phys. Rev. A104, 043706 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    J. Q. Quach, K. E. McGhee, L. Ganzer, D. M. Rouse, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, J. Keeling, G. Cerullo, D. G. Lidzey, and T. Virgili, Superabsorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery, Sci. Adv.8, eabk3160 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Yang, H.-L

    H.-Y. Yang, H.-L. Shi, Q.-K. Wan, K. Zhang, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Optimal energy storage in the Tavis-Cummings quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A109, 012204 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Canzio, V

    A. Canzio, V. Cavina, M. Polini, and V. Giovannetti, Single- atom dissipation and dephasing in Dicke and Tavis-Cummings quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A111, 022222 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    Hymas, J

    K. Hymas, J. B. Muir, D. Tibben, J. van Embden, T. Hirai, C. J. Dunn, D. E. G ´omez, J. A. Hutchison, T. A. Smith, and J. Q. Quach, Experimental demonstration of a scalable room- temperature quantum battery (2025), arXiv:2501.16541

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  52. [60]

    V. M. Bastidas, C. Emary, B. Regler, and T. Brandes, Nonequi- librium quantum phase transitions in the Dicke model, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 043003 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    R. D. Jara Jr and J. G. Cosme, Apparent delay of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism in quenched open systems, Phys. Rev. B110, 064317 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Topology of cosmic domains and strings, J. Phys. A Math. Gen.9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  55. [63]

    T. W. Kibble, Some implications of a cosmological phase tran- sition, Phys. Rep.67, 183 (1980)

    1980

  56. [64]

    W. H. Zurek, Cosmological experiments in superfluid helium?, Nature317, 505 (1985)

    1985

  57. [65]

    W. H. Zurek, Cosmological experiments in condensed matter systems, Phys. Rep.276, 177 (1996)

    1996

  58. [66]

    del Campo and W

    A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, Universality of phase transi- tion dynamics: From Zurek-Kibble to quantum Kibble-Zurek mechanism, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29, 1430018 (2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    Dziarmaga, Dynamics of a quantum phase transition and re- laxation to a steady state, Adv

    J. Dziarmaga, Dynamics of a quantum phase transition and re- laxation to a steady state, Adv. Phys.59, 1063 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    R. C. Bialczak, M. Ansmann, M. Hofheinz, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, T. Yamamoto, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Fast tunable coupler for superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 060501 (2011)

    2011

  61. [69]

    Elghaayda, A

    S. Elghaayda, A. Ali, S. Al-Kuwari, A. Czerwinski, M. Man- sour, and S. Haddadi, Performance of a superconducting quan- tum battery, Adv. Quantum Technol.7, 2400651 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.