Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The paper shows that continuously monitoring the environment of an open quantum battery can push its extractable work beyond the ideal noiseless case, turning dissipation into a resource.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:24 UTC pith:7PVGSCG5

load-bearing objection Dicke 'beyond noiseless' claim rests on a suboptimal benchmark; the mechanism is plausible but needs a stronger comparison and clearer PD claims. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.05244 v2 pith:7PVGSCG5 submitted 2025-12-04 quant-ph

Boosting Work Extraction in Quantum Batteries via Continuous Environment Monitoring

Gabriele Cenedese , Giuliano Benenti , Dario Ferraro , Marco G. Genoni This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum batteriesergotropydaemonic ergotropycontinuous monitoringquantum trajectorieshomodyne detectionDicke modelopen quantum systems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Charging a quantum battery through a quantum charger inevitably builds up correlations between the two, and those correlations lock energy in a form that cannot be unitarily extracted. The paper claims that coupling the battery-charger pair to an environment and continuously monitoring the photons it leaks turns that dissipation into an asset: the measurement record lets an experimenter tailor the extraction unitary to each observed trajectory. The resulting 'daemonic ergotropy' can not only compensate the losses but, in certain parameter regimes, surpass the ergotropy of the same system in the idealized lossless case. This is demonstrated numerically on two models, a cavity-mediated spin-spin battery and a Dicke-model battery. If correct, dissipation-plus-measurement becomes a controlled resource rather than a purely destructive influence.

Core claim

The central claim is that monitoring the environment of an open quantum battery during charging can enhance work extraction beyond the ideal closed-system value. In both a minimal cavity-mediated spin-spin battery and a Dicke battery, the paper computes the daemonic ergotropy — the average of the ergotropy of the state conditioned on continuous photodetection or homodyne detection — and finds regimes where it exceeds the ergotropy of the identical battery-charger system in the absence of dissipation. The mechanism is that the measurement purifies the battery's conditional state: it weakens the quantum correlations (chiefly entanglement) between battery and charger that otherwise reduce the b

What carries the argument

The key object is the daemonic ergotropy, the ensemble average of the ergotropy over the probability-weighted conditional states produced by a continuous measurement. For each measurement record k the extractor applies a unitary U_k optimized for that conditional state, and the average extractable work is bounded between the ergotropy of the unconditional (unmonitored) state and the total stored energy. The dynamics are generated by stochastic Schrödinger equations for two detection schemes — photodetection (jump-like) and homodyne detection (diffusive) — which unravel the same Markovian Lindblad master equation with jump operator c = √γ a for the cavity decay. The measurement-induced purifi

Load-bearing premise

The numerical results assume the standard Markovian master equation with cavity-loss jump operator proportional to the bare annihilation operator remains valid even at the strongest couplings (up to and beyond ultrastrong coupling), where that dissipation model may fail.

What would settle it

Perform the same Dicke-model computation with a dressed-state Lindblad master equation (jump operators connecting dressed eigenstates) at λ̄ = 1.5ω, κ = ω, N = 6, evaluated at the optimal charging time. If the daemonic ergotropy no longer exceeds the noiseless ergotropy, the reported beyond-ideal enhancement is an artifact of the bare Lindblad model; if it still does, the mechanism is robust.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In open quantum batteries, dissipation is not necessarily a limiting factor: continuous monitoring turns it into a resource that can beat the noiseless limit.
  • The enhancement mechanism is generic (correlations limiting work extraction are weakened by monitoring), so it should apply to other quantum devices where correlations degrade performance.
  • For Dicke batteries, homodyne detection recovers or surpasses the closed-system scaling with number of spins, so collective advantages are retained under realistic losses.
  • Choosing the detected quadrature (e.g., θ=π/2 vs θ=0) offers an additional control knob that can further boost daemonic ergotropy.
  • If realized experimentally, measurement-conditioned extraction protocols require no feedback during charging, only a classical feedforward of measurement outcomes at extraction time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same argument suggests that monitoring could boost work extraction in other correlated quantum systems, such as quantum thermal machines or entangled processing units, wherever correlations trap extractable energy.
  • The paper assumes unit detection efficiency; in a real experiment imperfect detectors would reduce the conditional purity gain, so one expects the enhancement to degrade continuously with efficiency — a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • The dependence on the dissipation model at ultrastrong coupling (where bare Lindblad jump operators may be inadequate) is a caveat: if dressed-state dissipation is used instead, the size or even the existence of the enhancement could change. This is an inference about model sensitivity, not a claim in the paper.
  • Combining continuous monitoring during charging with real-time feedback could stack the two advantages, potentially yielding even more extractable work than the present feedforward-only protocol.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that continuous monitoring of the environment coupled to a quantum battery during charging can enhance work extraction beyond the ideal, closed-system limit. The mechanism is that the measurement suppresses charger–battery correlations, and the resulting information can be used in a daemonic ergotropy protocol. The authors illustrate this with two models: a cavity-mediated spin–spin battery and a Dicke-model battery, using both homodyne and photon-counting detection. Numerical quantum trajectory simulations show that the daemonic ergotropy exceeds the unconditional ergotropy and, in some parameter regimes, exceeds the noiseless ergotropy as evaluated at the time of maximum stored energy.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper establishes a conceptually interesting resource: environmental monitoring converts dissipation from a purely detrimental effect into a tool for bypassing correlation-induced work extraction limits. The daemonic ergotropy framework is well anchored in prior work (Francica et al., Morrone et al.), and the numerical results cover two distinct models with scaling checks in N. The paper is clearly written and the simulations are reproducible in principle. However, the strongest claims ('surpasses the ideal, lossless value') currently rest on a benchmark choice and on an internal contradiction that need to be fixed before the result can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4)] The Dicke-model noiseless benchmark E0 is evaluated at the charging time that maximizes stored energy, not at the time that maximizes noiseless ergotropy. The text states (p. 4) that 'the maximum ergotropy is reached at an intermediate time, later than the peak of the power but earlier than the maximum of the energy.' Therefore the ratio E/E0 > 1 in Fig. 4(a) may only reflect a comparison at different times, not a genuine advantage over the optimal closed-system protocol. The claim of surpassing the ideal limit must be supported by comparing max_τ E(τ) with max_τ E0(τ). The spin–spin model uses a time-maximized benchmark (Fig. 5), but the Dicke model does not.
  2. [Results (Fig. 4(b)) and End Matter] The text claims that both HD and PD schemes lead to an increase in ergotropy compared to the ideal case ('for both the HD and PD schemes'). However, Fig. 4(b) shows a PD ratio capped at 1.0 with no red regions, and the End Matter states that 'for PD, the conditional ergotropy recovers the scaling observed in the dissipation–free scenario, while in the HD case, it even surpasses the closed–system value.' This is an internal contradiction. The abstract's unqualified 'beyond' claim must be revised to reflect that only homodyne detection (in these examples) surpasses the noiseless value, and only in the parameter regions shown.
  3. [Eq. after (4) and Eq. after (6)] The dissipators c = √γ a and c = √(2κ) a are bare-cavity Lindblad operators used without explicit justification for strong and ultrastrong coupling regimes (g_B = ω, λ up to 1.5 ω). In ultrastrong coupling, the standard Lindblad form in the bare basis is not generally a first-principles master equation; dressed-state jump operators are typically required. Since the 'beyond noiseless' effect in the Dicke model appears at λ/ω ≳ 1 (Fig. 4(a)), the numerical result may be an artifact of an unphysical dissipation model. The authors should justify the use of this dissipator in the parameter range considered, or restrict the claims to regimes where the model is physically motivated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Notation] The symbols E (energy) and E (ergotropy/daemonic ergotropy) are visually close; consider using different fonts or explicitly defining them as E and E_de. This will improve readability in Eqs. (1) and throughout.
  2. [Fig. 2/Fig. 4] The statement 'In all cases, the maximum ergotropy is reached at an intermediate time...' applies to the unconditional dynamics; consider indicating on Fig. 2 where the max-energy and max-ergotropy times are, to avoid confusion when comparing with the conditional results.
  3. [Fig. 4] The color scale for the PD panel (b) is 0–1.0, while the HD panel (a) is 0–1.5. Since the text claims enhancement for both, the PD panel should use a scale that allows values above 1 if any exist; otherwise the visual message conflicts with the text.
  4. [Numerical sampling] The trajectory averages are based on n=1000 realizations. Error bars are only shown in Fig. 5; for the Dicke model no uncertainties are reported for quantities close to the threshold E/E0 = 1. Adding error bars or confidence intervals would strengthen the claim that small enhancements are physical.
  5. [Introduction] The phrase 'we show that ... enhance work extraction beyond what is achievable in the ideal (closed system) limit' in the abstract and introduction is too strong given the PD results. Please qualify it with 'in certain parameter regimes with homodyne detection as demonstrated here.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: daemonic ergotropy is an externally grounded quantity and the enhancement is an unforced simulation result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Daemonic ergotropy is defined through the ensemble-averaged ergotropies of conditional states (Eq. (1)), with the inequality E(ρ_B) <= E <= E(ρ_B) attributed to Refs. [90,109]. This is a standard externally established definition, not an input that already contains the target result. The reported enhancement over the noiseless case is obtained by numerically solving the stochastic Schroedinger equations (2)-(3) for the spin-spin and Dicke models, then computing the daemonic ergotropy from the conditional trajectories and comparing it with separately computed noiseless ergotropies. No parameter is fitted to force E/E0 > 1, and no conclusion is imported from a self-citation as a substitute for the simulation. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., Refs. [45,90,91]) are background/methodological and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The caveat that Figs. 3-4 evaluate ergotropies at the stored-energy maximum, whereas the text notes that the noiseless ergotropy peaks before the energy maximum, is a benchmark-choice concern about the strength or framing of the 'beyond noiseless' claim; it is not circular, because E and E0 are computed independently rather than being related by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The ledger is clean in that respect; the main burden is the dissipation model and the timing/quadrature choices used to define the advantage.

free parameters (2)
  • Charging time tau_c at maximum stored energy = varies with (lambda,kappa) and (g_B,g_C)
    Ergotropies in Figs. 3-4 are evaluated at the time the stored energy is maximal; the reported enhancement is conditional on this timing choice.
  • Homodyne quadrature angle theta = theta=0 default; theta=pi/2 explored
    Choosing a different quadrature changes the daemonic ergotropy by up to ~8% (Fig. 9), so the headline enhancement is reference-frame dependent.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Quantum trajectory stochastic Schrodinger equations (Eqs. (2)-(3)) correctly describe continuous monitoring with unit-efficiency detectors.
    The paper assumes ideal detection and pure conditional states; experimental detectors have finite efficiency, which would reduce the advantage.
  • domain assumption Markovian Lindblad dissipator with bare cavity jump operator is valid in all simulated regimes, including ultrastrong coupling.
    Used without microscopic justification for g_B=omega and lambda up to 1.5 omega; standard Lindblad can fail in ultrastrong coupling.
  • domain assumption Fock-space truncation N_ph=20 (N<5), 4N (N>=5) is converged.
    Authors state convergence is checked; no convergence data shown.
  • standard math Daemonic ergotropy satisfies E(rho_B) <= Ebar <= E(rho_B) (Refs. 90, 109).
    Known result from the quantum thermodynamics literature, used as the framework for the protocol.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14894 in / 11733 out tokens · 117213 ms · 2026-08-03T18:24:43.168060+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

During the charging process, interactions between a quantum battery and its charger generally generate quantum correlations, which may reduce the amount of work extractable from the battery alone. We show that, by coupling the system with an environment that can be continuously monitored, one can weaken these correlations and enhance work extraction beyond what is achievable in the ideal (closed system) limit. This general mechanism is illustrated using both a cavity--mediated spin--spin and a Dicke quantum battery model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.05244 by Dario Ferraro, Gabriele Cenedese, Giuliano Benenti, Marco G. Genoni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of a cavity–mediated spin–spin QB. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Contour plots of ergotropy in the noiseless scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a–d) Energy, power, ergotropy and purity of the re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Daemonic ergotropy enhancement ratio as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Maximum daemonic efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Maximum ergotropy as a function of ¯g [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Ratio between the daemonic ergotropy obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Optimal control of a dissipative micromaser quantum battery in the ultrastrong coupling regime

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0

    Adding dissipation to a micromaser quantum battery in the ultrastrong-coupling regime stabilizes the stored energy, and optimized control of qubit states and interaction times boosts the stored ergotropy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Benenti, G

    G. Benenti, G. Casati, D. Rossini, and G. Strini,Prin- ciples of quantum computation and information: a com- prehensive textbook(World Scientific, 2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Portmann and R

    C. Portmann and R. Renner, Security in quantum cryptography, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 025008 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Entanglement boost for ex- tractable work from ensembles of quantum batteries, Physical Review E87, 042123 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Quach, G

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

    2023

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quantacell: powerful charging of quantum batteries, New Journal of Physics17, 075015 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    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, Physical Re- view Letters118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Ferraro, M

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

    2018

  11. [11]

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

    2018

  12. [12]

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

    2018

  13. [13]

    Zhang, T.-R

    Y.-Y. Zhang, T.-R. Yang, L. Fu, and X. Wang, Powerful harmonic charging in a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. E 99, 052106 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    K. V. Hovhannisyan, F. Barra, and A. Imparato, Charg- ing assisted by thermalization, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033413 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    S. Seah, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack, N. Brunner, and S. Nimmrichter, Quantum speed-up in collisional battery charging, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 100601 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    J.-Y. Gyhm, D. ˇSafr´ anek, and D. Rosa, Quantum charg- ing advantage cannot be extensive without global oper- ations, Physical Review Letters128, 140501 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    Salvia and V

    R. Salvia and V. Giovannetti, Extracting work from cor- 6 related many-body quantum systems, Physical Review A105, 012414 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Morrone, M

    D. Morrone, M. A. Rossi, A. Smirne, and M. G. Genoni, Charging a quantum battery in a non-markovian envi- ronment: A collisional model approach, Quantum Sci- ence and Technology8, 035007 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Castellano, D

    R. Castellano, D. Farina, V. Giovannetti, and A. Acin, Extended local ergotropy, Physical Review Letters133, 150402 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Shaghaghi, V

    V. Shaghaghi, V. Singh, G. Benenti, and D. Rosa, Mi- cromasers as quantum batteries, Quantum Science and Technology7, 04LT01 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Grazi, D

    R. Grazi, D. Sacco Shaikh, M. Sassetti, N. Traverso Ziani, and D. Ferraro, Controlling en- ergy storage crossing quantum phase transitions in an integrable spin quantum battery, Physical Review Letters133, 197001 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    A. G. Catalano, S. M. Giampaolo, O. Morsch, V. Gio- vannetti, and F. Franchini, Frustrating quantum batter- ies, PRX Quantum5, 030319 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    T. K. Konar, A. Patra, R. Gupta, S. Ghosh, and A. Sen, Multimode advantage in continuous-variable quantum batteries, Physical Review A110, 022226 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Gemme, M

    G. Gemme, M. Grossi, S. Vallecorsa, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, Qutrit quantum battery: Comparing dif- ferent charging protocols, Physical Review Research6, 023091 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Razzoli, G

    L. Razzoli, G. Gemme, I. Khomchenko, M. Sassetti, H. Ouerdane, D. Ferraro, and G. Benenti, Cyclic solid- state quantum battery: thermodynamic characteriza- tion and quantum hardware simulation, Quantum Sci- ence and Technology10, 015064 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y. L¨ u, and C. Shang, Topolog- ical quantum batteries, Physical Review Letters134, 180401 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Beder, D

    I. Beder, D. Ferraro, and P. A. Brand˜ ao, Work extrac- tion from a quantum battery charged through an array of coupled cavities (2025), arXiv:2508.19135 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Cavaliere, G

    F. Cavaliere, G. Gemme, G. Benenti, D. Ferraro, and M. Sassetti, Dynamical blockade of a reservoir for op- timal performances of a quantum battery, Communica- tions Physics8, 76 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Cavaliere, D

    F. Cavaliere, D. Ferraro, M. Carrega, G. Benenti, and M. Sassetti, Quantum advantage bounds for a multipar- tite gaussian battery (2025), arXiv:2510.24162 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Bhattacharjee and A

    S. Bhattacharjee and A. Dutta, Quantum thermal ma- chines and batteries, The European Physical Journal B 94, 239 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwen- huizen, Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems, Europhysics Letters67, 565 (2004)

    2004

  32. [32]

    Lenard, Thermodynamical proof of the gibbs formula for elementary quantum systems, Journal of Statistical Physics19, 575 (1978)

    A. Lenard, Thermodynamical proof of the gibbs formula for elementary quantum systems, Journal of Statistical Physics19, 575 (1978)

    1978

  33. [33]

    Pusz and S

    W. Pusz and S. L. Woronowicz, Passive states and kms states for general quantum systems, Communications in Mathematical Physics58, 273 (1978)

    1978

  34. [34]

    Farina, G

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

    2019

  35. [35]

    Caravelli, B

    F. Caravelli, B. Yan, L. P. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, and A. Hamma, Energy storage and coherence in closed and open quantum batteries, Quantum5, 505 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Zakavati, F

    S. Zakavati, F. T. Tabesh, and S. Salimi, Bounds on charging power of open quantum batteries, Physical Re- view E104, 054117 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Shaghaghi, V

    V. Shaghaghi, V. Singh, M. Carrega, D. Rosa, and G. Benenti, Lossy micromaser battery: Almost pure states in the jaynes–cummings regime, Entropy25, 430 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Yadav, D

    M. Yadav, D. Tiwari, and S. Banerjee, (thermo-) dy- namics of the spin-boson model in the weak cou- pling regime: Application as a quantum battery, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15712 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, and P. Horodecki, Superoptimal charging of quantum batteries via reservoir engineering: Arbitrary energy transfer unlocked, Physical Review Applied23, 024010 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Xu, H.-J

    K. Xu, H.-J. Zhu, G.-F. Zhang, and W.-M. Liu, En- hancing the performance of an open quantum battery via environment engineering, Physical Review E104, 064143 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    Song, L.-J

    M.-L. Song, L.-J. Li, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Environment-mediated entropic uncertainty in charg- ing quantum batteries, Physical Review E106, 054107 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    W.-L. Yu, Y. Zhang, H. Li, G.-F. Wei, L.-P. Han, F. Tian, and J. Zou, Enhancement of charging perfor- mance of quantum battery via quantum coherence of bath, Chinese Physics B32, 010302 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Centrone, L

    F. Centrone, L. Mancino, and M. Paternostro, Charging batteries with quantum squeezing, Physical Review A 108, 052213 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzan- jeh, Nonreciprocal quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 210402 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Albarelli and M

    F. Albarelli and M. G. Genoni, A pedagogical introduc- tion to continuously monitored quantum systems and measurement-based feedback, Physics Letters A494, 129260 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum measure- ment and control(Cambridge university press, 2009)

    2009

  47. [47]

    H. M. Wiseman, Quantum theory of continuous feed- back, Physical Review A49, 2133 (1994)

    1994

  48. [48]

    A. C. Doherty and K. Jacobs, Feedback control of quan- tum systems using continuous state estimation, Physical Review A60, 2700 (1999)

    1999

  49. [49]

    L. K. Thomsen, S. Mancini, and H. M. Wiseman, Spin squeezing via quantum feedback, Physical Review A65, 061801 (2002)

    2002

  50. [50]

    H. M. Wiseman and A. C. Doherty, Optimal unravel- lings for feedback control in linear quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 070405 (2005)

    2005

  51. [51]

    M. G. Genoni, J. Zhang, J. Millen, P. F. Barker, and A. Serafini, Quantum cooling and squeezing of a lev- itating nanosphere via time-continuous measurements, New Journal of Physics17, 073019 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    Brunelli, D

    M. Brunelli, D. Malz, and A. Nunnenkamp, Conditional Dynamics of Optomechanical Two-Tone Backaction- Evading Measurements, Physical Review Letters123, 093602 (2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    Di Giovanni, M

    A. Di Giovanni, M. Brunelli, and M. G. Genoni, Uncon- ditional mechanical squeezing via backaction-evading measurements and nonoptimal feedback control, Physi- cal Review A103, 022614 (2021). 7

    2021

  54. [54]

    Candeloro, C

    A. Candeloro, C. Benedetti, M. G. Genoni, and M. G. A. Paris, Feedback-Assisted Quantum Search by Continuous-Time Quantum Walks, Advanced Quantum Technologies6, 2200093 (2023)

    2023

  55. [55]

    F. W. Isaksen and U. L. Andersen, Mechanical cooling and squeezing using optimal control, Physical Review A 107, 023512 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Caprotti, M

    A. Caprotti, M. Barbiero, M. G. Tarallo, M. G. Genoni, and G. Bertaina, Analysis of spin-squeezing genera- tion in cavity-coupled atomic ensembles with continu- ous measurements, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 035032 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Mabuchi, Dynamical identification of open quantum systems, Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B8, 1103 (1996)

    H. Mabuchi, Dynamical identification of open quantum systems, Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B8, 1103 (1996)

    1996

  58. [58]

    Geremia, J

    JM. Geremia, J. K. Stockton, A. C. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, Quantum Kalman Filtering and the Heisenberg Limit in Atomic Magnetometry, Physical Review Letters91, 250801 (2003)

    2003

  59. [59]

    Tsang, Optimal waveform estimation for classical and quantum systems via time-symmetric smoothing, Physical Review A80, 033840 (2009)

    M. Tsang, Optimal waveform estimation for classical and quantum systems via time-symmetric smoothing, Physical Review A80, 033840 (2009)

    2009

  60. [60]

    Gammelmark and K

    S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, Fisher Information and the Quantum Cram\’er-Rao Sensitivity Limit of Continuous Measurements, Physical Review Letters 112, 170401 (2014)

    2014

  61. [61]

    P. Six, Ph. Campagne-Ibarcq, L. Bretheau, B. Huard, and P. Rouchon, Parameter estimation from measure- ments along quantum trajectories, in2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)(2015) pp. 7742–7748

    2015

  62. [62]

    A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Bayesian parameter es- timation by continuous homodyne detection, Physical Review A94, 032103 (2016)

    2016

  63. [63]

    M. G. Genoni, Cram\’er-Rao bound for time-continuous measurements in linear Gaussian quantum systems, Physical Review A95, 012116 (2017)

    2017

  64. [64]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. A. C. Rossi, M. G. A. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, Ultimate limits for quantum magnetometry via time-continuous measurements, New Journal of Physics 19, 123011 (2017)

    2017

  65. [65]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. A. C. Rossi, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Restoring Heisenberg scaling in noisy quantum metrology by monitoring the environment, Quantum2, 110 (2018)

    2018

  66. [66]

    M. A. C. Rossi, F. Albarelli, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Noisy Quantum Metrology Enhanced by Con- tinuous Nondemolition Measurement, Physical Review Letters125, 200505 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    Amor´ os-Binefa and J

    J. Amor´ os-Binefa and J. Ko lody´ nski, Noisy atomic mag- netometry in real time, New Journal of Physics23, 123030 (2021)

    2021

  68. [68]

    Fallani, M

    A. Fallani, M. A. C. Rossi, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Learning feedback control strategies for quan- tum metrology, PRX Quantum3, 020310 (2022)

    2022

  69. [69]

    Ilias, D

    T. Ilias, D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Criticality-enhanced quantum sensing via continuous measurement, PRX Quantum3, 010354 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    D. Yang, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Efficient in- formation retrieval for sensing via continuous measure- ment, Phys. Rev. X13, 031012 (2023)

    2023

  71. [71]

    Amoros-Binefa and J

    J. Amoros-Binefa and J. Kolodynski, Noisy atomic magnetometry with kalman filtering and measurement- based feedback (2024), arXiv:2403.14764 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Midha and S

    S. Midha and S. Gopalakrishnan, Metrology of open quantum systems from emitted radiation (2025), arXiv:2504.13815 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    A. Khan, F. Albarelli, and A. Datta, A tensor network approach to sensing quantum light-matter interactions (2025), arXiv:2504.12399 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    D. Yang, M. Ketkar, K. Audenaert, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum cramer-rao precision limit of noisy continuous sensing (2025), arXiv:2504.12400 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Manzano and R

    G. Manzano and R. Zambrini, Quantum thermodynam- ics under continuous monitoring: A general framework, A VS Quantum Science4, 025302 (2022)

    2022

  76. [76]

    J. P. Garrahan and I. Lesanovsky, Thermodynamics of Quantum Jump Trajectories, Physical Review Letters 104, 160601 (2010)

    2010

  77. [77]

    Rossi, L

    M. Rossi, L. Mancino, G. T. Landi, M. Paternostro, A. Schliesser, and A. Belenchia, Experimental Assess- ment of Entropy Production in a Continuously Mea- sured Mechanical Resonator, Physical Review Letters 125, 080601 (2020)

    2020

  78. [78]

    G. T. Landi, M. Paternostro, and A. Belenchia, In- formational Steady States and Conditional Entropy Production in Continuously Monitored Systems, PRX Quantum3, 010303 (2022)

    2022

  79. [79]

    K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, C. Macklin, and I. Siddiqi, Observing single quantum trajectories of a supercon- ducting quantum bit, Nature502, 211 (2013)

    2013

  80. [80]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, P

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, P. Six, L. Bretheau, A. Sarlette, M. Mirrahimi, P. Rouchon, and B. Huard, Observing Quantum State Diffusion by Heterodyne Detection of Fluorescence, Physical Review X6, 011002 (2016)

    2016

Showing first 80 references.