pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22405 · v1 · pith:PXMXIDDOnew · submitted 2026-06-21 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum Otto engine with decoupled idle levels in a non-Hermitian XY model

Maimaitiyiming Tusun , Fang Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 10:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum Otto enginenon-Hermitian XY modelidle levelsPT symmetryquantum heat enginetwo-qubit systemefficiency enhancement
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tuning the non-Hermitian parameter in a two-qubit XY model transitions the system from dissipative behavior to a genuine quantum Otto heat engine while raising efficiency toward a fraction of the Carnot limit.

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

The paper establishes that the energy spectrum of this non-Hermitian XY model splits into working levels that respond to an external field and idle levels that do not, furnishing a concrete spin realization of an abstract idle-level engine design. Adjusting the non-Hermitian strength eta_0 produces a continuous change from a regime that absorbs heat without net work to one that produces positive work, with both output and efficiency rising as the idle gap shrinks and alters thermal occupations. A sympathetic reader would care because the mechanism shows how non-Hermiticity can steer the thermodynamic operating mode of a simple quantum system without changing the working levels themselves. The root mathematical feature is that the numerator of net work stays fixed while the denominator varies through hyperbolic-cosine factors that depend on eta_0.

Core claim

The energy spectrum of the two-qubit non-Hermitian XY model with staggered imaginary magnetic field naturally decouples into a pair of working levels dependent on the external field and a pair of idle levels completely independent of it. Tuning the non-Hermitian parameter eta_0 drives a continuous transition from a dissipative regime with negative net work and net heat absorption from the hot reservoir into a genuine heat engine mode, while simultaneously enhancing both output work and efficiency. As eta_0 increases within the stable PT-unbroken phase, the engine efficiency rises significantly, reaching a substantial fraction of the Carnot limit, because compression of the idle-level gap red

What carries the argument

Decoupling of the spectrum into field-dependent working levels and field-independent idle levels, with the non-Hermitian parameter eta_0 controlling the idle gap and thereby the thermal occupation weights.

If this is right

  • The numerator of the net-work expression remains independent of eta_0 while the denominator varies through hyperbolic-cosine functions, supplying the mathematical basis for idle-level control.
  • Engine efficiency increases continuously with eta_0 inside the PT-unbroken phase and reaches a substantial fraction of the Carnot value.
  • The reported transition, work enhancement, and efficiency gain remain robust under variations of the model parameters.
  • A concrete mapping exists for implementing the engine in trapped-ion quantum simulators.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same idle-level compression effect might appear in other non-Hermitian spin chains if analogous spectral decoupling occurs.
  • Engineering the non-Hermitian strength could become a practical handle for switching thermodynamic operating modes in small quantum devices.
  • The mechanism offers a route to test how PT symmetry breaking boundaries affect heat-engine performance in open quantum systems.

Load-bearing premise

The energy spectrum naturally decouples into working levels that depend on the external field and idle levels that are completely independent of it.

What would settle it

A direct calculation or measurement showing that the idle levels acquire dependence on the external field once realistic noise, decoherence, or larger system sizes are included would falsify the idle-level control mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22405 by Fang Zhao, Maimaitiyiming Tusun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Net work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Engine efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Net work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Idle-level occupation difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study a quantum Otto cycle in a two-qubit non-Hermitian XY model with a staggered imaginary magnetic field. The energy spectrum of this system naturally decouples into a pair of working levels that depend on the external field and a pair of idle levels that are completely independent of it, thereby providing the first concrete microscopic realization of the idle-level quantum heat engine architecture proposed by de~Oliveira and Jonathan [Phys. Rev. E 104, 044133 (2021)] in a physical spin model. Tuning the non-Hermitian parameter eta_0 drives a continuous transition from a dissipative regime with negative net work and net heat absorption from the hot reservoir into a genuine heat engine mode, while simultaneously enhancing both output work and efficiency. As eta_0 increases within the stable PT-unbroken phase, the engine efficiency rises significantly, reaching a substantial fraction of the Carnot limit. This effect originates from the compression of the idle-level gap, which redistributes the level occupation weights in the hot and cold equilibrium states and thereby modulates the absorbed heat. The numerator of the net work expression is independent of eta_0, but the denominator depends on eta_0 indirectly through hyperbolic cosine functions -- this is the mathematical root of the idle-level control mechanism. We provide a detailed analysis of the robustness of these findings against parameter variations, a critical comparison of the non-Hermitian control with the Hermitian limit, and a concrete experimental proposal for trapped-ion quantum simulators. Our results demonstrate that non-Hermiticity serves as an indispensable tool for steering both the operation mode and the performance of a quantum engine.

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 manuscript studies a quantum Otto cycle in a two-qubit non-Hermitian XY model with staggered imaginary magnetic field. The energy spectrum is claimed to decouple into working levels that depend on the external field and idle levels that are completely independent of it, providing a microscopic realization of the idle-level engine architecture of de Oliveira and Jonathan. Tuning the non-Hermitian parameter η₀ is shown to drive a continuous transition from a dissipative regime (negative net work, heat absorption from hot reservoir) to a genuine heat-engine regime while increasing both output work and efficiency, with the latter reaching a substantial fraction of the Carnot limit. This arises because the numerator of the net-work expression is independent of η₀ while the denominator depends on it through hyperbolic-cosine factors in the partition function; the effect is traced to compression of the idle-level gap that redistributes occupations. The paper includes robustness checks against parameter variations, a comparison with the Hermitian limit, and a trapped-ion experimental proposal.

Significance. If the decoupling and analytic expressions hold, the work supplies the first concrete physical spin-model realization of the idle-level quantum heat engine proposal and demonstrates non-Hermiticity as a control knob for both operation mode and performance. The explicit separation of η₀ dependence into numerator versus denominator, the robustness analysis, and the concrete experimental proposal are strengths. The result is of interest to the quantum thermodynamics and non-Hermitian physics communities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Hamiltonian and spectrum section] The central claim rests on the exact decoupling of idle-level energies from the external field (abstract and results description). The manuscript must supply the explicit Hamiltonian matrix and its eigenvalues (or a clear proof of independence) in the model-definition section so that readers can verify that the idle energies remain strictly field-independent; without this step the idle-level control mechanism lacks a demonstrated microscopic foundation.
  2. [Robustness analysis section] The robustness analysis examines variations of parameters inside the ideal model but supplies no checks against generic perturbations (small real staggered-field components, additional spin couplings, or environmental terms) that would generically make idle energies acquire field dependence. Because any such dependence would remove the claimed numerator-denominator separation and eliminate the η₀-driven transition to positive work, this omission is load-bearing for the assertion that the architecture is realized in a physical spin model.
minor comments (2)
  1. Ensure consistent notation for the non-Hermitian parameter (η₀ versus eta_0) across all equations and figure captions.
  2. The abstract states that efficiency reaches 'a substantial fraction of the Carnot limit'; a quantitative statement (e.g., the maximum ratio obtained) should appear in the main text or a table for precision.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Hamiltonian and spectrum section] The central claim rests on the exact decoupling of idle-level energies from the external field (abstract and results description). The manuscript must supply the explicit Hamiltonian matrix and its eigenvalues (or a clear proof of independence) in the model-definition section so that readers can verify that the idle energies remain strictly field-independent; without this step the idle-level control mechanism lacks a demonstrated microscopic foundation.

    Authors: We agree. In the revised manuscript we will insert the explicit 4×4 Hamiltonian matrix (in the computational basis) together with the closed-form eigenvalues in the model-definition section. This will make the field-independence of the two idle eigenvalues immediately verifiable and will supply the required microscopic foundation for the idle-level architecture. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Robustness analysis section] The robustness analysis examines variations of parameters inside the ideal model but supplies no checks against generic perturbations (small real staggered-field components, additional spin couplings, or environmental terms) that would generically make idle energies acquire field dependence. Because any such dependence would remove the claimed numerator-denominator separation and eliminate the η₀-driven transition to positive work, this omission is load-bearing for the assertion that the architecture is realized in a physical spin model.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the existing robustness section only varies parameters inside the exact model. Generic perturbations that break the precise form of the staggered imaginary field would indeed lift the decoupling. Because a systematic study of arbitrary perturbations would require an entirely different Hamiltonian and lies outside the scope of the present work, we will add a clarifying paragraph noting this limitation and emphasizing that the architecture is realized exactly only for the engineered non-Hermitian XY model proposed for trapped-ion implementation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central derivation begins from the explicit two-qubit non-Hermitian XY Hamiltonian with staggered imaginary field, whose spectrum is stated to decouple into field-dependent working levels and field-independent idle levels; this decoupling is presented as following directly from diagonalization rather than being imposed by definition. Net work and efficiency expressions are then obtained from the resulting eigenvalues and the partition function containing hyperbolic-cosine factors whose eta_0 dependence is algebraic, not fitted or renamed. The sole external citation is to the de Oliveira-Jonathan proposal being realized, with no self-citation load-bearing the claims and no ansatz, uniqueness theorem, or prediction-by-construction steps. The reported eta_0-driven transition therefore retains independent content from the model's spectrum and thermodynamics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the two-qubit non-Hermitian XY Hamiltonian with staggered imaginary field, standard thermal equilibrium assumptions for the Otto cycle, and the existence of a PT-unbroken phase; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • eta_0
    Non-Hermitian strength parameter that is varied continuously to drive the dissipative-to-engine transition and to compress the idle gap; its value is chosen by hand rather than fitted to external data.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The two-qubit non-Hermitian XY Hamiltonian with staggered imaginary magnetic field possesses an energy spectrum that exactly decouples into field-dependent working levels and field-independent idle levels.
    Invoked in the opening sentence of the abstract as the enabling feature of the model.
  • domain assumption The system remains inside the PT-unbroken phase for the range of eta_0 considered, so all eigenvalues stay real.
    Stated as the regime in which efficiency increases are observed.
  • standard math Standard quantum thermodynamics: the working medium reaches thermal equilibrium with hot and cold reservoirs during the isochoric strokes.
    Implicit in any quantum Otto-cycle analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5823 in / 1811 out tokens · 26528 ms · 2026-06-26T10:37:15.145586+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

56 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In the computational basis {|↑↑⟩, |↑↓⟩, |↓↑⟩, |↓↓⟩}, H takes the block-diagonal form: H =    − 2J h0 0 0 − 2J γ 0 − 2iJ η0 − 2J 0 0 − 2J 2iJ η0 0 − 2J γ 0 0 2 J h0   

    (3) Note that since σ α 1 σ α 2 = σ α 2 σ α 1 for Pauli matrices, the two forms of the Hamiltonian are mathematic ally identical. In the computational basis {|↑↑⟩, |↑↓⟩, |↓↑⟩, |↓↓⟩}, H takes the block-diagonal form: H =    − 2J h0 0 0 − 2J γ 0 − 2iJ η0 − 2J 0 0 − 2J 2iJ η0 0 − 2J γ 0 0 2 J h0    . (4) This structure decouples the full Hilbert space ...

  2. [2]

    Hot isochore (h = hH , T = Th): the system equilibrates with the hot reservoir, reaching interna l energy U1 = U (hH , T h)

  3. [3]

    The occupation probabilities in the instantaneous biorthogonal eigenba sis remain frozen, yielding internal energy U2 = ∑ i p(1) i Ei(hC )

    Adiabatic expansion (hH → hC ): the system is isolated and the external field h is slowly reduced. The occupation probabilities in the instantaneous biorthogonal eigenba sis remain frozen, yielding internal energy U2 = ∑ i p(1) i Ei(hC )

  4. [4]

    Cold isochore (h = hC , T = Tc): the system equilibrates with the cold reservoir, releasing heat an d attaining internal energy U3 = U (hC, T c)

  5. [5]

    Tianchi Talents

    Adiabatic compression (hC → hH ): the external field h is slowly raised back to its initial value while the occupation probabilities stay frozen, leading to internal energy U4 = ∑ i p(3) i Ei(hH ). The heat exchanges and net work over one cycle satisfy Qh = U1 − U4, Q c = U2 − U3, W = Qh − Qc, (9) where Qh and Qc denote the heat exchanged with the hot and ...

  6. [6]

    = 0 (A8) gives the eigenvalues E3 = − 2J √ 1 − η2 0, E 4 = +2J √ 1 − η2

  7. [7]

    [34], we define the parameters for the idle-level subspace: d3 = iη0 + √ 1 − η2 0, d 4 = iη0 − √ 1 − η2

    (A9) 10 Following Li et al. [34], we define the parameters for the idle-level subspace: d3 = iη0 + √ 1 − η2 0, d 4 = iη0 − √ 1 − η2

  8. [8]

    (A12) For the non-Hermitian idle-level subspace, we need to construct t he left eigenvectors (eigenvectors of H †) to form a biorthogonal basis

    (A10) The unnormalized right eigenvectors are: |Ψ R 3 ⟩ = 1 √ 1 + |d3|2 (d3| ↑↓⟩+ | ↓↑⟩) , (A11) |Ψ R 4 ⟩ = 1 √ 1 + |d4|2 (d4| ↑↓⟩+ | ↓↑⟩) . (A12) For the non-Hermitian idle-level subspace, we need to construct t he left eigenvectors (eigenvectors of H †) to form a biorthogonal basis. The left eigenvectors satisfy ⟨Ψ L k |H = Ek⟨Ψ L k |, and their unnorma...

  9. [9]

    Computing the normalization constants ci = ⟨Ψ L i |Ψ R i ⟩ yields c3 = 1 + d3d∗ 5 = 2 √ 1 − η2 0 ( √ 1 − η2 0 + iη0 ) , (A16) c4 = 1 + d4d∗ 6 = 2 √ 1 − η2 0 ( √ 1 − η2 0 − iη0 )

    (A15) Biorthogonal normalization The biorthonormality condition is ⟨Ψ L i |Ψ R j ⟩ = δij. Computing the normalization constants ci = ⟨Ψ L i |Ψ R i ⟩ yields c3 = 1 + d3d∗ 5 = 2 √ 1 − η2 0 ( √ 1 − η2 0 + iη0 ) , (A16) c4 = 1 + d4d∗ 6 = 2 √ 1 − η2 0 ( √ 1 − η2 0 − iη0 ) . (A17) We keep the left eigenvectors unchanged and scale the right eigenv ectors as |Ψ R...

  10. [10]

    95, the gap is 2 B = 4 J √ 1 − 0

    (B2) 11 For η0 = 0 . 95, the gap is 2 B = 4 J √ 1 − 0. 952 ≈ 4J × 0. 312 ≈ 1. 25J, which is still sizable. With a typical cycle time τ ≫ 1/J , A34 ≪ 1 is easily satisfied. For η0 = 0 . 99, the gap shrinks to ≈ 0. 56J, making A34 about 5 times larger, and adiabaticity becomes harder to maintain. Our choice η0 < 0. 95 ensures A34 < 0. 01 for τ = 100 /J , con...

    2081

  11. [11]

    Gemmer, M

    J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler, Quantum Thermodynamics: Emergence of Thermodynamic Behav ior Within Composite Quantum Systems (Springer, Berlin, 2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70510-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70510-9 2004

  12. [12]

    Vinjanampathy, J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Contemp. Phys. 57, 545 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2016.1201896

    work page doi:10.1080/00107514.2016.1201896 2016

  13. [13]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. del Rio, and P. Skrzypczyk , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 143001 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/49/14/143001

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8113/49/14/143001 2016

  14. [14]

    Binder, L

    F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Ades so (eds.), Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Funda- mental Aspects and New Directions (Springer, Cham, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99046-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99046-0 2018

  15. [15]

    O. Abah, J. Roßnagel, G. Jacob, S. Deffner, F. Schmidt-Kal er, K. Singer, and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 203006 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.203006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.203006 2012

  16. [16]

    Roßnagel, S

    J. Roßnagel, S. T. Dawkins, K. N. Tolazzi, O. Abah, E. Lutz , F. Schmidt-Kaler, and K. Singer, Science 344, 1250091 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250091

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1250091 2014

  17. [17]

    Klatzow, J

    J. Kl¨ atzow, J. N. Becker, P. M. Ledingham, C. Weinzettl, K. T. Kaczmarek, D. J. Saunders, J. Nunn, I. A. Walmsley, R. Uzdin, and E. Poem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 110601 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.110601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.110601 2019

  18. [18]

    J. P. S. Peterson, T. B. Batalh˜ ao, M. Herrera, A. M. Souza , R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 240601 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.240601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.240601 2019

  19. [19]

    Alicki, J

    R. Alicki, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 12, L103 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/12/5/007

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/12/5/007 1979

  20. [20]

    Kosloff, J

    R. Kosloff, J. Chem. Phys. 80, 1625 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.446860

    work page doi:10.1063/1.446860 1984

  21. [21]

    Geva and R

    E. Geva and R. Kosloff, J. Chem. Phys. 96, 3054 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.461951

    work page doi:10.1063/1.461951 1992

  22. [22]

    H. T. Quan, Y.-X. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. E 76, 031105 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.031105

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.76.031105 2007

  23. [23]

    Kosloff and Y

    R. Kosloff and Y. Rezek, Entropy 19, 136 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/e19040136

    work page doi:10.3390/e19040136 2017

  24. [24]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.5243

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.5243 1998

  25. [25]

    C. M. Bender, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 947 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/70/6/R03

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/70/6/r03 2007

  26. [26]

    Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry,

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Mussl imani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Nat. Phys. 14, 11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4323

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys4323 2018

  27. [27]

    V. V. Konotop, J. Yang, and D. A. Zezyulin, Rev. Mod. Phys . 88, 035002 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.035002 2016

  28. [28]

    L. Feng, R. El-Ganainy, and L. Ge, Nat. Photonics 11, 752 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-017-0031

    work page doi:10.1038/s41566-017-0031 2017

  29. [29]

    ˙S. K. ¨Ozdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori, and L. Yang, Nat. Mater. 18, 783 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-019-0304-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41563-019-0304-9 2019

  30. [30]

    C. E. R¨ uter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christod oulides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, Nat. Phys. 6, 192 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1515

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys1515 2010

  31. [31]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Adv. Phys. 69, 249 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2021.1883316

    work page doi:10.1080/00018732.2021.1883316 2020

  32. [32]

    Lin and Z

    S. Lin and Z. Song, Phys. Rev. E 92, 022135 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.022135

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.92.022135 2015

  33. [33]

    Insinga, B

    A. Insinga, B. Andresen, P. Salamon, and R. Kosloff, Phys . Rev. E 97, 062153 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.062153

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.97.062153 2018

  34. [34]

    Zhang, J.-Q

    J.-W. Zhang, J.-Q. Zhang, G.-Y. Ding, J.-C. Li, J.-T. Bu , B. Wang, L.-L. Yan, S.-L. Su, L. Chen, F. Nori, ˙S. K. ¨Ozdemir, F. Zhou, H. Jing, and M. Feng, Nat. Commun. 13, 6225 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33932-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33932-9 2022

  35. [35]

    Y. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z. Li, Chin. Phys. B 28, 100501 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/ab439a

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1056/ab439a 2019

  36. [36]

    S. K. Manikandan, S. Ghosh, and S. Nandi, J. Phys. A: Math . Theor. 52, 185302 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab167c

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab167c 2019

  37. [37]

    S. Dey, S. Bhattacharyya, and S. Chakraborty, EPL 130, 50003 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/130/50003

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/130/50003 2020

  38. [38]

    Purkayastha, M

    A. Purkayastha, M. Kulkarni, and R. Mukhopadhyay, Phys . Rev. B 101, 235412 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.235412

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.235412 2020

  39. [39]

    W. Yang, Y. Ding, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 103, 052132 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.103.052132

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.103.052132 2021

  40. [40]

    Khandelwal, N

    S. Khandelwal, N. Brunner, and G. Haack, arXiv:2101.11 553 [quant-ph] (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11553

    arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Mostafazadeh, Int

    A. Mostafazadeh, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 7, 1191 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887810001833

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219887810001833 2010

  42. [42]

    T. R. de Oliveira and D. Jonathan, Phys. Rev. E 104, 044133 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.104.044133

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.104.044133 2021

  43. [43]

    A. M. N. de Almeida, T. R. de Oliveira, and D. Jonathan, ar Xiv:2312.12350 [quant-ph] (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.12350

    arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Li, P.-P

    Y. Li, P.-P. Zhang, L.-Z. Hu, Y.-L. Xu, and X.-M. Kong, Qu antum Inf. Process. 22, 277 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-023-04031-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-023-04031-z 2023

  45. [45]

    Gardas, S

    B. Gardas, S. Deffner, and A. Saxena, Sci. Rep. 6, 23408 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23408

    work page doi:10.1038/srep23408 2016

  46. [46]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. S age, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021314 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5088164

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5088164 2019

  47. [47]

    J. Li, Z. Luo, T. Xin, H. Wang, D. Lu, and B. Zeng, npj Quant um Inf. 5, 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-018-0123-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-018-0123-6 2019

  48. [48]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. H¨ anggi, and P. Talkner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 771 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.771 15

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.83.771 2011

  49. [49]

    Reports on Progress in Physics75(12), 126001 (2012) https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0034-4885/75/12/126001

    U. Seifert, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 126001 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/75/12/126001

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/75/12/126001 2012

  50. [50]

    Jarzynski, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2690 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2690

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.2690 1997

  51. [51]

    G. E. Crooks, J. Stat. Phys. 90, 1481 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023066317855

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1023066317855 1999

  52. [52]

    Esposito, U

    M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1665 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1665

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.1665 2009

  53. [53]

    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.2245 1998

  54. [54]

    Reviews of Modern Physics , volume =

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.80.517

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.80.517 2008

  55. [55]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horode cki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.865 2009

  56. [56]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.025001

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.025001 2019