pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24456 · v2 · pith:LA7LZE2Anew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🪐 quant-ph

Interaction-Enhanced Ergotropy in Phase-Driven Andreev Bound State Quantum Batteries

Disha Verma , B. Vigneshwar , R. Sankaranarayanan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 05:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Andreev bound statesquantum batteriesergotropysuperconducting phase rampgraphene SNS junctionsinteraction-enhanced chargingavoided crossingJosephson cycle
0
0 comments X

The pith

Interactions between two Andreev bound states enhance extractable work under a superconducting phase ramp.

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

The paper studies a minimal model consisting of two interacting Andreev bound state units driven by a time-varying superconducting phase. It shows that in the high-transparency regime, the interaction increases the ergotropy, which is the maximum extractable work, while also producing oscillatory charging patterns from coherent energy redistribution between the coupled sectors. These dynamics create optimal charging intervals within each Josephson cycle. A reader would care because the setup points to a phase-controlled way to improve energy storage in superconducting systems that already exist in graphene-based junctions.

Core claim

In the high-transparency regime relevant for graphene SNS junctions, the interaction enhances the stored extractable work and generates pronounced oscillatory charging dynamics associated with coherent redistribution between coupled ABS sectors. The phase-resolved evolution further reveals optimal charging windows during the Josephson cycle, indicating the possibility of phase-programmable energy extraction through partial-cycle operation. Interaction-assisted avoided-crossing dynamics serve as the microscopic mechanism for controllable energy storage in this superconducting quantum battery platform.

What carries the argument

The interplay between avoided-crossing excitation and interaction-induced hybridization in a minimal model of two interacting Andreev bound state units driven by a superconducting phase ramp.

If this is right

  • Interaction increases stored extractable work in the high-transparency regime.
  • Coherent redistribution between ABS sectors produces pronounced oscillatory charging.
  • Optimal charging windows appear during the Josephson cycle.
  • Partial-cycle operation enables phase-programmable energy extraction.
  • Interaction-assisted avoided-crossing dynamics provide a mechanism for controllable superconducting energy storage.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same hybridization mechanism might appear in multi-unit extensions or other Josephson-based devices.
  • Low-decoherence graphene junctions could serve as a direct testbed for the predicted oscillations.
  • Phase programming might combine with existing qubit control techniques for hybrid quantum energy systems.
  • Disorder or finite-temperature effects left out of the model would need separate checks before device scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The minimal model of two interacting ABS units under a superconducting phase ramp accurately captures the relevant physics of real graphene SNS junctions without additional decoherence or disorder effects.

What would settle it

Experimental measurement of ergotropy in a graphene SNS junction realizing two coupled ABS units that shows no interaction-induced increase or no oscillatory charging dynamics under a controlled phase ramp would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24456 by B. Vigneshwar, Disha Verma, R. Sankaranarayanan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: reveals that the interaction strongly modifies the charging behavior of the coupled ABS quantum bat￾tery. For all transparencies, the final ergotropy initially increases rapidly with interaction strength, demonstrat￾ing that inter-junction coupling constructively assists the generation of extractable work. This enhancement origi￾nates from interaction-induced hybridization between the two ABS sectors. The … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) shows the evolution of the ergotropy W(ϕ) for representative interaction strengths in the high￾transparency regime. For weak interaction strength, the charging dynamics remain relatively smooth and monotonic. The ergotropy increases predominantly af￾ter the avoided crossing near ϕ ≃ π, indicating that the main charging process is initiated by nonadiabatic ex￾citation across the minimum ABS gap. As the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Phase-resolved ergotropy landscape [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Phase-resolved ergotropy landscape [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate a phase-driven quantum battery composed of two interacting Andreev bound state (ABS) units, providing a minimal superconducting platform for coherent energy storage. By analyzing the ergotropy dynamics under a superconducting phase ramp, we show that the interplay between avoided-crossing excitation and interaction-induced hybridization strongly modifies the charging process. In the high-transparency regime relevant for graphene SNS junctions, the interaction enhances the stored extractable work and generates pronounced oscillatory charging dynamics associated with coherent redistribution between coupled ABS sectors. The phase-resolved evolution further reveals optimal charging windows during the Josephson cycle, indicating the possibility of phase-programmable energy extraction through partial-cycle operation. Overall, our results identify interaction-assisted avoided-crossing dynamics as a microscopic mechanism for controllable energy storage in superconducting quantum batteries.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper investigates a phase-driven quantum battery composed of two interacting Andreev bound state (ABS) units, providing a minimal superconducting platform for coherent energy storage. By analyzing the ergotropy dynamics under a superconducting phase ramp, the interplay between avoided-crossing excitation and interaction-induced hybridization is shown to modify the charging process. In the high-transparency regime relevant for graphene SNS junctions, the interaction enhances the stored extractable work and generates pronounced oscillatory charging dynamics associated with coherent redistribution between coupled ABS sectors. The phase-resolved evolution reveals optimal charging windows during the Josephson cycle for phase-programmable energy extraction.

Significance. If the minimal model accurately captures the relevant physics, the work identifies interaction-assisted avoided-crossing dynamics as a microscopic mechanism for controllable energy storage in superconducting quantum batteries. The analytical treatment of ergotropy under phase drive yields concrete, falsifiable predictions for enhancement and oscillations that could be tested in high-transparency SNS devices. The paper does not mention machine-checked proofs or open reproducible code, but the minimal two-unit model allows clear isolation of the interaction effect on charging dynamics.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the high-transparency regime is 'relevant for graphene SNS junctions' is load-bearing for the applied significance but lacks any parameter mapping, disorder-averaged calculation, or decoherence estimate. This raises a correctness-risk concern for the extrapolation to real devices; a concrete test would be to compute the predicted oscillation period from the model and compare it against typical quasiparticle decoherence times or level-broadening scales in graphene SNS junctions.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract is concise but would benefit from a brief parenthetical reference to the form of the two-ABS Hamiltonian or the phase-ramp protocol to make the dynamical claims more immediately accessible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comment on the abstract. We address the point below and indicate the planned revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the high-transparency regime is 'relevant for graphene SNS junctions' is load-bearing for the applied significance but lacks any parameter mapping, disorder-averaged calculation, or decoherence estimate. This raises a correctness-risk concern for the extrapolation to real devices; a concrete test would be to compute the predicted oscillation period from the model and compare it against typical quasiparticle decoherence times or level-broadening scales in graphene SNS junctions.

    Authors: We agree that the applied relevance statement would be strengthened by explicit parameter context. The claim rests on the well-documented high interface transparency achievable in graphene-based SNS junctions (as established in multiple experimental studies), which places the system in the regime where our minimal model applies. However, we acknowledge that the manuscript provides no quantitative mapping or decoherence comparison. In the revised manuscript we will add a short paragraph (with supporting references) that extracts the model's characteristic oscillation period from the interaction-induced hybridization scale and compares it to reported quasiparticle decoherence times and level-broadening values in graphene SNS devices. This addition will directly address the correctness-risk concern while preserving the minimal-model focus of the work. No disorder-averaged calculation is performed, as the present study isolates the coherent interaction effect in a clean two-unit system. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The provided abstract and context describe a minimal two-ABS interacting model under phase ramp, with claims about ergotropy enhancement arising from analysis of avoided crossings and hybridization. No equations, self-citations, or fitted parameters are shown that reduce any prediction to an input by construction. The results are presented as outcomes of the model's dynamics rather than tautological redefinitions or self-referential citations. The central claims rest on the model's independent solution, not on renaming known results or smuggling ansatze via prior self-work. This is the expected non-finding for a paper whose abstract supplies no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The work implicitly relies on standard quantum mechanics of superconducting junctions and the definition of ergotropy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5664 in / 1017 out tokens · 20702 ms · 2026-06-26T05:38:06.898469+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

41 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A.E.Allahverdyan, R.Balian,andT.M.Nieuwenhuizen, Europhysics Letters67, 565 (2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, New J. Phys.17, 075015 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, and S. Vinjanampathy, Quantum Batteries(Springer, 2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Pollock, Physical Review A97, 022106 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    F.-Q. Dou, H. Zhou, and J.-A. Sun, Physical Review A 106, 032212 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Gemme, G

    G. Gemme, G. M. Andolina, F. M. D. Pellegrino, M. Sas- setti, and D. Ferraro, Batteries9, 197 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    A. G. Catalano, S. M. Giampaolo, O. Morsch, V. Giovan- netti, and F. Franchini, PRX Quantum5, 030319 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Cavaliere, D

    F. Cavaliere, D. Ferraro, M. Carrega, G. Benenti, and M. Sassetti, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24162 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Grazi, F

    R. Grazi, F. Cavaliere, M. Sassetti, D. Ferraro, and N. Traverso Ziani, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals196, 116383 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Massa, F

    N. Massa, F. Cavaliere, and D. Ferraro, Batteries11, 240 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y. Lü, and C. Shang, Physical Review Letters134, 180401 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Cavaliere, G

    F. Cavaliere, G. Gemme, G. Benenti, D. Ferraro, and M. Sassetti, Communications Physics8, 76 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Charging Quantum Batteries via Dissipative Quenches

    R. Grazi, D. Farina, N. Traverso Ziani, and D. Ferraro, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08151 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Chand, R

    S. Chand, R. Grazi, N. Traverso Ziani, and D. Ferraro, Entropy28, 396 (2026)

    2026

  15. [15]

    Farina, M

    D. Farina, M. Sassetti, V. Cataudella, D. Ferraro, and N. Traverso Ziani, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02819 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Cluster Ising quantum batteries can mimic super-extensive charging power

    A. Pavone, F. L. Cavagnaro, M. Carrega, R. Grazi, D. Ferraro, and N. Traverso Ziani, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15467 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Grazi, H

    R. Grazi, H. Johannesson, D. Ferraro, and 8 N. Traverso Ziani, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14521 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Ferraro, Physical Review Letters133, 197001 (2024)

    R.Grazi, D.SaccoShaikh, M.Sassetti, N.TraversoZiani, and D. Ferraro, Physical Review Letters133, 197001 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Verma, V

    D. Verma, V. Indrajith, and R. Sankaranarayanan, Phys- ica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications659, 130352 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Physical Review E87, 042123 (2013)

    2013

  21. [21]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, and S. Vinjanampathy, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    D. Yang, F. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Physical Review B 10.1103/physrevb.109.235432 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.109.235432 2023

  23. [23]

    Downing and M

    C. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Communications Physics 6, 1 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzanjeh, Physical review letters132 21, 210402 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Crescente, M

    A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, New Journal of Physics22, 10.1088/1367-2630/ab91fc (2020)

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab91fc 2020

  26. [26]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  27. [27]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan,et al., Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Verma, V

    D. Verma, V. Indrajith, and R. Sankaranarayanan, Phys- ica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 182, 116574 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    Elghaayda, A

    S. Elghaayda, A. Ali, S. Al-Kuwari, A. Czerwinski, M. Mansour, and S. Haddadi, Advanced Quantum Tech- nologies , 2400651 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Dou and F.-M

    F.-Q. Dou and F.-M. Yang, Physical Review A107, 023725 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 3836 (1991)

    1991

  32. [32]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 067007 (2006)

    2006

  33. [33]

    Bretheau andet al., Nat

    L. Bretheau andet al., Nat. Phys. (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    X. Du, I. Skachko, A. Barker, and E. Y. Andrei, Nat. Nanotechnol.3, 491 (2008)

    2008

  35. [35]

    Pita-Vidal, A

    M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, S. D. Goswami, M. Kjaer- gaard, C. W. J. Beenakker, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Nat. Phys. (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Zazunov, V

    A. Zazunov, V. S. Shumeiko, and G. Wendin, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 087003 (2003)

    2003

  37. [37]

    G.-H. Park, W. Lee, S. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Y. Cho, and G.-H. Lee, Physical Review Letters132, 226301 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Janvier, L

    C. Janvier, L. Tosi, L. Bretheau,et al., Science349, 1199 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    S. N. Shevchenko, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep. 492, 1 (2010)

    2010

  40. [40]

    Verma and R

    D. Verma and R. Sankaranarayanan, Available at SSRN 6659398

  41. [41]

    Titov and C

    M. Titov and C. W. Beenakker, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics74, 041401 (2006)

    2006