Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum fluctuation theorems for autonomous work keep an extra work-source term that noncommutativity will not let vanish.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 07:47 UTC pith:PVMEZ7QI

load-bearing objection Clean quantum upgrade of the 2025 classical autonomous FTs; the inclusive/exclusive split on the nonautonomous limit is the real payload, though the obstruction claim stays qualitative. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24690 v1 pith:PVMEZ7QI submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph

Fluctuation theorems for autonomous work in the quantum regime

Xiu-Hua Zhao , H. T. Quan This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph
keywords fluctuation theoremsautonomous workquantum thermodynamicsinclusive workexclusive workDicke modelJarzynski equalityCrooks theorem
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.

Most quantum work fluctuation theorems treat the driving as a classical, externally fixed protocol. Real machines are autonomous: the work source is a dynamical degree of freedom that feels back-action from the system. This paper extends the classical autonomous fluctuation theorems into the quantum regime by defining inclusive work through successive projective measurements on a work-source observable and on the system's conditional energy. The resulting Jarzynski- and Crooks-type equalities contain three terms—work, free-energy change, and the change in the work source's measurement statistics—exactly as in the classical autonomous case. Because the source observable generally fails to commute with its own bare Hamiltonian, that third term refuses to disappear even when the source is large and back-action is negligible. Only under the exclusive definition of work, and only when the measured source observable is conserved by the bare source Hamiltonian, does the familiar non-autonomous limit reappear. The construction is checked on the Dicke model.

Core claim

Successive projective measurements of a work-source observable Â_R and of the conditional system Hamiltonian yield Jarzynski-type ⟨e^{-R}⟩_F = 1 and Crooks-type P_F(R)/P_B(-R) = e^R relations for autonomous inclusive work, with the stochastic quantity R = βw − βΔF_S + Δφ that explicitly includes the change in the source's measurement statistics. Quantum noncommutativity prevents these relations from reducing to ordinary non-autonomous fluctuation theorems even for large sources with negligible back-action; the exclusive-work version recovers that limit only when the measured source observable commutes with the bare source Hamiltonian.

What carries the argument

The three-term entropy-like quantity R[Γ] ≡ ln(P_F[Γ]/P_B[Γ̃]) = βw[Γ] − βΔF_S[Γ] + Δφ[Γ], obtained from joint projectors onto eigenstates of Â_R and of the conditional Hamiltonian Ĥ_S(a). Unitary reversibility plus an initially block-thermal state then imply the integral and detailed fluctuation theorems for R.

Load-bearing premise

The composite system must start in a mixed state that is already diagonal in the work-source observable, with each block a thermal state of the corresponding conditional system Hamiltonian; any initial coherence between source sectors is excluded by hand.

What would settle it

In the Dicke-model numerics (or an equivalent circuit-QED experiment), prepare a large atomic ensemble in a sharp eigenstate of J_x with vanishing back-action and check whether the measured distribution of J_x remains sharp; if it spreads, the third term Δφ cannot be dropped and the non-autonomous limit fails for inclusive work.

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

If this is right

  • Thermodynamic accounting for fully quantum autonomous engines must retain an explicit contribution from the work source's measurement statistics.
  • Inclusive and exclusive work definitions are no longer interchangeable once the work source is treated quantum-mechanically.
  • The non-autonomous fluctuation theorems used in most quantum-thermodynamics literature are recovered only under extra commutativity assumptions that are not automatic.
  • The same measurement scheme supplies an operational route to test autonomous fluctuation theorems in circuit-QED or trapped-ion platforms that realize Dicke-like couplings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Any attempt to define a continuous-spectrum work source will require generalized measurements or quasiprobabilities, because the present projective construction assumes a discrete observable.
  • If the initial block-diagonal assumption can be relaxed while still keeping a well-defined free energy, the three-term structure may survive for a broader class of autonomous devices.
  • The obstruction identified here suggests that semiclassical mean-field driving is the only controlled way to recover ordinary work statistics from a quantum autonomous machine.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a time-independent composite of a work source R and a system S with coupling A_R⊗V_S. It introduces successive projective measurements of A_R and of the conditional system Hamiltonian H_S(a), assumes an initially block-diagonal state with thermal conditional system states, and defines R[Γ]=ln(P_F[Γ]/P_B[Γ̃])=βw[Γ]-βΔF_S[Γ]+Δφ[Γ]. From this it derives Jarzynski- and Crooks-type relations, generating-function symmetries, and a near-equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relation. The Dicke model is used to verify the identities numerically. The paper further argues that, for inclusive work, [H_R^0,A_R]≠0 obstructs reduction to nonautonomous fluctuation theorems even when backaction is negligible, whereas exclusive work recovers the nonautonomous result when the measured source observable commutes with H_R^0 and backaction vanishes.

Significance. If the large-source obstruction is quantified as claimed, this is a useful quantum counterpart of recent fluctuation theorems for classical autonomous work. The construction is operational and parameter-free within its stated assumptions: the source entropy term is replaced by measured sector probabilities, the identities follow from unitary reversibility rather than fitting, and the inclusive/exclusive comparison is a clear conceptual contribution. The analytic Dicke-model treatment, direct Crooks-plot checks, truncation tests, and explicit semiclassical comparison are also valuable. The main caveat is that the results assume a discrete measured source observable and a block-thermal initial state, so the work is a well-scoped two-point-measurement theory rather than a treatment of arbitrary initial quantum coherence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 3, and Appendix A3] The claim in the abstract and §IV that noncommutativity prevents a nonautonomous limit "even in the limit of a large work source" is not yet supported asymptotically. Appendix A3 estimates the mean backaction as δ_ba ~ λ²/(Nω_cω_z), and Fig. 3 shows broadening of p_j for one initial condition at N=400, but neither establishes the size of the residual Δφ contribution as N→∞ at δ_ba→0. Please define the large-source limit precisely (including how λ, T, and the initial state scale) and quantify a direct measure of the obstruction, for example |⟨e^{-β(w-ΔF_S)}⟩_F-1|, the total-variation error caused by omitting Δφ in Eq. (18), or the distance from the corresponding mean-field process. If this error vanishes, the abstract should distinguish an exact algebraic obstruction from a practically negligible one; if it remains finite, its scaling should be reported. There is also a wording issue: non
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B1)-(B4), and Fig. 7] The derivation of the nonautonomous factorized limit drops δA_R⊗δV_S on the grounds that the system has little backaction on the work source. Weak backaction controls the effect of S on R, but it does not by itself imply that fluctuations of A_R, or system-source correlations relevant to S, are negligible; indeed §IV identifies precisely those A_R fluctuations as the obstruction. The conditions under which Var(A_R), the coupling normalization, and accumulated correlations make the omitted term negligible should be stated, ideally with an error bound for the trace distance used in Fig. 7(a). The single early-time numerical comparison does not establish the asymptotic limit. Otherwise Appendix B should be presented explicitly as an additional mean-field/factorization approximation rather than as the recovered large-source limit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (7), (11), and (15)-(20)] Since p_a is allowed to be arbitrary, zero weights can make R[Γ] undefined and can invalidate the negative powers of ρ_0^tr in Eqs. (19)-(20). Please state the required positivity or absolute-continuity/support condition on p_a and p_a^tr, and read Eq. (18) only on the common support of the forward and backward distributions.
  2. [Eq. (7) and footnote 48] Calling ρ_0 a "mixed thermal state" may suggest an ordinary global Gibbs state. Footnote 48 makes the actual assumption clear, but the main text should consistently call it block-diagonal and conditionally thermal, with no coherence between A_R sectors.
  3. [Appendix A2] In the J_x/Fock representation, complex conjugation K is a valid antiunitary symmetry of the real Hamiltonian and is sufficient for the Crooks construction. It is not, however, the physical spin time-reversal operation, which reverses J. Please clarify that K is a representation-dependent microreversibility symmetry and specify how the backward experiment would be defined if physical spin time reversal were used instead.
  4. [Eq. (22)] The Gaussian cumulant expansion is performed around u=0 and then evaluated at u=i using K_R^F(i)=0. The stated near-equilibrium regime therefore requires the third and higher cumulants to remain negligible over the relevant contour; this criterion should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Figs. 2 and 4] The numerical tests would be stronger if the captions or text reported quantitative residuals: ⟨e^{-R}⟩_F and the maximum relative discrepancy between P_F(R) and P_B(-R)e^R in Fig. 2(d), and more digits/error estimates for ⟨e^{-βw_exc}⟩_F=1.00 in Fig. 4. A public notebook or code repository would also aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard Seifert-type path-ratio identities with independent thermodynamic content from thermal TPM weights.

full rationale

The central equalities follow the ordinary construction of fluctuation theorems. R[Γ] is defined as ln(P_F[Γ]/P_B[Γ̃]) (Eq. 11); ⟨e^{-R}⟩_F = 1 and P_F(R)/P_B(-R) = e^R are then identities from normalization and unitary reversibility, not fitted or self-referential claims. Thermodynamic content enters only when the block-diagonal thermal initial state (Eq. 7) is substituted, yielding the three-term expression R = βw − βΔF_S + Δφ (Eq. 12). That algebra is derived from the paper’s own projectors and partition functions, not imported as a prior result that already contains the quantum autonomous theorems. The classical autonomous FT of Jarzynski–Deffner–Rahav is cited as motivation and analogy, not as an internal lemma that forces the quantum identities. No parameters are fitted to enforce the theorems; the Dicke numerics are consistency checks. Exclusive-work recovery of the nonautonomous limit is likewise a direct consequence of [Ξ_R, H_R^0] = 0 plus vanishing back-action, not a circular reduction. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The derivation rests on standard quantum-statistical assumptions (unitary composite evolution, projective measurements, thermal blocks) plus modeling choices (factorized coupling, discrete Â_R, initial incoherence across Â_R sectors). No fitted constants enter the theorems. The main invented operational object is the entropy-like R built from work, conditional free-energy change, and source measurement-statistic change.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Composite evolution is unitary under a time-independent total Hamiltonian Ĥ_tot (Eq. 2–4).
    Closed-system premise used throughout; open baths deferred to future work (Discussion ii).
  • domain assumption Initial state is block-diagonal in Â_R with each block thermal at inverse temperature β for Ĥ_S(a) (Eq. 7).
    Required so conditional free energies F_S(a) are defined and R takes the three-term form; stated as assumption, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Â_R has discrete nondegenerate spectrum so projectors Π_n^a are well-defined without continuous-spectrum singularities.
    Explicitly assumed in Sec. II; continuous observables flagged as open (Discussion i).
  • domain assumption Interaction is a single factorized term Â_R ⊗ V̂_S.
    Stated ‘for simplicity’ in Sec. II; common but not fully general.
  • domain assumption Work and free-energy differences are defined via two-time projective measurement outcomes (inclusive: Eq. 8; exclusive: Eq. 33).
    Standard TPM operationalization of quantum work; inherits known limitations (invasiveness, no initial coherence in energy basis).
  • domain assumption Backward process uses time-reversed projectors and an initial source distribution chosen as the forward final measurement distribution of Â_R (or Ξ_R).
    Standard Crooks construction; choice of p_tr makes Δφ the forward source-statistic change.
invented entities (1)
  • Entropy-like trajectory quantity R[Γ] = βw − βΔF_S + Δφ for quantum autonomous inclusive work no independent evidence
    purpose: Carries the three contributions (work, conditional free-energy change, source measurement-statistic change) that enter the autonomous FTs.
    Direct quantum analogue of the classical autonomous exponent; defined operationally from measurement probabilities rather than phase-space entropy.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 27727 in / 3281 out tokens · 59288 ms · 2026-07-31T07:47:33.512098+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fluctuation theorems for work provide universal constraints on nonequilibrium fluctuations, yet their quantum generalizations often rely on externally prescribed classical driving protocols. While for classical systems, fluctuation theorems have been extended to autonomous work, where the dynamics of the work source is subject to the backaction of the system, their generalization to the quantum regime is constrained by the uncertainty principle. Here, we extend fluctuation theorems for autonomous work from the classical regime to the quantum regime. By performing successive projective measurements over the work source and the system, we derive Jarzynski-type and Crooks-type fluctuation theorems for autonomous inclusive work from initial mixed thermal states. These relations are analogous to fluctuation theorems for autonomous work in the classical regime and explicitly incorporate the fluctuations of the work source. However, quantum noncommutativity prevents a consistent reduction to the nonautonomous counterparts, even in the limit of a large work source and correspondingly negligible backaction. By contrast, under the exclusive work definition, the nonautonomous limit is recovered when the measured observable of the work source commutes with its bare Hamiltonian and the backaction of the system on the work source is negligible. Our results are illustrated with the Dicke model, where a single-mode radiation field and an ensemble of two-level atoms act as the system of interest and the work source, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24690 by H. T. Quan, Xiu-Hua Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. General framework of formulating fluctuation the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Illustration of the Dicke model, consisting of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Recover the fluctuation theorems for nonautonomous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Convergence check of the truncated Fock states. (a) and (b), using the same parameters as those in Fig. 2(b-c) in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The evolution of the atoms and the radiation field in the regime of vanishing backaction. (a) The evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Factorized semiclassical limit of the Dicke model. (a) The trace distance between two states. The first one is the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Verification of the fluctuation theorems for the autonomous exclusive work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.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. Work Statistics of Autonomous Quantum Energy Pumps

    quant-ph 2026-08 accept novelty 7.0

    A terminal-resolved autonomous framework that exactly represents multi-terminal work statistics on the pump, connects fluctuations to Floquet geometry, and introduces a work-variance gap for nonideal terminals.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    While the forward evolution operator ˆU(t,0) satisfiesd ˆU(t,0)/dt=−iℏ −1 ˆH ˆU(t,0), the backward evolution oper- ator ˆUB(t,0) satisfiesd ˆUB(t,0)/dt=−iℏ −1 ˆH B ˆUB(t,0)

    The time-reversal process For a generic Hamiltonian ˆH(t) governing the forward evolution from time 0 toT, the corresponding Hamil- tonian dominating the time-reversal process is ˆH B(t) = ˆΘ ˆH(T−t) ˆΘ†, where ˆΘ is the time-reversal operator. While the forward evolution operator ˆU(t,0) satisfiesd ˆU(t,0)/dt=−iℏ −1 ˆH ˆU(t,0), the backward evolution ope...

  2. [2]

    Numerical representation of the Dicke model /uni00000013/uni00000019/uni00000014/uni00000015/uni00000014/uni0000001b/uni00000015/uni00000017/uni00000016/uni00000013/uni00000016/uni00000019/uni00000017/uni00000015/uni00000017/uni0000001bnF /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000013/uni00000013 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000013/uni00000018 /uni00000013/uni0000...

    2000

  3. [3]

    The limit of vanishing backaction in the Dicke model FIG. 6. The evolution of the atoms and the radiation field in the regime of vanishing backaction. (a) The evolution of the expected value⟨ ˆJx⟩. Blue data correspond to the evolution under the total Hamiltonian ˆHtot, while the grey dashed line corresponds to⟨ ˆJx⟩t =⟨ ˆJx⟩0 cos(ωzt)− ⟨ˆJy⟩0 sin(ωzt). (...

  4. [4]

    General derivation With the Hamiltonian ˆHtot = ˆIR ⊗ ˆH 0 S + ˆAR ⊗ ˆVS + ˆH 0 R × ˆIS, the backaction of the system on the work source can be reflected on the second-order differential equation of⟨ ˆAR⟩, that is,ℏ 2d2⟨ ˆAR⟩/dt2 =⟨[[ ˆH 0 R, ˆAR], ˆH 0 R]⟩+⟨[[ ˆH 0 R, ˆAR], ˆAR⊗ ˆVS]⟩. We first consider the semi-decoupling limit where the backaction of t...

  5. [5]

    F actorized semiclassical limit in the Dicke model We use the Dicke model to demonstrate the evolution in the factorized semiclassical limit, which is tied to the limit of vanishing backaction. With the Hamiltonian ˆHtot =ℏω c ˆIam ⊗ˆa†ˆa+ 2λ√ N ˆJx ⊗ ˆa† + ˆa +ω z ˆJz ⊗ ˆIrf, in the semi-deoupling limit where the backaction of the radiation field on the ...

  6. [6]

    Sekimoto,Stochastic Energetics(Springer, Berlin ; Heidelberg, 2010)

    K. Sekimoto,Stochastic Energetics(Springer, Berlin ; Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Peliti and S

    L. Peliti and S. Pigolotti,Stochastic Thermodynam- ics: An Introduction(Princeton University Press, 2021) google-Books-ID: 8rAPEAAAQBAJ

    2021

  8. [8]

    Shiraishi,An Introduction to Stochastic Thermody- namics: From Basic to Advanced(Springer Nature, 2023)

    N. Shiraishi,An Introduction to Stochastic Thermody- namics: From Basic to Advanced(Springer Nature, 2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    Seifert,Stochastic Thermodynamics(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2025)

    U. Seifert,Stochastic Thermodynamics(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    G. N. Bochkov and I. E. Kuzovlev, General theory of thermal fluctuations in nonlinear systems, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz72, 238 (1977)

    1977

  11. [11]

    D. J. Evans, E. G. D. Cohen, and G. P. Morriss, Proba- bility of second law violations in shearing steady states, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 2401 (1993)

    1993

  12. [12]

    Gallavotti and E

    G. Gallavotti and E. G. D. Cohen, Dynamical ensembles in stationary states, J Stat Phys80, 931 (1995)

    1995

  13. [13]

    Gallavotti and E

    G. Gallavotti and E. G. D. Cohen, Dynamical Ensem- bles in Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2694 (1995)

    1995

  14. [14]

    Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium Equality for Free Energy Differences, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium Equality for Free Energy Differences, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2690 (1997)

    1997

  15. [15]

    G. E. Crooks, Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy dif- ferences, Phys. Rev. E60, 2721 (1999)

    1999

  16. [16]

    Liphardt, S

    J. Liphardt, S. Dumont, S. B. Smith, I. Tinoco, and C. Bustamante, Equilibrium Information from Nonequi- librium Measurements in an Experimental Test of Jarzynski’s Equality, Science296, 1832 (2002)

    2002

  17. [17]

    Seifert, Entropy Production along a Stochastic Tra- jectory and an Integral Fluctuation Theorem, Phys

    U. Seifert, Entropy Production along a Stochastic Tra- jectory and an Integral Fluctuation Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 040602 (2005)

    2005

  18. [18]

    Chen and H

    J.-F. Chen and H. T. Quan, Hierarchical structure of fluc- tuation theorems for a driven system in contact with mul- tiple heat reservoirs, Phys. Rev. E107, 024135 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Kurchan, A Quantum Fluctuation Theorem (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0007360

    J. Kurchan, A Quantum Fluctuation Theorem (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0007360

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  20. [20]

    Tasaki, Jarzynski Relations for Quantum Systems and Some Applications (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0009244

    H. Tasaki, Jarzynski Relations for Quantum Systems and Some Applications (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0009244

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  21. [21]

    Talkner, E

    P. Talkner, E. Lutz, and P. H¨ anggi, Fluctuation theo- rems: Work is not an observable, Phys. Rev. E75, 050102 (2007)

    2007

  22. [22]

    Talkner and P

    P. Talkner and P. H¨ anggi, The Tasaki–Crooks quantum fluctuation theorem, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, F569 (2007)

    2007

  23. [23]

    Esposito, U

    M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Nonequilib- rium fluctuations, fluctuation theorems, and counting statistics in quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1665 (2009)

    2009

  24. [24]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. H¨ anggi, and P. Talkner, Colloquium: Quantum fluctuation relations: Foundations and appli- cations, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 771 (2011)

    2011

  25. [25]

    An, J.-N

    S. An, J.-N. Zhang, M. Um, D. Lv, Y. Lu, J. Zhang, Z.-Q. Yin, H. T. Quan, and K. Kim, Experimental test of the quantum Jarzynski equality with a trapped-ion system, Nat. Phys.11, 193 (2015)

    2015

  26. [26]

    Jarzynski, H

    C. Jarzynski, H. Quan, and S. Rahav, Quantum-Classical Correspondence Principle for Work Distributions, Phys. Rev. X5, 031038 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    H. T. Quan, Y.-x. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum thermodynamic cycles and quantum heat engines, Phys. Rev. E76, 031105 (2007)

    2007

  28. [28]

    Schmiedl and U

    T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, Efficiency at maximum power: An analytically solvable model for stochastic heat engines, Europhys. Lett.81, 20003 (2008)

    2008

  29. [29]

    Ma, R.-X

    Y.-H. Ma, R.-X. Zhai, J. Chen, C. P. Sun, and H. Dong, Experimental Test of the 1/τ-Scaling Entropy Genera- tion in Finite-Time Thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 210601 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Li and Z

    G. Li and Z. C. Tu, Nonequilibrium work relations meet engineered thermodynamic control: A perspective for nonequilibrium measurements, Europhys. Lett.142, 61001 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    R. X. Zhai and C. P. Sun, Quantum Thermodynamic Integrability for Canonical and Noncanonical Statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 160404 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Serra-Garcia, A

    M. Serra-Garcia, A. Foehr, M. Moler´ on, J. Lydon, C. Chong, and C. Daraio, Mechanical Autonomous Stochastic Heat Engine, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 010602 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    Jarzynski, S

    C. Jarzynski, S. Deffner, and S. Rahav, Fluctuation the- orems for autonomous work, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.122, e2524775122 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Bennett, The search for ‘uniform and equable motion’ A study of the early methods of control of the steam 15 engine, Int

    S. Bennett, The search for ‘uniform and equable motion’ A study of the early methods of control of the steam 15 engine, Int. J. Control21, 113 (1975)

    1975

  35. [35]

    Roulet, S

    A. Roulet, S. Nimmrichter, J. M. Arrazola, S. Seah, and V. Scarani, Autonomous rotor heat engine, Phys. Rev. E 95, 062131 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    Niedenzu, M

    W. Niedenzu, M. Huber, and E. Boukobza, Concepts of work in autonomous quantum heat engines, Quantum3, 195 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    R. Iino, K. Kinbara, and Z. Bryant, Introduction: Molec- ular Motors, Chem. Rev.120, 1 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    Antonio Mar ´ ın Guzm´ an, P

    J. Antonio Mar ´ ın Guzm´ an, P. Erker, S. Gasparinetti, M. Huber, and N. Yunger Halpern, Key issues review: useful autonomous quantum machines, Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 122001 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Y. Jha, D. Karevski, and C. Elouard, Jaynes-Cummings model as an autonomous Maxwell demon, Phys. Rev. A 112, 062212 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Tonner and G

    F. Tonner and G. Mahler, Autonomous quantum ther- modynamic machines, Phys. Rev. E72, 066118 (2005)

    2005

  41. [41]

    M. F. Frenzel, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Quasi- autonomous quantum thermal machines and quantum to classical energy flow, New J. Phys.18, 023037 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Elouard and C

    C. Elouard and C. Lombard Latune, Extending the Laws of Thermodynamics for Arbitrary Autonomous Quantum Systems, PRX Quantum4, 020309 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    C. Han, D. Cohen, and E. Sela, Quantum limitation on experimental testing of nonequilibrium fluctuation theo- rems, Phys. Rev. B110, 115153 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    C. Han, N. Katz, and E. Sela, Measuring work in quan- tum many-body systems using a dynamical work agent, Phys. Rev. B112, 035416 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    A. V. Varma and D. Cohen, Quantum measurement of work in mesoscopic systems (2025), arXiv:2507.09977

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Cepollaro, D

    C. Cepollaro, D. Chughtai, A. Spalvieri, M. Huber, and A. Rolandi, Autonomization of Quantum Sys- tems and the Emergence of the Work Operator (2026), arXiv:2607.20602 [quant-ph] version: 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Jarzynski, Comparison of far-from-equilibrium work relations, Comptes Rendus Physique Work, dissipation, and fluctuations in nonequilibrium physics,8, 495 (2007)

    C. Jarzynski, Comparison of far-from-equilibrium work relations, Comptes Rendus Physique Work, dissipation, and fluctuations in nonequilibrium physics,8, 495 (2007)

    2007

  48. [48]

    H. T. Quan, Z. Song, X. F. Liu, P. Zanardi, and C. P. Sun, Decay of Loschmidt Echo Enhanced by Quantum Criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 140604 (2006)

    2006

  49. [49]

    Schr¨ oder and G

    H. Schr¨ oder and G. Mahler, Work exchange between quantum systems: The spin-oscillator model, Phys. Rev. E81, 021118 (2010)

    2010

  50. [50]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  51. [51]

    Kirton, M

    P. Kirton, M. M. Roses, J. Keeling, and E. G. Dalla Torre, Introduction to the Dicke Model: From Equilibrium to Nonequilibrium, and Vice Versa, Adv. Quantum Technol.2, 1800043 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    Felicetti and A

    S. Felicetti and A. Le Boit´ e, Universal Spectral Features of Ultrastrongly Coupled Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 040404 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    To obtain fluctuation theorems for the inclusive work, the initial state of the work source is assumed to be in- coherent between different sectors of the observable ˆAR, ensuring that the free energy of the system is well defined

  54. [54]

    Maes, On the Origin and the Use of Fluctuation Rela- tions for the Entropy, inPoincar´ e Seminar 2(2003) pp

    C. Maes, On the Origin and the Use of Fluctuation Rela- tions for the Entropy, inPoincar´ e Seminar 2(2003) pp. 29–62

    2003

  55. [55]

    Bakemeier, A

    L. Bakemeier, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, Dynamics of the Dicke model close to the classical limit, Phys. Rev. A88, 043835 (2013)

    2013

  56. [56]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. Talkner, and P. H¨ anggi, Quantum Bochkov–Kuzovlev work fluctuation theorems, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A369, 291 (2011)

    2011

  57. [57]

    Watanabe, B

    G. Watanabe, B. P. Venkatesh, and P. Talkner, Gen- eralized energy measurements and modified transient quantum fluctuation theorems, Phys. Rev. E89, 052116 (2014)

    2014

  58. [58]

    Micadei, G

    K. Micadei, G. T. Landi, and E. Lutz, Quantum Fluctu- ation Theorems beyond Two-Point Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090602 (2020)

    2020

  59. [59]

    Pei, J.-F

    J.-H. Pei, J.-F. Chen, and H. T. Quan, Explor- ing quasiprobability approaches to quantum work in the presence of initial coherence: Advantages of the Margenau-Hill distribution, Phys. Rev. E108, 054109 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Prech and P

    K. Prech and P. P. Potts, Quantum Fluctuation Theorem for Arbitrary Measurement and Feedback Schemes, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 140401 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Rasola, V

    M. Rasola, V. Vadimov, T. Uusn¨ akki, and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Proposal for an autonomous quantum heat engine, Sci- Post Phys.19, 101 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Mandal, H

    D. Mandal, H. T. Quan, and C. Jarzynski, Maxwell’s Re- frigerator: An Exactly Solvable Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 030602 (2013)

    2013

  63. [63]

    W. Chen, M. Chen, and Y.-H. Ma, Finite-Time Ther- modynamics of an Autonomous Information Machine (2026)

    2026