Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Quantum coherence and entanglement in wireless quantum batteries

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that two distinct coherence measures — first-order coherence as a threshold and l1-norm coherence as fuel — set the work that can be extracted from a wirelessly charged quantum battery, and that both can be tuned throu

desk verdict The dynamics sections are a plausible extension of known common-reservoir results, but the headline threshold–fuel claim collapses: the 'first-order coherence' Dcoh is not a coherence of the reduced state and reduces to |Wi| by construction. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27718 v1 pith:XL7AMASL submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph

Jun-Jie Jiang , Jin-Di Cao , Yu-Fei Zhang , Meng-Long Song , Dong Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumbatterywirelesschargingcoherencel1-normfirst-orderergotropynon-Markoviandynamicsdarkstate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper investigates how a quantum battery can be charged wirelessly when the charger and battery interact only through a common bosonic environment, with no direct coupling. It argues that the thermodynamic usefulness of the stored energy—quantified by ergotropy, the maximum work extractable by cyclic unitary operations—is controlled by two distinct coherence measures. First-order coherence, the off-diagonal phase coherence, acts as a strict threshold: above it, incoherent work can be extracted; without it, work output collapses. L1-norm coherence, the amount of superposition in the energy basis, acts as the fuel that determines the magnitude of the extractable work. The paper further shows that coupling symmetry and environmental memory are control parameters: asymmetric coupling favoring the battery speeds up charging in a Markovian bath, while symmetric coupling in a non-Markovian strong-coupling regime creates a dark state that protects stored energy from dissipation.

What carries the argument

The central objects are two coherence measures. First-order coherence Dcoh is identified with the off-diagonal element of the reduced battery state (the optical visibility); l1-norm coherence Cl1 is the sum of absolute off-diagonal matrix elements, quantifying the amount of superposition. They are embedded in a resource-theoretic decomposition of ergotropy into incoherent work Wi and coherent work Wc, following the standard split of work into population-based and coherence-based parts. The model is an exactly solvable two-qubit system coupled to a common Lorentzian reservoir, with dimensionless coupling weights xi1 and xi2; the function kappa(t) governs the Markovian (real characteristic exp

What would settle it

Directly compute the off-diagonal matrix element <e|rho_B|g> from the exact dynamics (Eq. 5) and compare it with the expression for Dcoh in Eq. (17) across a range of times and coupling weights; a discrepancy, or a Dcoh(0) different from 1 for the initial state |e>_A|g>_B, would show that the interpretation of Dcoh as first-order optical coherence is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ergotropy of the battery separates cleanly into an incoherent part (from population inversion) and a coherent part (from phase coherence), and that the two parts are regulated by different coherence quantifiers. In a single-unit battery with a fully charged charger, the paper derives explicit algebraic relations (Eqs. 17–18) tying Dcoh and Cl1 to the charger's energy release and the incoherent work. Dcoh must remain near one for high incoherent work—it is a threshold that gates extraction—whereas Cl1 scales smoothly with the work and serves as the volumetric fuel. The same threshold-fuel structure is demonstrated in a two-unit battery described by a Lindblad mas

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quantity Dcoh used in the thermodynamic formulas is the true off-diagonal first-order coherence of the reduced battery state; the paper states the reduced states are diagonal (Eqs. 8–9) yet calls Dcoh off-diagonal, and never derives Dcoh from those states—if Dcoh is only an algebraic proxy for energy release and work, the threshold-fuel claim loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a Markovian weak-coupling setting, the environment itself reconstructs l1-norm coherence even as first-order coherence decays, meaning a wireless quantum battery can keep charging in a noisy bath as long as the right coherence basis is preserved.
  • In a non-Markovian strong-coupling setting, entanglement and stored energy oscillate in phase, so a structured reservoir can drive reversible, high-power charging rather than just dissipate energy.
  • Symmetric coupling to the common reservoir creates a dark state that decouples the charger–battery system from dissipation, preserving stored energy indefinitely (EB = 1 in the strong-coupling limit).
  • Asymmetric coupling that favors the battery enhances charging speed in a memoryless environment, whereas coupling that favors the charger wastes the excitation as leakage.
  • Optimizing a wireless quantum battery requires tuning two coherence resources independently: first-order coherence sets the work threshold, while l1-norm coherence sets the work magnitude.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental test would be to tomographically reconstruct the battery's reduced state and compare the measured Dcoh with the paper's formula (Eq. 17); a mismatch would reveal an internal inconsistency between the diagonal reduced-state assumption and the off-diagonal coherence claim.
  • If the threshold-fuel duality is generic, then battery designs that protect only one coherence measure—for example, by decoherence-free subspaces—will fail to maximize work unless both are simultaneously engineered.
  • The paper's two-unit model suggests the threshold-fuel mechanism persists beyond a single charger–battery pair, but the exact scaling of extractable work with the number of cells is left open, hinting that multi-cell packs may show different resource dynamics.
  • The dark-state protection under symmetric coupling resembles subradiant states in atomic physics; extending this to many emitters could enable robust quantum energy storage in larger networks, which the paper does not analyze.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a wireless quantum battery in which a charger qubit (A) and a battery qubit (B) interact only through a common Lorentzian bosonic environment. It imports an exact single-excitation solution for the amplitudes, then examines how coupling asymmetry and non-Markovianity affect stored energy, entanglement, and two coherence quantifiers. The authors propose a thermodynamic decomposition of ergotropy into incoherent and coherent work, and claim that first-order coherence D_coh acts as a strict activation threshold for incoherent work while l1-norm coherence C_l1 is the resource that sets the magnitude of coherent work. The paper also discusses dark-state protection under symmetric coupling and non-Markovian backflow as resources for energy trapping.

Significance. If the threshold–fuel mechanism were correct, the paper would establish a practical resource-theoretic design principle for environment-mediated quantum batteries, with D_coh as a switch and C_l1 as a reservoir. The paper also contains a systematic, if qualitative, study of population and entanglement dynamics in a common-reservoir two-qubit model, using the known exact solution of Refs. [41,42]. However, the central thermodynamic claim is not supported. The paper itself states in Eqs. (8)–(9) that the reduced states are diagonal, so the advertised 'off-diagonal' D_coh cannot be a genuine single-qubit coherence. The only concrete formula, Eq. (17), reduces algebraically to D_coh=|W_i| in the single-excitation sector, so the claimed 'activation threshold' is a re-parametrization of W_i rather than an independent physical resource. Since the main thesis is definitional rather than causal, the paper's resource-theoretic conclusions cannot be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B and Eqs. (8)–(9) / Fig. 2(a)] The paper states that the reduced density matrices of A and B are diagonal in the energy basis, yet it calls D_coh the 'off-diagonal' first-order coherence and plots D_coh(0)=1 for the initial state |e>_A|g>_B. For a diagonal qubit state, any legitimate first-order coherence is zero for all t. The only formula provided, Eq. (17), is a function of ΔE_A and W_i, not of any off-diagonal element. This internal inconsistency undermines the identification of D_coh as an optical coherence measure.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (17)] For the initial state |e>_A|g>_B, single-excitation conservation gives |v1|^2+|v2|^2=1. With ΔE_A = -|v2|^2 and W_i=2|v2|^2−1, substitution into Eq. (17) yields D_coh^2 = W_i^2, i.e., D_coh=|W_i|. Hence the 'strict activation threshold' in Fig. 8(a) is a contour of W_i itself. The claim that first-order coherence enables incoherent work is therefore definitional, not a causal physical mechanism.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (16) and Sec. V] Because ρ_B(t) is diagonal (Eq. (9)), the coherent-work contribution W_c = Tr(ρ_B H_B) − Tr(diag(ρ_B)H_B) is identically zero in the single-unit wireless model. The conclusion that 'l1-norm coherence serves as the volumetric resource reservoir that directly governs the magnitude of coherent work' is inapplicable to the model that motivates it. Moreover, in the single-excitation sector Eq. (18) gives C_l1 = sqrt(1−W_i^2), so C_l1 is not an independent resource variable.
  4. [Eqs. (17)–(19) and Appendix B] The central formulas (17)–(19) are asserted without derivation, and Appendix B supplies analogous formulas for the two-unit battery without proof. Because the threshold–fuel mechanism is the paper's main thesis, these derivations cannot be omitted. In addition, Fig. 9(a) labels D_coh as 'relative entropy of coherence', which is a different measure from the first-order coherence used elsewhere, adding further confusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.B vs Sec. II.C] The symbol ξ is used both for the spectral-density coupling strength (ξ in J(ω) and R=ξμ_T) and for the relative weights ξ_i=μ_i/μ_T (Eq. (5)). This dual use is confusing and should be disambiguated.
  2. [Sec. III.A] The initial amplitudes v_01 and v_02 in Eq. (5) are not defined until Sec. III.A; define them with Eq. (5) or refer forward explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 2(a) and Sec. III.B] A precise definition of D_coh is missing in the main text before it appears in Fig. 2. The reader is forced to infer from Eq. (17) that D_coh is not a coherence measure at all; please give an explicit definition and state its domain.
  4. [Sec. IV.A] The statement that the passive state of ρ_diag is 'identical' to that of ρ is asserted without proof; a one-line justification would make the decomposition in Eqs. (14)–(15) more transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The D_coh activation-threshold claim is definitional: Eq. (17) defines D_coh algebraically from W_i (and ΔE_A); in the excitation-conserving limit D_coh=|W_i|, so the 'threshold' is a restatement of the input.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IV A, Eqs. (16)-(17); see also Sec. III B and Fig. 8(a)]
    "Assuming the initial charging system energy is concentrated within the charger, the ergotropy done by the battery consists entirely of incoherent components, written as W=W_i=2|v_2(t)|^2−1. (16) Meanwhile, the coherence and entanglement are interpreted as: D_coh = [2∆E_A(∆E_A+1)+(W_i+1)^2/2−W_i]^{1/2}, (17)"

    Equation (17) is the only concrete definition of D_coh for this model, and it is an algebraic function of W_i. In the excitation-conserving limit |v1|²+|v2|²=1, Eq. (16) gives W_i=2|v2|²−1 and ΔE_A=|v1|²−1; substituting into Eq. (17) yields D_coh²=(1−2|v2|²)²=W_i², so D_coh=|W_i|. Thus Fig. 8(a)'s 'strict activation threshold' is a contour of W_i itself, and the claim that D_coh governs W_i is a restatement of the defining formula, not an independent prediction. Since Eqs. (8)-(9) make the single-qubit reduced states diagonal, D_coh also lacks the advertised 'off-diagonal' definition.

full rationale

The dynamical evolution (amplitudes v1,v2, Lorentzian bath, Markovian/non-Markovian regimes) is imported from external references and is not circular; the entanglement, non-Markovian backflow, and dark-state protection observations are independent dynamical content. The central thermodynamic dichotomy, however, is partly circular for the single-unit wireless battery: D_coh is not defined from any off-diagonal element (the reduced states are diagonal, Eqs. (8)-(9)), and Eq. (17) defines it as a function of W_i and ΔE_A. The threshold claim in Fig. 8(a) and the conclusion then rest on that definitional relation; in the excitation-conserving limit the relation reduces to D_coh=|W_i|. Therefore the score is elevated to 7: a central 'prediction' reduces by construction, while other claims retain independent content. No load-bearing self-citations were found; the cited dynamics [41,42] and ergotropy decomposition [51,52] are external. Appendix B supplies D_coh/Cl_1 as un-derived functions of ΔE_B; this is missing support rather than an independently exhibited circular reduction, and is noted as a caveat rather than scored separately.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new dynamics or entities are introduced beyond a standard two-qubit common-reservoir model; the paper's added value is interpretive. Its load-bearing inputs are a cited exact solution, hand-chosen coupling and regime parameters, and standard coherence and ergotropy definitions.

free parameters (2)
  • relative coupling weights ξ1, ξ2 = ξ1=0.5, ξ2=√3/2 (battery-preferred); ξ1=√3/2, ξ2=0.5 (charger-preferred); ξ1=ξ2=√2/2 (symmetric)
    These hand-chosen weights define the coupling-symmetry control parameter central to the paper's claims. No optimization or derivation justifies the specific values.
  • dimensionless coupling ratio R/λ = 0.3 and 100
    Chosen to represent the Markovian weak-coupling and non-Markovian strong-coupling regimes. The qualitative claims depend on this dichotomy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The exact single-excitation dynamics in Eqs. (5)-(6) of Refs. [41,42] are valid for this system.
    The paper quotes the amplitude solution without derivation; all subsequent energy, resource, and ergotropy conclusions depend on it.
  • domain assumption The environment is a Lorentzian-structured bosonic bath and the rotating-wave approximation applies (Eqs. (1)-(4)).
    Defines the physical model and the Markovian/non-Markovian regimes.
  • domain assumption The dynamics are restricted to the single-excitation subspace.
    The initial state has one excitation and the exact solution of Refs. [41,42] is used, but multi-excitation effects are not discussed.
  • standard math Ergotropy decomposes cleanly into incoherent and coherent work via the dephasing map, following Refs. [51,52].
    Used in Sec. IV without proof and underlies the threshold-fuel interpretation.
  • standard math The BLP non-Markovianity measure computed from κ(t) is the relevant memory indicator.
    Adopted in Appendix A to connect memory effects to battery energy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum coherence and entanglement in wireless quantum batteries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XL7AMASL

@misc{pith2026260727718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum coherence and entanglement in wireless quantum batteries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XL7AMASL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27718}
}
abstract

We investigate the charging dynamics and thermodynamic performance of a wireless quantum battery system mediated by a common structured bosonic environment. By employing a unified resource-theoretic analysis, we elucidate the distinct roles of non-Markovian memory effects and coupling symmetry in regulating energy transfer. In the Markovian weak-coupling regime, we identify a transformative mechanism where the dynamic reconstruction of $l_1$-norm coherence compensates for the monotonic decay of first-order coherence to sustain energy transport. Conversely, the non-Markovian strong-coupling regime facilitates a cooperative resonance, characterized by the synchronized oscillation of entanglement and stored energy induced by environmental backflow. Furthermore, we reveal that coupling symmetry acts as a critical control parameter: while asymmetric coupling favoring the battery optimizes energy gain in memoryless environments, symmetric coupling under strong interactions unlocks a dark-state protection mechanism, effectively trapping energy within a decoherence-free subspace. Finally, a thermodynamic analysis based on ergotropy demonstrates that first-order coherence establishes the activation threshold for incoherent work, whereas $l_1$-norm coherence serves as the explicit fuel for coherent work extraction. These findings provide a refined theoretical framework for engineering environment-assisted quantum energy storage devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27718 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the wireless quantum charging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Dynamics in the Non-Markovian strong [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (Color online) Dynamics in the Markovian regime with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Dynamics in the Non-Markovian regime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Dynamics in the Symmetric Coupling Marko [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Dynamics in the Symmetric Coupling Non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Thermodynamic trade-off between quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) The evolution of the relative entropy of coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) Joint temporal evolution of the cumula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) The landscape of first-order coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Alicki and M

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

    2013

  2. [2]

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

    2015

  3. [3]

    K. V . Hovhannisyan, M. Perarnau-Llobet, M. Huber, and A. Ac´ın, Entanglement Generation is Not Necessary for Optimal Work Extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 240401 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. C´eleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Enhancing the Charging Power of Quantum Batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina, V . Pellegrini, and M. Polini, High-Power Collective Charging of a Solid-State Quan- tum Battery, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 117702 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

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

    2018

  7. [7]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, and M. Polini, Many-body local- ized quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. B100, 115142 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

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

    2018

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Max- imal work extraction from finite quantum systems, Europhys. Lett.67, 565 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    Francica, J

    G. Francica, J. Goold, F. Plastina, and M. Paternostro, Dae- monic ergotropy: enhanced work extraction from quantum cor- relations, npj Quantum Inf.3, 12 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Farina, G

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

    2019

  5. [13]

    Barra, Dissipative Charging of a Quantum Battery, Phys

    F. Barra, Dissipative Charging of a Quantum Battery, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 210601 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi, F. Kheirandish, and A. C. Santos, Non-Markovian effects on charging and self- discharging process of quantum batteries, New J. Phys.22, 083007 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    J. Q. Quach and W. J. Munro, Using Dark States to Charge and Stabilize Open Quantum Batteries, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 024092 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Zakavati, F

    S. Zakavati, F. T. Tabesh, and S. Salimi, Bounds on charging power of open quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E104, 054117 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    L. P. Garc´ıa-Pintos, A. Hamma, and A. del Campo, Fluctuations 12 in Extractable Work Bound the Charging Power of Quantum Batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 040601 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Pirmoradian and K

    F. Pirmoradian and K. Mølmer, Aging of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A100, 043833 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Yao and X.-Q

    Y . Yao and X.-Q. Shao, Reservoir-assisted quantum battery charging at finite temperatures, Phys. Rev. A111, 062616 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Yao and X.-Q

    Y . Yao and X.-Q. Shao, Optimal charging of open spin-chain quantum batteries via homodyne-based feedback control, Phys. Rev. E106, 014138 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Bai and J.-H

    S.-Y . Bai and J.-H. An, Floquet Engineering to Reactivate a Dis- sipative Quantum Battery, Phys. Rev. A102, 060201(R) (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Song, J.-L

    W.-L. Song, J.-L. Wang, B. Zhou, W.-L. Yang, and J.-H. An, Self-Discharging Mitigated Quantum Battery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 020405 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Hadipour, S

    M. Hadipour, S. Haseli, H. Dolatkhah, and M. Rashidi, Study the charging process of moving quantum batteries inside cavity, Sci. Rep.13, 10672 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Song, H.-B

    W.-L. Song, H.-B. Liu, B. Zhou, W.-L. Yang, and J.-H. An, Re- mote Charging and Degradation Suppression for the Quantum Battery, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 090401 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    S.-C. Zhao, L. Luo, and N.-Y . Zhuang, Stabilizing ergotropy in Spin-Chain Quantum Batteries via Energy-Invariant Cataly- sis under Strong Non-Markovian Coupling, arXiv:2508.02772 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Ferraro, F

    D. Ferraro, F. Cavaliere, M. G. Genoni, G. Benenti, and M. Sas- setti, Opportunities and challenges of quantum batteries, Nat. Rev. Phys.8, 115–127 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    F.-Q. Dou, H. Zhou, and J.-A. Sun, Cavity Heisenberg-spin- chain quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A106, 032212 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Dou, Y .-Q

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

    2022

  22. [30]

    Guo, F.-M

    W.-X. Guo, F.-M. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Analytically solvable many-body Rosen-Zener quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A109, 032201 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Dou and F.-M

    F.-Q. Dou and F.-M. Yang, Superconducting transmon qubit- resonator quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A107, 023725 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Song, L.-J

    M.-L. Song, L.-J. Li, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Environment-mediated entropic uncertainty in charging quan- tum batteries, Phys. Rev. E106, 054107 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Song, X.-K

    M.-L. Song, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Evaluating ex- tractable work of quantum batteries via entropic uncertainty re- lations, Phys. Rev. E109, 064103 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    M.-L. Song, Z. Cao, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Quan- tum steering as a probe of energy transfer in quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A113, 022209 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    Bhanja, D

    G. Bhanja, D. Tiwari, and S. Banerjee, Impact of non- Markovian quantum Brownian motion on quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A109, 012224 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    F. T. Tabesh, F. H. Kamin, and S. Salimi, Environment- mediated charging process of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052223 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Yao and X.-Q

    Y . Yao and X.-Q. Shao, Stable charging of a Rydberg quantum battery in an open system, Phys. Rev. E104, 044116 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzanjeh, Non- reciprocal Quantum Batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 210402 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, and P. Horodecki, Super- optimal charging of quantum batteries via reservoir engineer- ing: Arbitrary energy transfer unlocked, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 024010 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    X. Yang, Y . H. Yang, M. Alimuddin, R. Salvia, S. M. Fei, L. M. Zhao, S. Nimmrichter, and M. X. Luo, Battery Capac- ity of Energy-Storing Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 030402 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Maniscalco, F

    S. Maniscalco, F. Francica, R. L. Zaffino, N. Lo Gullo, and F. Plastina, Protecting Entanglement via the Quantum Zeno Ef- fect, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 090503 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Francica, S

    F. Francica, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, F. Plastina, and K.-A. Suominen, Off-resonant entanglement generation in a lossy cavity, Phys. Rev. A79, 032310 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Xu, H.-Z

    S. Xu, H.-Z. Shen, X.-X. Yi, and W. Wang, Readout of the spec- tral density of an environment from the dynamics of an open system, Phys. Rev. A100, 032108 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying Co- herence, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    S. A. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of a Pair of Quan- tum Bits, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 5022 (1997)

    1997

  38. [46]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  39. [47]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf,Optical Coherence and Quantum Op- tics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    S. M. Hashemi Rafsanjani, M. Huber, C. J. Broadbent, and J. H. Eberly, Genuinely multipartite concurrence ofN-qubitX matrices, Phys. Rev. A86, 062303 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    X.-F. Qian, B. Little, J. C. Howell, and J. H. Eberly, Shifting the quantum-classical boundary: theory and experiment for sta- tistically classical optical fields, Optica2, 611-615 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Measure for the Degree of Non-Markovian Quantum Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 210401 (2009), Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    The incoherent workW i quantifies the portion of work arising purely from population inversion (a classical non- equilibrium resource)

    and [52], the total extractable workWcan be decom- posed into two distinct contributions based on their physi- cal origins: the incoherent work (W i) and the coherent work (Wc). The incoherent workW i quantifies the portion of work arising purely from population inversion (a c...

  44. [52]

    H.-L. Shi, S. Ding, Q.-K. Wang, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Entanglement, Coherence, and Extractable Work in Quantum Batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 130602 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Francica, F

    G. Francica, F. C. Binder, G. Guarnieri, M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold, and F. Plastina, Quantum Coherence and Ergotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 180603 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.