Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 76 references

Finite-size reliability of homothetic quantum Otto engines

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A finite homothetic quantum Otto engine's work reliability vanishes at high temperature for every finite N, while the oscillator limit keeps a finite plateau—the two limits do not commute.

desk verdict Exact finite-N work reliability for homothetic Otto ladders is new, correctly derived, and the noncommutation of limits is a genuinely useful caution; the main caveat is the complete-reset idealization, which the paper honestly scopes. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29050 v1 pith:F2QPU5OL submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

Gabriella G. Damas , Clebson Cruz , Norton G. de Almeida , Gao Xianlong , G. D. de Moraes Neto This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords homotheticspectraquantumOttoengineworkreliabilityfinite-sizeeffectstwo-pointmeasurementnoncommutinglimitsuniformladderstochasticthermodynamics
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 claims that in a homothetic quantum Otto engine—one whose energy gaps are all rescaled by a common factor—the finite size of the working medium, and not the operating details, controls how reliable the work output is. For an N-level uniformly spaced ladder it derives exact closed-form statistics: the full work distribution, mean work, variance, and a signal-to-width reliability R_N. The central result is an order-of-limits noncommutation: taking the infinite-dimensional limit first at high temperature leaves a nonzero reliability plateau, but keeping N finite and then going to high temperature makes reliability collapse to zero. The reason is spectral support: a finite Gibbs state saturates into a maximally mixed state, while an oscillator's thermal tail keeps expanding. A sympathetic reader should care because the formulas give a parameter-free benchmark for separating finite-size, incomplete thermalization, finite-time, and spectral-distortion contributions to work unreliability in quantum engines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the finite uniform ladder with partition function Z_N(z) = (1−e^{−Nz})/(1−e^{−z}); its first two z-derivatives, ν_N(z) = −∂_z ln Z_N and v_N(z) = ∂²_z ln Z_N, supply the mean and variance of the level index at inverse temperature z. Because complete thermalization makes the two endpoint samples independent, the work variance is the sum of the endpoint variances, and the reliability R_N in Eq. (26) is simply the difference of endpoint means divided by the square root of the summed variances. This identity—together with the order-of-limits statement—is what carries the argument. The same two derivatives encode the thermal susceptibility and heat capacity, connecting

What would settle it

On a finite N-level ladder (say N ≈ 10–30) with fixed ratio r = z_l/z_h > 1, measure single-cycle work at increasingly high temperature (z_h → 0). The paper predicts R_N → 0 for every finite N, while the oscillator-first limit gives R_∞ = (r−1)/√(1+r²). If R_N stays at the plateau, or if the order of limits commutes, the central noncommutation claim fails. A related check: the skewness of the work-index distribution should show the predicted finite-N deviation from the oscillator high-temperature value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the two-point-measurement (TPM) framework for a homothetic spectrum (all populated gaps scaled by one factor α), the paper reduces the first two work moments to the endpoint energy moments of the hot and cold thermal states. For a uniformly spaced ladder with N levels it obtains exact formulas, culminating in the work reliability R_N = [ν_N(z_h) − ν_N(z_l)] / √[v_N(z_h)+v_N(z_l)], where ν_N and v_N are the mean and variance of the truncated thermal level index. The paper's central discovery is the noncommutation of limits stated in Eq. (37): lim_{z_h→0} lim_{N→∞} R_N = (r−1)/√(1+r²), whereas lim_{N→∞} lim_{z_h→0} R_N = 0. Interpreting, the bounded spectrum of a finite ladder becomes ma

Load-bearing premise

The two endpoint level samples are statistically independent, which requires each isochore to fully reset the working medium to a Gibbs state and erase coherence; if residual correlations or coherences survive, the TPM work distribution and the reliability formula no longer describe the measured statistics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At any fixed finite N, high-temperature operation destroys work reliability: the two endpoint Gibbs states become indistinguishable and R_N → 0.
  • A finite ladder behaves like an oscillator only when the thermally populated tail is resolved, roughly N z_h ≫ 1; beyond that, extra levels give diminishing returns and the 1% useful-dimension criterion quantifies the cutoff.
  • Standard mean-output prescriptions (maximum power, ecological, Omega) do not select the most reliable operating point; reliability must be assessed jointly with a nonzero output scale.
  • Incomplete isochores and finite-time transitions add separate, identifiable penalties to reliability, allowing the benchmark to disentangle the sources of unreliability.
  • Weak spectral distortions that break exact homothety reintroduce quasistatic efficiency fluctuations, so the trajectory-independent efficiency is fragile to level-dependent gap changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the noncommutation holds, any experiment or simulation approximating a highly excited finite qudit as a harmonic oscillator will systematically overestimate work reliability; the safe criterion is that the thermal tail be resolved (N z_h ≫ 1) before oscillator formulas apply.
  • The bounded-versus-unbounded dichotomy is not special to engines: the paper connects it to quantum thermometry universality classes, suggesting that finite-spectrum probes and continuous oscillators will show the same order-of-limits discrepancy in other fluctuation-based diagnostics.
  • A testable extension would be measuring the full work-index distribution k = n − m in a transmon or trapped-ion ladder and checking the predicted skewness crossover and the collapse of R_N with z_h at fixed N.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives exact finite-N two-point-measurement (TPM) work statistics for quasistatic homothetic quantum Otto engines, in which all populated energy gaps are rescaled by a common factor alpha. For arbitrary finite homothetic spectra the first two work moments are reduced to endpoint energy moments (Eqs. (12)-(13)); for a uniformly spaced ladder the authors obtain closed finite-N expressions for the full work-index distribution, mean, variance, skewness, and signal-to-width reliability R_N (Eq. (26)). The central conceptual result is the noncommutation of the high-temperature and infinite-dimensional limits, Eq. (37): for fixed r=z_l/z_h>1, taking N->infinity first gives the oscillator plateau (r-1)/sqrt(1+r^2), while taking z_h->0 first gives zero for every finite N. The framework is then extended to incomplete diagonal isochores (Sec. VII), finite-time transition-matrix strokes (Sec. VIII), and weak non-homothetic spectral distortions (Sec. IX), with the harmonic sudden-switch oscillator treated as a separately cutoff-stabilized boundary case (Sec. VIII C and Appendix H).

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides a clean, analytically tractable null model for work fluctuations in finite-dimensional Otto engines. The main practical message is that modeling a highly excited but finite ladder as a harmonic oscillator can substantially overestimate its work reliability at high temperature, and the paper gives a concrete useful-dimension criterion (N z_h >> 1) for when the oscillator description becomes valid. The central benchmark has no fitted constants: R_N is a direct consequence of the TPM distribution and the canonical partition sums, and the noncommuting limits are derived by explicit asymptotic expansions that match the plotted finite-N curves. The cutoff-stabilization table (Table III) is a useful numerical check. The limitations of the TPM/complete-thermalization setting are acknowledged explicitly in Secs. II and X, including the need for DBN-style statistics when coherent or squeezed reservoirs are present. These are scope boundaries rather than internal inconsistencies.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV (discussion after Eq. (26))] The sentence 'As N increases, the work-fluctuation variance grows quadratically, v_N ~ O(N^2), indicating that at high temperatures the reliability R_N is fundamentally suppressed by the increased thermal susceptibility of larger Hilbert spaces' is misleading and appears to contradict the near-uniform expansion in Eq. (33), where R_N ~ (z_l - z_h) sqrt((N^2-1)/24) and therefore grows with N in the window N z_h, N z_l << 1. The correct statement is that R_N vanishes linearly with z_h at fixed N; the N-dependence in the near-uniform regime is increasing. Please revise the wording so that the role of N is stated consistently with Eq. (33).
  2. [Appendix F.5, Eq. (F38)] The normalization in Eq. (88) defines V_N = (a_N + a_N^dagger)/||a_N + a_N^dagger||_2, but the norm ||.||_2 is not specified. For N=2, this matters: if ||.||_2 is the spectral norm, V_2 = sigma_x as used in Eq. (F38); if it is the Hilbert-Schmidt norm, V_2 = sigma_x/sqrt(2). Please state which norm is intended and ensure Eq. (F38) is consistent with Eq. (88).
  3. [Table II] In the 'Incomplete isochores (diagonal)' row, the mean work is written as (lambda_h lambda_l / D_lambda) <W>_reset^N, but the symbol <W>_reset^N is not defined in the main text or the table caption. Please replace it with the explicit expression from Eq. (72), or define it immediately before or in the table.
  4. [Data and code availability] The statement that data and numerical scripts are 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' is a reproducibility limitation. Given that several figures rely on numerical evaluations (Figs. 1-10, Table III), the authors should consider depositing the code and raw data in a public repository.
  5. [Appendix F.5, Eq. (F42)] The abbreviation 'ptp' is used without definition. Please spell out 'peak-to-peak' at first use, e.g. in Eq. (F42) or the surrounding text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central reliability formula and the order-of-limits noncommutation are direct mathematical consequences of the stated TPM/complete-thermalization assumptions, with no fitted input or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (26), is derived by reducing the TPM trajectory distribution (9) to endpoint energy moments: the mean work (24) uses ν_N(z)=−∂_z ln Z_N and the variance (25) uses v_N(z)=∂²_z ln Z_N, so R_N is a direct combination of well-defined partition-function derivatives. The order-of-limits noncommutation (37) is likewise a computed consequence of the explicit finite-N and N→∞ formulas, not an imposed or fitted output. The paper contains no fitted parameter in the benchmark; the extension parameters λ_s, g_N, and κ are explicitly presented as phenomenological or illustrative models (Secs. VII–IX), and the finite-time transition matrices are stated to be protocol inputs, not determined by the framework. The only self-citation is Ref. [49], used in a scope-boundary sentence about coherent/DBN statistics; the central derivation does not rely on it, and the same statement is supported by external refs. [46–48]. The paper also explicitly flags its main limitation—complete thermalization and TPM diagonal endpoint preparations (Sec. II, Sec. X)—which is an honest scope statement rather than a hidden circular step. Therefore no specific reduction of a prediction to an input was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central benchmark is parameter-free in the sense that no number is fitted to data: α is an operating parameter, temperatures and level spacing are physical inputs, N is the Hilbert-space dimension. The extensions introduce illustrative free parameters (λ, g_N, κ) but they are clearly labeled as model choices. No new physical entities, fields, or mediators are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • α (common gap scaling factor) = operating parameter, 0 < α < 1; not fitted to data
    Defines the homothetic Otto cycle through E_l = α E_h + χ; it cancels from the complete-reset reliability R_N. It is a control parameter, not a fitted constant.
  • λ_h, λ_l (reset strengths) = 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1; varied in figures
    Phenomenological incomplete-reset parameters in Eq. (68); used to model diagonal athermality. Not fitted from data.
  • g_N (mixing amplitude) = swept, e.g. g/ε_h = 1 in Fig. 11
    Amplitude of the noncommuting term in the illustrative finite-time protocol in Eqs. (89)-(90). Chosen to produce finite-time transitions, not fitted to reproduce an experiment.
  • κ (non-homothety distortion amplitude) = varied in Fig. 9, κ/ϵ ∈ [-0.15, 0.15]
    Coefficient of the quadratic gap distortion δ_n = κϵ[n/(N-1)]² used to illustrate weakly nonhomothetic spectra. A model perturbation, not a fitted parameter.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The two-point-measurement (TPM) work distribution is the correct operational statistics for the cycle, with trajectory weight p_h_n p_l_m and work W = (1−α)(E_h_n − E_h_m).
    Sec. II, Eq. (9). Assumes energy-diagonal endpoint states and coherence-erasing isochores; coherent engines would require different statistics (the paper explicitly notes this).
  • domain assumption After complete thermalization the two endpoint samples n and m are statistically independent.
    Sec. II. This is the basis for variance additivity in Eq. (13) and for the reliability formula Eq. (26).
  • domain assumption Quasistatic adiabatic unitary strokes preserve the energy-level label.
    Sec. II, Eqs. (5)-(6). Finite-time transitions are treated separately in Sec. VIII with transition matrices.
  • standard math Finite-sum identities for the truncated partition function Z_N(z) and its logarithmic derivatives hold.
    Eqs. (20)-(22) and Appendix C; used for ν_N(z) and v_N(z) in the exact ladder formulas.
  • standard math The order of limits z_h→0 and N→∞ can be analyzed separately; both limits exist for the derived expressions.
    Eq. (37) and Fig. 4. This is a mathematical property of the derived formulas, not an externally imposed result.
  • domain assumption Weak nonhomothetic perturbation is valid for |β_l δ_n| ≪ 1 over thermally relevant levels.
    Sec. IX; the paper explicitly restricts the perturbative expansion to this regime and says strong dressing or gap inversion lies outside its range.
  • ad hoc to paper The incomplete isochore map R_s(a|b) = (1−λ_s)δ_ab + λ_s p_s_a is a sufficient phenomenological diagonal channel.
    Eq. (68). Introduced as an illustrative incomplete-reset model; the paper notes it is not a microscopic finite-time thermalization law.
  • ad hoc to paper The nearest-neighbor finite-time protocol Hamiltonians in Eqs. (89)-(90) provide a controlled example of noncommuting strokes.
    Used to produce transition matrices and to demonstrate the jump decomposition. The paper states results are protocol-specific, not universal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-size reliability of homothetic quantum Otto engines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F2QPU5OL

@misc{pith2026260729050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-size reliability of homothetic quantum Otto engines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F2QPU5OL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29050}
}
abstract

Homothetic quantum Otto engines---where all populated energy gaps are rescaled by a common factor---provide a reference model in which the quasistatic stochastic efficiency is trajectory-independent while work remains fluctuating. For arbitrary finite homothetic spectra we derive the two-point-measurement work distribution and reduce the first two work moments to endpoint energy moments. Specializing to a uniformly spaced ladder gives closed finite-$N$ expressions for the full work distribution, mean work, variance, and signal-to-width reliability. This ladder connects the qubit and oscillator limits, reveals a finite-$N$ reliability crossover, and demonstrates that the high-temperature and infinite-dimensional limits do not commute. The noncommutation reflects a bounded-versus-unbounded spectral distinction: at fixed finite $N$ the Gibbs state has a normalizable infinite-temperature limit, whereas the oscillator retains an ever-expanding thermal tail. The exact formulas are used to compare standard mean-output prescriptions with work reliability, showing that maximum mean output and maximum dimensionless reliability select different operating points. The benchmark is extended to incomplete diagonal reset and to finite-time unitary strokes described by transition matrices, with a finite-ladder protocol and a harmonic sudden-switch oscillator benchmark as controlled examples. Weak deviations from exact homothety are treated perturbatively, showing how level-dependent gap distortions reintroduce quasistatic efficiency fluctuations and modify work reliability. Together, these results separate finite-size, incomplete thermalization, finite-time, and weak spectral-distortion contributions to work unreliability in quantum Otto engines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the resulting finite-N crossover. The qubit boundary is strongly fluctuation limited; increasing N opens the upper thermal tail and moves the reliability toward the oscillator value. The tail-distance diagnostic in panel (b) turns this approach into a useful-dimension criterion. The finite work distribution also contains non￾Gaussian information beyond its width. Just as the exact finite-N Massieu potential go… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Non-Gaussian finite-size structure of the TPM work distribution for a uniform homothetic ladder with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Finite- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Noncommuting high-temperature and infinite-dimensional limits of work reliability. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mean-output optimization and work reliabil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Incomplete isochores as diagonal athermality. (a) Work-index distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Finite-time transition anatomy for the nearest-neighbor finite-ladder protocol with homothetic endpoints. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Harmonic sudden-switch oscillator benchmark organized by the nonadiabaticity factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Weak nonhomothetic distortion of the finite ladder, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Finite dimension as an engineering design resource. (a) Smallest ladder dimension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Finite- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Trajectory sums and conditioned efficiency A finite-time trajectory is γ= (n, k, m, j), with probability Πγ =p h nT e k|npl mT c j|m.(F1) The stroke works and heats are We(n, k) =Eh n −E l k, W c(m, j) =El m −E h j ,(F2) Qh(n, j) =Eh n −E h j , Q l(m, k) =El m −E l k.(F3) The total extracted work is Wγ =E h n −E l k +E l m −E h j .(F4) For trajectories wi...

  2. [2]

    Jump decomposition and work variance For a uniform homothetic ladder, Eh n =nϵ h, E l n =αnϵ h, define de =k−n, d c =j−m. The trajectory work can then be written as Wγ ϵh = (1−α)(n−m)−αd e −d c.(F11) Averaging over the trajectory ensemble gives ⟨W⟩=⟨W⟩ ad −ϵ hDjump, Djump =α⟨d e⟩h +⟨d c⟩l,(F12) where ⟨de⟩h = X n,k ph nT e k|n(k−n),(F13) ⟨dc⟩l = X m,j pl m...

  3. [3]

    The drift terms are ⟨de⟩h =p(p h 0 −p h 1 ),⟨d c⟩l =p(p l 0 −p l 1), so ⟨W⟩ N=2 ϵh = (1−α)(p h 1 −p l 1)−p α(ph 0 −p h 1 ) + (pl 0 −p l 1)

    Qubit boundary ForN= 2, a symmetric transition matrix is deter- mined by a single flip probabilityp, T= 1−p p p1−p ! .(F22) For identical expansion and compression matrices, the weighted nonadiabaticity isA=p. The drift terms are ⟨de⟩h =p(p h 0 −p h 1 ),⟨d c⟩l =p(p l 0 −p l 1), so ⟨W⟩ N=2 ϵh = (1−α)(p h 1 −p l 1)−p α(ph 0 −p h 1 ) + (pl 0 −p l 1) . (F23) ...

  4. [4]

    Harmonic sudden switch For the harmonic oscillator, Hω = p2 2 + ω2x2 2 . A sudden switchωh →ω l =αω h produces the transition matrix T ss k|n =|⟨k;ω l|n;ω h⟩|2.(F24) The standard sudden-switch nonadiabaticity factor is Q∗ = ω2 h +ω 2 l 2ωhωl = 1 +α 2 2α .(F25) The conditional mean final level is k|n=Q ∗ n+ 1 2 − 1 2 .(F26) Therefore ⟨W⟩ ss =⟨W⟩ ad −W fric...

  5. [5]

    Therefore a sudden gap rescaling alone givesT k|n =δ kn

    Auxiliary noncommuting-endpoint check A sudden gap change of the strict uniform homothetic ladder is commuting:Hh =ϵ hnN andH l =αϵ hnN share the same eigenvectors. Therefore a sudden gap rescaling alone givesT k|n =δ kn. Nontrivial sudden-switch transi- tions in a finite ladder require noncommuting endpoint Hamiltonians. One such auxiliary check uses H (...

  6. [6]

    H.E.D.ScovilandE.O.Schulz-DuBois,PhysicalReview Letters2, 262 (1959)

    1959

  7. [7]

    Alicki, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral12, L103 (1979)

    R. Alicki, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral12, L103 (1979)

    1979

  8. [8]

    Kosloff, The Journal of Chemical Physics80, 1625 (1984)

    R. Kosloff, The Journal of Chemical Physics80, 1625 (1984)

    1984

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    T. D. Kieu, Physical Review Letters93, 140403 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    H. T. Quan, P. Zhang, and C. P. Sun, Physical Review E72, 056110 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    H. T. Quan, Y.-x. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Physical Review E76, 031105 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Kosloff, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

    R. Kosloff, Entropy15, 2100 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. del Rio, and P. Skrzypczyk, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 143001 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Contemporary Physics 57, 545 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynamics: An Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Quantum In- formation(Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    L. M. Cangemi, C. Bhadra, and A. Levy, Physics Reports 1087, 1 (2024), arXiv:2302.00726 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Rezek and R

    Y. Rezek and R. Kosloff, New Journal of Physics8, 83 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Kosloff and Y

    R. Kosloff and Y. Rezek, Entropy19, 136 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    O. Abah, J. Roßnagel, G. Jacob, S. Deffner, F. Schmidt- Kaler, K. Singer, and E. Lutz, Physical Review Letters 109, 203006 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Roßnagel, S

    J. Roßnagel, S. T. Dawkins, K. N. Tolazzi, O. Abah, E. Lutz, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and K. Singer, Science352, 325 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    J. P. S. Peterson, T. B. Batalhão, M. Herrera, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Physical Review Letters123, 240601 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Klatzow, J

    J. Klatzow, J. N. Becker, P. M. Ledingham, C. Weinzetl, K. T. Kaczmarek, D. J. Saunders, J. Nunn, I. A. Walm- sley, R. Uzdin, and E. Poem, Physical Review Letters 122, 110601 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    K. Ono, S. N. Shevchenko, T. Mori, S. Moriyama, and F. Nori, Physical Review Letters125, 166802 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Bouton, J

    Q. Bouton, J. Nettersheim, S. Burgardt, D. Adam, E. Lutz, and A. Widera, Nature Communications12, 2063 (2021)

  17. [25]

    Uusnäkki, T

    T. Uusnäkki, T. Mörstedt, W. Teixeira, M. Rasola, and M. Möttönen, Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467- 026-72651-x (2026), advance online publication

    2026 doi

  18. [26]

    H.-G. Xu, J. Jin, G. D. M. Neto, and N. G. de Almeida, Phys. Rev. E109, 014122 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    H.-G. Xu, J. Jin, N. G. de Almeida, and G. D. de Moraes Neto, Physical Review B110, 134318 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Jaramillo, M

    J. Jaramillo, M. Beau, and A. del Campo, New Journal of Physics18, 075019 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Talkner, E

    P. Talkner, E. Lutz, and P. Hänggi, Physical Review E 75, 050102(R) (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Esposito, U

    M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 1665 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. Hänggi, and P. Talkner, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics83, 771 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Solinas and S

    P. Solinas and S. Gasparinetti, Physical Review E92, 042150 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Campisi, J

    M. Campisi, J. Pekola, and R. Fazio, New Journal of Physics17, 035012 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    T. B. Batalhão, A. M. Souza, L. Mazzola, R. Auccaise, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, J. Goold, G. De Chiara, M.Paternostro,andR.M.Serra,PhysicalReviewLetters 113, 140601 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Verley, T

    G. Verley, T. Willaert, C. Van den Broeck, and M. Es- posito, Nature Communications5, 4721 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Verley, T

    G. Verley, T. Willaert, C. Van den Broeck, and M. Es- posito, Physical Review E90, 052145 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    T. R. Gingrich, G. M. Rotskoff, S. Vaikuntanathan, and P. L. Geissler, New Journal of Physics16, 102003 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Polettini, G

    M. Polettini, G. Verley, and M. Esposito, Physical Re- view Letters114, 050601 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    A.C.BaratoandU.Seifert,PhysicalReviewLetters114, 158101 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    T. R. Gingrich, J. M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, and J. L. England, Physical Review Letters116, 120601 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    P.PietzonkaandU.Seifert,PhysicalReviewLetters120, 190602 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    H. J. D. Miller, M. H. Mohammady, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and G. Guarnieri, Physical Review Letters126, 210603 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Denzler and E

    T. Denzler and E. Lutz, Physical Review Research2, 032062 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Denzler and E

    T. Denzler and E. Lutz, New Journal of Physics23, 075003 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    G. Jiao, S. Zhu, J. He, Y. Ma, and J. Wang, Physical Review E103, 032130 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Fei, J.-F

    Z. Fei, J.-F. Chen, and Y.-H. Ma, Physical Review A 105, 022609 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    M. F. Anka, T. R. de Oliveira, and D. Jonathan, Physical Review E109, 064129 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Saryal and B

    S. Saryal and B. K. Agarwalla, Physical Review E103, L060103 (2021), arXiv:2104.12173 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Shastri and B

    R. Shastri and B. P. Venkatesh, Physical Review E109, 27 014102 (2024), arXiv:2308.13852 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    McKeever, O

    T. McKeever, O. Diba, and A. Nazir, Physical Review Research7, 033172 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Micadei, G

    K. Micadei, G. T. Landi, and E. Lutz, Physical Review Letters124, 090602 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Micadei, J

    K. Micadei, J. P. S. Peterson, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, G. T. Landi, R. M. Serra, and E. Lutz, Physical Review Letters127, 180603 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    F. L. S. Rodrigues and E. Lutz, Communications Physics 7, 61 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    G. G. Damas, N. G. de Almeida, G. Xianlong, and G. Neto, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.01719 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Singh and O

    S. Singh and O. Abah, arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.05002 (2020), arXiv:2008.05002 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    del Campo, J

    A. del Campo, J. Goold, and M. Paternostro, Scientific Reports4, 6208 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Alecce, F

    A. Alecce, F. Galve, N. Lo Gullo, L. Dell’Anna, F. Plas- tina,andR.Zambrini,NewJournalofPhysics17,075007 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Abah and E

    O. Abah and E. Lutz, Europhysics Letters113, 60002 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    Singh, S

    V. Singh, S. Singh, O. Abah, and Ö. E. Müstecaplıoğlu, Physical Review E106, 024137 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Hoyuelos, M

    M. Hoyuelos, M. A. Di Muro, and P. Giménez, Phys. Rev. E111, 024120 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Scandi and M

    M. Scandi and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Quantum3, 197 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Guarnieri, J

    G. Guarnieri, J. Eisert, and H. J. D. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 070405 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Aiache, S

    Y. Aiache, S. Cavazzoni, A. E. Allati, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, From spectral structure to sensing lim- its in quantum thermometry (2026), arXiv:2606.25933 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Shiraishi, K

    N. Shiraishi, K. Saito, and H. Tasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 190601 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, The Annals of Mathemat- ical Statistics22, 79 (1951)

    1951

  58. [66]

    Zheng and D

    Y. Zheng and D. Poletti, Physical Review E92, 012110 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    Sonkar and R

    S. Sonkar and R. S. Johal, Entropy27, 625 (2025), arXiv:2403.09154 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Campisi and R

    M. Campisi and R. Fazio, Nature Communications7, 11895 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    Holubec and A

    V. Holubec and A. Ryabov, Physical Review E96, 030102(R) (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    Mukherjee and U

    V. Mukherjee and U. Divakaran, European Physical Journal B97, 68 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    von Lindenfels, O

    D. von Lindenfels, O. Gräb, C. T. Schmiegelow, V. Kaushal, J. Schulz, M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, Physical Re- view Letters123, 080602 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Marchegiani, P

    G. Marchegiani, P. Virtanen, F. Giazotto, and M. Camp- isi, Phys. Rev. Appl.6, 054014 (2016)

    2016

  65. [73]

    Manzano, F

    G. Manzano, F. Galve, R. Zambrini, and J. M. R. Par- rondo, Physical Review E93, 052120 (2016)

    2016

  66. [74]

    Klaers, S

    J. Klaers, S. Faelt, A. Imamoglu, and E. Togan, Physical Review X7, 031044 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    Niedenzu, V

    W. Niedenzu, V. Mukherjee, A. Ghosh, A. G. Kofman, and G. Kurizki, Nature Communications9, 165 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    Y. Xiao, D. Liu, J. He, W.-M. Liu, L. L. Yan, and J. Wang, Physical Review Research5, 043185 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.