Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Catalytic Stabilization of Ergotropy and Backflow Suppression in Open Many-Body Quantum Batteries

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dissipative catalyst placed between a charger and a many-spin quantum battery suppresses coherent energy backflow and raises the asymptotic stored work above the unassisted peaks.

desk verdict Novel battery-charging protocol with plausible numerics, but the mechanism section has quantitative errors and the lossless-battery assumption is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10032 v1 pith:6YJBDS5S submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph

Liang Luo , Shun-Cai Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81S2281P4581V80 PACS 03.65.Yz03.67.-a
keywords quantumbatteryergotropycatalysisenergybackflowLindbladmasterequationcollectivespinopensystemscoherencedamping
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 inserting an off-resonant, lossy auxiliary mode—a catalyst—between a laser-driven charger and a collective spin-array battery eliminates the coherent energy backflow that plagues direct charger-battery coupling. In numerical solutions of the Lindblad master equation, the catalyst keeps its own energy fixed while suppressing transient oscillations, accelerating energy injection, and driving the battery to a steady state whose extractable work (ergotropy) exceeds the transient peaks of the catalyst-free setup. The advantage grows with battery size $N_B$, and the authors argue the mechanism transfers cleanly to superconducting transmon or cavity-QED hardware. If correct, the scheme offers a practical route to stable quantum energy storage without taxing the environment's ability to dissipate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the off-resonant, dissipative catalyst: a two-level (or bosonic) mode coupled symmetrically to charger and battery with strength $J_1$, detuned from the drive by $\Delta_c = \omega_c - \omega_f = -0.9\omega$, and decaying at rate $\gamma_c = 0.1\omega$. Under the dispersive condition $|\Delta_c| \gg \{J_1, F, \gamma_c\}$, real excitations of the catalyst are suppressed ($P^C_{ee} \sim 10^{-2}$), and adiabatic elimination produces an effective complex coupling $J_{\text{eff}} = J_1^2/(\Delta_c + i\gamma_c/2)$ acting on the A–B subspace. The real part $J_1^2\Delta_c/(\Delta_c^2 + \gamma_c^2/4)$ shifts the exchange rate into the overdamped regime, while the imaginary part $-J_1^2\gamma_c/2/(\Delta_c^2+\gamma_c^2/4)$ acts as a non-Hermitian coherence damper on transition coherences $\langle \hat{\sigma}^A_+ \hat{\sigma}^B_-\rangle$ and $\langle \hat{\sigma}^B_+ \hat{\sigma}^C_-\rangle$. This dual effect suppresses backflow oscillations in the heat current $J'_B(t)$ without depleting the battery's diagonal inversion.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the same Lindblad master equation with a small but nonzero decay rate $\gamma_b$ on each battery spin (e.g., $\gamma_b = 0.01\omega$) for $N_B = 5$, $N_A = 6$, and check whether $W'_B(\infty)$ still exceeds the unassisted transient peak $W_B^{\max}$; if not, the storage-stability claim fails. Alternatively, measure the excited-state population of the catalytic mode $P^C_{ee}$ in a transmon experiment: if it rises above the predicted $O(10^{-2})$ bound, the catalyst is no longer energy-neutral and the advantage would come from auxiliary energy injection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that catalytic mediation converts energy that would otherwise be lost during backflow cycles into stably stored extractable work, so the asymptotic steady-state ergotropy $W'_B(\infty)$ of the catalytic architecture rises above the transient peaks of the unassisted bipartite architecture across all simulated charger and battery sizes ($N_A = 3$–$6$, $N_B = 3$–$5$). Microscopically, the catalyst is a mode detuned from the drive by $\Delta_c = -0.9\omega$ that remains energy-neutral, $\langle H_C(t)\rangle \approx \langle H_C(0)\rangle$, with negligible population throughout the evolution. Adiabatic elimination of the catalyst yields an effective complex inter-subsystem coupling $J_{\text{eff}} = J_1^2/(\Delta_c + i\gamma_c/2)$ whose real part renormalizes the exchange rate below the dissipation threshold (underdamped-to-overdamped crossover) and whose imaginary part selectively damps transition coherences without draining diagonal population from the battery. The outcome is a locked population inversion in the battery and a monotonic approach to a high-ergotropy stationary state.

Load-bearing premise

The battery is assumed to be an ideal storage cavity with negligible losses; all dissipation sits on the charger and the catalyst, and if real battery decoherence is included the claimed steady-state ergotropy advantage may disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Catalytic mediation converts the battery's time-dependent ergotropy from oscillatory peaks into a monotone approach to a stable plateau, so the stored work at long times exceeds the best transient value in the unassisted setup.
  • The steady-state ergotropy advantage grows with battery size $N_B$, meaning larger spin arrays benefit more from the catalytic channel.
  • Because the catalyst stays near its ground state with $\langle H_C(t)\rangle \approx \langle H_C(0)\rangle$, the protocol avoids the energy-injection ambiguity of correlated catalytic charging schemes.
  • Mapping the catalyst to a microwave cavity or flux-tunable transmon gives concrete hardware parameters (e.g., $J_1/2\pi = 1.5$ GHz, $\Delta_c/2\pi = -4.5$ GHz) for implementation in superconducting circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is that any dissipative mediator with large detuning and finite decay rate can act as a coherence damper for energy transfer, suggesting a general design rule for stabilizing other quantum transport or thermal-machine tasks, not just batteries.
  • The paper's central comparison assumes a lossless battery; if internal battery dissipation at rate $\gamma_b$ is added, the catalytic advantage in $W'_B(\infty)$ is likely to shrink and the favorable scaling with $N_B$ may reverse at some size—an explicitly testable prediction.
  • One could directly probe the imaginary part of $J_{\mathrm{eff}}$ by measuring the oscillation frequency and damping of the A–B coherence in a two-spin or few-spin experiment, checking whether they match the predicted renormalized exchange and coherence-damping rates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a catalyst-mediated charging protocol for a many-body quantum battery, in which an off-resonant, dissipative two-level 'catalyst' is interposed symmetrically between a laser-driven charger and a collective spin-array battery. Open-system Lindblad master equation simulations are used to compare the unassisted and catalytic architectures. The authors report that the catalyst quenches transient energy backflow oscillations, accelerates initial charging, and raises the asymptotic battery ergotropy above the transient peaks of the unassisted case. The proposed microscopic mechanism is an effective complex inter-subsystem coupling J_eff obtained by adiabatic elimination of the catalyst, which is claimed to induce an underdamped-to-overdamped crossover and selective coherence damping. The paper also claims that the catalyst maintains a constant energy expectation value and negligible transient population, and provides an experimental mapping to superconducting circuits.

Significance. If the central numerical observation is robust, the proposal is an interesting and potentially practical route to stabilizing energy storage in open quantum batteries, with a clear parameter mapping to transmon-based hardware. The paper provides direct master-equation simulations for a range of charger and battery sizes, and the effective-coupling analysis is a useful interpretative framework. However, the quantitative support for the microscopic mechanism is currently weakened by an incorrect order-of-magnitude estimate for the catalyst population and by an internally inconsistent damping-regime criterion. The role of the ideal-lossless-battery assumption in the central storage-stability claim also needs to be addressed before the practical significance can be fully assessed. Credit is due for the explicit comparison of ergotropy and heat currents across multiple system sizes, and for the self-contained description of the rotating-frame transformation in Appendix A.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (19)] The claim that Eq. (19) yields P_C^ee ~ O(10^-2) is not supported by the stated parameters. With J1 = 0.3ω, Δc = 0.9ω, and γc = 0.1ω, the bound evaluates to 4·0.09/(0.81 + 0.0025) ≈ 0.44, more than an order of magnitude above the claimed value. Even using the sharper bound |⟨σ_A^-⟩+⟨σ_B^-⟩|^2 ≤ 1 gives ≈ 0.11. The 'negligible transient population' assertion is therefore unsupported by Eq. (19), and the virtual-catalysis mechanism that underlies the paper's central claim is not quantitatively established. Please either correct the bound or directly report the simulated P_C^ee(t) (or the excitation population) to verify that the catalyst population is indeed small.
  2. [Sec. IV.B] There is an inconsistency in the underdamped/overdamped criterion used to explain the backflow suppression. The text first defines the unassisted A–B channel as underdamped because J1 > γa/2, then states that the effective coupling satisfies |Re(J_eff)| ≤ γa and therefore the system transitions to an overdamped regime. Numerically |Re(J_eff)| ≈ 0.1ω while γa/2 = 0.05ω, so |Re(J_eff)| is actually larger than γa/2, meaning the system remains in the underdamped regime according to the paper's own criterion. The crossover claim is thus not established; please clarify the correct threshold and provide the relevant Liouvillian eigenvalue analysis to substantiate the overdamping mechanism.
  3. [Sec. II.A and Sec. VI] The central storage-stability claim rests on the assumption that the battery is an ideal storage cavity with negligible losses. The paper concludes that the catalyst provides 'storage stability' in modern quantum hardware, but any finite battery dissipation γb > 0 will introduce an additional decay channel that could eliminate the asymptotic ergotropy advantage over the unassisted case. Since the lossless-battery assumption is stated explicitly rather than derived, the practical relevance of the steady-state ergotropy enhancement requires a robustness analysis with γb > 0, or a clear statement in the conclusions that the reported advantage applies only to the idealized lossless-battery limit.
  4. [Sec. III, Fig. 4 and Sec. IV.A] The 'energy-invariant conduit' claim is not independently verifiable from the reported data. The text asserts E_C(t) ≈ const and negligible transient population, but it does not specify whether the plotted E_C(t) uses the Eq. (14) definition (with ground-state value -0.05ω) or an offset excitation energy, and it does not report P_C^ee(t). Please clarify the plotted quantity and, ideally, show the time-dependent catalyst excitation population so that the reader can directly check the smallness of the transient occupation that is essential to the catalysis interpretation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Equation (24) is referenced in Secs. II.C and III before it is defined in Sec. IV.C; please renumber or define the ergotropy expression earlier, for example when it is first used.
  2. [Introduction] The introduction refers to 'Section V discusses the underlying energy-transfer mechanism', but the mechanism is actually presented in Section IV, and Section V is the experimental feasibility section. The section numbers in the outline need to be corrected.
  3. [Sec. IV.A] In the sentence following Eq. (19), the values J1 = 0.3ω and Δc = −0.9ω do not yield the stated O(10^-2) upper bound; this numerical inconsistency should be corrected, possibly by recomputing the bound or by changing the reported parameters.
  4. [Fig. 4] The y-axis label 'Energy' should specify the units (e.g., in units of ω) so that the flatness of the catalyst energy curve can be interpreted quantitatively.
  5. [Reference list] Reference [24] contains the corrupted string '/suppress' before the author name 'M. Lobejko'; this should be removed.
  6. [Sec. II.C] The text says 'WB(t) defined in Eq. (24) yields identical numerical values whether evaluated using ρlab(t) or ρrot(t)', which is a useful property, but the notation for the battery Hamiltonian H_B^tot is introduced in Eq. (12) and then reused in Eq. (24) without redefinition; please ensure consistent notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central ergotropy and backflow claims are direct open-system simulations with independent analytic consistency checks, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—catalyst-mediated backflow suppression and increased steady-state ergotropy—are obtained by direct numerical integration of the Lindblad master equation (Eq. 11) with the fixed parameters of Table I. No parameter is fitted to the target ergotropy or heat-current results, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The effective coupling J_eff in Sec. IV.B is derived by second-order adiabatic elimination from the same Hamiltonian, and is used as a post-hoc mechanism narrative and consistency check rather than as independent evidence; this is not circular. The claim that the catalyst maintains ⟨H_C(t)⟩ ≈ ⟨H_C(0)⟩ is a simulated outcome, not imposed by definition: H_C = (ω_c/2)σ_z^C does not commute with the J1 coupling terms in Eq. (10), so constant catalyst energy is nontrivial. Self-citations [10,11,34] appear only in background remarks or for the general notion of energy-neutral catalysts; they are not load-bearing for the derivation. A separate numerical concern exists: Eq. (19) evaluates to about 0.44 for Table I parameters, not O(10^-2), so the "negligible catalyst population" assertion is questionable; however, this is a correctness or verifiability issue, not circularity, and does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard open-quantum-system assumptions plus several hand-chosen parameters in Table I. The most important unstated premise is the initial ground state, and the most fragile physical assumption is the lossless battery. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • J1 = 0.3ω
    Inter-subsystem coupling; chosen large relative to γa and F; sets the effective coupling scale.
  • Δc (catalyst detuning) = -0.9ω (ωc = 0.1ω)
    Chosen to realize the dispersive suppression regime; central to the claimed catalyst behavior.
  • γa = 0.1ω
    Charger dissipation rate; sets the damping threshold used in the crossover argument.
  • γc = 0.1ω
    Catalyst dissipation; produces the imaginary part of J_eff.
  • F = 0.1ω
    Laser drive amplitude; chosen to match realistic driving in Table I.
  • J0 = 0.1ω
    Intra-subsystem exchange coupling; enters the battery Hamiltonian used in the ergotropy calculation.
  • T = 0
    Environment temperature set to zero; nonzero T would add thermal excitations and change the steady-state ergotropy.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with Markovian local reservoirs
    Used throughout to model open-system dynamics; assumes Markovian baths and weak system-bath coupling (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Rotating wave approximation and collective Dicke limit
    Used to derive the time-independent effective Hamiltonians Eqs. (6) and (10) (Sec. II and Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Battery is an ideal lossless storage cavity
    Sec. II.A assumes negligible battery loss; all dissipation is on A and C. This is load-bearing for the steady-state ergotropy claim.
  • domain assumption Environment temperature T = 0
    Table I sets T = 0, so thermal occupations vanish; nonzero temperature would alter the steady state.
  • domain assumption All subsystems initialized in their ground states
    Not stated in Sec. III but implied by Sec. V.B; required to reproduce the transient curves in Figs. 4 and 5.
  • domain assumption Dispersive hierarchy |Δc| >> {J1, F, γc}
    Sec. IV.A uses this to justify adiabatic elimination; with Table I values the hierarchy is only marginally satisfied (0.9ω versus 0.3ω, 0.1ω, 0.1ω).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Catalytic Stabilization of Ergotropy and Backflow Suppression in Open Many-Body Quantum Batteries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YJBDS5S

@misc{pith2026260810032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Catalytic Stabilization of Ergotropy and Backflow Suppression in Open Many-Body Quantum Batteries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YJBDS5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10032}
}
abstract

Coherent energy backflow and non-Markovian oscillations limit energy retention and degrade extractable work (ergotropy) in open many-body quantum batteries. Here, we present a catalyst-mediated charging protocol for a collective spin-array quantum battery coupled to a laser-driven charger. Using the open-system Lindblad master equation, we examine the energy transfer dynamics when both charger and battery are symmetrically coupled to an off-resonant auxiliary catalytic mode. Numerical simulations reveal that while unassisted bipartite setups exhibit pronounced backflow oscillations and poor energy retention, catalytic mediation quenches transient oscillations and accelerates energy injection. The auxiliary system operates as an energy-invariant conduit, maintaining a constant energy expectation value $\langle H_C(t)\rangle \approx \langle H_C(0)\rangle$ and negligible transient population throughout the evolution. Microscopically, virtual excitations of the catalyst generate an effective complex inter-subsystem coupling $J_{\text{eff}}$, which induces an underdamped-to-overdamped dynamical crossover and introduces selective coherence damping. This mechanism prevents population depletion in the battery, stabilizing the population inversion and significantly increasing the asymptotic steady-state ergotropy with increasing battery size $N_B$. These findings clarify the dissipative dynamics of catalyst-mediated energy transfer and provide a practical scheme for improving storage stability in modern quantum hardware platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Conceptual schematic of Quantum Catalysis. Within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of the conventional bipartite quantum bat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic of the catalyst-mediated quantum battery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time evolution of the battery ergotropy and catalyst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Time evolution of the quantum battery heat current wi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Underdamped-to-Overdamped Crossover: The real effective exchange rate is renormalized to | Re(Jeff)| ≈ 0.1ω. Because | Re(Jeff)| ≤ γa, the subsystem interaction transitions from the underdamped oscillatory regime ( J1 > γ a) to an overdamped charging regime, reducing coherent Rabi oscillations

    work page

  2. [2]

    Non-Hermitian Coherence Damping: The imaginary term Im( Jeff) introduces a non- Hermitian damping mechanism targeting tran- sition coherences ⟨ˆσA + ˆσB − ⟩ and ⟨ˆσB + ˆσC −⟩. Because this damping targets off-diagonal phase coherence rather than diagonal populations ⟨ˆσB z ⟩, it quenches backflow oscillations in J ′ B(t) without draining net population from ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Vinjanampathy and J

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

    2016

  4. [4]

    Caravelli, B

    F. Caravelli, B. Yan, L. P. Garc´ ıa-Pintos, and A. Hamma, Quantum 5, 505 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    The coher- ent drive F ˆσA x is implemented using resonant mi- crowave pulses applied to the charger manifold

    Initialization and Driving: The qubits are ini- tialized to their ground states via passive thermal relaxation or active reset protocols. The coher- ent drive F ˆσA x is implemented using resonant mi- crowave pulses applied to the charger manifold

    work page

  6. [6]

    For moderate battery sizes ( NB ≤ 6), full quantum state tomography (QST) using joint read- out lines can directly determine ˆ ρB(t) [ 43]

    Ergotropy Extraction: Evaluating the battery ergotropy WB(t) requires reconstructing the re- duced density matrix ˆ ρB(t) of the NB-qubit bat- tery. For moderate battery sizes ( NB ≤ 6), full quantum state tomography (QST) using joint read- out lines can directly determine ˆ ρB(t) [ 43]. For larger scaling ( NB > 6), partial tomography fo- cused on low-or...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Rotating Frame Transformation of the Hamiltonian For the Hamiltonians of both the uncatalyzed and cat- alyzed cases, the rotating frame transformation can be uniformly applied, with the transformation matrix cho- sen as U (t) = exp[iωf t ( σA z + σB z + σC z ) /2]. (A1) For an arbitrary time-dependent Hamiltonian H(t), it can be transformed into the rotat...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Ri- era, L. d. Rio, and P. Skrzypczyk, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 143001 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Zhao, Z.-R

    S.-C. Zhao, Z.-R. Zhao, and N.-Y. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. E 112, 024129 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Peng, S.-C

    Z.-Y. Peng, S.-C. Zhao*, L. Luo, and N.-Y. Zhuang, Physica A 689, 131462 (2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

    H.-L. Shi, S. Ding, Q.-K. Wan, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 130602 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Hymas, J

    K. Hymas, J. B. Muir, D. Tibben, J. van Em- bden, T. Hirai, C. J. Dunn, D. E. G´ omez, J. A. Hutchison, T. A. Smith, and J. Q. Quach, Light: Science & Applications 15, 168 (2026)

    2026

  6. [14]

    Hotta and K

    M. Hotta and K. Ikeda, Quantum Information Processing 24, 186 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042123 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    W.-L. Yu, Y. Zhang, H. Li, G.-F. Wei, L.-P. Han, F. Tian, and J. Zou, Chinese Physics B 32, 010302 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    D. J. Tibben, E. Della Gaspera, J. van Embden, P. Rei- neck, J. Q. Quach, F. Campaioli, and D. E. G´ omez, PRX Energy 4, 023012 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 030401 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    yields P C ee ∼ O(10−2). This upper bound confirms that population accumulation within C remains negligible, restricting the auxiliary mode to virtual state transitions that mediate interaction without long-time energy storage. B. Effective Complex Coupling and Dissipative Backfl...

  12. [20]

    Juli` a-Farr´ e, T

    S. Juli` a-Farr´ e, T. Salamon, A. Ri- era, M. N. Bera, and M. Lewenstein, Physical Review Research 2, 023113 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    S. Puri, T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, and A. Sen(De), arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2412.00921 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kurman, K

    Y. Kurman, K. Hymas, A. Fe- dorov, W. J. Munro, and J. Quach, Powering quantum computation with quantum batteries (2026), arXiv:2503.23610 [quant-ph]

    2026

  15. [23]

    A. A. Zahia, M. Abd-Rabbou, E. Khalil, and S. Al-Awfi, Journal of Taibah University for Science 19, 2565052 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    yields identical numerical val- ues whether evaluated using ˆρlab(t) or ˆρrot(t). Similarly, for the mediating catalyst, its transient en- ergy occupation is monitored via EC (t) = Tr [ ˆHC ˆρC (t) ] , (14) where ˆρC (t) = Tr AB[ ˆρABC (t)], which is likewise frame- invariant ...

  17. [25]

    Cavaliere, D

    F. Cavaliere, D. Ferraro, M. Carrega, G. Benenti, and M. Sassetti, Quantum advantage bounds for a multipar- tite gaussian battery (2025), 2510.24162

    2025

  18. [26]

    Jonathan and M

    D. Jonathan and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3566 (1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    R. R. Rodr´ ıguez, B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, R. Alicki, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042419 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    D. Qu, X. Zhan, H. Lin, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180301 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Fang and Z.-W

    K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu, One-shot distillation with con- stant overhead using catalysts (2025), 2410.14547v2

    2025

  22. [30]

    Ganardi, T

    R. Ganardi, T. V. Kondra, and A. Streltsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 250201 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    /suppress Lobejko, T

    M. /suppress Lobejko, T. Biswas, P. Mazurek, and M. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 260403 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  25. [33]

    Huang and R

    K. Huang and R. Han, Solid State Physics (Higher Edu- cation Press, 1988) pp. 45–50

    1988

  26. [34]

    Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2000)

    R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2000)

    2000

  27. [35]

    Breuer and F

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

    2007

  28. [36]

    J. M. Z. Choquehuanca, P. A. C. Obando, M. S. Sarandy, and F. M. de Paula, Physical Review A 112, 10.1103/3vt1-m8z2 (2025)

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    Sen and U

    K. Sen and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A 104, L030402 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Alicki, J

    R. Alicki, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 12, L103 (1979)

    1979

  31. [39]

    Boukobza and D

    E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor, Phys. Rev. A 74, 063823 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    S. Oh, J. J. Park, and H. Nha, Entropy 22, 693 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Chaki, A

    P. Chaki, A. Bhattacharyya, K. Sen, and U. Sen, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2409.14153 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Burkard, Phys

    G. Burkard, Phys. Rev. B 71, 144511 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    Sharma and W

    K. Sharma and W. DeGottardi, Phys. Rev. B 112, 165134 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    F. Q. Dou and F. M. Yang, Phys. Rev. A 107, 023725 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Kringhøj, T

    A. Kringhøj, T. W. Larsen, O. Erlandsson, W. Uilhoorn, J. Kroll, M. Hesselberg, R. McNeil, P. Krogstrup, L. Casparis, C. Marcus, and K. Petersson, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 054001 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    M. C. Braidotti, A. Vinante, G. Gasbarri, D. Faccio, and H. Ulbricht, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 140801 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Forn-D´ ıaz, L

    P. Forn-D´ ıaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 080502 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Filipp, P

    S. Filipp, P. Maurer, P. J. Leek, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, J. M. Fink, M. G¨ oppl, L. Stef- fen, J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 200402 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    Zhang, P

    J. Zhang, P. Wang, W. Chen, Z. Cai, M. Qiao, R. Li, Y. Huang, H. Tian, C. Luan, H. Tu, K. Cui, L. Yan, J. Zhang, J. Zhang, M. Yung, and K. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 140403 (2025). 1 Rotating Frame Transformation of the Hamiltonian 11 [45] G. Shavit, B. Horovitz, and M. Goldst...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.