Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Work distribution for strongly coupled many-body open quantum systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Universal power-law threshold governs work distributions after quantum quenches.

desk verdict First non-perturbative full work distribution for strongly coupled impurity models, with independently grounded OC exponents; the main soft spot is the deferred derivation and missing convergence study, but the physics looks right. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11196 v1 pith:FKI4HLMT submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

H. T. M. Nghiem , T. A. Costi , S. Campbell , A. K. Mitchell This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech PACS 05.30.-d05.70.Ln72.15.Qm
keywords quantumworkdistributionAndersonimpuritymodelspin-bosonorthogonalitycatastrophetime-dependentnumericalrenormalizationgroupthermodynamicsstrongcouplingstatistics
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

The paper develops a non-perturbative, numerically exact method for computing the full quantum work distribution function of a strongly coupled many-body open system after a sudden parameter quench, and applies it to two paradigmatic models: the Anderson impurity model and the Ohmic spin-boson model. It claims that at zero temperature the work distribution near its minimum value $W_{\min}$ is a universal power law, $P(W) \sim |W-W_{\min}|^{-\beta}$, whose exponent is fixed by the change in low-energy scattering phase shifts between the initial and final states (the Anderson orthogonality catastrophe). In the Anderson model $\beta = 1 - (n_f - n_i)^2/2$, where $n_i,n_f$ are the total occupations of the impurity level before and after the quench; in the spin-boson model $\beta = 1 - \alpha/2$, where $\alpha$ is the Ohmic dissipation strength. Below an emergent interaction-renormalized scale, the Kondo temperature $T_K$ for the Anderson model and the renormalized tunneling amplitude $\Delta_r$ for the spin-boson model, the distribution collapses onto a universal curve. If correct, this makes the work distribution a direct probe of the impurity renormalization-group flow and opens strongly coupled many-body systems to exact work-statistics calculations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the complete-basis time-dependent numerical renormalization group (TDNRG) representation of the characteristic function $G(u) = \mathrm{Tr}[e^{iuH_f} e^{-iuH_i} \rho_i]$. The bath is logarithmically discretized into a Wilson chain whose couplings decay exponentially; separate NRG runs for the initial and final Hamiltonians produce shell eigenstates, and a complete many-body basis is formed from the discarded states of all iterations. Assuming energy-scale separation, the characteristic function becomes a single sum over Wilson shells, Eq. (4), in which the overlap matrix $S^m_{rq}$ between initial and final eigenbases encodes the quench and the reduced full density matrix encodes the initial thermal weights; Fourier transformation gives the work distribution, Eq. (5). The machinery resolves the power-law threshold over many orders of magnitude because each Wilson shell contributes transitions at its characteristic energy scale, while the phase-shift difference entering through the Friedel sum rule fixes the exponent.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to compute $P(W)$ for the interacting Anderson model with an independent numerically exact method, such as real-time Monte Carlo or a process-tensor calculation, for the same level quenches, and see whether the exponent $1-(n_f-n_i)^2/2$ and the scaling collapse below $T_K$ are reproduced as $U$, $\varepsilon_d$, and the quench size are varied; failure to reproduce the exponent or the collapse would show that the TDNRG result is an artifact of the energy-scale-separation approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the work distribution of a quenched quantum impurity model is governed at low energy by the Anderson orthogonality catastrophe. In the thermodynamic limit at $T=0$, the probability density of work has an edge singularity at the minimum work $W_{\min} = E_0^f - E_0^i$, behaving as $P(W) \sim |W-W_{\min}|^{-\beta}$ for $W \to W_{\min}^+$, with exponent $\beta = 1 - \alpha_{\mathrm{OC}}$ where $\alpha_{\mathrm{OC}} = (\Delta\delta/\pi)^2$ is the orthogonality exponent and $\Delta\delta$ is the change in scattering phase shift. For the Anderson impurity model the Friedel sum rule gives $\Delta\delta = \pi(n_f - n_i)$, hence $\beta = 1 - (n_f - n_i)^2/2$; for the spin-boson model the mapping to the interacting resonant level model gives $\alpha_{\mathrm{OC}} = \alpha/2$, hence $\beta = 1 - \alpha/2$. The power law sets in only below the emergent low-energy scale of the final state, $T_K$ or $\Delta_r$, and the normalized distributions collapse onto a single universal curve in that regime. At finite temperature the distributions satisfy the Crooks relation exactly, and their first and second moments match analytic sum rules.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is a clear separation of energy scales: every NRG state kept at a given step is assigned a shell energy that does not depend on the untouched part of the environment, and if that separation fails for the quenches considered, the predicted power-law threshold would be a numerical artifact rather than the physical work distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full work distribution, not just its first moments, can be computed non-perturbatively for arbitrary quench amplitudes and at zero or finite temperature, directly in the thermodynamic limit.
  • For any quench in the Anderson model, the threshold exponent is set by the occupation change and the same power law appears across mixed-valence and Kondo regimes, with the Kondo temperature $T_K$ controlling where the universal regime begins.
  • For the spin-boson model, the dissipation strength $\alpha$ alone fixes the threshold exponent, while the renormalized tunneling amplitude $\Delta_r$ sets the scale below which the universal power law appears.
  • Below $T_K$ or $\Delta_r$, work distributions for different microscopic parameters collapse onto one universal curve, so the low-energy many-body physics is encoded in a single scale plus the orthogonality exponent.
  • The method extends to other impurity models, to quenches of interaction or system-bath coupling parameters, and, via sequences of quenches, to finite-time driving.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors do not draw is that the same orthogonality-catastrophe mechanism should control x-ray edge singularities in quantum-dot absorption spectra, making the work distribution and the optical spectrum two observable faces of the same infrared-singular response.
  • Near a quantum critical point such as the spin-boson localization transition at $\alpha=1$, the threshold exponent may acquire corrections or a different scaling form; the present study is restricted to the tunneling regime $\alpha<1$, so this is a testable extension.
  • The TDNRG characteristic function can in principle be differentiated to obtain full counting statistics of other conserved quantities such as charge or spin transfer, which would generalize the work-statistics result beyond energy exchange.
  • In finite-size realizations, the orthogonality catastrophe is cut off at a scale set by the inverse system size, so the thermodynamic-limit power law implies observable finite-size rounding of the work edge in qubit-embedding or cold-atom experiments.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the time-dependent numerical renormalization group (TDNRG) method to compute the full quantum work distribution function (WDF) following a sudden quench in two strongly coupled many-body open quantum systems: the Anderson impurity model (AIM) and the Ohmic spin-boson model (SBM). The central results are, at zero temperature, a power-law threshold P(W) ~ |W-W_min|^{-beta} as W approaches W_min, with beta = 1 - (n_f - n_i)^2/2 for the AIM and beta = 1 - alpha/2 for the SBM, and universal scaling collapse below the emergent low-energy scales T_K and Delta_r. At finite temperature, the authors verify the Crooks relation and exact first- and second-moment sum rules. The paper motivates the work as a non-perturbative, thermodynamic-limit treatment of work statistics in strongly correlated impurity models.

Significance. If the threshold exponents and scaling collapse are confirmed, this is a significant advance: it provides the first non-perturbative calculation of the full work distribution for strongly coupled many-body open systems in the thermodynamic limit, and it connects work statistics directly to the impurity renormalization-group flow via the Anderson orthogonality catastrophe. The exponents are not fitted: they are derived from the Friedel sum rule (AIM) and from the bosonization mapping to the interacting resonant level model (SBM), which gives independent grounding for the central predictions. The paper also includes useful internal checks (Crooks relation and exact moment sum rules) and a concrete, falsifiable scaling-collapse prediction. The main caveat is that the numerical evidence for the threshold exponent itself is less complete than the evidence for the global properties of P(W), and the derivation of the central formula is deferred to a companion paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [TDNRG method and End Matter] The central claim that P(W) has a power-law threshold with exponent beta is not supported by a convergence analysis in the threshold region. The manuscript uses a single set of NRG controls (Lambda=4, n_kept=860, eta=1/32, stated in the End Matter), and the validation in Fig. 3 (Crooks relation and first/second moment sum rules) tests global or integral properties of P(W), which are insensitive to the local threshold exponent. Because the smooth WDF is obtained by Gaussian broadening of discrete delta peaks, the apparent power law near W_min can in principle be modified by the broadening, and the agreement with the OC prediction in Figs. 2 and 4 is a consistency check with the same OC physics being claimed rather than an independent calibration. I request a convergence study (varying Lambda, n_kept, and eta, and stating the fitting window in W-W_min) and, if possible, a comparison with the exact noninteracting U=0 WDF for the AIM, for which the threshold exponent is known analytically.
  2. [Eq. (5)] Equation (5), which is the foundation of all numerical results, is not derived in the Letter; the text states that the full derivation is provided in the companion paper Ref. [53], which is not yet available. In particular, the 'exclude all three kept' rule in the primed sum and the way the full-density-matrix reduced sectors are combined with the overlap matrices are nontrivial bookkeeping steps that determine the weight of each Wilson shell. For the Letter to be self-contained and checkable, this derivation (or at least the key identities leading to the primed sum) should be included in a supplemental appendix.
  3. [WDF of the quenched AIM, Fig. 2] The manuscript does not report how the exponent beta is extracted from the numerical curves or how sensitive the extracted value is to the chosen fit range. The data in Fig. 2(d) show normalized curves for many beta values, but there is no quantitative measure of the deviation between the numerical slope and the predicted beta over the claimed scaling window. I ask for a quantitative extraction (for example, the logarithmic derivative of P(W) times (W-W_min)^beta) or a table of fitted exponents with fit ranges, so that the central exponent claim is testable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2(a)] The label 'U = 0Gamma' in Fig. 2(a) is a typographical error; it should read U=0.
  2. [End Matter, Eq. (E.1)] The text immediately after Eq. (E.1) begins with a stray period; the equation and the following sentence should be separated cleanly.
  3. [Footnote 81] The expression 'sqrt(15)/4 approx 1.9' is ambiguous; it should be written as sqrt(15/4) approx 1.94 to match the intended value of n_f.
  4. [Table E.1] Table E.1 contains duplicated rows for the alpha=0.7 entries; these should be removed or clearly marked as repeated rows for different bare parameters.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The x-axis labels in the upper panels of Fig. 3 appear to be mis-set; the independent variable should be W-W_min (in units of Gamma or T_K), not 'T_K Gamma'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted power-law exponents are derived from independent Friedel-sum-rule and IRLM phase-shift arguments, and the TDNRG work distributions contain no fitted physical parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claims do not reduce by construction to their inputs. The AIM threshold exponent beta = 1 - (n_f - n_i)^2/2 follows from the standard Anderson orthogonality exponent alpha_OC = sum_sigma (Delta delta_sigma / pi)^2 combined with the Friedel sum rule delta_sigma = pi n_dsigma, which are independent results not taken from the computed work distribution. The SBM exponent beta = 1 - alpha/2 is derived in the End Matter from IRLM phase shifts delta_i = -delta and delta_f = pi/2, again independently of the WDF data. The TDNRG characteristic function in Eqs. (4)-(5) is derived in the text from the NRG completeness relation, the factorization of overlaps for local quenches, and the energy-scale-separation approximation; the companion paper [53] supplies additional technical detail but does not inject the claimed exponent. No physical parameter is fitted to the WDF: the only numerical settings are the NRG controls Lambda = 4, n_keep = 860, and broadening eta = 1/32. The scaling collapse is demonstrated by normalizing curves by the computed threshold constant and by the equilibrium scales T_K and Delta_r, which is a standard internal consistency test rather than a circular prediction. The validations against the Crooks relation and the first- and second-moment sum rules further anchor the method to independent constraints. The self-citations to Refs. [49-52] and [76] concern established numerical machinery and the known SBM-IRLM mapping, and are not load-bearing in the sense of assuming the target result. The main caveats, namely the deferral of the full derivation to a companion paper and the lack of an explicit convergence analysis for the threshold exponent, are completeness and correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central results rest on the standard NRG approximation, the bosonization mapping, and the Friedel sum rule; the numerical free parameters are standard TDNRG convergence parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • NRG discretization parameter Lambda = 4
    Standard TDNRG parameter controlling logarithmic discretization; not fitted to data.
  • Number of kept states per NRG iteration n_kept = 860
    Truncation parameter chosen for convergence; not a physics parameter.
  • Gaussian broadening constant eta = 1/32
    Used to smooth discrete work values into a continuous distribution; affects the shape near threshold.
  • Per-curve normalization constant c(beta,U) = data-derived per curve
    Used to achieve scaling collapse in Fig. 2(c,d); it is a vertical rescaling of the WDF, not an independent physical parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption NRG energy-scale separation (each complete-basis state has a single shell energy)
    Used to derive Eq. (4)-(5); standard NRG approximation stated after Eq. (2).
  • standard math Completeness of the NRG discarded-state basis
    Equation (2); basis of the TDNRG method from Ref. [49].
  • domain assumption Friedel sum rule delta_sigma = pi n_{d sigma} for the AIM
    Converts the OC exponent into the occupation formula for beta; standard result.
  • standard math Anderson orthogonality exponent alpha_OC = (Delta delta / pi)^2
    Underlies the predicted power-law threshold; from OC theory [65,66].
  • domain assumption Equivalence of the Ohmic spin-boson model to the spinless IRLM
    Used for SBM numerics and for deriving alpha_OC = alpha/2 in End Matter.
  • domain assumption SBM bias quench phase shifts: delta_i = -delta, delta_f = pi/2
    Used in the End Matter derivation of Eq. (E.1); assumes fully occupied initial and half-filled final resonant level.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Work distribution for strongly coupled many-body open quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FKI4HLMT

@misc{pith2026260811196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Work distribution for strongly coupled many-body open quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FKI4HLMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11196}
}
read the original abstract

The non-equilibrium quantum thermodynamics of many-body open systems is notoriously rich, especially in the strong-coupling regime where strong system-bath correlations develop and interactions produce non-perturbative effects. Such systems can be described by `quantum impurity models' where the system and bath are treated on an equal footing as a single composite. Paradigmatic examples are the spin-boson and Anderson impurity models, in which system degrees of freedom interact with either bosonic or fermionic gapless baths. Here we study the quantum work distribution function (WDF) of such systems following a quench. Capturing the full continuum of many-body excitations in the WDF requires a non-perturbative solution of the underlying non-equilibrium quantum impurity problem. For this purpose, we extend the time-dependent numerical renormalization group (TDNRG) approach to the calculation of the WDF, which applies directly in the thermodynamic limit, can be used for arbitrary quench amplitudes at zero or finite temperature, and provides exponentially fine low-energy resolution. Our numerically-exact solution reveals power-law threshold behavior due to the Anderson orthogonality catastrophe when the work approaches its minimum value, with universal scaling collapse of the distribution below an emergent low-energy scale induced by system-bath correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11196 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the systems and quench protocols. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. WDFs for level quenches with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Work distribution for quenches in the SBM. Top panels: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. TDNRG results for the work at finite temperatures for a level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [53]

    H. T. M. Nghiem, T. A. Costi, S. Campbell, and A. K. Mitchell, Work distribution functions of quenched quantum impurity models: time-dependent numerical renormalization group so- lution, Companion paper submitted to PRB (2026)

    work page 2026

  2. [1]

    Gemmer, M

    J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler,Quantum Thermody- namics: Emergence of Thermodynamic Behavior Within Com- posite Quantum Systems(Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009)

    2009

  3. [2]

    Binder, L

    F. Binder, L. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental As- pects and New Directions, Fundamental Theories of Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2019)

    2019

  4. [3]

    G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, Irreversible entropy production: From classical to quantum, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  5. [4]

    Strasberg and A

    P. Strasberg and A. Winter, First and second law of quantum thermodynamics: A consistent derivation based on a micro- scopic definition of entropy, PRX Quantum2, 030202 (2021)

    2021

  6. [5]

    Gherardini and G

    S. Gherardini and G. De Chiara, Quasiprobabilities in quan- tum thermodynamics and many-body systems, PRX Quantum 5, 030201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Talkner, E

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

    2007

  8. [7]

    Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differ- ences, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differ- ences, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2690 (1997)

    1997

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

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

    1999

  2. [9]

    T. B. Batalh ˜ao, A. M. Souza, L. Mazzola, R. Auccaise, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, J. Goold, G. De Chiara, M. Paternostro, and R. M. Serra, Experimental reconstruction of work distri- bution and study of fluctuation relations in a closed quantum system, Physical review le...

    2014

  3. [10]

    Campbell, I

    S. Campbell, I. d’Amico, M. A. Ciampini, J. Anders, N. Ares, S. Artini, A. Auff `eves, L. Bassman Oftelie, L. P. Bettmann, M. V . Bonanc ¸a,et al., Roadmap on quantum thermodynamics, Quantum Science and Technology11, 012501 (2026)

    2026

  4. [11]

    H. J. Miller, M. Scandi, J. Anders, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Work fluctuations in slow processes: Quantum signatures and optimal control, Physical review letters123, 230603 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Sagawa and M

    T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Second law of thermodynamics with discrete quantum feedback control, Physical review letters100, 080403 (2008)

    2008

  6. [13]

    Toyabe, T

    S. Toyabe, T. Sagawa, M. Ueda, E. Muneyuki, and M. Sano, Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conver- sion and validation of the generalized jarzynski equality, Nature physics6, 988 (2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    Masuyama, K

    Y . Masuyama, K. Funo, Y . Murashita, A. Noguchi, S. Kono, Y . Tabuchi, R. Yamazaki, M. Ueda, and Y . Nakamura, Information-to-work conversion by maxwell’s demon in a su- perconducting circuit quantum electrodynamical system, Na- ture communications9, 1291 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Reeb and M

    D. Reeb and M. M. Wolf, An improved landauer principle with finite-size corrections, New Journal of Physics16, 103011 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Aimet, M

    S. Aimet, M. Tajik, G. Tournaire, P. Sch ¨uttelkopf, J. Sabino, S. Sotiriadis, G. Guarnieri, J. Schmiedmayer, and J. Eisert, Ex- perimentally probing landauer’s principle in the quantum many- body regime, Nature Physics21, 1326 (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    de Oliveira Junior, J

    A. de Oliveira Junior, J. B. Brask, and R. Chaves, A friendly guide to exorcising maxwell’s demon, PRX Quantum6, 030201 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    J. P. Peterson, T. B. Batalh ˜ao, M. Herrera, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Experimental charac- terization of a spin quantum heat engine, Physical review letters 123, 240601 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    J. Koch, K. Menon, E. Cuestas, S. Barbosa, E. Lutz, T. Foga- rty, T. Busch, and A. Widera, A quantum engine in the bec–bcs crossover, Nature621, 723 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    M. A. Aamir, P. Jamet Suria, J. A. Mar ´ın Guzm´an, C. Castillo- Moreno, J. M. Epstein, N. Yunger Halpern, and S. Gasparinetti, Thermally driven quantum refrigerator autonomously resets a superconducting qubit, Nature Physics21, 318 (2025)

    2025

  14. [21]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. 7 Andolina, Colloquium: quantum batteries, Reviews of Modern Physics96, 031001 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    J. Q. Quach, K. E. McGhee, L. Ganzer, D. M. Rouse, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, J. Keeling, G. Cerullo, D. G. Lidzey, and T. Virgili, Superabsorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery, Science advances8, eabk3160 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    Silva, Statistics of the work done on a quantum critical sys- tem by quenching a control parameter, Phys

    A. Silva, Statistics of the work done on a quantum critical sys- tem by quenching a control parameter, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 120603 (2008)

    2008

  17. [24]

    Dorner, J

    R. Dorner, J. Goold, C. Cormick, M. Paternostro, and V . Vedral, Emergent thermodynamics in a quenched quantum many-body system, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 160601 (2012)

    2012

  18. [25]

    Chenu, J

    A. Chenu, J. Molina-Vilaplana, and A. Del Campo, Work statis- tics, loschmidt echo and information scrambling in chaotic quantum systems, Quantum3, 127 (2019)

    2019

  19. [26]

    Z. Fei, N. Freitas, V . Cavina, H. T. Quan, and M. Esposito, Work statistics across a quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 170603 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    Z. Ma, A. K. Mitchell, and E. Sela, Quantum work statistics across a critical point: Full crossover from sudden quench to the adiabatic limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 130402 (2025)

    2025

  21. [28]

    Kiely, E

    A. Kiely, E. O’Connor, T. Fogarty, G. T. Landi, and S. Camp- bell, Entropy of the quantum work distribution, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022010 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Santini, A

    A. Santini, A. Solfanelli, S. Gherardini, and M. Collura, Work statistics, quantum signatures, and enhanced work extraction in quadratic fermionic models, Phys. Rev. B108, 104308 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    Zawadzki, R

    K. Zawadzki, R. M. Serra, and I. D’Amico, Work-distribution quantumness and irreversibility when crossing a quantum phase transition in finite time, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033167 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    Zawadzki, A

    K. Zawadzki, A. Kiely, G. T. Landi, and S. Campbell, Non- gaussian work statistics at finite-time driving, Phys. Rev. A107, 012209 (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    Solfanelli and N

    A. Solfanelli and N. Defenu, Universal work statistics in long-range interacting quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 030402 (2025)

    2025

  26. [33]

    Scandi, H

    M. Scandi, H. J. Miller, J. Anders, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Quantum work statistics close to equilibrium, Physical review research2, 023377 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    Macieszczak, K

    K. Macieszczak, K. Brandner, and J. P. Garrahan, Unified ther- modynamic uncertainty relations in linear response, Physical review letters121, 130601 (2018)

    2018

  28. [35]

    Esposito, M

    M. Esposito, M. A. Ochoa, and M. Galperin, Quantum thermo- dynamics: A nonequilibrium green’s function approach, Physi- cal review letters114, 080602 (2015)

    2015

  29. [36]

    Bruch, M

    A. Bruch, M. Thomas, S. Viola Kusminskiy, F. V on Oppen, and A. Nitzan, Quantum thermodynamics of the driven reso- nant level model, Physical Review B93, 115318 (2016)

    2016

  30. [37]

    Noman, S

    M. Noman, S. Zangi, S. Haddadi,et al., Orthogonality edges in strong-coupling quantum work statistics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.03950 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  31. [38]

    J. P. Pekola, S. Suomela, and Y . M. Galperin, Finite-size bath in qubit thermodynamics, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 184, 1015 (2016)

    2016

  32. [39]

    Riera-Campeny, A

    A. Riera-Campeny, A. Sanpera, and P. Strasberg, Quantum sys- tems correlated with a finite bath: Nonequilibrium dynamics and thermodynamics, PRX Quantum2, 010340 (2021)

    2021

  33. [40]

    A. M. Lacerda, A. Purkayastha, M. Kewming, G. T. Landi, and J. Goold, Quantum thermodynamics with fast driving and strong coupling via the mesoscopic leads approach, Physical Review B107, 195117 (2023)

    2023

  34. [41]

    F. W. J. Hekking and J. P. Pekola, Quantum jump approach for work and dissipation in a two-level system, Physical Review Letters111, 093602 (2013)

    2013

  35. [42]

    Silaev, T

    M. Silaev, T. T. Heikkil ¨a, and P. Virtanen, Lindblad-equation approach for the full counting statistics of work and heat in driven quantum systems, Physical Review E90, 022103 (2014)

    2014

  36. [43]

    Strasberg, G

    P. Strasberg, G. Schaller, N. Lambert, and T. Brandes, Nonequi- librium thermodynamics in the strong coupling and non- markovian regime based on a reaction coordinate mapping, New Journal of Physics18, 073007 (2016)

    2016

  37. [44]

    A. C. Hewson,The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  38. [45]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 1 (1987)

    1987

  39. [46]

    H. R. Krishna-murthy, J. W. Wilkins, and K. G. Wilson, Renormalization-group approach to the anderson model of di- lute magnetic alloys. i. static properties for the symmetric case, Phys. Rev. B21, 1003 (1980)

    1980

  40. [47]

    Affleck and A

    I. Affleck and A. W. Ludwig, The kondo effect, conformal field theory and fusion rules, Nuclear Physics B352, 849 (1991)

    1991

  41. [48]

    Bulla, T

    R. Bulla, T. A. Costi, and T. Pruschke, Numerical renormaliza- tion group method for quantum impurity systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 395 (2008)

    2008

  42. [49]

    F. B. Anders and A. Schiller, Real-time dynamics in quantum-impurity systems: A time-dependent numerical renormalization-group approach, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 196801 (2005)

    2005

  43. [50]

    F. B. Anders and A. Schiller, Spin precession and real- time dynamics in the kondo model:time-dependent numerical renormalization-group study, Phys. Rev. B74, 245113 (2006)

    2006

  44. [51]

    H. T. M. Nghiem and T. A. Costi, Generalization of the time- dependent numerical renormalization group method to finite temperatures and general pulses, Phys. Rev. B89, 075118 (2014)

    2014

  45. [52]

    H. T. M. Nghiem and T. A. Costi, Time-dependent numerical renormalization group method for multiple quenches: Applica- tion to general pulses and periodic driving, Phys. Rev. B90, 035129 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Lotem, M

    M. Lotem, M. Sonner, V . Link, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Multibath influence matrices: Universal scaling from real-time dynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.16411 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  47. [55]

    H. E. T ¨ureci, M. Hanl, M. Claassen, A. Weichsel- baum, T. Hecht, B. Braunecker, A. Govorov, L. Glazman, A. Imamoglu, and J. von Delft, Many-body dynamics of ex- citon creation in a quantum dot by optical absorption: A quan- tum quench towards kondo correlations, Phys. Rev. L...

    2011

  48. [56]

    Kasztelan, S

    C. Kasztelan, S. Trotzky, Y .-A. Chen, I. Bloch, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollw¨ock, and G. Orso, Landau-zener sweeps and sudden quenches in coupled bose-hubbard chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 155302 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    Heyl and S

    M. Heyl and S. Kehrein, Crooks relation in optical spectra: Uni- versality in work distributions for weak local quenches, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 190601 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    E. G. Dalla Torre, E. Demler, and A. Polkovnikov, Universal rephasing dynamics after a quantum quench via sudden cou- pling of two initially independent condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 090404 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Marino and A

    J. Marino and A. Silva, Nonequilibrium dynamics of a noisy quantum ising chain: Statistics of work and prethermalization after a sudden quench of the transverse field, Phys. Rev. B89, 024303 (2014). 8

    2014

  52. [60]

    Campbell, Criticality revealed through quench dynamics in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys

    S. Campbell, Criticality revealed through quench dynamics in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. B94, 184403 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Łobejko, J

    M. Łobejko, J. Łuczka, and P. Talkner, Work distributions for random sudden quantum quenches, Phys. Rev. E95, 052137 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner,et al., Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Mishra, H

    U. Mishra, H. Cheraghi, S. Mahdavifar, R. Jafari, and A. Ak- bari, Dynamical quantum correlations after sudden quenches, Phys. Rev. A98, 052338 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Davoudi, C

    Z. Davoudi, C. Jarzynski, N. Mueller, G. Oruganti, C. Powers, and N. Y . Halpern, Work and heat exchanged during sudden quenches of strongly coupled quantum systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19418 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    P. W. Anderson, Infrared catastrophe in fermi gases with local scattering potentials, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 1049 (1967)

    1967

  58. [66]

    Nozi `eres and C

    P. Nozi `eres and C. T. de Dominicis, Singularities in the x-ray absorption and emission of metals. iii. one-body theory exact solution, Phys. Rev.178, 1097 (1969)

    1969

  59. [67]

    Goold, T

    J. Goold, T. Fogarty, N. Lo Gullo, M. Paternostro, and T. Busch, Orthogonality catastrophe as a consequence of qubit embedding in an ultracold fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A84, 063632 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Heyl and S

    M. Heyl and S. Kehrein, X-ray edge singularity in optical spec- tra of quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B85, 155413 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Sindona, J

    A. Sindona, J. Goold, N. Lo Gullo, S. Lorenzo, and F. Plas- tina, Orthogonality catastrophe and decoherence in a trapped- fermion environment, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 165303 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    Fogarty, S

    T. Fogarty, S. Deffner, T. Busch, and S. Campbell, Orthogonal- ity catastrophe as a consequence of the quantum speed limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 110601 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    P. W. Anderson, Localized magnetic states in metals, Phys. Rev. 124, 41 (1961)

    1961

  64. [72]

    S.-S. Lee, J. Park, and H.-S. Sim, Macroscopic quantum entan- glement of a kondo cloud at finite temperature, Physical Review Letters114, 057203 (2015)

    2015

  65. [73]

    Goldhaber-Gordon, H

    D. Goldhaber-Gordon, H. Shtrikman, D. Mahalu, D. Abusch- Magder, U. Meirav, and M. Kastner, Kondo effect in a single- electron transistor, Nature391, 156 (1998)

    1998

  66. [74]

    S. M. Cronenwett, T. H. Oosterkamp, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, A tunable kondo effect in quantum dots, Science281, 540 (1998)

    1998

  67. [75]

    Guinea, V

    F. Guinea, V . Hakim, and A. Muramatsu, Bosonization of a two- level system with dissipation, Phys. Rev. B32, 4410 (1985)

    1985

  68. [76]

    H. T. M. Nghiem, D. M. Kennes, C. Kl ¨ockner, V . Meden, and T. A. Costi, Ohmic two-state system from the perspective of the interacting resonant level model: Thermodynamics and tran- sient dynamics, Phys. Rev. B93, 165130 (2016)

    2016

  69. [77]

    Weichselbaum and J

    A. Weichselbaum and J. von Delft, Sum-rule conserving spec- tral functions from the numerical renormalization group, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 076402 (2007)

    2007

  70. [78]

    T. A. Costi, P. Schmitteckert, J. Kroha, and P. W ¨olfle, Numer- ical renormalization group study of pseudo-fermion and slave- boson spectral functions in the single impurity anderson model, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 1275 (1994)

    1994

  71. [79]

    T. A. Costi, J. Kroha, and P. W ¨olfle, Spectral properties of the anderson impurity model: Comparison of numerical- renormalization-group and noncrossing-approximation results, Phys. Rev. B53, 1850 (1996)

    1996

  72. [80]

    R. W. Helmes, M. Sindel, L. Borda, and J. von Delft, Absorp- tion and emission in quantum dots: Fermi surface effects of anderson excitons, Phys. Rev. B72, 125301 (2005). [81]T K = Γin the mixed valence regimesβ=7/8,0 withn f = 1/2, √ 2≈1.4 andT K =ε f in the full orbital regi...

    2005

  73. [82]

    Zhao, J.-J

    Q.-X. Zhao, J.-J. Dong, and Z.-X. Hu, Monte carlo approach to quantum work in strongly correlated electron systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16758 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Popovic, M

    M. Popovic, M. T. Mitchison, A. Strathearn, B. W. Lovett, J. Goold, and P. R. Eastham, Quantum heat statistics with time- evolving matrix product operators, PRX Quantum2, 020338 (2021)

    2021

  75. [84]

    Shubrook, M

    M. Shubrook, M. Cygorek, E. Gauger, J. Iles-Smith, and A. Nazir, Numerically exact open quantum system work statis- tics with process tensors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16823 (2025)

    2025

  76. [85]

    J ¨ulich Supercomputing Centre, JURECA: Data Centric and Booster Modules implementing the Modular Supercomputing Architecture at J¨ulich Supercomputing Centre, Journal of large- scale research facilities7, 10.17815/jlsrf-7-182 (2021)

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.