Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Exchange Fluctuation Theorems for Non-Markovian Baths in Quantum Collisional Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bath memory changes the exchange fluctuation theorem by a correction factor built from stochastic free-energy and mutual-information terms.

desk verdict A promising generalization of the JW exchange fluctuation theorem to non-Markovian collisional baths, but the central derivation has an index-labeling error and a wrong Markovian-limit argument that must be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11488 v1 pith:JCEU6R7J submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Sayan Mondal , Sukrut Mondkar , Ujjwal Sen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords exchangefluctuationtheoremnon-Markovianbathsquantumcollisionalmodelheatstatisticsstochasticfreeenergymutualinformationtwo-pointmeasurementthermodynamics
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 asks how the statistics of heat exchange between two thermal baths change when the baths retain memory of their past interactions. In a quantum collisional model where successive bath auxiliaries collide with each other before the heat-exchanging collision, the authors derive an exchange fluctuation theorem of the form $P(Q)/P_B(-Q) = e^{\Delta\beta Q} C$, with $C$ built from conditional averages of stochastic free-energy changes and stochastic mutual information. When both baths are memoryless, $C=1$ and the standard Jarzynski–Wójcik relation is recovered. For qubit auxiliaries, increasing the intra-bath coupling—and with it the non-Markovianity—decreases the probability ratio, making heat transfer against the temperature gradient relatively more probable. This is a microscopic link between environmental memory and the statistics of heat fluctuation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the steady state $\sigma^{\rm ss}_{AB}$ of the colliding auxiliary pair, combined with the two-point measurement (TPM) protocol applied at each collision step. Memory is generated by intra-bath unitaries $U_{AA}$ and $U_{BB}$ that couple the $(n-1)$-th and $n$-th auxiliaries of each bath before the inter-bath unitary $U_{AB}$; the steady state is the fixed point of the resulting completely positive trace-preserving map. Writing the forward and backward trajectory probabilities in terms of $\sigma^{\rm ss}_{AB}$ and thermal Gibbs factors produces $e^{\Delta\beta Q}C$, where $C$ is a conditional average over trajectories at fixed heat $Q$. The stochastic free energy $f_k = E_k - \beta^{-1}(-\ln q_k)$ captures the athermality of the measured auxiliary states, and the stochastic mutual information $I_{xy}=\ln(q_{xy}/q_x q_y)$ captures their correlations; the Markovian limit is the statement that both vanish.

What would settle it

Evaluate the left- and right-hand sides of Eq. (14) for two qubit baths with $U_{AA}=U_{BB}=I$, using the actual steady-state joint distribution $q^{AB}_{i\alpha}=\langle i\alpha|\sigma^{\rm ss}_{AB}|i\alpha\rangle$ in the two-point-measurement probabilities without imposing thermal marginals; if $P(Q)/P_B(-Q)$ differs from $e^{\Delta\beta Q}$, the Markovian-limit claim $C^{\rm dir}_{\rm M-M}=1$ fails. A direct check is to compute the marginal $\mathrm{Tr}_B[U_{AB}(\gamma_A\otimes\gamma_B)U_{AB}^\dagger]$: if it is not the Gibbs state at $\beta_A$, the free-energy term for a memoryless bath $A$ is not zero.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that bath memory modifies the exchange fluctuation theorem through a trajectory-dependent factor rather than destroying the relation. For direct bath–bath interaction, the forward/backward heat-probability ratio is $P^{\rm dir}(Q)/P^{\rm dir}_B(-Q) = e^{\Delta\beta Q} C^{\rm dir}_{J_A-J_B}$, where the non-Markovian–non-Markovian correction is $C^{\rm dir}_{\rm NM-NM} = [\langle e^{\beta_A \Delta f^q_A} e^{\beta_B \Delta f^q_B} e^{\Delta I^q_{AB}}\rangle_Q]^{-1}$; with only one non-Markovian bath the mutual-information term drops out, and with two Markovian baths $C^{\rm dir}_{\rm M-M}=1$. The probe-mediated version has the same structure but keeps a stochastic free-energy term for the probe that survives even when both baths are Markovian. The correction is therefore a conditional average, at fixed exchanged heat $Q$, of exponentials of stochastic free-energy differences and of the stochastic mutual information accumulated by the auxiliary pair. In the qubit example, the ratio decreases as intra-bath coupling grows, so reverse heat flow becomes relatively more likely.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that when one or both baths are made memoryless, the previously collided auxiliary pair is thermal and uncorrelated, so its stochastic free-energy and mutual-information terms drop out of the correction factor; the model's steady state for that pair does not generally have thermal marginals, so the assumption is doing load-bearing work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For memoryless baths the generalized relation collapses to the standard Jarzynski–Wójcik exchange fluctuation theorem, so the standard result is exactly the $C=1$ special case.
  • The integral form yields the modified second-law bound $\Delta\beta\langle Q\rangle + \langle\ln C\rangle \ge 0$, shifting the usual Clausius inequality by the average logarithm of the correction factor.
  • In the qubit example, increasing the intra-bath coupling lowers $P(Q)/P_B(-Q)$, so bath memory makes heat transfer against the temperature gradient relatively more probable.
  • The probe-mediated protocol keeps a nontrivial correction even when both baths are Markovian, because the probe's non-equilibrium steady state contributes a stochastic free-energy term.
  • The derivation is independent of the specific interaction Hamiltonians, relying only on global energy conservation and the collisional structure, so it applies to both direct and probe-mediated scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The measured ratio $P(Q)/P_B(-Q)$ could be used as an empirical probe of bath memory: a deviation from $e^{\Delta\beta Q}$ constrains the conditional average of stochastic free-energy and mutual-information changes, giving an information-theoretic readout of the auxiliary pair's state.
  • One can conjecture that the modified bound $\Delta\beta\langle Q\rangle + \langle\ln C\rangle \ge 0$ extends beyond collisional models to any heat exchange between correlated reservoirs; if true, it would connect environment memory to entropy-production statistics in a model-independent way.
  • The qubit numerics explore only a parameter regime where $C<1$; mapping when $C>1$ across coupling strengths and temperatures would reveal whether bath memory can also suppress reverse heat flow, a question the paper leaves open.
  • Because $C$ depends on the steady state of the colliding pair, tuning the intra-bath coupling could act as a control knob on the effective thermodynamic force between baths, with possible use in heat diodes or memory-assisted thermal machines.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a generalization of the Jarzynski–Wójcik exchange fluctuation theorem to non-Markovian baths using a quantum collisional model in which intra-bath collisions between successive auxiliary units generate memory. The central claim is a modified fluctuation relation P(Q)/P_B(-Q) = e^{ΔβQ} C, where C is expressed through conditional averages of stochastic free-energy changes and stochastic mutual-information differences of the auxiliary steady states. The authors treat both direct bath–bath interactions and probe-mediated heat exchange, state that the Markovian limit recovers the standard JW-XFT, and support the result with numerical examples using qubit auxiliaries, reporting that increasing bath memory enhances the relative probability of reverse heat transfer.

Significance. If the derivation were correct as written, the paper would provide a useful microscopic bridge between environmental memory and heat-exchange fluctuation statistics, with explicit, computable correction factors. The use of a transparent two-point-measurement protocol and the inclusion of concrete qubit numerics are strengths, as are the explicit formulas for the correction factors and the stated recovery of the standard XFT in the Markovian limit. However, the central derivation contains index-labeling inconsistencies and unjustified Markovian-limit simplifications, so the advertised result is not established in the present form. The core idea is plausible and the issues appear fixable, but the load-bearing formulas need to be rederived and the numerical checks repeated with corrected indices.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eqs. (9)–(12)] The indices of the old and fresh auxiliary units are interchanged in the central derivation. The text states that i_A and μ_B label the nth (fresh) units while m_A and α_B label the (n−1)-th (old) units, but Eq. (9) writes the TPM initial probability as p^{βA}_m p^{βB}_μ q^{AB}_{iα}. Since σ_ss is the state of the old pair, the correct probability is p^{βA}_i p^{βB}_μ q^{AB}_{mα}. Consequently, Eq. (12) should involve Δf^A_{nm}, Δf^B_{ξα}, and ΔI_{nξ,mα}, not Δf^A_{ji}, Δf^B_{ξα}, and ΔI_{jξ,iα}. As written, Eqs. (10)–(12) do not follow from the stated forward and reverse trajectories, and the central XFT derivation is internally inconsistent.
  2. [Sec. III B, Eq. (15); Sec. III C, Eq. (21)] The Markovian-limit formulas are not justified by the text's thermal-state argument. With U_AA = U_BB = I, the old pair before the next collision is σ_ss = U_AB(γ_A ⊗ γ_B)U_AB†, which is generically neither thermal nor product; the correct reason C_dir_M-M = 1 is that the old pair is left unchanged (n = m and ξ = α), so all free-energy and mutual-information differences vanish identically. When only one bath is Markovian, the corresponding old index is fixed but the other is not, and the mutual-information difference ΔI_{mξ,mα} is generically nonzero; the formula C_dir_M-NM in Eq. (15) therefore omits a factor e^{−ΔI_{mξ,mα}}. The analogous issue affects the probe-mediated factors in Eq. (21), where the M–M and M–NM cases omit nonvanishing mutual-information terms involving the probe and the unchanged old subsystem. The derivation must be redone with the corrected indices and the missing terms included unless additional product-structure assumptions are stated and proved.
  3. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A3)–(A5)] The reverse Hamiltonian is defined as ~H(t) = ΘH(t2−t)Θ^{-1} with no minus sign. For a time-reversal-invariant interaction such as H_{+-}, the unitary obtained from the reversed collision sequence is not ΘU†Θ^{-1}: with U = U_AB(U_AA ⊗ U_BB), sequence reversal gives (U_AA ⊗ U_BB)U_AB, while U† = (U_AA† ⊗ U_BB†)U_AB†. The correct time-reversed Hamiltonian is ~H(t) = −ΘH(t2−t)Θ^{-1}; the missing minus sign is load-bearing for the reverse probability in Eq. (11). There is also a sign-convention mismatch between the example in Sec. III B, which uses U_AA = e^{+iκ_A H_AA}, and Appendix A, which uses U_AA = e^{−iκ_A H_AA}; this should be harmonized.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV] The first sentence of the Conclusion contains a typo: 'fluctuation theroem' should be 'fluctuation theorem'.
  2. [Sec. III B, Eq. (14)] The notation Jχ ∈ {NM, M} is never defined; please state explicitly that it denotes whether each bath is Markovian or non-Markovian.
  3. [Sec. III B, Eq. (8)] The Jensen-step leading to Δβ⟨Q⟩ + ⟨ln C⟩ ≥ 0 uses the fact that the conditional averages in C are positive; it would be helpful to state this positivity explicitly.
  4. [Figs. 3 and 4] The captions describe the plotted quantity as the left-hand side of Eq. (14) or Eq. (20), while the dashed line is e^{Δβω}; since the right-hand side is e^{Δβω}C with C ≠ 1 in general, the dashed line is the Markovian prediction rather than the right-hand side using the plotted parameters, and this should be clarified.
  5. [Sec. III B, Eq. (14)] The numerical agreement in Figs. 3 and 4 is reported as a validation of Eq. (14) or Eq. (20), but the plotted equality checks the implemented formulas against the directly computed ratio; because the derivation leading to those formulas has index inconsistencies, the numerics should be repeated after the indices and missing terms are corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the generalized XFT is a TPM detailed-balance identity with C computed from the same trajectory probabilities, though the Markovian-limit reduction rests on an unjustified thermal-state assumption.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a two-point-measurement detailed-balance identity: Eqs. (10)-(12) compute the forward and reverse trajectory probabilities from the same TPM distribution and factor out e^{ΔβQ}, with the remaining factor C expressed as a conditional average of stochastic free-energy and mutual-information exponentials (Eqs. 15-16). No free parameter is fitted to data, and the numerical validation in Figs. 3 and 4 checks both sides of the identity computed from the same probabilities, which is a self-consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The claim that non-Markovianity enhances reverse heat transfer is a model observation, not a fitted parameter, and does not constitute circularity. Self-citations such as Ref. [31] are contextual and not load-bearing. However, there are serious correctness concerns: the index assignments in Eqs. (9)-(12) mix labels of fresh and old auxiliary units (e.g., q_{iα}^{AB} refers to a hybrid A_n-B_{n-1} pair rather than the steady-state pair), and the Markovian-limit statement C_dir_M-M = 1 is asserted using the premise that the old auxiliary pair is thermal and uncorrelated (Sec. III B around Eq. 15), which is not implied by the steady-state condition σ_ss = U_AB(γ_A⊗γ_B)U_AB†. These are internal gaps and potential derivation errors, but they are not circular reductions: the final relation is not defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict, and no result is imported from a self-citation. Therefore the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum fluctuation theorem machinery, the collisional-model structure, and an assumption about the Markovian limit that is not fully justified. No new physical entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen numbers are the coupling strengths in the illustrative qubit example, which are scanned rather than fitted.

free parameters (1)
  • dimensionless coupling strengths kappa_A, kappa_B, g = scanned, not fitted: kappa in [0, 1.4], g in {1.0, 1.2}
    These are parameters of the illustrative qubit example, scanned to vary the degree of non-Markovianity. They are not fitted to any external data and do not enter the general derivation.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Two-point measurement protocol and microreversibility of the time-reversed dynamics
    Used throughout Sec. III and Appendix A to relate forward and reverse trajectory probabilities; this is a standard assumption in quantum fluctuation theorems.
  • domain assumption Global energy conservation of the total collision unitary U = U_AB (U_AA otimes U_BB)
    The derivation requires [U, H_total] = 0, stated in Sec. III B. This is a physical assumption about the collision Hamiltonians.
  • standard math Existence of a fixed point sigma_AB of the CPTP map Lambda
    Invoked after Eq. (5) to justify reaching a steady state. This follows from standard results for CPTP maps on finite-dimensional spaces.
  • ad hoc to paper In the Markovian limit the measured old auxiliary pair is thermal and uncorrelated
    Required for C_M-M = 1 and the M-NM formulas in Eq. (15). This is not justified by the dynamics when U_AA = I, and is the weakest premise of the derivation.
  • domain assumption Time-reversal invariance of the Hamiltonians H_AA, H_BB, H_AB and the probe interactions
    Used in Appendix A to write the backward evolution as Theta U^dagger Theta^{-1}. This holds for the explicit qubit Hamiltonians but is not discussed as a general requirement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exchange Fluctuation Theorems for Non-Markovian Baths in Quantum Collisional Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JCEU6R7J

@misc{pith2026260811488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exchange Fluctuation Theorems for Non-Markovian Baths in Quantum Collisional Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JCEU6R7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11488}
}
read the original abstract

The quantum exchange fluctuation theorem relates the probabilities of observing heat transfer along and against the temperature gradient between thermal baths at different temperatures. We investigate how this relation generalizes when the baths exhibit non-Markovian dynamics. Using a microscopic collisional model, bath memory is generated through interactions between successive bath auxiliaries before each heat-exchange collision. We derive exchange fluctuation theorems for both direct bath-bath interactions and probe-mediated heat exchange in the steady-state regime. As an illustrative example, we consider heat baths with qubit auxiliaries and show that non-Markovian memory enhances the probability of heat-transfer events against the temperature gradient, modifying the predictions made by the conventional Jarzynski-W\'ojcik exchange fluctuation theorem. Our results establish a microscopic connection between environmental memory and non-equilibrium heat-exchange statistics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11488 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the setup. (a) Collisional model describing heat exchange between two baths A and B. The red (blue) circles denote auxiliary units of bath A (B), each initially prepared in a Gibbs state at the corresponding bath temperature. Before the nth inter-bath collision, the neighboring auxiliaries within each bath undergo intra-bath interactions UAA and UBB, generating memory effects. The intra-bath int… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the BLP measure N as a function of the intra￾bath interaction strength κ. The non-Markovianity initially increases with κ, reaches a maximum, and subsequently de￾creases. Owing to the unitary nature of the intra-bath col￾lisions, N is periodic in κ; the figure displays one complete period. Results are shown for two values of the inter-bath cou￾pling: g = 1.0 (blue solid) and g = 1.2 (orange dashed). The analys… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. XFT for direct bath-bath interaction. The left-hand side of Eq. (14) is plotted as a function of the intra-bath coupling strength κ. The bath auxiliaries are qubits with energy splitting ω = 1.0. Results are shown for bath-bath coupling strengths g = 1.0 and g = 1.2, comparing a Markovian and a non-Markovian bath A, while bath B remains non-Markovian. The inverse temperatures are βA = 1.0 and βB = 0.8. The black das… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: XFT for probe-mediated bath-bath interaction. The left-hand side of Eq. (20) is plotted as a function of the intra-bath coupling strength κ. The bath auxiliaries are qubits with energy split￾ting ω = 1.0, and the probe is also taken to be a qubit with the same energy s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gemmer, M

    J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler,Quantum Thermody- namics: Emergence of Thermodynamic Behavior Within Com- posite Quantum Systems(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004). [2]Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental As- pects and New Directions(Springer International Publishing, 2018)

    2004

  2. [3]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynamics, 2053- 2571 (Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2019)

    2019

  3. [4]

    Strasberg,Quantum Stochastic Thermodynamics: F oun- dations and Selected Applications(Oxford University Press, 2022)

    P. Strasberg,Quantum Stochastic Thermodynamics: F oun- dations and Selected Applications(Oxford University Press, 2022)

    2022

  4. [5]

    Seifert,Stochastic Thermodynamics(Cambridge University Press, 2025)

    U. Seifert,Stochastic Thermodynamics(Cambridge University Press, 2025)

    2025

  5. [6]

    Alicki and M

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

    2013

  6. [7]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Colloquium: Quantum batteries, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 031001 (2024)

    2024

  7. [8]

    Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, J

    R. Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen12, L103 (1979)

    1979

  8. [9]

    Kosloff, A quantum mechanical open system as a model of a heat engine, J

    R. Kosloff, A quantum mechanical open system as a model of a heat engine, J. Chem. Phys80, 1625–1631 (1984)

    1984

Show all 88 references
  1. [10]

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

    2007

  2. [11]

    L. M. Cangemi, C. Bhadra, and A. Levy, Quantum engines and refrigerators, Phys. Rep.1087, 1 (2024)

    2024

  3. [12]

    Linden, S

    N. Linden, S. Popescu, and P. Skrzypczyk, How small can ther- mal machines be? the smallest possible refrigerator, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 130401 (2010)

    2010

  4. [13]

    Skrzypczyk, N

    P. Skrzypczyk, N. Brunner, N. Linden, and S. Popescu, The smallest refrigerators can reach maximal efficiency, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor44, 492002 (2011)

    2011

  5. [14]

    Levy and R

    A. Levy and R. Kosloff, Quantum absorption refrigerator, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 070604 (2012)

    2012

  6. [15]

    M. T. Mitchison, Quantum thermal absorption machines: re- frigerators, engines and clocks, Contemporary Physics60, 164 (2019)

    2019

  7. [16]

    Esposito, U

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

    2009

  8. [17]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. H ¨anggi, and P. Talkner, Colloquium: Quantum fluctuation relations: Foundations and applications, Rev. Mod. 10 Phys.83, 771 (2011)

    2011

  9. [18]

    Manzano and R

    G. Manzano and R. Zambrini, Quantum thermodynamics under continuous monitoring: A general framework, A VS Quantum Sci.4, 025302 (2022)

    2022

  10. [19]

    D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, The fluctuation theorem, Ad- vances in Physics51, 1529 (2002)

    2002

  11. [20]

    Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines, Rep

    U. Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines, Rep. Prog. Phys.75, 126001 (2012)

    2012

  12. [21]

    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

  13. [22]

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

    1999

  14. [23]

    Jarzynski and D

    C. Jarzynski and D. K. W ´ojcik, Classical and quantum fluctu- ation theorems for heat exchange, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 230602 (2004)

    2004

  15. [24]

    Kurchan, A quantum fluctuation theorem, arXiv cond- mat/0007360 (2000)

    J. Kurchan, A quantum fluctuation theorem, arXiv cond- mat/0007360 (2000)

    2000

  16. [25]

    Tasaki, Jarzynski relations for quantum systems and some applications, arXiv preprint cond-mat/0009244 (2000)

    H. Tasaki, Jarzynski relations for quantum systems and some applications, arXiv preprint cond-mat/0009244 (2000)

    2000 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Talkner, E

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

    2007

  18. [27]

    Talkner and P

    P. Talkner and P. H ¨anggi, The tasaki–crooks quantum fluctua- tion theorem, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, F569 (2007)

    2007

  19. [28]

    Gherardini, A

    S. Gherardini, A. Belenchia, M. Paternostro, and A. Trom- bettoni, End-point measurement approach to assess quantum coherence in energy fluctuations, Phys. Rev. A104, L050203 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Hern ´andez-G´omez, S

    S. Hern ´andez-G´omez, S. Gherardini, A. Belenchia, A. Trom- bettoni, M. Paternostro, and N. Fabbri, Experimental signature of initial quantum coherence on entropy production, npj Quan- tum Inf.9, 86 (2023)

    2023

  21. [30]

    Gianani, A

    I. Gianani, A. Belenchia, S. Gherardini, V . Berardi, M. Bar- bieri, and M. Paternostro, Diagnostics of quantum-gate coher- ences deteriorated by unitary errors via end-point-measurement statistics, Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 045018 (2023)

    2023

  22. [31]

    Mondkar, S

    S. Mondkar, S. Mondal, and U. Sen, Resource-resolved quan- tum fluctuation theorems in end-point measurement scheme, arXiv:2512.15928 (2025)

    2025

  23. [32]

    Artini, M

    S. Artini, M. Paternostro, and S. Lorenzo, Coherent heat ex- change in a prethermalizing open quantum system, Phys. Rev. A113, 052203 (2026)

    2026

  24. [33]

    Lostaglio, Quantum fluctuation theorems, contextuality, and work quasiprobabilities, Phys

    M. Lostaglio, Quantum fluctuation theorems, contextuality, and work quasiprobabilities, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 040602 (2018)

    2018

  25. [34]

    Kwon and M

    H. Kwon and M. S. Kim, Fluctuation theorems for a quantum channel, Phys. Rev. X9, 031029 (2019)

    2019

  26. [35]

    Levy and M

    A. Levy and M. Lostaglio, Quasiprobability distribution for heat fluctuations in the quantum regime, PRX Quantum1, 010309 (2020)

    2020

  27. [36]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, Current fluctuations in open quantum systems: Bridging the gap between quantum continuous measurements and full counting statistics, PRX Quantum5, 020201 (2024)

    2024

  28. [37]

    H. Li, J. Xie, H. Kwon, Y . Zhao, M. S. Kim, and L. Zhang, Ex- perimental demonstration of generalized quantum fluctuation theorems in the presence of coherence, Sci. Adv.11, eadq6014 (2025)

    2025

  29. [38]

    J. Jae, J. Ryu, and H. Ryu, Operational quasiprobability in quantum thermodynamics: Work extraction by coherence and nonjoint measurability, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013232 (2026)

    2026

  30. [39]

    Micadei, G

    K. Micadei, G. T. Landi, and E. Lutz, Quantum fluctuation the- orems beyond two-point measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090602 (2020)

    2020

  31. [40]

    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, Experimental validation of fully quantum fluctuation theorems using dynamic bayesian networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 180603 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    Akagawa and N

    S. Akagawa and N. Hatano, The exchange fluctuation theorem in quantum mechanics, Prog. Theor. Phys.121, 1157 (2009)

    2009

  33. [42]

    Jevtic, T

    S. Jevtic, T. Rudolph, D. Jennings, Y . Hirono, S. Nakayama, and M. Murao, Exchange fluctuation theorem for correlated quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. E92, 042113 (2015)

    2015

  34. [43]

    Nicolin and D

    L. Nicolin and D. Segal, Quantum fluctuation theorem for heat exchange in the strong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. B84, 161414 (2011)

    2011

  35. [44]

    A. Sone, D. O. Soares-Pinto, and S. Deffner, Exchange fluctu- ation theorems for strongly interacting quantum pumps, A VS Quantum Sci.5, 032001 (2023)

    2023

  36. [45]

    Wu and J.-H

    W. Wu and J.-H. An, Generalized quantum fluctuation theorem for energy exchange, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 050401 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    Manzano, F

    G. Manzano, F. Galve, R. Zambrini, and J. M. R. Parrondo, Entropy production and thermodynamic power of the squeezed thermal reservoir, Phys. Rev. E93, 052120 (2016)

    2016

  38. [47]

    H. K. Yadalam, B. K. Agarwalla, and U. Harbola, Counting statistics of energy transport across squeezed thermal reser- voirs, Phys. Rev. A105, 062219 (2022)

    2022

  39. [48]

    M. J. Sarmah, A. Bansal, and H. P. Goswami, Nonequilib- rium fluctuations in boson transport through squeezed reser- voirs, Physica A615, 128620 (2023)

    2023

  40. [49]

    M. Li, J. Luo, G. Platero, and G. Engelhardt, Full-counting statistics and quantum information of dispersive readout with a squeezed environment, arXiv:2512.02531 (2025)

    2025

  41. [50]

    Hern ´andez-G´omez, F

    S. Hern ´andez-G´omez, F. Poggiali, P. Cappellaro, F. S. Catal- iotti, A. Trombettoni, N. Fabbri, and S. Gherardini, Energy exchange statistics and fluctuation theorem for nonthermal asymptotic states, Phys. Rev. E111, 014139 (2025)

    2025

  42. [51]

    A. M. Timpanaro, G. Guarnieri, J. Goold, and G. T. Landi, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations from exchange fluctua- tion theorems, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090604 (2019)

    2019

  43. [52]

    Upadhyaya, W

    T. Upadhyaya, W. F. Braasch, G. T. Landi, and N. Y . Halpern, Non-abelian transport distinguishes three usually equivalent no- tions of entropy production, PRX Quantum5, 030355 (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    F. L. Rodrigues and E. Lutz, Far-from-equilibrium thermo- dynamics of non-abelian thermal states, arXiv:2510.04788 (2025)

    2025

  45. [54]

    Scandi and G

    M. Scandi and G. Manzano, Universal statistics of charge ex- changes in non-abelian quantum transport, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 150403 (2026)

    2026

  46. [55]

    Mazzola, S

    L. Mazzola, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, K.-A. Suominen, and B. M. Garraway, Sudden death and sudden birth of entanglement in common structured reservoirs, Phys. Rev. A79, 042302 (2009)

    2009

  47. [56]

    Sampaio, S

    R. Sampaio, S. Suomela, R. Schmidt, and T. Ala-Nissila, Quan- tifying non-markovianity due to driving and a finite-size envi- ronment in an open quantum system, Phys. Rev. A95, 022120 (2017)

    2017

  48. [57]

    de Vega and D

    I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Dynamics of non-markovian open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015001 (2017)

    2017

  49. [58]

    Lorenzo, F

    S. Lorenzo, F. Plastina, and M. Paternostro, Role of environ- mental correlations in the non-markovian dynamics of a spin system, Phys. Rev. A84, 032124 (2011)

    2011

  50. [59]

    Ciccarello, S

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V . Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from re- peated interactions, Phys. Rep.954, 1 (2022)

    2022

  51. [60]

    Lacroix, D

    T. Lacroix, D. Cilluffo, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Making quantum collision models exact, Commun. Phys.8, 268 (2025)

    2025

  52. [61]

    Ciccarello, G

    F. Ciccarello, G. M. Palma, and V . Giovannetti, Collision- model-based approach to non-markovian quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. A87, 040103(R) (2013). 11

    2013

  53. [62]

    Andrieux, P

    D. Andrieux, P. Gaspard, T. Monnai, and S. Tasaki, The fluc- tuation theorem for currents in open quantum systems, New J. Phys.11, 043014 (2009)

    2009

  54. [63]

    Denzler and E

    T. Denzler and E. Lutz, Heat distribution of a quantum har- monic oscillator, Phys. Rev. E98, 052106 (2018)

    2018

  55. [64]

    Pei, J.-F

    J.-H. Pei, J.-F. Chen, and H. T. Quan, Exploring quasiprobabil- ity approaches to quantum work in the presence of initial coher- ence: Advantages of the margenau-hill distribution, Phys. Rev. E108, 054109 (2023)

    2023

  56. [65]

    Gomez-Marin and J

    A. Gomez-Marin and J. M. Sancho, Heat fluctuations in brow- nian transducers, Phys. Rev. E73, 045101 (2006)

    2006

  57. [66]

    Lameche and A

    M. Lameche and A. Naert, Statistical properties of the heat flux between two nonequilibrium steady-state thermostats, Phys. Rev. E103, 042143 (2021)

    2021

  58. [67]

    A. R. Usha Devi, Sudha, A. K. Rajagopal, and A. M. Jayan- navar, Heat exchange and fluctuation in gaussian thermal states in the quantum realm, J. Stat. Mech.2021, 023209 (2021)

    2021

  59. [68]

    Wei, Fluctuation relations for heat exchange in the gener- alized gibbs ensemble, Front

    B.-B. Wei, Fluctuation relations for heat exchange in the gener- alized gibbs ensemble, Front. Phys.13, 130510 (2018)

    2018

  60. [69]

    Manzano, J

    G. Manzano, J. M. Parrondo, and G. T. Landi, Non-abelian quantum transport and thermosqueezing effects, PRX Quantum 3, 010304 (2022)

    2022

  61. [70]

    Hasegawa and T

    Y . Hasegawa and T. Van Vu, Fluctuation theorem uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 110602 (2019)

    2019

  62. [71]

    D. S. P. Salazar, Matrix thermodynamic uncertainty relation for non-abelian charge transport, arXiv:2512.24956 (2025)

    2025

  63. [72]

    Guan and J

    R. Guan and J. Liu, Anomalous flow in correlated quantum sys- tems: No-go result and multiple-charge scenario, Phys. Rev. A 112, 022220 (2025)

    2025

  64. [73]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Measure for the degree of non-markovian behavior of quantum processes in open sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  65. [74]

    Laine, J

    E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and H.-P. Breuer, Measure for the non- markovianity of quantum processes, Phys. Rev. A81, 062115 (2010)

    2010

  66. [75]

    McCloskey and M

    R. McCloskey and M. Paternostro, Non-markovianity and system-environment correlations in a microscopic collision model, Phys. Rev. A89, 052120 (2014)

    2014

  67. [76]

    H. T. S ¸enyas ¸a, S ¸. Kesgin, G. Karpat, and B. C ¸ akmak, En- tropy production in non-markovian collision models: Informa- tion backflow vs. system-environment correlations, Entropy24 (2022)

    2022

  68. [77]

    McElvogue, A

    R. McElvogue, A. K. Mitchell, G. T. Landi, and S. Campbell, Nonequilibrium steady states in multibath quantum collision models, Phys. Rev. A113, 022206 (2026)

    2026

  69. [78]

    Santos, A

    J. Santos, A. Timpanaro, and G. Landi, Joint fluctuation theo- rems for sequential heat exchange, Entropy22, 763 (2020)

    2020

  70. [79]

    Schmidt and J

    H.-J. Schmidt and J. Gemmer, Stochastic thermodynamics of a finite quantum system coupled to two heat baths, Entropy25, 504 (2023)

    2023

  71. [80]

    Scarani, M

    V . Scarani, M. Ziman, P.ˇStelmachoviˇc, N. Gisin, and V . Buˇzek, Thermalizing quantum machines: Dissipation and entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. Lett.88(2002)

    2002

  72. [81]

    Ziman, P

    M. Ziman, P. ˇStelmachoviˇc, V . Buˇzek, M. Hillery, V . Scarani, and N. Gisin, Diluting quantum information: An analysis of information transfer in system-reservoir interactions, Phys. Rev. A65(2002)

    2002

  73. [82]

    M. M. Wolf, Quantum channels & operations: Guided tour (2012), lecture notes

    2012

  74. [83]

    T. Saha, A. Das, and S. Ghosh, Quantum homogenization in non-markovian collisional model, New J. Phys.26, 023011 (2024)

    2024

  75. [84]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Entropy production as correlation between system and reservoir, New J. Phys.12, 013013 (2010)

    2010

  76. [85]

    Strasberg and M

    P. Strasberg and M. Esposito, Non-markovianity and negative entropy production rates, Phys. Rev. E99, 012120 (2019)

    2019

  77. [86]

    Jiang, Y .-M

    K.-X. Jiang, Y .-M. Li, and H. Fan, Improved landauer’s princi- ple and generalized second law of thermodynamics with initial correlations and non-equilibrium surrounding environments, arXiv:1803.06125 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  78. [87]

    M. N. Bera, A. Riera, M. Lewenstein, and A. Winter, Gener- alized laws of thermodynamics in the presence of correlations, Nat. Commun.8, 2180 (2017)

    2017

  79. [88]

    Mondal, A

    S. Mondal, A. Bhattacharyya, A. Ghoshal, and U. Sen, Mod- ified landauer’s principle: How much can the maxwell’s de- mon gain by using general system-environment quantum state?, arXiv:2309.09678 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  80. [89]

    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, Nat. Phys.21, 1326 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.