Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Optimal sensing time decouples from Liouvillian gap

2026-07-08 12:58 UTC pith:JM2ZJTWZ

load-bearing objection QFIM spectral decomposition is a clean new analytical result; the numerical cross-check gap is the main weakness the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06215 v1 pith:JM2ZJTWZ submitted 2026-07-07 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Coherence Estimation Beyond the Liouvillian Gap in a Finite Nonequilibrium System

Sonali Brahma , Trishna Kalita , Himangshu Prabal Goswami This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 03.65.Yz03.67.-a05.70.Ln
keywords quantum metrologyLiouvillian gapquantum Fisher informationbath-induced coherenceopen quantum systemsspectral decompositionoptimal interrogation time
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper proves that the optimal interrogation time for estimating bath-induced coherence in a finite open quantum system does not obey any universal scaling with the inverse Liouvillian gap. The author decomposes the quantum Fisher information matrix into temporal kernels (spectral) and modal coupling tensors (statistical), showing that the optimal time depends on the full Liouvillian spectrum and the evolving quantum statistical metric, not just the gap.

Core claim

The paper's central analytical result is the exact decomposition of the QFIM into temporal kernels f_{mn}(t) determined by the Liouvillian spectrum and modal coupling tensors A_{mnkl}(t) encoding the instantaneous quantum statistical metric. This decomposition shows that the QFIM factorizes as F(t) = e^{-2Δt} G(t), where Δ is the Liouvillian gap and G(t) is a genuinely multimode quantity. The optimal interrogation time satisfies Ġ/G = 2Δ, meaning it is set by the balance between the universal decay rate and the internal redistribution of information among all Liouvillian modes, not by the gap alone.

What carries the argument

Liouvillian spectral decomposition, Sylvester superoperator, temporal kernels f_{mn}(t), modal coupling tensors A_{mnkl}(t), quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM), bath-induced coherence parameters (p_h, p_c)

Load-bearing premise

The analytical proof assumes the Liouvillian is diagonalizable and the density matrix is full rank throughout the transient dynamics, so that the Sylvester superoperator S_ρ is invertible. If the density matrix becomes rank-deficient, the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse may not capture the true metrological behavior.

What would settle it

A concrete demonstration that the QFIM decomposition in Eq. (27) fails or gives qualitatively wrong predictions when the density matrix becomes rank-deficient during transient dynamics, showing that the pseudoinverse replacement does not preserve the analytical conclusions.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the result generalizes, inverse-gap scaling of optimal sensing times observed near dissipative phase transitions may be coincidental rather than fundamental, and the actual scaling could depend on the full spectral structure.
  • The finding that linear scaling can arise from multimode dynamics while nonlinear scaling can arise from unimodal dynamics means that observing either scaling behavior cannot be used to infer the underlying mode structure.
  • The cavity-coupling result suggests that engineering a thermal bias combined with coherent control could convert transient metrological advantages into sustained steady-state resources in other open quantum systems.
  • The decomposition F(t) = e^{-2Δt} G(t) provides a practical tool for identifying which Liouvillian modes actually contribute to sensing, by examining G(t) independently of the gap envelope.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The factorization F(t) = e^{-2Δt} G(t) suggests that systems with small gaps but rich multimode structure could exhibit optimal sensing times much shorter or longer than 1/Δ, depending on whether G(t) evolves faster or slower than the gap decay.
  • The observation that one mode always carries a fixed weight c_m = 1/√2 regardless of parameters hints at a structural invariant in the Liouvillian eigenspace of V-type systems, which could constrain the achievable metrological precision.
  • If the Sylvester superoperator S_ρ becomes singular during transient dynamics (rank-deficient density matrix), the pseudoinverse replacement may not faithfully capture the true QFIM behavior, potentially limiting the analytical proof to full-rank regimes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the estimation of bath-induced coherence (BIC) parameters in a four-level V-type open quantum system coupled to thermal reservoirs. The central claim is that the optimal interrogation time for coherence estimation does not obey any universal scaling with the inverse Liouvillian gap. The authors support this claim through numerical simulations of the quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM) for a specific model system and through a general analytical decomposition of the QFIM into temporal kernels (spectral contribution) and modal coupling tensors (statistical contribution) derived from standard Markovian master equation theory. The paper further demonstrates that coupling the system to a quantum cavity can shift the transient metrological advantage to a sustained steady-state resource under appropriate thermal bias.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question in open-system quantum metrology: whether the Liouvillian gap universally determines the optimal sensing time. The analytical QFIM decomposition (Eq. 30) into spectral and statistical components is a parameter-free derivation that provides a clear framework for understanding why inverse-gap scaling can fail. The numerical results illustrating that linear (or nonlinear) scaling is not a reliable signature of unimodal (or multimodal) dynamics are instructive. The demonstration of cavity-induced steady-state metrological enhancement adds practical value. The self-citations are appropriate for the model system employed.

major comments (2)
  1. §V, Eqs. (27)-(30): The exact QFIM decomposition and its factorized form (Eq. 38) are never numerically verified against the directly computed QFI from the SLD. The numerical QFI curves in Figs. 2-5 are computed directly from ρ(t), not from the decomposed form. A direct comparison—evaluating the right-hand side of Eq. (30) or Eq. (38) and checking agreement with the directly computed QFI—would confirm that the analytical framework is not only formally exact but numerically stable. This is particularly important because the decomposition involves S_ρ^{-1} (Eq. 24), which can become ill-conditioned when eigenvalues of ρ(t) are small during transient dynamics. Without this verification, the analytical framework used to argue the absence of universal scaling remains unvalidated in practice.
  2. §V, Eq. (38): The factorization F = e^{-2Δt} G(t) extracts a universal exponential envelope set by the Liouvillian gap. While mathematically exact, the claim that the optimal time is determined by Ġ/G = 2Δ (Eq. 41) is then used to argue that no universal scaling exists. However, this factorization itself shows that the gap always sets one component of the dynamics. The manuscript should clarify more precisely what 'no universal scaling' means in light of this exact factorization: is the claim that G(t) has no universal form, or that the solution to Eq. (41) has no universal dependence on Δ? The current phrasing risks understating the role of Δ that Eq. (38) itself establishes.
minor comments (5)
  1. §II, Eq. (5): The Liouvillian matrix is written in the reduced picture ρ = {ρ_11, ρ_22, ρ_aa, ρ_bb, ℜ(ρ_12)}. It would help the reader to explicitly state the basis ordering and clarify whether the imaginary part of ρ_12 is decoupled or zero.
  2. §III: The observation that one mode always satisfies c_m = 1/√2 is intriguing but its origin is not explained. A brief comment on whether this is a structural feature of the model or a numerical coincidence would strengthen the discussion.
  3. §IV, Fig. 8: The caption for panel (b) references 'Optimal estimation time t*(p_c)' but the text discusses saturation time t_∞ in panel (c). The panel labeling and caption should be checked for consistency.
  4. §V, Eq. (33): The two-mode truncation uses f_i(t) = t e^{-γ_i t}, which corresponds to the degenerate kernel (λ_m = λ_n case in Eq. 18). The manuscript should state whether this degenerate form is assumed for simplicity or whether the two dominant modes are genuinely degenerate.
  5. Throughout: Several typographical issues (e.g., 'coeherences', 'photosytnthetic', 'sill' for 'still', 'magnetude') should be corrected.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and constructive feedback. Both major comments are well-taken and will be addressed in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §V, Eqs. (27)-(30): The exact QFIM decomposition and its factorized form (Eq. 38) are never numerically verified against the directly computed QFI from the SLD. The numerical QFI curves in Figs. 2-5 are computed directly from ρ(t), not from the decomposed form. A direct comparison—evaluating the right-hand side of Eq. (30) or Eq. (38) and checking agreement with the directly computed QFI—would confirm that the analytical framework is not only formally exact but numerically stable. This is particularly important because the decomposition involves S_ρ^{-1} (Eq. 24), which can become ill-conditioned when eigenvalues of ρ(t) are small during transient dynamics. Without this verification, the analytical framework used to argue the absence of universal scaling remains unvalidated in practice.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the analytical decomposition in Eq. (30) and its factorized form in Eq. (38) are not numerically verified against the directly computed QFI in the present manuscript. This is a legitimate gap, and we will address it in the revision. Specifically, we will add a new figure (or panel) in which we evaluate the right-hand side of Eq. (30) using the Liouvillian spectral projectors, modal response vectors, and the Sylvester superoperator S_ρ, and overlay the result on the directly SLD-computed QFI curves from Figs. 2–5. This will confirm numerical agreement (or reveal any discrepancies arising from truncation or conditioning). Regarding the ill-conditioning concern: the referee rightly notes that S_ρ^{-1} can become problematic when eigenvalues of ρ(t) are small during transient dynamics. In our model system, the density matrix remains full-rank throughout the evolution (the four-level system does not develop zero eigenvalues at any finite time for the parameter regimes considered), so S_ρ is invertible. However, we agree that this should be stated explicitly and that the condition number of S_ρ should be monitored during the comparison. We will include a brief discussion of the conditioning and note that for systems where ρ(t) becomes rank-deficient, the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse (as mentioned in the manuscript) should be used. We will also verify that the pseudoinverse formulation gives consistent results in any near-singular regimes encountered. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §V, Eq. (38): The factorization F = e^{-2Δt} G(t) extracts a universal exponential envelope set by the Liouvillian gap. While mathematically exact, the claim that the optimal time is determined by Ġ/G = 2Δ (Eq. 41) is then used to argue that no universal scaling exists. However, this factorization itself shows that the gap always sets one component of the dynamics. The manuscript should clarify more precisely what 'no universal scaling' means in light of this exact factorization: is the claim that G(t) has no universal form, or that the solution to Eq. (41) has no universal dependence on Δ? The current phrasing risks understating the role of Δ that Eq. (38) itself establishes.

    Authors: We agree that the current phrasing could be misread as understating the role of Δ. The referee's observation is accurate: Eq. (38) shows that Δ always sets the universal exponential envelope, and Eq. (41) shows that Δ appears explicitly in the stationarity condition. Our claim is not that Δ is irrelevant—clearly it is not. Rather, the claim is twofold: (1) G(t) has no universal functional form, as it depends on the full Liouvillian spectrum (through the reduced kernels f̃_mn), the modal coupling tensors A^{μν}_{mnkl}(t), and the instantaneous quantum statistical metric, all of which are system- and parameter-dependent; and (2) the solution t* to Eq. (41) therefore has no universal dependence on Δ alone, because the ratio Ġ/G depends on quantities that are not determined by Δ. In other words, while Δ always enters the stationarity condition, it does not uniquely determine t*—the latter depends on the interplay between Δ and the multimode/statistical content of G(t). This is why both linear and nonlinear t*(1/Δ) behavior can arise depending on the system parameters, as our numerical results demonstrate. We will revise the manuscript to state this more precisely, replacing the somewhat loose phrase 'no universal scaling' with the more specific statement that 'the optimal interrogation time is not uniquely determined by the Liouvillian gap, because the stationarity condition Eq. (41) depends on the full spectral and statistical structure of G(t), which has no universal form.' We will also explicitly acknowledge that Δ sets the exponential decay envelope and appears in the stationarity condition, so it always plays a role—just not a sole or universally predictive one. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the analytical QFIM decomposition is a parameter-free derivation from standard Markovian master equation theory, and self-citations are used for model context, not as load-bearing logical premises.

full rationale

The paper's central analytical result—the QFIM decomposition in Eq. (30) and its factorized form in Eq. (38)—is derived from first principles using standard tools: the Fréchet derivative of the matrix exponential (Eq. 15), the Sylvester equation for the SLD (Eq. 7), and the vectorization identity (Eq. 22). No step in this chain reduces to its own inputs by construction. The numerical results (Figs. 2–5) are computed directly from the master equation and used to illustrate the analytical findings, not to fit parameters that are then re-predicted. The self-citations ([20], [32], [37], [38]) reference the model system and prior numerical observations of BIC, but the core proof that no universal t*–1/Δ scaling exists rests on the independently derived Eq. (41), which shows the optimal time depends on Ġ/G = 2Δ—a relationship involving the full Liouvillian spectrum and the time-dependent statistical metric, not a fitted input. The absence of numerical verification of the decomposed form against direct QFI computation is a correctness/validation concern, not a circularity issue. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks (standard QFI from SLD), so the circularity score is minimal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper does not invent new entities. The free parameters are standard system and bath parameters chosen for the numerical model. The axioms are standard assumptions in open quantum system theory.

free parameters (4)
  • System energies = epsilon_1=epsilon_2=0.1, epsilon_a=1.5, epsilon_b=0.4
    Fixed system parameters for the V-type model, chosen for numerical illustration.
  • Bath temperatures = T_h=[0.4,3], T_c=1, T_l=0.2
    Fixed bath temperatures for numerical illustration.
  • Coupling strength r = 1
    System-bath coupling strength, fixed for numerical illustration.
  • Cavity coupling g = 1
    System-cavity coupling strength, fixed for numerical illustration in the steady-state regime.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation
    The master equation and Liouvillian are derived under the standard Born-Markov approximation, which assumes weak system-bath coupling and short bath correlation times.
  • domain assumption Diagonalizable Liouvillian
    The analytical decomposition in Section V assumes the Liouvillian is diagonalizable, which may not hold for all open quantum systems.
  • domain assumption Full-rank density matrix
    The derivation of the SLD and QFIM assumes the density matrix is full rank, or uses the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse otherwise.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 20342 in / 2127 out tokens · 263866 ms · 2026-07-08T12:58:46.191376+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the estimation of bath-induced coherence in a finite quantum system interacting with thermal reservoirs. Enhancement of coherence estimation is transient and the estimation precision totally disappears at the steady state despite the system retaining finite coherence. By analyzing the full Liouvillian eigenspectrum, we demonstrate that the optimal sensing window emerges from the competition between identifiable contributory modes' temporal relaxation and statistical importance. Neither is the linear inverse scaling of Liouvillian gap with transient optimal time a signature of unimodal contribution to optimal sensing, nor is the existence of multimodal dynamics a signature of nonlinear scaling. The inverse Liouvillian gap does not obey any general scaling with the optimal sensing time of coherence and we prove our numerical results analytically using a general Markovian framework. We further show that coupling the finite system to a quantum cavity and maintaining a thermal bias, transforms the transient metrological optimization into a sustained steady-state resource.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06215 by Himangshu Prabal Goswami, Sonali Brahma, Trishna Kalita.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of the nonequilibrium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a,b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Simultaneous estimation of hot-bath coherence pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Braunstein and Carlton M

    Samuel L. Braunstein and Carlton M. Caves. Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states.Physical Review Letters, 72(22):3439–3443, 1994

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    Matteo G. A. Paris. Quantum estimation for quantum technology.International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion, 07(supp01):125–137, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the stan- dard quantum limit.Science, 306(5700):1330–1336, 2004

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the stan- dard quantum limit.Science, 306(5700):1330–1336, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Advances in quantum metrology.Nature Photonics, 5(4):222–229, 2011

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Advances in quantum metrology.Nature Photonics, 5(4):222–229, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Quantum limits in optical interferometry

    Rafa l Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Marcin Jarzyna, and Jan Ko lody´ nski. Quantum limits in optical interferometry. Progress in Optics, 60:345–435, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    B. M. Escher, R. L. De Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich. 14 General framework for estimating the ultimate preci- sion limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology.Nature Physics, 7(5):406–411, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Alipour, M

    S. Alipour, M. Mehboudi, and A. T. Rezakhani. Quan- tum metrology in open systems: Dissipative cram´ er-rao bound.Physical Review Letters, 112(12):120405, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Wolf, and J

    Frank Verstraete, Michael M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac. Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation.Nature Physics, 5(9):633–636, 2009

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller. Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms.Nature Physics, 4(11):878–883, 2008

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller. Quantum reser- voir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions.Physical Review Letters, 77(23):4728–4731, 1996

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    Oberthaler, Ro- man Schmied, and Philipp Treutlein

    Luca Pezz` e, Augusto Smerzi, Markus K. Oberthaler, Ro- man Schmied, and Philipp Treutlein. Quantum metrol- ogy with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles.Reviews of Modern Physics, 90(3):035005, 2018

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Fidelity approach to quantum phase tran- sitions.International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24(23):4371–4458, 2010

    Shi-Jian Gu. Fidelity approach to quantum phase tran- sitions.International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24(23):4371–4458, 2010

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Spectral theory of liouvillians for dissipa- tive phase transitions.Physical Review A, 98(4):042118, 2018

    Fabrizio Minganti, Alberto Biella, Nicola Bartolo, and Cristiano Ciuti. Spectral theory of liouvillians for dissipa- tive phase transitions.Physical Review A, 98(4):042118, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    E. M. Kessler, G. Giedke, A. Imamoglu, S. F. Yelin, M. D. Lukin, and J. I. Cirac. Dissipative phase transition in a central spin system.Physical Review A, 86(1):012116, 2012

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Quantum fisher information as a signature of the superradiant quantum phase transition.New Journal of Physics, 16(6):063039, 2014

    Teng-Long Wang, Ling-Na Wu, Wen Yang, Guang-Ri Jin, Neill Lambert, and Franco Nori. Quantum fisher information as a signature of the superradiant quantum phase transition.New Journal of Physics, 16(6):063039, 2014

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Critical behavior of quantum fisher information in finite- size open dicke model.AIP Advances, 12(5):055118, 2022

    Meng Yu, Yang Yang, Hengna Xiong, and Xianqin Lin. Critical behavior of quantum fisher information in finite- size open dicke model.AIP Advances, 12(5):055118, 2022

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Expo- nential size scaling of the liouvillian gap in boundary- dissipated systems with anderson localization.Physical Review B, 106(6):064203, 2022

    Bozhen Zhou, Xueliang Wang, and Shu Chen. Expo- nential size scaling of the liouvillian gap in boundary- dissipated systems with anderson localization.Physical Review B, 106(6):064203, 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Critical slowing down in driven-dissipative bose-hubbard lattices.Physical Re- view A, 97(1):013853, 2018

    Filippo Vicentini, Fabrizio Minganti, Riccardo Rota, Giuliano Orso, and Cristiano Ciuti. Critical slowing down in driven-dissipative bose-hubbard lattices.Physical Re- view A, 97(1):013853, 2018

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Geometry of quantum phase transitions.Physics Reports, 838:1–72, 2020

    Angelo Carollo, Davide Valenti, and Bernardo Spagnolo. Geometry of quantum phase transitions.Physics Reports, 838:1–72, 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Fisher information of a nonequilibrium anharmonic donor-acceptor rectifier

    Bitap Raj Thakuria, Trishna Kalita, Javed Akhtar, and Himangshu Prabal Goswami. Fisher information of a nonequilibrium anharmonic donor-acceptor rectifier. Physica A, 697:131723, 2026

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    Opti- mal time for sensing in open quantum systems.Physical Review A, 108(2):022413, 2023

    Zain H Saleem, Anil Shaji, and Stephen K Gray. Opti- mal time for sensing in open quantum systems.Physical Review A, 108(2):022413, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Resolving a dis- crepancy between liouvillian gap and relaxation time in boundary-dissipated quantum many-body systems

    Takashi Mori and Tatsuhiko Shirai. Resolving a dis- crepancy between liouvillian gap and relaxation time in boundary-dissipated quantum many-body systems. Physical Review Letters, 125(23):230604, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Liouvillian skin effect: Slowing down of relaxation processes without gap closing.Physical Review Letters, 127(7):070402, 2021

    Taiki Haga, Masaya Nakagawa, Ryusuke Hamazaki, and Masahito Ueda. Liouvillian skin effect: Slowing down of relaxation processes without gap closing.Physical Review Letters, 127(7):070402, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Symmetrized liouvil- lian gap in markovian open quantum systems.Physical Review Letters, 130(23):230404, 2023

    Takashi Mori and Tatsuhiko Shirai. Symmetrized liouvil- lian gap in markovian open quantum systems.Physical Review Letters, 130(23):230404, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Dissipative quantum fisher information for a gen- eral liouvillian parametrized process.Physical Review A, 109(1):012432, 2024

    Jia-Xin Peng, Baiqiang Zhu, Weiping Zhang, and Keye Zhang. Dissipative quantum fisher information for a gen- eral liouvillian parametrized process.Physical Review A, 109(1):012432, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Metrol- ogy of open quantum systems from emitted radiation,

    Siddhant Midha and Sarang Gopalakrishnan. Metrol- ogy of open quantum systems from emitted radiation,

    work page

  27. [27]

    arXiv:2504.13815 [quant-ph],https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13815

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.13815

  28. [28]

    Scully, M

    Marlan O. Scully, M. Suhail Zubairy, Girish S. Agar- wal, and Herbert Walther. Extracting work from a single heat bath via vanishing quantum coherence.Science, 299(5608):862–864, 2003

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    Dorfman, Dmitri V

    Konstantin E. Dorfman, Dmitri V. Voronine, Shaul Mukamel, and Marlan O. Scully. Photosynthetic reac- tion center as a quantum heat engine.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(8):2746–2751, 2013

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Equivalence of quantum heat machines, and quantum- thermodynamic signatures.Physical Review X, 5(3):031044, 2015

    Raam Uzdin, Amikam Levy, and Ronnie Kosloff. Equivalence of quantum heat machines, and quantum- thermodynamic signatures.Physical Review X, 5(3):031044, 2015

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Scully, Kimberly R

    Marlan O. Scully, Kimberly R. Chapin, Konstantin E. Dorfman, Moochan Barnabas Kim, and Anatoly Svidzin- sky. Quantum heat engine power can be increased by noise-induced coherence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(37):15097–15100, 2011

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    Dorfman, Dazhi Xu, and Jianshu Cao

    Konstantin E. Dorfman, Dazhi Xu, and Jianshu Cao. Efficiency at maximum power of a laser quantum heat engine enhanced by noise-induced coherence.Physical Review E, 97(4):042120, 2018

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    Noise-induced coherent ergotropy of a quantum heat en- gine.Physical Review A, 110(3):032213, 2024

    Manash Jyoti Sarmah and Himangshu Prabal Goswami. Noise-induced coherent ergotropy of a quantum heat en- gine.Physical Review A, 110(3):032213, 2024

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Camati, Jonas F

    Patrice A. Camati, Jonas F. G. Santos, and Roberto M. Serra. Coherence effects in the performance of the quan- tum Otto heat engine.Physical Review A, 99(6):062103, 2019

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Effects of noise- induced coherence on the performance of quantum ab- sorption refrigerators.Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 192(3):147–168, 2018

    Viktor Holubec and Tom´ aˇ s Novotn` y. Effects of noise- induced coherence on the performance of quantum ab- sorption refrigerators.Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 192(3):147–168, 2018

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Efficient biologically inspired photocell enhanced by delocalized quantum states.Physical review letters, 111(25):253601, 2013

    Celestino Creatore, M Andy Parker, Stephen Emmott, and Alex W Chin. Efficient biologically inspired photocell enhanced by delocalized quantum states.Physical review letters, 111(25):253601, 2013

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    Effects of noise- induced coherence on the fluctuations of current in quan- tum absorption refrigerators.The Journal of chemical physics, 151(4), 2019

    Viktor Holubec and Tom´ aˇ s Novotn` y. Effects of noise- induced coherence on the fluctuations of current in quan- tum absorption refrigerators.The Journal of chemical physics, 151(4), 2019

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Thermodynamics of quantum heat engines.Physical Re- view A, 88(1):013842, 2013

    Himangshu Prabal Goswami and Upendra Harbola. Thermodynamics of quantum heat engines.Physical Re- view A, 88(1):013842, 2013

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    Efficiency fluctuations of a heat engine with noise- induced quantum coherences.Physical Review A, 110(5):052214, 2024

    Manash Jyoti Sarmah and Himangshu Prabal Goswami. Efficiency fluctuations of a heat engine with noise- induced quantum coherences.Physical Review A, 110(5):052214, 2024

    work page 2024