Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Ancilla measurement-based Quantum Otto engine using double-pair spin architecture

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A four-qubit Otto cycle whose cold stroke is a projective measurement on an ancillary pair runs on a single heat bath and can exceed the standard Otto efficiency limit while delivering finite power.

desk verdict The four-qubit ancilla-measurement architecture is new and the numerics are internally consistent, but the headline efficiency gain rests on an incomplete energy balance because the ancilla reset cost is omitted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05948 v1 pith:JZNCNUNO submitted 2025-06-06 quant-ph

S R Rathnakaran , Asoka Biswas This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumOttoenginemeasurement-basedcoolingancillaspinladderHeisenbergXXmodelphasetransitionfinite-timethermodynamicssingle-bathheat
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 proposes a four-qubit quantum Otto engine in which the cold thermal reservoir is replaced by a projective measurement on an ancillary pair of qubits, so the cycle runs with a single hot bath. It claims that measuring the ancilla rather than the working system improves performance, producing finite power in finite time while the efficiency exceeds the standard single-qubit Otto limit, $\eta = 1 - B_L/B_H$. In the ancilla-based model, the efficiency can approach unity for large values of the intra-pair coupling $J_1$ in the antiferromagnetic regime. The authors further show that changing the measurement basis on the ancilla switches the same device between heat-engine, refrigerator, heater, and accelerator modes. If the claims hold, this gives a concrete spin-ladder architecture in which measurement-induced information flow replaces a second thermal reservoir.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-dimensional Heisenberg XX spin-ladder Hamiltonian $H_{\rm tot} = H_{\rm sys} + H_{\rm anc} + H_{\rm int}$, in which the system pair has intra-pair coupling $J_1$ and is driven by a time-dependent magnetic field $B(t)$, the ancilla pair has coupling $J_2$ with a static transverse field $\delta_2$, and the two pairs are connected by the inter-pair coupling $g$. The cycle is an Otto cycle whose cold stroke is the projective measurement $\hat{M} = I_{\rm sys} \otimes |00\rangle_{\rm anc}\langle 00|$ on the ancilla rather than contact with a cold bath. The load-bearing mechanism is that the transverse fields $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ make the Hamiltonian non-commuting at different times, generating non-adiabatic transitions during the finite-time unitary strokes; the ancilla measurement then serves as the cold reservoir, and the system–ancilla correlation enters the entropy balance through a mutual-information term $I$. A related element is the quantum phase transition of the system pair near $B \approx J_1$, which produces the efficiency peaks seen in the system-measurement variant.

What would settle it

Add an explicit reset step to the cycle—couple the ancilla to a zero-temperature bath or drive it back to $|00\rangle$ with a known unitary—and include the reset cost in $W_{\rm tot}$; if the resulting efficiency no longer exceeds $1 - B_L/B_H$, the claimed enhancement is an artefact of omitting the reset cost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an Otto cycle built on a two-leg Heisenberg XX spin ladder, with one qubit pair as the working medium and a second pair as an ancilla, can operate with a single heat bath when the cold stroke is implemented by projecting the ancilla onto a fixed state such as $|00\rangle$. Using the heat-balance definition $W_{\rm tot} = Q_H - |Q_C|$, where $Q_C$ is the energy removed in the measurement stroke, the authors report that the cycle efficiency $\eta = W_{\rm tot}/Q_H$ exceeds the standard Otto value $1 - B_L/B_H$ in finite-time operation, and rises with the intra-pair coupling $J_1$, approaching unity for large $J_1$ in the ancilla-measurement model. They attribute the enhancement to non-adiabatic transitions during the unitary strokes, enabled by the transverse fields that make the Hamiltonian non-commuting at different times, together with system–ancilla correlations. The paper also shows that the stroke-integrated and heat-balance definitions of work coincide once the engine reaches a limit cycle over many cycles, and that the entropy production remains non-negative when the mutual-information term $I$ is included in the balance.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that resetting the ancilla to $|00\rangle$ after each measurement costs no work or heat; if that reset is assigned a thermodynamic cost, the reported efficiency gain shrinks or disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The device operates as a heat engine with a single thermal bath, replacing the cold bath by ancilla measurement, so it is a concrete platform for information-driven thermal machines.
  • In finite-time operation the ancilla-based engine produces nonzero power while keeping efficiency above the single-qubit Otto limit, improving on the system-measurement model.
  • Tuning the ancilla measurement basis ($|00\rangle$, $|11\rangle$, or Bell states) selects engine, refrigerator, heater, or accelerator modes in the same device.
  • For large intra-pair coupling $J_1$ in the antiferromagnetic regime, the ancilla-measurement efficiency approaches unity, while the power is not compromised compared with direct system measurement.
  • Over many cycles the engine reaches a limit cycle where the heat-balance and stroke-integrated definitions of work agree, the first law closes, and the second law holds with non-negative entropy production.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reset cost of the ancilla is small but nonzero, the claimed efficiency enhancement may survive only for specific parameter windows; a modified cycle that harvests the measurement energy (e.g., a feedback or energy-recycling stroke) could turn the protocol into a genuinely work-producing measurement engine.
  • The approach to unit efficiency for large $J_1$ is untested with respect to the ancilla reset; an immediate numerical check would be to plot $\eta$ versus $J_1$ with the reset work included, to locate the actual operational threshold.
  • The mutual-information term $I$ in the entropy balance suggests a direct link to information-theoretic engines of the Szilard type; one could test whether the protocol's efficiency gain scales with the amount of correlation built before measurement, e.g., by varying $g$.
  • Because the machine changes function with measurement basis, the same four-qubit architecture could serve as a switchable single-bath refrigerator/heater/engine, which might be realized with trapped ions or superconducting transmon qubits where XX couplings and projective readout are available.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a four-qubit XX-ladder quantum Otto engine in which one spin pair is the working system and the other is an ancilla. The conventional cold bath is replaced by a projective measurement on the system (model A) or on the ancilla (model B), so the engine runs with a single hot bath. The authors compute work, heat, efficiency, and power for single- and many-cycle operation, including finite-time driving, always-on bath coupling, quantum-critical-point behavior, entropy production, and refrigerator/heater/accelerator modes. The central claim is that the ancilla-measurement engine can exceed the standard single-qubit Otto efficiency limit 1 - B_L/B_H while maintaining finite power.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the architecture is a useful addition to measurement-based quantum thermal machines: it avoids a second thermal reservoir, operates at finite power, and has plausible experimental realizations in NMR, trapped-ion, and superconducting platforms. The paper's strengths include an explicit Hamiltonian, a quasi-static Otto limit, a trace-distance limit-cycle analysis, a check of nonnegative entropy production, and the demonstration of multiple operational modes. However, the efficiency claim currently rests on an incomplete thermodynamic energy balance and on numerical results that are not fully reproducible; these issues must be resolved before the significance of the claimed enhancement can be assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B (W_tot = Q_h - |Q_c|) and Section II.B.2] The ancilla reset is an explicit step in the protocol but is assigned no thermodynamic cost. The stability analysis states that after each measurement the ancilla is 'reset to a fixed state (e.g., |00⟩_anc⟨00|)', and this reset is what closes the limit cycle. If the protocol does not post-select the |00⟩ outcome, this reset is an erasure that costs at least k_B T ln 2 per discarded bit; if it does post-select, the discarded non-|00⟩ branches must be included in the cycle average. Since W_tot and η are computed from Q_h and Q_c only, the reported work and efficiency are incomplete or conditional. Please include the reset/erasure cost in the energy balance and re-evaluate Figs. 8, 10, and 14; the approach to unity in Fig. 14b is precisely the quantity that needs to be re-examined.
  2. [Section II.A, Eq. (5)] The system-measurement model explicitly assumes p_m = 1, i.e., only measurement events with certainty are retained. This makes Q_C, W_tot, and η conditional quantities, and unconditioned measurement statistics are not reported. If the ancilla-measurement model in Section II.B also conditions on a particular outcome, the same caveat applies. The authors should report the success probability and present either the unconditioned efficiency or a rigorous argument for why post-selecting a single branch is thermodynamically legitimate for a cycle average.
  3. [Section II.A.4, Eq. (7), and all numerical figures] The simulations are not reproducible because no integrator, time step, cutoff frequency ω_c, bath spectral parameters, or convergence criteria are provided, and no code is deposited. Since the central quantitative claims (efficiency/power curves, many-cycle limit, entropy production) are numerical, these details are essential. Please provide them or deposit code.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (7)] Eq. (7) contains the typo '˙ι' in the commutator term; it should be '-i'.
  2. [Eqs. (12) and (13)] The notation 'Tr_anc' appears as 'Tranc'; please define and use consistent trace notation.
  3. [Fig. 4(a) and Section II.B] Fig. 4(a) is described as showing efficiency peaks in both AFM and FM regimes, but Section II.B later states that the QHE is meaningful only for J1 > 0; please clarify whether the FM peaks are physical or are shown only for comparison.
  4. [Eq. (14)] Eq. (14) uses a second-law inequality for two baths with 0 < β1 < β2, yet the measurement stroke has no thermal bath temperature; please define the effective inverse temperature of the measurement stroke or state how the inequality applies.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Ancilla reset work is omitted from Wtot, and efficiency is defined as 1−|Qc|/Qh, so the claimed enhancement over the Otto limit is partly an accounting input rather than a derived result.

  1. self definitional [Section II.B, 'Ancilla Measurement-based Engine' and 'Stability Analysis' (Fig. 8, Eq. 9)]
    "The work done is calculated as Wtot = Qh − |Qc|, rather than the conventional Wtot = W1 + W2, to account for the impact of the projective measurement on the ancillary subsystem. ... The measurement on the ancilla at the end of each cycle (D → A), followed by its reset to a fixed state (e.g.,|00⟩anc⟨00|), acts as a feedback mechanism."

    The reported efficiency is η = Wtot/Qh, with Wtot defined by the heat balance Qh − |Qc| rather than by the unitary work strokes. The measurement stroke is simultaneously assigned the role of the cold reservoir, so η = 1 − |Qc|/Qh is true by construction. The claim that η approaches unity or exceeds the g = 0 Otto benchmark then reduces to asserting that the measurement-induced system energy change Qc is small relative to Qh. The ancilla reset that closes the cycle is explicitly part of the protocol, yet its thermodynamic cost is assigned zero work. A complete cycle accounting that includes this erasure/reset cost would change Wtot, so the efficiency enhancement is loaded into the bookkeeping rather than derived from an independent energy balance.

full rationale

The paper contains genuine numerical content—finite-time non-unitary evolution, master-equation dynamics, and limit-cycle convergence—so the analysis is not wholly circular. However, the central efficiency claim for the ancilla-based engine is not derived from the work strokes: the paper explicitly switches from Wtot = W1 + W2 to Wtot = Qh − |Qc| and treats the ancilla reset as costless. This makes η = 1 − |Qc|/Qh an identity under the paper's chosen accounting, and statements such as 'efficiency approaching unity for large values of the coupling parameter J1' follow from the smallness of the measurement-stroke energy change rather than from an independent thermodynamic derivation. The reset step is admitted to be part of the cycle but is never assigned a work cost, so the claimed enhancement over the standard Otto limit is partly an input of the definition. There is also a self-citation ([59], same research group) supplying the measurement-as-cold-bath premise, but that alone would not be circular; the more load-bearing issue is the incomplete energy balance embedded in the definition of Wtot. The simulations are self-contained and the concern is primarily an accounting choice, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

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

The central claim depends on a set of hand-picked parameters (delta_2, J1, g, delta_1) and on two ad hoc assumptions: the exclusion of the FM regime and the omission of the ancilla reset cost. The model uses standard quantum thermodynamic tools (GKLS master equation, projective measurements) as background. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • delta_2 (ancilla transverse field) = varied between 0 and 1
    The claimed efficiency enhancement in the system-based model grows with delta_2, while in the ancilla-based model it degrades efficiency; the value is chosen by hand to demonstrate the effect.
  • J1 (system intrapair coupling) = 0 to 20 in the ancilla-based model, -2 to 2 in the system-based model
    The claim that efficiency approaches unity for large J1 depends on this coupling strength, which is scanned numerically.
  • g (interpair coupling) = 0.75
    The ancilla-mediated measurement effect requires nonzero g; when g=0 the enhancement disappears, so g is a hand-picked control parameter.
  • delta_1 (system transverse field) = 0 or 1
    Sets the character of the quantum phase transition and the non-commutativity of the work strokes; chosen to produce the reported QCP effects.
  • tau (work stroke time) = 1 (finite-time regime)
    Finite-time operation is central to the claimed power and efficiency enhancement; the quasi-static limit restores the standard Otto efficiency.
  • omega_c (bath cutoff frequency) = not specified in the text
    Required for the Ohmic spectral density in Eq. (7) but never given a numerical value, which impairs reproducibility.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Born-Markov secular master equation (Eq. 7) for the dissipative dynamics
    Used for the always-on interaction model; relies on weak system-bath coupling and fast bath relaxation.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous projective measurement stroke
    The measurement takes zero time and is not affected by the hot bath, as stated in Section II.A.4.
  • ad hoc to paper Measurement outcome certainty in the system-based model (pm=1)
    Section II.A.1 assumes the system is found in |00> with probability one, which is a post-selection that discards other measurement outcomes.
  • ad hoc to paper Ancilla reset cost is not included in W_tot
    In Section II.B, W_tot is defined as Q_h - |Q_c| for the system only, and the energy needed to reset the ancilla to |00> after each cycle is not accounted for.
  • domain assumption Limit cycle closure after many cycles
    The first law is enforced by assuming the state converges to a limit cycle, with the ancilla reset acting as feedback, as described in Section II.B.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Heat-engine regime restricted to antiferromagnetic coupling (J1 > 0)
    The ferromagnetic regime (J1 < 0) is labeled 'un-physical' based on sign conventions of Qc, Qh, and W, without a mechanistic explanation, and is excluded from the efficiency analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ancilla measurement-based Quantum Otto engine using double-pair spin architecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JZNCNUNO

@misc{pith2026250605948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ancilla measurement-based Quantum Otto engine using double-pair spin architecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JZNCNUNO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05948}
}
read the original abstract

We present a quantum heat engine model utilizing a dual spin-pair architecture, wherein an Otto-like cycle is implemented using a single heat bath. The conventional cold bath is replaced by a measurement protocol, enabling engine operation without the need for a second thermal reservoir. Unlike standard quantum heat engines, our framework employs an ancillary spin pair in a two-dimensional configuration to regulate performance. Operating in finite time, the engine attains finite power, which is enhanced through quantum correlations, specifically correlation between spin pairs and projective measurements on the ancillary pair. The system consists of dual qubit pairs, where one pair serves as the working medium and the other as an ancillary system facilitating measurement-induced heat exchange. We demonstrate that the engine efficiency can exceed the standard quantum Otto limit through local control of the ancillary pair while maintaining nonzero power output. Moreover, correlation between spin pairs enables efficiency modulation via the measurement basis, underscoring the role of quantum resources in optimizing quantum thermal machines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05948 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: System based Measurement Engine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Comparison of efficiency vs power dynamics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Energy level analysis of the ground and first excited states in the context of Landau-Zener Hamiltonians, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Efficiency vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Ancilla based Measurement engine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparison of efficiency vs power dynamics for standard ancilla-based QOE. (a) Efficiency vs Power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Efficiency vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (a) The panel displays the cumulative values of work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Panels (a), (b), and (c) illustrate the distinct QTMs corresponding to Refrigerator, Accelerator, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Comparison of trace distance evolution with varying parameters B and T. The figure displays the trace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Entropy production (Σ) as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Comparison between models A and B. (a) Parametric plot between Efficiency ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [61]

    Farina, B

    D. Farina, B. Benazout, F. Centrone, and A. Ac ´ ın, Phys. Rev. E 109, 034112 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Quantum Otto Cycle The combined system-ancillae, initially prepared in the state ˆρA = (|0⟩⟨0|)⊗4, undergoes a unitary expansion as 3 the magnetic field is swept from BL to BH over a finite time interval, from t = 0 to t = τ . After this transforma- tion, the evolved state of the system is given by ˆ ρB = ˆU (τ )ρA ˆU (τ )†, where ˆU (τ ) = T exp h −i R τ...

  3. [2]

    In this quasi-static regime, the efficiency of the cycle is expressed as η = 1 − BL BH

    QOE’s quasi-static operation The work strokes W1(τ ) and W2(τ ) are performed over an extended cycle time τ , such that transitions between energy levels are effectively suppressed, rendering the driving process adiabatic. In this quasi-static regime, the efficiency of the cycle is expressed as η = 1 − BL BH . (6) The Fig.2 illustrates the variation of ef...

  4. [3]

    A second-order QPT oc- curs when the second derivative is discontinuous while 4 (a) First order QPT

    Critical point behaviour Quantum phase transitions are classified based on the non-analytic behavior of the ground-state energy: A first- order QPT occurs when the first derivative of the ground- state energy is discontinuous. A second-order QPT oc- curs when the second derivative is discontinuous while 4 (a) First order QPT. (b) Second order QPT. FIG. 3:...

  5. [4]

    However, in prac- tical implementations, there is an inherent cost associ- ated with coupling and decoupling the system from the bath

    Always on Interaction The process described above represents the ideal sce- nario for the QOE, where perfect isolation from the bath is assumed during the work strokes. However, in prac- tical implementations, there is an inherent cost associ- ated with coupling and decoupling the system from the bath. To address this issue and enhance the experimental fe...

  6. [5]

    However, in practical applications, the en- gine operates over multiple cycles, which holds significant importance for understanding its long-term performance

    Many-cycle operation Thus far, our analysis has focused on a single cycle of the engine. However, in practical applications, the en- gine operates over multiple cycles, which holds significant importance for understanding its long-term performance. Moreover, the engine’s behavior in finite-time operations is crucial for assessing its real-world applicabil...

  7. [6]

    Stability Analysis In quantum thermodynamics, a limit cycle is a periodic steady state where the density matrix at the end of each cycle matches the initial state of the next cycle (up to a small numerical error). The trace distance Dn → 0 (This convergence is quantified by the trace distance, defined as Dn = 1 2 Tr|ˆρn − ˆρn−1|, which measures the Hilber...

  8. [7]

    J. Wang, Z. Wu, and J. He, Phys. Rev. E 85, 041148 13 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    Entropy Production The entropy production [69, 70] of a quantum system undergoing a cyclic process, such as the quantum Otto cycle, is a critical measure of irreversibility and is directly tied to the second law of thermodynamics. For the sys- tem under consideration, the tota...

  2. [9]

    This law is expressed as β1⟨∆E1⟩ + β2⟨∆E2⟩ ≥0, (14) where the inverse temperatures β1 and β2 of the inter- acting thermal baths satisfy the condition 0 < β1 < β2

    Realisation of different Quantum Thermal Machines Considering the signs of the three distinct energy ex- changes during the Quantum Otto Cycle, only four out of the eight possible combinations are permitted by the second law of thermodynamics. This law is expressed as β1⟨∆E1⟩ ...

  3. [10]

    Heat Engine: QH ≥ 0, QC ≤ 0, Wtot ≤ 0

  4. [11]

    Accelerator: QH ≥ 0, QC ≤ 0, Wtot ≥ 0

  5. [12]

    This feed- back mimics a cold bath interaction, allowing the system to dissipate entropy and converge

    indicates that the measurement and reset process sta- bilizes the system’s state, as the ancilla’s projection con- strains the system’s evolution to a limit cycle. This feed- back mimics a cold bath interaction, allowing the system to dissipate entropy and converge. 8 FIG. 10:...

  6. [13]

    Heater: QH ≤ 0, QC ≤ 0, Wtot ≥ 0

  7. [14]

    always-on interaction

    Refrigerator: QH ≤ 0, QC ≥ 0, Wtot ≥ 0. In this setup, the cold bath is effectively eliminated by selecting an appropriate measurement basis, which is projected onto the ancillary qubits. Different measure- ment bases are employed to direct the energy flows into and out of the...

  8. [15]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Con- temporary Physics 57, 545 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2016.1201896

    2016

  9. [16]

    Binder, L

    F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, eds., Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, Fun- damental Theories of Physics, Vol. 195 (Springer, 2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Kosloff, The Journal of Chemical Physics 150, 204105 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5096173/15559318/204105 1 online.pdf

    R. Kosloff, The Journal of Chemical Physics 150, 204105 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5096173/15559318/204105 1 online.pdf

    2019 doi

  11. [18]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and B. K. Meister, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 33, 4427 (2000)

    2000

  12. [19]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and B. K. Meister, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 458, 1519 (2002)

    2002

  13. [20]

    H. T. Quan, P. Zhang, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. E 73, 036122 (2006)

    2006

  14. [21]

    H. Wang, S. Liu, and J. He, Phys. Rev. E 79, 041113 (2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    Thomas and R

    G. Thomas and R. S. Johal, Physical Review E 83, 031135 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Hewgill, A

    A. Hewgill, A. Ferraro, and G. De Chiara, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042102 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    P. A. Camati, J. F. G. Santos, and R. M. Serra, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062103 (2019)

    2019

  18. [25]

    Sonkar and R

    S. Sonkar and R. S. Johal, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032220 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    E. Yunt, M. Fadaie, O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, and C. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. B 102, 155423 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    E. A. Ivanchenko, Phys. Rev. E 92, 032124 (2015)

    2015

  21. [28]

    X. L. Huang, L. C. Wang, and X. X. Yi, Phys. Rev. E 87, 012144 (2013)

    2013

  22. [29]

    Latifah and A

    E. Latifah and A. Purwanto, Journal of Modern Physics 10.4236/jmp.2013.48146 (2013)

    2013

  23. [30]

    Purkait and A

    C. Purkait and A. Biswas, Physics Letters A 442, 128180 (2022)

    2022

  24. [31]

    Chatterjee, A

    S. Chatterjee, A. Koner, S. Chatterjee, and C. Kumar, Phys. Rev. E 103, 062109 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    F. J. Pe˜ na, O. Negrete, N. Cort´ es, and P. Vargas, Entropy 22, 10.3390/e22070755 (2020)

    2020 doi

  26. [33]

    Niedenzu, D

    W. Niedenzu, D. Gelbwaser-Klimovsky, and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. E 92, 042123 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    M. O. S. et al., Science299,862-864 (2003)

    2003

  28. [35]

    T¨ urkpen¸ ce, F

    D. T¨ urkpen¸ ce, F. Altintas, M. Paternostro, and ¨Ozg¨ ur E. M¨ ustecaplio˘ glu, Europhysics Letters 117, 50002 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    Zheng, P

    Y. Zheng, P. H¨ anggi, and D. Poletti, Phys. Rev. E 94, 012137 (2016)

    2016

  30. [37]

    J. Wang, Z. Ye, Y. Lai, W. Li, and J. He, Phys. Rev. E 91, 062134 (2015)

    2015

  31. [38]

    Yunger Halpern, C

    N. Yunger Halpern, C. D. White, S. Gopalakrishnan, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. B 99, 024203 (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    Abiuso and M

    P. Abiuso and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 110606 (2020)

    2020

  33. [40]

    L. A. Williamson and M. J. Davis, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024310 (2024)

    2024

  34. [41]

    Carollo, F

    F. Carollo, F. M. Gambetta, K. Brandner, J. P. Gar- rahan, and I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 170602 (2020)

    2020

  35. [42]

    Jaseem and V

    N. Jaseem and V. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042219 (2023)

    2023

  36. [43]

    J. P. S. Peterson, T. B. Batalh˜ ao, M. Herrera, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 240601 (2019)

    2019

  37. [44]

    N. M. Myers, O. Abah, and S. Deffner, A VS Quantum Science 4, 027101 (2022), https://pubs.aip.org/avs/aqs/article- pdf/doi/10.1116/5.0083192/16494008/027101 1 online.pdf

    2022 doi

  38. [45]

    Solfanelli, A

    A. Solfanelli, A. Santini, and M. Campisi, PRX Quantum 2, 030353 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    Maity, S

    S. Maity, S. Bandyopadhyay, S. Bhattacharjee, and A. Dutta, Phys. Rev. B 101, 180301 (2020)

    2020

  40. [47]

    A. D. Verga, Phys. Rev. B 107, 085116 (2023)

    2023

  41. [48]

    Banerjee, J

    D. Banerjee, J. Thomas, A. Nocera, and S. Johnston, Phys. Rev. B 107, 235113 (2023)

    2023

  42. [49]

    Piccitto, M

    G. Piccitto, M. Campisi, and D. Rossini, New Journal of Physics 24, 103023 (2022)

    2022

  43. [50]

    Cavazzoni, M

    S. Cavazzoni, M. Adani, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, New Journal of Physics 26, 053024 (2024)

    2024

  44. [51]

    Medina, A

    I. Medina, A. Drinko, G. I. Correr, P. C. Azado, and D. O. Soares-Pinto, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012443 (2024)

    2024

  45. [52]

    B. n. Mula, E. M. Fern´ andez, J. E. Alvarellos, J. J. Fern´ andez, D. Garc ´ ıa-Aldea, S. N. Santalla, and J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Laguna, Phys. Rev. B107, 075116 (2023)

    2023

  46. [53]

    F. A. Bayocboc and F. N. C. Paraan, Phys. Rev. E 92, 032142 (2015)

    2015

  47. [54]

    E. M. Centamori, M. Campisi, and V. Giovannetti, Spin-chain based quantum thermal machines (2023), arXiv:2303.15574 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Francica, J

    G. Francica, J. Goold, and F. Plastina, Phys. Rev. E 99, 042105 (2019)

    2019

  49. [56]

    B. d. L. Bernardo, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062152 (2020)

    2020

  50. [57]

    A. D. Varizi, A. P. Vieira, C. Cormick, R. C. Drumond, and G. T. Landi, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033279 (2020)

    2020

  51. [58]

    D. Bruß, N. Datta, A. Ekert, L. C. Kwek, and C. Mac- chiavello, Phys. Rev. A 72, 014301 (2005)

    2005

  52. [59]

    W. Sun, Y. Jin, and G. Lu, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042422 (2024)

    2024

  53. [60]

    Reiche, F

    D. Reiche, F. Intravaia, J.-T. Hsiang, K. Busch, and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 102, 050203 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    S. H. S. Silva, G. T. Landi, R. C. Drumond, and E. Pereira, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062146 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Balachandran, G

    V. Balachandran, G. Benenti, E. Pereira, G. Casati, and D. Poletti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 200603 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 220601 (2001)

    2001

  57. [65]

    X. L. Huang, T. Wang, and X. X. Yi, Phys. Rev. E 86, 051105 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    Z. Lin, S. Su, J. Chen, J. Chen, and J. F. G. Santos, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062210 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Panda, F

    A. Panda, F. C. Binder, and S. Vinjanampathy, Phys. Rev. A 108, 062214 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    E. V. H. Doggen, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. B 109, 224203 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    J. Yi, P. Talkner, and Y. W. Kim, Phys. Rev. E 96, 022108 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    X. Ding, J. Yi, Y. W. Kim, and P. Talkner, Phys. Rev. E 98, 042122 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Buffoni, A

    L. Buffoni, A. Solfanelli, P. Verrucchi, A. Cuccoli, and M. Campisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 070603 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Chand and A

    S. Chand and A. Biswas, Phys. Rev. E 95, 032111 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Chand, S

    S. Chand, S. Dasgupta, and A. Biswas, Phys. Rev. E103, 032144 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Purkait and A

    C. Purkait and A. Biswas, Phys. Rev. E 107, 054110 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Chand and A

    S. Chand and A. Biswas, Phys. Rev. E 98, 052147 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    Mascarenhas, H

    E. Mascarenhas, H. Bragan¸ ca, R. Dorner, M. Fran ¸ ca Santos, V. Vedral, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Phys. Rev. E 89, 062103 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    X. Peng, J. Du, and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. A 71, 012307 (2005)

    2005

  70. [78]

    Reiner, M

    J.-M. Reiner, M. Marthaler, J. Braum¨ uller, M. Weides, and G. Sch¨ on, Phys. Rev. A94, 032338 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    M´ elin, Y.-C

    R. M´ elin, Y.-C. Lin, P. Lajk´ o, H. Rieger, and F. Igl´ oi, Phys. Rev. B 65, 104415 (2002)

    2002

  72. [80]

    Sharma and A

    S. Sharma and A. Dutta, Phys. Rev. E92, 022108 (2015)

    2015

  73. [81]

    M. E. S. Nunes and J. A. Plascak, Phys. Rev. E 109, 014134 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    G. T. Landi, A. L. Fonseca de Oliveira, and E. Buksman, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042106 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035008 (2021). 14

    2021

  76. [84]

    F. V. Melo, N. S´ a, I. Roditi, A. M. Souza, I. S. Oliveira, R. S. Sarthour, and G. T. Landi, Phys. Rev. A 106, 032410 (2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    S. Seah, S. Nimmrichter, D. Grimmer, J. P. Santos, V. Scarani, and G. T. Landi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 180602 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    P. P. Hofer, J.-R. Souquet, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. B 93, 041418 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.