Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Markovian heat engine boosted by quantum coherence

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 The paper argues that a one-qubit Otto engine can beat the classical efficiency limit by consuming quantum coherence, with Carnot as the ultimate bound.

desk verdict The efficiency boost is an artifact of counting a zero-temperature amplitude damping channel as hot-bath heat; fix the accounting and the Otto-beating claim likely disappears. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22902 v2 pith:ORA7XG75 submitted 2025-05-28 quant-ph

Freddier Cuenca-Montenegro , Marcela Herrera , John H. Reina This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumheatengineOttocyclecoherenceLeggett-Garginequalityamplitudedampingphasecircuitsimulationthermodynamiccost
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 argues that a one-qubit quantum Otto engine, run with partial thermalization and subject to amplitude and phase damping, can extract more work per unit of hot-stroke heat than the standard Otto cycle allows, while staying below the Carnot bound. The claimed mechanism is that quantum coherence, generated during the expansion stroke and then consumed under noise, acts as an additional thermodynamic resource. The paper supports the non-classical character of the cycle by exhibiting violations of the Leggett-Garg temporal-correlation inequality, and it reports that amplitude damping raises both work and efficiency in the partial-thermalization regime, whereas phase damping raises work but lowers efficiency. It also implements the entire cycle as a quantum circuit and defines a thermodynamic cost for the noisy hardware implementation.

What carries the argument

The central object is a one-qubit (spin-$\frac12$) quantum Otto cycle: two adiabatic strokes implemented by time-dependent Hamiltonians that rotate the energy gap between the $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ Pauli bases, and two isochoric strokes implemented by a partial SWAP thermalization map with parameter $\lambda$. This map is composed with amplitude-damping and phase-damping Kraus channels, which model energy relaxation and dephasing respectively. The load-bearing identities are the efficiency definition $\eta = -\langle W\rangle/\langle Q_h\rangle$ with heat counted as an energy change over the hot stroke, the equivalent relative-entropy form $\eta_E = \eta_{\text{Carnot}} - \Delta S_{\text{th}}/(\beta_c\langle Q_h\rangle)$, and the Leggett-Garg correlator $K = C_{12}+C_{23}-C_{13}$, whose violation witnesses the coherence that the engine consumes.

What would settle it

Recompute the hot-stroke heat with a thermal Lindblad dissipator whose fixed point is the Gibbs state at inverse temperature $\beta_h$, instead of the amplitude-damping channel of Eqs. (B3)-(B7), and check whether $\eta = -\langle W\rangle/\langle Q_h\rangle$ still exceeds $1 - \omega_c/\omega_h$ in the same parameter regime; likewise recompute the post-thermalization state as a function of $\rho_{\exp}(\tau)$ rather than of $\rho_c$. If either change removes the excess, the coherence-boost effect is an artifact of those modeling choices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the engine efficiency, defined as $\eta = -\langle W\rangle/\langle Q_h\rangle$, can exceed the Otto-cycle limit $\eta_{\text{Otto}} = 1 - \omega_c/\omega_h$ when the working qubit is only partially thermalized and its coherences are consumed by noise. In the model, the expansion stroke creates coherence in the qubit; the hot thermalization stroke, built from a partial SWAP map plus amplitude and phase damping channels, partially relaxes the state and destroys that coherence; and the resulting non-equilibrium state produces a more favorable work-to-heat ratio. The paper derives an equivalent efficiency expression $\eta_E = \eta_{\text{Carnot}} - \Delta S_{\text{th}}/(\beta_c \langle Q_h\rangle)$, so the Carnot limit is still the absolute ceiling. The Leggett-Garg parameter $K = C_{12}+C_{23}-C_{13}$ is presented as an operational witness that the correlations driving the cycle are non-classical.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the energy exchanged with an amplitude-damping channel that relaxes the qubit toward its ground state counts as heat from the hot reservoir, and that the post-thermalization state appearing in the work formulas is reached from the expanded state; if either is replaced by the more literal reading — a separate zero-temperature bath for that channel, or a state built directly from the cold state — the efficiency advantage over the Otto limit is not supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, partial thermalization plus amplitude damping turns a noise channel from pure loss into a work-enhancing resource for a single-qubit Otto cycle.
  • The Otto bound is not fundamental for this non-equilibrium, coherence-carrying working substance; only Carnot's bound remains, and it is reached only when the entropy-production term vanishes.
  • The same coherence that makes the engine non-classical, witnessed by Leggett-Garg violations, is depleted by both damping channels, so the efficiency boost is a finite-time coherence-consumption effect.
  • In a circuit implementation, the CNOT gate is the dominant error source, so the thermodynamic cost $C_T$ of realizing the engine on noisy hardware is concentrated in the entangling gate.
  • Phase damping alone cannot push efficiency past the Otto limit even though it increases extractable work, separating work extraction from efficiency enhancement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the hot stroke is modeled by a thermal bath at the hot temperature with detailed balance instead of the zero-temperature amplitude-damping channel, the efficiency boost may vanish; this is a direct calculation one could run with the paper's own parameters.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's special $\sigma_z$-basis version in Appendix C does not show the boost, which suggests the effect is tied to the rotating-frame Hamiltonians of Eqs. (1)-(2); comparing the two basis choices would isolate the mechanism.
  • Editorial inference: the thermodynamic cost $C_T$ defined for the circuit could be recast as a per-gate resource cost, guiding hardware choices that preserve coherence while reducing entropy production.
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 studies a single-qubit quantum Otto heat engine whose hot stroke is modeled by a partial SWAP thermalization channel together with amplitude and phase damping channels. The authors report that, under partial thermalization, amplitude damping increases the extractable work and causes the engine efficiency to exceed the standard Otto limit, an effect they attribute to the consumption of quantum coherence. They support this claim with numerical simulations, a quantum-circuit implementation in Qiskit, and a Leggett-Garg inequality analysis, and they introduce a thermodynamic cost measure for the circuit. An analytical solution for a simplified σ_z-basis version is provided in Appendix C.

Significance. If correct, the result would provide a simple, experimentally relevant demonstration that quantum coherence can be consumed as a thermodynamic resource to push a Markovian heat engine beyond the classical Otto efficiency, with the circuit implementation adding practical value. The paper's strengths include a clearly defined model, an analytical appendix with closed-form expressions, a detailed comparison of circuit simulations with the numerical model, and a noise-aware thermodynamic cost measure. However, the central claim is not supported because the amplitude damping channel used in the hot stroke describes a zero-temperature reservoir rather than a heat bath at the hot temperature β_h; this misidentification artificially reduces the heat denominator in the efficiency and invalidates the claimed transcendence of the Otto limit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (12), and Appendix B] The efficiency is defined as η = −⟨W⟩/⟨Q_h⟩, with ⟨Q_h⟩ in Eq. (10) taken as the full internal energy change during the hot stroke. However, the hot stroke includes an amplitude damping channel whose dissipator in Eq. (B3), D_ad(ρ) = γ[σ− ρ σ+ − ½{σ+σ−, ρ}], drives the qubit to its ground state, corresponding to a zero-temperature reservoir. A finite-temperature bath at inverse temperature β_h would require an additional σ+ ρ σ− term with a detailed-balance factor. Consequently, the energy removed by this zero-temperature channel is improperly counted as heat from the hot reservoir, reducing the denominator of Eq. (12) and inflating the efficiency. The first law ⟨Q_c⟩+⟨Q_h⟩+⟨W⟩=0 used in Appendix D omits the heat exchanged with this zero-temperature bath, so the efficiency comparison with the Otto limit in Fig. 5 is not thermodynamically justified.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (8)–(10)] The final state after partial thermalization is defined as ρ_f^th = E_th(E_ad(E_pd(ρ_c))). This state does not depend on the state after the expansion stroke, ρ_exp(τ), contrary to the cycle description in Section II where the hot stroke acts on ρ_exp(τ). Taken literally, this breaks the stroke-to-stroke continuity: the compression work in Eq. (8) and the heat in Eq. (10) are then not the energy changes along the actual cycle. Correcting the typo to E_th(E_ad(E_pd(ρ_exp(τ)))) would make the definitions consistent with the stroke ordering, but it does not repair the heat-accounting flaw identified above.
  3. [Section V, Fig. 5] The claim that the engine surpasses the Otto limit relies on comparing η of Eq. (12) with 1−ω_c/ω_h. Since the model includes an additional zero-temperature reservoir (the amplitude damping channel), η is not the thermodynamic efficiency relative to the hot bath: the heat absorbed from the hot reservoir alone is not identified. A proper multi-reservoir efficiency would require separating the heat from the hot bath from the energy exchanged with the zero-temperature channel, which is not done. Thus, the apparent transcendence in Figs. 5(a) and 5(c) is an artifact of the chosen heat definition rather than a genuine advantage from coherence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section VII] The statement that 'amplitude damping increases the extractable work' should be qualified: the amplitude damping channel models a zero-temperature reservoir, and its role in the hot stroke is to remove energy from the qubit, not to inject heat from a hot bath.
  2. [Section II] The phrase 'considering that the reservoir acts as a perfect heat bath [29]' is misleading; the amplitude damping master equation in Eq. (B3) describes a zero-temperature bath, not a finite-temperature heat bath at β_h.
  3. [Appendix B] The word 'Krauss' should be 'Kraus' in the sentence introducing the operators in Eq. (B8).
  4. [Figures 2–5] The reported parameters β_c = 1.4 (peV)^−1 and β_h = 0.1 (peV)^−1 are inconsistent with the stated temperatures T_c = 0.075 µK and T_h = 0.45 µK in the figure captions; the authors should check the unit conversion between (peV)^−1 and K.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the efficiency and work are direct computations from an explicit master-equation model, cross-checked by circuit simulation and an analytical appendix; the zero-temperature bookkeeping and stroke-continuity concerns are correctness issues, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that amplitude damping pushes the partial-thermalization Otto cycle above the Otto efficiency bound — is a self-contained model computation, not a derivation that reduces to its own input. The work ⟨W⟩ (Eqs. 7–9) and heat ⟨Q_h⟩ (Eq. 10) are evaluated from explicitly stated maps: the partial-SWAP thermalization E_th (Appendix A), the amplitude-damping channel E_ad (Eq. 4 and Appendix B), the dephasing channel E_pd (Eq. 5), and the unitary expansion/compression operators generated by Eqs. (1)–(2). The efficiency η = −⟨W⟩/⟨Q_h⟩ (Eq. 12) is computed, not assumed; Appendix D re-derives the same quantity as η_E, and the circuit simulation (Fig. 7) is verified against the numerical model with no parameter fitted to a target result. Appendix C gives an independent analytical expression with explicit dependence on λ, γ, β_c, β_h that reproduces the numerics and shows the σ_z-basis version stays at the Otto limit, so the boost is a property of the rotated-basis model rather than of any assumed identity. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-dressing self-citation, or renamed empirical pattern carries the argument. The self-citations that exist ([3], [6], [12], [18], sharing authors Herrera or Reina) are peripheral: [12] is invoked only for the textbook heat-engine/refrigerator sign conventions, and the rest are contextual. The concerns raised in the reviewer notes are real but are physics-consistency issues, not circularity: the dissipator in Eq. (B3) has only the σ_− term, so E_ad relaxes the qubit to |0⟩⟨0| (zero temperature), and counting that energy drain inside ⟨Q_h⟩ (Eq. 10) conflates a T = 0 sink with the hot bath; likewise, the stated ρ_f^th = E_th(E_ad(E_pd(ρ_c))) in Sec. IV is internally inconsistent unless read as a typo for a map acting on ρ_exp(τ). Either defect could undermine the efficiency claim, but neither makes the output equal to the input by construction, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a standard master equation, an ad hoc partial swap thermalization, and a disputable identification of a zero-temperature damping channel with the hot reservoir. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • partial thermalization parameter λ = 0.5 (main figures)
    Controls the degree of hot thermalization via partial swap; central to the efficiency claim but chosen by hand, not fitted.
  • amplitude damping rate γ = 0.0 to 0.8 (Fig. 5)
    Scans the zero-temperature relaxation rate; the claimed efficiency boost grows with γ.
  • phase damping parameter p = 0.0 to 1.0
    Controls dephasing strength; affects extractable work and efficiency in opposite directions.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Born-Markov master equation with local dissipators
    Used to derive the amplitude and phase damping channels in Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper Partial SWAP thermalization maps (Eq. A1) model the hot and cold reservoir strokes
    The partial thermalization is an ad hoc model of finite-time thermalization with a parameter λ.
  • domain assumption The zero-temperature amplitude damping channel is part of the hot reservoir interaction
    This is the load-bearing assumption; it conflates two baths and inflates the efficiency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Markovian heat engine boosted by quantum coherence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ORA7XG75

@misc{pith2026250522902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Markovian heat engine boosted by quantum coherence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ORA7XG75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22902}
}
read the original abstract

We evaluate the role of quantum coherence as a thermodynamic resource in a noisy, Markovian, one-qubit heat engine. By consuming the coherence of noisy quantum states, we demonstrate that the engine can surpass the classical efficiency limit when operating according to a quantum Otto cycle. The engine's non-classical nature is demonstrated by its violation of the Leggett-Garg's temporal correlations inequality. Amplitude damping increases the extractable work under partial thermalization, thereby increasing the efficiency. In contrast, phase damping increases the extractable work under partial thermalization but reduces the efficiency. We implement the entire Otto cycle in a quantum circuit, simulating realistic amplitude and phase damping channels, as well as gate-level noise. We introduce an operational measure of the circuit's thermodynamic cost to establish a direct link between energy consumption and information processing in quantum heat engines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22902 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the quantum Otto cycle for the pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum coherence dynamics of states through the Otto cycle: (a) Production of quantum coherence in the process of energy gap expansion carried out by the Hamiltonian Hexp(t), Eq. (1). (b) Decay of the imaginary part of quantum coherence in a thermal state ρth, with a heat reservoir due to amplitude damping under partial thermalization λ = 0.5 and p = 0. (c) Effect of thermalization on quantum coherence in the therm… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Leggett-Garg time correlations for the Otto cycle in the heat engine. Temporal correlation function for (a) unitary evolution for different values of thermalization λ; γ = 0, p = 0, (b) amplitude damping without dephasing (p = 0), λ = 0.5, (c) phase damping without amplitude damping (γ = 0), λ = 0.5. Frequencies and inverse temperatures are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Effect of amplitude damping γ on the work dynamics with p = 0, (b) Effect of phase damping p, without amplitude damping. (c) Effect of thermalization λ, for p = 0 and γ = 0. (d) Phase diagram of the total work parameters for the heat engine, p = 0, (e) and (f) oper…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of thermalization and noise on the efficiency of the heat engine: (a) Effect of amplitude damping γ on the efficiency for partial thermalization with the hot reservoir, λ = 0.5 and p = 0. The inset shows a similar situation with full thermalization, λ = 1. (b) E…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantum circuit implemented in Qiskit [36] to determine the work extracted during the Otto cycle. Qubits q0 and q3 are ancillae to simulate the interaction with the reservoirs, q2 is another ancilla qubit that helps to obtain the desired state in the partial SWAP, and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Phase diagram of the thermodynamic cost C T as a function of the thermalization λ and the temperature ratio Tc/Th in the reservoirs; γ = 0.6, p = 0.1. ωc and ωh are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of simulations in a quantum circuit un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Herrera, J

    M. Herrera, J. H. Reina, I. D’Amico, and R. M. Serra, Correlation-boosted quantum engine: A proof- of-principle demonstration, Physical Review Research5, 043104 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quantacell: powerful charging of quantum batteries, New Journal of Physics17, 075015 (2015)

    2015

  3. [2]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, and S. Vinjanampathy, Quantum batteries, inThermodynamics in the Quan- tum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 195, edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, Cham,

    work page

  4. [3]

    J. D. ´Alvarez Cuartas and J. H. Reina, Entanglement and thermodynamic scaling laws in quantum superabsorption (2025, arXiv 2510.26373), arXiv:2510.26373 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    Francica, F

    G. Francica, F. C. Binder, G. Guarnieri, M. T. Mitchi- son, J. Goold, and F. Plastina, Quantum coherence and ergotropy, Physical Review Letters125, 180603 (2020)

    2020

  6. [5]

    Yao and X.-Q

    Y. Yao and X.-Q. Shao, Optimal charging of open spin- chain quantum batteries via homodyne-based feedback control, Phyics Review E106, 014138 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    E. J. Fox, M. Herrera, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and I. D’Amico, Harnessing nth root gates for energy storage, Entropy26, 952 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Dillenschneider and E

    R. Dillenschneider and E. Lutz, Energetics of quantum correlations, Europhysics Letters88, 50003 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    M. O. Scully, M. S. Zubairy, G. S. Agarwal, and H. Walther, Extracting work from a single heat bath via vanishing quantum coherence, Science299, 862 (2003)

    2003

  2. [9]

    Korzekwa, M

    K. Korzekwa, M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, The extraction of work from quantum coherence, New Journal of Physics18, 023045 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    P. A. Camati, J. F. G. Santos, and R. M. Serra, Coher- ence effects in the performance of the quantum otto heat engine, Physical Review A99, 062103 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    J. Um, K. E. Dorfman, and H. Park, Coherence-enhanced quantum-dot heat engine, Physical Review Research4, L032034 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Aimet and H

    S. Aimet and H. Kwon, Engineering a heat engine purely driven by quantum coherence, Physical Review A107, 012221 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Stefanatos, Optimal efficiency of a noisy quantum heat engine, Physical Review Letters90, 012119 (2014)

    D. Stefanatos, Optimal efficiency of a noisy quantum heat engine, Physical Review Letters90, 012119 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Miller, M

    M. Miller, M. Scalici, M. Fellous-Asiani, and A. Streltsov, Power of noisy quantum states and the advantage of re- source dilution, Physical Review A109, 022404 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. del Rio, and P. Skrzypczyk, The role of quantum information in ther- modynamics—a topical review, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 143001 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Geva and R

    E. Geva and R. Kosloff, A quantum-mechanical heat en- gine operating in finite time. a model consisting of spin- 11 1/2 systems as the working fluid, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics96, 3054 (1992)

    1992

  10. [18]

    J. P. S. Peterson, T. B. Batalh˜ ao, M. Herrera, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Experimental characterization of a spin quantum heat engine, Physical Review Letters123, 240601 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. Lahiri, T. Bagarti, and S. Banerjee, Ther- modynamics of one and two-qubit nonequilibrium heat engines running between squeezed thermal reservoirs, Physical A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 623, 128832 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Binder, L

    F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso,Thermodynamics In The Quantum Regime, Vol. 195 (Springer, 2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Niedenzu, V

    W. Niedenzu, V. Mukherjee, A. Ghosh, A. G. Kofman, and G. Kurizki, Quantum engine efficiency bound beyond the second law of thermodynamics, Nature Communica- tions9, 165 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Klatzow, J

    J. Klatzow, J. N. Becker, P. M. Ledingham, C. Weinzetl, K. T. Kaczmarek, D. J. Saunders, J. Nunn, I. A. Walms- ley, R. Uzdin, and E. Poem, Experimental demonstration of quantum effects in the operation of microscopic heat engines, Physical Review Letters122, 110601 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Shi, H.-L

    Y.-H. Shi, H.-L. Shi, X.-H. Wang, M.-L. Hu, S.-Y. Liu, W.-L. Yang, and H. Fan, Quantum coherence in a quan- tum heat engine, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 085301 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports 831, 1 (2019)

    M. Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports 831, 1 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, Quantum mechanics ver- sus macroscopic realism: Is the flux there when nobody looks?, Physical Review Letters54, 857 (1985)

    1985

  18. [26]

    Emary, N

    C. Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, Leggett–garg in- equalities, Reports on Progress in Physics77, 016001 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    H. J. Carmichael,Statistical methods in quantum optics 1: master equations and Fokker-Planck equations, Vol. 1 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    McCauley, B

    G. McCauley, B. Cruikshank, D. I. Bondar, and K. Ja- cobs, Accurate lindblad-form master equation for weakly damped quantum systems across all regimes, npj Quan- tum Information6, 74 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Colla and H.-P

    A. Colla and H.-P. Breuer, Thermodynamic roles of quan- tum environments: From heat baths to work reservoirs, Quantum Science and Technology (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory Of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, UK, 2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Vol. 2 (Cambridge university press Cambridge, 2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Mohan, R

    B. Mohan, R. Gangwar, T. Pandit, M. L. Bera, M. Lewenstein, and M. N. Bera, Coherent heat trans- fer leads to genuine quantum enhancement in the perfor- mances of continuous engines, Physical Review Applied 23(2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    R. Dann, R. Kosloff, and P. Salamon, Quantum finite- time thermodynamics: insight from a single qubit engine, Entropy22, 1255 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Sutantyo, Z

    T. Sutantyo, Z. Zettira, A. Fahriza, and Z. Abdullah, Performance of 3d quantum otto engine with partial ther- malization, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 2734 (IOP Publishing, 2024) p. 012031

    2024

  27. [35]

    K. E. Dorfman, D. Xu, and J. Cao, Efficiency at maxi- mum power of a laser quantum heat engine enhanced by noise-induced coherence, Physical Review E97(2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Upadhyaya, W

    T. Upadhyaya, W. F. Braasch, G. T. Landi, and N. Y. Halpern, Non-abelian transport distinguishes three usu- ally equivalent notions of entropy production, PRX Quantum5, 030355 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Alexeev, D

    Y. Alexeev, D. Bacon, K. R. Brown, R. Calderbank, L. D. Carr, F. T. Chong, B. DeMarco, D. Englund, E. Farhi, B. Fefferman, A. V. Gorshkov, A. Houck, J. Kim, S. Kim- mel, M. Lange, S. Lloyd, M. D. Lukin, D. Maslov, P. Maunz, C. Monroe, J. Preskill, M. Roetteler, M. J. Savage, a...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature549, 242–246 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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