Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper derives the Hamiltonian structure that lets a work source act as a catalyst in autonomous quantum thermodynamics, and ties the resulting speed limit to Landauer's principle and quantum hypothesis testing.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:45 UTC pith:PEWZJRV2

load-bearing objection The paper's central claim about Hamiltonian structure for a catalytic work source is not proven: Eq. (17) smuggles in the multiplicativity that Eq. (18) is supposed to establish. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.08858 v2 pith:PEWZJRV2 submitted 2025-11-12 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Information Processing in Quantum Thermodynamic Systems: an Autonomous Hamiltonian Approach

Shou-I Tang , Emery Doucet , Akram Touil , Sebastian Deffner , Akira Sone This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords quantum thermodynamicsautonomous Hamiltoniancatalytic work sourceunitary partial transposeLandauer principlequantum speed limitquantum hypothesis testingvon Neumann entropy
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 extends a classical autonomous thermodynamics framework to the quantum domain, where the entire universe—system, heat bath, memory, and work source—evolves unitarily under a single time-independent Hamiltonian. Its central question is what structure that Hamiltonian must have so the work source preserves its original randomness and acts as a catalyst. The authors claim that the total unitary evolution must have a unitary partial transpose, and they show this requirement is equivalent to two commutativity conditions on the Hamiltonian's operator decomposition. From these constraints they derive a quantum second law, a quantum Landauer bound, and a quantum thermodynamic speed limit, and they give this speed limit an operational meaning in quantum hypothesis testing.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a work source in an autonomous quantum thermodynamic setting can preserve its von Neumann entropy for any initial state only if the total unitary evolution has a unitary partial transpose. Writing the total Hamiltonian as a sum of tensor products, H_tot = Σ_j A_j⊗B_j, the authors show this catalysis condition is equivalent to requiring that the work-source operators A_j all mutually commute, [A_i,A_j]=0, and that each B_j commutes with the initial joint state of system, bath, and memory, [B_j,ρ_w]=0. The derivation proceeds by identifying the partial transpose of the time-evolution operator with the exponential of the partial-transposed Hamiltonian, comparin

What carries the argument

The central object is the catalysis unitary with a unitary partial transpose: a bipartite unitary U(τ) whose partial transpose over the work-source subsystem is also unitary, inducing a unital map on the work source. The Hamiltonian decomposition H_tot = Σ_j A_j⊗B_j, together with the commutativity constraints [A_i,A_j]=0 and [B_j,ρ_w]=0, carries the argument. A secondary machinery is the quantum thermodynamic speed limit, defined via time-averaged Schatten p-norms of the reduced dynamics of system and memory, which yields an upper bound on entropy production and, through quantum Stein's lemma, a bound on the hypothesis-testing error exponent.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the partial transpose of the total unitary evolution equals the exponential of the partial-transposed Hamiltonian, U^⊤_w(τ)=e^{-iH^⊤_w τ}, which is asserted rather than proved and requires (H^n)^⊤_w=(H^⊤_w)^n for every n; this identity does not hold for generic Hermitian Hamiltonians.

What would settle it

Take H = X⊗Z + Z⊗X on a two-qubit space (first qubit = work source, second = rest). Compute (H^2)^⊤_w and (H^⊤_w)^2: because [X,Z]≠0, the cross terms differ, so U^⊤_w(τ)=e^{-iH^⊤_w τ} is false for generic τ, directly contradicting Eq. (17) and invalidating the derived commutativity constraints for this Hamiltonian.

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

If this is right

  • If the derived constraints hold, any autonomous quantum information-processing setup with a catalytic work source must have a Hamiltonian whose work-source terms are mutually commuting, giving a concrete design rule for quantum engines and refrigerators.
  • The quantum Landauer bound ΔS_s + ΔS_m ≥ βQ_eff follows, with the bound explicitly depending on initial correlations through the initial relative entropy.
  • The quantum thermodynamic speed limit T*_p bounds the rate at which entropy can be exchanged between the principal system and memory, complementing the Landauer bound from below with an upper bound.
  • Through quantum Stein's lemma, the speed limit translates into an upper bound on the asymptotic error exponent in distinguishing the true final state from the product-state approximation, giving the speed limit an operational information-theoretic meaning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the equivalence between a unitary partial transpose and the Hamiltonian commutativity constraints rests on the assumption that the partial transpose of the unitary equals the exponential of the partial-transposed Hamiltonian; for generic non-commuting Hamiltonians this identity fails, so the derived constraints characterize a restricted—possibly very special—class of autonomou
  • Editorial inference: the paper's qubit examples suggest a testable prediction—for Werner-like initial states, the quantum thermodynamic speed limit is independent of the mixing parameter λ; this could be checked in a trapped-ion or superconducting-qubit experiment by measuring the trace-distance dynamics.
  • Editorial inference: because the work-source dynamics is required to be unital, the paper's framework implicitly assumes that the work source can only preserve or increase its entropy, never decrease it; relaxing the catalytic condition would open a broader class of Hamiltonians where work can be extracted at the cost of work-source randomness.
  • Editorial inference: the connection to hypothesis testing indicates that the speed limit bounds how quickly the reduced system-memory state becomes distinguishable from a product-state approximation, which could be probed by operational state-discrimination measurements.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum, fully autonomous generalization of the classical information-processing thermodynamics of Deffner and Jarzynski (PRX 3, 041003). It considers a universe consisting of a principal system, bath, memory, and work source, and asks what Hamiltonian structures allow the work source to act as a catalyst preserving its von Neumann entropy. The advertised central result is that the total unitary must have a unitary partial transpose, and that this is equivalent to Hamiltonian constraints: the operators {A_j} acting on the work source must commute and the operators {B_j} must commute with the initial state of the complement. The paper then derives a second law with initial correlations (Eq. 41), a Landauer bound (Eq. 44), a quantum thermodynamic speed limit (Eqs. 53-56), and an interpretation via quantum Stein's lemma (Eq. 58). Detailed two-qubit examples are provided in Appendix C.

Significance. The intended generalization is potentially significant: a fully autonomous Hamiltonian treatment connecting information processing, Landauer's principle, and speed limits would be a useful contribution. The paper contains several correct or standard pieces: the relative-entropy derivation of the second law, the Landauer bound, and the speed-limit inequalities largely follow known techniques, and the worked examples in Appendix C are detailed. However, the paper's distinctive new claim—the derivation of Hamiltonian constraints from the unitary-partial-transpose property—is not established. The step Eq. (17) assumes the multiplicativity that Eq. (18) is supposed to prove, and the subsequent necessity argument for commutativity is false as stated. Since this is the central contribution advertised in the abstract, the significance of the paper in its present form is substantially diminished.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (17)] This is the load-bearing step of the paper. The identity U^{T_w}(τ)=e^{-iH^{T_w}τ} is asserted by 'leveraging' Hermiticity of H^{T_w} and unitarity of U^{T_w}, but Hermiticity only makes e^{-iH^{T_w}τ} a unitary; it does not identify it with U^{T_w}. Partial transposition is not multiplicative: (H^n)^{T_w} ≠ (H^{T_w})^n in general. For example, with H=X⊗Z+Z⊗X on two qubits, H^{T_w}=H because X and Z are real symmetric, but Γ(H^2)=2(I⊗I-Y⊗Y) while H^2=2(I⊗I+Y⊗Y), so Γ(H^2)≠(Γ H)^2. Thus Eq. (18) is exactly the missing condition needed to justify Eq. (17), and comparing Eqs. (16) and (17) is circular. Without an independent proof of Eq. (18), the claimed equivalence between unitary partial transpose and Hamiltonian commutativity is unproven.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (19)] The step from [U(τ),1⊗ρ_w]=0 to [H_tot,1⊗ρ_w]=0 is not valid for a single time τ. A unitary can commute with an operator at one time even when its generator does not (e.g., if U(τ)=-I). This step would be justified if the catalyst condition held for all t, by differentiating at t=0, but that is not stated. The distinction matters because Eq. (19) is subsequently used to derive Eq. (22).
  3. [Sec. III, Eqs. (21)-(28)] The arguments 'for any choice of {A_j}' and 'for any choice of {B_j}' are not properties of a fixed Hamiltonian. In Eq. (21), from Σ_j A_j⊗[B_j,ρ_w]=0 one may conclude each commutator vanishes only if the A_j are linearly independent; similarly, Eq. (18) implies Eq. (27) only under extra independence/genericity assumptions on the products B_i B_j. The claimed necessity of Eq. (28) is false as stated: take H=(X+Z)⊗I with the decomposition A_1=X, A_2=Z, B_1=B_2=I. Then H^{T_w}=H, Eq. (18) holds, and U^{T_w} is unitary, yet [A_1,A_2]=[X,Z]≠0. A different decomposition with M=1 exists, but the paper does not restrict to minimal or linearly independent decompositions, and the logical quantifier over {B_j} is not justified. Thus the 'complete list of constraints' is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II and throughout] The symbols ρ_w and ρw (or ρ_w vs ρ_w) are visually almost identical, one denoting the work-source state and the other the joint state of the complement. Please use distinct notations, e.g., ρ_W and ρ_{\bar W}, throughout; this is especially confusing in Eqs. (4)-(8), (36)-(37), and the mutual-information sentence after Eq. (44).
  2. [Appendix B] In the displayed derivation of Eq. (41), the term S(ρ_b) in the intermediate line should presumably be S(ρ_s); otherwise the cancellation leading to ΔS(ρ_s) is not visible.
  3. [Appendix C 2 b] Equations (C48)-(C51) introduce θ without definition; they should use φ (or define θ=2φ) to match the Werner-like state defined in Eqs. (C29)-(C30).
  4. [Typos] Please fix typographical errors: 'genunie' in the Introduction, 'obtaion' before Eq. (43), 'Pringer' in Ref. [97], and 'Brãndao' in Ref. [106].

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Section III's derivation of the Hamiltonian commutativity constraints is circular: Eq. (17) already assumes the multiplicativity condition (Eq. 18) that the paper then claims to derive by comparing Eqs. (16) and (17).

specific steps
  1. other [Section III, Eqs. (16)-(18)]
    "Further leveraging that H^{⊤w}_{tot} is Hermitian (see Appendix A for details), and U^{⊤w}(τ) is a unitary operator. Namely, U^{⊤w}(τ) = e^{−iH^{⊤w}_{tot}τ} = ... Comparing Eqs. (16) and (17), H_{tot} must satisfy (H^n_{tot})^{⊤w} = (H^{⊤w}_{tot})^n (∀n)."

    Equation (17) asserts that the partial transpose of the exponential equals the exponential of the partial transpose. That identity is not a consequence of Hermiticity of H^{⊤w}_{tot} or unitarity of U^{⊤w}; for partial transposition, (H^n)^{⊤w} ≠ (H^{⊤w})^n in general. The asserted equality is exactly the multiplicativity condition stated in Eq. (18). Thus comparing Eqs. (16) and (17) does not derive Eq. (18); it only extracts from an unjustified premise the very condition already contained in that premise. The subsequent commutativity constraints on A_j and B_j — Eqs. (22) and (28), advertised as the Hamiltonian structure underlying a unitary partial transpose — therefore rest on this circular step rather than on an independent proof. The conclusion is built into the asserted Eq. (17).

  2. other [Section III, Eqs. (12) to (19)]
    "[U(τ), 11w ⊗ ρ_w] = 0. ... From Eq. (12), we require [H_{tot}, 11w ⊗ ρ_w] = 0. (19)"

    This is not itself a circularity, but it is a distinct mathematical gap worth flagging: commutation of U(τ) with an operator at a single fixed time τ does not generally imply commutation of its generator H_{tot} with that operator. The move from Eq. (12) to Eq. (19) is therefore an unsupported step in the derivation of the Hamiltonian constraints. It is not a reduction-by-construction, so it does not increase the circularity score, but it compounds the correctness risk of Section III.

full rationale

The paper's advertised central result is the derivation of constraints on H_{tot} — in particular [A_i,A_j]=0 and [B_j,ρ_w]=0 — from the condition that the work source evolve as a catalysis-preserving unitary. The decisive step is Eq. (17), where the paper writes U^{⊤w}(τ)=e^{-iH^{⊤w}_{tot}τ} while 'leveraging' Hermiticity of H^{⊤w}_{tot} and unitarity of U^{⊤w}. Partial transposition is not an algebra homomorphism, so this identity is not automatic; it is equivalent, term by term, to the multiplicativity condition (H^n_{tot})^{⊤w}=(H^{⊤w}_{tot})^n stated in Eq. (18). Therefore, deriving Eq. (18) by comparing Eq. (17) with the term-by-term expansion Eq. (16) is circular: the premise already contains the conclusion. Consequently the commutativity constraints (22) and (28) are established only conditionally on an unproved and generally false identity. This is a genuine reduction-by-construction in the paper's signature result. The thermodynamic sections are not circular: the second-law relation (41), the quantum Landauer bound (44), the QTSL bounds (50)-(56), and the hypothesis-testing interpretation (57)-(58) follow algebraically from relative entropy, Fannes inequality, and previously established quantum speed limits. Self-citations such as Ref. [89] provide background framework but are not load-bearing for the problematic derivation, and there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. Because the circular step occurs in the central Hamiltonian-constraint claim, the score is 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the work-source catalyst assumption, the memory degeneracy, energy-conservation commutation, and—critically—the unproven Eq. (17). No free parameters are fitted; all numerical constants are state/Hamiltonian parameters in illustrative examples. No new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption [U(t), H0]=0 (Eq. 3): total unitary commutes with bare Hamiltonian, imposing energy conservation.
    Required for the first law (Eq. 33); imposed rather than derived from the model.
  • domain assumption Work source entropy is preserved for every ρ_w (Eq. 9), and E_w is a unitary operation.
    Defines the work source as catalyst; imported from classical framework [89] and [91].
  • domain assumption Memory Hamiltonian is proportional to identity (Eq. 10).
    Assumed so memory exchanges no energy; taken from [92].
  • domain assumption Initial bath state is Gibbs at inverse temperature β (Eq. 4).
    Needed to define heat and the second-law expression; β is an input parameter.
  • domain assumption A catalysis unitary satisfying Eq. (11) must satisfy [U,1⊗ρ_w]=0 and have unitary partial transpose (Ref. [93]).
    External resource-theory theorem used without proof; central to Sec. III.
  • ad hoc to paper U^⊤w(τ)=e^{-iH^⊤w τ} (Eq. 17).
    Unproven equality that is equivalent to the multiplicativity condition the paper then derives; load-bearing gap.
  • domain assumption In Appendix C general statement, the bath stays quasistatic in its thermal state: [B_j,ρ_b^th]=0 for H_sb and H_mb decompositions (Eq. C68).
    Needed for the claimed λ-independence of QTSL for Werner-like states.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20379 in / 27254 out tokens · 244859 ms · 2026-08-03T22:45:49.321365+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Extending the quantum formulation of [Phys. Rev. X 3, 041003 (2013)] to a more general setting for studying the thermodynamics of information processing including initial correlations, we generalize the second law of thermodynamics to account for information processing in such autonomous systems. We consider a composite quantum system consisting of a principal system, heat bath, memory, and work source, and adopt an autonomous Hamiltonian framework. We derive constraints on the total Hamiltonian that ensure the work source to act as a catalyst preserving its original randomness, namely that the total unitary evolution must have a unitary partial transpose. We show that this requirement is equivalent to the commutativity of operators acting on the joint system of the principal system, bath, and memory, which underlies the Hamiltonian structure. Next, we generalize the quantum speed limit for the joint dynamics of system and memory to the quantum thermodynamic speed limit, from which we obtain a dynamical version of Landauer's bound. More importantly, we also interpret this quantum thermodynamic speed limit in the context of quantum hypothesis testing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.08858 by Akira Sone, Akram Touil, Emery Doucet, Sebastian Deffner, Shou-I Tang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Initially, the heat bath [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Dependence of the QTSL of order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Dependence of the QTSL of order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of the QTSL of order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Quantum speed limit for observables from quantum asymmetry

    quant-ph 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A quantum speed limit for observables is formulated from the trace-norm asymmetry of the time-dependent state, observable through weak measurements and bounding the quantum Fisher information for the conjugate parameter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    4τ 2esin(θ) 1 +e 2 + (1−e 2) cos(θ) 2 # . (C25) Therefore, Λ(1) m (τ) = |cos(θ)| 1 +e 2 + (1−e 2) cos(θ) 2(1 +e 2)τ E

    C-maybe state We consider the case where the system and memory are initially prepared inHs ⊗ Hm is ρsm =|θ⟩ ⟨θ|,(C10) where we define |θ⟩ ≡|−⟩s ⊗ |−⟩m +|+⟩ s ⊗(cos(θ)|+⟩ m + sin(θ)|−⟩m)√ 2 .(C11) We refer to this as theC-maybe state, as it can be generated by the so-called C-maybe gate [107, 108] acting on Hs ⊗ Hm in the{|+⟩,|−⟩}basis. This gate plays a s...

  2. [2]

    It has been shown [119, 120] that 0⩽λ⩽ 1 1 + 2 sin(2φ),(C31) indicates thatρ sm(φ)is separable, whereas it becomes entangled when this condition is violated

    W erner-like states We now consider the case where the system and memory are initialized in a mixture of a maximally-mixed state and an arbitrary rank-1 projector, ρsm(φ) = 1−λ 4 11+λ|ψ(φ)⟩ ⟨ψ(φ)|, λ∈[0,1].(C29) Perhaps the most well-known example of two-qubit states of this form is the family of Werner states [118], where the projector|ψ(φ)⟩ ⟨ψ(φ)|repres...

  3. [3]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    K. T. Schütt, S. Chmiela, O. A. von Lilienfeld, A. Tkatchenko, K. Tsuda, and K.-R. Müller, Ma- chine learning meets quantum physics, Lecture Notes in Physics (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Jerbi, L

    S. Jerbi, L. J. Fiderer, H. Poulsen Nautrup, J. M. Kübler, H. J. Briegel, and V. Dunjko, Quantum ma- chine learning beyond kernel methods, Nat. Commun. 14, 517 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Torlai and R

    G. Torlai and R. G. Melko, Machine-learning quantum states in the NISQ era, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 325 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Schuld and F

    M. Schuld and F. Petruccione,Machine Learning with Quantum Computers(Springer, 2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Gao, Z.-Y

    X. Gao, Z.-Y. Zhang, and L.-M. Duan, A quantum ma- chine learning algorithm based on generative models, Sci. Adv.4, eaat9004 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    X. Gao, E. R. Anschuetz, S.-T. Wang, J. I. Cirac, and M. D. Lukin, Enhancing generative models via quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. X12, 021037 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    A. Sone, A. Tanji, and N. Yamamoto, Quantum incep- tion score, Phys. Rev. Research.6, 033198 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  13. [13]

    Maskara, S

    N. Maskara, S. Ostermann, J. Shee, M. Kalinowski, A. McClain Gomez, R. Araiza Bravo, D. S. Wang, A. I. Krylov, N. Y. Yao, M. Head-Gordon,et al., Pro- grammable simulations of molecules and materials with reconfigurable quantum processors, Nat. Phys.21, 289 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    R. Puig, M. Drudis, S. Thanasilp, and Z. Holmes, Vari- ational quantum simulation: A case study for under- standing warm starts, PRX Quantum6, 010317 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, Cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories, Nature Physics21, 25 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Shapira, J

    Y. Shapira, J. Markov, N. Akerman, A. Stern, and R. Ozeri, Programmable quantum simulations on a trapped-ion quantum computer with a global drive, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 010602 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006). 16

    2006

  19. [19]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  20. [20]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, J. L. Beckey, and P. J. Coles, Sub- quantum Fisher information, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Barbieri, Optical quantum metrology, PRX Quan- tum3, 010202 (2022)

    M. Barbieri, Optical quantum metrology, PRX Quan- tum3, 010202 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    H. Zhou, J. Choi, S. Choi, R. Landig, A. M. Douglas, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, S. Onoda, H. Sumiya, P. Cappel- laro, H. S. Knowles, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Quan- tum metrology with strongly interacting spin systems, Phys. Rev. X10, 031003 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    A. Sone, M. Cerezo, J. L. Beckey, and P. J. Coles, A gen- eralized measure of quantum Fisher information, Phys. Rev. A104, 062602 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    J. L. Beckey, M. Cerezo, A. Sone, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithm for estimating the quan- tum Fisher information, Phys. Rev. Research4, 013083 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Zhang and Q

    Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 043001 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost-function-dependent barren plateaus in shal- low quantum neural networks, Nat. Commun.12, 1791 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Com- mun.12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Preskill, Beyond NISQ: The megaquop machine, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing6, 1 (2025)

    J. Preskill, Beyond NISQ: The megaquop machine, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing6, 1 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke,et al., Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Domino, M

    K. Domino, M. Koniorczyk, K. Krawiec, K. Jałowiecki, S. Deffner, and B. Gardas, Quantum annealing in the nisq era: Railway conflict management, Entropy25, 10.3390/e25020191 (2023)

    doi:10.3390/e25020191 2023

  33. [33]

    Śmierzchalski, J

    T. Śmierzchalski, J. Pawłowski, A. Przybysz, Ł. Pawela, Z. Puchała, M. Koniorczyk, B. Gardas, S. Deffner, and K. Domino, Hybrid quantum-classical computation for automatic guided vehicles scheduling, Sci. Rep.14, 21809 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Robertson, E

    R. Robertson, E. Doucet, E. Spicer, and S. Deffner, Simon’s algorithm in the nisq cloud, Entropy27, 10.3390/e27070658 (2025)

    work page doi:10.3390/e27070658 2025

  35. [35]

    Domino, E

    K. Domino, E. Doucet, R. Robertson, B. Gardas, and S. Deffner, On the baltimore light raillink into the quan- tum future, Sci. Rep.15, 29576 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Robertson, E

    R. Robertson, E. Doucet, Z. Mzaouali, K. Domino, B. Gardas, and S. Deffner, Simon’s period finding on a quantum annealer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10771 10.48550/arXiv.2504.10771 (2025)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.10771 2025

  37. [37]

    Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemp

    J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemp. Phys.60, 226 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    M. F. Cavalcante, B. Çakmak, M. V. S. Bonança, and S. Deffner, Correcting noisy quantum gates with short- cuts to adiabaticity, EPL (Europhys. Lett.) (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynamics (Morgan and Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, 2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Aifer, N

    M. Aifer, N. M. Myers, and S. Deffner, Thermodynam- ics of quantum information in noisy polarizers, PRX Quantum4, 020343 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Śmierzchalski, Z

    T. Śmierzchalski, Z. Mzaouali, S. Deffner, and B. Gar- das, Efficiency optimization in quantum computing: balancing thermodynamics and computational perfor- mance, Sci. Rep.14, 4555 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Stevens and S

    J. Stevens and S. Deffner, Hamiltonian quantum gates- energetic advantage from entangleability, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 04LT03 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum com- putation, Phys

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum com- putation, Phys. Rev. A57, 127 (1998)

    1998

  44. [44]

    P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, in Proceedings of 37th conference on foundations of com- puter science(IEEE, 1996) pp. 56–65

    1996

  45. [45]

    Sunami, S

    S. Sunami, S. Tamiya, R. Inoue, H. Yamasaki, and A. Goban, Scalable networking of neutral-atom qubits: Nanofiber-based approach for multiprocessor fault- tolerant quantum computers, PRX Quantum6, 010101 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski,et al., Architectural mechanisms of a universal fault-tolerant quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20661 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Katabarwa, K

    A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura, and P. D. Johnson,Earlyfault-tolerantquantumcomputing,PRX Quantum5, 020101 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Landauer, Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process, IBM J

    R. Landauer, Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process, IBM J. Res. Dev.5, 183 (1961)

    1961

  49. [49]

    C. H. Bennett, Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and maxwell’s demon, Stud. Hist. Phi- los. Sci. Part B: Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys.34, 501 (2003)

    2003

  50. [50]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Paternostro, and K. Modi, Nonequilib- rium Quantum Landauer Principle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 060602 (2015)

    2015

  51. [51]

    Van Vu and K

    T. Van Vu and K. Saito, Finite-Time Quantum Lan- dauer Principle and Quantum Coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010602 (2022)

    2022

  52. [52]

    Reeb and M

    D. Reeb and M. M. Wolf, An improved Landauer princi- ple with finite-size corrections, New J. Phys.16, 103011 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    A. M. Timpanaro, J. P. Santos, and G. T. Landi, Lan- dauer’s principle at zero temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 240601 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Deffner, Energetic cost of hamiltonian quantum gates, EPL (Europhys

    S. Deffner, Energetic cost of hamiltonian quantum gates, EPL (Europhys. Lett.)134, 40002 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Quantum speed limits: fromheisenberg’suncertaintyprincipletooptimalquan- tumcontrol,J.Phys.AMath.Theor.50,453001(2017)

    2017

  56. [56]

    Nishiyama and Y

    T. Nishiyama and Y. Hasegawa, Speed limits and ther- modynamic uncertainty relations for quantum systems with the non-hermitian hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. A111, 012214 (2025)

    2025

  57. [58]

    F.Campaioli, F.A.Pollock,andK.Modi,Tight, robust, and feasible quantum speed limits for open dynamics, 17 Quantum3, 168 (2019)

    2019

  58. [59]

    M. R. Frey, Quantum speed limits—primer, perspec- tives, andpotentialfuturedirections,QuantumInf.Pro- cess.15, 3919 (2016)

    2016

  59. [60]

    Deffner, Quantum speed limits and the maximal rate of information production, Phys

    S. Deffner, Quantum speed limits and the maximal rate of information production, Phys. Rev. Research2, 013161 (2020)

    2020

  60. [61]

    Deffner and E

    S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Quantum speed limit for non- markovian dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 010402 (2013)

    2013

  61. [62]

    Deffner, Geometric quantum speed limits: a case for wigner phase space, New J

    S. Deffner, Geometric quantum speed limits: a case for wigner phase space, New J. Phys.19, 103018 (2017)

    2017

  62. [63]

    Aifer and S

    M. Aifer and S. Deffner, From quantum speed limits to energy-efficientquantumgates,NewJ.Phys.24,055002 (2022)

    2022

  63. [64]

    Binder, L

    F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso,Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime (Springer, 2019)

    2019

  64. [65]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermody- namics, Contemp. Phys.57, 545 (2016)

    2016

  65. [66]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. del Rio, and P. Skrzypczyk, The role of quantum information in thermodynamics—a topical review, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.49, 143001 (2016)

    2016

  66. [67]

    Aufféves, Quantum Technologies Need a Quantum Energy Initiative, PRX Quantum3, 020101 (2022)

    A. Aufféves, Quantum Technologies Need a Quantum Energy Initiative, PRX Quantum3, 020101 (2022)

    2022

  67. [68]

    Campbell, I

    S. Campbell, I. D’Amico, M. A. Ciampini, J. Anders, N. Ares, S. Artini, A. Auffèves, L. B. Oftelie, L. P. Bettmann, M. V. Bonança,et al., Roadmap on quan- tum thermodynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20145 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  68. [69]

    Gour, Role of quantum coherence in thermodynam- ics, PRX Quantum3, 040323 (2022)

    G. Gour, Role of quantum coherence in thermodynam- ics, PRX Quantum3, 040323 (2022)

    2022

  69. [70]

    B. d. L. Bernardo, Unraveling the role of coherence in the first law of quantum thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062152 (2020)

    2020

  70. [71]

    Hammam, H

    K. Hammam, H. Leitch, Y. Hassouni, and G. De Chiara, Exploiting coherence for quantum thermodynamic ad- vantage, New J. Phys.24, 113053 (2022)

    2022

  71. [72]

    H. Kwon, H. Jeong, D. Jennings, B. Yadin, and M. S. Kim, Clock–work trade-off relation for coherence in quantum thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 150602 (2018)

    2018

  72. [73]

    Sone and S

    A. Sone and S. Deffner, Quantum and classical er- gotropy from relative entropies, Entropy23, 1107 (2021)

    2021

  73. [74]

    M. Kwon, T. Denzler, R. Maier, V. Vorobyov, D. B. R. Dasari, E. Lutz, and J. Wrachtrup, Converting coher- ence into work with a fully quantum engine, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06096 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  74. [75]

    Oppenheim, M

    J. Oppenheim, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Thermodynamical approach to quantify- ing quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 180402 (2002)

    2002

  75. [76]

    Touil, B

    A. Touil, B. Çakmak, and S. Deffner, Ergotropy from quantum and classical correlations, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55, 025301 (2021)

    2021

  76. [77]

    A. Sone, A. Touil, K. Maeda, P. Cappellaro, and S. Deffner, No-go theorem for environment-assisted in- variance in non-unitary dynamics, New J. Phys27, 064509 (2025)

    2025

  77. [78]

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

    2023

  78. [79]

    Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences, Phys

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

    1997

  79. [80]

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

    1999

  80. [81]

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

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

    arXiv

Showing first 80 references.