pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12877 · v1 · pith:VEV4W2OGnew · submitted 2026-06-11 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum Otto engine powered by an anisotropic Heisenberg XYZ model under independent local magnetic fields

Meiru Li , Maimaitiyiming Tusun , Fang Zhao , Hasiyatihan Abudoula , Tongcheng Wei This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 06:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum Otto engineHeisenberg XYZ modelquantum entanglementheat engine efficiencyspin couplinganisotropylocal magnetic fieldswork output
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reducing the longitudinal coupling in an anisotropic two-qubit Heisenberg XYZ model improves both maximum work output and peak efficiency of a quantum Otto engine.

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

The paper examines a quantum Otto heat engine whose working substance consists of two qubits coupled by an anisotropic Heisenberg XYZ interaction, with each qubit controlled by its own independent local magnetic field. Systematic variation of the coupling parameters shows that decreasing the longitudinal coupling strength increases both the net work and the efficiency, while an optimal value of the anisotropy parameter further maximizes performance. Local work accounting reveals that the two qubits contribute asymmetrically and that the spin-spin interaction term supplies a crucial fraction of the total work. Changes in entanglement, measured by concurrence, between the hot and cold isomagnetic strokes track the observed efficiency gains.

Core claim

The working substance is an anisotropic two-qubit Heisenberg XYZ model under independent local magnetic fields. Reducing the longitudinal coupling markedly improves both the maximum work and the peak efficiency. The engine performance reaches an optimum at a particular value of the anisotropy parameter. A local work analysis shows the interaction term contributes crucially to the total work, with the two qubits playing different roles. A pronounced change in entanglement between the hot and cold isomagnetic strokes is closely correlated with the efficiency enhancement.

What carries the argument

The anisotropic Heisenberg XYZ Hamiltonian with independent local magnetic fields, which sets the energy levels during the isochoric heating and cooling strokes and drives unitary evolution during the isomagnetic strokes while work and concurrence are tracked.

If this is right

  • Lowering the longitudinal coupling increases both maximum work output and peak efficiency.
  • Engine performance reaches an optimum at one specific value of the anisotropy parameter.
  • The spin-spin interaction term supplies a crucial contribution to the total work extracted.
  • The two qubits perform markedly different thermodynamic roles because of the asymmetric local fields.
  • A large change in concurrence between the hot and cold isomagnetic strokes is correlated with higher efficiency.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the entanglement change is the dominant driver of efficiency, then preparing the qubits in states that maximize the concurrence difference between strokes could yield further gains.
  • Because the qubits play asymmetric roles, independent tuning of the two local fields offers separate control parameters that could be optimized beyond the coupling strengths alone.
  • The unitary-evolution assumption during the work strokes implies that any real device would require checking how weak decoherence alters the predicted work and efficiency curves.

Load-bearing premise

The working substance reaches thermal equilibrium with the hot and cold baths during the isochoric strokes and evolves unitarily during the isomagnetic strokes without additional decoherence or non-Markovian effects.

What would settle it

Measure the net work output and efficiency of the two-qubit system while systematically decreasing the longitudinal coupling strength and verify whether both quantities increase monotonically as the coupling is reduced.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12877 by Fang Zhao, Hasiyatihan Abudoula, Maimaitiyiming Tusun, Meiru Li, Tongcheng Wei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sketch of the quantum Otto cycle. 1. Adiabatic compression (A → B): The system, initially in equilibrium with the cold reservoir at temperature Tc (state A), is isolated. By the quan￾tum adiabatic theorem, the occupation probabilities pi of the instantaneous eigenstates remain unchanged during the adiabatic evolution. The magnetic 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Efficiency η versus transverse coupling J for several values of the anisotropy ∆. Com￾mon parameters: Jz = 1.0, Th = 2.0, Tc = 1.0, B1h = 3.0, B2h = 0.0, B1c = 0.8, B2c = 0.8. The black dashed line marks the Carnot limit ηCarnot = 0.5. Shaded gray regions indicate param￾eter regimes where no net work can be extracted, i.e., where the heat engine does not operate in a valid engine mode. Dotted segments mark… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Energylevel evolution during the linear timedependent variation of the local magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contour plots of net work Wnet and efficiency η in the (B1h, B2h) plane for Jz = 0.5. Common parameters: ∆ = 1.0, J = 2.0, Th = 2.0, Tc = 1.0, (B1c, B2c) = (0.8, 0.8). The black dashed lines indicate B1h = 0 or B2h = 0. Figures 4 and 5 display contour maps of Wnet and η in the (B1h, B2h) plane for Jz = 0.5 and Jz = 1.0, respectively. In both panels the coldend fields are fixed at (B1c, B2c) = (0.8, 0.8), a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Net work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Local work w1 and w2 of the two qubits, together with the interaction work wint, as functions of ∆. Parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Concurrence C between the two qubits as a function of ∆ at the four stages A, B, C, and D of the Otto cycle. Parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study a quantum Otto heat engine whose working substance is an anisotropic two-qubit Heisenberg XYZ model. Independent local magnetic fields are used to control each spin individually. The influence of the longitudinal coupling, anisotropy, transverse coupling, and local fields on the net work output and efficiency is systematically examined. Reducing the longitudinal coupling is found to markedly improve both the maximum work and the peak efficiency. The engine performance reaches an optimum at a particular value of the anisotropy parameter. A local work analysis clarifies how work is produced during the cycle. Because of the asymmetric local fields and the intrinsic spin-spin interaction, the two qubits play markedly different thermodynamic roles; the interaction term itself contributes crucially to the total work. We further analyze the variation of quantum entanglement, quantified by concurrence, along the cycle. The results indicate that a pronounced change in entanglement between the hot and cold isomagnetic strokes is closely correlated with the efficiency enhancement. This work offers new insight into the operating principles and control of quantum Otto heat engines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper examines a quantum Otto heat engine with an anisotropic two-qubit Heisenberg XYZ model as the working substance, controlled by independent local magnetic fields. It systematically studies the effects of longitudinal coupling, anisotropy, transverse coupling, and local fields on net work and efficiency. Key findings include improved performance with reduced longitudinal coupling, an optimum at a specific anisotropy parameter, asymmetric thermodynamic roles of the two qubits, and a correlation between changes in entanglement (concurrence) during isomagnetic strokes and efficiency enhancement.

Significance. If the standard assumptions of the quantum Otto cycle hold, the results provide useful insights into parameter tuning for enhancing quantum engine performance using spin models. The local work analysis and the entanglement-efficiency correlation are particularly interesting contributions to quantum thermodynamics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model Hamiltonian and Cycle Protocol] The central performance claims (improved work/efficiency at reduced J_z, optimum anisotropy, entanglement correlation) rest on the assumption that the system reaches exact thermal Gibbs states ρ = exp(−βH)/Z at the end of isochoric strokes and undergoes purely unitary evolution under the time-dependent Hamiltonian during isomagnetic strokes without decoherence. This is load-bearing but no analysis of finite-time thermalization or persistent bath effects is provided, which could modify W and the concurrence.
  2. [Numerical Results on Work and Efficiency] The statements that 'reducing the longitudinal coupling is found to markedly improve both the maximum work and the peak efficiency' and 'reaches an optimum at a particular value of the anisotropy parameter' are presented without reported numerical method details, convergence checks, or error estimates, undermining the ability to verify the quantitative claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] The definition of the anisotropy parameter and how it enters the XYZ Hamiltonian should be clarified with an explicit equation early in the text.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the efficiency vs. parameter plots should include the fixed values of other parameters used in the computation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point-by-point below, clarifying our approach and indicating revisions where appropriate to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model Hamiltonian and Cycle Protocol] The central performance claims (improved work/efficiency at reduced J_z, optimum anisotropy, entanglement correlation) rest on the assumption that the system reaches exact thermal Gibbs states ρ = exp(−βH)/Z at the end of isochoric strokes and undergoes purely unitary evolution under the time-dependent Hamiltonian during isomagnetic strokes without decoherence. This is load-bearing but no analysis of finite-time thermalization or persistent bath effects is provided, which could modify W and the concurrence.

    Authors: We agree that the analysis relies on the standard idealizations of the quantum Otto cycle (instantaneous thermalization to Gibbs states and purely unitary isomagnetic strokes), which are widely adopted in the quantum thermodynamics literature to isolate the effects of the working medium and control parameters. These assumptions allow direct comparison with prior studies on spin-based engines. We acknowledge that real systems involve finite-time effects and possible decoherence that could quantitatively alter work and concurrence. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit paragraph in the Model section (and a short Limitations subsection) stating these assumptions, referencing relevant works on finite-time quantum thermodynamics, and noting that a full treatment of non-ideal thermalization lies beyond the present scope but is a natural direction for follow-up. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Numerical Results on Work and Efficiency] The statements that 'reducing the longitudinal coupling is found to markedly improve both the maximum work and the peak efficiency' and 'reaches an optimum at a particular value of the anisotropy parameter' are presented without reported numerical method details, convergence checks, or error estimates, undermining the ability to verify the quantitative claims.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. The two-qubit system permits exact diagonalization, so all thermodynamic quantities were obtained by direct computation of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the time-dependent Hamiltonian at each point in the cycle, with numerical integration of the unitary evolution performed via matrix exponentiation on a dense time grid. In the revised manuscript we will insert a new subsection (e.g., “Numerical Methods”) that specifies: (i) the exact-diagonalization procedure, (ii) the time-step size and convergence tests performed (doubling the number of steps until work and efficiency change by less than 0.1 %), (iii) the parameter grid used for J_z and the anisotropy Δ, and (iv) the absence of statistical error bars because the calculation is deterministic. These additions will enable independent verification of the reported trends. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; forward computation on explicit Hamiltonian

full rationale

The paper computes work output, efficiency, and concurrence directly from the time-dependent XYZ Hamiltonian under the stated thermalization and unitary-evolution assumptions. Reported trends (effect of Jz, optimum anisotropy, entanglement correlation) are obtained by evaluating the model's own equations on chosen parameter values; no parameter is fitted to the output quantities and then re-used as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard quantum-thermodynamic assumptions of thermalization to Gibbs states and unitary evolution under a time-dependent XYZ Hamiltonian; no new entities are introduced and the only free parameters are the model couplings that are scanned numerically.

free parameters (3)
  • longitudinal coupling strength
    Scanned to identify the value that maximizes work and efficiency
  • anisotropy parameter
    Tuned to locate the reported performance optimum
  • local magnetic field strengths
    Independent fields on each qubit are varied as control parameters
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The two-qubit system thermalizes to a Gibbs state with the bath temperature during the isochoric strokes
    Standard assumption in quantum Otto engine literature invoked to define the initial and final states of each stroke
  • domain assumption Evolution during the isomagnetic strokes is unitary and generated by the time-dependent XYZ Hamiltonian
    Required to compute work as the change in internal energy along those strokes

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5717 in / 1519 out tokens · 20900 ms · 2026-06-27T06:57:18.331820+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kosloff, Entropy 15, 2100 (2013)

    R. Kosloff, Entropy 15, 2100 (2013). doi: 10.3390/e15062100

    work page doi:10.3390/e15062100 2013

  2. [2]

    Cangemi, C

    L.M. Cangemi, C. Bhadra, A. Levy, Phys. Rep. 1087, 1 (2024). doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.07.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.07.001 2024

  3. [3]

    H.T. Quan, H. Dong, C.P . Sun, Acta Phys. Sin. 72, 230501 (2023). doi:10.7498/aps.72.20231608

    work page doi:10.7498/aps.72.20231608 2023

  4. [4]

    Gemmer, M

    J. Gemmer, M. Michel, G. Mahler, Quantum Thermodynamics: Emergence of Thermodynamic Behavior Within Composite Quantum Systems (Springer, New Y ork, 2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Vinjanampathy, J

    S. Vinjanampathy, J. Anders, Contemporary Physics 57, 545 (2016). doi:10.1080/00107514.2016.1201896

    work page doi:10.1080/00107514.2016.1201896 2016

  6. [6]

    Binder, L.A

    F. Binder, L.A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, G. Adesso (Eds.), Thermody- namics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions (Springer, Cham, 2018). 25

    2018

  7. [7]

    Uzdin, A

    R. Uzdin, A. Levy, R. Kosloff, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031044 (2015). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031044

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.5.031044 2015

  8. [8]

    Scully, M.S

    M.O. Scully, M.S. Zubairy, G.S. Agarwal, H. Walther, Science 299, 862 (2003). doi:10.1126/science.107895

    work page doi:10.1126/science.107895 2003

  9. [9]

    Kieu, Phys

    T.D. Kieu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140403 (2004). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.140403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.140403 2004

  10. [10]

    Abd-Rabbou, A

    M.Y . Abd-Rabbou, A. ur Rahman, M.A. Y urischev, S. Haddadi, Phys. Rev. E 108, 034106 (2023). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.108.034106

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.108.034106 2023

  11. [11]

    Quan, Y .X

    H.T. Quan, Y .X. Liu, C.P . Sun, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. E 76, 031105 (2007). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.76.031105

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.76.031105 2007

  12. [12]

    Quan, Phys

    H.T. Quan, Phys. Rev. E 79, 041129 (2009). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.79.041129

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.79.041129 2009

  13. [13]

    Zhang, W.T

    T. Zhang, W.T. Liu, P .X. Chen, C.Z. Li, Phys. Rev. A 75, 062102 (2007). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.062102

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.75.062102 2007

  14. [14]

    Feldmann, R

    T. Feldmann, R. Kosloff, Phys. Rev. E 61, 4774 (2000). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4774

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.61.4774 2000

  15. [15]

    Feldmann, R

    T. Feldmann, R. Kosloff, Phys. Rev. E 68, 016101 (2003). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.016101

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.68.016101 2003

  16. [16]

    Feldmann, R

    T. Feldmann, R. Kosloff, Phys. Rev. E 70, 046110 (2004). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.70.046110

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.70.046110 2004

  17. [17]

    K. Ono, S. N. Shevchenko, T. Mori, S. Moriyama, N. Franco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 166802 (2020). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.166802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.166802 2020

  18. [18]

    Wang, J.Z

    J.H. Wang, J.Z. He, Z.Y . Mao, Sci. China Ser. G 50, 163 (2007). doi:10.1007/s11433-007-0006-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-007-0006-1 2007

  19. [19]

    X. Wu, L.G. Chen, F. Wu, F.R. Sun, Sci. China Ser. G-Phys. Mech. Astron. 52, 1976 (2009). doi: 10.1007/s11433-009-0300-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-009-0300-1 1976

  20. [20]

    Klatzow, J

    J. Klatzow, J. N. Becker, P . M. Ledingham, C. Weinzetl, K. T. Kaczmarek, D. J. Saunders, E. Poem, Physical Review Letters 122, 110601 (2019). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.110601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.110601 2019

  21. [21]

    J. Z. He, X. He, J. Zheng, Chin. Phys. B 21, 050303 (2012). doi:10.1088/1674-1056/21/5/050303 26

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1056/21/5/050303 2012

  22. [22]

    Huang, Q

    X.L. Huang, Q. Sun, D.Y . Guo, Q. Y u, Physica A 491, 604 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.physa.2017.09.104

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2017.09.104 2018

  23. [23]

    Thomas, R.S

    G. Thomas, R.S. Johal, Phys. Rev. E 83, 031135 (2011). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.83.031135

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.83.031135 2011

  24. [24]

    Jaegon, K

    U. Jaegon, K. E. Dorfman, H. Park, Physical Review Research 4, L032034 (2022). doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L032034

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.l032034 2022

  25. [25]

    Uusnäkki, T

    T. Uusnäkki, T. Mörstedt, W. Teixeira, M. Rasola, M. Möttönen, arXiv:2502.20143 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    V adimov, M

    V . V adimov, M. Xu, J.T. Stockburger, J. Ankerhold, M. Möttönen, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013317 (2025). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.013317

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.013317 2025

  27. [27]

    Rasola, V

    M. Rasola, V . V adimov, T. Uusnäkki, M. Möttönen, SciPost Phys. 19, 101 (2025). doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.19.4.101

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.19.4.101 2025

  28. [28]

    Uusnäkki, M

    T. Uusnäkki, M. Rasola, V . V adimov, P . Singh, M. Möttönen, arXiv:2603.15355 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Sundelin, M.A

    S. Sundelin, M.A. Aamir, V .M. Kulkarni, C. Castillo-Moreno, S. Gas- parinetti, Nat. Commun. 17, 359 (2026). doi: 10.1038/s41467-026-47892-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-026-47892-9 2026

  30. [30]

    Pro˘ ınov, V.S

    I. Dzyaloshinsky, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 4, 241 (1958). doi: 10.1016/0022- 3697(58)90076-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0022- 1958

  31. [31]

    Moriya ,\ title title New mechanism of anisotropic superexchange interaction ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.228 journal journal Phys

    T. Moriya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 228 (1960). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.228

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.4.228 1960

  32. [32]

    Peng, M.-F

    H.-P . Peng, M.-F. Fang, C.-Y . Zhang, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 58, 1651 (2019). doi:10.1007/s10773-019-04061-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10773-019-04061-3 2019

  33. [33]

    Ahadpour, F

    S. Ahadpour, F. Mirmasoudi, Quantum Inf. Process. 20, 63 (2021). doi:10.1007/s11128-021-03019-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-021-03019-x 2021

  34. [34]

    Kuznetsova, M.A

    E.I. Kuznetsova, M.A. Y urischev, S. Haddadi, Quantum Inf. Process.22, 192 (2023). doi:10.1007/s11128-023-03944-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-023-03944-z 2023

  35. [35]

    Zhao, G.F

    L.M. Zhao, G.F. Zhang, Quantum Inf. Process. 16, 216 (2017). doi:10.1007/s11128-017-1665-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-017-1665-0 2017

  36. [36]

    Zhang, Eur

    G.F. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. D49, 123 (2008). doi:10.1140/epjd/e2008-00133-0

    work page doi:10.1140/epjd/e2008-00133-0 2008

  37. [37]

    Khlifi, A

    Y . Khlifi, A. El Allati, A. Salah, Y . Hassouni, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 34, 2050212 (2020). doi:10.1142/S0217979220502124 27

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217979220502124 2020

  38. [38]

    Bresque, D

    L. Bresque, D. Das, É. Roldán, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 200402 (2025). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.200402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.200402 2025

  39. [39]

    Liu, J.A

    H.P . Liu, J.A. Plascak, D.P . Landau, Phys. Rev. E 97, 052118 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.97.052118

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.97.052118 2018

  40. [40]

    Q. Wang, D. Cao, H.T. Quan, Phys. Rev. E 98, 022107 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.98.022107

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.98.022107 2018

  41. [41]

    Li, Z.-L

    D.-C. Li, Z.-L. Cao, Eur. Phys. J. D 50, 207 (2008). doi:10.1140/epjd/e2008- 00208-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epjd/e2008- 2008

  42. [42]

    Abliz, H.J

    A. Abliz, H.J. Gao, X.C. Xie, Y .S. Wu, W.M. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 74, 052105 (2006). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.74.052105

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.74.052105 2006

  43. [43]

    S. Xu, X.K. Song, L. Y e, Quantum Information Processing 13, 1013 (2014). doi:10.1007/s11128-013-0706-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-013-0706-6 2014

  44. [44]

    Y . Sun, Y . Chen, H. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 68, 044301 (2003). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.68.044301

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.68.044301 2003

  45. [45]

    Zhou, H.S

    L. Zhou, H.S. Song, Y .Q. Guo, C. Li, Phys. Rev. A 68, 024301 (2003). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.68.024301

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.68.024301 2003

  46. [46]

    Y . Xiao, A. Liu, N. Zhang, Chinese Journal of Physics 103, 195 (2026). doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2026.05.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2026.05.012 2026

  47. [47]

    S. Tang, Z. Pan, B. Wei, Physica A 689, 131434 (2026). doi:10.1016/j.physa.2026.131434

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2026.131434 2026

  48. [48]

    Altintas, Phys

    F. Altintas, Phys. Rev. E 92, 022142 (2015). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.92.022142

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.92.022142 2015

  49. [49]

    El Makouri, A

    A. El Makouri, A. Slaoui, A. Salah, M. Daoud, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 56, 085501 (2023). doi:10.1088/1361-6455/acc36d

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6455/acc36d 2023

  50. [50]

    Z. Zhu, H. Zhang, B. Wei, Physica A 682, 131136 (2026). doi:10.1016/j.physa.2025.131136

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2025.131136 2026

  51. [51]

    H. Han, L. Long, Physica A 685, 131262 (2026). doi:10.1016/j.physa.2025.131262

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2025.131262 2026

  52. [52]

    et al.Effect of dopants and surface ox- ides on the electronic properties of dislocations in p-type SiC

    L. Mashhor, M.Y . Abd-Rabbou, K.A. Dib, M. Abdel-Aty, A.S.F. Obada, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 58, 225501 (2025). doi: 10.1088/1361- 6455/ae216b 28

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2025

  53. [53]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. Céleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150601 (2017). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.150601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.150601 2017

  54. [54]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina, V . Pellegrini, M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 117702 (2018). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.117702

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.117702 2018

  55. [55]

    Wootters, Phys

    W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245 29

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.2245 1998