Nonequilibrium Quantum Batteries: Amplified Work Extraction Through Thermal Bath Modulation

Maryam Hadipour; Soroush Haseli

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Nonequilibrium Quantum Batteries: Amplified Work Extraction Through Thermal Bath Modulation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three-cell quantum batteries extract the most work at an optimal coupling, with a hotter middle bath amplifying the effect.

desk verdict The temperature-gradient result is a known effect; the paper's only new claim, the optimal-coupling curve, coincides exactly with where the secular master equation breaks down, so I would not trust it without a non-secular cross-check. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05508 v1 pith:WSCPLV3E submitted 2025-02-08 quant-ph

Maryam Hadipour , Soroush Haseli This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumbatteryergotropynonequilibriumsteadystatethermalreservoirscoupledqubitsLindbladmasterequationworkextraction

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 claims that a three-cell quantum battery—three coupled qubits, each held against its own thermal reservoir—can store steady-state energy that is extractable as work, and that this stored work is controlled by two knobs: the temperature of the middle reservoir and the coupling between cells. For a two-cell version, it shows that extractable work is nonzero only when the two bath temperatures differ, vanishing at thermal equilibrium. For three cells, raising the middle bath temperature increases the extractable work, effectively making that bath an amplifier. The paper also reports a non-monotonic dependence on coupling strength: ergotropy grows with coupling up to an optimal value near $0.5\,\omega$, then drops sharply to zero as excessive coupling localizes the energy. A sympathetic reading is that nonequilibrium thermal gradients plus tuned interactions provide a design principle for quantum energy storage.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the global Lindblad master equation, the standard Markovian open-system evolution equation, for the three-qubit system, with each qubit coupled to its own bath through $\sigma_i^x$ and inter-cell coupling through $\sigma_i^z\sigma_j^z$. The dissipator is built from eigenbasis jump operators $A_i(\omega)=\sum |k\rangle\langle k|\sigma_i^x|m\rangle\langle m|$, Ohmic rates $J(\omega)=\kappa\omega$, and Bose–Einstein factors $n_i(\omega)$. The paper solves for the zero-eigenvalue steady state and evaluates ergotropy as $W=\operatorname{tr}(\rho H_S)-\operatorname{tr}(\pi H_S)$, where $\pi$ is the passive state whose eigenvalues are ordered oppositely to the energy levels. The same machinery gives both the two-cell null at equal temperatures and the three-cell enhancement.

What would settle it

Recompute the steady state with a method that does not rely on the weak-coupling, energy-selective approximation—for instance, a numerically exact simulation of the full spin-boson model—and plot the ergotropy against coupling strength. If the peak at intermediate $\lambda$ and the drop to zero at strong coupling vanish, the central claim is an artifact; if they survive, the claim is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the steady state of the dissipative three-qubit system is active—not passive—when the reservoirs are out of equilibrium, and its activity can be amplified by the middle bath. Concretely, with baths at $T_L$, $T_M$, $T_R$ and symmetric couplings $\lambda_{LM}=\lambda_{MR}=\lambda_{LR}=\lambda$, the steady-state ergotropy increases with $T_M$ for fixed outer temperatures, and as a function of $\lambda$ it rises from zero, peaks at intermediate coupling, and falls to zero for strong coupling. The paper attributes the fall to the formation of strongly correlated states that localize energy and make the state more passive. The two-cell results anchor the mechanism: there, the ergotropy is zero at $T_L=T_R$, and it grows with $|T_L-T_R|$, showing that the temperature difference itself, not any single bath, is what creates extractable work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the approximate open-system equation used to compute the steady state is accurate for every parameter scanned, including couplings as strong as the cells' own frequency and a zero-temperature bath; if it is not, the predicted optimal coupling and the collapse of work extraction could be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Equal bath temperatures kill the battery: in the two-cell case ergotropy vanishes at $T_L=T_R$ and grows with the temperature difference.
The middle reservoir acts as an amplifier: for fixed outer temperatures, raising $T_M$ raises the steady-state ergotropy of the three-cell battery.
Inter-cell coupling has an optimal value: ergotropy increases with $\lambda$ up to an intermediate maximum and then drops to zero at strong coupling.
Dissipative steady states can serve as charged batteries: no coherent driving is needed to store extractable work.
Quantum battery design can use thermal gradients and interactions as independent tuning knobs.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension the paper does not pursue: an $N$-cell chain with several hot internal baths should show even larger steady-state ergotropy; computing $W$ versus $N$ would test whether the middle-bath amplification is additive.
Extension the paper does not pursue: the title promises thermal-bath modulation, but the study is static; oscillating $T_M$ in time and measuring time-averaged ergotropy would connect the result to a genuine modulation protocol.
Extension the paper does not pursue: the predicted optimal-coupling peak should show up as a maximum in the steady-state population imbalance, which could be read out through the qubit emission spectrum in a tunable-coupling experiment.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the temperature-gradient result is fine and already known; the coupling-strength scan, which is the paper's only new claim, is likely an artifact of the secular Lindblad approximation breaking down at λ=ω/2. I wouldn't build anything on Fig. 6.

What it does well: the model is simple and clearly set up, the two-cell and three-cell comparison is easy to follow, and the middle-reservoir temperature enhancement is a reasonable extension of the two-bath mechanism. If the authors had stopped after Figs. 4 and 5, this would be a modest but valid parameter study.

The soft spot is load-bearing. With equal frequencies, the single-spin-flip Bohr frequencies include |ω−2λ|. At λ=ω/2 that frequency vanishes for transitions between the ground manifold and the one-excitation manifold. The master equation in Eqs. (4)-(6) sums over ω>0 only, so the zero-frequency transition is dropped. With an Ohmic spectral density J(ω)=κω, the corresponding rate tends to zero as well, and the secular approximation is unreliable at and near that point. Fig. 6 shows the ergotropy peak and the drop to zero right at that value. The authors give no cross-check with a non-secular master equation or an exact method, so I don't trust the optimal-coupling claim.

The 'energy localization' explanation is also not supported. The Hamiltonian is diagonal in the computational basis for all λ, so there is no localization; the non-monotonicity has to come from the level structure and the dissipator, and the degeneracy is the obvious suspect. Calling it 'strongly correlated states' doesn't help.

Other issues: κ and ω are never specified, so the numbers in the figures are not reproducible. There are no convergence checks or error bars. The two-cell result is already in the cited literature, and the three-cell temperature effect is a straightforward extension; the novelty is thin.

Who is this for? Someone teaching or starting in quantum batteries might find the temperature results useful as a sanity check, but they should not use the coupling result.

My recommendation: I would not accept this for publication in its current form. If the authors redo the coupling scan with a master equation that includes the zero-frequency terms or use a numerically exact approach, and the peak survives, then it becomes a worthwhile small paper. As it stands, I would lean toward desk rejection because the central new claim is likely an artifact and the rest is incremental.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies steady-state ergotropy of two-cell and three-cell quantum batteries. Each cell is a qubit with σzσz nearest-neighbor interactions, and each qubit is locally coupled to a thermal bath. The authors use a Born-Markov secular Lindblad master equation with an Ohmic spectral density, solve for the steady state with QuTiP, and compute ergotropy via the standard passive-state construction. They report that ergotropy grows with the temperature difference between the left and right baths, that raising the middle-bath temperature substantially increases extractable work, and that ergotropy is non-monotonic in the inter-cell coupling λ, with a maximum near λ≈0.5 followed by a drop to zero which they attribute to energy localization.

Significance. The qualitative temperature trends are plausible and consistent with the existing nonequilibrium-charging literature, and the two-cell example is a useful sanity check. The paper also has clear strengths: standard definitions of the Lindblad master equation and ergotropy, direct numerical solution with a publicly available solver, and no parameter fitting to a target result. However, the central three-cell result—the optimal-coupling curve in Fig. 6—is calculated in a parameter regime where the adopted secular master equation is not controlled, and the manuscript omits the fundamental parameters κ and ω needed to reproduce the calculation. The stress-test concern about the secular approximation at λ=ω/2 therefore lands: the paper identifies an interesting effect, but the robustness of that effect against a more accurate open-system treatment is not yet established.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II.B, Fig. 6, Eqs. (4)–(6)] The central claim of an optimal coupling strength with a sharp drop to zero ergotropy is not sufficiently supported. The peak/drop in Fig. 6 occurs at λ≈0.5. The manuscript never states ω; if, as is conventional in these plots, ω=1, this is exactly λ=ω/2, where the state |↓↓↓⟩ becomes degenerate with the one-excitation manifold. At that point a Bohr frequency in the positive-frequency decomposition of Eqs. (5)–(6) vanishes, so the secular Markovian master equation is not valid there. The paper provides no non-secular cross-check (e.g., a Redfield or Bloch–Redfield calculation), no test with a different value of ω, and no discussion of how degenerate subspaces are secularized. The same issue already affects the baseline point λ=0, where the one-excitation states are degenerate. Since the headline non-monotonicity and the subsequent 'energy localization' conclusion are read directly from this curve, the result may be an artifact of the master equation rather than a genuine battery property.
[Sec. II, all figures] The model parameters κ and ω are never specified. The dissipative rates are J(ω)=κω, and all energy values scale with ω, so the ergotropy curves in Figs. 2–6 cannot be reproduced or interpreted quantitatively without these values. The authors should state κ and ω explicitly, report the steady-state convergence criteria (e.g., independence of initial state and integration time), and provide error bars or at least a grid-resolution check for the λ scan in Fig. 6. This is essential because the non-monotonic feature is narrow and located near a degeneracy.
[Sec. III and Sec. II.B] The interpretation 'energy localization' is not supported by the model Hamiltonian. Eq. (1) is diagonal in the tensor-product basis for every value of λ, so the eigenstates do not localize or delocalize as λ changes. The observed non-monotonicity must originate from the λ-dependent level ordering and the λ-dependent dissipator rates, not from localization of the eigenstates. The text also uses 'localization' to describe both the weak-coupling regime (λ≪1) and the strong-coupling drop, without defining a localization measure. The explanation in the text and in the concluding paragraph should be revised to describe the actual mechanism (for instance, the degeneracy-induced suppression of certain dissipative transitions) or removed.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction] The word 'invstigated' should be 'investigated'.
[Sec. II.B] The text refers to 'the main dynamical equation of the system in Eq. 10', but Eq. (10) is the two-cell master equation; in the three-cell subsection this should be Eq. (4).
[Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'λ LR, λ LM = λ M R = 0' is ambiguous; it should be written as λ_LR = λ_LM = λ_MR = 0.
[Eq. (5)] The definition of A_i(ω) should specify how the positive-frequency decomposition is performed, especially for degenerate transitions where a single Bohr frequency does not uniquely label the jump operator.
[References] References [47] and [51] are the same paper (Tacchino et al., Phys. Rev. E 102, 062133 (2020)) and one should be deleted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central results are computed from the stated master equation and ergotropy definition, with no fitted parameter renamed as prediction.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims — ergotropy enhancement with middle reservoir temperature and a non-monotonic dependence on inter-cell coupling — are obtained by solving the Lindblad master equation, Eqs. (4)-(6), with the stated Ohmic spectral density, and then evaluating the standard ergotropy expression, Eqs. (7)-(8). No parameter is fitted to a target ergotropy curve; the temperatures and coupling strength are scanned input parameters, and the ergotropy values are direct outputs of the steady-state simulation. The only self-citations (refs. [33]-[38]) appear in the introductory literature review and are not load-bearing: they are not invoked to justify the master equation, the ergotropy formula, or the numerical results, while the dynamical equation is supported by standard external references [52,53]. The candidate concern that the secular approximation becomes unreliable near lambda = omega/2 is a model-validity or correctness issue, not circularity: the paper does not define its conclusions into its assumptions. Similarly, the 'energy localization' interpretation may be questionable, but that is an interpretive claim about the computed curve, not an equivalence between an input and an output. No circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies only on standard open-quantum-system modeling; no new entities. The main unstated inputs are kappa and the energy scale omega, which affect absolute values but not qualitative trends.

free parameters (1)

kappa (dimensionless bath coupling in J(omega)=kappa*omega) = not stated (figures scale with kappa; ergotropy axis is 1e-9, implying kappa is small)
The absolute ergotropy values depend linearly on kappa, but kappa is never specified in the paper, so the reported numbers cannot be reproduced and are only meaningful up to an unknown scale.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Born-Markov approximation (weak system-bath coupling, memoryless baths)
Invoked in Eq. (4) to write the Lindblad master equation; validity at the parameter values used is not checked.
domain assumption Ohmic spectral density J(omega)=kappa*omega for all bath modes
Stated after Eq. (5); this form of the spectral density is assumed without justification.
domain assumption Each qubit couples to its own bath via sigma_x with independent baths
Interaction Hamiltonian Eq. (3); the independence of baths and the sigma_x coupling are modeling choices.
standard math Bose-Einstein occupation n_i(omega) = 1/(exp(hbar*omega/(k_B*T_i))-1)
Standard thermal occupation for bosonic baths.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonequilibrium Quantum Batteries: Amplified Work Extraction Through Thermal Bath Modulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSCPLV3E

@misc{pith2026250205508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonequilibrium Quantum Batteries: Amplified Work Extraction Through Thermal Bath Modulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSCPLV3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05508}
}

read the original abstract

This study examines the steady state characteristics of work extraction in a two cell and three cell quantum battery interacting with multiple thermal reservoirs. Employing the quantum master equation framework within the Born-Markov approximation, we explore the non equilibrium dynamics governing energy storage and extraction in the system. Our analysis focuses on the influence of thermal gradients across the reservoirs and the impact of inter cell coupling strength on the battery performance. The findings demonstrate that an increase in the middle reservoir temperature substantially enhances the extractable work, underscoring the pivotal role of thermal bath amplification in optimizing energy storage efficiency. Furthermore, we uncover a non trivial relationship between ergotropy and the coupling strength among the quantum cells, revealing the existence of an optimal coupling regime that maximizes energy extraction. Beyond this threshold, excessive coupling induces energy localization, thereby diminishing the system efficiency. These insights provide a theoretical foundation for the strategic design of high performance quantum batteries by harnessing thermal gradients and interaction driven control mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05508 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a), it can be observed that the ergotropy vanishes in the equilibrium condition TL = TR. More precisely, a closer examination of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The ergotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) illustrates the variation of ergotropy as a function of the left reservoir temperature TL for different values of the middle reservoir temperature TM, while the right reservoir temperature is fixed at TR = 0. From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The ergotropy as a function of the right reservoir tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The ergotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Two-time weak measurement protocol for ergotropy protection in open quantum batteries
quant-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A two-time weak measurement protocol can slow the self-discharge of open quantum batteries and yield a positive ergotropy gain with zero net measurement-induced energy and ergotropy shifts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Quantum Ther- modynamics

J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler, “Quantum Ther- modynamics”, Springer, Berlin (2009)

work page 2009
[2]

Goold, M

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

work page 2016
[3]

Vinjanampathy and J

S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermody- namics, Contemp. Phys. 57, 545.25 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

Binder, L

F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime - Fun- damental Aspects and New Directions, Springer, Cham. (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

H. B. Callen, Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 7 (1985)

work page 1985
[6]

Carrega, P

M. Carrega, P. Solinas, M. Sassetti, U. Weiss, Energy exchange in driven open quantum systems at strong cou- pling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 240403 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

Pyharantal, S

T. Pyharantal, S. Alipour, A. T. Rezakhani and T. Ala- Nissila, Correlation-enabled energy exchange in quan- tum systems without external driving, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022204 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

Dolatkhah, S

H. Dolatkhah, S. Salimi, A. S. Khorashad and S. Haseli, The entropy production for thermal operations, Scientiﬁc Reports volume 10, Article number: 9757 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 55 references

[9]

Wolpert, Work, En- tropy Production, and Thermodynamics of Information under Protocol Constraints ,Phys

Artemy Kolchinsky and David H. Wolpert, Work, En- tropy Production, and Thermodynamics of Information under Protocol Constraints ,Phys. Rev. X 11, 041024 (2021)

2021
[10]

A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian and Th. M. Nieuwen- huizen, Maximal work extraction from ﬁnite quantum systems, EPL 67, 565 (2004)

2004
[11]

Bouton, J

Q. Bouton, J. Nettersheim, S. Burgardt, D. Adam, E. Lutz and A. Widera, A quantum heat engine driven by atomic collisions, Nat. Comm. 12, 2063 (2021)

2021
[12]

Zhang, J.-Q

J.-W. Zhang, J.-Q. Zhang, G.-Y. Ding, J.-C. Li, J.-T. Bu, B. Wang, L.-L. Yan, S.-L. Su, L. Chen, F. Nori, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, F. Zhou, H. Jing and M. Feng, Dynamical control of quantum heat engines using exceptional points, Nat. Comm. 13, 6225 (2022)

2022
[13]

M. L. Bera1, S. J.-F. M. Lewenstein1 and M. N. Bera, Quantum heat engines with Carnot eﬃciency at maxi- mum power, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 013157 (2022)

2022
[14]

K. Ono, S. N. Shevchenko, T. Mori, S. Moriyama and F. Nori, Analog of a Quantum Heat Engine Using a Single Spin Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 166802 (2020)

2020
[15]

Campaioli, S

F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini and G. M. Andolina, Colloquium: Quantum batteries, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031001 (2024)

2024
[16]

F. T. Tabesh, F. H. Kamin, S. Salimi, Environment- mediated charging process of quantum batteries. Phys. Rev. A 102 (5), 052223 (2020)

2020
[17]

F. H. Kamin, Z. Abuali, H. Ness, S. Salimi, Quantum battery charging by non-equilibrium steady-state cur- rents. J. of Phys. A: Math. and Theo. 56 (27), 275302 (2023)

2023
[18]

F. H. Kamin, S. Salimi, M. B. Arjmandi, Steady-state charging of quantum batteries via dissipative ancillas. Phys. Rev. A 109 (2), 022226 (2024)

2024
[19]

Hadipour, S

M. Hadipour, S. Haseli, D. Wang, S. Haddadi, Proposed Scheme for a Cavity-Based Quantum Battery. Advanced Quantum Technologies 7 (11), 2400115
[20]

G. Zhu, Y. Chen, Y. Hasegawa, and P. Xue, Charging Quantum Batteries via Indeﬁnite Causal Order: Theory and Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 240401 (2023)

2023
[21]

Barra, Dissipative charging of a quantum battery

F. Barra, Dissipative charging of a quantum battery. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 210601 (2019)

2019
[22]

A. C. Santos, A. Saguia, and M. S. Sarandy, Stable and charge-switchable quantum batteries. Phys. Rev. E 101, 062114 (2020)

2020
[23]

A. C. Santos, Quantum advantage of two-level batteries in the self-discharging process. Phys. Rev. E 103, 042118 (2021)

2021
[24]

F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi, and A. C. San- tos, Entanglement, coherence, and charging process of quantum batteries. Phys. Rev. E 102, 052109 (2020)

2020
[25]

H.-L. Shi, S. Ding, Q.-K. Wan, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Entanglement, coherence, and extractable work in quantum batteries. Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 130602 (2022)

2022
[26]

M. B. Arjmandi, A. Shokri, E. Faizi, and H. Mohammadi, Performance of quantum batteries with correlated and uncorrelated chargers. Phys. Rev. A 106, 062609 (2022)

2022
[27]

M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, A. Saguia, M. S. Sarandy, and A. C. Santos, Localization eﬀects in dis- ordered quantum batteries. Phys. Rev. E 108, 064106 (2023)

2023
[28]

Mojaveri, R

B. Mojaveri, R. Jafarzadeh Bahrbeig, M. A. Fasihi, and S. Babanzadeh, Enhancing the direct charging perfor- mance of an open quantum battery by adjusting its ve- locity. Sci. Rep. 13, 19827 (2023)

2023
[29]

Mojaveri, R

B. Mojaveri, R. Jafarzadeh Bahrbeig, and M. A. Fasihi, Extracting ergotropy from nonequilibrium steady states of an XXZ spin chain quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042619 (2024)

2024
[30]

Zakavati, F

S. Zakavati, F. T. Tabesh, and S. Salimi, Bounds on charging power of open quantum batteries. Phys. Rev. E 104, 054117 (2021)

2021
[31]

Xu, H.-J

K. Xu, H.-J. Zhu, G.-F. Zhang, and W.-M. Liu, Enhanc- ing the performance of an open quantum battery via en- vironment engineering. Phys. Rev. E 104, 064143 (2021)

2021
[32]

M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, and A. C. Santos, En- hancing self-discharging process with disordered quan- tum batteries. Phys. Rev. E 105, 054115 (2022)

2022
[33]

Hadipour, S

M. Hadipour, S. Haseli, H. Dolatkhah, and M. Rashidi, Study the charging process of moving quantum batteries inside cavity. Sci. Rep. 13, 10672 (2023)

2023
[34]

Hadipour, S

M. Hadipour, S. Haseli, Enhancing the eﬃciency of open quantum batteries via adjusting the classical driving ﬁeld. Results in Physics 64, 107928 (2024)

2024
[35]

Hadipour, S

M. Hadipour, S. Haseli, Extracting work from two grav- itational cat states. EPL 147, 29003 (2024)

2024
[36]

Hadipour, S

M. Hadipour, S. Haseli, Work extraction from quantum coherence in non-equilibrium environment. Sci. Rep. 14 (1), 24876 (2024)

2024
[37]

Hadipour, S

M. Hadipour, S. Haseli Steady-state work extraction from two coupled qubits embedded within equilib- rium and non-equilibrium reservoirs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09580

arXiv
[38]

Hadipour1, N

M. Hadipour1, N. N. Youseﬁ, A. Mortezapour , A. S. Miavaghi1 and S. Haseli, Ampliﬁed quantum battery via dynamical modulation arXiv:2501.17526v2

arXiv
[39]

A. Toui, B. Cakmak and S. Deﬀner, Ergotropy from quantum and classical correlations,J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55 025301 (2022)

2022
[40]

Korzekwa1, M

K. Korzekwa1, M. Lostaglio1, J. Oppenheim and D. Jen- nings, The extraction of work from quantum coherence, New J. Phys. 18 023045 (2016)

2016
[41]

Francica, F

G. Francica, F. C. Binder, G. Guarnieri, M. T. Mitchi- son, J. Goold and F. Plastina, Quantum Coherence and Ergotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 180603 (2020)

2020
[42]

R Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 12 L103 (1979)

1979
[43]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007)

2007
[44]

Campaioli, F

F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. Celeri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy and K. Modi, Enhancing the Charging Power of Quantum Batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150601 (2017)

2017
[45]

Binder, S

F.C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi and J. Goold, Quantacell: powerful charging of quantum batteries, New Journal of Physics, 17, 075015 (2015). 8

2015
[46]

K. V. Hovhannisyan, F. Barra and A. Imparato, Charg- ing assisted by thermalization, Phys. Rev. Research, 2, 033413 (2020)

2020
[47]

F Tacchino1, T. F. F. Santos, D. Gerace, M. Campisi and M. F. Santos, Charging a quantum battery via nonequi- librium heat current, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062133 (2020)

2020
[48]

Farina, G

D. Farina, G. M. Andolina, A. Mari, M. Polini, and V. Giovannetti, Charger-mediated energy transfer for quan- tum batteries : An open system approach, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035421 (2019)

2019
[49]

Mojaveri, A

B. Mojaveri, A. Dehghani, and Z. Ahmadi, Maximal steadystate entanglement and perfect thermal rectiﬁ- cation in nonequilibrium interacting XXZ chains, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 83 (2021)

2021
[50]

X. Xu, K. Choo, V. Balachandran, and D. Poletti, Trans- port and energetic properties of a ring of interacting spins coupled to heat baths, Entropy 21, 228 (2019)

2019
[51]

Tacchino, T

F. Tacchino, T. F. F. Santos, D. Gerace, M. Campisi, and M. F. Santos, Charging a quantum battery via nonequi- librium heat current, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062133 (2020)

2020
[52]

Wichterich, M

H. Wichterich, M. J. Henrich, H. P. Breuer, J. Gemmer, and M. Michel, Phys. Rev. E 76, 031115 (2007)

2007
[53]

A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987)

1987
[54]

Johansson, P

J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760 (2012)

2012
[55]

Johansson, P

J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234 (2013)

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantum Ther- modynamics

J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler, “Quantum Ther- modynamics”, Springer, Berlin (2009)

work page 2009

[2] [2]

Goold, M

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

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Vinjanampathy and J

S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermody- namics, Contemp. Phys. 57, 545.25 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Binder, L

F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime - Fun- damental Aspects and New Directions, Springer, Cham. (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

H. B. Callen, Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 7 (1985)

work page 1985

[6] [6]

Carrega, P

M. Carrega, P. Solinas, M. Sassetti, U. Weiss, Energy exchange in driven open quantum systems at strong cou- pling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 240403 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Pyharantal, S

T. Pyharantal, S. Alipour, A. T. Rezakhani and T. Ala- Nissila, Correlation-enabled energy exchange in quan- tum systems without external driving, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022204 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Dolatkhah, S

H. Dolatkhah, S. Salimi, A. S. Khorashad and S. Haseli, The entropy production for thermal operations, Scientiﬁc Reports volume 10, Article number: 9757 (2020)

work page 2020