Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

The SYK charging advantage as a random walk on graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the super-extensive N^{3/2} charging power of SYK quantum batteries and shows that the advantage is governed by operator size and graph connectivity, not quantum chaos.

desk verdict A mostly convincing analytic derivation of the SYK2 N^{3/2} charging advantage, with a graph-generalization that is honest about its limits but less universal than the abstract claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04560 v1 pith:XRFNNJWY submitted 2024-12-05 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.stat-mechhep-th

Francisco Divi , Jeff Murugan , Dario Rosa This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.stat-mechhep-th
keywords quantumbatteriesSYKmodelchargingpoweradvantageoperatordelocalizationrandomwalkongraphsMajoranablockadesmall-world
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper analytically derives the maximum average charging power of Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev (SYK) quantum batteries. It shows that the X-model battery, charged by an integrable SYK2 quench, reaches a maximum average power of about 0.171 $N^{{3/2}}$, a super-extensive scaling that constitutes a genuine quantum advantage over the linear scaling achievable without global entangling operations. The paper identifies two necessary mechanisms: battery Hamiltonians built from operators whose size grows with N, and graph connectivity that allows those operators to delocalize. Recasting the charging dynamics as a random walk on the graph of Majorana operators, it finds that the deciding quantity is the block connectivity g_k: whenever g_k scales with N for blocks of size k ∼ N, the charging power becomes super-extensive. The same scaling holds for chaotic SYK4 quenches, so operator growth and scrambling are irrelevant to the advantage.

What carries the argument

The central object is the random-walk representation of the time-evolved Majorana operator as a sum over paths in the graph of vertices, each path weighted by products of the couplings J_{il}. The key derived quantity is the block connectivity g_k, defined as the normalized number of edges leaving a block of k Majoranas, i.e. g_k = (1/d) sum_{m=1}^k sum_{l>k} A_{lm} for adjacency matrix A and average degree d. The paper's main technical step is a partial resummation of the BCH series that keeps only the dominant paths — those in which no single Majorana is moved twice — and exponentiates the first-order term to give $f_A^{{(k)}}$(t) = $e^{{-g_k t^2/2}}$. This reduces the quantum charging problem to a purely graph-theoretic question: does the block connectivity grow with N? The 'Majorana blockade' — the Pauli exclusion that forbids two Majoranas from landing on the same vertex — is what can suppress paths and destroy the advantage on local graphs.

What would settle it

Compute the charging power of the X-model under an SYK2 quench on N = 30, 40, and 50 qubits: if the optimal charging time does not shrink as $N^{{-1/2}}$ and PavX(τ) does not grow as 0.171 $N^{{3/2}}$, the paper's central scaling is wrong. For the graph generalization, construct a graph with g_k ∼ N but where moving a single Majorana drastically changes g_k (for example, a clique with many leaves) and test whether the charging power deviates from Eq. (14) while still being super-extensive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the quantum charging advantage of SYK batteries is analytically captured by a partial resummation of the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff expansion in which each Majorana in a large block performs a random walk on the graph and is never moved twice in succession. For the fully connected graph this yields Eq. (10)–(11): the X-model battery has optimal charging time τ ≈ 3.679 $N^{{-1/2}}$ and maximum average power PavX(τ) ≈ 0.171 $N^{{3/2}}$, whereas the Z-model, built from size-2 operators, only reaches PavZ(τ) ≈ 0.339 N, linear in N. For SYK models defined on arbitrary graphs, the same resummation gives Eq. (14), where the charging power depends only on the connectivity g_k of the block of k Majoranas; whenever g_k scales with N for k ∼ N, a super-extensive charging advantage follows. The paper further claims that this condition is satisfied by small-world graphs with any non-vanishing rewiring probability p not inversely scaling with N, and that the integrable SYK2 model already produces the same $N^{{3/2}}$ advantage as SYK4, so chaos and operator growth are not the origin of the effect.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the connectivity g_k of a block of k Majoranas changes only by O(1) when a few Majoranas move, so the lowest-order term can be exponentiated to give $e^{{-g_k t^2/2}}$; the paper states this premise fails for hub-dominated graphs such as the star graph, which nevertheless still shows a charging advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The X-model charged by an SYK2 quench reaches a maximum average charging power of about 0.171 N^{3/2} at a time τ ≈ 3.679 N^{-1/2}, meaning larger batteries charge faster per particle and store energy super-linearly in N.
  • For SYK models on arbitrary graphs, a charging advantage exists exactly when the block connectivity g_k grows with N for blocks of size k ∼ N; this turns the quantum-dynamics question into a graph-theoretic one testable from the adjacency matrix.
  • Battery Hamiltonians with finite operator size, such as the Z-model or any SYK_q with fixed q ≥ 4, can only give linear or polynomial path growth and therefore no super-extensive advantage.
  • The integrable SYK2 quench already yields the same N^{3/2} advantage as the chaotic SYK4 quench, so scrambling and operator growth are not the origin of the effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical design rule suggested by these results is that any quantum battery whose charging Hamiltonian has a coupling graph with sufficiently large block connectivity should show a similar N^{3/2} advantage, independent of the details of the interactions.
  • The framework implies a sharp crossover for small-world graphs: as the rewiring probability p falls below about 1/N, the advantage should abruptly disappear; a numerical scan across p at fixed N could locate the transition.
  • The same random-walk-with-exclusion picture may apply to constrained spin or hard-core boson systems, where an analogous block connectivity could be defined and tested numerically.
  • Because the derivation fails on hub-dominated graphs that still charge advantageously, the paper's stated condition may be sufficient but not necessary; exploring graphs with heterogeneous degree distributions could reveal the true necessary condition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes charging protocols for SYK quantum batteries, focusing on the average charging power under a double-quench setup. For the X-model battery charged by an SYK2 quench, it claims an analytic N^{3/2} charging advantage with optimal time τ≈3.679 N^{-1/2} and maximum power 0.171 N^{3/2}. The paper then recasts operator spreading as a random walk on the graph of Majorana operators and introduces a block-connectivity quantity g_k, leading to Eq. (14), a Gaussian decay ansatz for the survival amplitude f_A^{(k)}(t). It uses this to argue that a graph gives a charging advantage whenever the connectivity of a large block grows with N. The claims are tested against exact numerics for N=30 on Watts-Strogatz graphs with κ=4 and rewiring probabilities p=0.5, 0.75, 1.0.

Significance. The paper has a valuable core: it offers a parameter-free, analytically transparent derivation of the super-extensive N^{3/2} scaling in the all-to-all SYK2 X-model, and the graph random-walk picture is an appealing way to organize path-counting arguments. The authors provide explicit numerical comparisons at N=30 and clearly state the main assumptions behind Eq. (14), including a candid caveat about star graphs. If the quantitative inconsistencies and the overreach in the graph-universality claim are fixed, the paper would be a useful contribution to the quantum-battery literature. As written, however, the central quantitative constant is internally inconsistent and the graph-theoretic condition is not established for generic graphs, so the paper cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (9)–(11)] The normalization and the stated constants are internally inconsistent. Eq. (9) for the X-model contains a bare sum over N/2 operators, so at t=0 the bracket equals 1-N/2 and the charging power is negative; the integral in Eq. (10) therefore cannot follow from Eq. (9) without an additional 1/(N/2) normalization. Independently, substituting τ=3.679 N^{-1/2} into Eq. (10) gives Pav≈0.092 N^{3/2} (using x=Nτ^2≈13.5 and ∫_0^1 dy e^{-x y(1-y)/2}≈0.32), not the reported 0.171 N^{3/2}; the two constants are consistent with a prefactor N/t rather than N/(2t). The numerical agreement shown in Fig. 2 cannot be used to confirm Eq. (11) until this factor is resolved.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (14)] The derivation of Eq. (14) rests on the assumption that moving a finite number of Majoranas changes the block connectivity only by O(1), and the text immediately acknowledges that this is violated for star graphs. In a star graph, moving a leaf Majorana into the hub changes the escape rate from O(k) to O(N-k), i.e., by O(N) rather than O(1), so the exponential decay exp(-g_k t^2/2) is not justified there. Since star graphs also have g_k∼N and exhibit a charging advantage, the statement that Eq. (14) solves the graph problem and identifies a universal condition for quantum advantage is not established. The claim should be weakened to a sufficient condition under the stated O(1)-mobility assumption, and a separate treatment of graphs with diverging-degree vertices is needed.
  3. [§IV, Fig. 4] The numerical validation of Eq. (14) is performed only at N=30 on Watts-Strogatz graphs with κ=4 and p≥0.5, whose maximum degree grows slowly with N (likely logarithmically). At this size, an O(1) versus O(log N) change in g_k under finite moves cannot be distinguished, so the agreement in Fig. 4 does not test the ansatz in the heterogeneous, hub-dominated regime where the derivation is known to fail. The authors should either restrict the graph-universality claim to the tested class or provide larger-N simulations, for example on graphs with a tunable high-degree vertex.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (13)] The notation d is introduced as the average degree but is not explicitly related to the edge count n_E of Eq. (4); writing d=2n_E/N would make Eq. (13) easier to check.
  2. [§IV, footnote 76] The footnote says the choice of the block indices is immaterial because of the complete graph; in the graph part of the paper this is no longer true, so the block-average or block-choice convention should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 4] The figure shows no error bars or information on the number of graph and disorder realizations used for the averaged power; reporting the standard deviation and the realization count would make the comparison quantitative.
  4. [Conclusions] The concluding phrase 'universal drivers of charging efficiency' is stronger than what is proved, given the star-graph caveat and the ansatz nature of Eq. (14); the wording should be aligned with the actual validity limits.
  5. [Introduction] The relation to Ref. [65] (operator delocalization in quantum networks) should be stated more explicitly, since the graph setup, the star-graph example, and the Watts-Strogatz numerics already appear there; a clear sentence on the incremental contribution would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the X-model N^{3/2} scaling is a parameter-free maximum of Eq. (10), the graph result is an explicit approximation with stated limitations, and the author self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation of the central X-model result is self-contained: Eq. (7) is the standard large-N SYK2 operator-evolution result, with Eq. (6) attributed to the known SYK2 result [75]; inserting Eq. (7) into Eq. (9), replacing the k-sum by an integral, and maximizing the resulting dimensionless expression Eq. (10) yields tau ~ 3.679 N^{-1/2} and Pav ~ 0.171 N^{3/2} without any fitted constant. The numerical comparison at N=30 is an independent check, not a fit. For the graph generalization, Eq. (14) is obtained by exponentiating the lowest-order block-connectivity term g_k of Eq. (13), under two assumptions the paper states explicitly: g_k scales with N for k ~ N, and g'_k = g_k + O(1) after moving finitely many Majoranas. These are approximations with stated scope, not definitions of the target result; the paper itself flags that 'the second assumption is generically violated for graphs that are hub-dominated' and that for the star graph 'our derivation is invalid.' That caveat weakens the abstract's word 'rigorous' and leaves the universality of the graph criterion unproved for heterogeneous graphs, but it is a validity concern, not circularity. The self-citations ([54], [65], [70]) supply numerical context and the network setting, but the analytic chain does not reduce to them; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation is used to force a uniqueness choice. Hence the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard SYK large-N techniques (rainbow summation) and a heuristic partial resummation of dominant BCH paths; for the graph generalization, the exponential-decay ansatz with rate g_k and the O(1) mobility assumption are introduced ad hoc and fail for star graphs, limiting the universality of the stated conditions.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Large-N disorder-averaged BCH resummation retaining only non-crossing (dominant) Wick pairings gives the exact two-point function f(t)=J1(2t)/t (Eq. 6)
    Standard rainbow-diagram summation in SYK, cited to [75]. This underlies all subsequent operator evolution formulas.
  • domain assumption Size-k operator evolution factorizes as O^{(k)}(t) = f^k(t sqrt(1-k/N)) O^{(k)} (Eq. 7)
    Taken from Gross-Rosenhaus [75] and [76]; includes the Pauli-exclusion correction. Used to compute X- and Z-model powers in Eq. (9).
  • ad hoc to paper Partial resummation of dominant BCH paths (no single Majorana moved twice consecutively) captures the full dynamics at the relevant time scales
    States in Section III: Eq. (11) is 'not a first order expansion but a partial resummation... only the dominants ones'. No rigorous error bound is given.
  • ad hoc to paper For graphs, exponential decay with rate g_k and O(1) mobility of the block under finite moves
    Stated as the two assumptions needed for Eq. (14) in Section IV; the star graph violates the mobility assumption, admitted by the authors.
  • domain assumption Initial state is the ground state of the battery Hamiltonian and disorder-averaged expectation values factorize for this state
    Standard in SYK battery papers; however the X-model ground state is not of definite fermion parity, and the factorization is not justified in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The SYK charging advantage as a random walk on graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XRFNNJWY

@misc{pith2026241204560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The SYK charging advantage as a random walk on graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XRFNNJWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04560}
}
abstract

We investigate the charging dynamics of Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev (SYK) models as quantum batteries, highlighting their capacity to achieve quantum charging advantages. By analytically deriving the scaling of the charging power in SYK batteries, we identify the two key mechanisms underlying this advantage: the use of operators scaling extensively with system size $N$ and the facilitation of operator delocalization by specific graph structures. A novel graph-theoretic framework is introduced in which the charging process is recast as a random walk on a graph, enabling a quantitative analysis of operator spreading. Our results establish rigorous conditions for the quantum advantage in SYK batteries and extend these insights to graph-based SYK models, revealing broader implications for energy storage and quantum dynamics. This work opens avenues for leveraging quantum chaos and complex network structures in optimizing energy transfer processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04560 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Time evolution is represented as a sum of different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Upper panel: comparison between the analytical for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Small-world graphs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between the numerical charging power, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, D. Rosa, M. Carrega, and M. Polini, Quantum advantage in the charging process of sachdev-ye-kitaev batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 236402 (2020)

    2020

  2. [65]

    J. Kim, J. Murugan, J. Olle, and D. Rosa, Operator delocalization in quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A 105, L010201 (2022)

    2022

  3. [1]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Entanglement boost for ex- tractable work from ensembles of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042123 (2013)

    2013

  4. [2]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, and S. Vinjanam- pathy, Quantum batteries - review chapter (2018), arXiv:1805.05507 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [3]

    Bhattacharjee and A

    S. Bhattacharjee and A. Dutta, Quantum thermal ma- chines and batteries, The European Physical Journal B 94, 239 (2021)

    2021

  6. [4]

    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

  7. [5]

    K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Perarnau-Llobet, M. Huber, and A. Ac ´ ın, Entanglement generation is not necessary for optimal work extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240401 (2013)

    2013

  8. [6]

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

    2020

Show all 86 references
  1. [7]

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

    2021

  2. [8]

    ˇSafr´ anek, D

    D. ˇSafr´ anek, D. Rosa, and F. C. Binder, Work extraction from unknown quantum sources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 210401 (2023)

    2023

  3. [9]

    G. M. Andolina, D. Farina, A. Mari, V. Pellegrini, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Charger-mediated energy transfer in exactly solvable models for quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205423 (2018)

    2018

  4. [10]

    Zhang, T.-R

    Y.-Y. Zhang, T.-R. Yang, L. Fu, and X. Wang, Powerful harmonic charging in a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. E 99, 052106 (2019)

    2019

  5. [11]

    Barra, Dissipative charging of a quantum battery, Phys

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

    2019

  6. [12]

    Caravelli, G

    F. Caravelli, G. Coulter-De Wit, L. P. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, and A. Hamma, Random quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023095 (2020)

    2020

  7. [13]

    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

  8. [14]

    J. Q. Quach and W. J. Munro, Using dark states to charge and stabilize open quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 024092 (2020)

    2020

  9. [15]

    Crescente, M

    A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, Charging and energy fluctuations of a driven quantum battery, New Journal of Physics 22, 063057 (2020)

    2020

  10. [16]

    R. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, R. Alicki, and P. Horodecki, Catalysis in charging quan- tum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042419 (2023)

    2023

  11. [17]

    Centrone, L

    F. Centrone, L. Mancino, and M. Paternostro, Charging batteries with quantum squeezing, Phys. Rev. A 108, 052213 (2023)

    2023

  12. [18]

    H.-B. Ma, K. Xu, H.-G. Li, Z.-G. Li, and H.-J. Zhu, En- hancing the charging performance of quantum batteries with the work medium of an entangled coupled-cavity array, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022433 (2024)

    2024

  13. [19]

    Cavaliere, G

    F. Cavaliere, G. Gemme, G. Benenti, D. Ferraro, and M. Sassetti, Dynamical blockade of a reservoir for optimal performances of a quantum battery (2024), arXiv:2407.16471 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzanjeh, Nonreciprocal quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 210402 (2024)

    2024

  15. [21]

    Bele˜ no, M

    Z. Bele˜ no, M. F. Santos, and F. Barra, Laser powered dissipative quantum batteries in atom-cavity qed, New Journal of Physics 26, 073049 (2024)

    2024

  16. [22]

    Friis and M

    N. Friis and M. Huber, Precision and Work Fluctuations in Gaussian Battery Charging, Quantum 2, 61 (2018). 8

    2018

  17. [23]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, and M. Polini, Many-body localized quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115142 (2019)

    2019

  18. [24]

    A. C. Santos, B. i. e. i. f. m. c. C ¸ akmak, S. Campbell, and N. T. Zinner, Stable adiabatic quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 100, 032107 (2019)

    2019

  19. [25]

    D. Rosa, D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, M. Polini, and M. Carrega, Ultra-stable charging of fast-scrambling syk quantum batteries, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 67 (2020)

    2020

  20. [26]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems, Europhysics Letters 67, 565 (2004)

    2004

  21. [27]

    Perarnau-Llobet, K

    M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Huber, P. Skrzypczyk, N. Brunner, and A. Ac ´ ın, Extractable work from correlations, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041011 (2015)

    2015

  22. [28]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, M. Campisi, V. Gio- vannetti, and M. Polini, Extractable work, the role of correlations, and asymptotic freedom in quantum bat- teries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 047702 (2019)

    2019

  23. [29]

    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

  24. [30]

    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

  25. [31]

    Yang, Y.-H

    X. Yang, Y.-H. Yang, M. Alimuddin, R. Salvia, S.-M. Fei, L.-M. Zhao, S. Nimmrichter, and M.-X. Luo, Battery capacity of energy-storing quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 030402 (2023)

    2023

  26. [32]

    Morrone, M

    D. Morrone, M. A. Rossi, and M. G. Genoni, Daemonic ergotropy in continuously monitored open quantum bat- teries, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 044073 (2023)

    2023

  27. [33]

    S. Seah, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack, N. Brunner, and S. Nimmrichter, Quantum speed-up in collisional battery charging, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 100601 (2021)

    2021

  28. [34]

    Shaghaghi, V

    V. Shaghaghi, V. Singh, G. Benenti, and D. Rosa, Mi- cromasers as quantum batteries, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 04LT01 (2022)

    2022

  29. [35]

    Salvia, M

    R. Salvia, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack, N. Brunner, and S. Nimmrichter, Quantum advantage in charging cavity and spin batteries by repeated interactions, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013155 (2023)

    2023

  30. [36]

    Shaghaghi, V

    V. Shaghaghi, V. Singh, M. Carrega, D. Rosa, and G. Benenti, Lossy micromaser battery: Almost pure states in the jaynes–cummings regime, Entropy 25, 10.3390/e25030430 (2023)

    2023 doi

  31. [37]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, A quantum battery with quadratic driving, Communications Physics 6, 322 (2023)

    2023

  32. [38]

    Rodr ´ ıguez, D

    C. Rodr ´ ıguez, D. Rosa, and J. Olle, Artificial intelligence discovery of a charging protocol in a micromaser quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042618 (2023)

    2023

  33. [39]

    Morrone, M

    D. Morrone, M. A. C. Rossi, A. Smirne, and M. G. Genoni, Charging a quantum battery in a non-markovian environment: a collisional model approach, Quantum Science and Technology 8, 035007 (2023)

    2023

  34. [40]

    L. P. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, A. Hamma, and A. del Campo, Fluc- tuations in extractable work bound the charging power of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 040601 (2020)

    2020

  35. [41]

    fluctua- tions in extractable work bound the charging power of quantum batteries

    S. Cusumano and L. Rudnicki, Comment on “fluctua- tions in extractable work bound the charging power of quantum batteries”, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 028901 (2021)

    2021

  36. [42]

    L. P. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, A. Hamma, and A. del Campo, Garc ´ ıa-pintos, hamma, and del campo reply:, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 028902 (2021)

    2021

  37. [43]

    Bakhshinezhad, B

    P. Bakhshinezhad, B. R. Jablonski, F. C. Binder, and N. Friis, Trade-offs between precision and fluctuations in charging finite-dimensional quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 109, 014131 (2024)

    2024

  38. [44]

    Sathe and F

    P. Sathe and F. Caravelli, Universally-charging proto- cols for quantum batteries: A no-go theorem (2024), arXiv:2409.02198 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [45]

    C.-K. Hu, J. Qiu, P. J. P. Souza, J. Yuan, Y. Zhou, L. Zhang, J. Chu, X. Pan, L. Hu, J. Li, Y. Xu, Y. Zhong, S. Liu, F. Yan, D. Tan, R. Bachelard, C. J. Villas-Boas, A. C. Santos, and D. Yu, Optimal charging of a supercon- ducting quantum battery, Quantum Science and Technol- ...

    2022

  40. [46]

    J. Q. Quach, K. E. McGhee, L. Ganzer, D. M. Rouse, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, J. Keeling, G. Cerullo, D. G. Lidzey, and T. Virgili, Super- absorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery, Science Advances 8, eabk3160 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1...

    2022 doi

  41. [47]

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

    2015

  42. [48]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. C´ eleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  43. [49]

    T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Pollock, Spin-chain model of a many-body quantum bat- tery, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022106 (2018)

    2018

  44. [50]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina, V. Pellegrini, and M. Polini, High-power collective charging of a solid- state quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 117702 (2018)

    2018

  45. [51]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Quantum versus classical many-body batter- ies, Phys. Rev. B 99, 205437 (2019)

    2019

  46. [52]

    Crescente, M

    A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, Ultrafast charging in a two-photon dicke quantum bat- tery, Phys. Rev. B 102, 245407 (2020)

    2020

  47. [53]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Chanda, and A. Sen(De), Enhancement in the performance of a quantum battery by ordered and disordered interactions, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032115 (2020)

    2020

  48. [55]

    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

  49. [56]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Chanda, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Fast charging of a quantum battery assisted by noise, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032207 (2021)

    2021

  50. [57]

    J.-Y. Gyhm, D. ˇSafr´ anek, and D. Rosa, Quantum charg- ing advantage cannot be extensive without global opera- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140501 (2022)

    2022

  51. [58]

    Mondal and S

    S. Mondal and S. Bhattacharjee, Periodically driven many-body quantum battery, Phys. Rev. E 105, 044125 (2022)

    2022

  52. [59]

    Gyhm and U

    J.-Y. Gyhm and U. R. Fischer, Beneficial and detrimental entanglement for quantum bat- tery charging, A VS Quantum Science 6, 012001 9 (2024), https://pubs.aip.org/avs/aqs/article- pdf/doi/10.1116/5.0184903/18703178/012001 1 5.0184903.pdf

    2024 doi

  53. [60]

    Tirone, G

    S. Tirone, G. M. Andolina, G. Calaj` o, V. Giovan- netti, and D. Rossini, Many-body enhancement of en- ergy storage in a waveguide-qed quantum battery (2024), arXiv:2410.14555 [quant-ph]

    2024

  54. [61]

    L. F. C. de Moraes, A. C. Duriez, A. Saguia, A. C. Santos, and M. S. Sarandy, Quantum battery supercharging via counter-diabatic dynamics, Quantum Science and Tech- nology 9, 045033 (2024)

    2024

  55. [62]

    Maldacena and D

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Remarks on the sachdev- ye-kitaev model, Phys. Rev. D 94, 106002 (2016)

    2016

  56. [63]

    Polchinski and V

    J. Polchinski and V. Rosenhaus, The spectrum in the sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 1 (2016)

    2016

  57. [64]

    Chowdhury, A

    D. Chowdhury, A. Georges, O. Parcollet, and S. Sachdev, Sachdev-ye-kitaev models and beyond: Window into non-fermi liquids, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 035004 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Francica, Quantum advantage in batteries for sachdev-ye-kitaev interactions (2024), arXiv:2405.03306 [quant-ph]

    G. Francica, Quantum advantage in batteries for sachdev-ye-kitaev interactions (2024), arXiv:2405.03306 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    S. V. Romero, Y. Ding, X. Chen, and Y. Ban, Scram- bling in the charging of quantum batteries (2024), arXiv:2409.10590 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Maldacena, S

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, A bound on chaos, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 106 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    S. Xu, L. Susskind, Y. Su, and B. Swingle, A sparse model of quantum holography (2020), arXiv:2008.02303 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. M. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Y. Jia, D. Rosa, and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Sparse sachdev-ye-kitaev model, quantum chaos, and gravity duals, Phys. Rev. D 103, 106002 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    C´ aceres, A

    E. C´ aceres, A. Misobuchi, and R. Pimentel, Sparse syk and traversable wormholes, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 15 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    C´ aceres, T

    E. C´ aceres, T. Guglielmo, B. Kent, and A. Misobuchi, Out-of-time-order correlators and lyapunov exponents in sparse syk, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 88 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    A. M. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, C. Liu, and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Sparsity-independent lyapunov exponent in the sachdev- ye-kitaev model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 091602 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Orman, H

    P. Orman, H. Gharibyan, and J. Preskill, Quantum chaos in the sparse syk model (2024), arXiv:2403.13884 [hep- th]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    D. J. Gross and V. Rosenhaus, A generalization of sachdev-ye-kitaev, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 93 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    , ik is immaterial

    Given the complete character of the graph on which the model is defined, the precise choice of the indices i1, . . . , ik is immaterial. We therefore assume i1, . . . , ik = 1, . . . , k

  69. [77]

    The impossibility of obtaining a quantum charging ad- vantage for the Z-model battery and any finite q can also be obtained as a consequence of the theorem proved in [57]

  70. [78]

    D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks, Nature 393, 440 (1998)

    1998

  71. [79]

    A. P. Luca D’Alessio, Yariv Kafri and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermal- ization to statistical mechanics and thermody- namics, Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2016.1198134

    2016

  72. [80]

    V. Ros, M. M¨ uller, and A. Scardicchio, Integrals of mo- tion in the many-body localized phase, Nuclear Physics B 891, 420 (2015)

    2015

  73. [81]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Col- loquium: Many-body localization, thermalization , and entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  74. [82]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization in the age of classical computing (2024), arXiv:2403.07111 [cond- mat.dis-nn]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    A. M. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, L. S´ a, and J. J. M. Ver- baarschot, Symmetry classification and universality in non-hermitian many-body quantum chaos by the sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021040 (2022)

    2022

  76. [84]

    Danshita, M

    I. Danshita, M. Hanada, and M. Tezuka, Creating and probing the sachdev–ye–kitaev model with ultracold gases: Towards experimental studies of quantum gravity, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2017, 083I01 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2017/...

    2017

  77. [85]

    D. I. Pikulin and M. Franz, Black hole on a chip: Pro- posal for a physical realization of the sachdev-ye-kitaev model in a solid-state system, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031006 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    Wei and T

    C. Wei and T. A. Sedrakyan, Optical lattice platform for the sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Phys. Rev. A 103, 013323 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.