The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 16 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Enhancing the Charging Power of Quantum Batteries
Open accessAbstract
Can collective quantum effects make a difference in a meaningful thermodynamic operation? Focusing on energy storage and batteries, we demonstrate that quantum mechanics can lead to an enhancement in the amount of work deposited per unit time, i.e., the charging power, when N batteries are charged collectively. We first derive analytic upper bounds for the collective quantum advantage in charging power for two choices of constraints on the charging Hamiltonian. We then demonstrate that even in the absence of quantum entanglement this advantage can be extensive. For our main result, we provide an upper bound to the achievable quantum advantage when the interaction order is restricted; i.e., at most k batteries are interacting. This constitutes a fundamental limit on the advantage offered by quantum technologies over their classical counterparts.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper defines a collective quantum advantage for charging power when N quantum batteries are charged jointly rather than in parallel, and derives upper bounds on this advantage under energetic constraints. It shows that an extensive advantage is possible even without entanglement, but for physically realisable at-most-k-body interactions the advantage cannot scale with N and is bounded by a function quadratic in k.
Key findings
- For two constraints on the collective charging Hamiltonian, the quantum advantage is upper bounded as Γ_C1 ≤ √N and Γ_C2 ≤ N, with β = T‖/T_QSL^(1) quantifying inability to saturate the quantum speed limit in parallel charging.
- An extensive advantage can occur even for highly mixed states inside the separable ball: for N two-level thermal batteries, Γ_C1 = √N, Γ_C2 = N, and Γ_C0 = N, while the joint state need not be entangled during charging.
- For circuit-based charging with interaction order at most k, Theorem 2 gives Γ_C0 < γk, where γ does not scale with N; for ground-to-maximally-excited states γ = π/2.
- For generic time-dependent charging with interaction order k and maximum participation number m, Theorem 3 gives Γ_C0 < γ(k²(m−1)+k). Achievable comparisons are Γ_C1 = √k and Γ_C2 = k when N/k is an integer, and Γ_C0 = k in that same situation.
Methods
- Theoretical study of unitary charging of N quantum batteries, defining the quantum advantage as Γ = P♯/P‖ = T‖/T♯, where P♯ is collective charging power and P‖ is parallel charging power.
- Analytic derivation using the quantum speed limit, Bures angle L_N, Uhlmann fidelity, and three constraints C0, C1, and C2 on the collective Hamiltonian’s energy, standard deviation, or operator norm.
- Supplementary proofs use a piecewise unitary circuit model, Trotter-Suzuki decomposition, and a numerical search over Haar-random charging Hamiltonians with sample size ν = 10⁵ for (N,k) = (3,2), (4,2), (4,3), and (6,2).
Limitations
- The paper states that its bounds are not tight; Theorem 2’s strict inequality is only different by a constant factor from an achievable bound in a special case.
- Conjecture 4, extending Theorem 2 to any time-dependent k-body interaction Hamiltonian, is not proven; the numerical search found no counterexamples but “does not represent a proof,” and measure-zero counterexamples cannot be excluded.
- The paper states that k-body interactions are hard to engineer and that higher interaction orders are generally difficult; the exact radius of the separable ball is not known, though it has been bounded.
- Evident from the text: the work is theoretical and numerical, with no experimental demonstration of the predicted charging advantage.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
25 Own interpretation · 18 No basis given · 10 Not checked yet · 7 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the joint charging of N batteries is achieved in T ♯ = T ‖ /α ♯ using the global Hamiltonian H ♯ = α ♯ H ⊗ N , where the positive constant α ♯ is introduced to satisfy the chosen constraint.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposition 1 An extensive quantum advantage can be attained even for highly mixed states, including those confined to the separable ball throughout the charging procedure.”
- Also stated in: § Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries · p. 3 · plain
“no matter how mixed the battery is a quantum advantage that scales with the number of batteries involved is always achievable.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries · p. 3 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We then go on to analytically prove that, for charging fields with finite interaction order, i.e. , involving at most k -body interaction terms, the quantum advantage is upper bounded by a quadratic function of k and cannot scale with the total number of batteries.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The Hamiltonian used in the example above, and in Ref. [15], to saturate the bound for quantum advantage involves N -body interactions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] F. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, New J. Phys. 17 , 075015 (2015). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Theorem 2 For a circuit based charging procedure with interaction order of at most k , the achievable quantum advantage is upper bounded as Γ C0 < γk , where γ is a constant that does not scale with the number N of batteries.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The optimal local charging scheme is achieved in time T ‖ = π/ 2 by applying Hamiltonian H = | E 0 〉〈 E 1 | + | E 1 〉〈 E 0 | to each battery.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We then demonstrate that even in the absence of quantum entanglement this advantage can be extensive.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the important case where ρ and σ are the ground and maximally excited states respectively, γ = π/ 2 .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this sense, it is a stricter constraint than C1 or C2.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We first derive analytic upper bounds for the collective quantum advantage in charging power for two choices of constraints on the charging Hamiltonian.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- Probably not a substantial claim. 6
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, for orthogonal pure initial and final states, the QSL can be saturated and β = 1 .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both cases (local and global) the deposited work is identical; thus, the quantum advantage is simply the ratio of T ‖ to T ♯ : Γ = α ♯ , which can be evaluated for the choice of constraint.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Constraint C0 guarantees that both the time-averaged standard deviation and the time-averaged energy are bounded from above, as shown in Sec. A of SM.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two bounds in Eq. (4) are independent from each other, and constraint C1 is stronger than C2, as it leads to a stricter bound on the quantum advantage.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two bounds in Eq. (4) are independent from each other, and constraint C1 is stronger than C2, as it leads to a stricter bound on the quantum advantage.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There, we show that E ♯ upper bounds both E ♯ / 2 and ∆ E ♯ .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find Γ C1 = √ N and Γ C2 = N (also Γ C0 = N for C0 given in Eq. (5)).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Remarkably, neither T ‖ nor T ♯ depend on ϵ , while the total work done does.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here we show that ∆ E ♯ ≤ E ♯ and E ♯ ≤ 2 E ♯ by direct computation.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have proven two fundamental upper bounds for the quantum advantage, each corresponding to a different constraint on the charging Hamiltonian.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Next, we show that attaining a quantum advantage requires entangling operations, but not entanglement itself.”
- Also stated in: § Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries · p. 3 · plain
“Proposition 1 implies that, while a quantum advantage requires entangling operations, the joint state of N -batteries does not have to be entangled during the charging process.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries · p. 3 · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the distance from the maximally mixed state cannot change under unitary evolution, for a small enough choice of ϵ , the joint state of N batteries will lie within this ball throughout the evolution; yet, the quantum advantage remains extensive.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though the quantum advantage for power could be larger in other cases, including where the battery states are mixed [26], the improvement cannot grow with the number of batteries; i.e. , β is a constant function of N .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For comparison, it has been shown elsewhere that Γ C1 = √ k and Γ C2 = k are achievable if the total number of batteries N can be divided by k , i.e. , if N/k = s ∈ N [15, 36].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This numerical evidence does not represent a proof of our conjecture since there could be a measure zero set of Hamiltonians for which P > 1 .”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The quantum advantage has been interpreted as the result of rapid evolution through the space of high-dimensional quantum states, typically obtained by means of global operations [15].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] F. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, New J. Phys. 17 , 075015 (2015). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that these bounds are not tight”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There, an enhancement in sensing is still available for highly mixed states lying inside the separable ball [43].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] K. Modi, H. Cable, M. Williamson, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. X 1 , 021022 (2011). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While, in the case of pure states, entanglement is a necessary consequence of these global operations, a fully separable evolution is still accessible for those states that live in the separable ball.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since each of the M terms at each time step must be implemented sequentially, U Trot takes M times longer to run than U , with a corresponding drop in power P ♯ = MP Trot .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This Letter demonstrates that thermodynamic processes can indeed benefit from collective effects when time enters the picture, though physical limitations on the interaction order prevent us from utilising them.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For many physical systems, both k and m are limited: 2 or 3-body interactions are the norm for fundamental processes, and higher interaction orders are generally hard to engineer here [37-39].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] H. P. B¨ uchler, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Nat. Phys. 3 , 726 (2007). source
- Not checked yetcites [38] S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. Geremia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 , 090401 (2007). source
- Not checked yetcites [39] M. Napolitano, M. Koschorreck, B. Dubost, N. Behbood, R. Sewell, and M. W. Mitchell, Nature 471 , 486 (2011). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each hµ acts on a completely different set of k batteries, i.e., [hµ, hµ'] = 0 for all µ, µ'.
“assuming that each h µ acts on a completely different set of k batteries, i.e. , [ h µ , h µ ′ ] = 0 ∀ µ, µ ′ .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The reach of the interaction should be limited.
“This restriction is motivated by the idea that the reach of the interaction should be limited.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The effective participation number m tends to be constrained by the spatial arrangement of systems and the fact that interaction strength often drops off with distance.
“The effective participation number, or reach, m tends to be constrained by the spatial arrangement of systems and the fact that interaction strength often drops off with distance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Collective behaviour has been demonstrated to provide an advantage in performing many information theoretic tasks, but such distinctions from classical behaviour are few and far between in thermodynamics.
“While collective behaviour has been demonstrated to provide an advantage in performing many information theoretic tasks, such distinctions from classical behaviour are few and far between in thermodynamics.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In addition, similar techniques have been employed to optimally charge a quantum battery [110,111].”
From Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control (2017) · cites this paper as [111]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Appendix C: Proof of Theorem 3 · p. 7
“( k = 3 , m = 2) Now the first 3-partition (1 , 2 , 3) is followed by (1 , 4 , 5) , (2 , 4 , 6) and (3 , 5 , 6) .”
§ Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries · p. 4
“each battery is simultaneously interacting with at most m others.”
Citations
Cites
Coherence in Spontaneous Radiation Processes
Dicke, R. H. (1954) · Physical Review · doi:10.1103/physrev.93.99 · Cited by 7,445
Validity of many-body approximation methods for a solvable model
Lipkin, H. J., Meshkov, N., & Glick, A. J. (1965) · Nuclear Physics · doi:10.1016/0029-5582(65)90862-x · Cited by 1,504
Multiparticle Entanglement of Hot Trapped Ions
Mølmer, K., & Sørensen, A. S. (1999) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.82.1835 · Cited by 1,024
The role of quantum information in thermodynamics—a topical review
Goold, J., Huber, M., Riera, A., del Rio, L., & Skrzypczyk, P. (2016) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/49/14/143001 · Cited by 973
Self-citationVinjanampathy, S., & Anders, J. (2016) · Contemporary Physics · doi:10.1080/00107514.2016.1201896 · Cited by 940
Self-citationThe maximum speed of dynamical evolution
Margolus, N., & Levitin, L. B. (1998) · Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena · doi:10.1016/s0167-2789(98)00054-2 · Cited by 887
Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective
Tóth, G., & Apellaniz, I. (2014) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424006 · Cited by 862
The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine
Alicki, R. (1979) · Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General · doi:10.1088/0305-4470/12/5/007 · Cited by 765
Extracting Work from a Single Heat Bath via Vanishing Quantum Coherence
Scully, M. O., Zubairy, M. S., Agarwal, G. S., & WALTHER, H. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1078955 · Cited by 751
Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective
Tóth, G., & Apellaniz, I. (2014) · Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) · Cited by 672
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- L. Mandelstam, 1945, J. Phys. (Moscow), 9, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–531 of 531
Energy‐Based Classification of Qubit Platforms for Quantum Battery Applications
Taşaltın, N., & Yıldız, D. E. (2026) · Advanced Quantum Technologies · doi:10.1002/qute.70383
Ergotropic Mpemba crossings in finite-dimensional quantum batteries
Sapui, T., Konar, T. K., & SenDe, A. (2026) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae9181
Modulator-Assisted Zeno Control of Energy Transfer in Quantum Batteries
Xie, S., Sajjan, M., Ajoy, A., & Kais, S. (2026) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2026-07-29-2178
Quantum coherence and entanglement in wireless quantum batteries
Anonymous, Cao, J.-D., Zhang, Y.-F., Song, M.-L., & Wang, D. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/hfrl-kwcd
Anonymous (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/8yfq-dcvx
Khalfet, N., & Krikidis, I. (2026) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2026.3718832
Ho, L. B., Hoang, D. T., Anh-Tai, T. D., Busch, T., & Fogarty, T. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/8yq7-jp7r · Cited by 1
Quantum advantage from negativity of work quasiprobability distributions
Anonymous (2026) · APS Open Science · doi:10.1103/xwk6-qzzw
Dissipation-protected energy storage in interacting multilevel quantum batteries
Anonymous, & Müstecaplıoğlu, Ö. E. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/ct48-85bk
Ali, A., Al-Kuwari, S. M., & Quach, J. Q. (2026) · Advanced Quantum Technologies · doi:10.1002/qute.70397
Dissipation-engineered dual-charger quantum batteries
Yang, Y.-J., Liu, Y., Liu, Z., Ma, Z., Luo, M.-X., & Yu, C.-S. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/jmmt-qyg6
Dynamical blockade in SU(1,1) quantum batteries via a neural network
Abd‐Rabbou, M. Y., Zahia, A. A., Abdallah, A. M., & Qiao, C.-F. (2026) · Physical review. E · doi:10.1103/9ryn-cccp
Quantum-switch-controlled charging for a quantum battery in a coupled-cavity array
Anonymous, Wei, Z.-D., Yan, W., Man, Z., Xia, Y., Zhang, Y.-J., & Cai, Q.-Y. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/rgj8-jmzy
Lamb-shift-mediated energy transfer in open quantum batteriesPreprint
Zhu, S., & Zhao, S.-C. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7308351
Collective dynamics versus entanglement in quantum battery performance
Anonymous, Mishra, S. K., & Sen, U. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/595w-rwr4
Thomas, S. D., Rajan, A., Joy, N., Varghese, L., Balakrishnan, A., Shajan, I., Shahul, M., Subair, S., Somasundaram, R., Xavier, N., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Physics · doi:10.3389/fphy.2026.1916832
The flying quantum battery: harnessing atomic motion for robust energy storage in nonlinear cavities
Zahia, A. A., Khalil, E. M., & Al‐Awfi, S. (2026) · Journal of Russian Laser Research · doi:10.1007/s10946-026-10321-5
The advantages of extended nonreciprocal quantum batteries
Song, M.-L., Cao, Z., Dong, H.-T., Zhang, S.-Y., Song, X., Ye, L., & Wang, D. (2026) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/5.0345442
Finite-Time Feedback Control for Charging of a Qubit Quantum Battery
Taslima, E., Saket, R. K., & Kamal, S. (2026) · IEEE North-East India International Energy Conversion Conference and Exhibition (NE-IECCE) · doi:10.1109/ne-iecce69680.2026.11666064
Coherent energy extraction from superradiant quantum battery
Anonymous, & Gea-Banacloche, J. R. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/fg1b-9d5v
Energy storage limits and criticality in an anisotropic three-spin interaction quantum battery
Beygi, V. Y., Mahdavifar, S., Мирмасоуди, Ф., & Ahadpour, S. (2026) · Results in Physics · doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2026.108748
Yingbo, G., Minghui, G., & Fu-Quan, D. (2026) · Acta Physica Sinica · doi:10.7498/aps.76.20260970
Exciton Storage in Symmetry-Protected Open Quantum Batteries
Khodadad, Z., & Hanna, G. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-9717-8_8
Inorganic molecular clusters: A new frontier for quantum energy storage
Najum, H., Majid, A., & Raza, M. T. (2026) · Journal of Energy Storage · doi:10.1016/j.est.2026.124685
Enhanced charging in open Rabi and Dicke quantum batteries
Anonymous, Xu, N., Xiao, Y., Gao, L., Li, L., Li, Z.-M., & Shu, C. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/3tmw-cc5t
Thermodynamics of a biophotomimetic nonreciprocal quantum battery
Anonymous, Sarmah, M. J., & Goswami, H. P. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/j4sc-3s2k · Cited by 1
Quantum battery optimized by parametric amplification
Anonymous, An, J., & Dou, F.-Q. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/263v-vp3b
Charging efficiency bursts in a quantum battery with cyclic indefinite causal order
Lai, P.-R., Jan, H. V. E., Lin, J.-D., & Chen, Y.-N. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/5b41-q9pv
Open quantum battery in the background of a three-dimensional rotating black hole
Liu, X., Tian, Z., & Wang, J. (2026) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.141020
Control‐Constraint‐Dependent Architecture Reversal in Multilevel Quantum Batteries
Siddiqui, M. A., Qutubuddin, M., & Amir, M. (2026) · Advanced Quantum Technologies · doi:10.1002/qute.70502
Symmetry protected charging suppression and level crossing control in a spin-1 XXZ quantum batteryPreprint
joyia, W., & Javed, A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7625581
Metadata
- Authors
- Campaioli, F., Pollock, F. A., Binder, F. C., Céleri, L., Goold, J., Vinjanampathy, S., & Modi, K.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Universidade Federal de Goiás (BR)
- The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) (IT)
- Centre for Quantum Technologies (SG)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Physical Review Letters
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2017-04-12
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 150601-150601
- ISSN
- 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
- 1079-7114
- OpenAlex
- W2561264561
- Cited by
- 531
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 108 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 13.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
- DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace (IIT Bombay) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation Singapore (NRF-CRP14-2014-02, NRF-NRFF2016-02)
- European Cooperation in Science and Technology (MP1209)
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq: 401230/2014-7, CNPq: 305086/2013-8, CNPq: 445516/2014-3)
- IITB-IRCC (16IRCCSG019)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Advanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Advanced Thermodynamic Systems and Engines
- Keywords
- quantum batteries, charging power, quantum advantage, energy storage, work rate, upper bounds, quantum entanglement, interaction order, quantum thermodynamics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
