- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Boosting the performance of a Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick quantum battery via symmetry-breaking quenches or a single-mode bosonic charger

Le Bin Ho1,2,3,*, Duc Tuan Hoang4, Tran Duong Anh-Tai4,5,6, Thomas Busch4, and Thomás Fogarty4

  • *Contact author: binho@fris.tohoku.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 114, 022210 – Published 18 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/8yq7-jp7r

Abstract

We explore the operation of quantum batteries in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick (LMG) model, when they are charged either through a sudden quench in the magnetic field strength or by coupling them to a single-mode bosonic charger. Through initializing the battery in either the symmetric or broken-symmetry phase of the LMG model, we analyze how the different spectral properties can affect the performance of both the charging and discharging of the battery. In particular, we show that by quenching the magnetic field strength from the symmetric phase to the broken-symmetry phase, we can achieve a significant enhancement in stored energy, as well as stable and efficient ergotropy extraction. Similar observations can be made when introducing weak coupling between the battery and the bosonic charger, while the amount of stored work and ergotropy saturate at strong coupling. These findings emphasize the importance of the magnetic field dynamics or environmental coupling in optimizing charging performance, which could lead to practical applications in quantum energy storage.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (92)

  1. F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Colloquium: Quantum batteries, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031001 (2024).
  2. Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, 1st ed., edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 195 (Springer, Cham, 2019).
  3. F. Pirmoradian and K. Mølmer, Aging of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 100, 043833 (2019).
  4. 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).
  5. A. Crescente, M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, and D. Ferraro, Ultrafast charging in a two-photon Dicke quantum battery, Phys. Rev. B 102, 245407 (2020).
  6. G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Quantum versus classical many-body batteries, Phys. Rev. B 99, 205437 (2019).
  7. F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quantacell: Powerful charging of quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 17, 075015 (2015).
  8. F.-Q. Dou, Y.-Q. Lu, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Extended Dicke quantum battery with interatomic interactions and driving field, Phys. Rev. B 105, 115405 (2022).
  9. D. Rosa, D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, M. Polini, and M. Carrega, Ultra-stable charging of fast-scrambling SYK quantum batteries, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2020) 067.
  10. 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).
  11. D.-L. Yang, F.-M. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Three-level Dicke quantum battery, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235432 (2024).
  12. T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Pollock, Spin-chain model of a many-body quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022106 (2018).
  13. F. Zhao, F.-Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Quantum battery of interacting spins with environmental noise, Phys. Rev. A 103, 033715 (2021).
  14. F. Zhao, F.-Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Charging performance of the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013172 (2022).
  15. F. Barra, K. V. Hovhannisyan, and A. Imparato, Quantum batteries at the verge of a phase transition, New J. Phys. 24, 015003 (2022).
  16. F.-Q. Dou, H. Zhou, and J.-A. Sun, Cavity Heisenberg-spin-chain quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 106, 032212 (2022).
  17. Y. Huangfu and J. Jing, High-capacity and high-power collective charging with spin chargers, Phys. Rev. E 104, 024129 (2021).
  18. D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, and M. Polini, Many-body localized quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115142 (2019).
  19. 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).
  20. M. Carrega, A. Crescente, D. Ferraro, and M. Sassetti, Dissipative dynamics of an open quantum battery, New J. Phys. 22, 083085 (2020).
  21. J. Q. Quach and W. J. Munro, Using dark states to charge and stabilize open quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 024092 (2020).
  22. S. Ghosh and A. Sen(De), Dimensional enhancements in a quantum battery with imperfections, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022628 (2022).
  23. L. Peng, W.-B. He, S. Chesi, H.-Q. Lin, and X.-W. Guan, Lower and upper bounds of quantum battery power in multiple central spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052220 (2021).
  24. F. Caravelli, B. Yan, L. P. García-Pintos, and A. Hamma, Energy storage and coherence in closed and open quantum batteries, Quantum 5, 505 (2021).
  25. J.-X. Liu, H.-L. Shi, Y.-H. Shi, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Entanglement and work extraction in the central-spin quantum battery, Phys. Rev. B 104, 245418 (2021).
  26. M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, and A. C. Santos, Enhancing self-discharging process with disordered quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 105, 054115 (2022).
  27. S. Mondal and S. Bhattacharjee, Periodically driven many-body quantum battery, Phys. Rev. E 105, 044125 (2022).
  28. M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, A. Saguia, M. S. Sarandy, and A. C. Santos, Localization effects in disordered quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 108, 064106 (2023).
  29. D. T. Hoang, F. Metz, A. Thomasen, T. D. Anh-Tai, T. Busch, and T. Fogarty, Variational quantum algorithm for ergotropy estimation in quantum many-body batteries, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013038 (2024).
  30. A. G. Catalano, S. M. Giampaolo, O. Morsch, V. Giovannetti, and F. Franchini, Frustrating quantum batteries, PRX Quantum 5, 030319 (2024).
  31. A. C. Santos, A. Saguia, and M. S. Sarandy, Stable and charge-switchable quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 101, 062114 (2020).
  32. F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. Céleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150601 (2017).
  33. F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi, and A. C. Santos, Entanglement, coherence, and charging process of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 102, 052109 (2020).
  34. T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, and A. Sen (De), Quantum battery with non-Hermitian charging, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042207 (2024).
  35. R. Shastri, C. Jiang, G.-H. Xu, B. P. Venkatesh, and G. Watanabe, Dephasing enabled fast charging of quantum batteries, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 9 (2025).
  36. 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).
  37. R. R. Rodríguez, B. Ahmadi, G. Suárez, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, and P. Horodecki, Optimal quantum control of charging quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 26, 043004 (2024).
  38. P. A. Erdman, G. M. Andolina, V. Giovannetti, and F. Noé, Reinforcement learning optimization of the charging of a Dicke quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 243602 (2024).
  39. F. Mazzoncini, V. Cavina, G. M. Andolina, P. A. Erdman, and V. Giovannetti, Optimal control methods for quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032218 (2023).
  40. V. T. Hai, V. M. Kiet, L. V. T. Duong, P. H. Luan, L. B. Ho, and Y. Nakashima, Quantum battery optimization through quantum machine learning techniques, in 2024 21st International SoC Design Conference (ISOCC) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2024), pp. 121–122.
  41. Z. Beleño, M. F. Santos, and F. Barra, Laser powered dissipative quantum batteries in atom-cavity QED, New J. Phys. 26, 073049 (2024).
  42. M. Hadipour, S. Haseli, D. Wang, and S. Haddadi, Proposed scheme for a cavity-based quantum battery, Adv. Quantum Technol. 7, 2400115 (2024),.
  43. 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).
  44. B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzanjeh, Nonreciprocal quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 210402 (2024).
  45. S. Julià-Farré, T. Salamon, A. Riera, M. N. Bera, and M. Lewenstein, Bounds on the capacity and power of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023113 (2020).
  46. A. Bhattacharyya, K. Sen, and U. Sen, Noncompletely positive quantum maps enable efficient local energy extraction in batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 240401 (2024).
  47. 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).
  48. Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y. Lü, and C. Shang, Topological quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 180401 (2025).
  49. X. Yang, Y.-H. Yang, X.-Z. Liu, J.-L. Jiang, X.-Z. Zheng, S.-M. Fei, and M.-X. Luo, Experimental verification of quantum battery capacity with an optical platform, Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 5, 102300 (2024).
  50. D. Qu, X. Zhan, H. Lin, and P. Xue, Experimental optimization of charging quantum batteries through a catalyst system, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180301 (2023).
  51. H. Lipkin, N. Meshkov, and A. Glick, Validity of many-body approximation methods for a solvable model: (I). Exact solutions and perturbation theory, Nucl. Phys. 62, 188 (1965).
  52. N. Meshkov, A. Glick, and H. Lipkin, Validity of many-body approximation methods for a solvable model: (II). Linearization procedures, Nucl. Phys. 62, 199 (1965).
  53. A. Glick, H. Lipkin, and N. Meshkov, Validity of many-body approximation methods for a solvable model: (III). Diagram summations, Nucl. Phys. 62, 211 (1965).
  54. B. A. Chase and J. M. Geremia, Collective processes of an ensemble of spin-1/2 particles, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052101 (2008).
  55. J. Ma and X. Wang, Fisher information and spin squeezing in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012318 (2009).
  56. R. Botet, R. Jullien, and P. Pfeuty, Size scaling for infinitely coordinated systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 478 (1982).
  57. S. Dusuel and J. Vidal, Continuous unitary transformations and finite-size scaling exponents in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. B 71, 224420 (2005).
  58. S. Campbell, Criticality revealed through quench dynamics in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. B 94, 184403 (2016).
  59. P. Ribeiro, J. Vidal, and R. Mosseri, Thermodynamical limit of the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 050402 (2007).
  60. P. Ribeiro, J. Vidal, and R. Mosseri, Exact spectrum of the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model in the thermodynamic limit and finite-size corrections, Phys. Rev. E 78, 021106 (2008).
  61. R. Botet and R. Jullien, Large-size critical behavior of infinitely coordinated systems, Phys. Rev. B 28, 3955 (1983).
  62. H. Morita, H. Ohnishi, J. da Providência, and S. Nishiyama, Exact solutions for the LMG model Hamiltonian based on the Bethe ansatz, Nucl. Phys. B 737, 337 (2006).
  63. F. Pan and J. Draayer, Analytical solutions for the LMG model, Phys. Lett. B 451, 1 (1999).
  64. G. Ortiz, R. Somma, J. Dukelsky, and S. Rombouts, Exactly-solvable models derived from a generalized Gaudin algebra, Nucl. Phys. B 707, 421 (2005).
  65. S. Dusuel and J. Vidal, Finite-size scaling exponents of the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 237204 (2004).
  66. T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940).
  67. H.-M. Kwok, W.-Q. Ning, S.-J. Gu, and H.-Q. Lin, Quantum criticality of the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model in terms of fidelity susceptibility, Phys. Rev. E 78, 032103 (2008).
  68. J. Ma, L. Xu, H.-N. Xiong, and X. Wang, Reduced fidelity susceptibility and its finite-size scaling behaviors in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. E 78, 051126 (2008).
  69. G. Salvatori, A. Mandarino, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum metrology in Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick critical systems, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022111 (2014).
  70. L. Garbe, O. Abah, S. Felicetti, and R. Puebla, Critical quantum metrology with fully-connected models: from Heisenberg to Kibble–Zurek scaling, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 035010 (2022).
  71. V. Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Bayat, Review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems, Phys. Rep. 1134, 1 (2025).
  72. T. Fogarty, S. Deffner, T. Busch, and S. Campbell, Orthogonality catastrophe as a consequence of the quantum speed limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110601 (2020).
  73. C.-J. Wang, Y.-J. Wang, and F.-Q. Dou, Fast charging of Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick quantum battery, arXiv:2208.04831.
  74. R. Islam, E. E. Edwards, K. Kim, S. Korenblit, C. Noh, H. Carmichael, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, and C. Monroe, Onset of a quantum phase transition with a trapped ion quantum simulator, Nat. Commun. 2, 377 (2011).
  75. P. Richerme, Z.-X. Gong, A. Lee, C. Senko, J. Smith, M. Foss-Feig, S. Michalakis, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Non-local propagation of correlations in quantum systems with long-range interactions, Nature (London) 511, 198 (2014).
  76. P. Jurcevic, H. Shen, P. Hauke, C. Maier, T. Brydges, C. Hempel, B. P. Lanyon, M. Heyl, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Direct observation of dynamical quantum phase transitions in an interacting many-body system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 080501 (2017).
  77. J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator, Nature (London) 551, 601 (2017).
  78. T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, C. Gross, and M. K. Oberthaler, Classical bifurcation at the transition from Rabi to Josephson dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 204101 (2010).
  79. T. M. Hoang, M. Anquez, B. A. Robbins, X. Y. Yang, B. J. Land, C. D. Hamley, and M. S. Chapman, Parametric excitation and squeezing in a many-body spinor condensate, Nat. Commun. 7, 11233 (2016).
  80. M. Anquez, B. A. Robbins, H. M. Bharath, M. Boguslawski, T. M. Hoang, and M. S. Chapman, Quantum Kibble-Zurek mechanism in a spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 155301 (2016).
  81. M. Campisi, P. Hänggi, and P. Talkner, Colloquium: Quantum fluctuation relations: Foundations and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 771 (2011).
  82. C. Campbell, T. Fogarty, and T. Busch, Nonequilibrium many-body dynamics in supersymmetric quenching, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033014 (2022).
  83. Y.-H. Ma, S.-H. Su, and C.-P. Sun, Quantum thermodynamic cycle with quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. E 96, 022143 (2017).
  84. S. Liang, Y.-H. Ma, D. M. Busiello, and P. De Los Rios, Minimal model for Carnot efficiency at maximum power, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 027101 (2025).
  85. B. Mula, E. M. Fernández, J. E. Alvarellos, J. J. Fernández, D. García-Aldea, S. N. Santalla, and J. Rodríguez-Laguna, Ergotropy and entanglement in critical spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 107, 075116 (2023).
  86. Z.-Y. Peng, S.-C. Zhao, L. Luo, and N.-Y. Zhuang, Energy-invariant catalysis of stable ergotropy in strongly coupled spin-chain quantum batteries, Physica A 689, 131462 (2026).
  87. F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi, F. Kheirandish, and A. C. Santos, Non-Markovian effects on charging and self-discharging process of quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 22, 083007 (2020).
  88. F. Barra, Efficiency fluctuations in a quantum battery charged by a repeated interaction process, Entropy 24, 820 (2022).
  89. 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).
  90. L. B. Ho, D. T. Hoang, T. D. Anh-Tai, T. Busch, and T. Fogarty, Supporting data for boosting the performance of a Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick quantum battery via symmetry-breaking quenches or a single-mode bosonic charger, GitHub, 2026, https://github.com/echkon/lmg_quantum_battery.
  91. O. Castaños, R. López-Peña, J. G. Hirsch, and E. López-Moreno, Classical and quantum phase transitions in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. B 74, 104118 (2006).
  92. S. Campbell, G. De Chiara, M. Paternostro, G. M. Palma, and R. Fazio, Shortcut to adiabaticity in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 177206 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 114, 022210– Published 18 August, 2026
  • Received 20 February 2026
  • Revised 20 June 2026
  • Accepted 4 August 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation