- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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

Measuring multipartite quantum correlations by thermodynamic work extraction

Toshihiro Yada1,*, Nobuyuki Yoshioka1,2,3, and Takahiro Sagawa1,4

  • 1Department of Applied Physics, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan
  • 2Theoretical Quantum Physics Laboratory, RIKEN Cluster for Pioneering Research (CPR), Wako-shi, Saitama 351-0198, Japan
  • 3JST, PRESTO, 4-1-8 Honcho, Kawaguchi, Saitama 332-0012, Japan
  • 4Quantum-Phase Electronics Center (QPEC), The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan

  • *Contact author: yada@noneq.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043307 – Published 17 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/s8h3-5ptz

Abstract

While bipartite quantum correlations have been extensively studied across various fields, the role of multipartite quantum correlations in many-body systems remains elusive due to their complex structure. A primary challenge lies in the fact that the calculation of multipartite quantum correlation measure often requires an exponential cost with respect to the system size. In this work, we address this problem by adopting a thermodynamic approach: We introduce a measure of multipartite quantum correlations based on the difference in extractable thermodynamic work between global operations and LOCC (local operations and classical communication). This can be regarded as a multipartite generalization of the bipartite work deficit, which has attracted attention as a thermodynamic measure of bipartite quantum correlation. Importantly, we develop an efficient method for computing the multipartite work deficit in a special class of quantum many-body systems described by matrix product states (MPS). The numerical cost of this method scales linearly with system size, significantly reducing the exponential overhead required for direct calculations. We apply this method to an MPS family and show that a quantum phase transition is well captured by the multipartite work deficit, which exhibits singular behavior at the transition point. Our work shows that the multipartite work deficit not only highlights the fundamental connection between multipartite quantum correlations and quantum thermodynamics, but also serves as an efficiently computable probe of the structures of quantum many-body systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (131)

  1. C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Science 357, 995 (2017).
  2. F. Schäfer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Tools for quantum simulation with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 411 (2020).
  3. M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020).
  4. P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019).
  5. D. M. Lukin, M. A. Guidry, and J. Vučković, Integrated quantum photonics with Silicon carbide: Challenges and prospects, PRX Quantum 1, 020102 (2020).
  6. E. Altman et al., Quantum simulators: Architectures and opportunities, PRX Quantum 2, 017003 (2021).
  7. N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. Photon. 1, 165 (2007).
  8. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010).
  9. H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. Dür, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement-based quantum computation, Nat. Phys. 5, 19 (2009).
  10. L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entanglement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008).
  11. G. De Chiara and A. Sanpera, Genuine quantum correlations in quantum many-body systems: A review of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 074002 (2018).
  12. S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Aspects of holographic entanglement entropy, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2006) 045.
  13. S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from the anti–de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 181602 (2006).
  14. T. Takayanagi, Entanglement entropy from a holographic viewpoint, Classical Quantum Gravity 29, 153001 (2012).
  15. G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, Entanglement in quantum critical phenomena, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003).
  16. P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, J. Stat. Mech. (2004) P06002.
  17. P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 504005 (2009).
  18. A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110404 (2006).
  19. M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Detecting topological order in a ground state wave function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110405 (2006).
  20. B. Swingle, G. Bentsen, M. Schleier-Smith, and P. Hayden, Measuring the scrambling of quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 94, 040302 (2016).
  21. M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An introduction to entanglement measures, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 1 (2007).
  22. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  23. K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Vedral, The classical-quantum boundary for correlations: Discord and related measures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1655 (2012).
  24. A. Bera, T. Das, D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, A. S. De, and U. Sen, Quantum discord and its allies: A review of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 024001 (2018).
  25. M. Plenio and V. Vedral, Bounds on relative entropy of entanglement for multi-party systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, 6997 (2001).
  26. T.-C. Wei, M. Ericsson, P. M. Goldbart, and W. J. Munro, Connections between relative entropy of entanglement and geometric measure of entanglement, arXiv:quant-ph/0405002.
  27. H. Barnum and N. Linden, Monotones and invariants for multi-particle quantum states, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, 6787 (2001).
  28. T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042307 (2003).
  29. A. Shimony, Degree of entanglement, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 755, 675 (1995).
  30. R. Orús, Universal geometric entanglement close to quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 130502 (2008).
  31. Q.-Q. Shi, R. Orús, J. O. Fjærestad, and H.-Q. Zhou, Finite-size geometric entanglement from tensor network algorithms, New J. Phys. 12, 025008 (2010).
  32. R. Orús and T.-C. Wei, Visualizing elusive phase transitions with geometric entanglement, Phys. Rev. B 82, 155120 (2010).
  33. C.-Y. Huang and F.-L. Lin, Multipartite entanglement measures and quantum criticality from matrix and tensor product states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 032304 (2010).
  34. V. A. Mousolou, C. M. Canali, and E. Sjöqvist, Unifying geometric entanglement and geometric phase in a quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012310 (2013).
  35. R. Orús, T.-C. Wei, O. Buerschaper, and A. García-Saez, Topological transitions from multipartite entanglement with tensor networks: A procedure for sharper and faster characterization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 257202 (2014).
  36. Q.-Q. Shi, H.-L. Wang, S.-H. Li, S. Y. Cho, M. T. Batchelor, and H.-Q. Zhou, Geometric entanglement and quantum phase transitions in two-dimensional quantum lattice models, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062341 (2016).
  37. R. Orus and T.-C. Wei, Geometric entanglement of one-dimensional systems: Bounds and scalings in the thermodynamic limit, arXiv:1006.5584.
  38. C. C. Rulli and M. S. Sarandy, Global quantum discord in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A 84, 042109 (2011).
  39. S. Campbell, L. Mazzola, and M. Paternostro, Global quantum correlations in the Ising model, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 9, 1685 (2011).
  40. S. Campbell, L. Mazzola, G. De Chiara, T. J. G. Apollaro, F. Plastina, T. Busch, and M. Paternostro, Global quantum correlations in finite-size spin chains, New J. Phys. 15, 043033 (2013).
  41. M. J. M. Power, S. Campbell, M. Moreno-Cardoner, and G. De Chiara, Nonclassicality and criticality in symmetry-protected magnetic phases, Phys. Rev. B 91, 214411 (2015).
  42. Z.-Y. Sun, Y.-E. Liao, B. Guo, and H.-L. Huang, Global quantum discord in matrix product states and the application, Ann. Phys. (NY) 359, 115 (2015).
  43. H.-L. Huang, H.-G. Cheng, X. Guo, D. Zhang, Y. Wu, J. Xu, and Z.-Y. Sun, Global quantum discord and matrix product density operators, Eur. Phys. J. B 91, 117 (2018).
  44. H. C. Braga, C. C. Rulli, T. R. de Oliveira, and M. S. Sarandy, Monogamy of quantum discord by multipartite correlations, Phys. Rev. A 86, 062106 (2012).
  45. J. Xu, Analytical expressions of global quantum discord for two classes of multi-qubit states, Phys. Lett. A 377, 238 (2013).
  46. S.-Y. Liu, Y.-R. Zhang, L.-M. Zhao, W.-L. Yang, and H. Fan, General monogamy property of global quantum discord and the application, Ann. Phys. (NY) 348, 256 (2014).
  47. V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Distributed entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000).
  48. C. Radhakrishnan, M. Laurière, and T. Byrnes, Multipartite generalization of quantum discord, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110401 (2020).
  49. M.-L. Hu, X. Hu, J. Wang, Y. Peng, Y.-R. Zhang, and H. Fan, Quantum coherence and geometric quantum discord, Phys. Rep. 762, 1 (2018).
  50. P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022321 (2012).
  51. G. Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022322 (2012).
  52. F. Fröwis and W. Dür, Measures of macroscopicity for quantum spin systems, New J. Phys. 14, 093039 (2012).
  53. P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Measuring multipartite entanglement through dynamic susceptibilities, Nat. Phys. 12, 778 (2016).
  54. N. D. Mermin, Extreme quantum entanglement in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1838 (1990).
  55. M. Ardehali, Bell inequalities with a magnitude of violation that grows exponentially with the number of particles, Phys. Rev. A 46, 5375 (1992).
  56. L. Pezze, M. Gabbrielli, L. Lepori, and A. Smerzi, Multipartite entanglement in topological quantum phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 250401 (2017).
  57. O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009).
  58. I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, A brief introduction to multipartite entanglement, arXiv:1612.07747.
  59. F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime, Fundamental Theories of Physics Vol. 195 (Springer Cham, Switzerland, 2018).
  60. T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Second law of thermodynamics with discrete quantum feedback control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 080403 (2008).
  61. K. Funo, Y. Watanabe, and M. Ueda, Thermodynamic work gain from entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052319 (2013).
  62. S. W. Kim, T. Sagawa, S. De Liberato, and M. Ueda, Quantum Szilard engine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 070401 (2011).
  63. J. J. Park, K.-H. Kim, T. Sagawa, and S. W. Kim, Heat engine driven by purely quantum information, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 230402 (2013).
  64. K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Perarnau-Llobet, M. Huber, and A. Acín, Entanglement generation is not necessary for optimal work extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240401 (2013).
  65. M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Huber, P. Skrzypczyk, N. Brunner, and A. Acín, Extractable work from correlations, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041011 (2015).
  66. M. Huber, M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. V. Hovhannisyan, P. Skrzypczyk, C. Klöckl, N. Brunner, and A. Acín, Thermodynamic cost of creating correlations, New J. Phys. 17, 065008 (2015).
  67. D. E. Bruschi, M. Perarnau-Llobet, N. Friis, K. V. Hovhannisyan, and M. Huber, Thermodynamics of creating correlations: Limitations and optimal protocols, Phys. Rev. E 91, 032118 (2015).
  68. G. L. Giorgi and S. Campbell, Correlation approach to work extraction from finite quantum systems, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 48, 035501 (2015).
  69. G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, M. Campisi, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Extractable work, the role of correlations, and asymptotic freedom in quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 047702 (2019).
  70. C. Elouard, D. A. Herrera-Martí, M. Clusel, and A. Auffèves, The role of quantum measurement in stochastic thermodynamics, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 9 (2017).
  71. G. Manzano, F. Plastina, and R. Zambrini, Optimal work extraction and thermodynamics of quantum measurements and correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 120602 (2018).
  72. J. Oppenheim, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Thermodynamical approach to quantifying quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 180402 (2002).
  73. M. Horodecki, K. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Local information as a resource in distributed quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 100402 (2003).
  74. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, A. Sen(De), U. Sen, and B. Synak-Radtke, Local versus nonlocal information in quantum-information theory: Formalism and phenomena, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062307 (2005).
  75. I. Devetak, Distillation of local purity from quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062303 (2005).
  76. W. H. Zurek, Quantum discord and Maxwell’s demons, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012320 (2003).
  77. A. Brodutch and D. R. Terno, Quantum discord, local operations, and Maxwell’s demons, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062103 (2010).
  78. M. D. Lang, C. M. Caves, and A. Shaji, Entropic measures of non-classical correlations, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 9, 1553 (2011).
  79. D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007).
  80. F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems, Adv. Phys. 57, 143 (2008).
  81. J. I. Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product density operators: Renormalization fixed points and boundary theories, Ann. Phys. (NY) 378, 100 (2017).
  82. J. I. Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021).
  83. R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. (NY) 349, 117 (2014).
  84. M. M. Wolf, G. Ortiz, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum phase transitions in matrix product systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 110403 (2006).
  85. A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems, Europhys. Lett. 67, 565 (2004).
  86. P. Skrzypczyk, A. J. Short, and S. Popescu, Work extraction and thermodynamics for individual quantum systems, Nat. Commun. 5, 4185 (2014).
  87. F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quantacell: Powerful charging of quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 17, 075015 (2015).
  88. 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).
  89. R. Alicki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Thermodynamics of quantum information systems—Hamiltonian description, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 11, 205 (2004).
  90. K. Jacobs, Second law of thermodynamics and quantum feedback control: Maxwell’s demon with weak measurements, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012322 (2009).
  91. J. M. Parrondo, J. M. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, Thermodynamics of information, Nat. Phys. 11, 131 (2015).
  92. T. Sagawa, Entropy, Divergence, and Majorization in Classical and Quantum Thermodynamics (Springer Nature, Singapore, 2022).
  93. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/s8h3-5ptz for detailed descriptions of the work extraction protocols, the efficient calculation method for the multipartite work deficit, and additional calculations for the MPS family.
  94. M. Piani, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, No-Local-Broadcasting theorem for multipartite quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 090502 (2008).
  95. A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara, Nonclassical correlation in a multipartite quantum system: Two measures and evaluation, Phys. Rev. A 77, 052101 (2008).
  96. K. Modi, T. Paterek, W. Son, V. Vedral, and M. Williamson, Unified view of quantum and classical correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 080501 (2010).
  97. Y. Yao, X. Xiao, L. Ge, and C. P. Sun, Quantum coherence in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022112 (2015).
  98. H. C. Braga, C. C. Rulli, T. R. de Oliveira, and M. S. Sarandy, Maxwell’s demons in multipartite quantum correlated systems, Phys. Rev. A 90, 042338 (2014).
  99. H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Quantum discord: A measure of the quantumness of correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001).
  100. L. Henderson and V. Vedral, Classical, quantum and total correlations, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, 6899 (2001).
  101. In some previous works [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 42, 43], the numerical costs are reduced by posing assumptions on the optimal local bases. For example, in the translationally invariant systems, the optimal bases are assumed to be also translationally invariant. While such an assumption is powerful in reducing the numerical cost and also seems to be natural, there is no solid theoretical guarantee on it, to the best of our knowledge.
  102. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully, Phys. Rev. B 73, 094423 (2006).
  103. M. B. Hastings, An area law for one-dimensional quantum systems, J. Stat. Mech. (2007) P08024.
  104. We note that for n such that N−l+1≤n<N, the definitions of Mn:l and Yn:l are changed reflecting the existence of the edge in the system: Mn:l is the set of protocols where local projective measurements on {ai}i=n+1N are performed, and Yn:l≡(yn+1,⋯,yN) is the corresponding outcome.
  105. For n such that N−l+1≤n<N, Nn:l becomes the set of protocols where a POVM on {ai}i=1n and local projective measurements on {ai}i=n+1N are performed.
  106. A. Smith, B. Jobst, A. G. Green, and F. Pollmann, Crossing a topological phase transition with a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L022020 (2022).
  107. N. G. Jones, J. Bibo, B. Jobst, F. Pollmann, A. Smith, and R. Verresen, Skeleton of matrix-product-state-solvable models connecting topological phases of matter, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033265 (2021).
  108. N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Thorngren, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Pivot Hamiltonians as generators of symmetry and entanglement, SciPost Phys. 14, 012 (2023).
  109. Z.-Y. Wei, D. Malz, and J. I. Cirac, Efficient adiabatic preparation of tensor network states, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022037 (2023).
  110. K. C. Smith, A. Khan, B. K. Clark, S. Girvin, and T.-C. Wei, Constant-depth preparation of matrix product states with adaptive quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 5, 030344 (2024).
  111. L. Piroli, G. Styliaris, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum circuits assisted by local operations and classical communication: Transformations and phases of matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 220503 (2021).
  112. D. Malz, G. Styliaris, Z.-Y. Wei, and J. I. Cirac, Preparation of matrix product states with log-depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 040404 (2024).
  113. R. Alicki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, On thermal stability of topological qubit in Kitaev’s 4D model, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 17, 1 (2010).
  114. T. Kuwahara and K. Saito, Exponential clustering of bipartite quantum entanglement at arbitrary temperatures, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021022 (2022).
  115. M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, M. B. Hastings, and J. I. Cirac, Area laws in quantum systems: Mutual information and correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 070502 (2008).
  116. T. Kuwahara, Á. M. Alhambra, and A. Anshu, Improved thermal area law and quasilinear time algorithm for quantum Gibbs states, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011047 (2021).
  117. A. Anshu, I. Arad, and D. Gosset, Entanglement subvolume law for 2D frustration-free spin systems, Commun. Math. Phys. 393, 955 (2022).
  118. J. I. Cirac, D. Poilblanc, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Entanglement spectrum and boundary theories with projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 83, 245134 (2011).
  119. N. Schuch, D. Poilblanc, J. I. Cirac, and D. Perez-Garcia, Topological order in the projected entangled-pair states formalism: Transfer operator and boundary Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090501 (2013).
  120. K. Kato and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Locality of edge states and entanglement spectrum from strong subadditivity, Phys. Rev. B 99, 195124 (2019).
  121. A. Anshu, A. W. Harrow, and M. Soleimanifar, Entanglement spread area law in gapped ground states, Nat. Phys. 18, 1362 (2022).
  122. T. Kuwahara, K. Kato, and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Clustering of conditional mutual information for quantum Gibbs states above a threshold temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 220601 (2020).
  123. K. Kato and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Quantum approximate Markov chains are thermal, Commun. Math. Phys. 370, 117 (2019).
  124. W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. Fölling, and M. Greiner, A quantum gas microscope for detecting single atoms in a Hubbard-regime optical lattice, Nature (London) 462, 74 (2009).
  125. C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single-spin addressing in an atomic mott insulator, Nature (London) 471, 319 (2011).
  126. N. Cottet, S. Jezouin, L. Bretheau, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, Q. Ficheux, J. Anders, A. Auffèves, R. Azouit, P. Rouchon, and B. Huard, Observing a quantum Maxwell demon at work, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7561 (2017).
  127. Y. Masuyama, K. Funo, Y. Murashita, A. Noguchi, S. Kono, Y. Tabuchi, R. Yamazaki, M. Ueda, and Y. Nakamura, Information-to-work conversion by Maxwell’s demon in a superconducting circuit quantum electrodynamical system, Nat. Commun. 9, 1291 (2018).
  128. M. Naghiloo, J. J. Alonso, A. Romito, E. Lutz, and K. W. Murch, Information gain and loss for a quantum Maxwell’s demon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 030604 (2018).
  129. G. M. D’Ariano, P. L. Presti, and P. Perinotti, Classical randomness in quantum measurements, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 5979 (2005).
  130. E. Haapasalo, T. Heinosaari, and J.-P. Pellonpää, Quantum measurements on finite dimensional systems: Relabeling and mixing, Quantum Inf. Process. 11, 1751 (2012).
  131. D. Petz, Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy revisited, Rev. Math. Phys. 15, 79 (2003).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043307– Published 17 December, 2025
  • Received 31 July 2024
  • Accepted 14 October 2025
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