- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Energy

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

Two-Time Weak-Measurement Protocol for Ergotropy Protection in Open Quantum Batteries

André H.A. Malavazi*, Rishav Sagar, Borhan Ahmadi, and Pedro R. Dieguez†

  • International Centre for Theory of Quantum Technologies, University of Gdańsk, Jana Bażyńskiego 1A, 80-309 Gdańsk, Poland

  • *Contact author: andrehamalavazi@gmail.com
  • †Contact author: dieguez.pr@gmail.com
PDF

PRX Energy 4, 023011 – Published 18 June, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/bv4w-jr6q

Abstract

Quantum batteries are emerging as highly efficient energy-storage devices that can exceed classical performance limits. Although there have been significant advancements in controlling these systems, challenges remain in stabilizing stored energy and minimizing losses due to inevitable environmental interaction. In this paper, we propose a protocol that employs selective weak measurements to protect quantum states from such influence and mitigate battery discharging and that is feasible in state-of-the-art technologies. We establish thermodynamic constraints that allow this method to be implemented without disrupting the overall energy and ergotropy balance of the system, i.e., with no extra net recharging. Our findings demonstrate that appropriately chosen measurement intensity can reduce unwanted discharging effects, thereby preserving ergotropy and improving the stability of quantum batteries. We illustrate the protocol with single- and two-qubit systems and establish the generalization for N-cell batteries. Additionally, we explore how weak measurements influence the coherent and incoherent components of ergotropy, providing new insights into the practical application of quantum coherence in energy-storage technologies.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Popular Summary

Quantum batteries use quantum states as energy carriers, aiming to surpass classical performance limits by leveraging quantum properties. However, preventing energy loss in the fragile quantum systems caused by environmental interactions poses a challenge. Here, the authors introduce a method to tackle environment-induced energy loss by stabilizing the energy of the battery with two selective weak measurements, one applied right after battery charging and the other after some dissipation time. This approach helps keep the energy from leaking and ensures that the battery remains efficient and usable. These findings contribute toward the realization of practical quantum batteries.

Article Text

References (172)

  1. R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Entanglement boost for extractable work from ensembles of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042123 (2013).
  2. F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quantacell: Powerful charging of quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 17, 075015 (2015).
  3. F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Colloquium: Quantum batteries, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031001 (2024).
  4. 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, Superabsorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery, Sci. Adv. 8, 3160 (2022).
  5. 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).
  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. J.-Y. Gyhm and U. R. Fischer, Beneficial and detrimental entanglement for quantum battery charging, AVS Quantum Sci. 6, 012001 (2024).
  8. J. Monsel, M. Fellous-Asiani, B. Huard, and A. Auffèves, The energetic cost of work extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 130601 (2020).
  9. Y.-Y. Zhang, T.-R. Yang, L. Fu, and X. Wang, Powerful harmonic charging in a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. E 99, 052106 (2019).
  10. B. Çakmak, Ergotropy from coherences in an open quantum system, Phys. Rev. E 102, 042111 (2020).
  11. 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).
  12. 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).
  13. F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Highly efficient charging and discharging of three-level quantum batteries through shortcuts to adiabaticity, Front. Phys. 17, 31503 (2021).
  14. F.-Q. Dou, H. Zhou, and J.-A. Sun, Cavity Heisenberg-spin-chain quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 106, 032212 (2022).
  15. 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).
  16. J.-Y. Gyhm, D. Šafránek, and D. Rosa, Quantum charging advantage cannot be extensive without global operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140501 (2022).
  17. 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 Sci. Technol. 9, 045033 (2024).
  18. X. Zhang and M. Blaauboer, Enhanced energy transfer in a Dicke quantum battery, Front. Phys. 10, 1097564 (2023).
  19. W.-X. Guo, F.-M. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Analytically solvable many-body Rosen-Zener quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032201 (2024).
  20. 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).
  21. F. Zhao, F.-Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Charging performance of the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013172 (2022).
  22. F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Closed-loop three-level charged quantum battery, Europhys. Lett. 131, 43001 (2020).
  23. D.-L. Yang, F.-M. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Three-level Dicke quantum battery, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235432 (2024).
  24. A. Ali, S. Al-Kuwari, M. I. Hussain, T. Byrnes, M. T. Rahim, J. Q. Quach, M. Ghominejad, and S. Haddadi, Ergotropy and capacity optimization in Heisenberg spin-chain quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052404 (2024).
  25. M. Hadipour and S. Haseli, Nonequilibrium quantum batteries: Amplified work extraction through thermal bath modulation, ArXiv:2502.05508.
  26. 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).
  27. 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).
  28. A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, From superradiance to subradiance: Exploring the many-body Dicke ladder, Opt. Lett. 47, 1541 (2022).
  29. B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzanjeh, Nonreciprocal quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 210402 (2024).
  30. B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, and P. Horodecki, Superoptimal charging of quantum batteries via reservoir engineering: Arbitrary energy transfer unlocked, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 024010 (2025).
  31. F. Barra, K. V. Hovhannisyan, and A. Imparato, Quantum batteries at the verge of a phase transition, New J. Phys. 24, 015003 (2022).
  32. V. Shaghaghi, V. Singh, G. Benenti, and D. Rosa, Micromasers as quantum batteries, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 04LT01 (2022).
  33. V. Shaghaghi, V. Singh, M. Carrega, D. Rosa, and G. Benenti, Lossy micromaser battery: Almost pure states in the Jaynes-Cummings regime, Entropy 25, 430 (2023).
  34. Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y. Lü, and C. Shang, Topological quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 180401 (2025).
  35. E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4452 (2002).
  36. R. R. Rodríguez, B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, R. Alicki, and P. Horodecki, Catalysis in charging quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042419 (2023).
  37. F. Kamin, F. 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).
  38. W.-L. Song, H.-B. Liu, B. Zhou, W.-L. Yang, and J.-H. An, Remote charging and degradation suppression for the quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 090401 (2024).
  39. B. Mojaveri, R. Jafarzadeh Bahrbeig, and M. A. Fasihi, Charging a quantum battery mediated by parity-deformed fields, Phys. Rev. E 110, 064107 (2024).
  40. M.-L. Hu, T. Gao, and H. Fan, Efficient wireless charging of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 111, 042216 (2025).
  41. P.-Y. Sun, H. Zhou, and F.-Q. Dou, Cavity-Heisenberg spin-j chain quantum battery and reinforcement learning optimization, ArXiv:2412.01442.
  42. 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).
  43. J.-s. Yan and J. Jing, Charging by quantum measurement, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064069 (2023).
  44. 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).
  45. 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).
  46. 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 superconducting quantum battery, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 045018 (2022).
  47. A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021).
  48. H.-Y. Yang, H.-L. Shi, Q.-K. Wan, K. Zhang, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Optimal energy storage in the Tavis-Cummings quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012204 (2024).
  49. G. Gemme, M. Grossi, D. Ferraro, S. Vallecorsa, and M. Sassetti, IBM quantum platforms: A quantum battery perspective, Batteries 8, 43 (2022).
  50. F.-Q. Dou and F.-M. Yang, Superconducting transmon qubit-resonator quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 107, 023725 (2023).
  51. F.-M. Yang and F.-Q. Dou, Resonator-qutrit quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062432 (2024).
  52. R.-H. Zheng, W. Ning, Z.-B. Yang, Y. Xia, and S.-B. Zheng, Demonstration of dynamical control of three-level open systems with a superconducting qutrit, New J. Phys. 24, 063031 (2022).
  53. I. Maillette de Buy Wenniger, S. E. Thomas, M. Maffei, S. C. Wein, M. Pont, N. Belabas, S. Prasad, A. Harouri, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, N. Somaschi, A. Auffèves, and P. Senellart, Experimental analysis of energy transfers between a quantum emitter and light fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 260401 (2023).
  54. A. Rojo-Francàs, F. Isaule, A. C. Santos, B. Juliá-Díaz, and N. T. Zinner, Stable collective charging of ultracold-atom quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 110, 032205 (2024).
  55. 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).
  56. J. F. Barry, J. M. Schloss, E. Bauch, M. J. Turner, C. A. Hart, L. M. Pham, and R. L. Walsworth, Sensitivity optimization for NV-diamond magnetometry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015004 (2020).
  57. J. Joshi and T. S. Mahesh, Experimental investigation of a quantum battery using star-topology NMR spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042601 (2022).
  58. C. Cruz, M. F. Anka, M. S. Reis, R. Bachelard, and A. C. Santos, Quantum battery based on quantum discord at room temperature, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 025020 (2022).
  59. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007).
  60. F. Pirmoradian and K. Molmer, Aging of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 100, 043833 (2019).
  61. A. C. Santos, Quantum advantage of two-level batteries in the self-discharging process, Phys. Rev. E 103, 042118 (2021).
  62. C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Hyperbolic enhancement of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 109, 052206 (2024).
  63. A. C. Santos, B. Çakmak, S. Campbell, and N. T. Zinner, Stable adiabatic quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 100, 032107 (2019).
  64. M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold, and J. Prior, Charging a quantum battery with linear feedback control, Quantum 5, 500 (2021).
  65. J. Liu, D. Segal, and G. Hanna, Loss-free excitonic quantum battery, J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 18303 (2019).
  66. K. Xu, H.-G. Li, H.-J. Zhu, and W.-M. Liu, Inhibiting the self-discharging process of quantum batteries in non-Markovian noises, Phys. Rev. E 109, 054132 (2024).
  67. J. Q. Quach and W. J. Munro, Using dark states to charge and stabilize open quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 024092 (2020).
  68. M. Carrega, A. Crescente, D. Ferraro, and M. Sassetti, Dissipative dynamics of an open quantum battery, New J. Phys. 22, 083085 (2020).
  69. F. Barra, Dissipative charging of a quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 210601 (2019).
  70. D. Farina, G. M. Andolina, A. Mari, M. Polini, and V. Giovannetti, Charger-mediated energy transfer for quantum batteries: An open-system approach, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035421 (2019).
  71. S.-Y. Bai and J.-H. An, Floquet engineering to reactivate a dissipative quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 102, 060201 (2020).
  72. F. Zhao, F.-Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Quantum battery of interacting spins with environmental noise, Phys. Rev. A 103, 033715 (2021).
  73. A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems, Europhys. Lett. 67, 565 (2004).
  74. W. Pusz and S. L. Woronowicz, Passive states and KMS states for general quantum systems, Commun. Math. Phys. 58, 273 (1978).
  75. Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023).
  76. F. Galve, A. Mandarino, M. G. A. Paris, C. Benedetti, and R. Zambrini, Microscopic description for the emergence of collective dissipation in extended quantum systems, Sci. Rep. 7, 42050 (2017).
  77. J. Etxezarreta Martinez, P. Fuentes, P. M. Crespo, and J. Garcia-Frias, Quantum outage probability for time-varying quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A 105, 012432 (2022).
  78. O. A. D. Molitor, A. H. A. Malavazi, R. D. Baldijão, A. C. Orthey, I. L. Paiva, and P. R. Dieguez, Quantum switch instabilities with an open control, Commun. Phys. 7, 373 (2024).
  79. S. Aziz, A. H. Malavazi, and P. R. Dieguez, Revival and instabilities of entanglement in monitoring maps with indefinite causal order, ArXiv:2503.13373.
  80. S. Gherardini, F. Campaioli, F. Caruso, and F. C. Binder, Stabilizing open quantum batteries by sequential measurements, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013095 (2020).
  81. W. M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Quantum Zeno effect, Phys. Rev. A 41, 2295 (1990).
  82. J. Yi, P. Talkner, and Y. W. Kim, Single-temperature quantum engine without feedback control, Phys. Rev. E 96, 022108 (2017).
  83. C. Elouard, D. A. Herrera-Martí, M. Clusel, and A. Auffeves, The role of quantum measurement in stochastic thermodynamics, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 1 (2017).
  84. K. Brandner, M. Bauer, M. T. Schmid, and U. Seifert, Coherence-enhanced efficiency of feedback-driven quantum engines, New J. Phys. 17, 065006 (2015).
  85. M. Campisi, J. Pekola, and R. Fazio, Feedback-controlled heat transport in quantum devices: Theory and solid-state experimental proposal, New J. Phys. 19, 053027 (2017).
  86. S. Chand and A. Biswas, Single-ion quantum Otto engine with always-on bath interaction, Europhys. Lett. 118, 60003 (2017).
  87. S. Chand and A. Biswas, Measurement-induced operation of two-ion quantum heat machines, Phys. Rev. E 95, 032111 (2017).
  88. M. H. Mohammady and J. Anders, A quantum Szilárd engine without heat from a thermal reservoir, New J. Phys. 19, 113026 (2017).
  89. C. Elouard, D. Herrera-Martí, B. Huard, and A. Auffeves, Extracting work from quantum measurement in Maxwell’s demon engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 260603 (2017).
  90. S. Chand and A. Biswas, Critical-point behavior of a measurement-based quantum heat engine, Phys. Rev. E 98, 052147 (2018).
  91. X. Ding, J. Yi, Y. W. Kim, and P. Talkner, Measurement-driven single temperature engine, Phys. Rev. E 98, 042122 (2018).
  92. C. Elouard and A. N. Jordan, Efficient quantum measurement engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260601 (2018).
  93. L. Buffoni, A. Solfanelli, P. Verrucchi, A. Cuccoli, and M. Campisi, Quantum measurement cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 070603 (2019).
  94. A. Solfanelli, L. Buffoni, A. Cuccoli, and M. Campisi, Maximal energy extraction via quantum measurement, J. Stat. Mech. 2019, 094003 (2019).
  95. A. N. Jordan, C. Elouard, and A. Auffèves, Quantum measurement engines and their relevance for quantum interpretations, Quantum Stud. Math. Found. 7, 203 (2020).
  96. N. Behzadi, Quantum engine based on general measurements, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54, 015304 (2020).
  97. S. Seah, S. Nimmrichter, and V. Scarani, Maxwell’s lesser demon: A quantum engine driven by pointer measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 100603 (2020).
  98. L. Bresque, P. A. Camati, S. Rogers, K. Murch, A. N. Jordan, and A. Auffèves, Two-qubit engine fueled by entanglement and local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 120605 (2021).
  99. S. Chand, S. Dasgupta, and A. Biswas, Finite-time performance of a single-ion quantum Otto engine, Phys. Rev. E 103, 032144 (2021).
  100. Z. Lin, S. Su, J. Chen, J. Chen, and J. F. Santos, Suppressing coherence effects in quantum-measurement-based engines, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062210 (2021).
  101. M. Naghiloo, D. Tan, P. M. Harrington, J. J. Alonso, E. Lutz, A. Romito, and K. W. Murch, Heat and work along individual trajectories of a quantum bit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110604 (2020).
  102. 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).
  103. S. Hernández-Gómez, S. Gherardini, N. Staudenmaier, F. Poggiali, M. Campisi, A. Trombettoni, F. Cataliotti, P. Cappellaro, and N. Fabbri, Autonomous dissipative Maxwell’s demon in a diamond spin qutrit, PRX Quantum 3, 020329 (2022).
  104. P. A. Camati, J. P. S. Peterson, T. B. Batalhão, K. Micadei, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Experimental rectification of entropy production by Maxwell’s demon in a quantum system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 240502 (2016).
  105. M. F. Anka, T. R. de Oliveira, and D. Jonathan, Measurement-based quantum heat engine in a multilevel system, Phys. Rev. E 104, 054128 (2021).
  106. M. S. Alam and B. P. Venkatesh, Two-stroke quantum measurement heat engine, ArXiv:2201.06303.
  107. S. K. Manikandan, C. Elouard, K. W. Murch, A. Auffèves, and A. N. Jordan, Efficiently fueling a quantum engine with incompatible measurements, Phys. Rev. E 105, 044137 (2022).
  108. N. M. Myers, O. Abah, and S. Deffner, Quantum thermodynamic devices: From theoretical proposals to experimental reality, AVS Quantum Sci. 4, 027101 (2022).
  109. V. Lisboa, P. Dieguez, J. Guimarães, J. Santos, and R. Serra, Experimental investigation of a quantum heat engine powered by generalized measurements, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022436 (2022).
  110. P. R. Dieguez, V. F. Lisboa, and R. M. Serra, Thermal devices powered by generalized measurements with indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012423 (2023).
  111. O. Oreshkov and T. A. Brun, Weak measurements are universal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110409 (2005).
  112. P. R. Dieguez and R. M. Angelo, Information-reality complementarity: The role of measurements and quantum reference frames, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022107 (2018).
  113. Y. Pan, J. Zhang, E. Cohen, C.-W. Wu, P.-X. Chen, and N. Davidson, Weak-to-strong transition of quantum measurement in a trapped-ion system, Nat. Phys. 16, 1206 (2020).
  114. L. Mancino, M. Sbroscia, E. Roccia, I. Gianani, F. Somma, P. Mataloni, M. Paternostro, and M. Barbieri, The entropic cost of quantum generalized measurements, npj Quantum Inf. 4, 1 (2018).
  115. J. J. Alonso, E. Lutz, and A. Romito, Thermodynamics of weakly measured quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 080403 (2016).
  116. C. Vieira, J. de Oliveira, J. Santos, P. Dieguez, and R. Serra, Exploring quantum thermodynamics with NMR, J. Magn. Reson. Open 16-17, 100105 (2023).
  117. T. Zhang, H. Yang, and S.-M. Fei, Local-projective-measurement-enhanced quantum battery capacity, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042424 (2024).
  118. M. A. Balkanlu, E. Faizi, and B. Ahansaz, Selective weak measurement reveals super-ergotropy, Results Phys. 57, 107308 (2024).
  119. G. Francica, J. Goold, F. Plastina, and M. Paternostro, Daemonic ergotropy: Enhanced work extraction from quantum correlations, npj Quantum. Inf. 3, 12 (2017).
  120. D. Lu, A. Brodutch, J. Li, H. Li, and R. Laflamme, Experimental realization of post-selected weak measurements on an NMR quantum processor, New J. Phys. 16, 053015 (2014).
  121. G. Singh, A. Gaikwad, Arvind, and K. Dorai, Experimental decoherence mitigation using a weak measurement-based scheme and the duality quantum algorithm, ArXiv:2409.12752.
  122. K. S. Cujia, J. M. Boss, K. Herb, J. Zopes, and C. L. Degen, Tracking the precession of single nuclear spins by weak measurements, Nature 571, 230 (2019).
  123. Y.-S. Kim, Y.-W. Cho, Y.-S. Ra, and Y.-H. Kim, Reversing the weak quantum measurement for a photonic qubit, Opt. Express 17, 11978 (2009).
  124. Y.-S. Kim, J.-C. Lee, O. Kwon, and Y.-H. Kim, Protecting entanglement from decoherence using weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal, Nat. Phys. 8, 117 (2012).
  125. W.-J. Zou, Y.-H. Li, S.-C. Wang, Y. Cao, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, C.-Z. Peng, X.-B. Wang, and J.-W. Pan, Protecting entanglement from finite-temperature thermal noise via weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042342 (2017).
  126. N. Katz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, R. McDermott, M. Neeley, M. Steffen, E. M. Weig, A. N. Cleland, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Korotkov, Coherent state evolution in a superconducting qubit from partial-collapse measurement, Science 312, 1498 (2006).
  127. N. Katz, M. Neeley, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, A. O’Connell, H. Wang, A. N. Cleland, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Korotkov, Reversal of the weak measurement of a quantum state in a superconducting phase qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200401 (2008).
  128. Y. P. Zhong, Z. L. Wang, J. M. Martinis, A. N. Cleland, A. N. Korotkov, and H. Wang, Reducing the impact of intrinsic dissipation in a superconducting circuit by quantum error detection, Nat. Commun. 5, 3135 (2014).
  129. S. J. Weber, A. Chantasri, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, K. W. Murch, and I. Siddiqi, Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states, Nature 511, 570 (2014).
  130. J. T. Monroe, N. Yunger Halpern, T. Lee, and K. W. Murch, Weak measurement of a superconducting qubit reconciles incompatible operators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 100403 (2021).
  131. C. L. Latune and C. Elouard, A thermodynamically consistent approach to the energy costs of quantum measurements, Quantum 9, 1614 (2025).
  132. L. B. Ferraz and C. Elouard, Weak continuous measurements require more work than strong ones, ArXiv:2502.09732.
  133. X. Xiao and Y.-L. Li, Protecting qutrit-qutrit entanglement by weak measurement and reversal, Eur. Phys. J. D 67, 204 (2013).
  134. A. N. Korotkov and K. Keane, Decoherence suppression by quantum measurement reversal, Phys. Rev. A 81, 040103 (2010).
  135. S.-C. Wang, Z.-W. Yu, W.-J. Zou, and X.-B. Wang, Protecting quantum states from decoherence of finite temperature using weak measurement, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022318 (2014).
  136. K. Wang, X. Zhao, and T. Yu, Environment-assisted quantum state restoration via weak measurements, Phys. Rev. A 89, 042320 (2014).
  137. J.-C. Lee, Y.-C. Jeong, Y.-S. Kim, and Y.-H. Kim, Experimental demonstration of decoherence suppression via quantum measurement reversal, Opt. Express 19, 16309 (2011).
  138. J. Lalita and S. Banerjee, Protecting quantum correlations of negative quantum states using weak measurement under non-Markovian noise, Phys. Scr. 99, 035116 (2024).
  139. M. Wang, H. Liu, L. Cao, Y. Yang, X. Liu, B. Sun, and J. Zhao, Protecting the entanglement of X-type systems via weak measurement and reversal in the generalized amplitude damping channel, Entropy 27, 350 (2025).
  140. E. B. Mpemba and D. G. Osborne, Cool? Phys. Educ. 4, 172 (1969).
  141. I. Medina, O. Culhane, F. C. Binder, G. T. Landi, and J. Goold, Anomalous discharging of quantum batteries: The ergotropic mpemba effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 220402 (2025).
  142. A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017).
  143. G. Francica, F. C. Binder, G. Guarnieri, M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold, and F. Plastina, Quantum coherence and ergotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 180603 (2020).
  144. T. Guha, S. Roy, K. Simonov, and Z. Zimborás, Activation of thermal states by quantum switch-driven thermalization and its limits, ArXiv:2208.04034.
  145. Z. Niu, Y. Wu, Y. Wang, X. Rong, and J. Du, Experimental investigation of coherent ergotropy in a single spin system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 180401 (2024).
  146. M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zambrini, Local versus global master equation with common and separate baths: Superiority of the global approach in partial secular approximation, New J. Phys. 21, 113045 (2019).
  147. A. Cidrim, T. S. do Espirito Santo, J. Schachenmayer, R. Kaiser, and R. Bachelard, Photon blockade with ground-state neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 073601 (2020).
  148. S. J. Masson, I. Ferrier-Barbut, L. A. Orozco, A. Browaeys, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many-body signatures of collective decay in atomic chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 263601 (2020).
  149. C. Benedetti, F. Galve, A. Mandarino, M. G. A. Paris, and R. Zambrini, Minimal model for spontaneous quantum synchronization, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052118 (2016).
  150. M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, G. S. Paraoanu, and R. Zambrini, Bath-induced collective phenomena on superconducting qubits: Synchronization, subradiance, and entanglement generation, Ann. Phys. 533, 2100038 (2021).
  151. J. Ma, Z. Sun, X. Wang, and F. Nori, Entanglement dynamics of two qubits in a common bath, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062323 (2012).
  152. L.-Z. Hu, Z.-X. Man, and Y.-J. Xia, Steady-state entanglement and thermalization of coupled qubits in two common heat baths, Quantum Inf. Process. 17, 45 (2018).
  153. E. Ghasemian and M. K. Tavassoly, Entanglement dynamics of a dissipative two-qubit system under the influence of a global environment, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 59, 1742 (2020).
  154. A. Hewgill, A. Ferraro, and G. De Chiara, Quantum correlations and thermodynamic performances of two-qubit engines with local and common baths, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042102 (2018).
  155. G. Manzano, G.-L. Giorgi, R. Fazio, and R. Zambrini, Boosting the performance of small autonomous refrigerators via common environmental effects, New J. Phys. 21, 123026 (2019).
  156. Y.-Q. Liu, D.-H. Yu, and C.-S. Yu, Common environmental effects on quantum thermal transistor, Entropy 24, 32 (2022).
  157. U. N. Ekanayake, S. D. Gunapala, and M. Premaratne, Engineered common environmental effects on multitransistor systems, Phys. Rev. B 107, 075440 (2023).
  158. A. Rajapaksha, S. D. Gunapala, and M. Premaratne, Enhanced thermal rectification in coupled qutrit-qubit quantum thermal diode, APL Quantum 1, 046123 (2024).
  159. N. Behzadi, E. Soltani, and E. Faizi, Thermodynamic cost of creating global quantum discord and local quantum uncertainty, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 57, 3207 (2018).
  160. V. Gomes, P. Dieguez, and H. Vasconcelos, Realism-based nonlocality: Invariance under local unitary operations and asymptotic decay for thermal correlated states, Physica A 601, 127568 (2022).
  161. S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermodynamics, Contemp. Phys. 57, 545 (2016).
  162. T. Werlang, M. A. Marchiori, M. F. Cornelio, and D. Valente, Optimal rectification in the ultrastrong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. E 89, 062109 (2014).
  163. M. Łobejko, P. Mazurek, and M. Horodecki, Thermodynamics of minimal coupling quantum heat engines, Quantum 4, 375 (2020).
  164. S. Bhattacharjee and A. Dutta, Quantum thermal machines and batteries, Eur. Phys. J. B 94, 239 (2021).
  165. A. H. A. Malavazi, B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, and A. Mandarino, Detuning effects for heat-current control in quantum thermal devices, Phys. Rev. E 109, 064146 (2024).
  166. H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Quantum discord: A measure of the quantumness of correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001).
  167. P. R. Dieguez and R. M. Angelo, Weak quantum discord, Quantum Inf. Process. 17, 1 (2018).
  168. R. Castellano, R. Nery, K. Simonov, and D. Farina, Parallel ergotropy: Maximum work extraction via parallel local unitary operations, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012212 (2025).
  169. R. Salvia, G. De Palma, and V. Giovannetti, Optimal local work extraction from bipartite quantum systems in the presence of Hamiltonian couplings, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012405 (2023).
  170. G. Di Bello, D. Farina, D. Jansen, C. Perroni, V. Cataudella, and G. De Filippis, Local ergotropy and its fluctuations across a dissipative quantum phase transition, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 015049 (2025).
  171. R. Castellano, D. Farina, V. Giovannetti, and A. Acin, Extended local ergotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 150402 (2024).
  172. I. Georgescu, 60 years of Landauer’s principle, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 770 (2021).

Outline

Information

PRX Energy 4, 023011– Published 18 June, 2025
  • Received 3 December 2024
  • Revised 18 April 2025
  • Accepted 20 May 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