MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Superoptimal charging of quantum batteries via reservoir engineering: Arbitrary energy transfer unlocked

2025· article· en· W4407135350 on OpenAlexafffund
B. Ahmadi, Paweł Mazurek, Shabir Barzanjeh, Paweł Horodecki

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Applied · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNarodowe Centrum Nauki
KeywordsQuantumEnergy transferPhysicsEnergy (signal processing)Transfer (computing)TelecommunicationsAerospace engineeringEngineering physicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arbitrary energy transfer is only feasible in nondissipative charger-battery systems; in realistic processes, however, energy dissipation prevents this. In this work, we introduce a novel charging technique in which the coherent charger-battery interaction is replaced by a dissipative interaction via an engineered reservoir. We demonstrate that exploiting the collective effects of the engineered reservoir allows for additional optimization, giving rise to an optimal redistribution of energy. This not only significantly enhances the efficiency of the charging process but also remarkably enables the quantum battery to accumulate unlimited energy---limited only by the natural energy scale of the device. This phenomenon cannot occur in conventional charger-battery schemes. The article unveils the intricacies of built-in detuning within the context of a shared environment, offering a deeper understanding of the charging mechanisms involved. These findings apply naturally to quantum circuit battery architectures, suggesting the feasibility of efficient energy storage in these systems. The superoptimal charging mechanism offers a practical avenue for boosting the capacity of the battery through charger-battery configurations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review AppliedSame topicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsFrench-language works237,207