- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Quantifying entanglement in quantum thermodynamics via separability constraints

Joan Alba1,*, Laura Ares2, Jan Sperling2, and Julien Pinske1

  • *Contact author: joan.pares@nbi.ku.dk
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 114, 024157 – Published 27 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/sjqy-gnvp

Abstract

The role of quantum entanglement in thermodynamical systems remains elusive. Does entanglement result in thermodynamic advantages or does it impose fundamental limitations? Here, we unambiguously quantify the amount of heat and work in a quantum system that is due to the presence of entanglement. This is achieved by constraining the system's nonequilibrium dynamics to separable states, thereby isolating the impact entanglement has on thermodynamic effects. Unlike thermodynamic entanglement measures, which signify a loose connection between entanglement and thermodynamic properties, imposing a constraint constitutes an active intervention into a system—answering how much of a system's thermodynamics is caused by (not correlated with) its quantumness. We benchmark our theory by applying the constrained dynamics to several multipartite systems, including quantum batteries and quantum refrigerators.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (55)

  1. S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermodynamics, Contemp. Phys. 57, 545 (2016).
  2. J. Aberg, Quantifying superposition, arXiv:quant-ph/0612146.
  3. T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014).
  4. R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
  5. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  6. R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052108 (2005).
  7. H. E. D. Scovil, E. O.Schulz-DuBois three-level masers as heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2, 262 (1959).
  8. H. T. Quan, Y. X. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum thermodynamic cycles and quantum heat engines, Phys. Rev. E 76, 031105 (2007).
  9. F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quantacell: Powerful charging of quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 17, 075015 (2015).
  10. A. Mari and J. Eisert, Cooling by heating: Very hot thermal light can significantly cool quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 120602 (2012).
  11. J. P. Palao, R. Kosloff, and J. M. Gordon, Quantum thermodynamic cooling cycle, Phys. Rev. E 64, 056130 (2001).
  12. N. Linden, S. Popescu, and P. Skrzypczyk, How small can thermal machines be? The smallest possible refrigerator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 130401 (2010).
  13. P. Skrzypczyk, N. Brunner, N. Linden, and S. Popescu, The smallest refrigerators can reach maximal efficiency, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 492002 (2011).
  14. L. A. Correa, J. P. Palao, G. Adesso, and D. Alonso, Performance bound for quantum absorption refrigerators, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042131 (2013).
  15. N. Brunner, M. Huber, N. Linden, S. Popescu, R. Silva, and P. Skrzypczyk, Entanglement enhances cooling in microscopic quantum refrigerators, Phys. Rev. E 89, 032115 (2014).
  16. R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Entanglement boost for extractable work from ensembles of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042123 (2013).
  17. H.-L. Shi, L. Gan, K. Zhang, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Quantum charging advantage from multipartite entanglement, arXiv:2503.02667.
  18. M. H. Partovi, Entanglement versus Stosszahlansatz: Disappearance of the thermodynamic arrow in a high-correlation environment, Phys. Rev. E 77, 021110 (2008).
  19. D. Jennings and T. Rudolph, Entanglement and the thermodynamic arrow of time, Phys. Rev. E 81, 061130 (2010).
  20. K. Funo, Y. Watanabe, and M. Ueda, Thermodynamic work gain from entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052319 (2013).
  21. J.-Y. Gyhm, D. Šafránek, and D. Rosa, Quantum charging advantage cannot be extensive without global operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140501 (2022).
  22. 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).
  23. J. Sperling and I. A. Walmsley, Separable and inseparable quantum trajectories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 170401 (2017).
  24. J. Pinske, L. Ares, B. Hinrichs, M. Kolb, and J. Sperling, Separability Lindblad equation for dynamical open-system entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 113, L010403 (2026).
  25. L. Ares, J. Pinske, B. Hinrichs, M. Kolb, and J. Sperling, Restricted Monte Carlo wave-function method and Lindblad equation for identifying entangling open-quantum-system dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 113, 012220 (2026).
  26. V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics (Springer, New York, 2010).
  27. B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan, The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory, J. Math. Phys. 18, 756 (1977).
  28. C. Elouard, D. Herrera-Martí, B. Huard, and A. Aufféves, Extracting work from quantum measurement in Maxwell's demon engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 260603 (2017).
  29. G. Barontini, Quantum Zeno engines and heat pumps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 010407 (2025).
  30. J. Anders, D. Kaszlikowski, C. Lunkes, T. Ohshima, and V. Vedral, Detecting entanglement with a thermometer, New J. Phys. 8, 140 (2006).
  31. M. Wieśniak, V. Vedral, and Č. Brukner, Heat capacity as an indicator of entanglement, Phys. Rev. B 78, 064108 (2008).
  32. A. de Oliveira Junior, J. B. Brask, and P. Lipka-Bartosik, Heat as a witness of quantum properties, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 050401 (2025).
  33. P. Pechukas, Reduced dynamics need not be completely positive, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1060 (1994).
  34. G. Lindblad, Completely positive maps and entropy inequalities, Commun. Math. Phys. 40, 147 (1975).
  35. G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi-groups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976).
  36. H. Spohn, Entropy production for quantum dynamical semigroups, J. Math. Phys. 19, 1227 (1978).
  37. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford Academic, Oxford, 2010).
  38. H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 210401 (2009).
  39. J. Sperling and I. A. Walmsley, Classical evolution in quantum systems, Phys. Scr. 95, 065101 (2020).
  40. F. Yasmin and J. Sperling, Entanglement-assisted quantum speedup: Beating local quantum speed limits, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012424 (2024).
  41. K. Mølmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, Monte Carlo wave-function method in quantum optics, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 10, 524 (1993).
  42. R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch, Monte Carlo simulation of the atomic master equation for spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. A 45, 4879 (1992).
  43. M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump approach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101 (1998).
  44. P. Faist, J. Oppenheim, and R. Renner, Gibbs-preserving maps outperform thermal operations in the quantum regime, New J. Phys. 17, 043003 (2015).
  45. M. J. Kastoryano, F. Reiter, and A. S. Sørensen, Dissipative preparation of entanglement in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090502 (2011).
  46. A. Gonzalez-Tudela, D. Martin-Cano, E. Moreno, L. Martin-Moreno, C. Tejedor, and F. J. Garcia-Vidal, Entanglement of two qubits mediated by one-dimensional plasmonic waveguides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 020501 (2011).
  47. D. C. Cole, S. D. Erickson, G. Zarantonello, K. P. Horn, P.-Y. Hou, J. J. Wu, D. H. Slichter, F. Reiter, C. P. Koch, and D. Leibfried, Resource-efficient dissipative entanglement of two trapped-ion qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 080502 (2022).
  48. J. Alba, L. Ares, J. Sperling, and J. Pinske, Quantifying entanglement in quantum thermodynamics by constraint dynamics, Data set, ERDA, 2026, https://erda.ku.dk/archives/ee0226c840c448af5e34cd37269029e7/publishedarchive.html.
  49. W. H. Zurek, Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical, Phys. Today 44(10), 36 (1991).
  50. M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267 (2005).
  51. J. L. Anderson and P. G. Bergmann, Constraints in covariant field theories, Phys. Rev. 83, 1018 (1951).
  52. J. Pinske and K. Mølmer, Censorship of quantum resources in quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A 110, 062404 (2024).
  53. F. J. Aragón, M. A. Goberna, M. A. López, and M. M. L. Rodríguez, Nonlinear Optimization (Springer, Cham, 2019).
  54. J. Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009).
  55. C. Offen, B. Wembe, L. Ares, J. Sperling, and S. Ober-Blöbaum, Numerical approaches to entangling dynamics from variational principles, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 59, 225303 (2026).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 114, 024157– Published 27 August, 2026
  • Received 19 March 2026
  • Accepted 22 July 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2026 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation