Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Certifying ergotropy under partial information

arXiv
Authors: Egle Pagliaro, Leonardo Zambrano, Mir Alimuddin, Alioscia Hamma, Antonio Acín, Donato Farina

Year

2026

Paper ID

30554

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

109

Citations

0

Abstract

Ergotropy, the maximum work extractable from a quantum system, is a central resource in quantum physics. Computing ergotropy is well established when the system state is fully known, but its estimation under partial information remains an open problem. Here we introduce a general certification framework that lower bounds ergotropy using only the expectation values of a limited set of arbitrary observables. The method naturally applies in the finite-statistics regime, yielding confidence-certified bounds that explicitly incorporate shot noise. We benchmark our approach on both synthetic data and experimental measurements from an IBM quantum processor. This establishes a robust and experimentally accessible tool for certifying extractable work in realistic quantum settings.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Ergotropy, the maximum work extractable from a quantum system, is a central resource in quantum physics.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #30554

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal • updated 2026-11-03 02:02:57

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.