Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Enhancing the Charging Performance of Many-Body Quantum Batteries through Landau-Zener Driving

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A linearly ramped magnetic field charges a many-body quantum battery more effectively than a sinusoidal field, with the advantage growing for long-range interactions and larger systems.

desk verdict The headline LZ-vs-periodic comparison is not a fair contest: the LZ field amplitude grows linearly to 200B while the periodic field is capped at 10B, so the reported advantage is expected from drive strength alone. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05537 v1 pith:AAA7EAWZ submitted 2024-12-07 quant-ph

Syed Abubacker Siddique , Md. Manirul Ali , Arijit Sen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 75.10.Pq03.67.Ac03.67.-a
keywords quantumbatteryLandau-Zenerdrivingmany-bodyXYspinchainlong-rangeinteractionsworkdepositionchargingprotocolperiodic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that charging a many-body quantum battery with a linearly ramped (Landau-Zener) magnetic field deposits more energy than charging it with a sinusoidal periodic field. The battery is a Heisenberg XY spin chain of N spin-1/2 particles with either nearest-neighbor or long-range couplings, and the deposited work is the energy gained relative to the bare chain Hamiltonian. The advantage grows with system size and is largest for long-range interactions: for N=8 the linear ramp reaches Wmax above 100 (in units of B) while the periodic drive stays below 30. The paper also shows that increasing the XY anisotropy, the ramp rate, and the spin-spin coupling all raise the stored energy, and that long-range interactions make the maximum work scale almost linearly with N. If true, this identifies a simple, experimentally accessible driving protocol for scalable quantum energy storage.

What carries the argument

The central object is the charging Hamiltonian H_c(τ)=H_0+V(τ), where H_0 is the Heisenberg XY chain with coupling g_ij and anisotropy γ, and V(τ) is a global σ_z field. For Landau-Zener driving, V(τ)=vτ Σ_i σ_z^i, a many-body version of the classic linear level-crossing problem; for the comparator, V(τ)=v sin(ωτ) Σ_i σ_z^i. The work deposited is W(τ)=Tr[ρ(τ)H_0]-Tr[ρ(0)H_0], with ρ(τ) obtained by exact time-ordered evolution from the ground state of H_0, and the average power is P(τ)=W(τ)/τ. The Landau-Zener ramp is what carries the argument: its non-periodic, monotonically increasing field is claimed to resonate with the broad energy-level structure of long-range interacting chains, yielding larger and smoother energy deposition than the oscillating field.

What would settle it

Run the same N=8 long-range calculation while sweeping the periodic drive's frequency ω (and amplitude v) over a wide range and compare the maximum W over the charging window; if any periodic choice matches or exceeds the Landau-Zener Wmax, the paper's central comparison is not robust. A complementary check is to compute ergotropy rather than bare energy, since the paper defines storage as energy relative to H0.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Landau-Zener driving, a charging field that grows linearly in time (V(τ)=vτ∑σ_z^i), is a superior charging protocol for a many-body XY spin-chain quantum battery compared with periodic sinusoidal driving (V(τ)=v sin(ωτ)∑σ_z^i). For fixed parameters (g=20B or 10B, γ=0.5 or 1.0, v=10B, ω=4B), the maximum deposited work Wmax increases with N under both drives, but the linear drive's growth is steeper, and for long-range interactions at N=8 the Wmax exceeds 100B while the periodic drive remains below 30B. The underlying mechanism is that the linear ramp sweeps the system through avoided crossings in a way that lets the many-body system absorb energy more effectively, especially when long-range couplings allow collective response; nearest-neighbor chains show stronger oscillations and lower saturation. The paper also reports that optimal charging occurs at short times (Bτ around 2) and that increasing anisotropy toward γ=±1, interaction strength g, and ramp rate v all enhance work deposition.

Load-bearing premise

The periodic drive is tested at a single fixed frequency ω=4B, so the claimed superiority of the linear ramp could fail if some other frequency makes the sinusoidal drive deposit at least as much energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For long-range spin chains, the maximum work a Landau-Zener ramp deposits grows roughly linearly with N, so larger chains store proportionally more energy without needing stronger fields.
  • For nearest-neighbor chains, the linear ramp's advantage is weaker and can reverse at smaller N, so periodic driving remains a reasonable choice for short-range, small systems.
  • Tuning the XY anisotropy toward ±1, increasing the spin-spin coupling g, and increasing the ramp rate v all raise the peak stored energy, giving a parameter menu for optimizing a Landau-Zener charged battery.
  • The very short optimal charging time (Bτ around 2) means high average power can be achieved with a fast ramp, not a long one.
  • If the comparison holds, linearly driven spin chains with long-range interactions are a promising scalable design for quantum batteries.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test is whether the Landau-Zener advantage survives after optimizing the periodic drive's frequency and pulse shape; the paper's fixed ω=4B leaves that open.
  • Since W is measured against the bare Hamiltonian rather than ergotropy, a follow-up could check how much of the deposited energy is actually extractable; the two can differ substantially in driven many-body systems.
  • Decoherence and dissipation would likely erode the coherent Landau-Zener advantage; a master-equation extension would show whether the protocol remains useful in realistic open systems.
  • Trapped-ion and Rydberg-atom platforms allow tunable long-range couplings, so the predicted linear-in-N scaling is directly testable in experiment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a many-body quantum battery modeled by an XY spin chain with N spin-1/2 particles, charged by a time-dependent external field. The authors define work deposition as W(τ) = Tr[ρ(τ)H0] − Tr[ρ(0)H0] and average power as W(τ)/τ, starting from the ground state of H0. They numerically investigate nearest-neighbor and long-range interactions under a Landau-Zener linear drive h(τ)=vτ and compare it with a sinusoidal periodic drive h(τ)=v sin(ωτ). They report that Landau-Zener driving achieves higher maximum deposited work in long-range systems at large N (Figs. 7–9), while periodic driving can be better in some nearest-neighbor cases, and they infer that optimizing parameters such as γ, g, and v can enhance battery performance.

Significance. If the two protocols were compared at a fair common operating point, the observation that the interaction range changes which drive deposits more energy would be a useful contribution to the quantum battery literature. The paper provides exact numerical simulations (QuTiP), several phase diagrams in g, v, γ, and N, and does not fit parameters to a target result. However, the central quantitative claim of Landau-Zener superiority is not yet established because the two protocols are compared with different effective drive strengths and a single unoptimized periodic frequency; the reported Wmax gap is expected from the unbounded linear field alone.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (5) vs Eq. (11), Figs. 7–9] The Landau-Zener and periodic protocols are not compared at a common operating point. The LZ field in Eq. (5), h(τ)=vτ, grows linearly and reaches 200B at Bτ=20 with v=10B, whereas the periodic field in Eq. (11), h(τ)=v sin(ωτ), is bounded by v=10B; additionally, the parameter v has units of energy/time in Eq. (5) but energy in Eq. (11). Under these conditions the reported Wmax advantage (e.g., >100 vs <30 for long-range interactions at N=8 in Fig. 9b) follows from the much larger time-integrated drive amplitude alone. To support the claim of superior energy deposition and storage efficiency, the comparison should normalize by drive strength or input energy (e.g., equal time-integrated |h| or equal pulse energy) and/or use a bounded linear ramp with a defined amplitude.
  2. [Sec. V.C, Fig. 9a] The unqualified central claim that LZ driving is superior is contradicted by the authors' own nearest-neighbor results for g=10B, γ=0.5, v=10B: over all N, periodic driving deposits more work (Wmax≈70 at N=8 vs LZ below ~50). The abstract and conclusion should either restrict the claimed superiority to long-range interactions with sufficiently large coupling, or present a criterion for when each protocol wins.
  3. [Sec. V, Figs. 7–9] The periodic comparator is tested at a single frequency, ω=4B, with no scan over ω or discussion of why this frequency is representative. A fair comparison requires optimizing or at least scanning the periodic frequency and amplitude; otherwise the periodic protocol may simply be operated far from resonance. This concern is separate from the normalization issue, because even an optimized ω does not remove the unbounded-field asymmetry.
  4. [Sec. I and Eq. (9)] The paper's 'storage efficiency' is quantified by energy deposited with respect to the bare Hamiltonian H0, not by ergotropy, although the introduction identifies ergotropy as the maximum useful extractable work. Since a state with large W(τ) may have little ergotropic energy, the efficiency claims would be strengthened by computing ergotropy or by explicitly defining storage efficiency as raw energy deposition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The term 'work deposition' is used for the energy change with respect to H0; consider calling it 'energy deposition' to avoid confusion with thermodynamic work.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The brace annotations appear as raw LaTeX artifacts ('/bracehtipupleft/...'); the equation should be typeset cleanly.
  3. [Figs. 2, 4 vs Figs. 1, 3, 5, 6] The manuscript alternates between N=7 (Figs. 2 and 4) and N=8 elsewhere; state explicitly that different system sizes are used for different scans and explain why.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The long-range interaction exponent is fixed at a=1; no dependence on a is reported, so the conclusions about long-range interactions are limited to this single choice.
  5. [Sec. V.C] The statement that v=10B is the 'maximum allowed value' of the driving amplitude is unexplained; define the allowed range of v.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Landau-Zener advantage is an emergent numerical result, not a fitted or self-referential one.

full rationale

The central claim—that Landau-Zener driving deposits more energy than periodic driving in a long-range XY spin-chain battery—is obtained by exact numerical evolution of the specified charging Hamiltonian (Eqs. 5–8) and direct evaluation of W(τ) via Eq. (9), with parameters g, v, γ, ω, and N fixed before simulation. No parameter is fitted to reproduce Wmax, and no stated result is defined in terms of the target conclusion. The only self-citations are to the standard XY spin-chain form (Ref. 13, by a coauthor) and to a background review (Ref. 25); neither is load-bearing, because the Hamiltonian is a standard model and the LZ-versus-periodic comparison is computed independently from the given equations. The comparison at equal numerical v is indeed unnormalized—the LZ field h(τ)=vτ is unbounded over the window while the periodic field h(τ)=v sin(ωτ) is bounded—so the reported Wmax advantage may reflect drive-strength asymmetry rather than protocol efficiency. That is a correctness/fairness concern about the benchmark, not circularity: the numerical Wmax values are not constructed from the drive amplitudes, nor does the paper's derivation reduce to an equality of inputs and outputs. The paper is therefore self-contained against its own stated model, and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no fitted parameters in the sense of matching a target observable, but the comparison protocol rests on several hand-set choices, most notably the periodic frequency omega=4B and the long-range exponent a=1. The central claim also depends on the domain assumption that deposited energy W(tau), rather than ergotropy, is the right measure of 'storage efficiency.' No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Periodic driving frequency omega = 4B
    Chosen by hand in Sec. V and never optimized or scanned. The LZ-vs-periodic comparison, and hence the paper's headline claim, depends on this value.
  • Long-range interaction exponent a = 1
    Set to a=1 in Sec. II (Eq. 4) for all long-range simulations. A different exponent changes the interaction range and could alter the claimed advantage.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The relevant figure of merit for battery performance is the deposited energy W(tau)=Tr[rho(tau)H0]-Tr[rho(0)H0] (Eq. 9), not ergotropy.
    The paper defines charging performance via W, though it acknowledges in Sec. I that ergotropy is the extractable useful energy. This assumption underpins all claims about 'storage efficiency'.
  • domain assumption The initial state is the ground state of H0 for all N and parameters.
    Stated in Sec. II and used throughout; standard for unitary charging but a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The charging field couples only through sum sigma_z^i with linear time dependence h(tau)=v tau (Eq. 5).
    Defines the Landau-Zener protocol; other field geometries or multi-axis drives are not considered, so the LZ advantage is specific to this form.
  • domain assumption Numerical integration with QuTiP accurately captures the unitary dynamics of the XY chain up to N=8.
    No convergence checks or error bars are provided; the results are assumed to be converged.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing the Charging Performance of Many-Body Quantum Batteries through Landau-Zener Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AAA7EAWZ

@misc{pith2026241205537,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing the Charging Performance of Many-Body Quantum Batteries through Landau-Zener Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AAA7EAWZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05537}
}
abstract

We explore the charging advantages of a many-body quantum battery driven by a Landau-Zener field. Such a system may be modeled as a Heisenberg XY spin chain with $\textit{N}$ interacting spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particles under an external magnetic field. Here we consider both nearest-neighbor and long-range spin interactions. The charging performance of this many-body quantum battery is evaluated by comparing Landau-Zener and periodic driving protocols within these interaction regimes. Our findings show that the Landau-Zener driving can offer superior energy deposition and storage efficiency compared to periodic driving. Notably, the Landau-Zener protocol may deliver optimal performance when combined with long-range interactions. The efficiency of a Landau-Zener quantum battery can be significantly enhanced by optimizing key parameters, such as XY anisotropy, the magnitude of the driving field, and interaction strength.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05537 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We plot the work deposition W(τ )/B and average power P(τ )/B2 deposited for (a) nearest-neighbour and (b) long-range interaction for various values of interaction strength. Different curves (green for g = 5B, blue for g = 10B, black for g = 15B and red for g = 20B) represent different values of g. The Landau-Zener driving field strength is taken as v = 10B for N = 8 spins and the magnetic field B = 1. (a) Work depo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The contour plot of work deposition as a function of charging time τ and coupling strength g for (a) nearest-neighbour and (b) long-range interaction. We have considered a range of coupling strength g from 0 to 20B. The Landau-Zener driving field strength is taken as v = 10B for N = 7 spins. still occurs for higher values of v, but the maximum work deposition is lower than that of the long-range interaction model (s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exact numerical plots for the work deposition W(τ )/B and average power P(τ )/B2 deposited for the nearest￾neighbour and long-range interaction for various values of Landau-Zener driving , v (magenta line v = 8B, red line v = 6B, black line v = 4B, green line v = 2B and blue line v = B) for the magnetic field B = 1 and the coupling strength g = 10B and the anisotropy parameter γ = 0.5 for N = 8 spins. and dynamic ef… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The work deposition contour plot for (a) Nearest-neighbor and (b) Long-range interactions as a function of charging time Bτ and driving strength v. A range of driving strength v from 0 to 20B has been taken into consideration. The coupling strength is fixed at g = 10B,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We have plotted the work deposition W(τ )/B and average power P(τ )/B2 deposited for the nearest-neighbour and long-range interaction for different values of anisotropy (magenta line γ = 1.0, red line γ = 0.8, black line γ = 0.6, green line γ = 0.4 and blue line γ = 0.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The contour plot of work deposition W(τ )/B as a function of charging time Bτ and the anisotropy parameter γ in the long-range interaction with varying number of spins. Anisotropy parameter γ is ranging from −1 to +1. The coupling strength is g = 10B and the Landau-Zen…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We have taken the maximum value of g and plot for the maximum value of W in the over all time range 0 ≤ τ ≤ 20 for increasing values of the number of spins. Wmax Vs N calculated for LR and NN. The parameters are g = 20B, γ = 0.5, ω = 4B and v = 10B. The periodic drivin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We have taken the maximum value of γ and plot for the maximum value of W in the over all time range 0 ≤ τ ≤ 20 for increasing values of the number of spins. Wmax Vs N calculated for LR and NN. The parameters are g = 10B, ω = 4B, γ = 1.0 and v = 10B. The periodic drivin…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We have taken the maximum value of v and plotted for the maximum value of W in the over all time range 0 ≤ τ ≤ 20 for increasing values of the number of spins. Wmax Vs N calculated for LR and NN. The parameters are g = 10B, ω = 4B, γ = 0.5 and v = 10B. The periodic dri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Re- views of modern physics92, 025002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, and S. Vinjanampathy, Ther- modynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental As- pects and New Directions pp. 207–225 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    J. Q. Quach, G. Cerullo, and T. Virgili, Joule7, 2195 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Reviews of Modern Physics96, 031001 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Xiang and G.-C

    G.-Y. Xiang and G.-C. Guo, Chinese Physics B22, 110601 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Physical Review E87, 042123 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina, V. Pellegrini, and M. Polini, Physical review letters120, 117702 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, D. Rosa, M. Carrega, and M. Polini, Physical Review Letters125, 236402 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Xu, H.-J

    K. Xu, H.-J. Zhu, G.-F. Zhang, and W.-M. Liu, Physical Review E104, 064143 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    S. Seah, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack, N. Brunner, and S. Nimmrichter, Physical Review Letters127, 100601 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. Céleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Physical review letters 118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Chanda, and A. Sen, Physical Review A 101, 032115 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Polini, Physical review letters122, 047702 (2019)

    G.M.Andolina,M.Keck,A.Mari,M.Campisi,V.Giovan- netti, and M. Polini, Physical review letters122, 047702 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Bhattacharjee and A

    S. Bhattacharjee and A. Dutta, The European Physical Journal B94, 1 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    L. M. Cangemi, C. Bhadra, and A. Levy, Physics Reports 1087, 1 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Pollock, Physical Review A97, 022106 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Hadipour, S

    M. Hadipour, S. Haseli, H. Dolatkhah, and M. Rashidi, Scientific Reports13, 10672 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Šafránek, D

    D. Šafránek, D. Rosa, and F. C. Binder, Physical Review Letters 130, 210401 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold, and J. Prior, Quantum5, 500 (2021). 14

    2021

  13. [21]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, Communications Physics 6, 322 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    J. Liu, D. Segal, and G. Hanna, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C123, 18303 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    A. G. Catalano, S. M. Giampaolo, O. Morsch, V. Giovan- netti, and F. Franchini, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02529 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D. S. Jin and J. Ye, Physics Today64, 27 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen, and U. Sen, Advances in Physics56, 243 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    G. M. Andolina, D. Farina, A. Mari, V. Pellegrini, V. Gio- vannetti, and M. Polini, Physical Review B98, 205423 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Grazi, D

    R. Grazi, D. S. Shaikh, M. Sassetti, N. T. Ziani, and D. Ferraro, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09169 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y. Du, W. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Yu, K. Guo, G. Qu, and J. Zhang, Nano-Micro Letters16, 100 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Zueco, F

    D. Zueco, F. Galve, S. Kohler, and P. Hänggi, Physical Review A80, 042303 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    O. V. Marchukov, A. G. Volosniev, M. Valiente, D. Pet- rosyan, and N. Zinner, Nature communications7, 13070 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    J. J. Cullen and D. Landau, Physical Review B27, 297 (1983)

    1983

  24. [32]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer physics communications183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, and M. Polini, Physical Review B100, 115142 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Mondal and S

    S. Mondal and S. Bhattacharjee, Physical Review E105, 044125 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Zhang, T.-R

    Y.-Y. Zhang, T.-R. Yang, L. Fu, and X. Wang, Physical Review E99, 052106 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Dziarmaga, Physical review letters95, 245701 (2005)

    J. Dziarmaga, Physical review letters95, 245701 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Caravelli, B

    F. Caravelli, B. Yan, L. P. García-Pintos, and A. Hamma, Quantum 5, 505 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Bäuerle, D

    C. Bäuerle, D. C. Glattli, T. Meunier, F. Portier, P. Roche, P. Roulleau, S. Takada, and X. Waintal, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 056503 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Mazzoncini, V

    F. Mazzoncini, V. Cavina, G. M. Andolina, P. A. Erd- man, and V. Giovannetti, Physical Review A107, 032218 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    J. R. Rubbmark, M. M. Kash, M. G. Littman, and D. Kleppner, Physical Review A23, 3107 (1981)

    1981

  33. [41]

    E. P. Glasbrenner and W. P. Schleich, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics56, 104001 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Bose, Physical review letters91, 207901 (2003)

    S. Bose, Physical review letters91, 207901 (2003)

    2003

  35. [43]

    Casanova, A

    J. Casanova, A. Mezzacapo, L. Lamata, and E. Solano, Physical review letters108, 190502 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Zener, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    C. Zener, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Se- ries A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 137, 696 (1932)

    1932

  37. [45]

    Landau, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion2, 46 (1932)

    L. Landau, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion2, 46 (1932)

    1932

  38. [46]

    L. Wang, X. Huang, and X. Yi, The European Physical Journal D46, 345 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Guo, F.-M

    W.-X. Guo, F.-M. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Physical Review A 109, 032201 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Physical review letters 110, 135704 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.