pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18108 · v1 · pith:NR5L3M7Knew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum-Battery-Powered Geometric Landau-Zener Interferometry

Borhan Ahmadi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 10:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum batteryLandau-Zener interferometryJaynes-Cummings Hamiltoniangeometric phasesuperconducting qubitphase coherencequantum back-action
0
0 comments X

The pith

Geometric Landau-Zener interferometry benchmarks phase-coherent energy from a quantum battery.

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

The paper examines what happens when a classical microwave drive is replaced by a finite quantum battery in echo-refocused geometric Landau-Zener interferometry. The qubit interacts with a quantized bosonic mode via the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian, while the echo is a qubit-only operation. At finite photon numbers, this leads to photon-number-dependent avoided crossings and amplitude mixing across sectors, causing contrast loss and interferogram distortions. This setup allows the interferometry to act as a test for whether the battery's energy is phase-coherent. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a concrete way to validate quantum batteries for use in precise quantum control tasks.

Core claim

In the macroscopic coherent-state limit the classical geometric interferometer is recovered, but at finite mean photon number the Jaynes-Cummings coupling generates photon-number-resolved avoided crossings with gaps Ω_n = 2g√n. The qubit-only echo redistributes amplitudes between neighboring excitation sectors, turning the protocol into a coherent sector-resolved quantum evolution that produces contrast loss, interferogram distortions, and measurable battery back-action. Reducing photon-number fluctuations alone is not sufficient; geometric control requires a first-order phase reference.

What carries the argument

Photon-number-resolved avoided crossings generated by the Jaynes-Cummings coupling, with the echo pulse mixing amplitudes across sectors.

If this is right

  • In the large photon number limit the standard classical geometric interferometer is recovered.
  • The finite-battery case exhibits contrast loss and distortions due to sector-resolved evolution.
  • Measurable back-action on the battery occurs as a signature of the quantum nature.
  • Geometric control demands a first-order phase reference in addition to low fluctuations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This approach might extend to other quantum control sequences to test battery coherence.
  • Experimental implementations could use superconducting circuits to measure the predicted distortions at accessible photon numbers.
  • Such benchmarks could inform the design of quantum batteries that preserve phase information during energy transfer.

Load-bearing premise

The qubit-battery dynamics follow the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian and the echo pulse acts only on the qubit to cancel dynamical phase.

What would settle it

Observing no loss of contrast and no distortions in the interferogram at finite but moderate photon numbers, matching exactly the classical prediction without back-action effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18108 by Borhan Ahmadi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Photon-number-resolved Landau–Zener passages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Finite-battery geometric Landau–Zener in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Quantum-to-classical recovery and battery back [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Coherent quantum-battery fringes for different mean photon numbers. The final excited-state population [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Finite-coherent-battery heatmaps at few-quanta occupation. The final excited-state population [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Squeezed-battery benchmark at fixed mean photon number. (a) Fringe contrast [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Classical microwave drives are usually treated as ideal phase-coherent work sources for superconducting-qubit control. What if such a drive is replaced by a finite quantum battery. As a demanding benchmark, we consider echo-refocused geometric Landau--Zener interferometry powered by a single quantized bosonic mode. The qubit--battery dynamics are described by a Jaynes--Cummings Hamiltonian, while the echo pulse is retained as a qubit-only refocusing operation that cancels the dynamical phase. In the macroscopic coherent-state limit, the usual classical geometric interferometer is recovered. At finite mean photon number, however, the Jaynes--Cummings coupling generates photon-number-resolved avoided crossings with gaps $\Omega_n=2g\sqrt{n}$. The qubit-only echo redistributes amplitudes between neighboring excitation sectors, so the finite-battery protocol is not a single classical interferometer but a coherent sector-resolved quantum evolution. This produces contrast loss, interferogram distortions, and measurable battery back-action. We further show that reducing photon-number fluctuations alone is not sufficient: geometric control requires a first-order phase reference. Geometric Landau--Zener interferometry therefore provides a practical benchmark for certifying phase-coherent quantum-battery energy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes geometric Landau-Zener interferometry powered by a finite quantum battery (single bosonic mode) rather than a classical drive. The qubit-battery system is governed by the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian, with an echo pulse applied only to the qubit to cancel dynamical phases. In the macroscopic coherent-state limit the standard classical geometric interferometer is recovered; at finite mean photon number the n-dependent avoided crossings (Ω_n = 2g√n) produce a sector-resolved evolution that yields contrast loss, interferogram distortions, and measurable battery back-action. The authors conclude that this protocol supplies a practical benchmark for certifying phase-coherent energy storage in quantum batteries.

Significance. If the central assumptions are verified, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable test that distinguishes phase-coherent quantum work from mere low-fluctuation energy storage. It extends geometric-phase control techniques to quantum batteries and isolates the necessity of a first-order phase reference beyond photon-number squeezing. The use of the standard Jaynes-Cummings model and the explicit prediction of observable contrast loss constitute clear strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. [Protocol description (echo-pulse paragraph)] Protocol description (echo-pulse paragraph): The claim that a qubit-only refocusing pulse exactly cancels the dynamical phase accumulated across the entangled JC sectors while leaving the geometric contribution intact is load-bearing for the benchmark interpretation. Because the state before the echo is a coherent superposition over n-sectors with n-dependent gaps Ω_n = 2g√n, a σ_x-type pulse mixes neighboring sectors; an explicit calculation demonstrating precise dynamical-phase cancellation in this entangled basis is required. Absent that derivation, the attribution of contrast loss specifically to battery back-action rather than residual n-dependent phases cannot be fully substantiated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'reducing photon-number fluctuations alone is not sufficient' but does not quantify the residual phase reference requirement; a short clarifying sentence would strengthen readability.
  2. Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly indicate whether plotted quantities are for a fixed mean photon number or averaged over a distribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Protocol description (echo-pulse paragraph): The claim that a qubit-only refocusing pulse exactly cancels the dynamical phase accumulated across the entangled JC sectors while leaving the geometric contribution intact is load-bearing for the benchmark interpretation. Because the state before the echo is a coherent superposition over n-sectors with n-dependent gaps Ω_n = 2g√n, a σ_x-type pulse mixes neighboring sectors; an explicit calculation demonstrating precise dynamical-phase cancellation in this entangled basis is required. Absent that derivation, the attribution of contrast loss specifically to battery back-action rather than residual n-dependent phases cannot be fully substantiated.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this key point. We agree that an explicit calculation is necessary to fully substantiate the dynamical-phase cancellation in the entangled basis. In the revised manuscript we have added a detailed derivation (new Appendix A) that evolves the state through the complete protocol, including the instantaneous qubit-only σ_x echo. The calculation explicitly tracks the redistribution of amplitudes between neighboring total-excitation sectors and demonstrates that the n-dependent dynamical phases accumulated on the forward and return paths cancel exactly due to the time-reversal symmetry of the echo, while the geometric-phase contributions—determined by the closed path in control-parameter space—remain unaffected. Consequently, the observed contrast loss and interferogram distortions can be attributed to battery back-action and sector-resolved evolution rather than residual dynamical phases. We have also updated the echo-pulse paragraph to reference this derivation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's derivation begins from the standard Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian for qubit-battery dynamics and proceeds by explicit calculation of photon-number-resolved avoided crossings (Ω_n = 2g√n) and amplitude redistribution under a qubit-only echo. These steps generate the predicted contrast loss and distortions without any reduction to fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The central benchmark claim follows directly from the model equations and the macroscopic limit recovery, remaining self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard quantum optics models with no new free parameters or invented entities introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The qubit-battery dynamics are described by a Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian.
    Standard model for resonant light-matter interaction in cavity QED, invoked to describe the finite-battery case.
  • domain assumption The echo pulse is a qubit-only refocusing operation that cancels the dynamical phase.
    Modeling choice that isolates geometric phase effects while redistributing amplitudes across photon sectors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5728 in / 1403 out tokens · 45115 ms · 2026-05-20T10:58:49.604227+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Z. Bao, Y. Li, Z. Wang, J. Wang, J. Yang, H. Xiong, Y. Song, Y. Wu, H. Zhang, and L. Duan, A cryogenic on- chip microwave pulse generator for large-scale supercon- ducting quantum computing, Nature Communications 15, 5958 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Entanglement boost for ex- tractable work from ensembles of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E87, 042123 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Campaioli, F

    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)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Kurman, K

    Y. Kurman, K. Hymas, A. Fedorov, W. J. Munro, and J. Quach, Powering quantum computation with quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. X16, 011016 (2026)

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Colloquium: Quantum batteries, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 031001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    R. R. Rodríguez, B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, R. Alicki, and P. Horodecki, Catalysis in charging quan- tum batteries, Phys. Rev. A107, 042419 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Catalano, S

    A. Catalano, S. Giampaolo, O. Morsch, V. Giovannetti, and F. Franchini, Frustrating quantum batteries, PRX Quantum5, 030319 (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Ferraro, M

    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)

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    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)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    R. R. Rodríguez, B. Ahmadi, G. Suárez, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, and P. Horodecki, Optimal quantum con- trol of charging quantum batteries, New Journal of Physics26, 043004 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Zakavati, S

    S. Zakavati, S. Salimi, and B. Arash, Optimizing the chargingofopenquantumbatteriesusinglongshort-term memory-driven reinforcement learning, arXiv:2504.19840 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Joshi and T

    J. Joshi and T. S. Mahesh, Experimental investigation of a quantum battery using star-topology nmr spin systems, Phys. Rev. A106, 042601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Cristiano, L

    C. Cristiano, L. Viotti, and P. I. Villar, Geometric phase in dissipative quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A112, 062234 (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    J. Q. Quach and W. J. Munro, Using dark states to charge and stabilize open quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 024092 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    F. H. Kamin, S. Salimi, and M. B. Arjmandi, Steady- state charging of quantum batteries via dissipative ancil- las, Phys. Rev. A109, 022226 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Ahmadi, P

    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)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Carrasco, J

    J. Carrasco, J. R. Maze, C. Hermann-Avigliano, and F. Barra, Collective enhancement in dissipative quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E105, 064119 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Ahmadi, A

    B. Ahmadi, A. B. Ravichandran, P. Mazurek, S. Barzan- jeh, and P. Horodecki, Harnessing environmental noise for quantum energy storage, arXiv:2510.06384 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Charging Quantum Batteries via Dissipative Quenches

    R. Grazi, D. Farina, N. T. Ziani, and D. Ferraro, Charging quantum batteries via dissipative quenches, arXiv:2604.08151 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Hadipour and S

    M. Hadipour and S. Haseli, Nonequilibrium quantum batteries: Amplified work extraction through thermal bath modulation, arXiv:2502.05508 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    S.Gherardini, F.Campaioli, F.Caruso,andF.C.Binder, Stabilizing open quantum batteries by sequential mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013095 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Song, J.-L

    W.-L. Song, J.-L. Wang, B. Zhou, W.-L. Yang, and J.-H. An, Self-discharging mitigated quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 020405 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Bai and J.-H

    S.-Y. Bai and J.-H. An, Floquet engineering to reactivate a dissipative quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A102, 060201 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    M. B. Arjmandi, H. Mohammadi, A. Saguia, M. S. 20 Sarandy, and A. C. Santos, Localization effects in dis- ordered quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E108, 064106 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Song, H.-B

    W.-L. Song, H.-B. Liu, B. Zhou, W.-L. Yang, and J.-H. An,Remotecharginganddegradationsuppressionforthe quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 090401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y. Lü, and C. Shang, Topological quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 180401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzanjeh, Nonreciprocal quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 210402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Liu, W.-L

    R.-F. Liu, W.-L. Song, W.-L. Yang, H. Guan, and J.-H. An, Chiral quantum batteries, arXiv:2603.25173 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    A. H. A. Malavazi, B. Ahmadi, P. Horodecki, and P. R. Dieguez, Charge-preserving operations in quantum bat- teries, PRX Energy5, 023004 (2026)

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    A. H. Malavazi, R. Sagar, B. Ahmadi, and P. R. Dieguez, Two-time weak-measurement protocol for ergotropy pro- tection in open quantum batteries, PRX Energy4, 023011 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Rinaldi, R

    D. Rinaldi, R. Filip, D. Gerace, and G. Guarnieri, Re- liable quantum advantage in quantum battery charging, Phys. Rev. A112, 012205 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Shokri, E

    A. Shokri, E. Faizi, and M. B. Arjmandi, Entanglement- assisted charging of quantum batteries within optome- chanical framework, Phys. Rev. E111, 064117 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Chand, R

    S. Chand, R. Grazi, N. Traverso Ziani, and D. Fer- raro, Spin-based quantum energy devices: From quan- tum thermal machines to quantum batteries, Entropy28 (2026)

    work page 2026

  35. [35]

    Ahmadi, A

    B. Ahmadi, A. H. Malavazi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzanjeh, Reservoir-engineered exceptional points for quantum energy storage, arXiv:2511.20569 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    L. D. Landau, Zur theorie der energieübertragung. ii, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion2, 46 (1932)

    work page 1932

  37. [37]

    Zener, Non-adiabatic crossing of energy levels, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London

    C. Zener, Non-adiabatic crossing of energy levels, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A137, 696 (1932)

    work page 1932

  38. [38]

    E. C. G. Stückelberg, Theorie der unelastischen stösse zwischen atomen, Helvetica Physica Acta5, 369 (1932)

    work page 1932

  39. [39]

    S. N. Shevchenko, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Landau– zener–stückelberg interferometry, Physics Reports492, 1 (2010)

    work page 2010

  40. [40]

    Sillanpää, T

    M. Sillanpää, T. Lehtinen, A. Paila, Y. Makhlin, and P. Hakonen, Continuous-time monitoring of landau-zener interference in a cooper-pair box, Physical Review Let- ters96, 187002 (2006)

    work page 2006

  41. [41]

    Gasparinetti, P

    S. Gasparinetti, P. Solinas, and J. P. Pekola, Geomet- ric landau-zener interferometry, Physical Review Letters 107, 207002 (2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Tan, D.-W

    X. Tan, D.-W. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y. Yu, S. Han, and S.- L. Zhu, Demonstration of geometric landau-zener inter- ferometry in a superconducting qubit, Physical Review Letters112, 027001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Saito, M

    K. Saito, M. Wubs, S. Kohler, P. Hänggi, and Y. Kayanuma, Quantum state preparation in circuit qed via landau-zener tunneling, Europhysics Letters76, 22 (2006)

    work page 2006

  44. [44]

    M. Wubs, K. Saito, S. Kohler, P. Hänggi, and Y. Kayanuma, Coherent single-photon generation and storage in a circuit qed model, Physical Review Letters 99, 150603 (2007)

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    Keeling and V

    J. Keeling and V. Gurarie, Collapse and revivals of the photon field in a landau-zener process, Physical Review Letters101, 033001 (2008)

    work page 2008

  46. [46]

    J. M. Fink, M. Göppl, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, P. J. Leek, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Climbing the jaynes-cummings ladder and observing its√nnonlinearity in a cavity qed system, Nature454, 315 (2008)

    work page 2008

  47. [47]

    Z. Sun, J. Ma, X. Wang, and F. Nori, Photon-assisted landau-zener transition: Role of coherent superposition states, Physical Review A86, 012107 (2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Ashhab, Landau-zener transitions in a two-level sys- tem coupled to a finite-temperature harmonic oscillator, Physical Review A90, 062120 (2014)

    S. Ashhab, Landau-zener transitions in a two-level sys- tem coupled to a finite-temperature harmonic oscillator, Physical Review A90, 062120 (2014)

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    R. K. Malla and M. E. Raikh, Landau-zener transition in a two-level system coupled to a single highly excited oscillator, Physical Review B97, 035428 (2018)

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Siddiqui and J

    S. Siddiqui and J. Gea-Banacloche, Adiabatic geometric phase gate with a quantized control field, Physical Re- view A74, 052337 (2006)

    work page 2006

  51. [51]

    Zheng, Nonclassical berry phase of an electromag- netic field, Physical Review A85, 052106 (2012)

    S.-B. Zheng, Nonclassical berry phase of an electromag- netic field, Physical Review A85, 052106 (2012)

    work page 2012

  52. [52]

    E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, Comparison of quan- tum and semiclassical radiation theories with applica- tion to the beam maser, Proceedings of the IEEE51, 89 (1963)

    work page 1963

  53. [53]

    See Supplemental Material for the derivation of photon- number-induced Landau–Zener-gap broadening, the echo-induced sector redistribution, squeezed-state bench- marks, and numerical details

    work page

  54. [54]

    Breuer, F

    H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione,et al.,The theory of open quantum systems(Oxford University, Oxford, 2007)

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    Sillanpää, T

    M. Sillanpää, T. Lehtinen, A. Paila, Y. Makhlin, and P. Hakonen, Continuous-time monitoring of landau-zener interference in a cooper-pair box, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 187002 (2006)

    work page 2006

  56. [56]

    Tan, D.-W

    X. Tan, D.-W. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y. Yu, S. Han, and S.-L. Zhu, Demonstration of geometric landau-zener interfer- ometry in a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 027001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Damski and W

    B. Damski and W. H. Zurek, Adiabatic-impulse approxi- mation for avoided level crossings: From phase-transition dynamics to landau-zener evolutions and back again, Phys. Rev. A73, 063405 (2006)

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    W. D. Oliver, Y. Yu, J. C. Lee, K. K. Berggren, L. S. Levitov,andT.P.Orlando,Mach-zehnderinterferometry in a strongly driven superconducting qubit, Science310, 1653 (2005)

    work page 2005