Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Continuously driven and periodically kicked spin chains are the same quantum-battery platform once the kick rate is taken high enough.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 21:18 UTC pith:5ULPWHM2

load-bearing objection Competent review chapter that cleanly restates the authors’ kicked-Ising results and the standard Trotter bridge; useful synthesis, not a new result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27985 v1 pith:5ULPWHM2 submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-th

Bridging continuous control and Floquet driving for charging many-body spin chains

Sebasti\'an V. Romero , Xi Chen , Yue Ban This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-th PACS 03.67.-a05.30.-d05.70.Ln
keywords quantum batteriesspin chainsFloquet systemskicked Ising modelergotropysuperextensive chargingSYK modelquantum thermodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This chapter argues that spin-chain quantum batteries under continuous drive and under Floquet (periodically kicked) drive are not separate strategies but two ends of one family. In the high-frequency limit, many kicks inside a fixed charging window make the kicked Ising evolution converge, by the Lie–Trotter product formula, to ordinary continuous transverse-field Ising charging. At a special self-dual point the kicked model is exactly solvable, so the stored energy after each kick can be written in closed form—including the striking result that even-length chains under periodic boundaries become fully charged at half the system size in kick count. The review also surveys how interaction range, anisotropy, disorder, temperature, and dephasing shape power and ergotropy, and places SYK all-to-all chargers as a complementary limit where collective correlations, not chaos alone, drive a super-extensive power scaling. A sympathetic reader cares because the bridge turns an abstract Floquet construction into a controllable design language for digital and analog hardware.

Core claim

The authors establish that continuously controlled and Floquet-kicked many-body spin chains form a single charging platform: as the number of kicks goes to infinity at fixed charging time, kicked-Ising dynamics converge to continuous transverse-field Ising evolution, while at the self-dual point the kicked battery admits exact stroboscopic charging formulas (maximal charge at m = N/2 for even N under periodic boundaries) and retains useful performance under the dephasing and thermal noise regimes they study.

What carries the argument

The kicked-Ising Floquet operator U(1) = e^{-i H_K} e^{-i H_I}, together with its high-frequency Lie–Trotter limit to continuous TFIM evolution and its exact powers via Clifford conjugation or momentum-space Chebyshev polynomials at the self-dual point; this object carries both the continuous–Floquet bridge and the closed-form energy formulas.

Load-bearing premise

That an ideal direct charger—an infinite energy reservoir toggled on and off with perfect step or delta pulses and no back-action—is a fair enough model that power and ergotropy computed under it still predict real devices.

What would settle it

Implement a finite-width periodic transverse-field pulse train on a spin-chain battery of known even length N under periodic boundaries, and check whether injected energy peaks near full charge at m ≈ N/2 kicks and whether raising the kick rate at fixed total time smoothly recovers continuous TFIM charging curves; failure of either would break the claimed bridge and exact formulas.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Floquet kick schedules can be designed as gate sequences that continuously interpolate to analog TFIM charging, easing digital hardware benchmarks.
  • Exact self-dual charging formulas give a calibration target for stored energy and ergotropy versus system size and kick count.
  • Useful battery metrics should include ergotropy, temporal stability, and noise resilience, not only peak power scaling.
  • Collective many-body correlations—not interaction range or chaos alone—are the resource to engineer for charging advantage, as SYK and anisotropic spin chains both illustrate.
  • Open-system channels (dephasing, thermal baths) can be treated as design parameters that set robustness windows rather than only as failure modes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the continuous–kick bridge holds on hardware, the same pulse-shaping toolkit used for Floquet engineering of time crystals could be retargeted to stabilize charged states against self-discharge.
  • Finite pulse width (“quasikicks”) is the natural experimental sweet spot: wide enough for lab control, narrow enough to retain near-exact kicked performance.
  • A decisive next measurement is whether ergotropy, not just injected energy, still peaks at the analytically predicted kick counts once realistic coupler crosstalk is present.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This chapter reviews spin-chain quantum batteries and argues for a concrete link between continuously driven and periodically kicked charging protocols. After introducing standard figures of merit (injected energy, power scaling, ergotropy) and surveying spin-chain models following Le et al., it focuses on the kicked-Ising chain (KIC): exact stroboscopic charging via Clifford conjugation at the self-dual point and free-fermion/BdG plus Chebyshev powers more generally; the even/odd-N charging pattern under PBC/OBC; and the high-frequency Lie–Trotter limit in which many kicks at fixed window τ recover continuous TFIM evolution. Open-system extensions (finite-T Gibbs initialization, local dephasing, thermal dissipation) and a brief SYK comparison (collective correlations vs chaos) round out the discussion, with an outlook on digital implementability and noise.

Significance. If taken as a synthesis chapter rather than a claim of wholly new theorems, the work is useful: it cleanly organizes the continuous–Floquet bridge for many-body spin QBs, collects closed-form KIC charging formulas (including the m = N/2 maximal-charge rule for even N under PBC), and connects them to partial noise robustness and digital/gate-like benchmarking. The free-fermion and Clifford analyses are standard tools applied consistently, and the explicit Trotter interpolation (Eqs. 7–12) makes the continuous/Floquet link pedagogically clear. The SYK contrast usefully stresses collective correlations over chaos alone. Strength is primarily organizational and expository within the authors’ prior solvable limits, not a first-principles experimental practicality proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §1; §6] The abstract and closing framing promise a survey of experimental realizations and scalability in current/near-term platforms, but the body has no dedicated experimental section: experiments appear only as brief citations in §1, with implementability remarks scattered in §4 (gate-like/Trotter benchmarking) and §6. For a review/chapter whose stated contribution includes that survey, either add a structured experimental section (platforms, demonstrated figures of merit, scaling bottlenecks) or narrow the abstract/outlook claims to match the theoretical synthesis actually delivered.
  2. [§4 (Eqs. 7–12, Figs. 3–5); §5] The central ‘bridge’ (high-frequency limit of the kicked schedule → continuous TFIM via Lie–Trotter, Eqs. 7–12 and the m→∞ discussion in §4) is standard and correctly stated, but the narrative presents it as establishing a connection while the load-bearing exact formulas, quasikick/random-kick numerics, and open-system plots largely re-derive or re-plot the authors’ overlapping works [42,46] (and the SYK chaos-vs-correlations message [54]). A review may do this, but the text should more sharply separate textbook Trotter/Floquet facts from new synthesis, and state explicitly what is reviewed versus extended here, so the chapter’s incremental claim is falsifiable.
  3. [§2; §4; Fig. 1] §2 defines direct charging with an infinite-energy reservoir and ideal step/kick switching λ(t), and this idealization is carried unchanged into the KIC protocol and noise studies in §4. The chapter itself notes stability, self-discharge, and extractable work as practical criteria, yet does not stress-test how ergotropy/power conclusions change under finite charger energy, coupler back-action, or non-ideal pulse shape beyond the schematic quasikick in Fig. 1. This is a literature-wide limitation, but it is load-bearing for any claim of ‘practical’ relevance or laboratory feasibility; a short dedicated limitations subsection (or explicit scope statement) is needed so readers do not over-read the ideal closed/open formulas as device predictions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1; §4] Fig. 1 caption introduces ‘quasikick’ as an interpolating finite-width pulse, but the main text develops the idea only indirectly via multi-kick schedules and the Trotter limit. Define quasikick once in §4 with a formula or pulse envelope, or demote the term in the figure.
  2. [§2–§4] Notation drift: battery Hamiltonian appears as H_b, H_0, and (g/2)∑σ^z; charging window as τ vs stroboscopic m with T=1. A short notation table or consistent symbols would help.
  3. [§1–§5] Typos/grammar: ‘von Neumman’ → von Neumann (§2); ‘Leet al.’ spacing (§1, §3); duplicate ‘and and’ before battery Hamiltonian (§4); ‘intialized’ (§4); ‘bases on’ → based on (§5).
  4. [§3] §3 lists many spin-chain variants in one long paragraph; a compact table (model, interaction range, reported power scaling, open/closed) would improve navigability for a review audience.
  5. [Figs. 3–5] Figs. 3–5 are informative but dense; state clearly in captions which curves are analytic vs numeric and the precise (J,b) point (self-dual) so the plots stand alone.
  6. [References] Several bibliography entries carry 2025–2026 dates and DOI strings that look provisional; verify final citations before publication.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Review chapter re-derives standard Lie–Trotter/free-fermion/Clifford results and synthesizes the authors’ own prior KIC/SYK papers; no prediction-by-construction or definitional loop.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§4 Floquet batteries; Figs. 3–5; citations [42], [46]]
    "Among the different proposals present in literature [42–46], we focus on the kicked-Ising QB, whose charging Hamiltonian is described by a periodically kicked transverse-field Ising model... Remarkably, when local dephasing is included, the evolution remains quadratic in fermions... This method follows a two-staged procedure per kick... (see also Ref. [46])."

    Noise-robustness plots and the finite-temperature/dephasing analysis are carried from the authors’ own prior/preprint work [42,46] and re-presented as chapter content. This is self-citation of the narrative spine, but it is not load-bearing circularity in the strong sense: the underlying free-fermion/Lindblad reduction and Lie–Trotter bridge are re-derived in-place and do not make a ‘prediction’ that equals a fitted input by construction.

full rationale

This is a synthesis/review chapter, not a first-principles prediction paper. The load-bearing technical bridge—high-frequency convergence of the kicked-Ising Floquet operator to continuous TFIM evolution—is the standard Lie–Trotter product formula written out in the text (Eqs. 7–12), not a quantity fitted from the same data it claims to predict. Exact stroboscopic charging formulas at the self-dual point are obtained from Clifford conjugation and free-fermion/Chebyshev methods that are fully spelled out; they do not reduce by definition to their inputs. Heavy citation of the authors’ overlapping works [42, 46, 54] is expected in a chapter whose purpose is to organize those results alongside the broader spin-chain QB literature; the cited content is re-derived or re-plotted here rather than invoked as an external uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. No fitted-parameter-as-prediction, no ansatz smuggled solely via self-citation, and no renaming of an empirical pattern as a new law. Score 2 reflects normal review-level self-citation of the authors’ prior solvable limits, not circular derivation of the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

As a review, the chapter inherits the standard closed/open quantum-battery framework (Alicki–Fannes, ergotropy, direct charging with infinite charger reservoir), free-fermion solvability of Ising/XY, Floquet/Trotter calculus, and Lindblad noise models. Load-bearing modeling choices include ideal kick delta pulses (or finite quasikicks), battery Hamiltonian as local σz sum, and self-dual kick parameters. No new physical entity is postulated; free parameters are conventional scales set to 1 or to self-dual values rather than fit to external data.

free parameters (3)
  • Self-dual kick/interaction strengths (J=π/4, b=−π/4), g=1, T=1 = J=π/4, b=−π/4, g=1, T=1
    Chosen by hand to sit at the Clifford/self-dual point where exact maximal-charging formulas hold; performance claims are reported primarily there.
  • Dephasing/dissipation rates γ_z, γ and inverse temperature β ranges = illustrative ranges in Figs. 3–5
    Scanned numerically over ad hoc windows (e.g. γ∈[0,0.01], β∈[0,10]) to illustrate robustness; not fixed by an external measurement.
  • Initial thermal TFIM couplings (J_th, h_th)=(1/2,1) = (1/2, 1)
    Hand-set Gibbs reference Hamiltonian for finite-temperature initialization studies.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Direct charging with infinite-energy charger: H(t)=H_b+λ(t)H_c, [H_b,H_c]≠0, λ a perfect switch
    §2 defines the protocol and figures of merit (E, P, ergotropy) under this idealization used throughout.
  • domain assumption Born–Markov Lindblad description of dephasing and thermal baths with local jump operators
    §4 open-system analysis assumes weak coupling and Markovian jumps (Eqs. 14–15).
  • standard math Jordan–Wigner mapping of spin-1/2 chains to free fermions for integrable Ising/KIC sectors
    Used in §3–4 to obtain quadratic forms and exact Floquet 2×2 blocks.
  • standard math Lie–Trotter product formula equating infinite-frequency kicks to continuous TFIM evolution
    §4 bridge argument between kicked and continuous charging.
  • domain assumption Ergotropy equals extractable work under unitary operations only (passive-state definition)
    §2 adopts Allahverdyan et al. ergotropy as the work measure compared to injected energy.
invented entities (1)
  • quasikick (finite-width periodic pulse interpolating continuous drive and ideal delta kicks) no independent evidence
    purpose: Name the intermediate pulse-width charging schedule in Fig. 1 and related discussion bridging continuous and kicked limits.
    Terminological convenience from the authors’ prior kicked-Ising QB work; not a new physical degree of freedom.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 24774 in / 3461 out tokens · 86343 ms · 2026-07-31T21:18:49.830947+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances in quantum information and quantum thermodynamics have reshaped the understanding of energy storage at the microscopic scale, paving the way toward protocols for storing and transferring energy in quantum devices. These systems, known as quantum batteries, offer a conceptual alternative to conventional macroscopic chemical batteries by exploiting quantum coherence, correlations, and many-body dynamics. By navigating the landscape of established spin-based quantum batteries, we review existing charging and work-extraction protocols, as well as the impact of external factors on their performance. Motivated by Floquet-engineered proposals, we further establish a connection between continuously and periodically driven spin chains as platforms for quantum energy storage. Finally, we survey experimental realizations and proposals, highlighting their implementability and scalability in current and near-term quantum technologies.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alicki, M

    R. Alicki, M. Fannes, Phys. Rev. E87, 042123 (2013). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.87.042123. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.042123

    doi:10.1103/physreve.87.042123 2013

  2. [2]

    Hovhannisyan, M

    K.V. Hovhannisyan, M. Perarnau-Llobet, M. Huber, A. Ac ´ın, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 240401 (2013). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.240401. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.111.240401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.240401 2013

  3. [3]

    Binder, S

    F.C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, J. Goold, New J. Phys.17(7), 075015 (2015). DOI 10. 1088/1367-2630/17/7/075015. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/7/075015

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/7/075015 2015

  4. [4]

    C.K. Hu, J. Qiu, P.J.P. Souza, J. Yuan, Y. Zhou, L. Zhang, J. Chu, X. Pan, L. Hu, J. Li, Y. Xu, Y. Zhong, S. Liu, F. Yan, D. Tan, R. Bachelard, C.J. Villas-Boas, A.C. Santos, D. Yu, Quantum Science and Technology7(4), 045018 (2022). DOI 10.1088/2058-9565/ac8444. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ac8444

    doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac8444 2022

  5. [5]

    C.K. Hu, C. Liu, J. Zhao, L. Zhong, Y. Zhou, M. Liu, H. Yuan, Y. Lin, Y. Xu, G. Hu, G. Xie, Z. Liu, R. Zhou, Y. Ri, W. Zhang, R. Deng, A. Saguia, X. Linpeng, M.S. Sarandy, S. Liu, A.C. Santos, D. Tan, D. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 060401 (2026). DOI 10.1103/sp5l-c6m8. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/sp5l-c6m8

    work page doi:10.1103/sp5l-c6m8 2026

  6. [6]

    Maillette de Buy Wenniger, S.E

    I. Maillette de Buy Wenniger, S.E. Thomas, M. Maffei, S.C. Wein, M. Pont, N. Belabas, S. Prasad, A. Harouri, A. Lemaˆıtre, I. Sagnes, N. Somaschi, A. Auff`eves, P. Senellart, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 260401 (2023). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.260401. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.260401 18 Sebasti ´an V. Romero, Xi Chen and Yue Ban

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.260401 2023

  7. [7]

    Quach, K.E

    J.Q. Quach, K.E. McGhee, L. Ganzer, D.M. Rouse, B.W. Lovett, E.M. Gauger, J. Keeling, G. Cerullo, D.G. Lidzey, T. Virgili, Science Advances8(2), eabk3160 (2022). DOI 10.1126/ sciadv.abk3160. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.abk3160

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.abk3160 2022

  8. [8]

    Joshi, T.S

    J. Joshi, T.S. Mahesh, Phys. Rev. A106, 042601 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.106.042601. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.042601

    doi:10.1103/physreva.106.042601 2022

  9. [9]

    Campaioli, F.A

    F. Campaioli, F.A. Pollock, F.C. Binder, L. C ´eleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 150601 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.150601. URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.150601

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.150601 2017

  10. [10]

    Juli `a-Farr´e, T

    S. Juli `a-Farr´e, T. Salamon, A. Riera, M.N. Bera, M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023113 (2020). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023113. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023113

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023113 2020

  11. [11]

    J.Y. Gyhm, D. ˇSafr´anek, D. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 140501 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 128.140501. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.140501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2022

  12. [12]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G.M. Andolina, V. Pellegrini, M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 117702 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.117702. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.120.117702

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.117702 2018

  13. [13]

    Andolina, V

    G.M. Andolina, V. Stanzione, V. Giovannetti, M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 240403 (2025). DOI 10.1103/kzvn-dj7v. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/kzvn-dj7v

    doi:10.1103/kzvn-dj7v 2025

  14. [14]

    T.P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M.M. Parish, F.A. Pollock, Phys. Rev. A97, 022106 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.022106. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.97. 022106

    doi:10.1103/physreva.97.022106 2018

  15. [15]

    Rossini, G.M

    D. Rossini, G.M. Andolina, M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B100, 115142 (2019). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB. 100.115142. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.115142

    doi:10.1103/physrevb 2019

  16. [18]

    Ghosh, A

    S. Ghosh, A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A105, 022628 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022628. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022628

    doi:10.1103/physreva.105.022628 2022

  17. [19]

    A. Ali, S. Al-Kuwari, M.I. Hussain, T. Byrnes, M.T. Rahim, J.Q. Quach, M. Ghominejad, S. Haddadi, Phys. Rev. A110, 052404 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.052404. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.052404

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.110.052404 2024

  18. [20]

    Bhattacharya, V.B

    S. Bhattacharya, V.B. Sabale, A. Kumar, New Journal of Physics28(1), 014508 (2026). DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/ae33e4. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ae33e4

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ae33e4 2026

  19. [21]

    Huangfu, J

    Y. Huangfu, J. Jing, Phys. Rev. E104, 024129 (2021). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.104.024129. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.104.024129

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.104.024129 2021

  20. [22]

    L. Gao, C. Cheng, W.B. He, R. Mondaini, X.W. Guan, H.Q. Lin, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043150 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043150. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043150

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043150 2022

  21. [23]

    Grazi, D

    R. Grazi, D. Sacco Shaikh, M. Sassetti, N. Traverso Ziani, D. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 197001 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.197001. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.133.197001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.197001 2024

  22. [24]

    Catalano, S

    A. Catalano, S. Giampaolo, O. Morsch, V. Giovannetti, F. Franchini, PRX Quantum5, 030319 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030319. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PRXQuantum.5.030319

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.030319 2024

  23. [25]

    Dou, Y.J

    F.Q. Dou, Y.J. Wang, J.A. Sun. Charging advantages of Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick quantum battery (2022). Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2208.04831

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [26]

    Schmid, F

    H. Schmid, F. von Oppen, G. Refael, Y. Peng, Phys. Rev. B114, 014313 (2026). DOI 10.1103/ pkc6-c3pd. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/pkc6-c3pd

    work page doi:10.1103/pkc6-c3pd 2026

  25. [27]

    L.B. Ho, D.T. Hoang, T.D. Anh-Tai, T. Busch, T. Fogarty. Boosting the Performance of a Lipkin- Meshkov-Glick Quantum Battery via Symmetry-Breaking Quenches and Bosonic Baths (2026). Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17121

    arXiv 2026

  26. [28]

    Grazi, F

    R. Grazi, F. Cavaliere, M. Sassetti, D. Ferraro, N. Traverso Ziani, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals196, 116383 (2025). DOI 10.1016/j.chaos.2025.116383. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0960077925003960 Bridging continuous control and Floquet driving for charging many-body spin chains 19

    arXiv 2025

  27. [29]

    Pavone, F.L

    A. Pavone, F.L. Cavagnaro, M. Carrega, R. Grazi, D. Ferraro, N. Traverso Ziani, Phys. Rev. B 114, 065405 (2026). DOI 10.1103/rdhw-9kh3. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ rdhw-9kh3

    work page doi:10.1103/rdhw-9kh3 2026

  28. [30]

    Zhao, Z.R

    S.C. Zhao, Z.R. Zhao, N.Y. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. E112, 024129 (2025). DOI 10.1103/xqtv-qbyk. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/xqtv-qbyk

    work page doi:10.1103/xqtv-qbyk 2025

  29. [31]

    F.Q. Dou, H. Zhou, J.A. Sun, Phys. Rev. A106, 032212 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.106. 032212. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.032212

    doi:10.1103/physreva.106 2022

  30. [32]

    P.Y. Sun, H. Zhou, F.Q. Dou, New Journal of Physics27(12), 124513 (2025). DOI 10.1088/ 1367-2630/ae2a62. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ae2a62

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ae2a62 2025

  31. [34]

    Chang, T.R

    W. Chang, T.R. Yang, H. Dong, L. Fu, X. Wang, Y.Y. Zhang, New Journal of Physics 23(10), 103026 (2021). DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/ac2a5b. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/ 1367-2630/ac2a5b

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac2a5b 2021

  32. [35]

    Yao, X.Q

    Y. Yao, X.Q. Shao, Phys. Rev. E106, 014138 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.106.014138. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.106.014138

    doi:10.1103/physreve.106.014138 2022

  33. [36]

    Fajar, B.N

    M.M. Fajar, B.N. Pratiwi, S. Pramono, G.K. Sunnardianto, A.R.T. Nugraha. Noise-induced Zeno- like effect in a spin-chain quantum battery (2025). Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509. 01603

    2025

  34. [37]

    Liu, H.L

    J.X. Liu, H.L. Shi, Y.H. Shi, X.H. Wang, W.L. Yang, Phys. Rev. B104, 245418 (2021). DOI 10. 1103/PhysRevB.104.245418. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.104. 245418

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.104 2021

  35. [38]

    Peng, W.B

    L. Peng, W.B. He, S. Chesi, H.Q. Lin, X.W. Guan, Phys. Rev. A103, 052220 (2021). DOI 10. 1103/PhysRevA.103.052220. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.103. 052220

    doi:10.1103/physreva.103 2021

  36. [39]

    S.f. Qi, J. Jing, Phys. Rev. A104, 032606 (2021). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.032606. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.032606

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.032606 2021

  37. [40]

    Barra, K.V

    F. Barra, K.V. Hovhannisyan, A. Imparato, New Journal of Physics24(1), 015003 (2022). DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/ac43ed. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ac43ed

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac43ed 2022

  38. [41]

    Guo, F.M

    W.X. Guo, F.M. Yang, F.Q. Dou, Phys. Rev. A109, 032201 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.109. 032201. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.032201

    doi:10.1103/physreva.109 2024

  39. [42]

    Romero, X

    S.V. Romero, X. Chen, Y. Ban, Phys. Rev. Lett.137, 050404 (2026). DOI 10.1103/j35s-xv5k. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/j35s-xv5k

    work page doi:10.1103/j35s-xv5k 2026

  40. [43]

    Mondal, S

    S. Mondal, S. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Rev. E105, 044125 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.105. 044125. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.105.044125

    doi:10.1103/physreve.105 2022

  41. [45]

    Puri, T.K

    S. Puri, T.K. Konar, L.G.C. Lakkaraju, A.S. De. Floquet driven long-range interactions induce super-extensive scaling in quantum batteries (2025). Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2412.00921

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [46]

    Romero, X

    S.V. Romero, X. Chen, Y. Ban. Impact of thermal and dissipative effects in a periodically-kicked quantum battery (2026). Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24409

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [47]

    Zaletel, M

    M.P. Zaletel, M. Lukin, C. Monroe, C. Nayak, F. Wilczek, N.Y. Yao, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 031001 (2023). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.031001. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.95.031001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.031001 2023

  44. [48]

    Sachdev, J

    S. Sachdev, J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 3339 (1993). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.3339. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.3339

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.70.3339 1993

  45. [49]

    Kitaev.A simple model of quantum holography.Talks at KITP (2015)

    A. Kitaev.A simple model of quantum holography.Talks at KITP (2015). URLhttp: //online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/kitaev/,http://online.kitp.ucsb. edu/online/entangled15/kitaev2/

    2015

  46. [50]

    Maldacena, D

    J. Maldacena, D. Stanford, Phys. Rev. D94, 106002 (2016). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.106002. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.106002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.106002 2016

  47. [51]

    D. Rosa, D. Rossini, G.M. Andolina, M. Polini, M. Carrega, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020(11), 67 (2020). DOI 10.1007/JHEP11(2020)067. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP11(2020)067 20 Sebasti ´an V. Romero, Xi Chen and Yue Ban

    doi:10.1007/jhep11(2020)067 2020

  48. [52]

    Rossini, G.M

    D. Rossini, G.M. Andolina, D. Rosa, M. Carrega, M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 236402 (2020). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.236402. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.125.236402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.236402 2020

  49. [53]

    J. Kim, J. Murugan, J. Olle, D. Rosa, Phys. Rev. A105, L010201 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA. 105.L010201. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.L010201

    doi:10.1103/physreva 2022

  50. [54]

    Romero, Y

    S.V. Romero, Y. Ding, X. Chen, Y. Ban, Journal of High Energy Physics2025(5), 21 (2025). DOI 10.1007/JHEP05(2025)021. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2025)021

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2025)021 2025

  51. [55]

    F. Divi, J. Murugan, D. Rosa, Phys. Rev. B111, 075138 (2025). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.111. 075138. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.111.075138

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.111 2025

  52. [56]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J.Q. Quach, M. Polini, G.M. Andolina, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 031001 (2024). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.96.031001. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.96.031001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.96.031001 2024

  53. [57]

    Allahverdyan, R

    A.E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, T.M. Nieuwenhuizen, Europhysics Letters67(4), 565 (2004). DOI 10.1209/epl/i2004-10101-2. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1209/epl/i2004-10101-2

    doi:10.1209/epl/i2004-10101-2 2004

  54. [58]

    Pusz, S.L

    W. Pusz, S.L. Woronowicz, Commun. Math. Phys.58(3), 273–290 (1978). DOI 10.1007/ BF01614224. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF01614224

    doi:10.1007/bf01614224 1978

  55. [59]

    Santos, B

    A.C. Santos, B. C ¸ akmak, S. Campbell, N.T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. E100, 032107 (2019). DOI 10. 1103/PhysRevE.100.032107. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.100. 032107

    doi:10.1103/physreve.100 2019

  56. [60]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, D. Mattis, Ann. Phys.16(3), 407 (1961). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0003-4916(61)90115-4. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 0003491661901154

    1961

  57. [61]

    Rozenbaum, S

    E.B. Rozenbaum, S. Ganeshan, V. Galitski, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 086801 (2017). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.118.086801. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118. 086801

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118 2017

  58. [62]

    Waltner, P

    D. Waltner, P. Braun, Phys. Rev. B104, 054432 (2021). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.054432. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.054432

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.104.054432 2021

  59. [63]

    Akila, D

    M. Akila, D. Waltner, B. Gutkin, T. Guhr, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49(37), 375101 (2016). DOI 10.1088/1751-8113/49/37/375101. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/1751-8113/49/37/375101

    doi:10.1088/1751-8113/49/37/375101 2016

  60. [64]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K.X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Za- letel, K. Temme, A. Kandala, Nature618(7965), 500 (2023). DOI 10.1038/s41586-023-06096-3. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06096-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06096-3 2023

  61. [65]

    Miessen, D.J

    A. Miessen, D.J. Egger, I. Tavernelli, G. Mazzola, PRX Quantum5, 040320 (2024). DOI 10. 1103/PRXQuantum.5.040320. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5. 040320

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5 2024

  62. [66]

    Visuri, A

    A.M. Visuri, A. Gomez Cadavid, B.A. Bhargava, S.V. Romero, A. Grabarits, P. Chandarana, E. Solano, A. Del Campo, N.N. Hegade, npj Quantum Information12(1), 47 (2026). DOI 10.1038/ s41534-026-01208-z. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-026-01208-z

    2026

  63. [67]

    Fischer, M

    L.E. Fischer, M. Leahy, A. Eddins, N. Keenan, D. Ferracin, M.A.C. Rossi, Y. Kim, A. He, F. Pietra- caprina, B. Sokolov, S. Dooley, Z. Zimbor ´as, F. Tacchino, S. Maniscalco, J. Goold, G. Garc ´ıa- P´erez, I. Tavernelli, A. Kandala, S.N. Filippov, Nature Physics22(2), 302 (2026). DOI 10.1038/ s41567-025-03144-9. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-02...

    2026

  64. [68]

    Shinjo, K

    K. Shinjo, K. Seki, T. Shirakawa, R.Y. Sun, S. Yunoki, npj Quantum Information12(1), 41 (2026). DOI 10.1038/s41534-026-01193-3. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ s41534-026-01193-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-026-01193-3 2026

  65. [69]

    Simon, inFunctional Integration and Quantum Physics(AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2005), chap

    B. Simon, inFunctional Integration and Quantum Physics(AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2005), chap. II, pp. 45–70. URLhttps://bookstore.ams.org/view?ProductCode= CHEL/351.H

    2005

  66. [70]

    Foss-Feig, K.R.A

    M. Foss-Feig, K.R.A. Hazzard, J.J. Bollinger, A.M. Rey, C.W. Clark, New J. Phys.15(11), 113008 (2013). DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/15/11/113008. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/ 1367-2630/15/11/113008

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/11/113008 2013

  67. [71]

    Prosen, New Journal of Physics10(4), 043026 (2008)

    T. Prosen, New Journal of Physics10(4), 043026 (2008). DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/043026. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/043026

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/043026 2008