Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

The paper introduces a variational action principle for the time-evolution operator and uses it to construct Floquet Hamiltonians that, within a chosen operator manifold, improve on truncated Magnus expansions without nested-commutator book

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

2026-08-03 07:28 UTC pith:HB37GS4O

load-bearing objection Solid variational Floquet framework with honest error bounds; the scalability claim needs one more validation step before it lands. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29418 v1 pith:HB37GS4O submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

A Variational Framework for Time-Dependent Quantum Systems with Applications to Floquet Hamiltonians

Ibsal Assi , Meenu Kumari , J. P. F. LeBlanc This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords variational principletime-evolution operatorFloquet HamiltonianMagnus expansionoperator manifoldquantum geometric tensordriven Ising chaincoherent destruction of tunneling
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.

Periodically driven quantum systems are usually described by Floquet theory, but the effective Hamiltonian is hard to compute beyond high-frequency perturbation theory. This paper proposes instead to approximate the time-evolution operator itself by a unitary exponential built from a small, physically chosen pool of Hermitian operators, with time-dependent coefficients determined by a stationary action principle. Over one driving period, the exponent divided by the period defines an approximate Floquet Hamiltonian. The central claim is that when the operator pool comes from the low-order Magnus expansion, the variational procedure effectively resums the series, yielding systematically more accurate effective Hamiltonians than fixed-order Magnus, especially where the series converges poorly. The framework is non-perturbative, improvable by enlarging the pool, and scalable to exponentially large Hilbert spaces through an operator-manifold projection.

Core claim

For a parameterized ansatz \hat U_A(theta(t)) = exp(-i sum_j theta_j(t) O_j), the action S = \int dt Tr[ U^\dagger (i \partial_t U - H U) ] is extremized to get equations of motion g(theta)\dot\theta = f(\theta;t), where g is the quantum geometric tensor and f the generalized force. After integrating over one period T, the variational Floquet Hamiltonian is H_F = (1/T) sum_j theta_j(T) O_j. The paper's central discovery is that this variational step acts as a resummation of the truncated Magnus series inside the chosen manifold: the coefficients theta_j(T) are not the perturbative Magnus weights but the locally optimal ones, which is why the resulting Floquet Hamiltonians track exact quasien

What carries the argument

The machinery is the stationary action principle for the propagator, specialized to the unitary ansatz e^{-i A(\theta)}. It produces the quantum geometric tensor g_jk and generalized force f_j in closed forms (sinc kernels), whose solution over one period gives the variational Floquet Hamiltonian. For large systems, the same quantities are computed without Hilbert-space diagonalization by projecting commutators [O_j,O_k] \approx i \sum_\ell \alpha^\ell_{jk} O_\ell onto the pool, which reduces every operation to MxM matrix algebra.

Load-bearing premise

The scalable operator-manifold projection assumes that discarding the parts of commutators lying outside the chosen operator pool leaves the dynamics essentially unchanged; this is verified only for one six-operator Ising pool at N=5, while the N=100 demonstration plots parameters without an error metric.

What would settle it

Compute the projected variational Floquet Hamiltonian for the driven Ising chain at N=20 (where exact full-Hilbert-space evaluation is still feasible) and compare it with the exact variational result and with the exact Floquet operator from Sambe-space diagonalization; if the projected/exact variational difference grows with N or the projected curve departs from the exact variational curve, the manifold-projection assumption fails. A second falsifier: find any example where a smaller AEB does not correspond to a smaller global error, which would break the empirical correlation the method's qua

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

If this is right

  • Floquet Hamiltonians extracted this way are systematically more accurate than low-order Magnus expansions in all three benchmark models, with the largest gains at strong drive and low frequency.
  • Enlarging the operator pool (e.g., from four to six to nineteen operators in the Ising chain) monotonically reduces the global error without requiring higher-order nested commutators.
  • The operator-manifold projection makes the method applicable to systems whose Hilbert space is exponentially large, such as N=100 spin chains.
  • The method captures non-perturbative physics such as coherent destruction of tunneling in the Rabi model, matching flow-equation results where Magnus breaks down.
  • The accumulated error bound AEB gives a rigorous, computable upper bound on the global error, and it correlates with the actual error in all examples.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the AEB correlation holds generically, the bound could serve as a stopping criterion for variational quantum simulation without exact benchmarks, a use the paper suggests but does not prove.
  • The resummation idea is not limited to Magnus: the same variational step could improve other truncated perturbative expansions (Dyson series, optimized Trotter formulas) by optimizing their operator coefficients, though the paper only demonstrates this for Magnus.
  • The operator-manifold projection's faithfulness is the main open question: testing it against exact variational results for other pools and larger N would either confirm the method's scalability or reveal where truncation of the commutator algebra breaks down.
  • Because the action principle does not require periodicity, the same machinery may apply to quantum control and adiabatic protocols, where the variational propagator is propagated once and no Floquet Hamiltonian is extracted.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a variational approximation to the time-evolution operator of a time-dependent Hamiltonian by imposing stationarity of an action functional on a parameterized operator manifold U_A(θ(t)) = exp(-i Σ_j θ_j(t) O_j). The resulting equations of motion involve a quantum geometric tensor g and a generalized force f; after integrating over one drive period, the approximate Floquet Hamiltonian is read off as H_F = Σ_j θ_j(T) O_j / T. When the operator pool is the set of operators appearing in a truncated Magnus expansion, the method is interpreted as a variational resummation of that expansion. The framework is benchmarked on the driven Rabi model, the driven Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, and the driven 1D Ising chain. A scalable, operator-space formulation is introduced for large systems, and a computable accumulated error bound (AEB) is derived by integrating a local residual norm. The central claims are that the method is non-perturbative, systematically improvable by enlarging the operator pool, more accurate than low-order Magnus expansions, and applicable to exponentially large Hilbert spaces.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a useful contribution to Floquet engineering and non-equilibrium quantum dynamics. The action-principle formulation on operator manifolds is appealing because it yields compact, physically transparent Floquet Hamiltonians and avoids direct Hilbert-space diagonalization. The paper correctly identifies the local residual minimization that underlies the variational EOM and supplies a rigorous upper bound η(t) ≤ AEB(t), which is genuinely valuable as an online quality diagnostic. The numerical benchmarks are informative: the Rabi model is recovered to machine precision for a closed su(2) algebra, and the LMG results show systematic improvement over third-order Magnus when the pool is enlarged. The Ising results at N=5 provide a useful check of the projection scheme against exact variational evolution. The manuscript is honest in acknowledging that a smaller AEB does not formally imply a smaller global error, and it does not fit parameters to the exact Floquet Hamiltonian. However, the large-N scalability claim is currently supported by a single N=100 integration of the projected equations with no error metric, which limits the strength of the central

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A 3; Figs. 8(b,d), 9] The scalability claim for exponentially large Hilbert spaces rests on the operator-manifold projection, but the projection is validated only at N=5 against the exact variational result. The N=100 demonstration in Fig. 9 reports only the θ_j(t) trajectories; it gives no AEB(T), no global error η(T), and no N-scaling of the error. Because the six-operator Ising pool is not closed under commutation, the projection in Eqs. (17)-(23) discards out-of-pool commutator components at every time step. For example, [O3,O5] in Eq. (E5) contains both a boundary single-body term and an extensive three-body sum; the projected structure constant α^1_35 = 2(N-1)/N retains only the O1 overlap and drops components whose Frobenius norm is not small. This could produce feedback errors that grow with N. The claim that the method is applicable to large systems would be substantially strengthened by performing t
  2. [Sec. II A 4, Eq. (38)] The identity ||R(t)||²_F = Tr[H²(t)] - Σ_j f_j θdot_j is stated without derivation, yet it is the computational basis for the claimed scalable AEB. The relation is plausible from the residual-minimization calculation in Appendix B, but the intermediate steps are not shown and the reader cannot verify that the expected cross terms cancel correctly for the ansatz U_A = exp(-iΣ θ_j O_j). Because the error bound is a central methodological selling point, this derivation should be included explicitly, either in the main text or in Appendix B.
  3. [Sec. II A 3, Eqs. (14)-(17)] The projection step replaces each commutator [O_j,O_k] by its pool projection, effectively assuming that out-of-pool components have zero feedback into the pool. No bound or quantitative estimate is given for the discarded commutator components. For the Ising six-operator pool, the commutators in Eq. (E5) generate extensive three-body strings and boundary terms that are completely dropped. The N=5 match in Figs. 8(b,d) is encouraging, but it does not by itself establish that the discarded norm remains small as N grows. The authors should either derive an estimate of the projection error, show N-scaling of AEB(T) for the projected method, or provide an additional benchmark at larger N against an exact reference.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption uses the misspelling 'Accomulated error bound'; should be 'Accumulated error bound'.
  2. [Sec. II A 4, text after Eq. (37)] The sentence beginning 'Although the AEB provides only an upper bound...' is grammatically incomplete. The point is important and should be rewritten for clarity.
  3. [Eq. (46) and surrounding text] The expression for ϵ(t) for the Magnus expansion is introduced without derivation. It is not central to the paper's claims, but a brief comment or reference would help the reader trust the comparison plotted in Figs. 4-8.
  4. [Sec. II C] The term 'resummation' is used throughout for the variational adaptation of Magnus-generated operator weights. Since no analytic relation to the Magnus series is established, the wording should be understood as an interpretation supported by the numerical examples; stating this explicitly in the text would avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: variational parameters are obtained by integrating the action-principle EOM from θ(0)=0, not by fitting the target Floquet Hamiltonian; self-citations are non-load-bearing and the acknowledged AEB/projection caveats are validation gaps, not construction reductions.

full rationale

The central quantity H_F^var = (1/T)Σ_j θ_j(T)O_j (Eq. 8) is not an input: θ_j(T) solves g_{jk} dθ_k/dt = f_j (Eq. 4) from the stationary-action principle with θ_j(0)=0, and no exact U_F or quasi-energy is used to determine θ_j(T). The action principle and EOM are re-derived in Appendix A (e.g., Eqs. A1–A9), so the citations [49,50] are not load-bearing. External benchmarks (Sambe-space diagonalization, direct ODE integration of the Schrödinger equation for LMG, and the flow-equation method for Rabi) are independent of the fitted/manifold parameters. The 'resummation' claim is an interpretation of improved agreement with those external references, not a renaming of the Magnus coefficients. Two passages assert limitations that should not be mistaken for circularity: (i) Sec. II A 4 concedes 'the AEB provides only an upper bound on the global error and therefore does not mathematically guarantee that a smaller AEB corresponds to a smaller η(t)' and relies on an empirical correlation; (ii) the operator-manifold projection (Sec. II A 3) discards out-of-pool commutator feedback and is validated against the exact variational result only for the six-operator Ising pool at N=5 (Figs. 8b,d), with the N=100 run (Fig. 9) reporting θ_j(t) but no η(T) or AEB(T). These are correctness/validation concerns, not reductions of the predicted Floquet Hamiltonian to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted constants. Its free parameters are the dynamical variational coefficients θ_j(t) (solved from ODEs, not fitted), and the manual choices are the operator pools (4-, 6-, 13-, 19-operator sets). The load-bearing axioms are the ansatz expressiveness and the projection faithfulness.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The exact propagator is well approximated by U_A(t)=exp(−i Σ_j θ_j(t) O_j) for a physically motivated pool {O_j}, with accuracy improvable by enlarging the pool.
    Sec II A 2; this is the core ansatz. For a closed Lie algebra it is exact; for truncated pools it is an approximation without a proven convergence guarantee.
  • domain assumption Out-of-pool commutator components can be dropped when projecting dynamics onto the operator manifold ([O_j,O_k] = i Σ α^ℓ_{jk} O_ℓ with terms outside the pool discarded).
    Sec II A 3, Eq. (14); validated only at N=5 for the Ising 6-operator basis (Figs. 8b,d).
  • domain assumption The stationary action principle with the ansatz yields locally optimal dynamics (the instantaneous squared residual is minimized with respect to θ̇).
    Sec II A 1 and Appendix B; standard time-dependent variational principle, accepted but not derived from first principles.
  • standard math The Frobenius distance between two unitaries is bounded by 2√D, justifying the normalization of the error bound.
    Sec II A 4, Eq. (27); standard norm inequality.
  • standard math The exact time-evolution operator U(t,s) used in the error-bound derivation is unitary (Hermitian H).
    Sec II A 4, Eq. (34); unitarity used to remove U(t,s) from the norm.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 29306 in / 22354 out tokens · 227002 ms · 2026-08-03T07:28:15.970967+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce a variational framework for approximating the time-evolution operator $\hat{U}(t)$ within a physically motivated operator manifold, reformulating quantum dynamics as a tractable problem in operator space using stationary action principle. For periodically driven systems, the resulting approximate evolution operator directly yields an effective Floquet Hamiltonian, offering a non-perturbative alternative to conventional expansion-based methods. The framework is systematically improvable by enlarging the operator pool and naturally incorporates symmetries and physical constraints. When the operator manifold is chosen from the terms of a truncated Magnus expansion, the variational procedure effectively resums the Magnus series within the restricted space, significantly enhancing accuracy. We benchmark the approach on the driven Rabi model, the driven Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, and the one-dimensional driven Ising chain, yielding effective Floquet Hamiltonians that are systematically more accurate than low-order Magnus expansions, particularly in regimes where the latter converge poorly, and illustrating applicability to systems with exponentially large Hilbert spaces. Although we focus here on Floquet systems, the formalism applies equally to generic time-dependent Hamiltonians, providing a versatile tool for non-equilibrium quantum dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29418 by Ibsal Assi, J. P. F. LeBlanc, Meenu Kumari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the variational framework. Given a time-periodic Hamiltonian Hˆ (t) and a physically motivated pool of operators {Oˆ j}, we construct a variational ansatz UˆA(θ(t)) = e −iAˆ(θ(t)) . The action S is optimized to obtain the equations of motion for the variational parameters θ(t). After numerical integration yields the approximate propagator UˆA(θ(T)) = e −iAˆ(θ(T)). If the Hamiltoni… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Variational parameters for the Rabi model using the ansatz in Eq. (61). Only θx(t) and θz(t) survive at the end of the period T = 2π/ω. (b) The accumulated error bound (AEB), defined as R T 0 dt ϵ(t), where ϵ(t) is the local error rate (39). Parameters: κ/ω = 1.5, and ω0/ω = 1. [0, T], as demonstrated by the plot of the accumu￾lated error bound plot in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) A comparison of the quasi-energy gap (in units of ω) for the Rabi model obtained via the variational method, the flow equation approach and the third order Magnus expansion as a function of κ/ω for the resonant case ω = ω0 showing multiple peaks at specific values of the drive κ/ω where the gap vanishes. (b) The coefficients of the Floquet Hamiltonians obtained via the variational approach as functions… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The local error rate ϵ(s) (39), for the LMG model Eq. (67) as a function of ωt for third-order Magnus expansion and the variational approach using the basis operators appearing in the truncated Magnus series. (b-f) Variational parameters as functions of ωt compared with the corresponding Magnus coefficients. Parameters: J/ω = h/ω = 0.2, N = 100. and {Sˆ x, {Sˆ y, Sˆ z}} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Global error η(t) defined in Eq. (27) as a function of t for the LMG model (67). The results are shown for three time-evolution operator ansatz: (i) the third-order Magnus expansion, (ii) the variational approach using an operator pool generated from the Magnus expansion, and (iii) the variational approach using an operator pool generated from the Lie algebra of spin operators up to and including cubic… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: summarises the accumulated error bounds for N = 8, J = 1.0, h = 0.5, and ω = 10. Panel (a) compares the error bounds obtained using the quadratic basis (75) and the cubic basis [(75) and (78)]. The inclusion of three-body operators sig￾nificantly tightens the error bound, confirming that the variational method systematically improves with an enlarged operator manifold. Panel (b) compares the variational me… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Global error η(T) [Eq. (27)] of the approximate Floquet operator for the Ising model [Eq. (74)] as a function of ω/J. The left panels compare the second-order Magnus expansion with our variational approach using the four Magnus operators (4 op), the six basis operators [Eq. (75)], and the 19 basis operators [Eqs. (75) and (78)]. The right panels compare the second-order Magnus expansion, the variational pr… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The variational parameters θj (t) for the six-operators basis [Eq. (75)], obtained using the manifold projection scheme of Sec. II A 3. The system size is N = 100, and the parameters are J = 1, ω = 10J, with (a,b) h = J/2 and (c,d) h = 10J. yond some N. Consequently, the variational param￾eters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗

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

71 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. Yao, L. Lin, and M. Bukov, Reinforcement learn- ing for many-body ground-state preparation in- spired by counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. X11, 031070 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    The time-evolution operator ansatz In this work, we consider the following time- evolution ansatz: ˆUA(θ(t)) =e −i ˆA(θ(t)) (7) where ˆA(θ(t)) = P j θj(t) ˆOj, with{ ˆOj}a pool of Hermitian operators andθ j(t) are real variational parameters with initial conditionsθ j(0) = 0 for all j. The choice of this operator pool is problem- dependent and guided by p...

  3. [3]

    While mathematically correct, these ex- pressions become impractical for large systems be- cause the Hilbert space grows exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom

    Scalability to larger system sizes In the previous section, we provided simple ex- pressions forg jk andf j that rely on diagonalizing ˆA(θ(t)). While mathematically correct, these ex- pressions become impractical for large systems be- cause the Hilbert space grows exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom. For example, in a spin-1/2 chain, ˆA(θ...

  4. [4]

    The global errorη(t), defined be- low as the normalized Frobenius distance between the exact and approximate propagators, provides a direct measure of fidelity

    Error analysis and rigorous error bounds A central question in any variational approach to quantum dynamics is how to assess the accuracy of the approximation without prior knowledge of the exact solution. The global errorη(t), defined be- low as the normalized Frobenius distance between the exact and approximate propagators, provides a direct measure of ...

  5. [5]

    Computational workflow The complete variational method is summarized in Algorithm 1. Given a periodic Hamiltonian and a chosen operator pool, the algorithm integrates the variational EOMs over one period, switching be- tween the exact diagonalization and the projected operator evaluation depending on the Hilbert-space dimension. Once the final parameters ...

    2022

  6. [6]

    Passarelli, R

    G. Passarelli, R. Fazio, and P. Lucignano, Opti- mal quantum annealing: A variational shortcut-to- adiabaticity approach, Phys. Rev. A105, 022618 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    J. L. Montenegro Ferreira, ˆA. F. da Silva Fran¸ ca, A. Rosas, and B. d. L. Bernardo, Shortcuts to adia- baticity designed via time-rescaling follow the same transitionless route, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 59, 025501 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    Shingu and T

    Y. Shingu and T. Hatomura, Geometrical schedul- ing of adiabatic control without information of en- ergy spectra, Phys. Rev. A112, 022410 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Caux and F

    J.-S. Caux and F. H. L. Essler, Time evolution of local observables after quenching to an integrable model, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 257203 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Caux, The quench action, J

    J.-S. Caux, The quench action, J. Stat. Mech.2016, 064006 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    Khatami, M

    E. Khatami, M. Rigol, A. Rela˜ no, and A. M. Garc ´ ıa- Garc ´ ıa, Quantum quenches in disordered systems: Approach to thermal equilibrium without a typical relaxation time, Phys. Rev. E85, 050102(R) (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    Pelissetto, D

    A. Pelissetto, D. Rossini, and E. Vicari, Quantum quenches across continuous and first-order quantum transitions in one-dimensional quantum ising mod- els, Physical Review B113(2026)

    2026

  13. [13]

    N. S. Wingreen, A.-P. Jauho, and Y. Meir, Time- dependent transport through a mesoscopic struc- ture, Phys. Rev. B48, 8487(R) (1993)

    1993

  14. [14]

    Jauho, N

    A.-P. Jauho, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Time- dependent transport in interacting and noninteract- ing resonant-tunneling systems, Phys. Rev. B50, 5528 (1994)

    1994

  15. [15]

    T. S. Deng and F. Yang, Dissipation-driven topolog- ical phase transitions in open quantum systems in- dependent of system hamiltonian, Physical Review B113(2026)

    2026

  16. [16]

    Goker, Kondo resonance in an AC driven quan- tum dot subjected to finite bias, Solid State Com- mun.148, 230 (2008)

    A. Goker, Kondo resonance in an AC driven quan- tum dot subjected to finite bias, Solid State Com- mun.148, 230 (2008)

    2008

  17. [17]

    Potthoff, Static and dynamic variational princi- ples for strongly correlated electron systems, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol

    M. Potthoff, Static and dynamic variational princi- ples for strongly correlated electron systems, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1419 (American Insti- tute of Physics, 2011) pp. 199–258

    2011

  18. [18]

    L. Cort, D. Karlsson, G. Lani, and R. van Leeuwen, Time-dependent density-functional theory for strongly interacting electrons, Phys. Rev. A95, 042505 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Seifi, A

    M. Seifi, A. Soltanmanesh, and A. Shafiee, Mim- icking classical noise in ion channels by quantum decoherence, Scientific Reports14(2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Bukov, L

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, Uni- versal high-frequency behavior of periodically driven systems: from dynamical stabilization to floquet en- gineering, Adv. Phys.64, 139 (2015)

    2015

  21. [21]

    N. H. Lindner, G. Refael, and V. Galitski, Flo- quet topological insulator in semiconductor quan- tum wells, Nat. Phys.7, 490 (2011)

    2011

  22. [22]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Photovoltaic hall effect in 24 graphene, Phys. Rev. B79, 081406 (2009)

    2009

  23. [23]

    J. H. Shirley, Solution of the schr¨ odinger equation with a hamiltonian periodic in time, Phys. Rev.138, B979 (1965)

    1965

  24. [24]

    Sambe, Steady states and quasienergies of a quantum-mechanical system in an oscillating field, Phys

    H. Sambe, Steady states and quasienergies of a quantum-mechanical system in an oscillating field, Phys. Rev. A7, 2203 (1973)

    1973

  25. [25]

    Moessner and S

    R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Equilibration and order in quantum floquet matter, Nat. Phys.13, 424 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    L. Zhou, B. Liu, Y. Liu, Y. Lu, Q. Li, X. Xie, N. Ly- dick, R. Hao, C. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y.-H. Chou, S. R. Forrest, and H. Deng, Cavity flo- quet engineering, Nat. Commun.15, 7782 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Weitenberg and J

    C. Weitenberg and J. Simonet, Tailoring quantum gases by floquet engineering, Nat. Phys.17, 1342 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Floquet-engineering counter- diabatic protocols in quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090602 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    D. M. Kennes, A. de la Torre, A. Ron, D. Hsieh, and A. J. Millis, Floquet engineering in quantum chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 127601 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    Eckardt, Colloquium: Atomic quantum gases in periodically driven optical lattices, Rev

    A. Eckardt, Colloquium: Atomic quantum gases in periodically driven optical lattices, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 011004 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    Zenesini, H

    A. Zenesini, H. Lignier, D. Ciampini, O. Morsch, and E. Arimondo, Coherent control of dressed mat- ter waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 100403 (2009)

    2009

  32. [32]

    Jotzu, M

    G. Jotzu, M. Messer, R. Desbuquois, M. Lebrat, T. Uehlinger, D. Greif, and T. Esslinger, Experi- mental realization of the topological haldane model with ultracold fermions, Nature515, 237 (2014)

    2014

  33. [33]

    W. S. Bakr, P. M. Preiss, M. E. Tai, R. Ma, J. Si- mon, and M. Greiner, Orbital excitation blockade and algorithmic cooling in quantum gases, Nature 480, 500 (2011)

    2011

  34. [34]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. X9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Thibodeau, A

    M. Thibodeau, A. Kou, and B. K. Clark, The flo- quet fluxonium molecule: Driving down dephasing in coupled superconducting qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 040314 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Lauwens, K

    J. Lauwens, K. Moors, and B. Sor´ ee, Optimiza- tion of floquet fluxonium qubits with commensu- rable two-tone drives, Phys. Rev. B113, 054526 (2026)

    2026

  38. [38]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Floquet engineering of quantum materials, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.10, 387 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Luo, Tuning of a bilayer graphene heterostruc- ture by horizontally incident circular polarized light, Phys

    M. Luo, Tuning of a bilayer graphene heterostruc- ture by horizontally incident circular polarized light, Phys. Rev. B103, 195422 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    O. Katz, G. Refael, and N. H. Lindner, Optically in- duced flat bands in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B102, 155123 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    I. A. Assi, J. P. F. LeBlanc, M. Rodriguez-Vega, H. Bahlouli, and M. Vogl, Floquet engineering and nonequilibrium topological maps in twisted trilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B104, 195429 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    G. E. Topp, G. Jotzu, J. W. McIver, L. Xian, A. Ru- bio, and M. A. Sentef, Topological floquet engineer- ing of twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 023031 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    Y. Li, H. A. Fertig, and B. Seradjeh, Floquet- engineered topological flat bands in irradiated twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043275 (2020)

    2020

  44. [44]

    Blanes, F

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. A. Oteo, and J. Ros, The magnus expansion and some of its applications, Phys. Rep.470, 151 (2009)

    2009

  45. [45]

    Rahav, I

    S. Rahav, I. Gilary, and S. Fishman, Effective hamil- tonians for periodically driven systems, Phys. Rev. A68, 013820 (2003)

    2003

  46. [46]

    Martiskainen and N

    H. Martiskainen and N. Moiseyev, Perturbation the- ory for quasienergy floquet solutions in the low- frequency regime of the oscillating electric field, Phys. Rev. A91, 023416 (2015)

    2015

  47. [47]

    D. M. Kennes, N. M¨ uller, M. Pletyukhov, C. Weber, C. Bruder, F. Hassler, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, and H. Schoeller, Chiral one-dimensional floquet topo- logical insulators beyond the rotating wave approx- imation, Phys. Rev. B100, 041103 (2019)

    2019

  48. [48]

    Rodriguez-Vega, M

    M. Rodriguez-Vega, M. Vogl, and G. A. Fiete, Low- frequency and Moir´ e–Floquet engineering: A re- view, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.)435, 168434 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    M. Vogl, P. Laurell, A. D. Barr, and G. A. Fiete, Flow equation approach to periodically driven quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. X9, 021037 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    I. I. Frenkel,Wave mechanics : advanced general theory(Dover, 1950)

    1950

  51. [51]

    P. A. Dirac, Note on exchange phenomena in the thomas atom, inMathematical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society, Vol. 26 (Cambridge University Press, 1930) pp. 376–385

    1930

  52. [52]

    A. D. McLachlan, A variational solution of the time- dependent schrodinger equation, Mol. Phys.8, 39 (1964)

    1964

  53. [53]

    M. Vogl, Variational principle for the time evolu- tion operator, its usefulness in effective theories of condensed matter systems, and insight into the role played by the quantum geometry of unitary trans- formations, Eur. Phys. J. Plus140(2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    I. Assi, M. Vogl, M. Kumari, and J. P. F. LeBlanc, Beyond trotterization: Variational product formulas for quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. B113, 214314 (2026)

    2026

  55. [55]

    Takahashi and A

    K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Krylov sub- space methods for quantum dynamics with time- dependent generators, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 030401 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    P. W. LANGHOFF, S. T. EPSTEIN, and M. KARPLUS, Aspects of time-dependent pertur- bation theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.44, 602 (1972)

    1972

  57. [57]

    R. A. Meyer, C. Musco, C. Musco, and D. P. 25 Woodruff, Hutch++: Optimal stochastic trace esti- mation, inSymposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA)(Society for Industrial and Applied Math- ematics, 2021) pp. 142–155

    2021

  58. [58]

    Ubaru, J

    S. Ubaru, J. Chen, and Y. Saad, Fast estimation of tr(f(a)) via stochastic lanczos quadrature, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications38, 1075 (2017)

    2017

  59. [59]

    H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of op- erators, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society10, 545 (1959)

    1959

  60. [60]

    P. A. M. Casares, W. Maxwell, D. Motlagh, H. Choubisa, Z. Niu, I. Loaiza, J. E. Mueller, A.- C. Voigt, J. M. Arrazola, and S. Fomichev, Theory and practice of trotter product formulas for quan- tum chemistry (2026), arXiv:2606.30741 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Maxwell, P

    W. Maxwell, P. A. M. Casares, R. A. Lang, S. Fomichev, J. M. Arrazola, S. Jahangiri, A. Asadi, L. A. N. Meneses, T. Germain, and D. Motlagh, Practical estimation of trotter error for hamiltonian simulation (2026), arXiv:2606.30738 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Saad,Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Sys- tems, 2nd ed

    Y. Saad,Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Sys- tems, 2nd ed. (SIAM, 2003)

    2003

  63. [63]

    Casas, Sufficient conditions for the convergence of the magnus expansion, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical40, 15001 (2007)

    F. Casas, Sufficient conditions for the convergence of the magnus expansion, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical40, 15001 (2007)

    2007

  64. [64]

    Y. H. Wang, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Observation of Floquet-Bloch states on the surface of a topological insulator, Science342, 453 (2013)

    2013

  65. [65]

    M. C. Rechtsman, J. M. Zeuner, Y. Plotnik, Y. Lumer, D. Podolsky, F. Dreisow, S. Nolte, M. Segev, and A. Szameit, Photonic floquet topo- logical insulators, Nature496, 196 (2013)

    2013

  66. [66]

    A. Dey, D. Lonigro, K. Yuasa, and D. Burgarth, Error bounds for the floquet-magnus expansion and their application to the semiclassical quantum rabi model, Phys. Rev. A112, 053723 (2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    Grossmann, T

    F. Grossmann, T. Dittrich, P. Jung, and P. H¨ anggi, Coherent destruction of tunneling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 516 (1991)

    1991

  68. [68]

    L¨ u and H

    Z. L¨ u and H. Zheng, Effects of counter-rotating interaction on driven tunneling dynamics: Coher- ent destruction of tunneling and bloch-siegert shift, Phys. Rev. A86, 023831 (2012)

    2012

  69. [69]

    Mukherjee, M

    S. Mukherjee, M. Valiente, N. Goldman, A. Spracklen, E. Andersson, P. ¨Ohberg, and R. R. Thomson, Observation of pair tunneling and coherent destruction of tunneling in arrays of optical waveguides, Phys. Rev. A94, 053853 (2016)

    2016

  70. [70]

    H. J. Lipkin, N. Meshkov, and A. J. Glick, Validity of many-body approximation methods for a solvable model, Nucl. Phys.62, 188 (1965)

    1965

  71. [71]

    Gadge, A

    K. Gadge, A. Prem, and R. Jha, Temporal entan- glement transitions in the periodically driven ising chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 100203 (2026)

    2026

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.