Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

A two-tone flat-band drive can stabilize a discrete time crystal in a clean spin chain, freezing thermalization between global spin flips.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 18:11 UTC pith:VBVANQL4

load-bearing objection The central DTC claim collapses on the printed parameters — the spin-flip is a π/2 pulse, not a π pulse, and the flat-band identity's needed drive symmetry is unmet. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.14307 v2 pith:VBVANQL4 submitted 2026-03-15 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-el

Discrete time crystal order in spin chains enabled by Floquet flat bands

Mahbub Rahaman , Analabha Roy This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-el
keywords discrete time crystalFloquet flat bandspin chainthermalization suppressionsubharmonic responseprethermal phasespin-rotation errortime-translation symmetry breaking
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.

The paper claims that a clean, disorder-free spin-1/2 chain can host a discrete time crystal if each drive cycle pairs a global spin flip with a specially engineered 'flat-band' segment. That segment is chosen so its net stroboscopic evolution is the identity, halting many-body dynamics and suppressing thermalization. With perfect tuning, a polarized state then flips every period, giving ⟨σz(nT)⟩=(-1)^n and a sharp subharmonic peak at half the drive frequency, regardless of system size or interaction range. Over long times, interactions push the system toward a prethermal DTC rather than an exact one. The protocol is more tunable than disorder- or dynamical-localization-based DTCs, but it is more sensitive to spin-rotation errors, which can be partly cured by adding a static ZZ interaction.

Core claim

The central claim is that a Floquet drive consisting of a global π-pulse followed by a two-tone flat-band segment makes the full one-period evolution operator exactly a spin flip, U(T)=exp(-iπΣσx/2), for any interaction strength and range. The flat-band segment is engineered so that its own time evolution over the second half-cycle is the identity, producing a fully degenerate quasienergy spectrum and freezing the system's dynamics. Exact time evolution then shows a stable period-doubled magnetization and a pronounced Fourier peak at ω/2, interpreted as a discrete time crystal. Deviations from the ideal protocol produce a prethermal DTC, and an additional static spin-spin interaction restore

What carries the argument

The key object is the two-tone flat-band drive: two noncommuting many-body operators Λ1 and Λ2 are switched with time-periodic square-wave amplitudes λ1,2(t) whose switching points bracket a null point where the Hamiltonian vanishes. The central identity is that, because the amplitudes are odd around the null point, U(T2)=1 for the flat-band segment (via Trotter-Suzuki and Zassenhaus factorization), giving a completely degenerate Floquet quasienergy spectrum. This engineered degeneracy localizes the initial state and suppresses heating, turning the overall one-period propagator into a clean spin-flip pulse.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the claim that the two-tone drive cancels its own dynamics over the second half of each period, an identity that requires the drive amplitudes to be odd around the midpoint and that the explicit square wave used in the numerics may not satisfy.

What would settle it

Compute the Floquet operator for the flat-band segment alone (with the spin-flip drive switched off) using the stated default parameters p=3 and ω0=0. If U(T,T1) is not the identity — or if the quasienergy spectrum is not fully degenerate — then the π-pulse form of the full one-period evolution is not exact, and the observed subharmonic response is a prethermal effect rather than a flat-band-stabilized DTC.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a clean spin chain under this drive will show a stable period-doubled magnetization without disorder, integrability, or fine-tuned freezing points.
  • The flat-band DTC should persist for arbitrary system size and for interaction ranges from nearest-neighbor to all-to-all, unlike MBL- or DMBL-based DTCs.
  • The phase is prethermal: at long times, spin-spin interactions cause a slow drift toward thermal equilibrium, so observed time-crystal order should eventually decay.
  • Spin-rotation errors as small as εr≈0.002 introduce sidebands and beating, making the flat-band DTC less resilient to pulse errors than MBL- or DMBL-based DTCs.
  • Adding a static ZZ interaction to the flat-band Hamiltonian suppresses rotation-error sensitivity in two regimes: strong interactions with high-frequency drive, and weak interactions with low-frequency drive.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The flat-band identity U(T2)=1 depends on an exact odd-symmetry condition around the null point; the square-wave protocol used in the numerics (p=3, ω0=0) may not satisfy this symmetry over the full interval, so the reported degenerate spectrum and π-pulse form of U(T) deserve a direct numerical check.
  • A decisive extension would compare protocols with p=1 (which does satisfy the symmetry) against p=3; if both yield the same ω/2 peak, the mechanism is more forgiving than the proof suggests, and if not, the observed DTC may be a prethermal effect rather than an exact flat-band phase.
  • If confirmed, this establishes a general design principle: any pair of noncommuting drives with a null point can freeze many-body dynamics, suggesting the protocol could be adapted to higher spins, bosonic systems, or two-dimensional lattices without disorder.
  • The paper's comparison with MBL and DMBL DTCs suggests a cost-geometry trade-off between parameter tunability and error resilience that could guide experimental platform choice, but this comparison is only qualitative in the manuscript.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage periodic drive for a clean spin-1/2 chain: a global spin-flip pulse during the first half-period, followed by a two-tone 'flat-band' drive during the second half-period. It claims the two-tone drive engineers a fully degenerate Floquet quasi-energy spectrum, freezes the interacting dynamics, and thereby produces a robust period-doubled subharmonic response interpreted as a discrete time crystal (DTC). Numerical magnetization traces, Fourier spectra, comparisons with MBL and DMBL stabilizations, and a modified protocol with an added σzσz interaction are presented for chains of up to N=14 sites.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would offer a disorder-free, interaction-independent route to DTC order with a broad parameter window. The manuscript contains useful machinery: exact small-system time evolution, Floquet quasi-energy diagonalization, disorder averaging over 960 realizations, and a Magnus expansion for the modified protocol. However, the main 'DTC phase' claim is not supported. In the exact flat-band limit the stroboscopic evolution factorizes into a global pulse and the identity, so the period-doubling is not an emergent many-body phenomenon and has no rigidity. The reported long-time decay in Fig. 5 is also inconsistent with the analytic flat-band identity. The modified protocol in Sec. VI is the most promising part, but it is not analyzed at the level required to establish a prethermal or true DTC phase.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III; Appendix A, Eqs. (A10)/(A14)] The exact flat-band identity makes the full stroboscopic evolution at εr=0 exactly U(T)=exp(-iπ/2 Σσx), up to the flat-band segment being the identity. This is a product of single-spin rotations, and the interactions J, λ0, system size, and interaction range play no role. Consequently, the period-doubled magnetization in Fig. 3 and the 'insensitivity' in Figs. 4–5 are consequences of the engineered identity plus the pulse, not emergent many-body signatures. The operational DTC criteria in Sec. I include rigidity; by the authors' own Fig. 7, the exact protocol loses its period-doubled response for εr ≳ 0.002, much earlier than MBL or DMBL. Labeling the exact flat-band limit a 'DTC phase' is therefore not justified without a separate demonstration of a finite rigidity window.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 5] If Eq. (A10) holds at εr=0, then U(T2)=1 for any interaction range, including all-to-all (β=0). Hence the parity-adjusted order parameter should be Z(nT)=1 for all n and all β. The reported gradual decay in the all-to-all case is thus impossible in the model as described. The text attributes this to 'deviation from flat-band arising from spin-spin interactions', but the modified Hamiltonian in Eq. (5) preserves the same two-tone factors and the same odd symmetry. The authors must state whether the simulation included a finite εr, a static interaction not multiplied by λ1(t), or an approximate integrator; otherwise the numerical data and the analytic identity are mutually inconsistent.
  3. [Secs. IV–V, Figs. 6–7] For the exact flat-band protocol, even with εr>0 the evolution between spin flips remains the identity. The full period evolution is therefore a repeated global rotation U(T)=exp[-i(π/2)(1-εr)Σσx]. The beat patterns in Fig. 6 and the FB-DTC curves in Fig. 7 are single-spin pulse-amplitude errors, not many-body physics; no interaction is needed to produce them. Comparing these curves with MBL and DMBL curves as measures of 'robustness of the DTC phase' conflates an exactly decoupled pulse sequence with interacting many-body phases. The meaningful many-body content in Sec. VI (modified protocol) is more relevant, but the Magnus result Eq. (B15) is essentially a transverse-field Ising model, and the stability windows require more direct evidence—long-time plateaus, finite-size scaling, and explicit dependence on the added interaction—before they can support a DTC-phase claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II] The sentence 'λ_s=ω/2 ... such that λ_s T=π' is confusing. With T1=T/2, the actual pulse angle is λ_sT1=π/2, which is the correct spin-flip condition. The text should state the convention explicitly (generator coefficient versus Bloch-sphere rotation angle) to avoid the factor-of-two confusion that also appears in the stress-test discussion.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A3)] The integration limits in Eq. (A3) are garbled: the evolution operator is written with ∫_T^{T1} and ∫_{T1}^0, which have the wrong orientation and dependence on T. This needs correction.
  3. [Sec. VI A] The sentence defining δΩ1 and δΩ2 is incomplete ('Here, δΩ1=and δΩ2'). Also T′ and T″ are used before their relation to the drive frequencies is fully specified.
  4. [Fig. 4] The y-axis label in panel (a1) appears corrupted ('□1 0 1'); presumably it should be ⟨σz⟩.
  5. [Appendix B] The Magnus derivation fixes p=2 for analytical convenience, while the main text and numerical sections use p=3. The relation between the two should be stated explicitly, since the intermediate commutators and the effective Hamiltonian may depend on p.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

At εr=0 the stroboscopic evolution is reduced to the designed spin-flip pulse, so the ω/2 subharmonic response and the J/N/range insensitivity are inputs of the construction, not emergent predictions; additionally the printed defaults give λsT1=π/2, not π.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. II (spin-flip parameter choice) and Appendix A, Eqs. (A10)-(A11); Sec. III, Fig. 3]
    "If the value of λ_s is set to ω/2 (where ω=2π/T), such that λ_s T=π; then the Hamiltonian Ĥ1 in Eq. (1b) simply flips each spin over the course of its duration. ... ˆU(T,T1)=1 (A10). Therefore, the unitary evolution operator becomes: ˆU(T,0)=exp(−i ˆH_SF T1) (A11)."

    The flat-band segment is constructed so that U(T,T1)=1, leaving as the stroboscopic evolution only the deliberately chosen spin-flip pulse. The parameter λ_s is set precisely so that H_SF 'simply flips each spin', so the period-doubled magnetization and the ω/2 peak of Fig. 3 are the Fourier spectrum of the input pulse, not a consequence of emergent many-body dynamics. The claimed DTC at εr=0 is therefore equivalent to the definition of the drive.

  2. self definitional [Sec. IV.A (spin-coupling variation) and Sec. VII, with Appendix A]
    "The flat-band protocol introduced in Sect. II is designed to achieve perfect localization: the two-tone drive is carefully tuned so that the effective Floquet operator reduces to the identity at integer multiples of the time period, thereby freezing all dynamics (see Appendix A). ... The results reveal that the 2T-DTC phase emerges robustly across the entire range of spin-spin interaction strengths."

    The insensitivity to spin-spin interaction strength (and the analogous insensitivity to system size and interaction range) is not a discovered robustness property: Eq. (A10) gives U(T,T1)=1 for any J once the two-tone symmetry is imposed. The protocol is 'carefully tuned' to make the Floquet operator the identity, so statements such as 'suppresses thermalization' and 'insensitive to interaction strength' are restatements of that engineered identity rather than predictions derived from it.

full rationale

The analytic proof of the flat-band identity (Appendix A) is self-contained and, if its symmetry assumption A1 holds, it does establish U(T,T1)=1. The circularity enters at the interpretive step: with U(T,T1)=1, Eq. (A11) says the entire stroboscopic evolution is just the spin-flip term, whose parameters were chosen to produce flipping. Hence the ω/2 subharmonic response and the J/N/range insensitivity at εr=0 are the designed inputs renamed as predictions. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; refs. [63,64] are not by the authors and the proof is in the paper. The εr-melting study and the modified protocol of Sec. VI contain independent content (Magnus expansion and numerical exploration), which prevents the whole paper from being wholly definitional. A further correctness defect independent of circularity is that the printed defaults T1=T/2 and λ_s=ω/2 give λ_sT1=π/2, so exp(−iH_SF T1) is a π/2 rotation and the claimed ⟨σz(nT)⟩=(−1)^n does not follow from the equations as written.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are postulated. The flat-band protocol is an engineered drive, not an entity. The free parameters are hand-set drive/error parameters; the most consequential is λs, which is stated inconsistently with the claimed π-pulse.

free parameters (5)
  • λs (spin-flip amplitude) = 10 (ω/2)
    Chosen to make λs T=π, but under T1=T/2 it yields a π/2 pulse; the value actually required for the claimed π-flip is λs=2ω=40 (or T1=T).
  • λ0 (flat-band drive amplitude) = 0.18
    Set to minimize the width of the Floquet spectrum, following prior work [63]; not derived.
  • ω1 (second drive amplitude) = λ0 J / 2 = 0.09
    Chosen by hand to define the two-tone drive; no constraint from the target result.
  • p (frequency multiplier of λ2) = 3 (default)
    Chosen to ensure flat-band and minimal spectrum width [63]; but p=3 breaks the odd symmetry needed for the exact identity.
  • λf (added interaction strength) = 0.7 λ0 (varied)
    Hand-picked in the modified protocol to demonstrate robust windows; no systematic scan or criterion.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The drives satisfy λ1,2(α1T+t')=-λ1,2(α1T-t') (Eq. A1)
    Needed for the flat-band identity U(T2)=1; not satisfied by the stated λ2 with p=3, ω0=0 (constant across 3T/4).
  • domain assumption First-order Suzuki-Trotter and Zassenhaus expansions are valid at the drive frequencies
    Used in Appendix A to argue U(T,T1)=1; the exact identity would hold piecewise without expansion, but the paper relies on the expansion.
  • domain assumption The system is closed and exact time evolution is converged
    QuTiP propagator results assumed numerically exact; no convergence checks or truncation error estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper The long-time drift toward thermal equilibrium in Figs. 5-6 reflects a prethermal DTC rather than numerical error
    No rigorous prethermal timescale (e.g., Kuwahara-Mori bound) is provided; the interpretation is asserted.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21347 in / 23004 out tokens · 204454 ms · 2026-08-02T18:11:14.199366+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a novel protocol to realize discrete time-crystal (DTC) order in clean, periodically driven spin-$1/2$ chains. In each drive cycle, a global spin flip is followed by a two-tone flat-band segment. This flat-band segment engineers a fully degenerate Floquet quasienergy spectrum, suppresses thermalization, and stabilizes a robust period-doubled subharmonic response. Using exact time evolution, we identify a pronounced subharmonic peak at half the drive frequency in the Fourier spectrum of the order parameter, thereby providing clear evidence for the emergence of stable DTC. The resulting phase is insensitive to system size, interaction strength, and interaction range; however, it remains sensitive to spin-rotation errors ($\varepsilon_r$), which can destabilize the subharmonic response. Compared with disorder-induced many-body localized (MBL) and disorder-free dynamically many-body localized (DMBL) DTCs, we find that the exact flat-band protocol offers a broader tunability of drive parameters, whereas MBL and DMBL based DTCs are more resistant to $\varepsilon_r$. In particular, the $\varepsilon_r$ sensitivity can be suppressed by incorporating additional spin-spin interactions that have modest deviations from the ideal flat-band protocol. This manifests itself in a robust DTC response over a finite window of spin-coupling strengths and drive frequencies. Our results establish flat-band driving as a versatile and experimentally relevant route to DTC order in disorder-free spin systems and motivate further exploration of nonequilibrium phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.14307 by Analabha Roy, Mahbub Rahaman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Three time dependent drives [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Quasi-energy spectrum of the proposed flat-band protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The top panel (a) illustrates the temporal variation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Temporal evolution of the magnetization order parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Panels (a–f) display the temporal evolution of the magneti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Schematic representation of the drive protocol for the pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Temporal evolution of magnetization for different spin rota [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Fidelity of the DTC phase as a function of deviations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Temporal evolution of the magnetization order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparative stability analysis of the DTC phase under the modified flat-band protocol. Panels (a–d) present results incorporating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.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

81 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. M. Walter Greiner,Quantum Mechanics(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Strocchi,Symmetry Breaking(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021)

    F. Strocchi,Symmetry Breaking(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    C. M. Bender and D. W. Hook, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 045002 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Ziaeepour, Journal of Physics: Conference Series626, 012074 (2015)

    H. Ziaeepour, Journal of Physics: Conference Series626, 012074 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Lombardi and S

    O. Lombardi and S. Fortin, The role of symmetry in the inter- pretation of quantum mechanics (2016), arXiv:1602.07160

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Mack and V

    G. Mack and V. Schomerus, Journal of Geometry and Physics 11, 361 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    Harlow and H

    D. Harlow and H. Ooguri, Communications in Mathematical Physics383, 1669 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    C.M.Bender,A.Felski,S.P.Klevansky,andS.Sarkar,Journal of Physics: Conference Series2038, 012004 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Gripaios, O

    B. Gripaios, O. Randal-Williams, and J. Tooby-Smith, Journal of Geometry and Physics201, 105212 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    WILLENBROCK, Symmetries of the standard model, in PhysicsInD>=4Tasi2004(WorldScientific,2004)pp.3–38

    S. WILLENBROCK, Symmetries of the standard model, in PhysicsInD>=4Tasi2004(WorldScientific,2004)pp.3–38

    2004

  11. [11]

    Bernabeu, Symmetries in the standard model, inFundamen- tal Physics and Physics Education Research, edited by B

    J. Bernabeu, Symmetries in the standard model, inFundamen- tal Physics and Physics Education Research, edited by B. G. Sidharth, J. C. Murillo, M. Michelini, and C. Perea (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021) pp. 3–16

    2021

  12. [12]

    XIX, 327

    R.Matthew,Mathematicsandparticlephysics,inSymmetryand the Standard Model(Springer New York, NY, 2014) pp. XIX, 327

    2014

  13. [13]

    C.Wu,Thesymmetryprincipleincondensedmatterphysics(i), inA Festschrift in Honor of the C N Yang Centenary(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2022) p. 413–473

    2022

  14. [14]

    McGreevy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 57 (2023)

    J. McGreevy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 57 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    N. S. Yanofsky and M. Zelcer, Foundations of Science22, 495 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    Brauner, Spontaneous symmetry breaking, inEffective Field Theory for Spontaneously Broken Symmetry(Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 2024) pp

    T. Brauner, Spontaneous symmetry breaking, inEffective Field Theory for Spontaneously Broken Symmetry(Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 2024) pp. 61–84

    2024

  17. [17]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Statistical Physics, 3rd ed. (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England, 1996)

    1996

  18. [18]

    Goldenfeld,Lectures on Phase Transitions and the Renor- malization Group(Addison-Wesley, 1992)

    N. Goldenfeld,Lectures on Phase Transitions and the Renor- malization Group(Addison-Wesley, 1992)

    1992

  19. [19]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  20. [20]

    M. O. Goerbig, Quantum hall effects (2009), arXiv:0909.1998 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  21. [21]

    Basko, I

    D. Basko, I. Aleiner, and B. Altshuler, Annals of Physics321, 1126 (2006)

    2006

  22. [22]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6, 15–38 (2015)

    2015

  23. [23]

    X7, 021013 (2017)

    V.Khemani,S.P.Lim,D.N.Sheng,andD.A.Huse,Phys.Rev. X7, 021013 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Reviews of 14 Modern Physics91, 10.1103/revmodphys.91.021001 (2019)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.021001 2019

  25. [25]

    Fazio, Phys

    F.Iemini,A.Russomanno,J.Keeling,M.Schirò,M.Dalmonte, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 035301 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    B. Buča, J. Tindall, and D. Jaksch, Nature Communications10, 10.1038/s41467-019-09757-y (2019)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09757-y 2019

  27. [27]

    Sacha,Time Crystals, Springer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics, Vol

    K. Sacha,Time Crystals, Springer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics, Vol. 114 (Springer International Publish- ing, 2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Shapere and F

    A. Shapere and F. Wilczek, Physical Review Letters109, 10.1103/physrevlett.109.160402 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.160402 2012

  29. [29]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 160401 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    Bruno, Phys

    P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 070402 (2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    Nozières, Europhysics Letters103, 57008 (2013)

    P. Nozières, Europhysics Letters103, 57008 (2013)

    2013

  32. [32]

    Watanabe and M

    H. Watanabe and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 251603 (2015)

    2015

  33. [33]

    Sacha, Phys

    K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. A91, 033617 (2015)

    2015

  34. [34]

    D.V.Else,B.Bauer,andC.Nayak,Phys.Rev.Lett.117,090402 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    Pagano, I.-D

    J.Zhang,P.W.Hess,A.Kyprianidis,P.Becker,A.Lee,J.Smith, G. Pagano, I.-D. Potirniche, A. C. Potter, A. Vishwanath, N. Y. Yao, and C. Monroe, Nature543, 217 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    M.Ippoliti,K.Kechedzhi,R.Moessner,S.Sondhi,andV.Khe- mani, PRX Quantum2, 030346 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Choi, Journal of the Korean Physical Society82, 875 (2023)

    J.-y. Choi, Journal of the Korean Physical Society82, 875 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Russomanno, F

    A. Russomanno, F. Iemini, M. Dalmonte, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. B95, 214307 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)

    2046

  40. [40]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  41. [41]

    Hauschild, F

    J. Hauschild, F. Heidrich-Meisner, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B94, 161109 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Chandra, M

    R. Chandra, M. Rahaman, S. Majumder, A. Roy, and S. Sarkar, Integrable floquet time crystals in one dimension (2025), arXiv:2510.04326 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Schäfer, G

    R. Schäfer, G. S. Uhrig, and J. Stolze, Physical Review B100, 184301 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    Rahaman, A

    M. Rahaman, A. Sakurai, and A. Roy, New Journal of Physics 26, 063035 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    W. C. Yu, J. Tangpanitanon, A. W. Glaetzle, D. Jaksch, and D. G. Angelakis, Phys. Rev. A99, 033618 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    B.Huang,Y.-H.Wu,andW.V.Liu,Phys.Rev.Lett.120,110603 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    Anisur, W

    S. Anisur, W. V. Liu, and S. Choudhury, Entropy27, 10.3390/e27060609 (2025)

    doi:10.3390/e27060609 2025

  48. [48]

    Choudhury, Atoms9, 10.3390/atoms9020025 (2021)

    S. Choudhury, Atoms9, 10.3390/atoms9020025 (2021)

    work page doi:10.3390/atoms9020025 2021

  49. [49]

    C. Lyu, S. Choudhury, C. Lv, Y. Yan, and Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033070 (2020)

    2020

  50. [50]

    H.BiswasandS.Choudhury,Discretetimecrystalsinthespin-s central spin model (2025), arXiv:2505.13207 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Biswas and S

    H. Biswas and S. Choudhury, The floquet central spin model: A platform to realize eternal time crystals, entanglement steer- ing, and multiparameter metrology (2025), arXiv:2501.18472 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    L.Zhang,V.Khemani,andD.A.Huse,Phys.Rev.B94,224202 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    N. Y. Yao, A. C. Potter, I.-D. Potirniche, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 030401 (2017)

    2017

  54. [54]

    Randall, C

    J. Randall, C. E. Bradley, F. V. van der Gronden, A. Galicia, M. H. Abobeih, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, F. Machado, N. Y. Yao, and T. H. Taminiau, Science374, 1474 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    S. Choi, J. Choi, R. Landig, G. Kucsko, H. Zhou, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, S. Onoda, H. Sumiya, V. Khemani, C. von Keyser- lingk, N. Y. Yao, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Nature543, 221 (2017)

    2017

  56. [56]

    Pizzi, J

    A. Pizzi, J. Knolle, and A. Nunnenkamp, Nature Communica- tions12, 2341 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    V. K. Kozin and O. Kyriienko, Physical Review Letters123, 210602 (2019)

    2019

  58. [58]

    Das, Phys

    A. Das, Phys. Rev. B82, 172402 (2010)

    2010

  59. [59]

    Haldar, D

    A. Haldar, D. Sen, R. Moessner, and A. Das, Phys. Rev. X11, 021008 (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    Rahaman, T

    M. Rahaman, T. Mori, and A. Roy, Phys. Rev. B109, 104311 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Ashhab, J

    S. Ashhab, J. R. Johansson, A. M. Zagoskin, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A75, 063414 (2007)

    2007

  62. [62]

    Morningstar, L

    A. Morningstar, L. Colmenarez, V. Khemani, D. J. Luitz, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B105, 174205 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    Banerjee, S

    T. Banerjee, S. Choudhury, and K. Sengupta, New Journal of Physics27, 084506 (2025)

    2025

  64. [64]

    Ghosh, S

    K. Ghosh, S. Choudhury, D. Sen, and K. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. B112, 155142 (2025)

    2025

  65. [65]

    U.DivakaranandK.Sengupta,Phys.Rev.B90,184303(2014)

    2014

  66. [66]

    J. Naji, R. Jafari, L. Zhou, and A. Langari, Phys. Rev. B106, 094314 (2022)

    2022

  67. [67]

    J. D. Sau and K. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. B90, 104306 (2014)

    2014

  68. [68]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Giguère, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Suárez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python (2024), arXiv:2412.04705 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    J. H. Shirley, Phys. Rev.138, B979 (1965)

    1965

  70. [70]

    Sambe, Phys

    H. Sambe, Phys. Rev. A7, 2203 (1973)

    1973

  71. [71]

    Holthaus, Journalof PhysicsB: Atomic, Molecular andOp- tical Physics49, 013001 (2015)

    M. Holthaus, Journalof PhysicsB: Atomic, Molecular andOp- tical Physics49, 013001 (2015)

    2015

  72. [72]

    G. B. Mbeng, A. Russomanno, and G. E. Santoro, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 082 (2024)

    2024

  73. [73]

    A. S. Buyskikh, M. Fagotti, J. Schachenmayer, F. Essler, and A. J. Daley, Phys. Rev. A93, 053620 (2016)

    2016

  74. [74]

    V.Khemani,A.Lazarides,R.Moessner,andS.L.Sondhi,Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 250401 (2016)

    2016

  75. [75]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  76. [76]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nature Physics16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  77. [77]

    Das and B

    N.HatanoandM.Suzuki,Findingexponentialproductformulas ofhigherorders,inQuantumAnnealingandOtherOptimization Methods, edited by A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005) pp. 37–68

    2005

  78. [78]

    Casas, A

    F. Casas, A. Murua, and M. Nadinic, Computer Physics Com- munications183, 2386 (2012)

    2012

  79. [79]

    Dupays and J.-C

    L. Dupays and J.-C. Pain, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical56, 255202 (2023)

    2023

  80. [80]

    Kimura, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2017, 041A03 (2017)

    T. Kimura, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2017, 041A03 (2017)

    2017

Showing first 80 references.