Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Qubit thermodynamics: Entropy production from nonadiabatic driving

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a qubit driven through a Landau-Zener sweep, entropy production defined against the equilibrium of the optimal superadiabatic frame accumulates nearly monotonically, making nonadiabatic error legible as thermodynamic entropy.

desk verdict A coherent, honest conceptual paper whose central near-monotonicity claim is real but rests on a single displayed curve; it deserves peer review and revision, not desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16570 v1 pith:VXWJ45TQ submitted 2025-06-19 quant-ph

Pavel Zhelnin , Lucas Johns , Carlos A. Argüelles This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords qubitthermodynamicsentropyproductionLandau-Zenersuperadiabaticframesnonadiabaticdrivingcoarse-grainedLandau-Zener-Stückelberg-Majoranainterferometryquantumcontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether nonadiabatic error in coherent qubit control can be treated as entropy production, even though the dynamics are unitary and no environment is involved. Using the Landau-Zener sweep as a testbed, it finds that when the qubit's instantaneous equilibrium is defined by projecting its Bloch vector onto the effective Hamiltonian direction, the coarse-grained entropy production is highly non-monotonic in the ordinary adiabatic frame but becomes nearly monotonic in the optimal superadiabatic frame. The central claim is that the second law $dS/dt \geq 0$ is not strictly obeyed by unitary driving, yet it is much more nearly obeyed in some frames than others. For arbitrary initial states, entropy can decrease, but the decrease is extremely sensitive to sweep duration and rate, so engineering it requires precise control.

What carries the argument

The central object is the superadiabatic frame: an iterated basis choice obtained by repeatedly diagonalizing the effective Hamiltonian, so that more of the time-dependence is absorbed into the basis at each step. The effective Hamiltonian in the nth frame is $H^{E_n}_{\mathrm{eff}} = H^{E_n} + C^{E_n}$, with $C^{E_n}$ the nonadiabatic correction; the adiabaticity parameter $Q_n(t) = |H^{E_n}| / |C^{E_n}|$ selects the optimal frame as the one with the largest minimum value of $Q_n(t)$ over the sweep. In each frame, equilibrium is prescribed by the projection formula $P_{\mathrm{eq}} = s|\hat H \cdot P|\hat H$ applied to $H^{E_n}_{\mathrm{eff}}$, and entropy production is $\Delta S(t) = S(P_{\mathrm{eq}}(t)) - S(P_{\mathrm{eq}}(t_i))$. The mechanism works by making the nonadiabatic perturbation acting on the Bloch vector as small as possible, and in that frame the entropy accumulation is nearly monotonic.

What would settle it

For a Landau-Zener sweep with a fixed rate such as $\epsilon=0.89$, compute $\Delta S(t)$ in the second superadiabatic frame using Eq. (12) over a window reaching well past the resonance; a sustained decrease in $\Delta S$ after the resonance, beyond small decaying oscillations, would refute the near-monotonicity claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the choice of time-dependent frame determines whether nonadiabatic driving looks irreversible. For Landau-Zener driving, $\Delta S(t)$ defined through the equilibrium projection $P_{\mathrm{eq}} = s|\hat H \cdot P|\hat H$ is strongly non-monotonic in the lab frame and first superadiabatic frame, but nearly monotonic in the optimal superadiabatic frame, identified by maximizing the minimum adiabaticity parameter $Q_n$. This gives a thermodynamic interpretation of nonadiabatic error in unitary control: fine-grained phase information is effectively lost by dephasing and coarse-graining, so entropy production tracks control error. The paper further claims that in single-passage Landau-Zener-Stückelberg-Majorana interferometry with arbitrary initial states, entropy reduction is possible but requires exquisite control of the sweep parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis depends on defining the qubit's momentary equilibrium by projecting its Bloch vector onto the instantaneous effective Hamiltonian direction; that projection is a choice, and a different equilibrium definition could eliminate the near-monotonic entropy growth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nonadiabatic error in a unitary control protocol carries a thermodynamic cost that can be quantified as entropy production, so faster sweeps trade speed against a cost that exists even without an environment.
  • The optimal superadiabatic frame supplies a preferred, frame-dependent definition of equilibrium for a driven qubit, and within that frame the second law holds approximately.
  • Because a time-dependent Hamiltonian has no unique instantaneous energy eigenstates, the entropy of a driven system is inherently frame-dependent; this ambiguity cannot be removed by any single choice.
  • For initially coherent states, entropy reduction across a single Landau-Zener sweep is possible, and the sign and size of $\Delta S$ are controlled by the initial phase relative to the resonance, with a transitionless boundary separating entropy-increasing from entropy-decreasing regions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-monotonicity found in the Landau-Zener case extends to other schedules, superadiabatic frames could provide a variational way to define the 'natural' equilibrium of any slowly driven system, making control-error budgets into entropy budgets.
  • The same frame ambiguity appears in cosmological particle production and neutrino flavor evolution; one could test whether an optimal superadiabatic frame makes entropy production monotonic in those settings as well.
  • The equilibrium projection is a definition rather than a derived result, so a decisive test is whether measured fidelity loss in a driven qubit tracks $\Delta S$ computed in the optimal frame; if it does, the thermodynamic reading is predictive rather than interpretive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript defines a frame-dependent, coarse-grained entropy production for a single qubit undergoing unitary driving. The equilibrium Bloch vector is defined by Eq. (12) as the projection P_eq = s|hat H·P|hat H of the instantaneous state onto the direction of the (effective) Hamiltonian, and entropy production is ΔS(t)=S(P_eq(t))-S(P_eq(t_i)) (Eq. 13). For the Landau–Zener Hamiltonian H(t)=σ_x+εtσ_z, the paper shows numerically that ΔS is strongly non-monotonic in the lab and first adiabatic frames, but 'nearly monotonic' in the optimal superadiabatic frame selected by maximizing the adiabaticity parameter Q_min^n (Eqs. 26–28), with an explicit example at ε=0.89 in the n=2 frame (Fig. 2). It then maps ΔS after a single sweep for arbitrary initial states on the Bloch sphere (Figs. 5, 6), finding a dipole pattern whose orientation is highly sensitive to the sweep rate and duration, and concludes that negative ΔS ('second law violations') is possible but requires precise control.

Significance. If the near-monotonicity result held generally, the paper would provide a useful thermodynamic interpretation of nonadiabatic error in unitary qubit control and a criterion for choosing a frame in which a coarse-grained entropy obeys something close to the second law. The work is explicit about the frame-dependence of equilibrium and entropy, and the numerical scans over initial states (Figs. 5 and 6) are a useful, falsifiable mapping of when ΔS is positive. However, the central claim is currently supported by a single displayed parameter point and rests on an ad hoc, state-dependent equilibrium definition, so the significance is conditional on the additional evidence requested below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Figs. 2–4 and abstract] The central claim that entropy production is 'nearly monotonic' in the optimal superadiabatic frame is supported by only one displayed curve: ε=0.89 in the n=2 frame of Fig. 2. For the other adiabatic sweep rate considered, ε=0.34, the optimal frame is identified as n=4 in Fig. 3, but no ΔS(t) curve is shown in that frame, and no quantitative measure of 'nearly monotonic' (e.g., the integral of negative dΔS/dt, or the maximum downward jump) is provided anywhere. As a result, the abstract's statement that 'we show that entropy increases nearly monotonically' is stronger than the evidence. Please supply the entropy-production curves for the optimal frames for both ε values, give a quantitative monotonicity metric, and adjust the wording of the central claim accordingly.
  2. [§II, Eq. (12)] The equilibrium state defined in Eq. (12), P_eq = s|hat H·P|hat H, is a state-dependent projection of the instantaneous Bloch vector rather than a state determined by the Hamiltonian alone; it therefore does not describe relaxation toward a pre-existing thermal ensemble. The ergodic motivation in Eq. (11) requires a time-scale separation between the precession period (which for the Landau–Zener Hamiltonian is at most π) and the Hamiltonian-variation time (∼1/ε); for ε=0.89 these scales are comparable and for ε=0.34 only marginally separated, so Eq. (12) cannot be justified by coarse-graining in the regimes studied. Since the paper's thermodynamic interpretation and the phrase 'violations of the second law' in the abstract depend on this choice, the authors should either provide a separate physical justification for Eq. (12) or explicitly state that all conclusions are properties of this particular state-dependent definition rather than of a thermal second law.
  3. [§IV, Figs. 5 and 6] The frame in which ΔS is evaluated for the arbitrary-initial-state scans is not stated in Sec. IV. Given that the paper's main message is the frame-dependence of ΔS, the dipole patterns in Figs. 5 and 6 and the associated claim that 'violations of the second law' require exquisite control are ambiguous without specifying whether the lab frame, the ordinary adiabatic frame, or a superadiabatic frame is used. Please state the frame explicitly for all numerical results in this section.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eq. (12)] The alignment factor s=±1 is never defined; presumably s=sign(hat H·P), including the case hat H·P=0, but this should be stated explicitly.
  2. [§III, Eqs. (24)–(26)] The notation H^{En} in Eq. (26) is unclear: specify whether it is the diagonal part of H_eff^{En} and how the recursive diagonalization is implemented for the 2×2 case, especially for n=4.
  3. [Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 captions] The figure captions in the text contain garbled axis labels (e.g., '[- (t0 - δt),t0 - δt]'); please ensure the final figures have clean, legible labels.
  4. [§V, Acknowledgments] The phrase 'CAA are supported' should be 'CAA is supported' (or the full name should be spelled out).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimal superadiabatic frame is selected by the Q adiabaticity criterion independently of the entropy curve, and Eq. (12) is an openly stated, frame-dependent equilibrium definition rather than a hidden fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Entropy production is defined in Eq. (13) via the frame-dependent projection Eq. (12), but the paper states that equilibrium is ambiguous for a time-dependent Hamiltonian and does not present Eq. (12) as a derived thermal law: "there are no unique thermal equilibrium states under a time-dependent Hamiltonian." The optimal superadiabatic frame is selected by the adiabaticity parameter Q_n (Eq. (26)) and the frame-independent Q (Eq. (28)); this criterion does not involve S(P_eq), so the near-monotonicity finding is not a fit relabeled as a prediction. The paper explicitly separates adiabaticity from entropy monotonicity: "maximally adiabatic evolution is logically distinct from maximally monotonic entropy growth." The Landau-Zener asymptotic entropy is used as an external consistency benchmark, not as an input. The self-citations (Refs. [27], [29], [31]) are contextual (neutrino physics) and not load-bearing. The paper's own limitation in Sec. V, "We leave for future work a determination of the extent to which this finding generalizes," concerns scope of evidence, not circularity. No quoted step exhibits a reduction of the claimed result to its own definition or to a fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on a state-dependent, frame-dependent definition of equilibrium (Eq. 12), imported superadiabatic-frame machinery from Refs. [7,8,10-12], and the standard Landau-Zener transition formula. No external data are fitted; the reported quantities are analytic and numerical consequences of the definitions. The coarse-graining window is invoked in Eq. (6) but never explicitly specified, and the numerical entropy uses the projection formula rather than a finite-window time average.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Bloch vector obeys dP/dt = H x P (Eq. 2).
    This follows from the von Neumann equation under the Pauli decomposition in Eq. (1); it is the exact unitary evolution used throughout the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The temporal average of P over a precession orbit equals the projection of P onto the Hamiltonian axis (Eq. 12).
    This is the paper's definition of equilibrium, introduced in Sec. II. Entropy production and its monotonicity are measured relative to this definition, so the central claim depends on it.
  • domain assumption Iterated instantaneous diagonalization of effective Hamiltonians produces superadiabatic frames, and the frame maximizing Q_min is the optimal frame (Eqs. 26-28).
    The paper imports this from Refs. [7,8,10-12]; it is used to identify the frame in which entropy is then found to be nearly monotonic.
  • domain assumption The Landau-Zener transition probability p_LZ = exp(-pi/epsilon) applies to the full sweep (Eq. 19).
    This standard result is used to compute the asymptotic entropy Delta S_LZ against which the numerical curves are compared.
  • ad hoc to paper Coarse-grained entropy production can be assigned to a closed unitary system without an external reservoir.
    The entire framework assumes that temporal coarse-graining alone justifies thermodynamic language; this is stated in Sec. II and is not derived from an underlying open-system model.
invented entities (1)
  • Frame-dependent equilibrium ensemble f_eq (Eq. 12)
    purpose: Provides a reference equilibrium state for defining entropy production in an isolated, unitarily evolving qubit.
    It is a formal construction: projection of the Bloch vector onto the instantaneous Hamiltonian axis. The paper offers no independent falsifiable handle for it, so it functions as a modeling postulate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Qubit thermodynamics: Entropy production from nonadiabatic driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXWJ45TQ

@misc{pith2026250616570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Qubit thermodynamics: Entropy production from nonadiabatic driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXWJ45TQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16570}
}
read the original abstract

Adiabaticity is a cornerstone of many promising approaches to quantum control, computing, and simulation. In practice, however, there is always a trade-off. Although the deleterious effects of noise can be diminished by running a control schedule more quickly, this benefit comes at the expense of nonadiabaticity. To put these two unwanted effects on the same theoretical footing, we analyze the nonadiabatic error in qubit control as a form of entropy production, examining the mechanism by which fine-grained information is effectively lost despite the dynamics being fundamentally unitary. A crucial issue here is the question of how to define equilibrium under a time-dependent Hamiltonian. Using the Landau--Zener protocol as a test case, we show that entropy increases nearly monotonically when equilibrium is defined with respect to the effective Hamiltonian in the optimal superadiabatic frame. We then consider single-passage Landau--Zener--St\"{u}ckelberg--Majorana interferometry, in which the initial state of the qubit is arbitrary. Violations of the second law of thermodynamics are possible but require exquisite control to achieve deliberately.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Numerical solutions of Landau–Zener protocols in the lab frame. Results are shown for three choices of sweep-rate parameter ϵ: 0.34, 0.89, and 5 (from left to right). In the upper panels, red and blue curves show the Bloch-sphere trajectories of the Hamiltonian and qubit Bloch vectors H and P . In the lower panels, the red curves show the coarse￾grained entropy production ∆S over time and the dashed lines show the L… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Adiabaticity parameter Q in different superadiabatic frames for the ϵ = 0.34 Landau– Zener protocol. The n = 4 frame has the largest Q min and is therefore optimal. Only the most relevant segments of the Q evolution are displayed; Q increases in all frames beyond t = 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Adiabaticity parameter Q in different superadiabatic frames for the ϵ = 0.89 Landau– Zener protocol. In this case, the optimal frame is n = 2, as discussed previously in connection with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Entropy production ∆S from a single Landau–Zener sweep in the adiabatic regime. Within each panel, the color of a cell corresponds to ∆S experienced by a qubit with an initial state in the cell. Numerical results are shown for reference values of t0 = 100 and ϵ = 0.34 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Entropy production ∆S from a sin￾gle Landau–Zener sweep in the diabatic regime. Here reference values of t0 = 100 and ϵ = 5 are used. The shift in t0 is δt = 0.1. Compare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. High-performance neuromorphic computing architecture of brain

    physics.bio-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper asserts that 'neural spheres', modeled with chaos and fractal theory, explain brain information processing and predict a storage capacity of 7.48x10^18 bytes and a computational power of 6.24x10^18 FLOPS for...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    limit, but the sensitivity to ∆tandϵ—which in practice are necessarily finite and nonzero, respectively—indicates that exquisite control is required to take advantage of the phase informa- tion of qubit states that are initially away from the poles. Intuitively, the relationship between the initial and final states is tenuous due to the long evolu- tion t...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    H. Wu, E. M. Gauger, R. E. George, M. M¨ ott¨ onen, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, K. M. Itoh, M. L. W. Thewalt, and J. J. L. Morton, Phys. Rev. A87, 032326 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    J. M. Martinis and M. R. Geller, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022307 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Huang, Y.-K

    Y.-Y. Huang, Y.-K. Wu, F. Wang, P.-Y. Hou, W.-B. Wang, W.-G. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, Y.-Q. Liu, H.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. Zhang, L. He, X.-Y. Chang, Y. Xu, and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 010503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Ribeiro and A

    H. Ribeiro and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. A100, 032323 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Setiawan, P

    F. Setiawan, P. Groszkowski, H. Ribeiro, and A. A. Clerk, PRX Quantum2, 030306 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Deschamps, G

    M. Deschamps, G. Kervern, D. Massiot, G. Pin- tacuda, L. Emsley, and P. J. Grandinetti, J. Chem. Phys.129, 204110 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Vandermause and C

    J. Vandermause and C. Ramanathan, Phys. Rev. A93, 052329 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and B. K. Meister, J. Phys. A33, 4427 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond.414, 31 (1987)

    1987

  4. [12]

    M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond.429, 61 (1990)

    1990

  5. [13]

    Lim and M

    R. Lim and M. V. Berry, J. Phys. A24, 3255 (1991)

    1991

  6. [14]

    M. V. Berry, J. Phys. A42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    M. G. Bason, M. Viteau, N. Malossi, P. Huillery, E. Arimondo, D. Ciampini, R. Fazio, V. Giovan- netti, R. Mannella, and O. Morsch, Nat. Phys. 8, 147 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, S. Mart´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. H¨ anggi, and P. Talkner, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 771 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Shevchenko, S

    S. Shevchenko, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep.492, 1 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    M. P. Silveri, J. A. Tuorila, E. V. Thuneberg, and G. S. Paraoanu, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 056002 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    O. V. Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep.995, 1 (2023), nonadia- batic Landau-Zener-St¨ uckelberg-Majorana tran- sitions, dynamics, and interference

    2023

  14. [22]

    Dabrowski and G

    R. Dabrowski and G. V. Dunne, Phys. Rev. D 90, 025021 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Dabrowski and G

    R. Dabrowski and G. V. Dunne, Phys. Rev. D 94, 065005 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Yamada, J

    Y. Yamada, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021 (09), 009

    2021

  17. [25]

    ´Alvarez-Dom´ ınguez, L

    A. ´Alvarez-Dom´ ınguez, L. J. Garay, and M. Mart´ ın-Benito, Phys. Rev. D105, 125012 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    G. G. Raffelt, Stars as laboratories for funda- mental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles (University of Chicago Press, 1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    Giunti and C

    C. Giunti and C. W. Kim, Fundamentals of neu- trino physics and astrophysics (Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Johns, S

    L. Johns, S. Richers, and M.-R. Wu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05959 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. C. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025004 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Johns, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14982 (2023)

    L. Johns, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14982 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    D. F. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20389 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Johns and A

    L. Johns and A. Kost, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03271 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. J. Parke, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1275 (1986)

    1986

  26. [34]

    W. C. Haxton, Phys. Rev. D35, 2352 (1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    H. B. Callen, Thermodynamics and an Introduc- 9 tion to Thermostatistics, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, 1985)

    1985

  28. [36]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems (OUP Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    Jarzynski, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2690 (1997)

    1997

  30. [38]

    G. E. Crooks, J. Stat. Phys.90, 1481 (1998)

    1998

  31. [39]

    Strasberg, Quantum Stochastic Thermody- namics: Foundations and Selected Applications (Oxford University Press, 2022)

    P. Strasberg, Quantum Stochastic Thermody- namics: Foundations and Selected Applications (Oxford University Press, 2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Kawai, J

    R. Kawai, J. M. R. Parrondo, and C. V. den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 080602 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    Vaikuntanathan and C

    S. Vaikuntanathan and C. Jarzynski, Europhys. Lett.87, 60005 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Deffner and E

    S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 170402 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, and J. Schwinger, Rev. Mod. Phys.26, 167 (1954)

    1954

  36. [44]

    Abragam and W

    A. Abragam and W. G. Proctor, Phys. Rev.109, 1441 (1958)

    1958

  37. [45]

    A. G. Redfield, Science164, 1015 (1969)

    1969

  38. [46]

    W. D. Oliver, Y. Yu, J. C. Lee, K. K. Berggren, L. S. Levitov, and T. P. Orlando, Science310, 1653 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    M. S. Rudner, A. V. Shytov, L. S. Levitov, D. M. Berns, W. D. Oliver, S. O. Valenzuela, and T. P. Orlando, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 190502 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    D. M. Berns, M. S. Rudner, S. O. Valenzuela, K. K. Berggren, W. D. Oliver, L. S. Levitov, and T. P. Orlando, Nature455, 51 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    J. R. Petta, H. Lu, and A. C. Gossard, Science 327, 669 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Stehlik, Y

    J. Stehlik, Y. Dovzhenko, J. R. Petta, J. R. Jo- hansson, F. Nori, H. Lu, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. B86, 121303 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    Cao, H.-O

    G. Cao, H.-O. Li, T. Tu, L. Wang, C. Zhou, M. Xiao, G.-C. Guo, H.-W. Jiang, and G.-P. Guo, Nat. Commun.4, 1401 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Ribeiro, G

    H. Ribeiro, G. Burkard, J. R. Petta, H. Lu, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 086804 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    C. M. Quintana, K. D. Petersson, L. W. McFaul, S. J. Srinivasan, A. A. Houck, and J. R. Petta, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 173603 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    M. Gong, Y. Zhou, D. Lan, Y. Fan, J. Pan, H. Yu, J. Chen, G. Sun, Y. Yu, S. Han, and P. Wu, Appl. Phys. Lett.108, 112602 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Forster, G

    F. Forster, G. Petersen, S. Manus, P. H¨ anggi, D. Schuh, W. Wegscheider, S. Kohler, and S. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 116803 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Scheuer, I

    J. Scheuer, I. Schwartz, S. M¨ uller, Q. Chen, I. Dhand, M. B. Plenio, B. Naydenov, and F. Jelezko, Phys. Rev. B96, 174436 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    T. Ota, K. Hitachi, and K. Muraki, Sci. Rep.8, 5491 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    P. O. Kofman, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A109, 022409 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    M. Wubs, K. Saito, S. Kohler, Y. Kayanuma, and P. H¨ anggi, New J. Phys.7, 218 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, J. Phys. Chem.A 107, 9937 (2003)

    2003

  53. [61]

    Petiziol, F

    F. Petiziol, F. Mintert, and S. Wimberger, EPL 145, 15001 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Damski, Phys

    B. Damski, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 035701 (2005)

    2005

  55. [63]

    Damski and W

    B. Damski and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. A73, 063405 (2006)

    2006

  56. [64]

    P. O. Kofman, O. V. Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori, Sci. Rep.13, 5053 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    J. P. Pekola, V. Brosco, M. M¨ ott¨ onen, P. Solinas, and A. Shnirman, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 030401 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    Salmilehto, P

    J. Salmilehto, P. Solinas, J. Ankerhold, and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Phys. Rev. A82, 062112 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    Salmilehto and M

    J. Salmilehto and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Phys. Rev. B 84, 174507 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Xuereb, P

    J. Xuereb, P. Erker, F. Meier, M. T. Mitchi- son, and M. Huber, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 160204 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.