Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

$\eta$--paired superconducting hidden phase in photodoped Mott insulators

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photodoping a strongly repulsive Hubbard Mott insulator can stabilize a metastable eta-pairing superconducting phase without relying on the SO(4) symmetry of half filling.

desk verdict A plausible and partly novel mechanism for eta-pairing in photodoped Mott insulators, with the symmetry-breaking claim not fully closed by the numerics. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08693 v2 pith:HVRVP5TH submitted 2019-08-23 cond-mat.str-el

Jiajun Li , Denis Golez , Philipp Werner , Martin Eckstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords etapairingphotodopedMottinsulatorHubbardmodellight-inducedsuperconductivitynon-equilibriumdynamicalmean-fieldtheoryopticalconductivitydoublon-holecondensatemetastablephase
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 argues that injecting doublon-hole pairs into a repulsive Hubbard Mott insulator, by photodoping or any protocol that creates cold charge carriers, can drive the system into a metastable superconducting phase built from eta pairs. The phase is claimed to be intrinsic to the local electron-electron interaction, to persist over a wide range of doublon densities and effective temperatures, and to require no fine-tuned driving or the SO(4) charge-spin symmetry of the half-filled model. If correct, this gives a generic microscopic route to light-induced superconductivity, with a zero-resistivity delta peak in the optical conductivity and negative conductivity near the Hubbard gap as distinctive pump-probe signatures. The claim is supported by steady-state dynamical mean-field calculations, an effective two-liquid model, and real-time simulations that leave a symmetry-broken eta state after the drive is removed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the eta-pairing pseudospin $\eta_i$, defined by $\eta_i^+ = \theta_i d_{i\uparrow}^\dagger d_{i\downarrow}^\dagger$ and $\eta_i^z = (n_i - 1)/2$, whose transverse expectation value is a staggered doublon-hole condensate. The argument runs through a Schrieffer-Wolff-derived two-liquid effective model in which doublon-hole pairs interact through an exchange term $-J_{\mathrm{ex}} \eta_i \cdot \eta_j$ while singly occupied sites interact through $+J_{\mathrm{ex}} S_i \cdot S_j$, with a common coupling $J_{\mathrm{ex}} = 2t_0^2/U$; this shared coupling is what lets eta order develop away from half filling. Numerically, the phase diagram and optical response are carried by non-equilibrium dynamical mean-field theory in the Nambu-Keldysh formalism on the Bethe lattice, solved with the non-crossing approximation.

What would settle it

Measure the optical conductivity of a strongly photodoped Mott insulator at $d \gtrsim 0.3$ and low effective temperature: finding no zero-frequency delta peak in $\mathrm{Re}\,\sigma(\omega)$, no $1/\omega$ divergence in $\mathrm{Im}\,\sigma(\omega)$, and no negative conductivity near $\omega \approx U$ would contradict the eta-pairing phase. Equivalently, a dynamical mean-field simulation of the direct excitation protocol run to much longer times that never develops a spontaneous eta order parameter for $d \gtrsim 0.3$ and $\beta_{\mathrm{eff}} \gtrsim 6$ would falsify the claimed universality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using non-equilibrium dynamical mean-field theory on an infinite-coordination Bethe lattice with the lattice coupled to two shifted fermion reservoirs, the authors find a spontaneous staggered eta-pairing order at $U=8$ once the doublon density reaches $d \gtrsim 0.3$ and the inverse effective temperature reaches $\beta_{\mathrm{eff}} \gtrsim 6$. The order parameter is $\eta_i^+ = \theta_i d_{i\uparrow}^\dagger d_{i\downarrow}^\dagger$, and the instability is traced to an intrinsic doublon-hole exchange interaction $J_{\mathrm{ex}} = 2t_0^2/U$ that appears in the effective two-liquid Hamiltonian alongside the usual spin exchange. The condensed phase shows ideal-metallic optical response: a zero-frequency delta function in $\mathrm{Re}\,\sigma(\omega)$, a $1/\omega$ tail in $\mathrm{Im}\,\sigma(\omega)$, zero DC resistivity, and a London equation $j = -D A$ with phase stiffness $D \approx 4 J_{\mathrm{ex}} |\eta|^2$. The same physics is found with protocols beyond the bath setup, including an evaporative-cooling real-time protocol that leaves the eta-pairing phase intact after the external coupling is switched off.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a steady state obtained by coupling the Hubbard lattice to shifted fermion reservoirs faithfully represents any generic photodoped state, characterized only by doublon density $d$ and effective temperature $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$; the paper's own direct-excitation protocol did not reach a symmetry-broken state, so if a real pump does not thermalize into this two-parameter description, the computed phase could be a bath artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A strongly photodoped Mott insulator with $d \gtrsim 0.3$ and $\beta_{\mathrm{eff}} \gtrsim 6$ should behave as an ideal conductor: a zero-frequency delta peak in $\mathrm{Re}\,\sigma(\omega)$, a $1/\omega$ tail in $\mathrm{Im}\,\sigma(\omega)$, and zero DC resistivity.
  • The nonzero zero-frequency current-current correlation implies the London equation $j = -D A$, so the eta phase should exhibit the Meissner effect like a true superconductor.
  • Negative conductivity at frequencies near $U$ in the eta phase gives a concrete optical fingerprint that distinguishes eta-pairing from ordinary metallic photodoping in pump-probe experiments.
  • Small symmetry-breaking perturbations such as next-nearest-neighbor hopping $t_1 = 0.1t_0$ leave the eta-pairing phase intact, so the effect is not tied to the SO(4) symmetry of the half-filled Hubbard model.
  • The superfluid stiffness scales as $D \approx 4 J_{\mathrm{ex}} |\eta|^2$, so the phase stiffness is controlled by short-range eta correlations and may already be observable at doublon densities below the symmetry-breaking threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: measure the real part of the optical conductivity of a photodoped Mott insulator across the Hubbard gap; a sign change to negative values near $\omega \approx U$ at high doublon density and low effective temperature would be a direct discriminator for eta-pairing.
  • By the particle-hole duality noted in the paper, the eta-pairing phase is dual to a ferromagnetic state, which suggests that disorder or longer-range hopping should destabilize it less than it destabilizes antiferromagnetism; this could be checked by adding such terms to the steady-state calculation.
  • If the bath steady state is truly generic, then any scheme that produces cold doublon-hole pairs, including chemical doping or cold-atom experiments, should show eta-pairing correlations rather than only optical pumping; this would widen the search for hidden superconductivity in strongly correlated insulators.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the repulsive Hubbard model under photodoping, modeled by coupling the lattice to shifted fermion reservoirs, using non-equilibrium dynamical mean-field theory. The authors report a large eta-pairing susceptibility and a finite eta-pairing order parameter when a small pairing seed field hx = 0.0001 is applied, and map out a phase diagram in doublon density d and effective inverse temperature beta_eff. They derive an effective two-liquid model with an eta-exchange interaction, compute the phase stiffness D = 4 J_ex |eta|^2, and show that the optical conductivity in the paired state has a delta-function peak at zero frequency and negative conductivity near the Hubbard U. They also present real-time protocols, one of which (evaporative cooling) produces a persistent eta-paired state. The central claim is that photodoping can stabilize a metastable eta-pairing superconducting phase in a Mott insulator.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a significant step toward understanding light-induced superconductivity in Mott insulators, providing a concrete microscopic mechanism (doublon-hole exchange) and falsifiable optical fingerprints. The paper has strong analytical components: the effective Hamiltonian derivation in Appendix B and the phase-stiffness expression D = 4 J_ex |eta|^2 are independent analytic results, and the data collapse in Fig. 4 is a nontrivial consistency check across protocols and parameters. The main weakness is that the spontaneous symmetry breaking is not fully demonstrated: the steady-state phase diagram relies on a finite pairing seed, and the paper's own direct real-time protocol fails its stated seed-independence criterion. The distinction between a large but finite pairing susceptibility and a true symmetry-broken phase is load-bearing for the claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 2] The steady-state phase diagram is computed at fixed pairing seed hx = 0.0001, and the order parameter Re<d_down d_up> >~ 0.2 is taken as evidence of symmetry breaking. No extrapolation to hx -> 0 is shown, so a large but finite susceptibility (chi ~ 2000 at that seed) is not excluded. A divergence of chi or an order parameter that survives in the hx -> 0 limit is required to establish a spontaneous eta-pairing phase; the present data do not provide it.
  2. [Appendix D.2] The paper itself states that a strict criterion for spontaneous symmetry breaking is that the final state becomes independent of the initial pairing field size. For the direct excitation protocol, the test with hx = 0.001 shows such dependence, and the authors conclude that the state 'has not yet entered the eta-pairing state' despite chi_eta ~ 15. This admission directly undermines the claim that the hidden phase is a generic consequence of photodoping; at minimum, the steady-state results need to pass the same seed-independence test or be accompanied by a zero-field extrapolation.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 2] The phase boundary is drawn at a finite susceptibility threshold (chi_eta ~ 10^3), which is not equivalent to a divergent susceptibility. The authors should either demonstrate that chi_eta diverges at the boundary (e.g., by scaling with hx or with lattice size) or rephrase the boundary as a crossover line. As written, the phase diagram conflates an enhanced response with a true thermodynamic phase.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] There is a typo in 'orgainzed' in the introduction; the organization paragraph should be corrected.
  2. [Section IV.B] The text 'instrinsic doublon-holon pairing mechanism' contains a spelling error ('instrinsic' should be 'intrinsic').
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The delta-function peak in Re sigma at omega = 0 is said to be 'not shown'; it would be clearer to state this explicitly in the main text as well, and to explain how the Drude weight D is extracted from the numerical data.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Section IV] The negative-temperature region is described as obtained by reflection, but no data points are shown for that region; a brief statement on the numerical or symmetry-based reasoning would help.
  5. [Appendix D.1] Typo: 'narraow' should be 'narrow' in the description of the energy bands.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The analytic effective-model and phase-stiffness derivations are self-contained, but the paper's only successful real-time symmetry-breaking demonstration is imported from the authors' own companion reference, while the in-manuscript direct protocol fails the stated seed-independence test.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section IV.A ('The universality of photodoped η–paired phases'), with the supporting protocol deferred to Appendix D and Ref. [45].]
    "In this case we observed a symmetry breaking η–paired phase which remains beyond t∼ 10045, see Appendix D for more details."

    The only successful real-time demonstration of spontaneous η-pairing is not carried out in this manuscript: the evaporative-cooling protocol is attributed to companion Ref. [45] (Werner, Li, Golez, and Eckstein, PRB 100, 155130 (2019)), whose author list coincides with the present paper. The paper's own direct real-time protocol in Appendix D.2 fails its stated strict criterion ('the reached state has not yet entered the η-pairing state'), so the real-time evidence for the central claim rests on a load-bearing self-citation rather than on evidence contained in this paper.

full rationale

The core analytic derivations are not circular: the two-liquid effective Hamiltonian (Appendix B, Eq. B7) is obtained by a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation from the Hubbard model, and the phase stiffness D = 4Jex⟨ηi·ηj⟩ ≃ 4Jex|η|² (Appendix B.1, Eq. B14) follows from differentiating the effective Hamiltonian with respect to a vector potential, not from fitting the DMFT data. The optical-conductivity formulas in Appendix C are likewise derived from the current response rather than imposed. The steady-state DMFT susceptibility scan is a genuine numerical output of the model, not a parameter fit, so the phase diagram is not circular by construction. The principal circularity concern is the load-bearing self-citation: the only real-time protocol that is claimed to exhibit a persistent symmetry-broken η-pairing state is taken from the authors' own companion paper (Ref. [45]), and the in-manuscript direct-excitation protocol explicitly fails the authors' own seed-independence test for spontaneous symmetry breaking. The fixed-seed steady-state analysis (hx = 0.0001, with 'order parameter Re⟨d↓d↑⟩ & 0.2' and a schematic phase boundary at χη ∼ 10³) is a finite-susceptibility threshold rather than a demonstrated hx → 0 order parameter; I treat that as a correctness limitation rather than a formal circular reduction, because the susceptibility itself is a computed quantity, not an input assumed equal to the conclusion. Weighing these points, the paper has substantial independent analytic and numerical content, but one central piece of evidence for the real-time phase reduces to a self-citation, giving a partial circularity score of 4 rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameter is fitted to reproduce the eta-pairing phase: Jex = 2*t0^2/U is derived, D = 4*Jex*|eta|^2 follows from the effective model, and the collapse in Fig. 4 is a consistency check across protocols. U = 8, Gamma = 0.05, W = 2, and beta_b are stated model inputs, not fit parameters. The two simulation-extracted quantities are beta_eff, from a Fermi fit, and hx, the seed field. The main axioms are universality of the photodoped state, conservation of double occupancy, validity of the NCA solver, the infinite-dimensional Bethe-lattice proxy, and truncation of the high-frequency expansion. No new entities are invented; eta-pseudospins are defined from known Hubbard operators.

free parameters (2)
  • Pairing seed field hx = 0.0001 in steady-state scans; 0.01 and 0.001 in the real-time protocol
    Applied as a local test field to measure the pairing susceptibility and seed the order; the claimed spontaneous symmetry breaking is inferred at this finite field without an hx-to-zero extrapolation.
  • Effective inverse temperature beta_eff = 7.79 for the example in Fig. 1(a); varied implicitly through bath temperature beta_b in the phase diagram
    Extracted by fitting the occupied spectral function A<(omega)/A(omega) to a Fermi function; used to locate the photodoped states in the phase diagram, so it is a fitted characterization rather than an independent theoretical input.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A quasi-thermal photodoped state is universal: fast intraband thermalization and slow doublon-hole recombination mean any protocol reaches the same state characterized only by d and beta_eff.
    Invoked in Sections II-III to replace generic photodoping with the steady-state fermion-bath model; the direct real-time protocol in Appendix D.2 does not fully confirm spontaneous symmetry breaking.
  • domain assumption Double occupancy is conserved on relevant timescales, so doublons and holes behave as stable quasiparticles and Schrieffer-Wolff projection to the doublon-hole sector is valid.
    Assumed in Appendix B when deriving H_eff (Eq. B7), based on exponentially long doublon-hole lifetimes cited from Refs. 28 and 36.
  • domain assumption The non-crossing approximation is an accurate solver for the symmetry-broken steady-state impurity model.
    Used for all DMFT results in Section III and Appendix A; no convergence checks or comparisons to other impurity solvers are shown.
  • domain assumption The infinite-coordination Bethe lattice captures the physics of photodoped Mott insulators in finite dimensions.
    The phase diagram is computed in d = infinity; Section V only argues that lower dimensions will show enhanced susceptibility, so this is an extrapolation.
  • standard math The Schrieffer-Wolff high-frequency expansion can be truncated at order t0^2/U and three-site terms neglected.
    Appendix B, Eq. (B2)-(B7); standard for U >> t0, but not controlled at U = 8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\eta$--paired superconducting hidden phase in photodoped Mott insulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVRVP5TH

@misc{pith2026190808693,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\eta$--paired superconducting hidden phase in photodoped Mott insulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVRVP5TH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08693}
}
abstract

We show that a metastable $\eta$--pairing superconducting phase can be induced by photodoping doublons and holes into a strongly repulsive fermionic Hubbard model. The doublon-hole condensate originates from an intrinsic doublon-hole exchange interaction and does not rely on the symmetry of the half-filled Hubbard model. It extends over a wide range of doublon densities and effective temperatures. Different non-equilibrium protocols to realize this state are proposed and numerically tested. We also study the optical conductivity in the superconducting phase, which exhibits ideal metallic behavior, i.e., a delta function at zero-frequency in the conductivity, in conjunction with a negative conductivity at large frequencies. These characteristic optical properties can provide a fingerprint of the $\eta$-pairing phase in pump-probe experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08693 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Non-equilibrium phase diagram of the repulsive Hub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Real and (b) imaginary part of the optical conduc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. An example of Bethe lattice with coordination num [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time evolution of the susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Basov , author R

    author author D. Basov , author R. Averitt , \ and\ author D. Hsieh ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Mater. \ volume 16 ,\ pages 1077 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Ichikawa , author S

    author author H. Ichikawa , author S. Nozawa , author T. Sato , author A. Tomita , author K. Ichiyanagi , author M. Chollet , author L. Guerin , author N. Dean , author A. Cavalleri , author S.-i. \ Adachi , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Mater. \ volume 10 ,\ pages 101 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Stojchevska , author I

    author author L. Stojchevska , author I. Vaskivskyi , author T. Mertelj , author P. Kusar , author D. Svetin , author S. Brazovskii , \ and\ author D. Mihailovic ,\ 10.1126/science.1241591 journal journal Science \ volume 344 ,\ pages 177 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1126/science.1241591

  4. [4]

    Mor , author M

    author author S. Mor , author M. Herzog , author D. Gole z z , author P. Werner , author M. Eckstein , author N. Katayama , author M. Nohara , author H. Takagi , author T. Mizokawa , author C. Monney , \ and\ author J. St\"ahler ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.086401 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 119 ,\ pages 086401 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.086401

  5. [5]

    Fausti , author R

    author author D. Fausti , author R. I. \ Tobey , author N. Dean , author S. Kaiser , author A. Dienst , author M. C. \ Hoffmann , author S. Pyon , author T. Takayama , author H. Takagi , \ and\ author A. Cavalleri ,\ 10.1126/science.1197294 journal journal Science \ volume 331 ,\ pages 189 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1126/science.1197294

  6. [6]

    Mitrano , author A

    author author M. Mitrano , author A. Cantaluppi , author D. Nicoletti , author S. Kaiser , author A. Perucchi , author S. Lupi , author P. Di Pietro , author D. Pontiroli , author M. Ricc \`o , author S. R. \ Clark , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 530 ,\ pages 461 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  7. [7]

    author author Z. M. \ Raines , author V. Stanev , \ and\ author V. M. \ Galitski ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.184506 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 91 ,\ pages 184506 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.91.184506 2015

  8. [8]

    author author S. J. \ Denny , author S. R. \ Clark , author Y. Laplace , author A. Cavalleri , \ and\ author D. Jaksch ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.137001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 114 ,\ pages 137001 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.137001

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    author author A. A. \ Patel \ and\ author A. Eberlein ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.195139 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 93 ,\ pages 195139 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    \ Okamoto , author A

    author author J.-i. \ Okamoto , author A. Cavalleri , \ and\ author L. Mathey ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.227001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 117 ,\ pages 227001 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Babadi , author M

    author author M. Babadi , author M. Knap , author I. Martin , author G. Refael , \ and\ author E. Demler ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.014512 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 96 ,\ pages 014512 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Murakami , author N

    author author Y. Murakami , author N. Tsuji , author M. Eckstein , \ and\ author P. Werner ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.045125 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 96 ,\ pages 045125 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    author author D. M. \ Kennes , author E. Y. \ Wilner , author D. R. \ Reichman , \ and\ author A. J. \ Millis ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 13 ,\ pages 479 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  6. [14]

    Mazza \ and\ author A

    author author G. Mazza \ and\ author A. Georges ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.064515 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 96 ,\ pages 064515 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Matthies , author J

    author author A. Matthies , author J. Li , \ and\ author M. Eckstein ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.180502 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 180502 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    author author C. N. \ Yang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.2144 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 63 ,\ pages 2144 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    1989 doi

  9. [17]

    author author C. N. \ Yang \ and\ author S. Zhang ,\ @noop journal journal Mod. Phys. Lett. B \ volume 4 ,\ pages 759 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990

  10. [18]

    Demler , author W

    author author E. Demler , author W. Hanke , \ and\ author S.-C. \ Zhang ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.909 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 76 ,\ pages 909 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    author author M. A. \ Sentef , author A. Tokuno , author A. Georges , \ and\ author C. Kollath ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.087002 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 087002 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Kitamura \ and\ author H

    author author S. Kitamura \ and\ author H. Aoki ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.174503 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 174503 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Kaneko , author T

    author author T. Kaneko , author T. Shirakawa , author S. Sorella , \ and\ author S. Yunoki ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.077002 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 122 ,\ pages 077002 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Tindall , author B

    author author J. Tindall , author B. Bu c c a , author J. R. \ Coulthard , \ and\ author D. Jaksch ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.030603 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 123 ,\ pages 030603 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    \ Bernier , author P

    author author J.-S. \ Bernier , author P. Barmettler , author D. Poletti , \ and\ author C. Kollath ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.063608 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 87 ,\ pages 063608 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Tindall , author F

    author author J. Tindall , author F. Schlawin , author M. Buzzi , author D. Nicoletti , author J. Coulthard , author H. Gao , author A. Cavalleri , author M. Sentef , \ and\ author D. Jaksch ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.09073 \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Iwai , author M

    author author S. Iwai , author M. Ono , author A. Maeda , author H. Matsuzaki , author H. Kishida , author H. Okamoto , \ and\ author Y. Tokura ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.057401 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 91 ,\ pages 057401 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    doi

  18. [26]

    Rosch , author D

    author author A. Rosch , author D. Rasch , author B. Binz , \ and\ author M. Vojta ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.265301 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 101 ,\ pages 265301 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    Okamoto , author T

    author author H. Okamoto , author T. Miyagoe , author K. Kobayashi , author H. Uemura , author H. Nishioka , author H. Matsuzaki , author A. Sawa , \ and\ author Y. Tokura ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.060513 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 82 ,\ pages 060513 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi

  20. [28]

    Sensarma , author D

    author author R. Sensarma , author D. Pekker , author E. Altman , author E. Demler , author N. Strohmaier , author D. Greif , author R. J\"ordens , author L. Tarruell , author H. Moritz , \ and\ author T. Esslinger ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.224302 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ v...

    doi

  21. [29]

    Eckstein \ and\ author P

    author author M. Eckstein \ and\ author P. Werner ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.035122 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 84 ,\ pages 035122 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    Lenar c c i c c \ and\ author P

    author author Z. Lenar c c i c c \ and\ author P. Prelov s s ek ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.016401 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 111 ,\ pages 016401 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Mitrano , author G

    author author M. Mitrano , author G. Cotugno , author S. R. \ Clark , author R. Singla , author S. Kaiser , author J. St\"ahler , author R. Beyer , author M. Dressel , author L. Baldassarre , author D. Nicoletti , author A. Perucchi , author T. Hasegawa , author H. Okamoto , a...

    doi

  24. [32]

    Werner , author M

    author author P. Werner , author M. Eckstein , author M. M \"u ller , \ and\ author G. Refael ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv e-prints \ ,\ eid arXiv:1904.00822 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.00822 arXiv:1904.00822 [cond-mat.str-el] NoStop

    1904 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Werner , author H

    author author P. Werner , author H. U. R. \ Strand , author S. Hoshino , author Y. Murakami , \ and\ author M. Eckstein ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.165119 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 97 ,\ pages 165119 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Peronaci , author O

    author author F. Peronaci , author O. Parcollet , \ and\ author M. Schir \'o ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1904.00857 \ ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.00857 arXiv:1904.00857 [cond-mat.str-el] NoStop

    1904 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Werner , author N

    author author P. Werner , author N. Tsuji , \ and\ author M. Eckstein ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.205101 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 86 ,\ pages 205101 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Sensarma , author D

    author author R. Sensarma , author D. Pekker , author A. M. \ Rey , author M. D. \ Lukin , \ and\ author E. Demler ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.145303 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 107 ,\ pages 145303 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    Li \ and\ author M

    author author J. Li \ and\ author M. Eckstein ,\ @noop title Nonequilibrium steady-state theory of photodoped mott insulators , \ ( year 2020 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.12511 arXiv:2007.12511 [cond-mat.str-el] NoStop

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Georges , author G

    author author A. Georges , author G. Kotliar , author W. Krauth , \ and\ author M. J. \ Rozenberg ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.68.13 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 68 ,\ pages 13 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    Aoki , author N

    author author H. Aoki , author N. Tsuji , author M. Eckstein , author M. Kollar , author T. Oka , \ and\ author P. Werner ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.86.779 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 86 ,\ pages 779 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Eckstein \ and\ author P

    author author M. Eckstein \ and\ author P. Werner ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.115115 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 82 ,\ pages 115115 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Gole z z , author J

    author author D. Gole z z , author J. Bon c c a , author M. Mierzejewski , \ and\ author L. Vidmar ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.165118 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 89 ,\ pages 165118 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    Balzer , author F

    author author K. Balzer , author F. A. \ Wolf , author I. P. \ McCulloch , author P. Werner , \ and\ author M. Eckstein ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031039 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 5 ,\ pages 031039 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    Grusdt , author M

    author author F. Grusdt , author M. K\'anasz-Nagy , author A. Bohrdt , author C. S. \ Chiu , author G. Ji , author M. Greiner , author D. Greif , \ and\ author E. Demler ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011046 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 8 ,\ pages 011046 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi

  36. [44]

    Bukov , author M

    author author M. Bukov , author M. Kolodrubetz , \ and\ author A. Polkovnikov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.125301 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 116 ,\ pages 125301 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    Werner , author J

    author author P. Werner , author J. Li , author D. Gole z z , \ and\ author M. Eckstein ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.155130 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 100 ,\ pages 155130 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Tsuji , author T

    author author N. Tsuji , author T. Oka , author P. Werner , \ and\ author H. Aoki ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.236401 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 106 ,\ pages 236401 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    Diehl , author A

    author author S. Diehl , author A. Micheli , author A. Kantian , author B. Kraus , author H. B \"u chler , \ and\ author P. Zoller ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 4 ,\ pages 878 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  40. [48]

    @noop journal see Supplemental Material \ NoStop

  41. [49]

    Eckstein \ and\ author M

    journal author author M. Eckstein \ and\ author M. Kollar ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.205119 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 78 ,\ pages 205119 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

    author author G. L. \ Sewell ,\ @noop journal journal J. Stat. Phys. \ volume 61 ,\ pages 415 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990

  43. [51]

    Mazurenko , author C

    author author A. Mazurenko , author C. S. \ Chiu , author G. Ji , author M. F. \ Parsons , author M. Kan \'a sz-Nagy , author R. Schmidt , author F. Grusdt , author E. Demler , author D. Greif , \ and\ author M. Greiner ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 545 ,\ pages 462...

    2017

  44. [52]

    author author C. S. \ Chiu , author G. Ji , author A. Bohrdt , author M. Xu , author M. Knap , author E. Demler , author F. Grusdt , author M. Greiner , \ and\ author D. Greif ,\ 10.1126/science.aav3587 journal journal Science \ volume 365 ,\ pages 251 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

  45. [53]

    Stahl \ and\ author M

    author author C. Stahl \ and\ author M. Eckstein ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.241111 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 241111 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    author author K. I. \ Kugel \ and\ author D. Khomskii ,\ @noop journal journal Sov. Phys. Usp. \ volume 25 ,\ pages 231 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    1982

  47. [55]

    Pesin \ and\ author L

    author author D. Pesin \ and\ author L. Balents ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 376 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  48. [56]

    Gole z z , author L

    author author D. Gole z z , author L. Boehnke , author M. Eckstein , \ and\ author P. Werner ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.041111 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 100 ,\ pages 041111 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    author author A. H. \ MacDonald , author S. M. \ Girvin , \ and\ author D. Yoshioka ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.9753 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 37 ,\ pages 9753 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

    1988 doi

  50. [58]

    Bukov , author L

    author author M. Bukov , author L. D'Alessio , \ and\ author A. Polkovnikov ,\ @noop journal journal Adv. Phys. \ volume 64 ,\ pages 139 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  51. [59]

    Eckstein , author J

    author author M. Eckstein , author J. H. \ Mentink , \ and\ author P. Werner ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv e-prints \ ,\ eid arXiv:1703.03269 ( year 2017 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03269 arXiv:1703.03269 [cond-mat.str-el] NoStop

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Eckstein \ and\ author P

    author author M. Eckstein \ and\ author P. Werner ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.126401 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 110 ,\ pages 126401 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    Sayyad , author R

    author author S. Sayyad , author R. Z Z itko , author H. U. R. \ Strand , author P. Werner , \ and\ author D. Gole z z ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.045118 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 045118 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.