Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Enhanced Superexchange in a Tilted Mott Insulator

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 A constant energy tilt per lattice site suppresses first-order tunneling but not superexchange, making spin-spin coupling tuneable by over a factor of 100.

desk verdict Tilt knob works, but the factor-of-100 headline includes a point below the single-band breakdown; otherwise a solid, useful quantum-simulation paper. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09870 v2 pith:IUBUSPUK submitted 2019-08-26 cond-mat.quant-gas

Ivana Dimitrova , Niklas Jepsen , Anton Buyskikh , Araceli Venegas-Gomez , Jesse Amato-Grill , Andrew Daley , Wolfgang Ketterle This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords tiltedopticallatticesuperexchangeMottinsulatorspindynamicsBose-HubbardmodelHeisenbergBlochoscillationsspin-chargeseparation
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 claims that adding a constant energy offset per lattice site (a tilt) to a Mott insulator suppresses first-order tunneling and density transport while leaving second-order superexchange spin coupling intact, with a modified rate that depends on the tilt. This decoupling stabilizes larger Mott-insulating samples, allows spin dynamics to be studied at much lower lattice depths, and makes the spin coupling strength and sign tunable. The authors demonstrate the first many-body tuning of superexchange over more than a factor of 100, with spin relaxation data collapsing onto a universal curve when time is rescaled by the predicted coupling. If correct, the tilt provides a practical control knob for quantum magnetism experiments, turning mobile defects into static impurities and separating spin physics from mass transport.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified superexchange formula J(Δ)=4t²/U · ½(1/(1−Δ/U)+1/(1+Δ/U)), which describes how a tilt Δ rescales the second-order spin-spin coupling while first-order tunneling is suppressed when Δ exceeds the band width. The derivation distinguishes real doublons (density defects) from virtual doublons (coherent admixtures): the tilt suppresses the former but only modifies the probability of the latter, and perturbation theory in t/(U±Δ) leads to an effective Heisenberg Hamiltonian. The ratio x=Δ/U is the control parameter: for 1<x<√2 the exchange magnitude is enhanced, for x>1 the sign flips, and resonances at Δ=U/m must be avoided.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-spiral contrast decay in the tilted lattice while sweeping the lattice depth down through about 6.3 E_R at Δ/U≈1.4: if the data no longer collapse onto the universal ℏ/J_xy(Δ) scaling curve seen at higher depths, or if atoms are ejected from the lattice, the lowest-band assumption underlying the superexchange claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a tilted Mott insulator, an energy offset Δ per site blocks first-order tunneling (Bloch oscillations localize single particles) but does not block superexchange, the second-order tunneling process that couples neighboring spins. The effective spin-spin coupling becomes J(Δ)=4t²/U · ½(1/(1−Δ/U)+1/(1+Δ/U)), so the ratio Δ/U tunes both the magnitude and sign of the exchange interaction, with a sign flip for Δ>U. The paper shows that with a tilt, the critical lattice depth for stability of the n=1 Mott plateau drops from 11.7 E_R to 7.3 E_R at Δ=1.65U, and that spin-spiral relaxation times follow ℏ/J_xy(Δ) over more than two decades of coupling strength. It also shows that holes and doublons become immobile under the tilt, so t-J models reduce to spin models with static impurities, enabling pure spin dynamics and improved adiabatic state preparation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two-component Hubbard model restricted to the lowest Bloch band remains valid at the low lattice depths used, down to V_c≈6.3 E_R; if the single-band approximation fails, the superexchange formula and the factor-of-50 speedup extrapolation collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spin dynamics can be made up to 50 times faster by lowering the lattice depth to the single-band floor near 6.3 E_R while the tilt suppresses melting of the Mott plateau.
  • The tilt provides a tuning dial for Heisenberg-model parameters, including a transition between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic coupling when Δ/U passes 1, expanding the range of accessible magnetic phases.
  • In a tilted lattice, holes and doublons are pinned and act as static impurities, turning t-J models into spin models with immobile disorder and allowing pure spin dynamics to be studied.
  • Large Mott plateaus prepared at high scattering length can be frozen in by the tilt, decoupling density-distribution preparation from subsequent spin experiments performed at different scattering lengths or lattice depths.
  • The suppression of the superfluid transition by the tilt stabilizes larger systems with faster spin dynamics, which should improve the fidelity of adiabatic preparation of magnetically ordered ground states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same tilting mechanism should extend to fermionic Hubbard systems and to two- or three-dimensional tilts, provided resonant second-order tunneling paths are avoided, potentially giving a practical handle on spin-charge separation in ultracold-atom simulators.
  • The sharply tunable J(Δ) near the sign-flip at Δ=U suggests a clean way to quench the sign of the exchange interaction without changing lattice depth or scattering length, which could be used to study quench dynamics across a magnetic transition.
  • Random or bichromatic tilts, already mentioned as an option in the paper, could implement disordered spin models with static impurities and offer a new route to many-body localization in spin chains.
  • The factor-of-100 tuning range implies that precision measurements of relaxation rates at several tilts can directly test the functional form of J(Δ) and probe corrections beyond the single-band Hubbard model.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper demonstrates that applying a constant potential tilt to a Mott insulator in an optical lattice suppresses first-order tunneling while leaving second-order superexchange processes largely intact. By loading a large n=1 Mott plateau at high lattice depth, applying a tilt, and then lowering the lattice depth, the authors show that the critical lattice depth for plateau stability is reduced, allowing faster spin dynamics. They measure the relaxation of a spin spiral and report that the lifetimes collapse onto a single curve when rescaled by the tilt-dependent superexchange rate J(Δ) from Eq. (1), with only one free amplitude A. They also show that the tilt tunes the superexchange rate in a many-body system over (claimed) two orders of magnitude and that defects such as holes and doublons become immobile, acting as static impurities. The paper includes numerical simulations of defect effects and adiabatic state preparation in tilted systems.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the tilt provides a practical and independent control knob for spin Hamiltonians, separating spin dynamics from density transport. The scaling collapse of relaxation times against a parameter-free second-order perturbation result is a strong, falsifiable test, and the demonstration in a many-body system goes beyond previous double-well experiments. The localization of defects by the tilt opens a route to studying pure spin dynamics in systems with static impurities, which is relevant for quantum simulation and adiabatic state preparation. The paper is well situated in the context of ultracold-atom quantum magnetism, and the experimental execution appears careful and thorough.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Fig. 3a] The headline claim that superexchange rates are varied by over a factor of 100 relies on relaxation data at Vz = 6 ER, which is below the critical depth Vc ≈ 7.3 ER identified in Fig. 2a for the same tilt Δ = 1.65U. At Vc the authors themselves state that perturbation theory and the single-band description break down, and a sharp increase in real doublons is observed. Since the highest Jxy value (2.68 kHz) comes from Vz = 6 ER, the two-order-of-magnitude range is not established in a regime where the spin Hamiltonian of Eq. (2) is known to be valid. The authors should either exclude data below Vc from the factor-of-100 claim, or provide explicit quantitative evidence (e.g., a measurement or simulation) that the observed relaxation at Vz = 6 ER is still dominated by the Jxy of Eq. (1) despite the presence of real doublons.
  2. [Fig. 3a inset and collapse procedure] The collapse of the spin-spiral relaxation curves is a strong scaling test, but it uses Eq. (1) itself to rescale the time axis. Consequently, the collapse does not independently certify that the low-depth endpoint is a clean superexchange signal; any relaxation process whose rate scales as t²/U would also collapse. To strengthen the attribution, the authors should compare the measured lifetime at the lowest depths with an estimate that includes contributions from real doublon-hole creation (e.g., the J2 process discussed in Sec. (iv)) and show that such contributions are negligible, or demonstrate that the extracted lifetime is insensitive to the measured doublon fraction shown in Fig. 2b.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. (ii), Fig. 2b] The sentence 'We find that the n = 1 MI plateau loaded at a = 300a0 has an order of magnitude more atoms than the one loaded at a = 50a0' should clarify that this is due to the harmonic confinement and the scaling of U with scattering length; the point is clear from Fig. S3 but could be stated more explicitly in the main text.
  2. [Sec. (ii), typo] In the text below Fig. 2a, 'increase in the superexhchange rate' should read 'increase in the superexchange rate'.
  3. [Fig. 3b caption] The dotted line indicating the region where the single-band approximation breaks down due to resonances at Δ = U↑↑, U↑↓, U↓↓ would be more informative if the specific resonance (Δ = U) and its proximity to the data points were mentioned, especially since the tilt inhomogeneity of 10–15% is discussed in the Supplement.
  4. [Supplement, adiabatic state preparation] In Fig. S5, the description of the correlation function Kd would benefit from a brief explanation of the conditional correlation matrix Ni,j in the main text or a pointer to the Supplement, as the definition is not immediately intuitive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tilt-dependent superexchange rate is an externally derived parameter-free prediction, tested with only an overall amplitude fit.

full rationale

The central quantitative relation, J(Δ)= (4t²/U) · ½[1/(1−Δ/U)+1/(1+Δ/U)] (Eq. 1), is attributed to the independent earlier work of Trotzky et al. [22] and is a parameter-free second-order perturbation result in t and U; the paper does not fit this functional form to its data. The experimental comparison extracts spin-spiral relaxation lifetimes and fits only the overall amplitude A in Aħ/Jxy(Δ), so the shape of the lifetime versus depth and versus tilt is not forced by the fit. The collapse in the Fig. 3a inset rescales time by ħ/Jxy computed from Eq. (1), but this is a consistency test of the predicted functional form: if the form were wrong, the curves would not collapse. The tilt calibration via the Δ=U resonance is an independent physical calibration and does not enter as evidence for Eq. (1). The self-citations that appear ([8], [27], [29]) concern adiabatic preparation schemes and atom-source preparation and are not load-bearing for the superexchange prediction. The paper's own caveat that the single-band approximation breaks down below Vc≈6.3 E_R, and that perturbation theory breaks down at Vc, is a validity concern for the low-depth endpoint of the claimed factor-of-100 range, not a circularity: the central mechanism is separately supported at safe depths such as Vz=12 E_R. No prediction in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

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

The central claims rest on standard perturbation theory, the single-band Hubbard model, and an assumed uniform tilt. The only fitted free parameter is the lifetime prefactor A; all other inputs (t, U, Δ) are set by lattice depth, scattering length, and calibrated tilt power. The single-band validity close to Vc≈6.3 E_R is the most fragile premise and is flagged by the authors themselves.

free parameters (1)
  • lifetime scale factor A = A = 7.54 ± 0.31 (Fig. 3a), A = 6.54 ± 0.34 (Fig. 3b)
    Overall proportionality in lifetime = A ℏ/Jxy(Δ); the Δ- and depth-dependence is predicted by Eq. (1), A absorbs unknown prefactors such as spiral pitch, temperature, and detection response.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Second-order perturbation theory in t/U gives the effective spin Hamiltonian with superexchange J(Δ) as in Eq. (1).
    Standard large-U expansion of the Hubbard model; invoked to interpret the lifetime scaling and to define Jxy.
  • domain assumption The two-component Bose-Hubbard model with contact interactions describes 7Li atoms in the 3D optical lattice.
    Used throughout; the lattice depth and Feshbach-tuned scattering length set t and U.
  • ad hoc to paper The lowest-band (single-band) approximation is valid for the lattice depths used, down to Vc≈6.3 E_R.
    The paper itself flags the breakdown of single-band physics at lower depths (Section ii), and the strongest speedup claims rely on operating near this boundary.
  • domain assumption The tilt is a uniform linear potential Δ Σ i i n_i over the cloud, with 10-15% inhomogeneity calibrated in the supplement.
    Tilt calibration and inhomogeneity are characterized in Figs. S1-S2; a perfectly uniform tilt is assumed in the formulas.
  • domain assumption The spin states are the two lowest hyperfine states of 7Li, and the Heisenberg Hamiltonian of Eq. (S5) captures the spin dynamics.
    Standard mapping for two-component bosons at filling one; used to derive Eqs. (S6)-(S7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Superexchange in a Tilted Mott Insulator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUBUSPUK

@misc{pith2026190809870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Superexchange in a Tilted Mott Insulator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUBUSPUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09870}
}
read the original abstract

In an optical lattice entropy and mass transport by first-order tunneling is much faster than spin transport via superexchange. Here we show that adding a constant force (tilt) suppresses first-order tunneling, but not spin transport, realizing new features for spin Hamiltonians. Suppression of the superfluid transition can stabilize larger systems with faster spin dynamics. For the first time in a many-body spin system, we vary superexchange rates by over a factor of 100 and tune spin-spin interactions via the tilt. In a tilted lattice, defects are immobile and pure spin dynamics can be studied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. In a tilted lattice with energy offset per site ∆, tun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Stabilization of large Mott plateaus at small lattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Relaxation of a non-equilibrium spin pattern by su [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effect of holes and doublons on the superexchange [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 090402 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    A. B. Kuklov and B. V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 100401 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    Bloch, Nature Physics 1, 23 (2005)

    I. Bloch, Nature Physics 1, 23 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, and V. Ahufinger, Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices: Simulating quantum many- body systems (Oxford University Press, 2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science 357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Hofstetter and T

    W. Hofstetter and T. Qin, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 082001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Schachenmayer, D

    J. Schachenmayer, D. M. Weld, H. Miyake, G. A. Siviloglou, W. Ketterle, and A. J. Daley, Phys. Rev. A 92, 041602 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, A. Mazurenko, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 243201 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Bernier, C

    J.-S. Bernier, C. Kollath, A. Georges, L. De Leo, F. Ger- bier, C. Salomon, and M. K¨ ohl, Phys. Rev. A79, 061601 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    C. J. M. Mathy, D. A. Huse, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. A 86, 023606 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Universal cooling scheme for quantum simulation,

    T.-L. Ho and Q. Zhou, “Universal cooling scheme for quantum simulation,” (2009), arXiv:0911.5506

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Mazurenko, C

    A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. F. Parsons, M. Kan´ asz-Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Nature 545, 462 EP (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Miyake, G

    H. Miyake, G. A. Siviloglou, C. J. Kennedy, W. C. Bur- ton, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185302 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, M. Lohse, J. T. Barreiro, B. Paredes, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185301 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    C. J. Kennedy, W. C. Burton, W. C. Chung, and W. Ket- terle, Nature Physics 11, 859 EP (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, M. Atala, J. T. Barreiro, S. Nascimb` ene, N. R. Cooper, I. Bloch, and N. Goldman, Nature Physics 11, 162 EP (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Sachdev, K

    S. Sachdev, K. Sengupta, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. B 66, 075128 (2002)

    2002

  11. [19]

    Simon, W

    J. Simon, W. S. Bakr, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Nature 472, 307 EP (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Meinert, M

    F. Meinert, M. J. Mark, E. Kirilov, K. Lauber, P. Wein- mann, A. J. Daley, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 053003 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    We implement the tilt with an AC Stark shift gradient from a far-detuned 1064 nm laser beam, offset by a beam radius from the sample

    should be avoided. We implement the tilt with an AC Stark shift gradient from a far-detuned 1064 nm laser beam, offset by a beam radius from the sample. We load a 7Li Bose-Einstein condensate [27] into a 3D 1064 nm arXiv:1908.09870v2 [cond-mat.quant-gas] 2 Feb 2020 2 optical la...

    1908 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Meinert, M

    F. Meinert, M. J. Mark, E. Kirilov, K. Lauber, P. Wein- mann, M. Gr¨ obner, A. J. Daley, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Sci- ence 344, 1259 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Trotzky, P

    S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, S. F¨ olling, M. Feld, U. Schnor- rberger, A. M. Rey, A. Polkovnikov, E. A. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and I. Bloch, Science 319, 295 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    R. C. Brown, R. Wyllie, S. B. Koller, E. A. Goldschmidt, M. Foss-Feig, and J. V. Porto, Science 348, 540 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Ben Dahan, E

    M. Ben Dahan, E. Peik, J. Reichel, Y. Castin, and C. Sa- lomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4508 (1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    P. M. Preiss, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, P. Zupancic, Y. Lahini, R. Islam, and M. Greiner, Sci- ence 347, 1229 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Dimitrova, W

    I. Dimitrova, W. Lunden, J. Amato-Grill, N. Jepsen, Y. Yu, M. Messer, T. Rigaldo, G. Puentes, D. Weld, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. A 96, 051603 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    See Supplemental Material for technical details, which includes references [44–48]

  22. [30]

    Amato-Grill, N

    J. Amato-Grill, N. Jepsen, I. Dimitrova, W. Lunden, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. A 99, 033612 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Strohmaier, D

    N. Strohmaier, D. Greif, R. J¨ ordens, L. Tarruell, H. Moritz, T. Esslinger, R. Sensarma, D. Pekker, E. Alt- man, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 080401 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    T. D. K¨ uhner and H. Monien, Phys. Rev. B 58, R14741 (1998)

    1998

  25. [33]

    Ejima, H

    S. Ejima, H. Fehske, and F. Gebhard, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 93, 30002 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    P. Avan, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and C. Fabre, Journal de Physique , 993 (1976)

    1976

  27. [35]

    Gerbier, A

    F. Gerbier, A. Widera, S. F¨ olling, O. Mandel, T. Gericke, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 050404 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    W. S. Bakr, A. Peng, M. E. Tai, R. Ma, J. Simon, J. I. Gillen, S. F¨ olling, L. Pollet, and M. Greiner, Science 329, 547 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    A. B. Bardon, S. Beattie, C. Luciuk, W. Cairncross, D. Fine, N. S. Cheng, G. J. A. Edge, E. Taylor, S. Zhang, S. Trotzky, and J. H. Thywissen, Science 344, 722 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    S. Hild, T. Fukuhara, P. Schauß, J. Zeiher, M. Knap, E. Demler, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 147205 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Fukuhara, A

    T. Fukuhara, A. Kantian, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, S. Hild, D. Bellem, U. Schollw¨ ock, T. Gia- marchi, C. Gross, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Nature Physics 9, 235 EP (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    T. A. Hilker, G. Salomon, F. Grusdt, A. Omran, M. Boll, E. Demler, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Science 357, 484 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Roati, C

    G. Roati, C. D’Errico, L. Fallani, M. Fattori, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, G. Modugno, M. Modugno, and M. Ingus- cio, Nature 453, 895 EP (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Billy, V

    J. Billy, V. Josse, Z. Zuo, A. Bernard, B. Hambrecht, P. Lugan, D. Cl´ ement, L. Sanchez-Palencia, P. Bouyer, and A. Aspect, Nature 453, 891 EP (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Gavish and Y

    U. Gavish and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 020401 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Grusdt, Z

    F. Grusdt, Z. Zhu, T. Shi, and E. Demler, SciPost Phys. 5, 57 (2018). 6

    2018

  37. [45]

    Pielawa, T

    S. Pielawa, T. Kitagawa, E. Berg, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 83, 205135 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, SciPost Phys. 2, 003 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Quspin: a python pack- age for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems. Part II: bosons, fermions and higher spins,

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, “Quspin: a python pack- age for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems. Part II: bosons, fermions and higher spins,” (2018), arXiv:1804.06782

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. S. Sørensen, E. Altman, M. Gullans, J. V. Porto, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. A 81, 061603 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Altman, W

    E. Altman, W. Hofstetter, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, New Journal of Physics 5, 113 (2003). Supplemental material REALIZA TION OF TIL TED POTENTIALS The tilt is implemented by an AC Stark shift gradient across the cloud. We use a 1064 nm beam, far off detuned from the 671 nm D-...

    2003

Pith tools

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