Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Exponential onset of scalable entanglement via twist-and-turn dynamics in XY models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A static XY Hamiltonian with a transverse field can drive scalable multipartite entanglement in a time growing only logarithmically with system size.

desk verdict Exponential TaT entanglement is real for all-to-all and truly long-range (alpha<D), but the dipolar Heisenberg-scaling claim is a finite-size window, not a thermodynamic-limit result. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08206 v1 pith:CBOJ6V42 submitted 2025-07-10 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el

Tommaso Roscilde , Meenu Kumari , Alexandre Cooper , Fabio Mezzacapo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el
keywords twist-and-turndynamicsXYmodelspinsqueezingquantumFisherinformationHeisenbergscalingdipolarinteractionsLieb-Robinsonboundsmultipartiteentanglement
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

This paper argues that twist-and-turn dynamics—a time-independent XY spin Hamiltonian with a transverse Rabi field—can prepare scalable multipartite entanglement exponentially faster than the standard one-axis-twisting route. For models with sufficiently high connectivity, the collective spin fluctuations are exponentially squeezed at short times, and at later times the quantum Fisher information reaches Heisenberg scaling in a time that grows only as $\log N$. The mechanism is shown exactly for all-to-all XY interactions and, with numerical cross-checks, for 2D dipolar interactions, where the transverse correlations spread at the maximum speed permitted by generalized Lieb-Robinson bounds. The paper also flags a caveat: for large systems and strong fields, finite-momentum spin-wave modes can become unstable, and the scalable Heisenberg scaling then crosses over to sub-Heisenberg behavior. If the claim holds, a simple static Hamiltonian becomes a fast, continuous entangling resource for quantum sensors and simulators.

What carries the argument

The central object is the twist-and-turn Hamiltonian, a ferromagnetic U(1)-symmetric XY interaction with a transverse field chosen so the initial coherent spin state sits at a hyperbolic fixed point of the classical dynamics. The stability analysis around that fixed point, performed exactly for all-to-all interactions via a linearized Holstein-Primakoff mapping, yields a squeezing rate $\lambda=\sqrt{\Omega(J-\Omega)}$; for spatially decaying interactions the same idea is extended by rotor-spin-wave theory, which separates the zero-momentum rotor (the all-to-all dynamics with an effective coupling $J_{\mathrm{eff}}$) from finite-momentum spin-wave modes, and by the requirement that their populations stay small. The instability of the fixed point is what converts a static Hamiltonian into an exponential clock for correlation growth.

What would settle it

Measure the peak of $\mathrm{Var}(J_y)$ (the quantum Fisher information for the pure state) as a function of system size in a 2D dipolar XY twist-and-turn experiment at fixed $\Omega/J$. If the peak stops growing as $N^2$ at the predicted instability scale $L_c\sim (J/\Omega)^{1/(2z)}$ (for dipolar $z=1/2$, $L_c\sim J/\Omega$), then the scalable Heisenberg-scaling claim for power-law interactions fails beyond that size; if it continues to grow as $N^2$, the claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that twist-and-turn (TaT) dynamics, generated by $H_{\mathrm{TaT}} = -J/N_\alpha \sum_{i\ne j} r_{ij}^{-\alpha}(S^x_i S^x_j+S^y_i S^y_j)+\Omega\sum_i S^x_i$, produces exponentially fast entanglement buildup: the minimum transverse variance decays as $e^{-2\lambda t}$ with $\lambda=\sqrt{\Omega(J-\Omega)}$ while the maximum transverse variance grows as $e^{2\lambda t}$ up to Heisenberg scaling $\sim N^2$. Scalable squeezing with $\xi_R^2\sim N^{-1/2}$ is reached in time $\sim \log N$, and the peak quantum Fisher information reaches Heisenberg scaling in a comparable logarithmic time. In the 2D dipolar case these results hold up to a size- and field-dependent crossover set by imaginary spin-wave frequencies, after which the scaling degrades.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the rotor-spin-wave decoupling approximation—the zero-momentum rotor and the finite-momentum spin waves must stay nearly independent, with small spin-wave populations—and the paper itself identifies large-size, strong-field regimes where imaginary spin-wave frequencies break that assumption and spoil Heisenberg scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A time-independent XY Hamiltonian with a transverse field can reach Heisenberg-scaled multipartite entanglement in $O(\log N)$ time, exponentially faster than one-axis twisting, which needs $O(\sqrt{N})$ time.
  • The early-time squeezing reaches $\xi_R^2\sim N^{-1/2}$ on the same logarithmic timescale, giving a fast route to Ramsey-type metrological gain.
  • At later times, $\mathrm{Var}(J_y)$ (equivalently the quantum Fisher information for the pure state) scales as $N^2$, and the parity-based rotation protocol can saturate the QFI bound.
  • In 2D dipolar systems, transverse correlations spread exponentially in time, saturating the generalized Lieb-Robinson bound for power-law interactions with a time-independent Hamiltonian.
  • The stability analysis identifies a class of models with $\alpha<D$ where TaT dynamics avoids finite-momentum instabilities at all system sizes, so the exponentially fast entanglement buildup can be free of the size-dependent crossover seen for dipolar interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The continuous nature of TaT squeezing could make it a practical alternative to pulsed one-axis twisting in experiments with a fixed coherence window, because the entanglement is generated while the Hamiltonian is simply left on.
  • An experimental map of the Heisenberg-to-sub-Heisenberg crossover as a function of $\Omega/J$ and system size would directly test the rotor-spin-wave stability criterion, and the paper's Fig. 3 provides the predicted crossover line for 2D dipolar interactions.
  • The same stability analysis, combined with generalized Lieb-Robinson bounds, suggests that engineered power-law XX models with $\alpha<D$ could maintain exponentially fast entanglement buildup in the thermodynamic limit, which is relevant for trapped-ion and Rydberg simulators.
  • If the rotor-spin-wave decoupling can be made quantitative, the same machinery could be extended to disordered or inhomogeneous power-law spin systems, where exact all-to-all solvability is lost.
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 studies twist-and-turn (TaT) dynamics in XY spin models with power-law interactions, claiming exponential onset of scalable entanglement: spin squeezing at short times and Heisenberg scaling of quantum Fisher information at later times, both reached in times growing logarithmically with system size. For all-to-all interactions, the authors derive an exponential squeezing rate λ = sqrt(Ω(J−Ω)) via a linearized Holstein-Primakoff mapping, and they verify the scaling numerically. For dipolar interactions in 2D, they present numerical results from dTWA and tVMC, supported by a rotor-spin-wave (RSW) theory, and they discuss spin-wave instabilities that appear at large sizes and strong fields. The paper also compares the correlation spreading with generalized Lieb-Robinson bounds and contrasts the dynamics with thermalization.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work would be significant for quantum metrology and quantum simulation: a time-independent Hamiltonian could prepare Heisenberg-scaled entangled states exponentially faster than one-axis twisting. The derivation of the all-to-all squeezing rate is clean and parameter-free, and the cross-checking of RSW against dTWA and tVMC is a notable strength. However, the dipolar extension is limited by spin-wave instabilities, and the abstract's use of 'exactly' overstates the analytic status. The results for models with α<D appear more robust, but the most experimentally emphasized case (dipolar, α=3 in 2D) is a finite-size transient rather than a thermodynamic-limit scalable result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; App. A] The abstract states that the results 'can be shown exactly in the XY model with a Rabi field and infinite range interactions.' This overstates what App. A provides: Eq. (A2) uses a linearized Holstein-Primakoff approximation (the text itself writes ≈), and App. A5 admits that the linearized bosonic model 'completely misses the value of the optimal squeezing observed for the spin model.' Thus the exponential squeezing rate λ = sqrt(Ω(J−Ω)) is derived within an approximate large-N, short-time regime, not exactly. I recommend rephrasing to 'shown analytically in a linearized spin-wave approximation' or otherwise qualifying the claim.
  2. [Sec. IV; Sec. V.B; Fig. 7; Eq. (B7)] The central claim for dipolar interactions (α=3 in D=2) that Heisenberg scaling of Var(J_y) is reached in a time O(log N) is supported only in a finite-size window, not in the thermodynamic limit. Eq. (B7) gives the critical field for finite-momentum spin-wave instability scaling as (Ω/J)_c(L) ~ L^{-1} in this case, so for any fixed Ω>0 there is a crossover size above which imaginary spin-wave frequencies appear and the RSW decoupling assumption fails. Fig. 7 shows exactly this crossover from Heisenberg to sub-Heisenberg scaling of the Var(J_y) peak, with the crossover size decreasing as Ω increases. Consequently, the abstract's condition 'provided that unstable spin-wave modes do not develop for large system sizes and/or strong fields' is never satisfied for fixed Ω>0 in the thermodynamic limit for α=3 in D=2. I recommend either restricting the scalable-claim to models with α<D (where Fig. 3c shows a size-independent critical field) or explicitly stating that the dipolar Heisenberg scaling is a transient finite-size effect and quantifying the regime of validity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [App. B] There is a typo in 'Holstein-Primakoff transformatoin' (should be 'transformation').
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the value corresponds to 'the second local maximum for Ω>0' but does not explain why the second maximum is chosen; a brief justification would help.
  3. [Sec. V.B] The sentence 'the maximum value of Var(J_y) lies above that reached by OAT-like dynamics' should be qualified with 'before the crossover to sub-Heisenberg scaling', to align with Fig. 7.
  4. [Sec. II] The definition of the Kac factor Nα in Eq. (1) is clear, but the text could be more explicit that Nα=1 for α>D, since the sum converges in that case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytical predictions are parameter-free consequences of the Hamiltonian and are independently cross-checked by dTWA and tVMC.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions are derived from the twist-and-turn Hamiltonian without fitting parameters to the quantities being predicted. The squeezing exponent λ = sqrt(Ω(J−Ω)) and the effective rotor coupling Jeff are fixed by the Hamiltonian parameters (App. A and App. B), not by the entanglement or squeezing data. The all-to-all Heisenberg scaling is obtained from exact diagonalization, while the dipolar results are supported by three independent approximations—RSW, dTWA, and tVMC—that agree in the relevant regime. The RSW framework is cited from the authors' prior work (Refs. [30,35]), but App. B explicitly states its fundamental decoupling approximation and its validity condition, and the paper cross-checks its predictions against independent numerical methods; hence this self-citation is real, parameter-free evidence rather than a circular load-bearing premise. The spin-wave instability crossover is derived analytically in Eq. (B7) and then compared with dTWA data in Fig. 3, making it a falsifiable prediction rather than an input. The caveat that unstable spin-wave modes can develop is a stated limitation for the dipolar case, not a definitional equivalence, and it does not render the derivation circular. Therefore no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted free parameters enter the central analytical predictions; the exponential rate is parameter-free and the effective couplings are derived from lattice sums. The dipolar extension rests on domain assumptions about the validity of linearized spin-wave and rotor-spin-wave treatments. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Linearized Holstein-Primakoff mapping from the collective spin to a single bosonic mode remains accurate during the squeezing and Heisenberg-scaling buildup for all-to-all interactions.
    App. A uses this mapping to derive the e^{2 lambda t} growth; the same appendix states the mapping is valid only while the boson population is much smaller than N and says it misses the optimal squeezing value.
  • domain assumption Rotor dynamics in the maximal Dicke sector decouples from spin-wave dynamics, and spin-wave populations remain small.
    App. B states this is the fundamental approximate assumption of rotor-spin-wave theory, and it is the basis for the dipolar predictions. The paper acknowledges that imaginary spin-wave frequencies break the approach at large sizes and fields.
  • domain assumption The initial coherent spin state lies in the maximal-spin sector, so rotor variables with K squared equal to N/2(N/2+1) describe it exactly, with leakage treated by Holstein-Primakoff bosons.
    App. B constructs rotor and spin-wave variables with this decomposition; the validity of the central dipolar results depends on small leakage out of the Dicke sector in the time window of interest.
  • standard math Standard Bogolyubov diagonalization gives the spin-wave dispersion omega_k = sqrt(A_k squared minus B_k squared).
    Used without proof in App. B to compute stability and instability of finite-momentum modes; this is a standard background tool.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exponential onset of scalable entanglement via twist-and-turn dynamics in XY models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CBOJ6V42

@misc{pith2026250708206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exponential onset of scalable entanglement via twist-and-turn dynamics in XY models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CBOJ6V42}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08206}
}
read the original abstract

The efficient preparation of scalable multipartite entanglement is a central goal in the development of next-generation quantum devices. In this work, we show that the so-called ``twist-and-turn" (TaT) dynamics for interacting spin ensembles, generated by Hamiltonians with U(1)-symmetric interactions and with a transverse field, can offer an important resource to reach this goal. For models with sufficiently high connectivity, TaT dynamics exhibits two key features: 1) it features both scalable squeezing at short times, as well as quantum Fisher information with Heisenberg scaling at later times; and 2) scalable multipartite entanglement (up to Heisenberg scaling) is reached in a time growing only logarithmically with system size, associated with an exponential buildup of quantum correlations. These results can be shown exactly in the XY model with a Rabi field and infinite range interactions, and numerically in the case of spatially decaying XY interactions, such as dipolar interactions in two dimensions, provided that unstable spin-wave modes do not develop for large system sizes and/or strong fields. For dipolar interactions, the entanglement dynamics at intermediate times is completely at odds with thermalization; and it appears to saturate the maximum speed of entanglement buildup allowed by Lieb-Robinson bounds generalized to power-law interacting systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08206 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a). This dynamics leaves ample time for squeezing correlations to build up within a timescale growing also logarithmically with size, and for optimal squeezing to reach the same scaling as in the α = 0 case. In Figs. 2(b￾c), we clearly observe this behavior for Ω/J = 0.2 using both numerical approaches and up to very large system sizes (L = 90 using dTWA). This behavior is quantitatively captured by a rotor￾spin-wa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Squeezing dynamics of the all-to-all TaT model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Magnetization dynamics in the dipolar 2D system at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.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. Universal spin-squeezing dynamics in spinor condensates

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Native spin-changing collisions plus arbitrary quadratic Zeeman shift produce universal OAT-scalable spin squeezing in spin-1 BECs, freezable by turning the shift off.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    This mapping is valid as long the dynamics does not lead to a large deviation in the evolved state from the initial coherent spin state, such that⟨J x⟩ ≲ N/2, or ⟨a†a⟩ ≪N

    Spin-to-boson mapping The above Hamiltonian can be mapped onto a quadratic single-mode bosonic Hamiltonian, with oper- ators a, a†, via the (linearized) Holstein-Primakoff trans- formation J x = N 2 − a†a J y ≈ √ N 2 a + a† J z ≈ √ N 2i a − a† (A2) to give H(Ω) ≈ Hb(Ω, a, a†) = (A3) ΩN 2 + N 8I − N 8I a2 + (a†)2 + N 4I − Ω a†a + const . This mapping is va...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Optimal field and bosonic squeezing At Ω = Ω 0 the bosonic Hamiltonian takes the squeez- ing form Hb(Ω0, a, a†) = − N 8I a2 + (a†)2 + const. (A7) and the evolution operator is the squeezing operator U (t) = exp −iHb(Ω0, a, a†)t = exp q 2 (a†)2 − q∗ 2 a2 = S(q) (A8) with squeezing parameter q = i N t 4I = ηeiϕ where η = N t/(4I) = J t/2 and ϕ = π/2 . As cu...

    work page

  3. [3]

    We now want to transform it into the squeezing Hamiltonian Hb = − ζ 2 (b†)2 + b2 + const

    Squeezing away from the optimal field Away from the optimal field, the bosonic Hamiltonian has the form Hb = − χ 2 (a†)2 + a2 − δ 2 a†a + aa† (A15) where χ = N 4I = J /2 and δ = Ω − Ω0. We now want to transform it into the squeezing Hamiltonian Hb = − ζ 2 (b†)2 + b2 + const. (A16) via a squeezing Bogolyubov transformation a = ub − vb† b = ua + va† . (A17)...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This im- plies that the time dependence of the squeezing parame- ter at short time is the same regardless of δ—as long as it satisfies the condition of Eq

    Short-time behavior The short-time expansion of ⟨X 2 θ ⟩ reads ⟨X 2 θ ⟩ ≈1 2 1 + 2χt sin(2θ) + 2(χt)2 − 2δχt2 cos(2θ) + O(t3) (A27) and that of the spin squeezing parameter reads ξ2 R ≈ 1 − 2χt + O(t2) 1 − 2χ2t2 N + O(t4) 2 (A28) namely the dependence on δ (i.e., on the field) of the quadrature fluctuations and of the squeezing parameter only appears in q...

    work page

  5. [5]

    8 presents an extended comparison between the predictions for squeezing from the bosonic model, Eq

    Comparison between bosonic squeezing and spin squeezing Fig. 8 presents an extended comparison between the predictions for squeezing from the bosonic model, Eq. (A26), and the full TaT dynamics for α = 0. We observe that the bosonic model predicts the cor- rect squeezing dynamics down to the optimal squeezing, and in particular the Ω-dependent exponential...

    work page

  6. [6]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Ad- vances in Physics 65, 239 (2016), ISSN 0001-8732, URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2016.1198134

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Science 353, 794 (2016), ISSN 0036-8075, URLhttp://science. sciencemag.org/content/353/6301/794

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.021001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.021001 2019

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    G¨ arttner, J

    M. G¨ arttner, J. G. Bohnet, A. Safavi-Naini, M. L. Wall, J. J. Bollinger, and A. M. Rey, Nature Physics 13, 781 (2017), ISSN 1745-2481, URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/nphys4119

    2017

  2. [10]

    Li, null, S

    Z. Li, null, S. Colombo, C. Shu, G. Velez, S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, R. Schmied, S. Choi, M. Lukin, E. Pedrozo-Pe˜ nafiel, et al., Science 380, 1381 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adg9500, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.adg9500

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Xu and B

    S. Xu and B. Swingle, PRX Quantum 5, 010201 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PRXQuantum.5.010201

    2024

  4. [12]

    C.-F. A. Chen, A. Lucas, and C. Yin, Reports on Progress in Physics 86, 116001 (2023), URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/acfaae

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Cheneau, P

    M. Cheneau, P. Barmettler, D. Poletti, M. Endres, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, C. Gross, I. Bloch, C. Kollath, and S. Kuhr, Nature 481, 484 (2012), ISSN 1476-4687, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10748

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Carleo, F

    G. Carleo, F. Becca, L. Sanchez-Palencia, S. Sorella, and M. Fabrizio, Phys. Rev. A 89, 031602 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 89.031602

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Fr´ erot, P

    I. Fr´ erot, P. Naldesi, and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050401 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.050401

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Cevolani, J

    L. Cevolani, J. Despres, G. Carleo, L. Taglia- cozzo, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Phys. Rev. B 98, 024302 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.98.024302

    2018

  9. [17]

    M. B. Hastings and T. Koma, Communications in Math- ematical Physics 265, 781 (2006), ISSN 1432-0916, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-006-0030-4

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    M. C. Tran, A. Y. Guo, C. L. Baldwin, A. Ehren- berg, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. Lucas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 160401 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.160401. 12

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    M. C. Tran, A. Y. Guo, A. Deshpande, A. Lu- cas, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031016 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.11.031016

    2021

  12. [20]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Ven- galattore, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.863

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    Micheli, D

    A. Micheli, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 67, 013607 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.67.013607

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    Muessel, H

    W. Muessel, H. Strobel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. A 92, 023603 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.023603

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Sorelli, M

    G. Sorelli, M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz` e, Phys. Rev. A 99, 022329 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.022329

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    M. H. Mu˜ noz-Arias, I. H. Deutsch, and P. M. Poggi, PRX Quantum 4, 020314 (2023), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020314

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Strobel, W

    H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zi- bold, D. B. Hume, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Science 345, 424 (2014), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1250147, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.1250147

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nat. Phys. 16, 132 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0733-z

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe- Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Reports on Progress in Physics 86, 026401 (2022), URL https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1361-6633/aca814

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Nature Physics 20, 730 (2024), ISSN 1745-2481, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02453-9

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Fr´ erot and T

    I. Fr´ erot and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 260402 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.133.260402

    2024

  22. [30]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.90. 035005

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011022 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011022

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Thibaut, T

    J. Thibaut, T. Roscilde, and F. Mezzacapo, Phys. Rev. B 100, 155148 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.155148

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Comparin, F

    T. Comparin, F. Mezzacapo, and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022625 (2022), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022625

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Caleca, S

    F. Caleca, S. Bocini, F. Mezzacapo, and T. Roscilde, Gi- ant number-parity effect leading to spontaneous symme- try breaking in finite-size quantum spin models (2024), 2412.15493, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15493

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Roscilde, T

    T. Roscilde, T. Comparin, and F. Mezzacapo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 160403 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.160403

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Fr´ erot, P

    I. Fr´ erot, P. Naldesi, and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. B 95, 245111 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.245111

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025001

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    A. W. Sandvik, AIP Conf. Proc. 1297, 135 (2010), URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/ 1.3518900

    2010

  31. [39]

    G. S. Agarwal, Quantum Optics (Cambridge, 2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Roscilde, T

    T. Roscilde, T. Comparin, and F. Mezzacapo, Phys. Rev. B 108, 155130 (2023), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.155130

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.