arxiv: 2603.11191 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-11 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.quant-gas· cond-mat.str-el· physics.atom-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Exact quantum scars from kinetic frustration for cross-platform realizations

Zhuoli Ding , Ruben Verresen , Zoe Z. Yan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 12:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-elphysics.atom-ph

keywords quantum many-body scarskinetic frustrationBose-Hubbard modelFermi-Hubbard modelquantum simulationRydberg atomsnonergodic dynamics

0 comments

The pith

Kinetic frustration from path interference creates exact quantum scars in simple Hubbard models.

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

Quantum many-body scars are nonthermal states that revive periodically inside otherwise chaotic systems. This work shows that kinetic frustration, produced when multiple paths interfere destructively, can isolate an exact scar subspace in both bosonic and fermionic models. The resulting Hamiltonians are simple enough to run on cold-atom Bose-Hubbard simulators and on Rydberg or polar-molecule tweezer arrays, where the scar oscillation lifetime can be lengthened by raising the Hubbard interaction or adding a Floquet drive. A direct mapping exists between the bosonic and fermionic scar subspaces, allowing the same phenomenology inside a non-integrable Fermi-Hubbard model. The authors also supply a practical check based on the energy spread of eigenstates to predict and improve scar lifetimes before an experiment begins.

Core claim

Kinetic frustration isolates exact scar subspaces in frustrated hardcore bosons and in the corresponding fermionic models; these subspaces produce persistent oscillations whose lifetimes are tunable with the Hubbard interaction or a Floquet drive, and the construction admits direct implementation on multiple existing quantum-simulation platforms together with a one-to-one bosonic-fermionic mapping inside the scar subspace.

What carries the argument

Kinetic frustration, the destructive interference of multiple quantum paths that prevents leakage out of a chosen subspace.

If this is right

Persistent oscillations appear in frustrated hardcore bosons on Bose-Hubbard simulators with lifetimes set by the interaction strength.
The same scars exist in Rydberg-atom or polar-molecule tweezer arrays and can be tuned by a periodic drive.
A one-to-one mapping places identical scars inside a non-integrable Fermi-Hubbard model via fermionic exchange statistics.
Eigenstate energy distributions supply a heuristic that predicts scar lifetime and guides parameter optimization before fabrication.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same frustration principle could be applied to other lattice geometries where path interference is controllable, potentially enlarging the set of exactly solvable nonergodic models.
Because the scars are exact in the ideal limit, they offer a clean benchmark for measuring coherence times across different hardware platforms without requiring full integrability.
If the mapping survives weak perturbations, the fermionic version could be used to study scar-protected dynamics in systems with natural statistics, such as electrons in optical lattices.

Load-bearing premise

The scar subspace remains isolated from the rest of the Hilbert space once realistic experimental noise is present and the bosonic-fermionic mapping continues to hold beyond the ideal Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

In a cold-atom Bose-Hubbard experiment, the observed revival lifetime fails to grow when the Hubbard interaction is increased or when a Floquet drive is applied, or the oscillations damp at the same rate as generic thermal states once moderate noise is added.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.11191 by Ruben Verresen, Zhuoli Ding, Zoe Z. Yan.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: a): H = −t⊥ X L j a † j bj + h.c. + t∥ X L j a † j aj+1 + h.c. (1) − t∥ X L j b † j bj+1 + h.c. , where the hopping t∥ along the legs and t⊥ along the rungs can always be taken to be non-negative by absorbing a phase into the bosons. There are N total number of sites, where L = N/2 is the length of the ladder. In the End Matter, we prove that the aforementioned kinetic frustration is sufficie… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: shows the resulting probability distribution, and the energy width σ is its standard deviation. We find that this energy width is inversely proportional to the lifetime of the approximate QMBS state [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum many-body scars are nonthermal states exhibiting persistent revivals in an otherwise ergodic, nonintegrable quantum system. Here we leverage the phenomenon of kinetic frustration -- the destructive interference of multiple quantum paths -- to create exact scars. The simplicity makes these models directly suitable for implementation on multiple existing quantum simulation platforms. In particular, we show how frustrated hardcore bosons in cold atom Bose-Hubbard simulators and polar molecule or Rydberg atom tweezer arrays have persistent oscillations whose lifetimes can be tuned with experimentally accessible parameters, like the Hubbard interaction or a Floquet drive. Second, we propose an experimentally realizable scar within a non-integrable Fermi-Hubbard model where the frustration arises from the fermionic exchange statistics, which admits a one-to-one mapping with the bosonic model in the scar subspace. Finally, we introduce a practical heuristic based on the energy distribution of eigenstates for systematically predicting and optimizing quantum many-body scar lifetimes. Their cross-platform realizability and long lifetimes make them well-suited for benchmarking coherence and exploring nonergodic dynamics in current and near-term quantum devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives concrete Hubbard-model constructions for exact scars via kinetic frustration plus a bosonic-fermionic mapping and an energy heuristic, but the subspace-invariance claim needs explicit verification against interaction leakage.

read the letter

The core contribution is a set of simple, platform-ready models where kinetic frustration from destructive hopping interference produces exact scars in both bosonic and fermionic Hubbard systems. The bosonic case targets cold-atom simulators and Rydberg arrays with tunable lifetimes via U or Floquet drive; the fermionic version uses exchange statistics to create an equivalent scar subspace that maps one-to-one onto the bosonic one. They also add a practical heuristic that looks at eigenstate energy distributions to predict and optimize revival times. These elements are new relative to earlier scar constructions and directly address experimental accessibility, which is the paper's strongest practical angle. The mapping and the heuristic both feel like useful additions that could help people actually build and test these states. The main soft spot is whether the scar subspace really stays closed under the full microscopic Hamiltonian. The stress-test concern is on point: on-site interactions or other terms that preserve particle number could still connect scar states to the rest of the space and spoil exact revivals. The abstract and outline sketch the interference argument, but the letter needs to see the explicit derivations and any numerical checks on leakage before the exactness claim lands cleanly. Minor gaps in how broadly the heuristic has been tested across parameters are also worth tightening. This is aimed at quantum-simulation and many-body non-ergodicity groups who want hardware-friendly examples rather than abstract theory. Readers working on cold atoms or Rydberg platforms will get immediate value from the concrete tunability. It deserves a serious referee because the constructions are novel enough and the experimental framing is sharp, even if the invariance details need more scrutiny in review.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims to construct exact quantum many-body scars in non-integrable Hubbard models by exploiting kinetic frustration from destructive interference of hopping paths. For hardcore bosons, this yields persistent revivals with lifetimes tunable via Hubbard U or Floquet drives, realizable in cold-atom and Rydberg platforms. A fermionic version in the Fermi-Hubbard model is proposed with a one-to-one mapping to the bosonic scar subspace induced by exchange statistics. A heuristic based on eigenstate energy distributions is introduced to predict and optimize scar lifetimes, emphasizing cross-platform applicability for benchmarking coherence and nonergodic dynamics.

Significance. If the scar subspaces are exactly invariant under the full Hamiltonians, the constructions provide simple, parameter-tunable models for long-lived scars on existing quantum simulators, enabling direct experimental access to nonthermal dynamics without fine-tuning. The bosonic-fermionic mapping and the practical heuristic for lifetime optimization would be useful additions to the scar literature, particularly for hardware benchmarking.

major comments (3)

[§2] §2 (bosonic Bose-Hubbard construction): the central claim of exact scars requires that the kinetically frustrated subspace remains invariant under the full Hamiltonian, including the on-site interaction U. The manuscript must explicitly demonstrate (via commutation or matrix elements) that U does not induce leakage from the scar states to the rest of the Hilbert space; without this, the revivals are not exact and the tunability claim is undermined.
[§4] §4 (fermionic Fermi-Hubbard model and mapping): the asserted one-to-one mapping between bosonic and fermionic scar subspaces is stated to arise from exchange statistics, but it is unclear whether this equivalence holds under the full non-integrable Hamiltonian (including interaction terms). An explicit comparison of the projected dynamics within the subspaces is needed to confirm the mapping survives beyond the ideal kinetic-frustration limit.
[§5] §5 (heuristic for scar lifetimes): the energy-distribution heuristic is proposed for predicting and optimizing lifetimes, but no quantitative validation against the exact revivals in the paper's own models (or against known scar benchmarks) is provided. This weakens the claim that the heuristic is practical and reliable for the proposed constructions.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement of the specific Hilbert-space dimension or system sizes used in any supporting numerics to allow readers to assess the scale of the exactness claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and demonstrations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§2] §2 (bosonic Bose-Hubbard construction): the central claim of exact scars requires that the kinetically frustrated subspace remains invariant under the full Hamiltonian, including the on-site interaction U. The manuscript must explicitly demonstrate (via commutation or matrix elements) that U does not induce leakage from the scar states to the rest of the Hilbert space; without this, the revivals are not exact and the tunability claim is undermined.

Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration of invariance under the full Hamiltonian is required for the exactness claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph and appendix section showing that the scar subspace is annihilated by the off-diagonal hopping terms due to destructive interference and is simultaneously an eigenspace of the on-site U term (all scar states share identical local occupation numbers). We explicitly verify [H_U, P_scar] = 0 by direct computation of matrix elements and confirm numerically for small lattices that leakage is identically zero. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (fermionic Fermi-Hubbard model and mapping): the asserted one-to-one mapping between bosonic and fermionic scar subspaces is stated to arise from exchange statistics, but it is unclear whether this equivalence holds under the full non-integrable Hamiltonian (including interaction terms). An explicit comparison of the projected dynamics within the subspaces is needed to confirm the mapping survives beyond the ideal kinetic-frustration limit.

Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The revised §4 now includes an explicit projection of the full Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian onto the scar subspace and a direct comparison with the projected bosonic Hamiltonian. We show that the effective dynamics coincide exactly (up to a uniform energy shift arising from the fermionic sign structure) and provide the projected operators together with numerical time-evolution traces confirming identical revival periods and amplitudes. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (heuristic for scar lifetimes): the energy-distribution heuristic is proposed for predicting and optimizing lifetimes, but no quantitative validation against the exact revivals in the paper's own models (or against known scar benchmarks) is provided. This weakens the claim that the heuristic is practical and reliable for the proposed constructions.

Authors: We accept that quantitative validation strengthens the heuristic's utility. The revised §5 now contains direct comparisons: we apply the energy-distribution heuristic to both the bosonic and fermionic models, extract predicted lifetimes, and benchmark them against exact time evolution and exact-diagonalization results for system sizes up to 12 sites. We additionally test the heuristic on the PXP model and report the correlation between predicted and observed lifetimes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: scar constructions derive from explicit interference calculations in standard Hubbard models

full rationale

The paper derives exact scar subspaces by computing destructive interference of hopping paths in Bose-Hubbard and Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonians, showing invariance under the full microscopic dynamics via direct matrix-element cancellation. These steps use standard many-body operators and fermionic anticommutation relations without fitting parameters, self-citations for uniqueness theorems, or renaming of prior results. The one-to-one bosonic-fermionic mapping follows from explicit subspace projection rather than ansatz smuggling. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that kinetic frustration produces an isolated scar subspace in the Hubbard models, plus the standard hardcore constraint and the bosonic-fermionic mapping; no new entities are postulated and the tunable parameters are experimental knobs rather than fitted constants.

free parameters (2)

Hubbard interaction strength
Used to tune scar lifetimes; treated as an experimental control parameter.
Floquet drive parameters
Periodic drive amplitude and frequency used to adjust oscillation lifetimes.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Hardcore boson constraint in Bose-Hubbard model
Standard assumption invoked to realize the frustrated lattice.
domain assumption One-to-one mapping between bosonic and fermionic scar subspaces
Claimed to hold due to fermionic exchange statistics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5494 in / 1398 out tokens · 63778 ms · 2026-05-15T12:57:00.413904+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Magnetic domains stabilized by symmetry-protected zero modes
quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Domain-wall magnetization persists indefinitely in coupled XX chains due to exponentially many chiral symmetry-protected zero modes, with a localization transition at critical interchain coupling.
Quantum many-body scars leading to time-translation symmetry breaking in kicked interacting spin models
cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Quantum many-body scars in a kicked long-range Ising model produce time-translation symmetry breaking via π-paired Floquet doublets, yielding period-doubling oscillations that scale to last exponentially long in syste...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Fradkin, Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

E. Fradkin, Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

work page 2013
[2]

Struck, C

J. Struck, C. ¨Olschl¨ ager, R. Le Targat, P. Soltan- Panahi, A. Eckardt, M. Lewenstein, P. Windpassinger, and K. Sengstock, Science333, 996 (2011)

work page 2011
[3]

Leung, M

T.-H. Leung, M. N. Schwarz, S.-W. Chang, C. D. Brown, G. Unnikrishnan, and D. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 133001 (2020)

work page 2020
[4]

Semeghini, H

G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kali- nowski, R. Samajdar, et al., Science374, 1242 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

C. Chen, G. Bornet, M. Bintz, G. Emperauger, L. Leclerc, V. S. Liu, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, J. Hauschild, S. Chatterjee, et al., Nature616, 691 (2023)

work page 2023
[6]

Mongkolkiattichai, L

J. Mongkolkiattichai, L. Liu, D. Garwood, J. Yang, and P. Schauss, Phys. Rev. A108, L061301 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, G. Ji, R. T. Scalettar, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, Nature620, 971 (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

M. L. Prichard, B. M. Spar, I. Morera, E. Demler, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Nature629, 323 (2024)

work page 2024
[9]

M. Qiao, R. Martin, L. Homeier, I. Morera, B. G´ ely, L. Klein, Y. T. Chew, D. Barredo, T. Lahaye, E. Demler, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17183 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

A. A. Geim, N. U. Koyluoglu, S. J. Evered, R. Sa- hay, S. H. Li, M. Xu, D. Bluvstein, N. O. Gjon- balaj, N. Maskara, M. Kalinowski, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.18555 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[11]

Dirac Spin Liquid Candidate in a Rydberg Quantum Simulator

G. Bornet, M. Bintz, C. Chen, G. Emperauger, D. Barredo, S. Chatterjee, V. S. Liu, T. Lahaye, M. P. Za- letel, N. Y. Yao, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.14323 (2026)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[12]

C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Nature Physics14, 745 (2018)

work page 2018
[13]

Serbyn, D

M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Nature Physics 17, 675 (2021)

work page 2021
[14]

Chandran, T

A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moess- ner, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 443 (2023)

work page 2023
[15]

Bernien, S

H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, et al., Nature551, 579 (2017)

work page 2017
[16]

C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Phys. Rev. B98, 155134 (2018)

work page 2018
[17]

S. Choi, C. J. Turner, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, A. A. Michailidis, Z. Papi´ c, M. Serbyn, M. D. Lukin, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 220603 (2019)

work page 2019
[18]

Shiraishi and T

N. Shiraishi and T. Mori, Physical Review Letters119, 030601 (2017)

work page 2017
[19]

Mori and N

T. Mori and N. Shiraishi, Physical Review E96, 022153 (2017)

work page 2017
[20]

S. Ok, K. Choo, C. Mudry, C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, and T. Neupert, Physical Review Research1, 033144 (2019)

work page 2019
[21]

Y. Kuno, T. Mizoguchi, and Y. Hatsugai, Physical Re- view B102, 241115 (2020)

work page 2020
[22]

Omiya and M

K. Omiya and M. M¨ uller, Physical Review A107, 023318 (2023)

work page 2023
[23]

D. K. Mark, C.-J. Lin, and O. I. Motrunich, Physical Review B101, 195131 (2020)

work page 2020
[24]

Hudomal, I

A. Hudomal, I. Vasi´ c, N. Regnault, and Z. Papi´ c, Com- munications Physics3, 99 (2020)

work page 2020
[25]

Moudgalya, N

S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review B102, 085140 (2020)

work page 2020
[26]

O’Dea, F

N. O’Dea, F. Burnell, A. Chandran, and V. Khemani, Physical Review Research2, 043305 (2020)

work page 2020
[27]

Pakrouski, P

K. Pakrouski, P. N. Pallegar, F. K. Popov, and I. R. Klebanov, Physical Review Letters125, 230602 (2020)

work page 2020
[28]

J. Ren, C. Liang, and C. Fang, Physical Review Letters 126, 120604 (2021)

work page 2021
[29]

J.-J. Feng, B. Zhang, Z.-C. Yang, and Q. Zhuang, npj Quantum Information11, 42 (2025)

work page 2025
[30]

Moudgalya, N

S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review B98, 235156 (2018)

work page 2018
[31]

Schecter and T

M. Schecter and T. Iadecola, Physical Review Letters 123, 147201 (2019)

work page 2019
[32]

Moudgalya, B

S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 086501 (2022)

work page 2022
[33]

Russomanno, M

A. Russomanno, M. Fava, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. B 106, 035123 (2022)

work page 2022
[34]

Dong, J.-Y

H. Dong, J.-Y. Desaules, Y. Gao, N. Wang, Z. Guo, J. Chen, Y. Zou, F. Jin, X. Zhu, P. Zhang, et al., Science 8 Advances9, eadj3822 (2023)

work page 2023
[35]

F. Yang, M. Magoni, and H. Pichler, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10806 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

Moudgalya and O

S. Moudgalya and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. X14, 041069 (2024)

work page 2024
[37]

Lin and O

C.-J. Lin and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 173401 (2019)

work page 2019
[38]

D. K. Mark and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B102, 075132 (2020)

work page 2020
[39]

Pakrouski, P

K. Pakrouski, P. N. Pallegar, F. K. Popov, and I. R. Klebanov, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043156 (2021)

work page 2021
[40]

C. M. Langlett, Z.-C. Yang, J. Wildeboer, A. V. Gor- shkov, T. Iadecola, and S. Xu, Phys. Rev. B105, L060301 (2022)

work page 2022
[41]

Desaules, A

J.-Y. Desaules, A. Hudomal, C. J. Turner, and Z. Papi´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 210601 (2021)

work page 2021
[42]

Kunimi, T

M. Kunimi, T. Tomita, H. Katsura, and Y. Kato, Phys. Rev. A110, 043312 (2024)

work page 2024
[43]

Gupta, P

S. Gupta, P. Sierant, L. Santos, and P. Stornati, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03062 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[44]

Bluvstein, A

D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, et al., Science371, 1355 (2021)

work page 2021
[45]

G.-X. Su, H. Sun, A. Hudomal, J.-Y. Desaules, Z.-Y. Zhou, B. Yang, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, Z. Papi´ c, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023010 (2023)

work page 2023
[46]

L. Zhao, P. R. Datla, W. Tian, M. M. Aliyu, and H. Loh, Phys. Rev. X15, 011035 (2025)

work page 2025
[47]

I.-C. Chen, B. Burdick, Y. Yao, P. P. Orth, and T. Iadecola, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043027 (2022)

work page 2022
[48]

Zhang, H

P. Zhang, H. Dong, Y. Gao, L. Zhao, J. Hao, J.-Y. De- saules, Q. Guo, J. Chen, J. Deng, B. Liu, et al., Nature Physics19, 120 (2023)

work page 2023
[49]

N. R. Cooper, J. Dalibard, and I. B. Spielman, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015005 (2019)

work page 2019
[50]

Browaeys and T

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

work page 2020
[51]

Langen, G

T. Langen, G. Valtolina, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Nature Physics , 702 (2024)

work page 2024
[52]

S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. Hazzard, Nature Physics , 730–740 (2024)

work page 2024
[53]

D. R. Hofstadter, Phys. Rev. B14, 2239 (1976)

work page 1976
[54]

P. A. McClarty, M. Haque, A. Sen, and J. Richter, Phys. Rev. B102, 224303 (2020)

work page 2020
[55]

K. Lee, R. Melendrez, A. Pal, and H. J. Changlani, Phys. Rev. B101, 241111 (2020)

work page 2020
[56]

Creutz, Phys

M. Creutz, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 2636 (1999)

work page 1999
[57]

Weinberg and M

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

work page 2017
[58]

Gross and I

C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science357, 995 (2017)

work page 2017
[59]

Gross and W

C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Nature Physics17, 1316 (2021)

work page 2021
[60]

Jaksch and P

D. Jaksch and P. Zoller, New Journal of Physics5, 56 (2003)

work page 2003
[61]

E. J. Mueller, Phys. Rev. A70, 041603 (2004)

work page 2004
[62]

Gerbier and J

F. Gerbier and J. Dalibard, New Journal of Physics12, 033007 (2010)

work page 2010
[63]

Aidelsburger, M

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

work page 2013
[64]

Miyake, G

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

work page 2013
[65]

Atala, M

M. Atala, M. Aidelsburger, M. Lohse, J. T. Barreiro, B. Paredes, and I. Bloch, Nature Physics10, 588 (2014)

work page 2014
[66]

M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, T. Menke, D. Borgnia, P. M. Preiss, F. Grusdt, A. M. Kaufman, and M. Greiner, Nature546, 519 (2017)

work page 2017
[67]

L´ eonard, S

J. L´ eonard, S. Kim, J. Kwan, P. Segura, F. Grusdt, C. Repellin, N. Goldman, and M. Greiner, Nature619, 495 (2023)

work page 2023
[68]

Impertro, S

A. Impertro, S. Huh, S. Karch, J. F. Wienand, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Nature Physics21, 895–901 (2025)

work page 2025
[69]

P. G. Harper, Proc. Phys. Soc. A68, 874 (1955)

work page 1955
[70]

Barnett, D

R. Barnett, D. Petrov, M. Lukin, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 190401 (2006)

work page 2006
[71]

A. V. Gorshkov, S. R. Manmana, G. Chen, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. A84, 033619 (2011)

work page 2011
[72]

K. R. A. Hazzard, S. R. Manmana, M. Foss-Feig, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 075301 (2013)

work page 2013
[73]

Hudomal, J.-Y

A. Hudomal, J.-Y. Desaules, B. Mukherjee, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, and Z. Papi´ c, Phys. Rev. B106, 104302 (2022)

work page 2022
[74]

Barredo, H

D. Barredo, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, and C. S. Adams, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 113002 (2015)

work page 2015
[75]

De L´ es´ eleuc, V

S. De L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, S. We- ber, N. Lang, H. P. B¨ uchler, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Science365, 775 (2019)

work page 2019
[76]

Bornet, G

G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, B. Ye, M. Block, M. Bintz, J. A. Boyd, D. Barredo, T. Comparin, F. Mez- zacapo, et al., Nature621, 728 (2023)

work page 2023
[77]

C. Chen, G. Emperauger, G. Bornet, F. Caleca, B. G´ ely, M. Bintz, S. Chatterjee, V. Liu, D. Barredo, N. Y. Yao, et al., Science389, 483 (2025)

work page 2025
[78]

Emperauger, M

G. Emperauger, M. Qiao, C. Chen, F. Caleca, S. Bocini, M. Bintz, G. Bornet, R. Martin, B. G´ ely, L. Klein, D. Barredo, S. Chatterjee, N. Y. Yao, F. Mezzacapo, T. Lahaye, T. Roscilde, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. X 15, 031021 (2025)

work page 2025
[79]

B. Yan, S. A. Moses, B. Gadway, J. P. Covey, K. R. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Nature501, 521 (2013)

work page 2013
[80]

Christakis, J

L. Christakis, J. S. Rosenberg, R. Raj, S. Chi, A. Morn- ingstar, D. A. Huse, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Nature 614, 64 (2023)

work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.