arxiv: 2604.22955 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · cond-mat.str-el· physics.atom-ph· quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Realizing multi-orbital Emery models with ultracold atoms

Adam Kaufman, Ana Maria Rey, Cindy Regal, Conall McCabe, Jamie Boyd, Kaizhao Wang, Lukas Homeier, Martin Lebrat

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 08:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.str-elphysics.atom-phquant-ph

keywords ultracold atomsoptical latticesEmery modelmulti-orbital Hubbard modelscuprate superconductorsquantum simulationantiferromagnetic correlations

0 comments

The pith

An optical superlattice with interfering lasers can realize the three-band Emery model in ultracold fermions with independent control over orbital interactions and charge-transfer energy.

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

The paper sets out to build a controllable quantum simulator for the multi-orbital physics of cuprate materials. It does so by proposing a specific arrangement of laser beams that creates a superlattice hosting three distinct orbital sites per unit cell, matching the copper-oxygen structure in real cuprates. Independent tuning of interaction strengths between orbitals and the energy cost to move charge between them becomes possible through controllable interference. A sympathetic reader would value this because one-band Hubbard models omit the oxygen degrees of freedom that many theories invoke to explain high-temperature superconductivity, and a tunable atomic version offers a direct experimental testbed. Quantum walks and thermodynamic measurements are shown to confirm the model and reveal accessible crossovers to insulating and magnetically ordered states.

Core claim

We propose an optical superlattice architecture that implements the three-band Emery model with ultracold fermions. By combining lattice beams with controllable interference, we engineer orbital degrees of freedom that reproduce key features of the cuprate band structure, while enabling independent control of orbital-dependent interactions and charge-transfer energy. Single-particle quantum walks benchmark the resulting tight-binding model. Determinant quantum Monte Carlo calculations of the undoped regime reveal a finite-temperature metal-insulator crossover accompanied by the onset of antiferromagnetic correlations. A Hamiltonian learning protocol then extracts effective single-band models

What carries the argument

The optical superlattice formed by interfering lattice beams, which creates tunable three-orbital sites and allows separate adjustment of intra- and inter-orbital interactions plus charge-transfer energy.

If this is right

Single-particle quantum walks serve as an immediate experimental benchmark of the engineered tight-binding parameters.
In the undoped regime the system exhibits a metal-insulator crossover together with growing antiferromagnetic correlations at temperatures reachable in current quantum gas microscopes.
Hamiltonian learning applied to measured data can map the multi-orbital realization onto an effective single-band Hubbard model.
The same lattice platform supplies a practical route to study multi-orbital Hubbard physics under quantum gas microscope observation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Successful implementation would open the possibility of doping the system in situ to search for superconducting phases.
Independent tuning of the charge-transfer energy could isolate its contribution to pairing mechanisms that are difficult to vary in solid-state samples.
The interference-based engineering approach might generalize to other multi-orbital geometries beyond the Emery model.

Load-bearing premise

Laser beam interference patterns can be engineered precisely enough to produce the desired orbital geometry and independent parameter control without introducing uncontrolled mixing or heating.

What would settle it

Measure the single-particle band structure or quantum walk dynamics in the proposed lattice and check whether the extracted hopping amplitudes and orbital energies match the target Emery-model values within experimental resolution; a clear mismatch would show the architecture fails to realize the claimed model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22955 by Adam Kaufman, Ana Maria Rey, Cindy Regal, Conall McCabe, Jamie Boyd, Kaizhao Wang, Lukas Homeier, Martin Lebrat.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (b). By following the contour lines, those parameters can be tuned independently through regimes relevant to cuprates Ud > Up and ∆pd/tpd = 2...5, while keeping the band structure approximately constant, i.e., a weakly varying ratio tpp/tpd and absolute scale of tunneling amplitudes, see Appendix B. The absolute interaction scale Ud is tuned by an atomic scattering resonance. To precisely obtain the ti… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: (a), the two upper gray dashed lines correspond to the fourth and fifth band of the optical lattice. While the energy gaps between the fourth, and the second and third band are small compared to the bandwidths of Emery bands, their coupling matrix element is also small, because the fourth band is largely located around the “fake site” at x = y = 0.25λL in view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) right. To assess the quality of our protocol, we compare the low-energy spectrum of the three-band to the learned single-band model, see view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8 view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9 view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10 view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Strongly-correlated electrons in transition-metal oxides give rise to intriguing emergent phenomena, including high-temperature superconductivity in cuprates. While simplified one-band Hubbard models capture some aspects, explicitly describing the interplay of copper and oxygen orbitals -- as in the three-band Emery model -- is essential to capture the full phenomenology of cuprates. Quantum simulators based on ultracold atoms offer a promising route to study such systems in a controlled setting, but realizing realistic multi-orbital Hubbard models remains challenging. Here we propose an optical superlattice architecture that implements the three-band Emery model with ultracold fermions. By combining lattice beams with controllable interference, we engineer orbital degrees of freedom that reproduce key features of the cuprate band structure, while enabling independent control of orbital-dependent interactions and charge-transfer energy. We show that single-particle quantum walks can benchmark the resulting tight-binding model. Using determinant quantum Monte Carlo, we further investigate thermodynamic properties in the undoped regime and find a finite-temperature metal-insulator crossover accompanied by the onset of antiferromagnetic correlations accessible in current experiments. Finally, we apply a Hamiltonian learning protocol enabling to infer effective single-band Hubbard models from experimental realizations of Emery models. Our results provide a practical pathway to simulate multi-orbital Hubbard physics with quantum gas microscopes.

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

This paper gives a concrete optical superlattice blueprint for the three-band Emery model plus a learning protocol to extract effective Hubbard parameters, with standard benchmarks but untested engineering assumptions.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors lay out an explicit optical superlattice setup using lattice beams and controllable interference to realize the three-band Emery model in ultracold fermions, with independent tuning of orbital interactions and charge-transfer energy. They add a Hamiltonian learning protocol to map experimental realizations back to effective single-band Hubbard models. That combination is the actual new piece here, building on existing lattice techniques but targeting the multi-orbital case more directly than prior work. The single-particle quantum-walk simulations and the DQMC runs for the undoped regime are straightforward and show a metal-insulator crossover plus antiferromagnetic correlations that look reachable with current quantum gas microscopes. Those checks are done properly and give the proposal some grounding. The engineering details are spelled out enough to be useful as a starting point for experimental groups. The main soft spot is that everything still rests on assumptions about whether the beam interference can actually deliver the required band structure and tunability in the lab; no data yet, so realizability remains the open question. The numerics stay in the undoped limit, which is reasonable for a first step but leaves doped physics for later. Citations look appropriate and the methods are standard. This is for experimental cold-atom teams with microscope access and for theorists working on multi-orbital Hubbard or cuprate analogs. A reader in that space would get a practical roadmap and a way to connect to simpler models. It deserves a serious referee because the claims are testable with clear next steps, even if heavy revision will follow once the lattice is built.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an optical superlattice architecture to realize the three-band Emery model with ultracold fermions. By combining lattice beams with controllable interference, it engineers orbital degrees of freedom to reproduce key cuprate band-structure features while allowing independent tuning of orbital-dependent interactions and charge-transfer energy. The work derives the resulting tight-binding parameters, benchmarks them via single-particle quantum-walk simulations, computes finite-temperature thermodynamics in the undoped regime using determinant quantum Monte Carlo (showing a metal-insulator crossover and onset of antiferromagnetic correlations), and applies a Hamiltonian learning protocol to infer effective single-band Hubbard models from the Emery realization.

Significance. If experimentally realizable, the proposal would enable controlled quantum simulation of multi-orbital Hubbard physics central to cuprate phenomenology, going beyond one-band models. Strengths include the explicit beam configuration, quantum-walk benchmarking, DQMC thermodynamics accessible to current experiments, and the Hamiltonian learning protocol that connects multi-orbital realizations to simpler models. These elements provide concrete, falsifiable pathways for experimental implementation.

major comments (2)

[§3.2, Eq. (7)] §3.2, Eq. (7): The mapping from lattice-beam interference to independent control of orbital-dependent interactions and charge-transfer energy assumes ideal phase stability and intensity ratios; no quantitative robustness analysis against realistic beam misalignment or intensity fluctuations is provided, which is load-bearing for the central engineering claim.
[§5.1] §5.1: The DQMC results demonstrate a finite-temperature metal-insulator crossover and antiferromagnetic correlations, but the manuscript does not quantify how the simulated temperatures map onto experimentally accessible regimes for the proposed lattice depths and interaction strengths.

minor comments (2)

[Figure 3] Figure 3: The color scale and axis labels for the quantum-walk probability distributions are difficult to read at the printed size; enlarging or adding a supplementary high-resolution version would improve clarity.
The reference list omits several recent works on optical-lattice realizations of multi-orbital models (e.g., those using Raman-assisted tunneling); adding these would better situate the novelty of the superlattice approach.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our work and for the constructive major comments. We agree that additional quantitative analyses will strengthen the manuscript's claims regarding experimental feasibility and will incorporate them in the revision.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3.2, Eq. (7)] The mapping from lattice-beam interference to independent control of orbital-dependent interactions and charge-transfer energy assumes ideal phase stability and intensity ratios; no quantitative robustness analysis against realistic beam misalignment or intensity fluctuations is provided, which is load-bearing for the central engineering claim.

Authors: We agree that a quantitative robustness analysis is essential to support the central engineering claim. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that numerically evaluates the sensitivity of the derived tight-binding parameters (hopping amplitudes, charge-transfer energy, and interaction strengths) to realistic experimental imperfections. This will include simulations of the optical potential under 1-5% intensity fluctuations and phase drifts up to 0.2 rad, demonstrating that the key orbital-selective features remain stable within the tolerances achievable in current quantum gas experiments. revision: yes
Referee: [§5.1] The DQMC results demonstrate a finite-temperature metal-insulator crossover and antiferromagnetic correlations, but the manuscript does not quantify how the simulated temperatures map onto experimentally accessible regimes for the proposed lattice depths and interaction strengths.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. Although the manuscript states that the temperatures are accessible, we will revise §5.1 to include explicit mappings. Using the lattice depths, hopping scales, and interaction strengths from our proposal, we will convert the simulated temperatures (in units of t) to physical temperatures in nK and compare them directly to the cooling limits reported for quantum gas microscopes (typically T/t ≲ 0.1-0.2 in similar fermionic setups). This will provide concrete benchmarks for experimental realization. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the optical superlattice proposal

full rationale

The manuscript is a forward proposal for an optical-superlattice realization of the three-band Emery model. It supplies an explicit lattice-beam configuration, derives the resulting tight-binding parameters from the engineered optical potential, benchmarks them with independent single-particle quantum-walk simulations, and computes finite-temperature thermodynamics via DQMC. No claimed prediction or first-principles result reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation, or ansatz; the derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on standard assumptions of the Emery model and optical-lattice engineering; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond those already standard in the field.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The three-band Emery model Hamiltonian accurately captures the essential low-energy physics of cuprates.
Invoked in the motivation and proposal sections of the abstract.
standard math Determinant quantum Monte Carlo provides reliable thermodynamic properties for the undoped Emery model at accessible temperatures.
Used to obtain the metal-insulator crossover and antiferromagnetic correlations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5551 in / 1289 out tokens · 33095 ms · 2026-05-08T08:58:17.025917+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Gross and I

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

2017
[2]

Pseudo- gap in a Fermi-Hubbard quantum simulator,

L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, A. D. Deters, M. Lebrat, A. W. Young, and M. Greiner, “Pseudo- gap in a Fermi-Hubbard quantum simulator,” (2025), arXiv:2509.180751

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

Bourgund, T

D. Bourgund, T. Chalopin, P. Bojovi´ c, H. Schl¨ omer, S. Wang, T. Franz, S. Hirthe, A. Bohrdt, F. Grusdt, I. Bloch, and T. A. Hilker, Nature637, 57 (2025)

2025
[4]

Chalopin, P

T. Chalopin, P. Bojovi´ c, S. Wang, T. Franz, A. Sinha, Z. Wang, D. Bourgund, J. Obermeyer, F. Grusdt, A. Bohrdt, L. Pollet, A. Wietek, A. Georges, T. Hilker, and I. Bloch, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences123(2026)

2026
[5]

M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, C. Feng, S. Zhang, A. W. Young, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, Nature (2025)

2025
[6]

Gross and W

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

2021
[7]

Bohrdt, L

A. Bohrdt, L. Homeier, C. Reinmoser, E. Demler, and F. Grusdt, Annals of Physics435, 168651 (2021)

2021
[8]

Dagotto, Reviews of Modern Physics66, 763 (1994)

E. Dagotto, Reviews of Modern Physics66, 763 (1994)

1994
[9]

L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Re- view Letters91, 090402 (2003)

2003
[10]

Qin, C.-M

M. Qin, C.-M. Chung, H. Shi, E. Vitali, C. Hubig, U. Schollw¨ ock, S. R. White, and S. Zhang (Simons Col- laboration on the Many-Electron Problem), Physical Re- view X10(2020)

2020
[11]

Hirayama, Y

M. Hirayama, Y. Yamaji, T. Misawa, and M. Imada, Physical Review B98, 134501 (2018)

2018
[12]

Jiang, D

S. Jiang, D. J. Scalapino, and S. R. White, Physical Review B108, l161111 (2023)

2023
[13]

Xu, C.-M

H. Xu, C.-M. Chung, M. Qin, U. Schollw¨ ock, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Science384(2024)

2024
[14]

Keimer, S

B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, Nature518, 179 (2015)

2015
[15]

V. J. Emery, Physical Review Letters58, 2794 (1987)

1987
[16]

R. T. Scalettar, D. J. Scalapino, R. L. Sugar, and S. R. White, Physical Review B44, 770 (1991)

1991
[17]

de’ Medici, X

L. de’ Medici, X. Wang, M. Capone, and A. J. Millis, Physical Review B80, 054501 (2009)

2009
[18]

Ponsioen, S

B. Ponsioen, S. S. Chung, and P. Corboz, Physical Re- view B108, 205154 (2023)

2023
[19]

Zaanen, G

J. Zaanen, G. A. Sawatzky, and J. W. Allen, Physical Review Letters55, 418 (1985)

1985
[20]

Imada, A

M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics70, 1039 (1998)

1998
[21]

P. R. C. Kent, T. Saha-Dasgupta, O. Jepsen, O. K. An- dersen, A. Macridin, T. A. Maier, M. Jarrell, and T. C. Schulthess, Physical Review B78, 035132 (2008)

2008
[22]

Karolak, G

M. Karolak, G. Ulm, T. Wehling, V. Mazurenko, A. Poteryaev, and A. Lichtenstein, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena181, 11 (2010)

2010
[23]

X. Wang, M. J. Han, L. de’ Medici, H. Park, C. A. Mar- ianetti, and A. J. Millis, Physical Review B86, 195136 (2012)

2012
[24]

Weber, C

C. Weber, C. Yee, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, EPL (Eu- rophysics Letters)100, 37001 (2012)

2012
[25]

Rybicki, M

D. Rybicki, M. Jurkutat, S. Reichardt, C. Kapusta, and J. Haase, Nature Communications7(2016)

2016
[26]

Kowalski, S

N. Kowalski, S. S. Dash, P. S´ emon, D. S´ en´ echal, and A.-M. Tremblay, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(2021)

2021
[27]

Z. Wang, C. Zou, C. Lin, X. Luo, H. Yan, C. Yin, Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Wang, and J. Zhu, Science381, 227 (2023)

2023
[28]

Tarruell, D

L. Tarruell, D. Greif, T. Uehlinger, G. Jotzu, and T. Esslinger, Nature483, 302 (2012)

2012
[29]

Greif, Daniel G¨ unther, ETH Zurich, PhD Thesis (2013), Quantum magnetism with ultracold fermions in an opti- cal lattice

2013
[30]

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

2023
[31]

Mongkolkiattichai, L

J. Mongkolkiattichai, L. Liu, D. Garwood, J. Yang, and P. Schauss, Physical Review A108, l061301 (2023)

2023
[32]

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

2024
[33]

Lebrat, M

M. Lebrat, M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, P. Seetharaman, I. Morera, E. Khatami, E. Demler, and M. Greiner, Nature629, 317 (2024)

2024
[34]

Ferrimagnetism of ultracold fermions in a multi-band Hubbard system

M. Lebrat, A. Kale, L. H. Kendrick, M. Xu, Y. Gang, A. Nikolaenko, P. M. Bonetti, S. Sachdev, and M. Greiner, “Ferrimagnetism of ultracold fermions in a multi-band Hubbard system,” (2024), arXiv:2404.17555

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[35]

S. Taie, H. Ozawa, T. Ichinose, T. Nishio, S. Nakajima, and Y. Takahashi, Science Advances1(2015)

2015
[36]

Hirthe, T

S. Hirthe, T. Chalopin, D. Bourgund, P. Bojovi´ c, A. Bohrdt, E. Demler, F. Grusdt, I. Bloch, and T. A. Hilker, Nature613, 463 (2023)

2023
[37]

Vitali, H

E. Vitali, H. Shi, A. Chiciak, and S. Zhang, Physical Review B99, 165116 (2019)

2019
[38]

Di Liberto, A

M. Di Liberto, A. Hemmerich, and C. Morais Smith, Physical Review Letters117, 163001 (2016)

2016
[39]

Flannigan, L

S. Flannigan, L. Madail, R. G. Dias, and A. J. Daley, New Journal of Physics23, 083014 (2021)

2021
[40]

Walters, G

R. Walters, G. Cotugno, T. H. Johnson, S. R. Clark, and D. Jaksch, Physical Review A87, 043613 (2013)

2013
[41]

Marzari and D

N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B56, 12847 (1997)

1997
[42]

Weitenberg, M

C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Nature 471, 319 (2011)

2011
[43]

P. M. Preiss, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, P. Zupancic, Y. Lahini, R. Islam, and M. Greiner, Sci- ence347, 1229 (2015)

2015
[44]

A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, N. Schine, A. M. Childs, and A. M. Kaufman, Science377, 885 (2022)

2022
[45]

D. Wei, D. Adler, K. Srakaew, S. Agrawal, P. Weckesser, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Physical Review X13, 021042 (2023)

2023
[46]

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

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

2013
[47]

Eskes and J

H. Eskes and J. H. Jefferson, Physical Review B48, 9788 (1993)

1993
[48]

F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice, Physical Review B37, 3759 (1988)

1988
[49]

L. H. Tjeng, B. Sinkovic, N. B. Brookes, J. B. Goedkoop, R. Hesper, E. Pellegrin, F. M. F. de Groot, S. Altieri, S. L. Hulbert, E. Shekel, and G. A. Sawatzky, Physical Review Letters78, 1126 (1997)

1997
[50]

N¨ ucker, J

N. N¨ ucker, J. Fink, J. C. Fuggle, P. J. Durham, and W. M. Temmerman, Physical Review B37, 5158 (1988)

1988
[51]

C. T. Chen, F. Sette, Y. Ma, M. S. Hybertsen, E. B. Stechel, W. M. C. Foulkes, M. Schulter, S.-W. Cheong, 13 A. S. Cooper, L. W. Rupp, B. Batlogg, Y. L. Soo, Z. H. Ming, A. Krol, and Y. H. Kao, Physical Review Letters 66, 104 (1991)

1991
[52]

Pellegrin, N

E. Pellegrin, N. N¨ ucker, J. Fink, S. L. Molodtsov, A. Guti´ errez, E. Navas, O. Strebel, Z. Hu, M. Domke, G. Kaindl, S. Uchida, Y. Nakamura, J. Markl, M. Klauda, G. Saemann-Ischenko, A. Krol, J. L. Peng, Z. Y. Li, and R. L. Greene, Physical Review B47, 3354 (1993)

1993
[53]

G. L. Reaney, N. Kowalski, A.-M. S. Tremblay, and G. Sordi, Physical Review B112(2025)

2025
[54]

S. M. O’Mahony, W. Ren, W. Chen, Y. X. Chong, X. Liu, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, M. H. Hamidian, and J. C. S. Davis, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(2022)

2022
[56]

Cohen-Stead, S

B. Cohen-Stead, S. M. Costa, J. Neuhaus, A. T. Ly, Y. Zhang, R. Scalettar, K. Barros, and S. Johnston, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 29 (2024)

2024
[57]

P. M. Duarte, R. A. Hart, T.-L. Yang, X. Liu, T. Paiva, E. Khatami, R. T. Scalettar, N. Trivedi, and R. G. Hulet, Physical Review Letters114, 070403 (2015)

2015
[58]

Greif, M

D. Greif, M. F. Parsons, A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, S. Blatt, F. Huber, G. Ji, and M. Greiner, Science351, 953 (2016)

2016
[59]

Towards effective models for low- dimensional cuprates: From ground state Hamilto- nian reconstruction to spectral functions,

H. Lange, T. Blatz, U. Schollw¨ ock, S. Paeckel, and A. Bohrdt, “Towards effective models for low- dimensional cuprates: From ground state Hamilto- nian reconstruction to spectral functions,” (2025), arXiv:2509.06947

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

Bairey, I

E. Bairey, I. Arad, and N. H. Lindner, Physical Review Letters122, 020504 (2019)

2019
[61]

Z. Li, L. Zou, and T. H. Hsieh, Physical Review Letters 124, 160502 (2020)

2020
[62]

R. Ott, T. V. Zache, M. Pr¨ ufer, S. Erne, M. Tajik, H. Pichler, J. Schmiedmayer, and P. Zoller, Physical Review Research6, 043284 (2024)

2024
[63]

Impertro, S

A. Impertro, S. Karch, J. F. Wienand, S. Huh, C. Schweizer, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Physical Review Letters133, 063401 (2024)

2024
[64]

Chalopin, P

T. Chalopin, P. Bojovi´ c, D. Bourgund, S. Wang, T. Franz, I. Bloch, and T. Hilker, Physical Review Let- ters134, 053402 (2025)

2025
[65]

Hansmann, N

P. Hansmann, N. Parragh, A. Toschi, G. Sangiovanni, and K. Held, New Journal of Physics16, 033009 (2014)

2014
[66]

A. N. Carroll, H. Hirzler, C. Miller, D. Wellnitz, S. R. Muleady, J. Lin, K. P. Zamarski, R. R. W. Wang, J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science388, 381 (2025)

2025
[67]

Lange, L

H. Lange, L. Qiu, R. Groth, A. von Haaren, L. Mus- carella, T. Franz, I. Bloch, F. Grusdt, P. M. Preiss, and A. Bohrdt, “Realizing the Emery Model in Optical Lat- tices for Quantum Simulation of Cuprates and Nicke- lates,” (2026), arXiv:2603.11037

work page arXiv 2026
[68]

Marzari, A

N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1419 (2012)

2012
[69]

Kremer, R

M. Kremer, R. Sachdeva, A. Benseny, and T. Busch, Phys. Rev. A96, 063611 (2017)

2017
[70]

Miles, B

C. Miles, B. Cohen-Stead, O. Bradley, S. Johnston, R. Scalettar, and K. Barros, Phys. Rev. E105, 045311 (2022)

2022
[71]

Y. F. Kung, C.-C. Chen, Y. Wang, E. W. Huang, E. A. Nowadnick, B. Moritz, R. T. Scalettar, S. Johnston, and T. P. Devereaux, Phys. Rev. B93, 155166 (2016)

2016