pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.18969 · v4 · submitted 2025-06-23 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.supr-con

Bootstrapping Flat-band Superconductors: Rigorous Lower Bounds on Superfluid Stiffness

Qiang Gao , Zhaoyu Han , Eslam Khalaf This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con
keywords superfluid stiffnessflat-band superconductivityquantum geometric nestingreduced density matrix bootstrapfrustration-free modelstrion correlationsmany-body bootstrap
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Reduced density matrix bootstrap yields rigorous lower bounds on superfluid stiffness in frustration-free superconducting models.

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

This paper establishes that the quantum many-body bootstrap, through the reduced density matrix approach, can generate rigorous lower bounds on the superfluid stiffness for frustration-free interacting models that feature a superconducting ground state. When applied to quantum geometric nesting models for flat-band superconductivity, it reveals a general relation between the stiffness and the pair mass. The work also demonstrates that simple additional interactions, such as magnetic couplings, can increase the superfluid stiffness, and that trion-type correlations are key to deriving these bounds. This provides a new tool for bounding physical quantities in strongly coupled systems beyond traditional variational methods.

Core claim

The reduced density matrix bootstrap applied to frustration-free models with superconducting ground states produces rigorous lower bounds on superfluid stiffness. In quantum geometric nesting models, this uncovers a relation between stiffness and pair mass, shows enhancement from magnetic couplings, and indicates the essential role of trion-type correlations for the bounds.

What carries the argument

Reduced density matrix bootstrap in frustration-free systems possessing superconducting ground states, which enforces bounds on superfluid stiffness.

If this is right

  • These bounds provide constraints on the superconducting transition temperature in flat-band models.
  • Additional magnetic couplings enhance the superfluid stiffness compared to the standard Hubbard interaction.
  • Trion-type correlations are required to obtain the lower bounds on stiffness.
  • The method generalizes to provide bounds on other response functions like susceptibilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The approach may extend to bound stiffness in a wider class of models including those with frustration.
  • Understanding the role of trion correlations could guide the search for materials with improved superconducting properties.

Load-bearing premise

The models considered are frustration-free and have a superconducting ground state, which allows the reduced density matrix bootstrap to produce valid lower bounds.

What would settle it

Direct computation of the superfluid stiffness in a quantum geometric nesting model yielding a value smaller than the bootstrap-derived lower bound would disprove the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18969 by Eslam Khalaf, Qiang Gao, Zhaoyu Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic illustration of classes of models with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Filling dependence of the superfluid stiffness in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Tuning the additional nearest-neighbor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The 2RDM in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The superfluid stiffness fundamentally constrains the transition temperature of superconductors, especially in the strongly coupled regime. However, accurately determining this inherently quantum many-body property in microscopic models remains a significant challenge. In this work, we show how the \textit{quantum many-body bootstrap} framework, specifically the reduced density matrix (RDM) bootstrap, can be leveraged to obtain rigorous lower bounds on the superfluid stiffness in frustration-free interacting models with superconducting ground state. We numerically apply the method to a special class of frustration free models, which are known as quantum geometric nesting models, for flat-band superconductivity, where we uncover a general relation between the stiffness and the pair mass. Going beyond the familiar Hubbard case within this class, we find how additional interactions, notably simple magnetic couplings, can enhance the superfluid stiffness. Furthermore, we find that the RDM bootstrap unexpectedly reveals that the trion-type correlations are essential for bounding the stiffness, offering new insights on the structure of these models. A straightforward generalization of the method can lead to bounds on susceptibilities complementary to variational approaches. Our findings underscore the immense potential of the quantum many-body bootstrap as a powerful tool to derive rigorous bounds on physical quantities beyond energy.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an application of the reduced density matrix (RDM) bootstrap within the quantum many-body bootstrap framework to derive rigorous lower bounds on superfluid stiffness for frustration-free interacting Hamiltonians possessing a superconducting ground state. It focuses on the class of quantum geometric nesting models for flat-band superconductivity, numerically obtains a relation between stiffness and pair mass, demonstrates that additional simple magnetic couplings can increase the stiffness, and reports that trion-type correlations are required to obtain nontrivial bounds. The approach is positioned as extensible to other response functions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work is significant because it supplies a new route to rigorous, parameter-free lower bounds on superfluid stiffness—an experimentally relevant quantity that is otherwise difficult to bound in strongly correlated flat-band models. The explicit demonstration that RDM positivity constraints can certify stiffness bounds beyond the energy, together with the numerical uncovering of the role of trion correlations, constitutes a concrete advance. The method’s potential generalization to susceptibilities is noted as a further strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [models with added magnetic couplings] § on models with added magnetic couplings: the statement that 'simple magnetic couplings' can be included while preserving both the frustration-free property and the superconducting ground-state manifold requires an explicit check. Generic Heisenberg or Ising terms generically lift the local degeneracy unless their coefficients satisfy a precise commutation relation with the pairing terms; if that relation is not enforced, the RDM constraints derived under the frustration-free assumption no longer apply to the true ground state and the reported stiffness bounds lose their rigorous character.
  2. [numerical results] Numerical implementation of the RDM bootstrap (presumably §4 or §5): the manuscript must specify the precise set of RDM positivity constraints used when magnetic terms are present and demonstrate that the resulting lower bound on stiffness remains strictly positive and non-trivial (i.e., does not collapse to the trivial bound obtained from the kinetic energy alone). Without this verification, it is unclear whether the enhancement attributed to magnetic couplings is certified by the bootstrap or merely observed variationally.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] Clarify in the abstract and introduction whether the reported 'general relation between the stiffness and the pair mass' is an analytic identity derived from the bootstrap or an empirical observation from the numerics.
  2. [figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the system size, bond dimension or truncation level used in the RDM bootstrap so that reproducibility is immediate.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing constructive feedback. We address each of the major comments below and will incorporate the necessary clarifications and verifications in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [models with added magnetic couplings] § on models with added magnetic couplings: the statement that 'simple magnetic couplings' can be included while preserving both the frustration-free property and the superconducting ground-state manifold requires an explicit check. Generic Heisenberg or Ising terms generically lift the local degeneracy unless their coefficients satisfy a precise commutation relation with the pairing terms; if that relation is not enforced, the RDM constraints derived under the frustration-free assumption no longer apply to the true ground state and the reported stiffness bounds lose their rigorous character.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point regarding the preservation of the frustration-free property. In the models considered in our work, the added magnetic couplings are specifically constructed to satisfy the necessary commutation relations with the pairing terms, thereby preserving both the local degeneracy and the superconducting ground-state manifold. We will include an explicit check of these commutation relations in the revised manuscript to make this clear. This ensures that the RDM constraints remain applicable and the bounds retain their rigorous character. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [numerical results] Numerical implementation of the RDM bootstrap (presumably §4 or §5): the manuscript must specify the precise set of RDM positivity constraints used when magnetic terms are present and demonstrate that the resulting lower bound on stiffness remains strictly positive and non-trivial (i.e., does not collapse to the trivial bound obtained from the kinetic energy alone). Without this verification, it is unclear whether the enhancement attributed to magnetic couplings is certified by the bootstrap or merely observed variationally.

    Authors: We agree that additional details on the numerical implementation are necessary for clarity. In our calculations with magnetic terms, we employ the same hierarchy of RDM positivity constraints as in the pure pairing case, augmented with the two-body operators corresponding to the magnetic interactions. We will specify the exact set of constraints used in the revised manuscript. Furthermore, we will provide numerical results demonstrating that the lower bounds on stiffness remain strictly positive and non-trivial, confirming that the observed enhancement is indeed certified by the bootstrap method rather than being a purely variational observation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: RDM bootstrap yields independent rigorous bounds on stiffness

full rationale

The paper's derivation applies the reduced density matrix bootstrap positivity constraints directly to frustration-free Hamiltonians possessing a superconducting ground state, producing lower bounds on superfluid stiffness as a mathematical consequence of those constraints. The reported general relation between stiffness and pair mass, as well as the enhancement from additional magnetic terms, emerges from explicit numerical application within the quantum geometric nesting class rather than being presupposed or fitted by construction. No self-definitional equivalence, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the derivation; the bootstrap framework supplies external positivity conditions that bound the target quantity without reducing to it. The method remains self-contained against the stated assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the established quantum many-body bootstrap framework and the domain assumption that the models are frustration-free with superconducting ground states; no free parameters or new invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The models are frustration-free interacting systems possessing a superconducting ground state.
    Explicitly stated as the setting in which the RDM bootstrap is applied to obtain the bounds.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5749 in / 1246 out tokens · 34395 ms · 2026-05-19T07:29:32.844170+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    it can be written as ⟨P i ˆOi ˆO† i ⟩ ≥ 0 , where the maximal degree of ˆOi’s is p, i.e., containing p cre- ation and/or annihilation operators

    work page

  2. [2]

    Remark 1

    it is fully expressible in 2RDMs: ⟨P i ˆOi ˆO† i ⟩ := Tr[ˆρNP i ˆOi ˆO† i ] = Tr[ˆρ2 N P i ˆOi ˆO† i ]. Remark 1. Condition 2 requires that P i ˆOi ˆO† i cancels all terms beyond 2-body (see e.g., constraints in (9)). If a (2, p) constraint is saturated, then the corresponding 2RDM must lie on the boundary of 2 N D(2,p). Definition 2 (p-body exactness/fru...

    work page

  3. [3]

    its ground state energy in N -particle sector is zero ∀N ∈ S, where S is a set of positive integers

    work page

  4. [4]

    Remark 2

    it can be decomposed into sum of squares: ˆH =P i ˆhiˆh† i where the maximal degree of ˆhi’s is p. Remark 2. It is pN -body exact if S = {N }. A pS-body exact Hamiltonian can contain only q-body terms with q ≤ p. Any Hamiltonian after a shift is trivially NN - body exact: ˆH =P n(εn − εg)|ΨN n ⟩⟨ΨN n | with |ΨN n ⟩ the N -particle eigenstates of energy εn...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Scalapino, Steven R

    Douglas J. Scalapino, Steven R. White, and Shoucheng Zhang. Insulator, metal, or superconductor: The criteria. Phys. Rev. B , 47:7995–8007, Apr 1993

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    Nelson and J

    David R. Nelson and J. M. Kosterlitz. Universal jump in the superfluid density of two-dimensional superfluids. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 39:1201–1205, Nov 1977

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    Unconventional superconductivity in magic- angle graphene superlattices

    Yuan Cao, Valla Fatemi, Shiang Fang, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Efthimios Kaxiras, and Pablo Jarillo- Herrero. Unconventional superconductivity in magic- angle graphene superlattices. Nature, 556(7699):43–50, March 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Tomarken, Jason Y

    Yuan Cao, Valla Fatemi, Ahmet Demir, Shiang Fang, Spencer L. Tomarken, Jason Y. Luo, Javier D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Efthimios Kaxiras, Ray C. Ashoori, and Pablo Jarillo- Herrero. Correlated insulator behaviour at half- filling in magic-angle graphene superlattices. Nature, 556(7699):80–84, March 2018

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Tuning su- perconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene

    Matthew Yankowitz, Shaowen Chen, Hryhoriy Polshyn, Yuxuan Zhang, K Watanabe, T Taniguchi, David Graf, Andrea F Young, and Cory R Dean. Tuning su- perconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene. Science, 363(6431):1059–1064, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Tunable strongly coupled superconductivity in magic-angle twisted trilayer graphene

    Jeong Min Park, Yuan Cao, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, and Pablo Jarillo-Herrero. Tunable strongly coupled superconductivity in magic-angle twisted trilayer graphene. Nature, 590(7845):249–255, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Electric field–tunable superconductivity in alternating-twist magic-angle trilayer graphene

    Zeyu Hao, AM Zimmerman, Patrick Ledwith, Es- lam Khalaf, Danial Haie Najafabadi, Kenji Watan- abe, Takashi Taniguchi, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Philip Kim. Electric field–tunable superconductivity in alternating-twist magic-angle trilayer graphene. Science, 371(6534):1133–1138, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Superconductivity in rhom- bohedral trilayer graphene

    Haoxin Zhou, Tian Xie, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watan- abe, and Andrea F Young. Superconductivity in rhom- bohedral trilayer graphene. Nature, 598(7881):434–438, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Signatures of chiral superconductivity in rhombohedral graphene

    Tonghang Han, Zhengguang Lu, Zach Hadjri, Lihan Shi, Zhenghan Wu, Wei Xu, Yuxuan Yao, Armel A Cotten, Omid Sharifi Sedeh, Henok Weldeyesus, et al. Signatures of chiral superconductivity in rhombohedral graphene. Nature, pages 1–3, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    V. J. Emery and S. A. Kivelson. Importance of phase fluc- tuations in superconductors with small superfluid den- sity. Nature, 374(6521):434–437, March 1995

    work page 1995

  15. [15]

    Upper bounds on the superfluid stiffness of disor- dered systems

    Arun Paramekanti, Nandini Trivedi, and Mohit Rande- ria. Upper bounds on the superfluid stiffness of disor- dered systems. Phys. Rev. B , 57:11639–11647, May 1998

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    Bounds on the Superconducting Transition Tem- perature: Applications to Twisted Bilayer Graphene and Cold Atoms

    Tamaghna Hazra, Nishchhal Verma, and Mohit Rande- ria. Bounds on the Superconducting Transition Tem- perature: Applications to Twisted Bilayer Graphene and Cold Atoms. Physical Review X , 9:031049, Sep 2019

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Optical spectral weight, phase stiffness, and Tc bounds for trivial and topological flat band superconduc- tors

    Nishchhal Verma, Tamaghna Hazra, and Mohit Ran- deria. Optical spectral weight, phase stiffness, and Tc bounds for trivial and topological flat band superconduc- tors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 118, 8 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Diamagnetic re- sponse and phase stiffness for interacting isolated narrow bands

    Dan Mao and Debanjan Chowdhury. Diamagnetic re- sponse and phase stiffness for interacting isolated narrow bands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 120(11):e2217816120, March 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Hofmann, Debanjan Chowdhury, Steven A

    Johannes S. Hofmann, Debanjan Chowdhury, Steven A. Kivelson, and Erez Berg. Heuristic bounds on supercon- ductivity and how to exceed them. npj Quantum Mate- rials, 7:83, 8 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Exact demonstra- tion of off-diagonal long-range order in the ground state of a hubbard model

    Shun-Qing Shen and Zhao-Ming Qiu. Exact demonstra- tion of off-diagonal long-range order in the ground state of a hubbard model. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 71:4238–4240, Dec 1993

    work page 1993

  21. [21]

    Superfluidity in topologically nontrivial flat bands

    Sebastiano Peotta and P¨ aivi T¨ orm¨ a. Superfluidity in topologically nontrivial flat bands. Nature Communica- tions, 6(1):8944, 2015

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Vanhala, Dong-Hee Kim, and P¨ aivi T¨ orm¨ a

    Aleksi Julku, Sebastiano Peotta, Tuomas I. Vanhala, Dong-Hee Kim, and P¨ aivi T¨ orm¨ a. Geometric origin of su- perfluidity in the lieb-lattice flat band. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 117:045303, Jul 2016

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Andrei Bernevig

    Fang Xie, Zhida Song, Biao Lian, and B. Andrei Bernevig. Topology-bounded superfluid weight in twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:167002, Apr 2020

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Huber, and B

    Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, Valerio Peri, Frank Schindler, Sebastian D. Huber, and B. Andrei Bernevig. Superfluid weight bounds from symmetry and quantum geometry in flat bands. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 128:087002, Feb 2022

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Many- body superconductivity in topological flat bands

    Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, Aaron Chew, Kukka-Emilia Huhtinen, P¨ aivi T¨ orm¨ a, and B Andrei Bernevig. Many- body superconductivity in topological flat bands. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00007 , 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Bernevig, and P¨ aivi T¨ orm¨ a

    Kukka-Emilia Huhtinen, Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, Aaron Chew, Bogdan A. Bernevig, and P¨ aivi T¨ orm¨ a. Revisiting flat band superconductivity: Dependence on minimal quantum metric and band touchings. Phys. Rev. B, 106:014518, Jul 2022

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Grémaud and G

    B. Grémaud and G. G. Batrouni. Pairing and pair superfluid density in one-dimensional two-species fermionic and bosonic hubbard models. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 127:025301, Jul 2021

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Optimizing the critical temperature and superfluid density of a metal-superconductor bilayer

    Yutan Zhang, Philip M Dee, Benjamin Cohen-Stead, Thomas A Maier, Steven Johnston, and Richard Scalet- tar. Optimizing the critical temperature and superfluid density of a metal-superconductor bilayer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15428, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Hofmann, Erez Berg, and Debanjan Chowd- hury

    Johannes S. Hofmann, Erez Berg, and Debanjan Chowd- hury. Superconductivity, pseudogap, and phase separa- tion in topological flat bands. Phys. Rev. B , 102:201112, Nov 2020

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Hofmann, Erez Berg, and Debanjan Chowd- hury

    Johannes S. Hofmann, Erez Berg, and Debanjan Chowd- hury. Superconductivity, charge density wave, and su- persolidity in flat bands with a tunable quantum metric. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 130:226001, May 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Grémaud, and G

    Si Min Chan, B. Grémaud, and G. G. Batrouni. Pair- ing and superconductivity in quasi-one-dimensional flat- band systems: Creutz and sawtooth lattices. Phys. Rev. B, 105:024502, Jan 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Murad Tovmasyan, Sebastiano Peotta, P¨ aivi T¨ orm¨ a, and Sebastian D. Huber. Effective theory and emergent SU (2) symmetry in the flat bands of attractive hubbard models. Phys. Rev. B , 94:245149, Dec 2016

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Gustavo E Massaccesi, A Rubio-García, P Capuzzi, E Ríos, Ofelia B O˜ na, Jorge Dukelsky, L Lain, A Torre, and Diego Ricardo Alcoba. Variational determination of the two-particle reduced density matrix within the doubly occupied configuration interaction space: ex- 7 ploiting translational and reflection invariance. Jour- nal of Statistical Mechanics: Theo...

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Solving condensed-matter ground-state problems by semidefinite relaxations

    Thomas Barthel and Robert H¨ ubener. Solving condensed-matter ground-state problems by semidefinite relaxations. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 108:200404, May 2012

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    Variational- correlations approach to quantum many-body problems

    Arbel Haim, Richard Kueng, and Gil Refael. Variational- correlations approach to quantum many-body problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.06510 , 2020

    work page arXiv 2001

  36. [36]

    Lower bounds for ground states of condensed matter systems

    Tillmann Baumgratz and Martin B Plenio. Lower bounds for ground states of condensed matter systems. New Journal of Physics , 14(2):023027, 2012

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    Quantum Many-Body Bootstrap

    Xizhi Han. Quantum Many-Body Bootstrap. arXiv e- prints, June 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Lower bounds on ground-state energies of local hamiltonians through the renormalization group

    Ilya Kull, Norbert Schuch, Ben Dive, and Miguel Navas- cués. Lower bounds on ground-state energies of local hamiltonians through the renormalization group. Phys. Rev. X , 14(2):021008, April 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Lanzetta, Patrick Ledwith, Jie Wang, and Eslam Khalaf

    Qiang Gao, Ryan A. Lanzetta, Patrick Ledwith, Jie Wang, and Eslam Khalaf. Bootstrapping the Quantum Hall Problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10619 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Hamiltonian bootstrap

    Michael G Scheer. Hamiltonian bootstrap. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00810, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Geoffrey F. Chew. S-Matrix Theory of Strong Interac- tions. W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1961

    work page 1961

  42. [42]

    van Rees, and Pedro Vieira

    Alexandre Homrich, Jo ao Penedones, Jonathan Toledo, Balt C. van Rees, and Pedro Vieira. The s-matrix boot- strap iv: Multiple amplitudes. J. High Energy Phys. , 2019(11):076, November 2019

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    The conformal bootstrap: Theory, numerical techniques, and applications

    David Poland, Slava Rychkov, and Alessandro Vichi. The conformal bootstrap: Theory, numerical techniques, and applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 91(1):015002, January 2019

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    A. J. Coleman. Structure of Fermion Density Matrices. Reviews of Modern Physics , 35(3):668–686, July 1963

    work page 1963

  45. [45]

    Mazziotti

    David A. Mazziotti. Structure of fermionic density matri- ces: Complete n-representability conditions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108(26):263002, June 2012

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Semidefinite pro- gramming algorithm for the quantum mechanical boot- strap

    David Berenstein and George Hulsey. Semidefinite pro- gramming algorithm for the quantum mechanical boot- strap. Phys. Rev. E , 107(5):L053301, May 2023

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Certifying ground-state properties of many-body sys- tems

    Jie Wang, Jacopo Surace, Irénée Frérot, Beno ˆit Legat, Marc-Olivier Renou, Victor Magron, and Antonio Acín. Certifying ground-state properties of many-body sys- tems. Phys. Rev. X , 14(3):031006, July 2024

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Hamza Fawzi, Omar Fawzi, and Samuel O. Scalet. Cer- tified algorithms for equilibrium states of local quantum hamiltonians. Nature Communications, 15(1):7394, Aug 2024

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Coarse-grained boot- strap of quantum many-body systems

    Minjae Cho, Colin Oscar Nancarrow, Petar Tadi´ c, Yuan Xin, and Zechuan Zheng. Coarse-grained boot- strap of quantum many-body systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07837, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    quantum geomet- ric nesting

    Zhaoyu Han, Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Steven A. Kivelson. “quantum geomet- ric nesting” and solvable model flat-band systems. Phys. Rev. X , 14:041004, Oct 2024

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    See supplemental materials for detailed discussion about the upper bound calculations

    work page

  52. [52]

    T¨ orm¨ a, L

    P. T¨ orm¨ a, L. Liang, and S. Peotta. Quantum metric and effective mass of a two-body bound state in a flat band. Phys. Rev. B , 98:220511, Dec 2018

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    M. Iskin. Cooper pairing, flat-band superconductivity, and quantum geometry in the pyrochlore-hubbard model. Phys. Rev. B , 109:174508, May 2024

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    M. Iskin. Origin of flat-band superfluidity on the mielke checkerboard lattice. Phys. Rev. A , 99:053608, May 2019

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Proving the model is no longer sign- problem-free is generally hard

    What we mean here is that the additional interactions breaks the symmetries that are used to show the model is sign-problem-free. Proving the model is no longer sign- problem-free is generally hard

    work page

  56. [56]

    Mazziotti

    David A. Mazziotti. Variational two-electron reduced density matrix theory for many-electron atoms and molecules: Implementation of the spin- and symmetry- adapted T2 condition through first-order semidefinite programming. Phys. Rev. A , 72:032510, Sep 2005

    work page 2005

  57. [57]

    Mazziotti

    David A. Mazziotti. Significant conditions for the two-electron reduced density matrix from the construc- tive solution of N representability. Physical Review A , 85(6):062507, June 2012

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    Quantum many-body theory from a solution of the n-representability problem

    David A Mazziotti. Quantum many-body theory from a solution of the n-representability problem. Physical Review Letters, 130(15):153001, 2023

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Computational complexity of interacting electrons and fundamental lim- itations of density functional theory

    Norbert Schuch and Frank Verstraete. Computational complexity of interacting electrons and fundamental lim- itations of density functional theory. Nature physics , 5(10):732–735, 2009

    work page 2009

  60. [60]

    Reduction of the n-particle variational problem

    Claude Garrod and Jerome K Percus. Reduction of the n-particle variational problem. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 5(12):1756–1776, 1964

    work page 1964

  61. [61]

    Representability

    Robert M Erdahl. Representability. International Jour- nal of Quantum Chemistry , 13(6):697–718, 1978

    work page 1978

  62. [62]

    The reduced density matrix method for electronic structure calcula- tions and the role of three-index representability con- ditions

    Zhengji Zhao, Bastiaan J Braams, Mituhiro Fukuda, Michael L Overton, and Jerome K Percus. The reduced density matrix method for electronic structure calcula- tions and the role of three-index representability con- ditions. The Journal of chemical physics , 120(5):2095– 2104, 2004

    work page 2095

  63. [63]

    The determinant QMC data is extracted from Ref. [25]. Some caveats need to be noted when comparing our re- sults with the QMC result: 1) the QMC calculation was done without flat-band projection at ν = 1 /2 and the |U | used in their calculation is not small compared to the band gap, while we are studying a projected model ne- glecting the inter-band effe...

    work page

  64. [64]

    Thus, the data shown in the inset for different system sizes are obtained using different ν’s since there is no common filling for them

    Due to some numerical reason, in this paper, we only implemented odd-by-odd system sizes. Thus, the data shown in the inset for different system sizes are obtained using different ν’s since there is no common filling for them. They are ν3×7 = 14/21/2, ν5×5 = 16/25/2, ν5×7 = 34/35/2, ν7×7 = 40/49/2, and ν7×9 = 46/63/2. We note that the ρs/(ν(1 − ν)) obtain...

    work page

  65. [65]

    Richardson- Gaudin models

    It is worth noting that some FF models for supercon- ductivity do not belong to this family e.g. Richardson- Gaudin models. However, all models considered in this work will have QGN

    work page

  66. [66]

    Sign-problem-free fermionic quantum monte carlo: Developments and applications

    Zi-Xiang Li and Hong Yao. Sign-problem-free fermionic quantum monte carlo: Developments and applications. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics , 10(Volume 10, 2019):337–356, 2019

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    [64] that the Drude weight is always equal to the stiffness if there is a charge gap upon the ground state

    It is a theorem proved in Ref. [64] that the Drude weight is always equal to the stiffness if there is a charge gap upon the ground state. The idea is that the current- 8 current response function Λxx(q, ω) has a singularity at (q = 0 , ω = 0) if the system is gappless. Thus the two limits (q → 0, ω = 0) giving stiffness and (q = 0, ω → 0) giving Drude we...

    work page

  68. [68]

    Insulator, metal, or superconductor: The criteria

    Douglas J Scalapino, Steven R White, and Shoucheng Zhang. Insulator, metal, or superconductor: The criteria. Physical Review B , 47(13):7995, 1993

    work page 1993

  69. [69]

    Superfluid density in the two- dimensional attractive hubbard model: Quantitative es- timates

    PJH Denteneer. Superfluid density in the two- dimensional attractive hubbard model: Quantitative es- timates. Physical Review B , 49(9):6364, 1994

    work page 1994

  70. [70]

    Structure of fermion density matrices

    AJ Coleman. Structure of fermion density matrices. ii. antisymmetrized geminal powers. Journal of Mathemat- ical Physics , 6(9):1425–1431, 1965

    work page 1965

  71. [71]

    Bootstrapping Flat-band Superconductors: Rigorous Lower Bounds on Superfluid Stiffness

    Armin Khamoshi, Thomas M Henderson, and Gustavo E Scuseria. Efficient evaluation of agp reduced density ma- trices. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 151(18), 2019. End Matter FIG. 4. The 2RDM in Q = 0, Sz = 0 sector at the frustration free point obtained from bootstrap with T2 (left panel) and its deviation from the exact AGP 2RDM (A12) (right panel), in...

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    General discussions 6

    work page

  73. [73]

    flat band subspace

    Sanity check 7 D. Perturbative treatment 8 References 9 I. REVIEW ON THE QUANTUM GEOMETRIC NESTING MODELS A. Preliminaries We consider the electronic structure encoded in a tight-binding model with translation symmetry: ˆH0 = ∑ RR′,αβ tαβ,R−R′ˆc† R,αˆcR′,β (2) where R indicate the unit cell center position, Greek letters α,β,...denote the orbital index in...

    work page

  74. [74]

    General discussions To derive the projectected Hamiltonian in the presence of A, let’s go back to the definition of the electronic structure: ˆH0 = ∑ RR′,αβ tαβ,R−R′eiA·(R+rα−R′−rβ)ˆc† RαˆcR′β (54) where the flat connection is introduced by Periels substitution. The momentum space eigenbasis is still defined by ˆckα≡∑ R eik·(R+rα)ˆcR,α/ √ V, so the hoppin...

    work page

  75. [75]

    Sanity check As a sanity check, let’s plug inF =F0 for the A = 0 case. In this case the expressions can be greatly simplified Tr[Ξ0(q)] = ∞∑ m=1 Tr { A(q,−q) [ −e−2ℜαF0F† 0 (q) ]m F0(q) } =− ∞∑ m=1 Tr { A(−q, q)F0(−q) [ −e−2ℜαF† 0F0(−q) ]m} =−Tr[Ξ0(−q)] (71) Υ 0(p, q)≡e−ℜα(1 −ν0,R(q))1/2[ A(q)A(q,−p)F(p) +F0(q)AT (−p, q)FT 0 (−p) ] (1 −ν0,L(p))1/2 = 0 (72...

    work page

  76. [76]

    quantum geometric nesting

    Zhaoyu Han, Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Steven A. Kivelson. “quantum geometric nesting” and solvable model flat-band systems. Phys. Rev. X, 14:041004, Oct 2024

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    Henderson, and Gustavo E

    Armin Khamoshi, Thomas M. Henderson, and Gustavo E. Scuseria. Efficient evaluation of agp reduced density matrices. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 151(18):184103, 11 2019. 18

    work page 2019