pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.20058 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-27 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · cond-mat.stat-mech· cond-mat.str-el· quant-ph

Superfluidity in the spin-1/2 XY model with power-law interactions

Muhammad Shaeer Moeed , Costanza Pennaforti , Adrian Del Maestro , Roger G. Melko This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords superfluid densityXY modelpower-law interactionsquantum Monte Carlospin stiffnesslong-range interactionsone-dimensional quantum spin models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Power-law interactions cause superfluid density to diverge in the one-dimensional XY model as the range extends to infinity.

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

The paper studies the one-dimensional spin-1/2 XY model with interactions that fall off as a power law 1/r^α, where the exponent α can be tuned. It measures the superfluid density, also called spin stiffness, near the point where long-range effects permit continuous symmetry breaking. Stochastic series expansion quantum Monte Carlo simulations with a new generalized winding-number estimator show that superfluidity strengthens markedly for small α. In the thermodynamic limit the density diverges as α approaches zero, matching linear spin-wave theory. A normalized version of the estimator cleanly separates short-, medium-, and long-range regimes and locates the critical α.

Core claim

In the one-dimensional spin-1/2 XY model with power-law interactions, the superfluid density diverges as α approaches zero in the thermodynamic limit, thereby enhancing conventional superfluidity relative to the nearest-neighbor case; this divergence is captured by a generalized winding-number estimator in stochastic series expansion quantum Monte Carlo and agrees with linear spin-wave theory.

What carries the argument

Generalized winding-number estimator for superfluid density under power-law interactions, which extends the usual winding estimator to long-range couplings inside SSE QMC and yields a normalized form that distinguishes interaction regimes.

If this is right

  • Superfluid density grows without bound as the interaction exponent α is lowered toward zero.
  • The enhancement is visible only in the thermodynamic limit and remains consistent with linear spin-wave predictions.
  • The normalized superfluid-density estimator locates the critical α that separates short-, medium-, and long-range regimes.
  • Continuous symmetry breaking appears for sufficiently small α, in contrast to the nearest-neighbor XY chain.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same divergence may appear in other one-dimensional models once long-range power-law couplings are introduced, offering a route to stabilize superfluid order in low dimensions.
  • Trapped-ion experiments could test the predicted growth by measuring response functions at tunable α below the critical value.
  • The normalized estimator might be adapted to diagnose the range of interactions in other quantum Monte Carlo studies of long-range spin or boson models.

Load-bearing premise

The generalized winding number estimator correctly measures superfluid density for power-law interactions, and finite-size effects do not hide the divergence in the thermodynamic limit.

What would settle it

Direct computation of the superfluid density on successively larger lattices at fixed small α; if the value stays finite rather than growing without bound as system size increases, the claimed divergence is ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20058 by Adrian Del Maestro, Costanza Pennaforti, Muhammad Shaeer Moeed, Roger G. Melko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. ED results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. SSE directed loop construction for the XY model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. QMC superfluid density and energy per site (insets) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Convergence of the QMC estimates of ground state energy (left panel) and superfluid density (right panel) to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Superfluid density as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The left panel shows the Kac normalized ground state energy per site and the right panel shows the Kac normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Superfluid density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In trapped-ion quantum simulators, effective spin-1/2 XY interactions can be engineered via laser-induced coupling between internal atomic states and collective phonon modes. In the simplest one-dimensional ($1d$) traps, these interactions decay as a power-law with distance $1/r^{\alpha}$, with a tunable exponent $\alpha$. For small $\alpha$, the resulting long-range $1d$ XY model exhibits continuous symmetry breaking, in marked contrast to its nearest neighbor counterpart. In this paper, we examine this model near the phase transition at $\alpha_c$ from the lens of the spin stiffness, or superfluid density. We develop a stochastic series expansion (SSE) quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulation and a generalized winding number estimator to measure the superfluid density in the presence of power-law interactions, which we test against exact diagonalization for small lattice sizes. Our results show how conventional superfluidity in the $1d$ XY model is enhanced in the long-range interacting regime. This is observed as a diverging superfluid density as $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ in the thermodynamic limit, which we show is consistent with linear spin-wave theory. Finally, we define a normalized superfluid density estimator that clearly distinguishes the short, medium, and long-range interacting regimes, providing a novel QMC probe of the critical value $\alpha_c$.

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 paper studies the one-dimensional spin-1/2 XY model with power-law interactions decaying as 1/r^α using stochastic series expansion (SSE) quantum Monte Carlo. It introduces a generalized winding-number estimator for the superfluid density ρ_s, validates it on small lattices against exact diagonalization, and reports that ρ_s diverges as α → 0 in the thermodynamic limit, consistent with linear spin-wave theory. A normalized superfluid-density estimator is defined to distinguish short-, medium-, and long-range regimes and to locate the critical α_c.

Significance. If the generalized estimator is shown to be unbiased, the work demonstrates how long-range interactions can stabilize superfluidity in one dimension where the nearest-neighbor XY model forbids it, providing a quantitative QMC probe of the α_c transition relevant to trapped-ion simulators. The combination of SSE numerics, finite-size scaling, and spin-wave comparison is a clear strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods section on SSE QMC and generalized winding estimator] The section describing the generalized winding number estimator: the paper states that the estimator was tested against exact diagonalization on small lattices, but provides no derivation showing that it correctly incorporates the non-local current operators generated by the 1/r^α bonds. Standard winding formulas assume local currents; without an explicit expression for the additional cross terms or a proof that they vanish in the estimator, it remains possible that the reported divergence of ρ_s as α → 0 is an artifact, particularly for the larger sizes and smaller α used in the thermodynamic-limit extrapolation.
  2. [Results section on superfluid density vs α] Figure or table presenting the thermodynamic-limit extrapolation of ρ_s(α): the divergence claim as α → 0 rests on finite-size data whose scaling form is not shown to be free of corrections that grow with decreasing α. Explicit finite-size scaling collapses or error-bar analysis for the smallest α values are required to confirm that the divergence survives L → ∞.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction should state the precise range of α and system sizes (L, β) employed in the QMC runs and the fitting procedure used to extract the thermodynamic limit.
  2. [Results section defining the normalized estimator] Notation for the normalized superfluid density should be defined once and used consistently; the distinction between the raw and normalized estimators is not immediately clear from the text alone.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment in detail below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional derivations and analyses where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods section on SSE QMC and generalized winding estimator] The section describing the generalized winding number estimator: the paper states that the estimator was tested against exact diagonalization on small lattices, but provides no derivation showing that it correctly incorporates the non-local current operators generated by the 1/r^α bonds. Standard winding formulas assume local currents; without an explicit expression for the additional cross terms or a proof that they vanish in the estimator, it remains possible that the reported divergence of ρ_s as α → 0 is an artifact, particularly for the larger sizes and smaller α used in the thermodynamic-limit extrapolation.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. While the numerical agreement with exact diagonalization on small lattices provides strong evidence that the estimator is unbiased, we agree that an explicit derivation strengthens the presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added a full derivation of the generalized winding-number estimator in the Methods section. The derivation explicitly constructs the non-local current operators arising from the 1/r^α bonds, shows that the additional cross terms are correctly included in the SSE estimator, and demonstrates that they do not introduce bias. This analytic step, together with the existing ED benchmarks, confirms that the reported divergence is not an artifact. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section on superfluid density vs α] Figure or table presenting the thermodynamic-limit extrapolation of ρ_s(α): the divergence claim as α → 0 rests on finite-size data whose scaling form is not shown to be free of corrections that grow with decreasing α. Explicit finite-size scaling collapses or error-bar analysis for the smallest α values are required to confirm that the divergence survives L → ∞.

    Authors: We agree that a more detailed finite-size scaling analysis is required to substantiate the thermodynamic-limit extrapolation. In the revised manuscript we have added explicit finite-size scaling collapses for ρ_s(α) at the smallest values of α, together with error-bar analysis. These collapses demonstrate that the divergence as α → 0 persists for L → ∞, with the scaling form remaining consistent and free of growing corrections in the regime studied. We have also included a brief discussion of sub-leading corrections to scaling. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives its central claim of diverging superfluid density as α → 0 from SSE QMC simulations employing a generalized winding-number estimator. This estimator is explicitly tested against exact diagonalization on small lattices (an independent benchmark) before extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit, and the results are cross-checked for consistency against linear spin-wave theory, which is an external analytical approximation not derived from the QMC data. No load-bearing steps reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes imported from the authors' prior work; the derivation remains self-contained against external validation methods.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim relies on the standard assumptions of QMC methods and linear spin-wave theory for the consistency check. No free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The stochastic series expansion quantum Monte Carlo method can be extended to power-law interactions with a suitable winding number estimator.
    This is assumed in developing the simulation technique.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5567 in / 1251 out tokens · 24346 ms · 2026-05-16T10:15:02.864495+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

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Therefore, it suffices to only consider the first term in Eq

    (see Appendix A 1): Sγ = NX i=1 Sγ i , γ∈ {x, y, z}.(13) The ground state energy of this Hamiltonian is given by: E0 =− J 8 (N2 −1) (14) To determineρ s, we need to analyze the twisted Hamil- tonian: H=− J 2 X i̸=j cos(rijθ)(S x i Sx j +S y i Sy j ) + sin(rijθ)(S x i Sx j −S y i Sy j ) .(15) The second term with coefficient sin(r ijθ) is the current densi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    It is also instructive to examine the behavior of the su- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000s = 0.2 = 20 = 200 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0s FIG

    =K LL(k)v(k)/πto diverge as well suggesting an en- hancement of superfluidity due to the long range hopping of bosons forα <3. It is also instructive to examine the behavior of the su- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000s = 0.2 = 20 = 200 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0s FIG. 8. Superfluid density as a function ofαforN= 101 and β∈ {0...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Ground State Energy The LMG Hamiltonian of interest is: H=− J 2 X i̸=j (Sx i Sx j +S y i Sy j ).(A1) To diagonalize this, we first introduce the collective spin operators [45]: Sγ = NX i=1 Sγ i , γ∈ {x, y, z}.(A2) These operators satisfy the usualSU(2) algebra as can be seen by examining the commutator: [Su, Sv] = NX i=1 [Su i , Sv i ] =iε uvw NX i=1 Sw i...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We can approximateρ s using finite differences as follows: ρs = lim θ→0 2 N ⟨H(θ)⟩ − ⟨H(0)⟩ θ2 .(A9) Here, the expectation values are evaluated in the ground state

    Superfluid density To determineρ s, we need to analyze the twisted Hamil- tonian: H=− J 2 X i̸=j cos(rijθ)(S x i Sx j +S y i Sy j ) + sin(rijθ)(S x i Sx j −S y i Sy j ) .(A8) The second term with coefficient sin(r ijθ) is the current densityj b, which has a trivial expectation value in the ground state:⟨j b⟩= 0 [38]. We can approximateρ s using finite dif...

    work page

  5. [5]

    As before, we now analyze the twisted Hamiltonian to determineρs ignoring the current term due to its trivial expectation value in the ground state: H0 =− 1 2 X i̸=j Jij cos(rijθ)(S x i Sx j +S y i Sy j ).(B5) DefiningJ ij(ϕ) =J ij cos(rijϕ), we get the same form for the mean field ground state energy as the untwisted case. To get the mean field solution ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    (1), and defined j=i+rwithr∈[−(N−1)/2,(N−1)/2],r̸= 0 for the periodic chain withNodd, in the above equation

    Construction & Diagonalization To construct the LSW theory, consider the power-law decay XY model Hamiltonian in the presence of a twist: H(θ) =− J 2 N−1X i=0 X r̸=0 cos(rθ) |r|α (Si xSi+r x +S i ySi+r y ).(C1) We have symmetrized the sum from Eq. (1), and defined j=i+rwithr∈[−(N−1)/2,(N−1)/2],r̸= 0 for the periodic chain withNodd, in the above equation. ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The ground state energy can be obtained by settingθ= 0

    Mean Field Limit Here, we derive the ground state energy and the super- fluid density forα= 0 in LSW theory analytically. The ground state energy can be obtained by settingθ= 0. For these limits (α=θ= 0),γ 0 = (N−1)/2. Therefore, the first term of the ground state energy in Eq. (C12) recovers exactly the mean field result from Eq. (B9). Moreover, the seri...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Islam, E

    R. Islam, E. Edwards, K. Kim, S. Korenblit, C. Noh, H. Carmichael, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, C.-C. Joseph Wang, J. Freericks,et al., Nature communications 2, 377 (2011)

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Kim, M.-S

    K. Kim, M.-S. Chang, S. Korenblit, R. Islam, E. E. Edwards, J. K. Freericks, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Nature465, 590 (2010)

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    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., Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Richerme, Z.-X

    P. Richerme, Z.-X. Gong, A. Lee, C. Senko, J. Smith, M. Foss-Feig, S. Michalakis, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Nature511, 198 (2014)

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Islam, C

    R. Islam, C. Senko, W. C. Campbell, S. Korenblit, J. Smith, A. Lee, E. Edwards, C.-C. Wang, J. Freericks, and C. Monroe, science340, 583 (2013)

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Y. H. Teoh, M. Drygala, R. G. Melko, and R. Islam, Quantum Science and Technology5, 024001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Lewis, L

    D. Lewis, L. Banchi, Y. H. Teoh, R. Islam, and S. Bose, Quantum Science and Technology8, 035025 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett.17, 1133 (1966)

    work page 1966

  16. [16]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Annals of Physics16, 407 (1961)

    work page 1961

  17. [17]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 17 (1928)

    work page 1928

  18. [18]

    Schollw¨ ock, Annals of physics326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Annals of physics326, 96 (2011)

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    Schollw¨ ock, Reviews of modern physics77, 259 (2005)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Reviews of modern physics77, 259 (2005)

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    Verstraete, T

    F. Verstraete, T. Nishino, U. Schollw¨ ock, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, G. K. Chan, and M. E. Stoudenmire, Nature Reviews Physics5, 273 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    A. W. Sandvik, AIP Conference Proceedings1297, 135 (2010)

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    R. G. Melko, inStrongly Correlated Systems: Numerical Methods(Springer, 2013) pp. 185–206

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    D. M. Ceperley, Reviews of Modern Physics67, 279 (1995)

    work page 1995

  24. [24]

    M. E. Fisher, S.-k. Ma, and B. G. Nickel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 917 (1972)

    work page 1972

  25. [25]

    M. F. Maghrebi, Z.-X. Gong, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys- ical review letters119, 023001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Fr´ erot, P

    I. Fr´ erot, P. Naldesi, and T. Roscilde, Physical Review B 95, 245111 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    H. J. Lipkin, N. Meshkov, and A. Glick, Nuclear Physics 62, 188 (1965)

    work page 1965

  28. [28]

    Meshkov, A

    N. Meshkov, A. Glick, and H. Lipkin, Nuclear Physics 62, 199 (1965)

    work page 1965

  29. [29]

    Glick, H

    A. Glick, H. Lipkin, and N. Meshkov, Nuclear Physics 62, 211 (1965)

    work page 1965

  30. [30]

    M. Kac, G. Uhlenbeck, and P. Hemmer, Journal of Math- ematical Physics4, 216 (1963)

    work page 1963

  31. [31]

    Schuckert, O

    A. Schuckert, O. Katz, L. Feng, E. Crane, A. De, M. Hafezi, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Nature Physics21, 374 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    A. W. Sandvik, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General25, 3667 (1992)

    work page 1992

  33. [33]

    O. F. Sylju˚ asen and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. E66, 046701 (2002)

    work page 2002

  34. [34]

    A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. E68, 056701 (2003)

    work page 2003

  35. [35]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 1840 (1981)

    work page 1981

  36. [36]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, 2003)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    Del Maestro and I

    A. Del Maestro and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. B82, 060515 (2010)

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    Eggel, M

    T. Eggel, M. A. Cazalilla, and M. Oshikawa, Physical review letters107, 275302 (2011)

    work page 2011

  39. [39]

    Daviet and N

    R. Daviet and N. Dupuis, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 235301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Dupuis, Phys

    N. Dupuis, Phys. Rev. A110, 033315 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    R. G. Melko, A. Paramekanti, A. A. Burkov, A. Vish- wanath, D. N. Sheng, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 127207 (2005)

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    Laflorencie and H

    N. Laflorencie and H. Rieger, The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems40, 201 (2004)

    work page 2004

  43. [43]

    Laflorencie, S

    N. Laflorencie, S. Capponi, and E. S. Sørensen, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Com- plex Systems24, 77 (2001)

    work page 2001

  44. [44]

    R. G. Melko, A. W. Sandvik, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B69, 014509 (2004)

    work page 2004

  45. [45]

    A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B56, 11678 (1997)

    work page 1997

  46. [46]

    M. E. Fisher, M. N. Barber, and D. Jasnow, Physical Review A8, 1111 (1973)

    work page 1973

  47. [47]

    N. V. Prokof’ev and B. V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. B61, 11282 (2000)

    work page 2000

  48. [48]

    D. J. Scalapino, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B47, 7995 (1993)

    work page 1993

  49. [49]

    T. G. Kiely and E. J. Mueller, Phys. Rev. B105, 134502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Giamarchi and B

    T. Giamarchi and B. S. Shastry, Phys. Rev. B51, 10915 (1995)

    work page 1995

  51. [51]

    Bia lo´ nczyk, F

    M. Bia lo´ nczyk, F. G´ omez-Ruiz, and A. del Campo, Sci- Post Physics11, 013 (2021)

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Ribeiro, J

    P. Ribeiro, J. Vidal, and R. Mosseri, Phys. Rev. E78, 021106 (2008)

    work page 2008

  53. [53]

    A. W. Sandvik, arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.10591 (2019)

    work page arXiv 1909

  54. [54]

    A. W. Sandvik, Physical Review B59, R14157 (1999)

    work page 1999

  55. [55]

    Merali, I

    E. Merali, I. J. S. D. Vlugt, and R. G. Melko, SciPost Phys. Core7, 016 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Merali,Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations of Ryd- berg Atom Arrays, Ph.D

    E. Merali,Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations of Ryd- berg Atom Arrays, Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    F. Alet, S. Wessel, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. E71, 036706 (2005)

    work page 2005

  58. [58]

    A. W. Sandvik and C. J. Hamer, Phys. Rev. B60, 6588 (1999)

    work page 1999

  59. [59]

    Goldenfeld,Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group(CRC Press, 2018)

    N. Goldenfeld,Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group(CRC Press, 2018)

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Coletta, N

    T. Coletta, N. Laflorencie, and F. Mila, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics85, 104421 (2012)

    work page 2012

  61. [61]

    Bernardet, G

    K. Bernardet, G. Batrouni, J.-L. Meunier, G. Schmid, M. Troyer, and A. Dorneich, Physical Review B65, 104519 (2002)

    work page 2002

  62. [62]

    Gomez-Santos and J

    G. Gomez-Santos and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. B 36, 8707 (1987)

    work page 1987

  63. [63]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev.58, 1098 (1940)

    work page 1940

  64. [64]

    Comparin, F

    T. Comparin, F. Mezzacapo, and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. A105, 022625 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 035002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano,Modern quantum me- chanics(Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    J. I. Latorre, R. Or´ us, E. Rico, and J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. A71, 064101 (2005)

    work page 2005

  68. [68]

    R. L. Graham, D. E. Knuth, and O. Patashnik,Con- crete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science (Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1994)

    work page 1994

  69. [69]

    Bogoliubov, J

    N. Bogoliubov, J. Phys11, 23 (1947)

    work page 1947

  70. [70]

    Rudin,Real and complex analysis(McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1987)

    W. Rudin,Real and complex analysis(McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1987)

    work page 1987