Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Information measures for a local quantum phase transition: Lattice bosons in a one-dimensional harmonic trap

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bipartite entanglement entropies are order parameters for both local quantum phase transitions in trapped one-dimensional lattice bosons, and finite-size scaling recovers the thermodynamic-limit critical densities predicted by the local…

desk verdict Entanglement order parameters for local transitions in trapped Bose-Hubbard is a genuinely useful idea with careful DMRG, but the lower-transition extrapolation rests on an underdetermined quartic fit and needs a fix. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01824 v2 pith:BBDZA5PD submitted 2019-08-05 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.quant-gas

Yicheng Zhang , Lev Vidmar , Marcos Rigol This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords Bose-HubbardmodellocalquantumphasetransitionentanglemententropyRenyiharmonictrapdensityapproximationdensity-matrixrenormalizationgroupMottinsulator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether entanglement, rather than only local densities, can detect the two local quantum phase transitions that occur when bosons in a one-dimensional harmonic trap are compressed by increasing the characteristic density $\rho=N/R$. It argues that the second derivative of the total energy is continuous with a kink at the lower transition (formation of an $n=1$ Mott-insulating core) and discontinuous at the upper transition (emergence of an $n>1$ superfluid core). It then shows that bipartite von Neumann and second Renyi entanglement entropies act as order parameters: the entropy decreases smoothly toward the homogeneous Mott value at the lower transition and rises sharply at the upper transition. Using density-matrix renormalization group data, the paper shows that crossing-point and midpoint extrapolations from small systems recover the local-density-approximation transition densities in the thermodynamic limit. This matters because the second Renyi entropy is measurable in current cold-atom experiments, so the transitions could be located directly from entanglement measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bipartite entanglement entropy—the von Neumann entropy $S_{\mathrm{vN}}=-\mathrm{Tr}\,\rho_A\ln\rho_A$ and the Renyi entropies $S_\alpha=(1-\alpha)^{-1}\ln\mathrm{Tr}\,\rho_A^\alpha$, with $S_2$ the experimentally measurable case—computed from the reduced density matrix of half the trapped chain by density-matrix renormalization group. Around the lower transition, a universal scaling function $S_{\mathrm{vN}}(U)=F([\rho-\rho_l^c(U)]N)$ supplies data collapse that locates the critical density; around the upper transition, the midpoint of the sharp entropy rise, defined by Eq. (10) as $S_{\mathrm{vN}}(\bar\rho)=(S_{\mathrm{vN}}^{(0)}+S_{\mathrm{vN}}^{\max})/2$, serves as the finite-size estimator. The local density approximation, Eq. (3), provides the reference thermodynamic-limit transition densities that these extrapolations are checked against.

What would settle it

Compute the transition densities for the same trap and interaction parameters directly from a trapped-system observable that does not rely on the local density approximation—for example, the kink or jump in the second energy derivative or the peak of the local compressibility—and extrapolate those to the thermodynamic limit; if the resulting $\rho_l^c$ and $\rho_u^c$ disagree with the entanglement-extrapolated values beyond the numerical uncertainty of the extrapolations, the claim that entanglement entropies order these transitions would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nonlocal information measures carry the same ordering information as the energy nonanalyticities in an inhomogeneous Bose-Hubbard system. In the trapped one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model, the paper finds a universal scaling form $S_{\mathrm{vN}}(U)=F([\rho-\rho_l^c(U)]N)$ for the lower transition, with data collapse for different particle numbers, and a sharp rise in $S_{\mathrm{vN}}$ at the upper transition whose midpoint approaches the local-density-approximation value $\rho_u^c$ as $1/N$ decreases. Extrapolating those features with polynomial fits in inverse system size reproduces the LDA critical densities for the interaction strengths studied, and the same analysis works for the experimentally accessible second Renyi entropy in systems with a few tens of particles. The implication is that entanglement entropy is a quantitative order parameter for local quantum phase transitions in trapped bosons, not merely a qualitative indicator.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the finite-size corrections to the transition densities follow the specific polynomial forms chosen for the extrapolations, and that the local density approximation accurately describes the trapped system at the interaction strengths studied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The second derivative of the total energy distinguishes the two local transitions: a kink at the lower transition and a jump at the upper one, so energy measurements alone can already separate them.
  • Both the von Neumann entropy and the second Renyi entropy $S_2$ work as order parameters, and $S_2$ is the quantity measured in current ultracold-atom experiments.
  • For sufficiently large $U$, the critical characteristic densities for both transitions can be extracted from systems with only tens of particles, within reach of optical-lattice experiments.
  • The universal scaling collapse of $S_{\mathrm{vN}}$ versus $(\rho-\rho_l^c)N$ implies a system-size-independent order-parameter shape at fixed $U$, paralleling the fermionic case.
  • As $U$ approaches the homogeneous critical value $U_c^{n=1}=3.28$ from above, the lower and upper transitions are no longer well separated, and larger systems are needed both theoretically and experimentally.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the low-temperature expectation stated in the paper holds, the same $S_2$ crossing and midpoint analysis could be applied directly to finite-temperature experimental snapshots, turning the Renyi entropy into a practical transition locator; the paper only states this as an expectation, not a demonstrated result.
  • The pattern of nonanalyticities—a kink at the lower transition and a jump at the upper one—suggests the two local transitions may belong to different classes of critical behavior, but the paper does not make that classification.
  • Because the local-density-approximation reference values are themselves extrapolated from homogeneous finite-size data, an independent determination of $\rho_l^c$ and $\rho_u^c$ from trapped-system observables alone would test whether the agreement with LDA is robust or partly an artifact of shared finite-size assumptions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the ground-state bipartite entanglement entropies (von Neumann and second Rényi) in the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model in a harmonic trap. It identifies two local quantum phase transitions upon increasing the characteristic density ρ=N/R: the formation of an n=1 Mott-insulating domain at the trap center (lower transition) and the emergence of an n>1 superfluid domain at the center of that Mott domain (upper transition). Using DMRG, the authors present evidence that the second derivative of the energy density with respect to ρ has a kink at the lower transition and a discontinuity at the upper transition, and they propose that entanglement entropies serve as order parameters. They extract critical densities from crossing points and midpoints of entropy curves for finite systems, extrapolate them to the thermodynamic limit, and compare with local-density-approximation (LDA) predictions.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a practical, experimentally accessible route to locate both local transitions using the second-order Rényi entropy, which has been measured in cold-atom experiments. The DMRG calculations appear carefully converged (bond dimension 3200, truncation 1e-12), and the homogeneous-limit entanglement scalings in Fig. 4 are checked against perturbative results. The data collapse in Fig. 5 and the linear extrapolations for the upper transition in Fig. 7 are suggestive and constitute a useful scaling framework for trapped systems. However, the quantitative lower-transition extrapolation is not well determined, so the central agreement claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Fig. 6 and inset] The extrapolation of the lower-transition crossing points ρ× via a quartic polynomial in 1/N* is underdetermined. For U=5, the curves for N=16 and 20 do not cross (as stated in the text), leaving only two crossing points (20/24 and 24/28). For U=6.25, 8, and 10, the four particle numbers N=8,12,16,20 give only three crossing points. A quartic polynomial has five free parameters, so these fits are not uniquely defined, and the extrapolated values shown in the insets are not well-determined results of the data. The apparent agreement with LDA therefore cannot be evaluated. The authors should either use more system sizes, reduce the polynomial order to a determined fit, or provide a constrained extrapolation with an error estimate.
  2. [Sec. III A, Eq. (9) and Fig. 5 insets] The scaling collapse in the insets of Fig. 5 uses the LDA value ρ_l^c to define the rescaled variable \tildeρ=(ρ−ρ_l^c)N. Thus the collapse cannot independently confirm the LDA prediction; it only demonstrates consistency with it. To support the claim that entanglement measures determine the transition point, the collapse should be used with ρ_l^c treated as an adjustable parameter or otherwise validated by a method that does not use the LDA value as input.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 3 and abstract] The abstract states that the second derivative of the total energy is continuous with a kink at the lower transition and discontinuous at the upper transition. The evidence in Fig. 3 consists of finite-size DMRG curves for two values of R plus LDA curves. No finite-size scaling or extrapolation of \bar E'' to the thermodynamic limit is presented, and LDA itself is an approximation whose accuracy is not quantified at these parameters. As written, this asserts a stronger result than the numerics establish. Please soften the claim or add a quantitative finite-size analysis of the derivative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (9) and Fig. 5] Equation (9) writes SvN = F((ρ−ρ_l^c)N), but the insets of Fig. 5 use \tildeρ=(ρ−ρ_l^c)N; please make the notation consistent and clarify the collapse criterion.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'superfulid' in Section I, 'in presented' in Section IV should be 'is presented', and 'Renyi' should be 'Rényi'.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] 'Quartic order polynomial' should be 'quartic polynomial'; also, please state how many crossing points enter each fit and why a quartic form was chosen.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Sec. II] The LDA reference extrapolations are shown without error bars; please state the number of L0 values used in each cubic fit and report the resulting uncertainty on ρ_l^c and ρ_u^c.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-referential use of LDA in the lower-transition collapse; central transition-point extractions are independent.

  1. other [Sec. III A, Fig. 5 insets and Eq. (9)]
    "The insets in Fig. 5 show plots of SvN vs ρ~ = (ρ−ρl_c)N that exhibit excellent data collapse. ... This suggests the existence of a universal scaling function, SvN(U) =F(U)([ρ−ρl_c(U)]N) (9)"

    The scaling variable is constructed using the LDA value ρl_c as the origin, so the collapse in Fig. 5 is a consistency check of the scaling ansatz conditional on that LDA input; it cannot independently determine or confirm ρl_c from entanglement data. This is not the paper's main extraction path: the lower-transition ρl_c is independently estimated from small-system crossing points in Fig. 6, and the upper transition from midpoints in Fig. 7, neither of which uses the LDA values as fit inputs. Hence the step is self-referential but not load-bearing for the central claim.

full rationale

Overall, the paper's central claim—that entanglement entropies locate both local transitions and agree with LDA—is not circular. The quantitative extractions are (i) the lower-transition crossing points from S2 in Fig. 6, extrapolated in 1/N* without using ρl_c as a fit parameter, and (ii) the upper-transition midpoints ρ̄ in Fig. 7, defined by Eq. (10) and extrapolated linearly in 1/N without LDA input. The LDA values are used only as reference lines for comparison. The scaling collapse in Fig. 5 does use ρl_c to define the scaling variable and therefore cannot serve as an independent confirmation of ρl_c; however, the paper does not rely on that collapse to extract the transition density. The self-citation of Ref. [43] motivates the scaling form and the kink in E'', but both are demonstrated directly for the Bose-Hubbard case in Figs. 3 and 5. The underdetermined quartic fit in Fig. 6 (three crossing points, five parameters) is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity: the LDA values are not fit inputs, so any apparent agreement is not forced by construction. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The score is therefore low; the only circular-adjacent element is the conditional scaling collapse.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard model plus LDA and empirical finite-size scaling. No invented entities are introduced. The only free elements are polynomial extrapolation coefficients and fitted homogeneous entanglement parameters, all reported in figures.

free parameters (4)
  • Cubic polynomial coefficients for LDA critical densities vs 1/L0 = not reported
    Used in Fig. 2 to extrapolate rho_lc and rho_uc to L0->infinity; the extrapolated LDA transition points serve as the reference values for the DMRG results.
  • Quartic polynomial coefficients for crossing points rho_x vs 1/N* = not reported
    Used in Fig. 6 insets to extrapolate finite-size crossing points of S2 curves to N*->infinity; the result is compared with LDA predictions for rho_lc.
  • Linear fit slope and intercept for rho_bar vs 1/N = not reported
    Used in Fig. 7 to extrapolate the upper-transition reference density to N->infinity.
  • alpha0, alpha1 in homogeneous Mott-insulator entanglement scaling = alpha0=4.00, alpha1=5.33
    Numerically fitted power-law coefficients for the homogeneous entanglement spectra (insets of Fig. 4); they are compared with perturbative values and used to draw the S0 reference lines.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local density approximation: the trapping potential can be replaced by a local chemical potential mu(x)=mu0 - x^2/R^2, and the local density is that of a homogeneous system.
    Introduced in Sec. II, Eq. (2), and used to compute the LDA state diagram and reference densities rho_lc and rho_uc via Eq. (3). Its accuracy for the trap curvatures and interaction strengths considered is assumed.
  • domain assumption DMRG parameters (bond dimension 3200, truncation 10^-12, max occupations 6) yield converged ground states.
    Stated in Sec. II; convergence is checked only via energy differences between sweeps, not via extrapolation in bond dimension.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-size scaling forms are polynomial: cubic in 1/L0, quartic in 1/N*, linear in 1/N.
    These functional forms are chosen by hand (Figs. 2, 6, 7) with no derivation; the inferred thermodynamic-limit critical densities depend on them.
  • domain assumption The homogeneous Bose-Hubbard phase boundary U_c^{n=1}=3.28 from Refs. [72,73] is correct.
    Used to select the interaction regime U > U_c^{n=1} in Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption The perturbative entanglement spectrum expressions from Ref. [57] (Eq. (8), with Delta_i = alpha_i/U^2) apply in the Mott-insulating phase.
    Used in Fig. 4 to compute S0_vN and S2 reference values; the numerical fit supports the form for U > 10.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information measures for a local quantum phase transition: Lattice bosons in a one-dimensional harmonic trap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBDZA5PD

@misc{pith2026190801824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information measures for a local quantum phase transition: Lattice bosons in a one-dimensional harmonic trap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBDZA5PD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01824}
}
read the original abstract

We study ground-state quantum entanglement in the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model in the presence of a harmonic trap. We focus on two transitions that occur upon increasing the characteristic particle density: the formation of a Mott-insulating domain with site occupation one at the center of the trap (lower transition) and the emergence of a superfluid domain at the center of the Mott-insulating one (upper transition). These transitions generate discontinuities in derivatives of the total energy and have been characterized by local (nonextensive) order parameters, so we refer to them as local quantum phase transitions. We show that a second derivative of the total energy is continuous with a kink at the lower transition, and that it is discontinuous at the upper transition. We also show that bipartite entanglement entropies are order parameters for those local quantum phase transitions. We use the density-matrix renormalization group and show that the transition points extracted from entanglement measures agree with the predictions of the local density approximation in the thermodynamic limit. We discuss how to determine the transition points from results in small systems, such as the ones realized in recent optical lattice experiments that measured the second-order Renyi entanglement entropy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01824 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. State diagram of the trapped Bose-Hubbard model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Discrete second derivative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a), (c), (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  2. [2]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016)

    N. Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Osterloh, L

    A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition, Na- ture 416, 608 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Entanglement in a sim- ple quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032110 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    Vidal, J

    G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, Entan- glement in quantum critical phenomena, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, J. Stat. Mech. (2004), P06002

    work page 2004

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement en- tropy in one-dimensional systems, J. Stat. Mech. (2005), P04010

    2005

  2. [10]

    G. D. Chiara, S. Montangero, P. Calabrese, and R. Fazio, Entanglement entropy dynamics of Heisenberg chains, J. Stat. Mech. (2006), P03001

    2006

  3. [11]

    A. J. Daley, H. Pichler, J. Schachenmayer, and P. Zoller, Measuring Entanglement Growth in Quench Dynamics of Bosons in an Optical Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020505 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Schachenmayer, B

    J. Schachenmayer, B. P. Lanyon, C. F. Roos, and A. J. Daley, Entanglement Growth in Quench Dynamics with Variable Range Interactions, Phys. Rev. X 3, 031015 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Kim and D

    H. Kim and D. A. Huse, Ballistic Spreading of Entan- glement in a Diffusive Nonintegrable System, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 127205 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Hamma, R

    A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Ground state entanglement and geometric entropy in the Kitaev model, Phys. Lett. A 337, 22 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Kitaev and J

    A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological Entanglement En- tropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110404 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Levin and X.-G

    M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Detecting Topological Order in a Ground State Wave Function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110405 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Islam, R

    R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Measuring entanglement en- tropy in a quantum many-body system, Nature 528, 77 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quantum ther- malization through entanglement in an isolated many- body system, Science 353, 794 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Probing R´ enyi entanglement entropy via random- ized measurements, Science 364, 260 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    G. G. Batrouni, V. Rousseau, R. T. Scalettar, M. Rigol, A. Muramatsu, P. J. H. Denteneer, and M. Troyer, Mott Domains of Bosons Confined on Optical Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 117203 (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    V. A. Kashurnikov, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov, Revealing the superfluid–Mott-insulator transition in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A 66, 031601 (2002)

    2002

  14. [22]

    Rigol, A

    M. Rigol, A. Muramatsu, G. G. Batrouni, and R. T. Scalettar, Local Quantum Criticality in Con- fined Fermions on Optical Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 130403 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Rigol and A

    M. Rigol and A. Muramatsu, Quantum Monte Carlo study of confined fermions in one-dimensional optical lat- tices, Phys. Rev. A 69, 053612 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Kollath, U

    C. Kollath, U. Schollw¨ ock, J. von Delft, and W. Zwerger, Spatial correlations of trapped one-dimensional bosons in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A 69, 031601 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Rigol and A

    M. Rigol and A. Muramatsu, Confinement control by op- tical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 70, 043627 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Hooley and J

    C. Hooley and J. Quintanilla, Single-atom density of states of an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 080404 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Bergkvist, P

    S. Bergkvist, P. Henelius, and A. Rosengren, Local- density approximation for confined bosons in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A 70, 053601 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Wessel, F

    S. Wessel, F. Alet, M. Troyer, and G. G. Batrouni, Quan- tum Monte Carlo simulations of confined bosonic atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 70, 053615 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Rigol and A

    M. Rigol and A. Muramatsu, Universal properties of hard-core bosons confined on one-dimensional lattices, Phys. Rev. A 70, 031603 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    Rigol and A

    M. Rigol and A. Muramatsu, Ground-state properties of hard-core bosons confined on one-dimensional optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 72, 013604 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    A. M. Rey, G. Pupillo, C. W. Clark, and C. J. Williams, Ultracold atoms confined in an optical lattice plus parabolic potential: A closed-form approach, Phys. Rev. A 72, 033616 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    G. G. Batrouni, H. R. Krishnamurthy, K. W. Mahmud, V. G. Rousseau, and R. T. Scalettar, Canonical trajecto- ries and critical coupling of the Bose-Hubbard Hamilto- nian in a harmonic trap, Phys. Rev. A78, 023627 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Rigol, G

    M. Rigol, G. G. Batrouni, V. G. Rousseau, and R. T. Scalettar, State diagrams for harmonically trapped bosons in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 79, 053605 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Campostrini and E

    M. Campostrini and E. Vicari, Critical Behavior and Scaling in Trapped Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 240601 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Pollet, N

    L. Pollet, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov, Critical- ity in Trapped Atomic Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 245705 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, R

    K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, R. L. Compton, Y.-J. Lin, W. D. Phillips, J. V. Porto, and I. B. Spielman, Phases of a Two-Dimensional Bose Gas in an Optical Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 110401 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Campostrini and E

    M. Campostrini and E. Vicari, Trap-size scaling in confined-particle systems at quantum transitions, Phys. Rev. A 81, 023606 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Campostrini and E

    M. Campostrini and E. Vicari, Quantum critical behav- ior and trap-size scaling of trapped bosons in a one- dimensional optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A 81, 063614 (2010). 9

    2010

  31. [39]

    K. W. Mahmud, E. N. Duchon, Y. Kato, N. Kawashima, R. T. Scalettar, and N. Trivedi, Finite-temperature study of bosons in a two-dimensional optical lattice, Phys. Rev. B 84, 054302 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Pollet, Recent developments in quantum Monte Carlo simulations with applications for cold gases, Rep

    L. Pollet, Recent developments in quantum Monte Carlo simulations with applications for cold gases, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 094501 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Ceccarelli, C

    G. Ceccarelli, C. Torrero, and E. Vicari, Critical parame- ters from trap-size scaling in systems of trapped particles, Phys. Rev. B 87, 024513 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Angelone, M

    A. Angelone, M. Campostrini, and E. Vicari, Univer- sal quantum behavior of interacting fermions in one- dimensional traps: From few particles to the trap ther- modynamic limit, Phys. Rev. A 89, 023635 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Zhang, L

    Y. Zhang, L. Vidmar, and M. Rigol, Information mea- sures for a local quantum phase transition: Lattice fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap, Phys. Rev. A 97, 023605 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Cold Bosonic Atoms in Optical Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3108 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature 415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Collapse and revival of the matter wave field of a Bose- Einstein condensate, Nature 419, 51 (2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    M. A. Cazalilla, R. Citro, T. Giamarchi, E. Orignac, and M. Rigol, One dimensional bosons: From condensed mat- ter systems to ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1405 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition, Phys. Rev. B 40, 546 (1989)

    1989

  42. [50]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  43. [51]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Buonsante and A

    P. Buonsante and A. Vezzani, Ground-State Fidelity and Bipartite Entanglement in the Bose-Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 110601 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    Deng and L

    X. Deng and L. Santos, Entanglement spectrum of one- dimensional extended Bose-Hubbard models, Phys. Rev. B 84, 085138 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Ejima, H

    S. Ejima, H. Fehske, F. Gebhard, K. zu M¨ unster, M. Knap, E. Arrigoni, and W. von der Linden, Char- acterization of Mott-insulating and superfluid phases in the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. A 85, 053644 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    M. Pino, J. Prior, A. M. Somoza, D. Jaksch, and S. R. Clark, Reentrance and entanglement in the one- dimensional Bose-Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. A 86, 023631 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    V. Alba, M. Haque, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Boundary- Locality and Perturbative Structure of Entanglement Spectra in Gapped Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 227201 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    V. Alba, M. Haque, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Entanglement Spectrum of the Two-Dimensional Bose-Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 260403 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Fr´ erot and T

    I. Fr´ erot and T. Roscilde, Entanglement Entropy across the Superfluid-Insulator Transition: A Signature of Bosonic Criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 190401 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    X. Deng, R. Citro, E. Orignac, A. Minguzzi, and L. San- tos, Bosonization and entanglement spectrum for one- dimensional polar bosons on disordered lattices, New J. Phys. 15, 045023 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    A. M. Goldsborough and R. A. Rmer, Using entangle- ment to discern phases in the disordered one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 111, 26004 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Campostrini and E

    M. Campostrini and E. Vicari, Scaling of bipartite entan- glement in one-dimensional lattice systems with a trap- ping potential, J. Stat. Mech. (2010), P08020

    2010

  55. [63]

    Calabrese, M

    P. Calabrese, M. Mintchev, and E. Vicari, Entanglement entropy of one-dimensional gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 020601 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    Vicari, Entanglement and particle correlations of Fermi gases in harmonic traps, Phys

    E. Vicari, Entanglement and particle correlations of Fermi gases in harmonic traps, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062104 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Calabrese, P

    P. Calabrese, P. Le Doussal, and S. N. Majumdar, Ran- dom matrices and entanglement entropy of trapped fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012303 (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    Dubail, J.-M

    J. Dubail, J.-M. Stphan, J. Viti, and P. Calabrese, Con- formal Field Theory for Inhomogeneous One-dimensional Quantum Systems: the Example of Non-Interacting Fermi Gases, SciPost Phys. 2, 002 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Dubail, J.-M

    J. Dubail, J.-M. Stphan, and P. Calabrese, Emergence of curved light-cones in a class of inhomogeneous Luttinger liquids, SciPost Phys. 3, 019 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Eisler and D

    V. Eisler and D. Bauernfeind, Front dynamics and entan- glement in the XXZ chain with a gradient, Phys. Rev. B 96, 174301 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Tonni, J

    E. Tonni, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Laguna, and G. Sierra, Entan- glement Hamiltonian and entanglement contour in inho- mogeneous 1D critical systems, J. Stat. Mech. (2018), 043105

    2018

  62. [70]

    Murciano, P

    S. Murciano, P. Ruggiero, and P. Calabrese, Entangle- ment and relative entropies for low-lying excited states in inhomogeneous one-dimensional quantum systems, J. Stat. Mech. (2019), 034001

    2019

  63. [72]

    Carrasquilla, S

    J. Carrasquilla, S. R. Manmana, and M. Rigol, Scaling of the gap, fidelity susceptibility, and Bloch oscillations across the superfluid-to-Mott-insulator transition in the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. A 87, 043606 (2013)

    2013

  64. [73]

    Ejima, H

    S. Ejima, H. Fehske, and F. Gebhard, Dynamic proper- ties of the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 93, 30002 (2011)

    2011

  65. [74]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011)

    2011

  66. [75]

    Alba, private communication

    V. Alba, private communication

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.