Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Thermodynamics of spin-orbit coupled bosons in two dimensions from complex Langevin

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 For a two-dimensional gas of spin-orbit coupled bosons with contact interactions, non-perturbative simulations show that mean-field theory underestimates the density and that spin-orbit coupling destroys the finite-volume pseudo-condensate.

desk verdict First non-perturbative equation-of-state data for 2D spin-orbit coupled bosons, with a plausible physics message but a load-bearing complex Langevin step that is not verified well enough. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02715 v2 pith:V6NYR3TE submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.quant-gas

Felipe Attanasio , Joaquín E. Drut This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords spin-orbitcoupledbosonscomplexLangevinequationofstatepseudo-condensatelatticefieldtheorysignproblemultracoldatomsnon-perturbativemethods
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

This paper establishes the non-perturbative thermal equation of state of a two-dimensional Bose gas with spin-orbit coupling and repulsive contact interactions, using complex Langevin simulations on a $20^2\times64$ lattice. The central finding is that mean-field solutions underestimate the average density, with the discrepancy growing as the spin-orbit coupling increases or the chemical potential turns positive. The simulations also show that a pseudo-condensate, visible as equal-spin off-diagonal long-range order in the finite volume, is destroyed by the spin-orbit coupling. Because the spin-orbit term makes the Euclidean action complex, standard Monte Carlo sampling is impossible here, so the work doubles as a test of complex Langevin for synthetic-gauge-field cold-atom systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the lattice action in which the spin-orbit coupling enters as a constant background SU(2) gauge field, $v_j=e^{-i\kappa_j\sigma_j}$, so that arbitrarily large couplings can be studied on a small lattice. The calculation is carried by complex Langevin dynamics: the fields are complexified and evolved in a fictitious time under Gaussian noise, sampling the complex weight $e^{-S}$; the mean-field result is the noiseless limit of the same equations. The free (quadratic) part is diagonalized in a helicity basis, a change of variables in which the two free dispersion branches decouple, producing eigenvalues $\lambda_\pm(\vec p,\omega,\mu,\kappa)$ whose zero-crossing locates the condensation instability and whose lattice sum gives the exact noninteracting density used as a baseline.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to compute $\langle n\rangle$ for the same lattice action at $\lambda/a=0.5$, $a\kappa=0.3\pi/2$, and $\beta\mu\approx0.4$ with an independent sign-problem-free method; if that method disagrees with the complex Langevin value beyond the quoted errors, the interacting equation of state—and therefore the mean-field comparison—is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a periodic lattice with $N_x=20$, $N_\tau=64$, $\xi=1/8$, and same-species coupling $\lambda/a=0.5$, the paper obtains the density equation of state $n(\beta\mu,\kappa)$ for isotropic ($\kappa_x=\kappa_y=\kappa$) and anisotropic ($\kappa_y=\eta_{\rm soc}\kappa_x$) spin-orbit coupling. Density decreases monotonically with $\kappa$, reaching a minimum at $a\kappa=\pi/2$, the lattice image of $\kappa\to\infty$; for $\mu\leq0$, where the mean-field density is zero, the simulations give a finite density. Noiseless Langevin (mean field) systematically lies below the complex-Langevin density, with the gap widening for larger $\kappa$ and positive $\beta\mu$. The equal-spin correlation at half the lattice size, $R_{\uparrow\uparrow}=G_{\uparrow\uparrow}(aN_x/2)/G_{\uparrow\uparrow}(0)$, is nonzero at $\kappa=0$ and $\mu>0$—the finite-volume pseudo-condensate—and drops to zero for $a\kappa\gtrsim0.1\pi$; opposite-spin correlations are statistically zero. With anisotropic spin-orbit coupling the density and the pseudo-condensate decay more slowly with $|\vec\kappa|$, and at $\eta_{\rm soc}=0$ the density displays a periodicity of $2\pi/N_x$ in the coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the complex Langevin process converges to the correct quantum expectation values for this complex action; the paper's only direct check is that the imaginary part of the density is statistically zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\mu\leq0$, where the mean-field density is zero, the interacting density is nonzero, so mean-field estimates of the phase boundary in this regime are unreliable.
  • The density and pressure equations of state reported here are direct, parameter-free predictions that can be compared with measurements on synthetic spin-orbit coupled Bose gases.
  • At fixed chemical potential, increasing the spin-orbit coupling lowers the density monotonically, with the minimum at $a\kappa=\pi/2$, so stronger coupling makes the gas more dilute at the same $\mu$.
  • A pseudo-condensate appears in the finite volume at $\kappa=0$ and is destroyed for $a\kappa\gtrsim0.1\pi$, showing that spin-orbit coupling suppresses off-diagonal long-range order already at small coupling.
  • For anisotropic spin-orbit coupling, both the density and the pseudo-condensate fraction decay more slowly with $|\vec\kappa|$, and at $\eta_{\rm soc}=0$ the density develops a lattice-induced period $2\pi/N_x$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A volume-scaling study at fixed temperature would show whether the pseudo-condensate destruction by spin-orbit coupling survives the thermodynamic limit or is purely a finite-volume effect.
  • Because the lattice formulation packages the spin-orbit coupling as a constant background SU(2) gauge field, the same complex-Langevin setup should transfer to spin-orbit coupled fermions and to rotating bosons without new algorithmic ingredients.
  • If ultracold-atom experiments measure this density equation of state, mean-field fits would infer a smaller density at fixed $\mu$ and $\kappa$; the deviation is a clean quantitative signature of beyond-mean-field physics in synthetic spin-orbit coupled gases.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a lattice complex-Langevin study of a two-dimensional Bose gas with two pseudo-spin components, Rashba-Dresselhaus-type spin-orbit coupling, and contact interactions. The authors derive the exact noninteracting lattice density, benchmark the CL code against it, and then compute the interacting density and pressure equations of state as functions of chemical potential and spin-orbit coupling, together with a finite-volume pseudo-condensate fraction. The two central claims are that mean-field theory underestimates the average density (most visibly for stronger SOC) and that SOC depletes the finite-volume pseudo-condensate.

Significance. The paper's strengths are the closed-form noninteracting solution, the absence of fitted parameters, the direct evaluation of the lattice path integral, and the independent mean-field benchmark. If the interacting CL data are correct, the density and pressure equations of state represent a useful non-perturbative reference for spin-orbit coupled bosons, a regime in which sign problems preclude standard Monte Carlo. The manuscript is written clearly and the lattice treatment of SOC as a background non-Abelian field is elegant. Its central quantitative claims currently rest on CL validation that is necessary but not sufficient, on data shown without visible error bars, and on a single-volume pseudo-condensate estimator; these issues are addressable and should be fixed before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III and Section IV B, Fig. 3] The interacting results that support the central claim are produced solely by complex Langevin for a genuinely complex action (Section III). The only correctness checks are the noninteracting benchmark (Fig. 1) and the vanishing imaginary part of the density (Fig. 3, Section IV B). Neither is sufficient: CL can converge to a wrong stationary measure with small imaginary parts if boundary terms in the associated Fokker-Planck equation do not vanish, and the noninteracting check exercises only the quadratic part of the drift while the quartic interaction is where CL failures are most likely. Please add an interacting-regime benchmark (e.g., exact diagonalization on a small lattice, a determinant or worldline QMC calculation in a parameter window, or the standard boundary-term criterion) and report Langevin-time discretization and thermalization diagnostics.
  2. [Section IV B, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9] The central density figures show CL points without visible error bars, whereas the pressure data in Fig. 6 are accompanied by bootstrap errors. Because the main claim is a quantitative comparison between CL and mean-field densities, this omission prevents the reader from judging whether the deviations are statistically significant, particularly for stronger SOC where differences are small. Please include error bars (or state explicitly that they are smaller than the symbols and report numerical uncertainties), the number of independent configurations, and the autocorrelation times used.
  3. [Section IV B, Eq. (24), and Fig. 7] The pseudo-condensate claim is based on a single finite-volume estimator, R_{ss'} = G_{ss'}(aN_x/2)/G_{ss'}(0), at N_x=20 (Eq. (24), Fig. 7). Since the pseudo-condensate is itself a finite-volume effect in 2D, the observed decay of R with κ cannot establish that SOC 'destroys' the pseudo-condensate without a finite-size scaling analysis. Please show R(κ) for at least one additional volume or provide a scaling argument that the zero-κ value survives the thermodynamic limit while the finite-κ value does not.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The interaction terms are typeset as 'λ +g /8' and 'λ−g /8'; they should be (λ+g)/8 and (λ−g)/8 to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Section III] The sentence 'For complex fields, both the real and imaginary parts become complex' is confusing; the standard complex-Langevin complexification of an already complex scalar field should be described more precisely.
  3. [Eq. (21) and Figs. 4 and 5] The mean-field density in Eq. (21) is per flavor, while Figs. 4 and 5 plot total density; please state the factor-of-2 convention in the caption or text.
  4. [Section IV A] The discussion of the βμ≥0 condensation instability would benefit from a brief statement of how the instability was detected (e.g., runaway Langevin behavior) and how such configurations were excluded from the analysis.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor typos: 'distincion' in Section IV C and 'F.A and acknowledges' in the acknowledgments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central results are computed directly from the lattice path integral and checked against independent limits (exact quadratic solution and mean-field approximation).

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The lattice action (Eq. 4) is the input, and the observables — average density (Eq. 20), pressure (Eq. 22), and pseudo-condensate fraction (Eqs. 23–24) — are computed by direct complex Langevin sampling of that action. The exact noninteracting solution in Section II.A is derived analytically from the same lattice action, not fitted. The mean-field result (Eq. 21) is obtained from the noiseless Langevin equation, i.e., minimization of the action, and is used only as a comparison benchmark. No parameter is fitted to target data, and no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted constant. The cited prior work on complex Langevin (Refs. 24–36, 40–47) is methodological support for the simulation technique; the quantitative claims of this paper rest on the simulations performed here, with explicit comparisons to analytically known free-theory results and to mean field. The concern that complex Langevin could converge to a biased stationary distribution in the interacting regime is a genuine methodological risk, not a circularity: it concerns correctness of the numerical method, not a derivation that presupposes its own conclusion. There is no self-citation chain that forces the claimed outcome, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no renaming of a known result. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on two domain assumptions: the correctness of complex Langevin for this model, and the absence of a continuum extrapolation. No free parameters are fitted to data; the simulation parameters (Nx, Ntau, xi, m, lambda/a) are inputs chosen from standard practice. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Complex Langevin dynamics with real noise converges to the correct path integral measure for this complex-action lattice theory.
    Section III describes the method; correctness is not proven, only checked via the vanishing imaginary part of the density (Fig. 3). Failure here would invalidate all interacting results.
  • domain assumption The lattice with Nx=20, Ntau=64, xi=1/8, m=1 lies in the scaling regime so that results represent the continuum 2D system without extrapolation.
    Section III states thermal wavelength ~7 in lattice units, consistent with 1 << lambda_T/a << Nx, but no continuum extrapolation is performed. If this assumption fails, the quantitative density values are lattice artifacts.
  • domain assumption The contact interaction is regularized by placing it at the same lattice site as the density operator; this is a standard but scheme-dependent choice.
    Eq. (4) defines the interaction; the regularization affects the relation between the bare lattice coupling lambda/a and a physical scattering length, which the paper does not quantify.
  • standard math Standard identities of stochastic quantization, including Gaussian noise averages and the equivalence of Langevin dynamics to the path integral measure, hold.
    Section III, Eqs. (16)-(19). These identities are mathematically standard given suitable convergence assumptions, which are part of the first axiom.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamics of spin-orbit coupled bosons in two dimensions from complex Langevin." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6NYR3TE

@misc{pith2026190802715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamics of spin-orbit coupled bosons in two dimensions from complex Langevin},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6NYR3TE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02715}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the thermal properties of interacting spin-orbit coupled bosons with contact interactions in two spatial dimensions. To that end, we implement the complex Langevin method, motivated by the appearance of a sign problem, on a square lattice with periodic boundary conditions. We calculate the density equation of state non-perturbatively in a range of spin-orbit couplings and chemical potentials. Our results show that mean-field solutions tend to underestimate the average density, especially for stronger values of the spin-orbit coupling. Additionally, the finite nature of the simulation volume induces the formation of pseudo-condensates. These have been observed to be destroyed by the spin-orbit interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02715 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Average particle number density as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Average particle number density as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Average total density, for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Plot of the average total density as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Pressure difference as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Average number density as function of the absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Plot of the pseudo-condensate fraction as function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y.-J. Lin, K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa and I. B. Spielman, Nature 471 (Mar., 2011) 83–86

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    P. Wang, Z.-Q. Yu, Z. Fu, J. Miao, L. Huang, S. Chai et al., Physical Review Letters 109 (Aug., 2012) 095301

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    L. W. Cheuk, A. T. Sommer, Z. Hadzibabic, T. Yefsah, W. S. Bakr and M. W. Zwierlein, Physical Review Letters 109 (Aug., 2012) 095302

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Y.-J. Lin, R. L. Compton, K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, J. V. Porto and I. B. Spielman, Nature 462 (Dec., 2009) 628–632

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Y.-J. Lin, R. L. Compton, K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, W. D. Phillips, J. V. Porto and I. B. Spielman, Nature Physics 7 (July, 2011) 531–534

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Dalibard, F

    J. Dalibard, F. Gerbier, G. Juzeliunas and P. Ohberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 (2011) 1523 [1008.5378]

    arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    RASHBA, SOVIET PHYSICS-SOLID STATE 2 (1960) 1109–1122

    E. RASHBA, SOVIET PHYSICS-SOLID STATE 2 (1960) 1109–1122

    work page 1960

  8. [8]

    Dresselhaus, Phys

    G. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev. 100 (Oct, 1955) 580–586

    work page 1955

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Wu, L. Zhang, W. Sun, X.-T. Xu, B.-Z. Wang, S.-C. Ji et al., Science 354 (Oct., 2016) 83–88

    2016

  2. [10]

    L´ eonard, A

    J. L´ eonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger and T. Donner, Nature 543 (Mar., 2017) 87–90

    2017

  3. [11]

    J.-R. Li, J. Lee, W. Huang, S. Burchesky, B. Shteynas, F. C ¸ . Top et al., Nature (London)543 (Mar., 2017) 91–94 [1610.08194]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Huang, Z

    L. Huang, Z. Meng, P. Wang, P. Peng, S.-L. Zhang, L. Chen et al., Nature Physics 12 (June, 2016) 540–544 [1506.02861]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Z. Meng, L. Huang, P. Peng, D. Li, L. Chen, Y. Xu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (Dec, 2016) 235304

    2016

  6. [14]

    Vald´ es-Curiel, D

    A. Vald´ es-Curiel, D. Trypogeorgos, Q.-Y. Liang, R. P. Anderson and I. B. Spielman, arXiv e-prints (July,

  7. [15]

    C. Wang, C. Gao, C.-M. Jian and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (Oct, 2010) 160403

    2010

  8. [16]

    Zhai, Rept

    H. Zhai, Rept. Prog. Phys. 78 (2015) 026001 [1403.8021]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kawasaki and M

    E. Kawasaki and M. Holzmann, Phys. Rev. A 95 (May,

  10. [18]

    Liao, Physical Review Letters 120 (Apr., 2018) 140403 [1804.01163]

    R. Liao, Physical Review Letters 120 (Apr., 2018) 140403 [1804.01163]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Liang and P

    L. Liang and P. T¨ orm¨ a, arXiv e-prints (Mar., 2019) [1903.08182]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Stringari, Physical Review Letters 118 (Apr., 2017) 145302 [1609.04694]

    S. Stringari, Physical Review Letters 118 (Apr., 2017) 145302 [1609.04694]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mujal, A

    P. Mujal, A. Polls and B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, arXiv e-prints (Jul, 2019) arXiv:1907.13355 [1907.13355]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ozawa and G

    T. Ozawa and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. A84 (2011) 043622 [1107.3162]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Juzeli¯ unas, J

    G. Juzeli¯ unas, J. Ruseckas, M. Lindberg, L. Santos and P. ¨Ohberg, Phys. Rev. A 77 (Jan., 2008) 011802 [0712.1677]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. C. Loheac and J. E. Drut, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 094502 [1702.04666]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. C. Loheac, J. Braun and J. E. Drut, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 054507 [1804.10257]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Rammelm¨ uller, A

    L. Rammelm¨ uller, A. C. Loheac, J. E. Drut and J. Braun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 173001 [1807.04664]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Rammelm¨ uller, W

    L. Rammelm¨ uller, W. J. Porter, J. E. Drut and J. Braun, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 094506 [1708.03149]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C. E. Berger, L. Rammelm¨ uller, A. C. Loheac, F. Ehmann, J. Braun and J. E. Drut, 1907.10183

    1907 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sexty, Phys

    D. Sexty, Phys. Lett. B729 (2014) 108–111 [1307.7748]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Attanasio and B

    F. Attanasio and B. J¨ ager, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 16 [1808.04400]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. B. Kogut and D. K. Sinclair, 1903.02622

    1903 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sexty, 1907.08712

    D. Sexty, 1907.08712

    1907 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Nagata, J

    K. Nagata, J. Nishimura and S. Shimasaki, JHEP 07 (2016) 073 [1604.07717]. 8

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bloch, J

    J. Bloch, J. Glesaaen, J. J. M. Verbaarschot and S. Zafeiropoulos, JHEP 03 (2018) 015 [1712.07514]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Hayata and A

    T. Hayata and A. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A92 (2015) 043628 [1411.5195]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Berger and J

    C. Berger and J. Drut, PoS LA TTICE2018(2018) 244

    2018

  29. [37]

    Nishimura and A

    J. Nishimura and A. Tsuchiya, JHEP 06 (2019) 077 [1904.05919]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Parisi and Y.-s

    G. Parisi and Y.-s. Wu, Sci. Sin. 24 (1981) 483

    1981

  31. [39]

    Aarts, F

    G. Aarts, F. A. James, E. Seiler and I.-O. Stamatescu, Phys. Lett. B687 (2010) 154–159 [0912.0617]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Parisi, Phys

    G. Parisi, Phys. Lett. 131B (1983) 393–395

    1983

  33. [41]

    J. R. Klauder, Acta Phys. Austriaca Suppl. 25 (1983) 251–281

    1983

  34. [42]

    J. R. Klauder, J. Phys. A16 (1983) L317

    1983

  35. [43]

    J. R. Klauder, Phys. Rev. A29 (1984) 2036–2047

    1984

  36. [44]

    Aarts and I.-O

    G. Aarts and I.-O. Stamatescu, JHEP 09 (2008) 018 [0807.1597]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Aarts, Phys

    G. Aarts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 131601 [0810.2089]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Aarts, E

    G. Aarts, E. Seiler and I.-O. Stamatescu, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 054508 [0912.3360]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Aarts, F

    G. Aarts, F. A. James, E. Seiler and I.-O. Stamatescu, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1756 [1101.3270]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Wolff, Comput

    ALPHA collaboration, U. Wolff, Comput. Phys. Commun. 156 (2004) 143–153 [hep-lat/0306017]

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ozawa and G

    T. Ozawa and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (Jul,

  42. [50]

    Cui and Q

    X. Cui and Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 87 (Mar, 2013) 031604

    2013

  43. [51]

    Ho and S

    T.-L. Ho and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (Oct,

  44. [52]

    L¨ uscher, Comm

    M. L¨ uscher, Comm. Math. Phys. 105 (1986) 153–188

    1986

  45. [53]

    C. R. Shill and J. E. Drut, Phys. Rev. A98 (2018) 053615 [1808.07836]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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