Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Tight-Binding Kondo Model and Spin-Exchange Collision Rate of Alkaline-Earth Atoms in a Mixed-Dimensional Optical Lattice

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 This paper derives the interaction parameters of tight-binding Kondo models for alkaline-earth atoms in a mixed-dimensional lattice by matching the exact two-body scattering lengths.

desk verdict Solid microscopic derivation of lattice Kondo parameters; the experimental finite-momentum claim is a fit, not a prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04482 v3 pith:Q36ZQ4RR submitted 2019-08-13 cond-mat.quant-gas

Ren Zhang , Peng Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords tight-bindingKondomodelalkaline-earthatomsmixed-dimensionalopticallatticeconfinement-inducedresonancespin-exchangecollisionratescatteringlengthmatchingMathieuGreen'sfunctionfinitequasi-momentumeffect
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 addresses how to describe ultracold alkaline-earth atoms in a mixed-dimensional trap—a mobile g-atom moving along an optical lattice and an e-atom localized in a harmonic well—by a tight-binding Kondo model. Its central claim is that the interaction parameters of such models can be derived microscopically by solving the exact two-body scattering problem and matching the low-energy even- and odd-wave scattering lengths. The resulting formulas make the spin-exchange coupling a calculable function of the lattice and trap parameters, with confinement-induced resonances providing control knobs. The same calculation shows that the commonly used projection approximation fails already when the three-dimensional scattering length is about 10 percent of the confinement lengths. Applied to a recent 173Yb experiment, the theory reproduces the observed spin-flip resonances only if the incident quasi-momentum is high, around $1.8k_0$, so finite-momentum effects are significant.

What carries the argument

The central object is a pair of one-dimensional tight-binding Hamiltonians for a mobile g-atom on an optical lattice and a fixed e-atom impurity at site 0: model (I) with an on-site interaction $u_0$ and model (II) with an additional nearest-neighbor interaction $u_1$ at sites $\pm1$. The argument is carried by a matching procedure. For each spin channel, the exact low-energy even- and odd-wave scattering lengths $a_{e,\xi}$ and $a_{o,\xi}$ are computed from the full Hamiltonian using a Mathieu-function Green's function for the lattice and a Lippmann-Schwinger equation regularized by the Huang-Yang pseudopotential; the same scattering lengths are computed for the tight-binding models by solving the lattice Schrödinger equation. Equating the two determines the $u$-parameters while explicitly including virtual transitions to transverse excited states, axial trap states, and higher lattice bands.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to compute the exact two-body scattering amplitude in the second Bloch band at $k=1.8k_0$ and compare it with model (II) using the matched parameters; a discrepancy beyond the few-percent level found at $k\lesssim0.2k_0$ would show the zero-momentum matching does not control the regime used. Experimentally, a 173Yb gas cooled to the lowest band at known small quasi-momentum should show spin-flip resonance peaks at the small-$k$ lattice depths predicted by the theory, not at the $k=1.8k_0$ positions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the quasi-(1+0)D alkaline-earth system with an axial lattice is faithfully represented by two tight-binding Hamiltonians, provided the interaction parameters are fixed by exact low-energy scattering lengths rather than by naive projection. Model (I) keeps only a local interaction at the e-atom site and is valid when odd-wave scattering is negligible; model (II) adds nearest-neighbor interactions and reproduces both partial-wave channels. The central results are the parameter formulas $u_{0,\xi}^{(I)}/t = -2l_0/a_{e,\xi}$, $u_{0,\xi}^{(II)}/t = -2(l_0^2-2l_0a_{o,\xi}+a_{e,\xi}a_{o,\xi})/(l_0(a_{e,\xi}-a_{o,\xi}))$, and $u_{1,\xi}^{(II)}/t = a_{o,\xi}/(l_0-a_{o,\xi})$, which are obtained by equating the scattering lengths of the exact Hamiltonian with those of the lattice models. These parameters can be tuned through the transverse and axial confinements and the lattice depth, and even- or odd-wave confinement-induced resonances appear where the spin-exchange terms are resonantly enhanced. The paper further shows that the spin-exchange collision rate in the 173Yb experiment depends strongly on the incident quasi-momentum, and that the observed resonance locations are reproduced only for $k\simeq1.8k_0$, already inside the second Bloch band.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on whether matching the zero-momentum scattering lengths also makes the lattice model accurate at the high quasi-momenta (up to $1.8k_0$, in the second Bloch band) where the model is then used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The matched $u$-parameters turn each confinement-induced resonance into a quantitative input for the Kondo model, so the spin-exchange strength can be resonantly enhanced while the spin-independent term stays finite.
  • Model (II) reduces exactly to model (I) when the odd-wave scattering length vanishes, so the two models cover the even-wave-only and full cases without an adjustable switch.
  • Under the projection approximation the interaction parameter is off by about 70 percent already at $a_s/a_\perp=0.1$, so quantitative simulations in this geometry need the matched parameters or direct calibration.
  • The resonance positions of the spin-exchange collision rate shift significantly with incident quasi-momentum; matching the 173Yb data requires $k\simeq1.8k_0$, implying many g-atoms occupy the second lattice band and further cooling is needed for a single-band Kondo simulator.
  • Thermal averaging over the g-atom quasi-momentum distribution broadens the predicted collision-rate peaks toward the observed widths, giving an experimentally testable line shape.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the same scattering-length matching could be applied to arrays with several e-impurities or to higher band occupations, provided three-body losses remain negligible, turning the computed parameter curves into a design map for Kondo-lattice quantum simulators.
  • I infer that a direct exact calculation of the two-body scattering amplitude in the second Bloch band would settle whether the zero-momentum matching controls the $k=1.8k_0$ regime; the paper asserts this extension only in a footnote.
  • I infer that the predicted failure of the projection approximation can be probed experimentally by tuning $a_s/a_\perp$ through 0.1 and watching the interaction parameter diverge from the projected value, a sharp signature of virtual higher-band processes.
  • I infer that the nearest-neighbor term $u_1$ of model (II) provides a route to realize odd-wave Hubbard-type interactions in optical lattices by working near an odd-wave confinement-induced resonance.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies two ultracold alkaline-earth-like atoms in a mixed-dimensional geometry: a quasi-1D tube, with the g-atom moving in a 1D optical lattice and the e-atom localized by an axial harmonic trap. It proposes two tight-binding Kondo-type models, depending on whether odd-wave scattering is negligible, and derives the interaction parameters u_0^(I), u_0^(II), u_1^(II) by matching the exact low-energy even- and odd-wave scattering lengths of the quasi-(1+0)D scattering problem. The scattering calculation is performed with a Mathieu-function Green's function and a Lippmann-Schwinger integral equation for the regularized wave-function derivative eta(z). The paper also tests the standard projection approximation for the interaction parameters, finding that it fails when the 3D scattering length is already of order 10% of the confinement lengths. Finally, it computes the spin-exchange collision rate R_se(k) for the 173Yb experiment of Ref. [4] and claims that the finite incident quasi-momentum effect is very significant, inferring that the g-atom quasi-momentum in that experiment may be as large as k=1.8k0, i.e., in the second band of the axial lattice.

Significance. The central derivation is a substantial technical contribution: it gives closed-form expressions for the tight-binding interaction parameters, Eqs. (39)-(41), anchors them to microscopic 3D scattering lengths, and provides a quantitative and convincing demonstration that the naive projection approximation is uncontrolled in realistic alkaline-earth lattice systems. The explicit Green's-function construction with virtual transitions to excited transverse, axial, and band states is detailed and internally consistent. If the finite-momentum part were as well supported as the zero-momentum derivation, the paper would be a strong candidate for publication. The experimental claim, however, rests on an unproven second-band generalization and on a fitted value of k, so the significance of the paper currently lies mainly in the tight-binding parameter derivation and the projection-approximation analysis, not in the quantitative comparison with Ref. [4].

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V and footnote [27]] The spin-exchange rate R_se(k) used for the experimental comparison is evaluated at k=1.8k0, which the authors identify with the second band of the axial lattice. However, the scattering amplitudes f_xi^(e/o)(k) entering Eqs. (50)-(52) are defined in Sec. IV A for an incident lowest-band Bloch state: Eq. (29) and the asymptotic boundary condition Eq. (34) are written for the lowest band, and the low-energy expansions (36)-(37) are threshold results. Footnote [27] states that the calculation is "generalized" to the second band, but no equations, boundary conditions, or validation are provided. The only finite-momentum test, Fig. 4, covers k in [0,k0] and a single small scattering length a_s^(xi)/a_perp=0.032, far from the 173Yb parameters used in the fit. The authors should either provide the explicit second-band generalization or soften the quantitative claim of Sec. V; as written, the k=1.8k0 result is not established.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 8, and last paragraph] The value k=1.8k0 is chosen by matching the computed peak positions to the experimental resonance peaks; it is not predicted independently from the model or from a measurement of k. Since the authors themselves list alternative mechanisms that could shift the effective k (many-body and multi-collision effects in footnote [28], and anharmonicity of the axial potential in the last paragraph of Sec. V), the conclusion that the finite-momentum effect is "very significant" and that the g-atoms may be in the second band is one consistent interpretation rather than a falsifiable prediction. The paper should quantify how robust the inferred k is against these uncertainties, for example by showing how much the peak locations move under reasonable variations of the model, or by comparing the thermal average in Fig. 8(d) with the experimental peak widths before drawing the strong conclusion.
  3. [Sec. IV B and Fig. 4] The u-parameters in Eqs. (39)-(41) are obtained by matching only the zero-momentum scattering lengths a_e and a_o. The finite-momentum validity of the tight-binding models is checked for one parameter set and for k up to about 0.2k0, where the amplitudes agree; for k>0.2k0 the paper itself reports differences of order 0.05 in the even-wave amplitude. Because the models are used in Sec. V at k=1.8k0 and for 173Yb scattering lengths (a_s^(+) = 1878 a0) much larger than the tested value, the matching at threshold does not control the on-shell amplitudes used in the experimental fit. A statement about the expected size of the higher-order terms in Eqs. (36)-(37), or an additional numerical test at the experimental parameters, is needed to justify the application of the single-band tight-binding amplitudes at large k.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains typos: "we further exam" should be "we further examine" and "which dependents on" should be "which depends on".
  2. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (34) and Appendix A] The notation is sometimes unclear about whether k is the quasi-momentum or the characteristic exponent of the Mathieu equation; a short sentence clarifying the relation between k, the band index, and the first Brillouin zone would help readers, especially because the paper later uses k=1.8k0.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A22)] The numerical solution of the integral equation for eta(z) is described only by "we numerically solve this equation"; a brief description of the discretization, the number of grid points, and a convergence check would increase confidence in the quantitative results, particularly the projection-approximation error percentages quoted in Sec. IV C.
  4. [Sec. IV D] The statement that s_e is approximately 3.3s_g for both 173Yb and 171Yb is used to relate experimental parameters, but the accuracy of this relation is not discussed; a sentence on its expected uncertainty would be useful for the comparison with Ref. [4].
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains a typo: "the the exact Hamiltonian" should read "the exact Hamiltonian".
  6. [Footnote [27]] Footnote [27] contains substantive technical content about the second-band generalization and should be promoted to the main text or an appendix, with the promised equations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tight-binding interaction parameters are obtained by explicit matching to independently computed exact scattering amplitudes, and the experimental analysis explicitly fits the quasi-momentum rather than presenting it as a prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Equations (39)-(41) are obtained in Appendix B by solving the tight-binding scattering problem and imposing equality of its scattering lengths with the even- and odd-wave scattering lengths a_e,xi and a_o,xi of the exact Hamiltonian, which are computed independently in Appendix A from the Huang-Yang pseudopotential via the Lippmann-Schwinger equation. This is a standard matching calculation: the u-parameters are constructed to reproduce the exact low-energy amplitudes, so the amplitudes are inputs, not outputs that are then renamed as predictions. The finite-momentum check in Fig. 4 is a genuine nontrivial validation of the matched models over a substantial fraction of the first Brillouin zone. The Sec. V experimental analysis is likewise not a circular prediction: the value k = 1.8 k0 is selected to align the calculated resonance positions with the measured ones, and the paper explicitly calls it 'the value of k given by our theoretical fitting' and acknowledges that many-body effects may make this fitted value higher than the actual quasi-momentum. The self-citations to Refs. [1-3] concern the Green's function treatment for the system without the axial lattice; the present paper reproduces the lattice generalization in Appendix A and does not import the central lattice result from those papers. The one legitimate concern is footnote [27], which asserts that the calculation is generalized to the second band for k = 1.8 k0 without showing the derivation or a finite-momentum check at that k; this is a missing-support or correctness concern, not a circularity, because the second-band amplitude is not defined in terms of the quantity it is used to explain. Overall, no circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation uses external 3D scattering lengths and a standard pseudopotential; the only fitted parameter in the paper is the quasi-momentum k=1.8k0 used for the experimental comparison. Several domain assumptions about the harmonic and tight-binding limits are stated in Secs. II-III. The numerical solution of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation is not documented in enough detail to be independently reproduced.

free parameters (1)
  • incident quasi-momentum k of the g-atom in the experimental fit = 1.8 k0 (inferred, in the second Brillouin zone)
    In Sec. V and Fig. 8(a), the value k=1.8k0 is chosen because it makes the calculated spin-exchange collision rate peaks align with the experimental N_e_up peaks. This is a fit to data, not a measured or independently predicted value.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Huang-Yang pseudopotential with free-space s-wave scattering lengths a_s^(+/-) describes the interatomic interaction under quasi-1D confinement.
    Used in Eq. (12) and throughout Sec. IV. The validity of this single-channel pseudopotential under strong confinement and for the excited 3P0 state is assumed, though it is standard in the ultracold gas literature.
  • domain assumption Only the lowest band of the axial optical lattice and the ground states of the transverse and axial harmonic traps are occupied, and nearest-neighbor hopping suffices.
    Sec. III A uses this to define the tight-binding models, assuming kBT is much smaller than the relevant level spacings.
  • standard math The low-energy scattering amplitudes have the forms f_e ~ -1/(1+i k a_e) and f_o ~ -i k/(i k + 1/a_o).
    Used in Eqs. (36)-(37) and Appendix B to match the exact and tight-binding scattering lengths. This is a standard 1D low-energy expansion.
  • ad hoc to paper The numerical solution of the integral equation for eta(z) in Eq. (A22) is converged and accurate after removal of singularities.
    The paper states the equation is solved numerically without specifying discretization, convergence criteria, or error estimates. All final u-parameters and spin-exchange rates depend on this numerical step.
  • domain assumption The axial trapping potential of the e-atom can be approximated as harmonic, and the transverse confinement as a 2D isotropic harmonic potential with equal frequency for both atoms.
    Eqs. (3)-(5) use harmonic expansions of the lattice potentials. Anharmonicity is later invoked as a possible source of discrepancy in Sec. V, so the assumption is load-bearing for the quantitative comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper For k > k0, the scattering calculation can be generalized to the second band of the optical lattice.
    Footnote [27] asserts this generalization without showing the modified derivation. The experimental fit uses k=1.8k0, which lies in the second band, so this assumption is needed for the central experimental conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tight-Binding Kondo Model and Spin-Exchange Collision Rate of Alkaline-Earth Atoms in a Mixed-Dimensional Optical Lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q36ZQ4RR

@misc{pith2026190804482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tight-Binding Kondo Model and Spin-Exchange Collision Rate of Alkaline-Earth Atoms in a Mixed-Dimensional Optical Lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q36ZQ4RR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04482}
}
abstract

We study the two-body problem of the ultracold fermionic alkaline-earth (like) atoms in the electronic $^1$S$_0$ state ($g$-state) and $^3$P$_0$ state ($e$-state), which are confined in a quasi-one-dimensional (quasi-1D) tube. In addition, in the axial direction, the $g$-atom experience a 1D optical lattice and the $e$-atom is localized by a harmonic potential. In this work, we propose two appropriate tight-binding models, which are applicable for the cases that the odd-wave scattering between the $g$- and $e$-atom is negligible or not, respectively. We further give a microscopic derivation for the inter-atomic interaction parameters of these tight-binding models, by exactly calculating the low-energy inter-atomic scattering amplitude. Our results show that, as one can predict, these interaction parameters can be efficiently controlled by the confinement potentials. We further exam the simple "projection approximation" with which one derives the interaction parameters by directly projecting the 3D Huang-Yang pseudopotential on the ground state of the confinement and the lowest band of the optical lattice. We find that one should be very careful about determining the interaction parameters in the tight-binding models. Furthermore, we calculate the spin-exchanging rate, which dependents on the incident quasi-momentum $k$ of the $g$-atom, for the recent experiment (L. Riegger, {\it et. al.,} Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 120}, 143601 (2018)) of $^{173}$Yb atoms in this quasi-(1+0)D system, and study finite-momentum effect in this experiment. Our results show that in this system the finite-momentum effect of the $g$-atom is very significant, and the momentum of the $g$-atoms in this experiment may be pretty high (already in the second Brillouin zone of the optical lattice)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) The reciprocal of the even-wave scat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online) The real part (blue) and imaginary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (color online) Comparison between the exact result [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (color online) Spin-exchange interaction parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (color online) Spin-exchange collision rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Interaction Control of Ultracold Alkaline-Earth Atoms

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2019-08 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of orbital Feshbach and confinement-induced resonances that control spin-independent and spin-exchanging interactions in ultracold alkaline-earth atoms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [27]

    Massignan and Y

    P. Massignan and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. A 74, 013616 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [4]

    Calculation of η(z) Now we show how to calculate the function η(z). Inserting Eq.(A8) into Eq.(A9), one immediately obtains the integral equation satisfied by η(z), η(z) =Ψin(0,z,z ) + 2πℏ2a(ξ) s µ ∂ ∂b ∫ dz′ [bG (0,z +b/2,z−b/2; 0,z′,z′)η(z′)] ⏐⏐⏐⏐ b→0+ . (A18) For the convenience of the following calculation, we further express the Green’s function G(0,z...

    work page

  3. [28]

    Nishida and S

    Y. Nishida and S. Tan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 170401 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [1]

    1D Lattice Green’s function For future convenience, we start with the derivation of the Green’s function for a single atom in an 1D optical lattice. The Hamiltonian for such system can be written as H1D =− ℏ2 2m d2 dz2 +sER sin2 (k0z), (A1) where m is the single atom mass, ER = ℏ2k2 0/2m is the recoil energy with k0 being the wave vector, and s denotes la...

    work page

  5. [2]

    Lippmann-Schwinger Equation and Scattering Amplitude Now we return to our quasi-(1+0)D scattering problem governed by the Hamiltonian Hξ in Eq. (28). Using the expression of the Huang-Yang pseudo potential Uξ, we find that the scattering state Ψ ξ(ρ,ze,zg) corresponding to the incident wave function Ψ in(ρ,zg,ze) introduced in Eq. (29) satisfies the Lippman...

    work page

  6. [3]

    projection approximation

    for the systems without the axial optical lattice. The key step of this generalization is the calculation of the Green’s function in the aid of the Mathieu function. For our system, a(e/o) ξ (ξ = +,−) depends not only on the 3D scattering length a(ξ) s , but also on the parameters of the axial lattice and the confinement potentials, i.e., sg, l0, and a⊥≡ √...

    work page

  7. [5]

    Zhang, D

    R. Zhang, D. Zhang, Y. Cheng, W. Chen, P. Zhang, and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. A 93, 043601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [6]

    Cheng, R

    Y. Cheng, R. Zhang, P. Zhang, and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. A 96, 063605 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 32 references
  1. [7]

    Zhang and P

    R. Zhang and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 98, 043627 (2018)

    2018

  2. [8]

    Riegger, N

    L. Riegger, N. Darkwah Oppong, M. H¨ ofer, D. R. Fer- nandes, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 143601 (2018)

    2018

  3. [9]

    H¨ ofer, L

    M. H¨ ofer, L. Riegger, F. Scazza, C. Hofrichter, D. R. Fernandes, M. M. Parish, J. Levinsen, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 265302 (2015)

    2015

  4. [10]

    K. Ono, J. Kobayashi, Y. Amano, K. Sato, and Y. Taka- hashi, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032707 (2019)

    2019

  5. [11]

    Cappellini, M

    G. Cappellini, M. Mancini, G. Pagano, P. Lombardi, L. Livi, M. Siciliani de Cumis, P. Cancio, M. Pizzocaro, D. Calonico, F. Levi, C. Sias, J. Catani, M. Inguscio, and L. Fallani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120402 (2014)

    2014

  6. [12]

    Scazza, C

    F. Scazza, C. Hofrichter, M. H¨ ofer, P. C. De Groot, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Nat. Phys. 10, 779 (2014)

    2014

  7. [13]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Bishof, S. L. Bromley, C. V. Kraus, M. S. Safronova, P. Zoller, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science 345, 1467 (2014)

    2014

  8. [14]

    A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, C. Xu, P. S. Julienne, J. Ye, P. Zoller, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Nat. Phys. 6, 289 (2010)

    2010

  9. [15]

    Kuzmenko, T

    I. Kuzmenko, T. Kuzmenko, Y. Avishai, and G.-B. Jo, Phys. Rev. B 97, 075124 (2018)

    2018

  10. [16]

    Olshanii, Phys

    M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 938 (1998)

    1998

  11. [17]

    Bergeman, M

    T. Bergeman, M. G. Moore, and M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 163201 (2003)

    2003

  12. [18]

    Haller, M

    E. Haller, M. J. Mark, R. Hart, J. G. Danzl, L. Re- ichs¨ ollner, V. Melezhik, P. Schmelcher, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 153203 (2010)

    2010

  13. [19]

    A. C. Hewson, The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)

    1993

  14. [20]

    Andrei, K

    N. Andrei, K. Furuya, and J. H. Lowenstein, Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 331 (1983)

    1983

  15. [21]

    Bettelheim, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48, 165003 (2015)

    E. Bettelheim, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48, 165003 (2015)

    2015

  16. [22]

    Altland, B

    A. Altland, B. B´ eri, R. Egger, and A. M. Tsvelik, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 265001 (2014)

    2014

  17. [23]

    S.Doniach, Physica B 91, 231 (1977)

    1977

  18. [24]

    Tsunetsugu, M

    H. Tsunetsugu, M. Sigrist, and K. Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 809 (1997)

    1997

  19. [25]

    Cappellini, L

    G. Cappellini, L. F. Livi, L. Franchi, D. Tusi, D. Bene- dicto Orenes, M. Inguscio, J. Catani, and L. Fallani, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011028 (2019)

    2019

  20. [26]

    Cosson, G

    R. Cosson, G. Vernizzi, and X. Yang, Mathieu functions and numerical solutions of the Mathieu equation (2009) pp. 3–10

    2009

  21. [29]

    Tan, Phys

    S. Tan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020401 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Lamporesi, J

    G. Lamporesi, J. Catani, G. Barontini, Y. Nishida, M. In- guscio, and F. Minardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 153202 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Accordingly, in our calculation we generalize our approach from Eq

    When k > k0, the incident g-atom is actually in the second lowest band of the axial lattice. Accordingly, in our calculation we generalize our approach from Eq. (47) to Eq. (52) to include the effect induced by this band

  24. [32]

    The anharmonicity of confinement potential, which is not included in our model, may also lead to this consequence

Pith tools

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