Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Strong-coupling diagrammatic Monte Carlo technique for correlated fermions and frustrated spins

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 This paper constructs a diagrammatic Monte Carlo method for correlated fermions and frustrated spins in which all local interactions are summed exactly into connected vertices and only nonlocal processes are expanded.

desk verdict A genuinely different strong-coupling diagrammatic Monte Carlo construction with independent NLCE benchmarks; the main open question is the general fermionic sign rule, but the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00816 v2 pith:CJCTPZAJ submitted 2019-09-02 cond-mat.str-el

Johan Carlström This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 71.10.Fd02.70.Ss71.10.-w
keywords strong-couplingexpansiondiagrammaticMonteCarloHubbardmodelfrustratedspinmodelsconnectedverticesWick'stheoremfermionicsignprobleminfiniteU
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 aims to make diagrammatic Monte Carlo work in the strongly correlated regime by changing what is expanded. It splits the Hamiltonian into a local part (chemical potential, contact repulsion) and a nonlocal part (hopping, exchange), then sums all local contractions exactly into connected vertices via a recursion; only the nonlocal part is treated as a series. This removes the large expansion parameter that blocks weak-coupling methods at strong repulsion, and the vertices are exact, not approximate. For the infinite-$U$ Hubbard model, the resulting series reaches ninth order in the hopping and reproduces the density obtained from independent cluster expansions, opening a practical route into the doped-Mott regime where other unbiased techniques struggle.

What carries the argument

The central object is the connected strong-coupling vertex $V[\bar O]$, a local sum over all contractions on one lattice site that connect a prescribed set $\bar O$ of external operators coming from nonlocal processes. The recursion $V[\bar O]=\sum_n\langle \Gamma^n U_i^n \bar O\rangle_{\hat\mu,e}-\sum_{A\subsetneq\bar O,\ \hat O_1\in A}\xi_{\bar O,A}\sum_{n,m}\langle \Gamma^n U^n A\rangle_{\hat\mu,c}\langle \Gamma^m U^m(\bar O\setminus A)\rangle_{\hat\mu,e}$ subtracts every disconnected grouping from the full local expectation value, so the vertex is nonperturbative in the contact interaction $U$ and, because the local trace factorizes, exactly computable from the atomic limit. The argument then expands directly in connected topologies of these vertices joined by the nonlocal $t$ or $J$ lines; diagrammatic rules assign the fermionic sign from a reference contraction, with swapping or commuting fermionic lines counting as odd and bosonic operations carrying no sign. This construction is what removes any large expansion parameter and makes the series accessible to stochastic sampling.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to extend the series for the infinite-$U$ Hubbard model at $\mu/t=2$ and $T/t=1/2$ to order $N_t=10$ or $11$ with vertices up to 22 legs; if the parity rule fails for any newly appearing topology, the extracted density will depart from the converged cluster-expansion value by more than the statistical error, while the rule predicts continued agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a strong-coupling expansion can be reorganized so that every local interaction is treated exactly: the recursive relation groups all contractions on a lattice site that connect external operators into a connected vertex, and these vertices contain all nonperturbative local physics. Because the unperturbed theory is local, each vertex is an expectation value in the atomic limit and can be computed to machine precision; the original series then becomes a sum over connected topologies of connected vertices, expanded only in the nonlocal hopping and exchange terms. The paper demonstrates the construction on the infinite-$U$ Hubbard model at $\mu/t=2$, where the series for the carrier density reaches ninth order in the hopping, the truncation error from the vertex size is below statistical noise, and the results agree within error bars with independent cluster-expansion and spin-charge-transformed diagrammatic Monte Carlo data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the parity rule for the fermionic signs: the paper justifies it by only two examples, and if any higher-order topology requires a different sign, every Monte Carlo weight inherits that mistake even though the connected vertices themselves are exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any Hamiltonian of the form (1), the local interaction can be taken to infinity and the expansion remains a finite-order series in the nonlocal terms, with vertices computed exactly to machine precision.
  • At the same expansion order, the method gives results identical to other bold $t$-expansion schemes, but reaches order $N_t=9$ where a comparable method reaches only $N_t=4$, so higher accuracy is available despite factorial computational scaling.
  • Observables are extracted as polarizations of the $t$- or $J$-lines, so two-point Green's functions and spin correlations come directly from the sampled diagrams, and many-point correlators follow from multiple measuring lines.
  • Truncating the vertex size at 16 legs produces errors below statistical noise at the orders reached, so the practical bottleneck is expansion order rather than vertex storage.
  • The method extends to spin models with fewer operators (4 versus 8 for the Hubbard model), allowing vertices up to 15 legs within the same memory budget, which is promising for frustrated magnets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the parity rule is correct, the sign problem should be tied to nonlocal topology rather than to the strength of the local repulsion; a direct measurement of the average sign versus $U$ and $N_t$ would confirm this and is not reported.
  • The same recursion should apply at finite $U$ through the second-fermionized local Hamiltonian; benchmarking at $U/t\approx 12$, the regime where other methods struggle most, is a natural next test.
  • For frustrated spin models the vertex space is only four operators, so the method could deliver low-temperature unbiased correlations where conventional quantum Monte Carlo has a sign problem; the paper does not yet provide a spin benchmark.
  • The recursive partition of local contractions could also serve as a pre-computation step for other diagrammatic schemes, supplying exact local building blocks for determinant or bold diagrammatic methods.
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 strong-coupling diagrammatic Monte Carlo method for correlated fermions and frustrated spin systems. The Hamiltonian is split into a local part (chemical potential and contact interaction) and an intersite part (hopping and boson-mediated interactions). The author defines connected strong-coupling vertices by a recursive subtraction of disconnected local contractions, Eq. (18), and argues that these vertices can be computed exactly from atomic-limit expectation values, Eq. (20), including a second-fermionization construction that restores convergence in the Hubbard case. The resulting expansion is then reorganized as connected topologies of connected vertices, Eq. (22), with diagrammatic rules stated in terms of a reference contraction and two update moves (swapping external lines and commuting operators within a vertex). Monte Carlo sampling is performed with a worm protocol, and the method is benchmarked on the U=infinity Hubbard model at mu/t=2 for temperatures 1/4 <= T/t <= 1, reaching hopping order N_t=9. The carrier density agrees with SCT-DMC and with numerical linked cluster expansion (NLCE) results.

Significance. If the construction is correct, this is a genuinely useful and original scheme: the local vertices are non-perturbative in the interaction, contain no fitted parameters, and are computed exactly from the local Hamiltonian, while the expansion parameter is only the nonlocal part of the Hamiltonian. The recursive definition of connected vertices and the exact local summation are the main technical contributions. The independent NLCE benchmark gives credible empirical support, and the order-by-order comparison with SCT-DMC is a useful cross-check, though it is not an independent validation because both methods are bold expansions in the hopping. The main risk is the fermionic sign convention, which is justified only by two examples and is load-bearing for every Monte Carlo weight in the expansion. The paper is therefore promising but requires a more rigorous treatment of the diagrammatic sign rules and, ideally, benchmarks that exercise sign-sensitive observables.

major comments (3)
  1. [Diagrammatic rules, Eq. (22)] The assignment of the sign factor eta(alpha_1...alpha_N) in Eq. (22) is never defined algorithmically. The text justifies the two basic updates -- swapping the connectivity of two fermionic external lines and commuting operators within a vertex are odd operations, while bosonic operations carry no sign -- only through the examples in Figs. 1 and 2. This is load-bearing because every Monte Carlo weight inherits these signs, and the recursion (18) computes only the vertices, not the diagram parity. In particular, for vertices that overlap in imaginary time, the global T_tau product interleaves operators from different sites, and the anticommutation signs from regrouping them by site are not tracked. I ask for a general combinatorial proof, or an explicit parity function relative to a fixed reference contraction, and a validation on a topology with at least two interacting vertices at order N_t >= 4.
  2. [Strong-coupling vertices, Eq. (18)] The recursion (18) is coherent only if the sign xi_{bar O,A} from Eqs. (15)-(16) is well-defined for arbitrary subsets A. However, the reordering T_tau bar O -> T_tau A x T_tau(bar O \ A) presupposes that A can be made contiguous in the time-ordered product; when the time arguments of the two groups are interleaved, the number of fermionic commutations is not specified. The same gap affects Eq. (21), where the decomposition into products of connected vertices is asserted without a proof of the ordering convention. Please state the convention for handling interleaved time arguments and prove that the recursion yields the connected vertex for all N.
  3. [Benchmarks for the Hubbard model, Figs. 5-6] The numerical evidence is limited to the carrier density at U=infinity, mu/t=2, and T/t >= 1/4. The expansion is claimed to be applicable to finite U, frustrated spins, and observables other than the density, but no benchmark exercises spin correlations, off-site propagators, or a regime where the diagram sign is decisive. Since the sign-rule gap in the diagrammatic rules is not covered by this benchmark, an additional comparison -- for example a spin-spin correlation function in the Heisenberg limit or a finite-U density benchmark -- would materially support the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption of Fig. 5 is extremely dense, and the panel labels (a)-(f) are not all referenced in the main text; please restructure the caption and refer to each panel explicitly.
  2. [Analytic structure of the connected vertices] The statement that the number of vertices scales as 8^N and that N=10 gives about 10^9 vertices should clarify whether spin and particle-conservation symmetries have already been applied; this affects the practical storage estimate.
  3. [Eq. (29)] The relation G = 1/(Pi^{-1} - t(k)) is central to how observables are extracted, but it is presented without derivation; a brief derivation or a reference would help the reader verify the sign and normalization conventions.
  4. [Order-by-order comparison with SCT-DMC] The text should state more explicitly that the order-by-order comparison with SCT-DMC is expected to agree by construction because both methods are bold expansions in the hopping, and that the independent benchmark is the NLCE comparison.
  5. [Acknowledgments] There is a duplicated article in 'the the Swedish Research Council'; in addition, the reference list contains a typographical artifact in Ref. [21] ('Springer-V erlag').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the connected-vertex recursion is constructive from local atomic-limit expectation values, the expansion is a topological reorganization, and the external NLCE benchmark is independent.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central object is Eq. (18), which defines the connected vertex V[O] by subtracting, from the local expectation value (13), disconnected products of strictly smaller connected vertices. This is a constructive recursion, not an assumption of the result. Eq. (22) then reorganizes Wick-contraction topologies into connected vertices; it is a combinatorial identity, not a fitted prediction. The representation (25)-(28) is an exact operator-basis decomposition, and Appendix A proves convergence of the local summation via an explicit dual Hamiltonian and a partition-function analyticity argument; the cited fermionization references supply technique, not the target result. No parameter is fitted to data and then reported as a prediction. The SCT-DMC comparison in Fig. 5 is explicitly a same-skeleton cross-check ('Since both these methods rely on a bold expansion in t we expect them to provide identical results'), so agreement there is expected by construction, but the paper does not rest its validity on that comparison; the NLCE benchmark is external and independent. The fermionic sign rules illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2 are justified by example and Wick-parity arguments rather than a general theorem, which is an unproven correctness assumption, but it is not circular because the signs are not defined in terms of the expansion's output. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against an external benchmark, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

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

The derivation relies mainly on standard Wick/Matsubara machinery and the exact solvability of the atomic limit. No numbers are fitted to data. The auxiliary fermion representations used to make the local summation convergent are taken from Prokof'ev and Svistunov [32] and Popov-Fedotov [34], and are computational bookkeeping rather than new physical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Wick's theorem applies to the expansion about a bilinear local H0.
    Invoked in Eq. (2) and the locality of the bare Green's function, Eq. (3), giving the standard Matsubara/Wick framework for contractions.
  • domain assumption The atomic-limit local summation in Eq. (20) can be evaluated exactly and converges after second fermionization.
    This is used to compute connected vertices exactly. Appendix A proves analyticity for the dual Hubbard representation, which is assumed equivalent to the original model.
  • ad hoc to paper The recursion in Eq. (18) with signs from Eqs. (15)-(16) correctly separates connected from disconnected local contractions for any operator set.
    The recursion is the central construction of the paper; its correctness is assumed for arbitrary numbers of external operators and is not proven in full generality.
  • ad hoc to paper The fermionic sign conventions in the diagrammatic rules are correct for all topologies.
    The parity of line swaps and operator commutes is justified by two examples in Fig. 2, but no general proof is given.
  • domain assumption The Hubbard operator basis in Eq. (25) has trivial time evolution and expectation values that factor into an analytic part and a stored constant, Eq. (28).
    This enables vertices to be stored as single floating point numbers and computed to machine precision.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong-coupling diagrammatic Monte Carlo technique for correlated fermions and frustrated spins." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJCTPZAJ

@misc{pith2026190900816,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong-coupling diagrammatic Monte Carlo technique for correlated fermions and frustrated spins},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJCTPZAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00816}
}
read the original abstract

We describe a controllable and unbiased strong-coupling diagrammatic Monte Carlo technique that is applicable to a wide range of fermionic systems and spin models. Unlike previous strong coupling methods that generally rely on the Grassmannian Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, our construction is based on Wick's theorem and a recursive procedure to group contractions into effective connected vertices that are non-perturbative in all local physics and can be calculated exactly. The resulting expansion is described by simple diagrammatic rules that make it suitable for systematic treatment via stochastic sampling. Benchmarks against numerical linked cluster expansion display excellent agreement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00816 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reference contractions. Given a set of operators, we can define a reference contraction (a) where, all operators are contracted with its natural partner. While generally not a connected topology, the fermionic sign of the reference is positive. Swapping a set of operators being contracted gives rise to a fermionic sign, and so the diagram (b) possesses a negative prefactor. This could in principle also be achieved b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagrammatic rules. The reference contraction of a connected vertex (a) is obtained by taking the external lines to be non-intersecting, have no time-overlap, and be forward-propagating in the case of fermions. In our notation, the horizontal line corre￾sponds to imaginary time, and so forward propagation implies that the external line is traveling from left to right. To generate arbitrary diagram topologies from re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Strong-coupling diagrams. The set of topologies ob￾tained for the Hubbard model up to order Nt = 4 when boldifying the t−lines. Each dashed line represents a dressed hopping integral. At an expansion order Nt, the largest vertex that can be constructed has 2Nt external lines or legs. Using fermionization techniques and conventional diagrammatics, the number of topologies at the same expansion order can be estimated … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Extracting observables. The shaded line in (a) is tagged as a measuring line. The resulting topology is then interpreted as if this was an external line (b), and the remaining part of the diagram gives a contribution to the polarization operator of the line type in que…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Series expansion for the carrier density. In (a-d) the filling factor is given as a function of expansion order, in the temperature range 1/4 ≤ T /t ≤ 1 for µ/t = 2 and U/t = ∞. The blue bars correspond to strong-coupling theory (this work), while the red bars were obt…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison to NLCE. The black bars give estimates of the filling factor obtained from strong-coupling treatment for µ/t = 2, U/t = ∞, see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Metzner and D

    W. Metzner and D. V ollhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 324 (1989)

    1989

  2. [2]

    Toschi, A

    A. Toschi, A. A. Katanin, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B75, 045118 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    A. N. Rubtsov, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B 77, 033101 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    S.-X. Yang, H. Fotso, S.-Q. Su, D. Galanakis, E. Khatami, J.-H. She, J. Moreno, J. Zaanen, and M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 047004 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    E. Gull, O. Parcollet, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 216405 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Maier, M

    T. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and M. H. Hettler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1027 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Taranto, S

    C. Taranto, S. Andergassen, J. Bauer, K. Held, A. Katanin, W. Metzner, G. Rohringer, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 196402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Ayral and O

    T. Ayral and O. Parcollet, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115109 (2015)

    2015

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  2. [10]

    Paramekanti, M

    A. Paramekanti, M. Randeria, and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 217002 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Spałek, M

    J. Spałek, M. Zegrodnik, and J. Kaczmarczyk, Phys. Rev. B95, 024506 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, R. L. Sugar, N. E. Bickers, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B39, 839 (1989)

    1989

  5. [13]

    J. E. Hirsch and S. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 591 (1989)

    1989

  6. [14]

    S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, R. L. Sugar, E. Y . Loh, J. E. Gu- bernatis, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B 40, 506 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    Zhang, Emergent Phenomena in Correlated Matter Modeling and Simulation 3 (2013)

    S. Zhang, Emergent Phenomena in Correlated Matter Modeling and Simulation 3 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    D. J. Scalapino, eprint arXiv:cond-mat/0610710 (2006), cond- mat/0610710

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dagotto, Science 309, 257 (2005), http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5732/257.full.pdf

    E. Dagotto, Science 309, 257 (2005), http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5732/257.full.pdf

    2005

  10. [18]

    J. P. LeBlanc et al. (Simons Collaboration on the Many- Electron Problem), Phys. Rev. X 5, 041041 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    C. M. Bender, F. Cooper, G. S. Guralnik, and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. D 19, 1865 (1979)

    1979

  12. [20]

    Pairault, D

    S. Pairault, D. Sénéchal, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5389 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    Strong-Coupling Expansion and Effective Hamiltonians,

    F. Mila and K. P. Schmidt, “Strong-Coupling Expansion and Effective Hamiltonians,” in Introduction to Frustrated Mag- netism, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences, V olume 164. ISBN 978-3-642-10588-3. Springer-V erlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, p. 537 , V ol. 164, edited by C...

    2011

  14. [22]

    Pairault, D

    S. Pairault, D. Sénéchal, and A.-M. Tremblay, The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 16, 85 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Rigol, T

    M. Rigol, T. Bryant, and R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 187202 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Rigol, T

    M. Rigol, T. Bryant, and R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. E 75, 061118 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Rigol, T

    M. Rigol, T. Bryant, and R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. E 75, 061119 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Khatami, E

    E. Khatami, E. Perepelitsky, M. Rigol, and B. S. Shastry, Phys. Rev. E 89, 063301 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Khatami and M

    E. Khatami and M. Rigol, Phys. Rev. A 84, 053611 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    B. S. Shastry, Phys. Rev. B 81, 045121 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Perepelitsky and B

    E. Perepelitsky and B. S. Shastry, Annals of Physics 357, 1 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Mai and B

    P. Mai and B. S. Shastry, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205106 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Van Houcke, E

    K. Van Houcke, E. Kozik, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Physics Procedia 6, 95 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    N. V . Prokof’ev and B. V . Svistunov, Phys. Rev. B84, 073102 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Carlström, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 385602 (2017)

    J. Carlström, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 385602 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    V . N. Popov and S. A. Fedotov, Sov. Phys. JETP67, 183 (1988)

    1988

  27. [35]

    Carlström, Phys

    J. Carlström, Phys. Rev. B 97, 075119 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Šimkovic and E

    F. Šimkovic and E. Kozik, Phys. Rev. B 100, 121102 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Ho- motopic action: A pathway to convergent diagrammatic theo- ries,

    A. J. Kim, N. V . Prokof’ev, B. V . Svistunov, and E. Kozik, “Ho- motopic action: A pathway to convergent diagrammatic theo- ries,” (2020), arXiv:2010.05301 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Rossi, Phys

    R. Rossi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 045701 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Rossi, N

    R. Rossi, N. Prokof’ev, B. Svistunov, K. V . Houcke, and F. Werner, EPL118, 10004 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum theory of many- particle systems (Dover Publications, 1971)

    1971

  33. [41]

    Kozik, M

    E. Kozik, M. Ferrero, and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 156402 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Thunström, O

    P. Thunström, O. Gunnarsson, S. Ciuchi, and G. Rohringer, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235107 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    K. A. Chao, J. Spałek, and A. M. Ole ´s, Phys. Rev. B 18, 3453 (1978)

    1978

  36. [44]

    Rossi, F

    R. Rossi, F. Werner, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. B 93, 161102 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science 357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, A. Bohrdt, M. Xu, M. Knap, E. Demler, F. Grusdt, M. Greiner, and D. Greif, Science 365, 251 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Mazurenko, C

    A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. F. Parsons, M. Kanász- Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Nature 545, 462 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Koepsell, J

    J. Koepsell, J. Vijayan, P. Sompet, F. Grusdt, T. A. Hilker, E. Demler, G. Salomon, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Nature 572, 358 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Microscopic evolution of doped mott insulators from polaronic metal to fermi liquid,

    J. Koepsell, D. Bourgund, P. Sompet, S. Hirthe, A. Bohrdt, Y . Wang, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, G. Salomon, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, “Microscopic evolution of doped mott insulators from polaronic metal to fermi liquid,” (2020), arXiv:2009.04440 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L. W. Cheuk, M. A. Nichols, K. R. Lawrence, M. Okan, H. Zhang, E. Khatami, N. Trivedi, T. Paiva, M. Rigol, and M. W. Zwierlein, Science 353, 1260 (2016), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6305/1260.full.pdf

    2016

  43. [51]

    M. F. Parsons, A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Science 353, 1253 (2016), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6305/1253.full.pdf. APPENDIX A: SUMMA TION OVER CONTACT INTERACTIONS The summation over all contractions on the site i such that all d...

    2016

  44. [52]

    The state space correspondence is given by |nboson=0⟩→| nd 0 = 1,nd 1 = 0⟩, |nboson=1⟩→| nd 0 = 0,nd 1 = 1⟩. (34) The remaining states in the construction (34) which corre- spond to nd ↑ +nd ↓⁄= 1 has no physical counterpart, and are thus removed from the trace by the introduc...

Pith tools

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