Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Hydrodynamics of particle-hole symmetric systems: a quantum Monte Carlo study

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Charge current in particle-hole symmetric systems obeys its own Navier-Stokes equation, with a current diffusion coefficient in place of viscosity, even though the electric field creates no momentum.

desk verdict A genuinely new current-diffusion framework for charge-neutral graphene hydrodynamics, with clean QMC profiles, but the fit-based validation cannot independently prove the central closure and the kinetic-theory prefactor is off by a factor of 4.5. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13273 v2 pith:T5NCTY64 submitted 2024-11-20 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

Adrien Reingruber , Kitinan Pongsangangan , Fakher Assaad , Maksim Ulybyshev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords chargeneutralityparticle-holesymmetrygraphenehydrodynamictransportcurrentdiffusioncoefficientBoltzmanntheoryquantumMonteCarloNavier-Stokesequation
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

At the charge-neutrality point of a particle-hole symmetric system, an electric field produces charge current but no net momentum, so the usual Navier-Stokes picture in terms of momentum flow cannot directly explain measured current profiles. This paper claims that hydrodynamics still emerges for the charge current itself: taking the first moment of the two-fluid electron-hole Boltzmann equation and closing it with a linear relation between current flux and current gradient yields a Navier-Stokes-type diffusion equation for the current, with a new coefficient, the current diffusion coefficient $\zeta$, replacing viscosity. The predicted catenary current profiles are reproduced by numerically exact quantum Monte Carlo simulations of clean graphene strips with disordered edges, and the extracted $\zeta(T)$ follows roughly $1/T$, in qualitative agreement with a leading-log Boltzmann calculation. If correct, experimental current-imaging data at half-filling can be interpreted without any momentum-current coupling, and the same description should apply to any particle-hole symmetric system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the first-moment equation for the charge current obtained from the Boltzmann equation in the electron-hole basis: $\partial_t j_n + \partial_m J^{mn} + eE_m E^{mn} = -j_n/(\tau_{ee}/2)$, where $J^{mn}$ is the current flux tensor (the current analogue of the stress tensor) and $E^{mn}$ couples to the external field and stays nonzero at charge neutrality, $E^{mn}=-(2Te\ln 2/\pi)\delta^{mn}$. The argument is carried by the phenomenological closure $J^{xy}=-\zeta\nabla_x j_y$, which converts the exact first-moment equation into the closed diffusion equation whose solution is the catenary profile used to fit the QMC data, and by a leading-log variational solution of the full linearized Boltzmann equation that independently yields $\zeta = C(\epsilon a t)^2 t/T$.

What would settle it

Compute the off-diagonal current flux $J_{xy}$ and the current gradient $\nabla_x j_y$ independently from the QMC or kinetic-theory distribution functions and check whether their ratio is a position-independent constant at fixed temperature and field; if $J_{xy}/\nabla_x j_y$ varies across the strip or with the driving field strength, the linear closure fails and $\zeta$ is not a well-defined transport coefficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that at charge neutrality in a particle-hole symmetric system, the electric field induces a charge current while leaving momentum strictly zero, and that this current obeys its own hydrodynamic equation. Combining the two-fluid (electrons and holes) Boltzmann equation with the linear constitutive relation $J^{xy}=-\zeta\nabla_x j_y$, the stationary current satisfies $-\zeta\nabla_x^2 j_y(x)+eE_y E^{yy}=-j_y/(\tau_{ee}/2)$, a Navier-Stokes-type diffusion equation in which $\zeta$ plays the role viscosity plays for momentum. Its solution for a strip is a catenary profile, and the paper shows that numerically exact QMC conductivity profiles in clean graphene strips follow this shape. From the fits it extracts $\zeta(T)$, finding the same power law as the leading-log variational Boltzmann prediction, $\zeta\sim T^{-1.09\pm0.14}$ with $C=5.67\pm0.46$ versus the theoretical $C=25.76$, a difference attributed to the Dirac-cone approximation and to restricting the collision integral to tree-level diagrams.

Load-bearing premise

The whole extraction of $\zeta$ rests on the linear closure $J^{xy}=-\zeta\nabla_x j_y$, which turns the exact first-moment equation into the closed diffusion equation; the paper itself notes that this relation is confirmed only within the leading-log variational solution of the Boltzmann equation, so the QMC profile fits, which already assume the solution of that closed equation, cannot independently test the closure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any particle-hole symmetric system at half-filling, hydrodynamic current profiles can be described directly by the current-diffusion equation; the paper explicitly names AB-stacked bilayer graphene with quadratic band touching and narrow-gap semiconductors with symmetric bands as candidates.
  • Experimental current-imaging data at the graphene charge-neutrality point can be analyzed with the current diffusion coefficient instead of shear viscosity, removing the need for an artificial chemical potential $\mu=k_B T$ to couple momentum to current.
  • Within the hydrodynamic window, $\zeta$ grows roughly as $1/T$ toward lower temperatures, with a prefactor set by the Coulomb interaction strength, so the temperature dependence of the extracted profiles is a testable prediction of the theory.
  • Quantum Monte Carlo can serve as a controlled substitute for experiments in transport: because all scattering mechanisms are fixed by a microscopic Hamiltonian, it can test and refine Boltzmann collision integrals, including corrections beyond the tree-level approximation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the current-diffusion picture is correct, previously reported "viscosity" values extracted from current-imaging experiments at the charge-neutrality point should be reinterpreted as the current diffusion coefficient, since the standard linear-response connection between electric field and momentum vanishes by particle-hole symmetry.
  • Editorial inference: the same two-fluid closure could be applied to other conserved or approximately conserved channels in particle-hole symmetric systems, such as spin or valley currents, each with its own analogue of $\zeta$ replacing the corresponding viscosity.
  • Editorial inference: a direct numerical test of the closure $J^{xy}=-\zeta\nabla_x j_y$, computing both sides from the QMC distribution functions rather than from a fit to the catenary profile, would independently verify that $\zeta$ is a well-defined transport coefficient and reveal whether gradient corrections become important.
  • Editorial inference: the factor of roughly 4.5 between the Boltzmann prefactor ($C=25.76$) and the QMC prefactor ($C=5.67$) gives a quantitative target for improved collision integrals; a next-order calculation that closes this gap would strongly validate the two-fluid current-diffusion description.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 paper develops a hydrodynamic description of charge current in particle-hole symmetric systems at half-filling. Starting from the Boltzmann equation with a relaxation-time collision integral, the authors derive an exact first-moment equation (Eq. (3)), propose a Fick-type constitutive closure J_xy = -ζ ∇_x j_y (Eq. (5)), and obtain a Navier-Stokes-like diffusion equation for the current (Eq. (6)) whose stationary solution is the catenary profile (Eq. (7)). The paper then uses sign-problem-free auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo simulations of graphene strips with disordered edges to compute local DC conductivities via stochastic analytic continuation and middle-point estimators, fits the profiles to Eq. (7), and extracts a current diffusion coefficient ζ(T) ~ 1/T^{1.09±0.14} with prefactor C = 5.67±0.46. This is compared with a kinetic-theory leading-log calculation giving C = 25.76, and the qualitative agreement is presented as evidence for the Boltzmann description.

Significance. The central idea is interesting and potentially important. If Eq. (6) is correct, it resolves a conceptual puzzle: at charge neutrality, hydrodynamic-looking current profiles can arise even though the electric field does not generate a momentum response (SM Eq. (22)). The first-moment equation (3) is derived cleanly, and the QMC simulations are sign-problem-free, with code and data availability statements, and with useful cross-checks between SAC and middle-point estimators as well as free-case analytical tests. The new transport coefficient ζ is a plausible analogue of viscosity for current flow. However, the load-bearing closure (5) is not independently tested by the profile fits, because Eq. (7) is the solution of Eq. (6) with that closure imposed. The large prefactor mismatch between QMC and kinetic theory also raises quantitative concerns. A direct numerical test of Eq. (5) or a demonstration of width independence of the extracted ζ would substantially strengthen the claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM §II.3, Eq. (41)] The sign of the constitutive relation is inconsistent between the main text and the supplementary material: Eq. (5) states J_xy = -ζ ∇_x j_y, while SM Eq. (41) states J_xy = +ζ ∇_x j_y. Since this sign converts the exact first-moment equation (3) into Eq. (6) and determines the catenary shape (7), the correct sign must be established and the derivation made internally consistent.
  2. [§II.1 and Eq. (6)] The QMC profile fits do not independently test the closure (5), because Eq. (7) is the solution of Eq. (6) with that closure imposed; the agreement between QMC profiles and Eq. (7) is therefore a consistency check rather than a confirmation of the closure. The only independent derivation in the paper is the variational Boltzmann calculation in SM §II.3, but the trial function (39) builds proportionality between J_xy and ∇_x j_y into the ansatz. The authors should test Eq. (5) directly from the QMC data (for example, compute the current-flux tensor J_xy and compare it with ∇_x j_y stripe by stripe) and/or demonstrate that the ζ extracted from catenary fits does not depend on sample width at fixed temperature.
  3. [Fig. 4 and Eq. (9)] The factor-4.5 discrepancy between C_QMC = 5.67±0.46 and C_kin = 25.76 is large for the quantitative claim that the fitted ζ is the kinetic-theory coefficient. The paper attributes this to Dirac-cone and tree-level approximations, but if the closure (5) is only approximate, the fitted value could be an effective, geometry-dependent parameter rather than a universal transport coefficient. The authors should provide a quantitative estimate of systematic uncertainties, for instance by varying the fit window, by testing width independence at fixed temperature, and by discussing the range of validity of the leading-log value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text after Eq. (5)] The sentence 'Later, the linear connection (7) is confirmed' should refer to Eq. (5), not Eq. (7), which is the catenary solution of Eq. (6).
  2. [SM §II.2] There is a typo: 'the collision integral is treated in treated in the relaxation time approximation' should read 'the collision integral is treated in the relaxation time approximation'.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains the typo 'errobars' instead of 'error bars'.
  4. [References] References [4] and [48] are the same work, as are [5] and [22]; these duplicate entries should be consolidated.
  5. [Fig. 1 caption] The notation σ0 = 1/4 in units of e^2/ℏ appears only in the figure caption; it should be defined in the main text where the conductivity profiles are introduced.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The NS-type current equation is validated circularly: QMC profiles are fit with the solution of the closure-based equation under test, and the SM 'confirmation' uses a trial ansatz that already imposes the linear current-flux relation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, Kinetic theory approach, Eqs. (5)–(7); QMC results section and Fig. 4]
    "Phenomenologically, we assume a linear relationship between the current flux tensor and the gradient of the current: J xy = −ζ∇xjy. (5) ... The final stationary (∂t⃗j=0) current equation is −ζ∇^2_x j_y(x)+ eE_yE_yy = −j_y/(τee/2), (6) ... The data reproduces remarkably well the expected conductivity profiles of Eq. 7. From them, we extract the values of ζ"

    Substituting the phenomenological closure (5) into the exact first-moment equation (3) produces the closed equation (6), whose strip solution is the catenary (7). Fitting the QMC conductivity profiles with (7) therefore assumes the very closure the paper claims to test; the profile agreement is a consistency check, not an independent confirmation. The extracted ζ is defined by (5), so the fit cannot establish that J_xy is linear in ∇_x j_y. The non-circular part is the comparison of this fitted ζ(T) with the kinetic-theory coefficient.

  2. other [Supplementary Material, Sec. II.3, Eqs. (39)–(41); main text sentence after Eq. (5)]
    "Later, the linear connection (7) is confirmed when both J xy and ∇xjy are computed using the distribution functions resulting from the solved linearized Boltzmann equation. ... We write δfλ = g(ϵλ(⃗k)/T)/T λvF k/T (k_i k_j/k^2 − δ_ij) f0λ(⃗k)(1−f0λ(⃗k)) Xλ_ij, (39) ... The current diffusion coefficient can be extracted from a constitutive relation: Jxy = ζ∇xjy, (41)"

    The trial ansatz (39) parametrizes the non-equilibrium distribution as linear in the shear-force tensor X^λ_ij, which is itself proportional to the velocity gradient. Both J_xy in Eq. (40) and ∇_x j_y inherit this same linear dependence, so their ratio is constant by construction; solving for the function g only fixes the magnitude. Computing both sides from this ansatz therefore cannot independently confirm the constitutive relation (5). The sign of the SM relation (41) is opposite to Eq. (5), underscoring that the structure of the closure is imposed rather than derived.

full rationale

The paper's central equation (6) is obtained by substituting the phenomenological closure (5) into the exact current-moment equation (3), so any test of (6) is necessarily a test of (5) only if (5) is independently established. The QMC validation does not do this: it fits the measured conductivity profiles to the catenary solution (7) of (6), making the agreement a self-consistency check rather than an independent verification. The kinetic-theory confirmation in the SM is also circular in form, because the variational trial function (39) already contains the linear current-flux proportionality; the variational calculation determines the coefficient, not the validity of the closure. The genuinely independent content is the magnitude and temperature power law of ζ: the kinetic-theory value C = 25.76 with ζ ~ 1/T is obtained from the Coulomb collision integral, and the QMC extraction gives C = 5.67 ± 0.46 with ζ ~ 1/T^1.09±0.14, so the coefficient comparison does test the microscopic calculation of the scattering rate. The self-citations to [25] and [28] are used for standard kinetic-theory results and are not load-bearing circularity. Overall, the form of the NS-type current equation is assumed on both sides of the comparison, while the coefficient has independent support; this warrants a partial circularity score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Boltzmann-quasiparticle description, a phenomenological linear closure, and the reliability of analytic continuation. The paper provides one genuinely new fitted quantity, ζ(T), whose QMC value differs from the kinetic-theory prefactor by a factor of about 4.5.

free parameters (3)
  • C (QMC prefactor) = 5.67 ± 0.46
    Dimensionless prefactor in ζ/(a^2 t) = C (εat)^2 (t/T)^p, obtained by power-law fit to QMC-extracted ζ values in Fig. 4.
  • p (QMC power-law exponent) = 1.09 ± 0.14
    Temperature exponent fitted in Fig. 4; compared with the kinetic-theory leading-log prediction p = 1.
  • σ_B (boundary plateau conductivity) = varies per profile
    Integration constant in the catenary solution Eq. (7), fixed by boundary conditions when fitting QMC conductivity profiles.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The microscopic Hamiltonian preserves particle-hole symmetry, so the QMC has no sign problem and the momentum-current Kubo correlator vanishes.
    Used in Introduction and SM Sec. I to guarantee exactness and the decoupling of current from momentum.
  • domain assumption Quasiparticles remain well-defined in the interacting system, so a Boltzmann kinetic description applies.
    Stated in the Kinetic theory approach section: quasiparticles remain well-defined even in the presence of interactions.
  • ad hoc to paper The collision integral can be replaced by a constant relaxation-time approximation I_ee = -(δf_λ - δf_-λ)/τee.
    Main text Eq. (2); SM II.1 shows the full collision integral and notes momentum dependence of τee is neglected in the main text.
  • ad hoc to paper The current flux is a local linear function of the current gradient, J_xy = -ζ ∇_x j_y.
    Main text Eq. (5), introduced phenomenologically and confirmed in kinetic theory only within the leading-log variational solution.
  • ad hoc to paper Leading-log and tree-level approximations for the Coulomb scattering amplitudes are sufficient to compute ζ.
    Main text Eq. (9) and SM II.3; the paper attributes part of the factor-4.5 discrepancy with QMC to these approximations.
  • domain assumption Stochastic analytic continuation reliably recovers the DC conductivity from the Euclidean current-current correlator.
    SM III.1; validated by free-model comparisons and the middle-point correlator method, but analytic continuation remains ill-posed in general.
invented entities (1)
  • Current diffusion coefficient ζ independent evidence
    purpose: Replaces shear viscosity in the Navier-Stokes-type equation for charge current at half-filling in particle-hole symmetric systems.
    The paper provides a kinetic-theory prediction (ζ/(a^2 t) = C(εat)^2 t/T with C = 25.76) and an independent QMC extraction (C = 5.67 ± 0.46, T^-1.09), both of which are falsifiable by experiments measuring current profiles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydrodynamics of particle-hole symmetric systems: a quantum Monte Carlo study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T5NCTY64

@misc{pith2026241113273,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydrodynamics of particle-hole symmetric systems: a quantum Monte Carlo study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T5NCTY64}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13273}
}
read the original abstract

The emergence of hydrodynamic behavior in electronic flow within clean, particle-hole-symmetric systems at half-filling is a non-trivial problem. Navier-Stokes (NS) equations describe the momentum flow, while experimental measurements typically capture the current flow profiles. However, in particle-hole-symmetric systems, electric current and momentum flow are entirely decoupled because electrons and holes move in opposite directions with equal distribution functions. This makes it challenging to link NS equations to observed flow patterns. In this work, we demonstrate that the hydrodynamic behavior of the charge current at half filling can emerge despite the absence of momentum flow. By combining Boltzmann transport theory with numerically exact Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of clean graphene samples, we show that NS-type equations can be derived directly for the charge current, eliminating the need for any additional mechanism coupling the velocity field and charge current in explaining the experimentally observed hydrodynamic flow profiles in graphene at half-filling. We show that a new transport quantity - the current diffusion coefficient - replaces viscosity and expect this description to be valid for any particle-hole symmetric system. Our results provide new insights into the interpretation of experimental data and demonstrate how Quantum Monte Carlo calculations can serve as an alternative to experiments in transport measurements to verify the kinetic theory results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13273 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scheme of the smallest simulated sample consisting of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Local conductivity profiles at two different fre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The stripe resolved DC conductivity profiles across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Temperature dependent current diffusion coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the analytical conductivity for free tight-binding model and SAC results obtained from corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fitted conductivity profiles from the middle point of the correlator (a) and SAC (b) after averaging over all adatom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Temperature dependent current diffusion coefficent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Density of states for the samples with width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Local conductivity profiles at two different frequencies for the free tight-binding model with randomly distributed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Flat QMC conductivity profile of a lattice with open zigzag edges due to a low scattering rate between edge and bulk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Computation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) QMC conductivity profile for a system with only on-site Hubbard interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The effective Coulomb interaction in graphene taken from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Phenomenologically, we assume a linear relationship between the current flux tensor and the gradient of the current: J xy = −ζ∇xjy

    As a result of the current gradient, a current flux J xy flows from the region with high current density to low current density as shown in Fig.1. Phenomenologically, we assume a linear relationship between the current flux tensor and the gradient of the current: J xy = −ζ∇xjy. (5) The current diffusion coefficient ζ represents a material’s ability to con...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The latter deficiency can be also connected to the importance of higher-order diagrams in the comparison of vF renormalization with the perturbative RPA result reported in [31]

    Only tree-level diagrams in the collision integral in (8). The latter deficiency can be also connected to the importance of higher-order diagrams in the comparison of vF renormalization with the perturbative RPA result reported in [31]. It seems that higher-order corrections to the scattering amplitudes play an important role in the transport properties o...

    work page

  3. [3]

    R. N. Gurzhi, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 11, 255 (1968)

    work page 1968

  4. [4]

    M. J. M. de Jong and L. W. Molenkamp, Phys. Rev. B 51, 13389 (1995)

    1995

  5. [5]

    Damle and S

    K. Damle and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 56, 8714 (1997)

    work page 1997

  6. [8]

    D. Y. H. Ho, I. Yudhistira, N. Chakraborty, and S. Adam, Phys. Rev. B 97, 121404 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [9]

    Levitov and G

    L. Levitov and G. Falkovich, Nature Physics 12, 672 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [10]

    Karsch, D

    F. Karsch, D. Kharzeev, and K. Tuchin, Physics Letters B 663, 217 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 50 references
  1. [11]

    P. K. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 111601 (2005)

    2005

  2. [12]

    D. A. Bandurin, A. V. Shytov, L. S. Levitov, R. K. Ku- mar, A. I. Berdyugin, M. Ben Shalom, I. V. Grigorieva, A. K. Geim, and G. Falkovich, Nature Communications 9, 4533 (2018)

    2018

  3. [13]

    J. A. Sulpizio, L. Ella, A. Rozen, J. Birkbeck, D. J. Perello, D. Dutta, M. Ben-Shalom, T. Taniguchi, 18 K. Watanabe, T. Holder, R. Queiroz, A. Principi, A. Stern, T. Scaffidi, A. K. Geim, and S. Ilani, Nature 576, 75 (2019)

    2019

  4. [14]

    M. J. H. Ku, T. X. Zhou, Q. Li, Y. J. Shin, J. K. Shi, C. Burch, L. E. Anderson, A. T. Pierce, Y. Xie, A. Hamo, U. Vool, H. Zhang, F. Casola, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. M. Fogler, P. Kim, A. Yacoby, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature 583, 537 (2020)

    2020

  5. [15]

    Jenkins, S

    A. Jenkins, S. Baumann, H. Zhou, S. A. Meynell, Y. Daipeng, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Lucas, A. F. Young, and A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 087701 (2022)

    2022

  6. [16]

    B. N. Narozhny, I. V. Gornyi, and M. Titov, Phys. Rev. B 104, 075443 (2021)

    2021

  7. [17]

    [48-50] for additional information about the kinetic theory and QMC simulations

    See Supplemental Material at [URL], which includes Refs. [48-50] for additional information about the kinetic theory and QMC simulations

  8. [18]

    Sorella and E

    S. Sorella and E. Tosatti, Europhysics Letters 19, 699 (1992)

    1992

  9. [19]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  10. [20]

    M. V. Ulybyshev, P. V. Buividovich, M. I. Katsnel- son, and M. I. Polikarpov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 056801 (2013)

    2013

  11. [21]

    Hohenadler, F

    M. Hohenadler, F. Parisen Toldin, I. F. Herbut, and F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. B 90, 085146 (2014)

    2014

  12. [22]

    J. L. Jim´ enez, S. P. G. Crone, E. Fogh, M. E. Za- yed, R. Lortz, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. M. L¨ auchli, L. Weber, S. Wessel, A. Honecker, B. Normand, C. R¨ uegg, P. Corboz, H. M. Rønnow, and F. Mila, Na- ture 592, 370 (2021)

    2021

  13. [23]

    Kovtun, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical 45, 473001 (2012)

    P. Kovtun, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical 45, 473001 (2012)

    2012

  14. [24]

    Lucas and K

    A. Lucas and K. C. Fong, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 053001 (2018)

    2018

  15. [25]

    B. N. Narozhny, Annals of Physics 411, 167979 (2019)

    2019

  16. [26]

    Fritz and T

    L. Fritz and T. Scaffidi, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 15, 17 (2024)

    2024

  17. [27]

    Pongsangangan, T

    K. Pongsangangan, T. Ludwig, H. T. C. Stoof, and L. Fritz, Phys. Rev. B 106, 205126 (2022)

    2022

  18. [28]

    Fritz, J

    L. Fritz, J. Schmalian, M. M¨ uller, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 78, 085416 (2008)

    2008

  19. [29]

    Ziman, Electrons and Phonons: The Theory of Trans- port Phenomena in Solids (Oxford University Press, 2001)

    J. Ziman, Electrons and Phonons: The Theory of Trans- port Phenomena in Solids (Oxford University Press, 2001)

    2001

  20. [30]

    Pongsangangan, P

    K. Pongsangangan, P. Cosme, E. Di Salvo, and L. Fritz, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045443 (2024)

    2024

  21. [31]

    E. I. Kiselev and J. Schmalian, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035430 (2019)

    2019

  22. [32]

    T. O. Wehling, E. S ¸a¸ sıo˘ glu, C. Friedrich, A. I. Lichten- stein, M. I. Katsnelson, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236805 (2011)

    2011

  23. [33]

    Ulybyshev, S

    M. Ulybyshev, S. Zafeiropoulos, C. Winterowd, and F. Assaad, (2021), arXiv:2104.09655 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [34]

    M. V. Ulybyshev and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 246801 (2015)

    2015

  25. [35]

    Blankenbecler, D

    R. Blankenbecler, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D 24, 2278 (1981)

    1981

  26. [36]

    White, D

    S. White, D. Scalapino, R. Sugar, E. Loh, J. Gubernatis, and R. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B 40, 506 (1989)

    1989

  27. [37]

    Assaad and H

    F. Assaad and H. Evertz, in Computational Many- Particle Physics , Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 739, edited by H. Fehske, R. Schneider, and A. Weiße (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 277–356

    2008

  28. [38]

    F. F. Assaad, M. Bercx, F. Goth, A. G¨ otz, J. S. Hofmann, E. Huffman, Z. Liu, F. P. Toldin, J. S. E. Portela, and J. Schwab, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 1 (2022)

    2022

  29. [39]

    K. S. D. Beach, arXiv e-prints , cond-mat/0403055 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0403055 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2004 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Sandvik, Phys

    A. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 57, 10287 (1998)

    1998

  31. [41]

    Shao and A

    H. Shao and A. W. Sandvik, Physics Reports 1003, 1 (2023), progress on stochastic analytic continuation of quantum Monte Carlo data

    2023

  32. [42]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics, 2nd ed. (Plenum Press, New York, 1990)

    1990

  33. [43]

    Kubo, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 12, 570 (1957), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.12.570

    R. Kubo, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 12, 570 (1957), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.12.570

    1957 doi

  34. [44]

    Jarrell and J

    M. Jarrell and J. Gubernatis, Physics Reports 269, 133 (1996)

    1996

  35. [45]

    Stauber, P

    T. Stauber, P. Parida, M. Trushin, M. V. Ulybyshev, D. L. Boyda, and J. Schliemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 266801 (2017)

    2017

  36. [46]

    Trivedi, R

    N. Trivedi, R. T. Scalettar, and M. Randeria, Phys. Rev. B 54, R3756 (1996)

    1996

  37. [47]

    D. L. Boyda, V. V. Braguta, M. I. Katsnelson, and M. V. Ulybyshev, Phys. Rev. B 94, 085421 (2016)

    2016

  38. [48]

    Hydrodynamics of lorentz sym- metric systems: a quantum monte carlo study

    A. Reingruber, “Hydrodynamics of lorentz sym- metric systems: a quantum monte carlo study.” (2024), University of W¨ urzburg, doi: 10.58160/2EP- KDQ7CTXTEBCP2

    2024 doi

  39. [49]

    J¨ ulich Supercomputing Centre, Journal of large-scale re- search facilities 5 (2019), 10.17815/jlsrf-5-171

    2019 doi

  40. [50]

    M¨ uller, J

    M. M¨ uller, J. Schmalian, and L. Fritz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 025301 (2009)

    2009

  41. [51]

    P. V. Buividovich and M. I. Polikarpov, Phys. Rev. B86, 245117 (2012)

    2012

  42. [52]

    H.-K. Tang, I. Yudhistira, U. Chattopadhyay, M. Ulyby- shev, P. Sengupta, F. F. Assaad, and S. Adam, Phys. Rev. B 110, 155120 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.