Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Excitations of a supersolid annular stripe phase in a spin-orbital-angular-momentum-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper claims that a double symmetric roton mode at $l_q=\pm4$ closes exactly at the direct first-order transition from the zero-angular-momentum phase to the annular stripe supersolid in a spin-orbital-angular-momentum-coupled spin-1…

desk verdict Plausible roton-softening story for a new parameter regime, but missing numerical details and a sign error in the BdG matrix keep it from being citable as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17586 v2 pith:UOS352R7 submitted 2024-11-26 cond-mat.quant-gas

Paramjeet Banger , Rajat , Sandeep Gautam This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords supersolidannularstripephasespin-orbital-angular-momentumcouplingspin-1Bose-EinsteincondensateBogoliubov-deGennesrotonmodequadraticZeemaneffectvortexnecklace
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 studies the collective excitations of a quasi-two-dimensional spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate with spin-orbital-angular-momentum coupling, using a $4\hbar$ orbital angular momentum transfer so that an annular stripe supersolid phase can appear. It establishes that for realistic antiferromagnetic interactions (sodium-23 parameters) the ground-state phase diagram contains three phases, namely the annular stripe, vortex necklace, and zero angular momentum phases, and that the transitions between them are accompanied by the softening of a double symmetric roton mode. The central result is that at low Raman coupling there is a direct, first-order transition from the zero angular momentum phase to the annular stripe phase, signaled by the roton gap at $l_q=\pm4$ closing at $q\approx-0.016$. A sympathetic reader would care because a closing roton gap is the standard precursor to supersolidity, and the paper identifies the parameter regime and the observable mode that would certify the annular stripe phase in experiments using larger orbital angular momentum transfer.

What carries the argument

The central object is the double symmetric roton mode: in the circularly symmetric ZAM phase, excitations carry a magnetic quantum number $l_q$, and the pair $l_q=\pm4$ are degenerate because the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations are invariant under $l_q\to-l_q$ together with interchange of the $m=+1$ and $m=-1$ spin components. The paper tracks this pair's frequency as a function of $q$ and $\Omega_0$; its softening to zero marks the onset of the AS phase. The computation linearizes the Gross-Pitaevskii equation around the mean-field ground state and solves the resulting BdG problem by expanding quasiparticle amplitudes in a truncated basis of two-dimensional harmonic oscillator eigenstates, then diagonalizing the resulting $6N_b\times 6N_b$ matrix with a sparse eigensolver. The Raman coupling profile $\Omega(r)=\Omega_0\,e^{(l/2)(r/w)^l}e^{-2r^2/w^2}$ with $l=4$ selects the $l_z=\pm4$ single-particle minima that the AS phase occupies.

What would settle it

Take the same $c_0=42.57$, $c_2=1.33$, $l=4$ parameters and recompute the BdG spectrum at $\Omega_0=2$ with increasing basis size (for instance $N_b$ from 36 to 100 and beyond); if the double roton gap at $l_q=\pm4$ does not descend to zero at $q\approx-0.016$, or if the low-lying frequencies shift beyond numerical tolerance as $N_b$ grows, the claimed direct first-order ZAM-AS transition is not established. An experiment could also look for the roton dip at $l_q=\pm4$ in the density response of a sodium-23 condensate with $4\hbar$ Raman transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the zero-angular-momentum (ZAM) phase of a SOAM-coupled spin-1 condensate with $l=4$ becomes unstable to the annular stripe (AS) phase through a double roton mode rather than through a competing intermediate phase. For $\Omega_0=2$, as the quadratic Zeeman field $q$ is lowered, the two degenerate excitation branches with $l_q=\pm4$ soften symmetrically and reach zero frequency at $q\approx-0.016$, exactly where the ground state switches from ZAM to AS; the discontinuity in $\partial E_0/\partial q$ and in the dipole and breathing mode frequencies marks the transition as first order. At higher Raman coupling the same $l_q=\pm4$ roton gap closes at the continuous ZAM-to-vortex-necklace boundary, showing that the double roton softening accompanies rotational symmetry breaking generally. The AS phase, which condenses in a superposition of $l_z=+4$ and $l_z=-4$ single-particle states, breaks both $U(1)$ and rotational symmetry and consequently supports two Goldstone modes; the low-lying dipole, breathing, spin-dipole, and spin-breathing modes are identified in each phase.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical excitation spectra rest on the truncated harmonic-oscillator basis being large enough to converge the Bogoliubov-de Gennes modes, but the paper does not state the basis size $N_b$ or $n_{\max,x}$ used and gives no convergence tests; if the basis is too small, the roton branches and the reported critical values $q\approx-0.016$, $\Omega_0\approx 4.6$, and $\Omega_0\approx 7.4$ could shift or be numerical artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At low Raman coupling ($\Omega_0\approx2$), the direct ZAM-to-AS transition is first order, so the roton gap at $l_q=\pm4$ closes exactly at the phase boundary and the dipole and breathing mode frequencies jump discontinuously.
  • The same double roton mode at $l_q=\pm4$ softens at both the direct ZAM-AS transition and the continuous ZAM-VN transition, making it a consistent precursor of the loss of rotational symmetry.
  • Because the AS phase breaks both $U(1)$ gauge and rotational symmetry, its spectrum contains two zero-energy Goldstone modes, in contrast to the single Goldstone mode of the ZAM phase.
  • For $\Omega_0>3.5$ the ZAM phase is separated from the AS phase by the intermediate vortex necklace phase, so the experimentally cleanest route to the annular stripe supersolid is at low Raman coupling where the transition is direct.
  • The choice $l=4$, with the associated $\Omega(r)$ profile, is what makes the annular stripe phase energetically accessible; the same model with $l=1$ does not produce the AS phase in the computed phase diagram.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper implies, without stating it, that the roton minima sit at $l_q=\pm l$ for any integer transfer $l$, so for $l=4$ the azimuthal stripe period should be $\pi/2$; measuring that period would test the mechanism directly.
  • Because the same double roton softening appears at both the first-order ZAM-AS and the continuous ZAM-VN transitions, a natural extension is to look for an additional soft mode (for example a quadrupole branch) at the tricritical point $(\Omega_0\approx 3.5,\;q\approx -0.06)$ where the three phases meet.
  • A beyond-mean-field or finite-temperature calculation could decide whether the mean-field first-order character of the ZAM-AS transition survives fluctuations, since roton softening often signals an instability that thermal or quantum fluctuations can preempt.
  • The absence of a single dominant dipole/breathing frequency in the vortex necklace phase suggests that experimental identification of its collective modes would require angular-momentum-resolved probes rather than the usual trap-modulation spectroscopy.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a quasi-2D spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate with spin-orbital-angular-momentum coupling produced by Laguerre-Gaussian beams with orbital angular momentum transfer l=4. Using imaginary-time Gross-Pitaevskii evolution for 23Na parameters, it maps the ground-state phase diagram in the Raman-coupling/quadratic-Zeeman plane and identifies three phases: annular stripe (AS), vortex necklace (VN), and zero angular momentum (ZAM). It then solves the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations in a harmonic-oscillator basis and reports that at low Raman coupling the ZAM-to-AS transition is first order and is preceded by the softening of a double symmetric roton mode at lq=±4, which closes the roton gap at the transition. The paper also identifies low-lying dipole, breathing, spin-dipole, and spin-breathing modes in the symmetry-broken phases.

Significance. If the central numerical result holds, the paper gives a concrete and falsifiable prediction: in a SOAM-coupled spin-1 BEC with l=4, the direct ZAM-AS transition at low Raman coupling is first order and is signalled by a symmetric double roton at lq=±4, closely analogous to the stripe-supersolid transition in linearly SO-coupled BECs. The choice l=4 is experimentally motivated by improved stripe contrast, and the double roton is not imposed but emerges from the BdG calculation on the GP ground states, with no fitted parameters. The phase diagram is cross-checked against energy derivatives and the Goldstone-mode count is consistent with symmetry breaking. The main weaknesses are numerical reproducibility: the basis truncation is never stated, no convergence tests are shown, and the Appendix contains a sign inconsistency in the projected BdG matrix that calls into question whether the printed equations match the solved problem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix, Eq. (11) and Eq. (7)] The block matrix in Eq. (11) is inconsistent with the BdG equation (7) for the third row. In Eq. (7), the third row must be (P1)_{3j} u_j + (P2)_{3j} v_j = ω u_{-1}, with the matrix elements of P1 as defined in the Appendix. However, the printed Mkl_31, Mkl_32, and Mkl_33 all carry an overall minus sign, and Mkl_34 through Mkl_36 are also written with minus signs. If the diagonalization used the printed matrix, the spectra in Figs. 8 and 9, and the ZAM modes in Fig. 7, do not solve the stated BdG problem. The authors must either correct the signs or explicitly state that the printed matrix is a typographical error and that the calculations used the correct signs.
  2. [Appendix, Eqs. (8)-(11)] The numerical spectra are not reproducible because the basis truncation is not specified. The Appendix defines Nb = (nmax_x+1)^2 but never states the value of nmax_x or Nb actually used, and no convergence checks are reported. The central quantitative results—the closing of the double roton gap at q ≈ -0.016 in Fig. 7(a) and the critical couplings Ω0 ≈ 4.6 and 7.4 in Fig. 9—are BdG eigenvalues computed in this truncated basis. A too-small basis can shift the roton minimum and the gap-closing point, so the authors should state the basis size and show that the lq = ±4 gap and the phase boundaries are converged with respect to it.
  3. [Section III, imaginary-time propagation] The claimed phase boundaries, especially the direct ZAM-AS transition at Ω0 = 2, rely on imaginary-time propagation reaching the true ground state rather than a metastable state selected by the initial guess. The text states that random guesses were used in addition to single-particle-inspired guesses, but no systematic comparison of energies from different initial conditions is presented. This should be documented, for example by reporting the lowest energies obtained from several initial conditions in the vicinity of the phase boundaries.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III and Eq. (5)] The text states that the 23Na condensate has antiferromagnetic interactions with c2 < 0, but Eq. (5) and the chosen scattering lengths (a2 = 55.01 aB, a0 = 50 aB) give c2 = +1.33. In the usual spin-1 convention, antiferromagnetic interactions correspond to c2 > 0; the sign statement should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix, definitions after Eq. (11)] The symbol hcc (and h*_cc) used in Mkl_12, Mkl_21, Mkl_23, and Mkl_32 is never defined. Presumably it denotes HΩ or H*_Ω from the definition of P1, but it should be defined explicitly to make the projection unambiguous.
  3. [Fig. 7(a) caption and Sec. IV] The caption says the transition occurs for q ⪆ -0.017, while the text gives q ≈ -0.016; these values should be reconciled. The caption also says 'there is a phase transition from the AS to the circularly symmetric lz = 0 (ZAM) phases,' which is confusing because the sweep in Fig. 7(a) is described in the text as a ZAM-to-AS transition as q decreases.
  4. [Fig. 6(a)] The label 'AS-ZAM transition' in Fig. 6(a) is inconsistent with the text's description of a ZAM-to-AS transition; the terminology should be unified across the caption and the body.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the roton-softening result is an independent BdG eigenvalue outcome, not a fit, definitional identity, or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central claim—that a double symmetric roton mode at lq = ±4 softens and closes at the ZAM–AS boundary—is obtained by numerically diagonalizing the Bogoliubov–de Gennes equations for the ZAM ground state, not by imposing the phase boundary or by fitting a parameter to the target result. The ground-state phase diagram is computed from GP energy minimization, while the roton gap is a separate BdG eigenvalue; the agreement between gap closure and the energy-derivative discontinuity in Fig. 6(a) is a physical consistency check, not a definitional equivalence. Self-citations appear only for numerical methods (Refs. [48,52]), mode-identification conventions (Ref. [42]), and a qualitative comparison with a related SO-coupled system (Ref. [25]); none of these supplies the load-bearing derivation. The missing statement of the harmonic-oscillator basis size and the absence of convergence tests in the Appendix are reproducibility and numerical-verifiability concerns, not circularity: an unstated truncation does not make the computed spectrum equivalent to its input by construction. No equation in the paper reduces to another equation by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the derivation is self-contained for the purposes of circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on standard mean-field and Bogoliubov input, plus an unstated numerical truncation and an implicit ground-state-search assumption. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced, and no free parameters are fitted to experimental data.

free parameters (1)
  • Harmonic-oscillator basis truncation Nb = not stated
    The BdG matrix dimension is 6Nb with Nb equal to (nmax_x + 1)^2, but the actual value is never given. The roton frequencies and critical couplings depend on numerical convergence of this truncation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The quasi-2D mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii equation with c0 and c2 from sodium-23 scattering lengths describes the ground state and low-energy excitations.
    Invoked in Sec. III via Eq. (4) and used throughout; assumes weak interactions, T = 0, and tight axial confinement so the system is effectively two-dimensional.
  • domain assumption Bogoliubov linearization around the imaginary-time ground state captures the collective mode spectrum.
    Standard for weakly interacting BECs; assumes fluctuations are small and that the obtained ground states are stable global minima.
  • ad hoc to paper The harmonic-oscillator basis expansion in the Appendix converges with the truncation used.
    The basis size is not stated, so convergence is assumed without direct evidence; this is load-bearing for the quantitative roton frequencies and critical points.
  • ad hoc to paper The imaginary-time propagation reaches the true ground state rather than a metastable state selected by the initial guess.
    Sec. III uses initial guesses inspired by single-particle eigenfunctions plus random states, but no systematic confirmation of global-minimum uniqueness is provided beyond energy comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Excitations of a supersolid annular stripe phase in a spin-orbital-angular-momentum-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UOS352R7

@misc{pith2026241117586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Excitations of a supersolid annular stripe phase in a spin-orbital-angular-momentum-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UOS352R7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17586}
}
abstract

We present a theoretical study of the collective excitations of the supersolid annular stripe phase of a spin-orbital-angular-momentum-coupled (SOAM-coupled) spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate. The annular stripe phase simultaneously breaks two continuous symmetries, namely rotational and $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, and is more probable in the condensates with a larger orbital angular momentum transfer imparted by a pair of Laguerre-Gaussian beams than what has been considered in the recent experiments. Accordingly, we consider a SOAM-coupled spin-1 condensate with a $4\hbar$ orbital angular momentum transferred by the lasers. Depending on the values of the Raman coupling strength and quadratic Zeeman term, the condensate with realistic antiferromagnetic interactions supports three ground-state phases: the annular stripe, the vortex necklace, and the zero angular momentum phase. We numerically calculate the collective excitations of the condensate as a function of coupling and quadratic Zeeman field strengths for a fixed ratio of spin-dependent and spin-independent interaction strengths. At low Raman coupling strengths, we observe a direct transition from the zero angular momentum to the annular stripe phase, characterized by the softening of a double symmetric roton mode, which serves as a precursor to supersolidity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17586 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) (a) The single-particle energy spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) The single-particle excitation spectrum as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) The density and the phase structures of the ground state phases of the SOAM-coupled spin-1 BEC with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) The spin-texture of SOAM-coupled spin-1 BEC with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) The phase diagram of an SOAM-coupled spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The ground state energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) The excitation spectrum of the SOAM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) The low-lying excitation spectrum of the SOAM-coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) The excitation spectrum of the SOAM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.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. Thermal amplification and melting of phases in spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Finite-temperature Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculations show that thermal fluctuations melt the supersolid stripe phase of a homogeneous spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 BEC, while quantum fluctuations enlarge it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Y .-J. Lin, R. L. Compton, K. Jimenez-Garcia, W. D. Phillips, 10 J. V . Porto, and I. B. Spielman, Nat. Phys. 7, 531 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

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

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Galitski and I

    V . Galitski and I. B. Spielman, Nature494, 49 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Goldman, G

    N. Goldman, G. Juzeli ¯unas, P. ¨Ohberg, and I. B. Spielman, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 126401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Zhang, S.-C

    J.-Y . Zhang, S.-C. Ji, Z. Chen, L. Zhang, Z.-D. Du, B. Yan, G.- S. Pan, B. Zhao, Y .-J. Deng, H. Zhai, S. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 115301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Campbell, R

    D. Campbell, R. Price, A. Putra, A. Vald´es-Curiel, D. Trypoge- orgos, and I. Spielman, Nat. Commun. 7, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    X. Luo, L. Wu, J. Chen, Q. Guan, K. Gao, Z.-F. Xu, L. You, and R. Wang, Sci. Rep. 6, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    L. W. Cheuk, A. T. Sommer, Z. Hadzibabic, T. Yefsah, W. S. Bakr, and M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 095302 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    P. Wang, Z.-Q. Yu, Z. Fu, J. Miao, L. Huang, S. Chai, H. Zhai, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 095301 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    R. A. Williams, M. C. Beeler, L. J. LeBlanc, K. Jim´enez-Garc´ıa, and I. B. Spielman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 095301 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    J.-R. Li, J. Lee, W. Huang, S. Burchesky, B. Shteynas, F. C ¸ . Top, A. O. Jamison, and W. Ketterle, Nature 543, 91 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Putra, F

    A. Putra, F. Salces-C´arcoba, Y . Yue, S. Sugawa, and I. B. Spiel- man, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 053605 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

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

    2010

  7. [15]

    Ho and S

    T.-L. Ho and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 150403 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Y . Li, G. I. Martone, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 235302 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    G. I. Martone, F. V . Pepe, P. Facchi, S. Pascazio, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 125301 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    M. A. Khamehchi, Y . Zhang, C. Hamner, T. Busch, and P. En- gels, Phys. Rev. A 90, 063624 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    S.-C. Ji, L. Zhang, X.-T. Xu, Z. Wu, Y . Deng, S. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 105301 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Yu, Phys

    Z.-Q. Yu, Phys. Rev. A 93, 033648 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    K. Sun, C. Qu, Y . Xu, Y . Zhang, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023615 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    L. Chen, H. Pu, Z.-Q. Yu, and Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 95, 033616 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    K. T. Geier, G. I. Martone, P. Hauke, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 115301 (2021); K. T. Geier, G. I. Martone, P. Hauke, W. Ketterle, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 156001 (2023)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Roy, and S

    Rajat, Ritu, A. Roy, and S. Gautam, Phys. Rev. A 109, 033319 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Banger, and S

    Rajat, P. Banger, and S. Gautam, arXiv:2410.22178 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    DeMarco and H

    M. DeMarco and H. Pu, Phys. Rev. A 91, 033630 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    C. Qu, K. Sun, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 91, 053630 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Y .-X. Hu, C. Miniatura, and B. Gr ´emaud, Phys. Rev. A 92, 033615 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    K. Sun, C. Qu, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 91, 063627 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    L. Chen, H. Pu, and Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. A93, 013629 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Vasi ´c and A

    I. Vasi ´c and A. Balaˇz, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033627 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Hou, X.-W

    J. Hou, X.-W. Luo, K. Sun, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 96, 011603 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Zhang, T

    D. Zhang, T. Gao, P. Zou, L. Kong, R. Li, X. Shen, X.-L. Chen, S.-G. Peng, M. Zhan, H. Pu, and K. Jiang, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 110402 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Chen, K.-Y

    H.-R. Chen, K.-Y . Lin, P.-K. Chen, N.-C. Chiu, J.-B. Wang, C.- A. Chen, P. Huang, S.-K. Yip, Y . Kawaguchi, and Y .-J. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 113204 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Chen, L.-R

    P.-K. Chen, L.-R. Liu, M.-J. Tsai, N.-C. Chiu, Y . Kawaguchi, S.-K. Yip, M.-S. Chang, and Y .-J. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 250401 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    L. R. Liu, S. C. Wu, T. W. Liu, H. Y . Hsu, T. K. Shen, S. K. Yip, Y . Kawaguchi, and Y . J. Lin, arXiv:2403.17403 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y . Duan, Y . M. Bidasyuk, and A. Surzhykov, Phys. Rev. A102, 063328 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Chen, S.-G

    X.-L. Chen, S.-G. Peng, P. Zou, X.-J. Liu, and H. Hu, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033152 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    N. Chiu, Y . Kawaguchi, S. Yip, and Y . Lin, New J. Phys. 22, 093017 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    K.-J. Chen, F. Wu, J. Hu, and L. He, Phys. Rev. A 102, 013316 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Y . M. Bidasyuk, K. S. Kovtunenko, and O. O. Prikhodko, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023320 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Banger, Rajat, A

    P. Banger, Rajat, A. Roy, and S. Gautam, Phys. Rev. A 108, 043310 (2023); P. Banger, Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Ropar (2024)

    2023

  35. [43]

    X.-L. Chen, A. Chen, and S.-G. Peng, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033200 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Chaika, A

    A. Chaika, A. Richaud, and A. Yakimenko, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023109 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    O. O. Prykhodko and L. V . Zadorozhna, arXiv:2411.01590 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S.-G. Peng, K. Jiang, X.-L. Chen, K.-J. Chen, P. Zou, and L. He, AAPPS Bulletin 32, 36 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Crubellier, O

    A. Crubellier, O. Dulieu, F. Masnou-Seeuws, M. Elbs, H. Kn¨ockel, and E. Tiemann, Eur. Phys. J. D 6, 211 (1999)

    1999

  40. [48]

    P. Kaur, A. Roy, and S. Gautam, Comput. Phys. Commun. 259, 107671 (2021); P. Banger, P. Kaur, A. Roy, and S. Gau- tam, Comput. Phys. Commun. 279, 108442 (2022); P. Banger, P. Kaur, and S. Gautam, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 33, 2250046 (2021); R. Ravisankar, D. Vudragovi ´c, P. Murug...

    2021

  41. [49]

    Roy, and S

    Rajat, A. Roy, and S. Gautam, Phys. Rev. A 106, 013304 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Mewes, M

    M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Durfee, C. G. Townsend, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 988 (1996)

    1996

  43. [51]

    Bienaim ´e, E

    T. Bienaim ´e, E. Fava, G. Colzi, C. Mordini, S. Serafini, C. Qu, S. Stringari, G. Lamporesi, and G. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063652 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    A. Roy, S. Pal, S. Gautam, D. Angom, and P. Muruganandam, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256, 107288 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    R. B. Lehoucq, D. C. Sorensen, and C. Yang, ARPACK Users’ Guide (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1998) https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9780898719628

    1998 doi

  46. [54]

    https://www.netlib.org/lapack/

Pith tools

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