Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Eta-pairing state in flatband lattice: Interband coupling effect on entanglement entropy logarithm

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Even when a flat band touches a dispersive band, a subset of eigenstates keeps near-logarithmic entanglement entropy and a deformed η-pairing tower, with energy spacing renormalized by virtual interband processes.

desk verdict Eta-pairing-like states likely survive band touching in a Creutz ladder, but the paper's central claim is under-specified because the 'modified eta-pairing state' is never defined by a selection rule, and the Schrieffer-Wolff derivation has a factor-of-two discrepancy that needs checking. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17845 v1 pith:ZUAAOZTR submitted 2025-04-24 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Seik Pak , Hanbyul Kim , Chan Bin Bark , Sang-Jin Sin , Jae-yoon Choi , Moon Jip Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords eta-pairingflatbandsentanglemententropyCreutzladdermany-bodyscarsspectrumgeneratingalgebraSchrieffer-Wolfftransformationoff-diagonallong-rangeorder
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 asks whether η-pairing, the exact eigenstate tower of the Hubbard model that displays off-diagonal long-range order and logarithmic entanglement entropy, survives in flatband systems where the flat band touches a dispersive band. Using the Creutz ladder, it claims that a distinct subset of eigenstates retains η-like behavior even in the band-touching limit: the entanglement entropy stays approximately logarithmic and the doublon pair order remains confined, though the doublon wavefunction spreads with an exponentially decaying tail. A Schrieffer–Wolff transformation quantifies the deformation: the effective interaction becomes $U_{\rm eff} = U - U^2/(2\Delta)$, and the spectrum generating algebra is modified to $[H_{\rm eff}, \bar\eta^\dagger] = (U_{\rm eff}/2 - 2\mu)\bar\eta^\dagger$. For multiple η pairs, broadened doublons repel, so the ideal equal-spacing tower is lost except at $t = 0$, yet the logarithmic entanglement scaling persists. If right, strict flatband isolation is not a prerequisite for robust pairing signatures, which is relevant to cold-atom and designer flatband experiments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the compact localized state (CLS) of the Creutz ladder and its projected fermion operator $\bar c_{i,\alpha,\sigma} = (c_{i,A,\sigma} - c_{i,B,\sigma})/2$, which localizes the flatband degrees of freedom to single rungs. Acting on this, the Schrieffer–Wolff transformation systematically removes the coupling between the flatband subspace and the dispersive band, producing an effective Hamiltonian whose second-order term renormalizes the Hubbard $U$ to $U_{\rm eff}$. The modified spectrum generating algebra $[H_{\rm eff}, \bar\eta^\dagger] = (U_{\rm eff}/2 - 2\mu)\bar\eta^\dagger$ then does the explanatory work: it predicts the (approximately) equally spaced energies, the logarithmic entanglement entropy of the single-pair states, and the interaction-induced deviations in the multi-pair case.

What would settle it

Compute the overlap between each candidate eigenstate in the exact spectrum and the states $\bar\eta^{\dagger n}|\Omega\rangle$ (or the SW-improved tower) at the parameters of Figs. 3 and 4. If the plotted logarithmic entanglement curves come from eigenstates with negligible overlap with the deformed η tower, the identification is wrong. A second check: measure the exponential decay length of $C_2(d)$ and compare it quantitatively with the SW prediction as a function of $\Delta$ and $U$; a mismatch would indicate that the second-order algebra does not control the entanglement behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is the deformation of an exact symmetry into a useful approximate one. In the Creutz ladder, the flatband projection makes $\bar\eta^\dagger = \sum_i \bar c^\dagger_{i,\uparrow}\bar c^\dagger_{i,\downarrow}$ an exact generator only when the dispersive band is infinitely far away. For finite gap $\Delta$, virtual tunneling adds a second-order term $-U^2/(4\Delta)\sum \bar n_{i,\downarrow}\bar n_{i,\uparrow}$, so the interaction strength is renormalized to $U_{\rm eff} = U - U^2/(2\Delta)$ and the commutation relation $[H_{\rm eff}, \bar\eta^\dagger] = (U_{\rm eff}/2 - 2\mu)\bar\eta^\dagger$ holds approximately. The paper shows numerically that the resulting modified η states follow the same logarithmic entanglement entropy curve as the exact η states, with deviations that grow as interband coupling strengthens, and that the pair correlation $C_2(d)$ develops an exponential tail that shrinks as $t'$ grows. In the many-pair sector the story is different: the pairs repel via $C_4(d)$, the tower spacing becomes nonuniform, and the multi-pair states never converge to the exact ones at finite gap except for $t=0$, even though their entanglement entropy retains a log law.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on being able to pick out the 'modified η-pairing states' from the exact eigenstate spectrum, but the paper never states the selection rule, such as maximum overlap with $\bar\eta^{\dagger n}$ acting on a reference state, used to produce the entanglement and correlation data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single η-pair modified states show logarithmic entanglement entropy even when the flat band touches the dispersive band ($t'=2$), so log-law EE is not by itself evidence of exact η-pairing symmetry.
  • For $|U|\ll\Delta$, the energy tower is approximately equally spaced, so spectroscopic measurements of the pair-binding energy should see the SW renormalized value $U_{\rm eff}/2 - 2\mu$ rather than the bare value.
  • The doublon correlation length grows as the gap decreases; measuring $C_2(d)$ in cold atoms would reveal the exponential tail and its recovery at large $t'$.
  • With two or more η pairs, doublons repel regardless of the sign of $U$, so interacting multi-pair states deviate from the free-boson picture; this limits the validity of simple η-pair condensation scenarios in realistic flatband systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same SW construction should apply to other band-touching flatband lattices such as Lieb and Kagome; an immediate check is whether their modified η towers obey the same $U_{\rm eff} = U - U^2/(2\Delta)$ renormalization with the appropriate gap.
  • Because the paper does not specify how the 'modified η-pairing states' are selected from the exact spectrum, the safest read is that its quantitative claims apply to that particular unidentified subset; a companion study that defines and tests the overlap selection rule would place the results on firmer ground.
  • If the identified states are indeed the most η-like, they should also be scar-like, meaning their nonthermal signatures (low entropy, confined correlations) should survive time evolution after a quench; this is a testable prediction the paper leaves implicit.
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 studies the fate of η-pairing states in the Creutz ladder with an on-site Hubbard interaction, where the flat band touches a dispersive band. Using a Schrieffer–Wolff transformation, the authors derive an effective flatband Hamiltonian with a renormalized interaction U_eff = U − U²/(2Δ) and propose a modified spectrum generating algebra [H_eff, η̄†] = (U_eff/2 − 2μ)η̄†. Exact-diagonalization results for a single η pair show approximately logarithmic entanglement entropy that persists even at band touching, along with a spatially broadened doublon correlation function. For multiple η pairs, the paper reports repulsive doublon–doublon correlations and deviations from the exact η-pairing tower, while the entanglement entropy remains lower than and approximately logarithmic. The central claims are that interband coupling deforms but does not destroy η-pairing signatures, and that the SW analysis quantitatively captures the leading corrections.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper would provide a concrete, parameter-free prediction for how band touching modifies η-pairing physics in a flatband system, connecting the exact η-pairing literature to realistic flatband models with band crossings. The analytical SW result is tested against exact diagonalization without parameter fitting, which is a strength. The work also speaks to the robustness of quantum many-body scars and off-diagonal long-range order in multiband systems. However, the lack of an operational definition of the 'modified η-pairing states' used in the entanglement and correlation calculations currently leaves the main numerical claims ambiguous; this issue must be resolved before the significance can be fully assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV and §V (Figs. 3 and 4)] The manuscript never specifies how the 'modified η-pairing states' are selected among the exact eigenstates. For finite t′ the operator η̄† does not generate exact eigenstates, so some criterion must be given—for example, maximal overlap with (η̄†)^n|vac⟩ or selection by energy spacing—to identify the deformed tower. Without such a rule, the approximately logarithmic curves in Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 4(b) cannot be tied to η-pairing deformation, and the multi-η conclusions in Section V are unfalsifiable. Please state the selection rule explicitly and, if possible, quantify the overlap of the selected states with the unperturbed η-pairing tower for several values of Δ.
  2. [§III, Eq. (20) and Fig. 2] The second-order Schrieffer-Wolff correction in Eq. (20) is asserted with a single line and no derivation of the resulting energy shift ε = U/2 − U²/(4Δ) shown in Fig. 2. The projection onto the flatband subspace is nontrivial because the projected operators satisfy the nonlocal anticommutation relations in Eq. (10), and the reduction from the double sum over i,j,α,β to a local density-density term requires justification. Please provide the intermediate steps, including how the complementary-space operators ˜c are eliminated and how the SGA commutator in Eq. (21) follows from the full projected algebra.
  3. [§III and §IV (band-touching claim)] The SW expansion is justified in the t ≪ t′ limit, but Fig. 3(a) claims logarithmic scaling 'even in the band-touching limit (t′ = 2)' with t = 1, where Δ is not large and the perturbative regime does not apply. The statement in Section III that the modified states converge to the exact η-pairing states as Δ → ∞ is asserted but not demonstrated. Please provide a quantitative convergence check (e.g., fidelity or energy spacing versus 1/Δ) and clarify which of the claims rely on the perturbative regime versus on the numerical selection rule.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos: 'moel' for model (p. 2), 'deontes' for denotes (p. 3), 'satify' for satisfy (p. 4), 'Schriffer-Wolff' in the Section II.C title, and the spelling of 'deontes' in the text around Eq. (14). Please proofread carefully.
  2. [References] Several references are duplicated, including [18] and [19] (both Serbyn et al.), [21] and [22] (both Moudgalya et al.), and [23] (P. Sala et al., a third copy). Please consolidate the bibliography.
  3. [Eq. (5) and Eq. (6)] The hypergeometric distribution in Eq. (5) and the asymptotic formula in Eq. (6) are given without derivation or citation to the original source in [40–42]; a sentence explaining the quasiparticle picture would help readers.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states 'for various values of t′ when t = 0' and then 'for t = 0.5' in the inset description. Please clarify the parameter values used for each panel and whether the analytical curve is the same in both.
  5. [Eq. (24)] The doublon creation operator D†_{i,j} sums over α,β,γ,δ without excluding the case where the two doublons share the same unit cell or the same spin; please specify whether i ≠ j and whether the sum runs over all spin combinations or only distinct ones.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Schrieffer–Wolff derivation of U_eff and the exact-diagonalization comparisons are independent; the unspecified identification of modified η-pairing states is an under-specification, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central analytic result, Eq. (21), is obtained by an explicit second-order Schrieffer–Wolff computation (Eqs. (16) and (20)) from the microscopic Creutz-ladder Hubbard Hamiltonian. The renormalized U_eff = U − U^2/(2Δ) is a parameter-free perturbative expression; the numerical energy shifts in Fig. 2 are independent exact-diagonalization data used to test it, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction structure. The entanglement-entropy comparison in Figs. 3 and 4 compares numerical eigenstate data against the analytic log formula of the exact η-pairing state (Eq. (6)), which is an external benchmark, not an input of the derivation. No load-bearing self-citation was found: the cited references [27,28,31,38,39] are by other authors and cite standard prior results rather than the present work's own claims. The one nontrivial gap is that the manuscript does not specify the selection rule by which a 'modified η-pairing state' is chosen from the exact-diagonalization spectrum. That is a reproducibility/validation concern and could in principle allow bias, but the paper never defines the state as 'the low-entanglement eigenstate' nor states that the EE is used to construct the state, so there is no exhibited equation-level reduction making the claim self-definitional. Under the hard rule requiring a quoted reduction, this remains an under-specification, not a demonstrated circularity. Accordingly, the correct circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities. The central derivation relies on the Schrieffer-Wolff expansion, on the specific Creutz ladder projection structure, and on an implicit but unstated numerical selection rule for the modified eta-pairing states.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Schrieffer-Wolff perturbative expansion converges in the parameter regimes shown, including t'=2 with t=1.
    Section III treats the dispersive band as nearly flat (t << t') to derive the second-order correction, but Figures 3 and 4 use t'=2 with t=1, a band-touching regime where the expansion parameter is not small. The authors acknowledge deviations but still use the SW result to interpret the data.
  • domain assumption The flatband projected operators have the local form \bar c_{i,alpha,sigma} = (c_{i,A,sigma} - c_{i,B,sigma})/2 for all orbitals.
    Used in Eq. (15) and throughout to derive the projected interaction and the \bar eta operator. This relies on the Creutz ladder flatband eigenvector being momentum independent, which is specific to this model and may not carry over to Lieb or Kagome lattices without modification.
  • ad hoc to paper The selection rule for identifying the modified multi-eta states in exact diagonalization is well defined.
    The paper does not specify how the modified multi-eta states are chosen from the degenerate flatband many-body spectrum. This assumption is needed for the claim in Section V that these states do not converge to the exact eta-pairing states in the large gap limit.
  • standard math Projected fermion anticommutation relations in Eq. (10) are used to evaluate the commutator relations in Eqs. (18) and (21).
    These are standard relations for projected operators and are correctly stated, but the simplification of the four-fermion SW term in Eq. (20) to a density-density form is not shown step by step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eta-pairing state in flatband lattice: Interband coupling effect on entanglement entropy logarithm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUAAOZTR

@misc{pith2026250417845,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eta-pairing state in flatband lattice: Interband coupling effect on entanglement entropy logarithm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUAAOZTR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17845}
}
read the original abstract

The eta-pairing state is the eigenstate of the hypercubic Hubbard model, which exhibits anomalous logarithmic scaling of entanglement entropy. In multi-band systems, eta-pairing can be exact eigenstate when the band is flat without interband coupling. However, typical flatband systems such as Lieb and Kagome lattices often feature band touchings, where interband coupling effects are non-negligible. Using the Creutz ladder, we investigate the deformation of eta-pairing states under the interband coupling effect. Our results show corrections to entanglement entropy scaling, with modified eta-pairing states displaying broadened doublons, nonuniform energy spacing, and deviations from exact behavior for configurations with more than one eta-pair, even in the large band gap limit, except at t = 0. Through a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, we quantify corrections to the spectrum generating algebra, offering insights into the interplay between interaction-driven phenomena and band structure effects. These findings illuminate the robustness and limitations of eta-pairing in realistic flatband systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17845 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of the Creutz ladder, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Energy shift from the vacuum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Entanglement entropy scaling for the modified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Logarithm of four-point correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical 42, 504005 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Col- loquium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019). 8

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Cramer, J

    M. Cramer, J. Eisert, and M. B. Plenio, Statistics depen- dence of the entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 220603 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2004, P06002 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2005, P04010 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    Rozon and K

    P.-G. Rozon and K. Agarwal, Broken unitary picture of dynamics in quantum many-body scars, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023041 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Fradkin and J

    E. Fradkin and J. E. Moore, Entanglement entropy of 2d conformal quantum critical points: Hearing the shape of a quantum drum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 050404 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Refael and J

    G. Refael and J. E. Moore, Entanglement entropy of random quantum critical points in one dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 260602 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    Vidal, J

    G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, Entan- glement in quantum critical phenomena, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003)

    2003

  4. [13]

    B. Hsu, M. Mulligan, E. Fradkin, and E.-A. Kim, Uni- versal entanglement entropy in two-dimensional confor- mal quantum critical points, Phys. Rev. B 79, 115421 (2009)

    2009

  5. [14]

    Laflorencie, E

    N. Laflorencie, E. S. Sørensen, M.-S. Chang, and I. Af- fleck, Boundary effects in the critical scaling of entangle- ment entropy in 1d systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100603 (2006)

    2006

  6. [17]

    Lin and O

    C.-J. Lin and O. I. Motrunich, Exact quantum many- body scar states in the rydberg-blockaded atom chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 173401 (2019)

    2019

  7. [18]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Quantum many- body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Nature Physics 17, 675 (2021)

    2021

  8. [19]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moess- ner, Quantum many-body scars: A quasiparticle perspec- tive, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 443 (2023)

    2023

  9. [20]

    Shibata, N

    N. Shibata, N. Yoshioka, and H. Katsura, Onsager’s scars in disordered spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 180604 (2020)

    2020

  10. [23]

    P. Sala, T. Rakovszky, R. Verresen, M. Knap, and F. Poll- mann, Ergodicity breaking arising from hilbert space fragmentation in dipole-conserving hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011047 (2020)

    2020

  11. [24]

    Moudgalya and O

    S. Moudgalya and O. I. Motrunich, Hilbert space frag- mentation and commutant algebras, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011050 (2022)

    2022

  12. [25]

    Z.-C. Yang, F. Liu, A. V. Gorshkov, and T. Iadecola, Hilbert-space fragmentation from strict confinement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 207602 (2020)

    2020

  13. [26]

    C. N. Yang, η pairing and off-diagonal long-range order in a hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2144 (1989)

    1989

  14. [27]

    Tovmasyan, S

    M. Tovmasyan, S. Peotta, P. T¨ orm¨ a, and S. D. Huber, Effective theory and emergent SU(2) symmetry in the flat bands of attractive hubbard models, Phys. Rev. B 94, 245149 (2016)

    2016

  15. [28]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, A

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, A. Chew, K.-E. Huhtinen, P. T¨ orm¨ a, and B. A. Bernevig, Many-body superconduc- tivity in topological flat bands (2022), arXiv:2209.00007 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [29]

    D. L. Bergman, C. Wu, and L. Balents, Band touching from real-space topology in frustrated hopping models, Phys. Rev. B 78, 125104 (2008)

    2008

  17. [30]

    Rhim and B.-J

    J.-W. Rhim and B.-J. Yang, Classification of flat bands according to the band-crossing singularity of bloch wave functions, Phys. Rev. B 99, 045107 (2019)

    2019

  18. [32]

    D. K. Mark and O. I. Motrunich, η-pairing states as true scars in an extended hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 102, 075132 (2020)

    2020

  19. [33]

    Imai and N

    S. Imai and N. Tsuji, Quantum many-body scars with unconventional superconducting pairing symmetries via multibody interactions, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013064 (2025)

    2025

  20. [34]

    Pakrouski, P

    K. Pakrouski, P. N. Pallegar, F. K. Popov, and I. R. Klebanov, Group theoretic approach to many-body scar states in fermionic lattice models, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043156 (2021)

    2021

  21. [35]

    Pakrouski, P

    K. Pakrouski, P. N. Pallegar, F. K. Popov, and I. R. Klebanov, Many-body scars as a group invariant sector of hilbert space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 230602 (2020)

    2020

  22. [36]

    Yoshida and H

    H. Yoshida and H. Katsura, Exact eigenstates of ex- tended SU( n) hubbard models: Generalization of η- pairing states with n-particle off-diagonal long-range or- der, Phys. Rev. B 105, 024520 (2022)

    2022

  23. [37]

    Nakagawa, H

    M. Nakagawa, H. Katsura, and M. Ueda, Exact eigen- states of multicomponent hubbard models: Su( n) mag- neticη pairing, weak ergodicity breaking, and partial in- tegrability, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043259 (2024)

    2024

  24. [38]

    Moudgalya, N

    S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, η- pairing in hubbard models: From spectrum generating algebras to quantum many-body scars, Phys. Rev. B102, 085140 (2020)

    2020

  25. [39]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Quan- tum many-body scars and hilbert space fragmentation: a review of exact results, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 086501 (2022)

    2022

  26. [40]

    Fan and S

    H. Fan and S. Lloyd, Entanglement and off-diagonal long- range order of an η-pairing state, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 38, 5285 (2005)

    2005

  27. [41]

    Vedral, High-temperature macroscopic entanglement, New Journal of Physics 6, 102 (2004)

    V. Vedral, High-temperature macroscopic entanglement, New Journal of Physics 6, 102 (2004)

    2004

  28. [42]

    Vafek, N

    O. Vafek, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Entangle- ment of exact excited eigenstates of the Hubbard model 9 in arbitrary dimension, SciPost Phys. 3, 043 (2017)

    2017

  29. [43]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. P. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Schrieffer–wolff transformation for quantum many-body systems, Annals of Physics 326, 2793 (2011)

    2011

  30. [44]

    S. Taie, H. Ozawa, T. Ichinose, T. Nishio, S. Naka- jima, and Y. Takahashi, Coherent driving and freezing of bosonic matter wave in an optical lieb lattice, Science Advances 1, e1500854 (2015), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.1500854

    2015 doi

  31. [45]

    Lebrat, A

    M. Lebrat, A. Kale, L. H. Kendrick, M. Xu, Y. Gang, A. Nikolaenko, S. Sachdev, and M. Greiner, Ferrimag- netism of ultracold fermions in a multi-band hubbard system (2024), arXiv:2404.17555 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [46]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Fesh- bach resonances in ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  33. [47]

    Scherg, T

    S. Scherg, T. Kohlert, P. Sala, F. Pollmann, B. Hebbe Madhusudhana, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Observing non-ergodicity due to kinetic constraints in tilted fermi-hubbard chains, Nature Communications12, 4490 (2021)

    2021

  34. [48]

    Schreiber, S

    M. Schreiber, S. S. Hodgman, P. Bordia, H. P. L¨ uschen, M. H. Fischer, R. Vosk, E. Altman, U. Schneider, and I. Bloch, Observation of many- body localization of interacting fermions in a quasir- andom optical lattice, Science 349, 842 (2015), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/1...

    2015 doi

  35. [49]

    yoon Choi, S

    J. yoon Choi, S. Hild, J. Zeiher, P. Schauß, A. Rubio- Abadal, T. Yefsah, V. Khemani, D. A. Huse, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Exploring the many-body localization transition in two dimensions, Science 352, 1547 (2016), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaf8834

    2016 doi

  36. [50]

    Kantian, A

    A. Kantian, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, η condensate of fermionic atom pairs via adiabatic state preparation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 240406 (2010)

    2010

  37. [51]

    Tindall, B

    J. Tindall, B. Buˇ ca, J. R. Coulthard, and D. Jaksch, Heating-induced long-range η pairing in the hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 030603 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.