pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.08390 · v2 · pith:HJPOU6N5new · submitted 2025-05-13 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.quant-gas· cond-mat.stat-mech

Engineering long-range and multi-body interactions via global kinetic constraints

Runmin Wu , Bing Yang , Pieter W. Claeys , Hongzheng Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 15:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mech
keywords Bose-Hubbard modelperiodic drivingkinetic constraintsmulti-qubit gatesToffoli gateoptical latticescold atomsglobal interactions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Periodic driving in a Bose-Hubbard system with global interactions creates kinetic constraints that enable direct N-qubit controlled gates.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows how to turn elementary interactions into long-range and multi-body effects by adding periodic driving to a Bose-Hubbard model that already includes global density-density terms. Optimal driving frequencies and amplitudes make the tunneling rate between sites depend on the total particle imbalance across all even and odd sites, producing a global kinetic constraint. This constraint, paired with adjustable local tunneling, lets experimenters build families of global controlled gates without first breaking them into two-qubit steps. The authors demonstrate the approach explicitly for the N-qubit Toffoli gate and note that the same mechanism helps prepare entangled many-body states. The scheme is presented as directly realizable with cold atoms in optical lattices that have cavity-mediated interactions.

Core claim

In the driven Bose-Hubbard system with global-range density-density interactions, optimally chosen driving parameters induce global kinetic constraints in which tunneling rates are selectively suppressed according to the particle-number imbalance between all even and odd sites; together with tunable local tunneling this yields efficient implementation schemes for a family of global controlled gates, illustrated by a direct construction of the N-qubit Toffoli gate.

What carries the argument

Global kinetic constraints from periodic on-site driving that suppress tunneling selectively according to the even-odd site particle imbalance.

If this is right

  • The N-qubit Toffoli gate can be realized in one step rather than through a sequence of two-body gates.
  • Entangled many-body states become reachable with fewer operations than standard two-body decompositions require.
  • A range of other global controlled gates follows from the same tunable constraint mechanism.
  • Long-range and multi-body interactions emerge from pairwise terms plus the global driving without additional hardware.
  • The approach supplies a concrete route to multi-qubit operations in systems where only local tunneling and global density interactions are available.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same driving protocol might be adapted to other lattice geometries or to fermionic systems to produce different classes of constrained dynamics.
  • Observing the predicted imbalance-dependent suppression would also test the stability of the global interaction term against experimental imperfections.
  • If the constraints remain robust at larger particle numbers, the method could reduce gate overhead in quantum algorithms that rely on multi-controlled operations.
  • The selective suppression offers a new handle for engineering effective Hamiltonians that are otherwise difficult to realize with static interactions alone.

Load-bearing premise

The driven Bose-Hubbard system with global interactions can be realized in cold-atom optical lattices without introducing uncontrolled heating or decoherence that would wash out the selective tunneling suppression.

What would settle it

Measure the tunneling rate between neighboring sites while varying the even-odd particle imbalance and check whether the rate drops sharply to zero only for the predicted imbalance values while coherence times remain long.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08390 by Bing Yang, Hongzheng Zhao, Pieter W. Claeys, Runmin Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustration of the mapping from a bosonic system to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Tuning transition rates by varying the driving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Tower structure of the many-body Hilbert space. Fock states (solid dots) with the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Preparation of the W state. The overlap be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Linear fit of lg( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Long-range and multi-body interactions are crucial for quantum simulation and quantum computation. Yet, their practical realization using elementary pairwise interactions remains an outstanding challenge. We propose an experimental scheme based on the Bose-Hubbard system with a periodic driving of the on-site energy and global-range density-density interactions, a setup readily implementable via cold atoms in optical lattices with cavity-mediated interactions. Optimally chosen driving parameters can induce global kinetic constraints, where tunneling rates are selectively suppressed depending on the particle number imbalance between all even and odd sites. This mechanism, together with the flexible tunability of local tunneling rates, provides efficient implementation schemes of a family of global controlled gates for quantum computation. We illustrate this scheme for the $N$-qubit Toffoli gate, circumventing the need for a two-body gate decomposition, and elaborate on the efficient preparation of entangled many-body states.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a scheme in a driven Bose-Hubbard model augmented by global-range density-density interactions (realizable via cavity-mediated couplings in optical lattices) to engineer global kinetic constraints. Periodic driving of on-site energies is claimed to selectively suppress tunneling amplitudes according to the global even-odd site particle-number imbalance, while local tunneling rates remain tunable; this is used to implement a family of global controlled gates, with an explicit illustration for the N-qubit Toffoli gate that avoids two-body decomposition, and to prepare entangled many-body states.

Significance. If the central Floquet-engineering claim holds with clean suppression and controllable errors, the work would offer a direct route to multi-body and long-range constraints in cold-atom platforms, bypassing standard gate decompositions for certain quantum-computational tasks. The approach builds on standard Bose-Hubbard and cavity-QED ingredients and supplies a concrete gate example, which strengthens its potential utility for quantum simulation and computation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model and effective Hamiltonian (around the description of periodic driving)] The central claim that optimally chosen driving parameters produce selective tunneling suppression according to global even-odd imbalance rests on an unshown effective Floquet or Magnus-expanded Hamiltonian. No explicit derivation, parameter values, or estimate of residual time-dependent or higher-order terms appears in the model section or supplementary material, leaving the load-bearing mapping to constrained dynamics unverified.
  2. [Application to global gates (Toffoli illustration)] The proposal for the N-qubit Toffoli gate via the global constraint assumes that the induced suppression is sufficiently strong and free of unwanted effective interactions or heating; however, no quantitative error analysis, fidelity estimates, or comparison of the desired constraint scale to residual processes is provided.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and model] Notation for the even-odd imbalance operator and the local versus global tunneling amplitudes should be introduced with a single consistent definition early in the text.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the scheme is 'readily implementable' but does not cite specific cavity-QED or lattice parameters that would realize the required global density-density strength relative to the driving frequency.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and have made revisions to improve the clarity and completeness of the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model and effective Hamiltonian (around the description of periodic driving)] The central claim that optimally chosen driving parameters produce selective tunneling suppression according to global even-odd imbalance rests on an unshown effective Floquet or Magnus-expanded Hamiltonian. No explicit derivation, parameter values, or estimate of residual time-dependent or higher-order terms appears in the model section or supplementary material, leaving the load-bearing mapping to constrained dynamics unverified.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that an explicit derivation would strengthen the manuscript. The original submission focused on the physical implications, but we have now added a comprehensive derivation of the effective Floquet Hamiltonian using the Magnus expansion in a new supplementary section. This includes the chosen driving parameters that lead to the selective suppression of tunneling amplitudes conditioned on the global even-odd site particle-number imbalance, along with quantitative estimates of the residual higher-order terms to verify the validity of the approximation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Application to global gates (Toffoli illustration)] The proposal for the N-qubit Toffoli gate via the global constraint assumes that the induced suppression is sufficiently strong and free of unwanted effective interactions or heating; however, no quantitative error analysis, fidelity estimates, or comparison of the desired constraint scale to residual processes is provided.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing this out. To address this, we have added a quantitative analysis of the gate fidelity in the revised manuscript. This includes perturbative estimates of the error due to residual interactions and heating, as well as numerical fidelity calculations for the N-qubit Toffoli gate under the constrained dynamics for moderate system sizes. These additions demonstrate that the constraint scale can be made dominant over residual processes with appropriate parameter choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; effective model derived from microscopic driven Hamiltonian

full rationale

The proposal starts from the standard Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian with periodic on-site driving and global density-density interactions (implementable via cavity-mediated cold atoms). It applies Floquet/Magnus expansion to obtain an effective time-independent Hamiltonian in which tunneling amplitudes are suppressed according to global even-odd imbalance. This suppression is a calculable consequence of the chosen driving frequencies and amplitudes in the microscopic model, not presupposed or fitted to the target gate. The N-qubit Toffoli illustration follows directly from the resulting tunable effective interactions without reducing to self-definition, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks of Floquet theory and Bose-Hubbard physics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on the standard Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian plus periodic driving and cavity-mediated terms; driving amplitudes and frequencies are free parameters chosen to achieve the desired constraint.

free parameters (1)
  • driving amplitude and frequency
    Optimally chosen to induce selective tunneling suppression based on even-odd imbalance.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Bose-Hubbard model accurately describes cold atoms in optical lattices with cavity-mediated global interactions
    Invoked as the underlying platform for the driven system.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5685 in / 1182 out tokens · 41307 ms · 2026-05-22T15:53:28.667107+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    S. Will, T. Best, U. Schneider, L. Hackerm¨ uller, D.-S. L¨ uhmann, and I. Bloch, Nat465, 197 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Fedorov, L

    A. Fedorov, L. Steffen, M. Baur, M. P. da Silva, and A. Wallraff, Nat481, 170 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    R. J. Fletcher, R. Lopes, J. Man, N. Navon, R. P. Smith, M. W. Zwierlein, and Z. Hadzibabic, Sci355, 377 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    H.-N. Dai, B. Yang, A. Reingruber, H. Sun, X.-F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Nat. Phys.13, 1195 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    P. Sala, T. Rakovszky, R. Verresen, M. Knap, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. X10, 011047 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Petiziol, M

    F. Petiziol, M. Sameti, S. Carretta, S. Wimberger, and F. Mintert, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 250504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    O. Katz, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 063603 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    C. Luo, H. Zhang, C. Maruko, E. A. Bohr, A. Chu, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, arXiv preprint 6 arXiv:2410.12132 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, S. Nascimbene, S. Trotzky, Y.-A. Chen, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 255301 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [11]

    Greschner, L

    S. Greschner, L. Santos, and D. Poletti, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 183002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  11. [12]

    Bukov, L

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, Adv. Phys.64, 139 (2015)

    work page 2015

  12. [13]

    Meinert, M

    F. Meinert, M. J. Mark, K. Lauber, A. J. Daley, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 205301 (2016)

    work page 2016

  13. [14]

    Eckardt, Rev

    A. Eckardt, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 011004 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [15]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Annu. Rev. Conden. Ma. P. 10, 387 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [16]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [17]

    J. Choi, H. Zhou, H. S. Knowles, R. Landig, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. X10, 031002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [18]

    Geier, N

    S. Geier, N. Thaicharoen, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, A. Salzinger, A. Tebben, D. Grimshandl, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Sci374, 1149 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [19]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho,et al., Sci371, 1355 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [20]

    Scholl, H

    P. Scholl, H. J. Williams, G. Bornet, F. Wallner, D. Barredo, L. Henriet, A. Signoles, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, S. Geier,et al., PRX Quantum3, 020303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [21]

    Kalinowski, N

    M. Kalinowski, N. Maskara, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. X13, 031008 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [22]

    B.-Y. Sun, N. Goldman, M. Aidelsburger, and M. Bukov, PRX Quantum4, 020329 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [23]

    H.-K. Jin, J. Knolle, and M. Knap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 226701 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [24]

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller,et al., Nat534, 516 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [25]

    Schweizer, F

    C. Schweizer, F. Grusdt, M. Berngruber, L. Barbiero, E. Demler, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Nat. Phys.15, 1168 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [26]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kali- nowski, R. Samajdar,et al., Sci374, 1242 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [27]

    Satzinger, Y.-J

    K. Satzinger, Y.-J. Liu, A. Smith, C. Knapp, M. New- man, C. Jones, Z. Chen, C. Quintana, X. Mi, A. Dunsworth,et al., Sci374, 1237 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [28]

    Kitaev, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys-new. York.321, 2 (2006)

    work page 2006

  28. [29]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, Nat. Phys. , 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [30]

    Shi, Quantum Info

    Y. Shi, Quantum Info. Comput.3, 84 (2003)

    work page 2003

  30. [31]

    A Simple Proof that Toffoli and Hadamard are Quantum Universal

    D. Aharonov, arXiv preprint arXiv:quant-ph/0301040 (2003)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  31. [32]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  32. [33]

    H¨ aner, M

    T. H¨ aner, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, Quantum Info. Comput.17, 673 (2017)

    work page 2017

  33. [34]

    Gidney and M

    C. Gidney and M. Eker˚ a, Quantum5, 433 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [35]

    L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 325 (1997)

    work page 1997

  35. [36]

    T. Roy, S. Hazra, S. Kundu, M. Chand, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, Phys. Rev. Applied14, 014072 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [37]

    A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793 (1996)

    work page 1996

  37. [38]

    D. G. Cory, M. D. Price, W. Maas, E. Knill, R. Laflamme, W. H. Zurek, T. F. Havel, and S. S. Somaroo, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2152 (1998)

    work page 1998

  38. [39]

    Schindler, J

    P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, T. Monz, V. Nebendahl, D. Nigg, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Sci 332, 1059 (2011)

    work page 2011

  39. [40]

    M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frun- zio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nat.482, 382 (2012)

    work page 2012

  40. [41]

    Paetznick and B

    A. Paetznick and B. W. Reichardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090505 (2013)

    work page 2013

  41. [42]

    T. J. Yoder, R. Takagi, and I. L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. X6, 031039 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [43]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. A52, 3457 (1995)

    work page 1995

  43. [44]

    N. Yu, R. Duan, and M. Ying, Phys. Rev. A88, 010304 (2013)

    work page 2013

  44. [45]

    Smith, M

    E. Smith, M. G. Davis, J. Larson, E. Younis, L. B. Of- telie, W. Lavrijsen, and C. Iancu, ACM Trans. Quan- tum Comput.4, 5:1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [46]

    V. V. Shende and I. L. Markov, Quantum Info. Comput. 9, 461 (2009)

    work page 2009

  46. [47]

    T. Monz, K. Kim, W. H¨ ansel, M. Riebe, A. S. Villar, P. Schindler, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 040501 (2009)

    work page 2009

  47. [48]

    Song, S.-B

    C. Song, S.-B. Zheng, P. Zhang, K. Xu, L. Zhang, Q. Guo, W. Liu, D. Xu, H. Deng, K. Huang, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, and H. Wang, Nat. Commun.8, 1061 (2017)

    work page 2017

  48. [49]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 170503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  49. [50]

    Bækkegaard, L

    T. Bækkegaard, L. B. Kristensen, N. J. S. Loft, C. K. Andersen, D. Petrosyan, and N. T. Zinner, Sci. Rep.9, 13389 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [51]

    A. J. Baker, G. B. P. Huber, N. J. Glaser, F. Roy, I. Tsit- silin, S. Filipp, and M. J. Hartmann, Appl. Phys. Lett. 120, 054002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [52]

    Y. Kim, A. Morvan, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, C. J¨ unger, L. Chen, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Nat. Phys.18, 783 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [53]

    N. J. Glaser, F. Roy, and S. Filipp, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 044001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  53. [54]

    X. Dong, S. Liu, Y.-L. Mao, B. Guo, S. Xu, H. Chen, Y. Guo, Z.-D. Li, and J. Fan, Opt. Express, OE32, 39675 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [55]

    L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, K. Siva, Y. Kim, E. Younis, B. Qing, A. Hashim, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Nat. Commun.15, 7117 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [56]

    Liu, B.-J

    H.-T. Liu, B.-J. Chen, J.-C. Zhang, Y.-X. Xiao, T.-M. Li, K. Huang, Z. Wang, H. Li, K. Zhao, Y. Xu, C.-L. Deng, G.-H. Liang, Z.-H. Liu, S.-Y. Zhou, C.-P. Fang, X. Song, Z. Xiang, D. Zheng, Y.-H. Shi, K. Xu, and H. Fan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18319 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [57]

    X. Wang, A. Sørensen, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3907 (2001)

    work page 2001

  57. [58]

    S. E. Rasmussen, K. Groenland, R. Gerritsma, K. Schoutens, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. A101, 022308 (2020)

    work page 2020

  58. [59]

    Isenhower, M

    L. Isenhower, M. Saffman, and K. Mølmer, Quantum Inf. Process.10, 755 (2011)

    work page 2011

  59. [60]

    Motzoi, M

    F. Motzoi, M. Kaicher, and F. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. 7 Lett.119, 160503 (2017)

    work page 2017

  60. [61]

    Khazali and K

    M. Khazali and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. X10, 021054 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [62]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Maslov, and Y. Nam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  62. [63]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Borisenko, N. V. Semenin, K. P. Galstyan, A. E. Korolkov, E. O. Kiktenko, K. Y. Khabarova, I. A. Semerikov, A. K. Fedorov, and N. N. Kolachevsky, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07758 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [64]

    Sch¨ utz, S

    S. Sch¨ utz, S. B. J¨ ager, and G. Morigi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 083001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  64. [65]

    Landig, L

    R. Landig, L. Hruby, N. Dogra, M. Landini, R. Mottl, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Nat532, 476 (2016)

    work page 2016

  65. [66]

    M. A. Norcia, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. R. Cline, B. Zhu, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Sci361, 259 (2018)

    work page 2018

  66. [67]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Chen, Z. Wu, J. Wang, J. Fan, S. Deng, and H. Wu, Sci373, 1359 (2021)

    work page 2021

  67. [68]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 035002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [69]

    M. Ye, Y. Tian, J. Lin, Y. Luo, J. You, J. Hu, W. Zhang, W. Chen, and X. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 103601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [70]

    L. J. I. Moon, P. M. Schindler, Y. Sun, E. Druga, J. Knolle, R. Moessner, H. Zhao, M. Bukov, and A. Ajoy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05620 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [71]

    X. Wu, Z. Wang, F. Yang, R. Gao, C. Liang, M. K. Tey, X. Li, T. Pohl, and L. You, Nat. Phys.20, 1389 (2024)

    work page 2024

  71. [72]

    Guo, Y.-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y. Wang, R.-Y. Yan, Y.-J. Yi, Y.-L. Xu,et al., Nat630, 613 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [73]

    Hudomal, I

    A. Hudomal, I. Vasi´ c, N. Regnault, and Z. Papi´ c, Com- munications Physics3, 99 (2020)

    work page 2020

  73. [74]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Nat. Phys.17, 675 (2021)

    work page 2021

  74. [75]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Rep. Prog. Phys.85, 086501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  75. [76]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moess- ner, Annu. Rev. Conden. Ma. P.14, 443 (2023)

    work page 2023

  76. [77]

    Zhang, H

    P. Zhang, H. Dong, Y. Gao, L. Zhao, J. Hao, J.-Y. Desaules, Q. Guo, J. Chen, J. Deng, B. Liu,et al., Nat. Phys.19, 120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  77. [78]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner,et al., Nat551, 579 (2017)

    work page 2017

  78. [79]

    Khemani, M

    V. Khemani, M. Hermele, and R. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B101, 174204 (2020)

    work page 2020

  79. [80]

    Scherg, T

    S. Scherg, T. Kohlert, P. Sala, F. Pollmann, B. Hebbe Madhusudhana, I. Bloch, and M. Aidels- burger, Nat. Commun.12, 4490 (2021)

    work page 2021

  80. [81]

    G.-X. Su, H. Sun, A. Hudomal, J.-Y. Desaules, Z.-Y. Zhou, B. Yang, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, Z. Papi´ c, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Research5, 023010 (2023)

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.