Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Quantum simulation of thermodynamics: Maxwell relations for pair correlations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that every first- or second-derivative thermodynamic quantity of a many-body system can be reconstructed from the integrated pair-correlation function $G_2$ alone, via generalized Maxwell relations.

desk verdict A neat calculus identity made into a useful framework, with benchmarks that hold up; the experimental universality claim outruns what the math actually allows. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19407 v1 pith:DM2FYT6I submitted 2025-06-24 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mech

F. Rist , R. S. Watson , H. L. Nourse , B. J. Powell , K. V. Kheruntsyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mech
keywords Maxwellrelationsquantumsimulationpaircorrelationfunctionsthermodynamicsmany-bodysystemsLieb-LinigermodelHubbardtransverse-fieldIsing
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 establishes a universal route from a single measured correlation function to the full thermodynamics of a quantum many-body system. It derives generalized Maxwell relations in which any thermodynamic quantity $Y=(\partial F/\partial X)$ varies with interaction strength $c$ according to the derivative of the integrated pair correlation $G_2$ with respect to $X$. Because $Y(c)$ can be integrated from a known reference value $Y(c_0)$, quantities such as pressure, entropy, chemical potential, magnetization, heat capacity, and compressibility become accessible wherever $G_2$ can be measured or calculated. The authors validate the relations on the Lieb-Liniger gas, the Fermi- and Bose-Hubbard models, and the transverse-field Ising model, including at a quantum critical point. If correct, the method lets quantum simulators, which measure correlations far more easily than thermodynamics, supply direct thermodynamic comparison with materials experiments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the integrated pair-correlation function $G_2 = \langle \hat{G}_2 \rangle$, the expectation value of the two-body operator $\hat{G}_2$ that enters the Hamiltonian linearly as $c\hat{G}_2$. That operator is the thermodynamic conjugate of the interaction strength $c$, and the identity $\partial F/\partial c = G_2$ is the load-bearing mechanism: it converts the commutativity of mixed partial derivatives of the free energy into Maxwell relations that exchange derivatives with respect to $c$ for derivatives with respect to $T$, $V$, $N$, or field components. The integral forms of these relations use a known reference value $Y(c_0)$ and a sweep of $c$, which is experimentally available in quantum simulators, to reconstruct the full thermodynamic quantity $Y(c)$.

What would settle it

Perform a high-precision measurement of $G_2(T,V,N,c)$ in an ultracold Bose gas across a Feshbach resonance, reconstruct $P(c)$ via Eq. (6), and compare with direct pressure measurement; systematic deviations growing with $c$ would show where the exact-linear-coupling assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a pair of identities. For a Hamiltonian of the form $\hat{H} = \hat{H}_0 + c \hat{G}_2$, the Helmholtz free energy satisfies $\partial F/\partial c = G_2$ by the Hellmann-Feynman theorem, so mixed second derivatives of $F$ commute. This yields, for $Y = (\partial F/\partial X)_{c,\ldots}$, the generalized Maxwell relation $(\partial Y/\partial c)_{X,\ldots} = (\partial G_2/\partial X)_{c,\ldots}$, and for second derivatives $(\partial Y/\partial c)_{X,X',\ldots} = (\partial^2 G_2/\partial X\partial X')_{c,\ldots}$. Integrating these from $c_0$ to $c$ reconstructs $Y(c)$ from $Y(c_0)$ and the measured or calculated derivative of $G_2$. The paper benchmarks this scheme by reproducing exact results for Lieb-Liniger pressure, Fermi- and Bose-Hubbard chemical potentials with Mott gaps, transverse-field Ising magnetization and heat capacity, and by deriving a new high-temperature entropy expression for the Yang-Gaudin gas. It also shows that $G_2$ itself is a thermodynamic variable, whose derivative displays a $\lambda$ anomaly at the quantum critical point and yields the critical exponent of the order parameter.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the interaction strength $c$ enters the Hamiltonian only as one linear term $c\hat{G}_2$, with $c$ appearing nowhere else; if a real control knob changes anything else while tuning $c$, the central equality $\partial F/\partial c = G_2$ no longer holds exactly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any quantum simulator where $c$ can be tuned continuously, one dataset of $G_2(T,V,N,c)$ suffices to reconstruct pressure, entropy, chemical potential, magnetization, heat capacity, and compressibility.
  • Near a continuous phase transition, derivatives of $G_2$ inherit the singular behavior of free-energy derivatives, giving a correlation-based phase-transition signature and a route to critical exponents.
  • The same relations reproduce Mott-insulator gaps in both Fermi- and Bose-Hubbard models from $G_2$ alone, confirming the method in strongly correlated lattice systems.
  • The relations work in reverse: in materials where thermodynamic measurements are straightforward but correlation measurements are not, integrated correlation functions can be inferred from standard thermodynamic data.
  • For Hamiltonians with higher-body interactions, the pair correlation $G_2$ is replaced by the corresponding higher-order correlation function in the same Maxwell-relation construction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a natural test is thermometry: because entropy follows from $\partial G_2/\partial T$, a calibrated measurement of $G_2$ could assign absolute temperatures in quantum gas microscopes where standard thermometry is difficult.
  • For experimental tuning knobs that do not exactly realize $\hat{H} = \hat{H}_0 + c\hat{G}_2$, such as Feshbach resonances that also shift the effective range, the relations will acquire correction terms; quantifying these corrections per platform would extend the method to real devices.
  • The lambda anomaly in $\partial G_2/\partial h_z$ near the critical point suggests that correlation measurements could serve as a thermodynamic probe in two-dimensional materials, where substrate-dominated heat capacity blocks conventional thermodynamic measurements.
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 manuscript derives generalized Maxwell relations for Hamiltonians of the form H = H0 + c G2, where G2 is an integrated pair-correlation operator. The central identities are Eq. (5), relating the derivative of a thermodynamic quantity Y with respect to the interaction strength c to a derivative of G2 with respect to a standard thermodynamic variable X, and Eq. (7) for second derivatives, together with the integral forms Eqs. (6) and (8). The authors argue that this lets one reconstruct pressure, entropy, chemical potential, magnetization, heat capacity, and compressibility from measurements of G2, given a known reference value. They illustrate the method on the Lieb-Liniger model, the Yang-Gaudin model, the Fermi- and Bose-Hubbard models, and the transverse-field Ising model, benchmarking against exact Bethe-ansatz results, DMRG calculations, and the exact Ising solution. They also derive an approximate analytic entropy for the high-temperature Yang-Gaudin gas and show that ∂G2/∂hz displays a lambda anomaly near the Ising quantum critical point.

Significance. The theoretical content is elementary but broadly useful: the generalized Maxwell relations are exact identities with no fitted parameters, and the numerical benchmarks are extensive and convincing, including strong-interaction regimes and a quantum critical point. If the experimental claims are appropriately qualified, the method could provide a practical bridge between correlation-function measurements and thermodynamics in quantum simulators. The paper also gives credit to prior work by citing the existing Maxwell relation between entropy and atom-atom pair correlation and extends it to a full family of thermodynamic quantities. The main weakness is that the experimental universality claim rests on a linear-coupling assumption that is not satisfied by every control knob in current platforms, and this failure mode is not quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Maxwell relations; Conclusions] The central reconstruction formula, Eq. (17), relies on the exact linear-coupling assumption H(c) = H0 + c G2 with H0 and G2 independent of c. The paper's claim that the approach is 'readily accessible in quantum simulators' (abstract and Conclusions) is not supported for common tuning schemes where this condition fails: Feshbach sweeps alter the effective range of the interaction, optical-lattice depth changes both t and the Wannier functions defining the onsite operators, and trapped-ion laser-induced spin couplings generically produce AC-Stark shifts in H0. In such cases Eq. (17) acquires extra terms involving ∂H0/∂c and ∂G2/∂c, and Eqs. (5)-(8) receive corrections that the paper neither derives nor bounds. The benchmarks, e.g., Eq. (26) for the transverse-field Ising model with hx held fixed, deliberately keep H0 and G2 c-independent and therefore do not test this failure mode. Please either restrict the experimental universality claim to control knobs that realize the exact linear coupling, or provide a quantitative error estimate for representative experimental platforms.
  2. [Methods, Transverse field Ising model] The heat-capacity benchmark in Fig. 2f is obtained after employing a Savitzky-Golay filter to smooth G2 at low temperatures, but the manuscript does not report the filter window, polynomial order, or any comparison of the smoothed second derivative with the raw numerical second derivative. Since CV is a second derivative of G2 (Eq. (13)), the filter can introduce a systematic bias that is not visible in the figure. Please provide the filter parameters and a convergence or robustness study, for example by varying the window width, before the agreement with the energy-variance calculation can be taken as quantitative.
  3. [Table I, Eq. (12)] With m defined as -V^{-1}∇_h F in the main text and G2 defined as the expectation value of the extensive operator in Eq. (3), the Maxwell relation should read ∂m/∂c = -V^{-1} ∂G2/∂h, not -∂G2/∂h. The derivation in Supplementary Information S6 appears to use the intensive nearest-neighbour correlation per bond (Eq. S11) instead, so Eq. (12) in Table I is correct only if G2 is redefined as an intensive quantity. Please make the extensive/intensive convention explicit and consistent throughout, since a reader implementing Eq. (12) with the paper's Eq. (3) definition would obtain results off by a factor of the system volume.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Eqs. (6) and (8)] The phrase 'from G2 alone' overstates the input required: one also needs the reference value Y(c0) and derivatives of G2 with respect to X at every intermediate c. Suggest softening this wording.
  2. [References] Ref. [4] duplicates Ref. [1] (Kalmutzki, Hanikel, and Yaghi) and is presumably meant to be a different paper on atomically thin materials; please correct.
  3. [Methods, Lieb-Liniger model] The pressure benchmark is described as 'setting c0 → ∞', but Eq. (6) is written as an integral from c0 to c; please state the limiting procedure and the Tonks-Girardeau reference value explicitly.
  4. [Supplementary Information S1] The extensivity argument for G2 infers extensivity of G2 from extensivity of cG2 and the kinetic energy; this inference assumes short-range interactions, so the statement that 'G2 is a thermodynamic variable' should be qualified to short-range pairwise interactions.
  5. [Fig. 2e inset; Supplementary Information S7] The critical-exponent extraction uses the exact order-parameter form m_z = (1-(|c|/hx)^{-2})^β to construct Eq. (S14); this is a useful consistency check, but the text should state that the exponent is recovered from the known form, not determined independently from the G2 data alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the generalized Maxwell relations are exact mathematical identities derived from the stated Hamiltonian form, and the benchmarks are independent numerical cross-checks rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The paper defines the Hamiltonian as H = H0 + c G2 and uses the Hellmann–Feynman theorem to obtain ∂F/∂c = G2 (Eq. 17). The generalized Maxwell relations (Eqs. 5 and 7) then follow directly from commutativity of mixed partial derivatives of the free energy, and the integral forms (Eqs. 6 and 8) are just the fundamental theorem of calculus. No parameter is fitted to the quantities being 'predicted'; instead, the paper benchmarks the relations by comparing two independent numerical or exact routes to the same thermodynamic quantity (e.g., DMRG-computed G2 integrated via the Maxwell relation versus direct free-energy derivatives, or versus TBA/Bethe-ansatz results). This is an internal consistency and verification exercise, not a circular reduction. The self-citation to Ref. [23] (Watson, Coleman, Kheruntsyan) is contextual—it is mentioned as prior work on an entropy–pair-correlation Maxwell relation and for comparison of the high-temperature entropy result—but it is not load-bearing for the derivation, which is proved from first principles in the Methods. The main physical assumption, that the control parameter c enters the Hamiltonian exactly as c G2, is a stated condition of the model rather than a hidden import; if violated in a particular simulator, the relation would require correction terms, which is a limitation but not a circularity. Overall, the paper is mathematically self-consistent and does not reduce its central claim to its inputs.

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

No free parameters are fitted. The central claim rests on standard calculus and statistical mechanics identities plus the linear-coupling form of the Hamiltonian. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Schwarz's theorem: mixed second partial derivatives of the Helmholtz free energy F with respect to c and X commute.
    Used in Eq. (4) to derive the generalized Maxwell relation; requires F to be twice continuously differentiable in (c,X), which can fail at phase transitions.
  • standard math Hellmann-Feynman theorem: ∂F/∂c = ⟨∂Ĥ/∂c⟩ = G2.
    Invoked in Eq. (17) and in the Methods section to identify the derivative of the free energy with respect to the interaction strength as the integrated pair correlation.
  • domain assumption The interaction term in the Hamiltonian is exactly linear in the interaction strength c: Ĥ = Ĥ0 + c Ĝ2.
    Eq. (1); this is the load-bearing premise of the extraction scheme, since a more general dependence of Ĥ on c would change the conjugate relation.
  • domain assumption The free energy obeys the generalized fundamental relation dF = -S dT - P dV + μ dN + G2 dc.
    Eq. (S1) in the Supplementary Information; assumes G2 is an extensive thermodynamic parameter conjugate to c, which is required for the Maxwell relations and the generalized Gibbs-Duhem relation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum simulation of thermodynamics: Maxwell relations for pair correlations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DM2FYT6I

@misc{pith2026250619407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum simulation of thermodynamics: Maxwell relations for pair correlations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DM2FYT6I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19407}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum simulators hold enormous promise for advancing the modelling of materials and understanding emergent physics, such as high temperature superconductivity and topological order. While correlation functions are, typically, straightforward to measure in quantum simulators, thermodynamic properties are not. This limits our ability to directly compare the results of quantum simulations to experiments on the materials being modelled. Maxwell relations are an extremely powerful tool for characterising complex materials, as they enable the determination of challenging-to-measure thermodynamic properties from more accessible ones. Here, we introduce generalised Maxwell relations that relate every thermodynamic quantity to a single local correlation function. We illustrate their utility by deducing the thermodynamic properties of several iconic quantum many-body models from pair correlation functions using the generalised Maxwell relations. We show that this {universal} approach is readily accessible in quantum simulators and suggest applications to condensed matter systems where thermodynamic measurements are challenging, such as atomically thin materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19407 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An illustration of the key idea behind this work: a quantum gas microscope (left) or an ion trap (right) measures the two-atom or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of thermodynamic quantities calculated from: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    R. S. Watson, C. Coleman, and K. V . Kheruntsyan, Maxwell relation between entropy and atom-atom pair correlation, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 100403 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxi- ras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Y . Xia, Z. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Superconductivity in twisted bilayer WSe2, Nature637, 833 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    M. J. Kalmutzki, N. Hanikel, and O. M. Yaghi, Secondary building units as the turning point in the development of the reticular chemistry of MOFs, Sci. Adv.4, eaat9180 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    B. Lowe, B. Field, J. Hellerstedt, J. Ceddia, H. L. Nourse, B. J. Powell, N. V . Medhekar, and A. Schiffrin, Local gate control of Mott metal-insulator transition in a 2D metal-organic frame- work, Nat. Comm.15, 3559 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Takenaka, K

    T. Takenaka, K. Ishihara, M. Roppongi, Y . Miao, Y . Mizukami, T. Makita, J. Tsurumi, S. Watanabe, J. Takeya, M. Yamashita, K. Torizuka, Y . Uwatoko, T. Sasaki, X. Huang, W. Xu, D. Zhu, N. Su, J.-G. Cheng, T. Shibauchi, and K. Hashimoto, Strongly correlated superconductivity in a copper-based metal-organic framework with a perfect kagome lattice, Sci. Adv...

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    B. J. Powell, Emergent particles and gauge fields in quantum 6 matter, Contemp. Phys.61, 96 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digital quan- tum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges, Nat

    B. Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digital quan- tum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges, Nat. Comm.15, 2123 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    M. F. Parsons, A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Site-resolved measurement of the spin-correlation function in the Fermi-Hubbard model, Science353, 1253 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Bourgund, T

    D. Bourgund, T. Chalopin, P. Bojovi ´c, H. Schlömer, S. Wang, T. Franz, S. Hirthe, A. Bohrdt, F. Grusdt, I. Bloch, and T. A. Hilker, Formation of individual stripes in a mixed-dimensional cold-atom Fermi–Hubbard system, Nature637, 57 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quan- tum simulator, Nature595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kalinowski, R. Sama- jdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Hensgens, T

    T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, L. Janssen, X. Li, C. J. Van Diepen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, S. Das Sarma, and L. M. K. Vander- sypen, Quantum simulation of a Fermi–Hubbard model using a semiconductor quantum dot array, Nature548, 70 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J. I.- J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Salathé, M

    Y . Salathé, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, J. Heinsoo, P. Kurpiers, A. Poto ˇcnik, A. Mezzacapo, U. Las Heras, L. Lamata, E. Solano, S. Filipp, and A. Wallraff, Digital quantum sim- ulation of spin models with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. X5, 021027 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V . Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y . Yao, Pro- grammable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    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, B.-W. Li, Y .-H. Hou, Y .- Z. Xu, W.-X. Guo, C. Zhang, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, L. He, and L.-M. Duan, A site-resolved two-dimensional quantum simula- tor with hundreds of trapp...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Kim, M.-S

    K. Kim, M.-S. Chang, S. Korenblit, R. Islam, E. E. Edwards, J. K. Freericks, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Quan- tum simulation of frustrated ising spins with trapped ions, Na- ture465, 590 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    B. P. Lanyon, C. Hempel, D. Nigg, M. Müller, R. Ger- ritsma, F. Zähringer, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Rambach, G. Kirchmair, M. Hennrich, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Universal digital quantum simulation with trapped ions, Sci- ence334, 57 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    H. B. Callen,Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermo- statistics(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1985)

    1985

  14. [22]

    Werner, O

    F. Werner, O. Parcollet, A. Georges, and S. R. Hassan, Interaction-induced adiabatic cooling and antiferromagnetism of cold fermions in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 056401 (2005)

    2005

  15. [24]

    Chen, Y .-Z

    Y .-Y . Chen, Y .-Z. Jiang, X.-W. Guan, and Q. Zhou, Critical be- haviours of contact near phase transitions, Nat. Comm.5, 5140 (2014)

    2014

  16. [25]

    W. E. Liu, Z.-Y . Shi, M. M. Parish, and J. Levinsen, Theory of radio-frequency spectroscopy of impurities in quantum gases, Phys. Rev. A102, 023304 (2020)

    2020

  17. [26]

    E. H. Lieb and W. Liniger, Exact analysis of an interacting Bose gas. I. The general solution and the ground state, Phys. Rev. 130, 1605 (1963)

    1963

  18. [27]

    Pethick and H

    C. Pethick and H. Smith,Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New York, 2008)

    2008

  19. [28]

    M. L. Kerr, G. D. Rosi, and K. V . Kheruntsyan, Analytic ther- modynamic properties of the Lieb-Liniger gas, SciPost Phys. Core7, 047 (2024)

    2024

  20. [29]

    E. H. Lieb and F. Y . Wu, Absence of Mott Transition in an Exact Solution of the Short-Range, One-Band Model in One Dimen- sion, Phys. Rev. Lett.20, 1445 (1968)

    1968

  21. [30]

    E. H. Lieb and F. Wu, The one-dimensional Hubbard model: a reminiscence, Physica A: Stat. Mech. Appl.321, 1 (2003)

    2003

  22. [31]

    Yang and C

    C.-N. Yang and C. P. Yang, Thermodynamics of a one- dimensional system of bosons with repulsive delta-function in- teraction, J. Math. Phys.10, 1115 (1969)

    1969

  23. [32]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormal- ization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  24. [33]

    Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann

    U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. (N. Y .)326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  25. [34]

    C. N. Yang, Some Exact Results for the Many-Body Problem in one Dimension with Repulsive Delta-Function Interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 1312 (1967)

    1967

  26. [35]

    Gaudin, Un systeme a une dimension de fermions en inter- action, Phys

    M. Gaudin, Un systeme a une dimension de fermions en inter- action, Phys. Lett. A24, 55 (1967)

    1967

  27. [36]

    Zhao, X.-W

    E. Zhao, X.-W. Guan, W. V . Liu, M. T. Batchelor, and M. Os- hikawa, Analytic thermodynamics and thermometry of gaudin- yang fermi gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 140404 (2009)

    2009

  28. [37]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Doping a Mott insula- tor: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  29. [38]

    Milloch, M

    A. Milloch, M. Fabrizio, and C. Giannetti, Mott materials: un- successful metals with a bright future, npj Spintronics2, 49 (2024)

    2024

  30. [39]

    Ouyang, J

    S.-D. Ouyang, J. Liu, S.-H. Xiang, and K.-H. Song, Ground State Property of a One-Dimensional Bose—Hubbard Model Using Time-Evolving Body Decimation, Chin. Phys. Lett.30, 086701 (2013)

    2013

  31. [40]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New York, 2011)

    2011

  32. [41]

    B. M. McCoy, Spin Correlation Functions of theX−YModel, Phys. Rev.173, 531 (1968)

    1968

  33. [42]

    Pfeuty, The one-dimensional Ising model with a transverse field, Ann

    P. Pfeuty, The one-dimensional Ising model with a transverse field, Ann. Phys. (N. Y .)57, 79 (1970)

    1970

  34. [43]

    Leeuwenhoek, S

    M. Leeuwenhoek, S. Gröblacher, M. P. Allan, and Y . M. Blanter, Modeling Green’s function measurements with two- tip scanning tunneling microscopy, Phys. Rev. B102, 115416 (2020)

    2020

  35. [44]

    Q. Niu, M. C. Chang, and C. K. Shih, Double-tip scanning tun- neling microscope for surface analysis, Phys. Rev. B51, 5502 (1995)

    1995

  36. [45]

    J. M. Byers and M. E. Flatté, Probing spatial correlations with nanoscale two-contact tunneling, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 306 (1995)

    1995

  37. [46]

    Hellmann, Zur Rolle der kinetischen Elektronenenergie für 7 die zwischenatomaren Kräfte, Z

    H. Hellmann, Zur Rolle der kinetischen Elektronenenergie für 7 die zwischenatomaren Kräfte, Z. Phys.85, 180 (1933)

    1933

  38. [47]

    R. P. Feynman, Forces in molecules, Phys. Rev.56, 340 (1939)

    1939

  39. [48]

    K. V . Kheruntsyan, D. M. Gangardt, P. D. Drummond, and G. V . Shlyapnikov, Pair correlations in a finite-temperature 1D Bose gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 040403 (2003)

    2003

  40. [49]

    S. A. Simmons, F. A. Bayocboc, J. C. Pillay, D. Colas, I. P. McCulloch, and K. V . Kheruntsyan, What is a quantum shock wave?, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 180401 (2020)

    2020

  41. [50]

    X.-W. Guan, M. T. Batchelor, and C. Lee, Fermi gases in one dimension: From bethe ansatz to experiments, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1633 (2013)

    2013

  42. [51]

    A. E. Feiguin and S. R. White, Finite-temperature density ma- trix renormalization using an enlarged Hilbert space, Phys. Rev. B72, 220401 (2005)

    2005

  43. [52]

    Savitzky and M

    A. Savitzky and M. Goly, Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures, Anal. Chem.36, 1627 (1964)

    1964

  44. [53]

    R. A. Alberty, Use of Legendre transforms in chemical thermo- dynamics (IUPAP Technical Report), J. Chem. Thermodyn.34, 1787 (2002)

    2002

  45. [54]

    O. I. P⸠tu and A. Klümper, Thermodynamics, contact, and den- sity profiles of the repulsive Gaudin-Yang model, Phys. Rev. A 93, 033616 (2016)

    2016

  46. [55]

    Tan, Large momentum part of a strongly correlated Fermi gas, Ann

    S. Tan, Large momentum part of a strongly correlated Fermi gas, Ann. Phys. (N. Y .)323, 2971 (2008)

    2008

  47. [56]

    Tan, Generalized virial theorem and pressure relation for a strongly correlated Fermi gas, Ann

    S. Tan, Generalized virial theorem and pressure relation for a strongly correlated Fermi gas, Ann. Phys. (N. Y .)323, 2987 (2008)

    2008

  48. [57]

    Barth and W

    M. Barth and W. Zwerger, Tan relations in one dimension, Ann. Phys. (N. Y .)326, 2544 (2011)

    2011

  49. [58]

    He, Y .-Y

    W.-B. He, Y .-Y . Chen, S. Zhang, and X.-W. Guan, Universal properties of Fermi gases in one dimension, Phys. Rev. A94, 031604 (2016). Methods Maxwell relations The generalised Maxwell relations involving correlation func- tions are derived here in the canonical formalism of s...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.