Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 91 references

Tensor network methods for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation on fine grids

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tensor networks make Gross-Pitaevskii simulations possible on grids direct solvers cannot reach.

desk verdict Useful first demonstration of MPS-GPE with QFT-MPO and honest benchmarks, but the headline log-scaling claim ignores the phase MPOs and is likely unestablished in the fine-grid regime the paper motivates. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01149 v1 pith:XBJOSDOY submitted 2025-07-01 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Ryan J. J. Connor , Callum W. Duncan , Andrew J. Daley This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords Gross-PitaevskiiequationtensornetworksmatrixproductstatesquantumFouriertransformoperatorsvortexsheddingdipolargasesturbulence
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 claims that tensor-network methods, specifically matrix product states, can simulate the Gross-Pitaevskii equation on spatial grids that are impractical for direct numerical simulation. The decisive ingredient is a matrix product operator version of the quantum Fourier transform, whose bond dimension saturates at a small constant as the grid is refined, making spectral split-step evolution cheap. With this representation the cost grows as $O(\chi^4 \log M)$ in the number of grid points $M$, compared with $O(M \log M)$ for direct methods. Evidence includes soliton propagation, two- and three-dimensional vortex shedding up to a $128^3$ grid, and rotating dipolar gases, all with modest bond dimensions. If the required bond dimension stays low for the target experimental regimes, the method opens a route to resolving the small length scales in quantum turbulence and short-range dipolar interactions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the QFT-MPO: a matrix product operator representation of the quantum Fourier transform built from a tensor network of single-qubit Hadamard gates and controlled rotations. A matrix product state is a chain of tensors connected by bonds; the bond dimension $\chi$ controls how much correlation can be represented, so truncating singular values gives physically motivated data compression. The QFT-MPO carries the argument because kinetic-energy steps become diagonal multiplications in momentum space, and because its bond dimension saturates at a small constant (around 10 in 1D and for the sequential ordering in 2D) even when the grid is exponentially refined. Its application costs $O(N\chi^2)$ per Fourier transform, and the nonlinear term $|\Psi|^2$ dominates the per-step cost at $O(N\chi^4)$, giving the overall $O(\chi^4 \log M)$ scaling.

What would settle it

Run the QFT-MPO split-step method on forced quantum turbulence on $128^3$ and $256^3$ grids and record the maximum bond dimension needed for a fixed truncation error; the central claim is falsified if $\chi$ must double when the linear grid size doubles, since the cost then scales no better than a direct solver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that a matrix product state can encode solutions of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation with enough compression to make very fine grids practical, provided the state has restricted correlations. The central technical discovery is that the quantum Fourier transform can be implemented as a matrix product operator with bond dimension that does not grow with grid size: omitting the final bit-reversal step leaves an operator with exponentially decaying singular values, so the whole spectral split-step method can be run as MPS contractions. They verify this against analytic soliton solutions and against direct spectral simulations for vortex shedding, and they show that the maximum bond dimension stays in the tens during vortex formation, while the storage cost at a fixed bond dimension scales linearly in the MPS length, i.e. logarithmically in grid count. The same Fourier-based construction handles the nonlocal dipolar interaction as a convolution, with the interaction kernel's bond dimension growing only logarithmically with the MPS length. The paper concludes that for problems whose dynamics produce modest bond dimension, fine-grid cold-atom simulations, including 3D cases beyond $128^3$, become feasible.

Load-bearing premise

The whole speedup rests on the assumption that the condensate wavefunction can be represented by a matrix product state of small bond dimension; if correlations grow steeply with system size or time, the $O(\chi^4 \log M)$ advantage over direct simulation disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a fixed bond dimension, computer time grows only linearly with the length of the matrix product state, so doubling the linear grid resolution adds a small constant cost instead of an eightfold cost in 3D.
  • The compression ratio, measured as MPS parameters over direct-simulation parameters, improves exponentially as grids get finer; a 3D $128^3$ simulation with $\chi=64$ stores only about 4% of the direct-simulation data.
  • Split-step evolution with the QFT-MPO outperforms finite-difference RK4 in the tests, and fourth-order Trotter splitting allows larger time steps at similar or better accuracy.
  • Dipolar interactions, evaluated as a Fourier convolution, keep their representation cost logarithmic in grid count, so short-range dipole physics is accessible on finer grids.
  • The results provide a route to quantum-turbulence simulations with far better spatial resolution than direct numerical simulation, assuming the state's bond dimension stays bounded.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the QFT-MPO construction transfers to any nonlinear Schr\"odinger-type equation solved spectrally, so nonlinear optics and plasma models with similar structure could inherit the same logarithmic scaling.
  • Editorial inference: the method turns the bond dimension itself into a diagnostic of correlation structure; watching $\chi(t)$ across vortex-shedding and turbulence transitions could reveal when the compressible, low-entanglement description breaks down.
  • Editorial inference: a concrete stress test would be forced quantum turbulence with energy injected at large scales: the central claim survives only if the required $\chi$ grows more slowly than the grid count, so measuring $\chi$ at $256^3$ versus $128^3$ would settle the practical range.
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 develops matrix-product-state (MPS) based solvers for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation and its dissipative and dipolar generalizations. The central technical ingredient is a matrix-product-operator representation of the quantum Fourier transform, which allows a spectral (split-step) treatment of the kinetic term with an operator bond dimension that saturates as the grid is refined. The authors benchmark the method against an analytic bright-soliton solution and against XMDS2 direct numerical simulations for vortex shedding in two dimensions, and also present three-dimensional vortex-shedding simulations and a dipolar-gas rotation example. The central claim is that, for states with sufficiently small bond dimension, the computational cost scales as O(χ^4 log M) in the number of grid points M, enabling fine-grid simulations that would be impractical with direct numerical simulation.

Significance. If the central scaling claim holds, the paper would provide a useful new tool for cold-atom simulations where a wide range of length scales must be resolved, such as quantum turbulence and short-range dipolar interactions. The manuscript is noticeably stronger than a pure proposal: it includes quantitative error benchmarks against an analytic solution and against an independent direct solver, convergence checks over truncation cutoff and grid size, and explicit CPU-time versus grid-size measurements. The paper also honestly acknowledges, in the conclusion, that the achievable compression is physics-dependent and must be tested for each problem instance. The main reservation is that the central asymptotic cost claim is not yet supported by an analysis of all operators entering the split-step scheme, and the extrapolation to the very large grids invoked in the motivation goes beyond the sizes for which accuracy is demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B and Eq. (13)] This is the load-bearing point for the central logarithmic-scaling claim, and the omission needs to be addressed before the claim can be accepted as stated.
  2. [Section III.C] This comment is proportionate because the abstract and introduction emphasize turbulent dynamics, where the 3D demonstration is the most relevant evidence.
  3. [Section III.B.1, Fig. 14] This is not a request for a new research program; it is a request for consistency between the data actually shown and the strength of the claims made from it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A and Conclusion] The text in Section IV.A says the dipolar-interaction MPO bond dimension 'appears to scale logarithmically with MPS length,' while the Conclusion says it 'scales linearly in MPS length.' These statements are inconsistent as written; since M grows as 2^N, one of them is presumably intended to refer to log M, and the wording should be corrected.
  2. [General] The manuscript does not include a data-availability or code-availability statement. Releasing the MPS simulation code would substantially strengthen reproducibility, given the algorithmic detail that is necessarily compressed into the text.
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (17)] The notation in Eq. (17) defines a, b_n, and c_n, but the three tensors are not clearly labeled in Fig. 2, and the contraction order is described only verbally. A short explicit formula for the full QFT-MPO tensor network would help readers implement or verify the construction.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'an indispensable tool' in the first sentence of the Introduction contains a typo ('an' should be 'a'). Minor typographical errors of this kind appear in several places, including 'representat' in Section I.B and 'propigation' in the caption of Fig. 8.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is benchmarked against external analytic and direct numerical references, and the central scaling claims are not fitted to the target results.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that tensor network simulations of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation can achieve O(χ^4 log M) scaling and exponential data compression when the solution is well represented by a low-bond-dimension MPS. This claim is not derived from a self-referential loop. The accuracy of the method is checked against two independent external benchmarks: the analytic bright-soliton solution, via the error defined in Eq. (21), and direct numerical simulation using the XMDS2 package, via the error defined in Eq. (22). These comparisons are genuine external validations because no free parameters are fitted to the target simulation results; the only adjustable parameters are the truncation cutoff and bond dimension, which are convergence parameters, not fitted outputs. The QFT-MPO construction is imported from Ref. [42], which is an external prior result and is used as a tool; the paper's own contribution is the application to the GPE, and the efficiency of the QFT-MPO is separately measured in Figs. 3 and 5 rather than assumed from the target dynamics. The dipolar interaction kernels are taken from published formulas, and their MPS bond dimensions are measured directly by SVD truncation. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the limitation that the achievable compression depends on the physics of each instance, stating in the conclusion that 'the data compression one can achieve with tensor networks for a given problem will depend upon the physics of that instance.' This is an honest scope condition rather than a circular justification. The concern that the bond dimension of the phase operators in the split-step scheme is not analyzed is a correctness or completeness risk, not a circularity: it challenges an assumption about compressibility, but the paper does not define the claimed scaling in terms of the data it predicts. No self-citation is load-bearing, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted parameters. It relies on standard numerical mathematics (SVD, Fourier, Trotter) and on prior results for QFT-MPO representation. The main burden is the assumption that MPS bond dimensions stay small for the target dynamics; this is checked empirically for the demonstrated cases but not guaranteed beyond them.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The GPE with phenomenological damping models BEC dynamics.
    Used throughout; not derived in paper.
  • domain assumption The core QFT without final qubit reversal can serve as the Fourier transform in split-step methods.
    Relies on Ref [42]; the paper validates numerically against analytic soliton and exact derivatives.
  • standard math Trotter-Suzuki decomposition error bounds apply to the non-unitary modified GPE evolution operator.
    Used to construct second and fourth order split-step; standard approximation theory.
  • domain assumption Singular value truncation of MPS preserves accuracy within cutoff for studied dynamics.
    Convergence checks in Section III B; not a rigorous error bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tensor network methods for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation on fine grids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBJOSDOY

@misc{pith2026250701149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tensor network methods for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation on fine grids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBJOSDOY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01149}
}
read the original abstract

The Gross-Pitaevskii equation and its generalisations to dissipative and dipolar gases have been very useful in describing dynamics of cold atomic gases, as well as polaritons and other nonlinear systems. For some of these applications the numerically accessible grid spacing can become a limiting factor, especially in describing turbulent dynamics and short-range effects of dipole-dipole interactions. We explore the application of tensor networks to these systems, where (in analogy to related work in fluid and plasma dynamics), they allow for physically motivated data compression that makes simulations possible on large spatial grids which would be unfeasible with direct numerical simulations. Analysing different non-equilibrium cases involving vortex formation, we find that these methods are particularly efficient, especially in combination with a matrix product operator representation of the quantum Fourier transform, which enables a spectral approach to calculation of both equilibrium states and time-dependent dynamics. The efficiency of these methods has interesting physical implications for the structure in the states that are generated by these dynamics, and provides a path to describe cold gas experiments that are challenging for existing methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01149 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) Pictorial representation of tensor networks. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Two possible MPS orderings considering for 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Tensor network to implement the QFT on a 4 site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (22 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. a) Scaling of maximal bond dimension of the QFT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Maximal bond dimension of 2D QFT MPO for se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. a) Test function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Errors relative to analytic solution for bright soliton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of second (dots) and fourth (diamonds) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Demonstration of vortex shedding dynamic. A strong rectangular paddle potential is imposed on the BEC at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Convergence plots for vortex formation during the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. a) Maximal bond dimension of Ψ during vor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Vortex shedding simulation errors agaisnt XMDS2 as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. a) Number of vortices present in simulation domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_18.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Snapshots of the dynamics as four paddles are swept [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Snapshots of vortex formation after sweeping paddles through increasingly large harmonically trapped BECs, increas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Snapshots of 3D vortex shedding simulation run with a fixed bond dimension of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Snapshots of 3D vortex shedding simulation run with a fixed bond dimension of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Schematic of two interacting dipoles within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Maximal bond dimension scaling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Snapshots of the resultant dynamics of a dipolar gas with parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. Squared singular values of the MPS Ψ in descending [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. a) Errors from MPS based vortex shedding simu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. Method for construction of rounded paddles directly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. Bond dimension scaling for various truncation radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29. Maximal bond dimension scaling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_29.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This external potential, Vpad(x, t), which we call a ‘paddle’, has a fixed, rectan- gular shape, and is moved across the BEC with a sweep velocity v (see Fig

    Single Paddle We use our MPS based methods to now study the dynamics of a BEC when a strong external potential is swept through the system. This external potential, Vpad(x, t), which we call a ‘paddle’, has a fixed, rectan- gular shape, and is moved across the BEC with a sweep velocity v (see Fig. 10). To have a resemblance closer to that which occurs exp...

  2. [2]

    We consider an alter- native stirring mechanism, replacing the one large paddle with four smaller paddles, all aligned along the y direc- tion

    Multiple paddles Having demonstrated and bench-marked the ability of one to use tensor networks to perform simulations of the GPE in the previous sections, we now use our tensor network approach to further probe vortex dynamics and interactions in the modified GPE. We consider an alter- native stirring mechanism, replacing the one large paddle with four s...

    2024

  3. [3]

    J. D. Biamonte and V. Bergholm, arXiv: Quantum Physics (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Or´ us, Nat Rev Phys1, 538–550 (2019)

    R. Or´ us, Nat Rev Phys1, 538–550 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Or´ us, Annals of Physics349, 117–158 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, Annals of Physics349, 117–158 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96–192 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96–192 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    G. K.-L. Chan, A. Keselman, N. Nakatani, Z. Li, and S. R. White, Matrix product operators, matrix product states, and ab initio density matrix renor- malization group algorithms (2016), arXiv:1605.02611 [physics.chem-ph]. 17

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Paeckel, T

    S. Paeckel, T. K¨ ohler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollw¨ ock, and C. Hubig, Annals of Physics 411, 167998 (2019)

    2019

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Vanderstraeten, J

    L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Sci- Post Physics Lecture Notes 10.21468/scipostphyslect- notes.7 (2019)

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Physical Review B 94, 10.1103/phys- revb.94.165116 (2016)

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Evenbly and G

    G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Journal of Statistical Physics 145, 891–918 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Cichocki, Tensor networks for big data ana- lytics and large-scale optimization problems (2014), arXiv:1407.3124 [cs.NA]

    A. Cichocki, Tensor networks for big data ana- lytics and large-scale optimization problems (2014), arXiv:1407.3124 [cs.NA]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Schuch, M

    N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030504 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Iblisdir, R

    S. Iblisdir, R. Or´ us, and J. I. Latorre, Phys. Rev. B 75, 104305 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Hong, Y.-X

    R. Hong, Y.-X. Xiao, J. Hu, A.-C. Ji, and S.-J. Ran, Phys. Rev. B 105, 165116 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    et.al, Nat Comput Sci 2, 30–37(2022)

    N. et.al, Nat Comput Sci 2, 30–37(2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Kiffner and D

    M. Kiffner and D. Jaksch, (2023), arXiv:2303.03010

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ye and N

    E. Ye and N. F. G. Loureiro, Physical Review E 106, 10.1103/physreve.106.035208 (2022)

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Lubasch, P

    M. Lubasch, P. Moinier, and D. Jaksch, Journal of Com- putational Physics 372, 587–602 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Ye and N

    E. Ye and N. Loureiro, Quantized tensor net- works for solving the vlasov-maxwell equations (2024), arXiv:2311.07756 [physics.comp-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gourianov, P

    N. Gourianov, P. Givi, D. Jaksch, and S. B. Pope, Tensor networks enable the calculation of turbulence probability distributions (2024), arXiv:2407.09169 [physics.flu-dyn]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    H¨ olscher, P

    L. H¨ olscher, P. Rao, L. M¨ uller, J. Klepsch, A. Luckow, T. Stollenwerk, and F. K. Wilhelm, Quantum-inspired fluid simulation of 2d turbulence with gpu acceleration (2024), arXiv:2406.17823 [physics.flu-dyn]

    2024

  15. [23]

    Pethick, Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases , second edition

    C. Pethick, Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases , second edition.. ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Pitaevskii and S

    L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein condensa- tion and superfluidity (Oxford University Press, 2016) pp. 42–65

    2016

  17. [25]

    Proukakis, S

    N. Proukakis, S. Gardiner, M. Davis, and M. Szyma´ nska, Quantum Gases (IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS, 2013) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/p817

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Blakie, A

    P. Blakie, A. Bradley, M. Davis, R. Ballagh, and C. Gardiner, Advances in Physics 57, 363 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018730802564254

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    T. Z. Fischer and A. S. Bradley, Regimes of steady-state turbulence in a quantum fluid (2024), arXiv:2409.03184 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kobayashi, P

    M. Kobayashi, P. Parnaudeau, F. Luddens, C. Lothod´ e, L. Danaila, M. Brachet, and I. Danaila, Computer Physics Communications 258, 107579 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    A. W. Baggaley and N. G. Parker, Physical Review A 97, 10.1103/physreva.97.053608 (2018)

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    Hern´ andez-Rajkov, N

    D. Hern´ andez-Rajkov, N. Grani, F. Scazza, G. Del Pace, W. J. Kwon, M. Inguscio, K. Xhani, C. Fort, M. Mod- ugno, F. Marino, and G. Roati, Nature Physics 20, 939–944 (2024)

    2024

  23. [32]

    E. Poli, D. Baillie, F. Ferlaino, and P. B. Blakie, Excitations of a two-dimensional supersolid (2024), arXiv:2407.01072 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    B. T. E. Ripley, D. Baillie, and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053321 (2023)

    2023

  25. [34]

    Bland, G

    T. Bland, G. Lamporesi, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Comptes Rendus. Physique 24, 133–152 (2024)

    2024

  26. [35]

    Sabari, R

    S. Sabari, R. Kishor Kumar, and L. Tomio, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023313 (2024)

    2024

  27. [36]

    Gauthier, M

    G. Gauthier, M. T. Reeves, X. Yu, A. S. Bradley, M. A. Baker, T. A. Bell, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, M. J. Davis, and T. W. Neely, Science 364, 1264–1267 (2019)

    2019

  28. [37]

    Y. P. Sachkou, C. G. Baker, G. I. Harris, O. R. Stockdale, S. Forstner, M. T. Reeves, X. He, D. L. McAuslan, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, and W. P. Bowen, Science 366, 1480–1485 (2019)

    2019

  29. [38]

    Y. L. et al, New Journal of Physics 24, 10.1088/1367- 2630/ac8656 (2022)

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    Navon, C

    N. Navon, C. Eigen, J. Zhang, R. Lopes, A. L. Gaunt, K. Fujimoto, M. Tsubota, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadz- ibabic, Science 366, 382–385 (2019)

    2019

  31. [40]

    M. A. Norcia, C. Politi, L. Klaus, E. Poli, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and F. Ferlaino, Nature 596, 357–361 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    Tanzi, J

    L. Tanzi, J. G. Maloberti, G. Biagioni, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, and G. Modugno, Science 371, 1162–1165 (2021)

    2021

  33. [42]

    C. R. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, P. Cheiney, and L. Tarruell, Science359, 301–304 (2018)

    2018

  34. [43]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, and S. e. a. Zhang, Nature 631, 289–293 (2024)

    2024

  35. [44]

    J. Chen, E. Stoudenmire, and S. R. White, PRX Quan- tum 4, 10.1103/prxquantum.4.040318 (2023)

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    Sulem and P.-L

    C. Sulem and P.-L. Sulem, The nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation: self-focusing and wave collapse , Vol. 139 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2007)

    2007

  37. [46]

    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

  38. [47]

    D. S. Jin, M. R. Matthews, J. R. Ensher, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 764 (1997)

    1997

  39. [48]

    S. Choi, S. A. Morgan, and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4057 (1998)

    1998

  40. [49]

    Pitaevskii, Sov

    L. Pitaevskii, Sov. Phys.—JETP 8, 282 (1959)

    1959

  41. [50]

    V. A. Kazeev and B. N. Khoromskij, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 33, 742 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1137/100820479

    2012 doi

  42. [51]

    Fornberg, Mathematics of Computation 51, 699 (1988)

    B. Fornberg, Mathematics of Computation 51, 699 (1988)

    1988

  43. [52]

    Javanainen and J

    J. Javanainen and J. Ruostekoski, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 39, L179 (2006)

    2006

  44. [53]

    M. Feit, J. Fleck Jr, and A. Steiger, Journal of Compu- tational Physics 47, 412 (1982)

    1982

  45. [54]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential product formulas of higher orders, in Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005) p. 37–68

    2005

  46. [55]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information , Vol. 2 (Cambridge university press Cambridge, 2001)

    2001

  47. [56]

    Tyson, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral 36, 6813 (2002)

    J. Tyson, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral 36, 6813 (2002)

    2002

  48. [57]

    M. A. Nielsen, C. M. Dawson, J. L. Dodd, A. Gilchrist, D. Mortimer, T. J. Osborne, M. J. Bremner, A. W. Har- row, and A. Hines, Phys. Rev. A 67, 052301 (2003). 18

    2003

  49. [58]

    Z.-X. Gong, M. Foss-Feig, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 050501 (2017)

    2017

  50. [59]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Sci- entific Computing , 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press,

  51. [60]

    V. E. Zakharov and A. B. Shabat, Journal of Experimen- tal and Theoretical Physics 34, 62 (1970)

    1970

  52. [61]

    Salasnich, Optical and Quantum Electronics 49, 10.1007/s11082-017-1247-5 (2017)

    L. Salasnich, Optical and Quantum Electronics 49, 10.1007/s11082-017-1247-5 (2017)

    2017 doi

  53. [62]

    W. J. Kwon, G. Moon, S. W. Seo, and Y. Shin, Phys. Rev. A 91, 053615 (2015)

    2015

  54. [63]

    Onofrio, C

    R. Onofrio, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2228 (2000)

    2000

  55. [64]

    Raman, M

    C. Raman, M. K¨ ohl, R. Onofrio, D. S. Durfee, C. E. Kuklewicz, Z. Hadzibabic, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2502 (1999)

    1999

  56. [65]

    T. W. Neely, E. C. Samson, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, and B. P. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 160401 (2010)

    2010

  57. [66]

    W. J. Kwon, J. H. Kim, S. W. Seo, and Y. Shin, Physi- cal Review Letters 117, 10.1103/physrevlett.117.245301 (2016)

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    M. T. Reeves, T. P. Billam, B. P. Anderson, and A. S. Bradley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 155302 (2015)

    2015

  59. [68]

    M. R. Matthews, B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, D. S. Hall, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2498 (1999)

    1999

  60. [69]

    G. R. Dennis, J. J. Hope, and M. T. Johnsson, Computer Physics Communications 184, 201 (2013)

    2013

  61. [70]

    M. T. Reeves, T. P. Billam, B. P. Anderson, and A. S. Bradley, Phys. Rev. A 89, 053631 (2014)

    2014

  62. [71]

    B. D. Smith, L. W. Cooke, and L. J. LeBlanc, Computer Physics Communications 275, 108314 (2022)

    2022

  63. [72]

    Q. Tang, Y. Zhang, and N. J. Mauser, Computer Physics Communications 219, 223 (2017)

    2017

  64. [73]

    J. C. Smith, D. Baillie, and P. B. Blakie, Physical Review A 107, 10.1103/physreva.107.033301 (2023)

    2023 doi

  65. [74]

    C. Lobo, A. Sinatra, and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 020403 (2004)

    2004

  66. [75]

    Tsubota, K

    M. Tsubota, K. Kasamatsu, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 65, 023603 (2002)

    2002

  67. [76]

    Kasamatsu, M

    K. Kasamatsu, M. Tsubota, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 67, 033610 (2003)

    2003

  68. [77]

    Tsuzuki, Physics of Fluids 35, 047102 (2023), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0143556/16831261/047102 1 5.0143556.pdf

    S. Tsuzuki, Physics of Fluids 35, 047102 (2023), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0143556/16831261/047102 1 5.0143556.pdf

    2023 doi

  69. [78]

    Klaus, T

    L. Klaus, T. Bland, and E. e. a. Poli, Nat. Phys 18, 1453–1458 (2022)

    2022

  70. [79]

    S. B. Prasad, T. Bland, B. C. Mulkerin, N. G. Parker, and A. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. A 100, 023625 (2019)

    2019

  71. [80]

    Lagaris, A

    I. Lagaris, A. Likas, and D. Fotiadis, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 9, 987 (1998)

    1998

  72. [81]

    S. Cai, Z. Mao, Z. Wang, M. Yin, and G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks (pinns) for fluid me- chanics: A review (2021), arXiv:2105.09506 [physics.flu- dyn]

    2021 arXiv

  73. [82]

    S. Cai, Z. Wang, S. Wang, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Kar- niadakis, Journal of Heat Transfer 143, 060801 (2021), https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article- pdf/143/6/060801/6688635/ht 143 06 060801.pdf

    2021

  74. [83]

    L. A. Williamson and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 025301 (2016)

    2016

  75. [84]

    Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  76. [85]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Sci- Post Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  77. [86]

    Y. Cai, M. Rosenkranz, Z. Lei, and W. Bao, Phys. Rev. A 82, 043623 (2010)

    2010

  78. [87]

    Ticknor, R

    C. Ticknor, R. M. Wilson, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 065301 (2011)

    2011

  79. [88]

    B. C. Mulkerin, R. M. W. van Bijnen, D. H. J. O’Dell, A. M. Martin, and N. G. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 170402 (2013). Appendix A: Time evolution schemes

    2013

  80. [89]

    RK4 belongs to a class of Runge-Kutta solvers, however RK4 is most widely used for its good accuracy and stability for solving PDEs

    4th order Runge-Kutta A frequently used numerical scheme to perform time evolution of differential equations is that of Runge-Kutta 4 (RK4). RK4 belongs to a class of Runge-Kutta solvers, however RK4 is most widely used for its good accuracy and stability for solving PDEs. Giv...

  81. [90]

    TDVP is a local time-evolution method which evolves an MPS un- der the action of some Hamiltonian H

    TDVP evolution A further evolution scheme available to us is that of time dependent variational principle (TDVP). TDVP is a local time-evolution method which evolves an MPS un- der the action of some Hamiltonian H. TDVP works in a similar fashion to the famous DMRG algorithm, ...

  82. [91]

    (C4) Substituting into Eq

    T ranslational invariance If one assumes the condensate is uniform along the z direction, we can remove the spatial dependence along this direction as, Ψ(x, y, z) = ψ(x, y) . (C4) Substituting into Eq. (C1), and separating the z compo- nents of the Fourier transforms, one obta...

  83. [92]

    One can express Ψ as Ψ(x, y, z) = ψ(x, y)ϕ(z) , (C10) where ϕ(z) = ( mωz ℏπ ) 1 4 e −mωz 2ℏ z2 is the groundstate along the z direction

    Harmonically trapped If instead a sufficiently strong harmonic trap is applied along the z axis, then one can assume that the condensate remains in the groundstate of the harmonic trap along the z axis, and the dynamics unfold along the x − y plane [84]. One can express Ψ as Ψ...

Pith tools

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