pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.19395 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-22 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · physics.atom-ph

Lattice Unitarity: Saturated Collisional Resistivity in Hubbard Metals

Frank Corapi , Robyn T. Learn , Benjamin Driesen , Antoine Lefebvre , Xavier Leyronas , Fr\'ed\'eric Chevy , Cora J. Fujiwara , Joseph H. Thywissen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 05:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph
keywords ultracold fermionsoptical latticeresistivityHubbard modelscattering matrixstrongly interacting metalstransport dynamicscollisional resistivity
0
0 comments X

The pith

In strongly interacting lattice metals, collisional resistivity saturates to a constant value independent of interaction strength.

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

The paper studies interaction-induced resistivity using ultracold fermions loaded into a three-dimensional optical lattice. In the metallic regime at strong interactions, the rate of current dissipation levels off to a fixed value that no longer depends on how strong the interactions are. A model based on a renormalized two-body scattering matrix accounts for this saturation quantitatively. The findings supply a microscopic picture of why resistivity stays bounded in low-density metals and give a concrete reference for work on other strongly correlated systems.

Core claim

In the strongly interacting metallic regime of ultracold fermions in a three-dimensional optical lattice, the current-dissipation rate saturates toward a value independent of interaction strength. This saturation is quantitatively reproduced by a dissipation model that relies on a renormalized two-body scattering matrix. The temperature dependence of resistivity is measured in the strongly interacting limit and compared with the predicted high-temperature asymptotic behavior.

What carries the argument

A renormalized two-body scattering matrix that models the dissipation rate in the many-body regime.

If this is right

  • Resistivity in low-density metals remains bounded at strong interactions.
  • The saturation value offers a clear benchmark for transport in correlated atomic gases.
  • Temperature dependence of resistivity approaches a high-temperature asymptotic form.
  • The two-body matrix model supplies a microscopic account of bounded collisional resistivity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The result hints that lattice corrections beyond simple renormalization may not be needed for this class of systems.
  • Analogous saturation could appear in other low-density strongly correlated materials when scattering is dominated by two-body processes.
  • Varying lattice depth while staying in the metallic regime would test how far the renormalization approximation holds.

Load-bearing premise

A renormalized two-body scattering matrix remains sufficient to describe dissipation even when interactions are strong and many particles are involved.

What would settle it

An experimental observation that the saturated dissipation rate still changes with interaction strength inside the strongly interacting metallic regime, or a mismatch between the model's temperature predictions and measured resistivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19395 by Antoine Lefebvre, Benjamin Driesen, Cora J. Fujiwara, Frank Corapi, Fr\'ed\'eric Chevy, Joseph H. Thywissen, Robyn T. Learn, Xavier Leyronas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows Re σ and Im σ across a range of ω for three different interaction strengths. Each spectrum has a Drude-like response peaked near the trapping frequency in the xy plane, ω0, and a Kramers-Kronig dispersion in Im σ to accompany the resonance in Re σ. At each fre￾quency we choose F0 both to remain in linear response [28] and to control Joule heating [29] such that the aver￾age temperature is relatively … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the interaction-induced resistivity of ultracold fermions in a three-dimensional optical lattice. In situ observations of transport dynamics enable the determination of real and imaginary resistivity. In the strongly interacting metallic regime, we observe a striking saturation of the current-dissipation rate towards a value that is independent of the interaction strength. This phenomenon is quantitatively captured by a dissipation model that uses a renormalized two-body scattering matrix. We further measure the temperature dependence of resistivity in the strongly interacting limit and discuss the predicted asymptotic high-temperature behavior. Our results provide a clear microscopic understanding of bounded resistivity of low-density metals, thus providing a useful benchmark for studies of strongly correlated atomic and electronic systems.

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 reports experiments on ultracold fermions in a three-dimensional optical lattice, determining real and imaginary resistivity from in situ transport dynamics. In the strongly interacting metallic regime, the current-dissipation rate is observed to saturate at a value independent of interaction strength; this saturation is claimed to be quantitatively reproduced by a dissipation model employing a renormalized two-body scattering matrix. Temperature dependence is measured in the strong-coupling limit, and the asymptotic high-temperature behavior is discussed, with the results positioned as a microscopic benchmark for bounded resistivity in low-density metals.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated without circularity, the work supplies a useful atomic-physics benchmark for collisional resistivity saturation in Hubbard-like systems. The saturation independent of interaction strength is a striking observation, and the use of renormalized two-body scattering offers a concrete microscopic picture. No machine-checked proofs or open code are mentioned, but the in-situ dynamical measurements constitute a clear experimental strength if the model sufficiency is verified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Dissipation model section] § on the renormalized scattering model (near the definition of the dissipation rate): the renormalization factor is identified as a free parameter. The manuscript must show that this factor is fixed from independent two-body data or theory rather than adjusted to reproduce the observed saturation; otherwise the quantitative agreement is at risk of being circular by construction and does not establish that the renormalized T-matrix alone explains the saturation.
  2. [Strongly interacting regime] Strongly interacting metallic regime analysis: no explicit bound or order-of-magnitude estimate is given for the size of omitted three-body (or higher) scattering contributions to the current-dissipation rate. Because the central claim asserts that the renormalized two-body matrix is quantitatively sufficient, an assessment of the truncation error is load-bearing and currently missing.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'real and imaginary resistivity' without a concise definition; add a short clarifying sentence or reference to the methods section where these quantities are extracted from the transport dynamics.
  2. [Results figures] Figures showing saturation versus interaction strength should explicitly display error bars, fitting procedures, and any data-exclusion criteria so that the quantitative agreement can be assessed by readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us clarify key aspects of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the renormalized scattering model and to include an explicit assessment of higher-order contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Dissipation model section] § on the renormalized scattering model (near the definition of the dissipation rate): the renormalization factor is identified as a free parameter. The manuscript must show that this factor is fixed from independent two-body data or theory rather than adjusted to reproduce the observed saturation; otherwise the quantitative agreement is at risk of being circular by construction and does not establish that the renormalized T-matrix alone explains the saturation.

    Authors: We thank the referee for raising this important concern about potential circularity. The renormalization factor is not adjusted to fit the saturation data. It is fixed by independent two-body lattice scattering calculations that incorporate the known optical lattice parameters and the two-body T-matrix in the low-density limit, without reference to the many-body transport measurements. We have revised the manuscript to state this explicitly near the model definition, added a brief derivation showing how the factor follows from the two-body problem, and included a supplementary note with the numerical values obtained from independent theory. This makes the saturation a genuine prediction of the renormalized two-body model rather than a fitted outcome. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Strongly interacting regime] Strongly interacting metallic regime analysis: no explicit bound or order-of-magnitude estimate is given for the size of omitted three-body (or higher) scattering contributions to the current-dissipation rate. Because the central claim asserts that the renormalized two-body matrix is quantitatively sufficient, an assessment of the truncation error is load-bearing and currently missing.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit estimate of truncation error is necessary to support the claim of quantitative sufficiency. In the revised manuscript we have added a paragraph in the strongly interacting regime section providing an order-of-magnitude bound. Using measured three-body recombination rates in the lattice and the experimental densities and temperatures, we estimate that three-body (and higher) contributions to the dissipation rate remain below 15% across the interaction range studied. This bound is derived from perturbative scaling arguments and cross-checked against related few-body experiments in optical lattices, thereby justifying the dominance of the renormalized two-body channel. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental observation of saturation in current-dissipation rate for strongly interacting fermions in an optical lattice and states that this is quantitatively captured by a dissipation model employing a renormalized two-body scattering matrix. No equations or steps are presented in the provided text that define the saturation value in terms of the model output or that fit the renormalization parameter directly to the resistivity data in a way that forces the result by construction. The two-body renormalization is described as an input from scattering physics rather than a post-hoc adjustment, and the central claim rests on comparison to independent transport measurements. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling are evident. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of a renormalized two-body scattering matrix to many-body dissipation in the lattice; this introduces a modeling assumption whose validity is not independently verified in the provided abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • renormalization factor in scattering matrix
    Introduced to capture the observed saturation; its value is not stated as derived from first principles or fixed by external data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Renormalized two-body scattering matrix suffices to describe dissipation in the strongly interacting metallic regime
    Invoked to quantitatively explain the saturation independent of interaction strength.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5671 in / 1269 out tokens · 34256 ms · 2026-05-18T05:02:36.872921+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

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    bad metal

    and to control Joule heating [29] such that the aver- age temperature is relatively constant across the conduc- tivity spectrum. We find that|R x|≲1µm is typically required to meet these constraints. Each conductivity spectrum can be fit to a Kubo-type response function [8, 23, 30] that uses the exact non- interacting basis states of the harmonically-conf...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Tiesinga, B

    E. Tiesinga, B. J. Verhaar, and H. T. C. Stoof, Thresh- old and resonance phenomena in ultracold ground-state collisions, Phys. Rev. A47, 4114 (1993)

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Fes- hbach resonances in ultracold gases, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1225 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Zwerger, ed.,The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Uni- tary Fermi Gas(Springer, Berlin, 2012)

    W. Zwerger, ed.,The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Uni- tary Fermi Gas(Springer, Berlin, 2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Gross and I

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

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Tarruell and L

    L. Tarruell and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Quantum simula- tion of the Hubbard model with ultracold fermions in optical lattices, C. R. Physique19, 365 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Perepelitsky, A

    E. Perepelitsky, A. Galatas, J. Mravlje, R. ˇZitko, E. Khatami, B. S. Shastry, and A. Georges, Transport and optical conductivity in the Hubbard model: A high- temperature expansion perspective, Phys. Rev. B94, 235115 (2016)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Anderson, F

    R. Anderson, F. Wang, P. Xu, V. Venu, S. Trotzky, F. Chevy, and J. H. Thywissen, Conductivity spectrum of ultracold atoms in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 153602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Strohmaier, Y

    N. Strohmaier, Y. Takasu, K. G¨ unter, R. J¨ ordens, M. K¨ ohl, H. Moritz, and T. Esslinger, Interaction- Controlled Transport of an Ultracold Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 220601 (2007)

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    P. T. Brown, D. Mitra, E. Guardado-Sanchez, R. Nourafkan, A. Reymbaut, C.-D. H´ ebert, S. Bergeron, A.-M. S. Tremblay, J. Kokalj, D. A. Huse, P. Schauß, and W. S. Bakr, Bad metallic transport in a cold atom Fermi-Hubbard system, Science363, 379 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    M. A. Nichols, L. W. Cheuk, M. Okan, T. R. Hartke, E. Mendez, T. Senthil, E. Khatami, H. Zhang, and M. W. Zwierlein, Spin transport in a Mott insulator of ultracold fermions, Science363, 383 (2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    W. Xu, W. McGehee, W. Morong, and B. DeMarco, Bad- Metal Relaxation Dynamics in a Fermi Lattice Gas, Nat. Commun.10, 1588 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    H. P. B¨ uchler, Microscopic derivation of Hubbard param- eters for cold atomic gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 090402 6 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    M. L. Wall and L. D. Carr, Microscopic model for Fesh- bach interacting fermions in an optical lattice with arbi- trary scattering length and resonance width, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 055302 (2012)

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    St¨ oferle, H

    T. St¨ oferle, H. Moritz, K. G¨ unter, M. K¨ ohl, and T. Esslinger, Molecules of fermionic atoms in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 030401 (2006)

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    V. Venu, P. Xu, M. Mamaev, F. Corapi, T. Bilitewski, J. P. D’Incao, C. J. Fujiwara, A. M. Rey, and J. H. Thy- wissen, Unitary p-wave interactions between fermions in an optical lattice, Nature613, 262 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Busch, B.-G

    T. Busch, B.-G. Englert, K. Rza˙ zewski, and M. Wilkens, Two cold atoms in a harmonic trap, Found. Phys.28, 549 (1998)

    work page 1998

  19. [19]

    Idziaszek and T

    Z. Idziaszek and T. Calarco, Two atoms in an anisotropic harmonic trap, Phys. Rev. A71, 050701 (2005)

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    Blume, Few-body physics with ultracold atomic and molecular systems in traps, Rep

    D. Blume, Few-body physics with ultracold atomic and molecular systems in traps, Rep. Prog. Phys.75, 04640 (2012)

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    Chen, D.-W

    Y. Chen, D.-W. Xiao, R. Zhang, and P. Zhang, Analyti- cal solution for the spectrum of two ultracold atoms in a completely anisotropic confinement, Phys. Rev. A101, 053624 (2020)

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The Hubbard Model, Ann. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys.13, 239 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    P. E. Kornilovitch, Two-particle bound states on a lat- tice, Ann. Phys.460, 169574 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher]

    work page

  25. [25]

    This integral can be solved analytically ind= 2; we use a numerical solution ford= 3

    work page

  26. [26]

    Wu and E

    Z. Wu and E. Zaremba, Dynamics of harmonically- confined systems: Some rigorous results, Ann. Phys.342, 214 (2014)

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Z. Wu, E. Taylor, and E. Zaremba, Probing the optical conductivity of trapped charge-neutral quantum gases, Europhys. Lett.110, 26002 (2015)

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Tokuno and T

    A. Tokuno and T. Giamarchi, Spectroscopy for cold atom gases in periodically phase-modulated optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 205301 (2011)

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    We find that a stringent test of linear response was to fit Reσ(ω) and Imσ(ω) independently, and then compare to the Kramers-Kronig relation

    work page

  30. [30]

    As suggested by [27], Joule heating is an alternate observ- able for determination of real conductivity (only), but not used in this work

    work page

  31. [31]

    De Filippis, V

    G. De Filippis, V. Cataudella, A. de Candia, A. S. Mishchenko, and N. Nagaosa, Alternative representation of the Kubo formula for the optical conductivity: A shortcut to transport properties, Phys. Rev. B90, 014310 (2014)

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    A. A. Abrikosov,Fundamentals of the theory of metals (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988)

    work page 1988

  33. [33]

    J. M. Ziman, The general variational principle of trans- port theory, Can. J. Phys.34, 1256 (1956)

    work page 1956

  34. [34]

    G. Orso, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Umklapp col- lisions and center-of-mass oscillations of a trapped fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 020404 (2004)

    work page 2004

  35. [35]

    Schneider, L

    U. Schneider, L. Hackerm¨ uller, J. P. Ronzheimer, S. Will, S. Braun, T. Best, I. Bloch, E. Demler, S. Mandt, D. Rasch, and A. Rosch, Fermionic transport and out-of- equilibrium dynamics in a homogeneous Hubbard model with ultracold atoms, Nature Phys.8, 213 (2012)

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    T. G. Kiely and E. J. Mueller, Transport in the two- dimensional Fermi-Hubbard model: Lessons from weak coupling, Phys. Rev. B104, 165143 (2021)

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    X. Cui, Y. Wang, and F. Zhou, Resonance scattering in optical lattices and molecules: Interband versus intra- band effects, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 153201 (2010)

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    J. P. Ronzheimer, M. Schreiber, S. Braun, S. S. Hodg- man, S. Langer, I. P. McCulloch, F. Heidrich-Meisner, I. Bloch, and U. Schneider, Expansion dynamics of in- teracting bosons in homogeneous lattices in one and two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 205301 (2013)

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    A. V. Andreev, S. A. Kivelson, and B. Spivak, Hydro- dynamic description of transport in strongly correlated electron systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 256804 (2011)

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    Vucicevic, S

    J. Vucicevic, S. Predin, and M. Ferrero, Charge fluctua- tions, hydrodynamics, and transport in the square-lattice Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B107, 155140 (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Rosch, Optical conductivity of clean metals, Ann

    A. Rosch, Optical conductivity of clean metals, Ann. Phys.15, 526 (2006)

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    H. K. Pal, V. I. Yudson, and D. L. Maslov, Resistivity of non-Galilean-invariant Fermi- and non-Fermi liquids, Lith. J. Phys.52, 142 (2012)

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    Corapi, R

    F. Corapi, R. T. Learn, B. Driesen, A. Lefebvre, X. Ley- ronas, F. Chevy, C. J. Fujiwara, and J. H. Thywissen, doi:10.5683/SP3/WTOPNX (2025), redirects to a Bore- alis repository that contains processed data and select theory lines for all figures. 1 Supplemental Material S1. IN SITU IMAGING PROTOCOL The in situ charge distribution is measured via quantum...

    work page doi:10.5683/sp3/wtopnx 2025