Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev physics from the Hubbard model: A Floquet engineering approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A periodically driven Bose-Hubbard chain can reproduce the defining signatures of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, including its universal spectral form factor and non-local scrambling, offering a practical optical-lattice route to SYK physics.

desk verdict Useful Floquet-SYK proposal with an honest but untested Magnus truncation; worth refereeing, but the practical claim needs finite-frequency checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.02755 v2 pith:NXQARKXX submitted 2025-12-02 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elgr-qcquant-ph

Charles Creffield , Fernando Sols , Marco Schirò , Nathan Goldman This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elgr-qcquant-ph
keywords Sachdev-Ye-KitaevmodelFloquetengineeringBose-Hubbardspectralformfactorout-of-time-orderedcorrelatorkineticdrivingquantumchaosopticallattices
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 claims that a simple periodic modulation of hopping in the Bose-Hubbard model—kinetic driving—produces an effective Hamiltonian with the same quartic all-to-all interaction structure as the bosonic Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev (SYK) model. The drive cancels single-particle hopping and generates long-range, quasi-random couplings. Exact diagonalization shows that the spectral form factor of this effective model collapses onto the universal drop-ramp-plateau curve, and the out-of-time-ordered correlators match the SYK result after a single time rescaling. The authors conclude that shaking an optical lattice is a practical way to simulate SYK physics in cold atoms.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective Hamiltonian H_KDBH (Eq. EM8) with interaction amplitudes Q_ijkl given by Eq. EM9, obtained from the lowest-order Magnus expansion of the driven Bose-Hubbard model. These amplitudes are Bessel-function-weighted momentum sums that eliminate single-particle hopping and generate quartic, number-conserving, long-range interactions. The comparison machinery is the spectral form factor (SFF) and the normalized out-of-time-order correlator (OTOC), computed by exact diagonalization in a symmetry-restricted sector.

What would settle it

Simulate the full periodically driven Bose-Hubbard model at finite driving frequency (e.g., ω ~ 3–10 U) and compute the stroboscopic SFF and OTOC; if these deviate from the effective KDBH predictions or require ω so large that heating dominates, the claimed practical platform would fail. An experiment could measure OTOCs in a shaken optical lattice and compare directly with the effective-model prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the kinetically driven Bose-Hubbard model, with hopping J(t)=J0 cos(ωt), has a high-frequency effective Hamiltonian H_KDBH consisting solely of quartic terms U∑Q_ijkl b†_i b†_j b_k b_l, where the Q amplitudes are determined by Bessel functions and decay with distance. Although these amplitudes are not random and the Hamiltonian is about 50% sparse, the spectral form factor shows the universal SYK drop-ramp-plateau structure with ramp time scaling as 1/D, and the averaged OTOC decays in the same form as the bosonic SYK model. The authors verify this by exact diagonalization for several system sizes and driving parameters, concluding that kinetic driving of Hubbard-t

Load-bearing premise

The entire validation is performed on the static effective Hamiltonian from the lowest-order Magnus expansion, relying on ω≫U to make higher-order many-body terms negligible, but the paper does not test this by simulating the actual time-dependent driven system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the Bose-Hubbard model with periodically modulated hopping provides a feasible experimental path to SYK physics in existing cold-atom optical lattices.
  • The effective model exhibits the universal drop-ramp-plateau SFF, indicating spectral rigidity and quantum chaos at all timescales.
  • OTOCs decay immediately regardless of operator separation, confirming the absence of spatial locality and the presence of fast scrambling.
  • The method extends to fermionic Hubbard models with nearest-neighbor interactions, giving the same Q amplitude distribution and thus the potential to simulate fermionic SYK models.
  • Sparse and non-Gaussian interaction distributions (about 50% non-zero amplitudes) do not break the SYK universality, supporting the use of sparse SYK models in experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper validates only the static effective Hamiltonian, not the full time-dependent Floquet dynamics; a natural next step is to check whether finite-frequency corrections preserve the SFF and OTOC signatures.
  • Since the Q amplitudes fall off with distance, the model is effectively long-range but not fully random; one might expect a size or energy-scale crossover beyond which SYK signatures degrade—this crossover is not analyzed.
  • The authors show that breaking translational symmetry improves the Gaussian character of the amplitude distribution, suggesting that engineered disorder could make the effective model even closer to the SYK ensemble.
  • If heating can be controlled, the same kinetic-driving mechanism could be adapted to simulate other all-to-all random-interaction models beyond SYK, such as generalized sparse random Hamiltonians or higher-dimensional driven lattices.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Floquet-engineering scheme, termed kinetic driving, in which the hopping amplitude of a Hubbard model is modulated as J(t)=J0 cos ωt so that the time-averaged single-particle hopping vanishes. In the high-frequency limit, a Magnus expansion yields an effective static Hamiltonian, the KDBH model, consisting of all-to-all quartic interactions with deterministic amplitudes Q_{ijkl} (Eqs. EM8-EM9). The authors argue that this structure resembles the bosonic SYK model, and they support this by exact-diagonalization studies of the spectral form factor and infinite-temperature OTOCs, comparing against a Gaussian random bosonic SYK model. The central claim is that a shaken optical lattice provides a practical and accurate platform for quantum simulation of SYK physics. All numerical diagnostics are computed on the lowest-order effective Hamiltonian H_KDBH, not on the full time-dependent Floquet system.

Significance. If the leading-order effective Hamiltonian faithfully represents the driven lattice, the proposal is significant: it offers a relatively simple cold-atom route toward a bosonic SYK-like model, with analytic control over the generated couplings. The derivation of H_KDBH is transparent and the SFF collapse in Fig. 2 is a genuinely suggestive signature of nonlocal chaotic dynamics. The paper also provides a useful contrast with the undriven Bose-Hubbard model, showing that its SFF lacks the universal ramp. The use of exact diagonalization on finite systems is appropriate, and the comparison with an independently defined Gaussian SYK model for OTOCs is a reasonable benchmark. However, the evidence is currently incomplete in one load-bearing respect: the validation never tests whether the truncated Magnus expansion describes the actual time-dependent driven system, despite the paper explicitly acknowledging that higher-order terms are neglected.

major comments (4)
  1. [§Model and End Matter after Eq. (EM9)] The central validation is performed exclusively on the lowest-order Magnus Hamiltonian H_KDBH. The End Matter states: “higher-order terms in the effective Hamiltonian would correspond to many-body interactions … These are neglected in the present study, which assumes a high frequency regime ω≫U.” No estimate or numerical test of these corrections is provided. Since the claim is that the driven system “reproduces SYK physics” and that the lattice setup is a “practical and accurate platform,” the truncation is load-bearing. The next-order Magnus correction in the rotating frame is roughly of order U^2/ω (with Bessel-function factors depending on κ); for plausible parameters such as ω=10U and κ=0.8 this is not obviously negligible. I ask the authors to either simulate the full time-dependent Hamiltonian H(t) and compute the same SFF and OTOC diagnostics, or to estimate the norm/effect of th
  2. [Fig. 3(c) and Results (OTOC comparison)] The claimed quantitative agreement between the KDBH and SYK OTOCs relies on a single fitting parameter: the time coordinate of the SYK data is rescaled by a factor of 9. Because a global time rescale can always align two decay curves of similar shape, this weakens the claim that the SYK model and KDBH model are quantitatively equivalent. The factor 9 should be derived from the model parameters, e.g., from the root-mean-square of the Q_{ijkl} amplitudes relative to the Gaussian J_{ij;kl} variance, or at least shown to be consistent with such an estimate. Without this, the OTOC comparison demonstrates a common functional form but not a quantitative match.
  3. [Fig. 2 and Table I] The SFF is compared to the universal RMT drop-ramp-plateau form, not directly to the SFF of the bosonic SYK Hamiltonian of Eq. (3). Since the universal SFF form is shared by many chaotic nonlocal models, this provides only indirect evidence for SYK specifically. A direct overlay of the KDBH SFF and the SYK SFF for matched Hilbert-space dimension and the same symmetry sector would make the claimed equivalence much more compelling. This is not a fatal flaw, but it is a gap between the abstract's wording (“direct comparison of the spectral form factor”) and what is actually plotted.
  4. [Fig. 1(b) and §Model (sparsity and determinism)] The paper describes H_KDBH as having “quasi-random all-to-all interactions,” but the amplitudes Q_{ijkl} are deterministic, translationally invariant, and non-Gaussian with gaps (Fig. 1(b)). The justification relies on sparse-SYK results from Refs. [63,64], which are formulated for random sparsification of SYK couplings. It is not self-evident that those criteria transfer to a deterministic structured coupling matrix. The diagnostics shown are reassuring, but the paper should either state more precisely what is meant by “quasi-random” or provide a more direct test, e.g., comparing the KDBH diagnostics against a random model with the same sparsity and coupling distribution. This would clarify the resemblance to SYK beyond the two specific observables shown.
minor comments (5)
  1. [End Matter around Eq. (EM5)] The closed-form expression for f(λ) is quoted from Ref. [58]. A one-line commutator derivation would make the End Matter self-contained and avoid requiring the reader to consult the prior work.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption and text] The SFF is averaged over four values of κ, with the statement that the form does not depend on κ. Showing individual curves or a measure of spread would substantiate this claim and help the reader judge the robustness of the collapse.
  3. [Fig. 3(c) caption and text] The SYK OTOC is averaged over 25 random samples, but no sample-to-sample fluctuations or error bars are shown. Since the comparison is central to the paper, a statement of the statistical uncertainty would be useful.
  4. [Results and End Matter (SFF of BH model)] The main text uses the BH model at U=J for OTOCs, while the End Matter SFF for the BH model uses U=0.2J and the text cites GOE behavior for U/J<0.1. The parameter regime relevant to Table I should be specified consistently, so that the reader knows which BH model is being compared.
  5. [Concluding remarks (experimental realization)] The two-frequency implementation is described only qualitatively, with “a proper separation of energy scales” assumed. A rough estimate of the required ω/U, the achievable κ range, and the expected heating rate would strengthen the claim that the proposal is practical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: KDBH is derived from the driven Hubbard Hamiltonian and benchmarked against an independently defined Gaussian SYK model; the single OTOC time-rescaling is a normal energy-scale adjustment, not a constructed equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained: the effective KDBH Hamiltonian, Eqs. (EM7)-(EM9), is obtained by explicitly transforming the driven Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian into the interaction picture, time-averaging, and applying the Jacobi-Anger expansion. No target SYK data or SYK Hamiltonian enters this derivation. The comparison model, HSYK in Eq. (3), is independently defined as a Gaussian random all-to-all quartic Hamiltonian with prescribed bosonic symmetries; its couplings are not derived from or fitted to the KDBH amplitudes Qijkl. The SFF and OTOC of the KDBH model are computed directly from HKDBH (Figs. 2-3) and compared with the independent SYK results. The one-parameter time rescaling of the SYK OTOC in Fig. 3(c) is explicitly justified as a global energy-scale difference arising from the distinct distributions of hopping amplitudes; it is not a per-observable fit that forces agreement. The use of Refs. [58] and [65] is not load-bearing in a circular way: Ref. [58] supplies a closed-form identity, Eq. (EM5), which is a mathematical step with stated assumptions and does not presuppose SYK physics, and Ref. [65] provides spectral statistics that the present paper also independently probes via the SFF. The acknowledged neglect of higher-order Magnus terms, which the paper states 'assumes a high frequency regime ω≫U', is a physical validity limitation of the Floquet approximation, not a circularity: the validation is of the leading-order effective model, not of the full time-dependent system, but the claimed derivation does not reduce to its own inputs. Thus no circular step meeting the required evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only free parameter in the numerical comparison is the time-rescaling factor used to align OTOCs. The construction of H_KDBH relies on standard Magnus-expansion assumptions and on a prior closed-form identity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • SYK time rescale factor = 9
    Used to make the KDBH OTOC curves overlap with the bosonic SYK OTOC. The paper states: 'To obtain quantitative agreement, the time coordinate of SYK data has been scaled by a factor of 9' (Fig. 3 caption). This is a fitted parameter, not derived from the coupling distributions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The lowest-order Magnus expansion in the high-frequency regime ω≫U gives the exact effective Hamiltonian (EM7), and higher-order many-body terms are negligible.
    Invoked to derive H_KDBH; never checked against the full Floquet evolution. Location: End Matter after Eq. (EM9).
  • domain assumption The bosonic SYK model with Gaussian-distributed random J_{ij;kl} and the sparse-SYK threshold (>10% nonzero entries) are the appropriate benchmarks for 'SYK physics'.
    The paper compares KDBH to this model and cites Refs. [63,64] for the sparse-SYK criterion; this is not derived within the paper.
  • domain assumption Universal SFF drop-ramp-plateau and OTOC decay at infinite temperature are sufficient diagnostics to establish that a model reproduces SYK physics.
    The validation strategy is based entirely on these diagnostics; the paper does not test other SYK signatures such as N-scaling of the spectrum, low-temperature behavior, or large-N solvability.
  • standard math The closed-form solution for f(λ) in Eq. (EM5), taken from Ref. [58], is valid for the Bose-Hubbard model.
    The derivation of the effective Hamiltonian relies on this differential-equation solution; the paper reproduces the argument but refers to Ref. [58] for details.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev physics from the Hubbard model: A Floquet engineering approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXQARKXX

@misc{pith2026251202755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev physics from the Hubbard model: A Floquet engineering approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXQARKXX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.02755}
}
read the original abstract

The Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev (SYK) model has attracted widespread attention due to its relevance to diverse areas of physics, such as high temperature superconductivity, black holes, and quantum chaos. The model is, however, extremely challenging to realize experimentally. In this work, we show how a particular form of Floquet engineering, termed ``kinetic driving'', effectively eliminates single-particle processes and creates quasi-random all-to-all interactions when applied to models of Hubbard type. For the specific case of the Bose-Hubbard model, we explicitly verify that the driven system indeed reproduces SYK physics by direct comparison of the spectral form factor and out-of-time ordered correlation functions (OTOCs). Our findings indicate that a cold-atom realization of kinetic driving -- achieved through modulation of hopping amplitudes in an optical lattice -- offers a practical and accurate platform for quantum simulation of the SYK model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.02755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Particles held in an optical lattice can be well de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) OTOCs for the BH model for 6 particles on a 6-site lat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Size Operator and Spectral Clustering in the Two Coupled SYK Model

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The finite-N spectrum of the two coupled SYK model organizes into operator-size clusters that underlie the conformal towers, revival dynamics, and wormhole-black hole transition.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Sachdev and J

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Gapless spin fluid ground state in a random, quantum Heisenberg magnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 3339 (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    Kitaev, A simple model of quantum holography, http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/ entangled15/kitaev/,http://online.kitp

    A. Kitaev, A simple model of quantum holography, http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/ entangled15/kitaev/,http://online.kitp. ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/kitaev2/. Talks at KITP, April 7, 2015 and May 27, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Chowdhury, A

    D. Chowdhury, A. Georges, O. Parcollet, and S. Sachdev, Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models and beyond: Window into non- Fermi liquids, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 035004 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Georges, O

    A. Georges, O. Parcollet, and S. Sachdev, Mean field theory of a quantum Heisenberg spin glass, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 840 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    Georges, O

    A. Georges, O. Parcollet, and S. Sachdev, Quantum fluctua- tions of a nearly critical heisenberg spin glass, Phys. Rev. B 63, 134406 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    Fu and S

    W. Fu and S. Sachdev, Numerical study of fermion and bo- son models with infinite-range random interactions, Phys. Rev. B94, 035135 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    C. L. Baldwin and B. Swingle, Quenched vs annealed: Glassiness from sk to syk, Phys. Rev. X10, 031026 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Swingle and M

    B. Swingle and M. Winer, Bosonic model of quantum holography, Phys. Rev. B109, 094206 (2024)

    2024

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Y . Liu, A. Kulkarni, and S. Ryu, Dissipative dynamics and symmetry breaking in bosonic Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Lindbla- dian (2025), arXiv:2508.04802 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. Chen, R. Ilan, F. de Juan, D. I. Pikulin, and M. Franz, Quantum holography in a graphene flake with an irregular boundary, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 036403 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    A. Chew, A. Essin, and J. Alicea, Approximating the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model with Majorana wires, Phys. Rev. B96, 121119 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    D. I. Pikulin and M. Franz, Black hole on a chip: Proposal for a physical realization of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model in a solid-state system, Phys. Rev. X7, 031006 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Wei and T

    C. Wei and T. A. Sedrakyan, Optical lattice platform for the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. A103, 013323 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Danshita, M

    I. Danshita, M. Hanada, and M. Tezuka, Creating and prob- ing the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model with ultracold gases: To- wards experimental studies of quantum gravity, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2017, 083I01 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Schuster, B

    T. Schuster, B. Kobrin, P. Gao, I. Cong, E. T. Khabiboulline, N. M. Linke, M. D. Lukin, C. Monroe, B. Yoshida, and N. Y . Yao, Many-body quantum teleportation via operator spread- ing in the traversable wormhole protocol, Phys. Rev. X12, 031013 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Uhrich, S

    P. Uhrich, S. Bandyopadhyay, N. Sauerwein, J. Sonner, J.- P. Brantut, and P. Hauke, A cavity quantum electrodynam- ics implementation of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model (2023), arXiv:2303.11343 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Baumgartner, P

    R. Baumgartner, P. Pelliconi, S. Bandyopadhyay, F. Orsi, N. Sauerwein, P. Hauke, J.-P. Brantut, and J. Sonner, Quantum simulation of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model us- ing time-dependent disorder in optical cavities (2024), arXiv:2411.17802 [quant-ph]

    2024

  10. [18]

    Garc ´ıa- ´Alvarez, I

    L. Garc ´ıa- ´Alvarez, I. L. Egusquiza, L. Lamata, A. del Campo, J. Sonner, and E. Solano, Digital quantum simu- lation of minimalAdS/CFT, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 040501 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Babbush, D

    R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, and H. Neven, Quantum simula- tion of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model by asymmetric qubiti- zation, Phys. Rev. A99, 040301 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Jafferis, A

    D. Jafferis, A. Zlokapa, J. D. Lykken, D. K. Kolch- meyer, S. I. Davis, N. Lauk, H. Neven, and M. Spiropulu, Traversable wormhole dynamics on a quantum processor, Nature612, 51 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Asaduzzaman, R

    M. Asaduzzaman, R. G. Jha, and B. Sambasivam, Sachdev- Ye-Kitaev model on a noisy quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D109, 105002 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    T. A. Chowdhury, K. Yu, and R. S. Sufian, First measure- 6 ment of entanglement dynamics in the SYK model using quantum computers (2025), arXiv:2503.18580 [quant-ph]

    2025

  15. [23]

    Blanes, F

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. Oteo, and J. Ros, The Magnus expan- sion and some of its applications, Physics Reports470, 151 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Goldman and J

    N. Goldman and J. Dalibard, Periodically driven quan- tum systems: Effective Hamiltonians and engineered gauge fields, Phys. Rev. X4, 031027 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Bukov, L

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, Uni- versal high-frequency behavior of periodically driven systems: from dynamical stabilization to Floquet engineering, Advances in Physics64, 139 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2015.1055918

    2015

  18. [26]

    Eckardt, Colloquium: Atomic quantum gases in period- ically driven optical lattices, Rev

    A. Eckardt, Colloquium: Atomic quantum gases in period- ically driven optical lattices, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 011004 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Zenesini, H

    A. Zenesini, H. Lignier, D. Ciampini, O. Morsch, and E. Arimondo, Coherent control of dressed matter waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 100403 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Bermudez, T

    A. Bermudez, T. Schaetz, and D. Porras, Synthetic gauge fields for vibrational excitations of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 150501 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    A. R. Kolovsky, Creating artificial magnetic fields for cold atoms by photon-assisted tunneling, Europhysics Letters93, 20003 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Creating artificial magnetic fields for cold atoms by photon-assisted tunnel- ing

    C. E. Creffield and F. Sols, Comment on “Creating artificial magnetic fields for cold atoms by photon-assisted tunnel- ing” by Kolovsky A. R., Europhysics Letters101, 40001 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Struck, C

    J. Struck, C. ¨Olschl¨ager, M. Weinberg, P. Hauke, J. Simonet, A. Eckardt, M. Lewenstein, K. Sengstock, and P. Wind- passinger, Tunable gauge potential for neutral and spinless particles in driven optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 225304 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Hauke, O

    P. Hauke, O. Tieleman, A. Celi, C. ¨Olschl¨ager, J. Simonet, J. Struck, M. Weinberg, P. Windpassinger, K. Sengstock, M. Lewenstein, and A. Eckardt, Non-abelian gauge fields and topological insulators in shaken optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 145301 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Goldman, J

    N. Goldman, J. Dalibard, M. Aidelsburger, and N. R. Cooper, Periodically driven quantum matter: The case of resonant modulations, Phys. Rev. A91, 033632 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    C. E. Creffield, G. Pieplow, F. Sols, and N. Goldman, Real- ization of uniform synthetic magnetic fields by periodically shaking an optical square lattice, New Journal of Physics18, 093013 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Goldman, J

    N. Goldman, J. C. Budich, and P. Zoller, Topological quan- tum matter with ultracold gases in optical lattices, Nature Physics12, 639 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    N. R. Cooper, J. Dalibard, and I. B. Spielman, Topologi- cal bands for ultracold atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015005 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Weitenberg and J

    C. Weitenberg and J. Simonet, Tailoring quantum gases by Floquet engineering, Nature Physics17, 1342 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    R. Ma, M. E. Tai, P. M. Preiss, W. S. Bakr, J. Simon, and M. Greiner, Photon-assisted tunneling in a biased strongly correlated Bose gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 095301 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    A. J. Daley and J. Simon, Effective three-body interactions via photon-assisted tunneling in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A89, 053619 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Hafezi, P

    M. Hafezi, P. Adhikari, and J. M. Taylor, Engineering three- body interaction and Pfaffian states in circuit QED systems, Phys. Rev. B90, 060503 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    C. H. Lee, W. W. Ho, B. Yang, J. Gong, and Z. Papi ´c, Flo- quet mechanism for non-abelian fractional quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 237401 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    A. Rapp, X. Deng, and L. Santos, Ultracold lattice gases with periodically modulated interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 203005 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    M. D. Liberto, C. E. Creffield, G. I. Japaridze, and C. M. Smith, Quantum simulation of correlated-hopping models with fermions in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A89, 013624 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Meinert, M

    F. Meinert, M. J. Mark, K. Lauber, A. J. Daley, and H.-C. N¨agerl, Floquet engineering of correlated tunneling in the Bose-Hubbard model with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 205301 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    G ¨org, K

    F. G ¨org, K. Sandholzer, J. Minguzzi, R. Desbuquois, M. Messer, and T. Esslinger, Realization of density- dependent Peierls phases to engineer quantized gauge fields coupled to ultracold matter, Nature Physics15, 1161 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Barbiero, C

    L. Barbiero, C. Schweizer, M. Aidelsburger, E. Demler, N. Goldman, and F. Grusdt, Coupling ultracold matter to dynamical gauge fields in optical lattices: From flux at- tachment to Z2 lattice gauge theories, Science Advances5, eaav7444 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Schweizer, F

    C. Schweizer, F. Grusdt, M. Berngruber, L. Barbiero, E. Demler, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Flo- quet approach to Z2 lattice gauge theories with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Nature Physics15, 1168 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Kamal, J

    H. Kamal, J. Kemp, Y .-C. He, Y . Fuji, M. Aidelsburger, P. Zoller, and N. Y . Yao, Floquet flux attachment in cold atomic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 163403 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    H. P. Zahn, V . P. Singh, M. N. Kosch, L. Asteria, L. Freystatzky, K. Sengstock, L. Mathey, and C. Weiten- berg, Formation of spontaneous density-wave patterns in dc driven lattices, Phys. Rev. X12, 021014 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Goldman, O

    N. Goldman, O. Diessel, L. Barbiero, M. Pr ¨ufer, M. Di Lib- erto, and L. Peralta Gavensky, Floquet-engineered nonlin- earities and controllable pair-hopping processes: From op- tical Kerr cavities to correlated quantum matter, PRX Quan- tum4, 040327 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Defossez, L

    A. Defossez, L. Vanderstraeten, L. Peralta Gavensky, and N. Goldman, Dynamic realization of Majorana zero modes in a particle-conserving ladder, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023183 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    C.-L. Hung, A. Gonz ´alez-Tudela, J. I. Cirac, and H. J. Kim- ble, Quantum spin dynamics with pairwise-tunable, long- range interactions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, E4946 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    J. Choi, H. Zhou, H. S. Knowles, R. Landig, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Robust dynamic Hamiltonian engineering of many-body spin systems, Phys. Rev. X10, 031002 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Geier, N

    S. Geier, N. Thaicharoen, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, A. Salzinger, A. Tebben, D. Grimshandl, G. Z ¨urn, and M. Weidem ¨uller, Floquet Hamiltonian engineering of an isolated many-body spin system, Science374, 1149 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    B.-Y . Sun, N. Goldman, M. Aidelsburger, and M. Bukov, Engineering and probing non-abelian chiral spin liquids us- ing periodically driven ultracold atoms, PRX Quantum4, 020329 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Nishad, A

    N. Nishad, A. Keselman, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, and 7 S. Tsesses, Quantum simulation of generic spin-exchange models in Floquet-engineered Rydberg-atom arrays, Phys. Rev. A108, 053318 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Dehghani, M

    H. Dehghani, M. Hafezi, and P. Ghaemi, Light-induced topological superconductivity via Floquet interaction engi- neering, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023039 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Pieplow, F

    G. Pieplow, F. Sols, and C. E. Creffield, Generation of atypi- cal hopping and interactions by kinetic driving, New Journal of Physics20, 073045 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Pieplow, C

    G. Pieplow, C. E. Creffield, and F. Sols, Protected cat states from kinetic driving of a boson gas, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033013 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Mateos, C

    J. Mateos, C. E. Creffield, and F. Sols, Superfluidity from correlations in driven boson systems, New Journal of Physics25, 063006 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Cold bosonic atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3108 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H ¨ansch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  55. [63]

    Cao, Y .-N

    Y . Cao, Y .-N. Zhou, T.-T. Shi, and W. Zhang, Towards quan- tum simulation of Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, Science Bul- letin65, 1170 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Orman, H

    P. Orman, H. Gharibyan, and J. Preskill, Quantum chaos in the sparse SYK model (2024), arXiv:2403.13884 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Mateos, F

    J. Mateos, F. Sols, and C. Creffield, Spectral statistics of driven Bose-Hubbard models, Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment2024, 063104 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    In this work we choose both parameters to be odd to consider just the single GOE case

    When the number of sites and the number of particles are both even, a hidden symmetry splits the distribution into being the sum of two GOEs. In this work we choose both parameters to be odd to consider just the single GOE case

  59. [67]

    Kollath, G

    C. Kollath, G. Roux, G. Biroli, and A. M. L¨auchli, Statistical properties of the spectrum of the extended Bose-Hubbard model, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Exper- iment2010, P08011 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Vermersch, A

    B. Vermersch, A. Elben, L. M. Sieberer, N. Y . Yao, and P. Zoller, Probing scrambling using statistical correlations between randomized measurements, Phys. Rev. X9, 021061 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single-atom-resolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic Mott insulator, Nature467, 68 (2010)

    2010

  62. [70]

    P. K. Tien and J. P. Gordon, Multiphoton process observed in the interaction of microwave fields with the tunneling be- tween superconductor films, Phys. Rev.129, 647 (1963)

    1963

  63. [71]

    A. Celi, P. Massignan, J. Ruseckas, N. Goldman, I. B. Spiel- man, G. Juzeli ¯unas, and M. Lewenstein, Synthetic gauge fields in synthetic dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 043001 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    Barbiero, L

    L. Barbiero, L. Chomaz, S. Nascimbene, and N. Goldman, Bose-Hubbard physics in synthetic dimensions from inter- action trotterization, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043340 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Observation of con- structive interference at the edge of quantum ergodicity, Na- ture646, 825 (2025)

    2025

  66. [74]

    Roushan, C

    P. Roushan, C. Neill, J. Tangpanitanon, V . M. Bastidas, A. Megrant, R. Barends, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, M. Giustina, E. Jef- frey, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, J. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. White, H. ...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.