Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

The ground state of the chiral Hamiltonian αQ3 − hS^z is an exact, current-carrying, symmetry-broken eigenstate of the Heisenberg XXX chain at finite energy density, with closed-form magnetization and scalar chirality.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:29 UTC pith:VXXORUWB

load-bearing objection A clean, interesting protocol with a plausible but underived TBA step that the authors need to nail down before the quantitative claims can be trusted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.09107 v2 pith:VXXORUWB submitted 2025-12-09 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechhep-th

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Chiral Current-Carrying High-Energy Eigenstates

Tigran A. Sedrakyan , Jun-Jun Pang , Chenan Wei , Baigeng Wang This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechhep-th PACS 75.10.Jm75.10.Pq05.30.-d
keywords Heisenberg XXX chainthermodynamic Bethe ansatzconserved chargesscalar chiralityeigenstate thermalization hypothesismany-body scarsspontaneous symmetry breakinggeneralized hydrodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to show that integrable systems can host exactly solvable atypical high-energy eigenstates that evade both canonical thermalization and generalized Gibbs ensembles. For the spin-1/2 Heisenberg XXX chain, it promotes the third conserved charge Q3 — a three-site scalar-chirality operator — together with total magnetization to a Hamiltonian, Hχh = αQ3 − hSz, and solves the zero-temperature thermodynamics by Bethe ansatz in the J→0 limit. Its ground state is simultaneously an exact eigenstate of the undeformed XXX Hamiltonian and of the whole commuting charge hierarchy, at finite energy density, carrying a finite energy current. The authors derive closed-form expressions for the magnetization and scalar chirality that at zero field give M = ±1/4 and χ = −π/16, signalling spontaneous breaking of SU(2), parity, and time reversal while the state remains a critical, zero-entropy Luttinger liquid. This supplies a controlled, analytically tractable example of ETH-violating, scar-like eigenstates and a route to magnetochiral matter deep inside a many-body spectrum.

Core claim

The paper shows that the ground state of Hχh = αQ3 − hSz is an exact eigenstate of the XXX Heisenberg Hamiltonian and of all its commuting charges, with finite energy density and nonthermal local observables. Thermodynamic Bethe ansatz in the J→0 limit yields the exact order parameters M(h)=(1/4)sign(h)+(1/2π)arcsin(h/hc) and χ(h)=−(π/16)√(1−h²/hc²) for |h|<hc=π²α/8, giving M(0±)=±1/4 and χ(0)=−π/16. The macrostate is a single partially filled 1-string Fermi sea with vanishing Yang–Yang entropy, logarithmic entanglement (central charge c=1), and spontaneously broken SU(2), parity, and time reversal at zero field. In the XXX spectrum it is a finite-energy, finite-current, zero-entropy eigenst

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Q3, the third charge of the XXX conserved hierarchy, a three-site operator Sj·(Sj+1×Sj+2) proportional to the scalar chirality and to the energy current. Promoting Q3 (together with Sz) to a Hamiltonian and taking J→0, the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz reduces to a single 1-string species with dressed energy ε1(x) = h + 2πα s′(x) for the universal kernel s(x) = 1/(4 cosh(πx/2)); the occupied rapidities form an asymmetric Fermi sea bounded by the condition ε1(a±) = 0. The compact Fermi-point equation and the closed integrals for the free energy carry the derivation, yielding the exact order parameters by differentiation.

Load-bearing premise

The exact results rest on the assumption, imported from an earlier TBA treatment without derivation in this paper, that in the J→0, T→0 limit the Bethe string content collapses to 1-strings and the dressed energy is exactly ε1(x) = h + 2πα s′(x); if higher-string bound states survive that limit, the closed formulas for M and χ break down.

What would settle it

Exact-diagonalize Hχ0 = αQ3 on chains of length L = 12, 16, 20, add a tiny longitudinal field h ≈ 10^-3 to select a symmetry-broken component, extrapolate the ground-state magnetization density to L→∞ and then h→0; if the limit departs from 1/4, or if the state fails to remain an eigenstate of the XXX Heisenberg Hamiltonian as J→0, the TBA reduction behind Eq. (9) is wrong.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The XXX Heisenberg chain possesses an exactly solvable family of finite-energy-density eigenstates with tunable magnetization and chirality, selected by biasing conserved charges rather than by disorder or kinetic constraints.
  • These states have zero Yang–Yang entropy and logarithmic (subthermal) entanglement, so they violate strong ETH and lie outside the finite-entropy manifold that supports generalized Gibbs ensembles.
  • At zero temperature the transport is purely ballistic: finite spin and chirality Drude weights with no diffusive or superdiffusive broadening, providing a clean homogeneous background for generalized hydrodynamics.
  • Under weak integrability breaking the magnetochiral order and current survive over prethermal time scales, making the Hamiltonian accessible in cold-atom Fermi–Hubbard and Rydberg-atom quantum simulators.
  • The nonequilibrium-from-equilibrium protocol is general: any conserved charge of an integrable chain can in principle be promoted to a Hamiltonian to construct other scar-like exact eigenstates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extending beyond the paper, the charge-tilting protocol could be applied to nearly integrable or weakly broken systems, where the prethermal window identified here suggests observable magnetochiral signatures even without exact integrability.
  • The zero-field values M = ±1/4 and χ = −π/16 are independent of the coupling α, hinting that the macrostate is selected by the structure of Q3 itself; testing whether these numbers persist under generic integrable deformations of Q3 could reveal a deeper selection principle.
  • Because Q3 is proportional to the energy current of the XXX chain, the constructed eigenstate is a stationary current-carrying state; a quench experiment starting from this state could measure its Drude weight and test whether ballistic transport really extends beyond thermal backgrounds.
  • The construction likely generalizes to higher conserved charges of the hierarchy, producing a tower of nested zero-entropy scar-like macrostates at different energy densities, each with its own broken symmetry and current.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a protocol for constructing atypical high-energy eigenstates of an integrable Hamiltonian by taking ground states of a 'selector Hamiltonian' formed from linear combinations of mutually commuting conserved charges. For the spin-1/2 XXX chain, the authors study Hχh = αQ3 - hSz, where Q3 is the scalar-chirality/energy-current charge, and claim an exact zero-temperature TBA solution in the pure-chirality J→0 limit. They derive closed expressions for the magnetization M(α,h) and chirality χ(α,h), predict spontaneous SU(2), parity, and time-reversal breaking at zero field with M=±1/4 and χ=-π/16, and describe the resulting state as a zero-entropy, c=1 Luttinger-liquid-like Bethe macrostate with ballistic transport. The abstract additionally claims DMRG/ED benchmarks, persistence under weak integrability breaking, and movement of the macrostate through the full XXX energy band, though these results do not appear in the body.

Significance. If the central TBA calculation is correct, the paper offers a clean, parameter-free construction of rare nonthermal eigenstates in an integrable model, combining the large-deviation tilting picture with exact Bethe-ansatz control. The explicit closed forms for magnetization and chirality and the concrete cold-atom/Rydberg realization proposal are valuable and falsifiable. The construction itself—that a ground state of a commuting-charge Hamiltonian is an eigenstate of the original XXX model—is a tautology, but the quantitative characterization of that state is the substantive contribution. However, the validity of the quantitative claims hinges on the unproved TBA limit in Eq. (9), and the abstract advertises numerical and spectral benchmarks not present in the manuscript. The significance is therefore conditional on verifying or properly deriving these ingredients.

major comments (3)
  1. [Chiral deformation of the Heisenberg chain, Eqs. (8)-(10)] Equation (9) states that the T=0 1-string dressed energy is ε1(x)=h+2παs′(x). In the standard XXX TBA, however, the dressed energy is not the bare driving term; it solves an integral equation of the form ε=e−a2∗(ε θ(−ε)) (up to convention), where a2 is the same scattering kernel for every charge in the hierarchy. This convolution term is independent of J and does not vanish as J→0; a2∗s′ is generically nonzero. The manuscript neither derives the claimed J→0 reduction from Ref. [29] nor proves that only 1-strings survive, nor provides numerical corroboration. Since Eqs. (12), (14)-(16), including M(α,0±)=±1/4 and χ(α,0)=−π/16, are obtained by substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (10), the central quantitative predictions are not established by the text as it stands.
  2. [Abstract and body: DMRG/ED and energy-band claims] The abstract states that finite-size DMRG and exact-diagonalization benchmarks show the magnetochiral signatures persist under weak integrability breaking, and that a commuting exchange bias moves the macrostate through the full XXX energy band including the Hilbert-space trace center. No numerical data, figures, tables, or derivations supporting these claims appear anywhere in the Letter. The only figures are a schematic and a plot of the analytic formulas (Eqs. (14)-(15)). These are load-bearing for the scar/ETH-violation interpretation and must either be included or removed from the abstract and introduction.
  3. [General protocol, Eqs. (3)-(7); high-energy claim] The central claim is that the constructed state is a highly excited eigenstate of the undeformed XXX Hamiltonian H0 at tunable energy density. However, the manuscript never computes the H0 energy density (i.e., the expectation value of Q2) of the macrostate, nor how α and h tune it. Without this quantity, the statements that the state lies at finite/high XXX energy density and that an exchange bias sweeps it through the thermodynamic energy band are unsupported. Please provide the explicit H0 eigenvalue density of the macrostate, or at least a formula and a location of the state relative to the spectrum center.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The normalization of Q3 is not fixed. The text defines Q3 = Σ_j S_j·(S_{j+1}×S_{j+2}) and also says Q3 is the third conserved charge/energy current 'up to normalization' [22-24]. Since the TBA formula Eq. (9) depends on the normalization through the 2πα prefactor, the exact convention should be stated precisely.
  2. [Eqs. (11)-(14)] The derivation assumes α>0 (e.g., hc=π^2α/8 must be positive for the square roots and the phase diagram). Please state this assumption explicitly, and comment on the α<0 case where the zero-field sea and the signs of M and χ are reversed.
  3. [Figure 2] The figure is generated directly from the analytic formulas and contains no numerical data. If finite-size benchmarks exist, adding data points or a small DMRG inset would considerably strengthen the paper and substantiate the abstract.
  4. [References] Reference [52] is given only as an arXiv preprint without a title; please provide full bibliographic details. Also, the citation of [29] for the crucial TBA limit should include the specific equation number where the J→0, T→0 limit is derived.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central construction and closed-form results are derived from the stated Hamiltonian through TBA, with one self-citation that is imported as an external computation rather than a redefinition of the target result.

full rationale

The claimed construction — that the ground state of Hχh = αQ3 − hSz is an eigenstate of the undeformed XXX Hamiltonian and its commuting hierarchy — is a direct consequence of the mutual commutativity of Q3, Sz, and the XXX Hamiltonian; the paper explicitly presents this as a protocol/construction rather than as a prediction extracted from fitted data. The quantitative results, M(α,0±)=±1/4 and χ(α,0)=−π/16, are obtained by evaluating the TBA free-energy functional (Eq. 10) with the dressed energy ε1(x)=h+2παs′(x) (Eq. 9). Equation (9) is the sole load-bearing input for these closed forms, and it is imported from Ref. [29], whose authors overlap with the present paper. However, a self-citation is not circularity per se: the text describes Eq. (9) as the J→0, T→0 limit of TBA equations derived in that prior work, and this paper does not fit any parameter to the predicted observables; α and h are Hamiltonian couplings, and no free parameter is calibrated to the target magnetization or chirality. The potentially serious objection that the standard XXX TBA dressing convolution does not vanish in the J→0 limit and that Eq. (9) is not the solution of the full TBA equation is a correctness/completeness concern about the imported result, not an equivalence-by-construction between input and output. Within the manuscript itself, the Legendre-transform step, Hellmann–Feynman derivatives, and the h→0± symmetry-breaking selection are all standard and non-circular. No prediction reduces to a fitted parameter or to a definition of the predicted quantity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central existence claim (eigenstate of XXX) is a direct consequence of the commutation relations of the conserved charges — no free parameters are fitted. The quantitative predictions rely on the TBA solution inherited from Ref. [29] and on the physical assumption that the ground state is a single Fermi sea; these are the main external inputs.

axioms (4)
  • standard math XXX chain has an infinite tower of local conserved charges Q_n that commute with each other
    Standard integrability fact (Refs. [11,21]).
  • domain assumption The TBA equations for the chiral Heisenberg chain of Ref. [29], with the J→0 limit reducing to 1-strings and dressed energy ε1(x) = h + 2πα s'(x)
    The paper takes this as a given; no derivation shown. It is the key technical input.
  • domain assumption The ground state of H_χh is described by a single partially filled 1-string Fermi sea with vanishing Yang-Yang entropy
    This is asserted from the TBA solution and used to conclude zero entropy and c=1.
  • domain assumption For finite chains the zero-field ground state is an SU(2) multiplet with S>0, and the thermodynamic limit with h→0± selects the fully polarized component
    Used to justify spontaneous symmetry breaking. Plausible but not proved in this text.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 186 in / 14823 out tokens · 173749 ms · 2026-08-03T17:29:47.312331+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Typical finite-energy-density eigenstates of nonintegrable systems are expected to obey the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and to reproduce thermal local observables. In integrable systems, typical states are instead finite-entropy Bethe macrostates, or generalized Gibbs ensembles, with smooth quasiparticle occupations. Here we show that the spin-$\tfrac12$ XXX Heisenberg chain contains an exactly solvable exception. By biasing mutually commuting conserved charges, we use the ground state of a selector Hamiltonian to construct rare eigenstates of the undeformed XXX Hamiltonian. These states are atypical ordered, chiral, current-carrying, critical, zero-entropy Bethe macrostates at tunable XXX energy density. They lie outside the finite-entropy manifold dominating generalized Gibbs ensembles, yet remain exact XXX eigenstates with sharp Bethe occupations, finite scalar chirality, nonthermal local observables, and gapless Luttinger-liquid correlations. A finite-interval thermodynamic Bethe ansatz reveals an asymmetric chiral Bethe sea whose zero-field limit selects an extensive spin sector through $SU(2)$ symmetry breaking. A commuting exchange bias moves the same ordered macrostate through the full thermodynamic XXX energy band, including the Hilbert-space trace center. Finite-size DMRG and exact-diagonalization benchmarks indicate that the magnetochiral signatures persist under weak integrability breaking over prethermal time scales. The construction provides a controlled integrable realization of ETH-violating, scar-like large-deviation eigenstates and a route to ordered critical matter deep inside a many-body spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09107 by Baigeng Wang, Chenan Wei, Jun-Jun Pang, Tigran A. Sedrakyan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the Hamiltonian in Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

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

53 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)

    2046

  2. [2]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994). 6

    1994

  3. [3]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Adv. Phys.65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling,et al., Nature551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Nat. Phys.14, 745 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Serbyn, D

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

    2021

  8. [8]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    Vosk and E

    R. Vosk and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. A91, 023617 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    Takahashi,Thermodynamics of One-Dimensional Solvable Models(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1999)

    M. Takahashi,Thermodynamics of One-Dimensional Solvable Models(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1999)

    1999

  12. [12]

    V. E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izer- gin,Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correla- tion Functions(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)

    1993

  13. [13]

    F. H. L. Essler, H. Frahm, F. G¨ ohmann, A. Kl¨ umper, and V. E. Korepin,The One-Dimensional Hubbard Model (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005)

    2005

  14. [14]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, V. Yurovsky, and M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 050405 (2007)

    2007

  15. [15]

    Vidmar and M

    L. Vidmar and M. Rigol, J. Stat. Mech.2016, 064007 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    Bargheer, N

    T. Bargheer, N. Beisert, and F. Loebbert, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 285205 (2009)

    2009

  17. [17]

    F. A. Smirnov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. B 915, 363 (2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    Pozsgay, Y

    B. Pozsgay, Y. Jiang, and G. Tak´ acs, J. High Energy Phys.2020(3), 092

    2020

  19. [19]

    Cecile, J

    G. Cecile, J. De Nardis, and E. Ilievski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 130401 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    i. c. v. Krajnik, J. Schmidt, E. Ilievski, and T. c. v. Prosen, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 017101 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    M. P. Grabowski and P. Mathieu, Modern Physics Let- ters A9, 2197 (1994)

    1994

  22. [22]

    Subrahmanyam, Physical Review B50, 6468 (1994)

    V. Subrahmanyam, Physical Review B50, 6468 (1994)

    1994

  23. [23]

    Zotos, F

    X. Zotos, F. Naef, and P. Prelovˇ sek, Physical Review B 55, 11029 (1997)

    1997

  24. [24]

    R. G. Pereira, V. Pasquier, J. Sirker, and I. Affleck, Jour- nal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2014, P09037 (2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    A. M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B42, 779 (1990)

    1990

  26. [26]

    Frahm, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral25, 1417 (1992)

    H. Frahm, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral25, 1417 (1992)

    1992

  27. [27]

    V. V. Mkhitaryan and A. G. Sedrakyan, Phys. Rev. B 77, 035111 (2008)

    2008

  28. [28]

    V. V. Mkhitaryan and T. A. Sedrakyan, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e7, 1579 (2006)

    2006

  29. [29]

    C. Wei, V. V. Mkhitaryan, and T. A. Sedrakyan, J. High Energy Phys.2024(125)

    2024

  30. [30]

    A. C. Cassidy, C. W. Clark, and M. Rigol, Physical Re- view Letters106, 140405 (2011)

    2011

  31. [31]

    E. A. Yuzbashyan, Annals of Physics367, 288 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    Reiter, F

    F. Reiter, F. Lange, S. Jain, M. Grau, J. P. Home, and Z. Lenarˇ ciˇ c, Physical Review Research3, 033142 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, B. Doyon, and T. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. X6, 041065 (2016)

    2016

  34. [34]

    Bertini, M

    B. Bertini, M. Collura, J. De Nardis, and M. Fagotti, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 207201 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment2004, P06002 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0405152

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Ilievski, J

    E. Ilievski, J. De Nardis, B. Wouters, J.-S. Caux, F. H. L. Essler, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 157201 (2015)

    2015

  37. [37]

    O’Dea and A

    N. O’Dea and A. Sriram, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 210402 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Alba, Phys

    V. Alba, Phys. Rev. B97, 245135 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    Gopalakrishnan and R

    S. Gopalakrishnan and R. Vasseur, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 127202 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Gopalakrishnan, D

    S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, V. Khemani, and R. Vasseur, Phys. Rev. B98, 220303 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    V. B. Bulchandani, S. Gopalakrishnan, and E. Ilievski, J. Stat. Mech.2021, 084001 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Singh, M

    H. Singh, M. H. Kolodrubetz, S. Gopalakrishnan, and R. Vasseur, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 176303 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Ulˇ cakar and Z

    I. Ulˇ cakar and Z. Lenarˇ ciˇ c, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 230402 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    Jim´ enez-Garc ´ ıa, L

    K. Jim´ enez-Garc ´ ıa, L. J. LeBlanc, R. A. Williams, M. C. Beeler, A. R. Perry, and I. B. Spielman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 225303 (2012)

    2012

  45. [45]

    Goldman, G

    N. Goldman, G. Juzeli¯ unas, P. ¨Ohberg, and I. B. Spiel- man, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 126401 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B73, 155115 (2006)

    2006

  47. [47]

    Greiter, D

    M. Greiter, D. Schnells, and R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. B 89, 165125 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    J. K. Pachos and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 056402 (2004)

    2004

  49. [49]

    Chaudhary, D

    S. Chaudhary, D. Hsieh, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. B 100, 220403 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    Kuhr, Natl

    S. Kuhr, Natl. Sci. Rev.3, 170 (2016)

    2016

  51. [51]

    J. Yang, L. Liu, J. Mongkolkiattichai, and P. Schauss, PRX Quantum2, 020344 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Kuznetsova, S

    E. Kuznetsova, S. I. Mistakidis, S. T. Rittenhouse, S. F. Yelin, and H. R. Sadeghpour, arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2309.08795 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    R. J. Valencia-Tortora, N. Pancotti, M. Fleischhauer, H. Bernien, and J. Marino, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 223201 (2024)

    2024