Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Understanding interaction-driven transport in flux lattices with evolution-path symmetry

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that interaction-induced delocalization and chiral currents in flux lattices both reduce to the breaking of a symmetry among interfering evolution paths, caused by occupation-dependent phase shifts on doubly occupied interm

desk verdict A plausible new organizing language for interaction-driven transport in flux lattices, but the central mechanism is a truncated path heuristic rather than a controlled derivation; worth refereeing, not accepting on faith. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22288 v1 pith:4TAMZFDN submitted 2026-07-24 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Jian-Song Pan , Xiaofan Zhou , Wei Yi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords Aharonov-Bohmcagingflat-bandlocalizationinteraction-induceddelocalizationevolution-pathsymmetrychiraltransportfluxladderpathinterferencedoublondynamics
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

Why does a wave packet stay localized in a flux lattice, and what makes interactions set it free? This paper argues that both answers lie in the symmetries of the many paths a quantum system can take between two configurations. In the non-interacting π-flux rhombic lattice, the ten shortest paths connecting two doublon states sum to exactly zero — a destructive-interference symmetry the authors call evolution-path symmetry (EPS). Turning on interactions adds an on-site phase e^{-iUΔt} only to paths that pass through double occupancy, breaking the cancellation and enabling delocalization. The same logic is applied to flux ladders, where breaking a conjugate-phase EPS produces interaction-induced chiral currents, offering a unified dynamical picture for effects previously explained by bound states or spectral redistribution.

What carries the argument

The central object is evolution-path symmetry (EPS): the invariance, up to a fixed phase, of a path's contribution under a combined geometric transformation (reflection, rotation, translation) and phase transformation of the underlying Hamiltonian. The analysis works through a time-sliced path expansion of the propagator in which each path P carries a phase factor Φ[P] given by products of hopping amplitudes; EPS is the statement that symmetric paths have identical or conjugate phases. The mechanism that breaks it is the interaction-induced on-site phase e^{-iU n(n-1)Δt/2}, which attaches an extra factor only to path segments with intermediate double occupancy. Because the cancellations unde

What would settle it

Compute, to all orders in perturbation theory (or via high-accuracy exact diagonalization on a large rhombic lattice), the transition amplitude between the doublon states |A_j A_j⟩ and |A_{j+1} A_{j+1}⟩ at nonzero U; if it remains exactly zero for all U and time, the interaction-phase mechanism is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that interaction-driven transport in flux lattices can be understood, without eigenstate analysis, through the interference of evolution paths in Fock space. The paper defines evolution-path symmetry (EPS) as a fixed phase relation between paths related by a geometric symmetry, and identifies two relevant classes: destructive-interference EPS, whose pairwise cancellation yields Aharonov-Bohm caging, and conjugate-phase EPS, whose cancellation suppresses chiral displacement. Interactions break these EPS because they add a phase e^{-iU n(n-1)Δt/2} to any path segment that visits a doubly occupied site; since symmetric paths have different occupancy histories, the phase rel

Load-bearing premise

The central mechanism assumes that the lowest-order (shortest-path) expansion captures the dynamics, so that adding the interaction phase e^{-iUΔt} to just two of the ten paths is enough to break the cancellation; if higher-order paths restore the balance, the claimed delocalization would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If EPS governs AB caging, then any mechanism that adds an occupation-history-dependent phase to a subset of paths — not just contact interactions — should also delocalize doublons, offering a route to engineer transport.
  • The framework converts the bound-state picture of interaction-induced delocalization into a path-interference statement: a doublon escapes the cage not because it senses 2π flux, but because its internal double-occupancy history breaks the path symmetry.
  • In flux ladders, the same mechanism predicts that chiral current onset requires only breaking conjugate-phase EPS, so interaction strength, flux phase, and lattice geometry enter through how strongly they imbalance symmetric paths.
  • The authors show the EPS analysis extends to fermions and hard-core bosons, implying interaction-driven delocalization and chiral transport should appear for other statistics as well.
  • Because the path cancellation is a property of the Fock-space lattice, the EPS picture gives a design principle for flux-lattice experiments: choose initial states and lattice geometries whose shortest paths sum to zero at U=0, then interactions supply the symmetry-breaking phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The EPS criterion could be turned into a diagnostic: a lattice with a vanishing sum over shortest paths at U=0 is a candidate for interaction-induced delocalization, so one could scan geometries by computing path sums rather than diagonalizing spectra.
  • The mechanism suggests a finite-size test: exact diagonalization of the two-doublon transition amplitude in the π-flux rhombic lattice should show the leading correction scaling as U Δt relative to the U=0 cancellation, and higher-order resummation remains an open controlled calculation.
  • One could probe the predicted phase shift directly in an interferometer of ultracold atoms or superconducting qubits: prepare a doublon, let it evolve along two designed paths with and without intermediate double occupancy, and detect the relative phase through interference.
  • If the truncated path expansion misses a higher-order cancellation, the framework would over-predict transport; thus a numerical check of the first nonzero higher-order contributions to the doublon amplitude would sharpen the paper's claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces evolution-path symmetry (EPS) as a path-integral framework for interaction-induced transport in flux lattices. In the π-flux rhombic lattice, it enumerates ten four-step Fock-space paths connecting doublon states |A_j A_j⟩ and |A_{j+1} A_{j+1}⟩, shows their noninteracting amplitudes sum exactly to zero, and argues that contact interactions add an occupation-dependent phase e^{-iUΔt} to the two paths with intermediate double occupancy, breaking the cancellation and enabling delocalization. The framework is then generalized to classify destructive-interference and conjugate-phase EPS, and applied to a flux ladder, where interactions are argued to break conjugate-phase symmetry and generate chiral currents. Exact diagonalization and Gross-Pitaevskii/DMRG calculations are presented in support.

Significance. The paper has clear strengths: the ten-path enumeration is explicit and checkable, the noninteracting sum is exactly zero, no fitted parameters are used, and the ED/GP numerics are consistent with known interaction-induced delocalization and chiral transport. The appendices also make a serious attempt to connect bosonic Fock-space path amplitudes to symmetrized distinguishable-particle lattices. If the EPS mechanism could be made quantitatively controlled, it would offer a useful unifying interpretation across AB cages and chiral ladders. As it stands, however, the framework is retrospective and heuristic: the two EPS types are defined so that the two target phenomena are examples, the effects discussed are already known, and the central path-phase argument is a truncated lowest-order picture without a controlled error estimate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II and Eq. (10)] The central claim that interactions break the noninteracting cancellation by inserting e^{-iUΔt} on paths 3 and 6 rests on the assumption that the ten four-step paths dominate the exact propagator at the times shown in Fig. 1 (tJ = 1, 2). The paper itself states in Eq. (10) that K_{n+1}/K_n is 'difficult to estimate in general', and no bound or controlled estimate is provided. The exact ED delocalization confirms the phenomenon but not the proposed mechanism: a nonzero four-step matrix element is neither necessary nor sufficient for the observed transport, since the standard doublon-band picture already predicts delocalization. The authors should either (i) compute the exact short-time doublon-to-doublon amplitude and show that the ten-path phase-shift prediction captures it quantitatively, (ii) derive an effective doublon Hamiltonian in which the phase-shift mechanism is the dominant te
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (5)-(9)] The e^{-iUΔt} insertion is not derived from the path expansion of the full propagator. In Eq. (9), a graph path with n hoppings can be distributed among N time slices in C_N^n ways, and the intermediate Fock states are occupied for multiple time slices. An on-site interaction contributes e^{-iU n(n-1) Δt/2} for every slice spent in the doubly occupied state; summing over slice placements produces energy-denominator factors, not a single per-path phase factor e^{-iUΔt}. Thus the treatment in Sec. II corresponds to a Trotter short-time phase, not to the continuum limit of the path sum. The paper should clarify whether the path-phase mechanism is intended as a qualitative picture or a quantitative expansion, and if the latter, derive the interaction-modified path amplitudes consistently within the N→∞ limit.
  3. [Sec. V and Fig. 5] The EPS argument is formulated for two-particle Fock states, but the main numerical support for chiral transport is a Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field calculation for a BEC initial state. In GP dynamics, interactions enter as a nonlinear potential U|ψ|^2, not as occupation-dependent phase shifts on many-body Fock paths. The assertion that a coherent state 'can be seen as the summation of Fock states' does not automatically imply that the GP result is governed by the same EPS-breaking mechanism. The two-particle DMRG result is mentioned only in an inset caption and no quantitative data are shown. Please provide the exact/DMRG two-particle result explicitly, or reframe the GP calculation as a separate mean-field phenomenon rather than direct support for the Fock-space EPS mechanism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II] The text states that the single-particle spectrum has 'a perfectly flat band at energy E=0 and two dispersive bands' and that 'any localized single-particle wavepacket remains dynamically confined.' Dispersive bands generally permit propagation, so this statement needs clarification or correction; if the initial doublon state has no overlap with dispersive bands, that should be shown explicitly.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 5] The inset mentions DMRG results for a two-particle initial state, but no curve or quantitative value is visible in the figure. Either enlarge/describe the inset or move the DMRG result to a main figure with a clear quantitative statement.
  3. [Sec. IV] The category 'unchanged-/conjugate-phase EPS' is ambiguous: it does not cancel the propagator itself but cancels a chiral observable. It would help to state explicitly that the amplitudes are equal in modulus while the phases are conjugate, and explain how this leads to vanishing chiral displacement.
  4. [Appendix A] The appendix is labeled 'supplemental material' in the first sentence but is an appendix of the main paper. This should be corrected for consistency.
  5. [Sec. VI] There is a typo: 'particles wiith other different quantum statistics' should read 'particles with other quantum statistics.' Also, 'based density' in Sec. V should likely be 'chiral displacement.'
  6. [Appendix B] The extension to fermions and hard-core bosons is asserted rather than demonstrated. In particular, for spinless fermions the contact interaction has no effect in the two-particle sector because double occupancy is forbidden, so the claim that 'the phenomena predicted by EPS still hold for fermions' requires qualification and a concrete example.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EPS mechanism is a computed path-sum heuristic with independent numerical benchmarks; the taxonomy is post hoc but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. In Sec. II, the non-interacting suppression is established by enumerating all ten four-step paths between doublon states and summing their phase factors to zero; this is a concrete computation, not an assumption of the conclusion. The interaction effect is inserted as e^{-iUΔt} on the two paths with intermediate double occupancy, again a definite rule derived from H_int = U/2 Σ n(n-1). The resulting finite amplitude is a derived consequence, and the exact-diagonalization data in Fig. 1 provide independent numerical confirmation. No parameter is fitted to the target observable (delocalization or chiral displacement), and no 'prediction' is a renamed fit. The paper's own caveat that K_{n+1}/K_n is 'difficult to estimate in general' (Eq. 10) and that the shortest paths are 'assumed to dominate the evolution in a short enough time' is a limitation on the validity/rigor of the mechanism, not a circular step; a truncated approximation can be uncontrolled without being equivalent to its input. Similarly, the EPS classification (destructive-interference vs. conjugate-phase) is a post-hoc taxonomy that groups previously known phenomena (AB caging breakdown, chiral suppression), and the concluding statement that the theory is only a 'preliminary framework' explicitly disclaims more. Renaming a known effect as an EPS type would be circular only if the explanation reduced to the name; here the path-phase calculations and the external benchmarks carry the argument. The only author-overlapping citations ([24], [45]) appear in background context and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters: J=1 sets the energy scale; U, φ, and system sizes are model inputs, not tuned to match data. EPS is a conceptual classification, not a physical entity; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main ad hoc assumptions are the truncated path-phase mechanism and the GP-to-many-body mapping.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Time-sliced path-integral expansion of the propagator converges and can be truncated at low order for short-time dynamics.
    Used throughout Sec III; the paper itself notes the truncation is not generally controlled (Eq. 11 and surrounding discussion).
  • domain assumption The single-particle π-flux rhombic lattice has a flat band and exhibits exact AB caging.
    Background from Refs [20,33], used as the baseline in Sec II.
  • ad hoc to paper Contact interaction contributes phase e^{-iU n(n-1)Δt/2} per time step and only paths with intermediate double occupancy are modified.
    Central mechanism in Sec II; but a single time slice with double occupancy contributes only O(Δt), and the finite-U phase requires a resummation the paper does not provide.
  • ad hoc to paper GP/mean-field dynamics faithfully represents the quantum many-body EPS-breaking mechanism for a BEC initial state.
    Invoked in Sec V for Fig. 5; a coherent state being a sum of Fock states does not by itself imply GP dynamics equals the many-body path analysis.
  • domain assumption The chiral symmetry U_ch and conjugate-path relation P_n(jλ,0a)=P_n*(-jλ,0a) hold for the noninteracting flux ladder.
    Used in Sec V to prove vanishing chiral displacement at U=0; standard property of the ladder Hamiltonian.
  • standard math Bosonic symmetrization maps distinguishable-particle paths to indistinguishable-particle path amplitudes, with √2 factors compensating for path multiplicity.
    Derived for two bosons in Appendix A; generalization to longer paths and more particles is asserted rather than proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding interaction-driven transport in flux lattices with evolution-path symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4TAMZFDN

@misc{pith2026260722288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding interaction-driven transport in flux lattices with evolution-path symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4TAMZFDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22288}
}
abstract

The destruction of Aharonov-Bohm (AB) caging by interaction and the emergence of interaction-induced chiral currents in flux lattices are two paradigmatic examples of interaction-driven quantum transport. While various mechanisms, such as bound-state formation and chiral spectral imbalance, have been proposed, a unifying physical picture remains elusive. Here, we employ the concept of \textit{evolution-path symmetry} (EPS) and its interaction-induced breaking as a framework to understand interaction-induced delocalization in flux lattices. EPS is defined as the invariance of a path's contribution under combined geometric and phase transformations. We demonstrate that in a $\pi$-flux rhombic lattice, interactions break the EPS present in the non-interacting limit by modifying the phase accumulation of many-body paths, thereby lifting the destructive interference responsible for AB caging. Furthermore, we apply this framework to explain interaction-induced chiral transport in flux ladders, where interactions break the phase relationship between symmetric paths, leading to a non-vanishing chiral current. Our work establishes EPS as a powerful tool for understanding transport phenomena beyond conventional eigenstate analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Shortest evolution paths in two-particle Fock space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Illustration of the product of rhombic lattices of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Time evolution of the chiral displacement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Their real-space projections are related by a geo- metric symmetry belonging to the lattice symme- try group (e.g., reflection, rotation, and translation restricted by the lattice geometry)

  2. [2]

    small” rhombic lattice and oppo- site latter half sections on the “big

    Their amplitudes and accumulated phase factors Φ[P ′] and Φ[P] keep fixed relationship (e.g., the same or conjugate). The second requirement, which is mainly determined by system Hamiltonian, makes EPS a useful concept because fixed phase relations facilitate the interference between FIG. 4. Illustration of the product of rhombic lattices of two distingui...

  3. [3]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices,Phys. Rev.109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  4. [4]

    Brandes and S

    T. Brandes and S. Kettemann,The Anderson Transition and its Ramifications — Localisation, Quantum Inter- ference, and Interactions, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 630 (Springer, Berlin, 2003), ISBN 978-3-642-07398-4

    2003

  5. [5]

    D. S. Wiersma, P. Bartolini, A. Lagendijk, and R. Righ- ini, Localization of light in a disordered medium,Nature 390, 671 (1997)

    1997

  6. [6]

    St¨ orzer, P

    M. St¨ orzer, P. Gross, C. M. Aegerter, and G. Maret, Ob- servation of the critical regime near Anderson localization of light,Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 063904 (2006)

    2006

  7. [7]

    Scheffold, R

    F. Scheffold, R. Lenke, R. Tweer, and G. Maret, Local- ization or classical diffusion of light?,Nature398, 206 (1999)

    1999

  8. [8]

    Schwartz, G

    T. Schwartz, G. Bartal, S. Fishman, and M. Segev, Transport and Anderson localization in disordered two- dimensional photonic lattices,Nature446, 52 (2007)

    2007

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Lahini, A

    Y. Lahini, A. Avidan, F. Pozzi, M. Sorel, R. Morandotti, D. N. Christodoulides, and Y. Silberberg, Anderson lo- calization and nonlinearity in one-dimensional disordered photonic lattices,Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 013906 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Karbasi, C

    S. Karbasi, C. R. Mirr, P. G. Frazier, R. J. Frazier, and A. Mafi, Observation of transverse Anderson localization in an optical fiber,Opt. Lett.37, 2304 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Karbasi, K

    S. Karbasi, K. W. Koch, and A. Mafi, Image transport through a disordered optical fibre mediated by transverse Anderson localization,Nat. Commun.5, 3362 (2014). 9

    2014

  4. [12]

    Billy, V

    J. Billy, V. Josse, Z. Zuo, A. Bernard, B. Hambrecht, P. Lugan, D. Cl´ ement, L. Sanchez-Palencia, P. Bouyer, and A. Aspect, Direct observation of Anderson localization of matter waves in a controlled disorder,Nature453, 891 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Roati, C

    G. Roati, C. D’Errico, L. Fallani, M. Fattori, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, G. Modugno, M. Modugno, and M. Inguscio, Anderson localization of a non-interacting Bose-Einstein condensate,Nature453, 895 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    J. J. Ludlam, S. N. Taraskin, and S. R. Elliott, Universal features of localized eigenstates in disordered systems,J. Phys.: Condens. Matter17, L321 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Conti and A

    C. Conti and A. Fratalocchi, Dynamic light diffusion, three-dimensional Anderson localization and lasing in in- verted opals,Nat. Phys.4, 794 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    H. Hu, A. Strybulevych, J. H. Page, S. E. Skipetrov, and B. A. van Tiggelen, Localization of ultrasound in a three- dimensional elastic network,Nat. Phys.4, 945 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Chab´ e, G

    J. Chab´ e, G. Lemari´ e, B. Gr´ emaud, D. Delande, P. Szrift- giser, and J. C. Garreau, Experimental observation of the Anderson metal-insulator transition with atomic matter waves,Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 255702 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    T. Ying, Y. Chen, Y. Wang, and X. Chen, Anderson localization of electrons in single crystals: LixFe7Se8,Sci. Adv.2, e1501283 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    S. H. Choi, S. W. Kim, Z. Ku, M. A. Visbal-Onufrak, S. R. Kim, K. H. Choi, H. Ko, W. Choi, A. M. Urbas, T. W. Goo, Y. L. Kim, and S. H. Kim, Anderson light localization in biological nanostructures of native silk, Nat. Commun.9, 452 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    S. E. Skipetrov and I. M. Sokolov, Red light for Anderson localization,New J. Phys.18, 021001 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Significance of electromag- netic potentials in the quantum theory,Phys. Rev.115, 485 (1959)

    1959

  14. [22]

    Vidal, R

    J. Vidal, R. Mosseri, and B. Dou¸ cot, Aharonov-Bohm cages in two-dimensional structures,Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5888 (1998)

    1998

  15. [23]

    C. C. Abilio, P. Butaud, Th. Fournier, B. Pannetier, J. Vidal, S. Tedesco, and B. Dalzotto, Magnetic field in- duced localization in a two-dimensional superconducting wire network,Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 5102 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    C. Naud, G. Faini, and D. Mailly, Aharonov-Bohm cages in 2D normal metal networks,Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5104 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    H. Li, Z. Dong, S. Longhi, Q. Liang, D. Xie, and B. Yan, Aharonov-Bohm caging and inverse Anderson transition in ultracold atoms,Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 220403 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    H. Li, Q. Liang, Z. Dong, H. Wang, W. Yi, J.-S. Pan, and B. Yan, Engineering topological chiral transport in a flat-band lattice of ultracold atoms,Light Sci. Appl. 14, 326 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localiza- tion and thermalization in quantum statistical mechan- ics,Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Fleishman and P

    L. Fleishman and P. W. Anderson, Interactions and the Anderson transition,Phys. Rev. B21, 2366 (1980)

    1980

  21. [29]

    B. L. Altshuler, Y. Gefen, A. Kamenev, and L. S. Levitov, Quasiparticle lifetime in a finite system: a nonperturba- tive approach,Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2803 (1997)

    1997

  22. [30]

    I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Interact- ing electrons in disordered wires: Anderson localization and low-T transport,Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 206603 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    D. M. Basko, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler, Metal- insulator transition in a weakly interacting many-electron system with localized single-particle states,Ann. Phys. 321, 1126 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Oganesyan and D

    V. Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Localization of interacting fermions at high temperature,Phys. Rev. B75, 155111 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Pal and D

    A. Pal and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization phase transition,Phys. Rev. B82, 174411 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    J. Z. Imbrie, On many-body localization for quantum spin chains,J. Stat. Phys.163, 998 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Vidal, B

    J. Vidal, B. Dou¸ cot, R. Mosseri, and P. Butaud, Interac- tion induced delocalization for two particles in a periodic potential,Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 3906 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Vidal, P

    J. Vidal, P. Butaud, B. Dou¸ cot, and R. Mosseri, Disorder and interactions in Aharonov-Bohm cages,Phys. Rev. B 64, 155306 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    Tovmasyan, E

    M. Tovmasyan, E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, and S. D. Huber, Geometry-induced pair condensation,Phys. Rev. B88, 220510(R) (2013)

    2013

  30. [39]

    Cartwright, G

    C. Cartwright, G. De Chiara, and M. Rizzi, Rhombi- chain Bose-Hubbard model: Geometric frustration and interactions,Phys. Rev. B98, 184508 (2018)

    2018

  31. [40]

    Di Liberto, S

    M. Di Liberto, S. Mukherjee, and N. Goldman, Nonlinear dynamics of Aharonov-Bohm cages,Phys. Rev. A100, 043829 (2019)

    2019

  32. [41]

    Danieli, A

    C. Danieli, A. Andreanov, T. Mithun, and S. Flach, Quantum caging in interacting many-body all-bands-flat lattices,Phys. Rev. B104, 085132 (2021)

    2021

  33. [42]

    Danieli, A

    C. Danieli, A. Andreanov, T. Mithun, and S. Flach, Non- linear caging in all-bands-flat lattices,Phys. Rev. B104, 085131 (2021)

    2021

  34. [43]

    Tovmasyan, S

    M. Tovmasyan, S. Peotta, L. Liang, P. T¨ orm¨ a, and S. D. Huber, Preformed pairs in flat Bloch bands,Phys. Rev. B98, 134513 (2018)

    2018

  35. [44]

    J. G. C. Martinez, C. S. Chiu, B. M. Smitham, and A. A. Houck, Flat-band localization and interaction-induced delocalization of photons,Sci. Adv.9, eadj7195 (2023)

    2023

  36. [45]

    T. Chen, C. Huang, I. Velkovsky, T. Ozawa, H. Price, J. P. Covey, and B. Gadway, Interaction-driven breakdown of Aharonov–Bohm caging in flat-band Rydberg lattices, Nat. Phys.21, 221 (2025)

    2025

  37. [46]

    M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, T. Menke, D. Borgnia, P. M. Preiss, F. Grusdt, A. M. Kaufman, and M. Greiner, Microscopy of the interacting Harper– Hofstadter model in the two-body limit,Nature546, 519 (2017)

    2017

  38. [47]

    L. Pan, Q. Liang, C.-A. Yang, Y. Huang, P. Liu, F. Xi, W. Yi, X. Zhou, and J.-S. Pan, Interaction-induced chiral-transport inversion,Phys. Rev. A112, L061303 (2025)

    2025

  39. [48]

    Greschner, M

    S. Greschner, M. Piraud, F. Heidrich-Meisner, I. P. Mc- Culloch, U. Schollw¨ ock, and T. Vekua, Spontaneous In- crease of Magnetic Flux and Chiral-Current Reversal in Bosonic Ladders: Swimming against the Tide,Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 190402 (2015)

    2015

  40. [49]

    Kolley, M

    F. Kolley, M. Piraud, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollw¨ ock, and F. Heidrich-Meisner, Strongly interacting bosons on a three-leg ladder in the presence of a homogeneous flux, New J. Phys.17, 092001 (2015)

    2015

  41. [50]

    Uchino, Analytical approach to a bosonic ladder sub- ject to a magnetic field,Phys

    S. Uchino, Analytical approach to a bosonic ladder sub- ject to a magnetic field,Phys. Rev. A93, 053629 (2016). 10

    2016

  42. [51]

    Wang,Concise Quantum Field Theory, (Peking University Press, Beijing, 2008)

    Z.-X. Wang,Concise Quantum Field Theory, (Peking University Press, Beijing, 2008)

    2008

  43. [52]

    H. Zhao, H. Du, Y. Wang, Y. Li, C. Ren, J. Wu, W. Liu, L. Xiao, S. Jia, Q. Fan, and J. Ma, Observation of interaction-induced asymmetric chiral currents in a syn- thetic zigzag ladder,Phys. Rev. A112, 023307 (2025). APPENDIX A: SYMMETRIZA TION AND MANY-BODY P A TH AMPLITUDES I...

    2025

  44. [53]

    (2) From|j, i⟩dist, second particlei→kgives|j, k⟩ dist

    =−t/2. (2) From|j, i⟩dist, second particlei→kgives|j, k⟩ dist. Co- efficient product: (1/ √ 2)·(−t)·(1/ √

  45. [54]

    The total contribution is − t 2 + − t 2 =−t,(25) rather than−2t

    =−t/2. The total contribution is − t 2 + − t 2 =−t,(25) rather than−2t. The factor 1/2 from the product of nor- malization coefficients prevents the emergence of a−2t coefficient. Summary of matrix elements Initial state Final state Matrix element |i, j⟩bos |k, j⟩bos (k < j,si...

  46. [55]

    For instance, the amplitude for |i, i⟩bos → |i, j⟩bos → |j, j⟩bos is ( √ 2t)·( √ 2t) = 2t 2 (up to phases). Now, if we forget particle indistinguishability and treat the particles as distinguishable, the same physical pro- cess would be represented by two distinct paths in the...

  47. [56]

    Path A: Particle 1 goesi→j, particle 2 stays ati, then particle 2 goesi→j

  48. [57]

    In the distinguishable-particle picture, each of these paths contributes an amplitudet 2 (ignoring phases)

    Path B: Particle 2 goesi→j, particle 1 stays ati, then particle 1 goesi→j. In the distinguishable-particle picture, each of these paths contributes an amplitudet 2 (ignoring phases). Their total contribution ist 2 +t 2 = 2t 2, which exactly matches the 2t 2 obtained from the b...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.