Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

Double microwave shielding can make a vibrational two-state gas of polar molecules collisionally stable while giving strong, tunable dipolar spin interactions.

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 01:43 UTC pith:Q7XZHWHP

load-bearing objection A genuinely new shielding-plus-pseudo-spin scheme that is mostly solid; the 'strictly avoiding three-body recombination' claim goes beyond what is computed. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25777 v2 pith:Q7XZHWHP submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phphysics.chem-phquant-ph

Tunable state-dependent interactions in collisionally stable mixtures of polar molecules

Hubert J. J\'{o}\'{z}wiak , Hanwei Yang , Eugen Dizer , Arthur Christianen , Tijs Karman This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phphysics.chem-phquant-ph
keywords polar moleculesmicrowave shieldingvibrational pseudo-spindipolar interactionsquantum simulationt-J-V-W modelcollisional stabilityNaCs
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.

This paper proposes encoding a pseudo-spin in the ground and first excited vibrational states of polar molecules and dressing both states with the same pair of microwave fields. The central claim is that this 'double microwave shielding' simultaneously suppresses two-body collisional loss for every collision pair — ground–ground, ground–excited, and excited–excited — below about 10⁻¹³ cm³/s, while leaving no field-linked bound states that could cause three-body recombination. At the same time, the dressing makes the long-range dipolar interactions strongly state-dependent, yielding tunable Ising, density-density, and spin-density couplings with length scales exceeding the interparticle distance at n ≈ 10¹⁴ cm⁻³. If correct, this turns bulk or lattice gases of molecules such as NaCs into strongly interacting two-component spin systems, offering a direct route to extended Hubbard and t-J-V-W models and itinerant magnetism.

Core claim

The paper's central result is that a single global pair of σ- and π-polarized microwave fields can dress molecules in both v=0 and v=1 simultaneously, with rotation–vibration coupling shifting the effective detuning of the excited state by 2αₑ. Because the microwave Rabi frequencies and detunings used for shielding (tens of MHz) are comparable to this shift, the two vibrational states acquire different dressed dipole moments, producing state-dependent dipolar interactions parameterized by dipolar lengths a_dd^{vv'} and equivalently by the Ising J_z, density-density V, and density-spin W couplings. Coupled-channel scattering calculations for bosonic NaCs show that for balanced or σ-dominated

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the state-dependent microwave dressing produced by rotation–vibration coupling. The rotational j=0→1 transition frequency differs between v=0 and v=1 by 2αₑ (typically MHz), so the same σ/π fields, near-resonant for v=0, are effectively detuned differently for v=1; the dressed dipolar interaction strength scales as (1 + (Δ(v)/Ω)²)⁻¹. This single physical effect creates both the tunable spin-dependence in the dipolar interactions (J_z, V, W) and the simultaneous shielding of all collision pairs. The quantitative loss predictions come from coupled-channel quantum scattering with a short-range absorbing boundary condition that models sticky collisions, with field-l

Load-bearing premise

The predicted stability rests on the collision model: if real vibrationally excited molecules stick together or recombine in ways the absorbing-boundary model does not capture, the claimed low loss rates will not hold.

What would settle it

Measure two-body loss coefficients for |0⟩+|1⟩ and |1⟩+|1⟩ collisions of ultracold NaCs using the paper's proposed microwave parameters (e.g., Ωσ/Ωπ = 2 trajectory); if any rate exceeds ≈10⁻¹³ cm³/s, or if a field-linked bound state appears in the declared stable window, the central claim is contradicted. A companion check is measuring the two-body lifetime at n ≈ 10¹⁴ cm⁻³, which should exceed 100 ms.

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

If this is right

  • A bulk NaCs gas at n ≈ 10¹⁴ cm⁻³ would have two-body lifetimes exceeding 100 ms while interaction energy exceeds kinetic energy, placing it in the strongly interacting regime.
  • The same global microwave configuration can be tuned continuously from a spin-independent (SU(2)-symmetric) interaction to strongly ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic Ising exchange with a sizable spin-density coupling.
  • In an optical lattice, the scheme realizes extended Hubbard and t-J models with direct long-range off-site interactions, avoiding the J ≪ t limitation of super-exchange.
  • The shielding extends to fermionic molecules and to higher vibrational manifolds, so the platform can be generalized beyond one spin-1/2 species.
  • For ultrapolar silver-bearing molecules such as KAg, the predicted interaction scales grow two- to six-fold while loss rates remain below 10⁻¹³ cm³/s.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental check would be to measure k₀₁ and k₁₁ for NaCs under the predicted microwave parameters; the model's prediction of negligible vibrational relaxation could be falsified by comparing loss in v=1 with and without shielding.
  • If the absorbing-boundary model misses state-specific short-range dynamics for vibrationally hot molecules, the quantitative lifetimes could change even though the dressed-interaction Hamiltonian remains valid; three-body loss near field-linked two-body resonances is the specific risk.
  • Combining the vibrational pseudo-spin with the hyperfine manifold suggests two-orbital SU(N) systems with U(1)×SU(N)×SU(N) symmetry, extending the platform beyond spin-1/2.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes encoding a pseudo-spin-1/2 system in the v=0 and v=1 vibrational states of ultracold polar molecules, and using two global microwave fields (sigma- and pi-polarized) to simultaneously microwave-shield all three collision pairs (|0>+|0>, |0>+|1>, |1>+|1>). The central claim is that a single field configuration can reduce all two-body loss rates below about 1e-13 cm^3/s while generating strong, tunable state-dependent dipolar interactions parameterized by J_z, V, and W. The authors support this with coupled-channel scattering calculations using a short-range absorbing boundary condition for bosonic NaCs, identify stable parameter windows, demonstrate interaction tunability along two trajectories, and extend the analysis to KAg. They argue that the resulting platform can realize t-J-V-W models, itinerant magnetism, and anisotropic dipolar droplets in bulk gases and optical lattices.

Significance. If the central loss predictions are correct, this work would remove a key obstacle in quantum simulation with polar molecules: state-dependent dipolar interactions are usually accompanied by severe collisional losses, whereas this proposal offers simultaneous shielding and strong spin-dependent interactions from standard microwave fields. The algebraic decomposition in Eq. (2) is clean, the parameter scans are systematic, and the inclusion of vibrationally inelastic channels in Appendix C is a welcome check. The extension to KAg and the discussion of fermionic molecules broaden the impact. The manuscript is also honest about several limitations. However, the abstract and Section III make a strong claim about strictly avoiding three-body recombination that is not backed by any three-body calculation or estimate; because the quoted 100 ms lifetime at n~1e14 cm^-3 depends on this, the central feasibility claim is currently incomplete.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Section III; Fig. 2 caption] The abstract states that double microwave shielding 'strictly avoid[s] three-body recombination,' and the text near Fig. 2 says that excluding field-linked bound states prevents three-body recombination. However, no three-body calculation or estimate of k3 is presented. The loss rates in Figs. 2-3 and Appendix C are extracted from the imaginary part of the two-body s-wave scattering length, and the white regions in Fig. 2 are excluded based on two-body bound states. The absence of field-linked two-body bound states does not, by itself, rule out three-body loss through the long-range dipolar interaction. At n approximately 1e14 cm^-3 and d approximately 4000 a0, a three-body loss coefficient above about 1e-27 cm^6/s would reduce the quoted 100 ms lifetime below a usable value. The authors should either compute or bound k3, or soften the 'strictly avoiding' claim to one about two-body supp
  2. [Appendix A; Appendix C; Ref. [60]] All quantitative two-body loss predictions rely on the coupled-channel scattering model with a short-range absorbing boundary condition, extended to vibrational degrees of freedom in the companion preprint Ref. [60]. The present manuscript does not benchmark this v=1 extension against experiment, converged close-coupling results, or a direct validation of the absorbing boundary for vibrational relaxation. Figure 7 is a model prediction, not a validation. If the real short-range dynamics for vibrationally excited molecules are non-universal in a way not captured by the absorbing boundary, the simultaneous suppression of k00, k01, and k11 would fail even though the dressed-state interaction picture in Eqs. (1)-(2) would remain valid. I recommend that the authors either provide additional validation or convergence checks for the v=1 channels, or explicitly state that the loss suppression re
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The right vertical axes are labeled 'Interactions [d]' without defining d. Please define d = n^{-1/3} in the caption or use a dimensionless ratio such as V/d, J_z/d, W/d for clarity.
  2. [Eq. (2)] In the displayed equation, the term 'V' appears as a scalar inside the bracket without any spin operators. This is correct algebraically, but the notation may confuse readers; consider writing 'V times the identity' or adding a sentence clarifying that V is the density-density term multiplying the identity in spin space.
  3. [Appendix D] The equivalence between higher vibrational states and a larger effective rotation-vibration coupling constant neglects anharmonic shifts and changes in the permanent dipole moment with v. This is a reasonable first approximation, but it should be stated explicitly as an approximation, especially if the extension to v>1 is advertised beyond the two-level subspace.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found; the spin couplings are defined from dressed-state dipolar lengths and the tunability/loss maps are parameter scans, though one same-group companion citation supplies the vibrational scattering model.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Eq. (2) defines J_z, V, and W as linear combinations of the dipolar lengths a_dd^{vv'} computed from the dressed states, so the reported tunability maps (Figs. 4 and 5) are scans over microwave parameters, not retrofits to a target J_z/V/W. The two-body loss rates are extracted from the imaginary part of the complex s-wave scattering length via a coupled-channel calculation with an absorbing boundary condition; the loss rates are outputs of that model, not inputs chosen to match the claimed stability. The main dependency is Ref. [60], a companion preprint by overlapping authors, which supplies the rotation-vibration coupling constant alpha_e and the extension of the scattering model to vibrational degrees of freedom. This is a same-group citation and a model dependency, but it is not a circular reduction: the paper performs its own scattering calculations and no step equates a fitted input with a predicted output. The abstract's claim that the scheme 'strictly avoid[s] three-body recombination' is not backed by a three-body calculation; that is a missing computation/completeness gap, not a circularity. Overall, the quantitative claims rest on an unverified companion model, but the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs, so the circularity burden is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's genuine contribution is a rearrangement of known ingredients (vibrational states, rotational constants, microwave dressing); its ledger cost is concentrated in domain assumptions about the scattering model's fidelity for v=1 and in hand-chosen operating points. No hidden fitted parameters reproduce the interaction values; the microwave ratios and detunings are explicit control knobs whose tunability is the point of the proposal.

free parameters (3)
  • Overall Rabi ceiling Ω_tot ≤ 50×2π MHz = 50×2π MHz (20 and 10×2π MHz on studied trajectories)
    Hand-chosen practical upper limit (per Ref. [64]) rather than derived; it bounds the achievable interaction strengths in Figs. 2–5 and is a design constraint of the feasibility maps.
  • Detuning trajectory Δ_σ/Ω_σ = (6/11)(Δ_π/Ω_π) + 27/110 = Linear path at Ω_σ/Ω_π = 2
    Hand-selected illustrative path through the stable window; the tunability claims (Figs. 5–6, 8) are demonstrated along this path, not exhaustively.
  • Ratio scan grid Ω_σ/Ω_π ∈ {1/4, 1/2, 1, 2} = Four ratios
    Chosen scan values for the stability maps (Fig. 3); they are the intended experimental tuning knobs, but the breadth of the tunability claim is limited to this grid.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Absorbing-boundary coupled-channel model (extended to vibrational DOF in Ref. [60]) captures sticky-collision loss for v=0 and v=1 dressed molecules
    Standard in the shielding literature, but the v=1 extension is supplied by the authors' own companion preprint and is not experimentally verified; it carries the entire loss-suppression claim.
  • domain assumption Off-diagonal vibrational transition dipole ⟨v=0|d̂|v=1⟩ is negligible, so J⊥ flip-flop interactions are dropped
    Stated in the main text near Eq. (2). True for typical bialkalis (~0.3% of the permanent dipole), but it is an approximation that removes a class of terms from the effective spin model.
  • domain assumption Absence of field-linked two-body bound states implies absence of three-body recombination
    Inference from two-body calculations following Refs. [41,63]; the abstract's 'strictly avoiding three-body recombination' is stronger than the two-body evidence.
  • domain assumption Rotational constant obeys B_v = B_e − α_e(v + 1/2) with α_e(NaCs) ≈ 7 MHz (values from Ref. [60])
    Standard molecular spectroscopy; the mechanism of state-dependent dressing depends on the 2α_e ≈ 14 MHz shift being comparable to the microwave linewidths and detunings.
  • ad hoc to paper Equivalence of scaling (v, α_e) → (v′, α_e′) lets the scheme extend to v > 1 without scattering calculations
    Appendix D asserts the v=0–4 extension by scaling arguments while explicitly stating that no scattering calculations were performed for v > 1.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11701 in / 27097 out tokens · 263483 ms · 2026-08-03T01:43:05.899751+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose encoding a pseudo-spin-$1/2$ system in the ground ($v=0$) and first excited ($v=1$) vibrational states of polar molecules. Double microwave shielding simultaneously shields molecules in both states, suppressing two-body losses by orders of magnitude while strictly avoiding three-body recombination. The microwave dressing is state-dependent and results in highly tunable, long-range dipolar Ising exchange ($J_z$), density-density ($V$), and spin-density ($W$) interactions. These interaction length scales readily exceed the typical interparticle spacing, pushing the molecules deep into the strongly interacting regime. In bulk gases, this enables the exploration of itinerant quantum magnetism and quantum droplets with novel anisotropic spin textures; in optical lattices, it naturally realizes extended Hubbard and $t$-$J_z$ models, opening new directions in quantum simulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25777 by Arthur Christianen, Eugen Dizer, Hanwei Yang, Hubert J. J\'{o}\'{z}wiak, Tijs Karman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Ro-vibrational van der Waals interaction between ultracold polar molecules

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Molecules in (v,j)=(0,1) and (1,0) feel a strong ro-vibrational van der Waals repulsion, C6=d_e^4/(9α_e), that can cut collisional loss by orders of magnitude.

  2. Ro-vibrational van der Waals interaction between ultracold polar molecules

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Molecules in a (v=0,j=1)+(v=1,j=0) pair feel a giant, repulsive van der Waals interaction that strongly suppresses collisional loss.

  3. Tunable two-component ultracold molecular gases with vibrational shielding

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Vibrational-state-dependent repulsive shielding can stabilize and independently tune two-component ultracold molecular mixtures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bloch, Nat

    I. Bloch, Nat. Phys.1, 23 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbene, Nat. Phys.8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    H. A. Gersch and G. C. Knollman, Phys. Rev.129, 959 (1963). 7 □3 0 3 6 Interactions [d] □1 0 1 2 3 Interactions [×104a0] (a) V Jz W 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ∆π/Ωπ 10−15 10−14 10−13 kvv ′ [cm3/s] (b) k00 k01 k11 FIG. 8.(a) T unability of the interaction model param- eters (V,J z,W) and (b) the two-body loss rates (k00, k01,k 11) evaluated for KAgalong the trajector...

    1963

  6. [6]

    Hubbard, Proc

    J. Hubbard, Proc. R. Soc. A276, 238 (1963)

    1963

  7. [7]

    V. E. Korepin and F. H. Essler,Exactly solvable models of strongly correlated electrons, Vol. 18 (World Scientific, 1994)

    1994

  8. [8]

    Y. A. Izyumov, Phys.-Uspekhi38, 385 (1995)

    1995

  9. [9]

    F. H. Essler, H. Frahm, F. G¨ ohmann, A. Kl¨ umper, and V. E. Korepin,The one-dimensional Hubbard model (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  10. [10]

    Y. A. Izyumov, Phys.-Uspekhi40, 445 (1997)

    1997

  11. [11]

    S. R. Manmana, M. M¨ oller, R. Gezzi, and K. R. A. Haz- zard, Phys. Rev. A96, 043618 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    Bulaevski, E

    L. Bulaevski, E. Nagaev, and D. Khomski ˇ ı, Sov. Phys. JETP27, 836 (1968)

    1968

  13. [13]

    S. A. Trugman, Phys. Rev. B37, 1597 (1988)

    1988

  14. [14]

    Sachdev, Phys

    S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B39, 12232 (1989)

    1989

  15. [15]

    Wrzosek and K

    P. Wrzosek and K. Wohlfeld, Phys. Rev. B103, 035113 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Wrzosek, K

    P. Wrzosek, K. Wohlfeld, E. A. Demler, A. Bohrdt, and F. Grusdt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01815 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  18. [18]

    K. A. Chao, J. Spa lek, and A. M. Ole´ s, Phys. Rev. B18, 3453 (1978)

    1978

  19. [19]

    M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, C. Feng, S. Zhang, A. W. Young, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, Na- ture642, 909 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    M. L. Wall and L. Carr, Phys. Rev. A82, 013611 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    Trefzger, C

    C. Trefzger, C. Menotti, B. Capogrosso-Sansone, and M. Lewenstein, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.44, 193001 (2011)

    2011

  22. [22]

    A. V. Gorshkov, S. R. Manmana, G. Chen, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. A84, 033619 (2011)

    2011

  23. [23]

    A. V. Gorshkov, S. R. Manmana, G. Chen, J. Ye, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 115301 (2011)

    2011

  24. [24]

    B. Yan, S. A. Moses, B. Gadway, J. P. Covey, K. R. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Nature501, 521 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    J. S. Rosenberg, L. Christakis, E. Guardado-Sanchez, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Nature Physics18, 1062 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Christakis, J

    L. Christakis, J. S. Rosenberg, R. Raj, S. Chi, A. Morn- ingstar, D. A. Huse, Yan, Zoe Z., and W. S. Bakr, Nature 614, 64 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    D. K. Ruttley, T. R. Hepworth, A. Guttridge, and S. L. Cornish, Nature637, 827 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    J. M. Mortlock, A. P. Raghuram, B. P. Maddox, P. D. Gregory, and S. L. Cornish, Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-025-67212-7 (2025)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025-67212-7 2025

  29. [29]

    Y. Lu, C. M. Holland, C. L. Welsh, X.-Y. Chen, and L. W. Cheuk, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19090 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    A. P. Raghuram, F. M. Blondell, J. M. Mortlock, B. P. Maddox, S. Dasgupta, H. A. Middleton-Spencer, K. R. Hazzard, H. M. Price, P. D. Gregory, and S. L. Cornish, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00745 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. Hazzard, Nature Physics20, 730 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    De Marco, G

    L. De Marco, G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J. P. Covey, and J. Ye, Science363, 853 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Valtolina, K

    G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J.-R. Li, L. De Marco, and J. Ye, Nature588, 239 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    Matsuda, L

    K. Matsuda, L. De Marco, J.-R. Li, W. G. Tobias, G. Valtolina, G. Qu´ em´ ener, and J. Ye, Science370, 1324 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Schindewolf, R

    A. Schindewolf, R. Bause, X.-Y. Chen, M. Duda, T. Kar- man, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Nature607, 677 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, B. Bulatovic, T. Karman, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Nature631, 289–293 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Z. Shi, Z. Huang, F. Deng, W.-J. Jin, S. Yi, T. Shi, and D. Wang, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-026-03362- 9 (2026)

    doi:10.1038/s41567-026-03362- 2026

  38. [38]

    Karman and J

    T. Karman and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 163401 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    Karman, N

    T. Karman, N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, PRX Quantum6, 020358 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Anderegg, S

    L. Anderegg, S. Burchesky, Y. Bao, S. S. Yu, T. Karman, E. Chae, K.-K. Ni, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Science 373, 779 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    W. Yuan, S. Zhang, N. Bigagli, H. Kwak, C. Warner, T. Karman, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08773 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Zhang, W

    S. Zhang, W. Yuan, N. Bigagli, H. Kwak, T. Karman, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Nature651, 601–606 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    J.-R. Li, K. Matsuda, C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, W. G. Tobias, J. S. Higgins, and J. Ye, Nature614, 70 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    A. N. Carroll, H. Hirzler, C. Miller, D. Wellnitz, S. R. Muleady, J. Lin, K. P. Zamarski, R. R. Wang, J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey,et al., Science388, 381 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Mayle, B

    M. Mayle, B. P. Ruzic, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A85, 062712 (2012)

    2012

  46. [46]

    Bause, A

    R. Bause, A. Christianen, A. Schindewolf, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, J. Phys. Chem. A127, 729 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    Mukherjee, J

    B. Mukherjee, J. M. Hutson, and K. R. Hazzard, New J. Phys.27, 013013 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, C. Xu, P. S. 8 Julienne, J. Ye, P. Zoller, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. Rey, Nat. Phys.6, 289 (2010)

    2010

  49. [49]

    S. Taie, R. Yamazaki, S. Sugawa, and Y. Takahashi, Nat. Phys.8, 825 (2012)

    2012

  50. [50]

    S. Taie, E. Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla, N. Nishizawa, Y. Takasu, Y. Kuno, H.-T. Wei, R. T. Scalettar, K. R. Hazzard, and Y. Takahashi, Nat. Phys.18, 1356 (2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Bishof, S. L. Bromley, C. V. Kraus, M. S. Safronova, P. Zoller, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science345, 1467 (2014)

    2014

  52. [52]

    Hofrichter, L

    C. Hofrichter, L. Riegger, F. Scazza, M. H¨ ofer, D. R. Fer- nandes, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Phys. Rev. X6, 021030 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    B. Song, Y. Yan, C. He, Z. Ren, Q. Zhou, and G.-B. Jo, Phys. Rev. X10, 041053 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    F. M. Surace, P. Fromholz, F. Scazza, and M. Dalmonte, Quantum8, 1359 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    M. A. Werner, C. P. Moca, M. Kormos, ¨O. Legeza, B. D´ ora, and G. Zar´ and, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043020 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    D. Tusi, L. Franchi, L. F. Livi, K. Baumann, D. Bene- dicto Orenes, L. Del Re, R. E. Barfknecht, T.-W. Zhou, M. Inguscio, G. Cappellini,et al., Nat. Phys.18, 1201 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    M. A. Cazalilla and A. M. Rey, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 124401 (2014)

    2014

  58. [58]

    Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla and S

    E. Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla and S. Choudhury, J. Phys. Condens. Matter37, 083003 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Bigagli, C

    N. Bigagli, C. Warner, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, I. Steven- son, T. Karman, and S. Will, Nat. Phys.19, 1579–1584 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    K. Feng, H. Yang, H. J. J´ o´ zwiak, and T. Karman, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.25774

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    J. Lin, G. Chen, M. Jin, Z. Shi, F. Deng, W. Zhang, G. Qu´ em´ ener, T. Shi, S. Yi, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031032 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    X.-Y. Chen, A. Schindewolf, S. Eppelt, R. Bause, M. Duda, S. Biswas, T. Karman, T. Hilker, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Nature614, 59 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    Stevenson, S

    I. Stevenson, S. Singh, A. Elkamshishy, N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, C. H. Greene, and S. Will, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 263402 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    H. J. J´ o´ zwiak, I. Stevenson, S. Will, and T. Karman, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09636 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    ´Smia lkowski and M

    M. ´Smia lkowski and M. Tomza, Phys. Rev. A103, 022802 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    Dutta, B

    J. Dutta, B. Mukherjee, and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023164 (2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    M. A. Baranov, M. S. Mar’enko, V. S. Rychkov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A66, 013606 (2002)

    2002

  68. [68]

    N. R. Cooper and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 155302 (2009)

    2009

  69. [69]

    Levinsen, N

    J. Levinsen, N. R. Cooper, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A84, 013603 (2011)

    2011

  70. [70]

    Deng, X.-Y

    F. Deng, X.-Y. Chen, X.-Y. Luo, W. Zhang, S. Yi, and T. Shi, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 183001 (2023)

    2023

  71. [71]

    Schindewolf, J

    A. Schindewolf, J. Hertkorn, I. Stevenson, M. Ciardi, P. Gross, D. Wang, T. Karman, G. Quemener, S. Will, T. Pohl,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14511 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Ciardi, K

    M. Ciardi, K. R. Pedersen, T. Langen, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 153401 (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    D. M. Stamper-Kurn and M. Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1191 (2013)

    2013

  74. [74]

    I. F. Silvera and J. Walraven, Prog. Low Temp. Phys. 10, 139 (1986)

    1986

  75. [75]

    J. M. McGuirk, D. M. Harber, H. J. Lewandowski, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 150402 (2003)

    2003

  76. [76]

    Koinov, Ann

    Z. Koinov, Ann. Phys.524, 421 (2012)

    2012

  77. [77]

    Harir, A

    S. Harir, A. Zouhair, M. Bennai, and Y. Boughaleb, Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst.628, 162 (2016)

    2016

  78. [78]

    Troyer, H

    M. Troyer, H. Tsunetsugu, T. Rice, J. Riera, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B48, 4002 (1993)

    1993

  79. [79]

    B. B. Mao, C. Cheng, F. Z. Chen, and H. G. Luo, Acta Phys. Sin.64, 187105 (2015)

    2015

  80. [80]

    K. A. Kuns, A. M. Rey, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. A84, 063639 (2011)

    2011

Showing first 80 references.