Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 104 references

Engineering SU($N$)-Symmetric Hubbard Models with Microwave-Shielded Dipolar Molecules

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Microwave tuning of field-linked dimers supplies the missing on-site interaction for SU(N) molecular Hubbard models.

desk verdict Solid roadmap that supplies the missing finite-U knob for shielded molecular lattices via resonant field-linked dimers; quantitative window rests on a harmonic-site treatment the authors already flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27107 v1 pith:DRLJ777L submitted 2026-07-29 cond-mat.quant-gas

Jing-Lun Li , Ragheed Alhyder , Andreas Schindewolf , Kaden R. A. Hazzard , Mikhail Lemeshko , Georgios M. Koutentakis This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords ultracoldpolarmoleculesmicrowaveshieldingSU(N)Hubbardmodelfield-linkeddimerextendedopticallatticedoublonfluctuationsdipolarinteractions
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

Ultracold polar molecules already give long-range, nearly spin-independent interactions that realize extended Hubbard models with emergent SU(N) symmetry, but they have lacked a controllable finite on-site interaction. Without that term, doublon fluctuations, superexchange, and many classic strong-correlation processes are missing. This paper shows that raising the microwave Rabi frequency brings a field-linked molecular dimer sitting on one lattice site into resonance with two monomers on neighboring sites. The resulting coherent conversion lets the dimer act as an effective doublon whose on-site energy U is set by the microwave amplitude, while the microwave orientation independently sets the strength and anisotropy of the off-site dipolar couplings. The authors map the Hubbard parameters and the dimer lifetime, identifying a broad window where the dimer lives long enough for coherent lattice dynamics. The result is a concrete experimental roadmap for SU(N)-symmetric extended Hubbard models that keep controllable doublon fluctuations in the strongly dipolar regime.

What carries the argument

The projected SU(N)-symmetric lattice Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) whose on-site term HU is supplied by the field-linked dimer energy U = E_D − E_0 and whose conversion amplitudes T, T′ convert monomer pairs into on-site dimers (and vice versa).

What would settle it

Measure the dimer linewidth Γ relative to tunneling t near the U = 0 resonance (as in Fig. 2a) and check whether Γ/t remains below ~0.1 while coherent monomer–dimer conversion is observed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Tuning the microwave Rabi frequency brings a field-linked on-site dimer into resonance with two neighboring monomers, enabling coherent doublon–monomer-pair conversion. The dimer therefore functions as an effective doublon whose on-site energy U = E_D − E_0 is controlled by microwave amplitude, while microwave orientation independently tunes the off-site interactions, realizing an SU(N)-symmetric extended Hubbard model with controllable doublon fluctuations.

Load-bearing premise

The low-energy model assumes a harmonic single-site trap plus a Hubbard truncation that keeps the field-linked dimer isolated and long-lived enough that higher states and loss stay out of the dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On-site and off-site interactions can be dialed nearly independently via microwave amplitude and orientation.
  • Doublon fluctuations, pair hopping, and soft-core density physics become accessible in molecular lattice gases.
  • The same construction extends to bosonic SU(N) models with species such as NaK.
  • Geometric rotation can null nearest-neighbor couplings while leaving diagonal interactions and stable dimers intact.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Once U is finite and tunable, molecular platforms can host the same superexchange and doped t–J physics that atomic Hubbard simulators already explore, but with long-range dipolar anisotropy retained.
  • The independent geometric knob on off-site terms may let experimenters isolate diagonal-dominated extended Hubbard regimes that are hard to reach with contact interactions alone.
  • Lifetime improvements via double microwave shielding or static-field hybrids would directly enlarge the coherent window mapped in Fig. 2.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a route to SU(N)-symmetric extended Hubbard models with microwave-shielded fermionic polar molecules (23Na40K) in a quasi-2D optical lattice. The central idea is that tuning the microwave Rabi frequency brings a field-linked on-site dimer into resonance with two monomers on adjacent sites; the dimer then plays the role of a doublon with on-site energy U = E_D − E_0 continuously tunable through zero, while coherent monomer-pair↔dimer conversion (T) and dimer-monomer exchange (T′) provide the doublon-fluctuation processes that molecular lattice models have so far lacked. Off-site density interactions V_MM, V_DM, V_DD are computed from the long-range tail of the shielded potential and are shown to be tunable, including through zero, by rotating the microwave polarization axis. The effective Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1–3) is derived by projecting the ab initio single- and two-body operators onto a monomer–dimer number-state basis with explicit SU(N) tensors; spin-exchange channels are evaluated numerically, found small (~2% and <0.1%), and dropped. The dimer linewidth Γ is extracted from a Wigner time-delay calculation with absorbing boundary conditions, and a broad region of (s, Ω) parameter space is identified where Γ/t < 0.1 coexists with proximity to the U = 0 contour (Fig. 2a).

Significance. If the analysis holds, this is a significant and timely contribution: it supplies the missing tunable on-site interaction for molecular extended Hubbard models while preserving SU(N) symmetry, something no existing molecular or alkaline-earth platform offers. Specific strengths deserve credit: (i) the Hubbard parameters are genuine matrix elements of a stated microscopic Hamiltonian, not fitted quantities — the derivation is parameter-free given the shielded potential and lattice; (ii) the SU(N) projection is carried out explicitly, with the full classification of 31 two-body operator classes and symmetry tensors in the SM, which makes the retained/dropped terms auditable; (iii) spin-exchange neglect is justified numerically rather than asserted; (iv) the tunneling parameter T is cross-validated by two independent methods (HO-bracket expansion vs. direct integration, Fig. 6); (v) the paper makes concrete, falsifiable predictions — the U = 0 resonance at Ω ~ 6–13 MHz depending on orientation, dimer linewidths of 8–18 Hz × h against t = 177 Hz × h, and the zero-crossing of V_MM near β/π ≈ 0.3 — that an experiment can directly test. The proposal is also honest about its limitations (e

major comments (3)
  1. [SM 'Two-body problem in a lattice site', Eqs. (4)–(8); main text Fig. 2] The most quantitative claims of the paper — the U(s,Ω) = 0 contour, the Γ/t < 0.1 region in Fig. 2(a), and the Γ values in Fig. 3(b) — all rest on replacing the sinusoidal lattice by a harmonic trap at the representative depth s = 5.1, which permits exact COM/relative separation, and on extracting Γ from an isolated-site time delay. At s = 5.1 the anharmonic corrections to the single-particle spectrum are not perturbatively small (the actual two-monomer on-site energy differs from E_0 = 2ℏω_ho at the level of E_R, i.e. a finite fraction of the band gap), the true lattice couples COM and relative motion, and the on-site dimer couples to scattering states on neighboring sites, adding lattice-mediated broadening to Γ. A rigid shift of E_D can be absorbed by recalibrating Ω, but a distortion of the Γ/t map or a suppression of T cannot. The authors themselves acknowledge the missing COM–relat
  2. [Main text, discussion of Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 3(b)] The coherence criterion adopted is Γ/t < 0.1, described as 'conservative', but monomer tunneling t is not the process the dimer linewidth competes with. Coherent doublon–monomer-pair conversion requires Γ ≲ T (and Γ ≲ T′ for the exchange term). In Fig. 3(b), Γ ~ 8–18 Hz × h is quoted against t = 177 Hz × h, but the corresponding value of T in Hz is never stated in the main text; Fig. 2(c) only shows the ratio T̃ = T/t_G graphically. If T/t is of order 0.1 at the operating point, then Γ/T is of order 0.5–1 and the conversion is at best marginally coherent even where Γ/t < 0.1. The manuscript should (i) quote T and T′ in absolute units at the representative operating point, (ii) state the ratio Γ/T across the claimed window, and (iii) either justify the Γ/t = 0.1 threshold from a dynamical calculation or replace it with a criterion on Γ/T.
  3. [SM, Eqs. (34)–(44); main text Fig. 2(c)] The off-site couplings and tunneling parameters are computed as infinite sums over harmonic-oscillator quanta (Eqs. 34–36, 39, 43), but no truncation cutoff or convergence test is reported anywhere in the manuscript. This matters specifically for V_DM and V_DD, where the dimer relative wavefunction obtained by DVR has substantial high-partial-wave content (Fig. 1(c) shows several even-l components), so the HO expansion converges more slowly than for monomers; it also matters for T′, a three-particle matrix element. Please state the basis cutoff used and demonstrate convergence of each reported parameter (at minimum at s = 5.1, Ω = 2π×6 MHz). Without this, the numerical values underlying Fig. 2(c) and Fig. 3 cannot be assessed for reliability.
minor comments (6)
  1. [SM, Eq. (16) and following] The spin-exchange ratios V_exc_MM/V_dir_MM ≈ 2% and V_exc_DM/V_dir_DM < 0.1% are quoted without stating the lattice depth and Ω at which they were evaluated. Since exchange couplings can be relevant at the superexchange energy scale even when small relative to direct terms, please state the parameter point and, ideally, whether the 2% figure is representative across the operating window.
  2. [Main text, Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 2(c)] The normalization convention (Hubbard parameters in units of the Gaussian t_G rather than the exact Wannier t) is self-consistent but easy to misread, since t and t_G visibly differ at small s in Fig. 2(b). Please state explicitly in the Fig. 2(c) caption the numerical t_G/t ratio at s = 5.1 so experimentalists can convert the quoted dimensionless parameters.
  3. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (3)] The decay-rate calculation treats the dimer on an isolated site; in the many-body setting a dimer adjacent to a monomer has additional three-body decay channels into lower dressed potentials. A sentence clarifying that Γ is a low-filling, two-body estimate would help calibrate expectations.
  4. [Main text, Fig. 1(b) caption / text] The minimal isolation gap ΔE ~ h×10 kHz is quoted for the lowest odd-parity state; it would be useful to also state the gap to the nearest even-parity (same-symmetry) excitation, since odd-parity states are not coupled by the spin-independent Hamiltonian within the harmonic approximation.
  5. [Throughout] Typos and notation: 'supression' (introduction); 'Spa lek projector' (after Eq. 1); 'the a_ho and a_latt' in the Fig. 1(c) caption; 'anologous' in Ref. [78] footnote; Ω appears as both Ω and Ω in the text/figures. The units convention 'Hz × h' for linewidths should be defined on first use.
  6. [SM, Eq. (37)] In the expression for [V_D_sh], the index n''_r appears three times in the first summation (n''_r n''_r n''_r); presumably these should be n''_r l''_r m''_r. Please check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Hubbard parameters are matrix elements of a stated microscopic Hamiltonian, not fits or self-definitional renamings.

full rationale

The derivation chain is standard microscopic-to-effective-model projection. The many-body Hamiltonian is given explicitly (kinetic + lattice + microwave-shielded V_sh). The low-energy subspace is defined by monomers and an even-parity field-linked dimer whose energy E_D is obtained by solving the two-body relative problem; U is then defined as U = E_D - E_0, not fitted to reproduce a target Hubbard model. Tunneling t, conversion amplitudes T and T', and off-site V_MM, V_DM, V_DD are spatial matrix elements of the single-particle Hamiltonian and the long-range dipolar tail (with spin-exchange pieces dropped after numerical smallness checks). Lifetime Gamma comes from the Wigner time delay of the same two-body S-matrix. Self-citations supply the form of V_sh and related dimer phenomenology as external inputs; they do not assert a uniqueness theorem that forces the present Hubbard parameters, nor is any fitted parameter later relabeled a prediction. Harmonic-site and Hubbard truncations are approximations that affect correctness risk, not circularity. The central claim therefore does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard ultracold-molecule and lattice-Hubbard machinery plus several domain modeling choices (harmonic site, Hubbard truncation, fixed detuning ratio, coherence threshold). No new particles or forces are invented; the ‘field-linked lattice dimer’ is an application of existing shielded bound/quasi-bound states under confinement. Free parameters are experimental knobs and numerical thresholds, not fits to many-body data.

free parameters (4)
  • Lattice depth s = V0/ER and spacing a_latt = s=5.1, a_latt=550 nm (representative cuts)
    Chosen representative values (e.g. s=5.1, a_latt=550 nm, λ=2) set t and the quasi-2D regime; not fitted to many-body observables but selected for experimental accessibility.
  • Microwave detuning ratio Δ/Ω = 0
    Fixed to 0 throughout; changes the shielded potential shape and is an experimental control left unexplored.
  • Coherence threshold Γ/t = 0.1
    Conservative cut Γ/t=0.1 used to mark the ‘accessible’ region in Fig. 2a; not derived from a many-body error bound.
  • Euler angles for microwave orientation (α,γ fixed) = α=π/4, γ=−π/4
    α=π/4, γ=−π/4 chosen while scanning β; defines the geometric tuning path.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Microwave-dressed intermolecular potential is nuclear-spin independent to high accuracy, yielding emergent SU(N) symmetry of the lattice model.
    Invoked to commute the effective Hamiltonian with SU(N) generators and drop spin-dependent forces (intro and SM SU(N) section); supported by cited shielding literature.
  • domain assumption Single-site two-body physics may be treated in a harmonic trap with separable CM and relative motion for extracting E_D, Γ, and overlaps.
    SM ‘Two-body problem in a lattice site’; authors note CM–relative coupling beyond harmonic is needed for higher accuracy.
  • domain assumption Deep-lattice Hubbard truncation: interaction-induced inter-site particle transfer and bare double occupancy outside the dimer channel can be dropped; only density–density off-site and resonant T, T′ conversion kept.
    Stated after listing 31 interaction classes; justified by Wannier localization and density–density character of V_sh.
  • domain assumption Spin-exchange off-site matrix elements are negligible compared with direct density–density terms.
    Numerical tests quoted V_exc_MM/V_dir_MM≈2% and V_exc_DM/V_dir_DM<0.1%; used to retain only ‘dir’ terms in the main-text H_V.
  • domain assumption Long-range tail V_sh(r)≈C3(3cos²θ−1)/r³ suffices for off-site integrals (error <3% on tested elements).
    SM Fig. 5 and accompanying text; underpins all V_MM, V_DM, V_DD scans.
  • standard math Standard second-quantized projection and harmonic-oscillator algebra (displacement operators, HO brackets, Mathieu/Gaussian tunneling).
    Used throughout SM numerical methods; textbook tools.
invented entities (1)
  • Field-linked lattice dimer as effective doublon in the projected Hubbard space independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a finite, microwave-tunable on-site energy U and coherent conversion amplitudes T, T′ without bare MHz-scale double occupancy.
    Not a new particle; it is the confined, shielded two-molecule quasi-bound state already discussed in free space/trap literature, re-used here as the doublon degree of freedom d†_{i;αβ}. Independent evidence exists from prior field-linked dimer experiments, but lattice coherence at Γ/t≪1 remains a prediction of this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Engineering SU($N$)-Symmetric Hubbard Models with Microwave-Shielded Dipolar Molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRLJ777L

@misc{pith2026260727107,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Engineering SU($N$)-Symmetric Hubbard Models with Microwave-Shielded Dipolar Molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRLJ777L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27107}
}
abstract

Ultracold polar molecules provide strong, long-range interactions that microwave shielding makes tunable and nearly nuclear-spin independent, giving an emergent SU($N$) symmetry. However, extended Hubbard models of polar molecules in optical lattices lack, so far, controllable finite on-site interactions, a key ingredient of strong correlated physics. We show that tuning the Rabi frequency of the microwave coupling can bring two individual molecules (monomers) on neighboring lattice sites into resonance with a field-linked dimer (doublon) on one of the sites, enabling coherent doublon--monomer-pair conversion. In this model, we characterize the key Hubbard parameters and the dimer lifetime, demonstrating that the on-site and off-site interactions can be tuned nearly independently through the microwave amplitude and orientation, respectively. Our results provide a roadmap for implementing SU($N$)-symmetric extended Hubbard models with controllable doublon fluctuations, providing access to quantum-simulation in the strongly dipolar regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27107 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) In a 2D lattice, dipolar molecules tunnel, form on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The ratio of the linewidth of the dimer Γ to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The dimensionless hopping parameter and monomer-monomer nearest-neighbor and diagonal-nearest-neighbor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Total potential energy in the relative frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows that the values of T obtained from the two approaches are in good agreement. Near β = −π/2, however, small numerical deviations cause the results ob￾tained from Eq. 39 in the previous section to exhibit a slight asymmetry. In contrast, the approach intro￾duced in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of dimer-dimer and dimer-monomer to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bloch, Nature Physics1, 23 (2005)

    I. Bloch, Nature Physics1, 23 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    We consider in this work an anisotropic trap withω= (ω ho, ωho,2ω ho) in (x, y, z) direction

    +Vsh(r2 −r 1), (4) whereV sh(r) is the microwave-dressed interaction po- tential between two molecules in the repulsive shielding channel. We consider in this work an anisotropic trap withω= (ω ho, ωho,2ω ho) in (x, y, z) direction. Introducing center-of-mass and relative coordinates, R= r2+r1 2 ,r=r 2 −r 1,the Hamiltonian separates as ˆH2 = ˆHcm + ˆHrel,...

  3. [3]

    The approximation slightly overestimates 14 the magnitude of the interaction matrix element, with a deviation of less than 3%, for instance, for the tested [Vsh]000

  4. [4]

    Therefore, throughout this work, we evaluate the off-site interaction parameters us- ing the above approximation, which provides improved numerical stability

    This result indicates that the off-site interac- tion is predominantly determined by the long-range tail of the shielding potential. Therefore, throughout this work, we evaluate the off-site interaction parameters us- ing the above approximation, which provides improved numerical stability. In the above analysis of [VD sh ], we assume that the prop- agati...

  5. [5]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    R. A. Hart, P. M. Duarte, T.-L. Yang, X. Liu, T. Paiva, E. Khatami, R. T. Scalettar, N. Trivedi, D. A. Huse, and R. G. Hulet, Nature519, 211 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Mazurenko, C

    A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. F. Parsons, M. Kanasz-Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Nature545, 462 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, A. Bohrdt, M. Xu, M. Knap, E. Dem- ler, F. Grusdt, M. Greiner, and D. Greif, Science365, 251 (2019)

    2019

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Koepsell, J

    J. Koepsell, J. Vijayan, P. Sompet, F. Grusdt, T. A. Hilker, E. Demler, G. Salomon, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Nature572, 358 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science357, 1002–1010 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Langen, G

    T. Langen, G. Valtolina, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Nature Physics20, 702–712 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Karman, M

    T. Karman, M. Tomza, and J. P´ erez-R ´ ıos, Nature Physics20, 722–729 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    J.-L. Li, G. M. Koutentakis, M. Hrast, M. Lemeshko, A. Schindewolf, and R. Alhyder, Communications Physics9, 201 (2026)

    2026

  6. [14]

    M. A. Baranov, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Chemical Reviews112, 5012–5061 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    M. L. Wall, K. R. A. Hazzard, and A. M. Rey, Quantum magnetism with ultracold molecules, inFrom Atomic to Mesoscale(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2015) p. 3–37

    2015

  8. [16]

    DeMille, N

    D. DeMille, N. R. Hutzler, A. M. Rey, and T. Zelevinsky, Nature Physics20, 741–749 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Nature Physics20, 730–740 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Anderegg, L

    L. Anderegg, L. W. Cheuk, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Science365, 1156 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    J. M. Mortlock, A. P. Raghuram, B. P. Maddox, P. D. Gregory, and S. L. Cornish, Nature Communications17, 518 (2026)

    2026

  12. [20]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, C

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, C. Trefzger, M. Lewenstein, P. Zoller, and G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 125301 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Ospelkaus, K.-K

    S. Ospelkaus, K.-K. Ni, D. Wang, M. H. G. de Miranda, B. Neyenhuis, G. Qu´ em´ ener, P. S. Julienne, J. L. Bohn, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Science327, 853–857 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, D. Wang, G. Qu´ em´ ener, B. Neyenhuis, M. H. G. de Miranda, J. L. Bohn, J. Ye, and D. S. Jin, Nature464, 1324–1328 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Bause, A

    R. Bause, A. Christianen, A. Schindewolf, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A127, 729 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    A. V. Avdeenkov, M. Kajita, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A73, 022707 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Wang and G

    G. Wang and G. Qu´ em´ ener, New J. Phys.17, 035015 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    M. L. Gonz´ alez-Mart ´ ınez, J. L. Bohn, and G. Qu´ em´ ener, Phys. Rev. A96, 032718 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Mukherjee, M

    B. Mukherjee, M. D. Frye, C. R. Le Sueur, M. R. Tar- butt, and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033097 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Mukherjee and J

    B. Mukherjee and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013145 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    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), publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    2020

  22. [30]

    Valtolina, K

    G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J.-R. Li, L. De Marco, and J. Ye, Nature588, 10.1038/s41586- 020-2980-7 (2020)

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    J.-R. Li, W. G. Tobias, K. Matsuda, C. Miller, G. Val- tolina, L. De Marco, R. R. W. Wang, L. Lassabli` ere, G. Qu´ em´ ener, J. L. Bohn, and J. Ye, Nature Physics 17, 1144–1148 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Karman and J

    T. Karman and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 163401 (2018). 17

    2018

  25. [33]

    Lassabli` ere and G

    L. Lassabli` ere and G. Qu´ em´ ener, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 163402 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Anderegg, S

    L. Anderegg, S. Burchesky, Y. Bao, S. S. Yu, T. Kar- man, E. Chae, K.-K. Ni, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Science373, 779 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    H. P. B¨ uchler, E. Demler, M. Lukin, A. Micheli, N. Prokof’ev, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 060404 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

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

    2009

  29. [37]

    Schindewolf, J

    A. Schindewolf, J. Hertkorn, I. Stevenson, M. Ciardi, P. Gross, D. Wang, T. Karman, G. Quemener, S. Will, T. Pohl, and T. Langen, From few- to many-body physics: Strongly dipolar molecular Bose-Einstein con- densates and quantum fluids (2026), arXiv:2512.14511 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2026

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

    Schindewolf, R

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

    2022

  32. [40]

    Bigagli, C

    N. Bigagli, C. Warner, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, I. Steven- son, T. Karman, and S. Will, Nature Physics19, 1579 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    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. X13, 031032 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, B. Bulatovic, T. Kar- man, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Nature631, 289 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    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)

    2026 doi

  36. [44]

    Zhang, W

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

    2026

  37. [45]

    Biswas, S

    S. Biswas, S. Eppelt, W. Tian, W. Zhang, F. Deng, C. Frank, T. Shi, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Con- trolled symmetry breaking of the Fermi surface in ul- tracold polar molecules (2026), arXiv:2602.22447 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2026

  38. [46]

    Mukherjee, J

    B. Mukherjee, J. M. Hutson, and K. R. A. Hazzard, New Journal of Physics27, 013013 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    S. A. Will, J. W. Park, Z. Z. Yan, H. Loh, and M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 225306 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Karman and J

    T. Karman and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. A100, 052704 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Karman, N

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

    2025

  42. [50]

    F. Deng, X. Hu, W.-J. Jin, S. Yi, and T. Shi, Nature Communications16, 11219 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Mukherjee and J

    B. Mukherjee and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013099 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Wu, J.-p

    C. Wu, J.-p. Hu, and S.-c. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 186402 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, C. Xu, P. S. Julienne, J. Ye, P. Zoller, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Nature Physics6, 289–295 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    M. A. Cazalilla and A. M. Rey, Reports on Progress in Physics77, 124401 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla and S

    E. Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla and S. Choudhury, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter37, 083003 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    J. Polo, W. J. Chetcuti, A. Minguzzi, A. Osterloh, and L. Amico, Phys. Rev. Res.8, L022015 (2026)

    2026

  49. [57]

    Enomoto, K

    K. Enomoto, K. Kasa, M. Kitagawa, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 203201 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    Honerkamp and W

    C. Honerkamp and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 170403 (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    Hermele, V

    M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 135301 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    S. Taie, R. Yamazaki, S. Sugawa, and Y. Takahashi, Nature Physics8, 825–830 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    S. Taie, E. Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla, N. Nishizawa, Y. Takasu, Y. Kuno, H.-T. Wei, R. T. Scalettar, K. R. A. Hazzard, and Y. Takahashi, Nature Physics 18, 1356–1361 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Pasqualetti, O

    G. Pasqualetti, O. Bettermann, N. Darkwah Oppong, E. Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla, S. Dasgupta, R. T. Scalettar, K. R. A. Hazzard, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 083401 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    G. V. Chen and C. Wu, npj Quantum Materials9, 1 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    A. Rapp, G. Zar´ and, C. Honerkamp, and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 160405 (2007)

    2007

  57. [65]

    Baier, M

    S. Baier, M. J. Mark, D. Petter, K. Aikawa, L. Chomaz, Z. Cai, M. Baranov, P. Zoller, and F. Ferlaino, Science 352, 201 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    K. P. Schmidt, J. Dorier, A. M. L¨ auchli, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 090401 (2008)

    2008

  59. [67]

    Schl¨ omer, F

    H. Schl¨ omer, F. Grusdt, U. Schollw¨ ock, K. R. A. Haz- zard, and A. Bohrdt, Phys. Rev. B110, 125134 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Bohler, F

    A. Bohler, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, Magnetic correla- tions in the SU(3) triangular-latticet-Jmodel at finite doping (2025), arXiv:2506.01915 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Camjayi, K

    A. Camjayi, K. Haule, V. Dobrosavljevic, and G. Kotliar, Nature Physics4, 932 (2008)

    2008

  62. [70]

    E. G. Dalla Torre, E. Berg, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 260401 (2006)

    2006

  63. [71]

    Biedro´ n, M

    K. Biedro´ n, M. Lacki, and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245102 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Syassen, D

    N. Syassen, D. M. Bauer, M. Lettner, T. Volz, D. Dietze, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, J. I. Cirac, G. Rempe, and S. Durr, Science320, 1329 (2008)

    2008

  65. [73]

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

    2013

  66. [74]

    G´ oral, L

    K. G´ oral, L. Santos, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 170406 (2002)

    2002

  67. [75]

    Lahaye, C

    T. Lahaye, C. Menotti, L. Santos, M. Lewenstein, and T. Pfau, Reports on Progress in Physics72, 126401 (2009)

    2009

  68. [76]

    Yamamoto, A

    D. Yamamoto, A. Masaki, and I. Danshita, Phys. Rev. B86, 054516 (2012)

    2012

  69. [77]

    J. A. Koziol, G. Morigi, and K. P. Schmidt, SciPost Phys.17, 111 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    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

  71. [79]

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

    2011

  72. [80]

    A. N. Carroll, H. Hirzler, C. Miller, D. Wellnitz, S. R. Muleady, J. Lin, K. P. Zamarski, R. R. W. Wang, J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science388, 381–386 (2025)

    2025

  73. [81]

    Unlike the free-space case, where a field-linked dimer is truly bound by the microwave shielding potential, the binding in our system arises primarily from the external confinement

    In this work, we use the term field-linked dimer to refer more generally to a trapped two-molecule state stabi- lized from loss by the shielding barrier and tunable via 18 the microwave-field parameters. Unlike the free-space case, where a field-linked dimer is truly bound by ...

  74. [82]

    X.-Y. Chen, S. Biswas, S. Eppelt, A. Schindewolf, F. Deng, T. Shi, S. Yi, T. A. Hilker, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Nature626, 283 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    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

  76. [84]

    See Supplemental Material for additional details

  77. [85]

    K. A. Chao, J. Spa lek, and A. M. Ole´ s, Phys. Rev. B 18, 3453 (1978)

    1978

  78. [86]

    J¨ urgensen, F

    O. J¨ urgensen, F. Meinert, M. J. Mark, H.-C. N¨ agerl, and D.-S. L¨ uhmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 193003 (2014)

    2014

  79. [87]

    Dutta, M

    O. Dutta, M. Gajda, P. Hauke, M. Lewenstein, D.-S. L¨ uhmann, B. A. Malomed, T. Sowi´ nski, and J. Za- krzewski, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 066001 (2015)

    2015

  80. [88]

    Chanda, L

    T. Chanda, L. Barbiero, M. Lewenstein, M. J. Mark, and J. Zakrzewski, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 044501 (2025)

    2025

  81. [89]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  82. [90]

    L. Su, A. Douglas, M. Szurek, R. Groth, S. F. Ozturk, A. Krahn, A. H. H´ ebert, G. A. Phelps, S. Ebadi, S. Dick- erson, F. Ferlaino, O. Markovi´ c, and M. Greiner, Nature 622, 724 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    Zhang, C

    J. Zhang, C. Zhang, J. Yang, and B. Capogrosso- Sansone, Phys. Rev. A105, 063302 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    K. K. Voges, P. Gersema, M. Meyer zum Alten Borgloh, T. A. Schulze, T. Hartmann, A. Zenesini, and S. Os- pelkaus, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 083401 (2020)

    2020

  85. [93]

    A. V. Gorshkov, P. Rabl, G. Pupillo, A. Micheli, P. Zoller, M. D. Lukin, and H. P. B¨ uchler, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 073201 (2008)

    2008

  86. [94]

    C. J. Ho, J. Dutta, B. Mukherjee, J. M. Hutson, and M. R. Tarbutt, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023087 (2026)

    2026

  87. [95]

    R. R. W. Wang, Bound-state-free f¨ orster resonant shielding of strongly dipolar ultracold molecules (2026), arXiv:2601.21928 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2026

  88. [96]

    P´ erez, J

    K. P´ erez, J. W. Desroches, K. R. A. Hazzard, and T. Karman (2026), Hubbard Models with Ultracold Shielded Molecules in Optical Lattices

    2026

  89. [97]

    Willner, O

    K. Willner, O. Dulieu, and F. Masnou-Seeuws, The Journal of Chemical Physics120, 548 (2004)

    2004

  90. [98]

    Karman, S

    T. Karman, S. Will, and Z. Yan, Low-entropy arrays of microwave-shielded molecules prepared by interaction blockade (2026), arXiv:2603.00400 [quant-ph]

    2026

  91. [99]

    L. Chen, S. M. Anlage, and Y. V. Fyodorov, Phys. Rev. E103, L050203 (2021)

    2021

  92. [100]

    Zwerger, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semi- classical Optics5, S9 (2003)

    W. Zwerger, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semi- classical Optics5, S9 (2003)

    2003

  93. [101]

    Kamuntaviˇ cius, R

    G. Kamuntaviˇ cius, R. Kalinauskas, B. Barrett, S. Mick- eviˇ cius, and D. Germanas, Nuclear Physics A695, 191 (2001)

    2001

  94. [102]

    Germanas, R

    D. Germanas, R. Kalinauskas, and S. Mickeviˇ cius, Com- puter Physics Communications181, 420 (2010)

    2010

  95. [103]

    Becker, G

    A. Becker, G. M. Koutentakis, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013297 (2026)

    2026

  96. [104]

    Olshanii, Phys

    M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 938 (1998)

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.