Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Dissipation-enhanced vortex clustering in a compressible quantum fluid

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Moderate particle loss can make vortices in a confined two-dimensional quantum fluid form stronger same-sign clusters than they do without any loss.

desk verdict New nonmonotonic clustering effect is worth a close look, but the missing convergence study leaves the enhancement claim unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29475 v1 pith:5GTOWDQN submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.quant-gas

P. Comaron , M. Matuszewski , D. Sanvitto , D. Ballarini , A. S. Lanotte This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords vortexclusteringsame-signaggregationdissipativeGross-Pitaevskiiequationparticlelosstwo-dimensionalquantumturbulencefluidsexciton-polaritoncondensatescorrelation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper challenges the natural expectation that particle loss merely cuts short the time available for vortices to organize into same-sign clusters. In a freely decaying, confined two-dimensional condensate seeded with random vortices and antivortices, the authors show numerically that the maximum degree of vortex clustering first rises and then falls as the particle lifetime is varied, peaking at intermediate dissipation where the clustering correlation exceeds the lossless, conservative value. The paper's explanation is that linear loss does more than remove particles: it rarefies the compressible background, lowering the sound velocity, and it changes how fast the incompressible kinetic energy per vortex relaxes. When these two timescales are comparable, a finite dynamical window opens in which vortex-mediated ordering is strongest. If the result is right, the conservative, lossless limit is not the best regime for large-scale vortex ordering in a finite compressible quantum fluid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dissipative Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a purely imaginary linear-loss term, iℏ∂tψ = [−(ℏ²/2m)∇² + g|ψ|² + V(r) − iℏγ/2]ψ, where γ = 1/τ_γ is the particle-loss rate. The diagnostic is the vortex clustering correlation C(t), the average over vortices of the product of circulations between each vortex and its nearest neighbour; C≈0 for a random mix and C→1 when same-sign vortices aggregate. The mechanism identified is a competition of timescales: loss-induced rarefaction of the condensate background (which lowers the sound velocity) versus relaxation of the incompressible kinetic energy per vortex. The key operational comparison is the parametric plot of ⟨C⟩ a

What would settle it

Repeat the same dissipative Gross-Pitaevskii simulation at (ξ0, ℓv) = (0.7, 28) µm on a grid twice as fine and in a box twice as large, with the same 500 realizations, and check whether the C_max versus lifetime curve still has a peak above the conservative value; alternatively, measure the vortex correlation in an experiment in which the particle lifetime is tuned through the predicted optimal window and compare C_max with the long-lifetime, effectively conservative case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that uniform linear particle loss can enhance transient vortex clustering beyond the conservative evolution. Using a dissipative Gross-Pitaevskii equation for a hard-walled two-dimensional condensate, the authors initialize an ensemble of 500 random vortex–antivortex configurations and track the nearest-neighbour same-sign correlation C(t). They find that the maximum of C over time, C_max, is nonmonotonic in the particle lifetime: very short lifetimes decay before correlations develop; intermediate lifetimes produce stronger clustering than the conservative case; and very long lifetimes are limited by depletion of the vortex population itself. The enhancement is stronges

Load-bearing premise

The entire nonmonotonic effect is demonstrated at a single representative point in parameter space—initial healing length 0.7 µm, intervortex spacing 28 µm, in a hard-walled trap of diameter 125 µm—and the paper does not report whether changing grid resolution, box size, or initial vortex number preserves the nonmonotonic C_max curve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a confined compressible two-dimensional quantum fluid, the lossless limit is not the optimum for transient vortex ordering; intermediate linear loss can yield a higher maximum clustering correlation.
  • The location of the optimum is set by two competing limits: below it, particle loss truncates the dynamics before correlations develop; above it, vortex depletion removes the carriers of order before correlations saturate.
  • The enhancement is not explained by evaporative heating alone: the incompressible kinetic energy per vortex increases monotonically toward the conservative limit, yet C_max does not, so ordering is controlled by the overlap of background-rarefaction and incompressible-energy-relaxation timescales.
  • The optimal dissipation timescales fall in a range accessible to current cold-atom and photonic experiments, making the predicted window experimentally testable.
  • The paper's freely decaying setup implies that uniform linear loss can act as a control knob for vortex ordering without the complications of gain or pumping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave the phase-diagram generalization implicit: mapping the C_max versus τ_γ curve across other points in the (ξ0, ℓv) plane would show whether the enhancement window is a generic feature or a property of the particular initial condition studied.
  • Because the paper reports no grid-resolution, box-size, or initial-vortex-number convergence study, repeating the lifetime scan on a larger domain and finer grid would test whether the nonmonotonic peak is robust against finite-size and discretization artifacts.
  • A direct experimental consequence worth testing is that deliberately tuning particle loss in a polariton or photonic quantum fluid should move C_max up and then down through a predicted optimum, confirming that a nominally more 'perfect' conservative fluid is not the best ordering route.
  • The dimensionless damping estimate Γ ≃ ℏ/(2μτ_γ) ≈ 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁶ suggests that the optimal window sits in a regime accessible to several quantum-fluid platforms, but the paper does not itself explore how the mechanism would translate to systems with momentum-dependent dissipation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a 2D dissipative Gross–Pitaevskii model with uniform linear particle loss, initialized with random vortex–antivortex configurations in a hard-walled trap. The main observable is the ensemble-averaged nearest-neighbor same-sign vortex correlation C(t); the authors report the maximum value C_max as a function of particle lifetime τ_γ. For one representative parameter set (ξ0 = 0.7 μm, ℓ0_v = 28 μm) they find that C_max is nonmonotonic in τ_γ and is largest at an intermediate loss rate, exceeding the conservative (τ_γ = ∞) value. They attribute this to a finite dynamical window between the vortex-depletion timescale τ_nv and a sound-velocity crossing time t_s, and support the interpretation with energy decomposition and vortex-number statistics.

Significance. If confirmed, the result is conceptually significant: it challenges the default expectation that linear particle loss only truncates conservative Onsager clustering, and it identifies a regime where moderate dissipation selects stronger transient same-sign vortex ordering. A strength is that the central C_max curve is a direct simulation output with N = 500 realizations and stated error bars; it is not obtained by fitting. The energy decomposition and the explicit discussion of compressible versus incompressible channels are also useful. However, the claim rests on numerical simulations with no published convergence study, and the proposed mechanism is partly calibrated to the same data it explains. The absence of resolution and finite-size checks is a load-bearing gap because the conservative baseline may be differentially under-resolved relative to dissipative runs.

major comments (4)
  1. [SI 'Numerical simulations'; Eq. (1)] The grid spacing is dx = L/N = 312.5/512 ≈ 0.61 μm, while the conservative healing length is ξ0 = 0.7 μm, giving only about 1.15 grid points per healing length. This is below the usual 2–3 point requirement for vortex-core resolution. In dissipative runs the density decays as exp(−t/τ_γ), so ξ grows and vortices become progressively better resolved, whereas the conservative baseline remains under-resolved throughout. This differential resolution can artificially suppress conservative clustering and inflate the reported enhancement. No resolution or box-size convergence study is reported. I request tests at dx ≈ ξ0/3 and ξ0/4, and at least one larger domain, demonstrating that C_max(τ_γ) and the conservative crossover are robust.
  2. [Main text Fig. 1(b); SI 'Numerical simulations'] The SI states that ℓ0_v/D ≤ 0.1 is required to avoid finite-size effects, but the representative point used for the lifetime scan has ℓ0_v = 28 μm with D = 125 μm (α = D/L = 0.4), giving ℓ0_v/D ≈ 0.22. If instead D is chosen so that ℓ0_v = D/√N0_v with N0_v = 80, then D ≈ 250 μm, which conflicts with the stated α = 0.4. The manuscript does not resolve this inconsistency. Because the central nonmonotonic curve is computed at this point, the possible influence of boundary effects must be addressed by repeating the scan at a smaller ℓ0_v/D and/or with a larger domain.
  3. [Fig. 3(c); Fig. 4; footnotes 36–37] The explanatory 'finite dynamical window' is bounded by τ_nv and t_s. τ_nv is extracted by fitting N_v(t) to a stretched exponential with two free parameters (footnote 37), and t_s is obtained from crossings of v_ik^∞ with M_s c_s, where M_s = 0.6 is explicitly defined to match the crossing time with the depletion time in the conservative case. The mechanism is therefore calibrated to the same simulations it is used to explain; it is an organizing description rather than an independent prediction. This does not invalidate the direct C_max result, but the claim that the timescales 'identify' the physical mechanism is overstated. Please either derive M_s and τ_nv from independent inputs or present this part explicitly as a post-hoc interpretation, and test it at a second parameter point.
  4. [Fig. 2(a) inset] The nonmonotonic C_max(τ_γ) curve and the enhancement beyond the conservative limit are presented for a single parameter set inside the enhancement region of Fig. 1(b). The phase map at fixed τ_γ = 6 ns shows that enhancement exists elsewhere, but it does not establish that the lifetime dependence at those points has the same nonmonotonic form. To support the general claim, at least one additional τ_γ scan inside the enhancement region and one outside it should be shown.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The threshold M_s = 0.6 is introduced only in the caption; it should be defined and discussed in the main text before it is used in the timescale analysis.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The notation v_ik^∞ is used for the conservative incompressible velocity, but it is not made explicit that this quantity is computed from the same ensemble-averaged simulation data. Please clarify the definition and how it is obtained.
  3. [SI 'Numerical simulations'] The statement that ℓ0_v/D ≤ 0.1 is 'small enough to avoid finite-size effects' is inconsistent with the central parameter point, as noted in Major Comment 2. Please specify whether this criterion applies only to the phase-diagram scans or to all runs, and correct the text.
  4. [Footnote 36] The information that C_max is attained with at least approximately ten remaining vortices is important for assessing the statistical meaning of C_max; it should appear in the main text or in the SI methods rather than only in a footnote.
  5. [SI 'Numerical simulations'; Fig. S1] The caption says that for a single conservative realization the clustering correlation decreases over time, while the ensemble-averaged conservative dynamics generally show clustering growth. Please clarify that Fig. S1 shows one realization, not the mean behavior.
  6. [Footnote 37] The parameters of the stretched-exponential fit (τ_nv and α) are not reported. Please provide their values and uncertainties for each τ_γ, or at least for the cases used in Fig. 4, to allow reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central clustering result is a direct simulation output, not a fit; only a post-hoc timescale calibration (M_s) is mildly self-referential.

  1. other [Fig. 3(c) caption; Sec. 'The physical mechanism becomes clearer from Fig. 3'; Fig. 4]
    "The value of M_s = 0.6 is defined to match the crossing time t_s with the depletion time in the conservative case"

    The upper boundary t_s of the proposed 'finite dynamical window' is not obtained from an independent criterion: the threshold M_s is chosen so that t_s coincides with the conservative depletion time. t_s is then used to mark the upper edge of the window that allegedly explains where C_max is maximal. The window is therefore partly a restatement of the depletion time, not an independent prediction. This is a diagnostic consistency check, not a parameter fitted to C_max, and the central C_max(τγ) result comes directly from simulating Eq. (1), so the circularity is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative claim — C_max(τγ) is nonmonotonic and exceeds the conservative value at intermediate lifetimes — is obtained by numerically integrating the dissipative Gross-Pitaevskii equation (Eq. 1) with linear loss γ = 1/τγ, measuring the nearest-neighbor circulation correlation C(t), and taking its maximum. No parameter is fitted to C_max; the conservative limit is the same code at γ=0. This is a direct simulation result, not a derivation from a fitted input, so it is not circular. The explanatory timescales are more post hoc: τ_nv is a stretched-exponential fit to the vortex number, and t_s is defined via a threshold M_s=0.6 chosen in the Fig. 3(c) caption to match the conservative depletion time. Using t_s as the upper boundary of the claimed dynamical window is therefore a self-referential diagnostic rather than an independent test. However, this does not enter the computation of C_max and is not load-bearing for the enhancement claim. The many self-citations ([11], [29], [41], [44]) are used for setup parameters, averaging conventions, vortex tracking, and parameter ranges; none invokes a uniqueness theorem or an unverified prior result to force the central conclusion. The numerical-resolution and finite-size concerns raised by the skeptic are potential correctness/robustness problems, not circularity: under-resolution of the conservative baseline could in principle bias the comparison, but that would be an error, not a circular reduction. Overall, no significant circularity in the central derivation; score 2 reflects only the minor self-referential timescale calibration.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rest on invented physical entities; it rests on the dGPE model and on diagnostic choices. The only tuned quantities are the threshold M_s and the stretched-exponential fit of vortex decay, both used to interpret the finite dynamical window rather than to produce the clustering enhancement itself.

free parameters (3)
  • M_s (sound-velocity threshold) = 0.6
    Chosen so that the velocity crossing time t_s coincides with the vortex depletion time in the conservative case; used to define the upper boundary of the clustering-active window in Fig. 4.
  • τ_nv and α (stretched-exponential vortex decay parameters) = not stated
    Obtained by fitting N_v(t) ~ exp[-(t/τ_nv)^α] with both parameters free (footnote 37); τ_nv sets the lower boundary of the claimed dynamical window.
  • ξ_c (vortex core profile parameter) = not stated
    Used in the initial wavefunction imprinting in the Supplementary Numerical Simulations; affects early vortex-core dynamics but is not varied in the study.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The damped Gross–Pitaevskii equation with pure linear loss (Eq. 1) captures the essential physics of freely decaying 2D quantum fluids.
    The entire study is a numerical solution of this model; no comparison to microscopic reservoir theories is made.
  • domain assumption Randomly imprinted vortex configurations with N_v = 80 and near-zero mean dipole provide an unbiased initial turbulent state.
    Standard Onsager-clustering protocol (Refs. 7, 8, 11, 29); the clustering maximum may depend on initial vortex density and system geometry.
  • domain assumption The nearest-neighbor circulation correlation C is a valid order parameter for Onsager clustering.
    C is taken from Ref. 8 and is the sole quantitative clustering metric in the lifetime scan; no independent negative-temperature or spectral measure is reported.
  • domain assumption Vortex tracking via phase gradients with Gaussian filtering (Supplementary, Ref. 41) correctly identifies vortices throughout the dynamics.
    The C_max and N_v(t) curves depend on this extraction; filtering parameters are not fully specified.
  • domain assumption 512^2 grid with a hard-walled circular trap (α = 0.4) is free of significant finite-size and grid-resolution artifacts.
    The authors state ℓ_v/D ≤ 0.1 to avoid finite-size effects, but no convergence study with respect to grid resolution or box size is provided.
  • standard math Helmholtz decomposition of the density-weighted velocity separates vortex (incompressible) and sound (compressible) energy sectors.
    Used to define E_ik and support the timescale argument; a standard mathematical decomposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dissipation-enhanced vortex clustering in a compressible quantum fluid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5GTOWDQN

@misc{pith2026260729475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dissipation-enhanced vortex clustering in a compressible quantum fluid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5GTOWDQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29475}
}
read the original abstract

Vortex clustering is commonly associated with conservative two-dimensional quantum-fluid dynamics. Therefore, particle loss is mainly expected to limit clustering by shortening the time available for vortex correlations to develop. Here we show instead that particle loss can enhance transient vortex clustering beyond the conservative evolution. We numerically study freely decaying, confined two-dimensional condensates initialized with random distributions of vortices and antivortices, and find a pronounced nonmonotonic dependence of the maximum clustering on particle lifetime. The enhancement is strongest at intermediate particle-loss rates, where loss-induced background rarefaction and incompressible kinetic energy relaxation occur on comparable timescales. Our results identify a finite dynamical window, selected by linear particle loss, in which a confined compressible quantum fluid develops stronger same-sign vortex correlations than in the conservative limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Phase portrait of vortex clustering showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [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 (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The time of maximum clustering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Frisch,Turbulence: The Legacy of A

    U. Frisch,Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    R. H. Kraichnan, Inertial ranges in two-dimensional tur- bulence, The Physics of Fluids10, 1417 (1967)

    1967

  3. [3]

    Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Il Nuovo Cimento (1943-1954)6, 279 (1949)

    L. Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Il Nuovo Cimento (1943-1954)6, 279 (1949)

    1943

  4. [4]

    Boffetta and R

    G. Boffetta and R. E. Ecke, Two-dimensional turbulence, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.44, 427 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    A. J. Groszek, M. J. Davis, D. M. Paganin, K. Helmerson, and T. P. Simula, Vortex thermometry for turbulent two- dimensional fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 034504 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Simula, M

    T. Simula, M. J. Davis, and K. Helmerson, Emergence of order from turbulence in an isolated planar superfluid, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 165302 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    S. P. Johnstone, A. J. Groszek, P. T. Starkey, C. J. Billington, T. P. Simula, and K. Helmerson, Evolution of large-scale flow from turbulence in a two-dimensional superfluid, Science364, 1267 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Gauthier, M

    G. Gauthier, M. T. Reeves, X. Yu, A. S. Bradley, M. A. Baker, T. A. Bell, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, M. J. Davis, and T. W. Neely, Giant vortex clusters in a two- dimensional quantum fluid, Science364, 1264 (2019)

    2019

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    N. G. Berloff, Turbulence in exciton-polariton conden- sates, (2010), arXiv:1010.5225, arXiv:1010.5225 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. V. Koniakhin, O. Bleu, G. Malpuech, and D. D. Sol- nyshkov, 2d quantum turbulence in a polariton quantum fluid, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals132, 109574 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Panico, P

    R. Panico, P. Comaron, M. Matuszewski, A. S. Lanotte, D. Trypogeorgos, G. Gigli, M. D. Giorgi, V. Ardizzone, D. Sanvitto, and D. Ballarini, Onset of vortex clustering and inverse energy cascade in dissipative quantum fluids, Nature Photonics17, 451 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Depaepe, K

    L. Depaepe, K. Ouahrouche, A. Amo, and C. Hainaut, Emergence of turbulence in a counterflow geometry of 2d polariton quantum fluids, (2026), arXiv:2603.05125

    2026

  5. [13]

    Baker-Rasooli, W

    M. Baker-Rasooli, W. Liu, T. Aladjidi, A. Bramati, and Q. Glorieux, Turbulent dynamics in a two-dimensional paraxial fluid of light, Phys. Rev. A108, 063512 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    R. N. Valani, A. J. Groszek, and T. P. Simula, Ein- stein–bose condensation of onsager vortices, New Journal of Physics20, 053038 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    T. P. Billam, M. T. Reeves, B. P. Anderson, and A. S. Bradley, Onsager-kraichnan condensation in decaying two-dimensional quantum turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 145301 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Skipp, J

    J. Skipp, J. Laurie, and S. Nazarenko, Hamiltonian derivation of the point vortex model from the two- dimensional nonlinear schr¨ odinger equation, Phys. Rev. E107, 025107 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    R. J. Tattersall, A. W. Baggaley, and T. P. Billam, Out- of-equilibrium behavior of quantum vortices: A compar- ison of point vortex dynamics and fokker-planck evolu- tion, Phys. Rev. A112, 013313 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    T. P. Billam, M. T. Reeves, and A. S. Bradley, Spectral energy transport in two-dimensional quantum vortex dy- namics, Phys. Rev. A91, 023615 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    C. F. Barenghi, L. Skrbek, and K. R. Sreenivasan,Quan- tum Turbulence(Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    N. G. Berloff, Interactions of vortices with rarefaction solitary waves in a bose-einstein condensate and their role in the decay of superfluid turbulence, Phys. Rev. A 69, 053601 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Kobayashi and M

    M. Kobayashi and M. Tsubota, Quantum turbulence in a trapped bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A76, 045603 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Øvereng, A

    V. Øvereng, A. Baggaley, and L. Angheluta, Topologi- cal interactions in vortex-wave collisions in bose-einstein condensates, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01973 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Navon, A

    N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Emergence of a turbulent cascade in a quantum gas, Na- ture539, 72 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Panico, G

    R. Panico, G. Ciliberto, G. I. Martone, T. Congy, D. Bal- larini, A. S. Lanotte, and N. Pavloff, Topological path- ways to two-dimensional quantum turbulence, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L022063 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    A. D. Garcia-Orozco, L. Madeira, L. Galantucci, C. F. Barenghi, and V. S. Bagnato, Intra-scales energy transfer during the evolution of turbulence in a trapped bose- einstein condensate, Europhys. Lett.130, 46001 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    A. J. Groszek, M. J. Davis, and T. P. Simula, Decaying quantum turbulence in a two-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate at finite temperature, SciPost Phys.8, 039 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Kanai and W

    T. Kanai and W. Guo, True mechanism of sponta- neous order from turbulence in two-dimensional super- fluid manifolds, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 095301 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    N. P. M¨ uller and G. Krstulovic, Exploring the equivalence between two-dimensional classical and quantum turbu- lence through velocity circulation statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 094002 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Comaron, R

    P. Comaron, R. Panico, D. Ballarini, and M. Ma- tuszewski, Dynamics of onsager vortex clustering in de- caying turbulent polariton quantum fluids, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L022006 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Ferrini and S

    R. Ferrini and S. V. Koniakhin, Driven-dissipative tur- bulence in exciton-polariton quantum fluids, Phys. Rev. B112, 205305 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Estrecho, T

    E. Estrecho, T. Gao, N. Bobrovska, D. Comber-Todd, M. D. Fraser, M. Steger, K. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, J. Levin- sen, M. M. Parish, T. C. H. Liew, M. Matuszewski, D. W. Snoke, A. G. Truscott, and E. A. Ostrovskaya, Direct measurement of polariton-polariton interaction strength i...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Panico, A

    R. Panico, A. S. Lanotte, D. Trypogeorgos, G. Gigli, M. De Giorgi, D. Sanvitto, and D. Ballarini, Confor- mal invariance of 2D quantum turbulence in an exci- ton–polariton fluid of light, Applied Physics Reviews10, 041418 (2023). [33]Universal Themes of Bose-Einstein Condensat...

    2023

  25. [34]

    C. F. Barenghi and N. G. Parker,A primer on Quantum Fluids(Springer, 2016)

    2016

  26. [35]

    See Supplementary Information, which contains the fol- lowing references: [41–44]

  27. [36]

    Note thatC max is always attained with at least approxi- mately ten vortices still remaining, and that the enhance- 7 ment with respect to the conservative case largely exceeds the statistical uncertainty of the ensemble average

  28. [37]

    Although vortex decay exhibits different dynamical regimes, we extractτ nv by fitting the vortex-number evolution with a stretched exponentialN v(t)∼ exp[−(t/τnv )α], treating bothτ nv andαas free parame- ters

  29. [38]

    V. N. Gladilin and M. Wouters, Interaction and motion of vortices in nonequilibrium quantum fluids, New Journal of Physics19, 105005 (2017)

    2017

  30. [39]

    V. N. Gladilin and M. Wouters, Multivortex states and dynamics in nonequilibrium polariton condensates, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 395303 (2019)

    2019

  31. [40]

    Wachtel, L

    G. Wachtel, L. M. Sieberer, S. Diehl, and E. Altman, Electrodynamic duality and vortex unbinding in driven- dissipative condensates, Phys. Rev. B94, 104520 (2016)

    2016

  32. [41]

    Comaron, I

    P. Comaron, I. Carusotto, M. H. Szyma´ nska, and N. P. Proukakis, Non-equilibrium berezinskii-kosterlitz- thouless transition in driven-dissipative condensates (a), EPL (Europhysics Letters)133, 17002 (2021)

    2021

  33. [42]

    C. N. Weiler, T. W. Neely, D. R. Scherer, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, and B. P. Anderson, Spontaneous vortices in the formation of bose–einstein condensates, Nature455, 948 (2008)

    2008

  34. [43]

    S. J. Rooney, T. W. Neely, B. P. Anderson, and A. S. Bradley, Persistent-current formation in a high- temperature bose-einstein condensate: An experimental test for classical-field theory, Phys. Rev. A88, 063620 (2013)

    2013

  35. [44]

    Comaron, F

    P. Comaron, F. Larcher, F. Dalfovo, and N. P. Proukakis, Quench dynamics of an ultracold two-dimensional bose gas, Phys. Rev. A100, 033618 (2019). Supplementary information for: Dissipation-enhanced vortex clustering in a compressible quantum fluid P. Comaron,1,∗ M. Matuszewsk...

    2019

Pith tools

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