Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Critical non-thermal fixed point and the dynamical condensation phase transition

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The equilibrium condensation threshold also acts as a dynamical critical point, separating three universal relaxation regimes in a quenched Bose gas.

desk verdict Plausible new branch in a known kinetic framework, but the critical fixed point hinges on an unbenchmarked closure and self-fitted exponents. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26620 v1 pith:5AE3V47S submitted 2026-07-29 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Anne-Solène Bornens , Elisabeth Gliott , Nicolas Cherroret This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph PACS 05.30.Jp03.75.Kk05.70.Ln
keywords Bose-Einsteincondensationnon-thermalfixedpointdynamicalphasetransitionquantumkinetictheoryquenchdynamicscoarseningcriticalsuperdiffusion
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

The paper claims that the Bose-Einstein condensation temperature is not only a thermodynamic boundary but also the organizing center of nonequilibrium relaxation in a 3D Bose gas after a cooling quench. Using a non-perturbative quantum kinetic equation, the authors show that quenches above the threshold relax to a thermal fixed point, quenches below pass through weak turbulence and then a vortex-coarsening fixed point, and quenches directly to the threshold are controlled by a distinct critical fixed point where fluctuations spread superdiffusively. The central result is a new set of dynamical exponents (α, β, γ) = (3/2, 3/4, 2) for the critical quench, which differs from the coarsening exponents (3/2, 1/2, 4). If correct, this establishes a far-from-equilibrium counterpart of the condensation phase transition, with the equilibrium critical point shaping long-time universal dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-perturbative effective interaction g_eff(ε,p,t) = g / |1 + g Π(ε,p,t)|, a ladder-resummed coupling that replaces the bare contact interaction in the quantum Boltzmann equation. Evaluated with the instantaneous momentum distribution n_k(t), it regularizes the finite-time singularity of the perturbative Boltzmann equation and produces algebraic momentum dependencies that select the different fixed points. At the critical fixed point, g_eff ~ p^(2/3), which the authors show is the only exponent compatible with an inverse cascade and self-similar scaling, and it indicates that the dynamics is dominated by on-shell scattering processes.

What would settle it

Compute the long-time dynamics of a uniform 3D Bose gas quenched precisely to the condensation threshold using the Gross–Pitaevskii equation (or measure it in an experiment) and extract the inverse-cascade front scale p_f(t). If p_f(t) does not scale as t^(−3/4) at long times while n_0(t) ~ t^(3/2), or if the rescaled distributions do not collapse onto a single curve with f(x) ~ x^(−2), the critical fixed point is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the post-quench energy density selects the asymptotic nonequilibrium attractor, and at the critical energy the system approaches a previously unidentified non-thermal fixed point. At this critical fixed point, the inverse-cascade front grows as p_f(t) ~ t^(-3/4), faster than the diffusive t^(-1/2) of coarsening, and the momentum distribution obeys n_p(t) = t^(3/2) f(p t^(3/4)) with f(x) ~ x^(-2) at intermediate momenta. The exponents are selected uniquely by combining the general scaling relation (2+z)β − α = 1/2 with the self-similarity constraint α/β = 2 and the effective coupling exponent z = 2/3. This establishes a distinct universality class for critical qu

Load-bearing premise

The entire classification rests on the self-consistent effective coupling g/(1 + gΠ) evaluated with the instantaneous momentum distribution being accurate beyond the Boltzmann blow-up time and especially at the threshold quench, since no ab initio simulation or experimental comparison is provided for that case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quenches above the condensation threshold relax to the equilibrium thermal fixed point, with the correlation length diverging as (p_0 − p_c)^(−1), reproducing conventional critical behavior.
  • Quenches below threshold exhibit two sequential regimes: a transient weak-turbulence state with exponents (α,β,γ) ≈ (−2.7, −1.1, 2.45), followed by a coarsening fixed point with exponents (3/2, 1/2, 4) governed by vortex-line recombination.
  • Quenches precisely at the threshold are controlled by a distinct critical fixed point with exponents (3/2, 3/4, 2), characterized by superdiffusive spreading of critical fluctuations and scale invariance that already emerges on microscopic timescales.
  • The long-time effective coupling scales as p^z with z = 2 below the threshold and z = 2/3 at the threshold, uniquely selecting the fixed points through the exponent relation.
  • For deep subcritical quenches the weak-turbulence regime disappears entirely, and the system evolves directly toward the coarsening fixed point, while also developing a direct cascade at large momenta.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the critical fixed point is genuine, critical quenches should exhibit aging and universal two-time correlation functions with a new aging exponent, analogous to classical critical quenches; two-time measurements in cold gases could test this prediction.
  • The dynamical phase diagram suggests a sharp observable signature: a small change in quench depth across p_c changes the long-time front exponent from 1/2 to 3/4, which can be resolved in time-of-flight imaging of the momentum distribution.
  • The z = 2/3 effective coupling at criticality might be detectable through momentum-resolved Bragg scattering or by measuring collision rates at low momenta, since it implies a nontrivial suppression of the interaction relative to the bare coupling.
  • The same non-perturbative kinetic framework could be adapted to other transitions with a threshold energy, such as the 2D BKT transition, where the predicted exponents would differ and provide a sharp test of the framework's generality.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies far-from-equilibrium dynamics of a 3D Bose gas after a cooling quench, using a quantum kinetic equation with a non-perturbative effective coupling geff (Eq. (2)). It claims that the equilibrium BEC threshold pc acts as a dynamical critical point: quenches above pc relax to a thermal fixed point; quenches below pc first show weak turbulence and then coarsening with exponents (α,β,γ)=(3/2,1/2,4); quenches exactly to pc are controlled by a new critical non-thermal fixed point with exponents (α,β,γ)=(3/2,3/4,2), characterized by superdiffusive propagation of critical fluctuations. The evidence is numerical: scaling collapses of the momentum distribution, zero-mode growth, and the inverse-cascade front p_f(t).

Significance. If correct, the paper would establish a unified dynamical phase diagram for cooling quenches across the BEC transition and identify a previously unknown critical fixed point. This is a conceptually appealing and potentially influential result for quantum-gas experiments and non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. The paper also proposes a physically motivated resolution of the long-standing Boltzmann finite-time singularity. However, the central claim rests on a single numerical framework with an imported closure (Eq. (2)) and on exponent extractions that lack error quantification; the result is therefore not yet established at the level required for a definitive claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Critical fixed point; Eq. (B2)] The central distinction between the critical fixed point (β=3/4) and the coarsening fixed point (β=1/2) rests on the front exponent β, extracted via the arbitrary threshold λ=0.6 in Eq. (B2). No error bars, sensitivity analysis to λ, or alternative front definitions are given. The phrase 'independently confirmed by an analysis of the cascade front in Appendix B' is misleading: Appendix B uses the same definition, same data, and same fitting procedure. Since α=3/2 is shared by both regimes, all the weight is on this single exponent.
  2. [Eq. (2); Model] The entire study is a numerical solution of Eq. (1) with the non-perturbative closure geff=g/|1+gΠ|. This closure is imported from Ref. [7] and is not benchmarked for the threshold quench. For p0=pc, Fig. 7 shows geff deviates strongly from g at long times, so the new critical dynamics lives precisely in the regime where the closure is most consequential. A failure of Eq. (2) would make the critical fixed point an artifact. The authors should validate against Gross–Pitaevskii simulations (at least for a range of p0 including pc) or against existing experiments; without such a benchmark the claim remains conditional.
  3. [Appendix C; exponent relation Eq. (5)] The selection of z=2/3 for the critical fixed point is circular: it uses the observed α/β=2, which itself comes from the fitted α and β of the same numerical data. Equation (5) is then used to infer z. This is a consistency check, not a derivation. To make the claim load-bearing, the scaling of geff should be measured directly from the numerical solution (e.g., from the kernel in Eq. (A2)) and compared with the prediction z=2/3, or an independent analytical argument should be supplied.
  4. [Fig. 5c; 'Critical fixed point'] The collapse in Fig. 5c is presented as 'almost perfect', but no quantitative comparison is made with the alternative coarsening collapse (α=3/2, β=1/2). Given that both fixed points share α, the reader cannot judge whether the data actually discriminate between β=3/4 and β=1/2. A quantitative goodness-of-fit or residual analysis, and preferably a plot showing that the (3/2,1/2) collapse fails, is required.
  5. [Appendices A–D; reproducibility] No code or data are provided, and the numerical solver details, while extensive, are not sufficient to reproduce the results without significant effort. For a paper whose conclusions are purely numerical, the absence of public code/data is a serious deficiency. At minimum, the authors should provide the extracted exponent values with uncertainty estimates and make the code available.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption writes n0(t→∞)∼t^{3/2} for p0<pc; this should be n0(t)∼t^{3/2} for long times, not t→∞ (the asymptotic state is not actually reached in finite time). Similar wording appears around Eq. (4) and in the coarsening section.
  2. [Fig. 4c, right panel] The text says the coarsening dynamics is 'no longer self-similar' because α/β=3≠γ=4. But Eq. (4) with f(x)~x^{-4} still represents a self-similar collapse (n_p=t^{3/2} f(p t^{1/2})). The terminology needs clarification: if the authors mean that the power-law exponent differs from the self-similarity ratio, this should be stated explicitly and reconciled with the use of Eq. (4) for the collapse.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The fit giving ν=1 is quoted without an error bar or a plot showing the numerical ζ vs. (p0-pc). The inset in Fig. 4a is mentioned, but a quantitative comparison or at least the number of points and residuals should be given.
  4. [Table I] The critical row lists γ=2=α/β; this is fine, but for coarsening the table lists γ=4 while α/β=3, which again highlights the 'self-similar' ambiguity noted above. The table would benefit from a column defining whether the scaling function is a pure power law.
  5. [General] Some references appear incorrectly formatted or incomplete (e.g., Ref. [19] uses arXiv:2605.23600, Ref. [41] lacks a journal volume/page, Ref. [44] has a comma in the author list). Please check all references for completeness.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No central circularity; the critical fixed-point exponents are emergent readouts of the simulated kinetics, but two internal 'confirmations' reduce algebraically to the same numerically extracted β.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Critical fixed point' (p.6) and Appendix B, Eq. (B2)]
    "The value β = 3/4 is independently confirmed by an analysis of the cascade front presented in Appendix B. ... To extract β numerically, we adopt the following systematic definition of p_f(t). We fix a positive constant λ≲1 and define p_f(t) as the lowest momentum satisfying |ln n_0(t)−ln n_{p_f}(t)| ≥ λ."

    Appendix B measures β from the same numerical n_p(t) that produced the Fig. 5c collapse. Under the paper's own scaling ansatz (4), the front condition becomes |ln f(0)−ln f(p_f t^β)| = λ, hence p_f(t) ∝ t^{−β}. Thus the β=3/4 'independently confirmed' by the cascade front is the same β already used in the rescaling; it is a self-consistency check, not an independent determination.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix C, after Eq. (5)]
    "For a critical quench, by contrast, the self-similar scaling of the momentum distribution imposes the relation α/β = 2 (see main text). Combined with the exponent relation (5), this uniquely selects z = 2/3 as the only exponent compatible with an inverse cascade."

    With α/β = 2, Eq. (5) gives (2+z)β − 2β = 1/2, i.e. z = 1/(2β). The value z = 2/3 is therefore fixed only after inserting β = 3/4, the very exponent read off from the same numerical collapse. The 'unique selection' of z restates the fitted β rather than deriving z independently.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular: the exponents (3/2, 3/4, 2) are not inserted into Eq. (1); they are extracted from the numerical solution of the kinetic equation with the effective coupling (2), so the emergence of a distinct threshold dynamics is a genuine output of the model, not a fit renamed as a prediction. Eq. (2) is imported from Ref. [7], an external prior work with no author overlap, so there is no load-bearing self-citation chain. The two flagged steps are internal consistency loops: Appendix B's 'independent confirmation' of β and Appendix C's 'unique selection' of z both reduce algebraically to the same β obtained from the same data. These are peripheral logical flaws, not a constructed equivalence between input and output. The lack of benchmarking of the closure Eq. (2) against Gross-Pitaevskii simulations or experiments for threshold quenches is a real validation risk, but it is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. Overall, no significant circularity in the main claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model inherits a standard kinetic framework plus a self-consistent effective interaction from Ref. [7]. The central claim's novelty (the critical fixed point) rests on several domain assumptions — the closure's validity past the Boltzmann singularity, the ideal-gas value of p_c, and the vortex-coarsening interpretation — none of which are independently benchmarked in the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Front-definition threshold λ = 0.6
    Eq. (B2): p_f(t) is the lowest momentum satisfying |ln n0 - ln n_{p_f}| >= λ. The critical exponent β=3/4 is extracted with this choice; no sensitivity analysis is shown.
  • Initial distribution quartic exponent = 4
    n_p(0) ∝ exp(-p^4/p0^4) is chosen by hand. The paper asserts universality of the dynamics w.r.t. this form but does not test alternatives.
  • Diluteness parameter 4π²ρξ³ = 10^3
    Fixed for all numerical runs; universality across this parameter is not demonstrated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Quantum kinetic equation Eq. (1) with contact interactions is the correct far-from-equilibrium description of a dilute 3D Bose gas.
    Invoked in Model; standard but assumes Markovian two-body collisions and neglects higher-order/non-Markovian effects.
  • domain assumption Effective coupling geff=g/|1+gΠ| in Eq. (2) regularizes the Boltzmann singularity and remains valid at and after t*, including the vortex-coarsening regime.
    Imported from Ref. [7] as the sole regularization; not benchmarked here against independent simulations.
  • standard math Scaling ansatz n_p=τ(t) f(p τ^y) with g_eff~|p-p2|^z, leading to Eqs. (4)-(5).
    A standard dynamic-scaling assumption in kinetic wave turbulence; invoked before Eq. (4).
  • domain assumption At p0<p_c, the long-time state is a vortex tangle whose coarsening is described by line tension F~1/L, giving β=1/2.
    Conjecture stated in the section 'Weak turbulence and coarsening fixed point'; no direct vortex dynamics simulated.
  • domain assumption At p0=p_c, the eventual thermal target is the equilibrium critical correlation <ψ†(0)ψ(r)>~1/r, so the intermediate-momentum tail is ~1/p^2.
    Used in 'Critical fixed point' to interpret γ=2; standard equilibrium critical scaling of 3D BEC.
  • domain assumption p_c=sqrt(2mT_c) with the ideal-gas T_c formula governs the interacting kinetic model.
    The paper sets p_c=7.7/ξ using T_c of the noninteracting gas; interaction-induced critical shifts are not discussed.
invented entities (1)
  • Critical non-thermal fixed point
    purpose: Governs long-time dynamics of quenches exactly at the BEC threshold; characterized by (α,β,γ)=(3/2,3/4,2) and superdiffusive front t^{3/4}.
    Only evidence is the numerical solution of Eq. (1) with the assumed closure Eq. (2); no independent simulation, experiment, or analytic derivation of β=3/4 is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critical non-thermal fixed point and the dynamical condensation phase transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5AE3V47S

@misc{pith2026260726620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critical non-thermal fixed point and the dynamical condensation phase transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5AE3V47S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26620}
}
read the original abstract

Using a non-perturbative quantum kinetic framework, we develop a unified description of the far-from-equilibrium dynamics of three-dimensional Bose gases following cooling quenches across the Bose-Einstein condensation transition. By tracking the spatio-temporal evolution of the momentum distribution, we show that the equilibrium condensation threshold simultaneously acts as a dynamical critical point, separating distinct far-from-equilibrium universality classes governed by different non-equilibrium attractors. While quenches above the transition exhibit a single-timescale relaxation toward a thermal fixed point, quenches below the transition display a crossover from a transient weak-turbulence regime to a coarsening fixed point governed by the diffusive recombination of vortex lines. Quenches directly to the condensation threshold, finally, are controlled by a previously unidentified critical fixed point characterized by the superdiffusive spreading of critical fluctuations and a distinct set of dynamical exponents. Together, these dynamical scaling laws establish a far-from-equilibrium counterpart of the condensation phase transition, in which the equilibrium critical point also organizes the long-time non-equilibrium dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26620 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. b, which physically accounts for the possibility that two particles interact recurrently during their evolution. As shown below, this approach regularizes the singular behavior of the Boltzmann equation and enables the de￾scription of NTFPs emerging after quenches both below and exactly at the critical point. The non-perturbative effective coupling reads [7] geff(ϵ, p, t) = g |1 + gΠ(ϵ, p, t)| , (2) and involves the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Effective coupling strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [7]

    Berges, A

    J. Berges, A. Rothkopf, and J. Schmidt,Nonthermal fixed points: effective weak coupling for strongly correlated sys- tems far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 041603 (2008)

    2008

  2. [1]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore,Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed in- teracting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  3. [2]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin,Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys.49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  4. [3]

    Nazarenko,Wave turbulence, Vol

    S. Nazarenko,Wave turbulence, Vol. 825, Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  5. [4]

    Gray with gray background 1 FIG. 8. Momentum distributionn p(t) at different times for a post-quench momentump 0 = 0.63/ξ, corresponding to a deep quench across the transition. At intermediate momenta, the distribution rapidly develops the characteristic algebraic scalingn p(t)∼p −4 associated with vortex coarsening, with no signature of an intermediate w...

  6. [5]

    L. F. Cugliandolo,Coarsening phenomena, C. R. Phys. 16, 257 (2015)

    2015

  7. [6]

    A. J. Bray,Theory of phase-ordering kinetics, Adv. Phys. 51, 481 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    Chantesana, A

    I. Chantesana, A. P. Orioli, M. Wouters, and T. Gasen- zer,Kinetic theory of nonthermal fixed points in a Bose gas, Phys. Rev. A99, 043620 (2019)

    2019

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    A. N. Mikheev, C.-M. Schmied, and T. Gasenzer,Low- energy effective theory of non-thermal fixed points in a multicomponent Bose gas, Phys. Rev. A99, 063622 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Gliott, A

    E. Gliott, A. Ran¸ con, and N. Cherroret,From inverse- cascade to sub-diffusive dynamic scaling in driven disor- dered Bose fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 233403 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Y. Zhu, B. Semisalov, G. Krstulovic, S. Nazarenko,Self- similar evolution of wave turbulence in Gross-Pitaevskii system, Phys. Rev. E108, 064207 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Nowak, J

    B. Nowak, J. Schole, D. Sexty, and T. Gasenzer,Nonther- mal fixed points, vortex statistics, and superfluid turbu- lence in an ultracold Bose gas, Phys. Rev. A85, 043627 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Comaron, F

    P. Comaron, F. Larcher, F. Dalfovo, and N. P. Proukakis, 11 Quench dynamics of an ultracold two-dimensional Bose gas, Phys. Rev. A100, 033618 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Marino, M

    J. Marino, M. Eckstein, M. S. Foster, and A. M. Rey,Dy- namical phase transitions in the collisionless pre-thermal states of isolated quantum systems: theory and experi- ments, Rep. Prog. Phys.85116001 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Chandran, A

    A. Chandran, A. Nanduri, S. S. Gubser, and S. L. Sondhi, Equilibration and coarsening in the quantumO(N)model at infiniteN, Phys. Rev. B88, 024306 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Sciolla and G

    B. Sciolla and G. Biroli,Quantum quenches, dynami- cal transitions, and off-equilibrium quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. B88, 201110 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Chiocchetta, A

    A. Chiocchetta, A. Gambassi, S. Diehl, and J. Marino, Dynamical Crossovers in Prethermal Critical States, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 135701 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Smacchia, M

    P. Smacchia, M. Knap, E. Demler, and A. Silva,Ex- ploring dynamical phase transitions and prethermaliza- tion with quantum noise of excitations, Phys. Rev. B91, 205136 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    CherroretDynamical phase transition of light in time- varying nonlinear dispersive media, Phys

    N. CherroretDynamical phase transition of light in time- varying nonlinear dispersive media, Phys. Rev. A109, 013519 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    del Pozo, T

    F. del Pozo, T. Morvan, I. Fr´ erot, and N. Cherroret,En- tanglement entropy across the dynamical phase transition in the quantumO(N)model, arXiv:2605.23600 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S.-K. Jian, S. Yin, and B. Swingle,Universal Prether- mal Dynamics in Gross-Neveu-Yukawa Criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 170606 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Yin and S.-K

    S. Yin and S.-K. Jian,Fermion-induced dynamical criti- cal point, Phys. Rev. B103, 125116 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Langen, R

    T. Langen, R. Geiger, and J. Schmiedmayer,Ultracold atoms out of equilibrium, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 201 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Navon, C

    N. Navon, C. Eigen, J. Zhang, R. Lopes, A. L. Gaunt, K. Fujimoto, M. Tsubota, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Synthetic dissipation and cascade fluxes in a turbulent quantum gas, Science366, 382 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    A. D. Garc ´ ıa-Orozco, L. Madeira, M. A. Moreno-Armijos, A. R. Fritsch, P. E. S. Tavares, P. C. M. Castilho, A. Cidrim, G. Roati, and V. S. Bagnato,Universal dynamics of a turbulent superfluid Bose gas, Phys. Rev. A106, 023314 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ga lka, P

    M. Ga lka, P. Christodoulou, M. Gazo, A. Karailiev, N. Dogra, J. Schmitt, and Z. Hadzibabic,Emergence of Isotropy and Dynamic Scaling in 2D Wave Turbulence in a Homogeneous Bose Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 190402 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Beugnon and N

    J. Beugnon and N. Navon,Exploring the Kibble-Zurek mechanism with homogeneous Bose gases, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.50, 022002 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Deutschl¨ ander, P

    S. Deutschl¨ ander, P. Dillmann, G. Maret, and P. Keim, Kibble-Zurek mechanism in colloidal monolayers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.112, 6925 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Kollar, F

    M. Kollar, F. A. Wolf, and M. Eckstein,Generalized Gibbs ensemble prediction of prethermalization plateaus and their relation to nonthermal steady states in inte- grable systems, Phys. Rev. B84, 054304 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Gring, M

    M. Gring, M. Kuhnert, T. Langen, T. Kitagawa, B. Rauer, M. Schreitl, I. Mazets, D. A. Smith, E. Dem- ler, and J. Schmiedmayer,Relaxation and Prethermaliza- tion in an Isolated Quantum System, Science337, 1318 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    S. S. Natu and E. J. Mueller,Dynamics of correlations in a dilute Bose gas following an interaction quench, Phys. Rev. A87, 053607 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Pietraszewicz, M

    J. Pietraszewicz, M. Stobi´ nska, and P. Deuar,Correla- tion evolution in dilute Bose-Einstein condensates after quantum quenches, Phys. Rev. A99, 023620 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Larr´ e, D

    P.- ´E. Larr´ e, D. Delande, and N. Cherroret,Postquench prethermalization in a disordered quantum fluid of light, Phys. Rev. A97, 043805 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Bardon-brun, S

    T. Bardon-brun, S. Pigeon, and N. Cherroret,Classi- cal Casimir force from a quasi-condensate of light, Phys. Rev. Research2, 013297 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Mallayya, M

    K. Mallayya, M. Rigol, and W. De Roeck,Prethermaliza- tion and Thermalization in Isolated Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. X9, 021027 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Bertini, F

    B. Bertini, F. H. L. Essler, S. Groha, and N. J. Robin- son,Prethermalization and Thermalization in Models with Weak Integrability Breaking, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 180601 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Buchhold, M

    M. Buchhold, M. Heyl, and S. Diehl,Prethermalization and thermalization of a quenched interacting Luttinger liquid, Phys. Rev. A94, 013601 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    M. V. Regemortel, H. Kurkjian, M. Wouters, and I. Caru- sotto,Prethermalization to thermalization crossover in a dilute Bose gas following an interaction ramp, Phys. Rev. A98, 053612 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    T. Mori, T. N Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, and M. Ueda,Ther- malization and prethermalization in isolated quantum systems: a theoretical overview, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.51112001 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Duval and N

    C. Duval and N. CherroretQuantum kinetics of quenched two-dimensional Bose superfluids, Phys. Rev. A107, 043305 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Duval and N

    C. Duval and N. CherroretAnomalous Landau damping and algebraic thermalization in two-dimensional super- fluids far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. A111, L021301 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    S. Huh, K. Mukherjee, K. Kwon, J. Seo, J. Hur, S. I. Mistakidis, H. R. Sadeghpour, and J. Choi,Universal- ity class of a spinor Bose-Einstein condensate far from equilibriumNature Physics20, 402 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Manovitz, S

    T. Manovitz, S. H. Li, S. Ebadi, R. Samajdar, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, H. Zhou, N. Koyluoglu, J. Feldmeier, P. E. Dolgirev, N. Maskara, M. Kalinowski, S. Sachdev, D. A. Huse, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin.Quantum coarsening and collective dynamics on...

    2025

  36. [44]

    S. Erne, R. B¨ ucker, T. Gasenzer, J. Berges, and J. Schmiedmayer,Universal dynamics in an isolated one- dimensional Bose gas far from equilibrium, Nature563, 225 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    J. A. P. Glidden, C. Eigen, L. H. Dogra, T. A. Hilker, T. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic ,Bidirectional dynamic scal- ing in an isolated Bose gas far from equilibrium, Nature Phys.17, 457 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Sunami, V

    S. Sunami, V. P. Singh, D. Garrick, A. Beregi, A. J. Barker, K. Luksch, E. Bentine, L. Mathey, and C. J. Foot,Universal Scaling of the Dynamic BKT Transition in Quenched 2D Bose Gases, Science382, 443 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Abuzarli, N

    M. Abuzarli, N. Cherroret, T. Bienaim´ e, and Q. Glo- rieux,Non-equilibrium pre-thermal states in a two- dimensional photon fluid, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 100602 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    M. Gazo, A. Karailiev, T. Satoor, C. Eigen, M. Ga lka, and Z. Hadzibabic,Universal Coarsening in a Homo- 12 geneous Two-Dimensional Bose Gas, Science389, 802 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Scoquart, D

    T. Scoquart, D. Delande, N. Cherroret,Dynamical emer- gence of a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in a disordered Bose gas following a quench, Phys. Rev. A106, L021301 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Gliott, C

    E. Gliott, C. Piekarski, and N. Cherroret,Coarsening of binary Bose superfluids: An effective theory, Phys. Rev. Research7, 033189 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Griffin, T

    A. Griffin, T. Nikuni, and E. Zaremba,Bose-Condensed Gases at Finite Temperatures, (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    Semikoz, and I

    D. Semikoz, and I. Tkachev,Kinetics of Bose Condensa- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 3093 (1995)

    1995

  45. [53]

    Semikoz, and I

    D. Semikoz, and I. Tkachev,Condensation of bosons in the kinetic regime, Phys. Rev. D55, 489 (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    Berloff, B

    N. Berloff, B. Svistunov,Scenario of strongly nonequi- librated Bose-Einstein condensation, Phys. Rev. A66 013603 (2002)

    2002

  47. [55]

    Josserand, Y

    C. Josserand, Y. Pomeau, S. Rica,Self-similar Singular- ities in the Kinetics of Condensation, Low Temp Phys 145, 231 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    Semisalov, V

    B. Semisalov, V. Grebenev, S. Medvedev, and S. Nazarenko,Numerical analysis of a self-similar turbulent flow in Bose-Einstein condensates, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation102, 105903 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    L. P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari,Bose-Einstein conden- sation, Oxford University Press (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    R. P. Smith,Effects of Interactions on Bose-Einstein Condensation, in Universal Themes of Bose-Einstein, eds N. Proukakis, D. Snoke, and P. Littlewood (Cam- bridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Donner, S

    T. Donner, S. Ritter, T. Bourdel, A. ¨Ottl, M. K¨ ohl, and T. Esslinger,Critical Behavior of a Trapped Interacting Bose Gas, Science315, 1556 (2007)

    2007

  52. [60]

    The intermediate regime wheret ∗ remains relevant was referred to as a pre-scaling stage in [47, 60]

    Note that to achieve this collapse, we include the time scalet ∗ in the rescaling procedure, although its effect becomes negligible fort≫t ∗. The intermediate regime wheret ∗ remains relevant was referred to as a pre-scaling stage in [47, 60]

  53. [61]

    Schmied, A

    C.-M. Schmied, A. N. Mikheev, and T. Gasenzer, Prescaling in a Far-from-Equilibrium Bose Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 170404 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    H. K. Janssen, B. Schaub, B. Schmittmann,New uni- versal short-time scaling behaviour of critical relaxation processes, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B73, 539 (1989)

    1989

  55. [63]

    D. A. Huse,Remanent Magnetization Decay at the Spin- Glass Critical Point: A New Dynamic Critical Exponent for Nonequilibrium Autocorrelations, Phys. Rev. B40, 304 (1989)

    1989

  56. [64]

    Berthier, P

    L. Berthier, P. C. W. Holdsworth, and M. Sellitto, Nonequilibrium critical dynamics of the two-dimensional XY model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral,34, 1805 (2001)

    2001

  57. [65]

    Calabrese and A

    P. Calabrese and A. Gambassi,Ageing properties of crit- ical systems, Journal of Physics A38, R133 (2005)

    2005

  58. [66]

    Maraga, A

    A. Maraga, A. Chiocchetta, A. Mitra, and A. Gambassi, Aging and coarsening in isolated quantum systems after a quench: Exact results for the quantumO(N)model with N→ ∞, Phys. Rev. E92, 042151 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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