Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 82 references

Counterflow of lattice polarons in harmonically confined optical lattices

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single impurity in a trapped lattice can pair with a bath hole to form a delocalized counterflow phase of unity filling.

desk verdict A carefully computed phase diagram with a genuinely new combined-unity-filling domain, but the counterflow phase is not backed by its own algebraic-decay criterion—the CAP evidence is a finite-size cosine and the analytic model assumes the conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09448 v2 pith:6N75JRC4 submitted 2025-02-13 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phquant-ph

Felipe Isaule , Abel Rojo-Francàs , Luis Morales-Molina , Bruno Juliá-Díaz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords BosepolaronBose-HubbardmodelcounterfloworderMottinsulatoropticallatticeharmonicconfinementanti-paircorrelatorimpurity-holepair
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 studies a single mobile impurity repulsively coupled to a bosonic bath in a one-dimensional optical lattice with a harmonic trap, and it identifies a new phase in the bath-impurity phase diagram. When the bath develops a central Mott-insulator domain ($t/U_{bb}$ below about 0.155) and the impurity-bath repulsion is intermediate (roughly $0.4 < U_{bI}/U_{bb} < 1$), the impurity no longer behaves as a localized polaron. Instead, the impurity and a bath hole form a delocalized bound structure: the combined density $n_b+n_I=1$ across the central region, the impurity profile becomes the ground-state density of a particle in an infinite square well, and the anti-pair correlator decays slowly, signaling long-range counterflow order. The paper argues this is an unconventional counterflow phase, distinct from the miscible and phase-separated regimes, and explains it with an impurity-hole wavefunction ansatz. If correct, this would show that counterflow order is not limited to balanced mixtures and offers a sharp probe of the trapped superfluid-to-Mott-insulator transition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the impurity-hole state $|i_{\mathrm{IH}}\rangle = \hat{a}^\dagger_{i,I}\hat{a}_{i,b}|\mathrm{MI}\rangle$, where $|\mathrm{MI}\rangle$ is a unit-filled Mott-insulator state of the bath, and the variational wavefunction $|\Psi_{\mathrm{CF}}\rangle = \sum_i \alpha_i |i_{\mathrm{IH}}\rangle$. With this ansatz the bath density automatically becomes $n_b(i)=1-|\alpha_i|^2$, so $n_b+n_I=1$, and the anti-pair correlator becomes $C_{\mathrm{AP}}(i)=\alpha_0^*\alpha_i$. Imposing the observed $\cos^2$ impurity profile fixes $\alpha_i=\sqrt{n_0}\,\cos(i\pi/M_{\mathrm{CF}})$ and turns the correlator into a cosine, which is the signature of delocalized counterflow. The model also explains why the harmonic trap is essential: in a homogeneous lattice the Mott filling condition leaves no room for an impurity-hole pair, whereas the trap's compressible edges supply the extra site.

What would settle it

For fixed characteristic density $\tilde{\rho}_b=3.58$, compute $C_{\mathrm{AP}}$ at $t/U_{bb}=0.1$ and $U_{bI}/U_{bb}=0.6$ for increasing system sizes, for example $N_b=25,40,80,160$ with $M=N_b+20$. If the fitted cosine's zero crossing or decay length fails to converge, or if $C_{\mathrm{AP}}$ crosses over to exponential decay beyond a finite $x_i$, then the slow decay is a finite-size effect and the counterflow phase as defined collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, at intermediate impurity-bath repulsion in a harmonically confined lattice with a central Mott-insulator domain, the system enters a counterflow phase in which the bath and impurity together form an extended insulating state of unity filling, even though neither species alone shows a density plateau. In this phase the impurity's density takes the profile $n_I^{\mathrm{CF}}(x_i)=n_0\cos^2(\pi(x_i-\langle x_I\rangle)/\ell_{\mathrm{CF}})$, the ground-state density of a free particle in an infinite square well of width $\ell_{\mathrm{CF}}$, and the anti-pair correlator decays as $C_{\mathrm{AP}}(i)=n_0\cos(i\pi/M_{\mathrm{CF}})$ rather than exponentially. The transition into this phase is marked by a sudden vanishing of the polaron residue, indicating an orthogonality catastrophe in the thermodynamic limit. The paper supports the phase with a minimal model in which the bath starts in a Mott state and each configuration contains exactly one impurity-hole pair; that model yields $n_b=1-|\alpha_i|^2$, $n_I=|\alpha_i|^2$, and $C_{\mathrm{AP}}(i)=\alpha_0^*\alpha_i$, reproducing the combined-insulator condition and the slow correlator decay.

Load-bearing premise

The counterflow phase rests on reading the slow decay of the anti-pair correlator in finite numerical samples as a thermodynamic algebraic order; without a finite-size scaling that rules out a finite-size cosine coherence, the phase could be an artifact of the trapped finite chain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For baths with a central Mott-insulator domain and intermediate $U_{bI}/U_{bb}$, the impurity and bath lock into a combined unity-filling insulator in which neither species alone shows a constant-density plateau.
  • The impurity's cloud shape changes from a trap-controlled Gaussian to a $\cos^2$ profile with a new length $\ell_{\mathrm{CF}}$, so strong correlations dominate over the harmonic confinement.
  • The anti-pair correlator $C_{\mathrm{AP}}$ changes from exponential to slow trigonometric decay, meaning one impurity forms particle-hole correlations with the entire Mott domain rather than locally.
  • The polaron residue drops sharply at the counterflow transition, so the interacting ground state becomes orthogonal to the non-interacting one and the standard polaron quasiparticle picture fails in the thermodynamic limit.
  • Counterflow of this type requires a harmonic trap; a homogeneous lattice with integer filling cannot host the impurity-hole pair.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check the paper leaves implicit: the effective well width $\ell_{\mathrm{CF}}$ should scale with the width of the central Mott plateau as $t/U_{bb}$ is varied at fixed $U_{bI}/U_{bb}$; measuring this scaling would separate a trap-geometry explanation from an interaction-driven one.
  • The predicted orthogonality catastrophe has a dynamical signature the paper does not compute: after a quench of $U_{bI}$ across the transition, the polaron overlap should decay with a diverging timescale, observable in Ramsey or radio-frequency spectroscopy.
  • The one-sided impurity location seen in the numerical profiles is a symmetry-breaking artifact the paper notes; a symmetric two-sided superposition should be restored in the thermodynamic limit, and larger exact-diagonalization checks could confirm the phase diagram is not an artifact of that symmetry breaking.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a single mobile impurity immersed in a one-dimensional harmonically confined bosonic lattice bath described by a two-component Bose-Hubbard model. Using DMRG for Nb=40 bath atoms (with ED and smaller-Nb benchmarks), it maps the phase diagram in t/Ubb and UbI/Ubb. For baths with a central Mott-insulator domain (t/Ubb < 0.155) and intermediate impurity-bath repulsion (roughly 0.4 < UbI/Ubb < 1), it identifies a new 'counterflow phase' in which the sum of bath and impurity densities forms a unity-filling domain, the impurity profile takes a cos^2 shape, the anti-pair correlator CAP decays slowly, and the polaron residue drops sharply. The authors propose an impurity-hole pair model to explain these features and discuss experimental probes.

Significance. If the counterflow phase is genuine, the result would be significant: it would extend counterflow/Mott-insulator physics to highly imbalanced mixtures and demonstrate that a single impurity can form a delocalized correlated structure with the bath over the trap scale, with a sudden orthogonality. The numerical work is careful: the DMRG parameters and convergence checks are described, the constant-characteristic-density scaling is tested with Nb=25 and Nb=40, and ED benchmarks support the raw density profiles. The bath-only characterization and the phase diagram based on average positions and cloud size are useful. However, the central claim of long-range counterflow order currently rests on a finite-size cosine fit and a circular analytical model, so the significance cannot be fully assessed until the thermodynamic-limit evidence is supplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [Counterflow phase, Eq. (3) and Fig. 3(c)] The paper defines long-range counterflow order as a slow algebraic decay of CAP, yet the numerical evidence is fitted by Eq. (7), CAP(i) = n0^I cos(i pi/M_CF), which is a single-particle finite-box function, not algebraic, and it vanishes at the edge of the box. The DMRG results are presented for a single system size in the main text (Nb=40, M=60); the supplemental benchmarks with Nb=25 and ED with Nb=8 collapse onto essentially the same rescaled curves, but that is precisely what a finite-size single-particle coherence would do when the characteristic density is held fixed. No finite-size scaling is provided, so the data are consistent with trap-induced coherence rather than thermodynamic counterflow order. Please provide a scaling analysis at fixed rho_tilde (e.g., several Nb with corresponding Vho and M), and show whether the decay of CAP becomes algebraic in the thermodynamic limit, or at least whether the correlation length in lattice units grows linearly with the system size while the vanishing at the box edge moves out.
  2. [Counterflow phase, Eqs. (5)-(6) and supplemental material 'Impurity-hole model'] The analytical model is not an independent confirmation of the counterflow phase. The ansatz |Psi_CF> = sum_i alpha_i |i_IH> enforces by construction nb(i) = 1 - |alpha_i|^2 and CAP(i) = alpha_0^* alpha_i, as derived in the supplemental material. Then Eq. (4), the cos^2 impurity profile, is taken directly from the numerical fit, and Eq. (7) follows immediately. Thus the model merely restates the numerical observations; it does not explain why the cosine profile is energetically selected or why the combined system forms an insulator. To support the central claim, the model should derive alpha_i from the Hamiltonian, for example by a variational minimization over the coefficients, and show that the cosine-like delocalized state is the ground-state solution rather than an input.
  3. [Polaron properties, Eq. (8) and Fig. 4(c)] The claim of an orthogonality catastrophe in the thermodynamic limit is an extrapolation from finite-size data. The paper states that the residue 'does not show a fully discontinuous' drop and that the discontinuity 'becomes more abrupt with a larger number of particles,' but the evidence shown comprises only Nb=25 and Nb=40 DMRG and Nb=8 ED, all at the same rho_tilde. No scaling of the residue with Nb (e.g., Z at the transition vs. 1/Nb) is presented, so the thermodynamic-limit inference is not supported. Either provide such scaling or phrase the conclusion more cautiously as a sharp finite-size drop.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Polaron properties, paragraph after Eq. (9)] The sentence 'In contrast, in baths with MI domains, the residue remains constant and equal to one for small UbI [region ii]' refers to the wrong phase label: the miscible low-UbI region in MI baths is region iii, while region ii is the phase-separated region for SF baths. Please correct the label.
  2. [Supplemental material, Figs. 5 and 6] The legends contain the typo 'DRMG' in several places; it should read 'DMRG'.
  3. [Counterflow phase, text below Eq. (3)] The correlation length symbol used in 'decays as exp(-|xi|/xi_e)' is not defined; please introduce xi_e or use a different notation to avoid confusion with the rescaled coordinate xi.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Analytical CAP 'prediction' is the numerical cos² impurity profile restated: Eq. (7) follows identically from Eq. (4), so the counterflow model is a fit rather than independent support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Counterflow phase, Eqs. (4) and (7), Fig. 3(a,c)]
    "By using Eq. (4), one obtains a trigonometric dependence CAP(i) = n(0) I cos(iπ/MCF), (7), which predicts a slow decay of CAP."

    Equation (4), n_I^(CF) = n_I^(0) cos^2(pi (x_i - <x_I>)/l_CF), is a numerical fit to the DMRG impurity profile, with l_CF fixed by normalization of that same profile. Equation (7) then follows by taking alpha_i = sqrt(n_I(i)), so it is mathematically identical to the input fit. The 'predicted' slow decay of CAP is the fitted cosine restated; no Hamiltonian input or finite-size scaling connects it to the algebraic decay that Eq. (3) defines as counterflow order.

  2. self definitional [Impurity-hole model, Eqs. (5)-(7) and Supplemental Material 'Impurity-hole model']
    "With this wavefunction, the impurity's profile reads nI (i) = |αi|2. Importantly, after some algebra, one obtains that the bath behaves as nb(i) = 1 − |αi|2, recovering the result nb + nI = 1. In addition, the anti-pair correlator takes the form CAP(i) = α∗ 0αi."

    These relations are algebraic identities of the trial state |Psi_CF> = sum_i alpha_i |i_IH>, not outputs of a microscopic calculation. Any one-hole wavefunction of this form has nb+nI=1 and CAP(i)=alpha_0^* alpha_i by construction. Because the alpha_i are subsequently taken from the observed cos^2 profile (Eq. 4), the model's 'recovery' of the combined insulator and the anti-pair correlator is an identity with fitted coefficients, not an independent confirmation of the counterflow phase.

full rationale

The analytical model is partially circular. The central numerical content is not circular: DMRG directly computes the density profiles, polaron residue, and energy from Hamiltonian (1), and the observed n_b + n_I = 1 domain and the slow CAP decay are independent numerical facts. However, the paper's supporting 'impurity-hole model' does not provide an independent derivation of the counterflow phase. Its key outputs — the combined unity filling and the CAP(i) = alpha_0^* alpha_i form — are built into the ansatz, and its explicit CAP prediction (Eq. 7) is obtained by inserting the numerically fitted cosine profile (Eq. 4). Thus Eq. (7) is a restatement of the fit, not a prediction. In addition, the thermodynamic interpretation is not secured by finite-size scaling: the observed CAP is fit by cos(i pi / M_CF), a finite-box single-particle function that is not algebraic and that stays the same in rescaled coordinates when Nb is increased at fixed characteristic density; the Nb=25 DMRG and ED benchmarks collapse onto the same finite-size curves. That is a correctness concern about the claimed long-range order, while the analytic-support circularity is what raises the score to 6. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem: the cited prior work by the authors is for related polaron models and convergence checks, not for the counterflow phase itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on the trapped Bose-Hubbard model with a fixed characteristic density, on DMRG at finite size treated as representative of the thermodynamic limit, and on an impurity-hole ansatz whose defining relations produce the observed combined density and correlator. The fitted parameters n0 and l_CF carry the weight of the analytical 'prediction', and the unspecified small tilt is an additional numerical free parameter.

free parameters (3)
  • n0 (maximum impurity density in counterflow phase) = n0 ~ 0.2 (from Fig. 3(a), t/Ubb=0.1, UbI/Ubb=0.6)
    Used in Eqs. (4) and (7); chosen from the numerical maximum rather than derived.
  • l_CF (effective square-well width) = approximately 3 xi
    Fitted to the impurity density profile; sets M_CF and the CAP oscillation period; reported to be roughly constant across region v.
  • small lattice tilt = unspecified
    Added in DMRG to bias impurity localization; value not given; affects <x_sigma> in Fig. 2 although authors report identical profiles without it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fixed characteristic density tilde_rho_b = d Nb/xi = 3.58 makes the trapped Bose-Hubbard physics invariant (Ref. [59]).
    The entire phase diagram uses this scaling from the cited literature to choose Nb=40, M=60, Vho=0.008t.
  • domain assumption The DMRG ground state with a small tilt and fixed Nb=40, M=60 represents the thermodynamic-limit ground state at constant tilde_rho.
    No finite-size extrapolation is shown; benchmarks with Nb=25 and ED are qualitative only.
  • ad hoc to paper The impurity-hole ansatz |Psi_CF> = sum_i alpha_i |i_IH> over a chain of M_CF sites captures the counterflow state.
    This is the key modeling assumption; it guarantees nb+nI=1 and CAP = alpha0*alpha_i by construction.
  • ad hoc to paper The free-particle-in-a-box density n0 cos^2 describes the impurity profile in the counterflow region.
    The form is inferred from and fitted to the DMRG density profile, not derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian.
invented entities (2)
  • Correlated mobile impurity-hole pair
    purpose: Explains the combined unity-filling profile and the slow CAP decay in the counterflow phase.
    The pair state |i_IH> is the ansatz; no independent experimental signature beyond the fitted correlator. It is effectively the standard hole quasiparticle in a filled band relabeled as counterflow.
  • Effective infinite square well of width l_CF
    purpose: Describes the delocalized impurity density profile and the CAP periodicity.
    The width is fitted to numerical data and carries no independent prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Counterflow of lattice polarons in harmonically confined optical lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6N75JRC4

@misc{pith2026250209448,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Counterflow of lattice polarons in harmonically confined optical lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6N75JRC4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09448}
}
read the original abstract

We study a mobile impurity in a one-dimensional harmonically confined optical lattice interacting repulsively with a bosonic bath. The behavior of the impurity across baths with superfluid and Mott-insulator domains is examined, including its full back-action effect on the bath. We characterize the bath-impurity phase diagram and reveal the appearance of a correlated counterflow phase, which we support with an analytical model for a mobile impurity-hole pair. This phase shows an extended combined insulator domain of unity filling but no independent domain of constant density. The transition to this phase features a sudden orthogonality and the change of the shape of the impurity's profile to that of a free particle in an infinite square well. The findings of this work suggest the appearance of unconventional counterflow in trapped imbalanced atomic mixtures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09448 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the system (a) and of the counterflow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a–c): Average position of the impurity (a) and of the bath (b), and size of the impurity’s cloud (c) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Impurity’s (a), bath’s [solid red line in (b)] and com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Polaron residue (a,c) and energy (b,d) as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Results for the one-component Bose-Hubbard model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Polaron residue (a,b), polaron energy (c,d), and the average distance between the bosons and the impurity (e,f) as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Landau and S

    L. Landau and S. Pekar, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz18, 419 (1948)

    1948

  2. [2]

    Baym and C

    G. Baym and C. Pethick,Landau Fermi-Liquid Theory: Concepts and Applications, 1st ed. (Wiley, 1991)

    1991

  3. [3]

    Bardeen, G

    J. Bardeen, G. Baym, and D. Pines, Physical Review 156, 207 (1967)

    work page 1967

  4. [4]

    Fabrocini and A

    A. Fabrocini and A. Polls, Physical Review B58, 5209 (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Franchini, M

    C. Franchini, M. Reticcioli, M. Setvin, and U. Diebold, Nature Reviews Materials6, 560 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Tajima, H

    H. Tajima, H. Moriya, W. Horiuchi, E. Nakano, and K. Iida, AAPPS Bulletin34, 9 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    Massignan, M

    P. Massignan, M. Zaccanti, and G. M. Bruun, Reports on Progress in Physics77, 034401 (2014)

    2014

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Baroni, G

    C. Baroni, G. Lamporesi, and M. Zaccanti, Nature Re- views Physics6, 736 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Grusdt, N

    F. Grusdt, N. Mostaan, E. Demler, and L. A. P. Ardila, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 066401 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Massignan, R

    P. Massignan, R. Schmidt, G. E. Astrakharchik, A. İmamoglu, M. Zwierlein, J. J. Arlt, and G. M. Bruun, Polarons in atomic gases and two-dimensional semicon- ductors (2025), arXiv:2501.09618

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Re- views of Modern Physics82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Schirotzek, C.-H

    A. Schirotzek, C.-H. Wu, A. Sommer, and M. W. Zwier- lein, Physical Review Letters102, 230402 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Hohmann, F

    M. Hohmann, F. Kindermann, T. Lausch, D. Mayer, F. Schmidt, and A. Widera, Physical Review A 93, 043607 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Bouton, J

    Q. Bouton, J. Nettersheim, D. Adam, F. Schmidt, D. Mayer, T. Lausch, E. Tiemann, and A. Widera, Phys- ical Review X10, 011018 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    D. Adam, Q. Bouton, J. Nettersheim, S. Burgardt, and A. Widera, Physical Review Letters129, 120404 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    H. Edri, B. Raz, N. Matzliah, N. Davidson, and R. Ozeri, Physical Review Letters124, 163401 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Paredes, G

    R. Paredes, G. Bruun, and A. Camacho-Guardian, Phys- ical Review A110, 030101 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Z. Z. Yan, Y. Ni, C. Robens, and M. W. Zwierlein, Sci- ence 368, 190 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Alhyder and G

    R. Alhyder and G. M. Bruun, Physical Review A105, 063303 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Comaron, N

    P. Comaron, N. Goldman, A. Imamoglu, and I. Ame- lio, Quantum impurities in finite-temperature Bose gases: Detecting vortex proliferation across the BKT and BEC transitions (2024), arXiv:2412.08546

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bloch, Nature Physics1, 23 (2005)

    I. Bloch, Nature Physics1, 23 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, and V. Ahufinger,Ultracold atoms in optical lattices: simulating quantum many-body systems, 1st ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Gross and I

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

    2017

  17. [25]

    Fukuhara, A

    T. Fukuhara, A. Kantian, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, S. Hild, D. Bellem, U. Schollwöck, T. Gia- marchi, C. Gross, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Nature Physics 9, 235 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Massel, A

    F. Massel, A. Kantian, A. J. Daley, T. Giamarchi, and P. Törmä, New Journal of Physics15, 045018 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    S.DuttaandE.J.Mueller,PhysicalReviewA 88,053601 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Keiler and P

    K. Keiler and P. Schmelcher, New Journal of Physics20, 103042 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Pasek and G

    M. Pasek and G. Orso, Physical Review B100, 245419 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Sarkar, S

    S. Sarkar, S. McEndoo, D. Schneble, and A. J. Daley, 6 New Journal of Physics22, 083017 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Keiler, S

    K. Keiler, S. I. Mistakidis, and P. Schmelcher, New Jour- nal of Physics22, 083003 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Caleffi, M

    F. Caleffi, M. Capone, I. De Vega, and A. Recati, New Journal of Physics23, 033018 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    V. R. Yordanov and F. Isaule, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 56, 045301 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    G. A. Domínguez-Castro, Atoms11, 110 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    J.-H. Zeng, S. Yi, and L. He, Physical Review A107, 063309 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    S. Ding, G. A. Domínguez-Castro, A. Julku, A. Camacho-Guardian, and G. M. Bruun, SciPost Physics 14, 143 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    V.Colussi, F.Caleffi, C.Menotti,andA.Recati,Physical Review Letters130, 173002 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Santiago-García and A

    M. Santiago-García and A. Camacho-Guardian, New Journal of Physics25, 093032 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Isaule, A

    F. Isaule, A. Rojo-Francàs, and B. Juliá-Díaz, SciPost Physics Core7, 049 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Gómez-Lozada, H

    F. Gómez-Lozada, H. Hiyane, T. Busch, and T. Fogarty, Physical Review Research7, 023053 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    G. A. Domínguez-Castro, L. Santos, and L. A. Peña Ardila, Polarons and bipolarons in Rydberg-dressed extended Bose-Hubbard model (2024), arXiv:2411.06275

    2024

  34. [42]

    Santiago-García, S

    M. Santiago-García, S. G. Castillo-López, and A. Camacho-Guardian, New Journal of Physics 26, 063015 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Alhyder, V

    R. Alhyder, V. E. Colussi, M. Čufar, J. Brand, A. Recati, and G. M. Bruun, Lattice Bose polarons at strong cou- pling and quantum criticality (2024), arXiv:2412.07597

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Christ, P

    J.-P. Christ, P. Bermes, and F. Grusdt, Operator Val- ued Flow Equation Approach to the Bosonic Lattice Po- laron: Dispersion Renormalization Beyond the Fröhlich Paradigm (2024), arXiv:2411.19947 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Physical Review B40, 546 (1989)

    1989

  38. [46]

    J. K. Freericks and H. Monien, Europhysics Letters (EPL) 26, 545 (1994)

    1994

  39. [47]

    Greiner, O

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

    2002

  40. [48]

    A. S. Dehkharghani, A. G. Volosniev, and N. T. Zinner, Physical Review A92, 031601 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Nakano, H

    E. Nakano, H. Yabu, and K. Iida, Physical Review A95, 023626 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Takahashi, R

    J. Takahashi, R. Imai, E. Nakano, and K. Iida, Physical Review A100, 023624 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Mistakidis, G

    S. Mistakidis, G. Katsimiga, G. Koutentakis, T. Busch, and P. Schmelcher, Physical Review Letters122, 183001 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    S. I. Mistakidis, F. Grusdt, G. M. Koutentakis, and P.Schmelcher,NewJournalofPhysics 21,103026(2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    S. I. Mistakidis, A. G. Volosniev, N. T. Zinner, and P. Schmelcher, Physical Review A100, 013619 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    S. I. Mistakidis, G. M. Koutentakis, F. Grusdt, H. R. Sadeghpour, and P. Schmelcher, New Journal of Physics 23, 043051 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Rojo-Francàs, F

    A. Rojo-Francàs, F. Isaule, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Physica Scripta 99, 045408 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Pascual, T

    G. Pascual, T. Wasak, A. Negretti, G. E. Astrakharchik, and J. Boronat, Physical Review Research6, L022014 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters81, 3108 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    G. G. Batrouni, V. Rousseau, R. T. Scalettar, M. Rigol, A. Muramatsu, P. J. H. Denteneer, and M. Troyer, Phys- ical Review Letters89, 117203 (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    G. G. Batrouni, H. R. Krishnamurthy, K. W. Mahmud, V. G. Rousseau, and R. T. Scalettar, Physical Review A 78, 023627 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Rigol, G

    M. Rigol, G. G. Batrouni, V. G. Rousseau, and R. T. Scalettar, Physical Review A79, 053605 (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    Zheng, A

    Y.-G. Zheng, A. Luo, Y.-C. Shen, M.-G. He, Z.-H. Zhu, Y. Liu, W.-Y. Zhang, H. Sun, Y. Deng, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-024-02732-5 (2025)

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    A. B. Kuklov and B. V. Svistunov, Physical Review Let- ters 90, 100401 (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Altman, W

    E. Altman, W. Hofstetter, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, New Journal of Physics5, 113 (2003)

    2003

  56. [64]

    Kuklov, N

    A. Kuklov, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Physical Re- view Letters92, 030403 (2004)

    2004

  57. [65]

    Hubener, M

    A. Hubener, M. Snoek, and W. Hofstetter, Physical Re- view B80, 245109 (2009)

    2009

  58. [66]

    A. Hu, L. Mathey, I. Danshita, E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, and C. W. Clark, Physical Review A 80, 023619 (2009)

    2009

  59. [67]

    Menotti and S

    C. Menotti and S. Stringari, Physical Review A 81, 045604 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Nakano, T

    Y. Nakano, T. Ishima, N. Kobayashi, T. Yamamoto, I. Ichinose, and T. Matsui, Physical Review A85, 023617 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Lingua, M

    F. Lingua, M. Guglielmino, V. Penna, and B. Ca- pogrosso Sansone, Physical Review A92, 053610 (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    De Forges De Parny and V

    L. De Forges De Parny and V. Rousseau, Europhysics Letters 134, 16001 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    S. R. White, Physical Review Letters69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  64. [72]

    Schollwöck, Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 259 (2005)

    U. Schollwöck, Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    Schollwöck, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollwöck, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    Orús, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    R. Orús, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    This is a feature of the DMRG calculations

    Note that the impurity localizes at only one border of the trap instead of developing a superposition on both sides. This is a feature of the DMRG calculations. In contrast, exact diagonalization calculations [82] do recover a sym- metric solution with peaks at both borders

  68. [76]

    Guenther, R

    N.-E. Guenther, R. Schmidt, G. M. Bruun, V. Gu- rarie, and P. Massignan, Physical Review A103, 013317 (2021)

    2021

  69. [77]

    Shashi, F

    A. Shashi, F. Grusdt, D. A. Abanin, and E. Demler, Physical Review A89, 053617 (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    N. B. Jørgensen, L. Wacker, K. T. Skalmstang, M. M. Parish, J. Levinsen, R. S. Christensen, G. M. Bruun, and J. J. Arlt, Physical Review Letters117, 055302 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    Vallès-Muns, I

    J. Vallès-Muns, I. Morera, G. E. Astrakharchik, and B. Juliá-Díaz, SciPost Physics16, 074 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    S. N. Mardonov, B. J. Ahmedov, and E. Y. Sherman, The European Physical Journal Plus137, 884 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. White, and E. Stoudenmire, SciPost Physics Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Raventós, T

    D. Raventós, T. Graß, M. Lewenstein, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 50, 113001 (2017). 7 Supplemental Material for: Counterflow of lattice polarons in harmonically confined optical lattices Numerical details To study our system w...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.