Quantum droplets in a beyond-mean-field density-dependent gauge theory

Matthew Edmonds; Patrik \"Ohberg

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Quantum droplets in a beyond-mean-field density-dependent gauge theory

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A density-dependent gauge potential combined with quantum fluctuations produces self-bound quantum droplets in 1D, 2D, and 3D, including exact chiral solutions in 1D.

desk verdict New LHY formalism for density-dependent gauge theories, with a solid 1D droplet sector, but the 2D/3D phase diagrams rest on an undefined g_d → 0 limit that needs a proper regularization before the headline claims hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18220 v1 pith:74M5LVDN submitted 2025-04-25 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Matthew Edmonds , Patrik Öhberg This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

keywords quantumdropletsdensity-dependentgaugepotentialsLee-Huang-Yangcorrectionsbeyond-mean-fieldphysicsBose-Einsteincondensateschiralsolitonscubic-quinticSchrödingerequationBogoliubovtheory

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 asks whether a Bose gas coupled to a density-dependent synthetic gauge potential—where the gauge field depends on the local density—can form self-bound quantum droplets when quantum fluctuations are taken into account. The authors derive the Lee-Huang-Yang (LHY) corrections to the ground-state energy in three, two, and one dimensions and show that the modified energy functional supports stable droplet solutions in all three dimensionalities, including regimes where the mean-field model predicts collapse. In one dimension the theory is exactly solvable after a gauge-decoupling transformation, giving chiral quantum droplets and dark-soliton-like solutions whose properties depend on the droplet velocity. If the claims hold, the work extends the quantum droplet paradigm to synthetic gauge theories and predicts a new class of moving, self-bound states that could be probed in current cold-atom experiments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the density-dependent gauge potential $A = a|\psi|^2$, which makes the synthetic gauge field depend on the local condensate density and generates an effective three-body interaction in momentum space. The argument is carried by a Bogoliubov expansion of the second-quantized Hamiltonian, followed by dimensional regularization of the ground-state energy to obtain the LHY-corrected energy functional of Eq. (8). In one dimension, the decisive mechanism is a Jordan-Wigner-like phase transformation (Eq. (12)) that removes the gauge phase and maps the model onto a cubic-quintic nonlinear Schrödinger equation (Eq. (13)), whose known soliton solutions supply the exact chiral droplet and dark-soliton states.

What would settle it

One concrete way to settle the claim is to compute the full energy functional (Eq. (8)) with finite $g_d$ and trace the predicted droplet density as $g_d \to 0$; if the local minimum vanishes or the density diverges before $g_d$ reaches zero, the claimed pure-gauge droplets do not exist. In a Raman-dressed potassium-39 gas tuned near zero scattering length, one could then look for a self-bound moving droplet whose density matches $n_1 = (\pi/(4\sqrt{3})) u m \hbar / a_1^2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that including beyond-mean-field quantum fluctuations in a bosonic gas coupled to a density-dependent gauge potential $A = a|\psi|^2$ produces quantum droplet solutions in $d = 3$, $2$, and $1$, with stability controlled by the gauge strength $a$ and the droplet velocity $u$. In three dimensions, the $(a, u)$ parameter space contains stable, metastable, and no-droplet regions, with the stable region reduced compared to the mean-field prediction. In two dimensions, droplets appear in the attractive regime ($a < 0$, $u > 0$) where the mean-field model is unstable, and the critical density for the inflection point is given analytically. In one dimension, after a Jordan-Wigner-like transformation, the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation becomes a cubic-quintic Schrödinger model with exact solutions: a chiral quantum droplet (Eq. (14)) with equilibrium density $n_1 = (\pi/(4\sqrt{3})) u m \hbar / a_1^2$, and a dark-soliton-like state (Eq. (17)); the paper also computes the surface tension and simulates droplet collisions, finding fusion for larger atom numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim hinges on the assumption that the beyond-mean-field (LHY) energy correction stays finite when the background s-wave interaction is turned off ($g_d \to 0$), even though the correction is written as $g_d$ times a factor that diverges in two and three dimensions; the paper does not specify the limiting procedure that keeps their product finite.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Quantum droplets in this model require no background s-wave interactions: a single gauge parameter and the droplet velocity stabilize the liquid-like state across all three dimensions.
In two dimensions, beyond-mean-field effects open a droplet window in the attractive regime where the mean-field model is unstable, so the LHY correction qualitatively changes the phase diagram.
In one dimension, the surface tension of the droplet depends explicitly on its velocity, an unusual property that could be measured in moving-frame experiments.
The 1D exact solutions have a finite atom number that diverges as the chemical potential approaches its limit, and numerical evolution shows that colliding chiral droplets can fuse, signalling non-integrable dynamics at larger atom numbers.
Using parameters from current continuum experiments, the predicted equilibrium density is $n_1 \approx 4 \times 10^9$ m$^{-1}$, within experimental reach for ultracold gases.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not address what happens at finite background scattering length $g_d$; if the LHY correction remains finite only through an unspecified limit, the 3D and 2D droplet states may disappear or change character once $g_d$ is small but nonzero, which is the regime actually accessible in experiments.
Because the 1D model maps to a cubic-quintic Schrödinger equation, known optical-soliton results (including bright/dark soliton families and their stability) could be imported to predict additional states, such as bound droplet pairs or soliton molecules, in the gauge-coupled Bose gas.
A natural testable extension is to compute the excitation spectrum of the chiral droplet; the velocity-dependent surface tension suggests that the droplet's mode frequencies should also depend on its speed, a signature that could distinguish this scenario from conventional LHY droplets.
The dimensional hierarchy found here mirrors that of conventional LHY fluids (stable in 3D, metastable and cut-off-sensitive in 2D, integrable in 1D), suggesting that density-dependent gauge theories may provide a tunable platform to study quantum-liquid physics without magnetic dipoles or binary mixtures.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this paper is worth a serious referee, but the 2D/3D headline results are not yet established. The genuinely new piece is the Bogoliubov derivation of beyond-mean-field (LHY) corrections for a bosonic system with a density-dependent gauge potential. That formalism, and the dimensional dependence of the regularized LHY coefficient in Eqs. (7), is original as far as I know. The 1D reduction is the strongest part: Eq. (7c) gives a finite LHY coefficient in the g_1 → 0 limit, the Jordan-Wigner transformation in Eq. (12) cleanly decouples the gauge field, and the resulting cubic-quintic NLS supports the droplet and dark-soliton solutions of Eqs. (14) and (17). The profiles are known from nonlinear optics, but the application here — with a velocity-dependent surface tension and an experimental estimate from the Frölian et al. parameters — is a real contribution. The droplet fusion dynamics in Fig. 3 makes the paper interesting.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The biggest is the pure-gauge limit. The text after Eq. (9) says the droplet analysis is done "in the absence of the background scattering length g_d," but in 2D and 3D the product g_d F_reg diverges as g_d → 0. Eq. (7a) gives g_d F_reg ~ g_d^{-3/2} in 3D; in 2D, Eq. (7b) gives g_d F_reg ~ g_d^{-1} ln(1/g_d) with additional cut-off dependence. The paper never specifies the limiting procedure that keeps the LHY term finite. That is load-bearing for Figs. 1 and 2. It might be repairable by defining a renormalized coupling, but as written those phase diagrams are conditional. The 1D analysis is not affected; the limit is clean there.

Second, the sign flip a_1 → -a_1 after Eq. (13) is motivated by known solutions, not derived. Given the experimental estimate gives a_1 < 0, it may be physically right, but it needs an argument. Minor. Third, the 2D cut-off is fixed by hand (mℓ²/ℏ² Δ_cut = 25); the authors say the results change only quantitatively and Eq. (10) is cut-off independent, which is honest, but the survival of the droplet regime across cut-off values should be shown. Also minor: the numerics in Fig. 3 have no method details — grid, boundary conditions, absorption, nothing. To their credit, the authors do flag the omitted a²n³/2m term (footnote 74) and the choice to drop g_d (footnote 77); the gap is that they do not follow through on the g_d → 0 limit itself.

Who this is for: people working on LHY quantum droplets in unconventional settings, and the density-dependent gauge-field community. The 1D part will get cited; the 2D/3D parts need the limit fixed first. Recommendation: send it to peer review. The formalism is new and the 1D sector is solid. A referee should press on the g_d → 0 regularization, the sign flip, and the numerics. If the 2D/3D limit cannot be made consistent, the 1D results still carry the paper.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives beyond-mean-field (Lee-Huang-Yang) corrections for a bosonic gas with a density-dependent gauge potential, starting from a second-quantized Hamiltonian and performing a Bogoliubov diagonalization. It then studies stationary and non-stationary quantum droplet solutions in three, two, and one dimensions. The central claims are that the LHY corrections stabilize droplet solutions in all dimensions, that in one dimension the model reduces to a current-coupled cubic-quintic Schrödinger equation that is exactly solvable, and that the resulting chiral droplets show interesting collision dynamics. The authors also provide an experimental estimate for one-dimensional densities using parameters from the Frö lian et al. experiment.

Significance. If the central derivation were sound, this would introduce a genuinely new class of self-bound quantum droplets in density-dependent gauge theories, with the attractive feature of an exactly solvable one-dimensional sector. The paper does contain a plausible formal Bogoliubov calculation, elegant analytic expressions for the 1D droplet and dark-soliton-like solutions, and numerical dynamics that could be useful to the cold-atom community. However, the two-dimensional and three-dimensional results rest on a limiting procedure that is not defined, and the one-dimensional exact solutions require an admitted ad hoc sign flip to match known cubic-quintic NLS solutions. Those are load-bearing problems, not presentation issues.

major comments (3)

[Beyond-mean-field model, Eq. (8) and following paragraph after Eq. (9)] The pure-gauge limit used for the 2D and 3D droplet analysis is not defined. The text states that "we consider the purely gauge coupled system in the absence of the background scattering length g_d", but the LHY term in Eq. (8) is (g_d/2)F_reg|Φ|^4. At exactly g_d = 0 this term vanishes identically, while in d=2,3 the regularized coefficients F_reg in Eqs. (7a)-(7b) diverge as g_d→0: in 3D F_reg ~ g_d^{-5/2}, so g_d F_reg ~ g_d^{-3/2} diverges, and in 2D F_reg ~ g_d^{-2} (up to logarithms), so g_d F_reg also diverges. The phase diagrams in Figs. 1 and 2 are therefore computed with an unstated prescription that keeps g_d F_reg finite in the limit, and the paper does not specify what replaces this product in the energy functional. The remark after Eq. (10) that n_crit2 is independent of the cut-off does not resolve the problem, because the existence regions and the values of the chemical potential in Fig. 2 clearly depend on Δ_cut, as shown in Fig. 2(d). Please provide a well-defined renormalization procedure for the LHY term in the g_d→0 limit, or revise the 2D/3D droplet claims accordingly.
[Quantum droplets, Eqs. (11)-(14)] The exact one-dimensional solutions are obtained only after an explicit sign flip of the gauge coupling. The manuscript reads: "In writing Eq. (13) we have chosen the gauge potential strength such that a1→−a1 motivated by the known solutions studied in nonlinear optics and strongly-interacting Bose gases." This is an ad hoc input: the derivation from Eq. (11), via the transformation (12), yields a definite sign of the current and quintic terms, and the sign-flipped equation solved in Eqs. (13)-(17) is not the equation derived from the microscopic model. Consequently, the exact droplet solution (14), the dark-soliton-like solution (17), the surface tension (16), and the dynamics displayed in Fig. 3 are not presented as predictions of the original model unless the physical parameters are shown to realize the sign-flipped regime. If the experimental estimate a1 ≃ −6×10^-36 Js does realize the required sign, this must be demonstrated from Eqs. (11)-(13) rather than inserted by hand.
[Eq. (8) and footnote [74]] There is a direct contradiction concerning the a^2 n_d^3/2m term. Eq. (8) contains |(p̂−A)Φ|^2/2m, which for a homogeneous state evaluates to a^2 n_d^3/2m, yet footnote [74] states that "The term a2n3d/2m appearing in E(d) gnd./Ld is not included in Eq. (8)". The minimization leading to Eq. (9) and the droplet densities in Figs. 1-2 rely on this term, so the manuscript must clarify whether Eq. (8) includes the gauge kinetic energy or not, and the footnote must be corrected accordingly.

minor comments (3)

[Beyond-mean-field model, Eq. (7c)] The 1D expression F^(1)_reg mixes the 1D coupling g1 with the 3D scattering length a_s and the density n1; the dimensional status of each parameter should be stated explicitly to make the formula reproducible.
[Fig. 2(d)] The horizontal axis label in panel (d) appears to be cut off or incompletely typeset; please ensure that the units of Δ_cut and µ2 are legible in the published figure.
[References] Reference [79] contains the typo "Font. Phys."; it should read "Front. Phys.".

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

1D 'exact' droplets are imported known cubic-quintic solitons via a1→−a1, and the gd=0 pure-gauge limit makes the 2D/3D LHY term vanish or diverge; partial circularity.

renaming known result [Quantum droplets section, paragraph after Eq. (13); Eq. (14)]
"In writing Eq. (13) we have chosen the gauge potential strength such that a1→−a1 motivated by the known solutions studied in nonlinear optics and strongly-interacting Bose gases [81, 82]."

The exact droplet (14) is the standard bright-soliton solution of the cubic-quintic NLS already studied in Refs. [81,82]. The replacement a1→−a1 is made deliberately to make Eq. (13) coincide with that known solvable model. Therefore the abstract's claim that the 1D beyond-mean-field theory 'can be solved exactly to yield chiral quantum droplets' is not an independent prediction flowing from the density-dependent gauge Hamiltonian; it is the known cqNLS solution transplanted after a sign ansatz. The solution is valid for the sign-flipped equation, but the unflipped model is not shown to support it.
self definitional [Quantum droplets section, sentence after Eq. (9); Eqs. (7a), (7b), (8); footnote [77]]
"In the analysis that follows pertaining to the beyond-mean-field limit, we consider the purely gauge coupled system in the absence of the background scattering length gd [77]. ... E(d) tot.= Z dr [ |(p−A)Φ|^2 /2m + (gd/2 F(d) reg − a·u) |Φ|^4 ] , (8)"

The beyond-mean-field term used in the droplet analysis is (gd/2)F_reg^(d)|Φ|^4. The paper then defines the pure-gauge system by setting gd=0. At exactly gd=0 this term vanishes, so the LHY stabilization producing the reported minima is absent by construction; in the limit gd→0, F_reg^(3) ~ gd^{-5/2} and F_reg^(2) ~ gd^{-2} up to logarithms, so gd F_reg diverges rather than approaching a finite coefficient. No compensating limit or regulator is specified. The 2D/3D droplet phase diagrams therefore depend on an undefined way of keeping a term that is either zero or divergent, rather than being a well-defined consequence of the stated model.

full rationale

The Bogoliubov/LHY derivation (Eqs. (4)–(8)) is self-contained and not circular: it is a standard momentum-space diagonalization with regularization, and it does not use the droplet solutions as input. The clearest circular step is in 1D: Eq. (13) is obtained only after the explicit sign replacement a1→−a1, chosen because the resulting cubic-quintic NLS has the known soliton solutions of Refs. [81,82]. Consequently Eq. (14) is the known bright-soliton/droplet solution imported into the sign-flipped model, not an independent exact solution of the original gauge theory; the same applies to the dark-soliton-like solution (17). The 2D/3D droplet analysis is less a fit than a self-definitional breakdown: the paper states that it works at gd=0, but the LHY term in Eq. (8) is proportional to gd, and Eqs. (7a)–(7b) show that gd F_reg diverges as gd→0 in 2D and 3D. Thus the stabilizing coefficient used to generate the phase diagrams of Figs. 1–2 is not defined in the stated limit; footnote [77] acknowledges dropping gd but supplies no limiting procedure. This is a correctness risk as well as a circularity-relevant issue, and it is flagged here explicitly. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the remaining content, especially the LHY derivation and the numerical dynamics, has independent substance. Overall, the central claim is partially circular because the headline 1D exact-solvability result reduces to a known solution plus an imposed sign, while the 2D/3D droplet predictions rest on an undefined gd→0 limit of the LHY term.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The chiral quantum droplet is a soliton solution rather than a new entity. The main free parameters are the gauge coupling a, the frame velocity u, the 2D cut-off, and the ambiguous handling of gd in the pure-gauge limit.

free parameters (4)

2D ultraviolet cut-off Delta_cut = (m l^2 / hbar^2) Delta_cut = 25
Hand-chosen for the 2D phase diagrams; the paper states altered values change results only quantitatively, but no systematic scan or error bars are given.
Background s-wave coupling g_d in droplet analysis = set to zero
The paper drops gd for the droplet analysis, but Eq. (8) has the LHY term proportional to gd; the text does not explain how the LHY term survives when gd = 0.
Moving-frame velocity u = varied as control parameter, e.g., u = 17 mm/s in the experimental estimate
Appears in the effective energy via -a.u|Phi|^4 and sets the droplet density; treated as a free input.
Gauge coupling strength a = varied in figures; a1 = -6 x 10^-36 Js estimated from 39K parameters in Eq. (21)
Central model parameter in A = a|psi|^2; in the experimental estimate it is computed from 39K parameters, not fitted.

assumptions (6)

standard math Bogoliubov approximation: quadratic fluctuations around a homogeneous condensate
Used to derive Eqs. (4)-(5); assumes weak interactions and N >> 1, stated before Eq. (4).
standard math Jordan-Wigner-like transformation decouples the density-dependent gauge field in 1D
Eq. (12), taken from Ref. [49]; standard for density-dependent gauge potentials.
domain assumption Homogeneous density for computing the LHY energy and local density approximation for gradient terms
Used to write Eq. (8); droplets are treated as locally homogeneous in the LHY term.
standard math Scattering-length renormalization for UV divergences of the Bogoliubov energy
Eqs. (7) introduce the s-wave scattering length a_s and the cut-off Delta_cut; standard LHY procedure.
ad hoc to paper A finite LHY term survives in the gd to 0 'pure gauge' limit
Implied by the droplet analysis after Eq. (9); not derived, and Eq. (8) with gd = 0 removes the term while Eqs. (7a,b) diverge.
ad hoc to paper Sign flip a1 to -a1 in the effective 1D model
Text before Eq. (13): 'we have chosen the gauge potential strength such that a1 to -a1 motivated by the known solutions...' This changes the physical sign of the coupling to obtain soliton solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum droplets in a beyond-mean-field density-dependent gauge theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74M5LVDN

@misc{pith2026250418220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum droplets in a beyond-mean-field density-dependent gauge theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74M5LVDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18220}
}

read the original abstract

The beyond-mean-field corrections appropriate to a bosonic many-body system experiencing a density-dependent gauge potential are derived, and from this the dimensional hierarchy of quantum droplet solutions are explored. Non-stationary quantum droplet solutions are supported by a single interaction parameter characterising the strength of the gauge potential, while in one dimension the beyond-mean-field theory can be solved exactly to yield chiral quantum droplets and dark soliton-like excitations. Numerical simulations of single and pairs of chiral droplets indicate a rich dynamics in the beyond-mean-field regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18220 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (color online) Two-dimensional quantum droplet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (color online) Chiral droplet dynamics. (a)-(c) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Two-dimensional solitons in extended GPE models with Lee-Huang-Yang corrections
cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The 2D logarithmic droplet GPE is asymptotically reduced to KP-I and Davey-Stewartson-I models, from which line, lump, ring, and dromion solitary waves are constructed and checked numerically.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[74]

(8) so that the underlying mean-field theory agrees with existing works, Refs

The term a2n3 d/2m appearing inE(d) gnd./Ld is not included in Eq. (8) so that the underlying mean-field theory agrees with existing works, Refs. [49, 51]. Including this term contributes only quantitatively to ndA2/2m

work page
[1]

Bruus and K

H. Bruus and K. Flensberg, Quantum Theory in Con- densed Matter Physics (Oxford University Press, 2006)

2006
[2]

von Klitzing, T

K. von Klitzing, T. Chackraborty, P. Kim, V. Madhaven, X. Dai, J. McIver, Y. Tokura, L. Savary, D. Smirnova, A. Maria Rey, C. Felser, J. Gooth, and X. Qi, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 397 (2020)

2020
[3]

Franchini, An Introduction to Integrable Techniques for One-Dimensional Quantum Systems (Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 2017)

F. Franchini, An Introduction to Integrable Techniques for One-Dimensional Quantum Systems (Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 2017)

2017
[4]

M. A. Cazalilla, R. Citro, T. Giamarchi, E. Orignac, and M. Rigol, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1405 (2011)

2011
[5]

Tomasz Sowi´ nski and Miguel´Angel Garc´ ıa-March, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 104401 (2019)

2019
[6]

S. I. Mistakidis, A. G. Volosniev, R. E. Barfknecht, T. Fogarty, Th. Busch, A. Foerster, P. Schmelcher, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rep. 1042, 1 (2023)

2023
[7]

Ohashi, H

Y. Ohashi, H. Tajima, and P. van Wyk, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 111, 103739 (2020)

2020

Show all 89 references

[8]

G. C. Strinati, P. Pieri, G. R¨ opke, P. Schuck, and M. Urban, Phys. Rep. 738, 1 (2018)

2018
[9]

Kadau, M

H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, C. Wink, T. Maier, I. F.-Barbut, and T. Pfau, Nature 530, 194 (2016)

2016
[10]

Schmitt, M

M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, F. B¨ ottcher, I. F.-Barbut, and T. Pfau, Nature 539, 259 (2016)

2016
[11]

F.-Barbut, H

I. F.-Barbut, H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 215301 (2016)

2016
[12]

C. R. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, P. Cheiney, and L. Tarruell, Science 359, 301 (2018)

2018
[13]

Semeghini, G

G. Semeghini, G. Ferioli, L. Masi, C. Mazzinghi, L. Wol- swijk, F. Minardi, M. Modugno, G. Modugno, M. Ingus- cio, and M. Fattori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 235301 (2018)

2018
[14]

Cheiney, C

P. Cheiney, C. R. Cabrera, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, L. Tanzi, and L. Tarruell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 135301 (2018)

2018
[15]

Ferioli, G

G. Ferioli, G. Semeghini, L. Masi, G. Giusti, G. Mod- ugno, M. Inguscio, A. Gallem´ ı, A. Recati, and M. Fattori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 090401 (2019)

2019
[16]

D’Errico, A

C. D’Errico, A. Burchianti, M. Prevedelli, L. Salasnich, F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi, and C. Fort, Phys. Rev. Research 1, 033155 (2019)

2019
[17]

Cavicchioli, C

L. Cavicchioli, C. Fort, F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi, A. Burchianti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 093401 (2025)

2025
[18]

A. R. P. Lima and A. Pelster, Phys. Rev. A 84, 041604(R) (2011)

2011
[19]

A. R. P. Lima and A. Pelster, Phys. Rev. A 86, 063609 (2012)

2012
[20]

D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 155302 (2015)

2015
[21]

T. D. Lee, K. Huang, and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 106, 1135 (1957)

1957
[22]

N. B. Jørgensen, G. M. Bruun, and J. J. Arlt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 173403 (2018)

2018
[23]

T. G. Skov, Magnus G. Skou, N. B. Jørgensen, and J. J. Arlt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 230404 (2021)

2021
[24]

Chiquillo, Phys

E. Chiquillo, Phys. Rev. A 99, 051601(R) (2019)

2019
[25]

Uchino, M

S. Uchino, M. Kobayashi, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 81, 063632 (2010)

2010
[26]

T. A. Yo˘ gurt, A. Kele¸ s, and M.¨O. Oktel, Phys. Rev. A 107, 023322 (2023). 7

2023
[27]

Adhikari, Laser Phys

S. Adhikari, Laser Phys. Lett. 15, 095501 (2018)

2018
[28]

Rakshit, T

D. Rakshit, T. Karpiuk, M. Brewczyk, and M. Gajda, SciPost Phys. 6, 079 (2019)

2019
[29]

Edler, C

D. Edler, C. Mishra, F. W¨ achtler, R. Nath, S. Sinha, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 050403 (2017)

2017
[30]

Tanzi, E

L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, F. Fam` a, J. Catani, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and G. Modugno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130405 (2019)

2019
[31]

B¨ ottcher, J.-N

F. B¨ ottcher, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, J. Hertkorn, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011051 (2019)

2019
[32]

Chomaz, D

L. Chomaz, D. Petter, P. Ilzh¨ ofer, G. Natale, A. Traut- mann, C. Politi, G. Durastante, R. M. W. van Bijnen, A. Patscheider, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021012 (2019)

2019
[33]

Barranco, R

M. Barranco, R. Guardiola, S. Hern´ andez, R. Mayol, J. Navarro, and M. Pi, J. Low Temp. Phys. 142, 1 (2006)

2006
[34]

J. G. M. Walker, G. R. M. Robb, G.-L. Oppo, and T. Ackemann, Phys. Rev. A 105, 063305 (2022)

2022
[35]

A. E. Almand-Hunter, H. Li, S. T. Cundiff, M. Mootz, M. Kira and S. W. Koch, Nature 506, 471 (2014)

2014
[36]

K. E. Wilson, N. Westerberg, M. Valiente, C. W. Duncan, E. M. Wright, P. ¨Ohberg, and D. Faccio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 133903 (2018)

2018
[37]

Sch¨ afer, T

F. Sch¨ afer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 411 (2020)

2020
[38]

Y.-J. Lin, R. L. Compton, K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, J. V. Porto, and I. B. Spielman, Nature 462, 628 (2009)

2009
[39]

Y.-J. Lin, R. L. Compton, A. R. Perry, W. D. Phillips, J. V. Porto, and I. B. Spielman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 130401 (2009)

2009
[40]

Y.-Ju Lin, R. L. Compton, K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, W. D. Phillips, J. V. Porto, and I. B. Spielman, Nat. Phys. 7, 531 (2011)

2011
[41]

Y.-J. Lin, K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, and I. B Spielman, Nature 471, 83 (2011)

2011
[42]

M. C. Beeler, R. A. Williams, K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, L. J. LeBlanc, A. R. Perry, I. B. Spielman, Nature 498, 201 (2013)

2013
[43]

A. Celi, P. Massignan, J. Ruseckas, N. Goldman, I. B. Spielman, G. Juzeli¯ unas, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 043001 (2014)

2014
[44]

L. W. Clark, B. M. Anderson, L. Feng, A. Gaj, K. Levin, and C. Chin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 030402 (2018)

2018
[45]

J. Kwan, P. Segura, Y. Li, S. Kim, A. V. Gorshkov, A. Eckardt, B. Bakkali-Hassani, and M. Greiner, Science 386, 1055 (2024)

2024
[46]

G¨ org, K

F. G¨ org, K. Sandholzer, J. Minguzzi, R. Desbuquois, M. Messer, and T. Esslinger, Nat. Phys. 15, 1161 (2019)

2019
[47]

Lienhard, P

V. Lienhard, P. Scholl, S. Weber, D. Barredo, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, R. Bai, N. Lang, M. Fleischhauer, H. P. B¨ uchler, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021031 (2020)

2020
[48]

K.-X. Yao, Z. Zhang, and C. Chin, Nature 602, 68 (2022)

2022
[49]

Aglietti, L

U. Aglietti, L. Griguolo, R. Jackiw, S.-Y. Pi, and D. Sem- inara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4406 (1996)

1996
[50]

Fr¨ olian, C

A. Fr¨ olian, C. S. Chisholm, E. Neri, C. R. Cabrera, R. Ramos, A. Celi, and L. Tarruell, Nature 602, 68 (2022)

2022
[51]

C. S. Chisholm, A. Fr¨ olian, E. Neri, R. Ramos, L. Tarru- ell, and A. Celi, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 043088 (2022)

2022
[52]

R. J. Dingwall and P. ¨Ohberg, Phys. Rev. A 99, 023609 (2019)

2019
[53]

I. A. Bhat, S. Sivaprakasam, and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. E 103, 032206 (2021)

2021
[54]

Q. Jia, H. Qiu, and A. M. Mateo, Phys. Rev. A 106, 063314 (2022)

2022
[55]

Chen and Q

L. Chen and Q. Zhu, New J. Phys. 24 053044, (2022)

2022
[56]

Zhang, C

A.-Q. Zhang, C. Jiao, Z.-F. Yu, J. Wang, A.-X. Zhang, and J.-K. Xue, Phys. Rev. E 107, 024218 (2023)

2023
[57]

R. Gao, X. Qiao, Y.-E. Ma, Y. Jian, A.-X. Zhang and J.-K. Xue et al., Europhys. Lett. 141, 55003 (2023)

2023
[58]

J. Xu, Q. Jia, H. Qiu, and A. M. Mateo, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053313 (2023)

2023
[59]

Arazo, M

M. Arazo, M. Guilleumas, R. Mayol, V. Delgado, and A. M. Mateo, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053302 (2023)

2023
[60]

W. N. Faugno, Mario Salerno, and Tomoki Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 023401 (2024)

2024
[61]

D. A. Zezyulin, D. R. Gulevich, D. V. Skryabin, and I. A. Shelykh, Phys. Rev. B 97, 161302(R) (2018)

2018
[62]

Xu, T.-Shu Deng, W

P. Xu, T.-Shu Deng, W. Zheng, and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. A 103, L061302 (2021)

2021
[63]

F. Kh. Abdullaev, M. S. A. Hadi, B. Umarov, L. A. Taib, and M. Salerno, Phys. Rev. E 107, 044218 (2023)

2023
[64]

Arazo, M

M. Arazo, M. Guilleumas, R. Mayol, V. Delgado, and A. M. Mateo, Phys. Rev. A 110, 023316 (2024)

2024
[65]

I. A. Bhat, T. Mithun, and B. Dey, Phys. Rev. E 107, 044210 (2023)

2023
[66]

I. A. Bhat and B. Dey, Phys. Rev. E 110, 024208 (2024)

2024
[67]

Zhou, Y.-E

M.-Z. Zhou, Y.-E. Ma, S.-D. Xu, L.-L. Mi, A.-X. Zhang, and J.-K. Xue, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 57 125301 (2024)

2024
[68]

Valent´ ı-Rojas, N

G. Valent´ ı-Rojas, N. Westerberg, and P. ¨Ohberg, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033453 (2020)

2020
[69]

Valent´ ı-Rojas, A

G. Valent´ ı-Rojas, A. J. Baker, A. Celi, and P. ¨Ohberg, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 023128 (2023)

2023
[70]

C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensa- tion in Dilute Gases , (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2002)

2002
[71]

Ueda, Fundamentals and New Frontiers of Bose- Einstein Condensation , (World Scientific, Singapore, 2010)

M. Ueda, Fundamentals and New Frontiers of Bose- Einstein Condensation , (World Scientific, Singapore, 2010)

2010
[72]

Olshanii, Phys

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

1998
[73]

Salasnich and F

L. Salasnich and F. Toigo, Phys. Rep. 640, 1 (2016)

2016
[75]

Harikumar, C

E. Harikumar, C. Nagaraja Kumar, and M. Sivakumar, Phys. Rev. D 58, 107703, (1998)

1998
[76]

D. S. Petrov and G. E. Astrakharchik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100401 (2016)

2016
[77]

One could also include the background s-wave scattering termgd, but our goal here is to understand the interplay of the gauge and beyond-mean-field terms
[78]

B¨ ottcher, J.-N

F. B¨ ottcher, J.-N. Schmidt, J. Hertkorn, K. S. H. Ng, S. D. Graham, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Rep. Prog. Phys. 84, 012403 (2020)

2020
[79]

Z.-H. Luo, W. Pang, B. Liu, Y.-Y. Li, and B. A. Mal- omed, Font. Phys. 16, 32201 (2021)

2021
[80]

Khan and A

A. Khan and A. Debnath, Front. Phys. 10, 887338 (2022)

2022
[81]

Birnbaum and B

Z. Birnbaum and B. A. Malomed, Physica D 237, 3252 (2008)

2008
[82]

E. B. Kolomeisky, T. J. Newman, J. P. Straley, and X. Qi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1146 (2000)

2000
[83]

Bulgac, Phys

A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 050402 (2002)

2002
[84]

Y. S. Kivshar and B. L.-Davies, Phys. Rep. 298, 81 8 (1998)

1998
[85]

Haller, M

E. Haller, M. Gustavsson, M. J. Mark, J. G. Danzl, R. Hart, G. Pupillo, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Science 325, 1224 (2009)

2009
[86]

Cikojevi´ c, L

V. Cikojevi´ c, L. V. Marki´ c, and J. Boronat, New J. Phys. 22 053045 (2020)

2020
[87]

H. Hu, J. Wang, H. Pu, and X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 111, 023309 (2025)

2025
[88]

Amico et al., AVS Quantum Sci

L. Amico et al., AVS Quantum Sci. 3, 039201 (2021)

2021
[89]

M. N. Tengstrand, P. St¨ urmer, E.¨O. Karabulut, and S. M. Reimann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 160405 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [74]

(8) so that the underlying mean-field theory agrees with existing works, Refs

The term a2n3 d/2m appearing inE(d) gnd./Ld is not included in Eq. (8) so that the underlying mean-field theory agrees with existing works, Refs. [49, 51]. Including this term contributes only quantitatively to ndA2/2m

work page

[2] [1]

Bruus and K

H. Bruus and K. Flensberg, Quantum Theory in Con- densed Matter Physics (Oxford University Press, 2006)

2006

[3] [2]

von Klitzing, T

K. von Klitzing, T. Chackraborty, P. Kim, V. Madhaven, X. Dai, J. McIver, Y. Tokura, L. Savary, D. Smirnova, A. Maria Rey, C. Felser, J. Gooth, and X. Qi, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 397 (2020)

2020

[4] [3]

Franchini, An Introduction to Integrable Techniques for One-Dimensional Quantum Systems (Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 2017)

F. Franchini, An Introduction to Integrable Techniques for One-Dimensional Quantum Systems (Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 2017)

2017

[5] [4]

M. A. Cazalilla, R. Citro, T. Giamarchi, E. Orignac, and M. Rigol, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1405 (2011)

2011

[6] [5]

Tomasz Sowi´ nski and Miguel´Angel Garc´ ıa-March, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 104401 (2019)

2019

[7] [6]

S. I. Mistakidis, A. G. Volosniev, R. E. Barfknecht, T. Fogarty, Th. Busch, A. Foerster, P. Schmelcher, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rep. 1042, 1 (2023)

2023

[8] [7]

Ohashi, H

Y. Ohashi, H. Tajima, and P. van Wyk, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 111, 103739 (2020)

2020