Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Bose-Hubbard model with power-law hopping in one dimension

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For 1<α≤3, the superfluid–Mott-insulator transition of a one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard chain with power-law hopping is continuous and scale invariant, not BKT.

desk verdict Plausible but unproven: the non-BKT claim rests on a crossing that BKT also produces. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01571 v3 pith:CDUAOY3G submitted 2024-12-02 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Tanul Gupta , Nikolay V. Prokof'ev , Guido Pupillo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords Bose-Hubbardmodelpower-lawhoppingBerezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thoulesstransitionsuperfluid-MottinsulatorquantumMonteCarlowindingnumberlong-rangeorderuniversalityclass
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 asks what happens to the superfluid-to-Mott-insulator transition in a one-dimensional lattice gas when hopping decays as 1/r^α rather than only between neighbors. Using large-scale quantum Monte Carlo simulations, it argues that for every decay exponent 1<α≤3 the transition is continuous and scale invariant, governed by a new universality class with correlation-length exponent ν(α) and dynamical exponent z=(α−1)/2, instead of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) vortex-unbinding scenario that holds for α>3. If correct, this means power-law hopping changes the nature of localization in one dimension and fixes the long-range threshold at α*=3. The same simulations show the superfluid ground state evolves from true long-range order (α≤2) to an anomalous quasi-long-range order (2<α≤3).

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observable is the mean-square winding number ⟨$W^{2}$⟩, a scale-invariant proxy for the superfluid stiffness Y_s; a crossing of ⟨$W^{2}$⟩ curves for increasing system size identifies a continuous scale-invariant transition and directly contradicts BKT's essential-singularity scaling. Critical exponents are obtained by collapsing $L^{{−ζ/ν}}$Y_s against $L^{{1/ν}}$(t/U−(t/U)_c), using the Nelder-Mead optimization of the Kawashima-Ito-Houdayer-Hartmann quality metric, and z*=(α−1)/2 comes from fitting the low-energy Green function G(k,τ). The single-particle density matrix G(ℓ) measured on chord distance c(ℓ)=sin(πℓ/L) is used to distinguish long-range order from quasi-long-range order.

What would settle it

Fit the same winding-number and superfluid-stiffness data with the BKT essential-singularity form, e.g., ξ∼exp(a/√δ) with a universal stiffness jump; if a good collapse is obtained with the available system sizes, the reported ν and z would be effective finite-size values rather than evidence for a new universality class.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model with hopping amplitude t/|r|^α, the zero-temperature superfluid–Mott-insulator transition at unit filling is claimed to be a continuous, scale-invariant quantum phase transition for all 1<α≤3, incompatible with the BKT universality class that is recovered only for α>3. The evidence is a crossing of winding-number fluctuations with system size, power-law data collapse of the superfluid stiffness, and a sublinear dispersion E(k)∼$k^{{(α−1)/2}}$ matching spin-wave theory. The authors extract the correlation-length exponent ν from data collapse and from the gap Δ∼|t/U−(t/U)_c|^{z*ν}, and classify superfluid correlations: true long-range order for α≤2, anomalous quasi-long-range order for 2<α≤3, and conventional algebraic decay for α>3.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that a new universality class exists rests on finite-size data up to 512 sites being large enough to rule out BKT scaling, whose logarithmic corrections can mimic power-law crossings over this range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every 1<α≤3, the transition has a finite correlation-length exponent and power-law scaling, so standard BKT descriptions of one-dimensional bosons do not apply in this regime.
  • The critical hopping ratio (t/U)_c decreases as α decreases, and the Mott lobe shape changes from rounded (α<2) to pointed (α>2), matching the crossover seen in correlations.
  • The superfluid phase has true long-range order for α≤2 and no true long-range order for α>2; the region 2<α≤3 is identified as anomalous quasi-long-range order.
  • In the Mott phase, the single-particle density matrix decays as ℓ^{−α}, tying the gap to the power-law hopping exponent.
  • The predicted dispersion E(k)∼k^{(α−1)/2} and correlation functions are directly accessible in trapped-ion and dipolar cold-molecule experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct BKT fit to the same finite-size data would sharpen the claim: if BKT scaling with logarithmic corrections also collapses the data, the reported ν would be an effective exponent rather than a new universality class.
  • The threshold α*=3 may be generic for power-law hoppings in one dimension, suggesting neighboring models such as long-range interacting spin chains should be re-examined for the same crossover.
  • The 'anomalous quasi-long-range order' label for 2<α≤3 is based on the more stable power-law fit; a larger-L study of the constant-plus-power-law alternative would decide whether a tiny condensate fraction survives.
  • Measuring the single-particle Green function in an ion chain with tunable α could test the dispersion prediction without needing to approach the transition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports quantum Monte Carlo simulations (worm algorithm) of the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model with power-law hopping 1/r^α. For 1<α≤3 the authors claim that the superfluid-to-Mott-insulator transition at unit filling is continuous and scale invariant, with a new universality class, and that the BKT scenario is recovered only for α>3. The evidence consists of crossings of winding-number fluctuations, power-law finite-size collapses of the superfluid stiffness, an excitation spectrum E(k)∼k^{(α−1)/2}, and an analysis of single-particle correlations that is interpreted as showing long-range order for α≤2 and 'anomalous quasi-long-range order' for 2<α≤3. A grand-canonical phase diagram and correlation data in the Mott phase are also presented.

Significance. If substantiated, the claim of a non-BKT scale-invariant universality class for 1<α≤3 would revise the standard picture that all localization transitions in one-dimensional bosonic systems belong to the BKT class, and it would provide a benchmark for experiments with dipolar atoms, molecules, and ion chains. The paper brings large-scale QMC data (L up to 1024 for correlations, L up to 512 for critical scaling) and uses standard tools such as the worm algorithm and the Kawashima-Ito-Houdayer-Hartmann collapse quality metric. The agreement between the gap-derived ν and the collapse-derived ν for two representative α values is a genuine consistency check. However, the central discriminator against BKT is currently a single invalid logical step, and the supporting collapses use only three system sizes without a BKT baseline, so the significance of the claimed universality class is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 3] The statement that 'the very presence of a crossing in the ⟨W²⟩−(t/U) curves rules out the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class' is not valid. In the BKT scenario finite-size curves of the superfluid stiffness (or winding-number fluctuations) are expected to cross near the transition because of the universal stiffness jump, and such crossings are routinely used to locate BKT transitions in the 2D XY model and in the short-range 1D Bose-Hubbard model. The correct discriminator is the size dependence of the crossing point (logarithmic drift for BKT versus power-law for a conventional transition) and/or a quantitative fit of the data to a BKT scaling form; neither is provided. Since this inference is the main basis for the non-BKT central claim, it must be replaced by a concrete test.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 4] The power-law data collapse uses only L = 128, 256, 512 and assumes the power-law scaling form that is being tested. An essential-singularity BKT form can produce an apparently acceptable collapse over such a modest size range, especially with the freedom of three fitting parameters (ν, ζ, and t/Uc). The manuscript does not compare the collapse quality with a BKT baseline or report the drift of the crossing in the insets of Fig. 3 in a way that distinguishes logarithmic from power-law behavior. The claim of incompatibility with BKT therefore lacks the needed statistical and model-selection support.
  3. [Section III, simulation parameters] The simulations use inverse temperature β = L^{z*} with z* = (α−1)/2 < 1, whereas the BKT scenario one wishes to exclude has z = 1. In the competing BKT interpretation, β/L → 0 as L → ∞, so the largest simulated sizes would fall outside the genuine ground-state scaling regime and could display spurious crossings from thermal rounding. The paper needs to justify the choice β = L^{z*} by checking convergence in β for at least one α, or by performing a consistency run with β ∝ L.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 5 and Supplemental Material IB] The ordering-regime claim for 2<α≤3 ('anomalous quasi-long-range order') is based on a comparison of two fits that the Supplemental Material states are 'equally effective' in describing G(ℓ). The pure power-law fit is then preferred because it 'eliminates one fitting parameter,' but this is not a valid model-selection criterion when the constant-plus-power-law form is the physically motivated expression for a long-range-ordered state. The finite-size extrapolation of the decay exponent γ in Fig. 5(e) assumes a linear 1/L dependence without independent justification. Since the abstract presents a sequence of ordering regimes as a key result, this part of the evidence needs either a stronger statistical discrimination between the two forms or a more explicit discussion of the ambiguity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III (text near Fig. 5)] The main text says the single-particle density matrix is analyzed 'near the critical point' but then specifies hard-core bosons at half-filling, which do not have a Mott transition; the relationship between these parameter choices should be clarified.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Sec. IB] The statement that the pure power-law fit is 'better by eliminating one fitting parameter' contradicts the earlier sentence in the same section that both fits are equally effective; this inconsistency should be resolved.
  3. [Throughout] The notation for the transition boundary uses t/Uc, t/U_c, and t/Uc interchangeably; please standardize the spacing and subscript format in equations and figure captions.
  4. [Fig. 2 inset] The value k=π/64 used for the Green function in the inset is stated in the caption but not in the main text; please define the momentum grid and clarify that the dispersion is evaluated at the smallest nonzero momentum.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central transition claim is data-driven and benchmarked against external spin-wave predictions, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the SF-MI transition for 1<α≤3 is continuous and scale invariant and not BKT—is supported by direct QMC observables (winding-number crossings, stiffness data collapse, dispersion fits) rather than by a derivation that assumes the conclusion. The correlation-length exponent ν is extracted from standard finite-size scaling collapses with quality metrics, and the dynamical exponent z*=(α−1)/2 is taken from the external Ref. [34] and used only for consistency checks, not as a fitted input to the universality-class claim. The self-citations that appear (Refs. [39], [40], [46]) are contextual or contrast statements and are not load-bearing for the main result. The 'anomalous quasi-long-range-order' label is a model-selection interpretation of G(ℓ) data; while the choice between pure power-law and constant-plus-power-law fits is debatable, it does not reduce the claimed ordering regime to the fit input. The skeptic's objection that BKT transitions also exhibit finite-size crossings is a scientific validity concern about the discriminating power of the crossing argument, not a circularity: the paper's inference may be insufficient or incorrect, but it is not true by construction. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, with only minor self-citations that do not affect the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on well-established QMC and finite-size scaling machinery. The only ad hoc element is the linear 1/L extrapolation of γ for the ordering classification, which is not justified. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • correlation length exponent ν(α) = ≈1.79 (α=1.6), ≈1.41 (α=1.9), ≈2.06 (α=2.7)
    Obtained from power-law data collapse of the superfluid stiffness and from gap scaling; these values define the claimed new universality class.
  • stiffness scaling exponent ζ/ν(α) = not reported as a number
    Second fitting parameter in the data collapse; without its value the collapse is not fully specified.
  • correlation decay exponent γ(α) = extrapolates to 0 for α≤2 and to small positive values for 2<α≤3
    From fits of the one-body density matrix to A c(l)^{-γ}; the extrapolation of γ versus 1/L is used to classify ordering regimes.
  • critical hopping (t/U)_c(α) = e.g., 0.0430 for α=1.6, 0.131 for α=2.7
    Determined from crossings of winding-number fluctuations; defines the phase boundary and is then used as input for the data collapse.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Worm algorithm QMC is exact within statistical errors for the grand-canonical path integral.
    The method is treated as an unbiased numerical tool for the model, which is standard practice.
  • domain assumption Spin-wave dispersion E(k) ∼ k^{(α−1)/2} holds for 1<α<3 (from Frerot et al., PRB 95, 245111).
    Used to extract ν from the gap and to compare the measured spectrum; it is an external theoretical input, not a result of this paper.
  • domain assumption The superfluid stiffness obeys the scaling form Ys = L^{-ζ/ν} f(L^{1/ν}(t/U − t/Uc)) near the transition.
    Standard finite-size scaling ansatz for a continuous quantum phase transition.
  • ad hoc to paper The correlation exponent γ extrapolates linearly in 1/L to the thermodynamic limit.
    The linear extrapolation is used to conclude γ>0 for 2<α≤3 but no justification or alternative extrapolation forms are provided.
  • domain assumption For α>3 the hopping is effectively short-range for the transition and correlations.
    The paper assumes the known BKT behavior of short-range models is recovered for α>3, consistent with the data but not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bose-Hubbard model with power-law hopping in one dimension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDUAOY3G

@misc{pith2026241201571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bose-Hubbard model with power-law hopping in one dimension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDUAOY3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01571}
}
abstract

We investigate the zero-temperature phase diagram of the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model with power-law hopping decaying with distance as $1/r^\alpha$ using exact large scale quantum Monte Carlo simulations. For all $1<\alpha\leq 3$ the quantum phase transition from a superfluid and a Mott insulator at unit filling is found to be continuous and scale invariant, in marked contrast with the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) scenario that is recovered only for $\alpha>3$. By performing finite-size scaling collapses of the superfluid stiffness and extracting dynamical and correlation-length exponents from the low-energy spectrum, we establish that these transitions define a distinct universality class throughout the long-range regime $1<\alpha\le 3$. Analysis of the single-particle correlation functions and grand canonical phase diagram further reveals a sequence of ordering regimes within the superfluid phase: true long-range order for $\alpha\le 2$, anomalous quasi-long-range order for $2<\alpha\le 3$, and conventional algebraic decay for $\alpha>3$. Our exact numerical results provide a benchmark to compare theories of long-range quantum models and are relevant for experiments with cold neutral atom, molecules and ion chains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Ground state phase diagram of the 1D Bose-Hubbard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Characterization of the Mott insulator to superfluid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Characterization of the superfluid phase: (a)-(d) Single-particle density matrix, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Correlation function or single-particle density matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: illustrates the single-particle density matrix, G(ℓ), as a function of c(ℓ) for the case where α = 2.3. This figure provides a comprehensive comparison of two distinct fitting methodologies: a standard power-law fit and a power-law fit with an additional constant term.…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Characterization of the superfluid phase near MI-SF phase transition: (a)-(d) Single-particle density matrix, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Caption: Characterization of the Mott-insulating (MI) phase via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the value of ν values for 1.6 ≤ α ≤ 2.7, obtained from the collapse of rescaled data near the critical points. Our results reveal a non-monotonic dependence of the correlation length exponent, ν, on the parameter α. In the range 1 < α < 2, ν exhibits a monotonic …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 40, 546 (1989)

    1989

  2. [2]

    G. G. Batrouni, R. T. Scalettar, and G. T. Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1765 (1990)

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    This is consistent with recent results for dis- ordered induced localization transition in 1 d [46]

    For α > 3 we find a pure power-law decay with γ independent of L, as expected from short-range hopping models. This is consistent with recent results for dis- ordered induced localization transition in 1 d [46]. In- terestingly, we demonstrate and characterize a new uni- versality class of one dimensional bosons in the whole weak long-range limit d<α<α ∗,...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

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

    1994

  5. [5]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 80, 885 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Giamarchi and H

    T. Giamarchi and H. Schulz, Europhysics Letters 3, 1287 (1987)

    work page 1987

  7. [11]

    Giamarchi, Quantum physics in one dimension , Vol

    T. Giamarchi, Quantum physics in one dimension , Vol. 121 (Clarendon press, 2003)

    2003

  8. [12]

    Haller, R

    E. Haller, R. Hart, M. J. Mark, J. G. Danzl, L. Re- ichs¨ ollner, M. Gustavsson, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Nature466, 597 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 54 references
  1. [13]

    Bo´ eris, L

    G. Bo´ eris, L. Gori, M. D. Hoogerland, A. Kumar, E. Lu- cioni, L. Tanzi, M. Inguscio, T. Giamarchi, C. D’Errico, G. Carleo, G. Modugno, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Phys. Rev. A 93, 011601(R) (2016)

    2016

  2. [14]

    Browaeys, D

    A. Browaeys, D. Barredo, and T. Lahaye, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 152001 (2016)

    2016

  3. [15]

    M. A. Baranov, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Chemical Reviews 112, 5012 (2012)

    2012

  4. [16]

    Lahaye, C

    T. Lahaye, C. Menotti, L. Santos, M. Lewenstein, and T. Pfau, Reports on Progress in Physics 72, 126401 (2009)

    2009

  5. [17]

    J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, Nature 484, 489 (2012)

    2012

  6. [18]

    Islam, C

    R. Islam, C. Senko, W. C. Campbell, S. Korenblit, J. Smith, A. Lee, E. E. Edwards, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, and C. Monroe, Science 340, 583 (2013)

    2013

  7. [19]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  8. [20]

    Hauke and L

    P. Hauke and L. Tagliacozzo, Physical Review Letters 111, 207202 (2013)

    2013

  9. [21]

    Schachenmayer, B

    J. Schachenmayer, B. P. Lanyon, C. F. Roos, and A. J. Daley, Physical Review X 3, 031015 (2013)

    2013

  10. [22]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Van Den Worm, S. R. Manmana, and 6 M. Kastner, Physical Review Letters 111, 260401 (2013)

    2013

  11. [23]

    Richerme, Z.-X

    P. Richerme, Z.-X. Gong, A. Lee, C. Senko, J. Smith, M. Foss-Feig, S. Michalakis, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Nature 511, 198 (2014)

    2014

  12. [24]

    Jurcevic, B

    P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Hauke, C. Hempel, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Nature 511, 202 (2014)

    2014

  13. [25]

    Vodola, L

    D. Vodola, L. Lepori, E. Ercolessi, A. V. Gorshkov, and G. Pupillo, Physical Review Letters 113, 156402 (2014)

    2014

  14. [26]

    Lepori, D

    L. Lepori, D. Vodola, G. Pupillo, G. Gori, and A. Trom- bettoni, Annals of Physics 374, 35 (2016)

    2016

  15. [27]

    Z. Gong, T. Guaita, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters 130, 070401 (2023)

    2023

  16. [28]

    Lepori and L

    L. Lepori and L. Dell’Anna, New Journal of Physics 19, 103030 (2017)

    2017

  17. [29]

    Prokof’Ev, B

    N. Prokof’Ev, B. Svistunov, and I. Tupitsyn, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 87, 310 (1998)

    1998

  18. [30]

    Ferraretto and L

    M. Ferraretto and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. A 99, 013618 (2019)

    2019

  19. [31]

    Krauth, Physical Review B 44, 9772 (1991)

    W. Krauth, Physical Review B 44, 9772 (1991)

    1991

  20. [32]

    Elesin, V

    V. Elesin, V. Kashurnikov, and L. Openov, JETP Lett 60 (1994)

    1994

  21. [33]

    Kashurnikov, A

    V. Kashurnikov, A. Krasavin, and B. Svistunov, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 64, 99 (1996)

    1996

  22. [34]

    T. D. K¨ uhner and H. Monien, Physical Review B 58, R14741 (1998)

    1998

  23. [35]

    Fr´ erot, P

    I. Fr´ erot, P. Naldesi, and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. B 95, 245111 (2017)

    2017

  24. [36]

    M. F. Maghrebi, Z.-X. Gong, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 023001 (2017)

    2017

  25. [37]

    Boninsegni, A

    M. Boninsegni, A. Kuklov, L. Pollet, N. Prokof’ev, B. Svistunov, and M. Troyer, Physical review letters 97, 080401 (2006)

    2006

  26. [38]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, N

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, N. Prokof’Ev, and B. Svistunov, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 75, 134302 (2007)

    2007

  27. [39]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, S ¸

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, S ¸. G. S¨ oyler, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 77, 015602 (2008)

    2008

  28. [40]

    Botzung, D

    T. Botzung, D. Hagenm¨ uller, G. Masella, J. Dubail, N. Defenu, A. Trombettoni, and G. Pupillo, Physical Re- view B 103, 155139 (2021)

    2021

  29. [41]

    Dalmonte, G

    M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters 105, 140401 (2010)

    2010

  30. [45]

    Dupuis, Phys

    N. Dupuis, Phys. Rev. A 110, 033315 (2024)

    2024

  31. [46]

    Laflorencie, I

    N. Laflorencie, I. Affleck, and M. Berciu, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2005, P12001 (2005)

    2005

  32. [47]

    Gupta, G

    T. Gupta, G. Masella, F. Mattiotti, N. V. Prokof’ev, and G. Pupillo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17682 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  33. [48]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature 415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  34. [49]

    Baier, M

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

    2016

  35. [50]

    J. R. Anglin and W. Ketterle, Nature 416, 211 (2002)

    2002

  36. [51]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe- Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Reports on Progress in Physics 86, 026401 (2023)

    2023

  37. [52]

    Bose-Hubbard model with power-law hopping in one dimension

    C. Lagoin, S. Suffit, K. Baldwin, L. Pfeiffer, and F. Du- bin, Nature Physics 18, 149 (2022). Supplemental Material for “Bose-Hubbard model with power-law hopping in one dimension” Tanul Gupta, 1 Nikolay V. Prokof’ev, 2 and Guido Pupillo 1 1University of Strasbourg and CNRS, C...

    2022 arXiv

  38. [53]

    Haldane, Physical Review Letters 47, 1840 (1981)

    F. Haldane, Physical Review Letters 47, 1840 (1981)

    1981

  39. [54]

    Berezinskii, Sov

    V. Berezinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 34, 610 (1972)

    1972

  40. [55]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  41. [56]

    J. M. Kosterlitz, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 7, 1046 (1974)

    1974

  42. [57]

    J. V. Jose, 40 years of Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless theory (World Scientific, 2013)

    2013

  43. [58]

    Giachetti, A

    G. Giachetti, A. Trombettoni, S. Ruffo, and N. Defenu, Phys. Rev. B 106, 014106 (2022)

    2022

  44. [59]

    J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, The Computer Journal 7, 308 (1965)

    1965

  45. [60]

    Kawashima and N

    N. Kawashima and N. Ito, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 62, 435 (1993)

    1993

  46. [61]

    Houdayer and A

    J. Houdayer and A. K. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. B 70, 014418 (2004)

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.