Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Realization of a doped quantum antiferromagnet with dipolar tunnelings in a Rydberg tweezer array

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the realization of a doped quantum antiferromagnet in a Rydberg tweezer array, using three Rydberg states per atom to encode spins and hard-core holes, and the observation of hole-spin phase separation, repulsively…

desk verdict Genuinely new experimental capability with credible qualitative results; the sign-dependent pair-mass attribution is the one place where the evidence is softer than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08233 v2 pith:CZNXZCCY submitted 2025-01-14 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-elphysics.atom-ph

Mu Qiao , Gabriel Emperauger , Cheng Chen , Lukas Homeier , Simon Hollerith , Guillaume Bornet , Romain Martin , Bastien Gély
show 8 more authors
Lukas Klein Daniel Barredo Sebastian Geier Neng-Chun Chiu Fabian Grusdt Annabelle Bohrdt Thierry Lahaye Antoine Browaeys
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-elphysics.atom-ph
keywords Rydbergtweezerarraydopedquantumantiferromagnetbosonict-J-Vmodelhard-coreholesdipolartunnelingrepulsivelyboundholepairsnext-nearest-neighborsingle-sitecontrol
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 reports the realization of a doped quantum antiferromagnet in a Rydberg tweezer array, using three Rydberg states per atom to encode spin-up, spin-down, and a hard-core hole. The central achievement is a tunable bosonic $t$-$J$-$V$ Hamiltonian whose hole tunneling $t$, spin couplings $J_\perp,J_z$, and hole-hole repulsion $V$ can be varied by rotating the array relative to the quantization axis. With that control, the authors observe dynamical phase separation between hole-rich and spin-rich regions at $|t/J|\ll1$, the formation of repulsively bound hole pairs, and a sign-dependent pair mobility caused by interference between next-nearest-neighbor tunneling and second-order pair tunneling. They also follow a single hole in a 2D square lattice with ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic spin backgrounds. If correct, the platform opens the high-density regime of the $t$-$J$ model, the regime relevant to doped Mott insulators and high-temperature superconductivity, to direct quantum simulation with single-site resolution.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the hard-core bosonic $t$-$J$-$V$ Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), with tunneling $\hat H_t$ between a hole and a spin at distance $r$ with amplitude $t_\sigma/r^3$, spin exchange $J_\perp/(2r^6)(\hat S_i^+\hat S_j^-+\mathrm{h.c.})$ plus Ising $J_z \hat S_i^z \hat S_j^z/r^6$, and hole-hole repulsion $V \hat n_i^h \hat n_j^h/r^6$. The mechanism that makes the experiment work is the dual power-law structure of Rydberg interactions: the $1/r^3$ dipolar tail produces both nearest-neighbor tunneling $t$ and next-nearest-neighbor tunneling $t'=t/8$, while the $1/r^6$ van der Waals terms produce spin and hole interactions that can be tuned by the angle $\theta$ between the array and the quantization axis. At the magic angle $\theta_m\approx54.7^\circ$ the tunneling vanishes, placing the system at $|t|\ll J$; on either side the sign of $t$ flips, which flips the sign of the NNN contribution and makes the effective pair tunneling $t_{\mathrm{eff}}=\chi t^2/(V-J_z/4)-t/8$ either constructive or destructive, thereby controlling the pair's effective mass $m_{\mathrm{eff}}\propto 1/(2t_{\mathrm{eff}})$.

What would settle it

Measure the center-of-mass displacement of a bound hole pair at two angles with opposite signs of $t$ but with $V$, $J_z$, and $J_\perp$ held fixed (by compensating the angle change with a change in lattice spacing), and compare with a simulation in which the next-nearest-neighbor tunneling $t'$ is set to zero; if the displacement asymmetry persists, the claimed NNN interference mechanism is not the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that by mapping the three Rydberg states $|\downarrow\rangle=|60S_{1/2},m_J=1/2\rangle$, $|\uparrow\rangle=|61S_{1/2},m_J=1/2\rangle$, and $|h\rangle=|60P_{3/2},m_J=-1/2\rangle$ of $^{87}$Rb atoms to spin-down, spin-up, and hole, the dipole-dipole exchange $\propto 1/r^3$ and van der Waals interactions $\propto 1/r^6$ faithfully implement a hard-core bosonic $t$-$J$-$V$ Hamiltonian with at most one particle per site. The authors show that tilting the chain angle across the magic angle $\theta_m=54.7^\circ$ tunes the hole tunneling $t$ through zero and reverses its sign, while the spin couplings $J_\perp,J_z$ and hole-hole interaction $V$ remain sizeable, allowing them to enter the high-density $|t/J|\ll1$ regime. On this platform they observe dynamical phase separation of holes and spins, repulsively bound hole pairs, and a sign-dependent pair mobility that they attribute to constructive or destructive interference between next-nearest-neighbor tunneling $t'=-t/8$ and second-order pair tunneling $\propto t^2/(V-J_z/4)$. They further show single-hole coherent dynamics in a 2D square array with ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic backgrounds, where the dipolar tail of the tunneling is visible in the interference pattern.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's explanation of the light and heavy hole pairs assumes that the sign-dependent interference between next-nearest-neighbor tunneling and second-order pair tunneling is the dominant cause of the measured pair-mobility asymmetry, even though the two angles compared also change $V$, $J_z$, and $J_\perp$, and the spin-fluctuation prefactor $\chi(T)$ is not derived in closed form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The platform reaches the high-particle-density $|t/J|\ll1$ regime that optical-lattice superexchange simulators cannot access, making dynamical phase separation and hole clustering directly observable.
  • Since $\theta$ tunes the sign of $t$, one setup can compare constructive and destructive interference between perturbative pair tunneling and the $1/r^3$ tunneling tail, giving control over the effective pair mass.
  • In the 2D square array with a ferromagnetic background, the hole occupation develops diagonal interference peaks that a nearest-neighbor-only simulation does not reproduce, directly showing the dipolar tail.
  • The same three-level encoding extends the toolbox beyond spin-1/2 to spin-1 chains and Haldane physics, as the paper states.
  • Single-site initialization permits controlled studies of one-hole and few-hole dynamics in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic backgrounds, relevant to magnetic polaron physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A closed-form derivation of the spin-fluctuation prefactor $\chi(T)$ would turn $t_{\mathrm{eff}}=\chi t^2/(V-J_z/4)-t/8$ into a quantitative prediction; without it, the sign-dependent pair mass is identified but not fully explained.
  • Because $t'=-t/8$ is fixed by lattice geometry, the same interference mechanism could be used to engineer the mobility of larger hole clusters by flipping the sign of $t$, a control that nearest-neighbor models do not offer.
  • The 2D antiferromagnetic single-hole data suggest that spin memory suppresses path interference; an adiabatic extension from staggered states would test whether this suppression survives in the low-energy sector.
  • If the pair-mass asymmetry is confirmed in other spin backgrounds, the simulator becomes a testbed for kinetic-magnetism and pairing mechanisms in bosonic $t$-$J$ models at finite doping.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a Rydberg-tweezer realization of a hard-core bosonic t-J-V model, with spin-up, spin-down, and hole encoded in three Rydberg states of 87Rb. The authors benchmark the bare interaction parameters on two-atom pairs, then study quench dynamics of doped 1D chains and a 5x5 2D array. They observe hole-spin domain separation for small |t/J|, repulsively bound hole pairs, a sign-dependent pair mobility asymmetry that they attribute to interference between NNN dipolar tunneling and second-order pair tunneling, and single-hole dynamics in 2D ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic backgrounds. The central new claim is that the light/heavy pair asymmetry is caused by the 1/r^3 tail of the tunneling.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is an important step: it is, to my knowledge, the first direct high-filling realization of a bosonic t-J-type model with site-resolved hole and spin readout and with NNN tunneling implemented natively by the dipolar interaction. The mapping is carefully benchmarked against two-atom exchange measurements, and the many-body predictions come from full Rydberg simulations rather than from fitting the many-body data, so the comparisons are not circular. The 2D single-hole interference pattern in the ferromagnetic case is a clear fingerprint of long-range tunneling. The main weakness is that the microscopic mechanism for the pair-mass asymmetry is not yet isolated from other angle-dependent couplings, as detailed below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods, 'Influence of magnetic background on hole pair'; main text near Fig. 3] The formula teff = chi(T) t^2/(V - Jz/4) - t/8 is load-bearing for the light/heavy pair claim, but chi(T) is never derived. The Methods states only that chi is time- and spin-background-dependent and that 'at late times, we find' the perturbative amplitude is positive. No closed-form expression, normalization, or independent determination is given. Since the pair displacement is measured at T = 0.8 and 1.6 x 2pi/|2t|, which need not be the late-time regime in which chi was characterized, an unspecified chi could absorb part of the observed asymmetry. Please provide a derivation of chi for the relevant spin backgrounds and times, or determine it from a spin-only numerical simulation, and show that the resulting teff reproduces the full-Rydberg pair-displacement curves at both angles.
  2. [Table II and Extended Data Fig. 7] The two angles used to demonstrate the sign effect, theta = 49.7 deg and 59.7 deg, differ not only in the sign of t but also in V/J_perp (1.2 vs 1.0), Jz/J_perp, and the absolute coupling scale. The numerical control in Extended Data Fig. 7 truncates all couplings beyond nearest neighbors, thereby removing the 1/r^6 tails of J and V as well as the NNN tunneling t'. It therefore establishes that some long-range coupling is needed to reproduce the asymmetry, but it does not isolate the specific interference term -t/8. I request an additional control in which only the NNN tunneling is turned off while the long-range J and V tails are kept (or vice versa), or an angle pair in which the sign of t changes while V/J_perp and Jz/J_perp are held fixed, so that the attribution to t' is unambiguous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Paragraph after Fig. 3e] The phrase 'qualitative (quantitative) agreement with numerical simulations without (with) errors' is ambiguous; please specify which data are compared to which simulation and report a quantitative figure of merit for the agreement.
  2. [Fig. 3d,e and Fig. 4] The pair displacement is defined using the operational cutoff of bond length l <= 2; please show how the central results depend on this cutoff (e.g., repeat the analysis for l <= 1 and l <= 3) so that the mobility comparison is not sensitive to the chosen definition.
  3. [Title] The arXiv metadata title includes 'with dipolar tunnelings' while the manuscript header omits this phrase; the two should be made consistent in the final version.
  4. [Methods, 'Hamiltonian mapping'] The fitted angular coefficients F1, F2, F3 used to represent the van der Waals C6 interactions are not tabulated; providing these values (or a persistent source for the fits) would make the numerical simulations fully reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the t-J-V model is an exact reorganization of the Rydberg Hamiltonian, and the many-body predictions come from full-Hamiltonian simulations rather than from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The bosonic t-J-V Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) is obtained in Methods by an exact reorganization of the bare Rydberg Hamiltonian (Eqs. 5-12) under the hard-core constraint, with coupling constants given in Table I from pairinteraction calculations benchmarked against two-atom exchange dynamics (Fig. 1d,e). The many-body predictions are produced by time-evolving the full Rydberg Hamiltonian (Eq. 5), including boundary terms and all long-range tails, and the error model uses independently measured state-preparation fidelities and detection error probabilities. No many-body experimental data are fitted to generate the predicted dynamics. The effective pair-tunneling expression teff = chi t^2/(V - Jz/4) - t/8 contains an underived spin-fluctuation prefactor chi(T), but this is an interpretive parametrization rather than a fitted input used to produce the data: the sign-dependent light/heavy pair asymmetry is also reproduced by the full Rydberg simulations and disappears when tunnelings are truncated to nearest neighbors (Extended Data Fig. 7), so the central claim does not reduce to the formula. Citations to the authors' prior work (Refs. [12,39]) supply the original encoding proposal and atomic-physics calibration; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as substitutes for the derivation given here, and the mapping is explicitly re-derived and checked against full spectra in a small system. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters: the angular C6 fit coefficients are fitted to pairinteraction output, not to many-body data, so they calibrate the microscopic model. The chi(T) prefactor in the effective pair-tunneling formula is underived. Axioms: the full-Rydberg-Hamiltonian simulation with truncated range and the error model carry the quantitative comparisons; the effective t-J-V interpretation adds perturbative assumptions. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Angular van der Waals fit coefficients F1, F2, F3 for each pair channel = not quoted; fitted to pairinteraction C6(theta) data
    Used to generate interaction strengths at arbitrary angles for the numerical simulations; fitted to calculated pair potentials, not to the many-body experimental data.
  • chi(T), spin-fluctuation prefactor in effective pair tunneling = time dependent, not given as a number
    Appears in teff = chi t^2/(V - Jz/4) - t/8 in Methods; no closed-form derivation is provided, though the full numerical simulations do not rely on this formula.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The three Rydberg states |60S1/2>, |61S1/2>, |60P3/2> with hard-core constraint realize the bosonic t-J-V-W model via the mapped Hamiltonian (Eq. 1 and Methods Eqs. 5-12).
    The mapping is derived in Methods, but the equivalence relies on perturbation theory and neglecting W and boundary fields; simulations use the full Rydberg Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Two-body interactions truncated at rij <= 3 lattice sites capture the many-body dynamics; three-body and longer-range effects are neglected.
    Stated in 'Numerical simulations' in Methods; positional disorder and decay channels are included separately.
  • domain assumption The error model with independent per-site state preparation errors, Gaussian positional disorder (sigma_xy = 0.1 um, sigma_z = 1.0 um), and the specified decay rates describes experimental imperfections.
    Used for all error-included simulations; the paper acknowledges that correlated errors are not captured, causing qualitative but not quantitative agreement in Fig. 3d.
  • domain assumption Eigenstate thermalization connects the weighted diagonal ensemble <P_h4>_w to the long-time average of the hole-cluster projector (Methods Eqs. 14-15).
    Used to justify the phase-separation order parameter; for the 12-site chain the diagonal ensemble can be computed exactly, so the assumption is not load-bearing.
  • ad hoc to paper Perturbative treatment of pair tunneling with a time-dependent spin overlap chi(T) and a frozen or thermalized spin background is valid in the limit |t| << |J_perp|, |Jz|, |V|.
    Underlies the teff formula and the interpretation of light versus heavy pairs; chi(T) is not derived in closed form.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Realization of a doped quantum antiferromagnet with dipolar tunnelings in a Rydberg tweezer array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZNXZCCY

@misc{pith2026250108233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Realization of a doped quantum antiferromagnet with dipolar tunnelings in a Rydberg tweezer array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZNXZCCY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08233}
}
abstract

Doping an antiferromagnetic Mott insulator is central to our understanding of a variety of phenomena in strongly-correlated electrons, including high-temperature superconductors. To describe the competition between tunneling $t$ of hole dopants and antiferromagnetic (AFM) spin interactions $J$, theoretical and numerical studies often focus on the paradigmatic $t$-$J$ model, and the direct analog quantum simulation of this model in the relevant regime of high-particle density has long been sought. Here, we realize a doped quantum antiferromagnet with next-nearest neighbour (NNN) tunnelings $t'$ and hard-core bosonic holes using a Rydberg tweezer platform. We utilize coherent dynamics between three Rydberg levels, encoding spins and holes, to implement a tunable bosonic $t$-$J$-$V$ model allowing us to study previously inaccessible parameter regimes. We observe dynamical phase separation between hole and spin domains for $|t/J|\ll 1$, and demonstrate the formation of repulsively bound hole pairs in a variety of spin backgrounds. The interference between NNN tunnelings $t'$ and perturbative pair tunneling gives rise to light and heavy pairs depending on the sign of $t$. Using the single-site control allows us to study the dynamics of a single hole in 2D square lattice (anti)ferromagnets. The model we implement extends the toolbox of Rydberg tweezer experiments beyond spin-1/2 models to a larger class of $t$-$J$ and spin-$1$ models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a shows the local hole occupation number in the FM case at two different times. There the dynamics reduces to that of a single particle (here the hole) tunneling in a 2D lat￾tice with dipolar ∝ t/r3 tunneling rate. The observed co￾herent evolution of the hole shows a d…

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

  1. Vacancy-assisted superfluid drag

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2025-02 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    The drag coefficient in the dilute-hole limit of the hard-core two-component Bose-Hubbard model on the square lattice is exactly 1-2/π, about 0.36, and the effect is carried by hole-spin polarons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Doping a Mott insula- tor: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  2. [2]

    Bohrdt, L

    A. Bohrdt, L. Homeier, C. Reinmoser, E. Demler, and F. Grusdt, Exploration of doped quantum magnets with ultracold atoms, Annals of Physics 435, 168651 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Auerbach, Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism (Springer New York, 1994)

    A. Auerbach, Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism (Springer New York, 1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    A. N. Carroll, H. Hirzler, C. Miller, D. Wellnitz, S. R. Muleady, J. Lin, K. P. Zamarski, R. R. W. Wang, J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Observation of generalized t-J spin dynamics with tunable dipolar interactions, Science 388, 381 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    A. V . Gorshkov, S. R. Manmana, G. Chen, J. Ye, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Tunable superfluidity and quantum magnetism with ultracold polar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 115301 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Qin, C.-M

    M. Qin, C.-M. Chung, H. Shi, E. Vitali, C. Hubig, U. Scholl- wöck, S. R. White, and S. Zhang (Simons Collaboration on the Many-Electron Problem), Absence of superconductivity in the pure two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. X10, 031016 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Jiang and T

    H.-C. Jiang and T. P. Devereaux, Superconductivity in the doped Hubbard model and its interplay with next-nearest hop- ping t’, Science 365, 1424 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Jiang, T

    Y .-F. Jiang, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Ground-state phase diagram and superconductivity of the doped Hubbard model on six-leg square cylinders, Phys. Rev. B 109, 085121 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Xu, C.-M

    H. Xu, C.-M. Chung, M. Qin, U. Schollwöck, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Coexistence of superconductivity with partially filled stripes in the Hubbard model, Science 384 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    T. A. Bespalova, K. Deli ´c, G. Pupillo, F. Tacchino, and I. Tav- ernelli, Simulating the Fermi-Hubbard model with long-range hopping on a quantum computer (2024), arXiv:2410.07789

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bohrdt, D

    A. Bohrdt, D. Wei, D. Adler, K. Srakaew, S. Agrawal, P. Weckesser, I. Bloch, F. Grusdt, and J. Zeiher, Microscopy of bosonic charge carriers in staggered magnetic fields (2024), arXiv:2410.19500

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Homeier, T

    L. Homeier, T. J. Harris, T. Blatz, S. Geier, S. Hollerith, U. Schollwöck, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, Antiferromagnetic bosonic t− J models and their quantum simulation in tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 230401 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individu- ally controlled Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Mögerle, K

    J. Mögerle, K. Brechtelsbauer, A. Gea-Caballero, J. Prior, G. Emperauger, G. Bornet, C. Chen, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, and H. Büchler, Spin-1 haldane phase in a chain of rydberg atoms, PRX Quantum 6, 020332 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    V . S. Liu, M. Bintz, M. Block, R. Samajdar, J. Kemp, and N. Y . Yao, Supersolidity and Simplex Phases in Spin-1 Ryd- berg Atom Arrays (2024), arXiv:2407.17554

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    D. J. Scalapino, A common thread: The pairing interaction for unconventional superconductors, Reviews of Modern Physics 84, 1383 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Proust and L

    C. Proust and L. Taillefer, The Remarkable Underlying Ground States of Cuprate Superconductors, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 10, 409 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. Müller, Possible highTc superconduc- tivity in the Ba-La-Cu-O system, Zeitschrift für Physik B Con- densed Matter 64, 189 (1986)

    1986

  11. [19]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Za- anen, From quantum matter to high-temperature superconduc- tivity in copper oxides, Nature 518, 179 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Mazurenko, C

    A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. F. Parsons, M. Kanász- Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, A cold-atom Fermi–Hubbard antiferromagnet, Na- ture 545, 462 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Shao, Y .-X

    H.-J. Shao, Y .-X. Wang, D.-Z. Zhu, Y .-S. Zhu, H.-N. Sun, S.-Y . Chen, C. Zhang, Z.-J. Fan, Y . Deng, X.-C. Yao, Y .-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Antiferromagnetic phase transition in a 3d fermionic Hubbard model, Nature 632, 267 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Hirthe, T

    S. Hirthe, T. Chalopin, D. Bourgund, P. Bojovi ´c, A. Bohrdt, 9 E. Demler, F. Grusdt, I. Bloch, and T. A. Hilker, Magnetically mediated hole pairing in fermionic ladders of ultracold atoms, Nature 613, 463 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lebrat, M

    M. Lebrat, M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y . Gang, P. Seetharaman, I. Morera, E. Khatami, E. Demler, and M. Greiner, Observation of Nagaoka polarons in a Fermi–Hubbard quantum simulator, Nature 629, 317 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    M. L. Prichard, B. M. Spar, I. Morera, E. Demler, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Directly imaging spin polarons in a kinetically frustrated Hubbard system, Nature 629, 323 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling Spin Exchange Interactions of Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices, Physical Review Letters 91, 090402 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Science 357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    V . J. Emery, S. A. Kivelson, and H. Q. Lin, Phase separation in the t-j model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 475 (1990)

    1990

  21. [29]

    Boninsegni, Phase Separation in Mixtures of Hard Core Bosons, Physical Review Letters 87, 087201 (2001)

    M. Boninsegni, Phase Separation in Mixtures of Hard Core Bosons, Physical Review Letters 87, 087201 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    H. Sun, B. Yang, H.-Y . Wang, Z.-Y . Zhou, G.-X. Su, H.-N. Dai, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Realization of a bosonic antiferro- magnet, Nature Physics 17, 990 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    P. N. Jepsen, W. W. Ho, J. Amato-Grill, I. Dimitrova, E. Demler, and W. Ketterle, Transverse Spin Dynamics in the Anisotropic Heisenberg Model Realized with Ultracold Atoms, Physical Review X 11, 041054 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    T. J. Harris, U. Schollwöck, A. Bohrdt, and F. Grusdt, Kinetic magnetism and stripe order in the doped AFM bosonic t−J model (2024), arXiv:2410.00904

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zhang, J.-X

    H.-K. Zhang, J.-X. Zhang, J.-S. Xu, and Z.-Y . Weng, Quantum- interference-induced pairing in antiferromagnetic bosonic t-J model (2024), arXiv:2409.15424

    2024

  26. [34]

    Siller, M

    T. Siller, M. Troyer, T. M. Rice, and S. R. White, Bosonic model of hole pairs, Physical Review B 63, 195106 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    S. M. O’Mahony, W. Ren, W. Chen, Y . X. Chong, X. Liu, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, M. H. Hamidian, and J. C. S. Davis, On the electron pairing mechanism of copper-oxide high temper- ature superconductivity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Morera, A

    I. Morera, A. Bohrdt, W. W. Ho, and E. Demler, Attraction from kinetic frustration in ladder systems, Physical Review Research 6, 023196 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Sous and M

    J. Sous and M. Pretko, Fractons from polarons, Physical Review B 102, 10.1103/physrevb.102.214437 (2020)

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Barredo, H

    D. Barredo, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, and C. S. Adams, Coherent excitation transfer in a spin chain of three rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 113002 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Emperauger, M

    G. Emperauger, M. Qiao, G. Bornet, C. Chen, R. Martin, Y . T. Chew, B. Gély, L. Klein, D. Barredo, A. Browaeys, and T. La- haye, Benchmarking direct and indirect dipolar spin-exchange interactions between two rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A 111, 062806 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Wadenpfuhl and C

    K. Wadenpfuhl and C. S. Adams, Unravelling the Structures in the van der Waals Interactions of Alkali Rydberg Atoms (2024), arXiv:2412.14861

    2024

  33. [41]

    Winkler, G

    K. Winkler, G. Thalhammer, F. Lang, R. Grimm, J. Hecker Denschlag, A. J. Daley, A. Kantian, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Repulsively bound atom pairs in an optical lattice, Nature 441, 853 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Staszewski and A

    L. Staszewski and A. Wietek, Quench dynamics of stripes and phase separation in the two-dimensional t-j model, Phys. Rev. B , (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    S. R. White and D. J. Scalapino, Phase separation and stripe formation in the two-dimensional t−j model: A comparison of numerical results, Phys. Rev. B 61, 6320 (2000)

    2000

  36. [44]

    M. Y . Kagan, K. I. Kugel, and A. L. Rakhmanov, Electronic phase separation: Recent progress in the old problem, Physics Reports 916, 1 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    G. Ji, M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, C. S. Chiu, J. C. Brüggenjür- gen, D. Greif, A. Bohrdt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, Coupling a Mobile Hole to an Antiferromagnetic Spin Background: Transient Dynamics of a Magnetic Polaron, Physical Review X 11 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    freezing

    C. Chen, G. Bornet, M. Bintz, G. Emperauger, L. Leclerc, V . S. Liu, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, J. Hauschild, S. Chatterjee, M. Schuler, A. M. Läuchli, M. P. Zaletel, T. Lahaye, N. Y . Yao, and A. Browaeys, Continuous symmetry breaking in a two- dimensional Rydberg array, Nature 6...

    2023

  39. [47]

    We approxi- mate this decay rates by the value of the radiative rates (at temperature 0 K): Γ60S≈ Γ61S≈ (260µs)−1 Γ60P≈ (472µs)−1

    A Rydberg state decays down to the atomic ground state and appears as a signal in the snapshots. We approxi- mate this decay rates by the value of the radiative rates (at temperature 0 K): Γ60S≈ Γ61S≈ (260µs)−1 Γ60P≈ (472µs)−1. (18)

  40. [48]

    The decay rates are given by: ΓBB 60S≈ ΓBB 61S≈ (157µs)−1 ΓBB 60P≈ (161µs)−1

    A Rydberg state has a blackbody-induced transition to other Rydberg states and is lost from the simulation. The decay rates are given by: ΓBB 60S≈ ΓBB 61S≈ (157µs)−1 ΓBB 60P≈ (161µs)−1. (19) We neglect the possibility of blackbody-induced transi- tions between the states of th...

  41. [49]

    Weber, C

    S. Weber, C. Tresp, H. Menke, A. Urvoy, O. Firstenberg, H. P. Büchler, and S. Hofferberth, Tutorial: Calculation of Ryd- berg interaction potentials, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 50, 133001 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Marder, N

    M. Marder, N. Papanicolaou, and G. C. Psaltakis, Phase sepa- ration in a t-J model, Physical Review B 41, 6920 (1990)

    1990

  43. [51]

    Bobroff, H

    J. Bobroff, H. Alloul, S. Ouazi, P. Mendels, A. Mahajan, N. Blanchard, G. Collin, V . Guillen, and J.-F. Marucco, Ab- sence of Static Phase Separation in the High Tc Cuprate YBa2Cu3O6+y, Physical Review Letters 89, 157002 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quan- tum systems, Advances in Physics 63, 77 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Hauschild, R

    J. Hauschild, R. Mong, F. Pollmann, M. Schulz, L. Schoonder- woert, J. Unfried, Y . Tzeng, and M. Zaletel, Ten- sor network python, The code is available online at https://github.com/tenpy/tenpy/, the documentation can be found at https://tenpy.github.com/. (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Fondation CFM pour la Recherche

    J. Hauschild and F. Pollmann, Efficient numerical simulations with Tensor Networks: Tensor Network Python (TeNPy), Sci- Post Physics Lecture Notes 10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.5 (2018). Acknowledgements We thank Johannes Mögerle, Katarina Brechtelsbauer, and Hans-Peter Büchle...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.