Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 68 references

Quasiparticle modes across soliton transition with density-dependent gauge field in optical lattices

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Density-dependent tunneling drives a BEC-to-soliton transition in which the low-lying quasiparticle spectrum acquires a gap while the zero-energy Goldstone mode survives.

desk verdict Follow-up on the known DDT soliton transition, giving a coherent mode-resolved and dynamical picture; the non-Hermitian BdG diagonalization and the hand-enforced zero mode need explicit treatment before the specific numbers are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29309 v1 pith:GNXJSVRD submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.quant-gas

Poorava Kumar Meena , Kuldeep Suthar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords density-dependenttunnelingopticallatticeBose-EinsteincondensatebrightsolitonBogoliubovtheoryquasiparticlespectrumBlochoscillationsbreathing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that when bosons in a one-dimensional optical lattice hop with an amplitude that depends on the local density difference between sites, the system undergoes a first-order quantum phase transition from a plane-wave condensate to a localized bright soliton. Using discrete Bogoliubov theory, the authors show that as the gauge coupling increases in the soliton phase, the dipole and higher excitation energies rise while a zero-energy mode is preserved; the excitation gap widens with the gauge field. Repulsive on-site interactions increase the critical gauge field needed for the transition and stabilize the soliton. Dynamically, the soliton does not Bloch-oscillate under a constant force and does not breathe after a trap quench, in contrast to the condensate, because the density-dependent gauge field couples center-of-mass motion to internal shape. This matters because it shows that a purely density-dependent hopping term can produce rigid, gap-protected localized states with distinct excitation and dynamical signatures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the density-difference-dependent hopping term in the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian, which couples the local density difference to the phase of hopping and acts as an effective gauge field. The argument is carried by the discrete Bogoliubov–de Gennes equations, linearized around the mean-field ground state, whose eigenvalues give the quasiparticle mode energies; the mode gap and dispersion curves are used to locate the transition and characterize the phases.

What would settle it

A direct numerical check of the BdG matrix at γ=4.5i, U=0.05: if any eigenvalues have non-negligible imaginary parts beyond numerical noise, the plotted 'mode energies' are not well-defined, and the claimed hardening and gap would need re-evaluation. Alternatively, recomputing the spectrum while including the anomalous density term would reveal whether the zero-energy mode survives without the enforced gaplessness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the condensate-to-soliton transition induced by density-dependent tunneling is accompanied by mode hardening: the energies of the dipole and breathing modes increase with the gauge field in the soliton phase, the spectrum develops a finite gap, and the zero-energy Goldstone mode remains. The repulsive interaction shifts the critical gauge field upward by raising the energy cost of localization. The soliton's effective momentum becomes density-dependent, so it does not undergo Bloch oscillations, and its width is not excited by a trap quench—breathing oscillations are suppressed.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the Bogoliubov treatment—which drops the anomalous density to force a gapless spectrum and diagonalizes a potentially non-Hermitian 2L×2L matrix—remains valid in the strongly localized soliton phase; if the true spectrum is complex or gapped there, the reported mode hardening and phase boundaries do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the quasiparticle excitation gap serves as an order parameter for the BEC-to-soliton transition in density-dependent Hubbard models.
  • The upward shift of the critical gauge field with repulsive interactions is observable as a shift of the mode-hardening point, providing a testable prediction.
  • The predicted absence of Bloch oscillations for the soliton distinguishes it dynamically from the condensate in a clean, measurable way.
  • The suppression of breathing after a trap quench offers a second dynamical signature of the soliton phase.
  • The finite-momentum zero mode suggests the soliton carries an internal phase gradient, analogous to spin-orbit coupled condensates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same mechanism—density-dependent hopping—could be engineered via Floquet driving to probe the transition experimentally, which the paper gestures at but does not detail.
  • The prediction that the effective momentum becomes density-dependent suggests a Hall-like or chiral response if the gauge field has a nonvanishing real part, a testable extension.
  • The zero-energy mode preservation alongside a finite gap implies spontaneous translational symmetry breaking; measuring local density correlations could confirm this directly.
  • Because the Bogoliubov treatment enforces gaplessness by dropping the anomalous density, an independent numerical check (e.g., exact diagonalization or quantum Monte Carlo) of the gap in the strongly localized regime would be a worthwhile test of the central claim.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model with density-dependent tunneling (DDT) in an optical lattice. Using imaginary-time propagation for the ground state and discrete Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) diagonalization, it reports a first-order transition from a plane-wave condensate to a localized soliton as the gauge coupling γ increases. The main claims are: low-lying quasiparticle energies harden and a mode gap opens in the soliton phase while a zero-energy Goldstone mode is preserved; repulsive U shifts the critical γ upward; the dispersion changes qualitatively; and in real-time dynamics the soliton neither Bloch-oscillates nor breathes. A phase diagram in the complex γ plane and a modulational-instability boundary complete the picture.

Significance. If established, the results would provide a useful characterization of a DDT-driven condensate-to-soliton transition in a setting accessible to cold-atom experiments: a finite quasiparticle gap, a U-dependent phase boundary, and unusual dynamical rigidity. The qualitative consistency of the figures and the symmetry-based assignment of Goldstone/dipole/breathing modes lend plausibility. However, the central spectral claims rest on a non-Hermitian BdG diagonalization for which no eigenvalue-extraction rule is stated, and on an explicitly imposed gaplessness; the dispersion relation used for stability also appears inconsistent with the displayed BdG matrix. These issues must be resolved before the conclusions can be relied upon.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (7)] The BdG matrix is acknowledged to be non-Hermitian and non-symmetric, and is diagonalized with LAPACK's ZGEEV. However, the paper never states how possibly complex eigenvalues are converted to the real E_l displayed in Figs. 2–5 and used for ΔE in Fig. 6. In the soliton phase a non-Hermitian BdG problem can have complex eigenvalues; if any occur, E_l and ΔE are not defined and the hardening/gap claims are ungrounded. Please either prove the eigenvalues are real in the plotted regime, or give and justify the extraction convention (Re E, |E|, symplectic diagonalization).
  2. [Sec. II, after Eq. (4)] The anomalous density is omitted "in order to obtain the gapless excitation spectrum." Later the preservation of the zero-energy mode is presented as a finding. If the omission is what forces E_0=0, the zero mode and the gap ΔE=E_1−E_0 are partly artifacts of the approximation. The authors should demonstrate robustness by repeating the BdG calculation with the anomalous term included (or with a controlled Popov-type truncation) and checking that a Goldstone mode still exists.
  3. [Eq. (12) vs Eq. (11)] Diagonalizing H_BdG = 2J(1−cos ka)I − (4γ_I/L) sin ka σ_y gives branch energies 2J(1−cos ka) ± (4γ_I/L) sin ka, not the square-root expression in Eq. (12). The instability threshold γ_I=JL/2 and the stable-regime diagram in Fig. 6(c) are derived from Eq. (12). This must be reconciled, or the approximation leading to Eq. (12) must be stated and justified.
  4. [Sec. III.A and Figs. 4, 6] For U=0.05 the numerical critical couplings are reported as γ_R=3.39 and γ_I=3.45, but the text then asserts a first-order perturbative shift gives γ_c=4.65. No derivation is shown, and the two numbers differ by about 25%. Since the U-induced upward shift of the transition is a central claim, a consistent calculation or an explicit explanation of this discrepancy is required.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 5 and text] The interaction strength U used for the dispersion curves is not stated. If U=0, γ=3.0i is already in the soliton phase (critical γ_I=1.69), contradicting the label "BEC phase"; if U=0.05, this should be stated explicitly in the caption and text.
  2. [Sec. III.A/III.B] The noninteracting critical imaginary coupling is given as 1.67 in Sec. III.A and 1.69 in Sec. III.B. Please use one consistent value.
  3. [General] Several typographical issues: "To ensue such oscillations" should be "to ensure"; "magnifying evolution" should be "magnified evolution"; and the statement that the transition is determined by both components of γ conflicts with Eq. (12), where only γ_I appears.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

One supporting spectral claim—the preserved zero-energy mode—is partly enforced by omitting the anomalous density to force a gapless BdG spectrum; the central finite-energy hardening, gap, and dynamics are not circular.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II (after Eq. 4, BdG linearization); Abstract; Sec. III.B.2 (quasiparticle mode amplitudes)]
    "In order to obtain the gapless excitation spectrum for the repulsive condensate, the anomalous term is omitted. ... The abstract claims: '...an increase in the quasiparticle energies of dipole (and higher) excitations with DDT in the soliton phase while preserving the zero-energy mode.'"

    The gaplessness is imposed before diagonalization: the anomalous density <φφ> is dropped explicitly 'in order to obtain the gapless excitation spectrum.' The zero-energy mode reported and described as 'preserved' in the soliton phase is therefore partly an input of the BdG approximation, not an independent output. The finite nonzero mode energies, their hardening, the mode gap, and the dynamics remain genuine computed outputs, so the circularity is limited to the zero-mode claim.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained: the D4NLSE, BdG matrix (Eqs. 7-8), dispersion (Eq. 12), and time dynamics are computed from the stated Hamiltonian rather than imported from earlier work. The transition is located independently by ground-state energy/chemical-potential kinks and by mode hardening, so the phase diagram is corroboration rather than a fitted reproduction. Self-citations ([54], [62], [64], [65]) are used only for standard formulas (U, <k_j>_l, spin-orbit analogy, C(k)) and are not load-bearing. The only circular element is the enforced gaplessness discussed above: omitting the anomalous density to obtain a gapless spectrum makes the 'preserved zero-energy mode' partly self-definitional. This does not undermine the finite-energy hardening, the widening mode gap, or the dynamical suppression claims, which are independent outputs. I also flag, as a non-circularity validity limitation per the reviewing rule: Sec. III.A states the BdG matrix 'could be non-Hermitian and non-symmetric' and only says diagonalization is done with LAPACK ZGEEV, with no stated rule for converting possibly complex eigenvalues into the real E_l used in Figs. 2-5 and the ΔE phase diagram. That is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and does not raise the circularity score.

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

The reported results rest on four categories of input the reader does not pay for upstream: (1) the specific complex density-difference hopping form of Eq. (1), inherited from Refs. [19-22]; (2) the Bogoliubov approximation with the anomalous density dropped by hand to enforce gaplessness (Sec. II); (3) the numerical protocols (random-phase Gaussian seeds, ZGEEV, tolerance 1e-6) with a single lattice size L = 110 and no convergence/hysteresis analysis; and (4) an asserted first-order perturbation estimate γ_c = 4.65 with no derivation. No new entities (particles/forces/dimensions) are introduced; the gauge field γ is the existing DDT model. The main hidden degrees of freedom are the unspecified Gaussian width σ and the unspecified Bloch-force magnitude.

free parameters (4)
  • α (three-site variational parameter) = 0.81
    Minimizer of the energy functional Eq. (14); enters E_sol = −0.792γ and the analytic γ_c = 2.53 borrowed from Ref. [20].
  • Harmonic trap strength Ω = 0.001 E_R
    Sets the confinement; weakly breaks lattice translational symmetry and shifts the reported critical gauge couplings (Sec. III.B.1, Fig. 1).
  • Gaussian initial width σ = not stated
    Sec. III.A defines the seed c_j = exp(−j²/2σ²)·random phase but never gives σ; ground states and mode spectra are not exactly reproducible without it.
  • First-order perturbative γ_c at U = 0.05 = 4.65
    Asserted in Sec. III.B.1 as the perturbative estimate 'confirming' the numerics, but no formula is given and it disagrees with the numerical 3.45.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hamiltonian Eq. (1) — complex density-difference-dependent hopping of the form γ(ân_{j+1} − ân_j) — is the correct effective model for laser-assisted hopping.
    Taken from Refs. [19-22]; the entire transition and all quasiparticle results are properties of this specific operator ordering.
  • domain assumption Omission of the anomalous density ⟨φ̃_j φ̃_j⟩ 'in order to obtain the gapless excitation spectrum'.
    Sec. II, after Eq. (3). Makes zero-energy-mode preservation partly an input; standard Bogoliubov practice, but load-bearing for the 'preserving the zero-energy mode' claim.
  • domain assumption Imaginary-time propagation from Gaussian-random-phase seeds converges to the global ground state.
    Sec. III.A: tolerance 1e-6, no hysteresis check despite the transition being first-order.
  • domain assumption Mean-field/BdG validity for N = 100 atoms with U = 0.02–0.05.
    Weakly-interacting limit assumed; thermal and anomalous fluctuations omitted at T = 0.
  • ad hoc to paper The shift of γ_c at U = 0.05 'can be treated as a small perturbation' giving γ_c = 4.65.
    Sec. III.B.1; no derivation shown, and inconsistent with the numerical 3.45 in the same paragraph.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasiparticle modes across soliton transition with density-dependent gauge field in optical lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GNXJSVRD

@misc{pith2026260729309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasiparticle modes across soliton transition with density-dependent gauge field in optical lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GNXJSVRD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29309}
}
read the original abstract

Tunneling of ultracold bosons confined in a one-dimensional optical lattice results in a nontrivial gauge field depending on density-difference between the sites involved. The density dependent tunneling (DDT) causes a first-order quantum phase transition from the Bose-Einstein condensate to the localized soliton. Here, we examine the low-lying quasiparticle mode evolution across the transition in the weakly-interacting limit. To this end, we employ the discrete Bogoliubov theory and dispersion curves to reveal an increase in the quasiparticle energies of dipole (and higher) excitations with DDT in the soliton phase while preserving the zero-energy mode. This is due to the decrease in effective tunneling, resulting in a larger energy cost to move the soliton, and causes faster dipole oscillations. The repulsive on-site atomic interaction further shifts the critical gauge field of DDT to a larger value by stabilizing the lattice soliton. The latter is corroborated by a phase diagram in the complex gauge field plane and mode energy gap of quasiparticles. We further show that the soliton does not exhibit Bloch oscillations as the effective momentum becomes density-dependent and deforms its internal structure. The dynamical response of the trap quench does not excite the width of localized wave-packet, and the breathing oscillations are suppressed. The latter two dynamical properties of the condensate uniquely contrast the soliton state due to the density-dependent gauge field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29309 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The ground state energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The evolution of quasiparticle mode energies for the non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. The discrete BdG quasiparticle dispersion curves corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The evolution of quasiparticle mode energies for the inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The phase diagram in the complex gauge coupling plane, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a,c) The time evolution under perturbation of a constant lin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The time evolution of the momentum space correlation func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references

  1. [20]

    Eckardt, C

    A. Eckardt, C. Weiss, and M. Holthaus, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 260404 (2005)

    2005

  2. [1]

    The number of lattice sites is taken asL= 110

    Ground state energy and chemical potential We first obtain the stationary state for the quasi-1D Bose gas trapped in a lattice potential. The number of lattice sites is taken asL= 110. The single-particle nearest-neighbour hopping is set asJ= 1in the present work. To examine the ground states of the Hamiltonian [Eq. (1)], we analyze the variation in the g...

  3. [2]

    The evolution of the mode energies with real and imaginaryγare shown in Fig

    Quasiparticle mode evolution We now turn to investigate the low-lying quasiparticle modes as a function of gauge coupling. The evolution of the mode energies with real and imaginaryγare shown in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b), respectively. 0 1.5 3 0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 (a) 0 0.5 1 1.2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 0 1.5 3 0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 (b) 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8...

    2023

  4. [3]

    Morsch and M

    O. Morsch and M. Oberthaler, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 179 (2006)

    2006

  5. [4]

    Smerzi and A

    A. Smerzi and A. Trombettoni, Phys. Rev. A68, 023613 (2003)

    2003

  6. [5]

    A. M. Rey,Ultracold bosonic atoms in optical lattices, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park (2004)

    2004

  7. [6]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  8. [7]

    A. Rapp, X. Deng, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 203005 (2012)

    2012

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    Gross and I

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

    2017

  2. [9]

    Schäfer, T

    F. Schäfer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y . Takasu, and Y . Taka- hashi, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 411 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    H. Zhao, J. V ovrosh, F. Mintert, and J. Knolle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 160604 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V . Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Adv. Phys.56, 243 (2007)

    2007

  5. [12]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, and V . Ahufinger,Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices: Simulating Quantum Many-Body Systems (Oxford University Press, 2012)

    2012

  6. [13]

    Zwerger, J

    W. Zwerger, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt.5, S9 (2003)

    2003

  7. [14]

    Greiner, O

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

    2002

  8. [15]

    van Oosten, P

    D. van Oosten, P. van der Straten, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A67, 033606 (2003)

    2003

  9. [16]

    Sengupta and N

    K. Sengupta and N. Dupuis, Phys. Rev. A71, 033629 (2005)

    2005

  10. [17]

    Dupuis and K

    N. Dupuis and K. Sengupta, Phys. B: Condens. Matter404, 517 (2009)

    2009

  11. [18]

    V . A. Kashurnikov, N. V . Prokof’ev, and B. V . Svistunov, Phys. Rev. A66, 031601(R) (2002)

    2002

  12. [19]

    Xie and W

    Z.-W. Xie and W. M. Liu, Phys. Rev. A70, 045602 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Barbiero, C

    L. Barbiero, C. Schweizer, M. Aidelsburger, E. Demler, N. Goldman, and F. Grusdt, Sci. Adv.5, eaav7444 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

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

    2024

  15. [23]

    K.-X. Yao, Z. Zhang, and C. Chin, Nature602, 68 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Greschner, G

    S. Greschner, G. Sun, D. Poletti, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 215303 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Hubbard, Proc

    J. Hubbard, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A276, 238 (1963)

    1963

  18. [26]

    Hirsch, Phys

    J. Hirsch, Phys. C: Supercond. Appl.158, 326 (1989)

    1989

  19. [27]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    D. B. M. Dickerscheid, U. Al Khawaja, D. van Oosten, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A71, 043604 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    Trombettoni and A

    A. Trombettoni and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 2353 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    O. F. Oxtoby and I. V . Barashenkov, Phys. Rev. E76, 036603 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Malomed and M

    B. Malomed and M. I. Weinstein, Phys. Lett. A220, 91 (1996). 10

    1996

  24. [32]

    I. E. Papacharalampous, P. G. Kevrekidis, B. A. Malomed, and D. J. Frantzeskakis, Phys. Rev. E68, 046604 (2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    Carretero-González, J

    R. Carretero-González, J. Talley, C. Chong, and B. Malomed, Phys. D: Nonlinear Phenom.216, 77 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Pankov, J

    A. Pankov, J. Math. Anal. Appl.371, 254 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    P. G. Kevrekidis, B. A. Malomed, and A. R. Bishop, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.34, 9615 (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    Becker, S

    C. Becker, S. Stellmer, P. Soltan-Panahi, S. Dörscher, M. Baumert, E.-M. Richter, J. Kronjäger, K. Bongs, and K. Sen- gstock, Nat. Phys.4, 496 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Flach and A

    S. Flach and A. V . Gorbach, Phys. Rep.467, 1 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    D. Luo, Y . Jin, J. H. V . Nguyen, B. A. Malomed, O. V . Marchukov, V . A. Yurovsky, V . Dunjko, M. Olshanii, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 183902 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Cruickshank, F

    R. Cruickshank, F. Lorenzi, A. La Rooij, E. F. Kerr, T. Hilker, S. Kuhr, L. Salasnich, and E. Haller, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 263404 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Cruickshank, A

    R. Cruickshank, A. La Rooij, E. F. Kerr, T. Hilker, S. Kuhr, and E. Haller, Opt. Express34, 623 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    Burger, K

    S. Burger, K. Bongs, S. Dettmer, W. Ertmer, K. Sengstock, A. Sanpera, G. V . Shlyapnikov, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 5198 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    Di Carli, C

    A. Di Carli, C. D. Colquhoun, G. Henderson, S. Flannigan, G.- L. Oppo, A. J. Daley, S. Kuhr, and E. Haller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 123602 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Khaykovich, F

    L. Khaykovich, F. Schreck, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cubi- zolles, L. D. Carr, Y . Castin, and C. Salomon, Science296, 1290 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, A. G. Truscott, and R. G. Hulet, Nature417, 150 (2002)

    2002

  37. [45]

    D’Ambroise, M

    J. D’Ambroise, M. Salerno, P. G. Kevrekidis, and F. K. Abdul- laev, Phys. Rev. A92, 053621 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    F. K. Abdullaev, P. G. Kevrekidis, and M. Salerno, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 113901 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    G. M. Kavoulakis, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.59, 045301 (2026)

    2026

  40. [48]

    Bogoliubov, J

    N. Bogoliubov, J. Phys. (USSR)11, 23 (1947)

    1947

  41. [49]

    A. M. Rey, K. Burnett, R. Roth, M. Edwards, C. J. Williams, and C. W. Clark, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.36, 825 (2003)

    2003

  42. [50]

    A. L. Fetter, Ann. Phys.70, 67 (1972)

    1972

  43. [51]

    A. R. Kolovsky, H. J. Korsch, and E.-M. Graefe, Phys. Rev. A 80, 023617 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    Morsch, J

    O. Morsch, J. H. Müller, M. Cristiani, D. Ciampini, and E. Ari- mondo, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 140402 (2001)

    2001

  45. [53]

    Salerno, V

    M. Salerno, V . V . Konotop, and Y . V . Bludov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 030405 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Carretero-González and K

    R. Carretero-González and K. Promislow, Phys. Rev. A66, 033610 (2002)

    2002

  47. [55]

    C.-C. Chen, R. González Escudero, J. Miná ˇr, B. Pasquiou, S. Bennetts, and F. Schreck, Nature606, 683 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Suthar, A

    K. Suthar, A. Roy, and D. Angom, Phys. Rev. A91, 043615 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Griffin, Phys

    A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. B53, 9341 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    M. J. Steel, M. K. Olsen, L. I. Plimak, P. D. Drummond, S. M. Tan, M. J. Collett, D. F. Walls, and R. Graham, Phys. Rev. A 58, 4824 (1998)

    1998

  51. [59]

    Anderson, Z

    E. Anderson, Z. Bai, C. Bischof, S. Blackford, J. Demmel, J. Dongarra, J. Du Croz, A. Greenbaum, S. Hammarling, A. McKenney, and D. Sorensen,LAPACK Users’ Guide, 3rd ed. (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 1999)

    1999

  52. [60]

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

    2019

  53. [61]

    Greschner and L

    S. Greschner and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 053002 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Keilmann, S

    T. Keilmann, S. Lanzmich, I. McCulloch, and M. Roncaglia, Nat. Commun.2, 361 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    R. M. Wilson, S. Ronen, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 094501 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    Suthar and D

    K. Suthar and D. Angom, Phys. Rev. A93, 063608 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Y . Li, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 225301 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    Suthar, P

    K. Suthar, P. Kaur, S. Gautam, and D. Angom, Phys. Rev. A 104, 043320 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Suthar and K.-K

    K. Suthar and K.-K. Ng, Phys. Rev. A106, 063313 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Naldesi, J

    P. Naldesi, J. P. Gomez, B. Malomed, M. Olshanii, A. Min- guzzi, and L. Amico, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 053001 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.