Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Systematic interpolatory ansatz for one-dimensional polaron systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A truncated basis built from the zero- and infinite-repulsion limits of a trapped one-dimensional Fermi polaron reproduces the exact energies and densities at all repulsion strengths when the Hamiltonian is diagonalized in that basis.

desk verdict A genuinely useful generalization of the two-state interpolatory ansatz with solid benchmarks; the main gap is that the g=∞ basis coefficients are underspecified for N>1 and the double well. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02849 v1 pith:GYMBFSMC submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.quant-gas

E. J. Lindgren , R. E. Barfknecht , N. T. Zinner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords Fermipolaronone-dimensionalquantumgascontactinteractionvariationalmethodinterpolatoryansatztrappedultracoldgasesstronginteractionsmomentumdistribution
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 proposes a variational method for a single impurity moving among identical fermions in a one-dimensional trap with a contact repulsion. It builds a truncated basis from the low-energy exact eigenstates at zero coupling and at infinite coupling, orthonormalizes the union, and diagonalizes the Hamiltonian once to obtain energies and observables at any coupling $g$; the diagonalization is exact at the two limits by construction. The central claim is that this interpolation stays accurate across the whole range of repulsions, and the paper supports it with the analytic two-particle harmonic solution and with matrix-product-state numerics for larger systems. If the claim holds, strongly interacting few-body problems that usually need a fresh expensive simulation at every interaction strength can instead be solved from one small, fixed basis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gram–Schmidt-orthonormalized set $\{|\varphi_i\rangle,\,|\chi_\mu\rangle\}$ built from zero-coupling states $|\varphi_i\rangle$ and infinite-coupling eigenstates $|\psi_\mu\rangle$, whose coordinate form is given by Eq. (8) with coefficients $a_\mu$ satisfying the orthogonality conditions of Eq. (7). The overlaps between the two families are evaluated through determinant identities (Appendix A) that convert integrals over ordered spatial regions into derivatives of determinants, which lets the matrix elements of the non-interacting Hamiltonian and the contact interaction be computed recursively. The machinery's job is to feed exact endpoint information into the finite-coupling regime with one basis construction, after which a single numerical diagonalization produces the spectrum and all observables.

What would settle it

Independently compute the double-well $g=1$ and $g=10$ ground-state energies and densities with a method that does not use the paper's infinite-coupling states—for example, a lattice or tensor-network simulation with extrapolation—and compare; deviations larger than the matrix-product-state discrepancies shown in the paper would falsify the claimed accuracy for that geometry. A more direct check is to solve the strong-coupling eigenstate conditions (Eq. (7)) for the double-well trap numerically and compare the resulting coefficients $a_\mu$ with the ones implicit in the paper's basis: a mismatch would show the reported results rest on an unverified input.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the static properties of the trapped one-dimensional Fermi polaron—energies, spatial and momentum densities, and the minority–majority correlation function—can be recovered by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in a finite basis obtained by Gram–Schmidt orthonormalizing the union of low-energy zero-interaction states and low-energy infinite-interaction eigenstates. The construction is exact at $g\to 0$ and $g\to+\infty$ by design, and the paper shows numerically that it remains accurate at intermediate repulsion: relative energy errors near $10^{-10}$ for one majority fermion plus impurity in a harmonic trap, close agreement with matrix-product-state results for two majority fermions in both harmonic and double-well traps, and clearly larger but still reasonable agreement for six majority fermions.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that correct infinite-coupling eigenstates—specifically the coefficients $a_\mu$—are known for the trap being treated; for the double-well calculations the paper does not state how these coefficients were obtained, so those results inherit an unspecified external computation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Energies, spatial and momentum densities, and correlation functions at any repulsion $g$ follow from one basis construction and one diagonalization, so the cost of scanning interaction strengths is negligible once the basis exists.
  • The approach is exact at $g\to 0$ and $g\to+\infty$, so the strong-coupling regime—the hardest for perturbative and many numerical methods—is where the interpolation is most reliable.
  • The same machinery applies to different trap geometries, demonstrated here for a harmonic well and a smooth double well, as long as the infinite-coupling states for that geometry are available.
  • Convergence is very fast for small particle numbers and improves with basis size, but it slows as the number of majority fermions grows, as seen in the 6+1 case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the infinite-coupling coefficients for an arbitrary trap could be supplied by a separate numerical solver, this construction would become a general few-body variational solver whose accuracy is set entirely by the endpoint inputs; the paper leaves that automation implicit.
  • The same interpolation logic should transfer to attractive contact interactions, provided suitable strong-coupling endpoint states are used, so a testable extension is to check the convergence of the method for negative $g$ across the crossover.
  • Because the basis is built once, entire observables such as momentum distributions can be produced pointwise across the crossover at almost no extra cost, which suggests the method could serve as a fast engine for checking sum rules or polaron crossover curves.
  • The worse agreement at 6+1 indicates the selection of which endpoint states to include matters as the particle number grows; an error estimate based on the truncation energy, rather than basis count, would be a concrete way to test and improve that choice.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a variational method for a single impurity interacting through a contact potential with N identical fermions in a one-dimensional trap. The variational basis is constructed from low-energy eigenstates of the noninteracting Hamiltonian and low-energy exact eigenstates at infinite repulsion; the two sets are Gram-Schmidt orthonormalized, and energies, density matrices, momentum distributions, and correlation functions are obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in this basis. The method is benchmarked against the exact two-particle solution in a harmonic trap and against matrix-product-state calculations for 2+1 and 6+1 systems in both harmonic and double-well geometries. The central claim is that this truncated interpolatory basis accurately describes the system at arbitrary finite repulsion while being exact at the zero- and infinite-coupling limits.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method is a valuable and computationally cheap tool for trapped one-dimensional Fermi polarons: it requires a single construction of the basis for all interaction strengths, and it is exact at both limits. The paper's strengths are the detailed derivations of overlaps and density-matrix elements in Section 3.3 and Appendices A and E, the excellent 1+1 benchmark with relative energy errors near 10^-10 at roughly 70 basis states, and the independent MPS comparisons for 2+1 and 6+1. The main weakness is that the infinite-coupling input states are not fully specified for N>1 and for the double-well geometry, which undermines the reproducibility of the strong-coupling results and the claimed exactness at g=∞. With the missing coefficients supplied, the method would constitute a useful contribution to few-body quantum-gas techniques.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2 and §5.2–5.3] The infinite-interaction basis states ψ_μ of Eq. (8) are under-specified for N>1. The coefficient vectors a_μ are constrained only by the orthonormality conditions in Eq. (7), but for the basis to contain the exact strong-coupling eigenstates these vectors must be eigenstates of the trap-dependent spin-chain Hamiltonian. The paper never states how the a_μ are obtained for the harmonic 2+1 and 6+1 calculations, and in particular for the double-well potential of Appendix C. For N=1 the coefficients are given explicitly ([1,−1] in §5.1.1), but for N=2 and N=6 the basis sizes reported in §5.2.1 and §5.3 presuppose definite a_μ that are neither tabulated nor described. The energy cutoff for the infinite-interaction states is also not defined for N>1, since it is not stated whether the spin-chain energy is included. Because every reported energy, density, and correlation function for the 2+1 and 6+1 systems inherits any error in this unspecified input, the central claim of exactness at the infinite-coupling limit is not verifiable for those systems. The authors should provide the a_μ, or a complete algorithm for computing them, for each geometry and particle number, and specify exactly how the basis cutoff is applied.
  2. [§5.1.2 and §5.3] The abstract claims the method describes the system accurately at arbitrary finite repulsion, but for N>1 the independent MPS comparisons are limited to g=1 for the 2+1 system and to g=1 and g=10 for the 6+1 system (Figures 7–13). No independent check is provided at weak coupling or at intermediate coupling where the interpolation error is typically largest, and the 6+1 agreement is visibly worse without a quantified discrepancy. At minimum, the paper should add one or two additional coupling points for the 2+1 or 6+1 system, or explicitly qualify the 'arbitrary finite repulsion' claim as an expectation from the variational construction rather than a demonstrated benchmark.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] There is a typo: 'Gram-Schmidth ortonormalization' should be 'Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization'.
  2. [§5.2.1] The text says the extrapolated MPS value is represented by a black cross, while the caption of Figure 7 says a black star; the figure and caption should be made consistent.
  3. [§5.2.3] The word 'discrepeancy' should be 'discrepancy'.
  4. [Appendix A.1] The sentence containing 'he factor 1/k' contains a typo: 'he' should be 'the'.
  5. [§5.1.1] The notation for the energy cutoff, e.g., 'an energy not greater than 2 (above the lowest energy state)', should be defined once in the main text rather than only in the 1+1 example, because the cutoff is the single convergence parameter of the method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variational energies and densities are genuine finite-g predictions built from independently established g=0 and g=∞ inputs and benchmarked against external analytic and MPS results.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The basis is assembled from the noninteracting eigenstates |φi⟩ and the exact strong-coupling eigenstates |ψμ⟩ of Refs [37,38]; Ref [37] is independent of the present authors, and the input from Ref [38] is a parameter-free published solution whose assumptions do not include the target finite-g results. No parameter is fitted to the energies, densities, momentum distributions, or correlation functions that are later reported as predictions; the only inputs are the single-particle orbitals, the strong-coupling coefficients a_μ, and the interaction strength g, and the outputs are obtained by a fixed Gram-Schmidt construction followed by numerical diagonalization of H0+gV. The finite-g accuracy claim is therefore not true by construction, except at the two endpoints, which the paper states explicitly. The validation is external: the 1+1 harmonic case is compared to the independent Busch et al. analytical two-body solution (Figures 2-6; Eq. (68)), and the 2+1 and 6+1 cases are compared to independent MPS simulations using the OSMPS library (Figures 7-13). Self-citations to Refs [38,45] are present, but Ref [45] is only named as the two-state predecessor of the present multi-state method, and the strong-coupling input is also supported by Ref [37], so the self-citation is not load-bearing. One genuine weakness, flagged as a completeness gap rather than circularity, is that for N>1 and the double-well geometry the coefficients a_μ that define the |ψμ⟩ are never explicitly given (Section 3.2 only imposes Eq. (7)), so the double-well results depend on an unspecified external construction; this affects reproducibility and could affect correctness if the imported coefficients were wrong, but it is not an instance of the paper's predictions reducing to its inputs by definition or by fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no fitted parameters: the central calculation diagonalizes a fixed variational Hamiltonian matrix, and the energy cutoff is a convergence parameter. The g=∞ basis states and their coefficients aµ are imported from Refs. [37,38] (with overlapping authors) and are not re-derived here; for the double-well trap the aµ are never stated, so basis quality rests on an unverified input. Validation is external: the analytic Busch et al. two-particle solution and OSMPS matrix-product-state simulations. The MPS benchmark itself carries a lattice-discretization plus extrapolation assumption (Appendix D) that is standard but not proven.

free parameters (1)
  • Basis energy cutoff E = 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 in the examples
    Chosen by hand to truncate the variational basis (Section 5.1.1). It is a convergence parameter, not fitted to data; convergence is verified by increasing the cutoff (Figures 3, 5, 10).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The g=∞ eigenstates ψµ of Eq. (8) with coefficients aµ satisfying Eq. (7) are exact solutions of the Hamiltonian at infinite repulsion for the harmonic and double-well traps.
    Imported from Refs. [37,38] in Section 3.2; the aµ values for N>1 and for the double well are not given in the paper, so the basis depends on unspecified prior computations.
  • standard math Single-particle eigenstates of the trap potential form a complete basis and energy-cutoff truncation is convergent.
    Used in Section 3.1 to build zero-interaction states; standard completeness of eigenfunctions of a confining 1D potential.
  • domain assumption The Hubbard-model discretization of Appendix D (L=256 sites, U=g/a) plus the fit f(L)=A+B/L+C/L^2 approximates the continuum polaron to the quoted accuracy.
    The independent benchmark on which the MPS comparisons of Section 5 rest; lattice-to-continuum corrections are extrapolated, not proven in this paper.
  • standard math Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization plus exact diagonalization in the truncated space yields variational approximations (upper bounds for the ground state) of the low-lying spectrum.
    Sections 3.4-3.5; requires excluding linearly dependent zero/infinite-interaction states, as noted in Section 5.1.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Systematic interpolatory ansatz for one-dimensional polaron systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYMBFSMC

@misc{pith2026190802849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Systematic interpolatory ansatz for one-dimensional polaron systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYMBFSMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02849}
}
read the original abstract

We explore a new variational principle for studying one-dimensional quantum systems in a trapping potential. We focus on the Fermi polaron problem, where a single distinguishable impurity interacts through a contact potential with a background of identical fermions. We can accurately describe this system at arbitrary finite repulsion by constructing a truncated basis containing states at both the limits of zero and infinite repulsion. We show how to construct this basis and how to obtain energies, density matrices and correlation functions, and provide results both for a harmonic well and a double well for various particle numbers. The results are compared both with matrix product states methods and with the analytical result for two particles in a harmonic well.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The two potentials used in this paper, the harmonic well and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Energies for the lowest six states for the 1+1 system in a harmonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Convergence of the energies in the 1+1 system in a harmonic trap, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Position space density for the ground state for one of the particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detailed comparison between position space density in the 1+1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Momentum distribution of one of the particles in the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energies for the lowest seven states for the 2+1 system computed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Position space density for the ground state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Position space density for the ground state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Integrated difference square of the position space density for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Momentum space density of the ground state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Position space density for the ground state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Position space density for the ground state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    An interpolatory ansatz captures the physics of one- dimensional confined fermi systems,

    M. E. S. Andersen, A. S. Dehkharghani, A. G. Volosniev, E. J. Lindgren, and N. T. Zinner, “An interpolatory ansatz captures the physics of one- dimensional confined fermi systems,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 28362, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases,

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, “Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases,” Nature Physics , vol. 8, pp. 267 EP –, Apr

    work page

  3. [2]

    Quan- tum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms,

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ansch, and I. Bloch,“Quan- tum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms,” Nature, vol. 415, pp. 39 EP –, Jan 2002. Article

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    Transition from a strongly interacting 1D superfluid to a Mott insulator,

    T. St ¨oferle, H. Moritz, C. Schori, M. K¨ohl, and T. Esslinger, “Transition from a strongly interacting 1D superfluid to a Mott insulator,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 92, p. 130403, Mar 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [4]

    Two fermions in a double well: Exploring a fundamen- tal building block of the hubbard model,

    S. Murmann, A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, G. Z ¨urn, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, “Two fermions in a double well: Exploring a fundamen- tal building block of the hubbard model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 114, p. 080402, Feb 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Tonks-Girardeau gas of ul- tracold atoms in an optical lattice,

    B. Paredes, A. Widera, V. Murg, O. Mandel, S. Folling, I. Cirac, G. V. Shlyapnikov, T. W. Hansch, and I. Bloch, “Tonks-Girardeau gas of ul- tracold atoms in an optical lattice,” Nature, vol. 429, pp. 277–281, May 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [6]

    Observation of a one- dimensional Tonks-Girardeau gas,

    T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, “Observation of a one- dimensional Tonks-Girardeau gas,”Science, vol. 305, no. 5687, pp. 1125– 1128, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [7]

    A quantum Newton’s cradle,

    T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss,“A quantum Newton’s cradle,” Nature, vol. 440, pp. 900–903, Apr 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Feshbach resonances in ultracold gases,

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, “Feshbach resonances in ultracold gases,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 82, pp. 1225–1286, Apr 2010

    2010

  2. [9]

    Atomic scattering in the presence of an external con- finement and a gas of impenetrable bosons,

    M. Olshanii, “Atomic scattering in the presence of an external con- finement and a gas of impenetrable bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 81, pp. 938–941, Aug 1998

    1998

  3. [10]

    Confinement-induced resonances in low-dimensional quantum systems,

    E. Haller, M. J. Mark, R. Hart, J. G. Danzl, L. Reichs¨ollner, V. Melezhik, P. Schmelcher, and H.-C. N ¨agerl, “Confinement-induced resonances in low-dimensional quantum systems,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 104, p. 153203, Apr 2010

    2010

  4. [11]

    Fermionization of two distinguishable fermions,

    G. Z ¨urn, F. Serwane, T. Lompe, A. N. Wenz, M. G. Ries, J. E. Bohn, and S. Jochim, “Fermionization of two distinguishable fermions,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 108, p. 075303, Feb 2012

    2012

  5. [12]

    Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, “Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,” Science, vol. 357, no. 6355, pp. 995–1001, 2017. 43

    2017

  6. [13]

    A one- dimensional liquid of fermions with tunable spin,

    G. Pagano, M. Mancini, G. Cappellini, P. Lombardi, F. Sch ¨afer, H. Hu, X.-J. Liu, J. Catani, C. Sias, M. Inguscio, and L. Fallani, “A one- dimensional liquid of fermions with tunable spin,” Nature Physics , vol. 10, pp. 198–201, 3 2014

    2014

  7. [14]

    Visualizing edge states with an atomic bose gas in the quantum hall regime,

    B. K. Stuhl, H.-I. Lu, L. M. Aycock, D. Genkina, and I. B. Spielman, “Visualizing edge states with an atomic bose gas in the quantum hall regime,” Science, vol. 349, no. 6255, pp. 1514–1518, 2015

    2015

  8. [15]

    Observa- tion of chiral edge states with neutral fermions in synthetic Hall ribbons,

    M. Mancini, G. Pagano, G. Cappellini, L. Livi, M. Rider, J. Catani, C. Sias, P. Zoller, M. Inguscio, M. Dalmonte, and L. Fallani, “Observa- tion of chiral edge states with neutral fermions in synthetic Hall ribbons,” Science, vol. 349, no. 6255, pp. 1510–1513, 2015

    2015

  9. [16]

    Resistance Minimum in Dilute Magnetic Alloys,

    J. Kondo, “Resistance Minimum in Dilute Magnetic Alloys,” Progress of Theoretical Physics, vol. 32, pp. 37–49, 07 1964

    1964

  10. [17]

    Infrared catastrophe in fermi gases with local scatter- ing potentials,

    P. W. Anderson, “Infrared catastrophe in fermi gases with local scatter- ing potentials,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 18, pp. 1049–1051, Jun 1967

    1967

  11. [18]

    Quantum dynamics of impurities in a one-dimensional bose gas,

    J. Catani, G. Lamporesi, D. Naik, M. Gring, M. Inguscio, F. Minardi, A. Kantian, and T. Giamarchi, “Quantum dynamics of impurities in a one-dimensional bose gas,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 85, p. 023623, Feb 2012

    2012

  12. [19]

    Motional coherence of fermions immersed in a bose gas,

    R. Scelle, T. Rentrop, A. Trautmann, T. Schuster, and M. K. Oberthaler, “Motional coherence of fermions immersed in a bose gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 111, p. 070401, Aug 2013

    2013

  13. [20]

    Neutral impurities in a bose-einstein con- densate for simulation of the fr ¨ohlich-polaron,

    M. Hohmann, F. Kindermann, B. G ¨anger, T. Lausch, D. Mayer, F. Schmidt, and A. Widera, “Neutral impurities in a bose-einstein con- densate for simulation of the fr ¨ohlich-polaron,” EPJ Quantum Technol- ogy, vol. 2, p. 23, Nov 2015

    2015

  14. [21]

    Bose polarons in the strongly interacting regime,

    M.-G. Hu, M. J. Van de Graaff, D. Kedar, J. P. Corson, E. A. Cornell, and D. S. Jin, “Bose polarons in the strongly interacting regime,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 117, p. 055301, Jul 2016

    2016

  15. [22]

    Observation of attractive and repulsive polarons in a bose-einstein condensate,

    N. B. Jørgensen, L. Wacker, K. T. Skalmstang, M. M. Parish, J. Levin- sen, R. S. Christensen, G. M. Bruun, and J. J. Arlt, “Observation of attractive and repulsive polarons in a bose-einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 117, p. 055302, Jul 2016

    2016

  16. [23]

    Tun- able polarons in bose-einstein condensates,

    E. Compagno, G. De Chiara, D. G. Angelakis, and G. M. Palma, “Tun- able polarons in bose-einstein condensates,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 2355, 2017. 44

    2017

  17. [24]

    Bose polarons in ul- tracold atoms in one dimension: beyond the fr ¨ohlich paradigm,

    F. Grusdt, G. E. Astrakharchik, and E. Demler, “Bose polarons in ul- tracold atoms in one dimension: beyond the fr ¨ohlich paradigm,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 19, p. 103035, oct 2017

    2017

  18. [25]

    Universality of an impurity in a bose-einstein condensate,

    S. M. Yoshida, S. Endo, J. Levinsen, and M. M. Parish, “Universality of an impurity in a bose-einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. X , vol. 8, p. 011024, Feb 2018

    2018

  19. [26]

    Bipolarons in a bose-einstein condensate,

    A. Camacho-Guardian, L. A. Pe˜ na Ardila, T. Pohl, and G. M. Bruun, “Bipolarons in a bose-einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 121, p. 013401, Jul 2018

    2018

  20. [27]

    Coalescence of two impurities in a trapped one-dimensional bose gas,

    A. S. Dehkharghani, A. G. Volosniev, and N. T. Zinner, “Coalescence of two impurities in a trapped one-dimensional bose gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 121, p. 080405, Aug 2018

    2018

  21. [28]

    Ul- trafast many-body interferometry of impurities coupled to a fermi sea,

    M. Cetina, M. Jag, R. S. Lous, I. Fritsche, J. T. M. Walraven, R. Grimm, J. Levinsen, M. M. Parish, R. Schmidt, M. Knap, and E. Demler, “Ul- trafast many-body interferometry of impurities coupled to a fermi sea,” Science, vol. 354, no. 6308, pp. 96–99, 2016

    2016

  22. [29]

    Fermi polaron-polaritons in charge- tunable atomically thin semiconductors,

    M. Sidler, P. Back, O. Cotlet, A. Srivastava, T. Fink, M. Kroner, E. Demler, and A. Imamoglu, “Fermi polaron-polaritons in charge- tunable atomically thin semiconductors,” Nature Physics , vol. 13, pp. 255 EP –, Oct 2016

    2016

  23. [30]

    Repulsive fermi polarons in a resonant mixture of ultracold 6Li atoms,

    F. Scazza, G. Valtolina, P. Massignan, A. Recati, A. Amico, A. Burchi- anti, C. Fort, M. Inguscio, M. Zaccanti, and G. Roati, “Repulsive fermi polarons in a resonant mixture of ultracold 6Li atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 118, p. 083602, Feb 2017

    2017

  24. [31]

    Coherent oscillations in small Fermi-polaron systems,

    M. Tylutki, G. E. Astrakharchik, and A. Recati, “Coherent oscillations in small Fermi-polaron systems,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 96, p. 063603, Dec 2017

    2017

  25. [32]

    Interacting fermions in one dimension. i. repulsive po- tential,

    J. B. McGuire, “Interacting fermions in one dimension. i. repulsive po- tential,” Journal of Mathematical Physics , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 432–439, 1965

    1965

  26. [33]

    Interacting fermions in one dimension. ii. attractive potential,

    J. B. McGuire, “Interacting fermions in one dimension. ii. attractive potential,” Journal of Mathematical Physics , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 123–132, 1966. 45

    1966

  27. [34]

    Zur theorie der metalle,

    H. Bethe, “Zur theorie der metalle,” Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik , vol. 71, pp. 205–226, Mar 1931

    1931

  28. [35]

    Two interacting fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap: Matching the bethe ansatz and varia- tional approaches,

    D. Rubeni, A. Foerster, and I. Roditi, “Two interacting fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap: Matching the bethe ansatz and varia- tional approaches,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 86, p. 043619, Oct 2012

    2012

  29. [36]

    Few interacting fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap,

    T. Sowi´ nski, T. Grass, O. Dutta, and M. Lewenstein, “Few interacting fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 88, p. 033607, Sep 2013

    2013

  30. [37]

    Quantum magnetism without lattices in strongly interacting one- dimensional spinor gases,

    F. Deuretzbacher, D. Becker, J. Bjerlin, S. M. Reimann, and L. San- tos, “Quantum magnetism without lattices in strongly interacting one- dimensional spinor gases,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 90, p. 013611, Jul 2014

    2014

  31. [38]

    Strongly interacting confined quantum systems in one dimension,

    A. G. Volosniev, D. V. Fedorov, A. S. Jensen, M. Valiente, and N. T. Zin- ner, “Strongly interacting confined quantum systems in one dimension,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, pp. 5300 EP –, Nov 2014. Article

    2014

  32. [39]

    Many interacting fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap: a quantum-chemical treatment,

    T. Grining, M. Tomza, M. Lesiuk, M. Przybytek, M. Musia l, P. Massig- nan, M. Lewenstein, and R. Moszynski, “Many interacting fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap: a quantum-chemical treatment,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 17, p. 115001, oct 2015

    2015

  33. [40]

    Two-flavour mixture of a few fermions of different mass in a one-dimensional harmonic trap,

    D. P¸ ecak, M. Gajda, and T. Sowi´ nski, “Two-flavour mixture of a few fermions of different mass in a one-dimensional harmonic trap,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 18, no. 1, p. 013030, 2016

    2016

  34. [41]

    Su( n) fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap,

    E. K. Laird, Z.-Y. Shi, M. M. Parish, and J. Levinsen, “Su( n) fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 96, p. 032701, Sep 2017

    2017

  35. [42]

    Bloch oscillations in the absence of a lattice,

    F. Meinert, M. Knap, E. Kirilov, K. Jag-Lauber, M. B. Zvonarev, E. Demler, and H.-C. N ¨agerl, “Bloch oscillations in the absence of a lattice,” Science, vol. 356, no. 6341, pp. 945–948, 2017

    2017

  36. [43]

    Quantum flutter of supersonic particles in one-dimensional quantum liquids,

    C. J. M. Mathy, M. B. Zvonarev, and E. Demler, “Quantum flutter of supersonic particles in one-dimensional quantum liquids,” Nat Phys, vol. 8, pp. 881–886, Dec 2012

    2012

  37. [44]

    Quantum flutter: Signatures and robustness,

    M. Knap, C. J. M. Mathy, M. Ganahl, M. B. Zvonarev, and E. Demler, “Quantum flutter: Signatures and robustness,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 112, p. 015302, Jan 2014. 46

    2014

  38. [46]

    Two cold atoms in a harmonic trap,

    T. Busch, B.-G. Englert, K. Rza˙ zewski, and M. Wilkens, “Two cold atoms in a harmonic trap,” Foundations of Physics , vol. 28, pp. 549– 559, Apr 1998

    1998

  39. [47]

    Out-of-equilibrium dynamics with matrix product states,

    M. L. Wall and L. D. Carr, “Out-of-equilibrium dynamics with matrix product states,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 125015, 2012. 47

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.