Cluster stability driven by quantum fluctuations

Fabio Cinti

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Cluster stability driven by quantum fluctuations

T0 review · 4 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 Path-integral Monte Carlo shows that two-dimensional bosons with a Lifshitz-Petrich-Gaussian potential form stripes that conduct superfluidity only along their length, and that stronger quantum fluctuations convert the stripes into a…

desk verdict A suggestive PIMC study of the LPG Bose model: the stripe-phase anisotropy is clean, but the cluster supersolid claim rests on finite-size evidence that needs far more support. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02978 v2 pith:MN7YNUCJ submitted 2019-08-08 cond-mat.quant-gas

Fabio Cinti This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gas

keywords supersolidstripephaseLifshitz-Petrich-Gaussianpotentialpath-integralMonteCarlodeBoerparameterquantumfluctuationsclustercrystalbosons

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 simulates a two-dimensional gas of bosons interacting through a Lifshitz-Petrich-Gaussian potential, which classically self-assembles into stripe patterns. It claims that when quantum fluctuations are moderate, the stripes survive but lose global phase coherence: bosons move freely along each stripe and not between stripes, so the superfluid response is nonzero only along the stripe direction. Increasing quantum fluctuations (quantified by the de Boer parameter) lifts the degeneracy between the two minima of the potential's Fourier transform and drives a structural transition to a triangular cluster crystal. The paper argues this crystal is a supersolid because it combines density modulation with a finite, uniform superfluid fraction and exchange cycles spanning the system, before melting into a uniform superfluid at still larger fluctuations.

What carries the argument

The de Boer parameter, $\Lambda = \sqrt{\hbar^2/(m r_0^2 U_0)}$, is the control knob: it compares zero-point kinetic energy with the potential energy scale, so increasing $\Lambda$ means stronger quantum fluctuations. The argument is carried by two estimators: the anisotropic superfluid fraction $f_s^{(i)} = (t/\Lambda^2 \rho r_0^2)\langle w_i^2\rangle$, computed from winding numbers, and the distribution $P(L)$ of bosonic exchange-cycle lengths. The other load-bearing piece is the Fourier transform of the LPG potential, whose two degenerate negative minima encode the competing stripe and cluster periodicities; the paper claims that quantum fluctuations select one minimum and thereby stabilize the triangular cluster crystal.

What would settle it

Run the same path-integral Monte Carlo calculation with 2048 and 4096 particles at $\rho r_0^2 = 0.8$ and $t = 0.03$, starting from both striped and random initial states; if the anisotropic superfluid fraction in the stripe phase or the uniform superfluid fraction in the cluster crystal vanishes with system size, or if the two starting points give different phases, the claimed supersolid is a finite-size or protocol artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the LPG boson model at reduced density $\rho r_0^2 = 0.8$ and temperature $t = 0.03$ realizes three regimes as the de Boer parameter $\Lambda$ grows. For $\Lambda \lesssim 0.5$ the system remains a stripe phase, but the superfluid fraction is anisotropic: $f_s^{(x)} = 0$ and $f_s^{(y)} \neq 0$, meaning each stripe is phase coherent while the array as a whole is not. Near $\Lambda \approx 0.5$ quantum fluctuations remove the double degeneracy of the negative minima in the Fourier transform of the potential, selecting a single modulation wavelength and producing a triangular cluster crystal. In the window $0.5 \lesssim \Lambda \lesssim 0.6$ that crystal has a finite and uniform superfluid fraction along both directions together with long permutation cycles, which the paper takes as the defining features of a supersolid. For $\Lambda \gtrsim 0.6$ the supersolid melts into a uniform superfluid, marked by a sharp drop in kinetic energy.

Load-bearing premise

The findings assume that the patterns seen in simulations of up to 1024 particles at one density and one temperature are true equilibrium phases, not products of the annealing schedule or of the finite box, and that the measured superfluid signals are not finite-size noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $\Lambda \lesssim 0.5$ the stripe phase behaves as an array of independent quasi-superfluid chains, with no global phase coherence and therefore no supersolidity.
Near $\Lambda \approx 0.5$ quantum fluctuations remove the degeneracy of the two Fourier minima, forcing a structural transition from stripes to a triangular cluster crystal.
In the window $0.5 \lesssim \Lambda \lesssim 0.6$ the cluster crystal is a supersolid: it has a finite superfluid fraction in both directions and long permutation cycles across the box.
For $\Lambda \gtrsim 0.6$ the kinetic energy drops sharply and the supersolid melts into a uniform superfluid.
At the temperature studied, the stripe-to-cluster transition is driven by quantum fluctuations and bosonic exchanges rather than by thermal fluctuations.

Reading between the lines

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

If the degeneracy-lifting mechanism is generic, other multi-lengthscale soft-core potentials should also host quantum-fluctuation-driven cluster supersolids; this is a testable extension the paper leaves implicit.
A finite-size scaling study at densities near $\rho r_0^2 = 0.8$ could determine whether the stripe and cluster phases survive in the thermodynamic limit, since the paper uses up to 1024 particles but no extrapolation.
The anisotropic superfluid response of the stripe phase suggests an experimental probe: measuring directional superfluid fraction in a tilted-dipole or Rydberg gas could confirm the quasi-1D chain behavior.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read Cinti's PIMC study of the LPG Bose model. The new bit is the quantum version of the classical stripe phase: for moderate de Boer parameter, the stripes survive and show superfluid response only along the stripe direction. That is a clean, concrete observation, and the paper backs it with winding-number data and permutation cycles. The bigger claim—that at Λ around 0.55 the system is a triangular cluster supersolid—is plausible but not nailed down.

What is done well: the methodology is standard and appropriate (worm-algorithm PIMC, fourth-order Chin action, Pollock–Ceperley estimators), and the classical limit is checked against the known LPG results from Barkan et al. The comparison to dipolar stripe systems is sensible. The paper is honest enough to say the cluster crystal "can be regarded as a supersolid," which is the right kind of hedge for the evidence provided.

The soft spots are exactly where the stress-test note lands. The supersolid phase is identified at one density (ρr0²=0.8), one temperature (t=0.03), with N up to 1024, and no finite-size scaling is shown. A finite winding number in a small box does not prove superfluidity in the thermodynamic limit, especially in 2D where even the existence of a superfluid requires care with quasi-long-range order. The phase boundary between stripe and cluster is drawn from snapshots and g(r), not from an order parameter with scaling. There is also no hysteresis test or mention of equilibration from multiple initial states, so metastable trapping cannot be excluded. For a claim of a new supersolid phase, those are load-bearing gaps, not cosmetic ones.

On the citation pattern: nothing alarming. The self-citations are to relevant prior work on quantum clusters and dipolar stripes, and the potential parameters come from an external classical paper. The simulation directly evaluates the Hamiltonian without fitting, so no circularity issue.

Who is this for? People working on soft-core bosons, supersolids, and quantum cluster phases. They will find the stripe-anisotropy result useful and the supersolid claim worth chasing, but they should read the evidence critically. If the author adds finite-size scaling, density and temperature scans, and equilibration controls, this could become a solid reference. As is, it is a suggestive simulation study that deserves referee attention but not acceptance without revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports continuous-space path-integral Monte Carlo simulations of a two-dimensional Bose gas interacting via the Lifshitz-Petrich-Gaussian (LPG) pair potential of Barkan et al. At fixed reduced density ρr0^2=0.8 and reduced temperature t=0.03, and for de Boer parameter Λ between 0 and 1, the author identifies three regimes: a stripe phase for Λ≲0.5 with superfluid response only along the stripe direction; a triangular cluster crystal for 0.5≲Λ≲0.6 with a finite uniform superfluid fraction and long permutation cycles, which is interpreted as a supersolid; and a superfluid phase for Λ≳0.6. The central claims are that quantum fluctuations stabilize the cluster solid by removing the degeneracy of the potential's Fourier minima, and that the cluster phase satisfies the criteria for supersolidity.

Significance. If the phase assignments are correct, the paper provides a concrete continuum model in which quantum fluctuations drive a transition from an anisotropic stripe fluid to a cluster supersolid, connecting soft-matter LPG physics with quantum many-body physics. The methodology is generally appropriate: the worm-algorithm PIMC directly samples the Hamiltonian (2), the superfluid estimator (5) is standard, the classical Λ=0 limit is checked against the known LPG stripe phase, and the phase labels are not obtained by fitting a theory to the target phases. The main weakness is that the thermodynamic status of the claimed phases rests on a narrow simulation database: one density, one temperature, N up to 1024, no finite-size scaling, and no explicit equilibration or hysteresis tests. The finite winding-number response and long permutation cycles shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are suggestive but do not, by themselves, establish a thermodynamic supersolid phase in two dimensions at finite temperature.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Figs. 4-5, Eq. (5)] The supersolid designation rests on a finite uniform winding-number response and long permutation cycles at N≤1024, but no N-dependence of these quantities is reported. In a two-dimensional finite box, a nonzero winding number and a percolating permutation cycle can occur even when off-diagonal quasi-long-range order is absent in the thermodynamic limit. The author should show f_s^(x) and f_s^(y), as well as the permutation-cycle distribution P(L), for N=256, 512, and 1024, and preferably perform a finite-size extrapolation. Without this, the distinction between a stable supersolid and a finite-size percolation artifact is not established.
[Section II, Methodology] The preparation protocol for the quantum PIMC runs is not described. The annealing schedule is specified only for the classical Λ=0 system; for finite Λ the text does not state whether independent runs were initialized from disordered, stripe, and cluster configurations and whether they converged to the same equilibrium values. Without such a check, the 'stable' stripe and cluster phases could be metastable states trapped by the annealing path. A hysteresis test, i.e., heating and cooling across the Λ≈0.5 and Λ≈0.6 transitions, would address this concern directly.
[Section III, Figs. 2-3] The stripe-to-cluster structural transition is located by visual inspection of snapshots and by changes in the radial distribution function, without a quantitative order parameter or finite-size scaling of that order parameter. A structure-factor amplitude or a translational/bond-orientational order parameter with N-dependence would make the transition boundaries (Λ≈0.5 and Λ≈0.6) reproducible and would separate genuine ordering from finite-size modulated configurations. As written, the transition location is stated rather than demonstrated.
[Section III, Discussion] The statement that the cluster crystal 'can be regarded as a supersolid' is a definitional assumption rather than a demonstrated coexistence of diagonal and off-diagonal order. In two dimensions at finite temperature, a finite superfluid fraction computed from Eq. (5) does not by itself imply superfluidity in the thermodynamic limit. The author should either provide the finite-size analysis requested above or explicitly moderate the supersolid claim to 'a cluster crystal with finite-system superfluid response and long exchange cycles,' which is what the presented data actually support.

minor comments (5)

[Section II, Eq. (1)] The parameters σ and C_i of the LPG potential are said to be taken from Ref. [13] but are not listed; providing their numerical values is necessary for reproducibility.
[Section III, Fig. 5] Figure 5 has no error bars and does not state the system size used for each point; the author should report N and the statistical uncertainty for each value of Λ.
[Section II, Eq. (4)] The denominator in Eq. (4) is typeset ambiguously; it should be clear that the factor is 1/(2πρr0^2(N−1)r) with a closing parenthesis in the denominator.
[Section II] The text says the worm algorithm allows 'exact thermodynamics properties' of the bosonic system; PIMC results are exact only in the limit of zero time step and sufficient sampling, so a brief statement of the time-step convergence test would be appropriate.
[Throughout] There are several typos and grammar errors, including 'tow-body' (should be 'two-body'), 'contest' (should be 'context'), 'exits' (should be 'exists'), 'absences' (should be 'absence'), and 'reaﬃrm' (should be 'reaffirm').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase identification is a direct PIMC evaluation of Eq. (2) with standard estimators, not a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by continuous-space PIMC simulations that directly evaluate the Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) with the LPG pair potential Eq. (1). The potential parameters are taken from the external classical work of Barkan et al. [13], not fitted to the target phases. The superfluid fraction is computed with the standard Pollock-Ceperley winding-number estimator in Eq. (5), and the structural distinction between stripe, cluster, and superfluid phases is made from g(r), snapshots, and permutation-cycle histograms. None of these observables is defined in terms of the claimed conclusions. The stripe-phase result (f_s^x = 0, f_s^y != 0) is a direct measurement, not a parameterization; the cluster supersolid identification applies an external definition (density modulation plus finite uniform superfluid response) to measured quantities. The self-citations to Refs. [17], [21], [23], and [42] provide context and comparison, but the phase assignments do not reduce to those references: the data in Figs. 2-5 stand independently. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. Finite-size and protocol concerns (single density, single temperature, no N-scaling or hysteresis test) are correctness and robustness risks, not circularity, because they do not make the output equivalent to the input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

None of the results are derived from a fitted analytic theory; the free parameters are model or choice parameters imported or chosen. The paper contributes PIMC evidence at one thermodynamic point, not a closed-form theory. No original entities are introduced; the only interpretive step is assigning the word 'supersolid' to a finite-size modulated superfluid.

free parameters (4)

LPG potential parameters (sigma, C0 through C8) = from Ref [13]; not quoted
This potential shape, with two equal-depth Fourier minima at commensurate ratio 2, is what selects the stripe phase and drives the quantum transition. The paper imports the values without listing them.
Reduced density ρr0^2 = 0.8
Set to reproduce the classical stripe phase from Ref [13]; no quantum density scan is reported, so the phase diagram is established at this density only.
Reduced temperature t = 0.03
A single low temperature is used; thermal effects on the stripe and supersolid boundaries are not explored.
De Boer parameter Λ = scanned 0 to 1
This is the quantum-fluctuation control variable, not fitted, but all phase assignments and the location of the transition depend on the chosen scan.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption PIMC with the worm algorithm provides exact finite-temperature thermodynamics for the bosonic Hamiltonian (2).
The entire phase classification relies on the correctness of the worm-algorithm sampling and the fourth-order Chin factorization for this smooth potential.
domain assumption The annealed classical Monte Carlo reaches the equilibrium stripe state, and the PIMC runs inherit that reference state without hysteresis.
The paper uses a gradual cooling schedule and assumes the resulting stripe or crystal structures are equilibrium phases; no hysteresis or history dependence is shown.
domain assumption The external LPG parameters from Ref [13] produce the intended two-minimum Fourier structure and stable stripe phase.
The potential coefficients are not given in this paper; the stripe and supersolid results depend on those values.
domain assumption A finite superfluid fraction and long permutation cycles in a finite 2D system at t=0.03 are sufficient to identify a supersolid phase.
No finite-size scaling or off-diagonal long-range order diagnostic is presented; the supersolid label is an interpretation of the estimators.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cluster stability driven by quantum fluctuations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MN7YNUCJ

@misc{pith2026190802978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cluster stability driven by quantum fluctuations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MN7YNUCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02978}
}

read the original abstract

By means of an accurate path-integral Monte Carlo we investigate a two-dimensional ensemble of particles interacting via a Lifshitz-Petrich-Gaussian potential. In particular, analysing structures described by a commensurate ratio between the two wave numbers that mark the pattern, the Lifshitz-Petrich-Gaussian boson model may display a stable and well-defined stripe phase lacking any global phase coherence but featuring a superfluid signal along the stripe direction only. Upon increasing quantum fluctuations and quantum-mechanical exchange of bosons, the double-degeneration of the negative minima in the Fourier transform of the potential is removed at the expense of a density modulation peculiar to a cluster triangular crystal. We also show that this last structure possess all features adhering to the definition of a supersolid phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02978 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Color online. Radial distribution function g(r) for Λ = 0 (grey line), Λ = 0.32 (black line), Λ = 0.45 (red line), Λ = 0.55 (blue line) and Λ = 0.77 (green line). Structural properties of the stripe phase are analysed by means of the radial distribution function g(r), which in the PIMC formalism reads g(r) = 1 2πρr2 0 (N − 1)r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Color online. PIMC’s density distribution in real space of three snapshot configurations increasing Λ: (a) stripe phase, (b) supersolid phase and (c) superfluid phase (see text). RESULTS We begin with examining the stability of the stripe patterns increasing Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Color online. Frequency of exchange cycles of length L (1 ≤ L ≤ N) in the stripe phase (red histogram), in which the superfluidity results finite along the stripe direction only, and supersolid phase (blue histogram), in which the superfluidity is uniformly finite thr…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Color online. Superfluid fraction f (i) s , i = x, y, as a function of the de Boer parameter along the stripes direction (in this work f (y) s , black square) and orthogonally (f (x) s , red square) to them. global superfluid response is observed. Not only long exchan…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Sciortino, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi” 193, 1 (2016)

F. Sciortino, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi” 193, 1 (2016)

work page 2016
[2]

Boninsegni and N

M. Boninsegni and N. V. Prokof’ev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 759 (2012)

2012
[3]

C. N. Likos, A. Lang, M. Watzlawek, and H. L¨ owen, Phys. Rev. E 63, 031206 (2001)

2001
[4]

H. Shin, G. M. Grason, and C. D. Santangelo, Soft Mat- ter 5, 3629 (2009)

work page 2009
[5]

C. N. Likos, Physics Reports 348, 267 (2001)

work page 2001
[6]

C. N. Likos, H. L¨ owen, M. Watzlawek, B. Abbas, O. Jucknischke, J. Allgaier, and D. Richter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4450 (1998)

work page 1998
[7]

Delfau, H

J.-B. Delfau, H. Ollivier, C. L´ opez, B. Blasius, and E. Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. E94, 042120 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

M. A. Glaser, G. M. Grason, R. D. Kamien, A. Koˇ smrlj, C. D. Santangelo, and P. Ziherl, Europhysics Letters (EPL) 78, 46004 (2007)

work page 2007

Show all 53 references

[9]

Fornleitner and G

J. Fornleitner and G. Kahl, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 22, 104118 (2010)

2010
[10]

B. A. Lindquist, R. B. Jadrich, and T. M. Truskett, Soft Matter 12, 2663 (2016)

2016
[11]

M. B. Sweatman and L. Lue, Advanced Theory and Sim- ulations 2, 1900025 (2019)

2019
[12]

Dotera, T

T. Dotera, T. Oshiro, and P. Ziherl, Nature 506, 208 (2014)

2014
[13]

Barkan, M

K. Barkan, M. Engel, and R. Lifshitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 098304 (2014)

2014
[14]

Swift and P

J. Swift and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. A 15, 319 (1977)

1977
[15]

Lifshitz and D

R. Lifshitz and D. M. Petrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1261 (1997)

1997
[16]

Henkel, R

N. Henkel, R. Nath, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 195302 (2010)

2010
[17]

Cinti, T

F. Cinti, T. Macr` ı, W. Lechner, G. Pupillo, and T. Pohl, Nature Communications 5, 3235 EP (2014)

2014
[18]

Henkel, F

N. Henkel, F. Cinti, P. Jain, G. Pupillo, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 265301 (2012)

2012
[19]

Labuhn, D

H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Macr` ı, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Nature 534, 667 (2016)

2016
[20]

Zeiher, R

J. Zeiher, R. van Bijnen, P. Schauß, S. Hild, J. yoon Choi, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Nature Physics 12, 1095 (2016)

2016
[21]

Cinti, M

F. Cinti, M. Boninsegni, and T. Pohl, New Journal of Physics 16, 033038 (2014)

2014
[22]

M. O. Goerbig, P. Lederer, and C. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. B 69, 115327 (2004)

2004
[23]

Quantum cluster quasicrystals,

G. Pupillo, P. Ziherl, and F. Cinti, “Quantum cluster quasicrystals,” (2019), arXiv:1905.12073

2019 arXiv
[24]

Masella, A

G. Masella, A. Angelone, F. Mezzacapo, G. Pupillo, and N. V. Prokof’ev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 045301 (2019)

2019
[25]

M. Y. Kagan, Modern trends in Superconductivity and Superﬂuidity (Springer, Dordrecht, 2013)

2013
[26]

M. B. Sevryuk, J. P. Toennies, and D. M. Ceperley, The Journal of Chemical Physics 133, 064505 (2010)

2010
[27]

D. M. Ceperley, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 279 (1995)

1995
[28]

Krauth, Statistical Mechanics: Algorithms and Com- putations, Oxford Master Series in Physics (Oxford Uni- versity Press, UK, 2006)

W. Krauth, Statistical Mechanics: Algorithms and Com- putations, Oxford Master Series in Physics (Oxford Uni- versity Press, UK, 2006)

2006
[29]

Boninsegni, N

M. Boninsegni, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. E 74, 036701 (2006)

2006
[30]

Cinti, P

F. Cinti, P. Jain, M. Boninsegni, A. Micheli, P. Zoller, and G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 135301 (2010)

2010
[31]

Cinti, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 182, 153 (2015)

F. Cinti, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 182, 153 (2015)

2015
[32]

Cinti, D.-W

F. Cinti, D.-W. Wang, and M. Boninsegni, Phys. Rev. A 95, 023622 (2017)

2017
[33]

Lechner, F

W. Lechner, F. Cinti, and G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. A 92, 053625 (2015)

2015
[34]

Boninsegni, N

M. Boninsegni, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Phys. 7 Rev. Lett. 96, 070601 (2006)

2006
[35]

S. A. Chin, Physics Letters A 226, 344 (1997)

1997
[36]

M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley, Computer Simulation of Liquids (Oxford University Press, 2017)

2017
[37]

S. Jang, S. Jang, and G. A. Voth, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics 115, 7832 (2001)

2001
[38]

Chaikin, T

P. Chaikin, T. Lubensky, and T. Witten, Principles of condensed matter physics, Vol. 1 (Cambridge Univ Press, 2000)

2000
[39]

E. L. Pollock and D. M. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. B 36, 8343 (1987)

1987
[40]

A. J. Leggett, Quantum liquids Bose condensation and Cooper pairing in condensed-matter systems (Oxford University Press, 2006)

2006
[41]

P. Jain, F. Cinti, and M. Boninsegni, Phys. Rev. B 84, 014534 (2011)

2011
[42]

Cinti and M

F. Cinti and M. Boninsegni, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 196, 413 (2019)

2019
[43]

B¨ ottcher, J.-N

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

2019
[44]

Wenzel, F

M. Wenzel, F. B¨ ottcher, T. Langen, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. A 96, 053630 (2017)

2017
[45]

Tanzi, E

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

2019
[46]

Chomaz, D

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

2019
[47]

Cinti and M

F. Cinti and M. Boninsegni, Phys. Rev. A 96, 013627 (2017)

2017
[48]

Cinti, A

F. Cinti, A. Cappellaro, L. Salasnich, and T. Macr` ı, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 215302 (2017)

2017
[49]

Kora and M

Y. Kora and M. Boninsegni, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 197, 337 (2019)

2019
[50]

Zhang, F

Y.-C. Zhang, F. Maucher, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 015301 (2019)

2019
[51]

Gopalakrishnan, I

S. Gopalakrishnan, I. Martin, and E. A. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185304 (2013)

2013
[52]

J. Hou, H. Hu, K. Sun, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 060407 (2018)

2018
[53]

Viebahn, M

K. Viebahn, M. Sbroscia, E. Carter, J.-C. Yu, and U. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 110404 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Sciortino, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi” 193, 1 (2016)

F. Sciortino, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi” 193, 1 (2016)

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Boninsegni and N

M. Boninsegni and N. V. Prokof’ev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 759 (2012)

2012

[3] [3]

C. N. Likos, A. Lang, M. Watzlawek, and H. L¨ owen, Phys. Rev. E 63, 031206 (2001)

2001

[4] [4]

H. Shin, G. M. Grason, and C. D. Santangelo, Soft Mat- ter 5, 3629 (2009)

work page 2009

[5] [5]

C. N. Likos, Physics Reports 348, 267 (2001)

work page 2001

[6] [6]

C. N. Likos, H. L¨ owen, M. Watzlawek, B. Abbas, O. Jucknischke, J. Allgaier, and D. Richter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4450 (1998)

work page 1998

[7] [7]

Delfau, H

J.-B. Delfau, H. Ollivier, C. L´ opez, B. Blasius, and E. Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, Phys. Rev. E94, 042120 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

M. A. Glaser, G. M. Grason, R. D. Kamien, A. Koˇ smrlj, C. D. Santangelo, and P. Ziherl, Europhysics Letters (EPL) 78, 46004 (2007)

work page 2007