Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 97 references

Flux Magnetism in a Strongly Interacting Dipolar Lattice Supersolid under Tunable Gauge Fields

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A density-modulated supersolid in a triangular dipolar ladder orders its plaquette fluxes into ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic patterns, bridging supersolidity and magnetism.

desk verdict A solid DMRG study that finds a plausible new mechanism—supersolid density order producing alternating flux patterns in a triangular ladder—but the experimental platform hangs on an unmeasured anti-magic wavelength. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05058 v3 pith:WJNYF6KA submitted 2025-09-05 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Michele Miotto , Pietro Lombardi , Giovanni Ferioli , Joana Fraxanet , Maciej Lewenstein , Luca Tanzi , Luca Barbiero This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords latticesupersolidfluxmagnetismanti-magicopticaltriangularBose-HubbardladdersyntheticgaugefieldsdipolarquantumgasesDMRGultracolddysprosium
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 proposes a concrete cold-atom experiment in which the density modulation of a supersolid phase acts like a magnetic lattice for the synthetic fluxes carried by the atoms. The setup uses dysprosium atoms in an anti-magic optical lattice, where two Zeeman states sit on sublattices shifted by a quarter wavelength; Raman coupling between them creates a triangular Bose-Hubbard ladder with complex hopping and a tunable gauge field. At unit filling and strong dipolar repulsion, density-matrix renormalization group calculations find a lattice supersolid whose plaquette fluxes are not uniform but ordered: a ferromagnetic pattern at moderate gauge flux, and a ferrimagnetic pattern at stronger flux. If the calculation survives contact with the experiment, this would be a direct bridge between two paradigms of strongly correlated matter, and the proposed detection scheme says how the ordering could be seen in time-of-flight images and current measurements.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the anti-magic optical lattice and the triangular ladder it synthesizes. At an anti-magic wavelength, two Zeeman states of dysprosium experience equal-depth, opposite-sign optical potentials, so their Wannier wavefunctions sit in sublattices displaced by λ/4, about 100 nm. Raman coupling between the states gives a complex nearest-neighbor tunneling J1 e^{iφ} with tunable phase φ, while intra-sublattice motion gives J2; together these form a triangular ladder in a gauge field. The density-matrix renormalization group calculation evaluates the resulting extended Bose-Hubbard model, and the flux order is diagnosed through the plaquette fluxes Φ△m and Φ▽m and the s

What would settle it

Measure, in the proposed anti-magic-lattice ladder, the four link currents at φ/π=0.32 and φ/π=0.6 with U/J1=6, V/J1=4.5, J2/J1=1.7. The ferro-SS and ferri-SS claims require j↗=j↘>0 and either j△→<0<j▽→ with |j△→|>|j▽→| (ferro) or j△→<j▽→<0 with |j△→|>|j▽→| (ferri). Observing instead j△→≈j▽→, zero staggered flux, or the absence of an algebraic single-particle correlation at finite S(π) would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the ground state of the extended triangular Bose-Hubbard ladder at unit filling with strong on-site and dipolar interactions and a tunable gauge field, the density wave of the lattice supersolid phase selects specific current configurations on each triangular plaquette. As a result, the plaquette fluxes order magnetically: for moderate gauge field φ, every triangular plaquette carries positive flux but with alternating magnitudes, Φ△m > Φ▽m > 0, a ferromagnetic flux structure; for larger φ, alternating plaquettes carry opposite signs with the positive flux larger in magnitude, Φ△m > 0 > Φ▽m and |Φ△m| > |Φ▽m|, a ferrimagnetic structure. The same density modulatio

Load-bearing premise

The anti-magic optical lattice must be experimentally realizable with the required parameters, especially the precise anti-magic condition for the two dysprosium Zeeman states near 530.25 nm; the paper itself states that the relevant spectroscopic data are still missing and that the exact configuration requires experimental validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At unit filling in the geometrically frustrated regime, the lattice supersolid appears only when both the next-nearest-neighbor tunneling J2 and the dipolar repulsion V are non-negligible; neither ingredient alone is sufficient.
  • For weak gauge fields the supersolid gives way to a Meissner superfluid with vanishing diagonal currents and equal positive fluxes in both plaquette types; increasing φ restores the supersolid and induces flux order.
  • The ferromagnetic and ferrimagnetic flux patterns are signatures that can be probed with state-resolved time-of-flight imaging, band mapping, and the proposed double-well current measurement, without requiring single-site resolution.
  • The same apparatus should work with erbium as well as dysprosium, and the independent tunability of J1, φ, J2, U, and V allows scanning across the predicted phase diagram.
  • The paper suggests that extending this flux-ordering mechanism to two-dimensional lattices could connect supersolidity with topologically protected phases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the mechanism depends only on a staggered density wave plus complex hoppings, so the same flux ordering should appear in simpler one-dimensional bosonic ladders with nearest-neighbor repulsion and uniform flux; a model study without dipolar tails would isolate the effect.
  • Beyond the paper: if the specific 530.307 nm transition data fail to validate the anti-magic condition, the Hamiltonian could still be reached at another lanthanide resonance or with erbium, since the phase diagram depends only on the parameter ratios U/J1, V/J1, J2/J1, and φ.
  • Beyond the paper: the predicted sign structure of the link currents is a sharp, local observable; an experiment that realizes the same Hamiltonian with laser-assisted tunneling in a conventional lattice could test the flux ordering even without the anti-magic subwavelength geometry.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a concrete ultracold-atom platform—dysprosium atoms in an anti-magic-wavelength one-dimensional optical lattice with Raman-induced synthetic tunneling—that realizes an extended Bose-Hubbard model on a triangular ladder with both long-range dipolar interactions and a tunable gauge field. Using DMRG at unit filling, the authors map out a phase diagram containing Mott, Haldane, density-wave, chiral-superfluid, and lattice-supersolid regimes. The central claim is that, in the supersolid regime, the density modulation together with a finite gauge field produces magnetic ordering of the plaquette fluxes: a ferromagnetic flux pattern with Φ△>Φ▽>0 and a ferrimagnetic pattern with Φ△>0>Φ▽ and |Φ△|>|Φ▽|. A preparation and detection protocol is also described.

Significance. If the result holds, it identifies a new mechanism connecting two central strongly-correlated phenomena—supersolidity and magnetism—in a setting that is, in principle, accessible with current atomic-physics technology. The DMRG analysis is appropriate for the 1D model, and the order parameters used (parity, structure factor, single-particle Green function, fluxes) are directly computed from the ground state rather than imposed by construction. The paper is careful to identify the parameter regime and provides a concrete experimental sequence. The main weakness is that the experimental platform hinges on an anti-magic optical potential for dysprosium whose spectroscopic parameters are, by the authors' own admission, not yet experimentally validated; the central model calculation is not affected by this, but the 'can be experimentally accessed' claim is conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Supplemental Material, 'Anti-magic optical potential'; main text, 'Magnetic Atoms in an anti-magic wavelength optical la] The anti-magic condition (Supplemental Eq. S2) and the claimed range 529.87–530.25 nm are based on theoretically predicted transitions [49,93]. The authors explicitly state that precise spectroscopic data for the 530.307 nm transition are still missing [94] and that the exact anti-magic configuration requires experimental validation. However, the abstract and conclusion claim that the phases 'can be experimentally accessed' and 'realistically achieved', and the concrete working point (s≈13–15, V/J1≈4.5, J2/J1≈1.7, ~40 mW, Γ_sc<1 Hz) is derived from these unmeasured polarizabilities. If the true anti-magic wavelength or lattice depth differs, the proposed experiment may not reach the Ferro-SS/Ferri-SS regime. This does not invalidate the model DMRG calculation, but it makes the experimental headline conditional. Please either provide/perform the missing spectroscopic validation, soften th
  2. [Eq. (1) and Fig. 3] Equation (1) is written with the sum over m from 1 to (L−2)/2 for both the J2 and J1 terms. For an odd chain length L=101, which is what the authors state they use in the DMRG calculations (and in footnote [79] they explicitly say L is odd), (L−2)/2 is not an integer. For an open chain of L sites, the J1 term should run over m=1,...,(L−1)/2 to cover all L−1 nearest-neighbor links, while the J2 term should run over m=1,...,(L−3)/2 to avoid the invalid link (L,L+2). As printed, Eq. (1) does not define the Hamiltonian actually simulated. This is a load-bearing technical issue because the phase diagram, flux averages, and all observables depend on the boundary conditions and the precise hoppings included. Please rewrite Eq. (1) with the correct sums (or explicitly state the modified open-boundary Hamiltonian used) and confirm that the reported results are unchanged under that correction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7) and footnote [79]] The normalization of \barΦ is unusual: the sum has (L−3)/2 terms but is divided by L−3, so it is half the average of (Φ△−Φ▽) per plaquette pair. Please state the normalization convention explicitly, since the numerical value of \barΦ is used to distinguish the Meissner, Ferro-SS, and Ferri-SS regimes.
  2. [Fig. S1] The axis label in panel (a) says 'α(λ)(a.u.)' but the curves appear to show α_s/α_T and possibly α_s or α_T separately. Please clarify what each curve is and match the label with the plotted quantities.
  3. [After Eq. (1)] The sentence 'the generated complex phase has alternate sign between odd and even links and is multiplied by the correspondent index' is confusing. The phase convention is e^{iφ(2m−1)} for one link and e^{−iφ(2m)} for the other; please state this more directly.
  4. [Fig. 2(a)] The caption says stars refer to concrete experimental parameters, but the corresponding values are not given in the caption. Please list the parameters explicitly or refer the reader to the Supplemental Material with a clear equation/figure number.
  5. [DMRG convergence] The text reports maximum bond dimensions χ=800 and χ=1000 but does not quantify convergence (e.g., truncation error or comparison with larger χ). For a paper whose central claim is numerical, a brief convergence statement would strengthen confidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flux ordering is a computed DMRG output, not an input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the ground state of the extended Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) exhibits a lattice supersolid phase whose plaquette fluxes (Eqs. 5-7) order ferromagnetically or ferrimagnetically. The flux operators are standard current combinations defined from the Hamiltonian's hopping operators; the DMRG simulation evaluates their expectation values in the ground state, and the ferro/ferri classification is read off the numerically obtained signs of Phi_triangle_m and Phi_inverted_m (Figs. 3d-f). No parameter is fitted to force these signs, and no equation defines the ordering into existence. The statement that the density modulation 'implies' the asymmetric horizontal currents is supported by the independent current data reported in Supplemental Figs. S6-S7, not by the definition of the order parameters. The experimental feasibility section is conditional on an unmeasured atomic property (the anti-magic wavelength near 530.307 nm), explicitly acknowledged in the Supplemental Material ('precise spectroscopic data... are still missing [94]'); this is a feasibility caveat, not a circular step. Self-citations to previous work (e.g., Refs. [41,42,55,65]) are used for known phase conventions and approximations, and do not constitute the load-bearing derivation of the new flux-magnetism result, which is a numerical output of the present DMRG calculations. Hence no reduction of the target result to its inputs is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the effective Hamiltonian (Eq. 1), the accuracy of the DMRG ground states, and the experimental realizability of the anti-magic lattice. No new particles or forces are introduced. The 'magnetic' ordering is an analogy based on computed flux patterns, not a new physical entity.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The anti-magic optical lattice realizes the effective triangular ladder Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) with the quoted parameter ratios.
    The mapping relies on the tight-binding approximation, the Wannier-function overlap integrals (Eq. S3), and the Raman-coupling geometry described in the supplemental. The exact anti-magic condition at 530 nm still requires experimental validation, as the paper notes.
  • domain assumption The dipolar interaction between atoms in the quasi-1D trap is accurately described by the potential V1D in Eq. (S4), with the dipolar length r* and contact term g1D.
    This potential is used to compute U, V, and J1, J2. If the Gaussian Wannier approximation or the 1D reduction fails, the phase boundaries in Fig. 2 would shift.
  • domain assumption DMRG with bond dimension up to 1000 and chain length L=101 yields the correct ground state and current patterns in the thermodynamic limit.
    The authors state that the current values are robust against changes of chain length, but they do not report truncation-error or finite-size scaling data. The phase boundaries with dashed lines involve slow crossovers that may have larger numerical uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flux Magnetism in a Strongly Interacting Dipolar Lattice Supersolid under Tunable Gauge Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJNYF6KA

@misc{pith2026250905058,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flux Magnetism in a Strongly Interacting Dipolar Lattice Supersolid under Tunable Gauge Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJNYF6KA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05058}
}
read the original abstract

Supersolidity and magnetism are fundamental phenomena characterizing strongly correlated matter. Here we unveil a mechanism that directly connects these two regimes and can be experimentally accessed in ultracold atomic systems. Specifically, we exploit the distinctive properties of magnetic lanthanide atoms trapped in a one-dimensional antimagic wavelength optical lattice. This platform enables a realistic implementation of a triangular Bose-Hubbard ladder featuring two key ingredients: strong long-range interactions and tunable gauge fields. Owing to these properties, our numerical analysis reveals a robust lattice supersolid regime with finite fluxes in each triangular plaquette. Remarkably, we show that the density modulation of the supersolid phase and a finite gauge field induce magnetic ordering of the fluxes, forming ferromagnetic and ferrimagnetic patterns. Our results thus reveal a quantum effect that bridges supersolidity and magnetism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05058 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Two-component gas of Dy trapped in a one dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Phase diagram of the model in Eq. (1) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Behavior of (a) the single particle Green function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [94]

    Bloch, B

    D. Bloch, B. Hofer, S. R. Cohen, M. Lepers, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, Phys. Rev. A110, 033103 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [79]

    Furthermore, the ground state of the lattice SS phase is two-fold degenerate, reflecting the equal probability of having high occupations in even or odd sites

    For a triangular ladder withLsites, the sum of△and▽pla- quettes isL−2. Furthermore, the ground state of the lattice SS phase is two-fold degenerate, reflecting the equal probability of having high occupations in even or odd sites. Since we choseL to be odd in order to lift this degeneracy, we exclude a plaquette in the calculation: this allows us to consi...

    work page

  3. [1]

    D. J. Thouless,The quantum mechanics of many-body systems (Courier Corporation, 2013)

    2013

  4. [2]

    S. M. Girvin and K. Yang,Modern condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  5. [3]

    Lewenstein, A

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

    2007

  6. [4]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, and V . Ahufinger,Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices: Simulating quantum many-body systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012)

    2012

  7. [5]

    Gross and I

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

    2017

  8. [6]

    Goldman, J

    N. Goldman, J. C. Budich, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics12, 639 EP (2016)

    2016

Show all 97 references
  1. [7]

    Arg ¨uello-Luengo, A

    J. Arg ¨uello-Luengo, A. Gonz´alez-Tudela, T. Shi, P. Zoller, and J. I. Cirac, Nature574, 215 (2019)

    2019

  2. [8]

    Zhang, Y .-Q

    D.-W. Zhang, Y .-Q. Zhu, Y . X. Zhao, H. Yan, and S.-L. Z. and, Advances in Physics67, 253 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2019.1594094

    2018

  3. [9]

    Aidelsburger, L

    M. Aidelsburger, L. Barbiero, A. Bermudez, T. Chanda, A. Dauphin, D. Gonz´alez-Cuadra, P. R. Grzybowski, S. Hands, F. Jendrzejewski, J. J ¨unemann, G. Juzeli ¯unas, V . Kasper, A. Piga, S.-J. Ran, M. Rizzi, G. Sierra, L. Tagliacozzo, E. Tir- rito, T. V . Zache, J. Zakrzewski, ...

    2022

  4. [10]

    K. H. J. Buschow and F. R. de Boer,Physics of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, Focus on biotechnology (Springer US, 2003)

    2003

  5. [11]

    Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism, Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics (Springer New York, 2012)

    A. Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism, Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics (Springer New York, 2012)

    2012

  6. [12]

    C. V . Parker, L.-C. Ha, and C. Chin, Nature Physics9, 769 (2013)

    2013

  7. [13]

    Cominotti, A

    R. Cominotti, A. Berti, C. Dulin, C. Rogora, G. Lamporesi, I. Carusotto, A. Recati, A. Zenesini, and G. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. X13, 021037 (2023)

    2023

  8. [14]

    Mazurenko, C

    A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. F. Parsons, M. Kan ´asz- Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Nature545, 462 (2017)

    2017

  9. [15]

    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, Observation of the antiferromagnetic phase transi- tion in the fermionic hubbard model (2024), arXiv:2402.14605 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Lebrat, A

    M. Lebrat, A. Kale, L. H. Kendrick, M. Xu, Y . Gang, A. Nikolaenko, S. Sachdev, and M. Greiner, Ferrimagnetism of ultracold fermions in a multi-band hubbard system (2024), arXiv:2404.17555 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [17]

    G ´oral, L

    K. G ´oral, L. Santos, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 170406 (2002)

    2002

  12. [18]

    Recati and S

    A. Recati and S. Stringari, Nature Reviews Physics5, 735 (2023)

    2023

  13. [19]

    A. F. Andreev and I. M. Lifshitz, Soviet Journal of Experimen- tal and Theoretical Physics29, 1107 (1969)

    1969

  14. [20]

    G. V . Chester, Phys. Rev. A2, 256 (1970). 6

    1970

  15. [21]

    A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 1543 (1970)

    1970

  16. [22]

    J.-R. Li, J. Lee, W. Huang, S. Burchesky, B. Shteynas, F. C ¸ . Top, A. O. Jamison, and W. Ketterle, Nature543, 91 (2017)

    2017

  17. [23]

    L ´eonard, A

    J. L ´eonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger, and T. Don- ner, Nature543, 87 (2017)

    2017

  18. [24]

    C. S. Chisholm, S. Hirthe, V . B. Makhalov, R. Ramos, R. Vatr´e, J. Cabedo, A. Celi, and L. Tarruell, Probing supersolidity through excitations in a spin-orbit-coupled bose-einstein con- densate (2024), arXiv:2412.13861 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024

  19. [25]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe-Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 026401 (2022)

    2022

  20. [26]

    Tanzi, S

    L. Tanzi, S. M. Roccuzzo, E. Lucioni, F. Fam `a, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, G. Modugno, A. Recati, and S. Stringari, Nature 574, 382–385 (2019)

    2019

  21. [27]

    M. Guo, F. B ¨ottcher, J. Hertkorn, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, H. P. B ¨uchler, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Nature574, 386–389 (2019)

    2019

  22. [28]

    Chomaz, D

    L. Chomaz, D. Petter, P. Ilzh ¨ofer, G. Natale, A. Trautmann, C. Politi, G. Durastante, R. M. W. van Bijnen, A. Patschei- der, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. X9, 021012 (2019)

    2019

  23. [29]

    de Paz, A

    A. de Paz, A. Sharma, A. Chotia, E. Mar ´echal, J. H. Huckans, P. Pedri, L. Santos, O. Gorceix, L. Vernac, and B. Laburthe- Tolra, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 185305 (2013)

    2013

  24. [30]

    Baier, M

    S. Baier, M. J. Mark, D. Petter, K. Aikawa, L. Chomaz, Z. Cai, M. Baranov, P. Zoller, and F. Ferlaino, Science352, 201 (2016)

    2016

  25. [31]

    Lepoutre, J

    S. Lepoutre, J. Schachenmayer, L. Gabardos, B. Zhu, B. Nay- lor, E. Mar ´echal, O. Gorceix, A. M. Rey, L. Vernac, and B. Laburthe-Tolra, Nature Communications10, 1714 (2019)

    2019

  26. [32]

    Patscheider, B

    A. Patscheider, B. Zhu, L. Chomaz, D. Petter, S. Baier, A.-M. Rey, F. Ferlaino, and M. J. Mark, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023050 (2020)

    2020

  27. [33]

    L. Su, A. Douglas, M. Szurek, R. Groth, S. F. Ozturk, A. Krahn, A. H. H´ebert, G. A. Phelps, S. Ebadi, S. Dickerson, F. Ferlaino, O. Markovi´c, and M. Greiner, Nature622, 724 (2023)

    2023

  28. [34]

    L. Du, P. Barral, M. Cantara, J. de Hond, Y .-K. Lu, and W. Ket- terle, Science384, 546 (2024)

    2024

  29. [35]

    Y . J. Lin, K. Jim ´enez-Garc´ıa, and I. B. Spielman, Nature471, 83 (2011)

    2011

  30. [36]

    A. Celi, P. Massignan, J. Ruseckas, N. Goldman, I. B. Spiel- man, G. Juzeli ¯unas, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 043001 (2014)

    2014

  31. [37]

    Mancini, G

    M. Mancini, G. Pagano, G. Cappellini, L. Livi, M. Rider, J. Catani, C. Sias, P. Zoller, M. Inguscio, M. Dalmonte, and L. Fallani, Science349, 1510 (2015)

    2015

  32. [38]

    B. K. Stuhl, H.-I. Lu, L. M. Aycock, D. Genkina, and I. B. Spielman, Science349, 1514 (2015)

    2015

  33. [39]

    Struck, M

    J. Struck, M. Weinberg, C. ¨Olschl¨ager, P. Windpassinger, J. Si- monet, K. Sengstock, R. H ¨oppner, P. Hauke, A. Eckardt, M. Lewenstein, and L. Mathey, Nat. Phys.9, 738 (2013)

    2013

  34. [41]

    Halati and T

    C.-M. Halati and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013126 (2023)

    2023

  35. [42]

    Baldelli, C

    N. Baldelli, C. R. Cabrera, S. Juli `a-Farr´e, M. Aidelsburger, and L. Barbiero, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 153401 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    Chanda, L

    T. Chanda, L. Barbiero, M. Lewenstein, M. J. Mark, and J. Za- krzewski, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 044501 (2025)

    2025

  37. [44]

    G. G. Batrouni, R. T. Scalettar, V . G. Rousseau, and B. Gr´emaud, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 265303 (2013)

    2013

  38. [45]

    Y . Li, L. He, and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. A87, 051604 (2013)

    2013

  39. [46]

    Mishra, S

    T. Mishra, S. Greschner, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. A91, 043614 (2015)

    2015

  40. [47]

    Kraus, T

    R. Kraus, T. Chanda, J. Zakrzewski, and G. Morigi, Phys. Rev. B106, 035144 (2022)

    2022

  41. [48]

    See Supplementary material for: a precise derivation of the anti- magic optical lattice condition, tunability of the Hamiltonian parameters, the detection schemes for the quantities defined in the text, characterization of the chiral superfluid phase, calcula- tion of the flux...

  42. [49]

    Li, J.-F

    H. Li, J.-F. Wyart, O. Dulieu, S. Nascimb `ene, and M. Lepers, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 50, 014005 (2016)

    2016

  43. [50]

    J. H. Becher, S. Baier, K. Aikawa, M. Lepers, J.-F. Wyart, O. Dulieu, and F. Ferlaino, Physical Review A97, 012509 (2018)

    2018

  44. [51]

    Chalopin, V

    T. Chalopin, V . Makhalov, C. Bouazza, A. Evrard, A. Barker, M. Lepers, J.-F. m. c. Wyart, O. Dulieu, J. Dalibard, R. Lopes, and S. Nascimbene, Phys. Rev. A98, 040502 (2018)

    2018

  45. [52]

    Bloch, B

    D. Bloch, B. Hofer, S. R. Cohen, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier- Barbut, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 203401 (2023)

    2023

  46. [53]

    Anisimovas, M

    E. Anisimovas, M. Ra ˇci¯unas, C. Str¨ater, A. Eckardt, I. B. Spiel- man, and G. Juzeli¯unas, Phys. Rev. A94, 063632 (2016)

    2016

  47. [54]

    Sohmen, M

    M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, M. Greiner, and F. Ferlaino, SciPost Phys.15, 182 (2023)

    2023

  48. [55]

    Fraxanet, D

    J. Fraxanet, D. Gonz ´alez-Cuadra, T. Pfau, M. Lewenstein, T. Langen, and L. Barbiero, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 043402 (2022)

    2022

  49. [56]

    Lecomte, A

    M. Lecomte, A. Journeaux, J. Veschambre, J. Dalibard, and R. Lopes, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 013402 (2025)

    2025

  50. [57]

    Christakis, J

    L. Christakis, J. S. Rosenberg, R. Raj, S. Chi, A. Morningstar, D. A. Huse, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Nature614, 64 (2023)

    2023

  51. [58]

    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, Science388, 381 (2025), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adq0911

    2025 doi

  52. [59]

    N. Q. Burdick, Y . Tang, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. X6, 031022 (2016)

    2016

  53. [60]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  54. [61]

    Schollw ¨ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw ¨ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  55. [62]

    Eckardt, P

    A. Eckardt, P. Hauke, P. Soltan-Panahi, C. Becker, K. Seng- stock, and M. Lewenstein, EPL89, 10010 (2010)

    2010

  56. [63]

    Cabedo, J

    J. Cabedo, J. Claramunt, J. Mompart, V . Ahufinger, and A. Celi, Eur. Phys. J. D74, 123 (2020)

    2020

  57. [64]

    Singha Roy, L

    S. Singha Roy, L. Carl, and P. Hauke, Phys. Rev. B106, 195158 (2022)

    2022

  58. [65]

    Barbiero, J

    L. Barbiero, J. Cabedo, M. Lewenstein, L. Tarruell, and A. Celi, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L042008 (2023)

    2023

  59. [66]

    Halati and T

    C.-M. Halati and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013199 (2025)

    2025

  60. [67]

    Burba, G

    D. Burba, G. Juzeli ¯unas, I. B. Spielman, and L. Barbiero, Com- munications Physics8, 141 (2025)

    2025

  61. [68]

    E. G. Dalla Torre, E. Berg, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 260401 (2006)

    2006

  62. [69]

    Deng and L

    X. Deng and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. B84, 085138 (2011)

    2011

  63. [70]

    Rossini and R

    D. Rossini and R. Fazio, New Journal of Physics14, 065012 (2012)

    2012

  64. [71]

    Ejima and H

    S. Ejima and H. Fehske, Phys. Rev. B91, 045121 (2015)

    2015

  65. [72]

    Kottmann, P

    K. Kottmann, P. Huembeli, M. Lewenstein, and A. Ac´ın, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 170603 (2020)

    2020

  66. [73]

    E. Berg, E. G. Dalla Torre, T. Giamarchi, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. B77, 245119 (2008)

    2008

  67. [74]

    Endres, M

    M. Endres, M. Cheneau, T. Fukuhara, C. Weitenberg, P. Schauß, C. Gross, L. Mazza, M. C. Ba ˜nuls, L. Pollet, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Science334, 200 (2011)

    2011

  68. [75]

    A. Dhar, M. Maji, T. Mishra, R. V . Pai, S. Mukerjee, and A. Paramekanti, Phys. Rev. A85, 041602 (2012). 7

    2012

  69. [76]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Oxford University Press, 2004)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Oxford University Press, 2004)

    2004

  70. [77]

    Han, X.-F

    W. Han, X.-F. Zhang, D.-S. Wang, H.-F. Jiang, W. Zhang, and S.-G. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 030404 (2018)

    2018

  71. [78]

    O. M. Yevtushenko and A. M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B98, 081118 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    Here we find onlyS(k= 0)̸= 0, consistent with a homoge- neous superfluid

  73. [81]

    Piraud, F

    M. Piraud, F. Heidrich-Meisner, I. P. McCulloch, S. Greschner, T. Vekua, and U. Schollw¨ock, Phys. Rev. B91, 140406 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    Impertro, S

    A. Impertro, S. Huh, S. Karch, J. F. Wienand, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Nature Physics21, 895 (2025)

    2025

  75. [83]

    In the text we selected the configuration favoring high occupa- tion in odd sites, while the opposite one would imply j△→ m < j▽→ m and therefore Φ△→ m < Φ▽→ m

  76. [84]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. H ¨ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  77. [85]

    Impertro, S

    A. Impertro, S. Karch, J. F. Wienand, S. Huh, C. Schweizer, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 063401 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    T.-W. Zhou, G. Cappellini, D. Tusi, L. Franchi, J. Parravicini, C. Repellin, S. Greschner, M. Inguscio, T. Giamarchi, M. Fil- ippone, J. Catani, and L. Fallani, Science381, 427 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.add1969

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    Claude, L

    F. Claude, L. Lafforgue, J. J. A. Houwman, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L042016 (2024)

    2024

  80. [88]

    Douglas, V

    A. Douglas, V . Kaxiras, L. Su, M. Szurek, V . Singh, O. Markovi ´c, and M. Greiner, Spin squeezing with magnetic dipoles (2024), arXiv:2411.07219 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, C

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, C. Trefzger, M. Lewenstein, P. Zoller, and G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 125301 (2010)

    2010

  82. [90]

    Giuliani and G

    G. Giuliani and G. Vignale, Meaning of the highest occu- pied kohn–sham eigenvalue in metals, inQuantum Theory of the Electron Liquid(Cambridge University Press, 2005) p. 717–718

    2005

  83. [91]

    Lepers, J.-F

    M. Lepers, J.-F. Wyart, and O. Dulieu, Phys. Rev. A89, 022505 (2014)

    2014

  84. [92]

    J. H. Becher, S. Baier, K. Aikawa, M. Lepers, J.-F. Wyart, O. Dulieu, and F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. A97, 012509 (2018)

    2018

  85. [93]

    V . A. Dzuba, V . V . Flambaum, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. A83, 032502 (2011)

    2011

  86. [95]

    Pasquiou, E

    B. Pasquiou, E. Mar ´echal, G. Bismut, P. Pedri, L. Vernac, O. Gorceix, and B. Laburthe-Tolra, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 255303 (2011)

    2011

  87. [96]

    N. Q. Burdick, K. Baumann, Y . Tang, M. Lu, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 023201 (2015)

    2015

  88. [97]

    M. Gall, N. Wurz, J. Samland, C. F. Chan, and M. K¨ohl, Nature 589, 40 (2021). SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Anti-magic optical potential In general, the dynamical polarizability of an atom can be decomposed into three different contributions known as scalar, vectorial and tensorial p...

    2021

  89. [98]

    The horizontal dashed line at V /J1 = 3.0represents the cut along which the order parameters are shown in the panels below

    Dashed lines and color gradients signal slow transitions, while solid lines indicate sharp transitions. The horizontal dashed line at V /J1 = 3.0represents the cut along which the order parameters are shown in the panels below. (b) Parity operator in Eq. (2) as a function ofU/...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.