Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Lattice Bose polarons at strong coupling and quantum criticality

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A mobile impurity in a Bose-Hubbard bath develops a new ground-state polaron branch and a cusped energy exactly at the Mott-insulator-to-superfluid quantum phase transition.

desk verdict A serious and mostly convincing strong-coupling framework for lattice Bose polarons near the MI-SF critical point, with the least-tested claims being the sharp integer-filling cusp and the new polaron branch. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07597 v1 pith:Y3KRHPIW submitted 2024-12-10 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph

Ragheed Alhyder , Victor E. Colussi , Matija Čufar , Joachim Brand , Alessio Recati , Georg M. Bruun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords BosepolaronBose-HubbardmodelquantumGutzwillermethodMottinsulatorsuperfluidcriticalityladderapproximationMonteCarlo
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 aims to show that a mobile impurity immersed in a Bose-Hubbard bath can be described through the Mott-insulator-to-superfluid quantum phase transition, even when both the bath correlations and the impurity-bath coupling are strong. The proposed theory combines a quantum Gutzwiller description of the bosons with a ladder resummation of impurity-boson scattering to infinite order, so the impurity dresses itself with the bath's elementary modes: gapped particle-hole pairs in the Mott phase and Higgs plus gapless Goldstone modes in the superfluid. The central prediction is that at the O(2) critical point for unit filling one polaron branch develops a sharp cusp in energy and a new ground-state polaron appears, with smoothed versions of these features away from integer filling. Quantitative agreement with full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo indicates the method captures the strongly correlated regime.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a generalized ladder approximation built on the quantum Gutzwiller (QGW) description of the Bose-Hubbard bath. The bath fluctuations are quantized canonically and truncated at quadratic order, giving a set of bosonic modes $\omega_{\lambda,k}$; expanding the impurity-bath interaction in these fluctuations yields vertices $U,V,W$ for processes that create, destroy, or scatter one or two excitations. The central object is the in-medium scattering matrix $\Gamma^{\lambda\lambda'}_{ij}$ satisfying coupled Bethe-Salpeter equations (Eq. (14)); resumming scattering events to infinite order through these equations, and feeding the resulting $\Gamma$ into the impurity self-energy, captures strong two-body correlations and impurity-boson (and impurity-hole) bound states in the Mott and critical regimes. The relevant bath modes change from gapped particle-hole excitations to gapless Goldstone and Higgs modes, and the non-analytic tradeoff between the vertices at the transition produces the predicted cusp.

What would settle it

An exact numerical calculation (for example, density-matrix renormalization group in a cylinder geometry or a sign-problem-free quantum Monte Carlo with larger system sizes) of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) at unit filling with $U_{IB}/U=\pm 1.5$ should show the ground-state polaron energy develop a cusp at $4t/U=(\sqrt{2}-1)^2$ and a new ground-state branch emerge there; absence of these features would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the lattice Bose polaron at strong coupling acquires its structure from the bath's changing elementary excitations across the MI-SF transition. In the Mott insulator the impurity is dressed by gapped particle-hole excitations; on the superfluid side it is dressed by gapless Goldstone and gapped Higgs modes, and at the O(2) transition both modes are gapless. This mode change produces several polaron branches, and at integer filling the ground-state polaron energy exhibits a cusp while a new, spectrally fainter ground-state polaron emerges from dressing by the gapless modes. The features persist in rounded form for fillings slightly away from unity because the Mott character of the bath ('Mottness') is inherited across the transition. The same diagrammatic ladder reproduces the polaron ground-state energy obtained from full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo across the transition, including the smeared cusp.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation assumes that treating the bosonic bath's quantum fluctuations only up to second order around the Gutzwiller state remains accurate at the quantum critical point; the paper itself notes in App. A1 and footnote 90 that the control function grows away from the transition in two dimensions and that the Gutzwiller ansatz has infinite off-diagonal long-range order, so accuracy is expected to degrade deep in the superfluid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At integer filling and strong coupling the spectral function shows a cusp in the ground-state polaron energy exactly at the O(2) transition, and a new ground-state polaron branch appears there.
  • Away from integer filling the cusp and new branch survive in smoothed form, so the signatures are observable in slightly doped systems.
  • The same ladder resummation removes the orthogonality catastrophe found in second-order perturbation theory for non-integer filling as $t/U\to 0$, yielding finite polaron energies.
  • Because strong interactions form impurity-boson dimers for $U_{IB}/U\lesssim -1$ and impurity-hole bound states for $U_{IB}/U\gtrsim 1$, experiments with a fixed particle number cannot reach the Mott phase at strong coupling; a grand-canonical reservoir is needed to see the integer-filling features.
  • The agreement with full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo for the polaron ground-state energy establishes the ladder-resummed QGW approach as a valid benchmark tool for strongly correlated polaron problems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test whether the cusp sharpens into a critical singularity with universal O(2) exponents by scaling the distance from the transition and the filling offset; the rounded 'Mottness' features away from unit filling should collapse onto a scaling function.
  • Since the ladder only sums two-body impurity-boson correlations, the extreme attractive limit $U_{IB}/U\to -\infty$ is a natural stress test: a calculation including three-body and higher correlations should show the polaron energy deviating below the ladder result as a macroscopic boson cluster forms.
  • The sharp polaron features could be used as a local thermometer for the Higgs-mode gap: tracking the cusp position across the transition gives a direct readout of the mode softening at the O(2) point.
  • In a finite lattice at fixed particle number, the impurity-hole and impurity-boson bound states shift the effective filling by $\pm 1/M$, so the thermodynamic-limit distinction between canonical and grand-canonical ensembles may survive even as $M\to\infty$; the paper leaves the fate of this distinction open.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a diagrammatic field-theoretic framework for a single mobile impurity immersed in a two-dimensional Bose-Hubbard bath near the O(2) Mott-insulator-to-superfluid quantum phase transition. The bath is treated at the quantum-Gutzwiller (QGW) level, truncated to quadratic fluctuations, and the impurity-bath interaction is resummed in a generalized Bethe-Salpeter ladder approximation with a mean-field-shifted impurity dispersion. The authors predict several polaron branches, including a sharp energy cusp and a new low-spectral-weight ground-state polaron at integer filling at the critical point, and they compare polaron ground-state energies with full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) calculations. After rescaling the QMC hopping by a fixed factor tc/tQMC=0.7179 and adjusting the filling to 0.99/1.01 for strong coupling, the comparison shows excellent quantitative agreement for the ground-state polaron energy. The paper also discusses differences between canonical and grand-canonical ensembles and proposes polaron spectroscopy as a quantum-sensing tool.

Significance. If the predictions hold, the paper provides a tractable semi-analytic framework for strong-coupling polaron physics in a strongly correlated lattice bath, going beyond Fröhlich-type and Bogoliubov-based treatments. A notable strength is the independent FCIQMC benchmark: no QMC polaron energies are used as input, and the two comparison adjustments (fixed critical-point hopping rescaling and physically motivated filling shifts) are transparent rather than fitted to the target energies. The use of the open-source Rimu.jl package and the detailed appendices also support reproducibility. The main caveat is that the headline spectral features—the sharp cusp and the new polaron branch at integer filling—are not directly tested by the QMC data, since the QMC comparison is limited to ground-state energies at adjusted fillings in the strong-coupling regime. The central physical claim is therefore plausible and partially benchmarked, but not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B and Sec. IV C (Figs. 6 and 7)] The central claims of a sharp cusp and an emergent ground-state polaron at integer filling are not covered by the QMC benchmark. The QMC comparison for |UIB/U| >= 1 is performed at adjusted fillings n=0.99 and n=1.01 because, as the paper itself explains in Sec. IV C and App. B4, the canonical QMC system is driven out of the Mott phase by bound-state formation. The QMC results therefore validate a smeared cusp at non-integer filling and only the ground-state energy, not the spectral weight or existence of the new low-weight branch. The integer-filling cusp and new branch remain purely QGW predictions in a regime where the approximation is least controlled. I would like to see either a direct test of these spectral features (for example, small-system exact diagonalization or a reservoir/chemical-potential QMC variant) or a clear statement in the abstract and conclusions that these are predictions that the present QMC data do not yet validate.
  2. [Sec. III A 4 and App. A 7 (Fig. 13)] The mean-field-shift replacement epsilon_q -> epsilon_q + UIB<n> is the key approximation that removes the spurious bound-state remnants seen after one self-consistent iteration, but its validation in Fig. 13 is shown only at one deep-superfluid point (4t/U=0.2154). The O(2) critical point itself (4t/U=0.1723), where the new-branch and cusp claims are made, is not tested in this way. Because the ladder contains impurity-boson bound-state poles in exactly the coupling range |UIB/U| >= 1 used for the central claims, and because the one-iteration self-consistency is documented to produce artificial low-energy spectral lines, additional sensitivity checks at the critical point are needed: for example, varying the number of self-consistency iterations, the mode cutoff Nband, the Fock cutoff NFock, or the infinitesimal eta, and showing that the cusp and new branch are stable against these choices. Without such a check, the possibility that the headline features are remnants of the same artifact documented in App. A7 cannot be ruled out.
  3. [Sec. III A and App. A 1] The quadratic truncation of the QGW bath is uncontrolled in part of the regime used in the paper. App. A1 states that the control function F grows away from the transition in two dimensions because the Gutzwiller mean-field ansatz describes the condensate order parameter incorrectly, and the superfluid-side points 2 and 3 (4t/U=0.1723 and 0.2154) lie in this region. Since all ladder diagrams and hence the polaron energies and spectral functions inherit this truncation, the paper should quantify the sensitivity of the central predictions to the fluctuation-order truncation, for instance by comparing the QGW bath spectral functions near the O(2) point with QMC correlation functions or by estimating the size of neglected higher-order fluctuation terms. The existing citation of prior QGW work supports the method's broad accuracy, but it does not specifically certify the cusp and the new branch at the critical point.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II] In Sec. II the text refers to 'Fig. III A 1(a)' but the intended reference is Fig. 1(a); please correct this cross-reference.
  2. [Sec. IV A 3] The sentence 'which has been have been observed experimentally' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'which has been observed experimentally'.
  3. [App. A 5] The heading 'General Bethe-Salpeter equation' appears to contain a typo in the text: 'Bethe-Salpter' should be 'Bethe-Salpeter'.
  4. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption writes 'M = 62 and M = 102'; the intended notation appears to be 6^2 and 10^2, which would be clearer as 'M = 6²' and 'M = 10²'.
  5. [Eq. (15)] Equation (15) writes G(q,z) = 1/(z - ε_q - Σ(q,ω)), but the self-energy should be a function of the complex frequency z before analytic continuation; using Σ(q,ω) in the Green's function expression is notationally inconsistent.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract lists 'PACS numbers:' but no PACS numbers are provided; either supply them or remove the placeholder.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polaron quantities are computed from the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian via the QGW ladder and are benchmarked against independent QMC, not fitted into existence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The bath is defined by the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian (Eq. 1); the QGW expansion (Eq. 2), vertices (Eq. 5), Bethe-Salpeter equations (Eq. 14), and self-energy (Eqs. A11-A13) are computed from that Hamiltonian plus the stated quadratic truncation, and the polaron energies are obtained by solving Ek = eps_k + Re Sigma(k,Ek). Nothing in these equations is defined in terms of the target polaron energies, and no polaron result is fed back as an input. The QMC comparison is genuinely independent: full configuration interaction QMC estimates ground-state energies from the Hamiltonian in a canonical ensemble without using the QGW polarons, and the only adjustments in the comparison (the hopping rescaling 0.7179 to align the O(2) critical points and the filling shifts to 0.99/1.01 motivated by dimer and hole bound-state formation) are fixed by phase-diagram and bound-state considerations rather than fitted to the benchmarked energies. Self-citations to Refs. [25-28,32] supply the QGW methodology and prior accuracy checks, but the present comparison to QMC provides independent external support, so these citations are not load-bearing in the prohibited sense. The caveats in App. A1 (the control function F grows away from the transition) and App. A7 (spurious remnants in the n=1 self-consistent iteration) are accuracy and validation concerns, not circularity; the headline cusp and new branch are unbenchmarked but they are derived quantities rather than inputs. No circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the QGW bath approximation, the sufficiency of the ladder resummation, and a comparison protocol that requires a critical-point rescaling and filling shifts. No new fundamental entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen numerical constant in the comparison is the hopping rescaling factor, which is fixed by critical-point alignment rather than by fitting polaron energies.

free parameters (1)
  • critical-point rescaling factor tc/tQMC = 0.7179
    Used to align the O(2) critical points of QGW and QMC in the comparison (Sec. IV C, Figs. 6-7). It is not fitted to polaron energies, but it is a chosen calibration constant that affects the reported agreement.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Bose-Hubbard model is the correct description of the physical system.
    The entire analysis starts from Eq. (1) with tunneling t, interaction U, and impurity coupling UIB; this is standard for ultracold bosons in optical lattices.
  • domain assumption The quantum Gutzwiller bath, truncated to quadratic order in fluctuations, accurately describes the bath excitations in the quantum critical regime.
    Invoked in Sec. III A and Eq. (2). The paper relies on prior work [26,27,32] for the accuracy of this approximation, but it remains a load-bearing premise for all vertex functions and mode dispersions.
  • domain assumption A single impurity does not significantly alter the bath in the thermodynamic limit, so bare bath Green's functions can be used.
    Stated in Sec. III A 4: 'since there is only one impurity, we assume that the bath is essentially unaffected in the thermodynamic limit.' This justifies the non-self-consistent treatment of the bath.
  • domain assumption The generalized ladder resummation of a selected class of diagrams captures the dominant strong-coupling impurity-bath correlations.
    The Bethe-Salpeter equations (Eq. (14)) and self-energy (Fig. 2c) resum only two-body impurity-boson scattering; the authors note this fails for UIB/U to negative infinity where N-body bound states form (Sec. IV C).
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing the bare impurity dispersion in the Bethe-Salpeter equations by the mean-field shifted dispersion epsilon_q + UIB<n> is sufficient to capture self-consistency effects.
    Described in Sec. III A 4 and App. A7 as a minimal back-action implementation, chosen because full self-consistent iteration was numerically prohibitive.
  • ad hoc to paper The QMC hopping parameter can be rescaled by a fixed factor to align the critical points of the QGW mean-field theory and the exact QMC simulation.
    Used in Secs. IV B and IV C (tc/tQMC = 0.7179) to compare QGW and QMC. This assumes a simple constant rescaling maps the non-universal part of the critical point while preserving the universal physics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lattice Bose polarons at strong coupling and quantum criticality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y3KRHPIW

@misc{pith2026241207597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lattice Bose polarons at strong coupling and quantum criticality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y3KRHPIW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07597}
}
abstract

We develop a new theoretical framework for exploring a mobile impurity interacting strongly with a highly correlated bath of bosons in the quantum critical regime of a Mott insulator (MI) to superfluid (SF) quantum phase transition. Our framework is based on a powerful quantum Gutzwiller (QGW) description of the bosonic bath combined with diagrammatic field theory for the impurity-bath interactions. By resumming a selected class of diagrams to infinite order, a rich picture emerges where the impurity is dressed by the fundamental modes of the bath, which change character from gapped particle-hole excitations in the MI to Higgs and gapless Goldstone modes in the SF. This gives rise to the existence of several quasiparticle (polaron) branches with properties reflecting the strongly correlated environment. In particular, one polaron branch exhibits a sharp cusp in its energy, while a new ground-state polaron emerges at the $O(2)$ quantum phase transition point for integer filling, which reflects the nonanalytic behavior at the transition and the appearance of the Goldstone mode in the SF phase. Smooth versions of these features are inherited in the polaron spectrum away from integer filling because of the varying ``Mottness" of the bosonic bath. We furthermore compare our diagrammatic results with quantum Monte Carlo calculations, obtaining excellent agreement. This accuracy is quite remarkable for such a highly non-trivial case of strong interactions between the impurity and bosons in a maximally correlated quantum critical regime, and it establishes the utility of our framework. Finally, our results show how impurities can be used as quantum sensors and highlight fundamental differences between experiments performed at a fixed particle number or a fixed chemical potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Phase diagram of repulsively interacting bosons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) The different impurity-boson interaction processes given by Eqs.(6)-(13). Solid blue lines denote the impurity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The energy of such a dimer state is approximately [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Impurity spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Impurity spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Impurity spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Impurity spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Magnitude of the interaction vertices across the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Loop diagram contribution to the impurity self [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Single-excitation impurity scattering continua along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: In-medium scattering matrix evaluated for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Diagrammatic representation of the general Bethe-Salpeter equation. In the zero temperature limit, the expression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Impurity spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Examples of the application of the extrapolation procedure. The solid line is the fitted curve (Eq. (B8)) and the dots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Disappearance of the charge gap for strong impurity-boson interaction. The plot panes (a-f) show the values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Counterflow of lattice polarons in harmonically confined optical lattices

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a trapped 1D lattice, a single repulsive impurity in a Mott-insulator bath forms a correlated counterflow state with a combined unity-filling profile and slowly decaying anti-pair correlations.

  2. Quantum impurities in finite-temperature Bose gases: Detecting vortex proliferation across the BKT and BEC transitions

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A repulsively coupled impurity in a finite-temperature Bose gas develops an attractive spectral line when it binds to vortices and density holes, providing a potential local probe of vortex proliferation across the BK...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    ex- citonic

    Mott Insulating bath We first consider the case where the bosons are in the MI phase taking 4 t/U = 0 .1292 corresponding to the point labeled 1○ in Fig. 1. In this regime, the Gutzwiller mean-field ground state is an incompressible Fock state, and the only allowed excitations in the bath are gapped particle and hole excitations, which must occur in pairs...

  2. [2]

    Mottness

    Critical bath – O(2) point We now turn our attention to the intriguing and chal- lenging region in the vicinity of the O(2) transition where the bosonic bath is highly correlated. This transition oc- curs for µ/U = √ 2 − 1 and 4 t/U = ( √ 2 − 1)2 in the mean-field Gutzwiller calculation [57]. As the O(2) point is approached from the MI phase, the gap of i...

  3. [3]

    wedding cake

    Superfluid bath We now explore the spectral properties of the impu- rity deeper in the superfluid phase at unit filling taking 4t/U = 0.2154 corresponding to the point labeled 3○ in Fig. 1(a). The corresponding QGW results for the im- purity spectral function as a function of the interaction strength UIB are shown in Fig. 4(c). First, we note that the wea...

    2007

  4. [4]

    Technically, this can be seen from the fact that the bare impurity energy εp appears in the denominators of Eq

    Self-consistency So far, the internal impurity Green’s functions in our diagrams have been non-interacting (bare), which cor- responds to assuming a non-interacting impurity in the scattering processes. Technically, this can be seen from the fact that the bare impurity energy εp appears in the denominators of Eq. (14), which therefore describe the pair pr...

  5. [5]

    Background In this section, we provide further details on the QGW method relevant to this work (c.f. Refs. [26–28, 32]). The QGW method is based on the canonical quantization of the Lagrangian L[c, c∗] = ΨG i ℏ ∂t − ˆHB ΨG = i ℏ 2 X r,n [c∗ n(r) ˙cn(r) − c.c.] + J X ⟨r,s⟩ [ψ∗(r) ψ(s) + c.c.] − X r,n Hn |cn(r)|2 , (A1) where Hn = U n(n − 1) /2 − µ n. The L...

  6. [6]

    (5), which set the bare interaction strengths for the processes shown in Fig

    V ertices across the O(2) transition In this section, we provide additional information about the two-particle vertices given in Eq. (5), which set the bare interaction strengths for the processes shown in Fig. 2(a). In general, these vertices have non-trivial mo- mentum and mode dependence, particularly across the O(2) transition where many processes det...

  7. [7]

    2(c) and discussed in Sec

    Explicit expressions for the self-energy In this section, we provide explicit expressions for the zero-temperature self-energy diagrams shown in Fig. 2(c) and discussed in Sec. III A 3. From this figure, we find five distinct contributions to the self-energy Σ(k, ω) = 2X i,j=1 Σ00 ij (k, ω) + X λ>0 Σλλ 22 (k, ω). (A11) The first four contributions follow ...

  8. [8]

    Finite-size effects FIG. 11: In-medium scattering matrix evaluated for µ/U = 0.4142 and 4 t/U = 0 .1723 for system sizes (a) M = 6 2 and (b) M = 10 2, corresponding to the superfluid edge of the O(2) transition. The zero-momentum components of the in- medium scattering matrix are shown for simplicity, which de- scribes scattering between the impurity and ...

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    General Bethe-Salpeter equation For completeness, we give the Bethe-Salpter equation at finite temperatures in Fig. 12. This equation can be written self consistency using a matrix notation: Γ(P, p, p′) = V(p, p′) + V(p, p′) Π(P, p1) Γ(P, p, p1) (A14) where Γ and V are indicat...

  2. [10]

    (14)) in the NSC approximation

    Solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation In this section, we detail the numerical method uti- lized to solve the Bethe-Salpeter equation (Eq. (14)) in the NSC approximation. As discussed in Sec. III A 2, Γ11 and Γ 12 can be obtained by matrix inversion, with the remaining elements ...

  3. [11]

    Self-consistent approximations In this section, we discuss the implementation of the self-consistent (SC) approximation within the QGW method discussed in Sec. III A 4. Because the vertices and multi-band excitation spectrum are calculated nu- merically in the QGW method, the ...

  4. [12]

    (1) as a matrix in the basis of Fock states (here for a single species of bosons) |n⟩ = |n1, n2,

    Matrix representation of the Hamiltonian To be able to apply the full configuration interaction QMC algorithm, we start by representing the Hamilto- nian of Eq. (1) as a matrix in the basis of Fock states (here for a single species of bosons) |n⟩ = |n1, n2, . . . , nM ⟩ = MY i...

  5. [13]

    Importance sampling is a similarity transform applied to the Hamiltonian H ˜H = ΦHΦ−1 , (B4) where Φ is the diagonal matrix with elements taken from a guiding vector ϕ Φn,n = ϕn

    Importance sampling To reduce the noise and population control bias in full configuration interaction QMC, we apply importance sampling [53–55]. Importance sampling is a similarity transform applied to the Hamiltonian H ˜H = ΦHΦ−1 , (B4) where Φ is the diagonal matrix with ele...

  6. [14]

    First, we optimize the impor- tance sampling parameter p on a 3×3 lattice by minimiz- ing the variational energy of the guiding vector

    Computation parameters and extrapolation We compute the energies presented in this paper using the following procedure. First, we optimize the impor- tance sampling parameter p on a 3×3 lattice by minimiz- ing the variational energy of the guiding vector. We can do this since,...

  7. [15]

    The charge gap is defined as ∆Ec = 1 2 (EN =M +1 − EN =M −1 − 2EN =M ) , (B9) where EN is the energy of the ground state withM lattice sites and N bosons in the bath

    The charge gap To verify that a strongly interacting impurity disturbs the bath and prevents it from entering the MI phase, we compute the charge gap for different values of the impu- rity strengths UIB as a function of the hopping strength t. The charge gap is defined as ∆Ec ...

  8. [16]

    Baym and C

    G. Baym and C. Pethick, Landau Fermi-Liquid Theory: Concepts and Applications (Wiley, Weinheim, Germany, 2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Landau and S

    L. Landau and S. Pekar, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 18, 419 (1948)

    1948

  10. [18]

    Landau, Jetp 5, 101 (1957)

    L. Landau, Jetp 5, 101 (1957)

    1957

  11. [19]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics (Plenum, 2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems (Dover Publications, 2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    Abrikosov, L

    A. Abrikosov, L. Gorkov, I. Dzyaloshinski, and R. Sil- verman, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, 2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Massignan, M

    P. Massignan, M. Zaccanti, and G. M. Bruun, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 034401 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Impurities and polarons in bosonic quantum gases: a review on recent progress,

    F. Grusdt, N. Mostaan, E. Demler, and L. A. P. Ardila, “Impurities and polarons in bosonic quantum gases: a review on recent progress,” (2024), arXiv:2410.09413 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Pierce, X

    M. Pierce, X. Leyronas, and F. Chevy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 080403 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Amelio, Phys

    I. Amelio, Phys. Rev. B 107, 104519 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Alhyder and G

    R. Alhyder and G. M. Bruun, Phys. Rev. A 105, 063303 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    H. Hu, J. Wang, J. Zhou, and X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023317 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Santiago Garcia, S

    M. Santiago Garcia, S. Castillo Lopez, and A. Camacho, New Journal of Physics (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Po- larons in supersolids: path-integral treatment of an im- purity in a one-dimensional dipolar supersolid,

    L. H. A. Simons, M. Wouters, and J. Tempere, “Po- larons in supersolids: path-integral treatment of an im- purity in a one-dimensional dipolar supersolid,” (2024), arXiv:2407.03505 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    M. Yang, M. ˇCufar, E. Pahl, and J. Brand, Condensed Matter 7, 15 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    A. K. Sorout, S. Sarkar, and S. Gangadharaiah, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 415604 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Chiral polaron forma- tion on the edge of topological quantum matter,

    A. Vashisht, I. Amelio, L. Vanderstraeten, G. M. Bruun, O. K. Diessel, and N. Goldman, “Chiral polaron forma- tion on the edge of topological quantum matter,” (2024), arXiv:2407.19093 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Grusdt, N

    F. Grusdt, N. Y. Yao, D. Abanin, M. Fleischhauer, and E. Demler, Nature Communications 7, 11994 (2016)

    2016

  26. [35]

    Baldelli, B

    N. Baldelli, B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, U. Bhattacharya, M. Lewen- stein, and T. Graß, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035133 (2021)

    2021

  27. [36]

    Mu˜ noz de las Heras, E

    A. Mu˜ noz de las Heras, E. Macaluso, and I. Carusotto, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041058 (2020)

    2020

  28. [37]

    Polaron forma- tion in insulators and the key role of hole scattering pro- cesses: Band insulators, charge density waves and mott transition,

    I. Amelio, G. Mazza, and N. Goldman, “Polaron forma- tion in insulators and the key role of hole scattering pro- cesses: Band insulators, charge density waves and mott transition,” (2024), arXiv:2408.01377 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions , 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions , 2nd ed. (Cam- bridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  30. [39]

    Punk and S

    M. Punk and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033618 (2013)

    2013

  31. [40]

    V. E. Colussi, F. Caleffi, C. Menotti, and A. Recati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 173002 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    Caleffi, Quantum fluctuations beyond the Gutzwiller approximation in the Bose-Hubbard model (Master’s the- sis, University of Trento, 2018)

    F. Caleffi, Quantum fluctuations beyond the Gutzwiller approximation in the Bose-Hubbard model (Master’s the- sis, University of Trento, 2018)

    2018

  33. [42]

    V. E. Colussi, F. Caleffi, C. Menotti, and A. Recati, SciPost Phys. 12, 111 (2022)

    2022

  34. [43]

    Caleffi, M

    F. Caleffi, M. Capone, I. de Vega, and A. Recati, New Journal of Physics 23, 033018 (2021)

    2021

  35. [44]

    K. V. Krutitsky, Physics Reports 607, 1 (2016), ultracold bosons with short-range interaction in regular optical lat- tices

    2016

  36. [45]

    Blaizot and G

    J.-P. Blaizot and G. Ripka, Quantum theory of finite sys- tems (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985)

    1985

  37. [46]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Photons and atoms: introduction to quantum electrody- namics (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Wein- heim, Germany, 1997)

    1997

  38. [47]

    Caleffi, M

    F. Caleffi, M. Capone, C. Menotti, I. Carusotto, and A. Recati, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033276 (2020)

    2020

  39. [48]

    Di Liberto, A

    M. Di Liberto, A. Recati, N. Trivedi, I. Carusotto, and C. Menotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 073201 (2018)

    2018

  40. [49]

    Altman and A

    E. Altman and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 250404 (2002)

    2002

  41. [50]

    S. D. Huber, B. Theiler, E. Altman, and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 050404 (2008)

    2008

  42. [51]

    S. D. Huber, E. Altman, H. P. B¨ uchler, and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. B 75, 085106 (2007)

    2007

  43. [52]

    N. H. Lindner and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. B 81, 054512 (2010)

    2010

  44. [53]

    Wu, H.-d

    C. Wu, H.-d. Chen, J.-p. Hu, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 69, 043609 (2004)

    2004

  45. [54]

    K. V. Krutitsky, J. Larson, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A 82, 033618 (2010)

    2010

  46. [55]

    S. Ding, G. A. Dom ´ ınguez-Castro, A. Julku, A. Camacho-Guardian, and G. M. Bruun, SciPost Phys. 14, 143 (2023)

    2023

  47. [56]

    Castin, in Coherent atomic matter waves , edited by R

    Y. Castin, in Coherent atomic matter waves , edited by R. Kaiser, C. Westbrook, and F. David (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001) pp. 1–136

    2001

  48. [57]

    S. P. Rath and R. Schmidt, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 88, 053632 (2013), arXiv:1308.3457

    2013 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Fr¨ ohlich, Advances in Physics 3, 325 (1954), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018735400101213

    H. Fr¨ ohlich, Advances in Physics 3, 325 (1954), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018735400101213

    1954 doi

  50. [59]

    R. S. Christensen, J. Levinsen, and G. M. Bruun, Physical Review Letters 115 (2015), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.115.160401, arXiv:1503.06979

    2015 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Haussmann, W

    R. Haussmann, W. Rantner, S. Cerrito, and W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. A 75, 023610 (2007)

    2007

  52. [61]

    Van Houcke, F

    K. Van Houcke, F. Werner, E. Kozik, N. Prokof’ev, B. Svistunov, M. Ku, A. Sommer, L. Cheuk, A. Schi- rotzek, and M. Zwierlein, Nature Physics 8, 366 (2012)

    2012

  53. [62]

    P. Dyke, S. Musolino, H. Kurkjian, D. J. M. Ahmed- Braun, A. Pennings, I. Herrera, S. Hoinka, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, V. E. Colussi, and C. J. Vale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 223402 (2024)

    2024

  54. [63]

    G. H. Booth, A. J. W. Thom, and A. Alavi, J. Chem. Phys. 131, 054106 (2009)

    2009

  55. [64]

    M. Yang, E. Pahl, and J. Brand, The Journal of Chem- 23 ical Physics 153, 174103 (2020)

    2020

  56. [65]

    Cerf and O

    N. Cerf and O. C. Martin, Phys. Rev. E 51, 3679 (1995)

    1995

  57. [66]

    Boninsegni and S

    M. Boninsegni and S. Moroni, Phys. Rev. E 86, 056712 (2012)

    2012

  58. [67]

    Brand, M

    J. Brand, M. Yang, and E. Pahl, Phys. Rev. B 105, 235144 (2022)

    2022

  59. [68]

    C. J. Umrigar, M. P. Nightingale, and K. J. Runge, The Journal of Chemical Physics 99, 2865 (1993)

    1993

  60. [69]

    E. M. Inack, G. E. Santoro, L. Dell’Anna, and S. Pilati, Physical Review B 98, 235145 (2018), arXiv:1809.03562

    2018 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Ghanem, N

    K. Ghanem, N. Liebermann, and A. Alavi, Phys. Rev. B 103, 155135 (2021)

    2021

  62. [71]

    Rimu.jl, version v0.13.0,

    J. Brand, M. ˇCufar, M. Yang, C. Bradly, and E. Pahl, “Rimu.jl, version v0.13.0,” (2024), available at https: //github.com/RimuQMC/Rimu.jl

    2024

  63. [72]

    K. V. Krutitsky and P. Navez, Phys. Rev. A 84, 033602 (2011)

    2011

  64. [73]

    Giamarchi and O

    T. Giamarchi and O. U. Press, Quantum Physics in One Dimension, International Series of Monogr (Clarendon Press, 2004)

    2004

  65. [74]

    Winkler, G

    K. Winkler, G. Thalhammer, F. Lang, R. Grimm, J. Hecker Denschlag, A. Daley, A. Kantian, H. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Nature 441, 853 (2006)

    2006

  66. [75]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, i

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, i. m. c. G. m. c. S¨ oyler, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. A 77, 015602 (2008)

    2008

  67. [76]

    Guenther, R

    N.-E. Guenther, R. Schmidt, G. M. Bruun, V. Gurarie, and P. Massignan, Phys. Rev. A 103, 013317 (2021)

    2021

  68. [77]

    Pustogow, Y

    A. Pustogow, Y. Saito, A. L¨ ohle, M. Sanz Alonso, A. Kawamoto, V. Dobrosavljevi´ c, M. Dressel, and S. Fratini, Nature Communications 12, 1571 (2021)

    2021

  69. [78]

    Camacho-Guardian, N

    A. Camacho-Guardian, N. Goldman, P. Massignan, and G. M. Bruun, Phys. Rev. B 99, 081105 (2019)

    2019

  70. [79]

    Pimenov, A

    D. Pimenov, A. Camacho-Guardian, N. Goldman, P. Massignan, G. M. Bruun, and M. Goldstein, Phys. Rev. B 103, 245106 (2021)

    2021

  71. [80]

    Klein, M

    A. Klein, M. Bruderer, S. R. Clark, and D. Jaksch, New Journal of Physics 9, 411 (2007)

    2007

  72. [81]

    H. T. Ng and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A 78, 023610 (2008)

    2008

  73. [82]

    Mehboudi, A

    M. Mehboudi, A. Sanpera, and L. A. Correa, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 303001 (2019)

    2019

  74. [83]

    M. T. Mitchison, T. Fogarty, G. Guarnieri, S. Campbell, T. Busch, and J. Goold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 080402 (2020)

    2020

  75. [84]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature 415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  76. [85]

    Massignan and G

    P. Massignan and G. Bruun, The European Physical Journal D 65, 83 (2011)

    2011

  77. [86]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, Nature 462, 74 (2009)

    2009

  78. [87]

    J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Nature 467, 68 (2010)

    2010

  79. [88]

    K. F. Mak and J. Shan, Nature Nanotechnology 17, 686 (2022)

    2022

  80. [89]

    Sidler, P

    M. Sidler, P. Back, O. Cotlet, A. Srivastava, T. Fink, M. Kroner, E. Demler, and A. Imamoglu, Nature Physics 13, 255 (2017)

    2017

  81. [90]

    Camacho-Guardian and G

    A. Camacho-Guardian and G. M. Bruun, Physical Re- view X 8, 31042 (2018), arXiv:1712.06931

    2018 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Camacho-Guardian, L

    A. Camacho-Guardian, L. A. Pe˜ na Ardila, T. Pohl, and G. M. Bruun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 013401 (2018)

    2018

  83. [92]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, M

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, M. Guglielmino, and V. Penna, Laser Physics 21, 1443 (2011)

    2011

  84. [93]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science 357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  85. [94]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  86. [95]

    Massignan, M

    P. Massignan, M. Zaccanti, and G. M. Bruun, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 34401 (2014)

    2014

  87. [96]

    Hecker Denschlag and A

    J. Hecker Denschlag and A. Daley, in Ultra-cold Fermi Gases (IOS Press, 2007) pp. 677–696

    2007

  88. [97]

    Sabzevari and S

    I. Sabzevari and S. Sharma, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 14, 6276 (2018)

    2018

  89. [98]

    Flyvbjerg and H

    H. Flyvbjerg and H. G. Petersen, The Journal of Chemical Physics 91, 461 (1989), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/91/1/461/18981401/461 1 online.pdf

    1989

  90. [99]

    Jonsson, Physical Review E 98, 043304 (2018)

    M. Jonsson, Physical Review E 98, 043304 (2018)

    2018

  91. [100]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 40, 546 (1989)

    1989

  92. [101]

    Pitaevskii and S

    L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensa- tion (Clarendon Press, 2003)

    2003

  93. [102]

    It is known as commensurate- incommensurate phase transition and is essentially a vac- uum to matter Bose-Einstein condensation [23]

    At non-integer filling the phase transition is due to a filling change. It is known as commensurate- incommensurate phase transition and is essentially a vac- uum to matter Bose-Einstein condensation [23]

  94. [103]

    We have defined these separately, as the underlying physics determining the interaction strengths is distinct

    We note that both ˆU1 ( ˆU2) and ˆW2 ( ˆW1) describes single- excitation processes. We have defined these separately, as the underlying physics determining the interaction strengths is distinct

  95. [104]

    2(c) decreases since the Higgs mode becomes increas- ingly gapped, whereas the first four diagrams increase

    Formally, this means the final self-energy diagram in Fig. 2(c) decreases since the Higgs mode becomes increas- ingly gapped, whereas the first four diagrams increase

  96. [105]

    First, the Gutzwiller ground state ansatz cho- sen in Sec

    We note two shortcomings of the QGW model that ap- pear as the limit U/t → 0 is taken in the superfluid phase. First, the Gutzwiller ground state ansatz cho- sen in Sec. III A describes a condensate with infinite off- diagonal long-range order. In two dimensions, quantum corre...

  97. [106]

    A similar feature has been reported for short range cor- relations when compared to QMC results in [26]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.