Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Floquet-Engineered Hybrid Topological Orders with Majorana Edge Modes in Number-Conserving Fermionic Quantum Simulators

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a periodically driven cold-fermion chain can emulate number-conserving topological phases, including a hybrid XTS phase with fractional edge spins and Majorana-type edge correlations, without any external pairing…

desk verdict The Floquet protocol's own parameter relations make every phase-diagram point it claims to realize unreachable, so the experimental headline collapses, though the XTS phase in the effective model may be real. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06569 v3 pith:ZH7N7KF6 submitted 2025-02-10 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.supr-con

Zhi Lin , Qi Song , Sheng Yue , Ming Yang , Jie Lou , Yan Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-con
keywords FloquetengineeringMajoranaedgemodesnumber-conservingfermionsopticallatticesdensitymatrixrenormalizationgrouptripletsuperconductivityhybridtopologicalorderfractionalspins
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes that a single periodically driven optical-lattice experiment on two-component ultracold fermions can generate a model with pair hopping and competing singlet and triplet pairing, and argues from large-scale DMRG simulations that this model hosts three topologically nontrivial phases. The most novel is the XTS phase, which appears for negative pair hopping and combines fractional spin textures along the $x$-axis with nonlocal Majorana-type single-particle edge correlations, a combination the paper calls a new universality class of hybrid order. If the proposal is correct, topological edge modes protected by time-reversal and spin-parity symmetries could be observed in a number-conserving fermionic simulator using current techniques, without proximity-induced superconductivity or external pairing fields.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Floquet engineering of a periodically modulated two-component fermion chain: Eq. (1) with time-dependent Rabi frequency $\Omega(t)=\Omega\sin(\omega t)$ and detuning $\Delta$ is expanded in a high-frequency approximation to yield the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (2), with pair-hopping amplitude $W=-\delta V(\Omega/2\omega)^2$, singlet pairing $g_s=\delta V/2$, and triplet pairing $g_d=(\delta V/2)[1-4(\Omega/2\omega)^2]$. The central object is therefore the Floquet-derived relation between a single driving strength and three competing couplings; DMRG with conserved total particle number then probes the phase diagram through central charge, pairing correlations, entanglement spectra, and edge spin and charge profiles.

What would settle it

Simulate or implement the full time-periodic Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) at the nominal drive parameters advertised for the XTS phase and measure the single-particle edge correlation $G^\sigma_{1j}$ and the integrated edge spin $\langle S^x_{\mathrm{half}}\rangle$; if the effective couplings obey $W=-\delta V(\Omega/2\omega)^2$ and $g_s=\delta V/2$, then at $g_s=0$ the pair hopping vanishes, so no XTS phase with $W=-2$, $g_s=g_d=0$ should appear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the effective Hamiltonian (Eq. 2) obtained from the high-frequency Floquet expansion of Eq. (1) realizes three topological phases in a number-conserving one-dimensional fermion system: a Majorana-enabled spin-density-wave (MS) phase with exponentially localized edge charges and nonlocal fermionic edge correlations; a $z$-polarized triplet superconducting (TS) phase with fractionalized edge spins $S=1/4$ per edge and two-fold ground-state degeneracy; and the new XTS phase at negative pair hopping, whose x-directional triplet pairing order $\Phi^X_{T,0}$ coexists with $S^z=\pm1$ triplet pairing, yielding fractional $x$-component edge spin and low-energy single-particle states at both edges simultaneously. The paper presents this XTS phase as defining a new universality class of hybrid topological orders in number-conserving systems.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on treating the pair-hopping, singlet-pairing, and triplet-pairing strengths as independently tunable in the effective model; the Floquet derivation actually fixes their ratios, so if those relations are exact, several phase-diagram points (including the XTS point) lie outside what the proposed drive can reach.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A cold-atom experiment using the proposed periodic RF drive could observe Majorana-type edge correlations without any external pairing field.
  • The MS, TS, and XTS phases each have distinct measurable signatures — edge charge, $S=1/4$ edge spin, and $x$-direction fractional spin plus nonlocal single-particle correlations — accessible to quantum gas microscopy.
  • The predicted central charge $c=2.5$ at phase boundaries signals an additional gapless Majorana or Ising mode, giving a sharp thermodynamic signature of the transitions.
  • Time-of-flight shadow imaging should reveal fast oscillations from the nonlocal Majorana edge correlations, offering a route to detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Floquet relations $W=-\delta V(\Omega/2\omega)^2$, $g_s=\delta V/2$, and $g_d=(\delta V/2)[1-4(\Omega/2\omega)^2]$ imply $W$ and $g_s$ have opposite signs and $g_s=0$ only when $W=0$; hence the phase-diagram regions with positive $W$ and positive $g_s$, and the XTS point at $W=-2$, $g_s=g_d=0$, are not reachable with the stated single-drive protocol unless additional independent tuning is supp
  • A decisive test would be to integrate the full time-periodic Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) rather than the effective model, and check whether the purported phase boundaries survive at the corresponding drive parameters.
  • If the reachability issue is resolved by independent parameter control, the XTS phase could also be sought in related geometries such as ladders or arrays of chains, since similar pair-hopping terms arise in pulse-driven schemes.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Floquet-engineered ultracold-fermion scheme in an optical lattice that is claimed to generate an effective one-dimensional Hamiltonian containing pair-hopping (W), spin-singlet pairing (gs), and spin-triplet pairing (gd) interactions. Using large-scale DMRG, the authors map the phase diagram of the effective model and report three topological phases: a Majorana-enabled spin-density-wave (MS) phase, a z-polarized triplet superconducting (TS) phase, and a new x-directional triplet superconducting (XTS) phase with simultaneous fractional spin textures and Majorana-type edge correlations. The central claim is that this protocol makes all three phases experimentally accessible with current cold-atom techniques.

Significance. The effective model itself is interesting: number-conserving systems with pair-hopping and competing singlet/triplet pairings can host rich topological behavior, and the DMRG results provide credible numerical evidence for the MS, TS, and XTS phases within that model. The XTS phase, in particular, appears to be a genuinely new hybrid order. However, the experimental realization claim is the central contribution of the paper, and it is undermined by the Floquet parameter relations stated in the manuscript itself: the reachable region of coupling space does not contain the parameter points at which the three topological phases are characterized. The numerical study of the effective model would remain a valid contribution if reframed without the experimental claim, but as presented the paper's main assertion is not supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (2) and Fig. 2] The effective couplings derived from the Floquet scheme are W = -δV(Ω/2ω)^2 and gs = δV/2, which force sign(W) = -sign(gs) and imply gs = 0 ⇒ W = 0. The phase diagram in Fig. 2(a) is computed at W = 0.9 with gs = 0.75 and gd = 0.25 (MS phase) and at W = 0.9 with gs = 0.225 and gd = -0.675 (TS phase), both having W and gs of the same sign. The XTS phase in Fig. 2(b) is characterized at W = -2 with gs = gd = 0, which via gs = δV/2 requires δV = 0 and therefore W = 0. None of these points lies on the reachable parameter ray for any value of Ω/2ω, so the claimed experimental emulation of the three topological phases is not realized by the proposed protocol. Setting Veff = U = 0 via Feshbach resonances does not relax these relations. This is a load-bearing contradiction between the Floquet derivation and the phase diagram.
  2. [Fig. 5(a) and XTS phase] The integrated edge spin in the XTS phase is reported as ⟨Sx_half⟩ = ±0.1155 at W = -2 and ±0.2469 at W = -2.5, with the latter described as 'nearly half of an electron spin'. Unlike the TS phase, whose edge spin Sz = ±1/4 is quantized, the XTS edge spin varies continuously with W and is not quantized at the point used for its central characterization. If the XTS phase is claimed to be topologically distinct on the basis of fractional edge spins, the absence of quantization and the parameter dependence of the edge spin need to be explained; otherwise the distinction between a genuine topological phase and a trivial polarized edge state is not established.
  3. [Section 'Phase diagram' and Figs. 3–5] The DMRG results are presented without reporting the bond dimensions, truncation errors, or convergence checks for the system sizes used (up to L = 240). The central charge values, especially the c = 2.5 values at phase boundaries, and the power-law exponents KSC are extracted from fits whose quality and finite-size dependence are not shown. Since the phase diagram and the topological characterization rest on these numerical observables, the absence of convergence data prevents the reader from assessing the reliability of the reported phases and transitions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Conclusion] The closing paragraph states that the protocol 'can simulate the MS phase featuring MZMs in particle-number-conserving systems', but the main text carefully refers to Majorana edge modes rather than true zero modes; the wording in the conclusion would benefit from the same precision.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption uses the notation 'SSc = 1' and 'MSc = 1' where the intended meaning is presumably 'SS, c = 1' and 'MS, c = 1'; this should be clarified to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [References] Reference [24] is cited both in the introduction and as reference [32] later in the text; it is the same work and should be cited consistently with a single reference number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Floquet derivation and DMRG phase analysis are self-contained; the W/gs sign mismatch is a realizability/correctness concern, not a circular argument.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) is obtained from the time-dependent Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) via a high-frequency Floquet expansion, and the stated relations W = -δV(Ω/2ω)^2, gs = δV/2, gd = δV/2[1 - 4(Ω/2ω)^2] are algebraic output of that expansion, not definitions of the target phases. The DMRG study explores the parameter space of Eq. (2) with conserved particle number and measures order parameters, entanglement spectra, edge correlations, and central charges; it does not fit parameters to force the MS, TS, or XTS conclusions. The XTS phase is identified by independently defined x-directional triplet pairing correlations, fractional edge spin, and non-local single-particle edge correlations, so its characterization is an observed property of a well-defined model rather than an input disguised as a prediction. The self-citations to the authors' prior bosonization analysis [24,32] and Floquet pair-hopping scheme [27] are legitimate scaffolds: they provide a previously published model and driving scheme, and the present paper derives its own effective Hamiltonian and computes its own phase diagram. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-citation or to a fitted parameter. One caveat belongs in correctness, not circularity: the paper's own coupling relations imply sign(W) = -sign(gs) and gs = 0 implies W = 0, while several DMRG points (e.g., W = 0.9 with gs = 0.75, and W = -2 with gs = gd = 0) are not reachable by the stated Floquet protocol. That is an internal realizability inconsistency between the protocol parameters and the phase diagram, not a circular derivation; the DMRG results for the model itself remain valid.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The parameter-independence assumption for W, gs, gd is the most significant ledger entry; it underlies the entire phase diagram but is contradicted by the derived relations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Omega/2omega amplitude ratio squared (x) = 0.05
    Chosen to justify the high-frequency approximation and to make the FTP interaction dominant; it fixes the ratio W/gs = -2x.
  • Effective couplings W, gs, gd = Scanned independently in Fig. 2 (e.g., W=0.9, gs=0.75, gd=0.25; W=-2, gs=0, gd=0)
    The DMRG phase diagram treats these as independent, but the Floquet scheme constrains them: gd = gs + 4W. No procedure to reach the scanned points is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The high-frequency Floquet expansion of Eq. (1) is valid and exactly produces Eq. (2), with higher-order terms negligible at (Omega/2omega)^2=0.05.
    Stated in the text after Eq. (2) and in the Supplementary Material; the derivation itself is not in the main text.
  • domain assumption Veff and U can be set to zero through Feshbach resonances without altering the other effective couplings.
    Main text says 'for ease of study, we set Veff = U = 0' and asserts experimental realizability; no analysis of the effects of these terms on the phase diagram.
  • domain assumption DMRG with L=240 and conserved total particle number gives the correct ground-state phases and central charges in the thermodynamic limit.
    No bond dimension, truncation error, or finite-size scaling data are reported.
  • domain assumption Time-reversal symmetry and spin parity symmetry Ps protect the three topological phases as stated.
    Invoked from Ref [32]; the paper does not verify the symmetry protection for the new XTS phase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Floquet-Engineered Hybrid Topological Orders with Majorana Edge Modes in Number-Conserving Fermionic Quantum Simulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZH7N7KF6

@misc{pith2026250206569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Floquet-Engineered Hybrid Topological Orders with Majorana Edge Modes in Number-Conserving Fermionic Quantum Simulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZH7N7KF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06569}
}
read the original abstract

We develop an experimental protocol based on Floquet-engineered ultracold fermions in optical lattices, enabling the emulation of pair-hopping and competing singlet/triplet pairing interactions. Through large-scale density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) simulations, we uncover three emergent topological phases: (i) A Majorana-enabled spin-density-wave (MS) phase featuring exponentially localized edge charges, non-local fermionic edge correlations, and doubly degenerate entanglement spectra; (ii) A z-axis polarized triplet superconducting (TS) phase exhibiting fractionalized edge spins (S=1/4 per edge), two-fold ground state degeneracy and a bulk single-particle gap; (iii) A hybrid x-directional triplet superconducting (XTS) phase that uniquely combines fractional spin textures and Majorana-type edge correlations, defining a new universality class of hybrid orders in number-conserving systems. These findings establish a universal framework for engineering non-Abelian topological matter, crucially bypassing the need for external pairing fields while maintaining experimental feasibility with current cold-atom techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06569 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The physical processes of the periodic modulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Approximate phase diagram for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Characterization of the topological MS phase at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Characterization of the topological TS phase at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Characterization of the topological XTS phase at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Dynamic Realization of Majorana Zero Modes in a Particle-Conserving Ladder

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A pulsed hopping sequence on a two-leg fermionic ladder generates an effective parity-preserving Hamiltonian with a topological phase hosting Majorana zero modes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Wilczek, Nature Phys 5, 614 (2009)

    F. Wilczek, Nature Phys 5, 614 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 076501 (2012)

    J. Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 076501 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Semiconductor Science and Technology 27, 124003 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 113 (2013)

    C. Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 113 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Physics-Uspekhi 44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 077001 (2010)

    2010

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 177002 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    M. Sato, Y. Takahashi, and S. Fujimoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 020401 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Jiang, T

    L. Jiang, T. Kitagawa, J. Alicea, A. R. Akhmerov, D. Pekker, G. Refael, J. I. Cirac, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 220402 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Fidkowski, R

    L. Fidkowski, R. M. Lutchyn, C. Nayak, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 84, 195436 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    J. D. Sau, B. I. Halperin, K. Flensberg, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 84, 144509 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Cheng and H.-H

    M. Cheng and H.-H. Tu, Phys. Rev. B 84, 094503 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    C. V. Kraus, M. Dalmonte, M. A. Baranov, A. M. L¨ auchli, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 173004 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Ortiz, J

    G. Ortiz, J. Dukelsky, E. Cobanera, C. Esebbag, and C. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 267002 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Kells, Phys

    G. Kells, Phys. Rev. B 92, 155434 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Lang and H

    N. Lang and H. P. B¨ uchler, Phys. Rev. B 92, 041118 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Keselman and E

    A. Keselman and E. Berg, Phys. Rev. B 91, 235309 (2015)

    2015

  12. [21]

    Iemini, L

    F. Iemini, L. Mazza, L. Fallani, P. Zoller, R. Fazio, and M. Dalmonte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 200404 (2017)

    2017

  13. [22]

    Z. Wang, Y. Xu, H. Pu, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Phys. Rev. B 96, 115110 (2017)

    2017

  14. [23]

    C. Chen, W. Yan, C. S. Ting, Y. Chen, and F. J. Burnell, Phys. Rev. B 98, 161106 (2018)

    2018

  15. [25]

    X. Y. Yin, T.-L. Ho, and X. Cui, New Journal of Physics 21, 013004 (2019)

    2019

  16. [26]

    M. F. Lapa and M. Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 257002 (2020)

    2020

  17. [27]

    jN=96;1sti hN=97jCy #jN=96;2ndi hN=97jCy

    through Floquet engineering with a continuous driv- ing protocol in a two-component boson system. Subse- quently, a pulse-sequence-based driving protocol [28] has been also theoretically shown to effectively implement the SPH interaction. Compared to the implementation scheme ...

    2025 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Z. Lin, C. Liu, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 245301 (2020)

    2020

  19. [29]

    Goldman, O

    N. Goldman, O. Diessel, L. Barbiero, M. Pr¨ ufer, M. Di Liberto, and L. Peralta Gavensky, PRX Quan- tum 4, 040327 (2023)

    2023

  20. [30]

    Lin, Floquet Hamiltonian Engineering in Ultracold Quantum Gases , Ph.D

    Z. Lin, Floquet Hamiltonian Engineering in Ultracold Quantum Gases , Ph.D. thesis, Fudan University (2017), available at Fudan University Library

    2017

  21. [31]

    Struck, J

    J. Struck, J. Simonet, and K. Sengstock, Phys. Rev. A 90, 031601 (2014)

    2014

  22. [32]

    See supplementary materials

  23. [33]

    Liu, T.-Z

    W.-L. Liu, T.-Z. Yuan, Z. Lin, and W. Yan, Chinese Physics B 28, 020303 (2019)

    2019

  24. [34]

    Bloch, J

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

    2008

  25. [35]

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

    2010

  26. [36]

    Sch¨ afer, T

    F. Sch¨ afer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 411 (2020)

    2020

  27. [37]

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

    1992

  28. [38]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Sci- Post Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  29. [39]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, J. Phys. A 42, 504005 (2009)

    2009

  30. [40]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2004, P06002 (2004)

    2004

  31. [41]

    Gotta, L

    L. Gotta, L. Mazza, P. Simon, and G. Roux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 206805 (2021)

    2021

  32. [42]

    Ruhman and E

    J. Ruhman and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. B 96, 085133 (2017)

    2017

  33. [43]

    Moreno, A

    A. Moreno, A. Muramatsu, and S. R. Manmana, Phys. Rev. B 83, 205113 (2011)

    2011

  34. [44]

    Qu, B.-B

    D.-W. Qu, B.-B. Chen, H.-C. Jiang, Y. Wang, and W. Li, Communications Physics 5, 257 (2022)

    2022

  35. [45]

    Giamarchi, Quantum physics in one dimension , Vol

    T. Giamarchi, Quantum physics in one dimension , Vol. 121 (Clarendon press, 2003)

    2003

  36. [46]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 14, 2585 (1981)

    1981

  37. [47]

    Laflorencie, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016)

    N. Laflorencie, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016)

    2016

  38. [48]

    Pollmann, A

    F. Pollmann, A. M. Turner, E. Berg, and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. B 81, 064439 (2010)

    2010

  39. [49]

    Iemini, L

    F. Iemini, L. Mazza, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 156402 (2015)

    2015

  40. [50]

    Arrigoni, E

    E. Arrigoni, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. B 69, 214519 (2004)

    2004

  41. [51]

    C. V. Kraus, S. Diehl, P. Zoller, and M. A. Baranov, New Journal of Physics 14, 113036 (2012)

    2012

  42. [52]

    Nascimbene, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 134005 (2013)

    S. Nascimbene, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 134005 (2013)

    2013

  43. [53]

    Braun, R

    C. Braun, R. Saint-Jalm, A. Hesse, J. Arceri, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Nature Physics 20, 1306–1312 (2024)

    2024

  44. [54]

    R. Yao, S. Chi, B. Mukherjee, A. Shaffer, M. Zwierlein, and R. J. Fletcher, Nature Physics 20, 1726–1731 (2024)

    2024

  45. [55]

    Sompet, S

    P. Sompet, S. Hirthe, D. Bourgund, T. Chalopin, J. Bibo, J. Koepsell, P. Bojovi´ c, R. Verresen, F. Pollmann, G. Sa- lomon, et al. , Nature 606, 484 (2022)

    2022

  46. [56]

    M. F. Parsons, A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Science 353, 1253 (2016). 7

    2016

  47. [57]

    Koepsell, S

    J. Koepsell, S. Hirthe, D. Bourgund, P. Sompet, J. Vi- jayan, G. Salomon, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 010403 (2020)

    2020

  48. [58]

    Defossez, L

    A. Defossez, L. Vanderstraeten, L. P. Gavensky, and N. Goldman, (2025), arXiv:2412.14886

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.