Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Phase Diagram and Spectral Function of the Two-Dimensional Disordered Bose-Hubbard Model: A Real-Space Dynamical Mean-Field Theory Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For finite disordered boson lattices, the Mott-to-Bose-glass boundary is set by the Edwards-Anderson order parameter, not by the thermodynamic-limit energy gap.

desk verdict A useful RBDMFT phase diagram with a solid superfluid boundary and a valuable spectral check, but the MI/BG boundary is set by arbitrary thresholds that need a stability analysis before the finite-size deviation claim is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01230 v2 pith:ZQ437ZBJ submitted 2025-09-01 cond-mat.quant-gas

Bastian Schindler , Renan da Silva Souza , Walter Hofstetter This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords disorderedBose-HubbardmodelBoseglassreal-spacebosonicdynamicalmean-fieldtheoryEdwards-Andersonorderparametercompressibilitypercolationanalysisspectralfunctiondamped-localizedexcitations
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 asks which observable actually marks the transition from Mott insulator to Bose glass in a disordered Bose-Hubbard model on a finite two-dimensional lattice. Using real-space bosonic dynamical mean-field theory on lattices up to 16×16 with disorder averages over 1536 realizations, it argues that the Edwards-Anderson order parameter—the realization-to-realization variance of local occupation—or equivalently the compressibility determines the MI-BG boundary, not the thermodynamic-limit energy-gap condition Eg≤Δ. The energy-gap criterion, which relies on exponentially rare disorder regions that are absent in finite systems, overestimates the Bose glass region. The paper also finds that a percolation criterion on the local condensate order parameter gives a superfluid-Bose-glass boundary consistent with Monte Carlo results, and that the RBDMFT spectral function matches strong-coupling predictions of damped-localized excitations. Together these claims make RBDMFT a method that can map the full phase diagram and its excitation spectrum.

What carries the argument

RBDMFT: site-resolved bosonic dynamical mean-field theory maps the lattice model to independent Anderson impurity problems per site, closes self-consistency via the real-space lattice Dyson equation with a local self-energy, and solves by exact diagonalization; it includes second-order 1/z corrections beyond Gutzwiller mean field. The phase boundaries are drawn with three diagnostics: percolation probability of maps of local condensate order parameter above a cutoff φc (superfluid criterion), the Edwards-Anderson order parameter and compressibility thresholds (Mott criterion), and the spectral function A_k(ω) from the disorder-averaged lattice Green's function.

What would settle it

Compute the MI-BG boundary while sweeping the EAOP/compressibility thresholds from 10^-4 to 10^-2 and on larger lattices (32×32, 64×64). If the boundary moves toward the Eg≤Δ line or changes with cutoff or system size, the paper's finite-size-deviation claim fails; if it stays put, the boundary is a robust diagnostic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for finite disordered systems the MI to BG transition is characterized by the Edwards-Anderson order parameter q (variance of local occupation across disorder realizations) and the compressibility κ, both computed directly in RBDMFT, and that this boundary deviates from the Eg≤Δ line derived from the clean system in the thermodynamic limit. In the µ/U-J/U plane at ∆/U=0.5 an intermediate BG phase always separates SF and MI; at ∆/U=1.0 no MI remains. For unit filling, q and κ give the same MI-BG boundary, while the energy-gap criterion gives a substantially larger BG region. The paper interprets this as a finite-size effect: rare Lifshitz regions required by the theo

Load-bearing premise

The MI/BG boundary relies on hand-set numerical thresholds (EAOP below 0.001 or 0.002, compressibility below 0.01) inside an approximate local-self-energy method, with no threshold-sensitivity analysis or statistical error bars; if those cutoffs do not robustly separate finite-size Mott and Bose-glass states, the boundary shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the EAOP/compressibility criterion is the correct finite-size MI-BG diagnostic, then the energy-gap line Eg≤Δ should not be used as the MI-BG boundary in real or simulated finite disordered lattices, because it systematically overestimates the Bose glass region.
  • RBDMFT combined with a percolation analysis reproduces the superfluid-to-insulator boundary of previous Monte Carlo studies, making it a reliable tool for the full 2D disordered Bose-Hubbard phase diagram at low temperature.
  • The spectral function computed throughout the phase diagram shows damped-localized excitations in the disordered Mott insulator that survive as the Bose glass is approached, providing a spectral signature that can be measured experimentally, e.g., via rf spectroscopy.
  • At disorder strengths ∆/U ≳ 1 the Mott lobe disappears and the Bose glass dominates the insulating part of the phase diagram, so spectral and compressibility diagnostics become the main ways to identify the insulator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: if the EAOP/κ boundary is the physically relevant one, the energy-gap line should be treated as a thermodynamic-limit benchmark rather than a predictive criterion for finite cold-atom systems; the paper implies this but does not prove convergence for very large lattices.
  • Extension: a systematic threshold sweep (EAOP and κ cutoffs from 10^-4 to 10^-2) combined with lattice sizes beyond 16×16 would sharpen the central claim; the reported data show no finite-size trend, but do not rule out a slow crossover toward the Eg≤Δ line.
  • Extension: the spectral-function match suggests that rf-transfer spectroscopy in speckle-disordered gases could observe damped-localized modes as a direct Bose-glass signature, a route the paper mentions experimentally but does not analyze in detail.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the two-dimensional disordered Bose-Hubbard model using real-space bosonic dynamical mean-field theory (RBDMFT) solved by exact diagonalization, with disorder averaging over 1536 realizations on finite square lattices. The superfluid-to-insulator transition is identified through a percolation analysis of the local condensate order parameter, while the Mott-insulator-to-Bose-glass transition is assigned using the Edwards-Anderson order parameter (EAOP) and the compressibility, both compared with the clean-system energy-gap criterion Eg ≤ Δ. The authors report an intermediate Bose-glass phase in all cases, find that the EAOP/compressibility boundary deviates significantly from the Eg ≤ Δ line, attribute this deviation to finite-size suppression of rare regions, and further compute spectral functions that show damped-localized excitations in agreement with a strong-coupling expansion.

Significance. If the claims are quantitatively robust, the paper offers a practical finite-system diagnostic for the Bose-glass phase and a phase diagram for the 2D disordered Bose-Hubbard model that extends earlier mean-field and quantum Monte Carlo studies. The SF/BG boundary is benchmarked against QMC results and appears insensitive to the percolation cutoff, and the spectral-function comparison with strong-coupling theory is a useful cross-check. However, the central MI/BG claim rests on hand-set numerical thresholds for EAOP and compressibility, with no threshold-dependence analysis or error bars; without those tests, the reported 'significant deviations' from the thermodynamic-limit criterion are not quantitatively secured. The work is therefore a valuable contribution but needs additional analysis before its central message can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3; Eq. (3)] The MI/BG boundary is determined by ad hoc thresholds: q < 0.001 in Fig. 2 and q < 0.002 / κ < 0.01 in Fig. 3. No threshold scan or statistical error bars are provided. In a finite disordered system, q increases continuously as rare sites develop n=2 occupations, so the boundary location is set by the chosen cutoff rather than by a sharp phase transition. The paper's central claim—that the EAOP/compressibility boundary deviates significantly from the Eg ≤ Δ line—is therefore not quantitatively robust. Please provide q(U/J) and κ(U/J) curves at representative disorder strengths, show how the extracted boundary shifts as the thresholds are varied (e.g., q in [0.0005, 0.005], κ in [0.005, 0.02]), and include bootstrap or ensemble error bars based on the 1536 realizations.
  2. [Section III, compressibility definition] The compressibility is computed via a second RBDMFT run at μ + δμ with δμ = 0.01, while the MI/BG criterion is κ < 0.01. The finite-difference step is the same order as the threshold, so numerical derivative noise can dominate near the boundary. The authors should demonstrate convergence in δμ (e.g., δμ = 0.005 and 0.02) and preferably use a central difference. Without this, the κ-based boundary may be an artifact of the differentiation step.
  3. [Section III, finite-size assertion] The text states 'Within the reachable system sizes (4×4 to 16×16) we observe no signs of significant finite-size effects,' but no supporting data are shown. This claim is load-bearing because the paper argues that the deviations from the Eg ≤ Δ criterion arise from the absence of rare regions in finite systems. Please provide the MI/BG boundary (or raw q and κ data) for L = 4, 8, 12, 16 at representative U/J values, or a figure comparing the boundaries. Without these data, the assertion that the effect is not due to ordinary finite-size scaling is unsupported.
  4. [Section III, spectral function analysis] The spectral comparison is made only against the authors' own strong-coupling expansion [20,21]. The agreement is described as 'reasonably accurate' in view of the 'restricted spectral resolution of the exact diagonalization impurity solver,' but no convergence test with respect to the ED bath size or boson occupation cutoff is shown. Since the damped-localized mode interpretation is a central advertised result, the authors should either provide an ED-parameter convergence analysis or quantify the uncertainty in A_k(ω) (e.g., from disorder realizations and frequency resolution).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'RBMDFT' should be 'RBDMFT'.
  2. [Section I] Duplicate word: 'between between Mott insulator and superfluid phases' in the second paragraph.
  3. [Section III] Typo: 'asymptomatically close' should be 'asymptotically close'.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] Parenthetical formatting is inconsistent: 'd) (h))' and similar should be 'd) and h)'.
  5. [Section I and references] 'Griffith's type' should be 'Griffiths-type' (the theorem is associated with Griffiths). Also, the paper cites the Ph.D. thesis [21] for part of the analytic spectral comparison; providing a published reference would be preferable.
  6. [General] No data/code availability statement is given. Given the numerical nature of the work, a statement on availability of the RBDMFT implementation would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MI/BG criteria are operational definitions, not fitted inputs, and the central deviation claim is not obtained by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from RBDMFT calculations and are not constructed from the quantities they purport to predict. The MI/BG boundary is identified by EAOP and compressibility thresholds (q < 0.001 or 0.002, kappa < 0.01); these are operational criteria, not parameters fitted to the target boundary. The two independent criteria agree, and the SF/BG boundary is checked against external Monte Carlo results [9]. The energy-gap line Eg <= Delta is computed from homogeneous RBDMFT spectral information and compared with, not fitted to, the finite-size EAOP/compressibility boundary, so the reported deviation is a numerical finding rather than a definitional identity. The spectral-function comparison with [20,21] uses a numerically computed RBDMFT spectral function against an analytic strong-coupling prediction; although one co-author is also an author of [20,21], the agreement is not forced by construction and this comparison is not load-bearing for the main phase-diagram claim. The hand-set thresholds and absence of threshold-dependence/error-bar analysis are genuine robustness concerns but belong to correctness risk, not circularity: nothing in the derivation reduces Eq. (3) or the phase boundary to a fitted input or to a self-citation. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to the specific circularity patterns considered.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All physical model parameters (U, J, mu, Delta, filling) are standard inputs. The free parameters listed above are the hand-chosen numerical thresholds and truncations that directly shape the reported phase boundaries and spectral widths. RBDMFT itself contributes a coarse-grained local-self-energy description with a bosonic Hilbert-space truncation; these are domain assumptions rather than fitted quantities. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • EAOP threshold q_MI = 0.001 (Fig. 2) and 0.002 (Fig. 3)
    Hand-set cutoff below which a phase point is labelled Mott insulator; directly sets the MI/BG boundary; threshold dependence is not analyzed.
  • compressibility threshold kappa_MI = 0.01
    Hand-set cutoff used as an independent MI/BG diagnostic; stated to agree with the q boundary, but dependence on the cutoff is not analyzed.
  • percolation probability cutoff p_perc = 0.5
    Condition for global superfluidity: a point is superfluid if more than 50% of disorder realizations percolate. Conventional but externally imposed, not derived.
  • local condensate cutoff phi_c = 0.05 in Fig. 2 and 0.1 in Fig. 3
    Threshold defining a site as superfluid in the percolation map; the authors state the boundary is insensitive to it, but no systematic scan is shown.
  • compressibility finite-difference step delta_mu = 0.01 U
    Chemical potential shift used to compute kappa via a second RBDMFT run; chosen by hand and could affect the MI/BG threshold comparison.
  • spectral broadening i0+ = 0.05
    Numerical regulator in the spectral function A_k(omega); affects peak widths and the quantitative comparison to the analytic strong-coupling result.
  • ED bath size and local boson occupation cutoff
    Exact diagonalization requires truncating the Anderson bath and local bosonic Hilbert space; values are not stated in the preprint, leaving a hidden accuracy parameter for both spectral and phase results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption RBDMFT assumes a local (site-diagonal) self-energy, justified by a 1/z expansion with z=4 for the square lattice.
    Invoked around Eq. (A2) and Eq. (A4) in Appendix A; systematic errors of this approximation for 2D disordered systems are not quantified in the paper.
  • domain assumption The 1/z correction to the condensate order parameter in Eq. (A9) correctly captures cavity back-action.
    Taken from reference [26]; central to the impurity model but not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption Truncation of the bosonic Hilbert space in the Anderson impurity solver leaves converged results.
    Appendix A states that an upper bound for occupations is imposed; no convergence checks are shown.
  • domain assumption Arithmetic averaging over 1536 disorder realizations approximates the ensemble average, except for exponentially rare Lifshitz regions.
    Stated in the Introduction and Section III; the authors themselves note rare regions are absent for accessible system sizes, which is why the energy-gap criterion is not reproduced.
  • domain assumption The energy-gap criterion Eg <= Delta from the theorem of inclusions is the correct thermodynamic-limit MI/BG boundary.
    Used as an external benchmark from references [7,8,9]; the paper's central finite-size deviation claim is measured against this criterion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase Diagram and Spectral Function of the Two-Dimensional Disordered Bose-Hubbard Model: A Real-Space Dynamical Mean-Field Theory Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQ437ZBJ

@misc{pith2026250901230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase Diagram and Spectral Function of the Two-Dimensional Disordered Bose-Hubbard Model: A Real-Space Dynamical Mean-Field Theory Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQ437ZBJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01230}
}
read the original abstract

We numerically investigate the two-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model with local onsite disorder, where the competition between disorder and short-range interactions leads to the emergence of a Bose glass (BG) phase between the Mott insulator (MI) and superfluid (SF) phases. In order to analyze the inhomogeneous system we employ real-space bosonic dynamical mean-field theory (RBDMFT) and perform an ensemble average over disorder realizations. To distinguish the MI from the BG phase, we compare the Edwards-Anderson order parameter and the compressibility with the energy-gap condition. To identify the insulator to SF transition, we apply a percolation analysis to the condensate order parameter. In qualitative accordance with the theorem of inclusions we always find an intermediate BG phase between the SF and MI. However, the quantitative comparison indicates significant deviations between the MI to BG phase boundary expected in the thermodynamic limit and the one obtained for a finite system size. Additionally, RBMDFT is capable of reliably calculating spectral information throughout the phase diagram. Analyzing the spectral function reveals evidence for analytically predicted damped localized modes in the dispersion relation in the strong-coupling regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01230 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the percolation analysis for four differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sanchez-Palencia and M

    L. Sanchez-Palencia and M. Lewenstein, Disordered quantum gases under control, Nature Physics 6, 87 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Shapiro, Cold atoms in the presence of disorder, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 45, 143001 (2012)

    B. Shapiro, Cold atoms in the presence of disorder, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 45, 143001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition, Physical Review B 40, 546 (1989)

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Fallani, J

    L. Fallani, J. Lye, V. Guarrera, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Ultracold atoms in a disordered crystal of light: Towards a bose glass, Physical Review Letters 98, 130404 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Meldgin, U

    C. Meldgin, U. Ray, P. Russ, D. Chen, D. M. Ceper- ley, and B. DeMarco, Probing the bose glass–superfluid transition using quantum quenches of disorder, Nature Physics 12, 646 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    J.-C. Yu, S. Bhave, L. Reeve, B. Song, and U. Schneider, Observing the two-dimensional Bose glass in an optical quasicrystal, Nature 633, 338 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Pollet, N

    L. Pollet, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov, and M. Troyer, Absence of a Direct Superfluid to Mott In- sulator Transition in Disordered Bose Systems, Physical Review Letters 103, 140402 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Gurarie, L

    V. Gurarie, L. Pollet, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov, and M. Troyer, Phase diagram of the disordered Bose- Hubbard model, Physical Review B 80, 214519 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    and three dimensional [8] phase diagrams of the disor- dered model, which are in agreement with the predictions of [3]. While this energy gap criterion is a useful bench- mark for the expected behavior in the thermodynamic limit, it does not characterize a disordered model dir...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. G. S¨ oyler, M. Kiselev, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov, Phase diagram of the commensurate two- dimensional disordered bose-hubbard model, Physical Review Letters 107, 185301 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Graham and A

    R. Graham and A. Pelster, Order via nonlinearity in ran- domly confined bose gases, International Journal of Bi- furcation and Chaos 19, 2745 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Khellil, A

    T. Khellil, A. Balaˇ z, and A. Pelster, Analytical and nu- merical study of dirty bosons in a quasi-one-dimensional harmonic trap, New Journal of Physics 18, 063003 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Khellil and A

    T. Khellil and A. Pelster, Hartree–fock mean-field theory 7 for trapped dirty bosons, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment 2016, 063301 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    S. J. Thomson, L. S. Walker, T. L. Harte, and G. D. Bruce, Measuring the Edwards-Anderson order param- eter of the Bose glass: A quantum gas microscope ap- proach, Physical Review A 94, 051601 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    A. R. Abadal, Probing Quantum Thermalization and Localization in Bose- Hubbard Systems , PhD Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Koehn, C

    L. Koehn, C. Parsonage, C. W. Duncan, P. Kirton, A. J. Daley, T. Hilker, E. Haller, A. La Rooij, and S. Kuhr, Quantum-gas microscopy of the bose-glass phase, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13040 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bissbort and W

    U. Bissbort and W. Hofstetter, Stochastic mean-field the- ory for the disordered Bose-Hubbard model, Europhysics Letters 86, 50007 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Bissbort, R

    U. Bissbort, R. Thomale, and W. Hofstetter, Stochastic mean-field theory: Method and application to the dis- ordered Bose-Hubbard model at finite temperature and speckle disorder, Physical Review A 81, 063643 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Buonsante, V

    P. Buonsante, V. Penna, A. Vezzani, and P. B. Blakie, Mean-field phase diagram of cold lattice bosons in disor- dered potentials, Physical Review A 76, 011602 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    A. E. Niederle and H. Rieger, Superfluid clusters, percolation and phase transitions in the disordered, two-dimensional Bose–Hubbard model, New Journal of Physics 15, 075029 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    R. S. Souza, A. Pelster, and F. E. A. dos Santos, Emer- gence of damped-localized excitations of the Mott state due to disorder, New Journal of Physics 25, 063015 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    R. S. Souza, Ultracold bosons in random lattice potentials, Ph.D. thesis, Universidade Federal de S˜ ao Carlos (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Byczuk and D

    K. Byczuk and D. Vollhardt, Correlated bosons on a lat- tice: Dynamical mean-field theory for Bose-Einstein con- densed and normal phases, Physical Review B77, 235106 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Hubener, M

    A. Hubener, M. Snoek, and W. Hofstetter, Magnetic phases of two-component ultracold bosons in an optical lattice, Physical Review B 80, 245109 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    Hu and N.-H

    W.-J. Hu and N.-H. Tong, Dynamical mean-field the- ory for the bose-hubbard model, Physical Review B 80, 245110 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Anders, E

    P. Anders, E. Gull, L. Pollet, M. Troyer, and P. Werner, Dynamical mean-field theory for bosons, New Journal of Physics 13, 075013 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Snoek and W

    M. Snoek and W. Hofstetter, Bosonic Dynamical Mean- Field Theory, in Cold Atoms, Vol. 1 (Imperial College Press, 2013) pp. 355–365

    2013

  20. [28]

    Y. Li, M. R. Bakhtiari, L. He, and W. Hofstetter, Tunable anisotropic magnetism in trapped two-component Bose gases, Physical Review B 84, 144411 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Jaksch and P

    D. Jaksch and P. Zoller, The cold atom Hubbard toolbox, Annals of physics 315, 52 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature 415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Cl´ ement, A

    D. Cl´ ement, A. F. Var` on, J. A. Retter, L. Sanchez- Palencia, A. Aspect, and P. Bouyer, Experimental study of the transport of coherent interacting matter-waves in a 1d random potential induced by laser speckle, New Jour- nal of Physics 8, 165 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Ren, R.-D

    Y.-X. Ren, R.-D. Lu, and L. Gong, Tailoring light with a digital micromirror device, Annalen der Physik 527, 447 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    V. V. Volchkov, M. Pasek, V. Denechaud, M. Mukhtar, A. Aspect, D. Delande, and V. Josse, Measurement of spectral functions of ultracold atoms in disordered po- tentials, Physical Review Letters 120, 060404 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Metzner and D

    W. Metzner and D. Vollhardt, Correlated Lattice Fermions in d = ∞ Dimensions, Physical Review Let- ters 62, 324 (1989)

    1989

  27. [35]

    Snoek, I

    M. Snoek, I. Titvinidze, C. T˝ oke, K. Byczuk, and W. Hof- stetter, Antiferromagnetic order of strongly interacting fermions in a trap: real-space dynamical mean-field anal- ysis, New Journal of Physics 10, 093008 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    R. W. Helmes, T. A. Costi, and A. Rosch, Mott transition of fermionic atoms in a three-dimensional optical trap, Physical Review Letters 100, 056403 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Geißler and W

    A. Geißler and W. Hofstetter, Infinite occupation number basis of bosons: Solving a numerical challenge, Physical Review B 95, 224516 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

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