Increasing superconducting by layering in the attractive Hubbard model
Abstract
The attractive Hubbard model has become a model readily realizable with ultracold atoms on optical lattices. However, the superconducting (superfluid) critical temperatures, âs, are still somewhat smaller than the lowest temperatures achieved in experiments. Here we consider two possible routes, generically called layering, to increase : a bilayer and a simple cubic lattice, both with tunable hopping, , between attractive Hubbard planes. We have performed minus-signâfree determinant quantum Monte Carlo simulations to calculate response functions such as pairing correlation functions, uniform spin susceptibility, and double occupancy, through which we map out some physical properties. We have found that by a judicious choice of fillings and intensity of on-site attraction, a bilayer can exhibit âs between 1.5 and 1.7 times those of the single layer; for the simple-cubic lattice the enhancement can be 30% larger than the maximum for the single layer. We also check the accuracy of both a BCS-like estimate for in the attractive Hubbard model, as well as of an upper bound for based on the superfluid density.
I Introduction
The attractive Hubbard model (AHM) describes the dynamics of fermions moving in a single band (nearest neighbor hopping integral ) subject to an on-site interaction, , which favors the formation of local pairs Micnas et al. (1990). This model has been useful to study several phenomenological aspects of superconductivity. For instance, it contemplates the existence of a temperature scale, , with being the critical temperature for superconductivity, associated with a suppression of the uniform spin susceptibility, , signalling the opening of a spin gap Randeria et al. (1992); Bucher et al. (1993); dos Santos (1994); Paiva et al. (2010); Fontenele et al. (2022). This connects directly with pseudo-gap phenomena in high-temperature cuprate superconductors Wilson (2001). Another important feature of the AHM is the possibility of interpolating between the weak coupling limit, displaying BCS behavior, with long coherence length pairs, and the strong coupling regime, with tightly-bound pairs and short coherence length undergoing Bose-Einstein condensation Micnas et al. (1990); Randeria (1995); Chen et al. (2005); Randeria and Taylor (2014); Fontenele et al. (2022).
With the recent advances in optical lattice experiments (OLE) involving ultracold fermionic atoms Chin et al. (2010); Jaksch and Zoller (2005); Bloch et al. (2008); Esslinger (2010); McKay and DeMarco (2011); Mitra et al. (2018); Jördens et al. (2010), the AHM has found an immediate experimental realization, in which there is a fine control of the interaction strength through an external magnetic field. The advent of the quantum gas microscope Bakr et al. (2009) paved the way to visualise the atomic distribution on the lattice and draw quantitative conclusions, such as correlation functions for the AHM on a square optical lattice Mitra et al. (2018); Gall et al. (2020); Chan et al. (2020); Hartke et al. (2023). Although OLE constitute an important setup for studying strongly correlated phenomena, the current lowest temperatures achieved are still higher than theoretical predictions for . More specifically, recent extensive Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations Fontenele et al. (2022) mapped the square lattice phase diagram, , with being the band-filling: a maximum occurs around Fontenele et al. (2022), where is the Boltzmann constant, which we set to unity from now on. This corresponds to a few tens of nanokelvin, which is still about a third of the current lowest temperatures experimentally accessible in OLE Hartke et al. (2023); Mitra et al. (2018). Hence, it is important to investigate scenarios which could lead to higher âs, closer to an experimentally accessible range.
As a rough guide to this quest, we recall that the BCS behavior of the AHM at weak coupling allows us to expect Micnas et al. (1990)
(1) |
where is proportional to the bandwidth, , and is the density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level; throughout this paper we take since the proportionality constant is immaterial to pinpoint the maxima critical temperatures. Therefore, one possibility to enhance is to increase , while keeping fixed both the fermionic density and . For two-dimensional systems this may be achieved by adding a second layer and adequately tuning the hopping, , between the layers; see below. Note, however, that in two dimensions this is only applicable to the doped case, since the degeneracy between charge-density wave and superconductivity suppresses to zero at half-filling, by virtue of the Mermin-Wagner theorem. Physically, the presence of a second layer offers another hopping channel, thus allowing pre-formed pairs to be less scattered throughout the lattice. The possibility of a bilayer inducing a behavior different from the monolayer has been considered in the repulsive Fermi-Hubbard model: it was found that interplane antiferromagnetic correlations tend to enhance -wave pairing Scalettar et al. (1994); dos Santos (1995).
Similar arguments apply to a simple cubic lattice, where a tunable could benefit from the fact that for even at half filling dos Santos (1994). By varying between 0 and 1, we follow a dimensional crossover between two- and three dimensions. Recent OLE on Bose-Einstein condensates with Rubidium-87 atoms allowed the study of dynamical properties crossing over between 2D and 3D behavior Zheng et al. (2023); this system can be modeled by a Bose-Hubbard model with anisotropic hopping. Again, QMC simulations on the three-dimensional anisotropic repulsive Hubbard model at half-filling have found that a finite hopping between layers can enhance the magnetic structure factor relative to the D case, and produce a slight increase in the critical temperature Ibarra-GarcĂa-Padilla et al. (2020). In addition, a perturbative cluster approach to the AHM suggests that the order parameter is enhanced relative to the two-dimensional case Ogawa et al. (2015).
In view of these possibilities, a systematic study of for the anisotropic AHM both in the bilayer and in three dimensions is of interest. With this in mind, here we use Determinant Quantum Monte Carlo (DQMC) simulations to investigate the AHM on these geometries.
The layout of the paper is as follows. In Section II we discuss the model and highlight the main aspects of DQMC, including the quantities used to probe the physical properties of the system. In Section III we present estimates for the critical temperature as a function of interlayer hopping on a square bilayer, followed by a discussion on the pairing temperature scale. In Section IV, we consider the simple cubic lattice with variable interlayer hopping, . In both cases we analyze the superconducting properties at different band fillings and strengths of the on-site attraction. Finally, in Section V we present our conclusions.
II Model and Methodology
![Refer to caption](x1.png)
We write the anisotropic attractive Hubbard Hamiltonian as,
(2) |
where represents nearest-neighbor sites within a layer, and is the intralayer hopping amplitude; is the hopping energy between neighboring sites in adjacent layers (see Fig. 1); is the chemical potential controlling the band filling, and is the on-site attractive interaction between fermions of opposite spin. We consider unit lattice spacing, and sets the energy scale.
The physical quantities of interest are obtained through DQMC simulations Blankenbecler et al. (1981); Hirsch (1983, 1985); White et al. (1989); dos Santos (2003). This is an unbiased numerical approach based on an auxiliary-field decomposition of the interaction, which maps onto a quadratic form of free fermions coupled to bosonic degrees of freedom, , in both spatial and imaginary time coordinates. This method is based on a separation of the non-commuting parts of the Hamiltonian by means of the Trotter-Suzuki decomposition, i.e.
(3) |
where contains the terms quadratic in fermion creation and destruction operators, and contains the quartic terms. We take , with being the grid of the imaginary-time coordinate axis. This decomposition leads to an error proportional to , which can be systematically reduced as . Throughout this work, we choose (depending on the temperature), which is small enough to lead to systematic errors smaller than the statistical ones (from the Monte Carlo sampling). Finally, for the AHM the discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation dealing with the quartic terms in leads to sign-free simulationsâHirsch (1983, 1985); White et al. (1989); dos Santos (2003).
In order to probe the emergence of superconductivity, we analyze the -wave pair correlation functions,
(4) |
with () corresponding to creation (annihilation) of a pair of fermions at a given site . Further, the Fourier transform of at defines the s-wave pair structure factor,
(5) |
with being the number of sites of the lattice, where is the linear dimension of the D layers. For the bilayer, , and for the cubic lattice, ; periodic boundary conditions (PBC) are assumed in both cases. One should keep in mind that in Eq.â(5) the dependence of on , , , , and has been omitted, to simplify the notation.
We estimate the inverse critical temperature, , through the correlation ratio,
(6) |
where , and . This quantity is a renormalisation-group invariant at the critical pointâKaul (2015); Sato et al. (2018); Darmawan et al. (2018); that is, crossings of curves for for different system sizes provide estimates for , which improve as increases.
For our purposes here, the magnetic properties are probed by the uniform susceptibility. This is obtained through the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, which leads to , with being the uniform spin structure factor,
(7) |
where , with the components of the magnetization operator being
(8a) | |||||
(8b) | |||||
(8c) |
![Refer to caption](x2.png)
In what follows, we separate the discussion in two parts. First, we consider a bilayer, in which case our simulations were carried out for . Subsequently, we study the actual dimensional crossover in cubic systems with . Typically our data have been obtained after warming-up steps, followed by sweeps for measurements, depending on the temperature, interaction strength, and electronic density. We have performed to realizations for each set of parameters to ensure the best accuracy for our results.
III The bilayer
III.1 Critical temperature
We start the discussion with the non-interacting bilayer. The single-particle energies are given by
(9) |
whose DOSâs are displayed in Fig.â2, for different densities and several values of . For the DOS may be thought of two square lattice densities of states, displaced from each other by , as it can be seen from the positions of the van Hove singularities (VHSâs). For instance, the insets of Fig.â2 show the DOS as a function , for and 0.5, respectively: a substantial increase is found in some cases. The fine tuning of the VHSâs with a single parameter opens the possibility of increasing critical temperatures, as suggested by Eq.â(1). Therefore, the effects of the DOS on pairing (i.e.âwhether increases or not) are investigated below.
![Refer to caption](x3.png)
Recalling that the global maximum for the single layer lies near Fontenele et al. (2022), we compare the effect of on both for this density and for . Similarly, the maximum over a wide range of densities occurs at Fontenele et al. (2022), so that most of our simulations will be in the range . In this way, starting from the global maximum one can investigate possible paths in parameter space leading to larger slopes.
A typical behavior of is shown in Fig.â3 for , and . We clearly distinguish two regimes of : one in which decreases with increasing , and another in which increases. The inversion takes place at the common crossing point, , or ; for , we get . These values should be compared with those for the single layer, and , respectively, with corresponding increase of 48% and 72%. Simulations for yield and , respectively for and 0.5, while for , one gets and . Figure 4 shows these data, and we see that the maximum occurs at for both fillings. Note that we have allowed interlayer hoppings to be greater than intralayer ones, i.e.â, to broaden the search for maximum ; while in OLE this would simply demand adjustments in the relative intensity or frequency of the laser beams, in materials this could be achieved by changing the pressure from hydrostatic to uniaxial. The decrease in beyond the isotropic case may be attributed to an effective dimensional reduction, since hopping along the direction becomes more favorable than hopping within the planes, thus restricting particle movement. This, in turn, may increase pair-scattering effects by lattice sites, thereby lowering the critical temperature. Note that a similar effect has been observed in a bilayer made up from a superconducting layer and a metallic layer; see, e.g.âRef.âZujev et al. (2014).
![Refer to caption](x4.png)
It is also instructive to compare both with the BCS estimate, Eq.â(1), and with a suggested upper bound Hazra et al. (2019); see below. At first sight, Fig.â4 seems to indicate that tracks . However, a closer look reveals that does not capture the position of maximum for either densities. In addition, given that the (non-interacting) bandwidth varies with , if one rescales by , the discrepancies with respect to the location of maximum are significantly enhanced. Therefore, one cannot take at face value to pinpoint actual maxima.
![Refer to caption](x5.png)
In order to further understand the enhancement of presented in Fig.â4, it is worth analyzing its upper bounds, , as proposed in Ref.âHazra et al. (2019). We start by recalling that the superfluid density (or helicity modulus) may be obtained through Scalapino et al. (1992, 1993)
(10) |
which is proportional to the superfluid stiffness . The limiting longitudinal and transverse responses are
(11) |
and
(12) |
with
(13) |
where is the Matsubara frequency, and
(14) |
where
(15) |
is the -component of the current density operator; see Ref.âScalapino et al. (1992) for details.
Further, for a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition, a universal-jump relation involving the helicity modulus holds Nelson and Kosterlitz (1977),
(16) |
where is the value of the helicity modulus just below the critical temperature. Thus, by plotting as a function of temperature, the intercept with provides an estimate for , as discussed in Ref.âPaiva et al. (2004). By the same token, a rigorous upper bound for the superfluid density (or, equivalently, for the superfluid stiffness) is given by Hazra et al. (2019)
(17) |
given that is a positive quantity Scalapino et al. (1993).
![Refer to caption](x6.png)
Since a bilayer is topologically a two-dimensional system, the above calculational strategy used for a single layer is equally applicable to the present case. Figure 5 shows typical data for obtained from our DQMC simulations, for fixed and , and different system sizes. Since , and the superfluid density is a monotonically decreasing function of the temperature, at least near (see Ref.âPaiva et al. (2004)), the intercept of with will take place at some . Figure 4 shows our estimates for based on this procedure, from which we see that indeed there is not much room for to increase any further, in particular for .
Let us now compare how influences the increase in in both a monolayer and an isotropic bilayer. Figure 6 shows as a function of , for a fixed , where one may notice that the critical temperature increases faster for the bilayer () than for the monolayer (). That is, these two curves act as lower and upper bounds for when . It is interesting to note that for , is hardly influenced by the presence of a second layer.
![Refer to caption](x7.png)
![Refer to caption](x8.png)
At this point, one may wonder which is the division of labor between intra- and interlayer superconducting correlations. In order to shed light into this issue, we restrict the sums in the pair structure factor, Eq.â(5), to sites within the same layer, call it , and to sites joining the two layers along the direction, , in such way that
(18) |
Typical data for and as functions of the inverse temperature are shown in Fig.â7. By extracting similar data for other system sizes, we can plug their limiting () values into the Huse scaling Huse (1988),
(19) |
to obtain the separate contributions to the superconducting gap at zero temperature Moreo and Scalapino (1991); Paiva et al. (2004); is a non-universal constant.
Figure 8(a) illustrates the extrapolation to in a scaling plot. Interestingly, when we plot the separate gaps as functions of in Fig.â8(b) for fixed and , we see that the intralayer contribution initially decreases before stabilizing in a value smaller than that for a monolayer. By contrast, the interlayer contribution rises from zero and stabilizes at roughly the same value as the one for the monolayer. Equation (19) allows us to add the contributions to the total , and Fig.â8(b) shows that the latter displays a maximum near the isotropic limit, , similarly to . Thus, the key point is that the correlations between layers lead to a stronger order parameter than in a monolayer, which, in turn, results in higher critical temperatures.
III.2 Pairing temperature scale
![Refer to caption](x9.png)
![Refer to caption](x10.png)
![Refer to caption](x11.png)
![Refer to caption](x12.png)
![Refer to caption](x13.png)
![Refer to caption](x14.png)
![Refer to caption](x15.png)
![Refer to caption](x16.png)
As mentioned in the Introduction, one of the interesting features of the AHM is the emergence of a pairing temperature scale above which signals the formation of pairs, but not their coherence. Our purpose here is to investigate how the addition of another layer affects the pairing temperature. One manifestation of pair formation is through a gap opening for spin excitations, hence as a downturn in the uniform magnetic susceptibility as the temperature is lowered Micnas et al. (1990); Randeria et al. (1992); dos Santos (1994); WlazĆowski et al. (2013); Tajima et al. (2014); Fontenele et al. (2022).
Figure 9 shows our typical DQMC data for the temperature dependence of the uniform susceptibility, [see Eq.â(7)], for a bilayer with and , for different interplane hoppings; the linear lattice size is kept fixed at . We note that, for fixed , drops steadily below some temperature, whose location depends on . Following the idea that this drop signals the formation of local pairs within some temperature scale Randeria et al. (1992); dos Santos (1994); WlazĆowski et al. (2013); Tajima et al. (2014), we adopt the position of the maximum in as the pairing scale, . As Fig.â9 shows, for strong couplings the maxima can be quite broad, so that their position is determined by inspection of the actual numerical output for , taking into account its error bars; this yields a range of temperatures within which the maximum lies. This somewhat flexible definition is in line with the fact that we are dealing with a crossover, hence a temperature scale, not with a sharp transition.
Estimates for as a function of are shown in Fig.â10 for two different densities; for comparison, data for are also shown. We see that the overall tendency of is to decrease very slowly with , while, as mentioned before, displays a broad maximum around . From this we may conclude that, to some extent, interlayer hopping favors pair breaking if they are not part of a condensate, but suppresses pair breaking if in a condensate.
We have also studied the distribution of doubly occupied sites, through
(20) |
and its average over the lattice sites of the bilayer,
(21) |
with . Figure 11 displays snapshots of for and for an bilayer with within three ranges of temperature, namely the metallic phase, , the pseudogap regime, , and the superconducting phase, . As expected, we see that typically increases as the temperature is lowered, with the boost being more pronounced as the pairs condense into the superconducting phase. We also see that there is no significant change in the range of values of . By contrast, the distribution of doublons seems to follow a more pronounced checkerboard pattern in the latter case. In the superconducting phase the checkerboard pattern is even more pronounced than in the pseudogap phase, in the sense that one finds sites with large surrounded by sites with small . One may attribute this to the presence of more tightly bound pairs.
IV The Simple Cubic lattice
Having established the quantitative influence of hopping to another layer on the critical temperature, it is instructive to compare with the behavior of the AHM on a simple cubic lattice, but with a variable hopping along one of the directions, say the direction, as in the bilayer. Recalling that now for at half filling, we will discuss this case, in addition to , which is where the maximum occurs for the two-dimensional case.
Starting with the non-interacting case, Fig.â12 shows the density of states for different values of , and for the two fillings mentioned above. We see how the van Hove singularity at the two-dimensional particle-hole symmetry point evolves to the typical three-dimensional DOS. As a consequence, the DOS at the corresponding Fermi energies monotonically decrease with ; see the insets in each case.
Figure 13 shows the decay of pairing correlations with the distance for the cubic lattice at half filling. It is interesting to note that the length scale of decay increases by two orders of magnitude as the temperature is lowered within the interval shown, signalling the onset of superconducting long-range order. In order to estimate through our QMC simulations, we adopt a procedure similar to that for the bilayer, namely the crossing of the correlation ratio, Eq.â(6). Typical results are shown in Fig.â14, and by drawing similar plots for other values of , , and one determines as displayed in Fig.â15. We see that for the maximum occurs at for both fillings; therefore, in this case varying away from the isotropic limit does not lead to higher âs. By contrast, for the maximum occurs at larger values of as the filling is decreased: there is an increase of , for , from for , which is about 16% over the value for the isotropic case. This may be attributed to the fact that for stronger couplings the pairs are more strongly bound, hence more resistant to the suppressing effects of channelling along the -direction.
Figure 15 shows that the maximum increase in as goes from to is of about , reachable when . In addition, Fig.â15 also shows an interesting feature: a crossing of the curves for small values of . In order to understand this, let us focus on . For the square lattice the maximum occurs for Fontenele et al. (2022), namely , while for , ; see data for in Fig.â15(b). On the other hand, for the isotropic simple cubic lattice the maximum occurs for , as it can be inferred from the data for in Ref.âdos Santos (1994). The crossing is therefore a consequence of the dimensional crossover driven by . In other words, the crossing at for seems to separate two regimes: one in which interplane pairing correlations are significantly less relevant than the intraplane ones. Similar arguments should also account for the crossing at half filling, despite the fact that is suppressed to zero for .
Similarly to what we did for the two-dimensional geometries, we now probe the effectiveness of the BCS estimate for the anisotropic simple cubic lattice. Figure 15 compares the dependence of and with , for fixed , and for two densities; is the bandwidth. For half filling, does not satisfy the Mermin-Wagner theorem for , as expected. In addition, one sees that does not track our DQMC estimates for for both fillings.
Let us now discuss how the pairing temperature is affected by a variable hopping along the -direction. Our DQMC data are shown in Fig.â16 for fixed , and for different fillings; is also plotted for comparison. We see that decreases much more steadily with than for the bilayer; this leads one to conclude that confinement along the -direction favors pair formation, but not necessarily pair condensation. The data also show that the behavior of with is not too dependent on within the range considered.
And, finally, Fig.â17 compares the effect of anisotropy on for both the bilayer and the simple cubic lattice. We see that away from half filling is about 30% higher for the 3D lattice.
![Refer to caption](x17.png)
V Conclusions
We have examined layering as a possible route to increase the superconducting critical temperature in the attractive Hubbard model.
In two dimensions, layering consists of stacking two planes with hopping between them; intra-plane hoppings and on-site attraction are the same in both planes. We have found that by a judicious choice of fillings and on-site attraction, a bilayer can exhibit critical temperatures between 1.5 and 1.7 times those of the single layer. We have also established that double occupancy can be used to distinguish between normal (metallic), pre-formed pairs (pseudogap), and superconducting phases through quantum gas microscope measurements.
For a simple cubic lattice, layering consists of allowing to vary with respect to the isotropic case, , but the number of planes along the direction, , is the same as the number of sites, , along the planar directions. We have found a smaller enhancement of relative to the isotropic case, namely of 1.3 times larger, for some specific choices of , and .
For both geometries, we have found that the BCS estimate roughly tracks the DQMC âs, although the positions of maxima are not reliable; less serious is the multiplicative factor of order 20 for both geometries, since the unknown proportionality factor in Eq.â(1) could account for it. In addition, since does not follow the Mermin-Wagner theorem this discrepancy at half-filling in 3D is even more serious for . Also, care must be taken since the BCS estimate for scales with the bandwidth, which, in turn, depends on ; this leads to more severe discrepancies in bilayer than in 3D.
We hope our results will stimulate optical lattice experiments to explore this route of layering to further increase .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Brazilian Agencies Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento CientĂfico e TecnolĂłgico (CNPq), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Ensino Superior (CAPES), and Instituto Nacional de CiĂȘncia e Tecnologia de Informação QuĂąntica (INCT-IQ) for funding this project. We also gratefully acknowledge support from Fundação Carlos Chagas de Apoio Ă Pesquisa (FAPERJ), through the grants E-26/200.258/2023 (N.C.C.), E-26/210.974/2024 (R.R.d.S.), E-26/200.959/2022 (T.P.), and E-26/210.100/2023 (T.P.). N.C.C. also acknowledges CNPq, Grant No. 313065/2021-7.
References
- Micnas et al. (1990) R. Micnas, J. Ranninger,  and S. Robaszkiewicz, âSuperconductivity in narrow-band systems with local nonretarded attractive interactions,â Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 113â171 (1990).
- Randeria et al. (1992) Mohit Randeria, Nandini Trivedi, Adriana Moreo,  and Richard T. Scalettar, âPairing and spin gap in the normal state of short coherence length superconductors,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2001â2004 (1992).
- Bucher et al. (1993) B. Bucher, P. Steiner, J. Karpinski, E. Kaldis,  and P. Wachter, âInfluence of the spin gap on the normal state transport in YBa2Cu4O8,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2012â2015 (1993).
- dos Santos (1994) Raimundo R. dos Santos, âSpin gap and superconductivity in the three-dimensional attractive Hubbard model,â Phys. Rev. B 50, 635â638 (1994).
- Paiva et al. (2010) Thereza Paiva, Richard Scalettar, Mohit Randeria,  and Nandini Trivedi, âFermions in 2d optical lattices: Temperature and entropy scales for observing antiferromagnetism and superfluidity,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 066406 (2010).
- Fontenele et al. (2022) Rodrigo A. Fontenele, Natanael C. Costa, Raimundo R. dos Santos,  and Thereza Paiva, âTwo-dimensional attractive Hubbard model and the BCS-BEC crossover,â Phys. Rev. B 105, 184502 (2022).
- Wilson (2001) John A. Wilson, âDevelopments in the negative-U modelling of the cuprate HTSC systems,â Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 13, R945âR977 (2001).
- Randeria (1995) Mohit Randeria, âCrossover from BCS theory to BoseâEinstein condensation,â in Bose-Einstein Condensation, edited by A. Griffin, D. W. Snoke,  and S.Editors Stringari (Cambridge University Press, 1995) p. 355â392.
- Chen et al. (2005) Qijin Chen, Jelena Stajic, Shina Tan,  and K. Levin, âBcsâbec crossover: From high temperature superconductors to ultracold superfluids,â Physics Reports 412, 1â88 (2005).
- Randeria and Taylor (2014) Mohit Randeria and Edward Taylor, âCrossover from Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer to Bose-Einstein condensation and the unitary Fermi gas,â Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 5, 209â232 (2014).
- Chin et al. (2010) Cheng Chin, Rudolf Grimm, Paul Julienne,  and Eite Tiesinga, âFeshbach resonances in ultracold gases,â Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225â1286 (2010).
- Jaksch and Zoller (2005) D. Jaksch and P. Zoller, âThe cold atom Hubbard toolbox,â Ann. Phys. 315, 52 (2005).
- Bloch et al. (2008) I. Bloch, J. Dalibard,  and W. Zwerger, âMany-body physics with ultracold gases,â Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008).
- Esslinger (2010) T. Esslinger, âFermi-Hubbard physics with atoms in an optical lattice,â Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1, 129â152 (2010).
- McKay and DeMarco (2011) D. C. McKay and B. DeMarco, âCooling in strongly correlated optical lattices: prospects and challenges,â Rep. Prog. Phys. 74, 054401 (2011).
- Mitra et al. (2018) Debayan Mitra, Peter T. Brown, Elmer Guardado-Sanchez, Stanimir S. Kondov, Trithep Devakul, David A. Huse, Peter Schauss,  and Waseem S. Bakr, âQuantum gas microscopy of an attractive Fermi-Hubbard system,â Nature Physics 14, 173â177 (2018).
- Jördens et al. (2010) R. Jördens, L. Tarruell, D. Greif, T. Uehlinger, N. Strohmaier, H. Moritz, T. Esslinger, L. De Leo, C. Kollath, A. Georges, V. Scarola, L. Pollet, E. Burovski, E. Kozik,  and M. Troyer, âQuantitative determination of temperature in the approach to magnetic order of ultracold fermions in an optical lattice,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 180401 (2010).
- Bakr et al. (2009) Waseem S. Bakr, Jonathon I. Gillen, Amy Peng, Simon Fölling,  and Markus Greiner, âA quantum gas microscope for detecting single atoms in a Hubbard-regime optical lattice,â Nature 462, 74â77 (2009).
- Gall et al. (2020) M. Gall, C. F. Chan, N. Wurz,  and M. Köhl, âSimulating a mott insulator using attractive interaction,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 010403 (2020).
- Chan et al. (2020) C. F. Chan, M. Gall, N. Wurz,  and M. Köhl, âPair correlations in the attractive Hubbard model,â Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023210 (2020).
- Hartke et al. (2023) Thomas Hartke, Botond Oreg, Carter Turnbaugh, Ningyuan Jia,  and Martin Zwierlein, âDirect observation of nonlocal fermion pairing in an attractive Fermi-Hubbard gas,â Science 381, 82â86 (2023).
- Scalettar et al. (1994) Richard T. Scalettar, Joel W. Cannon, Douglas J. Scalapino,  and Robert L. Sugar, âMagnetic and pairing correlations in coupled Hubbard planes,â Phys. Rev. B 50, 13419â13427 (1994).
- dos Santos (1995) Raimundo R. dos Santos, âMagnetism and pairing in hubbard bilayers,â Phys. Rev. B 51, 15540â15546 (1995).
- Zheng et al. (2023) Qinpei Zheng, Yuqing Wang, Libo Liang, Qi Huang, Shuai Wang, Wei Xiong, Xiaoji Zhou, Wenlan Chen, Xuzong Chen,  and Jiazhong Hu, âDimensional crossover of quantum critical dynamics in many-body phase transitions,â Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013136 (2023).
- Ibarra-GarcĂa-Padilla et al. (2020) Eduardo Ibarra-GarcĂa-Padilla, Rick Mukherjee, Randall G. Hulet, Kaden R. A. Hazzard, Thereza Paiva,  and Richard T. Scalettar, âThermodynamics and magnetism in the two-dimensional to three-dimensional crossover of the Hubbard model,â Phys. Rev. A 102, 033340 (2020).
- Ogawa et al. (2015) Naoki Ogawa, Tatsuya Kaneko,  and Yukinori Ohta, âDimensional crossover of the superfluid state in the attractive Hubbard model,â Journal of Physics: Conference Series 592, 012103 (2015).
- Blankenbecler et al. (1981) R. Blankenbecler, D. J. Scalapino,  and R. L. Sugar, âMonte carlo calculations of coupled boson-fermion systems. I,â Phys. Rev. D 24, 2278â2286 (1981).
- Hirsch (1983) J. E Hirsch, âDiscrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation for fermion lattice models,â Phys. Rev. B 28, 4059 (1983).
- Hirsch (1985) J. E. Hirsch, âTwo-dimensional Hubbard model: Numerical simulation study,â Phys. Rev. B 31, 4403â4419 (1985).
- White et al. (1989) S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, R. L. Sugar, E. Y. Loh, J. E. Gubernatis,  and R. T. Scalettar, âNumerical study of the two-dimensional Hubbard model,â Phys. Rev. B 40, 506â516 (1989).
- dos Santos (2003) Raimundo R. dos Santos, âIntroduction to quantum Monte Carlo simulations for fermionic systems,â Braz. J. Phys. 33, 36 â 54 (2003).
- Kaul (2015) Ribhu K. Kaul, âSpin nematics, valence-bond solids, and spin liquids in quantum spin models on the triangular lattice,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 157202 (2015).
- Sato et al. (2018) Toshihiro Sato, Fakher F. Assaad,  and Tarun Grover, âQuantum Monte Carlo simulation of frustrated Kondo lattice models,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 107201 (2018).
- Darmawan et al. (2018) Andrew S. Darmawan, Yusuke Nomura, Youhei Yamaji,  and Masatoshi Imada, âStripe and superconducting order competing in the Hubbard model on a square lattice studied by a combined variational Monte Carlo and tensor network method,â Phys. Rev. B 98, 205132 (2018).
- Zujev et al. (2014) Aleksander Zujev, Richard T Scalettar, George G Batrouni,  and Pinaki Sengupta, âPairing correlations in the two-layer attractive Hubbard model,â New Journal of Physics 16, 013004 (2014).
- Hazra et al. (2019) Tamaghna Hazra, Nishchhal Verma,  and Mohit Randeria, âBounds on the superconducting transition temperature: Applications to twisted bilayer graphene and cold atoms,â Phys. Rev. X 9, 031049 (2019).
- Scalapino et al. (1992) D. J. Scalapino, S. R. White,  and S. C. Zhang, âSuperfluid density and the Drude weight of the Hubbard model,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2830â2833 (1992).
- Scalapino et al. (1993) Douglas J. Scalapino, Steven R. White,  and Shoucheng Zhang, âInsulator, metal, or superconductor: The criteria,â Phys. Rev. B 47, 7995â8007 (1993).
- Nelson and Kosterlitz (1977) David R. Nelson and J. M. Kosterlitz, âUniversal jump in the superfluid density of two-dimensional superfluids,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1201â1205 (1977).
- Paiva et al. (2004) Thereza Paiva, Raimundo R. dos Santos, R. T. Scalettar,  and P. J. H. Denteneer, âCritical temperature for the two-dimensional attractive Hubbard model,â Phys. Rev. B 69, 184501 (2004).
- Huse (1988) David A. Huse, âGround-state staggered magnetization of two-dimensional quantum heisenberg antiferromagnets,â Phys. Rev. B 37, 2380â2382 (1988).
- Moreo and Scalapino (1991) A. Moreo and D. J. Scalapino, âTwo-dimensional negative-U Hubbard model,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 946â948 (1991).
- WlazĆowski et al. (2013) Gabriel WlazĆowski, Piotr Magierski, JoaquĂn E. Drut, Aurel Bulgac,  and Kenneth J. Roche, âCooper pairing above the critical temperature in a unitary fermi gas,â Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 090401 (2013).
- Tajima et al. (2014) Hiroyuki Tajima, Takashi Kashimura, Ryo Hanai, Ryota Watanabe,  and Yoji Ohashi, âUniform spin susceptibility and spin-gap phenomenon in the BCS-BEC-crossover regime of an ultracold Fermi gas,â Phys. Rev. A 89, 033617 (2014).