pith. sign in

arxiv: 2303.09260 · v3 · submitted 2023-03-16 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Magnetic-field-induced corner states in quantum spin Hall insulators

Sergey S. Krishtopenko , Fr\'ed\'eric Teppe This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 09:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords quantum spin Hall insulatorscorner statesmagnetic fieldedge HamiltonianDirac mass termshigher-order topologyzinc-blende quantum wellsin-gap bound states
0
0 comments X

The pith

Magnetic-field-induced corner states in quantum spin Hall insulators arise as in-gap bound states of the effective edge theory, controlled by the relative configuration of edge mass vectors rather than bulk topological invariants.

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

The paper derives an effective Dirac Hamiltonian for the edges of zinc-blende semiconductor quantum wells that includes two magnetic-field-dependent mass terms whose structure varies with edge orientation and field direction. It shows analytically that corner states appear when these mass vectors align in particular ways, producing isolated in-gap excitations. This edge-theory picture holds even when particle-hole symmetry is broken and when mirror-graded winding numbers cannot be defined, so the states are not required to be higher-order topological corner modes protected by a stable bulk invariant. The states may still remain spectrally robust against weak perturbations as quasiparticle excitations.

Core claim

Starting from a realistic low-energy model for zinc-blende semiconductor quantum wells, the effective edge Hamiltonian takes the form of a Dirac Hamiltonian with two magnetic-field-dependent mass terms. Magnetic-field-induced corner states are in-gap bound states of this edge theory, determined by the relative configuration of the edge mass vectors. Although mirror-graded winding numbers can be defined and quantized for certain crystallographic configurations, the existence of the corner states is not restricted to regimes where these bulk invariants are well defined, and the states can remain robust under weak perturbations even without higher-order topological protection.

What carries the argument

Effective edge Dirac Hamiltonian whose two magnetic-field-dependent mass terms have a configuration (relative orientation) that determines whether in-gap corner bound states form.

If this is right

  • Corner states form precisely when the relative configuration of the two edge mass vectors allows bound states in the effective Dirac theory.
  • Existence of the states does not require the mirror-graded winding numbers to be well defined or quantized.
  • The corner states can persist as isolated in-gap excitations under weak perturbations that do not destroy the edge mass structure.
  • The phenomenon extends beyond the particle-hole-symmetric limit because the edge Hamiltonian retains the controlling mass terms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Spectroscopy focused on individual edges could detect the mass-vector dependence without needing to measure bulk invariants.
  • Similar tunable edge-mass mechanisms might produce corner-like states in other Dirac materials under external fields.
  • The robustness argument implies that device applications could rely on edge engineering rather than bulk topology.

Load-bearing premise

The low-energy model for zinc-blende semiconductor quantum wells accurately captures magnetic-field effects on the edge states beyond the particle-hole-symmetric limit, allowing reduction to an effective Dirac Hamiltonian controlled by the mass terms.

What would settle it

Absence of corner states in an edge configuration where the derived mass vectors predict binding, or presence of corner states in a configuration where the mass vectors predict no binding, would falsify the claim that the states are controlled by the relative mass-vector configuration of the edge theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2303.09260 by Fr\'ed\'eric Teppe, Sergey S. Krishtopenko.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic of orientation of two meeting edges (de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows the evolution of corner state energy as a function of θ1−θ2 at various ratio of g2/g1, calculated for several orientations of the magnetic field and edges. As seen, the corner state always appears from the gapped 1D edge bands. Each time the corner state merges with 1D edge, W(−∞)W(+∞) causes to zero resulting to delocal￾ization of the corner state (see Eq. (20). The boundaries of the 1D edge continu… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We address the problem of magnetic-field-induced corner states in quantum spin Hall insulators (QSHIs) beyond the particle-hole-symmetric limit. Starting from a realistic low-energy model for zinc-blende semiconductor quantum wells (QWs), we derive the effective edge Hamiltonian in the form of a Dirac Hamiltonian with two magnetic-field-dependent mass terms, whose structure depends on the crystallographic orientation of the edge and of the magnetic-field orientation. Our \emph{analytical} results show that magnetic-field-induced corner states are most naturally understood as in-gap bound states of the effective edge theory, controlled by the relative configuration of the edge mass vectors rather than, in general, as higher-order topological corner modes protected by a stable bulk invariant. We demonstrate that, although mirror-graded winding numbers can be defined and quantized for certain crystallographic configurations, the existence of magnetic-field-induced corner states is not restricted to regimes in which these bulk invariants are well defined. Finally, we argue that even without higher-order topological protection these corner states may remain spectrally robust under weak perturbations as isolated in-gap quasiparticle excitations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper derives an effective Dirac edge Hamiltonian with two magnetic-field-dependent mass terms from a low-energy model of zinc-blende semiconductor quantum wells. It claims that magnetic-field-induced corner states in QSHIs arise as in-gap bound states controlled by the relative configuration of these edge mass vectors (which depend on edge and field orientation), rather than as higher-order topological corner modes protected by a stable bulk invariant in general. The authors show that mirror-graded winding numbers can be defined for certain orientations but are not required for corner-state existence, and argue for spectral robustness under weak perturbations.

Significance. If the reduction to the effective edge theory holds, the work supplies an explicit analytical understanding of how magnetic-field-induced corner states emerge from edge physics alone. The parameter-free character of the mass-vector condition and the demonstration that corner states persist outside regimes where bulk invariants are defined are notable strengths. This framing could guide experimental searches in zinc-blende QW systems by focusing on edge orientation and field direction rather than bulk topology.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and derivation of effective edge Hamiltonian] The central claim that corner states are controlled by the relative configuration of the two B-dependent mass terms in the effective edge Dirac Hamiltonian (rather than by a bulk invariant) rests on the fidelity of the truncation of the zinc-blende QW low-energy model once the magnetic field breaks particle-hole symmetry. No comparison to a microscopic tight-binding calculation or the full 8-band Kane model is presented to confirm that omitted orbital or higher-order Zeeman terms do not alter the mass-vector configuration or the bound-state condition. This verification is load-bearing for the distinction between edge-bound states and higher-order topology.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the two mass terms and their vector representation should be introduced with explicit equations early in the text to aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work's significance and for the constructive major comment. We address the concern regarding the low-energy model truncation point-by-point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and derivation of effective edge Hamiltonian] The central claim that corner states are controlled by the relative configuration of the two B-dependent mass terms in the effective edge Dirac Hamiltonian (rather than by a bulk invariant) rests on the fidelity of the truncation of the zinc-blende QW low-energy model once the magnetic field breaks particle-hole symmetry. No comparison to a microscopic tight-binding calculation or the full 8-band Kane model is presented to confirm that omitted orbital or higher-order Zeeman terms do not alter the mass-vector configuration or the bound-state condition. This verification is load-bearing for the distinction between edge-bound states and higher-order topology.

    Authors: We appreciate this valid concern about the approximation's robustness. The 4-band low-energy model employed is the standard effective Hamiltonian for zinc-blende QWs (derived from the 8-band Kane model), which has been widely validated in the literature for QSHI edge physics. The magnetic-field terms (Zeeman and orbital) are included at leading order in B, and higher-order corrections are expected to act as weak perturbations that preserve the structure of the two mass terms and the bound-state condition for experimentally relevant fields. However, to directly address the referee's point and strengthen the distinction from bulk HOTI, we will add a dedicated paragraph (with supporting estimates) in the revised manuscript explaining why the truncation remains faithful and omitted terms do not alter the mass-vector configuration. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; derivation is self-contained from external model

full rationale

The paper explicitly starts from an external realistic low-energy model for zinc-blende semiconductor quantum wells and performs an analytical reduction to an effective edge Dirac Hamiltonian whose mass terms depend on edge orientation and magnetic field. The central claim—that corner states arise as in-gap bound states controlled by relative mass-vector configurations rather than a stable bulk invariant—follows directly from this reduction and the subsequent analysis of bound-state conditions. No step reduces a prediction to a fitted input by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. The derivation chain remains independent of the target result itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the starting low-energy model for zinc-blende QWs and standard properties of Dirac Hamiltonians; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The low-energy effective model for zinc-blende semiconductor quantum wells remains valid when magnetic field is applied beyond particle-hole symmetry.
    Explicit starting point stated in the abstract for deriving the edge Hamiltonian.
  • standard math The effective edge theory can be written as a Dirac Hamiltonian with two magnetic-field-dependent mass terms.
    Core reduction step whose validity determines whether corner states are controlled by mass-vector configuration.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5725 in / 1424 out tokens · 22555 ms · 2026-05-24T09:35:19.582982+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. A. Benalcazar, B. A. Bernevig, and T. L. Hughes, Science 357, 61 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [3]

    Z. Song, Z. Fang, and C. Fang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 246402 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [4]

    Schindler, A

    F. Schindler, A. M. Cook, M. G. Vergniory, Z. Wang, S. S. P. Parkin, B. A. Bernevig, and T. Neupert, Sci. Adv. 4, eaat0346 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [5]

    Ezawa, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 026801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [6]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [8]

    K¨ onig, S

    M. K¨ onig, S. Wiedmann, C. Br¨ une, A. Roth, H. Buh- mann, L. W. Molenkamp, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 318, 766 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [9]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [10]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    work page 2011

  9. [11]

    Bansil, H

    A. Bansil, H. Lin, and T. Das, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021004 (2016)

    work page 2016

  10. [12]

    Schindler, Z

    F. Schindler, Z. Wang, M. G. Vergniory, A. M. Cook, A. Murani, S. Sengupta, A. Yu., Kasumov, R. Deblock, S. Jeon, I. Drozdov, H. Bouchiat, S. Gu´ eron, A. Yazdani, B. A. Bernevig, and T. Neupert, Nat. Phys. 15, 918 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [13]

    Y.-B. Choi, Y. Xie, C.-Z. Chen, J.-H. Park, S.-B. Song, J. Yoon, B. J. Kim, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, H.-J. Lee, J.-H. Kim, K. C. Fong, M. N. Ali, K. T. Law, and G.-H. Lee, Nat. Mater. 19, 974 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [14]

    Noguchi, M

    R. Noguchi, M. Kobayashi, Z. Jiang, K. Kuroda, T. Taka- hashi, Z. Xu, D. Lee, M. Hirayama, M. Ochi, T. Shi- rasawa, P. Zhang, C. Lin, C. Bareille, S. Sakuragi, H. Tanaka, S. Kunisada, K. Kurokawa, K. Yaji, A. Hara- sawa, V. Kandyba, A. Giampietri, A. Barinov, T. Kim, C. Cacho, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, S. Shin, R. Arita, K. Lai, T. Sasagawa, and T. Kondo, Nat....

    work page 2021

  13. [15]

    Shumiya, M

    N. Shumiya, M. S. Hossain, J.-X. Yin, Z. Wang, M. Litskevich, C. Yoon, Y. Li, Y. Yang, Y.-X. Jiang, G. Cheng, Y.-C. Lin, Q. Zhang, Z.-J. Cheng, T. A. Cochran, D. Multer, X. P. Yang, B. Casas, T.-R. Chang, T. Neupert, Z. Yuan, S. Jia, H. Lin, N. Yao, L. Balicas, F. Zhang, Y. Yao, and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Mater. (2022), 10.1038/s41563-022-01304-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41563-022-01304-3 2022

  14. [16]

    Z. Wang, B. J. Wieder, J. Li, B. Yan, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 186401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [17]

    Ezawa, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. B 98, 045125 (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [18]

    Sheng, C

    X.-L. Sheng, C. Chen, H. Liu, Z. Chen, Z.-M. Yu, Y. X. Zhao, and S. A. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 256402 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [19]

    M. J. Park, Y. Kim, G. Y. Cho, and S. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 216803 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [20]

    Fang and J

    Y. Fang and J. Cano, Phys. Rev. B 101, 245110 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [21]

    S. S. Krishtopenko, Sci. Rep. 11, 21060 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [22]

    Chen, W.-M

    X.-D. Chen, W.-M. Deng, F.-L. Shi, F.-L. Zhao, M. Chen, and J.-W. Dong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 233902 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [23]

    A. E. Hassan, F. K. Kunst, A. Moritz, G. Andler, E. Bergholtz, and M. Bourennane, Nat. Photonics 13, 697 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [24]

    Kim, M.-S

    H.-R. Kim, M.-S. Hwang, D. Smirnova, K.-Y. Jeong, Y. Kivshar, and H.-G. Park, Nat. Commun. 11, 5758 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [25]

    H. Xue, Y. Yang, G. Liu, F. Gao, Y. Chong, and B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 244301 (2019)

    work page 2019

  24. [26]

    X. Ni, M. Weiner, A. Alu, and B. Khanikaev, Nat. Mater. 18, 113 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [27]

    He, S.-Y

    C. He, S.-Y. Yu, H. Wang, H. Ge, J. Ruan, H. Zhang, M.-H. Lu, and Y.-F. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 195503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [28]

    Imhof, C

    S. Imhof, C. Berger, F. Bayer, J. Brehm, L. W. Molenkamp, T. Kiessling, F. Schindler, C. H. Lee, M. Greiter, T. Neupert, and R. Thomalem, Nat. Phys. 14, 925 (2018)

    work page 2018

  27. [29]

    Serra-Garcia, R

    M. Serra-Garcia, R. S¨ usstrunk, and S. D. Huber, Phys. Rev. B 99, 020304 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [30]

    J. Bao, D. Zou, W. Zhang, W. He, H. Sun, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 100, 201406 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [31]

    Ezawa, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. B 100, 045407 (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [32]

    Langbehn, Y

    J. Langbehn, Y. Peng, L. Trifunovic, F. von Oppen, and P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 246401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  31. [33]

    Khalaf, Phys

    E. Khalaf, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205136 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [34]

    Wang, C.-C

    Q. Wang, C.-C. Liu, Y.-M. Lu, and F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 186801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [35]

    Z. Yan, F. Song, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 096803 (2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [36]

    Yan, Phys

    Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 177001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  35. [39]

    C. Chen, Z. Song, J.-Z. Zhao, Z. Chen, Z.-M. Yu, X.-L. Sheng, and S. A. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 056402 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [41]

    Knez, R.-R

    I. Knez, R.-R. Du, and G. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 136603 (2011)

    work page 2011

  37. [42]

    S. S. Krishtopenko and F. Teppe, Sci. Adv. 4, eaap7529 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [43]

    S. S. Krishtopenko, S. Ruffenach, F. Gonzalez-Posada, G. Boissier, M. Marcinkiewicz, M. A. Fadeev, A. M. Kadykov, V. V. Rumyantsev, S. V. Morozov, V. I. Gavrilenko, C. Consejo, W. Desrat, B. Jouault, W. Knap, E. Tourni´ e, and F. Teppe, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245419 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [44]

    S. S. Krishtopenko, W. Desrat, K. E. Spirin, C. Consejo, S. Ruffenach, F. Gonzalez-Posada, B. Jouault, W. Knap, K. V. Maremyanin, V. I. Gavrilenko, G. Boissier, J. Tor- res, M. Zaknoune, E. Tourni´ e, and F. Teppe, Phys. Rev. B 99, 121405 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [45]

    Schmid, M

    S. Schmid, M. Meyer, F. Jabeen, G. Bastard, F. Hart- mann, and S. H¨ ofling, Phys. Rev. B105, 155304 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [46]

    Avogadri, S

    C. Avogadri, S. Gebert, S. S. Krishtopenko, I. Castillo, C. Consejo, S. Ruffenach, C. Roblin, C. Bray, Y. Krupko, S. Juillaguet, S. Contreras, A. Wolf, F. Hartmann, 7 S. H¨ ofling, G. Boissier, J.-B. Rodriguez, S. Nanot, E. Tourni´ e, F. Teppe, and B. Jouault, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L042042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [47]

    Dresselhaus, Phys

    G. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev. 100, 580 (1955)

    work page 1955

  43. [48]

    E. L. Ivchenko, A. Y. Kaminski, and U. R¨ ossler, Phys. Rev. B 54, 5852 (1996)

    work page 1996

  44. [49]

    M. V. Durnev and S. A. Tarasenko, Phys. Rev. B 93, 075434 (2016)

    work page 2016

  45. [50]

    B¨ uttner, C

    B. B¨ uttner, C. Liu, G. Tkachov, E. Novik, C. Br¨ une, H. Buhmann, E. Hankiewicz, P. Recher, B. Trauzettel, S. Zhang, and L. Molenkamp, Nat. Phys. 7, 418 (2011)

    work page 2011

  46. [51]

    A. M. Kadykov, S. S. Krishtopenko, B. Jouault, W. Desrat, W. Knap, S. Ruffenach, C. Consejo, J. Tor- res, S. V. Morozov, N. N. Mikhailov, S. A. Dvoretskii, and F. Teppe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 086401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [52]

    Br¨ une, A

    C. Br¨ une, A. Roth, H. Buhmann, E. M. Hankiewicz, L. W. Molenkamp, J. Maciejko, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Nat. Phys. 8, 485 (2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [53]

    A. M. Kadykov, F. Teppe, C. Consejo, L. Viti, M. S. Vitiello, S. S. Krishtopenko, S. Ruffenach, S. V. Morozov, M. Marcinkiewicz, W. Desrat, N. Dyakonova, W. Knap, V. I. Gavrilenko, N. N. Mikhailov, and S. A. Dvoretsky, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 152101 (2015)

    work page 2015

  49. [54]

    A. M. Kadykov, J. Torres, S. S. Krishtopenko, C. Con- sejo, S. Ruffenach, M. Marcinkiewicz, D. But, W. Knap, S. V. Morozov, V. I. Gavrilenko, N. N. Mikhailov, S. A. Dvoretsky, and F. Teppe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 262102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  50. [55]

    Olshanetsky, Z

    E. Olshanetsky, Z. Kvon, G. Gusev, N. Mikhailov, and S. Dvoretsky, Physica E Low. Dimens. Syst. Nanostruct. 99, 335 (2018)

    work page 2018

  51. [56]

    Yahniuk, S

    I. Yahniuk, S. S. Krishtopenko, G. Grabecki, B. Jouault, C. Consejo, W. Desrat, M. Majewicz, A. M. Kadykov, K. E. Spirin, V. I. Gavrilenko, N. N. Mikhailov, S. A. Dvoretsky, D. B. But, F. Teppe, J. Wr´ obel, G. Cywi´ nski, S. Kret, T. Dietl, and W. Knap, npj Quantum Mater. 4 (2019), 10.1038/s41535-019-0154-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41535-019-0154-3 2019

  52. [57]

    S. S. Krishtopenko, A. M. Kadykov, S. Gebert, S. Ruffe- nach, C. Consejo, J. Torres, C. Avogadri, B. Jouault, W. Knap, N. N. Mikhailov, S. A. Dvoretskii, and F. Teppe, Phys. Rev. B 102, 041404 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [58]

    J. T. Olesberg, W. H. Lau, M. E. Flatt´ e, C. Yu, E. Al- tunkaya, E. M. Shaw, T. C. Hasenberg, and T. F. Boggess, Phys. Rev. B 64, 201301 (2001)

    work page 2001

  54. [59]

    Szmulowicz, H

    F. Szmulowicz, H. Haugan, and G. J. Brown, Phys. Rev. B 69, 155321 (2004)

    work page 2004

  55. [60]

    L. L. Li, W. Xu, and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B 82, 235422 (2010)

    work page 2010

  56. [61]

    Lang and J.-B

    X.-L. Lang and J.-B. Xia, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 44, 425103 (2011)

    work page 2011

  57. [62]

    H. Dong, L. Li, W. Xu, and K. Han, Thin Solid Films 589, 388 (2015)

    work page 2015

  58. [63]

    X. Chen, J. Xing, L. Zhu, F.-X. Zha, Z. Niu, S. Guo, and J. Shao, J. Appl. Phys. 119, 175301 (2016)

    work page 2016

  59. [64]

    Winkler, Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two- Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems (Springer, New York, 2003)

    R. Winkler, Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two- Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems (Springer, New York, 2003)

    work page 2003

  60. [65]

    M. V. Durnev, Phys. Solid State 62, 504 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [67]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D 13, 3398 (1976)

    work page 1976

  62. [68]

    [71,72] for proving the uniqueness of the corner state energy E0D in Eq

    See Supplemental Materials containing Refs. [71,72] for proving the uniqueness of the corner state energy E0D in Eq. (21) for a sharp corner. Application of our analytical results in the context of the lattice model used in Ref. [37] and calculation of the mirror-graded winding numbers are also provided therein

    work page

  63. [70]

    Liu, C.-B

    Z.-R. Liu, C.-B. Hua, T. Peng, R. Chen, and B. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 107, 125302 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [71]

    Gangopadhyaya, J

    A. Gangopadhyaya, J. V. Mallow, and C. Rasinariu, Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction (World Scientific, Singapore, 2011)

    work page 2011

  65. [72]

    Cooper, A

    F. Cooper, A. Khare, and U. Sukhatme, Supersymme- try in Quantum Mechanics (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002). 8 Supplementary Materials A. Uniqueness of the corner state energy for a sharp corner As shown in the main text, the problem of finding the energy of a corner state localized at the intersection of two edges reduces to solving the equation ( ˆk2...

    work page 2002

  66. [73]

    zero energy

    As clear, if L → 0, W (x) is reduced to the case considered in the main text with W1,2 = ∓A + B/A. For W (x) in the form of Eq. (S2), Eq. (S1) has localized solutions with the energies ε(nσ) = A2 − A − nσ L 2 + B2 A2 − B2 A − nσ L 2 , (S3) where n−/L = 0, 1, 2, ..., nmax/L < |A| for σ = −1 and n+/L = 1, 2, ..., nmax/L < |A| for σ = 1. Obviously, if L → 0,...

    work page

  67. [74]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 188, 513 (1981)

    work page 1981

  68. [75]

    Gangopadhyaya, J

    A. Gangopadhyaya, J. V. Mallow, and C. Rasinariu, Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction (World Sci- entific, Singapore, 2011)

    work page 2011

  69. [76]

    Cooper, A

    F. Cooper, A. Khare, and U. Sukhatme, Supersymmetry in Quantum Mechanics (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002)

    work page 2002

  70. [77]

    Ezawa, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 116801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  71. [78]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 314, 1757 (2006)

    work page 2006

  72. [79]

    C. Liu, T. L. Hughes, X.-L. Qi, K. Wang, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 236601 (2008)

    work page 2008

  73. [80]

    Bercioux, J

    D. Bercioux, J. Cayssol, M. G. Vergniory, and M. R. Calvo, Topological Matter: Lectures from the Topological Matter School 2017 (Springer Nature, Switzerland AG, 2018)

    work page 2017

  74. [81]

    Y. Ren, Z. Qiao, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 166804 (2020)

    work page 2020

  75. [82]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D 13, 3398 (1976), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.13.3398

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.13.3398 1976

  76. [83]

    Liu, C.-B

    Z.-R. Liu, C.-B. Hua, T. Peng, R. Chen, and B. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 107, 125302 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.125302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.125302 2023