Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Hidden localization transitions in canonically rotated Aubry-Andr\'e models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A canonical rotation of the Aubry-André model hides a localization transition, detectable in ordinary position space, and at the critical point the Hamiltonian coincides with a massless Dirac fermion in curved spacetime.

desk verdict The hidden transition is a real but unsurprising corollary of Aubry–André duality; the paper's genuine novelty is the off-diagonal complex-hopping model and the position-basis NPR dip, while the curved-spacetime claim is materially overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.20931 v2 pith:RGMOH5YH submitted 2026-01-28 cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gashep-th

Pasquale Marra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gashep-th
keywords hiddenlocalizationtransitionAubry-AndrémodelcanonicalrotationinverseparticipationrationormalizedmasslessDiracfermioncurvedspacetimeanaloggravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper generalizes the Aubry-André model by replacing position and momentum with an arbitrary canonically conjugate pair, effectively rotating the operators by half a step in phase space. The author claims that this rotated model still undergoes a localization transition, but the localized and delocalized phases are defined with respect to the rotated basis, not the original lattice. The transition is hidden in the sense that it leaves only a remnant signature in the conventional position basis: the average normalized participation ratio dips to zero in the thermodynamic limit. At the transition point, the Hamiltonian becomes a lattice model of a massless Dirac fermion in a curved spacetime metric, suggesting a direct link between Anderson localization and analog gravity. A sympathetic reader would take this as a proof-of-concept that localization transitions can be engineered in off-diagonal, quasiperiodic hopping models and that criticality in such models carries a geometric, spacetime-like signature.

What carries the argument

The central object is the canonically rotated pair X=(1/2)(ωx+φ)-p and Y=(1/2)(ωx+φ)+p, with the canonical commutator [X,Y]=iω. In the position basis, this transformation turns the usual Aubry-André cosine terms into an off-diagonal tight-binding chain with quasiperiodic, site-dependent hopping amplitudes; in momentum space the Hamiltonian has the same functional form with the roles of position and momentum exchanged. The self-duality at J=±K, a direct consequence of the original Aubry-André self-duality, is what forces the transition. At the transition, the hoppings factor as products of a metric-derived factor α_n, which the paper connects to the zweibein of a 1+1D curved spacetime; the tw

What would settle it

At the transition J=-K, compute the finite-size scaling of the inverse participation ratio in the rotated basis using Fibonacci approximations of the golden-ratio frequency: if IPR does not decay as N^{-D2} with a nontrivial exponent 0<D2<1 while NPR goes to zero, the hidden multifractal transition is absent. Alternatively, check whether the low-energy spectrum of the rotated Hamiltonian at J=-K contains the linear Dirac crossing predicted by the curved-spacetime Hamiltonian; the absence of such a crossing would refute the claimed coincidence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that the Hamiltonian obtained by replacing the canonical pair (X,p) with the rotated pair X=(1/2)(ωx+φ)-p and Y=(1/2)(ωx+φ)+p is formally identical in position and momentum space, up to the exchange of the roles. This self-duality, inherited from the Aubry-André model, forces a localization transition at J=±K, but the localized/delocalized eigenstates are relative to the rotated operators. At the transition, the eigenstates are neither localized nor extended in either the rotated basis or the original position basis: both the inverse participation ratio and the normalized participation ratio vanish in the thermodynamic limit, indicating multifractal critical states. In the or

Load-bearing premise

The equivalence to a massless Dirac fermion in curved spacetime is built from metric factors that are defined only on patches where sine and cosine have a fixed sign and that diverge on an infinite set of lattice sites, so the existence of a global smooth metric is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The rotated Aubry-André model can be realized as arrays of quantum dots or cold atoms with quasiperiodic, off-diagonal hoppings, and the hidden transition should be observable as a dip to zero of the average NPR in the position basis.
  • The equivalence at the transition point provides a tabletop realization of a massless Dirac fermion in a quasiperiodically deformed spacetime metric, offering a concrete platform for analog-gravity experiments in condensed-matter systems.
  • The duality between the rotated model, the Aubry-André model, and the Harper-Hofstadter model (a triality) transfers spectral and localization results among all three, so critical exponents and multifractal dimensions computed in one model apply to the others.
  • The self-duality at J=±K implies that the hidden transition persists for almost all irrational frequencies and phases, with the transition boundary exactly at J=±K, inherited from the Aubry-André result.
  • The multifractal nature of the critical states, indicated by the simultaneous vanishing of IPR and NPR, should be measurable through finite-size scaling in both the rotated and position bases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is to check whether the position-basis NPR dip at the hidden transition persists for non-Hermitian or interacting generalizations of the rotated model; if it does, the dip could serve as a robust diagnostic for hidden localization in systems that do not have a canonical-rotation dual.
  • The metric-factors α_n diverge on an infinite set of sites, so the Dirac-equivalence is strictly a piecewise statement. It would be worth examining whether a global, regularized metric captures the same low-energy physics or whether the singularities are essential to the critical behavior.
  • The triality suggests that the Anderson transition in the original Aubry-André model, the Hofstadter butterfly in the Harper model, and the hidden transition in the rotated model are the same phenomenon viewed in three different bases; this points to a geometric interpretation of the mobility edge as a metric deformation.
  • The construction may extend to higher-dimensional quasiperiodic systems: replacing position and momentum by a rotated pair in two or more dimensions could produce hidden localization transitions with multifractal signatures in multiple observables.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers a family of one-dimensional tight-binding Hamiltonians obtained from the Aubry-André Hamiltonian by a linear canonical (rotation) transformation of the position and momentum operators. The main claims are: (i) the 'rotated' Aubry-André model H_RAA exhibits a localization-delocalization transition at J=±K, but the localized/delocalized phases are defined with respect to rotated bases |e_m^±>, not the conventional position basis; (ii) this hidden transition leaves a remnant signature in the conventional position basis, namely a dip of the average NPR that scales to zero polynomially at the transition in the thermodynamic limit (Fig. 2c); (iii) at the transition the lattice Hamiltonian coincides with the lattice Hamiltonian of a massless Dirac fermion in a curved 1+1D spacetime with metric ds^2 = α(x)^2 dt^2 − dx^2, where α_n is reconstructed from the hopping amplitudes through Eqs. (12)–(13). The paper is largely a corollary of the exactly solvable Aubry-André model via the canonical transformation, with the Dirac/spacetime identification as the novel interpretive step.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper has clear value for the quasiperiodic-localization community: it generalizes the Aubry-André duality to a family of off-diagonal models, shows that the position-basis NPR (or a rotated-basis IPR/NPR) detects the hidden transition, and draws a suggestive connection between localization transitions and analog gravity. The algebraic core is exact and can be verified directly from the text: the Hamiltonian identity connecting H_RAA and H_AA is a canonical rotation, so the transition at J=±K is inherited rigorously from Jitomirskaya's theorem. The numerical support (Figs. 1–2) is genuine and reproducible in structure, and the paper is honest in flagging the patchwise/singular limitations of the metric construction. However, the strongest advertised claim—coincidence with a massless Dirac fermion in curved spacetime—is only partially supported: the equivalence is patchwise, the reconstructed metric is singular on an infinite set, and the sign-gauging issue for the hopping is not addressed. The 'polynomial scaling to zero' of the position NPR is asserted only from a guide-to-the-eye fit at N=F_{21}, the largest size shown.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (12)–(13)] The curved-spacetime equivalence is established only on patches where sin(ωn/2+φ/2) and cos(ωn/2+φ/2) have fixed sign, and the text explicitly concedes that α_n diverges on an infinite set of sites when ω/2π is irrational. A lattice Dirac Hamiltonian regularizing a smooth curved-spacetime Dirac operator requires a globally defined, nonsingular α(x) (or a well-defined gauge with bounded α_n). As it stands, 'coincides with the Hamiltonian of a massless Dirac fermion in curved spacetime' overstates the result: the paper provides a piecewise, singular metric that reproduces the lattice Hamiltonian only locally. The authors should either soften the claim to 'locally equivalent, up to singularities, to a lattice Dirac Hamiltonian with a piecewise-defined metric,' or prove that a global smooth metric can be constructed, e.g., by removing the gauge/recurrence singularities.
  2. [Section IV, H_I vs H_II and Eqs. (18)–(19)] At J=K the hopping amplitude in H_RAA is 4J cos((ωn+φ)/2), while the Dirac Hamiltonian H_II uses t_n ∝ |cos((ωn+φ)/2)|. The equivalence therefore requires removing sign changes of cos((ωn+φ)/2) by a gauge transformation ψ_n → i^n ψ_n or a U(1) phase. In one dimension a sign-changing hopping can be gauged to a positive hopping only if the total Z_2 flux ∏_n sgn(cos((ωn+φ)/2)) equals +1. For a quasiperiodic sign sequence on a finite ring this product is not guaranteed to be +1, and in the thermodynamic limit the sign sequence is not periodic. The paper does not discuss this gauge obstruction. Without it, H_RAA|J=K is not literally equal to H_II, only equal up to a local gauge that may fail globally. This is a load-bearing issue for the Dirac-coincidence claim.
  3. [Section V, Fig. 2 and the polynomial NPR scaling] The claim that the position-basis NPR at eJ=0 'scales to zero polynomially' is supported only by Fig. 2(c), which shows a guide-to-the-eye straight line in log-log for N = F_{n+1} with n up to 20 (N=10946), with no error bars, no phase-averaging procedure described quantitatively, and no fitted exponent. Since this is the only quantitative statement connecting the hidden transition to conventional position-basis observables, the paper should either provide the fitted exponent, a scaling collapse, or a derivation of the polynomial law. Without it, the statement is an extrapolation from a single sequence of system sizes.
  4. [Section V, Eq. (17) and rotated-basis IPR/NPR] The rotated-basis IPR/NPR are computed in the basis |e_m^±>, but the paper does not specify the normalization, the boundary conditions, or the precise finite-N implementation of these states. Since |e_m^±> = Σ_n e^{iω n^2/4 ∓ imn}|n>, these are discrete quadratic-phase states; on a finite chain with periodic boundary conditions, the quadratic phase factor e^{iω n^2/4} is not periodic unless a twisted boundary condition is imposed. The numerical results in Fig. 1 therefore depend on an unspecified regularization. Please clarify how |e_m^±> are defined and normalized for finite N.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract mentions 'many-body localization' while the paper treats a single-particle model; the final sentence of the Introduction also repeats this. The text should be corrected to 'localization/Anderson localization.'
  2. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The NPR notation is written inconsistently (NPR_i = 1/(N·IPR_i)) and the text later uses ⟨NPR⟩; also 'thermodinamic' is a typo for 'thermodynamic.'
  3. [Section III, Eq. (3)] The notation with ⊗ and (a+ib)⊗(c+id)=ac+ibd is nonstandard and could confuse; please define it earlier or use an explicit complex hopping amplitude t_n.
  4. [Section IV, Eqs. (12)–(13)] The product index and exponent (−1)^{m+n+1} are confusing: the product runs over m=1 to n−1, so m+n+1 has a fixed parity? Please clarify the derivation of these recurrences, and define C_I/C_II consistently (typo 'defiining').
  5. [Section V, Fig. 2 caption] The caption states the phase transition occurs at eJ=0, but the original Hamiltonian also has a transition at eK=0 (J=−K). The text says 'similar plots are obtained for eK=0' without showing them; consider showing both or explicitly noting the symmetry.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The localization transition is a legitimate image of the AA transition, but the curved-spacetime identification is a metric-constructed rewriting rather than an independent prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section IV, Eqs. (12)-(14); invoked again in Section V, Eqs. (18)-(19)]
    "giving 2at_n = sqrt(α_n α_{n+1}) = |sin(1/2(ωn+φ))|. Conversely, ... giving 2at_n = sqrt(α_n α_{n+1}) = |cos(1/2(ωn+φ))|. ... H'_RAA = 4J~ a HII[(α_n)II] + 4K~ a HI[(α_n)I], which becomes equivalent to the Hamiltonian HRAA in Eq. (3) ... on patches where sin(1/2(ωn+φ)) and cos(1/2(ωn+φ)) do not change sign."

    The metrics are not independent inputs: Eqs. (12)-(13) define α_n by recursively enforcing that the Dirac-lattice hopping equals |sin| or |cos|, precisely the hopping factors already present in HRAA (Eq. 4). Eq. (14) then assembles H'_RAA from H_I and H_II with prefactors chosen to reproduce HRAA. Thus the claimed 'coincidence' with a massless Dirac fermion in curved spacetime is manufactured by construction: any nearest-neighbor tight-binding chain could be relabeled in the same way. The paper's own caveat—equivalence only on sign-definite patches and α_n diverging on an infinite set—shows the geometric identification is a local rewriting rather than an independent, globally valid prediction.

full rationale

The central localization transition is not circular: HRAA is obtained from H_AA by an exact canonical rotation, so the transition at J=±K and the critical multifractality follow from the external Aubry-André/Jitomirskaya theorem, with numerical IPR/NPR as corroboration rather than as fitted parameters. The self-citations (Refs. [47], [48]) are peripheral and not load-bearing. However, the advertised curved-spacetime connection is partially circular: the metric is solved from the same hopping amplitudes it is supposed to explain, so the Dirac-equivalence is a dictionary/rewriting rather than a substantive first-principles result. Since the main localization claim retains independent content and only the secondary analog-gravity identification reduces by construction, the appropriate score is 4.

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

No numbers are fitted to data. The model parameters J,K,ω,φ are inputs, and the arbitrary metric normalization constants C_I,C_II cancel from the hoppings; they do not affect the central claim. The main load-bearing input is the previous Aubry-André theorem, which the paper imports rather than proves.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Aubry-André transition theorem: for almost all irrational ω/2π and φ/2π, H_AA=2J cos X + 2K cos Y with [X,Y]=iω has a metal-insulator transition at J=±K.
    Section II relies on Jitomirskaya's theorem and Avila-Jitomirskaya to locate the transition; the paper's hidden transition inherits this result.
  • standard math Linear canonical transformations preserve the operator algebra and map eigenstates to unitarily rotated states.
    Section III uses X=(X'-Y')/2, Y=(X'+Y')/2; the localization claim in the rotated basis follows from this.
  • domain assumption The central-difference regularization of the curved-space Dirac derivative, ∂1(√α ψ) ≈ (√α_{n+1}ψ_{n+1} - √α_{n-1}ψ_{n-1})/2a, is a valid lattice transcription.
    Equations (8)-(10) in Section IV use this to define the lattice Dirac Hamiltonian.
  • standard math For any positive sequence t_n there exists a metric α_n with 2a t_n = √(α_n α_{n+1}); the product formulas (12)-(13) realize this for t_n ∝ |sin|, |cos|.
    The Dirac equivalence is a reconstruction of α from t_n rather than a predictive relation.
  • domain assumption The thermodynamic limit of Fibonacci approximants (ω/2π = F_n/F_{n+1}, N = F_{n+1}) reproduces the irrational-limit behavior.
    Figures 1-2 use this approximant sequence; no proof of convergence is given.
  • standard math The gauge transformation ψ_n → i^n ψ_n maps H_I to H_II.
    Section IV uses this to relate the two Dirac lattice forms.
invented entities (1)
  • Emergent spacetime metric α_n (α_n^I, α_n^II)
    purpose: Rewrite the off-diagonal hopping model as a lattice Dirac fermion in curved spacetime; Eqs. (12)-(14).
    α_n is defined recursively so that √(α_n α_{n+1}) equals the chosen hopping amplitude; any positive hopping profile admits such a metric, so this entity carries no falsifiable handle outside the paper. It also diverges on an infinite set of sites.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hidden localization transitions in canonically rotated Aubry-Andr\'e models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RGMOH5YH

@misc{pith2026260120931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hidden localization transitions in canonically rotated Aubry-Andr\'e models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RGMOH5YH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.20931}
}
read the original abstract

Anderson localization is a phase transition between a "metallic phase", where wavefunctions are extended and delocalized in space, and an "insulating phase", where wavefunctions are completely localized. These transitions are driven by uncorrelated or quasiperiodic disorder, e.g., in the case of the Aubry-Andr\'e model. Here, I consider a family of Hamiltonians that generalizes the Aubry-Andr\'e model, obtained by replacing the position and momentum operators with an arbitrary pair of canonically conjugate operators. These models exhibit a hidden localization transition. The system transitions between phases where wavefunctions are either localized or delocalized with respect to the new canonically conjugate operators, acting as an insulator or metal in this rotated space. These canonically conjugate operators can be taken as a linear combination of position and momentum, corresponding to a "rotation" in the abstract space of canonical operators. In this case, the hidden localization transition is signaled by the simultaneous vanishing of both the inverse participation ratio (IPR) and the normalized participation ratio (NPR) in the position and momentum space in the thermodynamic limit. This identifies the emergence of multifractal states that are neither fully extensive nor localized on the lattice. Hence, the states exhibit a multifractal dimension at the hidden phase transition, while remaining extended (i.e., one-dimensional) in both momentum and position everywhere else in the parameter space. Surprisingly, I found that at the phase transition, this model Hamiltonian coincides with the lattice Hamiltonian of a massless Dirac fermion in a curved spacetime background, indicating an unexpected relation between localization transitions and analog gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20931 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. IPR and NPR of the Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. IPR and NPR of the Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices, Phys. Rev.109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  2. [2]

    Aubry and G

    S. Aubry and G. André, Analyticity breaking and Anderson localization in incommensurate lattices, Ann. Israel. Phys. Soc.3, 133 (1980)

    1980

  3. [3]

    P. G. Harper, Single band motion of conduction electrons in a uniform magnetic field, Proc. Phys. Soc. A68, 874 (1955)

    1955

  4. [4]

    S. Y . Jitomirskaya, Metal-insulator transition for the almost Mathieu operator, Annals of Mathematics150, 1159 (1999)

    1999

  5. [5]

    Avila and S

    A. Avila and S. Jitomirskaya, in Mathematical Physics of Quantum Mechanics: Selected and Refereed Lectures from QMath9 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006), pp. 5–16

    2006

  6. [6]

    D. R. Hofstadter, Energy levels and wave functions of Bloch electrons in rational and irrational magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B14, 2239 (1976)

    1976

  7. [7]

    Roati, C

    G. Roati, C. D’Errico, L. Fallani, M. Fattori, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, G. Modugno, M. Modugno, and M. Inguscio, Anderson localization of a non-interacting Bose–Einstein condensate, Nature453, 895 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Lahini, R

    Y . Lahini, R. Pugatch, F. Pozzi, M. Sorel, R. Morandotti, N. Davidson, and Y . Silberberg, Observation of a localization transition in quasiperiodic photonic lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 013901 (2009)

    2009

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Verbin, O

    M. Verbin, O. Zilberberg, Y . E. Kraus, Y . Lahini, and Y . Silberberg, Observation of topological phase transitions in photonic quasicrystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 076403 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    P. Wang, Y . Zheng, X. Chen, C. Huang, Y . V . Kartashov, L. Torner, V . V . Konotop, and F. Ye, Localization and delocalization of light in photonic moirélattices, Nature577, 42 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    H. P. Lüschen, S. Scherg, T. Kohlert, M. Schreiber, P. Bordia, X. Li, S. Das Sarma, and I. Bloch, Single-particle mobility edge in a one-dimensional quasiperiodic optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 160404 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Li, Y .-Y

    H. Li, Y .-Y . Wang, Y .-H. Shi, K. Huang, X. Song, G.-H. Liang, Z.-Y . Mei, B. Zhou, H. Zhang, J.-C. Zhang, S. Chen, S. P. Zhao, Y . Tian, Z.-Y . Yang, Z. Xiang, K. Xu, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, Observation of critical phase transition in a generalized Aubry-André-Harper model wi...

    2023

  5. [13]

    X. Ni, K. Chen, M. Weiner, D. J. Apigo, C. Prodan, A. Alù, E. Prodan, and A. B. Khanikaev, Observation of Hofstadter butterfly and topological edge states in reconfigurable quasi-periodic acoustic crystals, Commun. Phys.2, 55 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, V ortex pinning and non-hermitian quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. B56, 8651 (1997)

    1997

  7. [15]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Non-hermitian delocalization and eigenfunctions, Phys. Rev. B58, 8384 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Localization transitions in non-hermitian quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 570 (1996)

    1996

  9. [17]

    Hatano, Localization in non-hermitian quantum mechanics and flux-line pinning in superconductors, Phys

    N. Hatano, Localization in non-hermitian quantum mechanics and flux-line pinning in superconductors, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl.254, 317 (1998)

    1998

  10. [18]

    X. Luo, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shindou, Universality classes of the Anderson transitions driven by non-hermitian disorder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 090402 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    X. Luo, Z. Xiao, K. Kawabata, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shindou, Unifying the Anderson transitions in Hermitian and non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L022035 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Longhi, Metal-insulator phase transition in a non-Hermitian Aubry-André-Harper model, Phys

    S. Longhi, Metal-insulator phase transition in a non-Hermitian Aubry-André-Harper model, Phys. Rev. B100, 125157 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Longhi, Phase transitions in a non-Hermitian Aubry-André-Harper model, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phase transitions in a non-Hermitian Aubry-André-Harper model, Phys. Rev. B103, 054203 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Y . E. Kraus and O. Zilberberg, Topological equivalence between the Fibonacci quasicrystal and the Harper model, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 116404 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    F. Liu, S. Ghosh, and Y . D. Chong, Localization and adiabatic pumping in a generalized Aubry-André-Harper model, Phys. Rev. B91, 014108 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Wang, X.-J

    J. Wang, X.-J. Liu, G. Xianlong, and H. Hu, Phase diagram of a non-Abelian Aubry-André-Harper model with p-wave superfluidity, Phys. Rev. B93, 104504 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    J. C. C. Cestari, A. Foerster, and M. A. Gusmão, Fate of topological states in incommensurate generalized Aubry-André models, Phys. Rev. B93, 205441 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Rossignolo and L

    M. Rossignolo and L. Dell’Anna, Localization transitions and mobility edges in coupled Aubry-André chains, Phys. Rev. B99, 054211 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Cookmeyer, J

    T. Cookmeyer, J. Motruk, and J. E. Moore, Critical properties of the ground-state localization-delocalization transition in the many-particle Aubry-André model, Phys. Rev. B101, 174203 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    G. C. McVittie, Dirac’s equation in general relativity, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.92, 868 (1932)

    1932

  21. [29]

    R. B. Mann, S. M. Morsink, A. E. Sikkema, and T. G. Steele, Semiclassical gravity in 1+1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. D43, 3948 (1991)

    1991

  22. [30]

    L. J. Garay, J. R. Anglin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Sonic analog of gravitational black holes in Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4643 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    Lahav, A

    O. Lahav, A. Itah, A. Blumkin, C. Gordon, S. Rinott, A. Zayats, and J. Steinhauer, Realization of a sonic black hole analog in a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 240401 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Steinhauer, Observation of quantum Hawking radiation and its entanglement in an analogue black hole, Nat

    J. Steinhauer, Observation of quantum Hawking radiation and its entanglement in an analogue black hole, Nat. Phys.12, 959 (2016). 7

    2016

  25. [33]

    J. R. Muñoz de Nova, K. Golubkov, V . I. Kolobov, and J. Steinhauer, Observation of thermal Hawking radiation and its temperature in an analogue black hole, Nature569, 688 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Sheng, H

    C. Sheng, H. Liu, Y . Wang, S. N. Zhu, and D. A. Genov, Trapping light by mimicking gravitational lensing, Nat. Photonics7, 902 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Bekenstein, Y

    R. Bekenstein, Y . Kabessa, Y . Sharabi, O. Tal, N. Engheta, G. Eisenstein, A. J. Agranat, and M. Segev, Control of light by curved space in nanophotonic structures, Nat. Photonics11, 664 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Zhong, J

    F. Zhong, J. Li, H. Liu, and S. Zhu, Controlling surface plasmons through covariant transformation of the spin-dependent geometric phase between curved metamaterials, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 243901 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Sheng, H

    C. Sheng, H. Liu, H. Chen, and S. Zhu, Definite photon deflections of topological defects in metasurfaces and symmetry-breaking phase transitions with material loss, Nat. Commun.9, 4271 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Drori, Y

    J. Drori, Y . Rosenberg, D. Bermudez, Y . Silberberg, and U. Leonhardt, Observation of stimulated Hawking radiation in an optical analogue, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 010404 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Boada, A

    O. Boada, A. Celi, J. I. Latorre, and M. Lewenstein, Dirac equation for cold atoms in artificial curved spacetimes, New J. Phys.13, 035002 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Cortijo and M

    A. Cortijo and M. A. H. V ozmediano, A cosmological model for corrugated graphene sheets, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.148, 83 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    de Juan, A

    F. de Juan, A. Cortijo, and M. A. H. V ozmediano, Charge inhomogeneities due to smooth ripples in graphene sheets, Phys. Rev. B76, 165409 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    M. A. H. V ozmediano, F. de Juan, and A. Cortijo, Gauge fields and curvature in graphene, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.129, 012001 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    de Juan, A

    F. de Juan, A. Cortijo, and M. A. V ozmediano, Dislocations and torsion in graphene and related systems, Nucl. Phys. B828, 625 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Cortijo, F

    A. Cortijo, F. Guinea, and M. A. H. V ozmediano, Geometrical and topological aspects of graphene and related materials, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.45, 383001 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Iorio and G

    A. Iorio and G. Lambiase, Quantum field theory in curved graphene spacetimes, Lobachevsky geometry, Weyl symmetry, Hawking effect, and all that, Phys. Rev. D90, 025006 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    E. V . Castro, A. Flachi, P. Ribeiro, and V . Vitagliano, Symmetry breaking and lattice kirigami, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 221601 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Marra, Gauge Fields Induced by Curved Spacetime, Prog

    P. Marra, Gauge Fields Induced by Curved Spacetime, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2025, 103B02 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Marra, Metric-induced nonhermitian physics, arXiv:2412.14250 (2024)

    P. Marra, Metric-induced nonhermitian physics, arXiv:2412.14250 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Drost, T

    R. Drost, T. Ojanen, A. Harju, and P. Liljeroth, Topological states in engineered atomic lattices, Nat. Phys.13, 668 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Palacio-Morales, E

    A. Palacio-Morales, E. Mascot, S. Cocklin, H. Kim, S. Rachel, D. K. Morr, and R. Wiesendanger, Atomic-scale interface engineering of Majorana edge modes in a 2D magnet-superconductor hybrid system, Sci. Adv.5, eaav6600 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Mináˇr and B

    J. Mináˇr and B. Grémaud, Mimicking Dirac fields in curved spacetime with fermions in lattices with non-unitary tunneling amplitudes, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.48, 165001 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    B. n. Mula, S. N. Santalla, and J. Rodríguez-Laguna, Casimir forces on deformed fermionic chains, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013062 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.