Flat bands on spherical surface: from Landau levels to giant-quantum-number orbitals

Bo Yang; Chen-Xin Jiang; Zi-Xiang Hu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Flat bands on spherical surface: from Landau levels to giant-quantum-number orbitals

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Zero-field flat bands on a conducting sphere localize a trapped electron at both poles, enabling magnet-free spin-entangled pairs.

desk verdict Solid single-particle and pseudopotential results on zero-field spherical flat bands, but the Bell-pair claim is not derived and should be removed or properly supported before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06922 v2 pith:QJQRNOM5 submitted 2024-12-09 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Chen-Xin Jiang , Zi-Xiang Hu , Bo Yang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords flatbandssphericalharmonicszeromagneticfieldC2symmetryLandaulevelsBellpairpseudopotentialsbandmixing

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

Electrons confined to the surface of a conducting sphere have gapped, strictly flat kinetic-energy bands even with no magnetic field, and this paper argues that the zero-field ($Q=0$) band is fundamentally different from magnetic Landau levels. Because the band's spherical-harmonic eigenstates have an inversion ($C_2$) symmetry, a local delta-trapping potential projected into the band cannot pin an electron at one point: the density accumulates symmetrically at the trap and at its antipode, for example at the North and South Poles. This gives a field-free route to a long-range entangled Bell pair of opposite-spin electrons, and it also means an odd number of traps with $N_\delta>l$ restores the $\hat{L}_z$ rotational symmetry with fewer traps than a Landau level needs. The paper further shows that even a contact interaction becomes long-ranged in the pseudopotential basis at $Q=0$, suppressing uniform ground states at partial filling, and proposes micron-scale conducting spheres in low-effective-mass materials as a feasible experimental platform.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $C_2$ (inversion) symmetry of spherical harmonics, $Y_{l,m}(\theta,\varphi)\to Y_{l,m}(\pi-\theta,\varphi+\pi)$, together with the projection of a delta potential onto one band. The projected trap matrix elements are assembled from Wigner $3j$ symbols and the Legendre expansion of the potential; the $C_2$ symmetry forces the single-electron density to be inversion-even, producing the antipodal peak. The same symmetry enters the proof of $\hat{L}_z$ restoration: at the equator, spherical harmonics with $l+m$ odd vanish, and with an odd effective number of traps the off-diagonal matrix elements sum to zero by a root-of-unity argument. For interactions, the machinery is the pseudopotential decomposition, in which a short-range $\nabla^2\delta$ interaction in the $l$-th band becomes $V_1+V_3+\cdots+V_{2l-1}$, so the zero-field band behaves like the infinite-Landau-level limit and interactions become long-ranged.

What would settle it

Diagonalize the single-electron Hamiltonian of Eq. (8) at $Q=0$, $l=25$, with the delta trap at the North Pole and $W_\delta/\Delta E_l^k=10^{-2}$, and read off the density at the South Pole: if the antipodal peak is absent while the polar peak remains, the $C_2$ localization claim fails. For the Bell-pair claim, perform an exact two-electron spin-singlet calculation in the same single-band limit and check whether the probability of finding spin-down at the South Pole given spin-up at the North Pole approaches one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the zero-field flat band with orbital angular momentum $l$ and eigenstates $Y_{l,m}$ carries an extra $C_2$ inversion symmetry that magnetically quantized Landau levels ($Q>0$) do not, and most of the paper's results follow from projecting local potentials and interactions onto this single band. Within the band, the matrix elements of a delta trap are $C_2$-even, so the electron's density peaks at the trap position and at the opposite point on the sphere; only when the trap is strong enough to mix several bands does the electron localize at a single point. If two electrons of opposite spin form a singlet in this band, the paper concludes that the orbitally entangled state is a Bell pair, so a spin-up measurement at one pole forces spin-down at the other. The same symmetry reduces the number of delta traps needed to restore $\hat{L}_z$: at $Q=0$, an odd effective number $\tilde{N}_\delta=N_\delta/\alpha$ (with $\alpha=2$ for even $N_\delta$) larger than $l$ suffices, whereas $Q>0$ bands need $N_\delta\ge 2l+1$. For interactions, a contact $\nabla^2\delta$ interaction in the $l$-th zero-field band maps to pseudopotentials $V_1+V_3+\cdots+V_{2l-1}$, making the effective interaction long-ranged and preventing a uniform ground state at partial filling; Coulomb band mixing at $Q=0$ primarily renormalizes the large-relative-angular-momentum pseudopotentials. The experimental proposal translates the single-band condition into concrete radius, temperature, and electron-density windows.

Load-bearing premise

Every distinctive result presupposes the single-band limit: the delta trap and the interaction energy must stay much smaller than the band gap $(l+1)\hbar^2/(m_e R^2)$, because when band mixing is strong the electron localizes at one point and the $C_2$ antipodal effect disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single STM tip held at one pole of a zero-field conducting sphere should create a second electron-density peak at the opposite pole whenever the tip potential stays well below the band gap.
An odd number of delta traps with $N_\delta>l$ conserves $\hat{L}_z$ in the $Q=0$ band, so fewer, specially arranged traps are needed than the $N_\delta\ge 2l+1$ required for Landau levels.
Contact interactions are not contact in this band: their pseudopotentials extend to $V_{2l-1}$, so a partially filled $Q=0$ band will not form a uniform quantum-Hall-like ground state.
Coulomb-driven mixing of the $l$ and $l+1$ bands is strongest at $Q=0$ and mainly changes the large-$J$ pseudopotentials, so two-band calculations are necessary for quantitative predictions in zero field.
A conducting sphere with radius roughly 10-100 micrometers and an InSb or GaAs electron layer should realize 10^3-10^5 degenerate orbitals with gaps of about 0.07-0.7 K, accessible at millikelvin temperatures without a magnetic field.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: if the single-band $C_2$ argument is right, the antipodal localization should survive on any compact surface with an inversion symmetry and a degenerate band, so surfaces beyond the sphere are natural search targets.
Inference: the Bell-pair conclusion is drawn from single-particle densities and a singlet assumption; a full two-electron spin-resolved calculation would be needed to confirm genuine nonlocal correlations and to specify how the spin measurement at one pole is made.
Inference: the odd-$N_\delta$ restoration of $\hat{L}_z$ gives a sharp diagnostic: adding one trap to an even array of equally spaced equatorial traps should switch the symmetry from broken to conserved, isolating the $C_2$ mechanism from band-mixing effects.
Inference: because partial filling lacks a uniform ground state, the $Q=0$ band may host clustered or phase-separated states; searching for those states at filling fractions where Landau levels would give incompressible liquids would test whether the long-range pseudopotentials fully suppress quantum-Hall-like order.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core of this paper is better than the packaging. The Q=0 spherical-harmonic shell treated as a zero-field flat band is a legitimate construction, and the paper works out two genuinely useful things: the Lz-restoration conditions for equatorial delta traps (with correct root-of-unity arguments in the supplement) and the pseudopotential structure of short-range interactions projected into a single l-shell. The band-mixing calculation for the l and l+1 shells is also a concrete, self-contained piece of work. If I worked on spherical quantum Hall or finite-shell models, I would want these results on record.

The soft spot is the headline. The abstract, introduction, and Discussion claim that a local trap produces long-range entanglement and a Bell pair. What is actually shown is single-particle physics: a delta potential at the North Pole, projected into the Q=0 shell, produces a density symmetric about the center. That is a spatial superposition of one electron, not an entangled state. The two-electron claim in Section III and Fig. 6(a) is asserted, not derived. A spin singlet with a symmetric spatial orbital phi(r1)phi(r2) does not force the second electron to the South Pole after a spin-up detection at the North Pole; it gives the conditional density |phi(r2)|^2, which is not a delta function at the antipode. No two-electron Hamiltonian with trap plus interaction is diagonalized, no spin-resolved density is computed, and no Bell-inequality check appears. The stress-test note is right: this is the load-bearing flaw, and it is fixable by rewriting the claim.

A minor related issue: the paper states the single-band limit requires the impurity potential to be much smaller than the band gap, but the experimental STM-tip proposal never quantifies this against a concrete tip potential. The experimental section is otherwise careful about temperature, radius, and density constraints, but the trap-strength assumption is left dangling.

The math that is actually presented is mostly sound. I checked the supplement's two proofs; the cancellation arguments for Lz restoration work, and the pseudopotential formulas are standard. The paper also honestly notes its own difference from thermodynamic-limit flat bands and flags the open disorder question. Code is only available on request, which is a minor reproducibility wart.

Verdict: this deserves a serious referee, but the referee should ask for major revision. The Bell-pair language should go or be replaced by a real two-particle calculation. As written, the central advertised result is not supported. With that fixed, the symmetry and interaction results are a solid contribution for the spherical flat-band community.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies electrons confined to a single kinetic-energy flat band on a spherical surface in the absence of a magnetic field (the Q=0 case), and compares this system with the conventional Landau levels realized with a magnetic monopole (Q>0). The authors derive three main results: (i) a single delta-function trapping potential projected onto the Q=0 band produces a state whose density is peaked symmetrically at the trap and its antipode, in contrast to the Gaussian localization of Landau levels; (ii) the axial rotational symmetry L_z can be restored by fewer delta potentials in the Q=0 band than in Q>0 bands, with proofs based on root-of-unity sums and properties of Wigner 3j symbols; and (iii) the pseudopotentials for short-range and Coulomb interactions in the Q=0 band are much longer-ranged, leading to stronger band-mixing effects. The paper also proposes an experimental setup using a conducting microsphere with an STM tip and claims that the antipodal density profile can host long-range 'entanglement' or a 'Bell pair' of two opposite-spin electrons at the North and South Poles.

Significance. The analytically derived parts of this work are valuable: the C2-induced antipodal single-particle density is a clean and correct consequence of projecting a delta potential onto the l-band, the L_z restoration proofs in Supplementary Notes 1 and 2 are rigorous and self-contained, and the pseudopotential and band-mixing calculations provide a useful contrast between zero-field spherical flat bands and Landau levels. The paper is also commendable for giving explicit Wigner-3j expressions and numerical data. However, the headline claim of long-range entanglement and Bell pairs is not supported by any two-particle calculation and, as stated, is incorrect; the paper's own closing paragraph defers Bell-pair generation to future work. Because this claim appears in the abstract and the Discussion, it materially overstates the paper's achievement. The remaining content, if reframed without the entanglement claim, would be a solid contribution.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Fig. 6(a)] The Bell-pair claim is not derived and is incorrect as stated. The single-particle density |Y_{l0}(θ)|^2 shown in Fig. 2(b) is a one-body probability distribution; it encodes no two-particle correlations. For two electrons in a spin singlet occupying the same m=0 orbital, the spatial wavefunction is a product φ(r1)φ(r2), so after a spin-up detection at the North Pole the second electron's spatial density is |φ(r2)|^2, and the probability to find it at the South Pole is |φ(S)|^2 < 1, not a conditional certainty. The two-electron Hamiltonian with the trap, interaction, and spin is never diagonalized, and no spin-resolved density, Bell-state fidelity, or Bell-inequality check is reported. The statement in the final paragraph that 'Future work could explore how the generation of Bell pairs on spherical systems can be experimentally realized' further confirms that the present manuscript does not establish this claim.
[Section II.B and Fig. 2] The antipodal localization phenomenon is explicitly conditional on the impurity strength being much smaller than the inter-band gap, as the paper notes: 'it requires the strength of the impurity potential to be much smaller than the gap ΔE_l^k', and Fig. 2 shows that strong band mixing localizes the electron at a single point. The experimental proposal in Section III and Fig. 6, however, invokes an STM tip without quantifying Wδ relative to the quoted gaps of 0.07-0.7 K (Eqs. (16)-(21)). Without an estimate showing that a realistic STM tip potential satisfies Wδ << ΔE_l^k, the proposal does not demonstrate that the C2 phenomenon can actually be observed. The authors should either provide such an estimate or substantially soften the experimental claim.
[Section III and Abstract] The phrase 'single particle long-range entanglement' is a category error: a single-particle spatial superposition is not an entangled state, because there is only one subsystem. If the intended claim concerns two electrons, it requires a two-particle density-matrix calculation and a proper treatment of the spin and spatial degrees of freedom. As written, the abstract's promise of 'a unique form of long-range entanglement' is not supported by the calculations in the paper and should be removed or replaced by a correctly derived two-particle statement.

minor comments (5)

[Section II.C and Fig. 3] The bandwidth Δ_b of the delta-potential spectrum is not precisely defined; the authors should state which spectrum is used (e.g., the single-particle eigenvalues within the projected band) and specify the energy range plotted in Fig. 3.
[Section II.D, Eq. (11)] The notation J = 2l − J for the relative angular momentum is introduced abruptly; a sentence explaining that J is the total angular momentum of a pair and J is the relative counterpart would improve readability.
[Fig. 6(b,c) captions] The caption says 'The orbital angular momentum l as functions of crossover temperature Tc'; it should be 'as a function of'. Also, the InSb and GaAs curves would be easier to distinguish if the figure used line styles in addition to color.
[Section II.B, Fig. 2 caption] The gray cone marking the STM tip is described, but the caption does not state the parameter values (l, Wδ/ΔE_l^k) used in the panel; adding these would make the figure self-contained.
[Throughout] The notation 'C(2)' and 'C2' is used inconsistently; choose a single notation, e.g., C_2, and define it explicitly as the antipodal (inversion) symmetry of the sphere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the antipodal localization and rotational-symmetry results are self-contained derivations, while the Bell-pair claim is an unsupported extrapolation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Single-particle flat-band eigenstates are the spherical harmonics Y_lm (Eq. 4); the delta-trap matrix elements are obtained from Wigner 3j symbols (Eqs. 5-8), and the antipodal density accumulation at Q=0 is a direct consequence of the parity selection rule (l l' l; 0 0 0) proven in Supplementary Note 2, not of any fitted parameter. The Lz-restoration thresholds, N_delta >= 2l+1 for Q>0 and tilde(N_delta)>l for Q=0, are proven in Supplementary Notes 1-2 by root-of-unity sums. The interaction and band-mixing results (Eqs. 11-15) are exact diagonalization/pseudopotential computations whose inputs are the Hamiltonian and the band gap; the effective pseudopotentials are defined to match the low-energy spectrum, so the resulting modifications are honest outputs, not predictions of a pre-fitted model. The few same-group citations (Refs 29, 34, 36, 43) are contextual analogies or background and do not carry the argument: no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. The only serious weakness is the Discussion's "Bell pair" inference, which leaps from a single-particle C2 density profile to a two-electron spin-space correlation without computing the two-particle state; the paper itself defers spin effects to "future studies." That is an unsupported inference, not a circular reduction: there is no equation in which the claimed entanglement equals the input by construction. Hence no circular step is exhibited under the required quote-and-reduce standard.

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

No data-fitting parameters are introduced; the only tuned numbers are system parameters varied for illustration, such as l, Q, N_delta, W_delta, R, and rho_e, which are inputs rather than free parameters fitted to enforce the results. Material constants such as m_e and permittivity are taken from cited literature. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated. The main unstated assumption is the single-band projection limit, and the Bell-pair claim carries an implicit two-particle state assumption that is not justified.

assumptions (5)

standard math Spherical harmonics are eigenstates of L2, satisfy the addition theorem, and obey Wigner 3j selection rules including (l l' l; 0 0 0) = 0 for odd l'.
Invoked throughout Section II and Supplementary Notes 1 and 2 for matrix elements of delta potentials and pseudopotentials.
domain assumption The single-particle Hamiltonian on the sphere is H = (L2 - hbar^2 Q^2)/(2 m_e R^2), with no curvature-induced potential, spin-orbit coupling, or extra kinetic terms.
Equation (1) defines the model; the Q=0 case then inherits the spectrum of free spherical harmonics.
domain assumption All lower angular-momentum shells are completely filled, so the topmost shell with fixed l is an isolated partially filled flat band with degeneracy 2l+1.
Section II.A uses this filling construction to justify the flat-band picture and the gap DeltaE_l^k.
domain assumption The external potential and interaction strengths are small compared with the inter-band gap, so a single-band projection is valid.
Explicitly required in Section II.B: the antipodal effect appears 'if the impurity potential is smaller than the band gap'; strong band mixing restores single-point localization.
ad hoc to paper The two added electrons in the Bell-pair proposal form a spin singlet and occupy the same single-particle orbital, with no explicit two-particle spatial wavefunction constructed.
Section III Discussion asserts spin-up at the North Pole forces spin-down at the South Pole, but the paper does not derive this from a two-electron state; the claim is unsupported as written.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flat bands on spherical surface: from Landau levels to giant-quantum-number orbitals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QJQRNOM5

@misc{pith2026241206922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flat bands on spherical surface: from Landau levels to giant-quantum-number orbitals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QJQRNOM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06922}
}

read the original abstract

Flat bands result in a divergent density of states and high sensitivity to interactions in physical systems. While such bands are well known in systems under magnetic fields, their realization and behavior in zero-field settings remain largely unexplored. Here we compare the behavior of electrons confined to a single flat band on the surface of a sphere to those in flat bands under a magnetic field. The zero-field flat band exhibits an additional C(2) symmetry, which causes electrons to symmetrically cluster on opposite sides of the sphere's center when a trapping potential is introduced, resulting in a unique form of long-range "entanglement". To explore these findings experimentally, we propose a feasible setup to explore the unique properties of zero-field flat bands on spherical substrates, offering a promising route for studying interaction-driven states in spherical geometry without external fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06922 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

Roy and S

R. Roy and S. Sondhi, Fractional quantum Hall effect without Landau levels, Physics 4 (2011)

work page 2011
[2]

S. A. Parameswaran, R. Roy, and S. L. Sondhi, Fractional quantum Hall physics in topological flat bands, Comptes Ren- dus Physique 14, 816 (2013), topological insulators / Isolants topologiques

work page 2013
[3]

E. J. Bergholtz and Z. Liu, Topological flat band models and fractional Chern insulators, International Journal of Modern Physics B 27, 1330017 (2013)

work page 2013
[4]

Ramires and J

A. Ramires and J. L. Lado, Emulating heavy fermions in twisted trilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 026401 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

Tran and T

M.-T. Tran and T. T. Nguyen, Molecular Kondo effect in flat- band lattices, Phys. Rev. B 97, 155125 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

Dong and Y .-f

J.-J. Dong and Y .-f. Yang, Development of long-range phase coherence on the Kondo lattice, Phys. Rev. B 106, L161114 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

V . I. Iglovikov, F. Hébert, B. Grémaud, G. G. Batrouni, and R. T. Scalettar, Superconducting transitions in flat-band sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B 90, 094506 (2014)

work page 2014
[8]

Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxi- ras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

2018

Show all 55 references

[9]

N. B. Kopnin, T. T. Heikkilä, and G. E. V olovik, High- temperature surface superconductivity in topological flat-band systems, Phys. Rev. B 83, 220503 (2011)

2011
[10]

Yankowitz, S

M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y . Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Tuning su- perconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Science 363, 1059 (2019)

2019
[11]

N. F. Mott, Metal-insulator transition, Rev. Mod. Phys. 40, 677 (1968)

1968
[12]

Hu, J.-J

D. Hu, J.-J. Dong, L. Huang, L. Wang, and Y .-f. Yang, Effective classical correspondence of the Mott transition, Phys. Rev. B 101, 075111 (2020)

2020
[13]

R. B. Laughlin, Anomalous quantum Hall effect: An incom- pressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983)

1983
[14]

Yang and Z.-X

Y . Yang and Z.-X. Hu, Monte carlo simulation of the topologi- cal quantities in fractional quantum Hall systems, Phys. Rev. B 107, 115162 (2023)

2023
[15]

F. D. M. Haldane, Fractional quantization of the Hall effect: A hierarchy of incompressible quantum fluid states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 605 (1983)

1983
[16]

F. D. M. Haldane, Many-particle translational symmetries of two-dimensional electrons at rational Landau-Level filling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2095 (1985)

1985
[17]

P. C. Ojha and R. S. Berry, Angular correlation of two electrons on a sphere, Phys. Rev. A 36, 1575 (1987)

1987
[18]

P.-F. m. c. Loos and P. M. W. Gill, Ground state of two electrons on a sphere, Phys. Rev. A 79, 062517 (2009)

2009
[19]

Seidl, Adiabatic connection in density-functional theory: Two electrons on the surface of a sphere, Phys

M. Seidl, Adiabatic connection in density-functional theory: Two electrons on the surface of a sphere, Phys. Rev. A 75, 062506 (2007)

2007
[20]

G. S. Ezra and R. S. Berry, Correlation of two particles on a sphere, Phys. Rev. A 25, 1513 (1982)

1982
[21]

Watanabe and C

S. Watanabe and C. D. Lin, Classification scheme of triply ex- cited states from a molecular viewpoint, Phys. Rev. A 36, 511 (1987)

1987
[22]

D. C. Thompson and A. Alavi, Two interacting electrons in a spherical box: An exact diagonalization study, Phys. Rev. B66, 235118 (2002)

2002
[23]

D. C. Thompson and A. Alavi, A comparison of Hartree-Fock and exact diagonalization solutions for a model two-electron system., The Journal of chemical physics 122 12 , 124107 (2005)

2005
[24]

Alavi, Two interacting electrons in a box: An exact diago- nalization study, Chemical Physics - CHEM PHYS 113, 7735 (2000)

A. Alavi, Two interacting electrons in a box: An exact diago- nalization study, Chemical Physics - CHEM PHYS 113, 7735 (2000)

2000
[25]

Yang and Z

L. Yang and Z. Yao, Two and three electrons on a sphere: A generalized Thomson problem, Phys. Rev. B 97, 235431 (2018)

2018
[26]

T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Dirac monopole without strings: Monopole harmonics, Nuclear Physics B 107, 365 (1976)

1976
[27]

T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Some properties of monopole har- monics, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1018 (1977)

1977
[28]

A. R. Edmonds, Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1957)

1957
[29]

N. Roy, B. Peng, and B. Yang, Superlattice-induced electron percolation within a single Landau level, Phys. Rev. B 110, 195116 (2024)

2024
[30]

Rakhmanov, E

E. Rakhmanov, E. B. Saff, and Y . M. Zhou, Minimal discrete energy on the sphere, Mathematical Research Letters 1, 647 (1994)

1994
[31]

E. B. Saff and A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Distributing many points on a sphere, The Mathematical Intelligencer 19, 5 (1997)

1997
[32]

Williamson, The evolution of dynamical cores for global at- mospheric models, J

D. Williamson, The evolution of dynamical cores for global at- mospheric models, J. Royal Met. Soc. Japan 85B, 241 (2007)

2007
[33]

González, Measurement of areas on a sphere using Fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices, Mathematical Geosciences 42, 49 (2010)

Á. González, Measurement of areas on a sphere using Fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices, Mathematical Geosciences 42, 49 (2010)

2010
[34]

B. Peng, N. Roy, G. Ji, and B. Yang, Robust translational in- variance in topological bands against lattice potentials and dis- orders (2024), arXiv:2411.16862 [cond-mat.str-el]

2024 arXiv
[35]

S. A. Trugman and S. Kivelson, Exact results for the fractional quantum Hall effect with general interactions, Phys. Rev. B31, 5280 (1985)

1985
[36]

J. Wang, J. Cano, A. J. Millis, Z. Liu, and B. Yang, Exact Lan- dau level description of geometry and interaction in a flatband, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 246403 (2021)

2021
[37]

Sodemann and A

I. Sodemann and A. H. MacDonald, Landau level mixing and the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B 87, 245425 (2013)

2013
[38]

E. H. Rezayi, Landau level mixing and the ground state of the ν = 5/2 quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 026801 (2017)

2017
[39]

Zhang, A

Y . Zhang, A. Wójs, and J. K. Jain, Landau-level mixing and particle-hole symmetry breaking for spin transitions in the frac- tional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 116803 (2016)

2016
[40]

Wójs and J

A. Wójs and J. J. Quinn, Landau level mixing in the ν = 5/2 fractional quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. B 74, 235319 (2006). 8

2006
[41]

S. H. Simon and E. H. Rezayi, Landau level mixing in the per- turbative limit, Phys. Rev. B87, 155426 (2013)

2013
[42]

E. H. Rezayi and F. D. M. Haldane, Lowest-order Landau-level mixing corrections for 4 ≥ ν > 2 quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B 42, 4532 (1990)

1990
[43]

Yang, Three-body interactions in generic fractional quantum Hall systems and impact of Galilean invariance breaking, Phys

B. Yang, Three-body interactions in generic fractional quantum Hall systems and impact of Galilean invariance breaking, Phys. Rev. B 98, 201101 (2018)

2018
[44]

Padmanabhan, T

M. Padmanabhan, T. Gokmen, and M. Shayegan, Composite fermion valley polarization energies: Evidence for particle-hole asymmetry, Phys. Rev. B81, 113301 (2010)

2010
[45]

Maryenko, J

D. Maryenko, J. Falson, Y . Kozuka, A. Tsukazaki, M. Onoda, H. Aoki, and M. Kawasaki, Temperature-dependent magneto- transport around ν = 1/2 in ZnO heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 186803 (2012)

2012
[46]

R. H. Morf, Transition from quantum Hall to compressible states in the second Landau level: New light on the ν = 5/2 enigma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1505 (1998)

1998
[47]

E. H. Rezayi and S. H. Simon, Breaking of particle-hole sym- metry by Landau level mixing in the ν = 5/2 quantized Hall state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 116801 (2011)

2011
[48]

S. H. Simon, E. H. Rezayi, and N. R. Cooper, Pseudopotentials for multiparticle interactions in the quantum Hall regime, Phys. Rev. B 75, 195306 (2007)

2007
[49]

Y . Qi, M. A. Sadi, D. Hu, M. Zheng, Z. Wu, Y . Jiang, and Y . P. Chen, Recent progress in strain engineering on Van der Waals 2d materials: Tunable electrical, electrochemical, mag- netic, and optical properties, Advanced Materials 35, 2205714 (2023)

2023
[50]

C. Wang, A. Gupta, S. K. Singh, P. T. Madathil, Y . J. Chung, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin, R. Winkler, and M. Shayegan, Fractional quantum Hall state at filling factor ν = 1/4 in ultra- high-quality GaAs two-dimensional hole systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 266502 (2023)

2023
[51]

Z. Lei, E. Cheah, K. Rubi, M. E. Bal, C. Adam, R. Schott, U. Zeitler, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, High-quality two-dimensional electron gas in undoped InSb quantum wells, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013039 (2022)

2022
[52]

R. K. Ghosh, M. Brahma, and S. Mahapatra, Germanane: A low effective mass and high bandgap 2-d channel material for future FETs, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 61, 2309 (2014)

2014
[53]

K. C. Rustagi, Effect of carrier scattering on nonlinear optical susceptibility due to mobile carriers in InSb, InAs, and GaAs, Phys. Rev. B 2, 4053 (1970)

1970
[54]

Okamoto, K

S. Okamoto, K. Inaba, T. Iida, H. Ishihara, S. Ichikawa, and M. Ashida, Fabrication of single-crystalline microspheres with high sphericity from anisotropic materials, Scientific Reports4, 5186 (2014)

2014
[55]

D. L. Wilcox and M. Berg, Microsphere fabrication and appli- cations: an overview, MRS Proceedings 372, 3 (1994). FIG. 1. Single-particle density distributions within a flat band. (a) The square modulus of the monopole harmonics YQ,Q,m with the strength of the magnetic monopol...

1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Roy and S

R. Roy and S. Sondhi, Fractional quantum Hall effect without Landau levels, Physics 4 (2011)

work page 2011

[2] [2]

S. A. Parameswaran, R. Roy, and S. L. Sondhi, Fractional quantum Hall physics in topological flat bands, Comptes Ren- dus Physique 14, 816 (2013), topological insulators / Isolants topologiques

work page 2013

[3] [3]

E. J. Bergholtz and Z. Liu, Topological flat band models and fractional Chern insulators, International Journal of Modern Physics B 27, 1330017 (2013)

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Ramires and J

A. Ramires and J. L. Lado, Emulating heavy fermions in twisted trilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 026401 (2021)

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Tran and T

M.-T. Tran and T. T. Nguyen, Molecular Kondo effect in flat- band lattices, Phys. Rev. B 97, 155125 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Dong and Y .-f

J.-J. Dong and Y .-f. Yang, Development of long-range phase coherence on the Kondo lattice, Phys. Rev. B 106, L161114 (2022)

work page 2022

[7] [7]

V . I. Iglovikov, F. Hébert, B. Grémaud, G. G. Batrouni, and R. T. Scalettar, Superconducting transitions in flat-band sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B 90, 094506 (2014)

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxi- ras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

2018