Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Observation of Thouless pumping of light in quasiperiodic photonic crystals

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 A light beam in a continuous quasi-periodic photorefractive crystal shifts by a quantized distance per pumping cycle, the value set only by the sublattice period ratio and the Chern number of the approximant band that carries the pumping.

desk verdict A real experimental first—Thouless pumping in a continuous quasiperiodic lattice—but the theory behind the universal displacement formula is internally inconsistent and needs a numerical fix before the quantitative claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18244 v1 pith:JC55N4WM submitted 2024-12-24 physics.optics

Kai Yang , Qidong Fu , Henrique C. Prates , Peng Wang , Yaroslav V. Kartashov , Vladimir V. Konotop , Fangwei Ye This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords Thoulesspumpingquasi-periodicphotoniccrystalperiodicapproximantsbestrationalapproximationsChernnumberphotorefractivequasi-adiabaticmobilityedge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports the experimental observation of Thouless pumping — quantized topological transport — of a light beam in a genuinely continuous, incommensurate photorefractive crystal, a regime in which the standard notion of adiabaticity fails because the spectrum is dense at every pumping velocity. The authors emulate the quasi-periodic potential with periodic approximants built from the best rational approximations of the irrational ratio between the two sublattice periods, and claim that the one-cycle displacement of the beam's center of mass equals $L_\varphi C_m^1$: the limiting ratio of the approximant period to its number of mini-bands, multiplied by the Chern number of the highest band of the approximant at which pumping is quasi-adiabatic. If the claim is right, the quantized shift is universal — fixed only by the period ratio, the sliding angle, and the Chern number, and independent of the beam shape, of which mini-band is excited below the mobility edge, and of the lattice depth. The result would carry topological pumping from periodic and discrete quasi-periodic systems into continuous quasi-crystals, and would make the continued-fraction structure of an irrational number directly visible in a tabletop optics experiment.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the family of periodic approximants $H_n$ of the quasi-periodic Hamiltonian, obtained by replacing the irrational period ratio $\varphi$ with its best rational approximations $p_n/q_n$ — the convergents of its continued fraction. Each approximant is periodic in the transverse coordinate with period $L_n=\pi q_n$ and in the propagation (time-like) coordinate with period $Z$, so its bands carry conventional Chern numbers on the torus $[0,L_n)\times[0,Z)$. The one-cycle displacement is written as $Y_n(Z)=L_n\,\mathrm{Tr}\{\rho_n C_n\}$, the trace of the output density matrix $\rho_n$ against the Chern matrix $C_n$; under the equal-population conjecture this reduces to $Y_\varphi(Z)=L_\varphi C_m^1$. Quasi-adiabaticity at order $m$ means that for the chosen velocity, transitions between the highest band of $H_m$ and lower bands are suppressed while transitions between the mini-bands that emerge at order $m+1$ are not. Two mechanisms carry the argument to the experiment: the memory effect, under which bands of lower approximants persist unchanged in higher ones with Chern numbers that encode the continued-fraction history, and the mobility edge, which keeps all excited modes localized inside a single period so the beam never distinguishes the approximant from the true quasi-periodic potential.

What would settle it

Launch the input beam into a single high mini-band of a fixed approximant and measure the one-cycle center-of-mass displacement: if the equal-population conjecture holds, the displacement must approach $L_\varphi C_m^1$ regardless of which mini-band is excited (after enough propagation), whereas a systematic dependence on the chosen mini-band would falsify Eq. (2). A complementary numerical check: compute the eigenvalues of the output density matrix $\rho_n(Z)$ over a pumping cycle — the conjecture requires one eigenvalue of order one with all others negligible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quasi-adiabatic Thouless pumping occurs in a genuinely continuous incommensurate photorefractive lattice — emulated by periodic approximants built from the best rational approximations of the irrational period ratio $\varphi$ — and that the one-cycle center-of-mass displacement of the beam converges, in the quasi-periodic limit, to $Y_\varphi(Z)=L_\varphi C_m^1$, where $L_\varphi=\lim_{n\to\infty}L_n/N_n^m$ is the limiting ratio of the $n$-th approximant's transverse period $L_n=\pi q_n$ to the number $N_n^m$ of mini-bands into which the highest band of the $m$-th approximant splits, and $C_m^1$ is the Chern number of that highest band computed in the $(y,z)$ torus. For $\varphi=1/\sqrt{5}$ the prediction is $Y_\varphi(Z)=\pi\sqrt{5}$ with $C_1^1=1$; for $\varphi=(\sqrt{5}+1)/4$ it is $Y_\varphi(Z)=\pi/(1-\varphi)$ with $C_1^2=-1$, so the beam is pumped opposite to the sliding sublattice. The measured displacements agree with these values after accounting for radiation loss and background noise, and they saturate already at the 3rd–4th approximant, showing that the infinite quasi-periodic limit is effectively reached in a 2-cm sample.

Load-bearing premise

The universal value of the displacement rests on the conjecture that over a sufficiently long pumping cycle the mini-band populations become nearly equal, so the output state has one dominant eigencomponent; without that equalization the shift depends on which mini-bands the input beam excited, and the choice of approximant order $m$ at which quasi-adiabaticity is declared selects which Chern number the data are judged against.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The one-cycle displacement of a beam in a continuous quasi-periodic potential equals $L_\varphi C_m^1$, with $L_\varphi$ fixed by the sublattice period ratio: $+\pi\sqrt{5}$ for $\varphi=1/\sqrt{5}$ (Chern number $+1$) and $\pi/(1-\varphi)$ with Chern number $-1$ for $\varphi=(\sqrt{5}+1)/4$, the latter beam moving opposite to the sliding sublattice.
  • The shift is independent of the input beam shape, of which mini-band below the mobility edge is excited, and of the lattice depth $V_0$; only the period ratio, the sliding angle, and the Chern number enter.
  • The quasi-periodic limit is reached already at low approximant orders — saturation is visible by the 3rd–4th best rational approximation — so the prediction is testable in a 2-cm photorefractive sample.
  • Genuine quasi-periodic media are never adiabatic in the standard sense at any velocity; the observed quantization requires the paper's quasi-adiabatic definition tied to a specific best-rational-approximation order $m$, and lowering the velocity shifts $m$ and with it the Chern number and the output position.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equal-population conjecture holds, the same formula should transfer to any continuous one-dimensional incommensurate potential with a mobility edge; a scan over irrational period ratios $\varphi$ would test whether the displacement tracks $\pi\lim_n q_n/N_n^m$ with the splitting rule $N_n^m$ dictated by the continued fraction.
  • The scheme implies a velocity staircase: as the pumping velocity is reduced stepwise, successive approximants become quasi-adiabatic and the output position should jump through a sequence of quantized values indexed by the convergents $p_n/q_n$ — a direct physical readout of the continued-fraction expansion of $\varphi$.
  • A diagnostic of the conjecture is the eigenvalue spectrum of the output density matrix: one dominant eigenvalue confirms the near-equal mini-band populations, whereas several comparable eigenvalues would predict precisely how the displacement depends on the input beam's overlap with individual mini-bands.
  • The authors' closing suggestion of two- and three-dimensional moiré lattices implies an untested generalization: the pumping direction and magnitude would be set by the full vector of period ratios and sliding angles, enabling topologically controlled routing of wavepackets in higher-dimensional aperiodic settings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of Thouless pumping of light in a continuous photorefractive quasi-periodic potential, realized by superimposing two periodic sublattices with incommensurate periods and emulated by periodic approximants (best rational approximations, BRAs). The central theoretical claim, expressed in Eq. (2), is that after one pumping cycle the center-of-mass displacement of a paraxial beam in the quasi-periodic limit is Y_phi(Z) = L_phi C_m^1, where C_m^1 is the Chern number of the highest band of the m-th approximant at which pumping is quasi-adiabatic and L_phi is the limiting ratio of the approximant period to the number of mini-bands. The authors report positive and negative displacements for two irrational period ratios, consistent with the sign of the predicted Chern numbers, and observe saturation of the displacement with increasing approximant order. They further argue that the result is universal, independent of the input beam shape and lattice depth.

Significance. If the central formula (2) is established, the paper would provide a significant experimental demonstration of topological pumping in a genuinely continuous quasi-periodic system, connecting transport to the Chern numbers of periodic approximants and introducing a conceptually useful 'quasi-adiabatic' regime. The sign reversal of the displacement between the two lattices is a strong qualitative control, and the observed saturation with BRA order supports the approximant-based picture. However, the quantitative prediction relies on an unproved and internally inconsistent conjecture about the density matrix of mini-band populations, and the agreement with experiment is partly obtained through an ad hoc intensity threshold. The experimental observation is valuable, but the theoretical foundation of the universal quantitative claim needs to be repaired.

major comments (3)
  1. [Text near Eq. (2), 'To characterize the observed pumping quantitatively'] The derivation of Eq. (2) rests on a conjecture that is internally inconsistent. The paragraph states that 'in the course of sufficiently long evolution the populations of the mini-bands become nearly equal', but then asserts that the density matrix at the output 'has one eigenvalue of order one and all other eigenvalues negligible'. If the populations are nearly equal across N_m^n mini-bands, the normalized density matrix is approximately the identity divided by N_m^n, so all eigenvalues are approximately 1/N_m^n. Under that uniform reading, Tr(rho C) equals C_m^1/N_m^n and Eq. (2) follows; under the rank-one reading, the displacement would instead equal the Chern index of a single mini-band, which generically takes values such as (-1)^n q_{n-1} or (-1)^n(q_{n-1}-q_n), not the average. As written, the derivation of Eq. (2) is not self-consistent. Please provide a numerical computation of the eigenvalue distribution of the density matrix at z=Z for the approximants in Figs. 3 and 4, and verify directly that Tr(rho C) equals the right-hand side of Eq. (2), or provide a corrected analytical argument. Without this, the claimed universality with respect to input beam shape and lattice depth is not established.
  2. [Paragraph beginning 'We say that a quasi-adiabatic condition is satisfied...'] The quasi-adiabatic order m is a free input in the quantitative comparison with experiment. The definition is qualitative: transitions between the highest band and lower bands of the m-th approximant are suppressed, while transitions between mini-bands of the (m+1)-th approximant occur. For the first experiment m=1 is selected, and for the second m=2 is selected based on the band-structure analysis in Fig. S5. Because m determines which Chern number appears in Eq. (2), the paper should provide a systematic, quantitative criterion for m (for example, Landau-Zener estimates of the transition probabilities using the computed gaps and the experimental velocity v) and a sensitivity analysis showing how the predicted displacement changes for m=1, 2, and 3 in both experimental configurations. As it stands, the choice of m could be considered a parameter selected a posteriori to match the observed sign and magnitude.
  3. [Figs. 3D and 4D, 'experiment 2'] The quantitative agreement between the measured displacement and Eq. (2) is obtained only after discarding the field below 20% of the peak intensity. The raw center-of-mass ('experiment 1') deviates from the prediction by an amount that is significant relative to the effect size, especially in Fig. 4D. The intensity cutoff is introduced as a post-hoc adjustment ('by disregarding a certain amount of light side lobes') and no independent justification is given. Because the central claim is the quantitative value of the displacement, please show the computed displacement as a function of the intensity threshold for both experiments, and demonstrate a plateau or an objective criterion (e.g., the spatial extent of the localized guided modes) that selects the 20% threshold. Otherwise the agreement in Figs. 3D and 4D is not a reliable test of Eq. (2).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'in physical media where it occurs' is awkward; consider rephrasing for clarity, and the misspelling 'Schr¨ odnger' in the Introduction should be corrected to 'Schrödinger'.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 captions and axes] The ordinate labels differ between Fig. 3B ('Y (mm)') and Fig. 3D ('Y_n (mm)'), and similarly for Fig. 4; please use consistent notation and clarify the units (the '×10^-2' scaling is confusing when read with the axis tick labels).
  3. [Methods, Eqs. (5) and (6)] The sign convention in Eq. (5c) for the wavevector of pinhole 3, specifically the factor (1 - 2 p_n/q_n), is not explained relative to the description of the pinhole positions; please add a sentence clarifying the geometry.
  4. [Data availability] The data availability statement says that data are 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' but no repository or persistent identifier is provided. For a quantitative experimental paper, releasing the raw COM trajectories and analysis scripts would strengthen reproducibility.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] In Fig. 2B, the caption does not specify which color corresponds to which BRA order; please add explicit color/line-style definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: Chern numbers are computed from band structure, and Eq. (2) rests on an openly stated conjecture rather than on an input–output identity.

full rationale

The central claim, Eq. (2) Y_φ(Z) = L_φ C_m^1, is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. C_m^1 is computed from the Bloch eigenproblem and Berry curvature of the periodic approximant, not fitted to the measured COM displacement, and L_φ is fixed by the continued-fraction convergents of φ. The derivation chain is Y_n = L_n Tr(ρ_n C_n), Tr C_n = C_m^1 by band-splitting additivity, and then the stated conjecture that mini-band populations become nearly equal gives Tr(ρ_n C_n) ≈ C_m^1/N_m^n. That last step is explicitly labelled a conjecture in the paper and is said to be checked against experiment and numerics; it is not a parameter adjusted to reproduce the target displacement. The order m (m = 1 in the first experiment, m = 2 in the second) is identified from band-structure and adiabaticity analysis (Figs. 2 and S5), not from the measured output position, so no fitted-input-called-prediction step is exhibited. The self-citations for the ‘memory effect’ ([24,25]) are corroborated by the paper’s own band-structure calculations and are not load-bearing. One non-circular weakness should be flagged: the passage introducing Eq. (2) is internally inconsistent, since nearly equal mini-band populations would give a density matrix with all eigenvalues ≈ 1/N, not ‘one eigenvalue of order one and all other eigenvalues negligible’; the paper itself flags its reliance on the conjecture. That is a correctness/support gap to be resolved by direct numerical density-matrix tests, but it is not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction (2) depends on two non-fitted assumptions: the equal-population conjecture and the choice of the quasi-adiabatic order m. The mobility-edge localization ensures non-diffractive propagation, and the memory effect is imported from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced. The only post-hoc numerical choice is the 20% intensity cutoff in the analysis of the experimental data.

free parameters (2)
  • quasi-adiabatic order m = 1 (for phi = 1/sqrt(5)), 2 (for phi = (sqrt(5)+1)/4)
    The order m is chosen from the condition that inter-band transitions between the highest and lower bands of H_m are inhibited for the experimental velocity while transitions between mini-bands of H_{m+1} occur. This choice selects which Chern number C_m^1 is used in the prediction (2).
  • intensity cutoff for 'experiment 2' COM = 20% of peak intensity
    Introduced post hoc to discard low-intensity side lobes so that the measured center-of-mass displacement approaches the theoretical value. The cutoff affects the reported agreement in Figs. 3D and 4D.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Equal-population conjecture for mini-bands: the density matrix at the output has one eigenvalue of order one and all other eigenvalues negligible.
    Used to replace Tr{rho_n C_n} by (1/N_n^m) Tr{C_n}, giving Eq. (2). Stated as 'one may conjecture' in the text and not derived from the Schr\"odinger dynamics.
  • domain assumption Mobility edge and localized modes above it: the beam excites only modes above the mobility edge, so that it remains localized and does not diffract significantly over the sample length.
    Invoked to justify the condition ell_n(Zout) << L_n and to argue that the beam remains confined to a finite interval. It relies on known results on Anderson localization in quasi-periodic potentials (e.g., Refs. [21,22]).
  • standard math Validity of the Chern-number transport formula for periodic approximants: the center-of-mass shift over one period in a periodic Hamiltonian equals the trace of the density matrix with the Chern matrix.
    This is standard adiabatic quantum pumping theory applied to the periodic approximants, where the (y,z) torus is well defined. The paper uses this as the starting point for the derivation.
  • domain assumption Memory effect: modes belonging to lower-order approximants remain weakly affected by the addition of higher-order approximants.
    Cited from the authors' own prior work [24,25] and verified numerically in Fig. 2C. It is used to argue that higher-order BRAs do not change the dynamics of excited modes below the mobility edge.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of Thouless pumping of light in quasiperiodic photonic crystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JC55N4WM

@misc{pith2026241218244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of Thouless pumping of light in quasiperiodic photonic crystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JC55N4WM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18244}
}
read the original abstract

Topological transport is determined by global properties of physical media where it occurs and is characterized by quantized amounts of adiabatically transported quantities. Discovered for periodic potentials it was also explored in disordered and discrete quasi-periodic systems. Here we report on experimental observation of pumping of a light beam in a genuinely continuous incommensurate photorefractive quasi-crystal emulated by its periodic approximants. We observe a universal character of the transport which is determined by the ratio between periods of the constitutive sublattices, by the sliding angle between them, and by Chern numbers of the excited bands (in the time-coordinate space) of the approximant, for which pumping is adiabatic. This reveals that the properties of quasi-periodic systems determining the topological transport are tightly related to those of their periodic approximants and can be observed and studied in a large variety of physical systems. Our results suggest that the links between quasi periodic systems and their periodic approximants go beyond the pure mathematical relations: they manifest themselves in physical phenomena which can be explored experimentally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18244 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematics of light pumping in a quasi-periodic photorefractive medium simulated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Band-gap structure and modes for the lowest approximants of the lattice with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Light pumping in the approximant of a quasi-periodic lattice with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Observation of light pumping in the lattice emulating a quasi-periodic structure with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thouless, Physical Review B 27, 6083 (1983)

    D. Thouless, Physical Review B 27, 6083 (1983)

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    experiment 1

    Fig. 3A shows intensity distributions of the lattice wave field at different prop- agation distances within one longitudinal period obtained at 4th BRA ( φ4 = 72/161, which differs from the actual value φ = 1/ √ 5 by only 0 .003%). It is uniform in x, modulated in y, and replicates itself after each longitudinal period (in the physical units Z ≈ 8 mm). In...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Y. E. Kraus, Y. Lahini, Z. Ringel, M. Verbin, and O. Zilberberg, Physical Review Letters 109, 106402 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Citro and M

    R. Citro and M. Aidelsburger, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 87 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Here χn(ν, z) = ⟨(un ν0)2|(un ν0)2⟩n is the form- factor of the respective mode and Bloch states are considered normalized. For computing the form-factor we use the Bloch functions at k = 0 because with the increase of the BRA 6 order the first Brillouin zone Kn shrinks, the bands become extremely flat (see Supporting Information), and un νk becomes weakl...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Verbin, O

    M. Verbin, O. Zilberberg, Y. Lahini, Y. E. Kraus, and Y. Silberberg, Physical Review B 91, 064201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Zilberberg, S

    O. Zilberberg, S. Huang, J. Guglielmon, M. Wang, K. P. Chen, Y. E. Kraus, and M. C. Rechtsman, Nature 553, 59 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Cerjan, M

    A. Cerjan, M. Wang, S. Huang, K. P. Chen, and M. C. Rechtsman, Light: Science & Appli- cations 9, 178 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    P. Wang, Q. Fu, R. Peng, Y. V. Kartashov, L. Torner, V. V. Konotop, and F. Ye, Nature Communications 13, 6738 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Lohse, C

    M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, O. Zilberberg, M. Aidelsburger, and I. Bloch, Nature Physics 12, 350 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Lohse, C

    M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, H. M. Price, O. Zilberberg, and I. Bloch, Nature 553, 55 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Nakajima, N

    S. Nakajima, N. Takei, K. Sakuma, Y. Kuno, P. Marra, and Y. Takahashi, Nature Physics 17, 844 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Q. Fu, P. Wang, Y. V. Kartashov, V. V. Konotop, and F. Ye, Physical Review Letters 128, 154101 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    M. M. Wauters, A. Russomanno, R. Citro, G. E. Santoro, and L. Privitera, Physical Review Letters 123, 266601 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Switkes, C

    M. Switkes, C. Marcus, K. Campman, and A. Gossard, Science 283, 1905 (1999). 17

    1999

  8. [16]

    S. K. Watson, R. Potok, C. Marcus, and V. Umansky, Physical Review Letters 91, 258301 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Niu and D

    Q. Niu and D. Thouless, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 17, 2453 (1984)

    1984

  10. [18]

    Cheng, E

    W. Cheng, E. Prodan, and C. Prodan, Physical Review Letters 125, 224301 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Messiah, Quantum mechanics (Courier Corporation, 2014)

    A. Messiah, Quantum mechanics (Courier Corporation, 2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Yoshii, S

    M. Yoshii, S. Kitamura, and T. Morimoto, Physical Review B 104, 155126 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Tanese, E

    D. Tanese, E. Gurevich, F. Baboux, T. Jacqmin, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, E. Galopin, I. Sagnes, A. Amo, J. Bloch, and E. Akkermans, Physical Review Letters 112, 146404 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Goblot, A

    V. Goblot, A. ˇStrkalj, N. Pernet, J. L. Lado, C. Dorow, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, L. Le Gratiet, A. Harouri, I. Sagnes, S. Ravets, et al., Nature Physics 16, 832 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    R. B. Diener, G. A. Georgakis, J. Zhong, M. Raizen, and Q. Niu, Physical Review A 64, 033416 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Modugno, New Journal of Physics 11, 033023 (2009)

    M. Modugno, New Journal of Physics 11, 033023 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    Marra and M

    P. Marra and M. Nitta, Physical Review Research 2, 042035 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    H. C. Prates, D. A. Zezyulin, and V. V. Konotop, Physical Review Research 4, 033219 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    D. A. Zezyulin and V. V. Konotop, Physical Review A 105, 063323 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Bohr, Acta Mathematica 45, 29 (1925)

    H. Bohr, Acta Mathematica 45, 29 (1925)

    1925

  21. [29]

    A. Y. Khinchin, Continued fractions, russian ed(1997)

    1997

  22. [30]

    N. K. Efremidis, S. Sears, D. N. Christodoulides, J. W. Fleischer, and M. Segev, Physical Review E 66, 046602 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    J. W. Fleischer, M. Segev, N. K. Efremidis, and D. N. Christodoulides, Nature 422, 147 (2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    Simon, Advances in Applied Mathematics 3, 463 (1982)

    B. Simon, Advances in Applied Mathematics 3, 463 (1982)

    1982

  25. [33]

    H. Yao, A. Khoudli, L. Bresque, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Physical Review Letters123, 070405 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Wilczek and A

    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Physical Review Letters 52, 2111 (1984)

    1984

  27. [35]

    Sun, X.-L

    Y.-K. Sun, X.-L. Zhang, F. Yu, Z.-N. Tian, Q.-D. Chen, and H.-B. Sun, Nature Physics 18, 1080 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    O. You, S. Liang, B. Xie, W. Gao, W. Ye, J. Zhu, and S. Zhang, Physical Review Letters 128, 18 244302 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    D. J. Boers, B. Goedeke, D. Hinrichs, and M. Holthaus, Physical Review A 75, 063404 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Biddle and S

    J. Biddle and S. D. Sarma, Physical Review Letters 104, 070601 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    H. P. L¨ uschen, S. Scherg, T. Kohlert, M. Schreiber, P. Bordia, X. Li, S. D. Sarma, and I. Bloch, Physical Review Letters 120, 160404 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Mott, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 20, 3075 (1987)

    N. Mott, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 20, 3075 (1987)

    1987

  33. [41]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Physical Review Letters 49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  34. [42]

    Privitera, A

    L. Privitera, A. Russomanno, R. Citro, and G. E. Santoro, Physical Review Letters 120, 106601 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Fedorova, H

    Z. Fedorova, H. Qiu, S. Linden, and J. Kroha, Nature Communications 11, 3758 (2020). Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Portuguese Founda- tion for Science and Technology (FCT) under Contracts UIDB/00618/2020 (DOI: 10.54499/UIDB/00618/2020) and PTDC/FIS-OUT/3882/20...

    2020

  36. [44]

    experiment 1

    (A) The profile of optically induced lattice corresponding to the 4th order BRA (p4/q4 = 72/161) of a quasi- periodic lattice with φ = 1 / √ 5 at different distances z = 0 , Z/4, Z/2, 3Z/4 and Z within one pumping cycle. (B) Experimentally measured COM position versus distance...

Pith tools

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