Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 65 references

Analytical control of the exchange interaction in periodically driven Mott insulators

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that sign reversals of the effective exchange interaction in a periodically driven Mott insulator coincide exactly with the zeros of the Bessel product $J_\mu(E)J_{-\mu}(E)$, giving analytic control over ultrafast…

desk verdict A correct and elegant Bessel resummation applied to Floquet exchange sign reversals, worth publication after the chiral asymptotics are fixed and the second-order caveat is moved to the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05416 v1 pith:YSOASMM7 submitted 2025-01-09 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Miguel Tierz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords FloquetengineeringMottinsulatorexchangeinteractionBesselfunctionssignreversalHubbardmodelKitaev-Heisenbergspinchirality
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 proves that the effective exchange interaction in a periodically driven Mott insulator, conventionally an infinite sum over Floquet photon sectors, can be resummed exactly into a product of two Bessel functions of order $\pm\mu$, with $\mu=U/\hbar\omega$. Because of this identity, every sign reversal of the exchange coupling—the 'time reversal' of the spin dynamics under ultrafast driving—is pinned to a zero of $J_\mu(E)J_{-\mu}(E)$. The paper shows that at half-resonance, $U=\omega/2$, the exchange becomes the purely trigonometric function $\sin(2E)/E$, with reversals at equally spaced values of the drive amplitude. It then exports the same resummation to multi-orbital Hubbard-Kanamori models, Kitaev-Heisenberg magnets, and spin-chirality terms, giving analytic expressions for reversal points and Fourier coefficients. A reader cares because this converts numerical observations about sign flips into a small set of exact, testable formulas.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Bessel-product summation formula, which evaluates the infinite sum $\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^n J_{\alpha+\gamma n}(z) J_{\beta-\gamma n}(z)}{n+\mu}$ as $\frac{\pi}{\sin(\pi\mu)}J_{\alpha-\gamma\mu}(z)J_{\beta+\gamma\mu}(z)$. In the single-band Hubbard case this identity collapses the photon-sector sum for the exchange coupling into the product $J_\mu(E)J_{-\mu}(E)$, and the zeros of that product become the reversal points. The same formula is applied iteratively to double- and multiple-sum expressions arising in multi-orbital and Kitaev-type models, and it supplies the large-amplitude asymptotics and the moment formulas used to discuss phase- and time-dependent extensions.

What would settle it

Numerically compute the quasi-energy spectrum of the driven Hubbard model on a finite chain at half-filling for U/t0 between about 8 and 12 and several drive amplitudes, extract the effective exchange from the low-energy spin sector or from the spin dynamics, and compare the drive amplitudes at which J_ex changes sign with the zeros of J_mu(E)J_-mu(E); any systematic deviation would show the second-order truncation is insufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the standard second-order Floquet–Schrieffer–Wolff expression $J_{\mathrm{ex}}(E,\omega)=\sum_m 2t_0^2 J_{|m|}(E)^2/(U+m\hbar\omega)$, the author applies an exact Bessel-product summation to obtain $J_{\mathrm{ex}}(E,\omega)=\frac{2t_0^2\pi}{\hbar\omega\sin(\pi\mu)}J_\mu(E)J_{-\mu}(E)$, with $\mu=U/\hbar\omega$. The central claim is that this closed form makes the sign reversals of the exchange coupling, previously studied only numerically, analytically exact: $J_{\mathrm{ex}}$ vanishes precisely when $J_\mu(E)$ or $J_{-\mu}(E)$ vanishes. The special case $\mu=1/2$ gives $J_{\mathrm{ex}}\propto \sin(2E)/E$, so reversals are equispaced at $E=n\pi/2$. For fixed drive and varying $U$, the zeros of the Bessel product approach the resonances super-exponentially in most cases, and the paper proves this with asymptotic results on Bessel zeros as a function of order. The same summation is applied termwise to the multi-orbital effective exchange operator, to the Kitaev term of driven Kitaev-Heisenberg models (under two stated simplifications), and to the Fourier coefficients of the emergent scalar spin-chirality term, where the double sum is evaluated exactly.

Load-bearing premise

The reversal analysis rests on the second-order effective Hamiltonian, which assumes the interaction U is much larger than the hopping t0 and keeps the driving frequency away from U = l omega; if higher-order corrections or doublon-holon creation matter, the zeros of the exchange will shift away from the Bessel zeros.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The sign of the exchange coupling can be engineered by setting the dimensionless drive amplitude $E$ equal to any zero of $J_\mu(E)J_{-\mu}(E)$, with the full set of zeros known from Bessel function tables.
  • At $\mu=1/2$, reversals are exactly periodic in $E$ at steps of $\pi/2$, providing a clean experimental knob for stroboscopic spin reversal.
  • For large drive amplitudes the exchange simplifies to $\frac{2t_0^2}{\hbar\omega E}\left(\cos(\pi\mu)+\frac{\sin(2E)}{\sin(\pi\mu)}\right)$, a form that is only obtainable after resummation and that directly shows the dominance of one sign between resonances.
  • When tuning $U$ instead of $E$, the formula predicts that nearly every reversal sits extremely close to a resonance, so time reversals come as tiny excursions just before the exchange resets across the pole.
  • In multi-orbital and Kitaev-Heisenberg models, each interaction channel acquires the same Bessel-product form, so the analytic reversal criteria extend to those settings under the stated simplifications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the second-order effective Hamiltonian is accurate beyond its strict validity domain, the same Bessel-zero criterion would predict sign flips in other Floquet-renormalized couplings, such as the density-dependent hopping terms, because they obey the same summation structure.
  • The super-exponential clustering of reversal points near resonances, visible in the fixed-drive picture, suggests that experiments sweeping $U$ across a resonance would observe near-instant sign changes punctuated by very narrow intervals of opposite sign; this is a testable prediction of the summed expression.
  • The supplement's identification of the quantum-light result with the Landau-level response tensor raises the possibility of a dictionary between Floquet exchange control and quantum Hall response, but the paper does not develop the quantitative mapping.
  • A direct experimental test could use a cold-atom Hubbard simulator: measure the sign of the exchange via the spin dynamics under a periodic drive and compare the drive amplitudes at which the sign flips against the zeros of $J_\mu(E)J_{-\mu}(E)$.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies the periodically driven single-band Hubbard model and derives an exact Bessel-function resummation, Eq. (5), for the second-order Floquet–Schrieffer–Wolff exchange interaction Jex(E,ω) = (2t0^2π/(ℏω sin(πμ))) Jμ(E)J−μ(E), with μ=U/ℏω. It then uses this identity to characterize sign reversals of the exchange interaction as zeros of the product Jμ(E)J−μ(E), emphasizing the special half-resonance case μ=1/2 where the result becomes purely trigonometric, Jex ∝ sin(2E)/E with equispaced zeros at E=nπ/2. The paper extends the same summation technique to multi-orbital Hubbard–Kanamori models, to a Kitaev–Heisenberg ligand term, and to scalar spin-chirality coefficients, and it discusses asymptotic formulas in each case. The central mathematical identity is classical (Newberger's sum rule), but the paper presents it as a tool for analytical control of Floquet engineering and derives reversal predictions from it.

Significance. If the physical claims are supported, the paper provides a genuinely useful analytical simplification: the reversal structure of the driven Mott insulator exchange interaction, previously studied numerically, is reduced to the location of zeros of a product of Bessel functions, with no free parameters and with an independent proof of the key summation identity in Ref. [27]. The explicit trigonometric result at μ=1/2 is elegant and falsifiable, and the termwise application to multi-orbital Hamiltonians is a natural and potentially valuable extension. The paper correctly does not claim a new derivation of Eq. (4) itself, and it is honest about the two approximations made in the Kitaev-ligand treatment. The main risk is not the summation identity but the step from the approximate second-order effective Hamiltonian to exact statements about physical time reversals, and there is a concrete internal inconsistency in the chirality asymptotics that must be resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I, Eq. (5)] The exact Bessel resummation is not in question: Eq. (5) follows from Eq. (4) by Newberger's identity, and the zero analysis is internally correct for the sum in Eq. (4). The load-bearing issue is that Eq. (4) is itself a second-order Floquet–Schrieffer–Wolff result, valid for U ≫ t0 and off-resonant driving U ≠ lω, and it omits fourth-order spin terms and doublon–holon corrections. Near any zero of Jμ(E)J−μ(E) the leading contribution vanishes, so the position of the physical zero is set by the balance between the leading term's slope and the omitted t0^4/U^3 (and higher) corrections, which can also be resonantly enhanced. The abstract and Section I state the reversals as determined by Bessel zeros without this caveat; the Outlook restricts the statement to second order only at the end. Because no exact-numerical benchmark or error estimate is supplied, the central claim needs either a numerical check (for example, exact diagonalization of a small cluster for μ=1/2 and for one generic off-resonant μ) or an explicit quantitative statement of the regime in which the shift of the zeros is negligible, with the abstract revised to match.
  2. [Sec. II.A.1, Eq. (13), and Supplementary Material B] The asymptotic expression for the scalar chirality Fourier coefficient in Eq. (13) is inconsistent with the paper's own exact result for the first Fourier coefficient in Supplementary Material B. Setting U=1/2 and m=1 in Eq. (13) gives a1 ~ sin^2(2αij) sin^2(2αjk), whereas the supplementary computation gives a1 = (π^2/(4U^2)) F(αij)F(αjk), whose large-argument behavior is 4 sin(2αij) sin(2αjk)/(αij αjk), i.e., it carries a 1/(αij αjk) prefactor and linear, not squared, sine factors. This is not a cosmetic difference: it changes the functional form, the decay in amplitude, and the effective m dependence of the chirality coefficient. The authors must reconcile Eq. (13) with the supplementary expression or correct one of them before the chirality result can be used.
  3. [Sec. II, multi-orbital common zeros] The statement that for real ρ there exists a sequence of real numbers |νm|→∞ with Jνm(ρ)=0 is used to guarantee reversal points for the operator-valued exchange Ĵij, but no proof or precise reference is provided. For fixed positive ρ, zeros of Jν(ρ) as a function of the order occur for ν→−∞ (the Coulomb/Flajolet–Schott setting cited in Section I.B), not for ν→+∞, where Jν(ρ) decays without further zeros for sufficiently large positive order. Since the orders appearing in the multi-orbital problem, λ1=(2JH−U)/ω and λ2=−U/ω, can have either sign, the paper needs to specify which sign of the orders is covered and to supply a reference or argument for the claimed sequence before using it to infer actual reversal points.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The relation A(t) = −∂tE(t) is dimensionally inconsistent as written; for E(t) = E0 cos(ωt) the Peierls phase should involve A(t) proportional to ∫E dt, so that the dimensionless drive is E = eaE0/(ℏω). Please correct this equation or the surrounding sentence.
  2. [Eqs. (5) and (6) and Supplementary Material] The text repeatedly refers to Eq. (6) as the main formula and calls the central result '(4)=(6)', but Eq. (6) is only the large-drive asymptotic form; the exact resummation is Eq. (5). Please fix the equation labels consistently.
  3. [Sec. I.A, Eq. (7)] The condition 'U = ±mω/2' is not precise: the purely trigonometric case discussed in Eq. (7) is specifically μ=1/2, while the μ=3/2 case written below is not of the same 'only trigonometric and equispaced' type. Please specify the allowed values of m and state clearly in what sense μ=1/2 is the unique special case.
  4. [Sec. II, Hubbard–Kanamori formulas] The parameters U, U′, JH, and JP are introduced in Eq. (8), but in the subsequent resummed expressions the symbols U and λ1,...,λ4 are reused without always being clearly connected to the Hamiltonian parameters; a table of the assignments would remove ambiguity.
  5. [Sec. II.A.1, Kitaev–Heisenberg ligand term] The two simplifications rij/Rij=1 and ψ0=0 are acknowledged, but no quantitative justification is given for realistic Kitaev materials such as α-RuCl3 or iridates; a sentence indicating the parameter regime where these approximations are controlled would help.
  6. [Figures 1–3] The figure captions only give the value of μ, while the axes are labeled 'External drive' and 'Effective interaction' without units or the prefactor 2t0^2/ℏω; please expand the captions so the plots can be interpreted independently.
  7. [Eq. (2)] The homogeneous static magnetic field HZ = Bx Σj S_j^x is introduced in Eq. (2) but never used in the subsequent analysis; either connect it to the discussion or remove it to avoid a dangling definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Bessel resummation is an external identity, and the reversal predictions follow from it rather than from any fitted or self-defined input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: Eq. (5), the paper's central result, is obtained by applying the classical Bessel summation theorem to the long-known second-order Floquet–Schrieffer–Wolff exchange expression Eq. (4), with the proof attributed to Newberger [27] and only a simplified discussion credited to the authors' own [28]; that self-citation is illustrative, not load-bearing. No parameter is fitted and no subset of reversal data is used to infer the rest: the zeros of Jex are read off from the exact product Jµ(E)J−µ(E), and the special U=ω/2 case (7) follows from Bessel asymptotics/trigonometric identities. The same external identity is reused in the multi-orbital and Kitaev/chiral extensions, so those sections inherit the same non-circular status. The paper itself flags limitations—the naive phase-extension formulas in Supplementary Material C are admitted to be 'not correct, or it is incomplete', and the Outlook restricts the treatment 'to second order in perturbation theory'—but these are validity/correctness caveats, not circular reductions. The absence of a numerical benchmark for higher-order corrections affects the physical robustness of the zero locations, not whether the derivation is circular.

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

No constants are fitted to data; all parameters are physical inputs from the model literature. The central identity is a known Bessel summation theorem with independent proof, so the circularity burden is low. The main unresolved issue is the mismatch between Eq. (13) and the supplementary first Fourier coefficient.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Bessel summation identity Eq. (14) is exact for μ not an integer and under appropriate convergence conditions.
    This identity converts the infinite sum (4) into the compact exchange formula (5); proof is cited to Newberger [27].
  • domain assumption The Floquet-Schrieffer-Wolff expression Eq. (4) is the valid effective exchange interaction for the driven Hubbard model.
    The paper imports Eq. (4) from refs. [8,9]; it assumes U≫t0, off-resonant driving, and no doublon-holon generation.
  • domain assumption The driving is off-resonant (U≠lω) so μ is non-integer and the sine in the denominator does not vanish.
    Physical resonances are excluded from the present analysis; the paper notes this restriction around Eq. (5).
  • standard math Large-argument Bessel asymptotics Eq. (15) hold in the regime x≫max(1,|μ|^2).
    Used to obtain the simplified trigonometric asymptotic forms such as Eq. (6).
  • ad hoc to paper For the Kitaev-Heisenberg ligand term, the simplifications rij/Rij=1 and ψ0=0 are acceptable.
    These choices are introduced to enable iterated use of the scalar Bessel sum; the paper acknowledges partial extensions in Supplementary Sections C and D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical control of the exchange interaction in periodically driven Mott insulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSOASMM7

@misc{pith2026250105416,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical control of the exchange interaction in periodically driven Mott insulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSOASMM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05416}
}
read the original abstract

The manipulation of electronic structure through periodic electric fields enables the reversible control of effective interactions in extended antiferromagnetic Mott insulators on ultrafast timescales. A careful analytical examination of the modulated effective interactions is conducted, accurately characterising it through the use of exact summation formulas and Bessel functions. As a result, time reversals are analytically determined in terms of Bessel zeroes. We discuss the half-filled Hubbard model, as well as multi-orbital models, various characteristics of the Kitaev-Heisenberg model, and the emergence of chiral spin terms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05416 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. µ = 0.5 As a matter of fact, from Sturm’s comparison theorem, it follows that the zeros of Jν(x) [32] satisfy that, if jν,s and jν,s1 denote two positive zeros of Jν(x) then |ν| ̸= 1/2 → (jν,s1 − jν,s − π)(|ν| − 1/2) > 0. |ν| = 1/2 → (jν,s1 − jν,s − π) = 0. Physically, when U/ω is less than half-resonance, the spacing between reversals (zeros) is smaller than π and increases as it approaches half-resonance. At that … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. µ = 0.9 (Magenta) and µ = 1.1 (Blue) of the Bessel function varied. Since U is a tunable pa￾rameter of the Hubbard model for example in cold atom simulations, this setting is physical. This has the main feature of encountering the infinite number of resonances. It has been observed that as µ → −∞, the zeros con￾verge to the negative integers [30]. This was made precise in [33], where it was proven that, fixing what … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The effective interaction Jex(E = 2, ω = 1) as a function of U. -2 -1 1 2 U parameter -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 Effective interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effective interaction Jex(E = 0.5, ω = 1) Numerical evaluations reveal that for smaller external drives, like E≤1, all reversal U values are in close proxim￾ity to a resonance, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: First harmonic in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Non-oscillatory region of effective J for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    It is widely recognised that this expression is frequently encountered in the investigation of quantum Floquet sys- tems - and beyond

    work page

  2. [27]

    Hejazi, J

    K. Hejazi, J. Liu, and L. Balents, Floquet spin and spin- orbital hamiltonians and doublon-holon generations in periodically driven mott insulators, Physical Review B 99, 205111 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    Spin chiral terms Beyond the use of linearly polarised light, the appli- cation of circularly polarised light to frustrated lattices, including triangular or honeycomb lattices, produces a scalar spin chiral term proportional to Si · (Sj × Sk), which breaks time reversal symmetry while preserving SU (2) symmetry [2, 22, 47]. In [22], in their study of eme...

    work page 2026

  4. [2]

    This guarantees that there are reversal points for ˆJij by choosing, after fixing the drive E, λ1 and λ2 as two members of such a sequence. It is simpler to interpret reversal of effective exchange interactions, which, under the condition that |U − nω| and/or |U − 2J H− nω| is much greater than the typi- cal hopping amplitudes and, after averaging the orb...

    work page

  5. [3]

    de la Torre, D

    A. de la Torre, D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, S. Gerber, J. W. McIver, and M. A. Sentef, Colloquium: Nonther- mal pathways to ultrafast control in quantum materials, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 041002 (2021)

    2021

  6. [4]

    Bukov, L

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, Universal high-frequency behavior of periodically driven systems: from dynamical stabilization to floquet engineering, Ad- vances in Physics 64, 139 (2015)

    2015

  7. [5]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Floquet engineering of quantum materials, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 387 (2019)

    2019

  8. [6]

    J. H. Shirley, Solution of the schr¨ odinger equation with a hamiltonian periodic in time, Physical Review 138, B979 (1965)

    work page 1965

Show all 65 references
  1. [7]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, Band structure engi- neering and non-equilibrium dynamics in floquet topo- logical insulators, Nature reviews physics 2, 229 (2020)

    2020

  2. [8]

    Floquet, Sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles lin´ eaires ` a co- efficients p´ eriodiques, inAnnales scientifiques de l’ ´Ecole normale sup´ erieure, Vol

    G. Floquet, Sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles lin´ eaires ` a co- efficients p´ eriodiques, inAnnales scientifiques de l’ ´Ecole normale sup´ erieure, Vol. 12 (1883) pp. 47–88

  3. [9]

    Mentink, K

    J. Mentink, K. Balzer, and M. Eckstein, Ultrafast and reversible control of the exchange interaction in mott in- sulators, Nature communications 6, 6708 (2015)

    2015

  4. [10]

    Rodriguez-Vega, M

    M. Rodriguez-Vega, M. Vogl, and G. A. Fiete, Low- frequency and moir´ e–floquet engineering: A review, An- nals of Physics 435, 168434 (2021)

    2021

  5. [11]

    Bukov, M

    M. Bukov, M. Kolodrubetz, and A. Polkovnikov, Schrieffer-wolff transformation for periodically driven systems: Strongly correlated systems with artificial gauge fields, Physical review letters 116, 125301 (2016)

    2016

  6. [12]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The hubbard model, Annual review of condensed matter physics 13, 239 (2022)

    2022

  7. [13]

    Mentink, Manipulating magnetism by ultrafast control of the exchange interaction, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 29, 453001 (2017)

    J. Mentink, Manipulating magnetism by ultrafast control of the exchange interaction, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 29, 453001 (2017)

    2017

  8. [14]

    Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands., Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    J. Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands., Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Se- ries A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 276, 238 (1963)

    1963

  9. [15]

    Auerbach, Interacting electrons and quantum mag- netism (Springer Science & Business Media, 1998)

    A. Auerbach, Interacting electrons and quantum mag- netism (Springer Science & Business Media, 1998)

    1998

  10. [16]

    Peierls, Zur theorie des diamagnetismus von leitungse- lektronen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik80, 763 (1933)

    R. Peierls, Zur theorie des diamagnetismus von leitungse- lektronen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik80, 763 (1933)

    1933

  11. [17]

    Luttinger, The effect of a magnetic field on electrons in a periodic potential, Physical Review 84, 814 (1951)

    J. Luttinger, The effect of a magnetic field on electrons in a periodic potential, Physical Review 84, 814 (1951)

    1951

  12. [18]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. Cava, S. Kivelson, D. Nocera, M. Nor- man, and T. Senthil, Quantum spin liquids, Science 367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  13. [19]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  14. [20]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  15. [21]

    Trebst and C

    S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Kitaev materials, Physics Re- ports 950, 1 (2022)

    2022

  16. [22]

    Motome and J

    Y. Motome and J. Nasu, Hunting majorana fermions in kitaev magnets, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 89, 012002 (2020)

    2020

  17. [23]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Physics of the ki- taev model: fractionalization, dynamic correlations, and material connections, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics 9, 17 (2018)

    2018

  18. [24]

    Therefore, there are amplitude and frequency ranges where the exchange coupling becomes ferromagnetic (FM [9]

    introduced it developing a time- dependent pertur- bation theory. Therefore, there are amplitude and frequency ranges where the exchange coupling becomes ferromagnetic (FM [9]. A sign-change of Jex in these ranges will not induce a transition to a FM state since the Hubbard mo...

  19. [25]

    Kitamura, T

    S. Kitamura, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, Probing and control- ling spin chirality in mott insulators by circularly polar- ized laser, Physical Review B 96, 014406 (2017)

    2017

  20. [26]

    Itin and M

    A. Itin and M. Katsnelson, Effective hamiltonians for rapidly driven many-body lattice systems: Induced ex- change interactions and density-dependent hoppings, Physical review letters 115, 075301 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    H. K. Sen, Solar” enhanced radiation” and plasma oscil- lations, Physical Review 88, 816 (1952)

    1952

  22. [30]

    B. S. Newberger, New sum rule for products of bessel functions with application to plasma physics, Journal of Mathematical Physics 23, 1278 (1982)

    1982

  23. [31]

    J. G. Russo and M. Tierz, Landau-zener transition rates of superconducting qubits and the absorption spectrum in quantum dots, Physical Review A 109, 033702 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Kitamura, N

    S. Kitamura, N. Nagaosa, and T. Morimoto, Current re- sponse of nonequilibrium steady states in the landau- zener problem: Nonequilibrium green’s function ap- proach, Physical Review B 102, 245141 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Coulomb, Sur les z´ eros des fonctions de bessel con- sid´ er´ ees comme fonction de l’ordre, Bull

    J. Coulomb, Sur les z´ eros des fonctions de bessel con- sid´ er´ ees comme fonction de l’ordre, Bull. Sci. Math60, 297 (1936)

    1936

  26. [34]

    Notice how the 3 /2 case can be written also as the 1 /2 case plus extra terms subleading for large external driv- ing

  27. [35]

    More, generally, the zeros of the cylindrical function, hence the result also applies to J−ν (x) among others

  28. [36]

    Flajolet and R

    P. Flajolet and R. Schott, Non-overlapping partitions, continued fractions, bessel functions and a divergent se- 8 ries, European Journal of Combinatorics 11, 421 (1990)

    1990

  29. [37]

    Hence, the reversals are near positive and negative integers

    Recall the symmetry of the formula. Hence, the reversals are near positive and negative integers

  30. [38]

    Kanamori, Superexchange interaction and symmetry properties of electron orbitals, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 10, 87 (1959)

    J. Kanamori, Superexchange interaction and symmetry properties of electron orbitals, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 10, 87 (1959)

    1959

  31. [39]

    Georges, L

    A. Georges, L. d. Medici, and J. Mravlje, Strong correla- tions from hund’s coupling, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 4, 137 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    J. Liu, K. Hejazi, and L. Balents, Floquet engineering of multiorbital mott insulators: Applications to orthorhom- bic titanates, Physical review letters 121, 107201 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Khaliullin, Orbital order and fluctuations in mott insulators, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 160, 155 (2005)

    G. Khaliullin, Orbital order and fluctuations in mott insulators, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 160, 155 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Mott insulators in the strong spin-orbit coupling limit: from heisenberg to a quantum compass and kitaev models, Physical review let- ters 102, 017205 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent ´ ı, Chal- lenges in design of kitaev materials: Magnetic interac- tions from competing energy scales, Physical Review B 93, 214431 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Kumar, S

    U. Kumar, S. Banerjee, and S.-Z. Lin, Floquet engineer- ing of kitaev quantum magnets, Communications Physics 5, 157 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Generic spin model for the honeycomb iridates beyond the kitaev limit, Physical review letters 112, 077204 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Spin-orbit physics giving rise to novel phases in correlated systems: Iridates and related materials, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 7, 195 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    In the Appendix, we provide a discussion of the complete setup

  40. [48]

    Chaudhary, D

    S. Chaudhary, D. Hsieh, and G. Refael, Orbital floquet engineering of exchange interactions in magnetic materi- als, Physical Review B 100, 220403 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Chaudhary, A

    S. Chaudhary, A. Ron, D. Hsieh, and G. Refael, Con- trolling ligand-mediated exchange interactions in pe- riodically driven magnetic materials, arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.00813 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. Sur, A. Udupa, and D. Sen, Driven hubbard model on a triangular lattice: Tunable heisenberg antiferromagnet with a chiral three-spin term, Physical Review B 105, 054423 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    The opposite limit is also immediate but that one does not require the full summation and is already given in [22]

  44. [52]

    G. N. Watson, A treatise on the theory of Bessel func- tions, Vol. 2 (The University Press, 1922)

    1922

  45. [53]

    Bremer, An algorithm for the rapid numerical eval- uation of bessel functions of real orders and arguments, Advances in Computational Mathematics 45, 173 (2019)

    J. Bremer, An algorithm for the rapid numerical eval- uation of bessel functions of real orders and arguments, Advances in Computational Mathematics 45, 173 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Ciocci, G

    F. Ciocci, G. Dattoli, A. Dipace, and A. Torre, Simple derivation of new sum rules of bessel functions, Nuovo Cimento B;(Italy) 90 (1985)

    1985

  47. [55]

    Montaldi and G

    E. Montaldi and G. Zucchelli, Sum rules of special func- tions, revisited, Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996) 102, 229 (1988)

    1988

  48. [56]

    Li and M

    J. Li and M. Eckstein, Manipulating intertwined orders in solids with quantum light, Physical Review Letters 125, 217402 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Weber, E

    L. Weber, E. Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, M. Claassen, A. Rubio, and D. M. Kennes, Cavity-renormalized quantum criti- cality in a honeycomb bilayer antiferromagnet, Commu- nications Physics 6, 247 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber, Density operators and quasiprobability distributions, Physical Review 177, 1882 (1969)

    1969

  51. [59]

    M. M. Nieto, Displaced and squeezed number states, Physics Letters A 229, 135 (1997)

    1997

  52. [60]

    D. J. Wineland and W. M. Itano, Laser cooling of atoms, Physical Review A 20, 1521 (1979)

    1979

  53. [61]

    H. J. Groenewold, On the principles of elementary quan- tum mechanics (Springer, 1946)

    1946

  54. [62]

    Y.-H. Chen, F. Wilczek, E. Witten, and B. I. Halperin, On anyon superconductivity, International Journal of Modern Physics B 3, 1001 (1989)

    1989

  55. [63]

    S. H. Simon and B. I. Halperin, Finite-wave-vector elec- tromagnetic response of fractional quantized hall states, Physical Review B 48, 17368 (1993)

    1993

  56. [64]

    D. X. Nguyen and A. Gromov, Exact electromagnetic response of landau level electrons, Physical Review B 95, 085151 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    C. Wang, N. R. Cooper, B. I. Halperin, and A. Stern, Particle-hole symmetry in the fermion-chern-simons and dirac descriptions of a half-filled landau level, Physical Review X 7, 031029 (2017). 9 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL: THE SUMMA TION FORMULA, FEA TURES AND EXTENSIONS The m...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.