Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Critical transport behavior in quantum dot solids

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that weak hopping disorder moves the metal-insulator transition in quantum-dot solids from the Anderson universality class into the chiral orthogonal class, with critical exponent ν ≈ 1.12 over a wide parameter region.

desk verdict A useful phase diagram for doubly-disordered QD solids, but the BDI-exponent claim is likely a finite-size crossover rather than a true universality class. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03676 v1 pith:J6DJEQ7X submitted 2025-06-04 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.dis-nnphysics.comp-ph

Zachary Crawford , Adam Goga , Mikael Kovtun , Gergely Zimanyi This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.dis-nnphysics.comp-ph
keywords metal-insulatortransitionquantumdotsolidsAndersonlocalizationuniversalityclasscrossoverkineticdisordertransfermatrixmethodfinite-sizescalingchiralorthogonal
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

Solar cells made from quantum dots could beat the silicon efficiency cap, but only if the dots conduct well enough, and real dot solids contain disorder in both the dot energies and the couplings between dots. This paper models that double disorder with a tight-binding Hamiltonian and uses transfer-matrix plus finite-size scaling calculations to map where the solid switches from metal to insulator. Its central claim is that over a wide region of low on-site disorder and low energy the transition is governed by a critical exponent ν ≈ 1.12, the chiral orthogonal (BDI) value, rather than the Anderson (AI) value ν ≈ 1.57, and that the exponent only flows back to 1.57 as disorder or energy grows. If that is right, the universality-class crossover is observable in transport measurements because the conductivity exponent equals the localization-length exponent in three dimensions, and the phase diagram tells fabricators how many fused dot-dot connections are needed to cross the transition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the doubly disordered tight-binding Hamiltonian $H = \sum_i \varepsilon_i c_i^\dagger c_i + \sum_{\langle ij\rangle} t_{ij} c_j^\dagger c_i + \text{h.c.}$, with on-site energies $\varepsilon_i$ drawn uniformly from $[-W/2, W/2]$ and hopping integrals $t_{ij} = t_H = 1$ with probability $c$ and $t_L = 0.3$ otherwise. Critical properties are extracted with the transfer-matrix method, computing the quasi-one-dimensional localization length $\xi$ as the inverse of the smallest positive Lyapunov exponent, and then applying single-parameter finite-size scaling to the dimensionless ratio $\Gamma = L/\xi$ over transverse sizes $L = 17\text{--}30$. The scaling collapse yields the critical concentration $c_c$ and the critical exponent $\nu$, and the symmetry classification is imposed by comparing $\nu$ with the known AI value 1.57 and BDI value 1.12.

What would settle it

A concrete check: reanalyze the same transfer-matrix data with a two-parameter scaling fit, or run the calculation at transverse sizes above 30; if the fitted exponent at low energy and low on-site disorder moves from about 1.12 toward 1.57, the claimed chiral-class behavior is not asymptotic. In a real fused-dot solid, measuring the exponent with which conductivity vanishes at the transition and finding it near 1.57 rather than 1.12 would likewise falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a tight-binding Hamiltonian with both on-site energy disorder and binary hopping disorder supports a metal-insulator transition whose critical behavior is, over a wide region of parameter space, that of the chiral orthogonal (BDI) universality class rather than the ordinary Anderson (AI) class. Concretely, the fitted localization-length exponent is ν ≈ 1.12 ± 0.06 for low on-site disorder W and low energy E, and it crosses over to ν ≈ 1.57 as W or E grows, matching the known AI value. The model also produces a phase diagram in (W, c, E) showing that increasing the fraction c of high-conductance couplings drives the system through the transition at on-site disorder below the conventional Anderson critical value, and that kinetic disorder expands the insulating phase. The authors interpret the wide 1.12 plateau as evidence that adding weak kinetic disorder changes the universality class of the transition even though particle-hole symmetry is formally absent, and they note that the same exponent governs conductivity in three dimensions, making the prediction experimentally accessible.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the single-parameter scaling fit to transverse sizes 17 through 30 gives the true asymptotic critical exponent; the paper itself notes that a two-parameter scaling analysis could yield a more accurate value, so if the 1.12 plateau is a size-dependent artifact rather than the asymptotic exponent, the claimed change of universality class would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Over most of the studied (W, E) space the predicted critical exponent is about 1.12, so transport measurements in quantum-dot solids at low energy and low size disorder should see an effective transition exponent near 1.12 rather than 1.57.
  • Because the localization-length and conductivity exponents are equal in three dimensions, the predicted 1.12 is directly measurable as the vanishing of conductivity at the transition.
  • The phase diagram shows that the metal-insulator transition can be crossed by increasing the fraction c of high-conductance fused dot pairs even when on-site disorder is below the traditional Anderson limit of W = 16.53.
  • Kinetic disorder expands the insulating phase into the region where pure on-site disorder would predict delocalization, so metallicity requires both limited size disorder and enough fused couplings.
  • Excluding transverse sizes L ≤ 16 from the scaling analysis removes visible degradation without changing ν much, supporting the robustness of the 1.12 result at the studied sizes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The binary choice of hopping values (t_H = 1 with probability c and t_L = 0.3 otherwise) is a modeling choice; a natural extension would vary the high-conductance value continuously and check whether the 1.12 plateau survives, which would show whether the crossover is tied to the binary nature of the neck distribution or to kinetic disorder generally.
  • The paper's observation that low transverse sizes degrade the scaling suggests the fitted exponent may still drift with system size; extending the same analysis to L = 34–40 at low W and E would either confirm the BDI plateau or reveal it as a finite-size crossover.
  • If the crossover is genuine, the model implies that the exponent should vary smoothly between 1.12 and 1.57 as W or E increases, so a fine scan of the plateau boundary in the paper's exponent map would give a testable prediction for where transport crosses from chiral to ordinary Anderson behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a tight-binding model of epitaxially fused quantum dot solids with both on-site (W) and binary nearest-neighbor hopping (c, tL/tH) disorder, motivated by tomography of experimental samples. Using the transfer matrix method and single-parameter finite-size scaling, the authors extract the critical concentration c_c of high-conductivity bonds and the localization-length critical exponent ν across a (W, E, c) parameter space. Their central claim is that for a broad region of low W and E the fitted exponent ν ≈ 1.12, consistent with the chiral orthogonal (BDI) universality class, while at larger W or E the exponent crosses over toward the Anderson (AI) value ν ≈ 1.57. They also present a phase diagram showing that kinetic disorder expands the insulating region relative to the standard Anderson picture.

Significance. If the exponent plateau is truly asymptotic, the result is significant: it would identify a wide parameter region in a three-dimensional doubly disordered system where the MIT appears to belong to a different universality class than the usual Anderson transition, with an experimentally measurable exponent ν = s = 1.12. The paper has clear strengths: the model is directly motivated by experimental tomographic data; the use of finite-size scaling follows an established methodology; and the pure-diagonal-disorder control reproducing the known AI exponent ν = 1.57 is a useful positive check. However, the central claim is conditional on whether the fitted ν ≈ 1.12 represents an asymptotic critical exponent rather than a finite-size crossover effect, and the current evidence does not fully establish that distinction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.B and Sec. III] The central identification of the BDI universality class rests on single-parameter finite-size scaling of Γ = L/ξ using Eq. (6) over the narrow range L = 17–30, with L < 16 excluded after reporting that those data degrade the scaling. The manuscript also states that only 20–45 disorder realizations were averaged per point. This is not sufficient to distinguish an asymptotic ν ≈ 1.12 from an effective exponent produced by a crossover scale longer than L ≈ 30. I ask the authors to provide explicit stability evidence: fits over further restricted L ranges (e.g., L ≥ 20 and L ≥ 25), an analysis of ν as a function of the minimum L, and, if feasible, a two-parameter scaling analysis that includes the symmetry-breaking field as a scaling variable. Without such evidence, the abstract's claim of a critical exponent 'distinct from the expected value for the Anderson transition' is not established.
  2. [Sec. II, symmetry discussion; Sec. III, Fig. 5] The paper's own symmetry analysis states that particle-hole symmetry, and hence chiral symmetry, exists only at E = 0 and W = 0; any nonzero on-site disorder or energy places the Hamiltonian in class AI. At a BDI critical point, a chiral-symmetry-breaking perturbation is generically relevant, so the asymptotic critical behavior at fixed nonzero W or E should be AI. The observed plateau ν ≈ 1.12 over W ≈ 8–12 is therefore compatible with a finite-size crossover rather than a genuine BDI critical point. The single-parameter FSS in Eq. (6), with W and E fixed and only c varied, cannot measure the scaling dimension of the PHS-breaking field. I recommend that the authors either perform a two-parameter FSS including W (or E) as a scaling variable, or compute how the effective ν varies with L. If ν drifts toward 1.57 with increasing L, the conclusion should be reframed as an effective exponent/crossover rather than a universality-class identification.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 5] Figure 5 reports ν across parameter space without visible confidence intervals or the number of disorder realizations used at each point. Given that the exponent values discriminate between ν ≈ 1.12 and ν ≈ 1.57, the absence of statistical error bars makes it difficult to judge whether the plateau and crossover are significant. The authors should provide a table or figure with ν, its 95% confidence interval, the L range used, and the number of c values and disorder realizations for each (W, E) point. This is a load-bearing point because the classification rests on the fitted value of ν.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Reference [2] contains a typo: 'G. Qian, Caroline an Zimanyi' should likely be 'C. Qian and G. T. Zimanyi' (or similar). Please correct the author list.
  2. [Sec. II] The sentence 'we used values of W such that W/tH < Wc/t < W/tL' is ambiguous and appears to have a typo. Clarify the intended inequality, presumably W tL < Wc < W tH or W/tH < W_c < W/tL after setting tH = 1.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (2)] The matrices H_n, H_{n,n±1} are not explicitly defined. A brief definition of their dimensions and contents would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. III, Fig. 3] The caption states that data points represent 'at least ≥ 10 DR, with most representing > 30DR'; this wording is awkward, and the number of realizations should be stated precisely in the text or caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the BDI/AI exponent claims are free outputs of the scaling fit compared against external universality-class values, not built into the model or fit.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The critical exponent ν is produced as a free parameter of the finite-size scaling fit to the transfer-matrix localization lengths via Eqs. (6)-(8), and is then compared with the independently known values ν=1.57±0.003 (AI) and ν=1.12±0.06 (BDI) quoted from Slevin/Ohtsuki and Wang/Ohtsuki/Shindou. Nothing in the Hamiltonian (Eq. 1), the disorder distributions, or the scaling ansatz encodes the target exponent, and no parameter is tuned to make the result land on 1.12. The pure-diagonal-disorder check reproducing ν=1.57 is a positive control, confirming that the analysis pipeline is not biased toward the BDI value. The citations to the authors' own prior work (refs. [2] and [27]) motivate the binary hopping disorder and the on-site-disorder interpretation, but neither is load-bearing for the scaling derivation. The paper's own symmetry analysis concedes that particle-hole symmetry, hence strict BDI symmetry, exists only at W=0 and E=0; the robustness of the ν≈1.12 plateau at nonzero W/E is a finite-size/crossover concern about asymptotic exponents, but it is a scientific risk rather than circular reasoning. The hand-set value tL=0.3 is a modeling choice made before the fits and does not define the predicted exponent. Overall, no step of the derivation reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the hand-chosen tL, the chosen numerical setup (Lz, L range, FSS orders), and the assumption that single-parameter scaling captures the asymptotic critical behavior. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • tL (low hopping amplitude) = 0.3
    Chosen by hand to keep all couplings nonzero while representing weak non-epitaxial junctions; directly controls the effective disorder strength and the phase boundary at c=0 (Wc=4.96).
  • Lz (longitudinal length) = 10^5
    Fixed to allow larger transverse sizes within computational limits; if too short relative to localization length, could bias Lyapunov exponents.
  • FSS expansion orders (nR, nI, mR, mI) = 3, 1, 2, 1
    Chosen as sufficient after testing; higher orders give diminishing returns, but the choice affects the fitted exponent.
  • Transverse sizes L used in FSS = 17-30
    L<16 excluded after observing degradation of scaling curves; this post-hoc choice narrows the fit range and may affect nu.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The real spinless tight-binding Hamiltonian has time-reversal symmetry, so in the absence of chiral symmetry it belongs to the orthogonal (AI) class.
    Invoked in Section II to argue the pure on-site disorder limit should give nu=1.57.
  • domain assumption The binary distribution of hopping integrals (tH with probability c, tL otherwise) faithfully represents the experimental distribution of epitaxial necks in QD solids.
    Section II; the entire kinetic-disorder modeling rests on this binary approximation of the tomography data.
  • domain assumption Single-parameter finite-size scaling is valid for this model.
    Used in Section II.B to extract nu; the paper itself states a two-parameter analysis might improve accuracy.
  • standard math The transfer matrix method with periodic transverse boundary conditions and QR decomposition yields unbiased estimates of the localization length for the system sizes used.
    Section II.A; standard method from Slevin et al., but the number of disorder realizations (20-45) is lower than usual.
  • standard math At E=0 and W=0 the Hamiltonian has chiral (sublattice) symmetry and belongs to class BDI.
    Used in Section II to identify the expected BDI exponent; based on known results for random hopping on bipartite lattices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critical transport behavior in quantum dot solids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J6DJEQ7X

@misc{pith2026250603676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critical transport behavior in quantum dot solids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J6DJEQ7X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03676}
}
read the original abstract

Due to recent advances, silicon solar cells are rapidly approaching the Shockley-Queisser limit of 33% efficiency. Quantum Dot (QD) solar cells have the potential to surpass this limit and enable a new generation of photovoltaic technologies beyond the capabilities of any existing solar energy modalities. The creation of the first epitaxially-fused quantum dot solids showing broad phase coherence and metallicity necessary for solar implementation has not yet been achieved, and the metal-insulator transition in these materials needs to be explored. We have created a new model of electron transport through QD solids, informed by 3D-tomography of QD solid samples, which considers disorder in both the on-site and hopping terms of the commonly studied Anderson Hamiltonian. We used the transfer matrix method and finite-size scaling to create a dynamic metal-insulator transition phase diagram. For a surprisingly large portion of the parameter space, our model shows a critical exponent distinct from the expected value for the Anderson transition. We show the existence of a crossover region from the universality class of the Anderson transition (AI) to the Chiral Orthogonal class (BDI) due to the addition of weak kinetic (hopping) disorder.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) A slice of the tomogram of a 7-layer QD SL solid sample, showing in plane necks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Phase diagram of localization in the (energy, disorder) plane for a uniform disorder. Due [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: A log-linear plot showing the values of Γ = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: This phase diagram shows the critical concentration of high connectivity linkages (kinetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The critical exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Evolution of the probability distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y. Liu, M. Gibbs, J. Puthussery, S. Gaik, R. Ihly, H. W. Hillhouse, and M. Law, Nano Letters 10, 1960–1969 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    X. Chu, H. Heidari, A. Abelson, D. Unruh, C. Hansen, G. Qian, Caroline an Zimanyi, M. Law, and A. J. Moul´ e, J. Mater. Chem. A8, 18254 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    J. M. An, A. Franceschetti, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B 76, 045401 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Kang and F

    I. Kang and F. W. Wise, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 14, 1632 (1997)

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Scheele, J

    M. Scheele, J. H. Engel, V. E. Ferry, D. Hanifi, Y. Liu, and A. P. Alivisatos, ACS Nano 7, 6774–6781 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    D. V. Talapin, J.-S. Lee, M. V. Kovalenko, and E. V. Shevchenko, Chem. Rev. 110, 389 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    M. V. Kovalenko, L. Manna, A. Cabot, Z. Hens, D. V. Talapin, C. R. Kagan, V. I. Klimov, A. L. Rogach, P. Reiss, and D. J. Milliron et al., ACS Nano 9, 1012 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    A. J. Nozik, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 14, 115 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    P. V. Kamat, J. Phys. Chem. C 112, 18737 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Shirasaki, G

    Y. Shirasaki, G. J. Supran, M. G. Bawendi, and V. Bulovi´ c, Nat. Photonics 7, 13 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    D. V. Talapin and C. B. Murray, Science 310, 86 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Hetsch, N

    F. Hetsch, N. Zhao, S. V. Kershaw, and A. L. Rogach, Mater. Today 16, 312 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Shockley and H

    W. Shockley and H. J. Queisser, Journal of Applied Physics 32, 510–519 (1961)

    1961

  6. [14]

    M. Hao, Y. Bai, S. Zeiske, L. Ren, J. Liu, Y. Yuan, N. Zarrabi, N. Cheng, M. Ghasemi, P. Chen, M. Lyu, D. He, J.-H. Yun, Y. Du, Y. Wang, S. Ding, A. Armin, P. Meredith, G. Liu, H.-M. Cheng, and L. Wang, Nature Energy 5, 79 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    E. M. Sanehira, A. R. Marshall, J. A. Christians, S. P. Harvey, P. N. Ciesielski, L. M. Wheeler, P. Schulz, L. Y. Lin, M. C. Beard, and J. M. Luther, Sci. Adv. 3 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Whitham, J

    K. Whitham, J. Yang, B. H. Savitzky, L. F. Kourkoutis, F. Wise, and T. Hanrath, Nat. Mater. 15, 557 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    W. H. Evers, J. M. Schins, M. Aerts, A. Kulkarni, P. Capiod, M. Berthe, B. Grandidier, C. Delerue, H. S. J. van der Zant, and C. van Overbeek et al., Nat. Commun. 6, 8195 (2015). 11

    2015

  10. [18]

    B. T. Diroll, N. J. Greybush, C. R. Kagan, and C. B. Murray, Chemistry of Materials 27, 2998 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Altamura, T

    D. Altamura, T. Sibillano, D. Siliqi, L. D. Caro, and C. Giannini, Nanomaterials and Nanotechnology 2, 16 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Y. Liu, J. Tolentino, M. Gibbs, R. Ihly, C. L. Perkins, Y. Liu, N. Crawford, J. C. Hemminger, and M. Law, Nano Letters 13, 1578 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Abelson, C

    A. Abelson, C. Qian, T. Salk, Z. Luan, K. Fu, J.-G. Zheng, J. L. Wardini, and M. Law, Nature Materials 19, 49 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    O. L. Lazarenkova and A. A. Balandin, Journal of Applied Physics 89, 5509–5515 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    J. W. K los and M. Krawczyk, Materials Science-Poland 26 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    MacKinnon and B

    A. MacKinnon and B. Kramer, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter 53, 1–13 (1983)

    1983

  17. [25]

    Slevin and T

    K. Slevin and T. Ohtsuki, New Journal of Physics 16, 015012 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Slevin, Y

    K. Slevin, Y. Asada, and L. I. Deych, Physical Review B 70, 10.1103/physrevb.70.054201 (2004)

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    L. Qu, D. Unruh, and G. T. Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. B 103, 195303 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Grussbach and M

    H. Grussbach and M. Schreiber, Physical Review B 51, 663–666 (1995)

    1995

  21. [30]

    Kroha, T

    J. Kroha, T. Kopp, and P. W¨ olfle, Physical Review B 41, 888–891 (1990)

    1990

  22. [31]

    Kramer, A

    B. Kramer, A. MacKinnon, T. Ohtsuki, and K. Slevin, International Journal of Modern Physics B 24, 1841 (2010)

    2010

  23. [32]

    Slevin and T

    K. Slevin and T. Ohtsuki, Physical Review Letters 82, 382 (1999)

    1999

  24. [33]

    Biscani and D

    F. Biscani and D. Izzo, Journal of Open Source Software 5, 2338 (2020)

    2020

  25. [34]

    Efron, R

    B. Efron, R. Tibshirani, and R. J. Tibshirani, An introduction to the bootstrap, Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Philadelphia, PA, 1994)

    1994

  26. [35]

    Evers and A

    F. Evers and A. D. Mirlin, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1355 (2008)

    2008

  27. [36]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Reviews of Modern Physics 88, 10.1103/revmod- phys.88.035005 (2016)

    2016 doi

  28. [37]

    T. Wang, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shindou, Physical Review B 104, 10.1103/physrevb.104.014206 (2021)

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    M. S. Foster and A. W. W. Ludwig, Physical Review B 73, 10.1103/physrevb.73.155104 (2006)

    2006 doi

  30. [39]

    E. J. K¨ onig, P. M. Ostrovsky, I. V. Protopopov, and A. D. Mirlin, Physical Review B85, 10.1103/phys- revb.85.195130 (2012)

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    B. K. Nikoli´ c, Physical Review B 64, 10.1103/physrevb.64.014203 (2001)

    2001 doi

  32. [41]

    Kasturirangan, A

    S. Kasturirangan, A. Kamenev, and F. J. Burnell, Physical Review B 105, 10.1103/physrevb.105.174204 (2022)

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    F. J. Wegner, Zeitschrift fur Physik B Condensed Matter and Quanta 25, 327 (1976)

    1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.