Geometric Bloch oscillations and transverse displacement in flat band systems

Giandomenico Palumbo; Jing-Xin Liu; Marco Di Liberto

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 121 references

Geometric Bloch oscillations and transverse displacement in flat band systems

T0 review · 4 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 Wavepackets in flat bands move and oscillate under non-uniform electric fields, even though the band has zero dispersion.

desk verdict Clean, honest paper showing geometric Bloch oscillations and transverse displacement in flat bands; new non-Abelian equations are worth citing, but the closed-form predictions rest on a short-time Gaussian approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04314 v1 pith:CGT7U3RJ submitted 2025-06-04 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.quant-gas

Jing-Xin Liu , Giandomenico Palumbo , Marco Di Liberto This is my paper

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gas

keywords flatbandsquantummetricBlochoscillationswavepacketdynamicssemiclassicalequationsofmotiongeometrytransversedisplacementLieblattice

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

Flat bands have no dispersion, so the usual velocity and Bloch-oscillation mechanisms are absent; this paper argues that geometry alone is enough to make wavepackets move. The driving quantity is the quantum metric and its momentum-space derivative (the metric dipole), together with a rank-3 tensor that enters for cubic field terms. In the one-dimensional Lieb model, a linear-plus-quadratic potential produces Bloch oscillations of the wavepacket position and of its variance, while in a two-dimensional checkerboard model a quadratic potential produces a transverse displacement even though the Berry curvature is zero. The paper derives semiclassical equations for these effects, extends them to non-Abelian multi-band settings, and tests them numerically. If correct, flat-band systems, including moiré materials and synthetic lattices, are dynamically active because of their quantum geometry rather than their energy bands.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}(q)$, together with its momentum-space dipole $\langle \partial_\mu g_{\nu\rho}\rangle_S$ and the rank-3 gauge-invariant tensor $T_{\mu\nu\rho}$, the invariant part of the third cumulant of the projected position operator. The argument is carried by projected Heisenberg equations: operators such as $\hat r_\mu$, $\hat r_\mu \hat r_\nu$, and their products are replaced by Bloch-basis expressions built from the Berry connection, the quantum metric, and covariant derivatives, producing closed semiclassical equations whose velocity terms are controlled by metric dipoles and $T$. These equations are tested against exact numerics in 1D Lieb and 2D checkerboard flat-band models.

What would settle it

In the 1D Lieb model with a combined linear and quadratic potential, prepare a wavepacket at an initial momentum where $\langle \partial g_{xx}/\partial q_x\rangle_S$ is near its maximum and measure the position and variance oscillations; the claim predicts an oscillation amplitude proportional to $E_{xx}\langle \partial g_{xx}/\partial q_x\rangle_S / E_x$ and a momentum-variance growth $W_Q^{xx} \sim t^2$. If these oscillations are absent, or if a considerably wider wavepacket shows quantitatively different trajectories, the neglected shape-dependent terms are not negligible and the central prediction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the projected semiclassical equations for a wavepacket contain geometric velocity terms proportional to $\langle \partial_\mu g_{\nu\rho}\rangle_S$ and $\langle \partial_\mu T_{\nu\rho\lambda}\rangle_S$, so inhomogeneous fields can move a wavepacket whose band is exactly flat. In the 1D Lieb lattice the equations reduce to $\dot R_x = \frac{1}{2} E_{xx} \langle \partial g_{xx}/\partial q_x\rangle_S$ and $\dot W_{R,xx} = -E_x(R) \langle \partial g_{xx}/\partial q_x\rangle_S$, whose simultaneous solution is a Bloch oscillation of both position and variance when linear and quadratic fields coexist. In the 2D PT-symmetric checkerboard model, the Berry curvature vanishes identically, yet a parabolic potential produces a displacement transverse to the naive force direction because the metric dipole $\partial_x g_{xx}$ is antisymmetric about the chosen momentum while $\partial_y g_{xx}$ is not; a hyperbolic potential produces a two-directional response. The same semiclassical framework, written with projected Heisenberg equations, yields the non-Abelian generalization and the rank-3 tensor response, with numerical agreement at short times.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume that shape-dependent corrections and the Gaussian form of the momentum-space wavepacket remain negligible, so the equations are trusted only before the wavepacket spreads enough to wrap around the Brillouin zone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In a flat band with a quadratic field, the average position can move even though the band velocity is zero, and the displacement direction is controlled by the sign of the quantum-metric dipole at the initial momentum.
Combining a linear and a quadratic field in one dimension yields Bloch oscillations of both position and variance, with the oscillation amplitude set by the metric dipole and the restoring force set by the effective linear field.
The momentum-space variance grows as $W_Q^{xx} \sim t^2$ under a quadratic potential until the wavepacket wraps around the Brillouin zone, which marks the breakdown time of the semiclassical description.
In two dimensions, a parabolic potential can produce a purely transverse response without Berry curvature, because the relevant metric-dipole components have different symmetry properties around the initial momentum.
The non-Abelian commutator term $[g_{\mu\nu}, g_{\rho\lambda}]$ in the variance equation is predicted to affect variance dynamics in dimensions $D \ge 2$ and is left for future numerical validation.

Reading between the lines

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

The same mechanism should produce geometry-induced dynamics in nearly flat bands in moiré systems, where a small nonzero dispersion would add a slow drift on top of the metric-dipole response; the paper identifies these systems as relevant but does not quantify the dispersive correction.
A direct test of the non-Abelian prediction would be a two-band flat model with non-commuting quantum metrics, where the commutator $[g_{\mu\nu}, g_{\rho\lambda}]$ should produce variance dynamics absent in Abelian models.
Because the metric contribution to the velocity is a total derivative in momentum space, filling all states of the band gives zero net transport, so the predicted effects are intrinsically properties of localized wavepackets and could be observed with quantum-gas microscopes with sublattice resolution.

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

First, the core claim holds up: in flat bands, inhomogeneous fields drive wavepacket dynamics purely through quantum geometry. The 1D Lieb and 2D PT checkerboard numerics show Bloch oscillations of position and variance, and a transverse displacement with zero Berry curvature, in good agreement with the semiclassical equations at short times. There are no fitted parameters; the model parameters and field strengths are fixed inputs. That is real evidence.

What is genuinely new: the non-Abelian generalization of the velocity and variance equations, the simplified momentum equation (Eq. 6) in terms of the wavepacket variance, and the explicit flat-band demonstrations. The projected-operator derivation in the SM is clean and makes the structure of the shape-dependent terms transparent. The paper is also honest about limitations, marking gray regions where the Gaussian ansatz breaks down and relegating the cubic-variance dynamics to future work.

The soft spots are proportionate. The main one is the Gaussian closure (Eqs. 21-22): the closed-form predictions assume the momentum distribution stays Gaussian and the real-space variance is roughly constant. This is not hidden—the figures show exactly where it fails—but it means the quantitative scheme is established only before a timescale set by (E_xx)^2 W_R(0) t^2. The stress-test note is right that the shape-dependent terms are not the main threat for these Omega=0 models, since they vanish there; the Gaussian closure is the load-bearing assumption. A second soft spot: in the cubic-potential section, some 'theo' curves are half-theoretical because they input numerically computed occupations. That is acknowledged, but it is easy to miss and deserves a clearer sentence. Third, the non-Abelian validation in the SM uses a model that is non-Abelian only up to a gauge rotation; the genuinely non-Abelian commutator terms are never tested in a nontrivial model. Minor: no code or data, though the parameter sets are complete enough for reimplementation, and the 2D displacements are tiny (order 10^-2 a), as the authors themselves note.

Who gets value: quantum geometry and flat-band researchers, and experimentalists thinking about cold atoms or photonic lattices. The paper deserves a serious referee. My own recommendation would be 'conditional accept': the existence of the geometric dynamics is well supported by the exact numerics, and the semiclassical equations are valuable, but the quantitative closed-form predictions should be better justified (or softened) beyond the Gaussian regime. A revision that tests the non-Abelian equations in a nontrivial model and sharpens the language about the half-theoretical curves would strengthen it.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives semiclassical equations of motion for the mean position, mean momentum, real-space variance, and momentum-space variance of a wavepacket projected onto a set of bands, under external electric potentials that are linear, quadratic, and cubic in position. The derivation is performed with an operator-based projected-Heisenberg approach and is extended to non-Abelian multi-band subspaces. The equations are applied to flat-band models: a one-dimensional Lieb lattice and a two-dimensional PT-symmetric checkerboard lattice, both with zero dispersion. The central numerical claims are (i) geometric Bloch oscillations of the wavepacket position and variance under combined linear and quadratic potentials, driven by the quantum-metric dipole; (ii) a variance Bloch oscillation under a purely linear potential; (iii) dynamics induced by the rank-3 tensor T_xxx under cubic potentials; and (iv) a transverse displacement in two dimensions with identically zero Berry curvature, driven by quantum-metric dipoles. The paper acknowledges that the closed-form Gaussian closure used for the momentum-space variance, Eqs. (21)-(22), is valid only over a finite time window, marked by gray regions in Figs. 3 and 4, and that the cubic-potential theoretical curves in Fig. 4 use numerically obtained occupations |c(q,t)|^2.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper establishes a genuinely new mechanism for flat-band dynamics: band geometry alone, in the form of quantum-metric dipoles and the rank-3 tensor T, can produce oscillatory and transverse wavepacket motion even when the band dispersion and Berry curvature are both absent. This is conceptually timely given current interest in quantum geometry in flat-band and moiré systems, and the proposed cold-atom and photonic realizations are plausible. Strengths of the manuscript include an internally consistent operator-based derivation of the semiclassical equations, explicit analytic expressions for the quantum metric and T tensor in concrete lattice models, and numerical comparisons that do not fit any free parameters. The paper is also honest about several limitations: it marks the Gaussian-validity window, acknowledges non-adiabatic contributions to the numerics, states that the cubic-potential theory curves are computed with input from the numerical occupations, and notes that the non-Abelian test model in the Supplemental Material does not exhibit genuinely non-Abelian inter-band effects.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III A 2, Fig. 4] The theoretical curves for cubic potentials are not closed-form predictions from initial wavepacket data. The text states that 'to compute the theoretical curves we resort to the numerical estimate of the occupations |c(q,t)|^2 that we input in the semiclassical equations.' This means Eq. (24) is evaluated using the exact numerical occupations, so the comparison in Fig. 4 verifies the equation as an identity evaluated on the simulated state rather than as a predictive semiclassical scheme. Since the rank-3-tensor dynamics is one of the headline results, please either provide a closed dynamical scheme for the occupations (or the relevant expectation values) under cubic potentials, or clearly relabel these curves as 'half-theory' and explicitly state in the abstract and conclusion that the cubic-potential validation is only in this hybrid sense.
[Sec. III A 1, Eq. (22); SM Sec. S3] The closed-form momentum-variance law Delta W_Q^xx = 2 E_xx W_RQ,x(0) t + (E_xx)^2 W_R,xx(0) t^2 rests on two assumptions: that |c(q,t)|^2 remains Gaussian (Eq. (21)) and that W_R,xx(t) is approximately constant. The gray regions in Figs. 3(b,c) mark the breakdown of these assumptions, but the paper gives no analytic or systematic numerical criterion for when the Gaussian closure is valid; SM Sec. S3 demonstrates the ±5% deviation of Eq. (S81) only for the particular one-dimensional parameters tested and does not address two dimensions. Because the transverse-displacement predictions in Eqs. (31)-(32) use the same closure, the quantitative predictive content of the paper is currently limited to a parameter-dependent short-time window without a stated boundary. Please provide an explicit validity condition (for example, t much smaller than the time at which the momentum-space width reaches the Brillouin-zone boundary) and a two-dimensional check of Eqs. (31)-(32).
[Sec. III B, Eqs. (31)-(32), Fig. 5] The two-dimensional transverse displacement is a central claim, but the paper does not state how the 'Theo' curves in Fig. 5(e,f) are computed. The text introduces Eqs. (31)-(32) only as approximate estimates and does not show the evolution of W_Q for the two-dimensional simulations. It is therefore unclear whether the agreement between theory and numerics supports the closed Gaussian prediction from initial wavepacket parameters or whether it merely reflects the metric-dipole expectation value evaluated on the exact numerical state. Please disclose the computation of the theory curves and present the two-dimensional momentum-variance dynamics, at least as a check of the approximation underlying Eq. (31)-(32).
[Supplemental Material, Sec. S4] The claimed non-Abelian generalization of the equations of motion is not numerically validated in a genuinely non-Abelian setting. In the extended Lieb model, the momentum-independent state |u_FB,1> gives A^(21)=0 and vanishing off-diagonal quantum metric in the original basis; the test in Eqs. (S86)-(S88) only applies a momentum-dependent gauge rotation within a trivial two-band subspace. Consequently, the non-Abelian commutator terms in Eqs. (3) and (7), such as [A_mu, g_nu rho] and [g_mu nu, g_rho lambda], never enter the numerics. Please state this limitation explicitly or provide a model with genuinely non-Abelian flat bands in which those terms are nonzero and tested.

minor comments (4)

[References] References [56] and [114] are the same paper (H. Zeng et al., Phys. Rev. B 111, L121102 (2025)) and should be consolidated.
[Supplemental Material, Sec. S1] There is a typo in the text: 'Let the opertaor' should read 'Let the operator', and the notation in Eq. (13) of the main text, 'partial_x^2 A_x', would be clearer as 'partial_x^2 A_x' with an explicit second-derivative symbol.
[Figs. 3 and 4 captions] The captions of Figs. 3 and 4 refer to 'Theo' and 'Half-theo' curves, but the distinction is explained only in the main text. Please define these terms and the meaning of the gray regions directly in the captions for self-containedness.
[Sec. III A 2] The statement that 'the high-frequency and high-amplitude oscillations arise from non-adiabatic effects' is plausible, but the manuscript does not quantify the non-adiabatic population leakage or its effect on the extracted signal. A quantitative estimate of the non-adiabatic contribution would strengthen the comparison for the cubic-potential case, where the signal is small.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the semiclassical equations are derived from the Hamiltonian, and the numerical benchmarks are independent of the closure approximations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The semiclassical equations (3)-(9) are obtained from projected Heisenberg equations applied to the Hamiltonian (1)-(2), rather than from the phenomena they are used to explain. The closed-form 1D results (16)-(22) follow from these equations together with two explicitly stated and numerically delimited approximations: the Gaussian ansatz (21) and WR,xx(t)≈WR,xx(0). No parameter is fitted to the exact numerics: model hoppings, field strengths, and initial variances are fixed inputs, and the gray regions in Figs. 3-4 mark where the Gaussian assumption is known to break down, which is an honest validity statement rather than a concealed fit. The 'half-theoretical' curves and the cubic-potential curves in Fig. 4 input the numerically computed occupations |c(qx,t)|^2 into the semiclassical expressions; this is an explicit consistency check of the equation-of-motion identity, not a prediction of that distribution, and the paper states this clearly. The central existence claims (geometric Bloch oscillations and transverse displacement) are established by exact numerical evolution of the Schrödinger equation, an external benchmark independent of the semiclassical closure. Citations to the authors' own prior work (e.g., Refs. [7], [104]) are background or definitional and carry no load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz argument. Weaknesses such as the heuristic neglect of shape-dependent terms and the limited validity time of the Gaussian closure are approximation risks, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard quantum-geometry toolbox (Berry connection, quantum metric, rank-3 tensor) and on several approximations whose validity is argued heuristically or numerically rather than proven. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Lattice and field parameters (t1, t2, t3, t4, δ0, E_x, E_xx, E_xxx, E_xy) = t1=t2=t3=Δ1; t4 for extended Lieb; δ0=t1^2/t3-4t3; E_xx/Δ1=10^-3, etc.
Chosen by hand to produce flat bands and observable geometric dynamics. They are not fitted to the numerical output, so they do not create circularity, but the numerical demonstrations depend on the specific values.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Projected semiclassical wavepacket approximation: the wavepacket stays narrow in momentum space and within a gapped or degenerate subspace S of bands.
Used throughout Sec. II and the SM to define projected expectation values and to neglect shape-dependent terms; the authors do not solve the band-occupancy dynamics ǆcn(q).
domain assumption Shape-dependent terms δR and δW are negligible for the wavepackets considered.
Invoked in the main text after Eq. (3) and in SM S2 B, justified only heuristically and with numerical checks rather than with a rigorous bound.
ad hoc to paper The momentum-space population remains Gaussian and the real-space variance is approximately constant during the dynamics.
Introduced in Sec. III A 1 via Eqs. (21) and (22) to close the equations and obtain the t^2 law for the momentum variance; the paper itself marks the validity windows with gray regions.
domain assumption The flat band degeneracy and gap are large enough that interband transitions are small during the simulated times.
Required for the projection onto the flat band subspace; the authors note non-adiabatic contributions can overwhelm the geometric signal in some cases, especially for cubic potentials.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometric Bloch oscillations and transverse displacement in flat band systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGT7U3RJ

@misc{pith2026250604314,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometric Bloch oscillations and transverse displacement in flat band systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGT7U3RJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04314}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate transport phenomena and dynamical effects in flat bands where the band dispersion plays no role. We show that wavepackets in geometrically non-trivial flat bands can display dynamics when inhomogeneous electric fields are present. This dynamics is revealed both for the wavepacket trajectory and for its variance, for which we derive semiclassical equations extended to the non-Abelian case. Our findings are tested in flat band models in one- and two-dimensional lattices where the dynamics is solely determined by geometric effects, in the absence of band dispersion. In particular, in the one-dimensional case, we show the existence of Bloch oscillations for the wavepacket position and for the wavepacket variance, whereas in the two-dimensional case we observe a transverse displacement of the wavepacket in the absence of Berry curvature. This work paves the way for understanding quantum-geometry-induced dynamical effects in flat band materials and also opens the possibility for their observation with synthetic matter platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04314 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Tight-binding models. One dimensional Lieb model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Wavepacket dynamics in 1D Lieb lattice with linear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Wavepacket dynamics in 1D Lieb lattice with linear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Wavepacket dynamics in the 2D checkerboard lattice. (a-d) Distributions of quantum metric dipole for the flat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

[1]

(15) From Eqs

Dynamics with linear and quadratic potentials We thus consider the dynamics of a wavepacket on the flat band subjects to external linear and quadratic electric potentials of the form Vext = Exx + 1 2 Exxx2 . (15) From Eqs. (3), (6), (8) and (9), we find that the dynamics is described by ˙Rx = 1 2 Exx ∂gxx ∂q x S , (16) ˙Qx = −Ex(Rx) , (17) ˙WR,xx = −Ex(Rx...
[2]

Dynamics with a cubic potential We now discuss the dynamics in the presence of an external cubic potential Vext = Exx + 1 6 Exxxx3 , (23) where we also included the linear term to observe nontrivial dynamics. The wavepacket dynamics is ruled by ˙Rx = 1 6 Exxx ∂Txxx ∂q x S , (24) ˙Qx = −Ex(Rx) − 1 2 ExxxWR,xx , (25) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0....

2000
[3]

F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2015 (1988)

1988
[4]

Girvin and K

S. Girvin and K. Yang, Modern Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2019)

2019
[5]

Nagaosa, J

N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1539 (2010)

2010
[6]

T. Li, L. Duca, M. Reitter, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, M. Endres, M. Schleier-Smith, I. Bloch, and U. Schnei- der, Science 352, 1094 (2016)

2016
[7]

Xiao, M.-C

D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1959 (2010)

2010
[8]

H¨ oller and A

J. H¨ oller and A. Alexandradinata, Phys. Rev. B 98, 024310 (2018). 9

2018

Show all 121 references

[9]

Marzari and D

N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 56, 12847 (1997)

1997
[10]

Di Liberto, N

M. Di Liberto, N. Goldman, and G. Palumbo, Nature communications 11, 5942 (2020)

2020
[11]

J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Communications in Mathematical Physics 76, 289 (1980)

1980
[12]

Kolodrubetz, V

M. Kolodrubetz, V. Gritsev, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. B 88, 064304 (2013)

2013
[13]

Matsuura and S

S. Matsuura and S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. B 82, 245113 (2010)

2010
[14]

Neupert, C

T. Neupert, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. B 87, 245103 (2013)

2013
[15]

Y. Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 166601 (2014)

2014
[16]

Legner and T

M. Legner and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. B 88, 115114 (2013)

2013
[17]

Ma, Phys

Y.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. E 90, 042133 (2014)

2014
[18]

Pi´ echon, A

F. Pi´ echon, A. Raoux, J.-N. Fuchs, and G. Montam- baux, Phys. Rev. B 94, 134423 (2016)

2016
[19]

Y. Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 91, 214405 (2015)

2015
[20]

Srivastava and A

A. Srivastava and A. m. c. Imamo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 166802 (2015)

2015
[21]

Ozawa, Phys

T. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. B 97, 041108 (2018)

2018
[22]

Freimuth, S

F. Freimuth, S. Bl¨ ugel, and Y. Mokrousov, Phys. Rev. B 95, 184428 (2017)

2017
[23]

Liang, S

L. Liang, S. Peotta, A. Harju, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Phys. Rev. B 96, 064511 (2017)

2017
[24]

Ozawa and N

T. Ozawa and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. B 97, 201117 (2018)

2018
[25]

Palumbo, European Physical Journal Plus 133, 23 (2018)

G. Palumbo, European Physical Journal Plus 133, 23 (2018)

2018
[26]

Palumbo and N

G. Palumbo and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 170401 (2018)

2018
[27]

Y.-Q. Zhu, W. Zheng, S.-L. Zhu, and G. Palumbo, Phys. Rev. B 104, 205103 (2021)

2021
[28]

O. Bleu, G. Malpuech, Y. Gao, and D. D. Solnyshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 020401 (2018)

2018
[29]

Salerno, N

G. Salerno, N. Goldman, and G. Palumbo, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013224 (2020)

2020
[30]

W. J. Jankowski, A. S. Morris, A. Bouhon, F. N. ¨Unal, and R.-J. Slager, Phys. Rev. B 111, L081103 (2025)

2025
[31]

Mera and J

B. Mera and J. Mitscherling, Phys. Rev. B 106, 165133 (2022)

2022
[32]

Lin and G

Y.-P. Lin and G. Palumbo, Phys. Rev. B 109, L201107 (2024)

2024
[33]

Sodemann and L

I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

2015
[34]

M. A. Oancea, T. B. Mieling, and G. Palumbo, Quantum geometric tensors from sub-bundle geometry (2025), arXiv:2503.17163 [math-ph]

2025
[35]

Jiang, T

Y. Jiang, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Revealing quantum geometry in nonlinear quantum materials (2025), arXiv:2503.04943 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

2025 arXiv
[36]

K. Kang, T. Li, E. Sohn, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature materials 18, 324 (2019)

2019
[37]

Gao, Y.-F

A. Gao, Y.-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T. V. Trevisan, Y. Onishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, S.-W. Chen, M. Huang, D. B´ erub´ e, H. Li, C. Tzschaschel, T. Dinh, Z. Sun, S.-C. Ho, S.-W. Lien, B. Singh, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. C. Bell, H. Lin, T.-R. Chang, C. R. Du, A. ...

2023
[38]

K. Das, S. Lahiri, R. B. Atencia, D. Culcer, and A. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201405 (2023)

2023
[39]

Du, H.-Z

Z. Du, H.-Z. Lu, and X. Xie, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 744 (2021)

2021
[40]

Kumar, C.-H

D. Kumar, C.-H. Hsu, R. Sharma, T.-R. Chang, P. Yu, J. Wang, G. Eda, G. Liang, and H. Yang, Nature Nanotechnology 16, 421 (2021)

2021
[41]

S. Lai, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, J. Zhao, X. Feng, N. Wang, C. Tang, Y. Liu, K. Novoselov, S. A. Yang,et al., Nature Nanotechnology 16, 869 (2021)

2021
[42]

de Juan, A

F. de Juan, A. G. Grushin, T. Morimoto, and J. E. Moore, Nature Communications 8, 15995 (2017)

2017
[43]

H. Li, C. Zhang, C. Zhou, C. Ma, X. Lei, Z. Jin, H. He, B. Li, K. T. Law, and J. Wang, Nature Communications 15, 7779 (2024)

2024
[44]

A. Jain, W. J. Jankowski, and R.-J. Slager, Anomalous geometric transport signatures of topological euler class (2024), arXiv:2412.01810 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

2024 arXiv
[45]

W. J. Jankowski, R.-J. Slager, and M. Pizzochero, Enhancing the hyperpolarizability of crystals with quantum geometry (2025), arXiv:2502.02660 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

2025
[46]

Ahn, G.-Y

J. Ahn, G.-Y. Guo, N. Nagaosa, and A. Vishwanath, Nature Physics 18, 290 (2022)

2022
[47]

W. J. Jankowski and R.-J. Slager, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 186601 (2024)

2024
[48]

Mitscherling and T

J. Mitscherling and T. Holder, Phys. Rev. B105, 085154 (2022)

2022
[49]

L. Wang, J. Zhu, H. Chen, H. Wang, J. Liu, Y.-X. Huang, B. Jiang, J. Zhao, H. Shi, G. Tian, H. Wang, Y. Yao, D. Yu, Z. Wang, C. Xiao, S. A. Yang, and X. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 106601 (2024)

2024
[50]

B. T. Zhou, V. Pathak, and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 196801 (2024)

2024
[51]

Ezawa, Phys

M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. B 110, 195437 (2024)

2024
[52]

Xiang, J

L. Xiang, J. Jia, F. Xu, Z. Qiao, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 116301 (2025)

2025
[53]

Durand, L.-T

R. Durand, L.-T. Gendron, T. N. Dionne, and I. Garate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 226302 (2024)

2024
[54]

V. T. Phong and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 266601 (2023)

2023
[55]

Xiang, B

L. Xiang, B. Wang, Y. Wei, Z. Qiao, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 109, 115121 (2024)

2024
[56]

Salerno, T

G. Salerno, T. Ozawa, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Phys. Rev. B108, L140503 (2023)

2023
[57]

Chang and Q

M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1348 (1995)

1995
[58]

Subramanyan, S.-Z

V. Subramanyan, S.-Z. Lin, and A. Saxena, Phys. Rev. B 111, 165130 (2025)

2025
[60]

J. E. Moore and J. Orenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 026805 (2010)

2010
[61]

Chang and Q

M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 53, 7010 (1996)

1996
[62]

Orenstein and J

J. Orenstein and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. B 87, 165110 (2013)

2013
[63]

Goldman, G

N. Goldman, G. Juzeli¯ unas, P. ¨Ohberg, and I. B. Spielman, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 126401 (2014)

2014
[64]

Zhong, J

S. Zhong, J. Orenstein, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 117403 (2015)

2015
[65]

H. M. Price and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. A 85, 033620 (2012). 10

2012
[66]

Mugel, A

S. Mugel, A. Dauphin, P. Massignan, L. Tarruell, M. Lewenstein, C. Lobo, and A. Celi, SciPost Phys. 3, 012 (2017)

2017
[67]

Dauphin and N

A. Dauphin and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 135302 (2013)

2013
[68]

Goldman, J

N. Goldman, J. C. Budich, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics 12, 639 (2016)

2016
[69]

Jotzu, M

G. Jotzu, M. Messer, R. Desbuquois, M. Lebrat, T. Uehlinger, D. Greif, and T. Esslinger, Nature 515, 237 (2014)

2014
[70]

Zhang, Y.-Q

D.-W. Zhang, Y.-Q. Zhu, Y. X. Zhao, H. Yan, and S.- L. Z. and, Advances in Physics 67, 253 (2018)

2018
[71]

Furthermore, these approaches have also been successfully employed to analyze synthetic classical systems [73], including photonic ones [74]

and the Wilson loops [72] of topological Bloch bands. Furthermore, these approaches have also been successfully employed to analyze synthetic classical systems [73], including photonic ones [74]. The analysis of the EOM for wavepackets in inhomogeneous external electric and ma...
[73]

Wintersperger, C

K. Wintersperger, C. Braun, F. N. ¨Unal, A. Eckardt, M. D. Liberto, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidels- burger, Nature Physics 16, 1058 (2020)

2020
[74]

Atala, M

M. Atala, M. Aidelsburger, J. T. Barreiro, D. Abanin, T. Kitagawa, E. Demler, and I. Bloch, Nature Physics 9, 795 (2013)

2013
[75]

L. Duca, T. Li, M. Reitter, I. Bloch, M. Schleier-Smith, and U. Schneider, Science 347, 288 (2015)

2015
[76]

Raghu and F

S. Raghu and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. A 78, 033834 (2008)

2008
[77]

Ozawa, H

T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zilberberg, and I. Carusotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015006 (2019)

2019
[78]

M. F. Lapa and T. L. Hughes, Phys. Rev. B 99, 121111 (2019)

2019
[79]

Kozii, A

V. Kozii, A. Avdoshkin, S. Zhong, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 156602 (2021)

2021
[80]

Northe, G

C. Northe, G. Palumbo, J. Sturm, C. Tutschku, and E. M. Hankiewicz, Phys. Rev. B 105, 155410 (2022)

2022
[81]

U. Ali, M. Holthaus, and T. Meier, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013141 (2025)

2025
[82]

C. Xu, A. Haller, S. Hegde, T. Meng, and T. L. Schmidt, Quantum geometry in the dynamics of band- projected operators (2025), arXiv:2503.11425 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

2025 arXiv
[83]

Hoyos and D

C. Hoyos and D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 066805 (2012)

2012
[84]

Bradlyn, M

B. Bradlyn, M. Goldstein, and N. Read, Phys. Rev. B 86, 245309 (2012)

2012
[85]

Harper, D

F. Harper, D. Bauer, T. S. Jackson, and R. Roy, Phys. Rev. B 98, 245303 (2018)

2018
[86]

J. M. Pruneda and I. Souza, Phys. Rev. B 79, 045127 (2009)

2009
[87]

Roy, Phys

R. Roy, Phys. Rev. B 90, 165139 (2014)

2014
[88]

S. A. Parameswaran, R. Roy, and S. L. Sondhi, Comptes Rendus Physique 14, 816 (2013)

2013
[89]

C. H. Lee, M. Claassen, and R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. B 96, 165150 (2017)

2017
[90]

Mera and T

B. Mera and T. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. B 104, 045104 (2021)

2021
[91]

H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, et al. , Nature 622, 74 (2023)

2023
[92]

J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, et al. , Nature 622, 63 (2023)

2023
[93]

Y. Xie, A. T. Pierce, J. M. Park, D. E. Parker, E. Khalaf, P. Ledwith, Y. Cao, S. H. Lee, S. Chen, P. R. Forrester, et al. , Nature 600, 439 (2021)

2021
[94]

Peotta and P

S. Peotta and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Nature communications 6, 8944 (2015)

2015
[95]

Julku, G

A. Julku, G. M. Bruun, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Phys. Rev. B 104, 144507 (2021)

2021
[96]

Julku, G

A. Julku, G. M. Bruun, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 170404 (2021)

2021
[97]

T¨ orm¨ a, Phys

P. T¨ orm¨ a, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240001 (2023)

2023
[98]

Herzog-Arbeitman, V

J. Herzog-Arbeitman, V. Peri, F. Schindler, S. D. Huber, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 087002 (2022)

2022
[99]

Jiang and Y

G. Jiang and Y. Barlas, Phys. Rev. B 109, 214518 (2024)

2024
[100]

Iskin, Phys

M. Iskin, Phys. Rev. B 107, 224505 (2023)

2023
[101]

S. A. Chen and K. T. Law, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 026002 (2024)

2024
[102]

Iskin, Phys

M. Iskin, Phys. Rev. A 107, 023313 (2023)

2023
[103]

Kitamura, A

T. Kitamura, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Phys. Rev. B 106, 184507 (2022)

2022
[104]

A. L. Suba¸ s ı and M. Iskin, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023301 (2022)

2022
[105]

Hu and W

Y.-J. Hu and W. Huang, Phys. Rev. B 111, 134511 (2025)

2025
[106]

Y.-Q. Ma, S. Chen, H. Fan, and W.-M. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 81, 245129 (2010)

2010
[107]

Ding, C.-X

H.-T. Ding, C.-X. Zhang, J.-X. Liu, J.-T. Wang, D.-W. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A109, 043305 (2024)

2024
[108]

Ahn, G.-Y

J. Ahn, G.-Y. Guo, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041041 (2020)

2020
[109]

Aidelsburger, M

M. Aidelsburger, M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, M. Atala, J. T. Barreiro, S. Nascimbene, N. Cooper, I. Bloch, and N. Goldman, Nature Physics 11, 162 (2015)

2015
[110]

Baboux, L

F. Baboux, L. Ge, T. Jacqmin, M. Biondi, E. Galopin, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, L. Le Gratiet, I. Sagnes, S. Schmidt, H. E. T¨ ureci, A. Amo, and J. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 066402 (2016)

2016
[111]

Biondi, E

M. Biondi, E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, G. Blatter, S. D. Huber, and S. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 143601 (2015)

2015
[112]

Hyrk¨ as, V

M. Hyrk¨ as, V. Apaja, and M. Manninen, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023614 (2013)

2013
[113]

Gao and D

Y. Gao and D. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 227402 (2019)

2019
[114]

J. Ahn, S. Park, and B.-J. Yang, Phys. Rev. X9, 021013 (2019)

2019
[115]

Fahimniya, Z

A. Fahimniya, Z. Dong, E. I. Kiselev, and L. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 256803 (2021)

2021
[116]

Asteria, H

L. Asteria, H. P. Zahn, M. N. Kosch, K. Sengstock, and C. Weitenberg, Nature 599, 571 (2021)

2021
[117]

H. Zeng, Z. Zhou, W. Duan, and H. Huang, Phys. Rev. B 111, L121102 (2025)

2025
[118]

Vozmediano, M

M. Vozmediano, M. Katsnelson, and F. Guinea, Physics Reports 496, 109 (2010)

2010
[119]

Avdoshkin and F

A. Avdoshkin and F. K.-. Popov, Phys. Rev. B 107, 245136 (2023)

2023
[120]

Mitscherling, A

J. Mitscherling, A. Avdoshkin, and J. E. Moore, Gauge- invariant projector calculus for quantum state geometry and applications to observables in crystals (2024), arXiv:2412.03637 [cond-mat.str-el]. 11

2024 arXiv
[121]

Brosco, L

V. Brosco, L. Pilozzi, R. Fazio, and C. Conti, Phys. Rev. A 103, 063518 (2021)

2021
[122]

Marzari, A

N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1419 (2012). 12 Geometric Bloch oscillations and transverse displacement in flat band systems – Supplemental Material – S1. MA TRIX ELEMENTS IN BLOCH BASIS In this section, we introduce th...

2012
[123]

As a result, even under a linear potential, there is no inter-band mixing over time

In this basis, the state |uFB,1⟩ is momentum-independent, resulting in a vanishing inter-band Berry connection A(21) = i ⟨uFB,2|∂µuFB,1⟩ = 0. As a result, even under a linear potential, there is no inter-band mixing over time. Similarly, the off-diagonal components of the quan...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

(15) From Eqs

Dynamics with linear and quadratic potentials We thus consider the dynamics of a wavepacket on the flat band subjects to external linear and quadratic electric potentials of the form Vext = Exx + 1 2 Exxx2 . (15) From Eqs. (3), (6), (8) and (9), we find that the dynamics is described by ˙Rx = 1 2 Exx ∂gxx ∂q x S , (16) ˙Qx = −Ex(Rx) , (17) ˙WR,xx = −Ex(Rx...

[2] [2]

Dynamics with a cubic potential We now discuss the dynamics in the presence of an external cubic potential Vext = Exx + 1 6 Exxxx3 , (23) where we also included the linear term to observe nontrivial dynamics. The wavepacket dynamics is ruled by ˙Rx = 1 6 Exxx ∂Txxx ∂q x S , (24) ˙Qx = −Ex(Rx) − 1 2 ExxxWR,xx , (25) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0....

2000

[3] [3]

F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2015 (1988)

1988

[4] [4]

Girvin and K

S. Girvin and K. Yang, Modern Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2019)

2019

[5] [5]

Nagaosa, J

N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1539 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

T. Li, L. Duca, M. Reitter, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, M. Endres, M. Schleier-Smith, I. Bloch, and U. Schnei- der, Science 352, 1094 (2016)

2016

[7] [7]

Xiao, M.-C

D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1959 (2010)

2010

[8] [8]

H¨ oller and A

J. H¨ oller and A. Alexandradinata, Phys. Rev. B 98, 024310 (2018). 9

2018