Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Tunable phase transitions from semimetals to Chern insulators in two-dimensional quadratic-band-crossing materials

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Polarized light can drive a 2D quadratic-band-crossing semimetal into a Chern insulator, with the polarization angle setting the sign of the quantized Hall conductivity.

desk verdict A genuinely useful Floquet Hamiltonian and a clean static Chern number, but the LPL 'trivial insulator' conclusion is internally contradicted by the paper's own effective Hamiltonian; the CPL/EPL tunable-Chern result may survive revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19378 v3 pith:NV7IEJ6P submitted 2025-06-24 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

Wen-Hao Bian , Jing Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords quadraticbandcrossingCherninsulatorFloquettheoryBerrycurvatureanomalousHallconductivitypolarizationangleEulerclasstopologicalphasetransition
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 argues that a single control parameter—the polarization angle of monochromatic light—can drive a two-dimensional quadratic-band-crossing-point (QBCP) semimetal through a topological phase transition into a Chern insulator (a gapped insulator with a quantized Hall response). It first shows that a static $\sigma_2$-type perturbation removes the quadratic band touching, opens a gap, and produces a Chern insulator with Chern number $C = \pm\mathrm{sgn}(t_x t_z)$, tied to the microscopic hopping parameters. It then applies Floquet theory to show that circularly or elliptically polarized light breaks time-reversal symmetry and produces a Chern insulator with $C = \pm\mathrm{sgn}(\phi)$, whereas linearly polarized light preserves the central antisymmetry of the Berry curvature and yields a trivial insulator. Since the zero-temperature anomalous Hall conductivity is $\sigma_{xy} = Ce^2/h$, the sign of the quantized Hall response becomes tunable by the handedness and angle of the light. The free QBCP semimetal is additionally identified as a non-Abelian Euler semimetal whose Euler class $\chi = 1$ converts into an Abelian Chern number when $C_2T$ symmetry is broken.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-band $d$-vector, the momentum-dependent vector function that encodes the band geometry, together with the Berry-curvature formula $\Omega_z(k)=\frac{1}{2|d|^3}d\cdot(\partial_{k_x}d\times\partial_{k_y}d)$. In the static scenario the $d$-vector is $h(k)=(2t_x k_x k_y, m, t_z(k_x^2-k_y^2))$; the $\sigma_2$ term breaks time-reversal symmetry, opens a gap at $k=0$, and makes $\Omega_z$ momentum-inversion symmetric, so the integral (22) evaluates to $C=\pm\mathrm{sgn}(t_x t_z)$. In the Floquet scenario the same formula acts on the effective $d$-vector of Eq. (16) with $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ generated by the first-order high-frequency expansion; the polarization angle $\phi$ controls whether $\Omega_z(k)=-\Omega_z(-k)$ (linear polarization, $C=0$) or not (circular/elliptical polarization, $C=\pm 1$). A second supporting object is the Euler class $\chi=-1$ of the free QBCP Hamiltonian, which characterizes the quadratic node before symmetry breaking and motivates the conversion from a non-Abelian Euler semimetal to an Abelian Chern insulator.

What would settle it

Compute the exact Floquet quasienergy bands for the QBCP Hamiltonian driven by linearly polarized light $\mathbf{A}(t)=A_0(\sin\omega t,\sin(\omega t+\pi))$ without truncating the high-frequency expansion, then integrate the Berry curvature of the quasienergy bands over the Brillouin zone. If the gap closes at finite momentum (where the effective $d$-vector vanishes) or the integral returns a nonzero Chern number, the linear-polarization trivial phase in Table II and the associated optical-signature classification are wrong. A complementary experiment is a zero-temperature Hall measurement under linearly polarized illumination: a truly trivial insulator would give $\sigma_{xy}\to 0$ only if the gap remains open everywhere in the Brillouin zone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that breaking time-reversal symmetry in a 2D QBCP semimetal—either by a static mass term or by driving with polarized light—removes the quadratic band crossing, opens a gap, and converts the semimetal into a Chern insulator whose Chern number is fixed by the symmetry-breaking agent. For the static $\sigma_2$ mass $m$, the Berry curvature is $\Omega_z(k)=4t_x t_z m k^2/(2|h(k)|^3)$ and its integral gives $C=\pm\mathrm{sgn}(t_x t_z)$, with the sign corresponding to upper and lower bands. For Floquet driving, the high-frequency effective Hamiltonian (15) has the $d$-vector $d(k)=(t_x e^2 A_0^2 \cos\phi+2t_x k_x k_y, m_{\mathrm{eff}}, t_z(k_x^2-k_y^2))$, and the paper reports that non-linear polarization ($\phi\neq 0,\pi$) yields $C=\pm\mathrm{sgn}(\phi)$ while linear polarization ($\phi=0,\pi$) preserves the Berry-curvature antisymmetry and yields $C=0$. In both scenarios the anomalous Hall conductivity at zero temperature is quoted as $\sigma_{xy}=Ce^2/\hbar$ at the Fermi energy, and circular dichroism together with higher-order photoconductivity are proposed as optical signatures separating the semimetal, Chern-insulator, and trivial-insulator phases.

Load-bearing premise

The Floquet classification assumes that the first-order high-frequency expansion (Eqs. A2–A11) is the correct effective Hamiltonian and that the gap at $k=0$ (Eq. 18) is the global gap; for linearly polarized light at $\phi=0,\pi$ the effective $d$-vector vanishes at finite momenta, which would close the gap and invalidate the trivial-insulator result that supports the phase diagram and Table II.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A static $\sigma_2$ perturbation turns a 2D QBCP semimetal into a Chern insulator with $C=\pm\mathrm{sgn}(t_x t_z)$, so sign changes in the hopping parameters themselves drive topological transitions.
  • Circularly or elliptically polarized light yields $C=\pm\mathrm{sgn}(\phi)$, meaning the sign of the quantized anomalous Hall conductivity $\sigma_{xy}=Ce^2/h$ can be flipped simply by reversing the light handedness.
  • Linearly polarized light gives a trivial insulator with $C=0$; in the hybrid case, the static mass $m$ wins at $m\gg A_0$ while the optical driving wins at $A_0\gg m$.
  • At zero temperature and Fermi energy, both mechanisms produce the universal quantization $\sigma_{xy}=Ce^2/\hbar$; away from $E_f$, the Hall response becomes non-universal and is controlled by $t_I$, $m$, $A_0$, and $\phi$.
  • The free QBCP semimetal carries an Euler class $|\chi|=1$, so breaking $C_2T$ symmetry converts a non-Abelian Euler nodal phase into an Abelian Chern insulator, with circular dichroism encoding the sign of $C$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Floquet Berry curvature scales as $(t_x t_z)^2$, a direct extension is that the light-driven Chern number should be insensitive to the signs of the microscopic hoppings; material-level sign disorder would therefore not destroy the polarization-controlled quantization, unlike the static case.
  • The paper's linear-polarization trivial phase rests on the first-order high-frequency expansion; a natural test is to go beyond that expansion and compute exact Floquet quasienergy bands for $\phi=0$ or $\pi$ on a lattice, and check whether the gap closes at finite momenta where the effective $d$-vector vanishes.
  • The Euler-class connection suggests a broader rule: any $C_2T$-breaking perturbation that gaps a quadratic node with Euler invariant $|\chi|=1$ should generically produce a Chern-number-$\pm 1$ insulator, so similar polarization-tuned transitions should appear in other QBCP materials and in models unitarily equivalent to Bernal bilayer graphene.
  • Polarization-angle control could be used as an all-optical switch for the sign of the Hall conductivity at fixed carrier density, which is a step toward reconfigurable topological electronics; this goes beyond the paper's explicit proposals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a two-dimensional quadratic-band-crossing-point (QBCP) semimetal model under two gap-opening perturbations: a static σ2 mass term and time-periodic Floquet driving by light with polarization angle ϕ. The authors claim that the static perturbation yields a Chern insulator with C=±sgn(tx tz), that circularly or elliptically polarized light yields a Chern insulator with C=±sgn(ϕ), and that linearly polarized light yields a topologically trivial insulator. They further predict quantized anomalous Hall conductivity in the Chern phases, discuss an Euler-class description of the undriven semimetal, and propose optical signatures to distinguish the phases.

Significance. The static part of the paper is clean and self-contained: Eq. (22) evaluates the Chern integral from an explicit Berry-curvature expression, and the result C=±sgn(tx tz) is a parameter-free consequence of the model. However, the Floquet section is the advertised main contribution, and it has a load-bearing internal inconsistency: for linear polarization the effective Hamiltonian of Eqs. (15)-(17) is gapless at finite momenta, so the claimed trivial-insulator phase is not an insulator within that very Hamiltonian. In addition, the circularly/elliptically polarized-light Chern numbers C=±1 are asserted from symmetry rather than computed. The paper provides no numerical Brillouin-zone integration or machine-checked proof to replace the missing calculation, so the central polarization-tunable phase-transition claim is not currently supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eqs. (15)-(18)] The 'trivial insulator' classification for linear polarization is internally contradicted by the effective Hamiltonian. Substituting ϕ=π into Eq. (17) gives meff = [4 e A0 tx tz/(ℏω)] (kx+ky)(e^2 A0^2 - k^2), and at k0=(eA0/√2, eA0/√2) the components d_x=tx(e^2 A0^2 cosπ + 2 kx ky) and d_z=tz(kx^2-ky^2) both vanish as well; hence d(k0)=0 and the two bands touch at a finite momentum. The same happens for ϕ=0 at k0=(eA0/√2, -eA0/√2). Thus Eq. (18), which is only the gap at k=0, is not a global gap, and the abstract, Fig. 7, Table I, and Table II incorrectly describe the LPL state as a gapped trivial insulator; within the effective Hamiltonian it is a nodal semimetal.
  2. [Sec. III B, Eq. (24)] The central Floquet Chern numbers C=±1 for CPL/EPL are asserted on symmetry grounds and never evaluated. Eq. (24) is presented without derivation, and no integral analogous to Eq. (22) is performed or numerically evaluated. Because the symmetry-based argument is invalidated by the LPL gap closures, the values C=±sgn(ϕ) that underlie the polarization-tuned phase transition require an explicit calculation; the manuscript does not provide one.
  3. [Sec. III C, Eqs. (25)-(27) and Fig. 8] The hybrid-phase result is not supported. The separation between the regimes 'A0≫m' and 'A0≤m' is never quantified, the phase boundary is not computed, and because the LPL Floquet Hamiltonian is gapless at finite k, Eq. (27) cannot assign C=0 for ϕ=0,π within this effective model. The schematic phase diagram in Fig. 8 therefore inherits the same gapless-LPL problem.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A11)] The derivation of the Berry-curvature formula Eq. (24) is not provided even though Appendix A derives the effective Hamiltonian; the reader cannot independently verify Eq. (24) without repeating a substantial calculation.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract and several places in Sec. IV write σxy=Ce^2/ℏ, but Eq. (28) together with the Chern-number definition Eq. (22) gives σxy=Ce^2/h; the y-axes of Figs. 9 and 10 are in units of e^2/h, so the text should be corrected consistently to Ce^2/h.
  3. [Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 captions] Figure 5 uses A0=0.8, ℏω=0.43, while Fig. 6 uses A0=0.43, ℏω=0.8; the parameters and their units should be stated explicitly and checked for consistency.
  4. [Appendix A] There is a typo in the first sentence: 'manintext' should be 'main text'.
  5. [Table I] The row 'Chern number 0 ±1 ±1 RHPL' is hard to read; the table should separate the LPL, CPL, and EPL columns into distinct labeled rows or columns.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Chern-number claims are derived from the model Hamiltonian and external prior results, not from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's static-perturbation result C = ±sgn(txtz) is obtained by an explicit Berry-curvature integral (Eqs. 20-23) of the model Hamiltonian Hpert(k), with no parameter fitted to a target output; the result follows algebraically from h(k) = (2txkxky, m, tz(kx^2-ky^2)). The Floquet Chern-number statements are asserted from the symmetry and sign of the Berry curvature computed from the effective Floquet Hamiltonian (Eqs. 15-17, 24), rather than from a completed integral, but that is an underived-claim/soundness issue, not circularity: the claimed C = ±sgn(phi) is not imposed as an input and is not equivalent by construction to the definition of phi. The self-citations present (Refs. 49, 60, 76) appear in routine contexts such as the free-model dispersion and prior related models; they are not load-bearing for the paper's central derivation, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work. The Euler-invariant discussion relies on external Refs. 68-69, 97-99, and the AHC quantization is checked against the TKNN formula. The identified weakness that for phi = pi the effective mass meff in Eq. (17) vanishes at finite momentum (e.g., k = (eA0/sqrt(2), eA0/sqrt(2))), closing the gap and undermining the LPL trivial-insulator classification, is an internal-correctness concern rather than a circular-reasoning defect, because the model is not constructed so as to guarantee that outcome. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

No parameters are fitted to data; tx, tz, tI, m, A0, omega, and phi are model inputs. The central claims rest on the free-model validity, the first-order Floquet truncation, and the unbounded-plane Chern quantization, none of which are proved within the paper. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The free Hamiltonian (2) is a valid effective model for a 2D QBCP semimetal.
    Adopted from Refs. [45-48]; the paper does not derive this from a microscopic lattice model.
  • domain assumption First-order Floquet high-frequency expansion (A2) captures the topological properties.
    The paper truncates the expansion at H^(1)_F without stating a quantitative validity condition (e.g., large omega relative to bandwidth); all Floquet results depend on this truncation.
  • domain assumption The continuum momentum integral over an unbounded plane yields an integer Chern number.
    The Chern number integrals in Eq. (22) and the Floquet analogue are performed over the infinite momentum plane with a cutoff; quantization requires a consistent regularization (e.g., a lattice Brillouin zone), which is not discussed.
  • domain assumption A perturbation delta H = m sigma_2 is a physically admissible symmetry-breaking term.
    The paper asserts realizability by interactions, impurities, or periodic potentials in Sec. II B 1 but supplies no specific realization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable phase transitions from semimetals to Chern insulators in two-dimensional quadratic-band-crossing materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NV7IEJ6P

@misc{pith2026250619378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable phase transitions from semimetals to Chern insulators in two-dimensional quadratic-band-crossing materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NV7IEJ6P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19378}
}
abstract

We systematically investigate how static symmetry-breaking perturbations and dynamic Floquet terms via a polarized light manipulate the topological phase transitions in the two-dimensional quadratic-band-crossing-point (QBCP) materials. The Berry curvature shows distinct behavior in such two situations. It is linearly and quadratically proportional to the product of microstructural parameters $t_{x,z}$ for the former and the latter, respectively. The static perturbation eliminates the QBCP and opens an energy gap, which leads to the momentum-inversion symmetry of Berry curvature. This yields a nontrivial Chern number determined by the microstructural parameters. In contrast, we demonstrate that either a circularly or an elliptically polarized light breaks the time-reversal symmetry, transforming the QBCP semimetal into a Chern insulator with a quantized anomalous Hall conductivity $\sigma_{xy} = Ce^2/\hbar$, where the Chern number is governed by the polarization angle. Moreover, the linear polarization preserves the central antisymmetry of the Berry curvature, giving rise to a topological trivial insulator. These results establish a tunable topological phase transition from a QBCP semimetal to Chern insulator in the two-dimensional QBCP materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19378 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Schematic dispersions for the 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Splitting of the quadratic touching [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Momentum dependence of Berry curvature for the perturbation scenario: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Schematic descriptions of the basic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Berry curvature of Floquet scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Berry curvature of Floquet scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) The polarization position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Schematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [13, 40, 77–80]

    Perturbation scenario As a simple toy scenario and control case, let us begin with removing the QBCP and opening an energy gap via the introduction of a perturbation constant term δH, which can be realized by interactions, impurities, periodic potentials, etc. [13, 40, 77–80]. Then, the free model (2) is casted into [39, 40, 80] Hpert(k) =H0(k) +δH, (8) w...

  2. [2]

    II B 1 and employ light-matter interaction as a re- alistic symmetry-breaking mechanism, i.e, the Floquet theory [40, 63–67, 72–75]

    Floquet scenario In order to bridge theoretical scenario with exper- iment, we go beyond the toy scenario presented in Sec. II B 1 and employ light-matter interaction as a re- alistic symmetry-breaking mechanism, i.e, the Floquet theory [40, 63–67, 72–75]. Within the Floquet framework, circularly polar- ized light irradiation provides a controlled pathway...

  3. [3]

    Besides, since the microscopic parameters tx and tz illustrated in Fig

    [39, 40]. Besides, since the microscopic parameters tx and tz illustrated in Fig. 3 govern both the rotational symmetry of the energy bands and the spatial distri- bution of the Berry curvature, the result (23) implies that continuous parameter variations can drive distinct topological phase transitions. A schematic of this de- pendence is provided in Fig...

  4. [4]

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

    1988

  5. [5]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 146802 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Xiao, M.-C

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

    2010

  8. [8]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    W. X. Feng and Y. G. Yao, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 55, 2199ĺC2212 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Y. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035005 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Yan and S.-C

    B. Yan and S.-C. Zhang, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75 096501 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Yoichi Ando, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 82, 102001 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    J. H. Bardarson and J. E. Moore, Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 056501 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 4, 113 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Zhang and S.-C

    H. Zhang and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Status Solidi RRL 7, 72 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Bansil, H

    A. Bansil, H. Lin, and T. Das, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021004 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Lapano, et al , Phys

    J. Lapano, et al , Phys. Rev. Materials 4, 111201(R) (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S. C. Zhang, Science 314, 1757 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  12. [20]

    Chen, C.-Z

    R. Chen, C.-Z. Chen, J.-H. Gao, B. Zhou, and D.-H. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 036803 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Z.-G. Chen, W. Zhu, Y. Tan, L. Wang, and G. Ma, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011016 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Y. Bai, X. Zou, Z. Chen, R. Li, Bo Yuan, Y. Dai, B. Huang, and C. Niu, ACS Nano, 19, 9, 9265ĺC9272 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Xiang et al ., Nat Commun 14, 5433 (2023)

    Z.-C. Xiang et al ., Nat Commun 14, 5433 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lu, H.-Q

    H. Lu, H.-Q. Wu, B.-B. Chen, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 076601 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    B, Wang, J. Yu, P. Sharma, and C.-C. Liu, arXiv:2504.11177 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y. He, S.H. Simon, and S.A. Parameswaran, arXiv:2505.06354 [cond-mat.str-el] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Emanuel, A

    P. Emanuel, A. Keselman, and Y. Oreg, Phys. Rev. B 112, 235133 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Z. Lin, W. Yang, H. Lu, D. Zhai, and W. Yao, Newton 2, 100339 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Chang et al ., Science 340, 167-170 (2013)

    C.-Z. Chang et al ., Science 340, 167-170 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Huang, Y

    Y. Huang, Y. Fu, P. Zhang, K. L. Wang, and Q. L. He, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 36 37LT01 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Zhang, G

    X. Zhang, G. Pan, B.-B. Chen, H. Li, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B 107, L241105 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Z. Ji, H. Park, M. E. Barber, C. Hu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J.-H. Chu, X. Xu, and Z.-X. Shen, Nature 635, 578ĺC583 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Lei et al , Chinese Phys

    L.-X. Lei et al , Chinese Phys. Lett. 41 090301 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Lu, W.-Y

    H.-Z. Lu, W.-Y. Shan, W. Yao, Q. Niu, and S.-Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. B 81, 115407 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Shen, W.-Y

    S.-Q. Shen, W.-Y. Shan, and H.-Z. Lu, SPIN 01:01, 33-44 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Taguchi, D

    K. Taguchi, D. Oshima, Y. Yamaguchi, T. Hashimoto, Y. Tanaka, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B 101, 235201 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Vargiamidis, P

    V. Vargiamidis, P. Vasilopoulos, and N. Neophytou, 16 arXiv:2212.10667 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    H. Lu, S. Sur, S.-S. Gong, and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. B 106, 205105 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Z.-M. Wang, R. Wang, J.-H. Sun, T.-Y. Chen, and D.-H. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 107, L121407 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Y. Mo, X. Wang, Z.-Y. Zhuang, and Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. B 111, L140504 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Huang, Z

    H. Huang, Z. Liu, H. Zhang, W. Duan, and D. Van- derbilt, Phys. Rev. B 92, 161115(R) (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Saha, Phys

    K. Saha, Phys. Rev. B 94, 081103(R) (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Mondal and S

    S. Mondal and S. Basu, Phys. Rev. B 105, 235441 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Q. Chen, L. Du, and G. A. Fiete, Phys. Rev. B 97, 035422 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Zhang, Y.-W

    Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Nature 438, 201ĺC204 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Y. D. Chong, X.-G. Wen, and M. Soljacic, Phys. Rev. B 77, 235125 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Sun and E

    K. Sun and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 78, 245122 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    K. Sun, H. Yao, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 046811 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    J. M. Murray and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. B 89, 201110(R) (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Li, A.-L

    M.-R. Li, A.-L. He, and H. Yao, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 043151 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Fu and J

    Y.-S. Fu and J. Wang, Annals of Physics 470, 169811 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Mandal and S

    I. Mandal and S. Gemsheim, Condens. Matter Phys., 22,1, 13701 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Bera and I

    S. Bera and I. Mandal, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter bf 33 295502 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    H. Lu, K. Sun, Z. Y. Meng, and B.-B. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 109, L081106 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Liquito, M

    R. Liquito, M. Goncalves, and E. V. Castro, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174202 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    X. Wan, S. Sarkar, S.-Z. Lin, and K. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 216401 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    X. Ji, J. Gao, C. Yue, Z. Wang, H. Wu, X. Dai, and H. Weng, Phys. Rev. B 106, 235103 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Sobrosa, M

    N. Sobrosa, M. Goncalves, and E. V. Castro, Phys. Rev. B 109, 184206 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    J. Jung, H. Lim, and B.-J. Yang, arXiv:2307.12528 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    D. Wu, Y. Huang, S. Sun, J. Gao, Z. Guo, H. Weng, Z. Fang, K. Jiang, and Z. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 256811 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    J. Wang, C. Ortix, J. van den Brink, and D. V. Efre- mov, Phys. Rev. B 96, 201104(R) (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Y. -M. Dong, Y.- H. Zhai, D. -X. Zheng, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 102, 134204 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    S. Ray, M. Vojta, and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. B 98, 245128 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    H. Pan, M. Wu, Yl Liu, and S. A. Yang, Sci. Rep. 5, 14639 (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 79, 081406(R) (2009)

    2009

  59. [67]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 229ĺC244 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    P. Liu, C. Cui, L. Li, R. Li, D.-H. Xu, and Z.-M. Yu, arXiv:2503.19614 [cond-mat.str-el] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    P.-H. Fu, S. Mondal, J.-F. Liu, Y. Tanaka, and J. Cayao, arXiv:2505.20205 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Yokoyama, Phys

    T. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. B 112, 024512 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

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

    2025

  64. [72]

    C. W. Chau, W. J. Jankowski, and R.-J. Slager, Phys. Rev. B 112, 064512 (2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    D. T. Tran, A. Dauphin, A. G. Grushin, P. Zoller, and N. Goldman, Sci. Adv. 3, e1701207 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    Asteria et al ., Nat

    L. Asteria et al ., Nat. Phys. 15, 449 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Bukov, L

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, Advances in Physics, 64, 2, 139-226 (2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    Benhaida, E

    O. Benhaida, E. H. Saidi, L. B. Drissi, and R. Ahl Laa- mara, arXiv:2412.17763 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    O. V. Kibis, M. V. Boev, I. V. Iorsh, and V. M. Ko- valev, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 37, 035503 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    Sajad Dabiri and Reza Asgari, arXiv:2503.12620 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] (2025)

    S. Sajad Dabiri and Reza Asgari, arXiv:2503.12620 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Zhai and J

    Y.-H. Zhai and J. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 966 (2021) 115371

    2021

  72. [80]

    S. Y. Zhou, G.-H. Gweon, A. V. Fedorov, P. N. First, W. A. de Heer, D.-H. Lee, F. Guinea, A. H. Cas- tro Neto, and A. Lanzara, Nature Mater 6, 770ĺC775 (2007)

    2007

  73. [81]

    Bao, H.-Y

    C.-H. Bao, H.-Y. Zhang, T. Zhang, X. Wu, L.-P. Luo, S.-H. Zhou, Q. Li, Y.-H. Hou, W. Yao et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 206804 (2021)

    2021

  74. [82]

    Wang, J.-S

    Z. Wang, J.-S. Yan, K.-X. Chen, and S.-S. Lyu, Phys. Rev. B 111, 085425 (2025)

    2025

  75. [83]

    Z. F. Wang, Z. Liu, and F. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 196801 (2013)

    2013

  76. [84]

    Wu, Y.-Y

    H.-Q. Wu, Y.-Y. He, C. Fang, Z. Y. Meng, and Z.-Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 066403 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    F. Ma, J. Feng, F. Li, Y. Wu, and D. Zhou, arXiv:2412.00619 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] (2024). 17

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Jalali-Mola and O

    Z. Jalali-Mola and O. Hess, arXiv:2503.17263 [physics.optics] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Li, et al , arXiv:2505.01767 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2025)

    C. Li, et al , arXiv:2505.01767 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    P. G. de Oliveira and A. S. T. Pires, arXiv:2407.20296 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    H.-B. Kim, T. Yuk, and S.-J. Sin, arXiv:2407.21098 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Mukherjee and B

    A. Mukherjee and B. Singh, arXiv:2410.04515 [cond- mat.mes-hall] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    J. O. A. Biscocho and K. H. A. Villegas, arXiv:2410.14213 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Qi, Y.-S

    X.-L. Qi, Y.-S. Wu, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 74, 085308 (2006)

    2006

  85. [93]

    Pradhan, K

    S. Pradhan, K. Samanta, and A. K. Nandy, arXiv:2412.02324 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Habe, Phys

    T. Habe, Phys. Rev. B 111, 035303 (2025)

    2025

  87. [95]

    Karplus and J

    R. Karplus and J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. 95, 1154 (1954)

    1954

  88. [96]

    St˘ reda, Phys

    P. St˘ reda, Phys. Rev. B82, 045115 (2010)

    2010

  89. [97]

    Thakur and S

    S. Thakur and S. Baidya, arXiv:2501.11025 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    E. H. Hall, American Journal of Mathematics, 2(3): 287-292 (1879)

  91. [99]

    K. v. Klitzing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 519 (1986)

    1986

  92. [100]

    A. Jain, W. J. Jankowski, and R.-J. Slager, Phys. Rev. B 111, 235149 (2025)

    2025

  93. [101]

    Bouhon, Q

    A. Bouhon, Q. Wu, R.-J. Slager, H. Weng, O. V. Yazyev, and T. Bzdusek, Nat. Phys. 16, 1137 (2020)

    2020

  94. [102]

    Bouhon and R.-J

    A. Bouhon and R.-J. Slager, arXiv: 2203.16741 [cond- mat.mes-hall] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  95. [103]

    McCann and V

    E. McCann and V. I. Falko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 086805 (2006)

    2006

  96. [104]

    W. J. Jankowski, M. Noormandipour, A. Bouhon, and R.-J. Slager, Phys. Rev. B 110, 064202 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.