Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

A sublattice Stokes polarimeter for bipartite photonic lattices

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four photoluminescence images reconstruct the full Bloch wavefunction of a photonic lattice.

desk verdict A genuinely useful Stokes polarimeter for sublattice pseudospin, with a load-bearing but fixable error in the quantum metric extraction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16446 v1 pith:U3NG7ILC submitted 2025-07-22 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.optics

Martin Guillot , Cédric Blanchard , Nicolas Pernet , Martina Morassi , Aristide Lemaître , Luc Le Gratiet , Abdelmounaim Harouri , Isabelle Sagnes
show 2 more authors
Jacqueline Bloch Sylvain Ravets
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.optics
keywords sublatticeStokespolarimetryBlocheigenstatetomographyquantumgeometrictensorBerrycurvaturephotonichoneycomblatticeexciton-polaritonsspatiallightmodulatorsub-linewidthspectroscopy
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

This paper establishes that the sublattice degree of freedom of a bipartite photonic lattice can be measured with a Stokes polarimeter built for pseudo-spin rather than light polarization. Four momentum-resolved photoluminescence images, taken while the two sublattices are left untouched, phase-shifted by π/2, or individually filtered out, are enough to recover the full sublattice Stokes vector of every Bloch mode across the Brillouin zone. From those Stokes vectors the authors reconstruct the Bloch eigenstates in amplitude and phase, obtain the Bloch Hamiltonian, and compute the quantum geometric tensor, Berry curvature, and valley Chern numbers. The same protocol works at the band-touching points of a gapless honeycomb lattice, where a density-matrix analysis separates the overlapping spectral lines and yields eigenenergies with sub-linewidth precision. The significance, if the claim holds, is that full eigenstate geometry of photonic lattices becomes accessible with relatively simple far-field intensity measurements.

What carries the argument

The central object is the sublattice Stokes vector, $\mathbf{S} = (S_0,S_1,S_2,S_3) = (1, \sin\theta\cos\phi, \sin\theta\sin\phi, \cos\theta)$, which places each Bloch eigenstate on a Poincaré sphere for the two-sublattice spinor. The carrying mechanism is a set of four SLM-implemented Mueller matrices acting on this pseudo-spin: the identity ($A{+}B$), a $\pi/2$ phase shift between sublattices ($A{+}iB$), and projections onto pure $A$ or pure $B$ emission. The four measured intensities are combined as $I_0 = I_A + I_B$, $I_1 = I_{A+B} - I_A - I_B$, $I_2 = -2I_{A+iB} + I_A + I_B$, and $I_3 = I_A - I_B$, which isolate the Stokes components of every mode. For spectrally overlapping bands, the same observables define a density matrix whose joint diagonalization yields the individual Bloch eigenvectors and their spectral weights.

What would settle it

Measure the reconstructed azimuthal phase-winding positions around the $K$ and $K'$ points while changing the SLM mask radius from $0.71\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ to, say, $1.14\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, or while misaligning the mask by 15--30% of the inter-pillar spacing; if the vortices move away from the Dirac points or the Brillouin zone distorts, the slow-Bloch-phase mapping to a discrete tight-binding model is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sublattice pseudo-spin is as measurable as optical polarization. The paper treats each Bloch state as a spinor $(u_A, u_B)$ mapped to a Stokes vector on a Poincaré sphere whose poles are pure A or pure B sublattice localization. A spatial light modulator placed between crossed polarizers applies controlled phase shifts and attenuations independently to the two sublattices, implementing Mueller matrices for the sublattice degree of freedom: the identity, a quarter-waveplate analogue, and polarizers aligned along the $S_3$ axis. Four measured intensity maps combine linearly to isolate all four Stokes components, giving the polar and azimuthal angles $\theta$ and $\phi$ of every eigenstate. The authors demonstrate the method on staggered honeycomb microcavity arrays and on a gapless one, reconstructing the Hamiltonian coefficients $\lambda_i(k)$, the Berry curvature concentrated at $K$ and $K'$, the quantum metric, and valley Chern numbers, with eigenenergies resolved below the linewidth near the Dirac cones.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the Bloch phase factor $e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}$ stays nearly constant across each SLM mask region ($|\mathbf{k}| R_m \ll 1$, with $R_m = 0.71\,\mu\mathrm{m}$) is load-bearing: if it fails, the filtered emission no longer represents the ideal point-like sublattice spinor and the reconstructed eigenstates are systematically distorted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reconstruction yields every coefficient of the Bloch Hamiltonian, including $\lambda_0(k)$, so hidden couplings such as next-nearest-neighbor tunneling $t'$ become directly measurable rather than inferred from band asymmetry.
  • With eigenstates known across the Brillouin zone, the full quantum geometric tensor is accessible, giving valley-resolved Berry curvature and Chern numbers that match tight-binding predictions to about 0.01.
  • At band touching points, joint diagonalization of the measured density matrix separates the overlapping signals of the two bands, resolving linear Dirac dispersions with sub-linewidth energy precision.
  • Because the measurement protocol is independent of the specific lattice, it can be extended to systems with more internal degrees of freedom, opening multiband topological observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applied to the combined polarization and sublattice spinors of exciton-polariton lattices, the same polarimeter would measure a four-component Stokes-like vector, giving direct experimental access to Chern insulating phases.
  • The paper's own simulations show that mask radius and misalignment move the reconstructed phase vortices, which suggests a built-in calibration check: repeat the $K$-point reconstruction at several mask radii and require the winding positions to stay fixed.
  • Since the density matrix built from the four intensities encodes non-orthogonality, the method could be pointed at engineered non-Hermitian lattices to track exceptional points instead of assuming orthogonal eigenmodes.
  • The finite-difference computation of the quantum metric inherits pixel-resolution noise; finer momentum sampling or phase-stepping the SLM masks could push the few-percent uncertainty below the current smoothing limit.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a sublattice Stokes polarimeter for bipartite photonic lattices. It uses four momentum-resolved photoluminescence intensity measurements with SLM-imposed phase and amplitude masks on the A and B sublattices (IA+B, IA+iB, IA, IB) and combines them in Eq. (3) to obtain maps I0,...,I3 that isolate the Stokes components of each Bloch mode. The authors apply the protocol to staggered and gapless honeycomb micropillar lattices, reconstruct the Bloch eigenstates (theta, phi) across the Brillouin zone, extract the Hamiltonian Pauli coefficients lambda_i(k) including a next-nearest-neighbor term, and compute Berry curvature, valley Chern numbers, and the quantum metric. In the gapless case, a density-matrix formulation is used to separate overlapping bands and track eigenstates through the Dirac points with sub-linewidth precision.

Significance. If the issues below are resolved, this is a significant methodological advance: it generalizes Stokes polarimetry from optical polarization to the sublattice pseudo-spin and gives direct, model-independent access to Bloch eigenstates in photonic lattices. The intensity algebra in Eq. (2)-(3) follows cleanly from the stated Mueller matrices; the reconstructed phase windings, the eigenstate orthogonality check, and the valley Chern numbers provide strong evidence that the method works; and the density-matrix treatment of overlapping bands at the Dirac point is an elegant route to sub-linewidth band separation. The paper also ships explicit simulations of the mask-discretization assumption and its failure modes in the Supplementary Information. The quantum-metric extraction, however, is not correct as written and currently prevents the paper from supporting the advertised full access to the quantum geometric tensor.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods E, formulas for g_xx, g_yy, g_xy] As written, these expressions are not the quantum metric. For a normalized band, expanding the overlap gives Re(1 - <u_k|u_{k+dk}>) = (g_xx + a_x^2) dk^2 / 2, where a_x = Im<u|d_x u> is the Berry connection, and the overlap itself is complex unless a_x = 0. The manuscript's g_xx = (1 - <u1|u2>)/dk_x^2 is therefore complex, gauge-dependent, and even after taking the real part it returns (g_xx + a_x^2)/2 rather than g_xx. Since Fig. 5f and Extended Data Fig. 8 are presented as measured quantum-metric maps and the insets claim agreement with tight-binding simulations, the QGT part of the central claim is unsupported as written. The fix is straightforward - use the real part of the overlap with a parallel-transport gauge (or subtract a_x^2) and include the factor 1/2 - but the figures and text must be recomputed. The Berry-curvature and valley-Chern results are not affected because they use the gauge-invariant Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki plaquette phase.
  2. [Main text, Hamiltonian reconstruction before Fig. 5; Extended Data Fig. 7] The reconstruction of lambda_i(k) from the measured eigenstates is not specified by any equation, and the parameters used in the tight-binding comparison (t, epsilon0, t') are stated without indicating which are fixed by fabrication, which are extracted from the same measured dispersion, and which are fitted to the lambda0 map. Since Fig. 5 is presented as a reconstruction of the Hamiltonian and Extended Data Fig. 7 uses the lambda0 modulation to infer t', the reader cannot reproduce the central Hamiltonian claim without this information. Please add the explicit reconstruction formula (e.g., form H from the measured E_n and |u_n>, then lambda_i = Tr[H sigma_i]/2) and state the parameter provenance and uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods D, S_nu formula] The denominator of the S_nu,n,k formula should sum over mu of I_mu, not I_nu; as printed, the expression would collapse to sign(I_nu)/sqrt(3) and cannot produce the Stokes maps shown.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption; Methods B] There are typos: 'Recontructed' should be 'Reconstructed' in the Fig. 4 caption, and 'Extanded Data Fig.' appears twice in Methods B.
  3. [Supplementary Section A] The slowly-varying-Bloch-phase assumption |k| R_m << 1 is explicitly acknowledged in the SI; the main text should state this validity condition and refer to SI Figs. S11 and S12, which show how mask size and misalignment shift the reconstructed phase vortices.
  4. [Methods E, numerical details] The momentum-space step dk and the exact definition of the Gaussian smoothing filter (sigma = 2 pixels in which units) are not specified; without these numbers the numerical derivatives and the reported few-percent error estimate cannot be reproduced.
  5. [Data and Code Availability] Stating that data and code are available 'upon request' is weaker than current best practice; a permanent repository with versioned code and raw maps would strengthen the reproducibility of the central claims.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central Stokes inversion is an independent algebraic combination of four intensity maps; only the t'-based tight-binding reproduction is partly self-consistent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, Hamiltonian reconstruction paragraph after Fig. 5; Extended Data Fig. 7]
    "The observed modulation of λ0(k) is the signature of a non-zero next-nearest neighbor coupling t′ in the Hamiltonian, which we precisely estimate from the measured modulation amplitude of λ0(k). Including this additional coupling in numerical tight-binding simulations, we obtain good quantitative agreement with the experimental data (see Extended Data Fig. 7)."

    The parameter t′ is not independently calibrated; it is estimated from the measured modulation amplitude of λ0(k), and the tight-binding simulations of λ0(k) that include t′ are then presented as 'good quantitative agreement' with the same measured λ0 map. Fitting t′ to the amplitude of the target quantity and then reproducing that quantity with the fitted parameter does not provide independent confirmation; the agreement is partly enforced by construction. This affects only the interpretation of the measured Hamiltonian and the t′ extraction, not the four-intensity Stokes inversion (Eq. 3) or the eigenvector reconstruction, which are direct algebraic combinations of independent measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the sublattice Stokes inversion: four measured k-space photoluminescence maps (IA+B, IA+iB, IA, IB) are linearly combined in Eq. 3 to obtain I0..I3, from which Stokes parameters and hence eigenvector angles are recovered. This inversion is an algebraic relation between independently measured intensities; it does not assume or fit the tight-binding Hamiltonian it later compares against. The eigenstate maps are therefore not constructed from the target model. The orthogonality check (Extended Data Fig. 6) and the gapless-lattice density-matrix analysis likewise test consistency of the measured Stokes vectors rather than importing the conclusion. The only step with a genuinely circular flavor is the t′ validation: t′ is extracted from the measured amplitude of λ0(k), and the same measured λ0(k) is then declared to be reproduced by simulations incorporating that extracted t′. That is a self-consistency check, not an external prediction, and it lowers the overall score slightly. The quantum-geometric-tensor extraction in Methods E raises a separate accuracy concern (the overlap formula appears to omit the real-part/gauge terms), but that is a correctness issue rather than a circularity of the kind defined for this pass, so it does not increase the circularity score. Overall the central measurement protocol is self-contained, and the minor fitted-parameter reproduction does not feed back into the core eigenstate or Stokes-vector claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central reconstruction relies on the mapping from continuous 2D modes to a discrete two-band tight-binding model (via small SLM masks), incoherent addition of band emissions, and orthogonality of eigenmodes near degeneracies. The reference tight-binding parameters used for comparison are fitted to the same measurements, which limits the independence of the validation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Nearest-neighbor coupling t = 0.337 meV
    Used in tight-binding simulations; extracted from the measured photonic band dispersion of the same sample.
  • Onsite energy offset epsilon0 = -0.426 meV (|epsilon0/t| = 1.26)
    Used in tight-binding simulations; extracted from the measured band structure of the staggered lattice.
  • Next-nearest-neighbor coupling t' = |t'/t| = 0.1
    Inferred from the measured modulation of lambda0(k) (Extended Data Fig. 7) and used to reproduce the measured Hamiltonian in simulations.
  • SLM mask radius Rm = 0.71 µm
    Chosen as a compromise between phase uniformity within the mask (|k| Rm << 1) and signal level; affects the fidelity of the eigenstate reconstruction.
  • Gaussian smoothing width sigma = 2 pixels
    Applied to Stokes maps before computing the quantum geometric tensor; contributes a few percent uncertainty to the metric and valley Chern numbers.
  • Intensity threshold for density-matrix diagonalization = not specified
    In the gapless-lattice analysis, joint diagonalization is restricted to energy values where I0(k,E) exceeds a given threshold; the threshold value is not stated, so the procedure is not fully deterministic.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The continuous 2D photonic lattice can be mapped to a 2x2 tight-binding Hamiltonian by selecting a small region (radius Rm = 0.71 µm) inside each pillar, requiring e^{ik·r} approximately constant within each mask region (|k| Rm << 1).
    Invoked in Supplementary Section A and Methods C; if the phase varies across the mask, the measured 'sublattice Stokes vector' no longer corresponds to the discrete Bloch spinor, which would invalidate the reconstruction.
  • domain assumption Photoluminescence from the two bands adds incoherently, so total intensity is a sum of per-band intensities with a polarization degree p_n,k accounting for depolarization.
    Used to derive Eq. (2) and the expressions for IA+iB, IA, IB; if interband coherence were present, the four-measurement linear inversion would not isolate individual Stokes components.
  • domain assumption In the gapless honeycomb lattice, Bloch eigenmodes remain orthogonal at and near Dirac points, so their Stokes vectors are diametrically opposed and the density matrix can be separated into the two eigenstate contributions.
    Stated in the gapless section and tested via sqrt(sum I_nu^2) approaching zero near K and K'; non-Hermitian effects could break orthogonality but are argued negligible for identical pillars.
  • domain assumption The tight-binding model with onsite energies epsilon_A, epsilon_B, nearest-neighbor hopping t, and next-nearest-neighbor hopping t' describes the measured photonic bands.
    Used as the reference model for simulations and for interpreting lambda0(k) as t' coupling; parameters are extracted from the same measurements, so the model comparison is not fully independent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A sublattice Stokes polarimeter for bipartite photonic lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U3NG7ILC

@misc{pith2026250716446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A sublattice Stokes polarimeter for bipartite photonic lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U3NG7ILC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16446}
}
read the original abstract

The concept of pseudo-spin provides a general framework for describing physical systems featuring two-component spinors, including light polarization, sublattice degrees of freedom in bipartite lattices, and valley polarization in 2D materials. In all cases, the pseudo-spin can be mapped to a Stokes vector on the Poincar\'e sphere. Stokes polarimeters for measuring the polarization of light are a powerful tool with a wide range of applications both in classical and quantum science. Generalizing Stokes polarimetry to other spinor degrees of freedom is thus a challenge of prime importance. Here, we introduce and demonstrate a Stokes polarimeter for the sublattice polarization in a bipartite photonic lattice. Our method relies on k-space photoluminescence intensity measurements under controlled phase shifts and attenuations applied independently to each sublattice. We implement our method using honeycomb arrays of coupled microcavities realizing photonic analogs of graphene and hexagonal boron nitride. Using our sublattice polarimeter, we reconstruct the Bloch modes in amplitude and phase across the Brillouin zone, achieving sub-linewidth precision in the determination of their eigenenergies, including near band touching points. This enables full access to the system Bloch Hamiltonian and quantum geometric tensor. Our approach can readily be extended to more complex systems with additional internal degrees of freedom, enabling experimental investigations of trigonal warping, Chern insulating phases, and Euler-class topology in multigap systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16446 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. provides an illustrative view of our sublattice Stokes polarimeter (see Extended Data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) shows the band dispersion along ky = 0 measured in this configuration of the polarimeter. The two gapped energy bands characteristic of staggered graphene are clearly visible, with the smallest energy sep￾aration occurring at the K and K′ points. A particularly striking feature is the pronounced variation in intensity across the bands as a function of k, which directly reflects the phase relationship between the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Experimental reconstruction of the Hamiltonian and quantum geometric tensor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Stokes polarimetry of the gapless honeycomb lattice. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    2010

  2. [2]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Nobel lecture: Topological quantum matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 040502 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    M. V. Berry, Quantal phase factors accompanying adia- baticchanges,ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences392, 45 (1984)

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Quantized hall conductance in a two- dimensional periodic potential, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  5. [5]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele,Z2 topological order and the quantum spin hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    J.P.ProvostandG.Vallee,Riemannianstructureonman- ifolds of quantum states, Communications in Mathemati- cal Physics76, 289 (1980)

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    Nagaosa, J

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

    2010

  8. [8]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Spin hall effects, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    K. F. Mak, K. L. McGill, J. Park, and P. L. McEuen, The valley hall effect in MoS2 transistors, Science 344, 1489 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. Törmä, Superfluidity in topologically nontrivial flat bands, Nature Communications 6, 8944 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Törmä, S

    P. Törmä, S. Peotta, and B. A. Bernevig, Superconduc- tivity, superfluidityandquantumgeometryintwistedmul- tilayer systems, Nature Reviews Physics4, 528 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Piéchon, A

    F. Piéchon, A. Raoux, J.-N. Fuchs, and G. Montambaux, Geometric orbital susceptibility: Quantum metric without berry curvature, Phys. Rev. B94, 134423 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    N. Wang, D. Kaplan, Z. Zhang, T. Holder, N. Cao, A. Wang, X. Zhou, F. Zhou, Z. Jiang, C. Zhang, S. Ru, H. Cai, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Yan, and W. Gao, Quantum-metric-induced nonlinear transport in a topo- logical antiferromagnet, Nature621, 487 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Gao, Y.-F

    A. Gao, Y.-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T. V. Tre- visan, Y. Onishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, S.-W. Chen, M. Huang, D. Bérubé, 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. Ba...

    2023

  7. [15]

    M. Kang, S. Kim, Y. Qian, P. M. Neves, L. Ye, J. Jung, D. Puntel, F. Mazzola, S. Fang, C. Jozwiak, A. Bost- wick, E. Rotenberg, J. Fuji, I. Vobornik, J.-H. Park, J. G. Checkelsky, B.-J. Yang, and R. Comin, Measurements of the quantum geometric tensor in solids, Nature Physics ...

    2025

  8. [16]

    S. Kim, Y. Chung, Y. Qian, S. Park, C. Jozwiak, E. Rotenberg, A. Bostwick, K. S. Kim, and B.-J. Yang, Di- rect measurement of the quantum metric tensor in solids, Science 388, 1050 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    T. Li, L. Duca, M. Reitter, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, M. En- dres, M. Schleier-Smith, I. Bloch, and U. Schneider, Bloch state tomography using wilson lines, Science 352, 1094 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Tarnowski, M

    M. Tarnowski, M. Nuske, N. Fläschner, B. Rem, D. Vo- gel, L. Freystatzky, K. Sengstock, L. Mathey, and C. Weit- enberg, Observation of topological bloch-state defects and their merging transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 240403 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Fläschner, B

    N. Fläschner, B. S. Rem, M. Tarnowski, D. Vogel, D.-S. Lühmann, K. Sengstock, and C. Weitenberg, Experimen- tal reconstruction of the berry curvature in a floquet bloch band, Science352, 1091 (2016). 8

    2016

  12. [20]

    Wimmer, H

    M. Wimmer, H. M. Price, I. Carusotto, and U. Peschel, Experimental measurement of the Berry curvature from anomalous transport, Nature Physics13, 545 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Lechevalier, C

    C. Lechevalier, C. Evain, P. Suret, F. Copie, A. Amo, and S. Randoux, Single-shot measurement of the photonic band structure in a fiber-based floquet-bloch lattice, Com- munications Physics4, 243 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    A. Dutt, M. Minkov, Q. Lin, L. Yuan, D. A. B. Miller, and S. Fan, Experimental band structure spectroscopy along a synthetic dimension, Nature Communications10, 3122 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Chénier, B

    A. Chénier, B. d’Aligny, F. Pellerin, P. Édouard Blan- chard, T. Ozawa, I. Carusotto, and P. St-Jean, Quantized hall drift in a frequency-encoded photonic chern insulator (2024), arXiv:2412.04347 [physics.optics]

    2024

  16. [24]

    Cheng, K

    D. Cheng, K. Wang, C. Roques-Carmes, E. Lustig, O. Y. Long, H. Wang, and S. Fan, Non-abelian lattice gauge fields in photonic synthetic frequency dimensions, Nature 637, 52 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    C.-R. Yi, J. Yu, H. Yuan, R.-H. Jiao, Y.-M. Yang, X. Jiang, J.-Y. Zhang, S. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Extracting the quantum geometric tensor of an optical raman lattice by bloch-state tomography, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L032016 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    M. Yu, P. Yang, M. Gong, Q. Cao, Q. Lu, H. Liu, S. Zhang, M. B. Plenio, F. Jelezko, T. Ozawa, N. Gold- man, and J. Cai, Experimental measurement of the quan- tum geometric tensor using coupled qubits in diamond, National Science Review7, 254 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Tan, D.-W

    X. Tan, D.-W. Zhang, Z. Yang, J. Chu, Y.-Q. Zhu, D. Li, X. Yang, S. Song, Z. Han, Z. Li, Y. Dong, H.-F. Yu, H. Yan, S.-L. Zhu, and Y. Yu, Experimental measure- ment of the quantum metric tensor and related topological phase transition with a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. L...

    2019

  20. [28]

    O. Bleu, D. D. Solnyshkov, and G. Malpuech, Measuring the quantum geometric tensor in two-dimensional pho- tonic and exciton-polariton systems, Phys. Rev. B 97, 195422 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Gianfrate, O

    A. Gianfrate, O. Bleu, L. Dominici, V. Ardizzone, M. De Giorgi, D. Ballarini, G. Lerario, K. W. West, L. N. Pfeif- fer, D. D. Solnyshkov, D. Sanvitto, and G. Malpuech, Measurement of the quantum geometric tensor and of the anomalous Hall drift, Nature578, 381 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Polimeno, G

    L. Polimeno, G. Lerario, M. D. Giorgi, L. D. Marco, L. Dominici, F. Todisco, A. Coriolano, V. Ardizzone, M. Pugliese, C. T. Prontera, V. Maiorano, A. Moliterni, C. Giannini, V. Olieric, G. Gigli, D. Ballarini, Q. Xiong, A. Fieramosca, D. D. Solnyshkov, G. Malpuech, and D.Sanvi...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Łempicka Mirek, M

    K. Łempicka Mirek, M. Król, H. Sigurdsson, A. Win- cukiewicz, P. Morawiak, R. Mazur, M. Muszyński, W. Piecek, P. Kula, T. Stefaniuk, M. Kamińska, L. D. Marco, P. G. Lagoudakis, D. Ballarini, D. Sanvitto, J. Szczytko, and B. Piętka, Electrically tunable berry cur- vature and st...

    2022

  24. [32]

    C. E. Whittaker, T. Dowling, A. V. Nalitov, A. V. Yulin, B. Royall, E. Clarke, M. S. Skolnick, I. A. Shelykh, and D. N. Krizhanovskii, Optical analogue of dresselhaus spin–orbit interaction in photonic graphene, Nature Pho- tonics 15, 193 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Cuerda, J

    J. Cuerda, J. M. Taskinen, N. Källman, L. Grabitz, and P. Törmä, Observation of quantum metric and non- hermitian berry curvature in a plasmonic lattice, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L022020 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Karzig, C.-E

    T. Karzig, C.-E. Bardyn, N. H. Lindner, and G. Refael, Topological polaritons, Phys. Rev. X5, 031001 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    A. V. Nalitov, D. D. Solnyshkov, and G. Malpuech, Polariton Z topological insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 116401 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Klembt, T

    S. Klembt, T. H. Harder, O. A. Egorov, K. Winkler, R. Ge, M. A. Bandres, M. Emmerling, L. Worschech, T. C. H. Liew, M. Segev, C. Schneider, and S. Höfling, Exciton-polariton topological insulator, Nature562, 552 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    H. C. Po, H. Watanabe, and A. Vishwanath, Fragile topology and wannier obstructions, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 126402 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Bouhon, A

    A. Bouhon, A. M. Black-Schaffer, and R.-J. Slager, Wil- son loop approach to fragile topology of split elementary band representations and topological crystalline insulators with time-reversal symmetry, Phys. Rev. B100, 195135 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Bouhon, Q

    A. Bouhon, Q. Wu, R.-J. Slager, H. Weng, O. V. Yazyev, and T. Bzdušek, Non-abelian reciprocal braiding of weyl points and its manifestation in zrte, Nature Physics16, 1137 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Peri, Z.-D

    V. Peri, Z.-D. Song, M. Serra-Garcia, P. Engeler, R. Queiroz, X. Huang, W. Deng, Z. Liu, B. A. Bernevig, and S. D. Huber, Experimental characterization of fragile topology in an acoustic metamaterial, Science 367, 797 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Z.-D. Song, L. Elcoro, and B. A. Bernevig, Twisted bulk- boundary correspondence of fragile topology, Science367, 794 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Hecht,Optics, 5th ed

    E. Hecht,Optics, 5th ed. (Pearson, 2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

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

    2009

  36. [44]

    Jacqmin, I

    T. Jacqmin, I. Carusotto, I. Sagnes, M. Abbarchi, D. D. Solnyshkov, G. Malpuech, E. Galopin, A. Lemaître, J. Bloch, and A. Amo, Direct observation of dirac cones and a flatband in a honeycomb lattice for polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 116402 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Mangussi, M

    F. Mangussi, M. Milićević, I. Sagnes, L. L. Gratiet, A. Harouri, A. Lemaître, J. Bloch, A. Amo, and G. Usaj, Multi-orbital tight binding model for cavity-polariton lat- tices, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter32, 315402 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Ex- ceptional topology of non-hermitian systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015005 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    R. Su, E. Estrecho, D. Biegańska, Y. Huang, M. Wur- dack, M. Pieczarka, A. G. Truscott, T. C. H. Liew, E. A. Ostrovskaya, and Q. Xiong, Direct measurement of a non- hermitian topological invariant in a hybrid light-matter system, Science Advances7, eabj8905 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    T. Gao, E. Estrecho, K. Y. Bliokh, T. C. H. Liew, M. D. Fraser, S. Brodbeck, M. Kamp, C. Schneider, S. Höfling, Y. Yamamoto, F. Nori, Y. S. Kivshar, A. G. Truscott, R. G. Dall, and E. A. Ostrovskaya, Observation of non- hermitian degeneracies in a chaotic exciton-polariton bil...

    2015

  41. [49]

    A.GhatakandT.Das,Newtopologicalinvariantsinnon- hermitian systems, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 9 31, 263001 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Q. Liao, C. Leblanc, J. Ren, F. Li, Y. Li, D. Solnyshkov, G. Malpuech, J. Yao, and H. Fu, Experimental measure- ment of the divergent quantum metric of an exceptional point, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 107402 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Y.-M. R. Hu, E. A. Ostrovskaya, and E. Estrecho, Quan- tum geometric tensor and wavepacket dynamics in two- dimensional non-hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L012067 (2025). II. METHODS A. Sample fabrication The samples are fabricated from an epitaxially grown AlGaAs semic...

    2025

  44. [52]

    Shi, Joint approximate diagonalization method, in Blind Signal Processing: Theory and Practice(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011) pp

    X. Shi, Joint approximate diagonalization method, in Blind Signal Processing: Theory and Practice(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011) pp. 175–204

    2011

  45. [53]

    Fukui, Y

    T. Fukui, Y. Hatsugai, and H. Suzuki, Chern numbers in discretized brillouin zone: Efficient method of computing (spin) hall conductances, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan74, 1674 (2005). 12 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Alberto Amo and Jean-Noël Fuchs for in- sightful disc...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.