Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Structural disorder can make a topological insulator vanish and then reappear in amorphous quantum spin Hall systems.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 08:11 UTC pith:C2LFLVH4

load-bearing objection A careful numerical study of an amorphous BHZ model whose headline re-entrant N→T→N transition looks like a hard-cutoff artifact rather than generic amorphous physics. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.21955 v2 pith:C2LFLVH4 submitted 2025-10-24 cond-mat.dis-nn

Phase diagram of amorphous quantum spin Hall insulators

Ranadeep Roy , Yuan-Ming Lu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.dis-nn
keywords amorphous topological insulatorquantum spin Hall effectBHZ modelstructural disorderreal-space topological markerre-entrant phase transitionZ2 invariantfinite-range hopping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies how structural disorder, modeled by random displacements of lattice sites, affects the topological phase of a two-dimensional quantum spin Hall insulator described by the Bernevig-Hughes-Zhang (BHZ) Hamiltonian with finite-range hoppings. Using a real-space topological marker, edge-state analysis, and conductance calculations, it maps phase diagrams as disorder strength and the mass parameter vary. The central claim is that for certain hopping cutoffs, the system shows re-entrant behavior: the topological phase present in the clean lattice is destroyed by weak disorder but re-emerges at stronger disorder. If true, this adds a new mechanism by which disorder can both destroy and restore topological order.

Core claim

For a finite-range amorphous BHZ model with hard cutoff R, the paper finds that increasing structural disorder (Gaussian site displacements) can drive nontrivial-to-trivial (N→T) and trivial-to-nontrivial (T→N) transitions, and in specific parameter regimes (notably R = 2.03, 3.03, 3.70, and partially R = 2.50), a re-entrant N→T→N cycle: a topologically nontrivial phase in the perfect lattice becomes trivial under weak disorder, then becomes nontrivial again at larger disorder. This is shown via a real-space Z2 marker, corroborated by bulk-boundary correspondence (edge-state localization) and Landauer-Büttiker conductance. The paper also finds that for a large cutoff approximating no cutoff

What carries the argument

The local real-space Z2 marker for Dirac-type Hamiltonians, expressed as C(r) = π tr_r W (Q P̂_x Q̂_y P − P̂_x Q̂_y P), where W is the product of gamma matrices not in the Hamiltonian, P is the projector onto occupied states, and Q = 1 − P. This marker serves as a disorder-compatible topological invariant that the paper uses to compute phase diagrams; edge-state spectra and two-terminal conductance provide independent checks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hard cutoff R is a physically valid regularization of hopping, and that specific non-integer values like 2.03, 3.03, and 3.70 represent generic cases; the re-entrant behavior is absent in the no-cutoff limit (R = 24.03) and at exact integer R (where even infinitesimal disorder destroys the topological phase), so the effect hinges on this finite, non-integer cutoff.

What would settle it

A direct numerical check would be to compute the topological marker for a very large system with a smooth exponential cutoff (no hard truncation) at the same disorder strengths; if the re-entrant N→T→N signature disappears for all R, the central claim is an artifact of the hard cutoff. Alternatively, an experimental measurement of the Hall conductance in an amorphous HgTe/CdTe-like sample as a function of disorder strength (e.g., via ion irradiation) that shows only a single transition, not a re-entrant one, would contradict the prediction.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If re-entrant behavior is confirmed experimentally, amorphous samples of spin-orbit coupled materials could show a non-monotonic response to structural disorder, with topological edge channels reappearing at high disorder.\n
  • The finding that short-ranged hopping models (small R) behave differently from the no-cutoff limit (large R) implies that the microscopic connectivity range is a key parameter controlling disorder-driven topological transitions.\n
  • The paper's demonstration that integer cutoffs (e.g., R = 2.0) produce a spurious sudden loss of topology at infinitesimal disorder provides a caution for numerical studies of amorphous systems: the choice of cutoff must avoid coinciding with lattice neighbor distances.\n
  • The re-entrant phase transitions, if robust, provide a concrete target for studying critical properties of disorder-driven topological transitions beyond the familiar Anderson-transition paradigm.\n
  • The match between the real-space marker and conductance phase diagrams (with small finite-size discrepancies) supports the practical use of local markers for diagnosing topology in structural-disordered systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The re-entrant N→T→N cycle likely arises from a competition between two effects: weak disorder broadens and shifts the effective mass (favoring trivialization) while strong disorder induces a topological Anderson-like transition (favoring nontriviality); the paper does not identify the microscopic mechanism, but its data are consistent with such a picture.\n
  • A testable extension would be to measure the longitudinal resistivity of an amorphous thin film as a function of annealing temperature (which controls structural disorder σ), predicting a non-monotonic signature: insulating at intermediate disorder but conducting at high disorder due to re-entrant edge states.\n
  • If real amorphous materials have smooth hopping tails instead of a hard cutoff, the re-entrant behavior may be suppressed; the paper's Appendix C implies the effect is sensitive to the sharpness of connectivity truncation, suggesting that experimental realization would require systems with sharply decaying hoppings.
  • The distinction between R values close to versus far from lattice neighbor distances suggests that generic non-integer R values are not all equivalent, and future theories could classify amorphous topological phase diagrams by the set of included hopping shells.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the effects of structural (positional) disorder on the two-dimensional Bernevig-Hughes-Zhang (BHZ) model with finite-range hopping, parameterized by a hard cutoff radius R and an exponentially decaying hopping amplitude. Using a real-space Z2 marker, the authors map phase diagrams as functions of disorder strength σ and mass parameter M for several R values. They report that, for certain R, a clean topological insulator first becomes trivial under weak disorder and then re-enters a topological phase at stronger disorder (N→T→N). They corroborate the bulk marker results with open-boundary edge-state densities and two-terminal conductance calculations. The paper also shows that for R=24.03 (the effectively no-cutoff limit) the topological phase remains stable for the entire disorder range studied, while for exact-integer R (e.g., R=2.0) even infinitesimal disorder destroys the topological phase due to a connectivity discontinuity (Appendix C).

Significance. If the re-entrant N→T→N sequence is a genuine property of amorphous topological insulators, it would be a nontrivial addition to the growing literature on disorder-driven topological transitions, with potential implications for amorphous-material experiments. The paper's methodology is solid: the real-space Z2 marker is an established tool, the clean-limit transition points are separately checked against hopping-distance estimates, and the marker results are cross-validated with edge-state and conductance calculations. The computations appear careful, and the paper contains no fitted parameters dressed as predictions. However, the headline re-entrant behavior is tied to a specific choice of hard cutoff: it appears only for R values slightly above lattice neighbor distances, and it is absent in the no-cutoff limit. Whether this is a generic amorphous-physics effect or an artifact of the hard cutoff remains unresolved, which limits the significance of the central claim in its current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III (Figs. 2, 3) and Appendix C] The central claim of re-entrant N→T→N behavior is demonstrated only for R=2.03, 3.03, and 3.70, values that are 0.03 above the square-lattice neighbor distances 2, 3, and √13. Appendix C shows that for exact-integer R (R=2.0, 3.0) the same proximity to a neighbor distance causes a pathological sensitivity: infinitesimal disorder destroys the topological phase because pairs cross the cutoff. The re-entrant sequence for R=2.03 etc. is produced by the same cutoff-crossing mechanism at finite σ. In the no-cutoff limit (R=24.03, Fig. 3) no re-entrance is seen; the topological phase remains stable throughout. Thus the data as presented support a cutoff-induced connectivity effect rather than a generic property of amorphous hopping. The paper should either provide a physical argument for why hard truncation at these particular R values is representative, or demonstrate that re-entrance survives
  2. [Abstract and Sec. III (Fig. 2)] The abstract states as a general phenomenon that 'the system exhibits a re-entrant behaviour' without the caveat that this occurs only for R tuned to be slightly above a lattice neighbor distance. Given the paper's own Appendix C, this overstates the generality. The main text does acknowledge the distinction between R categories, but the abstract and the concluding paragraph should be revised to clearly state that re-entrance is a property of certain short-range hard-cutoff models, not of the amorphous BHZ model in general. Otherwise readers may take the headline as a statement about smooth, physically motivated hopping.
  3. [Sec. IV (Fig. 4)] The conductance results, presented as a validation of the bulk marker, do not fully reproduce the re-entrant phase diagram. The text notes that for R=2.03 at M=4.15 and 4.20, the marker predicts a transition to a non-trivial state at large disorder but the conductance does not show it, and even at M=4.10 (clean-limit topological) the conductance is close to zero. The authors attribute this to finite size, which is plausible, but it means the re-entrant N→T→N sequence is experimentally/transport-validated only in a limited parameter region. Given the load-bearing nature of the re-entrance claim, this discrepancy should be addressed more quantitatively, e.g., by showing convergence with system size or by identifying the correlation-length limitation explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] Typo: 'as ta function of the strength' should read 'as a function of the strength.'
  2. [References] Reference [39] contains the corrupted string 'C. BruHERE!ne' — this appears to be a LaTeX/encoding error and should be corrected to 'Brüne'.
  3. [Sec. IV] The software package is written as 'KW ANT'; it should be 'KWANT'.
  4. [Sec. III] The phrase 're-entrant phase transition is also observed only at R=2.50. In this case however, the structural disorder is not sufficient to drive the trivial phase into a topological one' is self-contradictory as written. Clarify what exactly is observed for R=2.50.
  5. [Sec. II] The physical interpretation of σ as proportional to temperature (σ² ∝ k_B T) is stated without a derivation or reference; since σ is just a parameter in the Gaussian displacement, this connection is optional but if kept it should be referenced or justified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the phase diagram, edge-state signatures, and conductance are independent calculations on the same model, with no fitted parameter dressed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

This is a direct numerical study, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The model Hamiltonian in Eqs. (2)-(3) is specified independently of the quantities to be predicted. The bulk topological phase is obtained by evaluating the real-space Z2 marker of Refs. [36,37] on the disordered Hamiltonian, and the phase boundaries are verified by independent probes: the clean-limit transition points (M≈2.64 for R=1.5 and M≈4.115 for R=2.0) are matched against the hopping-distance estimates in Eq. (10) and the surrounding text, and the disordered phase diagrams are corroborated by bulk-boundary edge-state spectra and Landauer conductance computed with KWANT (Figs. 4-5). No parameter is fitted to the re-entrant N→T→N sequence and then renamed as a prediction; the marker, the spectral gap, the edge-state localization, and the conductance are separate calculations on the same Hamiltonian. The references to prior work are standard external formulations (real-space markers, degree-theoretic invariants, the BHZ model, and transport formalism), and none of the load-bearing steps relies on a self-citation by the present authors. The sensitivity of the re-entrant behavior to the hard cutoff R (Appendix C and Fig. 3) is a physical-modeling caveat about the generality of the result, not evidence that an equation or fitted parameter is identical to an input. The model choices, such as the hard cutoff at specific R values, are ad hoc and raise selection/soundness concerns, but those are not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an established marker formula and a specific structural-disorder model. The only hand-chosen quantities that materially affect the headline re-entrant result are the hard cutoff values and the disorder-averaging sample count. No new particles, forces, or symmetries are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Hard cutoff radius R values = 1.70, 2.03, 2.50, 3.03, 3.38, 3.70, 24.03
    Chosen by hand to avoid exact nth-neighbor distances. The re-entrant headline result appears only for these finite near-integer values, not at R=24.03; Appendix C shows pathological behavior at exact integer R.
  • Number of disorder configurations averaged = 20
    The marker average uses 20 configurations; no convergence criterion is given, and Appendix A (Fig. 6) shows large marker fluctuations in the transition region, so phase boundaries are not sharply determined.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The real-space Z2 marker of Chen (Eq. 9) correctly computes the Z2 index for disordered class AII Dirac-type Hamiltonians.
    Central diagnostic used to assign topological/trivial phases in all phase diagrams; cited from [36,37], not independently derived or machine-checked in this paper.
  • domain assumption Gaussian structural displacement plus a hard hopping cutoff R is the right model of amorphization.
    Model choice in Section II. The re-entrant behavior depends on hard-cutoff details, as shown by differences between exact-integer, near-integer, and no-cutoff R regimes.
  • standard math The BHZ model belongs to the Dirac-type class covered by the degree formula ν=(-1)^deg[n].
    Used to justify applying Eq. (9); follows from [52] and the Clifford-algebra form of H in Section III.
  • domain assumption Time-reversal symmetry is preserved under structural disorder.
    The Z2 classification requires TRS. Real-position Gaussian displacements and real hoppings preserve TRS, but this is not explicitly stated or checked numerically.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12509 in / 14506 out tokens · 134901 ms · 2026-08-04T08:11:32.073526+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In light of recent progress in the study of amorphous topological phases, we investigate the effects of structural disorder on the topological properties of a two-dimensional quantum spin Hall insulator modeled by the Bernevig-Hughes-Zhang Hamiltonian. Using a real-space formulation of the Z2 invariant for Dirac-type Hamiltonian, we map out the phase diagram as a function of disorder strength and the mass parameter. Our results reveal that under the influence of structural disorder, a system can either undergo a phase transition from a topologically non-trivial to a topologically trivial phase or from a trivial to non-trivial phase. Remarkably, in certain parameter regimes, the system exhibits a re-entrant behaviour: a topologically non-trivial phase in the perfect lattice undergoes a transition to a trivial state under the influence of weak disorder but re-emerges as the disorder strength is further increased. We corroborate these findings through analysis of the bulk-boundary correspondence and transport calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.21955 by Ranadeep Roy, Yuan-Ming Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Phase diagram for perfect lattice with periodic boundary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Phase diagram as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Top panel :Topological phase diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Phase diagram for the amorphous BHZ model based on two-terminal conductance. Top row: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left panel: Spectrum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Phase diagram based on local marker for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Top : Mean marker. Bottom : Spectral gap with periodic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Spectral gap with periodic boundary conditions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Leveraging structural disorder to enhance topological phases

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Structural disorder with site-separation penalties enhances 2D topological phases to strong disorder but harms 3D phases; spectral localizer using time-reversal symmetry enables Z2 diagnosis despite spin-frame scrambling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    2010

  2. [2]

    Qi and S.-C

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

    2011

  3. [3]

    Thus,R=24.03 pro- vides a numerically accurate approximation toR→∞limit

    Sincee 1−18 ≈10 −8, the hopping amplitudes beyond this range are negligible - on the order of machine precision for complex floating point calculations. Thus,R=24.03 pro- vides a numerically accurate approximation toR→∞limit. We notice that when the clean system is in topological phase (M<10.97), it remains stable for the entire range of disorder strength...

  4. [4]

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

    2016

  5. [5]

    A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B78, 195125 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    N.P.Mithcell, L.M.Nash, D.Hexner, A.M.Turner, and W.T.M.Irvine, Nature Physics14, 380 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Li, R.-L

    J. Li, R.-L. Chu, J. K. Jain, and S.-Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 136806 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    A. J. Ur ´ıa- ´Alvarez and J. J. Palacios, Amorphization-induced topological and insulator-metal transitions in bidimensional bixsb1−x alloys (2024), arXiv:2410.16034 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Agarwala and V

    A. Agarwala and V . B. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 236402 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Cheng, T

    X. Cheng, T. Qu, L. Xiao, S. Jia, J. Chen, and L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B108, L081110 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Regis, V

    V . Regis, V . Velasco, M. B. S. Neto, and C. Lewenkopf, Phys. Rev. B110, L161105 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Agarwala, V

    A. Agarwala, V . Juriˇci´c, and B. Roy, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 012067 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Zhang, P

    Z. Zhang, P. Delplace, and R. Fleury, Sci- ence Advances9, 10.1126/sciadv.adg3186 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adg3186

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg3186 2023

  14. [14]

    A. G. Grushin and C. Repellin, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 186702 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Varjas, A

    D. Varjas, A. Lau, K. P¨oyh¨onen, A. R. Akhmerov, D. I. Pikulin, and I. C. Fulga, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 196401 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Marsal, D

    Q. Marsal, D. Varjas, and A. G. Grushin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 30260 (2020), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2007384117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2007384117 2020

  17. [17]

    P.Corbae, J.D.Hannukainen, Q.Marsal, D.M.-Segovia, and A.G.Grushin, EPL142, 16001 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Y .-B. Yang, T. Qin, D.-L. Deng, L.-M. Duan, and Y . Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 076401 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Cassella, P

    G. Cassella, P. d’Ornellas, T. Hodson, W. M. H. Natori, and J. Knolle, Nature Communications14, 6663 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Costa, G

    M. Costa, G. R. Schleder, M. Buongiorno Nardelli, C. Lewenkopf, and A. Fazzio, Nano Let- ters19, 8941 (2019), pMID: 31679336, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b03881

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b03881 2019

  21. [21]

    Mansha and Y

    S. Mansha and Y . D. Chong, Phys. Rev. B96, 121405 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    S. Kim, A. Agarwala, and D. Chowdhury, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 026202 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Spring, A

    H. Spring, A. R. Akhmerov, and D. Varjas, SciPost Phys.11, 022 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    M. F. Mart ´ınez, L. Jezequel, J. H. Bardarson, T. K. Kvorning, and J. D. Hannukainen, A one-particle density matrix frame- work for mode-shell correspondence: Characterizing topol- ogy in amorphous higher-order topological insulators (2025), arXiv:2509.03632 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Manna, S

    S. Manna, S. K. Das, and B. Roy, Phys. Rev. B109, 174512 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Jezequel, J

    L. Jezequel, J. H. Bardarson, and A. G. Grushin, Explicit equiv- alence between the spectral localizer and local chern and wind- ing markers (2025), arXiv:2508.00214 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    A. K. Ghosh, Q. Marsal, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Laser- induced topological phases in monolayer amorphous carbon (2025), arXiv:2508.09571 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. 9

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    S. T. Ciocys, Q. Marsal, P. Corbae, D. Varjas, E. Kennedy, M. Scott, F. Hellman, A. G. Grushin, and A. Lanzara, Nature Communications15, 8141 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Corbae, S

    P. Corbae, S. Ciocys, and D. Varjas, Nat. Mat.22, 200 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Rechtsman, A

    M. Rechtsman, A. Szameit, F. Dreisow, M. Heinrich, R. Keil, S. Nolte, and M. Segev, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 193904 (2011)

    2011

  31. [31]

    Zhou, G.-G

    P. Zhou, G.-G. Liu, X. Ren, Y . Yang, H. Xue, L. Bi, L. Deng, Y . Chong, and B. Zhang, Light: Science & Applications9, 133 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, J. Tworzydło, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 196805 (2009)

    2009

  33. [33]

    St ¨utzer, Y

    S. St ¨utzer, Y . Plotnik, Y . Lumer, P. Titum, N. H. Lindner, M. Segev, M. C. Rechtsman, and A. Szameit, Nature560, 461 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    J. Song, H. Liu, H. Jiang, Q.-f. Sun, and X. C. Xie, Phys. Rev. B85, 195125 (2012)

    2012

  35. [35]

    - a prototypical model of time-reversal symmetric, two- dimensional topological insulator, with extended hoppings. To continuously tune the system from a crystalline to an amor- phous configuration, we introduce structural disorder via ran- dom displacements of the lattice sites, drawn from a normal distribution. We diagnose the topological nature of the ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    C. P. Orth, T. Sekera, C. Bruder, and T. L. Schmidt, Scientific Reports6, 24007 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    Bernevig, T.Hughes, and S.Cheng.Zhang, Nat

    B. Bernevig, T.Hughes, and S.Cheng.Zhang, Nat. Mat.314, 1757 (2006)

    2006

  38. [38]

    Chen, Phys

    W. Chen, Phys. Rev. B107, 045111 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    L. A. Oliveira and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. B109, 094202 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    B.A.Bernevig, T.L.Hughes, and S.- C.Zhang, Science314, 1757 (2006), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1133734

    doi:10.1126/science.1133734 2006

  41. [41]

    Konig, S

    M. Konig, S. Wiedmann, C. BruHERE!ne, A. Roth, H. Buh- mann, L. W. Molenkamp, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 318, 766-770 (2007)

    2007

  42. [42]

    Chen, Phys

    W. Chen, Phys. Rev. B101, 195120 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    C. Wang, T. Cheng, Z. Liu, F. Liu, and H. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 056401 (2022)

    2022

  44. [44]

    Franca and A

    S. Franca and A. G. Grushin, Phys. Rev. Mater.8, L021201 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Bernevig and T

    B. Bernevig and T. Hughes,Topological insulators and topolog- ical superconductors(Princeton Uni. Press, Princeton, 2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B76, 045302 (2007)

    2007

  47. [47]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006), january Special Issue

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006), january Special Issue

    2006

  48. [48]

    Bianco and R

    R. Bianco and R. Resta, Phys. Rev. B84, 241106 (2011)

    2011

  49. [49]

    d’Ornellas, R

    P. d’Ornellas, R. Barnett, and D. K. K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B106, 155124 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    Sykes and R

    J. Sykes and R. Barnett, Materials for Quantum Technology2, 025005 (2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    Sykes and R

    J. Sykes and R. Barnett, Phys. Rev. B103, 155134 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    J. D. Hannukainen, M. F. Mart ´ınez, J. H. Bardarson, and T. K. Kvorning, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 277601 (2022)

    2022

  53. [53]

    R. Fan, P. Zhang, and Y . Gu, SciPost Phys.15, 249 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    von Gersdorff, S

    G. von Gersdorff, S. Panahiyan, and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. B103, 245146 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    Corbae, S

    P. Corbae, S. Ciocys, D. Varjas, E. Kennedy, S. Zeltmann, M. Molina-Ruiz, S. M. Griffin, C. Jozwiak, Z. Chen, L.-W. Wang, A. M. Minor, M. Scott, A. G. Grushin, A. Lanzara, and F. Hellman, Nature Materials22, 200 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Landauer, IBM Journal of Research and Development1, 223 (1957)

    R. Landauer, IBM Journal of Research and Development1, 223 (1957)

    1957

  57. [57]

    M.Buttiker, Phys. Rev. B38, 9375 (1988)

    1988

  58. [58]

    C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, and X. Waintal, New Journal of Physics16, 063065 (2014)

    2014