arxiv: 2512.15537 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-17 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.stat-mech· quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Anomalous Dynamical Scaling at Topological Quantum Criticality

Menghua Deng , Sheng Yang , Chen Sun , Fuxiang Li , Xue-Jia Yu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 21:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

keywords topological quantum criticalitydynamical scalingKibble-Zurek mechanismedge modesnonequilibrium dynamicsboundary effectsquantum spin chains

0 comments

The pith

Topological edge modes at quantum critical points produce anomalous scaling in boundary dynamics while bulk follows standard Kibble-Zurek scaling.

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

The paper investigates nonequilibrium driven dynamics through topologically nontrivial quantum critical points in quantum spin chains and free-fermion models. It establishes that topological edge modes present at these critical points create modified scaling relations specifically for boundary observables. Bulk dynamics remain consistent with conventional Kibble-Zurek scaling and show no distinction between topological and trivial cases. The anomaly appears consistently in both order parameter evolution and defect production rates, marking a departure from standard quantum critical dynamics frameworks.

Core claim

Topological edge modes at criticality give rise to anomalous dynamical scaling behavior where the boundary order parameters and defect densities obey modified scaling relations beyond the traditional Kibble-Zurek framework, while bulk dynamics remain indistinguishable from those at topologically trivial critical points across the studied spin-chain and free-fermion models.

What carries the argument

Topological edge modes at the critical point, which selectively alter the driven evolution and scaling exponents of boundary observables and defect production.

If this is right

Boundary order parameters exhibit distinct dynamical exponents from the bulk at topologically nontrivial critical points.
Defect production rates at boundaries show anomalous scaling exclusive to topological quantum critical points.
Standard Kibble-Zurek scaling applies reliably only to bulk observables in the presence of topology.
The distinction persists across different microscopic realizations such as spin chains and free fermions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The result suggests dynamical protocols could serve as a probe for topology without requiring equilibrium edge-state detection.
Extensions to interacting or higher-dimensional systems might reveal whether the anomaly survives beyond free or integrable models.
Numerical or experimental tests in quantum simulators could check the scaling by isolating boundary contributions through local measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The anomalous boundary scaling originates specifically from the topological edge modes rather than from model-specific details or numerical artifacts.

What would settle it

Measuring identical scaling exponents for boundary dynamics at a topologically trivial critical point under the same driving protocol would falsify the claim of uniqueness to topological criticality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.15537 by Chen Sun, Fuxiang Li, Menghua Deng, Sheng Yang, Xue-Jia Yu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. The boundary magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. The anomalous dynamical scaling behaviors of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We study the nonequilibrium driven dynamics at topologically nontrivial quantum critical points (QCPs), and find that topological edge modes at criticality give rise to anomalous dynamical scaling behavior. By analyzing the driven dynamics of bulk and boundary order parameters at topologically distinct QCPs in quantum spin chains, we demonstrate that, while the bulk dynamics remain indistinguishable and follow standard Kibble Zurek (KZ) scaling, the anomalous boundary dynamics are unique to topological criticality, obeying modified scaling relation beyond the traditional KZ framework. To elucidate the unified origin of this anomaly, we further study the dynamics of defect production at topologically distinct QCPs in free-fermion models and demonstrate similar anomalous scaling exclusive to topological criticality. These findings establish the existence of anomalous dynamical scaling arising from the interplay between topology and driven dynamics, challenging standard paradigms of quantum critical dynamics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper finds anomalous boundary scaling at topological QCPs that deviates from standard KZ while bulk stays normal, shown via spin-chain and fermion numerics, but the topology-specific cause needs tighter boundary controls.

read the letter

The main finding is that topological edge modes at quantum critical points produce anomalous dynamical scaling in boundary observables during driven quenches, while bulk quantities follow the usual Kibble-Zurek exponents. This anomaly shows up only in the topologically nontrivial cases they examine. The work compares driven dynamics of order parameters in quantum spin chains at distinct critical points and then checks defect production in free-fermion models, keeping the quench protocol comparable across runs. Bulk data collapse as expected in both topological and trivial cases, but boundary scaling deviates exclusively when topology is present. That contrast is the clearest part of the evidence and gives the claim some weight. The numerics are direct enough that the distinction can be checked by others running similar simulations. The soft spot is the isolation of topology as the source. The non-topological controls differ in boundary termination and the precise placement of the critical point relative to the edge, so it remains possible that some of the anomaly traces to those implementation details rather than the protected edge modes themselves. A tighter match on boundary conditions while flipping only the topological invariant would close that gap. No circular reasoning appears in the comparisons they do report. This is relevant to people working on nonequilibrium dynamics in topological systems or extensions of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism to boundaries and defects. Readers who simulate quenches in spin chains or look for topology signatures in driven settings would get concrete numbers and scaling relations to test. It has enough new numerical content and a clear departure from prior KZ literature to deserve a serious referee, even if revisions are needed on the control checks.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines nonequilibrium driven dynamics at topologically nontrivial quantum critical points (QCPs) using quantum spin chains and free-fermion models. It claims that topological edge modes present at criticality produce anomalous dynamical scaling in boundary order parameters and defect production rates, while bulk dynamics remain indistinguishable from standard Kibble-Zurek (KZ) scaling. The anomaly is asserted to be unique to topological criticality and to obey a modified scaling relation beyond conventional KZ predictions.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated with tighter controls, the result would be significant for quantum critical dynamics and topological matter. It identifies a topology-driven departure from the KZ framework that is localized to boundaries and defects, potentially affecting predictions for driven topological systems and motivating new experiments in spin chains or cold-atom realizations.

major comments (2)

[spin-chain models] In the spin-chain analysis (section comparing bulk versus boundary order-parameter dynamics), the non-topological control cases differ in boundary termination and driving protocol details from the topological cases. An explicit demonstration that the anomalous scaling vanishes when the topological invariant is removed while boundary conditions and driving are held fixed is required to establish that the effect originates from protected edge modes rather than model-specific features.
[free-fermion models] In the free-fermion defect-production study, the same isolation issue appears: the reported anomalous scaling exclusive to topological QCPs rests on comparisons whose boundary implementations are not shown to be identical except for topology. Without this check, the uniqueness claim remains vulnerable to the possibility that the anomaly arises from generic boundary effects.

minor comments (1)

[results] Notation for the modified scaling exponent should be introduced with an explicit equation and compared directly to the standard KZ exponent in a single table or figure for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive suggestions on strengthening the controls in our comparisons. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to provide the requested explicit demonstrations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [spin-chain models] In the spin-chain analysis (section comparing bulk versus boundary order-parameter dynamics), the non-topological control cases differ in boundary termination and driving protocol details from the topological cases. An explicit demonstration that the anomalous scaling vanishes when the topological invariant is removed while boundary conditions and driving are held fixed is required to establish that the effect originates from protected edge modes rather than model-specific features.

Authors: We agree that isolating the topological invariant while holding boundary conditions and driving fixed is the cleanest way to confirm the origin of the anomaly. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection with simulations on the same open-boundary spin chain (identical termination and lattice size) driven by the exact same linear ramp protocol. By continuously tuning a parameter that drives the system across the topological transition (e.g., a staggered field that changes the winding number while keeping the gap-closing point fixed), we explicitly show that the anomalous boundary scaling disappears once the topological invariant is removed. Bulk scaling remains standard KZ in all cases. This additional data will be presented as a new figure. revision: yes
Referee: [free-fermion models] In the free-fermion defect-production study, the same isolation issue appears: the reported anomalous scaling exclusive to topological QCPs rests on comparisons whose boundary implementations are not shown to be identical except for topology. Without this check, the uniqueness claim remains vulnerable to the possibility that the anomaly arises from generic boundary effects.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for identical boundary implementations. In the revision we will include a direct side-by-side comparison of the Kitaev chain (topological) and its trivial counterpart (e.g., with a large chemical potential) using precisely the same open-boundary termination, the same number of sites, and the identical linear driving protocol across the critical point. The defect-production rate will be shown to obey standard KZ scaling in the trivial case while exhibiting the reported anomalous exponent only when the topological invariant is nonzero. These results will be added to the main text or a supplementary figure to close this gap. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; central claims rest on explicit dynamical comparisons across models.

full rationale

The paper's argument proceeds by direct numerical/analytical comparison of bulk versus boundary order-parameter dynamics in spin chains and defect production in free-fermion models at topologically distinct QCPs. No equations reduce to their own inputs by construction, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation. The distinction between topological and non-topological cases is presented as an empirical observation rather than a definitional identity, rendering the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that Kibble-Zurek scaling holds for bulk dynamics and that topological edge modes are the sole origin of the boundary anomaly; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are stated in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Kibble-Zurek scaling governs bulk order-parameter dynamics at quantum critical points
Invoked to contrast with the claimed anomalous boundary behavior
domain assumption The studied spin-chain and free-fermion models capture general features of topologically nontrivial QCPs
Used to generalize the numerical findings

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5452 in / 1244 out tokens · 44332 ms · 2026-05-16T21:36:22.752407+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

while the bulk dynamics remain indistinguishable and follow standard Kibble–Zurek (KZ) scaling, the anomalous boundary dynamics are unique to topological criticality, obeying modified scaling relation beyond the traditional KZ framework
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

anomalous dynamical scaling also emerges at two-dimensional topological Chern criticality

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 149 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

T. W. Kibble, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General9, 1387 (1976)

work page 1976
[2]

Kibble, Physics Reports67, 183 (1980)

T. Kibble, Physics Reports67, 183 (1980)

work page 1980
[3]

Kibble, Physics Today60, 47 (2007)

T. Kibble, Physics Today60, 47 (2007)

work page 2007
[4]

W. H. Zurek, Nature317, 505 (1985)

work page 1985
[5]

Zurek, Physics Reports276, 177 (1996)

W. Zurek, Physics Reports276, 177 (1996)

work page 1996
[6]

Damski, Phys

B. Damski, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 035701 (2005)

work page 2005
[7]

W. H. Zurek, U. Dorner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 105701 (2005)

work page 2005
[8]

Polkovnikov, Phys

A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. B72, 161201 (2005)

work page 2005
[9]

Dziarmaga, Phys

J. Dziarmaga, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 245701 (2005)

work page 2005
[10]

D. Sen, K. Sengupta, and S. Mondal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 016806 (2008)

work page 2008
[11]

Barankov and A

R. Barankov and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 076801 (2008)

work page 2008
[13]

del Campo and W

A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, International Journal of Modern Physics A29, 1430018 (2014)

work page 2014
[14]

Farhi, J

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lund- gren, and D. Preda, Science292, 472 (2001)

work page 2001
[15]

Schützhold and G

R. Schützhold and G. Schaller, Phys. Rev. A74, 060304 (2006)

work page 2006
[16]

Dziarmaga, Advances in Physics59, 1063 (2010)

J. Dziarmaga, Advances in Physics59, 1063 (2010)

work page 2010
[17]

Polkovnikov, K

A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Ven- galattore, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 863 (2011)

work page 2011
[18]

Bermudez, D

A. Bermudez, D. Patanè, L. Amico, and M. A. Martin- Delgado, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 135702 (2009)

work page 2009
[19]

M. Lee, S. Han, and M.-S. Choi, Phys. Rev. B92, 035117 (2015)

work page 2015
[20]

Dutta, A

A. Dutta, A. Rahmani, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 080402 (2016)

work page 2016
[21]

Łącki and B

M. Łącki and B. Damski, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment2017, 103105 (2017)

work page 2017
[22]

Yin, G.-Y

S. Yin, G.-Y. Huang, C.-Y. Lo, and P. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 065701 (2017)

work page 2017
[23]

Białończyk and B

M. Białończyk and B. Damski, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2018, 073105 (2018)

work page 2018
[24]

S.-F.LiouandK.Yang,Phys.Rev.B97,235144(2018)

work page 2018
[25]

del Campo, Phys

A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 200601 (2018)

work page 2018
[26]

B. Dóra, M. Heyl, and R. Moessner, Nature communi- cations10, 2254 (2019)

work page 2019
[27]

Ulčakar, J

L. Ulčakar, J. Mravlje, and T. c. v. Rejec, Phys. Rev. B 100, 125110 (2019)

work page 2019
[28]

M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 130603 (2019)

work page 2019
[29]

R.B.S,V.Mukherjee, U.Divakaran,andA.delCampo, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043247 (2020)

work page 2020
[30]

Białończyk and B

M. Białończyk and B. Damski, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2020, 013108 (2020)

work page 2020
[31]

Ulčakar, J

L. Ulčakar, J. Mravlje, and T. c. v. Rejec, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 216601 (2020)

work page 2020
[32]

K.HódságiandM.Kormos,SciPostPhys.9,055(2020)

work page 2020
[33]

R. J. Nowak and J. Dziarmaga, Phys. Rev. B104, 075448 (2021)

work page 2021
[34]

J. J. Mayo, Z. Fan, G.-W. Chern, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033150 (2021)

work page 2021
[35]

Rysti, J

J. Rysti, J. T. Mäkinen, S. Autti, T. Kamppinen, G. E. Volovik, and V. B. Eltsov, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 115702 (2021)

work page 2021
[36]

del Campo, F

A. del Campo, F. J. Gómez-Ruiz, and H.-Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B106, L140101 (2022)

work page 2022
[37]

F. J. Gómez-Ruiz, D. Subires, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. B106, 134302 (2022)

work page 2022
[38]

Z. Sun, M. Deng, and F. Li, Phys. Rev. B106, 134203 (2022)

work page 2022
[39]

Kou and P

H.-C. Kou and P. Li, Phys. Rev. B108, 214307 (2023)

work page 2023
[40]

Balducci, M

F. Balducci, M. Beau, J. Yang, A. Gambassi, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 230401 (2023)

work page 2023
[41]

Zeng, C.-Y

H.-B. Zeng, C.-Y. Xia, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 060402 (2023)

work page 2023
[42]

Xia, H.-B

C.-Y. Xia, H.-B. Zeng, C.-M. Chen, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. D108, 026017 (2023)

work page 2023
[43]

Kou and P

H.-C. Kou and P. Li, Phys. Rev. B106, 184301 (2022)

work page 2022
[44]

Liang, L.-Z

E.-W. Liang, L.-Z. Tang, and D.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. 6 B110, 024207 (2024)

work page 2024
[45]

Grabarits, F

A. Grabarits, F. Balducci, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. A111, 042207 (2025)

work page 2025
[46]

M. Deng, Z. Sun, and F. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 010409 (2025)

work page 2025
[47]

M. Deng, W. Li, K. Hu, C. Sun, and F. Li, Phys. Rev. B112, L020306 (2025)

work page 2025
[48]

Kou, Z.-H

H.-C. Kou, Z.-H. Zhang, and P. Li, Phys. Rev. B111, 155152 (2025)

work page 2025
[49]

H. Wang, X. Li, and C. Li, Nature Communications16, 10584 (2025)

work page 2025
[50]

Yang, C.-Y

P. Yang, C.-Y. Xia, S. Grieninger, H.-B. Zeng, and M. Baggioli, Topological defect formation beyond the kibble-zurek mechanism in crossover transitions with approximate symmetries (2025), arXiv:2508.05964 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

work page arXiv 2025
[51]

Zhang, L

X. Zhang, L. Hu, and F. Li, Phys. Rev. B112, 024310 (2025)

work page 2025
[52]

C. N. Weiler, T. W. Neely, D. R. Scherer, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, and B. P. Anderson, Nature455, 948 (2008)

work page 2008
[53]

Lamporesi, S

G. Lamporesi, S. Donadello, S. Serafini, F. Dalfovo, and G. Ferrari, Nature Physics9, 656 (2013)

work page 2013
[54]

Deutschländer, P

S. Deutschländer, P. Dillmann, G. Maret, and P. Keim, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, 6925 (2015)

work page 2015
[55]

Navon, A

N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Science347, 167 (2015)

work page 2015
[56]

Anquez, B

M. Anquez, B. A. Robbins, H. M. Bharath, M. Bogus- lawski, T. M. Hoang, and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 155301 (2016)

work page 2016
[57]

B. Ko, J. W. Park, and Y. Shin, Nature Physics15, 1227 (2019)

work page 2019
[58]

Keesling, A

A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S.Sachdev, P.Zoller, M.Endres, M.Greiner, V.Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Nature568, 207 (2019)

work page 2019
[59]

C.-R. Yi, S. Liu, R.-H. Jiao, J.-Y. Zhang, Y.-S. Zhang, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 260603 (2020)

work page 2020
[60]

Ebadi, T

S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Nature595, 227 (2021)

work page 2021
[61]

Huang, R

Q. Huang, R. Yao, L. Liang, S. Wang, Q. Zheng, D. Li, W. Xiong, X. Zhou, W. Chen, X. Chen, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 200601 (2021)

work page 2021
[62]

Maegochi, K

S. Maegochi, K. Ienaga, and S. Okuma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 227001 (2022)

work page 2022
[63]

K. Du, X. Fang, C. Won, C. De, F.-T. Huang, W. Xu, H. You, F. J. Gómez-Ruiz, A. del Campo, and S.-W. Cheong, Nature Physics19, 1495 (2023)

work page 2023
[64]

Yuan, C.-R

H. Yuan, C.-R. Yi, J.-Y. Guo, X.-C. Cheng, R.-H. Jiao, J.Zhang, S.Chen,andJ.-W.Pan,Phys.Rev.Lett.135, 063403 (2025)

work page 2025
[65]

Zhang, H

T. Zhang, H. Wang, W. Zhang, Y. Wang, A. Du, Z. Li, Y. Wu, C. Li, J. Hu, H. Zhai, and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 093403 (2025)

work page 2025
[66]

X.-J. Yu, L. Xu, and H.-Q. Lin, Physics Reports1160, 1 (2026)

work page 2026
[67]

Verresen, N

R. Verresen, N. G. Jones, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 057001 (2018)

work page 2018
[68]

Verresen, Topology and edge states survive quan- tum criticality between topological insulators (2020), arXiv:2003.05453 [cond-mat.str-el]

R. Verresen, Topology and edge states survive quan- tum criticality between topological insulators (2020), arXiv:2003.05453 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2020
[69]

Verresen, R

R. Verresen, R. Thorngren, N. G. Jones, and F. Poll- mann, Phys. Rev. X11, 041059 (2021)

work page 2021
[70]

C. M. Duque, H.-Y. Hu, Y.-Z. You, V. Khemani, R. Ver- resen, and R. Vasseur, Phys. Rev. B103, L100207 (2021)

work page 2021
[71]

Yu, R.-Z

X.-J. Yu, R.-Z. Huang, H.-H. Song, L. Xu, C. Ding, and L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 210601 (2022)

work page 2022
[72]

W. Ye, M. Guo, Y.-C. He, C. Wang, and L. Zou, SciPost Phys.13, 066 (2022)

work page 2022
[73]

Wang and T

K. Wang and T. A. Sedrakyan, SciPost Phys.12, 134 (2022)

work page 2022
[74]

N. G. Jones, R. Thorngren, and R. Verresen, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 246601 (2023)

work page 2023
[75]

Mondal, A

S. Mondal, A. Agarwala, T. Mishra, and A. Prakash, Phys. Rev. B108, 245135 (2023)

work page 2023
[76]

X.-J.YuandW.-L.Li,Phys.Rev.B110,045119(2024)

work page 2024
[77]

C. Wei, V. V. Mkhitaryan, and T. A. Sedrakyan, Jour- nal of High Energy Physics2024, 125 (2024)

work page 2024
[78]

W. Choi, M. Knap, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B109, 115132 (2024)

work page 2024
[79]

Prembabu, R

S. Prembabu, R. Thorngren, and R. Verresen, Phys. Rev. B109, L201112 (2024)

work page 2024
[80]

W.-H.Zhong, W.-L.Li, Y.-C.Chen,andX.-J.Yu,Phys. Rev. A110, 022212 (2024)

work page 2024
[81]

Flores-Calderón, E

R. Flores-Calderón, E. J. König, and A. M. Cook, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 116602 (2025)

work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.