Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Hybrid Monte Carlo with global updates and a double stereographic projection samples Laughlin and Moore-Read wave functions up to N>1000 electrons, extracting topological shifts and non-Abelian braiding matrices.

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

2026-08-02 22:10 UTC pith:25SMPBLB

load-bearing objection HMC for FQH wave functions is a real methodological step forward, but the central speed claim is asserted, not demonstrated, and the N>1000 sphere capability is not actually shown. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.17564 v1 pith:25SMPBLB submitted 2026-02-19 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Hybrid Monte Carlo for Fractional Quantum Hall States

Ting-Tung Wang , Ha Quang Trung , Qianhui Xu , Min Long , Bo Yang , Zi Yang Meng This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.43.-f02.70.Uu
keywords hybrid Monte Carlofractional quantum Hall effectLaughlin wave functionMoore-Read statetopological shiftnon-Abelian braidingBerry phasestereographic projection
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's central claim is that hybrid Monte Carlo, where electron coordinates are moved collectively by Hamiltonian dynamics rather than one at a time, makes sampling of Laughlin and Moore-Read fractional quantum Hall wave functions significantly more efficient than local Metropolis updates. On the sphere, a newly introduced double stereographic projection keeps the configuration space compact, mapping each hemisphere to its own unit disk, and removes the pole singularities that make standard stereographic sampling unstable. The authors report simulations with more than 1,000 electrons on both disk and sphere geometries, and use them to compute the topological shift from the edge dipole moment on the disk, Berry phases for two Moore-Read quasiholes, and non-Abelian braiding matrices for four quasiholes on the sphere. They report converged results with better data quality than previous Monte Carlo studies, including agreement with the analytic braiding matrix and with rotational braiding schemes whose outcomes are predicted from fusion-tree algebra.

Core claim

The paper shows that the probability density of a Laughlin wave function is a Boltzmann weight of a classical plasma, so sampling it is equivalent to simulating a Hamiltonian system with auxiliary momenta; integrating the resulting equations of motion with a symplectic leapfrog scheme and a Metropolis acceptance step produces global updates of all electron coordinates with no systematic error. The same construction is extended to Moore-Read states by including the Pfaffian in the force, at O(N^3) cost per step. For the sphere, the double stereographic projection replaces the infinite exterior of the usual projection by a second unit disk; the holomorphic differences (zi - zj) are replaced pi

What carries the argument

Hybrid Monte Carlo: treat the squared wave function |Psi|^2 = e^{-V} as a classical plasma, add fictitious momenta p, integrate Hamilton's equations dz/dt = p and dp/dt = -dV/dz with a leapfrog integrator, and accept with probability e^{-(H_new - H_old)}. Because the update moves all coordinates at once, it decorrelates much faster than one-particle Metropolis moves; the symplectic property ensures the acceptance step corrects any integration error so the chain samples the exact target distribution. Double stereographic projection: map each hemisphere of the sphere to its own unit disk using a piecewise mapping that keeps every coordinate bounded, and replace each holomorphic pair difference

Load-bearing premise

The spherical results rest on the double stereographic projection being an exact measure-preserving rewrite of the Laughlin and Moore-Read wave functions on the sphere; if the piecewise substitution misses phase or Jacobian factors, the Berry phases and braiding matrices would be biased.

What would settle it

For a small system, say 6 electrons with 4 quasiholes on the sphere, compute the Gram matrix of the two model wave functions analytically or by high-precision direct quadrature in spherical coordinates, and compare it with the HMC estimate using the double stereographic projection; exact agreement is required if the projection preserves the measure.

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

If this is right

  • For Laughlin m=3,5,7, the extracted edge dipole moment converges to the analytic value -(m-1)/(4*pi*m) already by N about 500, so finite-size contamination in edge observables can be controlled in routine runs.
  • On the sphere, the two-quasihole statistical Berry phase converges to 0 or pi in the even/odd fusion channels, without the long fluctuating tails seen in disk-geometry Metropolis calculations, establishing a reference method for anyon statistics.
  • The four-quasihole braiding matrix parameters eta, beta, alpha converge to pi/4, 0, and -pi/2 at maximal separation, matching the Ising-model single-exchange matrix up to a basis choice and providing a numerically accessible check of non-Abelian statistics closer to the thermodynamic limit.
  • The two rotational braiding schemes (180-degree and 120-degree rotations) yield eigenvalue-phase differences pi and -2*pi/3 predicted by fusion-tree algebra, and their symmetry-reduced single-step calculation removes discretization error as a limiting factor.
  • With N>1000 reachable on a single compute node, the method provides the system sizes needed to test proposed BKT instabilities of Laughlin and Moore-Read states under inhomogeneous magnetic fields or density decoherence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The symmetry-reduction trick behind the rotational braiding schemes is general: any braid generated by a global rotation of the sphere can be evaluated with a single overlap calculation, a strategy that should carry over to other non-Abelian trial states.
  • The near-diagonal basis built from the overlap o implicitly offers a gauge-fixing convention for non-Abelian braiding matrices: orthonormalize the local Hilbert space at every step, and the accumulated unitary matrix is directly comparable across models without basis rotations.
  • For Moore-Read states the per-step cost is O(N^3) because of the Pfaffian force; extending the >1000-electron reach to the Pfaffian sector will likely require low-rank or GPU-accelerated Pfaffian updates, a natural but unaddressed optimization.
  • The spherical double projection, if exactly measure-preserving, is a template for other conformal trial wave functions that face the same south-pole-at-infinity problem in standard stereographic coordinates.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) method for sampling Laughlin and Moore-Read fractional quantum Hall wave functions on disk and sphere geometries. The methodological ingredients are global Hamiltonian-guided updates and a newly introduced double stereographic projection on the sphere. The authors claim that this HMC scheme is significantly faster than local-update Metropolis Monte Carlo and can readily simulate N>1000 electrons on both geometries. They apply the method to extract the topological shift from the edge dipole moment for Laughlin states on the disk, and to compute Berry phases and non-Abelian braiding matrices for Moore-Read quasiholes on the sphere, benchmarking against analytic predictions such as p_edge = -(m-1)/(4πm), statistical Berry phases 0/π, and braiding angles π/4, 0, and 2π/3.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this is a valuable methodological advance: it would make thermodynamic-limit studies of Laughlin and Moore-Read trial states routine, including edge properties and non-Abelian braiding, at system sizes well beyond the N~100 frontier of prior Metropolis-based work. The paper's benchmarks are meaningful because the targets are external analytic values, not fitted parameters. The HMC/plasma-analogy formulation is standard, but the double stereographic projection is a useful new ingredient for compact spherical sampling. However, as detailed below, the central speed claim is not quantitatively supported, the N>1000 sphere capability asserted in the abstract is not demonstrated by any displayed sphere run, and the spherical sampling measure is not specified precisely enough to rule out bias.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. II] The central speed claim—'significantly faster than the widely used Metropolis Monte Carlo scheme'—is supported only by qualitative statements and absolute wall-clock times ('within 7 days'). No comparison to a tuned Metropolis implementation is given: no integrated autocorrelation times, no effective sample size, no acceptance-rate comparison, no wall-clock data for the Metropolis baseline. Because the FQH potential (Eq. (4)) has singular logarithmic forces, the leapfrog integrator may incur large energy errors at close approach, so the superiority is not automatic. Please provide a quantitative head-to-head for representative N on the same hardware.
  2. [Abstract; Fig. 3] The abstract claims N>1000 on both disk and sphere geometries. The disk Laughlin data do reach N=1200 (Fig. 1), but the spherical data shown in Fig. 3 stop at N=201 for the Berry-phase measurement and N=100 for the braiding-matrix measurement. No sphere observable at N>1000 is displayed or described. Either provide such a sphere benchmark or temper the abstract's claim to what is actually demonstrated.
  3. [SM S3, Eqs. (S62)-(S66)] The spherical sampling measure is not fully specified. On the sphere the physical integration measure is dΩ, which after stereographic projection contributes a factor ∏(1+|z_i|^2)^{-2} relative to flat d^2z. The wave function in Eq. (S63) has the form ∏ D_ij^m, i.e., a form factor ∝ (1+|z_i|^2)^{-S}. If the HMC target distribution is simply |Ψ|^2 d^2z, the sampled distribution is not the spherical state; the missing Jacobian is position-dependent and would bias all spherical observables, including the Berry phases of Fig. 3. Please write the explicit sphere potential V used in HMC and state how the measure Jacobian is incorporated. Also, Eq. (S62) is ambiguous: the text says an inversion w=1/z* maps the exterior to the interior, but the displayed piecewise definition already assigns a compact coordinate to both hemispheres; clarify the notation.
  4. [Sec. III C, Eqs. (10)-(12); SM S4] The main-text braiding-matrix algorithm is not self-contained and appears inconsistent with the SM. Eq. (12) defines A(tn)ab = ⟨ψa(tn)|ψb(tn+1)⟩ - h.c., while SM S4 defines A(l) = V(l)† W(l) V(l+1) + h.c. (plus sign) and includes a local change of basis V and a final projection O to ensure gauge independence. The main-text recurrence (10) omits V and O, and the sign in Eq. (12) differs from the SM. As written, the main text cannot be reproduced. Please align the two presentations and define all quantities (including ε in Eq. (15)).
  5. [Eq. (9)] The Gaussian factor in the four-quasihole Moore-Read wave function is written as exp(∑|zi|^2/4), with a positive exponent, whereas the Moore-Read state in Eq. (8) has exp(-∑|zi|^2/4). This sign error makes the wave function unnormalizable and is presumably a typo, but it appears in a central defining equation. Additionally, the notation '+(i↔j)' in the Pfaffian numerator is ambiguous and should be written explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II] The phrase 'the overall update still satisfies the detail balance condition' should read 'detailed balance'. Also 'r=100%' in the sentence about exact energy conservation should be 'acceptance probability r=1', not a percentage.
  2. [Abstract] 'Results with much better quality compared with previous works' is vague. Specify which previous works and which quantitative metric (e.g., smaller fluctuations, faster convergence) justify this claim.
  3. [Sec. III C / Fig. 3] The parameterization of U in Eq. (15) introduces a fourth angle ε that is never defined or discussed. If ε is zero or fixed by symmetry, say so.
  4. [SM S3] The derivation of the southern-hemisphere D_ij in Eq. (S65) contains an intermediate expression with '1/|zj|^2 + 1' that should be '1 + 1/|zj|^2' for clarity, and the local phase rotation mentioned in the text is not written out; please make the phase factors explicit.
  5. [General] Reference [43] contains the typo 'prajection'; please correct. The main text would also benefit from a short description of how the acceptance rate was tuned and what trajectory length Δt values were used for each system size.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: predictions are benchmarked against external analytic results; self-citations are redundant, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical outputs are validated against analytic benchmarks external to the simulation: the Laughlin edge dipole moment Eq. (7) against -(1/4pi)(m-1)/m from independent Refs. [45,65], the Moore-Read statistical Berry phases against the fusion-channel predictions 0 and pi, and the braiding matrices against Ising anyon model results via the ratio of eigenvalues alpha. The HMC sampler contains no fitted parameter; it targets the exact |Psi|^2 distribution defined by Eqs. (3)-(4) and (8). The double stereographic projection is introduced as an explicit coordinate transformation with the substitution rule Eq. (S66), and concerns about measure preservation would be correctness issues, not circularity. Self-citations appear (e.g., Refs. [19,38] include coauthors), but in each case the same result is also attributed to an independent reference (e.g., [65], [25]) and no self-citation is invoked to forbid alternatives or to force a numerical choice. The claimed speed advantage over Metropolis is not established by autocorrelation or wall-time comparisons, but that is a lack of quantitative evidence, not a reduction of a prediction to its input. No step in the derivation chain equates a fitted input with a predicted output, and no load-bearing claim rests solely on a self-citation. Therefore the paper is essentially self-contained against external benchmarks, with only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free physical parameters are fitted to the target observables; the only listed free parameters are simulation tuning choices (Δt, N_s). No new physical entities are introduced; the double stereographic projection is a coordinate choice, not an invented entity. The central assumptions are standard HMC/adiabatic-theorem ingredients plus the paper-specific projection map.

free parameters (2)
  • HMC evolution time Δt = not specified (acceptance tuned to ~60%)
    Sec. II: 'we tune the evolution time Δt to control r to around 60%'. Affects sampling efficiency, not physical observables.
  • Braiding path discretization N_s = 320 and 1200
    Sec. IIIB and Fig. 3 caption: chosen to reduce discretization error; no convergence-in-N_s analysis is shown.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Plasma analogy maps |Ψ|^2 to Boltzmann weight e^{-V} with logarithmic pair interactions and quadratic confinement.
    Sec. II Eqs. (3)-(4); exact for Laughlin and used to derive the HMC force.
  • domain assumption The four-quasihole Moore-Read wave functions span a 2-dimensional Hilbert space; the basis in Eqs. (13)-(14) is orthonormal and continuous along the braiding path.
    Sec. IIIB and SM S4; standard CFT result for Ising anyons.
  • ad hoc to paper Double stereographic projection maps the sphere to two unit disks and preserves the wave function structure with piecewise cross terms (SM S3, Eq. S66).
    Introduced in this paper to remove the south-pole infinity; must be verified to preserve the correct probability measure.
  • standard math The adiabatic Berry-matrix formula U = exp(-∮⟨ψ_α|∇_R ψ_β⟩·dR) applies to the degenerate quasihole manifold.
    SM S1, Eqs. (S20)-(S29); standard adiabatic theorem.
  • standard math Leapfrog integration is symplectic and the Metropolis acceptance r=e^{H-H'} preserves detailed balance.
    Sec. II; standard HMC result.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22613 in / 12250 out tokens · 119416 ms · 2026-08-02T22:10:30.118969+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop a hybrid Monte Carlo method to efficiently compute the physical observables from the samplings of the Laughlin and the Moore-Read wave functions of fractional quantum Hall (FQH) systems. With the advancements in methodology, including global updates and double stereographic projection on spherical geometry, our hybrid Monte Carlo simulation is significantly faster than the widely used Metropolis Monte Carlo scheme. As a result, we can readily simulate systems with electron numbers $N > 1000$ on both disk and sphere geometries. We apply this method to investigating the topological shift obtained from the edge dipole moment, computed from the density of the wave function on the disk. We also numerically computed the non-Abelian braiding matrices for different braiding schemes of the Moore-Read quasiholes on the sphere. Results with much better quality compared with previous works have been achieved. With the thermodynamic limit results obtained at ease, we also discuss the future usage of our method to clarify the questions on the instability of fractional quantum Hall states in an ideal Chern band setting or under quantum decoherence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17564 by Bo Yang, Ha Quang Trung, Min Long, Qianhui Xu, Ting-Tung Wang, Zi Yang Meng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Numerical evidence of a critical point in the (2+1)D SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with Wess-Zumino-Witten term

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Large-scale QMC simulations identify a multicritical point in the phase diagram of the (2+1)D SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with WZW term.

  2. Dispersion of Anyon Bloch Bands

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Anyon Bloch bands in ideal FCIs have m-fold degeneracy in the magnetic BZ and bandwidth controlled by quantum geometry non-uniformity, with higher harmonics strongly suppressing dispersion through emergent symmetries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Two- dimensional magnetotransport in the extreme quantum limit, Physical Review Letters48, 1559 (1982)

    1982

  2. [2]

    R. B. Laughlin, Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect: An In- compressible Quantum Fluid with Fractionally Charged Excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

  3. [3]

    B. I. Halperin, Calculations of the fractional quantized Hall effect, Surface Science170, 115 (1986)

    1986

  4. [4]

    Arovas, J

    D. Arovas, J. R. Schrieffer, and F. Wilczek, Fractional statistics and the quantum Hall effect, Physical review letters53, 722 (1984)

    1984

  5. [5]

    R. E. Prange and S. M. Girvin,The quantum Hall effect (Springer, 1987)

    1987

  6. [6]

    D. E. Feldman and B. I. Halperin, Fractional charge and fractional statistics in the quantum Hall effects, Reports on Progress in Physics84, 076501 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Preskill, Topological quantum computation, Lecture notes for physics219(2004)

    J. Preskill, Topological quantum computation, Lecture notes for physics219(2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    Morf and B

    R. Morf and B. I. Halperin, Monte Carlo evaluation of trial wave functions for the fractional quantized Hall ef- fect: Disk geometry, Phys. Rev. B33, 2221 (1986)

    1986

  9. [9]

    Melik-Alaverdian, N

    V. Melik-Alaverdian, N. E. Bonesteel, and G. Ortiz, QuantumHallFluidsontheHaldaneSphere: ADiffusion Monte Carlo Study, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 5286 (1997)

    1997

  10. [10]

    Y.TserkovnyakandS.H.Simon,MonteCarloEvaluation of Non-Abelian Statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 016802 (2003)

    2003

  11. [11]

    Ciftja and C

    O. Ciftja and C. Wexler, Monte Carlo simulation method for Laughlin-like states in a disk geometry, Phys. Rev. B 67, 075304 (2003)

    2003

  12. [12]

    M. P. Zaletel and R. S. K. Mong, Exact matrix product states for quantum Hall wave functions, Physical Review B86, 10.1103/physrevb.86.245305 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.245305 2012

  13. [13]

    Y.-L. Wu, B. Estienne, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Braiding Non-Abelian Quasiholes in Fractional Quantum Hall States, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 116801 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    R. O. Umucal ılar, E. Macaluso, T. Comparin, and I. Carusotto, Time-of-Flight Measurements as a Possible Method to Observe Anyonic Statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 230403 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Macaluso, T

    E. Macaluso, T. Comparin, L. Mazza, and I. Carusotto, Fusion Channels of Non-Abelian Anyons from Angular- Momentum and Density-Profile Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 266801 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Macaluso, T

    E. Macaluso, T. Comparin, R. O. Umucal ılar, M. Ger- ster, S. Montangero, M. Rizzi, and I. Carusotto, Charge and statistics of lattice quasiholes from density measure- ments: A tree tensor network study, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013145 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Comparin, A

    T. Comparin, A. Opler, E. Macaluso, A. Biella, A. P. Polychronakos, and L. Mazza, Measurable fractional spin for quantum Hall quasiparticles on the disk, Phys. Rev. B105, 085125 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Nardin, E

    A. Nardin, E. Ardonne, and L. Mazza, Spin-statistics relation for quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. B108, L041105 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    G. Ji, K. Bose, A. C. Balram, and B. Yang, Universal modeling of oscillations in fractional quantum Hall fluids, Phys. Rev. B110, 075113 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    H. Q. Trung, Q. Xu, and B. Yang, Long-range entangle- ment and role of realistic interaction in braiding of non- Abelian quasiholes in fractional quantum Hall phases, Phys. Rev. B112, 205101 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Fagerlund, A

    A. Fagerlund, A. Nardin, L. Mazza, and E. Ardonne, Spin fractionalization at the edge of quantum Hall fluids induced by bulk quasiparticles, Phys. Rev. B112, 075148 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Q. Xu, G. Ji, Y. Wang, H. Quang Trung, and B. Yang, Dynamics of Anyon Clusters in Fractional Quantum Hall Fluids, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2505.20257 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    K. Bose, S. H. Simon, and A. C. Balram, Monte Carlo Sampling for Wave Functions Requiring (Anti)Symmetrization, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.20577 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    B.-B. Chen, H. Lu, and Z. Y. Meng, Probing Non-Fermi- Liquid Behaviour of Composite Fermi Liquid via Efficient Thermal Simulations, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.02218 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Prodan and F

    E. Prodan and F. D. M. Haldane, Mapping the braiding properties of the Moore-Read state, Phys. Rev. B80, 10 115121 (2009)

    2009

  26. [26]

    J. Li, D. Ye, C.-X. Jiang, N. Jiang, X. Wan, and Z.-X. Hu, Anyonic braiding via quench dynamics in fractional quantum Hall liquids, Physical Review B105, 195311 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    Moore and N

    G. Moore and N. Read, Nonabelions in the fractional quantum hall effect, Nuclear Physics B360, 362 (1991)

    1991

  28. [28]

    Nayak and F

    C. Nayak and F. Wilczek, 2n-quasihole states realize 2n- 1-dimensional spinor braiding statistics in paired quan- tum Hall states, Nuclear Physics B479, 529 (1996)

    1996

  29. [29]

    P.Bonderson, A.Kitaev,andK.Shtengel,Detectingnon- Abelian statistics in theν= 5/2 fractional quantum Hall state, Physical review letters96, 016803 (2006)

    2006

  30. [30]

    Bonderson, K

    P. Bonderson, K. Shtengel, and J. Slingerland, Interfer- ometry of non-Abelian anyons, Annals of Physics323, 2709 (2008)

    2008

  31. [31]

    Bonderson, V

    P. Bonderson, V. Gurarie, and C. Nayak, Plasma analogy and non-Abelian statistics for Ising-type quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. B83, 075303 (2011)

    2011

  32. [32]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of physics303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  33. [33]

    Freedman, C

    M. Freedman, C. Nayak, and K. Walker, Towards uni- versal topological quantum computation in theν= 5 2 fractional quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. B73, 245307 (2006)

    2006

  34. [34]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topological quan- tum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  35. [35]

    Z. Wang, R. Fan, T. Wang, S. J. Garratt, and E. Alt- man, Fractional quantum Hall states under density de- coherence, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.08490 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Moore and N

    G. Moore and N. Seiberg, Classical and quantum con- formal field theory, Communications in Mathematical Physics123, 177 (1989)

    1989

  37. [37]

    Gurarie and C

    V. Gurarie and C. Nayak, A plasma analogy and Berry matrices for non-abelian quantum Hall states, Nuclear Physics B506, 685 (1997)

    1997

  38. [38]

    H. Q. Trung, Y. Wang, and B. Yang, Spin-statistics relation and Abelian braiding phase for anyons in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Physical Review B107, L201301 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    X. Y. Xu, Z. Hong Liu, G. Pan, Y. Qi, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Revealing fermionic quantum criticality from new Monte Carlo techniques, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter31, 463001 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Moitra and I

    S. Moitra and I. Sodemann Villadiego, Instability of Laughlin FQH liquids into gapless power-law correlated states with continuous exponents in ideal Chern bands: rigorous results from plasma mapping, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.18265 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Jiang, Y

    W. Jiang, Y. Liu, A. Klein, Y. Wang, K. Sun, A. V. Chubukov, and Z. Y. Meng, Monte Carlo study of the pseudogap and superconductivity emerging from quan- tum magnetic fluctuations, Nature Communications13, 2655 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Jiang, G

    W. Jiang, G. Pan, Y. Liu, and Z. Y. Meng, Solving quan- tum rotor model with different Monte Carlo techniques, Chinese Physics B31, 040504 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    The Supplementary Material details our derivation of the Berry matrix, fusion and braiding in Moore-Read anyon models and the double stereographic prajection for our HMC simulation on sphere

  44. [44]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Fractional Quantization of the Hall Effect: A Hierarchy of Incompressible Quantum Fluid States, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 605 (1983)

    1983

  45. [45]

    Park and F

    Y. Park and F. Haldane, Guiding-center Hall viscosity and intrinsic dipole moment along edges of incompress- ible fractional quantum Hall fluids, Physical Review B 90, 045123 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A.H.Teller,andE.Teller,EquationofStateCalculations by Fast Computing Machines, The Journal of Chemical Physics21, 1087 (1953)

    1953

  47. [47]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications, Biometrika57, 97 (1970)

    1970

  48. [48]

    R. T. Scalettar, D. J. Scalapino, R. L. Sugar, and D. Tou- ssaint, Hybrid molecular-dynamics algorithm for the nu- merical simulation of many-electron systems, Phys. Rev. B36, 8632 (1987)

    1987

  49. [49]

    Duane, A

    S. Duane, A. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, and D. Roweth, Hybrid Monte Carlo, Physics Letters B195, 216 (1987)

    1987

  50. [50]

    Gupta, G

    R. Gupta, G. W. Kilcup, and S. R. Sharpe, Tuning the hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm, Phys. Rev. D38, 1278 (1988)

    1988

  51. [51]

    S. Beyl, F. Goth, and F. F. Assaad, Revisiting the hybrid quantum Monte Carlo method for Hubbard and electron- phonon models, Phys. Rev. B97, 085144 (2018)

    2018

  52. [52]

    K. Feng, C. Chen, and Z. Y. Meng, Scalable hybrid quan- tum Monte Carlo simulation of U(1) gauge field coupled to fermions on GPU, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.16298 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    S. R. White, R. L. Sugar, and R. T. Scalettar, Algorithm for the simulation of many-electron systems at low tem- peratures, Phys. Rev. B38, 11665 (1988)

    1988

  54. [54]

    A. A. Patel, P. Lunts, and M. S. Albergo, Strange metals and planckian transport in a gapless phase from spatially random interactions, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.05365 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Lunts, M

    P. Lunts, M. S. Albergo, and M. Lindsey, Non-Hertz- Millis scaling of the antiferromagnetic quantum critical metal via scalable Hybrid Monte Carlo, Nature Commu- nications14, 10.1038/s41467-023-37686-4 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37686-4 2023

  56. [56]

    Meng, Monte Carlo Study of Lattice Compact Quan- tum Electrodynamics with Fermionic Matter: The Par- ent State of Quantum Phases, Phys

    X.Y.Xu, Y.Qi, L.Zhang, F.F.Assaad, C.Xu,andZ.Y. Meng, Monte Carlo Study of Lattice Compact Quan- tum Electrodynamics with Fermionic Matter: The Par- ent State of Quantum Phases, Phys. Rev. X9, 021022 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Z. Zeng, X. Ma, S. Wu, H.-F. Li, Z. Tao, X. Lu, X.-h. Chen, J.-X. Mi, S.-J. Song, G.-H. Cao, G. Che, K. Li, G. Li, H. Luo, Z. Y. Meng, and S. Li, Possible Dirac quantum spin liquid in the kagome quantum antiferro- magnetYCu 3(OH)6Br2[Brx(OH)1−x], Phys. Rev. B105, L121109 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    Z. Zeng, C. Zhou, H. Zhou, L. Han, R. Chi, K. Li, M. Kofu, K. Nakajima, Y. Wei, W. Zhang, D. G. Maz- zone, Z. Y. Meng, and S. Li, Spectral evidence for Dirac spinons in a kagome lattice antiferromagnet, Na- ture Physics20, 1097 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    L. Han, Z. Zeng, M. Long, M. Song, C. Zhou, B. Liu, M. Kofu, K. Nakajima, P. Steffens, A. Hiess, Z. Y. Meng, Y. Su, and S. Li, Spin excitations arising from anisotropic Dirac spinons inYCu 3(OD)6Br2[Br0.33(OD)0.67], Phys. Rev. B112, 045114 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Haravifard, Evidence of Dirac Quantum Spin Liquid inYbZn 2GaO5, Phys

    R.Bag, S.Xu, N.E.Sherman, L.Yadav, A.I.Kolesnikov, A.A.Podlesnyak, E.S.Choi, I.daSilva, J.E.Moore,and S. Haravifard, Evidence of Dirac Quantum Spin Liquid inYbZn 2GaO5, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 266703 (2024). 11

    2024

  61. [61]

    H. C. H. Wu, F. L. Pratt, B. M. Huddart, D. Chatterjee, P. A. Goddard, J. Singleton, D. Prabhakaran, and S. J. Blundell, Spin Dynamics in the Dirac U(1) Spin Liquid YbZn2GaO5, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 046704 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    A. O. Scheie, E. A. Ghioldi, J. Xing, J. A. M. Paddi- son, N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, L. D. Sanjeewa, S. Lee, A. J. Woods, D. Abernathy, D. M. Pajerowski, T. J. Williams, S.-S. Zhang, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, C. D. Pemmaraju, A. S. Sefat, D. S. Parker, T. P. Dev- ereaux, R. Movshovich, J. E. Moore, C. D. Batista, and D. A. Tennant, Proximate spin liqui...

    2024

  63. [63]

    B. I. Halperin, Quantized Hall conductance, current- carrying edge states, and the existence of extended states in a two-dimensional disordered potential, Physical re- view B25, 2185 (1982)

    1982

  64. [64]

    Here, we butcher the notation to express the equa- tions in the same form as real differentials for brevity. The precise definition is to treat the complex variable zj as two real variables(x j, yj),p j as(p x,j, py,j ), and take derivatives with respect to each component (∂ ∂zj → ∂ ∂xj +i ∂ ∂yj = 2 ∂ ∂¯zj ), which recovers the same right hand sides in Eq. (6)

  65. [65]

    T. Can, P. J. Forrester, G. Téllez, and P. Wiegmann, Singular behavior at the edge of Laughlin states, Phys. Rev. B89, 235137 (2014)

    2014

  66. [66]

    Hall viscosity

    F. D. M. Haldane, “Hall viscosity” and intrinsic metric of incompressible fractional Hall fluids, arXiv:0906.1854

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Read, Non-Abelian adiabatic statistics and Hall vis- cosity in quantum Hall states andpx +ip y paired super- fluids, Phys

    N. Read, Non-Abelian adiabatic statistics and Hall vis- cosity in quantum Hall states andpx +ip y paired super- fluids, Phys. Rev. B79, 045308 (2009)

    2009

  68. [68]

    Gromov, K

    A. Gromov, K. Jensen, and A. G. Abanov, Boundary Effective Action for Quantum Hall States, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 126802 (2016)

    2016

  69. [69]

    Tong, Lectures on the quantum Hall effect, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06687 (2016)

    D. Tong, Lectures on the quantum Hall effect, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06687 (2016)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  70. [70]

    Regnault and B

    N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Fractional Chern Insu- lator, Phys. Rev. X1, 021014 (2011)

    2011

  71. [71]

    Y.-H. Wu, J. K. Jain, and K. Sun, Adiabatic continu- ity between Hofstadter and Chern insulator states, Phys. Rev. B86, 165129 (2012)

    2012

  72. [72]

    Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Phys

    R. Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Phys. Rev. B90, 165139 (2014)

    2014

  73. [73]

    J. Wang, J. Cano, A. J. Millis, Z. Liu, and B. Yang, Exact Landau Level Description of Geometry and Interaction in a Flatband, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 246403 (2021)

    2021

  74. [74]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Vor- texability: A unifying criterion for ideal fractional Chern insulators, Phys. Rev. B108, 205144 (2023)

    2023

  75. [75]

    Lu, B.-B

    H. Lu, B.-B. Chen, H.-Q. Wu, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Thermodynamic Response and Neutral Excitations in In- teger and Fractional Quantum Anomalous Hall States Emerging from Correlated Flat Bands, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 236502 (2024)

    2024

  76. [76]

    Lu, H.-Q

    H. Lu, H.-Q. Wu, B.-B. Chen, and Z. Y. Meng, Contin- uous transition and gapless roton inside fractional quan- tum anomalous Hall states, Newton , 100300 (2025)

    2025

  77. [77]

    Lu, H.-Q

    H. Lu, H.-Q. Wu, B.-B. Chen, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Interaction-driven Roton Condensation in C = 2/3 Frac- tional Quantum Anomalous Hall State, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2403.03258 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Ran, T. Cao, L. Fu, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Signatures of fractional quantum anomalous Hall states in twisted MoTe2, Nature622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  79. [79]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J.-H. Chu, T. Cao, L. Fu, W. Yao, C.- Z. Chang, D. Cobden, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Observation of fractionally quantized anomalous Hall effect, Nature 622, 74 (2023)

    2023

  80. [80]

    Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Knüppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Thermodynamic evidence of fractional Chern insulator in moiré MoTe2, Nature622, 69 (2023)

    2023

Showing first 80 references.