Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 43 references

At zero temperature the Hall resistivity stays exactly quantized under cavity coupling, even when polariton broadening modifies the Hall conductivity.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 01:57 UTC pith:UVH5RALH

load-bearing objection Clean T=0 algebra: Hall resistivity stays exactly quantized under cavity coupling and polariton broadening, while conductivity does not—this resolves the theory–experiment mismatch on the von Klitzing constant. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03511 v1 pith:UVH5RALH submitted 2026-07-03 cond-mat.mes-hall

Robustness of quantized Hall resistivity under cavity coupling at zero temperature

Juan Rom\'an-Roche , Jie Wang , Michael Ruggenthaler , Angel Rubio , Vasil Rokaj This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantum Hall effectLandau polaritonscavity QEDHall resistivitytopological protectionKubo formulavon Klitzing constantlight-matter coupling
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.

This paper asks whether strong cavity light–matter coupling can change the quantized Hall resistivity that experiments actually measure. Earlier theory showed that the Hall conductivity can leave its quantized value when Landau polaritons have finite lifetime (or finite broadening) and temperature is not zero. Here the authors invert the conductivity tensor of a phenomenological Landau-polariton model and show that, at zero temperature, the Hall resistivity remains exactly h/(e^{2}ν) for any light–matter coupling strength and any polariton broadening. The cavity only renormalizes the longitudinal resistivity along the photon polarization. That asymmetry explains why high-precision low-temperature resistivity measurements of even integer quantum Hall plateaus have found no renormalization of the von Klitzing constant, while still allowing cavity effects once temperature is raised.

Core claim

In a zero-temperature Landau-polariton model of a two-dimensional electron gas coupled to a single cavity mode, the Hall resistivity is strictly immune to polariton broadening: ρ_yx = h/(e^{2}ν) exactly, independent of light–matter coupling. By contrast the Hall conductivity is modified whenever the polariton linewidth is nonzero. The entire cavity correction is absorbed into the longitudinal resistivity component parallel to the cavity polarization.

What carries the argument

Tensor inversion of the Kubo conductivity of the center-of-mass Hopfield (Landau-polariton) Hamiltonian. Algebraic identities among the polariton mixing parameter Λ and the broadened spectral factors Δ± force the determinant of σ to cancel every cavity correction from ρ_yx, leaving only the longitudinal component ρ_xx renormalized.

Load-bearing premise

Polariton lifetime is put in by hand as a single constant broadening parameter in the response functions rather than derived from a microscopic bath or disorder model.

What would settle it

A zero-temperature (or sufficiently low-T) measurement of both Hall resistivity and Hall conductivity on the same cavity-coupled quantum Hall sample that finds a finite cavity-induced shift in ρ_yx would falsify the claimed immunity; equivalently, a microscopic calculation of the resistivity tensor with mode-resolved, non-Markovian dissipation that yields a renormalized ρ_yx would show the phenomenological result is not generic.

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

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the DC resistivity tensor of a 2D electron gas in a classical magnetic field coupled to a single-mode homogeneous cavity, using the center-of-mass Pauli–Fierz (Hopfield) Hamiltonian and zero-temperature Kubo response. Building on prior conductivity results, it shows by explicit tensor inversion that the Hall resistivity remains exactly quantized, ρ_yx = h/(e²ν) (Eq. 15), for any light–matter mixing Λ and any phenomenological polariton broadening δ, while the Hall conductivity σ_xy is modified at finite δ. Longitudinal resistivity acquires a cavity- and polarization-dependent correction (Eq. 16). The same Hall-resistivity immunity holds in the non-commuting ω→0 (lower-polariton gap closing) limit. The authors interpret this conductivity–resistivity asymmetry as explaining the absence of von Klitzing-constant renormalization in low-T Hall-resistivity measurements of even integer plateaus under ultrastrong coupling.

Significance. If correct within its stated assumptions, the result cleanly separates topological robustness of the Hall resistivity from cavity-induced modifications of the conductivity at T=0, and supplies a transparent algebraic reason why resistivity-based metrology of the von Klitzing constant need not see polariton-broadening corrections even when conductivity does. The derivation is fully explicit (Appendices A–B give the Hopfield solution and Lehmann correlators; identities (10)–(14) make the cancellation checkable by hand), which is a genuine strength. The anisotropy of ρ_xx versus ρ_yy is a falsifiable, polarization-dependent signature. The work is a natural and useful companion to the earlier conductivity analysis and is directly relevant to ongoing cavity quantum Hall experiments.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III.A, Eqs. (5)–(15) and Appendix B] The central cancellation ρ_yx = h/(e²ν) (Eq. 15) is obtained by inverting the Kubo conductivities (5)–(8) in which a single uniform Lorentzian broadening δ is inserted by hand into every polariton denominator (Appendix B). The manuscript should state more explicitly that the immunity result is guaranteed only under this uniform-Markovian assumption. If dissipation is mode-dependent (distinct δ₊, δ₋) or non-Lorentzian, the identities (10)–(11) and the det(σ) structure (14) need not cancel cavity dependence in ρ_yx. A short paragraph delimiting this domain of validity would make the experimental claim more precise without changing the algebra.
  2. [§II and Appendix B] Broadening is introduced only at the response level, not in the Hamiltonian. Finite polariton lifetime in a real device typically arises from coupling to a bath or disorder, which can break the Galilean CM–relative decoupling used to justify that the full current is purely CM (Appendix B, after Eq. B7). The paper should briefly address whether the exact cancellation survives once a microscopic dissipation mechanism that mixes CM and relative motion is included, or state that this is left for future work. As written, the claim is model-exact but its robustness beyond phenomenological Kubo broadening is not assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II, §III] Section titles contain spurious spaces: “Hamil TONIAN” (§II) and “CA VITY” (§III). These appear to be line-break artifacts and should be corrected.
  2. [§III.A and Appendix B] The same symbol δ is used both for the polariton broadening and for the Kronecker delta δ_ab in the Kubo formula (after Eq. B3 and in the conductivity definitions). Introduce a distinct symbol (e.g., η or Γ) for the linewidth to avoid confusion.
  3. [Introduction] Typo in the introduction: “independently of the the light-matter interaction strength” (double “the”).
  4. [§III.A, Eqs. (9) and (15)] Eq. (9) defines the full resistivity matrix including ρ_xy = −σ_xy/det; the text then quotes only ρ_yx. A one-line statement that |ρ_xy| = |ρ_yx| = h/(e²ν) (with the conventional sign) would match experimental reporting conventions.
  5. [§III.B] The zero-frequency discussion (§III.B) is valuable; a short remark on how the non-commutativity of lim_δ→0 and lim_ω→0 would appear in a finite-frequency AC resistivity measurement would help experimentalists.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: Hall resistivity quantization is an algebraic consequence of tensor inversion of the Kubo conductivity derived from the CM Pauli–Fierz model; self-citations supply context and prior σ results but are not required for the ρ_yx claim.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III.A, paragraph after Eqs. (5)–(7)]
    "As established in Ref. [20], all components of the conductivity tensor, and in particular the transverse conductivity, exhibit deviations with respect to their quantized value in the absence of a cavity, as long as a non-zero polariton broadening δ≠ 0 is kept."

    The framing contrast (conductivity modified while resistivity is not) leans on the authors’ prior result for σ. The citation is not strictly necessary for the algebra that produces ρ_yx, because the paper re-derives the Kubo expressions, but it is the sole external warrant offered for the claim that σ itself is cavity-renormalized at finite δ. This is a mild, non-load-bearing self-citation rather than a definitional loop.

full rationale

The paper starts from the Pauli–Fierz Hamiltonian (1), isolates the Galilean CM Hopfield model (2)–(4) and diagonalizes it (App. A), constructs the gauge-invariant current (App. B), evaluates the zero-temperature Lehmann correlators χ_ab, and obtains the DC conductivities (5)–(8) that include the phenomenological broadening δ. Identities (10)–(11) that follow directly from the definition of the mixing parameter Λ then yield det(σ) = (e^{2} u/h)^{2} (Δ_{+} + Λ^{2} Δ_{-})/(1+Λ^{2}), so that the inverted Hall resistivity collapses exactly to ρ_yx = h/(e^{2} u) (15) for any Λ and δ. The same cancellation holds in the non-commuting ω o0 limit. Self-citations to the authors’ earlier works [20,27,35] are used for the model setup and for the known fact that σ_xy is modified at finite δ; those works are themselves parameter-free (given δ) analytic calculations whose assumptions do not encode the quantization of ρ_yx. The paper re-derives the necessary matrix elements and correlators in the appendices, so the new claim does not reduce by construction to the citations. There is no fitting of free parameters to data, no self-definitional loop, no uniqueness theorem imported from prior author papers, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern. The only modeling choice is the uniform Lorentzian δ, which is standard and openly phenomenological; it does not force the algebraic cancellation that produces (15). Hence the derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular at the level required by the criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard Pauli–Fierz CM model with Galilean invariance, a single homogeneous cavity mode, Kubo linear response at T=0, and a phenomenological polariton linewidth δ. No free parameters are fitted to data; δ, ω, and ω_d are model inputs. No new particles or forces are invented—Landau polaritons are standard Hopfield quasiparticles. The ledger is therefore light: domain assumptions of cavity QED + QH transport, plus one ad-hoc dissipation model.

free parameters (2)
  • polariton broadening δ
    Inserted by hand into Kubo denominators as an effective polariton lifetime; not derived from a microscopic bath. Central claim is that ρ_yx is independent of δ, so the claim is robust to its value, but the conductivity side and the physical interpretation of finite lifetime depend on it.
  • cavity frequency ω and diamagnetic frequency ω_d (coupling)
    Model inputs that set polariton frequencies Ω_± and mixing Λ. Not fitted; scanned as free theory parameters. Claim holds for any values.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Pauli–Fierz Hamiltonian with single-mode homogeneous cavity field polarized along x and classical Landau-gauge B field.
    Section II, Eq. (1); standard minimal-coupling starting point for cavity QH models.
  • domain assumption Galilean invariance / homogeneous system so center-of-mass decouples from relative coordinates for any Coulomb interaction.
    Section II and Appendix A; used to reduce transport to H_cm only. Breaking it would couple relative motion to light.
  • domain assumption Zero-temperature Kubo linear response with phenomenological iδ broadening in frequency denominators.
    Section III and Appendix B, Eq. (B3); standard for DC conductivities but δ is not microscopically derived.
  • standard math Hopfield (two coupled oscillators) diagonalization yields upper/lower Landau polaritons Ω_± with mixing parameter Λ.
    Appendix A; orthogonal diagonalization of the CM quadratic form.
  • standard math Resistivity is the matrix inverse of the conductivity tensor (tensor inversion, not scalar reciprocity).
    Eq. (9); elementary linear algebra used to obtain ρ from σ.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 18004 in / 2792 out tokens · 24214 ms · 2026-07-12T01:57:52.578446+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent experiments have shown that strong light-matter coupling in electromagnetic cavities can modify transport properties of quantum Hall systems through the formation of Landau polaritons, prompting questions about the robustness of topological protection. While earlier theory demonstrated that the Hall conductivity can be modified at finite temperature and finite polariton lifetime (or finite broadening), experiments primarily probe the resistivity tensor. Our phenomenological model reveals an asymmetry between conductivity and resistivity in quantum Hall systems under strong light-matter interaction, showing that at zero temperature the Hall resistivity remains completely immune to cavity-induced modifications arising from polariton broadening, independent of the light-matter coupling strength. These results provide a deeper explanation for the absence of renormalization in the von Klitzing constant in experiments probing the even QH plateaus through the Hall resistivity at low temperature, and clarify the distinct roles of dissipation and strong light-matter coupling in hybrid light-matter systems.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cavity quantum materials,

    F. Schlawin, D. M. Kennes, and M. A. Sentef, “Cavity quantum materials,” Appl. Phys. Rev.9, 011312 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Perspective on the quantum vacuum in matter,

    Andrey Baydin, Hanyu Zhu, Motoaki Bamba, Kaden R. A. Hazzard, and Junichiro Kono, “Perspective on the quantum vacuum in matter,” Opt. Mater. Express 15, 1833–1846 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Manipulating matter by strong coupling to vacuum fields,

    Francisco J. Garcia-Vidal, Cristiano Ciuti, and Thomas W. Ebbesen, “Manipulating matter by strong coupling to vacuum fields,” Science373, eabd0336 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Understanding polaritonic chem- istry from ab initio quantum electrodynamics,

    Michael Ruggenthaler, Dominik Sidler, and An- gel Rubio, “Understanding polaritonic chem- istry from ab initio quantum electrodynamics,” Chemical Reviews0, null (0), pMID: 37729114, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00788

    doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00788

  5. [5]

    Cavity engineering of solid-state materials without external driving,

    I-Te Lu, Dongbin Shin, Mark Kamper Svendsen, Simone Latini, Hannes H¨ ubener, Michael Ruggenthaler, and An- gel Rubio, “Cavity engineering of solid-state materials without external driving,” Adv. Opt. Photon.17, 441– 525 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Ultrafast imaging of polariton propagation and interactions,

    Ding Xu, Arkajit Mandal, James M. Baxter, Shan-Wen Cheng, Inki Lee, Haowen Su, Song Liu, David R. Reich- man, and Milan Delor, “Ultrafast imaging of polariton propagation and interactions,” Nature Communications 14, 3881 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Cavity-mediated thermal control of metal-to-insulator transition in 1t-tas2,

    Giacomo Jarc, Shahla Yasmin Mathengattil, Angela Montanaro, Francesca Giusti, Enrico Maria Rigoni, Rudi Sergo, Francesca Fassioli, Stephan Winnerl, Simone Dal Zilio, Dragan Mihailovic, Peter Prelovˇ sek, Martin Eckstein, and Daniele Fausti, “Cavity-mediated thermal control of metal-to-insulator transition in 1t-tas2,” Na- ture622, 487–492 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Cavity-altered superconductivity,

    Itai Keren, Tatiana A. Webb, Shuai Zhang, Jikai Xu, Dihao Sun, Brian S. Y. Kim, Dongbin Shin, Song- tian S. Zhang, Junhe Zhang, Giancarlo Pereira, Jun- tao Yao, Takuya Okugawa, Marios H. Michael, Emil Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, James H. Edgar, Stuart Wolf, Matthew Julian, Rohit P. Prasankumar, Kazuya Miyagawa, Kazushi Kanoda, Genda Gu, Matthew Cothrine, David Man...

    2026

  9. [9]

    Exploring superconductivity under strong coupling with the vacuum electromagnetic field,

    A. Thomas, E. Devaux, K. Nagarajan, T. Chervy, M. Seidel, G. Rogez, J. Robert, M. Drillon, T. T. Ruan, S. Schlittenhardt, M. Ruben, D. Hagenm¨ uller, S. Sch¨ utz, J. Schachenmayer, C. Genet, G. Pupillo, and T. W. Ebbesen, “Exploring superconductivity under strong coupling with the vacuum electromagnetic field,” The Journal of Chemical Physics162, 134701 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Chiral flat-band optical cavity with atomically thin mirrors,

    Daniel G Su´ arez-Forero, Ruihao Ni, Supratik Sarkar, Mahmoud Jalali Mehrabad, Erik Mechtel, Valery Si- monyan, Andrey Grankin, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Suji Park, Houk Jang, Mohammad Hafezi, and You Zhou, “Chiral flat-band optical cavity with atomically thin mirrors,” Science Advances10(2024), 10.1126/sciadv.adr5904

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adr5904 2024

  11. [11]

    Terahertz chiral subwavelength cavities breaking time- reversal symmetry via ultrastrong light-matter interac- tion,

    Johan Andberger, Lorenzo Graziotto, Luca Sacchi, Mattias Beck, Giacomo Scalari, and J´ erˆ ome Faist, “Terahertz chiral subwavelength cavities breaking time- reversal symmetry via ultrastrong light-matter interac- tion,” Phys. Rev. B109, L161302 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Terahertz chiral photonic-crystal cavities for dirac gap engineering in graphene,

    Fuyang Tay, Stephen Sanders, Andrey Baydin, Zhigang Song, Davis M Welakuh, Alessandro Alabastri, Vasil Rokaj, Ceren B Dag, and Junichiro Kono, “Terahertz chiral photonic-crystal cavities for dirac gap engineering in graphene,” Nature Communications16, 1–11 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Realization of a chiral photonic-crystal cavity with broken time-reversal symmetry,

    Kiran M. Kulkarni, Hongjing Xu, Fuyang Tay, Gus- tavo M. Rodriguez-Barrios, Dasom Kim, Alessandro Al- abastri, Vasil Rokaj, Ceren B. Dag, Andrey Baydin, and Junichiro Kono, “Realization of a chiral photonic-crystal cavity with broken time-reversal symmetry,” (2025), arXiv:2509.14366 [physics.optics]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Ultrastrong coupling of the cyclotron transition of a 2D electron gas to a THz metamaterial,

    G. Scalari, C. Maissen, D. Turˇ cinkov´ a, D. Hagenm¨ uller, S. De Liberato, C. Ciuti, C. Reichl, D. Schuh, W. Wegscheider, M. Beck, and J. Faist, “Ultrastrong coupling of the cyclotron transition of a 2D electron gas to a THz metamaterial,” Science335, 1323–1326 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    Vacuum Bloch–Siegert shift in Landau polari- tons with ultra-high cooperativity,

    X. Li, M. Bamba, Q. Zhang, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gard- ner, W. Gao, M. Lou, K. Yoshioka, M. J. Manfra, and J. Kono, “Vacuum Bloch–Siegert shift in Landau polari- tons with ultra-high cooperativity,” Nature Photon.12, 324–329 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Magneto-transport controlled by Landau po- 6 lariton states,

    G. L. Paravicini-Bagliani, F. Appugliese, E. Richter, S. Fallahi, F. Valmorra, J. Keller, M. Beck, N. Bartolo, C. R¨ ossler, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, C. Ciuti, G. Scalari, and J. Faist, “Magneto-transport controlled by Landau po- 6 lariton states,” Nat. Phys.15, 186–190 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Breakdown of topological protection by cavity vacuum fields in the integer quantum Hall effect,

    F. Appugliese, J. Enkner, G. L. Paravicini-Bagliani, M. Beck, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, G. Scalari, C. Ciuti, and J. Faist, “Breakdown of topological protection by cavity vacuum fields in the integer quantum Hall effect,” Science375, 1030–1034 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Tunable vacuum-field control of fractional and integer quantum hall phases,

    Josefine Enkner, Lorenzo Graziotto, Dalin Bori¸ ci, Fe- lice Appugliese, Christian Reichl, Giacomo Scalari, Nico- las Regnault, Werner Wegscheider, Cristiano Ciuti, and J´ erˆ ome Faist, “Tunable vacuum-field control of fractional and integer quantum hall phases,” Nature641, 884–889 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Cavity-mediated electron hopping in disordered quantum hall systems,

    Cristiano Ciuti, “Cavity-mediated electron hopping in disordered quantum hall systems,” Phys. Rev. B104, 155307 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Weakened topological protection of the quantum hall effect in a cavity,

    Vasil Rokaj, Jie Wang, John Sous, Markus Penz, Michael Ruggenthaler, and Angel Rubio, “Weakened topological protection of the quantum hall effect in a cavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 196602 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Cyclotron resonance and de haas-van alphen oscillations of an interacting electron gas,

    Walter Kohn, “Cyclotron resonance and de haas-van alphen oscillations of an interacting electron gas,” Phys. Rev.123, 1242–1244 (1961)

    1961

  22. [22]

    Quantized hall conductance as a topological invariant,

    Qian Niu, D. J. Thouless, and Yong-Shi Wu, “Quantized hall conductance as a topological invariant,” Phys. Rev. B31, 3372–3377 (1985)

    1985

  23. [23]

    Quantized Hall conductivity in two di- mensions,

    R. B. Laughlin, “Quantized Hall conductivity in two di- mensions,” Phys. Rev. B23, 5632–5633 (1981)

    1981

  24. [24]

    Quantized Hall conductance in a two- dimensional periodic potential,

    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, 405–408 (1982)

    1982

  25. [25]

    The quantum hall effect: Novel excitations and broken symmetries,

    S. M. Girvin, “The quantum hall effect: Novel excitations and broken symmetries,” inAspects topologiques de la physique en basse dimension. Topological aspects of low dimensional systems, edited by A. Comtet, T. Jolicœur, S. Ouvry, and F. David (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999) pp. 53–175

    1999

  26. [26]

    Testing the renormalization of the von klitzing constant by cavity vacuum fields,

    Josefine Enkner, Lorenzo Graziotto, Felice Appugliese, Vasil Rokaj, Jie Wang, Michael Ruggenthaler, Christian Reichl, Werner Wegscheider, Angel Rubio, and J´ erˆ ome Faist, “Testing the renormalization of the von klitzing constant by cavity vacuum fields,” Phys. Rev. X14, 021038 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Polaritonic Hofstadter butterfly and cavity control of the quantized hall conduc- tance,

    V. Rokaj, Markus Penz, Michael A. Sentef, Michael Ruggenthaler, and Angel Rubio, “Polaritonic Hofstadter butterfly and cavity control of the quantized hall conduc- tance,” Phys. Rev. B105, 205424 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Spohn,Dynamics of Charged Particles and their Ra- diation Field(Cambridge university press, 2004)

    H. Spohn,Dynamics of Charged Particles and their Ra- diation Field(Cambridge university press, 2004)

    2004

  29. [29]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Photons and Atoms-Introduction to Quantum Electrody- namics(Wiley-VCH, 1997)

    1997

  30. [30]

    Light–matter interaction in the long-wavelength limit: no ground-state without dipole self-energy,

    V. Rokaj, D. M. Welakuh, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Ru- bio, “Light–matter interaction in the long-wavelength limit: no ground-state without dipole self-energy,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.51, 034005 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Theory of the contribution of excitons to the complex dielectric constant of crystals,

    J. J. Hopfield, “Theory of the contribution of excitons to the complex dielectric constant of crystals,” Phys. Rev. 112, 1555–1567 (1958)

    1958

  32. [32]

    Ultra- strong coupling between a cavity resonator and the cy- clotron transition of a two-dimensional electron gas in the case of an integer filling factor,

    D. Hagenm¨ uller, S. De Liberato, and C. Ciuti, “Ultra- strong coupling between a cavity resonator and the cy- clotron transition of a two-dimensional electron gas in the case of an integer filling factor,” Phys. Rev. B81, 235303 (2010)

    2010

  33. [33]

    Vacuum-dressed cavity mag- netotransport of a two-dimensional electron gas,

    N. Bartolo and C. Ciuti, “Vacuum-dressed cavity mag- netotransport of a two-dimensional electron gas,” Phys. Rev. B98, 205301 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Quantum Mechanics, Third Edition: Non-relativistic Theory(Pergamon Press, 1997)

    1997

  35. [35]

    Free electron gas in cavity quantum elec- trodynamics,

    V. Rokaj, Michael Ruggenthaler, Florian G. Eich, and Angel Rubio, “Free electron gas in cavity quantum elec- trodynamics,” Phys. Rev. Research4, 013012 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. I. general theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems,

    R. Kubo, “Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. I. general theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems,” J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 12 (1957)

    1957

  37. [37]

    R. E. Peierls,Principles of the Theory of Solids(Oxford University Press, 1955)

    1955

  38. [38]

    Lectures on the quantum Hall effect,

    D. Tong, “Lectures on the quantum Hall effect,” arXiv:1606.06687 [hep-th] (2016)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Cavity quantum hall hydrodynam- ics,

    Gabriel Cardoso, Liu Yang, Thors Hans Hansson, and Qing-Dong Jiang, “Cavity quantum hall hydrodynam- ics,” Phys. Rev. B113, 045108 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    D. J. Griffiths,Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Prentice Hall, 1995)

    1995

  41. [41]

    F. H. Faisal,Theory of Multiphoton Processes(Springer, Berlin, 1987)

    1987

  42. [42]

    Chapter 6 electron transport,

    P. B. Allen, “Chapter 6 electron transport,” inConcep- tual Foundations of Materials, Contemporary Concepts of Condensed Matter Science, Vol. 2, edited by Steven G. Louie and Marvin L. Cohen (Elsevier, New York, 2006) pp. 165–218

    2006

  43. [43]

    Simons,Condensed Mat- ter Field Theory(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    Alexander Altland and Ben D. Simons,Condensed Mat- ter Field Theory(Cambridge University Press, 2010). 7 Appendix A: Exact Solution of the CM Hamiltonian and Landau Polaritons In this section we show thatH cm can be solved an- alytically. To proceed we expand the covariant kinetic term Hcm = Π2 2m + e √ N m A·Π+ e2NA2 2m +ℏω a†a+ 1 2 | {z } Hp (A1) For th...

    2010