Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

In a square-lattice electron gas at 9/16 filling and ν=1/3, the ground state can be an anyon crystal: a spontaneously formed lattice of vortices and antivortices, each carrying charge ∓1/3.

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

2026-08-01 12:39 UTC pith:76AMYBMP

load-bearing objection Plausible mean-field prediction of an anyon crystal, but the 4×4 supercell is never tested, so the AC should be read as suggestive rather than established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19466 v1 pith:76AMYBMP submitted 2026-07-21 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Anyon Crystals and Hall Crystals in a Periodic Potential

Sayak Bhattacharjee , Julian May-Mann , Srinivas Raghu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall MSC 81V7082D20 PACS 71.27.+a73.43.-f
keywords anyon crystalHall crystalcomposite bosonsupersolidquantum Hall effectflux attachmentvortex latticeGutzwiller mean-field
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 tries to establish that integer and fractional quantum Hall crystals — states with quantized Hall conductivity and broken translational symmetry — can be understood as superfluid and supersolid phases of composite bosons, and that under strong interactions a new type of fractional Hall crystal, the anyon crystal, appears without doping. The key move is to attach an odd number of flux quanta to each boson, converting electrons into composite bosons; in these coordinates the Hall crystal is a supersolid, and the anyon crystal is a spontaneously nucleated lattice of vortex-antivortex pairs. Concretely, the paper finds the anyon crystal at lattice filling 9/16 and Landau-level filling 1/3 when Landau-level mixing is sufficiently weak (νV/ω_c ≈ 0.0033). A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a single effective model that connects quantum Hall states, Hall crystals, and anyonic order, and it predicts a concrete parameter regime where a lattice of well-defined anyons should be observable.

Core claim

In the composite-boson description, electrons in a periodic potential at odd-denominator Landau-level filling become hard-core bosons in a statistical gauge field. The paper's central claim is that at lattice filling ρ̄=9/16 and ν=1/3, with sufficiently weak Landau-level mixing, the mean-field ground state is an anyon crystal: a 4×4 supercell with two vortices and two antivortices of vorticity ±2π, corresponding to quasihole and quasiparticle anyons of charge ∓1/3, arranged so that the total charge is zero. These anyons are not introduced by doping; they appear because the current-density statistical interaction spontaneously nucleates vortex-antivortex pairs in the underlying supersolid. Th

What carries the argument

The machinery is the composite-boson lattice Hamiltonian (Eq. 3), obtained by integrating out a statistical gauge field under the flux-attachment constraint b′ = (φ0/ν) δρ. It contains a Bose-Hubbard term, nearest-neighbor Coulomb repulsion, and three statistical interactions: a logarithmic two-body repulsion, a three-body term, and a current-density interaction. The current-density term is time-reversal breaking and is the source of the vortex lattice; the three-body term favors anisotropic charge densities that break inversion symmetry, a necessary condition for the vortices to appear. The mean-field analysis uses a Gutzwiller product-state wavefunction on a 4×4 supercell with Ewald-summed

Load-bearing premise

The whole case rests on the 4×4 Gutzwiller supercell being big enough: the anyon crystal is found only within that truncated variational class, so a larger unit cell or a more entangled wavefunction could replace it by a different ground state.

What would settle it

Solve the same effective boson model at ρ̄=9/16, ν=1/3, and νV/ω_c≈0.0033 with exact diagonalization or DMRG on lattices of 6×6 or 8×8 sites: if the ground state does not show two vortex-antivortex pairs per 16 sites with the predicted anyon structure factor S_a(-π/2,0), the anyon crystal claim is refuted.

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

If this is right

  • If the anyon crystal is real, then fractional Hall crystals need not be built by doping quasiparticles into an incompressible state; interactions alone can nucleate anyons at odd-denominator fillings.
  • The same composite-boson supersolid picture yields integer and fractional Hall crystals from one Hamiltonian, so transitions between Hall states, Hall crystals, and Wigner-Mott insulators are phase transitions of a single bosonic model.
  • The continuous transition between the Wigner-Mott insulator and Hall crystal HC_b, if it survives quantum fluctuations, provides a concrete realization of the Wilson-Fisher Chern-Simons universality class.
  • The phase diagram maps out where each state lives in the t/V versus νV/ω_c plane, giving experimental searches a specific target: weak Landau-level mixing and lattice fillings near 1/2.
  • On triangular lattices, the supersolid at half-filling evolves into a Hall crystal at finite ω_c, suggesting moiré systems with triangular symmetry and screened interactions as candidate platforms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The anyon crystal's distinctive signature is a non-zero anyon structure factor S_a(-π/2,0); a diffraction experiment or density-correlation measurement at that wavevector could distinguish it from a conventional charge crystal.
  • Because the mechanism turns on the current-density statistical interaction, any lattice model with Chern-Simons flux attachment might exhibit an analogous vortex-lattice state; fractional Chern insulators in moiré bands are a natural place to look.
  • The appearance of the AC only near half lattice filling suggests a commensurability condition between the particle density and the magnetic length that could guide material choices; the paper does not explore this geometric matching explicitly.
  • If the 4×4 supercell were enlarged, the vortex-antivortex lattice might distort or change period, but the qualitative existence of a crystalline anyon phase would be expected to survive as long as the current-density interaction dominates.

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 lattice analogs of Hall crystals starting from the composite-boson description of electrons in a strong magnetic field and a periodic potential. It derives an effective lattice boson Hamiltonian H_eff = H_BH + H_int + H_st-int, where the statistical interaction contains a logarithmic two-body term, a three-body term, and a current-density term, all obtained from the flux-attachment constraint. Using a Gutzwiller product-state mean-field ansatz in a 4×4 supercell, for average lattice filling ρ̄=9/16 and Landau-level filling ν=1/3, the authors obtain phases: a fractional Hall state, two Hall crystals (HCa, HCb), a Wigner–Mott insulator, and, at weak Landau-level mixing (νV/ω_c ≈ 0.0033), an anyon crystal with two vortex–antivortex pairs per supercell, vorticity ±2π and charge ∓1/3. The paper presents order parameters, superfluid stiffness, orbital currents, and a ν-dependence map, and argues that integer and fractional Hall crystals and anyon crystals are unified in the composite-boson supersolid picture.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a useful unified framework for Hall crystals and a concrete route to an anyon crystal in lattice systems, with a falsifiable phase diagram and an explicit effective model. The supplementary derivation of H_st-int from the flux-attachment constraint is careful, and the Ewald-summation treatment of the long-range statistical interactions is explicit and reproducible. These are real strengths. However, the new anyon-crystal phase is established only within a fixed 4×4 Gutzwiller variational cell, with no finite-size checks and no independent diagnostic of anyonic statistics. The significance is therefore conditional: the manuscript is a promising variational mean-field study, but the thermodynamic-limit ground-state claim and the interpretation as a genuine anyon crystal need additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Mean-field calculation'; SM B.1–C.1] The claim that a 4×4 supercell is 'sufficient to capture the relevant physics' is asserted, not demonstrated. All long-range interactions are evaluated with 4Z^2 periodicity (Eqs. B7, C17, C18), so states with period larger than 4 or incommensurate vortex lattices are excluded by construction. The AC is a commensurate 4×4 pattern with two vortex–antivortex pairs—precisely the kind of state a too-small cell can artificially stabilize. The cross-checks in Fig. 5 and SM G keep the same 4×4 truncation and therefore do not test this. I request explicit finite-size convergence checks (e.g., 6×6 and 8×8 supercells, or an unbiased method on small systems), or, if such checks are currently infeasible, the ground-state claim should be clearly qualified as a variational result within the 4×4 manifold.
  2. [Eq. (2) and SM App. E] The anyon content of the AC is inherited from the flux-attachment construction rather than independently demonstrated. Eq. (2) imposes b' = ϕ_0 ν^{-1} δρ, and App. E computes ω(r) = ∇×∇θ = ∇×a' = ϕ_0 ν^{-1} δρ from that same constraint (Eq. E6). Locating vortices at density extrema therefore verifies internal consistency with the composite-boson definition, but it does not demonstrate that the crystal hosts well-defined fractional anyons with charge ∓1/3 in the original electron problem. SM App. E is even titled 'a partial explanation.' Since the phrase 'anyon crystal' is central to the paper, an independent diagnostic—such as quantized Hall response, charge measurement, or braiding phase of the vortex excitations—should be supplied, or the claim should be explicitly stated as an interpretation within the composite-boson mean-field ansatz.
  3. [Mean-field calculation and Figs. 3(e)–(g)] The variational energy landscape is nonconvex (the current-density interaction favors phase patterns), yet the global-minimum search uses only ~20 seeds in a 16-site cell with continuous complex coefficients. The paper does not report the number of distinct local minima found, the energy differences among them, or the stability of the AC against seed variation. This is load-bearing for the central ground-state claim: the ornate AC phase could be a local minimum selected by the particular seeding. Please provide optimization statistics and a short robustness analysis, or reduce the strength of the claim to 'a low-energy variational state.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [SM App. B, first sentence] Typo: 'obtaine' should read 'obtained.' Also, the sentence 'For the interactions, we obtain...' is not a complete grammatical parallel with the following sentence.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption and main text] The panel references are inconsistent. The main text cites Fig. 3(f) for the νV/ω_c = 0.005 cut, while the caption assigns that data to Fig. 3(e); the caption also has a stray '(f )and(g)'. Please renumber the panels and harmonize all references.
  3. [Page 4, 'Results'] 'We find that the phases are separated by continuous phase transitions' is too global: Fig. 2 contains first-order boundaries. Restrict this statement to the specific line cut at fixed νV/ω_c = 0.005, or otherwise qualify it.
  4. [Main text, 'Mean-field calculation'] The statement 'Broadly, our results do not change when U is finite' is unsupported by any finite-U data. Either add a finite-U check (e.g., M=2 Gutzwiller) or soften the sentence.
  5. [SM App. D] The current-density contribution to the superfluid stiffness is discarded as 'an artifact of the lattice definition of the currents.' A sentence explaining why this omission is legitimate at the mean-field level would help, since the paper uses ρ_s to distinguish superfluid/supersolid phases.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Anyon content is inherited from the flux-attachment Gauss law (Eq. 2); the nontrivial phase diagram is an independent variational result.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Eq. (2) and Appendix E ('Flux attachment in the anyon crystal')]
    "ω(r)=∇×∇θ(r)=∇×a′ = ϕ0ν−1δρ(r) (E6) where in the last equality we used the flux attachment constraint."

    The paper's central claim that the AC contains vortices of vorticity ±2π and charge ∓1/3 is not an independent diagnostic: Eq. (2) defines b′ = ∇×a′ = ϕ0ν^{-1}δρ, so any charge-ordered state automatically carries local vorticity proportional to δρ. Appendix E reuses this same Gauss law to 'verify' that vortices sit at density extrema. Thus the anyonic characterization is true by construction and adds no new evidence beyond the density pattern. The genuine variational result is the charge order minimizing Eq. (3); the identification of that order as a crystal of well-defined anyons is bookkeeping from the composite-boson mapping.

full rationale

The phase diagram, Hall crystals, and the AC density/phase pattern are obtained by minimizing Eq. (3) with a Gutzwiller product state; that variational calculation is self-contained and does not fit parameters to the predicted phases. The independence of this part is not compromised by self-citation. However, the advertised 'anyon crystal' content is inherited by definition: Eq. (2) sets the statistical magnetic field equal to ϕ0ν^{-1}δρ, and Appendix E identifies vortex locations by applying that same relation. Therefore the 'well-defined anyons with charge ∓1/3' statement reduces to the flux-attachment constraint rather than being a separate prediction. I do not count the 4×4 supercell truncation as circularity, although the paper asserts without a convergence check that it is 'sufficient to capture the relevant physics'; that is a completeness/correctness risk, not a circular step. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found. Overall, the central phase diagram has independent content, but the anyon identification is constructional, giving a moderate circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper has no parameters fitted to a target result; the phase diagram is a function of physical ratios t/V and νV/ωc. The main hidden cost is methodological: the composite-boson mean-field construction and the fixed 4×4 Gutzwiller ansatz carry the AC claim.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Flux attachment/Gauss' law b'(r)=φ0ν^{-1}[ρbar−ρ(r)] (Eq. 2) implements fermionic statistics.
    Central mapping from electrons to composite bosons; taken from Chern-Simons composite-boson theory rather than re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The statistical gauge field can be smeared and integrated out to give the local lattice Hamiltonian Eq. (3).
    Standard mean-field treatment of the Chern-Simons gauge field; uncontrolled beyond mean field.
  • domain assumption Gutzwiller product-state ansatz (Eq. 4) with hard-core constraint M=1 is a sufficient variational class.
    Excludes entanglement and multi-boson occupancy; finite-U robustness is only asserted, not demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper A 4×4 supercell is sufficient to capture all competing ground states.
    Paper states 'we consider a somewhat large 4×4 super-unit cell, which is sufficient to capture the relevant physics' without convergence checks; global minimum among ~20 seeds is not guaranteed.
  • domain assumption Screened Coulomb interaction limited to nearest neighbors on a square lattice.
    Model choice; the triangular-lattice discussion is qualitative only.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32044 in / 14259 out tokens · 136262 ms · 2026-08-01T12:39:06.723597+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We obtain integer and fractional quantum Hall crystals as ground states of a two-dimensional electron system subject to a strong perpendicular magnetic field and a periodic potential. For certain fractional states, we show that the Hall crystal can constitute an anyon crystal, with a periodic ordering of well-defined anyons. We find that the latter states can be stabilized at odd denominator Landau level filling fractions when Landau level mixing is sufficiently weak, and near half-filling of the underlying lattice. These phases are obtained from a mean-field analysis of an effective lattice model of bosons attached to an odd number of flux quanta, which transmutes their statistics to that of electrons. In boson coordinates, the Hall crystal is a supersolid: a superfluid with charge order. Under strong interactions, vortex-anti-vortex pairs spontaneously nucleate in the supersolid, realizing a crystalline state of anyons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19466 by Julian May-Mann, Sayak Bhattacharjee, Srinivas Raghu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Phase diagram of the Hamiltonian in Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

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

63 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Skyrmions and the crossover from the in- teger to fractional quantum hall effect at small zeeman energies,

    Shivaji Lal Sondhi, A Karlhede, SA Kivelson, and EH Rezayi, “Skyrmions and the crossover from the in- teger to fractional quantum hall effect at small zeeman energies,” Physical Review B47, 16419 (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    “hall crystal

    Zlatko Teˇ sanovi´ c, Fran¸ coise Axel, and BI Halperin, ““hall crystal”versus wigner crystal,” Physical Review B 39, 8525 (1989)

    1989

  3. [3]

    Fractional quantum anomalous hall effect in multilayer graphene,

    Zhengguang Lu, Tonghang Han, Yuxuan Yao, Aidan P Reddy, Jixiang Yang, Junseok Seo, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Liang Fu, and Long Ju, “Fractional quantum anomalous hall effect in multilayer graphene,” Nature626, 759–764 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Dis- placement field-controlled fractional chern insulators and charge density waves in a graphene/hbn moir´ e superlat- tice,

    Samuel H Aronson, Tonghang Han, Zhengguang Lu, Yuxuan Yao, Jackson P Butler, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Long Ju, and Raymond C Ashoori, “Dis- placement field-controlled fractional chern insulators and charge density waves in a graphene/hbn moir´ e superlat- tice,” Physical Review X15, 031026 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Otherwise, an electric field induces collective sliding mo- tion of the crystal

    A disorder potential is required to pin the crystal, lead- ing to the measurement of a quantized Hall conductivity. Otherwise, an electric field induces collective sliding mo- tion of the crystal

  6. [6]

    Cooperative ring exchange theory of the fractional quantized hall effect,

    Steven Kivelson, C Kallin, Daniel P Arovas, and J Robert Schrieffer, “Cooperative ring exchange theory of the fractional quantized hall effect,” Physical review letters56, 873 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    Cooperative ring exchange and the fractional quantum hall effect,

    Steven Kivelson, C Kallin, Daniel P Arovas, and J Robert Schrieffer, “Cooperative ring exchange and the fractional quantum hall effect,” Physical Review B36, 1620 (1987)

    1987

  8. [8]

    Compatibility of crystalline order and the quantized hall effect,

    BI Halperin, Z Teˇ sanovi´ c, and F Axel, “Compatibility of crystalline order and the quantized hall effect,” Physical Review Letters57, 922 (1986)

    1986

  9. [9]

    Hall crystal states atν= 2 and mod- erate landau level mixing,

    Ganpathy Murthy, “Hall crystal states atν= 2 and mod- erate landau level mixing,” Physical Review Letters85, 1954 (2000)

    1954

  10. [10]

    Designing hall crystals with variable chern numbers,

    Nisarga Paul, Gal Shavit, and Liang Fu, “Designing hall crystals with variable chern numbers,” Nature Commu- nications16, 8103 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Spatially ordered fractional quantum hall states,

    Leon Balents, “Spatially ordered fractional quantum hall states,” Europhysics Letters33, 291 (1996)

    1996

  12. [12]

    Hamil- tonian theory of the composite-fermion wigner crystal,

    R Narevich, Ganpathy Murthy, and HA Fertig, “Hamil- tonian theory of the composite-fermion wigner crystal,” Physical Review B64, 245326 (2001)

    2001

  13. [13]

    Composite boson theory of hall crystals and their transitions to wigner crystals,

    Julian May-Mann, Sayak Bhattacharjee, and Srini- vas Raghu, “Composite boson theory of hall crystals and their transitions to wigner crystals,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14680 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Energy levels and wave func- tions of bloch electrons in rational and irrational mag- netic fields,

    Douglas R Hofstadter, “Energy levels and wave func- tions of bloch electrons in rational and irrational mag- netic fields,” Physical review B14, 2239 (1976)

    1976

  15. [15]

    Effective- field-theory model for the fractional quantum hall effect,

    S C Zhang, Th H Hansson, and S Kivelson, “Effective- field-theory model for the fractional quantum hall effect,” Physical review letters62, 82 (1989)

    1989

  16. [16]

    The chern–simons–landau–ginzburg theory of the fractional quantum hall effect,

    Shou Cheng Zhang, “The chern–simons–landau–ginzburg theory of the fractional quantum hall effect,” Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics B6, 25–58 (1992)

    1992

  17. [17]

    Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition,

    Matthew PA Fisher, Peter B Weichman, Geoffrey Grin- stein, and Daniel S Fisher, “Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition,” Physical Review B40, 546 (1989)

    1989

  18. [18]

    Can a solid be

    Anthony J Leggett, “Can a solid be” superfluid”?” Phys- ical Review Letters25, 1543 (1970)

    1970

  19. [19]

    Supersolid state of matter,

    Nikolay Prokof’ev and Boris Svistunov, “Supersolid state of matter,” Physical review letters94, 155302 (2005)

    2005

  20. [20]

    Quantum theory of defects in crystals,

    AF Andreev and IM Lifshits, “Quantum theory of defects in crystals,” Zhur Eksper Teoret Fiziki56, 2057–2068 (1969)

    2057

  21. [21]

    Off- diagonal long-range order in solids,

    Hirotsugu Matsuda and Toshihiko Tsuneto, “Off- diagonal long-range order in solids,” Progress of Theo- retical Physics Supplement46, 411–436 (1970)

    1970

  22. [22]

    Generalized wigner lattices in one dimen- sion and some applications to tetracyanoquinodimethane (tcnq) salts,

    J Hubbard, “Generalized wigner lattices in one dimen- sion and some applications to tetracyanoquinodimethane (tcnq) salts,” Physical Review B17, 494 (1978)

    1978

  23. [23]

    Anyon super- conductivity and the fractional quantum hall effect,

    Dung-Hai Lee and Matthew PA Fisher, “Anyon super- conductivity and the fractional quantum hall effect,” Physical review letters63, 903 (1989)

    1989

  24. [24]

    Microscopic mechanism of anyon superconductivity emerging from fractional chern insulators,

    Fabian Pichler, Clemens Kuhlenkamp, Michael Knap, and Ashvin Vishwanath, “Microscopic mechanism of anyon superconductivity emerging from fractional chern insulators,” Newton2(2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Robust superconductivity upon doping chiral spin liquid and chern insulators in a hubbard-hofstadter model,

    Clemens Kuhlenkamp, Stefan Divic, Michael P Zaletel, Tomohiro Soejima, and Ashvin Vishwanath, “Robust superconductivity upon doping chiral spin liquid and chern insulators in a hubbard-hofstadter model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02675 (2025). 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Gutzwiller wave function for a model of strongly interacting bosons,

    Werner Krauth, Michel Caffarel, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, “Gutzwiller wave function for a model of strongly interacting bosons,” Physical Review B45, 3137 (1992)

    1992

  27. [27]

    Gutzwiller study of extended hub- bard models with fixed boson densities,

    Takashi Kimura, “Gutzwiller study of extended hub- bard models with fixed boson densities,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics84, 063630 (2011)

    2011

  28. [28]

    Route to supersolidity for the extended bose- hubbard model,

    M Iskin, “Route to supersolidity for the extended bose- hubbard model,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics83, 051606 (2011)

    2011

  29. [29]

    Ground-state phase diagram of the two- dimensional extended bose-hubbard model,

    Takahiro Ohgoe, Takafumi Suzuki, and Naoki Kawashima, “Ground-state phase diagram of the two- dimensional extended bose-hubbard model,” Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics86, 054520 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    Some static and dy- namical properties of a two-dimensional wigner crystal,

    Lynn Bonsall and AA Maradudin, “Some static and dy- namical properties of a two-dimensional wigner crystal,” Physical Review B15, 1959 (1977)

    1959

  31. [31]

    Hidden order in the cuprates,

    Sudip Chakravarty, RB Laughlin, Dirk K Morr, and Chetan Nayak, “Hidden order in the cuprates,” Physical Review B63, 094503 (2001)

    2001

  32. [32]

    Density-wave states of nonzero angular momentum,

    Chetan Nayak, “Density-wave states of nonzero angular momentum,” Physical Review B62, 4880 (2000)

    2000

  33. [33]

    Anomalous quantum hall effect: An incompressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations,

    Robert B Laughlin, “Anomalous quantum hall effect: An incompressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations,” Physical Review Letters50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

  34. [34]

    Composite-fermion approach for the fractional quantum hall effect,

    Jainendra K Jain, “Composite-fermion approach for the fractional quantum hall effect,” Physical review letters 63, 199 (1989)

    1989

  35. [35]

    Statistics of quasiparticles and the hierarchy of fractional quantized hall states,

    Bertrand I Halperin, “Statistics of quasiparticles and the hierarchy of fractional quantized hall states,” Physical Review Letters52, 1583 (1984)

    1984

  36. [36]

    Upon integrating outb, we obtain the Lagrangian in the main text

    On a torus, the properly quantized Lagrangian can be written asL=|D a′ µ φ|2 − W(|φ|2)−(ν −1/4π)bdb+ (1/2π)(A−a ′)db, wherebis a compactU(1) gauge field. Upon integrating outb, we obtain the Lagrangian in the main text

  37. [37]

    Supersolid order from disorder: Hard-core bosons on the triangular lattice,

    RG Melko, A Paramekanti, AA Burkov, A Vishwanath, DN Sheng, and Leon Balents, “Supersolid order from disorder: Hard-core bosons on the triangular lattice,” Physical review letters95, 127207 (2005)

    2005

  38. [38]

    Persistent super- solid phase of hard-core bosons on the triangular lattice,

    Dariush Heidarian and Kedar Damle, “Persistent super- solid phase of hard-core bosons on the triangular lattice,” Physical review letters95, 127206 (2005)

    2005

  39. [39]

    Supersolid hard- core bosons on the triangular lattice,

    Stefan Wessel and Matthias Troyer, “Supersolid hard- core bosons on the triangular lattice,” Physical review letters95, 127205 (2005)

    2005

  40. [40]

    Hubbard model physics in transi- tion metal dichalcogenide moir´ e bands,

    Fengcheng Wu, Timothy Lovorn, Emanuel Tutuc, and Allan H MacDonald, “Hubbard model physics in transi- tion metal dichalcogenide moir´ e bands,” Physical review letters121, 026402 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Simu- lation of hubbard model physics in wse2/ws2 moir´ e su- perlattices,

    Yanhao Tang, Lizhong Li, Tingxin Li, Yang Xu, Song Liu, Katayun Barmak, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Allan H MacDonald, Jie Shan,et al., “Simu- lation of hubbard model physics in wse2/ws2 moir´ e su- perlattices,” Nature579, 353–358 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Mott and generalized wigner crystal states in wse2/ws2 moir´ e superlattices,

    Emma C Regan, Danqing Wang, Chenhao Jin, M Iqbal Bakti Utama, Beini Gao, Xin Wei, Sihan Zhao, Wenyu Zhao, Zuocheng Zhang, Kentaro Yumigeta,et al., “Mott and generalized wigner crystal states in wse2/ws2 moir´ e superlattices,” Nature579, 359–363 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Quantum criticality in twisted transition metal dichalcogenides,

    Augusto Ghiotto, En-Min Shih, Giancarlo SSG Pereira, Daniel A Rhodes, Bumho Kim, Jiawei Zang, Andrew J Millis, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, James C Hone,et al., “Quantum criticality in twisted transition metal dichalcogenides,” Nature597, 345–349 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Anomalous hall crystals in rhombo- hedral multilayer graphene. i. interaction-driven chern bands and fractional quantum hall states at zero mag- netic field,

    Junkai Dong, Taige Wang, Tianle Wang, Tomohiro Soejima, Michael P Zaletel, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Daniel E Parker, “Anomalous hall crystals in rhombo- hedral multilayer graphene. i. interaction-driven chern bands and fractional quantum hall states at zero mag- netic field,” Physical Review Letters133, 206503 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Anomalous hall crystals in rhombo- hedral multilayer graphene. ii. general mechanism and a minimal model,

    Tomohiro Soejima, Junkai Dong, Taige Wang, Tianle Wang, Michael P Zaletel, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Daniel E Parker, “Anomalous hall crystals in rhombo- hedral multilayer graphene. ii. general mechanism and a minimal model,” Physical Review B110, 205124 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Parent berry curva- ture and the ideal anomalous hall crystal,

    Tixuan Tan and Trithep Devakul, “Parent berry curva- ture and the ideal anomalous hall crystal,” Physical Re- view X14, 041040 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Quantum anomalous hall crystal at fractional filling of moir´ e superlattices,

    DN Sheng, Aidan P Reddy, Ahmed Abouelkomsan, Emil J Bergholtz, and Liang Fu, “Quantum anomalous hall crystal at fractional filling of moir´ e superlattices,” Physical Review Letters133, 066601 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Stability of anomalous hall crystals in multilayer rhombohedral graphene,

    Zhihuan Dong, Adarsh S Patri, and T Senthil, “Stability of anomalous hall crystals in multilayer rhombohedral graphene,” Physical Review B110, 205130 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Energetics of fractional anomalous hall crystals in rhombohedral graphene,

    F´ elix Desrochers and Ashvin Vishwanath, “Energetics of fractional anomalous hall crystals in rhombohedral graphene,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.08822 (2026). 7 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL CONTENTS References 5 Supplementary Material 7 A. Derivation of the boson Hamiltonian 7 B. Mean-field calculation 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Two-body interaction 9

  51. [51]

    Three-body interaction 10

  52. [52]

    Lattice sums 12

    Current-density interaction 11 C. Lattice sums 12

  53. [53]

    Logarithmic interaction 12

  54. [54]

    Superfluid stiffness 14 E

    Three-body interaction 13 D. Superfluid stiffness 14 E. Flux attachment in the anyon crystal 14 F. Orbital currents 15 G. Additional numerical results 16 The supplementary material is organized as follows. In Sec. A, we derive the boson Hamiltonian in the continuum. In Sec. B and C, we provide details of the mean-field analysis of the boson Hamiltonian us...

  55. [55]

    Two-body interaction Any two-body interaction can be written as, E2b cell = 1 2 X α,β δρα Vαβ δρβ.(B6) whereV αβ is given by, Vαβ = ′X R∈4Z2 V(|r αβ +R|) (B7) where the prime over the sum indicates that we avoid the term corresponding toα=βandR= 0 in the sum.α, β= A, B, C, . . . , P. For our calculation, the two-body interactions in the logarithmic intera...

  56. [56]

    Three-body interaction The energy of the unit cell for the three-body interaction can be written as, E3b cell =− ωc ν 1 2π¯ρ X α δραA2 α (B13) whereα=A, B, . . . , P. We therefore need to compute the density-dependent potentialAα for eachαin the 4×4 unit cell. We shall compute the potential defined by, ˜Aα = X β " δρβ ′X R∈4Z2 rαβ +R |rαβ +R| 2 # = X β δρ...

  57. [57]

    For (m, n) = (0,0), map (p, q)7→(−p,−q)

  58. [58]

    For (m, n) = (2,0), map (p, q)7→(−p−1,−q)

  59. [59]

    For (m, n) = (0,2), map (p, q)7→(−p,−q−1)

  60. [60]

    For (m, n) = (2,2), map (p, q)7→(−p−1,−q−1). □ Proposition 2.For the remainingr µν in the set of distance classes, the kernel depends on the following four lattice sums, α= X p,q∈Z 1 + 4p (1 + 4p)2 + (4q)2 ;β= X p,q∈Z 1 + 4p (1 + 4p)2 + (1 + 4q)2 ;γ= X p,q∈Z 1 + 4p (1 + 4p)2 + (2 + 4q)2 (B16) Specifically, K((1,0)) = (α,0) ;K((0,1)) = (0, α) ;K((3,0)) = (...

  61. [61]

    Current-density interaction The energy of the unit cell for the current-density interaction can be written as, Ecur-den cell =− ωc 2π¯ρ X µ Jµ ·A µ (B24) whereµ∈A, B, . . . , P. In the previous subsection, we computed˜Aµ. SinceA µ = ˆz× ˜Aµ, we can write, Aµ = X ν δρνG(rµν) (B25) whereG(r µν) = ˆz×K(rµν).From the previous section we obtain, AA =(0, α)(δρB...

  62. [62]

    X R∈4Z2 (e−u|r+R|2 −e −uR2 ) + (1−e −u) # (C8) ∆sr(r) = 1 2 Z ∞ Λ du u

    Logarithmic interaction For the two-body logarithmic interaction, we wish to compute ∆ i (i= 1,2, . . . ,6). These are defined as, ∆i =S i −S 1 (C1) Let us denote ∆ i = ∆(r) =S(r)−S 1. Using the definitions in Sec. B 1, we find that, ∆(r) =−g 1 ′X R∈4Z2 ln|r+R|+g 1 ′X R∈4Z2 lnR(C2) =−g 1 lnr−g 1 X R∈4Z2\{0} [ln|r+R| −lnR] (C3) with the understanding that ...

  63. [63]

    ZpS7ojLCDaf8Ux6yBDcvQwgnNGU=

    Three-body interaction In the three-body interaction, we are interested to compute, α= X p,q∈Z 1 + 4p (1 + 4p)2 + (4q)2 ;β= X p,q∈Z 1 + 4p (1 + 4p)2 + (1 + 4q)2 ;γ= X p,q∈Z 1 + 4p (1 + 4p)2 + (2 + 4q)2 (C19) To compute this, we will introduce the function, Γ(r) =−∇ r∆(r) = ′X R∈4Z2 r+R |r+R| 2 (C20) Then, α= Γ x((1,0)) ;β= Γ x((1,1)) ;γ= Γ x((1,2)) (C21) ...