Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Neural Flux Attachment: From Bose Condensates to Chiral Topological Matter

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fixed Chern–Simons phase converts any fermionic neural ansatz into an exactly bosonic wave function, letting one architecture represent condensates and chiral edge states.

desk verdict Clean theoretical core with an honest limitation; the numerical edge-sector claim lacks the direct center-of-mass winding check the authors themselves identify. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06168 v1 pith:MATHY6AI submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph

Rudik Badalyan , Khachatur G. Nazaryan , Tigran A. Sedrakyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph
keywords neuralquantumstatesbosonicwavefunctionsChern-SimonsfluxattachmentKalmeyer-Laughlinstatechiraledgeself-attentiontransformervariationalMonteCarlouniversalapproximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

ChernFormer multiplies a trainable fermionic neural wave function by a fixed Chern–Simons phase that attaches one statistical vortex to every particle pair. Each factor changes sign under exchange, so the product is exactly bosonic, and because the phase has unit magnitude the probability density is unchanged. The paper proves that with an arbitrarily expressive fermionic backbone this construction can approach any normalizable bosonic wave function on the plane or disk at fixed particle number, and that the contact zero inherited from fermionic antisymmetry can shrink so a smooth condensate is recovered in integrated norm with condensate fraction approaching one. On the Kalmeyer–Laughlin edge tower, the same architecture learns the ground state and the first two chiral edge states with overlaps close to unity through $N=20$, recovering both local Laughlin vortices and the collective edge vortex. The result matters because one variational language can represent conventional bosonic order and chiral topological matter without building either in by hand.

What carries the argument

The engine is the fixed pairwise Chern–Simons phase $\chi_{CS}(\mathbf{R}) = \prod_{i<j} (z_i-z_j)/|z_i-z_j|$, one unit-magnitude statistical vortex per particle pair. It is exactly antisymmetric, so multiplying an antisymmetric fermionic backbone yields a symmetric bosonic state; it also defines a unitary, norm-preserving bijection between antisymmetric and symmetric square-integrable wave functions on collision-free configurations. That unitarity makes the identity $\|\Psi_B-\chi_{CS}\Psi_F\| = \|\chi_{CS}^*\Psi_B-\Psi_F\|$ the load-bearing relation: bosonic learning is exactly equivalent to fermionic learning on the inverse-transmuted target. The rest of the machinery is the fermionic backbone itself, a permutation-equivariant self-attention network feeding generalized determinant channels, plus the shrinking-contact-hole construction used to prove that a smooth finite network can still approach a nodeless condensate in norm, density matrix, and energy.

What would settle it

Train ChernFormer on the Kalmeyer–Laughlin $p=3$ center-of-mass edge state at $N=20$ and evaluate the unwrapped phase winding along the rigid translation loop: if the learned state's winding is not 3, or if the overlap drops sharply at larger $N$ while local correlations stay correct, the universal-representability and edge-sector claims fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that imposing exact bosonic exchange symmetry need not constrain which bosonic phase a neural ansatz can express. ChernFormer writes the wave function as $\Psi_{CF}(\mathbf{R}) = \chi_{CS}(\mathbf{R}) \Psi_F(\mathbf{R})$ with $\chi_{CS} = \prod_{i<j} (z_i-z_j)/|z_i-z_j|$, where $\Psi_F$ is an antisymmetric fermionic backbone built from permutation-equivariant attention and determinants. Since $\chi_{CS}$ and $\Psi_F$ each gain a minus sign under an odd exchange, their product is exactly symmetric; since $|\chi_{CS}|=1$, the map from fermionic to bosonic states is unitary away from collisions. The bosonic approximation error $\|\Psi_B-\chi_{CS}\Psi_F\|$ equals the fermionic error $\|\chi_{CS}^*\Psi_B-\Psi_F\|$, so the fixed statistics layer neither adds nor removes expressive power. Under standard universal-approximation assumptions for antisymmetric functions, every normalizable bosonic state on the plane or disk lies in the closure of the ChernFormer family at fixed particle number. At finite width the antisymmetric backbone forces a contact zero, but the paper shows a sequence of increasingly narrow contact holes converges in $L^2$, one-body density matrix, and, for smooth non-singular Hamiltonians, energy to a nodeless condensate, a separation they call contact–order separation. Numerically, ChernFormer reaches overlaps close to unity with the Kalmeyer–Laughlin ground state and its $p=1,2$ center-of-mass edge descendants through $N=20$.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that a finite attention-based determinant network can approximate arbitrary antisymmetric wave functions with enough accuracy in both values and derivatives; if that approximation power fails, the representability and energy-convergence claims collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any square-integrable bosonic wave function on the plane or disk at fixed particle number lies in the closure of the ChernFormer function class, so in the unlimited-capacity limit no bosonic phase is excluded by the architecture.
  • Because the Chern–Simons layer preserves inner products, the fidelity of a bosonic variational calculation is exactly the fidelity of the corresponding fermionic calculation on the inverse-transmuted target.
  • A soft-core condensate with finite contact amplitude can be approached arbitrarily well in integrated norm and one-body density matrix, with condensate fraction tending to one, despite an exact pairwise contact zero in every finite network.
  • The same ChernFormer contains every integer center-of-mass edge winding $p$ of the Kalmeyer–Laughlin tower, including the odd values that a squared-fermionic ansatz cannot represent.
  • An equivariant product of $N$ identical particle-wise factors carries only center-of-mass windings that are multiples of $N$, so for $N\ge 8$ it cannot enter the $p=1,2$ chiral edge sectors that ChernFormer reproduces.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the statistics layer is just a fixed multiplication, any antisymmetric neural ansatz can be converted into an exactly bosonic one by the same construction, so progress on fermionic wave functions transfers directly to bosonic problems.
  • The winding obstruction for identical-factor products suggests a practical diagnostic for any neural wave function claiming to represent chiral edge states: measure the unwrapped phase winding along a rigid center-of-mass loop, since a high overlap can hide a low-probability phase slip.
  • On a torus, sphere, or lattice with multiply occupied sites, the planar ratio $(z_i-z_j)/|z_i-z_j|$ is not directly usable; a boundary-compatible unit-magnitude transmutation phase would extend the same equivalence to periodic geometries and soft-core lattice bosons.
  • Contact–order separation implies the choice of neural ansatz should be guided by the target's short-distance physics: hard-core and Laughlin-like states match the built-in contact zero directly, while soft-core systems require the shrinking-hole limit rather than pointwise contact accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ChernFormer, an exactly bosonic neural wave function formed by multiplying an antisymmetric fermionic backbone (a generalized determinant with permutation-equivariant orbitals) by a fixed unit-modulus Chern-Simons phase χ_CS = ∏_{i<j}(z_i-z_j)/|z_i-z_j|. Since both factors change sign under exchange, the product is symmetric. The paper proves a unitary equivalence (Eq. 5) between the bosonic L2 approximation problem and a fermionic one, yielding exact representability of any normalizable bosonic state in the infinite-capacity limit, and develops a 'contact-order separation' result showing that the inherited contact zero does not preclude approaching a condensate in L2 and in one-body density matrix. It then analyzes the Kalmeyer-Laughlin center-of-mass edge tower, proving that ChernFormer can represent every integer winding p while an equivariant identical-factor product can only carry multiples of N. Numerical training on p=0,1,2 states reports overlaps close to unity up to N=20 and phase/amplitude maps showing local and collective vortices.

Significance. The core theoretical contribution is clean and valuable: an exact, norm-preserving statistics transmutation built into a neural architecture, with rigorous statements about representable phase sectors. The winding-obstruction theorem for equivariant products is a genuine architectural insight that should interest the neural-quantum-state community. The paper is also careful to state the limitations of its results, such as the Sobolev-approximation assumption for energy convergence and the non-universality of the overlap certificate. If the numerical claims are fully certified by the direct winding diagnostic, this would be a strong demonstration that a single variational family covers both conventional and chiral bosonic phases.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV.B / Sec. V.A] The numerical claim that ChernFormer learns the p=1 and p=2 edge sectors is not certified by the reported diagnostics. The paper's own decisive test, stated in Sec. IV.B, is the center-of-mass winding w_CM computed along the rigid translation loop of Eq. (15), with the requirement that the wave function does not vanish on the loop. The reported evidence consists of (i) the global overlap in Eq. (19), which the paper itself warns is not a complete certificate because 'a phase slip may occupy a region of very small probability,' and (ii) the fixed-particle phase slices of Sec. V.B, which are described as 'a slightly different but complementary diagnostic' and do not preserve relative coordinates. Neither measurement directly reports w_CM for the trained states. Please evaluate the trained networks along the loop in Eq. (15), report the unwrapped phase winding and the minimum |Ψ| along that loop, and compare with the theoretical value p for p=0, 1, 2, at least at N=20. Without this, the numerical access to the correct chiral edge sector remains unverified.
  2. [Sec. V / Appendix E] The training protocol is incompletely specified for reproducibility and for assessing the robustness of the overlap curves. The total loss in Eq. (E3) contains a relative weight α, but α is not listed in Table I, so the balance between the density term and the phase-gradient term is unknown. The overlap curves in Fig. 3 and the amplitude/phase maps in Fig. 4 are reported without error bars or multiple-seed statistics. Because the comparison between ChernFormer and the squared-Fermionic ansatz involves small differences (for example, the p=2 curve at larger N), please report the value of α used, the number of independent seeds, and the spread of the overlaps or at least the seed-to-seed variation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III.A] The expression 'Ψ PF(PijR)' seems to be a typo for Ψ_F(PijR) or Ψ_CF(PijR); the current notation is undefined.
  2. [Sec. IV.B] The phrase 'the rigid translation loop in Eq. 17' should refer to Eq. (15), not Eq. (17).
  3. [Eq. (19)] The numerator appears as '|⟨Ψ_p|Ψ_net⟩|p', which contains a stray 'p'; the intended definition is presumably |⟨Ψ_p|Ψ_net⟩|^2/(⟨Ψ_p|Ψ_p⟩⟨Ψ_net|Ψ_net⟩) or |⟨Ψ_p|Ψ_net⟩|/(...), so please clarify the exponent.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states 'Here q = 2 and k = p' but q and k are not defined in the main text; please define these parameters or remove the phrase.
  5. [Sec. II.C] The name 'PsiFormer' is used starting in Sec. II.C without a formal definition; please define it at first occurrence and explain its relation to the general Fermionic Backbone of Eq. (1).
  6. [Appendix E] The hyperparameter entries 'Delay 1.0×10^5' and 'Decay 1' are cryptic; please state what they mean in the KFAC optimizer or remove them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: representability follows from an exact isometry plus a stated universal-approximation input; the incomplete winding certificate is a validation gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central representability claim (Sec. II.C) is not circular: Eq. (5) is an exact norm identity following from |χ_CS| = 1, and the statement that an arbitrarily expressive complex Fermionic Backbone can approach every normalizable bosonic state is obtained by applying the assumed universal-approximation property of the backbone to the inverse-transmuted target χ*_CS Ψ_B. This is a stated input, not the conclusion. The edge-tower analysis is likewise analytic: Ψ_p = Z^p Ψ_KL, Eq. (14) removes the statistics phase by algebra, and the winding obstruction for equivariant products is proven in Appendix D without relying on training. The self-citation to Ref. [1] supplies the training benchmark and is methodological, not load-bearing; Appendix E reports the loss and hyperparameters. The paper itself flags in Sec. IV.B and Sec. V.B that the overlap and the fixed-particle phase slices are not a complete certificate of the pure center-of-mass winding, which is a validation limitation rather than a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation; the derivation is otherwise self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results rest on the expressivity of the fermionic backbone and on planar geometry assumptions; no invented entities are introduced. The network weights are optimized parameters, not free parameters in the derivation sense. The loss weight alpha is not reported, which affects reproducibility but not the mathematical claims.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Universal approximation of square-integrable antisymmetric functions by complex generalized-determinant neural networks with permutation-equivariant backbones
    Invoked in Sec. II.C and Appendix B; the constructive determinant on compact sets covers uniform approximation, but L2 extension and derivative-level approximation for finite networks are assumed.
  • standard math Smooth finite networks are locally Lipschitz with bounded local slope
    Used to derive the contact zero bound in Eq. (7) for smooth activated networks.
  • domain assumption The completeness statement is restricted to plane or disk geometry
    The planar pair phase in Eq. (2) is used; on torus or sphere it must be replaced, as stated in Sec. II.C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neural Flux Attachment: From Bose Condensates to Chiral Topological Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MATHY6AI

@misc{pith2026260806168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neural Flux Attachment: From Bose Condensates to Chiral Topological Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MATHY6AI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06168}
}
abstract

Can one neural wave function describe both a Bose condensate and a chiral topological liquid? We introduce ChernFormer, which combines a fermionic transformer with a fixed Chern-Simons phase that attaches one statistical vortex to every particle pair. Each factor changes sign under exchange, so their product is exactly bosonic. The fixed phase changes statistics but not probability, making every bosonic learning problem equivalent to a fermionic one with the same approximation error and overlap. With enough capacity, ChernFormer can approximate any normalizable bosonic wave function on the plane at fixed particle number. A finite, smooth network still vanishes when particles meet, yet this contact hole can shrink while the wave function and condensate fraction approach those of a nodeless condensate. Following the needle-in-a-haystack target-reconstruction benchmark introduced in \cite{NazaryanGaggioliTengFu2025}, we test ChernFormer on the Kalmeyer--Laughlin ground state and its first two chiral edge states. The overlap curves stay close to unity through their largest sampled sizes, while independent amplitude and phase maps at $N=20$ for all three states recover both local Laughlin vortices and the collective edge vortex. By contrast, a continuous, nonzero product of identical particle-wise factors misses these elementary edge sectors. ChernFormer therefore provides one variational language for conventional bosonic order and chiral topological matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06168 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Neural flux attachment in ChernFormer. A trainable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the construction for one pair. In two dimensions, the area within distance ϵ of a particle scales as ϵ 2 . At fixed N, the probability that any pair enters this shrinking region therefore vanishes. The normalization approaches one, the many-body wave function converges in integrated norm, and the one-body density matrix converges with it. The central condensate result is ∥Φδ,ϵ − Φ0∥2 −→ 0, n0 N −→ 1. (10) The … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Normalized overlap between the target Kalmeyer– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Amplitude and phase maps for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nazaryan, F

    K. Nazaryan, F. Gaggioli, Y. Teng, and L. Fu, Artificial intel- ligence for quantum matter: Finding a needle in a haystack, arXiv:2507.13322 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Sorella, Wave function optimization in the variational Monte Carlo method, Phys

    S. Sorella, Wave function optimization in the variational Monte Carlo method, Phys. Rev. B71, 241103(R) (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks, Science355, 602 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045002 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    D. Pfau, J. S. Spencer, A. G. D. G. Matthews, and W. M. C. Foulkes, Ab initio solution of the many-electron Schr¨ odinger equation with deep neural networks, Phys. Rev. Research2, 033429 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Hermann, Z

    J. Hermann, Z. Sch¨ atzle, and F. No´ e, Deep-neural-network solution of the electronic Schr¨ odinger equation, Nat. Chem. 12, 891 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    von Glehn, J

    I. von Glehn, J. S. Spencer, and D. Pfau, A self-attention ansatz for ab-initio quantum chemistry, inInternational Conference on Learning Representations(2023), arXiv:2211.13672

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Accurate Self-Attention Wavefunctions at Large Scale

    F. Gaggioli, S. Azadi, L. Fu, Accurate Self-Attention Wave- functions at Large Scale, arXiv:2607.08616 (2026)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Gaggioli, P.-A

    F. Gaggioli, P.-A. Graham, L. Fu, Electronic crystals and quasicrystals in semiconductor quantum wells: an AI-powered discovery, arXiv:2512.10909 (2026)

    2026

  2. [10]

    L. L. Viteritti, R. Rende, and F. Becca, Transformer variational wave functions for frustrated quantum spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 236401 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Denis and G

    Z. Denis and G. Carleo, Accurate neural quantum states for interacting lattice bosons, Quantum9, 1772 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Geier, K

    M. Geier, K. Nazaryan, T. Zaklama, and L. Fu, Self-attention neural network for solving correlated electron problems in solids, Phys. Rev. B112, 045119 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Nazaryan and L

    K. Nazaryan and L. Fu, QERNEL: A scalable large electron model, arXiv:2604.26018 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zaklama, M

    T. Zaklama, M. Geier, L. Fu, Large Electron Model: A Uni- versal Ground State Predictor, arXiv:2603.02346 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Abouelkomsan, F

    A. Abouelkomsan, F. Gaggioli, D. Guerci, L. Fu, Rhombohe- dral Graphene: A Tale of Many Crystals, arXiv:2608.00167 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Y.-S. Li, S. Poldmaa, T. Ong, A. Abouelkomsan, T.-R. Chang, H. Lin, L. Fu, Scaling universal Fermi network toward ground states: A diffusion-Monte-Carlo assessment, arXiv:2607.25872 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Avdoshkin, M

    A. Avdoshkin, M. Geier, and L. Fu, Integrated neural wave- function solver for spinful Fermi systems, Phys. Rev. B113, 195108 (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    Ledinauskas and E

    E. Ledinauskas and E. Anisimovas, Universal performance gap of neural quantum states applied to the Hofstadter–Bose– Hubbard model, SciPost Phys.18, 011 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Penrose and L

    O. Penrose and L. Onsager, Bose–Einstein condensation and liquid helium, Phys. Rev.104, 576 (1956)

    1956

  12. [20]

    Reatto and G

    L. Reatto and G. V. Chester, Phonons and the properties of a Bose system, Phys. Rev.155, 88 (1967)

    1967

  13. [21]

    Reatto, Bose–Einstein condensation in a system of strongly interacting bosons, Phys

    L. Reatto, Bose–Einstein condensation in a system of strongly interacting bosons, Phys. Rev.183, 334 (1969)

    1969

  14. [22]

    G. V. Chester, Speculations on Bose–Einstein condensation and quantum crystals, Phys. Rev. A2, 256 (1970)

    1970

  15. [23]

    B¨ ottcher, J.-N

    F. B¨ ottcher, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, J. Hertkorn, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Transient supersolid properties in an array of dipolar quantum droplets, Phys. Rev. X9, 011051 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Tanzi, E

    L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, F. Fam` a, J. Catani, A. Fioretti, C. Gab- banini, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and G. Modugno, Observation of a dipolar quantum gas with metastable supersolid properties, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130405 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    R. B. Laughlin, Anomalous quantum Hall effect: An incom- pressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

  18. [26]

    Kalmeyer and R

    V. Kalmeyer and R. B. Laughlin, Equivalence of the resonating- valence-bond and fractional quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2095 (1987)

    1987

  19. [27]

    X.-G. Wen, F. Wilczek, and A. Zee, Chiral spin states and superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B39, 11413 (1989)

    1989

  20. [28]

    Wen, Chiral Luttinger liquid and the edge excitations in the fractional quantum Hall states, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Chiral Luttinger liquid and the edge excitations in the fractional quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. B41, 12838 (1990)

    1990

  21. [29]

    Y.-C. He, D. N. Sheng, and Y. Chen, Chiral spin liquid in a frustrated anisotropic kagome Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 137202 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Herwerth, G

    B. Herwerth, G. Sierra, H.-H. Tu, J. I. Cirac, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Edge states for the Kalmeyer–Laughlin wave function, Phys. Rev. B92, 245111 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Yang, J.-Y

    X.-H. Yang, J.-Y. Chen, and X.-Y. Dong, Chiral edge exci- tations of ν = 1/2 fractional Chern insulators in the bosonic Hofstadter model, Phys. Rev. Lett.137, 026504 (2026)

    2026

  24. [32]

    Glasser, N

    I. Glasser, N. Pancotti, M. August, I. D. Rodriguez, and J. I. Cirac, Neural-network quantum states, string-bond states, and chiral topological states, Phys. Rev. X8, 011006 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Y. Teng, D. D. Dai, and L. Fu, Solving the fractional quantum Hall problem with self-attention neural network, Phys. Rev. B 111, 205117 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Abouelkomsan, M

    A. Abouelkomsan, M. Geier, and L. Fu, Topological order in neural wavefunctions, Phys. Rev. B113, 205119 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    J. M. Leinaas and J. Myrheim, On the theory of identical particles, Nuovo Cimento B37, 1 (1977)

    1977

  28. [36]

    Wilczek, Magnetic flux, angular momentum, and statistics, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Magnetic flux, angular momentum, and statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1144 (1982)

    1982

  29. [37]

    S. C. Zhang, T. H. Hansson, and S. Kivelson, Effective-field- theory model for the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 82 (1989)

    1989

  30. [38]

    J. K. Jain, Composite-fermion approach for the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 199 (1989)

    1989

  31. [39]

    T. A. Sedrakyan, A. Kamenev, and L. I. Glazman, Composite fermion state of spin-orbit-coupled bosons, Phys. Rev. A86, 13 063639 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    T. A. Sedrakyan, V. M. Galitski, and A. Kamenev, Statistical transmutation in Floquet driven optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 195301 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    T. A. Sedrakyan, L. I. Glazman, and A. Kamenev, Spontaneous formation of a nonuniform chiral spin liquid in a moat-band lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 037203 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    T. A. Sedrakyan, L. I. Glazman, and A. Kamenev, Absence of Bose condensation on lattices with moat bands, Phys. Rev. B 89, 201112(R) (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    R. Wang, B. Wang, and T. A. Sedrakyan, Chern–Simons fermionization approach to two-dimensional quantum magnets: Implications for antiferromagnetic magnons and unconven- tional quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B98, 064402 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Maiti and T

    S. Maiti and T. A. Sedrakyan, Fermionization of bosons in a flat band, Phys. Rev. B99, 174418 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    T. A. Sedrakyan, R. Moessner, and A. Kamenev, Helical spin liquid in a triangular XXZ magnet from Chern–Simons theory, Phys. Rev. B102, 024430 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    R. Wang, Z. Y. Xie, B. Wang, and T. A. Sedrakyan, Emer- gent topological orders and phase transitions in lattice Chern– Simons theory of quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. B106, L121117 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Wei and T

    C. Wei and T. A. Sedrakyan, Chiral spin liquid state of strongly interacting bosons with a moat dispersion: A Monte Carlo simulation, Ann. Phys.456, 169354 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Valent ´ ı-Rojas, N

    G. Valent ´ ı-Rojas, N. Westerberg, and P.¨Ohberg, Synthetic flux attachment, Phys. Rev. Research2, 033453 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Valent ´ ı-Rojas, A

    G. Valent ´ ı-Rojas, A. J. Baker, A. Celi, and P.¨Ohberg, Topo- logical gauge fields and the composite particle duality, Phys. Rev. Research5, 023128 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Kamal, J

    H. Kamal, J. Kemp, Y.-C. He, Y. Fuji, M. Aidelsburger, P. Zoller, and N. Y. Yao, Floquet flux attachment in cold atomic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 163403 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.