Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Complete kinematic null for local kinetic dissipation in a sixfold-driven electron fluid

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A sixfold $D_{12}$ drive removes all local charge/momentum hydrodynamic dissipation at the device center, leaving only $m=3$ kinetic heating whose magnetic sweep fits $\gamma_3$ and $\gamma_2$.

desk verdict The D12 complete kinematic null is a genuine, clean symmetry result; the m=3 quantitative signal is an imported, as-yet-unverified layer from the author's prior paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10031 v1 pith:ZRPZ4YQA submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.mes-hall

P. Shubham Parashar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords electronhydrodynamicscompletekinematicnullsixfolddriveD12symmetryangularharmonickineticmodelm=3relaxationratelocaldissipationmagnetotransport
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

The paper proves a symmetry-based zero in driven electron fluids: when the boundary drive is patterned with sixfold ($D_{12}$) symmetry in the $U_3^\pm$ channel, the local current and its first gradient both vanish at the central point. As a result, every local dissipative form that ordinary hydrodynamics can write there — Ohmic, bulk, shear, vorticity, and cross-terms — is zero, regardless of the transport coefficients. What remains is a higher angular harmonic, $m=3$, whose center heating is controlled by a known fourth-order kinetic coefficient. The paper verifies with an explicit Stokes-disk solution and a finite-moment kinetic boundary-value calculation that this residual is nonzero and approaches the local benchmark, and that a fixed-current magnetic sweep can fit the effective relaxation rates. The upshot is a measurement point at which hydrodynamic dissipation is absent by symmetry while kinetic dissipation remains readable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the irreducible-representation content of $D_{12}$, the twelve-element dihedral symmetry group of a sixfold device, acting on the local hydrodynamic data. The vector current transforms as $R_1$ and its first gradient as $R_1\otimes R_1 = U_0^+\oplus U_0^-\oplus R_2$; the device also possesses the one-dimensional channels $U_3^\pm$, which are absent from that content. By the standard orthogonality of inequivalent irreducible representations, an equivariant drive in $U_3^\pm$ cannot produce any vector or first-gradient response at the fixed point. The residual signal is carried by the $m=3$ angular harmonic of the distribution function, obtained by slaving $f_{\pm 3}$ to the current through the streaming path $1\to 2\to 3\to 2\to 1$, with the imported fourth-order closure coefficient $\kappa_4 = v_F^4/(16\gamma_2^2\gamma_3)$. The magnetic response then uses the field-dependent denominators $\bar\lambda^\pm_m = \gamma_m \pm im\omega_c$, yielding a prefactor-free ratio with characteristic scales $\gamma_3/3$ and $\gamma_2/2$.

What would settle it

Measure center heating versus device radius and magnetic field in a sixfold alternating-contact electron device: the null predicts $Q(0)\propto w^{-6}$ with the two-factor magnetic curve whose knees sit at $\gamma_3/3$ and $\gamma_2/2$, so observing a $w^{-4}$ hydrodynamic contribution, a single-rate field dependence, or a center signal controlled by $\gamma_2$ would show the complete null is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a sixfold ($D_{12}$) drive pattern creates a complete kinematic null at the symmetry-fixed center: both the current vector $\mathbf{j}(0)$ and the full first-gradient tensor $\partial_i j_j(0)$ vanish at that point, because the drive channel $U_3^\pm$ appears nowhere in the vector-plus-rank-two content of an $O(2)$-isotropic local fluid. Every local quadratic dissipative density built from these fields therefore vanishes independently of constitutive coefficients. The null survives at finite magnetic field, where the reduced $C_6$ rotation subgroup still keeps the selected character out of the hydrodynamic content. In the declared isotropic angular-harmonic kinetic model the first surviving sector is $m=3$, with center heating set by $\kappa_4$, and an explicit Stokes disk shows the amplitude is constructively nonzero. A finite-moment kinetic solution approaches the local benchmark, and in the momentum-conserving Stokes regime the normalized magnetic response is prefactor-free, providing a model-dependent fit for $\gamma_3$ and $\gamma_2$.

Load-bearing premise

The symmetry-based zero itself needs only the sixfold drive and the modeled local charge/momentum sector, but the predicted $m=3$ signal and the $\gamma_3/\gamma_2$ fit stand on the imported fourth-order closure coefficient $\kappa_4 = v_F^4/(16\gamma_2^2\gamma_3)$ and its field-dependent harmonic denominators, so if that closure derivation fails for this model the quantitative predictions collapse even though the null remains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A thermometric scan of a sixfold alternating-contact device should show a center heating contribution that is purely kinetic; no local hydrodynamic form can appear there, so the measured center signal is $m=3$ kinetic dissipation.
  • At fixed current the center signal scales as $w^{-6}$ and as $1/(\gamma_2^2\gamma_3)$, so it inherits sharp temperature power laws ($T^{-6}$ for ordinary Fermi-liquid rates, $T^{-8}$ for an anomalously long-lived $m=3$ harmonic) that can be tested against background.
  • Within the local, fixed-current, momentum-conserving Stokes regime the normalized magnetic response is coefficient-free, $Q(B)/Q(0) = \gamma_2^2\gamma_3^2/[ (\gamma_2^2+4\omega_c^2)(\gamma_3^2+9\omega_c^2) ]$, so a sweep can extract effective $\gamma_3$ and $\gamma_2$ from the two knees.
  • The null persists at finite field because the $C_6$ rotation subgroup still excludes the selected character from the hydrodynamic content; the only effect of the magnetic field is the loss of reflection parity.
  • Higher spatial harmonics of a six-contact drive (e.g. $n=9$) enter the center observable only at very high order, so the alternating six-contact pattern is effectively irrep-pure for the central heating signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the leftover-irrep criterion is general — any dihedral device with $M\ge 6$ has a channel outside the vector-plus-rank-two hydrodynamic content, so analogous complete kinematic nulls should exist for other fold numbers and observation points, not just the sixfold $U_3^\pm$ channel.
  • Inference: because the null kills local hydrodynamic forms but not heat transported from elsewhere, a high-resolution radial line scan through the center (kinetic flat, first-gradient $\sim r^2$, Ohmic $\sim r^4$) could serve as a diagnostic of symmetry quality and contact miscentering.
  • Inference: if the predicted two-knee field curve is observed, the odd relaxation rate $\gamma_3$ can be read in situ without subtracting momentum relaxation field dependence, giving a direct probe of tomographic odd-mode lifetimes in materials where those rates are long-lived.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper identifies a D12 symmetry channel (U3±) for a sixfold-driven two-dimensional electron fluid in which, at the symmetry-fixed center, both the current and its complete first gradient vanish: j(0)=0 and ∂_i j_j(0)=0. The authors argue that this 'complete kinematic null' forces every local quadratic dissipative form built from the charge/momentum field and its first gradient to vanish, independent of constitutive coefficients. Within an O(2)-isotropic angular-harmonic kinetic model, the first surviving local kinetic sector is m=3, with center heating controlled by a fourth-order closure coefficient κ4 imported from the author's prior work (Ref. [27]). An explicit incompressible Stokes disk solution realizes a nonzero m=3 signal and yields a model-specific benchmark Q(0) = (400/π^2) κ4 |I_J|^2 / w^6. A finite-moment kinetic boundary-value solution is reported to approach this benchmark, and a fixed-current magnetic sweep gives a normalized field ratio that can be fitted for effective rates γ3 and γ2.

Significance. If correct, the result provides a conceptually new measurement condition: a symmetry-enforced null that removes ordinary local charge/momentum hydrodynamic dissipation at a point, leaving a finite kinetic m=3 mode as the leading local heating signal. The representation-theoretic argument in Sec. II is clean, and the explicit Stokes disk in Sec. IV verifies the null componentwise without recourse to representation theory. The paper is admirably transparent about its assumptions and limitations, explicitly flagging the boundary-model dependence of the absolute coefficient and the locality constraints. However, the quantitative layer of the paper—the center-heating magnitude and the magnetic rate diagnostic—rests on a fourth-order closure coefficient and finite-field denominators imported verbatim from the author's own prior arXiv work, Ref. [27], without re-derivation. The finite-moment check in Sec. VI reuses the same radial-ladder and boundary machinery, so it cannot independently validate that imported input.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eqs. (12)–(14)] The central quantitative prediction Q(0) = (400/π^2) κ4 |I_J|^2/w^6 and the survival of m=3 heating depend on the fourth-order closure coefficient κ4 = v_F^4/(16 γ2^2 γ3) and on the slaving relations Eq. (12), which are imported verbatim from Ref. [27] and not derived here. Because the abstract's measurement claim (a quantitative kinetic mode and a γ3/γ2 rate diagnostic) rests on this coefficient, the import is load-bearing. Please include a self-contained derivation of Eqs. (12)–(13) in the paper or the Supplemental Material, or explicitly frame Eqs. (14), (23), and (25) as conditional on the correctness of Ref. [27]. Transparency about the import is not a substitute for verification.
  2. [Sec. VI and Sec. S7] The finite-moment kinetic disk is presented as the check that the surviving amplitude is not an artifact, but it reuses the same radial-ladder reduction (Eq. (27) and Sec. S6) and the same W†− reservoir boundary model (Sec. S7) from Ref. [27]. It therefore cannot independently validate the imported closure coefficient or the field-dependent denominators. Please either supply an independent verification of Eq. (13)—for example, a direct solution of the kinetic hierarchy that does not assume the Ref. [27] radial ansatz—or soften the claim that the Sec. VI calculation confirms the local benchmark. The convergence tables show internal consistency, but not independence from the imported input.
  3. [Sec. V, Eq. (25)] The prefactor-free magnetic response Eq. (25) is built on the field-dependent factorization λ±2 λ±3 and on the assumption that the fixed-current incompressible Stokes profile is field-independent so that the derivative amplitude cancels in the ratio. The factorization is imported from Ref. [27] (Sec. S10), and the cancellation is asserted rather than demonstrated in the main text. Please provide a fuller derivation of the cancellation (or an explicit statement of the defining normalization of I_J at finite field) so that the fit for γ3 and γ2 is not contingent on an unstated convention. Without this, Eq. (25) cannot be used as a rate diagnostic in the way the abstract promises.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (8)] The index structure of the coefficient tensors Λ(2) and Λ(3) is ambiguous as printed; please specify the summation convention or rewrite the equation with explicit indices so that the contraction pattern is unambiguous.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (23)] The notation I_J is introduced in the sentence immediately before Eq. (23), but it would be clearer to define it in a displayed equation or with an explicit sentence before the normalization is used, since the final formula depends on this convention.
  3. [Sec. V] The phrase 'the helicity denominators' may be unclear to a reader not familiar with Ref. [27]; consider writing out γ_m ± i m ω_c explicitly when introducing Eq. (24).
  4. [Sec. VIII and Fig. 1] In Fig. 1(a), the plus/minus signs inside the contacts are hard to read at the printed size; please enlarge the labels or add a legend.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The D12 kinematic null is self-contained, but the quantitative heating, magnetic-response, and rate-fit results are imported from the author's own prior Ref. [27], and the finite-moment check reuses the same imported machinery rather than independently verifying it.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III B, Eqs. (11)-(14)]
    "The magnitude of that surviving amplitude is fixed by results derived previously [27], which we state and use here rather than re-derive. ... Equations (11)-(13), the locality parameter below, and the finite-field structure of Sec. V are imported from Ref. 27. The distinct step here is the complete-null condition under which this prior kinetic coefficient becomes the leading local contribution."

    The paper's quantitative center-heating prediction, Eq. (14), is obtained by inserting into Eq. (14) the imported closure coefficients f±3 = (v_F^2/4 γ2 γ3) ∂∓^2 f±1 and κ4 = v_F^4/(16 γ2^2 γ3), Eqs. (12)-(13), which are stated to be 'derived previously [27]' and 'imported from Ref. 27.' No derivation of these coefficients is given here, no machine-checked or externally reproduced version is cited, and the subsequent finite-moment calculation in Sec. VI uses the same Ref. [27] ladder reduction and boundary model to confirm the approach to the local benchmark. Thus the numerical magnitude of the surviving m=3 signal reduces to a self-citation that is itself unverified in this paper; the symmetry-based null itself is not affected.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. V, Eqs. (24)-(25)]
    "The finite-field kinetic structure used below – the helicity denominators and the associated harmonic field scales – is likewise taken from Ref.27. What the present construction adds is only the condition under which the response is read: the rate-sensitive field dependence is evaluated at a point where, by Eq.(7), the local charge/momentum hydrodynamic response is absent by symmetry rather than separated numerically or suppressed by a small coefficient."

    Equation (25), the normalized magnetic response used for fitting γ3 and γ2, is built directly on Eq. (24), whose dc harmonic denominators λ̄±m = γm ± imωc and f±3(B) = (v_F^2/4 λ̄±2 λ̄±3) ∂∓^2 f±1 are explicitly 'taken from Ref.27.' The predicted field curve is therefore a restatement of the author's prior work evaluated at a symmetry-nulled point, not an independent first-principles prediction of this paper. The paper's added step is only the selection of the observation point; the rate-dependent content of the prediction, including the factors γ2^2 + 4ωc^2 and γ3^2 + 9ωc^2, comes from the same self-cited closure. If that imported closure is incorrect, the fitted rates and the m=3 magnetic signal would fail even though the null survives.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. VI and Supplemental Material Secs. S6-S7]
    "The circular reduction and radial ladder machinery used here follow Ref.27. ... The construction, mode counting and boundary matching are given in Supplemental Material, Secs. S6 and S7."

    The finite-moment kinetic disk is presented as a check that the surviving amplitude 'persists under a microscopic boundary condition' and approaches the local benchmark. However, the radial ladder reduction, the Bessel mode count, and the W− incoming-reservoir boundary model are all imported from Ref. [27], the same prior work that supplied κ4 and the field denominators. Consequently this calculation cannot serve as an independent validation of the imported fourth-order closure; it reuses the same hierarchy and boundary construction. This is not a formal logical circle, but it makes the verification loop self-referential with respect to the author's own prior derivation.

full rationale

The core representation-theoretic null is self-contained and not circular: the D12 branching argument in Sec. II, the explicit Stokes disk in Sec. IV with its componentwise verification j(0)=0 and ∂i jj(0)=0, and the contact-comb decomposition in SM S9 are all derived within the paper and do not rely on Ref. [27]. That portion would stand even if every imported coefficient were wrong. The circularity lies in the quantitative layer: Eq. (14) for the center heating, Eq. (23) for the Stokes-disk benchmark, and Eq. (25) for the magnetic sweep all depend on the fourth-order closure coefficient κ4, the slaving hierarchy, and the field-dependent denominators that the paper itself states are imported from the author's own prior Ref. [27] rather than re-derived. The paper is transparent about this import, and it does flag model-dependence and boundary-model dependence, but transparency does not convert a self-citation into independent evidence. The finite-moment calculation offered as verification reuses the same Ref. [27] radial ladder and boundary model, so it cannot independently certify the imported input. No self-definitional or renaming circularity was found; the central symmetry result has genuine independent content. The appropriate score is 5: partial circularity, with the load-bearing quantitative predictions resting on unverified self-citation while the novel null itself remains non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. Its quantitative content rests on the imported kinetic closure and the declared boundary model, both listed as axioms above. The symmetry null itself relies only on standard representation theory and the stated geometric setup.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption O(2)-isotropic circular Fermi surface with angular harmonic expansion of the distribution function
    Sec. II A states the distribution is expanded in angular harmonics with O(2) isotropy; this restricts applicability to isotropic Fermi surfaces.
  • domain assumption Collision operator diagonal in angular momentum with scalar rates γ_m
    Sec. II A; the entire kinetic hierarchy and the imported closure depend on this scalar-rate model.
  • domain assumption Linear response and steady state
    Sec. II A and Sec. VII note nonlinear products can regenerate scalar channels, so the null holds only in linear response.
  • ad hoc to paper Fourth-order closure coefficient κ4 and harmonic denominators imported from Ref. [27]
    Sec. III B 'Imported fourth-order closure input' and Sec. V explicitly import these results from the author's previous work; they are not re-derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Ideal isotropic reservoir boundary model on incoming characteristic subspace
    Sec. S7 declares one specific boundary model; the paper notes other boundary laws change the finite-K contact-layer correction.
  • domain assumption Locality condition Ξ3 << 1, Eq. (15), assumed for local formulas
    Sec. III C; all production data lie in this regime, no nonlocal claims are made.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complete kinematic null for local kinetic dissipation in a sixfold-driven electron fluid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRPZ4YQA

@misc{pith2026260810031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complete kinematic null for local kinetic dissipation in a sixfold-driven electron fluid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRPZ4YQA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10031}
}
abstract

We identify a complete kinematic null in a two-dimensional electron fluid driven by a sixfold boundary pattern. In the $U_3^\pm$ channel of $D_{12}$, device symmetry excludes both the vector representation $R_1$ and the full first-gradient tensor $R_1\otimes R_1$. Hence at the symmetry-fixed center $\mathbf{j}(0)=0$ and $\partial_i j_j(0)=0$, so every local quadratic dissipative form built from the modeled charge/momentum field through first gradient order vanishes independently of the constitutive coefficients. In an $O(2)$-isotropic angular-harmonic kinetic model the first allowed local sector is $m=3$. For $\nu q^2/\gamma_3\ll1$, its heating is set by the previously derived coefficient $\kappa_4=v_F^4/(16\gamma_2^2\gamma_3)$. An explicit incompressible Stokes disk realizes a nonzero center signal, and a finite-moment kinetic boundary-value solution approaches the corresponding local benchmark. Within the local, fixed-current momentum-conserving Stokes regime, the normalized magnetic response can then be fitted for effective $\gamma_3$ and $\gamma_2$. Thus the sixfold drive creates a measurement point where ordinary local charge/momentum hydrodynamic dissipation is absent while a kinetic mode remains finite.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Fourth-order closure obstruction and chiral nonlocality in circular kinetic magnetotransport

    P. S. Parashar, Fourth-order closure obstruction and chiral nonlocality in circular kinetic magnetotransport (2026), arXiv:2607.22730 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. 9 Supplemental Material for “Complete kinematic null for local kinetic dissipation in a sixfold-driven electron fluid” P. Shubham Parashar Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, La ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Torre, A

    I. Torre, A. Tomadin, A. K. Geim, and M. Polini, Physical Review B92, 165433 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    L. S. Levitov and G. Falkovich, Nature Physics12, 672 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    D. A. Bandurin, I. Torre, R. Krishna Kumar, M. Ben Shalom, A. Tomadin, A. Principi, G. H. Au- ton, E. Khestanova, K. S. Novoselov, I. V. Grigorieva, L. A. Ponomarenko, A. K. Geim, and M. Polini, Science 351, 1055 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Krishna Kumar, D

    R. Krishna Kumar, D. A. Bandurin, F. M. D. Pellegrino, Y. Cao, G. H. Auton, M. Ben Shalom, L. A. Ponomarenko, G. Falkovich, A. K. Geim, and M. Polini, Nature Physics 13, 1182 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    P. J. W. Moll, P. Kushwaha, N. Nandi, B. Schmidt, and A. P. Mackenzie, Science351, 1061 (2016)

    2016

  7. [6]

    J. A. Sulpizio, L. Ella, A. Rozen, J. Birkbeck, D. J. Perello, D. Dutta, M. Ben-Shalom, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, T. Holder, R. Queiroz, A. Principi, A. Stern, T. Scaffidi, A. K. Geim, and S. Ilani, Nature576, 75 (2019)

    2019

  8. [7]

    M. J. H. Ku, T. X. Zhou, Q. Li, Y. J. Shin, J. K. Shi, C. Burch, L. E. Anderson, A. T. Pierce, Y. Xie, A. Hamo, U. Vool, Y. Myasoedov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. I. Halperin, A. Yacoby, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature583, 537 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    U. Vool, A. Hamo, G. Varnavides, Y. Wang, T. X. Zhou, N. Kumar, Y. Dovzhenko, Z. Qiu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Felser, P. Narang, and A. Yacoby, Nature Physics17, 1216 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Aharon-Steinberg, T

    A. Aharon-Steinberg, T. Völkl, A. Kaplan, A. K. Pariari, I. Roy, T. Holder, Y. Wolf, A. Y. Meltzer, Y. Myasoe- dov, M. E. Huber, B. Yan, G. Falkovich, L. S. Levitov, M. Hücker, and E. Zeldov, Nature607, 74 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Scaffidi, N

    T. Scaffidi, N. Nandi, B. Schmidt, A. P. Mackenzie, and J. E. Moore, Physical Review Letters118, 226601 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    A. I. Berdyugin, S. G. Xu, F. M. D. Pellegrino, R. Kr- ishna Kumar, A. Principi, I. Torre, M. Ben Shalom, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, I. V. Grigorieva, M. Polini, A. K. Geim, and D. A. Bandurin, Science364, 162 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    R. N. Gurzhi, Soviet Physics Uspekhi11, 255 (1968)

    1968

  6. [13]

    Lucas and K

    A. Lucas and K. C. Fong, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter30, 053001 (2018), arXiv:1710.08425 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Halbertal, J

    D. Halbertal, J. Cuppens, M. Ben Shalom, L. Embon, N. Shadmi, Y. Anahory, H. R. Naren, J. Sarkar, A. Uri, Y. Ronen, Y. Myasoedov, L. S. Levitov, E. Joselevich, A. K. Geim, and E. Zeldov, Nature539, 407 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    Talanov, J

    A. Talanov, J. Waissman, A. Hui, B. Skinner, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Kim, Observation of electronic viscous dissipation in graphene magneto-thermal trans- port (2024), arXiv:2406.13799 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    C. Q. Cook and A. Lucas, Physical Review Letters127, 176603 (2021), arXiv:2101.08230 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    P. J. Ledwith, H. Guo, A. V. Shytov, and L. S. Levitov, Physical Review Letters123, 116601 (2019), arXiv:1708.02376 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Hofmann and U

    J. Hofmann and U. Gran, Physical Review B108, L121401 (2023), arXiv:2210.16300 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Nilsson, U

    E. Nilsson, U. Gran, and J. Hofmann, Physical Review X 15, 041007 (2025), arXiv:2405.03635 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  13. [20]

    Moiseenko, E

    I. Moiseenko, E. Mönch, K. Kapralov, D. Bandurin, S. Ganichev, and D. Svintsov, Physical Review Letters 134, 226902 (2025), arXiv:2409.05147 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Rostami, N

    H. Rostami, N. Ben-Shachar, S. Moroz, and J. Hofmann, Physical Review B111, 155434 (2025), arXiv:2411.08102 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Ben-Shachar and J

    N. Ben-Shachar and J. Hofmann, Magnetotransport of to- mographic electrons in a channel (2025), arXiv:2503.14431 8 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Ben-Shachar and J

    N. Ben-Shachar and J. Hofmann, Magnetotransport of tomographic electrons in a Corbino disk (2026), arXiv:2607.05540 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [24]

    G. A. Starkov, Tomographic flow regime versus even-odd effect for the magnetotransport in the Corbino geometry (2026), arXiv:2607.14929 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Maki and J

    J. Maki and J. Hofmann, Physical Review B113, 245122 (2026), arXiv:2603.06518 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  19. [26]

    J. H. Farrell and A. Lucas, Characterizing electronic scat- teringrateswithtransportinmultiterminaldevices(2026), arXiv:2605.03030 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.