Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 65 references

Influence of interactions on the chiral effect in $1D$ Dirac semimetal

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Interacting 1D Dirac semimetals preserve the chiral effect, quantum Monte Carlo shows.

desk verdict A solid, modest numerical check that the 1D chiral relation survives local Hubbard interactions, undermined mainly by unquantified analytic-continuation errors and an overbroad concluding claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11004 v1 pith:BVYJQ7NE submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Maksim Ulybyshev , M.A.Zubkov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords chiraleffectmagnetic1DDiracsemimetalSu-Schrieffer-HeegermodelHubbardinteractionquantumMonteCarloaxialchargedensityelectricconductivity
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 asks whether the chiral effect—the proportional relation between axial charge density and electric current in a 1D Dirac semimetal—survives when electrons interact. Using exact quantum Monte Carlo simulations of the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model with two versions of local Hubbard interactions, the authors find that the proportionality remains the same as in the noninteracting case, within numerical accuracy and for the parameters studied. This holds for both a spinful and a spinless model, including interaction strengths that open a Mott gap. The result indicates that the chiral effect is not renormalized by local density-density interactions, suggesting a possible topological origin.

What carries the argument

The key identity is $j = ev_F \rho_5$, where $j$ is the electric current density and $\rho_5 = \rho_R - \rho_L$ is the chiral (axial) charge density. In the noninteracting SSH model, this identity follows from the chiral anomaly combined with a relaxation-time approximation. The paper tests the identity in the interacting case by evaluating, from quantum Monte Carlo data, the frequency-dependent spectral functions $\lambda(\omega)$ and $\sigma(\omega)$ associated with the axial-charge–current and current–current correlators, and checking their equality at low frequency. The relation is expected to be governed by the topological invariant $N$ of Eq. (17) in the gapless regime.

What would settle it

Compute the exact spectral functions of a small interacting SSH chain by exact diagonalization, then apply the same stochastic analytic continuation to the exact correlators; if the reconstructed $\lambda(\omega)$ and $\sigma(\omega)$ deviate from the exact ones differently at low frequency, the observed equality in the paper could be an artifact of the continuation method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the relation $j = ev_F \rho_5$, which equates the electric current with the axial charge density times the Fermi velocity and charge, holds in the interacting 1D Dirac semimetal. The authors verify this by computing the static linear-response coefficients for axial density and electric current via Kubo formulas from imaginary-time correlators, extracting the spectral functions $\lambda(\omega)$ and $\sigma(\omega)$ through stochastic analytic continuation, and showing that they coincide in the $\omega \to 0$ limit. This holds for the SSH model with both spinful and spinless Hubbard-type interactions, at temperatures where the interaction-induced gap is invisible or small, and even when the gap exceeds the temperature in the spinless model. Thus, within numerical accuracy, the chiral effect is unrenormalized by local interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The equality of the two spectral functions at low frequency rests on the reconstruction of noisy imaginary-time Monte Carlo data by stochastic analytic continuation, an ill-posed inverse problem, and on the assumption that the bare chiral charge density operator remains the correct definition after interactions are turned on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the relation $j = ev_F \rho_5$ is universal, the chiral effect in 1D Dirac semimetals is a general feature that does not depend on the strength of local interactions.
  • The equality also holds in a gapped Mott phase, implying that the low-frequency linear response of both axial density and electric current vanish in a coordinated way; this could be probed in cold-atom realizations of the SSH model.
  • The result provides a numerical benchmark against which nonperturbative theories of the chiral magnetic effect in interacting systems can be tested.
  • It strengthens the case that the relation has a topological origin, as conjectured from the noninteracting analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test whether $\lambda(\omega) = \sigma(\omega)$ holds at all frequencies, not just in the $\omega \to 0$ limit; if it does, the identity may stem from a general Kubo-type relation analogous to the non-renormalization of the chiral anomaly.
  • Because stochastic analytic continuation is an ill-posed inversion, a validation against exactly solvable small systems or a different continuation algorithm would make the equality more convincing; the paper does not include such a check.
  • The bare chiral density operator $\rho_5$ is assumed to remain the correct observable in the interacting model; if interactions renormalize it, the measured equality may correspond to a different effective operator.
  • The study is restricted to local density-density interactions; whether nonlocal or spin-exchange interactions also preserve the relation is open.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether the relation j = e v_F rho_5 between the electric current and the axial charge density, previously derived analytically for the noninteracting Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model with finite dissipation [34], survives the addition of local Hubbard interactions. Two variants are studied by finite-temperature determinant Quantum Monte Carlo: spinful electrons with the on-site Hubbard term (Model 1) and spinless electrons with an intracell density-density term (Model 2). The axial-charge response lambda(omega) and the electrical conductivity sigma(omega) are obtained from imaginary-time density-current and current-current correlators [Eqs. (13)-(14)] via stochastic analytic continuation, and the single-particle spectral function A(omega,k) is reconstructed to monitor the interaction-induced gap. The authors report that lambda(omega) is approximately equal to sigma(omega) as omega tends to zero for all studied interactions, including Model 2 in the gapped U=4 case, and conclude that the chiral effect is not renormalized by local density-density interactions, suggesting a possible topological origin of the relation.

Significance. If the equality lambda(0)=sigma(0) is quantitatively established, the paper would provide the first numerical confirmation of the non-renormalization of the 1D chiral effect in a tight-binding model with interactions, extending Ref. [34] beyond the noninteracting limit and lending support to the dimensional-reduction picture of the chiral magnetic effect. Strengths include the exact QMC treatment of the model, the independence of the lambda and sigma computations from the prior analytic result (no fitting parameters), the free-case consistency check of the delta-function weights, and the availability of the open-source BSS-QMC code [56] used for the simulations. The Model 2 results, for which no exact solution exists, are potentially the most valuable contribution. The main weakness is that the central comparison currently rests on unquantified analytic-continuation reconstructions; the evidence is suggestive but not yet at a standard that would support the strength of the stated conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V, Eqs. (13)–(14), Figs. 2–12] The central claim rests on the visual coincidence of two stochastic analytic continuation (SAC) reconstructions, with no error bars, no propagated uncertainties, and no quantitative measure such as lambda(0)/sigma(0) with confidence intervals reported anywhere in the paper; the U=0 benchmark in Fig. 1 is the exact free-fermion result rather than a validation of the SAC pipeline itself. Because the kernels in Eqs. (13)-(14) become nearly tau-independent for frequencies below about 1/beta, the behavior of lambda(omega) and sigma(omega) in the immediate vicinity of omega=0 at beta=4 is an extrapolation governed by the SAC entropy prior rather than a direct observable, and two independent ill-posed inversions could be smoothed toward similar low-frequency shapes even if the true zero-frequency weights differ. To make the equality load-bearing, the authors should provide (i) statistical error bars on the low-frequency parts of lambda(omega) and sigma(omega), for instance from bootstrap resampling of the QMC correlators and multiple SAC runs with different seeds and default models; (ii) an explicit validation of the same SAC pipeline on a case with a known answer, such as the U=0 model with analytically known delta-function weights or the exactly solvable Model 1 at small U; and (iii) a quantitative statement of the ratio lambda(omega_min)/sigma(omega_min) or an equivalent low-frequency integral ratio with its uncertainty.
  2. [§V.B, §VI, Figs. 11–12; Abstract] In the Model 2, U=4 case the reconstructed single-particle gap is approximately 1.8, well above the temperature T=0.25, and both lambda(omega) and sigma(omega) vanish at small omega; the equality lambda(0)=sigma(0) reduces to the trivial 0=0 and provides no constraint on the possible renormalization of the chiral effect. The paper itself acknowledges in §VI that the linear-response anomaly formula no longer applies in this regime, yet the abstract states that 'even in the regime where sufficiently strong interactions drive the system into a Mott insulating phase, the proportionality ... remains unchanged,' which overstates what the computation can show. The nontrivial content lies in the cases with nonzero low-frequency weight (Model 2 at U less than or similar to 1 and the thermally activated Model 1 cases); the authors should either drop the insulator case from the central claim or explicitly label it as a null test that is consistent with, but does not test, the chiral effect.
  3. [§IV.A, Eq. (12), §VI] The chiral charge density is taken as the bare lattice operator rho_5 = psi^dagger sigma_2 psi and is assumed to remain the physical chiral density in the interacting model; possible interaction-induced operator renormalization (mixing with other local operators with the same quantum numbers) is not discussed. Since the conclusion 'the chiral effect is not renormalized' is a statement about this specific operator, the paper should state explicitly that the bare lattice operator is the operative definition and, ideally, discuss whether lattice Ward identities fix its normalization in the interacting case; otherwise the measured equality could reflect a particular choice of operator rather than a property of the physical chiral charge.
  4. [§IV.A, Eqs. (13)–(14), Figs. 3, 9, 11] The spectral function lambda(omega) of the axial-density-current correlator is sign-changing (it is visibly negative at intermediate frequencies in Figs. 3, 9, and 11), while the standard stochastic analytic continuation method cited in Refs. [57-59] assumes a positive-definite spectral function. The paper does not describe how its SAC implementation handles a non-positive spectral function (for example, decomposition into positive and negative parts, or a modified prior), nor does it state the default model and annealing parameters. Without this documentation the negative excursions and, more importantly, the reconstructed low-frequency behavior of lambda(omega) are not auditable; the authors should specify the implementation and justify its validity for sign-changing spectral functions.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption of Fig. 1 should state explicitly that the U=0 curves are the exact binned delta-function spectra and not SAC reconstructions, since this is the only point of comparison with an exact result.
  2. [§IV.A] The manuscript does not state the boundary conditions (periodic versus open) for the L=100 lattice or the treatment of the boundary links in the Peierls-substituted current operator; this information is needed to reproduce the free-fermion delta-function weights and the interacting results.
  3. [§IV.A] The simulation parameters (number of QMC sweeps, imaginary-time discretization Delta_tau, number of SAC sampling steps, and annealing parameters) are not given; a short methods paragraph or table is needed for reproducibility of the central result.
  4. [§VI] The phrase 'numerically exact Quantum Monte Carlo simulations' could be misread as applying to the reconstructed spectra; the QMC data are statistically exact, but the spectral functions are obtained from an approximate inversion, and the text should qualify this distinction.
  5. [References] Reference [2] and Reference [5] are the same article (Z. Qin et al., Phys. Rev. B 108, 195103 (2023)) and are listed twice with different citation numbers; Reference [7] is missing its author list.
  6. [Throughout] Typos and formatting issues include 'thechiral effect' (page 2), '1DDirac semimetal' in the running title, 'chirality matrix' in §VI, and the ungrammatical 'for simplicity of expressions units' in §III.
  7. [Eq. (15)] The normalization convention in Eq. (15) (cosh/cosh kernel without an explicit factor of 1/2) should be checked against the standard fermionic spectral representation, since the reported gap values in Figs. 4-6 and 13 depend on the absolute scale of A(omega,k).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the interacting chiral-effect relation is obtained by direct QMC and does not reduce to the cited noninteracting proof.

full rationale

The central claim is tested by computing two independent Euclidean correlators, Eqs. (13) and (14), and reconstructing lambda(omega) and sigma(omega) via stochastic analytic continuation. No parameter is fitted to force lambda(0)=sigma(0); the equality is an output of the simulation. The noninteracting relation from [34] is a self-citation by coauthor Zubkov and is used as a baseline and motivation, but the interacting extension is not derived from it; the QMC computation proceeds directly from the Hubbard Hamiltonian. The topological-invariant discussion in Section VI is explicitly speculative ('One may expect...') and the paper itself states that the gapped Mott-insulating regime falls outside the linear-response anomaly formula (1), so that the numerical comparison in that regime is not forced by the cited analytical result. The gapped U=4 Model 2 case yields vanishing spectra for both quantities (0=0) and therefore carries little evidence, but this is a statistical/evidential limitation, not circularity. The absence of error bars or an exactly solvable benchmark for the stochastic analytic continuation is a robustness concern, but it is a correctness risk, not a circularity: SAC is an independent numerical inversion and does not encode the target equality by construction. Overall, no step in the derivation chain reduces by definition or by fitting to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison is made between two QMC-computed spectral functions, so the main burden is the reconstruction of those spectra and the identification of the chiral density operator. No numerical constants are fitted to make the equality hold.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SSH model with J0=J1=1, J2=0 hosts a single gapless Dirac cone at k=pi for the noninteracting case.
    Used to define the Dirac semimetal phase; stated in Section III, Eqs. (8)-(9).
  • domain assumption The bare operators rho_5 = psi^dagger sigma_2 psi and the Peierls-substituted current correctly represent the chiral charge and electric current in the presence of Hubbard interactions.
    The simulation uses these bare operators to compute correlators (Section IV.A); interactions could in principle renormalize the operator definitions, which is not addressed.
  • ad hoc to paper Stochastic analytic continuation reliably reconstructs the low-frequency parts of the spectral functions lambda(omega) and sigma(omega) from finite imaginary-time QMC data.
    The central comparison depends on this reconstruction; no error bars or validation against known exact results are provided (Section IV.A, Figures 1-12).
  • ad hoc to paper A lattice of L=100 sites and inverse temperature beta=4 (or beta=10/20 in some runs) is representative of the thermodynamic limit for the studied observables.
    Finite-size and finite-temperature effects are not systematically checked (Section V).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of interactions on the chiral effect in $1D$ Dirac semimetal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BVYJQ7NE

@misc{pith2026260811004,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of interactions on the chiral effect in $1D$ Dirac semimetal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BVYJQ7NE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11004}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the 1D Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model. It was recently shown that, for the noninteracting model in its Dirac semimetal phase, the linear response of the axial charge density to an external electric field is proportional to the electrical conductivity in the presence of finite dissipation, with the proportionality factor determined by the coupling constants. This relation may be viewed as a manifestation of the chiral effect, which is a dimensional reduction of the 3D chiral magnetic effect. In the present work, we investigate the same model in the presence of two versions of local Hubbard-type interactions using numerical Quantum Monte Carlo simulations. We find, within the numerical resolution and for the parameters studied, that, even in the regime where sufficiently strong interactions drive the system into a Mott insulating phase, the proportionality between the induced axial charge density and the electrical conductivity remains unchanged. This result indicates that the chiral effect is not renormalized by local Hubbard interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11004 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. since the spectral function on finite lattice is just a set of delta-functions, we averaged them over intervals in between of points shown in the plot. One can see the peak at zero frequency, which corresponds to single delta￾function exactly at ω = 0. Coefficient in front of this delta-function is the same for λ(ω) and σ(ω). In general we see, that although the finite-frequency responses for axial charge and curren… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Model 1. Spectral functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Model 1. Spectral functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Model 1. Spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Model 1. Spectral functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Model 2. Spectral functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: , but only low frequency parts of the spectral functions are plotted). may occur through a tunneling mechanism. This situ￾ation has been considered, in particular, in [61], where the following expression for the ground-state decay rate per unit length has been obtaine…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Model 2. Spectral functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Selch, M

    M. Selch, M. Zubkov, S. Pramanik, and M. Lewkowicz, Annals of Physics , 170202 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [56]

    Ulybyshev, A

    M. Ulybyshev, A. Reingruber, and L. Thremer, Super- lattice: Quantum monte carlo simulations,https:// github.com/ulybyshev/SuperLattice-public(2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    A version of the calculation is represented in Ref

    In the presence of electric field ⃗E(directed along the only coordinate axis) the chiral anomaly pumps pairs (left-handed electron and right-handed hole or vice versa) from the Dirac sea of occupied energy levels. A version of the calculation is represented in Ref. [34]. Qualitatively it is clear that this pro- cess results in the appearance of chiral imb...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Namely, assuming the presence of the corresponding steady state we have ρ5 ≈N f µ5 πvF ℏ .(2)

    The next general assumption is that the chiral im- balance is related to the notion of chiral chemical potentialµ 5 = (µ R −µ L)/2 in the way similar to relation of the total number of electrons and the ordinary chemical potential. Namely, assuming the presence of the corresponding steady state we have ρ5 ≈N f µ5 πvF ℏ .(2)

    work page

  5. [3]

    One can see comparing Eqs

    Next, we formulate the one - dimensional cousin of CME, i.e.the chiral effectto express electric current through chiral chemical potential (this for- mula is obtained from the standard expression for the electric current of the CME dividing it by the density of stateseB/(2πℏ) in the plane orthogonal to magnetic field) j=N f e πℏ µ5 (3) and the value of el...

    work page

  6. [4]

    C. Li, S. Lin, G. Zhang, and Z. Song, Phys. Rev. B96, 125418 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [5]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  8. [6]

    Qin, D.-H

    Z. Qin, D.-H. Xu, Z. Ning, and R. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 108, 195103 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 65 references
  1. [7]

    Du, J.-H

    L. Du, J.-H. Wu, M. Artoni, and G. C. La Rocca, Phys. Rev. A100, 012112 (2019)

    2019

  2. [8]

    D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. B27, 6083 (1983)

    1983

  3. [9]

    Qin, D.-H

    Z. Qin, D.-H. Xu, Z. Ning, and R. Wang, Physical Review B108, 195103 (2023)

    2023

  4. [10]

    E. J. Meier, F. A. An, and B. Gadway, Nature commu- nications7, 13986 (2016)

    2016

  5. [11]

    Nuclear Physics B239, 477 (1984)

    1984

  6. [12]

    Bevan, A

    T. Bevan, A. Manninen, J. Cook, J. Hook, H. Hall, T. Vachaspati, and G. Volovik, Nature386, 689 (1997)

    1997

  7. [13]

    Niu, Phys

    Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 1812 (1990)

    1990

  8. [14]

    Lohse, C

    M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, O. Zilberberg, M. Aidelsburger, and I. Bloch, Nature Physics12, 350 (2016)

    2016

  9. [15]

    Nakajima, T

    S. Nakajima, T. Tomita, S. Taie, T. Ichinose, H. Ozawa, L. Wang, M. Troyer, and Y. Takahashi, Nature Physics 12, 296 (2016)

    2016

  10. [16]

    Q. Li, D. E. Kharzeev, C. Zhang, Y. Huang, I. Pletikosic, A. V. Fedorov, R. D. Zhong, J. A. Schneeloch, G. D. Gu, and T. Valla, Nature Phys.12, 550 (2016), arXiv:1412.6543 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [17]

    V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Nucl. Phys. B563, 361 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9908320

    1999 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Abramchuk and M

    R. Abramchuk and M. Zubkov, Magnetoconductivity of dirac semimetals and chiral magnetic effect from keldysh technique (2024), arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14941

    2024

  13. [19]

    R. A. Abramchuk, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids210, 113374 (2026)

    2026

  14. [20]

    Zubkov and R

    M. Zubkov and R. Abramchuk, Physical Review D107, 094021 (2023)

    2023

  15. [21]

    Kaushik and D

    S. Kaushik and D. E. Kharzeev, Phys. Rev. B95, 235136 (2017), arXiv:1703.05865 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [22]

    M. N. Chernodub and M. Zubkov, Physical Review D 96, 056006 (2017)

    2017

  17. [23]

    Zhang and M

    C. Zhang and M. Zubkov, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical53, 195002 (2020)

    2020

  18. [24]

    Zubkov and G

    M. Zubkov and G. Volovik, Nuclear Physics B860, 295 (2012)

    2012

  19. [25]

    Abramchuk, Z

    R. Abramchuk, Z. Khaidukov, and M. Zubkov, Physical Review D98, 076013 (2018)

    2018

  20. [26]

    G. E. Volovik,The Universe in a Helium Droplet (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2003)

    2003

  21. [27]

    Zubkov, Annals of Physics393, 264 (2018)

    M. Zubkov, Annals of Physics393, 264 (2018)

    2018

  22. [28]

    Z.Khaidukov and M.A.Zubkov, JETP Letters106, 172 (2017)

    2017

  23. [29]

    Volovik and M

    G. Volovik and M. Zubkov, New Journal of Physics19, 015009 (2017)

    2017

  24. [30]

    G. E. Volovik and M. Zubkov, JETP letters97, 301 (2013)

    2013

  25. [31]

    Volovik and M

    G. Volovik and M. Zubkov, Physical Review D92, 055004 (2015)

    2015

  26. [32]

    Bakker, A

    B. Bakker, A. Veselov, and M. Zubkov, Physics Letters B471, 214 (1999)

    1999

  27. [33]

    Zhang and M

    C. Zhang and M. Zubkov, JETP letters110, 487 (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    Katsnelson, G

    M. Katsnelson, G. Volovik, and M. Zubkov, Annals of Physics331, 160 (2013)

    2013

  29. [36]

    M. A. Stephanov and Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 162001 (2012), arXiv:1207.0747 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Bakker, A

    B. Bakker, A. Veselov, and M. Zubkov, Physics Letters B620, 156 (2005)

    2005

  31. [38]

    Bohra and M

    M. Bohra and M. Zubkov, Solid State Communications , 116276 (2025)

    2025

  32. [39]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D78, 074033 (2008), arXiv:0808.3382 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Gao, Z.-T

    J.-H. Gao, Z.-T. Liang, S. Pu, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 232301 (2012), arXiv:1203.0725 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Burkov, Physical Review Letters113, 10.1103/phys- revlett.113.247203 (2014), arXiv:1409.0013

    A. Burkov, Physical Review Letters113, 10.1103/phys- revlett.113.247203 (2014), arXiv:1409.0013

    2014 arXiv

  35. [42]

    D. T. Son and B. Z. Spivak, Physical Review B88, 10.1103/physrevb.88.104412 (2013), arXiv:1206.1627

    2013 arXiv

  36. [43]

    E. V. Gorbar, I. A. Shovkovy, S. Vilchinskii, I. Rude- nok, A. Boyarsky, and O. Ruchayskiy, Phys. Rev. D93, 105028 (2016), arXiv:1603.03442 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [44]

    D. T. Son and N. Yamamoto, Physical Review Letters 109, 10.1103/physrevlett.109.181602 (2012)

    2012 doi

  38. [45]

    Lin and L

    S. Lin and L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D101, 034006 (2020), arXiv:1909.11514 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Hattori, S

    K. Hattori, S. Li, D. Satow, and H.-U. Yee, Phys. Rev. D95, 076008 (2017), arXiv:1610.06839 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Huang, Y

    A. Huang, Y. Jiang, S. Shi, J. Liao, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Lett. B777, 177 (2018), arXiv:1703.08856 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Suleymanov and M

    M. Suleymanov and M. Zubkov, Nuclear Physics B938, 171 (2019)

    2019

  42. [49]

    Sekine, D

    A. Sekine, D. Culcer, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B96, 235134 (2017). 9

    2017

  43. [50]

    Sekine and K

    A. Sekine and K. Nomura, Journal of Applied Physics 129(2021)

    2021

  44. [51]

    G. E. Volovik, JETP letters105, 34 (2017)

    2017

  45. [52]

    Zhang and Q

    S.-L. Zhang and Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A95, 061601 (2017)

    2017

  46. [53]

    Gorbar, V

    E. Gorbar, V. Miransky, and I. Shovkovy, Physical Review B89, 085126 (2014), arXiv:1312.0027 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Lu, S.-B

    H.-Z. Lu, S.-B. Zhang, and S.-Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. B92, 045203 (2015), arXiv:1503.04394

    2015 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Li, H.-Z

    S. Li, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Physical Review B107, 10.1103/physrevb.107.235202 (2023), arXiv:2212.00383

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Blankenbecler, D

    R. Blankenbecler, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D24, 2278 (1981)

    1981

  50. [58]

    White, D

    S. White, D. Scalapino, R. Sugar, E. Loh, J. Gubernatis, and R. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B40, 506 (1989)

    1989

  51. [59]

    Assaad and H

    F. Assaad and H. Evertz, inComputational Many- Particle Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 739, edited by H. Fehske, R. Schneider, and A. Weiße (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 277–356

    2008

  52. [60]

    Deguchi, F

    T. Deguchi, F. Essler, F. G¨ ohmann, A. Kl¨ umper, V. Ko- repin, and K. Kusakabe, Physics Reports331, 197 (2000)

    2000

  53. [61]

    K. S. D. Beach, arXiv e-prints , cond-mat/0403055 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0403055 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2004 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Sandvik, Phys

    A. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B57, 10287 (1998)

    1998

  55. [63]

    Shao and A

    H. Shao and A. W. Sandvik, Physics Reports1003, 1 (2023), progress on stochastic analytic continuation of quantum Monte Carlo data

    2023

  56. [65]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics81, 033103 (2010)

    2010

  57. [100]

    The non-interacting results are presented on Fig

    The values of parameterUare chosen to be equal to 0,1.0,4.0. The non-interacting results are presented on Fig. 1: since the spectral function on finite lattice is just a set of delta-functions, we averaged them over intervals in between of points shown in the plot. One can see...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.