Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 123 references

Sum rules and density-wave modes in spin-singlet fractional quantum Hall fluids

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 This paper argues that fitting a fractional quantum Hall state's pair correlations in an orthogonal Laguerre basis only yields correct long-wavelength neutral-mode gaps when the fit is forced through the exact small-momentum sum rules of…

desk verdict A solid, honest methods paper: the full sum-rule constraints fix the long-wavelength GMP gap for Laughlin states, and the spin-resolved extension is useful, but the Halperin q→0 gaps are partly calibrated rather than predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11133 v1 pith:5P4JRLXK submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Ritajit Kundu , Rakesh K. Dora , Dung Xuan Nguyen , Ajit C. Balram This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords fractionalquantumHalleffectstaticstructurefactorsumrulesGMPmodeantisymmetricdensitywavespin-singletHalperinstatesorthogonalLaguerrebasisbilayerphasediagram
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

This paper argues that extracting long-wavelength neutral-mode gaps from fractional quantum Hall trial-wavefunction data requires more than a numerically stable fit of the pair correlation function: the fit must also be forced through the exact sum rules governing the small-momentum expansion of the static structure factor. Without the $s_4$ and $s_6$ constraints, the fitted structure factor of the Laughlin state behaves as $\bar{S}(q)\sim q^2$ at long wavelengths instead of the correct $q^4$, and the GMP/symmetric density-wave gap vanishes incorrectly as $q\to 0$. With the full constraint set, the authors obtain finite and accurate long-wavelength GMP/SDW gaps for Laughlin states and for chiral spin-singlet Halperin states, and they extend the same machinery to the spin-resolved correlators, yielding the antisymmetric density-wave (ASDW) gap. They derive the spin-resolved long-wavelength sum rules from $K$-matrix effective field theory and show these agree with plasma-analogy results. The method's reliability tracks the availability of exact sum rules: for the non-chiral 2/3 composite-fermion singlet state, where those rules are unknown, the planar gaps are visibly unreliable.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is an orthonormal expansion of $g(r)$ and $g^{\alpha\beta}(r)$ in associated Laguerre polynomials $G_n(r)$, which avoids the numerical ill-conditioning of the older non-orthogonal basis, together with linear constraint equations that lock the expansion coefficients to the exact small-$q$ coefficients of $S(q)$: $s_0=0$, $s_2=1/2$, and, for chiral states, $s_4$ and $s_6$ from geometric-response theory, plus the spin-resolved $s_0^{\alpha\beta}$ and $s_2^{\alpha\beta}$. The constrained fits feed the GMP/SDW gap equation $\Delta=\bar{F}/\bar{S}$ and its ASDW analogue $\Delta_z=\bar{F}_z/\bar{S}_z$, with a cutoff $k_U$ in the oscillator-strength integral set by matching spherical thermodynamic gaps.

What would settle it

Compute the $q\to 0$ ASDW gap for the Halperin $(3,3,2)$ state by exact diagonalization on a torus, or by any $k_U$-independent route, and extrapolate to the thermodynamic limit; if the result disagrees with Eq. (89) evaluated with the fitted spin-resolved structure factor, the cutoff calibration is masking an error. A second check is to derive exact $s_4$ and $s_6$ for the 2/3 composite-fermion singlet and see whether including them flips the planar ASDW gap from gapless to gapped, matching the sphere.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the long-wavelength behavior of the fitted static structure factor, not the bulk of the dispersion, is what controls whether the GMP/symmetric density-wave gap comes out right. Fitting the same Monte Carlo pair-correlation data with only the $s_0=0$ constraint gives $\bar{S}(q)\sim q^2$ and a GMP gap that vanishes as $q\to 0$; imposing $s_2=1/2$, $s_4$, and $s_6$ forces $\bar{S}(q)\sim q^4$ and produces a finite $q\to 0$ gap. For the chiral spin-singlet Halperin states, the same constrained fitting of spin-resolved correlators yields both the SDW and the lower-lying ASDW dispersions, agreeing with spherical-geometry results across most of the momentum range, including the gapless ASDW for the $(3,3,2)$ state under a contact interaction. For the non-chiral 2/3 composite-fermion singlet state, where the exact $s_4$ and $s_6$ coefficients are unknown, the planar ASDW gap is visibly wrong, which the paper reads as evidence that the sum rules, not the basis, carry the physics.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumed exactness of the long-wavelength sum-rule coefficients for the trial wavefunction being fitted; when they are unknown, as for the non-chiral 2/3 composite-fermion singlet state, the constrained fit inherits an unknown bias and the long-wavelength gaps are unreliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For chiral spin-singlet Halperin states, the planar fits give SDW and ASDW dispersions, including $q\to 0$ gaps that are practically inaccessible on the sphere.
  • Ground-state energies are barely affected by the sum-rule constraints, so energies computed from the fits can be trusted even when gap fits are not.
  • The ASDW mode lies below the SDW at long wavelengths for the singlet states considered, and for the $(3,3,2)$ state with a contact interaction the ASDW gap vanishes.
  • For non-chiral states whose higher sum rules are unknown, the constrained fitting does not yield reliable long-wavelength gaps; deriving those rules is the natural next step.
  • The fitted correlators give variational bilayer phase diagrams in which singlet states give way to layer-decoupled states as the interlayer separation grows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the cutoff $k_U$ is calibrated to spherical thermodynamic gaps, the reported Halperin $q\to 0$ gap values are not fully independent predictions; a planar extraction that fixes $k_U$ without spherical input would be a stronger test.
  • If exact higher spin-resolved sum rules are found, the same pipeline should immediately produce reliable ASDW gaps for the 2/3 composite-fermion singlet, since the paper's failure there is explicitly tied to missing constraints.
  • The variational phase diagrams are computed without interlayer tunneling; including tunneling could modify the singlet-to-decoupled boundaries and make closer contact with experiments that tune both $d$ and density imbalance.
  • The framework suggests a route to neutral-mode gaps in multicomponent Chern-band systems, provided the analogue of $s_4$ and $s_6$ can be derived for those bands.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a method for fitting Monte Carlo pair-correlation data of fractional quantum Hall trial states using the orthogonal associated-Laguerre basis of Fulsebakke et al., while enforcing exact long-wavelength sum rules for the static structure factor. For spin-polarized Laughlin states, imposing s0, s2, s4, and s6 yields a projected structure factor that behaves as S(q)~q^4 and a finite q→0 GMP gap, in contrast to fits that impose only s0. The method is extended to spin-resolved correlators of the Halperin (2,2,1) and (3,3,2) spin-singlet states and the Jain spin-singlet 2/3 state, and is used to compute SDW and ASDW dispersions, spin-flip gaps, and variational bilayer phase diagrams. The authors also derive spin-resolved long-wavelength sum rules from a K-matrix Maxwell-Chern-Simons effective theory, which reproduce earlier plasma-analogy results.

Significance. The Laughlin benchmark is convincing and valuable: it demonstrates that the previously omitted higher-order sum rules qualitatively change the low-q behavior of the projected structure factor and are essential for a finite GMP gap. The orthogonal-basis fitting framework with exact constraints is a useful technical advance, and the availability of data on Zenodo is a strength. However, the new results for the Halperin states are less incisive than the abstract suggests. The planar q→0 SDW and ASDW gaps for the Halperin states are not independent predictions, because the cutoff k_U is explicitly chosen to reproduce spherical thermodynamic extrapolations (Appendix C, Section VIII). The spin-resolved sector additionally lacks higher-order sum rules, and the Jain singlet case shows that the unconstrained fit can produce a qualitatively wrong gapless ASDW mode. The phase diagrams and finite-q dispersions are interesting but secondary. Overall, the central claim is defensible for Laughlin states, but the load-bearing extension to spin-singlet Halperin states needs reframing or additional evidence before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VIII and Appendix C] The planar long-wavelength SDW and ASDW gaps for the Halperin states are calibrated rather than predicted: Appendix C states that k_U is chosen so that the gap equations reproduce the thermodynamic values shown in Fig. S1, and Section VIII repeats this for both Coulomb and contact interactions. Consequently, the agreement of the q→0 gaps with spherical results is built in and cannot be cited as evidence for the method. The abstract's claim that the approach 'enabl[es] the evaluation of the gap of the antisymmetric density-wave mode' and gives 'numerically stable and accurate values of the long-wavelength GMP/symmetric density-wave excitation gap' is therefore overstated for the Halperin states. I recommend either fixing k_U a priori (e.g., from the Laughlin benchmark range 3.5≤k_U≤4.5) and then testing the Halperin states, or explicitly labeling the Halperin q→0 values as consistency checks rather than predictions.
  2. [Eq. (48b), Section III D] Equation (48b) is incorrect as written: it gives (1/[4(m-n)]) [[m-n, -n],[-n,m]], whose diagonal entries are not equal for the two layers and which contradicts the K-matrix result in Eq. (70) and the values quoted in Table I. The correct K-matrix expression is (1/[4(m-n)]) [[m, -n],[-n,m]], as follows from Eq. (70) with ν=2/(m+n). For (2,2,1) this gives s↑↑_2=1/2, s↑↓_2=-1/4, consistent with Table I and with S(q)=2S↑↑(q)+2S↑↓(q) having s2=1/2. Since the spin-resolved fitting constraints in Eq. (115) are derived from this equation, the error must be corrected and the actual values used in the fits should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Section VII B and Section VIII] The spin-resolved fits impose only s0 and s2 constraints, Eq. (115), while s4 and s6 are unknown for the spin-resolved correlators of the Halperin states. The ASDW gap in Eq. (89) depends on the entire S↑↓(k) and on the denominator s↑↑_2−s↑↓_2−1/4. The Jain singlet example shows that the absence of higher-order constraints can produce a qualitatively incorrect gapless ASDW mode (Fig. 4(c),(f)). Because the Halperin ASDW q→0 value is fixed by the k_U calibration, the paper does not currently demonstrate that the spin-resolved fits are accurate enough to predict ASDW gaps without those higher-order constraints. A quantitative sensitivity analysis, such as varying n_max and the fitting range and reporting the resulting spread in the ASDW gap, would help establish the robustness of the method.
  4. [Table I and Section III C] The s4 and s6 values used for the Halperin states are taken from geometric response theory for the universality class, but the paper does not verify that the finite-size Monte Carlo data for the trial wavefunctions actually satisfy these coefficients. The Jain singlet case, where the analogous coefficients are unknown, is the only internal check of what happens when the constraints are missing, and it fails qualitatively. A direct test, e.g., comparing the small-q MC structure factor with the imposed s4 and s6 values for the Halperin states, would materially strengthen the claim that the constrained fits are unbiased. Without such a check, the correctness of the Halperin long-wavelength gaps rests on an untested assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (85)] The second term inside the bracket in Eq. (85) contains ¯S(k), but by analogy with the structure of Eq. (78) and the definitions in Eq. (D11), it likely should be ¯Sz(k); please check and correct the typo.
  2. [Section VII A] For the 1/5 Laughlin state the paper switches to the non-orthogonal basis of Eq. (99) 'presumably because of its larger correlation length'; this is a noticeably weaker justification than the rest of the paper and should be explained more concretely, since the orthogonal basis is claimed to be numerically stable.
  3. [Fig. 1(c) caption] The caption says the sphere results are 'reproduced from Ref. [40]' but the Fit-2 curve appears to be new; please clarify which curves are new and which are reproduced.
  4. [General] The symbol ι for the imaginary unit is used throughout; this is fine once defined, but the paper uses it inconsistently in some equations (e.g., Eq. (6) uses ι and Eq. (7) also), so a final consistency pass would help.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'thermodynamic fits on the plane' could mislead readers; the fits are performed on planar parameterizations of data computed in spherical geometry, which is a standard but important approximation that could be stated more explicitly in the abstract.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Halperin long-wavelength SDW/ASDW gaps are calibration targets: k_U is tuned to reproduce spherical thermodynamic values, so the q→0 gap 'evaluation' for the spin-singlet states is not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VIII (Results: Density-wave modes), regularization paragraph; Appendix C]
    "Specifically, the oscillator-strength integral is restricted to |k+q| ≤ k_U. The cutoff k_U is chosen such that the long-wavelength SDW and ASDW gaps agree with the thermodynamic extrapolations obtained on the sphere, shown in Fig. S1 and in Ref. [38], following the methodology therein. ... Specifically, k_U is chosen such that the long-wavelength gaps obtained from the gap equations reproduce the thermodynamic values shown in Fig. S1."

    The planar long-wavelength SDW and ASDW gap values for the Halperin states are not independent outputs: the cutoff k_U is a free parameter tuned so that the gap equations reproduce the spherical thermodynamic extrapolations (Fig. S1; Ref. [38] is by two of the present authors). Therefore the abstract's claim of 'enabling the evaluation of the gap of the antisymmetric density-wave mode' at q→0 reduces, by the paper's own calibration procedure, to the sphere values used as the tuning target. Only the finite-q dispersions and the uncalibrated Laughlin q→0 gaps are independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's core method—enforcing the long-wavelength sum rules s0, s2, s4, s6 on an orthogonal-Laguerre fit of Monte Carlo pair-correlation data—is independently validated for the Laughlin states: Fit-1 vs Fit-2 uses the same MC data and differs only by the externally known plasma/geometric-response sum rules, producing the correct S(q)~q^4 and a finite GMP gap. The s4/s6 values for the Halperin states are taken from Eq. (43), a parameter-free geometric-response formula; although Ref. [58] shares an author, it is not fitted to the target gaps and is not itself circular. The genuine circular step is the regularization of the gap integrals: for the spin-singlet Halperin states the cutoff k_U is explicitly chosen so that the long-wavelength SDW and ASDW gaps reproduce the spherical thermodynamic extrapolations (Sec. VIII and Appendix C). Thus the q→0 ASDW/SDW gap values for Halperin-(2,2,1) and (3,3,2) are not independent planar predictions; they are calibration targets. This does not invalidate the finite-q dispersions, the Laughlin q→0 benchmarks (not calibrated), or the variational phase diagrams, so the circularity is partial.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The gap results depend on fitted structure factors, whose quality is controlled by the imposed sum-rule constraints and by the choice of k_U. The sum rules come from prior literature (plasma analogy, geometric response theory); the k_U calibration for the Halperin gaps absorbs the spherical benchmark values into the planar calculation.

free parameters (5)
  • d_n coefficients (total density) = various, from MC fit, n=1..20
    Expansion coefficients in Eq. (108), fit to MC g(r) under sum-rule constraints.
  • d^{α,β}_n coefficients (spin-resolved) = various, from MC fit, n=1..20
    Eq. (109), fit to spin-resolved MC g^{α,β}(r).
  • d_0 / d^{α,β}_0 = 0 for Halperin states; finite for Jain singlet g^{↑,↓}(0)
    Captures g(0) ≠ 0; for Halperin (m,m,m-1) short-distance behavior fixes them to zero.
  • truncation order n_max = 20
    Choice of basis truncation; affects fit quality and long-wavelength constraints.
  • momentum cutoff k_U = 3.5-4.5 for Laughlin stability; for Halperin states chosen to match spherical thermodynamic gaps
    Regularizes the oscillator-strength integral in the GMP/ASDW gaps; for Halperin states it is calibrated to reproduce the sphere extrapolation values, so the q→0 gaps are not independent.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Trial wavefunctions (Halperin, Jain singlet) accurately represent the exact Coulomb eigenstates in the thermodynamic limit.
    Used in Sec. V to justify applying the GMP gap formula, which assumes an eigenstate, to trial wavefunctions.
  • domain assumption The single-mode approximation (GMP ansatz) captures the lowest-lying neutral excitation at long wavelengths.
    Sec. V; the SDW and ASDW gaps are computed from the SMA density-wave ansatz; paper notes this fails when the density wave splits.
  • domain assumption The long-wavelength expansion coefficients s4 and s6 are given by geometric response theory in terms of topological quantum numbers (Eqs. (43)-(44)).
    Imported from Refs. [58,82-86]; used as constraints in the fit (Table I).
  • domain assumption The two-component plasma sum rules s^{α,β}_0 = 0 and s^{α,β}_2 from Eq. (48) are exact.
    Used as the only spin-resolved constraints; no higher-order rules are known (Sec. III D).
  • domain assumption Spherical MC data with arc distance identified with planar distance is representative of the planar thermodynamic limit.
    Sec. VII; fits planar expansions to spherical MC data; finite-size curvature effects are invoked to explain discrepancies (Sec. VIII).
  • ad hoc to paper The cutoff regularization of the oscillator-strength integral (|k+q| ≤ k_U) yields a valid approximation to the GMP gap.
    Sec. VII A and Appendix C; k_U is chosen for Laughlin in a stability window and for Halperin states to match spherical thermodynamic gaps, introducing calibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sum rules and density-wave modes in spin-singlet fractional quantum Hall fluids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5P4JRLXK

@misc{pith2026260811133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sum rules and density-wave modes in spin-singlet fractional quantum Hall fluids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5P4JRLXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11133}
}
read the original abstract

Fractional quantum Hall (FQH) states are prototypical examples of strongly interacting topologically ordered systems. In this work, we obtain thermodynamic fits on the plane for the pair correlation function, and its Fourier transform, the static structure factor, of two-component spin-singlet Halperin and Jain FQH fluids by expanding them in the recently introduced basis of the orthogonal associated Laguerre polynomials [Fulsebakke et al., SciPost Phys. 14, 149 (2023), https://doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.14.6.149 ] and ascertaining the expansion coefficients by fitting them to large-system Monte Carlo data evaluated using their trial wavefunctions. In this fitting procedure, aside from constraining the exact short-distance behavior of the wavefunction, we also derive and enforce the sum rules that the long-wavelength expansion of the static structure factor must adhere to. We show that incorporating these constraints is crucial for obtaining numerically stable and accurate values of the long-wavelength Girvin-MacDonald-Platzman (GMP)/symmetric density-wave excitation gap. We further extend this approach to spin-resolved density-correlation functions, enabling the evaluation of the gap of the antisymmetric density-wave mode for these spin-singlet FQH states. Finally, we use the density-correlators to compute variational energies of the states and construct phase diagrams for bilayer FQH systems. These could be relevant for understanding recent bilayer FQH experiments that map out the phase diagram by tuning the interlayer separation and density-imbalance/layer-polarization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11133 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (c),(f). The oscillator-strength integral in Eq. (78) is sensitive to the large-q behavior of S(q), so we regular￾ize it following Ref. [59] by restricting the integration to |k + q| ≤ kU . We find stable results for 3.5 ≤ kU ≤ 4.5. For ν = 1/3, Fit-1 gives a vanishing gap as q → 0. This follows from S¯(q) ∼ q 2 and F¯(q) ∼ q 4 , which yield ∆SDW(q) ∼ q 2 . In contrast, Fit-2 recovers the correct S¯(q) ∼ q 4 behavio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    To do so, we derive the gauge- field propagators by inverting the quadratic kernel in Eq

    Derivation of the gauge-field propagator⟨aa⟩ In this appendix, we work out the expansion of the structure factor in the long-wavelength limit (q→0) from effective field theory. To do so, we derive the gauge- field propagators by inverting the quadratic kernel in Eq. (52). The propagator is given by G=ιK −1,(B1) whereKhas the block form K= A B B† D ,(B2) w...

  2. [2]

    the trial wavefunctions we use provide excellent rep- resentations of the exact Coulomb eigenstates for small systems [29, 33, 92], and have the added advantage that they can be evaluated for fairly large systems allowing us to make more reliable estimates for the thermodynamic limits. As the chosen ansatz provides a very accurate representation of the ac...

  3. [3]

    r π 2 (1−d 0) + ∞X n=1 dn nX t=0 2 t− 1 2 Γ t+ 1 2 λ(n) t # , (116a) DC s = ν 4

    It follows immediately that ⟨Ψ0|¯ρ+ −q[¯ρq]−|Ψ0⟩=N e−q2/2.(94) Using the algebra of projected operators, the SFDW oscillator strength can be evaluated explicitly, yielding, up to the Zeeman splitting, ∆SFDW(q) = 2 (2π)2 Z d2kv(k) sin 2 k∧q 2 [1−S(k)]. (95) The angular integration can be performed analytically, leading to the well-known expression [21, 38,...

  4. [4]

    Density-density correlator and frequency integration To evaluate the frequency integral in Eq. (59) to get the static density-density correlator from the dynamic one, we use the identity Z dω 2π ι h ω2 − ˜C+ιε i−1 = 1 2 ˜C −1/2,(B7) which holds for any symmetric positive-definite matrix ˜C. Writingε eω2 −C=ε 1/2 e ω2 − ˜C ε1/2 e , ˜C= ε−1/2 e Cε −1/2 e ,w...

  5. [5]

    Symmetric and anti-symmetric density-wave modes The density-wave gaps in the absence ofSU(2)- symmetry of the Hamiltonian are computed following ideas similar to those presented in Section V by using the commutator algebra of the appropriate density operators {¯ρα q }[see Eq. (7)]. The resulting oscillator strengths for theSU(2)-broken interaction are giv...

  6. [6]

    Spin-flip density wave mode For a polarized state [by this we mean pseudospin/layer-polarized, since we assume the spins are always polarized], the spin-flip density wave excitation gap consequently is given by (up to the Zeeman term) ∆SFDW(q) = Z ∞ 0 dk 2π k vI (k) [1−J 0(qk)] [1−S(k)] + Z ∞ 0 dk 2π k vz(k) [1 +J 0(qk)] [1−S(k)]. (D12) The first contribu...

  7. [7]

    D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Two- Dimensional Magnetotransport in the Extreme Quan- tum Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1559 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    R. B. Laughlin, Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect: An Incompressible Quantum Fluid with Fractionally Charged Excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    X. G. Wen, TOPOLOGICAL ORDERS IN RIGID STATES, International Journal of Modern Physics B 04, 239 (1990)

    1990

  2. [10]

    X. G. Wen and A. Zee, Classification of Abelian quan- tum Hall states and matrix formulation of topological fluids, Phys. Rev. B46, 2290 (1992)

    1992

  3. [11]

    Wen, Theory of the edge states in fractional quantum Hall effects, International Journal of Modern Physics B06, 1711 (1992)

    X.-G. Wen, Theory of the edge states in fractional quantum Hall effects, International Journal of Modern Physics B06, 1711 (1992)

    1992

  4. [12]

    Wen, Topological orders and edge excitations in fractional quantum Hall states, Advances in Physics44, 405 (1995)

    X.-G. Wen, Topological orders and edge excitations in fractional quantum Hall states, Advances in Physics44, 405 (1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topologi- cal quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008). 24

    2008

  6. [14]

    Nakamura, S

    J. Nakamura, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Man- fra, Direct observation of anyonic braiding statistics, Nature Physics16, 931 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Bartolomei, M

    H. Bartolomei, M. Kumar, R. Bisognin, A. Marguerite, J.-M. Berroir, E. Bocquillon, B. Pla¸ cais, A. Cavanna, Q. Dong, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, and G. F` eve, Fractional statistics in anyon collisions, Science368, 173 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Greiter and F

    M. Greiter and F. Wilczek, Fractional Statistics, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics15, 131 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    J. P. Eisenstein, H. L. Stormer, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Evidence for a spin transition in theν= 2/3 fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B41, 7910 (1990)

    1990

  10. [18]

    W. Kang, J. B. Young, S. T. Hannahs, E. Palm, K. L. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Evidence for a spin tran- sition in theν= 2/5 fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B56, R12776 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    Chang, S

    C.-C. Chang, S. S. Mandal, and J. K. Jain, Partially spin-polarized quantum Hall effect in the filling factor range 1/3< ν <2/5, Phys. Rev. B67, 121305 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    L. A. Tracy, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Spin Transition in the Half-Filled Landau Level, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 086801 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    W. Pan, K. W. Baldwin, K. W. West, L. N. Pfeif- fer, and D. C. Tsui, Spin Transition in theν= 8/3 Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 216804 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    B. E. Feldman, A. J. Levin, B. Krauss, D. A. Abanin, B. I. Halperin, J. H. Smet, and A. Yacoby, Fractional Quantum Hall Phase Transitions and Four-Flux States in Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 076802 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    Y. Liu, S. Hasdemir, J. Shabani, M. Shayegan, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, and K. W. Baldwin, Multicompo- nent fractional quantum Hall states with subband and spin degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. B92, 201101 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Huang, H

    K. Huang, H. Fu, D. R. Hickey, N. Alem, X. Lin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and J. Zhu, Valley Isospin Controlled Fractional Quantum Hall States in Bilayer Graphene, Phys. Rev. X12, 031019 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Huang, A

    K. Huang, A. C. Balram, H. Fu, C. Guo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. K. Jain, and J. Zhu, Hetero-Orbital Two-Component Fractional Quantum Hall States in Bi- layer Graphene, Phys. Rev. X15, 031023 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    B. I. Halperin, Theory of the quantized Hall conduc- tance, Helvetica Physica Acta56, 75 (1983)

    1983

  19. [27]

    Rasolt and A

    M. Rasolt and A. H. MacDonald, Collective excitations in the fractional quantum Hall effect of a multicompo- nent fermion system, Phys. Rev. B34, 5530 (1986)

    1986

  20. [28]

    Yoshioka, A

    D. Yoshioka, A. H. MacDonald, and S. M. Girvin, Con- nection between spin-singlet and hierarchical wave func- tions in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B38, 3636 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    Yoshioka, A

    D. Yoshioka, A. H. MacDonald, and S. M. Girvin, Frac- tional quantum Hall effect in two-layered systems, Phys. Rev. B39, 1932 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    Park and J

    K. Park and J. K. Jain, Phase Diagram of the Spin Polarization of Composite Fermions and a New Effective Mass, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 4237 (1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    S. M. Girvin and A. H. MacDonald, Multicomponent Quantum Hall Systems: The Sum of Their Parts and More, inPerspectives in Quantum Hall Effects(Wiley- VCH Verlag GmbH, 2007) pp. 161–224

    2007

  24. [32]

    C. R. Dean, A. F. Young, P. Cadden-Zimansky, L. Wang, H. Ren, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Kim, J. Hone, and K. L. Shepard, Multicomponent fractional quantum Hall effect in graphene, Nature Physics7, 693 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, F. Pollmann, and E. H. Rezayi, Infinite density matrix renormalization group for multicomponent quantum Hall systems, Phys. Rev. B91, 045115 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    A. C. Balram, C. T¨ oke, A. W´ ojs, and J. K. Jain, Phase diagram of fractional quantum Hall effect of composite fermions in multicomponent systems, Phys. Rev. B91, 045109 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    A. C. Balram, C. T¨ oke, A. W´ ojs, and J. K. Jain, Frac- tional quantum Hall effect in graphene: Quantitative comparison between theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. B92, 075410 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Kallin and B

    C. Kallin and B. I. Halperin, Excitations from a filled Landau level in the two-dimensional electron gas, Phys. Rev. B30, 5655 (1984)

    1984

  29. [37]

    S. M. Girvin, A. H. MacDonald, and P. M. Platzman, Collective-Excitation Gap in the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 581 (1985)

    1985

  30. [38]

    S. M. Girvin, A. H. MacDonald, and P. M. Platzman, Magneto-roton theory of collective excitations in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B33, 2481 (1986)

    1986

  31. [39]

    Z. Liu, A. C. Balram, Z. Papi´ c, and A. Gromov, Quench Dynamics of Collective Modes in Fractional Quantum Hall Bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 076604 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    A. C. Balram, Z. Liu, A. Gromov, and Z. Papi´ c, Very- High-Energy Collective States of Partons in Fractional Quantum Hall Liquids, Phys. Rev. X12, 021008 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    D. X. Nguyen, F. D. M. Haldane, E. H. Rezayi, D. T. Son, and K. Yang, Multiple Magnetorotons and Spectral Sum Rules in Fractional Quantum Hall Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 246402 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Liang, Z

    J. Liang, Z. Liu, Z. Yang, Y. Huang, U. Wurstbauer, C. R. Dean, K. W. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, L. Du, and A. Pinczuk, Evidence for chiral graviton modes in frac- tional quantum Hall liquids, Nature628, 78–83 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Bose and A

    K. Bose and A. C. Balram, Dispersion of neutral collective modes in partonic fractional quantum Hall states and its applications to paired states of composite fermions, Phys. Rev. B112, 035136 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    R. K. Dora and A. C. Balram, Dispersion of collective modes in spinful fractional quantum Hall states on the sphere, Phys. Rev. B113, 115420 (2026)

    2026

  37. [45]

    A. C. Balram, G. J. Sreejith, and J. K. Jain, Splitting of the Girvin-MacDonald-Platzman Density Wave and the Nature of Chiral Gravitons in the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 246605 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    R. K. Dora and A. C. Balram, Static structure factor and the dispersion of the Girvin-MacDonald-Platzman density mode for fractional quantum Hall fluids on the Haldane sphere, Phys. Rev. B111, 115132 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Pinczuk, B

    A. Pinczuk, B. S. Dennis, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. West, Observation of collective excitations in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 3983 (1993)

    1993

  40. [48]

    Platzman and S

    P. Platzman and S. He, Resonant Raman Scattering from mobile electrons in the fractional quantum Hall regime, Phys. Rev. B49, 13674 (1994)

    1994

  41. [49]

    I. V. Kukushkin, J. H. Smet, V. W. Scarola, V. Uman- sky, and K. von Klitzing, Dispersion of the Excitations of Fractional Quantum Hall States, Science324, 1044 (2009). 25

    2009

  42. [50]

    D. X. Nguyen and D. T. Son, Probing the spin struc- ture of the fractional quantum Hall magnetoroton with polarized Raman scattering, Phys. Rev. Research3, 023040 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Z. Yang, Y. Wang, X. Lu, Z. Liu, K. W. Baldwin, K. W. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, B. Yang, A. C. Balram, and L. Du, Emergent partons in fractional quantum Hall systems, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-026-03338-9 (2026)

    2026 doi

  44. [52]

    S. He, S. H. Simon, and B. I. Halperin, Response func- tion of the fractional quantized Hall state on a sphere. II. Exact diagonalization, Phys. Rev. B50, 1823 (1994)

    1994

  45. [53]

    R. H. Morf, N. d’Ambrumenil, and S. Das Sarma, Exci- tation gaps in fractional quantum Hall states: An exact diagonalization study, Phys. Rev. B66, 075408 (2002)

    2002

  46. [54]

    A. C. Balram, A. W´ ojs, and J. K. Jain, State counting for excited bands of the fractional quantum Hall effect: Exclusion rules for bound excitons, Phys. Rev. B88, 205312 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    J. Zhao, D. N. Sheng, and F. D. M. Haldane, Fractional quantum Hall states at 1 3 and 5 2 filling: Density-matrix renormalization group calculations, Phys. Rev. B83, 195135 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    Johri, Z

    S. Johri, Z. Papi´ c, R. N. Bhatt, and P. Schmitteck- ert, Quasiholes of 1 3 and 7 3 quantum Hall states: Size estimates via exact diagonalization and density-matrix renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B89, 115124 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Kumar and F

    P. Kumar and F. D. M. Haldane, A numerical study of bounds in the correlations of fractional quantum Hall states, SciPost Phys.16, 117 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Feynman,Statistical Mechanics: A Set Of Lectures, Advanced Books Classics (Avalon Publishing, 1998)

    R. Feynman,Statistical Mechanics: A Set Of Lectures, Advanced Books Classics (Avalon Publishing, 1998)

    1998

  51. [59]

    S. M. Girvin, Anomalous quantum Hall effect and two-dimensional classical plasmas: Analytic approxima- tions for correlation functions and ground-state ener- gies, Phys. Rev. B30, 558 (1984)

    1984

  52. [60]

    Stillinger, Frank H

    J. Stillinger, Frank H. and R. Lovett, Ion-Pair Theory of Concentrated Electrolytes. I. Basic Concepts, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics48, 3858 (1968)

    1968

  53. [61]

    Lovett and J

    R. Lovett and J. Stillinger, Frank H., Ion-Pair Theory of Concentrated Electrolytes. II. Approximate Dielectric Response Calculation, The Journal of Chemical Physics 48, 3869 (1968)

    1968

  54. [62]

    Kalinay, P

    P. Kalinay, P. Markoˇ s, L.ˇSamaj, and I. Travˇ enec, The Sixth-Moment Sum Rule for the Pair Correlations of the Two-Dimensional One-Component Plasma: Exact Result, Journal of Statistical Physics98, 639 (2000)

    2000

  55. [63]

    de Gail, N

    R. de Gail, N. Regnault, and M. O. Goerbig, Plasma picture of the fractional quantum Hall effect with inter- nal SU(K) symmetries, Phys. Rev. B77, 165310 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    D. X. Nguyen, T. Can, and A. Gromov, Particle-Hole Duality in the Lowest Landau Level, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 206602 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Fulsebakke, M

    J. Fulsebakke, M. Fremling, N. Moran, and J. K. Slingerland, Parametrization and thermodynamic scal- ing of pair correlation functions for the fractional quan- tum Hall effect, SciPost Phys.14, 149 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Lopez and E

    A. Lopez and E. Fradkin, Effective field theory for the bulk and edge states of quantum Hall states in unpolar- ized single layer and bilayer systems, Phys. Rev. B63, 085306 (2001)

    2001

  59. [67]

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

    1989

  60. [68]

    K. Moon, H. Mori, K. Yang, S. M. Girvin, A. H. Mac- Donald, L. Zheng, D. Yoshioka, and S.-C. Zhang, Spon- taneous interlayer coherence in double-layer quantum Hall systems: Charged vortices and Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B95, 5138 (1995)

    1995

  61. [69]

    C. Shi, S. Jolad, N. Regnault, and J. K. Jain, Phase diagram for bilayer quantum Hall effect at total filling νT = 5, Phys. Rev. B77, 155127 (2008)

    2008

  62. [70]

    Eisenstein, Exciton condensation in bilayer quantum Hall systems, Annu

    J. Eisenstein, Exciton condensation in bilayer quantum Hall systems, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.5, 159 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Geraedts, M

    S. Geraedts, M. P. Zaletel, Z. Papi´ c, and R. S. K. Mong, Competing Abelian and non-Abelian topological orders inν= 1/3 + 1/3 quantum Hall bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 91, 205139 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    M. R. Peterson, Y.-L. Wu, M. Cheng, M. Barkeshli, Z. Wang, and S. Das Sarma, Abelian and non-Abelian states inν= 2/3 bilayer fractional quantum Hall sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B92, 035103 (2015)

    2015

  65. [73]

    W. N. Faugno, A. C. Balram, A. W´ ojs, and J. K. Jain, Theoretical phase diagram of two-component composite fermions in double-layer graphene, Phys. Rev. B101, 085412 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Wagner and D

    G. Wagner and D. X. Nguyen, Successive electron- vortex binding in quantum Hall bilayers atν= 1 4 + 3 4 , Phys. Rev. B110, 195106 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    N. J. Zhang, R. Q. Nguyen, N. Batra, X. Liu, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, D. E. Feldman, and J. I. A. Li, Exci- tons in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Nature637, 327 (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    R. Q. Nguyen, N. J. Zhang, N. Khurana-Batra, S. Alkidim, X. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. E. Feldman, and J. I. A. Li, Bilayer excitons in the Laughlin fractional quantum Hall state, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-026-03325-0 (2026)

    2026 doi

  69. [77]

    S. M. Girvin and T. Jach, Formalism for the quantum Hall effect: Hilbert space of analytic functions, Phys. Rev. B29, 5617 (1984)

    1984

  70. [78]

    S. A. Trugman and S. Kivelson, Exact results for the fractional quantum Hall effect with general interactions, Phys. Rev. B31, 5280 (1985)

    1985

  71. [79]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Fractional Quantization of the Hall Effect: A Hierarchy of Incompressible Quantum Fluid States, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 605 (1983)

    1983

  72. [80]

    X. G. Wen and A. Zee, Shift and spin vector: New topo- logical quantum numbers for the Hall fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 953 (1992)

    1992

  73. [81]

    J. K. Jain and R. K. Kamilla, Composite Fermions in the Hilbert Space of the Lowest Electronic Landau Level, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B11, 2621 (1997)

    1997

  74. [82]

    S. C. Davenport and S. H. Simon, Spinful composite fermions in a negative effective field, Phys. Rev. B85, 245303 (2012)

    2012

  75. [83]

    S. H. Simon and A. C. Balram, Phase separation in the putative fractional quantum HallAphases, Phys. Rev. B111, 045102 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    Giudici, K

    P. Giudici, K. Muraki, N. Kumada, Y. Hirayama, and T. Fujisawa, Spin-Dependent Phase Diagram of the νT = 1 Bilayer Electron System, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 106803 (2008)

    2008

  77. [85]

    Kundu and A

    R. Kundu and A. C. Balram, Relations between density- density correlators of states in the maximal spin multi- plet (2026), arXiv:2604.22628 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Vieillefosse and J

    P. Vieillefosse and J. P. Hansen, Statistical mechanics of dense ionized matter. V. Hydrodynamic limit and trans- 26 port coefficients of the classical one-component plasma, Phys. Rev. A12, 1106 (1975)

    1975

  79. [87]

    Baus, On the compressibility of a one-component plasma, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral11, 2451–2462 (1978)

    M. Baus, On the compressibility of a one-component plasma, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral11, 2451–2462 (1978)

    1978

  80. [88]

    T. Can, M. Laskin, and P. Wiegmann, Fractional Quan- tum Hall Effect in a Curved Space: Gravitational Anomaly and Electromagnetic Response, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 046803 (2014)

    2014

  81. [89]

    T. Can, M. Laskin, and P. B. Wiegmann, Geometry of quantum Hall states: Gravitational anomaly and trans- port coefficients, Annals of Physics362, 752 (2015)

    2015

  82. [90]

    C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantized thermal transport in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B55, 15832 (1997)

    1997

  83. [91]

    Gromov, G

    A. Gromov, G. Y. Cho, Y. You, A. G. Abanov, and E. Fradkin, Framing Anomaly in the Effective Theory of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 016805 (2015)

    2015

  84. [92]

    Bradlyn and N

    B. Bradlyn and N. Read, Topological central charge from Berry curvature: Gravitational anomalies in trial wave functions for topological phases, Phys. Rev. B91, 165306 (2015)

    2015

  85. [93]

    Forrester and B

    P. Forrester and B. Jancovici, Generalized plasmas and the anomalous quantum Hall effect, Journal de Physique Lettres45, 583–589 (1984)

    1984

  86. [95]

    G. V. Dunne, Aspects Of Chern-Simons Theory, inAs- pects topologiques de la physique en basse dimension. Topological aspects of low dimensional systems, edited by A. Comtet, T. Jolicœur, S. Ouvry, and F. David (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999) pp. 177–263

    1999

  87. [96]

    magnetic

    X.-G. Wen and A. Zee, Neutral superfluid modes and “magnetic” monopoles in multilayered quantum Hall systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 1811 (1992)

    1992

  88. [97]

    Giuliani and G

    G. Giuliani and G. Vignale,Quantum Theory of the Electron Liquid(Cambridge University Press, The Ed- inburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK, 2008)

    2008

  89. [98]

    X. G. Wu, G. Dev, and J. K. Jain, Mixed-spin incom- pressible states in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 153 (1993)

    1993

  90. [99]

    Nakajima and H

    T. Nakajima and H. Aoki, Composite-Fermion Picture for the Spin-Wave Excitation in the Fractional Quantum Hall System, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 3568 (1994)

    1994

  91. [100]

    Ciftja and C

    O. Ciftja and C. Wexler, Monte Carlo simulation method for Laughlin-like states in a disk geometry, Phys. Rev. B67, 075304 (2003)

    2003

  92. [101]

    R. K. Dora and A. C. Balram, Competition between fractional quantum Hall liquid and electron solid phases in the Landau levels of multilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B108, 235153 (2023)

    2023

  93. [102]

    A. C. Balram and A. W´ ojs, Fractional quantum Hall effect atν= 2 + 4/9, Phys. Rev. Research2, 032035 (2020)

    2020

  94. [103]

    M. E. Knoester, Z. Papi´ c, and C. Morais Smith, Electron-solid and electron-liquid phases in graphene, Phys. Rev. B93, 155141 (2016)

    2016

  95. [104]

    Yang, Z.-X

    B. Yang, Z.-X. Hu, Z. Papi´ c, and F. D. M. Haldane, Model Wave Functions for the Collective Modes and the Magnetoroton Theory of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 256807 (2012)

    2012

  96. [105]

    Anakru, M

    A. Anakru, M. Gattu, A. C. Balram, X.-C. Wu, P. Ku- mar, Z. Bi, and J. K. Jain, Emergent Gauge Field in Composite-Fermion Metals: A Large-Scale Microscopic Study, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 246503 (2025)

    2025

  97. [106]

    H. Zhou, C. Huang, N. Wei, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, M. P. Zaletel, Z. Papi´ c, A. H. MacDonald, and A. F. Young, Strong-Magnetic-Field Magnon Trans- port in Monolayer Graphene, Phys. Rev. X12, 021060 (2022)

    2022

  98. [107]

    A. C. Balram and J. K. Jain, Fermi wave vector for the partially spin-polarized composite-fermion Fermi sea, Phys. Rev. B96, 235102 (2017)

    2017

  99. [108]

    A. C. Balram, Transitions from Abelian composite fermion to non-Abelian parton fractional quantum Hall states in the zeroth Landau level of bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B105, L121406 (2022)

    2022

  100. [109]

    Y. Xie, A. T. Pierce, J. M. Park, D. E. Parker, E. Kha- laf, P. Ledwith, Y. Cao, S. H. Lee, S. Chen, P. R. For- rester,et al., Fractional Chern insulators in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Nature600, 439 (2021)

    2021

  101. [110]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, A. P. Reddy, J. Yang, J. Seo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Fractional quantum anomalous Hall effect in multilayer graphene, Nature626, 759 (2024)

    2024

  102. [111]

    J. Dong, T. Wang, T. Wang, T. Soejima, M. P. Za- letel, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Anomalous Hall Crystals in Rhombohedral Multilayer Graphene. I. Interaction-Driven Chern Bands and Fractional Quan- tum Hall States at Zero Magnetic Field, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206503 (2024)

    2024

  103. [112]

    J. Xie, Z. Huo, X. Lu, Z. Feng, Z. Zhang, W. Wang, Q. Yang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Liu,et al., Tunable fractional Chern insulators in rhombohedral graphene superlattices, Nature Materials24, 1042 (2025)

    2025

  104. [113]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, Z. Hadjri, J. Yang, J. Seo, L. Shi, S. Ye, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi,et al., Extended quantum anomalous Hall states in graphene/hBN moir´ e superlattices, Nature637, 1090 (2025)

    2025

  105. [114]

    Z. Li, W. Wang, F. Wang, Z. Zhang, Q. Yang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Xie, J. Wang, K. Liu, et al., Fractional high-Chern insulator in twisted rhom- bohedral graphene, Nature , 1 (2026)

    2026

  106. [115]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe,et al., Signatures of fractional quantum anomalous Hall states in twisted MoTe2, Nature622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  107. [116]

    Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Kn¨ uppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Thermodynamic evidence of fractional Chern insulator in moir´ e MoTe2, Nature622, 69 (2023)

    2023

  108. [117]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, and T. Li, Observation of In- teger and Fractional Quantum Anomalous Hall Effects in Twisted Bilayer MoTe 2, Phys. Rev. X13, 031037 (2023)

    2023

  109. [118]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu,et al., Obser- vation of fractionally quantized anomalous Hall effect, Nature622, 74 (2023)

    2023

  110. [119]

    B. M. Kousa, N. Morales-Dur´ an, T. M. R. Wolf, E. Kha- laf, and A. H. MacDonald, Theory of Magnetoroton 27 Bands in Moir´ e Materials, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 246604 (2025)

    2025

  111. [120]

    M. Long, H. Lu, H.-Q. Wu, and Z. Y. Meng, Spec- tra of magnetoroton and chiral graviton modes of the fractional Chern insulator, Phys. Rev. B113, L041108 (2026)

    2026

  112. [121]

    Gon¸ calves, J

    M. Gon¸ calves, J. F. Mendez-Valderrama, J. Herzog- Arbeitman, J. Yu, X. Xu, D. Xiao, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Spinless and Spinful Charge Excitations in Moir´ e Fractional Chern Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 196503 (2026)

    2026

  113. [122]

    X. Shen, C. Wang, X. Hu, R. Guo, H. Yao, C. Wang, W. Duan, and Y. Xu, Magnetorotons in moir´ e fractional Chern insulators, Phys. Rev. B113, L081403 (2026)

    2026

  114. [123]

    Morf and B

    R. Morf and B. I. Halperin, Monte Carlo evaluation of trial wave functions for the fractional quantized Hall effect: Disk geometry, Phys. Rev. B33, 2221 (1986)

    1986

  115. [124]

    J. K. Jain,Composite Fermions(Cambridge University Press, New York, US, 2007)

    2007

Pith tools

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