Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 40 references

A 1d lattice model for the boundary of the quantum spin-Hall insulator

T0 review · 1 major / 5 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 The paper claims that a 1d lattice model with finite-dimensional local sites and a non-onsite action of U(1) and time-reversal symmetry can mimic the anomalous edge of the 2d quantum spin-Hall insulator, including fractional T-domain-wall…

desk verdict A clean finite-dimensional 1d boundary construction for the QSHI edge, with the algebraic claims solid and the Hamiltonian phase identification honestly conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08958 v1 pith:3N5KCEKP submitted 2019-08-23 cond-mat.str-el hep-thquant-ph

Max A. Metlitski This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elhep-thquant-ph
keywords quantumspin-Hallinsulatorsymmetry-protectedtopologicalphasenon-onsitesymmetryedgeanomalyLuttingerliquidJordan-WignertransformationZ2gaugetheoryKramersparity
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 tries to settle whether the anomalous 1d boundary of a quantum spin-Hall insulator can be recreated as a standalone quantum lattice without the 2d bulk. It claims yes, at the price of making the symmetry action non-onsite: the finite site Hilbert space still factors locally, but the symmetry operators act through finite-depth circuits rather than site-by-site. The construction reproduces the edge's signature properties—half-integer charge bound to time-reversal domain walls and the switch of Kramers parity when pi flux is threaded—and comes with a 1d Hamiltonian argued to flow to the standard Luttinger-liquid phase of the edge. If correct, it shows that at least some continuous-symmetry supercohomology SPT boundaries can be simulated by finite-dimensional local models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-onsite symmetry action: fermion operators $c_i$ on each site plus Ising link variables $\tau^z_{i,i+1}$, with $U$ built from products of $\tau^x$ links, powers of Majorana operators, and $(-i)^{N_{dw}/2}$, and $T_{NK}$ from occupation-dependent signs times complex conjugation. After a Jordan-Wigner transformation and a unitary rotation, this becomes a bosonic $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge theory: spin-1 site variables $S^z_i = 2\tilde{n}_i$, link electric field $\tau^z_{i,i+1}$, Gauss law $(-1)^{S^z_i} = \tau^z_{i-1,i}\tau^z_{i,i+1}$, and symmetry $U = e^{i\pi S^z/4}\prod_i \tau^x_{i,i+1}$ with a parity-sector phase. The same bosonized form emerges independently from the exactly solvable bulk-plus-boundary construction, so the model is not purely ad hoc.

What would settle it

A direct numerical solution of the full gauge-coupled spin-1 Hamiltonian (2.28)-(2.30) on a ring: if its low-energy spectrum does not have a single gapless mode with the predicted winding-sector quantization (2.43), or if the charge on a pair of symmetry-related $T$-domain walls is not an odd integer, then the lattice simulation of the edge fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the QSHI edge's anomaly does not force an infinite-dimensional or constrained Hilbert space; a chain with one complex fermion per site plus one Ising spin per link suffices. Symmetry generators $U$ and $T_{NK}$ are written so they satisfy the group law exactly on the whole Hilbert space while acting non-onsitely, and their finite-depth nature is what carries the anomaly. The paper derives the fractional charge $n+1/2$ on $T$-domain walls, the Kramers parity flip $T^2 = -(-1)^F$ at $\phi=\pi$, and the anomaly cocycle data $(\sigma,w_3)$, then presents a Hamiltonian whose ground state is argued to realize the QSHI edge Luttinger liquid.

Load-bearing premise

The construction's low-energy story rests on the assumption that the proposed gauge-coupled 1d Hamiltonians genuinely realize the gapless Luttinger-liquid phase of the QSHI edge; this is supported by known numerics for the gauge-free spin-1 chain and by a bosonization argument for how the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge field changes boundary conditions, but the full gauge-coupled model is not solved directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A standalone 1d system with finite local dimension can carry the QSHI edge anomaly, so the edge need not be realized only as the boundary of a 2d bulk.
  • The half-integer charge on $T$-domain walls and the Kramers parity switch at $\pi$ flux are reproduced by the lattice model, not just by the continuum edge theory.
  • The bosonized form yields a symmetric 1d Hamiltonian (a spin-1 XX chain coupled to a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge field) argued to lie in the Luttinger-liquid phase with the correct winding-sector quantization.
  • The anomaly cocycle extraction gives algebraic data $\sigma, w_3$ matching the bulk SPT data, connecting the lattice construction to the general non-onsite-symmetry framework.
  • For the simpler $U(1) \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ bulk, the paper derives the same boundary model from an exactly solvable commuting-projector bulk, linking the effective edge model to a microscopic bulk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the construction suggests a route to finite-dimensional boundary models for other supercohomology phases with continuous symmetry groups, since the obstacle there was truncating group-element-labeled Hilbert spaces and the paper's non-onsite action avoids that.
  • One testable extension is to compute the Luttinger parameter $K$ and central charge of the full gauge-coupled Hamiltonian (2.28)-(2.30) from finite-size spectra; the claim that it is the QSHI edge Luttinger liquid predicts a single gapless mode with winding quantization (2.43).
  • A second extension is to probe whether the boundary model reproduces the expected anomaly under more general background U(1) gauge fields, beyond the flux-threading thought experiments the paper analyzes, by looking for the same algebraic anomaly data in other boundary observables.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs an explicit one-dimensional lattice model with a finite-dimensional local tensor product Hilbert space and a non-onsite symmetry action that mimics the boundary of the two-dimensional quantum spin-Hall insulator with U(1) particle number and time-reversal T satisfying T^2 = (-1)^F. The symmetry action is defined on a chain of fermions with Ising link spins, and the paper demonstrates that the model reproduces the fractional charge n+1/2 on T-domain walls and the switching of Kramers parity upon pi-flux threading. A Jordan-Wigner transformation maps the model to a bosonic Z2 gauge theory, in which a spin-1 Hamiltonian coupled to the gauge field is proposed as a realization of the Luttinger-liquid edge. The paper also extracts the algebraic anomaly data (sigma, w3) characterizing the non-onsite symmetry and presents an exactly solvable bulk+boundary construction for the U(1) x Z2 subgroup that matches the bosonized model.

Significance. If the low-energy identification of the proposed Hamiltonian is correct, the paper resolves an open question: the edge of a continuous-symmetry supercohomology SPT can be mimicked in a finite-dimensional lattice Hilbert space by relaxing the onsite condition on the symmetry action. The explicit construction of the non-onsite symmetry, the derivation of the domain-wall charge and Kramers parity switching from the operator algebra, and the extraction of the anomaly cocycle are valuable and internally consistent. The bulk+boundary construction for the U(1) x Z2 subgroup provides an independent check of part of the model. The Hamiltonian claim is an important step, but it rests on an indirect bosonization argument and would benefit from direct numerical verification.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section II E, Eqs. (2.28)-(2.30)] The assertion that the gauge-coupled spin-1 Hamiltonian (2.28)-(2.30) realizes the conventional Luttinger-liquid phase of the QSHI edge is supported only by an indirect argument: the bare spin-1 XXZ chain is known to be a Luttinger liquid for Delta_c < Delta < |J| (Refs. [24-26]), and Section II E argues that the Z2 gauge field only modifies the boundary conditions, yielding the winding sectors (2.38)-(2.43). The manuscript does not provide a direct check of the gauge-coupled model itself, for instance a numerical computation of the central charge or Luttinger parameter, nor does it explicitly analyze the effect of the Gauss-law projection (2.24) and the odd-N boundary term (2.29) on the low-energy theory. If the gauge coupling, the projection, or the boundary term were to open a gap or change the central charge, the identification with the edge theory (1.4) would fail. Since the abstract states that the Hamiltonian realizes the Luttinger-liquid phase, this is a load-bearing point that requires either a numerical verification or a more rigorous derivation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II A, Eq. (2.3)] The operator U is defined as a product of Majorana operators over the chain, which is a long string in the occupation-number basis; the paper should clarify in what sense this is a finite-depth local unitary for fermionic systems, for example by providing a definition of finite-depth fermionic unitaries or a reference, since the locality-preserving property (2.5) alone does not establish finite-depth implementation.
  2. [Section II F, Eq. (2.61)] The paper computes the anomaly cocycle for the enlarged group Gb = Z2 x O(2) but does not explicitly discuss how the data (lambda, sigma, w3) restricts to the physical QSHI symmetry subgroup generated by U(1) and T = U TNK; showing this restriction would confirm that the extracted anomaly matches the expected QSHI anomaly.
  3. [Section III F] As the paper openly acknowledges at the end of Section I and in Section III F, the bulk+boundary construction covers only the U(1) x Z2 subgroup and not time-reversal; the authors should state more prominently that the T-dependent signatures (fractional charge on T-domain walls and Kramers parity switching) are supported only by the Section II algebraic construction, not by the bulk derivation.
  4. [Section II E, Eq. (2.40)] The identification tau^z_{j,j+1} ~ cos(tilde_theta/2) is stated without derivation; a brief justification of the operator's scaling dimension and its irrelevance would strengthen the argument that the gauge field does not destabilize the Luttinger liquid.
  5. [Section II C] There are minor typographical issues, for example the missing closing ket in 'tau^z_{L,1}|psi(phi + 2pi>' and the notation 'N - odd' in Eq. (2.29) without a comma; these should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model's signatures are derived from the explicit symmetry algebra, and the Luttinger-liquid Hamiltonian relies on external numerical results and standard bosonization.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The non-onsite symmetry operators U and T_NK are explicitly defined in Eqs. (2.3) and (2.8), and the fractional domain-wall charge and Kramers parity switching are computed from the algebra of these operators and the flux-threading construction, not inserted as inputs. The anomaly cocycle (sigma, w3) is extracted in Section II F from truncated symmetry operators using the Else-Nayak procedure, with the computation sketched in Appendix C; Appendix D is explicitly a reverse construction from prescribed sigma and w3, so its output-by-construction character is a stated mathematical lemma rather than a disguised prediction. The Luttinger-liquid identification of the Hamiltonian (2.28)-(2.30) does rest on an indirect argument: the bare spin-1 XXZ chain is known numerically to be a Luttinger liquid (Refs. [24-26]), and the Z2 gauge field is argued via bosonization in Section II E to only modify boundary conditions rather than open a gap. This is a correctness risk, not circularity, because the input numerical facts are independent external results and the boundary-condition analysis is performed explicitly. The Section III bulk+boundary construction covers only U(1) x Z2 symmetry and the paper states this limitation; it is used as a consistency check, while the time-reversal part of the claim is carried by the Section II algebra. Self-citations such as Ref. [14] are used for model-building background in Section III and are not the load-bearing justification for the central non-onsite construction.

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

The central claim does not depend on fitted numbers. The couplings in the lattice Hamiltonian are model parameters, not tuned to any experimental or numerical target. The key external inputs are standard bosonization, the Else-Nayak anomaly characterization, the numerical phase diagram of the spin-1 chain, and the TF-model commuting-projector machinery; these are listed as axioms. No new hypothetical degrees of freedom are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard 1+1D bosonization dictionary, including psi_R/L ~ e^{-i phi_R/L}, density relations (2.48), and the boundary-condition identifications (2.43) and (2.44).
    Used in Section II E to identify the spin-chain Luttinger liquid with the QSHI edge Dirac theory; assumed without proof.
  • domain assumption The spin-1 XXZ chain with Hamiltonian (2.34) is a gapless Luttinger liquid for Delta_c < Delta < |J|, with Delta_c/|J| close to 0.
    Imported from Refs [24-26]; this numerical/known result is the basis for the claim that the gauge-coupled model realizes the Luttinger-liquid phase.
  • domain assumption Else-Nayak anomaly characterization: a non-onsite finite-depth symmetry on a 1d boundary has truncation data (sigma, w3) that match the bulk SPT cocycle.
    Adopted from Ref [7] and used in Section II F and Appendix C to certify the anomaly, and in Appendix D to construct general boundaries.
  • domain assumption The conventional 2d QSHI with U(1) and T^2=(-1)^F is in the (generalized) supercohomology classification, so its boundary is expected to be mimickable with non-onsite symmetry.
    Invoked in the Introduction with Ref [21]; frames the open problem being answered.
  • domain assumption Commuting-projector and Kasteleyn-orientation properties of the Tarantino-Fidkowski model, including F_p^2=1 and the boundary plaquette commutation rules in Section III.
    Imported from Refs [14,27] to construct the bulk and boundary Hilbert space in Section III; not re-proved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A 1d lattice model for the boundary of the quantum spin-Hall insulator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3N5KCEKP

@misc{pith2026190808958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A 1d lattice model for the boundary of the quantum spin-Hall insulator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3N5KCEKP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08958}
}
abstract

We present a 1d lattice model that mimics the boundary of the conventional 2d quantum spin-Hall insulator (QSHI) with $U(1)$ symmetry and time-reversal $T$, satisfying $T^2 = (-1)^F$. Our construction utilizes a local tensor product Hilbert space of finite site dimension with a non-onsite symmetry action. We discuss how several signature properties of the QSHI, such as the fractional charge on $T$-domain walls and Kramers parity switching upon $\pi$-flux threading, are manifested in our treatment. We also present a 1d Hamiltonian whose ground state realizes the conventional Luttinger-liquid phase of the QSHI edge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Bulk+boundary construction. Left: graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Effect of the plaquette flip operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Plaquette flip operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    fractional electric charge n + 1/2 onT domain walls (here n is an integer); 1 Here and below lower d always stands for spatial dimension. 3

    work page

  2. [2]

    We will also extract the algebraic data characterizing our non-onsite symmetry

    switching of Kramers parity from T 2 = (−1)F toT 2 =−(−1)F upon threading flux π through the ring. We will also extract the algebraic data characterizing our non-onsite symmetry. Finally, we will present a 1d lattice Hamiltonian that realizes the conventional Luttinger-liquid phase of the QSHI edge. In fact, it proves convenient to initially work with a sl...

    work page

  3. [3]

    U(1) particle number with a corresponding charge N, so that fermion parity (−1)F = (−1)N

    work page

  4. [4]

    A unitary Z2 symmetry U

    work page

  5. [5]

    bosonized

    An anti-unitary Z2 symmetryTNK , satisfying the following algebra: U 2 = 1, T 2 NK = 1, [U,N ] = 0, [TNK,N ] = 0, TNKU = (−1)NUTNK. (1.1) The subscript on TNK stands for non-Kramers. We then define the Kramers time-reversal symmetry as T =UTNK. (1.2) Then T 2 = (−1)F, [T,N ] = 0. (1.3) The symmetry group (U(1)⋊ZT 4 )/Z2 of QSHI is obtained by keeping just ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    economical

    The eigenvalues 0 and 1 are realized if there is no domain wall at i, while the eigenvalues ± 1 2 are realized if there is a domain wall at i. Thus, we may think of ˆ˜ni as independent variables, provided we impose the constraint Gi∼ 1 with Gi = (−1)2ˆ˜niτz i−1,iτz i,i+1. (2.22) We may then think of the system as a boson coupled to a Z2 gauge field. The bo...

    work page

  7. [7]

    gauge transformations

    For every element g∈Gb, pick a lift ˜g to Gf. Then, ˜g· ˜h = ( (−1)F)λ(g,h) ~gh, (2.51) where λ(g,h )∈{ 0, 1}. In fact, λ is a two-cocycle: (dλ)(g,h,k ) =λ(h,k )−λ(gh,k ) +λ(g,hk )−λ(g,h ) = 0 ( mod 2). (2.52) Thus, we can think ofλ as an element ofH2(Gb, Z2), where the co-boundary transformations correspond to picking a different lift ˜g to Gf. Else and N...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The boundary plaquette operators preserve Vc, as well as U(1) and Z2 symmetry

    work page

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Nearest neighbor boundary Fp’s do not commute, but otherwise boundary Fp’s do

    The boundary Fp’s all commute with all the bulk Fp’s. Nearest neighbor boundary Fp’s do not commute, but otherwise boundary Fp’s do. 22

  2. [10]

    If both ci and ci+1 are unpaired in |ψ⟩, F 2 i,i+1|ψ⟩ = 1 4(1 +isi,i+1γiγi+1)(1 +isi,i+1¯γi¯γi+1)|ψ⟩

    Let ( i,i + 1) be a boundary plaquette, and ci, ci+1 - its boundary fermions. If both ci and ci+1 are unpaired in |ψ⟩, F 2 i,i+1|ψ⟩ = 1 4(1 +isi,i+1γiγi+1)(1 +isi,i+1¯γi¯γi+1)|ψ⟩. Otherwise, F 2 i|ψ⟩ =|ψ⟩

  3. [11]

    plaquettes ( i− 1,i ) and (i,i + 1) have the same spin)

    Consider adjacent boundary plaquettes ( i− 1,i ), (i,i + 1), and a state|ψ⟩ where the boundary fermion ci shared by these plaquettes is paired (i.e. plaquettes ( i− 1,i ) and (i,i + 1) have the same spin). Then, • If the boundary fermions ci−1 and ci+1 are paired, [Fi−1,i,Fi,i...

  4. [12]

    +” and so there are no unpaired fermions. We can build a state where the consecutive “−

    Let (i,i + 1) be a boundary plaquette, and|ψ⟩ a state where ci is unpaired but ci+1 is paired. Then, Fi,i+1γi|ψ⟩ =si,i+1γi+1Fi|ψ⟩. Likewise, if ci is paired butci+1 is unpaired then Fi,i+1γi+1|ψ⟩ =si,i+1γiFi,i+1|ψ⟩. Similarly for γ→ ¯γ. C. Labeling the edge Hilbert space We no...

  5. [13]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Science 338, 1604 (2012), 1301.0861, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1227224

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 87, 155114 (2013), 1106.4772, URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.155114. 31

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Senthil, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 299 (2015), 1405.4015, URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031214-014740

    T. Senthil, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 299 (2015), 1405.4015, URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031214-014740

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chen, Z.-X

    X. Chen, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 84, 235141 (2011), 1106.4752, URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235141

    2011 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chen and X.-G

    X. Chen and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 86, 235135 (2012), 1206.3117, URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.235135

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Levin and Z.-C

    M. Levin and Z.-C. Gu, Phys. Rev. B 86, 115109 (2012), 1202.3120, URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.115109

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D. V. Else and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. B 90, 235137 (2014), 1409.5436, URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.235137

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Vishwanath and T

    A. Vishwanath and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X 3, 011016 (2013), 1209.3058, URL http://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.3.011016

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    F. J. Burnell, X. Chen, L. Fidkowski, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B 90, 245122 (2014), 1302.7072, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.245122

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kapustin (2014), 1403.1467

    A. Kapustin (2014), 1403.1467

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gu and X.-G

    Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 90, 115141 (2014), 1201.2648, URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.115141

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gaiotto and A

    D. Gaiotto and A. Kapustin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1645044 (2016), 1505.05856, URL https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X16450445

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Tarantino, N

    N. Tarantino, N. H. Lindner, and L. Fidkowski, New Journal of Physics 18, 035006 (2016), 1506.06754, URL http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/18/i=3/a=035006

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    R. A. Jones and M. A. Metlitski (2019), 1902.05957

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031027 (2015), 1502.03446, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031027

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wang and T

    C. Wang and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041031 (2015), 1505.05141, URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.245151

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. A. Metlitski and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B 93, 245151 (2016), 1505.05142, URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.245151

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Wang and T

    C. Wang and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B 93, 085110 (2016), 1507.08290, URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.085110

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. C. Potter, C. Wang, M. A. Metlitski, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B 96, 235114 (2017), 1609.08618, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.235114

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005), cond-mat/0506581, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.146802

    2005 arXiv

  25. [33]

    T. Lan, C. Zhu, and X.-G. Wen (2018), 1809.01112

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. H. Son and J. Alicea (2019), 1906.11846

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Tantivasadakarn and A

    N. Tantivasadakarn and A. Vishwanath (2018), 1806.09709

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Botet and R

    R. Botet and R. Jullien, Phys. Rev. B 27, 613 (1983), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.27.613

    1983

  29. [37]

    Yajima and M

    M. Yajima and M. Takahashi, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 63, 3634 (1994), 32 https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.63.3634, URL https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.63.3634

    1994 doi

  30. [38]

    Kitazawa, K

    A. Kitazawa, K. Nomura, and K. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4038 (1996), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4038

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    Tarantino and L

    N. Tarantino and L. Fidkowski, Phys. Rev. B 94, 115115 (2016), 1604.02145, URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.115115

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ellison and L

    T. Ellison and L. Fidkowski (2018), 1806.09623. 33

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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