Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Fate of moir\'e flat bands for a weakly repulsive Bose-Einstein condensate in one-dimensional $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric bichromatic optical lattices

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a PT-symmetric one-dimensional moiré lattice for a weakly repulsive Bose-Einstein condensate, the parity of the ratio denominator $q$ determines whether an imaginary potential monotonically broadens the lowest flat band (even $q$) or…

desk verdict New parity rule for PT-breaking in 1D moiré lattices, backed by numerics and parameter-free tight-binding, but the abstract overgeneralizes: q=1 is an exception, the odd-q mechanism is proven only for q=3, and the rule holds for only one relative-phase class. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01680 v2 pith:5E2HJF6P submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Enhong Cheng , Yu Tan , Yanzhen Xu , Li-Jun Lang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords moirélatticesPTsymmetryflatbandsbichromaticopticalBose-EinsteincondensateGross-Pitaevskiiequationnon-Hermitianbandtheorycommensurateratios
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 asks how the flatness of the lowest band in a one-dimensional moiré lattice is affected when the secondary lattice carries gain and loss, implemented as a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric imaginary potential, and when the atoms interact weakly. The central claim is a parity rule: for commensurate ratios $\alpha=1/q$ with even $q$, the lowest two bands are directly coupled by the imaginary potential, $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry breaks between them, and the lowest band broadens monotonically as the gain-loss strength $\gamma$ grows; for odd $q$, a central lattice site at which the imaginary potential vanishes shields the lowest band, so $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry first breaks between the second and third bands while the lowest band remains real, and its width responds nonmonotonically, first increasing and then decreasing. The paper derives this rule from second-order perturbation theory plus a tight-binding analysis, and verifies it numerically for $q=1$ through $q=6$. It then solves the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for weak repulsive interactions and claims that interactions alone broaden the bands, yet the parity classification survives: even $q$ uniformly loses flattening as $\gamma$ grows, whereas odd $q$ shows an interplay in which the imaginary potential can either enhance or reduce flattening. If correct, the result gives a simple design rule for controlling moiré band flatness with engineered dissipation in ultracold-atom simulators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\mathcal{PT}$-conjugate pairing of the $q$ Wannier centers inside one moiré cell and the presence or absence of a self-conjugate central site. For even $q$ the centers split into $q/2$ conjugate pairs, and the lowest two bands form a bonding-antibonding doublet whose states are concentrated on one pair; the paper's perturbative identity $E_\nu=\tilde{E}_\nu+\gamma^2\sum_{\mu\ne\nu}|V_{\mu\nu}|^2/\Delta_{\mu\nu}+O(\gamma^3)$, with $V_{\mu\nu}=-V_{\nu\mu}^*$, then shows that the smallest gap and largest imaginary-potential overlap make the lowest two bands attract most strongly, producing the monotonic broadening. For odd $q$ a single center site lies at the cell center with vanishing imaginary potential; because the lowest eigenstate is concentrated there, the first $\mathcal{PT}$-breaking transition is moved to the second and third bands, and the lowest band's leading imaginary correction is second order and real. At large $\gamma$ the paper uses an effective-hopping argument with left and right non-Hermitian Wannier functions to show that the lowest bandwidth decays as $\exp(-\kappa\sqrt{\gamma})$, with $\kappa=q\sqrt{V_s/8}\int_0^{2\pi}\sqrt{|\sin u|}\,du$, giving $D_q\propto-\sqrt{\gamma}$; this is what forces the odd-$q$ response to turn around and flatten again.

What would settle it

Diagonalize the noninteracting continuum Hamiltonian at $V_0=0.8$ for $q=3$ with small $\gamma$ and identify which bands first form a complex-conjugate pair: the parity rule predicts an exceptional point between bands 2 and 3 while band 1 stays real, so if the lowest two bands coalesce first, or if band 1 itself acquires an imaginary chemical potential at the same critical $\gamma$, the central claim fails. A second check is to compute $D_q(\gamma)$ for $q=5$ across $0<\gamma<9$ and test the predicted nonmonotonic shape with a linear $\sqrt{\gamma}$ tail at large $\gamma$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the parity of the denominator $q$ in the commensurate moiré ratio $\alpha=1/q$ determines the $\mathcal{PT}$-breaking sequence and thereby the fate of the lowest flat band under a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric imaginary potential. For even $q$, every potential minimum within the moiré cell belongs to a $\mathcal{PT}$-conjugate pair, and the lowest two bands form a directly coupled doublet; the imaginary potential induces level attraction between them, so they coalesce at an exceptional point and the lowest band's width increases monotonically with $\gamma$. For odd $q$, one minimum lies at the cell center where the imaginary potential is exactly zero, and the lowest eigenstate is dominated by this self-conjugate site; its first-order coupling to gain and loss vanishes, so $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry first breaks between the second and third bands, the lowest band remains purely real over a broad range of $\gamma$, and its width first grows and then shrinks again because level attraction from higher bands competes with non-Hermitian confinement that exponentially suppresses the effective hopping at large $\gamma$. For a weakly repulsive condensate solved through the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, the paper finds that interactions broaden the bands by themselves but preserve the parity dependence: for even $q$ the lowest band consistently becomes less flat with $\gamma$, whereas for odd $q$ the imaginary potential can either enhance or suppress flattening depending on the parameter regime. The same tight-binding analysis shows that the parity rule can reverse if the relative lattice phases place the self-conjugate site outside the lowest-energy sector.

Load-bearing premise

For odd $q$, the entire parity rule rests on the assumption that the lowest eigenstate is dominated by the self-conjugate central lattice site, where the imaginary part of the potential vanishes; if interactions, deeper lattices, or different lattice phases move the lowest state onto a conjugate pair, the predicted protection of the lowest band is lost and the even-odd behavior can reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For even $q$, increasing the gain-loss strength $\gamma$ monotonically increases the lowest-band width $D_q$ and the inverse gap ratio $G_q$ up to the exceptional point, so dissipation acts as a linear knob for band broadening.
  • For odd $q$, the lowest band stays real even after $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry breaks in higher bands, and $D_q$ is nonmonotonic in $\gamma$; at large $\gamma$ the band re-flattens with $D_q\simeq c_1\sqrt{\gamma}+c_2$, $c_1<0$.
  • Weak repulsive interactions broaden the lowest band on their own, but in the combined system the even-$q$ case always becomes less flat with $\gamma$, while the odd-$q$ case shows either enhancement or suppression of flattening.
  • With interactions, the mean-field band becomes asymmetric ($E_k\ne E_{-k}$) and the ground state shifts away from $k=0$ while the band maximum shifts away from the zone boundary; both effects grow with interaction strength and $\gamma$.
  • The tight-binding analysis implies the parity rule is tied to the self-conjugate site sitting in the lowest-energy sector, so changing the relative primary-secondary lattice phase (Class I versus Class III) swaps the even-odd behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the even-odd distinction gives a clear experimental fingerprint: the lowest-band width versus gain-loss strength should grow monotonically for $q=2$ but show a dip-and-revival for $q=3$, so one transport or band-mapping measurement could test the mechanism directly.
  • Beyond the paper, the large-$\gamma$ result $D_q\simeq c_1\sqrt{\gamma}+c_2$ with $c_1<0$, demonstrated for $q=5,7$, suggests a universal stretched-exponential localization of non-Hermitian Wannier tails for all odd $q$, testable by exact diagonalization for larger $q$.
  • Beyond the paper, the phase-class analysis implies that the relative phase between the two lattices can swap even and odd behavior, turning the parity rule into a two-state switch for protecting or broadening the lowest band.
  • Beyond the paper, the predicted band asymmetry $E_k\ne E_{-k}$ for interacting condensates implies nonreciprocal transport, a consequence the paper does not develop; expansion or Bloch-oscillation experiments could look for direction-dependent group velocities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies a one-dimensional PT-symmetric bichromatic optical lattice with commensurate ratio α=1/q and a weakly repulsive Bose-Einstein condensate. The authors compute noninteracting complex band structures by plane-wave diagonalization and report that the PT-breaking sequence and the response of the lowest moiré flat band to the imaginary potential depend on the parity of q: for even q the lowest two bands attract and break PT first, monotonically broadening the lowest band; for odd q (q=3,5 shown) the second and third bands break first while the lowest band remains real, producing a nonmonotonic dispersion D_q. A Wannier-overlap tight-binding model reproduces this picture and gives a parameter-free estimate of the q=2 threshold. The authors then solve the Gross-Pitaevskii equation self-consistently for weak repulsive interactions and find that interactions generally broaden the bands, with parity-dependent enhancement or suppression of flattening. A large-γ WKB analysis of effective hopping predicts D_q∼c_1√γ+c_2.

Significance. The paper is valuable because it connects a parity selection rule in a non-Hermitian commensurate superlattice to a concrete observable, the lowest-band width, and supports the rule with several independent methods: continuum diagonalization for q=1..6, perturbation theory, and a tight-binding model whose parameters are computed from Wannier overlaps rather than fitted. The tight-binding estimate γ_pt≈0.48 for q=2, close to the continuum value 0.46, is a genuine parameter-free check. The interacting GPE results for q=2..5 are a useful step toward experimental studies. The main risk is that the odd-q branch is only established for q=3 and q=5; the general statement in the abstract and conclusion needs qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §III] The parity statement is overgeneralized because q=1, which is an odd denominator under the definition α=1/q, q≥1, is treated in Fig. 2(a) as a single-lattice case in which PT-symmetry breaks between the lowest two bands and D_1 is monotonic in Fig. 2(g), not nonmonotonic with the lowest band remaining real. The abstract's claim that odd denominators 'yield a nonmonotonic response due to the PT-symmetry breaking within the second and the third lowest bands instead while the lowest band remains purely real' is therefore literally false if q=1 is included. The authors should either explicitly restrict the odd-denominator branch to q≥3 or redefine the parity rule for commensurate moiré supercells with q≥2, and adjust the conclusion in §V accordingly.
  2. [Appendix B3 (Eq. B18)] The general odd-q branch rests on an unproved assertion: 'the lowest eigenstate is dominated by the self-conjugate center site in the lattice considered here' immediately before Eq. (B18). This assertion is what guarantees that the first-order imaginary correction to the lowest band vanishes and that the first exceptional point involves the second and third bands. For q=3, Appendix B2 proves the inverted gap hierarchy Δ21>Δ32 via Eq. (B15), but for q≥5 the block-tridiagonal structure (B18) does not by itself imply center dominance, and no proof or numerical demonstration is given for q=5 or q=7. Since this is the load-bearing step for the general parity rule, I request either a tight-binding proof based on the real onsite-energy ordering and the smallness of the hoppings, or explicit numerical evidence of center dominance for q=5 and q=7 in the weak-γ regime.
  3. [§IV and Fig. 4] The interacting odd-parity conclusion inherits the same gap: Figs. 4(c1) and 4(d1) show D_3 and D_5 only, and the statement in §V that 'for odd denominators, non-Hermiticity can either enhance or suppress the flattening' is presented as a general parity property. Because the underlying reason is the same center-dominance assumption, the interaction claim for q≥7 is not supported by the presented numerics. If the requested proof or evidence for odd q strengthens the noninteracting rule, the authors should explicitly state that the interacting extension is demonstrated for q=3 and q=5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The label 'odd parities q_o={1,3,5}' is misleading because q=1 does not exhibit the odd-parity behavior described in the text; please relabel or add a caveat distinguishing q=1 as the single-lattice comparison limit.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The notation for the unperturbed wave function is incomplete: after writing 'where ˜ψ is the unperturbed wave function', the matrix element V_μν is not explicitly defined in terms of ψ̃_ν, and the normalization over the moiré cell should be stated.
  3. [§III, after Eq. (12)] The phrase 'G_q diverging at the EP' could be misread as if D_q diverges; since G_q=log10(w_q/Δ_q), it is the gap ratio that diverges as Δ_q→0. Please clarify.
  4. [§III, perturbation-theory paragraph] The statement that the parity-dependent phenomenon 'can be understood by the perturbation theory' should explicitly mention that Eq. (13) is used for γ below the first exceptional point, since the expression is not valid near or beyond an EP.
  5. [Appendix B4] The main text does not mention that the potential in Eq. (6) corresponds to Class I of the relative-phase classification in Appendix B4; adding one sentence in §III would prevent readers from interpreting the parity rule as independent of the relative phase between primary and secondary lattices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parity-dependent PT-breaking sequence is derived from overlap-integral tight-binding parameters and confirmed by continuum numerics; the unproved odd-q center-dominance step is a rigor gap, not a circular one.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The tight-binding Hamiltonian parameters C_epsilon and C_t are computed from Wannier overlap integrals in Eqs. (B6)-(B7), not fitted to the band data that the parity rule is supposed to explain. The q=2 PT-breaking threshold is obtained analytically from the derived non-Hermitian SSH eigenvalues, and the q=3 inverted gap hierarchy and PT-breaking pair are derived from the explicit trimer Hamiltonian in Appendix B2. The perturbation formula in Eq. (13) is a standard second-order expression, and the conclusion that the first exceptional point occurs in the pair with the largest coupling-to-gap ratio is a consequence of that formula, not an input. The only numerical fitting, c1 and c2 in Fig. 7, is used to confirm the independently derived WKB asymptotic form in Eq. (C10)-(C11); the fitted slope is not fed back into the parity argument. One reference with author overlap, Ref. [74], is cited for the q=2 reduction to the non-Hermitian SSH model, but the needed eigenvalues are rederived in Eq. (B11), so the citation is not load-bearing. The main true weakness is mathematical, not circular: for general odd q>=5 the statement that the lowest eigenstate is dominated by the self-conjugate center site is asserted rather than proved, and the paper itself shows in Appendix B4 that this dominance, not odd parity per se, controls the PT-breaking sequence. That is an unproven premise or generalization gap, not a case where the conclusion is equivalent to its input by construction. The q=1 case likewise conflicts with the abstract's blanket odd-denominator wording, but that is an internal consistency/correctness issue rather than circular reasoning. Overall, no step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced; the imaginary potential is taken from prior non-Hermitian lattice literature. The free parameters are control or convergence parameters, not fitted to target the results. The main axioms are domain assumptions about the model and the tight-binding hierarchy.

free parameters (3)
  • Lattice depth V0 = 0.8
    The dimensionless potential strength is fixed to 0.8 throughout the main text; the parity classification and flat-band hierarchy are demonstrated at this depth and are not shown to persist for all V0.
  • Interaction strength n_z c = 0.1-0.5 (even q), 0.05-0.2 (odd q)
    Values are chosen to remain in the weak-repulsion regime where the lowest branch has purely real chemical potential and no swallowtails; the parity-dependent interaction trends are shown for these ranges.
  • Plane-wave cutoff d = 10q
    The cutoff is chosen to achieve convergence (coefficients < 1e-13, energy difference < 1e-8); it grows with the moiré cell size q.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Validity of the 3D-to-1D reduction of the GPE under strong transverse confinement (conditions a_s^2/a_perp^2 << a_s n_z << 1)
    Invoked in Sec. II (Eq. 1) to justify the 1D GPE used for all band calculations.
  • domain assumption The imaginary sinusoidal potential is a valid model of atomic gain/loss and total norm is N(t)
    Sec. II, Eqs. (2)-(3); the paper notes experimental support for stable BECs in such potentials is still limited.
  • domain assumption Bloch ansatz remains valid for non-Hermitian band structure
    Used in Eqs. (7)-(8) to define complex bands; complex-µ solutions are acknowledged to be non-stationary.
  • standard math Perturbation theory (Eq. 13) with unperturbed Hermitian wavefunctions is accurate for small γ away from exceptional points
    Used in Sec. III to explain the PT-breaking pair via |V_mu_nu|^2/|Delta_mu_nu|.
  • domain assumption Tight-binding truncation to the lowest primary-lattice band with nearest-neighbor hopping, and hierarchy C_t < |t_0|, t_0 < 0, C_epsilon >> C_t
    Appendix B, Eq. (B8); required for the structural parity argument. Figures 6(a,b) check the parameters at V_p = V_s = 0.8.
  • domain assumption For odd q, the lowest band is dominated by the self-conjugate center site
    Appendix B, near Eq. (B18); load-bearing for the parity rule but not proven for all q.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fate of moir\'e flat bands for a weakly repulsive Bose-Einstein condensate in one-dimensional $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric bichromatic optical lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5E2HJF6P

@misc{pith2026260801680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fate of moir\'e flat bands for a weakly repulsive Bose-Einstein condensate in one-dimensional $\mathcalPT$-symmetric bichromatic optical lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5E2HJF6P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01680}
}
abstract

One-dimensional (1D) superlattices provide one simplified platform for exploring moir\'e physics from a low-dimensional perspective, with the ratio of lattice constants playing a role analogous to the twist angle in two-dimensional bilayers. Here, we propose a 1D $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric bichromatic optical lattice for a weakly repulsive Bose-Einstein condensate and investigate how the interplay of dissipation and interaction impacts the lowest moir\'e flat band. Without interaction, we find that the lowest-band flatness induced by commensurate ratios exhibits a parity-dependent response to the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric imaginary potential due to the distinct $\mathcal{PT}$ pairing mechanism for the energy spectrum. For ratios with even denominators (i.e., even parities), the level attraction and thus the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry breaking occur within the lowest two bands, leading to a monotonic broadening of the lowest flat band, whereas odd denominators (i.e., odd parities) yield a nonmonotonic response due to the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry breaking within the second and the third lowest bands instead while the lowest band remains purely real. This parity-dependent phenomenon can be understood by the perturbation theory. Furthermore, by solving the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, we also find that although the weak repulsive interaction can broaden the moir\'e bands alone, the combined effects of interaction and imaginary potential also lead to parity-dependent behaviors. For even parities, band flattening is consistently diminished, whereas for odd parities, the imaginary potential can either enhance or reduce the degree of flattening. These results pave the way for experimental studies of dissipation and interaction effects on band flatness in moir\'e systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01680 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Lowest ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a)-(f) Several lowest energy bands as a function of the non-Hermitian strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a2). Since ψ˜ 1 and ψ˜ 2 share the most similar con￾centration profiles, their energies are close (∆21 < ∆32) and |V21| > |V32|, hence ∂E1/∂γ ≈ −∂E2/∂γ > 0 at weak γ. The resulting strong attraction between the low￾est two bands triggers PT -symmetry breaking first at the moir´e Brillouin boundary, where the gap is smallest; D2 therefore increases monotonically with γ in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The lowest real mean-field band and its dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Several lowest mean-field bands at interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a),(b) Tight-binding Hamiltonian parameters as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Over the fitting interval, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (B11) Figure 6(c) compares the tight-binding bands (black) with the continuum bands (gray) atγ= 0.5

    The even case ofq= 2 Forq= 2 the tight-binding chain reduces to the non- Hermitian Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model [26, 74], whose eigenvalues can be obtained analytically: E±(k) =ε 0 ± q 2(t2 0 +C 2 t ) + 2 (t2 0 −C 2 t ) cosθk −γ 2C 2ε . (B11) Figure 6(c) compares the tight-binding bands (black) with the continuum bands (gray) atγ= 0.5. Under the condition i...

  2. [2]

    The odd case ofq= 3 Forq= 3, the model is usually referred to as thePT- trimer model [75–79], wherePTsymmetry pairs sublat- tices|s= 1⟩ ↔ |3⟩, while|2⟩is self-conjugate. Using the pairing unitary matrix U= 1√ 2   1 0−1 1 0 1 0 √ 2 0   ,(B13) which satisfies (|−⟩,|+⟩,|2⟩) T =U(|1⟩,|2⟩,|3⟩) T with |±⟩ ≡(|1⟩ ± |3⟩)/ √ 2, the transformed Hamiltonian H(k) ...

  3. [3]

    (B9) implies pairwise cancellation; hence,Pq s=1 φs ≡0 (modπ)

    Moreover, denotingφ s ≡arg[ ˜ts], the pairing rela- tion in Eq. (B9) implies pairwise cancellation; hence,Pq s=1 φs ≡0 (modπ). Applying the Peierls transforma- tionc n,s →e iθs cn,s withθ s+1 −θ s =φ s (modπ) renders every hopping real [26, 73]. After the transformation, ts =t q−s, while the onsite terms are unaffected:ε s = ˜εs. Applying a Fourier transf...

  4. [4]

    The real part of the potential is accordingly generalized to ˜V r(z) =V p cos (z+ϕ p) +V s cos (αz+ϕ s),(B21) withV p, Vs >0

    Nontrivial relative phase in a moir´ e lattice In experimental realisations of bichromatic optical lat- tices, the primary and secondary lattices generally pos- sess independent relative phases with respect to the labo- ratory frame. The real part of the potential is accordingly generalized to ˜V r(z) =V p cos (z+ϕ p) +V s cos (αz+ϕ s),(B21) withV p, Vs >...

  5. [5]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    (B5) has fundamentally different consequences for odd and evenq

    The general case ThePTpairing|s⟩ ↔ |q−s+ 1⟩encoded in Eq. (B5) has fundamentally different consequences for odd and evenq. For oddq= 2m+ 1, the sublattices in each moir´ e unit cell formmPT-conjugate pairs together with one additional self-conjugate center sublattices c = (q+ 1)/2 =m+ 1 atR sc =qπ. From Eq. (B5), its on- site energy satisfiesε sc =ε 0 −C ...

  7. [7]

    Equiva- lently,⟨m,+|H|s c⟩= √ 2tm, whereas⟨m,−|H|s c⟩= 0

    Be- cause the two corresponding hoppings are equal under thePTpairing, their antisymmetric contributions can- cel, and the center state couples only to|m,+⟩. Equiva- lently,⟨m,+|H|s c⟩= √ 2tm, whereas⟨m,−|H|s c⟩= 0. In the paired basis (|1,−⟩,|1,+⟩, . . . ,|m,−⟩,|m,+⟩,|sc⟩)T, the odd-qBloch Hamiltonian takes the block-tridiagonal form H(k) =   H1...

  8. [8]

    Yankowitz, S

    M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Science363, 1059 (2019)

    2019

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Adv. Phys.56, 243 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    The moir´ e lattice introduces additional plane-wave couplings, necessitating an expansion in a large number of plane waves. The cut-off was set tod= 10qto ensure convergence, defined by the following criteria: the plane-wave coefficients for the lowest band at the Brillouin z...

  3. [11]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Zhang, Y.-Q

    D.-W. Zhang, Y.-Q. Zhu, Y. X. Zhao, H. Yan, and S.-L. Zhu, Adv. Phys.67, 253 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Z. Meng, L. Wang, W. Han, F. Liu, K. Wen, C. Gao, P. Wang, C. Chin, and J. Zhang, Nature615, 231 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and E. Kaxiras, Nature556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    X. Lu, P. Stepanov, W. Yang, M. Xie, M. A. Aamir, I. Das, C. Urgell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zhang, A. Bachtold, A. H. MacDonald, and D. K. Efetov, Nature 574, 653 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    X. Xia, Q. Liu, B. Zou, P. Hong, and Y. Liang, Opt. Lett. 49, 2553 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    C. Jin, Z. Tao, T. Li, Y. Xu, Y. Tang, J. Zhu, S. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. C. Hone, L. Fu, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nat. Mater.20, 940 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Vu and S

    D. Vu and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 036803 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Gon¸ calves, B

    M. Gon¸ calves, B. Amorim, F. Riche, E. V. Castro, and P. Ribeiro, Nat. Phys.20, 1933 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Zhang, L.-Z

    G.-Q. Zhang, L.-Z. Tang, L. F. Quezada, S.-H. Dong, and D.-W. Zhang, Commun. Phys.8, 10.1038/s42005- 025-02197-9 (2025)

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    D. X. Nguyen, X. Letartre, E. Drouard, P. Viktorovitch, H. C. Nguyen, and H. S. Nguyen, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L032031 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    T. H. Talukdar, A. L. Hardison, and J. D. Ryckman, ACS Photonics9, 1286 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    D. Yu, G. Li, L. Wang, D. Leykam, L. Yuan, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 143801 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Schreiber, S

    M. Schreiber, S. S. Hodgman, P. Bordia, H. P. L¨ uschen, M. H. Fischer, R. Vosk, E. Altman, U. Schneider, and I. Bloch, Science349, 842 (2015). 14

    2015

  17. [25]

    S. M. Trushin, T. Ito, Y. Ishii, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Ota, Opt. Lett.50, 2405 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    G. Li, Y. He, L. Wang, Y. Yang, D. Yu, Y. Zheng, L. Yuan, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 083803 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Nath and U

    A. Nath and U. Roy, Laser Phys. Lett.11, 115501 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    A. Nath, J. Bera, M. R. Pathak, and U. Roy, EUR PHYS J D76, 10.1140/epjd/s10053-022-00571-8 (2022)

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Raghav, B

    S. Raghav, B. Halder, P. Basu, and U. Roy, Phys. Rev. A106, 063304 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Zhou, Z.-C

    L. Zhou, Z.-C. Li, K. Zhang, Z. Lan, A. Celi, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A112, 043718 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Roati, C

    G. Roati, C. D’Errico, L. Fallani, M. Fattori, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, G. Modugno, M. Modugno, and M. Ingus- cio, Nature453, 895 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 123601 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Kohlert, S

    T. Kohlert, S. Scherg, X. Li, H. P. L¨ uschen, S. Das Sarma, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 170403 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Adv. Phys.69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015005 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5243 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    C. M. Bender, Rep. Prog. Phys.70, 947 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    V. V. Konotop, J. Yang, and D. A. Zezyulin, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035002 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Z. H. Musslimani, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, and D. N. Christodoulides, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 030402 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Nixon, Y

    S. Nixon, Y. Zhu, and J. Yang, Opt. Lett.37, 4874 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, and Z. H. Musslimani, Phys. Rev. A81, 063807 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Midya, B

    B. Midya, B. Roy, and R. Roychoudhury, Phys. Lett. A 374, 2605 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Graefe and H

    E.-M. Graefe and H. F. Jones, Phys. Rev. A84, 013818 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    H. F. Jones, Int. J. Theor. Phys.54, 3986 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    F. K. Abdullaev, V. V. Konotop, M. Salerno, and A. V. Yulin, Phys. Rev. E82, 056606 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    K. Zhou, Z. Guo, J. Wang, and S. Liu, Opt. Lett.35, 2928 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    In this work, we focus on the commensurate case, whereα= 1/q∈Q, with denominatorq≥1

    and mobility edges [48, 49] have been studied in 1D incommensurate lattice models. In this work, we focus on the commensurate case, whereα= 1/q∈Q, with denominatorq≥1. The unit cell sizes of the primary and secondary lattices area 1 = 2πanda 2 = 2π/α, re- spectively. The resul...

  40. [48]

    X. Zhu, H. Wang, L.-X. Zheng, H. Li, and Y.-J. He, Opt. Lett.36, 2680 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Nixon, L

    S. Nixon, L. Ge, and J. Yang, Phys. Rev. A85, 023822 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Chen, B. Wu, T. Busch, and V. V. Konotop, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 034101 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Salasnich, A

    L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A65, 043614 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    E. H. Lieb, R. Seiringer, and J. Yngvason, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 150401 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith,Bose–Einstein condensation in dilute gases(Cambridge university press, 2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    D. Haag, D. Dast, A. L¨ ohle, H. Cartarius, J. Main, and G. Wunner, Phys. Rev. A89, 023601 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    J. E. Lye, L. Fallani, C. Fort, V. Guarrera, M. Modugno, D. S. Wiersma, and M. Inguscio, Phys. Rev. A75, 061603 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    Biddle and S

    J. Biddle and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 070601 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    D. A. Zezyulin and G. L. Alfimov, Phys. Rev. A110, 063304 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Machholm, A

    M. Machholm, A. Nicolin, C. J. Pethick, and H. Smith, Phys. Rev. A69, 043604 (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    Zhang and B

    Y. Zhang and B. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 093905 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    Gut¨ ohrlein, J

    R. Gut¨ ohrlein, J. Schnabel, I. Iskandarov, H. Cartarius, J. Main, and G. Wunner, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.48, 335302 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Jiang, E

    H. Jiang, E. Cheng, Z. Zhou, and L.-J. Lang, Chin. Phys. B32, 084203 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    W.-Y. Wang, B. Sun, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. A106, 063708 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Dizdarevic, D

    D. Dizdarevic, D. Dast, D. Haag, J. Main, H. Cartarius, and G. Wunner, Phys. Rev. A91, 033636 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    D. E. Pelinovsky, P. G. Kevrekidis, and D. J. Frantzeskakis, Europhysics Letters101, 11002 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    H. Lin, J. Pi, Y. Qi, W. Qin, F. Nori, and G.-L. Long, (2025), arXiv:2404.16774 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Wu and Q

    B. Wu and Q. Niu, New J. Phys.5, 104 (2003)

    2003

  59. [67]

    N. V. Vitanov and K.-A. Suominen, Phys. Rev. A59, 4580 (1999)

    1999

  60. [68]

    Tiesinga, B

    E. Tiesinga, B. J. Verhaar, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A47, 4114 (1993)

    1993

  61. [69]

    Inouye, M

    S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Nature392, 151 (1998)

    1998

  62. [70]

    Sheng, M.-A

    J. Sheng, M.-A. Miri, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev. A88, 041803 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    J.-H. Wu, M. Artoni, and G. C. La Rocca, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 123004 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y. Zhang, J. Sheng, L. Yang, M.-A. Miri, D. N. Christodoulides, B. He, Y. Zhang, and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 123601 (2016)

    2016

  65. [73]

    Tsuno, S

    T. Tsuno, S. Taie, Y. Takasu, K. Yamashita, T. Ozawa, and Y. Takahashi, Nature Communications 17, 10.1038/s41467-025-67106-8 (2025)

    2025 doi

  66. [74]

    J. Li, A. K. Harter, J. Liu, L. de Melo, Y. N. Joglekar, and L. Luo, Nat. Commun.10, 10.1038/s41467-019-08596-1 (2019)

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    Takasu, T

    Y. Takasu, T. Yagami, Y. Ashida, R. Hamazaki, Y. Kuno, and Y. Takahashi, Prog. Theor. Exp.2020, 12A110 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Z. Ren, D. Liu, E. Zhao, C. He, K. K. Pak, J. Li, and G.-B. Jo, Nat. Phys.18, 385 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    C. Wang, N. Li, J. Xie, C. Ding, Z. Ji, L. Xiao, S. Jia, B. Yan, Y. Hu, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 253401 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Gottlob and U

    E. Gottlob and U. Schneider, Phys. Rev. B107, 144202 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Johnstone, S

    D. Johnstone, S. Mishra, Z. Zhu, and L. Sanchez- Palencia, Phys. Rev. A111, 043305 (2025)

    2025

  72. [80]

    Marzari, A

    N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1419 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    Peierls, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik80, 763 (1933)

    R. Peierls, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik80, 763 (1933)

    1933

  74. [82]

    L.-J. Lang, Y. Wang, H. Wang, and Y. D. Chong, Phys. Rev. B98, 094307 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    C. Hang, G. Huang, and V. V. Konotop, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 083604 (2013)

    2013

  76. [84]

    Jin, Phys

    L. Jin, Phys. Rev. A96, 032103 (2017)

    2017

  77. [85]

    Garmon and K

    S. Garmon and K. Noba, Phys. Rev. A104, 062215 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    Anastasiadis, G

    A. Anastasiadis, G. Styliaris, R. Chaunsali, G. Theocharis, and F. K. Diakonos, Phys. Rev. B 106, 085109 (2022)

    2022

  79. [87]

    K. Yin, K. Tang, L. Tan, S. I. D. Bakhat, T. Dong, H. Zhu, and Y. Yang, (2024), arXiv:2411.00591 [physics.app-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Hi- gashikawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. X8, 031079 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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