pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.07111 · v3 · pith:6FC4ZL5Ynew · submitted 2024-08-13 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · cond-mat.str-el· quant-ph

Vestigial Gapless Boson Density Wave Emerging between ν = 1/2 Fractional Chern Insulator and Finite-Momentum Supersolid

Hongyu Lu , Han-Qing Wu , Bin-Bin Chen , Zi Yang Meng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords fractional Chern insulatorsupersolidcharge density waveroton instabilitybosonic lattice modelvestigial orderfinite-momentum superfluid
0
0 comments X

The pith

An intermediate gapless charge-density-wave state emerges between the fractional Chern insulator and the supersolid in half-filled bosonic flat-band models.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies transitions between phases in half-filled hard-core boson models on topological flat-band lattices. It finds that a direct transition from the fractional Chern insulator to the supersolid does not occur. Instead, roton instability in the FCI produces an intermediate gapless CDW state that lacks superfluid order. This state acts as a vestige of the supersolid because quantum fluctuations destroy the finite-momentum superfluid component while preserving the CDW order, which then evolves continuously into the supersolid.

Core claim

In the checkerboard lattice with ν = 1/2 hard-core bosons, an intermediate gapless CDW state without SF is sandwiched between FCI and SS. This novel state is triggered by the roton instability in FCI and continuously brings about intertwined finite-momentum SF fluctuation when the CDW order is strong enough, eventually transiting into an unconventional finite-momentum SS state. The intermediate gapless CDW state is a vestige from the SS state, since increasing quantum fluctuation melts only the Larkin-Ovchinnikov-type SF order in SS but its secondary product, the CDW order, survives. On the honeycomb lattice, FCI-Solid I-Solid II transitions occur via softening of multi-roton modes, with the

What carries the argument

Roton instability in the FCI that drives the formation of the gapless CDW state, which functions as vestigial order surviving from the supersolid.

If this is right

  • The direct FCI to SS transition is replaced by the intermediate gapless CDW phase.
  • On the honeycomb lattice the FCI to solid sequence proceeds through multi-roton softening rather than single-roton condensation.
  • The gapless CDW remains incompressible and connects continuously to the finite-momentum SS.
  • Solid I on the honeycomb lattice is a vestige of Solid II through shared intertwined wave vectors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same roton-driven vestigial CDW mechanism may appear in other flat-band boson models or in cold-atom realizations.
  • Momentum-resolved measurements in optical lattices could detect the finite-momentum character of the final SS phase.
  • Analogous vestigial gapless states could arise in fermionic fractional Chern insulators when competing orders are present.

Load-bearing premise

Numerical simulations on finite clusters correctly capture the thermodynamic-limit roton softening and the gapless character of the intermediate CDW without finite-size artifacts.

What would settle it

Observation on larger clusters or with an independent method of either a direct FCI-SS transition or a gapped intermediate state would show the claimed gapless vestigial CDW does not exist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.07111 by Bin-Bin Chen, Han-Qing Wu, Hongyu Lu, Zi Yang Meng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The behavior of entanglement entropy supports the sequence of FCI-GBDW-SS transitions in a two-step manner. The evolution of momentum space boson occupation num￾bers in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The roton-triggered charge-density-wave (CDW)is widely studied in fractional quantum Hall (FQH) and fractional Chern insulator (FCI) systems, and there also exist field theoretical and numerical realizations of continuous transition from FCI to superfluid (SF). However, the theory and numerical explorations of the transition between FCI and supersolid (SS) are still lacking. In this work, we study the topological flat-band lattice models with $\nu$ = 1/2 hard-core bosons, where the previous studies have discovered the existence of FCI states and possible direct FCI-SS transitions. While the FCI is robust, we find the direct FCI-SS transition is absent, and there exist more intriguing scenarios. In the case of checkerboard lattice, we find an intermediate gapless CDW state without SF, sandwiched between FCI and SS. This novel state is triggered by the roton instability in FCI and it further continuously brings about the intertwined finite-momentum SF fluctuation when the CDW order is strong enough, eventually transiting into an unconventional finite-momentum SS state. The intermediate gapless CDW state is a vestige from the SS state, since the increasing quantum fluctuation melts only the Larkin-Ovchinnikov-type SF order in SS but its (secondary) product -- the CDW order -- survives. On honeycomb lattice, we find no evidence of SS, but discover an interesting sequence of FCI-Solid I-Solid II transitions, with both solids incompressible. Moreover, in contrast to previous single-roton condensation, this sequence of FCI-Solid I-Solid II transitions is triggered by the softening of multi-roton modes in FCI. Considering the intertwined wave vectors of the CDW orders, Solid I is a vestige of Solid II. Our work provides new horizon not only for the quantum phase transitions in FCI but also for the intertwined orders and gapless states in bosonic systems, which will inspire future studies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines ν=1/2 hard-core bosons in topological flat-band models on checkerboard and honeycomb lattices. It reports that direct FCI-SS transitions are absent; on the checkerboard lattice an intermediate gapless CDW (no SF stiffness) appears between FCI and finite-momentum SS, triggered by roton softening and interpreted as a vestigial order; on the honeycomb lattice a sequence of FCI–Solid I–Solid II transitions occurs, driven by multi-roton softening, with both solids incompressible.

Significance. If the numerical diagnostics are robust, the work would advance understanding of roton-driven transitions and vestigial orders in bosonic FCIs, introducing a gapless intermediate CDW and multi-roton condensation scenarios that could guide future studies of intertwined orders.

major comments (2)
  1. [Checkerboard lattice results] The central claim of a thermodynamically stable gapless CDW phase on the checkerboard lattice (abstract and corresponding results section) rests on the roton instability producing a true intervening phase rather than a finite-size crossover; the manuscript must supply finite-size scaling of the CDW structure factor, superfluid stiffness, and entanglement spectrum (or equivalent gap diagnostic) versus system size and bond dimension to confirm the phase survives the thermodynamic limit.
  2. [Numerical methods and diagnostics] The identification of the intermediate phase as gapless and SF-free, and the subsequent continuous onset of finite-momentum SF fluctuations, requires explicit definitions and convergence data for all order parameters; without these, it is impossible to assess whether post-hoc parameter choices or cylinder geometries artificially stabilize the reported vestigial CDW.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and introduction cite 'previous studies' on FCI and FCI-SS transitions; adding the specific references would improve context.
  2. Figure captions should explicitly state the system sizes, bond dimensions, and exact observables plotted for each phase boundary.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will incorporate the requested clarifications and additional data in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Checkerboard lattice results] The central claim of a thermodynamically stable gapless CDW phase on the checkerboard lattice (abstract and corresponding results section) rests on the roton instability producing a true intervening phase rather than a finite-size crossover; the manuscript must supply finite-size scaling of the CDW structure factor, superfluid stiffness, and entanglement spectrum (or equivalent gap diagnostic) versus system size and bond dimension to confirm the phase survives the thermodynamic limit.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating thermodynamic stability requires explicit finite-size scaling. In the revised manuscript we will add scaling plots of the CDW structure factor, superfluid stiffness, and entanglement spectrum (or gap diagnostic) versus linear system size and bond dimension for the checkerboard lattice, confirming that the gapless CDW window remains finite in the thermodynamic limit and is not a finite-size artifact. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical methods and diagnostics] The identification of the intermediate phase as gapless and SF-free, and the subsequent continuous onset of finite-momentum SF fluctuations, requires explicit definitions and convergence data for all order parameters; without these, it is impossible to assess whether post-hoc parameter choices or cylinder geometries artificially stabilize the reported vestigial CDW.

    Authors: We will add a dedicated subsection that explicitly defines every order parameter (CDW structure factor, superfluid stiffness, entanglement spectrum, etc.) together with convergence tables and plots versus system size, bond dimension, and cylinder circumference. These data will show that the gapless, SF-free window is robust and not an artifact of geometry or parameter choice. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Numerical phase diagram construction from direct DMRG observables shows no circularity

full rationale

The paper reports numerical simulations (DMRG on finite clusters) of hard-core bosons at filling 1/2 on checkerboard and honeycomb lattices. Phase boundaries and the intermediate gapless CDW are identified from computed quantities such as structure factors, entanglement spectra, and superfluid stiffness. No analytical derivation chain exists that reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter defined from the same data, nor does any load-bearing step rely on a self-citation whose content is itself unverified. The results are therefore self-contained against external benchmarks of the model Hamiltonian.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on (1) the validity of the chosen flat-band lattice Hamiltonians as faithful representations of the physical systems of interest and (2) the assumption that finite-cluster numerics correctly identify gapless versus gapped phases and the wave-vectors of the orders. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • hopping and interaction ratios
    Lattice parameters are tuned to realize flat bands and to scan the phase diagram; their specific values are chosen to produce the reported transitions.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics on a lattice with hard-core constraint
    The model is defined by the usual bosonic Hamiltonian with infinite on-site repulsion.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5925 in / 1522 out tokens · 21166 ms · 2026-05-23T22:21:08.226757+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    with alternating sign in edge-sharing pla- quettes, t′′ = −1/(2 + 2 √

    work page

  2. [2]

    This paradigmatic flat-band model was stud- 4 ied by ED to hold robust bosonic FCI at ν = 1 /2 and pos- sibly other fillings with even denominator [1]

    and ϕij = π 4 along the direction of the arrows. This paradigmatic flat-band model was stud- 4 ied by ED to hold robust bosonic FCI at ν = 1 /2 and pos- sibly other fillings with even denominator [1]. The ν = 1/2 FCI ground state was further confirmed by iDMRG simula- tions that measured the entanglement spectral flows and the resultant charge pumping fea...

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Wang, Z.-C

    Y .-F. Wang, Z.-C. Gu, C.-D. Gong, and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 146803 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Luo, A.-L

    W.-W. Luo, A.-L. He, Y . Zhou, Y .-F. Wang, and C.-D. Gong, Phys. Rev. B 102, 155120 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, and A. C. Gossard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S298 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    von Klitzing, T

    K. von Klitzing, T. Chakraborty, P. Kim, V . Madhavan, X. Dai, J. McIver, Y . Tokura, L. Savary, D. Smirnova, A. M. Rey, C. Felser, J. Gooth, and X. Qi, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 397 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983)

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 605 (1983)

    work page 1983

  9. [9]

    S. M. Girvin, A. H. MacDonald, and P. M. Platzman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 581 (1985)

    work page 1985

  10. [10]

    Regnault and T

    N. Regnault and T. Jolicoeur, Phys. Rev. B 69, 235309 (2004)

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

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

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    M ¨oller and N

    G. M ¨oller and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 105303 (2009)

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Y .-F. Wang, H. Yao, Z.-C. Gu, C.-D. Gong, and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 126805 (2012)

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Repellin, T

    C. Repellin, T. Neupert, Z. Papi ´c, and N. Regnault, Phys. Rev. B 90, 045114 (2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    W. Zhu, S. S. Gong, and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035129 (2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    T.-S. Zeng, L. Hu, and W. Zhu, Chinese Physics Letters 39, 017301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    L ´eonard, S

    J. L ´eonard, S. Kim, J. Kwan, P. Segura, F. Grusdt, C. Repellin, N. Goldman, and M. Greiner, Nature 619, 495 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Wang, F.-M

    C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, M.-C. Chen, H. Chen, X.-H. Zhao, C. Ying, Z.-X. Shang, J.-W. Wang, Y .-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Science384, 579 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    S. M. Girvin, A. H. MacDonald, and P. M. Platzman, Phys. Rev. B 33, 2481 (1986). 12

    work page 1986

  20. [20]

    Kumar and R

    P. Kumar and R. N. Bhatt, Phys. Rev. B 106, 115101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Lu, H.-Q

    H. Lu, H.-Q. Wu, B.-B. Chen, K. Sun, and Z. Y . Meng, (2024), arXiv:2403.03258 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Lu, H.-Q

    H. Lu, H.-Q. Wu, B.-B. Chen, and Z. Y . Meng, (2024), arXiv:2404.06745

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Barkeshli and J

    M. Barkeshli and J. McGreevy, Phys. Rev. B86, 075136 (2012)

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Barkeshli and J

    M. Barkeshli and J. McGreevy, Phys. Rev. B89, 235116 (2014)

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Barkeshli, N

    M. Barkeshli, N. Y . Yao, and C. R. Laumann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 026802 (2015)

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    Song and Y .-H

    X.-Y . Song and Y .-H. Zhang, SciPost Phys.15, 215 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Song, Y .-H

    X.-Y . Song, Y .-H. Zhang, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B 109, 085143 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Lu, H.-Q

    H. Lu, H.-Q. Wu, B.-B. Chen, and Z. Y . Meng, (2024), arXiv:2405.18269

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992)

    work page 1992

  30. [30]

    B.-B. Chen, L. Chen, Z. Chen, W. Li, and A. Weichselbaum, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031082 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    A. I. Larkin and Y . N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksperim. i Teor. Fiz. Vol: 47, (1964)

    work page 1964

  32. [32]

    E. Berg, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Nature Physics 5, 830 (2009)

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 457 (2015)

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    D. F. Agterberg, J. S. Davis, S. D. Edkins, E. Fradkin, D. J. Van Harlingen, S. A. Kivelson, P. A. Lee, L. Radzihovsky, J. M. Tranquada, and Y . Wang, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 231 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    L. Nie, A. V . Maharaj, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. B 96, 085142 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    R. M. Fernandes, P. P. Orth, and J. Schmalian, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 133 (2019)

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    Y .-C. Wang, Z. Yan, C. Wang, Y . Qi, and Z. Y . Meng, Phys. Rev. B 103, 014408 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Z. Sun, G. Ye, M. Huang, C. Zhou, N. Huang, Q. Li, Z. Ye, C. Nnokwe, H. Deng, D. Mandrus, Z. Y . Meng, K. Sun, C. Du, R. He, and L. Zhao, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2311.03493 (2023), arXiv:2311.03493 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Phillips and D

    P. Phillips and D. Dalidovich, Science 302, 243 (2003)

    work page 2003

  40. [40]

    P. W. Phillips, Science 366, 1450 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    H. M. Jaeger, D. B. Haviland, B. G. Orr, and A. M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. B 40, 182 (1989)

    work page 1989

  42. [42]

    M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 923 (1990)

    work page 1990

  43. [43]

    A. Tsen, B. Hunt, Y . Kim, Z. Yuan, S. Jia, R. Cava, J. Hone, P. Kim, C. Dean, and A. Pasupathy, Nature Physics 12, 208 (2016)

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Tamir, A

    I. Tamir, A. Benyamini, E. J. Telford, F. Gorniaczyk, A. Doron, T. Levinson, D. Wang, F. Gay, B. Sac ´ep´e, J. Hone, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, C. R. Dean, A. N. Pasupathy, and D. Shahar, Science Advances 5, eaau3826 (2019)

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    C. Yang, Y . Liu, Y . Wang, L. Feng, Q. He, J. Sun, Y . Tang, C. Wu, J. Xiong, W. Zhang, X. Lin, H. Yao, H. Liu, G. Fernan- des, J. Xu, J. M. Valles, J. Wang, and Y . Li, Science366, 1505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Feigel’man and A

    M. Feigel’man and A. Tsvelik, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 77, 2524 (1979)

    work page 1979

  47. [47]

    Wagenblast, A

    K.-H. Wagenblast, A. van Otterlo, G. Sch¨on, and G. T. Zim´anyi, Physical review letters 78, 1779 (1997)

    work page 1997

  48. [48]

    Das and S

    D. Das and S. Doniach, Physical Review B 60, 1261 (1999)

    work page 1999

  49. [49]

    Spivak, A

    B. Spivak, A. Zyuzin, and M. Hruska, Physical Review B 64, 132502 (2001)

    work page 2001

  50. [50]

    Z. Cai, U. Schollw ¨ock, and L. Pollet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260403 (2014)

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    Sur and K

    S. Sur and K. Yang, Physical Review B 100, 024519 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    A. Hegg, J. Hou, and W. Ku, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2100545118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Paramekanti, L

    A. Paramekanti, L. Balents, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 66, 054526 (2002)

    work page 2002

  54. [54]

    D. N. Sheng, O. I. Motrunich, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 79, 205112 (2009)

    work page 2009

  55. [55]

    M. S. Block, D. N. Sheng, O. I. Motrunich, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 157202 (2011)

    work page 2011

  56. [56]

    R. V . Mishmash, M. S. Block, R. K. Kaul, D. N. Sheng, O. I. Motrunich, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 84, 245127 (2011)

    work page 2011

  57. [57]

    Jiang, M

    H.-C. Jiang, M. S. Block, R. V . Mishmash, J. R. Garrison, D. N. Sheng, O. I. Motrunich, and M. P. A. Fisher, Nature 493, 208 (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    W. L. McMillan, Phys. Rev. 138, A442 (1965)

    work page 1965

  59. [59]

    Ceperley, G

    D. Ceperley, G. V . Chester, and M. H. Kalos, Phys. Rev. B 16, 3081 (1977)

    work page 1977

  60. [60]

    Z. Cao, J. Su, J. Li, T. Ying, W. Wang, J.-H. Sun, H.-K. Tang, and H. Lin, (2024), arXiv:2405.13405

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Z. Cao, J. Li, J. Su, T. Ying, and H.-K. Tang, (2024), arXiv:2406.08131

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Zhang, J

    S. Zhang, J. Carlson, and J. E. Gubernatis, Phys. Rev. B 55, 7464 (1997)

    work page 1997

  63. [63]

    Babaev, A

    E. Babaev, A. Sudbø, and N. W. Ashcroft, Nature 431, 666 (2004)

    work page 2004

  64. [64]

    T. A. Bojesen, E. Babaev, and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. B 88, 220511 (2013)

    work page 2013

  65. [65]

    T. A. Bojesen, E. Babaev, and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. B 89, 104509 (2014)

    work page 2014

  66. [66]

    Carlstr ¨om and E

    J. Carlstr ¨om and E. Babaev, Phys. Rev. B91, 140504 (2015)

    work page 2015

  67. [67]

    Grinenko, D

    V . Grinenko, D. Weston, F. Caglieris, C. Wuttke, C. Hess, T. Gottschall, I. Maccari, D. Gorbunov, S. Zherlitsyn, J. Wos- nitza, A. Rydh, K. Kihou, C.-H. Lee, R. Sarkar, S. Dengre, J. Garaud, A. Charnukha, R. H ¨uhne, K. Nielsch, B. B ¨uchner, H.-H. Klauss, and E. Babaev, Nature Physics 17, 1254 (2021)

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2015 (1988)

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    Mukherjee, A

    B. Mukherjee, A. Shaffer, P. B. Patel, Z. Yan, C. C. Wilson, V . Cr´epel, R. J. Fletcher, and M. Zwierlein, Nature 601, 58 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    Yang, Z.-X

    B. Yang, Z.-X. Hu, Z. Papi ´c, and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 256807 (2012)

    work page 2012

  71. [71]

    Lu, B.-B

    H. Lu, B.-B. Chen, H.-Q. Wu, K. Sun, and Z. Y . Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 236502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    Y . Liu, T. Zhao, and T. Xiang, (2024), arXiv:2406.11195 [cond- mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Regnault, J

    N. Regnault, J. Maciejko, S. A. Kivelson, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 96, 035150 (2017)

    work page 2017

  74. [74]

    S. Pu, A. C. Balram, J. Taylor, E. Fradkin, and Z. Papi ´c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 236503 (2024)

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    Lu, H.-Q

    H. Lu, H.-Q. Wu, B.-B. Chen, K. Sun, and Z. Y . Meng, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2401.00363 (2023), arXiv:2401.00363 [cond- mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    D. F. Mross and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031008 (2015)

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    Wu and Y

    Y .-M. Wu and Y . Wang, (2023), arXiv:2303.17631 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Chomaz, R

    L. Chomaz, R. M. W. van Bijnen, D. Petter, G. Faraoni, S. Baier, J. H. Becher, M. J. Mark, F. W ¨achtler, L. Santos, and F. Ferlaino, Nature Physics 14, 442 (2018)

    work page 2018

  79. [79]

    Tanzi, E

    L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, F. Fam`a, J. Catani, A. Fioretti, C. Gabban- ini, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and G. Modugno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130405 (2019)

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    B ¨ottcher, J.-N

    F. B ¨ottcher, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, J. Hertkorn, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. X9, 011051 (2019). 13

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.