Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Spin-charge separation in the triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the half-filled triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model realizes a chiral spin liquid in which an added electron's spin and charge separate in real space.

desk verdict Plausible and potentially important real-space evidence for spin-charge separation in a 2D Hubbard model, but the central static diagnostic needs a sharper reference subtraction and an independent cross-check before the claim is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02727 v1 pith:A2FKNH64 submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-con

Yuntian Gu , Hui Yang , Zhehao Dai , Yantao Wu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-con PACS 71.10.Fd71.27.+a
keywords chiralspinliquidspin-chargeseparationHofstadter-Hubbardmodelneuralquantumstatesprojectedentangledpairpumpingbindingfractionalization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the half-filled triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model, with $\pi/2$ flux per triangle and an intermediate Hubbard repulsion, hosts a chiral spin liquid in which the electron's spin and charge degrees of freedom separate. Using neural quantum states for static properties and projected entangled pair states for real-time dynamics, the authors find that a single added electron's spin density stays at the boundary while its excess charge spreads through the bulk, and that the system responds to spin-flux insertion with a quantized spin transfer and no charge transfer. If correct, this would be one of the first direct real-space observations of two-dimensional spin-charge separation, a hallmark of electron fractionalization. The paper also probes pairing in the dilute two-electron limit, finding that the positive binding energy seen on small systems drops below numerical resolution as the lattice grows.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Hofstadter-Hubbard Hamiltonian on a triangular lattice, with nearest-neighbor hopping phases chosen so every triangle carries flux $\Phi=\pi/2$ and an on-site Hubbard $U$; at half filling the noninteracting state is an integer quantum Hall phase, and at $U\gtrsim 11$ the system is argued to enter a chiral spin liquid topologically equivalent to a bosonic $\nu=1/2$ Laughlin state in the spin sector. The load-bearing diagnostic is the quantized spin-pumping relation $S_z(R)=\sigma^s_{xy}\Phi_{S_z}$ with $\sigma^s_{xy}=2\hbar/8\pi$, together with a vanishing charge response to a charge flux. The direct real-space evidence comes from comparing the spatial distributions of spin and charge in the one-electron excited state and from time-dependent PEPS evolution of a corner-injected electron, where the spin and charge move on different time scales and along different regions.

What would settle it

Repeat the real-time simulation on a 10x10 or larger cluster while increasing the PEPS bond dimension and monitoring truncation error; if the spin density leaves the boundary or the charge fails to spread into the bulk as the approximation improves, the claimed real-space separation would be a numerical artifact rather than a property of the chiral spin liquid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the half-filled triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model hosts a chiral spin liquid at intermediate Hubbard coupling $U\gtrsim 11t$, and that in this phase an added electron fractionalizes into a neutral spin-1/2 spinon and a spinless charge-e chargon. The authors report direct real-space evidence: for the lowest one-electron excited state, the spin density is concentrated at the boundary while the excess charge density sits in the bulk; adiabatic insertion of a spin flux produces the quantized spin response $\sigma^s_{xy}=2\hbar/8\pi$ with no accompanying charge response; and in real-time evolution after a corner-localized electron is released, the charge propagates into the bulk on a short time scale while the spin travels slowly along the edge. They also find that a positive two-electron binding energy appears only on small clusters and drops below numerical resolution as the system size increases.

Load-bearing premise

The central evidence assumes that removing the pinning potentials leaves a state dominated by the fractionalized excitations of a single added electron and that the approximate time evolution on the 6x6 cluster preserves the edge-bulk separation; if the initial state has extra particle-hole pairs or the truncation is too coarse, the separation could be a small-system artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $U=13$, an added electron in the chiral spin liquid has its spin density pinned to the boundary while its excess charge fills the bulk, so the two quantum numbers are carried by spatially separated excitations.
  • Quantized spin pumping with no charge pumping distinguishes the chiral spin liquid from the integer quantum Hall phase, which would also pump charge.
  • The single-electron gap opens while the edge spin gap remains small for $U\ge 11$, consistent with gapped charge excitations and gapless spin edge modes.
  • Pair binding in the dilute two-electron limit is positive only on small clusters and vanishes within resolution on larger systems, so a single pair-binding energy does not by itself establish chiral superconductivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the real-space separation survives larger-system checks, local probes such as spin-sensitive scanning tunneling or SQUID measurements on candidate chiral spin liquids could look for an injected electron's charge appearing in the bulk and its spin accumulating at the sample boundary.
  • The authors' observation that the pair wave function mixes symmetry sectors near $U=11$ suggests several nearly degenerate two-electron states; a natural next step is to compute the two-electron spectral function at finite doping rather than only the ground-state binding energy.
  • The same time-dependent PEPS approach could be applied to other proposed two-dimensional fractionalized phases, such as kagome-lattice Hubbard models, to look for analogous edge-bulk separation of spin and charge.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model (Eq. 1) at half filling and with one or two electrons above half filling. Using the ACE neural quantum state (NQS) and projected entangled pair states (PEPS), it reports (i) a U≈11 transition from an integer quantum Hall phase to a chiral spin liquid, inferred from single-electron and spin gaps; (ii) real-space spin-charge separation in the lowest N+1, Sz=1/2 state at U=13, with spin density at the boundary and excess charge in the bulk (Fig. 2c,d); (iii) quantized spin pumping with vanishing charge pumping (Fig. 3); (iv) real-time dynamics of an edge-injected electron showing charge spreading into the bulk while spin propagates along the edge (Fig. 4); and (v) a positive pair-binding energy on small systems that decreases below numerical resolution with increasing system size (Fig. 5). The central claim is that these results constitute direct real-space evidence of spin-charge separation in a two-dimensional lattice model.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this would be the first direct real-space numerical observation of spin-charge separation in a two-dimensional fermionic lattice model, and it would demonstrate that modern NQS and PEPS methods can resolve fractionalized excitations through complementary static, pumping, and dynamical diagnostics. The authors should be credited with an ambitious combination of techniques, open data availability, and a cautious treatment of the pairing result, which is explicitly stated to fall below numerical resolution on larger systems. However, the manuscript as it stands does not yet establish the central claim with the convergence and normalization analysis required: the key densities are not cross-checked, the excess-charge definition is ambiguous, and the real-time dynamics lacks basic numerical parameters. The work is therefore of high interest but requires substantial additional evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Ground and excited states, Fig. 2(c,d)] The central static evidence for spin-charge separation is not well defined. The text refers to 'excess charge density' but never states whether Fig. 2(d) plots ⟨n_i⟩-1 or ⟨n_i⟩_{N+1}-⟨n_i⟩_N. With open boundary conditions the half-filled reference state itself has depleted edge charge; plotting ⟨n_i⟩-1 for an N+1 state can therefore push apparent excess charge into the bulk even if the added electron is edge-localized. The authors must define the plotted quantity and, ideally, show the difference relative to the N-particle ground-state density, since the edge/bulk split is the paper's central diagnostic.
  2. [Ground and excited states, Fig. 2(a)] The doped-state densities in Fig. 2(c,d) are obtained with NQS, but the only benchmark shown is the half-filled ground-state energy in Fig. 2(a), where NQS and PEPS lie below DMRG. Since DMRG is therefore not a validated reference for the N+1, Sz=1/2 state, there is no independent check that the NQS ansatz captures the doped state correctly. The dramatic edge-spin/bulk-charge separation could be a variational artifact, for example a bias toward charge homogeneity. A convergence study in the NQS representation (network size and optimization parameters) and a small-system ED or DMRG cross-check of the local spin and charge densities are needed before this can be called direct evidence.
  3. [Dynamics, Fig. 4] The real-time PEPS simulation is the dynamical pillar of the spin-charge separation claim, but the manuscript does not report the bond dimension, time step, truncation error, or total evolved time for the 6×6 cluster. It also does not specify the sign and precise form of the pinning potentials h_up=4.4 and h_down=3.6 or verify that the prepared state contains exactly one additional electron with no appreciable multi particle-hole contamination. Without these parameters, the differing spin and charge propagation speeds could be affected by truncation or by contamination of the initial state. The authors should disclose the numerical parameters and test robustness with respect to bond dimension, pinning strength, and system size.
  4. [Spin pumping and Fig. 2(b)] The quantitative claims underlying the CSL identification are presented without uncertainties. In Fig. 3(b) the slope of S^z(R) is described as approaching the quantized value for 2≤R≤4, but no numbers, error bars, or independent DMRG/ED checks are given; the same applies to the small residual charge response in Fig. 3(d). Likewise, the L→∞ extrapolation in Fig. 2(b) is shown as a grey line without specifying the functional form or extrapolation uncertainty. These are secondary to the central density claim, but they prevent a quantitative assessment of the transition and of the topological response.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The sentence 'moiré materials and and its potential' contains a duplicated 'and' that should be corrected.
  2. [Dynamics, Fig. 4 caption and text] The row labeled 'Δ Spin' in Fig. 4 is not defined in the text or caption; the authors should state explicitly what quantity is being plotted and how it differs from the 'Spin' row.
  3. [Ground and excited states, Fig. 2(a) caption] The caption reports a DMRG bond dimension of D=10000 but gives no numerical energies or statistical errors; providing the actual energy values and their uncertainties would help readers compare the three methods concretely.
  4. [Conclusion] The conclusion states 'we observe a large pairing gap at U=7t for the 4×4 system,' while the main text discusses the pair-binding energy E_b; these terms should be used consistently, since they are related but not identical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central spin-charge separation claim is a physical observation, not a construction from fitted parameters or self-cited inputs.

full rationale

The paper's physical conclusions are not defined in terms of fitted parameters or self-cited inputs. The spin-charge separation claim rests on independently computed observables—spin density, charge density, spin/charge pumping, and real-time densities—whose spatial separation is the phenomenon itself, not a construction. The spinon/chargon interpretation is imported from prior external theory (Kalmeyer-Laughlin, Wen, Lee-Nagaosa-Wen, and the cited DMRG studies), and the present simulations reproduce the predicted edge-spin/bulk-charge dichotomy rather than defining it. The numerical methods ACE [42] and time-dependent PEPS [44] are self-cited and are load-bearing as tools, but the paper does not derive the physical result from the methods' validity; it benchmarks static energies against DMRG and reports variational results. The pinning potentials h_up_pin=4.4 and h_down_pin=3.6 are a state-preparation device, not fitted parameters, and the observed dynamics are not forced by them. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction. The most significant weaknesses—absence of a DMRG/ED cross-check for the doped N+1 state and the unspecified definition of 'excess charge density' (n_i - 1 versus n_i^{N+1} - n_i^N)—are numerical or correctness risks that could affect the strength of the real-space evidence, but they are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; spinon and chargon are borrowed from prior theory. The numerical observation is the claimed result, not an entity with independent evidence.

free parameters (1)
  • pinning potentials h_up/h_down = h_up=4.4, h_down=3.6
    Hand-chosen attractive potentials to localize the added electron at a corner; no scan or extrapolation to zero pinning is provided, and the dynamics may depend on these values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model with flux pi/2 per triangle is a valid proxy for moiré material physics.
    The introduction motivates the model via moiré materials, but the mapping is not derived here.
  • domain assumption The intermediate-U phase at U=13 is the chiral spin liquid predicted by prior DMRG, so the interpretation of edge spin and bulk charge as fractionalized spinon/chargon is valid.
    Section 'Model' and 'Ground and excited states' rely on prior results [45-48,50,54] to identify the CSL.
  • ad hoc to paper The variational ansatze (ACE-NQS and PEPS) accurately approximate the ground state and time evolution; no rigorous convergence bounds are provided.
    The benchmark in Fig. 2(a) compares energies but lacks error bars; for dynamics, bond dimension and time-step convergence are not reported.
  • domain assumption The spin-flux insertion is adiabatic and the system remains gapped along the flux path, so the accumulated spin equals the topological response.
    Section 'Spin pumping' assumes the quantized response formula holds without checking for level crossings during flux insertion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-charge separation in the triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A2FKNH64

@misc{pith2026260802727,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-charge separation in the triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A2FKNH64}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02727}
}
read the original abstract

Recent experiments in moir\'e materials have enabled the realization of a variety of exotic quantum phases. In this context, the Hofstadter-Hubbard model has been proposed as a possible setting for hosting chiral spin liquid. Concurrently, significant progress has been recently made in the computational methods for two-dimensional many-body fermion systems, which makes numerically studying this challenging model a real possibility in genuine 2D geometry. Motivated by these advances, we investigate the putative chiral spin liquid phase in the triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model using variational Monte Carlo with neural quantum states (NQS) and projected entangled pair states (PEPS). We observe spin-charge separation directly in real space through numerical spin-pumping simulation and real-time spin and charge motion. In addition, in the context of anyonic superconductivity conjectured in this model, we find a positive two-electron binding energy on small systems, but it decreases below our numerical resolution as the system size increases. Our work demonstrates NQS and PEPS as powerful tools, capable of cross-checking each other, for diagnosing topological order and fractionalized excitations in strongly correlated electronic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02727 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spin and charge pumping in the CSL phase at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Pair energy, single electron energy, and pair wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    With open boundary conditions, finite-size scaling fromU= 7 toU= 13 shows the opening of a single-electron gap while the edge spin gap remains closed

    work page

  2. [2]

    In particular, our pumped spin depends linearly on the spin flux, whereas spin response generally oscillates around a straight line in quasi-1D geometries

    Quantized spin response is observed atU= 13 upon spin-flux insertion, whereas the response to charge-flux insertion vanishes. In particular, our pumped spin depends linearly on the spin flux, whereas spin response generally oscillates around a straight line in quasi-1D geometries

    work page

  3. [3]

    After an electron insertion on the edge, the charge propagates quickly into the bulk while the spin slowly moves around the edge

    The spin and charge degrees of freedom separate clearly in real-time dynamics. After an electron insertion on the edge, the charge propagates quickly into the bulk while the spin slowly moves around the edge

    work page

  4. [4]

    Spin-charge separation in the triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model

    A positive pair-binding energy is observed for small system sizes, consistent with previous studies [47], but it decreases below our numerical resolution with increasing system size. Model.The triangular-lattice Hofstadter-Hubbard model is H=− X ⟨ij⟩,σ teiθij c† iσcjσ + h.c. +U X i (ni↑ − 1 2 )(ni↓ − 1 2 ) (1) arXiv:2608.02727v1 [cond-mat.str-el] 3 Aug 20...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics14, 2585 (1981)

    1981

  6. [6]

    Voit, Reports on Progress in Physics58, 977 (1995)

    J. Voit, Reports on Progress in Physics58, 977 (1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    Giamarchi,Quantum physics in one dimension, Vol

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum physics in one dimension, Vol. 121 (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    P. W. Anderson, Materials Research Bulletin8, 153 (1973)

    work page 1973

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Kalmeyer and R

    V. Kalmeyer and R. Laughlin, Physical review letters59, 2095 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    Wen, International Journal of Modern Physics B 4, 239 (1990)

    X.-G. Wen, International Journal of Modern Physics B 4, 239 (1990)

    1990

  3. [11]

    Senthil and M

    T. Senthil and M. P. Fisher, Physical Review B62, 7850 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Balents, Nature464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Nature464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Bauer, L

    B. Bauer, L. Cincio, B. P. Keller, M. Dolfi, G. Vidal, S. Trebst, and A. W. Ludwig, Nature Communications 5, 5137 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, and D. Sheng, Scientific Reports4, 6317 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Shirakawa, T

    T. Shirakawa, T. Tohyama, J. Kokalj, S. Sota, and S. Yunoki, Physical Review B96, 205130 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Szasz, J

    A. Szasz, J. Motruk, M. P. Zaletel, and J. E. Moore, Physical Review X10, 021042 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    S. Yan, D. A. Huse, and S. R. White, Science332, 1173 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Depenbrock, I

    S. Depenbrock, I. P. McCulloch, and U. Schollw¨ ock, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 067201 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Jiang, Z

    H.-C. Jiang, Z. Wang, and L. Balents, Nat. Phys.8, 902 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Iqbal, F

    Y. Iqbal, F. Becca, S. Sorella, and D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. B87, 060405 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Liao, Z.-Y

    H.-J. Liao, Z.-Y. Xie, J. Chen, Z.-Y. Liu, H.-D. Xie, R.- Z. Huang, B. Normand, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 137202 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Y.-C. He, M. P. Zaletel, M. Oshikawa, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. X7, 031020 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    A. M. L¨ auchli, J. Sudan, and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. B 100, 155142 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Kaneko, S

    R. Kaneko, S. Morita, and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 83, 093707 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Zhu and S

    Z. Zhu and S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B92, 041105 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Hu, S.-S

    W.-J. Hu, S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. B92, 140403 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    S. N. Saadatmand and I. P. McCulloch, Phys. Rev. B94, 121111 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    S. Hu, W. Zhu, S. Eggert, and Y.-C. He, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 207203 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Y.-C. He, D. N. Sheng, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 137202 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, and D. N. Sheng, Sci. Rep.4, 6317 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Bauer, L

    B. Bauer, L. Cincio, B. P. Keller, M. Dolfi, G. Vidal, S. Trebst, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Nat. Commun.5, 5137 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, L. Balents, and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. B91, 075112 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Zhu, S.-S

    W. Zhu, S.-S. Gong, and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. B92, 014424 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Wietek, A

    A. Wietek, A. Sterdyniak, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Phys. Rev. B92, 125122 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Wietek and A

    A. Wietek and A. M. L¨ auchli, Phys. Rev. B95, 035141 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Hickey, L

    C. Hickey, L. Cincio, Z. Papi´ c, and A. Paramekanti, Phys. Rev. B96, 115115 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Cookmeyer, J

    T. Cookmeyer, J. Motruk, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 087201 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Zhang, Y

    X.-T. Zhang, Y. Huang, H.-Q. Wu, D. N. Sheng, and S.-S. Gong, Phys. Rev. B109, 125146 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Hickey, L

    C. Hickey, L. Cincio, Z. Papi´ c, and A. Paramekanti, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 137202 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Szasz, J

    A. Szasz, J. Motruk, M. P. Zaletel, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. X10, 021042 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    B.-B. Chen, Z. Chen, S.-S. Gong, D. N. Sheng, W. Li, and A. Weichselbaum, Phys. Rev. B106, 094420 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Zhu, Phys

    Z. Zhu, Phys. Rev. B110, L041113 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Science355, 602 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Y. Gu, W. Li, H. Lin, B. Zhan, R. Li, Y. Huang, D. He, Y. Wu, T. Xiang, M. Qin, L. Wang, and D. Lv, Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-026-74028-6 (2026)

    2026 doi

  38. [46]

    Y. Gu, Z. Han, W. Li, Z. Xiao, T. Xiang, M. Qin, L. Wang, and D. Lv, Pareto frontier of neural quantum states: Scalable, affordable, and accurate convolutional backflow for strongly correlated lattice fermions (2026), arXiv:2604.25775 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wu and Z

    Y. Wu and Z. Dai, Chinese Physics B35, 020502 (2026)

    2026

  40. [48]

    Wu and J

    Y. Wu and J. Nys, Real-time dynamics in two dimen- sions with tensor network states via time-dependent variational monte carlo (2025), arXiv:2512.06768 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kuhlenkamp, W

    C. Kuhlenkamp, W. Kadow, A. Imamo˘ glu, and M. Knap, Physical Review X14, 021013 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Divic, T

    S. Divic, T. Soejima, V. Cr´ epel, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Mil- lis, Physical Review B113, L121107 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    Divic, V

    S. Divic, V. Cr´ epel, T. Soejima, X.-Y. Song, A. J. Millis, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Vishwanath, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2426680122 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    C. A. Gallegos, R. M. Magaldi, A. Millis, and S. R. White, Physical Review B113, 064412 (2026)

    2026

  45. [53]

    S. Niu, D. N. Sheng, and Y. Peng, Thermodynamic-limit evidence for chiral superconductivity induced by doping chiral topological phases (2025), arXiv:2512.21503 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kuhlenkamp, S

    C. Kuhlenkamp, S. Divic, M. P. Zaletel, T. Soe- jima, and A. Vishwanath, Robust superconductivity upon doping chiral spin liquid and chern insulators in a hubbard-hofstadter model (2025), arXiv:2509.02675 6 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. L. Shepard, J. Hone, and P. Kim, Nature497, 598 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    B. Hunt, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, A. F. Young, M. Yankowitz, B. J. LeRoy, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Moon, M. Koshino, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and R. C. Ashoori, Science340, 1427 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    C. A. Gallegos, A. J. Millis, and S. R. White, Spinless charged excitation at the interface between a conven- tional topological insulator and a topological mott in- sulator (2026), arXiv:2607.14221 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026 arXiv

  50. [58]

    F. Chen, W. O. Wang, J.-X. Zhang, L. Balents, and D. Sheng, Physical Review Letters136, 086503 (2026)

    2026

  51. [59]

    R. B. Laughlin, Physical Review B23, 5632 (1981)

    1981

  52. [60]

    R. B. Laughlin, Physical Review Letters60, 2677 (1988)

    1988

  53. [61]

    Y.-H. Chen, F. Wilczek, E. Witten, and B. I. Halperin, International Journal of Modern Physics B3, 1001 (1989)

    1989

  54. [62]

    X. G. Wen and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. B44, 274 (1991)

    1991

  55. [63]

    Tang and X.-G

    E. Tang and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B88, 195117 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Jiang, npj Quantum Materials6, 71 (2021)

    H.-C. Jiang, npj Quantum Materials6, 71 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    X.-Y. Song, A. Vishwanath, and Y.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B103, 165138 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Jiang and H.-C

    Y.-F. Jiang and H.-C. Jiang, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 157002 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    ByteDance, LAQX,https://github.com/bytedance/ laqx(2026)

    2026

  60. [68]

    Y. Gu, H. Yang, Z. Dai, and Y. Wu, github data repos- itory,https://github.com/yantaow/open_data/tree/ main/gu2026spin-charge(2026)

    2026

Pith tools

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