Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Quantum Geometric Friedel Oscillations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum geometry creates temperature-stable Friedel oscillations whose period tracks quantum-metric hot spots and whose decay is set by the quantum-metric length.

desk verdict Clean derivation of a new geometric channel in flat-band Friedel response whose period and range are fixed by metric hot spots and ℓ_QM; the only soft spot is the already-scoped interband bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.04654 v2 pith:AGIGN2PL submitted 2026-07-06 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Xing-Lei Ma , Jinchao Zhao , Bo-Qing Wu , K. T. Law This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords quantumgeometricFriedeloscillationsmetriclengthflatbandschargesusceptibilityimpurity-induceddensitymesoscopicphysics
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

Conventional Friedel oscillations around an impurity oscillate with wavevector 2k_F and die with a thermal length that shrinks as temperature rises. This paper shows that the picture is incomplete for metals whose Fermi level lies in an isolated nearly flat band that carries nontrivial quantum geometry. The Bloch-wavefunction overlaps produce an extra piece of the charge susceptibility that peaks at the momentum-space separation of the quantum-metric hot spots. The resulting quantum geometric Friedel oscillations (QGFOs) therefore have a period fixed by that separation, not by the Fermi surface. Their spatial decay is controlled by the Brillouin-zone integral of the quantum metric (the quantum-metric length), which remains finite even when the band is completely flat. Consequently the oscillations survive at temperatures far above the flat-band bandwidth, while the conventional 2k_F signal is washed out. Measuring the period and envelope of the residual oscillations would therefore map both the distribution and the integrated strength of the quantum metric.

What carries the argument

The decomposition of the flat-band susceptibility into a conventional Lindhard piece plus a geometric piece proportional to the quantum distance d_k,k+q between Bloch states; at high temperature the geometric piece reduces to the averaged quantum distance, whose Fourier transform yields the QGFO spectrum, while the residue poles of the flat-band projector fix the decay length to the quantum-metric length.

What would settle it

In a candidate flat-band metal (for example magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene at low filling), STM maps of impurity-induced density oscillations at temperatures above the flat-band width should show a residual oscillatory period equal to the known quantum-metric hot-spot separation and a temperature-independent envelope whose length matches the independently computed quantum-metric length; absence of that residual signal would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In metals with an isolated nearly flat band at the Fermi energy, quantum geometry induces a distinct class of real-space charge oscillations (QGFOs) whose wavevector is set by the separation of quantum-metric hot spots and whose exponential decay length is bounded by the quantum-metric length obtained by integrating the trace of the quantum metric over the Brillouin zone; these oscillations persist for temperatures much larger than the flat-band bandwidth while conventional 2k_F oscillations are thermally suppressed.

Load-bearing premise

The flat-band projection of the susceptibility stays accurate whenever temperature and impurity strength remain much smaller than the gap to neighboring bands, so that interband contributions can be neglected.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that conventional Friedel theory is incomplete for metals with an isolated (nearly) flat band at the Fermi energy: nontrivial Bloch geometry produces an additional oscillatory channel, quantum geometric Friedel oscillations (QGFOs). Their period is set by the momentum-space separation of quantum-metric hot spots of the flat band, while their spatial decay is controlled by the quantum metric length ℓ_QM (the Brillouin-zone integral of Tr G_f). At low T the conventional 2k_F and geometric components coexist; for k_B T ≳ W_f (and already for k_B T ∼ E_F^f) the 2k_F channel is thermally suppressed while QGFOs survive, with a temperature-independent decay plateau set by ℓ_QM. The claim is supported by a flat-band projected susceptibility decomposed into conventional and geometric pieces, a high-T reduction χ^f(q) ∝ 1 − D̄^f(q), a residue analysis of the projected Green function, an exact variance identity Ω_QGFOs = 2a ℓ_QM, and numerical spectra for 1D three-band, 1D two-band, and 2D models.

Significance. If correct, the work supplies a concrete, real-space spectroscopic signature of quantum geometry—period fixed by hot-spot separations and decay fixed by the integrated quantum metric—that remains visible when kinetic energy is overwhelmed by temperature. That is a useful addition to the growing toolkit of quantum-geometric responses and is directly relevant to flat-band platforms (magic-angle TBG, layered electrides, etc.). Strengths that should be credited explicitly are: (i) the clean high-T reduction of the susceptibility to the averaged quantum distance; (ii) the residue decomposition that isolates three oscillatory channels; (iii) the model-independent variance proof that Ω_QGFOs = 2a ℓ_QM (and the Chern lower bound in 2D); and (iv) consistent numerical checks across three distinct lattice models, including an intermediate-T window controlled by a partially averaged quantum distance. These elements make the geometric origin of the oscillations falsifiable rather than merely interpretive.

major comments (2)
  1. The flat-band projection (Eq. 3 and the χ_c^f + χ_g^f split) is the load-bearing step for claiming that QGFOs dominate once conventional oscillations are washed out. SM Note III bounds interband pieces by O(1/Δ_g) in the window W_f ≪ T ≪ Δ_g and shows they are negligible there; the intermediate window k_B T ≃ E_F^f ≪ W_f (Figs. 3 and 6, Eq. 10) is handled only by the partial average D̄_p and by full-band numerics. A short quantitative decomposition of interband vs. flat-band χ(q) at that intermediate temperature—or an explicit statement that the O(1/Δ_g) bound continues to hold when the Fermi window is only partially filled—would close the only soft spot in the central claim.
  2. End Matter derives the exact second-moment identity Ω_QGFOs = 2a ℓ_QM from the high-T form (A3)–(A6). The main text and SM Note I also speak of an exponential envelope e^{−r/ξ_G} with ξ_G ≥ λ ℓ_QM set by Im(k_nf). For multi-pole or multi-hot-spot spectra the variance and the leading exponential length are related but not identical; a one-paragraph clarification of when the variance bound and the pole-imaginary-part bound coincide (and when the oscillatory multi-component form of Eq. S18 is needed) would prevent over-reading of the “decay length = ℓ_QM” language in the abstract and introduction.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 1(d) caption and main text refer to a “purely quantum-geometric plateau” set by ℓ_QM; it would help the reader if the numerical value of ℓ_QM for the plotted parameters were stated explicitly next to the plateau, so that the equality with the extracted ξ can be checked by eye.
  2. Notation for the quantum distance is written both d_{k,k′} and d^f_{k,k+q}; a single consistent superscript convention would reduce friction when comparing Eq. (5), Eq. (10), and the SM.
  3. In the 2D End Matter discussion, the statement that inversion breaking is “not a generic requirement” for QGFOs is important; a brief cross-reference back to the 1D case (where δ ≠ δ′ is required) would make the symmetry conditions clearer.
  4. A few typos and typesetting issues: “Friedal” (Introduction), “arXiv:2607.04654v2” date line, and occasional missing spaces around k_B T / W_f inequalities. None affect the science.
  5. The experimental outlook (MATBG ∼10 meV, ν_f ∼ 0.1, T ∼ 10 K) is useful; a sentence on the expected STM spatial resolution relative to 2π/q_G and on disorder broadening of the hot spots would make the detection claim more concrete without expanding the scope.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QGFO period and high-T decay follow from flat-band susceptibility and second-moment identities without fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation chains.

  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction / Eq. (7) and surrounding text; also End Matter after Eq. (A6)]
    "the decay length of the QGFOs is determined by the quantum metric length ℓ_QM [31, 50–58], which is the integral of the quantum metric of the flat band as defined in Eq. (7)."

    The concept and name ℓ_QM are imported from the authors’ prior works. However the present paper re-derives the second-moment identity Ω = 2a ℓ_QM from the high-T susceptibility without inserting any numerical value taken from those papers, so the citation is contextual rather than load-bearing for the central claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Susceptibility is written from the T-matrix Green’s function (Eqs. 2–3), projected to the flat band, and decomposed into conventional Lindhard weight plus a quantum-distance term (Eqs. 4–5). At high T the geometric piece reduces to the Brillouin-zone-averaged quantum distance (Eq. 6), whose peaks are shown (SM Note II) to sit at the real parts of the complex poles of the flat-band projector; those poles coincide with quantum-metric hot spots when the local gap is small. The spatial extent is obtained by evaluating the second moment of the resulting negative-definite density modulation (End Matter, Eqs. A3–A6), which yields exactly Ω_QGFOs = 2a ℓ_QM once ℓ_QM is defined as the BZ integral of Tr G_f (Eq. 7). No parameter is fitted to data and then re-used as a “prediction”; the self-citations [31,50–58] merely introduce the name and prior bounds on ℓ_QM, while the present identities are re-derived from the susceptibility. Inter-band bounds (SM Note III) and intermediate-T partial averages (Eq. 10) are checked numerically on explicit models and do not close a definitional loop. Hence the only residual is ordinary self-citation of the authors’ earlier geometric-length papers, which is not load-bearing for the claimed oscillation period or temperature plateau.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard non-interacting Green-function technology plus the authors’ prior definition of the quantum metric length; the only free parameters are the lattice hoppings chosen to produce isolated flat bands with tunable hot spots. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • δ, δ′ (or β, β′)
    Dimensionless hoppings that break inversion and set the locations of the quantum-metric hot spots; chosen by hand to produce visible peaks in D̄(q).
  • t/J
    Ratio that controls flat-band bandwidth W_f; set to 10^{-4} so that the high-T window W_f ≪ k_B T ≪ Δ_g is numerically accessible.
  • U_0
    Impurity strength; varied from weak (Born) to intermediate values to illustrate amplitude growth of the geometric dip, but never fitted to external data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Non-interacting electrons; susceptibility given by the bubble with T-matrix (Eq. 2).
    Standard for Friedel/RKKY calculations; interactions are deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption Isolated flat band: U_0, k_B T ≪ Δ_g so that interband contributions are O(1/Δ_g).
    Invoked to justify the flat-band projection (Eq. 3) and the high-T form (Eq. 6).
  • standard math Residue theorem applied to the meromorphic structure of the projected Green function in the complex-k plane.
    Used in SM Note I to extract the three oscillatory channels and the geometric decay length.
  • domain assumption Quantum metric length ℓ_QM ≡ (V_cell/(2π)^d a) ∫ Tr G_f(k) dk bounds the imaginary part of the geometric poles.
    Taken from the authors’ prior works; enters the proof that ξ_G cannot vanish.
invented entities (1)
  • quantum geometric Friedel oscillations (QGFOs)
    purpose: Name the new real-space oscillatory channel whose wave-vector is q_G and whose envelope is set by ℓ_QM.
    The entity is defined by the geometric piece χ_g^f of the susceptibility; its independent experimental handle is the temperature-independent Fourier peak at q_G.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Geometric Friedel Oscillations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGIGN2PL

@misc{pith2026260704654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Geometric Friedel Oscillations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGIGN2PL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.04654}
}
read the original abstract

In conventional Friedel oscillations, the real-space charge density oscillations induced by an impurity are characterized by an oscillation period set by the Fermi momentum. In this work, we show that the conventional theory is incomplete when the Bloch wavefunctions carry nontrivial quantum geometry. We demonstrate that in metals with an isolated (nearly) flat band at the Fermi energy, quantum geometry induces a distinct type of oscillations, which we call the \emph{quantum geometric Friedel oscillations} (QGFOs). The period of the QGFOs is set by the momentum space separation of the quantum metric hot spots of the flat band. The conventional and quantum metric-induced oscillations coexist at low temperatures. At higher temperatures, the conventional Friedel oscillations away from the impurity site are set by the thermal length such that the oscillations can be easily washed out by temperature effects. Remarkably, the QGFOs decay length is set by the quantum metric length which is defined by the integration of the quantum metric of the flat band. As a result, the QGFOs can persist even at temperatures much larger than the bandwidth of the flat band. Moreover, the decay length is independent of temperature for a wide range of temperatures which is a manifestation of the quantum metric protection. In conclusion, we show that the quantum metric induces novel Friedel oscillations. Our work suggests that the measurement of the QGFOs is a powerful way to detect the quantum metric length (which is associated with the integral of the quantum metric) and the quantum metric hot spot separations (which are associated with the distribution of the quantum metric in the momentum space).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04654 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Emergence and thermodynamic stability of quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Band structure of the 1D flat-band model. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Comparison of QGFOs with distinct low-energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Real-space lattice and hopping structure of the 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Band structure of the 2D model. (b) Fermi surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. 2D flat-band QGFOs. (a-c) Normalized LDOS varia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Friedel, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)7, 287 (1958)

    J. Friedel, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)7, 287 (1958)

    1955

  2. [2]

    Bena, Comptes Rendus

    C. Bena, Comptes Rendus. Physique17, 302 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Physical Review96, 99 (1954)

    1954

  4. [4]

    Kasuya, Progress of theoretical physics16, 45 (1956)

    T. Kasuya, Progress of theoretical physics16, 45 (1956)

    1956

  5. [5]

    Yosida, Physical Review106, 893 (1957)

    K. Yosida, Physical Review106, 893 (1957)

    1957

  6. [6]

    N. W. Ashcroft, N. D. Mermin,et al., Solid state physics (1976)

    1976

  7. [7]

    Kohn and J

    W. Kohn and J. Luttinger, Physical Review Letters15, 524 (1965)

    1965

  8. [8]

    G. E. Simion and G. F. Giuliani, Physical Review B72, 045127 (2005)

    2005

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Affleck, L

    I. Affleck, L. Borda, and H. Saleur, Physical Review B 77, 180404 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Grassme and P

    R. Grassme and P. Bussemer, Physics Letters A175, 441 (1993)

    1993

  3. [11]

    Cavaliere, N

    F. Cavaliere, N. T. Ziani, F. Negro, and M. Sassetti, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter26, 505301 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Egger and H

    R. Egger and H. Grabert, inQuantum transport in semi- conductor submicron structures(Springer, 1996) pp. 133– 158

    1996

  5. [13]

    A. K. Geim and I. V. Grigorieva, Nature499, 419 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

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

    2018

  7. [15]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe,et al., Nature622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Leykam, A

    D. Leykam, A. Andreanov, and S. Flach, Advances in Physics: X3, 1473052 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    P. M. Neves, J. P. Wakefield, S. Fang, H. Nguyen, L. Ye, and J. G. Checkelsky, npj Computational Materials10, 39 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    L. Ye, S. Fang, M. Kang, J. Kaufmann, Y. Lee, C. John, P. M. Neves, S. F. Zhao, J. Denlinger, C. Jozwiak,et al., Nature Physics20, 610 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Provost and G

    J. Provost and G. Vallee, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  12. [20]

    Resta, The European Physical Journal B79, 121 (2011)

    R. Resta, The European Physical Journal B79, 121 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    T¨ orm¨ a, Physical Review Letters131, 240001 (2023)

    P. T¨ orm¨ a, Physical Review Letters131, 240001 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    J. Yu, B. A. Bernevig, R. Queiroz, E. Rossi, P. T¨ orm¨ a, and B.-J. Yang, npj Quantum Materials10, 101 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Liu, X.-B

    T. Liu, X.-B. Qiang, H.-Z. Lu, and X. Xie, National Sci- ence Review12, nwae334 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Verma, P

    N. Verma, P. J. Moll, T. Holder, and R. Queiroz, Nature Reviews Physics , 1 (2026)

    2026

  17. [25]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Nature Communications6, 8944 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Julku, S

    A. Julku, S. Peotta, T. I. Vanhala, D.-H. Kim, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Physical Review Letters117, 045303 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    X. Hu, T. Hyart, D. I. Pikulin, and E. Rossi, Physical Review Letters123, 237002 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    F. Xie, Z. Song, B. Lian, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review Letters124, 167002 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, V

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, V. Peri, F. Schindler, S. D. Huber, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review Letters128, 087002 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    T¨ orm¨ a, S

    P. T¨ orm¨ a, S. Peotta, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature Reviews Physics4, 528 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    S. A. Chen and K. Law, Physical Review Letters132, 026002 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Y. Fang, J. Cano, and S. A. A. Ghorashi, Physical Review Letters133, 106701 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Z. Du, C. Wang, H.-P. Sun, H.-Z. Lu, and X. Xie, Nature Communications12, 5038 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Jiang, T

    Y. Jiang, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 076502 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Souza, T

    I. Souza, T. Wilkens, and R. M. Martin, Physical Review B62, 1666 (2000). 6

    2000

  28. [36]

    Onishi and L

    Y. Onishi and L. Fu, Physical Review Research7, 023158 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Ahn, G.-Y

    J. Ahn, G.-Y. Guo, N. Nagaosa, and A. Vishwanath, Na- ture Physics18, 290 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Verma and R

    N. Verma and R. Queiroz, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2405837122 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Z. Han, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, B. A. Bernevig, and S. A. Kivelson, Physical Review X14, 041004 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zhang, W

    J.-X. Zhang, W. O. Wang, L. Balents, and L. Savary, Physical Review Letters136, 176504 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    Rossi, Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science25, 100952 (2021)

    E. Rossi, Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science25, 100952 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Sukhachov, N

    P. Sukhachov, N. H. Aase, K. Mæland, and A. Sudbø, Physical Review B111, 085143 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    C.-g. Oh, T. Kitamura, A. Daido, J.-W. Rhim, and Y. Yanase, Physical Review Research8, 023096 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Jiang and Y

    G. Jiang and Y. Barlas, Physical Review Letters131, 016002 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Sun, R.-P

    Z.-T. Sun, R.-P. Yu, S. A. Chen, J.-X. Hu, and K. Law, Quantum Frontiers4, 20 (2025)

    2025

  38. [47]

    Shavit and J

    G. Shavit and J. Alicea, Physical Review Letters134, 176001 (2025)

    2025

  39. [48]

    Kitamura, A

    T. Kitamura, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Physical Review Letters132, 036001 (2024)

    2024

  40. [49]

    H. Hu, O. Vafek, K. Haule, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review Letters136, 256505 (2026)

    2026

  41. [50]

    J.-X. Hu, S. A. Chen, and K. T. Law, Communications Physics8, 20 (2025)

    2025

  42. [51]

    X. Guo, X. Ma, X. Ying, and K. Law, Physical Review Letters135, 076601 (2025)

    2025

  43. [52]

    Z. C. Li, Y. Deng, S. A. Chen, D. K. Efetov, and K. Law, Physical Review Research7, 023273 (2025)

    2025

  44. [54]

    Ma, J.-X

    X.-L. Ma, J.-X. Hu, and K. T. Law, Universal boundary- modes localization from quantum metric length (2025), arXiv:2509.05114 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  45. [55]

    W.-B. Dai, J. Zhao, S. A. Chen, and K. T. Law, Quan- tum metric localization and quantum metric protection (2026), arXiv:2605.03987 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  46. [56]

    J. Zhao, R. Liu, X.-Y. Song, and K. T. Law, Quan- tum metric bound state of light (2026), arXiv:2606.22479 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  47. [57]

    W. Chen, K. Yang, T. Cao, S.-Z. Lin, J. Yu, and D. Xiao, Quantum geometric quadrupole of cooper pairs (2026), arXiv:2605.03133 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2026 arXiv

  48. [58]

    S. Lee, S. H. Lee, and B.-J. Yang, Physical Review Let- ters137, 016401 (2026)

    2026

  49. [59]

    Dutreix and M

    C. Dutreix and M. Katsnelson, Physical Review B93, 035413 (2016)

    2016

  50. [60]

    Singh, A

    A. Singh, A. Datta, S. K. Das, and V. A. Singh, Physical Review B68, 235208 (2003)

    2003

  51. [61]

    W. Chen, X. Zhou, D. Zhang, Y.-Q. Xu, and W.-K. Lou, Physical Review B110, 165413 (2024)

    2024

  52. [62]

    Friedel oscillations with quantum geom- etry

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted-by- publisher for 1. Friedel oscillations with quantum geom- etry. 2. Linking QGFOs wavevectors to quantum metric hot spot separations. 3. Interband susceptibilities. 4. QG- FOs in a two-band model. It includes Refs. [71–74]

  53. [63]

    Y. Kim, S. Flach, and A. Andreanov, Physical Review B 113, 235110 (2026)

    2026

  54. [64]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  55. [65]

    Marzari, A

    N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 1419 (2012)

    2012

  56. [66]

    Souza, N

    I. Souza, N. Marzari, and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B65, 035109 (2001)

    2001

  57. [67]

    L. Liu, Y. Hong, C. Zhang, J. Zhu, J. Dong, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, L. Du, D. Shi, K. T. Law,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06460 (2025)

    2025

  58. [68]

    S. Geng, X. Wang, R. Guo, C. Qiu, F. Chen, Q. Wang, K. Li, P. Hao, H. Liang, Y. Huang,et al., Nature Com- munications (2026)

    2026

  59. [69]

    Zhong, S

    J. Zhong, S. Geng, T.-F. Ying, H. Li, and B. T. Zhou, Ycl electride as a multi-orbital correlated topological dice lattice system (2026), arXiv:2509.05958 [cond-mat.mtrl- sci]

    2026 arXiv

  60. [70]

    J. G. Checkelsky, B. A. Bernevig, P. Coleman, Q. Si, and S. Paschen, Nature Reviews Materials9, 509 (2024)

    2024

  61. [71]

    E. H. Lieb, Physical Review Letters62, 1201 (1989)

    1989

  62. [72]

    Laubscher, C

    K. Laubscher, C. S. Weber, M. H¨ unenberger, H. Schoeller, D. M. Kennes, D. Loss, and J. Klino- vaja, Physical Review B108, 155429 (2023)

    2023

  63. [73]

    Bouzerar, Physical Review B104, 155151 (2021)

    G. Bouzerar, Physical Review B104, 155151 (2021)

    2021

  64. [74]

    Luo and M.-F

    Y.-D. Luo and M.-F. Yang, Physical Review B110, 144402 (2024)

    2024

  65. [75]

    Bochner,Vorlesungen uber fouriersche integrale (Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1932)

    S. Bochner,Vorlesungen uber fouriersche integrale (Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1932)

    1932

  66. [76]

    Res k=ku nf P f k Tω Res k=kl nf P f k # 1 (ω+ −E f ku nf )(ω+ −E f kl nf ) ,(S8b) Cku nf ,kl ω = Tr h Aku nf TωAkl ω i =− V 2 cell (2π)2(d−1) Tr

    R. Roy, Physical Review B90, 165139 (2014). 7 END MA TTER FIG. 4. Real-space lattice and hopping structure of the 1D model. The dashed square denotes an unit cell. 1D Model and Methods.—We consider a 1D three-sublattice model with spin-diagonal Hamilto- nianH 1D = P k,σ=± Ψ† k...

    2014

  67. [77]

    Intra-band dispersive contributions: χl(q) = 1 N X k f(E l k+q)−f(E l k) Ed k+q −E l k (1−d l k,k+q) T≪∆ g ≃ 1 N X k eEl k/T −e El k+q/T El k+q −E l k (1−d l k,k+q) ≃0, (S34) 11 FIG. S4. Inter-band susceptibilities for the 1D three-band model. (a)χ l−f and its lower bound (amp...

  68. [78]

    Inter-band contributions between the flat and lower dispersive bandsχ l−f: χl−f(q) = 1 N X k f(E l k+q)−f(E f k) El k+q −E f k (1−d l−f k,k+q) W f ≪T≪∆ g ≃ 1 N X k 1−e El k+q/T − 1 2(1− Ef k 2T ) El k+q −E f k (1−d l−f k,k+q) W f ≪∆g ≃ 1 N X k 1 2El k+q (1−d l−f k,k+q) ≥ − 1 2...

  69. [79]

    (S38) Above, we have used the approximationsf(E l k)≃1−e El k/T ,f(E h k )≃e −Eh k /T , andf(E h k )≃ 1 2(1−E f k /2T) in the regimeW f ≪T≪∆ g

    Inter-band contribution between the two dispersive bands: χl−h(q) = 1 N X k f(E l k+q)−f(E h k) El k+q −E h k (1−d l−h k,k+q) T≪∆ g ≃ 1 N X k 1−e El k+q/T −e −Eh k /T El k+q −E h k (1−d l−h k,k+q) ≥ − 1 2∆g [1− ¯Dl−h(q)]. (S38) Above, we have used the approximationsf(E l k)≃1−...

    1955

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.