Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Exact multiple anomalous mobility edges in a flat band geometry

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A flat-band lattice with anti-symmetric mosaic modulation yields exact anomalous mobility edges.

desk verdict A novel construction of exact AMEs in a flat-band lattice whose central exactness claim is undermined by an unproven import of a generalized-AA transition criterion into a V^2 on-site effective model. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10766 v2 pith:GCC7S4Z6 submitted 2025-05-16 cond-mat.dis-nn quant-ph

Zhanpeng Lu , Hui Liu , Yunbo Zhang , Zhihao Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph PACS 71.23.-k72.15.Rn
keywords anomalousmobilityedgeflatbandcross-stitchlatticemosaicquasiperiodicmodulationAubry-Andrémodelmultifractalcriticalstatelocalizationtransition
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 aims to establish that exact anomalous mobility edges, energy boundaries separating localized states from multifractal critical states, can be engineered in a flat-band lattice using an anti-symmetric mosaic quasi-periodic potential. It claims that when the constant part of the potential is zero, all eigenstates localize, whereas a nonzero constant potential generates multiple exact mobility edges whose positions are given by closed-form expressions. These expressions follow from mapping the flat-band system onto a generalized Aubry-André model with both diagonal and off-diagonal quasi-periodic modulations. The paper also proposes an electrical-circuit realization, making the predicted spectra and state distributions experimentally accessible.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the local rotational transformation $\hat{U} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\1&-1\end{pmatrix}$, which decouples the flat band and converts the two-band cross-stitch problem into a single P-chain governed by $B_0 p_n = -2V_{n-1}p_{n-1} - 2V_n p_{n+1} + V_n^2 p_n$, with $B_0 = E^2 - t^2 - 4$. Grouping sites into quasicells of length $\kappa$ and eliminating the constant-potential sites turns this into a generalized Aubry-André model with quasi-periodic hopping and on-site terms. The paper then applies the transition criterion of that model, critical-to-insulator when the effective on-site amplitude reaches twice the hopping amplitude, to derive the exact AME equations.

What would settle it

Directly compute the Lyapunov exponent and fractal dimension at the energies predicted by Eq. (16) for κ=2 in the thermodynamic limit: if eigenstates at those energies are not exactly scale-invariant critical states (fractal dimension in the open interval (0,1) and $λ^{{-1}}$=0 at all system sizes), or if the transition energy differs from the formula, the central claim fails. A sharper check is to calculate the transfer-matrix localization length for the effective generalized AA model in Eq. (15) at the predicted AME energies and verify it diverges exactly at those energies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the localization properties of the cross-stitch flat-band lattice with an anti-symmetric diagonal mosaic modulation are exactly captured by an effective one-dimensional generalized Aubry-André model, whose quasi-periodic hopping and on-site terms are both derived from the original mosaic potential $V_n$. Applying the known critical-to-insulator criterion of that generalized model, the transition occurs when the effective on-site amplitude equals twice the hopping amplitude, yields exact anomalous mobility edge (AME) formulas: Eq. (16) for $\kappa=2$, Eq. (18) for $\kappa=3$, and the general expression Eq. (17) and Eq. (A11) giving $4(\kappa-1)$ AMEs for any integer $\kappa\ge2$. The same mapping predicts that with $\Delta_2=0$ the system is entirely localized, whereas with $\Delta_2\neq0$ multifractal critical regions persist even at large quasi-periodic modulation strength. Numerical fractal dimensions, MIPR scalings, standard deviations of eigenstate coordinates, and Lyapunov exponents corroborate the analytical AME formulas.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation rests on the assumption that the known critical-to-insulator criterion of the generalized Aubry-André model, the transition occurs when the on-site quasi-periodic amplitude equals twice the hopping amplitude, applies unchanged to the effective model in Eq. (15), whose on-site term is proportional to $V^2$ rather than to $V$; this criterion is cited from earlier work and not proven for this effective model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For each integer $\kappa \ge 2$, the spectrum hosts exactly $4(\kappa-1)$ anomalous mobility edges, whose energies are given in closed form by Eqs. (17) and (A11).
  • With the constant potential absent ($\Delta_2=0$), the same construction produces a fully localized phase with no mobility edges, meaning the constant potential is the ingredient that turns the flat-band geometry into AMEs.
  • Multifractal critical states survive at arbitrarily large quasi-periodic modulation strength, so the AME phase remains stable in the strong-disorder limit.
  • Small random perturbations of the intracell hopping preserve the AMEs, although the analytic formulas no longer pinpoint the shifted positions.
  • The circuit Laplacian of the proposed electrical network matches the model Hamiltonian, so the admittance spectrum of the circuit directly exhibits the predicted AME spectrum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same local-rotation-plus-mosaic recipe likely generates exact AMEs in other flat-band geometries such as diamond or Lieb chains whenever the decoupling transformation leaves an effective chain with mosaic quasi-periodic hopping; the paper demonstrates only the cross-stitch case.
  • Because the AME formulas are explicit algebraic functions of the model parameters, they could serve as quantitative benchmarks for numerical methods that locate mobility edges in quasi-periodic systems, a use the paper does not discuss.
  • The reliance on an anti-symmetric potential ($V_{A,n} = -V_{B,n}$) hints that particle-hole-like symmetry underpins the exactness of the formulas; breaking this symmetry with a uniform shift may destroy or deform the AMEs, a testable extension not explored in the paper.
  • In the proposed circuit, measuring voltage distributions at resonant frequencies should reproduce the fractal-dimension map of Fig. 3, giving a direct experimental route to verify multifractal critical states; the paper proposes the circuit but reports no measurements.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a one-dimensional cross-stitch flat-band lattice with an anti-symmetric mosaic quasi-periodic potential. It derives a reduced 'P-chain' model and, for non-zero constant potential Δ2, eliminates the constant sites to obtain an effective generalized Aubry-André model with quasi-periodic hopping and on-site terms. From a heuristic transition criterion for such models, the authors obtain closed-form expressions for anomalous mobility edges (AMEs) for κ=2, κ=3, and arbitrary κ, and show numerically that these boundaries separate localized states from multifractal critical states. An electrical-circuit implementation is also proposed. The central claim is that the analytic AME formulas are exact.

Significance. If the exactness claim can be substantiated, this is a valuable contribution to the comparatively small family of quasi-periodic models with exact anomalous mobility edges. The paper's strengths include a clean algebraic reduction from the two-band cross-stitch model to a single-chain P-chain, explicit analytic formulas for the AMEs, and a complementary suite of numerical diagnostics (fractal dimension, Lyapunov exponent, MIPR scaling) that support the qualitative picture. The proposed circuit realization is a useful practical feature. However, the derivation of the AME formulas rests on an imported transition criterion whose applicability to the effective model is not demonstrated; this is the load-bearing point that the paper must address before the 'exact' claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (15)-(16)] The paper asserts that Eq. (15) is a generalized AA model and that the critical-to-insulator transition occurs when the on-site amplitude equals twice the hopping amplitude, citing Refs. [26,31,72]. This criterion is not justified for the effective model derived here. In Eq. (15), the hopping amplitudes are proportional to V_{2,s}=Δ1 cos(4πβ s), while the on-site term is proportional to V_{2,s}^2 = Δ1^2 cos^2(4πβ s), which contains a constant part and a cos(8πβ s) second-harmonic component. The cited generalized AA models have diagonal and off-diagonal modulations proportional to the same first-harmonic cosine, a property that underlies their self-duality and the transition criterion. With a cos^2 on-site term, the dual Hamiltonian generally acquires range-2 hopping, so the cited criterion does not automatically transfer. The authors need to provide a self-contained derivation of the transition point for the specific model in Eq. (15), or justify via an appropriate rigorous method (e.g., Avila's global theory), before Eqs. (16)-(18) and (A11) can be called exact. Numerical agreement in Figs. 3, 5, 6, and A1 is consistent with the formulas but does not replace this proof, particularly because the predicted critical states are multifractal and finite-size scaling can be subtle.
  2. [Appendix, Eq. (A10)] The inductive step for arbitrary κ is only sketched with the phrase 'employing inductive reasoning.' The elimination procedure for κ=2 and κ=3 (Eqs. (14)-(15) and (A1)-(A6)) is already algebraically involved, and the general expression (A10) contains continued-fraction-like coefficients A_m that are not fully derived. Since Eq. (A11), the claimed exact AME formula for arbitrary κ, depends directly on Eq. (A10), the induction should be spelled out explicitly or at least the base cases and the induction rule should be stated clearly. Without this, a reader cannot verify the validity of the general formula.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The displayed formula for the standard deviation σ_i uses an unusual radical notation that is not typeset correctly; it should be the square root of the sum over j.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption states that the black lines represent the AMEs given by Eq. (18) and Eq. (16) 'without small random perturbations in (a) and (b)', but the parenthetical association is unclear: for κ=2 one expects Eq. (16) and for κ=3 Eq. (18). Please rewrite to make the correspondence explicit.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (20)-(27)] The notation in the circuit equations is not fully defined: for instance, 'I2' is used as a 2×2 identity matrix but is not introduced, and expressions like 'iωCJ I2[V...]' are ambiguous about whether I2 is multiplying a vector or a matrix. Please clarify the notation and define all symbols before first use.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (27)] The mapping from the circuit Laplacian to the tight-binding Hamiltonian would be easier to follow if the authors explicitly stated the identification of the diagonal entries (e.g., the relation between C_{n,a}, C_{n,b} and the on-site potentials V_{A,n}, V_{B,n}) rather than leaving the reader to infer it from the matrix entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AME formulas are obtained by an exact algebraic mapping to a generalized AA model plus an externally cited transition criterion, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is not circular. The central result, Eqs. (16), (17)/(A11), and (18), follows from an exact unitary transformation of the cross-stitch lattice (Eqs. (6)-(8)) and a reduction of the effective P-chain to a 1D generalized AA model (Eq. (15) and Appendix Eqs. (A1)-(A11)). The transition criterion 'the system undergoes a critical-to-insulator transition when the on-site amplitude reaches twice the hopping amplitude' is imported from Refs. [26,31,72], which are independent works not authored by the present group. The AME formulas are not fitted to the numerical data; IPR, MIPR, and Lyapunov-exponent calculations serve as independent verification. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Refs. [12,38,40,52]) are background or experimental-context citations and do not carry the derivation. The main gap is a rigor concern rather than a circularity: the cited criterion is stated for a generalized AA model with first-harmonic cosine modulations, whereas Eq. (15) has an on-site term proportional to V^2, i.e., cos^2, which introduces a second harmonic and would require a separate duality proof. The appendix also only sketches the arbitrary-κ inductive step. However, these are unsupported assumptions or omitted proofs, not reductions of the result to its own inputs. Therefore there is no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-induced circularity.

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

The central AME derivation introduces no free parameters: the formulas depend only on the model parameters Δ1, Δ2, t, and κ. The main axiom is the borrowed transition criterion for generalized AA models, which is the key external input. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The generalized AA model with quasiperiodic hopping and on-site terms undergoes a critical-to-insulator transition when the on-site amplitude equals twice the hopping amplitude.
    Invoked in Sec. III and Appendix to derive AME conditions (Eqs. 16-18, A11). The exactness of the claimed AMEs depends on this criterion applying to the effective model in Eq. (15) and (A10), which have on-site terms proportional to V^2.
  • standard math A local unitary transformation preserves the localization properties (IPR, fractal dimension) of eigenstates.
    Used implicitly when reducing the original cross-stitch model to the P-chain in Eq. (8).
  • domain assumption For arbitrary κ, the effective eigenvalue equation (A10), obtained by induction, is correct for all κ.
    Stated in the Appendix with 'employing inductive reasoning' without a full proof; numerically verified for κ=4,5 in Fig. A1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exact multiple anomalous mobility edges in a flat band geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GCC7S4Z6

@misc{pith2026250510766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exact multiple anomalous mobility edges in a flat band geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GCC7S4Z6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10766}
}
read the original abstract

Anomalous mobility edges(AMEs), separating localized from multifractal critical states, represent a novel form of localization transition in quasiperiodic systems. However, quasi-periodic models exhibiting exact AMEs remain relatively rare, limiting the understanding of these transitions. In this work, we leverage the geometric structure of flat band models to construct exact AMEs. Specifically, we introduce an anti-symmetric diagonal quasi-periodic mosaic modulation, which consists of both quasi-periodic and constant potentials, into a cross-stitch flat band lattice. When the constant potential is zero, the system resides entirely in a localized phase, with its dispersion relation precisely determined. For non-zero constant potentials, we use a simple method to derive analytical solutions for a class of AMEs, providing exact results for both the AMEs and the system's localization and critical properties. Additionally, we propose a classical electrical circuit design to experimentally realize the system. This study offers valuable insights into the existence and characteristics of AMEs in quasi-periodic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10766 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the cross-stitch lattice. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The fractal dimension Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Multifractal critical states in the weak disorder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a), the four AMEs partition the energy band into for five regions. The shade areas represent regions with system-size-independent Γi , indicating the emergence of FIG. 5. (a) The fractal dimension Γi versus Ei for differ￾ent system sizes. The shaded regions represent …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The fractal dimension Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) (a) Electrical circuit implementati [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [72]

    Green, L

    D. Green, L. Santos, and C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B 82, 075104 (2010)

    2010

  2. [26]

    S. Roy, S. Chattopadhyay, T. Mishra, and S. Basu, Phys. Rev. B 105, 214203 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Huckestein, Rev

    B. Huckestein, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 357 (1995)

    1995

  4. [2]

    Here, the subscripts of p ˜α,s and V ˜α,s denote the ˜α-th site in the s-th quasicell, with ˜α = FIG. 3. The fractal dimension Γ i of different eigenstates as a function of the corresponding Ei and ∆ 1 for L = 1220 and ∆2 = 2. The black lines represent the AMEs given in Eq. (16). -4 -2 0 2 4 0 0.5 1 200 600 1000 0 200 400 200 600 1000 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 0...

  5. [3]

    The yellow and blue regions correspond to critical and localized states, respec- tively

    Figure 3 illustrates the fractal dimension Γ i as the function of eigenenergyEi and ∆1 forL = 1220. The yellow and blue regions correspond to critical and localized states, respec- tively. When the modulation amplitude ∆ 1 is weak, Γ i for all the eigenstates deviates from 0 and 1, indicat- ing that the system resides in a critical phase. As ∆ 1 increases...

  6. [4]

    Merlin, K

    R. Merlin, K. Bajema, R. Clarke, F. Y. Juang, and P. K. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1768 (1985)

    1985

  7. [5]

    6(a) marked by the black solid lines, where Γ i is shown as a function of the eigenen- ergies and ∆ 1 for L = 1260

    (18) Multiple AMEs emerge in Fig. 6(a) marked by the black solid lines, where Γ i is shown as a function of the eigenen- ergies and ∆ 1 for L = 1260. As predicted by the ana- lytical results, Γ i approximately changes from 0 to 0 .5 when the energies across these red lines. To illustrate the intermediate phase with AMEs, we take ∆ 1 = 6 as a specific examp...

  8. [6]

    ( A1) and ( A2), we obtain: [ A1 − (−2∆2)2 A1 ] p1,s = −2V3,s−1p3,s−1 + (−2∆2)2 A1 p3,s, (A4)[ A1 − (−2∆2)2 A1 ] p2,s = −2 −2∆2 A1 V3,s−1p3,s−1 − 2∆2p3,s

    Combining Eqs. ( A1) and ( A2), we obtain: [ A1 − (−2∆2)2 A1 ] p1,s = −2V3,s−1p3,s−1 + (−2∆2)2 A1 p3,s, (A4)[ A1 − (−2∆2)2 A1 ] p2,s = −2 −2∆2 A1 V3,s−1p3,s−1 − 2∆2p3,s. (A5) Next, by combining the results of ( A3), ( A4) and ( A5), we arrive at the following equation: ( B0 − 4∆2 2 A2 ) p3,s = − 8∆2 2 A1A2 V3,s−1p3,s−1 − 8∆2 2 A1A2 V3,sp3,s+1 + ( 4 A2 + 1...

Show all 89 references
  1. [7]

    Evers and A

    F. Evers and A. D. Mirlin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1355 (2008)

    2008

  2. [8]

    Moreover, there exists a (κ − 2) ˜N -fold degeneracy at E = ± √ t2 + 4, respectively

    to de- scribe a series of disconnected lattice sites, which implies that all eigenstates are localized. Moreover, there exists a (κ − 2) ˜N -fold degeneracy at E = ± √ t2 + 4, respectively. The degeneracy of the remaining L − 2(κ − 2) ˜N energies is broken, and these energies ...

  3. [9]

    Jagannathan, Rev

    A. Jagannathan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045001 (2021)

    2021

  4. [10]

    Ostlund, R

    S. Ostlund, R. Pandit, D. Rand, H. J. Schellnhuber, and E. D. Siggia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1873 (1983)

    1983

  5. [11]

    Maci´ a, Phys

    E. Maci´ a, Phys. Rev. B 60, 10032 (1999)

    1999

  6. [12]

    J. A. Ashraff and R. B. Stinchcomebe, Phys. Rev. B 40, 2278 (1989)

    1989

  7. [13]

    Liu, arXiv:2411.09067

    T. Liu, arXiv:2411.09067

  8. [14]

    T. Xiao, D. Xie, Z. Dong, T. Chen, W. Yi, and B. Yan, Sci. Bull. 66, 2175 (2021)

    2021

  9. [15]

    Liu and X

    T. Liu and X. Xia, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 017102 (2024)

    2024

  10. [16]

    We further calculate the MIPR for a specific region as a function of 1 /N, as shown in Fig 5(d)

    with κ = 2, we can distinguish the critical and localized regions in the spectrum. We further calculate the MIPR for a specific region as a function of 1 /N, as shown in Fig 5(d). One can see that the scaling of the MIPR for the two critical regions MIPR(˜σ ˜C ) ≈ 0.2779N −0.51...

  11. [17]

    Goblot, A

    V. Goblot, A. ˇStrkalj, N. Pernet, J. L. Lado, C. Dorow, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, L. Le Gratiet, A. Harouri, I. Sagnes, S. Ravets, A. Amo, J. Bloch and O. Zilberberg, Nat. Phys. 16, 832-836 (2020)

    2020

  12. [18]

    L. J. Zhai, G. Y. Huang, S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B. 104, 014202 (2021)

    2021

  13. [19]

    Q. Dai, Z. Lu, and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 108, 144207 (2023)

    2023

  14. [20]

    Lagendijk, B

    A. Lagendijk, B. van Tiggelen, and D. S. Wiersma, Phys. Today 62, 24 (2009)

    2009

  15. [21]

    X. Lin, X. Chen, G.-C. Guo, and M. Gong, Phys. Rev. B 108, 174206 (2023)

    2023

  16. [22]

    S. Roy, T. Mishra, B. Tanatar, and S. Basu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 106803 (2021)

    2021

  17. [23]

    Padhan, M

    A. Padhan, M. K. Giri, S. Mondal and T. Mishra, Phys. Rev. B 105, L220201 (2022)

    2022

  18. [24]

    Zuo and D

    Z.-W. Zuo and D. Kang, Phys. Rev. A 106, 013305 (2022)

    2022

  19. [25]

    Aditya, K

    S. Aditya, K. Sengupta, and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. B 107, 035402 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    Tang, G.-Q

    L.-Z. Tang, G.-Q. Zhang, L.-F. Zhang, and D.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 103, 033325 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    C. W. Duncan, Phys. Rev. B 109, 014210 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    C. Yang, W. Yang, Y. Wang and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042205 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Y. Wang, L. Zhang, S. Niu, D. Yu, X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 073204 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    Zhang and Y.-Y

    Y.-C. Zhang and Y.-Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 105, 174206 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    Y. Wang, C. Cheng, X.-J. Liu, and D. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 080602 (2021)

    2021

  26. [33]

    Gon¸ calves, B

    M. Gon¸ calves, B. Amorim, F. Riche, E. V. Castro, and P. Ribeiro, arXiv:2305.03800

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    T. Liu, X. Xia, S. Longhi, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Sci- Post Phys. 12, 27 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    X.-C. Zhou, Y. Wang, T.-F. J. Poon, Q. Zhou, and X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 176401 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    Li, Y.-C

    S.-Z. Li, Y.-C. Zhang, Y.-C. Wang, S.C. Zhang, S.-L. Zhu, and Z. Li, arXiv:2501.07866(2025)

    2025

  30. [37]

    F. Liu, S. Ghosh, and Y. D. Chong, Phys. Rev. B 91, 014108 (2015)

    2015

  31. [38]

    Y. E. Kraus, Y. Lahini, Z. Ringel, M. Verbin, and O. Zilberberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 106402 (2012)

    2012

  32. [39]

    Segev, Y

    M. Segev, Y. Silberberg, and D. N. Christodoulides, Nat. Photon. 7, 197 (2013)

    2013

  33. [40]

    Biddle and S

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

    2010

  34. [41]

    Ganeshan, J

    S. Ganeshan, J. H. Pixley, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 146601 (2015)

    2015

  35. [42]

    Y. Wang, L. Zhang, W. Sun, T.-F. J. Poon, and X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 106, L140203 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    Y. Wang, L. Zhang, Y. Wan, Y. He, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 107, L140201 (2023)

    2023

  37. [44]

    Z. Lu, Z. Xu, and Y. Zhang, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 534, 2200203 (2022)

    2022

  38. [45]

    Z. Xu, H. Huangfu, Y. Zhang, and S. Chen, New J. Phys. 22, 013036 (2020)

    2020

  39. [46]

    H. Liu, Z. Lu, Xu X and Z. Xu, New J. Phys. 26, 093007 (2024)

    2024

  40. [47]

    Z. Xu, X. Xia, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 104, 224204 (2021)

    2021

  41. [48]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 236301 (2024)

    2024

  42. [49]

    T. Liu, H. Guo, Y. Pu, and S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B 102, 024205 (2020)

    2020

  43. [50]

    Liu and H

    T. Liu and H. Guo, Phys. Rev. B 98, 104201 (2018)

    2018

  44. [51]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B 110, 184201 (2024)

    2024

  45. [52]

    H. P. Luschen, S. Scherg, T. Kohlert, M. Schreiber, P. Bordia, X. Li, S. Das Sarma, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 160404 (2018)

    2018

  46. [53]

    Li and S

    X. Li and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 101, 064203 (2020)

    2020

  47. [54]

    J. D. Bodyfelt, D. Leykam, C. Danieli, X. Yu, and S. Flach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 236403 (2014)

    2014

  48. [55]

    H. Yao, T. Giamarchi, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 060401 (2020)

    2020

  49. [56]

    Y. Wang, X. Xia, L. Zhang, H. Yao, S. Chen, J. You, Q. Zhou, and X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 196604 (2020)

    2020

  50. [57]

    J. Gao, I. M. Khaymovich, A. Iovan, X.-W. Wang, G. Kr- ishna, Z.-S. Xu, E. Tortumlu, A. V. Balatsky, V. Zwiller, and A. W. Elshaari, Phys. Rev. B 108, L140202 (2023)

    2023

  51. [58]

    Z. Lu, Y. Zhang, and Z. Xu, Front. Phys. 20, 024204 (2025)

    2025

  52. [59]

    T. Liu, S. Cheng, R. Zhang, R. Ruan, and H. Jiang, Chin. Phys. B 31, 027101 (2022)

    2022

  53. [60]

    Liu and S

    T. Liu and S. Cheng, Chin. Phys. B 32, 027102 (2023)

    2023

  54. [61]

    C. H. Xu, Z. C. Xu, Z. Y. Zhou, E. H. Cheng, and L. J. Lang, Acta Phys. Sin. 72, 200301 (2023)

    2023

  55. [62]

    E. H. Cheng and L. J. Lang, Acta Phys. Sin. 71, 160301 (2022)

    2022

  56. [63]

    D. S. Borgnia, A. Vishwanath, and R.-J. Slager, Phys. Rev. B 106, 054204 (2022)

    2022

  57. [64]

    D. S. Borgnia and R.-J. Slager,Phys. Rev. B 107, 085111 (2023)

    2023

  58. [65]

    M. M. Samak and O. R. Bilal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 266101 (2024)

    2024

  59. [66]

    Maksymenko, A

    M. Maksymenko, A. Honecker, R. Moessner, J. Richter, 10 and O. Derzhko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 096404 (2012)

    2012

  60. [67]

    Rhim and B.-J

    J.-W. Rhim and B.-J. Yang, Adv. Phys.: X 6, 1901606 (2021)

    2021

  61. [68]

    Hyrk¨ as, V

    M. Hyrk¨ as, V. Apaja, and M. Manninen, Phys. Rev A 87, 023614 (2013)

    2013

  62. [69]

    Derzhko, J

    O. Derzhko, J. Richter, A. Honecker, M. Maksymenko, and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. B 81, 014421 (2010)

    2010

  63. [70]

    M. Goda, S. Nishino, and H. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 126401 (2006)

    2006

  64. [71]

    S. D. Huber and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. B 82, 184502 (2010)

    2010

  65. [73]

    X. Li, J. Liu, and T. Liu, Front. Phys. 19, 33211 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Z. Ma, W. J. Chen, Y. Chen, J. H. Gao, and X. C. Xie, Front. Phys. 18, 63302 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Z. Ma, S. Li, M. M. Xiao, Y. W. Zheng, M. Lu, H. Liu, J. H. Gao, and X. C. Xie, Front. Phys. 18, 13307 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Y. Biao, Z. Yan, and R. Yu, Phys. Rev. B 110, L241110 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Danieli, J

    C. Danieli, J. D. Bodyfelt, and S. Flach, Phys. Rev. B 91, 235134 (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    S. Lee, A. Andreanov, and S. Flach, Phys. Rev. B 107, 014204 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Maimaiti, A

    W. Maimaiti, A. Andreanov, H. C. Park, O. Gendelman, and S. Flach, Phys. Rev. B 95, 115135 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    Maimaiti and A

    W. Maimaiti and A. Andreanov, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035115 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    Avila, Acta

    A. Avila, Acta. Math. 215, 1 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    Avila, J

    A. Avila, J. You, and Q. Zhou, Duke. Math. J. 166, 2697 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Y. Liu, Q. Zhou, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 104, 024201 (2021)

    2021

  76. [84]

    Y. Liu, Y. Wang, X.-J. Liu, Q. Zhou, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 103, 014203 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    Z.-H. Wang, F. Xu, L. Li, D.-H. Xu, and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 105, 024514 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    MacKinnon and B

    A. MacKinnon and B. Kramer, Z. Phys. B 53, 1 (1983)

    1983

  79. [87]

    Y. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Zheng, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 103, 134208 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    Hofmann, T

    T. Hofmann, T. Helbig, C. H. Lee, M. Greiter, and R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 247702 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    Imhof, C

    S. Imhof, C. Berger, F. Bayer, J. Brehm, L. W. Molenkamp, T. Kiessling, F. Schindler, C. H. Lee, M. Greiter, T. Neupert, and R. Thomale, Nat. Phys. 14, 925 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.