Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

At ν=1/2, a ten-row bosonic lattice strip reproduces the chiral Luttinger liquid edge spectral function: gapless, chiral, linear, with weight linear in momentum and energy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:52 UTC pith:I65RFJIV

load-bearing objection A credible numerical observation of χLL-like edge spectra in a lattice FCI, but the quantitative claim rests on a chemical-potential fit whose uncertainty is left unquantified. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.07795 v2 pith:I65RFJIV submitted 2025-10-09 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Chiral Edge Excitations of ν=1/2 Fractional Chern Insulators in the Bosonic Hofstadter Model

Xiao-Han Yang , Ji-Yao Chen , Xiao-Yu Dong This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el quant-ph
keywords fractional Chern insulatorchiral Luttinger liquidedge spectral functionHarper-Hofstadter-Hubbard modelν=1/2 Laughlin statehard-core bosonsinfinite matrix product statestopological edge modes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to settle whether discrete-lattice fractional Chern insulators (FCIs) display the same chiral edge physics that chiral Luttinger liquid (χLL) theory predicts for continuum fractional quantum Hall states. The central claim is that a ν=1/2 bosonic FCI on an infinitely long strip of width ten reproduces the χLL spectral function: the edge spectrum is gapless, chiral and linear, and the spectral weight of charge-one excitations grows linearly with both momentum and energy. A reader should care because this is a direct numerical identification of the field-theoretic edge spectral function in a lattice FCI, and it explains why an earlier attempt on an eight-row strip failed: the strip was too narrow and the added boson leaked into the bulk. The paper also argues that a harmonic trapping potential is neither necessary nor sufficient for observing the correct edge spectrum, contrary to earlier suggestions that it is required.

Core claim

For the bosonic Harper-Hofstadter-Hubbard model with hard-core interactions at filling ν=1/2 on an infinitely long strip of width Ly=10, the charge-one edge spectral function A(kx, ω) obtained from infinite-matrix-product-state excited states quantitatively matches Eq. (1) of χLL theory with s=2. The lowest edge modes are localized on the top two rows (and symmetrically on the bottom two), their dispersion is gapless and linear in kx, and the integrated edge weight I9 + I10 increases linearly with momentum. Adding one boson to the ground state leaves the bulk density uniform and merely enhances edge currents, confirming bulk incompressibility. The same calculation on Ly=8 shows the extra bos

What carries the argument

The central object is the χLL spectral-function identity A(k,ω) ∝ (ω+vk)^{s−1} δ(ω−vk), Eq. (1), with s=2 for ν=1/2: chirality is enforced by the delta function and linear-in-(ω,k) weight by the prefactor. The computational machinery is an infinite matrix product state ground state combined with a quasiparticle excitation ansatz on an infinite strip, with the chemical potential μ fixed by the finite-size scaling μ(D,Lx)=μ0+μ_D/D+μ'_D/D^2+μ_Lx/Lx and the momentum shift p0=qπ(Ly−3)/4 obtained from the Aharonov–Bohm phase of the added charge. This machinery lets the authors evaluate row-resolved spectral functions and edge spectral weights directly in the charge-one sector.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fitted chemical potential μ0=−2.65323 places the charged excitation energies at their true positions; the authors acknowledge the fitting function is heuristic and not highly accurate, so if μ is off by more than the residual gap, the apparent gapless linear edge spectrum near kx=0 could be a numerical artifact.

What would settle it

Compute the charge-one edge spectral function on a Ly=10 strip with μ determined by an independent method, such as exact diagonalization on finite cylinders or a particle-number-projected DMRG calculation of E(N+1)−E(N), and examine the kx=0 gap as a function of bond dimension. If, with corrected μ, the lowest edge excitation energy at kx=0 extrapolates to a nonzero value, or if the weight I9+I10 does not grow linearly at small kx, then the claimed χLL correspondence is refuted.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, lattice FCIs can serve as quantitative simulators of continuum FQH edge physics: the edge velocity and Luttinger parameter become directly readable from the computed dispersion and spectral weight.
  • The failure on Ly=8 is a finite-width effect; wider strips or better edge confinement are required to observe true chiral edge spectra in numerical simulations and cold-atom experiments.
  • Harmonic traps are not a cure-all: with a trap, charge-one and charge-zero spectra on Ly=11 can become nonchiral and even flatten near kx=0, so experiments should not rely on traps to stabilize edge modes.
  • The combination of uniform bulk density, enhanced edge currents when one boson is added, and edge-localized excited states provides an experimentally accessible fingerprint of an incompressible FCI in open-boundary samples.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the s=2 weight law is correct, the same method should give a quadratically growing weight for a ν=1/3 bosonic FCI edge, where χLL predicts (ω+vk)^2; testing this would show whether the exponent is truly tied to the filling.
  • Editorial inference: the heuristic chemical-potential fit is the most fragile element; an independent determination of μ, for example by exact diagonalization on finite cylinders, would verify that the apparent gaplessness near kx=0 is not an energy-placement artifact.
  • Editorial inference: the Stokes-law derivation of the momentum shift p0=qπ(Ly−3)/4 suggests that similar geometric phase arguments can fix momentum shifts in other strip geometries and gauge choices.
  • Editorial inference: because the edge modes spread over two adjacent rows rather than a single row, experimental probes of chiral edges should couple to several rows near the boundary, not only the outermost lattice sites.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the ν=1/2 bosonic Harper-Hofstadter-Hubbard model on infinitely long strips of width L_y=10 with open boundaries. Using iMPS/VUMPS ground states and the quasiparticle excitation ansatz, it computes row-resolved charge-one spectral functions A_n(k,ω). The central claim is that the edge spectral function quantitatively matches the chiral Luttinger liquid prediction: a gapless, chiral, linear dispersion and spectral weight ∝ (ω+vk)δ(ω−vk), i.e. linear in both k and ω. The paper also argues that the earlier failure at L_y=8 is due to insufficient width to accommodate an extra boson without disturbing the bulk, and that a harmonic trap is neither necessary nor sufficient once the bulk FCI is established — with explicit evidence that the L_y=11 trapped case is nonchiral at converged bond dimension.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is an important step: it would show that a discrete-lattice FCI with open boundaries reproduces the continuum FQH edge spectral function, a longstanding open question. The paper uses a standard iMPS pipeline, provides public code, resolves the spectral function by row, and compares against previous L_y=8 and L_y=11 results in a physically motivated way. The comparison against χLL theory is not circular, since the field-theory prediction is an external benchmark and the fitted chemical potential is a property of the microscopic model. However, the quantitative central claim currently rests on a chemical-potential extrapolation whose own uncertainty is admitted to be limited, and on visually inspected linearity rather than explicit fits and error bars. These issues must be addressed before the agreement can be regarded as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplement Sec. IV; main text Eq. (8), Fig. 3] The frequency origin is set by subtracting μ0=−2.65323, obtained from the heuristic finite-size scaling μ(D,Lx)=μ0+μD/D+μ'D/D^2+μLx/Lx. The supplement states 'the fitting function is heuristic and the accuracy is not particularly high,' and the main text attributes the tiny gap at kx=0 to 'residual numerical errors in the finite-size scaling of the chemical potential.' This is load-bearing: if μ0 is off by more than the residual gap, the apparent gaplessness and linear-in-energy weight could be artifacts. Please provide an uncertainty estimate for μ0 (fit residuals, alternative fitting forms, or an independent determination), and show the low-energy spectrum for μ0±δμ over a range exceeding the residual gap.
  2. [Main text, Section 'Charge-one edge excitations'] The statement 'By increasing the bond dimension D, we confirm that the lowest excitation energy decreases' is not documented with data. Since the gaplessness claim depends on the D→∞ limit, please show Ep(p=0) as a function of D (and ideally the spectral function near p=0) under the same μ protocol, or explicitly extrapolate the gap to D→∞ and show it is compatible with zero within uncertainty.
  3. [Main text Eq. (6) and Supplement Sec. IV] The main text gives p0=qπ(Ly−3)/4, while the Supplement states 'In practical coding the indices of n start from 0, the phase factor is qπ(Ly−1)/4.' For q=1, Ly=10 these two formulas differ by π/2. Since p0 fixes the momentum origin in Eq. (8) and in the ansatz Eq. (6), please reconcile the formulas or state explicitly which indexing convention enters the main-text figures, and verify p0 against the numerical spectra.
  4. [Abstract and Fig. 3(a)] The abstract claims 'quantitatively follows' the χLL prediction, but the supporting evidence is visual. Fig. 3(a) shows a linear trend of I9+I10 without a fitted line, slope, intercept, residuals, or error bars; the velocity v entering the χLL relation is not extracted. Please provide explicit quantitative fits for the dispersion and the spectral weight, with uncertainties, or soften the claim to 'consistent with' if the data do not yet support a quantitative fit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1) and surrounding text] The functional form uses ω in the argument but writes A(k,w); please use a consistent symbol for the frequency throughout.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption and Eq. (10)] The Lorentzian broadening η is used in the figure caption but its precise regularization of the δ functions in Eq. (10) is not defined in the main text. Please state the replacement rule (e.g., δ(x)→η/(π(x^2+η^2))) explicitly.
  3. [Supplement Sec. IV] The sentence 'The result is ... consistent with the lowest energy of the charge-1 excitation spectrum' would benefit from a quantitative statement: what is the difference between μ0 and the lowest excitation energy at D=2000, and how does it compare with the residual gap?
  4. [Supplement Sec. I.B] The line 'the shift of the ground state energy EGS from Ĥ will lead to the subtraction of EUCB n from the new B n' appears garbled ('EUCB n'); please clarify the notation.
  5. [References] Reference [45] says 'See Supplementary material at URL for details' without a URL; if the supplement is part of the arXiv submission, please provide a direct link or identifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the χLL comparison is against an external analytical benchmark, and the fitted chemical potential is a microscopic input, not a target-derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's target is Wen's chiral Luttinger liquid spectral function A(k,ω)∝(ω+vk)δ(ω−vk) for s=2, an external continuum field-theory result (Refs. [33–35]) independent of the lattice model and of the present authors' prior work. The microscopic Harper-Hofstadter-Hubbard Hamiltonian (Eq. 2) and the VUMPS quasiparticle ansatz (Eqs. 5–7) are solved without imposing the χLL form: the numerical spectral function is assembled from overlap matrix elements I_n(E_p,p)=|<E_p,p|a†_{0,n}|ψ_gs>|^2 in Eq. (10), so the linear-weight and chirality claims are measured, not inserted by construction. The self-citation to Dong et al. [23] is used only as a failed Ly=8 baseline and supplies no constraint on the Ly=10 result; no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors. The chemical potential μ is obtained from finite-size scaling of ground-state energy differences μ(D,Lx)=μ0+μD/D+..., as stated in the supplement, not from the χLL prediction; subtracting μ sets the frequency origin without assuming the target spectral shape. The supplement's admission that 'the fitting function is heuristic and the accuracy is not particularly high' is a genuine numerical robustness limitation—an error in μ0 could affect the apparent gaplessness at kx=0—but it is a correctness/error-analysis concern, not a circularity, because the fit cannot make the χLL comparison true by definition. No definitional identity, fitted-input-called-prediction, load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness, or renaming step can be exhibited, so the honest finding is no circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or forces. Its central claim rests on the correctness of the single-quasiparticle excitation ansatz, the standard χLL target, the Stokes-derived momentum shift, and the identification of the Ly=10 ground state as an FCI. The only fitted quantity controlling the central comparison is the chemical potential μ, which is fit with a heuristic scaling form.

free parameters (2)
  • Chemical potential μ0 (Ly=10, V=0) = -2.65323
    Obtained from heuristic finite-size scaling μ(D,Lx)=μ0+μD/D+μ'D/D^2+μLx/Lx, with monotonicity imposed; the supplement admits the accuracy is 'not particularly high'. This value sets the frequency origin of A(kx,ω), so the gapless/dispersion claim depends on it.
  • Lorentzian broadening η = 0.005 (main Ly=10 plot; 0.01 and 0.003 in other runs)
    Hand-chosen broadening used to render the delta-function peaks. It affects visual spectral weight near kx=0 and line shapes, though not the peak positions.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The low-energy charge-one excitations of the ν=1/2 FCI edge are captured by the single-quasiparticle ansatz of Eq. (6), i.e. one modified tensor Bn per unit cell.
    If the relevant low-energy charged excitations were bulk modes or multi-particle continua, the ansatz would miss them. Density/current diagnostics support the FCI ground state but do not prove completeness of the single-quasiparticle subspace.
  • domain assumption The edge of a ν=1/m Laughlin state is a chiral Luttinger liquid with spectral function A(k,ω)∝(ω+vk)^{m-1}δ(ω−vk), as in Eq. (1).
    This is the external benchmark used for comparison; the paper does not derive it from the lattice model.
  • standard math The momentum shift for a charge-q excitation is p0=qπ(Ly−3)/4, computed via Stokes' theorem over the MPS-sawtooth path.
    Used to place the lowest excitation at p=0 and verified numerically for several q and Ly in the supplement, but depends on the path/gauge convention.
  • domain assumption The ground state with one boson per column on an infinite Ly=10 strip is a uniform, incompressible ν=1/2 FCI.
    The paper validates this with density plateau, incompressibility against adding one particle, and chiral edge currents in Fig. 2; these are numerical diagnostics rather than rigorous proofs.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16729 in / 15741 out tokens · 138746 ms · 2026-08-04T10:52:00.952172+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Edge excitations are the defining signature of chiral topologically ordered systems. In continuum fractional quantum Hall (FQH) states, these excitations are described by the chiral Luttinger liquid ($\chi$LL) theory. Whether these field theory predictions can be precisely identified in discrete lattice systems of finite width, however, remains a longstanding question. Here we numerically demonstrate that the charge-one edge spectral function of a $\nu=1/2$ FCI on an infinitely long strip with width $L_y=10$ quantitatively follows the predictions of $\chi$LL theory. The edge spectrum is gapless, chiral, and linear, with spectral weight increasing linearly with both momentum and energy. We further analyze the influence of lattice size, particle number, trapping potential, and charge sector of excitations on the edge properties. Our results establish a clear correspondence between lattice FCIs and continuum FQH systems and provide guidance for future experimental detection of chiral edge modes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07795 by Ji-Yao Chen, Xiao-Han Yang, Xiao-Yu Dong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Lattice geometry of a strip with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Ground-state particle densities and current distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Spectral weight and average positions of the excited states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Average positions and spectral functions on an infinite strip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a,b) Spectral functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The particle densities and currents of ground states on infinit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Determination of the chemical potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The path induced by the MPS-lattice mapping. The shaded area i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The phase shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The spectral functions of charge-one edge excitations on an infinit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The spectral functions of charge-one edge excitations on an infinit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The spectral functions of charge-one edge excitations on an infinit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The spectral functions of charge-zero edge excitations on an infin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The spectral functions of charge-zero edge excitations on an infin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The spectral functions of charge-one edge excitations on an infinit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The spectral functions of charge-one edge excitations on an infinit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The spectral functions of charge-zero edge excitations on an infin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Average position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: The spectral weights and average positions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Regnault and B

    N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021014 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    M. Popp, B. Paredes, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 70, 053612 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    A. S. Sørensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 086803 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Notably, the charge-zero spectrum even flattens around kx = 0

    We find that, in both cases, the spectral weight is concentrated near the rows n = 2, 3 andn = 9, 10 and ex- hibits nonchiral behavior at the lowest energies. Notably, the charge-zero spectrum even flattens around kx = 0 . These re- sults demonstrate that the harmonic trap alone does not guar- antee the correct edge spectrum. For completeness, on the strip ...

    2000

  6. [6]

    Hafezi, A

    M. Hafezi, A. S. Sørensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 76, 023613 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    N. R. Cooper and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 185301 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    N. Y . Y ao, A. V . Gorshkov, C. R. Laumann, A. M. L ¨auchli, J. Y e, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 185302 (2013)

    2013

  9. [9]

    Hudomal, N

    A. Hudomal, N. Regnault, and I. V asi´c, Physical Review A 100, 053624 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    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)

    2023

  11. [11]

    P . Lunt, P . Hill, J. Reiter, P . M. Preiss, M. Gałka, and S. Jochim, Physical Review Letters 133, 253401 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y . Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y . Ran, T. Cao, L. Fu, D. Xiao, W. Y ao, and X. Xu, Nature 622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y . Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J.-H. Chu, T. Cao, L. Fu, W. Y ao, C.-Z. Chang, D. Cobden, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Nature 622, 74 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Y . Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P . Kn ¨uppel, C. V aswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature 622, 69 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y . Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y . Zhang, X. Liu, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031037 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Y . He, S. Simon, and S. Parameswaran, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06354 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Wang, X.-W

    C. Wang, X.-W. Zhang, X. Liu, Y . He, X. Xu, Y . Ran, T. Cao, and D. Xiao, Phys. Rev.. Lett. 132, 036501 (2024)

    2024

  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, Science 384, 579 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    M ¨oller and N

    G. M ¨oller and N. R. Cooper, Physical Review Letters 103, 105303 (2009)

    2009

  20. [20]

    Y .-C. He, F. Grusdt, A. Kaufman, M. Greiner, and A. Vish- wanath, Physical Review B 96, 201103 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Cincio and G

    L. Cincio and G. Vidal, Physical review letters 110, 067208 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    Gerster, M

    M. Gerster, M. Rizzi, P . Silvi, M. Dalmonte, and S. Mon- tangero, Physical Review B 96, 195123 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Motruk and F

    J. Motruk and F. Pollmann, Physical Review B 96, 165107 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    X.-Y . Dong, A. G. Grushin, J. Motruk, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086401 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Wang, X.-Y

    B. Wang, X.-Y . Dong, and A. Eckardt, SciPost Phys. 12, 095 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Peralta Gavensky, S

    L. Peralta Gavensky, S. Sachdev, and N. Goldman, Physical re- view letters 131, 236601 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Repellin, J

    C. Repellin, J. Leonard, and N. Goldman, Physical Review A 102, 063316 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    L.-N. Wu, X. Li, N. Goldman, and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 111, 235111 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    B. Wang, M. Aidelsburger, J. Dalibard, A. Eckardt, and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 163402 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Motruk and I

    J. Motruk and I. Na, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 236401 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Ra ˇci¯unas, F

    M. Ra ˇci¯unas, F. N. ¨Unal, E. Anisimovas, and A. Eckardt, Phys. Rev. A 98, 063621 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Michen, C

    B. Michen, C. Repellin, and J. C. Budich, Physical Review Re- search 5, 023100 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    F. A. Palm, J. Kwan, B. Bakkali-Hassani, M. Greiner, U. Schollw ¨ock, N. Goldman, and F. Grusdt, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013198 (2024)

    2024

  34. [35]

    Wen, in Field Theory, Topology and Condensed Matter Physics, edited by H

    X.-G. Wen, in Field Theory, Topology and Condensed Matter Physics, edited by H. B. Geyer (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995) pp. 155–176

    1995

  35. [36]

    WEN, International Journal of Modern Physics B 06, 1711 (1992), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979292000840

    X.-G. WEN, International Journal of Modern Physics B 06, 1711 (1992), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979292000840

    doi:10.1142/s0217979292000840 1992

  36. [37]

    Binanti, N

    F. Binanti, N. Goldman, and C. Repellin, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L012054 (2024)

    2024

  37. [38]

    V ashisht, I

    A. V ashisht, I. Amelio, L. V anderstraeten, G. M. Bruun, O. K. Diessel, and N. Goldman, Nature Communications 16, 4918 (2025)

    2025

  38. [39]

    J. A. Kj ¨all and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. B 85, 235137 (2012)

    2012

  39. [40]

    Luo, W.-C

    W.-W. Luo, W.-C. Chen, Y .-F. Wang, and C.-D. Gong, Phys. Rev. B 88, 161109 (2013)

    2013

  40. [41]

    E. A. de Andrada e Silva, American journal of physics 60, 753 (1992)

    1992

  41. [42]

    Atala, M

    M. Atala, M. Aidelsburger, M. Lohse, J. T. Barreiro, B. Paredes, and I. Bloch, Nature Physics 10, 588 (2014)

    2014

  42. [43]

    Zauner-Stauber, L

    V . Zauner-Stauber, L. V anderstraeten, M. T. Fishman, F. V er- straete, and J. Haegeman, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045145 (2018)

    2018

  43. [44]

    V anderstraeten, J

    L. V anderstraeten, J. Haegeman, and F. V erstraete, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 7 (2019)

    2019

  44. [45]

    R. P . Feynman, Phys. Rev. 94, 262 (1954). 7

    1954

  45. [46]

    See Supplementary material at URL for details

  46. [47]

    F. N. ¨Unal, A. Nardin, and N. Goldman, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04639 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  47. [48]

    M. Will, T. A. Cochran, E. Rosenberg, B. Jobst, N. M. Eassa, P . Roushan, M. Knap, A. Gammon-Smith, and F. Pollmann, Na- ture 645, 348–353 (2025)

    2025

  48. [49]

    Chiral Edge Excitations of Fractional Chern Insulators

    A. Ali, J. Gibbs, K. Kumaran, V . Muruganandam, B. Xiao, P . Kairys, G. Hal ´asz, A. Banerjee, and P . C. Lotshaw, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08939 (2025). Supplementary Material for “Chiral Edge Excitations of Fractional Chern Insulators” Xiao-Han Yang, 1, 2 Ji-Yao Chen, 3, ∗ and Xiao-Yu Dong 1, † 1Hefei National Laboratory, University of Science and Tech...

    arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    Vanderstraeten, J

    L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 7 (2019)

    2019

  50. [51]

    Haegeman, T

    J. Haegeman, T. J. Osborne, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. B 88, 075133 (2013)

    2013

  51. [52]

    Zauner-Stauber, L

    V. Zauner-Stauber, L. Vanderstraeten, M. T. Fishman, F. Verst raete, and J. Haegeman, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045145 (2018)

    2018

  52. [53]

    G. M. Crosswhite and D. Bacon, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012356 (2008)

    2008

  53. [54]

    Michel and I

    L. Michel and I. P. McCulloch, Schur forms of matrix product operators in the infinite limit (2010), arXiv:1008.4667 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [55]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  55. [56]

    Saad and M

    Y. Saad and M. H. Schultz, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 7, 856 (1986) , https://doi.org/10.1137/0907058

    doi:10.1137/0907058 1986

  56. [57]

    X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 41, 12838 (1990)

    1990

  57. [58]

    Wen, in Field Theory, Topology and Condensed Matter Physics , edited by H

    X.-G. Wen, in Field Theory, Topology and Condensed Matter Physics , edited by H. B. Geyer (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995) pp. 155–176

    1995

  58. [59]

    Floreanini and R

    R. Floreanini and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 37, 2206 (1988)

    1988

  59. [60]

    Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems: From the Origin of S ound to an Origin of Light and Electrons (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems: From the Origin of S ound to an Origin of Light and Electrons (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  60. [61]

    Vashisht, I

    A. Vashisht, I. Amelio, L. Vanderstraeten, G. M. Bruun, O. K . Diessel, and N. Goldman, Nature Communications 16, 4918 (2025)

    2025