Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Spin textures in curved paths on a curved surface

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 geometry of a curved path on a curved surface acts as a non-Abelian gauge field that fixes how a confined spin precesses.

desk verdict The new effective Hamiltonian is a genuine step forward, but a factor-of-two error in Eq. (37) undermines the spin-precession claims and must be corrected before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05424 v2 pith:IUX22LXJ submitted 2025-06-05 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Guo-Hua Liang , Ai-Guo Mei , Zhi-Hui Yang , Ze-Lin Wei This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spintexturecurvedsurfacesnon-Abeliangaugefieldthin-layerproceduregeometricphaseprecessionDarbouxframequantumconfinement
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 tries to establish that the geometry of a curved path on a curved surface completely determines the spin dynamics of a spin-1/2 particle confined to that path. Starting from a two-dimensional curved thin-layer Hamiltonian with spin connections, the authors derive a one-dimensional effective Hamiltonian in which geodesic curvature, normal curvature, and geodesic torsion of the path appear as a non-Abelian SU(2) gauge potential, while geodesic and Gaussian curvatures appear as scalar potentials. If the derivation holds, spin precession along any engineered nanostructured channel is not an extra input but a geometric output, and the rotation angle around the surface normal along a boundary is tied to surface topology and pseudo-magnetic flux. The paper illustrates the mechanism on helical paths, where geodesic and non-geodesic propagation differ, and on Viviani's curve, where the same spatial curve on different surfaces produces different spin textures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Darboux frame $(t,N,B)$ attached to the curve, obtained by rotating the Frenet frame about the tangent so that one axis aligns with the surface normal. The derivation works in Fermi coordinates built from the exponential map along the curve, expands the curved-surface spin Hamiltonian in the thin-layer parameter, and applies an SU(2) gauge transformation that removes the transverse coupling to first order. This leaves the effective Hamiltonian whose sole non-scalar term is the non-Abelian connection $\bar\Omega_s^{(0)}$; the machinery is what converts the three geometric scalars of the curve-on-surface ($\kappa_g$, $\kappa_n$, $\tau_g$) into a spin-orbit field $\beta = (\tau_g, \kappa_g, -\kappa_n)$ that rotates the spin.

What would settle it

Numerically solve the full two-dimensional curved-layer Schrödinger equation for a spin-1/2 particle in a channel whose curvature varies rapidly along the path, where $\partial_s \alpha_{qc}$ is not small compared with $\alpha_{qc}/\varepsilon$, and compare spin precession and energy spectrum with the effective Hamiltonian: the effective description would be refuted if the full dynamics deviate beyond $O(\varepsilon)$ corrections in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a spin-1/2 particle confined to a curve $C$ inside a curved thin layer obeys, at low energies, the effective Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff} = -(\hbar^2/2m)(\partial_s + \bar\Omega_s^{(0)})^2 + V_g + V_{sg}$, with $\bar\Omega_s^{(0)} = (i/2)(-\kappa_g \sigma_N + \kappa_n \sigma_q - \tau_g \sigma_s)$ in the Darboux frame $(t,N,B)$. The scalar potentials $V_g$ and $V_{sg}$ come from surface and curve geometry; the gauge field is generated jointly by the curve's geodesic curvature $\kappa_g$, normal curvature $\kappa_n$, and geodesic torsion $\tau_g$, so neither surface nor curve alone fixes the dynamics. Spin evolution along the path is the path-ordered SU(2) phase $U = P e^{-\int \bar\Omega_s^{(0)} ds}$, and the instantaneous rotation rate of spin orientation is twice the Darboux-frame rotation rate. Under the adiabatic approximation, the authors connect surface topology to spin by deriving $\int_M B\, dA = [\chi(M) - \varphi_N(\partial M)/(2\pi)] \Phi_0$, where the pseudo-magnetic flux through a region is fixed by its Euler characteristic and the spin rotation angle around the normal along its boundary.

Load-bearing premise

All of the effective one-dimensional description rests on assuming that the surface's curvature changes slowly enough along the curve, $\partial_s \alpha_{qc} \ll \alpha_{qc}/\varepsilon$; if the curvature varies too rapidly, the gauge transformation that removes the transverse coupling no longer works and the effective Hamiltonian stops being valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A curved nanostructured channel on a curved substrate acts as a deterministic spin rotator: the spin after traversal depends only on the path-ordered integral of the geometric gauge field, not on any external magnetic field.
  • Geodesic and non-geodesic paths are experimentally distinguishable in spin textures: geodesic helices keep the instantaneous spin-rotation axis in the tangent-binormal plane, while pitch-varying non-geodesic helices tip the axis out of that plane.
  • The same physical curve placed on different surfaces gives different spin precession, so the host surface is as important as the channel shape for spintronic design.
  • For closed curves such as Viviani's curve, the exact path-ordered spin evolution is independent of propagation direction and closes on the Bloch sphere, which the adiabatic approximation fails to reproduce; this direction independence is lost if extra spin-orbit coupling is added.
  • The topology-flux relation $\int_M B\, dA = [\chi(M) - \varphi_N(\partial M)/(2\pi)] \Phi_0$ gives a design rule: choosing the topology of the surface region and the boundary spin rotation fixes the pseudo-magnetic flux, enabling topological spin control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the propagation-direction independence found for Viviani's curve is generic; a natural test is a closed curve without that curve's special symmetry, where the full path-ordered integral should generically develop direction dependence.
  • The breakdown of the adiabatic approximation on Viviani's curve implies that any experimental measurement of the boundary rotation angle $\varphi_N$ must use the full path-ordered evolution, not the adiabatic formula, when non-commutativity is appreciable.
  • If the effective Hamiltonian is correct, the same gauge-field language should apply to other internal degrees of freedom, such as two-band pseudospin systems, confined to curves on curved substrates, predicting geometry-induced holonomies in their transport.
  • The topology-flux relation suggests a practical characterization tool: spin-resolved conductance measurements along closed boundaries of engineered curved layers could be used to read out the surface Euler characteristic, provided the slow-curvature condition is met.
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 derives an effective one-dimensional Hamiltonian for a spin-1/2 particle confined to a curve embedded in a curved surface, starting from a previously derived two-dimensional thin-layer Hamiltonian with spin connection. The central result is H_eff = -(hbar^2/2m)(∂_s + Ωbar_s^(0))^2 + V_g + V_sg, with non-Abelian gauge potential Ωbar_s^(0) = (i/2)(-κ_g σ_N + κ_n σ_q - τ_g σ_s) and scalar potentials V_g and V_sg. The paper then analyzes spin precession through the path-ordered holonomy U, introduces an adiabatic approximation, derives a relation between pseudo-magnetic flux and boundary spin rotation, and presents numerical examples for helices on a cylinder and Viviani's curve on cylindrical and spherical surfaces. The examples are used to claim that the geometry and topology of the confining structure determine spin texture evolution.

Significance. The derivation of H_eff is a useful extension of the thin-layer formalism, and the paper is explicit and free of fitted parameters: all geometric inputs are computed directly from the curve and surface geometry. If the spin-precession analysis were correct, the framework would provide a concrete design principle for spin manipulation in curved nanostructures. However, the quantitative precession results contain a factor-of-two error in Eq. (37), and the abstract overstates a topological property of closed curves. These issues affect the central claims of Section III but do not by themselves invalidate the derivation of the effective Hamiltonian.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (37)] The claimed spin precession rate in Eq. (37) is off by a factor of two. With U = P exp((i/2)∫ σ·β ds) from Eq. (31), differentiating U†σU gives d⟨σ⟩/ds = ±β×⟨σ⟩, whose magnitude is |β|, not 2|β|. The separate ⟨∂_sσ⟩ term in Eq. (37) double-counts the s-dependence already carried by U. Consequently the statement that the spin rotates at twice the rate of the Darboux frame is unsupported. For the C1 helix with c=ρ=1, |β| = 1/√2 and the half-turn arclength is π√2, so the rotation angle is π, not 2π as claimed in Fig. 2(a). This error propagates to the quantitative interpretation of Fig. 2(a) and to all angle-based conclusions derived from Eq. (37).
  2. [Abstract / Sec. III B] The abstract states that 'the curve's topology ensures closure of the spin direction and independence of the spin from the path direction,' but this is not established. In Sec. III B the direction-independence of Viviani's curve is described as 'speculatively attributed' to constraints of closed curves, and the text states that adding spin-orbit interaction removes both closure and direction-independence. For a general closed curve the path-ordered holonomy U need not be the identity, so closure is a special property of the example, not a topological necessity. The authors should either prove a general statement or remove the topological claim from the abstract.
  3. [Sec. II, after Eq. (29)] The gauge transformation that removes H^(−1) requires the condition ∂_s α_qc << α_qc/ε, but this condition is never verified for the helical or Viviani examples. The later check |∂_s βbar| << 1 is a different adiabatic condition and does not imply the required slow variation of the Weingarten tensor along the curve. The authors should state the parameter regime in which the thin-layer reduction is valid, or provide explicit order-of-magnitude estimates for C2, C3, and Viviani's curve.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (41)] The identification of φ_N = ∫ κ_g ds with a physical 'spin orientation rotation angle about the N axis' needs justification. From Eq. (35), a vector rotated by angle Φ about an axis h does not in general acquire an azimuthal rotation φ_N = Φ (h·N) about a different axis N. If Eq. (41) is intended only as a Gauss-Bonnet identity with φ_N defined as ∫ κ_g ds, the text's spin-rotation language is misleading and should be reworded to avoid claiming a direct geometric rotation of the spin vector.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, after Eq. (17)] The phrase 'the the limit' should be corrected to 'the limit'.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (38)] The Wilczek-Zee phase is written as U = P ∮ A_μ dλ_μ; the exponential is missing and should read U = P exp(-∮ A_μ dλ_μ).
  3. [Sec. III B, Fig. 3] The caption states that solid lines for clockwise and counterclockwise propagation coincide, while the text says solid and dashed lines initially coincide; please clarify which curves correspond to which propagation direction in panels (c) and (d).
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (25) and below] The sentence 'these two potentials emerge in the system of scalar particles as well' is grammatically unclear; it should be rewritten to indicate that both V_g and V_sg already appear for spinless particles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective 1D Hamiltonian (Eq. 30) is derived in-paper from published, parameter-free 2D inputs, and the self-citations ([28], [47], [50,51]) are real, independently supported evidence. A separate correctness risk is flagged: Eq. (37) appears to double-count the holonomy derivative, making the claimed spin-precession rate off by a factor of two.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The Fermi-coordinate metric (Eq. 5) is derived in Appendix A; the spin connections and the resulting SU(2) gauge field Ω̄_s^(0) = (i/2)(−κ_g σ_N + κ_n σ_q − τ_g σ_s) (Eq. 21) are computed in-paper from the Darboux frame and the Weingarten tensor; the thin-layer expansion (Eqs. 22–25) and the gauge transformation that cancels the transverse coupling (Eqs. 27–29, Appendix B) are carried out here, with the required slow-variation condition ∂_s α_qc ≪ α_qc/ε explicitly stated after Eq. (29). The effective 1D Hamiltonian (Eq. 30) is therefore derived, not assumed, and no parameter is fitted anywhere. The spin-precession results (Eqs. 33–36) are computed from the holonomy U, and the adiabatic approximation is tested against the non-adiabatic numerical discretization (Fig. 3, solid vs. dashed lines), an internal falsifiable benchmark. The paper does start from the 2D curved-surface spin Hamiltonian, Eqs. (6)–(8), citing the authors' own refs. [50,51], and later uses B = ħK/(2e) citing their ref. [28]. These are self-citations and are load-bearing inputs, but they are published, parameter-free results whose stated thin-layer assumptions do not include the present target (the 1D curve Hamiltonian), and the same spin-connection formalism appears in independent groups' works (refs. [23–27]); per the review rules they are real evidence and do not raise the circularity score. The topology–flux relation (Eq. 41) is an algebraic rearrangement of the Gauss–Bonnet theorem (Eq. 40) combined with B = ħK/(2e) and the definition φ_N = ∫κ_g ds (Eq. 35); deriving and presenting such an identity is not circular. One flagged concern, which is a correctness risk rather than circularity: Eq. (37) asserts ∂_s⟨σ⟩ = ⟨[Ω̄_s^(0),σ]⟩ + ⟨∂_sσ⟩ = 2⟨∂_sσ⟩ = 2β×⟨σ⟩, i.e. a rotation rate 'twice that of the Darboux frame.' The intermediate identity ⟨[Ω,σ]⟩ = ⟨∂_sσ⟩ is asserted without proof, and direct differentiation of U = P exp((i/2)∫σ·β ds) using ∂_sU = (i/2)(σ·β)U yields d(U†σU)/ds = U†[σ,(i/2)σ·β]U = ∓β×⟨σ⟩ — a single factor — so the factor of two, the '2π rotation for a half-turn' of C1, and Fig. 2(a) appear to be in error by a factor of two. This defect is confined to the precession analysis; it does not affect the derivation of H_eff (Eq. 30), the SU(2) gauge construction, or the numerics of Eq. (33).

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory introduces no new particles or dimensions and no fitted parameters. It relies on standard thin-layer quantization and on previously derived spin-connection and pseudo-magnetic-field results, mostly from the authors' own prior works. The slow-variation condition is an ad hoc assumption needed for the 1D reduction.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 2D spin Hamiltonian H2D of Eq. (6) with spin connections from Refs [50,51]
    Used as the starting point; taken from prior derivations by the same group, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Thin-layer adiabatic separation: strong potentials Vs and Vc confine the particle to the ground transverse state
    Standard thin-layer quantization premise invoked in Sec. II.
  • ad hoc to paper Slow variation of the Weingarten tensor along the curve, ∂s α_qc << α_qc/ε
    Stated after Eq. (29); required for the gauge transformation to remove transverse coupling.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-magnetic field B = ħK/(2e) from Ref [28]
    Imported from prior literature (same group) to derive Eq. (41).
  • ad hoc to paper Adiabatic spin precession approximation |∂s β-bar| << 1
    Used in Sec. III for the helices; not justified quantitatively for the examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin textures in curved paths on a curved surface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUX22LXJ

@misc{pith2026250605424,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin textures in curved paths on a curved surface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUX22LXJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05424}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the quantum dynamics of a spin-1/2 particle confined to a curved path from the dynamics of a two-dimensional curved thin-layer system incorporating spin connection contributions. We demonstrate that the geodesic curvature, normal curvature, and geodesic torsion govern the emergent non-Abelian gauge potential, while the geodesic and Gaussian curvatures govern the effective scalar potential in the Hamiltonian. The resulting spin precession dynamics induced by the gauge potential are analyzed with and without the adiabatic approximation. Under this approximation, the surface topology is linked to the rotation angle of spin orientation along a surface boundary and to the pseudo-magnetic flux. Spin texture evolution along helices illustrates distinct behaviors under geodesic versus non-geodesic propagation. Furthermore, the spin evolution along Viviani's curve exemplifies surface dependence. The curve's topology ensures closure of the spin direction and independence of the spin from the path direction. Our theory establishes a framework for spin-state manipulation via engineered nanostructured channels, enabling novel topological quantum control strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05424 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a)). Within 3D Euclidean space, we parametrize C using the Frenet frame (t(s), n(s), b(s)), where t, n and b denote the tangential, normal and binormal vectors of the curve, and s represents the arclength of C. These vectors satisfy the Frenet-Serret equation   t˙ n˙ b˙   =   0 κ(s) 0 −κ(s) 0 τ(s) 0 −τ(s) 0     t n b   , (1) where κ(s) and τ(s) are the curvature and torsion of the curve. At each point o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a)-(c) Evolution of the 3D spin textures along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Viviani’s curve as the intersecting line of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. Meng, C. Donnelly, C. Abert, L. Skoric, S. Holmes, Z. Xiao, J.-W. Liao, P. J. Newton, C. H. Barnes, D. Sanz- Hern´ andez, A. Hierro-Rodriguez, D. Suess, R. P. Cow- burn, and A. Fern´ andez-Pacheco, ACS Nano 15, 6765 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    This fundamental formula links the cur- vature of a general surface to its underlying topology

    (39) It is also interesting to note that the Gauss-Bonnet theorem in differential geometry is expressed as ∫ M KdA + ∫ ∂M κgds = 2πχ(M ), (40) where M is a compact 2D Riemannian manifold with boundary ∂M and χ(M ) denotes its the Euler charac- teristic of M . This fundamental formula links the cur- vature of a general surface to its underlying topology. In...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Thus, ∂qgss|q=0 = −2κg

    for the Darboux frame, ∇TB|q=0 = ( ˙B)tan = −κgt, (A5) where the subscript tan indicates projection onto the tan- gent plane. Thus, ∂qgss|q=0 = −2κg. (A6) For the second-order term, ∂2 qgss = 2[∇B(∇BT) · T + (∇BT) · (∇BT)]. (A7) On a two-dimensional surface, the curvature relation R(B, T)B · T = −K, (A8) holds, where the Riemann tensor acts as R(B, T)B = ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We further exam- ine path-order dependence and spin interference phenom- ena

    Viviani’s curve, exhibiting spin precession behavior when embedded on different surfaces. We further exam- ine path-order dependence and spin interference phenom- ena. A. Geodesic and non-geodesic lines: Helices on a cylindrical surface We consider three helices on a cylindrical surface with increasing, constant, and decreasing pitch profiles, re- spectivel...

    work page

  5. [5]

    As shown in Fig

    in the adiabatic approximation. As shown in Fig. 2, spin texture rotation along the three helices exhibits distinct rates. C1 as a geodesic line on the cylindrical surface, has zero geodesic curvature. This constrains the rotation axis h to the t-B plane, with the effective spin-orbit field ¯β = h = −ez. In contrast, C2 and C3 are non-geodesic curves whose ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    L. J. Lauhon, M. S. Gudiksen, D. Wang, and C. M. Lieber, nature 420, 57 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Ferrari, G

    G. Ferrari, G. Goldoni, A. Bertoni, G. Cuoghi, and E. Molinari, Nano Letters 9, 1631 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    A. G. Pogosov, A. A. Shevyrin, D. A. Pokhabov, E. Y. Zhdanov, and S. Kumar, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 34, 263001 (2022)

    2022

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Lilian, L

    G. Lilian, L. Laurent, L. Guillaume, W. Benoit, and A. Benjamin, Communications Chemistry 5 (2022)

    2022

  2. [11]

    Harish, M

    V. Harish, M. M. Ansari, D. Tewari, M. Gaur, A. B. Yadav, M.-L. Garc ´ ıa-Betancourt, F. M. Abdel-Haleem, M. Bechelany, and A. Barhoum, Nanomaterials 12 (2022)

    2022

  3. [12]

    V. H. Schultheiss, S. Batz, A. Szameit, F. Dreisow, S. Nolte, A. T¨ unnermann, S. Longhi, and U. Peschel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 143901 (2010)

    2010

  4. [13]

    Bekenstein, Nature Photon

    R. Bekenstein, Nature Photon. 11 (2017)

    2017

  5. [14]

    T. O. Rosdahl, A. Manolescu, and V. Gudmundsson, Nano Letters 15, 254 (2015)

    2015

  6. [15]

    Da Col, S

    S. Da Col, S. Jamet, N. Rougemaille, A. Locatelli, T. O. Mentes, B. S. Burgos, R. Afid, M. Darques, L. Cagnon, J. C. Toussaint, and O. Fruchart, Phys. Rev. B 89, 180405 (2014)

    2014

  7. [16]

    Sanz-Hern´ andez, A

    D. Sanz-Hern´ andez, A. Hierro-Rodriguez, C. Donnelly , J. Pablo-Navarro, A. Sorrentino, E. Pereiro, C. Mag´ en, S. McVitie, J. M. de Teresa, S. Ferrer, P. Fischer, and A. Fern´ andez-Pacheco, ACS Nano 14, 8084 (2020)

    2020

  8. [17]

    V. H. Schultheiss, S. Batz, and U. Peschel, Nature Pho- tonics 10, 106 (2016)

    2016

  9. [18]

    F. T. Brandt and J. A. S´ anchez-Monroy,EPL 111, 67004 (2015)

    2015

  10. [19]

    Wang and H.-S

    Y.-L. Wang and H.-S. Zong, Ann. Phys. 364, 68 (2016)

    2016

  11. [20]

    R. Q. He, G. H. Liang, S. N. Zhu, and H. Liu, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013237 (2020)

    2020

  12. [21]

    Jensen and H

    H. Jensen and H. Koppe, Ann. Phys. 63, 586 (1971)

    1971

  13. [22]

    R. C. T. da Costa, Phys. Rev. A 23, 1982 (1981)

    1981

  14. [23]

    Ferrari and G

    G. Ferrari and G. Cuoghi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 230403 (2008)

    2008

  15. [24]

    M. V. Entin and L. I. Magarill, Phys. Rev. B 64, 085330 (2001)

    2001

  16. [25]

    At this point, we eventually derive the ef- fective Hamiltonian Heff for a spin-1/2 particle confined to a curve based on the motion dynamics on a curved surface

    becomes first-order in ǫ after gauge transformation and is therefore omitted from Heff. At this point, we eventually derive the ef- fective Hamiltonian Heff for a spin-1/2 particle confined to a curve based on the motion dynamics on a curved surface. The geometric potential Vg =Vg...

  17. [26]

    Ouyang, V

    P. Ouyang, V. Mohta, and R. Jaffe, Ann. Phys. 275, 297 (1999)

    1999

  18. [27]

    Burgess and B

    M. Burgess and B. Jensen, Phys. Rev. A 48, 1861 (1993)

    1993

  19. [28]

    Brandt and J

    F. Brandt and J. S´ anchez-Monroy, Phys. Lett. A 380, 3036 (2016)

    2016

  20. [29]

    Ortix, Phys

    C. Ortix, Phys. Rev. B 91, 245412 (2015)

    2015

  21. [30]

    Lai, Y.-L

    M.-Y. Lai, Y.-L. Wang, G.-H. Liang, F. Wang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. A 97, 033843 (2018)

    2018

  22. [31]

    Chang, J.-S

    J.-Y. Chang, J.-S. Wu, and C.-R. Chang, Phys. Rev. B 87, 174413 (2013)

    2013

  23. [32]

    Y.-L. Wang, L. Du, C.-T. Xu, X.-J. Liu, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. A 90, 042117 (2014)

    2014

  24. [33]

    Y.-L. Wang, H. Jiang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022116 (2017)

    2017

  25. [34]

    Liang, Y.-L

    G.-H. Liang, Y.-L. Wang, M.-Y. Lai, H. Liu, H.-S. Zong, and S.-N. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062112 (2018)

    2018

  26. [35]

    For a closed curve C, the trace tr( U ) defines a gauge invariant quantity known as Wilson loop

    corresponds to the Wilczek-Zee phase factor, with − ¯Ω(0) s acting as the non-Abelian Berry con- nection. For a closed curve C, the trace tr( U ) defines a gauge invariant quantity known as Wilson loop. This trace quantifies how surface and curve geometry imprint on quantum spin...

  27. [36]

    Batz and U

    S. Batz and U. Peschel, Phys. Rev. A 78, 043821 (2008)

    2008

  28. [37]

    Lai, Y.-L

    M.-Y. Lai, Y.-L. Wang, G.-H. Liang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. A 100, 033825 (2019)

    2019

  29. [38]

    Maraner and C

    P. Maraner and C. Destri, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 08, 861 (1993)

    1993

  30. [39]

    Maraner, J

    P. Maraner, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 28, 2939 (1995)

    1995

  31. [40]

    Maraner, Ann

    P. Maraner, Ann. Phys. 246, 325 (1996)

    1996

  32. [41]

    Fujii, N

    K. Fujii, N. Ogawa, S. Uchiyama, and N. M. Chepilko, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12, 5235 (1997)

    1997

  33. [42]

    Schuster and R

    P. Schuster and R. Jaffe, Ann. Phys. 307, 132 (2003)

    2003

  34. [43]

    Meschede, B

    L. Meschede, B. Schwager, D. Schulz, and J. Berakdar, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062806 (2023)

    2023

  35. [44]

    Gaididei, V

    Y. Gaididei, V. P. Kravchuk, and D. D. Sheka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 257203 (2014)

    2014

  36. [45]

    Streubel, P

    R. Streubel, P. Fischer, F. Kronast, V. P. Kravchuk, D. D. Sheka, Y. Gaididei, O. G. Schmidt, and D. Makarov, J. Phys. D 49, 363001 (2016)

    2016

  37. [46]

    M. A. Caracanhas, P. Massignan, and A. L. Fetter, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023307 (2022)

    2022

  38. [47]

    Salasnich, SciPost Phys

    L. Salasnich, SciPost Phys. Core 5, 015 (2022)

    2022

  39. [48]

    Tononi and L

    A. Tononi and L. Salasnich, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 398 (2023)

    2023

  40. [49]

    Rodr ´ ıguez, A

    E. Rodr ´ ıguez, A. Reynoso, J. Baltan´ as, D. Bercioux, and D. Frustaglia, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01169 (2024)

    2024

  41. [50]

    H. Wang, W. Zhang, D. Ladika, H. Yu, D. Gaileviˇ cius, H. Wang, C.-F. Pan, P. N. S. Nair, Y. Ke, T. Mori, J. Y. E. Chan, Q. Ruan, M. Farsari, M. Malinauskas, S. Juodkazis, M. Gu, and J. K. W. Yang, Advanced Functional Materials 33, 2214211 (2023)

    2023

  42. [51]

    Huang, L

    L. Huang, L. He, W. Zhang, H. Zhang, D. Liu, X. Feng, F. Liu, K. Cui, Y. Huang, W. Zhang, et al. , Nature Com- munications 15, 1647 (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    S. Wang, Z. Zhou, B. Li, C. Wang, and Q. Liu, Materials Today Nano 16, 100142 (2021) . 10

    2021

  44. [53]

    Liang, A.-G

    G.-H. Liang, A.-G. Mei, S.-S. Xu, M.-Y. Lai, and H. Zhao, Annals of Physics 481, 170144 (2025)

    2025

  45. [54]

    Gentile, M

    P. Gentile, M. Cuoco, O. M. Volkov, Z.-J. Ying, I. J. Vera-Marun, D. Makarov, and C. Ortix, Nature Elec- tronics 5, 551 (2022)

    2022

  46. [55]

    Klingenberg, A course in differential geometry , Vol

    W. Klingenberg, A course in differential geometry , Vol. 51 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  47. [56]

    Liang and M.-Y

    G.-H. Liang and M.-Y. Lai, Phys. Rev. A 107, 022213 (2023)

    2023

  48. [57]

    Liang and P.-L

    G.-H. Liang and P.-L. Yin, Chinese Physics B 33, 020201 (2024)

    2024

  49. [58]

    Wilczek and A

    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2111 (1984)

    1984

  50. [59]

    Datta, Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems (Cambridge university press, 1997)

    S. Datta, Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems (Cambridge university press, 1997)

    1997

Pith tools

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