Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Simulational and theoretical studies of the Anderson transition in the chiral symmetry classes with weak topology

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 In the chiral symplectic class, a one-dimensional weak topological index induces an intermediate quasi-localized phase between metal and Anderson insulator, with critical exponent ν=0.66±0.03 in 3D, distinct from the Anderson transition's…

desk verdict A credible numerical extension of the chiral-class QL story, but the abstract itself concedes the central claim rests on an isotropic-FSS assumption the main text never checks, and the advertised field-theory RG section is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.16555 v2 pith:KVSXLNT6 submitted 2025-09-20 cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.mes-hall

Shiyin Kuang , Tong Wang , Zhenyu Xiao , Pengwei Zhao , Ryuichi Shindou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Andersontransitionchiralsymplecticclassweaktopologyquasi-localizedphaseLyapunovexponentsfinite-sizescalingdisorderedlatticemodelsuniversality
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 argues that a one-dimensional weak topological index splits the metal-to-insulator transition in chiral symmetric disordered systems into two steps, with an intermediate quasi-localized phase whose localization length diverges only along the topological direction. The numerical part, transfer-matrix simulations with finite-size scaling of 3D and 2D chiral-symplectic lattice models, yields a 3D metal-to-quasi-localized exponent $\nu=0.66\pm0.03$ and a 3D Anderson-transition exponent $\nu=0.878\pm0.005$, so the two transitions differ in their critical exponents and hence belong to different universality classes. The paper's abstract adds a renormalization-group analysis in which the previously reported quasi-localized fixed point is unstable once the weak topological term is renormalized at one loop, leaving only an anisotropic scaling signature and suggesting the 2D quasi-localized phase may be an artifact of the isotropic scaling assumption. This matters because if the two-step picture is right, band topology joins symmetry and dimensionality as a factor that decides the universality class of a disorder-driven transition.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the imbalance of Lyapunov exponents—the inverse decay lengths of transmission through a disordered wire—produced by the 1D weak topological index. For a chiral Hamiltonian in block off-diagonal form, the weak index $\nu_\mu$ is the winding number of $\det h(\varphi_\mu)$ as the twisted boundary phase $\varphi_\mu$ runs from $0$ to $2\pi$, and in a quasi-one-dimensional wire it equals the normalized imbalance $(N_{+,\mu}-N_{-,\mu})/(N_{+,\mu}+N_{-,\mu})$ between positive and negative Lyapunov exponents along $\mu$. This imbalance lets the lower Lyapunov band touch zero along the topological direction, making $\xi_z$ diverge there while the exponent spectrum stays symmetric along the other directions. The finite-size scaling of the normalized length $\Lambda_\mu=\xi_\mu/L$, with one transverse size $L$ assumed for all directions, then extracts the critical disorder strengths and exponents that define the phase diagram.

What would settle it

A reader could test this by repeating the same transfer-matrix finite-size scaling with independent transverse sizes for each spatial direction and checking whether a single scale-invariant crossing point remains; if the apparent critical disorder strengths $W_x^c$ and $W_z^c$ merge together or the data stop collapsing on one scaling function, the quasi-localized phase is an artifact of the isotropic assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a 1D weak topological index forces a two-stage delocalization–localization transition in the chiral symplectic class. In the transfer-matrix simulations of the 3D topological model, the localization length $\xi_z$ diverges along the topological $z$ direction across an intermediate quasi-localized phase while $\xi_x$ and $\xi_y$ stay finite; the boundary of that phase is located at $W_x^c=8.313\pm0.005$ with $\nu=0.66\pm0.03$ along the non-topological directions, and at $W_z^c=8.6447\pm0.0006$ with $\nu=1$ along the topological direction. Without the weak topology, the 3D Anderson transition in the same class sits at $W_c=10.248$ with $\nu=0.878\pm0.005$. The 2D models reproduce the same two-step structure, with $\nu\simeq2.06$ for the Anderson transition and $\nu\simeq1.45$ for the metal-to-quasi-localized transition. The manuscript's abstract also reports a renormalization-group analysis in which the quasi-localized strong-coupling fixed point is unstable after the one-loop renormalization of the weak topological term; the RG still produces an anisotropic scaling signature and suggests that the 2D quasi-localized phase seen with isotropic FSS may be an artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the localization length obeys the same finite-size scaling in every spatial direction, so one transverse size $L$ can stand for all directions; the paper's abstract acknowledges that if scaling is anisotropic, the claimed quasi-localized phase and its exponents could be artifacts and that an anisotropic finite-size scaling test is needed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 1D weak topological index changes the Anderson transition in the chiral symplectic class from a single metal-to-insulator transition into a two-step process, with an intermediate quasi-localized phase in between.
  • The 3D metal-to-quasi-localized transition ($\nu=0.66\pm0.03$) and the Anderson transition without topology ($\nu=0.878\pm0.005$) belong to different universality classes, so band topology is an additional factor beyond symmetry and dimension in setting the critical behavior.
  • The 3D Anderson transition exponent in the chiral symplectic class differs from the chiral unitary ($\nu=1.06\pm0.02$) and chiral orthogonal ($\nu=1.12\pm0.06$) values, showing time-reversal symmetry changes the universality class.
  • The same two-step structure and distinct exponents appear in 2D ($\nu\simeq2.06$ for Anderson, $\nu\simeq1.45$ for metal-to-quasi-localized), so the effect is not a 3D artifact—subject to the isotropic-scaling caveat.
  • The matching of the 3D chiral symplectic exponent to the non-Hermitian class AII exponent supports the correspondence between Anderson transitions in Hermitian chiral classes and non-Hermitian symmetry classes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the anisotropic scaling test the paper calls for confirms the quasi-localized phase, then the topological direction should show a scale-invariant, metallic conductance even when the transverse directions are localized, a direction-dependent transport signature that could be observed in artificially disordered lattices.
  • The abstract's RG conclusion, taken seriously, implies that the robust footprint of 1D weak topology is not a distinct phase but an anisotropic critical exponent: one should look for different correlation-length exponents along the topological and non-topological directions at a single Anderson transition.
  • Because the 3D Hermitian chiral symplectic transition matches the non-Hermitian class AII transition, a non-Hermitian lattice with a 1D winding should show the same two-step or anisotropic-criticality scenario; this is testable in existing transfer-matrix codes and in open-system experiments.
  • One could probe the universality of the claimed quasi-localized phase by repeating the calculation at different values of the weak-topology parameter $t'_\parallel/t_\parallel$; if the intermediate phase is truly induced by the topology, its critical exponents should remain unchanged while the critical disorder strengths shift.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports transfer-matrix and finite-size scaling (FSS) simulations of three- and two-dimensional disordered lattice models in the chiral symplectic class CII, with and without a one-dimensional weak topological index. The numerical analysis yields a 3D Anderson-transition exponent ν=0.878±0.005 for the nontopological model, consistent with the non-Hermitian class-AII result, and reports a separate metal-to-quasi-localized transition with ν=0.66±0.03 in the topological 3D model and ν≈1.45 in the topological 2D model. The authors interpret the inequality between the critical disorder along the topological and nontopological directions as evidence of an intermediate quasi-localized phase in which the localization length diverges only along the topological direction. The abstract additionally announces a field-theory RG study that revises earlier fixed-point results and suggests that the 2D quasi-localized phase may be an artifact of the isotropic scaling assumption; this study is not presented in the main text.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would make a strong contribution to the classification of Anderson transitions in chiral symmetry classes: it would add the chiral symplectic class to the set of classes showing weak-topology-induced quasi-localization, and would identify a new universality class for the metal-to-QL transition with a Kramers-symmetry-sensitive exponent. The 3D nontopological exponent ν=0.878±0.005 is a useful numerical benchmark and agrees with the non-Hermitian class AII result, and the fittings are presented with reasonable transparency (truncation-order scans, GOF, Monte Carlo confidence intervals) for the 3D Anderson transition. However, the decisive claim of a separate quasi-localized phase rests on an isotropic FSS assumption that the authors themselves state can produce a spurious phase, and the announced field-theory support is absent from the manuscript. The paper therefore is currently more a numerical study with an unresolved systematic caveat than a completed demonstration of universality.

major comments (4)
  1. [III D and IV B/IV C] The central claim of an intermediate quasi-localized phase rests on comparing W_c^μ (μ=x,y) extracted from Eq. (10) with W_c^z extracted from Eq. (9), but Eq. (10) assumes isotropic scaling with a single transverse size L for all spatial directions. In the claimed QL phase the localization length is divergent along z and finite along x,y; at a critical point separating such a phase from the metal, the scaling of ξ_μ in the topological and nontopological directions need not be governed by the same correlation length or the same L dependence. The abstract itself concedes that the 2D QL phase "may be an artifact of the spatially isotropic scaling assumption" and that conclusive identification "requires a finite-size scaling approach that accommodates generic (anisotropic) spatial scaling." Since Sec. V concludes that the QL phase is a universal feature without performing such an anisotropic analysis, the main conclusion is not supported by the presented numerics.
  2. [Abstract vs. Sections I–V] The abstract announces a field-theory study in which the authors "revisit and extend" a previous 2D RG analysis, include a one-loop renormalization of the weak topological term, find the previously reported quasi-localized fixed point unstable, and conclude that the 2D QL phase may be an artifact. None of this analysis appears in the main text: there is no field-theory section, no RG equations, no fixed-point analysis, and no result corresponding to this part of the abstract. The title promises "simulational and theoretical studies," and the abstract's RG conclusion is used to qualify the numerical 2D phase. As written, the manuscript omits a major component of its stated results, making the abstract misleading and the theoretical claim unverifiable.
  3. [Table I(b) and Sec. IV B] The reported 3D metal-to-QL exponent ν=0.66±0.03 is not stable under the published fitting variations. Table I(b) shows W_x^c varying from 8.287 to 8.318 and ν from 0.609 to 0.741 across the truncation orders and L ranges listed, with 95% confidence intervals that do not overlap (e.g., ν=0.609[0.542,0.650] vs. 0.741[0.623,0.808]). The spread in W_x^c is roughly five times the "less than 2% of the distance" between W_x^c and W_z^c quoted in Sec. IV B. Selecting the fit with best GOF (0.211) does not eliminate the systematic truncation uncertainty, so the claim that ν is distinctly different from the Anderson-transition exponent ν=0.878 is based on a statistically fragile estimate.
  4. [Table II and Sec. IV C] The 2D Anderson-transition exponent is similarly truncation-sensitive: Table II reports ν=2.003, 2.064, 2.064 for n=2, m=2,3,4, but ν=1.760 for n=3, m=2 and ν=1.653 for n=4, m=2, with W_c shifting from 2.009 to 2.080. These systematic shifts exceed the quoted 95% confidence intervals, and no GOF values are reported for the 2D fits. The paper selects n=2, m=3 for the quoted ν=2.064±0.004, but the dependence on n makes the "different universality class" comparison between the 2D Anderson transition and the 2D metal-to-QL transition (ν≈1.45) less definitive than stated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption contains an unresolved reference "Eq. (??)"; it should refer to Eq. (10).
  2. [Sec. IV B] The text cites "[Sec. III D]" for the linear regression of γ_max^(l)(W,L), but Eq. (9) defining this quantity is presented in Sec. III C.
  3. [Sec. IV A] There is a stray closing bracket in "shown in Fig. 3(a)]."
  4. [Table II] Goodness-of-fit values are not reported for the 2D fits; without them the reader cannot assess the quality of the different truncation choices.
  5. [Sec. II] The expression "t∥t′∦= 0" is typographically ambiguous; use t_∥ t'_∥ or equivalent notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the new CII exponents and QL-phase data are outputs of independent lattice simulations; self-citations and the isotropic-FSS caveat are contextual, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The critical exponents ν=0.878±0.005 (3D Anderson), ν=0.66±0.03 (3D metal-to-QL), and the 2D exponents are obtained by fitting transfer-matrix Lyapunov exponents to standard FSS forms (Eqs. (9), (10), (15)); they are not substituted back into the theory as inputs. The weak-topological index is defined by Eq. (7) and related to the LE imbalance by Eq. (8), with the model's nonreciprocal hopping explicitly chosen to realize ν_z≠0, so the intermediate QL region (W_x^c < W < W_z^c) is an inequality between independently fitted critical points, not a tautology. Self-citations [36]-[39], [41], [56] supply prior context, previous exponents, and a motivational Berry-phase mechanism, but the present conclusions rest on the new transfer-matrix data rather than on the cited claims. The abstract does, however, assert a field-theory result (instability of the previously reported quasi-localized fixed point and anisotropic RG scaling) that is not present in the provided main text, and it explicitly concedes that the numerically observed 2D QL phase 'may be an artifact of the spatially isotropic scaling assumption in the FSS analysis' and that a conclusive identification 'requires a finite-size scaling approach that accommodates generic (anisotropic) spatial scaling.' That is a real limitation and a correctness risk, especially since Eq. (10) uses a single transverse size L for every direction, but it is a methodological caveat, not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs; the paper does not rename the isotropic-FSS fit as a prediction. No specific equality or fitted parameter is identified that makes the QL claim equivalent by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core numerical paper rests on standard transfer-matrix and FSS technology plus hand-chosen model parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile input is the isotropic-scaling assumption, which the abstract explicitly flags; the main text does not test it. Fitting truncation choices add systematic uncertainty not reflected in quoted errors.

free parameters (4)
  • 3D NT model hopping and mass parameters
    Set to Δ=D=F=t⊥=t∥=1, t'∥=0.5 in Eq. (2). Only one parameter set is simulated, so the claimed universality of ν_CII=0.878 is not tested against parameter variation.
  • T model nonreciprocal and hopping parameters
    Set to Δ=0.1, t∥=0.5, t'∥=0.8, t⊥=1 in Eq. (3); used for both 3D and 2D topological models. The QL phase and exponents are obtained for this single parameter set.
  • 2D NT model parameters
    Set to Δ=t⊥=1, t∥=1.25, with D, F, t'∥ as independent random variables. This is the single model instance for the 2D Anderson transition.
  • FSS truncation orders and data ranges = n=2,m=3 for 2D no topology; n=m=2 for 2D with topology; n1=4,m1=3 or 4, n2=1 for 3D
    The quoted statistical errors do not include the spread from choosing different truncation orders and L ranges, which is comparable to or larger than the statistical uncertainties; for example, the 2D no-topology ν varies from 1.65 to 2.06 with n.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FSS with one relevant and one irrelevant scaling variable is a valid description of the transition (Eq. 10).
    The standard scaling form is assumed, not derived for these models; the abstract questions whether the isotropic version is valid.
  • ad hoc to paper Spatially isotropic scaling: Λ_μ=ξ_μ/L uses the same transverse length L for all directions.
    This is the load-bearing premise the abstract identifies as a possible source of a spurious 2D QL phase; the main text never tests anisotropic scaling.
  • standard math Statistical symmetries in Eqs. (5)-(6) force the Lyapunov-exponent pairing used to identify topological vs non-topological directions.
    Standard symmetry argument for random-matrix products, taken from the literature.
  • domain assumption Weak topological index ν_μ equals the normalized imbalance of positive and negative Lyapunov exponents (Eq. 8).
    Borrowed from earlier work; used to define the metallic region with divergent ξ_z.
  • domain assumption γ_max^(l)(W) crosses zero linearly at W_c^z, so the critical exponent of that transition is ν=1.
    Used for W_c^z boundaries in both 3D and 2D; there is no independent check of linearity or of the exact exponent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulational and theoretical studies of the Anderson transition in the chiral symmetry classes with weak topology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KVSXLNT6

@misc{pith2026250916555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulational and theoretical studies of the Anderson transition in the chiral symmetry classes with weak topology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KVSXLNT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.16555}
}
read the original abstract

Combining lattice model simulations with a field theory study of effective theories, we investigate the nature of the Anderson transition in chiral symmetry classes with one-dimensional (1D) weak topology. In the simulation study, we extend previous transfer matrix analyses to the chiral symplectic class, and study numerical Lyapunov exponents via a finite-size scaling (FSS) analysis that assumes spatially isotropic scaling. The analysis shows that, as in the other two chiral symmetry classes, the weak topology induces an intermediate quasi-localized (QL) phase between metal and Anderson insulator phases. In this QL phase, the localization length of wave functions diverges exclusively along the direction of the 1D weak topology. In the field theory study, we revisit and extend our previous two-dimensional (2D) renormalization group (RG) analysis to all three chiral classes, now newly incorporating a one-loop renormalization of the weak topological term in the analysis. The revised analysis reveals that a quasi-localized strong-coupling fixed point previously reported in the chiral unitary class is unstable under this new inclusion; instead, the strong-coupling phase is entirely governed by a stable fixed point with conventional localized character. Nevertheless, in the chiral unitary and chiral symplectic classes, the RG analysis still yields the hallmark of the 1D weak topology through the spatially anisotropic scaling of the Anderson transition criticality. These theoretical findings suggest that the quasi-localized phase observed numerically in 2D models may be an artifact of the spatially isotropic scaling assumption in the FSS analysis. A conclusive numerical identification of this phase therefore requires a finite-size scaling approach that accommodates generic (anisotropic) spatial scaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.16555 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Distributions of the Lyapunov exponents (LEs) of 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Density of states (DOS) of the 3D nontopological [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Logarithm (inverse) of the normalized localization length ln Λ = ln [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic phase diagrams of 3D models in the chiral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (i+j≥2) as newb k,c k anda ij, respectively. E. Kernel polynomial expansion The density of states (DOS) of the 3D non-topological modelH NT is calculated using the kernel polynomial method (KPM) [81], providing complementary informa- tion about the model. The lower and upper bounds−E b andE b of the eigenvalues ofH NT are estimated by the Lanczos algorith...

  2. [2]

    L. P. Kadanoff, Scaling laws for ising models nearT c, Physics Physique Fizika2, 263 (1966)

    1966

  3. [3]

    K. G. Wilson, Renormalization group and critical phe- nomena. i. renormalization group and the kadanoff scal- ing picture, Phys. Rev. B4, 3174 (1971)

    1971

  4. [4]

    K. G. Wilson, Renormalization group and critical phe- nomena. ii. phase-space cell analysis of critical behavior, Phys. Rev. B4, 3184 (1971)

    1971

  5. [5]

    Abrahams, P

    E. Abrahams, P. W. Anderson, D. C. Licciardello, and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Scaling theory of localization: Ab- sence of quantum diffusion in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 673 (1979)

    1979

  6. [6]

    Cardy, Scaling and renormalization in statistical physics, Vol

    J. Cardy, Scaling and renormalization in statistical physics, Vol. 5 (Cambridge university press, 1996)

    1996

  7. [7]

    Altland and M

    A. Altland and M. R. Zirnbauer, Nonstandard symme- try classes in mesoscopic normal-superconducting hybrid structures, Physical Review B55, 1142 (1997)

    1997

  8. [8]

    Wegner, The mobility edge problem: Continuous sym- metry and a conjecture., Z

    F. Wegner, The mobility edge problem: Continuous sym- metry and a conjecture., Z. Physik B Condensed Matter 35, 207 (1979)

    1979

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    K. B. Efetov, A. I. Larkin, and D. E. Khmel’nitskii, In- teraction of diffusion modes in the theory of localization., Sov. Phys. JETP52, 568 (1980)

    1980

  2. [10]

    Hikami, A

    S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka, Spin-orbit interaction and magnetoresistance in the two dimen- sional random system, Progress of Theoretical Physics 63, 707 (1980), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/63/2/707/5336056/63-2-707.pdf

    1980

  3. [11]

    Hikami, Anderson localization in a nonlinear-σ-model representation, Phys

    S. Hikami, Anderson localization in a nonlinear-σ-model representation, Phys. Rev. B24, 2671 (1981)

    1981

  4. [12]

    K. B. Efetov, Supersymmetry and theory of disor- dered metals, Advances in Physics32, 53 (1983), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018738300101531

    1983 doi

  5. [13]

    MacKinnon and B

    A. MacKinnon and B. Kramer, One-parameter scaling of localization length and conductance in disordered sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 1546 (1981)

    1981

  6. [14]

    MacKinnon and B

    A. MacKinnon and B. Kramer, The scaling theory of elec- trons in disordered solids: Additional numerical results, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter53, 1 (1983)

    1983

  7. [15]

    Slevin and T

    K. Slevin and T. Ohtsuki, Corrections to scaling at the anderson transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 382 (1999)

    1999

  8. [16]

    Evers and A

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

    2008

  9. [17]

    Slevin and T

    K. Slevin and T. Ohtsuki, Critical exponent for the an- derson transition in the three-dimensional orthogonal universality class, New Journal of Physics16, 015012 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Gade and F

    R. Gade and F. Wegner, The n = 0 replica limit of U(n) and U(n)SO(n) models, Nuclear Physics B360, 213 (1991)

    1991

  11. [19]

    Gade, Anderson localization for sublattice models, Nuclear Physics B398, 499 (1993)

    R. Gade, Anderson localization for sublattice models, Nuclear Physics B398, 499 (1993)

    1993

  12. [20]

    Balents and M

    L. Balents and M. P. A. Fisher, Delocalization transition via supersymmetry in one dimension, Physical Review B 56, 12970 (1997)

    1997

  13. [21]

    Hatsugai, X.-G

    Y. Hatsugai, X.-G. Wen, and M. Kohmoto, Disordered critical wave functions in random-bond models in two dimensions: Random-lattice fermions ate= 0 without doubling, Phys. Rev. B56, 1061 (1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    Motrunich, K

    O. Motrunich, K. Damle, and D. A. Huse, Particle-hole symmetric localization in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 65, 064206 (2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    Horovitz and P

    B. Horovitz and P. L. Doussal, Freezing transitions and the density of states of two-dimensional random dirac 10 hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. B65, 125323 (2002)

    2002

  16. [24]

    Mudry, S

    C. Mudry, S. Ryu, and A. Furusaki, Density of states for theπ-flux state with bipartite real random hopping only: A weak disorder approach, Phys. Rev. B67, 064202 (2003)

    2003

  17. [25]

    Yamada and T

    H. Yamada and T. Fukui, Random hopping fermions on bipartite lattices: density of states, inverse participation ratios, and their correlations in a strong disorder regime, Nuclear Physics B679, 632 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    A. M. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa and E. Cuevas, Anderson transi- tion in systems with chiral symmetry, Phys. Rev. B74, 113101 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    Dell’Anna, Anomalous dimensions of operators with- out derivatives in the non-linearσ-model for disordered bipartite lattices, Nuclear Physics B750, 213 (2006)

    L. Dell’Anna, Anomalous dimensions of operators with- out derivatives in the non-linearσ-model for disordered bipartite lattices, Nuclear Physics B750, 213 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Markoˇ s and L

    P. Markoˇ s and L. Schweitzer, Critical conductance of two- dimensional chiral systems with random magnetic flux, Phys. Rev. B76, 115318 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    E. J. K¨ onig, P. M. Ostrovsky, I. V. Protopopov, and A. D. Mirlin, Metal-insulator transition in two-dimensional random fermion systems of chiral symmetry classes, Phys. Rev. B85, 195130 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Mondragon-Shem, T

    I. Mondragon-Shem, T. L. Hughes, J. Song, and E. Pro- dan, Topological criticality in the chiral-symmetric aiii class at strong disorder, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 046802 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    X. Luo, B. Xu, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shindou, Critical be- havior of Anderson transitions in three-dimensional or- thogonal classes with particle-hole symmetries, Physical Review B101, 020202 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    C.-A. Li, B. Fu, Z.-A. Hu, J. Li, and S.-Q. Shen, Topo- logical phase transitions in disordered electric quadrupole insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 166801 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    T. Wang, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shindou, Universal- ity classes of the anderson transition in the three- dimensional symmetry classes aiii, bdi, c, d, and ci, Phys. Rev. B104, 014206 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Li, Topological States in Two-Dimensional Su- Schrieffer-Heeger Models, Frontiers in Physics10(2022)

    C.-A. Li, Topological States in Two-Dimensional Su- Schrieffer-Heeger Models, Frontiers in Physics10(2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    J. F. Karcher, I. A. Gruzberg, and A. D. Mirlin, Metal- insulator transition in a two-dimensional system of chiral unitary class, Physical Review B107, L020201 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    J. F. Karcher, I. A. Gruzberg, and A. D. Mirlin, Gener- alized multifractality in two-dimensional disordered sys- tems of chiral symmetry classes, Phys. Rev. B107, 104202 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Z. Xiao, K. Kawabata, X. Luo, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shin- dou, Anisotropic topological anderson transitions in chi- ral symmetry classes, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 056301 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    P. Zhao, Z. Xiao, Y. Zhang, and R. Shindou, Topologi- cal effect on the anderson transition in chiral symmetry classes, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 226601 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    J. a. S. Silva, M. Gon¸ calves, E. V. Castro, P. Ribeiro, and M. A. N. Ara´ ujo, Disorder-induced instability of a weyl nodal loop semimetal towards a diffusive topological metal with protected multifractal surface states, Phys. Rev. B111, L041116 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Zhao and R

    P. Zhao and R. Shindou, Theory of the ander- son transition in three-dimensional chiral symmetry classes: Connection to type-ii superconductors (2025), arXiv:2506.21050 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    2025

  33. [41]

    Kawabata and S

    K. Kawabata and S. Ryu, Nonunitary scaling theory of non-hermitian localization, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 166801 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    X. Luo, Z. Xiao, K. Kawabata, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shin- dou, Unifying the anderson transitions in hermitian and non-hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L022035 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Z. Chen, K. Kawabata, A. Kulkarni, and S. Ryu, Field theory of non-hermitian disordered systems, Phys. Rev. B111, 054203 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    V. L. Berezinskii, Destruction of long-range order in one- dimensional and two-dimensional systems having a con- tinuous symmetry group i. classical systems, Soviet Jour- nal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics32, 493 (1971)

    1971

  37. [45]

    V. L. Berezinskii, Destruction of long-range order in one-dimensional and two-dimensional systems having a continuous symmetry group ii. quantum systems, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics34, 610 (1972)

    1972

  38. [46]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Long range order and metastability in two dimensional solids and superfluids. (application of dislocation theory), Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics5, L124 (1972)

    1972

  39. [47]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Ordering, metasta- bility and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  40. [48]

    J. M. Kosterlitz, The critical properties of the two- dimensional xy model, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics7, 1046 (1974)

    1974

  41. [49]

    Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Nuovo Cimento (Supplemento)6, 279 (1949)

    L. Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Nuovo Cimento (Supplemento)6, 279 (1949)

    1949

  42. [50]

    R. P. Feynman, Application of quantum mechanics to liquid helium, Progress in Low Temperature Physics1, 17 (1955)

    1955

  43. [51]

    V. N. Popov, Quantum vortices and phase transitions in bose systems, Soviet Physics – JETP37, 341 (1973)

    1973

  44. [52]

    Wiegel, Vortex-ring model of bose condensation, Phys- ica65, 321 (1973)

    F. Wiegel, Vortex-ring model of bose condensation, Phys- ica65, 321 (1973)

    1973

  45. [53]

    D. R. Nelson and D. S. Fisher, Dynamics of classical XY spins in one and two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B16, 4945 (1977)

    1977

  46. [54]

    Dasgupta and B

    C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, Phase transition in a lattice model of superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 1556 (1981)

    1981

  47. [55]

    G. A. Williams, Vortex-ring model of the superfluidλ transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 1926 (1987)

    1987

  48. [56]

    S. R. Shenoy, Vortex-loop scaling in the three- dimensional xy ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B40, 5056 (1989)

    1989

  49. [57]

    Shindou and P

    R. Shindou and P. Zhao, Topological effect on order- disorder transitions in u(1) sigma models, Phys. Rev. B 111, 224507 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    C.-A. Li, B. Fu, J. Li, and B. Trauzettel, Random-flux- induced transition sequence between weak and strong topological phases with anisotropic localization proper- ties, Phys. Rev. B111, 214207 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Shang and H

    J. Shang and H. Hu, Anisotropic anderson localiza- tion in higher-dimensional nonreciprocal lattices (2025), arXiv:2507.14523 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    S. Ryu, A. P. Schnyder, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Topological insulators and superconductors: tenfold way and dimensional hierarchy, New Journal of Physics 12, 065010 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    A. P. Schnyder and S. Ryu, Topological phases and sur- face flat bands in superconductors without inversion sym- 11 metry, Phys. Rev. B84, 060504 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    F. J. Wegner, lectrons in disordered systems. scaling near the mobility edge., Z. Physik B Condensed Matter25, 327 (1976)

    1976

  55. [63]

    Wegner, Supermathematics and Its Applications in Statistical Physics: Grassmann Variables and the Method of Supersymmetry (Springer, 2016)

    F. Wegner, Supermathematics and Its Applications in Statistical Physics: Grassmann Variables and the Method of Supersymmetry (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Altland and B

    A. Altland and B. D. Simons, Field theory of the random flux model, Nuclear Physics B562, 445 (1999)

    1999

  57. [65]

    Fukui, Critical behavior of two-dimensional random hopping fermions withπ-flux, Nuclear Physics B562, 477 (1999)

    T. Fukui, Critical behavior of two-dimensional random hopping fermions withπ-flux, Nuclear Physics B562, 477 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    Fabrizio and C

    M. Fabrizio and C. Castellani, Anderson localization in bipartite lattices, Nuclear Physics B583, 542 (2000)

    2000

  59. [67]

    Guruswamy, A

    S. Guruswamy, A. LeClair, and A. Ludwig, gl(n—n) super-current algebras for disordered dirac fermions in two dimensions, Nuclear Physics B583, 475 (2000)

    2000

  60. [68]

    I. C. Fulga, F. Hassler, and A. R. Akhmerov, Scatter- ing theory of topological insulators and superconductors, Phys. Rev. B85, 165409 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Altland, D

    A. Altland, D. Bagrets, L. Fritz, A. Kamenev, and H. Schmiedt, Quantum criticality of quasi-one- dimensional topological anderson insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 206602 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    Altland, D

    A. Altland, D. Bagrets, and A. Kamenev, Topology ver- sus Anderson localization: Nonperturbative solutions in one dimension, Physical Review B91, 085429 (2015)

    2015

  63. [71]

    J. L. Pichard and G. Sarma, Finite size scaling approach to anderson localisation, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics14, L127 (1981)

    1981

  64. [72]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Localization transitions in non-hermitian quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 570 (1996)

    1996

  65. [73]

    Esaki, M

    K. Esaki, M. Sato, K. Hasebe, and M. Kohmoto, Edge states and topological phases in non-hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. B84, 205128 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    Yao and Z

    S. Yao and Z. Wang, Edge states and topological in- variants of non-hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 086803 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Kawabata, K

    K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Sym- metry and Topology in Non-Hermitian Physics, Physical Review X9, 041015 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    Crisanti, G

    A. Crisanti, G. Paladin, and A. Vulpiani, Products of random matrices: in Statistical Physics, Vol. 104 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  69. [77]

    X. Luo, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shindou, Transfer matrix study of the Anderson transition in non-Hermitian sys- tems, Physical Review B104, 104203 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Molinari, Spectral duality and distribution of expo- nents for transfer matrices of block-tridiagonal hamilto- nians, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 36, 4081 (2003)

    L. Molinari, Spectral duality and distribution of expo- nents for transfer matrices of block-tridiagonal hamilto- nians, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 36, 4081 (2003)

    2003

  71. [79]

    I. C. Fulga, F. Hassler, A. R. Akhmerov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Scattering formula for the topological quan- tum number of a disordered multimode wire, Phys. Rev. B83, 155429 (2011)

    2011

  72. [80]

    Claes and T

    J. Claes and T. L. Hughes, Disorder driven phase tran- sitions in weak aiii topological insulators, Phys. Rev. B 101, 224201 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    Asada, K

    Y. Asada, K. Slevin, and T. Ohtsuki, Numerical estima- tion of theβfunction in two-dimensional systems with spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B70, 035115 (2004)

    2004

  74. [82]

    Weiße, G

    A. Weiße, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, The kernel polynomial method, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 275 (2006)

    2006

  75. [83]

    C. Lanczos, An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral op- erators, Journal of research of the National Bureau of Standards45, 255 (1950)

    1950

  76. [84]

    Jackson, On approximation by trigonometric sums and polynomials, Transactions of the American Math- ematical society13, 491 (1912)

    D. Jackson, On approximation by trigonometric sums and polynomials, Transactions of the American Math- ematical society13, 491 (1912)

    1912

  77. [85]

    Skilling, The eigenvalues of mega-dimensional matrices”, in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods: Cambridge, England, 1988, edited by J

    J. Skilling, The eigenvalues of mega-dimensional matrices”, in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods: Cambridge, England, 1988, edited by J. Skilling (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,

    1988

  78. [86]

    D. A. Drabold and O. F. Sankey, Maximum entropy ap- proach for linear scaling in the electronic structure prob- lem, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 3631 (1993)

    1993

  79. [87]

    SILVER and H

    R. SILVER and H. R ¨ODER, Densities of states of mega- dimensional hamiltonian matrices, International Journal of Modern Physics C05, 735 (1994)

    1994

  80. [88]

    Asada, K

    Y. Asada, K. Slevin, and T. Ohtsuki, Anderson transi- tion in two-dimensional systems with spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 256601 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

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