Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Quantum Entanglement, Stratified Spaces, and Topological Matter: Towards Entanglement-Sensitive Langlands Data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A coherence filter exactly decomposes the Chern number into two sectors in a two-band Chern insulator.

desk verdict The witness-filtered sector identities are exact and new, but the Hecke/Langlands layer is unsupported: ν_S is a continuous, θ-dependent quantity, not the integer index that Eq. (10) would require. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.13467 v2 pith:L7E3JVNU submitted 2026-01-19 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallmath-phmath.MPmath.RT

Kazuki Ikeda , Steven Rayan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallmath-phmath.MPmath.RT
keywords quantumentanglementwitnessfilterBerrycurvatureChernnumberHaldanemodelFisherinformationHeckemodificationstratifiedspaces
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

The paper claims that in the canonical two-band Chern insulator (the spinless Haldane model), the Berry-curvature response can be split exactly, on a lattice-discretized Brillouin torus, into two sector responses governed by a witness-filtered coherence quantity. The split yields the closed identities ν± = μ/2 ± Re(e^{iθ} J_F), so the Chern number μ is recovered as ν+ + ν− and the witness-graded response ν_S = ν+ − ν− is a new gauge-invariant diagnostic of sublattice coherence. The same construction extends to multi-orbital embeddings, where the coherence becomes a matrix and is reconstructed by two phase settings. The paper interprets crossings of the gap-closing stratum as Hecke modifications, giving a Langlands-style description of the quantized jumps. If correct, this gives a direct, computable link between single-particle mode entanglement and topological response.

What carries the argument

The central object is the witness sign operator S = sgn(W), a spectral splitting of the valence bundle that reduces the structure group to a Levi subgroup, together with the single-excitation embedding J that maps the occupied Bloch spinor |u_-(k)⟩ = v_A|A⟩+v_B|B⟩ into a two-mode Fock space as |Ψ_k⟩ = v_A|10⟩+v_B|01⟩. This embedding makes the product |v_A||v_B| the single-particle mode entanglement (concurrence) at each k. The identity doing the work is the exact lattice relation between the sector integrals ν± and the curvature-weighted coherence J_F = (1/2π)Σ F v_A v_B*, which shows that the witness filter isolates the coherence-carrying part of the Berry curvature. The Hecke jump formula

What would settle it

Compute the jump of ν_S across the gap-closing stratum for several witness phases θ; if the jump is not an integer independent of θ, the Hecke jump formula ΔInd_S = ⟨χ_S, λ⟩ fails for the graded response. Or, on an interacting version of the model, compute a genuine many-body entanglement measure (e.g., negativity of the reduced density matrix) and check whether its discontinuities coincide with the witness-filtered curvature response; a mismatch would indicate the single-particle mode entanglement is not a cohomological obstruction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a standard plaquette discretization of the Brillouin torus for the spinless Haldane model, the witness-filtered sector responses satisfy exactly ν−(W)=μ/2+Re(e^{iθ}J_F^{AB}) and ν+(W)=μ/2−Re(e^{iθ}J_F^{AB}), with residuals at machine precision, where J_F is the curvature-weighted A/B coherence and θ is the witness phase. The graded response ν_S = ν+ − ν− equals the integrated trace of the witness sign operator S against Berry curvature, and the paper verifies these identities across the phase diagram. In the multi-orbital case the scalar J_F becomes a matrix x†J_F y, and two- or three-witness tomography recovers the full matrix. The paper also proves that the S-filtered quantum Fisher inf

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that modeling the occupied Bloch spinor at each momentum as a single-excitation two-mode Fock state |Ψ_k⟩ = v_A|10⟩+v_B|01⟩ makes single-particle mode entanglement, |v_A||v_B|, the correct notion of entanglement for the problem; if this identification is refused, the results reduce to a coherence filter on a 2×2 Bloch model without evidence about entanglement as a cohomological obstruction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The sector identities provide an exact, gauge-invariant decomposition of the topological response into coherence-carrying sectors, so μ = ν+ + ν− holds to machine precision on the lattice.
  • The S-filtered QFI never exceeds the conventional QFI; in the two-band case saturation occurs exactly at maximal single-particle entanglement, giving an operational test of entanglement via metrology.
  • Two witness phases fully reconstruct the curvature-weighted coherence J_F, and multi-orbital matrices are recovered by basis-probe scans.
  • Quantized jumps of the entanglement index across the gap-closing stratum are described by the Hecke jump formula ΔInd_S = ⟨χ_S, λ⟩, connecting topological phase transitions to Hecke modifications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors gesture toward but do not carry out is replacing the pure-state Berry connection with the Uhlmann connection for mixed states; if the same identities survive, the witness filter would give a thermal entanglement diagnostic.
  • The paper's 'entanglement' is single-particle mode entanglement by construction; whether genuine many-body entanglement (e.g., in interacting or multi-particle states) tracks these filtered responses is an open question that could be tested with exact diagonalization or tensor-network methods.
  • Because the witness phase θ enters the jump of ν_S, the integer Hecke jumps asserted in Eq. (10) may depend on the choice of witness; checking whether the jump across Σ remains an integer independent of θ would either sharpen or challenge the Langlands interpretation.
  • The reconstruction of J_F could be implemented in cold-atom or photonic simulators of the Haldane model by measuring filtered Berry curvature via Bloch oscillations, making the coherence diagnostic experimentally testable.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops 'witness-filtered' geometric response diagnostics for the spinless Haldane model on a Fukui–Hatsugai–Suzuki (FHS) discretized Brillouin torus. The occupied Bloch spinor at each k is embedded via an isometry J into the single-excitation sector of a two-mode Fock space, and an entanglement witness sign operator S = sgn(W) defines sector weights. The authors derive exact lattice identities ν±(W) = μ/2 ± Re(e^{iθ}J_F^{AB}) and ν_S = ν+ − ν− (Eq. (19)), with a multi-orbital matrix generalization (Eq. (25)), verified numerically to machine precision. They introduce S-filtered QGT and QFI and prove bounds |F^{Q,(S)}| ≤ F^Q and |Im Q^{(S)}| ≤ (C/2)|F|, Eqs. (34)–(40). The paper further claims that across the gap-closing stratum the quantized response changes realize Hecke modifications and support an 'entanglement-sensitive Langlands correspondence,' thereby validating a proposed picture of entanglement as a cohomological obstruction.

Significance. Concrete results: (i) identities (19)/(25) are exact algebraic consequences of the definitions, free of fitting parameters, and confirmed at machine precision on FHS meshes; (ii) the two-witness tomography reconstructs J_F without ambiguity; (iii) the filtered-QGT/QFI bounds (34)–(40) are elementary, correct, and numerically confirmed. As a coherence-filter diagnostic for two-band Chern insulators these are solid, reproducible contributions. What is not established is the interpretive superstructure: ν_S is not shown to be an integer index, and the Hecke jump formula (10) does not apply to it (Major comment 1). The paper's headline claims about Hecke modifications and an entanglement-sensitive Langlands correspondence therefore outrun the mathematics, even though the underlying lattice identities are correct.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.B (19) vs §II (6),(10)] Eq. (10) applies to Ind_S = (2πi)^{-1}∫Tr(SF_A), an integer only when S is an A-parallel endomorphism of E splitting E into ± eigenbundles. In the Haldane application, S|_{S_1} in (17) is a constant 2×2 matrix on the ambient two-qubit space; the valence line L_k = J|u_-(k)⟩ is generically not S-invariant ([S, |u_-⟩⟨u_-|] ≠ 0; Eq. (31): P_⊥S′P_⊥ = ηP_⊥ with η = −⟨S⟩, ±1 only for maximally entangled states). Hence S is not an endomorphism of the rank-1 valence bundle, D_AS ≠ 0, and ν_S in (19) — equal to −2 Re(e^{iθ}J_F^{AB}) — is a continuous real number, not the index (6). The Fig. 1(d)/§III.B claim that μ, ν±, ν exhibit 'quantized jumps' realizing ΔInd_S is unsupported: (10) gives integer ΔInd_S, while Δν_S = −2 Re(e^{iθ}ΔJ_F^{AB}) has no demonstrated integrality (for an isotropic Dirac point the local ΔJ_F vanishes by angular symmetry, so a nonzero integer jump is not automatic). The H
  2. [§II (after Eq. (2))] The sentence 'The boundary contribution supported on ∂N_ε(Σ) implements the middle extension j_{!*} that restores quantization' is stated without proof or reference. For a smooth bundle on the punctured surface C°, the limit ε→0 of ∫_{X_ε}Tr(SF_A) is not obviously an integer; integrality depends on the extension data at the punctures, and the link between a boundary term and the sheaf-theoretic middle extension requires argument. Since this excision claim underlies the Hecke interpretation, give a precise statement with hypotheses and proof (or citation), or remove it and present the Hecke picture explicitly as an analogy.
  3. [§III.A (15), §V] All entanglement statements pass through the isometry J into the single-excitation two-mode Fock space; 'mode entanglement' 2|v_Av_B| is a modeling choice, not a computed many-body entanglement measure, and the witness W lives in the same local two-qubit model. Consequently the §V conclusion that the numerics 'validate ... entanglement, viewed as a geometric obstruction' tests the obstruction picture only within this embedding and is partly self-referential. The lattice identities are unaffected, but the paper should state this restriction prominently (the abstract's phrase 'single-particle mode entanglement' carries the load) or add an independent entanglement probe.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.B (17)–(19)] The witness phase θ is first defined as arg⟨v_Bv_A^*⟩ (a fixed reference) but later swept as a free parameter in the two-witness tomography. Clarify that θ is a tunable witness phase and that the definition is just one particular choice.
  2. [§IV.A (30)–(32)] F^{Q,(S)} = ηF^Q can be negative since η∈[−1,1]; calling it a Fisher information is misleading, as QFI is positive semidefinite by definition. Suggest 'signed filtered QFI' or use |η|, noting that (34) already employs absolute values.
  3. [§III.B / Fig. 1(d)] Panel (d) is asserted to show 'quantized jumps' of μ, ν±, ν, but the numerical values of the jumps at the two critical M are not reported. In light of Major comment 1, report the jump sizes and check integrality explicitly.
  4. [§II (7) / §III.A] Equation (7) is written for the twist torus T²_Φ, while the FHS computation in §III.A is performed on the Brillouin-zone torus T²_k with U_α(k) = ⟨u_-(k)|u_-(k+α̂)⟩. The two tori are different objects; please align the notation, also in (33).
  5. [Refs. [9], title] Reference [9] has a duplicated DOI URL, and the arXiv title ('Towards Entanglement-Sensitive Langlands Data') differs from the in-text title ('Towards an Entanglement-Sensitive Langlands Correspondence'). Choose one.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Hecke-jump prediction for ν_S is definitional: ν_S is identified with the integer QEI Ind_S in Eq. (7), and the quantized jumps are then read back from Eq. (6) rather than derived from the Haldane computation (19).

  1. self definitional [Sec. II.A Eqs. (6)-(8); Sec. III.B after Eq. (19); Fig. 1(d) caption]
    "Ind_S|_C := 1/(2π) arg χ_S(Hol_A(γ)) = 1/(2π i)∫_C Ω(S) ∈ Z, (6), which we call the Quantum Entanglement Index (QEI) on C. On the twist torus T^2_Φ, taking A to be the Berry connection and using the single-excitation reduction gives ν_S = 1/(2π) Σ_□ F(Φ)⟨S⟩_Φ = 1/(2π i)∫_{T^2_Φ} Tr(S F_A). (7) ... As M crosses the gap–closing values, ... the indices μ, ν±, ν exhibit the predicted quantized jumps."

    Eq. (6) defines Ind_S as an integer by requiring S to be an A-parallel endomorphism that splits the bundle into eigensubbundles. Eq. (7) then labels the Haldane lattice sum ν_S as the same object. But Eq. (19) computes ν_S = −2 Re(e^{iθ}J_F), a continuous real number, and in the Haldane realization S acts on the ambient two-mode Fock space, not as an endomorphism of the rank-1 valence bundle (generically [S,|u_-⟩⟨u_-|]≠0). The 'predicted quantized jumps' of ν_±,ν therefore do not follow from the Haldane calculation; they are the defining property of Ind_S read back through the identification ν_S=Ind_S. The Hecke 'prediction' is thus the definition of the QEI, not a derived consequence of the model.

full rationale

The exact lattice identities (19)/(25) and the QGT/QFI bounds are self-contained algebra on the external Haldane benchmark: no parameters are fitted, residuals ~1e-15 confirm the identities, and the inequalities are proven from definitions. The two-witness and basis-probe reconstructions are consistency checks of the identities, not independent predictions. The significant circular content is in the index/Hecke layer: ν_S is defined as the QEI in Eq. (7), and the quantized Hecke-jump conclusion is then imported from that definition rather than derived from the computed continuous response. This affects the paper's central 'entanglement-sensitive Langlands' claim, though it does not invalidate the independent coherence-filter identities. Hence partial circularity, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The construction carries no fitted free parameters; the model is the standard Haldane Hamiltonian and all claimed identities and bounds are exact algebra verified on an FHS mesh. The tunable witness phase θ is a construction input, not a fit. The load-bearing interpretive axioms — the single-excitation entanglement embedding, the choice of witness, the Hecke identification of gap-crossings, and the Langlands gloss — are the paper's own postulates (mostly inherited from the authors' prior work [1,22,23]) and carry no independent evidence.

free parameters (1)
  • witness phase θ = θ = arg⟨v_B v_A^*⟩_k (global coherence phase); tomography at θ = 0, π/2
    The witness S = sgn(W) is built from a reference angle θ (Eqs. 17–18). All filtered responses ν_S, ν± are θ-dependent; the reconstruction uses two settings θ=0, π/2. θ is chosen by hand to align with the average coherence phase, not fitted to data, but it is a tunable input of the construction whose value affects the reported curves and jump sizes.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Berry-connection/Chern-number formalism for the U(1) valence bundle over the Brillouin torus
    Invoked throughout §II–III; standard band topology, cited [2–4].
  • domain assumption Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki discretization reproduces continuum Chern numbers and is gauge-invariant on the lattice
    Used for all numerical integrals (Eq. 13); standard, cited [19], but mesh-size convergence is not quantified in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The single-excitation isometry J and the two-qubit embedding of the Bloch spinor faithfully represent 'mode entanglement'
    Sec. III.A Eq. (15); this identification is the paper's entanglement notion and is not derived or compared with genuinely many-body entanglement measures.
  • ad hoc to paper The witness W = (|w_-⟩⟨w_-|)^{TB} with |w_-⟩ = (e^{-iθ/2}|00⟩ − e^{+iθ/2}|11⟩)/√2, and S = sgn(W) restricted to S_1, is the physically relevant filter
    Sec. III.B Eq. (17); any witness with the same sign structure would produce the same S|S_1 block; the specific choice is a construction decision of the paper, inherited from [1].
  • ad hoc to paper Gap-crossings in parameter space realize Hecke modifications with integer weights λ, and ΔInd_S = ⟨χ_S, λ⟩ is an integer
    Sec. II.B Eqs. (10)–(11); asserted as the interpretation of the numerically observed jumps; integrality of the jump of ν_S = −2Re(e^{iθ}J_F) is not derived from the lattice sums.
  • standard math Geometric Satake equivalence Perv_{L_C(O)}(Gr_{L_C}) ≃ Rep(^L L) and the Langlands-dual dictionary
    Sec. III.C; cited from [31–34]; standard in geometric representation theory, but invoked here only as an interpretive gloss; the paper does not verify the eigensheaf side.
invented entities (3)
  • Quantum Entanglement Index (QEI) Ind_S = (1/2π)∫ Tr(SF_A)
    purpose: Quantify the witness-filtered topological response and its jumps across the singular stratum
    Defined in §II.A Eq. (6) as c_1(detE_+) − c_1(detE_−); in the Haldane realization it equals the θ-dependent lattice sum ν_S = −2Re(e^{iθ}J_F) (Eqs. 19, 33), so it is not a new topological invariant with an outside handle; its jump integrality is asserted, not proven.
  • Entanglement-sensitive Langlands correspondence
    purpose: Organizational principle pairing Wilson-loop observables (L-character χ_S) with Hecke modifications (coweight λ)
    Introduced in §II.B and summarized in the table; the authors explicitly state it is 'not as a full correspondence, but as an organizational principle'; it inherits the unverified claim that gap-crossings act as Hecke modifications and carries no falsifiable prediction outside the paper.
  • Hecke modifications at gap-closing points as 't Hooft-type defects in parameter space
    purpose: Describe the change of the valence bundle across the singular stratum
    Sec. II.B, Eqs. (10)–(11); a restatement of the standard fact that Chern numbers change by integers when gaps close, dressed in Hecke language; no independent observable is predicted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Entanglement, Stratified Spaces, and Topological Matter: Towards Entanglement-Sensitive Langlands Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7E3JVNU

@misc{pith2026260113467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Entanglement, Stratified Spaces, and Topological Matter: Towards Entanglement-Sensitive Langlands Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7E3JVNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.13467}
}
read the original abstract

Using the spinless Haldane model, we study the witness-filtered Berry curvature, quantum geometric tensor, and quantum Fisher information on the gapped strata of the parameter space and evaluate them through the Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki discretization. The filtered quantities isolate the part of the geometric response carried by sublattice coherence: they suppress contributions from regions where the occupied Bloch state is locally A/B-separable and emphasize regions where curvature and coherence coexist. We derive exact lattice identities, reconstruction formulas for the curvature-weighted coherence, and bounds relating the filtered quantum geometric tensor and quantum Fisher information to single-particle mode entanglement. Across the gap-closing stratum, the quantized response changes admit a natural description in terms of Hecke modifications. We elicit a corresponding Langlands viewpoint -- not as a full correspondence, but as an organizational principle and as the mathematical shadow of these physical geometric constructions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.13467 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) FHS curvature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Since∥P ⊥S′P ⊥∥op ≤ ∥S′∥op ≤1, the Cauchy-Schwarz relation in (30) gives Q(S) ij ≤ ∥S′∥op √gii gjj ≤ √gii gjj

    General bounds for all dimensions. Since∥P ⊥S′P ⊥∥op ≤ ∥S′∥op ≤1, the Cauchy-Schwarz relation in (30) gives Q(S) ij ≤ ∥S′∥op √gii gjj ≤ √gii gjj . In particular, along any parameterλ, F Q,(S)(λ) = 4 ReQ (S) λλ ≤4g λλ =F Q(λ).(34) Thus theS-filtered QFI never exceeds the conventional QFI. As we discuss below, for the single orbit case, this inequality is s...

  2. [2]

    Then |η(k)|= 2 Re eiθvAv∗ B ≤C(k)≤1, with equality|η|=Cwhen the witness phase is aligned with the A/B coherence

    Two-band (single-orbit) bounds in terms of coherence/entanglement LetC(k) = 2|v A(k)vB(k)|be the concurrence of the state atk. Then |η(k)|= 2 Re eiθvAv∗ B ≤C(k)≤1, with equality|η|=Cwhen the witness phase is aligned with the A/B coherence. Using (32) and (28) gives the bounds |ImQ (S) ij | ≤ C(k) 2 |Fij|,|F Q,(S) λλ | ≤C(k)F Q λλ .(35) In particular, if t...

  3. [3]

    Multi-orbital generalization Let dimH A =m, dimH B =nand consider a state |Ψk⟩and a matrixJ F as eq. (20). Choose a unit pair (x, y)∈C m ×C n and set the Bloch-space representative S′ =− 0Y Y † 0 , Y:=x y †,∥Y∥ op = 1.(38) ConsiderQ (S) ij (30). SinceP ⊥S′P ⊥ is a Hermitian contraction on the conduction space, |Q(S) ij | ≤ ∥P⊥S′P ⊥∥ √gii gjj , F Q,(S) λλ ...

  4. [4]

    Quantum Entanglement as a Cohomological Obstruction,

    K. Ikeda, “Quantum Entanglement as a Cohomological Obstruction,”arXiv:2511.04326 [math-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Berry phase effects on electronic properties,

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, “Berry phase effects on electronic properties,”Rev. Mod. Phys.82(Jul,

  6. [6]

    Hyperbolic band theory through Higgs bundles,

    E. Kienzle and S. Rayan, “Hyperbolic band theory through Higgs bundles,”Advances in Mathematics409 (2022) 108664

    2022

  7. [7]

    Colloquium: Topological insulators,

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, “Colloquium: Topological insulators,”Rev. Mod. Phys.82(Nov, 2010) 3045–3067. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3045

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.3045 2010

  8. [8]

    Topological insulators and superconductors,

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, “Topological insulators and superconductors,”Rev. Mod. Phys.83(Oct, 2011) 1057–1110.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1057

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.83.1057 2011

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Hyperbolic band theory,

    J. Maciejko and S. Rayan, “Hyperbolic band theory,” Science Advances7no. 36, (2021) eabe9170, arXiv:2008.05489

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Crystallography of hyperbolic lattices,

    I. Boettcher, A. V. Gorshkov, A. J. Koll´ ar, J. Maciejko, S. Rayan, and R. Thomale, “Crystallography of hyperbolic lattices,”Physical Review B105no. 12, (2022) 125118,arXiv:2105.01087

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Automorphic Bloch theorems for hyperbolic lattices,

    J. Maciejko and S. Rayan, “Automorphic Bloch theorems for hyperbolic lattices,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119no. 9, (2022) e2116869119,arXiv:2108.09314

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hyperbolic band theory under magnetic field and Dirac cones on a higher genus surface,

    K. Ikeda, S. Aoki, and Y. Matsuki, “Hyperbolic band theory under magnetic field and Dirac cones on a higher genus surface,”J. Phys. Condens. Matter33no. 48, (2021) 485602,arXiv:2104.13314 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Algebra of hyperbolic band theory under magnetic field,

    K. Ikeda, Y. Matsuki, and S. Aoki, “Algebra of hyperbolic band theory under magnetic field,” Canadian Journal of Physics101no. 11, (2023) 630–640,https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2022-0145. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2022-0145

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality,

    S. Abramsky and A. Brandenburger, “The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality,”New J. Phys.13no. 11, (2011) 113036, arXiv:1102.0264 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    On the hyperbolic Bloch transform,

    ´A. Nagy and S. Rayan, “On the hyperbolic Bloch transform,”Annales Henri Poincar´ e25no. 3, (2024) 1713–1732,arXiv:2208.02749

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hyperbolic lattices in circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    A. J. Koll´ ar, M. Fitzpatrick, and A. A. Houck, “Hyperbolic lattices in circuit quantum electrodynamics,”Nature571no. 7763, (July, 2019) 45–50,arXiv:1802.09549 [quant-ph].https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1348-3

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A scalable superconducting circuit framework for emulating physics in hyperbolic space,

    X. Xu, A. A. Mahmoud, N. Gorgichuk, R. Thomale, S. Rayan, and M. Mariantoni, “A scalable superconducting circuit framework for emulating physics in hyperbolic space,”arXiv:2510.23827

  10. [18]

    Separability criterion for density matrices,

    A. Peres, “Separability criterion for density matrices,” Phys. Rev. Lett.77(Aug, 1996) 1413–1415.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413

    1996 doi

  11. [19]

    Detecting Quantum Entanglement,

    B. M. Terhal, “Detecting Quantum Entanglement,” Theor. Comput. Sci.287(2002) 313–335, arXiv:quant-ph/0101032

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Entanglement detection,

    O. G¨ uhne and G. T´ oth, “Entanglement detection,” Phys. Rept.474(2009) 1–75,arXiv:0811.2803 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Computable measure of entanglement,

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, “Computable measure of entanglement,”Phys. Rev. A65(Feb, 2002) 032314. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032314

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    Quantum Hall Effect and Langlands Program,

    K. Ikeda, “Quantum Hall Effect and Langlands Program,”Annals Phys.397(2018) 136–150, arXiv:1708.00419 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chern numbers in a discretized Brillouin zone: Efficient method to compute (spin) Hall conductances,

    T. Fukui, Y. Hatsugai, and H. Suzuki, “Chern numbers in a discretized Brillouin zone: Efficient method to compute (spin) Hall conductances,”J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 74(2005) 1674–1677,arXiv:cond-mat/0503172

    2005 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Parallel transport and “quantum holonomy

    A. Uhlmann, “Parallel transport and “quantum holonomy” along density operators,”Reports on Mathematical Physics24no. 2, (1986) 229–240. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0034487786900558

    1986

  17. [25]

    An extension of kakutani’s theorem on infinite product measures to the tensor product of semifinite w*-algebras,

    D. Bures, “An extension of kakutani’s theorem on infinite product measures to the tensor product of semifinite w*-algebras,”Transactions of the American Mathematical Society135(1969) 199–212. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1995012

    1969

  18. [26]

    Statistical distance and hilbert space,

    W. K. Wootters, “Statistical distance and hilbert space,”Phys. Rev. D23(Jan, 1981) 357–362.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.357

    1981 doi

  19. [27]

    Topological aspects of matters and Langlands program,

    K. Ikeda, “Topological aspects of matters and Langlands program,”Rev. Math. Phys.36no. 04, (2024) 2450005,arXiv:1812.11879 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Model for a quantum hall effect without landau levels: Condensed-matter realization of the

    F. D. M. Haldane, “Model for a quantum hall effect without landau levels: Condensed-matter realization of the ”parity anomaly”,”Phys. Rev. Lett.61(Oct, 1988) 2015–2018.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.2015

    1988 doi

  21. [29]

    Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states,

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, “Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states,”Commun. Math. Phys. 76(1980) 289–301

    1980

  22. [30]

    Computation of Uhlmann’s parallel transport for density matrices and the Bures metric on three-dimensional Hilbert space,

    M. H¨ ubner, “Computation of Uhlmann’s parallel transport for density matrices and the Bures metric on three-dimensional Hilbert space,”Physics Letters A 179no. 4-5, (Aug., 1993) 226–230

    1993

  23. [31]

    Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states,

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, “Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 72(May, 1994) 3439–3443.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.3439. 10

    1994 doi

  24. [32]

    Topological indices for open and thermal systems via uhlmann’s phase,

    Z. Huang and D. P. Arovas, “Topological indices for open and thermal systems via uhlmann’s phase,”Phys. Rev. Lett.113(Aug, 2014) 076407.https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.076407

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Uhlmann phase as a topological measure for one-dimensional fermion systems,

    O. Viyuela, A. Rivas, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Uhlmann phase as a topological measure for one-dimensional fermion systems,”Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (Apr, 2014) 130401.https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.112.130401

    2014

  26. [34]

    Proof of the geometric Langlands conjecture IV: ambidexterity,

    D. Arinkin, D. Beraldo, L. Chen, J. Faergeman, D. Gaitsgory, K. Lin, S. Raskin, and N. Rozenblyum, “Proof of the geometric Langlands conjecture IV: ambidexterity,”arXiv:2409.08670(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture i: construction of the functor,

    D. Gaitsgory and S. Raskin, “Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture i: construction of the functor,” arXiv:2405.03599(2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture ii: Kac-moody localization and the fle,

    D. Arinkin, D. Beraldo, J. Campbell, L. Chen, J. Faergeman, D. Gaitsgory, K. Lin, S. Raskin, and N. Rozenblyum, “Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture ii: Kac-moody localization and the fle,” arXiv:2405.03648(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture iii: compatibility with parabolic induction,

    J. Campbell, L. Chen, J. Faergeman, D. Gaitsgory, K. Lin, S. Raskin, and N. Rozenblyum, “Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture iii: compatibility with parabolic induction,”arXiv:2409.07051(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Electric-Magnetic Duality And The Geometric Langlands Program,

    A. Kapustin and E. Witten, “Electric-Magnetic Duality And The Geometric Langlands Program,”Commun. Num. Theor. Phys.1(2007) 1–236, arXiv:hep-th/0604151

    2007 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Lectures on the Langlands program and conformal field theory,

    E. Frenkel, “Lectures on the Langlands program and conformal field theory,” inLes Houches School of Physics: Frontiers in Number Theory, Physics and Geometry, pp. 387–533. 2007.arXiv:hep-th/0512172

    2007 arXiv

  32. [2010]

    1959–2007.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.1959

    1959 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.