Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Inferring stealthy hyperuniform correlations from quantum transport

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Transmittance spectra can serve as fingerprints of stealthy hyperuniform disorder, and the sharp drop in a one-dimensional transmission curve pins down the stealthiness parameter χ when the edge is well resolved.

desk verdict A clean but entirely in-sample numerical proof of concept; the fingerprint claim is plausible but needs a single-realization or independent-model test before it is established. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11188 v1 pith:OA4NAVR6 submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.dis-nn

Natanael C. Costa , Mauro S. Ferreira , Caio Lewenkopf , Felipe A. Pinheiro , Paul J. Steinhardt , Salvatore Torquato , Carlo Vanoni This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.dis-nn
keywords stealthyhyperuniformdisorderquantumtransporttransmittancespectruminverseproblemmisfitfunctiontight-bindingchaincorrelatedlocalization
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 proposes a conductance-based inverse protocol to recover the stealthiness parameter χ of stealthy hyperuniform disorder from transport data alone. In a one-dimensional tight-binding chain whose on-site disorder is built from a structure factor S(k)=Θ(|k|-K) with K=2πχ, the ensemble-averaged transmittance displays a sharp drop at an energy set almost entirely by χ, while the disorder strength W mainly controls the transmittance magnitude. The paper shows that minimizing a misfit function comparing a target transmittance spectrum against trial spectra yields a clear minimum close to the target (W,χ) whenever the transmission edge is well resolved, demonstrated for χ_tar=0.3 and 0.2. This matters because the microscopic disorder configuration is often inaccessible in realistic samples, so an observable-based route to χ could apply to photonic and atomic transport experiments without structural imaging.

What carries the argument

The central object is the misfit function F(Ω)=(1/(E_+ - E_-))∫_{E_-}^{E_+} dE [T_tar(E) - \bar T(E;Ω)]^2, which compares a target transmittance spectrum with the configurational average over trial disorder parameters Ω=(W,χ). The mechanism that makes the inversion work is the sharp transmittance drop at the perturbation-theory energy E_c≈-2cos(πχ), which separates high- and low-transmittance regions: χ controls the drop's energy position and W controls the transmittance magnitude inside the transparent window, so the two parameters imprint distinct features of the spectrum that the misfit landscape can separate. The recursive Green's function method supplies the spectra efficiently for chains up to N=$10^{6}$, and the paper's finite-size analysis shows the edge feature survives as N grows.

What would settle it

Take a target transmittance spectrum produced by a structurally different model that still has perfect stealthy hyperuniform correlations (for instance, a real-space collective-coordinate construction rather than the Gaussian Fourier-amplitude recipe) and run the misfit protocol against it: if the recovered (W,χ) drifts away from the true parameters, the claim that transmittance spectra fingerprint stealthiness itself rather than the specific ensemble construction is refuted. A direct measurement on a fabricated stealthy hyperuniform photonic structure whose χ is independently characterized would settle the practical claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the energy-dependent transmittance of a disordered conductor carries a recognizable fingerprint of stealthy hyperuniform correlations, and that the fingerprint is invertible: minimizing the misfit function F(W,χ) over trial parameters recovers the parameters that generated a target spectrum, provided the target shows a well-resolved transmission edge. Numerically, for a chain of N=$10^{4}$ sites with disorder generated from S(k)=Θ(|k|-K), the misfit landscape develops a well-defined minimum at (W,χ) close to the target for W_tar=0.10 with χ_tar=0.30 and χ_tar=0.20, while for χ_tar=0.10 the localization length falls below the system size, the edge washes out, and the minimum becomes a shallow degenerate valley. The paper therefore concludes that transmittance spectra can serve as fingerprints of stealthy hyperuniform disorder, offering a practical route to infer correlated-disorder parameters from transport measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The inversion is validated only against target spectra generated by the same idealized stealthy-disorder construction and the same recursive Green's function code used for the trial spectra, so the demonstration does not test how the protocol performs on experimental data or on disorder with imperfectly suppressed low-k fluctuations; the energy window [E_-, E_+] is also left unspecified, which leaves room for tuning in practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In mesoscopic stealthy hyperuniform structures, χ could be determined from a single measured transmission or conductance spectrum by minimizing the misfit function, with no need for structural imaging.
  • The transmission edge at E_c ≈ -2cos(πχ) provides an analytic anchor: even without running the full inversion, locating the drop gives a first estimate of χ.
  • Because the edge position is controlled by χ and the magnitude by W, the protocol remains accurate for χ even when the trial value of W differs from the true one, as the misfit minima stay pinned near χ_tar.
  • The method is inherently mesoscopic: in the thermodynamic limit or for very small χ, where localization suppresses the transmittance across the band, the edge disappears and parameter recovery fails, so the operational regime is N ≲ ξ(E).
  • The paper's finite-size results (edge visible up to N=10^6) indicate the protocol can be applied to current photonic and atomic experiments, whose system sizes fall in the same mesoscopic range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to use the analytic edge relation E_c≈-2cos(πχ) as a direct one-parameter estimator of χ from a single spectrum, bypassing the full two-dimensional misfit minimization; this would be faster and would only need the drop position.
  • The failure at χ_tar=0.1 implies a fundamental resolution limit in the (W,χ) plane set by the ratio of localization length to system size; mapping that boundary could tell experimentalists which parameter regions are inferable from transport at all.
  • Realistic stealthy disorder is never perfectly step-like in S(k), so the protocol's robustness to blurred low-k suppression is the most important untested assumption; if the edge survives moderate blurring, the method would transfer to photonic samples, but if not, the practical window narrows considerably.
  • The same misfit logic could be adapted to two- and three-dimensional stealthy hyperuniform networks by replacing the energy window with a frequency window and using transmission or extinction spectra; the paper's 1D demonstration does not address the multi-mode complications, but the separation of edge position from overall magnitude suggests the signature would persist.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an inverse protocol to recover the stealthiness parameter chi and disorder strength W of a stealthy hyperuniform disordered potential from energy-resolved transmittance spectra. The forward model is a one-dimensional tight-binding chain with on-site disorder generated by a hard cutoff in Fourier space, S(k)=Theta(|k|-K) with K=2 pi chi, and the transmittance is computed with a recursive Green's function method. A misfit function comparing ensemble-averaged target and trial spectra is then minimized over (W, chi). For target parameters W_tar=0.10 and chi_tar=0.30 and 0.20, the authors report clear minima close to the target; for chi_tar=0.10 the minimum is lost. Finite-size scaling up to N=10^6 is also presented, and the authors frame the protocol as a proof of concept for mesoscopic systems.

Significance. If the method is robust, it provides a useful way to extract correlated-disorder parameters from transport measurements without direct structural information, with potential applications in photonic and ultracold-atom platforms. The paper is honest about the limitations, clearly showing the breakdown at small chi, and the numerical implementation is simple and reproducible in principle. However, the significance is currently tempered by the in-sample nature of the validation and by the unspecified energy window, which together leave the central 'fingerprint' claim less strongly supported than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.C and Sec. III (Figs. 4 and 5)] The validation is entirely in-sample: the target spectra and the trial spectra are generated with the same disorder-generation rule (Eqs. (4)-(7)), the same configurational averaging (Eq. (13)), and the same recursive Green's function code. Consequently, the reported recovery of (W_tar, chi_tar) is an identifiability check within a single generative model, not a demonstration that experimentally obtainable single-realization transmittance spectra carry the fingerprint. Please add at least one test that breaks this symmetry, e.g., a target generated by an independent forward solver, a target with imperfect (blurred) stealthiness, or a single-realization target, and show that the misfit minimum still approximates the target parameter.
  2. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (14), and Sec. III (Figs. 4 and 5)] The misfit function F depends explicitly on the integration window [E-, E+], but the paper never states the window used for any of the reported results. The only guidance is that the window must be 'judiciously selected' to encompass the threshold region. Without a fixed, a-priori rule for choosing [E-, E+], the protocol is not reproducible and the apparent minima in Figs. 4 and 5 could be influenced by window tuning. Please specify the exact windows used for each figure and verify that the minima are stable when the window is chosen by a stated rule (e.g., a fixed energy interval around the perturbative E_c).
  3. [Sec. III (Figs. 2-5)] No error bars or confidence intervals are reported for the transmittance spectra or the misfit values, although both are estimated from finite ensembles (1000 configurations for the target and 200 for trial spectra). In the shallower landscapes (e.g., Fig. 5(b) and especially Fig. 5(c)), it is not possible to judge whether the global minimum is statistically significant. Please report the statistical uncertainty of F(W, chi), for instance by bootstrapping over disorder realizations, and indicate the significance of the recovered minima.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (7)] The normalization of eta_k is not specified; please state the variance (e.g., <|eta_k|^2>=1 or an equivalent convention) so that the disorder strength W is unambiguously defined and the protocol is reproducible.
  2. [Sec. II.C] The notation for the number of configurations switches between N_conf and N_conf; please unify it to a single symbol.
  3. [Sec. III] The perturbative expression E_c = -2 cos(pi chi) is cited to Ref. [21] without derivation; a one-line derivation or a reference to the specific equation in [21] would improve the self-containedness of the paper.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract states that the drop position is 'strongly controlled by chi', but the paper later shows that for chi=0.10 (Fig. 5(c)) the drop is not resolved and the method fails; the abstract should qualify this statement by mentioning the regime of validity.
  5. [Sec. III, Fig. 2 discussion] The numerical thresholds E_c are quoted as -1.18(1), -1.20(1), and -1.22(1) for W=0.05, 0.10, and 0.20, but the meaning of the parenthetical uncertainty is not defined; please specify how these uncertainties were estimated.
  6. [Fig. 1 caption] The leftmost panel is labeled 'Uncorrelated'; it would be clearer to state explicitly that this corresponds to chi=0, since the dashed boundary between chi=0 and chi>0 is otherwise implicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the recovery of chi is a non-vacuous in-sample identifiability check, and the self-cited model and perturbative formula are independently confirmed by the paper's own numerics.

full rationale

The central demonstration compares ensemble-averaged target spectra (1000 realizations) with ensemble-averaged trial spectra (200 realizations) drawn from the same generative model, Eq. (7), and evaluated with the same recursive Green's-function method. This limits external generality, but it is not circular: the target is not a subset of the fitted data, the misfit at the true parameters is not zero by construction (the two averages are independent samples), and the explicit failure at chi_tar = 0.10 (Fig. 5c) plus the acknowledged thermodynamic-limit washout show the test is falsifiable. The paper also flags these limitations itself, noting that for small chi 'the transmittance is strongly suppressed and the sharp threshold step T(E_c) is smoothed out into a featureless decay' and that as N grows the 'global minimum of the misfit function' flattens, which weighs against any claim that the result is forced. The unspecified energy window [E-, E+] that 'must be judiciously selected' is a reproducibility and potential-tuning caveat, but no equation forces the reported minima through the window choice, so it is not a definitional reduction. Self-citations do occur: the disorder construction and the perturbative expression E_c = -2 cos(pi chi) are attributed to Refs. [21,38] with overlapping authorship, and the inverse-protocol framework draws on Refs. [26-32] that include co-authors. However, the paper independently demonstrates the chi-controlled drop numerically in Fig. 3, checks the cited formula against its own RGF data, and contributes the new correlated-disorder inversion content. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's own equations, to its input; the self-citations are prior-art inputs rather than circular justifications.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol rests on the assumed exactness of the stealthy spectral constraint, on the use of an ensemble-averaged transmittance as a sufficient fingerprint, and on several unstated numerical choices (energy window, normalization of the random amplitudes). The inversion itself introduces no new physical entities; its free parameters are the energy window and the amplitude normalization, neither of which is specified numerically in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Integration window [E-, E+] for the misfit function = Not specified; stated as 'judiciously selected'
    The misfit F(Omega) in Eq. (14) depends on the energy window. The paper never gives the numerical values used in Figs. 4-7, and does not test sensitivity to this choice. This is a free choice of the protocol that could affect the recovered parameters.
  • Normalization of the random Fourier amplitudes eta_k in Eq. (7) = Not specified
    Eq. (7) defines w_k = W sqrt(S(k)) eta_k with eta_k a zero-mean complex Gaussian, but the variance of eta_k is not stated. This sets the relationship between W and the physical disorder amplitude, and is needed to reproduce the transmittance magnitudes.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The transmission edge energy is given by E_c = -2 cos(pi chi) in the weak-disorder limit (from Ref. [21]).
    Used in Sec. III to interpret the numerical drop and to argue that chi controls the edge position. Ref. [21] is a self-citation involving three of the present authors.
  • domain assumption Ensemble-averaged transmittance is a sufficient fingerprint for parameter inference; minimizing the misfit against a target spectrum identifies the generative parameters.
    This is the foundational assumption of the inverse protocol (Sec. II C), inherited from earlier inverse problem work [26-32].
  • domain assumption The disorder potential is generated with exactly zero Fourier weight for |k| < K = 2 pi chi, with no imperfections or finite-size blurring.
    The construction in Eqs. (4)-(7) imposes a hard spectral constraint. Real stealthy hyperuniform materials have blurred low-k suppression, which the paper does not model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring stealthy hyperuniform correlations from quantum transport." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OA4NAVR6

@misc{pith2026260811188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring stealthy hyperuniform correlations from quantum transport},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OA4NAVR6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11188}
}
abstract

Stealthy hyperuniform disordered systems exhibit strongly suppressed long-wavelength fluctuations, producing correlated disorder with unusual consequences for wave propagation. A central quantity characterizing these systems is the stealthiness parameter $\chi$, which controls the range of excluded Fourier components in the disorder spectrum. However, in realistic settings, the microscopic disorder configuration may not be directly accessible, making it challenging to determine $\chi$ from structural information alone. Here, we propose a conductance-based inverse protocol to recover stealthy hyperuniform correlations from transport data. As a proof of concept, we study spinless fermions in a one-dimensional tight-binding chain connected to clean semi-infinite leads, with on-site disorder generated by imposing a stealthy spectrum $S(k)=\Theta(|k|-K)$, where $K=2\pi\chi$. The energy-dependent transmittance is computed using a recursive Green's function method and compared with target spectra through a misfit function defined over an energy window. We show that the position of the sharp drop separating high- and low-transmittance regions is strongly controlled by $\chi$, while the disorder strength $W$ mainly affects the absolute magnitude of the transmittance. As a result, the misfit function displays a clear minimum close to the target stealthy parameter. Our results demonstrate that transmittance spectra can serve as fingerprints of stealthy hyperuniform disorder, providing a practical route to infer correlated-disorder parameters from transport measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11188 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Real space potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy-resolved transmittance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy-resolved transmittance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Contour plot of the misfit function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Energy-resolved transmittance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Torquato and F

    S. Torquato and F. H. Stillinger, Local density fluctua- tions, hyperuniformity, and order metrics, Phys. Rev. E 68, 041113 (2003)

    2003

  2. [2]

    Torquato, Hyperuniform states of matter, Phys

    S. Torquato, Hyperuniform states of matter, Phys. Rep. 745, 1 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    C. E. Zachary, Y. Jiao, and S. Torquato, Hyperuni- form long-range correlations are a signature of disordered jammed hard-particle packings, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 178001 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    O. U. Uche, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Constraints on collective density variables: Two dimensions, Phys. Rev. E70, 046122 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    R. D. Batten, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Classical disordered ground states: Super-ideal gases and stealth and equi-luminous materials, J. Appl. Phys.104, 033504 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Torquato, G

    S. Torquato, G. Zhang, and F. H. Stillinger, Ensem- ble theory for stealthy hyperuniform disordered ground states, Phys. Rev. X5, 021020 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Florescu, S

    M. Florescu, S. Torquato, and P. J. Steinhardt, Designer disordered materials with large, complete photonic band gaps, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.106, 20658 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Leseur, R

    O. Leseur, R. Pierrat, and R. Carminati, High-density hyperuniform materials can be transparent, Optica3, 763 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. Torquato, Effective electromagnetic wave properties of disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media beyond the quasistatic regime, Optica10, 965 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. Torquato, Extraordinary optical and transport properties of disordered stealthy hyperuniform two-phase media, J. Phys. Condens. Matter36, 225701 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    M. A. Klatt, P. J. Steinhardt, and S. Torquato, Wave propagation and band tails of two-dimensional disordered systems in the thermodynamic limit, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.119, e2213633119 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    M. A. Klatt, P. J. Steinhardt, and S. Torquato, Trans- parency versus Anderson localization in one-dimensional disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media, Opt. Mater. Express16, 2080 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    L. S. Froufe-P´ erez, M. Engel, J. J. S´ aenz, and F. Schef- fold, Band gap formation and Anderson localization in disordered photonic materials with structural correla- tions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114, 9570 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. Torquato, Predictive formulas for scatter- ing mean free path for general disordered dielectric media beyond the long-wavelength regime, Advanced Optical Materials14, e03370 (2026)

    2026

  7. [15]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices, Phys. Rev.109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    P. A. Lee and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Disordered electronic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.57, 287 (1985)

    1985

  10. [18]

    Sheng,Introduction to Wave Scattering, Localization and Mesoscopic Phenomena, 2nd ed., Springer Series in Materials Science, Vol

    P. Sheng,Introduction to Wave Scattering, Localization and Mesoscopic Phenomena, 2nd ed., Springer Series in Materials Science, Vol. 88 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    F. M. Izrailev and A. A. Krokhin, Localization and the mobility edge in one-dimensional potentials with corre- lated disorder, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4062 (1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    F. M. Izrailev, A. A. Krokhin, and N. M. Makarov, Anomalous localization in low-dimensional systems with 10 correlated disorder, Phys. Rep.512, 125 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Vanoni, J

    C. Vanoni, J. Karcher, M. C. Rechtsman, B. L. Altshuler, P. J. Steinhardt, and S. Torquato, Effective delocalization in the one-dimensional Anderson model with stealthy dis- order, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 150404 (2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. Torquato, Effect of imperfections on the hyperuniformity of many-body systems, Phys. Rev. B97, 054105 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    A. T. Chieco, R. Dreyfus, and D. J. Durian, Charac- terizing pixel and point patterns with a hyperuniformity disorder length, Phys. Rev. E96, 032909 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    W. Man, M. Florescu, E. P. Williamson, Y. He, S. R. Hashemizad, B. Y. C. Leung, D. R. Liner, S. Torquato, P. M. Chaikin, and P. J. Steinhardt, Isotropic band gaps and freeform waveguides observed in hyperuniform disor- dered photonic solids, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.110, 1...

    2013

  17. [25]

    Meek and M

    A. Meek and M. Florescu, Electromagnetic wave localiza- tion in one-dimensional hyperuniform disordered struc- tures, Adv. Opt. Mater.14, e03843 (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Mukim, F

    S. Mukim, F. P. Amorim, A. R. Rocha, R. B. Muniz, C. Lewenkopf, and M. S. Ferreira, Disorder information from conductance: A quantum inverse problem, Phys. Rev. B102, 075409 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Mukim, C

    S. Mukim, C. Lewenkopf, and M. S. Ferreira, Spatial mapping of disordered 2d systems: The conductance su- doku, Carbon188, 360 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Mukim, J

    S. Mukim, J. O’Brien, M. Abarashi, M. S. Ferreira, and C. G. Rocha, Decoding the conductance of disordered nanostructures: A quantum inverse problem, J. Phys. Condens. Matter34, 085901 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    F. R. Duarte, S. Mukim, A. Molina-S´ anchez, T. G. Rap- poport, and M. S. Ferreira, Decoding the DC and optical conductivities of disordered MoS2 films: An inverse prob- lem, New J. Phys.23, 073035 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    F. R. Duarte, F. Matusalem, D. Grasseschi, A. R. Rocha, L. Seixas, C. J. S. de Matos, S. Mukim, and M. S. Fer- reira, Decoding disorder signatures of AuCl 3 and vacan- cies in MoS 2 films: From synthetic to experimental in- version, J. Phys. Condens. Matter36, 495901 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Mukim, M

    S. Mukim, M. E. Kucukbas, S. R. Power, and M. S. Fer- reira, Edge disorder and magnetism in graphene nanorib- bons: An inverse modelling approach, J. Phys. Condens. Matter37, 185302 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    T. F. Macedo, J. Fa´ undez, A. S. Coelho, C. Lewenkopf, M. S. Ferreira, F. A. Pinheiro, and N. C. Costa, Inverse determination of light-matter coupling in disordered sys- tems from transmittance spectra, Phys. Rev. B113, 214202 (2026)

    2026

  25. [33]

    G. J. Aubry, L. S. Froufe-P´ erez, U. Kuhl, O. Legrand, F. Scheffold, and F. Mortessagne, Experimental tuning of transport regimes in hyperuniform disordered photonic materials, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 127402 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Scheffold, J

    F. Scheffold, J. Haberko, S. Magkiriadou, and L. S. Froufe-P´ erez, Transport through amorphous photonic materials with localization and bandgap regimes, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 157402 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Siedentop, G

    L. Siedentop, G. Lui, G. Maret, P. M. Chaikin, P. J. Steinhardt, S. Torquato, P. Keim, and M. Florescu, Stealthy and hyperuniform isotropic photonic band gap structure in 3d, PNAS Nexus3, pgae383 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Vynck, R

    K. Vynck, R. Pierrat, R. Carminati, L. S. Froufe-P´ erez, F. Scheffold, R. Sapienza, S. Vignolini, and J. J. S´ aenz, Light in correlated disordered media, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045003 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Barsukova, Z

    M. Barsukova, Z. Zhang, B. Gould, K. Sadri, C. Rosiek, S. Stobbe, J. Karcher, and M. C. Rechtsman, Stealthy- hyperuniform wave dynamics in two-dimensional pho- tonic crystals, Physical Review X16, 021028 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    J. F. Karcher, S. Gopalakrishnan, and M. C. Rechtsman, Effect of hyperuniform disorder on band gaps, Phys. Rev. B110, 174205 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    D. J. Thouless and S. Kirkpatrick, Conductivity of the disordered linear chain, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.14, 235 (1981)

    1981

  32. [40]

    MacKinnon, The calculation of transport properties and density of states of disordered solids, Z

    A. MacKinnon, The calculation of transport properties and density of states of disordered solids, Z. Phys. B59, 385 (1985)

    1985

  33. [41]

    C. H. Lewenkopf and E. R. Mucciolo, The recursive green’s function method for graphene, J. Comput. Elec- tron.12, 203 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    L. R. F. Lima, A. Dusko, and C. Lewenkopf, Efficient method for computing the electronic transport proper- ties of a multiterminal system, Phys. Rev. B97, 165405 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Meir and N

    Y. Meir and N. S. Wingreen, Landauer formula for the current through an interacting electron region, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 2512 (1992)

    1992

  36. [44]

    Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems, Cambridge Studies in Semiconductor Physics and Mi- croelectronic Engineering (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    S. Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems, Cambridge Studies in Semiconductor Physics and Mi- croelectronic Engineering (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  37. [45]

    Billy, V

    J. Billy, V. Josse, Z. Zuo, A. Bernard, B. Hambrecht, P. Lugan, D. Cl´ ement, L. Sanchez-Palencia, P. Bouyer, and A. Aspect, Direct observation of anderson localiza- tion of matter waves in a controlled disorder, Nature453, 891 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Sanchez-Palencia, D

    L. Sanchez-Palencia, D. Cl´ ement, P. Lugan, P. Bouyer, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and A. Aspect, Anderson localiza- tion of expanding Bose-Einstein condensates in random potentials, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 210401 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    E. J. Meier, F. A. An, and B. Gadway, Atom-optics sim- ulator of lattice transport phenomena, Physical Review A93, 051602 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    F. A. An, E. J. Meier, and B. Gadway, Diffusive and arrested transport of atoms under tailored disorder, Nat. Commun.8, 325 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.