Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Anomalous Bulk Current in Quantum Hall Systems with an Expanding Edge

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An expanding quantum Hall edge produces a bulk energy current that exactly cancels the Hawking-like edge flux, so the total system conserves energy and momentum.

desk verdict Bulk current calculation is real and worth taking seriously, but the exact bulk-edge cancellation is proven only for an idealized translation-invariant profile, and the trace-anomaly factor of two needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20338 v1 pith:RFCKJLXO submitted 2025-06-25 cond-mat.mes-hall gr-qchep-th

Yuuki Sugiyama , Tokiro Numasawa This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallgr-qchep-th
keywords quantumHalleffectgravitationalanomalyinflowexpandingedgeHawkingradiationanalogbulkenergycurrentChern-SimonstheorySchwarzianderivative
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 in a quantum Hall system whose edge is expanding in time, the energy current that appears on the edge—an analog of Hawking radiation—cannot be understood by looking at the edge alone. The same expansion drives a bulk energy current, and the paper derives that the total current parallel to the edge is exactly zero when edge and bulk are added: the integrated bulk component is $-c_- H^2/(48\pi)$, equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to the edge flux. This makes the edge anomaly consistent with anomaly inflow: the chiral edge mode's gravitational anomaly is cancelled by the bulk's gravitational Chern-Simons response. A sympathetic reader would care because it says the expanding-edge setup is a closed, energy-conserving analogue of curved spacetime, and it predicts a measurable bulk current accompanying the Hawking-like edge flux.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the (2+1)-dimensional gravitational Chern-Simons action with coefficient $\beta=c_-/96\pi$, which is what the gapped bulk contributes after the edge modes are integrated out. Its variation produces the bulk stress tensor $T^{\mu\nu}_{\rm bulk}$ and the Bardeen-Zumino boundary polynomial $P^{ij}$; the latter converts the consistent edge anomaly into the covariant anomaly equation, implementing anomaly inflow. On the expanding edge, the conformal factor $\omega(t,x)=1/\cos(Ht)$ in the middle region and the matching function $\Phi[x]=\int_0^x dy\,e^{\Theta(y)}$ encode the de Sitter-like geometry, and the Schwarzian derivative $\mathrm{Sch}[f,x^+_{III}]$ of the coordinate map between flat regions supplies the flux. In the bulk, the metric $ds^2=a^2(t,y)\eta_{ij}dx^idx^j+dy^2$ with $a^2=(\omega(t)^2-1)f(y)+1$ and a smooth profile $f(y)$ carries the energy-current calculation that yields Eq. (73).

What would settle it

Compute $\int_{-\infty}^0 dy\,T^{01}_{\rm bulk}$ in the full three-region metric of Eq. (24), where $\omega(t,x)$ depends on $x$ and the expansion is localized in a strip of width $L$, rather than in the translation-invariant proxy of Eq. (69); if the integral differs from $-c_-H^2/(48\pi)$ or depends on $L$, $n$, or time, the claimed exact compensation is false. A simpler numerical test is to repeat the integral with an interpolation function that violates $f'(0)=0$ and check whether the result shifts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the covariant gravitational anomaly on the expanding edge, $\nabla_i T_{\rm cov}^{ij}=-\beta\bar{\epsilon}^{ij}\nabla_i R$, is induced by anomaly inflow from the bulk, and that solving this anomaly equation gives the edge energy flux $T^{III}_{++}=2\beta H^2\left[1-(\partial x^+_I/\partial x^+_{III})^2\right]$, which approaches $c_-H^2/(48\pi)$ at late times, matching a Gibbons-Hawking thermal flux. The new step is the bulk side: for a translation-invariant metric that interpolates smoothly between edge and flat bulk, the integrated bulk energy current $\int_{-\infty}^0 dy\,T^{01}_{\rm bulk}$ equals $-c_-H^2/(48\pi)$ independent of time and of the interpolation profile, while the total system remains energy-momentum conserving. The paper concludes that the total energy flux parallel to the edge is quantized and the edge anomaly is exactly compensated by the bulk.

Load-bearing premise

The exact cancellation is derived for a simplified edge that is identical at every point along its direction and only varies into the bulk; the actual localized expanding segment used to produce the Hawking-like flux does not have that simplified form, and the cancellation could fail there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Hawking-like edge flux from an expanding quantum Hall edge is not a leak: it is exactly balanced by an opposite bulk current, so the total system conserves energy and momentum.
  • The integrated bulk current $\int dy\,T^{01}_{\rm bulk}=-c_-H^2/(48\pi)$ is universal in the studied profile class, being independent of time and of which smooth interpolation is used, making it a candidate quantized observable.
  • The covariant form of the edge gravitational anomaly follows directly from anomaly inflow in this setup, connecting the expanding-edge geometry to the standard bulk-boundary correspondence.
  • At late times the edge flux coincides with the chiral thermal flux at the Gibbons-Hawking temperature $T_{\rm GH}=H/2\pi$, so the expanding edge can serve as a condensed-matter analog of de Sitter radiation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the exact compensation survives in the full localized, $x$-dependent edge metric, then any experiment that detects the edge Hawking-like flux should also detect a counterpropagating energy current in the bulk, which could serve as a direct falsification test.
  • The universality in $n$ suggests the integrated bulk current may be a topological invariant of the anomaly-inflow structure, protected against details of how the edge is smoothed into the bulk; testing asymmetric or non-smooth profiles would sharpen this.
  • The same covariant-anomaly machinery could be applied to other time-dependent boundaries, such as a contracting edge or a periodically modulated boundary, predicting analogous bulk compensation currents.
  • The paper leaves the physical meaning of $T^{12}_{\rm bulk}$ open; a natural next step is to connect this shear-stress component to momentum exchanges or to measurable heating at the interface.
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 studies a (2+1)-dimensional quantum Hall system with an expanding edge, modeled by a curved metric that interpolates between a flat bulk and a de Sitter-like edge. It derives the covariant gravitational anomaly on the edge from anomaly inflow of a bulk gravitational Chern-Simons term, solves the anomaly equation to obtain an energy flux analogous to Hawking radiation, and reproduces the same flux via a Weyl-anomaly / Schwarzian-derivative computation. It then computes the bulk energy-momentum tensor for two spatial profile functions and claims that the integrated bulk energy current parallel to the edge is quantized and exactly cancels the edge flux. The paper includes analytic formulas for the bulk stress components and an appendix proving the equivalence of the two edge-flux derivations.

Significance. If the bulk-edge cancellation result were established in full generality, it would provide a concrete condensed-matter realization of gravitational anomaly inflow with an explicit bulk current compensating the edge anomaly, which is a valuable contribution. The paper has real strengths: the derivation of the covariant anomaly from the Chern-Simons boundary term is standard and clearly presented; Appendix C gives an independent analytical proof that the Schwarzian-derivative formula equals the anomaly-equation result; and Appendix D supplies explicit closed-form expressions for the bulk stress components for two profile families. The main new claim, however, is the exact compensation of the edge flux by the integrated bulk current, and that claim is currently demonstrated only for a restricted homogeneous proxy geometry and an idealized sharp profile, not for the expanding-edge spacetime introduced in Sections II and III.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.C, Eqs. (73)-(74)] The central claim that the integrated bulk current is quantized and cancels the edge flux is not robust. Equation (73) is derived for the x-translation-invariant metric (69) with a Gaussian profile, and it gives a time-independent value -c_-H^2/(48π). By contrast, the Fermi-Dirac profile in Eq. (74) yields ∫dy T^{bulk}_{01} = -c_-H^2/(48π) [1+e^{-n}(2-−cos 2Ht)]/[1+e^{-n} cos²Ht]², which equals the claimed value only in the limit n→∞ and is time-dependent for finite n. Moreover, the edge flux in Eq. (52) is time-dependent and approaches 2βH² only at late time, so a time-independent bulk integral cannot cancel the edge flux at all times. The conclusion 'the total energy flux parallel to the edge is quantized' should be restricted to the late-time, sharp-profile, translation-invariant limit, or the analysis must be extended to the actual three-region spacetime of Eq. (24).
  2. [Section III.B, Eq. (35), vs. Section III.C, Eq. (54)] The trace condition T^i_i = 2βR used to solve the anomaly equation in Eq. (35) is not reconciled with the Weyl-anomaly trace used later in Eq. (54). With β = c_-/(96π), Eq. (35) gives T^i_i = c_-R/(48π), whereas the standard Weyl anomaly in Eq. (54) is t^i_i = cR/(24π), and after the normalization T_{ij} = t_{ij}/c in Eq. (61) the trace used in Eqs. (63) and (66) is R/(24π) = 4βR. The two trace expressions differ by a factor of 2. Since Eq. (35) is load-bearing for the flux derivation leading to Eq. (52), the paper needs to either correct the normalization or explicitly explain why the same symbol T_{ij} is used with two different trace anomalies.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (20), and Section IV, Eq. (69)] The link between the conservation construction in Eq. (20) and the actual Chern-Simons stress tensor (12) used in Section IV is not established. Equation (20) defines a particular solution of the total conservation equation with a delta-function edge term and a bulk term proportional to ∇_i T^{ij}(t,x)θ(-y), but it is not shown that the bulk stress computed from Eq. (12) for the metric (69) equals this particular solution. Furthermore, the computation in Section IV assumes x-translational invariance, so it cannot capture the step-function boundaries at x = ±L/2 of the three-region metric (24) that are essential for the edge flux in Eq. (52). Without a direct calculation connecting Eq. (73) to the geometry that produces Eq. (52), the anomaly-inflow interpretation of the bulk integral remains a model-based expectation rather than a demonstrated property of the expanding-edge setup.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A, after Eq. (31)] The phrase 'antilogarithm condition' is unclear; presumably it refers to the requirement that the argument of the logarithm in Φ be positive, i.e. 1 − sin(HL/2) > 0. Please rephrase.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (20)] The matrix notation in Eq. (20) is not defined; the symbols O_{2×2}, O_{1×2}, and O_{2×1} should be explained or replaced with zero matrices to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section III.C, after Eq. (54)] The sentence 'the tensor T^{ij} has the same formula as (17)' is imprecise; it should read 'satisfies the same anomaly equation as (17)', since Eq. (17) is an equation, not a formula for the tensor.
  4. [Section IV.C, Fig. 9] The caption of Fig. 9 states that panels (a) and (b) correspond to the Gaussian and Fermi-Dirac cases, but the in-figure labels only show n values; adding the profile type inside each panel would improve readability.
  5. [Appendix D, Eqs. (D3)-(D4)] The expressions for the Fermi-Dirac case appear to have extra factors of sec⁶[Ht] and sec⁴[Ht] relative to the integrated formula in Eq. (74); please check that the boundary term in Eq. (74) is evaluated consistently with these components.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the edge and bulk fluxes are independently derived from the same input coefficients and are cross-checked, not fitted or defined into existence.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained on the points that could be circular. The edge flux (52) is obtained by integrating the covariant anomaly equation (34) across the region boundaries with the explicit conformal factor (30) and coordinate map (29); although the setup follows Refs. [13-15], the matching conditions are re-derived in Appendix B and the equivalence of (52) with the Weyl-anomaly/Schwarzian formula (68) is proved in Appendix C rather than assumed. The covariant edge anomaly (17) follows from the Bardeen-Zumino polynomial P^ij computed from the same gravitational Chern-Simons action, not from the target flux. The bulk stress tensor (12) is the variation of W_CS with respect to the (2+1)-dimensional metric, and the integrated bulk current (73) is evaluated directly from that expression for the profile metric (69); H, beta, c_- and f(y) are inputs, and no quantity appearing in the final cancellation is fitted to the edge flux. The fact that Eqs. (52) and (73) share the coefficient beta is consistency of anomaly inflow, not circularity, since neither formula is used to define the other. The limitation that (73) is derived for an x-translation-invariant proxy metric (69) rather than the three-region spacetime of Eq. (24), and that the Fermi-Dirac version (74) only agrees in the n -> infinity limit, is a validity/scope concern about the bulk-edge compensation claim, not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or definitional reduction was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard anomaly-inflow machinery, not on fitted constants. H, L, n, and y0 are model inputs rather than fit parameters, and the integrated bulk current is independent of the profile parameters in the Gaussian case. The main assumptions to watch are the gravitational Chern-Simons description of the bulk, the imposed trace anomaly form, and the x-translation-invariant metric used for the bulk calculation.

free parameters (4)
  • H = input scale, not fitted
    Expansion rate in e^Theta=1/cos(Ht), Eq. (30). The edge and bulk fluxes scale as H^2; H is the physical input defining the de Sitter analog, not a parameter adjusted to match the predicted flux.
  • L = input width, not fitted
    Width of the expanding Region II in Eq. (24). It enters the map f[x_III^+] and the early-time Schwarzian, but drops out of the late-time flux.
  • n = input exponent, not fitted
    Controls sharpness of the Gaussian and Fermi-Dirac profiles, Eqs. (71) and (72). The Gaussian integrated current is independent of n; the Fermi-Dirac case converges to the Gaussian value only as n tends to infinity.
  • y0 = input crossover scale, not fitted
    Sets the depth of the edge-bulk crossover in the profiles. It does not appear in the integrated Gaussian result Eq. (73).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The gapped 2+1 bulk of the quantum Hall system is described by the parity-odd gravitational Chern-Simons action W_CS with coefficient β=c_-/96π after integrating out bulk modes.
    Invoked in Section II, Eq. (5), citing Ref. [24]. This is the key input that turns the bulk into an anomaly source; if other bulk terms contribute, the inflow calculation changes.
  • domain assumption The whole system (bulk plus edge) is diffeomorphism invariant, so δ_ξ W_tot = 0, Eq. (6).
    This conservation postulate is the origin of anomaly-inflow; it is a physical assumption about the closed system.
  • domain assumption The edge theory is a single chiral CFT with no right-moving mode, so T_{--}=0 in null coordinates, Eq. (36).
    Used in Section III.B to reduce the stress tensor to one component. It is the standard edge of an integer or fractional quantum Hall sample, but it excludes backscattering or multiple edge modes.
  • ad hoc to paper The trace anomaly of the edge has the imposed form T^i_i = 2βR, Eq. (35).
    This condition is stated without derivation and is not reconciled with the later Weyl-anomaly formula t^i_i=c R/(24π) in Eq. (54); the factor of 2 is load-bearing for Eqs. (37)-(52).
  • domain assumption For the bulk profile, f(y) satisfies f(0)=1 and f'(0)=0, with f(y)=exp[-(y/y0)^n] (n even) or a Fermi-Dirac form, and the bulk metric is x-translation invariant, Eq. (69).
    These profiles model a smooth edge-bulk crossover but do not represent the finite three-region expanding edge of Section III; the exact cancellation Eq. (73) is computed in this homogeneous geometry.
  • domain assumption The expansion conformal factor in Region II is e^Θ(t)=1/cos(Ht), defining the de Sitter analog, Eq. (30).
    Taken from prior work Refs. [13-15]; H is then identified with the Gibbons-Hawking temperature.
  • standard math In (1+1) dimensions the Ricci tensor satisfies 2R^j_k = δ^j_k R.
    Used in Eq. (21) to relate the bulk stress to the scalar curvature; a standard identity for two-dimensional spacetimes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous Bulk Current in Quantum Hall Systems with an Expanding Edge." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFCKJLXO

@misc{pith2026250620338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous Bulk Current in Quantum Hall Systems with an Expanding Edge},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFCKJLXO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20338}
}
abstract

Understanding topological phases of matter is essential for advancing both the fundamental theory and practical applications of condensed matter physics. Recently, a theoretical framework for a quantum Hall system with an expanding edge state was proposed [Phys. Rev. D {\bf 105}, 105009 (2022)], revealing the existence of an energy flux analogous to Hawking radiation on the edge. Motivated by this work, we extend the analysis to a model of a $(2+1)$-dimensional spacetime that includes both the bulk and edge regions. Due to the presence of bulk and edges, we demonstrate that the covariant form of the gravitational anomaly appears on the edge via the anomaly-inflow mechanism. Then, we investigate the energy flux on the edge from the viewpoint of gravitational anomalies, such as covariant gravitational and Weyl anomalies. We also find that, due to the conservation of energy and momentum in the entire system, the presence of anomalous currents on the expanding edge induces non-trivial currents in the bulk originating from the expansion of the edge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20338 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic picture of the quantum Hall system with an expanding edge. The edge state exists at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The behavior of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The behavior of the scalar curvature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The behavior of the energy-momentum tensor in the bulk as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the behavior of f(y) for n = 2, 10, 100 y/y0. Similar to the Gaussian profile discussed in the previous subsection, increasing n sharpens the transition at y = y0, effectively localizing the edge region. However, a key difference arises at the boundary y = 0: thi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The behavior of the scalar curvature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The behavior of the energy-momentum tensor in the bulk as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The behavior of the energy-momentum tensor in the bulk as a function of 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (A2) The covariant totally anti-symmetric tensor is defined by ¯ϵij = √ −hϵij, ¯ϵij = ϵij √ −h (A3) with h := det hij = −ω4

    Minkowski coordinate case The line element is ds2 = ω2(−(dx0)2 + (dx1)2) = hijdxidxj, (A1) where we introduced the metric hij in (1 + 1)-dimension as hij = ω2 −1 0 0 1 , h ij = ω−2 −1 0 0 1 . (A2) The covariant totally anti-symmetric tensor is defined by ¯ϵij = √ −hϵij, ¯ϵij = ϵij √ −h (A3) with h := det hij = −ω4. The components are explicitly given by ¯...

    work page

  2. [2]

    edge states

    This transformation acts on the bulk stress tensor as T bulk µν =   T bulk 00 T bulk 01 T bulk 02 T bulk 10 T bulk 11 T bulk 12 T bulk 20 T bulk 21 T bulk 22   →   −T bulk 00 T bulk 01 −T bulk 02 T bulk 10 −T bulk 11 T bulk 12 −T bulk 20 T bulk 21 −T bulk 22   (70) Therefore, only two components T bulk 01 , Tbulk 12 remain when the metric has refl...

    work page

  3. [3]

    null coordinate case Introducing the null coordinate, x± := x0 ± x1, the line-element (A1) can be rewritten as ds2 = −ω2dx+dx− = hijdxidxj, (A6) where, in this coordinate, the metric tensor is defined as hij = − ω2 2 0 1 1 0 , h ij = −2ω−2 0 1 1 0 . (A7) The covariant totally anti-symmetric tensor ¯ϵij = √ −hϵij and ¯ϵij = ϵij/ √ −h with √ −h = ω2/2 are r...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Nayak, S

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

    2008

  5. [5]

    B. A. Bernevig and T. L. Hughes, Topological Insulators and Topological Superconductors (Princeton University Press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Moessner and J

    R. Moessner and J. E. Moore, Topological Phases of Matter (Cambridge University Press, 2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    X.-G. W. and, Advances in Physics 44, 405 (1995), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018739500101566. 19

    doi:10.1080/00018739500101566 1995

  8. [8]

    Altland and M

    A. Altland and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. B 55, 1142 (1997)

    1997

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  2. [10]

    Kohmoto, Annals of Physics 160, 343 (1985)

    M. Kohmoto, Annals of Physics 160, 343 (1985)

    1985

  3. [11]

    Hatsugai, Phys

    Y. Hatsugai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3697 (1993)

    1993

  4. [12]

    A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B 78, 195125 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Kitaev, AIP Conference Proceedings 1134, 22 (2009), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article- pdf/1134/1/22/11584243/22 1 online.pdf

    A. Kitaev, AIP Conference Proceedings 1134, 22 (2009), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article- pdf/1134/1/22/11584243/22 1 online.pdf

    2009

  6. [14]

    S. Ryu, A. P. Schnyder, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, New Journal of Physics 12, 065010 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Yoshioka, The Quantum Hall Effect , Vol

    D. Yoshioka, The Quantum Hall Effect , Vol. 133 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Hotta, Y

    M. Hotta, Y. Nambu, Y. Sugiyama, K. Yamamoto, and G. Yusa, Phys. Rev. D 105, 105009 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Nambu and M

    Y. Nambu and M. Hotta, Phys. Rev. D 107, 085002 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Yoshimoto and Y

    R. Yoshimoto and Y. Nambu, Physics Letters A 529, 130100 (2025), arXiv:2407.02796 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kamiyama, M

    A. Kamiyama, M. Matsuura, J. N. Moore, T. Mano, N. Shibata, and G. Yusa, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L012040 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Kamiyama, M

    A. Kamiyama, M. Matsuura, J. N. Moore, T. Mano, N. Shibata, and G. Yusa, Dynamics of the fractional quantum hall edge probed by stroboscope measurements of trions (2022), arXiv:2212.05507 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    France, Y

    Q. France, Y. Jeong, A. Kamiyama, T. Mano, K. ichi Sasaki, M. Hotta, and G. Yusa, Electrically induced bulk and edge excitations in the fractional quantum hall regime (2025), arXiv:2502.01052 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S. P. Robinson and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 011303 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    S. Iso, H. Umetsu, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 151302 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    S. Iso, H. Umetsu, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 74, 044017 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Alvarez-Gaum´ e and E

    L. Alvarez-Gaum´ e and E. Witten, Nuclear Physics B234, 269 (1984)

    1984

  18. [26]

    Callan and J

    C. Callan and J. Harvey, Nuclear Physics B 250, 427 (1985)

    1985

  19. [27]

    Witten and K

    E. Witten and K. Yonekura, in The Shoucheng Zhang Memorial Workshop (2019) arXiv:1909.08775 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cappelli, M

    A. Cappelli, M. Huerta, and G. R. Zemba, Nuclear Physics B 636, 568 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 103, 207 (1981)

    1981

  22. [30]

    Polchinski, String theory

    J. Polchinski, String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Nakahara, Geometry, topology and physics (Taylor & Francis, 2003) bristol, UK: Hilger (1990) 505 p

    M. Nakahara, Geometry, topology and physics (Taylor & Francis, 2003) bristol, UK: Hilger (1990) 505 p. (Graduate student series in physics)

    1990

  24. [32]

    Maldacena and X.-L

    J. Maldacena and X.-L. Qi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1804.00491 (2018), arXiv:1804.00491 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. A. Harvey, Tasi 2003 lectures on anomalies (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0509097 [hep-th]

    2005 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jensen, R

    K. Jensen, R. Loganayagam, and A. Yarom, Journal of High Energy Physics 2013, 88 (2013), arXiv:1207.5824 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R. A. Bertlmann, Anomalies in Quantum Field Theory (Oxford University Press, 2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Hotta, Y

    K. Hotta, Y. Hyakutake, T. Kubota, T. Nishinaka, and H. Tanida, Physics Letters B 680, 279 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    W. A. Bardeen and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 244, 421 (1984)

    1984

  30. [38]

    R. A. Bertlmann and E. Kohlprath, Annals of Physics 288, 137 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0011067 [hep-th]

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Stone, Phys

    M. Stone, Phys. Rev. B 85, 184503 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Kobayashi and K

    S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu, Foundations of differential geometry. Vol I (Interscience Publishers, a division of John Wiley & Sons, New York-Lond on, 1963) pp. xi+329

    1963

  33. [41]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2738 (1977)

    1977

  34. [42]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    T. L. Hughes, R. G. Leigh, O. Parrikar, and S. T. Ramamurthy, Phys. Rev. D 93, 065059 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.