Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 220 references

Fractonic Fractional Quantum Hall Effect

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs an exactly solvable model in which unevenly spaced quantum wires with different fractionalizations form a gapped, non-crystalline fractional quantum Hall phase whose elementary excitations are fractonic lineons and…

desk verdict A clever, honest coupled-wire construction for aperiodic fractonic FQHE, but the charge-conservation repair via a superconducting substrate is asserted, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18337 v4 pith:UOWN2HB7 submitted 2025-04-25 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Justin Schirmann , Peru d'Ornellas , Charles Stahl , Adolfo G. Grushin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords fractonsfractionalquantumHalleffectcoupled-wireconstructionlineonsanyonsnon-crystallinetopologicalorderbosonisationground-statedegeneracy
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 claims that an array of quantum wires placed at unevenly spaced positions can be coupled into one gapped fractional quantum Hall phase even when neighbouring wires carry different fractionalization fractions, provided the fractions are related by an integer ratio that is a square. The construction stays exactly solvable because the boundary fields between each pair of wires satisfy the null-vector condition, and momentum conservation then forces the non-uniform positions that make the phase possible. The resulting phase is fractonic: an elementary quasiparticle, a kink in the difference field between two wires, cannot be moved to the neighbouring gap by any local fermionic operator, while composites of $a_j$ kinks can hop one step (spread-lineons) and composites of $a_j a_{j+1}$ kinks are fully mobile C-anyons. The ground-state degeneracy is $N_{G.S.}=u\prod_j a_j$, exponential in the number of wires, and both this degeneracy and the mutual statistics are set by the real-space positions of the wires. If correct, this supplies an analytically solvable example of a non-crystalline fractional quantum Hall state and a two-dimensional fractonic phase.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quasiwire, the bosonic sum and difference field pair defined between each pair of physical wires, $\tilde\theta_{j+1/2}=\tfrac12(a_{j+1}\tilde\phi_j^R-a_j\tilde\phi_{j+1}^L)$, whose cosine coupling $\cos(2\tilde\theta_{j+1/2})$ gaps the array when all $\tilde\theta$ fields pin to multiples of $\pi$. The load-bearing identity is the commutation relation $[\partial_x\tilde\theta_{j+1/2}(x),\tilde\theta_{j+1/2}(x')]=(\pi i/4)(u_1 b^2-u_2 a^2)\delta(x-x')$, which vanishes precisely when $u_1/u_2=(a/b)^2$; this is the condition that lets regions with different fractionalizations be glued into one gapped solvable phase. The same algebra, encoded as an $N\times 2N$ integer matrix, does two further jobs: its lattice index $u\prod_j a_j$ proves that single-kink transport between quasiwires is impossible for any local operator, and the identical matrix of gauge transformations counts the inequivalent ground states, giving the exponential degeneracy.

What would settle it

Take a small periodic array with given $a_j$ and $u$, enumerate all local fermionic operators, and exactly diagonalise the bosonised Hamiltonian: finding any operator that shifts a single quasiwire kink number by $\pm 1$ without compensation, or a ground-state degeneracy different from $u\prod_j a_j$, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper shows that the bosonised coupled-wire construction extends from uniform arrays to aperiodic ones by assigning the $j$-th wire fractionalization $u a_j^2$, with adjacent $a_j$ coprime, and coupling neighbouring quasiwires with $\cos(2\tilde\theta_{j+1/2})$. The commutator of the local difference field $\tilde\theta_{j+1/2}$ with itself vanishes exactly when two adjacent fractionalizations obey $u_1/u_2=(a/b)^2$, so differently fractionalized edges can be hybridised while the model remains exactly solvable; momentum conservation then fixes the wire positions, making the non-uniform spacing a resource rather than an obstruction. In the gapped ground state each $\tilde\theta_{j+1/2}$ is pinned to a multiple of $\pi$, and a kink is an elementary quasiparticle. The algebra of local bare-fermion operators generates a sublattice of kink configurations whose index is $u\prod_j a_j$, proving that no local operator can move a single kink between quasiwires, and the same counting identifies the gauge-inequivalent ground states, giving $N_{G.S.}=u\prod_j a_j$. Braiding a mobile C-anyon around an elementary lineon yields a phase $2\pi/(u a_j a_{j+1})$, so the topological data are position-dependent.

Load-bearing premise

The construction restores charge conservation by adding a superconducting substrate wire, and assumes this substrate leaves the fractionalized phase unchanged; if the substrate introduces gapless modes or shifts the gap structure, the claimed gapped fractonic phase is not realised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A periodic stacking of wires with a repeating pattern of $a_j$ produces a crystalline fractonic fractional quantum Hall phase; a non-repeating pattern produces the non-crystalline version.
  • The real-space wire separations directly set the ground-state degeneracy and the mutual statistics, so disorder in position is converted into controlled topological data rather than being a source of instabilities.
  • The immobility of single quasiparticles is a hard constraint: any operator that would move one lineon between quasiwires is not expressible in terms of bare fermionic fields, hence cannot appear as a Hamiltonian perturbation.
  • Bundling lineons restores mobility in stages: $a_j$-fold composites hop one quasiwire (s-lineons), and $a_j a_{j+1}$-fold composites become fully mobile C-anyons whose mutual statistics with an elementary lineon is $2\pi/(u a_j a_{j+1})$.
  • The ground-state degeneracy $N_{G.S.}=u\prod_j a_j$ grows exponentially with the number of wires, the standard signature of a fractonic phase; the paper leaves the stability of this degeneracy under generic perturbations to future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the construction's physical status is whether the exponential ground-state degeneracy survives generic local perturbations; the authors only prove it at the exactly solvable point, and the stack-of-clock-models analogy they cite suggests the degeneracy may need a symmetry to protect it.
  • The same square-ratio gluing should transfer to non-Abelian fractionalized wire constructions and to spin-liquid wirings, potentially giving non-Abelian or symmetry-enriched fractonic phases; the paper notes these as future directions.
  • The charge-conservation repair via a superconducting substrate implies a concrete experimental fingerprint: a realisation without a nearby charge reservoir would be unable to write the boundary coupling, so the phase should appear only when the wire array is proximitized by a superconductor.
  • If the degeneracy is symmetry-protected rather than intrinsic, the phase would be a symmetry-enriched fracton model rather than a stable topological order; this distinction could be settled by adding a symmetry-breaking perturbation and measuring the splitting.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an exactly solvable coupled-wire model of a gapped two-dimensional electronic state with spatially non-uniform inter-wire spacing. Wires with fractionalization parameters u a_j^2 are coupled via cosine terms cos(2θ̃_{j+1/2}), forming a globally gapped phase. The authors derive an exponential ground state degeneracy N_G.S. = u ∏_j a_j (Eq. 93), classify excitations into lineons, spread-lineons, and freely mobile C-anyons, and compute their mutual statistics. The construction is presented as a 'fractonic fractional quantum Hall effect' realizable in non-crystalline arrangements. Appendices provide bosonization identities, a proposed charge-conservation repair via a superconducting substrate, an RG analysis of coupling relevance, and a sublattice-index calculation of the degeneracy.

Significance. If the construction and its physical interpretation hold, this is an important contribution: it is a rare exactly solvable construction of a gapped 2D state with fractonic excitations and exponential ground state degeneracy, extending coupled-wire fractional quantum Hall constructions to non-uniform arrays. The derivations are algebraic and parameter-free; no parameters are fitted to data, the RG analysis in Appendix C supports the relevance of the couplings, and the sublattice-index calculation in Appendix D is carried out explicitly and checked numerically. The main open questions concern the status of the charge-conservation repair and the robustness of the degeneracy; these must be resolved before the 'phase' claim can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B.1 and Appendix B] The coupling in Eq. (52) is shown to violate charge conservation by adding (a−b) bare fermions. The proposed repair in Appendix B adds a substrate wire but does not specify its Hamiltonian. The modified coupling (B2) depends on φ_sub, which is canonically conjugate to the substrate density ∂xθ_sub; a one-dimensional wire is gapless unless an explicit pairing term is included, and no such term is written. The assertion that the substrate 'changes none of the properties of the fractionalised phase' is therefore unsupported. Since the ground state degeneracy (Eq. (93)) and all braiding calculations are performed for the fractionalized layer alone, the substrate could introduce additional low-energy degrees of freedom or alter the gauge-inequivalent sector count. The authors should either specify a gapped substrate Hamiltonian and prove that integrating it out leaves the θ̃-sector structure and the degeneracy unchanged, or reformulate the charge-conserving construction without a substrate and recompute the central quantities.
  2. [Section V.B and Section VII] The manuscript explicitly leaves the stability of the ground state degeneracy to future work and, in the clock-model comparison, states 'Whether the clock state operator remains nonlocal in our construction is central to whether our ground state degeneracy is robust.' This unresolved robustness undermines the characterization of the result as a 'fractonic fractional quantum Hall phase' in the abstract and introduction, because a phase is conventionally required to be robust to local perturbations. The authors should either provide an argument that N_G.S. = u∏_j a_j is robust against local perturbations, identify a protecting symmetry (as they suggest in Section V.B), or explicitly restrict the claims to the exactly solvable Hamiltonian and use a qualified term such as 'exactly solvable fractonic model.'
  3. [Section V.A] The proof of the hard fractonic constraint defines 'local' operators as those expressible as products of bare fermionic fields, which is appropriate for perturbations to the microscopic Hamiltonian. However, the abstract's stronger statement that 'no physical operator can transport a single fracton between wires' needs qualification: operators built from the low-energy bosonic fields, such as exponentials of φ̃_{j+1/2}, are local in the effective theory but need not be expressible in the electron basis. Please state explicitly that the immobility result applies to all operators that are local in the bare-electron basis, and clarify whether this is the intended physical notion of mobility in the fractionalized phase.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix B] The sentence 'the substrate may interpreted to be in a superconducting phase' is missing the verb 'be'.
  2. [Appendix B] The sentence 'To satisfy momentum conservation must we must also fulfil' is ungrammatical; please rewrite.
  3. [Section VII] There are typos in the conclusions: 'excitaitions' and 'Futhermore' should be corrected.
  4. [Appendix D] The word 'dimenstion' appears in the first paragraph; please correct to 'dimension'.
  5. [Section IV.B.1 and Appendix B] The operator that propagates a quasiparticle along a quasiwire is denoted ϱ in Eq. (71) but referred to as ρ in Appendix B; please unify the notation.
  6. [Appendix C] The statement that 'any coupling with α≥1, β≥0 will be strictly less relevant' excludes pure φ̃ couplings (α=0, β=1); while these are irrelevant in the regime K < 1/m, the exclusion should be stated explicitly for completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: GSD, braiding phases, and fracton constraints follow from the bosonized commutation relations; self-citations are motivational only.

full rationale

The central results are derived from the stated bosonized algebra, not assumed. The ground-state degeneracy N_G.S. = u∏a_j (Eq. 93) is computed as the index of the sublattice generated by gauge transformations (Eqs. 87–93 and Appendix D), a linear-algebra calculation whose inputs are the commutation relations and the definition of local gauge moves, not the degeneracy itself. The fractonic constraint is likewise derived: local bare-fermion operators are shown to generate a sublattice of index u∏a_j (Eqs. 83–86), so the immobility of single quasiparticles follows from the operator algebra rather than being imposed. Braiding statistics (Eq. 78) follow from the commutators and the pinned expectation values ⟨θ̃⟩ ∈ πZ. The condition u1/u2 = (a/b)^2 is derived from requiring θ̃ to commute with itself (Eqs. 43–44) and is corroborated, not imported, by the external Haldane null-vector citation. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. 35, 36, 50) appear only in the introduction or experimental motivation and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The main weakness is not circularity: Appendix B asserts that a superconducting substrate 'changes none of the properties of the fractionalised phase' without proving the substrate remains gapped and inert, which is an unverified correctness assumption about the construction, not a claim that reduces to its own input. Score 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The construction rests on standard bosonization of 1D fermions plus several model-specific choices: integer fractionalization parameters u and a_j chosen by hand, a parity-symmetric kinetic term, the conventional gapped-limit assumption, and a substrate wire added to repair charge non-conservation. None of these are fitted to data, but all constrain the predicted phenomenology.

free parameters (2)
  • u = odd positive integer, chosen by hand
    Global fractionalization integer. Sets the common fractionalization scale u a_j^2 on each wire; enters the mutual statistics phase 2π/u and the ground state degeneracy u∏a_j (Eq. 93). Not fitted to data.
  • a_j = set of positive integers, adjacent values coprime
    Wire-dependent integer defining the fractionalization u a_j^2 of wire j. Determines the mobility classes (lineons, s-lineons, C-anyons) and the exponential ground state degeneracy. Chosen by hand; no experiment fixes them.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Bosonization identities for 1D fermions hold, including the point-splitting prescription for fermion products
    Used throughout to map the fermionic wire Hamiltonian to the bosonic sine-Gordon form (Eqs. 12-16).
  • domain assumption The system respects parity symmetry, so mixed ∂θ̃ ∂φ̃ kinetic terms are absent
    Appendix C uses parity invariance (x→-x, y→-y) to eliminate off-diagonal blocks in the kinetic matrix; needed to write the kinetic term in diagonal form.
  • domain assumption The 'conventional limit' of the coupled-wire bosonization: kinetic terms involving φ̃ are weak enough not to close the gap opened by the cosine couplings
    Stated in Section IV after Eq. (56): 'we shall assume that we are working in this limit, the conventional limit where such bosonisation constructions are valid'. If violated, the θ̃-ordered gapped ground state is destroyed.
  • ad hoc to paper Charge conservation can be restored by adding a non-fractionalized superconducting substrate wire without altering the fractionalized phase
    Introduced in Section III.B.1 and Appendix B to repair the bare charge non-conservation of the gluing coupling (Eq. 52). The harmless character of the substrate is asserted, not proven.
  • domain assumption Adjacent a_j are coprime; non-coprime factors can be absorbed into u
    Assumed in Section V for the sublattice index and GSD computations; footnote 177 argues common factors can be absorbed into u.
invented entities (2)
  • Superconducting substrate wire
    purpose: Restores charge conservation for couplings between differently fractionalized regions without adding fractionalized degrees of freedom.
    Added to the model in Appendix B; no independent experimental signature is proposed for it, and its non-perturbing character is assumed.
  • Fractonic FQH phase with lineons, s-lineons, and C-anyons
    purpose: The proposed new gapped phase; the excitations are its defining features.
    No experimental signature unique to this phase is given; distinguishing measurements are left to future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractonic Fractional Quantum Hall Effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UOWN2HB7

@misc{pith2026250418337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractonic Fractional Quantum Hall Effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UOWN2HB7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18337}
}
read the original abstract

In non-interacting systems, disorder can drive a trivial phase into a topological one. However little is known how to construct a fractional quantum Hall ground-state, a paradigmatic topologically ordered state, that exists both in crystalline and disordered lattices and is qualitatively different to known topological phases. Here, we propose a general method for building such a phase. This is done by coupling quantum wires placed aperiodically in real-space, where the spatial positioning allows us to tune the inter-wire couplings. We call the emergent phase the Fractonic Fractional Quantum Hall Effect as it displays a rich interplay of fractional quantum Hall physics with fractonic constraints, formed by coupling differently-fractionalised wires into a globally gapped phase. The ground state has an exponential degeneracy in system size, a signature of the emergence of fractons. It displays a rich phenomenology of excitations, which can either behave like anyons confined to move in one dimension (lineons), multiples of which can then hop between two wires (s-lineons) or be free to travel across the system (C-anyons), depending on the multiplicity. Both the ground state degeneracy and mutual statistics are directly determined by the real-space positions of the wires, which can be disordered. Our method provides an analytically solvable pathway to non-crystalline fractional quantum Hall effects and fractonic theories in two-dimensions, examples of which were lacking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18337 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The mapping from (a) non-uniformly coupled wires to (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Dispersion for three coupled wires placed at positions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A diagram for an example coupling between two wires, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The coupling that stabilises a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Two regions of coupled wires where the lower (purple) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Transport of anyons through a system of fractionalised wires. Each wire may be differently fractionalised with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. A single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

220 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (65) Re-expressed in terms of fractionalised fields, this takes the form χj(x) = exp −i ua2 j [˜ϕR j (x)− ˜ϕL j (x)] !

    Moving Anyons Between Quasiwires—Let us first consider the backscatter- ing of a single fermion from R toL on a single wire, repre- sented by the following operator, χj(x) =ψL j † (x)ψR j (x) →e−i[ϕR j (x)−ϕL j (x)]. (65) Re-expressed in terms of fractionalised fields, this takes the form χj(x) = exp −i ua2 j [˜ϕR j (x)− ˜ϕL j (x)] ! . (66) We now compute...

  2. [2]

    (66) and (71), we see that thex andy-directions in our model effectively ‘see’ a different type of quasipar- ticle

    Lineons and Composite Anyons Following the form of the above quasiparticle transport op- erators Eqs. (66) and (71), we see that thex andy-directions in our model effectively ‘see’ a different type of quasipar- ticle. In the x-direction, each quasiparticle is free to move independently along the wire. However, in the y-direction quasiparticles can only be...

  3. [3]

    OnlyC-type composite particles can be trans- ported freely around the system, whereas lineons can only participate by having a C-type quasiparticle moved around them

    Braiding Let us now calculate the braiding statistics of the anyons in our system. OnlyC-type composite particles can be trans- ported freely around the system, whereas lineons can only participate by having a C-type quasiparticle moved around them. Note that, for the braiding statistics to pick up only a topological phase, one must perform braiding with ...

  4. [4]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    Nayak, S

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

    2008

  6. [6]

    Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1559 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

Show all 220 references
  1. [9]

    D. N. Sheng, X. Wan, E. H. Rezayi, K. Yang, R. N. Bhatt, and F. D. M. Haldane, Physical Review Letters 90, 256802 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    C. L. Kane, M. P. A. Fisher, and J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 4129 (1994)

    1994

  3. [11]

    C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B51, 13449 (1995)

    1995

  4. [12]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2090 (1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    Kao, C.-H

    H.-c. Kao, C.-H. Chang, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 5563 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Yutushui, J

    M. Yutushui, J. Park, and A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. B 110, 035402 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    S. H. Simon, Topological Quantum (Oxford University Press, New York, 2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Manna, B

    S. Manna, B. Pal, W. Wang, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023401 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Manna, C

    S. Manna, C. W. Duncan, C. A. Weidner, J. F. Sherson, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 105, L021302 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Manna, C

    S. Manna, C. W. Duncan, C. A. Weidner, J. F. Sherson, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 107, 069901 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    X. Li, M. C. Jha, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. B 105, 085152 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    M. C. Jha and A. E. B. Nielsen, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2023, 053103 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    B. d. z. Jaworowski, M. Iversen, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 107, 063315 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    C. W. Duncan, S. Manna, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. B 101, 115413 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y . Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y . Ran, T. Cao, L. Fu, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Y . Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Knüppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature622, 69 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y . Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J.-H. Chu, T. Cao, L. Fu, W. Yao, C.-Z. Chang, D. Cobden, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Nature 622, 74 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y . Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y . Zhang, X. Liu, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. X13, 031037 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    K. Kang, B. Shen, Y . Qiu, Y . Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature628, 522 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, J. Li, C. Zheng, C. Xu, J. Gao, T. Jia, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, L. Lu, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, S. Lei, X. Liu, and T. Li, Signatures of unconventional superconductivity near reentrant and fractional quantum anomalous hall in...

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y . Yao, A. P. Reddy, J. Yang, J. Seo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature626, 759 (2024). 16

    2024

  22. [30]

    J. Xie, Z. Huo, X. Lu, Z. Feng, Z. Zhang, W. Wang, Q. Yang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Liu, Z. Song, X. C. Xie, J. Liu, and X. Lu, Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16944 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Waters, A

    D. Waters, A. Okounkova, R. Su, B. Zhou, J. Yao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Xu, Y .-H. Zhang, J. Folk, and M. Yankowitz, Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/22408.10133 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y . Yao, Z. Hadjri, J. Yang, J. Seo, L. Shi, S. Ye, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and L. Ju, Nature637, 1090 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236804 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Tang, J.-W

    E. Tang, J.-W. Mei, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236802 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    K. Sun, Z. Gu, H. Katsura, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236803 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    D. N. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Nature Commu- nications 2, 389 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Regnault and B

    N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021014 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    A. G. Grushin and C. Repellin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 186702 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Cassella, P

    G. Cassella, P. d’Ornellas, T. Hodson, W. M. H. Natori, and J. Knolle, Nature Communications 14, 6663 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Y . E. Kraus, Y . Lahini, Z. Ringel, M. Verbin, and O. Zilberberg, Physical Review Letters 109, 106402 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    D. T. Tran, A. Dauphin, N. Goldman, and P. Gaspard, Physical Review B 91, 085125 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    M. A. Bandres, M. C. Rechtsman, and M. Segev, Physical Review X 6, 011016 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Fuchs and J

    J.-N. Fuchs and J. Vidal, Physical Review B94, 205437 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Huang and F

    H. Huang and F. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 98, 125130 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Fuchs, R

    J.-N. Fuchs, R. Mosseri, and J. Vidal, Physical Review B 98, 145 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    T. A. Loring, Journal of Mathematical Physics 60, 081903 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Varjas, A

    D. Varjas, A. Lau, K. Pöyhönen, A. R. Akhmerov, D. I. Pikulin, and I. C. Fulga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 196401 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Chen, D.-H

    R. Chen, D.-H. Xu, and B. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115311 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    He, L.-R

    A.-L. He, L.-R. Ding, Y . Zhou, Y .-F. Wang, and C.-D. Gong, Phys. Rev. B 100, 214109 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Zilberberg, Opt

    O. Zilberberg, Opt. Mater. Express 11, 1143 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Hua, Z.-R

    C.-B. Hua, Z.-R. Liu, T. Peng, R. Chen, D.-H. Xu, and B. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 104, 155304 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    J. Jeon, M. J. Park, and S. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 105, 045146 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Schirmann, S

    J. Schirmann, S. Franca, F. Flicker, and A. G. Grushin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 086402 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Agarwala and V

    A. Agarwala and V . B. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 236402 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Mansha and Y

    S. Mansha and Y . D. Chong, Phys. Rev. B96, 121405 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Xiao and S

    M. Xiao and S. Fan, Phys. Rev. B 96, 100202 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    N. P. Mitchell, L. M. Nash, D. Hexner, A. M. Turner, and W. T. M. Irvine, Nature Physics14, 380 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Bourne and E

    C. Bourne and E. Prodan, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51, 235202 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Pöyhönen, I

    K. Pöyhönen, I. Sahlberg, A. Westström, and T. Ojanen, Nature Communications 9, 2103 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    E. L. Minarelli, K. Pöyhönen, G. A. R. van Dalum, T. Ojanen, and L. Fritz, Physical Review B 99, 165413 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Chern, Europhysics Letters 126, 37002 (2019)

    G.-W. Chern, Europhysics Letters 126, 37002 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Mano and T

    T. Mano and T. Ohtsuki, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 88, 123704 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Corbae, S

    P. Corbae, S. Ciocys, D. Varjas, E. Kennedy, S. Zeltmann, M. Molina-Ruiz, S. M. Griffin, C. Jozwiak, Z. Chen, L.-W. Wang, A. M. Minor, M. Scott, A. G. Grushin, A. Lanzara, and F. Hellman, Nature Materials 22, 200 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Costa, G

    M. Costa, G. R. Schleder, M. Buongiorno Nardelli, C. Lewenkopf, and A. Fazzio, Nano Letters 19, 8941 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Marsal, D

    Q. Marsal, D. Varjas, and A. G. Grushin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 30260 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Sahlberg, A

    I. Sahlberg, A. Westström, K. Pöyhönen, and T. Ojanen, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013053 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    M. N. Ivaki, I. Sahlberg, and T. Ojanen, Physical Review Re- search 2, 043301 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Agarwala, V

    A. Agarwala, V . Juriˇci´c, and B. Roy, Physical Review Research 2, 012067 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    A. G. Grushin, in Low-Temperature Thermal and Vibrational Properties of Disordered Solids, edited by M. A. Ramos (World Scientific, 2022) Chap. 11

    2022

  62. [70]

    Wang, Y .-B

    J.-H. Wang, Y .-B. Yang, N. Dai, and Y . Xu, Physical Review Letters 126, 206404 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Corbae, F

    P. Corbae, F. Hellman, and S. M. Griffin, Phys. Rev. B 103, 214203 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Focassio, G

    B. Focassio, G. R. Schleder, M. Costa, A. Fazzio, and C. Lewenkopf, 2D Materials 8, 025032 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    N. P. Mitchell, A. M. Turner, and W. T. M. Irvine, Physical Review E 104, 025007 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Spring, A

    H. Spring, A. Akhmerov, and D. Varjas, SciPost Physics 11, 022 (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    C. Wang, T. Cheng, Z. Liu, F. Liu, and H. Huang, Physical Review Letters 128, 056401 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    Marsal, D

    Q. Marsal, D. Varjas, and A. G. Grushin, Phys. Rev. B 107, 045119 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Peng, C.-B

    T. Peng, C.-B. Hua, R. Chen, Z.-R. Liu, H.-M. Huang, and B. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 106, 125310 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    A. J. Uría-Álvarez, D. Molpeceres-Mingo, and J. J. Palacios, Phys. Rev. B 105, 155128 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Muñoz Segovia, P

    D. Muñoz Segovia, P. Corbae, D. Varjas, F. Hellman, S. M. Griffin, and A. G. Grushin, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L042011 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Corbae, J

    P. Corbae, J. D. Hannukainen, Q. Marsal, D. Muñoz-Segovia, and A. G. Grushin, Europhysics Letters 142, 16001 (2023)

    2023

  73. [82]

    S. T. Ciocys, Q. Marsal, P. Corbae, D. Varjas, E. Kennedy, M. Scott, F. Hellman, A. G. Grushin, and A. Lanzara, Nature Communications 15, 8141 (2024)

    2024

  74. [83]

    Uría-Álvarez and J

    A. Uría-Álvarez and J. Palacios, Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16034 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Brzezi´nska, A

    M. Brzezi´nska, A. M. Cook, and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. B98, 205116 (2018)

    2018

  76. [85]

    Pai and A

    S. Pai and A. Prem, Phys. Rev. B 100, 155135 (2019)

    2019

  77. [86]

    A. A. Iliasov, M. I. Katsnelson, and S. Yuan, Phys. Rev. B101, 045413 (2020)

    2020

  78. [87]

    Fremling, M

    M. Fremling, M. van Hooft, C. M. Smith, and L. Fritz, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013044 (2020)

    2020

  79. [88]

    Z. Yang, E. Lustig, Y . Lumer, and M. Segev, Light: Science & Applications 9, 128 (2020)

    2020

  80. [89]

    Manna, S

    S. Manna, S. K. Das, and B. Roy, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174512 (2024)

    2024

  81. [90]

    Manna and B

    S. Manna and B. Roy, Communications Physics 6, 10 (2023)

    2023

  82. [91]

    J. Li, Q. Mo, J.-H. Jiang, and Z. Yang, Science Bulletin 67, 2040 (2022)

    2022

  83. [92]

    Zheng, X

    S. Zheng, X. Man, Z.-L. Kong, Z.-K. Lin, G. Duan, N. Chen, D. Yu, J.-H. Jiang, and B. Xia, Science Bulletin 67, 2069 (2022)

    2022

  84. [93]

    Biesenthal, L

    T. Biesenthal, L. J. Maczewsky, Z. Yang, M. Kremer, M. Segev, A. Szameit, and M. Heinrich, Science 376, 1114 (2022). 17

    2022

  85. [94]

    M. N. Ivaki, I. Sahlberg, K. Pöyhönen, and T. Ojanen, Commu- nications Physics 5, 327 (2022)

    2022

  86. [95]

    Manna, S

    S. Manna, S. Nandy, and B. Roy, Phys. Rev. B105, L201301 (2022)

    2022

  87. [96]

    B. Ren, Y . V . Kartashov, L. J. Maczewsky, M. S. Kirsch, H. Wang, A. Szameit, M. Heinrich, and Y . Zhang, Nanophoton- ics 12, 3829 (2023)

    2023

  88. [97]

    D. J. Salib, A. J. Mains, and B. Roy, Phys. Rev. B110, L241302 (2024)

    2024

  89. [98]

    P. Lai, H. Liu, B. Xie, W. Deng, H. Wang, H. Cheng, Z. Liu, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 109, L140104 (2024)

    2024

  90. [99]

    Canyellas, C

    R. Canyellas, C. Liu, R. Arouca, L. Eek, G. Wang, Y . Yin, D. Guan, Y . Li, S. Wang, H. Zheng, C. Liu, J. Jia, and C. Morais Smith, Nature Physics 20, 1421 (2024)

    2024

  91. [100]

    Li and P

    Z. Li and P. Yan, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024402 (2024)

    2024

  92. [101]

    L. L. Lage, N. C. Rappe, and A. Latgé, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 37, 025303 (2024)

    2024

  93. [102]

    V . J. Emery, E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and T. C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2160 (2000)

    2000

  94. [103]

    Vishwanath and D

    A. Vishwanath and D. Carpentier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 676 (2001)

    2001

  95. [104]

    Mukhopadhyay, C

    R. Mukhopadhyay, C. L. Kane, and T. C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. B 64, 045120 (2001)

    2001

  96. [105]

    Mukhopadhyay, C

    R. Mukhopadhyay, C. L. Kane, and T. C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. B 63, 081103 (2001)

    2001

  97. [106]

    C. L. Kane, R. Mukhopadhyay, and T. C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 036401 (2002)

    2002

  98. [107]

    J. C. Y . Teo and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B89, 085101 (2014)

    2014

  99. [108]

    P. M. Tam and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B 103, 035142 (2021)

    2021

  100. [109]

    P. M. Tam, Y . Hu, and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B101, 125104 (2020)

    2020

  101. [110]

    P. M. Tam, J. W. F. Venderbos, and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B 105, 045106 (2022)

    2022

  102. [111]

    D. J. Clarke, J. Alicea, and K. Shtengel, Nature Communica- tions 4, 1348 (2013)

    2013

  103. [112]

    Neupert, C

    T. Neupert, C. Chamon, C. Mudry, and R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. B 90, 205101 (2014)

    2014

  104. [113]

    Klinovaja and D

    J. Klinovaja and D. Loss, The European Physical Journal B 87, 171 (2014)

    2014

  105. [114]

    Y . Oreg, E. Sela, and A. Stern, Phys. Rev. B89, 115402 (2014)

    2014

  106. [115]

    Sagi and Y

    E. Sagi and Y . Oreg, Phys. Rev. B90, 201102 (2014)

    2014

  107. [116]

    R. A. Santos, C.-W. Huang, Y . Gefen, and D. B. Gutman, Phys. Rev. B 91, 205141 (2015)

    2015

  108. [117]

    J. Cano, T. L. Hughes, and M. Mulligan, Phys. Rev. B 92, 075104 (2015)

    2015

  109. [118]

    Klinovaja, Y

    J. Klinovaja, Y . Tserkovnyak, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B91, 085426 (2015)

    2015

  110. [119]

    Sagi and Y

    E. Sagi and Y . Oreg, Phys. Rev. B92, 195137 (2015)

    2015

  111. [120]

    E. Sagi, Y . Oreg, A. Stern, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B91, 245144 (2015)

    2015

  112. [121]

    Meng, Phys

    T. Meng, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115152 (2015)

    2015

  113. [122]

    T. Meng, A. G. Grushin, K. Shtengel, and J. H. Bardarson, Phys. Rev. B 94, 155136 (2016)

    2016

  114. [123]

    D. F. Mross, J. Alicea, and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 016802 (2016)

    2016

  115. [124]

    Iadecola, T

    T. Iadecola, T. Neupert, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. B 93, 195136 (2016)

    2016

  116. [125]

    Fuji, Y .-C

    Y . Fuji, Y .-C. He, S. Bhattacharjee, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B 93, 195143 (2016)

    2016

  117. [127]

    C. L. Kane, A. Stern, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. X7, 031009 (2017)

    2017

  118. [128]

    M. J. Park, S. Raza, M. J. Gilbert, and J. C. Y . Teo, Phys. Rev. B 98, 184514 (2018)

    2018

  119. [129]

    C. L. Kane and A. Stern, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085302 (2018)

    2018

  120. [130]

    Fuji and A

    Y . Fuji and A. Furusaki, Phys. Rev. B99, 035130 (2019)

    2019

  121. [131]

    Laubscher, D

    K. Laubscher, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 032017 (2019)

    2019

  122. [132]

    Bardyn, M

    C.-E. Bardyn, M. Filippone, and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035150 (2019)

    2019

  123. [134]

    Han and J

    B. Han and J. C. Y . Teo, Phys. Rev. B99, 235102 (2019)

    2019

  124. [135]

    Meng, The European Physical Journal Special Topics229, 527 (2020)

    T. Meng, The European Physical Journal Special Topics229, 527 (2020)

    2020

  125. [136]

    Crépel, B

    V . Crépel, B. Estienne, and N. Regnault, Phys. Rev. B 101, 235158 (2020)

    2020

  126. [137]

    Laubscher, D

    K. Laubscher, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013330 (2020)

    2020

  127. [138]

    C. Li, H. Ebisu, S. Sahoo, Y . Oreg, and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. B 102, 165123 (2020)

    2020

  128. [139]

    Laubscher, C

    K. Laubscher, C. S. Weber, D. M. Kennes, M. Pletyukhov, H. Schoeller, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035432 (2021)

    2021

  129. [140]

    Zhang, Phys

    J.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 106, L020503 (2022)

    2022

  130. [141]

    Imamura, K

    Y . Imamura, K. Totsuka, and T. H. Hansson, Phys. Rev. B100, 125148 (2019)

    2019

  131. [142]

    Laubscher, P

    K. Laubscher, P. Keizer, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B 107, 045409 (2023)

    2023

  132. [143]

    Pinchenkova, K

    V . Pinchenkova, K. Laubscher, and J. Klinovaja, Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06101 (2025)

    2025

  133. [144]

    T. Meng, T. Neupert, M. Greiter, and R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. B 91, 241106 (2015)

    2015

  134. [145]

    Gorohovsky, R

    G. Gorohovsky, R. G. Pereira, and E. Sela, Phys. Rev. B 91, 245139 (2015)

    2015

  135. [146]

    A. A. Patel and D. Chowdhury, Phys. Rev. B94, 195130 (2016)

    2016

  136. [147]

    Huang, J.-H

    P.-H. Huang, J.-H. Chen, P. R. S. Gomes, T. Neupert, C. Cha- mon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. B93, 205123 (2016)

    2016

  137. [148]

    Lecheminant and A

    P. Lecheminant and A. M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B 95, 140406 (2017)

    2017

  138. [149]

    R. G. Pereira and S. Bieri, SciPost Phys. 4, 004 (2018)

    2018

  139. [150]

    Ferraz, F

    G. Ferraz, F. B. Ramos, R. Egger, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 137202 (2019)

    2019

  140. [151]

    Slagle, Y

    K. Slagle, Y . Liu, D. Aasen, H. Pichler, R. S. K. Mong, X. Chen, M. Endres, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. B 106, 115122 (2022)

    2022

  141. [152]

    Mondal, A

    S. Mondal, A. Agarwala, T. Mishra, and A. Prakash, Phys. Rev. B 108, 245135 (2023)

    2023

  142. [153]

    T. Gao, N. Tausendpfund, E. L. Weerda, M. Rizzi, and D. F. Mross, Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13223 (2025)

    2025

  143. [154]

    G. B. Halász, T. H. Hsieh, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 257202 (2017)

    2017

  144. [155]

    Leviatan and D

    E. Leviatan and D. F. Mross, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043437 (2020)

    2020

  145. [156]

    Sullivan, A

    J. Sullivan, A. Dua, and M. Cheng, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023123 (2021)

    2021

  146. [157]

    May-Mann, Y

    J. May-Mann, Y . You, T. L. Hughes, and Z. Bi, Phys. Rev. B 105, 245122 (2022)

    2022

  147. [158]

    Fuji and A

    Y . Fuji and A. Furusaki, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043108 (2023)

    2023

  148. [159]

    Y . You, J. Bibo, T. L. Hughes, and F. Pollmann, Annals of Physics 474, 169927 (2025)

    2025

  149. [160]

    Wu, C.-M

    X.-C. Wu, C.-M. Jian, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 99, 161405 (2019)

    2019

  150. [161]

    Chou, Y .-P

    Y .-Z. Chou, Y .-P. Lin, S. Das Sarma, and R. M. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115128 (2019)

    2019

  151. [162]

    C. Chen, A. H. Castro Neto, and V . M. Pereira, Phys. Rev. B 101, 165431 (2020). 18

    2020

  152. [163]

    Y .-Z. Chou, F. Wu, and J. D. Sau, Phys. Rev. B104, 045146 (2021)

    2021

  153. [164]

    J. M. Lee, M. Oshikawa, and G. Y . Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 186601 (2021)

    2021

  154. [165]

    C.-H. Hsu, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B 108, L121409 (2023)

    2023

  155. [167]

    Shavit and Y

    G. Shavit and Y . Oreg, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 156504 (2024)

    2024

  156. [168]

    Y . Hu, Y . Xu, and B. Lian, Phys. Rev. B110, L201106 (2024)

    2024

  157. [169]

    Y .-M. Wu, C. Murthy, and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 246501 (2024)

    2024

  158. [170]

    L. H. Santos and T. L. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 136801 (2017)

    2017

  159. [171]

    May-Mann and T

    J. May-Mann and T. L. Hughes, Phys. Rev. B 99, 155134 (2019)

    2019

  160. [172]

    R. M. Nandkishore and M. Hermele, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 10, 295–313 (2019)

    2019

  161. [173]

    Pretko, X

    M. Pretko, X. Chen, and Y . You, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics A 35, 2030003 (2020)

    2020

  162. [174]

    Aasen, D

    D. Aasen, D. Bulmash, A. Prem, K. Slagle, and D. J. Williamson, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043165 (2020)

    2020

  163. [175]

    von Delft and H

    J. von Delft and H. Schoeller, Annalen der Physik 510, 225 (1998)

    1998

  164. [176]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 14, 2585 (1981)

    1981

  165. [177]

    Senechal, Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/cond- mat/9908262 (1999)

    D. Senechal, Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/cond- mat/9908262 (1999)

    1999

  166. [178]

    Of course, for fermionic systems we requireuj odd, however the same can be done starting with bosons to obtain even frac- tions

  167. [179]

    Gromov and L

    A. Gromov and L. Radzihovsky, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 011001 (2024)

    2024

  168. [180]

    If two adjacent wires haveaj which are not coprime, we may absorb the common factor intou, so no new physics will arise from relaxing the assumption that adjacenta are coprime

  169. [181]

    Katz and V

    J. Katz and V . Lyubashevsky, Lattice-Based Cryptography, Chapman and Hall/CRC Cryptography and Network Security Series (CRC Press LLC, 2018)

    2018

  170. [182]

    Micciancio and S

    D. Micciancio and S. Goldwasser, Complexity of Lattice Prob- lems (Springer US, 2002)

    2002

  171. [183]

    T. Sato, Y . Kobayashi, J. Motohisa, S. Hara, and T. Fukui, Journal of Crystal Growth 310, 5111 (2008), the Fourteenth International conference on Metalorganic Vapor Phase Epitax

    2008

  172. [184]

    R. G. Polozkov, N. Y . Senkevich, S. Morina, P. Kuzhir, M. E. Portnoi, and I. A. Shelykh, Phys. Rev. B 100, 235401 (2019)

    2019

  173. [185]

    Mitin, A

    D. Mitin, A. V orobyev, A. Pavlov, Y . Berdnikov, A. Mozharov, V . Mikhailovskii, J. A. Ramirez B, D. V . Krasnikov, D. S. Kopylova, D. A. Kirilenko, M. Vinnichenko, R. Polozkov, A. G. Nasibulin, and I. Mukhin, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 13, 8775 (2022)

    2022

  174. [186]

    Martin, Y

    I. Martin, Y . M. Blanter, and A. F. Morpurgo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 036804 (2008)

    2008

  175. [187]

    Barthelemy and L

    P. Barthelemy and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Annalen der Physik 525, 808 (2013)

    2013

  176. [188]

    X. Liu, Z. Hao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. I. Halperin, and P. Kim, Nature Physics 15, 893 (2019)

    2019

  177. [189]

    Grivnin, H

    A. Grivnin, H. Inoue, Y . Ronen, Y . Baum, M. Heiblum, V . Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 266803 (2014)

    2014

  178. [190]

    Hashisaka, T

    M. Hashisaka, T. Jonckheere, T. Akiho, S. Sasaki, J. Rech, T. Martin, and K. Muraki, Nature Communications 12, 2794 (2021)

    2021

  179. [191]

    Dutta, W

    B. Dutta, W. Yang, R. Melcer, H. K. Kundu, M. Heiblum, V . Umansky, Y . Oreg, A. Stern, and D. Mross, Science375, 193 (2022)

    2022

  180. [192]

    L. A. Cohen, N. L. Samuelson, T. Wang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Science 382, 542 (2023)

    2023

  181. [193]

    Hashisaka, T

    M. Hashisaka, T. Ito, T. Akiho, S. Sasaki, N. Kumada, N. Shi- bata, and K. Muraki, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031024 (2023)

    2023

  182. [194]

    M. C. Revelle, J. A. Fry, B. A. Olsen, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 235301 (2016)

    2016

  183. [195]

    V ogler, R

    A. V ogler, R. Labouvie, G. Barontini, S. Eggert, V . Guarrera, and H. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 215301 (2014)

    2014

  184. [196]

    Sundar, J

    B. Sundar, J. A. Fry, M. C. Revelle, R. G. Hulet, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Phys. Rev. A 102, 033311 (2020)

    2020

  185. [197]

    J. C. Budich, A. Elben, M. Łkacki, A. Sterdyniak, M. A. Bara- nov, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A95, 043632 (2017)

    2017

  186. [198]

    N. R. Cooper, J. Dalibard, and I. B. Spielman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015005 (2019)

    2019

  187. [199]

    Jaksch and P

    D. Jaksch and P. Zoller, New Journal of Physics 5, 56 (2003)

    2003

  188. [200]

    A. Celi, P. Massignan, J. Ruseckas, N. Goldman, I. B. Spielman, G. Juzeli¯unas, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 043001 (2014)

    2014

  189. [201]

    Salerno, H

    G. Salerno, H. M. Price, M. Lebrat, S. Häusler, T. Esslinger, L. Corman, J.-P. Brantut, and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041001 (2019)

    2019

  190. [202]

    Chalopin, T

    T. Chalopin, T. Satoor, A. Evrard, V . Makhalov, J. Dalibard, R. Lopes, and S. Nascimbene, Nature Physics 16, 1017 (2020)

    2020

  191. [203]

    T.-W. Zhou, G. Cappellini, D. Tusi, L. Franchi, J. Parravicini, C. Repellin, S. Greschner, M. Inguscio, T. Giamarchi, M. Filip- pone, J. Catani, and L. Fallani, Science 381, 427 (2023)

    2023

  192. [204]

    T. W. Zhou, T. Beller, G. Masini, J. Parravicini, G. Cappellini, C. Repellin, T. Giamarchi, J. Catani, M. Filippone, and L. Fal- lani, Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09744 (2024)

    2024

  193. [205]

    Nascimbene, Comptes Rendus

    S. Nascimbene, Comptes Rendus. Physique 26, 317 (2025)

    2025

  194. [206]

    F. A. An, E. J. Meier, J. Ang’ong’a, and B. Gadway, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 040407 (2018)

    2018

  195. [207]

    Sundar, B

    B. Sundar, B. Gadway, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Scientific Reports 8, 3422 (2018)

    2018

  196. [208]

    Seroussi, E

    I. Seroussi, E. Berg, and Y . Oreg, Phys. Rev. B 89, 104523 (2014)

    2014

  197. [209]

    E. Sagi, A. Haim, E. Berg, F. von Oppen, and Y . Oreg, Phys. Rev. B 96, 235144 (2017)

    2017

  198. [210]

    Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    T. Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    2003

  199. [211]

    Cohen, A Course in Computational Algebraic Number The- ory (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1993)

    H. Cohen, A Course in Computational Algebraic Number The- ory (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1993)

    1993

  200. [212]

    Tao, Using the Smith normal form to manipulate lattice subgroups and closed torus subgroups (2022)

    T. Tao, Using the Smith normal form to manipulate lattice subgroups and closed torus subgroups (2022)

    2022

  201. [213]

    Miller and V

    A. Miller and V . Reiner, Order26, 197–228 (2009)

    2009

  202. [214]

    R. P. Stanley, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A144, 476 (2016), fifty Years of the Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Appendix A: Glossary of Identities Here we present a list of several identities, used throughout the paper. 19

    2016

  203. [215]

    Boson Transformations

  204. [216]

    Sum and difference fields: φj = 1 2 ϕR j +ϕL j (A1) θj = 1 2 ϕR j −ϕL j (A2) with inverse operation ϕR j =φj +θj (A3) ϕL j =φj−θj (A4)

  205. [217]

    Quasiparticle Fields: ˜ϕR j =φj +ua2 jθj (A5) ˜ϕL j =φj−ua2 jθj (A6) with inverse operation φj = 1 2 ˜ϕR j + ˜ϕL j (A7) θj = 1 2ua2 j ˜ϕR j − ˜ϕL j (A8)

  206. [218]

    Quasiwire Sum and Difference: ˜φj+ 1 2 = 1 2 aj+1 ˜ϕR j +aj ˜ϕL j+1 (A9) ˜θj+ 1 2 = 1 2 aj+1 ˜ϕR j −aj ˜ϕL j+1 (A10) with inverse operation ˜ϕR j = ˜φj+ 1 2 + ˜θj+ 1 2 aj+1 (A11) ˜ϕL j = ˜φj− 1 2 − ˜θj− 1 2 aj−1 (A12)

  207. [219]

    Commutation Relations

  208. [220]

    Bare bosonic field commutation [∂xϕL/R j (x),ϕL/R k (x′)] =∓2πiδjkδ(x−x′). (A13)

  209. [221]

    Bare sum and difference bosonic field commutation rela- tions: [∂xθj(x),φk(x′)] =πiδjkδ(x−x′), (A14) [∂xθj(x),θk(x′)] = [∂xφj(x),φk(x′)] = 0. (A15)

  210. [222]

    (A16) FIG

    New bosonic fields on a wire with fractionalisation u, [∂x ˜ϕL/R j (x), ˜ϕL/R k (x′)] =∓2πiuδjkδ(x−x′). (A16) FIG. S1. The first layer depicts a configuration of wires with each pair of wires hosting differently fractionalised quasiparticles, labelled as the fractional quantum...

  211. [223]

    Quasiwire commutation relations where both wires have a common fraction,u, [∂x˜θj+ 1 2 (x), ˜φk+ 1 2 (x′)] =πiuδjkδ(x−x′), (A17) [∂x˜θj+ 1 2 (x), ˜θk+ 1 2 (x′)] = 0, (A18) [∂x ˜φj+ 1 2 (x), ˜φk+ 1 2 (x′)] = 0. (A19)

  212. [224]

    In this Appendix, we show that coupling the system to a substrate allows us to restore charge conservation while keeping the system gapped

    Quasiwires with different fractions, where thejth wire has fractionua2 j, [∂x˜θj+ 1 2 (x), ˜φj+ 1 2 (x′)] =πiua2 ja2 j+1δ(x−x′), (A20) [∂x˜θj+ 1 2 (x), ˜θj+ 1 2 (x′)] = 0 (A21) [∂x ˜φj+ 1 2 (x), ˜φj+ 1 2 (x′)] = 0, (A22) Appendix B: Charge conservation As discussed in Section ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.