Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 60 references

Effect of Two-Body Interactions on Floquet topological phases

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Two-body interactions destroy quantized charge pumping in Floquet topological phases even when edge modes remain.

desk verdict Interactions destroy quantized pumping via edge broadening in this Floquet DMFT study, but the local approximation may need validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.25717 v2 pith:VOAFMO2V submitted 2026-06-24 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.str-el

Arijit Dutta , Souradeep Roy Choudhury , Tao Qin , Walter Hofstetter This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el
keywords FloquettopologicalphasesFalicov-Kimballmodeldynamicalmeanfieldtheorychargepumpinginteractionsedgemodeshoneycomblatticeenergydissipation
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 examines the circularly driven Falicov-Kimball model on a honeycomb lattice using real-space Floquet dynamical mean-field theory. In the noninteracting limit the system realizes an effective Haldane phase at high driving frequencies and an anomalous topological phase at intermediate frequencies. With increasing interaction strength the quantization of charge pumping is lost, although edge modes continue to appear in the spectrum. The loss is traced to interaction-induced broadening of those edge modes, and the rate of energy dissipation into the bath differs markedly between the two frequency regimes.

What carries the argument

Real-space Floquet dynamical mean-field theory applied to the circularly driven Falicov-Kimball model, which tracks the interaction-broadened spectral features and the resulting transport.

What would settle it

An experiment or calculation that finds quantized pumping persisting at large U while edge modes remain visible in the spectrum would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Charge pumping ceases to be quantized with rising two-body interaction strength U, despite the continued presence of edge modes in the spectrum. This occurs because the interactions broaden the edge modes. The two driving-frequency regimes display distinctly different energy dissipation rates into the bath.

Load-bearing premise

Real-space Floquet DMFT accurately captures the interaction-induced broadening of edge modes and the resulting loss of quantized pumping without uncontrolled approximations.

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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the circularly driven Falicov-Kimball model on the honeycomb lattice using real-space Floquet DMFT. In the noninteracting limit the system realizes an effective Haldane phase at high driving frequencies and an anomalous topological phase at intermediate frequencies. The central claim is that finite two-body interaction U destroys the quantization of charge pumping while edge modes remain visible in the spectrum; this loss is attributed to interaction-induced broadening of the edge modes. The work also reports the energy dissipation rate into the bath and finds qualitatively different behavior in the two frequency regimes.

Significance. If the numerical results are free of uncontrolled DMFT artifacts, the finding that quantized pumping can be lost while edge modes persist would be a useful counter-example to the common assumption that the presence of edge states guarantees quantized transport in interacting Floquet systems. The real-space DMFT treatment of an inhomogeneous driven lattice model is technically non-trivial and, if validated, would provide a practical tool for studying interaction effects on Floquet edge physics.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the central attribution of non-quantized pumping to interaction-induced broadening of edge modes rests on the accuracy of real-space Floquet DMFT. Because DMFT employs a strictly local self-energy, non-local correlations along the honeycomb edge are neglected; the manuscript provides no benchmark against exact diagonalization on small clusters or against weak-U perturbation theory that would confirm the reported broadening is physical rather than an artifact of the auxiliary bath or the DMFT self-consistency loop.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for highlighting the importance of validating the real-space Floquet DMFT approach. We address the concern below and outline the changes we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the central attribution of non-quantized pumping to interaction-induced broadening of edge modes rests on the accuracy of real-space Floquet DMFT. Because DMFT employs a strictly local self-energy, non-local correlations along the honeycomb edge are neglected; the manuscript provides no benchmark against exact diagonalization on small clusters or against weak-U perturbation theory that would confirm the reported broadening is physical rather than an artifact of the auxiliary bath or the DMFT self-consistency loop.

    Authors: We acknowledge that real-space DMFT employs a local self-energy and therefore neglects non-local correlations. However, for the Falicov-Kimball model this is not an uncontrolled approximation: because the localized electrons have strictly zero hopping, the self-energy of the mobile electrons is exactly local (a property that holds beyond DMFT and has been used to obtain exact solutions in the literature). Real-space DMFT is therefore the appropriate method for the inhomogeneous geometry with edges. The interaction-induced broadening we report is a direct consequence of the local U term and appears already at weak U, consistent with perturbative expectations. We will add a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section (and a brief remark in the abstract) explaining the exact locality of the self-energy for the FK model, citing the relevant literature on DMFT for FK systems, and noting that prior real-space DMFT studies of edge states in driven lattices have reproduced known non-interacting limits. We do not plan to add new ED benchmarks, as they would require clusters large enough to host well-defined edge modes while remaining computationally feasible, but the above clarification addresses the physical origin of the reported effect. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: numerical DMFT outputs on interacting Floquet model

full rationale

The paper reports direct numerical results from real-space Floquet DMFT applied to the driven Falicov-Kimball model on the honeycomb lattice. The central observations (loss of quantized charge pumping with increasing U despite surviving edge modes, attributed to interaction-induced broadening) are computational outputs of the method rather than analytical derivations. No equations, fitting procedures, or self-citations are presented that reduce any claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The study is self-contained as a simulation-based investigation with no load-bearing self-referential steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Ledger constructed from abstract statements only; full text unavailable for exhaustive extraction.

free parameters (1)
  • U
    Two-body interaction strength is the central parameter whose increase is studied; no fitted value is stated.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The noninteracting driven Falicov-Kimball model on the honeycomb lattice hosts an effective Haldane phase at large frequencies and an anomalous topological phase at intermediate frequencies.
    Invoked as background for the interacting study.
  • domain assumption Real-space Floquet DMFT provides a reliable description of the interacting driven system.
    Method chosen to include interactions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of Two-Body Interactions on Floquet topological phases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOAFMO2V

@misc{pith2026260625717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of Two-Body Interactions on Floquet topological phases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOAFMO2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.25717}
}
abstract

We study the circularly driven Falicov-Kimball model on a honeycomb lattice within real space Floquet dynamical mean field theory (DMFT). The noninteracting version of this model has been realized experimentally. The noninteracting system hosts an effective Haldane phase at large driving frequencies, while at intermediate frequencies it hosts an anomalous topological phase. We study the effect of two-body interactions $U$ on the stability of these phases. We find that charge pumping does not remain quantized upon increasing $U$, despite the presence of edge modes in the spectrum. This can be attributed to the broadening of the edge modes due to interaction. We also calculate the rate of energy dissipation into the bath and find remarkably different behaviour in the two regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: a) Cylinder geometry in the presence of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The driving protocol for the hopping strengths. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Difference in charge between the lower and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Bulk energy dissipation rate into the bath as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wintersperger, C

    K. Wintersperger, C. Braun, F. N. ¨Unal, A. Eckardt, M. D. Liberto, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidels- burger, Nat. Phys.16, 1058 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Goldman and J

    N. Goldman and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. X4, 031027 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Goldman, J

    N. Goldman, J. C. Budich, and P. Zoller, Nat. Phys.12, 639 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science357, 995 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Langen, R

    T. Langen, R. Geiger, and J. Schmiedmayer, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Cooper, J

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

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Hofstetter and T

    W. Hofstetter and T. Qin, J. Phys. B-At. Mol. Opt.51, 082001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, M. Lohse, J. T. Barreiro, B. Paredes, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 185301 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Jotzu, M

    G. Jotzu, M. Messer, R. Desbuquois, M. Lebrat, T. Uehlinger, D. Greif, and T. Esslinger, Nature515, 237 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, M. Atala, J. T. Barreiro, S. Nascimbene, N. Cooper, I. Bloch, and N. Goldman, Nat. Phys.11, 162 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Eckardt and E

    A. Eckardt and E. Anisimovas, New J. Phys.17, 093039 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Kitagawa, E

    T. Kitagawa, E. Berg, M. Rudner, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B82, 235114 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    X.-J. Liu, X. Liu, C. Wu, and J. Sinova, Phys. Rev. A 81, 033622 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    M. S. Rudner, N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, and M. Levin, Phys. Rev. X3, 031005 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Dutta, E

    A. Dutta, E. Sen, J.-H. Zheng, M. Aidelsburger, and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. B109, L121114 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Zheng, A

    J.-H. Zheng, A. Dutta, M. Aidelsburger, and W. Hofstet- ter, Phys. Rev. B109, 184201 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    D’Alessio and M

    L. D’Alessio and M. Rigol, Phys. Rev. X4, 041048 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Lazarides, A

    A. Lazarides, A. Das, and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. E90, 012110 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Mallayya and M

    K. Mallayya and M. Rigol, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 240603 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Mondaini and M

    R. Mondaini and M. Rigol, Phys. Rev. A92, 041601 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Bertini, F

    B. Bertini, F. H. Essler, S. Groha, and N. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 180601 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Bukov, S

    M. Bukov, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Knap, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 205301 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Weinberg, C

    M. Weinberg, C. ¨Olschl¨ ager, C. Str¨ ater, S. Prelle, A. Eckardt, K. Sengstock, and J. Simonet, Phys. Rev. A92, 043621 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Reitter, J

    M. Reitter, J. N¨ ager, K. Wintersperger, C. Str¨ ater, I. Bloch, A. Eckardt, and U. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 200402 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Georges and G

    A. Georges and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B45, 6479 (1992)

    1992

  18. [26]

    L. V. Keldysh, Sov. Phys. JETP-USSR47, 1515 (1964)

    1964

  19. [27]

    Schmidt and H

    P. Schmidt and H. Monien, arXiv preprint cond- mat/0202046 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Freericks and V

    J. Freericks and V. Turkowski, inJ. Phys. Conf. Ser., Vol. 35 (IOP Publishing, 2006) p. 39

    2006

  21. [29]

    Shvaika, O

    A. Shvaika, O. Vorobyov, J. Freericks, and T. Devereaux, J. Phys. Chem. Solids67, 336 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Tsuji, T

    N. Tsuji, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B78, 235124 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    H. Aoki, N. Tsuji, M. Eckstein, M. Kollar, T. Oka, and P. Werner, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 779 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Tsuji,Theoretical study of nonequilibrium correlated 11 fermions driven by ac fields, Ph.D

    N. Tsuji,Theoretical study of nonequilibrium correlated 11 fermions driven by ac fields, Ph.D. thesis, University of Tokyo (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Tsuji, T

    N. Tsuji, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 047403 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Qin and W

    T. Qin and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. B96, 075134 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    T. Qin, A. Schnell, K. Sengstock, C. Weitenberg, A. Eckardt, and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. A98, 033601 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. B23, 5632 (1981)

    1981

  29. [37]

    L. M. Falicov and J. C. Kimball, Phys. Rev. Lett.22, 997 (1969)

    1969

  30. [38]

    Jotzu, M

    G. Jotzu, M. Messer, F. G¨ org, D. Greif, R. Desbuquois, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 073002 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Eckstein,Nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field the- ory, Ph.D

    M. Eckstein,Nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field the- ory, Ph.D. thesis, Augsburg University (Germany), Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakult¨ at (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Brandt and C

    U. Brandt and C. Mielsch, Z. Phys. B Con. Mat.75, 365 (1989)

    1989

  33. [41]

    Freericks and V

    J. Freericks and V. Zlati´ c, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 1333 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Qin and W

    T. Qin and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. B97, 125115 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Nguyen and M.-T

    H.-S. Nguyen and M.-T. Tran, Phys. Rev. B88, 165132 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    Stefanucci and R

    G. Stefanucci and R. Van Leeuwen,Nonequilibrium many-body theory of quantum systems: a modern intro- duction(Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    B¨ uttiker, Phys

    M. B¨ uttiker, Phys. Rev. B32, 1846 (1985)

    1985

  39. [47]

    B¨ uttiker, Phys

    M. B¨ uttiker, Phys. Rev. B33, 3020 (1986)

    1986

  40. [48]

    Plemelj, Monatsh

    J. Plemelj, Monatsh. Math.19, 205 (1908)

    1908

  41. [49]

    Tsuji, T

    N. Tsuji, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, inJ. Phys. Conf. Ser., Vol. 150 (IOP Publishing, 2009) p. 042216

    2009

  42. [50]

    G. B. Arfken, H. J. Weber, and F. E. Harris,Mathe- matical methods for physicists: a comprehensive guide (Academic press, 2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Brandt and C

    U. Brandt and C. Mielsch, Z. Phys. B Con. Mat.79, 295 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    Brandt and C

    U. Brandt and C. Mielsch, Z. Phys. B Con. Mat.82, 37 (1991)

    1991

  45. [53]

    T. J. Ypma, SIAM Rev.37, 531 (1995)

    1995

  46. [54]

    C. G. Broyden, Math. Comput.19, 577 (1965)

    1965

  47. [55]

    Dederichs and R

    P. Dederichs and R. Zeller, Phys. Rev. B28, 5462 (1983)

    1983

  48. [56]

    Vanderbilt and S

    D. Vanderbilt and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B30, 6118 (1984)

    1984

  49. [57]

    G. P. Srivastava, J. Phys. A- Math. Gen.17, L317 (1984)

    1984

  50. [58]

    ˇZitko, Phys

    R. ˇZitko, Phys. Rev. B80, 125125 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    D. D. Johnson, Phys. Rev. B38, 12807 (1988)

    1988

  52. [60]

    Baran, A

    A. Baran, A. Bulgac, M. M. Forbes, G. Hagen, W. Nazarewicz, N. Schunck, and M. V. Stoitsov, Phys. Rev. C78, 014318 (2008)

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.