Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Itinerant topological magnons in Haldane Hubbard model with a nearly-flat electron band

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the slight curvature of a nearly flat electron band opens a topological gap at the Dirac points and turns the acoustic magnons of a quarter-filled Haldane-Hubbard model into the first two-dimensional itinerant…

desk verdict Serious and potentially important paper, but the main topological result sits just outside the paper's own projection validity, so it needs a parameter fix before I'd trust it for the full model. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09255 v1 pith:ZY6VNXRS submitted 2019-08-25 cond-mat.str-el

Zhao-Long Gu , Zhao-Yang Dong , Shun-Li Yu , Jian-Xin Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords itineranttopologicalmagnonsHaldane-Hubbardmodelnearly-flatelectronbandChernnumbermassinversionmechanismDiracprojectedexactdiagonalizationdomain-wallmagnonmodes
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 sets out to show that the collective spin excitations of an itinerant ferromagnet can carry a nontrivial band topology. Its setting is the quarter-filled Haldane-Hubbard model on a honeycomb lattice, tuned so the lower electron band is nearly flat. In the flatband limit the magnon bands touch at the Dirac points, and the paper's central claim is that the electron band's small curvature opens a topological gap there, giving the acoustic magnon band Chern number $-1$. If correct, this is the first theoretical realization of two-dimensional itinerant topological magnons, a phenomenon previously studied only in local-spin magnets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sublattice particle-hole vector $|v^a_i(q)\rangle=\sqrt{U_a/N}\,\mu^*_{a k_i-q\downarrow}\mu_{a k_i\uparrow}$, which measures the amplitude to create a spin-1 particle-hole pair in the lower electron band on sublattice $a$. The projected interaction matrix $M^3_{ji}(q)$ splits into a sum of projectors onto these vectors, so in the flatband limit the spin-wave problem reduces to a $2\times2$ matrix spanned by them. The nonflatness of the electron band enters through the kinetic piece $M^1_i(q)$ and supplies opposite-signed mass terms at the K and K′ points; this mass inversion, familiar from the electron Haldane model, is the mechanism that makes the magnon band topological.

What would settle it

A numerical spectrum of the full unprojected Haldane-Hubbard model on a finite cluster with $t'=0.3155$, $\phi=0.656$, and $U_A=U_B=1.2t$ would settle the point: if the acoustic magnon band no longer shows a gap at the K and K′ points with Chern number $-1$, the projection itself produced the topology.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in a projected basis where each spin-1 excitation is created by $d^\dagger_{k_i-q,\downarrow}d_{k_i,\uparrow}|FM\rangle$, the paper finds an exact description of the magnons in the flatband limit as a $2\times2$ Dirac-like Hamiltonian, with massless nodes at K and K′. Including the dispersion of the lower electron band adds terms that act as Dirac masses with opposite signs at the two nodes; by the mass inversion mechanism, the acoustic magnon band acquires Chern number $-1$. The paper further shows that a sublattice Hubbard imbalance closes and reopens the magnon gap, changing the Chern number from $-1$ to $0$, while tuning the next-nearest-neighbor hopping flips it between $+1$ and $-1$ with the electron band topology unchanged. Domain walls between regions with different magnon Chern numbers host chiral in-gap modes, with one mode per unit of Chern difference.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation projects the full Hamiltonian onto the lower electron band, which is valid only when the Hubbard interactions are smaller than the electron band gap; the headline parameters use $U_A=1.2t$ with a gap of roughly $1.15t$, placing the main results at the edge of that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, two-dimensional itinerant magnets can host topological magnons without Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya or other local spin-spin interactions; the curvature of the electron band is sufficient.
  • The predicted phase diagram contains a trivial ferromagnet and two topological ferromagnetic phases with Chern numbers $\pm1$, separated by lines where the magnon gap closes and reopens as $\Delta U=U_A-U_B$ or $t'$ is tuned.
  • Magnetic domain walls between regions with different magnon Chern numbers should carry chiral in-gap magnon states, and their count equals the Chern-number difference between the two sides.
  • The magnon Chern number can change while the electron band topology stays fixed, so the spin-wave topology is not a simple copy of the underlying electron band topology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test of the mechanism is to repeat the projected spin-wave calculation in other nearly-flat Chern bands, such as kagome or checkerboard lattice models, and ask whether the same band-curvature mass inversion appears.
  • Because the topological gap is controlled by band curvature rather than by spin-orbit-type local interactions, fine-tuning the flatness in an optical-lattice or moiré realization could switch the magnon Chern number and the sign of a thermal Hall response without changing the electron band topology.
  • If the projection is robust slightly beyond its formal regime, the same effective mass-term picture may survive in moderately correlated metals, connecting itinerant topological magnons to Fermi-surface instabilities.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the quarter-filled Haldane-Hubbard model on the honeycomb lattice with a nearly flat lower electron band, and claims the first theoretical realization of two-dimensional itinerant topological magnons. The authors project the full Hamiltonian onto the lower electron band, obtain spin-wave excitations over the ferromagnetic ground state, and compute magnon dispersions and Chern numbers. In the flatband limit they find Dirac magnons; including the electron-band dispersion opens a topological gap, yielding an acoustic magnon band with Chern number -1. An effective 2x2 model, built from 'sublattice particle-hole vectors,' is used to attribute the nontrivial topology to a mass-inversion mechanism at K and K'. They also present domain-wall calculations showing in-gap chiral magnon modes.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be a valuable and conceptually interesting result: a concrete microscopic model for itinerant topological magnons in two dimensions, with an analytic effective description rather than only a numerical one. The paper's strengths include the exact reduction of the flatband spin-wave problem to a pair of sublattice particle-hole vectors, the resulting closed-form 2x2 effective Hamiltonian, and the explicit connection between the signs of the Dirac masses at K and K' and the magnon Chern number. The phase diagram in Fig. 2(g) is also a useful organizing summary of the different ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic regions. However, the projection-based derivation is used outside the regime the authors themselves state is required, and the domain-wall verification is performed in a parameter regime the authors concede is outside that projection. These issues directly affect the paper's main claim, so the result is not yet established to the standard the manuscript claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section on the model and Eq. (2); Fig. 2(a2)] The paper states that the parameter space is restricted to Δ larger than both U_A and U_B so that the Hamiltonian can be projected onto the lower band, but the central topological-magnon result of Fig. 2(a2) uses U_A = U_B = 1.2t with t' = 0.3155, φ = 0.656. For these parameters the single-particle gap at the Dirac points is Δ ≈ 2(3t' sinφ) ≈ 1.15t, so U_A exceeds Δ by about 4%. The projection omits all processes through the upper band, and at U/Δ ≈ 1.04 the omitted second-order corrections are of order U^2/Δ ≈ 1.25t, which is larger than the lower-band width W ≈ Δ/7 ≈ 0.16t. The perturbation expansion underlying the projected Hamiltonian is therefore not controlled at the parameters used for the main claim that nonflatness opens a topological magnon gap with Chern number -1. Please either recompute the central results for parameters satisfying Δ > U_A, U_B (for example, smaller U or larger t' with correspondingly larger Δ), or provide explicit evidence that the omitted interband processes are negligible, such as a comparison with full exact diagonalization on small clusters or a systematic second-order calculation showing small corrections.
  2. [Fig. 3 and footnote [54]] The domain-wall calculation is presented as the bulk-edge correspondence check for the topological magnon bands, but it is carried out at U_A, U_B between 2.0t and 2.7t, and footnote [54] explicitly states that 'the projection onto the lower electron band does not apply in this case.' This means the in-gap magnon modes in Fig. 3 are computed in a regime the paper itself excludes from the projection validity, so they cannot serve as evidence for the existence of topological magnons at the parameters where the Chern number -1 is claimed. Please either provide domain-wall spectra within the stated projection regime (using a geometry that avoids the electronic edge-state difficulty in another way), or clearly characterize Fig. 3 as a heuristic illustration and remove it from the support for the abstract's central claim.
  3. [Supplemental Eq. (S7) and the effective model] The effective 2x2 Hamiltonian is derived by treating the electron-dispersion term M1 and the sublattice-imbalance term M2 as first-order perturbations to the flatband effective Hamiltonian. While this is a useful diagnostic, the perturbation parameter is not small in the regime of interest: the lower-band width W ≈ 0.16t is not negligible compared with the flatband magnon energy scale U/2 = 0.6t, and the omitted upper-band corrections of order U^2/Δ are larger still. The paper should state the precise small parameter controlling this perturbation expansion and quantify the resulting error in the mass term signs, since the mass-inversion conclusion is drawn from this first-order effective model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental Eqs. (S2)-(S3)] The symbol h2(k) appears in the eigenvectors but is never defined; it should be h_y(k).
  2. [Main text after Eq. (2)] The derivation of M2 = U/2 in the flatband limit assumes U_A = U_B = U; the text should state this explicitly before presenting the exact bases |v^A(q)> and |v^B(q)> and the 2x2 reduction of Eq. (6), to avoid giving the impression that the exact-basis construction holds also for U_A ≠ U_B.
  3. [Phase diagram in Fig. 2(g)] The NFM phase boundary is obtained from the projected model; since the projection itself is questionable when U exceeds Δ, the NFM boundary in the upper part of Fig. 2(g) may be an artifact of the projection. A brief comment on this limitation would be helpful.
  4. [Summary paragraph] Minor typographical and wording issues: 'which is attribute to' should be 'which is attributed to'; also the phase labels TFM+ and TFM− are introduced in the phase diagram but their precise parameter ranges are not given in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the magnon Chern numbers and the effective-model mass terms are computed from the projected Hamiltonian, not assumed as inputs.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the derivation chain. The central topological results are obtained by direct numerical diagonalization of the projected spin-wave Hamiltonian, Eq. (2), whose matrix elements are derived from the Haldane-Hubbard model rather than fitted to the desired conclusion. The effective 2x2 model of Eq. (6) and its first-order perturbation treatment are reductions of the same projected Hamiltonian, and the mass-term signs at K and K' are evaluated from that model, so the 'mass inversion mechanism' is offered as a diagnosis of the computed spectra, not as an input that forces them. The paper self-cites Refs. [32] and [44] for the projected spin-wave formalism and for the itinerant ferromagnetic ground state, but those ingredients are either reproduced analytically in the supplement or independently checked by magnon softening, and the topological claim is not taken from those citations. The projection-validity concern raised in the skeptical summary, namely that UA = 1.2t slightly exceeds the electron gap at the Dirac points, is a legitimate correctness or regime-of-validity issue for the projected model, but it is not a circularity: even if the projection were invalid at these parameters, that would mean the calculation may not describe the full model, not that the conclusion was assumed by construction. Footnote 54 honestly flags that the domain-wall check uses parameters outside the projection regime, again an internal-consistency caveat rather than circular reasoning. I therefore assign score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on model parameters chosen for flatness and stability, the validity of the single-band projection, the ferromagnetic ground state, and the single-magnon approximation. The projection validity condition is violated for some parameters used (UA=1.2 vs Δ≈1.15). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • t'/t = 0.3155
    Chosen to maximize the flatness ratio Δ/W ≈ 7, as derived from the band structure; not fitted to any observable.
  • φ = 0.656 rad
    Paired with t'/t to satisfy cosφ = t/(4t'), which maximizes flatness; sets the Haldane mass.
  • UA = 1.2 t
    Chosen to realize the itinerant ferromagnetic phase; used throughout the main numerical results.
  • UB = 0.506 to 1.2 t
    Varied to scan the phase diagram; controls the sublattice interaction imbalance ΔU.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fully polarized ferromagnetic state is the ground state for the chosen parameters.
    Inherited from prior work (Refs. [32,53]) and checked only via single-magnon softening. This is a load-bearing premise for the spin-wave calculation.
  • domain assumption The projection onto the lower electron band is valid when Δ > U.
    Stated in the main text; however, the numerical parameters use UA=1.2 t while Δ≈1.15 t, so this condition is not strictly satisfied.
  • domain assumption Single spin-flip excitations form an adequate subspace; multi-magnon processes are neglected.
    The projected Hamiltonian is diagonalized in the single spin-flip sector, the standard linear spin wave approximation; accuracy for these parameters is not assessed.
  • domain assumption First-order perturbation theory for the dispersion and interaction imbalance terms is valid.
    The bandwidth W ≈ Δ/7 is small compared to U, so perturbation appears controlled, but no systematic check is provided.
  • standard math The bulk-edge correspondence applies to the magnon bands.
    Assumed in interpreting the domain wall in-gap modes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Itinerant topological magnons in Haldane Hubbard model with a nearly-flat electron band." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZY6VNXRS

@misc{pith2026190809255,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Itinerant topological magnons in Haldane Hubbard model with a nearly-flat electron band},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZY6VNXRS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09255}
}
read the original abstract

We elaborate the first theoretical realization of two dimensional itinerant topological magnons, based on the quarter filled Haldane-Hubbard model with a nearly-flat electron band. By using the exact diagonalization method with a projection onto this band, we obtain the spin wave excitations over the itinerant ferromagnetic ground state. In the flatband limit, the excitation exhibits similar dispersion to the free electron band with Dirac magnons. The nonflatness of the electron band opens a topological gap at Dirac points and leads to an acoustic magnon band with a nonzero Chern number. We further show that tuning the sublattice Hubbard interactions or the next-nearest-neighbor hopping can induce a topological transition characterized by the gap closing and reopening, and the existence of the in-gap magnons on magnetic domain walls. We find an exact set of bases for magnons in the flatband limit constructed from sublattice particle-hole vectors and derive an effective model to explore the origin of the topological magnon which is attributed to the ``mass inversion mechanism''.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09255 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online). (a) Illustration of the Haldane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online). (a)-(f): Spin excitation spectra of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online). Spin-1 excitation spectra of the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online). Dispersion relations of spin waves ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Su, Z.-L

    X.-F. Su, Z.-L. Gu, Z.-Y. Dong, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. B 99, 014407 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [44]

    Su, Z.-L

    X.-F. Su, Z.-L. Gu, Z.-Y. Dong, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245111 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [54]

    mass inversion mechanism

    Physically, the projection onto the lower electron band does not apply in this case, but here it is just for an illustration of the numerical check for the existence of in-gap magnon states. 6 Supplemental Material Haldane model and mass inversion mechanism The free part ˆH0 of the Hamiltonian of the Haldane Hubbard model in the momentum space can be writ...

    work page

  4. [1]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  5. [2]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  6. [3]

    Bansil, H

    A. Bansil, H. Lin, and T. Das, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021004 (2016)

    2016

  7. [4]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035005 (2016)

    2016

  8. [5]

    B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, and X.-G. Wen, Quan- tum Information Meets Quantum Matter (Springer New York, 2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 54 references
  1. [6]

    R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. B 23, 5632 (1981)

    1981

  2. [7]

    B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 25, 2185 (1982)

    1982

  3. [8]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005)

    2005

  4. [9]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 314, 1757 (2006)

    2006

  5. [10]

    S.-L. Yu, X. C. Xie, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 010401 (2011)

    2011

  6. [11]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2015 (1988)

    1988

  7. [12]

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

    1982

  8. [13]

    Simon, Phys

    B. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 2167 (1983)

    1983

  9. [14]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005)

    2005

  10. [15]

    Hohenadler and F

    M. Hohenadler and F. F. Assaad, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25, 143201 (2013)

    2013

  11. [16]

    Wen, Rev

    X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  12. [17]

    Rachel, Rep

    S. Rachel, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 116501 (2018)

    2018

  13. [18]

    Neupert, C

    T. Neupert, C. Chamon, T. Iadecola, L. H. Santos, and C. Mudry, Phys. Scr. T164, 014005 (2015)

    2015

  14. [19]

    Tang, J.-W

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

    2011

  15. [20]

    Wang and Y

    F. Wang and Y. Ran, Phys. Rev. B 84, 241103 (2011)

    2011

  16. [21]

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

    2011

  17. [22]

    Wang, Z.-C

    Y.-F. Wang, Z.-C. Gu, C.-D. Gong, and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 146803 (2011)

    2011

  18. [23]

    Neupert, L

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

    2011

  19. [24]

    Sheng, Z.-C

    D. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Nat. Com- mun. 2, 389 (2011)

    2011

  20. [25]

    Regnault and B

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

    2011

  21. [26]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, S. Ryu, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. B 84, 165107 (2011)

    2011

  22. [27]

    Tasaki, Phys

    H. Tasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1608 (1992)

    1992

  23. [28]

    Mielke, Phys

    A. Mielke, Phys. Lett. A 174, 443 (1993)

    1993

  24. [29]

    Mielke and H

    A. Mielke and H. Tasaki, Commun. Math. Phys. 158, 341 (1993)

    1993

  25. [30]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, S. Ryu, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 046806 (2012)

    2012

  26. [31]

    R. L. Doretto and M. O. Goerbig, Phys. Rev. B 92, 245124 (2015)

    2015

  27. [33]

    Dzyaloshinsky, J

    I. Dzyaloshinsky, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 4, 241 (1958)

    1958

  28. [34]

    Moriya, Phys

    T. Moriya, Phys. Rev. 120, 91 (1960)

    1960

  29. [35]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Ren, J.-S. Wang, and B. Li, Phys. Rev. B 87, 144101 (2013)

    2013

  30. [36]

    S. A. Owerre, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 28, 386001 (2016)

    2016

  31. [37]

    Li, Y.-D

    F.-Y. Li, Y.-D. Li, Y. B. Kim, L. Balents, Y. Yu, and G. Chen, Nat. Commun. 7, 12691 (2016)

    2016

  32. [38]

    A. Mook, J. Henk, and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 157204 (2016)

    2016

  33. [39]

    Laurell and G

    P. Laurell and G. A. Fiete, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 177201 (2017)

    2017

  34. [40]

    Onose, T

    Y. Onose, T. Ideue, H. Katsura, Y. Shiomi, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Science 329, 297 (2010)

    2010

  35. [41]

    Chisnell, J

    R. Chisnell, J. Helton, D. Freedman, D. Singh, R. Bewley, D. Nocera, and Y. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 147201 (2015)

    2015

  36. [42]

    W. Yao, C. Li, L. Wang, S. Xue, Y. Dan, K. Iida, K. Ka- mazawa, K. Li, C. Fang, and Y. Li, Nat. Phys. 14, 1011 (2018)

    2018

  37. [43]

    S. Bao, J. Wang, W. Wang, Z. Cai, S. Li, Z. Ma, D. Wang, K. Ran, Z.-Y. Dong, D. L. Abernathy, S.-L. Yu, X. Wan, J.-X. Li, and J. Wen, Nat. Commun. 9, 2591 (2018)

    2018

  38. [45]

    He, S.-P

    J. He, S.-P. Kou, Y. Liang, and S. Feng, Phys. Rev. B 83, 205116 (2011)

    2011

  39. [46]

    Maciejko and A

    J. Maciejko and A. Regg, Phys. Rev. B88, 241101 (2013)

    2013

  40. [47]

    Zheng, H

    W. Zheng, H. Shen, Z. Wang, and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. B 91, 161107 (2015)

    2015

  41. [48]

    Hickey, L

    C. Hickey, L. Cincio, Z. Papi´ c, and A. Paramekanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 137202 (2016)

    2016

  42. [49]

    J. Wu, J. P. L. Faye, D. S´ en´ echal, and J. Maciejko, Phys. Rev. B 93, 075131 (2016)

    2016

  43. [50]

    T. I. Vanhala, T. Siro, L. Liang, M. Troyer, A. Harju, and P. Torma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 225305 (2016)

    2016

  44. [51]

    Giuliani, I

    A. Giuliani, I. Jauslin, V. Mastropietro, and M. Porta, Phys. Rev. B 94, 205139 (2016)

    2016

  45. [52]

    Z.-L. Gu, K. Li, and J.-X. Li, New J. Phys. 21, 073016 (2019)

    2019

  46. [53]

    Tasaki, Phys

    H. Tasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1158 (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.