Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 64 references

Bosonic fractional quantum Hall states in driven optical lattices

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 The paper numerically shows that a periodically driven optical lattice can support the ν=1/2 bosonic Laughlin state for 4 to 6 atoms, and that a slow ramp of driving and tunneling can prepare it in about 20 ℏ/Jx.

desk verdict Careful exact-diagonalization study showing Laughlin-like states survive in the driven Bose-Hubbard model, but the experimental claim rests on dropping boundary phasor terms the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07006 v1 pith:3ZRUZK35 submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.quant-gas

Ana Hudomal , Nicolas Regnault , Ivana Vasić This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords fractionalquantumHallLaughlinstatedrivenopticallatticesFloquetengineeringBose-Hubbardmodelparticleentanglementspectrumcoldatomsprethermalization
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 asks whether the heating induced by periodic driving in an interacting Bose-Hubbard model necessarily destroys fractional quantum Hall physics. Using exact stroboscopic simulations of four to six bosons in a driven square lattice, it shows the ν=1/2 Laughlin state survives down to a driving frequency ω/Jx = 20 at interaction U/Jx = 10, and down to ω/Jx = 15 at U/Jx = 1, as identified by the gap and mode counting in the particle-entanglement spectrum (the entanglement between subsets of particles). The authors also show that a slow ramp that turns on the driving and the inter-chain tunneling, starting from decoupled wires, prepares the Laughlin state in about 20 ℏ/Jx, an experimentally realistic time scale. If correct, this puts a cold-atom fractional quantum Hall state within reach using the same driving scheme already used to realize the Harper-Hofstadter model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the driven Bose-Hubbard model with a sinusoidal density modulation, Eq. (1), whose Floquet high-frequency expansion yields the effective Harper-Hofstadter Hamiltonian of Eq. (3) with a renormalized y-hopping J'_y = κ/(2ω sin(φ/2)) Jy. The argument proceeds by constructing the stroboscopic time-evolution operator U_F (one driving period) and examining the particle-entanglement spectrum (PES)—the negative logarithm of the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix after tracing out a subset of particles—of the low-lying Floquet eigenstates. The PES is the load-bearing diagnostic: a gap and the Laughlin counting of modes below the gap identify the topological state. For state preparation, the key mechanism is the slow ramp in Eq. (17), which adiabatically connects decoupled wires to the driven lattice.

What would settle it

Keep the boundary phasor terms $e^{{-iωt(Ly-1)}}$ and $e^{{iωt(Ly-1)}}$ that the paper drops when imposing periodic boundary conditions in the rotating frame, and exactly simulate the Floquet dynamics of the driven Bose-Hubbard model; if the particle-entanglement gap and Laughlin counting no longer appear at ω/Jx = 15–20 over several hundred driving periods, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the stroboscopic dynamics of Np = 4, 5, and 6 bosons in the driven Bose-Hubbard model with flux density α = 1/4 and driving amplitude κ/ω = 0.5 supports the topological ν = 1/2 Laughlin state for driving frequencies down to ω/Jx = 20 at U/Jx = 10 and down to ω/Jx = 15 at U/Jx = 1. The evidence is the particle-entanglement spectrum of the low-energy eigenstates of the one-period time-evolution operator: a clear entanglement gap with the Laughlin counting of low-lying modes (for example, 10 and 9 modes in the two momentum sectors at Np = 6). The paper further claims that a slow ramp of the y-direction tunneling and the driving amplitude, starting from decoupled wires with atoms on every second wire, prepares this Laughlin state on time scales of order 20 ℏ/Jx, with an overlap to the target Floquet eigenstates of more than 99% (error below 1%) for Np = 4.

Load-bearing premise

The experimental realism of the protocol rests on neglecting the time-oscillating boundary terms $e^{{-iωt(Ly-1)}}$ and $e^{{iωt(Ly-1)}}$ in the rotating-frame Hamiltonian, which the paper admits would require engineering additional non-trivial terms in the lab frame.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same driving scheme already used to create synthetic magnetic fields in optical lattices (κ/ω = 0.5, φ = π/2) suffices to stabilize a bosonic Laughlin state; no additional magnetic-field engineering is needed.
  • A concrete prethermal parameter window exists: driving frequencies around ω/Jx = 15–20 (for U/Jx = 1–10) avoid both fast heating and higher-band coupling, giving experiments a target operating regime.
  • The slow ramp prepares the topological state in about 20 ℏ/Jx, a time scale compatible with current cold-atom experiments; ramp rates up to η/Jx = 0.1 work in the optimal interaction range U/Jx ≈ 5.
  • Topological features persist on intermediate time scales even in a regime that eventually heats to infinite temperature (for example, ω/Jx = 15 at U/Jx = 10), so the state may be observable before heating dominates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the neglected boundary phasor terms grow with the system circumference; for the small lattices studied (Ly = 8–12) they are presumably minor, but for larger samples or different boundary conditions the stability window could shift.
  • Beyond the paper: a practical experimental probe could be the particle-entanglement entropy or local density correlations after the ramp; recent detection schemes for fractional excitations in small bosonic systems could be adapted to verify the topological state without measuring a Chern number.
  • Beyond the paper: applying the same Floquet-plus-entanglement-spectrum analysis to other fillings (for example, ν = 1) or to fermionic atoms could reveal whether the prethermal stability window found here is specific to the ν = 1/2 Laughlin state.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper numerically studies a periodically driven Bose-Hubbard model on a small tilted lattice with a driving scheme designed to generate a synthetic magnetic flux. Using exact diagonalization of the driven model and particle-entanglement-spectrum diagnostics, it identifies a prethermal regime in which the stroboscopic dynamics supports a ν=1/2 bosonic Laughlin state for Np=4, 5, and 6 particles at intermediate driving frequencies. It further proposes a slow ramp of the y-direction tunneling and the driving amplitude, starting from decoupled wires, and reports preparation of Laughlin-like states on time scales of order 20ℏ/Jx. The paper's central technical content is a parameter scan in U and ω with no fitted parameters; its headline claim is that the protocol is experimentally realistic.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a useful step toward cold-atom fractional quantum Hall physics: it identifies a finite-size prethermal window in which a driven lattice can host a small bosonic Laughlin state, and it provides a concrete dynamical preparation ramp. The exact-diagonalization calculations are standard and appropriate for the system sizes considered, and the particle-entanglement-spectrum counting is taken from established references rather than fitted, which makes the topological identification credible for the model actually simulated. The paper is also unusually explicit about the approximations made in passing from the lab frame to the simulated model. The main weakness is that the simulated model omits boundary phasor terms that the appendix itself acknowledges would require additional lab-frame engineering, so the experimental-realism portion of the central claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A.9)-(A.11)] The Hamiltonian actually simulated, Eq. (1), is obtained from the rotating-frame Hamiltonian (A.9) by dropping the boundary phasor terms e^{-iωt(Ly-1)}H_{Ly-1}+e^{iωt(Ly-1)}H_{-Ly+1} and imposing periodic boundary conditions in both directions. The appendix states that realizing these terms 'would require engineering additional non-trivial terms in the lab frame.' This is not a harmless high-frequency suppression: at stroboscopic times the phasors evaluate to unity, and in a Magnus expansion the boundary terms first contribute at second order with a scale set by Jy^2/[(Ly-1)ω]. For the parameters used in the main text (Jy=5Jx, Ly=8, ω/Jx=15) this scale is about 0.24Jx, which is comparable to the engineered effective hopping J'_y≈0.18Jy≈0.88Jx. Because the central claim includes preparation on experimentally realistic time scales, the authors should either include the boundary terms (or a controlled model of the required lab engineering) in at least the smallest-system simulations, or explicitly restrict the conclusions to the modified model defined by Eq. (1) and remove the direct experimental-realism claim for the stated geometry.
  2. [Section III B and Conclusions] The concluding sentence that 'the stroboscopic dynamics of Np=4,5,6 particles supports the topological ν=1/2 Laughlin state down to ω/Jx=20 for U/Jx=10, and down to ω/Jx=15 for U/Jx=1' is stronger than the evidence presented. Full diagonalization of U_F and particle-entanglement-spectrum analysis of its eigenstates are shown only for Np=4 (Fig. 4); for Np=5 and Np=6 the supporting evidence comes from the time-dependent ramp simulations in Section IV (Figs. 5-7), which demonstrate dynamical preparation but not that the eigenstates of U_F themselves are Laughlin-like in those size sectors. The authors should either add the U_F eigenstate PES for Np=5 and Np=6, or rephrase the conclusion to distinguish eigenstate support from dynamical preparation evidence.
  3. [Eqs. (7), (8), (A.12)] The initial state (7) and the energy observable (8) both use the kick operator K(t=0) approximated by its leading-order expression (A.12). At the intermediate frequencies ω/Jx=15-20 that are central to the paper, the size of the neglected higher-order terms in K is neither estimated nor tested. A quantitative check, for example comparing the leading-order K with a numerically computed micromotion operator for Np=4, would strengthen the claim that the prepared state corresponds to the full driven Floquet dynamics rather than to the truncated micromotion approximation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section II B, final paragraph] The sentence 'By analyzing the effective model from Eq. (1)' should refer to Eq. (3), since Eq. (1) is the driven Hamiltonian and Eq. (3) is the effective model.
  2. [Section IV B, caption of Fig. 5(c)] The phrase 'overlap ... with high fidelity (better than 1%)' is ambiguous; 'fidelity above 0.99' or 'error below 1%' would be clearer.
  3. [Section II A, text near Eq. (4)] The notation J'_y≡κ/(2ω) sin(φ/2)J_y would be clearer with explicit parentheses; as printed, it can be misread as κ/(2ω sin(φ/2))J_y.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an unforced numerical result benchmarked against externally established PES counting.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The regime of parameters is guided by the effective Hamiltonian (3), whose Laughlin ground state is identified using the externally established particle-entanglement-spectrum counting of Refs. [52,53] (Table I), and then the full driven dynamics of Eq. (1) is simulated without fitting any parameter to the target Laughlin state. The quantities that support the central claim - the long-time energy Q(t), the PES gap of the stroboscopic mixture rho_F, and the ramped-state gap Delta(t) - are independently computed outputs of exact time evolution and Floquet diagonalization. No 'prediction' is a renamed fit; no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked; no ansatz is smuggled in by self-citation. The paper explicitly flags its main approximation in the Appendix: the rotating-frame Hamiltonian (A.9) contains boundary phasor terms e^{-i omega t (L_y-1)} and e^{i omega t (L_y-1)} that are dropped to impose periodic boundary conditions, and the text states that realizing them 'would require engineering additional non-trivial terms in the lab frame.' This is a limitation on the experimental-realism claim and a potential correctness risk, but it is not circular: it is an acknowledged modeling approximation, not an input recycled as an output. Likewise, keeping the kick operator only to leading order (A.12) is an approximation, not a circular step. The mild sense in which the effective-model ground state 'seeds' the search is not circularity, because the full driven calculation is a non-trivial check that could have failed.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the parameter regimes are outputs of a scan. The central claim relies on four assumptions: the single-band Bose-Hubbard description, the leading-order high-frequency expansion, the neglect of boundary phasor terms, and the particle-entanglement spectrum counting as a Laughlin-state diagnostic. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The deep optical lattice is described by the single-band Bose-Hubbard model of Eq. (1).
    The paper starts from this model and does not include higher-band effects; Ref. [44] is cited for the validity window.
  • domain assumption Leading-order high-frequency Floquet expansion gives accurate effective Hamiltonian (3) and kick operator (A.12) at the intermediate frequencies used.
    Initial states and energy diagnostics use these leading-order objects; higher-order corrections from interactions are mentioned but not computed.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary phasor terms in the rotating frame can be neglected to impose translational invariance.
    The appendix drops e^{-iωt(Ly-1)} and e^{iωt(Ly-1)} terms from Eq. (A.9) and states this would require additional engineering in the lab frame.
  • domain assumption Particle-entanglement spectrum mode counting identifies the Laughlin state.
    The paper relies on the established counting from Refs. [52,53] to diagnose topological order.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bosonic fractional quantum Hall states in driven optical lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3ZRUZK35

@misc{pith2026190807006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bosonic fractional quantum Hall states in driven optical lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3ZRUZK35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07006}
}
abstract

Strong synthetic magnetic fields have been successfully implemented in periodically driven optical lattices. However, the interplay of the driving and interactions introduces detrimental heating, and for this reason it is still challenging to reach a fractional quantum Hall state in cold-atom setup. By performing a numerical study, we investigate stability of a bosonic Laughlin state in a small atomic sample exposed to driving. We identify an optimal regime of microscopic parameters, in particular interaction strength $U$ and the driving frequency $\omega$, such that the stroboscopic dynamics supports the basic $\nu = 1/2$ Laughlin state. Moreover, we explore slow ramping of a driving term and show that the considered protocol allows for the preparation of the Laughlin state on experimentally realistic time scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07006 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Lattice geometry used throughout the paper. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The energy spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The normalized total energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Properties of the eigenstates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The expectation value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The low-lying part of the particle-entanglement spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The particle-entanglement gap ∆( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Hofstetter and T

    W. Hofstetter and T. Qin, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 51, 082001 (2018). 10

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    N. K. Wilkin and J. M. F. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 6 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    N. R. Cooper, N. K. Wilkin, and J. M. F. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 120405 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    Paredes, P

    B. Paredes, P. Fedichev, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 010402 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    M. Popp, B. Paredes, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 70, 053612 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    A. S. Sørensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 086803 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    E. H. Rezayi, N. Read, and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 160404 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Hafezi, A

    M. Hafezi, A. S. Sørensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 76, 023613 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Petrescu, M

    A. Petrescu, M. Piraud, G. Roux, I. P. McCulloch, and K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B 96, 014524 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Y.-C. He, F. Grusdt, A. Kaufman, M. Greiner, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B 96, 201103 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Rosson, M

    P. Rosson, M. Lubasch, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, Phys. Rev. A 99, 033603 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Y.-J. Lin, R. L. Compton, K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, J. V. Porto, and I. B. Spielman, Nature (London) 462, 628 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Miyake, G

    H. Miyake, G. A. Siviloglou, C. J. Kennedy, W. C. Burton, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185302 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Aidelsburger, M

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

    2013

  8. [16]

    Jotzu, M

    G. Jotzu, M. Messer, R. Desbuquois, M. Lebrat, T. Uehlinger, D. Greif, and T. Esslinger, Nature (Lon- don) 515, 237 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Aidelsburger, M

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

    2015

  10. [18]

    C. J. Kennedy, W. C. Burton, W. C. Chung, and W. Ket- terle, Nat. Phys. 11, 859 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Fl¨ aschner, B

    N. Fl¨ aschner, B. S. Rem, M. Tarnowski, D. Vogel, D.- S. L¨ uhmann, K. Sengstock, and C. Weitenberg, Science 352, 1091 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, T. Menke, Dan Borgnia, P. M. Preiss, F. Grusdt, A. M. Kaufman, and M. Greiner, Nature (London) 546, 519 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Dalibard, F

    J. Dalibard, F. Gerbier, G. Juzeli¯ unas, and P. ¨Ohberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1523 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Eckardt, Rev

    A. Eckardt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 011004 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

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

    2019

  16. [24]

    Goldman and J

    N. Goldman and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. X 4, 031027 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Goldman, J

    N. Goldman, J. Dalibard, M. Aidelsburger, and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. A 91, 033632 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Eckardt and E

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

    2015

  19. [27]

    Plekhanov, G

    K. Plekhanov, G. Roux, and K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B 95, 045102 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    D’Alessio and M

    L. D’Alessio and M. Rigol, Phys. Rev. X 4, 041048 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Lazarides, A

    A. Lazarides, A. Das, and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. E 90, 012110 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Ponte, A

    P. Ponte, A. Chandran, Z. Papi´ c, and D. A. Abanin, Ann. Phys. (N. Y. ) 353, 196 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    D. A. Abanin, W. De Roeck, and F. Huveneers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 256803 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    T. Mori, T. Kuwahara, and K. Saito, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120401 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Bukov, S

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

    2015

  26. [34]

    Kuwahara, T

    T. Kuwahara, T. Mori, and K. Saito, Ann. Phys. (N. Y. ) 367, 96 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    D. A. Abanin, W. De Roeck, W. W. Ho, and F. Huve- neers, Phys. Rev. B 95, 014112 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Abanin, W

    D. Abanin, W. De Roeck, W. W. Ho, and F. Huveneers, Commun. Math. Phys. 354, 809 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Machado, G

    F. Machado, G. D. Meyer, D. V. Else, C. Nayak, and N. Y. Yao, arXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1708.01620 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Haldar, R

    A. Haldar, R. Moessner, and A. Das, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245122 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Seetharam, P

    K. Seetharam, P. Titum, M. Kolodrubetz, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014311 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Lellouch, M

    S. Lellouch, M. Bukov, E. Demler, and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021015 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    N¨ ager, K

    J. N¨ ager, K. Wintersperger, M. Bukov, S. Lel- louch, E. Demler, U. Schneider, I. Bloch, N. Gold- man, and M. Aidelsburger, arXiv e-prints (2018), arXiv:1808.07462 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Boulier, J

    T. Boulier, J. Maslek, M. Bukov, C. Bracamontes, E. Magnan, S. Lellouch, E. Demler, N. Goldman, and J. V. Porto, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011047 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Bukov and A

    M. Bukov and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. A 90, 043613 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Sun and A

    G. Sun and A. Eckardt, arXiv e-prints (2018), arXiv:1805.02443 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. G. Grushin, A. G´ omez-Le´ on, and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 156801 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Raˇ ci¯ unas, G.ˇZlabys, A

    M. Raˇ ci¯ unas, G.ˇZlabys, A. Eckardt, and E. Anisimovas, Phys. Rev. A 93, 043618 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Dauphin, D.-T

    A. Dauphin, D.-T. Tran, M. Lewenstein, and N. Gold- man, 2D Mater. 4, 024010 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Motruk and F

    J. Motruk and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B 96, 165107 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Grifoni and P

    M. Grifoni and P. H¨ anggi, Phys. Rep. 304, 229 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

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

    1983

  43. [51]

    F. D. M. Haldane and E. H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. B 31, 2529 (1985)

    1985

  44. [52]

    Sterdyniak, N

    A. Sterdyniak, N. Regnault, and G. M¨ oller, Phys. Rev. B 86, 165314 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    Sterdyniak, N

    A. Sterdyniak, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 100405 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    O. S. Zozulya, M. Haque, and K. Schoutens, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042326 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    Haque, O

    M. Haque, O. S. Zozulya, and K. Schoutens, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 504012 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    Regnault and B

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

    2011

  49. [57]

    B. A. Bernevig and N. Regnault, Phys. Rev. B85, 075128 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    Bukov, M

    M. Bukov, M. Heyl, D. A. Huse, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155132 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    H. M. Price and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. A 85, 033620 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    Dauphin and N

    A. Dauphin and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 135302 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    D. T. Tran, A. Dauphin, A. G. Grushin, P. Zoller, and N. Goldman, Sci. Adv. 3, e1701207 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Hudomal, I

    A. Hudomal, I. Vasi´ c, H. Buljan, W. Hofstetter, and 11 A. Balaˇ z, Phys. Rev. A98, 053625 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Repellin and N

    C. Repellin and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 166801 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Raˇ ci¯ unas, F

    M. Raˇ ci¯ unas, F. N.¨Unal, E. Anisimovas, and A. Eckardt, Phys. Rev. A 98, 063621 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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