Fractional Fermion Number and Hall Conductivity of Domain Walls

Dmitri Vassilevich; J. Mateos Guilarte

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 22 references

Fractional Fermion Number and Hall Conductivity of Domain Walls

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A domain wall separating regions of different chiral angle carries a fermion number fixed by the magnetic flux through it, and the same data determine its Hall conductivity.

desk verdict The physical formula is right, but the main heat-kernel derivation has a factor-of-two inconsistency that needs fixing before Eq. (17) can be cited as derived. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07989 v1 pith:MSP64JDM submitted 2019-08-21 hep-th cond-mat.mes-hall

J. Mateos Guilarte , Dmitri Vassilevich This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords fractionalfermionnumberdomainwallsheatkernelexpansionspectraletafunctionChern-SimonstermHallconductivitychiralbagboundaryconditionsparityanomaly

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 derives a closed formula for the fractional fermion number carried by a thick domain wall in 3+1 dimensions: when a scalar and an axial scalar field approach different asymptotic values on the two sides and a constant magnetic flux crosses the wall, the fermion number is $N = -\frac{e}{4\pi^2}(\theta_+-\theta_-)\int d^2x\,F_{12}$, where $\theta = \arctan(\phi_2/\phi_1)$ is the chiral angle. The derivation uses a resummed heat-kernel expansion of the spectral eta function of the Dirac Hamiltonian, and it shows that the answer is topological, depending only on the asymptotic chiral angles and the flux. The same effective-action computation fixes the induced Chern-Simons level $k = -\frac{\theta_+-\theta_-}{2\pi}$, which means that a nonzero fermion number always comes with a Hall conductivity on the wall. In the thin-wall limit the chiral bag boundary condition appears, and the same level formula describes a manifold with a boundary.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the spectral eta function $\eta(s,H) = \sum_{\lambda>0}\lambda^{-s} - \sum_{\lambda<0}(-\lambda)^{-s}$ of the Dirac Hamiltonian, whose value at $s=0$ fixes the fermion number. To compute it, the paper uses the localized eta function and the heat kernel expansion of the Laplace-type operator $L = H^2 - M^2$, whose coefficients $a_k$ are integrals of local invariants built from a matrix potential $E$ and a curvature $\Omega$. The load-bearing observation is that after taking the trace over gamma matrices, only the invariants proportional to $E^{k/2}$ survive in the relevant coefficients, so the large-mass expansion can be resummed term by term into the closed formula. The variation formula $\delta\eta(0) = -\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}a_2(H^2,\delta H) = 0$ establishes that $\eta(0)$ is a homotopy invariant, which is why the result is insensitive to the interior shape of the wall.

What would settle it

A lattice evaluation of the spectral asymmetry for a thick-wall profile with $\theta_+-\theta_- = \pi$ and one unit of flux would settle it, since the formula predicts $N = -e\Phi/(4\pi)$ regardless of the interior profile; equivalently, computing the full $a_6$ heat kernel coefficient for a generic profile would reveal whether any non-$E^{k/2}$ gamma trace survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for Dirac fermions coupled to background scalar fields $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$ and an electromagnetic potential, the vacuum fermion number of a static domain wall is the spectral asymmetry $N = -\frac{1}{2}\eta(0,H)$, whose heat-kernel evaluation, to first order in the magnetic field strength, yields $N = -\frac{e}{4\pi^2}(\theta(+\infty)-\theta(-\infty))\int d^2x\,F_{12}$. Because the localized eta function is a homotopy invariant, the formula does not depend on the detailed profile of the wall, only on the chiral angles at the two asymptotic regions and on the magnetic flux. Using the current obtained from the parity-odd part of the effective action, the same result fixes the induced Chern-Simons level $k = -\frac{\theta_+-\theta_-}{2\pi}$, so the wall necessarily has a Hall conductivity whenever the chiral twist and flux are nonzero. In the thin-and-impenetrable limit the wall is replaced by the chiral bag boundary condition $(1 - i\gamma^3 e^{i\theta_-\gamma^5})\psi = 0$, and the same level formula applies at the boundary.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation rests on the unproved assertion that, after tracing over gamma matrices, only the pure-potential $E^{k/2}$ invariants survive in every heat kernel coefficient; if derivative- or curvature-dependent terms also contribute, the closed formula for the fermion number would acquire corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a wall with chiral twist $\theta_+-\theta_-$ and flux $\Phi = \int d^2x\,F_{12}$, the fermion number is exactly $N = -\frac{e}{4\pi^2}(\theta_+-\theta_-)\Phi$, so the interior profile of the wall is irrelevant.
Every such wall carries an induced Chern-Simons level $k = -\frac{\theta_+-\theta_-}{2\pi}$ and a Hall conductivity $\sigma_{xy} = \frac{k e^2}{2\pi}$, so fractional fermion number and Hall conduction always appear together.
In the thin-wall limit the chiral bag boundary condition emerges, and the same level formula governs the boundary, so the Hall response persists at a sharp interface.
The parity-odd effective action is not topological, so derivative corrections to the long-wavelength Chern-Simons form may be present even though the fermion number itself is exact.
If the scalar background vanishes in one asymptotic region, the wall's contribution is localized where $|\phi| \neq 0$, and the chiral-angle difference must be read from the last points where $|\phi|$ is nonzero.

Reading between the lines

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

The factorized form of $N$, a one-dimensional soliton-charge factor times a two-dimensional Dirac-index flux factor, suggests an index-theoretic proof for non-compact walls, extending the compact-manifold factorization cited in the paper to this setting.
A lattice evaluation of the spectral asymmetry for a wall with an asymmetric interior profile and fixed asymptotics would test the $E^{k/2}$ truncation directly, since the topological-invariance claim predicts exact agreement with the closed formula for any profile.
Because the induced level depends only on $\theta_+-\theta_-$, adjusting the asymptotic axial scalar fields offers a practical way to tune the Hall conductivity of Dirac-material interfaces, provided the regulator subtleties noted in the comparison with earlier boundary calculations are resolved.
The same resummation technique should apply to other codimension-one defects, such as vortex lines crossing a wall or curved interfaces, with the magnetic flux replaced by an appropriate winding or curvature invariant.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the final formula (17) and the Chern-Simons level (26) are physically right—they match the known Hall response on a topological insulator boundary and the effective-action argument in Sec. 3. Second, the derivation of (17) in Sec. 2 is not correct as written. I checked the algebra: substituting (16) into (15) gives η(0;ρ) = +e/(4π²)∫ F12 ∂3θ. With the standard N=−1/2η, that is N=−e/(8π²)ΔθΦ, half of (17). The paper's own relation (6) between η and j0 also contradicts (4) by a factor of four when integrated. So there is a factor-of-two error somewhere—most plausibly in the coefficient 1/(2l!) in (16), which should be 1/l!—and a separate normalization slip in (6). The stress-test note's arithmetic holds up.

What is genuinely good: the factorization of the fermion number into the chiral-angle difference and the magnetic flux is a clean and useful statement, and the step-function limit that produces chiral bag boundary conditions is a nice concrete application. The paper is short, honest about the truncation claim (though that claim is unproved), and does not fit parameters to get the answer. The connection to the earlier conjecture in [12] is handled fairly: they don't oversell it.

Soft spots, in proportion. The factor-of-two inconsistency is load-bearing: the central formula is not actually derived in Sec. 2. The assertion that only E^{k/2} heat-kernel invariants survive the gamma trace is also not justified, and if other invariants contribute the simple closed form could change. Sec. 3's "long wavelength limit" is a plausible but asserted step, not a derivation. None of this makes the physical conclusion doubtful—the Hall conductivity side of the paper is on solid ground—but the proof as printed is not.

Recommendation: a serious referee should see this, not a desk reject. The formula is worth publishing, and the errors look fixable. I'd send it back with a request to correct the heat-kernel coefficients and the η-current normalization, and to justify or remove the truncation claim. Once that is done, the letter is publishable. For now, I would not cite Eq. (17) as a derived result, only as a conjecture supported by the effective-action argument.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper computes the fractional fermion number induced on a planar domain wall in a (3+1)-dimensional Dirac theory with scalar and axial-scalar background fields and a magnetic flux, using a localized spectral eta function and a resummed heat kernel expansion. The central claim is Eq. (17): N = -e/(4π^2)(θ(+∞)-θ(-∞))∫d^2x F12, where θ is the chiral angle of the background fields. The same result is used to identify the induced Chern-Simons level on the wall as k = -(θ_+-θ_-)/(2π) (Eq. (26)), and a chiral bag boundary-condition limit is discussed.

Significance. If the derivation were sound, the paper would establish a clean, parameter-free relation between fractional fermion number, magnetic flux, and the chiral phase jump across a domain wall, with a direct consequence for the Hall conductivity: a nonvanishing fermion number implies a quantized Hall response. The connection to chiral bag boundary conditions and the comparison with earlier boundary calculations are valuable. The formulas are explicit and falsifiable, and the method extends the heat-kernel resummation of Ref. [7] to three spatial dimensions. However, the central derivation in Section 2 contains an arithmetic factor-of-two inconsistency, and the key truncation to E^{k/2} invariants is asserted without proof. These issues must be corrected before the result can be considered established.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2, Eq. (6)] As written, Eq. (17) does not follow from Eqs. (15) and (16). Substituting (16) into (15) with k = 2(l+3) gives Γ(k/2-2) = Γ(l+1) = l!, which cancels the factorial but leaves a factor 1/2 from the denominator 2l! in (16). Using ∑_l |M|^{-2l-2}(M^2-φ^2)^l = 1/φ^2 and (φ2∂3φ1 - φ1∂3φ2)/φ^2 = -∂3θ, one obtains η(0,H;ρ) = + (e/4π^2)∫d^3x F12 ∂3θ ρ. Combining this with Eq. (4), N = -η/2, gives N = -(e/8π^2)ΔθΦ, while combining it with the paper's Eq. (6) gives N = -(e/2π^2)ΔθΦ. Neither reproduces Eq. (17). The claimed result requires the denominator in (16) to be l! rather than 2l!, together with the standard relation N = -η/2. Please correct the arithmetic or justify the intended coefficient in (16).
[Sec. 2, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) is inconsistent with Eq. (4). Setting ρ = 1 in (6) yields η(0,H) = -N/2, whereas Eq. (4) states N = -η(0,H)/2, i.e., η(0,H) = -2N. The standard relation between the localized eta function and the vacuum charge density is η(0,H;ρ) = -2∫d^3x ρ j0 with ∫j0 = N. Please correct the factor in Eq. (6); as printed, the extraction of N from the localized eta function is ambiguous and changes the final result by a factor of four.
[Sec. 2, after Eq. (15)] The assertion that 'only the E^{k/2} invariants contribute' to the heat kernel coefficients after tracing over gamma matrices is load-bearing and unproved. The resummation of the large-mass expansion converts the derivative expansion into an exact closed form, so if additional invariants such as ΩijΩij E^{p-2} or (∇E)^2 E^{p-3} contributed at the same order, Eq. (17) would acquire corrections. Please provide a proof or a precise reference deriving the coefficient (16) from the standard heat kernel coefficient formulas, and state the sense in which the omitted invariants vanish after the trace.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 2, after Eq. (12)] The statement that 'all coefficients with even k vanish' contradicts Eq. (13), which uses even k (2l). The intended statement is presumably that coefficients with odd k vanish on manifolds without boundaries; please correct this.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (16)] The notation '2l!' in Eq. (16) is ambiguous: if it means 2·l!, it conflicts with the 1/l! coefficient in Eq. (13); if it means (2l)!, the cancellation leading to Eq. (17) is even less transparent. Please define the notation and ensure the coefficient is consistent with the standard heat kernel expansion.
[Sec. 3, below Eq. (20)] The footnote marker '1' appears to be attached to the wrong word; the sentence should read 'By integrating this current over spatial coordinates...'.
[References] Reference [6] contains a typo: 'ployacetylene' should be 'polyacetylene'.
[Sec. 4] The sentence 'The results is consistent with the previous calculations' should read 'The result is consistent with the previous calculations'.
[Sec. 2 and Sec. 3] Please state explicitly the sign convention for the elementary charge e and the orientation of ε^{0123} when comparing Eq. (17) with Eq. (25); the sign of Δθ depends on the orientation of x3 and on the definition θ = arctan(φ2/φ1).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the heat-kernel derivation of Eq. (17) and the comparison leading to Eq. (26) are self-contained, with self-citations supplying method and comparison only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (17) is computed from the heat-kernel expansion of the localized eta function, Eqs. (5)-(16), using only the Dirac Lagrangian (1), the heat-kernel coefficient formula (13) from [13], and the resummation (15) taken from [7]. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data, and no target quantity is inserted into the calculation: the fermion number comes out as a product of the asymptotic chiral-angle difference and the magnetic flux. The Chern-Simons level (26) is then obtained by comparing the integrated parity-odd current (25) with the independently obtained fermion number (17); this is a consistency relation between two derived quantities, not a definition of either. The self-citation to [7] supplies a general resummation technique whose assumptions do not include the present domain-wall result, and the coefficient computation (16) is performed explicitly in the paper; hence the citation is real method evidence and does not make the derivation circular. The unproved assertion in Sec. 2 that only E^{k/2} invariants contribute is a technical gap, and a skeptic's factor-of-two arithmetic concern would be a correctness issue; neither amounts to a reduction of a prediction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard heat kernel and spectral geometry tools, one unproved truncation assumption, and three domain assumptions about factorization and boundary limits. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)

standard math The heat kernel asymptotic expansion for Laplace-type operators with the standard coefficients a_k is valid.
Used throughout; cited to [13], a standard reference.
standard math The variation of the spectral eta function at s=0 is given by δη(0,H) = -2/√π a2(H^2, δH) for localized variations.
Cited to [14,15]; standard result for eta invariants of Dirac-type operators.
ad hoc to paper The large-mass derivative expansion of the eta function can be resummed and only the E^{k/2} invariants contribute to the heat kernel coefficients in the sector considered.
This truncation is stated in Section 2 after Eq. (15) without a proof; it is the main technical assumption of the derivation.
domain assumption In the long wavelength limit, the parity odd part of the effective action factorizes into a Chern-Simons term on the wall.
Assumed in Section 3 to derive Eq. (22); relies on the localization of the form factor F(x,y).
domain assumption The strong coupling limit of a constant scalar field gives the chiral bag boundary condition (1 - iγ^3 e^{iθ-γ5}) ψ = 0.
Used in Section 3 to compute the Chern-Simons level on a boundary; supported by [18,19,20].
domain assumption The eta invariant η(0,H) is a homotopy invariant for the considered class of non-compact backgrounds with the specified asymptotic behavior.
Used to argue the result is exact for arbitrary backgrounds with the same asymptotics despite derivative expansions; not fully proven in the letter.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractional Fermion Number and Hall Conductivity of Domain Walls." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MSP64JDM

@misc{pith2026190807989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractional Fermion Number and Hall Conductivity of Domain Walls},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MSP64JDM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07989}
}

read the original abstract

In this letter the fractional fermion number of thick domain walls is computed. The analysis is achieved by developing the heat kernel expansion of the spectral eta functon of the Dirac Hamiltonian governing the fermionic fluctuations around the domain wall. A formula is derived showing that a non null fermion number is always accompanied by a Hall conductivity induced on the wall. In the limit of thin and impenetrable walls the chiral bag boundary conditions arise, and the Hall conductivity is computed for this case as well.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[12]

Topological Insulators Avoid the Parity Anomaly

M. Mulligan and F. J. Burnell, “Topological Insulators Avoid the Pa rity Anomaly,” Phys. Rev. B 88 (2013) 085104 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.88.085104 [arXiv:1301.4230 [cond-mat.str-el]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[7]

Soliton Fermionic number from the heat kernel expansion,

A. Alonso-Izquierdo, R. Fresneda, J. Mateos Guilarte and D. Va ssilevich, “Soliton Fermionic number from the heat kernel expansion,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.6, 525 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7041-8 [arXiv:1905.09030 [hep- th]]

arXiv 2019
[1]

Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2,

R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, “Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2,” Phys. R ev. D 13, 3398 (1976). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.3398

doi:10.1103/physrevd.13.3398 1976
[2]

Fermion Number Fractionization in Quantum Field Theory,

A. J. Niemi and G. W. Semenoﬀ, “Fermion Number Fractionization in Quantum Field Theory,” Phys. Rept. 135 (1986) 99. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(86)90167-5

doi:10.1016/0370-1573(86)90167-5 1986
[3]

Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2 in Con- densed Matter and Relativistic Field Theories,

R. Jackiw and J. R. Schrieﬀer, “Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2 in Con- densed Matter and Relativistic Field Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 190 (1981) 253. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90557-5

work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90557-5 1981
[4]

Electron fractionalization for two-dimensional Dirac fermions,

C. Chamon, C. Y. Hou, R. Jackiw, C. Mudry, S. Y. Pi and G. Semen oﬀ, “Electron fractionalization for two-dimensional Dirac fermions,” Phys. Rev. B 77 (2008) 235431 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.77.235431 [arXiv:0712.2439 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2008
[5]

Prediction of at topological $p+ip$ excitonic insulator with parity anomaly

R. Wang, O. Erten, B. Wang and D. Y. Xing, “Prediction of a topolo gical p + ip excitonic insulator with parity anomaly,” Nature Commun. 10 (2019) no.1, 210 doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08203-9 [arXiv:1705.06421 [cond-mat.str -el]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[6]

Soliton fractional charges in graphene nanoribbon and polyacetylene: similarities and differences

S.-R. Eric Yang, ”Soliton fractional charges in graphene nanorib bons and ployaceti- lene: similarities and diﬀerences”, arXiv:1906.07896 [cond-mat.mes-h all]

work page Pith review arXiv 1906

Show all 22 references

[8]

Axial Anomaly Induced Fermion Fr actionization and Eﬀective Gauge Theory Actions in Odd Dimensional Space-Times,

A. J. Niemi and G. W. Semenoﬀ, “Axial Anomaly Induced Fermion Fr actionization and Eﬀective Gauge Theory Actions in Odd Dimensional Space-Times,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 2077. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.51.2077

1983 doi
[9]

Parity Violation and Gauge Noninvariance of the Eﬀe ctive Gauge Field Action in Three-Dimensions,

A. N. Redlich, “Parity Violation and Gauge Noninvariance of the Eﬀe ctive Gauge Field Action in Three-Dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 29 (1984) 2366. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.29.2366

1984 doi
[10]

Parity anomaly in four dimensions,

M. Kurkov and D. Vassilevich, “Parity anomaly in four dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.2, 025011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.025011 [arXiv:1704.06 736 [hep-th]]

2017 doi
[11]

Gravitational parity anomaly with and without boundaries,

M. Kurkov and D. Vassilevich, “Gravitational parity anomaly with and without boundaries,” JHEP 1803 (2018) 072 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)072 [arXiv:1801.02049 [hep-th]]. 8

2018 arXiv
[13]

Heat kernel expansion: User’s manual,

D. V. Vassilevich, “Heat kernel expansion: User’s manual,” Phys . Rept. 388 (2003) 279 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2003.09.002 [hep-th/0306138]

2003 arXiv
[14]

P. B. Gilkey, Invariance Theory, the Heat Equation, and the Atiyah-Singe r Index Theorem (Publish or Perrish, Wilmington, 1984)

1984
[15]

Anomalies an d Odd Dimen- sions,

L. Alvarez-Gaume, S. Della Pietra and G. W. Moore, “Anomalies an d Odd Dimen- sions,” Annals Phys. 163 (1985) 288. doi:10.1016/0003-4916(85)90383-5

1985 doi
[16]

Fractional Quantum Numbers on S olitons,

J. Goldstone and F. Wilczek, “Fractional Quantum Numbers on S olitons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 986. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.986

1981 doi
[17]

Spectral Asymmetry, T race Identities and the Fractional Fermion Number of Magnetic Monopoles,

M. B. Paranjape and G. W. Semenoﬀ, “Spectral Asymmetry, T race Identities and the Fractional Fermion Number of Magnetic Monopoles,” Phys. Lett . 132B (1983)

1983
[18]

Topological Soliton Ba g Model for Baryons,

M. Rho, A. S. Goldhaber and G. E. Brown, “Topological Soliton Ba g Model for Baryons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 747. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.51.747

1983 doi
[19]

A New Extended Model of Hadrons,

A. Chodos, R. L. Jaﬀe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn and V. F. Weis- skopf, “A New Extended Model of Hadrons,” Phys. Rev. D 9, 3471 (1974). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3471

1974 doi
[20]

Neutrino Billiards: Time Rever sal Symme- try Breaking Without Magnetic Fields,

M. V. Berry and R. J. Mondragon, “Neutrino Billiards: Time Rever sal Symme- try Breaking Without Magnetic Fields,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 412 (1987) 53. doi:10.1098/rspa.1987.0080

1987
[21]

Quantum Dirac fer mions in half space and their interaction with electromagnetic ﬁeld,

I. Fialkovsky, M. Kurkov and D. Vassilevich, “Quantum Dirac fer mions in half space and their interaction with electromagnetic ﬁeld,” arXiv:1906.06704 [he p-th]. 9

1906 arXiv
[369]

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90328-3

doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [12]

Topological Insulators Avoid the Parity Anomaly

M. Mulligan and F. J. Burnell, “Topological Insulators Avoid the Pa rity Anomaly,” Phys. Rev. B 88 (2013) 085104 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.88.085104 [arXiv:1301.4230 [cond-mat.str-el]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

[2] [7]

Soliton Fermionic number from the heat kernel expansion,

A. Alonso-Izquierdo, R. Fresneda, J. Mateos Guilarte and D. Va ssilevich, “Soliton Fermionic number from the heat kernel expansion,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.6, 525 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7041-8 [arXiv:1905.09030 [hep- th]]

arXiv 2019

[3] [1]

Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2,

R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, “Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2,” Phys. R ev. D 13, 3398 (1976). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.3398

doi:10.1103/physrevd.13.3398 1976

[4] [2]

Fermion Number Fractionization in Quantum Field Theory,

A. J. Niemi and G. W. Semenoﬀ, “Fermion Number Fractionization in Quantum Field Theory,” Phys. Rept. 135 (1986) 99. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(86)90167-5

doi:10.1016/0370-1573(86)90167-5 1986

[5] [3]

Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2 in Con- densed Matter and Relativistic Field Theories,

R. Jackiw and J. R. Schrieﬀer, “Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2 in Con- densed Matter and Relativistic Field Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 190 (1981) 253. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90557-5

work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90557-5 1981

[6] [4]

Electron fractionalization for two-dimensional Dirac fermions,

C. Chamon, C. Y. Hou, R. Jackiw, C. Mudry, S. Y. Pi and G. Semen oﬀ, “Electron fractionalization for two-dimensional Dirac fermions,” Phys. Rev. B 77 (2008) 235431 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.77.235431 [arXiv:0712.2439 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2008

[7] [5]

Prediction of at topological $p+ip$ excitonic insulator with parity anomaly

R. Wang, O. Erten, B. Wang and D. Y. Xing, “Prediction of a topolo gical p + ip excitonic insulator with parity anomaly,” Nature Commun. 10 (2019) no.1, 210 doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08203-9 [arXiv:1705.06421 [cond-mat.str -el]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[8] [6]

Soliton fractional charges in graphene nanoribbon and polyacetylene: similarities and differences

S.-R. Eric Yang, ”Soliton fractional charges in graphene nanorib bons and ployaceti- lene: similarities and diﬀerences”, arXiv:1906.07896 [cond-mat.mes-h all]

work page Pith review arXiv 1906