Phase transition from Weyl to self-linked semimetal using bi-circular laser

Debashree Chowdhury

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Phase transition from Weyl to self-linked semimetal using bi-circular laser

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Driving a non-Hermitian triple Weyl semimetal with bi-circularly polarized light produces a periodic sequence of Fermi-surface phases, from double nodal rings to self-linked knots, controlled by the light's incidence angle.

desk verdict A plausible model calculation whose central linked/knotted-phase claim needs 3D invariants and kz control before it is convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12496 v2 pith:PVBDYXRG submitted 2024-11-19 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph

Debashree Chowdhury This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph

keywords non-HermitianWeylsemimetaltriplebi-circularlightFloquetengineeringFermisurfacetopologynodallineself-linkedBerrycurvature

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 claims that bi-circularly polarized light can turn a non-Hermitian triple Weyl semimetal into a series of distinct Fermi-surface phases, including a self-linked knot phase, simply by rotating the light's incidence angle. A triple Weyl semimetal hosts a point node with topological charge three; the paper adds a loss/gain term and drives it with two counter-rotating circular polarizations at frequency ratio $2:1$. In the effective Floquet Hamiltonian, the imaginary parts of the bands swap partners at particular angles, and each swap pattern produces a different Fermi-surface shape: double rings at $\beta=0.1$, a self-linked structure at $\beta=0.262$, an unlinked loop at $\beta=0.3$, open arcs at larger $\beta$, and then the sequence repeats. If this picture holds, bi-circular light is a continuously tunable switch between Weyl and knotted nodal-line semimetal phases, and the Berry curvature diverges exactly where the band swapping occurs.

What carries the argument

The engine is the effective Floquet Hamiltonian of Eq. (7), obtained in the high-frequency limit from the time-periodic bi-circular vector potential; it has the form $(v_z k_z + i\gamma + \dots)\sigma_z + (\dots)\sigma_y + (\dots)\sigma_x$. Bi-circular light—two counter-rotating circular polarizations with frequency ratio $2:1$—modifies the spatial-inversion and rotational symmetry of the triple Weyl node, while the hand-added loss/gain term $i\gamma\sigma_z$ makes the bands non-Hermitian. The decisive mechanism is band swapping between the imaginary energy bands: when the imaginary parts exchange partners at specific momenta, equal-energy contours reconnect, and the paper reads the resulting shapes as double rings, self-linked knots, unlinked loops, or open arcs depending on the incidence angle $\beta$. The Berry curvature, computed from left and right eigenstates of the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, diverges at the same momentum locations and is used as a marker of the topological phase change.

What would settle it

Evaluate the full three-dimensional band structure of the effective Floquet Hamiltonian at the parameters of Fig. 2(b), sweep $k_z$ through the Brillouin zone, and compute the linking number (or another link invariant) of the nodal loops; a vanishing invariant would show that the self-linked knot phase is a two-dimensional projection artifact rather than a genuine three-dimensional link.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the standard triple Weyl Hamiltonian $H(k)=v_z k_z\sigma_z + a(k_-^3\sigma_- + k_+^3\sigma_+)$ and adding an imaginary diagonal term $i\gamma\sigma_z$, the paper derives the high-frequency Floquet effective Hamiltonian under bi-circular light whose vector potential contains two circular polarizations of frequencies $\Omega$ and $2\Omega$ with a relative phase $\alpha$. The effective Hamiltonian acquires momentum-dependent contributions organized by functions $N_1,\dots,N_5$ that depend on the incidence angles $\beta$, $\phi$, and $\alpha$. For fixed $\phi=\alpha=0$ and increasing $\beta$, the paper reports a periodic sequence of Fermi-surface topologies: a double nodal ring ($\beta=0.1$), a self-linked nodal line ($\beta=0.262$), an unlinked closed loop ($\beta=0.3$), open-ended arcs ($\beta=0.5,0.8$), and then self-linked and double-ring phases again at $\beta=1.3,1.35$. The paper interprets the self-linked and knotted Fermi surfaces as caused by swapping between the imaginary energy bands; the real and imaginary bands touch at degenerate points that are not always exceptional. It also computes the Berry curvature magnitude from left and right eigenstates and finds divergences at the band-swapping locations, identifying the small-momentum divergence as the signature of the self-linked phase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the apparent band reconnections seen in the paper's two-dimensional $k_x$–$k_y$ energy slices are real three-dimensional Fermi-surface reconnections; the paper does not state the out-of-plane momentum $k_z$ used in those plots and does not compute any three-dimensional linking invariant, so if the slices are not representative, the claimed self-linked phase could be an artifact of the chosen plane.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, the incidence angle of bi-circular light is a reversible, periodic control dial for Fermi-surface topology in a single driven sample.
The predicted Berry-curvature divergences at band-swapping momenta give an experimental signature that changes sharply as the Fermi surface goes from double ring to self-linked structure.
The results single out triple (charge-3) Weyl nodes as the platform: the paper's appendix argues that a charge-1 Weyl node under bi-circular light stays gapped, and circularly polarized light on a triple Weyl node produces only three exceptional contours, so neither alternative yields the knotted phases.
The $\gamma$–$\beta$ phase diagram places the self-linked structure near an energy minimum around $\beta=0.262$, suggesting the linked phase is reached by gradual tuning rather than by a fine-tuned accident.
Because the same sequence reappears as $\beta$ grows, the paper's picture implies these are light-induced Lifshitz transitions of the Fermi surface driven purely by the geometry of the driving field.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper never fixes or sweeps the out-of-plane momentum $k_z$ in the energy plots, and it does not evaluate a three-dimensional linking invariant; a natural next step is to compute the linking number or Alexander polynomial of the nodal lines over a closed $k_z$ cycle to confirm that 'self-linked' means topologically linked in three dimensions rather than visually reconnected in one two-dimensio
If the three-dimensional link is confirmed, pump-probe or angle-resolved photoemission on candidate triple-Weyl materials could track the sequence by recording how equal-energy contours reconnect as the bi-circular polarization angle is swept.
The same mechanism may transfer to other multi-Weyl nodes, such as double or quadruple nodes, or to artificial photonic and mechanical lattices with engineered loss and gain, where the predicted periodicity in $\beta$ provides a design rule for switching between nodal-line and knotted phases.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the BCL-driven NH triple WSM is a reasonable model exercise, and the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (7) plus the sequence of Fermi surface shapes is new as a calculation. But the headline claim—a phase transition to a self-linked/knotted semimetal—is not supported by the evidence shown. Linking is a 3D property of nodal lines; the paper reads it off 2D energy slices and |Ω| divergences without ever stating the kz slice, computing a linking invariant, or checking eigenvector coalescence at the supposed exceptional points.

What is genuinely useful: combining bi-circular light with a charge-3 NH Weyl point yields a compact effective Hamiltonian with tunable angles, and the appendix comparison with charge-1 WSM and circularly-driven triple WSM is a nice control. If someone wants to explore BCL Floquet engineering of NH multi-WSMs, Eq. (7) is a good starting point.

The soft spots are load-bearing, not cosmetic. First, no kz dependence is shown in the central figures; the model depends on kz through v_z k_z, and a linked nodal line is a curve in 3D BZ. A 2D projection can look linked when the 3D object is an unknot. Second, the first-order Floquet truncation is asserted, not justified; at η=2 there can be resonant contributions that the high-frequency approximation misses, and no parameter regime is given. Third, the NH term is added by hand; that is acceptable as a model, but it means the 'combined action' claim is only as strong as the input Hamiltonian. Fourth, exceptional points are inferred from band-touching plots without computing eigenvector coalescence; the paper itself notes some degeneracies are not exceptional. Fifth, the Berry curvature section plots only |Ω| and never integrates to a Chern number; a divergence of |Ω| does not distinguish a link from an unlink. The phase diagram in Fig. 6 is for a single k point and does not map the phases.

I would not reject the idea outright: a revised version that identifies the full degenerate manifold, computes a linking number or knot invariant, specifies kz slices, and validates the Floquet truncation could be publishable. I would send it to a referee rather than desk-reject, but I would not accept it in anything close to current form. For a reading group, it is a maybe—useful as a cautionary example of why 2D slices do not prove 3D topology. I would not cite it yet for the linked-phase claim.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a non-Hermitian triple Weyl semimetal described by H = v_z k_z σ_z + a(k_-^3 σ_- + k_+^3 σ_+) driven by bi-circularly polarized light. It derives an effective Floquet Hamiltonian (Eq. (7)) in the high-frequency limit and adds a gain/loss term iγσ_z by hand. By plotting real and imaginary parts of the energy as a function of k_x, k_y and of the radial coordinate k_ρ, the author claims that tuning the BCL polarization angle β produces double nodal rings, self-linked/knotted structures, unlinked closed loops, and open arcs, and that the Berry-curvature magnitude shows corresponding divergences. The paper concludes that BCL light drives a phase transition from a Weyl phase to self-linked/knotted nodal-line semimetals.

Significance. If established, the result would be significant: it proposes a concrete optical way to switch between Fermi-surface topologies in a non-Hermitian multi-Weyl system, with an explicit effective Hamiltonian and control parameters (β, φ, α, A0, η, γ). The comparisons in Appendix B with a single WSM and with circular polarization are useful sanity checks. The main limitation is that the exotic topology is asserted on the basis of 2D energy slices and radial Berry-curvature plots rather than from 3D nodal manifolds and topological invariants, so the present evidence does not support the central claim as it stands.

major comments (5)

[Sec. II, Figs. 2–5] The central claim of self-linked/knotted Fermi surfaces is not demonstrated because no 3D analysis of the nodal manifolds is given. The effective Hamiltonian (7) contains v_z k_z σ_z and the eigenvalues (8) depend on k_z through F, but Figs. 2–5 never state the k_z slice used (Fig. 6 fixes k_z=0). A nodal line or a link is a property of degenerate 1D manifolds in the full 3D Brillouin zone; to establish self-linking one must identify the complete set of solutions of Re(E_+−E_-)=0 and Im(E_+−E_-)=0 and compute a linking invariant. The apparent band reconnection in Fig. 2(b) and the arrows in Fig. 3(b) are 2D features and can be projections of an unlinked curve; hence they do not support the claimed phase transition.
[Sec. III, Eq. (10) and Fig. 5] The Berry-curvature argument is insufficient to prove the topological phase. The paper defines C=∫Ω_LR·dS but never evaluates any charge; Fig. 5 plots only the magnitude Ω=sqrt(Ω_kρ²+Ω_χ²+Ω_kz²) along a single radial line k_ρ at fixed (presumably) k_z. A divergence of |Ω| marks a degeneracy but cannot distinguish a linked nodal line from an unlinked one, nor can it by itself determine a self-linking number. The text's statement that the 'central part' in Fig. 5(b) 'causes the self-linked Fermi surface' is an interpretation, not a computation.
[Sec. II, Eq. (6)] The Floquet derivation of Eq. (7) is incomplete as written. The vector potential in Eq. (4) contains both frequency Ω and ηΩ=2Ω, so the first-order high-frequency expansion should include a contribution from [V_{-2}, V_{+2}]/(2ℏΩ) and possibly higher harmonics, whereas Eq. (6) retains only [V_{-1}, V_{+1}]/(ℏΩ). The paper also adds iγσ_z 'by hand' after deriving the Hermitian part; for a non-Hermitian Floquet system one should justify that the high-frequency expansion remains controlled in the presence of gain/loss. Without this, the accuracy of the effective Hamiltonian—and hence of all subsequent band-structure plots—is not established.
[Sec. II, Fig. 3] Exceptional points are identified from 2D energy plots by visual criteria (real and imaginary bands touching at zero energy, or 'imaginary band swapping') rather than by the defining condition of eigenvector coalescence. For a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, a degeneracy of eigenvalues is not sufficient for an exceptional point; the paper should test, for example, the vanishing of the overlap between left and right eigenvectors or the discriminant of the characteristic polynomial at the claimed EP positions. This matters because the paper associates specific band-swapping events with 'linking happens here' in Fig. 3(b).
[Sec. II/IV, Fig. 6] The terminology 'phase transition' is not supported by any order parameter or invariant. Fig. 6 is described as a 'phase diagram', but it plots the energy magnitude at a single point (kx=0.3, ky=0, kz=0) as a function of γ and β; it does not demarcate the different Fermi-surface topologies identified in Figs. 2–5. The text's periodic-in-β narrative and the visual classification of structures are heuristic, so the claim of a transition between distinct topological phases remains unquantified.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Sec. II] The terms 'knotted', 'self-linked', 'un-linked closed structure', and 'nodal knot' are used interchangeably; the paper should define precisely what is meant by each because these are the central objects of the claim.
[Appendix B, Eq. (B5)] Eq. (B5) contains 'k_z → k_y + A0 cos(Ωt)', which appears to be a typo (probably k_y should be replaced); as written the substitution is inconsistent with the rest of the section.
[Eq. (1) and Eq. (B6)] The definition of σ± is inconsistent: Eq. (1) writes σ± = 1/2(σx + iσy) for both signs, while Appendix B writes σ± = σx ± iσy; the convention should be made uniform.
[Fig. 5] The plotted quantity is labelled Ω and described as the magnitude sqrt(Ω_kρ²+Ω_χ²+Ω_kz²) of the Berry curvature, but the axes give no indication of units or of the fixed values of χ and k_z; this should be clarified.
[References] The reference list contains incomplete entries (e.g., [6] 'Amit Gupta, arXiv:1703.07271' without a title) and duplicate entries ([8] and [10] list the same paper); please clean up the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Floquet calculation is carried out from the stated Hamiltonian, while the unsupported linking claim is an evidence gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is not circular. The paper begins from the triple-WSM Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), inserts the BCL vector potential of Eq. (4), and constructs the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (7) (with explicit N_i coefficients in Appendix A) via the standard high-frequency Floquet expansion Eq. (6); the eigenvalues are then given in closed form by Eq. (8)/A3. No parameter is fitted to a target data set, and no output quantity is defined in terms of the claimed phase. The loss/gain term iγσ_z is openly added by hand as a modeling assumption rather than smuggled in through citation. Self-citations [12,13] are used for context (prior NH double-WSM studies) and for the standard NH left/right Berry-curvature formalism, but the paper recomputes its own spectra and Berry-curvature plots; neither citation carries the central argument. The main weakness is evidentiary: the 'self-linked' and 'knotted' Fermi-surface phases are inferred from 2D E(kx,ky) slices (Figs. 2–5) and |Ω| divergences without specifying k_z or computing a 3D linking invariant, and Fig. 6 fixes kz=0. That undercuts the strength of the topological claim, but it is a missing-proof/correctness issue, not a reduction of the derivation to its inputs. Hence no circular step can be quoted, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim depends entirely on a hand-constructed effective Hamiltonian with several chosen parameters and on interpreting 2D energy slices as 3D nodal topology. No free parameter is fitted to experiment, but many are hand-tuned to make the stated structures appear, and the topological conclusion requires assumptions that are not defended.

free parameters (5)

β (BCL polarization angle) = 0.1, 0.262, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.1, 1.3, 1.35
Hand-chosen values in Sec. II to display double-ring, self-linked, unlinked, and open-arc Fermi surfaces; no systematic scan or criterion for selection is given.
γ (non-Hermitian gain/loss strength along σz) = 0.1, 0.09, 0.9 and variations
The loss/gain term is added by hand, and its values are chosen per figure to produce the nodal structures, not derived from a physical mechanism or material.
A0 (laser amplitude) = 0.5 in Fig. 6; values in other figures not specified
Amplitude is chosen to make the effects visible; no experimental scale is provided.
η (frequency ratio of the two BCL components) = 2
The paper states 'we consider η = 2' and does not explore other integer ratios that would change the rotational symmetry.
α and φ (BCL phase and incidence angles) = 0 in most plots
Set to zero for convenience; the paper claims tunability in these angles but does not systematically study them.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The triple WSM Hamiltonian Eq. (1) with C6 rotational symmetry is an adequate starting model.
The entire analysis starts from Eq. (1) and assumes the nonlinear dispersion and rotational symmetry of a triple Weyl semimetal; no material parameters or experimental validation are given.
domain assumption The first-order high-frequency Floquet expansion H_eff = H + (1/ħΩ)[V_-1,V_+1] is sufficient for the parameters used.
Invoked in Eq. (6); no convergence check, no comparison to exact Floquet evolution, and higher-order terms are neglected although the paper keeps terms proportional to A0^2 and γ.
domain assumption The loss/gain term iγσz added by hand remains a valid description of non-Hermiticity in the driven system.
Inserted after Eq. (6) with no derivation from a microscopic mechanism; the paper cites photonic and quasiparticle analogies but does not model the drive's effect on the NH term.
domain assumption The Fermi surface topology in the kx-ky plane (with kz effectively set to zero) faithfully represents the 3D nodal topology.
All figures plot E vs kx, ky or kρ; no kz dependence of the claimed linked features is shown, and no 3D nodal-line linking invariant is computed.
domain assumption The Berry curvature magnitude |Ω| is a valid diagnostic for the topological change.
The paper plots sqrt(Ω²_kρ + Ω²_χ + Ω²_kz) and calls divergences evidence of band swapping; no quantized integral C = ∫ Ω_LR · dS is evaluated, so the topological charge change is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase transition from Weyl to self-linked semimetal using bi-circular laser." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVBDYXRG

@misc{pith2026241112496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase transition from Weyl to self-linked semimetal using bi-circular laser},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVBDYXRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12496}
}

read the original abstract

The Fermi surface topology of a triple non-hermitian (NH) Weyl semimetal (WSM) driven by bi-circularly polarized light is presented in this study. A NH WSM in particular has remarkable outlines. Bi-circular light, however, modifies the symmetry features of non-hermitian triple Weyl and causes an unusual new kind of band swapping. We observe swapping between the imaginary bands (with or without exceptional degenaracies), which causes unique Fermi surfaces in the form of double rings and knots. This is something never discussed before phase transition between Weyl and knotted phases. We also discuss the corresponding changes in the Berry curvature as well.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12496 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The energy vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: 3D plot for energy vs k. In Fig. (a) we have a hexagonally [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Phase diagram for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Berry curvature vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: The circularly polarized light driven NH triple WSM eigen energy is presented for varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

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

work page 2010
[2]

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

work page 2005
[3]

Vafek and A

O. Vafek and A. Vishwanath, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5 , 83 (2014)

work page 2014
[4]

A. A. Burkov, Nature Materials 15 , 1145 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 , 015001 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

Amit Gupta, arXiv:1703.07271

work page Pith review arXiv
[7]

Shin-Ming Huang et al, PNAS, 113 , 1180, (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

C. Fang, M. J. Gilbert, X. Dai, and B. Andrei Bernevig, PRL 108 , 266802 (2012)

work page 2012

Show all 44 references

[9]

Shi-Xin Zhang, Shao-Kai Jian, and Hong Yao, Phys. Rev. B 96 , 241111(R) (2017)

2017
[10]

Gilbert, Xi Dai, and B

Chen Fang, Matthew J. Gilbert, Xi Dai, and B. Andrei Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 , 266802 (2012)

2012
[11]

al.,PNAS, 113 (5), 1180 (2016)

Shin-Ming Huang et. al.,PNAS, 113 (5), 1180 (2016)

2016
[12]

Chowdhury, A

D. Chowdhury, A. Banerjee, and A. Narayan, Phys. Rev. A 103 , L051101, (2021)

2021
[13]

Debashree Chowdhury, Ayan Banerjee, and Awadhesh Narayan Phys. Rev. B 105, 075133, (2022)

2022
[14]

Zhong, N

M. Zhong, N. T. Trung Vu, W. Zhai, J. R. Soh, Y. Liu, J. Wu, A. Suwardi, H. Liu, G. Chang, K. P. Loh, W. Gao, C.-Wei Qiu, J. K. W. Yang, Z. Dong, arXiv:2504.01300, (2025)

2025 arXiv
[15]

Castelvecchi, Nature News 547, 272 (2017)

D. Castelvecchi, Nature News 547, 272 (2017)

2017
[16]

L. J. Scanlon, S. Bhusal, C. M. Hoffmann, J. He, Sean R. Parkin, B. J. Arnold, and W. J. Gannon, Phys. Rev. B 111, 184102, (2025)

2025
[17]

Oka and H

T. Oka and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 79 , 081406(R) (2009)

2009
[18]

Cayssol, B

J. Cayssol, B. Dóra, F. Simon, and R. Moessner, Phys. Status Solidi RRL 7 , 101 (2013)

2013
[19]

M. C. Rechtsman, J. M. Zeuner, Y. Plotnik, Y. Lumer, D. Podolsky, F. Dreisow, S. Nolte, M. Segev, and A. Szameit, Nature (London) 496 , 196 (2013)

2013
[20]

Y. Wang, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Science, 342 , 453 (2013)

2013
[21]

Yan and Z

Z. Yan and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 , 087402 (2016)

2016
[22]

Jaiswal and A

R. Jaiswal and A. Narayan, Phys. Rev. B 102 , 245416 (2020)

2020
[23]

J. W. McIver, B. Schulte, F.-U. Stein, T. Matsuyama, G. Jotzu, G. Meier and A. Cavalleri Nature Physics 16 , 38(2020)

2020
[24]

Sentef, Umberto De Giovannini, Alexander F

Hannes Hübener, Michael A. Sentef, Umberto De Giovannini, Alexander F. Kemper and Angel Rubio, Nature Communications, 8 , 13940 (2017)

2017
[25]

Vasilopoulos and Neophytos Neophytou, Phys

Vassilios Vargiamidis, P. Vasilopoulos and Neophytos Neophytou, Phys. Rev. B 112, 045406, (2025)

2025
[26]

Zubair, P

M. Zubair, P. Vasilopoulos, and M. Tahir, Phys. Rev. B 106, 205402 (2022)

2022
[27]

B. Zhou, R. Zeng, B. Zhou, X. Zhou, K. Yang, and G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125411 (2024)

2024
[28]

Trevisan , Pablo Villar Arribi , Olle Heinonen , Robert-Jan Slager , and Peter P

Thaís V. Trevisan , Pablo Villar Arribi , Olle Heinonen , Robert-Jan Slager , and Peter P. Orth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 , 066602 (2022)

2022
[29]

Nag, R.-J

T. Nag, R.-J. Slager, T. Higuchi, and T. Oka, Phys. Rev. B 100 , 134301 (2019)

2019
[30]

Yuya Ikeda, Sota Kitamura, and Takahiro Morimoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 , 096301 (2023)

2023
[31]

Luis E F Foa Torres, Journal of Physics: Materials, 3 , 1 (2019)

2019
[32]

V. M. Alvarez, J. B. Vargas, M. Berdakin, and L. F. Torres, Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top. 227 , 1295 (2018)

2018
[33]

Shu Hamanaka, Tsuneya Yoshida, Kohei Kawabata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 266604 (2024)

2024
[34]

E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 , 15005 (2021)

2021
[35]

Nobuyuki Okuma and Masatoshi Sato, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 83, ( 2023)

2023
[36]

Ghatak and T

A. Ghatak and T. Das, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 31 , 263001 (2019)

2019
[37]

Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Higashikawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. X 8 , 031079 (2018)

2018
[38]

Cerjan, M

A. Cerjan, M. Xiao, L. Yuan, and S. Fan, Phys. Rev. B 97 , 075128 (2018)

2018
[39]

Cerjan, S

A. Cerjan, S. Huang, M. Wang, K. P. Chen, Y. Chong and M. C. Rechtsman, Nature Photonics, 13 , 623 (2019)

2019
[40]

Banerjee and A

A. Banerjee and A. Narayan, Phys. Rev. B 102 , 205423 (2020)

2020
[41]

Fu, Phys

L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 266801 (2009)

2009
[42]

Basak, H

S. Basak, H. Lin, L. A. Wray, S.-Y. Xu, L. Fu, M. Z. Hasan, and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. B 84, 121401(R), (2011)

2011
[43]

Marques, R.G

A.M. Marques, R.G. Dias, Phys. Rev. B 104, 165410, (2021)

2021
[44]

L. Zhou, J. Gong, Physical Review B 98 , 205417, (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

work page 2010

[2] [2]

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

work page 2005

[3] [3]

Vafek and A

O. Vafek and A. Vishwanath, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5 , 83 (2014)

work page 2014

[4] [4]

A. A. Burkov, Nature Materials 15 , 1145 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 , 015001 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Amit Gupta, arXiv:1703.07271

work page Pith review arXiv

[7] [7]

Shin-Ming Huang et al, PNAS, 113 , 1180, (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

C. Fang, M. J. Gilbert, X. Dai, and B. Andrei Bernevig, PRL 108 , 266802 (2012)

work page 2012