Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Strain-Tunable Topological Phase Transitions in Line- and Split-Graph Flat-Band Lattices

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper's central claim is that uniform in-plane strain alone drives trivial insulating, Dirac semimetallic, and quantum spin-Hall phases across an entire family of flat-band lattices built by line and split graph operations.

desk verdict A systematic tight-binding survey with two genuinely new phase diagrams, but the abstract's 'universal' strain-switch claim is contradicted by the paper's own checkerboard result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11783 v4 pith:RZAPGSE5 submitted 2025-01-20 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

Shivam Sharma , Amartya S. Banerjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords flatbandstopologicalphasetransitionstrainengineeringlinegraphsplitquantumspinHallDiracsemimetaltight-bindingmodel
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

This paper seeks to establish that uniform in-plane strain is a single, universal mechanical knob for electronic topology in flat-band lattices. The family is built from square and honeycomb parent lattices by two graph operations — placing a site on each bond (line graph) or adding a bond-center site while keeping parent sites (split graph) — and includes known lattices such as kagome and Lieb as well as new ones, the checkerboard split-graph and triangular-kagome. Analytical tight-binding phase diagrams show strain magnitude and direction moving these lattices among trivial insulating, Dirac semimetallic, and quantum spin-Hall phases, often along linear phase boundaries. If the claim holds, strain becomes a broadly applicable design principle for strain-programmable quantum matter in 2D materials, photonic crystals, and circuit lattices.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a pair of graph operations on a bipartite parent lattice: the line graph places a new site on every bond, and the split graph adds a bond-center site while retaining parent sites. Iterating these operations generates first- and second-generation flat-band lattices whose tight-binding spectra follow from spectral identities (Eq. 5) expressing the new eigenvalues in terms of the parent spectrum, with flat bands arising from the infinite-multiplicity eigenvalues 0 and 2. Strain is introduced as a uniform displacement field with hopping amplitudes renormalized by an exponential bond-length rule (Eq. 7), using $\beta=3$ and $\nu=0.165$; intrinsic spin-orbit coupling opens the bulk gaps, and the $Z_2$ invariant is obtained from the evolution of Wannier charge centers.

What would settle it

Measure the Grüneisen parameter and Poisson ratio for one of the new lattices, such as the checkerboard split-graph or triangular-kagome, and recompute the strain–spin-orbit phase diagrams with the measured values; if $\beta$ or $\nu$ departs substantially from 3 and 0.165, the predicted phase boundaries shift and the transitions within the ±10% strain window may disappear, falsifying the universal switch as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that uniform in-plane strain is a universal topological switch: within a 10% strain window, strain magnitude and direction drive these lattices through phase transitions among a trivial band insulator, a Dirac semimetal, and a quantum spin-Hall insulator, with ordinary and semi-Dirac semimetals in selected cases. The paper establishes the strain–spin-orbit-coupling phase diagrams for ten lattices across three generations, including two it introduces, the checkerboard split-graph and triangular-kagome. Boundaries in the $\epsilon_{xx}$–$\lambda_I$ plane are largely linear, and changing the strain direction can move the system between topological and trivial regions at fixed filling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the same Grüneisen parameter ($\beta=3$) and Poisson ratio ($\nu=0.165$) measured for graphene describe the strain response of every lattice in the family, even though the paper states these values have not been reported for most of the lattices it studies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed spin-orbit coupling and filling, sweeping strain magnitude or direction toggles the $Z_2$ invariant, so a mechanical deformation could switch topologically protected edge transport on and off.
  • Because phase boundaries in strain–SOC space are largely linear, near a boundary a small relative strain change is enough to complete a topological phase transition, which simplifies experimental control.
  • The newly introduced checkerboard split-graph and triangular-kagome lattices natively host flat bands, including, in the triangular-kagome case, gapped flat bands isolated from dispersive bands that survive deformation; this makes them candidate platforms for strongly correlated phases.
  • The paper's spectral identities imply that higher-generation lattices inherit the flat bands and Dirac crossings of their parents, so the parameter space for strain-driven transitions is not exhausted by the ten lattices studied.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the universal switch survives realistic parameter values, strain could serve as an in-situ tuning knob for flat-band topology in moiré and twisted systems, where these graph-built lattices provide clean single-band models for the same physics.
  • The near-linearity of the phase boundaries suggests a low-energy effective description in which strain acts as a tunable mass term; fitting the boundary slopes to the generalized $H(k)$ near high-symmetry points could predict transitions without full band diagonalization.
  • A concrete test is to build one of the new lattices as a photonic or circuit array, where bond lengths are replaced by engineered couplings; sweeping the analogue of strain should reproduce the trivial–Dirac–topological sequence at the predicted strain values.
  • First-principles calculation of $\beta$ and $\nu$ for the checkerboard split-graph and triangular-kagome lattices is the most direct way to decide whether the graphene parameters are a harmless idealization or the weak point of the universal claim.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses graph-theoretic line- and split-graph operations on square and honeycomb parent lattices to generate ten two-dimensional flat-band lattices, and studies their tight-binding models with intrinsic spin-orbit coupling, on-site potentials, and uniform in-plane strain. Band structures, nanoribbon spectra, and Z2 phase diagrams are presented for each lattice, and the paper claims that uniform strain acts as a universal switch among trivial insulating, Dirac semimetal, and quantum spin-Hall phases across the whole family. The checkerboard split-graph and triangular-kagome lattices are presented as new or understudied platforms.

Significance. The systematic catalog of explicit Hamiltonians and strain-SOC phase diagrams is a useful addition to the flat-band literature, and the graph-theoretic construction is elegant. The direct computation of Z2 invariants with Z2Pack together with ribbon edge-state checks is a reproducible methodology, and the paper gives concrete tight-binding expressions for several lattices that have received little attention. However, the universal strain-switch claim is not derived and is weakened by the paper's own checkerboard result and by the qualified statements in Section III and the Fig. 2 caption. The value of the paper lies mainly in the individual lattice studies once the claims are properly scoped.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. III.B.2; Sec. IV] The headline claim that uniform in-plane strain 'drives universal transitions ... across all lattices' is contradicted by the manuscript's own results. In Section III.B.2 the authors write that for the checkerboard lattice 'we have not found any significant strain-induced effects on the topological properties,' and in Section III.C.2 they state that for the checkerboard split-graph lattice 'at other filling fractions, we do not observe any significant changes in the topological properties.' The opening of Section III and the caption of Fig. 2 also say that 'not all lattices show all phases or in the same order.' Because the checkerboard is a first-generation line graph, it is a direct counterexample to the literal 'across all lattices' claim. The abstract, introduction, and conclusion must be rewritten to restrict the claim to the lattices and parameter regimes for which transitions are actually found, or the universality must be proved rather than asserted.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The strain model assumes the graphene Grüneisen parameter beta=3 and Poisson ratio nu=0.165 for every lattice, as the authors acknowledge in the paragraph after Eq. (7): 'the corresponding values have not yet been reported for most of the lattices considered here.' Since Eq. (7) sets the strain dependence of all hopping amplitudes and Eq. (6) depends on nu, the phase boundaries in Figs. 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 26-29 are quantitative outcomes of this untested parameter transfer. The location of the transitions within the ±10% strain window could shift or disappear for other parameter values. The paper should either present a sensitivity analysis over a physically plausible range of beta and nu or explicitly frame the phase diagrams as valid only for this parameter choice; the universal claim cannot rest on an unvalidated parameter transfer.
  3. [Abstract; Sec. II.A, Eq. (5); Sec. IV] The paper describes 'analytical tight-binding calculations' and 'design rules,' but the universal transition is not derived from the graph-theoretic spectral relations in Eq. (5); it is extrapolated from a finite set of numerical phase diagrams computed from the explicit Hamiltonians of ten specific lattices. This is not a circularity problem, but it is an extrapolation. To support the claimed design principle, the authors would need either a general argument (for example, a symmetry or low-energy k·p analysis for each graph generation) or a restriction of the claim to the enumerated lattices. As written, the gap between the numerical evidence and the 'universal'/'broadly applicable' language is too large.
  4. [Sec. II.A; Sec. III.C.2, Eq. (23)] The text states that for the triangular-kagome lattice 'the lack of local inversion symmetry dictates that the nearest neighbor SOC terms be considered as well.' In the displayed Hamiltonian, Eq. (23), the spin-orbit part is block diagonal, with E(k) and F(k) acting only on the two blue-site blocks and no off-diagonal red-blue SOC block. Either the nearest-neighbor SOC terms are missing from the displayed Hamiltonian, or the text should be corrected. Since the TKL phase diagrams in Figs. 26-29 depend on this Hamiltonian, the inconsistency needs to be resolved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B.2, Fig. 13 caption] The negative result for the checkerboard lattice is reported in a single sentence without specifying the scanned strain range, directions, or fillings; please document the scan so the negative finding is reproducible and not mistaken for an oversight.
  2. [Sec. III.B.1, Fig. 17 caption] There are multiple typos: 'nonoribbon' should be 'nanoribbon' in the caption of Fig. 17, and 'particularity' should be 'particularly' in Section III.B.1; the paper would also benefit from a consistent notation for the strain components (epsilon versus epsilon_xx in Figs. 8 and 12).
  3. [Refs. [85], [136]] The 'In preparation' self-citations [85] and [136] are used as supporting references for physically substantive claims (coherent transport under strain and realistic morphologies of the decorated honeycomb lattice); please replace them with published sources or clearly mark them as unpublished internal work.
  4. [Sec. II.B] The phase classification is described qualitatively; for reproducibility, please state the numerical criterion used to distinguish Dirac semimetal, ordinary semimetal, and gapped phases (for example, gap values or band-touching tolerances) and the parameters used in the Z2Pack calculations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: phase diagrams are direct outputs of stated tight-binding Hamiltonians; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: each phase diagram is obtained by diagonalizing explicitly written tight-binding Hamiltonians (Eqs. 8 through 24) with stated parameters, computing the Z2 invariant via Wannier charge centers using Z2Pack, and identifying gap-closing phases. The strain model in Eqs. 6 and 7 uses the graphene Gruneisen parameter beta=3 and Poisson ratio nu=0.165, taken from an external measurement, and the paper explicitly notes that these values are transferred because they have not been reported for most lattices; this is a parameter-transfer assumption, not a fit to the paper's own outputs. The graph-spectral relations in Eq. 5 are standard external graph theory, not author-specific claims. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 55, 56, 85, 136) appear only as background for quasi-1D materials, strain-tuned coherent transport, and prior studies of decorated honeycomb morphologies; none enters the Hamiltonians or the Z2 computation. The abstract's 'across all lattices' phrasing conflicts with the checkerboard section's 'no significant strain-induced effects,' but that is an internal-consistency or correctness issue, not circular reasoning. No prediction is fitted to its own input, and no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation.

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

The central claim depends on several model parameters and assumptions. The strain parameters are imported from graphene; the phase diagrams are parametric scans over SOC, on-site energies, and hopping ratios. No new physical entities are introduced. The two new lattices are graph constructions rather than invented particles or forces.

free parameters (5)
  • Gruneisen parameter beta = 3
    Set to the graphene value in Eq. (7) and applied to all ten lattices; the paper states the value is unreported for most of these lattices.
  • Poisson ratio nu = 0.165
    Adopted from graphene (Ref. 102) to define the strain tensor in Eq. (6) for every lattice.
  • Intrinsic spin-orbit coupling lambda_I = scanned from 0.1t to 0.8t
    The topological phase diagrams are functions of lambda_I; no material-specific value is given, so the QSH regions are illustrative.
  • On-site energies epsilon_b (Lieb) and epsilon_c (HK) = scanned, e.g. epsilon_b near 2t, epsilon_c near 1.05t
    These site asymmetries drive the tilted Dirac cone and phase boundary shifts; values are chosen to show transitions.
  • Hopping ratios t2/t1, t3/t1, v/u, tbb/trb = scanned over ranges such as 0 to 2.6
    Phase diagrams are computed at selected ratios; different ratios change the topology, so the universal strain response is conditional on these choices.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The graph-spectrum relations in Eq. (5) for line and split graphs hold, with flat bands at E=0 and E=2 and Dirac touching.
    Taken from Refs. [76,77,90]; used to identify flat bands and band touchings at zero strain, before strain and SOC are added.
  • domain assumption Each lattice is described by a single-orbital per site tight-binding Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor hopping and intrinsic Kane-Mele SOC (Eq. 1).
    Assumes no multi-orbital effects, long-range hopping, or material-specific orbital character; the authors note real materials can deviate substantially (Section II.B).
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform in-plane strain renormalizes hopping amplitudes via Eq. (7) with graphene parameters beta=3 and nu=0.165 for all lattices.
    The paper explicitly says these values have not been reported for most lattices and are chosen by standard practice (Section II.B).
  • domain assumption Line graph and split graph operations on square and honeycomb parents produce physically realizable 2D lattices with the stated translational symmetries.
    The construction assumes the graph operations correspond to valid Euclidean lattices with periodic unit cells (Section II.A, Fig. 1).
  • domain assumption The Z2 invariant computed with Z2Pack correctly determines the topological phase in the presence of strain and SOC.
    The paper relies on Z2Pack [103,104] for the phase labels; no independent check of the invariant is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strain-Tunable Topological Phase Transitions in Line- and Split-Graph Flat-Band Lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZAPGSE5

@misc{pith2026250111783,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strain-Tunable Topological Phase Transitions in Line- and Split-Graph Flat-Band Lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZAPGSE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11783}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, materials with topological flat bands have attracted significant attention due to their association with extraordinary transport properties and strongly correlated electrons. Yet, generic principles linking lattice architecture, strain, and band topology remain scarce. Here, using a unified graph-theoretic framework we generate entire families of two-dimensional lattices and, using analytical tight-binding calculations, demonstrate that a single mechanical knob -- uniform in-plane strain -- drives universal transitions between trivial insulating, Dirac semimetal, and quantum spin-Hall phases across all lattices. The framework yields several flat band lattices that were hitherto absent or largely unexplored in the literature -- for example, the checkerboard split-graph and triangular-Kagome lattices -- whose strain-driven topological phase diagrams we establish here for the first time. The design rules implied by our studies provide a blueprint for engineering topological states in a wide variety of 2D materials, photonic crystals, and circuit lattices, and are anticipated to accelerate the discovery of strain-programmable quantum matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11783 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (30 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: b. Finally, when t3 = 0, the band structure becomes chiral symmetric as the triply degenerate Dirac band crossing at the Γ point also appears at the M point (Fig. 16c). In this limiting case, the Hamiltonian satisfies the symmetry relation HL(S(X4))[kx +π, ky +π] = −H…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: FIG. 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: FIG. 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_32.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: FIG. 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_33.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Strain-controlled crystalline--amorphous transition and flat-band tuning in buckled silicon kagome

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Buckled elemental silicon kagome retains a near-Fermi partially flat band that strain narrows while raising the crystalline–amorphous transition temperature to ~600 K at 10% tension.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

170 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The energy spectrum of these structures, given by eq

    Split graphs S(X ): Lieb and Honeycomb splitgraph lattices Split graphs are d, 2−biregular Euclidean lattices where additional sites are placed at the edge center of parent graphs. The energy spectrum of these structures, given by eq. 5, are particle-hole symmetric and consist of a flat band at zero energy which touches dispersive bands at the Dirac point...

  2. [2]

    The coordination number of these graphs is 2 d − 2 and we depict them here in Fig

    Line graphs L(X ): Checkerboard and Kagome lattices Checkerboard (L(X4)) and Kagome lattices ( L(X6)), which can be derived as line graphs of the parent lattices ( X4 and X6) discussed above, have traditionally been a playground for understanding strongly correlated and topological properties of flat band materials. The coordination number of these graphs...

  3. [3]

    Giustino, J

    F. Giustino, J. H. Lee, F. Trier, M. Bibes, S. M. Winter, R. Valent ´ ı, Y.-W. Son, L. Taillefer, C. Heil, A. I. Figueroa, et al., Journal of Physics: Materials 3, 042006 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    topologically protected

    Line graph of split graphsL(S(X )) : Square-Octagon and decorated honeycomb lattices Such graphs are realized by starting from the d-regular parent graphs X , then taking the d, 2-biregular graph S(X ) and finally applying line graph operations to get L(S(X )), which is also d-regular. The schematics of L(S(X )) lattices, namely square-octagon and decorat...

  5. [5]

    These structures introduce additional sites positioned at the midpoint of the edges of the line graphs, as shown via blue circles in Figs

    Split graph of line graph latticesS(L(X )): Checkerboard split graph and triangular Kagome lattices The subdivision of the 2 d − 2-regular line graphs L(Xi), where i ∈ {4, 6}, yields bipartite (2d − 2, 2)-biregular graphs S(L(Xi)). These structures introduce additional sites positioned at the midpoint of the edges of the line graphs, as shown via blue cir...

  6. [6]

    Tokura, M

    Y. Tokura, M. Kawasaki, and N. Nagaosa, Nature Physics 13, 1056 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    N. P. De Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman, Science 372, eabb2823 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    L. A. Falkovsky, in Journal of Physics: conference series(IOP Publishing, 2008) p. 012004

    2008

Show all 170 references
  1. [9]

    Basov, R

    D. Basov, R. Averitt, and D. Hsieh, Nature materials 16, 1077 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Mas-Balleste, C

    R. Mas-Balleste, C. Gomez-Navarro, J. Gomez-Herrero, and F. Zamora, Nanoscale 3, 20 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    C. D. Aiello, J. M. Abendroth, M. Abbas, A. Afanasev, S. Agarwal, A. S. Banerjee, D. N. Beratan, J. N. Belling, B. Berche, A. Botana, et al., ACS nano 16, 4989 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Reviews of modern physics 81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Mielke, Physics Letters A 174, 443 (1993)

    A. Mielke, Physics Letters A 174, 443 (1993)

    1993

  6. [14]

    N. M. Peres, Reviews of modern physics 82, 2673 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    K. K. Gomes, W. Mar, W. Ko, F. Guinea, and H. C. Manoharan, Nature 483, 306 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, et al., Nature 556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Balents, C

    L. Balents, C. R. Dean, D. K. Efetov, and A. F. Young, Nature Physics 16, 725 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    I. Hase, T. Yanagisawa, Y. Aiura, and K. Kawashima, Physical review letters 120, 196401 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    A. L. Sharpe, E. J. Fox, A. W. Barnard, J. Finney, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Kastner, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Science 365, 605 (2019). 47

    2019

  13. [21]

    Saito, J

    Y. Saito, J. Ge, L. Rademaker, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. A. Abanin, and A. F. Young, Nature Physics 17, 478 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Aoki, Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 33, 2341 (2020)

    H. Aoki, Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 33, 2341 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Wang and Y

    F. Wang and Y. Ran, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 84, 241103 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Liu, C.-L

    X. Liu, C.-L. Chiu, J. Y. Lee, G. Farahi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, and A. Yazdani, Nature communications 12, 2732 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Peri, Z.-D

    V. Peri, Z.-D. Song, B. A. Bernevig, and S. D. Huber, Physical review letters 126, 027002 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    C. Wu, D. Bergman, L. Balents, and S. Das Sarma, Physical review letters 99, 070401 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    Y. Chen, S. Xu, Y. Xie, C. Zhong, C. Wu, and S. Zhang, Physical Review B 98, 035135 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Tang, J.-W

    E. Tang, J.-W. Mei, and X.-G. Wen, Physical review letters 106, 236802 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Regnault and B

    N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review X 1, 021014 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Z. Liu, E. J. Bergholtz, H. Fan, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Physical review letters 109, 186805 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    E. J. Bergholtz and Z. Liu, International Journal of Modern Physics B 27, 1330017 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    K. Sun, Z. Gu, H. Katsura, and S. Das Sarma, Physical review letters 106, 236803 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Isobe, N

    H. Isobe, N. F. Yuan, and L. Fu, Physical Review X 8, 041041 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Physical review letters 106, 236804 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, S. Ryu, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Physical review letters 108, 046806 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Tarnopolsky, A

    G. Tarnopolsky, A. J. Kruchkov, and A. Vishwanath, Physical review letters 122, 106405 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    H. C. Po, L. Zou, A. Vishwanath, and T. Senthil, Physical Review X 8, 031089 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Lin, J.-H

    Z. Lin, J.-H. Choi, Q. Zhang, W. Qin, S. Yi, P. Wang, L. Li, Y. Wang, H. Zhang, Z. Sun, et al., Physical review letters 121, 096401 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    M. Kang, S. Fang, L. Ye, H. C. Po, J. Denlinger, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, E. Kaxiras, J. G. Checkelsky, et al., Nature communications 11, 4004 (2020). 48

    2020

  32. [40]

    Z. Liu, M. Li, Q. Wang, G. Wang, C. Wen, K. Jiang, X. Lu, S. Yan, Y. Huang, D. Shen, et al., Nature communications 11, 4002 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    J.-X. Yin, S. S. Zhang, G. Chang, Q. Wang, S. S. Tsirkin, Z. Guguchia, B. Lian, H. Zhou, K. Jiang, I. Belopolski, et al., Nature Physics 15, 443 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    M. Kang, L. Ye, S. Fang, J.-S. You, A. Levitan, M. Han, J. I. Facio, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, et al., Nature materials 19, 163 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Ma, J.-W

    J. Ma, J.-W. Rhim, L. Tang, S. Xia, H. Wang, X. Zheng, S. Xia, D. Song, Y. Hu, Y. Li, B.-J. Yang, D. Leykam, and Z. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 183901 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Di Sante, C

    D. Di Sante, C. Bigi, P. Eck, S. Enzner, A. Consiglio, G. Pokharel, P. Carrara, P. Orgiani, V. Polewczyk, J. Fujii, et al., Nature Physics 19, 1135 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Ueno, E. Tutuc, and B. J. LeRoy, Nature Physics 16, 1093 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Leykam, A

    D. Leykam, A. Andreanov, and S. Flach, Advances in Physics: X 3, 1473052 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Mukherjee, M

    S. Mukherjee, M. Di Liberto, P. ¨Ohberg, R. R. Thomson, and N. Goldman, Physical review letters 121, 075502 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Mili´ cevi´ c, G

    M. Mili´ cevi´ c, G. Montambaux, T. Ozawa, O. Jamadi, B. Real, I. Sagnes, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, L. Le Gratiet, A. Harouri, J. Bloch, et al., Physical Review X 9, 031010 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Guzm´ an-Silva, C

    D. Guzm´ an-Silva, C. Mej ´ ıa-Cort´ es, M. Bandres, M. Rechtsman, S. Weimann, S. Nolte, M. Segev, A. Szameit, and R. Vicencio, New Journal of Physics 16, 063061 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    R. A. Vicencio, C. Cantillano, L. Morales-Inostroza, B. Real, C. Mej ´ ıa-Cort´ es, S. Weimann, A. Szameit, and M. I. Molina, Physical review letters 114, 245503 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. Spracklen, D. Choudhury, N. Goldman, P. ¨Ohberg, E. Andersson, and R. R. Thomson, Physical review letters 114, 245504 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Ma, J.-W

    J. Ma, J.-W. Rhim, L. Tang, S. Xia, H. Wang, X. Zheng, S. Xia, D. Song, Y. Hu, Y. Li, et al., Physical Review Letters 124, 183901 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Arroyo-Gasc´ on, R

    O. Arroyo-Gasc´ on, R. Fern´ andez-Perea, E. S. Morell, C. Cabrillo, and L. Chico, Carbon 205, 394 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    A. J. Koll´ ar, M. Fitzpatrick, and A. A. Houck, Nature 571, 45 (2019). 49

    2019

  47. [55]

    G.-B. Jo, J. Guzman, C. K. Thomas, P. Hosur, A. Vishwanath, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 045305 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Y. He, R. Mao, H. Cai, J.-X. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Yuan, S.-Y. Zhu, and D.-W. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 103601 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    X. Zhou, Y. Chen, J. Chen, C. Hu, B. Lyu, K. Xu, S. Lou, P. Shen, S. Ma, Z. Wu, et al., Physical Review B 109, 045105 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    A. S. Banerjee, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 154, 104515 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Arroyo-Gasc´ on, R

    O. Arroyo-Gasc´ on, R. Fern´ andez-Perea, E. Suarez Morell, C. Cabrillo, and L. Chico, Nano Letters 20, 7588 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    H. M. Yu, S. Sharma, S. Agarwal, O. Liebman, and A. S. Banerjee, RSC advances 14, 963 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Sharma, C

    S. Sharma, C. Wang, H. M. Yu, and A. S. Banerjee, arXiv preprint arXiv:submit/6142213 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    A. S. Banerjee and P. Suryanarayana, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 96, 605 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    J. M. Kim, M. F. Haque, E. Y. Hsieh, S. M. Nahid, I. Zarin, K.-Y. Jeong, J.-P. So, H.-G. Park, and S. Nam, Advanced Materials 35, 2107362 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Ghosh, A

    S. Ghosh, A. S. Banerjee, and P. Suryanarayana, Physical Review B 100, 125143 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    H. M. Yu and A. S. Banerjee, Journal of Computational Physics 456, 111023 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Pathrudkar, H

    S. Pathrudkar, H. M. Yu, S. Ghosh, and A. S. Banerjee, Physical Review B 105, 195141 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Agarwal and A

    S. Agarwal and A. S. Banerjee, Journal of Computational Physics 496, 112551 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Physical review letters 95, 226801 (2005)

    2005

  61. [69]

    Z. Dai, L. Liu, and Z. Zhang, Advanced Materials 31, 1805417 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    K. v. Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, Physical review letters 45, 494 (1980)

    1980

  63. [71]

    A. J. Heeger, S. Kivelson, J. R. Schrieffer, and W.-P. Su, Reviews of Modern Physics 60, 781 (1988)

    1988

  64. [72]

    Kivelson and D

    S. Kivelson and D. Heim, Physical Review B 26, 4278 (1982). 50

    1982

  65. [73]

    The tight-binding approach describes hopping between localized electronic orbitals bounded to the atomic sites and generally provides accurate solutions for the low-energy part of the spectrum. This makes it convenient to analytically investigate topological phase transitions ...

  66. [74]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Physical review letters 95, 146802 (2005)

    2005

  67. [75]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Reviews of modern physics 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

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

    2006

  69. [77]

    topological

    Topological insulators (TIs) have SOC induced bulk energy gap, which is topologically dis- tinct from ordinary (trivial) insulators. These two phases are distinguished by theZ2 invariant which is associated with the bulk band structure. An ordinary insulator is a Z2-even phase...

  70. [78]

    Miyahara, K

    S. Miyahara, K. Kubo, H. Ono, Y. Shimomura, and N. Furukawa, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 74, 1918 (2005)

    2005

  71. [79]

    Flach, D

    S. Flach, D. Leykam, J. D. Bodyfelt, P. Matthies, and A. S. Desyatnikov, Europhysics Letters 105, 30001 (2014)

    2014

  72. [80]

    Xu and H

    Y. Xu and H. Pu, Physical Review A 102, 053305 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    A. J. Koll´ ar, M. Fitzpatrick, P. Sarnak, and A. A. Houck, Communications in Mathematical Physics 376, 1909 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    D.-S. Ma, Y. Xu, C. S. Chiu, N. Regnault, A. A. Houck, Z. Song, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical review letters 125, 266403 (2020). 51

    2020

  75. [83]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Nature communications6, 8944 (2015)

    2015

  76. [84]

    Mielke, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, L73 (1991)

    A. Mielke, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, L73 (1991)

    1991

  77. [85]

    Mielke, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, 3311 (1991)

    A. Mielke, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, 3311 (1991)

    1991

  78. [86]

    D. L. Bergman, C. Wu, and L. Balents, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 78, 125104 (2008)

    2008

  79. [87]

    Basov and A

    D. Basov and A. V. Chubukov, Nature Physics 7, 272 (2011)

    2011

  80. [88]

    Y. Chen, Y. Lei, Y. Li, Y. Yu, J. Cai, M.-H. Chiu, R. Rao, Y. Gu, C. Wang, W. Choi, et al., Nature 577, 209 (2020)

    2020

  81. [89]

    fragile topology) to the super- fluid weight has been shown for some systems [158–162] and also explored experimentally [163]

    More exotic types of quantum geometrical contributions (i.e. fragile topology) to the super- fluid weight has been shown for some systems [158–162] and also explored experimentally [163]. This underscores the critical role of both band topology and strong electronic correla- t...

  82. [90]

    C. Wang, C. Garcia-Cervera, and A. S. Banerjee, In preparation (2025)

    2025

  83. [91]

    Borlido, A

    P. Borlido, A. W. Huran, M. A. Marques, and S. Botti, npj 2D Materials and Applications 3, 21 (2019)

    2019

  84. [92]

    K. R. Abidi and P. Koskinen, Nanoscale 16, 19649 (2024)

    2024

  85. [93]

    Sethi, B

    G. Sethi, B. Xia, D. Kim, H. Liu, X. Li, and F. Liu, Physical Review B 109, 035140 (2024)

    2024

  86. [94]

    J. P. Ruf, H. Paik, N. J. Schreiber, H. P. Nair, L. Miao, J. K. Kawasaki, J. N. Nelson, B. D. Faeth, Y. Lee, B. H. Goodge, et al., Nature Communications 12, 59 (2021)

    2021

  87. [95]

    Doob and H

    M. Doob and H. Sachs, Spectra of Graphs: Theory and Application(Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1980)

    1980

  88. [96]

    Desai and V

    M. Desai and V. Rao, Journal of Graph Theory 18, 181 (1994)

    1994

  89. [97]

    C. S. Chiu, D.-S. Ma, Z.-D. Song, B. A. Bernevig, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043414 (2020)

    2020

  90. [98]

    K. Sun, H. Yao, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Physical review letters 103, 046811 (2009)

    2009

  91. [99]

    Lim, J.-N

    L.-K. Lim, J.-N. Fuchs, F. Pi´ echon, and G. Montambaux, Physical Review B 101, 045131 (2020). 52

    2020

  92. [100]

    Jiang, M

    W. Jiang, M. Kang, H. Huang, H. Xu, T. Low, and F. Liu, Physical Review B 99, 125131 (2019)

    2019

  93. [101]

    Mojarro and S

    M. Mojarro and S. E. Ulloa, 2D Materials 11, 011001 (2023)

    2023

  94. [102]

    Montambaux, L.-K

    G. Montambaux, L.-K. Lim, J.-N. Fuchs, and F. Pi´ echon, Physical review letters121, 256402 (2018)

    2018

  95. [103]

    A. A. Soluyanov and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 83, 235401 (2011)

    2011

  96. [104]

    Rhim and B.-J

    J.-W. Rhim and B.-J. Yang, Physical Review B 99, 045107 (2019)

    2019

  97. [105]

    Z. Peng, X. Chen, Y. Fan, D. J. Srolovitz, and D. Lei, Light: Science & Applications 9, 190 (2020)

    2020

  98. [106]

    Rold´ an, A

    R. Rold´ an, A. Castellanos-Gomez, E. Cappelluti, and F. Guinea, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 27, 313201 (2015)

    2015

  99. [107]

    Mohiuddin, A

    T. Mohiuddin, A. Lombardo, R. Nair, A. Bonetti, G. Savini, R. Jalil, N. Bonini, D. Basko, C. Galiotis, N. Marzari, et al., Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 79, 205433 (2009)

    2009

  100. [108]

    Ahn and B.-J

    J. Ahn and B.-J. Yang, Physical Review Letters 118, 156401 (2017)

    2017

  101. [109]

    Gresch, G

    D. Gresch, G. Autes, O. V. Yazyev, M. Troyer, D. Vanderbilt, B. A. Bernevig, and A. A. Soluyanov, Physical Review B 95, 075146 (2017)

    2017

  102. [110]

    Ryu and Y

    S. Ryu and Y. Hatsugai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 077002 (2002)

    2002

  103. [111]

    B. A. Bernevig, Topological insulators and topological superconductors(Princeton university press, 2013)

    2013

  104. [112]

    Burkov, Nature materials 15, 1145 (2016)

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

    2016

  105. [113]

    K. Cao, S. Feng, Y. Han, L. Gao, T. Hue Ly, Z. Xu, and Y. Lu, Nature communications 11, 284 (2020)

    2020

  106. [114]

    (Fig. 5a). The explicit form of the spinful TB Hamiltonian of the Lieb lattice, S(X4) is: HS(X4)(k) = 3X i=1 εiSii ⊗ σo + 2X i=1 ti(1 + cosk · ai)Λi − 5X i=4 ti−3 sin k · ai−3Λi ! ⊗ σo − λI(1 − eik·a1 − eik·a2 + eik·(a2−a1))Λ3 ⊗ σz, (10) where, Si is defined as ei ⊗ ei and mat...

  107. [115]

    A. H. Nevidomskyy, C. Scheiber, D. S´ en´ echal, and A.-M. Tremblay, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 77, 064427 (2008)

    2008

  108. [116]

    M. Z. Asadzadeh, M. Fabrizio, and F. Becca, Physical Review B 90, 205113 (2014)

    2014

  109. [117]

    Kariyado and A

    T. Kariyado and A. Vishwanath, Physical Review Research 1, 033076 (2019)

    2019

  110. [118]

    V. M. Pereira, A. Castro Neto, and N. Peres, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 80, 045401 (2009). 53

    2009

  111. [119]

    Weeks and M

    C. Weeks and M. Franz, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 82, 085310 (2010)

    2010

  112. [120]

    Mizoguchi, Y

    T. Mizoguchi, Y. Kuno, and Y. Hatsugai, Physical Review A 102, 033527 (2020)

    2020

  113. [121]

    Mizoguchi, T

    T. Mizoguchi, T. Yoshida, and Y. Hatsugai, Physical Review B 103, 045136 (2021)

    2021

  114. [122]

    H. Pan, Y. Han, J. Li, H. Zhang, Y. Du, and N. Tang, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 20, 14166 (2018)

    2018

  115. [123]

    P.-F. Liu, T. Bo, Z. Liu, O. Eriksson, F. Wang, J. Zhao, and B.-T. Wang, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 6, 12689 (2018)

    2018

  116. [124]

    Hashmi, K

    A. Hashmi, K. Nakanishi, M. U. Farooq, and T. Ono, npj 2D Materials and Applications 4, 39 (2020)

    2020

  117. [125]

    Mellaerts, R

    S. Mellaerts, R. Meng, M. Menghini, V. Afanasiev, J. W. Seo, M. Houssa, and J.-P. Locquet, npj 2D Materials and Applications 5, 65 (2021)

    2021

  118. [126]

    W. Li, D. Sheng, C. Ting, and Y. Chen, Physical Review B 90, 081102 (2014)

    2014

  119. [127]

    Sheng, Z.-C

    D. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Nature communications 2, 389 (2011)

    2011

  120. [128]

    Bolens and N

    A. Bolens and N. Nagaosa, Physical Review B 99, 165141 (2019)

    2019

  121. [129]

    J. Liu, X. Mao, J. Zhong, and R. A. R¨ omer, Annals of Physics 435, 168544 (2021)

    2021

  122. [130]

    Bao, H.-S

    A. Bao, H.-S. Tao, H.-D. Liu, X. Zhang, and W.-M. Liu, Scientific reports 4, 6918 (2014)

    2014

  123. [131]

    Kargarian and G

    M. Kargarian and G. A. Fiete, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 82, 085106 (2010)

    2010

  124. [132]

    Wang and Y.-Z

    G.-X. Wang and Y.-Z. Zhang, Physics Letters A 419, 127743 (2021)

    2021

  125. [133]

    Y. Yang, J. Yang, X. Li, and Y. Zhao, Physics Letters A 382, 723 (2018)

    2018

  126. [134]

    He and Z

    J. He and Z. Liu, The Journal of Chemical Physics 159 (2023)

    2023

  127. [135]

    Y.-T. Kang, C. Lu, F. Yang, and D.-X. Yao, Physical Review B 99, 184506 (2019)

    2019

  128. [136]

    Yamashita, M

    Y. Yamashita, M. Tomura, Y. Yanagi, and K. Ueda, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 88, 195104 (2013)

    2013

  129. [137]

    Oriekhov, V

    D. Oriekhov, V. Gusynin, and V. Loktev, Physical Review B 103, 195104 (2021)

    2021

  130. [138]

    Sil and A

    A. Sil and A. K. Ghosh, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 31, 245601 (2019). 54

    2019

  131. [139]

    Y. Chen, Y. Sun, H. Wang, D. West, Y. Xie, J. Zhong, V. Meunier, M. L. Cohen, and S. Zhang, Physical review letters 113, 085501 (2014)

    2014

  132. [140]

    Sarikavak-Lisesivdin, S

    B. Sarikavak-Lisesivdin, S. Lisesivdin, E. Ozbay, and F. Jelezko, Chemical physics letters 760, 138006 (2020)

    2020

  133. [141]

    Wang and A

    C. Wang and A. S. Banerjee, In preparation (2025)

    2025

  134. [142]

    Wang and D.-X

    L. Wang and D.-X. Yao, Physical Review B 98, 161403 (2018)

    2018

  135. [143]

    Isoda, H

    M. Isoda, H. Nakano, and T. Sakai, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 81, 053703 (2012)

    2012

  136. [144]

    Y. L. Loh, D.-X. Yao, and E. W. Carlson, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 77, 134402 (2008)

    2008

  137. [145]

    Zhang and D.-X

    M.-H. Zhang and D.-X. Yao, Physical Review B 107, 024408 (2023)

    2023

  138. [146]

    C. Zhou, Y. Feng, J. Ruan, and D.-X. Yao, Physical Review E 98, 012127 (2018)

    2018

  139. [147]

    D.-X. Yao, Y. L. Loh, E. W. Carlson, and M. Ma, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 78, 024428 (2008)

    2008

  140. [148]

    Chen and D.-X

    Y.-F. Chen and D.-X. Yao, Physical Review B 107, 155129 (2023)

    2023

  141. [149]

    Pal and K

    B. Pal and K. Saha, Physical Review B 97, 195101 (2018)

    2018

  142. [150]

    S. Li, Y. Xie, and Y. Chen, Physical Review B 104, 085127 (2021)

    2021

  143. [151]

    Green, L

    D. Green, L. Santos, and C. Chamon, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 82, 075104 (2010)

    2010

  144. [152]

    M. N. Huda, S. Kezilebieke, and P. Liljeroth, Physical Review Research 2, 043426 (2020)

    2020

  145. [153]

    C.-Y. Chen, E. Li, H. Xie, J. Zhang, J. W. Y. Lam, B. Z. Tang, and N. Lin, Communications Materials 5, 54 (2024)

    2024

  146. [154]

    J. Jia, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, F. Li, Y. Shang, Y. Liu, Q. Cai, and J. Zhao, Journal of Materials Chemistry A 10, 1560 (2022)

    2022

  147. [155]

    Miyamachi, Y

    T. Miyamachi, Y. Konishi, T. Iimori, Y. Yoshimoto, and F. Komori, Nanoscale 17, 15331 (2025)

    2025

  148. [156]

    X. Wang, Y. Wei, A. Bhattacharya, Q. Yang, and A. Mishchenko, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07518 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  149. [157]

    Bhattacharya and B

    A. Bhattacharya and B. Pal, Physical Review B 100, 235145 (2019). 55

    2019

  150. [158]

    H. C. Po, H. Watanabe, and A. Vishwanath, Physical review letters 121, 126402 (2018)

    2018

  151. [159]

    Xu and J

    C. Xu and J. E. Moore, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 73, 045322 (2006)

    2006

  152. [160]

    C. Wu, B. A. Bernevig, and S.-C. Zhang, Physical review letters 96, 106401 (2006)

    2006

  153. [161]

    R¨ uegg, J

    A. R¨ uegg, J. Wen, and G. A. Fiete, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 81, 205115 (2010)

    2010

  154. [162]

    Guo and M

    H.-M. Guo and M. Franz, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 80, 113102 (2009)

    2009

  155. [163]

    F. Xie, Z. Song, B. Lian, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical review letters 124, 167002 (2020)

    2020

  156. [164]

    Z. Song, Z. Wang, W. Shi, G. Li, C. Fang, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical review letters 123, 036401 (2019)

    2019

  157. [165]

    H. C. Po, L. Zou, T. Senthil, and A. Vishwanath, Physical Review B 99, 195455 (2019)

    2019

  158. [166]

    J. Ahn, S. Park, and B.-J. Yang, Physical Review X 9, 021013 (2019)

    2019

  159. [167]

    Julku, T

    A. Julku, T. J. Peltonen, L. Liang, T. T. Heikkil¨ a, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Physical Review B101, 060505 (2020)

    2020

  160. [168]

    H. Tian, S. Che, T. Xu, P. Cheung, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Randeria, F. Zhang, C. N. Lau, and M. W. Bockrath, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.13401 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  161. [169]

    Kopnin, T

    N. Kopnin, T. Heikkil¨ a, and G. Volovik, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Mate- rials Physics 83, 220503 (2011)

    2011

  162. [170]

    A. Lau, T. Hyart, C. Autieri, A. Chen, and D. I. Pikulin, Physical Review X 11, 031017 (2021). 56

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.