Pith. sign in

REVIEW 46 references

Electrical, thermal and thermoelectric transport in open long-range Kitaev chain

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electrical, thermal, and thermoelectric currents in an open long-range Kitaev chain show distinct features from the short-range chain, including a voltage threshold that reflects the mass of the Dirac edge modes.

arxiv 2505.14004 v2 pith:RJVV3VZR submitted 2025-05-20 cond-mat.mes-hall

Averi Banerjee , Syeda Rafisa Rahaman , Nilanjan Bondyopadhaya This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords kitaevchainlong-rangethermalelectricaltransportcharacteristicsbias
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 studies how electricity and heat flow through a one-dimensional chain of electrons where the electrons can hop and pair up not just between neighbors, but across longer distances, with strengths that decay as a power of the distance. This is the long-range Kitaev chain. The chain is connected at its two ends to metallic leads, and the authors use a standard method, the quantum Langevin equations and Green's functions, to compute the electrical current, the thermal current, and the thermoelectric current when the two leads are held at different voltages or temperatures.

The results show several differences from the usual short-range Kitaev chain. For example, at the parameter point they call the topological phase transition, the short-range chain has a gapless spectrum and its current rises linearly with voltage, while the long-range chain has a finite gap and the current stays near zero until the voltage exceeds the gap, after which it rises steeply. The authors attribute this to the long-range interaction giving mass to the edge states and bunching the bulk states near the gap.

The central comparison, however, relies on identifying ε = 2γ0 as the topological phase transition. The Hamiltonian written in Eq. (1) has an on-site term -ε(2c†c - 1), which corresponds to a chemical potential of 2ε and a transition at ε = γ0. The paper's numerics show a gapless short-range spectrum at ε = 2γ0, which would only be true if the on-site term were -ε c†c. This internal inconsistency means a reader cannot reproduce the central transport curves from the written model, and the interpretation of the threshold as a probe of the missing gap closing is not firmly grounded.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the transport characteristics of the long-range Kitaev chain are distinguishably different from its short-range counterpart, and in particular that at the topological phase transition point (ε = 2γ0), both the electric current and the thermal current remain almost zero at low bias, then rise faster than in the short-range chain once the bias exceeds the gap, revealing the absence of gap closing and the mass of the Dirac edge modes. Quote from Sec. V: 'At the TPT point, both electric currents (J_e) and thermal currents (J_u) in LRK chain remain almost zero in the initial part of the above-mentioned characteristic curves... as voltage or temperature biases become sufficiently large enough to excite the quasiparticles to overcome the energy bandgap which is directly proportional to the mass of the subgap state, both J_e and J_u start increasing with a faster rate as compared to that of SRK chain.'

Load-bearing premise

The identification of ε = 2γ0 as the topological phase transition point for the short-range Kitaev chain (used throughout Sec. IV, Figs. 2 and 3). The written Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) has an on-site term -ε(2c†c - 1), implying a chemical potential μ = 2ε and a transition at ε = γ0. The reported gapless SRK spectrum at ε = 2γ0 is only consistent with μ = ε. If this identification is wrong, the central comparison is not being performed at the SRK transition, and the proposed threshold signatures lose their interpretation as probes of the missing gap closing.

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main free parameters are the power-law exponents and the parameter values used in the numerics; the riskiest axiom is the identification of ε=2γ0 as the TPT, which is inconsistent with the written Hamiltonian.

free parameters (3)
  • power-law exponents α, η = 0.5 (LRK), 10.0 (SRK)
    Hand-chosen to represent long-range and short-range regimes; the qualitative claims depend on these choices.
  • on-site energy ε = 0, 0.2, 0.3, 2γ0=1.0
    Scanned to explore different phases; the central TPT comparison uses ε=2γ0.
  • system size N = 15 or 20
    Different N used for different figures without a systematic finite-size analysis; the N-independence of the gap is asserted but only checked for N=20 and N=100.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The quantum Langevin equations and Green's function (LEGF) method accurately describes non-equilibrium steady-state transport in this hybrid device.
    Invoked in Sec. III and Appendix A; the method is established in Refs. [7,14,15,35].
  • domain assumption The tunnel couplings do not contain long-range terms, so the current expressions are unchanged from the SRK case.
    Stated in Sec. III; relies on the junction Hamiltonian (3) coupling only to edge sites.
  • ad hoc to paper The parameter value ε = 2γ0 is the topological phase transition point for the short-range Kitaev chain.
    Used in Sec. IV to set the TPT comparison; inconsistent with the written Hamiltonian (1) unless the on-site term is -ε c†c rather than -ε(2c†c - 1).
  • domain assumption The band gap at ε = 2γ0 is independent of chain length N for the LRK chain (ΔE ~ N^0).
    Cites Ref. [17]; used to argue the threshold current feature persists to the thermodynamic limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrical, thermal and thermoelectric transport in open long-range Kitaev chain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJVV3VZR

@misc{pith2026250514004,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrical, thermal and thermoelectric transport in open long-range Kitaev chain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJVV3VZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14004}
}
read the original abstract

We study electrical, thermal and thermoelectric transport in a hybrid device consisting of a long-range Kitaev chain coupled to two metallic leads at two ends. Electrical and thermal currents are calculated in this device under both voltage and thermal bias conditions. We find that the transport characteristics of the long-range Kitaev chain are distinguishably different from its short-range counterpart, which is well known for hosting zero energy Majorana edge modes under some specific range of values of the model parameters. The emergence of massive Dirac fermions, the absence of gap closing at the topological phase transition point and some special features of the energy spectrum which are unique to the long-range Kitaev chain, significantly alter electrical/thermal current vs. voltage/temperature bias characteristics in comparison with that of the short-range Kitaev chain. These novel transport characteristics of the long-range Kitaev model can be helpful in understanding nontrivial topological phases of the long-range Kitaev chain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14004 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plot of electrical current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Plot of electrical current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Plot of thermal currents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Plot of electrical currents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plot of thermal currents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Plot of thermal currents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Plot of thermal currents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 076501 (2012)

    J. Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 076501 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 113 (2013)

    C. Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 113 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Semiconductor Science and Technology 27, 124003 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y. Ando, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 076501 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Physics-Uspekhi 44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    However, in the case of the LRK chain, energy gap is not closed for ϵ = 2γ0 = 1.0. So, we observe that the J u remains almost zero till ∆ T ∼ 0.06, then it starts increasing, and around ∆ T = 0 .15 it overtakes that of the SRK chain owing to the excitations of bunched-up bulk states situated above the bandgap. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 T 0 1 2 3 4 Junction...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Sarma, M

    S. Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, npj Quantum Inf 1, 15001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    D. Roy, C. J. Bolech, and N. Shah, Phys. Rev. B 86, 094503 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Banerjee, M

    M. Banerjee, M. Heiblum, A. Rosenblatt, O. Y., D. E. Feldman, A. Stern, and V. Umansky, Nature 545, 75 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    J. P. Ramos-Andrade, O. ´Avalos-Ovando, P. A. Orellana, and S. E. Ulloa, Phys. Rev. B 94, 155436 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    I. C. Fulga, F. Hassler, A. R. Akhmerov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B 83, 155429 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Li and Y

    H. Li and Y. Y. Zhao, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 465001 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Smirnov, Phys

    S. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. B 97, 165434 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Smirnov, Phys

    S. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. B 100, 245410 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    J. M. Bhat and A. Dhar, Phys. Rev. B 102, 224512 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Bondyopadhaya and D

    N. Bondyopadhaya and D. Roy, J. Stat. Phys. 187, 11 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Campa, T

    A. Campa, T. Dauxois, D. Fanelli, and S. Ruffo, Physics of Long-Range Interacting Systems (Oxford University Press, 2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Viyuela, D

    O. Viyuela, D. Vodola, G. Pupillo, and M. A. Martin- Delgado, Phys. Rev. B 94, 125121 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    DeGottardi, M

    W. DeGottardi, M. Thakurathi, S. Vishveshwara, and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. B 88, 165111 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Dutta and A

    A. Dutta and A. Dutta, Phys. Rev. B 96, 125113 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Long-range interacting quantum systems,

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr ` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, “Long-range interacting quantum systems,” (2021), arXiv:2109.01063 [cond-mat.quant- gas]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Solfanelli, S

    A. Solfanelli, S. Ruffo, S. Succi, and N. Defenu, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 66 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Francica and L

    G. Francica and L. Dell’Anna, Phys. Rev. B 106, 155126 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Tarantola and N

    A. Tarantola and N. Defenu, Phys. Rev. B 107, 235146 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Perczel, J

    J. Perczel, J. Borregaard, D. E. Chang, H. Pichler, S. F. Yelin, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 023603 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    R. J. Bettles, J. Minar, C. S. Adams, I. Lesanovsky, and B. Olmos, Phys. Rev. A 96, 041603 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Pientka, L

    F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B 88, 155420 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Pientka, L

    F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B 89, 180505 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Periwal, E

    A. Periwal, E. S. Cooper, P. Kunkel, J. F. Wienand, E. J. Davis, and M. Schleier-Snmith, Nature 600, 630 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Jaschke, K

    D. Jaschke, K. Maeda, J. D. Whalen, M. L. Wall, and L. D. Carr, New Journal of Physics 19, 033032 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Benito, A

    M. Benito, A. G´ omez-Le´ on, V. M. Bastidas, T. Brandes, and G. Platero, Phys. Rev. B 90, 205127 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Vodola, L

    D. Vodola, L. Lepori, E. Ercolessi, and G. Pupillo, New Journal of Physics 18, 015001 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Patrick, T

    K. Patrick, T. Neupert, and J. K. Pachos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 267002 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Giuliano, S

    D. Giuliano, S. Paganelli, and L. Lepori, Phys. Rev. B 97, 155113 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Abumwis, M

    G. Abumwis, M. T. Eiles, and A. Eisfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 193401 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Dhar and D

    A. Dhar and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. B 73, 085119 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    A. C. P. Lima, R. C. Bento Ribeiro, J. H. Correa, F. Deus, M. S. Figueira, and M. A. Continentino, Sci- 10 entific Reports 13, 1508 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Vodola, L

    D. Vodola, L. Lepori, E. Ercolessi, A. V. Gorshkov, and G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 156402 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Alecce and L

    A. Alecce and L. Dell’Anna, Phys. Rev. B 95, 195160 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Roy and A

    D. Roy and A. Dhar, Phys. Rev. B 75, 195110 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    D. Roy, N. Bondyopadhaya, and S. Tewari, Phys. Rev. B 88, 020502 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Dhar and D

    A. Dhar and D. Roy, J. Stat. Phys. 125, 801 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    A. M. Lobos and S. D. Sarma, New Journal of Physics 17, 065010 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    J. D. Sau, S. Tewari, R. M. Lutchyn, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 82, 214509 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Tewari, C

    S. Tewari, C. Zhang, S. Das Sarma, C. Nayak, and D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 027001 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    R. H. French, V. A. Parsegian, R. Podgornik, R. F. Ra- jter, A. Jagota, J. Luo, D. Asthagiri, M. K. Chaud- hury, Y.-m. Chiang, S. Granick, S. Kalinin, M. Kar- dar, R. Kjellander, D. C. Langreth, J. Lewis, S. Lustig, D. Wesolowski, J. S. Wettlaufer, W.-Y. Ching, M. Fin- nis, F....

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.