Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 48 references

Triplet Exciton-driven Topological Mott insulator at Finite Temperature

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues, on the basis of unbiased determinantal quantum Monte Carlo, that a Hubbard-coupled topological band system becomes an incompressible quantum anomalous Hall insulator with total Chern number $C=\pm 1$ at quarter filling…

desk verdict A credible DQMC result that would be much stronger with a sign report and a finite-size check; worth sending out, with the exciton language treated as interpretation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07178 v2 pith:R7XOS63G submitted 2025-07-09 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Peizhi Mai This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall MSC 82B2082B8081V70 PACS 71.10.Fd73.43.-f71.30.+h02.70.Ss
keywords topologicalMottinsulatorquantumanomalousHalleffectdeterminantMonteCarlotripletexcitonChernnumberKane-Mele-Hubbardmodelcheckerboardlatticestrongcorrelations
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

Magnetism has been seen as a prerequisite for the quantum anomalous Hall effect, but experiments on twisted MoTe2 show the charge gap opening far above magnetic ordering. The paper uses unbiased determinantal quantum Monte Carlo on two structurally different models, the checkerboard quantum-spin-Hall-Hubbard model and the generalized Kane-Mele-Hubbard model, to show that strong repulsion alone, without full spin polarization, produces an incompressible QAH state at quarter filling with total Chern number $C=\pm1$. Each spin channel remains partly filled and carries its own non-quantized Chern number, which is the hallmark of a topological Mott insulator: Mottness opens the charge gap before magnetic order appears. Adding or removing a charge creates a bound triplet exciton that reduces net magnetization, a dynamical effect visible as negative spin-resolved compressibility.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three tools working together. Determinantal quantum Monte Carlo provides unbiased finite-temperature results on a $6\times6\times2$ cluster for both Hubbard models. The Streda formula, $C = \partial\langle n\rangle/\partial(\Phi/\Phi_0)$, turns the slope of the incompressible valley in the density versus magnetic-flux plane into a Chern number even without full polarization. A minimal flux of one quantum per 36 unit cells ($\Phi/\Phi_0=1/36$) reduces finite-size effects and slightly splits the spin bands so that each spin channel's separate contribution can be read from spin-resolved densities; the non-monotonic spin density near the QAH filling, with $\delta\langle n_\uparrow\rangle/\delta\langle n\rangle\approx1.2$, and the resulting negative spin-resolved compressibility are the signatures of triplet-exciton dressing.

What would settle it

Run the same DQMC simulations at $\Phi/\Phi_0=1/36$ on larger clusters, for example $8\times8\times2$ and $10\times10\times2$, at $U/t=3$, $\beta=8/t$ for the checkerboard model and $U/t=1.5$, $\beta=16/t$ for Kane-Mele, while recording the average sign; if the incompressible valley near $\langle n\rangle=35/36$ with $C=\pm1$ shifts, broadens, or disappears with system size, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an interaction-driven quantum anomalous Hall insulator can form before any magnetic order does. In two structurally different models, the checkerboard quantum-spin-Hall-Hubbard model and the generalized Kane-Mele-Hubbard model, determinantal quantum Monte Carlo finds an incompressible state at quarter filling with total Chern number $C=\pm1$ at temperatures well above the Curie temperature. The incompressibility is therefore a Mott gap rather than a band gap of a fully polarized state: each spin species stays partially filled and contributes a non-quantized spin-resolved Chern number $C_\sigma$, while the sum $C=C_\uparrow+C_\downarrow$ remains quantized. When a particle or hole is added to this insulator, it binds a spin-1 (triplet) particle-hole exciton in the channel that reduces the net magnetization, a dynamical many-body effect that appears as negative spin-resolved compressibility around the QAH filling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the $6\times6\times2$ cluster at minimal flux $\Phi/\Phi_0=1/36$ represents the thermodynamic limit and that the DQMC runs have a mild sign problem; the paper shows neither system-size scaling nor average signs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In moiré TMD systems such as twisted MoTe2, the QAH charge gap can open well above the Curie temperature because Mottness, not ferromagnetic polarization, opens it.
  • Each spin channel in the topological Mott insulator carries a non-quantized spin-resolved Chern number while the total remains quantized, meaning both spin species are partly filled across the gap.
  • Charge excitations bind triplet excitons that oppose the magnetization, so the low-energy excitation spectrum is genuinely many-body and outside any Hartree-Fock description.
  • Because the same sequence appears in two unrelated lattice geometries, the mechanism is generic; the paper suggests the same 'gap first, order later' sequence should hold for the recently reported high-temperature fractional Chern insulator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper never reports the DQMC average sign; a reader who extends these runs should check whether the sign problem is mild at $U/t=3$, $\beta=8/t$, $\Phi/\Phi_0=1/36$, since a severe sign problem would make the incompressible valley untrustworthy.
  • The triplet-exciton signature predicts a negative spin-resolved compressibility that should appear on any lattice with the same spin-dependent hopping and repulsion; a cold-atom or optical-lattice realization could detect it directly through spin-resolved density measurements.
  • If the mechanism is truly generic, increasing a non-local density-density interaction while keeping $U$ fixed should not destroy the QAH valley as long as the bandwidth remains small; this could be tested in extended-Hubbard versions of the same two models.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper uses determinantal quantum Monte Carlo to study two interacting topological lattice models—the checkerboard QSH-Hubbard model and a generalized Kane-Mele-Hubbard model—in the presence of a small orbital magnetic field. The authors report an incompressible state at quarter filling (total density ⟨n⟩≈1) with total Chern number C=±1 extracted from the Streda formula, at temperatures above the onset of ferromagnetic order. They find that the two spin channels contribute nonquantized, flux-dependent spin-resolved responses Cσ, and that the spin-resolved density response χσ becomes negative on one side of the insulating filling, which they interpret as triplet-exciton dressing of added charges. They argue that these features constitute a topological Mott insulator that generically appears when band topology is combined with strong repulsion.

Significance. If the simulations are correct, the paper provides a controlled example of an interaction-driven QAH-like insulator preceding magnetic order, which is directly relevant to recent moiré experiments. The use of direct density-flux response measurements rather than fits, the absence of tuned parameters for the central state, and the consistency between two lattice geometries are strengths. The main significance is conditional on the numerical premise: the DQMC sign and finite-size scaling are not reported, and the exciton-binding claim would be considerably stronger with a direct correlation-function probe.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, DQMC paragraph] The manuscript never reports the average DQMC sign (or the average phase of the determinant product) for the complex spin-dependent hoppings and orbital Peierls phases in Eqs. (1) and (3). Complex fermion determinants generically suffer a sign problem, and without a sign report the claim that the simulations are unbiased is not supported. Please give the sign or phase for the parameters of Figs. 1–4, in particular U/t=3, β=8/t, Φ/Φ0=1/36 and U/t=1.5, β=16/t, and state how it affects the statistical errors of the compressibility dips and the extracted C and Cσ.
  2. [Results, minimal flux paragraph] The claim that the minimal flux Φ/Φ0=1/36 smooths out finite-size effects and implies that the results apply to the thermodynamic limit is asserted but not demonstrated. Only the 6×6×2 cluster is used, and no system-size scaling is shown for the compressibility valley, the spin-resolved densities, or the Streda-formula Chern numbers; the cited Refs. [21,22,40,42,45] do not substitute for a scaling check in the present parameter regime. Please add, for at least one model, a comparison at additional cluster sizes at comparable flux, or otherwise quantify the finite-size error.
  3. [Results, Figs. 3 and 4] The central exciton claim is inferred from negative spin-resolved compressibility and non-monotonic spin-resolved densities, but a negative χσ = ∂⟨nσ⟩/∂μ only shows that an increase in chemical potential reduces the spin-σ density; this can result from generic interaction-induced spin redistribution and does not by itself establish a bound particle-hole pair. Please provide a direct diagnostic of the triplet-exciton bound state, such as a connected density-spin correlation function for the added charge, a spin-resolved single-particle spectral function, or exact diagonalization of a doped cluster.
  4. [Abstract and Results, Figs. 1(b), 2(a)] The paper should state explicitly that the reported QAH response is probed by a weak orbital magnetic field. At zero field the Hamiltonian preserves time-reversal symmetry and the total Chern number is zero; C=±1 is extracted from the slope of the incompressible valley at finite Φ, and by the Φ→-Φ symmetry the derivative may be discontinuous at Φ=0. The text's phrase extends all the way to zero field describes the charge gap, not a spontaneously ordered zero-field Hall state. Please clarify this distinction in the abstract and in the discussion of the Curie temperature, since the current wording makes the central claim ambiguous.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Results, near Fig. 1(c)] The statement that the same high-field results apply to U/t=2.5 is ambiguous, as Fig. 1(b) shows interaction effects at low field; please specify in what sense the high-field results coincide.
  2. [Results, Eq. (2) and Fig. 3(c,d)] The quantity χσ = ∂⟨nσ⟩/∂μ is a mixed spin-density response, not a spin-resolved compressibility; consider using a different name to avoid confusion with ∂⟨nσ⟩/∂μ_σ.
  3. [Results, Fig. 2(b)] The phrase nonquantized Chern number for Cσ is misleading if Cσ is defined as a flux derivative of a spin-resolved density in an interacting system; please define it as a response coefficient and distinguish it from a topological invariant.
  4. [Figures 1–4] Please ensure that all figures display error bars; the text states that Jackknife errors are used, but the reproduced figures do not show them.
  5. [Results, Fig. 2(a)] The critical flux Φc is defined by the threshold ⟨n↑⟩<0.01; this cutoff should be stated explicitly in the text or figure caption, since the extracted Cσ depend on where the fully polarized regime begins.
  6. [References] References [41] and [45] are the same arXiv preprint; please consolidate to avoid duplication.
  7. [Supplement] The DQMC technical parameters (imaginary-time step, number of samples, equilibration) are deferred to the supplement; please ensure they are reported for reproducibility, especially given the spin-dependent complex hoppings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central QAH and spin-resolved density results are direct DQMC measurements, not fits; the self-citations are methodological support, not a circular chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is transparent: starting from the checkerboard-QSH-Hubbard and generalized Kane-Mele-Hubbard Hamiltonians, DQMC measures the compressibility as a function of density and flux; Chern numbers are read off from the Streda relation; and the non-monotonic spin-resolved densities and negative spin-resolved compressibilities are raw observables from which triplet-exciton dressing is inferred. No parameter is fitted to enforce the QAH valley: the valley is absent at U=0 and zero flux and appears only with U>0, so the central result is a measured response, not an identity derived from its own input. The sentence 'Choosing this minimal flux helps in two ways. First, it smooths out finite-size effects[21, 22, 40, 42, 45], implying that our results apply to the thermodynamic limit' cites prior numerical work, including the author's own, but it is used as methodological support for extrapolation, not as an equation that constructs the predicted phase; no reduction of the form 'Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction' is exhibited anywhere in the paper. The absence of an explicit average-sign report or system-size scaling is a legitimate numerical-robustness concern, but it belongs under correctness risk rather than circularity. There is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renamed empirical pattern presented as a derivation; the spin-resolved 'nonquantized Chern numbers' are explicitly defined via the measured Streda-like derivatives of conserved spin densities, making the inference a direct reading of the data rather than a circular premise.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameter is fitted to the target results; all model parameters (U, t', ψ, β, flux) are chosen from prior literature or numerical convenience. The main assumptions are methodological: sign-problem control, Streda-formula applicability, finite-size representativeness, and the exciton interpretation of negative spin compressibility. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Interaction strength U/t (checkerboard) = 2.5, 3.0
    Chosen to exceed the bandwidth (w/t≈0.83); the QAH compressibility valley deepens with U. Not fitted to data.
  • Interaction strength U/t (Kane-Mele) = 1.5
    Chosen so the nearly flat lower band (w≈0.28t) is strongly correlated. Not fitted.
  • Inverse temperature β = 8/t (checkerboard), 16/t (Kane-Mele)
    β=8 is above the Curie scale βc≈15 estimated in the supplement; β=16 used for the Kane-Mele model. Not fitted.
  • Band parameters t'/t and ψ = √2/2 and π/4 (checkerboard); 0.3 and 0.81π (Kane-Mele)
    Taken from Refs 36 and 21 to obtain flat topological bands. Not fitted.
  • Minimal magnetic flux Φ/Φ0 and cluster size = 1/36 on 6×6×2
    Smallest flux quantum on the cluster (nf=1, Nc=36), used to separate spin channels and reduce finite-size effects. Not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DQMC average sign is positive or otherwise controlled in the simulated parameter regime.
    Invoked in the first Results paragraph ('unbiased DQMC simulations'); the paper never reports the average sign, and complex hoppings plus orbital flux may cause a sign problem.
  • standard math Streda formula gives the Chern number from the flux derivative of the particle density.
    Used to extract C and Cσ from the slope of compressibility valleys in Figs 1, 2, and 4. Standard linear-response result.
  • domain assumption The 6x6x2 cluster with minimal flux 1/36 represents the thermodynamic limit.
    The paper states that the minimal flux smooths finite-size effects and implies thermodynamic-limit validity, citing prior work (Refs 21,22) rather than showing a system-size scaling here.
  • ad hoc to paper Negative spin-resolved compressibility χσ signals triplet-exciton binding to added charges.
    The paper interprets the non-monotonic ⟨nσ⟩ and negative χσ as direct signatures of exciton binding, but no exciton correlation function or spectral calculation is shown; this interpretive assumption is central to the 'triplet exciton' claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Triplet Exciton-driven Topological Mott insulator at Finite Temperature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R7XOS63G

@misc{pith2026250707178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Triplet Exciton-driven Topological Mott insulator at Finite Temperature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R7XOS63G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07178}
}
abstract

Motivated by experiments in which the quantum anomalous Hall (QAH) charge gap greatly exceeds the Curie temperature, we apply determinantal quantum Monte Carlo to two complementary lattice models with different geometries: the checkerboard quantum-spin-Hall-Hubbard model and the generalized Kane-Mele-Hubbard model. In both cases an incompressible QAH phase with total Chern number $C=\pm 1$ emerges at quarter filling well above the Curie temperature. Each spin channel carries its own nonquantized Chern number while remaining only partly filled, revealing a topological Mott insulator where Mottness opens the charge gap before magnetic order appears. Charge excitations bind triplet excitons that suppress net magnetization, a many-body dynamical effect absent in mean-field theory. The concurrence of these results on two very different models shows that coupling Mottness with band topology generically yields a high-temperature QAH insulator whose charge excitations are dressed by triplet excitons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Compressibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) Compressibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: (a) Spin-resolved density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2015 (1988), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.61.2015

    work page 1988

  2. [2]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.95.146802

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.95.226801

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 314, 1757 (2006), URL https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1133734

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    J. E. Moore and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 75, 121306 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.75.121306

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    L. Fu, C. L. Kane, and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 106803 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.98.106803

    work page 2007

  7. [8]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.82.3045

    work page 2010

  8. [9]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.83.1057

    work page 2011

Show all 48 references
  1. [10]

    K ¨onig, S

    M. K ¨onig, S. Wiedmann, C. Br ¨une, A. Roth, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 318, 766 (2007)

    2007

  2. [11]

    Y . Xia, D. Qian, D. Hsieh, L. Wray, A. Pal, H. Lin, A. Bansil, D. Grauer, Y . S. Hor, R. J. Cava, et al., Nature Physics 5, 398 (2009)

    2009

  3. [12]

    Y . L. Chen, J. G. Analytis, J.-H. Chu, Z. K. Liu, S.-K. Mo, X. L. Qi, H. J. Zhang, D. H. Lu, X. Dai, Z. Fang, et al., Science 325, 178 (2009), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1173034, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10. 1126/science.1173034

    2009 doi

  4. [13]

    Hsieh, D

    D. Hsieh, D. Qian, L. Wray, Y . Xia, Y . S. Hor, R. J. Cava, and M. Z. Hasan, Nature 452, 970 (2008)

    2008

  5. [14]

    Chang, J

    C.-Z. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, K. Li, Y . Ou, P. Wei, L.- L. Wang, et al., Science 340, 167 (2013), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1234414, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10. 1126/science.1234414

    2013 doi

  6. [15]

    T. Li, S. Jiang, B. Shen, Y . Zhang, L. Li, Z. Tao, T. Devakul, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, et al., Nature 600, 641 (2021)

    2021

  7. [16]

    B. A. Foutty, C. R. Kometter, T. Devakul, A. P. Reddy, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and B. E. Feldman, Science 384, 343 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adi4728, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10. 1126/science.adi4728

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    Y . Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Kn ¨uppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature622, 69 (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y . Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, et al., Nature 622, 74 (2023)

    2023

  10. [19]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y . Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, et al., Nature622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  11. [20]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y . Gu, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, et al., Phys. Rev. X 13, 031037 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevX.13.031037

    2023

  12. [21]

    P. Mai, J. Zhao, B. E. Feldman, and P. W. Phillips, Nature Com- munications 14, 5999 (2023)

    2023

  13. [22]

    P. Mai, B. E. Feldman, and P. W. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013162 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013162

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    Y . Su, H. Li, C. Zhang, K. Sun, and S.-Z. Lin, Phys. Rev. Research 4, L032024 (2022), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L032024

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    Dong and Y .-H

    Z. Dong and Y .-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 107, L081101 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.107.L081101

    2023

  16. [25]

    Chang and Y .-C

    Y .-W. Chang and Y .-C. Chang, Phys. Rev. B 106, 245412 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.106.245412

    2022

  17. [26]

    Xie, C.-P

    Y .-M. Xie, C.-P. Zhang, J.-X. Hu, K. F. Mak, and K. T. Law, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 026402 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.026402

    2022

  18. [27]

    H. Pan, M. Xie, F. Wu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 056804 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.056804

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    Zhang, T

    Y . Zhang, T. Devakul, and L. Fu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2112673118 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Devakul, V

    T. Devakul, V . Cr´epel, Y . Zhang, and L. Fu, Nature Communi- cations 12, 6730 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, I. Martin, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 086402 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.122.086402

    2019

  22. [31]

    Rademaker, Phys

    L. Rademaker, Phys. Rev. B 105, 195428 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 105.195428

    2022 doi

  23. [32]

    W.-X. Qiu, B. Li, X.-J. Luo, and F. Wu, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041026 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041026

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    Redekop, C

    E. Redekop, C. Zhang, H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, O. Sheekey, T. Arp, G. Babikyan, S. Salters, K. Watanabe, et al., Nature 635, 584 (2024)

    2024

  25. [34]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y . Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.70.1039

    1998

  26. [35]

    K. Sun, Z. Gu, H. Katsura, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236803 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.236803

    2011 doi

  27. [36]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236804 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.236804

    2011 doi

  28. [37]

    Widom, Physics Letters A 90, 474 (1982), ISSN 0375-9601, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0375960182904017

    A. Widom, Physics Letters A 90, 474 (1982), ISSN 0375-9601, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0375960182904017. 6

    1982

  29. [38]

    Streda, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 15, L717 (1982), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0022-3719/15/22/005

    P. Streda, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 15, L717 (1982), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0022-3719/15/22/005

    1982

  30. [39]

    Streda and L

    P. Streda and L. Smrcka, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 16, L895 (1983), URL https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/0022-3719/16/24/005

    1983 doi

  31. [40]

    P. Mai, E. W. Huang, J. Yu, B. E. Feldman, and P. W. Phillips, npj Quantum Materials 8, 14 (2023)

    2023

  32. [42]

    P. Mai, J. Zhao, T. A. Maier, B. Bradlyn, and P. W. Phillips, Phys. Rev. B 110, 075105 (2024), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.075105

    2024 doi

  33. [43]

    J. K. Ding, W. O. Wang, B. Moritz, Y . Schattner, E. W. Huang, and T. P. Devereaux, Communications Physics5, 204 (2022)

    2022

  34. [44]

    J. K. Ding, L. Yang, W. O. Wang, Z. Zhu, C. Peng, P. Mai, E. W. Huang, B. Moritz, P. W. Phillips, B. E. Feldman, et al., Phys. Rev. X 14, 041025 (2024), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.14.041025

    2024 doi

  35. [45]

    P. Mai, J. Zhao, and P. W. Phillips, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2409.07557 (2024), 2409.07557

    2024 arXiv

  36. [46]

    Devakul and L

    T. Devakul and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021031 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX. 12.021031

    2022 doi

  37. [47]

    H. Park, W. Li, C. Hu, C. Beach, M. Gonc ¸alves, J. F. Mendez- Valderrama, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. Cobden, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2503.10989 (2025), 2503.10989

    2025 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Bi and L

    Z. Bi and L. Fu, Nature Communications 12, 642 (2021)

    2021

  39. [49]

    Xie, C.-P

    Y .-M. Xie, C.-P. Zhang, and K. T. Law, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045115 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.045115

    2024 doi

  40. [50]

    Towns, T

    J. Towns, T. Cockerill, M. Dahan, I. Foster, K. Gaither, A. Grimshaw, V . Hazlewood, S. Lathrop, D. Lifka, G. D. Pe- terson, et al., Computing in Science Engineering 16, 62 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.