Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Anyon dispersion from non-uniform magnetic field on the sphere

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Interactions alone can give Laughlin anyons a nonzero dispersion on a sphere with a non-uniform magnetic field; the exact thermodynamic-limit dispersion is an eighth-power law.

desk verdict Exact mapping in Eq. (10) is rigorous and new; the 8th-power dispersion is a plausible derived result with a screening assumption and a fitted amplitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11211 v2 pith:L6WLSSO2 submitted 2025-06-12 cond-mat.str-el

Mina-Lou Schleith , Tomohiro Soejima , Eslam Khalaf This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords anyondispersionLaughlinquasiholesnon-uniformmagneticfieldsphericalgeometrylowestLandaulevelexactmappingfractionalquantumanomalousHalleffectthermodynamiclimit
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 asks whether interactions alone can make the anyonic quasiparticles of a fractional quantum Hall state disperse, in a situation where continuous magnetic translation symmetry is broken but the single-particle spectrum is still perfectly flat. It answers yes, on the sphere: a specially chosen non-uniform magnetic field, concentrated at one pole, breaks the SU(2) rotation symmetry down to U(1) while leaving the lowest Landau level dispersionless. For this field profile, every $p$-body correlation function in the Laughlin quasihole space maps exactly onto the uniform-field one, so the interaction-generated potential felt by a quasihole can be computed analytically. In the thermodynamic limit this yields an explicit eighth-power dispersion $\varepsilon^R_\kappa=a_0(R)-a_3[(1+\kappa+R^2(1-\kappa))/(2R)]^8$ in the rescaled angular momentum $\kappa$, showing that an inhomogeneous magnetic field alone can generate anyon dispersion. If the result holds up, it demonstrates a concrete mechanism -- non-uniform quantum geometry acting as a spatially varying potential -- that is expected to transfer to periodic settings relevant to fractional Chern insulators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the special non-uniform magnetic potential $Q_R(|z|)=2\ln(1+|z|^2)-2(s+1)\ln(1+|z|^2/R^2)$ on the stereographically projected sphere. Its defining property is that the similarity transformation between non-uniform and uniform LLL operators, $\hat T_R=\exp(\tfrac12\sum_m \beta^R_m \hat c^\dagger_m \hat c_m)$, collapses to $\hat T_R=R^{(s+1)N+L_z}$, a function of total particle number and angular momentum only; this makes the action of $\hat T_R$ on any $p$-body correlation function evaluable from conserved quantum numbers. A second identity, $V(d(z_1,z_2))\to V(Rz_1,Rz_2)$ with $d(Rz_1,Rz_2)=R\sqrt{h_R(z_1)h_R(z_2)}\,d(z_1,z_2)$ and $h_R(z)=(1+|z|^2)/(1+R^2|z|^2)$, absorbs the non-uniform field exactly into a dilation of the interaction. To turn the resulting effective potential into a dispersion, the quasihole states are represented as SU(2) spin coherent states $|\Psi_\xi\rangle$, the potential $v^R_\xi$ is computed from the uniform-field pair correlation function, and the $L_z$-resolved energies are recovered by the Bernstein-polynomial inversion formula (the exact linear relation between a polynomial's Bernstein coefficients and its sampled values), which in the thermodynamic limit simplifies to $\xi=\sqrt{(1-\kappa)/(1+\kappa)}$. The final analytic evaluation of $v^R_\xi$ in the thermodynamic limit assumes that the quasihole pair correlation function is screened over the magnetic length, so that slowly varying weight factors can be pinned to the quasihole position $\xi$.

What would settle it

Run exact diagonalization for $N=10$ electrons at flux $2s=28$ with interaction $V_1+\epsilon V_3$ at $R=1.2$ and $R=1.4$, extract the quasihole band energies $\varepsilon^R_M$, and form the ratio $(\varepsilon^R_\kappa-a_0(R))/[(1+\kappa+R^2(1-\kappa))/(2R)]^8$; if the ratio is not the same constant $a_3$ for both $R$ values across the whole band, then the magnetic-length screening replacement used to derive Eq. (18) is quantitatively wrong and the claimed exact thermodynamic-limit formula fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper studies the $\nu=1/3$ Laughlin state on the sphere with one quasihole, in the presence of a one-parameter family of non-uniform radial magnetic fields $B_R$ generated by the potential $Q_R(|z|)=2\ln(1+|z|^2)-2(s+1)\ln(1+|z|^2/R^2)$. For this field the single-particle lowest Landau level remains perfectly flat, while the SU(2) rotation symmetry of the sphere is broken down to the U(1) of rotations about the $z$-axis, so the quasihole energies can be labelled by $L_z$. The central result is an exact mapping: in the quasihole space, the non-uniform-field Hamiltonian with interaction $V(z_1,z_2)$ equals the uniform-field Hamiltonian with the dilated interaction $V(Rz_1,Rz_2)$, and the chord distance rescales as $d(Rz_1,Rz_2)=R\sqrt{h_R(z_1)h_R(z_2)}\,d(z_1,z_2)$. The invertible but non-unitary transformation that implements this map, $\hat T_R=R^{(s+1)N+L_z}$, is a function of conserved quantum numbers alone, so any $p$-body correlation function of the quasiholes is obtained exactly from uniform-field data. In the thermodynamic limit, using the plasma screening of the quasihole pair correlation function over a magnetic length, the effective potential felt by a quasihole at position $\xi$ becomes $v^R_\xi=a_0(R)-a_3[(1+R^2|\xi|^2)/(R(1+|\xi|^2))]^8$, and inverting the coherent-state relation yields the anyon dispersion $\varepsilon^R_\kappa=a_0(R)-a_3[(1+\kappa+R^2(1-\kappa))/(2R)]^8$ with $\kappa=2M/N\in[-1,1]$. This establishes, within the model, that interaction alone converts a spatially varying magnetic field into a dispersive energy for anyons while the single-particle spectrum stays flat.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the eighth-power dispersion assumes that the quasihole pair correlation function $g_\xi(z_1,z_2)$ is screened over a magnetic length, meaning that correlations decay to their background value within a few magnetic lengths, so the slowly varying factor $h_R(z)$ inside the interaction integral can be replaced by its value $h_R(\xi)$ at the quasihole position; if this plasma-screening assumption fails at the system sizes or field non-uniformities considered, the specific power-law form in Eq. (18) would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any $p$-body correlation function in the Laughlin quasihole space at non-uniform field $R$ can be evaluated exactly from the uniform-field correlation function, so effective few-anyon physics in an inhomogeneous background becomes analytically accessible.
  • Within this model, the quasihole moves azimuthally at constant latitude -- the coherent-state Lagrangian is that of a spin $N/2$ in a potential depending only on $S_z$ -- so the dispersion is a precession spectrum rather than a two-dimensional band, and itinerant-anyon phases such as anyon superconductivity are not expected in this geometry.
  • The mechanism -- non-uniform quantum geometry generating a spatially varying interaction potential -- is expected to transfer to periodic non-uniform fields on the torus, the setting relevant to fractional Chern insulators and FQAHE materials, where real dispersion could drive itinerant-anyon phases such as anyon superconductors.
  • For a residual $V_3$ pseudopotential, the thermodynamic-limit potential is exactly $a_0(R)-a_3(\eta^R_\xi)^8$ with $\eta^R_\xi=(1+R^2|\xi|^2)/(R(1+|\xi|^2))$, and higher pseudopotentials contribute the higher even powers $(\eta^R_\xi)^{2(2n+2)}$; for Coulomb interaction the same screening argument yields an elliptic-integral formula instead of the power law.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exact mapping should hold for any quasihole sector built from $V_1$ zero modes, not just a single quasihole, so multi-anyon observables -- including interactions between two quasiholes and any tendency toward bound states -- in a non-uniform field could be computed from uniform-field data by the same argument.
  • The eighth-power law implies a sharp numerical test beyond the paper's $N=8$ diagonalizations: for fixed $R>1$, the rescaled quantity $(\varepsilon^R_\kappa-a_0(R))(2R)^8/(1+\kappa+R^2(1-\kappa))^8$ should approach a single constant $a_3$ as $N$ grows, so finite-size exact diagonalization on larger systems could locate the breakdown of the magnetic-length screening assumption.
  • The spin-coherent-state picture suggests a dynamical probe: a quasihole initially localized at latitude $\theta$ should precess around the azimuth with a frequency set by the derivative $\partial\varepsilon^R_\kappa/\partial\kappa$ at $\kappa=\cos\theta$; time-resolved imaging of the quasihole position would then measure the dispersion directly even where individual $L_z$ levels are not resolved.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the lowest Landau level (LLL) on the sphere in the presence of a rotationally symmetric, non-uniform magnetic field parameterized by R, which breaks the SU(2) rotation symmetry down to U(1) but keeps the single-particle dispersion exactly flat. The authors show that for their chosen magnetic potential Q_R, any p-body correlation function in the Laughlin quasihole space maps exactly to a corresponding correlation function in a uniform field with a rescaled interaction (Eq. 10). Using this mapping and a plasma-screening argument for the quasihole pair correlation function, they derive the thermodynamic-limit anyon dispersion ε^R_κ = a0(R) − a3 [(1+κ+R^2(1−κ))/(2R)]^8 for short-range V3 interactions (Eq. 19), up to an overall amplitude a3 and offsets a0(R), which are fitted to N=8 exact diagonalization data. They also give a more involved expression for Coulomb interactions (Eq. E10). The central conceptual message is that interaction alone, in the absence of continuous magnetic translation symmetry, can generate a nonzero dispersion for anyons.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a concrete and analytically tractable demonstration that inhomogeneous magnetic field (i.e., inhomogeneous quantum geometry) can generate anyon dispersion without introducing single-particle dispersion — a mechanism of direct relevance to fractional quantum anomalous Hall systems and ideal flat bands. The main strengths are: (i) the exact mapping in Eq. (10) and App. B/C is derived rigorously for the two-body interaction and does not rely on the uncontrolled approximations used in earlier work; (ii) the model preserves exact flatness of the single-particle dispersion by construction; (iii) the paper is honest about the role of the fitted amplitude a3 and offsets a0(R); (iv) the predicted functional form in Eq. (19) is a concrete, falsifiable statement that can be tested at larger system sizes or with Monte Carlo. The thermodynamic-limit formula is the least certain part, since it rests on a plasma-screening assumption that is stated but not fully derived; nevertheless, the paper sets a clear quantitative target for future checks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix E, Eqs. (18)–(19)] The load-bearing step for the analytic dispersion formula is the plasma-screening assumption that g_ξ(z1,z2) depends on distances only through d(z1,ξ)/l_B, d(z2,ξ)/l_B, and d(z1,z2)/l_B, and saturates beyond a few magnetic lengths, so that h_R(z) can be replaced by h_R(ξ) for all contributing configurations. This is stated as an expectation, not derived, and no bound on the corrections is given. Because Eq. (19) is the central quantitative claim, I ask the authors to substantiate this factorization in one of two concrete ways: (a) perform a Monte Carlo evaluation of the exact expression (D36) using the uniform-field pair correlation g_SP, which would determine a3 independently of the ED fit and directly test whether the R and ξ dependence factorizes as (η^R_ξ)^8; or (b) provide finite-size scaling of the ED-extracted a3 (e.g., for N=6,8,10) establishing its independence of N and R. Without such a check, the excellent agreement in Fig. 3 cannot be taken as a first-principles verification, since a0(R) and a3 are fitted to the same 9-point spectra.
  2. [Fig. 3 and text after Eq. (18)] The fitting procedure is underspecified. The text states that a3 is determined by fitting the bandwidth, but it does not say whether a3 is a single global parameter across all R and across both ε^R_M and v^R_ξ, or whether it is fitted separately for each R. If a3 is fit separately at each R, then the claimed R-independence of a3 is assumed rather than demonstrated. Please report the fitted values of a0(R) and a3, and show either a comparison with a single fixed a3 or the extracted a3(R) values to demonstrate R-independence.
  3. [Main text, Eq. (10) and generalization to p-body operators] The exact mapping is proven in App. B for two-particle density-density interactions, and the paper states in the main text that it generalizes to any p-body correlation function, with the justification relegated to a remark attached to the statement. Since the generalization to p-body operators is advertised in the abstract and used to motivate future applications (e.g., multi-anyon bound states), the authors should either provide the explicit p-body generalization in an appendix or soften the claim. This does not affect the two-body dispersion result, but it is part of the paper's advertised scope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [After Eq. (12)] The sentence attributing higher energy to quasiholes with large angular momentum whose wavefunctions have more weight on the north pole is potentially confusing, because the coherent-state convention in Eqs. (15)–(16) and App. D relates ξ=∞ to the lowest angular momentum state m=−l. Please clarify the correspondence between ξ, m, and the pole positions, and reconcile it with the energy ordering from Eq. (19).
  2. [Eq. (16)] The inversion formula ε^R_κ = v^R_ξ with ξ = sqrt((1−κ)/(1+κ)) assumes that ξ is real and non-negative; this should be stated explicitly, together with the azimuthal symmetry that determines the phase.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains a duplicated reference to Eq. (18) ('Eq. (18), Eq. (18)'), which should be corrected.
  4. [Appendix E, Eq. (E1)] The plasma-screening argument cites an empty reference ('[]') after 'screened over a distance ∼l_B'; a proper citation to the plasma analogy for the Laughlin wavefunction should be added.
  5. [Abstract and conclusion] The abstract says the dispersion is 'computed exactly, up to an overall scaling constant', but the offsets a0(R) are also fitted to the numerics; the wording should acknowledge that both a3 and a0(R) are determined by fitting, so the exact part is the functional dependence on κ and R, not the overall scale or offset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 8th-power anyon dispersion form is derived from the exact dilation mapping plus a stated (but uncited) plasma-screening assumption; fitted a0(R) and a3 are disclosed offsets and amplitude, so the central claim is not an input by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The non-uniform-field interaction is converted to a uniform-field interaction with dilated coordinates, V(Rz1,Rz2), by the explicit identity in Eq. (10) and App. B; this is a proven operator identity, not an input assumption. The quasihole potential vξ^R is then expressed as an integral of V(Rz1,Rz2) against the uniform-field pair correlation gξ (Eq. (14)), and the dispersion ϵ^R_M is obtained from vξ^R by the exact coherent-state inversion (Eqs. (15)/(D17)), whose thermodynamic limit is the semiclassical substitution ξ = sqrt((1−κ)/(1+κ)) (Eqs. (16)/(D22)). The 8th-power form of Eq. (19) is not fitted: it follows from the dilation exponent 2n+2 = 8 of the V3 pseudopotential (Eq. (11), App. E) after the stated plasma-screening assumption that gξ saturates over a magnetic length and h_R(z) varies slowly. The constants a0(R) and a3 are admittedly fitted to the ED bandwidth, so the formula is not parameter-free; but fitting an overall offset and amplitude, with the κ- and R-dependent shape derived, is disclosed honest scaling, not a prediction forced by the fit. The main caveat is a correctness gap, not circularity: Appendix E asserts the screening behavior ('we expect the function to depend on this distance only up to few magnetic lengths... This follows from the plasma analogy where the charges are screened over a distance ∼l_B []') with an empty citation, leaving the thermodynamic-limit factorization unproven if screening fails. This is an unproven external input, not an equivalence to the inputs. Self-citations to prior ideal-band work are contextual and none carries the derivation.

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

The central derivation rests on the specific choice of the non-uniform field Q_R, which is chosen by hand to make the operator T_R a simple function of conserved quantum numbers. The thermodynamic-limit formula then adds a plasma-screening assumption. The only fitted numbers are the overall amplitude a_3 and offsets; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • a_3 = not quoted
    Overall amplitude in Eqs. (18)-(19), determined by fitting the numerical bandwidth (Fig. 3).
  • a_0(R) = not quoted
    R-dependent offset fitted per R that shifts the potential but does not affect dispersion.
  • alpha(R), beta = not quoted
    Fitted constants for the Coulomb formula in Eq. (E10) and Fig. 4.
  • R = 1 to 1.5 in simulations
    Model parameter controlling the field inhomogeneity; an input chosen by hand, not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Pauli g-factor is g_s=2, so the LLL remains exactly flat in the non-uniform field.
    The Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) has degenerate zero modes only for g_s=2; the paper relies on this to keep single-particle dispersion flat.
  • domain assumption Plasma screening: g_xi(z1,z2) depends only on distances up to a magnetic length and saturates far from the quasihole.
    This is the key assumption in App. E used to derive the thermodynamic-limit potential (Eq. 18).
  • domain assumption V_1 zero modes form the quasihole manifold and first-order perturbation theory in V-V_1 applies.
    Used to express the anyon energy as the expectation value of the interaction in the zero-mode space (Eq. 8).
  • domain assumption The interaction is short-ranged (V_3) for the main formula; Coulomb is treated separately.
    The power-law form of Eq. (19) derives from a V_3 pseudopotential; the Coulomb case needs a separate expression (App. E2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anyon dispersion from non-uniform magnetic field on the sphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L6WLSSO2

@misc{pith2026250611211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anyon dispersion from non-uniform magnetic field on the sphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L6WLSSO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11211}
}
abstract

The discovery of fractional quantum anomalous Hall states in moir\'e systems has raised the interesting possibility of realizing phases of itenerant anyons. Anyon dispersion is only possible in the absence of continuous magnetic translation symmetry (CMTS). Motivated by this, we consider anyons on the sphere in the presence of a non-uniform magnetic field which breaks the ${\rm SU}(2)$ rotation symmetry, the analog of CMTS on the sphere, down to a ${\rm U}(1)$. This allows us to study the energy dispersion of the anyons as a function of $L_z$ angular-momentum, while maintaining the perfect flatness of single-particle dispersion. We parametrize the non-uniform field by a real parameter $R$ which concentrates the field at the north (south) pole for $R>1$ ($R < 1$), and show that, for our choice of field, any $p$-body correlation function evaluated in the space of Laughlin quasiholes can be mapped \emph{exactly} to a corresponding $p$-body correlation function in uniform field. In the thermodynamic limit, this enables us to analytically compute the interaction-generated spatially varying potential felt by the anyons. Remarkably, such spatially varying potential is sufficient to generate dispersion for the anyons, which we compute exactly, up to an overall scaling constant. The anyon dispersion in our model describes azimuthal motion around the sphere at a constant height, similar to spin precession. Our work therefore serves as a concrete demonstration that interaction alone can generate nonzero anyon dispersion in the presence of inhomogeneous magnetic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11211 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The comparison between anyon dispersion with Coulomb interaction and the analytic formula in Eq. (E10). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Single-component twisted $\mathbb{Z}_3$ orthogonal metal in an $e/3$-anyon fluid

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Doping the nu=1/3 fractional Chern insulator can produce a twisted Z_3 orthogonal metal — a single hidden Fermi surface of emergent e/3 fermions — whose pairing yields superconductors with arbitrary chiral central cha...

  2. Anyon Dispersion in Aharonov-Casher Bands and Implications for Twisted MoTe${}_2$

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Laughlin quasiholes in an Aharonov-Casher band acquire a finite dispersion, of order 1 meV in twisted MoTe2, produced by non-uniform quantum geometry and the anyon Berry phase.

  3. Coloring in anyon superconductivity

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Doping the ν=2/3 FQAH state produces a unifying 'quark metal' of charge-e/3 fermions whose superconducting and ferromagnetic instabilities reproduce and extend the known zoo of anyon-driven superconductors.

  4. Non-Abelian topological superconductivity from melting Abelian fractional Chern insulators

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bandwidth tuning can melt a single ν=2/3 Jain fractional Chern insulator into five distinct superconductors, two with non-Abelian order, with higher-charge variants predicted at general Jain fillings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [24]

    J. Wang, J. Cano, A. J. Millis, Z. Liu, and B. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 246403 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Ran, T. Cao, L. Fu, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature622, 63–68 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J.-H. Chu, T. Cao, L. Fu, W. Yao, C.-Z. Chang, D. Cobden, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Nature622, 74 (2023)

    2023

  4. [3]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, and T. Li, Physical Review X13, 10.1103/physrevx.13.031037 (2023)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.031037 2023

  5. [4]

    Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Kn¨ uppel, 6 C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature622, 69–73 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, A. P. Reddy, J. Yang, J. Seo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature 626, 759 (2024)

    2024

  7. [6]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of physics303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  8. [7]

    Liu and E

    Z. Liu and E. J. Bergholtz, Recent Developments in Frac- tional Chern Insulators (2022), arXiv:2208.08449 [cond- mat, physics:math-ph, physics:quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 79 references
  1. [8]

    S. A. Parameswaran, R. Roy, and S. L. Sondhi, C. R. Phys.14, 816 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    E. J. Bergholtz and Z. Liu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B27, 1330017 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1142/S021797921330017X

    2013 doi

  3. [10]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 236804 (2011)

    2011

  4. [11]

    Sheng, Z.-C

    D. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Nat. Com- mun.2, 389 (2011)

    2011

  5. [12]

    Regnault and B

    N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. X1, 021014 (2011)

    2011

  6. [13]

    Qi, Phys

    X.-L. Qi, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 126803 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    S. A. Parameswaran, R. Roy, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B85, 241308 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    Y.-L. Wu, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 106802 (2013)

    2013

  9. [16]

    Kourtis, T

    S. Kourtis, T. Neupert, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys- ical Review Letters112, 126806 (2014), arXiv:1310.6371 [cond-mat]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Zhang, D

    Y.-H. Zhang, D. Mao, Y. Cao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B99, 075127 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Tarnopolsky, A

    G. Tarnopolsky, A. J. Kruchkov, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 106405 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Repellin and T

    C. Repellin and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023238 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Abouelkomsan, Z

    A. Abouelkomsan, Z. Liu, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 106803 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Z. Liu, A. Abouelkomsan, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 026801 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Mera and T

    B. Mera and T. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. B104, 115160 (2021)

    2021

  16. [27]

    Z. D. Shi and T. Senthil, Doping a fractional quantum anomalous hall insulator (2024), arXiv:2409.20567 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2024

  17. [28]

    Gon¸ calves, J

    M. Gon¸ calves, J. F. Mendez-Valderrama, J. Herzog- Arbeitman, J. Yu, X. Xu, D. Xiao, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05330 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [29]

    R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 2677 (1988)

    1988

  19. [30]

    A. L. Fetter, C. B. Hanna, and R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. B39, 9679 (1989)

    1989

  20. [31]

    Lee and M

    D.-H. Lee and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 903 (1989)

    1989

  21. [32]

    Y.-H. CHEN, F. WILCZEK, E. WITTEN, and B. I. HALPERIN, International Jour- nal of Modern Physics B03, 1001 (1989), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979289000725

    1989 doi

  22. [33]

    B. I. Halperin, J. March-Russell, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. B40, 8726 (1989)

    1989

  23. [34]

    X. G. Wen and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. B41, 240 (1990)

    1990

  24. [35]

    X. G. Wen and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. B44, 274 (1991)

    1991

  25. [36]

    Tang and X.-G

    E. Tang and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B88, 195117 (2013)

    2013

  26. [37]

    M. Kim, A. Timmel, L. Ju, and X.-G. Wen, Physical Review B111, 014508 (2025)

    2025

  27. [38]

    Divic, V

    S. Divic, V. Cr´ epel, T. Soejima, X.-Y. Song, A. Mil- lis, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Vishwanath, (2024), arXiv:2410.18175 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Z. D. Shi, C. Zhang, and T. Senthil, Doping lattice non- abelian quantum hall states (2025), arXiv:2505.02893 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [40]

    Z. D. Shi and T. Senthil, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02128 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [41]

    P. A. Nosov, Z. Han, and E. Khalaf, Anyon superconduc- tivity and plateau transitions in doped fractional quan- tum anomalous hall insulators (2025), arXiv:2506.02108 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [42]

    Pichler, C

    F. Pichler, C. Kuhlenkamp, M. Knap, and A. Vish- wanath, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08000 (2025)

    2025

  32. [43]

    B. M. Kousa, N. Morales-Dur´ an, T. M. Wolf, E. Khalaf, and A. H. MacDonald, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17574 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  33. [44]

    A. P. Reddy, F. Alsallom, Y. Zhang, T. Devakul, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B108, 085117 (2023)

    2023

  34. [45]

    N. Paul, A. Abouelkomsan, A. Reddy, and L. Fu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17569 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [46]

    P. J. Ledwith, G. Tarnopolsky, E. Khalaf, and A. Vish- wanath, Phys. Rev. Research2, 023237 (2020)

    2020

  36. [47]

    Morales-Dur´ an, N

    N. Morales-Dur´ an, N. Wei, J. Shi, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 096602 (2024)

    2024

  37. [48]

    J. Shi, N. Morales-Dur´ an, E. Khalaf, and A. H. MacDon- ald, Phys. Rev. B110, 035130 (2024)

    2024

  38. [49]

    J. Dong, J. Wang, P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 136502 (2023)

    2023

  39. [50]

    Mera and T

    B. Mera and T. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. B104, 045104 (2021)

    2021

  40. [51]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and E. Khalaf, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 176404 (2022)

    2022

  41. [52]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Physical Review B108, 205144 (2023), arXiv:2209.15023 [cond- mat]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [53]

    Aharonov and A

    Y. Aharonov and A. Casher, Phys. Rev. A19, 2461 (1979)

    1979

  43. [54]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Phys. Rev. B108, 205144 (2023)

    2023

  44. [55]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 605 (1983)

    1983

  45. [56]

    Alternatively, we can consider the LLL for a Dirac Hamil- tonian which leads to the same zero mode wavefunctions

  46. [57]

    S. A. Trugman and S. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. B31, 5280 (1985)

    1985

  47. [58]

    B. A. Bernevig and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 246802 (2008)

    2008

  48. [59]

    Yang, Z.-X

    B. Yang, Z.-X. Hu, Z. Papi´ c, and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys- ical Review Letters108, 10.1103/physrevlett.108.256807 (2012)

    2012 doi

  49. [60]

    Since we are working in the space of zero modes of ˆV1, we can use ˆVand ∆ ˆVinterchangeably

  50. [61]

    [24] has already discussed the need to evaluateN-body operator in the presence of non-uniform magnetic field

    We note that ref. [24] has already discussed the need to evaluateN-body operator in the presence of non-uniform magnetic field. To address this, they employed an approx- imation which is equivalent to replacing the operator ˆTR by the identity in both numerator and denominator...

  51. [62]

    Girvin, Physical Review B30, 558 (1984)

    S. Girvin, Physical Review B30, 558 (1984)

    1984

  52. [63]

    Fulsebakke, M

    J. Fulsebakke, M. Fremling, N. Moran, and J. K. Slinger- land, SciPost Physics14, 149 (2023)

    2023

  53. [64]

    We choose the negative sign since we anticipate the func- tionδg ξ(z1, z2) to be mostly negative as it corresponds to a dip relative to the asymptotic value

  54. [65]

    X. Xie, S. D. Sarma, and S. He, Physical Review B47, 15942 (1993)

    1993

  55. [66]

    Q. Xu, G. Ji, Y. Wang, H. Q. Trung, and B. Yang, Dy- namics of clusters of anyons in fractional quantum hall fluids (2025), arXiv:2505.20257 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  56. [67]

    Gattu and J

    M. Gattu and J. K. Jain, Molecular anyons in fractional quantum hall effect (2025), arXiv:2505.22782 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2025

  57. [68]

    Murugan, J

    J. Murugan, J. P. Shock, and R. P. Slayen, Notes on the Squashed Sphere Lowest Landau Level (2019), arXiv:1909.08042 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [69]

    Iengo and D

    R. Iengo and D. Li, Nuclear Physics B413, 735–753 (1994)

    1994

  59. [70]

    T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B107, 365 (1976)

    1976

  60. [71]

    T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D16, 1018 (1977). 8 Appendix A: Lowest Landau level on the sphere

    1977

  61. [72]

    Stereographic projection We perform a stereographic mapping from spherical coordinates to complex coordinatesz=x+iy, ¯z=x−iy. The complex coordinatezis given in terms of the azimuthal and polar angles (ϕ, θ) by z=re iϕ = cot θ 2 eiϕ.(A1) We also define the Haldane spinor to be...

  62. [73]

    The sphere is a K¨ ahler manifold, since it is equipped with a complex structure, a Riemannian structure, and a symplectic structure

    Uniform and non-uniform magnetic fields on the sphere In this section, we mainly follow [68]. The sphere is a K¨ ahler manifold, since it is equipped with a complex structure, a Riemannian structure, and a symplectic structure. The corresponding K¨ ahler potentialK(|z|) is a s...

  63. [74]

    LLL wave functions on the sphere The Pauli Hamiltonian for spin polarized electrons on a Riemann surface is given in terms of the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic components of the kinetic momentumπ z =−iℏ∂ z −eA z, π¯z=−iℏ∂ ¯z−eA ¯zby [69] H= 1 2m 1√g πzπ¯z+ 2−g s 8 eℏB ,(A24...

  64. [75]

    To achieve this, we demand that the interaction only depends on the chord distance: d(Ω1,Ω 2) = 2 sin Ω12 2 ,(B1) where Ω12 is the angle between Ω 1 and Ω2

    Interactions on the sphere We consider spherically symmetric interactions, such that the sole source of rotational symmetry breaking arises from the single-particle part of the Hamiltonian. To achieve this, we demand that the interaction only depends on the chord distance: d(Ω...

  65. [76]

    Second quantized form of the interaction For the numerical ED, we evaluate 2-body scattering elements between fermions in the LLL. Let us start by writing the most general form of a 2-body interaction in the angular momentum basis in second quantization ˆV= 4s−1X ℓ=1 sX m,m′=−...

  66. [77]

    Our choice forQ R, however, allows significant simplifications

    T ransforming the Hamiltonian The treatment above was quite general, and it applies to any choice of inhomogeneous magnetic field, not just the one we used in the main text. Our choice forQ R, however, allows significant simplifications. To see this, let us evaluate the second...

  67. [78]

    Since there areN+ 1 quasiholes states withm=− N 2 ,

    Quasihole wavefunctions in angular momentum and coherent state representations The quasiholes|Ψ m⟩form a representation of the angular momentum operators. Since there areN+ 1 quasiholes states withm=− N 2 , . . . ,N 2 , this corresponds to thel= N 2 representation. This means ...

  68. [79]

    D17,D20, D22 that it suffices to compute the anyon potential energyv R ξ to determine the anyon dispersion

    Laughlin quasihole pair correlation functions It follows from Eqs. D17,D20, D22 that it suffices to compute the anyon potential energyv R ξ to determine the anyon dispersion. The latter is expression in terms of the pair correlation function for a Laughlin quasihole atξfor uni...

  69. [80]

    D30 and D23 allow us to compute the dispersion for any given interaction from the knowledge of the pair correlation function for a single quasihole localized at the south pole

    Dispersion in non-uniform field Eq. D30 and D23 allow us to compute the dispersion for any given interaction from the knowledge of the pair correlation function for a single quasihole localized at the south pole. We do this by moving the dependence ofξin (D23) completely to th...

  70. [81]

    Short-range interactionV(d(z 1, z2)) =W η(d(z1, z2)/η) withη≲l B: In this case, bothz 1 andz 2 will be close toξ. For non-uniform field, we haved(Rz 1, Rz2) = R p hR(z1)hR(z2)d(z1, z2) but the functionh R(z) changes slowly (on the scale of the radius of the sphere), so we can ...

  71. [82]

    Without loss of generality, we can choosez 1 to be far away fromξandz 2 to be close toξ

    Coulomb interaction: For Coulomb interaction, the dominant contribution to the integral (D37) comes from having one ofz 1,2 close toξand one far away (having both close toξhave a smaller phase space). Without loss of generality, we can choosez 1 to be far away fromξandz 2 to b...

Pith tools

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