Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 82 references

Anyon-Impurity Bound States in Quantum-Engineered Fractional Chern Insulators

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · 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 The paper claims that in a fractional Chern insulator, the binding energy of a mobile impurity to a pinned quasihole is proportional to the quasihole's fractional charge in the weak-coupling limit, making binding-energy ratios a direct…

desk verdict A careful numerics paper whose headline claim—binding-energy ratios measure fractional charge—is currently a finite-size volume effect, not a bound-state property. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06233 v1 pith:R6FWTIVB submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Botao Wang , Amit Vashisht , Felix A. Palm , Fabian Grusdt , Laurens Vanderstraeten , Nathan Goldman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords fractionalCherninsulatorquasiholechargemobileimpurityanyon-impurityboundstateHarper-Hofstadtermodelbindingenergymatrixproductstates
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

Mobile impurities are established probes of correlated matter, and this paper asks whether they can reveal the fractional charge of a quasihole in an engineered fractional Chern insulator. The authors argue that they can: in the interacting Harper-Hofstadter model, a repulsive impurity binds to a pinned quasihole, and in the weak-coupling limit the binding energy is proportional to the quasihole's charge. They support this with mean-field analysis and large-scale matrix-product-state simulations for bosonic ν=1/2 and fermionic ν=1/3 Laughlin-type states, finding that the ratios E_B(−1/2)/E_B(−1) and E_B(−1/3)/E_B(−1/2) approach 1/2 and 2/3. If correct, this gives a practical, in-situ way to measure fractional charge and to manipulate anyon-impurity composites by dragging the pinning potential.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the mean-field replacement of the impurity-host repulsion by a single-particle potential $U\sum_{x,y}\langle \hat n_{x,y}\rangle \hat a^\dagger_{x,y}\hat a_{x,y}$, built from the host ground-state density. Since a two-dimensional attractive potential always binds a particle, this maps the anyon-impurity problem onto a shallow trap whose integrated strength is $UQ$; the binding energy depends on trap depth and grows linearly with $Q$ in the weak-coupling limit. The paper validates this mapping by comparing mean-field curves with full many-body matrix-product-state results and by using $\delta E_B$, the difference between bare and effective binding energy, to estimate the onset of collective-mode dressing.

What would settle it

In a $10\times 10$ hard-core-boson Harper-Hofstadter system at $\nu=1/2$, compute the full many-body binding-energy ratio $E_B(-1/2)/E_B(-1)$ at $U/J<0.5$; if the ratio is not $1/2$ within finite-size error, or if $\delta E_B$ does not vanish in that window, the linear charge-extraction claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the binding energy of a charge-neutral mobile impurity to a single pinned quasihole is set by the quasihole's charge in the weak-interaction regime, so the ratio of binding energies for two quasihole charges equals the ratio of the charges themselves. This is demonstrated in the interacting Harper-Hofstadter model: hard-core bosons at ν=1/2 host a quasihole with charge −1/2, a Chern insulator supplies an integer charge −1, and an infinite-cylinder fermionic ν=1/3 state supplies a quasihole of charge −1/3. The numerical binding-energy ratios track the expected fractional values once the impurity-host coupling is weak enough that the impurity's back-action on the host, estimated by the difference between bare and effective binding energies, nearly vanishes. The same bound state can be moved by translating the pinning potential, giving a physical route to steer anyonic excitations.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the impurity acts on the host only through the host's ground-state density—the mean-field replacement $\hat H_U \to U\sum_{x,y}\langle \hat n_{x,y}\rangle \hat a^\dagger_{x,y}\hat a_{x,y}$—so impurity back-action on the fractional Chern insulator is negligible where the charge is read out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the linear ratio holds, binding-energy spectroscopy gives a direct measurement of quasihole charge without relying on transport or density-integration protocols.
  • The bound composite can be transported by moving the pinning potential, so anyon-impurity composites become movable objects suitable for braiding-type manipulations in cold-atom simulators.
  • Monitoring the breakdown of adiabatic following during a drag provides a dynamical estimate of the binding energy.
  • The same protocol works for both bosonic ν=1/2 and fermionic ν=1/3 Laughlin-type states, suggesting generality across fractional Chern insulator platforms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because only ratios of binding energies enter, the protocol could work as a calibration-free diagnostic in systems where absolute energy scales are hard to fix; the paper computes absolute energies but does not make this inference.
  • The same mean-field trap picture suggests that the ratio test could be applied to other localized excitations, such as domain walls or quasiparticles in non-Laughlin states, but the paper only tests Laughlin-type ν=1/2 and ν=1/3 quasiholes.
  • A natural experimental follow-up is to use the dragging protocol to move one composite around another and look for braiding phases; the paper demonstrates transport but not braiding.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This Letter studies a single mobile impurity coupled to a pinned quasihole in the interacting Harper–Hofstadter model in the fractional Chern insulator (FCI) regime. The authors first analyze a single particle in a 2D potential well and then map the impurity–host interaction onto an effective single-particle potential U<n> at the mean-field level, arguing that the binding energy of the impurity to the quasihole is controlled by the integrated host density defect. Using DMRG on a 10×10 lattice for hard-core bosons at ν=1/2 and a window-MPS approach on infinite cylinders for ν=1/2 and ν=1/3, they compute the many-body binding energy E_B and find that in the weak-coupling limit the ratio E_B(-1/2)/E_B(-1) approaches 1/2 and E_B(-1/3)/E_B(-1/2) approaches 2/3. They also simulate dragging of the pinning potential with TDVP and show that an impurity at U=3J follows the moving quasihole. The appendix contains the 2D binding-energy derivation, host characterization via the Streda marker, charge extraction from density profiles, window-MPS details, and the drag-dynamics analysis.

Significance. The paper is a serious numerical study with several concrete strengths: the many-body DMRG and window-MPS results go beyond the mean-field illustration and break its circularity by computing E_B from the full Hamiltonian while extracting the charge independently from the host density; the δE_B diagnostic (Eq. (9) and Fig. 2(c)) offers a quantitative handle on back-action; the window-MPS comparison of ν=1/2 and ν=1/3 is a nontrivial two-system test; and the dragging protocol connects directly to ongoing cold-atom quantum-gas-microscope experiments, with a self-contained appendix. If the charge-extraction claim holds in the stated regime, the scheme would be a useful in-situ probe of fractional charge in engineered FCI simulators. However, as detailed below, the weak-coupling 'binding energy' that carries the claim is currently a finite-size linear-response energy shift rather than a demonstrated bound-state property, the calibration and error budget are not quantified, and the drag simulation operates in a different (strong-coupling) regime. The significance of the result is therefore real but more modest than the abstract suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Mean field analysis; Many-body calculations (Figs. 1(d), 2(d))] The charge-extraction claim is currently supported only as a finite-size first-order energy shift, not as a bound-state property. For U→0, the ground-state energy of H''_imp = H_imp + U Σ n_Vh a†a is shifted by the first-order term E_B ≈ −U Σ_x δn(x)|ψ_0(x)|², with δn = n_0 − n_Vh and ψ_0 the unperturbed impurity ground state. For the delocalized ψ_0 of a finite lattice this shift is of order U|Q|/L², linear in U and proportional to the integrated charge Q; the ratio E_B(Q')/E_B(Q) therefore approaches Q'/Q for any finite L (Fig. 1(d)) regardless of whether the impurity wavefunction is localized. In the thermodynamic limit at fixed U, the 2D bound-state binding energy is exponentially small in 1/(U|Q|) and its ratio is not Q'/Q. The only L-dependence shown (inset of Fig. 1(c)) is at U = 2J_imp, where the well is deep, not in the weak-coupling regime where the claim operates. I ask for either (a) an L-scaling study of E_B and its ratio at small U (U ≲ 0.5J) that demonstrates the behavior beyond the 10–20-site systems used here, or (b) an explicit restatement of the result as a finite-size linear-response probe with the regime of validity and the operational meaning of 'binding energy' spelled out.
  2. [Many-body calculations, Eq. (7), Fig. 2(d)] The ratio E_B(ν=1/2)/E_B(ν=1) in Fig. 2(d) compares binding energies obtained in two different host systems (10 hard-core bosons in a ν=1/2 FCI and 21 free fermions in a CI), whose quasihole density profiles differ (Fig. 2(a)). At first order the ratio equals (Q_FCI/Q_CI) times the ratio of the impurity-density overlaps with the two defects, so the extracted 'fractional charge' carries a shape-dependent systematic error. The manuscript does not report the residual deviation of the MPS ratio from 1/2, the magnitude of the overlap correction, or error bars, so the precision implied by 'direct measure' is not quantified. Please state the numerical values of the ratios at the smallest U, the corresponding uncertainties, and a justification that the shape correction is negligible or controlled.
  3. [Dragging the anyon-impurity composite (Fig. 4)] The dragging demonstration is performed at U/J = 3.0, outside the weak-coupling window (U/J ≲ 0.5) in which δE_B ≈ 0 and the mean-field mapping was validated (Fig. 2(c)); at U = 3J the back-action dressing is significant, so the transported density minimum is not guaranteed to be the clean Q = −1/2 quasihole whose binding physics was analyzed. Appendix Fig. 9(e) restricts U ≤ 3J to 'isolate a single fractional charge of −1/2', but the text does not state the charge value at U = 3J during the drag or how much of the impurity's displacement (≈1 lattice constant after τ = 25ℏ/J, about one third of the host displacement) reflects coherent binding rather than the direct effect of the moving Gaussian potential on the impurity. Please quantify these points or soften the transport claim accordingly.
  4. [Numerical sections (Figs. 2–3)] None of the numerical sections reports bond dimensions, truncation errors, convergence of E_B with bond dimension, or TDVP time-step/truncation checks, and no error bars appear in Figs. 2–3. Since the quantitative claims (E_B ratios approaching 1/2 and 2/3) rest on these MPS simulations, at least a per-point estimate of the truncated weight and a statement of the bond dimension used are needed to establish that the reported ratios are converged.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Bound states in 2D] The sentence 'In both the weak and strong confinement limits, the binding energy exhibits an approximately linear dependence on V0' is not correct for the continuum result Eq. (5): in the weak limit the 2D well binding energy is exponentially small in 1/z0², and the near-linear behavior seen in the lattice numerics reflects the finite level spacing; please rephrase.
  2. [Mean field analysis (Fig. 1(d))] Fig. 1(d) and the surrounding text put the fractional charge in by hand as a renormalized trap depth Q'; the paper should state explicitly that this panel is an illustrative consistency check, and that the physical claim rests on the many-body calculations (Figs. 2(d), 3(e)) where the charge is obtained independently from the density.
  3. [Many-body calculations (Fig. 2(d))] Please clarify the impurity hopping J_imp used in Figs. 2–4; the inset of Fig. 1(a) uses J_imp/J = 0.6 and 1, and the binding energy scales with J_imp, so the value used in the many-body simulations should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Domain wall excitation and infinite MPS (Fig. 3)] For the ν=1/2 window the impurity is confined by an infinite potential on the last rung, while for ν=1/3 it is not; the resulting different impurity ground-state envelopes affect the first-order shifts and hence the L_w-dependent ratio in Fig. 3(e). Please state this explicitly and check that it does not bias the extrapolation to large L_w.
  5. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that the fractional charge is to be 'inferred directly from in-situ density measurements', while the proposed protocol in the paper infers it from the binding energy; please correct this sentence to refer to the binding-energy measurement.
  6. [Fig. 1(d) caption] Since E_B is negative for all charges considered, the ratio in Fig. 1(d) is a ratio of magnitudes; please state the sign convention explicitly in the text and captions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mean-field charge-extraction ratio recovers an input charge; the central many-body claim is independently computed.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Mean-field analysis, main text around Fig. 1(d); charge Q defined in Eq. (6)]
    "Using the charge distribution within R2=4a ... we find good agreement between the binding energies associated with H'_imp (solid line) and H''_imp (orange dots) after matching their integrated trap strengths via −∑_{x,y∈D1} V0 = −4V0 = UQ. ... we replace the integer charge Q=−1 by fractional values, e.g. Q′=−1/2 and −1/3, and calculate the binding energy ratio E_R ≡ E_B(Q′)/E_B(Q=1) ... the ratio approaches the charge value |Q′| in the weak-interaction limit U→0."

    In the weak-coupling limit, the impurity wavefunction remains the free-particle ground state, which is uniform on a periodic lattice (p_0 = 1/L^2). First-order perturbation theory then gives E_B = U ∑_x p_0(x)[n^{Vh}_x − n^{0}_x] = U Q / L^2, so the ratio E_B(Q′)/E_B(Q) equals Q′/Q identically, independent of the shape of the potential. The paper first inserts Q′ as the integrated strength of the effective trap (matching −ΣV0 = UQ) and then 'extracts' |Q′| from the ratio; this is a consistency check, not an independent prediction. The paper acknowledges this ('introduced as illustrative examples'), and the many-body DMRG calculation computes E_B from the full Hamiltonian with no Q input, so the central claim is not definitional.

full rationale

The only reduction-by-construction step is the mean-field illustration, which is explicitly labeled illustrative and is not needed for the FCI claim. The many-body binding energies are computed from the full interacting Hamiltonian by DMRG, and the fractional charge is obtained independently from density differences; the ratio E_B(-1/2)/E_B(-1) ≈ 1/2 is a nontrivial numerical result. The infinite-MPS window calculation similarly computes both quantities from the microscopic model. Self-citations (TT/window MPS, braiding proposals) are methodological or motivational and not used to forbid alternatives. The finite-size/weak-coupling volume-effect concern raised by a skeptic is a physical validity question (thermodynamic limit of the 'direct measure' claim), not circularity: the paper's weak-coupling ratio reduces to linear response, but this is a derived relation, not an input.

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

The analysis leans on standard single-particle bound-state theory, on the established identification of Harper-Hofstadter FCI ground states, and on the mean-field approximation that the pinned quasihole acts as an effective static potential for the impurity. No new physical entities are introduced and no constants are fitted to target data; the model parameters (J, U, V_h, J_imp) are physical control knobs.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Harper-Hofstadter model at flux alpha=1/4 with hard-core bosons realizes a nu=1/2 Laughlin FCI state, and with fermions plus nearest-neighbor interactions realizes nu=1/3.
    Invoked in 'Many-body calculations' and the Appendix; relies on prior numerical studies, not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The impurity-host interaction can be approximated by a single-particle potential U <n_{x,y}> derived from the host ground-state density, with back-action neglected in the weak-coupling regime.
    Used in 'Mean field analysis' to map the problem to H_imp''; the paper tests this only through delta E_B at U/J < 0.5.
  • domain assumption The local density deficit integrated over a disk yields a quantized quasihole charge Q that determines the effective trap strength for the impurity.
    Charge Q in Eq. (6) is defined via density differences; the identification of this Q with the source of the binding potential underlies the central probe.
  • standard math Bound states in 2D always exist for any attractive potential.
    Used to argue the quasihole-induced potential always binds the impurity; proof sketch relies on the 2D Schrodinger equation with a finite-range well.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anyon-Impurity Bound States in Quantum-Engineered Fractional Chern Insulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R6FWTIVB

@misc{pith2026260806233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anyon-Impurity Bound States in Quantum-Engineered Fractional Chern Insulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R6FWTIVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06233}
}
read the original abstract

Mobile impurities provide a powerful means of probing correlated and topological quantum matter, through their dressing by the surrounding medium and the practical probes granting access to the resulting composite object. Motivated by the recent observation of anyon-impurity composites in the solid state, as well as recent realizations of Laughlin-type states in engineered lattice systems, we investigate the formation of a bound state between a mobile impurity and a single pinned quasihole in the interacting Harper-Hofstadter model deep in the fractional Chern insulator regime. Combining analytical arguments with large-scale numerical simulations, we characterize the structure, energetics, and stability of hybrid anyon-impurity bound states, and show that their binding energy provides direct access to the fractional charge of the quasihole under conditions that we identify. We further demonstrate that the composite object can be coherently transported by externally steering the quasihole pinning potential. Our results establish a realistic pathway for controlled anyon-impurity manipulation in quantum-engineered platforms, enabling experimentally feasible protocols for braiding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The spatial density distribution of a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Spatial distribution of the fractional charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spatial distribution of the fractional charge (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spatial density distributions of (a) the host particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spatial density distributions of (a) the host parti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Left-hand side (LHS) and right-hand side (RHS) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Spatial density distribution of a CI ground state. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Spatial density distributions of the FCI ground state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [61]

    F. A. Palm, C. Van Bastelaere, and L. Vanderstraeten, Fractional chern insulators on cylinders: Tao-thouless states and beyond, arXiv:2510.26671 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Grusdt, N

    F. Grusdt, N. Mostaan, E. Demler, and L. P. Ardila, Impurities and polarons in bosonic quantum gases: A review on recent progress, Reports on Progress in Physics 88, 066401 (2025)

    2025

  3. [2]

    Massignan, R

    P. Massignan, R. Schmidt, G. E. Astrakharchik, A. ˙Imamoglu, M. Zwierlein, J. J. Arlt, and G. M. Bruun, Polarons in atomic gases and two-dimensional semicon- ductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. (2026)

    work page 2026

  4. [3]

    V. M. Apalkov and E. I. Rashba, Interaction of excitons with an incompressible quantum liquid, Phys. Rev. B46, 1628 (1992)

    1992

  5. [4]

    E. I. Rashba and M. E. Portnoi, Anyon excitons, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 3315 (1993)

    work page 1993

  6. [5]

    Zhang, G

    Y. Zhang, G. J. Sreejith, N. D. Gemelke, and J. K. Jain, Fractional angular momentum in cold-atom sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160404 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    Grusdt, N

    F. Grusdt, N. Y. Yao, D. Abanin, M. Fleischhauer, and E. Demler, Interferometric measurements of many-body topological invariants using mobile impurities, Nature Communications7, 11994 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    Camacho-Guardian, N

    A. Camacho-Guardian, N. Goldman, P. Massignan, and G. M. Bruun, Dropping an impurity into a chern insula- tor: A polaron view on topological matter, Phys. Rev. B 99, 081105(R) (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    T. Graß, B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, N. Baldelli, U. Bhattacharya, and M. Lewenstein, Fractional angular momentum and anyon statistics of impurities in laughlin liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 136801 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    Mu˜ noz de las Heras, E

    A. Mu˜ noz de las Heras, E. Macaluso, and I. Carusotto, Anyonic molecules in atomic fractional quantum hall liq- uids: A quantitative probe of fractional charge and any- onic statistics, Phys. Rev. X10, 041058 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    Pimenov, A

    D. Pimenov, A. Camacho-Guardian, N. Goldman, P. Massignan, G. M. Bruun, and M. Goldstein, Topo- logical transport of mobile impurities, Phys. Rev. B103, 245106 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    Baldelli, B

    N. Baldelli, B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, U. Bhattacharya, M. Lewen- stein, and T. Graß, Tracing non-abelian anyons via im- purity particles, Phys. Rev. B104, 035133 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    Vashisht, I

    A. Vashisht, I. Amelio, L. Vanderstraeten, G. M. Bruun, O. K. Diessel, and N. Goldman, Chiral polaron forma- tion on the edge of topological quantum matter, Nature communications16, 4918 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    A. V. Sadovnikov, M. S. Bahovadinov, A. N. Rubtsov, and A. A. Markov, Mobile impurity in the kitaev chain: Phase diagram and signatures of topology, Phys. Rev. B 113, 155146 (2026)

    2026

  7. [14]

    A. V. Sadovnikov and A. N. Rubtsov, Localization pat- tern of a mobile impurity in the disordered kitaev chain, (2026), arXiv:2606.21499 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Mostaan, N

    N. Mostaan, N. Goldman, A. m. c. ˙Imamo˘ glu, and F. Grusdt, Anyon-trions in atomically thin semiconduc- tor heterostructures, PRX Quantum7, 010325 (2026)

    2026

  9. [16]

    Wagner and T

    G. Wagner and T. Neupert, Sensing the binding and unbinding of anyons at impurities, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013263 (2026)

    2026

  10. [17]

    Lu and L

    T. Lu and L. H. Santos, Exciton-anyon binding in frac- tional chern insulators: Spectral fingerprints, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 256605 (2026)

    2026

  11. [18]

    Huang, S

    K. Huang, S. D. Sarma, and X. Li, Thermal ionization of impurity-bound quasiholes in the fractional quantum hall effect, arXiv:2512.07769 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    Apalkov and T

    V. Apalkov and T. Chakraborty, Discernible signatures of fractionally charged anyons in a pfaffian-laughlin state, arXiv:2605.21462 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  13. [20]

    F. A. Palm, N. Mostaan, N. Goldman, and F. Grusdt, Interferometric braiding of anyons in chern insulators, Phys. Rev. B113, 155419 (2026)

    2026

  14. [21]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  15. [22]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-abelian anyons and topological quan- tum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  16. [23]

    W. Li, C. Wang Beach, C. Hu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, J.-H. Chu, A. Imamo˘ glu, T. Cao, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Signatures of fractional charges via anyon–trions in twisted MoTe2, Nature651, 48 (2026)

    2026

  17. [24]

    J. M. Park, C. Voinea, Y.-C. Tsui, S. Pu, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, N. R. Cooper, M. P. Zaletel, Z. Papi´ c, and A. Yazdani, Local spectroscopy of anyons bound to charge traps, arXiv:2606.25024 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  18. [25]

    N. R. Cooper, J. Dalibard, and I. B. Spielman, Topo- 7 logical bands for ultracold atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015005 (2019)

    2019

  19. [26]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zil- berberg, and I. Carusotto, Topological photonics, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015006 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  21. [28]

    L´ eonard, S

    J. L´ eonard, S. Kim, M. Rispoli, A. Lukin, R. Schittko, J. Kwan, E. Demler, D. Sels, and M. Greiner, Probing the onset of quantum avalanches in a many-body localized system, Nature Physics19, 481 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, A quantum gas microscope for detecting sin- gle atoms in a Hubbard-regime optical lattice, Nature 462, 74 (2009)

    2009

  23. [30]

    J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single-atom-resolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic Mott insulator, Nature467, 68 (2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    Kuhr, Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold- atom quantum simulators, Natl

    S. Kuhr, Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold- atom quantum simulators, Natl. Sci. Rev3, 170 (2016)

    2016

  25. [32]

    Braun, R

    C. Braun, R. Saint-Jalm, A. Hesse, J. Arceri, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Real-space detection and manipu- lation of topological edge modes with ultracold atoms, Nature Physics20, 1306 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    Z. Liu, R. N. Bhatt, and N. Regnault, Characterization of quasiholes in fractional Chern insulators, Phys. Rev. B91, 045126 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    Raˇ ci¯ unas, F

    M. Raˇ ci¯ unas, F. N.¨Unal, E. Anisimovas, and A. Eckardt, Creating, probing, and manipulating fractionally charged excitations of fractional Chern insulators in optical lat- tices, Physical Review A98, 063621 (2018)

    2018

  28. [35]

    Macaluso, T

    E. Macaluso, T. Comparin, R. O. Umucalılar, M. Ger- ster, S. Montangero, M. Rizzi, and I. Carusotto, Charge and statistics of lattice quasiholes from density measure- ments: A tree tensor network study, Physical Review Research2, 013145 (2020)

    2020

  29. [36]

    B. Wang, X. Dong, and A. Eckardt, Measurable signa- tures of bosonic fractional Chern insulator states and their fractional excitations in a quantum-gas microscope, SciPost Physics12, 095 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    F. A. Palm, J. Kwan, B. Bakkali-Hassani, M. Greiner, U. Schollw¨ ock, N. Goldman, and F. Grusdt, Growing Ex- tended Laughlin States in a Quantum Gas Microscope: A Patchwork Construction, Physical Review Research6, 013198 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Meinert, M

    F. Meinert, M. Knap, E. Kirilov, K. Jag-Lauber, M. B. Zvonarev, E. Demler, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Bloch oscilla- tions in the absence of a lattice, Science356, 945 (2017)

    2017

  32. [39]

    S. Dhar, B. Wang, M. Horvath, A. Vashisht, Y. Zeng, M. B. Zvonarev, N. Goldman, Y. Guo, M. Landini, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Observing anyonization of bosons in a quantum gas, Nature642, 53 (2025)

    2025

  33. [40]

    F. J. Pauw, U. Schollw¨ ock, N. Goldman, S. Paeckel, and F. A. Palm, From hidden order to skyrmions: Quan- tum hall states in an extended hofstadter-fermi-hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B113, 035142 (2026)

    2026

  34. [41]

    A. S. Sørensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Fractional Quantum Hall States of Atoms in Optical Lattices, Phys- ical Review Letters94, 086803 (2005)

    2005

  35. [42]

    R. N. Palmer and D. Jaksch, High-field fractional quan- tum Hall effect in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 180407 (2006)

    2006

  36. [43]

    Hafezi, A

    M. Hafezi, A. S. Sørensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Fractional quantum Hall effect in optical lattices, Physi- cal Review A76, 023613 (2007)

    2007

  37. [44]

    Gerster, M

    M. Gerster, M. Rizzi, P. Silvi, M. Dalmonte, and S. Mon- tangero, Fractional quantum Hall effect in the interacting Hofstadter model via tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B96, 195123 (2017)

    2017

  38. [45]

    Motruk and F

    J. Motruk and F. Pollmann, Phase transitions and adi- abatic preparation of a fractional Chern insulator in a boson cold-atom model, Physical Review B96, 165107 (2017)

    2017

  39. [46]

    X.-Y. Dong, A. G. Grushin, J. Motruk, and F. Pollmann, Charge excitation dynamics in bosonic fractional Chern insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 086401 (2018)

    2018

  40. [47]

    Rosson, M

    P. Rosson, M. Lubasch, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, Bosonic fractional quantum Hall states on a finite cylin- der, Phys. Rev. A99, 033603 (2019)

    2019

  41. [48]

    Motruk and I

    J. Motruk and I. Na, Detecting fractional Chern insula- tors in optical lattices through quantized displacement, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 236401 (2020)

    2020

  42. [49]

    Repellin, J

    C. Repellin, J. L´ eonard, and N. Goldman, Fractional Chern insulators of few bosons in a box: Hall plateaus from center-of-mass drifts and density profiles, Phys. Rev. A102, 063316 (2020)

    2020

  43. [50]

    D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter,Introduction to quan- tum mechanics(Cambridge university press, 2018)

    2018

  44. [51]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  45. [52]

    L´ eonard, S

    J. L´ eonard, S. Kim, J. Kwan, P. Segura, F. Grusdt, C. Repellin, N. Goldman, and M. Greiner, Realization of a fractional quantum hall state with ultracold atoms, Nature619, 495 (2023)

    2023

  46. [53]

    Wang, F.-M

    C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, M.-C. Chen, H. Chen, X.-H. Zhao, C. Ying, Z.-X. Shang, J.-W. Wang, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng,et al., Realization of fractional quantum hall state with interacting photons, Science384, 579 (2024)

    2024

  47. [54]

    H. N. Phien, G. Vidal, and I. P. McCulloch, Infinite boundary conditions for matrix product state calcula- tions, Phys. Rev. B86, 245107 (2012)

    2012

  48. [55]

    Milsted, J

    A. Milsted, J. Haegeman, T. J. Osborne, and F. Ver- straete, Variational matrix product ansatz for nonuni- form dynamics in the thermodynamic limit, Phys. Rev. B88, 155116 (2013)

    2013

  49. [56]

    M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, and F. Pollmann, Topolog- ical characterization of fractional quantum hall ground states from microscopic hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 236801 (2013)

    2013

  50. [57]

    As shown in Figs

    which develop crystalline order that decays with the cylinder circumference, on top of which the quasihole is realized as a domain wall excitation [58, 59] that can be modeled as a window MPS [60]. As shown in Figs. 3(a,b), fractional charges of−1/2 and−1/3 are obtained for ha...

  51. [58]

    Tao and D

    R. Tao and D. J. Thouless, Fractional quantization of hall conductance, Phys. Rev. B28, 1142(R) (1983)

    1983

  52. [59]

    E. J. Bergholtz and A. Karlhede, Half-filled lowest landau level on a thin torus, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 026802 (2005)

    2005

  53. [60]

    Seidel, H

    A. Seidel, H. Fu, D.-H. Lee, J. M. Leinaas, and J. Moore, Incompressible quantum liquids and new conservation laws, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 266405 (2005)

    2005

  54. [62]

    Wang and M

    T. Wang and M. P. Zaletel, Anyon molecules in fractional quantum hall states, arXiv:2604.09798 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Kapit, P

    E. Kapit, P. Ginsparg, and E. Mueller, Non-Abelian braiding of lattice bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 066802 (2012). 8

    2012

  56. [64]

    J. Kim, A. Shaer, R. Kumar, A. Ilin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Stern, D. F. Mross, and Y. Ronen, Selec- tive braiding of different anyons in the even-denominator fractional quantum hall effect, arXiv:2603.11162 (2026)

    2026

  57. [65]

    C. E. Henzinger, J. R. Ehrets, R. Fushio, J. Dong, T. Werkmeister, M. E. Wesson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, B. I. Halperin,et al., Con- trolled localization of anyons in a graphene quantum hall interferometer, arXiv:2603.11182 (2026)

    2026

  58. [66]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and optimiza- tion with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B94, 165116 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Impertro, S

    A. Impertro, S. Huh, S. Karch, J. F. Wienand, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Strongly interacting meissner phases in large bosonic flux ladders, Nature Physics21, 895 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    L. W. Clark, N. Schine, C. Baum, N. Jia, and J. Simon, Observation of laughlin states made of light, Nature582, 41 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Mukherjee, A

    B. Mukherjee, A. Shaffer, P. B. Patel, Z. Yan, C. C. Wil- son, V. Cr´ epel, R. J. Fletcher, and M. Zwierlein, Crys- tallization of bosonic quantum hall states in a rotating quantum gas, Nature601, 58 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    P. Lunt, P. Hill, J. Reiter, P. M. Preiss, M. Ga lka, and S. Jochim, Realization of a laughlin state of two rapidly rotating fermions, arXiv:2402.14814 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Blatz, J

    T. Blatz, J. Kwan, J. L´ eonard, and A. Bohrdt, Bayesian Optimization for Robust State Preparation in Quantum Many-Body Systems, Quantum8, 1388 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    L.-N. Wu, X. Li, N. Goldman, and B. Wang, Optimal control for preparing fractional quantum hall states in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. B111, 235111 (2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    L. C. Steinfadt, A. Eckardt, and F. Petiziol, Dissipation- assisted preparation of floquet-laughlin states in super- conducting circuits, arXiv:2605.18377 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  66. [74]

    A. T. de Fatis, C. Weitenberg, A. Schnell, A. Eckardt, and I. Carusotto, Adiabatic preparation of a fractional quantum hall fluid by coherently pumping atoms from a bose-einstein condensate, arXiv:2606.15951 (2026)

    2026

  67. [75]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    Devos, M

    L. Devos, M. Van Damme, and J. Haegeman, Mpskit (2026)

    2026

  69. [77]

    Widom, Thermodynamic derivation of the hall effect current, Physics Letters A90, 474 (1982)

    A. Widom, Thermodynamic derivation of the hall effect current, Physics Letters A90, 474 (1982)

    1982

  70. [78]

    Streda, Theory of quantised hall conductivity in two dimensions, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics15, L717 (1982)

    P. Streda, Theory of quantised hall conductivity in two dimensions, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics15, L717 (1982)

    1982

  71. [79]

    Streda and L

    P. Streda and L. Smrcka, Thermodynamic derivation of the hall current and the thermopower in quantising mag- netic field, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics16, L895 (1983)

    1983

  72. [80]

    R. O. Umucalılar, H. Zhai, and M. O. Oktel, Trapped fermi gases in rotating optical lattices: Realization and detection of the topological hofstadter insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 070402 (2008)

    2008

  73. [81]

    Seidel and D.-H

    A. Seidel and D.-H. Lee, Abelian and non-Abelian Hall liquids and charge-density wave: Quantum number frac- tionalization in one and two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 056804 (2006)

    2006

  74. [82]

    Zauner-Stauber, L

    V. Zauner-Stauber, L. Vanderstraeten, M. T. Fishman, F. Verstraete, and J. Haegeman, Variational optimization algorithms for uniform matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B97, 045145 (2018). 9 APPENDIX Binding energy from anyon-impurity drag Dragging the anyon-impurity bound state...

    2018

Pith tools

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