Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Altermagnet-Superconductor Heterostructure: a Scalable Platform for Braiding of Majorana Modes

T0 review · 4 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 An altermagnet–superconductor heterostructure can host movable Majorana zero modes whose braiding is controlled by rotating the Néel vector, yielding simulated $\sqrt{X}$ and $\sqrt{Z}$ gates with fidelity 0.994.

desk verdict Solid model-level braiding demo with a load-bearing p-wave assumption that needs to be justified or clearly flagged. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08095 v2 pith:X5ANAHI6 submitted 2025-06-09 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

Themba Hodge , Eric Mascot , Stephan Rachel This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords altermagnetMajoranazeromodestopologicalquantumcomputationbraidingnon-AbelianstatisticssuperconductingheterostructureNéelvectorhigher-ordertopology
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 argues that a film of an altermagnet placed on a helical $p$-wave superconductor can host Majorana zero modes pinned to corners, and that rotating the altermagnet's Néel vector moves those modes along the boundary. This movement implements the exchanges, or braids, needed for non-Abelian statistics. Using a square platform the authors simulate a $Z$-gate, and on a seven-square H-junction they simulate the $\sqrt{X}$ and $\sqrt{Z}$ gates with fidelity 0.994. The message is that this heterostructure is a scalable route toward fault-tolerant topological quantum computation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Bogoliubov–de Gennes Hamiltonian of the altermagnet-superconductor heterostructure, Eq. (1), which combines Rashba spin-orbit coupling, helical $p$-wave pairing, and a $d$-wave altermagnetic term whose direction is set by the Néel vector $\mathbf{n}=(\cos\phi_{\mathrm{AM}}\sin\theta_{\mathrm{AM}},\sin\phi_{\mathrm{AM}}\sin\theta_{\mathrm{AM}},\cos\theta_{\mathrm{AM}})$. Bosonization of the low-energy edge theory shows that the altermagnetic terms act as masses that pin the bosonic fields, and the corners are kinks where the pinned configurations interpolate, giving fractional charges that are the Majorana zero modes. Rotating $\phi_{\mathrm{AM}}$ closes the edge gap sequentially, so the kink positions, and hence the Majorana modes, move along the boundary. The braiding simulation uses the time-dependent Pfaffian method to propagate the many-body state.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be an experimental realization of the proposed altermagnet-superconductor stack in which the superconducting substrate is known to induce $s$-wave pairing. In that case the chiral symmetry protecting the corner modes is absent, and a tunneling measurement at the corners should show no zero-bias conductance peak; if the peaks nevertheless appear, the braiding phase can be checked by measuring the fermion parity after a $2\pi$ Néel rotation, which should flip parity for the predicted Majorana exchange.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an altermagnet-superconductor heterostructure, described by a Bogoliubov–de Gennes Hamiltonian with Rashba spin-orbit coupling, helical $p\pm ip$ pairing, and a $d$-wave altermagnetic term, produces tunable Jackiw-Rebbi Majorana zero modes on the corners. The Néel vector orientation sets which corners host the modes, and sweeping its azimuthal angle $\phi_{\mathrm{AM}}$ transports the modes around the boundary. This allows an exchange of two Majorana modes, and a full $2\pi$ rotation yields the braiding phase expected for a $Z$-gate. Extending the geometry to an H-junction with a tunable chemical potential in the central square gives the four-Majorana system needed for a logical qubit, and time-dependent simulations of the braiding protocol produce the $\sqrt{X}$ and $\sqrt{Z}$ gates with fidelity 0.994, within the Pauli-correctable error band.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction depends on the altermagnet film inheriting a helical $p\pm ip$ superconducting pairing from the substrate, an order parameter that is assumed but not microscopically derived; if the induced pairing is $s$-wave, the corner Majorana modes and all simulated braids would not occur in a physical device.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rotating the Néel vector by $2\pi$ on a square platform swaps two Majorana modes twice, implementing a $Z$-gate with the expected non-Abelian phase.
  • On the H-junction, the central square's chemical potential acts as a switch that lets two Majorana modes exchange without colliding, implementing $\sqrt{X}$ and $\sqrt{Z}$ at fidelity 0.994.
  • Since each H-junction encodes one qubit and the platforms can be tiled, the architecture is scalable to many-qubit systems.
  • The demonstrated gates generate the Pauli group, leaving the $T$-gate and a two-qubit entangling gate as the remaining ingredients for a universal set, which the paper argues can be realized on the same platform.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not claimed by the paper, is that the same Néel-vector control could be applied to other higher-order topological platforms with tunable Majorana modes, beyond altermagnet films.
  • The fidelity of 0.994 is computed for a 3703-site system; larger simulations would likely improve it, but experimental disorder and charge noise, which the paper does not simulate, are likely to dominate in practice.
  • A direct experimental test, the paper leaves implicit, would be to measure corner-localized zero-bias conductance peaks and verify that rotating the magnetization by $2\pi$ returns the system to the same spectrum while flipping the fermion parity, as expected for the Majorana exchange.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an altermagnet–superconductor heterostructure model whose BdG Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) contains Rashba SOC, a d-wave altermagnetic term, and both s-wave and helical p-wave pairing. The authors use a low-energy bosonization analysis to argue that tilting the Néel vector creates tunable Jackiw–Rebbi Majorana corner modes and use time-dependent Pfaffian simulations to demonstrate a Z gate on a square platform and √X, √Z, X, and Z gates on an H-junction, with reported fidelities of 0.994 and 0.986. They further claim that adjoining such junctions yields a scalable many-qubit architecture.

Significance. If the assumptions are valid, the paper would be a useful contribution: it provides a concrete control mechanism (Néel-vector rotation) for moving Majorana modes and numerically verifies non-Abelian braiding for two and four MZMs against known braid matrices. The V-matrix check against B23 is a genuine validation, and the single-qubit Clifford gates are a meaningful step toward a topological qubit. However, the physical realization of the assumed helical p-wave pairing in an AM-SC heterostructure is not established, and the central analytical derivation is relegated to an unavailable SM; these issues currently prevent me from endorsing the platform claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Model (Eq. 1)] The helical p-wave pairing term 2Δp(...) in Eq. (1) is the load-bearing ingredient of the whole proposal: it puts the parent superconductor into class DIII, and without it there are no helical edge modes, no Jackiw-Rebbi corner states, and no braiding/gate results. The manuscript justifies this term by citing Refs. [71,72] as 'typical Rashba-superconductors', but those references do not demonstrate that proximity coupling to a conventional s-wave superconducting substrate induces a helical p-wave order parameter in the altermagnet film, nor does the paper provide a microscopic derivation or experimental evidence. If the proximity effect yields only s-wave pairing (Δp=0), the predicted zero modes and protocols do not apply to the proposed heterostructure. This point must be either resolved with a self-consistent calculation of the proximity effect or clearly stated as an assumption that restricts the proposal to materials with intrinsic p-wave superconductivity.
  2. [Low-Energy Edge-Theory and Bosonization (Eqs. 2-4)] The central analytic result—that Néel-vector tilt yields tunable corner MZMs—rests on a bosonization calculation that is entirely deferred to the supplementary material. The main text as posted does not include the SM, so Eqs. (2)-(4) and the mapping between edge field pinning configurations and MZM positions cannot be checked. Since the numerical protocol is motivated by this derivation, the authors should either present the derivation in the main text or provide the SM; as submitted, the analytical backbone of the paper is unsupported.
  3. [Non-Abelian statistics on the H-junction (Fig. 3)] The central quantitative claims—fidelities of 0.994 for √X and √Z and 0.986 for X and Z—come from a single simulation at one system size (3703 sites) and one total time T=12040ℏ/t̃, with no finite-size scaling, time-step convergence, or disorder/parameter sensitivity study. The statement that 'increasing the system size would certainly lead to further improvement' is speculative. Because these numbers are used to argue that the gates lie within fault-tolerant error bounds, a convergence analysis or at least a systematic error estimate is required.
  4. [Discussion and Outlook] The abstract and Discussion assert that the H-junction architecture is 'eminently scalable' to many-qubit systems, but the main text simulates only a single H-junction, and the many-qubit tiling is deferred to the SM with no analysis of crosstalk, independent Néel-vector addressing, or disorder between junctions. The scalability claim is thus an extrapolation rather than a demonstrated result, and the title's 'Scalable Platform' phrasing is stronger than what is shown.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3(j)] The sentence defining the Pauli-correctable region says it is 'set such that 1−F_ti ≥ 0.015'; with the reported fidelities (infidelity 0.006 for F=0.994), this inequality excludes the achieved gates. Presumably the intended condition is 1−F_ti ≤ 0.015; please correct the inequality and clarify what the shaded region denotes.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The parameter list contains the typo '0.8.0.3' where a comma between Δ_p and Δ_0 is intended.
  3. [Model (Eq. 1)] The hopping parameter is written as t in ε(k) but the simulation parameters use t̃; the relation between t and t̃ should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Throughout] Several sentences in the abstract and introduction have grammatical errors (e.g., 'Topological quantum computation ... have long presented', 'a conserved crystalline symmetry in the system,'), which should be cleaned up in revision.
  5. [Non-Abelian statistics on the H-junction] The numerical method section does not specify the time-step size, the Trotter decomposition used for U(T,0), or the convergence criterion for the time-dependent Pfaffian; adding these details would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gate simulations are benchmarked against externally known braiding matrices, and the model's key pairing assumption is a transparent input, not a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The BdG Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) is an explicit model input: it postulates an altermagnet coupled to a helical p±ip superconductor, with the helical pairing stated as an assumption ('the latter is expected to occur for typical Rashba-superconductors [71,72]') rather than derived from the paper's own results. The bosonization analysis (Eqs. (2)-(4)) derives mass terms and predicts corner zero modes by standard semiclassical pinning; this is an analytic derivation, not a restatement of inputs. The central numerical claims are validated against external known results: the braiding matrices B12 = exp(pi/4 gamma1 gamma2) and B23 are quoted from the established Majorana literature, and the target states for the X, Z, sqrt(X), and sqrt(Z) fidelities are computed from those matrices, not fitted to the simulation output. The time-dependent Pfaffian method [20] is a self-cited numerical tool, but it is used as a solver and its outputs are cross-checked against the expected braiding transformations; no load-bearing conclusion is justified solely by the self-citation. The weak assumption of the intrinsic helical p-wave term is a physical-input/correctness concern, not a circularity, since the paper does not claim to derive that pairing from the altermagnet proximity effect. Thus no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a tailored BdG model with hand-set couplings and a bosonized edge theory whose details are in the SM. No new entities are introduced; the MZMs and Néel-vector control are prior concepts. The most fragile inputs are the assumed helical p-wave pairing and the assumption that Néel rotation is coherent and non-perturbing.

free parameters (8)
  • J_AM = 0.5
    Altermagnet spin-splitting strength chosen by hand; the bosonization argument assumes |J_i| >> |A k_parallel|.
  • Delta_p = -0.8 (H-junction), +0.8 in Fig. 2 caption
    Helical p-wave pairing amplitude chosen by hand; the sign discrepancy between sections is unexplained.
  • Delta_0 = 0.3
    s-wave pairing amplitude chosen by hand.
  • A = -0.2
    Rashba SOC magnitude chosen by hand.
  • mu_topo = 2.7
    Chemical potential in topological regions; chosen to place the system in the topological regime.
  • mu_triv = 10
    Chemical potential in the trivial middle platform of the H-junction.
  • theta_AM = 0.35 pi (square), 0.34 pi (H-junction)
    Néel polar angle; must lie between 0 and pi/2 to give tunable corner MZMs.
  • braid_time T = 12040 hbar/t
    Total braid duration chosen long enough for quasistatic evolution; hybridization error scales as 1/Ebar.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The BdG Hamiltonian Eq. (1) with helical p±ip superconducting pairing describes the AM-SC heterostructure.
    The pairing term is asserted to occur for Rashba superconductors [71,72], not derived from a microscopic proximity calculation.
  • domain assumption For |J_i| >> |A k_parallel|, the bosonized edge fields are pinned semiclassically to minima, enabling the filling anomaly argument.
    Stated as a 'standard assumption' before Eq. (4); it is required for the corner-mode picture.
  • domain assumption The Néel vector can be rotated coherently by charge currents without destroying the superconducting state.
    Relies on spin-torque mechanisms [54-56]; no model of back-action on the superconductor is included.
  • standard math The bosonization mapping of the edge fermions to bosonic fields is valid for the low-energy edge theory.
    Standard method cited to refs. [61,62].
  • domain assumption The time-dependent Pfaffian method from [20] correctly gives the many-body evolution and overlap fidelities.
    The simulation method is adopted from prior work, not re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Altermagnet-Superconductor Heterostructure: a Scalable Platform for Braiding of Majorana Modes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5ANAHI6

@misc{pith2026250608095,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Altermagnet-Superconductor Heterostructure: a Scalable Platform for Braiding of Majorana Modes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5ANAHI6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08095}
}
abstract

Topological quantum computation, featuring qubits built out of anyonic excitations known as Majorana zero modes (MZMs), have long presented an exciting pathway towards scalable quantum computation. Recently, the advent of altermagnetic materials has presented a new pathway towards localized MZMs on the boundary of two-dimensional materials, consisting of an altermagnetic film, subject to a superconducting proximity effect from a superconducting substrate. In this work, we demonstrate the possibility for an altermagnet-superconductor heterostructure, to not only harbor MZMs, but also freely manipulate their position along the topological boundary of the material, via rotation of the N\'eel vector. Using this mechanism, on a square platform, we utilize a time-dependent method to simulate the Z-gate via braiding, and then extend this to a larger H-junction, where we implement the $\sqrt{{\rm X}}$ and $\sqrt{{\rm Z}}$ gate on a single-qubit system. Further, this structure is eminently scalable to many-qubit systems, thus providing the essential ingredients towards universal quantum computation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08095 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Profile of SC-AM heterostructure with ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Z gate on a square platform. The plot provides [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Braiding on the H-junction: (a-g): Zero-energy LDOS plots over the braiding protocol on the H-junction, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Nanoscale Imaging of Strain-Controlled Altermagnetic Domains in {\alpha}-MnTe

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In alpha-MnTe, compression makes magnetic domains grow by merging, and unloading leaves them fragmented in a different, metastable pattern, so the material remembers the strain history.

  2. Crossed surface flat bands in three-dimensional superconducting altermagnets

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    In 3D chiral d-wave superconducting altermagnets, altermagnetism deforms the usual surface flat bands into crossed, topologically protected zero-energy bands whose corner count follows the altermagnetic node structure.

  3. Superconducting States and Intertwined Orders in Metallic Altermagnets

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In C4T-symmetric d-wave altermagnets, equal-spin p-wave pairing condenses in two non-degenerate two-component gap sets, producing two transition temperatures, with nematic and spin-current-loop fluctuations respective...

  4. $p$-wave superconductivity and Josephson current in $p$-wave unconventional magnet/$s$-wave superconductor hybrid systems

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A spin-singlet superconductor attached to a p-wave unconventional magnet forms an effective p-wave superconductor with zero-energy edge flat bands, and its Josephson junctions retain a first-harmonic current due to re...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B61, 10267 (2000)

    2000

  2. [2]

    D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 268 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Phys.-Usp.44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  4. [4]

    Nayak and F

    C. Nayak and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B479, 529 (1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    Bonderson, D

    P. Bonderson, D. J. Clarke, C. Nayak, and K. Shtengel, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 180505 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Lahtinen and J

    V. Lahtinen and J. K. Pachos, SciPost Phys.3, 021 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Ann. of Phys.298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    M. H. Freedman, M. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Comm. Math. Phys.227, 605 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Kitaev, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys.303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. J. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.40, 31 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    J. K. Pachos,Introduction to topological quantum com- putation(Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 15 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    S. D. Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, npj Quantum Inf1, 15001 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Litinski and F

    D. Litinski and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B97, 205404 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    T. E. O’Brien, P. Ro˙ zek, and A. R. Akhmerov, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 220504 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    C. S. Amorim, K. Ebihara, A. Yamakage, Y. Tanaka, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B91, 174305 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Sekania, S

    M. Sekania, S. Plugge, M. Greiter, R. Thomale, and P. Schmitteckert, Phys. Rev. B96, 094307 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    B. P. Truong, K. Agarwal, and T. Pereg-Barnea, Phys. Rev. B107, 104516 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Mascot, T

    E. Mascot, T. Hodge, D. Crawford, J. Bedow, D. K. Morr, and S. Rachel, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 176601 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Bedow, E

    J. Bedow, E. Mascot, T. Hodge, S. Rachel, and D. K. Morr, npj Quantum Mater9, 99 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Peeters, T

    C. Peeters, T. Hodge, E. Mascot, and S. Rachel, Phys. Rev. B110, 214506 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Crawford, R

    D. Crawford, R. Wiesendanger, and S. Rachel, Phys. Rev. B110, L220505 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Hodge, E

    T. Hodge, E. Mascot, D. Crawford, and S. Rachel, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 096601 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 177002 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Alicea, Y

    J. Alicea, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, F. von Oppen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Nat. Phys.7, 412 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Nadj-Perge, I

    S. Nadj-Perge, I. K. Drozdov, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Phys. Rev. B88, 020407 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Klinovaja, P

    J. Klinovaja, P. Stano, A. Yazdani, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 186805 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Pientka, L

    F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B88, 155420 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    J. Li, H. Chen, I. K. Drozdov, A. Yazdani, B. A. Bernevig, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B90, 235433 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    M. M. Vazifeh and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 206802 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Pawlak, M

    R. Pawlak, M. Kisiel, J. Klinovaja, T. Meier, S. Kawai, T. Glatzel, D. Loss, and E. Meyer, npj Quantum Inf2, 1 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Crawford, E

    D. Crawford, E. Mascot, D. K. Morr, and S. Rachel, Phys. Rev. B101, 174510 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Crawford, E

    D. Crawford, E. Mascot, M. Shimizu, P. Beck, J. Wiebe, R. Wiesendanger, H. O. Jeschke, D. K. Morr, and S. Rachel, npj Quantum Mater7, 117 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Aghaeeet al.(Microsoft Quantum), Phys

    M. Aghaeeet al.(Microsoft Quantum), Phys. Rev. B 107, 245423 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    W. A. Benalcazar, B. A. Bernevig, and T. L. Hughes, Phys. Rev. B96, 245115 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    W. A. Benalcazar, T. Li, and T. L. Hughes, Phys. Rev. B99, 245151 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Khalaf, W

    E. Khalaf, W. A. Benalcazar, T. L. Hughes, and R. Queiroz, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013239 (2021). 6

    2021

  31. [39]

    Z. Yan, F. Song, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 096803 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    T. E. Pahomi, M. Sigrist, and A. A. Soluyanov, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 032068 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Zhu, Phys

    X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 236401 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    K. H. Wong, M. R. Hirsbrunner, J. Gliozzi, A. Malik, B. Bradlyn, T. L. Hughes, and D. K. Morr, npj Quantum Mater.8, 1 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    K. H. Wong, J. Gliozzi, M. R. Hirsbrunner, A. Malik, B. Bradlyn, T. L. Hughes, and D. K. Morr, Phys. Rev. B109, 144521 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Laubscher, D

    K. Laubscher, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 032017 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Ikegaya, W

    S. Ikegaya, W. B. Rui, D. Manske, and A. P. Schnyder, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023007 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    M. F. Lapa, M. Cheng, and Y. Wang, SciPost Physics 11, 086 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Geier, L

    M. Geier, L. Trifunovic, M. Hoskam, and P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B97, 205135 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Krempask´ y, L

    J. Krempask´ y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Ha- jlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlov´ a, Z. ˇSob´ aˇ n, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P...

    2024

  43. [51]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y. Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. ˇSmejkal, C.-J. Kang, and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Zhu, Z.-Y

    D. Zhu, Z.-Y. Zhuang, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. B108, 184505 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi, T. L. Hughes, and J. Cano, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 106601 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Godinho, H

    J. Godinho, H. Reichlov´ a, D. Kriegner, V. Nov´ ak, K. Olejn ´ ık, Z. Kaˇ spar, Z.ˇSob´ aˇ n, P. Wadley, R. Cam- pion, R. Otxoa,et al., Nat Commun9, 4686 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    I. J. Park, T. Lee, P. Das, B. Debnath, G. P. Carman, and R. K. Lake, Appl. Phys. Lett.114(2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, Y. Ya- hagi, J. Sinova, T. c. v. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn´ y, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Zhu, Phys

    X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. B97, 205134 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    L. Liu, C. Miao, H. Tang, Y.-T. Zhang, and Z. Qiao, Phys. Rev. B109, 115413 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Zhang, A

    S.-B. Zhang, A. Calzona, and B. Trauzettel, Phys. Rev. B102, 100503 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    He, X.-L

    S.-R. He, X.-L. Bi, J. Fan, Z.-H. Wang, L. Li, and D.-H. Xu, Phys. Rev. B111, 144506 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Giamarchi,Quantum physics in one dimension, Vol

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum physics in one dimension, Vol. 121 (Clarendon press, 2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    An introduction to bosonization,

    D. S´ en´ echal, “An introduction to bosonization,” in Theoretical Methods for Strongly Correlated Electrons (Springer New York, 2004) pp. 139–186

    2004

  55. [63]

    Mandelstam, Phys

    S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. D11, 3026 (1975)

    1975

  56. [64]

    Goldstone and F

    J. Goldstone and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 986 (1981)

    1981

  57. [65]

    D. J. Clarke, J. Alicea, and K. Shtengel, Nat. Commun. 4, 1348 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    T. L. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.229, 621–636 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    R. L. R. C. Teixeira, A. Haller, R. Singh, A. Mathew, E. G. Idrisov, L. G. G. V. Dias da Silva, and T. L. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043094 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    V. Chua, K. Laubscher, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B102, 155416 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    A. Chew, Y. Wang, B. A. Bernevig, and Z.-D. Song, Phys. Rev. B107, 094512 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    H. Bai, Y. C. Zhang, Y. J. Zhou, P. Chen, C. H. Wan, L. Han, W. X. Zhu, S. X. Liang, Y. C. Su, X. F. Han, F. Pan, and C. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 216701 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Vafek and L

    O. Vafek and L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B84, 172501 (2011)

    2011

  64. [72]

    Beyer, J

    J. Beyer, J. B. Profe, L. Klebl, T. Schwemmer, D. M. Kennes, R. Thomale, C. Honerkamp, and S. Rachel, Phys. Rev. B107, 125115 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Altland and M

    A. Altland and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. B55, 1142 (1997)

    1997

  66. [74]

    L. Fu, C. L. Kane, and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 106803 (2007)

    2007

  67. [75]

    Y. A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, JETP Lett.39, 66 (1984)

    1984

  68. [76]

    Wu and Y

    Z. Wu and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. B106, 214510 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D13, 3398 (1976)

    1976

  70. [78]

    Cheng, Phys

    M. Cheng, Phys. Rev. B86, 195126 (2012)

    2012

  71. [79]

    Mazza, F

    L. Mazza, F. Iemini, M. Dalmonte, and C. Mora, Phys. Rev. B98, 201109 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    Li and C.-C

    Y.-X. Li and C.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. B108, 205410 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    Li, Phys

    Y.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. B109, 224502 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Cheng, V

    M. Cheng, V. Galitski, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 84, 104529 (2011)

    2011

  75. [83]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, New J. Phys.9(2007)

    2007

  76. [84]

    T. M. Stace, S. D. Barrett, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 200501 (2009)

    2009

  77. [85]

    Boross and A

    P. Boross and A. P´ alyi, Phys. Rev. B109, 125410 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    T. Zhou, M. C. Dartiailh, K. Sardashti, J. E. Han, A. Matos-Abiague, J. Shabani, and I. ˇZuti´ c, Nat. Com- mun.13, 1738 (2022)

    2022

  79. [87]

    Hodge, T

    T. Hodge, T. Kieu, J. Bedow, E. Mascot, D. K. Morr, and S. Rachel, arXiv:2503.09800 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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