{"id":"e168f66c-ae6c-41d1-af7f-dc0b70965e2a","arxiv_id":"2412.02937","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":5.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":2,"one_line_summary":"A dc current induces an out-of-plane orbital magnetization in nonmagnetic TaIrTe4, producing a linear anomalous Hall response and quadratic nonreciprocal Hall voltage that track the known nonlinear Hall effect.","lead":"Researchers show that passing a direct current through thin TaIrTe4, a nonmagnetic semimetal, creates an out-of-plane orbital magnetization that deflects a second alternating current, producing an anomalous Hall voltage. The effect is linear in the dc current, reverses with its direction, and the team's calculations attribute it to orbital, not spin, magnetic moments.","discovery_kind":"new_method","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The orbital-vs-spin attribution is the load-bearing link, but the paper computes magnetoelectric susceptibilities and assumes comparable Hall coefficients; transport alone cannot distinguish the channels.","rationale":"The reader's weakest assumption identifies the same load-bearing gap: the paper's central claim rests on a DFT calculation of alpha_orb_xz over alpha_s_xz plus an unverified assumption about the relative Hall coefficients gamma_orb and gamma_spin. My reading of the full text confirms this is the least secure link. The factor-of-two relations in Appendix G are internally consistent and give real support for a common second-order origin of the three observed effects, but that origin could be any second-order mechanism, not specifically orbital magnetization. The measured transport signals, the angle dependence, and the consistency between AHE, NLHE, and NRHE are all compatible with the orbital-magnetization narrative, but they do not test it against a spin-dominated scenario. The DFT calculation in Appendix C computes a magnetoelectric susceptibility, not an anomalous Hall conductivity, so it does not by itself establish the relative Hall voltage from the two channels. The paper even acknowledges the difficulty of disentangling orbit and spin under strong spin-orbit coupling (Appendix H.3). A direct computation of orbital versus spin anomalous Hall conductivity from the same Wannier model, with the Fermi-level uncertainty varied, is the natural check that would settle whether the headline claim is justified. Since the reader already marked the verdict CONDITIONAL for essentially this reason, my assessment does not move the verdict; it sharpens the required evidence. I would also note the absence of error bars and raw data, which makes any independent numerical check impossible from the manuscript alone, reinforcing the conditional status.","tokens_in":18575,"tokens_out":7325,"duration_ms":82372,"concrete_test":"Using the same pentalayer Wannier Hamiltonian, compute the intrinsic anomalous Hall conductivity directly for the orbital and spin channels (e.g., via a Kubo-Bastin formula with disorder broadening), instead of only the magnetoelectric susceptibility alpha_ij. Evaluate sigma_xy_orb and sigma_xy_spin at mu = 0.037 eV and T = 50 K, and repeat at mu +/- 10 meV to cover the Fermi-level uncertainty. If the spin-channel Hall conductivity is comparable to or exceeds the orbital one, the dominant-orbital claim is falsified; if the orbital channel dominates by an order of magnitude across this mu range, the attribution is supported.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The transport data are strong evidence for a current-induced first-harmonic Hall response with the same second-order coefficient k as the NLHE and NRHE (Appendix G), but voltages alone cannot identify the microscopic carrier angular momentum. The only quantitative support for the headline 'orbital AHE' is the DFT-Wannier comparison of alpha_orb_xz and alpha_s_xz at mu = 0.037 eV (Fig. 2(d), Appendix C). To convert these magnetoelectric susceptibilities into Hall voltages, the paper invokes R_H = gamma M_z and implicitly assumes gamma_orb is comparable to gamma_spin (Appendix H.3), without computing either coefficient from the same model. The authors themselves note that strong spin-orbit coupling in TaIrTe4 makes disentangling orbital and spin contributions difficult. Fig. 2(d) also shows that both alpha_orb_xz and alpha_s_xz vary sharply with mu, and the Fermi-level estimate from Hall carrier densities is quoted without an uncertainty range. The measured data in Figs. 3-4 are equally compatible with a spin-dominated Hall angle, a different mu, or an extrinsic second-order contribution folded into k; no transport observable isolates orbital magnetization.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"The paper reports transport experiments on few-layer TaIrTe4 in which a dc current Idc and a small ac current Iω are applied simultaneously along the a axis. The first-harmonic transverse voltage Vω^H scales linearly with Iω, and the resulting Hall resistance Vω^H/Iω is proportional to Idc and changes sign when the polarity of Idc is reversed. The signal is vanishingly small when Idc is along the b axis, reverses sign near 100 K, and the dc Hall voltage measured with pure dc excitation is quadratic in Idc, constituting a nonreciprocal Hall effect. The authors present DFT-Wannier calculations of orbital and spin magnetoelectric susceptibilities, finding the orbital channel to be one to two orders of magnitude larger than the spin channel at the estimated Fermi level, and they argue via a common second-order coefficient k that the linear AHE, second-order NLHE, and NRHE share the same microscopic origin: current-induced out-of-plane orbital magnetization generated by a Berry curvature dipole.","tokens_in":18770,"tokens_out":4915,"duration_ms":52389,"significance":"If the orbital attribution holds, the paper demonstrates electric control of out-of-plane orbital magnetization in a nonmagnetic van der Waals semimetal and unifies three nominally distinct Hall responses under one second-order coefficient. The transport controls are well designed: the linear dependence on Idc, polarity reversal, the a-axis versus b-axis contrast, and the temperature sign reversal are internally consistent, and Appendix G provides a useful, parameter-free conversion between the AHE, NLHE, and NRHE normalizations. The DFT comparison of orbital and spin magnetoelectric susceptibilities is a valuable addition, and the cancellation of τ in the orbital-versus-spin ratio is a genuine strength. The main caveat is that the transport measurements measure voltages only, so the microscopic carrier angular momentum is not directly probed; the 'orbital' conclusion rests on the computed susceptibility hierarchy and on an unverified assumption about the Hall coefficients of the orbital and spin channels.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The central claim that the observed Hall effect is orbital rather than spin is not established by the transport data alone, because the measured voltages cannot distinguish magnetization channels. The argument reduces to α_orb_xz ≫ α_s_xz at μ = 0.037 eV (Fig. 2(d)) followed by the assumption that the proportionality constant γ in R_H = γ M_z is comparable for orbital and spin magnetization. No computation or experimental bound for γ_orb versus γ_spin is provided, and the authors themselves note in Appendix H.3 that strong spin-orbit coupling makes the disentanglement difficult. Because this assumption is load-bearing for the title's 'orbital anomalous Hall effect,' the authors should either compute γ for both channels within the same model, provide an independent constraint on the relative Hall responses, or explicitly soften the attribution claim to 'orbital-dominated according to the calculated magnetoelectric susceptibilities.'","section":"Section III and Appendix H.3"},{"comment":"The temperature-consistency argument contains an apparent quantitative mismatch. The main text states that Vω^H/Iω reverses sign above roughly 100 K 'consistent with the temperature-dependent NLHE,' but Appendix E reports that the NLHE slope V_H^{2ω}/V_||^2 reverses sign at approximately 150 K (Fig. 9(b)). Since the common-origin narrative relies on the same sign-change behavior, the discrepancy between ~100 K and ~150 K needs to be reconciled explicitly, for example by showing that the two measurements sample different Fermi-level shifts or by presenting both datasets with a common temperature axis in one figure.","section":"Section III, Fig. 4 vs Appendix E, Fig. 9(b)"},{"comment":"The quantitative consistency test in Appendix G is a self-consistency check built on the assumption that the same coefficient k governs all three effects, not an independent confirmation of the orbital mechanism. The measured ratios in Fig. 11 are presented without error bars and come from a single device, so the claimed factor-of-2 and factor-of-4 agreements cannot be assessed statistically. The authors should report uncertainties, the number of devices measured, or at least the device-to-device variation, especially because the comparison in Fig. 11 is one of the main supports for unifying AHE, NLHE, and NRHE.","section":"Appendix G and Fig. 11"},{"comment":"The dc+ac protocol relies on the assumption that the current-induced magnetization follows the dc current adiabatically and that the lock-in first-harmonic response is not contaminated by Joule-heating-induced thermal gradients. The antisymmetrization procedure removes terms that are symmetric in Idc, but the possibility of a contribution that is antisymmetric in Idc but not proportional to the induced magnetization (for example a current-dependent contact asymmetry) is not discussed in detail. A control measurement with a second device of different geometry, or a check that the first-harmonic signal is independent of the ac frequency, would materially strengthen the interpretation.","section":"Section II and Appendix A.2"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The statement that the Hall nonreciprocity η_H diverges is a definitional artifact: for a purely antisymmetric signal the denominator R_s^H(+Idc)+R_s^H(-Idc) vanishes by construction. Please rephrase to avoid implying a physically divergent quantity.","section":"Appendix F"},{"comment":"The second term of Eq. (C5) is written as (e/ħ) Im⟨∂_k u|×[ε(k)-E_F]|∂_k u⟩; the notation should clarify that the energy-dependent term is a scalar multiplying the cross product with the gradient, otherwise the expression appears dimensionally inconsistent.","section":"Appendix C, Eq. (C5)"},{"comment":"The calculation temperature is stated as 50 K, while the transport experiments span from 2 K to 250 K. A sentence explaining why 50 K is representative, or a plot of α_orb_xz and α_s_xz at a few temperatures, would help the reader connect the calculation to the measured temperature dependence.","section":"Fig. 2(d) and Appendix C"},{"comment":"The conversion from voltage ratios to electric-field ratios involves the geometric factor L/R_a^2; this factor is mentioned only in passing before Fig. 11. Please define it explicitly in the main text or figure caption so that the reader can reproduce the plotted values.","section":"Appendix G, Eq. (G2)-(G4)"},{"comment":"The phrase 'constructed a density functional theory (DFT) based tight-binding model Hamilton' contains a typo; 'Hamilton' should be 'Hamiltonian.'","section":"Appendix C, first paragraph"},{"comment":"The figure caption describes the NLHE normalization as V_||^2 but does not specify whether V_|| is the first-harmonic longitudinal voltage at the same frequency as the drive; please state the frequency and the measurement configuration explicitly.","section":"Section III, Fig. 4(c) caption"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"For the editor: the transport phenomenology is convincing and the Appendix G normalization is a useful contribution, but the paper's most prominent claim—that the observed effect is an 'orbital' anomalous Hall effect—currently rests on a susceptibility calculation plus an unverified proportionality assumption. This is fixable: the authors could compute the Hall coefficients for orbital and spin channels in the same tight-binding model, or they could reframe the abstract and title as an observation of current-induced anomalous Hall response with a calculated orbital dominance. I do not see grounds for rejection, but the load-bearing attribution should be addressed before publication. The single-device, no-error-bars nature of the transport data should also be stated explicitly."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"The useful way to read this paper: it is a careful transport study of TaIrTe4 showing that a dc current induces a first-harmonic Hall response whose scaling, sign, geometry, and temperature dependence all match the same second-order coefficient k that governs the NLHE and the dc NRHE. The dc+ac protocol is a genuinely nice experimental idea—it separates generation from detection of current-induced magnetization, which pure ac second-harmonic measurements cannot do. Appendix G's derivation of the 4:-1:2 relations among AHE, NLHE, and NRHE generation ratios is clean, and the experimental consistency in Fig. 11 is convincing. The paper also delivers the first explicit DFT-Wannier comparison of orbital versus spin magnetoelectric susceptibility for few-layer TaIrTe4; that calculation is a real addition.\n\nThe soft spot is exactly where the reader put it: the headline 'orbital anomalous Hall effect' is an inference, not a measurement. Transport voltages alone cannot distinguish orbital from spin magnetization. The orbital attribution rests on alpha_orb_xz >> alpha_s_xz at mu = 0.037 eV, and that Fermi level estimate has no quoted uncertainty. Worse, the conversion from magnetization to Hall voltage uses R_H = gamma M_z and silently assumes gamma_orb ~ gamma_spin, which is not computed or justified. Fig. 2(d) shows both susceptibilities vary sharply with mu, so a small Fermi-level error could change the hierarchy. I take the stress-test concern seriously, but it does not sink the paper: the main claim that the data actually support is the unified second-order response origin for all three effects. The orbital-versus-spin decomposition is a plausible theoretical interpretation, not an established experimental fact.\n\nMinor issues: no error bars, no multi-device statistics, no raw data. For a single-device study making a strong theoretical claim, that is a real gap. Also, the paper's own Eq. G1 shows the 'linear AHE' is just a harmonic component of the same second-order response, so calling it a new effect distinct from the known NLHE overstates the novelty; the new content is the protocol and the calculation.\n\nWho this is for: people working on nonlinear Hall physics, orbitronics, and current-induced magnetization in van der Waals semimetals. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review with the expectation that the orbital-vs-spin claim be softened or backed by a sensitivity analysis and, ideally, a second device. If the authors release data and code, all the better.","headline":"A solid transport study with a clean unifying second-order response picture, but the 'orbital' label is an inference from theory, not a measurement.","tokens_in":19359,"tokens_out":2129,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":21296,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The paper reports that a direct current flowing in nonmagnetic few-layer TaIrTe4 induces an out-of-plane orbital magnetization and a linear anomalous Hall effect, and that all three observed Hall effects share one second-order response…","keywords":["anomalous Hall effect","orbital magnetization","Berry curvature dipole","nonlinear Hall effect","nonreciprocal Hall effect","magnetoelectric susceptibility","Weyl semimetal","TaIrTe4"],"falsifier":"Electrostatically gate or chemically dope the flake to scan the Fermi level: the calculation predicts that the orbital susceptibility $\\alpha^{\\mathrm{orb}}_{xz}(\\mu)$ changes sign and magnitude in a specific way, so the measured slope $R^\\omega_H/I_{dc}$ should track that orbital curve. If it tracks the spin susceptibility instead, or if a direct magnetization probe on the same device (for instance a torque or magneto-optical measurement) finds a moment far smaller than the Hall signal implies, the orbital attribution fails.","tokens_in":18358,"feed_emoji":"🌀","tokens_out":17338,"duration_ms":148982,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper claims that a steady electric current alone — no magnetic field and no magnetic order — turns the nonmagnetic Weyl semimetal few-layer TaIrTe4, a layered material whose band structure contains Weyl points, into a system with a linear anomalous Hall effect. The mechanism is that the current shifts the momentum-space occupation of Bloch electrons and, through the material's nonzero Berry curvature dipole, creates an out-of-plane orbital magnetization; a small probe current then reads out the deflection as a transverse voltage. The Hall resistance is linear in the generating current, flips sign when the current flips, and vanishes when the current runs perpendicular to the Berry curvature dipole. The paper further claims that this linear AHE, the second-harmonic nonlinear Hall effect, and a pure-dc nonreciprocal Hall effect all share one coefficient $k$, with their measured magnitudes standing in fixed ratios. If true, this provides all-electrical generation and control of an out-of-plane orbital polarization in a nonmagnetic two-dimensional material.","feed_headline":"A direct current creates a switchable anomalous Hall effect in TaIrTe4","feed_subtitle":"The same coefficient governs three Hall signals, all set by current-induced orbital motion.","key_machinery":"The central object is the Berry curvature dipole $D$, the first moment (dipole) of the Berry curvature over occupied states, which is nonzero in few-layer TaIrTe4 because the few-layer form loses the glide-mirror symmetry of the bulk while preserving time-reversal symmetry. The dipole acts as a current-to-magnetization rectifier: a bias current tilts the occupation of Bloch states in momentum space, and because out-of-plane orbital moments are locked to momentum in this two-dimensional crystal, a net out-of-plane orbital magnetization $M^z_{\\mathrm{orb}} \\propto (D\\cdot I)\\hat{z}$ emerges. The measurement method is the second piece of machinery: a dc current generates the magnetization while a much smaller ac current probes it, so the magnetization appears as a first-harmonic signal linear in the probe current, with generation and detection channels independently controlled. The quantitative unification is carried by a single second-order response formula, $V^H_{\\mathrm{tot}} = k\\,I_{\\mathrm{tot}}^2$, from which the linear AHE, the NLHE, and the NRHE follow with the fixed ratios $4 : -1 : 2$. The orbital-versus-spin assignment rests on the magnetoelectric susceptibility $\\alpha_{xz}$, computed with the wave-packet orbital-moment formulas of the band theory.","core_discovery":"On the paper's own terms, the discovery is this: in few-layer TaIrTe4 (pentalayer in the calculation), a type-II Weyl semimetal, an in-plane dc current along the crystal $a$ axis induces a magnetization along the $c$ axis that is dominated by the orbital magnetic moment of the Bloch electrons, not their spin. The nonzero Berry curvature dipole $D$ of the few-layer crystal makes the occupation imbalance produced by the bias translate into a net orbital moment, $M^z_{\\mathrm{orb}} \\propto (D\\cdot I)\\hat{z}$, which breaks time-reversal symmetry. Superposing a small ac current $I_\\omega \\ll I_{dc}$ then yields a first-harmonic transverse voltage $V^\\omega_H \\sin\\omega t = 2k\\,I_{dc}I_\\omega \\sin\\omega t$, so the anomalous Hall resistance $R^\\omega_H = V^\\omega_H/I_\\omega$ is linear in $I_{dc}$ and reverses sign with its polarity. The same coefficient $k$ produces the second-harmonic nonlinear Hall signal $V^{2\\omega}_H = -\\frac{1}{2}k I_\\omega^2$ and the pure-dc quadratic Hall voltage $V^s_H = k I_{dc}^2$, and the measured generation ratios agree with the predicted $4 : -1 : 2$ relation. Density-functional and Wannier-based calculations place the orbital magnetoelectric susceptibility $\\alpha^{\\mathrm{orb}}_{xz}$ one to two orders of magnitude above the spin susceptibility $\\alpha^{s}_{xz}$ at the estimated Fermi level $\\mu = 0.037$ eV, which the authors take to establish that the observed Hall effects are dominantly orbital in origin.","pith_inferences":["Extension: the same dc+ac protocol should work in other Berry-curvature-dipole materials, and because it separates the generation current from the probe current, it offers a way to compare orbital and spin contributions across materials without magnetic fields.","Testable extension: a gate-tunable device sweeping the Fermi level would reproduce or falsify the calculated $\\mu$-dependence of $\\alpha^{\\mathrm{orb}}_{xz}$; this is the cleanest experimental check of the orbital attribution.","Consequence the authors leave implicit: if the induced out-of-plane orbital moment is real and switchable, a TaIrTe4 flake in contact with a magnetic layer should exert a current-controlled torque, giving this platform a spintronic application.","The shared sign reversal near 100 K suggests the orbital polarization direction can be swept continuously through zero by temperature or gating, which would make the induced magnetization direction a tunable degree of freedom rather than a fixed property of the material."],"forward_implications":["The linear AHE measured under dc+ac excitation is quantitatively tied to the nonlinear Hall and nonreciprocal Hall effects through one coefficient $k$, so a first-harmonic measurement can serve as a direct probe of Berry-curvature-dipole physics with known conversion factors.","The induced out-of-plane orbital magnetization is set entirely by electrical means — magnitude by $I_{dc}$, direction by its polarity and by temperature — which the authors present as precise electric control of out-of-plane polarized orbit flow.","The signal disappears when the generating current runs along the $b$ axis (perpendicular to the Berry curvature dipole), confirming that the effect is directional and tied to the dipole orientation rather than to sample-wide heating or contact artifacts.","Since the mechanism is orbital rather than spin-based, the anomalous Hall effect appears here without any magnetic order, extending a phenomenon traditionally associated with ferromagnets to nonmagnetic two-dimensional materials.","The consistency of the three effects implies that the previously reported nonlinear Hall effect in TaIrTe4 and the new current-induced linear AHE have a common origin in current-induced orbital magnetization."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"The Berry-curvature-dipole theory of the nonlinear Hall effect that the paper's unified second-order response formula is built on.","marker":"[12]"},{"why":"Provides the disorder-inclusive scaling framework and response conventions used in the quantitative comparison of the three Hall signals.","marker":"[18]"},{"why":"Establishes the link between a Berry curvature dipole and current-induced out-of-plane orbital (valley) magnetization, the core mechanism invoked here.","marker":"[22]"},{"why":"The prior report of a nonlinear Hall effect in TaIrTe4 that fixes the nonzero Berry curvature dipole along the a axis and supplies the temperature-behavior baseline.","marker":"[27]"},{"why":"The standard anomalous Hall review from which the $R_H = \\gamma M_z$ relation is taken to convert dominant magnetization into dominant Hall signal.","marker":"[41]"},{"why":"The wave-packet dynamics formalism whose orbital-moment formulas (Eqs. C2 and C5) feed the susceptibility calculation.","marker":"[9]"},{"why":"Provides the center-of-mass Berry-phase correction term included in the total orbital moment in Eq. C5.","marker":"[56]"},{"why":"The Wannier-projection implementation used to build the tight-binding model of the TaIrTe4 slab from the DFT calculation.","marker":"[73]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Current-induced orbital moment flips Hall effect in TaIrTe4","Orbital motion, not spin, drives switchable Hall effect in TaIrTe4","Current-induced orbital Hall effect is switchable in TaIrTe4","No magnet needed: current-induced orbital Hall in TaIrTe4","Few-layer TaIrTe4: current-switchable orbital Hall effect"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The claim that the effect is orbital rather than spin rests on a band-structure calculation saying the orbital response is 10 to 100 times stronger than the spin response at an estimated Fermi level, and on the assumption that the factor converting magnetization into Hall voltage is comparable for the two channels; the voltage measurements themselves cannot tell orbital and spin moments apart.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Current-induced orbital moment flips Hall effect in TaIrTe4","Orbital motion, not spin, drives switchable Hall effect in TaIrTe4","Current-induced orbital Hall effect is switchable in TaIrTe4","No magnet needed: current-induced orbital Hall in TaIrTe4","Few-layer TaIrTe4: current-switchable orbital Hall effect"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000652,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3076,"prompt_tokens":1118,"completion_tokens":1958,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":734,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":1861}},"tokens_in":734,"tokens_out":1958,"duration_ms":14283,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":1861,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-11T22:56:16.438125+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"Electrostatically gate or chemically dope the flake to scan the Fermi level: the calculation predicts that the orbital susceptibility $\\alpha^{\\mathrm{orb}}_{xz}(\\mu)$ changes sign and magnitude in a specific way, so the measured slope $R^\\omega_H/I_{dc}$ should track that orbital curve. If it tracks the spin susceptibility instead, or if a direct magnetization probe on the same device (for instance a torque or magneto-optical measurement) finds a moment far smaller than the Hall signal implies, the orbital attribution fails.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the disorder-inclusive scaling framework and response conventions used in the quantitative comparison of the three Hall signals."},{"cited_title":"Holder, D","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Establishes the link between a Berry curvature dipole and current-induced out-of-plane orbital (valley) magnetization, the core mechanism invoked here."},{"cited_title":"Chang and Q","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The prior report of a nonlinear Hall effect in TaIrTe4 that fixes the nonzero Berry curvature dipole along the a axis and supplies the temperature-behavior baseline."},{"cited_title":"Hu, C.-P","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The standard anomalous Hall review from which the $R_H = \\gamma M_z$ relation is taken to convert dominant magnetization into dominant Hall signal."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The Wannier-projection implementation used to build the tight-binding model of the TaIrTe4 slab from the DFT calculation."}],"review_version":1}