Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Probing quantum geometry with two-dimensional nonlinear optical spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Two-pulse, two-frequency spectroscopy can isolate the multi-band quantum connection of a crystal's band structure from all other optical signals, making a quantity invisible in linear response directly measurable.

desk verdict A serious and citable 2DCS proposal for the quantum connection, but the 'unambiguous' isolation claim is stronger than the math — the three-band term needs a quantitative estimate before Eq. (8) can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05462 v2 pith:JNKRIIAD submitted 2025-06-05 cond-mat.mes-hall

Paul Froese , Mark R. Hirsbrunner , Yong Baek Kim This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumgeometryconnectiontwo-dimensionalcoherentspectroscopynonlinearopticalconductivitytime-reversalsymmetrytransitionmetaldichalcogenidesSr2RuO4Berry
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 proposes two-dimensional coherent spectroscopy (2DCS)—measuring the current induced by two time-delayed laser pulses as a function of two independent frequencies—as a direct probe of the multi-band quantum connection, a geometric property of Bloch wavefunctions that describes how tangent vectors are transported across the Brillouin zone. Its central claim is that the two-frequency second-order optical conductivity decomposes exactly into seven pieces with distinct geometric content, and that under time-reversal symmetry, restricting to diagonal polarization components and to the frequency line $\omega_1 = \omega_2$ leaves only the quantum-connection term. If the claim is right, 2DCS becomes a practical window on a band-geometry quantity that never appears in linear response, letting experiments compare the quantum geometry of different materials by reading its sign and magnitude at predicted frequencies. The isolation is demonstrated in model calculations for monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides and for $\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4$, including a chemical-potential-scanning scheme that gives rough momentum-resolved information about the quantum connection.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the multi-band quantum connection $C^{mn}_{a;bc} = i A^{b}_{nm}(A^{a}_{nn} - A^{a}_{mm}) A^{c}_{mn} + A^{b}_{nm}\partial_{k_a} A^{c}_{mn}$, built from the non-Abelian Berry connection $A^{a}_{nm} = i\langle u_{nk}\,|\,\partial_{k_a} u_{mk}\rangle$; it is third order in the position operator, which is why it only appears beyond linear response, and its imaginary part $\tilde{\Gamma}^{nm}_{a;aa}$ is the quantity that Eq. (8) isolates. Three pieces of machinery make the isolation work: a length-gauge derivation that splits the second-order conductivity into seven terms classified by pole structure and geometry (Eq. (7), with Drude, anomalous, doubly resonant, higher-order pole, injection, connection, and three-band terms); a symmetry and polarization filter, namely time-reversal symmetry plus diagonal components $\sigma_{a;aa}$, that kills the five terms built from the quantum geometric tensor; and the frequency-diagonal slice on which the three-band term vanishes. The projector formalism $P_n = |u_{nk}\rangle\langle u_{nk}|$ rewrites the connection in gauge-invariant form for numerical work, and the 2DCS pulse sequence supplies the two time axes: currents measured at delay $t$ after the second pulse, Fourier transformed in both delays, give $\sigma_{a;bc}(\omega_\tau, \omega_t)$ directly.

What would settle it

Take a time-reversal-symmetric, inversion-broken three-band model in which a third band sits within a scattering linewidth of one of the two resonant bands, so that the three-band resonance conditions $(\hbar\omega_1, \hbar\omega_2) = (\varepsilon_{mn}, \varepsilon_{ml})$ approach the frequency diagonal, and compute the full Eq. (7) response; any deviation of $\sigma_{a;aa}(\omega,\omega)$ from Eq. (8) beyond numerical error would show the isolation is not universal. A complementary experiment: measure the diagonal 2DCS peak of monolayer MoTe$_2$ and WTe$_2$ and check that the sign of $\operatorname{Im}\sigma_{y;yy}$ flips between the two materials exactly as the quantum-connection calculation predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is compressed into Eq. (8): for a time-reversal-symmetric crystal, the diagonal components of the second-order conductivity reduce on the frequency diagonal to $\sigma_{a;aa}(\omega_1,\omega_2) = i e^3/\hbar^3 \int_k \sum_{nm} g^{\omega_1}_{mn} g^{\omega_2}_{mn} f_{nm} \varepsilon_{nm} \tilde{\Gamma}^{nm}_{a;aa}$, where $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is the imaginary part of the multi-band quantum connection. The paper shows that this is the only term left after three filters: time-reversal symmetry eliminates the Drude, anomalous, doubly resonant, higher-order pole, and injection terms for diagonal polarization components; the restriction to the frequency diagonal $\omega_1 = \omega_2$ removes the three-band term (a proof appears in the supplementary material, and the term is numerically small near the diagonal in the models studied); and time-reversal symmetry makes the real part of the connection drop out, so the response is carried entirely by $\tilde{\Gamma}$. The paper then demonstrates that the sign of $\tilde{\Gamma}$ in the region of the Brillouin zone selected by the Fermi occupation difference is imprinted directly on the sign of the measured $\operatorname{Im}\sigma_{a;aa}(\omega_\tau, \omega_t)$, allowing materials with similar bands but opposite geometry (MoTe$_2$ versus WTe$_2$) and competing models of one material (GGA versus LDA) to be told apart, and that shifting the chemical potential moves the contributing momentum-space region, giving rough momentum-resolved access to the quantum connection.

Load-bearing premise

The measured diagonal signal counts as a pure readout of the quantum connection only if the three-band term is zero or negligible on the frequency diagonal; the paper proves exact vanishing only at band degeneracy and otherwise relies on that term being numerically small in the specific models it studies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single 2DCS run measures the sign of the quantum connection, so materials with nearly identical band structures but opposite connection lobes (MoTe$_2$ versus WTe$_2$, and GGA versus LDA models of MoTe$_2$) become distinguishable by the sign of $\operatorname{Im}\sigma_{y;yy}$ at the predicted transition frequencies.
  • Because the seven terms of Eq. (7) peak on different lines of the $(\omega_1, \omega_2)$ plane, one experiment can separate the quantum-connection contribution from the quantum-geometric-tensor contributions without suppressing the latter, giving simultaneous access to several geometric quantities.
  • Equation (8) is a closed expression computable directly from a band structure, so the measured peak frequencies, signs, and relative magnitudes can be compared quantitatively against tight-binding or first-principles calculations.
  • Scanning the chemical potential changes which momentum-space region has a finite occupation difference, so a series of 2DCS measurements at different dopings yields rough momentum-resolved maps of the quantum connection within a single material.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same decomposition logic plausibly extends to the third-order conductivity, which does not require inversion-symmetry breaking; if it carries over, a 2DCS-type probe of the quantum connection could be applied to centrosymmetric and nonmagnetic materials, far beyond the inversion-broken compounds treated here.
  • The momentum resolution demonstrated is coarse—each chemical potential selects a pocket, not a point. A natural follow-up the authors do not attempt is to invert Eq. (8) over a series of doping scans to reconstruct an approximate map of $\tilde{\Gamma}^{nm}(\mathbf{k})$ across the Brillouin zone.
  • The protocol's cleanliness is material-dependent: the supplementary demonstrates exact vanishing of the three-band term on the diagonal only under band degeneracy, and otherwise relies on numerical smallness near the diagonal. A three-band material with a nearly degenerate third band near the resonance energies could push the three-band poles close to the diagonal and contaminate the published for
  • Because the full $(\omega_1, \omega_2)$ plane is measured anyway, the off-diagonal regions where the three-band term dominates, and the $\omega_1 = 0$ axis where that term reduces to quantum torsion within the shift current, can serve as built-in consistency checks of the decomposition without any new experimental setup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two-dimensional coherent spectroscopy (2DCS) as a probe of multi-band quantum geometry. The authors derive a decomposition of the second-order nonlinear optical conductivity into seven terms with distinct geometric content (Drude, anomalous, doubly resonant, higher-order pole, injection, quantum-connection, and three-band terms). They argue that for diagonal tensor components in a time-reversal-symmetric system, all terms except the quantum-connection term σC and the three-band term σ3B vanish, and that σ3B vanishes along the frequency diagonal. This leads to Eq. (8), which expresses the diagonal conductivity as a direct probe of the imaginary part of the multi-band quantum connection. The proposal is illustrated with tight-binding model calculations for MoTe2, WTe2, and Sr2RuO4, showing that the sign and momentum structure of the quantum connection are reflected in the computed 2DCS response, and that chemical-potential tuning can provide rough momentum-resolved information.

Significance. If Eq. (8) is correct, the paper provides a genuinely new experimental route to a quantity—the multi-band quantum connection—that does not appear in linear response and is difficult to access otherwise. The derivation in the supplementary material is detailed, follows the established Aversa-Sipe length-gauge formalism, and the numerical implementation uses a gauge-invariant projector formalism, which is a real strength. The model calculations are self-consistent demonstrations that the quantum connection, computed from the same tight-binding Hamiltonian that produces the 2DCS signal, can control the sign and location of the response. However, the central claim that σC can be measured 'in isolation' rests on the behaviour of σ3B along the frequency diagonal, and that behaviour is not quantitatively established. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional: if the three-band contamination can be shown to be negligible (or exactly cancelled), the proposal is important; as written, the isolation claim is stronger than the provided mathematics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, after Eq. (7), and 'Isolating the quantum connection term' in the Supplementary] The main text states that the three-band term 'vanishes on the diagonal' (and later that 'σ3B vanishes' along the diagonal), but the Supplementary proves exact vanishing only when the resonance conditions coincide with the diagonal, which forces band degeneracy (ε_l = ε_n or ε_l = ε_m). In the generic non-degenerate case, the Supplementary only asserts that σ3B 'will be numerically small in the vicinity of the diagonal,' and Footnote [70] concedes that the three-band term 'is also finite, but is numerically small.' No plot, ratio, or quantitative bound is provided for any of the TMD or Sr2RuO4 examples. This is a load-bearing point: Eq. (8) omits σ3B, and if the residual three-band tail is not small, the measured diagonal signal is contaminated. Please either prove exact cancellation in the non-degenerate case, or provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., |σ3B/σC| along the diagonal for each model) and revise the 'unambiguously identify' wording accordingly.
  2. [Supplementary, 'Isolating the quantum connection term'] The degenerate-band proof appears to invoke the global reality condition σ(ω1,ω2) = σ*(-ω1,-ω2) to transform a single selected part of the σ3B integrand. This condition applies to the full response function, not automatically to an individual term of the decomposition, and the decomposition terms are not separately constrained to be real-time response functions. Unless the term-wise use of this symmetry is justified, the claimed cancellation is not established even for the degenerate case. Please spell out the term-wise argument or provide an alternative proof.
  3. [Eq. (8) and Figs. 2(g-i), 3(d-e)] The quantitative comparisons in the model studies attribute the sign and magnitude of Im σ_{y;yy} (and |σ_{x;xx}|) entirely to the quantum connection. If σ3B is finite on the diagonal, the computed signals in Figs. 2(g-i) and 3(d-e) contain a contribution that is not captured by Eq. (8). The claim that the response can be 'unambiguously identified' with the quantum connection therefore requires showing that σ3B is negligible in the frequency window of interest for these specific models. I ask the authors to evaluate σ3B and σC separately along the diagonal for the TMD and Sr2RuO4 models and report their relative size; if the ratio is not small, the interpretation of the figures and the central proposal must be revised.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 1, 2, and 3 captions] There are typographical inconsistencies in the notation: the figures use 'σy:yy' and '˜Γ32_{y:yy}', while the text uses σ_{y;yy} and ˜Γ^{32}_{y;yy}. Please standardize the notation in the captions.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption and main text] The heuristic thresholds of 60% and 90% of the maximum of f32 ε32 ˜Γ32 used to define the predicted frequency ranges are arbitrary. Please state how the predicted ranges and conclusions depend on the chosen threshold.
  3. [Page 3, after Eq. (7)] The phrase 'this term vanishes on the diagonal [63]' is inconsistent with Footnote [70], which says the three-band term is finite but numerically small. Please align the main-text assertion with the actual supplementary result.
  4. [Supplementary, 'Isolating the quantum connection term'] The sentence 'Furthermore, in our examples, the conditions (12) and (13) ensure the 3B term is peaked only far from the diagonal and at large frequencies' should be supported by a figure or quantitative statement; as written it is an unsubstantiated claim in the same spirit as the footnote.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the geometric decomposition is derived from the dipole Hamiltonian, and the model calculations are self-consistency checks rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The seven-term decomposition of the second-order conductivity (Eq. 7) is obtained by evaluating nested position-operator commutators in the length gauge, with the step-by-step algebra shown in the Supplementary; the quantum-connection term is not inserted by hand but emerges from the calculation, with C defined geometrically in Eq. (4). The isolation claim leading to Eq. (8) uses time-reversal symmetry to eliminate the QGT and Fermi-surface terms, and the Supplementary proves that the three-band term vanishes on the frequency diagonal in the degenerate-resonance cases; the generic-case statement that the residual three-band term is 'numerically small' is an approximation, and any residual contamination is a quantitative-support or correctness concern, not a circular one. The frequency-window 'predictions' in Figs. 1-3 are obtained from the same tight-binding Hamiltonians used to generate the 2DCS traces, so they function as internal consistency checks rather than independent empirical predictions; no parameter is fitted to the plotted response. Citations to the authors' own Supplementary [63] point to derivations contained within the paper itself, rather than importing an unverified external theorem, so they do not constitute load-bearing self-citation. The paper therefore does not reduce its central claim to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no new entities or ad hoc physical postulates; it uses standard perturbation theory and geometric definitions from the literature. The only hand-set numbers are numerical parameters for the illustrative model calculations. The model-dependent sign of the quantum connection is an inherited assumption, not a new invention.

free parameters (3)
  • scattering rate η = 0.02 fs^-1
    Phenomenological broadening added to ω1 and ω2 in all model calculations; sets linewidths but does not affect the decomposition or isolation argument.
  • frequency-range threshold = 60% (TMDs) and 90% (Sr2RuO4) of maximum
    Heuristic cutoff used to define the predicted frequency range of the 2DCS peak in Figs. 1-3; chosen by hand for visualization, not fitted to the response.
  • chemical potentials for Sr2RuO4 = µ1 = -0.860 eV, µ2 = -0.586 eV
    Chosen to place the Fermi level in different pockets to demonstrate momentum-resolved sensitivity; model inputs, not fitted to the central claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Non-interacting single-particle Bloch Hamiltonian
    The conductivity is computed from H0 + e r · E with a single-particle density matrix; interactions and excitonic effects are neglected (Discussion, future work).
  • standard math Electric dipole approximation and length gauge
    The perturbation is H' = e r · E and the position operator matrix elements are used; this is the standard approach in Aversa and Sipe [57].
  • domain assumption Time-reversal symmetry and broken inversion symmetry in the materials
    Isolation of σC relies on TRS and a nonzero second-order response requires broken inversion symmetry; TMDs and substrate-broken Sr2RuO4 are assumed to satisfy these.
  • standard math Projector formalism identities for QGT and quantum connection
    Eqs. (15)-(17) from [51,53] are used for numerical computation; they are gauge-invariant rewritings of the connection objects.
  • domain assumption Tight-binding parameters from prior fits capture correct wavefunction geometry
    The model's quantum connection sign is shown to differ between GGA and LDA fits, so the predictions inherit the model's geometric accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing quantum geometry with two-dimensional nonlinear optical spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JNKRIIAD

@misc{pith2026250605462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing quantum geometry with two-dimensional nonlinear optical spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JNKRIIAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05462}
}
abstract

Recent studies have shown that the nonlinear optical response of crystalline systems is fundamentally a quantum geometric property. In this work, we propose two-dimensional coherent spectroscopy (2DCS), which measures the nonlinear conductivity as a function of two independent frequencies using two time-delayed light pulses, as a probe of quantum geometry. We show how the two-frequency second-order nonlinear conductivity, which is naturally measured by 2DCS, decomposes into distinct quantum geometric contributions. We identify a term arising from the multi-band quantum connection that does not appear in linear response, and show that it can be measured in isolation by considering specific polarizations and enforcing time-reversal symmetry. We explore this finding via model calculations for transition metal dichalcogenides and Sr$_2$RuO$_4$. Through these examples, we demonstrate how 2DCS enables study of the quantum connection, providing a way to compare the quantum geometry of different materials. We also show that one can gain rough momentum-resolved knowledge of the quantum geometry by varying the chemical potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Band structure, quantum connection, and 2DCS re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Bandstructure, quantum connection, and 2DCS re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Band structure, quantum connection, and 2DCS response of Sr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [70]

    The three-band term is also finite, but is numerically small near the diagonal of the frequency where the quan- tum connection contribution is peaked

    work page

  2. [1]

    K. v. Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, New method for high-accuracy determination of the fine-structure con- stant based on quantized Hall resistance, Physical Review Letters 45, 494 (1980)

    work page 1980

  3. [2]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Quantized Hall conductance in a two- dimensional periodic potential, Physical Review Letters 49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  4. [3]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Berry phase, hyperorbits, and the Hofstadter spectrum, Physical Review Letters 75, 1348 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [4]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Berry phase, hyperorbits, and the Hofstadter spectrum: Semiclassical dynamics in mag- netic Bloch bands, Physical Review B 53, 7010 (1996)

    1996

  6. [5]

    Sundaram and Q

    G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Wave-packet dynamics in slowly perturbed crystals: Gradient corrections and Berry-phase effects, Physical Review B 59, 14915 (1999)

    1999

  7. [6]

    T¨ orm¨ a, Essay: Where can quantum geometry lead us?, Physical Review Letters 131, 240001 (2023)

    P. T¨ orm¨ a, Essay: Where can quantum geometry lead us?, Physical Review Letters 131, 240001 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    J. Yu, B. A. Bernevig, R. Queiroz, E. Rossi, P. T¨ orm¨ a, and B.-J. Yang, Quantum geometry in quantum materi- als (2025), arXiv:2501.00098 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Jiang, T

    Y. Jiang, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Revealing quan- tum geometry in nonlinear quantum materials (2025), arXiv:2503.04943 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Mukamel, Principles of Nonlinear Optical Spectroscopy (Oxford University Press, 1995)

    S. Mukamel, Principles of Nonlinear Optical Spectroscopy (Oxford University Press, 1995)

    1995

  3. [10]

    J. Lu, X. Li, H. Y. Hwang, B. K. Ofori-Okai, T. Kurihara, T. Suemoto, and K. A. Nelson, Coherent two-dimensional terahertz magnetic resonance spectroscopy of collective spin waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 207204 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    Wan and N

    Y. Wan and N. P. Armitage, Resolving continua of frac- tional excitations by spinon echo in thz 2d coherent spec- troscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 257401 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    W. Choi, K. H. Lee, and Y. B. Kim, Theory of two- dimensional nonlinear spectroscopy for the Kitaev spin liquid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 117205 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    S. A. Parameswaran and S. Gopalakrishnan, Asymptot- ically exact theory for nonlinear spectroscopy of random quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 237601 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    Mahmood, D

    F. Mahmood, D. Chaudhuri, S. Gopalakrishnan, R. Nandkishore, and N. P. Armitage, Observation of a marginal Fermi glass, Nature Physics 17, 627 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    R. M. Nandkishore, W. Choi, and Y. B. Kim, Spectro- scopic fingerprints of gapped quantum spin liquids, both conventional and fractonic, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013254 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Fresch, F

    E. Fresch, F. V. A. Camargo, Q. Shen, C. C. Bellora, T. Pullerits, G. S. Engel, G. Cerullo, and E. Collini, Two-dimensional electronic spectroscopy, Nature Re- views Methods Primers 3, 84 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Hart and R

    O. Hart and R. Nandkishore, Extracting spinon self- energies from two-dimensional coherent spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B 107, 205143 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    H. Li, B. Lomsadze, G. Moody, C. Smallwood, S. Cun- diff, H. Li, B. Lomsadze, G. Moody, C. Smallwood, and S. Cundiff, Optical Multidimensional Coherent Spec- troscopy (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Brenig and O

    W. Brenig and O. Krupnitska, Finite temperature electric field induced two-dimensional coherent non- linear spectroscopy in a Kitaev magnet (2024), arXiv:2403.08867 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    G´ omez Salvador, P

    A. G´ omez Salvador, P. E. Dolgirev, M. H. Michael, A. Liu, D. Pavicevic, M. Fechner, A. Cavalleri, and E. Demler, Principles of two-dimensional terahertz spec- troscopy of collective excitations: The case of Josephson plasmons in layered superconductors, Physical Review B 110...

    2024 doi

  14. [21]

    Katsumi, J

    K. Katsumi, J. Fiore, M. Udina, R. Romero, D. Barbalas, J. Jesudasan, P. Raychaudhuri, G. Seibold, L. Benfatto, and N. P. Armitage, Revealing novel aspects of light- matter coupling by terahertz two-dimensional coherent spectroscopy: The case of the amplitude mode in super- co...

    2024

  15. [22]

    Qiang, V

    Y. Qiang, V. L. Quito, T. V. Trevisan, and P. P. Orth, Probing majorana wave functions in Kitaev hon- eycomb spin liquids with second-order two-dimensional spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 126505 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    Watanabe, S

    Y. Watanabe, S. Trebst, and C. Hickey, Explor- ing two-dimensional coherent spectroscopy with ex- act diagonalization: Spinons and confinement in one- dimensional quantum magnets, Physical Review B 110, 10.1103/physrevb.110.134443 (2024)

    2024 doi

  17. [24]

    E. Z. Zhang, C. Hickey, and Y. B. Kim, Disentangling spin excitation continua in classical and quantum mag- nets using two-dimensional nonlinear spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B 110, 104415 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Zhang, F

    Z. Zhang, F. Y. Gao, J. B. Curtis, Z.-J. Liu, Y.-C. Chien, A. von Hoegen, M. T. Wong, T. Kurihara, T. Suemoto, P. Narang, E. Baldini, and K. A. Nelson, Terahertz field- induced nonlinear coupling of two magnon modes in an antiferromagnet, Nature Physics 20, 801 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Zhang, F

    Z. Zhang, F. Y. Gao, Y.-C. Chien, Z.-J. Liu, J. B. Cur- tis, E. R. Sung, X. Ma, W. Ren, S. Cao, P. Narang, A. von Hoegen, E. Baldini, and K. A. Nelson, Terahertz- field-driven magnon upconversion in an antiferromagnet, Nature Physics 20, 788 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Barbalas, R

    D. Barbalas, R. Romero, D. Chaudhuri, F. Mahmood, H. P. Nair, N. J. Schreiber, D. G. Schlom, K. M. Shen, and N. P. Armitage, Energy relaxation and dynam- ics in the correlated metal Sr 2RuO4 via terahertz two- dimensional coherent spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 036501 (2025)

    2025

  21. [28]

    D. A. S. Kaib, M. M¨ oller, and R. Valenti, Nonlinear spec- troscopy as a magnon breakdown diagnosis and its effi- cient simulation (2025), arXiv:2502.01746 [cond-mat.str- el]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    X. Yang, R. Buechele, and N. Trivedi, Detection of anyon braiding through pump-probe spectroscopy (2025), arXiv:2503.22792 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  23. [30]

    Nakahara, Geometry, Topology, and Physics, 2nd ed

    M. Nakahara, Geometry, Topology, and Physics, 2nd ed. (CRC Press, 2003)

    2003

  24. [31]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states, Communications in Math- 7 ematical Physics 76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  25. [32]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Superfluidity in topologically nontrivial flat bands, Nature Communications 6, 8944 (2015)

    2015

  26. [33]

    J. S. Hofmann, E. Berg, and D. Chowdhury, Supercon- ductivity, pseudogap, and phase separation in topological flat bands, Physical Review B 102, 201112 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    S. A. Chen and K. T. Law, Ginzburg-Landau theory of flat-band superconductors with quantum metric, Physi- cal Review Letters 132, 026002 (2024)

    2024

  28. [35]

    Komissarov, T

    I. Komissarov, T. Holder, and R. Queiroz, The quan- tum geometric origin of capacitance in insulators, Nature Communications 15, 4621 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    Verma and R

    N. Verma and R. Queiroz, Instantaneous re- sponse and quantum geometry of insulators (2025), arXiv:2403.07052 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  30. [37]

    Verma and R

    N. Verma and R. Queiroz, Framework to measure quan- tum metric from step response, Physical Review Letters 134, 10.1103/physrevlett.134.106403 (2025)

    2025 doi

  31. [38]

    Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Physical Review B 90, 165139 (2014)

    R. Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Physical Review B 90, 165139 (2014)

    2014

  32. [39]

    C. H. Lee, M. Claassen, and R. Thomale, Band structure engineering of ideal fractional Chern insulators, Physical Review B 96, 165150 (2017)

    2017

  33. [40]

    Mera and T

    B. Mera and T. Ozawa, K¨ ahler geometry and Chern in- sulators: Relations between topology and the quantum metric, Physical Review B 104, 045104 (2021)

    2021

  34. [41]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Vor- texability: A unifying criterion for ideal fractional Chern insulators, Physical Review B 108, 205144 (2023)

    2023

  35. [42]

    Morimoto and N

    T. Morimoto and N. Nagaosa, Topological nature of nonlinear optical effects in solids, Science Advances 2, e1501524 (2016)

    2016

  36. [43]

    G. E. Topp, G. Jotzu, J. W. McIver, L. Xian, A. Ru- bio, and M. A. Sentef, Topological floquet engineering of twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 023031 (2019)

    2019

  37. [44]

    Ahn, G.-Y

    J. Ahn, G.-Y. Guo, and N. Nagaosa, Low-frequency di- vergence and quantum geometry of the bulk photovoltaic effect in topological semimetals, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041041 (2020)

    2020

  38. [45]

    G. E. Topp, C. J. Eckhardt, D. M. Kennes, M. A. Sen- tef, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Light-matter coupling and quantum geometry in moir´ e materials, Phys. Rev. B104, 064306 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    Ahn, G.-Y

    J. Ahn, G.-Y. Guo, N. Nagaosa, and A. Vishwanath, Rie- mannian geometry of resonant optical responses, Nature Physics 18, 290–295 (2021)

    2021

  40. [47]

    Bhalla, K

    P. Bhalla, K. Das, D. Culcer, and A. Agarwal, Resonant second-harmonic generation as a probe of quantum ge- ometry, Physical Review Letters 129, 227401 (2022)

    2022

  41. [48]

    Chaudhary, C

    S. Chaudhary, C. Lewandowski, and G. Refael, Shift- current response as a probe of quantum geometry and electron-electron interactions in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013164 (2022)

    2022

  42. [49]

    W. T. Tai and M. Claassen, Quantum-geometric light- matter coupling in correlated quantum materials (2023), arXiv:2303.01597 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    M. M. Kumar, S. Sarkar, and A. Agarwal, Band geome- try induced electro-optic effect and polarization rotation, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125401 (2024)

    2024

  44. [51]

    Avdoshkin, J

    A. Avdoshkin, J. Mitscherling, and J. E. Moore, The multi-state geometry of shift current and polarization (2025), arXiv:2409.16358 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [52]

    D. P. Carmichael and M. Claassen, Probing the quantum geometry of correlated metals using optical conductivity (2025), arXiv:2504.11428 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  46. [53]

    Mitscherling, A

    J. Mitscherling, A. Avdoshkin, and J. E. Moore, Gauge- invariant projector calculus for quantum state geome- try and applications to observables in crystals (2025), arXiv:2412.03637 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Blount, Solid state physics (Academic Press, 1962) Chap

    E. Blount, Solid state physics (Academic Press, 1962) Chap. Formalisms of Band Theory

    1962

  48. [55]

    J. E. Sipe and A. I. Shkrebtii, Second-order optical re- sponse in semiconductors, Physical Review B 61, 5337 (2000)

    2000

  49. [56]

    A. M. Cook, B. M. Fregoso, F. de Juan, S. Coh, and J. E. Moore, Design principles for shift current photovoltaics, Nature Communications 8, 10.1038/ncomms14176 (2017)

    2017 doi

  50. [57]

    Aversa and J

    C. Aversa and J. E. Sipe, Nonlinear optical susceptibili- ties of semiconductors: Results with a length-gauge anal- ysis, Phys. Rev. B 52, 14636 (1995)

    1995

  51. [58]

    G. B. Ventura, D. J. Passos, J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, J. M. Viana Parente Lopes, and N. M. R. Peres, Gauge covariances and nonlinear optical responses, Phys. Rev. B 96, 035431 (2017)

    2017

  52. [59]

    D. E. Parker, T. Morimoto, J. Orenstein, and J. E. Moore, Diagrammatic approach to nonlinear optical re- sponse with application to Weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. B 99, 045121 (2019)

    2019

  53. [60]

    Holder, D

    T. Holder, D. Kaplan, and B. Yan, Consequences of time- reversal-symmetry breaking in the light-matter interac- tion: Berry curvature, quantum metric, and diabatic mo- tion, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033100 (2020)

    2020

  54. [61]

    D. J. Passos, G. B. Ventura, J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, and J. M. V. Parente Lopes, Nonlinear optical conductiv- ity of a two-band crystal i, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 33, 465701 (2021)

    2021

  55. [62]

    R. W. Boyd, Chapter 1 - The nonlinear optical suscep- tibility, in Nonlinear Optics (Third Edition), edited by R. W. Boyd (Academic Press, Burlington, 2008) third edition ed., pp. 1–67

    2008

  56. [63]

    Supplementary material

  57. [64]

    Kaplan, T

    D. Kaplan, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Unifying semiclassics and quantum perturbation theory at nonlinear order, Sci- Post Phys. 14, 082 (2023)

    2023

  58. [65]

    Bradlyn and P

    B. Bradlyn and P. Abbamonte, Spectral density and sum rules for second-order response functions, Physical Re- view B 110, 245132 (2024)

    2024

  59. [66]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Chiral photocurrent in parity-violating magnet and enhanced response in topo- logical antiferromagnet, Physical Review X 11, 011001 (2021)

    2021

  60. [67]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Quantum nonlinear Hall effect induced by Berry curvature dipole in time-reversal in- variant materials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  61. [68]

    Z. Z. Du, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Nonlinear Hall effects, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 744–752 (2021)

    2021

  62. [69]

    W. J. Jankowski and R.-J. Slager, Quantized inte- grated shift effect in multigap topological phases, Physi- cal Review Letters 133, 10.1103/physrevlett.133.186601 (2024)

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    Liu, W.-Y

    G.-B. Liu, W.-Y. Shan, Y. Yao, W. Yao, and D. Xiao, Three-band tight-binding model for monolayers of group- 8 VIB transition metal dichalcogenides, Physical Review B 88, 085433 (2013)

    2013

  64. [72]

    The chemical potential can be adjusted in a monolayer TMD device via dual-gating, and transitions involving the lowest band are well-separated in frequency from the transitions of interest

  65. [73]

    C. M. Puetter and H.-Y. Kee, Identifying spin-triplet pairing in spin-orbit coupled multi-band superconduc- tors, Europhysics Letters 98, 27010 (2012)

    2012

  66. [74]

    A. W. Lindquist and H.-Y. Kee, Distinct reduction of Knight shift in superconducting state of Sr 2RuO4 under uniaxial strain, Physical Review Research 2, 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.032055 (2020). 9 — Supplementary Material — Second-order optical conductivity in the length gauge...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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