Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Magnetic Field Induced Nonlinear Transport in LaTiO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ Interfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetic field can completely reverse the direction of nonlinear current in a Rashba oxide interface.

desk verdict New and testable sign-reversal prediction, but the central cancellation is under-supported by the analytics as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18854 v1 pith:4HCJ5NT6 submitted 2025-07-25 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Aidan Steineman , Maxim Khodas , Maxim Dzero This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords secondharmonicgenerationRashbaspin-orbitcouplingWignerkineticequationnonlineartransportLaTiO3/SrO3interfacein-planemagneticfieldbandcrossingdisorderscattering
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

This paper argues that the second harmonic of the nonlinear current in a two-dimensional Rashba spin-orbit coupled electron gas under an in-plane magnetic field does not simply peak and decay near the band-crossing field, as an earlier reading of experiments suggested. Instead, the second harmonic grows linearly at small fields, reaches a maximum whose position and width are controlled by the disorder parameter $\varepsilon_F\tau$, then passes through zero and reverses direction at a critical field $B_0$ close to the field $B_c$ where the two spin-orbit split bands cross at the chemical potential. The authors obtain this from the quantum kinetic (Wigner) equation solved to second order in the electric field in the chiral basis, with the disorder collision integral replaced by a relaxation-time term. They trace the reversal to a cancellation between equal and opposite contributions of the two chiral bands when the Dirac point sits at the Fermi level. The claim matters because a sign-changing, disorder-sensitive second harmonic gives a sharp experimental signature of the band crossing and constrains how clean the interface must be.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimensionless second-harmonic kernel $J_2(B,\omega)$ of Eq. (20): \[ J_2(B,\omega)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\left(\frac{\mu}{\omega}\right)^2 \int $d^{2}$k\,\frac{k_x\sum_{n=1}^2[\vartheta(\xi_{kn}+\omega)+\vartheta(\xi_{kn}-\omega)-2\vartheta(\xi_{kn})]}{(1-i\omega\tau)^2+4\$tau^{2}$ $b_k^{2}$}, \] where $\xi_{kn}=\epsilon_{kn}-\mu$ are the two Rashba-Zeeman dispersions and $b_k=|\alpha_{\mathrm{so}}(k\times e_z)+g\mu_B B|$. The step-function combination enforces the kinematic constraint that only states within $\pm\omega$ of the Fermi surface participate, and the denominator carries the relaxation-time disorder dependence. In the low-frequency limit the integral collapses to an angular average $\int_0^{2\pi} d\varphi\, I_\omega(Q,\varphi)\cos\varphi$; the sign reversal is governed by the numerically observed property that $I_\omega(Q_*,\varphi)$ becomes $\varphi$-independent at $Q_*\approx Q_{\mathrm{cr}}=1$, making the cosine integral vanish. The chiral basis diagonalizes the spin-orbit plus Zeeman Hamiltonian, and the calculation drops the full collision integral while retaining $\tau^{-1}$ in $z_\omega=-i\omega+\tau^{-1}$.

What would settle it

Measure the second-harmonic longitudinal resistance $R^{2\omega}(B)$ on a clean (111) LaTiO3/SrTiO3 interface with $\varepsilon_F\tau\sim 10$ in the low-frequency limit $\omega\tau\ll 1$, sweeping the in-plane field through $B_c=\alpha_{\mathrm{so}}p_F/(g\mu_B)$; the prediction is a linear rise at small $B$, a peak near $B_c$, a zero, and a sign reversal at $B_0$, while observing no sign change would falsify it. On the theory side, recomputing $J_2(B,\omega)$ with the full collision integral retained would settle whether the cancellation survives beyond the relaxation-time approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the second-harmonic current density along the field-driven direction has the form $j_x^{(2\omega)} \propto (\alpha_{\mathrm{so}}/\Omega_{\mathrm{so}})^3 J_2(B,\omega) E_x^2$, and that the dimensionless function $J_2(B,\omega)$ is not monotone in the in-plane field. At small $B$ the response is linear in $B$; it rises to a maximum near $B_c=\alpha_{\mathrm{so}}p_F/(g\mu_B)$; then numerical evaluation of the momentum integral shows that $J_2$ vanishes at a field $B_0\approx B_c$ and changes sign, before decaying to zero at very large fields. Vanishing occurs because at $Q_*\approx Q_{\mathrm{cr}}=1$ the angular integrand $I_\omega(Q_*,\varphi)$ becomes independent of $\varphi$, so its $\cos\varphi$ average over the Fermi surface is zero; the two chiral bands give contributions equal in magnitude and opposite in sign. The position of the maximum and the width of the peak are controlled by $\varepsilon_F\tau$, so cleaner interfaces with $\varepsilon_F\tau\sim 10$ produce sharper peaks near $B_c$. The paper stresses that this differs from the earlier picture in which the nonlinear response simply disappears above the critical field, and that the reversal is independent of the field direction while its precise location depends weakly on $\varepsilon_F\tau$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the relaxation-time approximation, which drops the full collision integral while keeping $\tau^{-1}$ in the denominators, still captures the field dependence of the second harmonic, so the cancellation behind the sign reversal is not an artifact of that approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sweeping the in-plane field through $B_c$ should produce a peak, a zero, and a sign reversal in the second-harmonic longitudinal resistance $R^{2\omega}$, rather than the response simply vanishing above the critical field.
  • The field $B_0$ at which the sign changes stays close to the band-crossing field $B_c$ and depends only weakly on disorder, so measuring the zero crossing gives a direct estimate of $g\mu_B B_c = \alpha_{\mathrm{so}}p_F$.
  • The width and height of the second-harmonic peak are set by $\varepsilon_F\tau$; observing how the peak sharpens in cleaner samples would confirm the disorder mechanism, and the experimental interfaces are best described in the diffusive limit $p_F l \sim 1$.
  • At small fields the second harmonic grows linearly with $B$, as required by the symmetry argument that the only available vector combinations involve $\mathbf{e}_z\times B$.
  • The sign-changing second harmonic should be observable only in fairly clean interfaces, with $\varepsilon_F\tau\sim 10$, and at fields at or above those previously reported.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the zero crossing $B_0$ could serve as a transport-only marker of the band-crossing field in oxide interfaces, locating the Dirac point without angle-resolved photoemission.
  • The same chiral-band cancellation should appear in other Rashba two-dimensional systems with a tunable in-plane Zeeman field; the kernel $J_2(B,\omega)$ transfers with only the dispersion and $b_k$ changed.
  • A finite-frequency measurement with $\omega\tau\sim 1$ should expose the resonant interband structure near the spin-orbit splitting, testing the off-diagonal terms that the paper sets aside.
  • Symmetry-breaking perturbations such as strain or a small out-of-plane field should introduce a Berry-dipole-like contribution that shifts or masks the reversal; mapping that crossover would delimit the regime where the prediction applies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a quantum kinetic theory of nonlinear transport for a two-dimensional Rashba spin-orbit coupled electron gas with an in-plane magnetic field, motivated by experiments on (111) LaTiO3/SrTiO3 interfaces. Using a Wigner-distribution kinetic equation in a relaxation-time approximation, the authors compute the second-harmonic current density J2(B,ω). They report three main results: (i) at small fields J2 grows linearly with B; (ii) J2 exhibits a disorder-dependent peak near the band-crossing field Bc where the Rashba-split bands touch at the chemical potential; and (iii) J2 changes sign at a field B0 near Bc, with the sign reversal attributed to equal and opposite contributions from the two chiral bands.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, the sign reversal and its dependence on εFτ constitute a falsifiable, experimentally accessible signature that goes beyond the earlier theory used to interpret the LaTiO3/SrTiO3 measurements (Tuvia et al., PRL 132, 146301). The calculation is a direct derivation from a model Hamiltonian with no free parameters tuned to the target result, and the paper gives explicit expressions that can be evaluated numerically. The main conceptual value is the prediction of a sign change rather than a simple peak in the second-harmonic response, which would discriminate between alternative mechanisms. The numerical and analytical support for this central prediction is presently incomplete, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (23)] The analytic evidence for the zero crossing is not valid as written. The definition λ_n = (−1)^2(α_so/v_F) is independent of the band index n, and β_n and β~_n are also n-independent, so the sum over n in Eq. (23) is simply twice the n=1 contribution and cannot produce the claimed cancellation between the two chiral bands. The text likely intends λ_n = (−1)^n(α_so/v_F) or an equivalent band-dependent quantity, but as written the equation does not demonstrate the 'opposite in sign but equal in magnitude' contributions invoked in the text. Furthermore, Eq. (23) is evaluated at the single angle φ=π, and the statement that 'the same result can be found for other values of φ' is an assertion without derivation or supporting appendix. Since the φ-independence of I_ω(Q*,φ) is the entire mechanism by which ∫ dφ cosφ I_ω(Q*,φ) vanishes in Eq. (21), this missing proof is load-bearing for the sign-reversal claim.
  2. [Section II B and Section III, Eqs. (9)-(11), (20)] The calculation drops the full collision integral (11) while retaining a finite τ^{-1} in z_ω and z_{2ω} in the kinetic equation and in the current. The text states that disorder is 'weak enough' for the collision integral to be ignored, but this is not a derivation, and the retained 1/τ terms are the only source of the disorder dependence in Figs. 2 and 3, including the position of the peak and the zero-crossing field B0. Because the central claim includes a specific εFτ dependence, the relaxation-time approximation must either be derived from Eq. (11) under controlled conditions or its sensitivity to the form of the collision integral must be tested. Without this step, the disorder dependence of the sign change is an uncontrolled consequence of the approximation.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 2 and Eqs. (20)-(22)] The manuscript does not state whether Fig. 2 is computed directly from the frequency-dependent expression (20) or from the ωτ≪1 reduced expression (21)-(22). If Fig. 2 uses the simplified Eq. (21), the sign reversal has not been shown to persist for finite ωτ, where Eq. (20) contains resonant interband structure. If Fig. 2 uses Eq. (20) directly, then the angular-independence discussion of I_ω is not necessary for the numerical result, and the text should say so. This distinction matters because the zero crossing is the headline result, and the current text presents its mechanism as an unproven numerical coincidence rather than as a demonstrated property of the defining integral.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (19)] The prefactor Ω_so = (α_so p_F/τ^2)^{1/3} appears dimensionally inconsistent: α_so p_F has units of energy, so α_so p_F/τ^2 has units of energy divided by time squared, and its cube root is not an energy. Please verify the definition or provide the units explicitly.
  2. [Eq. (B1)] The second and third terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (B1) are identical as written; presumably one term should differ, for example in the placement of the factor (ηE)_αα or in the frequency denominator. Please correct the typo.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that 'the positions of the maximum and minimum depend on the value of the dimensionless parameter εFτ', but Fig. 2 is computed for a fixed εFτ=10 and varies the field direction φ; the dependence on εFτ is shown in Fig. 3. The caption should be reworded to avoid this mismatch.
  4. [Section III, after Eq. (20)] The sentence 'the pre-factor guarantees that this expression remains finite in the limit ω→0' is insufficient; the behavior of J2 as ω→0 should be demonstrated explicitly, especially because the integral involves differences of step functions and the prefactor contains (μ/ω)^2.
  5. [Section I, Introduction] The statement that 'by virtue of the kinematic constraints imposed by the arguments of the single-particle distribution function the second harmonic must become vanishingly small' is presented as a conclusion before the derivation; at that point it should be clearly labeled as a heuristic expectation to be verified by the calculation, not as an established kinematic constraint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the second-harmonic result is derived from the model Hamiltonian via a kinetic equation, with no fitted parameters or results that reduce to inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: it starts from a model Hamiltonian (Eq. 2), derives a quantum kinetic equation (Eq. 9), computes the linear response (Eq. 18), and then evaluates the second-harmonic current (Eqs. 19–20) directly from the model. No parameter is fitted to any target result; the sign reversal of J2(B,ω) emerges from numerical evaluation of the integral in Eq. (20), not from a definition or a fitted input. The only self-citation is Ref. 34, used for the kinetic-equation formalism and a qualitative statement about ac resonance; this is a methodological dependency, not a result that encodes the answer. The paper is self-contained against the experimental motivation (Ref. 32) and does not rename or repackage a known result. The numerical reliance on the φ-independence of Iω(Q,φ) at Q* and the unproven 'same result for other φ' are correctness concerns (possible omitted proof or typo in Eq. 23), but they do not make the derivation circular, because the central claim does not reduce to an input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is low.

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

The central claim rests on a model Hamiltonian (2) and a kinetic equation (9) taken from prior work, plus a set of approximations: weak disorder with the collision integral dropped, mirror symmetry, zero temperature. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced, and no parameter is fitted to experimental data.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Wigner distribution function obeys the kinetic equation (9) with collision integral (11), as derived following Refs. 34 and 35.
    The kinetic equation is the foundation of the calculation; it is borrowed from prior work, including an unpublished preprint by one of the authors (Ref. 34).
  • domain assumption Disorder is weak enough that the collision integral can be ignored, yet the relaxation rate τ^{-1} is retained in the response functions zω.
    This approximation is stated in Section II B; it is load-bearing because the disorder dependence of the peak and sign change is computed through τ in zω and ζ, not through the full collision integral.
  • domain assumption Mirror symmetry is preserved in the model, so the Berry curvature dipole and off-diagonal velocity contributions vanish.
    Invoked in Section III and Appendix B2; the vanishing is asserted to be confirmable by direct calculation, but the calculation is not shown.
  • domain assumption Zero temperature and non-interacting electrons; the Hamiltonian (2) with Rashba and Zeeman terms describes the LaTiO3/SrTiO3 interface.
    The model omits electron-electron interactions and orbital effects; these are standard simplifications but are not justified for this specific interface.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Field Induced Nonlinear Transport in LaTiO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ Interfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4HCJ5NT6

@misc{pith2026250718854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Field Induced Nonlinear Transport in LaTiO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ Interfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4HCJ5NT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18854}
}
abstract

Motivated by the recent experimental measurements of the nonlinear longitudinal resistance of the spin-orbit coupled electron gas in the (111) LaTiO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ interfaces under external in-plane magnetic field [G. Tuvia \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 146301 (2024)], we formulate a theory of nonlinear electronic transport based on the analysis of the quantum kinetic equation for the Wigner distribution function. Specifically, we evaluate the magnetic field dependence of the second harmonic of the current density at arbitrary values of the magnetic field. The magnitude of the second harmonic increases linearly with the magnetic field at small fields. Upon further increase of the magnetic field, the second harmonic response reaches its maximum value. We find that the position of the peak and its width strongly depend on the relaxation rate due to disorder. Importantly, we discover that the direction of the nonlinear contribution to the current can be completely reversed when the magnetic field reaches a certain critical value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18854 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Dependence of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Dependence of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Dependence of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yu, Y.-H

    P. Yu, Y.-H. Chu, and R. Ramesh, ``Oxide interfaces: pathways to novel phenomena,'' Materials Today , vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 320--327, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Ravindran, J

    K. Ravindran, J. K. Dey, A. Keshri, B. Roul, S. B. Krupanidhi, and S. Das, ``Topological phenomena at the oxide interfaces,'' Materials for Quantum Technology , vol. 3, p. 012002, mar 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    A. F. Santander-Syro, F. Fortuna, C. Bareille, T. C. R \"o del, G. Landolt, N. C. Plumb, J. H. Dil, and M. Radovi \'c , ``Giant spin splitting of the two-dimensional electron gas at the surface of SrTiO_3 ,'' Nature Materials , vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1085--1090, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    LaShell, B

    S. LaShell, B. A. McDougall, and E. Jensen, ``Spin splitting of an Au (111) surface state band observed with angle resolved photoelectron spectroscopy,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 77, pp. 3419--3422, Oct 1996

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Manchon, H

    A. Manchon, H. C. Koo, J. Nitta, S. M. Frolov, and R. A. Duine, ``New perspectives for Rashba spin--orbit coupling,'' Nature Materials , vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 871--882, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    P. He, S. M. Walker, S. S.-L. Zhang, F. Y. Bruno, M. S. Bahramy, J. M. Lee, R. Ramaswamy, K. Cai, O. Heinonen, G. Vignale, F. Baumberger, and H. Yang, ``Observation of out-of-plane spin texture in a SrTiO _ 3 (111) two-dimensional electron gas,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 120, p. 266802, Jun 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Lesne, Y

    E. Lesne, Y. G. Sa g lam, R. Battilomo, M. T. Mercaldo, T. C. van Thiel, U. Filippozzi, C. Noce, M. Cuoco, G. A. Steele, C. Ortix, and A. D. Caviglia, ``Designing spin and orbital sources of Berry curvature at oxide interfaces,'' Nature Materials , vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 576--582, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    P. K. Rout, I. Agireen, E. Maniv, M. Goldstein, and Y. Dagan, ``Six-fold crystalline anisotropic magnetoresistance in the (111) LaAlO _ 3 / SrTiO _ 3 oxide interface,'' Phys. Rev. B , vol. 95, p. 241107, Jun 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Choe, M.-J

    D. Choe, M.-J. Jin, S.-I. Kim, H.-J. Choi, J. Jo, I. Oh, J. Park, H. Jin, H. C. Koo, B.-C. Min, S. Hong, H.-W. Lee, S.-H. Baek, and J.-W. Yoo, ``Gate-tunable giant nonreciprocal charge transport in noncentrosymmetric oxide interfaces,'' Nature Communications , vol. 10, no. 1, ...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Ben Shalom, M

    M. Ben Shalom, M. Sachs, D. Rakhmilevitch, A. Palevski, and Y. Dagan, ``Tuning spin-orbit coupling and superconductivity at the SrTiO _ 3 / LaAlO _ 3 interface: A magnetotransport study,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 104, p. 126802, Mar 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    Rakhmilevitch, M

    D. Rakhmilevitch, M. Ben Shalom, M. Eshkol, A. Tsukernik, A. Palevski, and Y. Dagan, ``Phase coherent transport in SrTiO _ 3 / LaAlO _ 3 interfaces,'' Phys. Rev. B , vol. 82, p. 235119, Dec 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    P. K. Rout, E. Maniv, and Y. Dagan, ``Link between the superconducting dome and spin-orbit interaction in the (111) LaAlO _ 3 /SrTi O _ 3 interface,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 119, p. 237002, Dec 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Joshua, S

    A. Joshua, S. Pecker, J. Ruhman, E. Altman, and S. Ilani, ``A universal critical density underlying the physics of electrons at the LaAlO_3 / SrTiO_3 interface,'' Nature Communications , vol. 3, no. 1, p. 1129, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Joshua, J

    A. Joshua, J. Ruhman, S. Pecker, E. Altman, and S. Ilani, ``Gate-tunable polarized phase of two-dimensional electrons at the LaAlO_3 SrTiO_3 interface,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 110, no. 24, pp. 9633--9638, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Biscaras, N

    J. Biscaras, N. Bergeal, A. Kushwaha, T. Wolf, A. Rastogi, R. C. Budhani, and J. Lesueur, ``Two-dimensional superconductivity at a mott insulator/band insulator interface LaTiO_3 / SrTiO_3 ,'' Nature Communications , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 89, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Ideue, K

    T. Ideue, K. Hamamoto, S. Koshikawa, M. Ezawa, S. Shimizu, Y. Kaneko, Y. Tokura, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Iwasa, ``Bulk rectification effect in a polar semiconductor,'' Nature Physics , vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 578--583, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Isobe, S.-Y

    H. Isobe, S.-Y. Xu, and L. Fu, ``High-frequency rectification via chiral Bloch electrons,'' Science Advances , vol. 6, no. 13, p. eaay2497, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    P. He, H. Isobe, D. Zhu, C.-H. Hsu, L. Fu, and H. Yang, ``Quantum frequency doubling in the topological insulator Bi_2Se_3 ,'' Nature Communications , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 698, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Y. M. Itahashi, T. Ideue, Y. Saito, S. Shimizu, T. Ouchi, T. Nojima, and Y. Iwasa, ``Nonreciprocal transport in gate-induced polar superconductor SrTiO_3 ,'' Science Advances , vol. 6, no. 13, p. eaay9120, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Y. M. Itahashi, T. Ideue, S. Hoshino, C. Goto, H. Namiki, T. Sasagawa, and Y. Iwasa, ``Giant second harmonic transport under time-reversal symmetry in a trigonal superconductor,'' Nature Communications , vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1659, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Battilomo, N

    R. Battilomo, N. Scopigno, and C. Ortix, ``Anomalous planar Hall effect in two-dimensional trigonal crystals,'' Phys. Rev. Res. , vol. 3, p. L012006, Jan 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    He, C.-H

    P. He, C.-H. Hsu, S. Shi, K. Cai, J. Wang, Q. Wang, G. Eda, H. Lin, V. M. Pereira, and H. Yang, ``Nonlinear magnetotransport shaped by Fermi surface topology and convexity,'' Nature Communications , vol. 10, no. 1, p. 1290, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    E. J. K\"onig, M. Dzero, A. Levchenko, and D. A. Pesin, ``Gyrotropic Hall effect in Berry-curved materials,'' Phys. Rev. B , vol. 99, p. 155404, Apr 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    E. Deyo, L. E. Golub, E. L. Ivchenko, and B. Spivak, ``Semiclassical theory of the photogalvanic effect in non-centrosymmetric systems,'' arXiv:0904.1917 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, ``Quantum nonlinear Hall effect induced by Berry curvature dipole in time-reversal invariant materials,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 115, p. 216806, Nov 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    T. Low, Y. Jiang, and F. Guinea, ``Topological currents in black phosphorus with broken inversion symmetry,'' Phys. Rev. B , vol. 92, p. 235447, Dec 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    J. I. Facio, D. Efremov, K. Koepernik, J.-S. You, I. Sodemann, and J. van den Brink, ``Strongly enhanced Berry dipole at topological phase transitions in BiTeI ,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 121, p. 246403, Dec 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    J.-S. You, S. Fang, S.-Y. Xu, E. Kaxiras, and T. Low, ``Berry curvature dipole current in the transition metal dichalcogenides family,'' Phys. Rev. B , vol. 98, p. 121109, Sep 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Sun, and B. Yan, ``Berry curvature dipole in Weyl semimetal materials: an ab initio study,'' Phys. Rev. B , vol. 97, p. 041101, Jan 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Z. Z. Du, C. M. Wang, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, ``Band signatures for strong nonlinear Hall effect in bilayer WTe _ 2 ,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 121, p. 266601, Dec 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Choe, M.-J

    D. Choe, M.-J. Jin, S.-I. Kim, H.-J. Choi, J. Jo, I. Oh, J. Park, H. Jin, H. C. Koo, B.-C. Min, S. Hong, H.-W. Lee, S.-H. Baek, and J.-W. Yoo, ``Gate-tunable giant nonreciprocal charge transport in non-centrosymmetric oxide interfaces,'' Nature Communications , vol. 10, no. 1,...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Tuvia, A

    G. Tuvia, A. Burshtein, I. Silber, A. Aharony, O. Entin-Wohlman, M. Goldstein, and Y. Dagan, ``Enhanced nonlinear response by manipulating the Dirac point at the (111) LaTiO _ 3 / SrTiO _ 3 interface,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 132, p. 146301, Apr 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, ``Quantum nonlinear H all effect induced by B erry curvature dipole in time-reversal invariant materials,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 115, p. 216806, Nov 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Dzero, J

    M. Dzero, J. Hasan, and A. Levchenko, ``Resonant second harmonic generation in a two-dimensional electron system,'' arXiv:2411.10852 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. V. Shytov, E. G. Mishchenko, H.-A. Engel, and B. I. Halperin, ``Small-angle impurity scattering and the spin H all conductivity in two-dimensional semiconductor systems,'' Phys. Rev. B , vol. 73, p. 075316, Feb 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    E. Deyo, L. E. Golub, E. L. Ivchenko, and B. Spivak, ``Semiclassical theory of the photogalvanic effect in non-centrosymmetric systems,'' 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    V. M. Edel'shtein, ``Second-harmonic generation in two-dimensional systems without inversion centers,'' Sov. Phys. - JETP , vol. 68, p. 1446, 1988

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.