Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Visible and Terahertz Nonlinear Responses in the Topological Noble Metal Dichalcogenide PdTe2

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The centrosymmetric semimetal PdTe2 shows strong second- and third-order nonlinear optical responses in both visible and terahertz light: second-harmonic generation peaks near 2.9 eV via topological surface states, while terahertz gain come

desk verdict Solid visible NLO characterization of PdTe2, but the THz chi2/chi3 extraction is underdetermined by the authors' own admission—abstract overclaims. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.11493 v3 pith:O4OUILRU submitted 2025-11-14 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

George J. de Coster , Lucas Lafeta , Stefan Heiserer , Cormac Ó Coileáin , Zdenek Sofer , Achim Hartschuh , Georg S. Duesberg , Paul Seifert This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords PdTe2topologicalDiracsemimetalsecond-harmonicgenerationterahertzspectroscopyfour-wavemixingsurfacestatesharmonicphotocurrent
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

PdTe2, a type-II Dirac semimetal with an inversion-symmetric crystal lattice, is shown to produce strong second- and third-order nonlinear optical responses in two very different frequency ranges: visible light and terahertz radiation. Visible second-harmonic generation follows the surface symmetry of the crystal and is resonantly enhanced near 2.9 eV, which the authors attribute to optical transitions between topological surface-state Dirac points. In the terahertz range, reflected spectra show gain at low and high frequencies, and a power-dependence analysis based on a radiative photocurrent model assigns the high-frequency gain to third-harmonic generation and the near-DC gain to a second-order process. If these claims hold, PdTe2 could function as a single material for terahertz frequency mixing, rectification, and beam focusing, offering a pathway to next-generation sensors and detectors.

What carries the argument

The key analytical objects are (i) the radiative photocurrent model, which writes the emitted terahertz field as proportional to the time derivative of a current j = σ(1)*E + σ(2)*E^2 + σ(3)*E^3, and through the power-dependence relation |E_rad|^2 = |χ1 P^{1/2} + χ2 P + χ3 P^{3/2}|^2 yields linear, second-order, and third-order coefficients at each frequency; (ii) injection- and shift-current response kernels with finite lifetimes, used to reproduce the near-DC THz peak and identify the second-order mechanism as an injection current; and (iii) for the visible data, the computed joint density of states of PdTe2, which locates the SHG resonance near 2.9 eV, complemented by C3v surface point-gr

What would settle it

Re-measure the THz power dependence with a narrowband or frequency-tunable source at a few discrete frequencies; if the radiated intensity in the 'gain' bands does not scale separately as P^2 and P^3, the claimed fingerprints of both second- and third-order processes would be falsified. Alternatively, a helicity-dependent photocurrent measurement that fails to show the predicted injection-current response would refute the near-DC mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that PdTe2 hosts measurable second- and third-order nonlinear optical responses in two widely separated spectral bands, despite its centrosymmetric 1T structure. Visible second-harmonic generation obeys the C3v surface point group, scales quadratically with pump power, and reaches maximum efficiency near 2.8–2.95 eV, matching a joint-density-of-states calculation and the energy separation between the topological surface-state Dirac points. Degenerate four-wave mixing confirms a third-order process with cubic power scaling and the expected polarization symmetry. In the terahertz regime, reflection measurements show the radiated spectrum exceeding the re

Load-bearing premise

The THz assignment of spectral gain to third-harmonic generation versus a second-order process assumes the quadratic and cubic terms in the power-dependence fit are separable, but the paper notes they become nearly collinear with the dominant linear response over the available power range, so the fit can converge to one higher-order term rather than distributing weight across both.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single material could perform frequency upconversion and rectification across the visible-to-THz range, enabling compact THz sources and detectors without cryogenic or transmission-geometry constraints.
  • The SHG resonance tied to topological surface-state Dirac points suggests that electrostatic gating or thickness control could tune the nonlinear response, since the surface states can be modified.
  • THz reflection geometry, open to air, works for nonlinear spectroscopy of materials where transmission is impossible, expanding the range of candidate materials.
  • The near-DC second-order signal implies low-energy photocurrent generation, making PdTe2 a candidate for THz photodetection and nonlinear Hall effect studies.
  • Because THG is the sister process of fundamental enhancement, PdTe2 may be usable for self-focusing or refocusing of THz pulses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The acknowledged collinearity between the quadratic and cubic terms in the THz power fit makes the quantitative split between SHG and THG coefficients fragile; a narrowband THz source would test whether the gain bands independently scale as P^2 and P^3.
  • The JDOS match is a phenomenological proxy; a first-principles calculation of the full χ(2) tensor would determine whether the 2.9 eV resonance is genuinely driven by surface states or by bulk interband contributions.
  • If the near-DC response is an injection current, helicity-dependent photocurrent measurements—which the authors propose—could confirm the mechanism and measure its lifetime directly.
  • Since the THz spot is much larger than the visible one, the THz second-order signal may include contributions from defects and edges; comparing exfoliated monolayer or patterned samples would isolate the intrinsic surface response.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports nonlinear optical measurements on single-crystal PdTe2 in two spectral regimes. In the visible, it presents SHG with quadratic power dependence and C3v-compatible six-fold polarization symmetry, with a resonant enhancement near 2.9 eV attributed to topological surface states; it also presents degenerate four-wave mixing with the expected quadratic-in-pump/linear-in-probe scaling. In the THz regime, it reports reflected-pulse spectra showing spectral gain in certain bands and fits the power dependence to a sum of linear, second-order, and third-order terms (Eq. 4). The authors then interpret the THz response within a radiative-photocurrent framework, using injection/shift-current kernels with adjustable lifetimes, and conclude that they have extracted fingerprints of both second- and third-order THz processes, with an injection-current lifetime of about 100 fs.

Significance. If the THz claims were fully supported, the paper would be a valuable demonstration of broadband second- and third-order nonlinear activity in a centrosymmetric type-II Dirac semimetal, with potential relevance for THz frequency mixing and rectification. The visible SHG/FWM measurements are a solid contribution: the power scalings and polarization patterns are internally consistent, the JDOS comparison is plausible, and the resonant-enhancement interpretation is well motivated. The paper also benefits from a clear presentation of the photocurrent framework. However, the central abstract claim to have 'extracted fingerprints of both second- and third-order processes in the THz regime' is not established by the current analysis. The paper itself admits that the quadratic and cubic terms are nearly collinear over the available power range, and no identifiability analysis is provided. The THz interpretation therefore needs substantial strengthening before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (4), Fig. 5] The central THz claim rests on the fit of |E_rad(f,P)|^2 = |chi1 P^{1/2} + chi2 P + chi3 P^{3/2}|^2. The authors explicitly concede in Sec. IV that 'over the limited available power range with dominant linear response they become nearly collinear. Consequently, the fit converges to the dominant higher-order term rather than distributing weight across both.' This is a model-identifiability failure. With only real-valued intensity data and three complex coefficients per frequency, the near-collinearity means chi2 and chi3 cannot be uniquely extracted. No error bars, confidence ellipses, or covariance estimates are reported, so the apparent separation in Fig. 5(b) may be an artifact of the fitting procedure. To support the claim of extracting both second- and third-order fingerprints, the authors need to demonstrate simultaneous identifiability, e.g., by reporting parameter uncertainties, p
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 6 and Appendix B/C] The interpretation of the near-DC second-order response as an injection current with tau_inj ~ 100 fs is circular. The model contains free parameters (tau_inj, tau_sh, sigma_inj, sigma_sh), and the authors select tau ~ 100 fs because it 'more closely matches the data in Fig. 5' — the same power-dependence data used to identify the nonlinear orders. This does not independently validate the injection-current mechanism; it only shows that the model family is flexible enough to reproduce the measured spectra. An independent test is required, such as helicity-dependent photocurrent measurements, a different pump-pulse duration, or direct time-resolved current detection. The conclusion's statement that the authors 'extracted both second and third order NLO processes' is therefore overstated.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) assumes the nonlinear response kernels are constant over the incoming THz spectrum. However, the later analysis in Fig. 6 introduces strongly frequency- and lifetime-dependent kernels for injection and shift currents. Using the constant-kernel approximation to compute 'theoretical' second- and third-order spectra, then comparing them qualitatively with the power-dependence results, conflates two different models. In addition, the atmospheric-transmission correction is applied to the theoretical spectra but not consistently to the experimental spectra, making the comparison of peak positions (e.g., 1.75 THz vs. 1.5 THz) ambiguous. The authors should state explicitly which model is being tested and should apply the same transfer function to both experiment and theory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.B heading] The heading 'F our-W ave Mixing' contains a formatting typo; it should read 'Four-Wave Mixing'.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says 'Se atoms shown in blue' but the compound is PdTe2; this should be Te atoms.
  3. [Sec. III.A] The sentence 'Figure 2(c) next presents the the spectra' has a duplicated 'the'.
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 6 discussion] The text refers to a 'SHG peak at ~1.75 eV' in the THz context; these are THz frequencies, so the label should be 'second-order response peak at ~1.75 THz' rather than 'SHG peak at ~1.75 eV'.
  5. [Appendix C] The phrase 'the reected and incoming pulses' is missing an 'f' in 'reflected'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; THz chi2/chi3 decomposition is underdetermined but not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The visible SHG/FWM results are self-contained: quadratic/cubic power scaling and six-fold C3v polarization patterns are independent experimental checks, and the JDOS overlay is a comparative sketch rather than a derivation that presumes the conclusion. The THz analysis uses Eq. (4), |E_rad|^2 = |chi1 P^1/2 + chi2 P + chi3 P^3/2|^2, as a phenomenological decomposition; the paper itself warns (Section IV) that over the available power range the quadratic and cubic terms are 'nearly collinear' and the fit 'converges to the dominant higher-order term rather than distributing weight across both.' That is an identifiability/overclaim problem, not a circularity: the fitted chi2/chi3 coefficients are not renamed as independent predictions, and the later theoretical spectra (Eq. 6) are computed from the measured input pulse, then compared to the same data after post hoc choice of tau_inj ~ 100 fs. This is model fitting with an acknowledged degeneracy, not a reduction of the output to the input by construction. The self-citations (refs. 6, 9, 36) are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. I could not exhibit any equation that equals its input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main assumptions are the radiative photocurrent relation, the flat-kernel approximation, and the surface-state resonance attribution. The THz extraction relies on several fitted parameters (lifetimes and amplitudes), and the power fit coefficients themselves are fitted quantities.

free parameters (3)
  • chi^(n) coefficients in THz power fit (per frequency) = not tabulated; extracted from fits to |E_rad(P)|^2
    The paper's central extraction of second- and third-order THz responses comes from fitting Eq. (4) to power scans; these coefficients are fitted outputs used to identify SHG/THG bands.
  • tau_inj and tau_sh (injection/shift current lifetimes) = varied 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 ps; ~100 fs chosen as best match
    In Fig. 6 the injection lifetime is tuned so its near-DC peak matches the experimental power analysis; this is a post-hoc fit to the data.
  • sigma_inj/sigma_sh amplitudes = not given; implicitly scaled to match
    Relative strengths of injection vs shift current kernels are adjusted to produce the comparison in Fig. 6.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Radiated THz field is proportional to the time-derivative of the total photocurrent, E_rad ∝ -∂_t j (Eq. 5 and Appendix B)
    The core THz analysis depends on this radiative photocurrent relation, which is not derived from first principles here and is invoked from the prior literature without independent verification for PdTe2.
  • ad hoc to paper Nonlinear response kernels σ^(n) are approximately constant over the incoming THz spectrum (Eq. 6)
    This flat-kernel approximation is used to compute predicted harmonic spectra from the measured pulse; the paper later relaxes it with phenomenological injection/shift kernels, indicating the flat kernel is an assumption.
  • domain assumption PdTe2 hosts topological surface Dirac states near the Fermi level with separation ~2.9 eV driving the SHG resonance
    Used to interpret the SHG peak as a surface-state resonance; relies on prior band-structure calculations represented only as a schematic, not a computation in this paper.
  • standard math Bulk 1T PdTe2 is centrosymmetric (D3d) and SHG arises from the C3v surface with local symmetry breaking
    Standard group-theoretical framework for surface SHG; stated in Sec. II and used to assign polarization symmetry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visible and Terahertz Nonlinear Responses in the Topological Noble Metal Dichalcogenide PdTe2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4OUILRU

@misc{pith2026251111493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visible and Terahertz Nonlinear Responses in the Topological Noble Metal Dichalcogenide PdTe2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4OUILRU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.11493}
}
abstract

Nonlinear processes can offer pathways to next-generation sensors and frequency mixing devices to overcome modern imaging, detection, and communication challenges. In this article, we report on strong second and third-order nonlinear optical responses in visible and terahertz (THz) light in single crystals of the noble metal dichalcogenide PdTe$_2$. We find that buried conduction and valence topological surface states of PdTe$_2$ lead to resonant optical second-harmonic generation. On the other hand, although the nonlinear responses obtained with THz excitation are not close to this resonance, they can be clearly observed in reflection geometry, even in the presence of broadband excitation, where optical filters are not necessary to observe the enhanced odd-order higher harmonic output. By carefully considering the radiative photocurrent framework of stimulated THz emission, we are able to extract fingerprints of both second- and third-order processes in the THz regime, and show that PdTe$_2$ is a promising material candidate for radio frequency rectification, frequency mixing, and beam focusing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.11493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a)Top view and (b) side view of 1T layered crystal structure of PdTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Optical second harmonic generation at 3 eV in PdTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Visible optical FWM probing of the third-order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Time scans of the reference injected THz pulse and that emitted by PdTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Power analysis of PdTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Second (orange) and third (green) order response spectra calculated according to Eq. (6) using the reference THz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Orenstein, J

    J. Orenstein, J. Moore, T. Morimoto, D. Torchinsky, J. Harter, and D. Hsieh, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics12, 247 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    J. Shi, H. Xu, C. Heide, C. HuangFu, C. Xia, F. de Que- sada, H. Shen, T. Zhang, L. Yu, A. Johnson, F. Liu, E. Shi, L. Jiao, T. Heinz, S. Ghimire, J. Li, J. Kong, Y. Guo, and A. M. Lindenberg, Nature Communications 14, 10.1038/s41467-023-40373-z (2023)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-40373-z 2023

  3. [3]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Physical Review Letters115, 10.1103/physrevlett.115.216806 (2015)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.216806 2015

  4. [4]

    Onishi and L

    Y. Onishi and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B110, 075122 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    H. Wu, Y. Wang, Y. Xu, P. K. Sivakumar, C. Pasco, U. Filippozzi, S. S. P. Parkin, Y.-J. Zeng, T. McQueen, and M. N. Ali, Nature604, 653–656 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    P. K. Sivakumar, M. T. Ahari, J.-K. Kim, Y. Wu, A. Dixit, G. J. de Coster, A. K. Pandeya, M. J. Gilbert, and S. S. P. Parkin, Communications Physics 7, 10.1038/s42005-024-01825-0 (2024)

    doi:10.1038/s42005-024-01825-0 2024

  7. [7]

    Liu and Q

    Y. Liu and Q. Shao, ACS Nano14, 9389–9407 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Hidding, K

    J. Hidding, K. M¨ ertiri, F. Mujid, C. Liang, J. Park, and M. H. D. Guimar˜ aes, Physical Review B108, 10.1103/physrevb.108.064419 (2023). 9

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.064419 2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    B. C. Connelly, P. J. Taylor, and G. J. de Coster, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, 10.1073/pnas.2307425121 (2024)

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Plank, J

    H. Plank, J. Pernul, S. Gebert, S. N. Danilov, J. K¨ onig- Otto, S. Winnerl, M. Lanius, J. Kampmeier, G. Mus- sler, I. Aguilera, D. Gr¨ utzmacher, and S. D. Ganichev, Physical Review Materials2, 10.1103/physrevmateri- als.2.024202 (2018)

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Xie and N

    Y.-M. Xie and N. Nagaosa, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, 10.1073/pnas.2424294122 (2025)

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    Hemmat, S

    M. Hemmat, S. Ayari, M. Miˇcica, H. Vergnet, S. Guo, M. Arfaoui, X. Yu, D. Vala, A. Wright, K. Postava, J. Mangeney, F. Carosella, S. Jaziri, Q. J. Wang, Z. Liu, J. Tignon, R. Ferreira, E. Baudin, and S. Dhillon, Info- Mat5, 10.1002/inf2.12468 (2023)

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Pan, Q.-Z

    Y. Pan, Q.-Z. Wang, A. L. Yeats, T. Pillsbury, T. C. Flanagan, A. Richardella, H. Zhang, D. D. Awschalom, C.-X. Liu, and N. Samarth, Nature Communications8, 10.1038/s41467-017-00711-4 (2017)

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    F. Hu, P. Zhao, L. Yang, S. Zhao, J. Lei, W. Li, J. Lai, Z. Yu, H. Park, C. Wong, R. Sharma, G. Eda, S. A. Yang, X. Xu, F. Wang, and H. Yang, Nature Nanotechnology 10.1038/s41565-025-01993-2 (2025)

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    Zhang and L

    Y. Zhang and L. Fu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, 10.1073/pnas.2100736118 (2021)

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    C. Yim, K. Lee, N. McEvoy, M. O’Brien, S. Riazimehr, N. C. Berner, C. P. Cullen, J. Kotakoski, J. C. Meyer, M. C. Lemme, and G. S. Duesberg, ACS Nano10, 9550–9558 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    J. B. Mc Manus, D. V. Horvath, M. P. Browne, C. P. Cullen, G. Cunningham, T. Hallam, K. Zhussupbekov, D. Mullarkey, C. ´O Coile´ ain, I. V. Shvets, M. Pumera, G. S. Duesberg, and N. McEvoy, Nanotechnology31, 375601 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Zheng, R

    W. Zheng, R. Sch¨ onemann, N. Aryal, Q. Zhou, D. Rhodes, Y.-C. Chiu, K.-W. Chen, E. Kampert, T. F¨ orster, T. J. Martin, G. T. McCandless, J. Y. Chan, E. Manousakis, and L. Balicas, Phys. Rev. B97, 235154 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    O. J. Clark, M. J. Neat, K. Okawa, L. Bawden, I. Markovi´ c, F. Mazzola, J. Feng, V. Sunko, J. M. Ri- ley, W. Meevasana, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, T. Sasagawa, P. Wahl, M. S. Bahramy, and P. D. C. King, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 156401 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    M. N. Ali, L. M. Schoop, and et al., Scientic Reports8, 15383 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    P. Das, R. V. Chopdekar, and et al., Scientic Reports 6, 31554 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Zhussupbekov, L

    K. Zhussupbekov, L. Ansari, J. B. McManus, A. Zhus- supbekova, I. V. Shvets, G. S. Duesberg, P. K. Hurley, F. Gity, C. Coile´ ain, and N. McEvoy, npj 2D Materials and Applications5, 10.1038/s41699-020-00196-8 (2021)

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Zheng, R

    W. Zheng, R. Sch¨ onemann, N. Aryal, Q. Zhou, D. Rhodes, Y.-C. Chiu, K.-W. Chen, E. Kampert, T. F¨ orster, T. J. Martin, G. T. McCandless, J. Y. Chan, E. Manousakis, and L. Balicas, arXiv (2018), reports large, non-saturating MR and mobilities∼ 103–104 cm2V−1s−1, 1805.00087

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    L. Zhao, Y. Wang, and et al., Physical Review Letters 124, 036402 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Gao, H.-P

    Q. Gao, H.-P. Komsa, A. V. Krasheninnikov, and et al., ACS Nano15, 12968 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Huang, K

    Z. Huang, K. Zhang, and et al., Materials Today Physics 11, 100161 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    S. M. Faizanuddin, C.-H. Chien, Y.-J. Chan, S.-T. Liu, C.-N. Kuo, C. S. Lue, and Y.-C. Wen, Surface second har- monic generation from topological dirac semimetal pdte 2 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    G. Wang, K. Wang, N. McEvoy, Z. Bai, C. P. Cullen, C. N. Murphy, J. B. McManus, J. J. Magan, C. M. Smith, G. S. Duesberg, I. Kaminer, J. Wang, and W. J. Blau, Small15, 10.1002/smll.201902728 (2019)

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    H. Wang, C. Zhang, and F. Rana, Nano Letters15, 8204–8210 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    L. Chu, Z. Li, H. Zhu, H. Lv, and F. Chen, Nanophotonics 13, 3457 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    C. Guo, Y. Hu, G. Chen, D. Wei, L. Zhang, Z. Chen, W. Guo, H. Xu, C.-N. Kuo, C. S. Lue, X. Bo, X. Wan, L. Wang, A. Politano, X. Chen, and W. Lu, Science Advances6, eabb6500 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abb6500

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    C. Yim, V. Passi, M. C. Lemme, G. S. Duesberg, C. ´O Coile´ ain, E. Pallecchi, D. Fadil, and N. McEvoy, npj 2D Materials and Applications2, 10.1038/s41699- 018-0051-9 (2018)

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Z. Peng, X. Chen, Y. Fan, D. J. Srolovitz, and D. Lei, Light: Science and Applications9, 10.1038/s41377-020- 00421-5 (2020)

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    X. Ge, X. Zhou, D. Sun, and X. Chen, ACS Omega8, 5715–5721 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    M. Cai, J. Zhang, Y. Chen, L. Hong, J. Fu, X. Zheng, Y. Yao, S. Zhang, Y. Liu, B. Dong, S. Chen, P. Li, G. You, J. Zhang, X. Guo, Y. Zhu, and S. Zhuang, Sci- ence Advances11, 10.1126/sciadv.adv0768 (2025)

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Heiserer, N

    S. Heiserer, N. Galfe, M. Loibl, M. Wagner, O. Hartwig, S. Schlosser, S. Boche, W. Thornley, N. Clark, K. Lee, T. Stimpel-Lindner, C. ´O Coile´ ain, J. Kiendl, S. J. Haigh, G. J. de Coster, G. S. Duesberg, and P. Seifert, Advanced Materials 10.1002/adma.202412564 (2025)

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    L. M. Malard, T. V. Alencar, A. P. M. Barboza, K. F. Mak, and A. M. de Paula, Phys. Rev. B87, 201401 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Y. Li, Y. Rao, K. F. Mak, Y. You, S. Wang, C. R. Dean, and T. F. Heinz, Nano Lett.13, 3329 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Lafeta, S

    L. Lafeta, S. Hartmann, B. Rosa, S. Reitzenstein, L. M. Malard, and A. Hartschuh, ACS Photonics12, 357 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Lafeta, A

    L. Lafeta, A. Corradi, T. Zhang, E. Kahn, I. Bilgin, B. R. Carvalho, S. Kar, M. Terrones, and L. M. Malard, 2D Materials8, 35010 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    R. W. Boyd, inNonlinear Optics (Third Edition), edited by R. W. Boyd (Academic Press, Burlington, 2008) pp. 1–67

    2008

  34. [42]

    Hsieh, J

    D. Hsieh, J. W. McIver, D. H. Torchinsky, D. R. Gardner, Y. S. Lee, and N. Gedik, Physical Review Letters106, 10.1103/physrevlett.106.057401 (2011)

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    J. W. McIver, D. Hsieh, S. G. Drapcho, D. H. Torchinsky, D. R. Gardner, Y. S. Lee, and N. Gedik, Physical Review B86, 10.1103/physrevb.86.035327 (2012)

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    Y. R. Shen,The principles of nonlinear optics(J. Wiley, New York, 1984)

    1984

  37. [45]

    J. Yu, X. Kuang, J. Li, J. Zhong, C. Zeng, L. Cao, Z. Liu, Z. Zeng, Z. Luo, T. He, A. Pan, and Y. Liu, Nature Com- munications12, 10.1038/s41467-021-21267-4 (2021)

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    S. M. Faizanuddin, C.-H. Chien, Y.-J. Chan, S.-T. Liu, 10 C.-N. Kuo, C. S. Lue, and Y.-C. Wen, Surface second har- monic generation from topological dirac semimetal pdte 2 (2024), arXiv:2308.09053 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Virga, C

    A. Virga, C. Ferrante, G. Batignani, D. De Fazio, A. D. G. Nunn, A. C. Ferrari, G. Cerullo, and T. Scopigno, Nature Communications10, 10.1038/s41467-019-11165-1 (2019)

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Gordeev, L

    G. Gordeev, L. Lafeta, B. S. Flavel, A. Jorio, and L. M. Malard, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C127, 20438 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.3c05696

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Lafeta, A

    L. Lafeta, A. R. Cadore, T. G. Mendes-de Sa, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. C. Campos, A. Jo- rio, and L. M. Malard, Nano Letters17, 3447 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b00329

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Lange, K

    L. Lange, K. Wang, S. Bange, L. Lafeta, B. Rosa, S. Reitzenstein, J. M. Lupton, and A. Hartschuh, ACS Photonics11, 3112 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.4c00388

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    X. Wen, Z. Gong, and D. Li, InfoMat1, 317 (2019), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/inf2.12024

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    Autere, H

    A. Autere, H. Jussila, Y. Dai, Y. Wang, H. Lipsanen, and Z. Sun, Adv. Mater.30, 1705963 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    M. S. Mrudul and G. Dixit, Physical Review B103, 10.1103/physrevb.103.094308 (2021)

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    W. Mao, A. Rubio, and S. A. Sato, Physical Review B 109, 10.1103/physrevb.109.045421 (2024)

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    S. A. Mikhailov, Physical Review B90, 10.1103/phys- revb.90.241301 (2014)

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    H. A. Hafez, S. Kovalev, J.-C. Deinert, Z. Mics, B. Green, N. Awari, M. Chen, S. Germanskiy, U. Lehnert, J. Te- ichert, Z. Wang, K.-J. Tielrooij, Z. Liu, Z. Chen, A. Narita, K. M¨ ullen, M. Bonn, M. Gensch, and D. Turchinovich, Nature561, 507–511 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Tielrooij, A

    K.-J. Tielrooij, A. Principi, D. S. Reig, A. Block, S. Varghese, S. Schreyeck, K. Brunner, G. Karczewski, I. Ilyakov, O. Ponomaryov, T. V. A. G. de Oliveira, M. Chen, J.-C. Deinert, C. G. Carbonell, S. O. Valen- zuela, L. W. Molenkamp, T. Kiessling, G. V. Astakhov, and S. Kova...

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    Soavi, G

    G. Soavi, G. Wang, H. Rostami, D. G. Purdie, D. De Fazio, T. Ma, B. Luo, J. Wang, A. K. Ott, D. Yoon, S. A. Bourelle, J. E. Muench, I. Goykhman, S. Dal Conte, M. Celebrano, A. Tomadin, M. Polini, G. Cerullo, and A. C. Ferrari, Nature Nanotechnology 13, 583–588 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    L. Wu, M. Brahlek, R. Vald´ es Aguilar, A. V. Stier, C. M. Morris, Y. Lubashevsky, L. S. Bilbro, N. Bansal, S. Oh, and N. P. Armitage, Nature Physics9, 410–414 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Braun, G

    L. Braun, G. Mussler, A. Hruban, M. Konczykowski, T. Schumann, M. Wolf, M. M¨ unzenberg, L. Per- fetti, and T. Kampfrath, Nature Communications7, 10.1038/ncomms13259 (2016)

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    Pettine, P

    J. Pettine, P. Padmanabhan, N. Sirica, R. P. Prasanku- mar, A. J. Taylor, and H.-T. Chen, Light: Science and Applications12, 10.1038/s41377-023-01163-w (2023)

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Avdoshkin, V

    A. Avdoshkin, V. Kozii, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 196603 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    D. E. Parker, T. Morimoto, J. Orenstein, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. B99, 045121 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Orenstein and J

    J. Orenstein and J. S. Dodge, Phys. Rev. B92, 134507 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.