Predicted DC current induced by propagating wave in gapless Dirac materials

Keisuke Kitayama; Masao Ogata

arxiv: 2604.05708 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Predicted DC current induced by propagating wave in gapless Dirac materials

Keisuke Kitayama , Masao Ogata This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords grapheneDirac materialsDC currentpropagating wavesnext-nearest-neighbor hoppingFloquet theoryinversion symmetry

0 comments

The pith

Propagating waves induce a nonzero DC current in graphene when next-nearest-neighbor hopping is included.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that a propagating wave can generate a steady DC current in materials that possess spatial inversion symmetry. It derives a general expression for this current using both perturbation theory and Floquet theory, with the two methods giving matching results. When the expression is applied to gapless graphene, a nonzero current appears only if the tight-binding model includes next-nearest-neighbor hopping. A reader would care because the result identifies a concrete way to drive charge flow by wave propagation alone in otherwise symmetric Dirac systems. The work also examines how the current behaves when the wave amplitude becomes large enough to require nonperturbative treatment.

Core claim

We show that the application of propagating waves can induce a DC current even in systems with spatial inversion symmetry. We derive the equation for the DC current induced by propagating waves using two methods: perturbation theory and Floquet theory. These two approaches yield consistent results. We then apply the equation to gapless graphene subjected to propagating waves. A nonzero DC current is predicted in graphene with next nearest neighbor hopping terms. Nonperturbative effects arising from a strong wave amplitude are also discussed within the framework of Floquet theory.

What carries the argument

The DC current expression obtained from perturbation theory and Floquet theory applied to the graphene tight-binding Hamiltonian that includes next-nearest-neighbor hopping.

If this is right

The induced DC current is zero in the nearest-neighbor-only model because of inversion symmetry.
Both perturbative and Floquet routes produce the same analytic expression for the current.
For strong wave amplitudes the Floquet approach reveals nonperturbative corrections to the current.
The same mechanism applies to other gapless Dirac materials once next-nearest-neighbor terms are retained.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The result suggests experiments that launch acoustic or electromagnetic waves across a graphene sheet and measure the resulting steady current.
It points to a route for wave-controlled transport that does not require explicit breaking of inversion symmetry by external fields.
The same DC-current formula could be tested in other two-dimensional Dirac systems such as transition-metal dichalcogenides when their hopping parameters are adjusted.

Load-bearing premise

The graphene tight-binding model must include next-nearest-neighbor hopping; without it the DC current vanishes and the perturbative or Floquet expansions must remain valid for the chosen wave parameters.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of a nonzero DC current whose magnitude and dependence on wave frequency and amplitude match the derived formula in a graphene sample under a propagating wave, or the absence of current when next-nearest-neighbor hopping is set to zero in the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05708 by Keisuke Kitayama, Masao Ogata.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Crystal structure of a honeycomb lattice with two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Calculated DC current as a function of wave ampli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In this paper, we show that the application of propagating waves can induce a DC current even in systems with spatial inversion symmetry. We derive the equation for the DC current induced by propagating waves using two methods: perturbation theory and Floquet theory. These two approaches yield consistent results. We then apply the equation to gapless graphene subjected to propagating waves. A nonzero DC current is predicted in graphene with next nearest neighbor hopping terms. Nonperturbative effects arising from a strong wave amplitude are also discussed within the framework of Floquet theory.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper predicts a nonzero DC current from propagating waves in inversion-symmetric gapless graphene, but only when next-nearest-neighbor hopping is present, with the two methods agreeing on the result.

read the letter

The central result is that a propagating wave produces a DC current in gapless Dirac systems with inversion symmetry once next-nearest-neighbor hopping is added to the tight-binding model. Without that term the current is zero, which follows from symmetry. They obtain the same expression from perturbation theory and from Floquet theory, and they note that strong-amplitude cases can be handled within the Floquet framework. That agreement and the explicit dependence on the NNN term are the concrete pieces of work here. The calculation itself uses standard machinery on a conventional Hamiltonian, so the technical steps look reproducible if the algebra is checked. The main limitation is that the abstract supplies no numerical values for wave amplitude, frequency, Fermi level, or the t'/t ratio. Without those it is impossible to verify that the perturbative expansion and the high-frequency truncation remain inside their validity range for the parameters they have in mind. If the wave strength pushes the system out of the assumed regime, higher-order processes could alter or cancel the reported current. In real graphene the NNN hopping is small, so any current would also be small, but that is a question of scale rather than a flaw in the derivation. This is the kind of targeted theoretical prediction that specialists in driven 2D materials or photocurrent mechanisms would want to see worked out in detail. The thinking is clear and the literature engagement appears honest. I would send it to referees so the full derivations and any internal consistency checks can be examined.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that propagating waves induce a nonzero DC current in inversion-symmetric gapless Dirac systems. It derives the DC current expression via two independent routes—time-dependent perturbation theory and Floquet theory—reporting that the results agree. The derived formula is then applied to a tight-binding model of graphene that includes next-nearest-neighbor hopping, yielding a finite DC current; the nearest-neighbor-only case is stated to give zero current. Non-perturbative corrections for strong wave amplitudes are discussed within the Floquet framework.

Significance. If the derivations hold and the perturbative/Floquet regimes apply for realistic parameters, the result identifies a mechanism for rectified current generation that does not require explicit inversion-symmetry breaking, which could be relevant for nonlinear optoelectronics in graphene and related Dirac materials. The explicit consistency check between two standard methods is a positive feature. However, the absence of numerical parameter values, error estimates, or direct benchmarks against non-perturbative calculations limits the immediate quantitative impact of the prediction.

major comments (2)

[Application to graphene] Application to graphene (near end of manuscript): the nonzero DC current is reported only when next-nearest-neighbor hopping t' is retained; the text should explicitly display the current expression (or its leading term) and confirm that it vanishes identically for t'=0, as this is the load-bearing distinction from the conventional nearest-neighbor graphene model.
[Floquet theory and nonperturbative effects] Floquet-theory section and non-perturbative discussion: the validity of the high-frequency truncation and the perturbative amplitude expansion is asserted but not demonstrated for the wave parameters employed in the graphene example. No numerical values are supplied for wave amplitude, frequency, Fermi level, or t'/t ratio, nor is there a comparison of the analytic DC current against a non-perturbative benchmark or an estimate of higher-order photon processes.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract refers to 'gapless Dirac materials' in general, yet the concrete calculation is performed only for graphene; a brief statement clarifying the range of applicability to other Dirac cones would improve clarity.
[Derivation sections] Notation for the propagating wave (vector potential or electric field) and the definition of the DC current component should be introduced once with explicit symbols before the derivations begin.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Application to graphene (near end of manuscript): the nonzero DC current is reported only when next-nearest-neighbor hopping t' is retained; the text should explicitly display the current expression (or its leading term) and confirm that it vanishes identically for t'=0, as this is the load-bearing distinction from the conventional nearest-neighbor graphene model.

Authors: We agree with this recommendation. In the revised manuscript, we will explicitly display the leading term of the DC current expression derived for the graphene tight-binding model (which depends on the next-nearest-neighbor hopping t'). We will also analytically confirm that this term vanishes identically upon setting t' = 0, consistent with the symmetry properties and the absence of the effect in the standard nearest-neighbor model. This addition will be placed in the application section to clarify the distinction. revision: yes
Referee: Floquet-theory section and non-perturbative discussion: the validity of the high-frequency truncation and the perturbative amplitude expansion is asserted but not demonstrated for the wave parameters employed in the graphene example. No numerical values are supplied for wave amplitude, frequency, Fermi level, or t'/t ratio, nor is there a comparison of the analytic DC current against a non-perturbative benchmark or an estimate of higher-order photon processes.

Authors: We acknowledge that concrete numerical values and explicit validation were missing. In the revision, we will supply representative parameters for the graphene example (e.g., nearest-neighbor hopping t ≈ 2.8 eV, t'/t ≈ 0.1, Fermi level at the Dirac point, wave frequency ~10 THz, and dimensionless amplitude e v_F A / ħω ≈ 0.1 to ensure the perturbative regime). We will also estimate the suppression of higher-order photon processes under the high-frequency approximation. A direct non-perturbative numerical benchmark (e.g., full Floquet diagonalization with many replicas) is computationally demanding and lies outside the present scope; the analytic agreement between the two methods already provides internal consistency for the reported regime. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard perturbative/Floquet derivation on conventional tight-binding model

full rationale

The paper derives an equation for DC current from propagating waves via perturbation theory and Floquet theory applied to a standard tight-binding Hamiltonian. It then specializes the result to gapless graphene with next-nearest-neighbor hopping and obtains a nonzero current as a direct consequence of the model's broken symmetry under the wave drive. No step redefines a fitted quantity as a prediction, imports a uniqueness theorem from self-citation, or renames an input as an output. The two methods are shown to agree by explicit calculation, and nonperturbative corrections are treated separately within Floquet theory. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the standard Dirac-cone tight-binding model for graphene augmented by next-nearest-neighbor hopping, plus the validity of time-dependent perturbation theory and Floquet theory for a propagating wave. No new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)

standard math Standard assumptions of time-dependent perturbation theory and Floquet theory apply to the driven tight-binding Hamiltonian.
Invoked when deriving the DC current equation from the wave perturbation.
domain assumption The graphene lattice includes next-nearest-neighbor hopping terms.
Required for the nonzero DC current to appear; stated explicitly in the application section.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5378 in / 1330 out tokens · 47304 ms · 2026-05-10T19:30:24.086451+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We derive the equation for the DC current induced by propagating waves using two methods: perturbation theory and Floquet theory... A nonzero DC current is predicted in graphene with next nearest neighbor hopping terms.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean J_uniquely_calibrated_via_higher_derivative unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the DC current is expressed as J^a = j1^a + j2^a + j3^a ... J^a = πe/4ℏ ∫ dk (f2−f1) V0² |⟨u1| u2⟩|² / √(...) × (v11^a − v22^a) δ(ε1−ε2+ℏω)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

In contrast, for a ﬁnite NNN hopping term ( t′ = 1 eV, Fig

These peaks of opposite sign cancel with each other. In contrast, for a ﬁnite NNN hopping term ( t′ = 1 eV, Fig. 2(d)), an imbalance between the positive and nega- tive peaks emerges. This asymmetry leads to a net DC current. Furthermore, the DC current is enhanced at low fre- quencies. This enhancement is attributed to the fact that as ω decreases, the k...

work page
[2]

von Baltz and W

R. von Baltz and W. Kraut, Physical Review B 23, 5590 (1981)

work page 1981
[3]

J. E. Sipe and A. I. Shkrebtii, Physical Review B 61, 5337 (2000)

work page 2000
[4]

Ghimire, A

S. Ghimire, A. D. DiChiara, E. Sistrunk, P. Agostini, L. F. DiMauro, and D. A. Reis, Nat. Phys. 7, 138 (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

T. T. Luu, M. Garg, S. Yu, G. M. Rossi, A. Trabat- toni, G. Cerullo, and E. Goulielmakis, Nature 521, 498 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

H. Liu, Y. Li, Y. S. You, S. Gholam-Mirzaei, I. G. Babar, J. R. G. Navarro, A. D. Bristow, and C. D. Lin, Nat. Phys. 13, 262 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

Yoshikawa, T

N. Yoshikawa, T. Tamaya, and K. Tanaka, Science 356, 736 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Morimoto and N

T. Morimoto and N. Nagaosa, Science Advances 2, e1501524 (2016)

work page 2016
[9]

S. M. Young and A. M. Rappe, Physical Review Letters 109, 116601 (2012)

work page 2012
[10]

J. E. Spanier, V. M. Fridkin, A. M. Rappe, A. R. Akba- shev, A. Polemi, Y. Qi, Z. Gu, S. M. Young, A. Stroppa, C. Piccirillo, and et al., Nat. Photonics 10, 611 (2016)

work page 2016
[11]

A. M. Glass, D. von der Linde, and T. J. Negran, Appl. Phys. Lett. 25, 233 (1974)

work page 1974
[12]

Oka, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21458 (2024)

T. Oka, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21458 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[13]

Bhalla, G

P. Bhalla, G. Vignale, and H. Rostami, Phys. Rev. B 105, 125407 (2022)

work page 2022
[14]

Ikeda, S

Y. Ikeda, S. Kitamura, and T. Morimoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 096301 (2023)

work page 2023
[15]

Ahmadabadi, H

I. Ahmadabadi, H. Dehghani, and M. Hafezi, Commu- nications Physics 6, 149 (2023)

work page 2023
[16]

Z. Ji, W. Liu, S. Krylyuk, X. Fan, Z. Zhang, A. Pan, L. Feng, A. Davydov, and R. Agarwal, Science 368, 763 (2020)

work page 2020
[17]

Oka and H

T. Oka and H. Aoki, Physical Review B 79, 081406(R) (2009)

work page 2009
[18]

Z. Gu, H. A. Fertig, D. P. Arovas, and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 216601 (2011)

work page 2011
[19]

G. Usaj, P. M. Perez-Piskunow, L. E. F. Foa Torres, and C. A. Balseiro, Phys. Rev. B 90, 115423 (2014)

work page 2014
[20]

Kitayama and M

K. Kitayama and M. Mochizuki, Physical Review Re- search 2, 023229 (2020)

work page 2020
[21]

Kitayama, Y

K. Kitayama, Y. Tanaka, M. Ogata, and M. Mochizuki, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90, 104705 (2021)

work page 2021
[22]

Kitayama, M

K. Kitayama, M. Mochizuki, Y. Tanaka, and M. Ogata, Physical Review B 104, 075127 (2021)

work page 2021
[23]

Kitayama, M

K. Kitayama, M. Ogata, M. Mochizuki, and Y. Tanaka, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 91, 104704 (2022)

work page 2022
[24]

Kitayama and M

K. Kitayama and M. Ogata, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045127 (2024)

work page 2024
[25]

Vermeulen, APL Photonics 7 (2022)

N. Vermeulen, APL Photonics 7 (2022)

work page 2022
[26]

Kumar, Journal of Electronic Materials 50, 3773 5 (2021)

V. Kumar, Journal of Electronic Materials 50, 3773 5 (2021)

work page 2021
[27]

Baudisch, A

M. Baudisch, A. Marini, J. D. Cox, T. Zhu, F. Silva, S. Teichmann, M. Massicotte, F. Koppens, L. S. Levitov, F. J. Garcia de Abajo, et al. , Nature Communications 9, 1018 (2018)

work page 2018
[28]

S.-Y. Hong, J. I. Dadap, N. Petrone, P.-C. Yeh, J. Hone, and R. M. Osgood Jr, Physical Review X 3, 021014 (2013)

work page 2013
[29]

Savostianova and S

N. Savostianova and S. A. Mikhailov, Physical Review B 97, 165424 (2018)

work page 2018
[30]

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, et al. , Nature nanotechnology 13, 583 (2018)

work page 2018
[31]

Jiang, D

T. Jiang, D. Huang, J. Cheng, X. Fan, Z. Zhang, Y. Shan, Y. Yi, Y. Dai, L. Shi, K. Liu, et al. , Nature Photonics 12, 430 (2018)

work page 2018
[32]

H. Fan, A. Proskurin, M. Song, Y. Kivshar, and A. Bog- danov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09306 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Matsyshyn, F

O. Matsyshyn, F. Piazza, R. Moessner, and I. Sodemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 126604 (2021)

work page 2021

[1] [1]

In contrast, for a ﬁnite NNN hopping term ( t′ = 1 eV, Fig

These peaks of opposite sign cancel with each other. In contrast, for a ﬁnite NNN hopping term ( t′ = 1 eV, Fig. 2(d)), an imbalance between the positive and nega- tive peaks emerges. This asymmetry leads to a net DC current. Furthermore, the DC current is enhanced at low fre- quencies. This enhancement is attributed to the fact that as ω decreases, the k...

work page

[2] [2]

von Baltz and W

R. von Baltz and W. Kraut, Physical Review B 23, 5590 (1981)

work page 1981

[3] [3]

J. E. Sipe and A. I. Shkrebtii, Physical Review B 61, 5337 (2000)

work page 2000

[4] [4]

Ghimire, A

S. Ghimire, A. D. DiChiara, E. Sistrunk, P. Agostini, L. F. DiMauro, and D. A. Reis, Nat. Phys. 7, 138 (2011)

work page 2011

[5] [5]

T. T. Luu, M. Garg, S. Yu, G. M. Rossi, A. Trabat- toni, G. Cerullo, and E. Goulielmakis, Nature 521, 498 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [6]

H. Liu, Y. Li, Y. S. You, S. Gholam-Mirzaei, I. G. Babar, J. R. G. Navarro, A. D. Bristow, and C. D. Lin, Nat. Phys. 13, 262 (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Yoshikawa, T

N. Yoshikawa, T. Tamaya, and K. Tanaka, Science 356, 736 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Morimoto and N

T. Morimoto and N. Nagaosa, Science Advances 2, e1501524 (2016)

work page 2016

[9] [9]

S. M. Young and A. M. Rappe, Physical Review Letters 109, 116601 (2012)

work page 2012

[10] [10]

J. E. Spanier, V. M. Fridkin, A. M. Rappe, A. R. Akba- shev, A. Polemi, Y. Qi, Z. Gu, S. M. Young, A. Stroppa, C. Piccirillo, and et al., Nat. Photonics 10, 611 (2016)

work page 2016

[11] [11]

A. M. Glass, D. von der Linde, and T. J. Negran, Appl. Phys. Lett. 25, 233 (1974)

work page 1974

[12] [12]

Oka, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21458 (2024)

T. Oka, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21458 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[13] [13]

Bhalla, G

P. Bhalla, G. Vignale, and H. Rostami, Phys. Rev. B 105, 125407 (2022)

work page 2022

[14] [14]

Ikeda, S

Y. Ikeda, S. Kitamura, and T. Morimoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 096301 (2023)

work page 2023

[15] [15]

Ahmadabadi, H

I. Ahmadabadi, H. Dehghani, and M. Hafezi, Commu- nications Physics 6, 149 (2023)

work page 2023

[16] [16]

Z. Ji, W. Liu, S. Krylyuk, X. Fan, Z. Zhang, A. Pan, L. Feng, A. Davydov, and R. Agarwal, Science 368, 763 (2020)

work page 2020

[17] [17]

Oka and H

T. Oka and H. Aoki, Physical Review B 79, 081406(R) (2009)

work page 2009

[18] [18]

Z. Gu, H. A. Fertig, D. P. Arovas, and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 216601 (2011)

work page 2011

[19] [19]

G. Usaj, P. M. Perez-Piskunow, L. E. F. Foa Torres, and C. A. Balseiro, Phys. Rev. B 90, 115423 (2014)

work page 2014

[20] [20]

Kitayama and M

K. Kitayama and M. Mochizuki, Physical Review Re- search 2, 023229 (2020)

work page 2020

[21] [21]

Kitayama, Y

K. Kitayama, Y. Tanaka, M. Ogata, and M. Mochizuki, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90, 104705 (2021)

work page 2021

[22] [22]

Kitayama, M

K. Kitayama, M. Mochizuki, Y. Tanaka, and M. Ogata, Physical Review B 104, 075127 (2021)

work page 2021

[23] [23]

Kitayama, M

K. Kitayama, M. Ogata, M. Mochizuki, and Y. Tanaka, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 91, 104704 (2022)

work page 2022

[24] [24]

Kitayama and M

K. Kitayama and M. Ogata, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045127 (2024)

work page 2024

[25] [25]

Vermeulen, APL Photonics 7 (2022)

N. Vermeulen, APL Photonics 7 (2022)

work page 2022

[26] [26]

Kumar, Journal of Electronic Materials 50, 3773 5 (2021)

V. Kumar, Journal of Electronic Materials 50, 3773 5 (2021)

work page 2021

[27] [27]

Baudisch, A

M. Baudisch, A. Marini, J. D. Cox, T. Zhu, F. Silva, S. Teichmann, M. Massicotte, F. Koppens, L. S. Levitov, F. J. Garcia de Abajo, et al. , Nature Communications 9, 1018 (2018)

work page 2018

[28] [28]

S.-Y. Hong, J. I. Dadap, N. Petrone, P.-C. Yeh, J. Hone, and R. M. Osgood Jr, Physical Review X 3, 021014 (2013)

work page 2013

[29] [29]

Savostianova and S

N. Savostianova and S. A. Mikhailov, Physical Review B 97, 165424 (2018)

work page 2018

[30] [30]

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, et al. , Nature nanotechnology 13, 583 (2018)

work page 2018

[31] [31]

Jiang, D

T. Jiang, D. Huang, J. Cheng, X. Fan, Z. Zhang, Y. Shan, Y. Yi, Y. Dai, L. Shi, K. Liu, et al. , Nature Photonics 12, 430 (2018)

work page 2018

[32] [32]

H. Fan, A. Proskurin, M. Song, Y. Kivshar, and A. Bog- danov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09306 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[33] [33]

Matsyshyn, F

O. Matsyshyn, F. Piazza, R. Moessner, and I. Sodemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 126604 (2021)

work page 2021