pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.29663 · v1 · pith:4AMIJ57Cnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Length--Velocity Gauge Equivalence of Quantum Geometric Nonlinear Conductivity

Shakeel Ahmad , Fei Xue This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 05:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords nonlinear conductivityquantum geometrygauge equivalencedensity-matrix theorynonlinear Hall effectFermi surface contributionquantum metric
0
0 comments X

The pith

Length and velocity gauges yield identical adiabatic dc nonlinear conductivity when the current is fully expanded and the same retarded continuation is used for every frequency.

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

The paper constructs a density-matrix theory that treats the electric field through the position operator in the length gauge and through the vector potential in the velocity gauge. It demonstrates that the two formulations agree exactly on the intrinsic second-order dc response once every field-dependent vertex is retained in the velocity-gauge current and the same retarded analytic continuation is applied uniformly to all external frequencies. Under these conditions the apparent Fermi-sea contributions cancel, leaving only a Fermi-surface term fixed by the band-normalized quantum metric. This equivalence implies that a fully gapped insulator carries no net dc nonlinear Hall current in the adiabatic clean limit.

Core claim

The two gauges give the same adiabatic dc response when the same retarded continuation is used for all external frequencies and when the velocity gauge current includes all field-dependent vertices. The apparent Fermi sea terms cancel in the full expression, leaving a Fermi surface quantum geometric contribution determined by the band-normalized quantum metric. This result implies that a fully gapped insulator has no residual dc nonlinear Hall current in the adiabatic clean limit.

What carries the argument

gauge-consistent density-matrix theory that expands the velocity-gauge current to all field-dependent vertices and applies uniform retarded continuation across frequencies

If this is right

  • A fully gapped insulator carries no residual dc nonlinear Hall current in the adiabatic clean limit.
  • The reactive part of the Fermi-surface term reproduces the semiclassical Berry-connection-polarizability response.
  • The dissipative Ohmic sector requires explicit treatment of relaxation and impurity scattering.
  • Nonlinear transport can be used to probe magnetic quantum geometry in PT-symmetric antiferromagnets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The cancellation mechanism may extend to higher-order responses if the same uniform continuation and vertex expansion are maintained.
  • Discrepancies reported in earlier formulations likely trace to inconsistent analytic continuations rather than to intrinsic gauge inequivalence.

Load-bearing premise

The same retarded analytic continuation must be applied uniformly to all external frequencies in both gauges, and the velocity-gauge current must be expanded to include every field-dependent vertex.

What would settle it

A nonzero dc nonlinear Hall current measured in a clean, fully gapped insulator under adiabatic driving would show that the Fermi-sea cancellation does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29663 by Fei Xue, Shakeel Ahmad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Tree representation of the second order density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Tree representation of the second-order current in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Nonlinear transport has emerged as a sensitive probe of quantum geometry beyond the Berry-curvature physics of linear response. However, the intrinsic second-order dc response remains conceptually subtle: different quantum and semiclassical formulations can appear to give different static limits, with different assignments of Fermi sea and Fermi surface contributions. Here we resolve this ambiguity by developing a gauge-consistent density-matrix theory of intrinsic nonlinear conductivity in both the length gauge, where the electric field couples through the position operator, and the velocity gauge, where it enters through the vector potential. We show that the two gauges give the same adiabatic dc response when the same retarded continuation is used for all external frequencies and when the velocity gauge current includes all field-dependent vertices. The apparent Fermi sea terms cancel in the full expression, leaving a Fermi surface quantum geometric contribution determined by the band-normalized quantum metric. This result implies that a fully gapped insulator has no residual dc nonlinear Hall current in the adiabatic clean limit. The reactive part of the Fermi surface term agrees with the original semiclassical Berry-connection-polarizability response, while the dissipative Ohmic sector requires a more careful treatment of relaxation and impurity scattering. Our work establishes the length-velocity gauge equivalence for quantum geometric nonlinear response and provides a foundation for using nonlinear transport to probe magnetic quantum geometry, especially in PT-symmetric antiferromagnets.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a gauge-consistent density-matrix theory of intrinsic second-order dc nonlinear conductivity, demonstrating length-velocity gauge equivalence for the adiabatic dc response. Equivalence holds when the same retarded analytic continuation is applied uniformly to all external frequencies and when the velocity-gauge current operator retains every field-dependent vertex; under these conditions the apparent Fermi-sea terms cancel, leaving a Fermi-surface contribution fixed by the band-normalized quantum metric. The work concludes that a fully gapped insulator carries no residual dc nonlinear Hall current in the adiabatic clean limit, with the reactive sector reproducing the semiclassical Berry-connection-polarizability response.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the result is significant: it removes a long-standing conceptual ambiguity between different formulations of quantum-geometric nonlinear transport and supplies a clear, gauge-invariant expression for the intrinsic dc response. The explicit cancellation of Fermi-sea pieces and the agreement with the known semiclassical reactive term are concrete strengths. The implication for PT-symmetric antiferromagnets supplies a falsifiable prediction that can be tested experimentally.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / gauge-consistent density-matrix theory paragraph] Abstract and the paragraph on gauge-consistent density-matrix theory: the claimed equivalence is shown only after imposing uniform retarded continuation on every external frequency and retaining the complete set of field-dependent vertices in the velocity-gauge current. These two modeling choices are load-bearing for the cancellation of Fermi-sea terms; the manuscript must demonstrate that relaxing either choice produces unphysical or gauge-dependent results (e.g., by explicit truncation at linear order in A or by using a different continuation for the second-harmonic frequency).
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no independent verification (model calculation, sum-rule check, or comparison with a known exactly solvable limit) is supplied to confirm that the chosen prescriptions are the only physically consistent ones. Without such a check the cancellation of Fermi-sea contributions remains tied to the specific analytic-continuation and vertex-expansion rules rather than emerging as a general property.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the dissipative Ohmic sector 'requires a more careful treatment of relaxation and impurity scattering' but does not indicate where in the manuscript this treatment is carried out or what new results are obtained.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the significance of our work and for the constructive comments. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / gauge-consistent density-matrix theory paragraph] Abstract and the paragraph on gauge-consistent density-matrix theory: the claimed equivalence is shown only after imposing uniform retarded continuation on every external frequency and retaining the complete set of field-dependent vertices in the velocity-gauge current. These two modeling choices are load-bearing for the cancellation of Fermi-sea terms; the manuscript must demonstrate that relaxing either choice produces unphysical or gauge-dependent results (e.g., by explicit truncation at linear order in A or by using a different continuation for the second-harmonic frequency).

    Authors: We agree that the two conditions are essential to the derivation. The length-velocity equivalence is obtained only when the same retarded continuation is applied uniformly and when the velocity-gauge current retains the full set of field-dependent vertices; these choices follow directly from the requirement of a consistent adiabatic density-matrix expansion that preserves gauge invariance. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit subsection demonstrating the consequences of relaxing each condition: truncation of the vertex expansion at linear order in A produces residual gauge-dependent Fermi-sea terms that do not cancel, while a non-uniform continuation for the second-harmonic frequency generates unphysical divergences. These additions confirm that the prescriptions are required for physical consistency rather than being arbitrary. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no independent verification (model calculation, sum-rule check, or comparison with a known exactly solvable limit) is supplied to confirm that the chosen prescriptions are the only physically consistent ones. Without such a check the cancellation of Fermi-sea contributions remains tied to the specific analytic-continuation and vertex-expansion rules rather than emerging as a general property.

    Authors: The primary result is derived generally from the structure of the density-matrix perturbation theory. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that an explicit check would strengthen the claim that the cancellation is not an artifact of the chosen rules. In the revised manuscript we have added a sum-rule verification that follows from the completeness relation of the band basis and a direct comparison of the reactive Fermi-surface term with the known semiclassical Berry-connection-polarizability formula; both checks hold only when the uniform retarded continuation and complete vertices are retained. A full model calculation on an exactly solvable two-band system is beyond the scope of the present work but is noted as a natural extension. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained under stated modeling choices

full rationale

The paper presents a derivation of length-velocity gauge equivalence for the adiabatic dc nonlinear conductivity by explicitly requiring uniform retarded analytic continuation across all frequencies and exhaustive inclusion of field-dependent vertices in the velocity-gauge current operator. These conditions are stated upfront as prerequisites for the cancellation of Fermi-sea terms, after which the remaining Fermi-surface contribution is expressed in terms of the band-normalized quantum metric. No equations or steps in the abstract reduce the final result to a fitted parameter, a self-citation chain, or a definitional tautology; the equivalence is obtained only after adopting the gauge-consistent density-matrix framework. The agreement noted with prior semiclassical Berry-connection-polarizability response functions as an external consistency check rather than an input. The derivation is therefore independent once the modeling prescriptions are fixed.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents enumeration of specific free parameters or axioms; the central claim appears to rest on the modeling choice of uniform retarded continuation and the requirement that the velocity-gauge current include all field-dependent vertices, but these cannot be audited without the full derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5766 in / 1293 out tokens · 21153 ms · 2026-06-30T05:42:24.323127+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In the strict adiabatic dc limit, both the diagonal and off-diagonal sectors generate terms that appear to de- fine finite Fermi sea contributions

    Adiabatic dc limit and cancellation of Fermi sea terms To obtain the strict dc response, we apply the adia- batic prescription consistent with the Fourier convention 5 e−iωt [19], namely ω1 →iη, ω 2 →iη,Ω→2iη, η→0 +.(30) A detailed derivation is given in Appendix C 2, but the cancellation mechanism can be summarized briefly. In the strict adiabatic dc lim...

  2. [2]

    Surviving Fermi surface contribution After the cancellation of all apparent Fermi sea terms, the strict adiabatic dc response is purely Fermi surface in origin. The resulting static nonlinear conductivity can be written as χabc dc = q3 ℏ X n Gab n ∂cfn +G ca n ∂bfn − 1 2 Gbc n ∂afn , (32) where Gab n ≡ X m̸=n 2gab nm ϵnm = 2 Re X m̸=n ra nmrb mn ϵnm (33) ...

  3. [3]

    In the Bloch basis, the first-order kinetic equation (Eq

    First-order density matrix We work in the basis of cell-periodic Bloch eigenstates |unk⟩of the unperturbed Hamiltonian, H0(k)|u nk⟩=ϵ n(k)|u nk⟩,⟨u mk|unk⟩=δ mn.(A1) For compactness, we write|n⟩ ≡ |u nk⟩below. In the Bloch basis, the first-order kinetic equation (Eq. (7) sep- arates naturally into off-diagonal and diagonal sectors. UsingH E(ω1) =−qE b(ω1)...

  4. [4]

    ∂b rc mn fmn ωmn −ω −i r c mn fmn ωmn −ω (Ab mm − Ab nn) # =−i q ℏ Ec(ω)

    Second order density matrix We now turn to the second order density matrix, whose off-diagonal and diagonal sectors must both be retained in the nonlinear current response. Keeping the two or- dered input frequencies explicit, and using HE(ω1) =−q E b(ω1)xb, H E(ω2) =−q E c(ω2)xc, (A7) the frequency-resolved second order kinetic equation, Eq. (8), becomes...

  5. [5]

    Proof of Eqs.(B2)and(B3) We first prove the diagonal identity, Eq. (B2). Starting from Aa nn =i⟨n|∂ an⟩,(B10) we compute ∂bAa nn −∂ aAb nn =i ⟨∂bn|∂an⟩ − ⟨∂an|∂bn⟩ ,(B11) where the mixed second-derivative terms cancel because ∂a∂b =∂ b∂a. Inserting completeness, P p |p⟩⟨p|=1, gives ∂bAa nn −∂ aAb nn =i X p ⟨∂bn|p⟩⟨p|∂an⟩ − ⟨∂an|p⟩⟨p|∂bn⟩ . (B12) Using the...

  6. [6]

    Thus the electric field enters the total nonlinear current only through the perturbative density matrix

    Relation to intraband and interband current decompositions We have established that the total current operator in the length gauge does not acquire an explicit field- dependent correction, because va = i ℏ[H, xa] = i ℏ[H0, xa],(B21) withH=H 0 +H E and [HE, xa] = 0. Thus the electric field enters the total nonlinear current only through the perturbative de...

  7. [7]

    (C1) Substituting Eq

    Linear order response At linear order, the frequency-matching condition is implicit, and the current takes the form J a,(1)(t) = Z dω 2π J a,(1)(ω)e−iωt, J a,(1)(ω) =σ ab(ω)E b(ω). (C1) Substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (23), one obtains σab(ω) =− q2 ℏ Z [dk] X n va nn i ∂bfn ω + X n,m̸=n va nmrb mn fmn ωmn −ω ! , (C2) where the first term is the intraband c...

  8. [8]

    (29)] and off-diagonal [Eq

    Second order response We now analyze theη-independent contributions from the diagonal [Eq. (29)] and off-diagonal [Eq. (28)] sectors of the nonlinear conductivity tensor in the adiabatic dc limit. In the following few equations, we suppress the common overall prefactorsq 3/ℏ2 for brevity. a. Diagonal sector In Eq. (29), the∂ b∂cfn/(ω2Ω) term diverges asη ...

  9. [9]

    In the velocity gauge, the first-order density matrix has no diagonal component, ρ(1) nn(ω1) = 0,(D8) becausef nn = 0

    First order density matrix To first order in the vector potential, dρ(1) dt =− i ℏ[H0, ρ(1)]− i ℏ[H(1) A (t), ρ(0)],(D3) with H(1) A (t) =−qA b(t)vb.(D4) In the band basis this gives i(ωmn −ω 1)ρ(1) mn(ω1) = iq ℏ Ab(ω1)[vb, ρ(0)]mn.(D5) Using [vb, ρ(0)]mn =−f mnvb mn,(D6) we obtain ρ(1) mn(ω1) =− q ℏ Ab(ω1) fmnvb mn ωmn −ω 1 , m̸=n.(D7) Equation (D7) show...

  10. [10]

    (D12) We first keep the ordered contribution proportional to Ab(ω1)Ac(ω2)

    Second order density matrix To second order in the vector potential, dρ(2) dt =− i ℏ[H0, ρ(2)]− i ℏ[H(1) A (t), ρ(1)]− i ℏ[H(2) A (t), ρ(0)], (D11) with H(1) A (t) =−qA b(t)vb, H (2) A (t) = q2 2 Ab(t)Ac(t)wbc. (D12) We first keep the ordered contribution proportional to Ab(ω1)Ac(ω2). The contribution with (b, ω 1)↔(c, ω 2) is included when constructing t...

  11. [11]

    DifferentiatingO mn =⟨m|O|n⟩, we have ∂aOmn =⟨∂ am|O|n⟩+⟨m|∂ aO|n⟩+⟨m|O|∂ an⟩.(E2) Inserting the identityP ℓ |ℓ⟩ ⟨ℓ|=1and using Eq

    Matrix elements ofw ab In the velocity gauge derivation, we need the matrix element wab mn ≡ 1 ℏ2 ⟨m|∂a∂bH0|n⟩.(E1) It is useful to first derive a general identity for a band- space operatorO. DifferentiatingO mn =⟨m|O|n⟩, we have ∂aOmn =⟨∂ am|O|n⟩+⟨m|∂ aO|n⟩+⟨m|O|∂ an⟩.(E2) Inserting the identityP ℓ |ℓ⟩ ⟨ℓ|=1and using Eq. (B14), we obtain ⟨m|∂aO|n⟩=∂ aOm...

  12. [12]

    By definition, uabc mn ≡ℏ −3 ⟨m|∂ a∂b∂cH0 |n⟩=ℏ −1 ⟨m|∂ awbc |n⟩

    Matrix element ofu abc The same operator-derivative identity also gives the third-order velocity vertex. By definition, uabc mn ≡ℏ −3 ⟨m|∂ a∂b∂cH0 |n⟩=ℏ −1 ⟨m|∂ awbc |n⟩. (E10) TakingO=w bc in Eq. (E3), we obtain ℏuabc mn =∂ awbc mn −i X ℓ Aa mℓwbc ℓn −w bc mℓAa ℓn .(E11) Separating theℓ=m,ℓ=n, andℓ̸=m, nterms gives ℏuabc mn =∂ awbc mn −i(A a mm − Aa nn)w...

  13. [13]

    (F1) and Eq

    Linear order response At linear order, the velocity gauge current receives contributions from both the ordinary current opera- torj (0)aρ(1) and the field-dependent current operator j(1)aρ(0): J a,(1)(ω) =qTr h j(0)aρ(1)(ω) +j (1)a(ω)ρ(0) i .(F3) Using Eq. (F1) and Eq. (D7), we obtain J a,(1) =−q 2Ab X m̸=n fmnva nmvb mn ϵmn −ℏω −q 2AbX n fnwab nn. (F4) 1...

  14. [14]

    4∂b(ra nmrc mn)−2∂ c(ra nmrb mn) − ∂a(rb nmrc mn) 2 −2r a nmrc;b mn −r a;b nmrc mn # + (b↔c); (F37) T abc 2b,sur = X n,m 1 ωmn

    Second order response At second order, the velocity gauge current contains three distinct contributions, J a,(2)(Ω;ω 1, ω2) =J a 0 +J a 1 +J a 2 ,(F10) with J a 0 =qTr h ja,(0)ρ(2) i , J a 1 =qTr h ja,(1)(ω1)ρ(1)c(ω2) i , (F11) and J a 2 =qTr h ja,(2)(ω1, ω2)ρ(0) i ,(F12) together with the interchanged contribution (b, ω 1)↔ (c, ω2). This decomposition ha...

  15. [15]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

  16. [16]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  17. [17]

    Chang, C.-X

    C.-Z. Chang, C.-X. Liu, and A. H. MacDonald, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 011002 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  19. [19]

    S.-Y. Xu, Q. Ma, H. Shen, V. Fatemi, S. Wu, T.-R. Chang, G. Chang, A. M. M. Valdivia, C.-K. Chan, Q. D. Gibson, J. Zhou, Z. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Lin, R. J. Cava, L. Fu, N. Gedik, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Nature Physics14, 900 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Ma, S.-Y

    Q. Ma, S.-Y. Xu, H. Shen, D. MacNeill, V. Fatemi, T.-R. Chang, A. M. Mier Valdivia, S. Wu, Z. Du, C.-H. Hsu, S. Fang, Q. D. Gibson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. J. Cava, E. Kaxiras, H.-Z. Lu, H. Lin, L. Fu, N. Gedik, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature565, 337 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Y. Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 166601 (2014)

    2014

  22. [22]

    C. Wang, Y. Gao, and D. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 277201 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    H. Liu, J. Zhao, Y.-X. Huang, W. Wu, X.-L. Sheng, C. Xiao, and S. A. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 277202 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Gao, Y.-F

    A. Gao, Y.-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T. V. Tre- visan, Y. Onishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, S.-W. Chen, M. Huang, D. B´ erub´ e, H. Li, C. Tzschaschel, T. Dinh, Z. Sun, S.-C. Ho, S.-W. Lien, B. Singh, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. C. Bell, H. Lin, T.-R. Chang, C. R. Du, A. Bansil, L. Fu, N. Ni, P. P. Orth, Q. Ma, and S.-Y. Xu, Science381, 181 (2023),...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adf1506 2023

  25. [25]

    N. Wang, D. Kaplan, Z. Zhang, T. Holder, N. Cao, A. Wang, X. Zhou, F. Zhou, Z. Jiang, C. Zhang, S. Ru, H. Cai, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Yan, and W. Gao, Nature621, 487 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    H. Chen, Q. Niu, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 017205 (2014)

    2014

  27. [27]

    K¨ ubler and C

    J. K¨ ubler and C. Felser, Europhysics Letters108, 67001 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    Nakatsuji, N

    S. Nakatsuji, N. Kiyohara, and T. Higo, Nature527, 212 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Science Advances6, eaaz8809 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aaz8809

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz8809 2020

  30. [30]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Godinho, H

    J. Godinho, H. Reichlov´ a, D. Kriegner, V. Nov´ ak, K. Olejn´ ık, Z. Kaˇ spar, Z.ˇSob´ aˇ n, P. Wadley, R. P. Cam- pion, R. M. Otxoa, P. E. Roy, J. ˇZelezn´ y, T. Jung- wirth, and J. Wunderlich, Nature Communications9, 4686 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    N. A. Sinitsyn, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 023201 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    K. Das, S. Lahiri, R. B. Atencia, D. Culcer, and A. Agar- wal, Phys. Rev. B108, L201405 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Y. Wang, Z. Zhang, Z.-G. Zhu, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B 109, 085419 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    Kaplan, T

    D. Kaplan, T. Holder, and B. Yan, SciPost Phys.14, 082 23 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Kaplan, T

    D. Kaplan, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Nature Communica- tions14, 3053 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    Kaplan, T

    D. Kaplan, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 026301 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    C. Xiao, J. Cao, Q. Niu, and S. A. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 256306 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    J. Jia, L. Xiang, Z. Qiao, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 110, 245406 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    C. Xiao, Z. Z. Du, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B100, 165422 (2019)

    2019

  41. [41]

    Taghizadeh, F

    A. Taghizadeh, F. Hipolito, and T. G. Pedersen, Phys. Rev. B96, 195413 (2017)

    2017

  42. [42]

    D. J. Passos, G. B. Ventura, J. M. V. P. Lopes, J. M. B. L. d. Santos, and N. M. R. Peres, Phys. Rev. B97, 235446 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Taghizadeh and T

    A. Taghizadeh and T. G. Pedersen, Phys. Rev. B97, 205432 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

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

    2019

  45. [45]

    Qiang, T

    X.-B. Qiang, T. Liu, Z.-X. Gao, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Advanced Science13, e14818 (2026), https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/advs.202514818

    work page doi:10.1002/advs.202514818 2026

  46. [46]

    T. Park, X. Huang, L. Savary, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B113, 045146 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    Culcer, A

    D. Culcer, A. Sekine, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B96, 035106 (2017)

    2017

  48. [48]

    Nandy and I

    S. Nandy and I. Sodemann, Phys. Rev. B100, 195117 (2019)

    2019

  49. [49]

    Blount (Academic Press, 1962) pp

    E. Blount (Academic Press, 1962) pp. 305–373

    1962

  50. [50]

    Aversa and J

    C. Aversa and J. E. Sipe, Phys. Rev. B52, 14636 (1995)

    1995

  51. [51]

    J. E. Sipe and A. I. Shkrebtii, Phys. Rev. B61, 5337 (2000)

    2000

  52. [52]

    S. S. Tsirkin and I. Souza, SciPost Phys. Core5, 039 (2022)

    2022

  53. [53]

    J. M. Luttinger and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev.97, 869 (1955)

    1955

  54. [54]

    Ulrich, J

    Y. Ulrich, J. Mitscherling, L. Classen, and A. P. Schny- der, Phys. Rev. B113, L201107 (2026)

    2026

  55. [55]

    Holder, D

    T. Holder, D. Kaplan, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033100 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Z. Z. Du, C. M. Wang, H.-P. Sun, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Nature Communications12, 5038 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    E. J. K¨ onig and A. Levchenko, Annals of Physics435, 168492 (2021), special issue on Philip W. Anderson

    2021

  58. [58]

    Guo, X.-Y

    Z. Guo, X.-Y. Liu, H. Wang, L.-k. Shi, and K. Chang, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 206303 (2026)

    2026