Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Monopole Spin Density Wave States in Magnetic Weyl Semimetals

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that a spin density wave formed by particle-hole pairing between nested Fermi surfaces around Weyl nodes of the same chirality is a monopole harmonic order: the gap function is proportional to Y_{-1;1,m}(k̂), carries

desk verdict A promising monopole-SDW concept, but a sign/phase error in Appendix A undermines Eq. (5) as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14829 v1 pith:PIWK76RM submitted 2026-07-16 cond-mat.str-el

Xi Luo This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords WeylsemimetalmonopoleharmonicsspindensitywavepairingBerryphaseidealquantumgeometryFermiarcsReAlXmaterialsspin-ARPES
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that when a spin density wave forms by pairing an electron pocket around one Weyl node with a hole pocket around another Weyl node of the same chirality, the SDW order parameter cannot be globally smooth; it inherits a Berry phase from the underlying Weyl fermions and becomes a monopole harmonic function with monopole charge q=-1. As a result, the SDW gap has topologically protected point nodes, and in the weak-coupling isotropic limit the pairing quantum geometry saturates the universal bound tr(g)≥|Ω|, meaning quantum distance fluctuations are fully controlled by Berry curvature. The paper shows via a lattice model that helical versus cycloidal SDW order produce different band structures, Fermi arc distributions, and surface spin textures, giving a concrete route to distinguish these orders in ReAlX materials by spin-resolved photoemission. A sympathetic reader would care because this extends the monopole-harmonic paradigm from superconductivity and charge density waves to magnetic order and connects magnetic Weyl semimetals to ideal quantum geometry.

What carries the argument

The monopole harmonic functions Y_{q;l,m} serve as the angular basis for the SDW gap; q=-1 comes from the pairing Berry phase A_SDW, the difference of the electron and hole single-particle Berry connections. The projected pairing Hamiltonian has off-diagonal M̃(Q,k)=Σ_m C_m M_m Y_{-1;1,m}(k̂). The ideal-geometry claim rests on the identity for the pairing quantum geometric tensor Q^P_ij=g^P_ij-(i/2)Ω^P_ij, with g^P_ij=1/(2|k|²)(δ_ij-k̂_i k̂_j) and Ω^P_ij=-ε_ijm k̂_m/|k|², giving tr(g^P)=|Ω^P|. Monopole harmonics generalize spherical harmonics to wave functions carrying a fixed monopole charge, which is exactly the Berry-phase singularity imported from the Weyl Fermi surfaces.

What would settle it

Take the lattice model with Q=π and add a term that couples the second same-chirality pair P(1)-P(3) or introduces Fermi-surface anisotropy, then check whether the projected gap retains the Y_{-1;1,m} nodes and whether tr(g^P)-|Ω^P| stays exactly zero. Experimentally, spin-ARPES on SmAlSi: if the helical-order Fermi arc S_y does not change sign at the arc ends, the predicted monopole pairing Berry phase is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that particle-hole pairing between nested Fermi surfaces surrounding Weyl nodes of the same chirality produces an SDW order parameter proportional to the monopole harmonic functions Y_{-1;1,m}(k̂), with monopole charge q=-1 fixed by the difference of single-particle Berry connections A_SDW=A_{+1,e}-A_{+1,h}. The projected gap function M̃(Q,k) therefore has topologically protected nodal points, at least one pair of which behave as Weyl nodes of the same chirality as the parent band. The paper also demonstrates that the pairing quantum geometric tensor is built directly from single-particle geometric tensors, and that in the isotropic weak-coupling limit tr(g^P)=|Ω^P|, sat

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that only one pair of nested same-chirality Fermi surfaces (the electron P(2) and hole P(4) pockets) controls the projection, with perfect nesting and no Fermi-surface anisotropy; if the other same-chirality pair or anisotropy breaks this two-band projection, the monopole-harmonic nodal structure and the exact ideal-geometry saturation need not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a monopole SDW forms, the SDW gap is forced to have nodes, so the ordered state remains gapless at those momenta; the nodes are topologically protected by the pairing Berry phase, independent of interaction details.
  • Helical and cycloidal SDW order in ReAlX-type materials can be told apart by spin-ARPES: the two orders are predicted to produce different bulk gaps, Fermi arc locations, and sign-changing S_y along Fermi arcs.
  • In the weak-coupling isotropic limit, the monopole SDW state is an exact gapless example of ideal quantum geometry, analogous to the lowest Landau level; quantum-distance fluctuations are set entirely by Berry curvature.
  • The result unifies monopole ordered states across pairing channels: superconductivity (particle-particle) and CDW/SDW (particle-hole) all obey the same monopole-harmonic description when pairing involves same-chirality Weyl Fermi surfaces.
  • The nontrivial pairing Berry phase may lead to fractionalized Fermi arc states and nonlinear transport signatures usable in topological spintronic devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the second same-chirality pair (P(1)-P(3)) also nests at the same Q, the lattice mean-field state may actually be a superposition or competition of two monopole SDWs; the clean Y_{-1;1,m} nodal structure is a statement about a single pair, and the two-pair problem is a natural stability test.
  • The ideal-geometry saturation may be robust only for the angular part beyond the isotropic limit; if it holds approximately in ReAlX materials, quantum-geometric transport (nonlinear Hall, thermal) could be unusually large, giving a transport-based diagnostic complementary to spin-ARPES.
  • The same pairing-Berry-phase logic should apply to any chiral Fermi surface with well-nested pockets, including doped Dirac semimetals or altermagnets with Weyl-like nodes, where the monopole-harmonic gap would show similar nodal and spin-texture signatures.
  • A direct experimental test is to measure S_y along Fermi arcs in SmAlSi: sign changes at the arc ends would indicate the q=-1 monopole pairing rather than a conventional SDW.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a new ordered phase, monopole spin density wave (SDW), in doped magnetic Weyl semimetals. It argues that particle-hole pairing between nested Fermi surfaces surrounding Weyl nodes of the same chirality produces a projected SDW gap function given by monopole harmonics Y_{-1;1,m}, with a pairing Berry phase q = -1 and topologically protected nodal structure. The authors support this with a lattice model with helical and cycloidal orders, presenting band structures, Fermi arc distributions, and surface spin polarization as spin-ARPES signatures, and compare with opposite-chirality SDW pairing. They further claim that the pairing quantum geometric tensor saturates the metric-curvature inequality in the weak-coupling isotropic limit, giving an ideal quantum geometry.

Significance. If correct, the paper would extend the monopole-harmonic ordering paradigm to the SDW channel, provide a concrete experimental route to distinguish helical from cycloidal order in ReAlX compounds, and identify a gapless realization of ideal quantum geometry. The lattice-model implementation and the explicit opposite-chirality control calculation in Appendix C are valuable and give falsifiable predictions. However, the central analytical expansion currently rests on an incorrect matrix-element calculation, and the lattice model does not isolate the assumed two-band projection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A2)-(A4); Eq. (5)] Using the spinors defined in the text, ξ_{+1,e}=(cos(θ/2), sin(θ/2)e^{iφ}) and ξ_{+1,h}=(-sin(θ/2)e^{-iφ}, cos(θ/2)), direct evaluation gives ξ_e† σ_z ξ_h = -sinθ e^{-iφ}, not -sinθ e^{iφ} as written in Eq. (A2); Eq. (A3) has the opposite sign as well. Since the paper's Y_{-1;1,0} is proportional to sinθ e^{iφ}, the M_z component of the gap cannot be expressed in the stated Y_{-1;1,m} basis. Consequently, the expansion in Eq. (5) and the specific identification of the SDW gap with q = -1 monopole harmonics are not justified as written. The gauge convention or the harmonic basis must be corrected and the expansion re-derived.
  2. [Lattice model, Q=π choice] With the stated node positions P(1)=-5π/6, P(2)=-π/6, P(3)=π/6, P(4)=5π/6, the nesting vector Q=π connects P(2) to P(4) and simultaneously P(1) to P(3). The same mean-field order therefore also induces pairing between the other same-chirality pair, which is discarded in the projection of Eq. (4). In addition, the V0 cos k_z term changes sign under k_z → k_z + π, so the two Fermi surfaces are not perfectly nested for V0 ≠ 0. The paper should justify the two-pair projection or include both pairs; otherwise the numerical band and Fermi-arc results cannot be read as a clean test of the two-band prediction in Eq. (7).
  3. [Pairing quantum geometry, Eqs. (12)-(15)] The ideal-geometry saturation is derived explicitly for the CDW operator P_CDW. For the SDW operator the projected gap has zeros, so the quantum geometric tensor of the pairing state is not globally defined; the sentence 'This result also works for the monopole SDW pairing state' is an assertion. Please provide the corresponding derivation for P_SDW, or for the projected spinor state, and state whether the saturation holds away from the nodes and in the lattice model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and wording: 'dose not alter' → 'does not alter'; 'ording' → 'ordering'; 'compareing' → 'comparing'; 'is does not flip signs' → 'it does not flip signs'.
  2. [Eq. (6) and following paragraph] The notation '∮ dk·∇×A_SDW ≡ 4πq = -4π' is cryptic; please define the integration contour and the sign convention for q explicitly.
  3. [Figs. 1 and 2] The captions should define the color scale for S_y and the arrow convention for the S_x-S_z components; the current text refers to these without specifying units or normalization.
  4. [After Eq. (7)] The statement that the nodes are Weyl nodes with the same chirality and are topologically protected is made by citation to Ref. [8] rather than derived. A short self-contained argument would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the monopole-SDW derivation is self-contained and the lattice/geometry claims are not fitted or cited into existence.

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular. Eq. (5) is obtained by an explicit matrix-element calculation in Appendix A using the spinors defined in the main text, and the coefficients C_m are not fitted. The monopole charge q=-1 is computed from the same spinors via the flux integral ∮dk·∇×A_SDW=-4π, after which standard monopole harmonics are invoked; the expansion is therefore a direct algebraic result, not a restatement of the ansatz. The lattice model fixes parameters (m=2, m_z=1.5, m_x=1, V0=0.4, κ1/κ2) as inputs and then diagonalizes the Hamiltonian; nothing is tuned to reproduce the predicted Y_{-1;1,m} gap. Similarly, the ideal-geometry saturation Eq. (15) follows algebraically from the single-particle quantum geometric tensors in Eqs. (13)-(14), so it is not a separately fitted output. The prior works [5,8] supply the monopole-harmonic formalism and the CDW analog, but the SDW result is independently reduced in the appendices rather than being made true merely by citation; self-citation [35] is used only as a Harper-equation method reference and is not load-bearing. One internal sign/phase inconsistency appears in Appendix A (with the stated spinors, Eq. (A2) evaluates to e^{-iφ} while Y_{-1;1,0} is listed with e^{iφ}), but this is a correctness/errata concern, not an equivalence-by-construction issue, and it does not by itself make the derivation circular. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own work, and no known result is merely relabeled.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation leans on the mean-field decomposition of the Kondo coupling, perfect-nesting projection, and the monopole-harmonic algebra imported from [5,8]. The lattice demonstration adds hand-chosen parameters (m, m_z, m_x, V_0, κ, Q) that realize the scenario. No new fundamental entities are introduced; the monopole SDW order parameter is a collective mean-field object with falsifiable spin-ARPES signatures. The ideal-geometry saturation is computed for the idealized isotropic projection, so it is an input assumption, not an output.

free parameters (4)
  • lattice parameters m, m_z, m_x = m=2, m_z=1.5, m_x=1
    Chosen by hand to place four Weyl nodes at the desired positions and chiralities (Eq. 10).
  • chemical potential V_0 = V_0 = 0.4
    Chosen to create nested electron/hole Fermi surfaces around the paired same-chirality nodes.
  • Kondo coupling strengths κ1, κ2 = κ1 = κ2 = 0.4
    Chosen to open a gap; strong coupling drives a Lifshitz transition to an insulator.
  • nesting vector Q = Q = π
    Chosen so that the lattice model nests P(2)-P(4), both of chirality +1.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Static mean-field decoupling of the Kondo coupling into H_M = Σ c†(p+Q)(M·σ)c(p) (Eq. 3)
    Treats magnetic order as a classical, static background and ignores fluctuations; central to the whole construction.
  • domain assumption Perfect nesting and projection onto isolated helical Fermi-surface bands (Eqs. 1, 4, 7)
    Effective two-band model assumes only the paired FSs contribute and M ≪ |μ|.
  • standard math Berry-flux quantization for helical eigenstates: Φ = -sgn(γ)χ·2π (Eq. 2)
    Standard Weyl spinor monopole geometry, used to set the pairing monopole charge q = -1.
  • standard math Monopole harmonic algebra Y_{q;l,m} from Li-Haldane [5]
    Basis for expanding the projected gap function in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Isotropy/linear dispersion in the weak-coupling limit when computing Q^P_ij (Eqs. 13-15)
    Ideal-geometry saturation is derived for an isotropic Weyl spinor; real lattice anisotropy may break it.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of the additional same-chirality pairing between P(1)-P(3) induced by the same Q=π order
    The mean-field H_M at Q=π also nests the P(1)-P(3) chirality -1 pair, but the paper's two-band projection only includes P(2)-P(4).
invented entities (1)
  • Monopole SDW order parameter \tilde M ∝ Σ M_m Y_{-1;1,m} independent evidence
    purpose: Describes particle-hole pairing between same-chirality Weyl Fermi surfaces in the spin channel.
    Collective mean-field order parameter, not a new fundamental entity; makes falsifiable spin-ARPES predictions (nodal gaps, Fermi-arc spin textures).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monopole Spin Density Wave States in Magnetic Weyl Semimetals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIWK76RM

@misc{pith2026260714829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monopole Spin Density Wave States in Magnetic Weyl Semimetals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIWK76RM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14829}
}
read the original abstract

The interplay between topology and magnetism in Weyl semimetals has recently emerged as a fertile ground for novel quantum phases. While monopole harmonic order parameters have been established for superconductivity and charge density waves in these systems, their spin density wave counterparts remain unexplored. Here we introduce monopole spin density wave (SDW) states arising from particle-hole pairing between nested Fermi surfaces enclosing Weyl nodes of the same chirality. We demonstrate that the SDW order parameter inherits a nontrivial pairing Berry phase and is described by monopole harmonic functions that exhibit topologically protected nodal structures in the gap function. Through a concrete lattice model, we show that helical and cycloidal SDW orders produce distinct signatures in band structures, Fermi arc distributions, and surface spin polarization patterns, which can be directly resolved by spin- and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. Remarkably, we find that the quantum geometric tensor of the monopole pairing realizes ideal quantum geometry in the weak-coupling limit, where quantum distance fluctuations are entirely governed by Berry curvature. Our results not only unify the understanding of monopole ordered states across pairing channels but also provide experimental avenues for distinguishing competing magnetic orders in ReAlX (Re=rare earth elements, X=Si, Ge) materials and suggest potential applications in topological spintronics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14829 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) (a), (b), and (c) are the bulk bands along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) (a) and (d) are the bulk bands along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    X. Wan, A. M. Turner, A. Vishwanath, and S. Y. Savrasov, Topological semimetal and Fermi-arc surface states in the electronic structure of pyrochlore iridates, Phys. Rev. B83, 205101 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Huang, S.-Y

    S.-M. Huang, S.-Y. Xu, I. Belopolskiet al., A Weyl Fermion semimetal with surface Fermi arcs in the transi- tion metal monopnictide TaAs class, Nat. Comm.6, 7373 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    B. Lv, N. Xu, H. M. Wenget al., Observation of Weyl nodes in TaAs, Nat. Phys.11, 724 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Murakami and N

    S. Murakami and N. Nagaosa, Berry phase in Magnetic Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 057002 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    and monopole charge density waves (CDW) [8]. In the monopole CDW states, when electron-like and hole-like FSs enclosing Weyl nodes of the same chirality are nested, the particle-hole pairing similarly acquires a nontrivial ∗ Correspondence to: xiluo@usst.edu.cn Berry phase. The gap function nodes emerge as zero- energy Weyl nodes, accompanied by nontrivia...

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Li and F

    Y. Li and F. D. M. Haldane, Topological nodal Cooper pairing in doped Weyl metals, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 067003 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Mu˜ noz, R

    E. Mu˜ noz, R. Soto-Garrido, V. Juriˇ ci´ c, Monopole versus spherical harmonic superconductors: Topological repul- sion, coexistence and stability, Phys. Rev. B102, 195121 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Li and G

    Y. Li and G. R. Frazier, Spinor pairing order enforced by Berry phase, Phys. Rev. Research8, L022037 (2026)

    2026

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Bobrow, C

    E. Bobrow, C. Sun, Y. Li, Monopole charge density wave states in Weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. Research2, 012078 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    H.-Y. Xie, P. Abbamonte, B. Uchoa, Quantum Geom- etry and Topology of Bulk Plasmons in Weyl Metals, 6 arXiv:2606.18346

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Destraz, L

    D. Destraz, L. Das, S. S. Tsirkin, Y. Xu, T. Neupert, J. Chang, A. Schilling, A. G. Grushin, J. Kohlbrecher, L. Keller, P. Puphal, E. Pomjakushina and J. S. White, Magnetism and anomalous transport in the Weyl semimetal PrAlGe: possible route to axial gauge fields, npj Quantum...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Gaudet, H.-Y

    J. Gaudet, H.-Y. Yang, S. Baidya, B. Lu, G. Xu, Y. Zhao, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. M. Hoffmann, D. E. Graf, D. H. Torchinsky, P. Nikoli´ c, D. Vanderbilt, F. Tafti, and C. L. Broholm, Weyl-mediated helical magnetism in NdAlSi, Nat. Mater.20, 1650 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Forbes, Christopher Gassen, Raghad S

    Niraj Bhattarai, Andrew W. Forbes, Christopher Gassen, Raghad S. H. Saqat, Ian L. Pegg, and J. Philip, Experi- mental study of transport properties of Weyl semimetal LaAlGe thin films grown by molecular beam epitaxy, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A39, 063407 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    X. Yao, J. Gaudet, R. Verma, D. E. Graf, H.-Y. Yang et al., Large Topological Hall Effect and Spiral Magnetic Order in the Weyl Semimetal SmAlSi, Phys. Rev. X13, 011035 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    N. C. Drucker, T. Nguyen, F. Han, P. Siriviboon, X. Luo, N. Andrejevic, Z. Zhu, G. Bednik, Q. T. Nguyen, Z. Chen, L. K. Nguyen, T. Liu, T. J. Williams, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, S. Chi, J. Fernandez-Baca, C. S. Nelson, A. Alatas, T. Hogan, A. A. Puretzky, S. Huang, Y. Yu,...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Nakano, R

    R. Nakano, R. Yamada, J. Bouaziz, M. Colling, M. Gen et al., Perfectly harmonic spin cycloid and multi-Qtex- tures in the Weyl semimetal GdAlSi, Nat Commun17, 3056 (2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    Nakano, R

    R. Nakano, R. Yamada, O. I. Utesov, M. Gen, A. Kikkawa, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, Y. Taguchi, M. Tokunaga, T.-h. Arima, Y. Tokura, S. K. Kim, M. Hirschberger, Frustration of harmonic and solitonic he- limagnetism on the body-centered tetragonal lattice of GdAlSi, arXiv:2605.07294

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chang, J

    H.-R. Chang, J. Zhou, S.-X. Wang, W.-Y. Shan, and D. Xiao, RKKY interaction of magnetic impurities in Dirac and Weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. B92, 241103(R) (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    M. V. Hosseini and M. Askari, Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya- Yosida interaction inWeyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. B92, 224435 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Sun, D.-H

    J.-H. Sun, D.-H. Xu, F.-C. Zhang, and Y. Zhou, Magnetic impurity in a Weyl semimetal, Phys. Rev. B92, 195124 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Wang, H.-R

    S.-X. Wang, H.-R. Chang, and J. Zhou, RKKY interac- tion in three-dimensional electron gases with linear spin- orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B96, 115204 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Zhou, H.-R

    M. Zhou, H.-R. Chang, L. Yang, and L. Liang, Weyl-mediated Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida interac- tion revisited: Imaginary-time formalism and finite tem- perature effects, Phys. Rev. B112, 054449 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Phys

    R. Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Phys. Rev. B90, 165139 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Claassen, C

    M. Claassen, C. H. Lee, R. Thomale, X.-L. Qi, and T. P. Devereaux, Position-Momentum Duality and Fractional Quantum Hall Effect in Chern Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 236802 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    J. Wang, J. Cano, A. J. Millis, Z. Liu, and B. Yang, Exact Landau Level Description of Geometry and Interaction in a Flatband, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 246403 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Wang and Z

    J. Wang and Z. Liu, Hierarchy of Ideal Flatbands in Chiral Twisted Multilayer Graphene Models, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 176403 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Cano and J

    J. Cano and J. Wang, Ideal Quantum Geometry for Frac- tional Chern Insulators, arXiv:2606.05496

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sun, S.-C

    Y. Sun, S.-C. Wu, and B. Yan, Topological surface states and Fermi arcs of the noncentrosymmetric Weyl semimet- als TaAs, TaP, NbAs, and NbP, Phys. Rev. B92, 115428 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    B. Q. Lv, S. Muff, T. Qianet al., Observation of Fermi- Arc Spin Texture in TaAs, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 217601 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    S.-Y. Xu, I. Belopolski, D. S. Sanchezet al., Spin polar- ization and texture of the Fermi arcs in the Weyl Fermion semimetal TaAs, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 096801 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electro- magnetic field, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond.A133, 60 (1931)

    1931

  24. [32]

    T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Concept of nonintegrable phase factors and global formulation of gauge fields, Phys. Rev. D12, 3845 (1975)

    1975

  25. [33]

    Kohmoto, Zero modes and the quantized Hall conduc- tance of the two-dimensional lattice in a magnetic field, Phys

    M. Kohmoto, Zero modes and the quantized Hall conduc- tance of the two-dimensional lattice in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B39, 11943 (1989)

    1989

  26. [34]

    Hatsugai and M

    Y. Hatsugai and M. Kohmoto, Energy spectrum and the quantum Hall effect on the square lattice with next- nearest-neighbor hopping, Phys. Rev. B42, 8282 (1990)

    1990

  27. [35]

    Hatsugai, Edge states in the integer quantum Hall effect and the Riemann surface of the Bloch function, Phys

    Y. Hatsugai, Edge states in the integer quantum Hall effect and the Riemann surface of the Bloch function, Phys. Rev. B48, 11851 (1993)

    1993

  28. [36]

    Xi Luo, Yu-Ge Chen, Ye-Min Zhan, and Yue Yu, Cor- related helimagnetic configuration in a nonsymmorphic magnetic nodal semimetal, Phys. Rev. B112, 115116 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states, Commun. Math. Phys.76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  30. [38]

    M. V. Berry, The quantum phase, five years after, in Geometric Phases in Physics, edited by A. Shapere and F. Wilczeck (World Scientific, 1989) pp. 7–28

    1989

  31. [39]

    Onishi and L

    Y. Onishi and L. Fu, Fundamental Bound on Topological Gap, Phys. Rev. X14, 011052 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Quantum Nonlinear Hall Effect Induced by Berry Curvature Dipole in Time-Reversal In- variant Materials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    K. Kang, T. Li, E. Sohn, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nonlin- ear anomalous Hall effect in few-layer WTe2, Nat. Mater. 18, 324 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Ma, S.-Y

    Q. Ma, S.-Y. Xu, H. Shenet al., Observation of the non- linear Hall effect under time reversal-symmetric condi- tions, Nature565, 337 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    J.-X. Yu, J. Zang, R. K. Lake, Y. Zhang, and G. Yin, Discrete quantum geometry and intrinsic spin Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B104, 184408 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Y. Zhao, Z. Mao, and B. Yan, Nonlinear transport signa- tures of hidden symmetry breaking in a Weyl altermag- net, Phys. Rev. B112, 165127 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    A. Gao, N. Nagaosa, N. Ni, and S.-Y. Xu, Quantum Geometry Phenomena in Condensed Matter Systems, arXiv:2508.00469

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Wen, H.-Y

    K. Wen, H.-Y. Xie, A. Auerbach, and B. Uchoa, Thermal and thermoelectric transport in flat bands with nontrivial quantum geometry, Phys. Rev. B111, 205140 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Y. Fang, S. Sur, Y. Xie, and Q. Si, Nonlinear thermal 7 and thermoelectric transport from quantum geometry, arXiv:2505.16999

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Peotta and P

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

    2015

  41. [49]

    Liang, T

    L. Liang, T. I. Vanhala, S. Peotta, T. Siro, A. Harju, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Band geometry, Berry curvature and su- perfluid weight, Phys. Rev. B95, 024515 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Huhtinen, J

    K.-E. Huhtinen, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, A. Chew, B. A. Bernevig, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Revisiting flat band supercon- ductivity: Dependence on minimal quantum metric and band touchings, Phys. Rev. B106, 014518 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    J. Yu, B. A.i Bernevig, R. Queiroz, E. Rossi, P. T¨ orm¨ a, and B.-J. Yang, Quantum geometry in quantum materi- als, npj Quantum Materials10, 101 (2025). Appendix A: Detailed calculations of˜M In the main text, the projected gap function reads, ˜M(Q,k) = X a,b ξ† +1,e,a(k)(M(Q...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.