Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Symmetry-Engineered Nonlinear Hall Response and Optical Response in Strained Monolayer Janus AsTeBr

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Uniaxial tensile strain turns on the symmetry-forbidden nonlinear Hall effect in monolayer Janus AsTeBr.

desk verdict Solid DFT study of strain-activated nonlinear Hall effect in Janus AsTeBr, but the headline BCD value contradicts its own table and needs fixing before I'd trust the number. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17385 v1 pith:GHLYMLLI submitted 2026-07-19 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Dimple Rani , Ritesh Ranjan Badhai , Gayatri Panda , Subrata Jana , Prasanjit Samal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords JanusmonolayerAsTeBrnonlinearHalleffectBerrycurvaturedipoleuniaxialstrainpoint-groupsymmetryfirst-principlescalculationstrain-tunableoptics
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

Monolayer Janus AsTeBr — a sheet with different atomic species on its two faces — is a nonmagnetic semiconductor with broken inversion symmetry, so it carries local Berry curvature; but its C3v point group forces the Berry curvature dipole, the first moment of that curvature, to cancel exactly, suppressing the intrinsic nonlinear Hall effect. The paper argues that uniaxial tensile strain lowers the symmetry to C1, removing the threefold cancellation and generating a finite Berry curvature dipole, a nonlinear Hall conductivity, and a second-harmonic transverse current without any magnetic field. The largest computed dipole, 0.20477 Å, appears at 2% tensile strain, with the y-direction Hall response dominating; larger strains weaken the peak. The same strain continuously red-shifts the optical absorption edge and reshapes the dielectric and reflectance spectra, so the paper connects symmetry breaking, Berry-phase geometry, nonlinear transport, and optics through a single strain-controlled mechanism. The practical upshot, if correct: strain is a symmetry switch that can turn a nominally non-responsive C3v material into a nonlinear Hall material, with optical spectra changing in step.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Berry curvature dipole D_ab, the momentum-space first moment of the occupied Berry curvature; in the low-frequency semiclassical limit it is directly proportional to the second-order nonlinear Hall conductivity. C3v symmetry forbids the dipole by forcing equal and opposite contributions from the symmetry-related valleys, while uniaxial strain lowers the symmetry to C1, allowing a nonzero dipole to emerge. The strain does not create Berry curvature; it redistributes its hotspots, and the paper's qualitative mechanism is precisely this anisotropic redistribution of positive and negative Berry-curvature lobes near K and K'. This identity is what turns a symmetry statem

What would settle it

Run a symmetry finder on the fully relaxed 2% strained atomic structure (and on the interpolated tight-binding Hamiltonian) and look for any mirror plane or rotation axis; if the detected point group contains anything beyond the identity, the claimed C3v-to-C1 transition is incorrect and the Berry-curvature-dipole tensor must be recomputed under the actual symmetry constraints.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that pristine monolayer AsTeBr, while harboring finite local Berry curvature from broken inversion symmetry, has a Berry curvature dipole that vanishes exactly under C3v symmetry. Uniaxial tensile strain along x is claimed to reduce the point group to C1, anisotropically redistributing Berry-curvature hotspots around the K and K' valleys so that positive and negative contributions no longer cancel. The reported Berry curvature dipole grows from zero in the pristine crystal to D_xz = 0.13747 Å and total magnitude |D| = 0.20477 Å at 2% strain, then falls to 0.1400 Å at 4% and 0.0263 Å at 6%. Via the standard relation between Berry curvature dipole and se

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that uniaxial strain along x reduces the relaxed monolayer to the C1 point group with no residual mirror plane — an assignment stated in Sec. III B but not supported by an explicit space-group/symmetry analysis of the strained coordinates or a group-theoretic check; if a mirror plane survives, the point group is C_s, which changes which Berry-curvature-dipole components are allowed, even though a finite dipole could still exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Uniaxial strain acts as an effective on/off switch for the intrinsic nonlinear Hall effect in a C3v Janus monolayer, without a magnetic field or magnetic ordering.
  • The response is nonmonotonic in strain: 2% tensile strain maximizes the Berry curvature dipole and Hall current, and the sign of the dominant component reverses between 4% and 6%, so strain magnitude is a control knob.
  • Because the dipole peaks about 0.2 eV below the Fermi level, gating or doping near the valence-band edge could further tune or enhance the nonlinear Hall response.
  • The predicted red shift and enhanced low-energy absorption give an independent optical fingerprint of the same strain-induced electronic reconstruction, testable in one sample.
  • The paper's comparison indicates the computed dipole exceeds values in several reported 2D nonlinear Hall materials, making AsTeBr a candidate for strain-tunable Berry-phase devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The symmetry-lowering mechanism should transfer to any isostructural C3v Janus monolayer with broken inversion symmetry: uniaxial strain is a generic switch, not a peculiarity of AsTeBr.
  • Comparing uniaxial with biaxial strain would isolate the mechanism, since biaxial strain preserves C3v (and, per the paper, keeps the dipole zero) while also changing the band gap; such a comparison tests whether symmetry reduction rather than gap narrowing is what activates the Hall response.
  • Reversing the strain axis or swapping tensile/compressive character should flip or interchange the dominant Hall tensor components, a direct signature for experiments.
  • If a residual mirror plane survives in the strained cell, the true point group would be C_s and the allowed dipole components would be constrained differently; the finite response would likely survive but the quoted tensor ratios would need recalculation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses PBE+SOC DFT, Wannier interpolation, and WannierBerri transport calculations to study monolayer Janus AsTeBr under uniaxial tensile strain. The central claim is that pristine AsTeBr has C3v symmetry, which enforces a vanishing Berry curvature dipole (BCD) and therefore a forbidden intrinsic nonlinear Hall effect; uniaxial strain is asserted to lower the point group to C1, producing a finite BCD, nonlinear Hall conductivity, and nonlinear Hall current, with a maximum BCD of 0.20477 Å at 2% tensile strain. The same strained structures are then used to compute strain-dependent JDOS, dielectric functions, absorption, and reflectance, all of which show a red shift and enhanced low-energy interband transitions. The quantitative centerpiece of the paper is the 2% strain BCD maximum, which is quoted in the abstract and conclusions.

Significance. The symmetry principle used—namely that C3v forbids a BCD—is standard and correctly stated, and the computational workflow (DFT+SOC, Wannier90, WannierBerri) is appropriate for this type of material. If the quantitative results can be properly established, the paper would demonstrate a useful strain-based switch for the nonlinear Hall effect in a Janus monolayer, with falsifiable predictions for the strain and energy dependence of D_xz and D_yz and a companion optical response. The inclusion of phonon stability checks and the explicit use of the Sodemann-Fu relaxation-time model are positive features. However, the current manuscript contains an internal inconsistency in the reported BCD magnitudes that directly affects the headline claim, and the asserted C3v-to-C1 symmetry lowering is not documented structurally. These issues must be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Table II; Sec. III B; Sec. IV] The reported BCD magnitudes are internally inconsistent. At 2% strain, Table II lists (D_xz, D_yz, |D|) = (0.13747, 0.07, 0.2047) Å, but sqrt(0.13747^2 + 0.07^2) = 0.154 Å, not 0.2047 Å. At 4% the entries give sqrt(0.08^2 + 0.06^2) = 0.10 Å, not 0.14 Å, and at 6% the quoted |D| = 0.0263 Å is smaller than |D_xz| = 0.07632 Å, which is impossible for any norm. The abstract and conclusions quote the 2% value (0.20477 Å) as the central maximum. Because no definition of |D| or energy window is given, the headline quantitative claim is unsupported as written. Please recompute the BCD components, specify the norm and the energy at which the maximum is taken, and correct all dependent numbers and comparisons.
  2. [Sec. III B] The asserted point-group lowering C3v -> C1 is not demonstrated. The manuscript gives no strained atomic coordinates, no space-group detection, and no group-theoretic check for residual mirror planes. This matters because the symmetry-engineering narrative is built entirely on the C1 assignment: if a mirror plane survived, the point group would be C_s and the allowed BCD components would change. The nonzero D_yz values in Table II are inconsistent with a residual mirror plane that would enforce D_yz = 0, so the data may be compatible with C1, but the structure must be shown explicitly. Please provide relaxed coordinates for each strain and a symmetry/space-group analysis.
  3. [Sec. III C] The nonlinear Hall conductivity and current claims are tied to the BCD values of Table II. Because the |D| column is not reproducible, the reported magnitudes of chi_yxx, chi_xyy, and |J^(2)|, and the statement that 2% strain gives the largest response, are likewise not quantitatively supported. In addition, the text should state clearly whether the tabulated BCD values correspond to the intrinsic Fermi level or to the energy of the largest response in Fig. 5; the current values in Fig. 8 depend on the chosen tau = 1 ps and field amplitude, and should be labeled as model-dependent estimates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical issues: 'shwon' near Fig. 4, 'Supplementery' in Sec. III B and in the Supplemental Material heading, and an incomplete sentence at the start of Sec. III B ('Fig. 3 shows ... Fig. 3 shows ...').
  2. [References] Reference [49] and [56] are the same Xiao et al. review; [65]/[66] and [67]/[68] duplicate earlier entries; [61]/[62] repeat [30]/[31]. Please merge or renumber to avoid duplication.
  3. [Sec. II / Table I] The uniaxial strain setup should be described more concretely: which lattice vector is strained, whether perpendicular relaxation is allowed, and how a_x in Table I is defined. This is needed to assess the symmetry assignment and to reproduce the strained-cell calculations.
  4. [Data Availability] Given the computational nature of the work, the authors should consider depositing the strained atomic coordinates, Wannier Hamiltonians, and raw BCD data in a public repository. The current statement says data are available on request, which limits reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the BCD, nonlinear Hall conductivity, and optical response are computed from first-principles Wannier Hamiltonians via the standard Sodemann–Fu framework; no fitted parameter or self-citation is load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its central claims. The Berry curvature dipole is evaluated from Wannier-interpolated first-principles band structures using Eq. (6), the standard Sodemann and Fu definition, and the nonlinear Hall conductivity is then obtained from the BCD via Eq. (10), which is a textbook proportionality rather than a fitted relation. No target value is fed back into the calculation; the relaxation time τ = 1 ps is an external scale that multiplies the current and does not affect the BCD. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [3,4,12,13,25]) are background references and are not used to justify the central symmetry-breaking or transport conclusions. The paper does not import a uniqueness theorem, smuggle an ansatz via citation, or rename an existing empirical result. The skeptic's concerns—the apparent inconsistency between Table II's |D| values and the quoted 0.20477 Å maximum, and the unverified C3v-to-C1 symmetry assignment—are correctness and support issues, not circularity: even if the magnitude is misreported or the point group mislabeled, the calculation of the BCD from the strained band structure remains a first-principles computation rather than a self-referential derivation. Therefore no circular step is exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a computational prediction that introduces no new physical entities. The central assumptions are the fidelity of the DFT/Wannier description, the constant relaxation-time approximation, and the specific C1 symmetry assignment for the strained structure. The only adjustable parameter entering the transport magnitude is the relaxation time.

free parameters (1)
  • Carrier relaxation time τ = 1.0 ps (assumed constant)
    Chosen from literature (ref. 63) and used in Eqs. (9)-(10) to convert the Berry curvature dipole into nonlinear Hall conductivity and current. It scales the magnitude of the current but does not affect the BCD or the strain dependence.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PBE+SOC DFT accurately captures the band structure and Berry curvature of AsTeBr near the Fermi level.
    All transport and optical quantities are computed from PBE+SOC wave functions; PBE is known to underestimate band gaps, and no hybrid or GW correction is applied.
  • domain assumption Maximally localized Wannier interpolation faithfully reproduces the DFT Hamiltonian and Berry curvature.
    Wannier90/WannierBerri is a standard tool, but the paper does not report Wannier spread, frozen window, or convergence tests for the Berry curvature.
  • ad hoc to paper The uniaxially strained monolayer AsTeBr relaxes to C1 point-group symmetry.
    Assumed in Sec. III B without space-group analysis or explicit symmetry detection of the strained cell. If a mirror plane is preserved, the point group would be Cs, not C1.
  • domain assumption Semiclassical Boltzmann transport with a constant relaxation time describes the second-order Hall response.
    Follows the Sodemann-Fu theory; standard for BCD calculations, but τ is material- and environment-dependent and is taken as a constant.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-Engineered Nonlinear Hall Response and Optical Response in Strained Monolayer Janus AsTeBr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GHLYMLLI

@misc{pith2026260717385,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-Engineered Nonlinear Hall Response and Optical Response in Strained Monolayer Janus AsTeBr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GHLYMLLI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17385}
}
abstract

The nonlinear Hall effect (NLHE) enables the generation of a transverse charge current in nonmagnetic materials with broken inversion symmetry while preserving time-reversal symmetry through the Berry curvature dipole (BCD). However, in crystals with $C_{3v}$ symmetry, the threefold rotational symmetry forces the BCD to vanish, thereby suppressing the intrinsic NLHE despite the presence of finite local Berry curvature. Here, using first-principles density functional theory combined with Wannier-based transport calculations, we demonstrate that uniaxial strain induces the NLHE in monolayer Janus AsTeBr by lowering the crystal symmetry from $C_{3v}$ to $C_{1}$ and generating a finite BCD. The resulting anisotropic redistribution of Berry-curvature hotspots produces pronounced nonlinear Hall conductivity and nonlinear Hall current, with the maximum response obtained at 2\% tensile strain. To elucidate the accompanying electronic-structure evolution, we further investigate the strain-dependent optical properties through the joint density of states, dielectric function, optical absorption, and reflectance. The optical spectra exhibit a systematic red shift and enhanced low-energy interband transitions, consistent with the strain-induced reconstruction of the electronic structure. Our results establish a microscopic connection between symmetry breaking, Berry-phase geometry, nonlinear Hall transport, and optical response, demonstrating that uniaxial strain provides an effective strategy for tailoring multiple functional properties in Janus two-dimensional materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17385 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Top and side views of the optimized crystal struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) Orbital-projected electronic band structure of monolayer AsTeBr. The dashed line denotes the Fermi level ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Band-resolved Berry curvature of monolayer Janus AsTeBr under 0%, 2%, 4%, and 6% uniaxial tensile strain. The top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Occupied Berry curvature, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Energy-dependent BCD components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Magnitude of the second-order nonlinear Hall cur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Second-order nonlinear Hall conductivity tensor com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Strain-dependent optical properties of Janus AsTeBr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Calculated phonon dispersion of monolayer Janus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: presents the occupied Berry curvature pro￾jected along the high-symmetry path, obtained from Wannier interpolation.[67, 68] Although the antisymmetric distribu￾tion required by time-reversal symmetry is preserved, uniaxial strain substantially modifies the magnitude a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Momentum-space distribution of the Berry curvature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Momentum-space distribution of the Berry curvature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V . Morozov, D. Jiang, Y . Zhang, S. V . Dubonos, I. V . Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science306, 666 (2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Materials6, 183 (2007)

    2007

  3. [3]

    Ghosh, S

    A. Ghosh, S. Jana, D. Rani, S. ´Smiga, M. K. Niranjan, and P. Samal, Phys. Rev. B113, 085122 (2026)

    2026

  4. [4]

    Ghosh, S

    A. Ghosh, S. Jana, M. Hossain, D. Rani, S. ´Smiga, and P. Samal, Phys. Rev. B112, 045128 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    K. F. Mak, C. Lee, J. Hone, J. Shan, and T. F. Heinz, Physical Review Letters105, 136805 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Splendiani, L

    A. Splendiani, L. Sun, Y . Zhang, T. Li, J. Kim, C.-Y . Chim, G. Galli, and F. Wang, Nano Letters10, 1271 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    X. Xu, W. Yao, D. Xiao, and T. F. Heinz, Nature Physics10, 343 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    Manzeli, D

    S. Manzeli, D. Ovchinnikov, D. Pasquier, O. V . Yazyev, and A. Kis, Nature Reviews Materials2, 17033 (2017)

    2017

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    J. Qiao, X. Kong, Z.-X. Hu, F. Yang, and W. Ji, Nature Com- munications5, 4475 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Naguib, M

    M. Naguib, M. Kurtoglu, V . Presser, J. Lu, J. Niu, M. Heon, L. Hultman, Y . Gogotsi, and M. W. Barsoum, Advanced Mate- rials23, 4248 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Chhowalla, D

    M. Chhowalla, D. Jena, and H. Zhang, Nature Reviews Mate- rials1, 16052 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    D. Rani, B. R. K. Nanda, and P. Samal, Phys. Rev. B112, 174401 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    D. Rani, G. Panda, S. Jana, and P. Samal, ACS Applied Nano Materials9, 5423 (2026), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.5c05785

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    A.-Y . Lu, H. Zhu, J. Xiao, C.-P. Chuu, Y . Han, M.-H. Chiu, C.-C. Cheng, C.-W. Yang, K.-H. Wei, Y . Yang, Y . Wang, D. Sokaras, D. Nordlund, P. Yang, D. A. Muller, M.-Y . Chou, X. Zhang, and L.-J. Li, Nature Nanotechnology12, 744 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    L. Dong, J. Lou, and V . B. Shenoy, ACS Nano11, 8242 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Zhang, S

    J. Zhang, S. Jia, I. Kholmanov, L. Dong, D. Er, W. Chen, H. Guo, Z. Jin, V . B. Shenoy, L. Shi, and J. Lou, ACS Nano11, 8192 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Z. Shen, C. Song, Y . Xue, Z. Wu, J. Wang, and Z. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B106, 094403 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Liang, W

    J. Liang, W. Wang, H. Du, A. Hallal, K. Garcia, M. Chshiev, A. Fert, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. B101, 184401 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Q. Cui, J. Liang, Z. Shao, P. Cui, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 102, 094425 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Physical Review Letters108, 196802 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    K. F. Mak, D. Xiao, and J. Shan, Nature Photonics12, 451 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Zheng, Y

    S. Zheng, Y . Liu, J. Duan, H. Song, F. Xia, and Z. Liu, Nano Research13, 3059 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y . Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  16. [25]

    D. Rani, S. Jana, M. K. Niranjan, and P. Samal, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C129, 3784 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c07037

    2025 doi

  17. [26]

    Chauhan, J

    P. Chauhan, J. Singh, and A. Kumar, Journal of Materials Chemistry A11, 10413 (2023)

    2023

  18. [27]

    A. C. Riis-Jensen, T. Deilmann, T. Olsen, and K. S. Thygesen, ACS Nano13, 13354 (2019), pMID: 31613091, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.9b06698

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    Kocaba¸ s, D

    T. Kocaba¸ s, D. Çakır, and C. Sevik, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter33, 115705 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Sodemann and L

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

    2015

  21. [32]

    S.-Y . Xu, Q. Ma, H. Shen, V . Fatemi, S. Wu,et al., Nature Physics14, 900 (2018)

    2018

  22. [33]

    J.-S. You, S. Fang, S.-Y . Xu, E. Kaxiras, and T. Low, Physical Review B98, 121109(R) (2018)

    2018

  23. [34]

    He and H

    Z. He and H. Weng, npj Quantum Materials6, 101 (2021)

    2021

  24. [35]

    Z. Z. Du, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Nature Reviews Physics3, 744 (2021)

    2021

  25. [36]

    Z. Liao, Z. Xu, E. Wang, and H. Huang, Phys. Rev. B113, 165103 (2026)

    2026

  26. [37]

    X. Qian, J. Liu, L. Fu, and J. Li, Science346, 1344 (2014)

    2014

  27. [38]

    G. Wang, A. Chernikov, M. M. Glazov, T. F. Heinz, X. Marie, T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 021001 (2018)

    2018

  28. [39]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Computational materials science 6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  29. [40]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Physical review B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  30. [41]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Physical review b59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  31. [42]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and Y . Wang, Physical review B54, 16533 (1996)

    1996

  32. [43]

    H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B13, 5188 (1976)

    1976

  33. [44]

    Togo and I

    A. Togo and I. Tanaka, Scripta Materialia108, 1 (2015)

    2015

  34. [45]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  35. [46]

    Souza, N

    I. Souza, N. Marzari, and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B65, 035109 (2001)

    2001

  36. [47]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V . Vitale, R. Arita, S. Blügel, F. Freimuth, G. Géran- ton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune,et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter32, 165902 (2020)

    2020

  37. [48]

    S. S. Tsirkin, npj Comput. Mater.7, 33 (2021)

    2021

  38. [50]

    Y . Yao, L. Kleinman, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, T. Jung- wirth, D.-s. Wang, E. Wang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 037204 (2004)

    2004

  39. [51]

    J. M. Ziman,Electrons and phonons: the theory of transport phenomena in solids(Oxford university press, 2001)

    2001

  40. [52]

    Gajdoš, K

    M. Gajdoš, K. Hummer, G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, and F. Bechstedt, Phys. Rev. B73, 045112 (2006)

    2006

  41. [53]

    Wiser, Physical Review129, 62 (1963)

    N. Wiser, Physical Review129, 62 (1963)

    1963

  42. [54]

    P. Y . Yu and M. Cardona,Fundamentals of Semiconductors (Springer, 2010)

    2010

  43. [55]

    Karplus and J

    R. Karplus and J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev.95, 1154 (1954)

    1954

  44. [56]

    Xiao, M.-C

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

    1959

  45. [57]

    “See supplemental material at [url will be inserted by publisher] for additional details of the structural parameters, phonon dis- persion, berry curvature dipole, and occupied berry curvature of strained monolayer janus astebr.” (2026)

    2026

  46. [58]

    D. Xiao, W. Yao, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 236809 (2007). 10

    2007

  47. [59]

    Xiong, Z

    Y . Xiong, Z. Gong, and H. Jin, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter37, 195301 (2025)

    2025

  48. [60]

    Bandyopadhyay, N

    A. Bandyopadhyay, N. B. Joseph, and A. Narayan, Materials Today Electronics8, 100101 (2024)

    2024

  49. [61]

    Ma, S.-Y

    Q. Ma, S.-Y . Xu, H. Shen, D. MacNeill, V . Fatemi, T.-R. Chang, A. M. M. 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, Nature 565, 337 (2019)

    2019

  50. [62]

    K. Kang, T. Li, E. Sohn, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature Mate- rials18, 324 (2019)

    2019

  51. [63]

    F. I. S., S. Sharma, and A. De Sarkar, Journal of Applied Physics138, 174301 (2025)

    2025

  52. [64]

    Terada, S

    I. Terada, S. Kitamura, H. Watanabe, and H. Ikeda, physica status solidi (b) – Basic Research262, 2400533 (2025)

    2025

  53. [65]

    Togo and I

    A. Togo and I. Tanaka, Scr. Mater.108, 1 (2015)

    2015

  54. [66]

    Togo, http://phonopy.github.io/phonopy/ (2015)

    A. Togo, http://phonopy.github.io/phonopy/ (2015)

    2015

  55. [67]

    A. A. Mostofiet al., Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2309 (2014)

    2014

  56. [68]

    S. S. Tsirkin, npj Comput. Mater.7, 33 (2021). V . SUPPLEMENTARY MA TERIAL A. Structural Parameters The optimized structural and electronic parameters of monolayer Janus AsTeBr under uniaxial tensile strain applied along thexdirection are summarized in Table I. As the tensile ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.