Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Enhancement of exciton radius near a band-gap closing through quantum geometry

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

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

Pith's one-line read Near a band-gap closing, the quantum geometry of electron–hole Bloch states suppresses projected Coulomb coupling, narrowing the exciton wavefunction in momentum space and thereby enlarging its real-space radius and quadratic diamagnetic re

desk verdict A clean model demonstration that quantum geometry can enlarge exciton radii near a gap closing; the diamagnetic bridge is the one soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28731 v1 pith:GTQHUP6O submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.mes-hall

Jin-Hyung Choi , Sang-Hoon Han , Young-Kwon Han , Sun-Woo Kim , Jun-Won Rhim , Joshua J. P. Thompson This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords excitonradiusquantumgeometrymetricband-projectedWannierequationscatteringformfactorChernbandsLieblatticediamagneticresponse
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 tries to establish that quantum geometry—specifically the quantum distance between Bloch states at different momenta—can materially change exciton properties near a band-gap closing. It shows, in a spin–orbit-coupled Lieb lattice tuned toward a topological transition, that the rapid variation of the electron–hole Bloch frame suppresses the finite-momentum Coulomb matrix elements via the form factor Λ_kk'. This suppression keeps the exciton wavefunction more localized in momentum space, which by Fourier correspondence enlarges the electron–hole separation in real space. The enlarged radius is quantified by a gauge-invariant expression using a covariant derivative, and it is predicted to enhance the weak-field diamagnetic response, providing a magneto-optical observable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the band-projected Wannier equation with the scattering form factor Λ_kk' multiplying the screened Coulomb potential. Λ_kk' measures the overlap between electron and hole Bloch states at different momenta; its magnitude is tied to the Hilbert–Schmidt quantum distance d_HS = sqrt(1−|Λ|²). The second central object is the covariant derivative D_μ = ∂_μ − iA^eh_μ acting on the electron–hole product Bloch frame |U_k⟩ = |u_ck⟩⊗|u*vk⟩, through which the gauge-invariant exciton radius ξ² is defined. The argument moves from enhanced quantum metric near the gap minimum → suppressed Λ → narrowed φ(k) → enlarged ξ → enhanced diamagnetic response.

What would settle it

A measurement of the exciton diamagnetic shift in a gate- or strain-tunable material as the direct gap is narrowed: if the quadratic coefficient γ does not grow substantially faster than the unity-overlap prediction (which uses the same dispersion and screening but Λ=1), the geometric enhancement claim is falsified. The paper's own reference calculation provides the null baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the band-projected electron–hole Coulomb interaction V_kk' = V_0(k−k')Λ_kk' is not constant across the Brillouin zone; the overlap form factor Λ_kk' = ⟨u_ck|u_ck'⟩⟨u_vk'|u_vk⟩ falls below unity as the quantum distance between Bloch frames grows. Near a band-gap closing, the quantum metric around the band extrema is enhanced, so Bloch states at momenta separated by the exciton's momentum spread become mutually less parallel. This reduces the scattering strength that would otherwise spread the exciton wavefunction in k-space; the exciton becomes narrower in momentum space and therefore larger in real space. The paper demonstrates this mechanism numerically in a spin–o

Load-bearing premise

The strongest experimental claim—enhanced diamagnetic response via γ = e²ξ²/(8m_r)—assumes the electron–hole reduced mass m_r remains a valid, well-defined parabolic mass in the small-gap regime; but as λ_SOC → 0 the upper and middle bands approach a linear touching at M, where the effective-mass description breaks down, and the paper does not specify the m_r used in Fig. 4(c).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In materials where the exciton's momentum support overlaps a region of strong Bloch-frame variation (band inversions, avoided crossings, topological gap closings), the standard unity-overlap approximation overestimates exciton binding and underestimates exciton radius.
  • The diamagnetic coefficient γ scales as ξ², so the geometric enhancement should be observable as a large quadratic magnetic-field shift of the exciton energy.
  • The mechanism is distinct from effective-mass or screening changes; it operates even when the single-particle dispersion and screened Coulomb potential are held fixed.
  • The effect is not fundamentally topological: the relevant criterion is finite quantum distance within the exciton's momentum support, and topology is just one route to that regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same mechanism should apply to excitons in other systems with strongly momentum-dependent Bloch frames, such as moiré materials or Dirac/Weyl semimetals near a Lifshitz transition; the key dimensionless quantity is the ratio of the quantum-metric length scale to the exciton Bohr momentum.
  • Because the form-factor suppression is anisotropic (favouring coupling along the radial direction of the reference momentum), it may imprint an angular anisotropy on the exciton wavefunction and hence on optical absorption under polarized light—an untested consequence the paper does not pursue.
  • If the effective-mass assumption fails near the gap closing (bands become linear), the quadratic diamagnetic formula may need replacement by a linear/Dirac-type magnetic response; one could test the crossover by computing the full finite-field spectrum.
  • The gauge-invariant radius formula could be applied to time-resolved or terahertz measurements of exciton size, where the momentum-space narrowing would manifest as a reduced coherence length.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies excitons in a spin-orbit-coupled Lieb lattice and solves the band-projected Wannier equation with the full momentum-dependent electron-hole Bloch overlaps. It shows that as the gap between the upper and middle bands closes with decreasing |λ_SOC|, the rapid variation of the Bloch frame suppresses the projected Coulomb matrix elements through the form factor Λ_kk'. This suppresses the finite-momentum Coulomb coupling, narrows the momentum-space exciton wavefunction, and thereby enlarges the gauge-invariant real-space radius ξ. The authors compare against a unity-overlap reference that retains the same dispersions and screened interaction, and they argue that the radius enhancement leads to an enhanced weak-field diamagnetic response via γ_dia = e²ξ²/(8m_r).

Significance. If the central mechanism is correct, the paper provides a clean and systematic demonstration that quantum geometry, not just effective mass and screening, can control the internal size of an exciton. The unity-overlap comparison is a thoughtful counterfactual that isolates the Bloch-frame contribution, and the covariant radius formula in Eq. (6) is a useful methodological contribution. The numerical Wannier-equation calculation appears internally consistent, and the authors are careful not to assign a physical value exactly at the gap closing. However, the experimentally accessible diamagnetic prediction is not quantitatively established, because Eq. (7) relies on a parabolic reduced mass that is not defined or provided in the very regime where the enhancement is largest. The paper's own Discussion admits this limitation, but Fig. 4(c) still presents the quadratic diamagnetic shift as a quantitative estimate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (7), Fig. 4(c), Discussion] The claimed experimentally accessible signature rests entirely on γ_dia = e²ξ²/(8m_r), but no value or definition of the electron-hole reduced mass m_r is given anywhere. In the small-|λ_SOC| regime where the radius enhancement is largest, the upper and middle bands touch linearly at M (Supplement S.II; Fig. 2), so a parabolic effective mass is ill-defined and the quadratic-in-B approximation is uncontrolled. The Discussion acknowledges the need for a reliable m_r and a valid field range, yet Fig. 4(c) is presented as a quantitative estimate. Please state the m_r used for each λ_SOC and justify the B² regime, or replace Fig. 4(c) with a direct finite-field calculation (e.g., Peierls substitution) of the low-field diamagnetic shift. Without this, the 'experimentally accessible' diamagnetic claim is not supported.
  2. [S.II, S.III, Fig. 4] The numerical model parameters are not reported. The Lieb-lattice Hamiltonian in Eq. (S19) contains an implicit nearest-neighbour hopping amplitude/energy scale, and the screened interaction V0(q) in Eq. (S33) depends on ε_s, r0, L_w, ε_w; none of these are given numerical values. The text mentions a gap of about 0.8 eV at λ_SOC=0.20 but does not connect λ_SOC or the hopping to a physical energy scale. Consequently the quantitative values of ξ/a in Fig. 4(b) and γ_dia in Fig. 4(c), and the claim of 'many lattice spacings,' cannot be reproduced or independently assessed. The non-uniform mesh parameters (number of radial/angular cells, outer buffer radius, and convergence tests) are also omitted. Please provide all parameters and convergence checks, or clearly label the results as dimensionless model illustrations rather than material-specific predictions.
  3. [Eq. (6) and Supplement S.III] Eq. (6) is written with bare sums ∑_k, but the numerical solution uses a weighted finite-volume quadrature with inner product ⟨ϕ|ψ⟩_W and weights W_i (S.38–S.44). If a reader implements Eq. (6) using an unweighted sum, the radius will be incorrect. The main text should state that ∑_k denotes the weighted Brillouin-zone quadrature defined in Supplement S.III, or use integral notation with the appropriate measure. This is not merely cosmetic: the gauge-invariant radius is the central observable, and its numerical evaluation must be unambiguous.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4(c)] The axes of Fig. 4(c) are not labeled with units, and the value of m_r is not stated. If the plot is only schematic, say so explicitly; if it is quantitative, provide the parameter set.
  2. [Supplement S.III, Eq. (S33)] The q=0 component of V0 is set to zero. This is a standard regularization, but its effect on the binding energy and radius should be briefly justified or quantified, since the q=0 term could influence the absolute scale of the results.
  3. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract and introduction emphasize the quantum metric, but the quantitative mechanism actually uses finite Hilbert-Schmidt distances and the form factor Λ_kk'. The relationship between the local metric and the finite-distance suppression is discussed, but a sentence in the introduction clarifying that the finite-distance form factor, not the infinitesimal metric alone, enters the calculation would improve readability.
  4. [Main text, near Eq. (10) and Fig. 3] The quantity σ in the definition q_ref = ρ σ(cosθ,sinθ) is introduced in the Fig. 3 caption but should be defined in the main text before its first use. Currently the reader must infer its meaning from the caption.
  5. [Author Contributions] The Author Contributions statement refers to a 'Methods' section, but the main text has no Methods section; the technical details are in the Supplementary Information. Please reword to avoid the inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central radius enhancement follows from the model Hamiltonian and the Wannier equation, with the unity-overlap reference used as a clearly labelled counterfactual; the self-citations provide framework, not the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The projected Wannier equation (Eq. 2), the form factor Λ_kk' (Eq. 3), and the gauge-covariant radius formula (Eq. 6) are evaluated directly from the tight-binding model Hamiltonian and its Bloch eigenvectors; no parameter is fitted to reproduce the claimed enhancement. The unity-overlap reference is explicitly introduced as a counterfactual that keeps the same single-particle dispersions and screened Coulomb potential but sets Λ_kk' = 1, so the difference between the full and reference calculations is a well-defined measure of Bloch-frame effects rather than a hidden input. The self-citations (refs [20,31,32,42]) supply standard definitions of quantum distance and the electron–hole product Bloch frame; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem and are not the quantity being predicted. The experimental bridge, Eq. (7) with γ_dia = e²ξ²/(8m_r), is explicitly restricted to the weak-field effective-mass approximation, and the Discussion acknowledges that quantitative extraction requires a reliably determined reduced mass and a valid quadratic field regime. The unreported m_r used in Fig. 4(c) is a completeness or correctness limitation, not a circular step. No prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, and the central result does not reduce to a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no coefficients to external data; the model inputs (screening, hopping, SOC strength) are hand-chosen and unstated numerically, which limits reproducibility but does not make the result circular.

free parameters (4)
  • Screened-Coulomb parameters ε_s, r0 (L_w ε_w/(2ε_s)) = not stated
    Set by hand; no values given in text. V0(q) enters every Wannier matrix element and controls the quantitative radius and binding.
  • Nearest-neighbour hopping amplitude (energy scale) = not stated
    Sets the eV scale in Figs. 1–4; not specified explicitly.
  • Electron-hole reduced mass m_r = not stated
    Required for Fig. 4(c); near λ→0 the dispersion is linear and m_r is not uniquely defined.
  • Spin-orbit coupling λ_SOC = 0.20, 0.05, -0.05, -0.20 (swept; not fitted)
    Control parameter; swept to approach the topological transition. Chosen, not fit to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two-band band-projected Wannier equation (Eq. 2) with a static screened Coulomb interaction describes the lowest exciton.
    The entire calculation rests on this truncation; the authors acknowledge multiband and dynamical-screening corrections may alter quantitative results (Discussion).
  • domain assumption The exciton has zero centre-of-mass momentum and is formed between isolated conduction and valence bands; exactly at λ=0 this fails and is excluded.
    Eq. (1) and the Discussion; the paper assigns no physical value at the exact gap closing.
  • standard math The projected relative-position operator is r_μ = iD_μ with the Berry connection of the electron-hole product frame, and the squared radius is the variance given by Eq. (6).
    Standard Blount/Resta construction; Supp. I derives it; load-bearing for the radius claim.
  • domain assumption The weak-field diamagnetic shift is ΔE_dia = γ B² with γ = e² ξ²/(8m_r).
    Eq. (7); assumes a well-defined parabolic reduced mass, which is questionable near the gap closing.
  • ad hoc to paper The screened Coulomb potential V0(q) = -e²/(2ε0 ε_s q(1+r0 q)), with the q=0 component omitted, captures the electron-hole attraction.
    A model choice; parameters not specified; affects quantitative radii.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancement of exciton radius near a band-gap closing through quantum geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GTQHUP6O

@misc{pith2026260728731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancement of exciton radius near a band-gap closing through quantum geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GTQHUP6O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28731}
}
read the original abstract

Exciton engineering traditionally focuses on modifying semiclassical material properties, such as the effective mass and dielectric screening, while largely overlooking the quantum geometry of the underlying electron and hole Bloch states. This approximation is adequate for many materials but breaks down near a topological band-gap closing, where the quantum metric around the band extrema becomes strongly enhanced. In this regime, Bloch states at different momenta become less similar, reducing the projected electron--hole Coulomb matrix elements and consequently weakening exciton binding. We demonstrate this mechanism in a spin--orbit-coupled Lieb-lattice model tuned toward a topological phase transition. The suppressed Coulomb matrix elements narrow the exciton wavefunction in momentum space, leading to an enlarged exciton radius in real space. This increase in exciton size produces an experimentally accessible enhancement of the weak-field diamagnetic response. Our results show that quantum geometry can fundamentally reshape exciton properties near a topological phase transition, revealing a previously underexplored route for engineering excitonic states.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Wannier, G. H. The structure of electronic excitation levels in insulating crystals. Physical Review52, 191– 197 (1937)

    1937

  2. [2]

    Mott, N. F. Conduction in polar crystals. ii. the con- duction band and ultra-violet absorption of alkali-halide crystals. Trans. Faraday Soc.34, 500–506 (1938)

    1938

  3. [3]

    & Sham, L

    Hanke, W. & Sham, L. J. Many-particle effects in the optical spectrum of a semiconductor. Phys. Rev. B21, 4656–4673 (1980)

    1980

  4. [4]

    Application of the green’s functions method to the study of the optical properties of semiconductors

    Strinati, G. Application of the green’s functions method to the study of the optical properties of semiconductors. Riv. Nuovo Cimento11, 1–86 (1988)

    1988

  5. [5]

    & Rubio, A

    Onida, G., Reining, L. & Rubio, A. Electronic exci- tations: Density-functional versus many-body green’s- function approaches. Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 601–659 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    & Louie, S

    Rohlfing, M. & Louie, S. G. Electron-hole excitations and optical spectra from first principles. Phys. Rev. B 62, 4927–4944 (2000)

    2000

  7. [7]

    Y., da Jornada, F

    Qiu, D. Y., da Jornada, F. H. & Louie, S. G. Optical spectrum of mos2: Many-body effects and diversity of exciton states. Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 216805 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    C., Hybertsen, M

    Berkelbach, T. C., Hybertsen, M. S. & Reichman, D. R. Theory of neutral and charged excitons in mono- layer transition metal dichalcogenides. Phys. Rev. B88, 045318 (2013)

    2013

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Wang, G. et al. Colloquium: Excitons in atomically thin transition metal dichalcogenides. Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 021001 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Perea-Causin, R. et al. Exciton optics, dynam- ics, and transport in atomically thin semiconductors. APL Mater.10(2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Thompson, J. J. P. et al. Phonon-bottleneck enhanced exciton emission in 2d perovskites. Advanced Energy Materials14, 2304343 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    & Malic, E

    Bergh¨ auser, G. & Malic, E. Analytical approach to exci- tonic properties of MoS 2. Physical Review B89, 125309 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    & Pisante, A

    Panati, G. & Pisante, A. Bloch bundles, marzari– vanderbilt functional and maximally localized wannier functions. Commun. Math. Phys.322, 835–875 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    & Stoltz, G

    Canc` es,´E., Levitt, A., Panati, G. & Stoltz, G. Robust determination of maximally localized wannier functions. Phys. Rev. B95, 075114 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Berry, M. V. Quantal phase factors accompanying adia- batic changes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A392, 45–57 (1984)

    1984

  8. [16]

    Provost, J. P. & Vallee, G. Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states. Commun. Math. Phys.76, 289–301 (1980). 9

    1980

  9. [17]

    & Niu, Q

    Xiao, D., Chang, M.-C. & Niu, Q. Berry phase effects on electronic properties. Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959–2007 (2010)

    1959

  10. [18]

    & Slager, R.-J

    Bouhon, A., Timmel, A. & Slager, R.-J. Quan- tum geometry beyond projective single bands. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02180 (2023). 2303.02180

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yu, J. et al. Quantum geometry in quantum materials. npj Quantum Mater.10, 101 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    & Yang, B.-J

    Rhim, J.-W., Kim, K. & Yang, B.-J. Quantum distance and anomalous landau levels of flat bands. Nature584, 59–63 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    & Yang, B.-J

    Rhim, J.-W. & Yang, B.-J. Singular flat bands. Advances in Physics: X6, 1901606 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    & Imamoglu, A

    Srivastava, A. & Imamoglu, A. Signatures of bloch- band geometry on excitons: Nonhydrogenic spectra in transition-metal dichalcogenides. Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 166802 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    & Xiao, D

    Zhou, J., Shan, W.-Y., Yao, W. & Xiao, D. Berry phase modification to the energy spectrum of excitons. Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 166803 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    & Xiao, D

    Zhang, X., Shan, W.-Y. & Xiao, D. Optical selec- tion rule of excitons in gapped chiral fermion systems. Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 077401 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    & Louie, S

    Cao, T., Wu, M. & Louie, S. G. Unifying optical selection rules for excitons in two dimensions: Band topology and winding numbers. Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 087402 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Tang, J., Wang, S. & Yu, H. Inheritance of the ex- citon geometric structure from bloch electrons in two- dimensional layered semiconductors. Front. Phys.19, 43210 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Qiu, W.-X. & Wu, F. Quantum geometry probed by chiral excitonic optical response of chern insulators. Phys. Rev. B111, L121104 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    & Uchoa, B

    Lozano, M., Xie, H.-Y. & Uchoa, B. Optical selection rules of topological excitons in flat bands. Phys. Rev. B 112, 235417 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    & Schindler, F

    Davenport, H., Knolle, J. & Schindler, F. Interaction-induced crystalline topology of excitons. Physical Review Letters133, 176601 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    & Schindler, F

    Davenport, H., Knolle, J. & Schindler, F. Exciton berry- ology. Physical Review B113, 045125 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    J., Thompson, J

    Jankowski, W. J., Thompson, J. J. P., Monserrat, B. & Slager, R.-J. Excitonic topology and quantum geome- try in organic semiconductors. Nat. Commun.16, 4661 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Thompson, J. J. P., Jankowski, W. J., Slager, R.-J. & Monserrat, B. Topologically enhanced exciton transport. Nat. Commun.16, 11448 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    & Franz, M

    Weeks, C. & Franz, M. Topological insulators on the lieb and perovskite lattices. Phys. Rev. B82, 085310 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Goldman, N., Urban, D. F. & Bercioux, D. Topologi- cal phases for fermionic cold atoms on the lieb lattice. Phys. Rev. A83, 063601 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    & Flach, S

    Leykam, D., Andreanov, A. & Flach, S. Artificial flat band systems: From lattice models to experiments. Adv. Phys. X3, 1473052 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Rhim, J.-W. et al. Topological protection by lo- cal support symmetry and destructive interference. Nature communications17, 2739 (2026)

    2026

  29. [37]

    Quantum-mechanical position operator in ex- tended systems

    Resta, R. Quantum-mechanical position operator in ex- tended systems. Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1800–1803 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    & Vishwanath, A

    Ahn, J., Guo, G.-Y., Nagaosa, N. & Vishwanath, A. Riemannian geometry of resonant optical responses. Nat. Phys.18, 290–295 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    V., McCreary, K

    Stier, A. V., McCreary, K. M., Jonker, B. T., Kono, J. & Crooker, S. A. Exciton diamagnetic shifts and valley Zeeman effects in monolayer WS2 and MoS2 to 65 Tesla. Nat. Commun.7, 10643 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Goryca, M. et al. Revealing exciton masses and dielectric properties of monolayer semiconductors with high mag- netic fields. Nat. Commun.10, 4172 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Blount, E. I. Formalisms of band theory. In Seitz, F. & Turnbull, D. (eds.) Solid State Physics, vol. 13, 305–373 (New York, 1962)

    1962

  34. [42]

    & Yang, B.-J

    Hwang, Y., Rhim, J.-W. & Yang, B.-J. Geometric char- acterization of anomalous Landau levels of isolated flat bands. Nat. Commun.12, 6433 (2021). Author Contributions Statement All authors discussed the results and contributed to the writing of the manuscript. The final form o...

    2021

  35. [43]

    E. I. Blount, Formalisms of band theory, inSolid State Physics, V ol. 13, edited by F. Seitz and D. Turnbull (New York, 1962) pp. 305–373

    1962

  36. [44]

    Vanderbilt,Berry Phases in Electronic Structure Theory: Electric Polarization, Orbital Magnetization and Topological Insulators(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)

    D. Vanderbilt,Berry Phases in Electronic Structure Theory: Electric Polarization, Orbital Magnetization and Topological Insulators(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Yusufaly, D

    T. Yusufaly, D. Vanderbilt, and S. Coh, Tight-binding formalism in the context of the pythtb package,https://pythtb.readthedocs.io/en/latest/_downloads/ d2c0b338f0ea33e8d8e8f0a0e26f7589/pythtb-formalism.pdf(2022), updated June 22, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Ahn, G.-Y

    J. Ahn, G.-Y . Guo, N. Nagaosa, and A. Vishwanath, Riemannian geometry of resonant optical responses, Nat. Phys.18, 290 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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