Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Floquet Engineering of Topological Phases and Magneto-Optical Response in a Driven $d$-wave Altermagnet

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Linearly polarized light breaks the C4zT symmetry between spin sectors of a d-wave altermagnet and produces Chern-insulating phases with C=±1 that reverse sign when the polarization is rotated by π/2.

desk verdict Clean symmetry mechanism for Chern switching in a driven d-wave altermagnet, but the Faraday/Kerr spectra rest on an unquantified high-frequency assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11192 v1 pith:5533YV4U submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.mes-hall

Muzamil Shah This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords altermagnetismFloquetengineeringlinearlypolarizedlightCherninsulatorspin-ChernphaseKuboconductivitymagneto-opticalresponseBerrycurvature
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

This paper argues that the polarization direction of linearly polarized light is a switch for topological phases in a d-wave altermagnet. In the undriven, spin-conserving model, the two spin sectors carry opposite Chern numbers, so the total Chern number is zero. Because the light field renormalizes hopping amplitudes differently along the two lattice directions, it breaks the C4zT crystalline antiunitary symmetry that connects the spin-up and spin-down sectors. The spin-resolved band gaps then close and reopen at different drive strengths, producing intermediate Chern-insulating phases with C=±1, with the sign selected by the polarization angle. If correct, this identifies linear polarization as a helicity-free, contact-free handle for spin-resolved band inversion and Chern-number switching in altermagnets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-averaged Floquet Hamiltonian obtained from linearly polarized driving, with hopping amplitudes renormalized by the Jacobi–Anger expansion: teff_x = t_x J0(A0 cosθ) and teff_y = t_y J0(A0 sinθ). The inequality of these two Bessel factors is the mechanism that breaks C4zT, because the crystalline antiunitary operation would exchange the two axes and the two spin sectors, but the polarization direction is not invariant under that exchange. This anisotropic renormalization shifts the effective masses of the two spin blocks independently, so the band inversions close and reopen at different drive parameters, producing the intermediate Chern phases. The same effective Hamiltonian supplies the velocity operators used in the Kubo formula for the optical conductivity, and the resulting conductance tensor is converted into Faraday and Kerr rotations through matrix transmission and reflection coefficients for an anisotropic free-standing sheet.

What would settle it

Compute the optical Hall conductivity from the full time-periodic Floquet spectrum including ℓ≠0 sidebands rather than from the time-averaged effective Hamiltonian; if the dc limit Reσxy(ω→0)=C e2/h no longer matches the effective-model Chern number, or if the predicted sign reversal under θ→θ+π/2 disappears, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a four-band square-lattice d-wave altermagnet, the paper derives the off-resonant Floquet effective Hamiltonian under a vector potential A(t)=A0(cosθ,sinθ)cosωt. The Peierls substitution renormalizes the x- and y-directed hopping amplitudes by unequal Bessel factors j1=J0(A0 cosθ) and j2=J0(A0 sinθ), so the driven lattice acquires a directional hopping anisotropy. Linearly polarized light carries no optical helicity, but a fixed polarization axis is not invariant under C4z, so the effective Hamiltonian transforms under C4zT into itself only with θ→θ+π/2; hence the crystalline antiunitary relation between the spin sectors is broken whenever j1≠j2. The spin-resolved gaps then close and reopen at different values of A0 and θ, yielding a spin-Chern phase, two Chern-insulating phases with total Chern number C=−1 and C=+1, and a trivial phase. A π/2 rotation of the polarization swaps the two spin blocks and flips the sign of C. The paper computes the longitudinal and Hall conductivities from the static Kubo formula applied to the Floquet effective Hamiltonian; in the gapped Chern phases the dc limit of Reσxy converges to C e2/h, and the sign of σxy together with the Faraday and Kerr rotations distinguishes the two opposite Berry-curvature chiralities. Large Kerr angles occur near resonances and phase boundaries, and the paper emphasizes that they must be read together with reflected intensity and Kerr ellipticity before being attributed to nontrivial topology.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the off-resonant, high-frequency approximation: the pump frequency must exceed the band gap and the electronic bandwidth, and the probe frequency must stay small enough that Floquet sideband corrections to the static Kubo conductivities can be neglected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rotating the pump polarization by π/2 swaps which spin block remains inverted, reversing the total Chern number from −1 to +1 at fixed drive amplitude.
  • The dc Hall conductivity in the gapped Chern phases quantizes to C e2/h, so a transverse-conductance measurement can identify the topological phase.
  • The longitudinal optical conductivity tracks the Floquet-renormalized interband gaps: absorption peaks shift with drive amplitude and split when the spin-resolved gaps separate.
  • The sign of the Faraday and Kerr rotations follows the sign of the optical Hall conductivity, so polarization-resolved pump-probe measurements can map the Floquet phase boundaries without electrical contacts.
  • A large Kerr angle can appear in the trivial phase near resonance, so Kerr magnitude alone is not a reliable topological marker; reflectance and Kerr ellipticity must be interpreted alongside it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper uses the time-averaged Floquet Hamiltonian and static Kubo formula; extending the calculation to include Floquet sidebands would test whether the predicted σxy sign flips survive at probe frequencies approaching the drive frequency.
  • Because the symmetry-breaking ingredient is directional hopping anisotropy, the same polarization-selective mechanism should apply to other compensated magnets whose spin sectors are related by a crystalline antiunitary symmetry, not only to this specific d-wave model.
  • A natural experimental protocol is a pump-probe measurement at fixed A0 in which rotating the polarization by π/2 should flip the sign of the Kerr rotation; the sign flip, rather than the peak angle, is the robust marker of the topological transition.
  • If the C=±1 phases support chiral edge modes, sweeping the polarization across a phase boundary would reverse the edge-mode propagation direction, offering an all-optical route to switching chiral transport.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a spin-conserving four-band square-lattice d-wave altermagnet driven by linearly polarized light. It derives the time-averaged Floquet Hamiltonian by a high-frequency expansion, shows that the polarization-dependent Bessel renormalization of the hopping amplitudes breaks the C4zT antiunitary relation between the spin sectors, and maps out a phase diagram containing spin-Chern (C=0, Cs≠0), Chern (C=±1), and trivial phases. It then uses the static Kubo formula applied to the effective Hamiltonian to compute the longitudinal and Hall conductivities, and derives Faraday and Kerr rotations for a free-standing conducting sheet, relating the sign of the optical Hall response to the Chern chirality of the Floquet bands.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper identifies a new and falsifiable control mechanism for Floquet engineering in altermagnets: the polarization direction of linearly polarized light, rather than optical helicity, can break C4zT and produce spin-selective band inversions with switchable Chern numbers and optical Hall signs. The derivation is self-contained: the effective Hamiltonian follows from the Peierls substitution and a standard high-frequency expansion, the Chern numbers are computed by the gauge-invariant Fukui–Hatsugai–Suzuki method and cross-checked against the dc Hall limit, and the free parameters (m, b, t_a, gamma) are not tuned to reproduce the target spectra. The main caveat is that the optical-response calculation relies on an unquantified hierarchy between the pump frequency and the probe frequencies used in the figures; this issue is load-bearing for the magneto-optical deliverables but does not affect the H_eff-based topological phase diagram.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III and Sec. IV, Eqs. (35)-(42)] The frequency-dependent conductivities and the Faraday/Kerr spectra in Figs. 4-9 are computed from the static Kubo formula applied to the time-averaged effective Hamiltonian H_eff, but the ratio of the probe frequency to the pump frequency is never controlled. The high-frequency condition stated in Sec. III ("the pump photon energy hbar*Omega_p must exceed the band gap and the electronic bandwidth") is not quantified, and no value of Omega_p is given, while the probe axis in the figures extends to omega/v = 1.0. For the parameters used (m = 3.8v, b = -v, t_a = sqrt(3)), the bandwidth is of order 10v, so a minimally compliant pump frequency would place the largest plotted probe frequency at omega/Omega_p ~ 0.1, where n = ±1 Floquet sideband contributions to sigma_ij(omega) are not obviously negligible. Because the magneto-optical response is a central deliverable of the paper, the authors should either specify Omega_p and demonstrate that the spectra converge as Omega_p is increased, or include the Floquet sideband corrections in the Kubo calculation. This point does not affect the H_eff-based phase diagram or Chern numbers, but it is load-bearing for the claimed optical spectra.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (47) and Fig. 4(c)] The paper states that the gapped C = ±1 phases have dc Hall conductivities converging to ±1/(2*pi) e^2/hbar in the clean limit, but the plotted Re sigma_xy(omega) in Fig. 4(c) at the used broadening gamma = 0.045v appears much smaller than this quantized value near omega -> 0. Please clarify the order of limits (omega -> 0 before gamma -> 0) and, if the plotted curves are at finite gamma, state this explicitly or include an inset showing the extrapolation to zero broadening. Without this clarification, the connection between Fig. 4(c) and the dc normalization check in Eq. (47) is not transparent to the reader.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI, Fig. 4 discussion] The text states that the trivial phase has a Hall resonance "around omega/nu ~ 1.1-1.3," but the x-axis of Fig. 4 extends only to omega/v = 1.0; either correct the quoted frequency or extend the plotted range so that the statement can be checked.
  2. [Sec. VI, Fig. 3 discussion] The sentence "Figures 3(c) and (d) correspond to two distinct, nontrivial Floquet-Chern phases" contradicts the Fig. 3 caption, where panel (d) is the trivial phase; it should refer to panels (b) and (c).
  3. [Throughout] The paper switches between units of e^2/hbar and e^2/h; since e^2/hbar = 2*pi e^2/h, please specify the convention in every figure axis and in the text around Eq. (47) to avoid a factor-2*pi ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (5)] The defining relation H_down(kx,ky) = H_up(ky,kx) is stated without an explicit orbital transformation; for readers not familiar with the specific d-wave altermagnet basis, one sentence explaining how the orbital pseudospin transforms under the C4zT operation would make the symmetry argument in Sec. III easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all claimed results are computed from the explicit tight-binding model; the single self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by a direct equation-level chain: the four-band d-wave altermagnet model is fully specified in Eqs. (1)-(6); the linearly polarized drive is inserted via the Peierls substitution, and the time-averaged Floquet Hamiltonian is derived at leading order in the high-frequency expansion, Eqs. (11)-(21); the C4zT-breaking condition is verified explicitly in Eq. (24) through the Bessel renormalization factors j1=J0(A0 cosθ) and j2=J0(A0 sinθ). Chern numbers are computed from the resulting Berry curvature using the Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki method, and the optical conductivities are evaluated from the same effective Hamiltonian via the Kubo formula, with the dc Hall limit used as an independent normalization check. The parameter values (m=3.8v, b=-v, ta=sqrt(3), gamma=0.045v) are chosen model inputs, not fitted to reproduce the phase diagram or the spectra, so no fitted quantity is later relabeled as a prediction. The only self-citation, Ref. [51] among [48]-[51], supports the choice of model and is not load-bearing because the model is written out explicitly in the text. The static Kubo treatment of the Floquet optical response rests on an unquantified high-frequency condition, and sideband corrections could in principle modify the Faraday/Kerr spectra; this is an approximation and validity concern, not a circular reduction of the output to the input.

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

The central claim rests on the choice of the altermagnetic tight-binding model (from prior literature and the author's own Ref [51]), the leading-order Floquet approximation, and the static Kubo treatment of the optical response. No new entities are introduced; the only free numbers are the model parameters and the broadening, none of which are fitted to the target results.

free parameters (4)
  • m (on-site potential) = 3.8v
    Chosen by hand; sets the band-inversion condition and the phase boundaries in the (A0, θ) diagram.
  • b (band-inversion term) = -v
    Chosen by hand; with m=3.8v it places the system in the band-inverted regime |m|<|b|(1+t_a^2).
  • t_a (anisotropy parameter) = √3
    Chosen by hand; controls the d-wave altermagnetic spin splitting; t_a=1 would reduce to a conventional antiferromagnet.
  • γ (phenomenological broadening) = 0.045v
    Chosen by hand; sets linewidths of optical conductivity and magneto-optical spectra; affects peak magnitudes but not Chern numbers.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The d-wave altermagnet is described by a spin-conserving four-band tight-binding model with H↓(kx,ky)=H↑(ky,kx) (Eq. 5).
    This is the defining altermagnet symmetry used throughout; real materials may have spin-orbit coupling that mixes the spin blocks.
  • domain assumption The high-frequency Floquet expansion is truncated at leading order, with the commutator term vanishing because A(t)=A(-t+τ) (Sec. III).
    Valid for a single-frequency cosine drive where all bonds share the same time dependence; assumes Ωp exceeds bandwidth and gap.
  • domain assumption Optical conductivities are computed from the time-averaged Floquet Hamiltonian via the static Kubo formula (Eq. 37), omitting Floquet sideband contributions.
    Standard for low-frequency response of off-resonant Floquet systems, but not justified for probe frequencies approaching the drive frequency.
  • standard math Faraday and Kerr rotations are obtained from matrix transmission and reflection coefficients for a free-standing 2D sheet in vacuum (Eq. 49).
    Follows from Maxwell boundary conditions for an infinitesimally thin sheet; the formulas reduce to known circular-channel expressions in the isotropic limit.
  • domain assumption The Fermi level lies in the gap at zero temperature, so only interband transitions contribute (Eq. 41).
    Appropriate for the insulating phases considered; intraband Drude response is neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Floquet Engineering of Topological Phases and Magneto-Optical Response in a Driven $d$-wave Altermagnet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5533YV4U

@misc{pith2026260811192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Floquet Engineering of Topological Phases and Magneto-Optical Response in a Driven $d$-wave Altermagnet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5533YV4U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11192}
}
abstract

We study how Floquet driving with linearly polarized light controls the topology and magneto-optical response of a two-dimensional (2D) $d$-wave altermagnet. In the absence of linearly polarized optical field and under spin conservation, we find that the system hosts a spin-Chern (a quantum-spin-Hall analog) phase with Chern numbers of opposite sign in the two spin sectors. The irradiated optical field breaks the $C_{4z}\mathcal{T}$ crystalline antiunitary symmetry between the spin sectors. Symmetry breaking originates from polarization-dependent Peierls phases, which renormalize hopping anisotropically along the two axes. The resulting spin-selective gap closures produce intermediate Chern-insulating phases with $C=\pm1$. The drive amplitude $A_0$ determines the inversion thresholds, while rotating the polarization by $\pi/2$ swaps the spin sectors and reverses the Chern number. Using the Kubo formalism, we compute the frequency-dependent longitudinal and Hall conductivities and derive the corresponding Faraday and Kerr rotations for a free-standing conducting sheet. The longitudinal response tracks the Floquet-renormalized interband thresholds, whereas the optical Hall response, together with the sign of the magneto-optical rotations, distinguishes the two opposite Berry-curvature chiralities. Sizable Kerr angles occur only within narrow resonant windows and should be interpreted together with the reflected intensity and Kerr ellipticity. These results identify linearly polarized light as a symmetry-selective handle for spin-resolved band inversion, Chern-number switching, and contact-free optical detection in $d$-wave altermagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Topological phase diagram of the altermagnetic spin-Chern system under linearly polarized light as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spin-resolved band structures of the driven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Berry-curvature distribution of the occupied bands in the irradiated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Frequency-dependent optical conductivities in the spin Chern, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Real part of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: provides the reflected-intensity check re￾quired for a physically meaningful interpretation of the Kerr spectra. The spin-Chern phase exhibits a broad reflectance maximum near ω/v ≃ 0.4, whereas its Kerr rotation remains comparatively moderate because the opposite spin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Real and (b) imaginary parts of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Faraday and (b) Kerr rotations vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (b) reflects the Faraday rotation angle θF . The overall structure of θF nearly follows that of the op￾tical Hall conductivity but with the opposite sign pat￾tern; θF is predominantly negative around θ ≈ 0 and positive near θ ≈ ±π/2. This behavior is consistent with th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Liu, Z.-Y

    D. Liu, Z.-Y. Zhuang, D. Zhu, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Phys- ical Review B113, L060409 (2026)

    work page 2026

  2. [36]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi and Q. Li, Physical Review Letters 135, 236702 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [38]

    Yarmohammadi, M

    M. Yarmohammadi, M. Berritta, M. Bukov, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Linder, and P. M. Oppeneer, Phys. Rev. B113, L060403 (2026)

    work page 2026

  4. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  5. [2]

    The insets magnify the spin-dependent direct gaps around the minimum-gap region

    Solid teal and dashed orange curves denote the spin-up and spin-down bands, respectively. The insets magnify the spin-dependent direct gaps around the minimum-gap region. Panels (b) and (c) correspond to points on opposite sides of the polarization-controlled boundary rather than to a common fixed-θamplitude sweep. Rotating the pump polarization therefore...

    work page

  6. [3]

    The spin Chern-like and 7 M X Γ Y M Γ −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 E/v open solid dashed QSH (a) M X Γ Y M Γ closed C=-1 (b) M X Γ Y M Γ closed C=+1 (c) M X Γ Y M Γ open T rivial (d) FIG

    Fig- ures 2(a)–(d) correspond to representative points in the two-dimensional (A0, θ) phase diagram, not to a single fixed-θscan in drive amplitude. The spin Chern-like and 7 M X Γ Y M Γ −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 E/v open solid dashed QSH (a) M X Γ Y M Γ closed C=-1 (b) M X Γ Y M Γ closed C=+1 (c) M X Γ Y M Γ open T rivial (d) FIG. 2. Spin-resolved band struc...

    work page

  7. [4]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X12, 011028 (2022)

    2022

  8. [5]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [6]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kuneˇ s, Phys. Rev. B99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  2. [7]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. Gonzlez- Hernndez, and L. mejkal, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2108924118 (2021)

    2021

  3. [8]

    H. Bai, Y. C. Zhang, Y. J. Zhou, P. Chen, C. H. Wan, L. Han, W. X. Zhu, S. X. Liang, Y. C. Su, X. F. Han, F. Pan, and C. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 216701 (2023)

    2023

  4. [9]

    Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L. ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, Y. Yahagi, J. Sinova, T. c. v. Jungwirth, and J.ˇZelezn´ y, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  5. [10]

    A. Bose, N. J. Schreiber, R. Jain, D.-F. Shao, H. P. Nair, J. Sun, X. S. Zhang, D. A. Muller, E. Y. Tsymbal, D. G. Schlom, and D. C. Ralph, Nat. Electron.5, 267 (2022)

    2022

  6. [11]

    V. Leeb, A. Mook, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Knolle, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236701 (2024)

    2024

  7. [12]

    Krempask, L

    J. Krempask, L. mejkal, S. D’souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhlov, F. Alarab, P. Constantinou, V. Strocov, and D. Usanov, Nature626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  8. [13]

    Zhang, C

    R.-W. Zhang, C. Cui, R. Li, J. Duan, L. Li, Z.-M. Yu, and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 056401 (2024)

    2024

  9. [14]

    Z.-X. Li, H. Zhou, X. Wan, and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 111, 125119 (2025)

    2025

  10. [15]

    P. Rao, A. Mook, and J. Knolle, Phys. Rev. B110, 024425 (2024)

    2024

  11. [17]

    D. S. Antonenko, R. M. Fernandes, and J. W. F. Vender- bos, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 096703 (2025)

    2025

  12. [18]

    R. M. Fernandes, V. S. de Carvalho, T. Birol, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. B109, 024404 (2024)

    2024

  13. [19]

    Y.-X. Li, Y. Liu, and C.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. B109, L201109 (2024)

    2024

  14. [20]

    Dubey, R

    A. Dubey, R. Kundu, and A. Kundu, Phys. Rev. B111, 035431 (2025)

    2025

  15. [21]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics10, 387 (2019)

    2019

  16. [22]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, Nature Reviews Physics2, 229 (2020)

    2020

  17. [23]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Physical Review B79, 081406(R) (2009)

    2009

  18. [24]

    Kitagawa, T

    T. Kitagawa, T. Oka, A. Brataas, L. Fu, and E. Demler, Physical Review B84, 235108 (2011)

    2011

  19. [25]

    J. W. McIver, B. Schulte, F.-U. Stein, T. Matsuyama, G. Jotzu, G. Meier, and A. Cavalleri, Nature Physics 16, 38 (2019)

    2019

  20. [26]

    S. A. Sato and et al., Physical Review B99, 214302 (2019)

    2019

  21. [27]

    Kitagawa, E

    T. Kitagawa, E. Berg, M. Rudner, and E. Demler, Phys- ical Review B82, 235114 (2010)

    2010

  22. [28]

    N. H. Lindner, G. Refael, and V. Galitski, Nature Physics7, 490 (2011)

    2011

  23. [29]

    Fu, H.-J

    P.-H. Fu, H.-J. Duan, R.-Q. Wang, and H. Chen, Physics Letters A381, 3499 (2017)

    2017

  24. [30]

    Liu and et al., Nature Communications15, 9730 (2024)

    B. Liu and et al., Nature Communications15, 9730 (2024)

    2024

  25. [31]

    J. Liu, A. Smith, B. Johnson, and C. Williams, Physical Review Letters136, 256702 (2026)

    2026

  26. [32]

    X. Zou, X. Feng, Y. Dai, B. Huang, and C. Niu, ACS Nano19, 35575 (2025)

    2025

  27. [34]

    Z. Li, L. Li, M. Guan, and S. Meng, arXiv (2025), preprint:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2512.06416

    2025 doi

  28. [35]

    Yarmohammadi, L

    M. Yarmohammadi, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. K. Freericks, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 146904 (2026)

    2026

  29. [37]

    P.-H. Fu, S. Mondal, J.-F. Liu, Y. Tanaka, and J. Cayao, Physical Review Letters136, 066703 (2026)

    2026

  30. [39]

    X. Zou, X. Feng, C. Niu, Y. Dai, and B. Huang, ACS Nano19, 35575 (2025)

    2025

  31. [40]

    Yarmohammadi, U

    M. Yarmohammadi, U. Z¨ ulicke, J. Berakdar, J. Linder, and J. K. Freericks, Phys. Rev. B111, 224412 (2025)

    2025

  32. [41]

    Ganguli, A

    M. Ganguli, A. Jana, and A. Narayan, Phys. Rev. B 114, 065411 (2026)

    2026

  33. [42]

    H. Xu, J. Zhou, and J. Li, Advanced Science8, 2101508 (2021)

    2021

  34. [43]

    Z. F. Wang, Z. Liu, J. Yang, and F. Liu, Physical Review Letters120, 156406 (2018)

    2018

  35. [44]

    T. Zhu, H. Wang, and H. Zhang, Physical Review B 107, 085151 (2023)

    2023

  36. [45]

    Sato and T

    K. Sato and T. Ishibashi, Frontiers in Physics10, 946515 (2022)

    2022

  37. [46]

    Tse and A

    W.-K. Tse and A. H. MacDonald, Physical Review B 84, 205327 (2011)

    2011

  38. [47]

    P. Rao, A. Mook, and J. Knolle, Physical Review B110, 024425 (2024)

    2024

  39. [48]

    Liu, J.-T

    M. Liu, J.-T. Sun, and S. Meng, Advanced Functional Materials36, e21111 (2026)

    2026

  40. [49]

    J. Sun, Y. Du, and E. Kan, Nano Letters 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5c03647 (2025)

    2025 doi

  41. [50]

    Y. Liu, T. Zhu, and H. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.06486 (2026). 15

    2026 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Ma and J.-F

    H.-Y. Ma and J.-F. Jia, Phys. Rev. B110, 064426 (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, H

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, H. Serrano, and B. Uribe, Phys. Rev. B111, 085127 (2025)

    2025

  44. [53]

    Maryam, M

    A. Maryam, M. Shah, K. Sabeeh, and R. Asgari, Phys. Rev. B (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.