Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Room-Temperature Disorder-Driven Nonlinear Transport in Topological Materials

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nonlinear Hall signals persist to room temperature because side jump's two relaxation times cancel as temperature rises.

desk verdict A credible but unverifiable claim that side-jump nonlinear transport survives to room temperature; the key physics is asserted rather than derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13869 v1 pith:5KEYB5Y7 submitted 2025-06-16 cond-mat.mes-hall

Rhonald Burgos Atencia , Shanshan Liu , Kian Ping Loh , Dimitrie Culcer This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords nonlinearHalleffectsidejumpskewscatteringextrinsicspin-orbitcouplingtopologicalinsulatorsurfacestateselectron-phononrelaxationtimeapproximationroom-temperaturetransport
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

Recent experiments see nonlinear Hall signals in topological materials even at room temperature, which is surprising because the usual skew-scattering mechanism should fade as heating adds phonon scattering. This paper claims the survival is a side-jump effect: the nonlinear susceptibility splits as $\chi_{xyy} = C_1 \tau^3/\tau_\beta + C_2 \tau/\tau_\beta$, where $\tau$ is the momentum relaxation time and $\tau_\beta$ is a skew-scattering time set by extrinsic spin-orbit coupling. When temperature rises, both times shrink under phonon scattering, so the skew-scattering term proportional to $\tau^3/\tau_\beta$ becomes tiny, while in the side-jump term proportional to $\tau/\tau_\beta$ the two shrinkings partially cancel. The result matters for engineering rectification, photodetection, and terahertz devices that operate at ambient conditions rather than cryogenic temperatures.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the two-channel relaxation-time structure in Eq. (1). Scalar disorder sets the momentum relaxation time $\tau$; extrinsic spin-orbit scattering of the form $U_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}'} = i\beta\,\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot(\mathbf{k}\times\mathbf{k}')$ defines $\tau_\beta$; and the same extrinsic spin-orbit form is assumed in the electron-phonon coupling. The calculation uses the quantum Liouville equation with collision integrals for impurity and phonon scattering, solved to second order in the electric field in the relaxation-time approximation, yielding a skew-scattering distribution proportional to $\tau^3/\tau_\beta$ and a side-jump distribution proportional to $\tau/\tau_\beta$. The room-temperature survival mechanism is the partial cancellation of the temperature dependences of $\tau$ and $\tau_\beta$ when phonon scattering is added through Matthiessen's rule.

What would settle it

Measure $\chi_{xyy}(T)$ from 4 K to 300 K in a single sample with fixed impurity concentration and a PT-symmetric surface state. If the side-jump compensation is right, the signal should stay within a small factor of its low-temperature value once phonon scattering dominates; if it drops by orders of magnitude, the ratio $\tau/\tau_\beta$ is temperature dependent and the claim fails. A complementary check is to compute $\tau_\beta(T)$ from a microscopic electron-phonon coupling with the extrinsic spin-orbit form and see whether Matthiessen's rule actually holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that extrinsic spin-orbit scattering from phonons, not just impurities, must be included to explain room-temperature nonlinear transport in topological surface states. Working with a gapped, hexagonally warped Dirac model, the authors solve the quantum Liouville equation to second order in the electric field and obtain the transverse nonlinear susceptibility $\chi_{xyy} = C_1 \tau^3/\tau_\beta + C_2 \tau/\tau_\beta$. The first term is the standard skew-scattering channel, dominant at low temperature; the second, subleading term is a nonlinear side-jump effect with explicit form $\chi^{(0)}_{xyy} = -\lambda (\tau/\tau_\beta)(e^3/\hbar)\rho(\varepsilon_F)\varepsilon_F(1-\xi_F^2)G(\xi_F)$, linear in $\tau$ and inversely proportional to $\tau_\beta$. Because phonon scattering renormalizes $\tau$ and $\tau_\beta$ in the same way under Matthiessen's rule, their ratio changes slowly with temperature, so the side-jump piece remains sizable at 300 K while the skew-scattering piece collapses. This is the paper's explanation for the room-temperature persistence of the nonlinear Hall effect and for its linear scaling with the longitudinal conductivity.

Load-bearing premise

The room-temperature conclusion rests on the assumption, stated without derivation, that phonons add to the skew-scattering rate exactly as they add to the momentum relaxation rate (so the ratio $\tau/\tau_\beta$ stays nearly constant as temperature rises), and that the phonon potential carries the same extrinsic spin-orbit form as the impurity potential.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At room temperature the nonlinear Hall signal in PT-symmetric topological surface states is dominated by the side-jump term, so the response should scale linearly with the longitudinal conductivity $\sigma_{xx}$ rather than as $\sigma_{xx}^3$.
  • Improving the sample mobility by an order of magnitude should enhance the low-temperature skew-scattering signal by roughly $10^3$, following from the $\tau^3/\tau_\beta$ scaling.
  • Because the side-jump term is only weakly temperature dependent, nonlinear Hall devices for rectification and photodetection should keep working at ambient conditions, provided the extrinsic spin-orbit scattering channel is present.
  • Phonon scattering modifies the skew-scattering channel itself, so analyses that treat the skew-scattering time as a fixed parameter will misread the temperature dependence of experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the compensation is generic, then tuning the ratio of scalar to spin-orbit disorder by doping or alloying should shift the crossover temperature at which side jump takes over from skew scattering, a materials-engineering lever the paper does not itself work out.
  • Inference: the assumed identical phonon renormalization of $\tau$ and $\tau_\beta$ could be tested by comparing samples with the same impurity content but different phonon spectra, for example through isotope substitution; a steep decay of the high-temperature signal would falsify the compensation mechanism.
  • Inference: the same two-time structure should appear in third-order nonlinear responses, so a side-jump analogue may dominate high-temperature third-harmonic or photogalvanic signals in other spin-orbit-coupled systems, not only topological insulators.
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 paper studies nonlinear Hall transport in gapped topological insulator surface states with hexagonal warping, driven by extrinsic spin-orbit scattering from both impurities and phonons. Using a kinetic-equation approach based on the quantum Liouville equation, the authors derive the transverse nonlinear susceptibility and express it as χ_xyy = C1 τ^3/τβ + C2 τ/τβ, where τ is the momentum relaxation time and τβ is the skew-scattering time. The central claim is that the side-jump contribution, proportional to τ/τβ, has weak temperature dependence and remains sizable at room temperature because τ and τβ are both renormalized by phonon scattering, whereas the skew-scattering contribution τ^3/τβ becomes negligible. The main text presents the model Hamiltonian, the kinetic equations, the leading- and subleading-order results in Eqs. (6)-(8), the phonon relaxation time in Eq. (9), and qualitative comparisons with experiments.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a plausible microscopic mechanism for the experimentally observed room-temperature nonlinear Hall effect in topological materials, and it sharpens the distinction between skew-scattering and side-jump contributions by their different scaling with relaxation times. The analytical framework is a strength: the authors give explicit closed-form expressions for the susceptibilities, identify sign-changing angular dependence through the functions H(ξ_F) and G(ξ_F), and connect the scaling of χ_xyy to σ_xx and σ_xx^3. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction about the temperature dependence of the side-jump channel. However, the most important derivations and the key assumption about phonon-induced skew-scattering renormalization are not fully documented in the submitted manuscript, and the supplementary file is not available for review.

major comments (3)
  1. [Discussion, Eq. (1) and Eqs. (6)-(7)] The room-temperature survival claim rests on applying Matthiessen's rule to both τ and τβ with the same phonon rate, as stated in the Discussion: "τ^{-1} → τ^{-1} + τ_ph^{-1} and similarly for τ_β^{-1}". However, the electron-phonon collision integral in Eq. (4) and the deformation-potential model in Eq. (10) contain only a scalar vertex |D_q|^2; no extrinsic spin-orbit term of the form iβ σ·(k×k') appears in the phonon scattering potential. The Introduction's assertion that such an extrinsic spin-orbit term is present in the phonon potential is not derived anywhere in the main text, and the supplementary file containing the derivation is not included in the submission. If phonons renormalize only τ and not τβ, then τ/τβ is proportional to τ(T) and the side-jump contribution decays with temperature in the same way as the Drude conductivity, eliminating the claimed compensation. This is a load-bearing point that must be either derived from a microscopic model or explicitly stated and justified as a phenomenological assumption.
  2. [Eqs. (6), (7), and (9)] The full derivations of the leading-order susceptibility, the subleading side-jump and skew-scattering susceptibilities, and the phonon relaxation time are deferred to a supplementary file that is not part of the submission. Since Eq. (1) is the central result and Eq. (7) is the main new side-jump contribution, the reader cannot verify the algebra, the τ/τβ scaling, or the phonon relaxation time. The authors should include these derivations in an appendix or make the supplementary file available, because the current manuscript presents the central quantitative results as assertions.
  3. [Model Hamiltonian and Eq. (5)] The model Hamiltonian in Eq. (5) contains no phonon degrees of freedom and no phonon spin-orbit coupling; the electron-phonon coupling is introduced only through the scalar deformation potential in Eq. (10). The claim that extrinsic spin-orbit scattering is present in both impurity and phonon channels is therefore an additional input rather than a consequence of the stated model. The paper should clearly separate what is derived from the model and what is assumed, and should provide the microscopic form of the phonon spin-orbit vertex or a reference where it is established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains an incomplete sentence: "the side jump contribution ∝ τ/τβ, where τ, τβ are the momentum and skew scattering times respectively" lacks a main verb. The sentence should be completed, for example: "the side-jump contribution, which is proportional to τ/τβ, exhibits a weak temperature dependence."
  2. [Model Hamiltonian section] There is a typo: "One is related the the scalar scattering potential" should read "One is related to the scalar scattering potential."
  3. [Eq. (8) and surrounding text] The text says that G(ξ_F) "scales with powers of inverse Fermi energy", but the explicit expression in Eq. (8) contains powers of ξ_F and factors of (1-ξ_F^2)^{1/2}. The authors should clarify the domain of ξ_F and the Fermi-surface assumptions used to obtain this closed form, so that the apparent limiting behavior is transparent.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The temperature-dependent plots in Figs. 2 and 3 are presented without a quantitative comparison to the experimental data of Ref. [39]. Showing the experimental points or a table of the material parameters used in each curve would make the comparison more informative and easier to assess.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The room-temperature survival of the side-jump term is built into the Matthiessen-rule assumption for τβ, not derived from the phonon model.

  1. other [Discussion, paragraph applying Matthiessen's rule after Eq. (10): 'To account for this, we apply Matthiessen's rule: τ^{-1} → τ^{-1} + τ_ph^{-1} and similarly for τ_β^{-1}.']
    "To account for this, we apply Matthiessen’s rule: τ−1 → τ−1 + τ−1 ph and similarly for τ−1 β . The parameter τβ captures an effective relaxation channel that renormalizes the nonlinear conductivity."

    The central room-temperature claim is that the side-jump term ∝ τ/τβ 'exhibits a weak temperature dependence and remains sizable at room temperature' because the temperature dependences of τ and τβ partially compensate. That compensation is not obtained from the phonon model: the phonon collision integral, Eq. (4), and the deformation potential, Eq. (10), are scalar, with no extrinsic spin-orbit vertex. The only extrinsic spin-orbit vertex written in the paper, U_{k,k'} = iβσ·(k×k'), is introduced for impurities. The assertion that 'such an extrinsic spin-orbit term is present in the phonon as well as in the impurity scattering potentials' is not derived.

full rationale

The zero-temperature susceptibilities, Eqs. (6) and (7), are genuine calculations from the stated Hamiltonian (5), the impurity spin-orbit vertex, and the Liouville-equation collision integrals; their τ^3/τβ and τ/τβ scalings are not fitted to the experimental signal. The self-citations to Refs. [51,52] provide the kinetic-equation formalism and are not load-bearing imports of the final answer. The circular element is confined to the temperature narrative: the room-temperature survival of side jump is obtained by applying the same Matthiessen correction to τβ and τ, while no phonon extrinsic spin-orbit vertex appears in Eqs. (4) and (10). Thus the predicted compensation τ/τβ ≈ const is an imposed input rather than a derived output, and the cited SM derivation cannot be checked from the submitted text. This makes the central room-temperature claim partially circular, but it does not invalidate the zero-temperature susceptibility calculation, so the score is 6 rather than 8 or 10.

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

All plotted results depend on material parameters chosen by hand (v_F, lambda, Delta, tau, tau_beta, epsilon_F) rather than fitted to experiments. The central derivation also assumes the extrinsic spin-orbit scattering form for both impurity and phonon potentials, and assumes Matthiessen's rule for tau_beta. These are inputs, not predictions.

free parameters (6)
  • Fermi velocity v_F = 1.6 x 10^5 m/s
    Input parameter in Figs. 1-3, taken from topological insulator surface-state literature; not fitted here.
  • Warping constant lambda = 80 eV A^3
    Chosen in equation (5) and figure captions; controls the warping term that, together with the gap, breaks mirror symmetry.
  • Gap Delta = 15, 18, 20 meV
    Model parameter in Eq. (5); varied in Fig. 1b, fixed at 15 meV elsewhere; nonzero gap is required for the nonlinear response.
  • Momentum relaxation time tau = 0.12 to 1 ps
    Chosen values in Figs. 1-3; the central scaling Eq. (1) is expressed in terms of tau.
  • Skew scattering time tau_beta (1/gamma_beta) = 0.14 to 0.5 ps
    Chosen values in Figs. 1-3; the ratio tau/tau_beta controls the room-temperature side-jump survival.
  • Fermi energy epsilon_F = 25 to 35 meV
    Varied in Figs. 1 and 3; sets the density of states and the functions H(xi_F) and G(xi_F).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Quantum Liouville equation with impurity-averaged collision integrals (Eqs. (2)-(3)) is the correct kinetic description.
    Foundation of the density-matrix formalism; standard approach, cited to Refs. [51,52].
  • domain assumption The model Hamiltonian Eq. (5) (Dirac cone, warping lambda k^3 cos(3 theta), gap Delta) describes the topological insulator surface states of interest.
    Used throughout; the nonlinear response is nonzero only because both Delta and lambda enter, as stated in the Model Hamiltonian section.
  • domain assumption Scattering potentials contain an extrinsic spin-orbit term U_{k,k'} = i beta sigma dot (k x k') for both impurity and phonon scattering.
    Assumed in General formalism and Model Hamiltonian; prior support for impurities in topological insulators (Refs. [49,50]), but extension to phonons is not microscopically justified.
  • ad hoc to paper Matthiessen's rule applies to both relaxation times with the same phonon rate: tau^{-1} -> tau^{-1} + tau_ph^{-1} and similarly for tau_beta^{-1}.
    Introduced in Discussion; this is the load-bearing step for weak temperature dependence of the side jump, and no derivation is provided.
  • domain assumption Electron-phonon coupling uses the deformation potential D_q of Ref. [57] with Lambda_l(q) approximately 1 and the listed Bi2Te3 parameters.
    Used to obtain Eq. (9); parameters such as alpha=35 eV, C=1.2, c_l=2800 m/s, rho_M=7861 kg/m^3, and c_t=1600 m/s are taken from prior literature.
  • domain assumption The relaxation time approximation is valid for solving the kinetic equations to second order in the electric field.
    Used in Leading order response and Sub-leading side jump effect; neglects details of the scattering operator except the two relaxation times.
invented entities (1)
  • Extrinsic spin-orbit coupling in the electron-phonon scattering potential
    purpose: Provides a phonon-mediated skew and side-jump channel so that tau_beta is renormalized with temperature, allowing the side-jump contribution tau/tau_beta to survive at room temperature.
    The paper states such a term is present in the phonon scattering potential, but no microscopic derivation or separate falsifiable prediction is given; it is assumed by analogy with impurity scattering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Room-Temperature Disorder-Driven Nonlinear Transport in Topological Materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KEYB5Y7

@misc{pith2026250613869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Room-Temperature Disorder-Driven Nonlinear Transport in Topological Materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KEYB5Y7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13869}
}
abstract

Recent experiments have reported nonlinear signals in topological materials up to room temperature. Here we show that this response stems from extrinsic spin-orbit contributions to \textit{both} impurity and phonon scattering. While skew scattering dominates at low temperatures, the side jump contribution $\propto \tau/\tau_\beta$, where $\tau$, $\tau_\beta$ are the momentum and skew scattering times respectively. Consequently side jump exhibits a weak temperature dependence and remains sizable at room temperature. Our results provide a roadmap for engineering nonlinear transport at ambient conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: a)Nonlinear sub leading susceptibility as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Total nonlinear susceptibility as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    S. Liu, R. Burgos, E. Zhang, N. Wang, X.-B. Qiang, C. Li, Q. Zhang, Z. Z. Du, R. Zheng, J. Chen, Q.-H. Xu, K. Leng, W. Gao, F. Xiu, D. Culcer, and K. P. Loh, Communications Physics7, 413 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    He and H

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

    2021

  3. [2]

    Huang, Z

    M. Huang, Z. Wu, J. Hu, X. Cai, E. Li, L. An, X. Feng, Z. Ye, N. Lin, K. T. Law, and N. Wang, National Science Review10, nwac232 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/10/4/nwac232/50268204/nwac232.pdf

    2022

  4. [3]

    J. Duan, Y. Jian, Y. Gao, H. Peng, J. Zhong, Q. Feng, J. Mao, and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 186801 (2022)

    2022

  5. [4]

    H.-J. Tien, H. Lin, L. Fu, and T.-R. Chang, Materials Today Quantum5, 100027 (2025)

    2025

  6. [5]

    M. S. Okyay, M. Choi, Q. Xu, A. P. Di´ eguez, M. Del Ben, K. Z. Ibrahim, and B. M. Wong, npj 2D Materials and Applications9, 1 (2025)

    2025

  7. [6]

    Kaplan, T

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

    2024

  8. [7]

    M. T. Mercaldo, M. Cuoco, and C. Ortix, Phys. Rev. B 111, 155442 (2025)

    2025

Show all 89 references
  1. [8]

    R. B. Atencia, D. Xiao, and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201115 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Sodemann and L

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

    2015

  3. [10]

    Nandy and I

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

    2019

  4. [11]

    Makushko, S

    P. Makushko, S. Kovalev, Y. Zabila, I. Ilyakov, A. Pono- maryov, A. Arshad, G. L. Prajapati, T. V. A. G. de Oliveira, J.-C. Deinert, P. Chekhonin, I. Veremchuk, T. Kosub, Y. Skourski, F. Ganss, D. Makarov, and C. Ortix, Nature Electronics7, 207 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    L. Min, H. Tan, Z. Xie, L. Miao, R. Zhang, S. H. Lee, V. Gopalan, C.-X. Liu, N. Alem, B. Yan, and Z. Mao, Nature Communications14, 364 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    S. Wang, X. Li, H. Zhang, B. Chen, H. Xie, C. Li, F. Fei, S. Zhang, and F. Song, Applied Physics Letters124, 153102 (2024), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0202692/19878311/153102 1 5.0202692.pdf

    2024 doi

  7. [14]

    Nishijima, T

    T. Nishijima, T. Watanabe, H. Sekiguchi, Y. Ando, E. Shigematsu, R. Ohshima, S. Kuroda, and M. Shi- raishi, Nano Letters23, 2247 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    J. Han, T. Uchimura, Y. Araki, J.-Y. Yoon, Y. Takeuchi, Y. Yamane, S. Kanai, J. Ieda, H. Ohno, and S. Fukami, Nature Physics20, 1110 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    L. Min, Y. Zhang, Z. Xie, S. V. G. Ayyagari, L. Miao, Y. Onishi, S. H. Lee, Y. Wang, N. Alem, L. Fu, and Z. Mao, Nature Materials23, 1671 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Zhang and L

    Y. Zhang and L. Fu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2100736118 (2021), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2100736118

    2021 doi

  11. [18]

    C. Guo, Z. Chen, X. Yu, L. Zhang, X. Wang, X. Chen, and L. Wang, Nano Letters22, 7492 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Z. Hu, L. Zhang, A. Chakraborty, G. D’Olimpio, J. Fujii, A. Ge, Y. Zhou, C. Liu, A. Agarwal, I. Vobornik, D. Farias, C.-N. Kuo, C. S. Lue, A. Poli- tano, S.-W. Wang, W. Hu, X. Chen, W. Lu, and L. Wang, Advanced Materials35, 2209557 (2023), https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley....

    2023 doi

  13. [20]

    Y. Li, W. Yu, K. Zhang, N. Cui, T. Yun, X. Xia, Y. Jiang, G. Zhang, H. Mu, and S. Lin, Mater. Horiz.11, 2572 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    M¨ onch, M

    E. M¨ onch, M. D. Moldavskaya, L. E. Golub, V. V. Bel’kov, J. Wunderlich, D. Weiss, J. V. Gumenjuk- Sichevska, C. Niu, P. D. Ye, and S. D. Ganichev, Nano Letters25, 476 (2025)

    2025

  15. [22]

    Wang and X

    H. Wang and X. Qian, npj Computational Materials6, 199 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Y. Shen, L. Primeau, J. Li, T.-D. Nguyen, D. Mandrus, Y. C. Lin, and Y. Zhang, Progress in Quantum Elec- tronics97, 100535 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    J. Xiao, Y. Wang, H. Wang, C. D. Pemmaraju, S. Wang, P. Muscher, E. J. Sie, C. M. Nyby, T. P. Devereaux, X. Qian, X. Zhang, and A. M. Lindenberg, Nature Physics16, 1028 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    Kumar, C.-H

    D. Kumar, C.-H. Hsu, R. Sharma, T.-R. Chang, P. Yu, J. Wang, G. Eda, G. Liang, and H. Yang, Nature Nan- otechnology16, 421 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    Cheng, Y

    B. Cheng, Y. Gao, Z. Zheng, S. Chen, Z. Liu, L. Zhang, Q. Zhu, H. Li, L. Li, and C. Zeng, Nature Communica- tions15, 5513 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Kumar, R

    D. Kumar, R. Sharma, F. Wang, Y. Liu, S. Zhao, and H. Yang, Nano Letters24, 12545 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    H. Liu, T. Y. Lim, S. Tian, J. Zhai, D. Xiang, T. Liu, T.-R. Chang, P. He, and J. Shen, Ad- vanced Electronic Materials11, 2400648 (2025), https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/aelm.202400648

    2025 doi

  22. [29]

    Z. Z. Du, C. M. Wang, S. Li, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Nature Communications10, 3047 (2019)

    2019

  23. [30]

    Z. Z. Du, C. M. Wang, H.-P. Sun, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. 6 Xie, Nature Communications12, 5038 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

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

    2021

  25. [32]

    Ortix, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 2100056 (2021), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qute.202100056

    C. Ortix, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 2100056 (2021), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qute.202100056

    2021 doi

  26. [33]

    D. Ma, A. Arora, G. Vignale, and J. C. W. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 076601 (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    B. T. Zhou, C.-P. Zhang, and K. Law, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 024053 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    Zhang, J

    C.-P. Zhang, J. Xiao, B. T. Zhou, J.-X. Hu, Y.-M. Xie, B. Yan, and K. T. Law, Phys. Rev. B106, L041111 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    Zhang, T

    C.-L. Zhang, T. Liang, Y. Kaneko, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, npj Quantum Materials7, 103 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    E. J. K¨ onig, M. Dzero, A. Levchenko, and D. A. Pesin, Phys. Rev. B99, 155404 (2019)

    2019

  31. [38]

    Isobe, S.-Y

    H. Isobe, S.-Y. Xu, and L. Fu, Sci- ence Advances6, eaay2497 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aay2497

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    S. Lai, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, J. Zhao, X. Feng, N. Wang, C. Tang, Y. Liu, K. S. Novoselov, S. A. Yang, and W.-b. Gao, Nature Nanotechnology16, 869 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Wang, R.-C

    C. Wang, R.-C. Xiao, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, S. Lai, C. Zhu, H. Cai, N. Wang, S. Chen, Y. Deng, Z. Liu, S. A. Yang, and W.-B. Gao, National Science Review9, nwac020 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/9/12/nwac020/48826293/nwac020.pdf

    2022

  34. [42]

    Sankar, R

    S. Sankar, R. Liu, C.-P. Zhang, Q.-F. Li, C. Chen, X.-J. Gao, J. Zheng, Y.-H. Lin, K. Qian, R.-P. Yu, X. Zhang, Z. Y. Meng, K. T. Law, Q. Shao, and B. J¨ ack, Phys. Rev. X14, 021046 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    T. Nag, S. K. Das, C. Zeng, and S. Nandy, Phys. Rev. B107, 245141 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Gao, Z.-Q

    Y. Gao, Z.-Q. Zhang, and K.-H. Ding, New Journal of Physics25, 053013 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    P. He, H. Isobe, G. K. W. Koon, J. Y. Tan, J. Hu, J. Li, N. Nagaosa, and J. Shen, Nature Nanotechnology19, 1460 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Zhang, K

    X. Zhang, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B110, 165140 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    S. Li, X. Wang, Z. Yang, L. Zhang, S. L. Teo, M. Lin, R. He, N. Wang, P. Song, W. Tian, X. J. Loh, Q. Zhu, B. Sun, and X. R. Wang, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces16, 11043 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Mandal, S

    D. Mandal, S. Sarkar, K. Das, and A. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. B110, 195131 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    W.-C. Lee, C. Wu, D. P. Arovas, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B80, 245439 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    Adroguer, W

    P. Adroguer, W. E. Liu, D. Culcer, and E. M. Han- kiewicz, Phys. Rev. B92, 241402 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Culcer, A

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

    2017

  44. [52]

    R. B. Atencia, Q. Niu, and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013001 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    E. H. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B77, 115449 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Huang and M

    B.-L. Huang and M. Kaviany, Phys. Rev. B77, 125209 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    X. Zhu, L. Santos, R. Sankar, S. Chikara, C. . Howard, F. C. Chou, C. Chamon, and M. El-Batanouny, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 186102 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    Kaasbjerg, K

    K. Kaasbjerg, K. S. Thygesen, and K. W. Jacobsen, Phys. Rev. B85, 165440 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Parente, A

    V. Parente, A. Tagliacozzo, F. von Oppen, and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. B88, 075432 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    Giraud and R

    S. Giraud and R. Egger, Phys. Rev. B83, 245322 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Wang and D

    J. Wang and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. B88, 125140 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Fu, Phys

    L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 266801 (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    Naselli, A

    G. Naselli, A. G. Moghaddam, S. Di Napoli, V. Vildosola, I. C. Fulga, J. van den Brink, and J. I. Facio, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033198 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    P. He, H. Isobe, D. Zhu, C.-H. Hsu, L. Fu, and H. Yang, Nature Communications12, 698 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    X. F. Lu, C.-P. Zhang, N. Wang, D. Zhao, X. Zhou, W. Gao, X. H. Chen, K. T. Law, and K. P. Loh, Nature Communications15, 245 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    N. A. Sinitsyn, Q. Niu, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B73, 075318 (2006)

    2006

  57. [65]

    N. A. Sinitsyn, A. H. MacDonald, T. Jungwirth, V. K. Dugaev, and J. Sinova, Phys. Rev. B75, 045315 (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

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

    2007

  59. [67]

    Culcer, E

    D. Culcer, E. M. Hankiewicz, G. Vignale, and R. Win- kler, Phys. Rev. B81, 125332 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Ma, S.-Y

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

    2019

  61. [69]

    Sinha, P

    S. Sinha, P. C. Adak, A. Chakraborty, K. Das, K. Deb- nath, L. D. V. Sangani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, U. V. Waghmare, A. Agarwal, and M. M. Deshmukh, Nature Physics18, 765 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. van den Brink, C. Felser, and B. Yan, 2D Materials5, 044001 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Z. Z. Du, C. M. Wang, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 266601 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    J. I. Facio, D. Efremov, K. Koepernik, J.-S. You, I. Sode- mann, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 246403 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Sun, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. B97, 041101 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

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

    2021

  67. [75]

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

    2021

  68. [76]

    Gao, Y.-F

    A. Gao, Y.-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T. V. Tre- visan, Y. Onishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, S.-W. Chen, M. Huang, D. B´ erub´ e, H. Li, C. Tzschaschel, T. Dinh, Z. Sun, S.-C. Ho, S.-W. Lien, B. Singh, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. C. Bell, H. Lin, T.-R. Chang, C. R. Du, A...

    2023 doi

  69. [77]

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

    2023

  70. [78]

    N. Wang, D. Kaplan, Z. Zhang, T. Holder, N. Cao, A. Wang, X. Zhou, F. Zhou, Z. Jiang, C. Zhang, S. Ru, H. Cai, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Yan, and 7 W. Gao, Nature621, 487 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    K. Kang, T. Li, E. Sohn, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature Materials18, 324 (2019)

    2019

  72. [80]

    Tiwari, F

    A. Tiwari, F. Chen, S. Zhong, E. Drueke, J. Koo, A. Kaczmarek, C. Xiao, J. Gao, X. Luo, Q. Niu, Y. Sun, B. Yan, L. Zhao, and A. W. Tsen, Nature Communica- tions12, 2049 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    P. He, G. K. W. Koon, H. Isobe, J. Y. Tan, J. Hu, A. H. C. Neto, L. Fu, and H. Yang, Nature Nanotech- nology17, 378 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    K¨ otzler and W

    J. K¨ otzler and W. Gil, Phys. Rev. B72, 060412 (2005)

    2005

  75. [83]

    Nagaosa, J

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

    2010

  76. [84]

    Gholizadeh, J

    S. Gholizadeh, J. H. Cullen, and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. B107, L041301 (2023)

    2023

  77. [85]

    Nakazawa, H

    K. Nakazawa, H. F. Legg, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B111, 125305 (2025)

    2025

  78. [86]

    Su´ arez-Rodr ´ ıguez, B

    M. Su´ arez-Rodr ´ ıguez, B. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa, W. Skowro´ nski, F. Calavalle, S. S. Tsirkin, I. Souza, F. De Juan, A. Chuvilin, A. Fert, M. Gobbi, F. Casanova, and L. E. Hueso, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 046303 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    Cao, A.-Q

    Z.-Y. Cao, A.-Q. Wang, X.-Y. Liu, T.-Y. Zhao, D. Yu, and Z.-M. Liao, Phys. Rev. B111, 125407 (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    J.-S. You, S. Fang, S.-Y. Xu, E. Kaxiras, and T. Low, Phys. Rev. B98, 121109 (2018)

    2018

  81. [89]

    Shao, S.-H

    D.-F. Shao, S.-H. Zhang, G. Gurung, W. Yang, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 067203 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.