Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 78 references

In time-reversal-broken 3D Weyl semimetals, third-order skew scattering dominates extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity and can exceed the intrinsic response.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 08:14 UTC pith:EZAI27LD

load-bearing objection Solid kinetic calculation of extrinsic AC orbital Hall in 3D Weyl, but the headline U-linear skew dominance quietly needs the dirty limit ωτ ≪ 1, which is never checked. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24671 v1 pith:EZAI27LD submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.mes-hall

Skew scattering induced contribution to orbital Hall response

Dayana Joy , Vivek Pandey , Rhonald Burgos Atencia , Pankaj Bhalla This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords orbital Hall effectskew scatteringside jumpWeyl semimetalsquantum kinetic theorydisorderorbitronicstime-reversal symmetry breaking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks how impurities reshape the orbital Hall effect in three-dimensional Weyl semimetals that break time-reversal symmetry. Using a quantum kinetic treatment of an oscillating electric field, it separates side-jump and skew-scattering channels and shows that the leading extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity comes from skew scattering built from the third power of the disorder potential. That channel scales linearly with disorder strength, overwhelms side-jump and first-Born skew terms by many orders of magnitude, and can reach roughly ten times the intrinsic orbital Hall conductivity for weak disorder, small Weyl-node separation, and applied energies of tens of meV. The response can be tuned by disorder strength, drive frequency, Fermi energy, and node separation, and it remains finite even as the nodes merge toward a Dirac limit. The authors argue this gives a practical route to engineer orbital currents for orbitronics in magnetic Weyl materials.

Core claim

Under an oscillating electric field in a time-reversal-symmetry-broken three-dimensional Weyl semimetal, the extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity is dominated by skew scattering beyond the first Born approximation—specifically the third-order disorder contribution—which scales linearly with disorder potential U, suppresses side-jump and first-Born channels (σ_BBA ≈ 10^5 σ_BA), and can be about ten times larger than the intrinsic orbital Hall conductivity for weak U, small node separation, and ℏω around 20 meV.

What carries the argument

The quantum kinetic (Liouville) equation for the disorder-averaged density matrix, with collision integrals carried through third order in the impurity potential; the third-order skew corrections f_sk_1E to the density matrix then enter the orbital Hall current via the operator (1/2){L_z, v_y}.

Load-bearing premise

The impurities are treated as uncorrelated short-range delta scatterers whose effects are captured by a Born series stopped at third order, so that the transport time cancels to leave a response linear in disorder strength.

What would settle it

In a magnetic Weyl candidate (for example Co3Sn2S2 or Mn3Sn), measure the orbital Hall response while systematically changing impurity concentration at fixed band structure: the extrinsic signal should rise linearly with disorder strength and show a conductivity plateau for |ε_f| < ℏω/2, unlike a disorder-independent intrinsic or side-jump background.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity in TRS-broken Weyl semimetals is primarily a skew-scattering effect linear in U, not a side-jump effect.
  • Smaller Weyl-node separation and higher drive frequency strengthen the extrinsic orbital Hall signal, while larger separation and higher temperature suppress it.
  • Disorder engineering and controlled doping become direct knobs for orbital-current magnitude in orbitronic devices.
  • Magneto-optical Kerr and THz/infrared conductivity measurements under gating can separate the extrinsic plateau and U-linear scaling from intrinsic band-geometry contributions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If long-range or resonant impurities reorganize the Born series, the claimed U-linear hierarchy may invert, so comparing short-range dopants with Coulomb scatterers is a natural next experiment.
  • The survival of a finite extrinsic orbital Hall signal at vanishing node separation suggests disorder-driven orbitronics could remain useful in Dirac and near-Dirac 3D materials where intrinsic OHE is symmetry-forbidden.
  • AC-drive plateaus tied to interband thresholds offer a spectroscopic fingerprint that could map orbital Hall response without needing spin-orbit-strong hosts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the disorder-induced (extrinsic) orbital Hall conductivity of a three-dimensional time-reversal-symmetry-broken two-node Weyl semimetal under an AC electric field, using the quantum Liouville/kinetic-equation formalism. Within the first Born approximation the authors identify a disorder-independent side-jump contribution (Eq. (8)) and a disorder-independent diagonal skew contribution (Eq. (10)); going to third order in the impurity potential (collision integral J1, Eqs. (11)–(12)) they obtain a skew-scattering correction (Eqs. (13)–(14)) whose real part is argued to scale linearly with the disorder strength U because the explicit U³ is reduced by one power of the transport time τ ∝ U⁻². Numerically, they report that this beyond-Born skew term dominates: σ_BBA ≈ 10⁵ σ_BA, the total extrinsic conductivity reaches ~1 (e/2π) at ε_f = 10 meV, b = 0.04 Å⁻¹, ℏω = 20 meV, U = 50 meV·Å³ — about 10× the intrinsic value quoted from Ref. [63] — and exhibits a plateau for |ε_f| < ℏω/2, suppression with increasing node separation, and enhancement with drive energy. Experimental detection via MOKE and optical conductivity in Co₃Sn₂S₂ and Mn₃Sn is proposed.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is the first systematic treatment of extrinsic (side-jump and skew-scattering) orbital Hall response in a three-dimensional time-reversal-broken Weyl semimetal, extending recent 2D results (e.g., Ref. [26]) to a realistic 3D platform. The derivation follows a recognized quantum-kinetic path and does not fit to data; it yields concrete, falsifiable predictions — a linear-in-U scaling of σ_yx, a plateau pinned to the interband threshold ℏω = 2|ε_f|, suppression with node separation b, and chirality independence — that are directly testable by doping-dependent and terahertz/optical measurements in materials such as Co₃Sn₂S₂. The identification of the beyond-first-Born channel as the potentially dominant extrinsic mechanism in 3D is a genuine conceptual contribution to orbitronics. These strengths are real, but the magnitude claims (10⁵ hierarchy, 10× intrinsic) currently rest on an unstated regime assumption and unspecified numerical parameters, which tempers the significance as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (8)–(14)] The central scaling claims — U-independence of the side-jump (text after Eq. (8)) and first-Born skew (Eq. (10)) terms, and the linear-in-U scaling of the beyond-Born skew term (Eqs. (13)–(14)) — all rest on the cancellation of the explicit U² in the collision integrals against τ ∝ U⁻² entering through f_mm_E = eE(t)∂_q f_0/(ω + i/τ). This cancellation requires |ω + i/τ| ≈ 1/τ, i.e. the dirty regime ωτ ≪ 1. The manuscript never states this assumption. In the opposite (and for AC optics arguably natural) regime ωτ ≫ 1, Re[1/(1/τ+iω)] ∝ τ⁻¹ω⁻² ∝ U², so f_sk,1E scales as U⁵ rather than U, the side-jump becomes U²-dependent rather than U-independent, and the claimed hierarchy σ_BBA/σ_BA ∼ 10⁵ becomes a different function of U. At the headline drive ℏω = 20 meV, ωτ ≪ 1 demands τ ≪ 33 fs, which is very dirty for the proposed candidate materials Co₃Sn₂S₂ and Mn₃Sn (§IV). Meanwhile the Born-seri
  2. [§II disorder model / §II.A, Eqs. (11)–(12)] The entire dominant contribution, J1 (Eqs. (11)–(12)), is proportional to the third disorder cumulant ⟨UUU⟩_c. Yet §II specifies only the second correlator ⟨U(r)U(r')⟩ = n_iU₀²δ(r−r'). For dilute point impurities the third cumulant is n_iU₀³ and the skew term is nonzero — this is standard — but for Gaussian or sign-symmetric disorder it vanishes identically, in which case the paper's dominant channel does not exist. The assumed impurity statistics (fixed-sign delta scatterers, third cumulant n_iU₀³) must be stated explicitly where the disorder model is introduced, since the paper's central result depends on it.
  3. [§III, Fig. 2; Appendix B, Fig. 3] The numerical results cannot be reproduced or independently checked as presented. The impurity density n_i (equivalently the combination n_iU₀²) is never given a value, so τ from Eq. (9) and the absolute magnitude of σ_ext_yx in Fig. 2 cannot be reconstructed. The Fermi velocity v_f entering the Hamiltonian (19) and the regulator η are also unspecified. Since the headline quantitative claims (σ_ext ≈ 10 σ_int; σ_BBA ≈ 10⁵ σ_BA) are numerical, the full parameter set used in Figs. 2 and 3 — n_i, v_f, η, momentum cutoffs, and the resulting τ — must be tabulated. Ideally the authors would also show σ_yx vs. ωτ to demonstrate which regime the plotted points occupy.
  4. [§III and Appendix B, Fig. 3] The claim σ_BBA_yx ≈ 10⁵ σ_BA_yx (§III, Appendix B) is load-bearing for the abstract's assertion of skew-scattering dominance, yet it is presented purely as a numerical observation with no analytic estimate of its origin (e.g., which momentum/energy denominators or matrix-element structures suppress the Born-level terms). Five orders of magnitude is an extreme hierarchy; the authors should provide at least a parametric argument for its size, and state over what range of U, b, and ℏω it holds. As written, a reader cannot tell whether 10⁵ is generic or an artifact of the chosen parameter point.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / §I / §II.A] Internal tension in the disorder-scaling language: the Introduction describes the skew contribution as having 'disorder dependence of the U³', while §II.A and Fig. 2(a) emphasize that the conductivity is linear in U (the U³ of J1 being reduced by τ ∝ U⁻²). The abstract similarly says the 'third power of disorder potential' dominates. Please harmonize: the microscopic collision integral is O(U³), the observable conductivity is claimed linear in U.
  2. [§II, Eqs. (7), (8), (10)] Eq. (10) uses the denominator (1/τ + iω) for the diagonal skew correction while Eq. (8) uses the band-energy denominator (i/ℏ)(ε_m−ε_p) − iω without a scattering rate; the rationale for including τ in one and not the other (and for its absence from the intrinsic term, Eq. (7)) should be stated in one sentence.
  3. [§II, Eq. (9)] Eq. (9): for short-range delta impurities the scattering is s-wave/isotropic, so the (1−cosΔϕ) transport-weighting factor is redundant (transport and single-particle times coincide). Worth a clarifying remark, especially since τ's U-scaling is central to the argument.
  4. [Throughout] Several typographical/rendering issues: 'EXPERIMENT AL RELEV ANCE' and 'SUMMAR Y' section headings; 'cooresponding' (§III); 'theU³' (§I); 'Universit` a' in affiliation 2; garbled axis labels in Figs. 2 and 3 as rendered. Please proofread.
  5. [§IV, Ref. [75]] Ref. [75] is an arXiv preprint cited for Co₃Sn₂S₂/Mn₃Sn as magnetic Weyl semimetals; a published reference (e.g., the original experimental identification papers for these compounds) would be more appropriate for this load-bearing materials claim.
  6. [§III, discussion of Fig. 2(b)] The statement that the extrinsic response 'remains finite' in the Dirac limit b → 0 'irrespective of ... time reversal symmetry' (§III) is interesting and potentially surprising, since skew scattering usually requires broken symmetries or non-Gaussian disorder statistics; one sentence explaining what keeps it finite at b = 0 would strengthen the discussion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: extrinsic OH derivation is a self-contained Born-series calculation; only a mild self-cite for the secondary 10 imes-vs-intrinsic comparison.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§III (comparison paragraph); also Intro claim σ_ext≈10 σ_int]
    "To highlight the importance of extrinsic contribution over the intrinsic to the total OH conductivity, we compare the magnitudes of σ_ext_yx with the existing σ_int_yx for Weyl semimetal [63]. For a weak disorder potential, U=50meV ų, the extrinsic contribution yields a magnitude nearly 1 (e/2π) ... While the intrinsic OH conductivity contributes 0.135e/2π ... i.e., σ_ext_yx ≈10 σ_int_yx."

    The headline ‘extrinsic is ~10× intrinsic’ is not recomputed in this manuscript; it rests on importing σ_int from the authors’ closely related prior paper [63] (Joy & Bhalla). This is a mild, non-definitional self-cite: it supports a comparative claim only and does not enter the derivation of σ_ext itself.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain (quantum Liouville → Born and third-order collision integrals J and J1 → density-matrix corrections f_sj, f_sk, f_sk_1E → OH current from ĵ = ½{L̂,v̂}) is built from standard kinetic theory and the stated short-range disorder model, not from fitting σ to data or defining the answer into the premises. Side-jump U-independence and beyond-Born linear-in-U scaling follow from the usual τ∝U⁻² cancellation inside the paper’s own equations; they are assumptions/limits (e.g. dirty-limit ωτ≪1), not circular reductions. The sole mild self-reference is the numerical claim σ_ext≈10 σ_int, which imports the intrinsic magnitude from the authors’ prior work [63] rather than recomputing it here. That comparison is narrative, not definitional of the extrinsic result, so it does not force the central prediction. No fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-from-authors, or ansatz-smuggling steps appear.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on a standard two-band Weyl k·p model, linear-response quantum kinetics, and a short-range white-noise impurity model expanded through third order in U. No new particles or forces are invented. Free parameters are the physical knobs scanned in figures (U, b, ℏω, ε_f, T) plus material scales (v_f) fixed by hand for numerics; none are fitted to experimental OH data. Domain assumptions (Born series truncation, delta impurities, two-band completeness, OAM operator form) carry the load.

free parameters (4)
  • Disorder strength U (and n_i U_0² combination) = illustrative U=50 meV ų in main comparisons
    Scanned by hand in Fig. 2(a); linear scaling of σ_ext is demonstrated inside chosen windows (e.g. U=50 meV ų), not fitted to experiment.
  • Weyl node separation b = b=0.04 Å^{-1} default in Fig. 2
    Chosen within first BZ (e.g. b=0.04 Å^{-1}); suppression of extrinsic OH with b is a numerical outcome of this choice set.
  • Drive energy ℏω and Fermi energy ε_f = ℏω=20 meV, ε_f~10 meV in headline comparison
    AC frequency and doping set the plateau |ε_f|<ℏω/2 and the quoted ~10× vs intrinsic comparison; chosen, not measured.
  • Temperature T = T=1 K default
    Fixed at T=1 K for most plots; thermal broadening suppresses σ_ext in Fig. 2(d).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Quantum Liouville / kinetic equation in linear electric field with disorder-averaged density matrix split ⟨ρ⟩+g and collision integral in Born series.
    §II Eqs. (1)–(4); standard Culcer-type framework assumed valid for AC OH response.
  • domain assumption Uncorrelated short-range impurities: ⟨U⟩=0, ⟨U(r)U(r')⟩=n_i U_0² δ(r−r'), extended to third-order correlators for J_1.
    §II disorder model; underpins U² side-jump/skew and U³ beyond-Born skew scaling.
  • domain assumption Two-band TRS-broken Weyl Hamiltonian H_q=ℏv_f ζ[q_x σ_x+q_y σ_y+(q_z−ζb)σ_z] suffices for extrinsic OH conductivity.
    §III Eq. (19); multi-orbital lattice and other bands neglected.
  • domain assumption Orbital Hall current operator ĵ_α=½{L_β,v_α} with L built from r×v (Eqs. 15–16) correctly captures the measurable OH response.
    §II.B; conventional in recent OHE literature but still a modeling choice for Bloch electrons.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncation at third order in U captures the leading disorder-dependent skew channel; higher orders and coherent multiple scattering do not cancel the linear-U term.
    §II.A Eqs. (11)–(14); central to ‘U³ dominates’ claim without a controlled resummation.
  • domain assumption Transport time τ_q^m ∝ U^{-2} for short-range impurities so disorder cancels in side-jump/first-Born skew real parts but leaves linear U after third-order J_1.
    Text below Eqs. (8)–(10) and (13)–(14); standard golden-rule scaling assumed.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 21299 in / 4331 out tokens · 86134 ms · 2026-07-31T08:14:51.952816+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Our study provides the disorder-induced contribution to the orbital Hall conductivity in three-dimensional Weyl semimetals with broken time-reversal symmetry. Using the quantum kinetic approach, we analyse the impact of side-jump and skew scattering contributions to the system. The dependence of the orbital Hall conductivity on both disorder potential and the Fermi energy is explicitly demonstrated. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the higher-order disorder contribution, especially from the third power of disorder potential, dominates the orbital Hall conductivity under an oscillating electric field in a time-reversal symmetry broken Weyl semimetal, suppressing other scattering mechanisms, including the side jump contributions. We can enhance the extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity by tuning the strength of the disorder potential, applied energy, and choosing the system with appropriate Weyl node separation. Finally, our results are supported by numerical estimations and highlight potential experimental relevance for advancing orbitronics device technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24671 by Dayana Joy, Pankaj Bhalla, Rhonald Burgos Atencia, Vivek Pandey.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The diagram shows the orbital Hall current (OHC) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The figure illustrates the dependence of total OH conductivity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The plots depict the relation between total OH conductivity arising from the first Born approximation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Burgos Atencia, A

    R. Burgos Atencia, A. Agarwal, and D. Culcer, Orbital angular momentum of Bloch electrons: equilibrium formulation, magneto-electric phenomena, and the 9 orbital Hall effect, Advances in Physics X9, 2371972 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    D. Go, D. Jo, H.-W. Lee, M. Kl¨ aui, and Y. Mokrousov, Orbitronics: Orbital currents in solids, Europhysics Letters135, 37001 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    T. S. Seifert, D. Go, H. Hayashi, R. Rouzegar, F. Freimuth, K. Ando, Y. Mokrousov, and T. Kampfrath, Time-domain observation of ballistic orbital-angular-momentum currents with giant relaxation length in tungsten, Nature Nanotechnology 18, 1132 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Y.-G. Choi, D. Jo, K.-H. Ko, D. Go, K.-H. Kim, H. G. Park, C. Kim, B.-C. Min, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, Observation of the orbital Hall effect in a light metal Ti, Nature619, 52 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    P. Wang, Z. Feng, Y. Yang, D. Zhang, Q. Liu, Z. Xu, Z. Jia, Y. Wu, G. Yu, X. Xu, and Y. Jiang, Inverse orbital Hall effect and orbitronic terahertz emission observed in the materials with weak spin-orbit coupling, npj Quantum Materials8, 2397 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    F. Xue, V. Amin, and P. M. Haney, Imaging the valley and orbital hall effect in monolayer MoS 2, Phys. Rev. B 102, 161103 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    D. Jo, D. Go, and H.-W. Lee, Gigantic intrinsic orbital hall effects in weakly spin-orbit coupled metals, Phys. Rev. B98, 214405 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Lee, M.-G

    S. Lee, M.-G. Kang, D. Go, D. Kim, J.-H. Kang, T. Lee, G.-H. Lee, J. Kang, N. J. Lee, Y. Mokrousov, S. Kim, K.-J. Kim, K.-J. Lee, and B.-G. Park, Efficient conversion of orbital hall current to spin current for spin-orbit torque switching, Communications Physics4, 10.1038/s42005-021-00737-7 (2021)

    doi:10.1038/s42005-021-00737-7 2021

  9. [9]

    Z. C. Zheng, Q. X. Guo, D. Jo, D. Go, L. H. Wang, H. C. Chen, W. Yin, X. M. Wang, G. H. Yu, W. He, H.-W. Lee, J. Teng, and T. Zhu, Magnetization switching driven by current-induced torque from weakly spin-orbit coupled Zr, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013127 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Kontani, T

    H. Kontani, T. Tanaka, D. S. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue, Giant intrinsic spin and orbital Hall effects in Sr 2MO4 (M = Ru,Rh,Mo), Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 096601 (2008)

    2008

  11. [11]

    D. Go, D. Jo, C. Kim, and H.-W. Lee, Intrinsic spin and orbital Hall effects from orbital texture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086602 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    Salemi and P

    L. Salemi and P. M. Oppeneer, First-principles theory of intrinsic spin and orbital hall and nernst effects in metallic monoatomic crystals, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, 095001 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    H. Liu, J. H. Cullen, D. P. Arovas, and D. Culcer, Quantum correction to the orbital hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 036304 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    A. M. Yao and M. J. Padgett, Orbital angular momentum: origins, behavior and applications, Advances in optics and photonics3, 161 (2011)

    2011

  15. [15]

    M. J. Padgett, Orbital angular momentum 25 years on, Optics express25, 11265 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    Kittel and P

    C. Kittel and P. McEuen,Introduction to solid state physics(John Wiley & Sons, 2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Bertlmann and N

    R. Bertlmann and N. Friis,Modern Quantum Theory: From Quantum Mechanics to Entanglement and Quantum Information(OUP Oxford, 2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Berry curvature, orbital moment, and effective quantum theory of electrons in electromagnetic fields, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter20, 193202 (2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    Sundaram and Q

    G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Wave-packet dynamics in slowly perturbed crystals: Gradient corrections and berry-phase effects, Phys. Rev. B59, 14915 (1999)

    1999

  20. [20]

    Xiao, M.-C

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

    1959

  21. [21]

    R. B. Atencia, Quantum geometry and linear orbital response in arbitrary su(2) representation, Phys. Rev. B 113, 075422 (2026)

    2026

  22. [22]

    P. Sahu, S. Bhowal, and S. Satpathy, Effect of the inversion symmetry breaking on the orbital hall effect: A model study, Phys. Rev. B103, 085113 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Bhowal and G

    S. Bhowal and G. Vignale, Orbital Hall effect as an alternative to valley Hall effect in gapped graphene, Phys. Rev. B103, 195309 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Onoda, N

    S. Onoda, N. Sugimoto, and N. Nagaosa, Quantum transport theory of anomalous electric, thermoelectric, and thermal hall effects in ferromagnets, Physical Review B77, 165103 (2008)

    2008

  25. [25]

    Culcer, A

    D. Culcer, A. Sekine, and A. H. MacDonald, Interband coherence response to electric fields in crystals: Berry-phase contributions and disorder effects, Phys. Rev. B96, 035106 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Liu and D

    H. Liu and D. Culcer, Dominance of extrinsic scattering mechanisms in the orbital hall effect: Graphene, transition metal dichalcogenides, and topological antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 186302 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Fert and P

    A. Fert and P. M. Levy, Spin hall effect induced by resonant scattering on impurities in metals, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 157208 (2011)

    2011

  28. [28]

    Pandey and P

    V. Pandey and P. Bhalla, Reshaping the anomalous hall response in tilted 3d system with disorder correction, New Journal of Physics27, 073501 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    P. M. Ostrovsky, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Theory of anomalous quantum hall effects in graphene, Phys. Rev. B77, 195430 (2008)

    2008

  30. [30]

    Shiomi, Y

    Y. Shiomi, Y. Onose, and Y. Tokura, Effect of scattering on intrinsic anomalous hall effect investigated by lorenz ratio, Phys. Rev. B81, 054414 (2010)

    2010

  31. [31]

    J. N. Chazalviel, Skew-scattering contribution to the extraordinary hall effect: A restatement, Phys. Rev. B 10, 3018 (1974)

    1974

  32. [32]

    J. M. Lee, Universal intrinsic orbital dynamics from berry curvature in electronic two-band systems, Phys. Rev. B 112, 054441 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Bhowal and S

    S. Bhowal and S. Satpathy, Intrinsic orbital and spin hall effects in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B102, 035409 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    Bhowal and S

    S. Bhowal and S. Satpathy, Intrinsic orbital moment and prediction of a large orbital hall effect in two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B101, 121112 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Mankovsky and H

    S. Mankovsky and H. Ebert, Spin and orbital hall effect in nonmagnetic transition metals: Extrinsic versus intrinsic contributions, Phys. Rev. B110, 184417 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous hall effect, Reviews of modern physics82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  37. [37]

    Bansil, H

    A. Bansil, H. Lin, and T. Das, Colloquium: Topological band theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021004 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    D. Joy, V. Pandey, and P. Bhalla, Linear and nonlinear intrinsic ac orbital hall conductivity in a system with broken inversion symmetry, Phys. Rev. B111, 075149 (2025). 10

    2025

  39. [39]

    Berger, Side-jump mechanism for the hall effect of ferromagnets, Phys

    L. Berger, Side-jump mechanism for the hall effect of ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B2, 4559 (1970)

    1970

  40. [40]

    Glazov and L

    M. Glazov and L. Golub, Skew scattering and side jump drive exciton valley hall effect in two-dimensional crystals, Physical Review Letters125, 157403 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    S. A. Yang, H. Pan, Y. Yao, and Q. Niu, Scattering universality classes of side jump in the anomalous hall effect, Phys. Rev. B83, 125122 (2011)

    2011

  42. [42]

    Shashank, Y

    U. Shashank, Y. Nakamura, Y. Kusaba, T. Tomoda, R. Nongjai, A. Kandasami, R. Medwal, R. S. Rawat, H. Asada, S. Gupta, and Y. Fukuma, Disentanglement of intrinsic and extrinsic side-jump scattering induced spin hall effect in n-implanted pt, Phys. Rev. B107, 064402 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Ma, Z.-F

    D. Ma, Z.-F. Zhang, H. Jiang, and X. C. Xie, Quantum kinetic theory of the semiclassical side jump, skew scattering, and longitudinal velocity, Phys. Rev. B112, 045136 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    N. A. Sinitsyn, Q. Niu, J. Sinova, and K. Nomura, Disorder effects in the anomalous hall effect induced by berry curvature, Phys. Rev. B72, 045346 (2005)

    2005

  45. [45]

    S. Peng, X. Zheng, S. Li, B. Lao, Y. Han, Z. Liao, H. Zheng, Y. Yang, T. Yu, P. AU Liu, Y. Sun, X.-Q. Chen, S. Peng, W. Zhao, R.-W. Li, and Z. Wang, Unconventional scaling of the orbital hall effect, Nature Materials24, 1749 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    N. A. Sinitsyn, Q. Niu, and A. H. MacDonald, Coordinate shift in the semiclassical boltzmann equation and the anomalous hall effect, Phys. Rev. B73, 075318 (2006)

    2006

  47. [47]

    C. Xiao, Y. Liu, M. Xie, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Theory of the phonon side-jump contribution in anomalous hall effect, Phys. Rev. B99, 245418 (2019)

    2019

  48. [48]

    Ferreira, T

    A. Ferreira, T. G. Rappoport, M. A. Cazalilla, and A. H. Castro Neto, Extrinsic spin hall effect induced by resonant skew scattering in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 066601 (2014)

    2014

  49. [49]

    Wang, H.-Y

    C.-Z. Wang, H.-Y. Xu, and Y.-C. Lai, Super skew scattering in two-dimensional dirac material systems with a flat band, Phys. Rev. B103, 195439 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    G.-Y. Guo, S. Maekawa, and N. Nagaosa, Enhanced spin hall effect by resonant skew scattering in the orbital-dependent kondo effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 036401 (2009)

    2009

  51. [51]

    Herschbach, D

    C. Herschbach, D. V. Fedorov, I. Mertig, M. Gradhand, K. Chadova, H. Ebert, and D. K¨ odderitzsch, Insight into the skew-scattering mechanism of the spin hall effect: Potential scattering versus spin-orbit scattering, Phys. Rev. B88, 205102 (2013)

    2013

  52. [52]

    Niimi, Y

    Y. Niimi, Y. Kawanishi, D. H. Wei, C. Deranlot, H. X. Yang, M. Chshiev, T. Valet, A. Fert, and Y. Otani, Giant spin hall effect induced by skew scattering from bismuth impurities inside thin film cubi alloys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 156602 (2012)

    2012

  53. [53]

    Onoda, N

    S. Onoda, N. Sugimoto, and N. Nagaosa, Intrinsic versus extrinsic anomalous hall effect in ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 126602 (2006)

    2006

  54. [54]

    Zhuang and Z

    Z.-Y. Zhuang and Z. Yan, Extrinsic and intrinsic nonlinear hall effects across berry-dipole transitions, Phys. Rev. B107, L161102 (2023)

    2023

  55. [55]

    Bhalla, K

    P. Bhalla, K. Das, A. Agarwal, and D. Culcer, Quantum kinetic theory of nonlinear optical currents: Finite fermi surface and fermi sea contributions, Phys. Rev. B107, 165131 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Pandey, D

    V. Pandey, D. Joy, D. Culcer, and P. Bhalla, Longitudinal dc conductivity in Dirac nodal line semimetals: Intrinsic and extrinsic contributions, Phys. Rev. B110, 155108 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Veneri, T

    A. Veneri, T. G. Rappoport, and A. Ferreira, Extrinsic orbital hall effect: Orbital skew scattering and crossover between diffusive and intrinsic orbital transport, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 136201 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    R. B. Atencia, Q. Niu, and D. Culcer, Semiclassical equations of motion for disordered conductors: extrinsic interband velocity, corrected collision integral and spin-orbit torques, arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06214 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    N. A. Sinitsyn, Semiclassical theories of the anomalous hall effect, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter20, 023201 (2007)

    2007

  60. [60]

    N. A. Sinitsyn, A. H. MacDonald, T. Jungwirth, V. K. Dugaev, and J. Sinova, Anomalous hall effect in a two-dimensional dirac band: The link between the kubo-streda formula and the semiclassical boltzmann equation approach, Phys. Rev. B75, 045315 (2007)

    2007

  61. [61]

    I. A. Ado, I. A. Dmitriev, P. M. Ostrovsky, and M. Titov, Sensitivity of the anomalous hall effect to disorder correlations, Phys. Rev. B96, 235148 (2017)

    2017

  62. [62]

    Y. Tian, L. Ye, and X. Jin, Proper scaling of the anomalous hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 087206 (2009)

    2009

  63. [63]

    Joy and P

    D. Joy and P. Bhalla, Field-driven orbital hall conductivity in time reversal symmetry broken weyl semimetals, New Journal of Physics28, 043504 (2026)

    2026

  64. [64]

    S. Ahn, E. J. Mele, and H. Min, Optical conductivity of multi-Weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. B95, 161112 (2017)

    2017

  65. [65]

    S. A. Yang, H. Pan, and F. Zhang, Chirality-dependent Hall effect in Weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. Lett115, 156603 (2015)

    2015

  66. [66]

    A. A. Zyuzin, S. Wu, and A. A. Burkov, Weyl semimetal with broken time reversal and inversion symmetries, Phys. Rev. B85, 165110 (2012)

    2012

  67. [67]

    A. A. Burkov and L. Balents, Weyl semimetal in a topological insulator multilayer, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 127205 (2011)

    2011

  68. [68]

    Huang, S.-Y

    S.-M. Huang, S.-Y. Xu, I. Belopolski, C.-C. Lee, G. Chang, B. Wang, N. Alidoust, G. Bian, M. Neupane, C. Zhang, S. Jia, A. Bansil, H. Lin, and M. Z. Hasan, A weyl fermion semimetal with surface fermi arcs in the transition metal monopnictide TaAs class, Nature Communications6, 10.1038/ncomms8373 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms8373 2015

  69. [69]

    Grassano, O

    D. Grassano, O. Pulci, A. Mosca Conte, and F. Bechstedt, Validity of weyl fermion picture for transition metals monopnictides TaAs, TaP, NbAs, and NbP from ab initio studies, Scientific Reports8, 10.1038/s41598-018-21465-z (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21465-z 2018

  70. [70]

    S.-Y. Xu, I. Belopolski, N. Alidoust, M. Neupane, G. Bian, C. Zhang, R. Sankar, G. Chang, Z. Yuan, C.-C. Lee, S.-M. Huang, H. Zheng, J. Ma, D. S. Sanchez, B. Wang, A. Bansil, F. Chou, P. P. Shibayev, H. Lin, S. Jia, and M. Z. Hasan, Discovery of a weyl fermion semimetal and topological fermi arcs, Science349, 613 (2015)

    2015

  71. [71]

    A. L. Levy, A. B. Sushkov, F. Liu, B. Shen, N. Ni, H. D. Drew, and G. S. Jenkins, Optical evidence of the chiral magnetic anomaly in the weyl semimetal taas, Phys. Rev. B101, 125102 (2020). 11

    2020

  72. [72]

    Z. Z. Du, C. M. Wang, S. Li, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Disorder-induced nonlinear hall effect with time-reversal symmetry, Nature Communications10, 10.1038/s41467-019-10941-3 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10941-3 2019

  73. [73]

    Messica, D

    Y. Messica, D. B. Gutman, and P. M. Ostrovsky, Anomalous hall effect in disordered weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. B108, 045121 (2023)

    2023

  74. [74]

    Z. Xu, Z. Siu, A. Kundu, C. Yesilyurt, C. Sun, T. Chen, and M. B. A. Jalil, Electronic transport properties of weyl semimetals with strain-induced gauge fields, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics52, 125301 (2019)

    2019

  75. [75]

    Ozawa, Y

    A. Ozawa, Y. Araki, K. Kobayashi, and K. Nomura, Magnetic weyl semimetals: Interplay of band topology and magnetism, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22568 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Bulmash, C.-X

    D. Bulmash, C.-X. Liu, and X.-L. Qi, Prediction of a Weyl semimetal in Hg1−x−yCdxMnyTe, Phys. Rev. B89, 081106 (2014)

    2014

  77. [77]

    J. Li, H. Wang, and H. Pan, Tunable topological phase transition from nodal-line semimetal to Weyl semimetal by breaking symmetry, Phys. Rev. B104, 235136 (2021)

    2021

  78. [78]

    Z. Wang, M. G. Vergniory, S. Kushwaha, M. Hirschberger, E. V. Chulkov, A. Ernst, N. P. Ong, R. J. Cava, and B. A. Bernevig, Time-reversal-breaking Weyl fermions in magnetic Heusler alloys, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 236401 (2016)

    2016