Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Quantum geometry and dipolar dynamics in the orbital magneto-electric effect

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The orbital magneto-electric effect in insulators is a steady-state dipole produced by the quantum metric.

desk verdict The quantum-metric dipole mechanism for the OME is new and the model calculation is clean, but the claim that the dipole is the only contribution in the gap is not proven—the paper itself flags an unresolved extra term in the semiclassical comparison that could survive as a Fermi-sea contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02911 v2 pith:JRPDNY2M submitted 2025-05-05 cond-mat.mes-hall

James H. Cullen , Daniel P. Arovas , Roberto Raimondi , Dimitrie Culcer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords orbitalmagneto-electriceffectquantummetricZitterbewegungangularmomentumtorquetiltedmassiveDiracfermionsnonequilibriumdipolegeometry
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 tries to establish that the orbital magneto-electric effect, in which an electric field creates a steady-state orbital angular momentum density, is driven by a nonequilibrium electric dipole that forms in Bloch electrons. The dipole is generated by Zitterbewegung and is proportional to the quantum metric, a band-geometric quantity. For tilted massive Dirac fermions, the paper argues, this dipole is the sole contribution to the orbital magneto-electric effect when the Fermi energy lies in the insulating gap. If correct, the result explains why the effect can survive in insulators, identifies quantum metric engineering as a practical route to stronger orbital torques, and connects the modern theory of polarization to the modern theory of magnetization.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective displacement $\Xi$, defined through the covariant derivative of the density matrix, which places the position operator and the orbital angular momentum operator on the same footing. Its band-diagonal part gives the steady-state dipole, while its band-off-diagonal parts describe the oscillating pieces that produce itinerant and local circulation. The expression for the dipole is carried by the normalized quantum metric $\mathcal{G}^{\alpha\beta,m}_k = \sum_{m\neq n} (R^{\alpha,mn}_k R^{\beta,nm}_k + R^{\beta,mn}_k R^{\alpha,nm}_k)/(\varepsilon^m_k - \varepsilon^n_k)$, which the paper interprets as a Zitterbewegung velocity times the interband time scale $\hbar/\Delta\varepsilon$, yielding a steady-state polarization in linear response to a DC electric field.

What would settle it

In the tilted massive Dirac model, the paper predicts that the insulating orbital magneto-electric effect is nonzero only for an electric field along the y direction and equals $-e E_y v_t/(12\pi m)$, while the extrinsic contribution is nonzero only for the field along x and scales with the relaxation time; a measurement or first-principles calculation finding a comparable insulating response for the x direction, or a magnitude that does not track the quantum metric dipole, would falsify the dipole-only attribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the nonequilibrium dipole moment density takes the form $d_\alpha = e E_\beta \sum_{m,k} \mathcal{G}^{\alpha\beta,m}_k f^m_k$, where $\mathcal{G}^{\alpha\beta,m}_k$ is the normalized quantum metric built from interband Berry connections. In the insulating state of a tilted massive Dirac cone, this dipole is the only surviving contribution to the orbital magneto-electric effect, so the effect is nonzero in the gap simply because a dipole can exist in an insulator. The paper further splits the nonequilibrium orbital angular momentum into three parts: a dipole term $\langle L_\alpha\rangle_d$ that is the dipole convected by the electron velocity, an itinerant-circulation term $\langle L_\alpha\rangle_{\mathrm{IC}}$, and a local-circulation term $\langle L_\alpha\rangle_{\mathrm{LC}}$. For the model studied, the intrinsic effect is nonzero only for an electric field along one in-plane direction, while the extrinsic impurity-driven effect is nonzero only along the perpendicular direction, allowing the two to be separated experimentally.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the equilibrium band-diagonal part of the effective displacement can be set to zero, a step taken because the wavevector derivative of the Fermi-Dirac distribution is not well defined, together with the assumption that there is no equilibrium ferroelectric polarization; if either convention fails, the dipole and the insulating orbital magneto-electric effect attribution would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The orbital magneto-electric effect can be nonzero in an insulating gap because it is fundamentally a dipole effect, in the same way that a Stark-like displacement of electrons can occur in an insulator.
  • In tilted massive Dirac systems, the intrinsic and extrinsic contributions to the orbital magneto-electric effect are activated by perpendicular electric-field directions, giving a concrete experimental recipe to distinguish them and to detect the dipole indirectly.
  • Because the dipole is proportional to the quantum metric, materials with a large quantum metric should show a larger orbital magneto-electric response, motivating quantum metric engineering for orbital torque applications.
  • The paper's separation of the nonequilibrium orbital angular momentum into dipole, itinerant-circulation, and local-circulation terms provides a common language for comparing density-matrix, semiclassical, and Wannier-function approaches to the orbital magneto-electric effect.
  • Tilted Dirac cones usually occur in opposite-tilt pairs whose orbital magneto-electric contributions cancel, so the authors suggest measuring the effect in a three-dimensional magnetic topological insulator with tilted cones on opposite surfaces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dipole mechanism is generic, then any system with a large quantum metric and broken particle-hole symmetry should show an orbital magneto-electric response that tracks the dipole term, which could be tested in moiré systems or transition-metal dichalcogenides where the quantum metric is known to be large.
  • The paper's reliance on the band-diagonal effective displacement suggests that disorder and inhomogeneities, which the authors mention as future generalizations, could renormalize the dipole and thus change the magnitude and even the sign of the insulating orbital magneto-electric effect; this is a testable prediction that goes beyond the clean-model calculation.
  • The sign change in the orbital angular momentum between the insulating and conducting regimes seen in the model could serve as a Fermi-energy-tunable experimental signature, separating the dipole-dominated response from the itinerant-circulation response.
  • Because the dipole formula resembles interband polarization in nonlinear optics, the same quantum metric quantity may also appear in other linear DC responses beyond orbital magnetism, such as orbital Edelstein effects or field-induced polarization changes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper develops a density-matrix formalism for the orbital magneto-electric effect (OME), expressing the steady-state orbital angular momentum generated by a static electric field in terms of an 'effective displacement' Xi. The central result is a nonequilibrium dipole density d_alpha = e E_beta sum_{m,k} tilde{G}^{alpha beta,m}_k f^m_k, where tilde{G} is the normalized quantum metric. For tilted massive Dirac fermions, the authors find that in the insulating regime the OME is given exclusively by this dipole term, with <L_z> = -e E_y v_t/(12 pi m); in the conducting regime additional itinerant and local circulation terms appear, and the intrinsic and extrinsic responses occur for orthogonal field directions. The paper further interprets the dipole as a Zitterbewegung effect and proposes 'quantum metric engineering' as a route to enhanced orbital torques.

Significance. The density-matrix derivation is self-contained, gauge-invariant, and successfully reproduces the known equilibrium OAM, which is a clear strength. The explicit analytic results for the tilted Dirac model are falsifiable, and the predicted separation of intrinsic and extrinsic responses by field orientation gives a concrete experimental handle. If the main claim that the insulating OME is purely a quantum-metric dipole effect is correct, it would resolve a long-standing question about the nonzero OME in the gap and would unify the modern theory of polarization with orbital magnetization. However, the unresolved discrepancies with the semiclassical and Wannier approaches, which the authors explicitly acknowledge in the Supplement, currently prevent the central claim from being considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Supplement, 'Previous approaches to the OME'] The central claim that in the insulating case the OME stems exclusively from <L_alpha>_d (main text, 'Model system') is not yet established, because the Supplement concedes an unresolved difference with the semiclassical expression of Ref. 70. Specifically, Eq. (57) of the Supplement contains an extra term proportional to partial G^{beta nu,n}/partial k_mu evaluated with the distribution f_nk, and the authors state that 'it is unclear where these differences stem from.' Since f_nk = 1 over the occupied Fermi sea in an insulator, this term is not manifestly a Fermi-surface contribution and could survive in the gap. The authors should compute this extra term explicitly for the tilted Dirac model and show that it vanishes, or otherwise reconcile their expression with Ref. 70. The same concern applies to the absent first itinerant-circulation term in the Wannier comparison, which is deferred to a future publication in the Supplement.
  2. [Main text, 'The dipole and OAM in equilibrium'; Supplement, 'THE EXPECTATION VALUE OF DIPOLE OPERATORS'] The decomposition of the nonequilibrium OAM into <L_alpha>_d, <L_alpha>_IC, and <L_alpha>_LC relies on the convention that the band-diagonal part of the equilibrium effective displacement is set to zero. The Supplement states that the derivative of the Fermi-Dirac distribution in wavevector is not well defined, 'Hence we set Xi_0,d = 0.' The paper also implicitly assumes no ferroelectric polarization. Because the band-diagonal part of the equilibrium Xi is not fixed by the derivative, the split between the dipole contribution and the itinerant/local circulation contributions may depend on this choice. The authors should demonstrate that the total insulating OME and the statement that the dipole is the only surviving contribution are invariant under the allowed conventions for Xi_0,d, or specify clearly which physical input fixes the dipole density separately from the other terms.
minor comments (3)
  1. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries: Ref. [15] and Ref. [30] are the same paper (G. Sala and P. Gambardella, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033037 (2020)); one should be removed and the numbering updated.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (5)] In Eq. (5), rho^mn_E = e E \cdot R^mn (f_m - f_n)/(\epsilon_m - \epsilon_n) uses the symbol e for the magnitude of the electron charge, while the text defines the electron charge as -e; consider using |e| or stating the sign convention explicitly to avoid confusion.
  3. [Introduction] The phrase 'the OME can be nonzero in the gap' is ambiguous: the OME is a response coefficient, so it would be clearer to say that the induced OAM density can be nonzero in the gap, or to specify 'the intrinsic OME can be nonzero in the insulating limit.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central dipole formula and the insulating OME result are derived from the stated model Hamiltonian by linear response, with no fitted parameter or self-referential definition.

full rationale

The paper's central expression (Eq. 1) is not an input but a derived response: the nonequilibrium dipole is obtained from the effective displacement Xi_E, which is solved from the kinetic equation (Eqs. 6 and 48), and the same dipole is independently reproduced in the Supplement by first-order perturbation theory (Eqs. 13-16 and 24). The model Hamiltonian (Eq. 8) contains only declared parameters (alpha, m, v_t, tau) and no data fitting; the extrinsic/intrinsic comparison uses a stated relaxation-time threshold rather than a fitted value. The claim that in the insulating gap the OME comes solely from the dipole is a computed property of the two-band model: <Lz>_LC vanishes for two-band systems and <Lz>_IC is evaluated as a Fermi-surface term that vanishes in the gap; this is not a restatement of the definition of d. The effective-displacement formalism is cited from the authors' prior work (Refs. 85-87), but the Supplement rederives the relevant definitions and kinetic equation, so the self-citation is not load-bearing for the central result. The acknowledged differences with the semiclassical expression of Ref. 70 and the Wannier IC term of Ref. 93 are open scientific questions about the total OME, not circular reductions of the paper's own derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central dipole formula is a parameter-free expression in terms of the quantum metric. The tilted Dirac model parameters and the relaxation time are illustrative inputs, not fitted to the target result. The derivation rests on standard Bloch and linear-response assumptions, plus an origin convention for the position operator and the absence of ferroelectric polarization.

free parameters (4)
  • Rashba/Dirac coupling alpha = 4 eV·Å (illustrative)
    Model parameter for the tilted massive Dirac Hamiltonian, chosen for the illustrative figures; the central dipole formula is independent of this value.
  • mass m = 0.01 eV (illustrative)
    Model parameter chosen for the illustrative figures; the insulating gap result is taken as EF toward m.
  • tilt velocity vt = 0.2 alpha / hbar (illustrative)
    Tilt parameter chosen for the illustrative figures; it sets the magnitude of the OME but not the mechanism.
  • relaxation time tau = 0.01 ps in Fig. 3; threshold tau > 5 fs
    Parameter in the relaxation-time approximation for the extrinsic OME; the qualitative field-orientation separation does not depend on its precise value.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard Bloch and position operator formalism, including Blount matrix elements for r.
    Used throughout to represent the position operator in the crystal momentum representation (Supplement Eq. 23).
  • domain assumption Tilted massive Dirac model Hamiltonian H = hbar vt kx I + m sigma_z + alpha (ky sigma_x - kx sigma_y).
    The model is chosen for simplicity and relevance to topological materials, TMDs, and antiferromagnets; the central formula does not depend on its specific parameters.
  • domain assumption Linear response without disorder for the intrinsic part.
    Eqs. (4)-(5) solve the density matrix to first order in the electric field; disorder is omitted for the intrinsic response and added later via relaxation time approximation.
  • domain assumption Relaxation time approximation for the extrinsic OME.
    The extrinsic contribution is estimated with a relaxation time tau; the paper states the extrinsic OME exceeds the intrinsic for tau > 5 fs.
  • domain assumption No equilibrium polarization, i.e. no ferroelectricity.
    Stated in the Discussion: 'implicitly assuming no equilibrium polarization i.e. no ferroelectricity.'
  • ad hoc to paper Set the equilibrium band-diagonal effective displacement Xi_0,d to zero.
    Supplement: 'we set the band diagonal elements of Xi in equilibrium to be exactly zero... Hence we set Xi_0,d = 0.' This fixes the origin for position expectation values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum geometry and dipolar dynamics in the orbital magneto-electric effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JRPDNY2M

@misc{pith2026250502911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum geometry and dipolar dynamics in the orbital magneto-electric effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JRPDNY2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02911}
}
read the original abstract

We show that the orbital magneto-electric effect (OME) -- the generation of a steady-state orbital angular momentum density -- is partly the result of a nonequilibrium dipole moment generated via Zitterbewegung and proportional to the quantum metric. For tilted massive Dirac fermions this dipole gives the only contribution to the OME in the insulating case, while the intrinsic and extrinsic OMEs occur for different electric field orientations, yielding an experimental detection method. Our results suggest quantum metric engineering as a route towards maximizing orbital torques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02911 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The absolute value of the dipole moment density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The intrinsic OMM per unit field and each of its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The intrinsic (E ∥ yˆ) and extrinsic (E ∥ xˆ) OMM per unit field for our two-band Dirac model. Here we use α = 4 eV˚A, m = 0.01 eV, vt = 0.2 α/ℏ and τ = 0.01 ps. displacement within the unit cell. Whereas the polarization, that is the net dipole den￾sity, depends on the choice of the unit cell [78, 94–98], the change in polarization is well defined, and experi￾ments measure the change in polarization rather than the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of different OAM mechanisms a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Orbital Hall effect in spin-3/2 hole-doped semiconductors and its implications for orbitronics

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Holes in p-type Ge show an orbital Hall conductivity roughly 6000 times its spin Hall conductivity, positioning Ge as a strong orbitronic material.

  2. Spin Polarization driven by Itinerant Orbital Angular Momentum in van der Waals Heterostructures

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A model calculation attributes current-induced out-of-plane spin densities in TMD/ferromagnet heterostructures to itinerant orbital angular momentum, not atomic orbital moments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 066601 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    Das, Nature Physics 19, 1085 (2023)

    D. Das, Nature Physics 19, 1085 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    R. B. Atencia, A. Agarwal, and D. Culcer, Advances in Physics: X 9, 2371972 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1080/23746149.2024.2371972

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    D. Go, D. Jo, H.-W. Lee, M. Kl¨ aui, and Y. Mokrousov, Europhysics Letters 135, 37001 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    P. Wang, F. Chen, Y. Yang, S. Hu, Y. Li, W. Wang, D. Zhang, and Y. Jiang, Advanced Electronic Materials , 2400554 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    I. Ado, M. Titov, R. A. Duine, and A. Brataas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10956 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    J. Kim, D. Go, H. Tsai, D. Jo, K. Kondou, H.-W. Lee, and Y. Otani, Phys. Rev. B 103, L020407 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    X. Chen, Y. Liu, G. Yang, H. Shi, C. Hu, M. Li, and H. Zeng, Nature Communications 9, 2569 (2018)

    2018

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Go and H.-W

    D. Go and H.-W. Lee, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013177 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    D. Lee, D. Go, H.-J. Park, W. Jeong, H.-W. Ko, D. Yun, D. Jo, S. Lee, G. Go, J. H. Oh, K.-J. Kim, B.-G. Park, B.-C. Min, H. C. Koo, H.-W. Lee, O. Lee, and K.-J. Lee, Nature Communications 12, 6710 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    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, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013127 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Lee, M.-G

    S. Lee, M.-G. Kang, D. Go, D. Kim, J.-H. Kang, T. Lee, 12 a) b) c) Figure 4. Visualization of different OAM mechanisms a) ⟨Lα⟩d a dipole combined with a transverse velocity generating OAM, b)⟨Lα⟩IC itinerant orbital motion throughout the lattice and c) ⟨Lα⟩LC local circulation...

    2021

  5. [13]

    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, Communications Physics 4, 234 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    S. Ding, A. Ross, D. Go, L. Baldrati, Z. Ren, F. Freimuth, S. Becker, F. Kammerbauer, J. Yang, G. Jakob, Y. Mokrousov, and M. Kl¨ aui, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 177201 (2020)

    2020

  7. [16]

    Hayashi, D

    H. Hayashi, D. Jo, D. Go, T. Gao, S. Haku, Y. Mokrousov, H.-W. Lee, and K. Ando, Communica- tions Physics 6, 32 (2023)

    2023

  8. [17]

    T. Li, L. Liu, X. Li, X. Zhao, H. An, and K. Ando, Nano Letters 23, 7174 (2023), pMID: 37466330

    2023

  9. [18]

    J. Xiao, Y. Liu, and B. Yan, Memorial Volume for Shoucheng Zhang (2021) Chap. Chapter 13, pp. 353– 364

    2021

  10. [19]

    Tokura, K

    Y. Tokura, K. Yasuda, and A. Tsukazaki, Nature Re- views Physics 1, 126 (2019)

    2019

  11. [20]

    D. Go, D. Jo, K.-W. Kim, S. Lee, M.-G. Kang, B.-G. Park, S. Bl¨ ugel, H.-W. Lee, and Y. Mokrousov, Physical review letters 130, 246701 (2023)

    2023

  12. [21]

    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, Nature 619, 52 (2023)

    2023

  13. [22]

    Liu and D

    H. Liu and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 186302 (2024)

    2024

  14. [23]

    A. Pezo, D. Garc´ ıa Ovalle, and A. Manchon, Phys. Rev. B 106, 104414 (2022)

    2022

  15. [24]

    Salemi and P

    L. Salemi and P. M. Oppeneer, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 095001 (2022)

    2022

  16. [25]

    T. P. Cysne, M. Costa, L. M. Canonico, M. B. Nardelli, R. B. Muniz, and T. G. Rappoport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 056601 (2021)

    2021

  17. [26]

    L. M. Canonico, T. P. Cysne, A. Molina-Sanchez, R. B. Muniz, and T. G. Rappoport, Phys. Rev. B101, 161409 (2020)

    2020

  18. [27]

    S. R. Luis M. Canonico, Jose H. Garc´ ıa, arXiv:2404.01739 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [28]

    D. Go, D. Jo, C. Kim, and H.-W. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086602 (2018)

    2018

  20. [29]

    D. Jo, D. Go, and H.-W. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 98, 214405 (2018)

    2018

  21. [30]

    Sala and P

    G. Sala and P. Gambardella, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033037 (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    P. Wang, Z. Feng, Y. Yang, D. Zhang, Q. Liu, Z. Xu, Z. Jia, Y. Wu, G. Yu, X. Xu, and Y. Jiang, npj Quantum Materials 8, 28 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    Lyalin, S

    I. Lyalin, S. Alikhah, M. Berritta, P. M. Oppeneer, and R. K. Kawakami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 156702 (2023)

    2023

  24. [33]

    Dutta and A

    S. Dutta and A. A. Tulapurkar, Phys. Rev. B 106, 184406 (2022)

    2022

  25. [34]

    G. Sala, H. Wang, W. Legrand, and P. Gambardella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 156703 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    Zhang, H

    J. Zhang, H. Xie, X. Zhang, Z. Yan, Y. Zhai, J. Chi, H. Xu, Y. Zuo, and L. Xi, Applied Physics Letters 121, 172405 (2022)

    2022

  27. [36]

    S. Ding, Z. Liang, D. Go, C. Yun, M. Xue, Z. Liu, S. Becker, W. Yang, H. Du, C. Wang, Y. Yang, G. Jakob, M. Kl¨ aui, Y. Mokrousov, and J. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 067201 (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    J. Voss, I. Ado, and M. Titov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11979 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    B. Bony, S. Krishnia, Y. Xu, S. Collin, A. Fert, J.-M. George, M. Viret, V. Cros, and H. Jaffr` es, arXiv e-prints , arXiv (2025)

    2025

  30. [39]

    El Hamdi, J.-Y

    A. El Hamdi, J.-Y. Chauleau, M. Boselli, C. Thibault, C. Gorini, A. Smogunov, C. Barreteau, S. Gariglio, J.- M. Triscone, and M. Viret, Nature Physics 19, 1855 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    D. B. Fonseca, L. L. A. Pereira, and A. L. R. Barbosa, Phys. Rev. B 108, 245105 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    Shinada, A

    K. Shinada, A. Kofuji, and R. Peters, Phys. Rev. B107, 094106 (2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    Tanaka, H

    T. Tanaka, H. Kontani, M. Naito, T. Naito, D. S. Hi- rashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue, Phys. Rev. B 77, 165117 (2008)

    2008

  34. [43]

    Kontani, T

    H. Kontani, T. Tanaka, D. S. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 016601 (2009)

    2009

  35. [44]

    L. M. Canonico, T. P. Cysne, T. G. Rappoport, and R. Muniz, Physical Review B 101, 075429 (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    J. H. Cullen, H. Liu, and D. Culcer, arXiv preprint 13 arXiv:2501.17919 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Kazantsev, A

    A. Kazantsev, A. Mills, E. O’Neill, H. Sun, G. Vignale, and A. Principi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 106301 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    H. Sun, A. Kazantsev, A. Principi, and G. Vignale, Phys. Rev. B 111, 075432 (2025)

    2025

  39. [48]

    Sun and G

    H. Sun and G. Vignale, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02887 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Bhowal and G

    S. Bhowal and G. Vignale, Phys. Rev. B 103, 195309 (2021)

    2021

  41. [50]

    T. P. Cysne, S. Bhowal, G. Vignale, and T. G. Rap- poport, Phys. Rev. B 105, 195421 (2022)

    2022

  42. [51]

    Sakai and H

    A. Sakai and H. Kohno, Physical Review B 89, 165307 (2014)

    2014

  43. [52]

    Yasuda, A

    K. Yasuda, A. Tsukazaki, R. Yoshimi, K. Kondou, K. Takahashi, Y. Otani, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Physical review letters 119, 137204 (2017)

    2017

  44. [53]

    Tatara, H

    G. Tatara, H. Kohno, J. Shibata, Y. Lemaho, and K.-J. Lee, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan76, 054707 (2007)

    2007

  45. [54]

    Kohno, G

    H. Kohno, G. Tatara, and J. Shibata, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 75, 113706 (2006)

    2006

  46. [55]

    Belashchenko, A

    K. Belashchenko, A. A. Kovalev, and M. Van Schilf- gaarde, Physical Review Materials 3, 011401 (2019)

    2019

  47. [56]

    Manchon, J

    A. Manchon, J. ˇZelezn´ y, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035004 (2019)

    2019

  48. [57]

    B. K. Nikoli´ c, K. Dolui, M. D. Petrovi´ c, P. Plech´ aˇ c, T. Markussen, and K. Stokbro, Handbook of Materials Modeling: Applications: Current and Emerging Mate- rials , 499 (2020)

    2020

  49. [58]

    Gambardella and I

    P. Gambardella and I. M. Miron, Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369, 3175 (2011)

    2011

  50. [59]

    Qaiumzadeh, R

    A. Qaiumzadeh, R. A. Duine, and M. Titov, Phys. Rev. B 92, 014402 (2015)

    2015

  51. [60]

    R. A. Duine, A. S. N´ u˜ nez, J. Sinova, and A. H. Mac- Donald, Phys. Rev. B 75, 214420 (2007)

    2007

  52. [61]

    Brataas, A

    A. Brataas, A. D. Kent, and H. Ohno, Nature materials 11, 372 (2012)

    2012

  53. [62]

    K. M. D. Hals and A. Brataas, Phys. Rev. B 88, 085423 (2013)

    2013

  54. [63]

    K. M. D. Hals and A. Brataas, Phys. Rev. B 91, 214401 (2015)

    2015

  55. [64]

    I. A. Ado, M. Titov, R. A. Duine, and A. Brataas, (2024), arXiv:2407.00516 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    T. Yoda, T. Yokoyama, and S. Murakami, Nano Letters 18, 916 (2018)

    2018

  57. [66]

    T. Yoda, T. Yokoyama, and S. Murakami, Scientific Re- ports 5, 12024 (2015)

    2015

  58. [67]

    Salemi, M

    L. Salemi, M. Berritta, A. K. Nandy, and P. M. Oppe- neer, Nature Communications 10, 5381 (2019)

    2019

  59. [68]

    Go, J.-P

    D. Go, J.-P. Hanke, P. M. Buhl, F. Freimuth, G. Bihlmayer, H.-W. Lee, Y. Mokrousov, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Scientific Reports 7, 46742 (2017)

    2017

  60. [69]

    J.-H. Park, C. H. Kim, J.-W. Rhim, and J. H. Han, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 85, 195401 (2012)

    2012

  61. [70]

    C. Xiao, H. Liu, J. Zhao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 103, 045401 (2021)

    2021

  62. [71]

    Johansson, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 36, 423002 (2024)

    A. Johansson, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 36, 423002 (2024)

    2024

  63. [72]

    Osumi, T

    K. Osumi, T. Zhang, and S. Murakami, Communica- tions Physics 4, 211 (2021)

    2021

  64. [73]

    W.-Y. He, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, and K. T. Law, Na- ture communications 11, 1650 (2020)

    2020

  65. [74]

    Johansson, B

    A. Johansson, B. G¨ obel, J. Henk, M. Bibes, and I. Mer- tig, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013275 (2021)

    2021

  66. [75]

    D. Hara, M. S. Bahramy, and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. B 102, 184404 (2020)

    2020

  67. [76]

    J. Shi, G. Vignale, D. Xiao, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 197202 (2007)

    2007

  68. [77]

    Thonhauser, D

    T. Thonhauser, D. Ceresoli, D. Vanderbilt, and R. Resta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 137205 (2005)

    2005

  69. [78]

    Vanderbilt, Berry Phases in Electronic Struc- ture Theory: Electric Polarization, Orbital Magnetiza- tion and Topological Insulators (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    D. Vanderbilt, Berry Phases in Electronic Struc- ture Theory: Electric Polarization, Orbital Magnetiza- tion and Topological Insulators (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  70. [79]

    Resta, Phys

    R. Resta, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023139 (2020)

    2020

  71. [80]

    Ceresoli, T

    D. Ceresoli, T. Thonhauser, D. Vanderbilt, and R. Resta, Phys. Rev. B 74, 024408 (2006)

    2006

  72. [81]

    Veneri, T

    A. Veneri, T. G. Rappoport, and A. Ferreira, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04492 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Blount, in Solid state physics, Vol

    E. Blount, in Solid state physics, Vol. 13 (Elsevier, 1962) pp. 305–373

    1962

  74. [83]

    J. J. Esteve-Paredes and J. J. Palacios, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 002 (2023)

    2023

  75. [84]

    Resta, Physical Review Letters 80, 1800 (1998)

    R. Resta, Physical Review Letters 80, 1800 (1998)

    1998

  76. [85]

    H. Liu, J. H. Cullen, and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. B 108, 195434 (2023)

    2023

  77. [86]

    R. B. Atencia, D. P. Arovas, and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. B 110, 035427 (2024)

    2024

  78. [87]

    H. Liu, J. H. Cullen, D. P. Arovas, and D. Culcer, Phys- ical Review Letters 134, 036304 (2025)

    2025

  79. [88]

    The wavevector indices here are defined ask± = k± 1 2 Q, so Q refers to the difference wavevector

  80. [89]

    Here we define the operator L without the mass, this is done in order to avoid any confusion with the bare and effective electron masses

  81. [90]

    Sundaram and Q

    G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 59, 14915 (1999)

    1999

  82. [91]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1348 (1995)

    1995

  83. [92]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 53, 7010 (1996)

    1996

  84. [93]

    Malashevich, I

    A. Malashevich, I. Souza, S. Coh, and D. Vanderbilt, New Journal of Physics 12, 053032 (2010)

    2010

  85. [94]

    R. D. King-Smith and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 47, 1651 (1993)

    1993

  86. [95]

    Nunes and X

    R. Nunes and X. Gonze, Physical Review B 63, 155107 (2001)

    2001

  87. [96]

    Nunes and D

    R. Nunes and D. Vanderbilt, Physical review letters 73, 712 (1994)

    1994

  88. [97]

    Souza, T

    I. Souza, T. Wilkens, and R. M. Martin, Physical Re- view B 62, 1666 (2000)

    2000

  89. [98]

    Souza, J

    I. Souza, J. ´Iniguez, and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B 69, 085106 (2004)

    2004

  90. [99]

    Bernardini, V

    F. Bernardini, V. Fiorentini, and D. Vanderbilt, Physi- cal Review B 63, 193201 (2001)

    2001

  91. [100]

    Jiang, T

    Y. Jiang, T. Holder, and B. Yan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04943 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011001 (2021)

    2021

  93. [102]

    H. Li, C. Zhang, C. Zhou, C. Ma, X. Lei, Z. Jin, H. He, B. Li, K. T. Law, and J. Wang, Nature Communications 15, 7779 (2024)

    2024

  94. [103]

    K. Das, S. Lahiri, R. B. Atencia, D. Culcer, and A. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201405 (2023)

    2023

  95. [104]

    Gao, Y.-F

    A. Gao, Y.-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T. V. Trevisan, 14 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, ...

    2023

  96. [105]

    N. Wang, D. Kaplan, Z. Zhang, T. Holder, N. Cao, A. Wang, X. Zhou, F. Zhou, Z. Jiang, C. Zhang, et al., Nature 621, 487 (2023)

    2023

  97. [106]

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

    2021

  98. [107]

    Sipe and A

    J. Sipe and A. Shkrebtii, Physical Review B 61, 5337 (2000)

    2000

  99. [108]

    Xiao and Q

    C. Xiao and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 104, L241411 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.