Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Projector Method for Nonlinear Light-Matter Interactions and Quantum Geometry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A projector-based Feynman diagram framework, implemented in Wannier functions with finite-spread corrections, computes nonlinear optical responses and quantum geometry of realistic materials, and the paper validates it by reproducing the sh

desk verdict Wannier-basis projector calculus is new and mostly sound; send it out, but ask for code/data and a real convergence test before the 'reliable tool' claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09216 v1 pith:VDV6WUXB submitted 2025-09-11 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Zhichao Guo , Zhuocheng Lu , Hua Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords projectorformalismnonlinearopticalresponseshiftcurrentquantumgeometryWannierfunctionsgaugeinvarianceHermitianconnectionbanddegeneracies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that nonlinear optical responses such as shift current are governed by gauge-invariant projector derivatives, not by gauge-dependent Berry connections, and that this can be turned into a practical first-principles method. It builds a Feynman-diagram expansion whose vertex products are expressed through projectors and their derivatives, then adapts those expressions to Wannier function bases by adding dipole and quadrupole corrections that account for finite spatial spread. The paper validates the approach by computing the shift current conductivity of monolayer GeS and finding good agreement with two established routes, the sum-rule method and the generalized Wilson loop method. If correct, the framework offers a stable way to compute quantum-geometric responses in real materials, including near band degeneracies, without the 1/ε divergences that complicate sum-rule calculations.

What carries the argument

The engine is the projector P_a = Σ_i |u_{ai}⟩⟨u_{ai}| onto an energy subspace, together with two expansion rules that re-express products P_a (∂H) P_b and P_a (∂²H) P_b as combinations of projector derivatives and energy differences. Those rules convert Feynman-diagram vertex products into gauge-invariant combinations like the quantum Hermitian connection C, the interband quantum geometric tensor Q, and the triple phase product T. To make this work in a Wannier basis, the paper supplies corrected first- and second-order projector derivatives: the naive Hamiltonian-gauge derivative is supplemented by dipole and quadrupole matrices of the Wannier functions. A subspace-averaging scheme around

What would settle it

Calculate σ^{yyy}_{sh} for monolayer GeS using Wannier functions constructed with deliberately different localization protocols and compare the projector result with a direct, non-Wannier first-principles evaluation of the same response; if the quadrupole-truncated projector result changes outside the agreement spread seen among the sum-rule and Wilson-loop benchmarks, then the neglected octupole and higher Wannier moments are not negligible and the paper's central truncation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that every nonlinear conductivity vertex product can be rewritten so that only projectors and their derivatives appear, making gauge invariance component-wise automatic and degeneracies harmless. For shift current, the whole resonant response collapses to a Brillouin-zone integral over the quantum Hermitian connection C^{μ;αβ}_{ab} = Tr[P_b P_a^α (P_b^{μβ} + P_a^μ P_b^β)], together with a frequency-conserving delta. In the Wannier representation, the projector itself equals the Hamiltonian-gauge projector, but its derivatives do not: finite Wannier spread enters through dipole matrix A^α and quadrupole matrix D^{αβ}, and the paper provides explicit correction for

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that all information about the spatial spread of the Wannier functions needed for projector derivatives is captured by their dipole and quadrupole moments, with octupole and higher multipole moments neglected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shift current in real materials can be computed from manifestly gauge-invariant projectors, without ever forming Berry connections or shift vectors explicitly.
  • The sum-rule denominator 1/ε_ac is avoided, so the method does not need a broadening parameter to regularize near-degenerate transitions; band degeneracies are treated by constructing degenerate-subspace projectors.
  • The same projector framework yields the interQGT and triple phase product, giving a unified way to compute injection-current, shift-current, and third-order/bicircular photocurrent geometric ingredients from one set of Wannier matrices.
  • The finite-spread correction to projector derivatives is not optional: including the Wannier dipole and quadrupole moments is necessary to reproduce the first-principles shift current.
  • Because the projector expressions match the generalized Wilson loop expression analytically, the two methods are two evaluations of the same geometric quantity, with numerical differences only from discretization and degeneracy handling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the multipole truncation would be to run the same GeS calculation with several Wannier localizations and check whether the dipole/quadrupole-corrected result stays fixed; if it drifts, higher Wannier multipoles are contributing.
  • The method's component-wise gauge invariance suggests it could be combined with k·p or tight-binding models of twisted or disordered systems, where projector derivatives can be evaluated analytically rather than by finite differences.
  • Generalizing the Wannier correction from dipole/quadrupole to octupole should be straightforward in the same diagrammatic language, but the paper's formulas deliberately avoid it; adding octupole terms would quantify the truncation error of the present implementation.
  • The degeneracy-subspace averaging introduces an energy window δε as a convergence parameter; a systematic δε-sweep protocol could be exported to other materials with degeneracy lines.
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 develops a projector-based Feynman-diagram framework for nonlinear optical response and quantum geometry. It derives a gauge-invariant expression for the shift-current conductivity in terms of projectors and their derivatives, gives Wannier-representation formulas for projector derivatives with finite-spread corrections through dipole and quadrupole matrices, and proposes a degeneracy-handling strategy. As a numerical demonstration, it computes the shift current of monolayer GeS with the new method and compares it with the sum-rule and generalized Wilson-loop methods, and it reports k-resolved interQGT, QHC, and TPP quantities.

Significance. The theoretical derivation is careful and largely self-contained: the Supplement details the contour integrations, identifies injection versus shift-current contributions, and explicitly shows the cancellation between two- and three-vertex diagrams (Eqs. S15-S17). The Wannier-basis formulas in Eqs. (11)-(12) and the factorization in Table II are nontrivial and appear to be exact in the Wannier basis; the concern that octupole moments are neglected does not land, because only first and second derivatives of the basis functions are needed and the formulas avoid higher-order moments by construction. If validated, the method would be a useful alternative that avoids 1/epsilon divergences and handles degeneracies more naturally. However, the numerical validation currently establishes internal consistency among three implementations on one 16-band model, not accuracy against an independent reference.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3(d); Eqs. (14)-(15)] The central accuracy claim is supported only by mutual consistency. The sum-rule benchmark sums auxiliary bands over the Nwan=16 disentangled states of the same Wannier model, and the Wilson-loop overlaps are built from the same TB Hamiltonian; moreover, Ref. [22] shares the present corresponding author, so the second benchmark is not independent. In the high-frequency range where the three curves deviate, no external reference is supplied and no convergence test with respect to Nwan or disentanglement window is reported. Since the projector method is exact within a given TB model, agreement among three implementations cannot establish accuracy against the true DFT response. Please add an independent check, e.g., a direct DFT calculation with a large empty-band sum, or a systematic Nwan-convergence study, and state the frequency range over which 'excellent agreement' is claimed.
  2. [Sec. IIIB, Eqs. (11)-(12); Suppl. Eq. (22)] The practical implementation of the Wannier correction terms is under-specified. The matrices A^alpha, D^{alpha beta}, and D^{alpha beta'} in Eq. (S22) are central to the finite-spread correction, but the paper does not state how they are computed from WANNIER90 output, nor does it provide a numerical test of their accuracy. Without this information, the implementation cannot be reproduced and errors in these matrices would directly bias Figs. 3(c) and 3(d). Please clarify how the dipole and quadrupole matrices are evaluated and validate them on a simple model or against a direct DFT calculation.
  3. [Sec. IIIC; Supplement Fig. 4] The degeneracy treatment introduces an energy window delta_epsilon and redistributes the computed quantity uniformly over the degenerate band pairs as C/(Ns Ms). Although the robustness window of 2-10 meV is reassuring, the paper does not provide a formal justification for the uniform redistribution or for choosing the smallest window. Since this procedure affects the quantitative result, a derivation or a clear convergence criterion for delta_epsilon should be given, especially because the high-frequency discrepancies in Fig. 3(d) may be sensitive to it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table II caption] The caption refers to 'interQGT, TGT and TPP'; 'TGT' should probably be 'QHC'. Please correct.
  2. [Eq. (15)] The notation Wba(k,q, r^alpha, beta beta) is confusing. Please define the arguments explicitly, particularly the repeated 'beta beta'.
  3. [Sec. IV] The sentence describing Fig. 3(c) says the results 'lead to discrepancies with purely first-principles calculations', but no 'purely first-principles' result is shown. Specify the reference calculation used for this comparison.
  4. [References] Refs. [20] and [42] are identical; please cite only once.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained and the independent sum-rule benchmark supports it; the Wilson-loop comparison is a consistency check, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The shift-current expression in Eq. (7) is obtained from Feynman diagrams and the projector expansion rules (Eqs. (3)–(4)) with the detailed algebra in Sec. I of the Supplemental Material; it does not presuppose the final result. The Wannier-basis projector derivatives in Eqs. (11)–(12) are derived from the definitions of the Wannier functions and the dipole/quadrupole matrices, rather than fitted to the shift-current data; the stated neglect of octupole and higher multipoles is an acknowledged approximation, not a circular input. The benchmark against the sum-rule method (ref. 21) is genuinely independent: it is a separately published formalism implemented on the same Wannier model, and agreement checks the projector implementation. The generalized Wilson loop comparison (ref. 22) is less independent because that method shares the corresponding author and the paper itself proves algebraic equivalence to the projector expression in Eq. (16); however, this makes the numerical comparison a consistency check, not a circular reduction of the central claim. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and the high-frequency discrepancies are explicitly attributed to band truncation and degeneracy treatment rather than used to redefine the projector result. The remaining limitation is validation accuracy within a truncated model, which is a correctness/evidence issue, not circularity under the stated rubric.

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

The central claim rests on the diagrammatic response theory (Parker et al., ref. 28), the subspace-projector expansion rules (Eqs. 3-4), the faithfulness of the 16-band Wannier model, and the explicit truncation of Wannier multipoles at quadrupole order. Free parameters are the degeneracy window delta_epsilon = 2 meV, the sum-rule broadening eta = 40 meV, the smearing gamma = 30 meV, and the disentanglement window. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • degeneracy energy window delta_epsilon = 2 meV
    Bands closer than delta_epsilon are treated as one degenerate subspace and the geometric quantity is evenly distributed over Ns*Ms band pairs. Chosen as the smallest of the stable 2-10 meV range; delta_epsilon = 0 produces strong fluctuations (Supplement Sec. III, Figs. 4-5).
  • sum-rule broadening eta = 40 meV
    Regularizes the 1/epsilon_ac divergence of the sum-rule method near degeneracies; a tuning choice that the authors admit biases the sum-rule curve near degeneracies (Supplement Sec. III; Sec. IV).
  • smearing gamma = 30 meV
    Lorentzian smearing for the delta functions; standard for 2D GeS calculations but a width that shapes the resonance peaks (Supplement Sec. III).
  • disentanglement window = 16 bands
    Number of Wannier bands selected around the Fermi level; truncation of the Hilbert space that the authors invoke to explain the sum rule's high-frequency deviation, yet the same truncation underlies the projector method's tight-binding model (Supplement Sec. III, Eq. 8).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Completeness of the subspace decomposition and the expansion rules (Eqs. 3-4) for products of projector derivatives and derivatives of H
    The vertex-product expansion rules are the engine of the derivation; they assume projectors resolve the Hilbert space and that derivatives of H sandwiched between projectors expand as written (Sec. IIA).
  • domain assumption The Feynman diagram rules of Parker et al. (ref. 28) with the vertex and propagator components of Table I capture the full nonlinear conductivity
    The whole formalism inherits the diagrammatic response theory; the paper adopts these rules rather than deriving them (Sec. IIA, Table I).
  • domain assumption The Wannier basis from the 16-band disentanglement faithfully represents the DFT bands and the transition matrix elements in the optical window
    The tight-binding Hamiltonian (Eq. 8) and the A^alpha, D^{alpha beta} matrices are built from these Wannier functions; the interpolation is verified against the DFT band structure (Fig. 3b) but not against DFT optical matrix elements (Sec. IIIA).
  • ad hoc to paper Truncation of Wannier multipole moments at quadrupole order (A^alpha, D^{alpha beta}); octupole and higher moments are negligible
    The paper explicitly states that higher-order multipole moments 'are often challenging to compute accurately' and designs the decompositions in Table II to avoid octupole terms (Sec. IIIB). This is a stated accuracy assumption that the GeS benchmark does not test separately.
  • domain assumption Time-reversal symmetry and linearly polarized light: only Im C^{mu;(alpha beta)}_{[ab]} = -2i R^{alpha;mu}_{ab} r^alpha_{ab} r^beta_{ba} survives
    Used to reduce the general expression (Eq. 7) to the LPL form (Eq. 19); appropriate for nonmagnetic GeS but restricts the validity of the presented reduction (Sec. IIB).
  • standard math Matsubara contour integration and the replacement d^omega_{ab} -> -i pi delta^omega_{ab} isolate the resonant response
    Standard analytic continuation in the diagrammatic method (Supplement Sec. I).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Projector Method for Nonlinear Light-Matter Interactions and Quantum Geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VDV6WUXB

@misc{pith2026250909216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Projector Method for Nonlinear Light-Matter Interactions and Quantum Geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VDV6WUXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09216}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a systematic projector-based Feynman diagram framework that intrinsically encodes quantum geometry for nonlinear optical responses. By explicitly incorporating geometric quantities such as the quantum geometric tensor, quantum hermitian connection, and triple phase product, the method ensures component-wise gauge invariance and seamlessly extends to multiband systems, enabling accurate calculations of quantum geometry and nonlinear optical responses. We derive the projector formalism in Wannier function basis and implement the \textit{ab initio} calculations of shift current in GeS, demonstrating excellent agreement with the sum rule and Wilson loop approaches. This work extends projector-based representations within the Wannier functions basis, offering an efficient and reliable tool for investigating nonlinear light-matter interactions and quantum geometry in realistic materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams corresponding to the shift cur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Analytical and numerical treatments near degeneracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. First-principles calculations of the shift current conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Feynman diagram corresponding to the second order response. (a), (b, c) and (d) corresponds to one-vertex, two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. First-principles results of the shift current conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Shift current conductivity with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Shift current conductivity with different choices of the energy window [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [22]

    H. Wang, X. Tang, H. Xu, J. Li, and X. Qian, Gen- eralized wilson loop method for nonlinear light-matter interaction, npj Quantum Materials7, 61 (2022)

    2022

  2. [1]

    K. v. Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, New method forhigh-accuracydeterminationofthefine-structurecon- stant based on quantized hall resistance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 494 (1980)

    1980

  3. [2]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Berry phase, hyperorbits, and the hofstadter spectrum, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1348 (1995)

    1995

  4. [3]

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

    1980

  5. [4]

    phases” and “distance

    A. K. Pati, Relation between “phases” and “distance” in quantum evolution, Phys. Lett. A159, 105 (1991)

    1991

  6. [5]

    Cheng, Quantum Geometric Tensor (Fubini-Study Metric) in Simple Quantum System: A pedagogical In- troduction (2013), arXiv:1012.1337

    R. Cheng, Quantum Geometric Tensor (Fubini-Study Metric) in Simple Quantum System: A pedagogical In- troduction (2013), arXiv:1012.1337

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. Törma, Superfluidity in topologically nontrivial flat bands, Nature Communications6, 8944 (2015)

    2015

  8. [7]

    Liang, T

    L. Liang, T. I. Vanhala, S. Peotta, T. Siro, A. Harju, and P. Törmä, Band geometry, berry curvature, and super- fluid weight, Phys. Rev. B95, 024515 (2017)

    2017

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    F. Xie, Z. Song, B. Lian, and B. A. Bernevig, Topology- BoundedSuperfluidWeightinTwistedBilayerGraphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 167002 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    Kruchkov, Quantum transport anomalies in disper- sionless quantum states, Phys

    A. Kruchkov, Quantum transport anomalies in disper- sionless quantum states, Phys. Rev. B107, L241102 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Huhtinen and P

    K.-E. Huhtinen and P. Törmä, Conductivity in flat bands from the kubo-greenwood formula, Phys. Rev. B108, 155108 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Phys

    R. Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Phys. Rev. B90, 165139 (2014)

    2014

  5. [12]

    Mera and T

    B. Mera and T. Ozawa, Kähler geometry and chern in- sulators: Relations between topology and the quantum metric, Phys. Rev. B104, 045104 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Vor- texability: A unifying criterion for ideal fractional chern insulators, Phys. Rev. B108, 205144 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    Ahn, G.-Y

    J. Ahn, G.-Y. Guo, and N. Nagaosa, Low-Frequency Di- vergence and Quantum Geometry of the Bulk Photo- voltaic Effect in Topological Semimetals, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041041 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    Ahn, G.-Y

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

    2022

  9. [16]

    Hanke, F

    J.-P. Hanke, F. Freimuth, C. Niu, S. Blügel, and Y. Mokrousov, Mixed weyl semimetals and low- dissipation magnetization control in insulators by spin– orbit torques, Nature Communications8, 1479 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    C. Xiao, B. Xiong, and Q. Niu, Electric driving of mag- netization dynamics in a hybrid insulator, Phys. Rev. B 104, 064433 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Morimoto and N

    T. Morimoto and N. Nagaosa, Direct current generation by dielectric loss in ferroelectrics, Phys. Rev. B110, 045129 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    J. Hu, W. Li, Z. Guo, H. Wang, and K. Chang, Optical manifestations of quantum geometry in electron-phonon coupling (2025), arXiv:2410.09677

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ibañez Azpiroz, S

    J. Ibañez Azpiroz, S. S. Tsirkin, and I. Souza, Ab initio calculation of the shift photocurrent by wannier interpo- lation, Phys. Rev. B97, 245143 (2018)

    2018

  14. [23]

    Mitscherling, A

    J. Mitscherling, A. Avdoshkin, and J. E. Moore, Gauge- invariant projector calculus for quantum state geometry and applications to observables in crystals, Phys. Rev. B 112, 085104 (2025)

    2025

  15. [24]

    Avdoshkin, J

    A. Avdoshkin, J. Mitscherling, and J. E. Moore, Multi- state geometry of shift current and polarization, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 066901 (2025)

    2025

  16. [25]

    Avdoshkin and F

    A. Avdoshkin and F. K. Popov, Extrinsic geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. B107, 245136 (2023)

    2023

  17. [26]

    Graf and F

    A. Graf and F. Piéchon, Berry curvature and quantum metric inn-band systems: An eigenprojector approach, Phys. Rev. B104, 085114 (2021)

    2021

  18. [27]

    Pozo and F

    O. Pozo and F. de Juan, Computing observables without eigenstates: Applications to bloch hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. B102, 115138 (2020)

    2020

  19. [28]

    D. E. Parker, T. Morimoto, J. Orenstein, and J. E. Moore, Diagrammatic approach to nonlinear optical re- sponse with application to Weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. B99, 045121 (2019)

    2019

  20. [29]

    V. M. Fridkin, Bulk photovoltaic effect in noncentrosym- metric crystals, Crystallogr. Rep.46, 654 (2001)

    2001

  21. [30]

    von Baltz and W

    R. von Baltz and W. Kraut, Theory of the bulk pho- tovoltaic effect in pure crystals, Phys. Rev. B23, 5590 (1981)

    1981

  22. [31]

    J. E. Sipe and A. I. Shkrebtii, Second-order optical re- sponse in semiconductors, Phys. Rev. B61, 5337 (2000)

    2000

  23. [32]

    S. M. Young and A. M. Rappe, First Principles Calcu- lation of the Shift Current Photovoltaic Effect in Ferro- electrics, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 116601 (2012)

    2012

  24. [33]

    L. Z. Tan, F. Zheng, S. M. Young, F. Wang, S. Liu, and A. M. Rappe, Shift current bulk photovoltaic effect in po- lar materials—hybrid and oxide perovskites and beyond, npj Comput. Mater.2, 16026 (2016)

    2016

  25. [34]

    Morimoto and N

    T. Morimoto and N. Nagaosa, Topological nature of non- linear optical effects in solids, Sci. Adv.2, e1501524 (2016)

    2016

  26. [35]

    Dai and A

    Z. Dai and A. M. Rappe, Recent progress in the theory of bulk photovoltaic effect, Chem. Phys. Rev.4, 011303 (2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

    Nastos and J

    F. Nastos and J. E. Sipe, Optical rectification and shift currents in GaAs and GaP response: Below and above the band gap, Phys. Rev. B74, 035201 (2006). 10

    2006

  28. [37]

    Z. Lu, Z. Gong, J. Qi, H. Wang, and K. Chang, Pure momentum-shift bulk photovoltaic effect in ferroelectric flat-band mott insulators (2025), arXiv:2502.04624

    2025 arXiv

  29. [38]

    I.Souza, N.Marzari,andD.Vanderbilt,Maximallylocal- ized wannier functions for entangled energy bands, Phys. Rev. B65, 035109 (2001)

    2001

  30. [39]

    X. Wang, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Ab initio calculation of the anomalous hall conductivity by wannier interpolation, Phys. Rev. B74, 195118 (2006)

    2006

  31. [40]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Chiral photocurrent in parity-violating magnet and enhanced response in topo- logical antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. X11, 011001 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    S. A. Mikhailov, Quantum theory of third-harmonic gen- eration in graphene, Phys. Rev. B90, 241301 (2014)

    2014

  33. [42]

    Z. Guo, Z. Lu, H. Wang, and K. Chang, Bicircular light- induced multistate geometric current, Phys. Rev. B112, 035162 (2025)

    2025

  34. [43]

    Rangel, B

    T. Rangel, B. M. Fregoso, B. S. Mendoza, T. Mori- moto, J. E. Moore, and J. B. Neaton, Large bulk photo- voltaic effect and spontaneous polarization of single-layer monochalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 067402 (2017)

    2017

  35. [44]

    A. M. Cook, B. M. Fregoso, F. de Juan, S. Coh, and J. E. Moore, Design principles for shift current photovoltaics, Nat. Commun.8, 14176 (2017). 11 Supplementary Material I. Derivation of Resonant Second Order Response In this section, we present in detail the computational pro...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.