Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Symmetry-isolated magnetoelectric electro-optic effects in noncentrosymmetric metals

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper identifies the eleven noncentrosymmetric space groups in which the magnetoelectric electro-optic tensor G is the only symmetry-allowed intraband optical response at low frequency, while the Berry curvature dipole and gyrotropic m

desk verdict The symmetry classification is sound and useful; the circular-dichroism route in Eq. (18) is not derived and fails a local-work check. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17392 v1 pith:Y7LBIX3W submitted 2026-07-19 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

C. O. Ascencio , D. J. P. de Sousa , Seungjun Lee , Tony Low This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Berrycurvaturedipolemagnetoelectricelectro-opticeffectgyrotropicmagnetictensorsymmetryclassificationnoncentrosymmetricmetalscirculardichroismspacegroupsintrabandopticalresponse
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

The paper sets out to find noncentrosymmetric metals in which the magnetoelectric electro-optic response — carried by a tensor called G and formed from the product of Bloch-electron Berry curvature and magnetic moment — can be seen without contamination. It classifies the symmetry-allowed forms of the three low-frequency intraband response tensors, D (Berry curvature dipole), K (gyrotropic magnetic tensor), and G, across all noncentrosymmetric three-dimensional space groups. The central result is that exactly eleven space groups (174, 187–190, 215–220) forbid D and K by symmetry while still allowing G, so those crystals should display the G-driven effect in an otherwise clean optical response. First-principles calculations for GaAs, HgTe, and TaN confirm the predicted vanishing of D and K with a finite, Fermi-level-tunable G; for Te, the paper shows that even with D and K allowed, polarization choice and oblique incidence separate the signals via a bias-induced circular dichroism proportional to sinθ cosθ.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing distinction is that D and K are rank-2 pseudotensors while G is a rank-2 polar tensor, even though all three are Fermi-surface integrals of Bloch-state quantities. Under a mirror operation, the axial vector components of Berry curvature and magnetic moment flip sign differently from polar velocity components; summing these constraints over the Brillouin zone forces all components of D and K to zero in the 11 identified space groups while leaving the diagonal products m^α Ω^α in G untouched. The symmetry classification is carried out space group by space group over all noncentrosymmetric three-dimensional crystals, and the material calculations use first-principles band struc

What would settle it

In a symmetry-isolated material (e.g., GaAs, SG 216), measure the bias-induced differential absorption of left versus right circularly polarized light at oblique incidence. The paper predicts a pure helicity-odd CD ∝ sinθ cosθ (max at 45°, zero at 0° and 90°). Observation of a helicity-even absorption correction under bias, or a CD with a different angular dependence, in such a crystal would falsify the claim that G is the only allowed intraband response at this order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The exhaustive classification of all 138 noncentrosymmetric space groups shows that the response pseudotensors D and K — the Berry curvature dipole and the gyrotropic magnetic tensor — are symmetry-forbidden exactly in space groups 174, 187–190, and 215–220, while the polar tensor G, defined as the Fermi-surface integral of the product of magnetic moment and Berry curvature, remains allowed. The reason is improper symmetry: D and K transform as axial rank-2 pseudotensors and are killed by mirror operations, whereas G transforms as a polar rank-2 tensor and is preserved. First-principles calculations on representative members of these space groups (GaAs and HgTe in SG 216, TaN in SG 187) show

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument assumes the low-frequency intraband optical response under a static bias is completely captured by the tensors V, D, K, and G; if another same-order bias-induced contribution exists (from Fermi-surface redistribution, quantum-metric corrections, or vertex corrections), it would contaminate the 'symmetry-isolated' G signal even though the tensor classification itself stays correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the 11 identified space groups, any measured bias-induced intraband electro-optic response at low frequency is, by symmetry, entirely due to G; no subtraction of D or K is needed.
  • The same tensor shapes can be read off for any noncentrosymmetric metal from the paper's classification tables, making it a practical guide for choosing crystals whose allowed responses match a desired experiment.
  • Because G can be large and sign-tunable near the Fermi level (demonstrated in TaN and TaAs), Fermi-level gating or doping can be used to maximize the magnetoelectric EO signal.
  • The predicted sinθ cosθ circular dichroism vanishes at normal and grazing incidence, so oblique incidence with circular polarization is the direct experimental signature that isolates G.
  • Even in materials such as Te where D and K are symmetry-allowed, choosing s-polarized light in the specified geometry nulls the D-driven current and leaves the G current finite.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The isolation claim rests on the assumption that V, D, K, G exhaust the linear-in-bias intraband response. If bias-induced Fermi-surface redistribution, quantum-metric corrections, or vertex-like terms contribute at the same order, they would appear in the nominally clean space groups; this is an assumption the paper inherits from the prior derivation.
  • The classification could be extended to magnetic space groups with broken time-reversal symmetry; the polar/pseudotensor distinction may yield new isolated response families, but this goes beyond the present paper's nonmagnetic scope.
  • The sinθ cosθ CD prediction is directly testable: a gated thin film of Te or TaN in the proposed geometry should show a helicity-odd absorption difference that peaks at 45° and flips sign with bias direction. A measurement like this would validate not only the tensor classification but the underlying G conductivity expression.
  • Since G involves the product of Berry curvature and magnetic moment, materials with strong spin-orbit coupling and band extrema near the Fermi level are natural candidates for large G; the paper's Fermi-level tuning results point to a broader search strategy beyond the 11 isolated groups.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper classifies the symmetry-constrained tensor forms of the Berry curvature dipole D, the gyrotropic magnetic tensor K, and the magnetoelectric electro-optic tensor G across all noncentrosymmetric three-dimensional space groups, using the Bilbao TENSOR program. It identifies 11 space groups (174, 187–190, 215–220) in which D and K are symmetry-forbidden while G remains allowed, and supports this with DFT/Wannier calculations for Te, TaAs, BaTe3, GaAs, HgTe, and TaN. It then proposes an oblique-incidence experiment in which, for materials such as Te, s-polarized light couples to the G-driven current, p-polarized light to the D-driven current, and circularly polarized light gives a helicity-even D contribution and a bias-induced G circular dichroism with a sinθ cosθ angular dependence.

Significance. If the classification result stands, it is a useful and nearly exhaustive symmetry guide: the statement that D=K=0 while G is allowed in exactly those 11 SGs is parameter-free and testable, and the reader's explicit check of Sec. III B confirms that the mirror/threefold and cubic-axis arguments are consistent. The use of the Bilbao TENSOR program, accompanied by first-principles calculations and a public GitHub repository, is a genuine strength. The experimental separation proposal is the weaker part: the central CD formula is asserted without a power-flow derivation, and as written it does not follow from the local current expression. The symmetry classification itself appears sound, but the abstract's claim of a 'direct experimental route' currently overstates what is actually demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V, Eqs. (13) and (18)] The bias-induced circular dichroism formula, Eq. (18), is asserted without derivation. For s-polarized light in the proposed geometry, Eq. (13) gives J_EO ∝ (sinθ, cosθ, 0)^T, while the incident electric field is E_s ∝ (0,0,1)^T. Hence J·E* = 0, so the local current does no dissipative work. The 'absorption correction' A_EO^η before Eq. (18) therefore requires a radiation-reaction or other power-flow mechanism that is never stated or derived. Without such a calculation, the CD signal ∝ sinθ cosθ is unsupported, and the claimed experimental route to separating D and G in Te does not follow from the equations given.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (5)–(8)] The paper assumes that D, K, and G exhaust the intraband, linear-in-bias optical response, taking this formalism from Ref. [12]. No completeness argument is provided. If additional same-order bias-induced intraband contributions exist (e.g., Fermi-surface redistribution, quantum-metric corrections, or vertex-like terms), then the statement that the 11 space groups 'isolate' the G-driven response would be incomplete even though the tensor classification itself is correct. Please either provide the completeness derivation in an appendix or explicitly qualify the classification claim as applying to the tensor set of Eqs. (4), (6), and (8).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B / Supplementary] The derivation for SGs 215–220 is split between the main text, the Supplementary Material, and Ref. [23]. A self-contained tensor-transformation table for C2z, C2y, C3[111], and M[1-10] would make the exhaustive claim easier for readers to verify without consulting external supplements.
  2. [Eq. (18)] Please define precisely what 'CD' means: is it a difference in absorbed power, a transmitted ellipticity, or a bias-induced change in transmission? The proportionality A_EO^η ∝ ... is dimensionally unspecified and should be converted into a real experimental observable (e.g., ΔT/T).
  3. [Appendix, Table I] The row labels 'SG 174, 187–190, 215–220' with point groups '6, 6m2, 62m, 43m' are terse. A direct mapping from each space group number to its point group symbol would avoid ambiguity for readers using the tables as a materials guide.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. V] The phrase 'the G-driven response couples the s and p optical sectors' is not immediately obvious from Eq. (12), where the matrix has only a z-column. Consider rewording, e.g., 'the s-polarized optical field generates an in-plane EO current,' to match the actual tensor structure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 11-SG result is an external BCS/DFT classification and the CD formula is a direct consequence, not a recycled input.

full rationale

The central classification claim is self-contained and externally checked: the tensor shapes of D, K, and G are computed with the Bilbao TENSOR program from the stated transformation rules (Eq. 9) and Jahn symbols, and the 11-space-group list is an output of that computation, not an input. The DFT/Wannier calculations are independent numerical checks against the symmetry tables, not fits to them. The response formalism in Eqs. (2)-(8) is taken from Ref. [12], but that is a parameter-free derivation whose assumptions do not include the 11-SG result, so it counts as independent support rather than a circular premise. The C3[111] diagonal relation cited from Ref. [23] is an elementary consequence of the same symmetry and is also enforced by the external BCS tables; it is not load-bearing. The experimental CD formula, Eq. (18), is a direct projection of the tensor model onto circular polarization in the chosen geometry; although the identification of the absorption correction with Re[f_D+f_G] is asserted rather than derived from a power-flow calculation, and a naive J·E* evaluation would give zero for the s-polarized current, that is a physics/correctness gap, not an input-output circularity. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force the classification.

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

The central classification rests on standard group theory executed with the external BCS TENSOR program. No free parameters are fitted: the Fermi-level scans and DFT outputs are genuine calculations, and no material-specific constant is adjusted to make a prediction work. The main domain assumptions are (1) the completeness of the D/K/G response formalism inherited from the authors' own Ref. [12], and (2) the implicit radiation-reaction model behind the CD formula. No invented physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The intraband optical/EO response in the regime γ << ω << gap/ℏ is fully captured by Eqs. (2)-(8): Drude term V, gyrotropic tensor K, Berry curvature dipole D, magnetoelectric tensor G, with no additional same-order bias-induced contributions.
    The formalism is taken without re-derivation from the authors' prior work [12] ('Details of the derivation can be found in our prior work [12]', Sec. II). If additional linear-in-bias intraband terms exist, the 'isolation' of G-driven effects would be incomplete. This is the load-bearing premise for the experimental message.
  • standard math D and K are exactly symmetry-equivalent rank-2 pseudotensors (Jahn symbol eV²), so any symmetry constraint on D applies identically to K.
    Stated in Sec. III A and cited to refs. [13,14,21]. This equivalence underlies the claim that D and K vanish together in the 11 SGs. It is a well-established group-theoretic result but is load-bearing for the classification.
  • domain assumption Only the point-group part of each space-group operation determines the tensor shapes; translations and little-group representations do not alter the allowed forms.
    Stated in Sec. III: 'only the point group part of the SG operation is relevant to the response tensor shape.' Standard for k-space tensor constraints, but band connectivity and degeneracies from the full SG are explicitly set aside for the shape analysis.
  • domain assumption DFT (Quantum ESPRESSO) plus Wannier interpolation yields quantitatively reliable Fermi-surface response tensors, with Fermi-level shifts treated rigidly (no self-consistent renormalization).
    Sec. IV. The exchange-correlation functional and numerical parameters are not stated in the main text (deferred to SI), and no error bars are given for the quoted G values.
  • ad hoc to paper The observable absorption/CD correction is determined by interference between the tangential EO current and the optical fields (a sheet-current radiation-reaction model), giving A ∝ Re[f_D + f_G]·sinθcosθ.
    Sec. V. The step from the EO currents (Eqs. 13, 16-17) to the absorption correction and Eq. (18) is stated rather than derived. A naive J·E* evaluation of the incident field vanishes by orthogonality, so the survival of the sinθcosθ CD depends on this unstated radiative-interference picture.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-isolated magnetoelectric electro-optic effects in noncentrosymmetric metals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y7LBIX3W

@misc{pith2026260717392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-isolated magnetoelectric electro-optic effects in noncentrosymmetric metals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y7LBIX3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17392}
}
abstract

We classify the symmetry-constrained forms of the Berry curvature dipole $\mathbf{D}$, gyrotropic magnetic tensor $\mathbf{K}$, and magnetoelectric electro-optic (EO) tensor $\mathbf{G}$, which describe metallic optical and EO effects in time-reversal symmetric, noncentrosymmetric metals. We identify 11 space groups (SGs) in which $\mathbf{D}$ and $\mathbf{K}$ vanish by symmetry while $\mathbf{G}$ remains allowed, thereby providing a more direct route to observing the recently predicted magnetoelectric EO effects associated with $\mathbf{G}$. First-principles based calculations confirm that $\mathbf{D}$ and $\mathbf{K}$ vanish for representative materials, while $\mathbf{G}$ remains allowed and tunable via Fermi level shifting. We further show that the choices of SG and experimental configuration provide complementary paths for isolating $\mathbf{G}$-driven EO effects, including cases where $\mathbf{D}$ and $\mathbf{K}$ are also symmetry-allowed. In an oblique-incidence geometry, the $\mathbf{D}$-driven response produces a helicity-even absorption or gain correction, whereas the $\mathbf{G}$-driven response couples the $s$ and $p$ optical sectors and produces a bias-induced circular dichroism with a characteristic $\sin\theta\cos\theta$ angular dependence. This provides a direct experimental route for separating the $\mathbf{D}$- and $\mathbf{G}$-driven EO signatures in noncentrosymmetric metals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17392 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Representative optical and EO effects associated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic experimental setup for probing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    J. E. Moore and J. Orenstein, Confinement-Induced Berry Phase and Helicity-Dependent Photocurrents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 026805 (2010)

    2010

  2. [1]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Berry Phase Effects on Electronic Properties, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

  3. [2]

    polar” means that the point group allows an invariant polar vector, corresponding to a symmetry-allowed polar axis, whereas “nonpolar

    Since the surface normal is along−y, the relevant tangential EO current is thexcomponent, J EO,η x,ω = Eω√ 2 Ez 0 sinθ[f D(Dz, D⊥;ω) +f G(G⊥;ω, η)] where fD(Dz, D⊥;ω)≡ e3τ ℏ2 Dz − D⊥ 1−iωτ and fG(G⊥;ω, η)≡iη e2 cℏ iωτ iωτ−1 G⊥. The helicity-dependent EO absorption correction is proportional to AEO η ∝ |Eω|2 2 Ez 0 sinθcosθ ×Re [f D(Dz, D⊥;ω) +f G(G⊥;ω, η)...

  4. [3]

    Zhong, J

    S. Zhong, J. E. Moore, and I. Souza, Gyrotropic Magnetic Effect and the Magnetic Moment on the Fermi Surface, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 077201 (2016)

    2016

  5. [4]

    Nagaosa, J

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

    2010

  6. [5]

    T. G. Rappoport, T. A. Morgado, S. Lanneb` ere, and M. G. Silveirinha, Engineering Transistorlike Optical Gain in Two- Dimensional Materials with Berry Curvature Dipoles, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 076901 (2023)

    2023

  7. [6]

    S. S. Tsirkin, P. A. Puente, and I. Souza, Gyrotropic Effects in Trigonal Tellurium Studied from First Principles, Phys. Rev. B97, 035158 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Quantum Nonlinear Hall Effect Induced by Berry Curvature Dipole in Time-Reversal Invariant Materials, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    T. A. Morgado, T. G. Rappoport, S. S. Tsirkin, S. Lanneb` ere, I. Souza, and M. G. Silveirinha, Non-Hermitian Linear Electro-Optic Effect in Three-Dimensional Materials, Phys. Rev. B109, 245126 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Sun, and B. Yan, Berry Curvature Dipole in Weyl Semimetal Materials: An Ab Initio Study, Phys. Rev. B 97, 041101(R) (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Flicker, F

    F. Flicker, F. de Juan, B. Bradlyn, T. Morimoto, M. G. Vergniory, and A. G. Grushin, Chiral Optical Response of Multifold Fermions, Phys. Rev. B98, 155145 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Ma and D

    J. Ma and D. A. Pesin, Chiral Magnetic Effect and Natural Optical Activity in Metals with or without Weyl Points, Phys. Rev. B92, 235205 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    D. J. P. de Sousa, N. Roldan-Levchenko, C. O. Ascencio, J. D. S. Forte, P. M. Haney, and T. Low, Metallic Electrooptic Effect in Twisted Double-Bilayer Graphene, Nano Letters 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5c05662 (2026)

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    D. J. P. de Sousa, C. O. Ascencio, and T. Low, Linear Magnetoelectric Electro-Optical Effect, Phys. Rev. B110, 115421 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Symmetry-Isolated Magnetoelectric Electro-Optic Effects in Noncen- trosymmetric Metals

    C. O. Ascencio, Database corresponding to the paper “Symmetry-Isolated Magnetoelectric Electro-Optic Effects in Noncen- trosymmetric Metals”,https://github.com/cesascencio80/Cesar_Ascencio-EO_Tensor_Shapes(2026), gitHub reposi- tory

    2026

  8. [16]

    S. V. Gallego, J. Etxebarria, L. Elcoro, E. S. Tasci, and J. M. Perez-Mato, Automatic Calculation of Symmetry-Adapted Tensors in Magnetic and Non-Magnetic Materials: A New Tool of the Bilbao Crystallographic Server, Acta Crystallo- graphica Section A75, 438 (2019). 13

    2019

  9. [17]

    Ceresoli, T

    D. Ceresoli, T. Thonhauser, D. Vanderbilt, and R. Resta, Orbital Magnetization in Crystalline Solids: Multi-Band Insu- lators, Chern Insulators, and Metals, Phys. Rev. B74, 024408 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Thonhauser, D

    T. Thonhauser, D. Ceresoli, D. Vanderbilt, and R. Resta, Orbital Magnetization in Periodic Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 137205 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Roldan-Levchenko, D

    N. Roldan-Levchenko, D. J. P. de Sousa, C. O. Ascencio, J. D. S. Forte, L. Martin-Moreno, and T. Low, Optical gain through metallic electro-optical effects (2025), arXiv:2510.25659 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Lanneb` ere, T

    S. Lanneb` ere, T. G. Rappoport, T. A. Morgado, I. Souza, and M. G. Silveirinha, Symmetry Analysis of the Non-Hermitian Electro-Optic Effect in Crystals (2025), arXiv:2502.03399 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. M. Martin,Electronic Structure: Basic Theory and Practical Methods(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    C. O. Ascencio, D. J. P. de Sousa, and T. Low, Metallic Electro-Optic Effects in Topological Chiral Crystals (2025), arXiv:2510.26992 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  16. [24]

    Supplemental Material also contains Refs

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for: symmetries enforcing diagonal forms ofD,K, and G; vanishing of diagonal components inDandK; first-principles calculations; vanishing ofDandKin GaAs, HgTe, and TaN; and additional first-principles results for...

  17. [25]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, G. Pizzi, Y.-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, An Updated Version of Wannier90: A Tool for Obtaining Maximally-Localised Wannier Functions, Computer Physics Communications185, 2309 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. Ma...

    2009

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    H. Weng, C. Fang, Z. Fang, B. A. Bernevig, and X. Dai, Weyl Semimetal Phase in Noncentrosymmetric Transition-Metal Monophosphides, Phys. Rev. X5, 011029 (2015)

    2015

  21. [152]

    2(a), where the off- diagonal components vanish and thexxandyycompo- nents overlap

    This is displayed in FIG. 2(a), where the off- diagonal components vanish and thexxandyycompo- nents overlap. In contrast, for TaAs (SG 109), symme- try allows only thexyandyxcomponents ofDandK, withD xy =−D yx andK xy =−K yx. This is reflected in FIG. 2(b), whileGremains diag...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.