Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Probing Loop Currents and Collective Modes of Charge Density Waves in Kagome Materials with NV Centers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper proposes that the phase mode of imaginary charge density waves in kagome metals creates an oscillating loop-current flux whose stray magnetic field can be detected by NV centers, giving a way to finally observe loop current…

desk verdict The collective-mode analysis is clean and the phase-amplitude mixing result is real, but the NV detection proposal conflates order-parameter phase with physical current, so the flagship signal is likely much weaker than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14166 v1 pith:OXKYSRVW submitted 2025-04-19 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Ying-Ming Xie , Naoto Nagaosa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords kagomelatticeimaginarychargedensitywaveloopcurrentordercollectivemodesphasemodeNVcenterrelaxometryAV3Sb5time-reversalsymmetrybreaking
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 argues that the elusive loop current order proposed for kagome metals can be identified through its collective excitations. Analyzing the mean-field free energy of a triple-Q charge density wave, the authors find that in the imaginary CDW (iCDW) phase the A1 phase mode and the amplitude mode hybridize, while in the real CDW (rCDW) phase they stay decoupled. Because the phase mode modulates the total CDW phase, the magnetic flux of the loop currents oscillates, creating a time-dependent stray field. The paper proposes that nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers, operated in their spin-relaxation (T1) mode, can detect this stray field, providing a potential experimental fingerprint of loop current order in AV3Sb5.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the fluctuation Lagrangian $L_{\mathrm{fluc}}(\omega,q)$ of Eq. (10), obtained by expanding the mean-field free energy in powers of the triple-Q order parameters, substituting $\Delta_{Q\alpha,q}\approx\Delta_{Q\alpha}(1+A_\alpha(q))e^{i(\theta_0+\theta_\alpha(q))}$, and projecting the fluctuations onto $C_3$ eigenchannels (A, E1, E2). The load-bearing term is the phase–amplitude mixing $\propto\lambda_2|\Delta Q|\sin(3\theta_0)(A_q^{(A)}\theta_{-q}^{(A)}+\mathrm{c.c.})$, which is finite only in the iCDW phase. The second piece of machinery is the Peierls-substitution identity $\Phi\propto\sum_\alpha\theta_\alpha=\sqrt{3}\theta^{(A)}$, which turns the A1 phase mode into an oscillating magnetic flux and hence into a detectable stray field.

What would settle it

Place a shallow NV center near a detwinned CsV3Sb5 crystal held in its CDW state, calibrate T1 relaxometry against a known GHz-range magnetic noise source, and photoexcite near the expected phason frequency; if no relaxation peak appears at the phase-mode frequency despite the calibration, the predicted oscillating flux is absent or below the assumed strength.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the commensurate triple-Q CDW state of a kagome lattice, the imaginary (loop-current) realization differs from the real (density-only) realization in a sharp way: the A1 collective channel mixes phase and amplitude fluctuations when the phase minimum is at $\theta_0 = \pi/2$ (iCDW), with a coupling $\propto \lambda_2|\Delta Q|\sin(3\theta_0)$, while no such mixing is allowed for rCDW. The two mixed eigenmodes have energies given by Eq. (12). Via the Peierls substitution, the A1 phase fluctuation is the fluctuation of the flux threading each small triangular plaquette, so exciting the phase mode makes the loop-current flux oscillate as $\tilde{\Phi}(t)=\tilde{\Phi}_0 + \delta\tilde{\Phi}\sin(\omega_{\mathrm{ph}}t)$. That dynamic flux produces magnetic noise whose spectrum an NV center can read through its T1 relaxation rate: for a local field of 0.01–0.1 mT and a detuning of order 10 GHz, the paper estimates T1 ≈ 10–1000 μs, within the reach of current NV relaxometry.

Load-bearing premise

The detection estimate assumes a fluctuating magnetic field of 0.01–0.1 mT at the NV center and a phase-mode frequency within about 10 GHz of the NV Larmor frequency, but neither number is derived from the model or from first principles for AV3Sb5; if the real field is much weaker or the frequency falls outside the NV T1 window, the signal would be undetectable even if iCDW order exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A positive NV T1 measurement on AV3Sb5 would be a direct experimental signature of loop current order in the kagome CDW state.
  • The predicted mixing means the A1 channel should show two split resonances of mixed phase–amplitude character, a feature that optical or pump–probe experiments could also seek.
  • Because the flux oscillation is tied to the phase mode, the NV signal would directly measure the phason gap and its pinning, providing a window on CDW stiffness as doping tunes the material toward incommensurability.
  • The rCDW–iCDW distinction becomes experimentally crisp: rCDW produces no oscillating flux, while iCDW does, so dynamic magnetic noise is a tell-tale sign of loop currents.
  • As the paper notes, the same NV-based scheme could be extended to look for loop current fluctuations in cuprate pseudogap materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The avoided crossing described by Eq. (12) is a model-independent spectroscopic marker: any experiment resolving the A1 response—Raman, terahertz, or pump–probe—should see the same mixed-mode doublet, whose absence in the E channels would pin down iCDW without a magnetic sensor.
  • Because the mixing term is time-reversal even, the dynamic signal could survive even if static time-reversal breaking is hidden by domains, which would help reconcile conflicting Kerr and muSR results in AV3Sb5.
  • If doping softens the phase mode, NV noise spectroscopy might serve not just as an on/off detector of loop currents but as a quantitative probe of loop-current susceptibility versus doping.
  • The same phase-to-flux logic should apply to other complex order parameters with winding phase, such as chiral superconductors or orbital loop currents, so the technique may reach beyond kagome CDWs.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes collective excitations of triple-Q charge density wave (CDW) order in a kagome lattice model, using a phenomenological mean-field free energy. For the imaginary CDW (iCDW) phase with loop currents, the authors find that the A1 phase and amplitude modes mix via a term proportional to sin(3θ0), while in the real CDW (rCDW) phase they decouple. They then propose that excited phase modes in the iCDW phase produce a time-dependent magnetic stray field, detectable by NV-center relaxometry, and estimate T1 relaxation times of 10--1000 μs. The collective-mode derivation, including the mixing term, is internally consistent, but the central detection step relating the phase mode to a measurable magnetic signal is not rigorously established.

Significance. If the detection proposal were quantitatively valid, it would supply a concrete experimental route to identify loop current order in AV3Sb5, a question of current interest given conflicting Kerr-effect results. The collective-mode distinction between rCDW and iCDW (mixing vs. no mixing) is a useful and likely correct characterization. However, the flagship claim of the paper is the NV-center detection scheme, and that claim rests on an unproven and, as argued below, problematic identification of the phase mode with a magnetic noise source. The paper's strength is the transparent free-energy analysis; its weakness is the lack of a derivation of the current operator and its coupling to the collective modes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Loop current detection with NV Centers; Eq. (13)] The central detection step assumes that the A1 phase mode causes the Peierls flux to oscillate as in Eq. (13), and that this dynamic flux directly generates a magnetic noise signal. This assumes that the magnetic field is proportional to the flux phase, but an NV center couples to the magnetic field produced by the loop current, not to the order-parameter phase. In the mean-field Hamiltonian (S2), the bond current is proportional to |Δ| sin θ upon fixing the bond phase; at the iCDW minimum θ0 = π/2, the current is an extremum, so a uniform phase fluctuation θ(A) produces no first-order change in the bond current. Consequently, the A1 phase mode alone does not generate a first-order magnetic noise signal. The mixing term in Eq. (10) can restore a linear signal through the amplitude component A(A), but its magnitude is set by the uncomputed mixing ratio and by the λ2-induced shift of θ0. The paper needs to derive the physical current operator from the lattice Hamiltonian and compute its fluctuation spectrum; as written, Eq. (13) conflates flux with current and likely overestimates the NV signal.
  2. [Eq. (16)] Equation (16), T1^{-1} ∼ γ_e^2 |B|^2 / (ω0 - ω_ph), is not a valid expression for the T1 relaxation rate. The T1 rate is determined by the magnetic noise spectral density S_B(ω0) evaluated at the NV frequency; for a damped collective mode this spectral density has a Lorentzian form with a finite linewidth, so the denominator ω0 - ω_ph should involve the damping rate and detuning in a Lorentzian, not a simple difference. As written, the expression diverges at resonance and has no linewidth. More importantly, the local field |B| is not derived from the model or from an ab initio calculation for AV3Sb5; it is taken as 0.01--0.1 mT from Ref. [19]. Combined with the missing current-operator derivation in the previous comment, the numerical estimate T1 ∼ 10--1000 μs is unsupported.
  3. [Collective Modes Analysis; Eqs. (2), (10) and (S27)] The paper fixes θ0 = π/2 in the iCDW phase while retaining the cubic term λ2|Δ|^3 cos(θ1+θ2+θ3), which for finite λ2 shifts the equilibrium away from π/2. Minimizing Eq. (2) with respect to θ gives a shift δθ ≈ -3λ2|Δ|/(4b) for b > 0, which is of the same order (λ2) as the mixing term ∝ sin(3θ0) in Eq. (10). Since the current-phase coupling ∂J/∂θ ∝ cos θ0 also vanishes at θ0 = π/2 but is nonzero (and O(λ2)) at the shifted minimum, a systematic leading-order calculation of the NV signal must include both the amplitude admixture from Eq. (10) and the equilibrium shift. The current manuscript omits both, so the detection estimate does not follow from the stated Lagrangian.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Around Eq. (16)] In the sentence 'Since the dynamics of the strip field B(t)...', 'strip' should be 'stray'.
  2. [Introduction] The word 'efffects' in the opening paragraph is a typo and should read 'effects'.
  3. [Supplementary Material, Eq. (S24)] In the displayed expression for λ2, the first denominator product is written as (ϵ1(k)-ϵ2(k))(ϵ1(k)-ϵ2(k)); it should presumably be (ϵ1(k)-ϵ2(k))(ϵ1(k)-ϵ3(k)).
  4. [Loop current detection with NV Centers] The statement that the commensurate iCDW phase-mode gap is 'typically in the sub-THz region' is made without a reference or a parameter estimate; since the NV T1 sensitivity window depends on this frequency, a discussion of plausible parameter ranges would strengthen the proposal.
  5. [Discussion] References [17,18] report null polar Kerr results in CsV3Sb5; the Discussion could briefly state whether and how the proposed detection would be affected if the ordered state does not in fact break time-reversal symmetry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the collective-mode derivation is self-contained, and the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivations do not reduce to fitted inputs or to a self-citation chain. The collective-mode Lagrangian (Eq. 3) is obtained by adding standard kinetic terms to the phenomenological free energy (Eq. 2) and expanding around the C3-symmetric minimum; the phase-amplitude mixing term in Eq. (10) is an explicit consequence of the cubic invariant lambda2*cos(theta1+theta2+theta3), not a separately fitted 'prediction'. The flux-oscillation statement (Eq. 13) follows directly from the Peierls-phase identification Phi proportional to sum_alpha theta_alpha = sqrt(3) theta^(A); this is a bookkeeping identity rather than a fitted result. While this makes the flux oscillation a near-tautological consequence of defining Phi through the phase mode, it is not circular in the sense of reusing data or a fitted parameter to manufacture a prediction. The T1 estimate (Eq. 16) uses an external orbital-magnetization value from Ref. [19] and an assumed detuning of about 10 GHz; these are order-of-magnitude estimates, not parameters fitted to the proposed experimental outcome. Self-citations are present (Ref. [28] as motivation and Ref. [43] as one of four references for the standard Ginzburg-Landau expansion), but neither is load-bearing: the free energy form is independently supported by Refs. [12,13,42,44] and by the Supplementary Material's microscopic derivation. The skeptical concern that the NV center couples to the loop current rather than to the flux phase, so that the linear current response may vanish at theta0 = pi/2, is a physical-correctness question about whether flux oscillations generate first-order magnetic noise, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The collective mode analysis uses a phenomenological Ginzburg-Landau free energy with coefficients b, λ2, u1, u2 and stiffnesses κ0, κ1 that are not computed for AV3Sb5. The NV detectability estimate further assumes a stray field magnitude and a frequency detuning. No new particles or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • b (second-order coefficient)
    Sign controls rCDW vs iCDW; magnitude is set by the interaction difference 1/gr - 1/gi but is not computed for AV3Sb5.
  • λ2 (third-order coefficient)
    Controls the cubic term and the magnitude of the phase-amplitude mixing; not computed for a real material.
  • u1, u2 (quartic coefficients)
    Set the stiffness of the amplitude modes; not computed for a real material.
  • κ0, κ1 (stiffness coefficients)
    Set the time and spatial fluctuation scales of the order parameter; introduced phenomenologically.
  • Local stray field B = 0.01-0.1 mT
    Assumed for the T1 estimate, based on orbital magnetization from Ref. [19]; the paper acknowledges it may differ in practice.
  • Frequency detuning ω0 - ω_ph = ~10 GHz
    Assumed to place the NV T1 spectroscopy on resonance; not derived from the phase mode gap.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The triple-Q CDW ansatz with order parameter Δ_CDW(r) coupling the three M points, and C3 symmetry requiring θ1 = θ2 = θ3 = θ0 and equal amplitudes (SM Sec. I).
    This is the assumed ordering pattern for AV3Sb5, motivated by STM 2x2 CDW observations and prior theory.
  • domain assumption The free energy expansion is truncated at fourth order in the order parameter with λ3 = 0, following Ref. [13].
    Truncation and neglect of the cos θ1 cos θ2 cos θ3 term are adopted to reduce parameters; the paper states this follows Ref. [13].
  • domain assumption The iCDW phase with b > 0 is the ground state of interest, spontaneously breaking time-reversal symmetry.
    The proposal targets iCDW, but experimental evidence for TRS breaking in CsV3Sb5 is contested (Refs. 17 and 18 suggest its absence).
  • domain assumption The phase mode is commensurate and pinned with a gap in the sub-THz range, and the phase fluctuation of the order parameter directly modulates the loop current flux via the Peierls substitution.
    This is the mechanism connecting the phase mode to the magnetic noise signal.
  • standard math Standard many-body techniques: Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, mean-field expansion of ln det G^{-1}, and linearization of the Lagrangian around the saddle point.
    Used in the supplement to derive the free energy and the fluctuation Lagrangian; these are standard field theory methods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Loop Currents and Collective Modes of Charge Density Waves in Kagome Materials with NV Centers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXKYSRVW

@misc{pith2026250414166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Loop Currents and Collective Modes of Charge Density Waves in Kagome Materials with NV Centers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXKYSRVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14166}
}
abstract

Recently, the unconventional charge density wave (CDW) order with loop currents has attracted considerable attention in the Kagome material family AV$_3$Sb$_5$ (A = K, Rb, Cs). However, experimental signatures of loop current order remain elusive. In this work, based on the mean-field free energy, we analyze the collective modes of unconventional CDW order in a Kagome lattice model. Furthermore, we point out that phase modes in the imaginary CDW (iCDW) order with loop current orders result in time-dependent stray fields. We thus propose using nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers to detect these time-dependent stray fields, providing a potential experimental approach to identifying loop current order.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14166 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the proposed setup to detect the loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The CDW collective excitations. (a) The free en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Xie and N

    Y.-M. Xie and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 110, L241108 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [19]

    Tazai, Y

    R. Tazai, Y. Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2303476121 (2024)

    2024

  3. [1]

    C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B 55, 14554 (1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [2]

    C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3538 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [3]

    Bourges, D

    P. Bourges, D. Bounoua, and Y. Sidis, Comptes Rendus. Physique 22, 7 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    T. P. Croft, E. Blackburn, J. Kulda, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, and S. M. Hayden, Phys. Rev. B 96, 214504 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [5]

    Gheidi, K

    S. Gheidi, K. Akintola, A. C. Y. Fang, S. Sundar, A. M. Cˆ ot´ e, S. R. Dunsiger, G. D. Gu, and J. E. Sonier, Phys. Rev. B 101, 184511 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [6]

    Neupert, M

    T. Neupert, M. M. Denner, J.-X. Yin, R. Thomale, and M. Z. Hasan, Nature Physics 18, 137 (2022)

    2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    S. D. Wilson and B. R. Ortiz, Nature Reviews Materials 9, 420 (2024)

    2024

  2. [8]

    Jiang, T

    K. Jiang, T. Wu, J.-X. Yin, Z. Wang, M. Z. Hasan, S. D. Wilson, X. Chen, and J. Hu, National Science Review 10, nwac199 (2022)

    2022

  3. [9]

    Jiang, J.-X

    Y.-X. Jiang, J.-X. Yin, M. M. Denner, N. Shumiya, B. R. Ortiz, G. Xu, Z. Guguchia, J. He, M. S. Hossain, X. Liu, J. Ruff, L. Kautzsch, S. S. Zhang, G. Chang, I. Belopol- ski, Q. Zhang, T. A. Cochran, D. Multer, M. Litskevich, Z.-J. Cheng, X. P. Yang, Z. Wang, R. Thomale, T. Ne...

    2021

  4. [10]

    Mielke, D

    C. Mielke, D. Das, J.-X. Yin, H. Liu, R. Gupta, Y.- X. Jiang, M. Medarde, X. Wu, H. C. Lei, J. Chang, P. Dai, Q. Si, H. Miao, R. Thomale, T. Neupert, Y. Shi, R. Khasanov, M. Z. Hasan, H. Luetkens, and Z. Guguchia, Nature 602, 245 (2022)

    2022

  5. [11]

    Y. Xu, Z. Ni, Y. Liu, B. R. Ortiz, Q. Deng, S. D. Wilson, B. Yan, L. Balents, and L. Wu, Nature Physics 18, 1470 (2022)

    2022

  6. [12]

    M. M. Denner, R. Thomale, and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 217601 (2021)

    2021

  7. [13]

    T. Park, M. Ye, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035142 (2021)

    2021

  8. [14]

    X. Feng, K. Jiang, Z. Wang, and J. Hu, Science Bulletin 66, 1384 (2021)

    2021

  9. [15]

    Lin and R

    Y.-P. Lin and R. M. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B 104, 045122 (2021)

    2021

  10. [16]

    H. Li, Y. B. Kim, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 146501 (2024)

    2024

  11. [17]

    D. R. Saykin, C. Farhang, E. D. Kountz, D. Chen, B. R. Ortiz, C. Shekhar, C. Felser, S. D. Wilson, R. Thomale, J. Xia, and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 016901 (2023)

    2023

  12. [18]

    Farhang, J

    C. Farhang, J. Wang, B. R. Ortiz, S. D. Wilson, and J. Xia, Nature Communications 14, 5326 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    R.-Q. Fu, J. Zhan, M. D¨ urrnagel, H. Hohmann, R. Thomale, J. Hu, Z. Wang, S. Zhou, and X. Wu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.09451 (2024), arXiv:2405.09451 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    R. M. Fernandes, T. Birol, M. Ye, and D. Van- derbilt, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.16657 (2025), arXiv:2502.16657 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    He and C

    Y. He and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 147001 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Z. D. Shi, D. V. Else, H. Goldman, and T. Senthil, Sci- Post Phys. 14, 113 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Palle, R

    G. Palle, R. Ojaj¨ arvi, R. M. Fernandes, and J. Schmalian, Science Advances 10, eadn3662 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    G. Liu, X. Ma, K. He, Q. Li, H. Tan, Y. Liu, J. Xu, W. Tang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Gao, Y. Dai, H.-H. Wen, B. Yan, and X. Xi, Nature Communications 13, 3461 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    Azoury, A

    D. Azoury, A. von Hoegen, Y. Su, K. H. Oh, T. Holder, H. Tan, B. R. Ortiz, A. C. Salinas, S. D. Wilson, B. Yan, and N. Gedik, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2308588120 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    Y.-P. Lin, V. Madhavan, and J. E. Moore, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.10447 (2024), arXiv:2411.10447 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lee and N

    P. Lee and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 43, 1223 (1991)

    1991

  22. [30]

    Appel, B

    P. Appel, B. J. Shields, T. Kosub, N. Hedrich, R. H¨ ubner, J. Faßbender, D. Makarov, and P. Maletinsky, Nano Let- ters 19, 1682 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Flebus, H

    B. Flebus, H. Ochoa, P. Upadhyaya, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Phys. Rev. B 98, 180409 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Finco, A

    A. Finco, A. Haykal, R. Tanos, F. Fabre, S. Chouaieb, 6 W. Akhtar, I. Robert-Philip, W. Legrand, F. Ajejas, K. Bouzehouane, N. Reyren, T. Devolder, J.-P. Adam, J.-V. Kim, V. Cros, and V. Jacques, Nature Communi- cations 12, 767 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Schlussel, T

    Y. Schlussel, T. Lenz, D. Rohner, Y. Bar-Haim, L. Bougas, D. Groswasser, M. Kieschnick, E. Rozenberg, L. Thiel, A. Waxman, J. Meijer, P. Maletinsky, D. Bud- ker, and R. Folman, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 034032 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    P. E. Dolgirev, S. Chatterjee, I. Esterlis, A. A. Zibrov, M. D. Lukin, N. Y. Yao, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B 105, 024507 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Monge, T

    R. Monge, T. Delord, N. V. Proscia, Z. Shotan, H. Jayakumar, J. Henshaw, P. R. Zangara, A. Lozovoi, D. Pagliero, P. D. Esquinazi, T. An, I. Sodemann, V. M. Menon, and C. A. Meriles, Nano Letters 23, 422 (2023), pMID: 36602464

    2023

  28. [36]

    J. Y. Khoo, F. Pientka, P. A. Lee, and I. S. Villadiego, Phys. Rev. B 106, 115108 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    P. A. Lee and S. Morampudi, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195102 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Casola, T

    F. Casola, T. van der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Nature Re- views Materials 3, 17088 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Rovny, S

    J. Rovny, S. Gopalakrishnan, A. C. B. Jayich, P. Maletinsky, E. Demler, and N. P. de Leon, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 753 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    H. Zhao, H. Li, B. R. Ortiz, S. M. L. Teicher, T. Park, M. Ye, Z. Wang, L. Balents, S. D. Wilson, and I. Zeljkovic, Nature 599, 216 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Liang, X

    Z. Liang, X. Hou, F. Zhang, W. Ma, P. Wu, Z. Zhang, F. Yu, J.-J. Ying, K. Jiang, L. Shan, Z. Wang, and X.-H. Chen, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031026 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    W. L. McMillan, Phys. Rev. B 12, 1187 (1975)

    1975

  35. [43]

    Nagaosa and E

    N. Nagaosa and E. Hanamura, Phys. Rev. B 29, 2060 (1984)

    1984

  36. [44]

    van Wezel, Europhysics Letters 96, 67011 (2011)

    J. van Wezel, Europhysics Letters 96, 67011 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Fortman, L

    B. Fortman, L. Mugica-Sanchez, N. Tischler, C. Selco, Y. Hang, K. Holczer, and S. Takahashi, Journal of Ap- plied Physics 130, 083901 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Kollarics, B

    S. Kollarics, B. G. M´ arkus, R. Kucsera, G. Thiering, ´Ad´ am Gali, G. N´ emeth, K. Kamar´ as, L. Forr´ o, and F. Simon, Science Advances 10, eadn0616 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Probing Loop Currents and Collective Modes of Charge Density Waves in Kagome Materials with NV Centers

    L. Kautzsch, Y. M. Oey, H. Li, Z. Ren, B. R. Ortiz, G. Pokharel, R. Seshadri, J. Ruff, T. Kongruengkit, J. W. Harter, Z. Wang, I. Zeljkovic, and S. D. Wilson, npj Quantum Materials 8, 37 (2023). 1 Supplementary Material for “Probing Loop Currents and Collective Modes of Charge...

    2023

Pith tools

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