Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Bulk photogalvanic current control and gap spectroscopy in 2D hexagonal materials

T0 review · 4 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 Elliptical light pulses drive controllable photocurrents in 2D hexagonal materials, and the current's ellipticity pattern reflects the band gap.

desk verdict A solid numerical study of ellipticity-controlled bulk photocurrents in 2D hexagonal materials, but the gap-spectroscopy claim is an extrapolation supported by only one ab initio point that already disagrees with the model on a key detail. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14236 v1 pith:5NODEOJE submitted 2025-04-19 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.optics

Anna Galler , Ofer Neufeld This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics
keywords bulkphotogalvaniceffect2DhexagonalmaterialsellipticallypolarizedlightHall-likephotocurrentgapspectroscopystrong-fielddynamicstime-dependentdensityfunctionaltheorymonolayerhBN
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 a single-color, elliptically polarized laser pulse is enough to create bulk photogalvanic currents in two-dimensional hexagonal materials that lack inversion symmetry. The current has both a longitudinal and a Hall-like transverse component, and both can be steered by the laser's ellipticity, polarization angle, wavelength, and intensity. The paper's central proposal is that the photocurrent's dependence on ellipticity is a material fingerprint: as a band gap opens at the $K$ and $K'$ valleys, the ellipticity curve changes sign repeatedly and its amplitude grows linearly with the gap for small gaps. If correct, this makes photocurrent detection a compact, all-optical way to measure band gaps in 2D materials and to probe how gaps change under ultrafast or Floquet driving.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bulk photogalvanic current, a steady current generated by light absorption in a non-centrosymmetric material without an applied voltage. The mechanism is the symmetry of the light-induced conduction-band occupation in momentum space: the paper computes the k-resolved occupation after the pulse and shows that elliptical polarization leaves only one mirror plane, producing an occupation imbalance that flows as a net current, while linear and circular polarization leave symmetries that cancel it. The modeling machinery is a real-space honeycomb-lattice Hamiltonian with Gaussian on-site potentials; varying the A/B sublattice potential tunes the $K$/$K'$ gap from 0 to 2 eV, and the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is solved in the velocity gauge to obtain the current. Ab initio validation uses time-dependent density functional theory in the adiabatic approximation for monolayer hBN.

What would settle it

Measure the ellipticity-dependent photocurrent in a monolayer hBN sample under 800 nm driving, comparing the current for the major axis along zigzag and along armchair. The model predicts the armchair orientation carries the maximum current, while the ab initio calculation predicts zigzag; if experiment follows the ab initio result, the model-based extrapolation to other gap sizes is not validated. A stronger test is to tune the gap continuously by strain or alloying and check whether the small-gap linear scaling and sign-change pattern predicted by the model appear in the measured current.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Monochromatic elliptical pulses generically drive bulk photogalvanic currents in broken-inversion-symmetric 2D hexagonal lattices, because elliptical polarization is the minimal symmetry-breaking drive: linear polarization leaves mirror symmetries in the conduction-band occupation that cancel the current, and circular polarization leaves a threefold valley symmetry, while elliptical polarization leaves only a single mirror plane and therefore a net current. The current vanishes for linear and circular light, peaks for ellipticities around 0.3-0.6, and its direction is set by the major axis of the ellipse, with zigzag-oriented driving producing a longitudinal current and armchair-oriented driving producing a transverse Hall-like current. As the sublattice asymmetry grows from zero to a 2 eV gap, the ellipticity dependence of the longitudinal current develops sign changes and double-peak structures, and for small gaps (below about 0.12 eV) both components scale linearly with the gap. The same bell-shaped ellipticity response is found in ab initio simulations of monolayer hBN, supporting the proposal that ellipticity-dependent photocurrents can serve as a gap spectroscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed gap spectroscopy assumes that the simplified Gaussian-potential model and the independent-particle/adiabatic density-functional dynamics faithfully reproduce the real material's nonlinear photocurrent at every gap size, even though the model and ab initio calculations already disagree about which crystal orientation gives the maximum current in monolayer hBN.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ellipticity, polarization angle, wavelength, and intensity become independent knobs for directing both the longitudinal and the transverse (Hall-like) photocurrent in 2D hexagonal materials.
  • A photocurrent measurement at fixed driving conditions can report the $K$/$K'$ gap size, with small gaps producing a linear current-vs-gap scaling and larger gaps producing structured multi-peak ellipticity curves.
  • The vanishing of the current for linear and circular polarization, and its bell-shaped maximum near intermediate ellipticity, provides a symmetry-based check that a measured signal is a bulk photogalvanic current rather than heating or injection noise.
  • The sign reversals of the longitudinal current as ellipticity is varied offer a fingerprint of broken inversion symmetry and of interfering multi-photon pathways that open as the Dirac cone gaps out.
  • Because the effect needs only a monochromatic source, it extends BPG-based probing to simpler laser setups than the few-cycle or two-color schemes used previously.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear small-gap scaling survives in real materials, ellipticity-dependent photocurrents could be used to time-resolve a dynamically opened gap, for instance in a Floquet-engineered graphene-like system, by reading the gap from the current amplitude during the pump.
  • The transverse Hall-like component may offer a transport-based route to Berry-curvature spectroscopy, since the current direction is tied to valley occupation imbalance; this connection is implicit in the paper but not directly measured.
  • The unexplained double-peak structure at intermediate gaps is a natural target for a two-photon resonance test: if the peak positions shift with laser wavelength according to multi-photon energies, the interference picture would be confirmed.
  • Combining elliptical driving with a weak second harmonic could expose interference between the two symmetry-breaking mechanisms, potentially increasing current magnitude or adding new control axes beyond monochromatic ellipticity.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript numerically investigates bulk photogalvanic (BPG) currents in two-dimensional hexagonal materials driven by monochromatic, elliptically polarized intense laser pulses. Using a two-band real-space Gaussian-potential model solved by time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) and ab initio time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) for monolayer hBN, the authors show that such pulses generate BPG currents when inversion symmetry is broken, with vanishing current for purely linear and circular polarization and a bell-shaped ellipticity dependence peaking near ellipticity values of about 0.4–0.5. They further report that the current amplitude and direction depend on the orientation of the major elliptical axis, that the current decomposes into longitudinal and transverse (Hall-like) components, and that the current scales linearly with the band gap for small gaps. They propose this behavior as a basis for photocurrent-based gap spectroscopy and benchmark the model against TDDFT for monolayer hBN.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper establishes a new set of control knobs—laser ellipticity and in-plane orientation—for strong-field BPG currents in 2D hexagonal materials, and it suggests a transport-based probe of band gaps. The central qualitative effect is supported by two independent computational methods (model TDSE and TDDFT) and by a symmetry analysis of momentum-resolved conduction-band occupations. The authors are also candid about the model/TDDFT discrepancy in the orientation of maximum current and about the unknown origin of the double-peak structure. However, the gap-spectroscopy extension currently rests on model-only data with a single ab initio comparison at a gap where the model disagrees with TDDFT on a qualitative feature, so the extrapolation to a general gap-spectroscopy scheme is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Gap spectroscopy; Monolayer hBN (Figs. 5–7)] The central gap-spectroscopy claim rests on model-only data. The linear small-gap scaling in Fig. 5c and the double-peak regime in Fig. 6 are generated entirely by the two-band Gaussian-potential model of Methods Eq. (1)–(3), yet the sole ab initio benchmark, monolayer hBN at the LDA gap of about 4.2 eV, already disagrees with the model on a qualitative feature: TDDFT finds the maximum current for θ=0 (Fig. 7a), while the model predicts it for θ=π/2 (Fig. 7c). The authors attribute this discrepancy to multi-band and non-K/K' contributions, which are exactly the physics excluded from the model used to extrapolate the gap dependence. Without a second material point or a TDDFT check at small gaps, the proposed photocurrent-based gap spectroscopy is not validated outside the model.
  2. [Methods: Model calculations; Gap spectroscopy] No convergence or uncertainty assessment is reported for the central quantitative results. The photocurrent amplitudes in Figs. 3, 5, and 6 are quoted without error bars, and the linear fit constants a=0.0087 and b=0.0165 in Fig. 5c and the regime boundaries 0.12 eV, 0.3 eV, and 1.5 eV are presented without tests of sensitivity to the grid spacing (0.28 Bohr), k-grid (100×100), time step (0.2 a.u.), pulse duration, or the averaging window (six cycles for 800 nm versus two cycles for 3000 nm). Because these numbers underpin the spectroscopy claim, a convergence study or numerical uncertainty estimate is required.
  3. [Conclusions] The Conclusions state that the photocurrent signal 'scales linearly with the laser power,' but the Results and Discussion section 'Gap spectroscopy' shows scaling with the gap size (Fig. 5c), not with laser power. This is an internal inconsistency in a central claim; if power scaling is intended it is not demonstrated anywhere in the paper, and if gap scaling is meant the sentence should be corrected.
  4. [Gap spectroscopy (Fig. 6)] The double-peak structure in the ellipticity dependence is proposed as a 'fingerprint sign for quantum interference spectroscopy,' yet the same paragraph states that the physical origin of the double peak 'currently remains unclear.' Since the mechanism is unidentified and the feature appears only in the model calculation, the evidential basis for using it as a spectroscopic fingerprint is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (5)] The supersine envelope in Eq. (5) is typeset ambiguously; the exponent is unclear. Please rewrite the formula so that the envelope can be reproduced unambiguously.
  2. [Methods, Eq. (1)] The parameter σ_B is never given a numerical value except implicitly for the gapless case; state the value used for the gapped sublattice B.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption refers to panel (c) for the lineouts, but the figure contains only panels (a) and (b); fix the caption/panel labels.
  4. [Monolayer hBN] The phrase 'excellent agreement' overstates the level of agreement given the orientation discrepancy identified in the same section; 'qualitative agreement in the ellipticity dependence and the longitudinal-component behavior' would be more precise.
  5. [Throughout] No data availability statement or code release is included; making the model parameters and TDDFT input files available would strengthen reproducibility of the numerical photocurrent values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: photocurrents are computed from time-dependent propagation; gap-dependence is a fitted model trend, not a prediction that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The BPG currents are obtained by propagating Bloch states under Eq. (3) and evaluating the expectation value in Eqs. (6)-(7); the currents are not defined in terms of the band gap or the fitted scalings. The ellipticity dependence and the vanishing current for linear and circular driving follow from the computed conduction-band occupations and the symmetry analysis in Fig. 4, and the bell-shaped response is independently reproduced by TDDFT in monolayer hBN. The gap-spectroscopy claim rests on a systematic parameter sweep of v0,B in the model (Eq. 1) with the resulting currents shown in Figs. 5-6; the linear small-gap trend is presented as a least-squares fit to the model output ('this trend is well captured by a linear least-squares fit, indicating that a linearly increasing BPG current serves as a clear signature of band-gap opening'), not as a first-principles derivation or as a prediction of held-out data. Since the fit constants a=0.0087 and b=0.0165 are descriptive summaries of the model's own computed points rather than inputs to the current calculation, there is no fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [21] for Floquet contours, Ref. [76] for the pulse envelope, and earlier strong-field BPG works) are contextual and are not the load-bearing evidence for the main claims. The model-TDDFT orientation discrepancy in Fig. 7 is a validation limitation that the authors explicitly attribute to multi-band effects, and it is not a reduction of the predicted signal to an input. The conclusion's phrase 'scales linearly with the laser power' is inconsistent with the Results' linear-in-gap statement, but this is a wording slip rather than a circular step. No step was found where an output equals an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All parameters are model or tuning choices; no new physical entities are postulated. The main ledger entries are the Gaussian potential parameters, the gap-tuning ratio, and the fitted linear slopes. The central result is a numerical mapping, so the burden falls on the transferability of the model and the fitted calibration, not on an invented mechanism.

free parameters (3)
  • v0,A = 40 eV, sigma_A = 1.5 Bohr (sublattice A Gaussian potential) = v0,A = 40 eV, sigma_A = 1.5 Bohr
    Chosen model parameters for the honeycomb lattice; they define the band structure and are not derived from experiment.
  • v0,B / v0,A ratio (sublattice asymmetry) = varied from 1.0 to 1.08
    Tuned to open band gaps from 0 to 2 eV at K/K'; this is the knob that produces the gap-dependence claim.
  • Linear fit constants a and b = a = 0.0087, b = 0.0165
    Least-squares slopes for longitudinal and transverse current vs gap up to 0.12 eV; fitted to the authors' model data, not derived from theory.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Time-dependent Schrödinger equation under the dipole approximation and independent-particle approximation
    Used to propagate Bloch states in Eq. (3); neglects electron-electron interactions and assumes non-relativistic single-particle dynamics.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic LDA in TDDFT
    Exchange-correlation potential depends instantaneously on density in Eq. (9), which is an approximation for strong, non-equilibrium driving.
  • domain assumption Frozen-core approximation with norm-conserving pseudopotentials
    Core electrons are not propagated explicitly, a standard but uncontrolled approximation in the Octopus calculations.
  • domain assumption No spin-orbit coupling and no spin degrees of freedom
    Neglected in both model and TDDFT; could matter for TMDs where spin-valley locking is relevant.
  • standard math Periodic boundary conditions and finite k-grid convergence
    Assumes translational invariance and that 100x100 or 72x72 k-grids capture the relevant transitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bulk photogalvanic current control and gap spectroscopy in 2D hexagonal materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NODEOJE

@misc{pith2026250414236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bulk photogalvanic current control and gap spectroscopy in 2D hexagonal materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NODEOJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14236}
}
read the original abstract

Two-dimensional (2D) hexagonal materials have been intensively explored for multiple optoelectronic applications such as spin current generation, all-optical valleytronics, and topological electronics. In the realm of strong-field and ultrafast light-driven phenomena, it was shown that tailored laser driving such as polychromatic or few-cycle pulses can drive robust bulk photogalvanic (BPG) currents originating from the K/K' valleys. We here explore the BPG effect in 2D systems in the strong-field regime and show that monochromatic elliptical pulses also generically generate such photocurrents. The resultant photocurrents exhibit both parallel and transverse (Hall-like) components, both highly sensitive to the laser parameters, providing photocurrent control knobs. Interestingly, we show that the photocurrent amplitude has a distinct behavior vs. the driving ellipticity that can be indicative of material properties such as the gap size at K/K', which should prove useful for novel forms of BPG-based spectroscopies. We demonstrate these effects also in benchmark ab-initio simulations in monolayer hexagonal boron-nitride. Our work establishes new paths for controlling photocurrent responses in 2D systems that can also be used for multi-dimensional spectroscopy of ultrafast material properties through photocurrent measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14236 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: c. For small band gaps up to 0.12 eV, both the longitudinal and transverse components of the current exhibit a linear increase with gap size. As demonstrated in Fig. 5c, this trend is well captured by a linear least￾squares fit, indicating that a linearly increasing BP…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: presents computed BPG currents from mono￾layer hBN obtained for various driving conditions using (a–b) TDDFT and, for comparison, the computation￾ally less demanding (c–d) model calculations. As shown in Fig. 7a, the TDDFT results exhibit pronounced bell￾shaped maxima …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    002 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 θ=0 θ=π/ 6 θ=π/ 3 θ=π/ 2 | I | ( a. u. ) f) 0 2×10 −5 4×10 −5 6×10 −5 8×10 −5

  2. [2]

    0002 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 θ=0 θ=π/ 6 θ=π/ 3 θ=π/ 2 | I | ( a. u. ) FIG. 3: Photocurrent in a 2D hexagonal lattice with broken inversion symmetry and a band gap of 2 eV. (a) Amplitude of the photocurrent induced by an elliptically polarized laser pulse with ellipticity ϵ, orientation θ of the main elliptical axis and wavelength λ = 800 nm. (b) A transve...

  3. [3]

    002 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 ∆=0. 00eV ∆=0. 03eV ∆=0. 06eV ∆=0. 08eV ∆=0. 11eV ∆=0. 14eV ∆=0. 17eV ∆=0. 20eV −0. 0005 0

  4. [4]

    003 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 ItransIlong I (a.u.) a) b) c) FIG. 5: Dependence of the photocurrent on the size of the band gap. (a) Longitudinal BPG current, induced by elliptical driving along the zigzag direction (inset), for band gaps in the range ∆ = 0 − 0.2 eV. The longitudinal current changes direction multiple times depending on the ellipticity ϵ. (b...

  5. [5]

    0016 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 ∆=0. 5eV ∆=1. 0eV ∆=1. 5eV ∆=2eV Ilong (a.u) FIG. 6: (a) Longitudinal BPG current Ilong depending on ellipticity ϵ and gap size ∆ (with the laser’s major elliptical axis along the zigzag direction). The behaviour of the BPG current can essentially be divided into three regions: (i) ∆ = 0−0.3 eV, (ii) ∆ = 0.3−1.5 eV, and (iii) ...

  6. [6]

    A. K. Geim, Science 324, 1530 (2009), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1158877

    doi:10.1126/science.1158877 2009

  7. [7]

    Manzeli, D

    S. Manzeli, D. Ovchinnikov, D. Pasquier, O. V. Yazyev, and A. Kis, Nature Reviews Materials 2, 17033 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Zhang, Y

    K. Zhang, Y. Feng, F. Wang, Z. Yang, and J. Wang, J. Mater. Chem. C 5, 11992 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Balendhran, S

    S. Balendhran, S. Walia, H. Nili, S. Sri- ram, and M. Bhaskaran, Small 11, 640 (2015), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/smll.201402041

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Pumera and Z

    M. Pumera and Z. Sofer, Ad- vanced Materials 29, 1605299 (2017), https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/adma.201605299

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Gong and X

    C. Gong and X. Zhang, Science 363, eaav4450 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aav4450

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Meirzadeh, A

    E. Meirzadeh, A. M. Evans, M. Rezaee, M. Milich, C. J. Dionne, T. P. Darlington, S. T. Bao, A. K. Bartholomew, T. Handa, D. J. Rizzo, R. A. Wiscons, M. Reza, A. Zan- giabadi, N. Fardian-Melamed, A. C. Crowther, P. J. Schuck, D. N. Basov, X. Zhu, A. Giri, P. E. Hopkins, P. Kim,...

    2023

  5. [13]

    A. M. Evans, L. R. Parent, N. C. Flanders, R. P. Bisbey, E. Vitaku, M. S. Kirschner, R. D. Schaller, L. X. Chen, N. C. Gianneschi, and W. R. Dichtel, Science 361, 52 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aar7883

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Tongay, S

    S. Tongay, S. Dag, E. Durgun, R. T. Senger, and S. Ciraci, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 17, 3823 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    V. O. ¨Oz¸ celik, O. U. Akt¨ urk, E. Durgun, and S. Ciraci, Phys. Rev. B 92, 125420 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Anasori, Y

    B. Anasori, Y. Xie, M. Beidaghi, J. Lu, B. C. Hosler, L. Hultman, P. R. C. Kent, Y. Gogotsi, and M. W. Barsoum, ACS Nano 9, 9507 (2015), pMID: 26208121, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.5b03591

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature Reviews Ma- terials 1, 1 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    C. Bao, P. Tang, D. Sun, and S. Zhou, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 33 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Culcer, A

    D. Culcer, A. Cem Keser, Y. Li, and G. Tkachov, 2D Materials 7, 022007 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    M. J. Gilbert, Communications Physics 4, 2399 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Han, APL Materials 4, 032401 (2016), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apm/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4941712/19947471/032401 1 1.4941712.pdf

    W. Han, APL Materials 4, 032401 (2016), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apm/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4941712/19947471/032401 1 1.4941712.pdf

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    E. C. Ahn, npj 2D Materials and Applications 4, 17 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Mitra, ´A

    S. Mitra, ´A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, M. Aulich, M. Neuhaus, R. E. Silva, V. Pervak, M. F. Kling, and S. Biswas, Nature 628, 752 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, R

    A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, R. Silva, O. Smirnova, and M. Ivanov, Nature Photonics 14, 728 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Neufeld, H

    O. Neufeld, H. H¨ ubener, G. Jotzu, U. De Giovan- nini, and A. Rubio, Nano Letters 23, 7568 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c02139

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Galler, A

    A. Galler, A. Rubio, and O. Neufeld, The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry Letters 14, 11298 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c02936

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Neufeld, W

    O. Neufeld, W. Mao, H. H¨ ubener, N. Tancogne-Dejean, S. A. Sato, U. De Giovannini, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033101 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Neufeld, H

    O. Neufeld, H. H¨ ubener, U. D. Giovannini, and A. Rubio, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 36, 225401 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Tiwari and I

    V. Tiwari and I. Franco, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17095 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    A. J. Uzan-Narovlansky, ´A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, G. Oren- stein, R. E. Silva, T. Arusi-Parpar, S. Shames, B. D. Bruner, B. Yan, O. Smirnova, M. Ivanov, et al. , Nature photonics 16, 428 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Lesko, T

    D. Lesko, T. Weitz, S. Wittigschlager, W. Li, C. Heide, O. Neufeld, and P. Hommelhoff, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17917 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    ´Alvaro Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, R. E. F. Silva, O. Smirnova, and M. Ivanov, Optica 8, 277 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    M. S. Mrudul, ´Alvaro Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, M. Ivanov, and G. Dixit, Optica 8, 422 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Sharma, D

    S. Sharma, D. Gill, J. Krishna, J. Dewhurst, and S. Shallcross, Nature Communications 15, 7579 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Sharma, J

    S. Sharma, J. K. Dewhurst, and S. Shall- cross, Nano Letters 23, 11533 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c03245

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Sharma, D

    S. Sharma, D. Gill, and S. Shall- cross, Nano Letters 23, 10305 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c02874

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Sharma, P

    S. Sharma, P. Elliott, and S. Shall- cross, Science Advances 9, eadf3673 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adf3673

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    M. Kim, T. Kim, A. Galler, D. Kim, A. Chacon, X. Gong, Y. Yang, R. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04335 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Tyulnev, ´A

    I. Tyulnev, ´A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, J. Poborska, L. Vamos, P. S. J. Russell, F. Tani, O. Smirnova, M. Ivanov, R. E. Silva, and J. Biegert, Nature 628, 746 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Heide, Y

    C. Heide, Y. Kobayashi, A. C. Johnson, F. Liu, T. F. Heinz, D. A. Reis, and S. Ghimire, Optica 9, 512 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Zhang, O

    J. Zhang, O. Neufeld, N. Tancogne-Dejean, I.-T. Lu, H. H¨ ubener, U. De Giovannini, and A. Rubio, npj Com- putational Materials 10, 202 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Higuchi, C

    T. Higuchi, C. Heide, K. Ullmann, H. B. Weber, and P. Hommelhoff, Nature 550, 224 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Neufeld, N

    O. Neufeld, N. Tancogne-Dejean, U. De Giovannini, H. H¨ ubener, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 126601 9 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Bharti and G

    A. Bharti and G. Dixit, Phys. Rev. B 108, L161113 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Rana and G

    N. Rana and G. Dixit, Phys. Rev. B 110, 054105 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Schiffrin, T

    A. Schiffrin, T. Paasch-Colberg, N. Karpowicz, V. Apalkov, D. Gerster, S. M¨ uhlbrandt, M. Korb- man, J. Reichert, M. Schultze, S. Holzner, et al. , Nature 493, 70 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Ghimire and D

    S. Ghimire and D. A. Reis, Nature physics 15, 10 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Yue and M

    L. Yue and M. B. Gaarde, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 39, 535 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Lively, S

    K. Lively, S. A. Sato, G. Albareda, A. Rubio, and A. Kelly, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013069 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Y. Kim, M. J. Kim, S. Cha, S. Choi, C.- J. Kim, B. J. Kim, M.-H. Jo, J. Kim, and J. Lee, Nano Letters 24, 1277 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c04278

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Korolev, T

    V. Korolev, T. Lettau, V. Krishna, A. Croy, M. Zuerch, C. Spielmann, M. Waechtler, U. Peschel, S. Graefe, G. Soavi, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12929 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    C. Qian, C. Yu, S. Jiang, T. Zhang, J. Gao, S. Shi, H. Pi, H. Weng, and R. Lu, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021030 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Chac´ on, D

    A. Chac´ on, D. Kim, W. Zhu, S. P. Kelly, A. Dauphin, E. Pisanty, A. S. Maxwell, A. Pic´ on, M. F. Ciappina, D. E. Kim, C. Ticknor, A. Saxena, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. B 102, 134115 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Baykusheva, A

    D. Baykusheva, A. Chac´ on, J. Lu, T. P. Bai- ley, J. A. Sobota, H. Soifer, P. S. Kirchmann, C. Rotundu, C. Uher, T. F. Heinz, D. A. Reis, and S. Ghimire, Nano Letters 21, 8970 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c02145

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    C. P. Schmid, L. Weigl, P. Gr¨ ossing, V. Junk, C. Gorini, S. Schlauderer, S. Ito, M. Meierhofer, N. Hofmann, D. Afanasiev, et al. , Nature 593, 385 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Y. Bai, F. Fei, S. Wang, N. Li, X. Li, F. Song, R. Li, Z. Xu, and P. Liu, Nature Physics 17, 311 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Bauer and K

    D. Bauer and K. K. Hansen, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 177401 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Silva, ´A

    R. Silva, ´A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, B. Amorim, O. Smirnova, and M. Ivanov, Nature Photonics 13, 849 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Neufeld, N

    O. Neufeld, N. Tancogne-Dejean, H. H¨ ubener, U. De Gio- vannini, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031011 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Qin and Z.-Y

    R. Qin and Z.-Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. A109, 043102 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    J. W. McIver, B. Schulte, F.-U. Stein, T. Matsuyama, G. Jotzu, G. Meier, and A. Cavalleri, Nature physics 16, 38 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    S. A. Sato, J. W. McIver, M. Nuske, P. Tang, G. Jotzu, B. Schulte, H. H¨ ubener, U. De Giovannini, L. Mathey, M. A. Sentef, A. Cavalleri, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. B 99, 214302 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    M. W. Day, K. Kusyak, F. Sturm, J. I. Aranzadi, H. M. Bretscher, M. Fechner, T. Matsuyama, M. H. Michael, B. F. Schulte, X. Li, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04531 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    De Juan, A

    F. De Juan, A. G. Grushin, T. Morimoto, and J. E. Moore, Nature communications 8, 15995 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Heide, T

    C. Heide, T. Eckstein, T. Boolakee, C. Gerner, H. B. Weber, I. Franco, and P. Hom- melhoff, Nano Letters 21, 9403 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c02538

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Neufeld, D

    O. Neufeld, D. Podolsky, and O. Cohen, Nature commu- nications 10, 405 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    V. I. Belinicher and B. I. Sturman, Soviet Physics Us- pekhi 23, 199 (1980)

    1980

  60. [68]

    S. D. Ganichev, E. L. Ivchenko, S. N. Danilov, J. Eroms, W. Wegscheider, D. Weiss, and W. Prettl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4358 (2001)

    2001

  61. [69]

    Langer, Y.-P

    F. Langer, Y.-P. Liu, Z. Ren, V. Flodgren, C. Guo, J. Vogelsang, S. Mikaelsson, I. Sytcevich, J. Ahrens, A. L’Huillier, C. L. Arnold, and A. Mikkelsen, Optica 7, 276 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Heide, T

    C. Heide, T. Boolakee, T. Eckstein, and P. Hommelhoff, Nanophotonics 10, 3701 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Sharma, D

    S. Sharma, D. Gill, J. Krishna, J. K. Dewhurst, P. El- liott, and S. Shallcross, Nano Letters 25, 3791 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c05487

    2025 doi

  64. [72]

    Neufeld, ACS Photonics 0, null (0), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.4c02611

    O. Neufeld, ACS Photonics 0, null (0), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.4c02611

    doi

  65. [73]

    Yoshikawa, T

    N. Yoshikawa, T. Tamaya, and K. Tanaka, Science 356, 736 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    Tancogne-Dejean, O

    N. Tancogne-Dejean, O. D. M¨ ucke, F. X. K¨ artner, and A. Rubio, Nature communications 8, 745 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    T. T. Luu and H. J. W¨ orner, Nature communications9, 916 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    Horrom, R

    T. Horrom, R. Singh, J. P. Dowling, and E. E. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. A 86, 023803 (2012)

    2012

  69. [77]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, Nature reviews physics 2, 229 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Broers and L

    L. Broers and L. Mathey, Communications Physics4, 248 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Merboldt, M

    M. Merboldt, M. Sch¨ uler, D. Schmitt, J. P. Bange, W. Bennecke, K. Gadge, K. Pierz, H. W. Schu- macher, D. Momeni, D. Steil, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12791 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    Aeschlimann, S

    S. Aeschlimann, S. A. Sato, R. Krause, M. Ch´ avez- Cervantes, U. De Giovannini, H. H¨ ubener, S. Forti, C. Coletti, K. Hanff, K. Rossnagel, A. Ru- bio, and I. Gierz, Nano Letters 21, 5028 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c00801

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    Neufeld and O

    O. Neufeld and O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 103202 (2019)

    2019

  74. [82]

    Andrade, D

    X. Andrade, D. Strubbe, U. De Giovannini, A. H. Larsen, M. J. T. Oliveira, J. Alberdi-Rodriguez, A. Varas, I. Theophilou, N. Helbig, M. J. Verstraete, L. Stella, F. Nogueira, A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. Castro, M. A. L. Mar- ques, and A. Rubio, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, 31371 (2015)

    2015

  75. [83]

    Tancogne-Dejean, M

    N. Tancogne-Dejean, M. J. T. Oliveira, X. Andrade, H. Appel, C. H. Borca, G. Le Breton, F. Buchholz, A. Castro, S. Corni, A. A. Correa, U. De Giovannini, A. Delgado, F. G. Eich, J. Flick, G. Gil, A. Gomez, N. Helbig, H. H¨ ubener, R. Jest¨ adt, J. Jornet-Somoza, A. H. Larsen, ...

    2020

  76. [84]

    Hartwigsen, S

    C. Hartwigsen, S. Gœdecker, and J. Hutter, Physical Review B 58, 3641 (1998)

    1998

Pith tools

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