Nonlinear Magnetoelectric Edelstein Effect

Jian Wang; Jinxiong Jia; Longjun Xiang; Zhenhua Qiao

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Nonlinear Magnetoelectric Edelstein Effect

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The nonlinear magnetoelectric Edelstein effect produces intrinsic spin magnetization in time-reversal-invariant, non-centrosymmetric materials, including insulators, and its extrinsic part can detect Néel-vector reversal.

desk verdict A genuinely new response tensor and a useful spin-space geometry construction, but the flagship claim—intrinsic NMEE in T-invariant insulators—is not actually demonstrated by the paper's own models. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23415 v1 pith:OXP4EOLZ submitted 2025-07-31 cond-mat.mes-hall

Jinxiong Jia , Longjun Xiang , Zhenhua Qiao , Jian Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords Edelsteineffectnonlinearmagnetoelectricspinmagnetizationspin-spacequantumgeometrytensorZeemanmetricNéelvectordetectionantiferromagneticspintronicsmagneticpointgroupanalysis

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 introduces a new mechanism for producing spin magnetization, called the nonlinear magnetoelectric Edelstein effect (NMEE), in which an electric field and a magnetic field together drive a spin response that is second order in the applied fields. The key claim is that the intrinsic part of this response is a Fermi-sea effect, so it can appear in materials that preserve time-reversal symmetry but lack inversion symmetry, including insulators, where the ordinary linear and nonlinear Edelstein effects are forbidden. The extrinsic part is time-reversal-odd and symmetric under exchange of the indices $\alpha$ and $\gamma$, making it a more broadly allowed probe of Néel-vector reversal in antiferromagnets than the quantum-metric-dipole nonlinear Hall effect. The derivation is built on a spin-space analogue of the quantum geometry tensor, and explicit calculations on a two-band Dirac model and a honeycomb-lattice tight-binding model give spin magnetizations on the order of $10^{-7}\,\mu_B\,\mathrm{nm}^{-2}$ for experimentally accessible fields. A reader should care because the effect offers a DC-field route to spin magnetization without broken time-reversal symmetry and a symmetry-based way to read antiferromagnetic order.

What carries the argument

The central object is a local quantum geometry tensor in spin space, the S-QGT, defined as $\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}=\sigma^\alpha_{nm}\sigma^\beta_{mn}$, where $\sigma^\alpha_{nm}$ are matrix elements of the Pauli spin operator between Bloch bands. Its real and imaginary parts are the S-quantum metric $S^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}$ and the S-Berry curvature $F^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}$, in direct analogy with the momentum-space quantum metric and Berry curvature. The intrinsic NMEE is assembled from the Zeeman quantum metric $Q^{\beta\alpha}_{nm}=\mathrm{Re}(r^\beta_{nm}\sigma^\alpha_{mn})$ and the S-Berry curvature, while the extrinsic NMEE is the dipole of the S-quantum metric; the symmetry of these tensors under $\mathcal{T}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$ is what determines which magnetic point groups permit each response. This tensor carries the argument because it turns a spin-rotation distance between Bloch states into a computable response coefficient and makes the Fermi-sea versus Fermi-surface distinction explicit.

What would settle it

Measure the DC spin magnetization of a clean, time-reversal-invariant, non-centrosymmetric two-dimensional electron system (for example a Rashba-split surface state) under in-plane electric and magnetic fields. The theory predicts a scattering-independent intrinsic signal with no extrinsic term when the exchange field is zero, so a null result, or a signal proportional to scattering time, would contradict the central claim; equivalently, a first-principles calculation that includes orbital magnetic coupling and finds the intrinsic coefficient vanishing would falsify the Zeeman-only result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a static or low-frequency electric field combined with a magnetic field induces a spin magnetization $\delta s_\alpha = \mu_B E_\beta \bar{B}_\gamma\,(\Gamma^{\mathrm{in}}_{\alpha\gamma,\beta} + \tau\,\Gamma^{\mathrm{ext}}_{\alpha\gamma,\beta})$, with an intrinsic coefficient $\Gamma^{\mathrm{in}}$ that is even under $\mathcal{T}$ and odd under $\mathcal{P}$, and an extrinsic coefficient $\Gamma^{\mathrm{ext}}$ that is odd under both. Because $\Gamma^{\mathrm{in}}$ is a Fermi-sea quantity, it remains nonzero in $\mathcal{T}$-invariant non-centrosymmetric materials and in insulating antiferromagnets without $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$ symmetry, in contrast to the intrinsic linear and nonlinear Edelstein effects, which need broken $\mathcal{T}$. The symmetry analysis also covers systems with $\mathcal{T}\tau_{1/2}$ symmetry. The extrinsic term is $\mathcal{T}$-odd and symmetric under exchange of $\alpha$ and $\gamma$, so reversing the Néel vector changes its sign; it is allowed in more magnetic point groups than the intrinsic nonlinear Hall tensor $\sigma^{\alpha\beta\gamma}_{\mathrm{QMD}}$, including thirteen point groups where the latter is forbidden. The authors verify the mechanism with explicit band-structure calculations and obtain responses of order $10^{-7}\,\mu_B\,\mathrm{nm}^{-2}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the magnetic field couples only to the electron spin through the Zeeman term $H_B=\bar{\mathbf{B}}\cdot\hat{\sigma}$, with orbital coupling neglected (footnote [36]); if orbital effects contribute for the field geometry used, the predicted NMEE coefficients and symmetry constraints would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A non-centrosymmetric material that preserves $\mathcal{T}$, such as a Rashba-split metal or insulator, should show an intrinsic spin magnetization under DC electric and magnetic fields even though the ordinary intrinsic Edelstein and nonlinear Edelstein effects vanish.
Because the intrinsic term is a Fermi-sea quantity, insulating antiferromagnets without $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$ symmetry can host the effect, giving a DC, scattering-free route to spin magnetization that does not require terahertz driving.
The extrinsic term is $\mathcal{T}$-odd and symmetric under $\alpha\leftrightarrow\gamma$, so reversing the Néel vector reverses its sign; it is allowed in every magnetic point group that permits the quantum-metric-dipole nonlinear Hall effect and in 13 additional point groups, making it a broader antiferromagnetic-order probe.
In $\mathcal{T}\tau_{1/2}$-invariant antiferromagnets such as CuMnSb, the intrinsic NMEE shares the symmetry of the Berry-curvature-dipole nonlinear Hall effect but, unlike that Fermi-surface quantity, can remain finite in insulators.
With $\tau=10\,\mathrm{fs}$, $E=10^5\,\mathrm{V/m}$, and $B=0.1\,\mathrm{T}$, the extrinsic NMEE gives spin magnetization above $10^{-7}\,\mu_B\,\mathrm{nm}^{-2}$, while the intrinsic NMEE reaches the same order with $B=0.01\,\mathrm{T}$.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to search for the S-QGT in other second-order observables, such as charge currents, orbital magnetization, or magnetoelectric polarization, where the same $\mathcal{T}$-even and $\mathcal{P}$-odd symmetry pattern might yield related effects.
The in-plane field geometry is chosen to suppress orbital coupling; for out-of-plane fields or three-dimensional materials, orbital magnetoelectric terms could mix with the Zeeman-only NMEE, so testing the effect in geometries with weak orbital coupling would isolate the predicted contribution.
The magnetic point group table could serve as a screening tool for concrete materials, because it lists exactly which point groups allow $\Gamma^{\mathrm{in}}$ or $\Gamma^{\mathrm{ext}}$; the paper does not name specific compounds, but a high-throughput search based on that table would be a direct test.
In the honeycomb model the intrinsic NMEE is largest when the exchange field vanishes, so a clean experimental target may be a non-magnetic Rashba-coupled two-dimensional system in which the effect would appear without any magnetic order.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What is new here is real: the NMEE is a response bilinear in E and B with symmetry properties opposite to the electro-only Edelstein effects, and the S-QGT construction is a natural and useful extension of the authors' prior quantum-metric work. The Keldysh derivation is standard and the explicit formulas for Γin and Γext are concrete. The magnetic point group table, comparing NMEE with the BCD and QMD nonlinear Hall tensors, is genuinely useful, and the idea of using the T-odd extrinsic NMEE as a Néel vector probe is plausible. The paper is also honest: it flags the CT anti-symmetry issue in the honeycomb model itself, which is a good sign.

The soft spot is load-bearing. The central claim is that the intrinsic NMEE can appear in T-invariant noncentrosymmetric insulators as a Fermi-sea effect. Neither explicit model demonstrates this. The Dirac model has a mass term βσz that explicitly breaks T; it is a T-broken model. The honeycomb model at λ=0 is the only T-invariant case shown, but the paper itself states that the intrinsic in-gap response vanishes in that limit because of an additional CT anti-symmetry, and it is not clear that the λ=0 spectrum is gapped—with Rashba only, the Dirac points generally remain gapless. So what is actually computed is a symmetry-allowed possibility, not an established effect. The symmetry analysis in Eq. (3) and Table I only shows that point-group symmetries do not force Γin to vanish; it does not rule out additional anti-unitary symmetries like CT that can force zero in specific T-invariant insulators. A single concrete example of a gapped T-invariant model without CT symmetry where Eq. (1) gives nonzero in-gap Γin would close this gap. Without it, the paper's headline is premature.

The footnote neglecting orbital coupling is acceptable for in-plane fields in 2D but is a genuine restriction, and the three-band terms are deferred to the Supplemental Material, so I could not check them. The Néel vector detection claim is symmetry-based and not backed by an explicit PT-symmetric model calculation, so it should be read as a proposal rather than a demonstration.

This paper deserves a serious referee: the idea is new, the symmetry analysis is useful, and the derivation is plausible. But it needs at least one T-invariant gapped model without CT symmetry, or a substantially toned-down claim. I would not cite it yet. If you run a reading group on nonlinear response theory, the symmetry table and the S-QGT construction are worth discussing, but the central physics needs a better example.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a nonlinear magnetoelectric Edelstein effect (NMEE): a term quadratic in fields, linear in both electric and magnetic fields, in the spin-magnetization response. Using a Keldysh Green's function approach, the authors split the response into an intrinsic, scattering-time-independent part and an extrinsic, scattering-time-linear part, and express the intrinsic part in terms of a spin-space quantum geometry tensor (S-QGT). They argue that the intrinsic NMEE is even under time-reversal symmetry and odd under inversion, so it is symmetry-allowed in non-centrosymmetric T- or Tτ1/2-invariant systems, including insulators, in contrast to the linear and nonlinear Edelstein effects. They present a magnetic-point-group classification, propose the extrinsic NMEE as a probe of Néel-vector reversal in PT-symmetric antiferromagnets, and support the theory with calculations on a massive Dirac model and a honeycomb-lattice tight-binding model.

Significance. If established, the intrinsic NMEE would open a genuinely new route to DC-field-driven spin magnetization in T-invariant insulators, going beyond the usual Fermi-surface Edelstein mechanisms and beyond the symmetry restrictions on the quantum-metric-dipole and Berry-curvature-dipole nonlinear Hall effects. The introduction of an S-QGT is a conceptually appealing extension of quantum geometry, and the symmetry classification in Table I is a useful resource for material searches. The manuscript also explicitly connects the response to measurable magnetization scales and identifies the extrinsic NMEE as a broader symmetry-allowed Néel-vector probe than the intrinsic nonlinear Hall effect. However, the central physical claim—that the intrinsic NMEE is nonzero in T-invariant insulators—is not actually demonstrated by the two model calculations presented, so the main result remains a symmetry-allowed possibility rather than an explicit example.

major comments (3)

[Massive Dirac model and Tight binding model] The central claim that the intrinsic NMEE survives in T-invariant insulators is not demonstrated by any model calculation. In the massive Dirac model, Eq. (4) contains the mass term βσ_z, which the authors state breaks time-reversal symmetry. In the honeycomb model, the only time-reversal-invariant limit is λ=0 in Eq. (7); at λ=0 the system is not shown to be insulating, and the text accompanying Fig. 2(e) states that Γ^in vanishes when the Fermi level lies in the band gap because of the CT anti-symmetry. Thus no calculation shows a nonzero in-gap Γ^in under exact T symmetry. Table I and Eq. (3) only establish that point-group symmetry does not force Γ^in to vanish; they do not exclude additional anti-unitary anti-symmetries such as CT that can force zero in a specific T-invariant insulator. The authors should provide at least one concrete gapped T-invariant (or Tτ_{1/2}-invariant) model without CT symmetry for which Eq. (1) yields a nonzero Γ^in for the chemical potential in the gap.
[Nonlinear magnetoelectric Edelstein effect, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The entire response is computed with the magnetic field entering only through the Zeeman coupling H_B = B̄·σ, while the orbital minimal-coupling term is neglected in footnote [36]. Because Eqs. (1) and (2) and the symmetry classification in Table I depend on this restriction, the quantitative and even qualitative statements about the intrinsic NMEE are conditional on the in-plane-field geometry for which orbital effects are asserted to be negligible. The authors should state the conditions under which this neglect is controlled, especially for possible quasi-two-dimensional materials, or discuss the size of orbital corrections.
[Tight binding model, Fig. 2(e)] The statement that "three-band contributions in Γ^in are neglected, that can be found in the Supplemental Material" is in tension with Fig. 2(e), which plots two-band and three-band contributions separately and shows that the three-band part is not always negligible. The text should clarify whether Eq. (1) is the complete intrinsic response or only the two-band part, and how the three-band terms are included in the plotted total.

minor comments (4)

[Nonlinear magnetoelectric Edelstein effect] The Keldysh derivation leading to Eqs. (1) and (2) is only sketched in the main text, and the expressions for ρ^ext and ρ^in are introduced without a clear definition of the scattering time τ or the impurity model underlying the extrinsic contribution; providing the key steps or a clear pointer to the Supplemental Material would improve reproducibility.
[Symmetry analysis, Table I] The table lists magnetic point groups for Γ^ext and Γ^in, but the text occasionally swaps the order of Γ^ext and Γ^in in the caption and in the main text (e.g., "Magnetic point groups classified by the existence or absence of intrinsic NMEE (Γ^ext_{αγ,β}), extrinsic NMEE (Γ^in_{αγ,β})"). This should be corrected for clarity.
[Summary] The estimates of detectable spin magnetization quote values in units of μ_B/nm^2 for the 2D models, while the cited detection sensitivities are quoted in units of μ_B/nm^3; the conversion between 2D and 3D quantities should be stated explicitly.
[Tight binding model] The phrase "S-quantum metric dopole" near Fig. 2(d) appears to be a typo for "dipole."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NMEE tensors are derived from the Keldysh Dyson equation with explicit definitions and fixed model parameters; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

Equations (1)-(2) are obtained by iterating the Keldysh Dyson equation to second order in E and B with an explicit Zeeman coupling, so the response coefficients are derived rather than imposed. The quantum-geometric objects in the final expressions are defined in the manuscript itself: Qβα_nm = Re(rβ_nm σα_mn) and Σαβ_nm = σα_nm σβ_mn, with S and F given as its real and imaginary parts. The model calculations use fixed Hamiltonian parameters, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations ([11], [34], [35], [38]) are not load-bearing: [38] supplies only the name 'Zeeman quantum metric' for a quantity explicitly defined here, and the others are methodological or background references. The T-even/P-odd symmetry of Γin follows from the stated transformations of r and σ and from Neumann's principle, not from a self-citation chain. The skeptic's concern is an evidence gap, not circularity: the massive Dirac model (Eq. (4)) has a T-breaking mass, and the honeycomb model's T-invariant limit is either gapless or, when gapped, forced to zero by the CT anti-symmetry acknowledged near Eq. (7) ('it vanishes when the Fermi level lies within the band gap'). That gap in the demonstration of a genuinely T-invariant insulating example is a completeness/correctness issue, not an equivalence of outputs to inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Keldysh derivation and symmetry analysis, with model parameters chosen for illustration. The main assumptions are the Zeeman-only magnetic coupling, the treatment of disorder via a single relaxation time, and the neglect of three-band contributions to the intrinsic response.

free parameters (7)

Effective g-factor g = 10
Chosen for numerical estimates; value cited from literature [45].
Scattering time τ = 10 fs
Phenomenological relaxation time used to estimate extrinsic NMEE; typical for metals.
Dirac mass β = 0.1 eV
Band gap in massive Dirac model; sets the scale for intrinsic NMEE.
Fermi velocity v_F = 0.6 eV·Å
Material parameter for the Dirac model.
Hopping t = 0.85 eV
Nearest-neighbor hopping in honeycomb model.
Rashba coupling λ_R = 20 meV
Spin-orbit coupling strength ensuring nonzero S-QGT.
Exchange field λ = 30 meV
Exchange splitting in honeycomb model; λ=0 restores time-reversal symmetry.

assumptions (5)

standard math Keldysh Green's function formalism with Dyson equation expanded to second order in external fields.
Used to derive the lesser Green's function and the NMEE response tensors; standard quantum many-body method.
standard math Neumann's principle for symmetry constraints on response tensors.
Used to classify magnetic point groups allowing the NMEE; standard crystallographic principle.
domain assumption Magnetic field enters only through Zeeman coupling; orbital effects neglected.
Explicitly stated in footnote [36]; valid for in-plane fields in 2D but restricts the model.
domain assumption Disorder is treated via a single relaxation time τ and the extrinsic contribution is first-order in τ.
Standard weak-disorder approximation; ignores vertex corrections and energy dependence.
ad hoc to paper Three-band contributions to the intrinsic NMEE are negligible.
Authors state these are neglected and deferred to the Supplemental Material; the validity depends on their smallness.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Magnetoelectric Edelstein Effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXP4EOLZ

@misc{pith2026250723415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Magnetoelectric Edelstein Effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXP4EOLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23415}
}

abstract

The linear Edelstein effect is a cornerstone phenomenon in spintronics that describes the generation of spin magnetization in response to an applied electric field. Recent theoretical advances have reignited interest in its nonlinear counterpart, the nonlinear Edelstein effect, in which spin magnetization is induced by a second-order electric field. However, the intrinsic contribution to both effects is generally forbidden in systems preserving time-reversal symmetry ($\mathcal{T}$) or composite symmetries such as $\mathcal{T}\tau_{1/2}$, where $\tau_{1/2}$ denotes a half-lattice translation. In such systems, spin magnetization typically emerges either from extrinsic mechanisms but limited to metals due to their Fermi-surface property, or from dynamical electric fields with a terahertz driving frequency. Here, we propose a new mechanism for spin magnetization, arising from the interplay of magnetic and electric fields, termed the nonlinear magnetoelectric Edelstein effect. Remarkably, its intrinsic component, determined purely by the material's band structure, can appear even in $\mathcal{T}$-invariant materials, but lacking inversion symmetry ($\mathcal{P}$), including insulators. On the other hand, we illustrate that its extrinsic component can serve as a sensitive indicator of the N\'eel vector reversal in $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$-symmetric antiferromagnetic materials, offering a novel route for antiferromagnetic order detection. To validate our theory, we perform explicit calculations using a two-band Dirac model and a tight-binding model on a honeycomb lattice, finding that both effects yield sizable spin magnetization. Our findings establish the nonlinear magnetoelectric Edelstein effect as a versatile platform for both exploring nonlinear spin physics and enabling symmetry-based detection of antiferromagnetic order.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23415 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Energy band for this model. (b) The depen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[36]

Besides the spin degree of freedom, the magnetic field is also introduced in the Hamiltonian by the minimal coupling A· ˆv.However, byconsideringatwo-dimensional system pumped by an in-plane magnetic field, the orbital effects can be neglected

work page
[1]

Y. M. Edelstein, Spin polarization of conduction elec- trons induced by electric current in two-dimensional asymmetric electron systems, Solid State Commun.73, 233 (1990)

work page 1990
[2]

A. G. Aronov and Y. Lyanda-Geller, Nuclear electric res- onanceandorientationofcarrierspinsbyanelectricfield, JETP Lett. 50, 431 (1989)

work page 1989
[3]

Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Awschalom, Current-Induced Spin Polarization in Strained Semiconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 176601 (2004)

work page 2004
[4]

A. Y. Silov, P. Blajnov, J. Wolter, R. Hey, K. Ploog, and N. Averkiev, Current-induced spin polarization at a single heterojunction, Appl. Phys. Lett.85, 5929 (2004)

work page 2004
[5]

X. Feng, J. Cao, Z. Zhang, L. K. Ang, S. Lai, H. Jiang, C. Xiao, S. Y. A. Yang, Intrinsic Dynamic Genera- tion of Spin Polarization by Time-Varying Electric Field, Preprint at arXiv:2409.09669

work page Pith review arXiv
[6]

C. Xiao, W. Wu, H. Wang, Y.-X. Huang, X. Feng, H. Liu, G.-Y. Guo, Q. Niu, and S. Y. A. Yang, Time-Reversal- EvenNonlinearCurrentInducedSpinPolarization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 166302 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

H. W. Xu, J. Zhou, H. Wang, and J. Li, Light-induced static magnetization: Nonlinear Edelstein effect, Phys. Rev. B 103, 205417 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 46 references

[8]

C. Xiao, H. Liu, W. Wu, H. Wang, Q. Niu, and S. Y. A. Yang, Intrinsic Nonlinear Electric Spin Generation in 6 Centrosymmetric Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 086602 (2022)

2022
[9]

H. W. Xu and J. Li, Linear and nonlinear Edelstein ef- fects in chiral topological semimetals, Materials Today Quantum 5, 100022 (2025)

2025
[10]

Sarkar, S

S. Sarkar, S. Das, D. Mandal, A. Agarwal, Light-induced Nonlinear Resonant Spin Magnetization, Preprint at arXiv:2409.12142

arXiv
[11]

Xiang, H

L. Xiang, H. Jin, and J. Wang, Intrinsic spin Hall effect from spin quantum metric, Preprint at arXiv:2406.02257

arXiv
[12]

Baltz*, A

V. Baltz*, A. Manchon†, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015005 (2018)

2018
[13]

Y. Gao, S. Y. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Field induced posi- tional shift of Bloch electrons and its dynamical implica- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 166601 (2014)

2014
[14]

Sodemann and L

I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Quantum nonlinear Hall effect induced by Berry curvature dipole in time-reversal invari- ant materials, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 216806 (2015)

2015
[15]

Kaplan, T

D. Kaplan, T. Holder, and B.-H. Yan, Unification of non- linear anomalous Hall effect and nonreciprocal magne- toresistance in metals by the quantum geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 026301 (2024)

2024
[16]

C. Wang, Y. Gao, and D. Xiao, Intrinsic nonlinear Hall effect in antiferromagnetic tetragonal CuMnAs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 277201 (2021)

2021
[17]

H. Liu, J. Zhao, Y.-X. Huang, W. Wu, X.-L. Sheng, C. Xiao, and S. Y. A. Yang, Intrinsic second-order anoma- lous Hall effect and its application in compensated anti- ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 277202 (2021)

2021
[18]

Ma, S.-Y

Q. Ma, S.-Y. Xu, H. Shen, D. MacNeill, V. Fatemi, T.- R. Chang, A. M. M. Valdivia, S. Wu, Z. Du, C.-H. Hsu, S. Fang, Q. D. Gibson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. J. Cava, E. Kaxiras, H.-Z. Lu, H. Lin, L. Fu, N. Gedik, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Observation of the nonlinear Hall ef...

2019
[19]

Q. Ma, A. G. Grushin and K. S. Burch, Topology and geometry under the nonlinear electromagnetic spotlight, Nat. Mater. 20, 1601, (2021)

2021
[20]

Gao, Y.-F

A. Gao, Y.-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T. V. Trevisan, Y. Onishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, S.-W. Chen,et al., Quantum metric nonlinear Hall effect in a topolog- ical antiferromagnetic heterostructure, Science381, 181 (2023)

2023
[21]

Z. Z. Du, H. Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Nonlinear Hall effects, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 744 (2021)

2021
[22]

J. Yu, B. A. Bernevig, R. Queiroz, E. Rossi, P. T¨ rmä, and B.-J. Yang, Quantum Geometry in Quantum Materials, Preprint at arXiv:2501.00098

arXiv
[23]

Jiang, T

Y. Jiang, T. Holder, and B. H. Yan, Revealing quantum geometry in nonlinear quantum materials, Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 076502 (2025)

2025
[24]

D. Shao, S. Zhang, G. Gurung, W. Yang, and E.Y. Tsym- bal, Nonlinear Anomalous Hall Effect for Néel Vector De- tection, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 067203 (2020)

2020
[25]

J. Wang, H. Zeng, W. Duan, and H. Huang, Intrinsic Nonlinear Hall Detection of the Néel Vector for Two- Dimensional Antiferromagnetic Spintronics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 056401 (2023)

2023
[26]

H. Xu, H. Wang, and J. Li, Nonlinear nonreciprocal pho- tocurrents under phonon dressing, Phys. Rev. B 106, 035102 (2022)

2022
[27]

Stefanucci and R

G. Stefanucci and R. Van Leeuwen, Nonequilibrium many-body theory of quantum systems: a modern in- troduction (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

2013
[28]

Altland and B

A. Altland and B. D. Simons, Condensed matter field theory (Cambridge university press, 2010)

2010
[29]

Aversa and J

C. Aversa and J. E. Sipe, Nonlinear optical susceptibili- ties of semiconductors: Results with a length-gauge anal- ysis, Phys. Rev. B52, 14636 (1995)

1995
[30]

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

2000
[31]

Chang and Q

M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Berry phase, hyperorbits, and theHofstadterspectrum: Semiclassicaldynamicsinmag- netic Bloch bands, Phys. Rev. B53, 7010 (1996)

1996
[32]

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
[33]

Xiao, M.-C.Chang, and Q

D. Xiao, M.-C.Chang, and Q. Niu, Berry phase effects on electronic properties, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959 (2010)

2010
[34]

J. X. Jia, L. J. Xiang, Z. H. Qiao, and J. Wang, Equiv- alence of semiclassical and response theories for second- order nonlinear ac Hall effects, Phys. Rev. B110, 245406 (2024)

2024
[35]

Xiang, C

L. Xiang, C. Zhang, L. Wang, and J. Wang, Third-order intrinsic anomalous Hall effect with generalized semiclas- sical theory, Phys. Rev. B107, 075411 (2023)

2023
[37]

See Supplemental Material
[38]

Xiang, J

L. Xiang, J. Jia, F. Xu, Z. Qiao, and J. Wang, Intrin- sic Gyrotropic Magnetic Current from Zeeman Quantum Geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 116301 (2025)

2025
[39]

M. V. Berry, Quantal phase factors accompanying adia- batic changes, Proc. R. Soc. London A392, 45 (1984)

1984
[40]

J.-W. Rhim, K. Kim, B.-J. Yang, Quantum distance and anomalous Landau levels of flat bands, Nature584, 59 (2020)

2020
[41]

Provost, G

J. Provost, G. Vallee, Riemannian structure on manifolds ofquantumstates, Commun.Math.Phys. 76, 289(1980)

1980
[42]

R. E. Newnham, Properties of materials: anisotropy, symmetry, structure (Oxford university press, 2005)

2005
[43]

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 Crystallogr. Sect. A75, 438 (2019)

2019
[44]

Wang, and Q

Z.Qiao, S.A.Yang, W.Feng, W.-K.Tse, J.Ding, Y.Yao, J. Wang, and Q. Niu, Quantum anomalous Hall effect in graphene from Rashba and exchange effects, Phys. Rev. B 82, 161414(R) (2010)

2010
[45]

W. Miao, B. Guo, S. Stemmer, and X. Dai, Engineering the in-plane anomalous Hall effect in Cd3As2 thin films, Phys. Rev. B 109, 155408 (2024)

2024
[46]

N. P. Stern, S. Ghosh, G. Xiang, M. Zhu, N. Samarth, and D. D. Awschalom, Current-Induced Polarization and the Spin Hall Effect at Room Temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 126603 (2006)

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [36]

Besides the spin degree of freedom, the magnetic field is also introduced in the Hamiltonian by the minimal coupling A· ˆv.However, byconsideringatwo-dimensional system pumped by an in-plane magnetic field, the orbital effects can be neglected

work page

[2] [1]

Y. M. Edelstein, Spin polarization of conduction elec- trons induced by electric current in two-dimensional asymmetric electron systems, Solid State Commun.73, 233 (1990)

work page 1990

[3] [2]

A. G. Aronov and Y. Lyanda-Geller, Nuclear electric res- onanceandorientationofcarrierspinsbyanelectricfield, JETP Lett. 50, 431 (1989)

work page 1989

[4] [3]

Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Awschalom, Current-Induced Spin Polarization in Strained Semiconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 176601 (2004)

work page 2004

[5] [4]

A. Y. Silov, P. Blajnov, J. Wolter, R. Hey, K. Ploog, and N. Averkiev, Current-induced spin polarization at a single heterojunction, Appl. Phys. Lett.85, 5929 (2004)

work page 2004

[6] [5]

X. Feng, J. Cao, Z. Zhang, L. K. Ang, S. Lai, H. Jiang, C. Xiao, S. Y. A. Yang, Intrinsic Dynamic Genera- tion of Spin Polarization by Time-Varying Electric Field, Preprint at arXiv:2409.09669

work page Pith review arXiv

[7] [6]

C. Xiao, W. Wu, H. Wang, Y.-X. Huang, X. Feng, H. Liu, G.-Y. Guo, Q. Niu, and S. Y. A. Yang, Time-Reversal- EvenNonlinearCurrentInducedSpinPolarization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 166302 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [7]

H. W. Xu, J. Zhou, H. Wang, and J. Li, Light-induced static magnetization: Nonlinear Edelstein effect, Phys. Rev. B 103, 205417 (2021)

work page 2021