Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The dynamical structure factor directly encodes the full quantum geometric tensor for bosonic collective excitations, making Berry curvature and quantum metric measurable from scattering intensities.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 09:22 UTC pith:YPSPD3AI

load-bearing objection Promising idea with a clean central identity, but the protocol is only derived at Q≈G; the unquantified k-dependence of the structure-factor vector and the missing end-to-end inversion are the real soft spots. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.13963 v3 pith:YPSPD3AI submitted 2026-01-20 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Direct probing the quantum geometric tensor for bosonic collective excitations

Chi Wu , Takashi Oka , Shuichi Murakami , Tiantian Zhang This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantum geometric tensordynamical structure factorphononsmagnonspseudospin vectorBerry curvaturequantum metricinelastic scattering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper establishes that the coherent dynamical structure factor, measured by inelastic neutron or x-ray scattering, is a direct probe of the quantum geometric tensor of bosonic collective excitations. For two-band phonon and magnon branches, the scattering intensity at momentum transfer Q ≈ G + k reduces to a simple cosine function of the pseudospin vector d(k) of the excited state and a known vector V(G) fixed by the scattering geometry. Since the Berry curvature and quantum metric are algebraic functions of d(k), reconstructing d(k) from intensities at a few reciprocal-lattice vectors yields the complete quantum geometric tensor across the Brillouin zone. The authors demonstrate the approach on a quadrupole-Weyl phonon in BaPtGe and a nodal-line magnon in Gd, and argue it generalizes to multiband systems. A sympathetic reader would take this as a strong step toward routine geometric and topological characterization of bosonic systems.

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (7): the coherent dynamical structure factor at momentum transfer Q ≈ G + k is proportional to |⟨W|ψ_up⟩|² = (1/2)|V|{1 + cos⟨d(k), V(G)⟩}, where d(k) is the pseudospin vector of the two-band bosonic Bloch state and V(G) is a known vector determined by the atomic form factors, positions, and the reciprocal-lattice vector G. Because the quantum metric g_ab = (1/4)∂_a d·∂_b d and the Berry curvature Ω_ab = -(1/2) d·(∂_a d × ∂_b d) are expressed directly in terms of d(k), the measured scattering intensities at several G vectors suffice to reconstruct the pseudospin texture and hence the full quantum geometric tensor throughout the Brillouin zone. The paper asserts this

What carries the argument

The key object is the pseudospin vector d(k) = ⟨ψ_up|σ|ψ_up⟩ of the two-band Bloch state, which carries all geometric information about the local Hilbert-space geometry. The paper shows that the coherent dynamical structure factor projects this pseudospin onto a fixed, k-independent direction V(G)/|V(G)| via the identity |⟨W|ψ⟩|² = (1/2)|V|{1 + cos⟨d,V⟩}. Measuring intensities for multiple reciprocal-lattice vectors G gives different projections, from which the full d(k) texture is reconstructed; both the quantum metric and Berry curvature then follow algebraically.

Load-bearing premise

The entire reconstruction rests on the assumption that the vector W(G) entering the scattering intensity depends only on the reciprocal-lattice vector G and not on the momentum k inside the Brillouin zone; if this k-independence fails, the measured intensity no longer encodes d(k) in the simple cosine form.

What would settle it

Measure the coherent dynamical structure factor of a crystal with a well-known two-band phonon or magnon branch at several reciprocal-lattice vectors G, reconstruct d(k) by the paper's procedure, and compare the resulting quantum geometric tensor with first-principles calculations. If the reconstructed d(k) varies depending on which G vectors are used, or if it disagrees with the known pseudospin texture, the fixed-W reconstruction is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Bosonic quantum geometry becomes measurable with standard inelastic neutron and x-ray scattering, with no polarization analysis required.
  • Topological invariants of phonon and magnon bands, such as Chern numbers and Berry phases, can be extracted directly from the reconstructed pseudospin texture.
  • The full quantum metric of collective modes can be mapped across the Brillouin zone, enabling geometric effects in transport, mode dynamics, and perturbation responses to be studied in bosonic systems.
  • The formalism extends to multiband systems with well-defined pseudospin subspaces, broadening its applicability beyond the minimal two-band examples.
  • The same measured data can serve as a consistency check of two-band geometric relations, e.g., Ω = 2√det(g), tying scattering intensities to internal tensor constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's derivation assumes the structure-factor vector W(G) is independent of the small momentum k; quantifying the k-dependence from form factors, Debye-Waller factors, and e^{ik·r} phases could improve the reconstruction or reveal its validity range.
  • If the method works as claimed, the reconstructed pseudospin texture could be used to design experiments that test sum rules for quantum metric and Berry curvature, or to image geometric contributions to phonon and magnon transport.
  • The same projection identity might apply to other bosonic quasiparticles, such as excitons, polaritons, or hybridized modes, wherever coherent density fluctuations dominate the response.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the coherent dynamical structure factor S(Q,ω) of bosonic collective excitations (phonons and magnons) can be written for a two-band system as |⟨W|ψ_up⟩|² = (1/2)|V|[1+cos⟨d(k),V(G)⟩], where d(k) is the pseudospin vector of the upper-band Bloch wavefunction and V(G) is a structure-factor vector. Since the full quantum geometric tensor (QGT) of a two-band model is expressed in terms of d(k) by Eq. (2), the authors argue that measuring S(Q,ω) at several reciprocal-lattice vectors permits pointwise reconstruction of d(k) and hence of both the quantum metric and Berry curvature throughout the Brillouin zone. The protocol is illustrated with the twofold quadrupole-Weyl phonon in BaPtGe and the nodal-line magnon in Gd, and a generalization to multiband systems is claimed. The central relation is derived from standard one-phonon scattering theory, and the two-band QGT formulas are standard.

Significance. If quantitatively valid, this proposal would open a practical route to measuring the bosonic QGT with inelastic neutron or x-ray scattering, which is a significant step beyond current electronic-band QGT measurements. The paper correctly identifies that the DSF involves the phonon/magnon eigenvector through Q·ξ(k), and the pseudospin representation is a compact and appealing way to connect scattering intensities to quantum geometry. The main strength is the explicit two-band formula and the concrete candidate materials. However, the demonstration is largely self-consistent: both the DSF and the QGT are computed from the same k·p or first-principles wavefunctions, and the first-principles DSF is not inverted to test the reconstruction. The critical approximation that defines W(G) as k-independent is not quantified. The idea is plausible and worth pursuing, but the central claim is not yet established to the standard required for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Phonon DSF and QGT, Eq. (7)] The central mapping S(Q,ω)∝|⟨W|ψ_up⟩|² is derived under Q≈G with C=(0,0,0), but the exact one-phonon DSF in Eq. (4) contains Q·ξ_d(k) and e^{iQ·r_d}. For Q=G+k these become (G+k)·ξ_d(k) and e^{iG·r_d}e^{ik·r_d}; f_d(Q) and the Debye-Waller factor are also Q-dependent. Thus W(G) in Eq. (7) is actually W(G,k), and the measured intensity is not a fixed projection onto a k-independent V(G). For BaPtGe, r_0=(0.4,0.4,0.4) gives k·r_d of order unity near zone boundaries, so the correction is not negligible. The paper neither quantifies the error nor shows that the pointwise reconstruction of d(k) is stable under this k-dependence. Since this relation is the basis for the entire protocol, the central claim is not yet established.
  2. [Phonon QGT in BaPtGe / Fig. 3] The first-principles part is not connected to the measurement protocol. Fig. 3(a) presents the DSF and Fig. 3(b) the QMT computed independently from first-principles wavefunctions, but no inversion is performed: the authors do not show that d(k) reconstructed from the DSF in Fig. 3(a) via Eq. (7) reproduces g_xx in Fig. 3(b). The validation in Fig. 2 is entirely within the same k·p model used to generate both DSF and QGT, so the demonstration is self-consistent rather than an independent test. I request an end-to-end test on the full phonon eigenvectors, or at least an explicit error analysis of the Q≈G truncation compared with the exact Eq. (4).
  3. [Multiband generalization] The paper repeatedly states that the pseudospin DSF relation 'applies generally to multiband systems' and is 'readily extendable,' but no multiband formula is given. For N>2, the DSF involves sums over all branch eigenvector components, and the non-Abelian QGT cannot be obtained from a single scalar pseudospin projection. The supplementary materials are referenced but not available in the submitted text. Either provide the multiband derivation or restrict the claim to two-band/subspace models.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3) and Eq. (4)] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (3) uses r_j while Eq. (4) uses r_d; also the prefactor conventions are not defined precisely. In Eq. (7), W±(G) is written as depending on G only, but the definition incorporates f_d(Q) and the Debye-Waller factor, which depend on Q=G+k; this should be clarified.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption and text] There are typos: 'Pesudospin' in Fig. 2(e) and 'quadruple Weyl' in the text/abstract should be 'quadrupole Weyl'.
  3. [Eq. (16) and Fig. 4] The sign convention in S_up/dn ∝ 1±(-1)^{g_z} cos φ_q should be stated explicitly; as written, the assignment of + to upper band and − to lower band is not derived in the text.
  4. [Experimental implications] The reconstruction protocol assumes that the measured S(Q,ω) can be separated into individual branches and that multiple G vectors with well-polarized V(G) are experimentally accessible. No account is given of finite resolution, background, or the number of measured Brillouin zones needed. A brief discussion would strengthen the practical relevance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the DSF–pseudospin mapping is derived, and the examples are consistency checks, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing chain is self-contained and non-circular. Eq. (1) defines the QGT; Eq. (2) is the standard two-band expression in terms of the pseudospin d(k). The DSF is introduced as an independent observable via the exact one-phonon expression Eq. (4). Under the stated Q≈G (C=0) approximation, Eq. (7) is obtained by direct substitution of the two-band eigenvector into the polarization sum; it is an identity relating the measurable intensity to |<W|ψ>|², not an assumption that presupposes the QGT. The structure-factor vector W(G) is computed from the known atomic form factors, masses, Debye–Waller factors, positions, and the chosen irrep basis, not fitted to the quantity later called a prediction. Reconstructing d(k) from intensities at several W(G) is a tomography of the wavefunction; computing g and Ω from d via Eq. (2) is a separate mathematical step. The BaPtGe and Gd examples compute both sides from the same k·p or first-principles wavefunctions, so they validate internal consistency rather than provide an independent experimental test; this is not circular. The only self-citations (Refs. 56, 57, 63) identify/classify the example materials and are not load-bearing for the DSF–QGT mapping. The fixed-W, Q≈G approximation is unquantified and could affect the inversion in real finite-k scattering, but that is a robustness/correctness concern, not a reduction of the result to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

Everything central rests on standard scattering theory and two-band QGT formulas, plus two bespoke assumptions: the two-band subspace truncation with k-independent basis vectors and the Q≈G approximation. No invented entities are introduced, but the unquantified Q≈G approximation is the most fragile item.

free parameters (3)
  • A (BaPtGe TQW k·p coupling) = not stated
    Coupling constant in Eq (9) controlling the TQW dispersion; the QGT maps in Figs 2(f)-(g) are computed from this model, but the fitted value is not given.
  • B (BaPtGe TQW k·p coupling) = not stated
    Second coupling in Eq (9); sets the off-diagonal terms. The A/B ratio affects the metric distribution, but no fitted values are provided.
  • epsilon_0(q) and A (Gd magnon k·p model) = not stated
    Parameters in Eq (13) fitted to the DFT/LSWT magnon band; the simplified Eq (14) discards them, so they are not central to the QGT example.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Two-band QGT formulas (Eq 2): g_ab = (1/4)∂_a d·∂_b d, Ω_ab = ∓(1/2)d·(∂_a d × ∂_b d)
    Used to convert the reconstructed pseudospin into QGT; this is the textbook geometry of two-level systems.
  • domain assumption Coherent one-phonon/one-magnon DSF cross-section (Eqs 3-4)
    The entire protocol assumes the standard one-phonon coherent scattering formula; multi-phonon background, magnetic form-factor details for magnons, and higher-order terms are neglected.
  • domain assumption Two-band subspace spanned by k-independent basis vectors ξ_±^d (Eqs 5 and 10)
    Assumes the TQW phonon or nodal-line magnon doublet is fully described by two fixed atomic-displacement/spin basis vectors, so all k-dependence of the eigenvector is carried by the two-component ψ(k). This is a model truncation, not an exact property of the full phonon/magnon Hilbert space.
  • ad hoc to paper Q≈G approximation with k-independent W(G) (Eq 7 and surrounding text)
    Eq (7) is derived at Q≈G; for Q=G+k the factors e^{ik·r_d}, Debye-Waller factors, and x-ray form factors make V(G,k) k-dependent. The error introduced by this approximation is not quantified.
  • standard math Symmetry constraints on QMT components (Eq 12)
    Used to argue that certain metric components vanish on symmetry planes of BaPtGe; these follow from the little co-group but are not independently tested.
  • domain assumption Magnon structure-factor vector V(G)=2(cos(g_z π),0,0) for Gd
    Specific to the Gd magnon example; derived from the magnetic structure and spin Hamiltonian but not derived in the main text.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9671 in / 19068 out tokens · 199959 ms · 2026-08-03T09:22:15.301244+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The quantum geometric tensor (QGT), whose real and imaginary parts define the quantum metric and Berry curvature, encodes the intrinsic geometry of quantum states. While electronic QGT has recently become experimentally accessible and linked to diverse physical phenomena, its bosonic counterpart remains largely unexplored. Here we show that the dynamical structure factor encodes the momentum-space structure of bosonic wave functions and thereby provides direct access to the full bosonic QGT throughout the Brillouin zone. Applying this framework, we uncover clear geometric signatures in the twofold quadrupole-Weyl phonon of BaPtGe and the nodal-line magnon in Gd, and further generalize the formalism to multiband systems. Our results establish a general route to measuring (non-)Abelian quantum geometry in bosonic systems, a crucial step toward elucidating its impact on condensed matter phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.13963 by Chi Wu, Shuichi Murakami, Takashi Oka, Tiantian Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the direct measurement of the Berry curvature and quantum metric tensor via the dynamical structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Crystal structure and (b) Brillouin zone for BaPtGe. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Crystal structure and magnetic order of Gd. (b) Bril [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Geometric curvature driven by many-body collective fluctuations

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Collective fluctuations generate dynamical Berry curvature via non-commutative transverse quantum fluctuations and non-local-time interactions, distinguishable from bare band geometry in antisymmetric inelastic scatte...

  2. Geometric curvature driven by many-body collective fluctuations

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Many-body collective fluctuations generate a dynamical Berry curvature that is invisible to optics but isolable in antisymmetric RIXS channels of P-T-symmetric systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. V . Berry, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences392, 45 (1984)

    1984

  2. [2]

    M. V . Berry, Geometric phases in physics5, 7 (1989)

    1989

  3. [3]

    J. Yu, B. A. Bernevig, R. Queiroz, E. Rossi, P. Törmä, and B.-J. Yang, npj Quantum Materials10, 101 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Provost and G

    J. Provost and G. Vallee, Communications in Mathematical Physics76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  5. [5]

    Quantum geometric tensor (fubini-study metric) in simple quantum system: A pedagogical introduction,

    R. Cheng, “Quantum geometric tensor (fubini-study metric) in simple quantum system: A pedagogical introduction,” (2013), arXiv:1012.1337 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Physical Review Letters49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  7. [7]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Reviews of modern physics 82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

  8. [8]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 193202 (2008)

    2008

  9. [9]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Physical Review Letters115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    Gao, Y .-F

    A. Gao, Y .-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T. V . Trevisan, Y . On- ishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, S.-W. Chen,et al., Science381, 181 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    N. Wang, D. Kaplan, Z. Zhang, T. Holder, N. Cao, A. Wang, X. Zhou, F. Zhou, Z. Jiang, C. Zhang,et al., Nature621, 487 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Qiang, T

    X.-B. Qiang, T. Liu, Z.-X. Gao, H.-Z. Lu, and X. Xie, Ad- vanced Science (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Y . Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Physical Review Letters112, 166601 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    J. Han, T. Uchimura, Y . Araki, J.-Y . Yoon, Y . Takeuchi, Y . Ya- mane, S. Kanai, J. Ieda, H. Ohno, and S. Fukami, Nature Physics20, 1110 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    H. Liu, J. Zhao, Y .-X. Huang, W. Wu, X.-L. Sheng, C. Xiao, and S. A. Yang, Physical Review Letters127, 277202 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    F. Xie, Z. Song, B. Lian, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review Letters124, 167002 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    H. Tian, X. Gao, Y . Zhang, S. Che, T. Xu, P. Cheung, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, M. Randeria, F. Zhang,et al., Nature614, 440 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Liang, T

    L. Liang, T. I. Vanhala, S. Peotta, T. Siro, A. Harju, and P. Törmä, Physical Review B95, 024515 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    J. Yu, C. J. Ciccarino, R. Bianco, I. Errea, P. Narang, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature Physics20, 1262 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. Törmä, Nature communications6, 8944 (2015)

    2015

  21. [21]

    Julku, S

    A. Julku, S. Peotta, T. I. Vanhala, D.-H. Kim, and P. Törmä, Physical Review Letters117, 045303 (2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, V

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, V . Peri, F. Schindler, S. D. Huber, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review Letters128, 087002 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    J. S. Hofmann, E. Berg, and D. Chowdhury, Physical Review Letters130, 226001 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Quantum geometry in superfluidity and superconductivity,

    “Quantum geometry in superfluidity and superconductivity,” (NL, 2025) p. 373–404

    2025

  25. [25]

    Sun, R.-P

    Z.-T. Sun, R.-P. Yu, S. A. Chen, J.-X. Hu, and K. T. Law, Quan- tum Frontiers4(2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Quantum geometry in correlated electron phases: from flat band to dispersive band,

    T. Kitamura, A. Daido, and Y . Yanase, “Quantum geometry in correlated electron phases: from flat band to dispersive band,” (2025), arXiv:2512.21206 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    J.-W. Rhim, K. Kim, and B.-J. Yang, Nature584, 59 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Hwang, J.-W

    Y . Hwang, J.-W. Rhim, and B.-J. Yang, Nature communica- tions12, 6433 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    J. Jung, H. Lim, and B.-J. Yang, Physical Review B109, 6 035134 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Srivastava and A

    A. Srivastava and A. Imamo ˘glu, Physical Review Letters115, 166802 (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    Shift and polarization of excitons from quantum geometry,

    C. Paiva, T. Holder, and R. Ilan, “Shift and polarization of excitons from quantum geometry,” (2024), arXiv:2408.10300 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Flat band excitons and quantum met- ric,

    X. Ying and K. T. Law, “Flat band excitons and quantum met- ric,” (2024), arXiv:2407.00325 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Verma, D

    N. Verma, D. Guerci, and R. Queiroz, Physical Review Letters 132, 236001 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Neupert, C

    T. Neupert, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics87, 245103 (2013)

    2013

  35. [35]

    Piéchon, A

    F. Piéchon, A. Raoux, J.-N. Fuchs, and G. Montambaux, Phys- ical Review B94, 134423 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Y . Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Physical Review B91, 214405 (2015)

    2015

  37. [37]

    V . V . Albert, B. Bradlyn, M. Fraas, and L. Jiang, Physical Re- view X6, 041031 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    Kolodrubetz, D

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Physics Reports697, 1 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Ozawa, Physical Review B97, 041108 (2018)

    T. Ozawa, Physical Review B97, 041108 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    O. Bleu, G. Malpuech, Y . Gao, and D. Solnyshkov, Physical Review Letters121, 020401 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Unconventional magneto-optical effects in altermagnets,

    Y . Li, Y . Liu, and C.-C. Liu, “Unconventional magneto-optical effects in altermagnets,” (2025), arXiv:2512.03435 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Quantum geometric planar magnetotransport: a probe for magnetic geometry in altermagnets,

    Z. Ouyang, W.-J. Dai, Z.-T. Sun, J.-X. Hu, and K. T. Law, “Quantum geometric planar magnetotransport: a probe for magnetic geometry in altermagnets,” (2025), arXiv:2512.03814 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Paul, Physical Review B109, 085146 (2024)

    N. Paul, Physical Review B109, 085146 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    P. M. Tam, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, and J. Yu, Physical Review Letters133, 246603 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Zhou, Physical Review B110, 054310 (2024)

    L. Zhou, Physical Review B110, 054310 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    From quantum geometry to non-linear optics and gerbes: Recent advances in topological band theory,

    T. Bzdušek, “From quantum geometry to non-linear optics and gerbes: Recent advances in topological band theory,” (2025), arXiv:2511.20608 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Pellitteri, Z

    G. Pellitteri, Z. Dai, H. Hu, Y . Jiang, G. Menichetti, A. Tomadin, B. A. Bernevig, and M. Polini, Physical Review B112(2025), 10.1103/jg8x-l6h6

    work page doi:10.1103/jg8x-l6h6 2025

  48. [48]

    Li and C.-C

    Y . Li and C.-C. Liu, Physical Review Letters , (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Tan, D.-W

    X. Tan, D.-W. Zhang, Z. Yang, J. Chu, Y .-Q. Zhu, D. Li, X. Yang, S. Song, Z. Han, Z. Li,et al., Physical Review Let- ters122, 210401 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    M. Yu, P. Yang, M. Gong, Q. Cao, Q. Lu, H. Liu, S. Zhang, M. B. Plenio, F. Jelezko, T. Ozawa,et al., National Science Review7, 254 (2020)

    2020

  51. [51]

    Gianfrate, O

    A. Gianfrate, O. Bleu, L. Dominici, V . Ardizzone, M. De Giorgi, D. Ballarini, G. Lerario, K. West, L. Pfeif- fer, D. Solnyshkov,et al., Nature578, 381 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    G. Sala, M. T. Mercaldo, K. Domi, S. Gariglio, M. Cuoco, C. Ortix, and A. D. Caviglia, Science389, 822 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    M. Kang, S. Kim, Y . Qian, P. M. Neves, L. Ye, J. Jung, D. Pun- tel, F. Mazzola, S. Fang, C. Jozwiak,et al., Nature Physics21, 110 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    S. Kim, Y . Chung, Y . Qian, S. Park, C. Jozwiak, E. Rotenberg, A. Bostwick, K. S. Kim, and B.-J. Yang, Science388, 1050 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Sturm, Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A48, 233 (1993)

    K. Sturm, Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A48, 233 (1993)

    1993

  56. [56]

    Zhang, R

    T. Zhang, R. Takahashi, C. Fang, and S. Murakami, Physical Review B102, 125148 (2020)

    2020

  57. [57]

    H. Li, T. Zhang, A. Said, Y . Fu, G. Fabbris, D. G. Mazzone, J. Zhang, J. Lapano, H. N. Lee, H. Lei,et al., Physical Review B103, 184301 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, P. A. McClarty, G. E. Granroth, M. B. Stone, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Physical Review Letters 128, 097201 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    Kotani and S

    A. Kotani and S. Shin, Reviews of Modern Physics73, 203 (2001)

    2001

  60. [60]

    L. J. Ament, M. Van Veenendaal, T. P. Devereaux, J. P. Hill, and J. Van Den Brink, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 705 (2011)

    2011

  61. [61]

    Benedek and J

    G. Benedek and J. P. Toennies, Surface science299, 587 (1994)

    1994

  62. [62]

    B. S. Hudson, Vibrational spectroscopy42, 25 (2006)

    2006

  63. [63]

    Z. Jin, B. Hu, Y . Liu, Y . Li, T. Zhang, K. Iida, K. Kamazawa, A. I. Kolesnikov, M. B. Stone, X. Zhang,et al., Physical Review B106, 224304 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Ozawa and B

    T. Ozawa and B. Mera, Physical Review B104, 045103 (2021)

    2021

  65. [65]

    Liu, X.-B

    T. Liu, X.-B. Qiang, H.-Z. Lu, and X. Xie, National Science Review12, nwae334 (2025)

    2025

  66. [66]

    Roy, Physical Review B90, 165139 (2014)

    R. Roy, Physical Review B90, 165139 (2014)

    2014

  67. [67]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, P. A. McClarty, G. E. Granroth, M. B. Stone, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Physical Review B105, 104402 (2022)

    2022

  68. [68]

    Resolution of topology and ge- ometry from momentum-resolved spectroscopies,

    S. Huang and C. Fang, “Resolution of topology and ge- ometry from momentum-resolved spectroscopies,” (2026), arXiv:2601.10677 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    X. Wang, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B74, 195118 (2006)

    2006

  70. [70]

    G. L. Squires,Introduction to the theory of thermal neutron scattering(Courier Corporation, 1996)

    1996

  71. [71]

    Neu- tron scattering signatures of magnon weyl points,

    S. Shivam, R. Coldea, R. Moessner, and P. McClarty, “Neu- tron scattering signatures of magnon weyl points,” (2017), arXiv:1712.08535 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  72. [72]

    Bjerngaard, B

    M. Bjerngaard, B. Galilo, and A. M. Turner, Physical Review B102, 035122 (2020)

    2020

  73. [73]

    Advances in phonons: From band topology to phonon chirality,

    T. Zhang, Y . Liu, H. Miao, and S. Murakami, “Advances in phonons: From band topology to phonon chirality,” (2025), arXiv:2505.06179 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    B. Yuan, Y . Bai, Y . Dai, B. Huang, and C. Niu, Nano Letters 25, 14436 (2025)

    2025

  75. [75]

    Zhang, Z.-M

    Z. Zhang, Z.-M. Yu, G.-B. Liu, and Y . Yao, Computer Physics Communications270, 108153 (2022)

    2022

  76. [76]

    Yusufaly, D

    T. Yusufaly, D. Vanderbilt, and S. Coh, (2013)

    2013

  77. [77]

    Phonon dichro- isms revealing unusual electronic quantum geometry,

    D. Li, G. Yang, T. Qin, J. Zhou, and Y . Yao, “Phonon dichro- isms revealing unusual electronic quantum geometry,” (2025), arXiv:2511.16141 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2025