Orbital gyrotropic magneto-electric effect and its strain engineering in monolayerNbX2

Sayantika Bhowal∗ and S. SatpathyDepartment of Physics & Astronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

Electrical control of the orbital degrees of freedom is an important area of research in the emergingfield of “orbitronics.” Orbital gyrotropic magneto-electric effect (OGME) is the generation of anorbital magnetization in a nonmagnetic metal by an applied electric field. Here, we show that straininduces a large GME in the monolayer NbX2 (X = S, Se) normal to the plane, primarily drivenby the orbital moments of the Bloch bands as opposed to the conventional spin magnetization,without any need for spin-orbit coupling. The key physics is captured within an effective two-bandvalley-orbital model and it is shown to be driven by three key ingredients: the intrinsic valleyorbital moment, broken C3z symmetry, and strain-induced Fermi surface changes. The effect can befurthermore switched by changing the strain condition, with potential for future device applications.

Electric field induced magnetization, known as themagneto-electric effect [1], has been an active area of re-search for some time. Conventional magneto-electric ef-fect involves magnetic insulators and primarily spin mag-netization [2, 3]; however it was recognized that nonmag-netic metallic systems with certain symmetries could alsoshow the same effect [4–7]. Recently, it was pointed outthat “gyrotropic” (optically active materials with bro-ken inversion I symmetry) metals having time-reversalT symmetry show a magneto-electric effect, where inaddition to spin, orbital magnetization could also con-tribute [8–11]. The gyrotropic magneto-electric effect(GME) [12] is driven by the intrinsic magnetic moment,spin as well as orbital, of the Bloch electrons at theFermi surface. The interest in the GME was revived withthe recent advent of the the topological Weyl semimet-als, which show a substantial contribution from the or-bital magnetization in addition to the spin magnetization[8, 10].

In this paper, we show that by applying strain, a largeGME can be induced in the well-known 2D transitionmetal dichalcogenides (TMDCs) NbX2 (X = S, Se), orig-inating primarily from orbital magnetization with negli-gible contribution from spin. The TMDCs are excellentfor this purpose due to the fact that the complex wavefunctions lead to a robust intrinsic orbital moment at thevalley points [5, 14], and, while they are not gyrotropic(although I symmetry is broken), they can be engineeredto be so with the application of strain, which breaks theC3z symmetry, leading to the orbital GME (OGME). Notonly is the OGME strong in NbX2, but also the directionof the generated orbital magnetization can be reversed bychanging the strain condition, which may have importantimplication for future “orbitronics” device applications.Furthermore, the prediction of exotic Ising superconduc-tivity [15] in metallic TMDCs offers a new paradigm forsuperconducting orbitronics.

Monolayer TMDCs have been the subject of intenseresearch due to their valley-spin coupling [16, 17]. Sev-

∗ bhowals@missouri.edu

abc

NbX

strain

ENbX 2

OGME

Strain

OrbitalMom.

FermiSurf.

(a) (c)

(d)

x

y

z

(b)

3z2-r2

x2-y2 + i xy

K

EF

FIG. 1. Basic physics of the OGME and its strain manip-ulation. (a) The electric-field induced orbital magnetizationMz, which can be tuned and its direction reversed by chang-ing the strain. (b) The three key ingredients for the OGMEin the TMDCs, viz., uniaxial strain, metallicity, and the ex-istence of an intrinsic orbital moment in the Brillouin zone.(c) Schematic band structure near a valley point, which con-tributes the major part to the effect. EF is the Fermi energy.(d) The 2D crystal structure of NbX2, with the double arrowindicating the uniaxial strain along ŷ considered in the paper.

eral attempts have been made earlier to generate a spinmagnetization in monolayer and bilayer TMDCs by cre-ating valley polarization, with an emphasis on spin-orbitcoupling (SOC) [18, 19]. However, the orbital degreesof freedom in TMDCs are often overlooked. Recently,we have pointed out the crucial role of the valley-orbitallocking in generating a large orbital Hall current [3, 14].The valley-orbital locking, where the two different valleysK and K ′ have opposite orbital moments, is more funda-mental than the valley-spin coupling, in the sense that noSOC is necessary for the former. The presence of this in-trinsic valley orbital moment, although not sufficient forthe OGME, provides a fertile ground to observe the ef-fect in TMDCs. The additional ingredient of a gyrotropicsymmetry is provided by an applied uniaxial strain, andwe find a large OGME, without any involvement of theSOC. The GME due to the spin magnetization is much

arX

iv:2

011.

0750

8v1

[co

nd-m

at.m

es-h

all]

15

Nov

202

0

mailto:bhowals@missouri.edu

2

smaller in comparison. Since it is a Fermi surface effect,metallic TMDCs, such as NbX2 constitute an excellentplatform for the experimental observation of this effect.

The basic physics is illustrated in Fig. 5. Metal-lic NbX2 crystallizes in a structure with the D3h pointgroup, which is non-gyrotropic, so that the GME is ab-sent. Explicit breaking of the C3z symmetry makes itgyrotropic with the point group symmetry C2v, result-ing in a non-zero GME response. This is done in thepresent work by applying a uniaxial strain along the arm-chair direction (ŷ). Using valley-orbital model as well asexplicit calculations based on density functional theory(DFT), we show that the strained monolayer TMDCs ex-hibit a large OGME. For an applied electric field alongx̂-direction, an out-of-plane orbital magnetization Mzdevelops, the direction of which can be, furthermore,switched by changing the strain condition between com-pressive and tensile.

Valley-orbital model– We consider a minimal two bandtight-binding (TB) valley-orbital model, which illustratesthe key physics of the OGME in the strained TMDCs.DFT studies presented later confirm that the hole pock-ets at the valley points make the predominant contri-bution, so that it suffices to focus on the valley pointsto illustrate the effect. By Löwdin downfolding [1] ofthe chalcogen orbitals in the TB Hamiltonian and keep-ing the three important d orbitals for the description ofthe valence and conduction bands, we get the effectiveHamiltonian in the presence of strain (see SupplementalMaterials [22] for details).

The Hamiltonian is

H(~q) = H0 + SH1 = ~d · ~σ + S(d0σ0 + ~d1 · ~σ), (1)

where only terms linear in strain S and in momentum~q = ~k− ~K or ~k− ~K ′ have been kept. Here, σ0 and ~σ are,respectively, the identity matrix and the Pauli matricesfor the pseudo-spin basis |v〉 = |x2 − y2〉 + iτ |xy〉 and|c〉 = |3z2 − r2〉, and the strain S, along the armchairdirection, is by convention positive (negative) for tensile(compressive) strain.

Note that in Eq. (12), the spin-orbit coupling isomitted, because as shown from the DFT results, dis-cussed later in Fig. 4, the spin contribution to the GMEis negligible. Indeed, as discussed in the Supplemen-tary Materials [22], the SOC term has the Ising formHSOC = τλ2 (σz + 1)⊗ sz in the two-orbital subspace, |v〉and |c〉, and with this form, the spin moments would con-tribute exactly zero to the GME. In the DFT results, thespin contribution is non-zero due to higher order termsin the Hamiltonian.

The parameters of the Hamiltonian Eq. (12) are:~d = (τtqxa,−tqya,−∆/2), d0 = τqxaβ+/2, and ~d1 =(τκqxa + γ, κqya, τqxaβ−/2), where a is the lattice con-stant and β± = β1 ± β2. The valley index τ = ±1 forthe valley points K and K ′ respectively. There are twoparameters in the Hamiltonian for the unstrained case,viz., the hopping t and the energy gap ∆, and four addi-tional parameters that describe the effect of strain, viz.,

β1, β2, γ, and κ, which are listed in Table I for NbX2.

TABLE I. Hamiltonian parameters (in eV) for NbX2, X = S,Se, extracted from DFT calculations.

Material Unstrained case Strain parameters

t ∆ β1 β2 γ κ

NbS2 -0.9 1.3 3.1 0.4 -2.0 -0.7

NbSe2 -0.8 1.3 2.6 0.4 -1.7 -0.7

The valley-orbital model (12) was derived earlier us-ing a different approach [25]. Our TB derivation hasthe advantage that it relates each of the Hamiltonian pa-rameters to some TB hopping integrals, which provideuseful insight into the OGME. For example, it is easyto see that (Supplementary Materials [22]) the strain in-

duced parameters d0 and ~d1 vanish in presence of theC3z symmetry. Note that in absence of strain, S = 0,the Hamiltonian (12) boils down to the well known form

H(~q) = ~d · ~σ, representing the massive Dirac particle.The Hamiltonian (12) allows for an analytical calcu-

lation of the orbital magnetic moment and the OGME.Diagonalization yields the energy eigenvalues

ε±(~q) =1

2[τSβ+qxa±{(∆− τSβ−qxa)2 + 4d2}1/2], (2)

where ± correspond to conduction and valence bands re-spectively, d2 = (d2x + d

2y), dx = τtxqxa + γS, dy =

−tyqya, and tx,y = (t± κS). It directly follows from Eq.(2) that the constant energy (ε) contours of the valenceband are elliptical in shape, viz.,

(qx + τqs)2

γ2x+q2yγ2y

= 1, (3)

with the center of the ellipse shifted by the amount τqsfrom the valley points along x̂ (perpendicular to thestrain direction ŷ), where qs = λ(ε)S + O(S2), withλ(ε) = (4t2a)−1 × (2εβ+ −∆β− + 4tγ). The shift, whichis opposite for the two valleys and also for the two strainconditions (tensile vs. compressive), is important for thenet OGME and plays a key role in the strain switching.The ratio of the two semi-axes is γy/γx = 1 + 2κt

−1S, sothat the ellipse is elongated along x̂ or ŷ depending onthe sign of S. The elliptical shapes are confirmed fromthe DFT results, presented later in Fig. 3.

The magnetic moment ~M(~k) for the valence band,needed for the OGME response function, are computed

from the band energies ε(~k) and the wave functions u(~k)using the expression [8, 9]

~M(~k) =e

2~Im 〈~∇ku(~k)| × [H(~k)− ε(~k)] |~∇ku(~k)〉

+e

~Im 〈~∇ku(~k)| × [ε(~k)− EF ] |~∇ku(~k)〉

− 〈u(~k)| ~ms |u(~k)〉 , (4)

where the first two terms are the orbital moment contri-butions, computed by evaluating the expectation value

3

qx

q y 048

eEτr /ħ

K

E=0

E|qs|E

EeEτr /ħ

EK'|qs|E=0 -4

-8qx0

FIG. 2. Illustration of the orbital moments (color gradation)near the valley points K and K′ with compressive strain, ob-tained from Eq. (5), and the elliptic Fermi surface (solidellipse) with its center shifted by τqs, Eq. (3), from the val-ley points. The electric field displaces the Fermi surface byeEτr/~ (dashed ellipse), leading to a net orbital magnetiza-tion and the OGME. The Fermi surface for the unstrainedcase is circular (not shown), as may be inferred from Eq. (3).

of the orbital magnetization operator (−e/2)~r × ~v, [26]where −e < 0 is the electronic charge. The first termin Eq. (4) is due to the self-rotation, and the secondis due to the center-of-mass motion of the wave packet[26], while the third term is the spin moment, with~ms = gsµB~s being the spin moment operator. How-ever, as argued earlier, we omit the spin contribution asit hardly contributes to the GME. Furthermore, since theOGME response function is a Fermi surface property, thesecond term in Eq. (4) does not contribute also, so thatwe proceed to compute the first term in our model.

The only non-zero component of the orbital moment,Mz(~q), may be computed analytically from Eq. (4), us-ing the eigenvalues Eq. (2) and the corresponding wavefunctions. After a tedious but straightforward calcula-tion, we find the result for the valence states near valleypoints

Mz(~q) = −τtya

2(tx∆ + β−γS2)(∆− τSβ−qxa)2 + 4(d2x + d2y)

= M0z (~q) +A(~q)S +O(S2) + ..., (5)

where M0z (~q) = −τt2a2∆(∆2 + 4t2q2a2)−1 is the mo-ment without the strain, and the linear strain coefficientA(~q) = f(q2)× [ηqx + τη′(q2x − q2y)], where η = 2a(4γt−∆β−), η

′ = 8tκa2, and f(q2) = t2a2∆(∆2 + 4t2q2a2)−2.Note that Mz has opposite signs at the two valleys(τ = ±1), as seen from Fig. 6, which comes from thefactor τ in Eq. (5). As a result of this, the total or-bital magnetization is zero both in presence or absence ofstrain. When both an electric field and strain are present,strain-induced shift of the elliptical hole pockets results inan asymmetric distribution of Mz at the two valleys witha net orbital magnetization, proportional to E, leadingto a linear response that we now proceed to calculate.

The magnitude of the OGME response function Kij ,defined as the orbital magnetization induced by unit elec-tric field, Mj = KijEi, where subscripts denote the

cartesian directions, may be obtained from the changein the net orbital magnetization with the electric field

~M = 1(2π)2

∫BZ

d2k ~M(~k)× [f(ε~k+a0Ek̂i)− f(ε~k)], (6)

where f is the Fermi function, and the relaxation-timeapproximation has been used for the non-equilibriumelectron distribution, with the Fermi surface shifted bythe amount a0 = −eτrE/~ in the direction of the electricfield. Here, τr is the relaxation time, and the integralis over the Brillouin zone (BZ). A Taylor series expan-sion of (6) yields a convenient form for the OGME linearresponse Kij , which will be employed in the DFT calcu-

lations. The scaled response K̃ij ≡ (~/eτr)Kij reads

K̃ij =1

(2π)2

∫BZ

d2k vi(~k) Mj(~k)(− ∂f0

∂ε

)ε(~k)

, (7)

where ~v(~k) = ~∇kε(~k) is the electron velocity.The response function K̃ij can be calculated by com-

puting the change in orbital magnetization due to theshifted Fermi surfaces in Fig. 6 using Eq. (6), or fromEq. (7). We take T = 0. Since the effect is absent for acompletely filled band, OGME for the electrons is equaland opposite to that of the holes. Note that, since theelliptical hole pockets are shifted along x̂ due to strain,electric field along ŷ does not change the net orbital mo-ment due to the cancellation from the two valleys, so thatK̃yz = 0 and K̃xz is the only remaining non-zero compo-nent. To compute this using Eq. (6), it is convenient tofirst write the orbital moment (5) in terms of momentum~q measured with respect to the ellipse center and thenintegrate over the four crescents in Fig. 6, produced bythe displacement of the Fermi surface by the electric field.The calculation is straightforward and the result is

K̃xz = π−1Sq2F f(q2F )[8t2a2λ(EF )− η] +O(S2), (8)

where EF is the Fermi energy and qF is the Fermi mo-mentum. The spin degeneracy of the bands and the con-tribution from both valleys are already included in thisexpression.

The model response function Eq. (8) contains the cen-tral points of our work, viz., first, that the OGME re-sponse is non-zero only in the presence of strain, andsecond, that the response switches its sign between thetensile and compressive strains, so that the magnetiza-tion can be reversed by changing the strain condition.For an insulating system (qF = 0), we recover the ex-

pected result that K̃xz = 0. Furthermore, the OGMEresponse increases with qF , i. e., with increasing numberof holes, in a wide range (qF . (2ta)−1∆). This providesan additional means of tuning by controlling the holeconcentration near the valley points, which may also berelevant for the insulating TMDCs with hole doping.

Density-functional results– The basic points of the re-sults of the model are validated from the DFT calcu-lations, which we present below. Orbital moments andthe response function K̃xz were computed using Eq. (7)

4

k y (Å

-1) 1.2

1.1

1.0

kx (Å-1)0.6 0.70.5

0.9

1.0

1.1

K

Tensile

K

0.6 0.70.5kx (Å-1)

Compressive

3z2-r23z2-r2

x2-y2-i xyx2-y2+i xyEF

K'

KK'G

KK'

G

1050-5-10

420-2-4

Compressive

Tensile

FIG. 3. DFT results for NbX2. Top left, Band structurefor the unstrained NbSe2, with circular energy contours (notshown) around the K and K′ valence band maxima. Thesmall spin-orbit splitting of the valence bands near the valleypoints is also visible. Bottom left, Elliptical energy contoursfor the strained case, with the ellipse centers shifted by strain.Right, Orbital moment for the valence bands in strained NbS2,computed from DFT using Eq. (4) and summing over alloccupied bands. The dashed contours indicate the hole Fermisurfaces (spin-orbit split). In Eq. (4), EF was taken as thevalence band maximum, and S = ±5% was used.

for monolayer NbX2, both in absence and presence ofstrain, using the first-principles pseudopotential method[7] and the Wannier functions as implemented in theWANNIER90 code [9, 29]. Technical details are givenin the Supplemental Materials [22].

Fig. 3 shows the metallic Nb-d bands in NbX2, withthe half filled valence band, the complex orbital char-acters, and the elliptical energy contours, with centersshifted from the valley points in the presence of thestrain. The figure also shows that the valley hole pock-ets, at K and K ′, have the predominant contribution tothe orbital moments, with very little contribution fromthe Γ pocket. This validates the valley orbital model Eq.(12), which was developed for the K, K ′ points only.

The metallic TMDCs considered here are non-magnetic, both with and without strain, and this is con-firmed by the DFT calculations as well. This being thecase, even though the orbital moments are present at in-dividual momentum points in the BZ, they add up tozero, simply due to the time-reversal symmetry. In theunstrained case, an applied electric field also fails to de-velop a magnetic moment, so that the OGME is zero.Physically, the vanishing of K̃ij can be understood byconsidering three momentum points at a time on theFermi surface around a particular valley, which are re-lated to each other by C3z symmetry of the structure.For these three k points, Mz is the same, but the Fermi

surface velocities add up to zero,∑3α=1 ~v(

~kα) = 0, so thattheir net contribution to the response expression Eq. (7)

cancels out leading to K̃ij = 0.The uniaxial strain results in a structural transition

from D3h to the gyrotropic point group C2v, the C3z

FIG. 4. (a) The OGME response function Kxz for NbSe2as a function of the Fermi energy. EF = 0 for the undopedNbSe2. (b) and (c) Orbital and spin contributions to theGME, clearly showing the dominance of the former by twoorders of magnitude. The solid circles and the open squarescorrespond to NbS2 and NbSe2 respectively.

symmetry is broken, and the system acquires a non-zeroOGME, K̃xz 6= 0 as a result. However, K̃yz continuesto be zero due to the C2y symmetry, still present inthe strained structure, under which the velocities andthe moments transform as (vx, vy) → (−vx, vy) andMz → −Mz, leading to the cancellation of the contribu-tions from the different valleys, as may be inferred fromEq. (7)

The response function Kxz, computed from DFT as afunction of EF , is shown in Fig. 4, where we have takena typical relaxation time τr ≈ 10 ps [30]. The DFT re-sults make several points. One, the OGME is non-zeroonly when the strain is present, and it is opposite in signfor compressive vs. tensile strain as predicted from thevalley-orbital model result, Eq. (8). Two, the GME aris-ing out of the spin moments is two orders of magnitudesmaller than the same arising out of the orbital moments,providing justification to the neglect of the spin momentin the valley-orbital model. Third, the magnitude of Kxzincreases with the number of holes (larger EF measuredfrom the valence band top) as predicted from Eq. (8).Note that for a completely filled band, Kxz = 0, which isnot shown in Fig. 4.

The magnitudes of Kxz, computed from the DFT, areof the same order as the model results. Using Eq. (8)with parameters in Table I and qF corresponding to thehole concentration of nh ≈ 0.25 in each valley, for NbSe2we get Kxz = ±125 µBV−1Å−1 for compressive and ten-sile strains, respectively, while the DFT results are asym-metric for the two strains (407 vs. -59 ) (as seen fromFig. 4 for EF = 0). These differences may be attributedto the anisotropic warping [31] of the DFT bands as onegoes away from the valley points (see energy contours ofFig. 3, right) as well as to the change in the number ofvalley holes with strain due to the relative shift betweenthe Γ and the valley point energies (see SupplementaryMaterials [22]). These effects were not included in themodel for simplicity. The valley-orbital model, neverthe-less, captures the essential physics of the OGME.

5

The orbital magnetization for NbSe2, computed fromthe DFT response function, for the case of S = 5% andE = 104 V/m, isMz ≈ 0.04 µB/nm2. We note that thisis at least one order of magnitude larger than the reportedspin magnetization in the strong Rashba systems [32] orthe Weyl semimtals [33], and it is also twice as largeas the recently reported magnetization in twisted bilayergraphene [34]. Not only is the orbital magnetization largein NbX2, but it is also switchable by strain, as we haveshown.

To summarize, we have shown that a switchable largeOGME can be induced by strain in the metallic TMDCs.A simple valley-orbital model was developed to capturethe essential physics of the OGME. The broken C3z sym-

metry due to the strain leads to the shifting of the holepockets in the momentum space, which both describesthe generation of the effect as well as its strain switching.The orbital magnetization may be probed experimentallyfrom magneto-optical Kerr measurements [35] by grow-ing the material using flexible substrates [36], or, alter-natively, using piezoelectric substrates which may also beoptimal for practical devices. Our work should stimulatesearch for materials with large OGME for fundamentalscience as well as for future “orbitronics” applications.Acknowledgment– We thank the U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Ma-terials Sciences and Engineering for financial support un-der Grant No. DEFG02-00ER45818.

[1] For a review, see: M. Fiebig, Revival of the magnetoelec-tric effect, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 38, R123 (2005).

[2] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshits, Electrodynamics of Con-tinuous Media, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1960).

[3] K. Siratori, K. Kohn, and E. Kita, Magnetoelectric effectin magnetic materials, Acta Phys. Pol A 81, 4-5 (1992).

[4] L. S. Levitov, Y. V. Nazarov, and G. M. Eliashberg, Mag-netoelectric effects in conductors with mirror isomer sym-metry, Sov. Phys. JETP 61, 133 (1985).

[5] V. M. Edelstein, Spin polarization of conduction electronsinduced by electric current in two-dimensional asymmetricelectron systems, Solid State Commun. 73, 233 (1990).

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

[7] C. L. Yang, H. T. He, L. Ding, L. J. Cui, Y. P. Zeng,J. N.Wang, and W. K. Ge, Spectral Dependence of SpinPhotocurrent and Current-Induced Spin Polarization inan InGaAs/InAlAs Two-Dimensional Electron Gas, Phys.Rev. Lett. 96, 186605 (2006).

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

[9] T. Yoda, T. Yokoyama, and S. Murakami, Current-induced orbital and spin magnetizations in crystals withhelical structure, Sci. Rep. 5, 12024 (2015).

[10] S. S. Tsirkin, P. A. Puente, and I. Souza, Gyrotropiceffects in trigonal tellurium studied from first principles,Phys. Rev. B 97, 035158 (2018).

[11] C. Sahin, J. Rou, J. Ma, and D. A. Pesin, Pancharatnam-Berry phase and kinetic magnetoelectric effect in trigonaltellurium, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205206 (2018).

[12] In Ref. [8], the effect was referred to as the inverse gy-rotropic magnetic effect, while in the subsequent works[10, 11], it was called as kinetic magneto-electric effectas introduced by Levitov et al. in 1985 [4]. In the presentwork, we use the term “gyrotropic magneto-electric effect”(GME) to emphasize the importance of the gyrotropicsymmetry, which provides the sufficient condition for theoccurrence of the effect. We use OGME to refer to theeffect due to the orbital magnetization only, while GMErefers to the effect that includes both orbital as well asspin magnetization.

[13] G. -B. Liu, W. -Y. Shan, Y. Yao, W. Yao, and D. Xiao,Three-band tight-binding model for monolayers of group-VIB transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B 88,085433 (2013).

[14] S. Bhowal and S. Satpathy, Intrinsic orbital momentand prediction of a large orbital Hall effect in two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev.B 101, 121112(R) (2020).

[15] R. F. Frindt, Superconductivity in ultrathin NbSe2 lay-ers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 299-301 (1972); X. Xi, Z. Wang,W. Zhao, J.-H. Park, K. T. Law, H. Berger, L. Forró, J.Shan, and K. F. Mak, Ising pairing in superconductingNbSe2 atomic layers, Nat. Phys. 12, 139-143(2016).

[16] D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Cou-pled Spin and Valley Physics in Monolayers of MoS2 andOther Group-VI Dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108,196802 (2012).

[17] Y. Ominato, J. Fujimoto, and M. Matsuo, Valley-Dependent Spin Transport in Monolayer Transition-MetalDichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124,166803 (2020).

[18] L. Xie and X. Cui, Manipulating spin-polarized pho-tocurrents in 2D transition metal dichalcogenides, Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, (14) 3746-3750 (2016).

[19] Z. Gong, G.-B. Liu, H. Yu, D. Xiao, X. Cui, X. Xu, andW. Yao, Magnetoelectric effects and valley-controlled spinquantum gates in transition metal dichalcogenide bilayers,Nat. Comm. 4, 2053 (2013).

[20] S. Bhowal and S. Satpathy, Intrinsic orbital and spinHall effects in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides,Phys. Rev. B 102, 035409 (2020).

[21] P.-O. Löwdin, A Note on the Quantum-Mechanical Per-turbation Theory, J. Chem. Phys. 19, 1396 (1951); O.K. Andersen and T. Saha-Dasgupta, Muffin-tin orbitals ofarbitrary order, Phys. Rev. B 62, R16219 (2000).

[22] Supplemental Materials describing the derivation of thetight-binding model at the valley point, the technical de-tail of the DFT methods and the additional DFT results,which includes Ref. [23, 24]

[23] W. A. Harrison, Electronic Structure and the Propertiesof Solids: The Physics of the Chemical Bond (New York:Dover, 1989).

[24] G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Efficient iterative schemesfor ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wavebasis set, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996).

6

[25] H. Rostami, R. Roldán, E. Cappelluti, R. Asgari, and F.Guinea, Theory of strain in single-layer transition metaldichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B 92, 195402 (2015); Alexan-der J. Pearce, E. Mariani, and G. Burkard, Tight-bindingapproach to strain and curvature in monolayer transition-metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B 94, 155416 (2016).

[26] D. Xiao, J. Shi, and Q. Niu, Berry Phase Correction toElectron Density of States in Solids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95,137204 (2005).

[27] P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car,C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni,I. Dabo, QUANTUM ESPRESSO: a modular and open-source software project for quantum simulations of mate-rials, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21, 395502 (2009).

[28] N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Maximally Localized Gen-eralised Wannier Functions for Composite Energy Bands,Phys. Rev. B 56, 12847 (1997); I. Souza, N. Marzari andD. Vanderbilt, Maximally Localized Wannier Functionsfor Entangled Energy Bands, Phys. Rev. B 65, 035109(2001).

[29] A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, G. Pizzi, Y.-S. Lee, I.Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, An updated versionof Wannier90: A tool for obtaining maximally-localisedWannier functions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2309(2014).

[30] D. Brida, A. Tomadin, C. Manzoni, Y.J. Kim, A. Lom-

bardo, S. Milana, R.R. Nair, K.S. Novoselov, A.C. Ferrari,G. Cerullo, and M. Polin, Ultrafast collinear scatteringand carrier multiplication in graphene, Nat. Commun. 4,1987 (2013).

[31] A. Kormányos, V. Zólyomi, N. D. Drummond, P. Rakyta,G. Burkard, and V. I. Fal’ko, Monolayer MoS2: Trigo-nal warping, the Γ valley, and spin-orbit coupling effects,Phys. Rev. B 88, 045416 (2013).

[32] A. Johansson, J. Henk, and I. Mertig, Theoretical aspectsof the Edelstein effects for anisotropic two-dimensionalelectron gas and topological insulators, Phys. Rev. B 93,195440 (2016).

[33] A. Johansson, J. Henk, and I. Mertig, Edelstein effect inWeyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. B 97, 085417 (2018).

[34] W.-Y. He, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, and K. T. Law, Giantorbital magnetoelectric effect and current-induced mag-netization switching in twisted bilayer graphene, Nat.Comm. 11, 1650 (2020).

[35] J. Lee, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Electrical control of thevalley Hall effect in bilayer MoS2 transistors. Nat. Nan-otech. 11, 421-425 (2016).

[36] K. He, C. Poole, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, ExperimentalDemonstration of Continuous Electronic Structure Tun-ing via Strain in Atomically Thin MoS2, Nano Lett. 13,2931-2936 (2013); S. Denga, A. V. Sumantb, V. Berrya,Strain engineering in two-dimensional nanomaterials be-yond graphene, Nano Today 22, 14-35 (2018).

7

Supplementary Materials forOrbital gyrotropic magneto-electric effect and its strain engineering in monolayer

NbX2

I. DERIVATION OF THE VALLEY-ORBITAL MODEL IN PRESENCE OF STRAIN

In this section, we discuss the derivation of the valley-orbital model Hamiltonian [Eq. (1) of the main text] forthe monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDCs) in the presence of uniaxial strain, starting from the tightbinding (TB) model for d orbitals. The model Hamiltonian is valid near the valley points K and K ′, which forall practical purposes control the electronic properties of the TMDCs. We focus here on uniaxial strain along thearm-chair direction (ŷ direction in Fig. 5). The ideas can be easily extended for strain in any general direction andthe TB parameters shown in Fig. 5 (middle) are all that will be needed.

To build the model, we retain just the three orbitals (viz., xy, 3z2− r2, x2− y2) on the metal atoms, which describethe valence and the conduction bands around the two valley points. Only metal atoms (M) are kept in the model.However, to include the effect of the broken inversion (I) symmetry, we must fold in the effect of the ligand atoms(X = S or Se) into the effective M-M hopping integrals. This can be done in two ways: (i) By Löwdin downfolding[1] of the standard real-space TB hopping integrals [2], which we have described explicitly for the TMDC’s in ourearlier work [3] and (ii) By directly taking the M-M hopping integrals from band structure codes such as the NMTOcode [4], where the Löwdin downfolding is implemented in the momentum space and the relevant bands are fitted toproduce the effective hopping parameters. Either approach results in the same model Hamiltonian, since the effectiveparameters are anyway fitted to the band structure near the valley point. Here, we will use the second approach andjust take the parameters produced by the NMTO code.

The TB Hamiltonian is written in the Bloch function basis c†~km= 1√

N

∑i ei~k·~Ric†im, where

~k is the Bloch momentum

and c†im creates an electron at the i-th site in the orbital m, written in the order: xy, 3z2 − r2, and x2 − y2. The

Hamiltonian reads

H(~k) =

h11 h12 h13h∗12 h22 h23h∗13 h

∗23 h33

, (9)where

h11 = ε1 + 2ta1 cos ka + 2t

b1(cos kb + cos kc)

h12 = 2ita2 sin ka + i(t

b2 + t

c2)(sin kb + sin kc) + (t

b2 − tc2)(cos kb − cos kc)

h13 = 2ita3 sin ka + i(t

b3 + t

c3)(sin kb + sin kc) + (t

b3 − tc3)(cos kb − cos kc)

h22 = 2ta4 cos ka + 2t

b4(cos kb + cos kc)

h23 = 2ta5 cos ka + (t

b5 + t

c5)(cos kb + cos kc) + 2i(t

b5 − tc5)(sin kb − sin kc)

h33 = ε2 + 2ta6 cos ka + 2t

b6(cos kb + cos kc). (10)

Here, kη = ~k · ~η and ~η = ~a,~b,~c denote the directions of the neighboring Nb atoms with respect to the Nb atom atthe centre, as illustrated in Fig. 5, i.e., ~a = ax̂, ~b = −(ax̂/2 + faŷ) and ~c = −ax̂/2 + faŷ, a is the Nb-Nb distancealong x̂, while the factor f depends on the strain and has the values f =

√3(1 +S)/2, where S is the strain along the

arm-chair direction ŷ, as shown in Fig. 1, left, and it takes ± values corresponding to tensile and compressive strainrespectively.

We then expand the Hamiltonian (9), around the valley points K (-4π/3a, 0) and K ′ (4π/3a, 0) keeping only termsthat are linear in q, where q ≡ k −K or k −K ′. The resulting Hamiltonian is

H(~q) =

hq11 hq12 hq13(hq12)∗ hq22 hq23(hq13)

∗ (hq23)∗ hq33

, (11)where

8

Compressive Strain

3z2-r2

x2-y2+i xy x2-y2-i xy

K (t = +1) K' (t = -1)

3z2-r2

FIG. 5. (Left) Tight-binding hopping integrals tηi between the six neighboring Nb atoms (i = 1−6) along the direction ~η = ~a,~b,~c.Orange arrows indicate the uniaxial strain direction considered in our work. (Middle) The Nb-Nb hopping integrals illustratingthe left-right asymmetry for hopping along the ±â direction. (Right) The valence and the conduction band characters near thevalley points in the unstrained TMDCs.

hq11 = ε1 − (ta1 + 2tb1) + τ√

3qxa(tb1 − ta1)

hq12 = τi√

3(ta2 + tb2 + t

c2)− iqxa{ta2 − 2−1(tb2 + tc2)}+

√3τfqya(t

b2 − tc2)

hq13 = τi√

3(ta3 + tb3 + t

c3)− iqxa{ta3 − 2−1(tb3 + tc3)}+

√3τfqya(t

b3 − tc3)}

hq22 = −(ta4 + 2tb4) + τ√

3qxa(tb4 − ta4)

hq23 = −(ta5 + tb5 + tc5) +τ√

3qxa

2(−2ta5 + tb5 + tc5) + ifqya(tb5 − tc5)

hq33 = ε2 − (ta6 + 2tb6) + τ√

3qxa(tb6 − ta6),

and τ = ±1 is the valley index for the K and K ′ valleys respectively. Now, it is well known that in the TMDCs,the valence and conduction bands near the valley points are well described by the wave function characters, |v〉 =(√

2)−1(|x2 − y2〉+ iτ |xy〉) and |c〉 = |3z2 − r2〉. Within this subspace, Hamiltonian (11) becomes a 2× 2 matrix

H(~q) =

[−∆2 + τα1qxa τtxqxa+ ityqya+ δ

τtxqxa− ityqya+ δ ∆2 + τα2qxa

], (12)

where the parameters of the Hamiltonian (12) can be expressed in terms of the TB hopping parameters. The relationsare:

tx = (√

2)−1[√

3(− ta5 +

tb5 + tc5

2

)−(ta2 −

tb2 + tc2

2

)]ty = −

f√2

[(tb5 − tc5) +√

3(tb2 − tc2)]

∆ = −(ta4 + 2tb4)− (2)−1[ε1 + ε2 − (ta6 + 2tb6) + 2√

3(ta3 + tb3 + t

c3)− (ta1 + 2tb1)]

α1 =1

2

[√3(tb1 − ta1)−

√3(ta6 − tb6)− 2

(ta3 −

tb3 + tc3

2

)]α2 = −

√3(ta4 − tb4)

δ = (√

2)−1[√

3(ta2 + tb2 + t

c2)− (ta5 + tb5 + tc5)]. (13)

It is interesting to point out that with the help of the above relations, showing the explicit dependences of the variousHamiltonian parameters on the TB hopping, it can be shown that in presence of C3z symmetry of the unstrainedstructure α1, α2 and δ become zero and the parameter tx becomes identical to ty, viz., tx = ty. This is due to the fact

that in presence of C3z symmetry, the hopping parameters tηi along η = ~a,

~b, and ~c are not independent of each other,but they also follow the three-fold rotational symmetry of the structure [3], which leads to the desired result. Theseparameters, however, become non-zero if the C3z symmetry is broken, as is the case for the strained structure. Thesestrain induced parameters play the crucial role in driving the OGME, as discussed in the main paper, emphasizingthe importance of the broken C3z symmetry by strain in dictating the OGME in NbX2.

While in absence of strain, tx = ty = t and ∆ describe the electronic structure for the unstrained system, presenceof strain leads to tx 6= ty, and we introduce the parameter κ to describe this hopping asymmetry, viz., tx,y = t± κS.

9

Also the last three parameters in Eq. (13), viz., α1, α2 and δ, are non-zero in presence of strain, and the leadingterms in these three parameters are linear in strain, viz.,

α1 = β1S, α2 = β2S, and δ = γS. (14)

Thus, in summary, the two parameters t and ∆ describe the electronic structure of the unstrained system, while inpresence of strain we need the additional parameters β1, β2, κ, and γ, thereby resulting in six independent parametersin the model to describe the effect of the uniaxial strain. All these six parameters are tabulated in the main paperfor monolayer NbX2, the subject of the present work.

For a general strain condition, the Hamiltonian can be written in terms of a strain independent part H0 and astrain dependent part HS ,

H(~q) = H0 +HS , (15)

where the second term can be expressed in terms of the strain tensor for small strain: HS =∑ij εijH

ij1 , where εij is

the 3× 3 strain tensor, the nine Hij1 matrices are strain-independent, and i, j = 1, 2, 3 are the indices for the cartesiancoordinates.

We have considered a special case of the strain in our work, where there is only a strain component present alongthe ŷ direction, i.e., εij = S δi2 δj2. The magnitude of the strain is denoted by S, and tensile strain by standardconvention is defined as positive and compressive strain as negative. For this strain case, the Hamiltonian assumesa simple form, which can be written compactly in terms of the pseudo-spin Pauli matrices. From Eqs. (12-15), weobtain straightforwardly the result

H(~q) = H0 + SH1, (16)H0 = ~d · ~σ,H1 = d0σ0 + ~d1 · ~σ,

where σ0 and ~σ are respectively the identity matrix and the Pauli matrices in the pseudo-spin basis |v〉 and |c〉, and thecoefficients are: ~d = (τtqxa,−tqya,−∆/2), d0 = τqxaβ+/2, and ~d1 = (τκqxa+ γ, κqya, τqxaβ−/2). The Hamiltonian(16) is our desired two-band valley-orbital model, which we studied in the main paper.

II. EFFECT OF SPIN-ORBIT COUPLING ON GME

In this section, we explicitly consider the effect of spin-orbit coupling (SOC) within the valley model and show thateven in presence of SOC, the spin contribution to the gyrotropic magneto-electric effect (GME) vanishes due to thewell known Ising like form of the SOC [5] in TMDCs and, therefore, the orbital GME continues to be the dominatingeffect.

As discussed above, the valence and the conduction bands near the valley points are well described by the wavefunction characters, |v〉 = (

√2)−1(|x2 − y2〉+ iτ |xy〉) and |c〉 = |3z2 − r2〉. Within this subspace, considering also the

spin degrees of freedom, viz., {|v ↑〉 , |c ↑〉 , |v ↓〉 , |c ↓〉}, the SOC takes the following form

HSOC =τλ

2(σz + 1)⊗ sz, (17)

Here ~s and ~σ are respectively the Pauli matrices for the electron spin and the orbital pseudo-spins, λ is the strengthof the SOC, and τ is the valley index. Note the block diagonal form of HSOC, representing Ising SOC, which doesnot allow for any spin mixing. We show that this peculiar form of SOC plays an important role in vanishing spincontribution to the GME.

We first construct the total Hamiltonian by adding the SOC term to the valley-orbital model, given in Eq. (16).In the basis {|v ↑〉 , |c ↑〉 , |v ↓〉 , |c ↓〉}, the total Hamiltonian has the following form

Htot = H(~q)⊗ Is +τλ

2(σz + 1)⊗ sz. (18)

Here Is is the 2 × 2 identity operator in the electron spin space. The SOC term splits the spin-degenerate valencebands into fully polarized Sz =↑ and ↓ bands, as shown schematically in Fig. 6 (a) and at the inset of Fig. 6 (b),where the expectation value of the Sz operator for the bottom valence band at the K and K

′ valleys is shown alongthe qx direction. As evident from this figure, the valence bands have pure Sz character, and there is no spin mixingbetween the valence bands.

10

K

K'

x2-y2+i xy

3z2-1

x2-y2-i xy

3z2-1

(a) (b)

'

EF

VBM

VBMEF

FIG. 6. (a) Schematic illustration of the spin split valence bands around the valley points. The valence band maximum(VBM) and the Fermi energy EF are indicated as light and dark dashed lines. (b) The variation of the orbital and the spincontributions to the GME in presence of SOC as function of (VBM-EF )/∆. The vanishing spin contribution can be inferredfrom the pure spin character of the valence band, as shown at the inset of (b). The inset shows the expectation value of Szoperator in units of (~/2). The dominant orbital contribution in presence of SOC is clear from this plot. Here, SOC λ is takento be 0.08 eV, relevant for NbSe2.

We have numerically computed the spin and orbital contributions to the GME. The results of our calculations areshown in Fig. 6 (b) as a function of (VBM-EF )/∆, where EF , VBM and ∆ are respectively the Fermi energy, thevalence band maximum, and the energy gap at the valley points. As clear from this figure, the spin contribution to theGME vanishes for all values of (VBM-EF )/∆, which can also be inferred from the pure Sz characters of the valencebands, indicating no momentum space variation of Sz near the valley points (see inset of Fig. 6 (b)) in contrastto the orbital moment, as discussed in the main text. Note that, the negligibly small spin contributions in the realsystems may be attributed to the higher order effects, which are ignored in this model, that may lead to small spinmixing between the valence bands, giving rise to a negligibly small spin contribution. In essence, the spin momentscontribute zero to the GME within the Ising-like model Eq. (17), because the spin moments in the Brillouin zonehave a fixed value for each band (Sz = ±1 as indicated in the inset of Fig. 6). As a result, the net spin moment isunaltered by shifting of the Fermi surface due to the applied electric field.

Unlike the spin contribution, the orbital contribution remains significant and, therefore, dominantes the GME. Asexpected, the orbital contribution is zero when the Fermi energy is at the top of the valence band [(VBM-EF )/∆= 0 in Fig 6 (b)], representing the insulating case and, then, starts to increase as the Fermi energy gets deeperinto the valence bands [(VBM-EF )/∆ > 0]. The vertical dashed line in Fig. 6 (b), corresponds to the typical holeconcentration (∼ 0.25) per each valley, for which the magnitude of the orbital contribution is about 90 µB V−1 Å−1.We note that this magnitude is although smaller than the case without SOC, still it is significantly large and, moreimportantly, the dominant contribution to the GME.

III. ADDITIONAL DENSITY FUNCTIONAL RESULTS

A. DFT Methods

All density-functional calculations in the present work are performed with the relaxed structures of monolayerNbX2, X = S, Se. A uniaxial strain along ŷ direction is applied for each case and all atomic positions are relaxed,keeping the unit cell parameters fixed corresponding to the applied strain, until the Hellman-Feynman forces on eachatom becomes less than 0.01 eV/Å using Vienna ab initio simulation package (VASP) [6].

With the relaxed structures of monolayer NbX2, k-space orbital moment and the GME are calculated using QUAN-TUM ESPRESSO and Wannier90 codes [7, 8], both in presence and absence of strain. Self-consistency is achievedusing fully relativistic norm-conserving pseudopotentials for all the atoms with a convergence threshold of 10−7 Ry.The ab-initio wave functions are projected to maximally localized Wannier functions [9] using the Wannier90 code[8]. In the disentanglement process, as initial projections, we have chosen 26 Wannier functions per unit cell whichinclude the d orbitals of Nb and s and p orbitals of X atoms, excluding the rest. After the disentanglement is

11

NbS2 NbSe2

K' K'

Nb-d

X-p

EF EF x2-y2-i xyx2-y2+i xy

3z2-r2 3z2-r23z2-r2

x2-y2-i xyx2-y2+i xy

3z2-r2

FIG. 7. Band structures for the unstrained monolayer (a) NbS2 and (b) NbSe2. The orbital characters are indicated in thefigure.

Ener

gy (e

V)

W/O strain Compressive Tensile

EFx2-y2+i xy3z2-r2 3z2-r2

x2-y2-i xyEF EF

K'K'K'

Nb-d

X-p

FIG. 8. Comaprison of the DFT band structures in absence and presence of strain. The band structures of NbSe2 is shown (left)without the strain, in presence of compressive (middle) and tensile (right) strain. ±5% strains are used for the calculations. Asapparent from the band structures, the number of holes at the valley points differ for the two different strain types.

achieved, the wannierisation process is converged to 10−10 Å2 and, then, the k-space orbital moment ~M(~k) and the

gyrotropic response K̃xz are calculated. In the GME calculations, satisfactory convergence was obtained by adoptinga 500× 500× 1 k-mesh grid size.

B. Bandstructures and Energy contours

The band structures of the unstrained monolayer NbX2, X = S, Se are shown in Fig. 7. As seen from thisfigure, the valence and the conduction bands near the valley points are predominantly formed by the orbitals |v〉 =(√

2)−1(|x2 − y2〉 + iτ |xy〉) and |c〉 = |3z2 − r2〉 respectively, where τ = ±1 indicate K and K’ valleys respectively.The complex d orbitals at the valley points lead to the robust orbital moments, as discussed in the main paper.

In order to understand the changes in the band structure due to the application of a uniaxial strain, the DFT bandstructures both in presence and absence of strain are compared in Fig. 8 for the monolayer NbSe2. The valence bandin NbSe2 is half-filled due to the d

1 electronic configuration of the Nb atom, leading to one hole in the valence band.We estimate the number of holes around the valley points, which is about nh ≈ 0.25 for each valley. As seen fromthese band structures, the positions of the valence band maxima at Γ and K/K ′ shift with strain. This results in achange in the number of holes around the valley points for the two different strain types. The computed number ofholes for tensile and compressive cases are respectively nh ≈ 0.2 and 0.3 for each valley. To keep our model simple,we did not include this effect in our valley-orbital model. As discussed in the main paper, this may be a contributingfactor to the asymmetry in the OGME magnitude for compressive and tensile strain.

12

Compressive strain Tensile strain

K

K'

W/O strain

K' K'

K Kk y (Å

-1)

k y (Å

-1)1.2

1.1

1.00.9

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8kx (Å-1)

1.2

1.1

1.00.9

k y (Å

-1)

-.8 -.7 -.6 -.5kx (Å-1)

qx

qy 1.31.21.11.0

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8kx (Å-1)

qx

qy

qx

qy1.21.11.00.9

0.80.4 0.6kx (Å-1)

k y (Å

-1)

1.3

1.11.0

k y (Å

-1) 1.2

-.8 -.7 -.5kx (Å-1)

-.6

1.21.11.00.9

k y (Å

-1)

qx

qy

qx

qy

-.8 -.6kx (Å-1)

-.4

qx

qy

FIG. 9. Energy contours near the valley points in NbS2 in absence and presence of strain. The circular energy contours,centered around the valley point, in the absence of strain, become elongated along x̂ or ŷ in presence of the compressive andtensile strain respectively. Also, the center of the ellipse is shifted from the valley points along x̂, which plays the crucial rolein driving the OGME.

The strain induced modifications in the band structure can be, further, understood from the the constant energycontours in the neighborhood of the the valley points, as shown in Fig. 9 both in absence and presence of strain. Asshown in the figure, in absence of strain the energy contours are circular in shape and are centered at the valley point.In presence of strain, the circular contours distort in shape and become elliptical. More interestingly, the center ofthe ellipse is also shifted away from the valley point. The shift of the center of the ellipse is opposite for two differentstrain types as well as for the two valleys for a fixed type of strain. The shift of the center of the ellipse plays a crucialrole in both OGME and its switching, as discussed in the main paper.

[1] P.-O. Löwdin, A Note on the Quantum-Mechanical Perturbation Theory , J. Chem. Phys. 19, 1396 (1951).[2] W. A. Harrison, Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids: The Physics of the Chemical Bond (New York: Dover,

1989).[3] S. Bhowal and S. Satpathy, Intrinsic orbital and spin Hall effects in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev.

B 102, 035409 (2020). A pedagogical description of the downfolding of the chalcogen orbital is given in this reference.[4] O. K. Andersen and T. Saha-Dasgupta, Muffin-tin orbitals of arbitrary order, Phys. Rev. B 62, R16219 (2000).[5] See for example: G. -B. Liu, W. -Y. Shan, Y. Yao, W. Yao, and D. Xiao, Three-band tight-binding model for monolayers

of group-VIB transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B 88, 085433 (2013).[6] G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set,

Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996).[7] P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I.

Dabo, QUANTUM ESPRESSO: a modular and open-source software project for quantum simulations of materials, J. Phys.Condens. Matter 21, 395502 (2009).

[8] A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, G. Pizzi, Y. S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt and N. Marzari, An updated version of Wannier90:A Tool for Obtaining Maximally Localised Wannier Functions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2309 (2014).

[9] N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Maximally localized generalized Wannier functions for composite energy bands, Phys. Rev.B 56, 12847 (1997); I. Souza, N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Maximally Localized Wannier Functions for Entangled EnergyBands, Phys. Rev. B 65, 035109 (2001).

Orbital gyrotropic magneto-electric effect and its strain engineering in monolayer NbX2 Abstract ReferencesI Derivation of the valley-orbital model in presence of strainII Effect of Spin-orbit coupling on GMEIII Additional Density functional resultsA DFT MethodsB Bandstructures and Energy contours

References