Photoproduction of Loop Currents in Coronene Isomers Without Any Applied Magnetic Field

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have studied the photoproduction of loop currents in coronene isomers using a Peierls-Hubbard Hamiltonian in the current manuscript. While the presented results are interesting the paper would benefit from further rewriting section 2 (model Hamiltonian).

In particular, the terminology: site (i) and unit (l) are not clear and authors should elaborate on that. They should use adequate figures and captions too, for example, all figures of coronene use three different colors for units (l), e.g. green for l=1, red for l=2 but for other l values, the same blue is used. Also occupation operator (n), in the suffix, up and down arrows were used to define spin, however in Eq. (2) in the 2^nd line n with a suffix of + and – is used. What are they?

 

I have a question regarding Figure 3 and the discussion. In the presence of a static magnetic field, why polarized optical conductivities for all phases (2-LC, 5-LC, 4-LC) show degeneracy for x and y directions?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report:

In their manuscript Ohara and Yamamoto demonstrated a theoretical understanding of loop currents in the ground and photo-induced states of coronene. Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides a nice overview of recent endeavors in this field. My comments are copied below. I use the following abbreviations, P-page number; L-line number.

 Specific Comments:

1. P1: I encourage the authors to further discuss the potential applications of this work in a broader context.

2. P2: Please provide a detailed description of the software packages employed in this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

In the manuscript “Photoproduction of Loop Currents in Coronene Isomers without Any Applied Magnetic Field,” Ohara and Yamamoto present good results from a new perspective.

The paper certainly warrants publication in the Solids. However, the authors should consider the following comments that would improve the paper:

1. The abstract is overly detailed and could benefit from a more straightforward presentation of the main findings and their significance for a broader audience.
2. While the introduction provides a solid background, it could more explicitly state the gap in knowledge that the study addresses and its broader significance.
3. Some sections, particularly those involving mathematical formulations, could include more explanatory text or intuitive descriptions to make the content accessible to readers outside the immediate field.
4. Your study mentions potential applications of light-induced loop currents in magnetic moment generation. Could you elaborate on practical scenarios where this might be applied?

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Solids.

 

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The simulation and result presentation look both clear and interesting, and I only have minor comments:

1. Equation 1,2, and 4, l =1–6, I assume l+1 points back to 1, but the author didn't clarify this.

2. line 169, figure  5a, I see l = 1 and 3, as well as l = 6 and 4 are in phase with opposite sign, but I don't see 1 and 6 in phase as stated by the author, at least not perfectly in phase, although I can imagine they should.  I hope the authors can clarify and rationalize this.

3. several places, the author used 1-th, 2-th, which should be 1st and 2nd. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the modification and therefore recommend publication in its present form

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly reviewed the comments and implemented all necessary revisions with attention to detail. They have done an excellent job in improving the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript, ensuring it aligns with the journal's high standards for publication. The revisions include significant enhancements, providing more comprehensive explanations of the methodology and enriching the discussion of the results within the context of relevant literature. These changes have substantially strengthened the manuscript.