Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 100 references

Attractive electron-electron interactions from internal screening in magic angle twisted bilayer graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Internal screening turns the electron-electron interaction attractive in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, with wells up to about 10 meV.

desk verdict RPA attraction near the magic angle is a real, non-obvious result, but the scalar-dielectric approximation is load-bearing and insufficiently quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00591 v2 pith:RNWQLAXX submitted 2019-09-02 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

Zachary A. H. Goodwin , Fabiano Corsetti , Arash A. Mostofi , Johannes Lischner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords twistedbilayergraphenemagicangleelectron-electroninteractionsscreeningrandomphaseapproximationHubbardparameterssuperconductivitychargedensitywaves
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 asks whether the electron-electron interaction in undoped twisted bilayer graphene near the magic angle remains purely repulsive once internal screening is included. Using the random phase approximation on an atomistic tight-binding model, the authors find that the dielectric response grows sharply as the twist angle approaches 1.18 degrees, and that the real-space screened interaction develops attractive wells near 40 Å with depths up to about 10 meV. If this is right, the attractive interaction provides a concrete microscopic route to the correlated insulator and superconducting behavior observed in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, because attractive interactions can seed charge density waves and Cooper pairing. The paper also shows that screening strongly reduces and reshapes the Hubbard parameters of the flat bands, which matters for any low-energy model of the system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the static random-phase-approximation dielectric function $\epsilon(q)=\epsilon_{\mathrm{env}}+v(q)\Pi_0(q)$, built from the Adler-Wiser independent-particle polarizability $\Pi_0(q)$ of the atomistic tight-binding model of tBLG, with off-diagonal dielectric matrix elements neglected and the polarizability treated as isotropic. The load-bearing feature is the crossover of $\epsilon(q)$ between a large small-$q$ constant, set by the strongly renormalized flat-band Fermi velocity, and a smaller large-$q$ constant, set by the unrenormalized graphene response, occurring over the first two moiré reciprocal lattice vectors. This crossover suppresses the positive parts of the Bessel-function kernel in the real-space Fourier transform $W(r)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\int_0^\infty dq\, J_0(qr)/\epsilon(q)$, causing negative (attractive) regions; the paper supports this mechanism with a model dielectric function whose parameters $\epsilon_f$, $l$, and $q_0$ control whether and where attraction appears.

What would settle it

Compute the static dielectric matrix including off-diagonal elements and full anisotropy for a twist angle of 1.05 degrees, then Fourier transform $\epsilon(\mathbf q)$ to real space; if $\epsilon(q)$ does not fall from above 250 at long wavelengths to near 10 within the first two moiré reciprocal lattice vectors, the attractive well near 40 Å disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Calculating the static random-phase-approximation dielectric function of undoped twisted bilayer graphene from the independent-particle polarizability of an atomistic tight-binding model, the authors find that internal screening is dramatically enhanced near the magic angle: the long-wavelength dielectric constant reaches values above 250, roughly twenty times that of two decoupled graphene layers. Because the flat bands produce a large polarizability at small wavevectors while larger wavevectors see essentially the unrenormalized graphene response, the dielectric function crosses between two nearly constant values on the scale of the moiré reciprocal lattice vectors. Fourier transforming this screened interaction to real space gives oscillatory behavior, and for several angles near the magic angle the interaction is genuinely attractive in a region around 40 Å, with a well depth of up to about 10 meV. The authors identify the cause as the abrupt change in band velocity as a function of band energy, not Friedel oscillations, since undoped tBLG has a vanishing density of states at the Fermi level. They further show that including this screening reduces the on-site Hubbard parameter to a few meV with a nonlinear twist-angle dependence, and that constrained random-phase-approximation results are captured by a twist-angle-dependent Keldysh model.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the random-phase-approximation dielectric function, built from an isotropic and diagonal independent-particle polarizability of the tight-binding model, being correct at wavevectors near the moiré period; if the steep drop in screening at those wavevectors is wrong, the attractive wells disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near the magic angle the random-phase-approximation static dielectric constant exceeds 250, about 20 times that of decoupled graphene bilayers, making internal screening strongly twist-angle dependent.
  • The screened on-site Hubbard parameter drops to only a few meV near the magic angle and varies nonlinearly with twist angle, unlike the linear dependence of simpler screening models.
  • The constrained-RPA estimates of $U/t$ and $U^*/t$ place the spin-density-wave instability only in a narrow twist-angle window, refining the predicted phase diagram.
  • Attractive regions in the screened interaction could induce charge density waves and Cooper pairing, offering a possible microscopic origin for the correlated insulator and superconducting states observed in undoped tBLG.
  • The cRPA screened interaction is accurately described by a twist-angle-dependent Keldysh model with screening parameters reaching more than 1000 Å, providing a compact form for future model studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By extension, the same mechanism of a screening crossover driven by Fermi-velocity renormalization should operate in other moiré systems with strongly flattened bands, such as twisted double bilayer graphene or twisted transition-metal dichalcogenides, where analogous attractive regions might appear.
  • The model dielectric function analysis suggests the attractive regions persist when the system is doped; a testable extension would be to compute the full RPA interaction at finite doping and check whether the well depth correlates with the doping levels where superconductivity is observed.
  • Because the attractive well occurs near 40 Å, a scale comparable to the moiré lattice constant near the magic angle, a natural next step is to build an effective pairing interaction from this $W(r)$ and evaluate pairing strengths or transition temperatures with quantum Monte Carlo or Eliashberg methods.
  • The paper's cRPA Hubbard parameters are described as lower bounds because cRPA overestimates screening; a more accurate beyond-RPA calculation could shift the predicted twist-angle window for correlated phases.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the static RPA and cRPA dielectric response of undoped twisted bilayer graphene near the magic angle, using an atomistic tight-binding model with out-of-plane corrugation. The central claim is that, for certain twist angles near the magic angle, the RPA-screened electron-electron interaction W(r) exhibits real-space attractive regions, with a well depth up to about 10 meV at r ≈ 40 Å (Fig. 2(e)). The authors attribute this attraction to the sharp crossover of the scalar dielectric function ε(q) between a large value at small q and a smaller value at q ≳ 2|b|, arising from the abrupt change in band velocity. They also compute cRPA Hubbard parameters, parametrize a twist-angle-dependent Keldysh model for the cRPA interaction, and discuss implications for correlated insulators and superconductivity.

Significance. If the central result holds, it is significant and of broad interest: it provides a concrete, falsifiable prediction of an effective electron-electron attraction in a material platform where correlated insulating and superconducting states are observed. The prediction is specific (well depth, position, twist-angle window) and could be tested by many-body calculations or model Hamiltonians built from the reported W(r). A notable strength is that the attractive-region calculation is parameter-free in the sense that the polarizability and screened interaction are computed directly from the tight-binding model via the Adler-Wiser formula; the Keldysh α and the Ohno exponents are fits to the computed quantities, not inputs. The paper also gives a transparent model-based explanation of the origin of the attraction and provides a parametrization that is useful for downfolded model studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B, Eq. (1), and Fig. 2(e)] The scalar isotropic dielectric approximation is load-bearing for the central claim. The attractive well in W(r) arises from the sharp crossover of ε(q) at q scales of order the moiré reciprocal lattice vector. In a periodic 2D crystal, screening is a matrix ε_GG'(q), and off-diagonal local-field effects as well as anisotropy of Π0(q) can smooth, shift, or eliminate this crossover. The manuscript states in Section II.B that off-diagonal elements are small 'in agreement with previous work,' but it does not report the matrix elements, the G-space truncation, or a quantitative error estimate for the resulting W(r). Because the attraction occurs at r ≈ 40 Å, on the scale of the moiré lattice constants studied (66–134 Å), these are precisely the effects that could change the sign or depth of the well. Please provide explicit numbers for the off-diagonal dielectric matrix elements and/or a calculation retaining them, and quantify the anisotropy of Π0(q), for at least one representative twist angle.
  2. [Section II.B, polarizability convergence] The manuscript states that the chosen k-point grids and energy windows 'yield accurate values for the polarizability at wavevectors that do not exceed several multiples of the moiré reciprocal lattice vector,' but no convergence data are shown. The depth and even the existence of the attractive region depend on the accuracy of Π0(q) at q ≈ |b|, where the crossover occurs. Please include convergence tests (e.g., 35×35 versus denser k-point grids, and any dependence on the ±4 eV energy window for the cRPA part) for the polarizability and for the resulting W(r) at a representative twist angle. Without such tests, the quantitative claim of a ~10 meV well is not fully supported.
  3. [Section III.A and Appendix B, doping persistence] The claim that attractive regions persist when tBLG is doped is based entirely on the model dielectric function of Eq. (B8), with arbitrary parameters ϵf, l, q0, and a divergent a/q modification, not on a calculation for doped tBLG. The text states 'We found that the attractive regions should persist when electrons or holes are added,' which overstates the evidence; this is a model-based extrapolation. Please either perform an explicit calculation of the doped polarizability (including intraband transitions) for at least one doping level, or clearly label the persistence claim as a speculation based on the model. This distinction matters because the possible connection to the observed superconducting dome is one of the paper's motivating statements.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2(e) caption] The caption reads 'Red dash-dotted line indicates bare the Coulomb interaction'; this should be 'bare Coulomb interaction.'
  2. [Eq. (B5)] In Eq. (B5), q and r are used as magnitudes, while in Eq. (3) q is a vector; please clarify this notational distinction explicitly at the point where the angular integration is carried out.
  3. [Reference [64]] Reference [64] is incomplete and the author list is garbled ('F. F. A. Carsten Honerkamp, Hiroshi Shinaoka and P. Werner'); please correct the citation to Carsten Honerkamp, Hiroshi Shinaoka, and Philipp Werner.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the attractive-region result follows from an unfitted RPA calculation.

full rationale

The central claim—that the RPA-screened interaction in undoped tBLG develops attractive real-space regions near the magic angle (Fig. 2(e))—is obtained by evaluating the Adler-Wiser polarizability (Eq. (2)) from the atomistic tight-binding band structure and then Fourier-transforming v(q)/epsilon(q) via Eq. (3) and Eq. (B5). No parameter is fitted to the target quantity: the Keldysh screening parameter alpha(theta) in Table I and the generalized Ohno exponents in Table D1 are fits to the computed cRPA polarizability and Hubbard parameters, respectively, and are explicitly presented as parametrizations rather than as inputs that generate the attraction. The model dielectric function in Appendix B is used only to illustrate the mechanism, not to produce the numerical W(r). The main self-citation (Ref. 34) supplies the tight-binding Hamiltonian and some Wannier data, but these are inputs validated against external literature (e.g., band structures 'in good agreement with others in the literature,' and Wannier initial guesses from Refs. 65, 66, 90), and they do not already contain the attractive-region result. The neglect of off-diagonal dielectric-matrix elements is an approximation supported by previous independent work (Refs. 5, 57); whether it is quantitatively accurate is a correctness risk, not a circularity. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter or to the cited prior work by construction, so the derivation is self-contained for the claimed result.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim depends on standard RPA and tight-binding modeling choices. The only parameters fitted within this paper are the Keldysh screening parameter, Ohno exponents, and band-width fit coefficient; none of these enter the primary attractive-region calculation, which is a direct Fourier transform of the RPA-screened interaction. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Keldysh screening parameter alpha(theta) = 155.4 to 1292.0 Angstrom (Table I)
    Fitted to the small-q quadratic cRPA polarizability at each twist angle; used in the Keldysh model parametrization, not in the RPA attractive-region calculation.
  • Ohno potential exponent n = 1.1 to 2.5 (Table D1)
    Fitted separately for each twist angle to reproduce the extended cRPA Hubbard parameters with the generalized Ohno form.
  • Band-width fit coefficient delta = 0.27 eV/degree
    Fitted to computed flat-band widths near the magic angle to estimate U/t in Fig. 4.
  • Model dielectric function parameters epsilon_f, l, q0 = varied: epsilon_f 20/40/120, l 50/100/200 Angstrom, q0 0.05/0.10/0.20 1/Angstrom
    Chosen ad hoc in Appendix B to illustrate how dielectric-function shape controls attractive regions; not fitted to tBLG data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Random phase approximation (RPA) for the screened interaction.
    The central claim uses the RPA dielectric function, which neglects vertex corrections and higher-order diagrams.
  • domain assumption Off-diagonal elements of the dielectric matrix are negligible and polarizability is isotropic.
    Stated in Section II.B: 'off-diagonal elements ... are small' and 'polarizability is found to be approximately isotropic'.
  • domain assumption Atomistic tight-binding model with Slater-Koster hoppings and corrugation from Ref. 65 accurately describes tBLG bands.
    The band structure and Wannier functions from Ref. 34 are used; the model was not re-validated beyond comparison to literature bands.
  • domain assumption Wannier functions from Ref. 34/66 with constrained centers represent the flat bands correctly.
    Hubbard parameters are computed from these Wannier functions; the localization procedure is described in Appendix C.
  • standard math Adler-Wiser formula for the independent-particle polarizability.
    Eq. (2), standard linear-response expression.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attractive electron-electron interactions from internal screening in magic angle twisted bilayer graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RNWQLAXX

@misc{pith2026190900591,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attractive electron-electron interactions from internal screening in magic angle twisted bilayer graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RNWQLAXX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00591}
}
read the original abstract

Twisted bilayer graphene (tBLG) has recently emerged as a new platform for studying electron correlations, the strength of which can be controlled via the twist angle. Here, we study the effect of internal screening on electron-electron interactions in undoped tBLG. Using the random phase approximation, we find that the dielectric response of tBLG drastically increases near the magic angle and is highly twist-angle dependent. As a consequence of the abrupt change of the Fermi velocity as a function of wave vector, the screened interaction in real space exhibits attractive regions for certain twist angles near the magic angle. Attractive interactions can induce charge density waves and superconductivity and therefore our findings could be relevant to understand the microscopic origins of the recently observed strong correlation phenomena in undoped tBLG. The resulting screened Hubbard parameters are strongly reduced and exhibit a non-linear dependence on the twist angle. We also carry out calculations with the constrained random phase approximation and parametrize a twist-angle dependent Keldysh model for the resulting effective interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00591 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Band structure of tBLG for a twist angle of 1.05 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) and (b): RPA and cRPA polarizability of tBLG as a function of momentum transfer for several twist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) and (b): RPA and cRPA screened on-site Hubbard parameters (symbols) as a function of twist angle for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This method requires finite unit cells associated with commensurate twist angles [10, 20]

    Moir´ e Structure We utilise an atomistic tight-binding model to calcu- late the electronic structure of twisted bilayer graphene (tBLG). This method requires finite unit cells associated with commensurate twist angles [10, 20]. Here we gen- erate moir´ e unit cells by rotating the top graphene sheet of an AA stacked bilayer graphene around an axis per- pe...

  2. [2]

    Also, t(ri− rj) denotes the hopping parameter between atoms i andj [10, 20]

    Hamiltonian and Band Structure For this atomic structure of tBLG, we solve the atom- istic tight-binding Hamiltonian [34, 58] ˆH0 = ∑ i ϵiˆc† i ˆci + ∑ i,j (t(ri− rj)ˆc† jˆci + H.c.), (A3) where ϵi is the on-site energy of the pz-orbital on atom i (which is set to zero in our calculations), and ˆ c† i and ˆci denote creation and annihilation operators of ...

  3. [3]

    To obtain the continuous line, we fit the band width near the magic angle, θ∗ = 1.18◦ [34], with the following equation ∆ =δ|θ−θ∗|

    Band Width and Band Gap Fitting Figure 4 of the main text shows the ratio of on-site Hubbard parameters and the hopping parameter (given by the band width divided by six) to identify the twist angle ranges where spin density waves at charge neutral- ity should emerge. To obtain the continuous line, we fit the band width near the magic angle, θ∗ = 1.18◦ [34...

  4. [4]

    (2) of the main text, a sum over allk-points in the first Brillouin zone and all transitions from occupied valence bands to unoccupied conduction bands must be performed

    Polarizability Calculation To calculate the polarizability, as shown by Eq. (2) of the main text, a sum over allk-points in the first Brillouin zone and all transitions from occupied valence bands to unoccupied conduction bands must be performed. For this, the matrix elements, ⟨ψn′k+q|eiq·r|ψnk⟩, must be determined. Inserting the tight-binding expression f...

  5. [5]

    By calculating transitions between these grids were we able to fit a quadratic curve in the long wavelength limit

    Long-wavelength limit To parameterise the Keldysh model we used three dif- ferent 7×7 grids: one of these which contained the Γ point, and two that were shifted by 0 .05(b1 + b2) and 0.01(b1 + b2). By calculating transitions between these grids were we able to fit a quadratic curve in the long wavelength limit

  6. [6]

    Inserting these values into the equation for dielectric function yields ϵni = 1 + e 6ϵ0tGa≈ 8.86

    Non-interaction dielectric constant The polarizability of non-interacting graphene bilayer is given by Π0(q) = gsgvgl|q| 16γ , (B3) where gs, gv and gl are the spin, valley and layer degen- eracy, respectively, all of which are equal to 2, and γ is the band parameter [5, 61], whereγ is related to the hop- ping parameter of graphene, tG = 2.7 eV, and the b...

  7. [7]

    Real-Space Screened Interaction Since the polarizability was found to be approximately isotropic, Eq. (3) of the main text can be transformed to W (r) = e2 4πϵ0 ∫ ∞ 0 dqJ0(qr) ϵ(q) , (B5) 9 −200 −100 0 100 200 E (meV) □K K ′M θ = 2.13o −100 −50 0 50 100 150 E (meV) □K K ′M θ = 1.70o −100 −50 0 50 100 E (meV) □K K ′M θ = 1.54o −100 −50 0 50 100 E (meV) □K ...

  8. [8]

    As the twist angle decreases, the extended Hub- bard parameters reduce to the bare Coulomb interaction between centres at larger separations

    cRPA Ohno Potential Fits Table D1shows the exponents, n, of the generalised Ohno potential [92] V (r) = V00 n √ 1 + (V00/Wenv(r))n, (D5) which describes the extended cRPA Hubbard parame- ters. As the twist angle decreases, the extended Hub- bard parameters reduce to the bare Coulomb interaction between centres at larger separations. Therefore, the ex- pon...

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    S. Carr, D. Massatt, S. Fang, P. Cazeaux, M. Luskin, and E. Kaxiras, Phys. Rev. B 95, 075420 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    K. Kim, M. Yankowitz, B. Fallahazad, S. Kang, H. C. P. Movva, S. Huang, S. Larentis, C. M. Corbet, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, S. K. Banerjee, B. J. LeRoy, and E. Tutuc, Nano Lett. 16, 19891995 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    J. M. B. L. dos Santos, N. M. R. Peres, and A. H. C. Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 256802 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, PNAS 108, 12233 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Stauber and H

    T. Stauber and H. Kohler, Nano Lett. 16, 6844 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    L. A. Gonzalez-Arraga, J. L. Lado, F. Guinea, and P. San-Jose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 107201 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    S. Carr, S. Fang, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and E. Kaxiras, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085144 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Jiang, J

    Y. Jiang, J. Mao, X. Lai, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Haule, and E. Y. Andrei, arXiv:1904.10153 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. L. Sharpe, E. J. Fox, A. W. Barnard, J. Finney, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. A. Kastner, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, arXiv:1901.03520 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    G. T. de Laissardi` ere, D. Mayou, and L. Magaud, Phys. Rev. B 86, 125413 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Y. Cao, J. Y. Luo, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, J. D. Sanchez- Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 116804 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    K. Kim, A. DaSilva, S. Huang, B. Fallahazad, S. Larentis, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, B. J. LeRoy, A. H. MacDon- ald, and E. Tutuca, PNAS 114, 33643369 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Nature 556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Yankowitz, S

    M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Science 363, 1059 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    X. Lu, P. Stepanov, W. Yang, M. Xie, M. A. Aamir, I. Das, C. Urgell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zhang, A. Bachtold, A. H. MacDonald, and D. K. Efetov, arXiv:1903.06513 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y. Cao, D. Chowdhury, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies- Bigord` a, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Senthil, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, arXiv:1901.03710v1 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kerelsky, L

    A. Kerelsky, L. J. McGilly, D. M. Kennes, L. Xian, M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, C. Dean, A. Rubio, and . A. N. Pasupathy, Nature 572, 95 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Y. Xie, B. Lian, B. J¨ ack, X. Liu1, C.-L. Chiu, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Na- ture 572, 101 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    G. T. de Laissardi` ere, D. Mayou, and L. Magaud, Nano Lett. 10, 804 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    X. Liu, Z. Hao, E. Khalaf, J. Y. Lee, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, and P. Kim, arXiv:1903.08130v1 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    N. R. Chebrolu, B. L. Chittari, , and J. Jung, arXiv:1901.08420v2 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    C. Shen, N. Li, S. Wang, Y. Zhao, J. Tang, J. Liu, J. Tian, Y. Chu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. Yang, Z. Y. Meng, D. Shi, and G. Zhang, arXiv:1903.06952 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. Y. Leey, E. Khalafy, S. Liu, X. Liu, Z. Hao, P. Kim, and A. Vishwanath, arXiv:1903.08685v1 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. H. Naik and M. Jain, arXiv:1803.09240v3 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A. M. van der Zande, J. Kunstmann, A. Chernikov, D. A. Chenet, Y. You, X. Zhang, P. Y. Huang, T. C. Berkel- bach, L. Wang, F. Zhang, M. S. Hybertsen, D. A. Muller, D. R. Reichman, T. F. Heinz, and J. C. Hone, Nano Lett. 14, 38693875 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, I. Martin, and A. H. Mac- Donald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 086402 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Tarnopolsky, A

    G. Tarnopolsky, A. J. Kruchkov, and A. Vishwanath, 14 Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 106405 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    H. C. Po, L. Zou, T. Senthil, and A. Vishwanath, arXiv:1808.02482v2 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. O. Sboychakov, A. L. Rakhmanov, A. V. Rozhkov, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B 92, 075402 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Angeli, D

    M. Angeli, D. Mandelli, A. Valli, A. Amaricci, M. Capone, E. Tosatti, and M. Fabrizio, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235137 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Guinea and N

    F. Guinea and N. R. Walet, arXiv:1903.00364v1 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    N. R. Walet and F. Guinea, arXiv:1903.00340v1 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Z. A. H. Goodwin, F. Corsetti, A. A. Mostofi, and J. Lis- chner, Phys. Rev. B 100, 121106(R) (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Y. W. Choi and H. J. Choi, Phys. Rev. B 98, 241412(R) (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    S. Carr, S. Fang, Z. Zhu, and E. Kaxiras, arXiv:1901.03420v2 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Guinea and N

    F. Guinea and N. R. Walet, PNAS 115, 1317413179 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    X. Yan, X. K. T. Law, and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 98, 121406(R) (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    X. Gu, C. Chen, J. N. Leaw, E. Laksono, V. M. Pereira, G. Vignale, and S. Adam, arXiv:1902.00029v1 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Roy and V

    B. Roy and V. Juri˘ ci´ c, Phys. Rev. B 99, 121407(R) (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Liu, L.-D

    C.-C. Liu, L.-D. Zhang, W.-Q. Chen, and F. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 217001 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Gonz´ alez and T

    J. Gonz´ alez and T. Stauber, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 026801 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    H. Guo, X. Zhu, S. Feng, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B 97, 235453 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Xie and A

    M. Xie and A. H. MacDonald, arXiv:1812.04213v1 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y. D. Liao, Z. Y. Meng, and X. Y. Xu, arXiv:1901.11424v2 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H. C. Po, L. Zou, A. Vishwanath, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031089 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    M. Ochi, M. Koshino, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B 98, 081102(R) (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    J. Liu, J. Liu, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 99, 155415 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    D. M. Kennes, J. Lischner, and C. Karrasch, Phys. Rev. B 98, 241407(R) (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Wu, Phys

    F. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 99, 195114 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    F. Wu, A. H. MacDonald, and I. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 257001 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Sherkunov and J

    Y. Sherkunov and J. J. Betouras, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205151 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    N. F. Q. Yuan and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B98, 045103 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Padhi, C

    B. Padhi, C. Setty, and P. W. Phillips, Nano Lett. 18, 6175 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    J. M. Pizarro, M. J. Calder´ on, and E. Bascones, J. Phys. Commun. 3, 035024 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 246401 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    J. M. Pizarro, M. Rosner, R. Thomale, R. Valent, and T. O. Wehling, Phys. Rev. B 100, 161102(R) (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Corsetti, A

    F. Corsetti, A. A. Mostofi, and J. Lischner, 2D Mater. 4, 025070 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    K. W.-K. Shung, Phys. Rev. B 34, 979 (1986)

    1986

  60. [68]

    M. S. Hybertsen and S. C. Louie, Phys. Rev. B 35, 5585 (1987)

    1987

  61. [69]

    T. Ando, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 75, 074716 (2006)

    2006

  62. [70]

    Aryasetiawan, A

    F. Aryasetiawan, A. G. M. Imada, S. B. G. Kotliar, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B 70, 195104 (2004)

    2004

  63. [71]

    Aryasetiawan, K

    F. Aryasetiawan, K. Karlsson, O. Jepsen, and U. Sch¨ onberger, Phys. Rev. B74, 125106 (2006)

    2006

  64. [72]

    F. F. A. Carsten Honerkamp, Hiroshi Shinaoka and P. Werner, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235151 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    Koshino, N

    M. Koshino, N. F. Q. Yuan, T. Koretsune, M. Ochi, K. Kuroki, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031087 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031088 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    L. V. Keldysh, JETP Lett. 29, 658 (1979)

    1979

  68. [76]

    A. H. C. Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    Wunsch, T

    B. Wunsch, T. Stauber, F. Sols, and F. Guinea, New J. Phys. 8, 318 (2006)

    2006

  70. [78]

    Lischner, Comput

    J. Lischner, Comput. Mater. Sci. 160, 368 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    L. Yang, J. Deslippe, C.-H. Park, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 186802 (2009)

    2009

  72. [80]

    Kohn and J

    W. Kohn and J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 524 (1965)

    1965

  73. [81]

    A. V. Chubukov, Phys. Rev. B 48, 1097 (1993)

    1993

  74. [82]

    W. A. Little, Phys. Rev. 134, A1416 (1964)

    1964

  75. [83]

    A. Hamo, A. Benyamini, I. Shapir, I. Khivrich, J. Waiss- man, K. Kaasbjerg, Y. Oreg, F. von Oppen, and S. Ilani, Nature 535, 395 (2016)

    2016

  76. [84]

    J. E. Hirsch and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2732 (1986)

    1986

  77. [85]

    Jung and A

    J. Jung and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 84, 085446 (2011)

    2011

  78. [86]

    Uchoa and A

    B. Uchoa and A. H. C. Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 146801 (2007)

    2007

  79. [87]

    T. C. Lang, Z. Y. Meng, M. M. Scherer, S. Uebelacker, F. F. Assaad, A. Muramatsu, C. Honerkamp, and S. Wessel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 126402 (2012)

    2012

  80. [88]

    Sch¨ uler, M

    M. Sch¨ uler, M. R¨ osner, T. O. Wehling, A. I. Licht- enstein, and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 036601 (2013)

    2013

  81. [89]

    Uchida, S

    K. Uchida, S. Furuya, J.-I. Iwata, and A. Oshiyama, Phys. Rev. B 90, 155451 (2014)

    2014

  82. [90]

    Oshiyama, J.-I

    A. Oshiyama, J.-I. Iwata, K. Uchida, and Y.-I. Mat- sushita, J. Appl. Phys. 117, 112811 (2015)

    2015

  83. [91]

    Gargiulo and O

    F. Gargiulo and O. V. Yazyev, 2D Mater. 5, 015019 (2018)

    2018

  84. [92]

    S. K. Jain, V. Juri˘ ci´ c, and G. T. Barkema, 2D Mater.4, 015018 (2017)

    2017

  85. [93]

    N. N. T. Nam and M. Koshino, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075311 (2017)

    2017

  86. [94]

    J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Phys. Rev.94, 1498 (1954)

    1954

  87. [95]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  88. [96]

    Marzari, A

    N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1419 (2012)

    2012

  89. [97]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G´ eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune, J. I. nez Azpiroz, H. Lee, D. Marchand, A. Marrazzo, Y. Mokrousov, J. I. Mustafa, Y. Nohara, Y. Nomura, L. Paulatto, S. Ponc` e, T. Ponweiser, J. Qiao, F....

    2019 arXiv

  90. [98]

    R. Wang, E. A. Lazar, H. Park, A. J. Millis, and C. A. Marianetti, Phys. Rev. B 90, 165125 (2014)

    2014

  91. [99]

    T. O. Wehling, E. S ¸a¸ so˘ glu, C. Friedrich, A. I. Lichten- stein, M. I. Katsnelson, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236805 (2011)

    2011

  92. [100]

    Ohno, Theoret

    K. Ohno, Theoret. chim. Acta 2, 219 (1964)

    1964

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.