Striped twisted state in the orientational epitaxy on quasicrystals

Andrea Vanossi; Dario Bertazioli; Davide Vanossi; Emanuele Panizon; Erio Tosatti; Giuseppe E. Santoro; Marco Bellagente; Mario Forzanini; Martino Colombo; Nicola Manini

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Striped twisted state in the orientational epitaxy on quasicrystals

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that a crystalline monolayer on a quasicrystalline substrate will generally sit at a nonzero misfit angle, forming a striped, not hexagonal, moiré pattern.

desk verdict First clean extension of Novaco-McTague theory to quasicrystal substrates, predicting a striped twisted state; the model-level result is convincing but the 'generic' claim is not fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06851 v1 pith:VCDGAPK7 submitted 2025-01-12 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Nicola Manini , Mario Forzanini , Sebastiano Pagano , Marco Bellagente , Martino Colombo , Dario Bertazioli , Tommaso Salvalaggio , Andrea Vanossi

show 4 more authors

Davide Vanossi Emanuele Panizon Erio Tosatti Giuseppe E. Santoro

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 68.35.Af68.08.De62.10.+s62.20.Qp

keywords quasicrystalepitaxytwistedmoiréstripedpatterncolloidalmonolayerone-phonontheorymisfitangleorientationaldecagonalopticallattice

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 extends the long-known twisted-epitaxy result of Novaco and McTague from crystalline to quasicrystalline substrates, predicting that a crystalline monolayer on a quasicrystal will generally adopt a nonzero misfit angle. The central claim is that the resulting equilibrium distortion is not a hexagonal moiré but a striped pattern set by a single pair of reciprocal wavevectors. This follows analytically from a variational one-phonon calculation and matches numerical relaxation of a colloid monolayer on a decagonal optical lattice without fitting parameters. A sympathetic reader should care because the striped state is highly anisotropic, which should show up in direction-dependent friction and other interface properties.

What carries the argument

The argument uses a coherent-state variational phonon state for the harmonic monolayer, expanded to one-phonon order in the quasiperiodic substrate potential $V(\mathbf{x})$. Momentum conservation forces each substrate Fourier component $\mathbf{G}$ to combine with a monolayer reciprocal vector $\boldsymbol{\tau}$, leaving only the $\mathbf{q}=\mathbf{G}-\boldsymbol{\tau}$ points in the first Brillouin zone that satisfy Eq. (9). The resulting energy is Eq. (10), a sum over these $\mathbf{q}$ points weighted by $|\mathbf{G}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{\mathbf{q},s}|^2/\omega_{\mathbf{q},s}^2$, and the displacement field is Eq. (11). Because the decagonal potential has $p(p-1)=20$ $\mathbf{G}$ vectors that appear only in inversion pairs, the shortest $\mathbf{q}$ vector and its opposite dominate, producing stripes.

What would settle it

An experimental or numerical check with a free (not ring-constrained) colloid monolayer on a decagonal optical lattice at the paper's length ratio: if the equilibrium angle is zero, or if the displacement field shows a sixfold moiré rather than parallel stripes, the central prediction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The equilibrium orientation of a two-dimensional crystal on a quasiperiodic substrate is generically twisted: the optimal energy per particle is given by the one-phonon expression of Eq. (10) and the displacement field by Eq. (11). In the weak-coupling regime this analytic result reproduces numerical relaxation quantitatively, and the equilibrium pattern is dominated by a single pair of shortest wavevectors, producing parallel stripes rather than the hexagonal moiré of crystal-on-crystal epitaxy. For the studied length ratio $a_{\rm pot}/a_{\rm coll}=5.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}/5.8\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, the optimal twist angle is $\theta_{\rm opt}\simeq 5.31^\circ$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the overlayer stays a uniform harmonic crystal that rotates as a rigid whole, with a global displacement field and no domain walls, dislocations, or spatially varying rotation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Crystal-on-quasicrystal interfaces should generically be misaligned, so quasicrystalline substrates can impose twist on an adsorbed crystal without any external rotation.
The equilibrium moiré is striped, so any property controlled by the moiré, such as adhesion, electronic modulation, or chemical reactivity, will be strongly direction dependent.
In the weak-coupling regime the interface is superlubric, but kinetic friction should preferentially excite the shortest-$"""$q$ phonon and therefore be anisotropic.
The one-phonon formula provides a parameter-free benchmark for simulations and future experiments at small corrugation, and the optimal angle for the studied ratio is $"""$\theta_{\rm opt}\simeq 5.31^\circ$.
The striped pattern should persist for other combinations of incompatible symmetry, such as hexagonal-on-square or square-on-decagonal interfaces.

Reading between the lines

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

If the rigid-rotation constraint is relaxed, real layers could break into domains with different twist directions, so the clean striped state may coexist with domain walls; this is an extension the paper does not address.
Varying the $a_{\rm pot}/a_{\rm coll}$ ratio should tune both the optimal twist angle and the stripe spacing, a testable prediction that follows directly from Eq. (10).
At stronger corrugation the one-phonon approximation degrades, and the displacement pattern is expected to acquire contributions from additional phonon modes, as the paper's own Fig. 4 suggests.
The same $\mathbf{q}=\mathbf{G}-\boldsymbol{\tau}$ logic applied to other quasiperiodic substrates with different rotational symmetry should produce stripe patterns of characteristic wavelength and orientation, which could be checked in optical-lattice colloid experiments.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know that this paper gives the first clean extension of Novaco–McTague orientational epitaxy to a quasicrystalline substrate. The genuinely new result is that the optimal distortion is dominated by a single inversion-related pair of reciprocal vectors, producing stripes rather than the hexagonal moiré of crystal-on-crystal epitaxy. That is a real prediction, not a routine application, and the authors back it with a parameter-free comparison to LAMMPS simulations at weak coupling. The agreement at g = 10⁻⁴ in Fig. 3 is quantitatively excellent and the displacement patterns in Fig. 4 match Eq. (11) convincingly.

The derivation is standard but carefully executed: coherent-state variational energy, one-phonon approximation, momentum conservation giving Eq. (10). The identification of the shortest q-vector pair as the main contributor is physically transparent and well supported. Citation practice looks honest—the relevant NM, Shiba, and colloidal experimental literature is cited.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The abstract says the layer "will generally exhibit a nonzero misfit angle," but the evidence is one length ratio apot/acoll in the main text and a second in the Supplemental Material, which was not part of the reviewed version. That makes the "generally" claim stronger than the shown proof. More substantively, the variational space only includes global rotation, not homogeneous strain. In NM theory for crystals, strain is part of the mechanism, so omitting it could shift the optimal angle. The simulation fixes the outermost ring at perfect-lattice positions, which imposes θ and suppresses uniform dilation or shear. So the excellent numerical agreement validates Eq. (10) for the constrained geometry, not necessarily an unconstrained equilibrium. A free monolayer that can relax via strain or spatially varying rotation might find a slightly different optimum; the clean stripe pattern could be smeared by domain walls or dislocations at larger couplings or different ratios. These are addressable concerns, not fatal flaws. The weak-coupling regime is where the prediction lives, and there the uniform-distortion ansatz is plausible.

One minor quibble: "perfectly agrees" is a bit strong for the high-g cases, where the agreement is qualitative. But that does not undercut the main result.

Who is this for? Researchers working on 2D epitaxy, moiré materials, and colloids on optical lattices. It deserves a serious referee. The referee should ask for the SM, a second length ratio, and a discussion (or short simulation) addressing homogeneous strain and free boundaries. With those, the generality claim could become solid.

I would send this to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the Novaco-McTague weak-corrugation theory of orientational epitaxy from crystalline substrates to a decagonal quasicrystalline substrate. A harmonic hexagonal monolayer is coupled to a quasiperiodic potential generated by p=5 interfering beams. Using a coherent-state variational ansatz and a one-phonon approximation, the authors derive a closed-form energy lowering, Eq. (10), and the equilibrium displacement field, Eq. (11). Minimizing Eq. (10) over the global rotation angle θ for one length ratio a_pot/a_coll = 5.4/5.8 yields θ_opt ≈ 5.31°, with the distortion dominated by a single pair of shortest reciprocal vectors q_min, hence a striped moiré pattern. LAMMPS simulations of a circular sample with a fixed outermost ring at perfect-lattice positions reproduce the energy curve quantitatively for g = 10^-4 and qualitatively for larger g. The paper claims that a nonzero misfit angle is generic for crystal-on-quasicrystal epitaxy.

Significance. If the generic claim were established, this would be a natural and important extension of Novaco-McTague physics to quasicrystalline substrates, with a concrete, falsifiable striped state and anisotropic tribological consequences. The paper has real strengths: Eq. (10) is a parameter-free analytic formula, the small-g simulation comparison is quantitative, and the stripe mechanism is clearly identified through the dominance of a single q_min pair. The main limitations are that the numerical validation is a self-consistency check of the same model, the boundary conditions impose the global rotation and suppress homogeneous strain, and only one length ratio is examined. These limitations do not invalidate the formalism, but they leave the 'generally' claim of the abstract under-supported.

major comments (3)

[Variational approach, Eq. (10)] Eq. (10) is minimized only over the global rotation θ of the reference lattice, with the matching condition q = G − R(θ)τ. A homogeneous strain ε of the overlayer would change this condition to q = G − R(θ)(1+ε)τ and can lower the energy in epitaxial systems; the manuscript neither includes this degree of freedom nor proves it is negligible. Since the numerical simulations fix the outermost ring at perfect-lattice positions, they explicitly suppress uniform dilation and shear. The claim that the free equilibrium is θ_opt ≈ 5.31° therefore requires either an analytic argument excluding homogeneous strain or a free-boundary/affine-relaxation simulation.
[Numerical, Fig. 3] The generic statement in the abstract is supported by a single length ratio a_pot/a_coll = 5.4/5.8. The text calls this a 'generic lattice-incommensurate situation', but no analytic proof or multi-ratio scan is provided; the second ratio is only mentioned in the Supplemental Material and is not part of the reviewed manuscript. Because the position of q_min(θ) and hence the sign and size of θ_opt can depend on the ratio, a reader cannot exclude that the nonzero θ_opt is specific to the chosen ratio. Please provide an argument covering generic irrational ratios or a systematic scan over many ratios.
[Numerical, Fig. 4] The fixed outermost ring imposes the twist angle and prevents spatially nonuniform relaxation such as domain walls, dislocations, or a bulk rotation that differs from the boundary rotation. The displacement field in Eq. (11) is a coherent sinusoidal modulation of the whole lattice, and the stripe pattern in Fig. 4 is obtained under this constraint. Since the abstract claims the equilibrium configuration generically has nonzero misfit with stripes, free-boundary or periodic simulations that allow the orientation and strain to relax are needed to show that the pattern is not an artifact of the boundary control.

minor comments (4)

[Introduction, p. 2] The phrase 'quite different from the the ordinary moiré pattern' contains a duplicated definite article.
[References, Ref. [33]] The author list 'D. Shechtman, I. Blech, and D. Gratias, J. W. Cahn Phys. Rev. Lett.' is missing a comma between Gratias and Cahn, making the attribution unclear.
[Fig. 3, p. 3] The vertical dashed line is labeled 'θ_opt ≃ 5.31°'; please state explicitly whether this value is the analytic minimum of Eq. (10) or the numerical minimum, since the two are not necessarily identical at larger g.
[Abstract and Discussion] The statement that the theory 'perfectly agrees' with numerical optimization is precise only in the weak-coupling regime; Fig. 3 shows quantitative agreement at g = 10^-4 but only qualitative agreement at g = 0.01-0.05. Please qualify the claim to avoid overstating the range of quantitative validity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; analytic theory and simulation are independent routes through the same model, with no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: Eq. (10) follows from the model Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) via a coherent-state variational ansatz and one-phonon linearization, with the momentum-conservation condition q = G − τ (Eq. (9)); it is then minimized over the twist angle θ to obtain θopt ≈ 5.31°. No parameter in Eq. (10) is fitted to the simulation; the LAMMPS run independently minimizes the full classical energy for the same Hamiltonian and potential, so the agreement in Fig. 3 is a self-consistency check of the weak-coupling approximation, not a circular reduction. The self-citations (e.g., [16], [17], [46]) are contextual or corroborative; in particular, [46] merely notes that 'Patterns consisting of stripes are expected for any interface between objects of incompatible symmetry', while the stripe pattern itself is already derived here from Eq. (11), so that citation is not load-bearing. The main in-scope caveats are: (i) the numerical sample has 'particles in the outermost ring fixed at perfect-lattice positions, to mitigate boundary effects and to control the twist angle', which constrains θ and suppresses homogeneous strain, and (ii) ref. [15] defers 'complementary results relative to a different crystal/quasicrystal spacing ratio' to the supplemental material, not part of the reviewed version. These weaken the empirical generality of the 'generally' claim but are correctness/generality risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions, or entities. The striped state is an emergent pattern within the standard harmonic model. The main unverified inputs are the model assumptions listed above and the hand-chosen length ratio.

free parameters (3)

aspect ratio R = a_pot / a_coll = 5.4 / 5.8 (dimensionless)
Chosen by hand to be generically incommensurate so that G != tau for all twist angles; the optimal angle theta_opt about 5.31 degrees depends on this ratio. Not fitted to any external data.
coupling strength g = V0 / (K a_coll^2) = 10^-4 to 0.05
Chosen to probe the weak-coupling regime where the one-phonon approximation applies; the agreement with Eq. (10) degrades as g grows, so the central claim is demonstrated only for small g.
p = number of interfering beams = 5
Chosen to model decagonal fivefold quasicrystalline symmetry; sets the number of G vectors to p(p-1)=20. An integer model choice, not fitted.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The overlayer is a harmonic 2D crystal with nearest-neighbor elastic coupling K, described by noninteracting phonons.
Eqs. (1)-(3) define the model; anharmonicity and plasticity are neglected.
domain assumption The substrate is a rigid quasiperiodic potential of the form V(x) = -(V0/p^2) sum_G exp(-iG.x), with equal Fourier amplitudes for all p(p-1) difference vectors G.
Eq. (4); real quasicrystal surfaces have position-dependent Fourier coefficients and the overlayer could back-react on the substrate.
domain assumption Weak-coupling limit g << 1 and one-phonon approximation exp(iG.u) about 1 + iG.u.
Used after Eq. (8) to linearize and get momentum conservation q = G - tau; validity limited to small displacements.
standard math Coherent-state variational ansatz for phonons.
Eq. (6); standard time-independent variational method for harmonic systems; for a classical lattice it is equivalent to assuming a static displacement field.
domain assumption Debye-Waller factor W_G is negligible.
Stated after Eq. (7), justified for colloids, but the paper also claims applicability to atomic overlayers where W_G may not be negligible.
domain assumption The equilibrium is a globally uniform rigid rotation of the overlayer; the twist angle is controlled by a fixed boundary ring.
Numerical section: outermost ring fixed at perfect-lattice positions; spatially varying rotations, domains, and discommensurations are excluded.
ad hoc to paper The chosen length ratio is generically incommensurate, so G != tau and q != 0 for all theta.
Chosen ratio a_pot/a_coll = 5.4/5.8; the generality of the nonzero-twist conclusion across other ratios is not established in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Striped twisted state in the orientational epitaxy on quasicrystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCDGAPK7

@misc{pith2026250106851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Striped twisted state in the orientational epitaxy on quasicrystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCDGAPK7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06851}
}

read the original abstract

The optimal "twisted" geometry of a crystalline layer on a crystal is long known, but that on a quasicrystal is still unknown and open. We predict analytically that the layer equilibrium configuration will generally exhibit a nonzero misfit angle. The theory perfectly agrees with numerical optimization of a colloid monolayer on a quasiperiodic decagonal optical lattice. Strikingly different from crystal-on-crystal epitaxy, the structure of the novel emerging twisted state exhibits an unexpected stripe pattern. Its high anisotropy should reflect on the tribomechanical properties of this unconventional interface.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06851 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Comparison of the numerically relaxed total poten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Comparison of the displacement pattern (a) predicted by Eq. (11) with that of the numerically-relaxed state of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

de Jong, T

T. de Jong, T. Benschop, X. Chen, E. Krasovskii, M. J. A. de Dood, R. M. Tromp, M. P. Allan, and S. J. van der Molen, Nat. Commun. 13, 70 (2022)

work page 2022
[2]

S. Lisi, V. Guisset, P. David, E. Mazaleyrat, A. C. G´ omez Herrero, and J. Coraux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 096101 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

S. S. Dindorkar, A. S. Kurade, and A. H. Shaikh, Chem. Phys. Imp. 7, 100325 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

A. D. Novaco and J. P. McTague, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1286 (1977)

work page 1977
[5]

J. P. McTague and A. D. Novaco, Phys. Rev. B 19, 5299 (1979)

work page 1979
[6]

Shiba, J

H. Shiba, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 46, 1852 (1979)

work page 1979
[7]

Shiba, J

H. Shiba, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 48, 211 (1980). 5 FIG. 4: Comparison of the displacement pattern (a) predicted by Eq. (11) with that of the numerically-relaxed state of a circular sample of N = 9407 particles for (b) g = 10−4, (c) g = 0.01, (d) g = 0.05. Colored dots: particles colored according to their displacement uj from the initial perfect-lattice posit...

work page 1980
[8]

C. G. Shaw, S. C. Fain, and M. D. Chinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 955 (1978)

work page 1978

Show all 48 references

[9]

Mandelli, A

D. Mandelli, A. Vanossi, N. Manini, and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 108302 (2015)

2015
[10]

Mandelli, A

D. Mandelli, A. Vanossi, M. Invernizzi, S. Paronuzzi, N. Manini, and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. B 92, 134306 (2015)

2015
[11]

Schmiedeberg and H

M. Schmiedeberg and H. Stark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 218302 (2008)

2008
[12]

Mikhael, M

J. Mikhael, M. Schmiedeberg, S. Rausch, J. Roth, H. Stark, and C. Bechinger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 7214 (2010)

2010
[13]

Zaidouny, T

L. Zaidouny, T. Bohlein, J. Roth, and C. Bechinger, Soft Matter 10, 8705 (2014)

2014
[14]

Mikhael, J

J. Mikhael, J. Roth, L. Helden, and C. Bechinger, Nature (London) 454, 501 (2008)

2008
[15]

SM includes Refs

See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for mathematical derivations, detail about the numerical implementation, and complementary results relative to a different crystal/quasicrystal spacing ratio. SM includes Refs. [35–44]
[16]

Vanossi, N

A. Vanossi, N. Manini, and E. Tosatti, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16429 (2012)

2012
[17]

Brazda, A

T. Brazda, A. Silva, N. Manini, A. Vanossi, R. Guerra, E. Tosatti, and C. Bechinger, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011050 (2018)

2018
[18]

Mikhael, G

J. Mikhael, G. Gera, T. Bohlein, and C. Bechinger, Soft Matter 7, 1352 (2011)

2011
[19]

Bohlein, J

T. Bohlein, J. Mikhael, and C. Bechinger, Nat. Mater. 11, 126 (2012)

2012
[20]

Bohlein and C

T. Bohlein and C. Bechinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 058301 (2012)

2012
[21]

Brunner, C

M. Brunner, C. Bechinger, W. Strepp, V. Lobaskin, and H. H. von Grunberg, Europhys. Lett. 58, 926 (2002)

2002
[22]

Mangold, P

K. Mangold, P. Leiderer, and C. Bechinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 158302 (2003)

2003
[23]

Bleil, H

S. Bleil, H. H. von Gr¨ unberg, J. Dobnikar, R. C. neda Priego, and C. Bechinger, Europhys. Lett. 73, 450 (2006)

2006
[24]

Flor ´ ıa and J

L. Flor ´ ıa and J. Mazo, Adv. Phys.45, 505 (1996)

1996
[25]

Reichhardt and C

C. Reichhardt and C. J. Olson Reichhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 060603 (2011)

2011
[26]

Mahan, Many-Particles Physics (Plenum, New York, 1981)

G. Mahan, Many-Particles Physics (Plenum, New York, 1981)

1981
[27]

Plimpton, J

S. Plimpton, J. Comput. Phys. 117, 1 (1995)

1995
[28]

C. Mora, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 026402 (2019)

2019
[29]

E. Y. Andrei, D. K. Efetov, P. Jarillo-Herrero, A. H. MacDonald, K. F. Mak, T. Senthil, E. Tutuc, A. Yazdani, and A. F. Young, Nat. Rev. Mater. 6, 201 (2021). 6

2021
[30]

Koren and U

E. Koren and U. Duerig, Phys. Rev. B 93, 201404(R) (2016)

2016
[31]

Guerra, U

R. Guerra, U. Tartaglino, A. Vanossi, and E. Tosatti, Nat. Mater. 9, 634 (2010)

2010
[32]

K. M. Omambac, H. Hattab, C. Brand, G. Jnawali, A. T. N’Diaye, J. Coraux, R. van Gastel, B. Poelsema, T. Michely, F.-J. Meyer zu Heringdorf, et al., Nano Lett. 19, 4594 (2019)

2019
[33]

Shechtman, I

D. Shechtman, I. Blech, and D. Gratias, J. W. Cahn Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1951 (1984)

1984
[34]

Yadav and N

T. Yadav and N. Mukhopadhyay, Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 19, 163 (2018)

2018
[35]

R. M. Wilcox, J. Math. Phys. 8, 962 (1967)

1967
[36]

Norell, A

J. Norell, A. Fasolino, and A. S. de Wijn, Phys. Rev. E 94, 023001 (2016)

2016
[37]

Bitzek, P

E. Bitzek, P. Koskinen, F. G¨ ahler, M. Moseler, and P. Gumbsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 170201 (2006)

2006
[38]

Gu´ enol´ e, W

J. Gu´ enol´ e, W. G. N¨ ohring, A. Vaid, F. Houll´ e, Z. Xie, A. Prakash, and E. Bitzek, Comp. Mat. Sci. 175, 109584 (2020)

2020
[39]

O. M. Braun, N. Manini, and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 085503 (2013)

2013
[40]

Varini, A

N. Varini, A. Vanossi, R. Guerra, D. Mandelli, R. Capozza, and E. Tosatti, Nanoscale 7, 2093 (2015)

2015
[41]

Koren and U

E. Koren and U. Duerig, Phys. Rev. B 94, 045401 (2016)

2016
[42]

J. Wang, W. Cao, Y. Song, C. Qu, Q. Zheng, and M. Ma, Nano Lett. 19, 7735 (2019)

2019
[43]

W. Yan, X. Gao, W. Ouyang, Z. Liu, O. Hod, and M. Ur- bakh, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 185, 105555 (2024)

2024
[44]

J. Wang, A. Khosravi, A. Vanossi, and E. Tosatti, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 011002 (2024)

2024
[45]

Ashcroft and M

N. Ashcroft and M. Mermin, Solid State Physics (Holt- Saunders, Philadelphia, 1976)

1976
[46]

Panizon, A

E. Panizon, A. Silva, X. Cao, J. Wang, C. Bechinger, A. Vanossi, E. Tosatti, and N. Manini, Nanoscale 15, 1299 (2023)

2023
[47]

For a monoatomic crystal [45], the matrix D(q) is real for any q: therefore, the eigenvectors ϵq,s can also be taken real
[48]

hexagonal-on-square or square-on-decagonal interfaces [46]

Patterns consisting of stripes are expected for any in- terface between objects of incompatible symmetry, e.g. hexagonal-on-square or square-on-decagonal interfaces [46]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

de Jong, T

T. de Jong, T. Benschop, X. Chen, E. Krasovskii, M. J. A. de Dood, R. M. Tromp, M. P. Allan, and S. J. van der Molen, Nat. Commun. 13, 70 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [2]

S. Lisi, V. Guisset, P. David, E. Mazaleyrat, A. C. G´ omez Herrero, and J. Coraux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 096101 (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [3]

S. S. Dindorkar, A. S. Kurade, and A. H. Shaikh, Chem. Phys. Imp. 7, 100325 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

A. D. Novaco and J. P. McTague, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1286 (1977)

work page 1977

[5] [5]

J. P. McTague and A. D. Novaco, Phys. Rev. B 19, 5299 (1979)

work page 1979

[6] [6]

Shiba, J

H. Shiba, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 46, 1852 (1979)

work page 1979

[7] [7]

Shiba, J

H. Shiba, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 48, 211 (1980). 5 FIG. 4: Comparison of the displacement pattern (a) predicted by Eq. (11) with that of the numerically-relaxed state of a circular sample of N = 9407 particles for (b) g = 10−4, (c) g = 0.01, (d) g = 0.05. Colored dots: particles colored according to their displacement uj from the initial perfect-lattice posit...

work page 1980

[8] [8]

C. G. Shaw, S. C. Fain, and M. D. Chinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 955 (1978)

work page 1978