Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Screening of the band gap in electrically biased bilayer graphene: From Hartree to Hartree-Fock

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the Fock exchange contribution to self-screening of the band gap in biased bilayer graphene and shows it is comparable to, and at low density larger than, the Hartree contribution.

desk verdict Fock screening matters and the factor-of-two gap reduction is credible, but the key derivation is skipped and the n^{1/5} scaling needs qualification. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04381 v1 pith:4N4CNGNI submitted 2025-05-07 cond-mat.mes-hall

Jack N. Engdahl , Zeb E. Krix , Oleg P. Sushkov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords biasedbilayergraphenebandgaprenormalizationFockself-energyHartreescreeningRPAlow-densityscalingfinite-temperatureelectrostaticgating
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 derives the Fock (exchange) contribution to the self-screening of the band gap in electrically biased bilayer graphene, alongside the known Hartree term, and argues that the two are comparable in size, with Fock dominating at low carrier density. The authors build the Hartree-Fock self-consistent equation $D(n)=D_{\mathrm{ext}}+\delta D_H(n,D)+\delta D_F(n,D)$, solve it numerically, and find that including exchange reduces the gap by roughly a factor of two relative to Hartree-only screening. They also find a sharp low-density correction, $\delta D_F(n=0)-\delta D_F(n)\propto n^{1/5}$, and a step-like drop of the gap with temperature in the undoped insulator. Because exciton binding, quantum-dot confinement, and transport in biased bilayer graphene all depend on the actual gap, the result changes quantitative predictions for such devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Fock self-energy evaluated at zero momentum with a Wick-rotated contour, using the decomposition of the electron Green's function into an insulating part plus an occupation-dependent delta-function part, Eq. (22), so that only the insulating part must be rotated to imaginary frequencies. The interaction entering the self-energy is the RPA-screened Coulomb interaction between two metallic gates, $V_q(\omega)=2\pi e^2/(\varepsilon q/\tanh(qd)-2\pi e^2\Pi(q,\omega))$, with $\Pi$ built from intra- and inter-band transitions. The low-density power law follows from the small-$q$ intraband polarization $\Pi^{++}(q,0)\approx -8m^2\Delta p_F^2/(\pi q^4)$ in the regime $p_F\ll q\ll\sqrt{2m\Delta}$, which sets the momentum cutoff $q_{\max}\propto p_F^{2/5}$ and hence $\delta D_F(n=0)-\delta D_F(n)\propto n^{1/5}$. The Hartree part is handled in real space and enters through the electrostatic layer-density imbalance, giving $\delta D_H$ with a logarithmic factor.

What would settle it

Measure the transport activation gap or quantum capacitance of a dual-gated biased bilayer graphene device as a function of conduction-electron density at low $n$: if the gap follows the Hartree-only logarithmic dependence instead of dropping as $\delta D_F(n=0)-\delta D_F(n)\propto n^{1/5}$ and landing near half the Hartree value, the central claim would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that exchange (Fock) screening is not a small correction to Hartree screening in biased bilayer graphene: it is equally strong, and in the low-density regime stronger. Using the RPA-dressed Coulomb interaction $V_q(\omega)=2\pi e^2/(\varepsilon q/\tanh(qd)-2\pi e^2\Pi(q,\omega))$, the paper evaluates the Fock self-energy at the band edges at zero temperature and at finite temperature, then solves the self-consistent equation for the physical gap. In a zero-temperature metal the gap acquires a very steep doping dependence at small conduction-electron density, $\delta D_F(n=0)-\delta D_F(n)\propto n^{1/5}$, a sharper power than the $n^{1/3}$ found in monolayer transition-metal dichalcogenides. In the zero-temperature insulator, including exchange reduces the gap by roughly a factor of two compared with Hartree-only results, and in the finite-temperature insulator the gap drops step-like near $T\approx 0.2\Delta=0.1D$.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative result assumes the two metal gates sit at equal distances from the graphene and the surrounding material can be described by one averaged electrical constant; a real device with asymmetric gating could have a different screening strength.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hartree-only calculations give a zero-temperature gap roughly twice the Hartree-Fock value, so device models should include the Fock term.
  • At low conduction-electron density the gap responds very sharply to doping, following $\delta D_F(n=0)-\delta D_F(n)\propto n^{1/5}$; small gate-voltage changes near charge neutrality produce large gap changes.
  • In the undoped insulator the gap drops step-like at $T\approx 0.2\Delta=0.1D$, which the paper proposes to detect as a feature in resistivity versus temperature.
  • Because exciton binding energies and quantum-dot confinement are set relative to the gap, the reduced gap changes quantitative predictions for excitonic condensates and quantum-dot devices in biased bilayer graphene.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to measure the low-density gap via transport activation or quantum capacitance in a dual-gated device; the predicted $n^{1/5}$ drop is sharp enough to distinguish from Hartree-only logarithmic behavior.
  • The symmetric-gate assumption ($d_T=d_B=d$ and a single effective $\varepsilon$) means the factor-of-two reduction may be tunable; asymmetric top and bottom dielectrics or gate distances would alter the low-$q$ interaction that dominates the Fock integral.
  • The same imaginary-frequency self-energy method could be applied to other gapped two-dimensional systems with parabolic dispersion, such as biased trilayer graphene, where a similar competition between Hartree and Fock screening should appear.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theory of Hartree-Fock screening of the band gap in electrically biased bilayer graphene (BLG). The Hartree contribution is rederived in coordinate space following earlier work, and the Fock contribution is computed in momentum space using an imaginary-frequency RPA formalism previously applied to TMDs. The main claims are: (i) in the zero-temperature metal, the Fock correction to the gap is comparable to, and at low carrier density larger than, the Hartree correction; (ii) at low doping the Fock-induced gap reduction scales as n^{1/5}, sharper than the n^{1/3} scaling in TMDs; (iii) in the insulating case, the gap as a function of temperature shows a step-like reduction at T ~ 0.1D due to the Fock term. Results are presented as self-consistent solutions of D(n)=D_ext+δD_H+δD_F for several dielectric constants and gate distances.

Significance. If correct, the paper identifies a substantial missing contribution to gap renormalization in biased bilayer graphene, relevant for quantum dots, excitons, and transport experiments. The Hartree part reproduces known results, no parameter is fitted to the target gap, and the numerical procedure is described in enough detail to be reproducible. The main significance hinges on the magnitude of the Fock correction and on the predicted low-density scaling. However, the central analytic formula for the Fock correction is not derived, and the asymptotic analysis that supports the headline n^{1/5} scaling replaces the gate-screened interaction with an unscreened one without justification. These issues prevent full confidence in the quantitative claims at present.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (26)] Equation (26), the central result of the paper, is introduced with the phrase 'Following some algebraic manipulation' and no derivation is provided. This is a load-bearing omission: the entire Fock contribution, and therefore the main conclusions, rest on this formula. Please provide a complete derivation from Eq. (24) to Eq. (26), including the treatment of the σz and identity components of the self energy and the contour rotation of the first term. Without this derivation, the central claim is an unverifiable assertion.
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B1)-(B5)] The low-density analysis replaces the RPA-screened interaction of Eq. (18), which contains ε q/tanh(qd), by the unscreened form ε q without comment. In the regime qd << 1 that dominates the Fock integrand at low density, the bare denominator is ε/d, not ε q. Balancing ε/d against the intraband polarization Π++ ≈ -16 e² m² ∆ pF²/q⁴ gives a different q-cutoff and a different power-law exponent from the n^{1/5} claimed in Eq. (27). Since the inset of Fig. 6 and the abstract's comparison with TMDs rely on this exponent, the asymptotic analysis must be redone with tanh(qd) retained, or the neglect of gate screening must be justified numerically over the relevant parameter range.
  3. [Sec. VII A, Eqs. (30) and (31)] There is an inconsistency in the zero-temperature limit. Equation (30) gives n2−n1 = −(m∆/π) ln(Λ²/(m∆)) at T=0, whereas the zero-density limit of Eq. (13) gives n2−n1 = −2(m∆/π) ln(Λ²/(m∆)), a factor of two difference. This discrepancy propagates into the Hartree correction in Eq. (31) and into the temperature-dependent curves of Fig. 7. Please correct the factor and verify that the numerical results in Fig. 7 were obtained with the correct expression.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] There are several typographical errors: 'tecnique' in Sec. I, 'temeprature' in Sec. III, 'volatages' in Sec. VI, and 'immediatelly' in Sec. VII B. Please proofread the manuscript.
  2. [Notation] The symbol ε is used both for the dielectric constant and for the single-particle energy in several equations (e.g., Eq. (17) and Eq. (B4)). This is confusing; please use a distinct symbol for one of the two quantities.
  3. [Eq. (B4)] The denominator in Eq. (B4) appears as 'ǫ(ǫq + ...)', which seems to be a typesetting or algebraic error; it should likely be ε q(ε q + ...) to match Eq. (B2). Please clarify and correct.
  4. [Sec. IV] The assumption d_T=d_B=d is stated explicitly, but the paper does not discuss how asymmetric gate distances or differing dielectrics in a real device would affect the quantitative factor-of-two reduction. A brief discussion of this limitation would be useful.
  5. [Sec. VI, Fig. 6] The inset claims a n^{1/5} fit, but the power-law fit itself is not shown. Please plot the fit or provide the fitting range and exponent explicitly so that the scaling claim can be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the Fock-gap calculation is a new application of a same-group method and contains no fitted target parameter.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the effective Hamiltonian through the self-consistent equation D(n)=Dext+δDH(n,D)+δDF(n,D). δDF is evaluated from the Feynman self-energy (Eq. 19) and the RPA interaction (Eq. 18); the appearance of D on both sides of Eq. (28) is a genuine self-consistency condition rather than a definitional identity, since Dext is the independent input and the screening corrections have finite coefficients. The only hand-set ultraviolet scale Λ=2mv is fixed by monolayer parameters, enters logarithmically, and is not fitted to the target gap. The paper cites the authors' imaginary-frequency technique (Ref. [59]) and says 'We follow a similar method to that which the authors developed for monolayer TMDs', but the entire BLG reduction, including Eq. (26), is carried out in this manuscript; the citation therefore supplies a calculational route rather than a conclusion imported as evidence. I also checked the specific patterns in the instruction set: there is no uniqueness theorem invoked from same-author work, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no known result renamed in new coordinates. Two passages deserve correctness scrutiny, although they are not circularity: Eq. (26) is introduced with 'Following some algebraic manipulation' rather than being derived in full, and the low-density asymptotic in App. B replaces the tanh(qd) gate-screened interaction (18) by the bare εq denominator; these are checkable technical/derivational gaps, not reductions of the prediction to its inputs. Consequently no circular step is exhibited, and the score is kept at 2 only for the presence of the same-group method citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation takes as inputs the measured effective mass, the monolayer velocity used for the cutoff, and the device parameters ε and d. No numbers are fitted to the target band gap. The assumptions are standard domain assumptions for low-energy bilayer graphene and RPA many-body theory, plus one hand-set regulator (Λ) and one explicitly stated dominance assumption in the finite-temperature polarization.

free parameters (2)
  • Effective mass m = 0.033 m_e (from Ref [60])
    Input from prior measurements; enters dispersion Eq. (6) and Hartree coefficient 2e^2mL. Not fitted to the target gap in this paper.
  • Momentum cutoff Λ = Λ = 2mv, v ≈ 10^6 m/s, from monolayer parameters
    Hand-set regulator for valence-band integrals in Sec. III; Hartree screening depends on ln(Λ^2/(mΔ)). Results are sensitive to it within the stated logarithmic accuracy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The electronic structure of Bernal bilayer graphene is captured by the two-band parabolic Hamiltonian H = [[Δ, -p_-^2/2m],[-p_+^2/2m,-Δ]] in Eq. (6), with no trigonal warping or particle-hole asymmetry.
    All layer-density and polarization calculations start from this Hamiltonian; the quantitative screening depends on the parabolic dispersion and the effective mass.
  • domain assumption RPA dressing of the Coulomb interaction, Eq. (18), gives the interaction used in the Fock self-energy; vertex corrections beyond RPA are neglected.
    The Fock correction in Eq. (26) is derived from this dressed interaction; corrections to the RPA kernel are not estimated.
  • standard math Wick rotation to imaginary frequencies in the first term of Eq. (23) is valid, with the conduction-electron thermal branch cut handled by the second term.
    Standard analytic continuation; the authors claim the troublesome branch cut is isolated in the explicit quasiparticle term.
  • ad hoc to paper The valence band integral is regularized by a sharp momentum cutoff Λ = 2mv and evaluated in the logarithmic approximation ln(Λ^2/(m|Δ|)) >> 1.
    The cutoff is physically motivated by the breakdown of the two-band model at γ1, but it is a hand-set regulator; the authors note the logarithm is only 2.5-5, so the approximation is moderate.
  • domain assumption At finite temperature, the dominant polarization contribution from thermally excited electrons is Π++ = Π--, and other thermal transitions are omitted.
    Sec. VII B states this domination without a numerical test of the neglected Π-+ and Π+- temperature dependence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Screening of the band gap in electrically biased bilayer graphene: From Hartree to Hartree-Fock." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4N4CNGNI

@misc{pith2026250504381,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Screening of the band gap in electrically biased bilayer graphene: From Hartree to Hartree-Fock},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4N4CNGNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04381}
}
read the original abstract

It is well known that a direct band gap may be opened in bilayer graphene via the application of a perpendicular electric field (bias). The bias and the chemical potential are controlled by electrostatic gating where the top and bottom gate voltages are tuned separately. The value of the band gap opened by the bias field is influenced by the self screening of the bilayer graphene. The Hartree contribution to the self screening is well known in literature, with Hartree screening significantly renormalizing the gap. In the present work we derive the Fock contribution to the self screening and demonstrate that it is equally important and in the low density regime even more important than the Hartree contribution. We calculate the Hartree-Fock screened band gap as a function of electron doping at zero temperature and also as a function of temperature at zero doping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04381 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Hartree and Fock diagrams for BLG electron self [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of the biased bilayer graphene setup with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Gaussian surfaces shown by dashed blue lines. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Diagrams for the Coulomb polarisation operator in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Panel a: Band filling in metallic BLG with electrons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Band gap of metallic biased bilayer graphene vs carri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Band gap of insulating biased bilayer graphene vs tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Density of thermally excited electrons versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Exciton condensation from level repulsion: application to bilayer graphene

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An in-plane electric field couples the s- and p-wave excitons of biased bilayer graphene, and the resulting level repulsion can drive the lower exciton branch below zero energy, producing an exciton condensate.

  2. Zener tunnelling in biased bilayer graphene via analytic continuation of semiclassical theory

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A fully analytic semiclassical derivation gives the Zener pair-production rate and tunnelling current in biased bilayer graphene, including absolute normalization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    The Hartree contribution contains the Coulomb quantum at zero momentum, q = 0

    We will denote the band gap by D that is related to ∆ that we introduce below as ∆ = D 2 (1) Note that D and ∆ can be positive or negative. The Hartree contribution contains the Coulomb quantum at zero momentum, q = 0. Therefore, working in momen- tum space one needs to perform calculations at q ⁄= 0 and then take the limit q → 0. Therefore it is much mor...

    work page

  3. [3]

    T. Ohta, A. Bostwick, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Roten- berg, Science 313, 951 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    It is convenient to evaluate the polariza- tion operator with these diagrams rather than the usual bubble diagram, although the final result is the same in both cases. Here q,ω are momentum and frequency respectively running through the Coulomb interaction, p is the mo- mentum of the occupied electron state and p + q is the momentum of the unoccupied elect...

    work page

  5. [5]

    S. Y. Zhou, G.-H. Gweon, A. V. Fedorov, P. N. First, W. A. De Heer, D.-H. Lee, F. Guinea, A. H. Castro Neto, and A. Lanzara, Nature Materials 6, 770 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Alattas and U

    M. Alattas and U. Schwingenschl¨ ogl, Scientific Reports 8, 17689 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Zhang, T.-T

    Y. Zhang, T.-T. Tang, C. Girit, Z. Hao, M. C. Martin, A. Zettl, M. F. Crommie, Y. R. Shen, and F. Wang, Nature 459, 820 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    To explain this step-like reduction in Fig

    Furthermore, at finite tempertature the Fock screen- ing gives an interesting qualitative effect: a step-like re- duction of the gap at T ≈ 0.2∆ = 0 .1D. To explain this step-like reduction in Fig. 8 we plot the density of thermally excited electrons versus temperature in Fig. 8. The density becomes sizable at T > 0.2∆, below which 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1...

    work page

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    J. B. Oostinga, H. B. Heersche, X. Liu, A. F. Mor- purgo, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature Materials 7, 151 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    McCann and M

    E. McCann and M. Koshino, Reports on Progress in Physics 76, 056503 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Yang, Physical Review B 83, 085405 (2011)

    L. Yang, Physical Review B 83, 085405 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    E. V. Castro, K. S. Novoselov, S. V. Morozov, N. M. R. Peres, J. M. B. L. Dos Santos, J. Nilsson, F. Guinea, A. K. Geim, and A. H. C. Neto, Physical Review Letters 99, 216802 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    J. I. A. Li, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Hone, and C. R. Dean, Nature Physics 13, 751 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    J. C. G. Henriques, I. Epstein, and N. M. R. Peres, Physical Review B 105, 045411 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    To be specific at zero temperature we consider only the insulator or the system with electrons in conduction band

    gives the Feynman polarization operator that is reflected in + i0 in the denominators. To be specific at zero temperature we consider only the insulator or the system with electrons in conduction band. In this case only Π − +, Π ++ ⁄= 0, hence Π(q,ω ) = Π − +(q,ω ) + Π ++(q,ω )....

  8. [16]

    Guinea, A

    F. Guinea, A. H. Castro Neto, and N. M. R. Peres, Physical Review B 73, 245426 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Saleem, K

    Y. Saleem, K. Sadecka, M. Korkusinski, D. Miravet, A. Dusko, and P. Hawrylak, Nano Letters 23, 2998 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    C. R. Anderson, N. Natera-Cordero, V. H. Guarochico- Moreira, I. V. Grigorieva, and I. J. Vera-Marun, Scien- tific Reports 13, 10343 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Therefore we omit p2 ± terms in the electron Green’s function, which leads to the second line in Eq

    becomes Gq and hence q2 ± terms integrate to zero in the integrations over angles of q. Therefore we omit p2 ± terms in the electron Green’s function, which leads to the second line in Eq. ( 20). To be specific let us consider a metal with some concentration of electrons in the...

  12. [20]

    must be replaced by 1 ǫ −ǫp +i0 → np ǫ −ǫp −i0 + (1 −np) ǫ −ǫp +i0. (21) Hence, using the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem 1 x− i0 = 1 x + πiδ(x), the Green’s function for metallic BLG can be written as G(m) p (ǫ) = G(ins) p (ǫ) + ǫ + ∆ σz 2ǫp 2πinpδ(ǫ −ǫp) (22) Note that ǫ+∆ σz 2ǫp ...

  13. [21]

    L. Ju, L. Wang, T. Cao, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, S. G. Louie, F. Rana, J. Park, J. Hone, F. Wang, and P. L. McEuen, Science 358, 907 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    J. R. Cruise, A. Seidel, E. A. Henriksen, and G. Vignale, Physical Review B 110, 115416 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Rotation to the imaginary axis gives Σ p(ǫ) = − ∑ q ∫ G(ins) p+q (ǫ +iξ)Vq(iξ)dξ 2π − ∑ q np+q ( ǫp+q + ∆ σz 2ǫp+q ) Vq(ǫp+q −ǫ)

    solves this problem as one only needs to perform Wick’s rota- tion on the first term in this equation. Rotation to the imaginary axis gives Σ p(ǫ) = − ∑ q ∫ G(ins) p+q (ǫ +iξ)Vq(iξ)dξ 2π − ∑ q np+q ( ǫp+q + ∆ σz 2ǫp+q ) Vq(ǫp+q −ǫ). (24) The self energy is a 2 ×2 matrix in the ...

  16. [24]

    M. O. Sauer and T. G. Pedersen, Physical Review B 105, 115416 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    H.-L. Liu, B. D. Annawati, N. T. Hung, D. P. Gulo, P. Sol ´ ıs-Fern´ andez, K. Kawahara, H. Ago, and R. Saito, Physical Review B 107, 165421 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    exter- nal

    dominates the band gap correction. Similar to monolayer TMDs the Fock correction features a very sharp reduction of the band gap at low electron density n. Using the low momentum limit 6 FIG. 6: Band gap of metallic biased bilayer graphene vs carri er density in the zero tempe...

  19. [27]

    H. D. Scammell and O. P. Sushkov, Physical Review B 107, 085104 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    H. D. Scammell and O. P. Sushkov, Physical Review Re- search 5, 043176 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    G. M. Gusev, A. S. Jaroshevich, A. D. Levin, Z. D. Kvon, and A. K. Bakarov, Physical Review B 103, 075303 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    M¨ onch, S

    E. M¨ onch, S. O. Potashin, K. Lindner, I. Yahniuk, L. E. Golub, V. Y. Kachorovskii, V. V. Bel’kov, R. Huber, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Eroms, D. Weiss, and S. D. Ganichev, Physical Review B 105, 045404 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    A. N. Grigorenko, M. Polini, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Photonics 6, 749 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Z. Fei, E. G. Iwinski, G. X. Ni, L. M. Zhang, W. Bao, A. S. Rodin, Y. Lee, M. Wagner, M. K. Liu, S. Dai, M. D. Goldflam, M. Thiemens, F. Keilmann, C. N. Lau, A. H. Castro-Neto, M. M. Fogler, and D. N. Basov, Nano Letters 15, 4973 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Anirban, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 8 (2021)

    A. Anirban, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 8 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    C. Li, F. Xu, B. Li, J. Li, G. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Shen, L. Lu, J. Jia, F. Wu, X. Liu, and T. Li, Nature 631, 300 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Wagner, Y

    G. Wagner, Y. H. Kwan, N. Bultinck, S. H. Simon, and S. A. Parameswaran, Physical Review B 110, 214517 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    A. O. Sboychakov, A. V. Rozhkov, and A. L. Rakhmanov, Physical Review B 108, 184503 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    H. Zhou, L. Holleis, Y. Saito, L. Cohen, W. Huynh, C. L. Patterson, F. Yang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Science 375, 774 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 556, 43 (2018). 11

    2018

  31. [39]

    Sharma, M

    G. Sharma, M. Trushin, O. P. Sushkov, G. Vignale, and S. Adam, Physical Review Research 2, 022040 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Y. Cao, D. Rodan-Legrain, J. M. Park, N. F. Q. Yuan, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. M. Fernandes, L. Fu, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Science 372, 264 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Khalaf, S

    E. Khalaf, S. Chatterjee, N. Bultinck, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Vishwanath, Science Advances 7, eabf5299 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    A. Chew, Y. Wang, B. A. Bernevig, and Z.-D. Song, Physical Review B 107, 094512 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Stepanov, M

    P. Stepanov, M. Xie, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, X. Lu, A. MacDonald, B. A. Bernevig, and D. Efetov, Physical Review Letters 127, 197701 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Banszerus, A

    L. Banszerus, A. Rothstein, T. Fabian, S. M¨ oller, E. Ick- ing, S. Trellenkamp, F. Lentz, D. Neumaier, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, F. Libisch, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Nano Letters 20, 7709 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Banszerus, S

    L. Banszerus, S. M¨ oller, E. Icking, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Nano Letters 20, 2005 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Z. Ge, F. Joucken, E. Quezada, D. R. Da Costa, J. Dav- enport, B. Giraldo, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, N. P. Kobayashi, T. Low, and J. Velasco, Nano Letters 20, 8682 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Banszerus, S

    L. Banszerus, S. M¨ oller, C. Steiner, E. Icking, S. Trel- lenkamp, F. Lentz, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Nature Communications 12, 5250 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Solomon and S

    F. Solomon and S. R. Power, Physical Review B 103, 235435 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Hecker, L

    K. Hecker, L. Banszerus, A. Sch¨ apers, S. M¨ oller, A. Pe- ters, E. Icking, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Nature Communications 14, 7911 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Korkusinski, Y

    M. Korkusinski, Y. Saleem, A. Dusko, D. Miravet, and P. Hawrylak, Nano Letters 23, 7546 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Garreis, C

    R. Garreis, C. Tong, J. Terle, M. J. Ruckriegel, J. D. Ger- ber, L. M. G¨ achter, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and W. W. Huang, Nature Physics 20, 428 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    McCann, Physical Review B 74, 161403 (2006)

    E. McCann, Physical Review B 74, 161403 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    M. M. Fogler and E. McCann, Physical Review B 82, 197401 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Chernikov, C

    A. Chernikov, C. Ruppert, H. M. Hill, A. F. Rigosi, and T. F. Heinz, Nature Photonics 9, 466 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    E. A. A. Pogna, M. Marsili, D. De Fazio, S. Dal Conte, C. Manzoni, D. Sangalli, D. Yoon, A. Lombardo, A. C. Ferrari, A. Marini, G. Cerullo, and D. Prezzi, ACS Nano 10, 1182 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    P. D. Cunningham, A. T. Hanbicki, K. M. McCreary, and B. T. Jonker, ACS Nano 11, 12601 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    K. Yao, A. Yan, S. Kahn, A. Suslu, Y. Liang, E. S. Barnard, S. Tongay, A. Zettl, N. Borys, and P. J. Schuck, Physical Review Letters 119, 087401 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Z. Qiu, M. Trushin, H. Fang, I. Verzhbitskiy, S. Gao, E. Laksono, M. Yang, P. Lyu, J. Li, J. Su, M. Tely- chko, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Wu, A. H. C. Neto, L. Yang, G. Eda, S. Adam, and J. Lu, Science Advances 5, eaaw2347 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    S. K. Bera, M. Shrivastava, K. Bramhachari, H. Zhang, A. K. Poonia, D. Mandal, E. M. Miller, M. C. Beard, A. Agarwal, and K. V. Adarsh, Physical Review B 104, L201404 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    M. Kang, B. Kim, S. H. Ryu, S. W. Jung, J. Kim, L. Moreschini, C. Jozwiak, E. Rotenberg, A. Bostwick, and K. S. Kim, Nano Letters 17, 1610 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    P. V. Nguyen, N. C. Teutsch, N. P. Wilson, J. Kahn, X. Xia, A. J. Graham, V. Kandyba, A. Giampietri, A. Barinov, G. C. Constantinescu, N. Yeung, N. D. M. Hine, X. Xu, D. H. Cobden, and N. R. Wilson, Nature 572, 220 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    F. Liu, M. E. Ziffer, K. R. Hansen, J. Wang, and X. Zhu, Physical Review Letters 122, 246803 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    S. Gao, Y. Liang, C. D. Spataru, and L. Yang, Nano Letters 16, 5568 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Gao and L

    S. Gao and L. Yang, Physical Review B 96, 155410 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Liang and L

    Y. Liang and L. Yang, Physical Review Letters 114, 063001 (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    Faridi, D

    A. Faridi, D. Culcer, and R. Asgari, Physical Review B 104, 085432 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    J. N. Engdahl, H. D. Scammell, D. K. Efimkin, and O. P. Sushkov, Physical Review B 111, 155408 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    K. Zou, X. Hong, and J. Zhu, Physical Review B 84, 085408 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.