Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Symmetry-determined generalized ferromagnetism in multi-valley electron fluids

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Correlations decide generalized ferromagnetism in two-valley fluids: valley order for rotation- or mirror-related valleys, spin order for time-reversal- or C2-related valleys.

desk verdict A clean, parameter-free weak-coupling proof of the symmetry selection between spin and valley polarization, with an abstract that overstates the extrapolation to the transition region where the order actually develops. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05344 v1 pith:FEBUQIWR submitted 2025-07-07 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Vladimir Calvera , Erez Berg , Steven A. Kivelson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords multi-valleyelectronfluidsgeneralizedferromagnetismvalleypolarizationspinrandomphaseapproximationbubblecorrelationenergysymmetry-determinedordering
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 sets out to prove a symmetry-only rule for generalized ferromagnetism in two-valley electron fluids. Because the long-range Coulomb interaction is symmetric under independent rotations in spin and valley space, Hartree-Fock gives exactly equal energies for spin-polarized and valley-polarized states; the paper shows that second-order and RPA correlation effects lift this accidental degeneracy. The rule is that valley order wins when the two valleys are related by a rotation of order greater than two or by a mirror reflection, while spin order wins when the valleys are related by time reversal or by a 180-degree rotation. The paper argues that this conclusion does not depend on the detailed dispersion, form factors, or interaction, and that it extends to partial polarization, three threefold-related valleys, three dimensions, orbital magnetic fields, and time-dependent Hartree-Fock. If correct, the rule explains why AlAs quantum wells valley-polarize while multilayer graphene systems spin-polarize.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-interacting polarization bubble $\Pi_\alpha(q,i\omega)$ of each occupied flavor, which encodes that flavor's particle-hole excitation spectrum; the symmetry $g$ acts on it as $\Pi_{g(\alpha)}(q,i\omega)=\Pi_\alpha(g(q),i\omega)$. The second-order correlation energy that distinguishes VP from SP is the inner product $E'_r=-\frac{1}{2}(I[\Pi_{\alpha'}],\Pi_1)$, and by Cauchy-Schwarz the binding is strongest when the two occupied flavors' bubbles are related by momentum negation, $I[\Pi_{\alpha'}]=\Pi_1$. In RPA the selection is carried by the same physics through the concavity inequality $2X_1/(1+2X_1)+2X_2/(1+2X_2)\le 2(X_1+X_2)/(1+X_1+X_2)$ for Case I and through Eq. (9), $\Delta\bar S=\int_0^\infty\frac{Y^2}{(1+X)((1+X)^2+Y^2)}\frac{d\omega}{\pi}\ge0$, for Case II. The named mechanism is the momentum-negating symmetry: correlation energy is maximized when the particle-hole spectra of the occupied flavors are related by $q\to-q$, which is exactly the configuration selected by the crystal symmetry in each case.

What would settle it

A variational Monte Carlo calculation for a two-valley model whose valleys are time-reversal partners (Case II) that found the valley-polarized state below the spin-polarized state at intermediate $r_s$, or an experiment that observed a valley-polarized half-metal in multilayer rhombohedral graphene, would contradict the paper's symmetry rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, beyond Hartree-Fock, the accidental degeneracy between the spin-polarized (SP) and valley-polarized (VP) half-metals is broken by correlations, and the winner is determined entirely by the symmetry relating the two valleys. The second-order correlation-energy difference reduces to an inner product of polarization bubbles, $E'_r=-\frac{1}{2}\,\mathrm{Re}\int_{q,\omega}v_q^2[\Pi_{\alpha'}(-q,i\omega)]^*\Pi_1(q,i\omega)$, and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality shows this is most negative when the two occupied flavors' particle-hole spectra are matched under momentum negation, $\Pi_{\alpha'}(q)=\Pi_1(-q)$. In Case I, where each valley is invariant under $q\to-q$ and the valleys are exchanged by a rotation with order greater than two or by a mirror, the VP state achieves this matching, giving $\Delta E\le 0$; in Case II, where the valleys are themselves momentum-negation partners (time reversal or $C_2$), the SP state achieves it, giving $\Delta S\ge 0$. In RPA the same inequalities follow from the strict concavity of $x/(1+x)$ for Case I and from the identity $\Delta\bar S=\int_0^\infty\frac{Y^2}{(1+X)((1+X)^2+Y^2)}\frac{d\omega}{\pi}\ge0$ for Case II, where $X=v(\Pi_1+\Pi_3)$ and $Y=v(\Pi_1-\Pi_3)/i$. The paper argues that these inequalities hold independently of the dispersion, form factors, and interaction shape, and that the same trends persist for partial polarization, three valleys related by $C_3$, three dimensions, orbital magnetic fields, and TDHF corrections. The physical picture is that virtual particle-hole pairs of opposite momenta in different flavors interact like induced dipoles, and they lower the energy most when the softest modes of the two occupied flavors are matched under momentum negation.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on an approximate correlation-energy formula that is only rigorously valid for weak interactions, and assumes intervalley Coulomb scattering and spin-orbit coupling, which would change the symmetry, are negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In Case I systems such as AlAs quantum wells, the valley-polarized, spin-unpolarized half-metal is the correlation-favored state as interactions strengthen.
  • In Case II systems such as multilayer rhombohedral graphene, the spin-polarized, valley-symmetric half-metal wins, so purely valley-polarized half-metals are not expected unless intervalley coherence or spin-orbit effects intervene.
  • Partial polarization follows the same trends, so in the unpolarized symmetric state the valley susceptibility exceeds the spin susceptibility in Case I, and the inequality reverses in Case II.
  • For three valleys related by $C_3$, the most favored configurations maximize valley polarization among the equally-occupied-flavor metals.
  • The SP-VP correlation-energy difference is invisible to static RPA screening because it enters through the frequency-odd part of the polarization; dynamical screening is essential.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the weak-coupling RPA result survives at intermediate coupling, the same symmetry classification should order flavor polarization in other two-valley materials beyond the specific AlAs and graphene examples, so long as intervalley and spin-orbit perturbations are smaller than the correlation-energy difference; this is an extrapolation the paper does not itself defend.
  • The paper leaves implicit that any numerical study using static screening will see zero SP-VP splitting, so retaining the imaginary-frequency dependence of the bubbles is the minimal requirement for a meaningful check of the Case II prediction.
  • The induced-dipole mechanism suggests a finite-momentum signature: in the symmetric phase, fluctuations of the order that eventually wins should be enhanced at wavevectors where the two occupied flavors' particle-hole continua match under momentum reversal, which could be looked for in momentum-resolved structure-factor measurements.
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 studies the competition between spin-polarized (SP) and valley-polarized (VP) half-metals in two-valley two-dimensional electron fluids with Coulomb interactions. The authors show that the accidental degeneracy between these states at the Hartree-Fock level is lifted by second-order perturbation theory and, more generally, by the random-phase approximation (RPA). They prove, via inequalities on the polarization bubbles, that valley polarization is preferred when the two valleys are related by an n-fold rotation (n>2) or by mirror reflection with each valley invariant under C2 or time-reversal (Case I), whereas spin polarization is preferred when the valleys are related by time-reversal or C2 (Case II). The central inequalities are given in Eqs. (7)-(9). The paper extends the analysis to partial polarization, three valleys with C3 symmetry, three dimensions, orbital magnetic fields, and the time-dependent Hartree-Fock approximation, and it compares the predicted trends with experiments in AlAs quantum wells and multilayer graphene.

Significance. The paper provides a clean, parameter-free symmetry principle for a frequently encountered degeneracy in multi-valley correlated electron systems. The inequalities in Eqs. (7)-(9) are rigorous within the stated RPA framework and do not rely on adjustable parameters or on details of the dispersion, form factors, or interaction potential. The result yields concrete falsifiable predictions for AlAs (valley polarization) and multilayer graphene (spin polarization), and it proposes a new prediction for C3-symmetric M-point valleys. The authors are explicit about the weak-coupling limitation of the controlled calculation and about the absence of variational Monte Carlo support for Case II and the C3 case. If the predicted trend is confirmed by further numerical work, this will be a useful organizing principle for generalized ferromagnetism in multi-valley systems.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and the concluding paragraph state that the preferred form of flavor polarization is 'dictated by symmetry' and 'determined' by the symmetry relating the valleys. The controlled derivation, however, is restricted to second-order perturbation theory and to the RPA in the small-r_s regime, as the paper itself notes in the Introduction and illustrates by the dashed extrapolation in Fig. 1a. The actual flavor-polarization transition occurs at intermediate r_s, where the sign of the energy difference is an extrapolation rather than a proven result. The authors should either explicitly restrict the central claim to the weak-coupling/RPA energy difference or present additional evidence that the sign persists across the transition; otherwise the abstract and conclusion overstate what is proven.
  2. [Conclusion] The paper acknowledges in the final paragraph that VMC calculations for Case II (valleys related by momentum negation) and for the C3-symmetric case 'are highly desirable.' This is the load-bearing gap: the only direct numerical support cited is for Case I (C4 valleys, Ref. [9]). Because the RPA correlation energy is not variational, and because the order develops at intermediate coupling where vertex corrections beyond the time-dependent Hartree approximation could change the sign of the SP-VP energy difference, the Case II prediction is not yet established. The authors should either add a numerical cross-check for a representative Case-II model or clearly label the Case II prediction as a conjecture rather than as a definitive result.
  3. [Introduction and App. I A] The statement in the abstract that the degeneracy is lifted 'in a way that depends only on the underlying symmetry relating the two valleys' is conditional on the neglect of intervalley Coulomb matrix elements and spin-orbit coupling. As the authors detail in App. I A, these subdominant terms can lift remaining degeneracies and determine the actual form of the order. The abstract and title should therefore be qualified to state that the symmetry selection rule applies to the dominant long-range density-density interaction; otherwise the reader may over-infer universality.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Setup] In the enumeration of flavors, '{τ = 3, s=↑}' and '{τ = 4, s=↓}' should read '{τ = 2, s=↑}' and '{τ = 2, s=↓}'; with only two valleys the valley index should run over 1 and 2.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'vaccum' (Setup), 'central roll' (App. I A), 'suceptiblity' (App. V B), and 'Cauchy-Schwartz' (App. II B 2) should be 'vacuum,' 'role,' 'susceptibility,' and 'Cauchy-Schwarz.'
  3. [Eq. (4)] In Eq. (4), the symbol ε_i is used both for single-particle energies and for particle-hole excitation energies; using a different symbol such as ω_i for the excitation energies would avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Fig. 1] The labels in Fig. 1b are small and crowded by mathematical symbols; a larger, simplified schematic would make the two symmetry cases easier to parse.
  5. [App. V A] In the expression for the partial spin polarization, the definition of Y appears to contain a typo: 'Π−3' is listed twice, and the intended combination should likely be Π+1 + Π−1 − Π+3 − Π−3 (or similar). Please check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the SP/VP energy comparison follows from in-paper inequalities; self-citations are corroborative only.

full rationale

The central claim is derived in the paper from the polarization bubbles and the second-order/RPA correlation-energy expressions, with no fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The key inequalities, Eq. (7)-(9), are proved directly from concavity and the symmetry properties of the polarization bubbles; the Case I result is also re-derived in this paper, so the adjacent statement 'We reached this conclusion in our previous work [18]' is a remark, not a load-bearing citation. References [9] and [18] are used mainly as corroboration or to motivate the conjectured C3 phase diagram, not to establish the central SP-versus-VP result. The paper explicitly identifies its own limitations: the calculation is controlled only at small rs and the extrapolation to the transition region is dashed in Fig. 1a; intervalley matrix elements and spin-orbit coupling are neglected but can lift residual degeneracies; and VMC for the momentum-negation and C3 cases is stated as 'highly desirable.' These are correctness and extrapolation risks, not circularity. No step reduces to its own input, and no self-citation is used as a substitute for the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four main assumptions: the specific model Hamiltonian with long-ranged Coulomb interaction and no SOC, the Slater-determinant plus RPA approximation, the standard positivity/symmetry properties of polarization bubbles, and the extension of those properties to C3 and multiband cases. None of these are ad hoc to the paper; they are standard approximations in the field. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. It also introduces no free parameters in the main derivation, which is the strongest part of the work. The weakest link is the weak-coupling RPA approximation being extrapolated to the strong-coupling regime where the ordering actually occurs.

free parameters (1)
  • None
    The central comparison between SP and VP in 2PT and RPA uses no free parameters. The wavevector/frequency integrals and the coupling constant integration involve no fit values, and the symmetry classification follows from inequalities that do not depend on the strength of the interaction. The paper introduces no fitted constants.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two-dimensional electron fluid is described by a single-band second-quantized Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with long-ranged density-density Coulomb interaction vq, with form factors Lambda, and without spin-orbit coupling.
    This is the model that defines the problem in the Setup. The paper explicitly states it neglects intervalley (large momentum transfer) matrix elements and spin-orbit coupling in the main calculation, and discusses their effect only in Appendix I A.
  • domain assumption SP and VP half-metals are described by Slater determinants (product states) built from single-particle states, and the correlation energy is computed from the RPA coupling constant formula (Eq. 5), equivalent to the time-dependent Hartree approximation in App. IV.
    This is the approximation that turns the problem into a calculation of polarization bubbles and their spectra. The paper explicitly calls this an approximation and notes that it is controlled only for small rs, then extrapolated to intermediate couplings where the ferromagnetic transition occurs. If the true ground state has strong correlations beyond a Slater determinant, the symmetry rule could fail.
  • standard math The polarization bubbles satisfy the positivity and symmetry properties (1)-(3) listed after Eq. (2), including Re Pi_alpha >= 0 and Pi_alpha(q,iw) = Pi_{g(alpha)}(g(q), iw).
    These properties are standard and proved in App. II A. They are used centrally in the Cauchy-Schwarz and concavity arguments that produce the inequalities Eq. (7)-(9). The positivity of Re Pi is essential for the concavity argument; the paper shows it holds when occupations are a decreasing function of energy.
  • domain assumption In the RPA coupling-constant integration, the Hartree term and the q=0 term are assumed to be either absent or not to affect the SP versus VP comparison.
    In App. IV the authors assume the ground state in a fixed particle number sector connects adiabatically to the interacting state, and that the Feynman-Hellmann theorem applies. The q=0 term is removed by the neutralizing background. These are standard but nontrivial assumptions; the multiband appendix shows the Hartree self-energy introduces complications that the main text ignores.
  • domain assumption For the extension to C3 systems and partial polarization, the same inequalities and positivity arguments apply after suitable redefinitions of X, Y, and the polarization bubbles.
    This is used in the C3 section and App. V A. The text states the arguments extend 'in parallel' and defers details to the appendix; the validity of this extension relies on the same bubble properties and concavity arguments, plus additional assumptions about equal Fermi surface sizes for occupied flavors (state-instability caveat in the C3 section).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-determined generalized ferromagnetism in multi-valley electron fluids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEBUQIWR

@misc{pith2026250705344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-determined generalized ferromagnetism in multi-valley electron fluids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEBUQIWR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05344}
}
abstract

Quantum electronic fluids with spin and valley degrees of freedom have a correlation driven tendency to flavor polarization (generalized ferromagnetism). To first order in the long-range Coulomb interactions -- i.e. in the Hartree-Fock approximation -- spin and valley polarization exhibit a spurious degeneracy. We show that to second order -- or more generally in the random-phase approximation -- this degeneracy is lifted in a way that depends only on the underlying symmetry relating the two valleys. In two spatial dimensions, if the valleys are related by an $n-$fold rotation ($n>2$) or by mirror reflection and each valley is invariant under $C_2$ or time reversal (as is the case in AlAs quantum wells) then valley polarization is preferred. If the valleys are related by time reversal or by $C_2$ rotation symmetry (as in multilayer graphene systems) then spin order is selected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05344 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Π˜ α(q, iω) − Πα(q, iω) = X∞ n=1 Πα;n(q, iω), (34) where Π˜ α;n(q, iω) is the contribution with n interaction lines: Πα;n(q, iω) = (−1)n Z {ωj ,pj } n j=0 Yn j=1 vpj−1−pj Tr   Yn j=0 Gα(iωj , pj ) Yn j=0 Gα(iωn−j + iω, pn−j + q)  , (35) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The renormalized polarization bubble ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Diagrams contributing the energy up to second order perturbation theory. We have omitted the Hartree diagram. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Candidate states for partial half-metals in case II. pSP stands for partially spin polarized, and pVP stands for partially [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Smith, Y

    C. Smith, Y. Chen, R. Levy, Y. Yang, M. A. Morales, and S. Zhang, Unified variational approach description of ground-state phases of the two-dimensional electron gas, Physical Review Letters 133, 266504 (2024)

    2024

  2. [1]

    For example, this is the case for two valleys with anisotropic parabolic disper- sions εk,α = kT M −1 α k 2 , arising from band minima at the Brillouin zone (BZ) edges, as e.g

    Case I: The two valleys are invariant under momentum-negation and related to each other by another symmetry. For example, this is the case for two valleys with anisotropic parabolic disper- sions εk,α = kT M −1 α k 2 , arising from band minima at the Brillouin zone (BZ) edges, as e.g. in AlAs quantum wells [10, 19]

    work page

  3. [2]

    half-metals

    Case II: The two valleys are related by momentum- negation, and each valley is not invariant under momentum-negation. For example, this is the case for valleys from band minima at the corners of the hexagonal BZ ( K and K ′ points) when the effect of trigonal warping is included. This is relevant for experiments in multi-layer graphene systems in the pres...

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    various screen- ing gate geometries, and different electron dispersions one may have to adopt somewhat different methods to define rs

    For different forms of the interaction - e.g. various screen- ing gate geometries, and different electron dispersions one may have to adopt somewhat different methods to define rs. Typically, rs increases with decreasing electron den- sity. For Coulomb interactions and two-dimensional elec- trons with quadratic dispersion relation, rs ≡ me2 4πϵℏ2√πnel , w...

    work page

  5. [4]

    E. C. Stoner, Collective electron ferromagnetism, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Math- ematical and Physical Sciences 165, 372 (1938)

    work page 1938

  6. [5]

    Tanatar and D

    B. Tanatar and D. M. Ceperley, Ground state of the two- dimensional electron gas, Phys. Rev. B 39, 5005 (1989)

    1989

  7. [6]

    Attaccalite, S

    C. Attaccalite, S. Moroni, P. Gori-Giorgi, and G. B. Bachelet, Correlation energy and spin polarization in the 2d electron gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 256601 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [7]

    N. D. Drummond and R. J. Needs, Phase diagram of the low-density two-dimensional homogeneous electron gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 126402 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Azadi, N

    S. Azadi, N. D. Drummond, and S. M. Vinko, Quan- tum monte carlo study of the phase diagram of the two- dimensional uniform electron liquid, Phys. Rev. B 110, 245145 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Falson, I

    J. Falson, I. Sodemann, B. Skinner, D. Tabrea, Y. Kozuka, A. Tsukazaki, M. Kawasaki, K. von Klitzing, and J. H. Smet, Competing correlated states around the zero-field Wigner crystallization transition of electrons in two dimensions, Nature materials 21, 311 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Valenti, V

    A. Valenti, V. Calvera, S. A. Kivelson, E. Berg, and S. D. Huber, Nematic metal in a multivalley electron gas: Variational monte carlo analysis and application to alas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 266501 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    M. S. Hossain, M. K. Ma, K. A. Villegas-Rosales, Y. J. Chung, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, K. W. Baldwin, and M. Shayegan, Spontaneous valley polarization of itiner- ant electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 116601 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, A. Ghazaryan, T. Holder, J. R. Ehrets, E. M. Spanton, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Berg, M. Serbyn, et al. , Half-and quarter-metals in rhombohe- dral trilayer graphene, Nature 598, 429 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Superconductivity in rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Nature 598, 434 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    S. C. de la Barrera, S. Aronson, Z. Zheng, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Q. Ma, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and R. Ashoori, Cascade of isospin phase transitions in bernal-stacked bi- layer graphene at zero magnetic field, Nature Physics 18, 771 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    K. Liu, J. Zheng, Y. Sha, B. Lyu, F. Li, Y. Park, Y. Ren, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Jia, et al. , Spontaneous broken-symmetry insulator and metals in tetralayer rhombohedral graphene, Nature nanotechnol- ogy 19, 188 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    J. G. ´Angy´ an, R.-F. Liu, J. Toulouse, and G. Jansen, Correlation energy expressions from the adiabatic- connection fluctuation–dissipation theorem approach, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 7, 3116 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Zhang and S

    Y. Zhang and S. Das Sarma, Exchange instabilities in electron systems: Bloch versus stoner ferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. B 72, 115317 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Y. Jang, Y. Park, J. Jung, and H. Min, Chirality and correlations in the spontaneous spin-valley polarization 6 of rhombohedral multilayer graphene, Physical Review B 108, L041101 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Calvera, A

    V. Calvera, A. Valenti, S. D. Huber, E. Berg, and S. A. Kivelson, Theory of coulomb driven nematicity in a multi-valley two-dimensional electron gas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12825 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Shayegan, E

    M. Shayegan, E. De Poortere, O. Gunawan, Y. Shkol- nikov, E. Tutuc, and K. Vakili, Two-dimensional elec- trons occupying multiple valleys in alas, physica status solidi (b) 243, 3629 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    Here EF is the Fermi energy chosen to have the correct electron density

  15. [23]

    Gell-Mann and K

    M. Gell-Mann and K. A. Brueckner, Correlation energy of an electron gas at high density, Phys. Rev. 106, 364 (1957)

    1957

  16. [24]

    A. K. Rajagopal and J. C. Kimball, Correlations in a two-dimensional electron system, Phys. Rev. B 15, 2819 (1977)

    1977

  17. [25]

    This approximation is equivalent to using the Hellmann- Feynman theorem combined with the time-dependent Hartree approximation (TDH) for correlation functions (See App. IV)

  18. [26]

    Giuliani and G

    G. Giuliani and G. Vignale, Quantum Theory of the Elec- tron Liquid (Cambridge University Press, 2005) pp. 188– 274

    2005

  19. [27]

    II B for details

    See App. II B for details

  20. [28]

    In a multilayer system, each ρq,µ is q Fourier mode of the density projected to layer µ and [ vq]µν ∼ e2 2ϵ|q| e−dµν |q| with dµν the distance between layers µ and ν

  21. [29]

    Q. Zhao, Y. Guo, K. Si, Z. Ren, J. Bai, and X. Xu, Elastic, electronic, and dielectric properties of bulk and monolayer zrs2, zrse2, hfs2, hfse2 from van der waals density-functional theory, physica status solidi (b) 254, 1700033 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    C. Yan, C. Gong, P. Wangyang, J. Chu, K. Hu, C. Li, X. Wang, X. Du, T. Zhai, Y. Li, et al., 2d group ivb tran- sition metal dichalcogenides, Advanced Functional Mate- rials 28, 1803305 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    S. P. Keshri, S. K. Pati, and A. Medhi, Hfse2: Unravel- ing the microscopic reason for experimental low mobility, The Journal of Chemical Physics 159 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Habenicht, L

    C. Habenicht, L. Sponza, R. Schuster, M. Knupfer, and B. B¨ uchner, Mapping of the energetically lowest exciton in bulk 1 t − hfs2, Phys. Rev. B 98, 155204 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    The assumption of equal size Fermi surfaces for all oc- cupied flavors is natural for all states other than 3F and 5F; however, these two states are likely unstable to the transfer of electrons from the spin-polarized valley to the spin-degenerate ones

  26. [34]

    T. Arp, O. Sheekey, H. Zhou, C. Tschirhart, C. L. Patter- son, H. Yoo, L. Holleis, E. Redekop, G. Babikyan, T. Xie, et al., Intervalley coherence and intrinsic spin–orbit cou- pling in rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Nature Physics 20, 1413 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    C. L. Patterson, O. I. Sheekey, T. B. Arp, L. F. Holleis, J. M. Koh, Y. Choi, T. Xie, S. Xu, Y. Guo, H. Stoyanov, et al. , Superconductivity and spin canting in spin–orbit- coupled trilayer graphene, Nature 641, 632 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Auerbach, S

    N. Auerbach, S. Dutta, M. Uzan, Y. Vituri, Y. Zhou, A. Y. Meltzer, S. Grover, T. Holder, P. Emanuel, M. E. Huber, Y. Myasoedov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Oreg, E. Berg, and E. Zeldov, Visualizing isospin magnetic texture and intervalley exchange interac- tion in rhombohedr...

    2025

  29. [37]

    Chatterjee, T

    S. Chatterjee, T. Wang, E. Berg, and M. P. Zaletel, Inter- valley coherent order and isospin fluctuation mediated superconductivity in rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Nature communications 13, 6013 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Kohn and J

    W. Kohn and J. Luttinger, Ground-state energy of a many-fermion system, Physical Review 118, 41 (1960)

    1960

  31. [39]

    Giuliani and G

    G. Giuliani and G. Vignale, Quantum Theory of the Elec- tron Liquid (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Barlas, T

    Y. Barlas, T. Pereg-Barnea, M. Polini, R. Asgari, and A. MacDonald, Chirality and correlations in graphene, Physical review letters 98, 236601 (2007). 7 I. END MA TTER A. Lifting degeneracies of the SP states in Case II In the main text, we have neglected various interac- tion...

    2007

  33. [41]

    ϖ0;α(q) = 0 only when flavor α is unoccupied so we can just omit Π α in the calculation of χ0

    Bounds of expansion coefficients The following interpretation for the coefficients ϖα;n(q) is useful: ϖα;n(q) is the expectation value of the variable Uα,q(k) ≡ (εk+q,α − εk,α) with probability Pq,α(k) = 1 ω0;α(q) 1 A −(nk+q,α−nk,α) (εk+q,α−εk,α) Λα k+q,k 2 , as long as ϖ0;α(q...

  34. [42]

    20 in terms of the large z expansion as γ2 q = ∞X n=1 Xn(q) zn , (28) with γq = 1/√ρ0vq is a small parameter in our expansion (for the spin-polarized 2DEG γq = √aBq)

    Solving for the plasmon pole We can rewrite Eq. 20 in terms of the large z expansion as γ2 q = ∞X n=1 Xn(q) zn , (28) with γq = 1/√ρ0vq is a small parameter in our expansion (for the spin-polarized 2DEG γq = √aBq). As X1(q) is going to be small, we can start by looking at the ...

  35. [43]

    Z ∞ 0 Re[χ(q, iω)] dω π − *X α δq;α +# , (50) which can be rewritten as ⟨V ⟩ = ⟨V ⟩x + ⟨V ⟩c, where ⟨V ⟩x = X q̸=0 vq 2A

    Hartree-Fock bubble To calculate the charge susceptibility in time-dependent Hartre-Fock (TDHF) one needs to include exchange dia- grams in addition to the direct diagrams included in RPA. This is equivalent to including vertex corrections on the irreducible charge susceptibli...

  36. [44]

    admits the following analytical continuation away from the real axis (i ω → z): χ(A, B|z) = ′ X |ε⟩ ⟨0|A|ε⟩ ⟨ε|B|0⟩ ε − z + ⟨0|B|ε⟩ ⟨ε|A|0⟩ ε + z ; (55) where the sum is over all the eigenstates of H different than the ground state. Specializing to the case B = A†, we can writ...

  37. [45]

    [Π α(q, iω)]† = Πα(−q, iω) = Πα(q, −iω)

  38. [46]

    If the state is invariant under g, then Π g(α)(q, iω) = Πα(g(q), iω)

  39. [47]

    1 1 + u† qχ0(q, iω)uq u† qχ0(q, iω)uq # = Tr

    Π α + Π† α is a non-negative matrix. Properties 1 and 2 are derived as in the App. II A. Property three, is equivalent to showing that for any complex vector wµ, Re[ w∗ µΠµνwν] ≥ 0. To show the latter, note that Tr W Pk,λW †Pk+q,λ′ = | ⟨k + q, λ′|W |k, λ⟩|2 ≥ 0 for any matrix ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.