Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Multi-Q spin-valley order in twisted WSe2

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At ν=1 in 3.65° twisted WSe2, the 120° antiferromagnet gives way to multi-Q spin-valley order with a four-times-enlarged unit cell.

desk verdict Careful HF study that finds genuinely new multi-Q magnetic orders in twisted WSe2; plausible within mean-field, but the experimental-relevance claim rests on untested subtraction choices and missing beyond-HF checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.12884 v1 pith:634L5S5L submitted 2025-10-14 cond-mat.str-el

Arthur Bril , Nai Chao Hu , Nick Bultinck This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords twistedbilayerWSe2moirémagnetismmulti-Qorderspin-valleylockingintervalleycoherencecollectivemodesHartree-Focksuperconductivityprecursor
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

This paper argues that at one hole per moiré unit cell (ν=1) in 3.65°-twisted WSe2, the previously identified 120° spin-valley antiferromagnet is only part of the story. Solving the Hartree-Fock equations for the interacting continuum model yields, at moderately large dielectric screening and small displacement field, multi-Q magnetic states whose spin texture modulates at four wavevectors (the three M-points and one K-point of the moiré Brillouin zone) and whose magnetic unit cell is four times larger. The paper shows the transition out of the 120° AFM is continuous: the mean-field gap never closes, and the TDHF spin-fluctuation mode at the M-points softens and condenses at the boundary. A coplanar and a non-coplanar variant appear, with the non-coplanar order carrying zero Chern number. Because this region of phase space sits close to where superconductivity is observed, the authors argue that the M-point softening is a plausible precursor for Cooper pairing, even if static multi-Q order is preempted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the intervalley-coherence order parameter combined with the generalized translation symmetry T'_{a_i} (translation by a moiré lattice vector followed by a spin rotation). Its spontaneous breaking folds the moiré Brillouin zone and generates the four-wavevector spin texture. The companion tool is the time-dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF) mode calculation, whose M-point Goldstone mode softens as ε or E is tuned, serving as the diagnostic for the continuous transition and as the proposed precursor for pairing.

What would settle it

A many-body calculation beyond Hartree-Fock (exact diagonalization or density-matrix renormalization group on a finite moiré cluster) of the same interacting model at ν=1, ε≈30, E≈0 that yields a symmetric metal or a different ordered state would disprove the claimed multi-Q ground state. Alternatively, a momentum-resolved spin-fluctuation measurement (e.g., resonant inelastic X-ray scattering) showing no M-point softening as the AFM–multi-Q boundary is approached would refute the precursor scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, at ν=1, the ground state of twisted WSe2 can be a multi-Q intervalley-coherent (IVC) magnetic order that breaks the generalized translation symmetry T'_{a_i} — a moiré translation followed by a spin rotation. The order parameter acquires four nonzero wavevectors: the κ± K-point wavevector of the parent 120° AFM plus the three M-point wavevectors, giving a four-fold enlarged unit cell. The transition from the 120° AFM to the multi-Q state is continuous, signalled by a smooth mean-field gap and by condensation of the TDHF Goldstone mode at the M-points. Two variants appear: a non-coplanar order (breaking T' time reversal) at smaller ε and a coplanar order (preserving

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Hartree-Fock ground state of the four-active-band projected model, with the double-counting subtraction H_sub, correctly captures this strongly correlated regime; if quantum fluctuations beyond mean field are strong, the multi-Q order could be destabilized or shifted and the continuous character of the transition would need revisiting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 120° AFM–to–multi-Q transition adds a previously overlooked insulating phase to the tWSe2 phase diagram at ν=1, with a four-times-larger magnetic unit cell.
  • Soft M-point spin fluctuations near the transition offer a candidate pairing mechanism for the superconductivity observed at small displacement fields.
  • The non-coplanar multi-Q order has zero Chern number, so it is a trivial correlated insulator despite the nonzero band topology of the underlying moiré bands.
  • The predicted M-point softening gives a concrete experimental target: a momentum-resolved probe of spin fluctuations should see a low-lying mode at the M-points that softens as the transition is approached.
  • Agreement between the lowest-order and higher-order continuum models indicates the multi-Q order is not an artifact of one particular band-structure parametrization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If quantum fluctuations beyond Hartree-Fock soften or destroy the static multi-Q order, the M-point fluctuation softening may still survive and extend over a wide parameter region, keeping the pairing scenario alive without static order.
  • The zero-Chern non-coplanar order provides a clean platform to test for a vanishing anomalous Hall response; a nonzero Hall signal in the insulating region would point to a different order than the one claimed here.
  • A natural extension is to compute the superconducting instability in the same model using the M-point fluctuation spectrum as input to a linearized Eliashberg or RPA gap equation, which would make the pairing claim quantitative.
  • A finite-temperature extension of the Hartree-Fock calculation could map out the fluctuation regime above the ordering temperature, where soft M-point modes may produce anomalous thermal or transport signatures distinct from the 120° AFM.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the zero-temperature phase diagram of 3.65° twisted bilayer WSe2 at moiré hole filling ν=1 using Hartree–Fock applied to two continuum models: a three-parameter lowest-order (LO) model and a reduced 16-parameter higher-order (HO) model. The central claim is that, for relative dielectric constants ε≳24 and small displacement fields, the previously known 120° spin-valley antiferromagnet (AFM) becomes unstable to a multi-Q inter-valley-coherent (IVC) order with spin textures modulated at the three M points and one K point of the moiré Brillouin zone, enlarging the unit cell by a factor of four. Two variants are reported: a non-coplanar T′-breaking order and a coplanar T′-symmetric order. The transition is argued to be continuous, with a softening of the M-point spin fluctuations visible in time-dependent Hartree–Fock (TDHF); this softening is proposed as a possible pairing glue for the nearby superconducting dome. The authors check robustness by comparing LO and HO models and by validating the 16-parameter model against the full 77-parameter band structure.

Significance. If the multi-Q ground state is correct, the paper identifies a qualitatively new broken-symmetry order in twisted TMDs: a four-wave-vector spin-valley texture emerging continuously from the 120° AFM. The prediction of M-point spin-fluctuation softening is concrete, in principle falsifiable by momentum-resolved spectroscopy, and potentially relevant to the superconducting mechanism. The numerical study is careful in its use of two independent continuum models and in separating order-parameter definitions from mean-field solutions. The primary limitation is that the order is established only at Hartree–Fock level with a single double-counting convention; the experimentally relevant ε≈30 lies close to the mean-field phase boundary, so the prediction is conditional on that approximation.

major comments (4)
  1. [SM, Eqs. (22)–(28)] The subtraction H_sub = H_h[P0] + H_f[P0] is constructed so that the non-interacting continuum bands are an exact HF solution at full filling. This is a reasonable convention, but the continuum parameters are fitted to DFT bands whose exchange-correlation functional differs from the explicit gate-screened Coulomb interaction V(q)=e^2/(2ϵ0ϵ) tanh(qD)/q. The AFM-to-multi-Q boundary occurs at ε≈24 in the HO model, and the paper adopts ε≈30 from Ref. [19] as the experimentally relevant value. Since the boundary location depends on the double-counting convention and no sensitivity test (e.g., scaling the Fock subtraction or using a different P0) is provided, the experimental-relevance claim is not yet secured.
  2. [Figs. 1(e–f)] The softening of the TDHF M-point mode is used to conclude that the transition is continuous and that the multi-Q order develops from the 120° AFM. But in the same regime the spin fluctuations are by construction strong, so Gaussian fluctuations around the 120° state are not negligible. The manuscript does not show that the multi-Q HF state is a stable local minimum of the HF energy (positive Hessian) or that its energy lies below the 120° AFM by an amount larger than the TDHF zero-point correction. Without this, the mean-field phase boundaries in Fig. 1 could shift, or the order could be destroyed by fluctuations. A concrete step would be to compare TDHF-corrected energies of both states, or to benchmark on a small cluster with an unbiased method.
  3. [SM, Eqs. (8)–(10) and Fig. 4] The 16-parameter HO model is validated only against the 77-parameter band structure. The interaction matrix elements of Eq. (21) and the projected form factors entering the real-space order parameter (Eqs. (33)/(35)) are not benchmarked against the full model. The multi-Q states involve finite-q couplings with intertwined valley/spin structure, and the active-space projection onto four bands per valley is not tested for convergence. Please provide a comparison of the projected Coulomb vertices and a check with, e.g., six active bands per valley, or justify why four bands are sufficient.
  4. [Main text, 'Interacting phase diagram'] The continuous character of the AFM-to-multi-Q transition is asserted from the smooth evolution of the mean-field bandgap and the M-point mode softening. However, the order parameters in Figs. 1(a–c) are shown as phase diagrams; no numerical curves (e.g., O_T′ or O_IVC as a function of ε at fixed E) are shown to demonstrate that the order parameter grows continuously from zero. Given that this continuity is a central claim, I ask for such a plot at a representative displacement field.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (2)] The order parameter O_IVC sums over band indices α, α′. Please specify whether α runs over all active bands or only the two topmost bands; this matters because the IVC amplitude may be distributed over multiple bands.
  2. [SM, Eq. (17)] The notation for the dielectric constant is inconsistent: the main text uses ε and the SM uses ϵr in V(q). Unify, and state explicitly whether ε is the relative permittivity of the hBN environment or an effective/tunable parameter.
  3. [Fig. 1(d)] The mean-field bandgap is used as a proxy for incompressibility. State explicitly that this is the HF single-particle gap and that charge fluctuations are not included.
  4. [Conclusions] The statement that the M-point spin-fluctuation gap is 'less than 1 meV' should carry a caveat about numerical precision; TDHF is a harmonic approximation and the 24×24 grid imposes a momentum resolution. Report an estimate of the discretization error or phrase the result as '<1 meV in our TDHF calculation'.
  5. [SM, Fig. 5] The Chern-number panels lack labels or a legend; adding explicit values for each region would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multi-Q ground states and M-point softening are numerical outputs of a parameterized interacting model, not inputs or renamed fits.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a Hartree-Fock phase diagram at ν=1 in a continuum model whose single-particle parameters come from external DFT fits (Refs. [24], [32], [33]). The multi-Q IVC states are obtained by numerically solving the HF self-consistency equations, Eq. (2)-surrounding text, not by imposing the target order. The double-counting subtraction H_sub is chosen so that the noninteracting continuum bands solve HF at full filling, but this fixes only the full-filling reference, not the ν=1 broken-symmetry solution; the AFM-to-multi-Q transition emerges from the calculation. The dielectric constant is scanned, and the experimentally relevant value ε≈30 is imported from Ref. [19], which calibrated it against the layer-polarized regime rather than the multi-Q phase, so the multi-Q prediction is not fitted to its own target. The TDHF M-point softening is computed from the same mean-field Hamiltonian, so it is internally consistent, but it is not a circular reduction: the softening diagnoses the instability that independently produces the multi-Q state. The only self-citation, Ref. [36] by Bultinck et al., is a methodological review of the RPA/TDHF equation and is not load-bearing. Honest caveats (e.g., LO parameters from 5° DFT structures) weaken external validity but do not constitute circularity. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central result is a numerical phase diagram, so the 'axioms' are the modeling choices imported from prior work: DFT-fitted continuum Hamiltonians, the HF subtraction scheme, band truncation, and the neglect of intervalley scattering. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated; the multi-Q states are solutions of the existing model, not new degrees of freedom.

free parameters (5)
  • relative dielectric constant ε = scanned ε ≈ 8–50; key multi-Q region ε ≈ 24–33
    Tuning knob for interaction strength. The claim 'experimentally relevant ε≈30' relies on Ref [19]'s estimate obtained by matching HF layer polarization to experiment, not on a direct measurement.
  • sample-gate distance D = 16.5 nm (D = 50 a0)
    Fixed screening length in V(q) = e^2/(2 ε0 ε) tanh(qD)/q; affects the interaction form and phase boundaries.
  • displacement field E (u_D) = scanned E ≈ 0–20 mV/nm
    Physical experimental knob. Conversion u_D = E d ε_hBN/ε_TMD uses d ≈ 0.7 nm and the quoted dielectric ratio.
  • LO continuum parameters (V, φ, w) = 9 meV, 128°, 18 meV
    From Ref [32], fitted to DFT at 5° twist angle; used here at 3.65° in the LO model. The authors flag this caveat.
  • 16-parameter reduced HO model parameters = Tables XV–XVII of Ref [33]; available on GitHub [38]
    Truncation of the 77-parameter model; parameters fitted to relaxed DFT at 3.48° and used at 3.65°.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hartree-Fock mean-field theory (with TDHF/RPA for collective modes) correctly describes the ν=1 ground state and phase boundaries of tWSe2.
    Central numerical method. Strong correlations may require beyond-HF treatment; no comparison with exact diagonalization or DMRG is provided.
  • domain assumption The quadratic subtraction terms H_sub = H_h[P0] + H_f[P0] fully account for double counting between DFT-fitted continuum bands and the added Coulomb interaction.
    Interacting model section; if wrong, the phase boundaries, including the multi-Q region, could shift.
  • domain assumption Truncation to 4 active bands per valley with frozen remote bands is sufficient.
    Interacting model section; this projection ignores interaction-induced mixing with remote bands.
  • domain assumption The reduced 16-parameter HO model accurately represents the full 77-parameter model at θ = 3.65°.
    Supported by band-structure comparison in Fig. 4, but the interacting phase diagram is computed with the reduced model only.
  • domain assumption Inter-valley scattering in the Coulomb interaction is negligible, suppressed by a factor ~V(2K_τ)/V(0).
    Supplementary 'Interacting model'; standard for long-range interactions but an approximation that omits intervalley umklapp terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Q spin-valley order in twisted WSe2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/634L5S5L

@misc{pith2026251012884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Q spin-valley order in twisted WSe2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/634L5S5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.12884}
}
abstract

We report on a study of the interacting phase diagram of $3.65^\circ$-twisted WSe$_2$ at moir\'e hole filling $\nu=1$, in which we find previously-overlooked types of magnetism. Specifically, in part of the phase diagram we obtain a magnetic order parameter which modulates in space with four different non-zero wave vectors, corresponding to the three $M$-points and one $K$-point of the moir\'e Brillouin zone. These multi-Q orders, which can be coplanar or non-coplanar, are continuous deformations of the $120^\circ$ spin-valley anti-ferromagnet (AFM), where the unit cell has expanded by a factor of four. Interestingly, we find that the multi-Q states are stabilized for experimentally relevant values of interaction strength and displacement field, and are accompanied by a softening of the spin fluctuations near the $M$-points of the moir\'e

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.12884 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Numerical results for HO model obtained on a 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a-d) Non-coplanar multi-Q spin texture in the top and bottom layers at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. In-plane spin texture for the coplanar multi-Q state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Band structure comparison at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a - b) Bandwidth of the topmost band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Numerical results for LO model obtained on a 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a-d) Non-coplanar multi-Q spin texture in the top and bottom layers at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. In-plane spin texture for the coplanar multi-Q state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Xiong, Y

    R. Xiong, Y. Guo, C. Qin, F. Yin, T. Wang, S. L. Brantly, J. Qi, J. Zhou, Z. Zhang, M. Erdi, et al.,Prop- agating Neutral Modes in an Intervalley Coherent State (2025), 2507.18770, URLhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard. edu/abs/2025arXiv250718770X

    arXiv 2025

  2. [19]

    L. Peng, C. D. Beule, D. Li, L. Yang, E. J. Mele, and S. Adam,Magnetism in twisted bilayer wse 2 (2025), 2503.09689, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09689

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Y. Xia, Z. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature637, 833 (2025)

    2025

  4. [2]

    Y. Guo, J. Pack, J. Swann, L. Holtzman, M. Cothrine, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. G. Mandrus, K. Bar- mak, J. Hone, et al., Nature637, 839–845 (2025), ISSN 1476-4687, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-024-08381-1

    2025

  5. [3]

    Y. Xia, Z. Han, J. Zhu, Y. Zhang, P. Kn¨ uppel, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan,Simulating high-temperature superconductivity in moir´ e wse2(2025), 2508.02662, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.02662

    arXiv 2025

  6. [4]

    B´ elanger, J

    M. B´ elanger, J. Fournier, and D. S´ en´ echal, Phys. Rev. B 106, 235135 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.235135

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.235135 2022

  7. [5]

    Klebl, A

    L. Klebl, A. Fischer, L. Classen, M. M. Scherer, and D. M. Kennes, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L012034 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.5.L012034

    2023

  8. [6]

    Y.-M. Wu, Z. Wu, and H. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 126001 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.130.126001

    2023

Show all 37 references
  1. [7]

    Zegrodnik and A

    M. Zegrodnik and A. Biborski, Phys. Rev. B108, 064506 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.108.064506

    2023

  2. [8]

    Schrade and L

    C. Schrade and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B110, 035143 (2024), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 110.035143

    2024 doi

  3. [9]

    Akbar, A

    W. Akbar, A. Biborski, L. Rademaker, and M. Zegrod- nik, Phys. Rev. B110, 064516 (2024), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.064516

    2024 doi

  4. [10]

    A. V. Chubukov and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B 111, 014507 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.111.014507

    2025 doi

  5. [11]

    S. Kim, J. F. Mendez-Valderrama, X. Wang, and D. Chowdhury, Nature Communications16(2025), ISSN 2041-1723, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-025-56816-8

    2025

  6. [12]

    Zhu, Y.-Z

    J. Zhu, Y.-Z. Chou, M. Xie, and S. Das Sarma, Physical Review B111(2025), ISSN 2469-9969, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.111.L060501

    2025 doi

  7. [13]

    Christos, P

    M. Christos, P. M. Bonetti, and M. S. Scheurer, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 046503 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/7z4z-vlj8

    2025 doi

  8. [15]

    Guerci, D

    D. Guerci, D. Kaplan, J. Ingham, J. H. Pixley, and A. J. Millis,Topological superconductivity from repul- sive interactions in twisted wse2 (2024), 2408.16075, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16075

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Tuo, M.-R

    C. Tuo, M.-R. Li, Z. Wu, W. Sun, and H. Yao,The- ory of topological superconductivity and antiferromag- netic correlated insulators in twisted bilayer wse 2 (2024), 2409.06779, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06779

    2024

  10. [17]

    Qin, W.-X

    W. Qin, W.-X. Qiu, and F. Wu,Topological chiral su- perconductivity mediated by intervalley antiferromagnetic fluctuations in twisted bilayer wse 2 (2025), 2409.16114, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16114

    2025

  11. [18]

    Fischer, L

    A. Fischer, L. Klebl, V. Cr´ epel, S. Ryee, A. Rubio, L. Xian, T. O. Wehling, A. Georges, D. M. Kennes, and A. J. Millis,Theory of intervalley-coherent afm order and topological superconductivity in twse2 (2024), 2412.14296, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14296

    2024

  12. [20]

    F. Xie, C. Li, J. Cano, and Q. Si,Kondo-lattice phe- nomenology of twisted bilayer wse 2 from compact molec- ular orbitals of topological bands(2025), 2503.21769, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21769

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. Ryee, L. Klebl, G. Rai, A. Fischer, V. Cr´ epel, L. Xian, A. Rubio, D. M. Kennes, R. Valent´ ı, A. J. Millis, et al., Site-polarized mott phases competing with a correlated metal in twisted wse 2 (2025), 2506.22325, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2506.22325

    2025

  14. [22]

    Mu˜ noz-Segovia, V

    D. Mu˜ noz-Segovia, V. Cr´ epel, R. Queiroz, and A. J. Millis,Twist-angle evolution of the intervalley- coherent antiferromagnet in twisted wse2(2025), 2503.11763, URLhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ abs/2025PhRvB.112h5111M

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Z. Y. Zhu, Y. C. Cheng, and U. Schwingenschl¨ ogl, Phys. Rev. B84, 153402 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.153402

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, I. Martin, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 086402 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 122.086402

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, et al., Nature (London)622, 63 (2023), 2304.08470

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    B. A. Foutty, C. R. Kometter, T. Devakul, A. P. Reddy, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and B. E. Feldman, Science384, 343 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Kn¨ uppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature (London)622, 69 (2023), 2305.00973

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, et al., Nature (London)622, 74 (2023), 2308.02657

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, et al., Phys. Rev. X13, 031037 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.031037. 6

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    K. Kang, Y. Qiu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nano Letters24, 14901 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    K. Kang, B. Shen, Y. Qiu, Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature (London) 628, 522 (2024), 2402.03294

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Devakul, V

    T. Devakul, V. Cr´ epel, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Nature communications12, 6730 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Pi, J. Liu, W. Miao, Z. Qi, N. Regnault, H. Weng, X. Dai, B. A. Bernevig, Q. Wu, et al. (2024), 2411.08108, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08108

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    See Supplemental Material at XXX

  27. [35]

    T. Wang, T. Devakul, M. P. Zaletel, and L. Fu, arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:2306.02501 (2023), 2306.02501

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Khalaf, N

    E. Khalaf, N. Bultinck, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. Zaletel, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2009.14827 (2020), 2009.14827

    2009 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Zhang,Continuum model for twist tmds,https://github.com/zhangyan31415/ continuum-model-twist-tmds(2024)

    Y. Zhang,Continuum model for twist tmds,https://github.com/zhangyan31415/ continuum-model-twist-tmds(2024). 7 Supplementary Material Multi-Q spin-valley order in twisted WSe 2 Arthur Bril1, Nai Chao Hu 1, Nick Bultinck1 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ghent University, K...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.