Magnetic Field Reorganization of Electronic States in Moir\'e Bilayer Graphene

Jack Lichterman; Jackson Kuklin; Kenji Watanabe; Milan Sharma Mandigo-Stoba; Qianhui Shi; Takashi Taniguchi; William Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Magnetic Field Reorganization of Electronic States in Moir\'e Bilayer Graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic fields of 1–2 tesla reorganize the electronic orbits in moiré bilayer graphene, changing quantum-oscillation frequencies and the Hall density through magnetic breakdown and magnetic Lifshitz transitions.

desk verdict Real frequency and Hall changes, plausible MB/Lifshitz story, but the mechanism-level claims hang on an unverified continuum model. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04269 v1 pith:57PUKQR5 submitted 2026-08-04 cond-mat.mes-hall

Milan Sharma Mandigo-Stoba , William Wang , Jackson Kuklin , Jack Lichterman , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi , Qianhui Shi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords moirébilayergraphenemagneticbreakdownLifshitztransitionquantumoscillationsBerrycurvatureorbitalmomentHofstadterbutterflyinterpocketscattering

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 a magnetic field does more than probe the Fermi surface in moiré bilayer graphene: at 1–2 T it actively rearranges the electronic orbits. In a bilayer-graphene/hBN moiré device, the quantum-oscillation frequency and Hall density change sharply over a wide density range, which the authors attribute to magnetic breakdown between neighboring Fermi pockets and to magnetic Lifshitz transitions driven by orbital-magnetic-moment shifts of the bands. The reorganization is valley-contrasting because Berry-curvature hot spots sit at the breakdown junctions and the orbital magnetic moments have opposite signs in the two valleys, so the K and K′ valleys follow different trajectories. At elevated temperature and low field, scattering between coexisting electron and hole pockets produces nearly density-independent oscillations whose frequency equals the sum of the two pocket areas, surviving after ordinary Onsager oscillations are damped. If right, quantum oscillations in moiré systems must be interpreted as reflecting field-reorganized orbits, not simply the zero-field Fermi surface.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic-field-reorganized semiclassical orbit network of the moiré minibands, governed by two mechanisms: orbital magnetic moments, which change the band energy as $\varepsilon(k)\to\varepsilon(k)-m(k)\cdot B$ and can push a van Hove singularity across the Fermi level (magnetic Lifshitz transition), and magnetic breakdown, the field-induced tunneling between nearby Fermi pockets with probability $P=\exp(-B_{\mathrm{MB}}/B)$. Berry curvature enters by modifying the wavepacket velocity $\dot{k}$ and by concentrating at the small-gap regions where the breakdown junctions form; the opposite signs of Berry curvature and orbital magnetic moment in K and K′ make the whole reorganization valley-contrasting. The argument is carried by the calculated continuum-model bands at $\theta=0.864^\circ$ from Ref. [20], which supply the pocket areas, the Berry-curvature ring, the orbital moments, and the predicted breakdown fields used to assign every observed frequency.

What would settle it

Measure the oscillation frequency and Hall density from 0.1 to 3 T in a second device with the same twist angle but with the hBN layer flipped by 180°; the valley-contrasting model predicts the breakdown field, the density at which the Hall density jumps, and the Landau-fan periodicity doubling should all move to the opposite valley. If these signatures remain identical, the assignment to valley-dependent magnetic breakdown is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a high-quality bilayer-graphene/hexagonal-boron-nitride moiré superlattice at twist angle 0.86°, the paper's central discovery is that modest magnetic fields reorganize the semiclassical orbit network. Below 1 T, quantum oscillations map coexisting electron and hole pockets in the first and second moiré valence bands; between 1 and 2 T, the oscillation frequency jumps (for example at $\nu=-4.01$ from a pocket of $0.032\,n_M$ to $1.02\,n_M$), the Hall density changes sign or magnitude, and the extremely large magnetoresistance is suppressed. The authors attribute these signatures to magnetic breakdown between pockets and to orbital-magnetic-moment-induced magnetic Lifshitz transitions. Because the Berry curvature is concentrated in a ring where the breakdown junctions sit, and because the Berry curvature and orbital magnetic moments are opposite in the two valleys, the breakdown probability and Lifshitz transition differ between K and K′, producing valley-selective trajectories that evolve into valley-symmetry-breaking Hofstadter gaps at higher fields. At 18 K and low fields, a separate set of nearly density-independent oscillations appears with frequency $f_X+f_h$, the sum of the X electron pocket and lobe hole pocket areas, interpreted as quasiparticle-lifetime oscillations from scattering between electron and hole pockets.

Load-bearing premise

The whole interpretation leans on the calculated band structure at 0.864° twist angle matching the real device's Fermi-surface shapes and the quantum-geometry quantities that control tunneling; if the model's alignment, twist angle, or electric-field parameters are off, the frequency and Hall changes could have other explanations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Quantum oscillations measured above 1 T in moiré bilayer graphene cannot be read directly as the zero-field Fermi surface; the orbit network is already modified by the field.
Magnetic breakdown is not solely a Fermi-surface-geometry effect: Berry-curvature hot spots enhance breakdown in one valley and suppress it in the other, so band geometry controls the tunneling probability.
The valley-selective magnetic Lifshitz transitions explain apparent Landau-fan periodicity doubling and valley-polarized pocket sizes (e.g. $n-2n_M$) that would otherwise look like interaction-driven symmetry breaking.
At elevated temperatures, interpocket electron-hole scattering gives nearly density-independent oscillations at frequency $f_X+f_h$, providing a way to read the sum of Fermi-surface areas after conventional oscillations are thermally washed out.
The same mechanisms should operate in other flat-band and small-Brillouin-zone systems, where modest fields are enough to reorganize the electronic structure.

Reading between the lines

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

If the valley contrast is as strong as claimed, reversing the hBN crystallographic alignment should swap which valley undergoes breakdown; this is a direct, currently untested prediction.
A practical consequence for the field: oscillation measurements meant to map zero-field Fermi surfaces in moiré devices should be pushed to the lowest possible fields, or corrected for $B_{\mathrm{MB}}$, before assigning pocket sizes or flavor degeneracies.
The X+h quasiparticle-lifetime oscillations may offer a robust probe of electron-hole pocket coexistence; looking for the same sum-frequency component in other compensated semimetals would test how general the mechanism is.
Since the breakdown boundary depends on the magnetic length scaling $1/l_B\propto\sqrt{B}$, the field at which frequencies jump should scale with twist angle as pocket separations shrink; a twist-angle series would map this predicted evolution.

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

The paper is worth reading: it documents a set of clean, mutually consistent transport signatures in BLG/hBN moiré – QO frequency jumps, Hall density changes, and XMR suppression all occurring between 1 and 2 T – and it argues, convincingly at the level of phenomenology, that these are magnetic breakdown and magnetic Lifshitz transitions. The observations are the strong part. Frequency changes of the kind shown in Fig. 2 are not explained by the usual two-band magnetotransport artifact, and the density range over which they occur is broad. The authors also put their finger on something genuinely underexplored: the valley-contrasting role of Berry curvature and orbital magnetic moments in the breakdown process, and the high-temperature sum-frequency oscillations (f_X + f_h) attributed to electron-hole interpocket scattering. Those are nice, specific claims that go beyond the prior moiré fermiology papers.

The soft spots are where the interpretation outruns the quantitative support. First, the continuum-model band structure at θ = 0.864° is doing a lot of load-bearing work: pocket assignments, the sum-frequency identification, the breakdown junctions, and the valley-asymmetric Lifshitz scenario all depend on it. But the paper never computes a magnetic breakdown boundary from that model and compares it to the observed one; the red dashed curve in Fig. 2(e) is explicitly schematic. The valley-contrasting enhancement of MB in K vs K′ is inferred from degeneracy doubling in the Landau fan and from the boundary’s position, not from a calculation of BMB(K) versus BMB(K′). That is a real gap. Second, the QPLO story is plausible but qualitatively argued; the reduced effective mass m_X* + m_h* is stated, not derived, and the thermal survival of the sum frequency is presented as a consequence rather than shown. Third, since the supplement and raw data are not in the manuscript, I cannot check whether the model’s twist angle or displacement field have been validated against the actual device.

None of this is fatal. The central scenario – field-induced reorganization of the orbit network in a moiré system – is well-supported by the measured frequency and Hall changes, and the authors are honest about which boundaries are schematic. What the paper needs is one sharpened section that computes BMB (or at least the breakdown probability) from the model and overlays it on the data, plus a bit more derivation for the QPLO frequency. That is a serious referee’s job, not a desk-reject. I’d send it to review, and I’d bring it to group meeting.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports transport measurements on a bilayer graphene/hBN moiré superlattice and argues that magnetic fields of 1–2 T reorganize the electronic structure via magnetic breakdown and magnetic Lifshitz transitions, rather than merely probing the zero-field Fermi surface. The evidence includes changes in quantum oscillation frequencies, jumps in Hall density, suppression of extremely large magnetoresistance, and the emergence of nearly density-independent oscillations at 18 K. The authors interpret these observations using a continuum-model band structure with a twist angle of 0.864°, invoking valley-contrasting Berry curvature and orbital magnetic moments to explain differences between the K and K' valleys. The paper also connects the field-induced changes to the Hofstadter regime at higher fields.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the paper demonstrates a new route by which modest magnetic fields modify the fermiology of moiré materials and highlights the role of quantum geometry in magnetic breakdown. The direct observations—quantum oscillation frequency changes, Hall density jumps, XMR suppression, and 18 K oscillations—are plausible and internally consistent, and they do not depend on the model for their existence. The paper is less convincing in assigning the observed changes to specific magnetic-breakdown orbits, because the boundary in Fig. 2(e) is labeled schematic and no quantitative model prediction for the breakdown field is provided. The authors also do not rule out conventional two-carrier magnetotransport as an explanation for the Hall sign change. Nevertheless, the data are rich and the proposed mechanism is falsifiable; a quantitative comparison to the continuum model would substantially strengthen the claims.

major comments (3)

[§2, Fig. 2(e)] The red dashed boundary in Fig. 2(e), which delineates the magnetic-breakdown/Lifshitz regime, is explicitly labeled 'schematic.' To support the central claim that the 1–2 T changes are due to magnetic breakdown and magnetic Lifshitz transitions, the authors need to compute the breakdown field BMB from the continuum model—using the local gap and band velocity at the junctions between pockets—and the magnetic Lifshitz field from the OMM band shifts, and then compare these predictions to the observed boundary. In particular, the valley-contrasting scenario implies BMB(K) ≠ BMB(K'); a quantitative estimate of both would directly test the interpretation.
[§2, Figs. 2(a) and 2(d)] The Hall density nH = B/(eRxy) is used as evidence for a Lifshitz transition, but in a two-band system with coexisting electrons and holes, the Hall coefficient can change sign and nH can jump without any field-induced reorganization. The paper should rule out this two-carrier artifact, for example by fitting the full field dependence of Rxy with a two-band model using the low-field densities and mobilities and showing that it cannot reproduce the observed jump, or by demonstrating that the jump is coincident with the quantum-oscillation frequency change within experimental resolution. The XMR suppression alone is also not unique to magnetic breakdown.
[§4, Fig. 4 and text] The identification of the 18 K oscillations with the fX + fh quasi-particle lifetime oscillations relies on the effective-mass cancellation m*X + m*h = |m*X| − |m*h| ≈ 0. The authors should report the calculated cyclotron masses of the X and h pockets from the continuum model and compare the predicted thermal damping with the observed temperature dependence of these oscillations. Without this, the nearly density-independent oscillations could also be consistent with Brown–Zak oscillations, which the authors mention but do not quantitatively exclude.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 1(b) caption] The caption uses 'fermi energies'; this should be capitalized as 'Fermi energies.'
[§1, text after Fig. 1] The phrase 'At the 1st moiré valence band minimum' is confusing because the pocket at ν = −3.7 appears above ν = −4; please clarify which moiré band (first or second valence band) is being referred to and the filling convention.
[§2, Eq. (P)] After introducing P = exp(−BMB/B), define BMB explicitly as the magnetic breakdown field and state that it is field-independent in the standard semiclassical treatment.
[Fig. 3 caption] The axes are labeled 'ℏΩ/e (1/T)'; define Ω (presumably the Berry curvature) and state the conversion to units of 1/T.
[§4, Fig. 4(b)] The calculated quantum oscillation frequencies are shown graphically but not compared with the measured values in numeric form; a table listing measured and calculated f/fM for the X, Y, and h pockets would make the comparison more transparent.
[Global] The supplementary materials (Ref. [20]) are essential for the band-structure calculations and additional data; please ensure that the reference includes a stable URL or note that the supplementary is provided with the submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured frequencies and Hall data are external transport results compared with an independent band-structure calculation.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims (1-2 T QO frequency jumps, Hall density sign changes, XMR suppression, and the 18 K nearly density-independent f ~ 0.05 nM oscillation) are external transport data. The supplementary continuum-model calculation (Ref. [20], theta = 0.864 degrees) supplies pocket areas, Berry curvature, orbital magnetic moments, and the X+h frequency, and these are compared with, not fitted to, the measurements. No equation defines a measured frequency as a model output or vice versa. The model is load-bearing for pocket assignments and the magnetic-breakdown/Lifshitz interpretation, and those assignments are underdetermined if the model parameters are inaccurate; but underdetermination is a correctness risk, not circularity. There is no self-definitional construction, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The one 'schematic' MB boundary in Fig. 2(e) is admittedly not quantitatively computed from the model, but the paper does not claim the boundary is derived from the model; it presents it as a guide to the data.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced; the paper uses established electronic pockets, Landau levels, and breakdown orbits. The main unmeasured input is the twist angle used in the band-structure calculation, and the main assumptions are standard semiclassical and quantum-oscillation theory plus the fidelity of the continuum model to the actual device.

free parameters (1)

twist angle theta = 0.864 degrees
The continuum-model band-structure calculation in Ref. [20] uses this angle; all computed pocket areas, Berry curvature, orbital magnetic moments, and the X plus h frequency comparison depend on it. The preprint does not state how the angle was determined or its uncertainty.

assumptions (7)

standard math Semiclassical Bloch electron dynamics with band energy shifted by epsilon(k) minus m(k) dot B and Berry-curvature-modified equations of motion (Ref. [5]).
Invoked in the second paragraph and in the Fig. 3 discussion to justify magnetic Lifshitz transitions and breakdown-rate changes.
standard math Magnetic breakdown tunneling probability P = exp(-BMB/B) and coexistence of post-breakdown orbits (Refs. [6-9]).
Used to interpret the 1 to 2 T frequency changes and the orbit schematic in Fig. 2(a).
standard math Onsager relation and Lifshitz-Kosevich thermal damping factor (Ref. [39]).
Used to convert oscillation frequencies to Fermi-surface areas and to argue small effective masses survive at 18 K.
domain assumption The continuum moiré band model for BLG/hBN in Ref. [20] accurately describes the measured device.
All pocket labels, Berry curvature hot spots, OMM signs, and the fX plus fh identification come from this calculation; an inaccurate model would change the interpretation.
standard math Time-reversal symmetry makes Berry curvature and orbital magnetic moments opposite in K and K prime valleys.
Used to derive valley-contrasting breakdown and Lifshitz transitions; this is a standard symmetry argument but is not directly tested in the paper.
domain assumption The observed Landau-fan degeneracy (2j before and 4j after the magnetic Lifshitz transition) reflects valley-resolved carrier populations.
This degeneracy counting is the main experimental evidence for valley-selective trajectories; it assumes the filling-factor assignments in Fig. 2(e).
domain assumption Interpocket scattering produces resistance oscillations at f1 plus f2 with damping set by the sum of effective masses, as in QPLO and MISO theory (Refs. [30-34]).
The high-temperature density-independent oscillations are attributed to this mechanism; the paper does not derive the transport response for electron-hole pocket scattering here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Field Reorganization of Electronic States in Moir\'e Bilayer Graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/57PUKQR5

@misc{pith2026260804269,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Field Reorganization of Electronic States in Moir\'e Bilayer Graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/57PUKQR5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04269}
}

abstract

Magnetic fields are widely used to diagnose quantum phases in two-dimensional systems through quantum oscillations or by tuning spin and valley polarizations, but magnetic fields can also reshape the underlying electronic structure. Here, using a bilayer graphene/hBN moir\'e system, we reveal a rich magnetic field induced evolution of the semiclassical orbit network, encompassing Lifshitz transitions, magnetic breakdown, and scattering between coexisting electron and hole pockets. At magnetic fields of 1 T to 2 T, quantum oscillation frequencies and the Hall density change markedly over a broad carrier density range, signaling magnetic breakdown and magnetic Lifshitz transitions. This evolution is valley contrasting: Berry curvature hot spots near the breakdown junctions enhance magnetic breakdown in the K valley while suppressing it in the K$^\prime$ valley, whereas valley-antisymmetric orbital magnetic moments split the corresponding Lifshitz transitions. The resulting valley-selective trajectories manifest at higher fields as valley-symmetry-breaking Hofstadter gaps. At elevated temperatures and low magnetic fields, scattering between coexisting electron and hole pockets produces nearly density-independent resistance oscillations whose frequency tracks the sum of their Fermi surface areas, persisting after conventional Onsager oscillations are thermally washed out. Our results provide a unified picture of how modest magnetic fields reorganize moir\'e electronic states as the system evolves from semiclassical transport toward the Hofstadter regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04269 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (b) shows MR versus magnetic field at ν = −3.52. Again, below 1 T low frequency QOs are observed, indicating a FP size of 0.124 nM, while above 1 T, high frequency QOs dominate, indicating a FP size of 0.88 nM. Near the VHS, intraband MB can also occur between the X and Y electron pockets, but the tunneling probability P ≤ 1/2, with equality at the VHS [9, 26]. Instead, the dominant effect is a valley-selective mag… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Left (right) shows Berry curvature in the first (sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

D. R. Hofstadter, Phys. Rev. B 14, 2239 (1976)

1976
[2]

C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, and et al., Nature (London) 497, 598 (2013)

work page 2013
[3]

B. Hunt, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, A. F. Young, M. Yankowitz, B. J. LeRoy, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Moon, M. Koshino, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and R. C. Ashoori, Science 340, 1427 (2013)

work page 2013
[4]

L. A. Ponomarenko, R. V. Gorbachev, G. L. Yu, D. C. Elias, R. Jalil, A. A. Patel, A. Mishchenko, A. S. Mayorov, C. R. Woods, J. R. Wallbank, and et al., Nature (London) 497, 594 (2013)

work page 2013
[5]

Xiao, M.-C

D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1959 (2010)

2010
[6]

M. H. Cohen and L. M. Falicov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 231 (1961)

work page 1961
[7]

E. I. Blount, Phys. Rev. 126, 1636 (1962)

work page 1962
[8]

R. G. Chambers, Proc. Phys. Soc., London 88, 701 (1966)

work page 1966

Show all 39 references

[9]

Alexandradinata and L

A. Alexandradinata and L. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 256601 (2017)

2017
[10]

A. B. Pippard, Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A 256, 317 (1964)

1964
[11]

Machida, K

K. Machida, K. Kishigi, and Y. Hori, Phys. Rev. B 51, 8946 (1995)

1995
[12]

N. Paul, P. J. D. Crowley, T. Devakul, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 116804 (2022)

2022
[13]

F. K. de Vries, S. Slizovskiy, P. Tomi´ c, R. Krishna Ku- mar, A. Garcia-Ruiz, G. Zheng, E. Portol´ es, L. A. Pono- marenko, A. K. Geim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, V. Fal’ko, K. Ensslin, T. Ihn, and P. Rickhaus, Nano Lett. 24, 601 (2024)

2024
[14]

P. Moon, Y. Kim, M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, and J. H. Smet, Nano Lett. 24, 3339 (2024)

2024
[15]

Bocarsly, M

M. Bocarsly, M. Uzan, I. Roy, S. Grover, J. Xiao, Z. Dong, M. Labendik, A. Uri, M. E. Huber, Y. Myasoe- dov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Yan, L. S. Levitov, and E. Zeldov, Science 383, 42 (2024)

2024
[16]

Z. Han, Y. Xia, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, (2025), arXiv:2509.19287 [cond-mat]

2025
[17]

A. B. Pippard, Proc. R. Soc. A 270, 1 (1962)

1962
[18]

M. G. Priestley, L. M. Falicov, and G. Weisz, Phys. Rev. 131, 617 (1963)

1963
[19]

B. R. Watts, Proc. R. Soc. A 282, 521 (1964)

1964
[20]

See supplementary materials at [url] for details on device fabrication, transport measurements, band structure cal- culations, and additional data
[21]

Moon and M

P. Moon and M. Koshino, Phys. Rev. B 90, 155406 (2014)

2014
[22]

Brown, Phys

E. Brown, Phys. Rev. 133, A1038 (1964)

1964
[23]

Zak, Phys

J. Zak, Phys. Rev. 134, A1602 (1964)

1964
[24]

A. L. Shilov, M. A. Kashchenko, P. A. Pantale´ on Per- alta, Y. Wang, M. Kravtsov, A. Kudriashov, Z. Zhan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, S. Slizovskiy, K. S. 6 Novoselov, V. I. Fal’ko, F. Guinea, and D. A. Bandurin, ACS Nano 18, 11769 (2024)

2024
[25]

Z. Wang, P. M. Perez-Piskunow, C. P. Y. Wong, M. Holwill, J. Liu, W. Fu, J. Hu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. Ariando, L. Li, K. E. J. Goh, S. Roche, J. Jung, K. Novoselov, and N. Leconte, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.07004 arXiv:2312.07004

arXiv
[26]

E. C. Kemble, Phys. Rev. 48, 549 (1935)

1935
[27]

A. S. Patri and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. B 112, 214505 (2025)

2025
[28]

O. I. Sheekey, T. B. Arp, B. A. Foutty, R. Zhang, T. Tan, L. F. W. Holleis, Y. Guo, S. S. Kalantre, C. Zhang, M. Zakharyan, D. Gong, A. Keough, Y. Choi, Y. Choi, S. Xu, T. Xie, B. H. Alexander, M. Hock- ing, Q. Cao, M. E. Huber, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, C. Jin, E. Lantagne-H...

arXiv
[29]

Krishna Kumar, X

R. Krishna Kumar, X. Chen, G. H. Auton, A. Mishchenko, D. A. Bandurin, S. V. Morozov, Y. Cao, E. Khestanova, M. Ben Shalom, A. V. Kre- tinin, K. S. Novoselov, L. Eaves, I. V. Grigorieva, L. A. Ponomarenko, V. I. Fal’ko, and A. K. Geim, Science 357, 181 (2017)

2017
[30]

Huber, V

N. Huber, V. Leeb, A. Bauer, G. Benka, J. Knolle, C. Pﬂeiderer, and M. A. Wilde, Nature (London) 621, 276 (2023)

2023
[31]

V. Leeb, N. Huber, C. Pﬂeiderer, J. Knolle, and M. A. Wilde, Adv. Phys. Res. 4, 2400134 (2025)

2025
[32]

D. R. Leadley, R. Fletcher, R. J. Nicholas, F. Tao, C. T. Foxon, and J. J. Harris, Physical Review. B, Condensed Matter 46, 12439 (1992)

1992
[33]

M. E. Raikh and T. V. Shahbazyan, Physical Review B 49, 5531 (1994)

1994
[34]

I. Y. Phinney, D. A. Bandurin, C. Collignon, I. A. Dmitriev, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 056802 (2021)

2021
[35]

Density- independent QO frequencies, with near-zero m∗, can sur- vive to much higher temperatures [13, 31]

Increased temperature smears the FS, and QOs with cyclotron mass m∗ = ℏ−2 dAk/dµ (with Ak the ex- tremal FS cross-section area) are damped according to the well-known Lifshitz-Kosevich thermal damping fac- tor RT = X/ sinh X, with X ∝ m∗T /B [39]. Density- independent QO frequ...
[36]

Lu and H

C.-K. Lu and H. A. Fertig, Physical Review B 89, 085408 (2014)

2014
[37]

S. S. Kalantre, B. H. Alexander, J. May-Mann, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, M. Hocking, Q. Cao, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, A. J. Mannix, T. Devakul, Y. H. Kwan, D. E. Parker, and A. Sharpe, note arXiv:2606.05356 [cond-mat.supr-con]

arXiv
[38]

Zhao, Y.-Z

J.-Y. Zhao, Y.-Z. Chou, and S. D. Sarma, note arXiv:2607.27207 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

arXiv
[39]

I. M. Lifshitz and A. M. Kosevich, Sov. Phys. JETP 2 (1956)

1956

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

D. R. Hofstadter, Phys. Rev. B 14, 2239 (1976)

1976

[2] [2]

C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, and et al., Nature (London) 497, 598 (2013)

work page 2013

[3] [3]

B. Hunt, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, A. F. Young, M. Yankowitz, B. J. LeRoy, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Moon, M. Koshino, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and R. C. Ashoori, Science 340, 1427 (2013)

work page 2013

[4] [4]

L. A. Ponomarenko, R. V. Gorbachev, G. L. Yu, D. C. Elias, R. Jalil, A. A. Patel, A. Mishchenko, A. S. Mayorov, C. R. Woods, J. R. Wallbank, and et al., Nature (London) 497, 594 (2013)

work page 2013

[5] [5]

Xiao, M.-C

D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1959 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

M. H. Cohen and L. M. Falicov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 231 (1961)

work page 1961

[7] [7]

E. I. Blount, Phys. Rev. 126, 1636 (1962)

work page 1962

[8] [8]

R. G. Chambers, Proc. Phys. Soc., London 88, 701 (1966)

work page 1966