Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Disorder in Twisted Bilayer Graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that twist-angle disorder—unavoidable spatial variation in the relative rotation between graphene layers—is a distinct form of disorder that fills in the miniband insulation gap and broadens the flat band while leaving…

desk verdict A first serious look at twist-angle disorder in TBG with a usable local model; the qualitative story (gaps fragile, Dirac velocity robust) is convincing, but the quantitative thresholds come from a four-patch construction that the paper itself shows is not universal. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02753 v2 pith:5HWUXXAX submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el

Justin H. Wilson , Yixing Fu , S. Das Sarma , J. H. Pixley This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords twistedbilayergraphenetwist-angledisordermoiréminibandmagicangledensityofstatesDiracconevelocityVanHovesingularitieskernelpolynomialmethod
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 introduces twist-angle disorder as a qualitatively new form of disorder in twisted bilayer graphene: even in perfectly clean samples, the twist angle between the two layers wanders across the sample, and that wandering is the dominant residual disorder. To study it, the authors construct a real-space lattice model in which the twist angle enters the interlayer hopping as a continuously tunable local parameter, so the angle can vary from patch to patch. Using kernel-polynomial evaluations of the density of states, they find that only about 6% variation in the twist angle relative to a clean 1.05 degrees completely fills the miniband gap, and that the minibandwidth grows substantially, while the Dirac-cone velocity extracted from the low-energy density-of-states scaling stays at its clean value up to roughly 15% variation. This separation between fragile gaps and stable Dirac cones matters because it offers a concrete way to understand why nominally identical twisted samples show very different correlated-insulator and superconducting behaviors, and it predicts that the semimetallic V-shaped conductance minimum should survive twist disorder.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a real-space lattice model of twisted bilayer graphene whose interlayer hopping amplitudes T0(r) and T1(r) carry the twist angle $\theta$ explicitly through wavevectors with magnitude k_theta = 2 k_D sin($\theta$/2), making the angle a continuous, local parameter rather than a global boundary condition. The model preserves C2T symmetry, which keeps the Dirac nodes gapless, but breaks C3 symmetry, and it reproduces the standard continuum model near the K and K' points. Disorder is injected by partitioning the sample into four equal square patches, each assigned a twist angle drawn from the box distribution [(1-W_R/2)theta0, (1+W_R/2)theta0]; the density of states is computed with the kernel polynomial method, and the velocity is read off from the low-energy scaling rho(E) ~ $v^{{-2}}$|E-E_D|. A quasiperiodic spin-orbit toy model with many randomly sized patches is used to check that the four-patch patching scheme does not drive the qualitative conclusions.

What would settle it

Measure the local twist angle everywhere on a twisted-bilayer-graphene device by nanoscale scanning probe or diffraction mapping, and correlate the spread with the transport gap: a device whose twist-angle spread clearly exceeds about 6% of the nominal angle but still shows a hard miniband gap would disprove the predicted gap-filling threshold. Alternatively, a lattice-model calculation using many randomly sized patches rather than four equal squares would show whether the 6% threshold is an artifact of the patching scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that twist-angle disorder acts selectively: it destroys the coherence of the moire miniband while leaving the Dirac cone's low-energy structure intact. Concretely, for a clean twist angle near magic angle, modeled with a box distribution of local angles of width W_R, the single-particle gap separating the miniband from higher states is completely filled in by W_R near 6% of the clean angle, and the minibandwidth broadens monotonically with disorder until the gap disappears. In contrast, the renormalized Dirac velocity v, extracted from the scaling rho(E) ~ $v^{{-2}}$|E-E_D|, remains essentially at its clean value for W_R up to about 15%, with the minimum only beginning to round out near the magic-angle condition. The Van Hove peaks lose their logarithmic divergence and become analytic in energy under disorder, yet their positions and mutual separation are nearly unaffected, while the estimated mean-field BCS transition temperature at a Van Hove peak is strongly suppressed. The authors read this as meaning that twist disorder weakens the many-body correlation physics by widening the effective bandwidth, lowering the effective U/t, while not erasing the semimetallic Dirac scaling observed in transport.

Load-bearing premise

That representing the sample as four equal square patches, each with a single uniform twist angle drawn from a box distribution, captures the real spatial variation of the twist angle; if real samples have many small domains or smooth gradients, the quantitative thresholds could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Miniband insulating gaps at integer fillings should be strongly sample-dependent: a twist-angle spread of roughly 6% of the clean angle suffices to destroy the single-particle gap, so correlated-insulator gaps built on top of it will be weakened or absent in many samples.
  • The V-shaped low-energy conductance minimum at charge neutrality should survive moderate twist disorder, since the Dirac velocity and the linear density-of-states scaling remain essentially unchanged up to about 15% twist variation.
  • If superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene is BCS-like and enhanced by the Van Hove singularity, twist disorder suppresses the effective Tc, so samples with larger twist variation should not superconduct.
  • Van Hove peak positions remain fixed under disorder, so scanning probes searching for the peaks should still find them near their clean energies even when the peaks are broadened and no longer divergent.
  • Twist disorder broadens the minibandwidth, which reduces the effective correlation strength U/t, meaning the disorder acts to weaken correlated phases even though the Dirac cone remains flat.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test this directly, but the toy-model appendix suggests that real samples with many small twist domains could fill the gap at even smaller angle spreads than the 6% reported for four patches, because increasing the number of randomly placed patches strengthens the effective disorder.
  • A device-level test would be to measure the local twist-angle distribution with scanning probes, then compare the spread with the transport gap: the paper's mechanism predicts a sharp correlation between angle spread and the disappearance of the insulating gap.
  • The same lattice-model construction should transfer to other twisted van der Waals bilayers and to multilayer twist devices, where the velocity-versus-gap dichotomy could serve as a diagnostic separating twist disorder from charge-impurity disorder.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper argues that spatial variations of the twist angle are an intrinsic source of disorder in twisted bilayer graphene. The authors construct a real-space lattice model in which the twist angle enters as a continuous, locally variable parameter, and they show that its low-energy density of states agrees with the Bistritzer–MacDonald continuum model near the K and K′ points. Twist disorder is modeled by dividing the sample into four equal square patches, each with a twist angle drawn from a box distribution centered at 1.05°, and the density of states is computed with the kernel polynomial method for systems up to L = 569 and 100 disorder realizations. The main reported results are that the miniband gaps are filled in at disorder strengths of roughly 6% of the clean twist angle, the minibandwidth broadens, and the Van Hove peaks are smeared, while the Dirac velocity extracted from ρ(E) ∼ v^−2|E − E_D| remains nearly unchanged up to about 15% disorder. A quasiperiodic spin-orbit-coupled toy model in Appendix A reproduces the qualitative picture and is used to explore the dependence on the patch construction.

Significance. The qualitative contrast between a robust Dirac velocity and fragile miniband gaps and bandwidth, if correct, is a useful and non-obvious statement about twisted bilayer graphene that would help interpret sample-to-sample variability in transport and STM experiments. The paper has real strengths: the lattice model is benchmarked against the continuum model in Fig. 3; the calculations are nonperturbative and run on reasonably large systems; no observable is fitted to the target result; and the Appendix A toy model provides an independent cross-check. The paper also makes falsifiable statements, for example that samples with larger twist-angle variation should show a preserved low-energy V-shaped density of states but suppressed miniband gaps. The main caveat is that the specific numerical thresholds depend on modeling choices that are only partly tested within the paper itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 5(a,b); Sec. IV] The quantitative claim that the miniband gap closes at approximately 6% of the clean twist angle is not robust with respect to the disorder construction. The TBG calculation always uses exactly four equal square patches, and the effect of patch number and shape is examined only in the SOC toy model in Appendix A (Figs. 9–11), where increasing the patch number and randomizing patch shapes increases the effective disorder and shifts gap filling to smaller WQ. Because the real correlation length of twist fluctuations is unknown, the 6% number should be presented as a property of this four-patch ensemble rather than as a universal threshold. This matters because the discussion in Sec. IV uses the 6% threshold to interpret experimental sample-to-sample variations.
  2. [Sec. II, Appendix B, Eq. (B9)–(B13), Fig. 13] The clean model explicitly breaks C3 symmetry, and Appendix B shows that as a result the velocity does not vanish at the nominal magic angle: vmin remains finite for all interlayer tunneling strengths. This complicates the central velocity-robustness result, because the ratio v/v(w=0) shown in Fig. 5(c,d) is then measuring disorder insensitivity of a small but finite clean velocity, not of a magic-angle flat band. The text acknowledges this in Secs. II and IV, but it does not quantify how the disorder dependence of the velocity would change in a C3-preserving version of the model, which the paper cites as available in Ref. 24. I would ask the authors to state explicitly the range of w over which the “virtually unchanged” velocity claim is intended and to test the claim in a C3-symmetric model, or to soften the central claim accordingly.
  3. [Sec. III, Figs. 4–5] The extraction of the gap-closing percentage is limited by the KPM resolution and by the absence of statistical error bars. The miniband gap is read from a DOS computed with NC = 2^17 and averaged over 100 samples; once disorder fills the gap, the value of WR at which the gap “completely” closes necessarily depends on the broadening scale set by NC and on the gap definition, which is not specified. Reporting the threshold as a range set by the KPM resolution or with an uncertainty estimate would make the central quantitative claim testable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III] The sentence containing “we we are able” contains a typo and should read “we are able.”
  2. [Appendix A] “Fibbonnaci” should be spelled “Fibonacci.”
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (8)] Stating that Tc is “in units of eV” is misleading because the exponential prefactor in Eq. (8) is arbitrary; please describe this quantity as a relative or qualitative measure of the Van Hove contribution.
  4. [Sec. II] It is ambiguous whether the random phases φj are drawn once per sample or independently in each patch; since Appendix A explicitly distinguishes these two options, the main text should state which choice is used in the TBG calculations.
  5. [Sec. III, Eq. (7)] Please specify the energy window used for the low-energy velocity fits in Fig. 5; the insets alone do not fully define the fitting range.
  6. [References] References 32 and 39 are the same paper and should be merged or one of them removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: disorder-averaged quantities are outputs of a lattice model benchmarked against the external Bistritzer-MacDonald continuum model, not fitted inputs or self-cited uniqueness results.

full rationale

The central claims (gap closure near WR≈6%, velocity robustness, miniband broadening) are obtained by computing the disorder-averaged density of states with the kernel polynomial method for a real-space lattice model, then extracting the gap, bandwidth, and Dirac velocity via the standard scaling rho(E) ~ v^-2 |E-ED|. None of these quantities is fitted to the disorder data; the inputs are the clean tight-binding parameters (t, w0/w1, theta0) and the box-distribution width WR. The lattice model is benchmarked against the external continuum model of Bistritzer and MacDonald (Ref. [21]), with good agreement in the DOS, gap, and velocity before disorder is added, so the clean input is not the disordered output. The velocity robustness is a computed result, not an input; it follows from the low-energy DOS shape in the averaged system. The self-citations (Refs. [24] and [31]) are used only to motivate and cross-check the Appendix A toy model, and the main TBG conclusions are not derived from those papers; the toy model is an independent physical model whose results are consistent but not load-bearing. The four-patch modeling of twist disorder is a physical modeling assumption whose robustness is discussed in Appendix A; changing the patch number alters the effective disorder strength, but that is a quantitative modeling concern, not a circularity. No equation defines a quantity in terms of the quantity it later claims to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The smearing of Van Hove peaks and filling of gaps are consequences of averaging over patches with different twist angles, but that is the intended physical content of the disorder model rather than a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a newly constructed real-space lattice model with several chosen parameters, a coarse four-patch disorder realization, and the KPM technique. No new particles or forces are introduced; twist-angle disorder is a physical fluctuation rather than a postulated entity.

free parameters (3)
  • AA/AB interlayer tunneling ratio w0/w1 = 0.75
    Set to mimic lattice relaxation based on prior band-structure calculations (Refs. 27-28); held fixed for all local twist angles even though it should vary with angle.
  • clean twist angle theta0 = 1.05 degrees
    Chosen near the magic angle as the experimental regime of interest; not derived, and the disorder box distribution is centered on it.
  • disorder box width WR = 0-8% of theta0
    Control parameter for twist disorder; quantitative thresholds such as gap closure near WR=6% depend on the assumed box distribution shape.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bistritzer-MacDonald continuum model is the correct low-energy description of twisted bilayer graphene
    The lattice model is constructed and benchmarked against it in Sec. II and Fig. 3; all conclusions concern single-particle physics within this framework.
  • domain assumption Four equal square patches with sharp twist boundaries represent twist-angle disorder
    Introduced in Sec. II and Fig. 2d; Appendix A checks random patch shapes only for the quasiperiodic toy model, not for the TBG lattice model.
  • ad hoc to paper Explicit C3 symmetry breaking in the lattice model does not change the qualitative disorder physics
    The model leaves the Dirac velocity finite near the magic angle (Appendix B); the paper argues that disorder and experimental strain also break C3, but this is an assumption about the regime of validity.
  • domain assumption KPM with L=569 and NC=217 resolves the low-energy miniband features in the disordered case
    Used for all disorder averages; the paper calls the result essentially exact nonperturbative but provides no convergence study versus L and NC for the disordered case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disorder in Twisted Bilayer Graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5HWUXXAX

@misc{pith2026190802753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disorder in Twisted Bilayer Graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5HWUXXAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02753}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a theory for a qualitatively new type of disorder in condensed matter systems arising from local twist-angle fluctuations in two strongly coupled van der Waals monolayers twisted with respect to each other to create a flat band moir\'e superlattice. The new paradigm of 'twist angle disorder' arises from the currently ongoing intense research activity in the physics of twisted bilayer graphene. In experimental samples of pristine twisted bilayer graphene, which are nominally free of impurities and defects, the main source of disorder is believed to arise from the unavoidable and uncontrollable non-uniformity of the twist angle across the sample. To address this new physics of twist-angle disorder, we develop a real-space, microscopic model of twisted bilayer graphene where the angle enters as a free parameter. In particular, we focus on the size of single-particle energy gaps separating the miniband from the rest of the spectrum, the Van Hove peaks, the renormalized Dirac cone velocity near charge neutrality, and the minibandwidth. We find that the energy gaps and minibandwidth are strongly affected by disorder while the renormalized velocity remains virtually unchanged. We discuss the implications of our results for the ongoing experiments on twisted bilayer graphene. Our theory is readily generalized to future studies of twist angle disorder effects on all electronic properties of moir\'e superlattices created by twisting two coupled van der Waals materials with respect to each other.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) The density of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) (a) A schematic of graphene and the notation we use for our model. The A (B) sublattice is represented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) (a) The calculated density of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The effects of twist disorder on the low energy density of states. The density of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (color online) Summary of results on the miniband properties in the TBG model with a clean twist angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The effects of twist disorder on the properties of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (color online) (a) The calculated density of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The disorder-free density of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (color online) Density of states as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Effects of disorder on the renormalization of the ve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The calculated velocity renormalization in second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Effects of Defects in Superconducting Phase of Twisted Bilayer Graphene

    cond-mat.supr-con 2019-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Impurity-induced bound-state counts and disorder phase diagrams are computed for s-wave, d+id, and p+ip pairing in twisted bilayer graphene models, yielding a proposed STM diagnostic for pairing symmetry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , (B9) 16 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.550.580.610 0.02 0.04 0.06 FIG. 13. The calculated velocity renormalization in second- order perturbation theory. The dashed line is the result from Ref. [21] while the upper and lower curves are the maximum and minimum velocities of the lattice model written down in Eq. (4) near the K and K′ points. Noti...

    work page

  2. [2]

    A. K. Geim, Science 324, 1530 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    A. K. Geim and I. V. Grigorieva, Nature 499, 419 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    G. Li, A. Luican, J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, A. H. Cas- tro Neto, A. Reina, J. Kong, and E. Y. Andrei, Nat. Phys. 6, 109 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Luican, G

    A. Luican, G. Li, A. Reina, J. Kong, R. R. Nair, K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, and E. Y. Andrei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 126802 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, et al. , Nature 556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

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

    2018

  8. [8]

    Yankowitz, S

    M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Science 363, 1059 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    X. Lu, P. Stepanov, W. Yang, M. Xie, M. A. Aamir, I. Das, C. Urgell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zhang, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.06513 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Das Sarma, S

    S. Das Sarma, S. Adam, E. H. Hwang, and E. Rossi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 407 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Zibrov, C

    A. Zibrov, C. Kometter, H. Zhou, E. Spanton, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. Zaletel, and A. Young, Nature 549, 360 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    X. Du, I. Skachko, F. Duerr, A. Luican, and E. Y. An- drei, Nature 462, 192 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    K. Kim, M. Yankowitz, B. Fallahazad, S. Kang, H. C. Movva, S. Huang, S. Larentis, C. M. Corbet, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, et al., Nano letters 16, 1989 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Brihuega, P

    I. Brihuega, P. Mallet, H. Gonzlez-Herrero, G. Tram- bly de Laissardire, M. M. Ugeda, L. Magaud, J. M. Gmez-Rodrguez, F. Yndurin, and J.-Y. Veuillen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 196802 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    D. Wong, Y. Wang, J. Jung, S. Pezzini, A. M. DaSilva, H.-Z. Tsai, H. S. Jung, R. Khajeh, Y. Kim, J. Lee, S. Kahn, S. Tollabimazraehno, H. Rasool, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Zettl, S. Adam, A. H. MacDonald, and M. F. Crommie, Phys. Rev. B 92, 155409 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Kerelsky, L

    A. Kerelsky, L. McGilly, D. M. Kennes, L. Xian, M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, C. Dean, A. Rubio, and A. N. Pasupathy, arXiv:1812.08776 [cond-mat] (2018), arXiv: 1812.08776. 17

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y. Choi, J. Kemmer, Y. Peng, A. Thomson, H. Arora, R. Polski, Y. Zhang, H. Ren, J. Alicea, G. Refael, F. von Oppen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and S. Nadj-Perge, arXiv:1901.02997 [cond-mat] (2019), arXiv: 1901.02997

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jiang, X

    Y. Jiang, X. Lai, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Haule, J. Mao, and E. Y. Andrei, Nature , 1 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Y. Xie, B. Lian, B. Jck, X. Liu, C.-L. Chiu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Nature 572, 101 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    E. Y. Andrei, Private Communication (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, N. M. R. Peres, and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 256802 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 12233 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. B 81, 161405(R) (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Moon and M

    P. Moon and M. Koshino, Phys. Rev. B 85, 195458 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Y. Fu, E. K¨ onig, J. Wilson, Y.-Z. Chou, and J. Pixley, arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04604 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Z. Bi, N. F. Q. Yuan, and L. Fu, arXiv:1902.10146 [cond- mat] (2019), arXiv: 1902.10146

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Weiße, G

    A. Weiße, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 275 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    N. N. T. Nam and M. Koshino, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075311 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    S. Carr, S. Fang, Z. Zhu, and E. Kaxiras, Phys. Rev. Research 1, 013001 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    G. Li, A. Luican, J. Lopes dos Santos, A. Castro Neto, A. Reina, J. Kong, and E. Andrei, Nat. Phys. 6, 109 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, N. M. R. Peres, and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B 86, 155449 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    J. H. Pixley, J. H. Wilson, D. A. Huse, and S. Gopalakr- ishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 207604 (2018)

    2018

  25. [34]

    S. J. Ahn, P. Moon, T.-H. Kim, H.-W. Kim, H.-C. Shin, E. H. Kim, H. W. Cha, S.-J. Kahng, P. Kim, M. Koshino, et al. , Science 361, 782 (2018)

    2018

  26. [35]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  27. [36]

    In fact, for any φ1,2 we can determine an r0 that creates it

    The phases always modify terms like qj· r +φj, and in order to see how they represent a center of rotation, consider an qj·(r−r0), thenφj =−qj·r and ∑ jφj = 0. In fact, for any φ1,2 we can determine an r0 that creates it

  28. [37]

    Lin and D

    X. Lin and D. Tom´ anek, Phys. Rev. B98, 081410 (2018)

    2018

  29. [38]

    Tarnopolsky, A

    G. Tarnopolsky, A. J. Kruchkov, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 106405 (2019)

    2019

  30. [39]

    X. Lin, D. Liu, and D. Tom´ anek, Phys. Rev. B 98, 195432 (2018)

    2018

  31. [40]

    W. Yao, E. Wang, C. Bao, Y. Zhang, K. Zhang, K. Bao, C. K. Chan, C. Chen, J. Avila, M. C. Asensio, et al. , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 6928 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.