Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Layer Pseudospin Superconductivity in Twisted MoTe$_2$

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In spin-valley-polarized twisted MoTe2, the layer degree of freedom determines the pairing channel, and weak displacement fields can stabilize finite-momentum superconductivity.

desk verdict The layer-pseudospin framework is a genuinely new angle on tMoTe2 superconductivity, but the analytical basis for the headline interlayer-dominance claim contains an algebra error in Eq. (7) that needs referee attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12767 v1 pith:OE4DRI3T submitted 2025-06-15 cond-mat.supr-con

Jin-Xin Hu , Akito Daido , Zi-Ting Sun , Ying-Ming Xie , K. T. Law This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords twistedbilayerMoTe2layerpseudospinunconventionalsuperconductivityfinite-momentumpairingFFLOstatedisplacementfieldspin-valleypolarizationmoiréTMD
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 tries to establish that the layer degree of freedom, meaning which moiré stacking region an electron sits in, controls how Cooper pairs form in twisted bilayer MoTe2, and that this layer pseudospin can be manipulated with electric fields. In a fully spin-valley-polarized normal state, the authors argue, superconductivity pairs electrons within the same valley, and the layer-polarized Fermi surface makes interlayer pairing win over intralayer pairing; in a spin-valley-unpolarized state the opposite holds. They further claim that a weak displacement field acts like a layer-space Zeeman field, shifting the two layers' Fermi surfaces apart and stabilizing finite-momentum pairing at low temperatures, analogous to an FFLO state but driven by an electric field rather than a magnetic one. Because twisted MoTe2 has recently shown signs of spin-valley-polarized unconventional superconductivity, these predictions are directly testable, with the predicted upturn in the displacement-field versus temperature phase diagram as the clearest signature.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-orbital layer-pseudospin model H(k)=d(k)·τ+(Vz/2)τz, where τ are Pauli matrices for the top and bottom layers and the d-vector's d3 term encodes the moiré hexagonal warping and the layer polarization ⟨Pz⟩=d3/|d|. The paper visualizes pairing channels on a layer-space Bloch sphere: for intravalley pairing the interlayer form factor is |⟨u_k|τx|u*_{-k}⟩|^2 = 1−$sin^{2}$θ(1/2−cos2α) and the intralayer one is |⟨u_k|τ0|u*_{-k}⟩|^2 = $sin^{2}$θ, so when the d-vector points near ±z the interlayer channel dominates; for intervalley pairing the intralayer overlap is always larger. The displacement field Vz enters as a layer-Zeeman term that shifts one layer's Fermi surface against the other, producing nondegenerate nesting vectors Q± and, by threefold symmetry, three degenerate finite-momentum pairing states. The pairing susceptibility matrix, built from intralayer and interlayer interaction strengths U and V, determines the transition temperature and the favored momentum; the intravalley pairing function is assumed to be chiral p-wave φk=Σ_j $ω^{{j−1}}$ sin(k·R_j), motivated by experiment.

What would settle it

A transport or thermodynamic measurement of the superconducting transition temperature versus displacement field in fully spin-valley-polarized twisted MoTe2 that shows a monotonic decrease with no low-temperature upturn at finite displacement field would rule out the predicted layer-Zeeman finite-momentum pairing; equivalently, a numerical pairing-susceptibility calculation including both intravalley and intervalley channels that finds intralayer dominance for the intravalley state would falsify the interlayer-dominance claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the layer-pseudospin texture of the moiré valence band decides the pairing channel: for intravalley pairing in the fully spin-valley-polarized state, the interlayer pairing susceptibility exceeds the intralayer one, while for intervalley pairing the intralayer channel dominates. The mechanism is that the d3 component of the layer-space d-vector produces opposite layer polarizations at opposite momenta, so an electron and its time-reversed partner sit on opposite layers, enhancing interlayer Cooper pairing. Because a displacement field tilts this layer polarization and shifts the electron and hole Fermi surfaces apart, it produces finite-momentum pairing states with nonzero center-of-mass momentum even at weak fields, with three degenerate momenta connected by threefold rotation symmetry; an in-plane magnetic field breaks this threefold degeneracy and selects a single momentum whose direction tracks the field angle. The authors support these predictions with both a two-orbital layer-pseudospin model and a continuum model of 3.9-degree twisted MoTe2, and they stress that the conclusions do not depend on the microscopic pairing mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume the normal state is fully spin-valley-polarized and that pairing is intravalley chiral p-wave within a single valley; if the real superconducting state contains intervalley or partially valley-polarized pairing, the predicted interlayer dominance and the displacement-field finite-momentum mechanism do not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the spin-valley-polarized state, superconductivity in twisted MoTe2 should be carried predominantly by interlayer Cooper pairs, making pairing properties sensitive to layer-resolved probes.
  • A weak displacement field should produce an upturn in the displacement-field versus temperature phase diagram at low temperature, the signature of finite-momentum pairing, with momentum around 0.04 inverse nanometers at a displacement field near 0.8 meV.
  • In-plane magnetic fields select among three degenerate pair momenta, producing field-direction-dependent single-momentum versus double-momentum states and anisotropic critical supercurrents.
  • The layer-Zeeman mechanism provides an electric-field route to FFLO-like finite-momentum superconductivity, in contrast to the magnetic-field route used in conventional superconductors.
  • These predictions are presented as independent of the microscopic pairing mechanism, so they should hold for any intravalley chiral pairing in the spin-valley-polarized regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is right, the displacement field acts as a continuously tunable pair-breaking knob, so sweeping Vz across the critical value should switch the system between zero-momentum and finite-momentum superconductivity, much like gating a Josephson junction.
  • The same layer-polarization argument may apply to other twisted transition-metal dichalcogenide superconductors, such as twisted WSe2, where similar layer-pseudospin textures could favor interlayer pairing in spin-valley-polarized regimes.
  • The predicted triple-momentum to single-momentum transition under an in-plane field suggests that a diode-like nonreciprocal supercurrent, with sign controlled by field angle, could serve as a phase-sensitive test of the finite-momentum state.
  • The analysis assumes comparable intralayer and interlayer interaction strengths; if microscopic interactions strongly prefer one channel, the interlayer-versus-intralayer dominance could shift, an empirical constraint future layer-resolved experiments could probe.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies superconductivity in twisted bilayer MoTe2 using a minimal two-orbital layer-pseudospin model, with the layer degree of freedom represented on a Bloch sphere. It claims that, for a fully spin-valley-polarized normal state with intravalley chiral p-wave pairing, interlayer Cooper pairing dominates over intralayer pairing, whereas intervalley pairing favors intralayer pairing. It further predicts that experimentally accessible displacement fields act as a 'layer-Zeeman' field and stabilize finite-momentum FFLO-like pairing at low temperatures, and that in-plane magnetic fields can select among three degenerate pair momenta. The analytical overlap-function relations and continuum-model comparison are presented as support, with the latter explicitly described as only qualitatively consistent.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper establishes the layer-pseudospin degree of freedom as a channel-selection mechanism in twisted MoTe2 and proposes a new, electric-field-based route to finite-momentum superconductivity, with falsifiable predictions including a Vz-T phase diagram upturn, threefold-degenerate finite-momentum states, and in-plane-field-controlled momentum selection. The limiting physical argument for interlayer dominance in strongly layer-polarized bands is attractive, and the continuum-model comparison is a serious attempt to connect the minimal model to realistic tMoTe2 parameters. However, the analytical basis contains a concrete algebraic error, and the predictions are conditional on an assumed pairing channel that is not derived from a comparative microscopic calculation, so the published form cannot be accepted without revision and re-verification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Intralayer and interlayer Cooper pairs, Eq. (7) and Methods Eq. (10)] The squared overlap function in Eq. (7) is algebraically incorrect. Starting from Methods Eq. (10), |cos^2(theta/2) e^{i alpha} + sin^2(theta/2) e^{-i alpha}|^2 equals 1 - (1/2) sin^2(theta) (1 - cos(2 alpha)), not 1 - sin^2(theta)(1/2 - cos(2 alpha)). The published expression can exceed unity for physical values (e.g., theta = pi/2, alpha = 0 gives 3/2) and produces an incorrect gamma2 -> 0 limit: the correct limit of chi_tb is sum_k |phi_k|^2 cos^2(alpha) K(k,0), not sum_k |phi_k|^2 cos^2(alpha/2) K(k,0). Because Eq. (7) is presented as the analytical basis for the interlayer-dominance claim and is stated to follow from the Methods overlap functions, the authors must correct the formula, rerun the layer-pseudospin susceptibility calculations behind Figs. 2 and 3, and check whether the qualitative conclusions survive. The continuum-model calculation in Fig. 4 is nominally independent, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that its overlap functions were evaluated with the correct expression.
  2. [Results, Eq. (4) and the assumption of chiral p-wave intravalley pairing] The central predictions are conditional on an assumed fully spin-valley-polarized normal state and intravalley chiral p-wave pairing, stated as 'Motivated by the recent experiment [35]' rather than derived. This assumption is load-bearing: if the true superconducting state has intervalley pairing or partial valley polarization, the paper's own intervalley analysis shows intralayer dominance and the displacement-field finite-momentum mechanism is lost. The manuscript should either justify this channel by comparing the competing pairing channels within the same framework or explicitly present the results as a scenario contingent on the pairing symmetry. The abstract and conclusion currently state the interlayer-dominance and FFLO predictions without this caveat.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption and 'Results from continuum model'] The claim that interlayer pairing prevails in the spin-valley-polarized state is not stated with a consistent density range. The caption of Fig. 4b says chi_tb > chi_tt only for n_h < 0.87, while the main text says 'chi_tb > chi_tt as carrier density goes up' and the abstract makes an unqualified statement. The authors should specify the filling range over which the claim holds and reconcile the text with the caption, since this is the headline physical claim of the paper.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'the intralayer (chi_tt) and intralayer (chi_tb) channels'; the second instance should read 'interlayer'.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 captions] There are typographical errors: 'stabalized' in the Fig. 3a caption and 'deonotes' in the text describing theta_B in the in-plane magnetic field section; also 'resent works' in the continuum-model section should be 'recent works'.
  3. [Methods, Eq. (12)] The full susceptibility matrix includes the off-diagonal element chi_01, but its effect on the largest eigenvalue and on the U, V parameter dependence is not discussed; a sentence explaining when the off-diagonal mixing matters would help the reader assess the channel-mixing claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions are computed from fixed externally sourced models; the chiral p-wave ansatz and layer-Zeeman coupling are stated inputs, not fitted outputs. The analytic overlap formula in Eq. (7) contradicts Eq. (10) by a factor 2 -- a correctness risk to flag, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and no step reduces to its own input by construction. The layer-pseudospin model (Eq. 1) comes from external prior work (Refs. 17, 50); continuum parameters come from external large-scale DFT (Ref. 58); U and V are fixed before computing susceptibilities, with kBTc about 0.1 meV only calibrated afterward, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The central claims (interlayer dominance for intravalley pairing, displacement-field FFLO-like phase, in-plane-field single-Q selection) are outputs of the pairing-susceptibility matrix (Eqs. 5-6 and 12) and are parameter-dependent (chi_tb > chi_tt only for n_h < 0.87 in Fig. 4b; chi_tt about chi_tb at gamma2 = 0.5 meV in Fig. 2), so they are not identities. The chiral p-wave intravalley ansatz is an explicit input, 'Motivated by the recent experiment [35]', and the layer-Zeeman effect is openly declared an analogy ('bears strong analogy to the FFLO phase in conventional superconductors... We term this mechanism the layer-Zeeman effect'), so neither is disguised. Self-citations ([45], [61], [62]) are paired with external refs and are not load-bearing. Per the in-scope reviewing rule, two manuscript-internal flags are weighed: (i) the paper concedes the layer-pseudospin model 'does not achieve quantitative agreement' with the continuum calculation, which lowers any concern that the two legs were forced to agree; (ii) a correctness risk: the Results text and Eq. (7), '|⟨uk,+|τx|u∗−k,+⟩|² = 1 − sin²θ(1/2 − cos 2α)', is inconsistent with Methods Eq. (10), '⟨uk,+|τx|u∗−k,+⟩ = cos² θ/2 e^{iα} + sin² θ/2 e^{−iα}', whose modulus squared evaluates to 1 − (1/2)sin²θ(1 − cos 2α); the cos 2α coefficient is twice too large and the stated γ2→0 limit Σ|φ_k|²cos²(α/2)K should be Σ|φ_k|²cos²α K, so the printed analytic basis for interlayer dominance needs re-verification, and without code/data the numerical leg cannot be independently checked. That is an internal-consistency issue, not circularity: the quoted predictions are computed consequences, not restatements of the inputs. Score 1 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation burden and the acknowledged from-the-outset pairing/layer-Zeeman framing; no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All substantive predictions are derived within a mean-field BCS framework from a minimal layer-pseudospin Hamiltonian with hand-picked hoppings (γ0=1 meV, γ1=2 meV, γ2=2 meV) and interaction strengths (U=V=0.7 meV), plus a phenomenological band with free parameters v0 and λ used for the analytic Q expressions. The biggest burdens are domain assumptions: full spin-valley polarization, intravalley chiral p-wave pairing, and the layer-Zeeman coupling to displacement fields. None are fitted to the target results, but the outcome is sensitive to them.

free parameters (5)
  • γ0 (nearest-layer hopping scale) = 1 meV
    First-neighbor hopping amplitude in the layer-pseudospin model; chosen by hand for the band structure in Fig. 2a and used in all layer-pseudospin calculations.
  • γ1 (interlayer coupling) = 2 meV
    Interlayer hopping in Eq. (1); chosen for the band structure and pairing susceptibilities.
  • γ2 (hexagonal warping) = 2 meV (main), 0.5 meV (comparison)
    Controls d3 and layer polarization; the interlayer-pairing enhancement is strong at 2 meV and nearly vanishes at 0.5 meV, so the main result depends on this choice.
  • U and V intralayer/interlayer interaction strengths = 0.7 meV
    Interaction strengths used for the finite-momentum pairing phase diagram (Fig. 3); motivated as comparable but not derived.
  • v0 and λ (phenomenological dispersion)
    Explicitly called free parameters in the analytic band model for Eq. (8); no values or fitting procedure provided.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The normal state is fully spin-valley-polarized, so superconductivity can be treated within a single K valley and a single spin species.
    All calculations of intravalley pairing use σ=σ′ in Eq. (4) and the text says "we focus on the superconductivity within single K valley." This is motivated by anomalous Hall experiments but is not derived.
  • domain assumption The superconducting pairing is assumed to be intravalley chiral p-wave with φk = Σ_j ω^{j-1} sin(k·R_j) for the polarized state.
    Stated in "Intralayer and interlayer Cooper pairs": "Motivated by the recent experiment [35], we assume φk is the chiral p-wave pairing in the spin-valley-polarized state." The channel-dominance and finite-momentum results depend on this ansatz.
  • domain assumption The minimal two-orbital layer-pseudospin model (generalized Kane-Mele model) captures the low-energy valence-band physics of twisted TMDs at small twist angles.
    Equation (1) is introduced as extending the generalized Kane-Mele model; the authors rely on Refs [17,50] for its validity and do not derive it from the continuum model.
  • domain assumption Interactions are described by BCS-type attractive interactions with constant intralayer/interlayer strengths U and V, with U≈V.
    Interaction Hamiltonian Eq. (3) and the statement "Assuming comparable interaction strengths U≈V" used to select the dominant channel; no microscopic pairing mechanism is included.
  • domain assumption In-plane magnetic fields couple only through a layer-dependent momentum shift δk = ±Bd(sinθ_B, -cosθ_B)/2, without spin-Zeeman depairing.
    Introduced in "Finite-momentum selection by in-plane magnetic field"; the paper assumes the field is too weak to break superconductivity and neglects spin effects.
  • domain assumption The continuum model parameter set (m*, ψ, w, Vm) from Ref [58] is accurate for tMoTe2 at 3.9 degrees.
    Stated in Methods: "adopted from Large-scale DFT simulations [58]"; the results of Fig. 4 depend on this parameter set.
  • standard math The linearized BCS gap equation and pairing susceptibility χ(q) determine the superconducting instability.
    Standard mean-field BCS framework used in Eqs. (5)-(6) and the Tc condition from the eigenvalue of χ̂(q)-diag(1/U,1/V).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Layer Pseudospin Superconductivity in Twisted MoTe$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OE4DRI3T

@misc{pith2026250612767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Layer Pseudospin Superconductivity in Twisted MoTe$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OE4DRI3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12767}
}
abstract

Recent experiments have observed signatures of spin-valley-polarized unconventional superconductivity in twisted bilayer MoTe$_2$ (tMoTe$_2$). Here, we explore the rich physics of superconducting tMoTe$_2$, enabled by its unique layer-pseudospin structure. Within a minimal two-orbital layer-pseudospin model framework, both interlayer and intralayer Cooper pairings can be effectively visualized using a layer-space Bloch sphere representation. Remarkably, we find that interlayer pairing prevails in the spin-valley-polarized state, whereas intralayer pairing dominates in the spin-valley-unpolarized state. Strikingly, we further predict that for spin-valley-polarized intravalley superconducting state, experimentally feasible weak displacement fields can stabilize finite-momentum pairings at low temperatures. Additionally, in-plane magnetic fields, which break three-fold rotational symmetry, induce field-direction-dependent finite-momentum pairing states, leading to a versatile momentum-selection phase diagram. Our work highlights the crucial role of layer pseudospin in tMoTe$_2$'s unconventional superconductivity and demonstrates its unique tunability via external fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12767 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interlayer and intralayer Cooper pairs in tMoTe2. a A schematic picture of the superconducting tMoTe2 with both intralayer and interlayer Cooper pairs. b Bloch sphere in the layer-pseudospin basis. The minimal model Hamiltonian of twisted TMDs can be described by the four-component d vector. c,d The pairing susceptibility χs. For θ → 0 (colatitude of d vector with respect to the z-axis), the interlayer pairing is pr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Enhanced interlayer pairing for layer￾pseudospin model. a The band structure of layer￾pseudospin model in Eq. (1) at γ2 = 2meV (solid orange lines) and γ2 = 0.5meV (dashed purple lines). Other parameters: (γ0, γ1) = (1, 2)meV. b, c Superconducting pairing suscepti￾bility in the intralayer (χtt) and intralayer (χtb) channels as a function of the Fermi energy µ. d For intervalley pairing, χtt dominate over χtb as a co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Displacement field induced finite momentum pairings for layer-pseudospin model. a The phase dia￾gram of finite momentum pairing state. The finite momentum Q ̸= 0 is stabalized at finite Vz and low temperatures. b The largest eigenvalue of pairing susceptibility matrix χm(q) at different gate field Vz. In the calculations we set U = V = 0.7 meV and µ = 4meV, which yields kBTc ≈ 0.1meV. c Electron and hole Fermi surfa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for continuum model of tMoTe2. a The moir´e band structure of tMoTe2 at θt = 3.9 ◦ with zero displacement field. b Renormalized superconducting pairing susceptibility χs for interlayer (χtb) and intralayer (χtt) channels. For intravalley pairing, χtb > χtt when…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Honeycomb lattice of layer pseudospin model. The red/blue color denotes the XM/MX regions for the local stacking of twisted TMDs. METHODS Construction of layer-pseudospin model. We construct the layer-pseudospin model by examining the generalized Kane-Mele model with s…

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. Exact models of chiral flat-band superconductors

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    For a single-flavor flat band with inversion symmetry, a local attraction between opposite-parity orbitals yields exact superconducting ground states, including topological pairing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Yankowitz, S

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

    work page 2019

  2. [15]

    T. Yu, D. M. Kennes, A. Rubio, and M. A. Sentef, Phys- ical Review Letters 127, 127001 (2021). 8

    work page 2021

  3. [58]

    C. Xu, J. Li, Y. Xu, Z. Bi, and Y. Zhang, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2316749121 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [67]

    Zhang, N

    F. Zhang, N. Morales-Dur´ an, Y. Li, W. Yao, J.-J. Su, Y.- C. Lin, C. Dong, X. Liu, F.-X. R. Chen, H. Kim, et al., Nature Physics , 1 (2025). ∗ Contact author: jhuphy@ust.hk † Contact author: yxieai@connect.ust.hk ‡ Contact author: phlaw@ust.hk

    work page 2025

  5. [68]

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

    2018

  6. [69]

    Yankowitz, S

    M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, 9 Science 363, 1059 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [70]

    X. Lu, P. Stepanov, W. Yang, M. Xie, M. A. Aamir, I. Das, C. Urgell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zhang, et al., Nature 574, 653 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [71]

    M. Oh, K. P. Nuckolls, D. Wong, R. L. Lee, X. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. Yazdani, Nature 600, 240 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 71 references
  1. [72]

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

    2022

  2. [73]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Polski, A. Thomson, ´E. Lantagne- Hurtubise, C. Lewandowski, H. Zhou, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Alicea, and S. Nadj-Perge, Nature 613, 268 (2023)

    2023

  3. [74]

    C. Li, F. Xu, B. Li, J. Li, G. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Shen, L. Lu, et al., Nature 631, 300 (2024)

    2024

  4. [75]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Nature 598, 434 (2021)

    2021

  5. [76]

    Y. Choi, Y. Choi, M. Valentini, C. L. Patterson, L. F. Holleis, O. I. Sheekey, H. Stoyanov, X. Cheng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, et al., Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  6. [77]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, Z. Hadjri, L. Shi, Z. Wu, W. Xu, Y. Yao, A. A. Cotten, O. S. Sedeh, H. Weldeyesus, et al., Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  7. [78]

    Y. Xia, Z. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature 637, 833 (2025)

    2025

  8. [79]

    Y. Guo, J. Pack, J. Swann, L. Holtzman, M. Cothrine, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. G. Mandrus, K. Barmak, J. Hone, et al., Nature 637, 839 (2025)

    2025

  9. [80]

    Xu and L

    C. Xu and L. Balents, Physical review letters121, 087001 (2018)

    2018

  10. [81]

    Liu, L.-D

    C.-C. Liu, L.-D. Zhang, W.-Q. Chen, and F. Yang, Phys- ical review letters 121, 217001 (2018)

    2018

  11. [82]

    T. Yu, D. M. Kennes, A. Rubio, and M. A. Sentef, Phys- ical Review Letters 127, 127001 (2021)

    2021

  12. [83]

    Y.-M. Xie, ´E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, A. F. Young, S. Nadj- Perge, and J. Alicea, Physical Review Letters 131, 146601 (2023)

    2023

  13. [84]

    Wu, Physical Review B 99, 195114 (2019)

    F. Wu, Physical Review B 99, 195114 (2019)

    2019

  14. [85]

    Gaggioli, D

    F. Gaggioli, D. Guerci, and L. Fu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16384 (2025)

    2025

  15. [86]

    Yang and Y.-H

    H. Yang and Y.-H. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02503 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [87]

    Qin and C

    Q. Qin and C. Wu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07145 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [88]

    Y.-Z. Chou, J. Zhu, and S. D. Sarma, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06701 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [89]

    Chatterjee, T

    S. Chatterjee, T. Wang, E. Berg, and M. P. Zaletel, Nature communications 13, 6013 (2022)

    2022

  19. [90]

    M. Kim, A. Timmel, L. Ju, and X.-G. Wen, Physical Review B 111, 014508 (2025)

    2025

  20. [91]

    Christos, P

    M. Christos, P. M. Bonetti, and M. S. Scheurer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15471 (2025)

    2025

  21. [92]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Physical Review B 61, 10267 (2000)

    2000

  22. [93]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Physical review letters100, 096407 (2008)

    2008

  23. [94]

    K. T. Law, P. A. Lee, and T. K. Ng, Physical review letters 103, 237001 (2009)

    2009

  24. [95]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Physics-uspekhi 44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  25. [96]

    Alicea, Y

    J. Alicea, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, F. Von Oppen, and M. P. Fisher, Nature Physics 7, 412 (2011)

    2011

  26. [97]

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

    2023

  27. [98]

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

    2023

  28. [99]

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

    2023

  29. [100]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, et al., Physical Review X 13, 031037 (2023)

    2023

  30. [101]

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

    2024

  31. [102]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, J. Li, C. Zheng, C. Xu, J. Gao, T. Jia, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06972 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  32. [103]

    C. Xu, N. Zou, N. Peshcherenko, A. Jahin, T. Li, S.- Z. Lin, and Y. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07082 (2025)

    2025

  33. [104]

    Wang, X.-W

    C. Wang, X.-W. Zhang, X. Liu, Y. He, X. Xu, Y. Ran, T. Cao, and D. Xiao, Physical Review Letters 132, 036501 (2024)

    2024

  34. [105]

    A. P. Reddy, F. Alsallom, Y. Zhang, T. Devakul, and L. Fu, Physical Review B 108, 085117 (2023)

    2023

  35. [106]

    Chen, W.-W

    F. Chen, W.-W. Luo, W. Zhu, and D. Sheng, Nature Communications 16, 2115 (2025)

    2025

  36. [107]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Phys- ical review letters 108, 196802 (2012)

    2012

  37. [108]

    B. T. Zhou, N. F. Yuan, H.-L. Jiang, and K. T. Law, Physical Review B 93, 180501 (2016)

    2016

  38. [109]

    Xie, C.-P

    Y.-M. Xie, C.-P. Zhang, J.-X. Hu, K. F. Mak, and K. T. Law, Physical Review Letters 128, 026402 (2022)

    2022

  39. [110]

    Y.-M. Wu, Z. Wu, and H. Yao, Physical Review Letters 130, 126001 (2023)

    2023

  40. [111]

    Qin, W.-X

    W. Qin, W.-X. Qiu, and F. Wu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16114 (2024)

    2024

  41. [112]

    Xie and K

    Y.-M. Xie and K. Law, Physical Review Letters 131, 016001 (2023)

    2023

  42. [113]

    Zhu, Y.-Z

    J. Zhu, Y.-Z. Chou, M. Xie, and S. Das Sarma, Physical Review B 111, L060501 (2025)

    2025

  43. [114]

    Schrade and L

    C. Schrade and L. Fu, Physical Review B 110, 035143 (2024)

    2024

  44. [115]

    S. Kim, J. F. Mendez-Valderrama, X. Wang, and D. Chowdhury, Nature Communications16, 1701 (2025)

    2025

  45. [116]

    Zhu, Y.-Z

    J. Zhu, Y.-Z. Chou, Y. Huang, and S. D. Sarma, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18946 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  46. [117]

    Devakul, V

    T. Devakul, V. Cr´ epel, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Nature communications 12, 6730 (2021)

    2021

  47. [118]

    W.-X. Qiu, B. Li, X.-J. Luo, and F. Wu, Physical Review X 13, 041026 (2023)

    2023

  48. [119]

    Cr´ epel and A

    V. Cr´ epel and A. Millis, Physical Review Research 6, 033127 (2024)

    2024

  49. [120]

    Fulde and R

    P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Physical Review 135, A550 (1964)

    1964

  50. [121]

    Larkin and Y

    A. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Soviet Physics-JETP 20, 762 (1965)

    1965

  51. [122]

    Liu, Physical review letters 118, 087001 (2017)

    C.-X. Liu, Physical review letters 118, 087001 (2017)

    2017

  52. [123]

    P. Wan, O. Zheliuk, N. F. Yuan, X. Peng, L. Zhang, M. Liang, U. Zeitler, S. Wiedmann, N. E. Hussey, T. T. Palstra, et al., Nature 619, 46 (2023)

    2023

  53. [124]

    Fu, Physical review letters 103, 266801 (2009)

    L. Fu, Physical review letters 103, 266801 (2009)

    2009

  54. [125]

    C. Xu, J. Li, Y. Xu, Z. Bi, and Y. Zhang, Proceedings 10 of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2316749121 (2024)

    2024

  55. [126]

    Y. Jia, J. Yu, J. Liu, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, Z. Qi, H. Pi, N. Regnault, H. Weng, B. A. Bernevig, and Q. Wu, Physical Review B 109, 205121 (2024)

    2024

  56. [127]

    Zhang, C

    X.-W. Zhang, C. Wang, X. Liu, Y. Fan, T. Cao, and D. Xiao, Nature Communications 15, 4223 (2024)

    2024

  57. [128]

    Hu, C.-P

    J.-X. Hu, C.-P. Zhang, Y.-M. Xie, and K. Law, Commu- nications Physics 5, 255 (2022)

    2022

  58. [129]

    Daido, Y

    A. Daido, Y. Yanase, and K. T. Law, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16923 (2025)

    2025

  59. [130]

    Y. Gao, Y. Zhang, and D. Xiao, Physical Review Letters 124, 077401 (2020)

    2020

  60. [131]

    Gao, Y.-F

    A. Gao, Y.-F. Liu, C. Hu, J.-X. Qiu, C. Tzschaschel, B. Ghosh, S.-C. Ho, D. B´ erub´ e, R. Chen, H. Sun,et al., Nature 595, 521 (2021)

    2021

  61. [132]

    D. Zhai, C. Chen, C. Xiao, and W. Yao, Nature com- munications 14, 1961 (2023)

    2023

  62. [133]

    F.-R. Fan, C. Xiao, and W. Yao, Nature Communica- tions 15, 7997 (2024)

    2024

  63. [134]

    Zhang, N

    F. Zhang, N. Morales-Dur´ an, Y. Li, W. Yao, J.-J. Su, Y.- C. Lin, C. Dong, X. Liu, F.-X. R. Chen, H. Kim, et al., Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.