Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 52 references

Electric Field Induced Superconductivity in Bilayer Octagraphene

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a perpendicular electric field tunes A-A stacked bilayer octagraphene from an antiferromagnetic spin-density-wave state into an unconventional superconductor with s±-wave pairing, reporting a maximum pairing…

desk verdict A plausible RPA prediction for a new material, but the headline pairing eigenvalue is computed at the edge of RPA validity and needs a non-perturbative cross-check. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02830 v1 pith:R2APPL5H submitted 2025-07-03 cond-mat.supr-con

Yitong Yao , Jun Li , Jiacheng Ye , Fan Yang , Dao-Xin Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords octagraphenebilayersuperconductivityelectricfieldspinfluctuations±-wavepairingFermisurfacenestingRPA
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

Bilayer octagraphene, a carbon allotrope built from squares and octagons, is predicted to become superconducting when a perpendicular electric field is applied. The paper argues that the field weakens the nesting of the Fermi surface, destroying the antiferromagnetic spin-density-wave order that dominates at zero field, and that the surviving spin fluctuations then bind electrons into Cooper pairs with s±-wave symmetry. The central quantitative result is a pairing eigenvalue λ ≈ 0.32 at interaction strength U = 8.0 eV and interlayer potential difference V = 0.7 eV, which would place the system close to a superconducting transition. If correct, this makes the electric field a clean, continuously tunable knob for unconventional superconductivity in a carbon-based 2D material, without the disorder introduced by chemical doping.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a tight-binding Hubbard model for the eight carbon atoms in the bilayer unit cell, with hopping parameters from density functional theory, plus a multi-orbital random-phase-approximation (RPA) treatment of spin and charge susceptibilities and the resulting pairing interaction. The RPA spin susceptibility χ(s)(q) identifies the magnetic ordering wave vector and its field-driven evolution, while the linearized gap equation with the RPA pairing vertex yields the eigenvalues λ for pairing symmetries classified by the C4v point group (s±, dx2-y2, dxy, p). The field enters as an interlayer potential ±V/2 that splits the bands and weakens the nesting, shifting the system below the critical interaction Uc(V) where the spin-density-wave susceptibility would otherwise diverge.

What would settle it

A non-perturbative calculation (for example, determinant quantum Monte Carlo or functional renormalization group) of the same Hubbard model at U = 8.0 eV and V = 0.7 eV: if the leading pairing eigenvalue in the s± channel falls below the dx2-y2 channel, or if the spin susceptibility peak at (π, π) is not suppressed, the claim fails. On the experimental side, synthesizing bilayer octagraphene and applying a perpendicular field near $10^{9}$ V/m would test the predicted superconducting dome; observing no zero-resistance state or a sign-preserving gap would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in A-A stacked bilayer octagraphene at half filling, a perpendicular electric field tunes the system from an antiferromagnetic (Néel-type, wave vector (π, π)) spin-density-wave state into a regime of strong spin fluctuations that mediate s±-wave superconductivity. The mechanism is the field-induced modification of the band structure: as the interlayer potential V grows, the band splitting increases, the Fermi surface nesting weakens, and the peak of the RPA spin susceptibility at (π, π) splits and shifts to incommensurate wave vectors. Solving the linearized gap equation on the Fermi surface gives the leading pairing eigenvalue λ ≈ 0.32 for s±-wave pairing at V = 0.7 eV and U = 8.0 eV, with dx2-y2-wave as a subleading channel (λ ≈ 0.23). The superconductivity is therefore unconventional, with a sign-changing gap on different Fermi pockets.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative prediction (λ ≈ 0.32 and s±-wave dominance) assumes RPA remains accurate at U = 8.0 eV and V = 0.7 eV, where U sits close to the critical value Uc; as the paper itself notes, the perturbative RPA may overestimate the pairing eigenvalue near the divergence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The electric field provides a clean tunable knob: continuous variation of V moves the system through SDW and superconducting regimes without introducing disorder.
  • The predicted s±-wave state has a sign-changing gap on different Fermi pockets, which can be probed by phase-sensitive Josephson or quasiparticle interference experiments.
  • The required field strength, around 10^9 V/m, is experimentally accessible, making the prediction testable in gated devices.
  • The result extends the earlier finding that electron doping produces s± superconductivity in single-layer octagraphene, showing that an electric field can act as a doping analogue.
  • The mechanism suggests that other perturbations that weaken the (π, π) nesting of this lattice could similarly promote spin-fluctuation-mediated pairing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the RPA overestimation near Uc is real, the true λ may be smaller, but the qualitative field-tuned SDW-to-superconductivity crossover could survive; a dome-shaped λ(V) with a maximum near the Uc boundary would mirror doping phase diagrams.
  • The same nesting-weakening logic could apply to other two-dimensional carbon allotropes with square-octagon lattices, such as biphenylene networks, where sublattice potential differences may play the role of V.
  • The predicted s± state could be distinguished from a conventional s-wave by examining whether the gap changes sign between the hole pockets around Γ and the electron pockets around M, using phase-sensitive junctions or impurity scattering rates.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies AA-stacked bilayer octagraphene under a perpendicular electric field. It uses a tight-binding model with DFT-derived hopping parameters and a Hubbard U, treating the electric field as an interlayer potential ±V/2. The authors show that increasing V splits the bands, weakens the (π,π) Fermi-surface nesting, and reduces the RPA critical interaction strength Uc for SDW order. Solving the linearized gap equation in the RPA spin-fluctuation approximation, they find that for U=8.0 eV and V=0.7 eV the leading pairing eigenvalue reaches λ≈0.32 in the s± channel, with d_{x2-y2} subleading, and conclude that the perpendicular electric field can induce spin-fluctuation-mediated s± superconductivity.

Significance. If correct, the prediction is a useful contribution to the search for tunable unconventional superconductivity in carbon allotropes, since electrostatic gating is cleaner and more controllable than chemical doping. The paper uses standard multi-orbital RPA machinery, and the qualitative sequence—weakened nesting, suppressed SDW, enhanced spin fluctuations, s± pairing—is internally consistent and physically plausible. The explicit acknowledgment that RPA becomes unreliable near Uc is an honest caveat. The main weakness is that the headline eigenvalue is computed in the least controlled regime of the method, so the quantitative prediction needs independent support; the authors also helpfully state that vertex corrections or non-perturbative methods are required in that regime.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 5(b), Eq. (12)] The reported maximum eigenvalue λ≈0.32 is obtained at U=8.0 eV and V=0.7 eV, which is exactly at the boundary of the RPA regime: Fig. 3(b) and the text state that for V<0.7 eV one has U>Uc, and the paper itself warns that near Uc the perturbative nature of RPA may not accurately capture the true behavior. Because the pairing vertex in Eq. (12) contains U^2[3χ_s − χ_c] and the RPA spin susceptibility behaves as χ_s ∼ (1−U/Uc)^{-1}, λ is strongly amplified as U→Uc. The headline value is therefore dominated by the uncontrolled near-critical enhancement rather than by a robust microscopic pairing scale. I request a sensitivity analysis of λ versus U in the range 7.0–8.2 eV and a non-perturbative cross-check (for example FLEX, parquet, or determinant quantum Monte Carlo), or, in the absence of such a check, a clear restatement that λ=0.32 is an RPA-scaling estimate rather than a quantitative prediction.
  2. [Section II.B, Fig. 3(b)] The choice U=8.0 eV is justified only by the broad statement that U for graphene-based materials is typically on the order of 10 eV and remains debated. Since Uc(V) is computed within the same model and the superconducting eigenvalue depends strongly on U near Uc, the position of the maximum on the V axis is effectively determined by the arbitrarily chosen U value. Please report λ(U,V) as a small scan or contour plot and discuss how the leading symmetry and the magnitude of λ change as U is varied within the quoted 7–10 eV range. This is necessary to establish that the s±-wave dominance is not an artifact of sitting at a single point in parameter space.
  3. [Section II.A, Eq. (1), Conclusions] The physical mapping from the model parameter V to a real perpendicular electric field is asserted through the statement that V≈1 eV corresponds to an achievable field strength on the order of 10^9 V/m, but the model treats V only as a rigid layer potential. The paper does not discuss whether a real field modifies the interlayer hopping t4, the in-plane hoppings, or introduces screening and lattice-relaxation effects that would renormalize V. Since the entire tuning mechanism is driven by V, this assumption should be acknowledged as an effective-model limitation and, if possible, checked against a DFT calculation with an applied field.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section I heading] The heading contains the typo 'INTROUCTION'; it should be 'INTRODUCTION'.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract contains 's+--wave' which should be 's±-wave', and 'whichworks' should be 'which works'.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains 'dnotes', which should be 'denotes'.
  4. [Section III] There are several typos: 'uinit-cell', 'fluctutions', 'sloving', and 'paring' should be corrected.
  5. [Section III, Fig. 5(b)] The text refers to a 'purple region' where RPA is not reliable, but the printed figure does not show a purple region; please add explicit shading or define the region by V range in the caption or text.
  6. [Conclusions, Ref. [52]] Reference [52] is an optics paper on an optical slow-wave structure and does not appear to support the claim that V≈1 eV corresponds to an achievable field strength in a 2D heterostructure; please cite a relevant experimental work on electrostatic gating or dual-gated devices.
  7. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) includes 'H.c.' after a sum of real hopping and potential terms; this is harmless but should be cleaned up or explained, since the Hamiltonian is Hermitian as written.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pairing eigenvalue is a direct output of the model, and the self-cited inputs are independent DFT/RPA results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the tight-binding parameters are taken from prior DFT calculations [41], the Hubbard U is chosen from the standard range for graphene-based materials, and the RPA linearized gap equation (Eqs. 7-14) is solved to produce the pairing eigenvalue lambda as a direct output. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted; lambda(U,V) is computed, not imposed. The electric field enters only through the Hamiltonian term V in Eq. (1), and the resulting s±-wave symmetry is read off from the eigenvector of the gap equation, not defined in advance. The self-citations to [38] and [41] concern stacking stability and hopping integrals, which are externally computable inputs; they do not smuggle in the target result, nor do they invoke a uniqueness theorem. The paper's own caveat that RPA may overestimate lambda near Uc (purple region of Fig. 5b) is a correctness and robustness concern, not a circularity of the derivation. Thus no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on a fixed tight-binding parameterization from the authors' earlier DFT, a hand-selected U=8 eV, and the RPA weak-coupling framework. The electric field is a single-parameter layer potential, and no new entities or exotic degrees of freedom are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • On-site Hubbard U = 8.0 eV
    Chosen from the expected range for graphene-based systems (around 10 eV per Ref. [51]); the pairing eigenvalue λ is sensitive to U and diverges as U approaches Uc, so this choice strongly affects the headline result.
  • Interlayer potential V = 0.7 eV (headline value)
    The electric field is modeled as a layer potential difference; the largest quoted λ=0.32 is evaluated at V=0.7 eV, chosen because for smaller V the RPA condition U<Uc fails. The result is therefore tied to this boundary value.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A-A stacking is the most stable stacking of bilayer octagraphene, with interlayer hopping t4=0.184 eV from previous DFT.
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(5); if the actual stacking or interlayer coupling differs, the band splitting and nesting change.
  • ad hoc to paper The perpendicular electric field acts only as a rigid potential ±V/2 on each layer, with no effect on hoppings, orbitals, screening, or lattice relaxation.
    This simplification in Eq. (1) reduces the field to a single number; real fields can distort bands and alter interlayer hybridization.
  • domain assumption RPA susceptibility and spin-fluctuation pairing theory is valid in the weak-coupling limit U < Uc, with spin fluctuations dominating over charge fluctuations.
    The central SC prediction relies on this; the paper acknowledges that near Uc the RPA loses accuracy and vertex corrections or non-perturbative methods are needed.
  • standard math The linearized gap equation (Eq. 9) determines the leading pairing symmetry from RPA spin and charge fluctuations.
    Standard weak-coupling BCS-type treatment used in Refs. [42-50].
  • standard math The C4v point group symmetry with irreps A1, B1, B2 governs possible pairing symmetries.
    Used to label s±, dx2-y2, and dxy channels; standard group theory.
  • domain assumption Half-filling with one 2pz orbital per carbon and only on-site Hubbard U, with longer-range Coulomb interactions neglected.
    Defines the Hubbard model in Eq. (6); longer-range interactions are not included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electric Field Induced Superconductivity in Bilayer Octagraphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R2APPL5H

@misc{pith2026250702830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electric Field Induced Superconductivity in Bilayer Octagraphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R2APPL5H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02830}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the energy bands, magnetism, and superconductivity of bilayer octagraphene with A-A stacking under a perpendicular electric field. A tight-binding model is used to analyze the band structure of the system. The doubling of the unit cell results in each band of the single layer splitting into two. We find that applying a perpendicular electric field increases the band splitting. As the electric field strength increases, the nesting of the Fermi Surface(FS) weakens, eventually disrupting the antiferromagnetic order and bilayer octagraphene exhibits superconductivity. Spin fluctuations can induce unconventional superconductivity with s+--wave pairing. Applying a perpendicular electric field to bilayer octagraphene parent weakens the nesting of the FS, ultimately killing the spin-density-wave (SDW) ordered state and transitioning it into the superconducting state, whichworks as a doping effect. We use the random-phase approximation approach to obtain the pairing eigenvalues and pairing symmetries of the perpendicular electric field-tuned bilayer octagraphene in the weak coupling limit. By tuning the strength of the perpendicular electric field, the critical interaction strength for SDW order can be modified, which in turn may promote the emergence of unconventional superconductivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The structure of bilayer octagraphene. The arrow dnotes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The deviation of the nesting vector from ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) and (b) Band structures of bilayer octagraphene at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a)The largest pairing eigenvalues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. At [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. Qin, J. Kim, Q. Niu, and C.-K. Shih, Superconductivity at the two-dimensional limit, Science 324, 1314 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Zhang, P

    T. Zhang, P. Cheng, W.-J. Li, Y .-J. Sun, G. Wang, X.-G. Zhu, K. He, L. Wang, X. Ma, X. Chen, et al., Superconductivity in one-atomic-layer metal films grown on Si (111), Nature Physics 6, 104 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Jiang, T

    D. Jiang, T. Hu, L. You, Q. Li, A. Li, H. Wang, G. Mu, Z. Chen, H. Zhang, G. Yu, et al., High Tc superconductivity in ultrathin 6 Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x down to half-unit-cell thickness by protec- tion with graphene, Nature communications 5, 5708 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Y . Cao, A. Mishchenko, G. Yu, E. Khestanova, A. Rooney, E. Prestat, A. Kretinin, P. Blake, M. B. Shalom, C. Woods, et al. , Quality heterostructures from two-dimensional crystals unstable in air by their assembly in inert atmosphere, Nano let- ters 15, 4914 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    K. Ueno, S. Nakamura, H. Shimotani, A. Ohtomo, N. Kimura, T. Nojima, H. Aoki, Y . Iwasa, and M. Kawasaki, Electric-field- induced superconductivity in an insulator, Nature materials 7, 855 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    J. Ye, S. Inoue, K. Kobayashi, Y . Kasahara, H. Yuan, H. Shi- motani, and Y . Iwasa, Liquid-gated interface superconductivity on an atomically flat film, Nature materials 9, 125 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    X. Xi, Z. Wang, W. Zhao, J.-H. Park, K. T. Law, H. Berger, L. Forr´o, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Ising pairing in superconduct- ing NbSe2 atomic layers, Nature Physics 12, 139 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Reyren, S

    N. Reyren, S. Thiel, A. Caviglia, L. F. Kourkoutis, G. Hammerl, C. Richter, C. W. Schneider, T. Kopp, A.-S. Ruetschi, D. Jac- card, et al., Superconducting interfaces between insulating ox- ides, Science 317, 1196 (2007)

    2007

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Chen, Y . Liu, H. Zhang, Z. Liu, H. Tian, Y . Sun, M. Zhang, Y . Zhou, J. Sun, and Y . Xie, Electric field control of supercon- ductivity at the LaAlO 3/KTaO3 (111) interface, Science 372, 721 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Drozdov, M

    A. Drozdov, M. Eremets, I. Troyan, V . Ksenofontov, and S. I. Shylin, Conventional superconductivity at 203 kelvin at high pressures in the sulfur hydride system, Nature 525, 73 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    X.-C. Pan, X. Chen, H. Liu, Y . Feng, Z. Wei, Y . Zhou, Z. Chi, L. Pi, F. Yen, F. Song, et al., Pressure-driven dome-shaped su- perconductivity and electronic structural evolution in tungsten ditelluride, Nature communications 6, 7805 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    L. Ao, J. Huang, F. Qin, Z. Li, T. Ideue, K. Akhtari, P. Chen, X. Bi, C. Qiu, D. Huang, et al., Valley-dimensionality locking of superconductivity in cubic phosphides, Science advances 9, eadf6758 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    D. Kang, Y . Zhou, W. Yi, C. Yang, J. Guo, Y . Shi, S. Zhang, Z. Wang, C. Zhang, S. Jiang, et al., Superconductivity emerg- ing from a suppressed large magnetoresistant state in tungsten ditelluride, Nature communications 6, 7804 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Y . Qi, P. G. Naumov, M. N. Ali, C. R. Rajamathi, W. Schnelle, O. Barkalov, M. Hanfland, S.-C. Wu, C. Shekhar, Y . Sun,et al., Superconductivity in weyl semimetal candidate MoTe2, Nature communications 7, 11038 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Shao, J.-H

    Z.-Y . Shao, J.-H. Ji, C. Wu, D.-X. Yao, and F. Yang, Possi- ble high-temperature superconductivity driven by perpendicu- lar electric field in the La3Ni2O7 single-bilayer film at ambient pressure, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13554 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Ludbrook, G

    B. Ludbrook, G. Levy, P. Nigge, M. Zonno, M. Schneider, D. Dvorak, C. Veenstra, S. Zhdanovich, D. Wong, P. Dosanjh, et al., Evidence for superconductivity in li-decorated monolayer graphene, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 11795 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    C. Li, F. Xu, B. Li, J. Li, G. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Shen, L. Lu, et al. , Tunable superconductivity in electron-and hole-doped bernal bilayer graphene, Nature , 1 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    J. Lu, O. Zheliuk, I. Leermakers, N. F. Yuan, U. Zeitler, K. T. Law, and J. Ye, Evidence for two-dimensional ising supercon- ductivity in gated MoS2, Science 350, 1353 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    J. T. Ye, Y . J. Zhang, R. Akashi, M. S. Bahramy, R. Arita, and Y . Iwasa, Superconducting dome in a gate-tuned band insulator, Science 338, 1193 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Saito, Y

    Y . Saito, Y . Nakamura, M. S. Bahramy, Y . Kohama, J. Ye, Y . Kasahara, Y . Nakagawa, M. Onga, M. Tokunaga, T. No- jima, et al., Superconductivity protected by spin–valley locking in ion-gated MoS2, Nature Physics 12, 144 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    D. Cho, S. Cheon, K.-S. Kim, S.-H. Lee, Y .-H. Cho, S.-W. Cheong, and H. W. Yeom, Nanoscale manipulation of the mott insulating state coupled to charge order in 1T-TaS 2, Nature communications 7, 10453 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    P. Liu, B. Lei, X. Chen, L. Wang, and X. Wang, Superior carrier tuning in ultrathin superconducting materials by electric-field gating, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 336 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    A. Tsen, B. Hunt, Y . Kim, Z. Yuan, S. Jia, R. Cava, J. Hone, P. Kim, C. Dean, and A. Pasupathy, Nature of the quantum metal in a two-dimensional crystalline superconductor, Nature Physics 12, 208 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Stojchevska, I

    L. Stojchevska, I. Vaskivskyi, T. Mertelj, P. Kusar, D. Svetin, S. Brazovskii, and D. Mihailovic, Ultrafast switching to a stable hidden quantum state in an electronic crystal, Science 344, 177 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Z. Han, A. Allain, H. Arjmandi-Tash, K. Tikhonov, M. Feigel’Man, B. Sac´ep´e, and V . Bouchiat, Collapse of super- conductivity in a hybrid tin–graphene josephson junction array, Nature Physics 10, 380 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxi- ras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    G. Chen, A. L. Sharpe, P. Gallagher, I. T. Rosen, E. J. Fox, L. Jiang, B. Lyu, H. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi,et al., Signa- tures of tunable superconductivity in a trilayer graphene moir ´e superlattice, Nature 572, 215 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    J. M. Park, Y . Cao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Tunable strongly coupled superconductivity in magic- angle twisted trilayer graphene, Nature 590, 249 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Z. Hao, A. Zimmerman, P. Ledwith, E. Khalaf, D. H. Na- jafabadi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, and P. Kim, Electric field–tunable superconductivity in alternating- twist magic-angle trilayer graphene, Science 371, 1133 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Dutta, A

    R. Dutta, A. Ghosh, S. Mandal, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Krishnamurthy, S. Banerjee, M. Jain, and A. Das, Elec- tric field tunable superconductivity with competing orders in near magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11649 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    V . H. Crespi, L. X. Benedict, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Prediction of a pure-carbon planar covalent metal, Physical Re- view B 53, R13303 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    M. Deza, P. W. Fowler, M. Shtogrin, and K. Vietze, Pentaheptite modifications of the graphite sheet, Journal of chemical infor- mation and computer sciences 40, 1325 (2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

    M. J. Bucknum and E. A. Castro, The squarographites: A lesson in the chemical topology of tessellations in 2-and 3-dimensions, Solid State Sciences 10, 1245 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Y . Liu, G. Wang, Q. Huang, L. Guo, and X. Chen, Structural and electronic properties of T graphene: A two-dimensional carbon allotrope with tetrarings, Physical review letters 108, 225505 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    F. C. De Lima, G. J. Ferreira, and R. Miwa, Topological flat band, dirac fermions and quantum spin hall phase in 2d archimedean lattices, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics21, 22344 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Q. Fan, L. Yan, M. W. Tripp, O. Krejˇc´ı, S. Dimosthenous, S. R. Kachel, M. Chen, A. S. Foster, U. Koert, P. Liljeroth, et al. , Biphenylene network: A nonbenzenoid carbon allotrope, Sci- ence 372, 852 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    M. Liu, M. Liu, L. She, Z. Zha, J. Pan, S. Li, T. Li, Y . He, Z. Cai, J. Wang, et al., Graphene-like nanoribbons periodically 7 embedded with four-and eight-membered rings, Nature com- munications 8, 14924 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Y .-T. Kang, C. Lu, F. Yang, and D.-X. Yao, Single-orbital real- ization of high-temperature s± superconductivity in the square- octagon lattice, Physical Review B 99, 184506 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Taillefer, Scattering and pairing in cuprate superconductors, Annu

    L. Taillefer, Scattering and pairing in cuprate superconductors, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1, 51 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Dessau, Z.-X

    D. Dessau, Z.-X. Shen, D. King, D. Marshall, L. Lombardo, P. Dickinson, A. Loeser, J. DiCarlo, C.-H. Park, A. Kapit- ulnik, et al. , Key features in the measured band structure of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ : Flat bands at EF and Fermi surface nest- ing, Physical review letters 71, 2781 (1993)

    1993

  33. [41]

    J. Li, S. Jin, F. Yang, and D.-X. Yao, Electronic structure, mag- netism, and high-temperature superconductivity in multilayer octagraphene and octagraphite, Physical Review B102, 174509 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Kubo, Pairing symmetry in a two-orbital hubbard model on a square lattice, Phys

    K. Kubo, Pairing symmetry in a two-orbital hubbard model on a square lattice, Phys. Rev. B 75, 224509 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Graser, T

    S. Graser, T. Maier, P. Hirschfeld, and D. Scalapino, Near- degeneracy of several pairing channels in multiorbital models for the Fe pnictides, New Journal of Physics11, 025016 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Q. Luo, G. Martins, D.-X. Yao, M. Daghofer, R. Yu, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Neutron and arpes constraints on the couplings of the multiorbital hubbard model for the iron pnictides, Phys. Rev. B 82, 104508 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    T. A. Maier, S. Graser, P. J. Hirschfeld, and D. J. Scalapino, d-wave pairing from spin fluctuations in the K xFe2−ySe2 su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. B 83, 100515 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Liu, C.-C

    F. Liu, C.-C. Liu, K. Wu, F. Yang, and Y . Yao,d + id ′ chiral su- perconductivity in bilayer silicene, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 066804 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    T. Ma, F. Yang, H. Yao, and H.-Q. Lin, Possible triplet p + ip superconductivity in graphene at low filling, Phys. Rev. B 90, 245114 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    X. Wu, F. Yang, C. Le, H. Fan, and J. Hu, Triplet pz-wave pairing in quasi-one-dimensional A 2Cr3As3 superconductors (A = K,Rb,Cs), Phys. Rev. B 92, 104511 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Zhang, F

    L.-D. Zhang, F. Yang, and Y . Yao, Possible electric-field- induced superconducting states in doped silicene, Scientific Re- ports 5, 8203 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Kontani and K

    H. Kontani and K. Ueda, Electronic properties of the trellis- lattice hubbard model: Pseudogap and superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5619 (1998)

    1998

  43. [51]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Reviews of modern physics 81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    B. D. Layer, A. York, T. M. Antonsen, S. Varma, Y .-H. Chen, Y . Leng, and H. M. Milchberg, Ultrahigh-intensity optical slow- wave structure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 035001 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

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