Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 93 references

High-$T_\textrm{C}$ Superconductivity Originating from Interlayer Coulomb Coupling in Gate-Charged Twisted Bilayer Graphene Moir$\'{e}$ Superlattices

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 claims that the few-kelvin superconductivity in gate-charged magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene arises from Coulomb coupling between the two graphene layers, and derives a single formula…

desk verdict A postdiction that looks good only because the benchmark is extracted from the same data with a model the paper itself calls into question for one device. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01208 v1 pith:SV236YV3 submitted 2019-08-03 cond-mat.supr-con

Dale R. Harshman , Anthony T. Fiory This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords twistedbilayergraphenemagic-anglesuperconductivityMoirésuperlatticeinterlayerCoulombpairingtransitiontemperatureBerezinskii-Kosterlitz-ThoulessAslamasov-Larkinfluctuationssuperconductingdome
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 claims that the few-kelvin superconductivity observed in gate-charged magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene is not phonon-mediated but originates from Coulomb coupling between charges in the two graphene layers. The authors apply a pairing model previously calibrated on 51 other superconductors and derive the optimal transition temperature $T_{\mathrm{C0}} = k_\mathrm{B}^{-1}\Lambda(|\!n_{\mathrm{opt}}-n_0|/2)^{1/2}e^2/\zeta$, where $n_{\mathrm{opt}}$ and $n_0$ are the gate densities at maximum $T_\mathrm{C}$ and at superconductivity onset, $\zeta$ is the mean interlayer separation, and $\Lambda = 0.00747(2)\,\mathring{\mathrm{A}}$. Using measured densities and theoretical interlayer spacings, it obtains $T_{\mathrm{C0}} = 1.94(4)\,\mathrm{K}$ and $3.02(3)\,\mathrm{K}$ for two devices, matching the mean-field transition temperatures $1.83(5)\,\mathrm{K}$ and $2.86(5)\,\mathrm{K}$ extracted from resistance data. If the claim holds, twisted bilayer graphene becomes a tunable platform on which one interlayer Coulomb formula organizes optimal superconducting temperatures across ten families spanning about 2 to 200 K.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (2), the optimal-transition-temperature formula of the interlayer Coulomb pairing model: it equates $T_{\mathrm{C0}}$ with the Coulomb energy $e^2/\zeta$ across the interlayer gap times the dimensionless factor $\Lambda/\ell$, where $\ell = (|\!n_{\mathrm{opt}}-n_0|/2)^{-1/2}$ is the mean spacing of the participating charge density and $\Lambda=0.00747(2)\,\mathring{\mathrm{A}}$ is a universal length constant determined in earlier work on other superconductors. The analysis also relies on two fitting formulas: the generalized Aslamasov-Larkin conductance above $T_\mathrm{C}$, used to extract $T_\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{mf}}$, and the generalized Halperin-Nelson vortex-pair resistance below $T_\mathrm{C}$, used to extract $T_\mathrm{BKT}$ and to distinguish weak-link-array behavior in device M2 from uniform thin-film behavior in device D2.

What would settle it

Measure the full superconducting dome of a new gate-charged magic-angle TBG device with independently determined twist angle, interlayer separation, and onset and optimal gate densities, then compare its peak $T_\mathrm{C}$ to Eq. (2) without adjusting $\Lambda$; if the prediction misses by more than the roughly 4% scatter claimed for the 53-superconductor set, the universal application of $\Lambda$ to TBG is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that superconductivity in gate-charged twisted bilayer graphene is a high-$T_\mathrm{C}$ phenomenon driven by interlayer Coulomb exchange, with the two graphene sheets acting as identical coexisting reservoirs of pairing and mediating charges. The quantitative content is Eq. (2), $T_{\mathrm{C0}} = k_\mathrm{B}^{-1}\Lambda(|\!n_{\mathrm{opt}}-n_0|/2)^{1/2}e^2/\zeta$, whose inputs are all experimentally accessible: gated charge densities at the superconducting dome's peak and onset, and the mean separation between layers. Inserting $n_{\mathrm{opt}}=-1.44(2)\times10^{12}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ and $n_0=-2.03(1)\times10^{12}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ with $\zeta=3.50(1)\,\mathring{\mathrm{A}}$ for device M2, and the corresponding values $n_{\mathrm{opt}}=-2.11(2)\times10^{12}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$, $n_0=-3.47(2)\times10^{12}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$, $\zeta=3.42(1)\,\mathring{\mathrm{A}}$ for compressed device D2, gives $T_{\mathrm{C0}}=1.94(4)\,\mathrm{K}$ and $3.02(3)\,\mathrm{K}$. Fitting the resistance transitions with Aslamasov-Larkin fluctuation conductivity and a generalized Halperin-Nelson vortex-pair form yields $T_\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{mf}}=1.83(5)\,\mathrm{K}$ and $2.86(5)\,\mathrm{K}$, which the paper takes as validation of the model and as evidence that TBG belongs to the same interlayer Coulomb pairing family as cuprates, pnictides, organic conductors, and H3S.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation depends on one universal number, $\Lambda=0.00747(2)\,\mathring{\mathrm{A}}$, previously fixed from 51 other superconductors, being valid for twisted bilayer graphene without modification; if that number changes for this material, the predicted transition temperatures shift and the claimed agreement disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the formula is fixed by $|\!n_{\mathrm{opt}}-n_0|^{1/2}/\zeta$, changing twist angle, gate density, or pressure should move the peak $T_\mathrm{C}$ along a dome in a quantitatively predictable way, making TBG a tunable test of the pairing mechanism.
  • The model sets an upper bound on hole-doped TBG: about 2.85 K for the $\theta=1.05^\circ$ device at ambient pressure and 3.53 K for the $\theta=1.27^\circ$ device at 1.33 GPa, reached when the participating charge per Moiré cell approaches two holes.
  • Device M2's BKT transition at $0.96(3)$ K is interpreted as phase incoherence in a weak-link array with critical current roughly 46 nA, while device D2's $T_\mathrm{BKT}=2.2(2)$ K is compatible with a uniform superconducting film, implying the two devices sit on different sides of a homogeneity crossover.
  • The extracted zero-temperature sheet penetration depth for device D2, $\Lambda_s(0)=0.47\pm0.22$ cm, and the inferred effective mass of about $1.4(7)\,m_0$ connect the BKT analysis to band-structure estimates for magic-angle TBG.
  • With the two TBG devices added, the paper extends the interlayer Coulomb formula to 53 superconductors spanning roughly 2 to 200 K, with a claimed statistical accuracy of about 4% in $T_{\mathrm{C0}}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive out-of-sample test would be a new TBG device at a different twist angle or pressure with $n_{\mathrm{opt}}$, $n_0$, and $\zeta$ measured independently; the paper does not provide such a test, so its claim of universality for $\Lambda$ in TBG rests on just two devices.
  • If the participating density is genuinely $|\!n_{\mathrm{opt}}-n_0|/2$, then the dome's width in gate density, rather than its absolute filling or twist angle, is the control parameter for $T_\mathrm{C}$; comparing devices with different $\theta$ but similar dome widths could separate this prediction from models tied to half-filling.
  • Because Eq. (2) scales as $1/\zeta$ at fixed density, a controlled experiment that varies interlayer separation (hydrostatic pressure, or a dielectric spacer in a double-bilayer device) while holding the participating density fixed would test the Coulomb mechanism against phonon-based models, which do not share that geometric scaling.
  • The paper itself notes that interlayer separations in magic-angle TBG are hard to measure directly and uses theoretical relaxed-structure values; an independent structural measurement of $\zeta$ under pressure would therefore carry particular weight, since a small error in $\zeta$ translates directly into the claimed agreement.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that superconductivity in gate-charged twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) arises from an interlayer Coulomb pairing mechanism, with the optimal transition temperature given by Eq. (2): TC0 = kB^-1 Λ (|nopt - n0|/2)^(1/2) e^2/ζ, where Λ = 0.00747(2) Å is a length constant previously determined by the authors from 51 other superconductors. Using published data for devices M2 (ambient pressure) and D2 (1.33 GPa), the authors extract the optimal and onset densities nopt and n0 from phase diagrams and the interlayer spacing ζ from theoretical calculations, obtaining TC0 = 1.94(4) K and 3.02(3) K. They then fit the measured resistance transitions with an Aslamasov-Larkin/Halperin-Nelson fluctuation model to determine mean-field transition temperatures TCmf = 1.83(5) K and 2.86(5) K, as well as BKT temperatures, and report 'remarkable agreement' with Eq. (2). The manuscript also discusses weak-link/array behavior, estimates penetration depths and effective masses for D2, and extends the model's statistics to 53 superconductors.

Significance. If the central claim were established, this would be a notable result: a single empirical scaling relation for optimal Tc across disparate superconducting families, including TBG, with a non-phononic mechanism and an explicit falsifiable formula. The paper has real strengths: Eq. (2) is a clean, parameter-light prediction; the resistance analysis is presented in detail with a full parameter table; and the comparison to published data is transparent. However, the validation is not secure. The 'experimental' reference values TCmf are not direct measurements but outputs of a multiparameter fluctuation fit to the same resistance data, and for device M2 the fitted model is inconsistent with the paper's own characterization of that device as a weak-link array. The claimed agreement is therefore largely a postdiction with a model-dependent benchmark.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.3, §4.2, Table 2] The validation for device M2 is internally inconsistent. The value TCmf = 1.83(5) K used as the 'experimental' benchmark is obtained from Eqs. (3)-(6), which are the uniform thin-film Aslamasov-Larkin and Halperin-Nelson formulas. Yet the paper itself finds τc = 0.91 ± 0.11 for M2, states that this is 'larger than that usually found for vortex-pair unbinding transitions in thin superconductor films' and 'more typical for weak-link arrays', and concludes in §4.2 that 'junction array behavior at optimal doping appears plausible', even estimating a Josephson critical current Ic ≈ 46 nA. If M2 is a weak-link or Josephson array, the uniform-film fluctuation formulas do not yield a valid mean-field transition temperature for that device; the fitted TCmf can absorb the array coupling scale. The ≈6% agreement for M2 is therefore an artifact of applying a film model to an array system, not an independent test of Eq. (2). Since the paper's central claim rests on both devices, this is a load-bearing error.
  2. [§4.4, Fig. 2] The statistical validation is circular in an important respect. The paper defines TC0^meas ≡ TCmf for the two TBG devices and then includes these points in the same 51-compound distribution from which the universal constant Λ was originally determined in ref. [49]. Because Λ is fixed by the authors' earlier analysis and TCmf is a fit to resistance data from the same devices that also supply nopt and n0, the agreement shown in Fig. 2 and the fractional-difference statistics in the inset are not an out-of-sample test. A meaningful validation would require the TBG points to be excluded from any inference about Λ, or an independent measurement of TC not derived from the same multiparameter fluctuation fit. As written, the claim that Eq. (1) is 'validated' by 53 superconductors, including TBG, overstates the evidence.
  3. [Table 1, §3.2.1–§3.2.3] The reported uncertainties in TC0 (e.g., ±0.04 K for M2) are propagated only from the small quoted errors in nopt, n0, and ζ, and do not reflect substantial systematic choices. The onset density n0 is read from an insulator boundary in a color phase diagram and identified with the superconductivity onset via a magnetoresistance criterion; ζ is an average of four theoretical values, but STM/AFM reports of interlayer thickness range from roughly 3.4 to 4.5 Å; and the pressure reduction of ζ rests on a single graphite-anisotropy elastic model. Using the endpoints of these ranges can shift TC0 by more than the claimed 6% agreement with TCmf. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis showing how TC0 and the stated agreement change under alternative, still-plausible parameter choices.
  4. [§4.4, Eqs. (3)-(6), Table 2] The claim of 'remarkable agreement' depends on TCmf values that come from a highly flexible fit: the normal-state resistance has two parameters (r0, r1), the fluctuation conductance has fitted coefficient S with c1 and c2, and the low-temperature branch has fitted parameters b, c3, TX, TY, and T′. No stability check is reported (e.g., fits from different initial guesses, or fits with c1 or c3 fixed to the clean- or dirty-limit expressions). Given that the paper's central conclusion rests on the numeric agreement between TC0 and TCmf, the absence of any robustness analysis for the fit-derived benchmark is a significant gap.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1.1] The abstract and Introduction quote TC ≈ 1.7 K for M2, while §3.1.3 finds a midpoint TCmid = 1.91(3) K; please clarify which definition is used in the comparison and reconcile the difference explicitly.
  2. [§3.2.1] The identification n0 = -2.03(1)×10^12 cm^-2 is described as 'read from Fig. 6a in [1]' and then fixed by positive magnetoresistance; please state the quantitative criterion that determines the onset density from the magnetoresistance data, since this directly enters Eq. (2).
  3. [§3.2.3] The derivation leading to ζ = zAA + fz(zAA - zAB) with fz = 1/1.8 is not shown; the text states only that Δz is modeled as sinusoidal with sixfold symmetry. Please provide the intermediate steps or a reference so that this factor can be reproduced.
  4. [Figure 1] The resistance data are transcribed from published figures by hand; to make the analysis reproducible, the authors should deposit the digitized datasets and the fitting code (or at least list the extracted (T, R) points in a supplement).
  5. [General] Several equations and symbols appear with placeholder glyphs (e.g., '/uni2113', '/uni045B') in the manuscript text; the published version should use the correct mathematical notation throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (2) is an out-of-sample scaling test with independently determined inputs, and no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The claim that Eq. (2) predicts TC0 for twisted bilayer graphene is not circular. Equation (2) is obtained from Eq. (1) by substituting ℓ = (|nopt − n0|/2)^−1/2 and γ = 1/2; the constant Λ is fixed by the authors' prior empirical fit to 51 other superconductors and is not re-fit to the resistance data of devices M2 or D2. The inputs nopt, n0, and ζ are determined from measured phase diagrams, magnetoresistance onsets, and theoretical interlayer-separation calculations, none of which are the TCmf values used as the comparison benchmark. The TC0 values and the TCmf values are therefore distinct quantities, and their roughly 6% agreement is an out-of-sample (though postdictive) consistency check rather than an identity forced by construction. The self-citations to Refs. [49,50] are load-bearing for the model form, but they rest on an external 51-compound data set that does not include TBG, so they do not make the TBG application circular. A separate, non-circular caveat is that the paper's own τc = 0.91 result and weak-link-array discussion in Sections 3.1.3 and 4.2 suggest the uniform-film AL/HN formulas used to extract TCmf = 1.83 K for device M2 may be inappropriate for that device, weakening that particular comparison as a benchmark; however, this is a correctness or benchmark-validity concern rather than a constructional circularity. No equation in the paper reduces, by definition or by fitted-parameter renaming, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on the empirical Eq. (1) with a fitted constant Λ, the assumption that each graphene layer acts as both charge reservoir types, the choice of γ = 1/2, and theoretical values for the interlayer spacing ζ. The fluctuation fits used to extract TCmf involve additional free parameters (c1, c2, b, c3, TX, TY, T') that are not listed here but further weaken the independence of the comparison.

free parameters (2)
  • Lambda = 0.00747(2) Å
    Global length constant in Eq. (1), fitted to 51 previously known superconductors in the authors' earlier work; used unchanged for TBG without independent derivation.
  • sharing factor gamma = 1/2
    Charge allocation rule 1b from the authors' prior model, chosen to split doping charge between the two graphene layers; no independent microscopic justification for TBG.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Eq. (1), TC0 = kB^{-1} (Λ/ℓ) e^2/ζ, describes superconductivity in layered materials via interlayer Coulomb coupling.
    The paper does not derive Eq. (1); it relies on the authors' earlier empirical model and its prior application to 51 compounds.
  • ad hoc to paper Each graphene layer acts as both a pairing reservoir (type I) and a mediating reservoir (type II), with charge sharing factor γ = 1/2.
    This is assigned in Section 2 to fit the bilayer geometry; there is no independent microscopic evidence that the same layer can host both roles simultaneously.
  • domain assumption The theoretical interlayer separations from refs. [7,67-69] are accurate for the actual devices M2 and D2.
    Used in Section 3.2.3 to set ζ = 3.50 Å and ζ = 3.42 Å; no direct measurement of the interlayer distance is available for these specific devices.
  • domain assumption The elastic response of TBG is strongly anisotropic and similar to graphite, so hydrostatic pressure translates almost entirely into a reduction of the interlayer spacing.
    Used in Section 3.2.3 to scale ζ from ambient to 1.33 GPa using the uniaxial strain calculation of ref. [70].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-$T_\textrm{C}$ Superconductivity Originating from Interlayer Coulomb Coupling in Gate-Charged Twisted Bilayer Graphene Moir$\'{e}$ Superlattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SV236YV3

@misc{pith2026190801208,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-$T_\textrmC$ Superconductivity Originating from Interlayer Coulomb Coupling in Gate-Charged Twisted Bilayer Graphene Moir$\'e$ Superlattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SV236YV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01208}
}
abstract

Unconventional superconductivity in bilayer graphene has been reported for twist angles $\theta$ near the first magic angle and charged electrostatically with holes near half filling of the lower flat bands. A maximum superconducting transition temperature $T_\textrm{C}$ $\approx$ 1.7 K was reported for a device with $\theta$ = 1.05$\deg$ at ambient pressure and a maximum $T_\textrm{C}$ $\approx$ 3.1 K for a device with $\theta$ = 1.27$\deg$ under 1.33 GPa hydrostatic pressure. A high-$T_\textrm{C}$ model for the superconductivity is proposed herein, where pairing is mediated by Coulomb coupling between charges in the two graphene sheets. The expression derived for the optimal transition temperature, $T_\textrm{C0}$ = $k_\textrm{B}^{-1}$$\Lambda$(|$n_\textrm{opt}$ - $n_\textrm{0}$|/2)$^{1/2}$$e^2$/$\zeta$, is a function of mean bilayer separation distance $\zeta$, measured gated charge areal densities $n_\textrm{opt}$ and $n_\textrm{0}$ corresponding to maximum $T_\textrm{C}$ and superconductivity onset, respectively, and the length constant $\Lambda$ = 0.00747(2) $\mathring{\textrm{A}}$. Based on existing experimental carrier densities and theoretical estimates for $\zeta$, $T_\textrm{C0}$ = 1.94(4) K is calculated for the $\theta$ = 1.05$\deg$ ambient-pressure device and $T_\textrm{C0}$ = 3.02(3) K for the $\theta$ = 1.27$\deg$ pressurized device. Experimental mean-field transition temperatures $T_\textrm{C}^\textrm{mf}$ = 1.83(5) K and $T_\textrm{C}^\textrm{mf}$ = 2.86(5) K are determined by fitting superconducting fluctuation theory to resistance transition data for the ambient-pressure and pressurized devices, respectively; the theoretical results for $T_\textrm{C0}$ are in remarkable agreement with these experimental values. Corresponding Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless temperatures $T_\textrm{BKT}$ of 0.96(3) K and 2.2(2) K are also determined and interpreted.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    R., Fiory A

    Harshman D. R., Fiory A. T. and Dow J. D. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 23 295701 (2011); corrigendum, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 23 34950 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [1]

    and Jarillo-Herroro P.: Nature 556 43 (2018)

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

    2018

  3. [2]

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

    2019

  4. [3]

    L., Leconte N., Javvaji S and Jung J.: Electron

    Chittari B. L., Leconte N., Javvaji S and Jung J.: Electron. Struct. 1, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    M., Xian L

    Kerelsky A., McGilly L., Kennes D. M., Xian L. Yankowitz M., Chen S., Watanabe K., Taniguchi T, Hone J., Dean C., Rubio A. and Pasupathy A. N.: arXiv:1812.08776v2 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2018)

    arXiv 2018

  6. [5]

    N., Santoso I

    Manaf M. N., Santoso I. and Hermanto A.: AIP Conf. Proc. 1677 070004 (2015)

    2015

  7. [6]

    Wu F., MacDonald A. H. and Martin I.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 257001 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    Choi Y. W. and Choi H. J.: Phys. Rev. B 98 241412(R) (2018)

    2018

Show all 93 references
  1. [8]

    and Bernevig B

    Lian B., Wang Z. and Bernevig B. A.: arXiv:1807.04382v3 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    and Das Sarma S.: Phys

    Wu F., Hwang E. and Das Sarma S.: Phys. Rev. B 99 165112 (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    Wu F.: Phys. Rev. B 99 195114 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    I., Paez-Sierra B

    González-Pedreros G. I., Paez-Sierra B. A. and Baquero R.: Diam. Relat. Mater. 95 109 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Ojajärvi R., Hyart T., Silaev M. A. and Heikkilä T. T.: Phys. Rev. B 98 054515 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    and Yang F.: Phys

    Liu C-C., Zhang L-D., Chen W-Q. and Yang F.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 217001 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    A., Jian C.-M

    Wu X.-C., Pawlak K. A., Jian C.-M. and Xu C.: arXiv:1805.06906v1 [cond-mat.str-el] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J., Ojajärvi R

    Peltonen T. J., Ojajärvi R. and Heikkilä T. T.: Phys. Rev. B 98 220504(R) (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    and Kuroki K.: Phys

    Ochi M., Koshino M. and Kuroki K.: Phys. Rev. B 98 081102(R) (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    F., Kivelson S

    Dodaro J. F., Kivelson S. A., Schattner Y., Sun X. Q. and Wang C.: Phys. Rev. B 98 075154 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    H.: Physics 12 12 (2019)

    MacDonald A. H.: Physics 12 12 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Baskaran B.: arXiv:1804.00627v1 [cond-mat.supr- con] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    and Spałek J.: Phys

    Fidrysiak M., Zegrodnik M. and Spałek J.: Phys. Rev. B 98 085436 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Kozii V., Isobe H., Venderbos J. W. F. and Fu L.: Phys. Rev. B 99 144507 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    N., Reaves A., Singh M., Wang X., Adam S

    Laksono E., Leaw J. N., Reaves A., Singh M., Wang X., Adam S. and Gu X.: Sol. State Commun. 282 38 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    C., Zou L., Vishwanath A

    Po H. C., Zou L., Vishwanath A. and Senthil T.: Phys. Rev. X 8 031089 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    and Lin S-Z.: Phys

    Su Y. and Lin S-Z.: Phys. Rev. B 98 195101 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    and Balents L.: Phys

    Xu C. and Balents L.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 087001 (2018)

    2018

  19. [26]

    and Phillips P

    Padhi B., Setty C. and Phillips P. W.: Nano Lett. 18 6175 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    and Phillips P

    Padhi B. and Phillips P. W.: Phys. Rev. B 99 205141 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    and Walet N

    Guinea F. and Walet N. R: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115 13174 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    Yuan N. F. Q. and Fu L.: Phys. Rev. B 98 045103 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    and Vishwanath A.: Quantum Materials 4 16 (2019)

    You Y.-Z. and Vishwanath A.: Quantum Materials 4 16 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    M., Calderón M

    Pizarro J. M., Calderón M. J. and Bascones E.: J. Phys. Commun. 3 035024 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    Chattopadhyay A., Bag S., Krishnamurthy H. R. and Garg A.: Phys. Rev. B 99 155127 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    Y., Khalaf E., Liu S., Liu X., Hao Z., Kim P

    Lee J. Y., Khalaf E., Liu S., Liu X., Hao Z., Kim P . and Vishwanath A.: arXiv:1903.08685v2 [cond- mat.str-el] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    and Ma T.: arXiv:1903.01701v1 [cond-mat.str-el] (2019) 15

    Chen W., Chu Y., Huang T. and Ma T.: arXiv:1903.01701v1 [cond-mat.str-el] (2019) 15

    2019 arXiv

  28. [35]

    N., Laksono E., Pereira V

    Gu X., Chen C., Leaw J. N., Laksono E., Pereira V. M., Vignale G. and Adam S.: arXiv:1902.00029v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Isobe H., Yuan N. F. Q. and Fu L.: Phys. Rev. X 8 041041 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    and Betouras J

    Sherkunov Y. and Betouras J. J.: Phys. Rev. B 98 205151 (2018)

    2018

  31. [38]

    and Xu C.: Phys

    Wu X.-C., Jian C.-M. and Xu C.: Phys. Rev. B 99 161405(R) (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    15 (Rome, 2018) pp

    Bianconi A.: Superstripes Press Science Series No. 15 (Rome, 2018) pp. 4-5; https://www.superstripes.net/science/Bilateral- China-Italy_ebook.pdf#page=13

    2018

  33. [40]

    K., Yang L., Wang D., Zhang F.-C

    Tang Q. K., Yang L., Wang D., Zhang F.-C. and Wang Q.-H.: Phys. Rev. B 99 094521 (2019)

    2019

  34. [41]

    Dóra B.: Physics 11 84 (2018)

    2018

  35. [42]

    and Nandkishore R

    Lin Y.-P. and Nandkishore R. M.: Phys. Rev. B 98 214521 (2018)

    2018

  36. [43]

    and Stauber T.: Phys

    González J. and Stauber T.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 026801 (2019)

    2019

  37. [44]

    and Trivedi N.: Phys

    Lee K., Hazra T., Randeria M. and Trivedi N.: Phys. Rev. B 99 184514 (2019)

    2019

  38. [45]

    E.: JETP Lett

    Volovik G. E.: JETP Lett. 107 516 (2018)

    2018

  39. [46]

    S., Kim D

    Kim Y., Yun H., Nam S-G., Son M., Lee D. S., Kim D. C., Seo S., Choi H. C., Lee H-J., Lee S. W. and Kim J. S.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 096602 (2013)

    2013

  40. [47]

    and Peng L-M.: Ultramicroscopy 193 90 (2018)

    Li H., Wei X., Wu G., Gao S., Chen Q. and Peng L-M.: Ultramicroscopy 193 90 (2018)

    2018

  41. [48]

    and Graham M

    Patel H., Huang L., Kim, C-J., Park J. and Graham M. W.: Nat. Commun. 10 1445 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    /uni2113 = ( A/σ ) 1/2 = 2.883 Å,

    Harshman D. R. and Fiory A. T.: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29 445702 (2017); A typographical error exists at the end of section 3 which should read, “ /uni2113 = ( A/σ ) 1/2 = 2.883 Å,” with TC0 remaining unchanged

    2017

  43. [51]

    Harshman D. R. and Fiory A. T.: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29 145602 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Harshman D. R. and Fiory A. T.: Phys. Rev. B 86 144533 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    Harshman D. R. and Fiory A. T.: J. Phys. Chem. Sol. 85 106 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Harshman D. R. and Fiory A. T.: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24 135701 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Harshman D. R. and Fiory A. T.: Phys. Rev. B 90 186501 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Harshman D. R. and Fiory A. T.: J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 28 2967 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Aslamasov L. G. and Larkin A. I.: Fiz. Tverd. Tela (Leningrad) 10 1104 (1968) Sov. Phys. – Solid State 10 875 (1968)

    1968

  50. [58]

    Berezinskii V. L.: Sov. Phys. JETP 32 493 (1971) Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 59 907 (1970)

    1971

  51. [59]

    Berezinskii V. L.: Sov. Phys. JETP 34 610 (1972) Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 61 1144 (1971)

    1972

  52. [60]

    Kosterlitz J. M. and Thouless D. J.: J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 6 1181 (1973)

    1973

  53. [61]

    Halperin B. I. and Nelson D. R.: J. Low Temp. Phys . 36 599 (1979)

    1979

  54. [62]

    C., Smirnov D., Belke C., Schmidt H

    Rode J. C., Smirnov D., Belke C., Schmidt H. and Haug R. J.: Ann. Phys. 529 1700025 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    M., Magaud L., Gómez-Rodríguez J

    Brihuega I., Mallet P., González-Herrero H., Trambly de Laissardière G., Ugeda M. M., Magaud L., Gómez-Rodríguez J. M., Ynduráin F. and Veuillen J.-Y.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 196802 (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    M., Nyakiti L

    Neek-Amal M., Xu P., Qi D., Thibado P. M., Nyakiti L. O., Wheeler V. D., Myers-Ward R. L., Eddy C. R., Jr., Gaskill D. K. and Peeters F. M.: Phys. Rev. B 90 064101 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    and He L.: Phys

    Yin L.-J., Qiao J.-B., Zuo W.-J., Li W.-T. and He L.: Phys. Rev. B 92 081406(R) (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    Li G., Luican A., Lopes dos Santos J. M. B., Castro Neto A. H., Reina A., Kong J. and Andrei E. Y.: Nature Phys. 6, 109 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    and Yazyev O

    Gargiulo F. and Yazyev O. V.: 2D Mater. 5 015019 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    and Oshiyama A.: Phys

    Uchida K., Furuya S., Iwata J-I. and Oshiyama A.: Phys. Rev. B 90 155451 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    K., Juri čić V

    Jain S. K., Juri čić V. and Barkema G. T.: 2D Mater. 4 015018 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    and Kaxiras E

    Carr S., Fang S., Jarillo-Herrero P. and Kaxiras E. : Phys. Rev. B 98 085144 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    and Agarwal A.: Acta Phys

    Koller M, Steiner H., Landa M., Nieto A. and Agarwal A.: Acta Phys. Pol. A 128 670 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    M., Haviland D

    Jaeger H. M., Haviland D. B., Orr B. G. and Goldman A. M.: Phys. Rev. B 40 182 (1989)

    1989

  65. [73]

    16 and Jarillo-Herrero P.: arXiv:1901.03710v1 [cond- mat.str-el] (2019)

    Cao Y., Chowdhury D., Rodan-Legrain D., Rubies- Bigordà O., Watanabe K., Taniguchi T., Senthil T. 16 and Jarillo-Herrero P.: arXiv:1901.03710v1 [cond- mat.str-el] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Stepanov N. A. and Skvortsov M. A.: Phys. Rev. B 97 144517 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Maki K.: Progr. Theor. Phys. 40 193 (1968)

    1968

  68. [76]

    S.: Phys

    Thompson R. S.: Phys. Rev. B. 1 327 (1970)

    1970

  69. [77]

    McGraw Hill, New York (1996) chapter 5-5.1

    Tinkham M.: Introduction to Superconductivity 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York (1996) chapter 5-5.1

    1996

  70. [78]

    M., Epstein K

    Kadin A. M., Epstein K. and Goldman A. M.: Phys. Rev. B 27 6691 (1983)

    1983

  71. [79]

    T., Hebard A

    Fiory A. T., Hebard A. F. and Glaberson W. I.: Phys. Rev. B 28 5075 (1983)

    1983

  72. [80]

    W., Lobb C

    Abraham D. W., Lobb C. J., Tinkham M. and Klapwijk T. M.: Phys. Rev. B 26 5268(R) (1982)

    1982

  73. [81]

    H., Hovden R., Tsen A.W., Taniguchi T., Watanabe K., Yi G-C., Kim M., Luskin M., Tadmor E

    Yoo H., Engelke R., Carr S., Fang S., Zhang K., Cazeaux P., Sung S. H., Hovden R., Tsen A.W., Taniguchi T., Watanabe K., Yi G-C., Kim M., Luskin M., Tadmor E. B., Kaxiras E. and Kim P.: Nature Mater. 18 448 (2019)

    2019

  74. [82]

    and Ong N.P.: Phys

    Li L., Wang Y., Komiya S., Ono S., Ando Y., Gu G.D. and Ong N.P.: Phys. Rev. B 81 054510 (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    Harshman D. R. and Mills A. P. Jr.: Phys. Rev. B 45 10684 (1992)

    1992

  76. [84]

    Y., Shi D

    Shen C., Li N., Wang S., Zhao Y., Tang J., Liu J., Tian J., Chu Y., Watanabe K., Taniguchi T., Yang R., Meng Z. Y., Shi D. and Zhang G.: arXiv:1903.06952v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Y., Watanabe K., Taniguchi T

    Liu X., Hao Z., Khalaf E., Lee J. Y., Watanabe K., Taniguchi T. Vishwanath A. and Kim P.: arXiv:1903.08130v2 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    and Theron R.: Helv

    Leemann Ch., Lerch Ph. and Theron R.: Helv. Phys. Acta 60 128 (1987)

    1987

  79. [87]

    and Martinoli P.: Phys

    Leemann Ch., Lerch Ph., Racine G-A. and Martinoli P.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 1291 (1986)

    1986

  80. [88]

    B., Jarillo-Herrero P., Oostinga J

    Heersche H. B., Jarillo-Herrero P., Oostinga J. B., Vandersypen L. M. K. and Morpurgo A. F.: Nature 446 56 (2007)

    2007

  81. [89]

    and Randiera M.: arXiv:1811.12428v2 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2018)

    Hazra T., Verma N. and Randiera M.: arXiv:1811.12428v2 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  82. [90]

    and Peotta S.: Phys

    Törmä P., Liang L. and Peotta S.: Phys. Rev. B 98 220511(R) (2018)

    2018

  83. [91]

    L., Porter C

    Kamarás K., Herr, S. L., Porter C. D., Tache N., Tanner D. B., Etemad S., Venkatesan T., Chase E., Inam A., Wu X. D., Hedge M. S. and Dutta B.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 , 84 (1990)

    1990

  84. [92]

    T., Hebard, A

    Fiory A. T., Hebard, A. F., Eick R. H., Mankiewich P. M., Howard R. E. and O’Malley M. L.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 , 3441 (1990)

    1990

  85. [93]

    B., Porter C

    Romero D. B., Porter C. D., Tanner, D. B., Forro L., Mandrus D., Mihaly L., Carr G. L. and Williams G. P.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 , 1590 (1992)

    1992

Pith tools

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