Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 78 references

Collective Excitations of Quantum Anomalous Hall Ferromagnets in Twisted Bilayer Graphene

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 The ν=3 quantum anomalous Hall ferromagnet in twisted bilayer graphene is stable against spin and valley magnons, and its valley ordering temperature is set by the gapped valley-wave mode.

desk verdict Solid microscopic theory for spin and valley magnons in TBG QAHF; the stability analysis is robust, but the valley-ordering temperature estimate is a heuristic argument rather than a derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05417 v2 pith:VUZ3GGZ6 submitted 2019-08-15 cond-mat.mes-hall

Fengcheng Wu , Sankar Das Sarma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords twistedbilayergraphenequantumanomalousHallferromagnetmagnonsBethe-SalpeterequationvalleyIsingorderskyrmionsnonlinearsigmamodelmoirématerials
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 asks whether the quantum anomalous Hall ferromagnet at filling ν=3 in twisted bilayer graphene—an ordered state with quantized Hall resistance at zero magnetic field—is stable, and what controls its ferromagnetic transition temperature. Solving Bethe-Salpeter equations for the two collective excitations, waves with one spin flipped and waves with one valley flipped, the authors find both spectra nonnegative, so the state survives small particle-hole fluctuations. The spin wave is gapless, as Goldstone's theorem requires, and its stiffness implies that a skyrmion-antiskyrmion pair costs energy comparable to the Hartree-Fock gap $\Delta_{HF}$. The valley wave is gapped, favoring valley-polarized over valley-coherent order, and this gap limits the ordering temperature to roughly $k_B T_V\approx\Delta_V$, far below the mean-field value. If correct, this explains why the measured transport gap of the ν=3 state is several meV while its Curie temperature is only about 9 K.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a ladder sum of repeated electron-hole interactions: a magnon is written as a particle-hole pair with variational coefficients $z_{k,Q}$, and minimizing its energy yields the Bethe-Salpeter equations $E(Q)z_{k,Q}=\sum_{k'}K^{(Q)}_{kk'}z_{k',Q}$, whose kernel is the quasiparticle energy cost of the flip minus the attractive electron-hole interaction. A closed-loop gauge-invariance argument makes the eigenvalues well defined despite the phase ambiguity of Bloch wave functions. The long-wavelength results are captured by two nonlinear $\sigma$ models: an O(3) model for the spin with stiffness $\rho_s$, and a valley model with Ising anisotropy $u$ and anisotropic stiffnesses $\rho_z,\rho_\perp$. The domain-wall ansatz $(\pi_x,\pi_y,\pi_z)=(\operatorname{sech}(x/\lambda),0,\tanh(x/\lambda))$ supplies the domain-wall energy $J=4u\lambda$ used to compare valley-wave and domain-wall ordering temperatures.

What would settle it

Measure the ν=3 anomalous Hall resistance as a function of temperature in devices with several dielectric environments and compare the ordering temperature with the zero-temperature valley-wave gap: if $T_c$ tracks the mean-field gap rather than $\Delta_V/k_B$, the valley-wave-limited-ordering claim fails. Alternatively, a calculation including remote moiré bands that finds a negative valley-wave energy at any momentum $Q$ would disprove the stability conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ν=3 quantum anomalous Hall ferromagnet in hBN-aligned twisted bilayer graphene is a stable valley Ising ferromagnet whose two collective branches determine the transport and ordering properties. The spin magnon spectrum, from the Bethe-Salpeter equation $E_S(Q)z_{k,Q}=\sum_{k'}H^{(Q)}_{kk'}z_{k',Q}$, has a gapless Goldstone mode at $Q=0$ with $E_{SW}=(2\rho_s/n_0)Q^2$; its nonnegative spectrum verifies stability against spin fluctuations. The valley magnon spectrum from the analogous equation has a gapped lowest mode $E_{VW}=\Delta_V+(2\rho_\perp/n_0)Q^2$, showing that valley-polarized order is preferred over valley-coherent order. From the spin stiffness $\rho_s$ the paper obtains a skyrmion-antiskyrmion pair energy $\Delta_{pair}=8\pi\rho_s$ comparable to the Hartree-Fock gap $\Delta_{HF}$, and capable of being the lowest charged excitation. From the valley-wave gap $\Delta_V$, a nonlinear $\sigma$ model with Ising anisotropy yields $k_B T_V\approx\Delta_V$, reduced from the mean-field $T_{MF}$, and gives about 11 K for a 2 meV gap, close to the experimental Curie temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate $k_B T_V\approx\Delta_V$ assumes thermally excited valley waves destroy the valley Ising order before domain-wall proliferation does, which requires the domain-wall width $\lambda$ to exceed the moiré period $a_M$; if instead $\lambda\le a_M$, domain walls could set the transition temperature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a finite Hartree-Fock gap $\Delta_{HF}$, the ν=3 state is stable against both spin-flip and valley-flip particle-hole excitations, so the observed quantized Hall effect is not on the verge of a collective instability.
  • The lowest charged excitation may be a skyrmion-antiskyrmion pair rather than a single-particle excitation when both hBN layers are aligned, changing how the measured transport gap should be interpreted.
  • The ferromagnetic ordering temperature is limited by thermal valley waves, so the transport gap and the Curie temperature need not be proportional; a 2 meV gap gives $T_V\approx 11$ K, near the observed 9 K.
  • The model predicts a valley-polarized (valley Ising) ground state rather than a valley-coherent one, because the valley wave is gapped.
  • The same Bethe-Salpeter approach can be carried over to other broken-symmetry states in flat moiré bands.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence of the paper's mechanism is that the ordering temperature should scale with the zero-temperature valley-wave gap as screening is changed; a device with a smaller $\Delta_V$ should show a proportionally lower $T_c$.
  • In the parameter regime where $\Delta_{pair}<\Delta_{HF}$, the activated transport at low temperature may be carried by skyrmion-antiskyrmion pairs, which would give an activation energy and Hall signature distinct from single-particle excitations.
  • The gapped valley-wave result suggests that intervalley coherent states in other flat moiré bands may be generically disfavored whenever the valley wave is gapped, not only at ν=3.
  • Coupled spin-valley fluctuations, which the paper only sketches, could be what turns the transition first-order; a quantitative study of the coupled sigma models would test that scenario.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a microscopic theory of collective excitations of the quantum anomalous Hall ferromagnet (QAHF) at integer filling ν=3 in twisted bilayer graphene aligned with hBN. Using a continuum moiré model and Hartree-Fock mean-field states, the authors solve Bethe-Salpeter equations for spin-flip and valley-flip particle-hole excitations. They find nonnegative spin and valley excitation spectra, an exact gapless Goldstone spin wave at Q=0, and a gapped valley wave. From the spin-wave dispersion they extract the spin stiffness and estimate the skyrmion-antiskyrmion pair energy, which is comparable to the Hartree-Fock gap. From the valley-wave gap they estimate a valley ordering temperature T_V that is reduced from the mean-field transition temperature and is reported to be consistent with the experimental Curie temperature.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful microscopic stability analysis of the QAHF state in TBG and a concrete mechanism (valley-wave fluctuations) for suppressing the ordering temperature below the mean-field value. The central stability claim is supported by the exact zero-energy spin wave at Q=0 required by SU(2) symmetry and by the nonnegative numerical spectra over the explored parameter range; this part is technically solid and will be of value to the moiré materials community. The quantitative finite-temperature prediction, however, rests on an ad hoc identification and needs to be underpinned by a proper finite-temperature calculation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Valley wave, after Eq. (9)]
  2. [Ferromagnetism, fitting ε] The quantitative agreement between the computed T_V (about 11 K) and the experimental Curie temperature is weakened by the fact that the dielectric constant ε is fitted to the experimental ν=3 charge gap of about 2 meV (and hence ΔV is not an independent prediction). This is not circular in the strict sense, but it reduces the independence of the finite-temperature comparison. Please state explicitly in the text that the T_V estimate is not a parameter-free prediction and, if possible, show the sensitivity of T_V to ε over a wider range to indicate how robust the 11 K value is.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2(b)] The inset showing σ_{yx} as a function of temperature is informative, but the jump at T_MF would be easier to see if the figure included a vertical dashed line at the transition temperature in the inset as well as in the main panel.
  2. [Valley wave, Eq. (8)] The notation ρ_z and ρ_⊥ for the anisotropic valley stiffness is clear, but the text never defines n_0 explicitly in the main body; please state that n_0 is the density of one electron per moiré unit cell (it is defined in the Introduction in a slightly different context).
  3. [Discussion] The sentence 'we addressed valley ordering temperature limited by valley wave excitations, which has not been studied previously in TBG' would be more precise as 'we address ...', since the paper is being submitted for publication rather than retrospectively announcing completed work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnon spectra and valley-ordering estimate are computed from a fitted interaction strength, not reduced to the fit by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: the spin and valley magnon spectra are obtained by solving Bethe-Salpeter equations built from a Hartree-Fock mean-field Hamiltonian, and the spin stiffness, skyrmion-pair energy, and valley-wave gap are extracted from those computed spectra rather than from experimental inputs. The single free parameter ε is fitted to the experimental ν=3 charge gap, but the reported valley ordering temperature is not the same observable as the fitted gap; it is subsequently computed from the valley magnon gap (TV ≈ ΔV/kB) and then compared with the measured Curie temperature. That is a model-to-experiment benchmark, not a circular reduction. The paper explicitly hedges the agreement ('this good quantitative agreement with experiment might be a coincidence'), which further shows the authors do not present the comparison as a forced consequence of the fit. Self-citations [45,46] are used only to set the moiré tunneling parameters wAA and wAB; they are not invoked as load-bearing evidence for the stability or ordering-temperature claims. The weakest part is the heuristic identification of the single-magnon gap ΔV with the 2D Ising ordering temperature, which is a physical approximation rather than a derivation; that is a rigor/correctness concern, not circularity. No load-bearing step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on one genuinely free parameter (ε), fit to the experimental gap, plus a set of standard approximations (single-band projection, HF, ladder summation). The novelty about valley ordering temperature rests on the ad hoc identification T_V≈ΔV/k_B. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Dielectric constant ε = ≈30 (fit to ν=3 HF gap ≈2 meV)
    Screening in TBG is complicated; ε controls the ratio of interaction to bandwidth and is tuned to match the experimental charge gap from Ref. [8]. All subsequent quantitative results (T_V, Δpair) depend on this choice.
  • Spin stiffness ρs = Not quoted; extracted from spin wave dispersion E_SW = (2ρs/n0)Q²
    Fitted to the numerical spin wave spectrum around Q=0; used to estimate skyrmion-antiskyrmion pair energy Δpair=8πρs.
  • Valley wave gap ΔV / anisotropy u = About 2 meV at ε=30 (from spectrum)
    Read off from the valley magnon spectrum; this sets T_V≈ΔV/k_B. It is an output of the model, but the quantitative prediction of T_V depends on the spectrum and thus on ε.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Continuum Bistritzer-MacDonald Hamiltonian for TBG moiré bands
    The band structure is computed from this model with wAA=90 meV, wAB=117 meV, θ=1.15°, Δb=30 meV, Δt=0. Standard in the field.
  • domain assumption Projection to the first moiré conduction band only
    All valence and remote conduction bands are neglected. The paper notes the charge neutrality gap (~4 meV) is comparable to the interaction scale E_C≈3.9 meV at ε=30, weakening this approximation.
  • domain assumption Hartree-Fock approximation with valley U(1) preserved
    Mean-field treatment of the interaction; the ansatz fills ν of the 4 first-conduction bands. The results are only as good as HF.
  • domain assumption Screened Coulomb form V(q)=2πe² tanh(qd)/(εq) with d=40 nm
    Gate screening model used throughout; d taken from experiment, ε left free.
  • ad hoc to paper Identification T_V ≈ ΔV/k_B
    The valley ordering temperature is estimated from the valley wave gap rather than derived from the nonlinear sigma model; assumes domain walls are not the limiting excitation (λ > a_M).
  • standard math Bethe-Salpeter (ladder) approximation for magnon spectra
    Standard approximation for excitons and collective modes; captures repeated electron-hole interactions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collective Excitations of Quantum Anomalous Hall Ferromagnets in Twisted Bilayer Graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUZ3GGZ6

@misc{pith2026190805417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collective Excitations of Quantum Anomalous Hall Ferromagnets in Twisted Bilayer Graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUZ3GGZ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05417}
}
read the original abstract

We present a microscopic theory for collective excitations of quantum anomalous Hall ferromagnets (QAHF) in twisted bilayer graphene. We calculate the spin magnon and valley magnon spectra by solving Bethe-Salpeter equations, and verify the stability of QAHF. We extract the spin stiffness from the gapless spin wave dispersion, and estimate the energy cost of a skyrmion-antiskyrmion pair, which is found to be comparable in energy with the Hartree-Fock gap. The valley wave mode is gapped, implying that the valley polarized state is more favorable compared to the valley coherent state. Using a nonlinear sigma model, we estimate the valley ordering temperature, which is considerably reduced from the mean-field transition temperature due to thermal excitations of valley waves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05417 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a)The + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Excitation spectrum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    2018

  2. [2]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Nature 556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Kerelsky, L

    A. Kerelsky, L. J. McGilly, D. M. Kennes, L. Xian, M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, C. Dean, A. Rubio, and A. N. Pasupathy, Na- ture 572, 95 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Y. Choi, J. Kemmer, Y. Peng, A. Thomson, H. Arora, R. Polski, Y. Zhang, H. Ren, J. Alicea, G. Refael, et al. , arXiv:1901.02997

    arXiv 1901

  5. [5]

    Y. Cao, D. Chowdhury, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies- Bigord` a, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Senthil, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, arXiv:1901.03710 ()

    arXiv 1901

  6. [6]

    Polshyn, M

    H. Polshyn, M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, Y. Zhang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, C. R. Dean, and A. F. Young, arXiv:1902.00763

    arXiv 1902

  7. [7]

    A. L. Sharpe, E. J. Fox, A. W. Barnard, J. Finney, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. A. Kastner, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Science 365, 605 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Serlin, C

    M. Serlin, C. Tschirhart, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Balents, and A. Young, arXiv:1907.00261

    arXiv 1907

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    G. Chen, A. L. Sharpe, E. J. Fox, Y.-H. Zhang, S. Wang, L. Jiang, B. Lyu, H. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, et al. , arXiv:1905.06535

    1905 arXiv

  2. [10]

    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)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Codecido, Q

    E. Codecido, Q. Wang, R. Koester, S. Che, H. Tian, R. Lv, S. Tran, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Zhang, et al. , arXiv:1902.05151

    1902 arXiv

  4. [12]

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

    1903 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. L. Tomarken, Y. Cao, A. Demir, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and R. C. Ashoori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 046601 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Y. Xie, B. Lian, B. J¨ ack, X. Liu, C.-L. Chiu, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Na- ture 572, 101 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Jiang, X

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

    2019

  8. [16]

    C. Shen, N. Li, S. Wang, Y. Zhao, J. Tang, J. Liu, J. Tian, Y. Chu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, et al. , arXiv:1903.06952

    1903 arXiv

  9. [17]

    X. Liu, Z. Hao, E. Khalaf, J. Y. Lee, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, and P. Kim, arXiv:1903.08130

    1903 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Y. Cao, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies-Bigord` a, J. M. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, arXiv:1903.08596 ()

    1903 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Xu and L

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

    2018

  12. [20]

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

    2018

  13. [21]

    Koshino, N

    M. Koshino, N. F. Q. Yuan, T. Koretsune, M. Ochi, K. Kuroki, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031087 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031088 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Liu, L.-D

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

    2018

  16. [24]

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

    2018

  17. [25]

    Isobe, N

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

    2018

  18. [26]

    You and A

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

    2019

  19. [27]

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

    2019

  20. [28]

    Rademaker and P

    L. Rademaker and P. Mellado, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235158 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Guinea and N

    F. Guinea and N. R. Walet, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 13174 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    ladder diagrams

    is about 22 K, which is larger than the experimental Curie temperature (∼9 K) [8]. We argue that this dis- crepancy is due to valley wave excitations, which limit the valley ordering temperature, as will be discussed in the following. The anomalous Hall conductivity σyx at ν =...

  23. [31]

    Su and S.-Z

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

    2018

  24. [32]

    Gonz´ alez and T

    J. Gonz´ alez and T. Stauber, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 026801 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Tarnopolsky, A

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

    2019

  26. [34]

    Ramires and J

    A. Ramires and J. L. Lado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 146801 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Z. Song, Z. Wang, W. Shi, G. Li, C. Fang, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 036401 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    J. Ahn, S. Park, and B.-J. Yang, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021013 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Sherkunov and J

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

    2018

  30. [38]

    Hejazi, C

    K. Hejazi, C. Liu, H. Shapourian, X. Chen, and L. Ba- lents, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035111 (2019). 6

    2019

  31. [39]

    K. Seo, V. N. Kotov, and B. Uchoa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 246402 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 246401 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    T. J. Peltonen, R. Ojaj¨ arvi, and T. T. Heikkil¨ a, Phys. Rev. B 98, 220504(R) (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Lin and R

    Y.-P. Lin and R. M. Nandkishore, arXiv:1901.00500

    1901 arXiv

  35. [43]

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

    2018

  36. [44]

    B. Lian, Z. Wang, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 257002 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

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

    2019

  38. [46]

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

    2018

  39. [47]

    Wu and S

    F. Wu and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 99, 220507(R) (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Wu, Phys

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

    2019

  41. [49]

    Zhang, D

    Y.-H. Zhang, D. Mao, Y. Cao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B 99, 075127 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Wu and S

    F. Wu and S. Das Sarma, arXiv:1906.07302

    1906 arXiv

  43. [51]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, I. Martin, and A. H. Mac- Donald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 086402 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    B. L. Chittari, G. Chen, Y. Zhang, F. Wang, and J. Jung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 016401 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Bultinck, S

    N. Bultinck, S. Chatterjee, and M. P. Zaletel, arXiv:1901.08110

    1901 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Xie and A

    M. Xie and A. H. MacDonald, arXiv:1812.04213

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. Liu, Z. Ma, J. Gao, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031021 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Zhang, D

    Y.-H. Zhang, D. Mao, and T. Senthil, arXiv:1901.08209 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    X.-C. Wu, A. Keselman, C.-M. Jian, K. A. Pawlak, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 100, 024421 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    J. Y. Lee, E. Khalaf, S. Liu, X. Liu, Z. Hao, P. Kim, and A. Vishwanath, arXiv:1903.08685

    1903 arXiv

  51. [59]

    F. Xie, Z. Song, B. Lian, and B. A. Bernevig, arXiv:1906.02213

    1906 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Hazra, N

    T. Hazra, N. Verma, and M. Randeria, arXiv:1811.12428

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    X. Hu, T. Hyart, D. I. Pikulin, and E. Rossi, arXiv:1906.07152

    1906 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Julku, T

    A. Julku, T. J. Peltonen, L. Liang, T. T. Heikkil¨ a, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, arXiv:1906.06313

    1906 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Chang, J

    C.-Z. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, K. Li, Y. Ou, P. Wei, L.-L. Wang, Z.-Q. Ji, Y. Feng, S. Ji, X. Chen, J. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, Y. Wang, L. Lu, X.-C. Ma, and Q.-K. Xue, Science 340, 167 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Liu and X

    J. Liu and X. Dai, arXiv:1907.08932

    1907 arXiv

  57. [65]

    K. Yang, S. Das Sarma, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 74, 075423 (2006)

    2006

  58. [66]

    K. Moon, H. Mori, K. Yang, S. M. Girvin, A. H. Mac- Donald, L. Zheng, D. Yoshioka, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 51, 5138 (1995)

    1995

  59. [67]

    Therefore, we conclude that the lowest charged excitation is determined by either ∆HF or ∆pair, depending on system details

    for details). Therefore, we conclude that the lowest charged excitation is determined by either ∆HF or ∆pair, depending on system details. Valley wave.— Besides spin magnon states, there are also valley magnon states with a single valley flip |Q⟩V = ∑ k zk,Qc† k+Q,+,↓ck,−,s|ν =...

  60. [68]

    Bistritzer and A

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

    2011

  61. [69]

    See Supplemental Material at URL for details of the TBG moir´ e Hamiltonian and an analysis of QAHF in TBG that is closely aligned to both the top and bottom encapsu- lating hBN layers

  62. [70]

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

    2013

  63. [71]

    Srivastava and A

    A. Srivastava and A. Imamo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 166802 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    S. M. Girvin, Topological aspects of low dimensional sys- tems(Springer, 1999),53–175

    1999

  65. [73]

    Chaikin and T

    P. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of Con- densed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000)

    2000

  66. [74]

    X. Li, F. Zhang, Q. Niu, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 116803 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    Y. Kato, I. Martin, and C. D. Batista, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 266405 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

    Repellin, Z

    C. Repellin, Z. Dong, Y.-H. Zhang, and T. Senthil, arXiv:1907.11723

    1907 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Alavirad and J

    Y. Alavirad and J. D. Sau, arXiv:1907.13633

    1907 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Chatterjee, N

    S. Chatterjee, N. Bultinck, and M. P. Zaletel, arXiv:1908.00986 . 7 Supplemental Material MOIR´E HAMILTONIAN In twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) with a small twist angle θ, the continuum moir´ e Hamiltonian [66] is given by Hτ = (hτb(k) Tτ(r) T† τ (r) hτt(k) ) , (S1) wherer andk...

    1908 arXiv

Pith tools

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