{"id":"26d6710a-7bdc-4e51-86d9-5de54dff72ff","arxiv_id":"1908.01208","paper_version":1,"verdict":"REJECT","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":4.0,"correctness_risk":"high","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":2,"one_line_summary":"Using a fitted universal constant from earlier work, the authors calculate twisted-bilayer-graphene transition temperatures of 1.94 K and 3.02 K and claim agreement with mean-field fits to published resistance data.","lead":"The paper applies the authors' previously published Coulomb-coupling model to twisted bilayer graphene, calculating optimal superconducting transition temperatures of 1.94 K and 3.02 K for two devices. A generalist might read it because it claims these calculations match measured values and thereby extend a single empirical scaling law from cuprates down to a two-dimensional graphene system.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The M2 comparison is not a valid test: the paper extracts TCmf = 1.83 K with uniform-film AL/HN formulas while itself concluding M2 is a weak-link/Josephson array, so the claimed agreement rests on a model-dependent 'experimental' value.","rationale":"The reader's weakest assumption is the universality of Lambda from the 51-compound fit. That is a legitimate concern, but the present stress test identifies a more direct, internally flagged problem: the experimental benchmark for M2 is produced by a uniform-film fluctuation model even though the authors themselves conclude M2 behaves like a Josephson junction array. The resistance data alone do not uniquely determine TCmf; the value 1.83(5) K is contingent on the model choice. Since the paper's central numerical claim is the 'remarkable agreement' between Eq. (2) and these fitted TCmf values, this model inconsistency undermines the validation for one of the two devices. The D2 analysis is less vulnerable, but the paper claims validation from both devices and from extending the 51-compound dataset to 53. Because the concern reinforces the reader's rejection rather than overturning it, the verdict remains unchanged.","tokens_in":20908,"tokens_out":8591,"duration_ms":92928,"concrete_test":"Refit the M2 Rxx(T) data of Fig. 1(a) using a Josephson-junction-array BKT resistance model (for example, the Halperin-Nelson form with the junction coupling energy J = hbar*Ic/2e, or an Ambegaokar-Halperin phase-diffusion form) instead of the uniform-film Eqs. (3)-(6). If the resulting mean-field transition temperature or the fitted T' shifts by more than about 0.1 K, or if an equally good fit requires a different TC, then TCmf = 1.83 K is not a stable experimental reference and the claimed 6% agreement for M2 disappears. Report the chi-square of the alternative fit to show whether the uniform-film TCmf is uniquely determined by the resistance data.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central validation is the agreement between Eq. (2) and the fluctuation-derived TCmf values. For device M2, the paper itself supplies a reason this comparison is unsafe. In §3.1.3 it reports tau_c = 0.91 ± 0.11 for M2, which it says is 'larger than that usually found for vortex-pair unbinding transitions in thin superconductor films' and 'more typical for weak-link arrays'; §4.2 then concludes that 'junction array behavior at optimal doping appears plausible' and even estimates a Josephson critical current Ic ≈ 46 nA. Yet the TCmf = 1.83(5) K used as the 'experimental' benchmark in §4.4 is extracted from Eqs. (3)-(6), which are the uniform thin-film Aslamasov-Larkin and Halperin-Nelson formulas. If M2 is a weak-link array, those uniform-film formulas do not give the device's mean-field transition temperature; the fitted value 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). Device D2 is less affected, but the paper's claimed validation rests on both devices. This is a more immediate weakness than the universality of Lambda: even with Lambda fixed, the comparison standard for M2 is inconsistent with the paper's own characterization.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","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.","tokens_in":21158,"tokens_out":5580,"duration_ms":60421,"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":[{"comment":"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.","section":"§3.1.3, §4.2, Table 2"},{"comment":"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.","section":"§4.4, Fig. 2"},{"comment":"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.","section":"Table 1, §3.2.1–§3.2.3"},{"comment":"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.","section":"§4.4, Eqs. (3)-(6), Table 2"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"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.","section":"§3.1.1"},{"comment":"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).","section":"§3.2.1"},{"comment":"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.","section":"§3.2.3"},{"comment":"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).","section":"Figure 1"},{"comment":"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.","section":"General"}],"recommendation":"reject","confidential_remarks":"The manuscript continues the authors' long-running empirical program on the Λ scaling relation (refs. 49–56), and the citation pattern is heavily self-referential. That alone is not disqualifying, but it amplifies the circularity concern: the 'universal' constant Λ and the fluctuation-derived TCmf values both originate from the same research program. The M2 inconsistency between the uniform-film fit and the weak-link-array interpretation is a decisive technical flaw in the current form, and the remaining single-device comparison (D2) is too narrow to support the paper's broad 'validation' claim. I would not object to reconsidering a substantially revised version that treats the two TBG devices as a postdiction with an explicit sensitivity analysis and an independently defined experimental TC."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"The short version: this paper takes the authors' earlier empirical Coulomb-pairing formula, plugs in two TBG devices, and reports 6% agreement with transition temperatures derived from the resistance data. The arithmetic is fine, but the validation is not independent, and for one of the two devices the comparison is internally inconsistent with the paper's own characterization.\n\nWhat's actually new: this is the first application of Eq. (1) to twisted bilayer graphene, and the fluctuation analysis of the published resistance curves is a new fit. The extracted TBKT values are reasonable and consistent with earlier estimates (1.0 K from I-V for M2, 2.2 K for D2). The paper is also transparent about its uncertainties, and the discussion of uniform-film versus Josephson-array behavior is worth reading.\n\nThe soft spots are serious. First, the circularity: the \"experimental\" TCmf values come from fitting the same resistance data with a multi-parameter AL/HN model, the input densities nopt and n0 are read off the same phase diagrams, and the constant lambda comes from the authors' own 51-compound fit. So the claimed agreement is not a test of Eq. (1) against independent experiment; it is a consistency check within one framework. Second, the stress-test concern lands. For M2 the paper reports tau_c = 0.91, says this is \"more typical for weak-link arrays,\" and later concludes that junction-array behavior is plausible—yet the TCmf = 1.83 K used as the benchmark is extracted from uniform-film AL/HN formulas. The paper cannot have it both ways. If M2 is a weak-link array, those formulas do not cleanly give the mean-field transition temperature; the fit can absorb the array coupling scale. D2 is less affected, but the paper's central validation rests on both devices.\n\nMinor point: calling 2-3 K \"high-TC\" is an overstatement, even if the intended analogy is to unconventional pairing mechanisms.\n\nWho is this for? Readers interested in empirical scaling relations across exotic superconductors, and maybe TBG experimentalists who want the BKT analysis of the existing data. But the paper should not be cited as evidence for Coulomb-mediated pairing in TBG.\n\nI would not desk-reject it. The circularity point needs a careful referee to write out, and the fluctuation fits might be usable even if the interpretation is not. My recommendation: send it to peer review with a clear request that the referee focus on whether the comparison is independent, and on the M2 weak-link inconsistency. My own verdict, if asked, is reject: the load-bearing validation is postdiction, not prediction.","headline":"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.","tokens_in":21732,"tokens_out":2538,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":27336,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"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…","keywords":["twisted bilayer graphene","magic-angle superconductivity","Moiré superlattice","interlayer Coulomb pairing","transition temperature","Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless","Aslamasov-Larkin fluctuations","superconducting dome"],"falsifier":"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.","tokens_in":20630,"feed_emoji":"❄️","tokens_out":16250,"duration_ms":135269,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"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.","feed_headline":"Coulomb coupling between graphene layers sets its critical temperature","feed_subtitle":"A single formula predicts the ~2 K and ~3 K transition temperatures measured in two twisted-bilayer-graphene devices.","key_machinery":"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.","core_discovery":"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.","pith_inferences":["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."],"forward_implications":["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 $T_{\\mathrm{C0}}$."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies device M2's resistance data, phase diagram, and the values of $n_{\\mathrm{opt}}$ and $n_0$ used in the calculation.","marker":"[1]"},{"why":"Supplies device D2's resistance under 1.33 GPa and its $n_{\\mathrm{opt}}$ and $n_0$ values.","marker":"[2]"},{"why":"One of the four relaxed-structure calculations averaged to set $\\zeta=3.50(1)$ Å for device M2.","marker":"[7]"},{"why":"Defines the interlayer Coulomb pairing model, the sharing factor $\\gamma=1/2$, and the length constant $\\Lambda$.","marker":"[49]"},{"why":"Extends the model to H3S with identical coexisting reservoir layers, the analogue used for the two graphene sheets.","marker":"[50]"},{"why":"Gives the Aslamasov-Larkin fluctuation conductivity used to extract $T_\\mathrm{C}^{\\mathrm{mf}}$ from resistance data.","marker":"[57]"},{"why":"Gives the Halperin-Nelson vortex-pair resistance interpolation used to extract $T_\\mathrm{BKT}$ and model the low-temperature tail.","marker":"[61]"},{"why":"Another theoretical interlayer-separation value entering the $\\zeta$ average for device M2.","marker":"[67]"},{"why":"A third theoretical interlayer-separation value entering the $\\zeta$ average for device M2.","marker":"[69]"},{"why":"Calculation of uniaxial compressive strain at 1.33 GPa used to set $\\zeta=3.42(1)$ Å for device D2.","marker":"[70]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Interlayer Coulomb coupling sets Tc in twisted bilayer graphene","Coulomb coupling between layers dictates graphene's Tc","Twisted graphene's Tc traced to interlayer Coulomb interaction","Interlayer Coulomb formula predicts twisted graphene's Tc"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"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.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Interlayer Coulomb coupling sets Tc in twisted bilayer graphene","Coulomb coupling between layers dictates graphene's Tc","Twisted graphene's Tc traced to interlayer Coulomb interaction","Interlayer Coulomb formula predicts twisted graphene's Tc"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.001419,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":5972,"prompt_tokens":1434,"completion_tokens":4538,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":1050,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":4476}},"tokens_in":1050,"tokens_out":4538,"duration_ms":31328,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":4476,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-14T15:20:02.986338+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"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.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"R., Fiory A","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Defines the interlayer Coulomb pairing model, the sharing factor $\\gamma=1/2$, and the length constant $\\Lambda$."},{"cited_title":"/uni2113 = ( A/σ ) 1/2 = 2.883 Å,","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Extends the model to H3S with identical coexisting reservoir layers, the analogue used for the two graphene sheets."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Gives the Aslamasov-Larkin fluctuation conductivity used to extract $T_\\mathrm{C}^{\\mathrm{mf}}$ from resistance data."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Gives the Halperin-Nelson vortex-pair resistance interpolation used to extract $T_\\mathrm{BKT}$ and model the low-temperature tail."},{"cited_title":"and Yazyev O","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Another theoretical interlayer-separation value entering the $\\zeta$ average for device M2."},{"cited_title":"K., Juri čić V","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"A third theoretical interlayer-separation value entering the $\\zeta$ average for device M2."},{"cited_title":"and Kaxiras E","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Calculation of uniaxial compressive strain at 1.33 GPa used to set $\\zeta=3.42(1)$ Å for device D2."}],"review_version":1}