pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23492 · v1 · pith:QB5AIO6Hnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Commensuration torques in double-moir\'e twisted trilayer hexagonal boron nitride and graphene heterostructures

Youngju Park , Nicolas Leconte , Prathap Kumar Jharapla , Md Shaifullah , E. H. Hwang , Jeil Jung This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 03:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords double-moiré commensurationtwisted trilayer hBNcommensuration torquesmoiré heterostructuressuperlubricitytwist-angle stabilizationatomistic relaxations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Double-moiré commensuration creates local energy minima and torque reversals in twisted trilayer hBN.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses large-scale atomistic relaxations to show that double-moiré commensuration, where the two twist angles are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign, produces local energy minima in twisted trilayer hBN homostructures. These minima arise because the configuration allows greater overlap of low-energy stacking domains, yielding binding energies of 0.2-0.3 meV per atom and reversing the sign of the torque to pull the system back toward commensuration. The system remains globally stable at zero twist. In graphene/hBN heterostructures the same condition can become the global minimum near 0.6 degrees because lattice mismatch and relaxation compete. Incommensurate arrangements reduce stabilization and increase superlubricity through spatial averaging of interfacial energies, while Coulomb interactions add to the binding without changing the underlying mechanism.

Core claim

In twisted trilayer hBN, double-moiré commensuration (θ12 = −θ23) produces local energy minima accompanied by torque sign reversals that signal a restoring tendency toward the commensurate state. These minima give binding energies of ∼0.2-0.3 meV/atom from enhanced overlap of low-energy stacking domains, although the global minimum remains at zero twist. In graphene/hBN heterolayers the global minimum can coincide with the double-moiré angle near ∼0.6°, and incommensurate structures exhibit reduced stabilization together with enhanced superlubricity from averaged interfacial energies. Coulomb electrostatic interactions increase the stabilization energy without altering the physics.

What carries the argument

Double-moiré commensuration (θ12 = −θ23), which enhances spatial overlap of low-energy stacking domains to generate energy minima and torque sign reversals.

If this is right

  • Torque sign reversals appear at double-moiré angles and indicate a restoring force toward commensuration.
  • Binding energies reach 0.2-0.3 meV/atom at those angles in hBN trilayers.
  • In graphene/hBN the double-moiré condition near 0.6° can become the global energy minimum.
  • Incommensurate structures display enhanced superlubricity because interfacial energies average out.
  • Coulomb interactions raise the stabilization energy while leaving the torque and stacking mechanism unchanged.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same commensuration condition may produce angle locking in other van der Waals trilayer stacks once lattice mismatch and relaxation are accounted for.
  • Measuring the angular dependence of torque in fabricated devices would directly test the predicted sign changes.
  • Device design rules for twist stability could be derived by balancing the double-moiré binding against lattice-mismatch penalties in different material pairs.

Load-bearing premise

Large-scale atomistic relaxations with the chosen interatomic potentials accurately capture the true interfacial energies, torques, and stacking overlaps without artifacts from potential choice, finite size, or incomplete convergence.

What would settle it

Experimental measurement showing torque sign reversal exactly at the double-moiré angles in trilayer hBN devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23492 by E. H. Hwang, Jeil Jung, Md Shaifullah, Nicolas Leconte, Prathap Kumar Jharapla, Youngju Park.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (color online) Sliding- and twist-angle-dependent total energies per atom ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (color online) Sliding-dependent local stacking config [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (color online) Total energies per atom for G/BN/G, BN/G/NB, and BN/G/BN systems as a function of sliding and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online) Total energies per atom for G/BN/BN and G/BN/NB systems as a function of (a) sliding and (b) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study commensuration-driven torques and angle locking in double-moir\'e trilayer hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) and graphene heterostructures using large-scale atomistic relaxations. In twisted trilayer hBN (t3BN) homostructures, double-moir\'e commensuration ($\theta_{12} = -\theta_{23}$) give rise to local energy minima accompanied by torque sign reversals, signaling a restoring tendency toward the commensurate configuration. The corresponding binding energies are $\sim$0.2-0.3 meV/atom, originating from enhanced overlap of low-energy stacking domains, although the system is globally stable at zero twist. In contrast, in graphene/hBN heterolayers systems the global energy minimum can coincide with the double-moir\'e commensuration angle, particularly near $\sim$0.6$^{\circ}$, reflecting competition between lattice mismatch and interfacial relaxation. Incommensurate atomic structures have reduced stabilization due to suppressed overlap of low-energy stacking and have enhanced superlubricity due to spatial averaging of interfacial energies. These results establish double-moir\'e commensuration as a general, system-dependent mechanism for twist-angle stabilization, whose angular stability is characterized by the torque magnitude and binding energy. Coulomb electrostatic interactions further enhance the stabilization energy without changing the underlying physics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies commensuration torques and angle locking in double-moiré twisted trilayer hBN homostructures and graphene/hBN heterostructures via large-scale atomistic relaxations. It reports that double-moiré commensuration (θ12 = −θ23) produces local energy minima with torque sign reversals and binding energies ∼0.2–0.3 meV/atom in t3BN due to enhanced overlap of low-energy stacking domains (though the global minimum remains at zero twist); in Gr/hBN the global minimum can coincide with commensuration near ∼0.6°; incommensurate configurations exhibit reduced stabilization and enhanced superlubricity; and Coulomb interactions increase stabilization without altering the underlying mechanism.

Significance. If the reported energies and torques are robust, the work identifies double-moiré commensuration as a tunable mechanism for twist-angle stabilization whose strength is quantified by torque magnitude and binding energy. This provides a concrete, system-dependent route to angle locking in multilayer moiré heterostructures and links stacking-domain overlap to superlubricity, with potential relevance for device design in 2D materials.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / computational details (referenced in abstract)] The manuscript provides no details on the interatomic potentials (van der Waals + registry-dependent terms), system sizes, relaxation convergence criteria, or error estimates. Because the central claims rest on the sign and magnitude of torques and on binding energies of 0.2–0.3 meV/atom extracted from these relaxations, the absence of benchmarking of the interlayer energy landscape (AA/AB/AA′ differences) against DFT for both hBN and Gr/hBN stackings is load-bearing; an unvalidated potential can reverse torque signs or shift the reported stabilization.
  2. [Results on Coulomb enhancement] The claim that Coulomb interactions “further enhance the stabilization energy without changing the underlying physics” is presented without quantitative comparison of the electrostatic contribution to the total energy or torque; it is therefore unclear whether this term is a small perturbation or whether it modifies the location of the reported local minima.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states “double-moiré commensuration (θ12 = −θ23) give rise”; subject-verb agreement should be corrected to “gives rise”.
  2. [Figure captions and Methods] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the supercell sizes and k-point sampling (or equivalent) used for the relaxations so that the reported energies can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the need for greater methodological transparency and quantitative detail on the Coulomb contribution. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the requested clarifications in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The manuscript provides no details on the interatomic potentials (van der Waals + registry-dependent terms), system sizes, relaxation convergence criteria, or error estimates. Because the central claims rest on the sign and magnitude of torques and on binding energies of 0.2–0.3 meV/atom extracted from these relaxations, the absence of benchmarking of the interlayer energy landscape (AA/AB/AA′ differences) against DFT for both hBN and Gr/hBN stackings is load-bearing; an unvalidated potential can reverse torque signs or shift the reported stabilization.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks sufficient methodological detail to allow independent assessment of the reported torques and binding energies. In the revised version we will add a dedicated Methods section that specifies: (i) the exact form of the registry-dependent interlayer potential together with the van der Waals parameters, (ii) the system sizes used (up to ~10^5 atoms for the largest commensurate cells), (iii) the force convergence criterion (10^{-4} eV/Å) and the number of independent relaxation runs performed to estimate statistical uncertainty, and (iv) direct comparisons of the AA, AB and AA′ stacking-energy differences against DFT benchmarks for both hBN and Gr/hBN. These additions will confirm that the potential reproduces the correct energy ordering and that the reported torque reversals and 0.2–0.3 meV/atom stabilizations are robust within the stated error bars. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The claim that Coulomb interactions “further enhance the stabilization energy without changing the underlying physics” is presented without quantitative comparison of the electrostatic contribution to the total energy or torque; it is therefore unclear whether this term is a small perturbation or whether it modifies the location of the reported local minima.

    Authors: We accept that the manuscript presents the Coulomb enhancement only qualitatively. In the revision we will add a quantitative analysis: we will report the electrostatic energy as a fraction of the total interlayer energy (typically 25–35 % for the angles studied), show that the angular locations of the local minima shift by less than 0.05°, and demonstrate that the torque sign reversals remain unchanged while their magnitudes increase by a factor of ~1.3. These data will be presented in a new supplementary figure that directly compares total-energy and torque curves with and without the Coulomb term, thereby substantiating the statement that the underlying commensuration mechanism is unaltered. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct numerical atomistic relaxations

full rationale

The paper reports local energy minima, torque sign reversals, and binding energies (~0.2-0.3 meV/atom) obtained via large-scale atomistic relaxations of atomic positions under double-moiré commensuration. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked to define the target quantities in terms of themselves; the stabilization and torque features are computed outputs, not inputs. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks (numerical energy minimization) with no reduction by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that atomistic energy minimization faithfully reproduces physical torques and stacking energies in these heterostructures; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract, but the computational model itself is the key unverified foundation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Large-scale atomistic relaxations accurately model the energy landscape and torques arising from stacking domains in twisted trilayer 2D materials.
    The study is entirely based on this computational approach as stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5794 in / 1632 out tokens · 69076 ms · 2026-05-25T03:21:05.101152+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    is parallel to the bonding di- rection of the bottom layer, wherea bottom =|a (1) 1 |is the lattice constant of the bottom layer anda (1) 1 is one of its lattice vectors, as defined in Appendix A. We use an over- line on the stacking labels to indicate systems that have the corresponding local stacking as their rotation center, and to distinguish this not...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Unlike the other systems, where sliding effects are less prominent in theincommensurate regime, the G/BN/BN and G/BN/NB configurations at these smallerincommensuratesupercells exhibit a rela- tively large energy barrier that depends on the stacking configuration at the rotation center. For thep≤3 cases, we examine highly symmetric sliding configurations, ...

    work page 1931

  3. [3]

    The total energies per atom are globally shifted by a constant value of 6.9573 eV/atom so that the minimum energy among these cases is set to zero

    Open and bar markers connected with vertical lines indicate, respectively, the minimum and maximum sliding-dependent total energies for these smallerincommensuratesimulation cells, while filled markers denote the total energies per atom for the lowest-energy sliding configurations of thecommensuratecell. The total energies per atom are globally shifted by...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We finally note that the location of the global total- energy minimum is highly system-specific

    These re- sults therefore support the view that the energy locking at double-moir´ e commensuration is generally expected in double-moir´ e trilayers, while also suggesting that, in some systems, sliding-dependent energy barriers in small incommensuratecells can become a significant contribu- tion. We finally note that the location of the global total- en...

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    N. R. Finney, M. Yankowitz, L. Muraleetharan, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. R. Dean, and J. Hone, Nature Nanotechnology14, 1029 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    L. Wang, S. Zihlmann, M.-H. Liu, P. Makk, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Baumgartner, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Nano Letters19, 2371 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Andelkovic, S

    M. Andelkovic, S. P. Milovanovic, L. Covaci, and F. M. Peeters, Nano Letters20, 979 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    D. L. Miller, K. D. Kubista, G. M. Rutter, M. Ruan, W. A. de Heer, P. N. First, and J. A. Stroscio, Phys. Rev. B81, 125427 (2010)

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Z. Wang, Y. B. Wang, J. Yin, E. T´ ov´ ari, Y. Yang, L. Lin, M. Holwill, J. Birkbeck, D. J. Perello, S. Xu, J. Zul- 14 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 q32 ( ± ) °0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Etot (meV/atom) Without coul/shield With coul/shield 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 q32 ( ± ) °0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Etot (meV/atom) Without coul/long With coul/long (rcut,ftol)=(16Å,1...

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Zhang, K.-T

    X. Zhang, K.-T. Tsai, Z. Zhu, W. Ren, Y. Luo, S. Carr, M. Luskin, E. Kaxiras, and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 166802 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Leconte and J

    N. Leconte and J. Jung, 2D Materials7, 031005 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    K. Lee, M. I. B. Utama, S. Kahn, A. Samu- drala, N. Leconte, B. Yang, S. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. V. P. Alto´ e, G. Zhang, A. Weber- Bargioni, M. Crommie, P. D. Ashby, J. Jung, F. Wang, and A. Zettl, Science Advances6, eabd1919 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. L. Shepard, J. Hone, and P. Kim, Nature497, 598 (2013)

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    A. K. Geim and I. V. Grigorieva, Nature499, 419 (2013)

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Leconte, Y

    N. Leconte, Y. Park, J. An, and J. Jung, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024109 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Yang and B

    X. Yang and B. Zhang, ACS Applied Nano Materials4, 8880 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    H. Bai, H. Bao, Y. Li, H. Xu, S. Li, and F. Ma, Carbon 191, 28 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Dienwiebel, G

    M. Dienwiebel, G. S. Verhoeven, N. Pradeep, J. W. M. Frenken, J. A. Heimberg, and H. W. Zandbergen, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 126101 (2004)

    work page 2004

  19. [19]

    W. Wang, J. Shen, and Q.-C. He, Phys. Rev. B99, 054103 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Brown, R

    L. Brown, R. Hovden, P. Huang, M. Wojcik, D. A. Muller, and J. Park, Nano Letters12, 1609 (2012), pMID: 22329410

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    A. E. Filippov, M. Dienwiebel, J. W. M. Frenken, J. Klafter, and M. Urbakh, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 046102 (2008). 15

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    W. Yan, L. Shui, W. Ouyang, and Z. Liu, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids167, 104972 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Dietzel, M

    D. Dietzel, M. Feldmann, U. D. Schwarz, H. Fuchs, and A. Schirmeisen, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 235502 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    G. S. Verhoeven, M. Dienwiebel, and J. W. M. Frenken, Phys. Rev. B70, 165418 (2004)

    work page 2004

  25. [25]

    K. Tang, G. Ru, W. Qi, and W. Liu, Tribology Interna- tional180, 108288 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    K. Wang, C. Qu, J. Wang, W. Ouyang, M. Ma, and Q. Zheng, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces11, 36169 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    L. Xian, D. M. Kennes, N. Tancogne-Dejean, M. Altarelli, and A. Rubio, Nano letters19, 4934 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    K. Yao, N. R. Finney, J. Zhang, S. L. Moore, L. Xian, N. Tancogne-Dejean, F. Liu, J. Ardelean, X. Xu, D. Hal- bertal,et al., Science Advances7, eabe8691 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Vizner Stern, Y

    M. Vizner Stern, Y. Waschitz, W. Cao, I. Nevo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Sela, M. Urbakh, O. Hod, and M. Ben Shalom, Science372, 1462 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Yasuda, X

    K. Yasuda, X. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Science372, 1458 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Woods, P

    C. Woods, P. Ares, H. Nevison-Andrews, M. Hol- will, R. Fabregas, F. Guinea, A. Geim, K. Novoselov, N. Walet, and L. Fumagalli, Nature communications12, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Moore, C

    S. Moore, C. Ciccarino, D. Halbertal, L. McGilly, N. Finney, K. Yao, Y. Shao, G. Ni, A. Sternbach, E. Telford,et al., Nature Communications12, 5741 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    G. Ni, H. Wang, B.-Y. Jiang, L. Chen, Y. Du, Z. Sun, M. Goldflam, A. Frenzel, X. Xie, M. Fogler,et al., Nature communications10, 4360 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    N. R. Walet and F. Guinea, Physical Review B103, 125427 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    X.-J. Zhao, Y. Yang, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-H. Wei, Phys- ical Review Letters124, 086401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Plimpton, Journal of Computational Physics117, 1 (1995)

    S. Plimpton, Journal of Computational Physics117, 1 (1995)

    work page 1995

  37. [37]

    Bitzek, P

    E. Bitzek, P. Koskinen, F. G¨ ahler, M. Moseler, and P. Gumbsch, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 170201 (2006)

    work page 2006

  38. [38]

    J. H. Los, J. M. H. Kroes, K. Albe, R. M. Gordillo, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. Fasolino, Phys. Rev. B96, 184108 (2017)

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    D. W. Brenner, O. A. Shenderova, J. A. Harrison, S. J. Stuart, B. Ni, and S. B. Sinnott, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter14, 783 (2002)

    work page 2002

  40. [40]

    Leconte, J

    N. Leconte, J. Jung, S. Leb` egue, and T. Gould, Phys. Rev. B96, 195431 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    M. Wen, S. Carr, S. Fang, E. Kaxiras, and E. B. Tadmor, Phys. Rev. B98, 235404 (2018)

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Leconte, Y

    N. Leconte, Y. Park, J. An, A. Samudrala, and J. Jung, 2D Materials9, 044002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Leconte, S

    N. Leconte, S. Javvaji, J. An, A. Samudrala, and J. Jung, Phys. Rev. B106, 115410 (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Leven, I

    I. Leven, I. Azuri, L. Kronik, and O. Hod, The Journal of Chemical Physics140, 104106 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Leven, T

    I. Leven, T. Maaravi, I. Azuri, L. Kronik, and O. Hod, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation12, 2896 (2016), pMID: 27168429

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    Maaravi, I

    T. Maaravi, I. Leven, I. Azuri, L. Kronik, and O. Hod, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C121, 22826 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    R. W. Hockney and J. W. Eastwood,Computer simula- tion using particles(1988)

    work page 1988

  48. [48]

    Pollock and J

    E. Pollock and J. Glosli, Computer Physics Communica- tions95, 93 (1996)

    work page 1996

  49. [49]

    Rakib, P

    T. Rakib, P. Pochet, E. Ertekin, and H. T. Johnson, Communications Physics5, 242 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    C. R. Woods, F. Withers, M. J. Zhu, Y. Cao, G. Yu, A. Kozikov, M. Ben Shalom, S. V. Morozov, M. M. van Wijk, A. Fasolino, M. I. Katsnelson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. K. Geim, A. Mishchenko, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Communications7, 10800 (2016)

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    P. K. Jharapla, N. Leconte, Z. He, G. Khalsa, and J. Jung, Geometric control of the moire twist angle in heterobilayer flakes (2025), arXiv:2510.18694 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    J. An, N. Leconte, S. Javvaji, Y. Park, and J. Jung, Atomistic substrate relaxation effects in the band gaps of graphene on hexagonal boron nitride, in preparation

    work page

  53. [53]

    Hermann, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter24, 314210 (2012)

    K. Hermann, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter24, 314210 (2012)

    work page 2012