Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Influence of the Dirac Sea on Phase Transitions in Monolayer Graphene under Strong Magnetic Fields

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ground states at charge neutrality and at filling ±1 in monolayer graphene switch between magnetic and Kekulé-distorted order as dielectric screening and magnetic field change.

desk verdict A credible non-perturbative RG+HF phase diagram for graphene QH states, with the Dirac sea doing real work, but the load-bearing isotropic-fluid ansatz (Eq. 71) needs independent confirmation before trusting the quantitative phase boundaries. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16986 v1 pith:GD7BWYPN submitted 2024-11-25 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

Guopeng Xu , Chunli Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords monolayergraphenequantumHallferromagnetismKekulédistortionDiracseaLandaulevelmixingmagneticanisotropicenergyself-consistentHartree-Fockrenormalizationgroup
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

The paper tries to explain why scanning tunneling experiments see Kekulé-distorted (bond-ordered) states in graphene under strong magnetic fields while transport experiments on more screened devices see antiferromagnetic order. It claims the deciding physics is the Dirac sea: the filled negative-energy Landau levels renormalize the valley-sublattice interactions and, through first-order exchange, supply a substantial part of the small magnetic anisotropic energy when the dielectric constant is small. The authors combine renormalization group flow from the carbon-lattice scale down to the magnetic length with self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculations over many Landau levels, and obtain phase diagrams in which the $\nu=0$ ground state changes from a canted antiferromagnet to a spin-singlet Kekulé-distorted state, and the $\nu=\pm1$ ground state changes from a spin-polarized charge-density wave to a spin-polarized Kekulé state, as screening and field strength decrease.

What carries the argument

The central object is the self-consistent Hartree-Fock density matrix of an "isotropic Dirac fluid" in a magnetic field, which the paper argues is diagonal in the Landau level index: $\rho^{vv',ss'}_{n\xi,n'\xi'}=0$ for $n\neq n'$. That block structure allows the density matrix to be decomposed as $\rho=\hat{\rho}_0\oplus\rho_{\mathrm{DS}}$, with the zeroth Landau level a $4\times4$ spin-valley matrix and the Dirac sea a direct sum of $8\times8$ matrices parameterized by angles $\theta_n$ that describe particle-hole mixing within each Landau level. Because the short-range self-energy is independent of $n$ while the Coulomb self-energy decays with $n$, the magnetic anisotropic energy separates into a zeroth-Landau-level piece and a Dirac-sea piece, and the two can be compared directly. The other half of the machinery is the two-step procedure: RG flow of the Fermi velocity and of the four short-range couplings $g_{zz},g_{\perp z},g_{z\perp},g_{\perp\perp}$ from lattice scale to magnetic length, then nonperturbative Hartree-Fock with dozens of Landau levels.

What would settle it

In an open-surface graphene sample with weak dielectric screening, image the ν=0 quantum Hall state at a field where the paper's phase diagram predicts the Kekulé-distorted phase: observing the honeycomb pattern of the canted antiferromagnet rather than the threefold bond-ordered Kekulé pattern would contradict the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is a quantitative $(\kappa_0,B)$ phase diagram—where $\kappa_0$ is graphene's fine-structure constant, inversely tied to the dielectric screening $\epsilon_r$—showing a first-order transition from AF/CAF to KD order at $\nu=0$ and from spin-polarized CDW to spin-polarized KD at $\nu=\pm1$ as $\kappa_0$ grows and $B$ falls. The mechanism is not a single-particle Zeeman or substrate effect. The renormalization group makes the inter-valley, sublattice-flipping coupling $g_{\perp z}$ increasingly attractive, favoring the Kekulé state, while Landau-level mixing with the Dirac sea changes the Hartree and Fock potentials so that their zeroth-Landau-level cancellation at $\nu=\pm1$ is lifted. The paper reports that once $\kappa_0$ exceeds roughly 0.8, the Dirac sea contributes more to the magnetic anisotropic energy than the zeroth Landau level, so the effect is nonperturbative in character.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the quantum Hall ground state is an isotropic Dirac fluid whose density matrix is block-diagonal in the Landau level index, so particle and hole states mix only within the same index; if the true state mixes different Landau level indices, the phase boundaries and the Dirac sea energy contributions would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Open-surface STM devices should predominantly show KD order at low magnetic field, while double-encapsulated devices should remain canted-antiferromagnetic, reconciling the two experimental observations within one parameter set.
  • At $\nu=\pm1$, the ground state should be a spin-polarized charge-density wave over most of the screened phase diagram, with a switch to spin-polarized KD only when screening is weak and the field is small.
  • Quantitative ground-state predictions that project only onto the zeroth Landau level are missing a comparable part of the magnetic anisotropic energy at small dielectric screening.
  • The KD phase should appear in STM as a threefold bond-density pattern, with valley phase $\phi$ distinguishing the Kekulé-O from the symmetry-broken Kekulé variant.
  • The transition between the ordered states is first order, although the authors mark that conclusion as tentative because momentum dependence of the vertex function is neglected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an extension, the same two-step scheme should give concrete phase boundaries for bilayer graphene in the $\nu=5/2$ regime, where the Dirac sea has also been invoked; a test would be whether the predicted boundaries shift with dielectric screening.
  • The isotropic-fluid Ansatz is the point where the theory has a natural failure mode: if interactions are strong enough for a nematic state with mixing between different Landau-level indices, Eq. (71) and the whole $\rho_0 \oplus \rho_{\mathrm{DS}}$ energy decomposition would need revision.
  • A reader could also test the screening dependence directly: the paper's central parameter is the dielectric constant of the environment, so varying the encapsulation material should move the critical field at which KD order appears in the same sample.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a two-step microscopic theory of the ν=0 and ν=±1 quantum Hall states in monolayer graphene. The authors first run a renormalization group from the carbon lattice scale to the magnetic length to obtain renormalized Fermi velocity and short-range valley-sublattice couplings, using bare values from a previous LCAO calculation and literature electron-phonon estimates. They then feed these couplings into self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculations with up to 50 Landau levels. The central results are: (i) at ν=0, a transition from canted antiferromagnetic to Kekulé-distorted (and sublattice-polarized) states as the fine-structure constant grows or the magnetic field falls, in qualitative agreement with the experimental screening dependence; (ii) at ν=±1, a transition from spin-polarized charge-density wave to spin-polarized KD; and (iii) a decomposition of the magnetic anisotropic energy into zero-Landau-level and Dirac-sea parts, with the latter dominant at large κ0. The paper emphasizes that these transitions arise without fine-tuning parameters to the target experiments.

Significance. If correct, the results provide a parameter-free-from-fitting explanation for why STM sees KD order in open-surface devices while transport sees AF order in encapsulated devices, and they make concrete predictions for ν=±1 and for Landau-level coherence visible in STM. The paper should be credited for giving explicit formula-level derivations (self-energies in Appendix C), a convergence check in NLL (Appendix B), and candid statements of the limitations of the RG and of the isotropic-fluid assumption. The main caveat is that the Dirac-sea attribution is built on an assumption whose validity is least tested exactly in the strong-coupling region where that attribution matters.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.A, Eq. (71)] The 'isotropic Dirac fluid' ansatz is load-bearing. The decomposition ρ = ρ0 ⊕ ρDS (Eq. 72), the energy splitting ϵ = ϵ0 + ϵDS (Eq. 89), and the central Fig. 10 all require the converged density matrix to be diagonal in the Landau-level index. The authors note in the same section that for very strong interactions the isotropic fluid may become nematic, in which case Eq. (71) would fail. The parameter region where the Dirac sea dominates (κ0 ≳ 0.8 at B=10 T in Fig. 10) and where KD is stabilized (bottom right of Figs. 1 and 2) is precisely that strong-coupling regime. The numerical search is restricted to translation-invariant states and, as described, does not attempt states with off-diagonal Landau-level-index coherence; random seeds within the restricted subspace do not test Eq. (71). I request a stability check against nematic LL-index mixing, or a clear statement that the predicted KD region and the Dirac-sea decomposition are conditional on this untested assumption.
  2. [Section IV.B, Appendix B, Eq. (89), Fig. 10] The central claim that the Dirac sea dominates the magnetic anisotropic energy at large κ0 rests on separately converged values of ϵ0 and ϵDS, but Appendix B verifies convergence only of the total energy difference between AF and KD. Since the two components are individually divergent before background subtraction (Appendix C) and are regulated by the Landau-level cutoff, the relative weight of ϵDS in Fig. 10 should be shown to be stable as NLL grows. Please provide the NLL dependence of the separate zero-Landau-level and Dirac-sea energy differences.
  3. [Section II and Section III.B] The phase diagrams in Figs. 1 and 2 label the transitions as first-order, yet the RG vertex calculation neglects momentum-dependent vertices, and the authors state in Section II that these neglected terms 'could potentially alter the nature of the transitions from first to second order.' If the first-order label is part of the paper's claims, it is not supported; otherwise the figures should be relabeled or the text should explicitly state that the order of the transition is not determined by the present calculation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV.A] The text says 'anisotropic relativistic fluid' when describing the converged solution that satisfies Eq. (71); this should presumably read 'isotropic relativistic fluid'. In addition, Eq. (71) is described as 'diagonal with respect to the Landau level index', but it allows particle-hole mixing with the same index; 'block-diagonal in n' would be clearer.
  2. [Before Fig. 2] The line 'Next thing to do' followed by two bullet items appears to be an editing remnant and should be removed from the published text.
  3. [Abstract and throughout] There are several grammatical slips, including 'we predict a transitions', 'the Zeorth Landau level', and 'groudnstates'; a careful proofread is needed.
  4. [Eq. (6)] The condition excluding the (0,0) term is written as 'exclude u = v = 0', which is ambiguous; it should be written as '(u,v) ≠ (0,0)' or equivalent.
  5. [Fig. 10] The caption calls the quantity an 'absolute energy difference' while the text refers to 'energy difference per particle'; please unify the terminology and specify the units.
  6. [Abstract] The statement that the Dirac sea 'contributes to one electron per graphene unit cell' is not defined or elaborated in the main text; please clarify what this statement means.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase diagrams and Dirac-sea energy decomposition are computed from independent microscopic RG/HF inputs, not fitted to the target experimental transitions.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain from bare coupling constants through RG flow to self-consistent Hartree-Fock and found no step in which a 'prediction' reduces by construction to an input. The bare coupling constants in Table I are taken from the authors' earlier LCAO calculation (Ref. [27]) and from literature electron-phonon values; they are not fitted to the experimental AF/KD phase boundary, and the paper explicitly notes that the bare values are too small to explain experiments, so the later RG enhancement is doing real work rather than returning a fitted input. The RG flow equations are standard one-loop equations (Aleiner-Kharzeev-Tsvelik) integrated from the lattice scale to the magnetic length, with the magnetic field entering through the stopping scale, not through an adjusted parameter. The Hartree-Fock calculation then uses these renormalized couplings as inputs and compares energies of competing symmetry-broken states; the phase boundaries in Figs. 1 and 2 emerge from energy crossings, and the comparison with experiments is post hoc rather than used to tune parameters. The Dirac-sea energy decomposition in Eq. (89) is an exact arithmetic identity given the block-diagonal density-matrix structure of Eq. (71), and the statement that the Dirac sea dominates the magnetic anisotropic energy at large κ0 is a computed result (Fig. 10), not a definition of the phase transition. The isotropic-Dirac-fluid restriction, Eq. (71), is an acknowledged limitation (Section IV.A) that could affect quantitative phase boundaries if a nematic state were lower in energy, but that is a validity caveat, not circular reasoning. The self-citation to Ref. [27] is load-bearing as input, but it is an independent microscopic estimate that does not itself contain the target phase diagram, so it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on a specific effective Hamiltonian (Coulomb plus four short-range couplings), one-loop RPA-RG flow, and a self-consistent Hartree-Fock treatment with an isotropic, translation-invariant density matrix. No experimental data from the target phase diagrams are used to set the input constants; those constants come from a previous LCAO calculation (Ref. 27, same group) and from literature electron-phonon values.

free parameters (7)
  • Bare electron-electron coupling g_zz(a0) = 184 meV·nm²
    Initial condition for the RG flow from the LCAO calculation in Ref. 27; the phase diagram is sensitive to these values.
  • Bare electron-electron coupling g_⊥z(a0) = 43 meV·nm²
    Initial condition for the RG flow; together with g_z⊥ it controls the KD tendency.
  • Bare electron-electron coupling g_z⊥(a0) = 25 meV·nm²
    Initial condition for the RG flow; becomes negative under RG, favoring Kekulé distortion.
  • Bare electron-electron coupling g_⊥⊥(a0) = 269 meV·nm²
    Initial condition for the RG flow; remains repulsive and affects the phase boundaries.
  • Bare electron-phonon coupling g_z⊥^{e-p}(a0) = -52 meV·nm²
    Taken from literature (Refs. 48, 49); drives the sublattice-off-diagonal channel more attractive.
  • Bare electron-phonon coupling g_⊥z^{e-p}(a0) = -69 meV·nm²
    Taken from literature (Refs. 48, 49); dominates at long wavelengths and favors the KD state.
  • Landau level cutoff NLL = 50
    Chosen as a compromise between convergence and cost; Appendix B shows the AF-KD transition point shifts from κ0≈0.5 at NLL=5 to ≈0.6 at NLL=20, with only minor shifts at larger NLL.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The low-energy theory is described by the Euclidean action Eq. (1) with four independent short-range couplings (g_zz, g_⊥z, g_z⊥, g_⊥⊥) dictated by C6v and time-reversal symmetry.
    Reduces the fifteen possible valley-sublattice couplings to four; neglects longer-range and momentum-dependent forms of the short-range interaction, which the authors acknowledge in Section V as a future extension.
  • domain assumption The dynamically screened Coulomb interaction is treated in RPA with the one-loop particle-hole bubble, Eqs. (16)-(19), and this dressed interaction is used in the Wilsonian RG integrals.
    Assumes the RPA geometric series is accurate for all κ0 values considered, including κ0 near and above 0.8, where the coupling is not small.
  • domain assumption The four-point vertex function depends on frequency and momentum only through the leading logarithm; momentum-dependent vertex corrections are irrelevant in the RG sense.
    The paper explicitly notes these neglected terms could change the order of the transition from first to second order (Section II and III.B).
  • domain assumption The Hartree-Fock ground state is translation invariant and isotropic, so the density matrix is k-independent and diagonal in Landau level index, Eqs. (62) and (71).
    This is the basis for separating the zeroth Landau level and Dirac sea contributions; the paper cautions that a nematic state would violate this condition.
  • domain assumption Divergences from the infinite Dirac sea are regulated by subtracting the background density matrix ρ_bg of Eq. (C14) from Ref. 50.
    The subtraction affects absolute energies; the paper argues that energy differences between competing states are unaffected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of the Dirac Sea on Phase Transitions in Monolayer Graphene under Strong Magnetic Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GD7BWYPN

@misc{pith2026241116986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of the Dirac Sea on Phase Transitions in Monolayer Graphene under Strong Magnetic Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GD7BWYPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16986}
}
abstract

Recent scanning tunneling microscopy experiments have found Kekul\'e-Distorted (KD) ordering in graphene subjected to strong magnetic fields, a departure from the antiferromagnetic (AF) state identified in earlier transport experiments on double-encapsulated devices with larger dielectric screening constant $\epsilon$. This variation suggests that the magnetic anisotropic energy is sensitive to dielectric screening constant. To calculate the magnetic anisotropic energy without resorting to perturbation theory, we adopted a two-step approach. First, we derived the bare valley-sublattice dependent interaction coupling constants from microscopic calculations and account for the leading logarithmic divergences arising from quantum fluctuations by solving renormalization group flow equations in the absence of magnetic field from the carbon lattice scale up to the much larger magnetic length. Subsequently, we used these renormalized coupling constants to perform non-perturbative, self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculations. Our results demonstrate that the ground state at neutrality ($\nu=0$) transitions from a AF state to a spin-singlet KD state when dielectric screening and magnetic fields become small, consistent with experimental observations. For filling fraction $\nu=\pm1$, we predict a transitions from spin-polarized charge-density wave states to spin-polarized KD state when dielectric screening and magnetic fields become small. Our self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculations, which encompass a large number of Landau levels, reveal that the magnetic anisotropic energy receives substantial contributions from the Dirac sea when $\epsilon$ is small. Our work provides insights into how the Dirac sea, which contributes to one electron per graphene unit cell, affects the small magnetic anisotropic energy in graphene.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Zero temperature phase diagram of ν = 0 graphene computed with renormalized Fermi velocity and renormalized short-range interactions, incorporating both zeroth-Landau level and Dirac sea energy contributions. It shows a first-order phase transition between the canted-antiferromagnet (CAF) and spin-singlet Kekulé-Distorted (KD) states. In panel a), the sublattice potential is zero while in panel b) a finite sublattic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Zero-temperature phase diagram of ν = ±1 graphene computed with renormalized Fermi velocity and renormalized short￾range interactions (∆BN = 0), incorporating both zeroth-Landau level and Dirac sea energy contributions. It shows a first-order phase transition between the spin-polarized charge density wave (CDW) and spin-polarized Kekulé-Distorted (KD) states. KD state. The two vertical dashed lines in this phase dia… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure provides a diagrammatic representation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Feynman rules in momentum space, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) Electron self-energy generated by the screened Coulomb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) shows the renormalization of the Fermi velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Feynman diagrams consists of one short-range interaction and one long range interaction. Here a) is the vertex correction diagram, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: , shows that the magnitude of all coupling constants are enhanced with RG time (l/a0). The coupling constants that is sublattice off-diagonal, namely gz⊥ and g⊥z become more negative, while the sublattice diagonal ones, gzz and g⊥⊥ become more positive. We note that g⊥…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: θn v.s. Landau level index n for κ0 = 0.5 and κ0 = 0.8. The angle θn is a single parameter that characterizes the effect of Landau level mixing, see Eq.82. Symmetry-broken State O OP symmetry Antiferromaget (AF) τ z s z U(1)KK′ ⊗ SU(2)ss′ Kekulé Distorted (KD) τ x s 0 …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Absolute energy difference between the canted antifer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Electron density distribution |Ψ| 2 for the zeroth Landau level wavefunctions at various locations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The original (u⊥ − uz) Kharitonov phase diagram [30] obtained via zeroth-Landau level projection. Here uz = gzz/(2πl2 B) and u⊥ = g⊥z/(2πl2 B), while terms proportional to g⊥⊥ and gz⊥ vanish due to zeroth Landau level projection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of the ν = 0 Kharitonov phase diagram at different values of κ0 without zeroth-Landau level projection. To visualize the Kharitonov phase diagram at different κ0, we perform self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculations as a function of gzz and g⊥z for a given (…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The energy difference (per particle) between AF state and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (82), the total kinetic energy is given by: ET = Tr( ˆT ρ) = − NLLX n≥0 √ 2ℏωc l2 B √n cos θn

    Kinetic energy With the parametrization of the density matrix in Eq. (82), the total kinetic energy is given by: ET = Tr( ˆT ρ) = − NLLX n≥0 √ 2ℏωc l2 B √n cos θn. (C1) The factor cos θn arises due to the LL mixing. This mixing effect increases the energy, as the wavefunction can extend into the positive Landau levels.The total kinetic energy diverges due...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (65),ΣC nξ,n′ξ′ is contributed by the following matrix elementsVnξ,n2ξ2,n3ξ3,n′ξ′

    Self-energy of long-range Coulomb potential In Eq. (65),ΣC nξ,n′ξ′ is contributed by the following matrix elementsVnξ,n2ξ2,n3ξ3,n′ξ′. Their explicit form is given by the following: 17 Figure14. Theenergydifference(perparticle)betweenAFstateand KD state in the Hartree-Fock approximation atB = 10T. Zeeman and sublattice polarization energies are set to zero...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Self-energy of short-range interaction In this section, we derive the explicit formula for the self-energy, denoted asΣ⋄, resulting from short-range interactions. Considering the presence of four distinct valley-sublattice dependent terms in the anisotropic Hamiltonian, we will separateΣ⋄ into its respective components as follows: ˆΣ⋄ = ˆΣzz + ˆΣ⊥z + ˆΣz⊥...

    work page

  4. [4]

    J.G.Checkelsky,L.Li, andN.P.Ong,Phys.Rev.B 79,115434 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    103,216801 (2009)

    K.Nomura,S.Ryu, andD.-H.Lee,Phys.Rev.Lett. 103,216801 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Alicea and M

    J. Alicea and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B74, 075422 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Nomura and A

    K. Nomura and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 256602 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

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

    work page 2006

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    E. M. Spanton, A. A. Zibrov, H. Zhou, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Science360, 62 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aan8458

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    A. A. Zibrov, E. M. Spanton, H. Zhou, C. Kometter, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Nature Physics 14, 930–935 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    C.R.Dean,A.F.Young,P.Cadden-Zimansky,L.Wang,H.Ren, K.Watanabe,T.Taniguchi,P.Kim,J.Hone, andK.L.Shepard, Nature Physics7, 693 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    M. O. Goerbig, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1193 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    112,126804 (2014)

    I.SodemannandA.H.MacDonald,Phys.Rev.Lett. 112,126804 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    L.A.Cohen,N.L.Samuelson,T.Wang,T.Taniguchi,K.Watan- abe, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Science382, 542 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adf9728

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    J. C. W. Song, A. V. Shytov, and L. S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 266801 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    H. Zhou, H. Polshyn, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Nature Physics16, 154 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    L.Veyrat,C.Déprez,A.Coissard,X.Li,F.d.r.Gay,K.Watan- abe,T.Taniguchi,Z.Han,B.A.Piot,H.Sellier, andB.Sacépé, 20 Science367, 781 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Broken symme- tries and excitation spectra of interacting electrons in partially filledlandaulevels,

    G. Farahi, C.-L. Chiu, X. Liu, Z. Papic, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Yazdani, “Broken symme- tries and excitation spectra of interacting electrons in partially filledlandaulevels,” (2023),arXiv:2303.16993[cond-mat.mes- hall]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S.-Y. Li, Y. Zhang, L.-J. Yin, and L. He, Phys. Rev. B100, 085437 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Vanishing bulk heat flow in the nu=0 quantum hall ferromagnet in monolayer graphene,

    R. Delagrange, M. Garg, G. L. Breton, A. Zhang, Q. Dong, Y. Jin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Roulleau, O. Maillet, P. Roche, and F. D. Parmentier, “Vanishing bulk heat flow in the nu=0 quantum hall ferromagnet in monolayer graphene,” (2024), arXiv:2409.08878 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Feshami and H

    B. Feshami and H. A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B94, 245435 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Coissard, D

    A. Coissard, D. Wander, H. Vignaud, A. G. Grushin, C. Re- pellin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Gay, C. B. Winkelmann, H. Courtois, H. Sellier, and B. Sacépé, Nature605, 51 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    X. Liu, G. Farahi, C.-L. Chiu, Z. Papic, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Yazdani, Science375, 321 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Stepanov, S

    P. Stepanov, S. Che, D. Shcherbakov, J. Yang, R. Chen, K. Thi- lahar, G. Voigt, M. Bockrath, D. Smirnov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. K. Lake, Y. Barlas, A. H. Macdonald, and C. N. Lau, Nature Physics14, 907 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    H.Fu, K.Huang, K.Watanabe, T.Taniguchi, andJ.Zhu,Phys. Rev. X11, 021012 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    The polar angleθ of these two statesarethesameduetothe U (1)KK ′ symmetryofthevalley

    Fig.11e-f)showanothertypeofthe Kekulé state and canted-Kekulé state when the relative phase angle ϕ = π, which breaks the the sixfold rotational symme- try C6 of the graphene lattice. The polar angleθ of these two statesarethesameduetothe U (1)KK ′ symmetryofthevalley. D. Khar...

  19. [27]

    Absence of heatflowin ν=0quantumhallferromagnetinbilayergraphene,

    R. Kumar, S. K. Srivastav, U. Roy, U. Singhal, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, V. Singh, P. Roulleau, and A. Das, “Absence of heatflowin ν=0quantumhallferromagnetinbilayergraphene,” (2024), arXiv:2409.09663 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. Zhou, C. Huang, N. Wei, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. P. Zaletel,Z.Papi’c,A.H.Macdonald, andA.F.Young,Physical Review X (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    D.S.Wei,T.vanderSar,S.H.Lee,K.Watanabe,T.Taniguchi, B. I. Halperin, and A. Yacoby, Science 362, 229 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aar4061

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Kharitonov, Physical Review B85, 155439 (2012)

    M. Kharitonov, Physical Review B85, 155439 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    126, 117203 (2021)

    N.Wei,C.Huang, andA.H.MacDonald,Phys.Rev.Lett. 126, 117203 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    N. Wei, G. Xu, I. S. Villadiego, and C. Huang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12528 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Jung and A

    J. Jung and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B80, 235417 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Aleiner, D

    I. Aleiner, D. Kharzeev, and A. Tsvelik, Physical Review B76, 195415 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    S. J. De, A. Das, S. Rao, R. K. Kaul, and G. Murthy, Physical Review B107, 125422 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    standardmodel

    usually neglect the momentum dependence, considering them irrelevant in the RG sense. However, these ostensibly negligible terms could potentially alter the nature of the tran- sitions from first to second order[37]. Letusnowsummarizethephasediagramat ν = ±1. Atthis filling fr...

  29. [37]

    Vafek and J

    O. Vafek and J. Kang, Physical Review Letters125, 257602 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    S.Raghu,S.A.Kivelson, andD.J.Scalapino,Phys.Rev.B 81, 224505 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Physical review letters122, 246401 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    A.Das,R.K.Kaul, andG.Murthy,Physicalreviewletters 128, 106803 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Shankar,Quantum field theory and condensed matter: an introduction(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    R. Shankar,Quantum field theory and condensed matter: an introduction(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    128,106803 (2022)

    A.Das,R.K.Kaul, andG.Murthy,Phys.Rev.Lett. 128,106803 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    D. T. Son, Physical Review B75, 235423 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    M. S. Foster and I. Aleiner, Physical Review B77, 195413 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    J.W.González,F.Guinea, andM.A.H.Vozmediano,Physical Review B59 (1998)

    1998

  38. [46]

    González, F

    J. González, F. Guinea, and M. Vozmediano, Nuclear Physics B424, 595 (1994)

    1994

  39. [47]

    113, 105502 (2014)

    J.Hofmann,E.Barnes, andS.DasSarma,Phys.Rev.Lett. 113, 105502 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    E.Barnes,E.H.Hwang,R.E.Throckmorton, andS.DasSarma, Phys. Rev. B89, 235431 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Magnetism in the dilute electron gas of rhombohedral multilayer graphene,

    T. Wolf, N. Wei, H. Zhou, and C. Huang, “Magnetism in the dilute electron gas of rhombohedral multilayer graphene,” (2024), arXiv:2408.15884 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Zibrov, E

    A. Zibrov, E. Spanton, H. Zhou, C. Kometter, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. Young, Nature Physics14, 930 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    D.M.BaskoandI.L.Aleiner,Phys.Rev.B 77,041409(2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    D.BaskoandI.Aleiner,PhysicalReviewB—CondensedMatter and Materials Physics77, 041409 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    S.Piscanec,M.Lazzeri,F.Mauri,A.Ferrari, andJ.Robertson, Physical review letters93, 185503 (2004)

    2004

  46. [54]

    F.Wu,F.Wu,A.H.Macdonald, andI.Martin,Physicalreview letters121 25, 257001 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    BARLAS, W.-C

    Y. BARLAS, W.-C. LEE, K. NOMURA, and A. H. MAC- DONALD,InternationalJournalofModernPhysicsB 23,2634 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979209062104

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    Lukose and R

    V. Lukose and R. Shankar, Physical Review B94, 085135 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    I.SodemannandA.H.MacDonald,Physicalreviewletters 112 12, 126804 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    J.An,A.C.Balram, andG.Murthy,PhysicalReviewB (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Berk and J

    N. Berk and J. Schrieffer, Physical Review Letters17, 433 (1966)

    1966

  52. [60]

    B. M. Kousa, N. Wei, and A. H. MacDonald, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10440 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.