Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Theory of plasmon spectroscopy with the quantum twisting microscope

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Plasmon-assisted tunneling in a quantum twisting microscope can map a sample's plasmon spectrum and electron-plasmon coupling strength.

desk verdict A careful and honest extension of QTM inelastic-tunneling theory to plasmons; the general framework is solid and useful, while the magic-angle TBG predictions rest on one-shot GW in a regime the paper itself acknowledges is beyond it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05485 v1 pith:X5O5ZBWX submitted 2025-06-05 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Nemin Wei , Francisco Guinea , Felix von Oppen , Leonid I. Glazman This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumtwistingmicroscopeplasmontwistedbilayergrapheneinelastictunnelingspectroscopyGWapproximationrandomphasemoirématerialscollectiveexcitations
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 argues that the quantum twisting microscope (QTM), which records the differential conductance $G(V,\theta)$ between a graphene tip and a twisted sample as a function of bias $V$ and twist angle $\theta$, can serve as an inelastic tunneling spectrometer for plasmons. The central idea is that a tunneling electron cannot conserve energy and momentum simultaneously when it enters a sample band unless it emits or absorbs a collective charge oscillation, so the inelastic signal carries the plasmon dispersion and the electron-plasmon coupling. For twisted bilayer graphene near the magic angle, the paper predicts two observable fingerprints: nearly dispersionless low-bias satellites in $dI/dV$ from plasmon-assisted tunneling into the flat bands, and high-bias $d^2I/dV^2$ peaks whose threshold voltage $eV^*(\theta)$ traces the momentum-resolved plasmon dispersion. A sympathetic reader would care because moiré plasmons are predicted to be undamped over wide momentum ranges and have been proposed as pairing glue in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, yet they have been hard to probe directly. The paper supplies a concrete microscopic framework, built on an RPA-screened interaction and a one-shot GW self-energy, for reading them out.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dynamically screened Coulomb interaction $\hat{W}(q,\omega)$ and its dissipative part $\hat{W}''(q,\omega)$, computed at the random-phase-approximation level. Its plasmon pole, $\hat{W}''_{g_1,g_2}(q,\nu) = -\pi \phi_{q+g_1}\phi^*_{q+g_2}\delta(\nu-\hbar\omega_q)$, defines both the plasmon dispersion and the electrostatic potential $\phi_q$ of the zero-point motion, from which the microscopic electron-plasmon coupling $g_{\lambda\rho}(k,q) = A_M^{-1/2}\sum_g \langle u^\lambda_k | u^\rho_{k-q-g}\rangle \phi_{q+g}$ is constructed. The second ingredient is momentum-conserving interlayer tunneling in the QTM geometry, which pins the incoming electron to the tip Dirac point $K_\theta$ and converts twist angle into transferred momentum. Together these ingredients let the off-shell self-energy in the GW approximation map the plasmon spectral weight onto specific features of $G(V,\theta)$.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier would be a cryogenic QTM measurement of a charge-neutral TBG device with a lightly doped tip: if sweeping the twist angle does not produce a $d^2I/dV^2$ peak at $eV^*(\theta) \approx \xi_{cm} + \hbar\omega_{Q_\theta}$ tracking the predicted plasmon dispersion, or if the low-bias satellites are absent when the tip Dirac point is at $\kappa'$ and $m$, the central mechanism is not operating as claimed. A cleaner numerical falsifier would be to compute $dI/dV$ with a nonperturbative method for the same parameters and check whether the satellite and kink positions survive when GW fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central result is that the QTM differential conductance directly measures the momentum-resolved spectral function of the sample along the trajectory of the tip Dirac point: $dI/dV \propto \sum_{\lambda\rho} \Lambda_\rho(K_\theta)^* \Lambda_\lambda(K_\theta) A^S_{\lambda\rho}(K_\theta, eV)$, with $\Lambda_\lambda$ a tunneling form factor. Away from the quasiparticle peaks, the spectral function is controlled by the off-shell self-energy, which in turn is controlled by the dissipative part of the dynamically screened Coulomb interaction $\hat{W}''$. When $\hat{W}''$ has a plasmon pole, the inelastic conductance reduces to a sum over final bands of a normalized inelastic tunneling rate $|M^\lambda(K_\theta,q)|^2$ times energy-conserving delta functions, so the twist angle selects the plasmon wave vector $q = K_\theta - K_{\theta_{\rm TBG}}$. For charge-neutral twisted bilayer graphene, the calculation predicts that tunneling into the flat bands produces almost bias-independent plasmon satellites set by the plasmon density of states, while tunneling into the dispersive remote bands produces a step in $dI/dV$ at $eV^*(\theta) \approx \xi_{cm} + \hbar\omega_{Q_\theta}$, whose $d^2I/dV^2$ peak traces the plasmon dispersion.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the electrons in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene stay weakly interacting enough that the noninteracting flat bands plus a one-shot GW correction describe the spectrum; if the Coulomb repulsion is stronger than the flat-band width, the system becomes a correlated insulator and the predicted tunneling features would differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For twisted bilayer graphene near the magic angle, $dI/dV$ should show two nearly dispersionless satellites at $eV \approx \pm(\hbar\omega_0 + \xi_{\rm VH})$ when the tip Dirac point is parked near the $\kappa'$ or $m$ points, with intensity strongly suppressed near $\gamma$.
  • A $d^2I/dV^2$ peak at $eV^*(\theta) \approx \xi_{cm} + \hbar\omega_{Q_\theta}$ should trace the momentum-resolved plasmon dispersion as the twist angle is swept, on both positive and negative bias sides.
  • The predicted onset kink in $dI/dV$ is weak, roughly $\Delta(dI/dV) \sim 4\times10^{-3} G_{\rm incoh}$ for the parameters studied, so the feature is best resolved in $d^2I/dV^2$ and near $\kappa'$, where elastic tunneling into the lowest remote band is suppressed.
  • Strong gate screening with a sample-gate distance $d_g=1$ nm does not destroy the predicted signatures; it shifts the plasmon and satellite energies to about 10 meV, leaving undamped plasmons near the moiré Brillouin zone boundary.
  • Tip-induced screening and interlayer electron-plasmon scattering are weak for a charge-neutral or lightly doped tip, so the predicted features survive in a realistic junction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper's explicit scope, the same off-shell self-energy formalism should apply to other bosonic collective modes in moiré systems, including magnons, phasons, and Goldstone-mode-like excitations, with the particle-hole vertex replaced by the appropriate susceptibility.
  • If magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene at charge neutrality is actually a correlated insulator or hosts Hubbard bands, the GW-based spectral function and its satellites would not be the final word; the paper itself notes that satellite features would then appear above the Hubbard-band elastic peaks, an observation that could be used to distinguish weak- and strong-coupling regimes.
  • A direct experimental test would be to measure $d^2I/dV^2$ maps on charge-neutral TBG devices with dual gates and a low-doped tip; the predicted twist-angle dependence of $eV^*(\theta)$ is sharp enough to confirm or rule out the plasmon origin of the kinks.
  • Extracting the electron-plasmon coupling $\phi_q$ from satellite intensities would provide a microscopic estimate of the plasmon contribution to pairing in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, offering a route to test the plasmon-glue scenario without relying on superconducting transition temperatures.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theory for plasmon-assisted inelastic tunneling spectroscopy with the quantum twisting microscope (QTM). It derives the differential conductance in terms of the sample's momentum-resolved spectral function, expresses the off-shell electron self-energy through the dynamically screened Coulomb interaction, and isolates the plasmon contribution. The formalism is applied to twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) at 1.20° and 1.07° (near the magic angle) using RPA screening and a one-shot GW self-energy. The authors predict two signatures: nearly dispersionless low-bias plasmon satellites in dI/dV due to tunneling into the flat bands, and high-bias d2I/dV2 kinks whose threshold voltage tracks the momentum-resolved plasmon dispersion. They also analyze the effects of tip-induced screening and interlayer electron-plasmon scattering, showing these give small quantitative corrections.

Significance. If the predictions are robust, this work would establish a new spectroscopic probe of collective excitations in moiré materials, extending previous QTM phonon spectroscopy to plasmons. The general formalism in Sec. IV is clean and goes beyond earlier single-band treatments, and the paper provides a microscopic, parameter-light calculation with no fitting of the target signatures. The detailed treatment of tip screening effects in Appendix B is a particular strength, as is the explicit derivation of the inelastic tunneling current from both diagrammatic and golden-rule approaches. However, the quantitative predictions for 1.07° MATBG are built on one-shot GW in a regime where the paper itself states that GW fails to describe the correlated Mott/Hubbard physics. This leaves the headline magic-angle predictions unsecured, although the general framework and the 1.20° results remain valuable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V.B, Sec. VI, Figs. 9-10] The quantitative predictions for 1.07° TBG rely on one-shot GW starting from noninteracting Bistritzer-MacDonald bands, in a regime where U ≈ B ≈ 10 meV (stated in Sec. V.B). The paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. VI that GW fails to describe the Mott/Hubbard states expected in MATBG, and the cited QMC/DMFT literature predicts Hubbard bands rather than a symmetric metal. Because perturbation theory is not controlled when U ≈ B, the predicted quasiparticle peaks, plasmon satellites at eV ≈ ω0 + ξVH ≈ 10 meV, and the high-bias kinks tracing ℏω(Qθ) are not robust: a correlated insulating ground state would replace the quasiparticle peaks with Hubbard bands and could shift or destroy the predicted inelastic features. This does not invalidate the general formalism in Sec. IV or the 1.20° results, but it undermines the headline MATBG claims. The authors should either provide a more controlled treatment (e.g., using a Hubbard-band spectral function or a nonperturbative method) or explicitly reframe the 1.07° results as an uncontrolled illustration rather than a quantitative prediction.
  2. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (37) and the condition above it] The off-shell self-energy expansion is justified by the condition |ϵ − ξλ_k| ≫ v_q/A_M for all λ. In the 1.20° calculation, the plasmon satellites appear at an energy ~40 meV away from the quasiparticle peaks, while the averaged interaction scale for the dual-gate-screened Coulomb potential in that geometry (dg = 40 nm) is comparable to the flat-band bandwidth (~50 meV). For such a moderate separation, the neglect of higher-order diagrams in the self-energy may affect the quantitative line shapes and intensities of the satellites, which the paper acknowledges in Sec. V.B for GW (overestimation of satellites). The qualitative existence of the two signatures is robust, but the quantitative spectral weights and peak positions should be interpreted with this caveat. Please state more explicitly the estimated value of v_q/A_M for the parameters used and discuss the extent to which the off-shell condition is satisfied.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (7)-(9)] In the simplified derivation, the notation M(Kθ, q) in Eq. (9) uses ξ_{Kθ} for a single band, whereas the general expression in Eq. (47) sums over intermediate bands with ξ^ρ_{Kθ}. This change of notation is a bit abrupt; a short sentence connecting the two would improve clarity.
  2. [Sec. V.B, Fig. 9(b)] The red dashed line in Fig. 9(b) plots the rescaled tunneling conductance (eV)^2 dI/dV, but the units of this quantity are not stated. Since (eV)^2 has dimensions of energy squared, the rescaled conductance has unusual units; please specify or normalize the curve in a dimensionally clear way.
  3. [Fig. 5(b) and Fig. 8(a)] The color scale in these plots is labeled "-Tr(W'')" with units meV·A_M, but the caption refers to "spectral weight" without defining how the trace is normalized. A brief explanation of the normalization and the meaning of the trace over reciprocal-lattice indices would aid the reader.
  4. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B9)-(B10)] The analytic continuation of the graphene response function involves branch cuts on the real axis; the notation "ω approaches the real axis from above" is terse. Adding a sentence specifying the sign convention for the square roots would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted tunneling signatures are computed from a stated microscopic model (BM bands, RPA screening, GW self-energy) without fitting the target conductance features.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The input is the interacting Bistritzer-MacDonald Hamiltonian (Sec. III); the plasmon response is computed in RPA from the density-density response function (Eqs. 48-49); the screened interaction W is used in the off-shell self-energy (Eqs. 37-38); the spectral function follows from the Dyson equation (Eq. 50); and the QTM conductance is obtained from that spectral function (Eq. 33). The predicted signatures—low-bias plasmon satellites and high-bias d2I/dV2 kinks—follow from the delta-function pole structure of W at the plasmon frequency (Eq. 43) inserted through the self-energy; no parameter is fitted to the conductance data. The comparison in Fig. 9(b) between (eV)^2 dI/dV, Sigma'', and D(omega) is an internal consistency check, since all three quantities derive from the same RPA screening potential, not an independent prediction extracted from data. Self-citations to the authors' earlier phonon-QTM and Dirac-point-spectroscopy work appear (e.g., Eq. 8 and Sec. V.B), but they provide only normalization factors and interpretive context; the central claim does not reduce to those citations. Sec. VI explicitly concedes that one-shot GW cannot describe the Mott/Hubbard states expected in MATBG; that is a validity and robustness caveat for the quantitative MATBG predictions, not a circularity in the derivation. The general framework and the moderately screened 1.20-degree results remain independent of that caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard TBG model parameters and the RPA+GW approximation scheme, all taken from prior literature; the only choices made by the authors are the screening environment parameters (epsilon_r, d_g), the tip Fermi level, and numerical cutoffs. The paper does not introduce new entities.

free parameters (8)
  • w1 = 117 meV = 117 meV from prior TBG fits
    BM interlayer tunneling parameter; sets flat-band width and magic-angle physics. Taken from literature, not fitted here.
  • w0/w1 = 0.7 = 0.7
    AA/AB tunneling ratio due to relaxation; affects band structure and plasmon coupling.
  • v_D = 10^6 m/s = 10^6 m/s
    Monolayer graphene Dirac velocity; standard input from literature.
  • epsilon_r (relative permittivity) = 10 (main text), 6.6 (Appendix B)
    Controls Coulomb screening and plasmon energies; chosen by hand for the dielectric environment.
  • sample-gate distance d_g = 1 nm for 1.07 deg, 40 nm for 1.20 deg
    Dual-gate screening distance; determines whether flat-band plasmons are undamped. Chosen to represent two screening environments.
  • tip-sample distance d_T = 0.5 nm
    Used for estimating interlayer electron-plasmon coupling in Appendix B; affects the size of tip-induced corrections.
  • broadening eta = 0.4 meV (0.8 meV in Appendix B)
    Lorentzian broadening used to smooth numerical spectra; finite width affects apparent peak sharpness.
  • tip chemical potential mu_T = 0 in main text, 20 meV in Appendix B
    Controls tip Fermi wave vector and tip screening; small k_F is assumed for the simplified conductance formula.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Bistritzer-MacDonald continuum model with literature parameters captures TBG single-particle bands in the twist-angle range studied.
    Invoked in Sec. III, Eq. (16), as the noninteracting starting Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption RPA describes the screened Coulomb interaction and the plasmon poles.
    Used in Sec. V via Eq. (48); formally exact only in the N_f to infinity, v_q to 0 limit, while TBG has N_f = 4.
  • domain assumption One-shot GW gives a reliable spectral function in the studied regimes.
    Used for the spectral functions in Sec. V; acknowledged in Sec. VI to fail for Mott/Hubbard states.
  • domain assumption The tip is a noninteracting low-density Dirac metal; tip screening and interlayer electron-plasmon scattering can be neglected.
    Assumed for the main result Eq. (33) and defended in Appendix B for small tip doping.
  • domain assumption Momentum-conserving tunneling Hamiltonian with equal tunneling amplitudes w0 = w1 = w and no interface relaxation/corrugation.
    Eqs. (29)-(30) define the simplified tunneling matrix elements.
  • domain assumption Applied bias shifts the tip chemical potential while the sample chemical potential stays fixed relative to its Dirac point.
    Used in Sec. IVA to reduce dI/dV to a derivative of the tip Fermi function; relies on the high flat-band density of states.
  • domain assumption Plasmons away from the particle-hole continuum are undamped and represented by Dirac-delta poles in W''.
    Eq. (43) is used to define the electron-plasmon coupling phi_q and to write simplified inelastic conductance formulas.
  • domain assumption The counterterm H_c = -H_HF^{nu=0} from Ref. [53] regularizes the Dirac-sea self-energy.
    Appendix C, Eq. (C2); the paper notes the choice of counterterm is not unique.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of plasmon spectroscopy with the quantum twisting microscope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5O5ZBWX

@misc{pith2026250605485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of plasmon spectroscopy with the quantum twisting microscope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5O5ZBWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05485}
}
read the original abstract

We consider plasmon-assisted electron tunneling in a quantum twisting microscope (QTM). The dependence of the differential conductance on the two control parameters of the QTM -- the twist angle and bias -- reveals the plasmon spectrum as well as the strength of plasmon-electron interactions in the sample. We perform microscopic calculations for twisted bilayer graphene (TBG), to predict the plasmon features in the tunneling spectra of TBG close to the magic angle for different screening environments. Our work establishes a general framework for inelastic tunneling spectroscopy of collective electronic excitations using the quantum twisting microscope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plasmon-assisted inelastic tunneling processes be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plasmon-assisted tunneling processes between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Feynman diagrams for (a) the electron self [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The non-interacting band structures of 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Tunneling spectrum of charge-neutral 1.20◦−TBG. (a) dI/dV map as a function of the twist angle θ and the bias voltage. Sharp lines at low bias represent elastic tunnel￾ing into the central bands. Nonlinear conductance at higher bias comes from inelastic tunneling facil…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Signatures of plasmons in the tunneling spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plasmons of charge neutral 1.07◦−TBG situated in the middle of two metallic gates with a sample-gate distance dg = 1 nm. (a) The wave vector and energy dependence of the trace of the dissipative part of the RPA screening poten￾tial, −Tr(Wˆ ′′(qy, ω ˆ )). The bright cur…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Spectral function A S (k, ϵ) of the spin-valley symmetric phase in charge neutral 1.07◦−TBG, evaluated in one-shot GW approximation and plotted along a high sym￾metry line of mBZ traversed by the Dirac point of the MLG tip. In addition to the strong quasiparticle p…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) d 2 I/dV 2 map as a function of the twist angle θ and the bias voltage. We choose a bias window allowing the onset of elastic tunneling into the remote dispersive bands and the plasmon satellites. The broader horizontal feature to the left of the γ point correspon…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between the dissipative part of the in-layer RPA screening potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The absolute square of the normalized rate of inelastic tunneling between the tip Fermi line and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Revealing electron-electron interactions in graphene at room temperature with the quantum twisting microscope

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Room-temperature quantum twisting microscopy of graphene/hBN/graphene shows split nesting and nonlinear onset features consistent with electron-electron renormalization of the Dirac dispersion with fitted α=0.32.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    These charges are separated from the monolayer graphene tip by a vertical distance dT

    Dynamical screening from the tip For simplicity, we neglect the finite thickness of TBG by assuming that its charges reside in the center of two graphene layers due to strong layer hybridization of the flat-band wave functions. These charges are separated from the monolayer graphene tip by a vertical distance dT. It will be convenient to introduce a layer...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In this section, we compute the corrections to the inelastic tunneling conductance due to the interlayer electron-plasmon coupling

    Interlayer electron-plasmon scattering The plasmons in the sample generate an electric field that extends out of the sample plane ( z = 0) and interact with the electrons in the tip. In this section, we compute the corrections to the inelastic tunneling conductance due to the interlayer electron-plasmon coupling. The full electron-plasmon coupling Hamilto...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Inbar, J

    A. Inbar, J. Birkbeck, J. Xiao, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, B. Yan, Y. Oreg, A. Stern, E. Berg, and S. Ilani, The quantum twisting microscope, Nature 614, 682 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Birkbeck, J

    J. Birkbeck, J. Xiao, A. Inbar, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, E. Berg, L. Glazman, F. Guinea, F. von Op- pen, and S. Ilani, Measuring Phonon Dispersion and Electron-Phason Coupling in Twisted Bilayer Graphene with a Cryogenic Quantum Twisting Microscope (2024), arXiv:2407.13404 [cond-mat]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    J. Xiao, E. Berg, L. I. Glazman, F. Guinea, S. Ilani, and F. von Oppen, Theory of phonon spectroscopy with the quantum twisting microscope (2024), arXiv:2407.12092 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    V. Peri, S. Ilani, P. A. Lee, and G. Refael, Probing quan- tum spin liquids with a quantum twisting microscope, Physical Review B 109, 035127 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Pichler, W

    F. Pichler, W. Kadow, C. Kuhlenkamp, and M. Knap, Probing magnetism in moir´ e heterostructures with quan- tum twisting microscopes, Physical Review B 110, 045116 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Carrega, I

    M. Carrega, I. J. Vera-Marun, and A. Principi, Tun- neling spectroscopy as a probe of fractionalization in two-dimensional magnetic heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B 102, 085412 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Lewandowski and L

    C. Lewandowski and L. Levitov, Intrinsically undamped plasmon modes in narrow electron bands, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 20869 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Papaj and C

    M. Papaj and C. Lewandowski, Probing correlated states with plasmons, Science Advances 9, eadg3262 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Lewandowski, D

    C. Lewandowski, D. Chowdhury, and J. Ruhman, Pairing in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene: Role of phonon and plasmon umklapp, Physical Review B 103, 235401 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Cea and F

    T. Cea and F. Guinea, Coulomb interaction, phonons, and superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2107874118 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Sharma, M

    G. Sharma, M. Trushin, O. P. Sushkov, G. Vignale, and S. Adam, Superconductivity from collective excitations in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 022040 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    L. Peng, I. Yudhistira, G. Vignale, and S. Adam, The- oretical determination of the effect of a screening gate on plasmon-induced superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045404 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    N. Wei, F. von Oppen, and L. I. Glazman, Dirac-point spectroscopy of flat-band systems with the quantum twisting microscope, Phys. Rev. B 111, 085128 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Stauber and H

    T. Stauber and H. Kohler, Quasi-flat plasmonic bands in twisted bilayer graphene, Nano letters 16, 6844 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Cavicchi, I

    L. Cavicchi, I. Torre, P. Jarillo-Herrero, F. H. L. Kop- pens, and M. Polini, Theory of intrinsic acoustic plas- mons in twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Review B 110, 045431 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Pines and J

    D. Pines and J. R. Schrieffer, Approach to equilibrium of electrons, plasmons, and phonons in quantum and clas- sical plasmas, Phys. Rev. 125, 804 (1962)

    1962

  11. [19]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-particle physics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Moir´ e bands in twisted double-layer graphene, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 108, 12233 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, N. M. R. Peres, and A. H. Castro Neto, Graphene Bilayer with a Twist: Electronic Structure, Physical Review Letters 99, 256802 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Vafek and J

    O. Vafek and J. Kang, Renormalization group study of hidden symmetry in twisted bilayer graphene with coulomb interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 257602 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    In our notation, ˆW does not include the first order Coulomb interaction and is different from the conven- tional notation in the GW approximation

  16. [24]

    Note that Gincoh is the scale for the features in dI/dV re- sulting from elastic, momentum-conserving tunneling [3]

  17. [25]

    X. Gao, A. Jimeno-Pozo, P. A. Pantaleon, E. Code- cido, D. L. Sharifi, Z. Zhang, Y. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. W. Bockrath, F. Guinea, and C. N. Lau, Double-edged role of interactions in superconduct- ing twisted bilayer graphene (2024), arXiv:2412.01578 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y. Wang, J. Zhu, G. W. Burg, A. Swain, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Zheng, A. H. MacDonald, and E. Tu- tuc, Independently tunable flat bands and correlations in a graphene double moir´ e system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 096204 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Barrier, L

    J. Barrier, L. Peng, S. Xu, V. I. Fal’ko, K. Watanabe, T. Tanigushi, A. K. Geim, S. Adam, and A. I. Berdyugin, Coulomb screening of superconductivity in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene (2024), arXiv:2412.01577 [cond- mat]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C˘ alug˘ aru, M

    D. C˘ alug˘ aru, M. Borovkov, L. L. Lau, P. Coleman, Z.-D. Song, and B. A. Bernevig, Twisted bilayer graphene as topological heavy fermion: Ii. analytical approximations of the model parameters, Low Temperature Physics 49, 640 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    R. M. Martin, L. Reining, and D. M. Ceperley, Interact- ing electrons (Cambridge University Press, 2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Caruso and F

    F. Caruso and F. Giustino, The gw plus cumulant method and plasmonic polarons: application to the ho- mogeneous electron gas, The European Physical Journal B 89, 1 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    P. J. Ledwith, J. Dong, A. Vishwanath, and E. Khalaf, Nonlocal Moments in the Chern Bands of Twisted Bilayer Graphene (2025), arXiv:2408.16761 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Guinea and N

    F. Guinea and N. R. Walet, Electrostatic effects, band distortions, and superconductivity in twisted graphene 21 bilayers, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 115, 13174 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Novelli, I

    P. Novelli, I. Torre, F. H. L. Koppens, F. Taddei, and M. Polini, Optical and plasmonic properties of twisted bi- layer graphene: Impact of interlayer tunneling asymme- try and ground-state charge inhomogeneity, Phys. Rev. B 102, 125403 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    J. Zhu, I. Torre, M. Polini, and A. H. MacDonald, Weak- coupling theory of magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 110, L121117 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    L. Peng, G. Vignale, and S. Adam, Many-body perturba- tion theory for moir´ e systems (2025), arXiv:2502.06968 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. S. Hofmann, E. Khalaf, A. Vishwanath, E. Berg, and J. Y. Lee, Fermionic monte carlo study of a realistic model of twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011061 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Huang, N

    C. Huang, N. Parthenios, M. Ulybyshev, X. Zhang, F. F. Assaad, L. Classen, and Z. Y. Meng, Angle-tuned gross- neveu quantum criticality in twisted bilayer graphene: A quantum monte carlo study (2025), arXiv:2412.11382 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Datta, M

    A. Datta, M. J. Calder´ on, A. Camjayi, and E. Bas- cones, Heavy quasiparticles and cascades without sym- metry breaking in twisted bilayer graphene, Nature Com- munications 14, 5036 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    G. Rai, L. Crippa, D. C˘ alug˘ aru, H. Hu, F. Paoletti, L. De’ Medici, A. Georges, B. A. Bernevig, R. Valent ´ ı, G. Sangiovanni, and T. Wehling, Dynamical Correlations and Order in Magic-Angle Twisted Bilayer Graphene, Physical Review X 14, 031045 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zhou, Y.-J

    G.-D. Zhou, Y.-J. Wang, N. Tong, and Z.-D. Song, Kondo phase in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045419 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    M. J. Calder´ on, A. Camjayi, A. Datta, and E. Bascones, Cascades in transport and optical conductivity of twisted bilayer graphene (2025), arXiv:2412.20855 [cond-mat.str- el]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozen- berg, Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions, Re- views of Modern Physics 68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    Hu, Z.-D

    H. Hu, Z.-D. Song, and B. A. Bernevig, Projected and Solvable Topological Heavy Fermion Model of Twisted Bilayer Graphene (2025), arXiv:2502.14039 [cond-mat]

    2025

  36. [44]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and E. Khalaf, Exotic car- riers from concentrated topology: Dirac trions as the origin of the missing spectral weight in twisted bilayer graphene (2025), arXiv:2505.08779 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Song and B

    Z.-D. Song and B. A. Bernevig, Magic-Angle Twisted Bi- layer Graphene as a Topological Heavy Fermion Problem, Physical Review Letters 129, 047601 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    E. G. C. P. van Loon, H. Hafermann, A. I. Lichten- stein, A. N. Rubtsov, and M. I. Katsnelson, Plasmons in strongly correlated systems: Spectral weight trans- fer and renormalized dispersion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 246407 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Wu and S

    F. Wu and S. Das Sarma, Collective excitations of quantum anomalous hall ferromagnets in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 046403 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Kumar, M

    A. Kumar, M. Xie, and A. H. MacDonald, Lattice col- lective modes from a continuum model of magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035119 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    B. A. Bernevig, B. Lian, A. Cowsik, F. Xie, N. Reg- nault, and Z.-D. Song, Twisted bilayer graphene. v. ex- act analytic many-body excitations in coulomb hamil- tonians: Charge gap, goldstone modes, and absence of cooper pairing, Phys. Rev. B 103, 205415 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Khalaf, N

    E. Khalaf, N. Bultinck, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. Zale- tel, Soft modes in magic angle twisted bilayer graphene (2020), arXiv:2009.14827 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bultinck, E

    N. Bultinck, E. Khalaf, S. Liu, S. Chatterjee, A. Vish- wanath, and M. P. Zaletel, Ground state and hidden symmetry of magic-angle graphene at even integer fill- ing, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031034 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Xie and A

    M. Xie and A. H. MacDonald, Nature of the correlated insulator states in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 097601 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Wunsch, T

    B. Wunsch, T. Stauber, F. Sols, and F. Guinea, Dynami- cal polarization of graphene at finite doping, New Journal of Physics 8, 318 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Transport between twisted graphene layers, Phys. Rev. B 81, 245412 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    S. Liu, E. Khalaf, J. Y. Lee, and A. Vishwanath, Ne- matic topological semimetal and insulator in magic-angle bilayer graphene at charge neutrality, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013033 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    B. A. Bernevig, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault, and B. Lian, Twisted bilayer graphene. iii. interacting hamiltonian and exact symmetries, Phys. Rev. B 103, 205413 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.