Interacting Bose gases in twisted-bilayer optical lattices

Ganesh C. Paul; Luis Santos; Patrik Recher

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Interacting Bose gases in twisted-bilayer optical lattices

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Interacting bosons in twisted-bilayer optical lattices develop cluster-induced Mott-like and Bose-glass-like ground states, including non-percolating mobility islands that can form even at commensurate angles and even without inter-layer…

desk verdict The cluster Gutzwiller phase diagrams are a useful map, but the commensurate Bose-glass phase probably dissolves once the weak inter-island links are included, and the numerics need benchmarking. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12153 v1 pith:SZJ74K7D submitted 2025-07-16 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.str-el

Ganesh C. Paul , Patrik Recher , Luis Santos This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el

keywords twisted-bilayeropticallatticesBose-HubbardmodelclusterGutzwilleransatzMottinsulatorBoseglasspercolationmoireincommensuratetwist

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 studies interacting bosons in two stacked square optical lattices twisted by an angle $\theta$, a geometry now reachable in cold-atom experiments. It argues that inter-layer tunneling splits the lattice into two-site clusters with different coupling strengths, and that this clusterization, captured by a tailored cluster Gutzwiller ansatz, generates a ground-state phase diagram far richer than the usual superfluid/Mott picture. The central findings are Mott-like insulating phases in which different clusters carry different integer fillings, and Bose-glass-like phases in which particles move freely inside disconnected pockets of sites but never percolate across the lattice. These glassy phases occur even at commensurate twist angles, and for incommensurate angles they can arise from inter-layer interactions alone, with no inter-layer hopping at all. The results matter because they identify clusterization, rather than disorder, as the organising principle behind the phases, giving experiments specific density-wave and island structures to look for.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cluster Gutzwiller ansatz. Sites in opposite layers coupled by a hopping larger than a threshold $t_{\perp,\mathrm{cr}}$ ($0.03\,t_\perp$ for commensurate and $0.06\,t_\perp$ for incommensurate angles) are grouped into two-site clusters, each described by a variational state $|\rho_c\rangle=\sum_{n_1,n_2} g_c(n_1,n_2)|n_1\rangle|n_2\rangle$ that can hold arbitrary correlated occupations of the two sites; the remaining non-clustered sites are treated by site-local Gutzwiller states. Minimising the resulting mean-field energy produces per-site order parameters $b_{\alpha,s}=\langle a_{\alpha,s}\rangle$, and a site is counted as superfluid ($S=1$) only if $|b|>0.05$. Two $S=1$ sites are considered connected if their coupling exceeds $10^{-3}t_\perp$, so a percolation analysis using a standard cluster-labeling algorithm decides whether the $S=1$ sites span the lattice. Mott-like phases have zero superfluid fraction and zero percolation probability ($F=P=0$), superfluid phases have $F>0$ and $P>0$, and the intermediate non-percolating case $F>0$, $P=0$ is identified as the Bose-glass-like phase.

What would settle it

Compute, on a small twisted bilayer at $\theta=\theta(3,2)$, the superfluid stiffness and compressibility by an exact numerical method across the boundary where the percolation criterion switches from $P=0$ to $P>0$; if the region the paper labels Bose-glass shows nonzero stiffness, or the labelled Mott region shows finite compressibility, the central phase identification fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that site clusterization induced by inter-layer couplings is what governs the ground state of interacting bosons in a twisted bilayer. At commensurate angles the lattice contains a finite set of cluster types, each formed by two sites, one per layer, with a characteristic inter-layer hopping; the paper shows that these clusters fill sequentially and non-uniformly with chemical potential, producing Mott-like phases labelled by cluster populations such as $(1,1,1,2)$, and that between such lobes isolated superfluid 'quantum wheels' form and remain disconnected. At incommensurate angles the cluster families effectively acquire spread-out coupling strengths; the paper finds broad Bose-glass-like regions in which islands of nonzero superfluid mean field fail to percolate, and it shows that when inter-layer hopping is absent but inter-layer repulsion $V_\perp$ is present, the aperiodic geometry alone produces the same glassy and superfluid phases. The authors' conclusion is that these Bose-glass-like phases are a generic consequence of clusterization in twisted geometries, with percolation of the superfluid islands marking the transition to superfluidity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole phase classification rests on treating a site as superfluid only when its local order parameter exceeds $|b|>0.05$ and two islands as connected only when their coupling exceeds $10^{-3}t_\perp$, thresholds the paper does not verify against exact calculations, superfluid stiffness, or compressibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Cluster filling patterns such as $(1,1,1,2)$ imply that density-wave order is a generic signature of twisted-bilayer bosons; in-situ imaging should reveal clusters with distinct integer occupations in the same insulating lobe.
Bose-glass-like regions can appear in perfectly periodic commensurate lattices, so observing a compressible insulating island phase would not by itself signal disorder.
For incommensurate angles the phase diagram resembles that of a strongly disordered Bose–Hubbard model, so twisted bilayers can serve as a disorder-free quantum simulator of the Bose glass.
Because Bose-glass-like phases exist at $t_\perp=0$ with only $V_\perp\neq0$, inter-layer interactions alone can localise bosons in an aperiodic lattice, a mechanism independent of single-particle potential disorder.

Reading between the lines

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

Replacing the $|b|>0.05$ cutoff with the superfluid stiffness would provide a cleaner test of the glassy classification; if the labelled Bose-glass islands carry finite stiffness, the phase boundaries would shift.
The same cluster decomposition could be applied to fermionic twisted bilayers by exchanging the two-site number basis for a spin or charge basis, potentially exposing analogous cluster Mott and island phases in Fermi gases.
Because the superfluid fraction $F$ and percolation probability $P$ increase monotonically with $t/U$, the paper's mechanism suggests a percolation-driven superfluid transition in the incommensurate case; measuring the critical $t/U$ as a function of twist angle would map the island-to-percolation crossover.
The $V_\perp$-only Bose glass at incommensurate angles implies that even density-correlation measurements should show strong bunching in the strongly coupled clusters, a signature accessible to quantum-gas microscopy.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is my read on 2507.12153. The genuinely new piece is the cluster Gutzwiller approach and the phase diagrams it produces for interacting bosons in twisted-bilayer lattices, particularly the claim that interlayer interactions alone (no interlayer hopping) can create mobility islands for incommensurate twists. The formalism is clear enough to re-implement, the cluster construction is sensible, and the authors cite the relevant prior work including Refs. [25], [26], and [29], with appropriate distinction from [29].

The soft spot is the percolation cutoff. Two S=1 sites are considered disconnected when their coupling is below 10^-3 t⊥. In the commensurate case that is not reliable: the system is periodic, and any nonzero inter-island Josephson coupling should produce a global superfluid at T=0, even if weak. The Bose-glass-like phase in Fig. 2(a) is probably an artifact of discarding those weak links. The stress-test note lands correctly on this. The incommensurate case is on firmer physical ground because quasiperiodicity can localize, but the same cutoff-based percolation criterion is used there, and the cluster-family averaging coarse-grains the aperiodic potential. The mean-field cutoff |b|<0.05 is also arbitrary, and the paper never computes superfluid stiffness or compressibility, which are the proper order parameters for the SF/BG distinction. No finite-size scaling, no benchmark against exact small-system results. The watermark in the figures and a numerical typo also hint at rushed production.

What the paper does well: the cluster decomposition is an appropriate way to handle the strongly coupled two-site pairs, and the phase diagrams, despite the cutoffs, identify parameter regimes experiments could probe. The t⊥=0 interaction-only case for incommensurate angles is the most defensible new result.

Who should read it: cold-atom theorists and experimentalists working on twisted optical lattices. It is more a survey of possible phases than a quantitative prediction.

Recommendation: send it to a serious referee, but expect a major-revision verdict. The authors need to benchmark against exact small-system results, perform finite-size scaling, test sensitivity to the cutoffs, and reassess the commensurate Bose glass. If the commensurate phase disappears but the incommensurate interaction-only islands survive, the paper still has value.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ground-state phases of interacting bosons in twisted-bilayer square optical lattices, with both inter-layer hopping and inter-layer interactions. The authors introduce a cluster Gutzwiller ansatz in which pairs of sites with strong inter-layer coupling are treated as two-site clusters, solve the resulting mean-field equations self-consistently, and classify phases by the distribution and percolation of sites with non-vanishing local mean field b. For the commensurate angle θ(3,2) they report a sequence of Mott-like density-wave phases and a Bose-glass-like phase of isolated superfluid islands; for the incommensurate angle θ(2,1)+3° they report Bose-glass regimes both with inter-layer hopping and, in the interaction-only case, without inter-layer hopping.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper would extend Bose-glass physics to periodic commensurate moiré lattices and predict interaction-induced mobility islands in aperiodic bilayers, both of which are timely for recent twisted-bilayer cold-atom experiments. The paper has clear strengths: an explicit variational ansatz adapted to the cluster geometry, concrete percolation observables F and P, and a transparent presentation of the model. However, the main qualitative conclusions rest on threshold-based mean-field criteria rather than on genuine order parameters such as superfluid stiffness or compressibility, and the commensurate Bose-glass claim in particular is vulnerable to the finite connectivity threshold used in the percolation analysis.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II.C and Fig. 2(a)] The identification of a Bose-glass phase at a commensurate twist angle rests on the connectivity threshold 10^-3 t⊥. Because the inter-layer couplings t⊥(j,j') are Gaussian and never exactly zero, the supposedly isolated S=1 islands in Fig. 2(b) are coupled by small but nonzero Josephson tunneling; in a periodic lattice at T=0 this generically gives a global superfluid with a small but finite superfluid stiffness, not an insulating Bose glass. The paper neither computes the superfluid stiffness nor the phase-twist energy, so the central abstract claim that a Bose-glass-like phase occurs even for commensurate angles is not established. I ask for a calculation of the twist-energy or superfluid stiffness as a function of system size and a systematic scan of the connectivity threshold in the range 10^-4 to 10^-2 t⊥.
[Sec. IV] The incommensurate phase diagrams are obtained on a single 40×40 system with a percolation criterion, but no finite-size scaling is reported. Percolation is intrinsically a finite-size notion, and without varying the system size (and ideally averaging over twist angles) the BG regimes in Figs. 4 and 5 could reflect the finite sample rather than a thermodynamic phase. In addition, the replacement of the continuous distribution of cluster couplings by four discrete family averages (0.875, 0.625, 0.35, and 0.013 t⊥) coarse-grains the aperiodic potential and can artificially disconnect sites that would be connected in the actual Hamiltonian. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of F and P to the binning and to the cluster-definition cutoff t⊥,cr.
[Secs. II.B and II.C] No benchmark validates the cluster Gutzwiller ansatz or the mean-field percolation criterion against exact small-system results, quantum Monte Carlo, or an independent measure of superfluidity. The thresholds |b|<0.05 and t⊥>t⊥,cr are fixed by hand, and the assertions that 'we have checked' and that 'a slight change does not affect any of our results' are not accompanied by data. Because every phase label in Figs. 2, 4, and 5 is defined by these thresholds, the paper should provide at least one small-system exact-diagonalization comparison and a threshold-sensitivity table for the reported phase boundaries.
[Sec. IV (interaction-only case)] For the t⊥=0 case, the connectivity rule of Sec. II.C is ambiguous: the rule was stated in terms of couplings larger than 10^-3 t⊥, which is not a meaningful scale when t⊥=0. If the percolation graph in Figs. 5(b)-(d) includes inter-layer links, the two layers are connected even though there is no inter-layer hopping; if it uses only intra-layer links, this should be stated explicitly. As written, the BG/SF boundaries in the interaction-only scenario are not reproducible from the stated algorithm.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. II.A] The notation α̸=ᾱ in Eq. (1) is not defined before use; please state explicitly that ᾱ denotes the opposite layer.
[Sec. IV] In the list of cluster families for the incommensurate case, family 4 is given as t⊥,c/t⊥ ∈ [0.06, 0.2) but the assigned average is 0.013, which lies outside that interval; this appears to be a typo.
[References] References [5] and [7] appear to be the same article (Yankowitz et al., Science 363, 1059 (2019)) and should be merged or replaced with a distinct citation.
[Sec. II.C] The definition P ≡ Nspan/N is ambiguous when more than one spanning cluster exists; please specify how Nspan is computed in such cases.
[Sec. III] The phrase 'the dc sites have unit filling' near Fig. 3 appears to be a typo for 'cluster 1 sites' or 'the c=1 sites'.
[Sec. II.B] The energy expression for uncoupled clusters in Eq. (3) omits the intra-layer hopping contribution that is later included as T_intra; this is appropriate for the 'uncoupled cluster' definition but should be stated more explicitly to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all phase diagrams are computed from the Hamiltonian via cluster Gutzwiller; thresholds are classification conventions, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with Gaussian inter-layer couplings, the paper defines clusters by a geometric t_perp threshold (t_perp,cr = 0.03/0.06 t_perp), builds a cluster Gutzwiller ansatz, and minimizes the resulting energy functional to obtain the local mean fields b. The phase labels are then assigned from these computed fields with explicit, fixed classification thresholds: |b| < 0.05 for S=0, and a connectivity cutoff of 10^-3 t_perp for percolation, following Refs. [25,30]. No parameter is fitted to reproduce a target phase; the Mott-like, BG-like, and SF regions are outputs of the minimization and of the Hoshen-Kopelman percolation analysis. The BG label is a stated naming convention for non-percolating S=1 regions, not a claim derived from a self-referential definition. The only self-citation ([18]) appears in a general list of twisted-bilayer works and is not load-bearing. The threshold-based criteria could introduce modeling bias (e.g., the commensurate BG may depend on the 10^-3 t_perp cutoff), but that is a robustness/correctness concern rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a variational cluster-Gutzwiller ansatz, a hand-chosen cluster definition, and a percolation criterion for superfluidity. The model Hamiltonian, the Gaussian tunneling/interaction ranges, and the cluster thresholds are inputs rather than derived results, and no benchmark against exact numerics is provided.

free parameters (6)

l0 (lattice width in units of a) = 0.15a
Chosen to model a deep optical lattice with s ≈ 20; it sets the Gaussian ranges of t⊥(j,j′) and V⊥(j,j′), and thus shapes the cluster structure (Sec. II.A).
t⊥,cr (cluster definition threshold) = 0.03 t⊥ (commensurate), 0.06 t⊥ (incommensurate)
Sites with inter-layer tunneling above this value are grouped into two-site clusters. The paper asserts robustness to lower values but provides no supporting data (Sec. II.B).
Mean-field cutoff |b| < 0.05 = 0.05
A site is considered superfluid (S=1) only if its Gutzwiller mean field exceeds this value; it is used to define all phases (Sec. II.C).
Percolation connection cutoff = 10^-3 t⊥
Two S=1 sites are connected if their coupling exceeds this threshold; it determines whether islands percolate and hence whether the phase is SF or BG (Sec. II.C).
Cluster family average couplings (incommensurate case) = t⊥,c/t⊥ = 0.875, 0.625, 0.35, 0.013
In the incommensurate case, the continuous distribution of cluster couplings is replaced by four averaged values. The last value 0.013 appears to be a typo for 0.13, and this averaging loses quantitative accuracy (Sec. IV).
System size (incommensurate simulations) = 40x40 sites per layer
Finite-size choice for the aperiodic lattice; no finite-size scaling is performed, so percolation thresholds and island distributions may depend on this size (Sec. IV).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The ground state is well approximated by a product state over clusters and non-clustered sites, with intra-cluster correlations treated exactly and inter-cluster correlations treated at the mean-field level.
This is the cluster Gutzwiller ansatz, introduced in Sec. II.B without benchmarking against exact small-system results.
domain assumption The Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian with Gaussian distance-dependent inter-layer tunneling t⊥(j,j′) and interactions V⊥(j,j′) accurately describes the synthetic-dimension twisted-bilayer experiment.
The model is taken from Refs. [13,20] and used throughout; the Gaussian form with l0=0.15a is assumed in Sec. II.A.
domain assumption Clusters contain at most two sites for the parameter regimes considered.
Invoked in Sec. II.B: 'due to the Gaussian dependence of the inter-layer tunneling, for all values of t⊥ discussed in this paper, clusters are always limited to two sites.' No explicit check is provided for all incommensurate angles.
ad hoc to paper Interactions between different clusters and between clusters and non-clustered sites are negligible.
Stated in Sec. II.B: 'Neglecting interactions between different clusters or unclustered sites (which is extremely small under the conditions discussed below)'. This is an uncontrolled approximation that could shift phase boundaries.
ad hoc to paper Superfluid order is equivalent to percolation of sites with mean-field |b| > 0.05, connected through couplings above 10^-3 t⊥.
This threshold-based criterion defines the Mott/BG/SF phases throughout the paper (Sec. II.C). It is not derived from microscopic theory and is not validated against superfluid stiffness or compressibility.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interacting Bose gases in twisted-bilayer optical lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZJ74K7D

@misc{pith2026250712153,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interacting Bose gases in twisted-bilayer optical lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZJ74K7D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12153}
}

read the original abstract

Recent experiments have realized ultra-cold gases in twisted-bilayer optical lattices. We show that interacting bosons in these lattices present a highly non-trivial ground-state physics resulting from the interplay between inter- and intra-layer hopping and interactions. This physics is crucially determined by site clusterization, which we properly take into account by developing a specifically-tailored cluster Gutzwiller approach. Clusterization results in a large variety of different Mott-like phases characterized by typically different occupations of the clusters, and in the appearance of pockets of sites in between which particles can freely move, but which remain disconnected from each other. This peculiar phase, which resembles the well-known Bose glass phase, may occur even for commensurate twist angles and is further enhanced when the twisting is incommensurate. Moreover, in the incommensurate case, the formation of mobility islands may occur even without inter-layer hopping solely due to inter-layer interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12153 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Spatial distribution of sites in layer 1 (blue) and layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) shows the phase diagram for t⊥ = U, and V⊥ = 4U (other choices lead to qualitatively similar phase diagrams). The Mott-like phases (indicated in blue) are characterized by an integer, generally different, population Nc of the different cluster types. We denote these phases in the form (N1, N2, N3, N4). At low chemical potential, the lattice is first filled with one particle in each cluster 1, due to the strong … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The ground-state phase diagram in this case is characterized by a broad Mott insulator regime with one particle in all sites, separated from the SF regime by a BG region. For larger chemical potentials, we observe the appearance of a wide BG regime at low t/U, which al…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Phase diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[25]

Fallani, J

L. Fallani, J. Lye, V. Guarrera, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Ultracold atoms in a disordered crystal of light: Towards a bose glass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 130404 (2007)

work page 2007
[26]

Johnstone, P

D. Johnstone, P. ¨Ohberg, and C. W. Duncan, The mean- field bose glass in quasicrystalline systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54, 395001 (2021)

work page 2021
[29]

Weak Superfluidity in Twisted Optical Potentials

D. Johnstone, S. Mishra, Z. Zhu, H. Yao, and L. Sanchez- Palencia, Weak superfluidity in twisted optical poten- tials, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12963 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

We show in the following that interlayer interactions may result as well in a rich ground-state phase diagram. In the absence of inter-layer coupling, we may carry on with the idea of clusterization but classifying the clusters (still formed by only two sites) according to the inter- layer interaction strength between their sites. Note that for commensura...

work page
[2]

Bistritzer and A

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

work page 2011
[3]

E. Y. Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Graphene bilayers with a twist, Nature materials 19, 1265 (2020)

2020
[4]

Tarnopolsky, A

G. Tarnopolsky, A. J. Kruchkov, and A. Vishwanath, Ori- gin of magic angles in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 106405 (2019)

2019
[5]

Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional super- conductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Na- ture 556, 43 (2018)

2018

Show all 32 references

[7]

M. Oh, K. P. Nuckolls, D. Wong, R. L. Lee, X. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. Yazdani, Evidence for unconventional superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Nature 600, 240 (2021). 7

2021
[8]

Yankowitz, S

M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Tuning superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Science 363, 1059 (2019)

2019
[9]

Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, et al., Correlated insulator be- haviour at half-filling in magic-angle graphene superlat- tices, Nature 556, 80 (2018)

2018
[10]

Codecido, Q

E. Codecido, Q. Wang, R. Koester, S. Che, H. Tian, R. Lv, S. Tran, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Zhang, et al., Correlated insulating and superconducting states in twisted bilayer graphene below the magic angle, Sci- ence Adv. 5, eaaw9770 (2019)

2019
[11]

K. P. Nuckolls, M. Oh, D. Wong, B. Lian, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Strongly correlated chern insulators in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Nature 588, 610 (2020)

2020
[12]

Y. Cao, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies-Bigorda, J. M. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Tunable correlated states and spin-polarized phases in twisted bilayer–bilayer graphene, Nature 583, 215 (2020)

2020
[13]

Shechtman, I

D. Shechtman, I. Blech, D. Gratias, and J. W. Cahn, Metallic phase with long-range orientational order and no translational symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 1951 (1984)

1984
[14]

Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. I. Cirac, Cold atoms in twisted-bilayer optical potentials, Phys. Rev. A 100, 053604 (2019)

2019
[15]

Salamon, A

T. Salamon, A. Celi, R. W. Chhajlany, I. Fr´ erot, M. Lewenstein, L. Tarruell, and D. Rakshit, Simulating twistronics without a twist, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 030504 (2020)

2020
[16]

Luo and C

X.-W. Luo and C. Zhang, Spin-twisted optical lattices: tunable flat bands and larkin-ovchinnikov superfluids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 103201 (2021)

2021
[17]

Lee and J

J. Lee and J. Pixley, Emulating twisted double bilayer graphene with a multiorbital optical lattice, SciPost Physics 13, 033 (2022)

2022
[18]

Madro˜ nero and R

C. Madro˜ nero and R. Paredes, Dynamic stability in spinor bose gases in moir´ e lattices with square and hexag- onal symmetries, Phys. Rev. A 107, 033316 (2023)

2023
[19]

G. C. Paul, P. Recher, and L. Santos, Particle dynamics and ergodicity breaking in twisted-bilayer optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053305 (2023)

2023
[20]

X.-T. Wan, C. Gao, and Z.-Y. Shi, Fractal spec- trum in twisted bilayer optical lattice, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08211 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[21]

Z. Meng, L. Wang, W. Han, F. Liu, K. Wen, C. Gao, P. Wang, C. Chin, and J. Zhang, Atomic bose–einstein condensate in twisted-bilayer optical lattices, Nature 615, 231 (2023)

2023
[22]

Greiner, O

M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature 415, 39 (2002)

2002
[23]

M. P. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition, Phys. Rev. B 40, 546 (1989)

1989
[24]

Lugan, D

P. Lugan, D. Cl´ ement, P. Bouyer, A. Aspect, M. Lewen- stein, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Ultracold bose gases in 1d disorder: From lifshits glass to bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 170403 (2007)

2007
[27]

Ciardi, A

M. Ciardi, A. Angelone, F. Mezzacapo, and F. Cinti, Quasicrystalline bose glass in the absence of disorder and quasidisorder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 173402 (2023)

2023
[28]

J.-C. Yu, S. Bhave, L. Reeve, B. Song, and U. Schneider, Observing the two-dimensional bose glass in an optical quasicrystal, Nature 633, 338 (2024)

2024
[30]

J.-H. Zeng, Q. Zhu, and L. He, Dynamical moir \’e sys- tems in twisted bilayer optical lattices, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20732 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[31]

Niederle and H

A. Niederle and H. Rieger, Superfluid clusters, per- colation and phase transitions in the disordered, two- dimensional bose–hubbard model, New J. of Phys. 15, 075029 (2013)

2013
[32]

Hettiarachchilage, C

K. Hettiarachchilage, C. Moore, V. Rousseau, K.-M. Tam, M. Jarrell, and J. Moreno, Local density of the bose-glass phase, Phys. Rev. B 98, 184206 (2018)

2018
[33]

Hoshen and R

J. Hoshen and R. Kopelman, Percolation and cluster distribution. i. cluster multiple labeling technique and critical concentration algorithm, Phys. Rev. B 14, 3438 (1976)

1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Fallani, J

L. Fallani, J. Lye, V. Guarrera, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Ultracold atoms in a disordered crystal of light: Towards a bose glass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 130404 (2007)

work page 2007

[2] [26]

Johnstone, P

D. Johnstone, P. ¨Ohberg, and C. W. Duncan, The mean- field bose glass in quasicrystalline systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54, 395001 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [29]

Weak Superfluidity in Twisted Optical Potentials

D. Johnstone, S. Mishra, Z. Zhu, H. Yao, and L. Sanchez- Palencia, Weak superfluidity in twisted optical poten- tials, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12963 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [1]

We show in the following that interlayer interactions may result as well in a rich ground-state phase diagram. In the absence of inter-layer coupling, we may carry on with the idea of clusterization but classifying the clusters (still formed by only two sites) according to the inter- layer interaction strength between their sites. Note that for commensura...

work page

[5] [2]

Bistritzer and A

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

work page 2011

[6] [3]

E. Y. Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Graphene bilayers with a twist, Nature materials 19, 1265 (2020)

2020

[7] [4]

Tarnopolsky, A

G. Tarnopolsky, A. J. Kruchkov, and A. Vishwanath, Ori- gin of magic angles in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 106405 (2019)

2019

[8] [5]

Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional super- conductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Na- ture 556, 43 (2018)

2018