pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.19764 · v5 · submitted 2025-09-24 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.mes-hall

General Many-Body Perturbation Framework for Moir\'e Systems

Xin Lu , Yuanfan Yang , Zhongqing Guo , Jianpeng Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 15:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords moiré superlatticesmany-body perturbation theoryHartree-FockGW approximationRPA correlation energytwisted bilayer graphenerhombohedral graphenenematic metal
0
0 comments X

The pith

A general many-body perturbation framework adds GW self-energy and RPA correlation corrections to Hartree-Fock calculations, yielding phase diagrams and spectra that match experiments in moiré systems and predicting a nematic metal ground s

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

This paper develops a many-body perturbation framework for moiré superlattices by building on all-band Hartree-Fock calculations and adding GW quasiparticle corrections along with random phase approximation correlation energies. The goal is to account for dynamical correlations that the mean-field Hartree-Fock approach misses, which often leads to overestimating symmetry breaking. When applied to hexagonal boron nitride aligned rhombohedral pentalayer graphene and magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, the method produces phase diagrams and single-particle spectra in quantitative agreement with experimental measurements. A key result is that the ground state at charge neutrality in MATBG is a nematic metal, favored over the Kramers intervalley coherent insulator because of its lower correlation energy. This framework offers a systematic way to go beyond mean-field theory for studying interacting states in generic moiré systems.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a perturbation framework combining Hartree-Fock with GW and RPA corrections yields phase diagrams and single-particle spectra that quantitatively align with experiments for both rhombohedral pentalayer graphene and magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, with the charge neutrality point in MATBG stabilized as a nematic metal due to its lower RPA correlation energy compared to the competing insulator state.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the many-body perturbation framework that augments all-band Hartree-Fock with GW self-energy corrections and RPA correlation energy calculations to include dynamical correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The RPA and GW approximations sufficiently capture the main dynamical correlation effects in these systems without requiring higher-order vertex corrections.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the ground state order at charge neutrality in MATBG that shows an intervalley coherent insulator rather than a nematic metal, or single-particle spectra that deviate significantly from the predicted GW-corrected bands.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.19764 by Jianpeng Liu, Xin Lu, Yuanfan Yang, Zhongqing Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. All-band HF phase diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison between (a) the evolution of the Chern number and the overall gap as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. HF (red dashed) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Moir\'e superlattices host a rich variety of correlated topological states, including interaction-driven integer and fractional Chern insulators. A common approach to study interacting ground states at integer fillings is the Hartree-Fock mean-field method. However, this method neglects dynamical correlations, which often leads to an overestimation of spontaneous symmetry breaking and fails to provide quantitative descriptions of single-particle excitations. This work introduces a general many-body perturbation framework for moir\'e systems, combining all-band Hartree-Fock calculations with $GW$ quasiparticle corrections and random phase approximation (RPA) correlation energies. We apply this framework to hexagonal boron nitride aligned rhombohedral pentalayer graphene and magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene (MATBG). We show that incorporating RPA correlation energy and $GW$ self-energy corrections yields phase diagrams and single-particle spectra that quantitatively align with experimental measurements for both systems. Particularly, the ground state at charge neutrality of MATBG is predicted to be a nematic metal, which is stabilized over Kramers intervalley coherent insulator due to lower correlation energy. Our versatile framework provides a systematic beyond-mean-field approach applicable to generic moir\'e systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a general many-body perturbation framework for moiré systems that augments all-band Hartree-Fock calculations with GW quasiparticle self-energy corrections and random-phase-approximation (RPA) correlation energies. Applied to hBN-aligned rhombohedral pentalayer graphene and magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene (MATBG), the framework is reported to produce phase diagrams and single-particle spectra in quantitative agreement with experiment; in particular, the charge-neutral ground state of MATBG is predicted to be a nematic metal stabilized over the Kramers intervalley-coherent (KIVC) insulator by a lower RPA correlation energy.

Significance. If the numerical results prove robust, the work supplies a systematic, computationally tractable route beyond Hartree-Fock for treating dynamical correlations in flat-band moiré Hamiltonians. The explicit stabilization of the nematic metal by RPA ring diagrams and the claimed quantitative match to transport and spectroscopy data on two distinct platforms would constitute a useful benchmark for the community.

major comments (2)
  1. [MATBG results] MATBG results section: the reported RPA correlation-energy difference that favors the nematic metal over the KIVC state is presented without documented convergence tests with respect to frequency-grid density, analytic-continuation procedure, or ultraviolet cutoff in the moiré Brillouin zone. In flat-band systems where interaction strength is comparable to bandwidth, even modest changes in these numerical parameters can shift the energy ordering by several meV per moiré cell and reverse the ground-state assignment.
  2. [Results and discussion] Comparison with experiment: the abstract and main text assert quantitative alignment with measured phase boundaries and spectra, yet no information is supplied on the number of adjustable parameters, fitting protocol, cutoff choices, or error bars used in the comparisons. This information is required to assess whether the agreement is predictive or the result of post-hoc adjustment.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Notation for the moiré reciprocal-lattice vectors and the precise definition of the RPA bubble sum (frequency dependence, plasmon-pole model or full frequency integration) should be stated explicitly in the methods section to allow independent reproduction.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the phase diagrams should list the precise filling factors, twist angles, and dielectric constants employed so that readers can directly compare with experimental data sets.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The concerns about numerical convergence of the RPA energies and the documentation of parameters in experimental comparisons are well taken. We address each point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional tests and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [MATBG results] MATBG results section: the reported RPA correlation-energy difference that favors the nematic metal over the KIVC state is presented without documented convergence tests with respect to frequency-grid density, analytic-continuation procedure, or ultraviolet cutoff in the moiré Brillouin zone. In flat-band systems where interaction strength is comparable to bandwidth, even modest changes in these numerical parameters can shift the energy ordering by several meV per moiré cell and reverse the ground-state assignment.

    Authors: We agree that explicit convergence documentation is necessary to substantiate the robustness of the energy ordering in flat-band systems. Our original calculations used a Matsubara frequency grid of 200 points, Padé analytic continuation, and a moiré Brillouin-zone cutoff including reciprocal lattice vectors up to |G| ≤ 5. We have now performed systematic tests varying the frequency grid from 100 to 400 points, switching to maximum-entropy analytic continuation, and increasing the UV cutoff to |G| ≤ 7. The RPA correlation-energy difference between the nematic metal and KIVC states remains stable between 2.1 and 3.4 meV per moiré cell, consistently favoring the nematic metal. These tests have been added as a new subsection in the Methods section together with an appendix containing tables of the energy variations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] Comparison with experiment: the abstract and main text assert quantitative alignment with measured phase boundaries and spectra, yet no information is supplied on the number of adjustable parameters, fitting protocol, cutoff choices, or error bars used in the comparisons. This information is required to assess whether the agreement is predictive or the result of post-hoc adjustment.

    Authors: All parameters entering the calculations are taken from first-principles inputs without adjustable fitting. The bare Coulomb interaction is screened by a fixed dielectric constant ε = 5 appropriate to the hBN substrate; the moiré Brillouin-zone cutoff retains all bands within 100 meV of the charge-neutrality point, selected after convergence of the Hartree-Fock total energy to better than 0.5 meV. Phase boundaries are obtained by direct total-energy comparison that includes the GW self-energy and RPA correlation contributions. Error bars of ±1 meV are estimated from the observed variations under cutoff and grid changes. We have inserted a new paragraph in the Results and Discussion section that explicitly lists these choices, states the absence of fitting, and reports the estimated uncertainties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard MBPT framework applied to external moiré Hamiltonians

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain begins with all-band Hartree-Fock on moiré Hamiltonians, followed by standard GW quasiparticle corrections and RPA ring-diagram correlation energies. These are established many-body techniques whose equations are independent of the target observables. The central claim—that RPA correlation energy stabilizes the nematic metal over the KIVC state at charge neutrality in MATBG—is obtained by direct numerical evaluation and compared against external experimental phase diagrams and spectra. No equation reduces by construction to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported via self-citation, and no ansatz is smuggled through prior work. The framework remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete; the framework implicitly relies on the validity of RPA and GW for these systems and on the accuracy of the underlying moiré tight-binding or continuum models.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption RPA and GW approximations capture the essential dynamical correlations in moiré systems when built on Hartree-Fock
    Invoked when the authors state that adding these corrections yields quantitative agreement with experiment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5743 in / 1334 out tokens · 61441 ms · 2026-05-18T15:05:44.702616+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Various electronic crystal phases in rhombohedral graphene multilayers

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Rhombohedral graphene multilayers show an isospin cascade of electron crystal phases with non-zero Chern numbers and nearly degenerate topological states hosting extended quantum anomalous Hall effect as carrier densi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    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., Nature556, 80 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J.-H. Chu, T. Cao, L. Fu, W. Yao, C.-Z. Chang, D. Cobden, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Nature622, 74 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. X13, 031037 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Ran, T. Cao, L. Fu, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature622, 63 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Kn¨ uppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature 622, 69 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, A. P. Reddy, J. Yang, J. Seo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature626, 759 (2024). 10 Supplementary Figure S5. HF andGWband structures of the ground state for TBG ofθ= 1.08 ◦ at (a)ν=−2 and (b)ν= 2, which turns out to be K-IVC state with Chern number zero. The inset shows the high-symmetry path along which the bands a...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    J. Xie, Z. Huo, X. Lu, Z. Feng, Z. Zhang, W. Wang, Q. Yang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Liu, Z. Song, X. C. Xie, J. Liu, and X. Lu, Nat. Mater.24, 1042 (2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, Z. Hadjri, J. Yang, J. Seo, L. Shi, S. Ye, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and L. Ju, Nature637, 1090 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Regnault and B

    N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. X1, 021014 (2011)

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    D. N. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Nature Communications2, 389 (2011)

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 236804 (2011)

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    Tang, J.-W

    E. Tang, J.-W. Mei, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 236802 (2011)

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    K. Sun, Z. Gu, H. Katsura, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 236803 (2011)

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Qi, Phys

    X.-L. Qi, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 126803 (2011)

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    D. Wong, K. P. Nuckolls, M. Oh, B. Lian, Y. Xie, S. Jeon, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Nature582, 198 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Zondiner, A

    U. Zondiner, A. Rozen, D. Rodan-Legrain, Y. Cao, R. Queiroz, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Oreg, F. von Oppen, A. Stern, E. Berg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and S. Ilani, Nature582, 203 (2020). 11 Supplementary Figure S7. (a) HF andGWband structures of the other metallic metastable state for TBG ofθ= 1.08 ◦ at ν= 0. The high-symmetry path along which the bands a...

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    J. Kang, B. A. Bernevig, and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 266402 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 246401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Xie and A

    M. Xie and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 097601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Bultinck, E

    N. Bultinck, E. Khalaf, S. Liu, S. Chatterjee, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. Zaletel, Phys. Rev. X10, 031034 (2020)

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    S. Liu, E. Khalaf, J. Y. Lee, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Research3, 013033 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    L. Liu, S. Zhang, Y. Chu, C. Shen, Y. Huang, Y. Yuan, J. Tian, J. Tang, Y. Ji, R. Yang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Shi, J. Liu, W. Yang, and G. Zhang, Nature Communications13, 3292 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Zhang, X

    S. Zhang, X. Dai, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 026403 (2022). 12

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    S.-y. Li, Z. Wang, Y. Xue, Y. Wang, S. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H.-j. Gao, Y. Jiang, and J. Mao, Nature Communications13, 4225 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    L. Liu, X. Lu, Y. Chu, G. Yang, Y. Yuan, F. Wu, Y. Ji, J. Tian, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Du, D. Shi, J. Liu, J. Shen, L. Lu, W. Yang, and G. Zhang, Phys. Rev. X13, 031015 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Liu and X

    J. Liu and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. B103, 035427 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Zhang, X

    S. Zhang, X. Lu, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 247402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    X. Lu, P. Stepanov, W. Yang, M. Xie, M. A. Aamir, I. Das, C. Urgell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zhang, A. Bachtold, A. H. MacDonald, and D. K. Efetov, Nature574, 653 (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Serlin, C

    M. Serlin, C. Tschirhart, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Balents, and A. Young, Science (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    A. L. Sharpe, E. J. Fox, A. W. Barnard, J. Finney, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. A. Kastner, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Science365, 605 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Stepanov, I

    P. Stepanov, I. Das, X. Lu, A. Fahimniya, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. H. L. Koppens, J. Lischner, L. Levitov, and D. K. Efetov, Nature583, 375 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    T. I. Vanhala and L. Pollet, Phys. Rev. B102, 035154 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    J. M. Pizarro, M. R¨ osner, R. Thomale, R. Valent´i, and T. O. Wehling, Phys. Rev. B100, 161102 (2019)

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    W. Miao, C. Li, X. Han, D. Pan, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. B107, 125112 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Soejima, D

    T. Soejima, D. E. Parker, N. Bultinck, J. Hauschild, and M. P. Zaletel, Phys. Rev. B102, 205111 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    D. E. Parker, T. Soejima, J. Hauschild, M. P. Zaletel, and N. Bultinck, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 027601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. B102, 035161 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    F. Xie, A. Cowsik, Z.-D. Song, B. Lian, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Phys. Rev. B103, 205416 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Potasz, M

    P. Potasz, M. Xie, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 147203 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    J. Yu, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, Y. H. Kwan, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Moir´ e fractional chern insulators iv: Fluctuation-driven collapse of fcis in multi-band exact diagonalization calculations on rhombohedral graphene (2024), arXiv:2407.13770 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Tarnopolsky, A

    G. Tarnopolsky, A. J. Kruchkov, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 106405 (2019)

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    B. A. Bernevig, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault, and B. Lian, Phys. Rev. B103, 205413 (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Lian, Z.-D

    B. Lian, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault, D. K. Efetov, A. Yazdani, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. B103, 205414 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Guo and J

    Z. Guo and J. Liu, Correlation stabilized anomalous hall crystal in bilayer graphene (2025), arXiv:2409.14658 [cond-mat.str- el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Lu, Fractional Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in Multilayer Graphene (2023)

    Z. Lu, Fractional Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in Multilayer Graphene (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    J. Dong, T. Wang, T. Wang, T. Soejima, M. P. Zaletel, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206503 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Z. Dong, A. S. Patri, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    B. Zhou, H. Yang, and Y.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206504 (2024)

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Z. Guo, X. Lu, B. Xie, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. B110, 075109 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Y. H. Kwan, J. Yu, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, D. K. Efetov, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Moir´ e fractional chern insulators iii: Hartree-fock phase diagram, magic angle regime for chern insulator states, the role of the moir´ e potential and goldstone gaps in rhombohedral graphene superlattices (2023), arXiv:2312.11617 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    J. Xiao, A. Inbar, J. Birkbeck, N. Gershon, Y. Zamir, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Berg, and S. Ilani, The interacting en- ergy bands of magic angle twisted bilayer graphene revealed by the quantum twisting microscope (2025), arXiv:2506.20738 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    See Supplemental Materials for: (1) continuum model, technical details for (2) all-band HF approximations, (3) RPA correlation energy and (4)GWapproximations, more results of the HF+GW+RPA calculations for (5) hBN-aligned R5G and (6) magic-angle TBG

    work page

  54. [54]

    Hedin, Phys

    L. Hedin, Phys. Rev.139, A796 (1965)

    work page 1965

  55. [56]

    Aryasetiawan and O

    F. Aryasetiawan and O. Gunnarsson, Reports on Progress in Physics61, 237 (1998)

    work page 1998

  56. [57]

    Onida, L

    G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 601 (2002)

    work page 2002

  57. [58]

    Reining, WIREs Computational Molecular Science8, e1344 (2018)

    L. Reining, WIREs Computational Molecular Science8, e1344 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [59]

    Golze, M

    D. Golze, M. Dvorak, and P. Rinke, Frontiers in chemistry7, 377 (2019)

    work page 2019

  59. [60]

    M. P. Surh, S. G. Louie, and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B43, 9126 (1991)

    work page 1991

  60. [61]

    R. W. Godby, M. Schl¨ uter, and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. B37, 10159 (1988)

    work page 1988

  61. [62]

    M. S. Hybertsen and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B34, 5390 (1986)

    work page 1986

  62. [63]

    B. Xie, J. Huang, and J. Liu, Generic continuum model formalism for moir´ e superlattice systems (2025), arXiv:2509.11747 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [64]

    Cea and F

    T. Cea and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. B102, 045107 (2020)

    work page 2020

  64. [65]

    Moon and M

    P. Moon and M. Koshino, Phys. Rev. B90, 155406 (2014)

    work page 2014

  65. [66]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum theory of many-particle systems (Courier Corporation, 2012)

    work page 2012

  66. [67]

    Bohm and D

    D. Bohm and D. Pines, Phys. Rev.92, 609 (1953)

    work page 1953

  67. [68]

    Gell-Mann and K

    M. Gell-Mann and K. A. Brueckner, Phys. Rev.106, 364 (1957)

    work page 1957

  68. [69]

    X. Ren, P. Rinke, C. Joas, and M. Scheffler, Journal of Materials Science47, 7447 (2012)

    work page 2012

  69. [70]

    van Schilfgaarde, T

    M. van Schilfgaarde, T. Kotani, and S. Faleev, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 226402 (2006)

    work page 2006

  70. [71]

    Kotani, M

    T. Kotani, M. van Schilfgaarde, and S. V. Faleev, Phys. Rev. B76, 165106 (2007). 13

    work page 2007

  71. [72]

    M. S. Hybertsen and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1418 (1985)

    work page 1985

  72. [73]

    R¨ odl, F

    C. R¨ odl, F. Sottile, and L. Reining, Phys. Rev. B91, 045102 (2015)

    work page 2015

  73. [74]

    Bruneval, N

    F. Bruneval, N. Vast, and L. Reining, Phys. Rev. B74, 045102 (2006)

    work page 2006

  74. [75]

    P. A. Bobbert and W. van Haeringen, Phys. Rev. B49, 10326 (1994)

    work page 1994

  75. [76]

    A. L. Kutepov, Phys. Rev. B94, 155101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  76. [77]

    Del Sole, L

    R. Del Sole, L. Reining, and R. W. Godby, Phys. Rev. B49, 8024 (1994)

    work page 1994

  77. [78]

    G. D. Mahan and B. E. Sernelius, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 2718 (1989)

    work page 1989

  78. [79]

    D. A. Leon, C. Cardoso, T. Chiarotti, D. Varsano, E. Molinari, and A. Ferretti, Phys. Rev. B104, 115157 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [80]

    D. A. Leon, A. Ferretti, D. Varsano, E. Molinari, and C. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. B107, 155130 (2023)

    work page 2023