Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

For a 1D incommensurate Schrödinger operator, the density of states matches a second-order semiclassical expansion at small mismatch, and residual oscillations are harmonic-oscillator levels at band critical points.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 09:25 UTC pith:4WNFNB2F

load-bearing objection Solid, genuinely useful numerical study with a real but addressable caveat: the momentum-space reference looks under-converged exactly where the paper's main discrepancy story plays out. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.15369 v3 pith:4WNFNB2F submitted 2025-10-17 math-ph math.MP

Numerical computation of the density of states of aperiodic multiscale Schr\"odinger operators

Eric Canc\`es , Daniel Massatt , Long Meng , \'Etienne Polack , Xue Quan This is my paper
classification math-ph math.MP MSC 81Q2035P20
keywords density of statesincommensurate systemssemiclassical expansionmoiré materialsVan Hove singularitiesmomentum-space methodharmonic oscillator approximationSchrödinger operators
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper compares two computational approaches to the density of states (DoS) of a Schrödinger operator with two incommensurate periodicities—the setting behind moiré materials with a small twist or lattice mismatch. The first approach is a momentum-space planewave calculation; the second expands the DoS in powers of the small mismatch parameter ε. The paper supplies explicit formulas for the zeroth, first, and second-order terms of that expansion as integrals over the band structure of a commensurate two-parameter symbol, and verifies them against the momentum-space method. It then argues that when the full DoS curves disagree at larger ε, the disagreement is caused by oscillations at the semiclassical analogues of Van Hove singularities, and that these oscillations are described—quantitatively for small ε—by harmonic oscillator energy levels attached to each band critical point. If correct, this provides an inexpensive, parameter-free explanation of sharp oscillatory features in moiré spectra.

Core claim

For Hε = −½Δ + V(x,(1+ε)x) with smooth, periodic V, Theorem 2.5 establishes that Tr[f(Hε)] = L0(f) + εL1(f) + ε²L2(f) + O(ε³), where each Lj is an explicit sum-over-states integral over the eigenvalues λn(k,X) of the operator-valued symbol h(k,X) = ½(−i∇+k)² + V(x,X) on the torus, together with its spectral matrix elements. The paper checks these coefficients by finite differences against the momentum-space method and finds full-DoS agreement for ε = 0.001. At ε = 0.01, the mismatch is localized near critical points (k0,X0) of the band functions, and the paper shows that near such a point the effective Hamiltonian is a quantum harmonic oscillator with eigenvalues E(p) + εωp(n+½). This harmon

What carries the argument

The central object is the operator-valued Weyl symbol h(k,X), the Bloch Hamiltonian of the commensurate approximation at local disregistry X. Its band structure (Ej(k,X)) and spectral matrix elements carry the argument: the semiclassical coefficients L0, L1, and L2 are integrals of divided differences of the test function over these bands, and the critical points of Ej drive an effective harmonic oscillator model Heff_p = E(p) − (Ap/2)d²/dx² + (ε²Cp/2)x². The Wigner transform of the oscillator eigenstates is used to diagnose whether the harmonic model is valid in a given region of phase space.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the momentum-space reference calculation is converged wherever it is used as ground truth—especially in the ε = 0.01, σ = 0.08 case, where the plotted exact DoS dips below zero, which the true Gaussian-smeared density of states cannot.

What would settle it

Recompute the momentum-space/KPM approximation for ε = 0.01, σ = 0.08 with a systematically increased Chebyshev expansion order (reporting the order) until the DoS approximation is nonnegative everywhere to numerical precision. If the converged reference still disagrees with the second-order semiclassical curve in the energy range [9,18], the paper's attribution of the mismatch to missing higher-order semiclassical corrections is supported; if the reference shifts, the mismatch is partly a reference artifact.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For sufficiently small ε, the DoS of an incommensurate system can be computed from the band structure of a single commensurate symbol, avoiding direct simulation of the aperiodic system.
  • The explicit formulas for L0, L1, and L2 make the semiclassical expansion directly usable once the spectral decomposition of h(k,X) is known.
  • The harmonic-oscillator analysis predicts that sharp DoS oscillations appear at energies determined by band critical points and their second derivatives, explaining what would otherwise look like numerical artifacts.
  • At less-small ε, missing higher-order semiclassical corrections are the reason the truncated expansion fails, pointing to where improved approximations are needed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: In the ε = 0.01, σ = 0.08 comparison, the plotted momentum-space DoS dips below zero in the energy range [9,18], even though the exact Gaussian-smeared DoS must be nonnegative; this suggests the reference calculation is not fully converged there, so part of the reported mismatch may reflect reference error rather than missing semiclassical terms.
  • Editorial inference: The harmonic-oscillator mechanism offers a practical diagnostic: from the second derivatives of any band critical point one can predict where sharp DoS peaks will appear in a moiré spectrum, without solving the full aperiodic problem.
  • Editorial inference: In nearly degenerate band regions, such as the second/third band crossing near E ≈ 10 in this model, the single-band harmonic model breaks down even for small ε; a multi-band effective model would be a natural next test.
  • Editorial inference: Because L0, L1, and L2 depend only on the potential and not on ε, they could be reused as inexpensive surrogates in parameter sweeps over twist angles or lattice mismatches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares two numerical approaches for the density of states of one-dimensional incommensurate Schrödinger operators of the form H_ε = -1/2 d²/dx² + V(x,(1+ε)x): a momentum-space method with KPM evaluation, and a semiclassical expansion in ε. The main theoretical output is Theorem 2.5, which gives explicit sum-over-states formulae (2.25)–(2.27) for the first three coefficients L0, L1, L2 of the expansion Tr[f(H_ε)] = L0 + εL1 + ε²L2 + ..., with a detailed derivation in Appendix A. Numerically, the authors compare L0, L1, L2 with finite differences of the momentum-space DoS, compare the full regularized DoS for ε=0.001 and ε=0.01, and attribute discrepancies at ε=0.01 to oscillations at Van Hove critical points captured by a harmonic-oscillator effective model (3.5)–(3.6).

Significance. If the numerical convergence questions are resolved, this is a valuable contribution. The paper provides a practical, parameter-free second-order semiclassical formula for the DoS of two-scale Schrödinger operators, with a self-contained algebraic derivation in Appendix A, and a predictive harmonic-oscillator description of DoS oscillations at band critical points. The comparisons at small ε (Figures 1–4) show impressive agreement, and the authors report their discretization parameters, which aids reproducibility. However, the momentum-space reference computation is not fully characterized in the very regime used to validate the failure analysis, and some quantitative claims lack supporting derivations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Figure 5 (right)] For σ=0.08 and ε=0.01, the momentum-space approximation of ν_{ε,σ}(E) (solid blue) takes negative values in the energy range [9,18]. Since ν_{ε,σ} is the convolution of the positive DoS measure with a positive Gaussian, it must be nonnegative. A negative value is a rigorous indicator of numerical artifact, not a property of the true DoS. The manuscript does not discuss this, and the KPM/Chebyshev expansion order is not reported, so the reference accuracy is unquantified. This is exactly the regime in which the paper claims the second-order semiclassical method fails due to missing higher-order corrections; the reference must be demonstrated converged (e.g., by increasing Chebyshev order and showing stability) before that attribution is clean. The same issue affects the σ=0.04 results in §3.3, which use the momentum-space curves as ground truth.
  2. [§3.2, Figures 1–3] The momentum-space approximations of L1 and L2 are obtained by finite differences in ε, but the step size and stencil are not reported. The reported agreement (errors up to 10^-5 for L1 and 10^-3 for L2 at σ=0.08) could be limited by finite-difference truncation rather than by the methods themselves. Without the step size and a convergence check in the step, the consistency of the expansion coefficients is not fully established. Please provide this information.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (3.6)] The harmonic approximation formula (3.6) is stated without derivation. In particular, the prefactor ε/|Ω| is not derived from the semiclassical quantization, and the calculation is restricted to a single band with Bp assumed zero. A derivation, or at least a precise statement of the approximations leading to (3.6), is necessary to assess the quantitative claims in Figures 7, 10, and 11. Currently the prefactor and the neglect of interband coupling are not justified, weakening the claim that the harmonic model is quantitative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] The abstract and body contain several typographical artifacts ('Schr¨odinger', 'DoS', etc.). Please proofread.
  2. [References] References [16] and [17] are identical; one should be removed or replaced.
  3. [§2.2.2 / §3.2] The theory is stated for irrational ε, but all numerical experiments use rational ε=0.001 and 0.01. Please explain whether the momentum-space formula (2.8) remains valid for rational ε, or why these rational approximations are representative of the incommensurate limit.
  4. [Theorem 2.5] The constant C_{d,m} in (2.28) is not stated to depend on V and f; clarify the dependence explicitly.
  5. [§3.3, Wigner transform] The Wigner transform formula introduces ℏ=1 without explaining the ε-scaling that is used in the subsequent localization argument; a short clarification would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: expansion terms and harmonic-level predictions are parameter-free and independently checked.

full rationale

The semiclassical coefficients L0,L1,L2 in (2.25)-(2.27) are derived in Appendix A by explicit Helffer-Sjostrand/resolvent calculus from the operator-valued symbol h(k,X); no parameter is fitted to the momentum-space DoS. The numerical comparison in Section 3.2 uses the momentum-space method (2.10), whose convergence is governed by Theorem 2.3, as an independent computation of Tr f(H_epsilon); the agreement at epsilon=0.001 is a genuine cross-check, and the epsilon=0.01 discrepancy is attributed to truncation of the semiclassical series rather than to any fitted input. The harmonic model in Section 3.3 obtains E(p), Ap, Bp, Cp, omega_p from the band structure of h(k,X) (Table 1), not from the oscillation positions; formula (3.5) then predicts level positions that are compared with the momentum-space calculation, so this is a genuine prediction rather than a fit renamed as a prediction. The paper does rely on prior work by overlapping authors for the existence of the expansion ([4]) and for the momentum-space approximation ([22]), but both are stated mathematical results with explicit assumptions and are not ad hoc constructions of the target numerical values; the load-bearing identity (2.29) is not equivalent to an input by construction. Any concern about convergence of the momentum-space reference (e.g., negative DoS values at sigma=0.08, epsilon=0.01) is a numerical-accuracy issue, not a circularity of the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on (i) the hand-selected Gaussian toy potential with amplitude/width parameters A1=7, A2=5, σ1=σ2=0.05 chosen to produce the phenomena; (ii) standard ergodic and pseudodifferential background (Birkhoff ergodicity for DoS; Weyl/Moyal calculus; Helffer-Sjöstrand functional calculus); (iii) the operator-valued semiclassical framework inherited from the authors' own prior work [4], whose error-bound constant is not quantified in σ; and (iv) the Bp≈0/single-band approximation in the harmonic explanation of the oscillations. No new physical entities are postulated and no constants are fitted to the target output; all harmonic-model parameters are computed from the band structure.

free parameters (3)
  • V barrier amplitudes A1, A2 = A1=7.0, A2=5.0
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 3 'as this choice provided us with an operator-valued symbol h(k,X) with band gaps and energy levels that vary noticeably' — the model was selected so that the phenomena under study appear; generality of the conclusions to other potentials is not established.
  • Gaussian widths σ1, σ2 = σ1=σ2=0.05
    Same sentence in Sec. 3; part of the hand-selected toy model; central claims are demonstrated only for this potential.
  • test-function smearing σ = 0.4, 0.08, 0.04
    Procedural choices for the Gaussian test function δσ(E−·); the observed oscillations are only resolved for the smaller values, which the paper uses to define the regimes of agreement/discrepancy.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Ergodicity of the translation action yields a well-defined, ω-independent DoS for irrational ε
    Invoked in Sec. 1 to justify DoS for (1.8); standard ergodic Birkhoff argument.
  • domain assumption Theorem 2.2 momentum-space trace identity with exponential decay of Fourier modes of V
    Restated from [22]; requires VG decaying exponentially and f in Λζ,δ; the toy-model Gaussian potential satisfies it.
  • standard math Semiclassical resolvent expansion (2.14) and functional calculus via Helffer–Sjöstrand
    Weyl calculus assumptions in Sec. 2.2.1; standard pseudodifferential techniques, but the operator-valued version for Hε is adopted from [4] without reproof.
  • domain assumption Theorem 2.5 error bound (2.28) with constant C_{d,m} independent of f
    Stated as inherited from the framework of [4]; the constant's dependence on σ is not quantified, so the numerical regime of validity is established empirically rather than by the bound.
  • domain assumption Gaussian test functions satisfy the growth condition (2.30)
    Remark 2.6 connects the compactly-supported test function class of Theorem 2.5 to the Gaussians used numerically; plausible but not proved in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Cross-term Bp ≈ 0 at critical points; single-band harmonic model
    Sec. 3.3, Table 1: Bp rounded to 0.00; the model then assumes Bp=0 exactly, and ignores inter-band coupling, which the authors note fails for p=3,5. This assumption is part of the explanation of the oscillations, not of the L0/L1/L2 expansion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25656 in / 29155 out tokens · 235595 ms · 2026-08-04T09:25:46.437092+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical computation of the density of states of aperiodic multiscale Schr\"odinger operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4WNFNB2F

@misc{pith2026251015369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical computation of the density of states of aperiodic multiscale Schr\"odinger operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4WNFNB2F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.15369}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Computing the electronic structure of incommensurate materials is a central challenge in condensed matter physics, requiring efficient ways to approximate spectral quantities such as the density of states (DoS). In this paper, we numerically investigate two distinct approaches for approximating the DoS of incommensurate Hamiltonians for small values of the incommensurability parameters $\epsilon$ (e.g., small twist angle, or small lattice mismatch): the first employs a momentum-space decomposition, and the second exploits a semiclassical expansion with respect to $\epsilon$. In particular, we compare these two methods using a 1D toy model. We check their consistency by comparing the asymptotic expansion terms of the DoS, and it is shown that, for full DoS, the two methods exhibit good agreement in the small $\epsilon$ limit, while discrepancies arise for less small $\epsilon$, which indicates the importance of higher-order corrections in the semiclassical method for such regimes. We find these discrepancies to be caused by oscillations in the DoS at the semiclassical analogues of Van Hove singularities, which can be explained qualitatively, and quantitatively for $\epsilon$ small enough, by a semiclassical approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.15369 by Daniel Massatt, Eric Canc\`es, \'Etienne Polack, Long Meng, Xue Quan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of two numerical approximations of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of two numerical approximations of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of two numerical approximations of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the momentum space (solid blue) and second-order semiclassical (dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the momentum space (solid blue) and second-order semiclassical (dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Approximation of νϵ,σ obtained with the momentum-space method over the energy range −20 to 20 with ϵ = 0.01 and σ = 0.04. (b) First three energy bands Ej (k, X) of the operator h(k, X). Each color represents a different band (j = 1, 2, 3), and lines of the same color correspond to different k-points. The circles labeled 1 to 6 mark critical points p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Approximations of νϵ,σ in the energy range near p = 1 and p = 2 for σ = 0.04. (a) Comparison of the momentum-space calculation with the harmonic energy levels (dashed white lines) from (3.5) for ϵ in [0.001, 0.011]. (b) Comparison of the momentum-space calculation (solid blue line) with the harmonic approximation from (3.6) (dashed green line) for ϵ = 0.01. The parameters of the harmonic approximation are … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Level sets of (k, X) 7→ Ej (k, X) for j = 1 (Left) and j = 2 (Right). We next present results for p = 3 to 6 in the same ϵ regimes. Here, we focus on p = 3 and p = 5, as the results for p = 4 and p = 6 are identical due to the symmetry of the band structures. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the level sets of E(k, X) with the level sets of |W(un,ϵ)(X, k)| (dashed green contours) for ϵ = 0.01 and n = 0, 2, 4, showing the regions surrounding p = 1 (Left) and p = 2 (Right). The parameters of the eigenstates are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Approximations of νϵ,σ in the energy range near p = 3 and p = 5 for σ = 0.04. (a) Comparison of the momentum-space calculation with the harmonic energy levels (dashed white lines) from (3.5) for ϵ in [0.001, 0.011]. (b) Comparison of the momentum-space calculation (solid blue line) with the harmonic approximation from (3.6) (dashed green line) for ϵ = 0.01. The parameters of the harmonic approximation are… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: that the two methods still exhibit good agreement for sufficiently small values of ϵ within this range. From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Kohn-Sham models for encapsulated two-dimensional materials

    math-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Proves existence and well-posedness for Kohn-Sham DFT models of encapsulated 2D materials with Yukawa-screened interactions in periodic and quasi-periodic settings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aizenman and S

    M. Aizenman and S. Warzel.Random operators, volume 168 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015. ISBN 978-1-4704-1913-4. doi: 10.1090/ gsm/168. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/168

    work page doi:10.1090/gsm/168 2015

  2. [2]

    Balezard-Konlein

    A. Balezard-Konlein. Calcul fonctionnel pour les op´ erateursh-admissibles ` a symbole op´ erateur et applications. Th` ese de 3` eme cycle, Universit´ e de Nantes, 1985

    1985

  3. [3]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald. Moir´ e butterflies in twisted bilayer graphene.Phys. Rev. B, 84(3):035440, 2011. 25

    2011

  4. [4]

    Canc` es and L

    E. Canc` es and L. Meng. Semiclassical analysis of two-scale electronic hamiltonians for twisted bilayer graphene. arXiv:2311.14011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero. Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices.Nature, 556(7699): 43–50, 2018. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/nature26160. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature26160

    doi:10.1038/nature26160 2018

  6. [6]

    S. Carr, D. Massatt, M. Luskin, and E. Kaxiras. Duality between atomic configurations and bloch states in twistronic materials.Phys. Rev. Res., 2:033162, July 2020. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.2.033162. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch. 2.033162

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch 2020

  7. [7]

    Catto, C

    I. Catto, C. Le Bris, and P.-L. Lions. On the thermodynamic limit for Hartree-Fock type models.Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 18(6):687–760, 2001. ISSN 0294- 1449,1873-1430. doi: 10.1016/S0294-1449(00)00059-7. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0294-1449(00)00059-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0294-1449(00)00059-7 2001

  8. [8]

    Catto, L

    I. Catto, L. Meng, E. Paturel, and E. S´ er´ e. Existence of minimizers for the Dirac-Fock model of crystals.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 248(4):Paper No. 63, 63, 2024. ISSN 0003-9527,1432-0673. doi: 10.1007/s00205-024-01988-8. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-024-01988-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00205-024-01988-8 2024

  9. [9]

    Colin de Verdi` ere

    Y. Colin de Verdi` ere. Semiclassical trace formulas and heat expansions.Anal. PDE, 5:693–703, 2012

    2012

  10. [10]

    M. Dimassi. D´ eveloppements asymptotiques des perturbations lentes de l’op´ erateur de schr¨ odinger p´ eriodique.Commun. Partial. Differ. Equ., 18(5-6):771–803, 1993

    1993

  11. [11]

    Dimassi and J

    M. Dimassi and J. Sj¨ ostrand.Spectral asymptotics in the semi-classical limit, volume 268 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

  12. [12]

    Helffer and D

    B. Helffer and D. Robert. Calcul fonctionnel par la transformation de Mellin et op´ erateurs admissibles.J. Funct. Anal., 53(3):246–268, 1983. ISSN 0022-1236. doi: 10.1016/0022-1236(83) 90034-4. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1236(83)90034-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-1236(83 1983

  13. [13]

    Helffer and J

    B. Helffer and J. Sj¨ ostrand.´Equation de Schr¨ odinger avec champ magn´ etique et ´ equation de Harper, volume 345 ofLecture Notes in Phys.Springer, Berlin, 1989. ISBN 3-540-51783-9

    1989

  14. [14]

    M. F. Herbst, A. Levitt, and E. Canc` es. DFTK: A Julian approach for simulating electrons in solids.Proc. JuliaCon Conf., 3:69, 2021. doi: 10.21105/jcon.00069

    doi:10.21105/jcon.00069 2021

  15. [15]

    Koshino, P

    M. Koshino, P. Moon, and Y.-W. Son. Incommensurate double-walled carbon nanotubes as one-dimensional moir´ e crystals.Phys. Rev. B, 91:035405, Jan. 2015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB. 91.035405. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.91.035405

    doi:10.1103/physrevb 2015

  16. [17]

    P. J. Ledwith, G. Tarnopolsky, E. Khalaf, and A. Vishwanath. Fractional chern insulator states in twisted bilayer graphene: An analytical approach.Phys. Rev. Res., 2:023237, May

  17. [18]

    K. e. a. Lejaeghere. Reproducibility in density functional theory calculations of solids.Science, 351:6280, 2016

    2016

  18. [19]

    URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.2.023237

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023237. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.2.023237

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023237

  19. [20]

    Panati, H

    G. Panati, H. Spohn, and S. Teufel. Effective dynamics for Bloch electrons: Peierls substitution and beyond.Comm. Math. Phys., 242(3):547–578, 2003. ISSN 0010-3616,1432-0916

    2003

  20. [21]

    Mostowski and J

    J. Mostowski and J. Pietraszewicz. Wigner function for harmonic oscillator and the classical limit, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2104.06638. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [22]

    T. Wang, H. Chen, A. Zhou, Y. Zhou, and D. Massatt. Convergence of the planewave approximations for quantum incommensurate systems.Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 23 (1):545–576, 2025. doi: 10.1137/23M1553650. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/23M1553650

    work page doi:10.1137/23m1553650 2025

  22. [23]

    Van Hove

    L. Van Hove. The occurrence of singularities in the elastic frequency distribution of a crystal.Phys. Rev., 89:1189–1193, Mar. 1953. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.89.1189. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.89.1189

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.89.1189 1953

  23. [24]

    C. K. Zachos, D. B. Fairlie, and T. L. Curtright.Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space. WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2005. doi: 10.1142/5287. URL https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ 10.1142/5287

    doi:10.1142/5287 2005

  24. [25]

    Weiße, G

    A. Weiße, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske. The kernel polynomial method.Rev. Mord. Phys., 78(1):275, 2006

    2006

  25. [27]

    Zworski.Semiclassical analysis, volume 138 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics

    M. Zworski.Semiclassical analysis, volume 138 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012. ISBN 978-0-8218-8320-4. 27

    2012