Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Surface acoustic wave-driven valley current generation in intervalley coherent states

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Intervalley coherent order turns surface acoustic waves into a measurable valley current, one whose low-frequency response diverges as the inverse square of frequency.

desk verdict A concrete, falsifiable SAW-driven valley-current signature for IVC order; the symmetry argument is coherent, but the missing Supplemental Material and sensitivity to coupling parameters are the soft spots. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.10395 v1 pith:DSNEOOUM submitted 2025-12-11 cond-mat.mes-hall

Hiroto Tanaka , Youichi Yanase This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords intervalleycoherentstatevalleygaugesymmetryacoustogalvaniceffectpseudogaugefieldsurfaceacousticwavenonreciprocalsuperfluiddensityrhombohedraltrilayergraphenecurrent
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 tries to establish that the intervalley coherent (IVC) state—an ordered phase that spontaneously breaks valley gauge symmetry—produces a distinctive electronic response: when a surface acoustic wave (SAW) passes through the material, it generates a valley current whose magnitude diverges as 1/Ω² at low frequencies. The divergence is traced to a quantity the authors call the nonreciprocal pseudo-superfluid density, a third derivative of the free energy with respect to the valley and pseudogauge fields. In the normal, symmetry-unbroken state this quantity reduces to a boundary term that vanishes as the momentum-space domain of well-defined valley charge covers the Brillouin zone; in the IVC state it is finite, intrinsic, and independent of the domain. Numerical calculations for rhombohedral trilayer graphene with an IVC gap of 30 meV give a valley current of order 1 A/m under realistic SAW parameters, suggesting the effect is measurable and can serve as a probe of IVC order.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nonreciprocal pseudo-superfluid density (NRPSF) f_s^{α;βγ}, defined as the limit of the third derivative of the free energy with respect to one valley gauge field and two pseudogauge fields. It is the valley analog of the nonreciprocal superfluid density that controls nonlinear electric responses in superconductors. Through σ_{s,NRSF} = −(1/2Ω²) f_s, it produces the 1/Ω²-divergent valley acoustogalvanic response. The paper's proof strategy is to show that in the normal state the NRPSF is a boundary integral over the edge of the momentum-space domain where valley charge is defined, whereas in the IVC state this rewriting is forbidden, making f_s an intrinsic bul

What would settle it

Measure the valley current in rhombohedral trilayer graphene while sweeping the SAW frequency in the IVC phase: if the current does not show a 1/Ω² divergence (or does not appear upon entering the IVC state), the central claim fails. Alternatively, compute the NRPSF from the full Brillouin zone in the IVC mean-field state and check that it does not become a vanishing boundary term—if it vanishes, the domain-dependent result is an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that valley-gauge-symmetry breaking in the IVC state gives rise to an anomalous 'valley acoustogalvanic' conductivity. The NRSF term of this conductivity, σ_{s,NRSF} = −(1/2Ω²) f_s, is controlled by the nonreciprocal pseudo-superfluid density f_s, defined as the mixed third derivative of the free energy with respect to the valley gauge field and the pseudogauge field. The argument is that f_s vanishes in the normal state because the integrand can be rewritten as a total derivative over the Brillouin zone, leaving only a boundary term that disappears when the valley-charge domain covers the whole zone. The IVC order breaks valley gauge symmetry, forbids that rewriting, an

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation rests on treating the IVC state as a mean-field Hamiltonian with a single T-symmetric, C3v-preserving order parameter and assuming valley charge is well defined inside a momentum-space domain around K and K′; if the real symmetry-broken state differs, or if the SAW's pseudogauge coupling (parameterized by r ≈ 0.2) is far off, the size of the predicted current changes, though the 1/Ω² power law is argued to survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the IVC state the low-frequency SAW-driven valley current follows a 1/Ω² power law, so measuring the frequency dependence cleanly separates the anomalous NRSF contribution from Drude and Berry-connection terms.
  • The NRPSF is independent of the choice of the momentum-space domain D in the IVC state, making the predicted current an intrinsic property of the ordered phase rather than an artifact of how valley charge is defined.
  • With Δ = 30 meV, the numerical model yields |f_s^{x;xx}| ≈ 0.1 e³·a·eV/ℏ and a valley current of order 1 A/m under SAW parameters (u_L ≈ 2.4 pm, λ ≈ 10 µm, Ω/2π ≈ 270 MHz), within reach of inverse valley Hall or Kerr-rotation detection.
  • The anomalous response persists for all pseudogauge coupling ratios r between 0 and 1.2, so uncertainty in the electron–phonon coupling of rhombohedral graphene does not change the qualitative prediction.
  • The mechanism is not limited to rhombohedral trilayer graphene: any two-dimensional honeycomb material hosting IVC order—rhombohedral graphene, twisted transition-metal dichalcogenides, twisted multilayer graphene—should show the same valley acoustogalvanic enhancement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is a 'valley Meissner-like' probe: if the IVC state behaves as a pseudo-superfluid, the pseudogauge field generated by strain or SAW should be screened or expelled, which could be tested by measuring the spatial profile of strain-induced valley currents.
  • The 1/Ω² divergence is cut off by the quasiparticle relaxation rate and by the finite SAW wavelength; the exact crossover frequency could encode the IVC gap size, giving a spectroscopy-like tool beyond simple detection.
  • The theory assumes a uniform IVC order parameter; in real samples with incommensurate or textured IVC, the domain boundaries may contribute additional valley currents, so transport measurements could be sensitive to the IVC texture.
  • One testable extension: tune the displacement field in rhombohedral trilayer graphene to drive the IVC transition and watch the low-frequency valley current jump; the amplitude of the 1/Ω² term should track the IVC order parameter magnitude.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies nonlinear generation of a uniform valley current by a surface acoustic wave (SAW) in an intervalley coherent (IVC) state. The central object is the nonreciprocal pseudo-superfluid density (NRPSF) f_s^{α;βγ}, defined as a mixed third derivative of the free energy with respect to a valley gauge field and a pseudogauge field. In the normal state this quantity is argued to be a boundary term of a momentum-space domain D and therefore to have no physical meaning; in the IVC state it becomes a finite, essentially D-independent bulk quantity, giving a VAG conductivity σ_s,NRSF ∝ Ω^{-2} that dominates at low SAW frequencies. The authors demonstrate the effect numerically for rhombohedral trilayer graphene using a six-band model, obtaining |f_s^{x;xx}| ≈ 0.1 e³·a·eV/ℏ and an estimated valley current of order 1 A/m, and they frame the effect as the valley analog of the nonreciprocal superfluid density in superconductors.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a distinctive and experimentally accessible signature of IVC order: a low-frequency SAW-driven valley current with a characteristic Ω^{-2} divergence. This would complement existing STM/STS probes and provides a concrete observable consequence of valley-gauge-symmetry breaking, strengthening the analogy between IVC states and superconductors. The analytical structure in Eqs. (8)-(10) is clean: in the normal state the NRPSF is a boundary term, while IVC mixing forbids the total-derivative rewriting. The numerical work uses a realistic six-band model, scans the pseudogauge coupling ratio r, and includes domain-size checks; these are appropriate and supportive. The main weaknesses are the heavy reliance on the Supplemental Material for all derivations and the unresolved status of the momentum-space cutoff D in the IVC state, which is directly relevant to the claim that the NRPSF is intrinsic.

major comments (3)
  1. [NRPSF and valley gauge symmetry breaking, Eq. (10), Fig. 4] The status of the momentum-space domain D is the crucial point for the central claim, and I do not think it is fully settled. In the normal state Eq. (10) is a boundary term because the A_v derivative is equivalent to a k derivative; this is clean. In the IVC state, however, the two valleys are mixed by Δ, so valley charge is not a good quantum number and the restriction of the free-energy integral to D is no longer dictated by a conserved charge. The numerical D-independence in Fig. 4(b) is only shown for a finite set of Δk and is described as "almost independent"; it is not the same as proving that the full-BZ integral (or the infinite-domain limit in the two-valley model) equals the plateau value. Since the identification of f_s as an intrinsic pseudo-superfluid density depends exactly on this point, the authors should either (i) provide the convergence data for f_s as Δk is enlarged
  2. [Rhombohedral graphene / Eq. (1)] The numerical model assumes a uniform, commensurate, T-symmetric IVC order parameter Δ that preserves C3v. In the R3G experiments cited in Refs. [5,16], the reported IVC states are often incommensurate with a finite momentum Q and momentum-dependent form factors. For such states, the mean-field Hamiltonian couples Bloch states separated by Q rather than the two valleys at the same reduced k, and the simple substitution H(k)→H(k+ξA_v) used to define the valley gauge coupling and the valley current needs re-examination. The central symmetry argument—that any valley mixing forbids the total-derivative rewriting—is likely robust, but the quantitative NRPSF and the Q→0 limit of Eq. (2) could be different. Please state the limitations of the uniform-Δ model and, if possible, show that a finite-momentum IVC form factor does not change the conclusion or the tensor structure.
  3. [Nonreciprocal pseudo-superfluid density, Eqs. (5)-(7)] The definition of f_s as a mixed third derivative w.r.t. A_v (one derivative) and A_s (two derivatives) is not the same object as the superconducting NRSF f^{αβγ}, which is a third derivative w.r.t. the same electromagnetic field. The analogy is therefore at the level of the Ω^{-2} pole, not of a literal "nonreciprocal superfluid density". The main text also does not discuss whether the valley-gauge phase mode (the pseudo-Goldstone mode of the IVC state) contributes to f_s in the same low-frequency limit; in a broken-symmetry state the mean-field response is not automatically the full response. I ask for a clearer statement of the conditions under which Eq. (6) is valid and, if available, a reference to or summary of the collective-mode analysis in the SM.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Typographical issues: "SA Ws" appears with a spurious space in the abstract; "Bogoliubov-de Genne" should be "Bogoliubov-de Gennes"; "associted" and "diffentiation" are typos. These should be corrected.
  2. [Numerical demonstration, Fig. 2] The axis labels and units in Fig. 2 are hard to parse. Please clarify whether the plotted quantity is σ_s^{x;xx} in units of e³/ℏ times a·eV/ℏ, and define the notation for the pseudo-electric field amplitude E_{s,0} before it is used in the Discussion.
  3. [SAWs and pseudogauge field] The claim that the out-of-plane pseudogauge field Ã_s is negligible and that type-B hoppings are unaffected by Rayleigh SAWs is deferred to the SM. Since the estimated 1 A/m current depends on these assumptions, at least a brief justification or error estimate should appear in the main text.
  4. [Symmetry relations, Eq. after Fig.2] The relation σ_s^{x;xx} = -σ_s^{x;yy} = -σ_s^{y;xy}, with other components zero, is stated without proof. Please provide a short symmetry argument or a reference to the SM.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the NRPSF calculation is a self-contained symmetry analysis.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The paper defines the nonreciprocal pseudo-superfluid density (NRPSF) as a third free-energy derivative with respect to the valley gauge field and the pseudogauge field (Eq. 7), then evaluates it separately in the normal and IVC mean-field states. The normal-state suppression follows from an explicit rewriting: f_s^{α;βγ} = ∫_D ∂_{kα}(...) (Eq. 10), so the residual is a boundary term controlled by the valley-charge domain D. This is a mathematical identity, not an assumed result. The finite IVC value is obtained from the same expression once Δ≠0, so the predicted Ω^{-2} response is a computed consequence of the assumed IVC order rather than a restatement of it. The tight-binding parameters, Δ = 20/30 meV, and r ≈ 0.2 are stated model inputs; the r-dependence is scanned rather than fitted to the claimed current. The self-references [47,48] provide the general NLE/NRSF formalism from externally published work, and the present response is also derived via density-matrix and Green's-function methods, so the conclusion does not reduce to an unverified self-citation chain. The acknowledged domain-D limitation and the comment on valley-charge conservation are robustness notes, not definitional equivalences. No step makes the prediction identical to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on three categories of inputs: (1) the mean-field IVC ansatz and its symmetry, (2) the minimal-coupling model of the SAW pseudogauge field with material parameters (β, r) taken from estimates/literature, and (3) the nonlinear-response framework from the same group's prior superconductivity work. The NRPSF is a defined thermodynamic response, not a fitted constant. The paper explicitly checks robustness of the central qualitative result against r and Δk but not against the mean-field ansatz itself.

free parameters (4)
  • IVC order parameter Δ for numerical demonstration = Δ = 20 meV and 30 meV in Figs. 2–4; discussion uses Δ ≃ 30 meV
    The IVC order parameter is a given input of the mean-field Hamiltonian, chosen at values typical of IVC phases; the response scales with it but is not fitted from the response. It is an input choice rather than a fitted constant of the VAG effect itself.
  • Pseudogauge coupling ratio r = r₃ = r₄ = r ≈ 0.2 (estimated in Supplemental Material [40]); calculations scan 0 ≤ r ≤ 1.2
    The coupling strength of the pseudogauge field to interlayer hopping processes is material-specific and is an input to the model; the paper explicitly checks robustness across r, so it is not fitted to produce the result.
  • Deformation-potential / hopping-modulation factors β_i, specifically β₀=β = β ≃ 3 used in the estimate
    The β factors convert lattice displacement into pseudogauge field. Values are taken from literature/typical values; the experimental estimate depends on this input.
  • Momentum-space integration domain size Δk = Varied in Fig. 4 (around valley points)
    The valley charge is only defined in the domain D; the paper shows the IVC NRPSF is Δk-independent, so the result is not fitted to Δk, but the numerical value depends on the domain definition in the normal state.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The mean-field Hamiltonian Eq. (1) with a T-symmetric, C₃v-preserving IVC order parameter describes the IVC state.
    The whole calculation is built on this mean-field description; if the actual IVC state has a different symmetry (e.g., incommensurate or with spin/valley texture), the selection rules and the magnitude of the NRPSF would change.
  • domain assumption Valley charge is well-defined only within the momentum-space domain D around K/K′.
    The definition of the valley current and the distinction between normal-state boundary term and IVC intrinsic term depend on this domain assumption (Fig. 1(c), text near Eq. 10).
  • domain assumption The pseudogauge field couples minimally to the Hamiltonian as H(k + (e/ℏ) ξ A_s) with hopping-dependent prefactors r_i, and the out-of-plane component Ã_s is negligible.
    The derivation of the pseudogauge coupling from lattice modulation is deferred to the Supplemental Material [40], and the out-of-plane contribution is dropped in the main text; the quantitative prediction depends on this model.
  • domain assumption Standard nonlinear-response machinery: impurity scattering enters via relaxation time τ_rel with Ω ≪ 1/τ_rel ≪ ΔE, vertex corrections neglected or treated via self-energy.
    The classification Eq. (4) into Drude/BCP/NRSF terms and the Ω⁻² divergence follow from the framework of Refs. [47,48]; the validity of the regime assumptions is not numerically verified.
invented entities (2)
  • Nonreciprocal pseudo-superfluid density (NRPSF) f_s^{α;βγ} independent evidence
    purpose: Third-order derivative of free energy with respect to valley and pseudogauge fields; the IVC-specific quantity producing the Ω⁻² valley current.
    It is a derived response coefficient that predicts a measurable frequency-dependent valley current; its magnitude and scaling can be tested experimentally, although it is not a new physical entity with independent handles like a particle or force.
  • Valley acoustogalvanic (VAG) effect independent evidence
    purpose: Name for the predicted phenomenon of SAW-driven valley current.
    Named phenomenon with a falsifiable prediction (1/Ω² dependence, ≈1 A/m for stated parameters); not an invented new-physics entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surface acoustic wave-driven valley current generation in intervalley coherent states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSNEOOUM

@misc{pith2026251210395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surface acoustic wave-driven valley current generation in intervalley coherent states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSNEOOUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.10395}
}
read the original abstract

Recent experiments have reported valley-gauge-symmetry-broken phases, identified as intervalley coherent (IVC) states. Exploration of anomalous responses, particularly those analogous to superconductivity, has become an urgent theoretical issue. In this study, we show that the IVC order gives rise to anomalous valley-current generation driven by surface acoustic waves (SAWs). The anomalous valley current exhibits a characteristic power-law dependence for low-frequency SAWs. Furthermore, we demonstrate by numerical analysis that the IVC order significantly enhances valley-current generation in rhombohedral graphene. These results open a pathway toward exploring exotic phenomena emerging from valley-gauge-symmetry breaking, in close analogy with gauge-symmetry breaking in superconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.10395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the IVC state under the SAWs. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Frequency dependence of the VAG conductivity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The NRPSF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The NRPSF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    X. Liu, G. Farahi, C.-L. Chiu, Z. Papic, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Yazdani, Visu- alizing broken symmetry and topological defects in a quantum hall ferromagnet, Science375, 321 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abm3770

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abm3770 2022

  2. [2]

    Farahi, C.-L

    G. Farahi, C.-L. Chiu, X. Liu, Z. Papic, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Yazdani, Broken sym- metries and excitation spectra of interacting electrons in partially filled landau levels, Nature Physics19, 1482 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Fan, T.-F

    K. Fan, T.-F. Guo, B. Li, W.-X. Qiu, J.-W. Zhou, W.- H. Zhang, C.-F. Liu, F. Wu, and Y.-S. Fu, Visualization of intervalley coherent phase in ptse 2/bilayer graphene heterojunction, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 066201 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Liao, W.-X

    W.-Y. Liao, W.-X. Wang, S. Zhang, Y. Zhang, L.-H. Tong, W. Zhang, H. Cai, Y. Tian, Y. Hu, L. Zhang, 6 L. Zhang, Z. Qin, and L.-J. Yin, Intervalley coherent or- der in rhombohedral tetralayer graphene on mos 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 046202 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Y. Liu, A. Gupta, Y. Choi, Y. Vituri, H. Stoyanov, J. Xiao, Y. Wang, H. Zhou, B. Barick, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, B. Yan, E. Berg, A. F. Young, H. Bei- denkopf, and N. Avraham, Visualizing incommensu- rate inter-valley coherent states in rhombohedral trilayer graphene (2024), arXiv:2411.11163 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    C˘ alug˘ aru, N

    D. C˘ alug˘ aru, N. Regnault, M. Oh, K. P. Nuckolls, D. Wong, R. L. Lee, A. Yazdani, O. Vafek, and B. A. Bernevig, Spectroscopy of twisted bilayer graphene cor- related insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 117602 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    J. P. Hong, T. Soejima, and M. P. Zaletel, Detecting symmetry breaking in magic angle graphene using scan- ning tunneling microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 147001 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Coissard, D

    A. Coissard, D. Wander, H. Vignaud, A. G. Grushin, C. Repellin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Gay, C. B. Winkelmann, H. Courtois, H. Sellier, and B. Sac´ ep´ e, Imaging tunable quantum hall broken-symmetry orders in graphene, Nature605, 51 (2022)

    2022

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    K. P. Nuckolls, R. L. Lee, M. Oh, D. Wong, T. Soe- jima, J. P. Hong, D. C˘ alug˘ aru, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, B. A. Bernevig, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, N. Regnault, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Yazdani, Quantum textures of the many-body wavefunctions in magic-angle graphene, Na- ture62...

    2023

  2. [10]

    H. Kim, Y. Choi, ´E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, C. Lewandowski, A. Thomson, L. Kong, H. Zhou, E. Baum, Y. Zhang, L. Holleis, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. F. Young, J. Alicea, and S. Nadj-Perge, Imaging inter-valley coherent order in magic-angle twisted trilayer graphene, Nature623, ...

    2023

  3. [11]

    H. C. Po, L. Zou, A. Vishwanath, and T. Senthil, Ori- gin of mott insulating behavior and superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. X8, 031089 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Y. H. Kwan, G. Wagner, T. Soejima, M. P. Zaletel, S. H. Simon, S. A. Parameswaran, and N. Bultinck, Kekul´ e spi- ral order at all nonzero integer fillings in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. X11, 041063 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    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. X10, 031034 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Lian, Z.-D

    B. Lian, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault, D. K. Efetov, A. Yaz- dani, and B. A. Bernevig, Twisted bilayer graphene. iv. exact insulator ground states and phase diagram, Phys. Rev. B103, 205414 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Zhang, K

    Y. Zhang, K. Jiang, Z. Wang, and F. Zhang, Correlated insulating phases of twisted bilayer graphene at commen- surate filling fractions: A hartree-fock study, Phys. Rev. B102, 035136 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Vituri, J

    Y. Vituri, J. Xiao, K. Pareek, T. Holder, and E. Berg, Incommensurate intervalley coherent states in abc graphene: Collective modes and superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B111, 075103 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Chatterjee, T

    S. Chatterjee, T. Wang, E. Berg, and M. P. Zaletel, Inter- valley coherent order and isospin fluctuation mediated superconductivity in rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Nature Communications13, 6013 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Das and C

    M. Das and C. Huang, Quarter-metal phases in multi- layer graphene: Ising-xy and annular lifshitz transitions, Phys. Rev. B110, 035103 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    A. S. Patri and T. Senthil, Strong correlations in abc- stacked trilayer graphene: Moir´ e is important, Phys. Rev. B107, 165122 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    T. Arp, O. Sheekey, H. Zhou, C. L. Tschirhart, C. L. Pat- terson, H. M. Yoo, L. Holleis, E. Redekop, G. Babikyan, T. Xie, J. Xiao, Y. Vituri, T. Holder, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. E. Huber, E. Berg, and A. F. Young, Intervalley coherence and intrinsic spin–orbit coupling in...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Mu˜ noz Segovia, V

    D. Mu˜ noz Segovia, V. Cr´ epel, R. Queiroz, and A. J. Mil- lis, Twist-angle evolution of the intervalley-coherent an- tiferromagnet in twisted wse2, Phys. Rev. B112, 085111 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Das and C

    M. Das and C. Huang, Momentum-space ac josephson effect and intervalley coherence in multilayer graphene (2025), arXiv:2503.22003 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    N. Wei, Y. Zeng, and A. H. MacDonald, Weak local- ization as a probe of intervalley coherence in graphene multilayers, Phys. Rev. B111, L241103 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Thomson, I

    A. Thomson, I. M. Sorensen, S. Nadj-Perge, and J. Al- icea, Gate-defined wires in twisted bilayer graphene: From electrical detection of intervalley coherence to in- ternally engineered majorana modes, Phys. Rev. B105, L081405 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    X. Nie, X. Wu, Y. Wang, S. Ban, Z. Lei, J. Yi, Y. Liu, and Y. Liu, Surface acoustic wave induced phenomena in two- dimensional materials, Nanoscale Horiz.8, 158 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    von Oppen, F

    F. von Oppen, F. Guinea, and E. Mariani, Synthetic elec- tric fields and phonon damping in carbon nanotubes and graphene, Phys. Rev. B80, 075420 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Vaezi, N

    A. Vaezi, N. Abedpour, R. Asgari, A. Cortijo, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Topological electric current from time-dependent elastic deformations in graphene, Phys. Rev. B88, 125406 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    E. Sela, Y. Bloch, F. von Oppen, and M. B. Shalom, Quantum hall response to time-dependent strain gradi- ents in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 026602 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    P. Zhao, C. H. Sharma, R. Liang, C. Glasenapp, L. Mourokh, V. M. Kovalev, P. Huber, M. Prada, L. Tie- mann, and R. H. Blick, Acoustically induced giant syn- thetic hall voltages in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 256601 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Bhalla, G

    P. Bhalla, G. Vignale, and H. Rostami, Pseudogauge field driven acoustoelectric current in two-dimensional hexag- onal dirac materials, Phys. Rev. B105, 125407 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    M. A. Cazalilla, H. Ochoa, and F. Guinea, Quantum spin hall effect in two-dimensional crystals of transition-metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 077201 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    P. O. Sukhachov and H. Rostami, Acoustogalvanic ef- fect in dirac and weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 126602 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Matsumoto, R

    T. Matsumoto, R. Sano, Y. Yanase, and A. Daido, Super- conducting acoustogalvanic effect in twisted transition metal dichalcogenides (2025), arXiv:2505.21436 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Uchoa and Y

    B. Uchoa and Y. Barlas, Superconducting states in pseudo-landau-levels of strained graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 046604 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Massarelli, G

    G. Massarelli, G. Wachtel, J. Y. T. Wei, and A. Paramekanti, Pseudo-landau levels of bogoliubov quasiparticles in strained nodal superconductors, Phys. Rev. B96, 224516 (2017). 7

    2017

  28. [36]

    E. M. Nica and M. Franz, Landau levels from neutral bogoliubov particles in two-dimensional nodal supercon- ductors under strain and doping gradients, Phys. Rev. B 97, 024520 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    M. M. Nayga, S. Rachel, and M. Vojta, Magnon landau levels and emergent supersymmetry in strained antifer- romagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 207204 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    R. Sano, Y. Ominato, and M. Matsuo, Acoustomagnonic spin hall effect in honeycomb antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236302 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity (CRC press, 2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    See Supplemental Materials

  33. [41]

    Zhang, B

    F. Zhang, B. Sahu, H. Min, and A. H. MacDonald, Band structure of abc-stacked graphene trilayers, Phys. Rev. B 82, 035409 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Jung and A

    J. Jung and A. H. MacDonald, Gapped broken symmetry states in abc-stacked trilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B88, 075408 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, A. Ghazaryan, T. Holder, J. R. Ehrets, E. M. Spanton, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Berg, M. Serbyn, and A. F. Young, Half- and quarter-metals in rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Nature598, 429 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Mandal and S

    D. Mandal and S. Banerjee, Surface acoustic wave (saw) sensors: Physics, materials, and applications, Sensors22, 10.3390/s22030820 (2022)

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    J. Lee, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Electrical control of the valley hall effect in bilayer mos2 transistors, Nature Nanotechnology11, 421 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    J. Lee, Z. Wang, H. Xie, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Valley magnetoelectricity in single-layer mos2, Nature Materials 16, 887 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Watanabe, A

    H. Watanabe, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Nonrecipro- cal optical response in parity-breaking superconductors, Phys. Rev. B105, 024308 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Nonlinear electric transport in odd-parity magnetic multipole systems: Application to mn-based compounds, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043081 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Y. Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Field induced positional shift of bloch electrons and its dynamical implications, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 166601 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    K. Das, S. Lahiri, R. B. Atencia, D. Culcer, and A. Agar- wal, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivities induced by the quantum metric, Phys. Rev. B108, L201405 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Kaplan, T

    D. Kaplan, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Unification of nonlin- ear anomalous hall effect and nonreciprocal magnetore- sistance in metals by the quantum geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 026301 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Quantum nonlinear hall effect induced by berry curvature dipole in time-reversal in- variant materials, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    A. H. Castro Neto and F. Guinea, Electron-phonon cou- pling and raman spectroscopy in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 75, 045404 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    B. D. Rummel, L. Miroshnik, M. Patriotis, A. Li, T. R. Sinno, M. D. Henry, G. Balakrishnan, and S. M. Han, Imaging of surface acoustic waves on gaas using 2d con- focal raman microscopy and atomic force microscopy, Ap- plied Physics Letters118, 031602 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    M. Sui, G. Chen, L. Ma, W.-Y. Shan, D. Tian, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, X. Jin, W. Yao, D. Xiao, and Y. Zhang, Gate-tunable topological valley transport in bilayer graphene, Nature Physics11, 1027 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    R. V. Gorbachev, J. C. W. Song, G. L. Yu, A. V. Kretinin, F. Withers, Y. Cao, A. Mishchenko, I. V. Grigorieva, K. S. Novoselov, L. S. Levitov, and A. K. Geim, Detecting topological currents in graphene superlattices, Science346, 448 (2014), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1...

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    Shimazaki, M

    Y. Shimazaki, M. Yamamoto, I. V. Borzenets, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, and S. Tarucha, Generation and detec- tion of pure valley current by electrically induced berry curvature in bilayer graphene, Nature Physics11, 1032 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    T. Y. T. Hung, K. Y. Camsari, S. Zhang, P. Upadhyaya, and Z. Chen, Direct observa- tion of valley-coupled topological current in mos¡sub¿2¡/sub¿, Science Advances5, eaau6478 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aau6478

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Komatsu, Y

    K. Komatsu, Y. Morita, E. Watanabe, D. Tsuya, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and S. Moriyama, Observa- tion of the quantum valley hall state in ballistic graphene superlattices, Science Advances4, eaaq0194 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aaq0194

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    Banszerus, K

    L. Banszerus, K. Hecker, L. Wang, S. M¨ oller, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, G. Burkard, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Phonon-limited valley lifetimes in single-particle bilayer graphene quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B112, 035409 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    N. M. R. Peres, Colloquium: The transport properties of graphene: An introduction, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2673 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.