Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Spin-valley order along the van Hove line explains the reentrant superconducting dome in 5° twisted WSe2.

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

2026-08-03 09:52 UTC pith:E7GGE3QC

load-bearing objection Stoner map is solid and worth citing; the superconducting dome is an expectation, not a calculation, and the Hubbard parameters are tuned to the effect they explain. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.12170 v2 pith:E7GGE3QC submitted 2026-01-17 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el

Onset of spin-valley order and Stoner boundaries in twisted WSe₂

Lauro B. Braz , Luis G.G.V. Dias da Silva This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords twisted WSe2moiré superconductivityspin-valley orderStoner boundaryvan Hove singularitymatrix random phase approximationLifshitz transitionreentrant superconductivity
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 argues that the reentrant superconducting dome seen in 5° twisted bilayer WSe2 is a Stoner-physics phenomenon: spin-valley fluctuations diverge exactly where the van Hove singularity crosses the Fermi level, stabilizing a spin-valley ordered phase, while the flanks of this magnetic boundary retain strong fluctuations that can glue Cooper pairs. Using a three-orbital Wannier model and the matrix random phase approximation, the authors map the Stoner boundary across the filling–displacement-field phase diagram and find that the magnetic region splits the superconducting dome into two lobes, matching experiment. The magnetic order parameter is dominated by interorbital spin-valley flips between MM and MX orbitals, with a momentum structure that changes across the van Hove line. If correct, this identifies the Lifshitz transition and the Stoner boundary as the organizing principle of the experimental phase diagram, with spin-valley fluctuations as the microscopic pairing glue.

Core claim

The central claim is that the reentrant superconductivity in 5° twisted WSe2 originates from spin-valley fluctuations near a Stoner instability. Computing the spin-valley susceptibility in a faithful three-orbital Wannier model with orbital-dependent Hubbard interactions, the authors find that the Stoner criterion α_c=1 is reached along the van Hove singularity line in the filling–displacement-field diagram, producing a spin-valley ordered phase. Directly adjacent to this ordered region, α_c remains close to 1, meaning strong spin-valley fluctuations survive and, by analogy with single-band Hubbard physics, these fluctuations should provide attractive pairing. The resulting phase diagram—sup

What carries the argument

The matrix random phase approximation (mRPA) applied to a three-orbital Wannier model of the spin-valley-locked moiré bands. The central object is the multi-orbital static spin-valley susceptibility matrix χ̂(q); its leading eigenvalue combined with the generalized Stoner criterion det(1̂ − α U χ̂0)=0 defines the Stoner boundary α_c=1 that separates the paramagnetic (superconductivity-friendly) regime from a spin-valley ordered state. The eigenvector associated with the diverging susceptibility gives the momentum and orbital content of the order parameter, and the smallness of 1−α_c on the flanks measures how strong the spin-valley fluctuations are—and hence how favorable pairing is expected

Load-bearing premise

The superconducting half of the mechanism rests on the untested assumption that the strong spin-valley fluctuations on the flanks of the Stoner boundary actually produce attractive pairing with a reentrant dome; the paper only asserts this by analogy with the single-orbital Hubbard model and never computes a superconducting instability.

What would settle it

Compute the superconducting susceptibility or solve the gap equation from the mRPA pairing vertex at the parameter points of the green (superconducting-expected) regions in Fig. 3(a); if no pairing instability appears, or if it does not form a reentrant two-lobe structure, the claim that spin-valley fluctuations near the Stoner boundary cause the reentrant superconductivity is falsified.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The spin-valley ordered phase sits exactly at the van Hove singularity for displacement fields around 20 meV, so the Lifshitz transition triggers the magnetic instability.
  • On both flanks of the Stoner boundary, the system remains close to the magnetic instability (α_c near 1), giving strong spin-valley fluctuations that favor superconductivity and naturally produce a reentrant dome.
  • The magnetic order is commensurate with Q=0 at the van Hove filling, with ferromagnetic MM–MM and XM–XM alignment and antiferromagnetic MM–XM alignment; on the more hole-rich side the ordering vector changes to Q≈(π,0), implying a filling-dependent spatial pattern of the order parameter.
  • The mRPA results reproduce the reentrant dome with parameters consistent with the 5° experiments, which the authors state no other model has done.
  • The same mechanism suggests a general link between van Hove singularities, Stoner boundaries, and dome-splitting superconductivity in twisted transition-metal dichalcogenides.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct gap-equation or superconducting-susceptibility calculation using the mRPA pairing vertex at the 'green region' points would test whether the fluctuations truly produce an attractive channel; if multi-orbital vertex corrections suppress pairing, the Stoner boundary could still be right while the superconducting explanation fails.
  • The predicted momentum switch of the magnetic order from Q=0 to Q≈(π,0) across the van Hove line is directly probeable by momentum-resolved techniques in the ordered phase; finding a single Q for all fillings would contradict the proposed picture.
  • The same Stoner-boundary scenario may apply to other twist angles or TMD homobilayers where the van Hove singularity is gate-tunable, offering a testable design rule for reentrant superconductivity.
  • Because the paper treats superconductivity only indirectly, self-energy and vertex-correction effects beyond mRPA could either strengthen or destroy the dome; a full-frequency susceptibility calculation would clarify the robustness.

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 studies spin-valley instabilities in 5° twisted bilayer WSe2 using a three-orbital Wannier model and the matrix random phase approximation (mRPA). It computes the static spin-valley susceptibility, identifies the Stoner boundary α_c = 1 across an electric-field–filling phase diagram, and finds that the spin-valley order sets in along the van Hove singularity line near ν = −1. The leading instability vector and order-parameter eigenvector are analyzed, with different ordering momenta on the two sides of the van Hove line. Based on the large spin-valley fluctuations in the regions flanking the Stoner boundary, the authors argue that these regions are superconducting and that this explains the reentrant superconducting dome observed experimentally in 5° twisted WSe2.

Significance. If the superconducting half of the claim could be substantiated by an actual calculation, the paper would provide a concrete single framework—spin-valley fluctuations near the Stoner boundary—for both the magnetic order and the reentrant superconducting dome in tWSe2, an experimentally central system. The strengths of the manuscript are its use of a faithful three-orbital Wannier model, a dense momentum grid (256×256) and controlled numerical susceptibility evaluation, and the explicit identification of an order-parameter eigenvector at the instability. The Stoner phase diagram itself is a useful benchmark result. However, the manuscript's headline claim—that spin-valley fluctuations near the Stoner boundary drive reentrant superconductivity—is not directly computed; it is inferred from a single-orbital analogy. This missing step is load-bearing, because the pairing strength and dome shape could in principle differ substantially in this multi-orbital, spin-valley-locked system.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 3(a)] The reentrant superconducting dome is not computed. The paper evaluates the Stoner parameter α_c and the spin-valley susceptibility, but never computes the spin-fluctuation pairing vertex, a linearized gap equation, or T_c. The statement 'we expect the green region in Fig. 3(a) to be superconducting' rests on a single-orbital Hubbard analogy (T_c ∼ e^{−1/λ}, λ ∝ α V/U). The mRPA framework used here is capable of computing the pairing vertex (as in Ref. [40]); without such a calculation, the central claim that spin-valley fluctuations near the Stoner boundary are the microscopic origin of the reentrant superconductivity is an inference, not a result. This needs to be either computed or clearly repositioned as a hypothesis.
  2. [Sec. II A, Eq. (3)] The Hubbard parameters are chosen 'as to reproduce the onset of superconductivity near ν = −1 as in the experiments.' Therefore the location of the SC-favorable flanks in Fig. 3(a) is partly determined by the experimental dome it is meant to explain. The paper should clearly separate fitted inputs from predicted outputs and show how the phase diagram depends on U_XM and U_MM/U_XM. Without such a sensitivity analysis, the reentrant behavior is anchored to an input rather than being a parameter-free prediction.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) as written is not the standard Green's function: it lacks the Matsubara frequency iω_n and the chemical potential, and the double band sum over ν,ν′ appears without a δ_{νν′}. The denominator E_ν(k) − E_{ν′}(k) also mixes ξ and ξ′ in a way that is not defined. Since Eq. (4) is the central input for all susceptibility and Stoner results, the expression must be corrected or the notation clarified. This is a reproducibility issue, not just a typographical nit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Fig. 3] The 'green-black-green' color scheme is difficult to read in printed/gray-scale form; consider adding labeled contour lines for α_c = 0.95 and α_c = 1.
  2. [Fig. 2(b), caption] The caption says 'from top to bottom' while the listed fillings are −1.1, −1.05, −0.95; the order should be checked. Also, '−095' should be '−0.95'.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The index structure of the interaction matrix [U] is confusing: the superscript/subscript placement does not make it clear which spin-valley indices are involved. Since Eq. (3) is density-density with opposite spin-valleys, the U matrix should be written explicitly for the reader.
  4. [Sec. IV B] There is a duplicated 'for for' in the sentence beginning 'Now, for for filling factors...'.
  5. [References] Reference [2] is incomplete (missing volume/page information); please ensure all references are formatted consistently.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Spin-valley order is a self-contained mRPA result, but the superconducting-dome prediction is partly placed by a Hubbard-U fit to the experimental dome and is not independently computed.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II A (Eq. 3) and Sec. IV A (Fig. 3)]
    "Here, we consider U_XM = U_MX ≈ 41.3 meV and U_MM/U_XM ≈ 0.90 as to reproduce the onset of superconductivity near ν=−1 as in the experiments, which here happens for electric fields E_z ∼20 meV. ... the green-black-green color pattern shows that the system can go from a superconducting-ordered state (green) to a spin-valley ordered state (black) ... thus characterizing a reentrant superconducting state similar to that seen in the experimental results of Ref. [16]."

    The interaction parameters that set the Stoner map are tuned to place the SC-onset/fluctuation signal at ν≈−1 and E_z≈20 meV, and the same ν≈−1 green flank in Fig. 3(a) is then read as the predicted superconducting/reentrant region. Because no pairing vertex, gap equation, or Tc is computed, the location of the SC-favorable region is fixed by the fit rather than independently derived. The magnetic splitting of the dome and the momentum-resolved order parameter are not directly fitted, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The spin-valley-order half of the paper is self-contained: the non-interacting three-orbital Hamiltonian is imported from external Wannier/continuum work (refs [21,34]), the mRPA susceptibility and Stoner criterion are standard and solved numerically, and the momentum-resolved order-parameter changes across the van Hove line are emergent results that do not reduce to the fitted parameters. That half is not circular. The circularity is confined to the superconducting claim. In Sec. II A the interaction strengths are explicitly chosen 'as to reproduce the onset of superconductivity near ν=−1 as in the experiments', and in Sec. IV A the resultant α_c map—with green flanks (0.95≤α_c≤1) at ν≈−1—is then labeled a superconducting region and reported as 'consistent with' and a 'natural description' of the experimental reentrant dome. Since the paper never computes a superconducting pairing vertex, solves a gap equation, or evaluates Tc, and instead argues by single-orbital Hubbard analogy ('we expect the green region in Fig. 3(a) to be superconducting'), the SC-favorable location is not a parameter-free prediction but a fitted feature. The reentrant splitting itself (magnetic region dividing the dome) is not directly fitted and gives the calculation some independent content, so the score is 6 rather than 8. Self-citations (refs [43,50]) are used as methodological pointers alongside external refs and are not load-bearing; there is no imported-uniqueness or ansatz-smuggling issue. The paper's own concluding remark that 'a more explicit treatment of superconducting pairing channels' is future work confirms that the SC half is an inference—a correctness risk rather than an additional circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced; the order parameters Δ(Q) are standard magnetic order parameters, not new entities. The main external inputs are the Wannier model from prior work and two Hubbard U parameters fitted to the experimental SC onset.

free parameters (2)
  • U_XM = U_MX = ≈41.3 meV
    Hubbard interaction on XM/MX sites chosen to reproduce the experimental onset of superconductivity near ν=-1 at E_z~20 meV (Sec. II A).
  • U_MM / U_XM = ≈0.90
    Orbital-dependent interaction ratio set together with U_XM to match the SC onset location (Sec. II A).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The three-orbital faithful Wannier model of Refs. [21,34] correctly describes the 5° tWSe2 moiré bands up to 9th-neighbor hoppings.
    All subsequent Stoner and susceptibility results depend on the accuracy of this non-interacting model (Sec. II A).
  • domain assumption Local orbital-dependent Hubbard interactions, with no longer-range or frequency-dependent terms, capture the relevant correlations in the 5° tWSe2 moiré bands.
    H_int contains only density-density U_p terms per spin-valley (Eq. (3)); longer-range and exchange terms are omitted.
  • domain assumption mRPA spin-valley susceptibility and the generalized Stoner criterion α_c=1 determine the onset of magnetic order.
    RPA is a weak-to-intermediate-coupling approximation; the paper does not benchmark it against exact diagonalization or DMFT for this model (Sec. III).
  • domain assumption Enhanced spin-valley fluctuations at the flanks of the Stoner boundary produce attractive pairing and hence superconductivity.
    This is the key link for the reentrant-SC claim; it is argued by analogy to the single-orbital Hubbard model (Sec. IV B) and not verified by solving a gap equation.
  • standard math Time-reversal symmetry and spin-valley locking justify the two-spin-valley block structure and the reduced susceptibility matrix.
    Standard symmetry of the Wannier model, used in Appendix A to reduce computational cost.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 64 in / 12449 out tokens · 190114 ms · 2026-08-03T09:52:00.821162+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Onset of spin-valley order and Stoner boundaries in twisted WSe$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7GGE3QC

@misc{pith2026260112170,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Onset of spin-valley order and Stoner boundaries in twisted WSe$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7GGE3QC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.12170}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We investigate spin-valley instabilities and their connection to the magnetically ordered states recently observed in the twisted bilayer dichalcogenide WSe$_2$ at a $5^o$ twist angle. Starting from an effective three-orbital faithful Wannier model for the spin-locked moir\'e bands, combined with orbital-dependent Hubbard interactions, we analyze the evolution of magnetic instabilities as a function of carrier density using the matrix random phase approximation (mRPA) approach. By computing the Stoner boundary lines from the spin-valley susceptibilities over the electric-field by hole filling phase diagram, we show that the spin-valley instabilities result in ordered states in the region close to the Lifshitz transition at the topmost moir\'e valence band, marked by crossing of the Van Hove singularity in the density of states. These spin-valley ordered states are dominated by interorbital spin-valley-flips involving the $MM$ and $MX$ moir\'e orbitals and occur at different momenta in each side of the Van Hove line, indicating a distinct spatial dependence of the spin-valley order parameter depending on the hole filling. Moreover, the corresponding Stoner boundaries exhibit strong fluctuations on its flanks, which can favor superconducting states in the regions close to the spin-valley-ordered ones. This mechanism provides a natural description for a reentrant superconducting dome consistent with the experimental results. As such, our results suggest spin-valley fluctuations near the Van Hove line as the microscopic origin of the reentrant superconductivity in twisted WSe$_2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.12170 by Lauro B. Braz, Luis G.G.V. Dias da Silva.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the non-interacting model we used, ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Stoner phase diagram. Panel (a) shows the critical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Main eigenvalue of the spin-valley susceptibilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    E. Y. Andrei, D. K. Efetov, P. Jarillo-Herrero, A. H. MacDonald, K. F. Mak, T. Senthil, E. Tutuc, A. Yazdani, and A. F. Young, The marvels of moir´ e materials, Nat. Rev. Mat.6, 201 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    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- ture556, 43

  3. [3]

    Li, W.-X

    B. Li, W.-X. Qiu, F. Wu, and A. H. MacDonald, Quan- tum phases in twisted homobilayer transition metal dichalcogenides (2025), arXiv:2509.07360 [cond-mat.str- el]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Wang, E.-M

    L. Wang, E.-M. Shih, A. Ghiotto, L. Xian, D. A. Rhodes, C. Tan, M. Claassen, Y. Kennes, Dante M.and Bai, B. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Zhu, J. Hone, A. Rubio, A. N. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Corre- lated electronic phases in twisted bilayer transition metal dichalcogenides, Nat. Mat.19, 861 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Y. Xu, K. Kang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, A tunable bilayer hubbard model in twisted WSe2, Nat. Nanotechnol.17, 934 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Anderson, F.-R

    E. Anderson, F.-R. Fan, J. Cai, W. Holtzmann, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Programming correlated magnetic states with gate-controlled moir´ e geometry, Science381, 325 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    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, Signatures of fractional quantum anomalous hall states in twisted MoTe 2, Nature622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Kn¨ uppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Thermodynamic evidence of fractional chern in- sulator in moir´ e MoTe2, Nature622, 69 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    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, Observation of fractionally quantized anomalous hall effect, Nature622, 74 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    B. A. Foutty, C. R. Kometter, T. Devakul, A. P. Reddy, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and B. E. Feld- man, Mapping twist-tuned multiband topology in bilayer WSe2, Science384, 343 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    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, Observation of integer and fractional quantum anomalous hall effects in twisted bilayer MoTe2, Phys. Rev. X13, 031037 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Ghiotto, L

    A. Ghiotto, L. Wei, L. Song, J. Zang, A. B. Tazi, D. Ostrom, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. C. Hone, D. A. Rhodes, A. J. Millis, C. R. Dean, L. Wang, and A. N. Pasupathy, Stoner instabilities and ising excitonic states in twisted transition metal dichalcogenides (2024), arXiv:2405.17316 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Ghiotto, E.-M

    A. Ghiotto, E.-M. Shih, G. S. S. G. Pereira, D. A. Rhodes, B. Kim, J. Zang, A. J. Millis, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. C. Hone, L. Wang, C. R. Dean, and A. N. Pasupathy, Quantum criticality in twisted transi- tion metal dichalcogenides, Nature597, 345 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    T. G. Kiely and D. Chowdhury, Continuous wigner-mott transitions atν= 1/5, Phys. Rev. B110, L241112 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Y. Xia, Z. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Superconductivity in twisted bilayer WSe 2, Nature637, 833 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Y. Guo, J. Pack, J. Swann, L. Holtzman, M. Cothrine, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. G. Mandrus, K. Barmak, J. Hone, A. J. Millis, A. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Superconductivity in 5.0°twisted bilayer WSe 2, Nature 637, 839 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Kn¨ uppel, J

    P. Kn¨ uppel, J. Zhu, Y. Xia, Z. Xia, Z. Han, Y. Zeng, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Correlated states controlled by tunable van hove singu- larity in moir´ e WSe2 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    H. Pan, F. Wu, and S. Das Sarma, Band topology, hub- bard model, heisenberg model, and dzyaloshinskii-moriya interaction in twisted bilayer WSe 2, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033087 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Korm´ anyos, G

    A. Korm´ anyos, G. Burkard, M. Gmitra, J. Fabian, V. Z´ olyomi, N. D. Drummond, and V. Fal’ko,k·pthe- ory for two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenide semiconductors, 2D Materials2, 022001 (2015)

    2015

  20. [20]

    Devakul, V

    T. Devakul, V. Cr´ epel, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Magic in twisted transition metal dichalcogenide bilayers, Nat. Comm.12, 6730 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Cr´ epel and A

    V. Cr´ epel and A. Millis, Bridging the small and large in twisted transition metal dichalcogenide homobilayers: A tight-binding model capturing orbital interference and topology across a wide range of twist angles, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033127 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Pi, J. Liu, W. Miao, Z. Qi, N. Reg- nault, H. Weng, X. Dai, B. A. Bernevig, Q. Wu, and J. Yu, Universal moir´ e-model-building method without fitting: Application to twisted MoTe 2 and WSe2 (2024), arXiv:2411.08108 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Akbar, A

    W. Akbar, A. Biborski, L. Rademaker, and M. Zegrod- nik, Topological superconductivity with mixed singlet- triplet pairing in moir´ e transition metal dichalcogenide bilayers, Phys. Rev. B110, 064516 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Zegrodnik and A

    M. Zegrodnik and A. Biborski, Mixed singlet-triplet su- perconducting state within the moir´ e model applied to twisted bilayer, Phys. Rev. B108, 064506 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Y.-M. Wu, Z. Wu, and H. Yao, Pair-density-wave and chi- 8 ral superconductivity in twisted bilayer transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 126001 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    S. Kim, J. F. Mendez-Valderrama, X. Wang, and D. Chowdhury, Theory of correlated insulators and su- perconductor atν= 1 in twisted WSe 2, Nat. Comm.16, 1701 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Abouelkomsan, E

    A. Abouelkomsan, E. J. Bergholtz, and S. Chatterjee, Multiferroicity and topology in twisted transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 026801 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Y.-T. Hsu, F. Wu, and S. Das Sarma, Spin-valley locked instabilities in moir´ e transition metal dichalcogenides with conventional and higher-order van hove singulari- ties, Phys. Rev. B104, 195134 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Zhu, Y.-Z

    J. Zhu, Y.-Z. Chou, M. Xie, and S. Das Sarma, Super- conductivity in twisted transition metal dichalcogenide homobilayers, Phys. Rev. B111, L060501 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Cr´ epel and A

    V. Cr´ epel and A. Millis, Spinon pairing induced by chiral in-plane exchange and the stabilization of odd-spin chern number spin liquid in twisted mote 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 146503 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    B´ elanger, J

    M. B´ elanger, J. Fournier, and D. S´ en´ echal, Superconduc- tivity in the twisted bilayer transition-metal dichalco- genide: A quantum cluster study, Phys. Rev. B106, 235135 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Chen and D

    F. Chen and D. N. Sheng, Singlet, triplet, and pair density wave superconductivity in the doped triangular- lattice moir´ e system, Phys. Rev. B108, L201110 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Zhou and Y.-H

    B. Zhou and Y.-H. Zhang, Chiral and nodal supercon- ductors in thet−Jmodel with valley contrasting flux on a triangular moir´ e lattice, Phys. Rev. B108, 155111 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Fischer, L

    A. Fischer, L. Klebl, V. Cr´ epel, S. Ryee, A. Rubio, L. Xian, T. O. Wehling, A. Georges, D. M. Kennes, and A. J. Millis, Theory of intervalley-coherent afm or- der and topological superconductivity in tWSe 2 (2024), arXiv:2412.14296 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Tuo, M.-R

    C. Tuo, M.-R. Li, Z. Wu, W. Sun, and H. Yao, Theory of topological superconductivity and antiferromagnetic cor- related insulators in twisted bilayer WSe 2, Nat. Comm. 16, 9525 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Guerci, D

    D. Guerci, D. Kaplan, J. Ingham, J. H. Pixley, and A. J. Millis, Topological superconductivity from repul- sive interactions in twisted wse2 (2024), arXiv:2408.16075 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Xie and K

    Y.-M. Xie and K. T. Law, Orbital fulde-ferrell pairing state in moir´ e ising superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 016001 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    Schrade and L

    C. Schrade and L. Fu, Nematic, chiral, and topological superconductivity in twisted transition-metal dichalco- genides, Phys. Rev. B110, 035143 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Graser, T

    S. Graser, T. A. Maier, P. J. Hirschfeld, and D. J. ino, Near-degeneracy of several pairing channels in multior- bital models for the Fe pnictides, New J. Phys.11, 025016 (2009)

    2009

  41. [41]

    Altmeyer, D

    M. Altmeyer, D. Guterding, P. J. Hirschfeld, T. A. Maier, R. Valent ´ ı, and D. J. Scalapino, Role of vertex corrections in the matrix formulation of the random phase approxi- mation for the multiorbital Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B94, 214515 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Esirgen, H.-B

    G. Esirgen, H.-B. Sch¨ uttler, and N. E. Bickers,d-Wave Pairing in the Presence of Long-Range Coulomb Interac- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1217 (1999)

    1999

  43. [43]

    L. B. Braz, G. B. Martins, and L. G. G. V. Dias da Silva, Superconductivity from spin fluctuations and long-range interactions in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B109, 184502 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    Parcollet, M

    O. Parcollet, M. Ferrero, T. Ayral, H. Hafermann, I. Krivenko, L. Messio, and P. Seth, Triqs: A toolbox for research on interacting quantum systems, Comp. Phys. Comm.196, 398–415 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    H. U. R. Strand, Two-particle response function tool- box (tprf) for triqs,https://github.com/TRIQS/tprf (2019), gitHub repository

    2019

  46. [46]

    This is in contrast with the an- alytical expression for the susceptibility which requires N 4 ξ N 4 o N 2 k operations [40]

    as implemented in the TPRF package [45] of the TRIQS library [44]. This is in contrast with the an- alytical expression for the susceptibility which requires N 4 ξ N 4 o N 2 k operations [40]. Here,N o = 3 andN ξ = 2, so, in principle, 1296 summations should be performed. However, there is one aspect of the non-interacting model 7 that helps in this task:...

  47. [47]

    J. Kaye, K. Chen, and O. Parcollet, Discrete lehmann representation of imaginary-time green’s functions, Phys. Rev. B105, 235115 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    A. T. Rømer, D. D. Scherer, I. M. Eremin, P. J. Hirschfeld, and B. M. Andersen, Knight shift and lead- ing superconducting instability from spin fluctuations in Sr2RuO4, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 247001 (2019)

    2019

  49. [49]

    Sakakibara, H

    H. Sakakibara, H. Usui, K. Kuroki, R. Arita, and H. Aoki, Origin of the material dependence oft c in the single- layered cuprates, Phys. Rev. B85, 064501 (2012)

    2012

  50. [50]

    L. V. Boehnke,Susceptibilities in Materials with Multi- ple Strongly Correlated Orbitals, Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at Hamburg, Hamburg (2015)

    2015

  51. [51]

    L. B. Braz, T. Nag, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Competing magnetic states on the surface of multilayer abc-stacked graphene, Phys. Rev. B110, L241401 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    L¨ othman and A

    T. L¨ othman and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Universal phase diagrams with superconducting domes for electronic flat bands, Phys. Rev. B96, 064505 (2017)

    2017