Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A four-layer graphene stack nearly cancels its orbital magnetism at one magic angle, and magnifies it at the other.

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 ↗

In alternating-twist tetralayer graphene, the in-plane orbital magnetic response is 0.01 times that of twisted bilayer graphene at the larger magic angle but 3.6 times at the smaller magic angle.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful analytic framework, but the headline 0.01 and 3.6 ratios rest on an untested neglect of cross terms; the odd-layer 'exact vanishing' claim is not proven. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.18194 v2 pith:HVK4TI4E submitted 2026-03-18 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

In-plane magnetic response and Maki parameter of alternating-twist multilayers

Igor Vasilevskiy , Miguel S\'anchez S\'anchez , Khadija Challaouy , Dionisios Margetis , Guillermo G\'omez-Santos , Tobias Stauber This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el
keywords alternating-twist multilayer grapheneorbital magnetic susceptibilityin-plane magnetic responsemagic angle hierarchyMaki parameterPauli limittetralayer graphenetwisted bilayer graphene
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.

The reading

The paper argues that alternating-twist graphene multilayers inherit their in-plane orbital magnetic response from effective twisted-bilayer subsystems, with a strong dependence on which effective twist angle sits at the magic condition. For four layers, the susceptibility is predicted to be about 0.01 times that of magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene at the larger magic angle, and about 3.6 times at the smaller one. For odd layer counts, the orbital response is expected to be negligibly small. The paper also introduces an in-plane Maki parameter that measures how orbital effects modify the spin-only Pauli limit, and finds values up to about 7 for the tetralayer's second magic angle.

Core claim

The central claim is that a unitary transformation splits an alternating-twist multilayer into decoupled twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) blocks with effective twist angles, so the in-plane orbital susceptibility of the multilayer is a weighted sum of TBG susceptibilities plus small cross terms. Applying this to N=4 layers yields χ/χ_TBG ≈ 0.01 when the effective bilayer is at the first magic angle θ¹_{4,m} = φ θ_m, and χ/χ_TBG ≈ 3.6 at the second magic angle θ²_{4,m} = φ⁻¹ θ_m, where φ is the golden ratio. For N=5 (and odd N generally), the susceptibility is composed only of cross terms and is negligible. The newly defined in-plane Maki parameter α_M, the ratio of the orbital susceptibility d

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a unitary transformation that block-diagonalizes the alternating-twist Hamiltonian into independent twisted bilayer graphene systems, carrying layer currents into a new basis. The in-plane magnetic response is expressed through layer-resolved conductivities; the golden-ratio coefficients φ and φ⁻¹ enter as the effective couplings, and the argument relies on discarding cross terms between the two effective TBG blocks.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the claim that cross terms between the two effective twisted-bilayer blocks are negligible; no quantitative bound is given, and for odd layer numbers the entire response rests on those terms.

What would settle it

A direct numerical calculation of the full tetralayer in-plane orbital susceptibility without dropping cross terms would settle the claim: if the cross terms are comparable to the retained counterflow terms, the ratios 0.01 and 3.6 do not hold.

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

If this is right

  • If the tetralayer ratios are correct, a Pauli-limit violation measured at the second magic angle cannot be interpreted as purely spin-related: orbital magnetism contributes strongly, with α_M up to about 7.
  • At the first magic angle, the orbital response is so small that the spin susceptibility of Cooper pairs could in principle be read out directly from in-plane critical-field measurements.
  • For odd-layer alternating-twist stacks, the in-plane orbital response is negligible, so Pauli-limit analyses there remain valid without orbital corrections.
  • The two magic angles of the same tetralayer should show qualitatively different superconducting magnetic responses, possibly hosting distinct pairing regimes within one sample.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One can test the cross-term assumption directly by computing the full tetralayer susceptibility numerically without dropping any terms; if the cross terms are not small, the 0.01 and 3.6 ratios will shift, and the odd-layer result—which rests entirely on cross terms—would need re-examination.
  • The same unitary-decoupling logic could be extended to even-N stacks beyond four layers, yielding a hierarchy of golden-ratio-weighted susceptibility ratios that could be checked against continuum-model numerics.
  • The in-plane Maki parameter is defined at the Fermi surface and could be generalized to other response functions, suggesting that orbital corrections to Pauli-limit violations are not a special feature of graphene but a general consequence of flat-band orbital moments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analytically studies the in-plane orbital magnetic response of alternating-twist graphene multilayers with N=4 and N=5 layers, building on the Khalaf unitary transformation that maps the multilayer onto decoupled effective TBG systems (plus a decoupled layer for odd N). For the tetralayer, the susceptibility is expressed in terms of the two effective TBG counterflow conductivities plus cross-correlation terms σ_c; after dropping the cross terms on a phase-space argument, the authors obtain χ/χ_TBG ≈ 0.01 at the first effective magic angle θ^1_{4,m}=φθ_m and χ/χ_TBG ≈ 3.6 at the second magic angle θ^2_{4,m}=φ^{-1}θ_m. For the pentalayer, the susceptibility is claimed to depend only on cross terms and therefore to be negligibly small, a property asserted to generalize to all odd-N stacks. The paper also introduces an in-plane Maki parameter α_M = Δχ_orb/χ_P, computes values up to ~2 for TBG from a tight-binding model, and estimates α_M ≈ 0.02 and ≈7 for the tetralayer at the two magic angles, with implications for Pauli-limit violation and superconducting pairing.

Significance. If the central quantitative claims hold, the paper provides an experimentally relevant and surprising prediction: the two effective magic angles of the same alternating-twist tetralayer have qualitatively different in-plane orbital magnetic responses, one nearly canceling and one exceeding the TBG response. This would directly affect the interpretation of Pauli-limit violation measurements in multilayer moiré superconductors. The algebraic derivation from the unitary transformation to the susceptibility expressions is detailed and traceable, and the paper is careful in stating the limit-ordering assumptions and the role of contact terms. The numerical TBG Maki parameter calculation is a concrete, falsifiable Fermi-surface quantity. However, the headline numerical results and the odd-layer null result rest on an unquantified and internally inconsistent treatment of the inter-subsystem cross terms, which presently leaves the main predictions conditional rather than established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.B, Eqs. (29)-(33)] The headline ratios 0.01 and 3.6 are obtained by dropping the cross terms σ^1_c+σ^3_c and σ^2_c. In the total susceptibility χ=2χ1+χ2, the coefficient of (σ^1_c+σ^3_c) in units of the TBG counterflow is 15/10 = 1.5 (from Eqs. (29)-(30)), while the retained coefficient at the first magic angle is only (9φ^{-2}-6+φ^2)/5 ≈ 0.01. Thus even a cross term at the 1% level of the TBG counterflow would change the predicted ratio by order 0.015–0.1, potentially swamping the claimed cancellation. No quantitative bound or numerical estimate is given. The phase-space argument based on different renormalized Fermi velocities is plausible but not quantitative; it must be supported by a concrete estimate or a direct tight-binding/continuum calculation before the 0.01 result can be considered established.
  2. [§III.C, Eqs. (41)-(42) and §IV.C] For the pentalayer, Eqs. (41)-(42) express the entire susceptibility in terms of cross terms σ^1_c,…,σ^5_c. The paper says in §III.C that these are negligible by the phase-space argument, but in §IV.C it asserts they 'vanish identically due to particle conservation in the two decoupled subsystems.' These are different statements, and the latter is not proved. Moreover, σ^1_c = ⟨⟨j̄13,j̄31⟩⟩ and σ^2_c = ⟨⟨j̄24,j̄42⟩⟩ are intra-subsystem current correlators: the operators j̄13 and j̄31 act within one effective TBG sector, not between separately conserved particle-number sectors. Particle conservation in each decoupled subsystem does not make such intra-subsystem current cross-correlations vanish, and they can receive nonzero contributions (even factorized contributions at q=0). Since the entire odd-layer null result rests on this assertion, the conclusion that odd-N stacks have negligible
  3. [§IV.D, Eq. (53) and following] The mapping of the tetralayer Fermi-surface orbital contribution Δχ_TTG to the TBG result is done by assuming large counterflow and retaining only quadratic contributions, with the statement that 'the cross terms now vanish identically.' No derivation of this vanishing is provided, and it appears to conflict with the earlier phase-space estimate in §III.B, where the same cross terms were merely 'expected to be small' rather than zero. Since the Maki parameter estimates α_M ≈ 0.02 and ≈7 inherit the same uncontrolled approximation, the quantitative Maki-parameter claims for the tetralayer are conditional on the same unverified assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II.B, Eq. (10)] The discrete Maxwell-Faraday relation uses iωa(ℓ-ℓ')B = e_z×(E_ℓ-E_ℓ'); the sign convention and the factor ℓ-ℓ' should be stated more explicitly, as the layer indexing is central to the subsequent magnetization profile.
  2. [§IV.B, Eq. (51)] The numerical prefactor 1.16 in α_M = 1.16 (D̃_mag/ρ̃) would benefit from a one-line derivation; as written, the conversion from atomic units to the fine-structure/Bohr-radius combination is opaque.
  3. [Fig. 2] The left-hand panel is described as showing D_mag (black) and the density of states, but the black curve is not explicitly identified in the caption; specify the color/line convention for both quantities in both panels.
  4. [References] References [33] and [50] appear to be the same paper (same authors and title); one duplicate should be removed.
  5. [General] The text alternates between 'Maki parameter' and 'in-plane Maki parameter' without defining whether this is a new quantity distinct from the conventional out-of-plane Maki parameter; the distinction is made in §IV.B but should be highlighted in the introduction and abstract.
  6. [§III.C, Eqs. (37)-(40)] For the pentalayer, the notation j_ℓℓ is introduced but the second index is sometimes omitted; explicitly state that j_ℓℓ denotes the intra-layer sheet current and that j_ℓℓ' with ℓ≠ℓ' is a vertical current entering only the transformed basis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the tetralayer and pentalayer susceptibilities are obtained by applying the Khalaf decoupling and then neglecting cross terms; no target ratio is fed back into the calculation.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the Khalaf transformation (Ref. [43]) through the current-operator algebra of Appendices A and B to the central ratios in Eqs. (33) and (36). Those ratios are algebraic combinations of the golden-ratio coefficients produced by the unitary transformation, after dropping the inter-subsystem correlators σ_c and the off-magic counterflow terms. Nothing in that chain defines a target susceptibility in terms of itself, and no parameter is fitted to the claimed 0.01 or 3.6 values. The pentalayer null result is likewise a conditional statement: Eqs. (41)-(42) show the susceptibility is built entirely from σ_c terms, so the claim of negligible response is logically equivalent to the assumption that those cross terms are small, not an independent prediction derived from the target. Sec. IV C strengthens this to an unproven 'vanish identically due to particle conservation' assertion; this is a load-bearing rigor gap and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity because the vanishing is not obtained by assuming the final susceptibility. The self-citations to Refs. [56] and [59] are used as tools or parameter inputs, and [56] is cited for an explicit analytical estimate of σ_c in the trilayer case; they are not fitted to the present claims. External anchors (e.g., comparison with Ref. [55] and the experimental Pauli-limit context in Refs. [46,47]) provide independent context. No circular step of any enumerated kind can be exhibited from the paper's equations, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No genuinely new free parameters are fitted in this paper: the tight-binding parameters are inherited from Ref. [59], and the effective angles come from the known Khalaf hierarchy. The main load-bearing assumption is the neglect of cross terms, which is an unquantified modeling assumption rather than a fitted number. No new physical entities are introduced; the in-plane Maki parameter is a defined dimensionless ratio, not a new force or particle.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Khalaf et al. unitary transformation exactly maps an alternating-twist N-layer Hamiltonian onto N/2 decoupled TBG Hamiltonians (plus one decoupled SLG for odd N), with effective twist angles β^N_k θ_m.
    Used throughout Secs. II-III and Appendix A; the effective magic angles at K-point follow from Ref. [43].
  • ad hoc to paper Cross terms σ_c between the two effective TBG subsystems are negligible because the renormalized Fermi velocities differ strongly.
    Invoked after Eqs. (29)-(30) and in Sec. III B/C to drop σ^1_c+σ^3_c and similar terms; no quantitative estimate is given. The pentalayer result depends entirely on this assumption.
  • domain assumption At charge neutrality the equilibrium in-plane susceptibility can be obtained from the static ordered limit lim_{ω→0} lim_{q→0} because the Fermi-surface contact term vanishes.
    Sec. II, based on Ref. [57]; also used to extend results to finite doping inside the flat band.
  • domain assumption In the superconducting state the orbital susceptibility difference from the normal state is dominated by the Fermi-surface term, with the Kubo correlator unchanged up to O(∆/W).
    Sec. IV A, Eq. (46), following Ref. [58]; this justifies the Maki parameter estimate.
  • domain assumption TBG orbital susceptibility diverges as (θ−θ_m)^{-0.2} in the clean limit and is roughly constant near charge neutrality.
    Introduction and Sec. II, from Ref. [53]; serves as the reference scale χ_TBG to which multilayer responses are normalized.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-plane magnetic response and Maki parameter of alternating-twist multilayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVK4TI4E

@misc{pith2026260318194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-plane magnetic response and Maki parameter of alternating-twist multilayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVK4TI4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.18194}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We analytically study the orbital response of alternating-twist multilayer graphene to an in-plane magnetic field using the unitary transformation introduced by Khalaf \textit{et al.} [Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{100}, 085109 (2019)]. This transformation maps an alternating-twist $N$-layer system onto $N/2$ decoupled twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) systems with distinct effective twist angles, together with a single decoupled layer for odd $N$, thereby generating a hierarchy of effective magic angles. For systems with an odd number of layers, we find that the orbital in-plane magnetic response is negligibly small. For even systems, we express the in-plane orbital susceptibility in terms of the corresponding TBG responses in the flat-band regime, which are large compared to the spin susceptibility and even diverge in the clean limit at charge neutrality near the magic angle. In these systems, the in-plane magnetic response strongly depends on the effective magic angle within the hierarchy: the larger the twist angle, the smaller the total response. Moreover, we find a general relation between the outermost interlayer and total susceptibilities of the system when the corresponding effective TBG subsystem is in the flat-band regime. We finally introduce the in-plane Maki parameter as the ratio of the difference in orbital susceptibility between the normal and superconducting states to the paramagnetic Pauli susceptibility. For TBG, we find values up to 2 near the magic angle. Our analysis shows that, for certain magic angles, the interpretation of Pauli-limit violation in alternating-twist multilayers requires taking into account the orbital contribution to the in-plane magnetic response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.18194 by Dionisios Margetis, Guillermo G\'omez-Santos, Igor Vasilevskiy, Khadija Challaouy, Miguel S\'anchez S\'anchez, Tobias Stauber.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the magnetization profile induced by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Left-hand side: The orbital magnetic contribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.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. In-plane and out-of-plane magnetic field driven Josephson diode effect in magic-angle twisted four-layer graphene

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Experimental demonstration of in-plane and out-of-plane magnetic field driven Josephson diode effect in magic-angle twisted four-layer graphene, highlighting sensitivity to layer parity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    vertical

    The electric fields must thus linearly increase as a function of the layer index,ℓ. C. Electric and magnetic dipoles Let us now turn to the in-plane sheet currents in- duced by the external fields. These currents give rise to electric and magnetic moments, and the total cur- rent density can be related to the electric polarization by −∂tp=J tot = NX ℓ=1 J...

  2. [2]

    + 4(σ1 c +σ 3 c ) i ,(29) χ2 =iω a2 10 h (3φ−2 −4 +φ 2)(σ1 0 −σ 1 1) + (3φ2 −4 +φ −2)(σ2 0 −σ 2 1) + 7(σ1 c +σ 3 c ) + (σ2 c +σ 3 c ) i ,(30) whereφ= (1 + √ 5)/2

  3. [3]

    The renormalized Fermi velocities of the two effective systems,v j F, are then very different at theK- point,v 2 F ≫v 1 F

    System response near the first magic angle Let us now discuss the behavior of this system when the first effective bilayer is close to the respective magic angle. The renormalized Fermi velocities of the two effective systems,v j F, are then very different at theK- point,v 2 F ≫v 1 F. The coupling termsσ 1 c +σ 3 c are thus expected to be relatively small...

  4. [4]

    contact term

    System response near the second magic angle The analysis proceeds analogously to the previous case (Sec. III B 1) when the second effective bilayer sys- tem is tuned close to its magic angle,θ 2 4,m =φ −1θm. The renormalized Fermi velocities at theKpoint are strongly different, but now withv 1 F ≫v 2 F. The cou- pling termsσ 1 c +σ 3 c are once again expe...

  5. [5]

    Let us now setH 2ℓ−1 =H θ/2 andH 2ℓ =H −θ/2 withℓ= 1

    V † HN   .(A1) Them×m-dimensional matricesH ℓ andVdenote the Hamiltonian of layerℓand the interlayer coupling, re- spectively. Let us now setH 2ℓ−1 =H θ/2 andH 2ℓ =H −θ/2 withℓ= 1. . . N/2 andNeven. ForNodd, the decou- pling procedure is equivalent, only with one additional decoupled single-layer Hamiltonian. Rearranging the layers, we can write th...

  6. [6]

    Furthermore, the columns ofA N/2 are the eigenvectors ofC N/2C † N/2 and the columns ofB N/2 are the eigenvectors ofC † N/2CN/2

    1 1   .(A3) We can now decompose the non-Hermitian ma- trixC N/2 by its singular values, i.e.,C N/2 = AN/2C s N/2B† N/2, whereC s N/2 = diag(β k N ) with (β k N )2 the eigenvalues ofC N/2C † N/2. Furthermore, the columns ofA N/2 are the eigenvectors ofC N/2C † N/2 and the columns ofB N/2 are the eigenvectors ofC † N/2CN/2. This decomposition now all...

  7. [7]

    For small ini- tial twist angleθand few layers, this is equivalent to the renormalization of the twist angle of the multilayer system,θ k N,m =β k N θm [3]

    0H TBG βN/2 N   ,(A5) whereH TBG βk N denotes the 2m×2m-dimensional Hamil- tonian of the twisted bilayer with renormalized inter- layer hopping amplitude (t k N )⊥ =β k N t⊥ withβ k N = 2 cos[πk/(N+ 1)], k= 1, ..., N/2 [43]. For small ini- tial twist angleθand few layers, this is equivalent to the renormalization of the twist angle of the multilayer...

  8. [8]

    T etralayer transformation For a system with four layers, the matrices that yield the singular value decomposition read A= 5−1/4 √φ ï1−φ φ1 ò , B= 5−1/4 √φ ïφ−1 1φ ò ,(B1) whereφ= (1 + √ 5)/2. Reordering the Hamilto- nian again, we obtain the unitary matrix that block- diagonalizes the Hamiltonian, i.e., H→T †HT= ÅH TBG φ 0 0H TBG φ−1 ã ,(B2) whereH TBG β...

  9. [9]

    43, we start from the unitary trans- formation that block-diagonalizes the Hamiltonian, i.e

    Pentalayer transformation Following Ref. 43, we start from the unitary trans- formation that block-diagonalizes the Hamiltonian, i.e. H=T †HT= ÑH TBG√ 3 0 0 0H TBG 1 0 0 0H SLG é ,(B32) whereH TBG β is the Hamiltonian of TBG with the two renormalized interlayer coupling amplitudes (t k N )⊥ = βk 4 t⊥ andH SLG the Hamiltonian of a monolayer graphene. The e...

  10. [10]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Su´ arez Morell, J

    E. Su´ arez Morell, J. D. Correa, P. Vargas, M. Pacheco, and Z. Barticevic, Flat bands in slightly twisted bi- layer graphene: Tight-binding calculations, Phys. Rev. B82, 121407 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Moir´ e bands in twisted double-layer graphene, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA)108, 12233 (2011)

    2011

  13. [13]

    S. Carr, D. Massatt, S. Fang, P. Cazeaux, M. Luskin, and E. Kaxiras, Twistronics: Manipulating the elec- tronic properties of two-dimensional layered structures through their twist angle, Physical Review B95, 075420 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Correlated insulator behaviour at half-filling in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    B. L. Chittari, N. Leconte, S. Javvaji, and J. Jung, Pressure induced compression of flatbands in twisted bilayer graphene, Electronic Structure1, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Isobe, N

    H. Isobe, N. F. Yuan, and L. Fu, Unconventional su- perconductivity and density waves in twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Review X8, 041041 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    D. M. Kennes, J. Lischner, and C. Karrasch, Strong correlations and d+id superconductivity in twisted bi- layer graphene, Physical Review B98, 241407 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Koshino, N

    M. Koshino, N. F. Yuan, T. Koretsune, M. Ochi, K. Kuroki, and L. Fu, Maximally localized wannier orbitals and the extended hubbard model for twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Review X8, 031087 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    L. Zou, H. C. Po, A. Vishwanath, and T. Senthil, Band structure of twisted bilayer graphene: Emergent sym- metries, commensurate approximants, and wannier ob- structions, Physical Review B98, 085435 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Gonz´ alez and T

    J. Gonz´ alez and T. Stauber, Kohn-luttinger supercon- ductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Review Letters122, 026801 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Strong coupling phases of par- tially filled twisted bilayer graphene narrow bands, Physical Review Letters122, 246401 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    B. Lian, Z. Wang, and B. A. Bernevig, Twisted bilayer graphene: A phonon-driven superconductor, Physical Review Letters122, 257002 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Polshyn, M

    H. Polshyn, M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, Y. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. R. Dean, and A. F. Young, Large linear-in-temperature resistivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Nature Physics15, 1011 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Roy and V

    B. Roy and V. Juriˇ ci´ c, Unconventional superconduc- tivity in nearly flat bands in twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Review B99, 121407 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    Zhang, D

    Y.-H. Zhang, D. Mao, Y. Cao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and T. Senthil, Nearly flat chern bands in moir´ e superlat- tices, Physical Review B99, 075127 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Y. Cao, D. Chowdhury, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies- Bigorda, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Senthil, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Strange metal in magic-angle graphene with near planckian dissipation, Physical Re- view Letters124, 076801 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    D. V. Chichinadze, L. Classen, and A. V. Chubukov, Nematic superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Review B101, 224513 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    K. P. Nuckolls, M. Oh, D. Wong, B. Lian, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Strongly correlated chern insulators in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Nature588, 610 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    Saito, J

    Y. Saito, J. Ge, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. F. Young, Independent superconductors and correlated insulators in twisted bilayer graphene, Nature Physics 16, 926 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Lian, Z.-D

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

    2021

  31. [31]

    Saito, F

    Y. Saito, F. Yang, J. Ge, X. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. I. A. Li, E. Berg, and A. F. Young, Isospin pomeranchuk effect in twisted bilayer graphene, Nature592, 220 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Y. Xie, A. T. Pierce, J. M. Park, D. E. Parker, E. Kha- laf, P. Ledwith, Y. Cao, S. H. Lee, S. Chen, P. R. Forrester, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and A. Yacoby, Fractional Chern in- sulators in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Na- ture600, 439 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Di Battista, P

    G. Di Battista, P. Seifert, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. C. Fong, A. Principi, and D. K. Efetov, Reveal- ing the thermal properties of superconducting magic- angle twisted bilayer graphene, Nano Letters22, 6465 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Jaoui, I

    A. Jaoui, I. Das, G. Di Battista, J. D ´ ıez-M´ erida, X. Lu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Ishizuka, L. Levi- tov, and D. K. Efetov, Quantum critical behaviour in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Nature Physics 18, 633 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Z. Dong, L. Levitov, and A. V. Chubukov, Supercon- ductivity near spin and valley orders in graphene mul- tilayers, Physical Review B108, 134503 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Ingham, T

    J. Ingham, T. Li, M. S. Scheurer, and H. D. Scam- mell, Quadratic dirac fermions and the competition of ordered states in twisted bilayer graphene (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    Y.-Z. Chou, Y. Tan, F. Wu, and S. Das Sarma, Topological flat bands, valley polarization, and inter- band superconductivity in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene with proximitized spin-orbit couplings, Phys- ical Review B110, l041108 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    G. Rai, L. Crippa, D. C˘ alug˘ aru, H. Hu, F. Paoletti, L. de’ Medici, A. Georges, B. A. Bernevig, R. Va- lent ´ ı, G. Sangiovanni, and T. Wehling, Dynamical correlations and order in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Review X14, 031045 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Wang, G.-D

    Y.-J. Wang, G.-D. Zhou, S.-Y. Peng, B. Lian, and Z.-D. Song, Molecular pairing in twisted bilayer 13 graphene superconductivity, Physical Review Letters 133, 146001 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Zhou, Y.-J

    G.-D. Zhou, Y.-J. Wang, N. Tong, and Z.-D. Song, Kondo phase in twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Re- view B109, 045419 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Dutta, A

    R. Dutta, A. Ghosh, S. Mandal, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. R. Krishnamurthy, S. Banerjee, M. Jain, and A. Das, Electric field-tunable super- conductivity with competing orders in twisted bilayer graphene near the magic angle, ACS Nano19, 5353 (2025)

    2025

  42. [43]

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

    2020

  43. [44]

    Yankowitz, S

    M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Tuning superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Science363, 1059 (2019)

    2019

  44. [45]

    Balents, C

    L. Balents, C. R. Dean, D. K. Efetov, and A. F. Young, Superconductivity and strong correlations in moir´ e flat bands, Nature Physics16, 725 (2020)

    2020

  45. [46]

    J. M. Park, Y. Cao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Tunable strongly coupled supercon- ductivity in magic-angle twisted trilayer graphene, Na- ture590, 249 (2021)

    2021

  46. [47]

    Z. Hao, A. M. Zimmerman, P. Ledwith, E. Kha- laf, D. H. Najafabadi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, and P. Kim, Electric field-tunable su- perconductivity in alternating-twist magic-angle tri- layer graphene, Science371, 1133 (2021)

    2021

  47. [48]

    Y. Cao, J. M. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Pauli-limit violation and re-entrant superconductivity in moir´ e graphene, Nature595, 526 (2021)

    2021

  48. [49]

    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, 942 (2023)

    2023

  49. [50]

    A. Uri, S. C. de la Barrera, M. T. Randeria, D. Rodan- Legrain, T. Devakul, P. J. D. Crowley, N. Paul, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. Lifshitz, L. Fu, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Superconductivity and strong interactions in a tunable moir´ e quasicrystal, Na- ture620, 762 (2023)

    2023

  50. [51]

    L.-Q. Xia, S. C. de la Barrera, A. Uri, A. Sharpe, Y. H. Kwan, Z. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, L. Fu, T. Devakul, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Helical trilayer graphene: A moir´ e platform for strongly-interacting topological bands, e- print , arXiv:2310.12204v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [52]

    Khalaf, A

    E. Khalaf, A. J. Kruchkov, G. Tarnopolsky, and A. Vishwanath, Magic angle hierarchy in twisted graphene multilayers, Phys. Rev. B100, 085109 (2019)

    2019

  52. [53]

    A. M. Clogston, Upper limit for the critical field in hard superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.9, 266 (1962)

    1962

  53. [54]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar, A note on the maximum critical field of high-field superconductors, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1, 7 (1962)

    1962

  54. [55]

    J. M. Park, Y. Cao, L.-Q. Xia, S. Sun, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Robust supercon- ductivity in magic-angle multilayer graphene family, Nat. Mater.21, 877 (2022)

    2022

  55. [56]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and E. Khalaf, Family of ideal Chern flatbands with arbitrary Chern number in chiral twisted graphene multilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 176404 (2022)

    2022

  56. [57]

    Lake and T

    E. Lake and T. Senthil, Reentrant superconductivity through a quantum lifshitz transition in twisted tri- layer graphene, Physical Review B104, 174505 (2021)

    2021

  57. [58]

    Christos, S

    M. Christos, S. Sachdev, and M. S. Scheurer, Corre- lated insulators, semimetals, and superconductivity in twisted trilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. X12, 021018 (2022)

    2022

  58. [59]

    J. M. Park, S. Sun, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Experimental evidence for nodal su- perconducting gap in moir´ e graphene, Science391, 79 (2026)

    2026

  59. [60]

    Stauber, T

    T. Stauber, T. Low, and G. G´ omez-Santos, Chiral re- sponse of twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 046801 (2018)

    2018

  60. [61]

    Guerci, P

    D. Guerci, P. Simon, and C. Mora, Moir´ e lattice ef- fects on the orbital magnetic response of twisted bi- layer graphene and Condon instability, Phys. Rev. B 103, 224436 (2021)

    2021

  61. [62]

    Stauber, M

    T. Stauber, M. Wackerl, P. Wenk, D. Margetis, J. Gonz´ alez, G. G´ omez-Santos, and J. Schliemann, Neutral magic-angle bilayer graphene: Condon insta- bility and chiral resonances, Small Sci.3, 2200080 (2023)

    2023

  62. [63]

    W.-Y. He, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, and K. T. Law, Gi- ant orbital magnetoelectric effect and current-induced magnetization switching in twisted bilayer graphene, Nature Communications11, 10.1038/s41467-020- 15473-9 (2020)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-020- 2020

  63. [64]

    Antebi, A

    O. Antebi, A. Stern, and E. Berg, In-plane orbital magnetization as a probe for symmetry breaking in strained twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Review B 105, 104423 (2022)

    2022

  64. [65]

    Margetis, G

    D. Margetis, G. G´ omez-Santos, and T. Stauber, Op- tical response of alternating twisted trilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B110, 205144 (2024)

    2024

  65. [66]

    Stauber, T

    T. Stauber, T. Low, and G. G´ omez-Santos, Linear re- sponse of twisted bilayer graphene: Continuum versus tight-binding models, Phys. Rev. B98, 195414 (2018)

    2018

  66. [67]

    D. J. Scalapino, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Insulator, metal, or superconductor: The criteria, Phys. Rev. B 47, 7995 (1993)

    1993

  67. [68]

    S´ anchez S´ anchez, I

    M. S´ anchez S´ anchez, I. D ´ ıaz, J. Gonz´ alez, and T. Stauber, Nematic versus kekul´ e phases in twisted bi- layer graphene under hydrostatic pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 266603 (2024)

    2024

  68. [69]

    Maki, Effect of pauli paramagnetism on magnetic properties of high-field superconductors, Phys

    K. Maki, Effect of pauli paramagnetism on magnetic properties of high-field superconductors, Phys. Rev. 148, 362 (1966)

    1966

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.