Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 119 references

The lowest-energy charged excitations of twisted bilayer graphene's normal state are 'Dirac trions' — two electrons bound to a hole — gapless, orthogonal to the electron, and light despite heavy parts.

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

2026-08-01 02:03 UTC pith:OMO2CHBJ

load-bearing objection A serious QMC study with a genuine technical contribution, but the 'Dirac trion' claim is built on an unvalidated analytic limit and SAC spectra without error bars. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27745 v1 pith:OMO2CHBJ submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Trion Excitations in Twisted Bilayer Graphene: A Quantum Monte Carlo Study

Shibo Shan , Cheng Huang , Patrick Ledwith , Zi Yang Meng This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el quant-ph
keywords twisted bilayer grapheneDirac trionsquantum Monte CarloMott semimetalnormal stateelectron-trion hybridizationflat-band topologyBerry curvature
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 paper claims that the finite-temperature normal state of twisted bilayer graphene at charge neutrality — a symmetric 'Mott semimetal' that emerges above the intervalley-coherent insulating ground state — conducts charge through three-particle bound states rather than single electrons. These 'Dirac trions' consist of two electrons and one hole, are gapless at the Brillouin-zone center, and are exactly orthogonal to the electron there. The evidence is a quantum Monte Carlo calculation of the electron–trion Green's function showing an electron–trion hybridization that vanishes linearly with momentum and a trion spectral function sharply peaked at zero energy. If correct, this means composite excitations, not Landau-level-like single particles, dominate the charge dynamics of flat topological bands.

Core claim

Using sign-problem-free continuous-field momentum-space quantum Monte Carlo on the projected interaction of the two flat bands, the paper finds that the normal state above about 1 meV hosts gapless 'Dirac trions' at the Γ point. The trion operator F_{kσsη} = {c_{Rσsη}, δn_R} is the Hubbard analogue of a local three-fermion bound state; its hybridization with the electron, Σ_k, has a 2π phase winding around the moiré Brillouin zone forced by band topology, pinning a vortex at Γ where electron and trion decouple. The calculated |Σ_k| ∝ |k| and the trion spectral peak at ω=0 are the paper's numerical evidence that the trion is the lowest-energy charged excitation. Exactly at the magic angle bot

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the trion operator F = {c, δn_R} built from AA-centered projected Wannier orbitals, together with the inverse Green's function G^{-1} in the (electron, trion) basis. The off-diagonal entry Σ_k is forced by band topology to wind by 2π around the moiré Brillouin zone, which pins a vortex at Γ and makes the trion exactly orthogonal to the electron there. A real-space Wick expansion of the six-fermion trion correlator reduces the measurement cost from O(N^4) to O(N^2), making the calculation feasible.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the simulated T=3 meV state is a Mott regime with mostly frozen charge and thermally fluctuating flavor moments — the small-parameter limit in which the analytic electron–trion Green's function applies — and that the chosen trion operator creates the lowest-energy charged excitation.

What would settle it

Check whether the static intervalley-coherent structure factor at T=3 meV continues to decrease with increasing system size beyond L=9; if it saturates, the presumed symmetric normal state is still ordered and the gapless trion could be a finite-size artifact. Alternatively, test |Σ^{cF}_{k,l}| at the Γ point for larger L and more Matsubara frequencies: if it does not extrapolate to zero, the trion–electron Dirac node is not exact.

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

If this is right

  • Near charge neutrality, the normal state's low-energy dynamics are governed by trions, so transport and tunneling probes that assume single-electron quasiparticles will miss the dominant charge carriers.
  • Because the trion is arbitrarily light near the magic angle even though the bands are flat, it can produce a small effective mass and a high-mobility channel without electron dispersion.
  • Tuning the twist angle away from the magic value opens a single-particle gap at Γ while leaving the trion gapless, giving a way to isolate trion physics spectroscopically.
  • Concentrating Berry curvature (for example by increasing the AA interlayer hopping) enhances the zero-energy trion feature, directly linking the effect to band topology.
  • The real-space measurement scheme gives a concrete method to access three-fermion correlators in other projected topological bands.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If trions carry charge, doping the normal state slightly away from neutrality should create a light trion Fermi surface whose quantum oscillation frequencies differ from those of the underlying electron bands — a testable prediction.
  • The electron–trion orthogonality at Γ suggests conventional photoemission will see vanishing electron weight at the node; a quantum twisting microscope measuring tunneling into the particle–hole dressed channel is a more natural probe.
  • The same mechanism might produce analogous composite excitations in other moiré flat bands with concentrated Berry curvature, not just twisted bilayer graphene.
  • The finite-size KIVC issue leaves room for an alternative reading: at T=3 meV the 'normal state' may be a slowly fluctuating intervalley-coherent state on the system sizes studied, in which case the trion's gaplessness could be tied to the algebraic order rather than to a truly symmetric Mott semimetal.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a sign-problem-free continuous-field momentum-space quantum Monte Carlo study of the projected Bistritzer–MacDonald model of twisted bilayer graphene at charge neutrality. It claims that the finite-temperature 'Mott semimetal' normal state hosts gapless 'Dirac trion' excitations at the Γ point: three-fermion bound states (two electrons, one hole) that are exactly orthogonal to the electron and are arbitrarily light despite heavy constituents. The main numerical evidence is the linear behavior |Σ^{cF}_{k,l}| ∝ |k| in the electron–trion inverse Green's function and a sharp zero-energy peak in the trion spectral function obtained by stochastic analytic continuation. The paper also introduces a real-space basis that reduces the cost of measuring the six-fermion trion Green's function from O(N^4) to O(N^2), and uses Metropolis-adjusted Langevin global updates.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper identifies a genuinely new many-body excitation—a composite three-particle bound state with a gapless, topologically pinned mode—in a realistic correlated flat-band model, going beyond Landau-level physics. The methodological contributions are substantial: the sign-problem-free QMC machinery, the O(N^2) real-space measurement of a six-fermion correlator, and the systematic variation of u0 and twist angle provide independent numerical evidence that the low-energy charged excitations of the normal state are composite in nature. However, the central 'Dirac trion' identification is heavily theory-laden, resting on an analytic small-parameter expansion whose validity for the simulated parameters is not demonstrated, and several claims (exact orthogonality, arbitrarily light mass, symmetric normal state) outpace what the QMC data alone establish.

major comments (5)
  1. [Models and Observables, Eq. (4) and Fig. 4(a)] The analytic form G^{-1} in Eq. (4) is justified by s^2 << 1 and the Mott regime U >> T >> U s^2. The paper never estimates s for the simulated parameters (θ=1.08°, u0=80 meV, T=3 meV). Fig. 4(a) shows a Berry-curvature profile peaked at Γ but with a width that is not parametrically narrow; a conservative estimate gives s^2 = O(0.1). With U of order tens of meV (cf. the ~20 meV insulating gap), U s^2 is comparable to T, so T >> U s^2 likely fails. The zero structure of Eq. (4) (vortex Σ_k∝k, decoupled electron/trion blocks) is then an input, not a controlled consequence. The linear |Σ| data are robust, but their Dirac-trion interpretation requires either a quantitative verification of the hierarchy or a parameter-free extraction of the effective Hamiltonian from G^{-1}(k,iω_l).
  2. [Results, Fig. 3(a)] Figure 3(a) presents S_KIVC(Γ) for L=6 and L=9 only. The text acknowledges that KIVC order has only algebraic order at any T>0 in the thermodynamic limit, so a finite-size structure factor that is small for L=6,9 at T>1 meV does not establish a symmetric normal state in the thermodynamic limit. Without a finite-size scaling analysis (e.g., S_KIVC/N vs 1/L or a correlation-length extraction), the existence of the 'Mott semimetal' at the simulated T=3 meV is not demonstrated. This is load-bearing because the trion spectra are interpreted in that normal state. Please add L=12,15 data and an extrapolation.
  3. [Discussion and Results (θ=1.08°, θ=1.16°)] The phrase 'arbitrarily light' (Abstract and Discussion) is not supported by the QMC data. No effective mass, Fermi velocity, or trion dispersion is extracted from the spectral functions; Figs. 2(f), 3(f) show a sharp low-energy peak but do not resolve a dispersion. The light-mass claim is an extrapolation of Eq. (4), which itself depends on the unverified s^2 expansion. Either extract the trion dispersion from the data (peak position vs k at small k) or explicitly label this as a prediction of the analytic theory rather than a numerical result.
  4. [Methods (SAC) and Figs. 2(e,f), 3(c-f), 4(b)] The central evidence for a zero-energy trion mode is a sharp peak at ω=0 obtained from stochastic analytic continuation. SAC is an ill-posed inversion, but no error bars or sensitivity analysis are reported for A(ω). The trion Green's function is a six-fermion correlator, and statistical noise could affect the low-frequency structure. Please provide uncertainty estimates on A(ω) (e.g., bootstrap over SAC samples) or show the raw Matsubara G_FF(k,τ) and the quality of the continuation.
  5. [SM Sec. S1, Eq. (S1)] The statement that the Γ-point trion is 'exactly orthogonal' to the electron is enforced by the operator construction: SM Eq. (S1) explicitly excludes the Γ mode (X(Γ)=0) from the real-space operator entering the trion. The QMC observation of ⟨{F_Γ,c†_Γ}⟩=0 is therefore not an independent dynamical check, and the text's phrasing 'verify ... as enforced by band topology' (Introduction/Results) conflates a gauge choice with an emergent property. The nontrivial numerical result is the existence of a low-energy trion peak; please rephrase accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figs. 2(d), 3(b)] The linear behavior |Σ^{cF}_{k,l}| ≈ |k| is a key quantitative result, but the figures show no error bars and no fitting range. Please state the statistical uncertainty and the k-range used for the linear fit.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The interaction scale U is never defined in the main text. The projected Coulomb interaction is written as V(Q), but the paper refers to 'the interaction scale U' (e.g., 'U ≫ T ≫ Us²'). Please define U explicitly (e.g., the onsite component of the projected interaction) and give its numerical value for the simulated parameters.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The equation presents G^{-1} as iω_l − H_eff − ildeΣ. It should be clearly stated that this is the leading-order analytic approximation with ildeΣ not evaluated, rather than the exact inverse of the QMC-measured Green's function. The current placement may mislead readers into thinking Eq. (4) is the measured quantity.
  4. [Eqs. (2), (S8), (S14)] The normalization of the trion operator and the projection excluding Γ are defined in the SM, but the main-text notation c_{Rσsη} is ambiguous: it is not the full Fourier transform but one with the Γ mode removed. A brief footnote or equation clarifying this in the main text would help.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] Typo: 'obatained' should be 'obtained'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The exact Γ-point electron–trion orthogonality is a definitional input (X(Γ)=0), not a QMC-derived prediction; the QMC spectra themselves remain independent.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [SM S1 (trion operator construction) and main text 'Models and Observables'/'Results']
    "At the Γ point this top-layer A-sublattice component vanishes, c†_{Γσsη} cannot create a Bloch function concentrated at the AA center, so we exclude its contribution by setting X^η_{σn}(Γ)=0 in the trion operator. ... and verify that the Γ point trion is exactly orthogonal to the electron as enforced by the band topology [78]."

    The 'exact orthogonality' at Γ is not an emergent QMC finding: F_Γ is built from a Chern-basis c_R whose Γ mode is deleted via X(Γ)=0. SM Eq. (S14) then gives {c_{Ra},c†_{R'b}}=(δ_RR'−1/N)δ_ab, and summing over R,R' forces ⟨{F_Γ,c†_Γ}⟩=0 identically. The paper presents this construction-enforced zero as a verified prediction ('verify that the Γ point trion is exactly orthogonal...'), so the headline orthogonality reduces to the operator definition.

full rationale

The paper's central QMC computation is not circular: the electron and trion spectral functions, the temperature evolution, and the |Σ^{cF}|≈|k| behavior come from sign-problem-free momentum-space QMC plus SAC, with no fitting to Eq. (4). A gapless low-energy trion-like peak is therefore a genuinely independent numerical result. The circular element is narrower but load-bearing: the abstract and results tout the Γ-point electron–trion orthogonality as discovered/verified, whereas SM S1 removes the Γ mode from the trion operator by setting X(Γ)=0, and SM Eq. (S14) shows the anticommutator then vanishes by construction. Thus one of the paper's headline properties ('exactly orthogonal ... at the zero-momentum gapless point') is an input, not an output. The analytic G^{-1} form Eq. (4) is additionally imported from Ref. [78] with overlapping authorship, and the s²≪1, U≫T≫Us² regime is asserted rather than quantitatively checked; this is a correctness/interpretation risk but the QMC data are not fitted to it, so it does not by itself constitute circularity. Overall: one definition-forced prediction among otherwise independent numerics = partial circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central calculation rests on the standard BM projection and the analytic regime assumption. The Dirac-trion entity is new but lacks a sharp, externally checkable prediction beyond the existing 'no electron Fermi surface' observation. The QMC method is independent of the analytic theory, but the trion operator itself is designed to realize the predicted excitation.

free parameters (3)
  • BM parameters u0, u1, θ = u0=80 meV (varies 0-80), u1=110 meV, θ=1.08°-1.16°
    Taken from prior BM model fits to TBG experiments; not fitted in this paper, but the central results depend on these values.
  • Small parameter s² (Berry-curvature width) = not quantified
    The analytic regime U ≫ T ≫ U s² is invoked to justify Eq. (4), but s is never computed or bounded for the simulated parameters (Sec. 'Models and Observables').
  • SAC hyperparameters = not stated
    Stochastic analytic continuation parameters influence the sharpness of spectral peaks; not specified.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Projected two-band BM model with single-gate screened Coulomb interaction captures TBG low-energy physics.
    The whole calculation is restricted to the two flat bands; remote bands are ignored, justified by a large gap from Ref. [98].
  • domain assumption Sign-problem-free QMC at charge neutrality via C2P symmetry.
    Used in SM Sec. S3; standard for this model.
  • ad hoc to paper The real-space AA-centered Wannier basis with X(Γ)=0 exists with sufficiently localized orbitals.
    The trion operator is defined in this basis; topology prevents exponentially localized Wannier functions, so the power-law tails and the X(Γ)=0 exclusion are choices that shape the trion operator.
invented entities (1)
  • Dirac trion no independent evidence
    purpose: To describe the claimed three-particle bound-state excitations in the normal state of TBG.
    The paper argues QTM experiments might indirectly see the absence of an electron Fermi surface, but no direct experimental signature of the trion is predicted quantitatively (e.g., no specific tunneling conductance feature or light effective mass value).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 18101 in / 6717 out tokens · 53110 ms · 2026-08-01T02:03:53.491877+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Determining the nature of charge carriers is a fundamental goal in the study of strongly correlated electron systems. Here, we employ the continuous-field momentum-space quantum Monte Carlo method to reveal exotic "Dirac trion" excitations in the finite-temperature normal state of twisted bilayer graphene. While the ground state is a symmetry-breaking insulator with gapped ($\sim$ 20 meV) electron-like excitations, we show that a small temperature ($\sim$ 3 meV), well below the interaction scale, drives the system into a strongly fluctuating symmetric normal state. We demonstrate that this normal state hosts gapless excitations consisting of three-particle bound states, two electrons and one hole, that are exactly orthogonal to the higher-energy electrons at the zero-momentum gapless point. These Dirac trions have the remarkable property of being arbitrarily light despite being composed of heavy constituents, and their spectra can be easily tuned by varying the twist angle and interlayer hopping strength. Our unbiased quantum many-body computation sheds light on the Dirac trions in a projected correlated flat-band setting and opens the door for further investigation of many-body excitations in strongly correlated topological bands beyond Landau levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27745 by Cheng Huang, Patrick Ledwith, Shibo Shan, Zi Yang Meng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) shows how the KIVC order melts with in￾creasing temperature. For L = 6, 9 systems, SKIVC van￾ishes quickly as T > 1 meV. As the KIVC order breaks a continuous symmetry, it only has algebraic order at any T > 0 in the thermodynamic limit. However, the electronic spectra of a fluctuating KIVC order with suf￾ficiently large correlation length should be similar to the T = 0 ordered state; hence, we observe… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [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

119 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Details of this basis construction are given in the Supplemental Material (SM) [101]

    In this Chern basis, the single-particle term in the Hamiltonian reads P k,s,η,σ1σ2 [hsp k ]η σ1,σ2 c† kσ1sηckσ2sη, where[h sp k ]η σ1σ2 = P n X η∗ σ1n(k)hBM nη (k)X η σ2n(k). Details of this basis construction are given in the Supplemental Material (SM) [101]. We define the inverse Green’s function in each spins and valleyηin the electron-trion space wit...

  2. [2]

    G. Li, A. Luican, J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, A. H. Cas- tro Neto, A. Reina, J. Kong, and E. Y. Andrei, Nature Physics6, 109 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 12233 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    E. Y. Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Nature materials 19, 1265 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    K. P. Nuckolls and A. Yazdani, Nature Reviews Mate- rials9, 460 (2024). 6

    2024

  6. [6]

    P. J. Ledwith, E. Khalaf, and A. Vishwanath, Annals of Physics435, 168646 (2021), special issue on Philip W. Anderson

    2021

  7. [7]

    E. M. Spanton, A. A. Zibrov, H. Zhou, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Science 360, 62 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    P. J. Ledwith, G. Tarnopolsky, E. Khalaf, and A. Vish- wanath, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023237 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Abouelkomsan, Z

    A. Abouelkomsan, Z. Liu, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 106803 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Repellin and T

    C. Repellin and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023238 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Wilhelm, T

    P. Wilhelm, T. C. Lang, and A. M. Läuchli, Phys. Rev. B103, 125406 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    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. For- rester, et al., Nature600, 439 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Parker, P

    D. Parker, P. Ledwith, E. Khalaf, T. Soejima, J. Hauschild, Y. Xie, A. Pierce, M. P. Zaletel, A. Ya- coby, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B (2026)

    2026

  14. [14]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe,et al., Nature622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Knüppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature622, 69 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, I. Martin, and A. H. Mac- Donald, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 086402 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    H. Li, U. Kumar, K. Sun, and S.-Z. Lin, Phys. Rev. Research3, L032070 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Devakul, V

    T. Devakul, V. Crépel, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Nature communications12, 6730 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Crépel and L

    V. Crépel and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B107, L201109 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Morales-Durán, J

    N. Morales-Durán, J. Wang, G. R. Schleder, M. Angeli, Z. Zhu, E. Kaxiras, C. Repellin, and J. Cano, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2304.06669 (2023), arXiv:2304.06669 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    J. Dong, J. Wang, P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Physical Review Letters131, 136502 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Goldman, A

    H. Goldman, A. P. Reddy, N. Paul, and L. Fu, Physical review letters131, 136501 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

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

    2023

  24. [24]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, A. P. Reddy, J. Yang, J. Seo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature 626, 759 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Kapit and E

    E. Kapit and E. Mueller, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 215303 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    J. Wang, J. Cano, A. J. Millis, Z. Liu, and B. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 246403 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and E. Khalaf, Physical Review Letters128, 176404 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Wang and Z

    J. Wang and Z. Liu, Physical Review Letters128, 176403 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    J. Dong, P. J. Ledwith, E. Khalaf, J. Y. Lee, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023166 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    J. Wang, S. Klevtsov, and Z. Liu, Physical Review Re- search5, 023167 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Phys. Rev. B108, 205144 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Liu and E

    Z. Liu and E. J. Bergholtz, in Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering (Elsevier, 2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    X. Hu, Y. Ran, and D. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 066504 (2026)

    2026

  34. [34]

    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, Nature556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

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

    2018

  36. [36]

    Yankowitz, S

    M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Science , 1910 (2019)

    1910

  37. [37]

    X. Lu, P. Stepanov, W. Yang, M. Xie, M. A. Aamir, I. Das, C. Urgell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zhang, A. Bachtold, A. H. MacDonald, and D. K. Efetov, Na- ture574, 653– (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Stepanov, I

    P. Stepanov, I. Das, X. Lu, A. Fahimniya, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, F. H. Koppens, J. Lischner, L. Levi- tov, and D. K. Efetov, arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09198 (2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

  39. [39]

    Saito, J

    Y. Saito, J. Ge, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. F. Young, Nature Physics16, 926 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    H. S. Arora, R. Polski, Y. Zhang, A. Thomson, Y. Choi, H. Kim, Z. Lin, I. Z. Wilson, X. Xu, J.-H. Chu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Alicea, and S. Nadj- Perge, Nature583, 379 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    X. Liu, Z. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, O. Vafek, and J. I. A. Li, arXiv e-prints , 2003.11072 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  42. [42]

    M. Oh, K. P. Nuckolls, D. Wong, R. L. Lee, X. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. Yazdani, Nature 600, 240 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Banerjee, Z

    A. Banerjee, Z. Hao, M. Kreidel, P. Ledwith, I. Phinney, J. M. Park, A. Zimmerman, M. E. Wesson, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi,et al., Nature638, 93 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    Zaman, M

    M.Tanaka, J.Î.-j.Wang, T.H.Dinh, D.Rodan-Legrain, S. Zaman, M. Hays, A. Almanakly, B. Kannan, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski,et al., Nature638, 99 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    J. M. Park, S. Sun, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Science391, 79 (2026)

    2026

  46. [46]

    H.Kim, G.Rai, L.Crippa, D.Călugăru, H.Hu, Y.Choi, L. Kong, E. Baum, Y. Zhang, L. Holleis, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. F. Young, B. A. Bernevig, R. Valentí, G. Sangiovanni, T. Wehling, and S. Nadj-Perge, Nature 650, 592 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    Y. H. Kwan, G. Wagner, T. Soejima, M. P. Zaletel, S. H. Simon, S. A. Parameswaran, and N. Bultinck, Physical Review X11, 10.1103/physrevx.11.041063 (2021)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.041063 2021

  48. [48]

    K. P. Nuckolls, R. L. Lee, M. Oh, D. Wong, T. Soejima, J. P. Hong, D. Călugăru, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, B. A. Bernevig, K. Watanabe,et al., Nature620, 525 (2023)

    2023

  49. [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, Nature623, 942 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Rozen, J

    A. Rozen, J. M. Park, U. Zondiner, Y. Cao, D. Rodan- Legrain, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Oreg, A. Stern, E.Berg, P.Jarillo-Herrero,andS.Ilani,Nature592,214 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Saito, F

    Y. Saito, F. Yang, J. Ge, X. Liu, T. Taniguchi, 7 K. Watanabe, J. I. A. Li, E. Berg, and A. F. Young, Nature592, 220 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Zhang, S

    Z. Zhang, S. Wu, D. Călugăru, H. Hu, T. Taniguchi, K. Wanatabe, A. B. Bernevig, and E. Y. Andrei, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.17875 (2025), arXiv:2503.17875 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Zhang, G

    X. Zhang, G. Pan, Y. Zhang, J. Kang, and Z. Y. Meng, Chinese Physics Letters38, 077305 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    J. S. Hofmann, E. Khalaf, A. Vishwanath, E. Berg, and J. Y. Lee, Phys. Rev. X12, 011061 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    Zhang, G

    X. Zhang, G. Pan, X. Y. Xu, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B106, 035121 (2022)

    2022

  56. [56]

    Huang, X

    C. Huang, X. Zhang, G. Pan, H. Li, K. Sun, X. Dai, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B109, 125404 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Assaad, L

    C.Huang, N.Parthenios, M.Ulybyshev, X.Zhang, F.F. Assaad, L. Classen, and Z. Y. Meng, Nature Communi- cations16, 7176 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Huang, Y

    C. Huang, Y. H. Kwan, M. Ulybyshev, F. F. As- saad, L. Classen, and Z. Y. Meng, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.20677 (2026), arXiv:2605.20677 [cond- mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Bultinck, E

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

    2020

  60. [60]

    Lian, Z.-D

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

    2021

  61. [61]

    Vafek and J

    O. Vafek and J. Kang, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 257602 (2020)

    2020

  62. [62]

    Da Liao, J

    Y. Da Liao, J. Kang, C. N. Breiø, X. Y. Xu, H.-Q. Wu, B. M. Andersen, R. M. Fernandes, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. X11, 011014 (2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

    Liao, X.-Y

    Y.-D. Liao, X.-Y. Xu, Z.-Y. Meng, and J. Kang, Chinese Physics B30, 017305 (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    G. Pan, X. Zhang, H. Li, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B105, L121110 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

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

    2021

  66. [66]

    Potasz, M

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

    2021

  67. [67]

    Soejima, D

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

    2020

  68. [68]

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

    2021

  69. [69]

    Sánchez Sánchez, I

    M. Sánchez Sánchez, I. Díaz, J. González, and T. Stauber, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 266603 (2024)

    2024

  70. [70]

    T. Kong, A. B. Watson, M. Luskin, and K. D. Stubbs, Electronic Structure7, 035001 (2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    P. J. Ledwith, J. Dong, A. Vishwanath, and E. Khalaf, Phys. Rev. X15, 021087 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    G. Pan, X. Zhang, H. Lu, H. Li, B.-B. Chen, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 016401 (2023)

    2023

  73. [73]

    Haule, E

    M. Haule, E. Y. Andrei, and K. Haule, The Mott- semiconducting state in the magic angle bilayer graphene (2019), arXiv:1901.09852 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    M. J. Calderón and E. Bascones, Phys. Rev. B102, 155149 (2020)

    2020

  75. [75]

    Datta, M

    A. Datta, M. J. Calderon, A. Camjayi, and E. Bascones, Nature Communications14, 5036 (2023)

    2023

  76. [76]

    G. Rai, L. Crippa, D. Călugăru, H. Hu, F. Paoletti, L. de’ Medici, A. Georges, B. A. Bernevig, R. Va- lentí, G. Sangiovanni, and T. Wehling, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031045 (2024)

    2024

  77. [77]

    Călugăru, H

    D. Călugăru, H. Hu, L. Crippa, G. Rai, N. Regnault, T. O. Wehling, R. Valentí, G. Sangiovanni, and B. A. Bernevig, Obtaining the Spectral Function of Moiré Graphene Heavy-Fermions Using Iterative Perturbation Theory (2025), arXiv:2509.18256 [cond-mat]

    arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    J. S. Hofmann, P. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, J. Y. Lee, and E. Berg, Monte carlo studies of twisted bi- layer graphene: Strain and thermal fluctuations (2026), arXiv:2607.20619 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and E. Khalaf, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2505.08779 (2025), arXiv:2505.08779 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Hu, Z.-D

    H. Hu, Z.-D. Song, and B. A. Bernevig, Projected and Solvable: Topological Heavy Fermion Model of Twisted Bilayer Graphene (2025), arXiv:2502.14039 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.