Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Chaos and Diffusion in Twisted Bilayer Graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Finite flakes of twisted bilayer graphene are quantum chaotic at both commensurate and incommensurate angles, and their single-particle diffusion at intermediate to large twist angles is dominated by scattering off the flake borders…

desk verdict Finite TBG flakes show solid GOE chaos, but the border-scattering conclusion rests on an uncontrolled random sliding that the paper never averages over. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02916 v1 pith:Z5XGVBDK submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.dis-nn

Olga Arroyo-Gascón , Manuel Pino This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.dis-nn
keywords twistedbilayergraphenequantumchaosThoulessenergylevelstatisticsrandommatrixtheoryedgescatteringdiffusionmoirépattern
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that finite flakes of twisted bilayer graphene are generically quantum chaotic at both commensurate and incommensurate angles, and that the dominant source of chaos and diffusion at intermediate to large twist angles is scattering off the flake borders, not the moiré pattern. It supports this by showing that the adjacent gap ratios of the energy spectrum match the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) prediction, and that the Thouless energy (the energy at which eigenstate correlations become GOE-like) scales as $1/\sqrt{N}$, which corresponds to a mean free path of the order of the system size. If the claim holds, single-particle transport in twisted bilayer graphene flakes is diffusive because of edge scattering, with direct consequences for nanoconstriction and conductance measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a real-space tight-binding Hamiltonian with distance-dependent $\pi$ and $\sigma$ hopping terms, diagonalized for open-boundary flakes. To detect level repulsion, the paper uses the adjacent gap ratio $r$, averaged over states between 3 and 5 eV, and compares its average and full distribution to the GOE predictions. To measure diffusion, it computes the density-density correlator $K(E)$ between eigenstates and defines the Thouless energy $E_{\mathrm{Th}}$ as the scale at which $K$ reaches the GOE value $I_2/3$; the slope of $\log E_{\mathrm{Th}}$ versus $\log N$ then discriminates border-induced chaos ($\sim 1/\sqrt{N}$) from intrinsic bulk scattering ($\sim 1/N$). A random interlayer sliding is introduced in the main runs to break accidental symmetries and make the lattice more realistic.

What would settle it

Repeat the level-statistics and Thouless-energy analysis over many independent random interlayer slidings for the same flake sizes and angles: if the ensemble-averaged gap ratio moves toward the Poisson value or the $E_{\mathrm{Th}}$ slope moves from about $-0.5$ toward $-1$, the border-induced chaos claim would be refuted. A second check is to compare smooth-edge flakes with rough-edge flakes at fixed angle and size; reduced level repulsion in the smooth case would confirm the border mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At energies around 4 eV, the level statistics of circular flakes and commensurate-supercell flakes with up to about 31,000 atoms show level repulsion consistent with the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble, independent of whether the twist angle is commensurate or incommensurate; only the $\theta_{\mathrm{com}}=1.05^\circ$ case deviates slightly. The density-density eigenstate correlator reaches the GOE plateau at a Thouless energy that falls as $E_{\mathrm{Th}}\sim N^{-0.59}$ for incommensurate flakes and $N^{-0.64}$ for commensurate flakes, both compatible with $E_{\mathrm{Th}}\sim 1/\sqrt{N}$. Since $E_{\mathrm{Th}}$ is inversely proportional to the diffusion time and $N$ is proportional to the area, that scaling implies a mean free path of the order of the linear system size, so the scattering that produces chaos and diffusion comes from the borders rather than from an intrinsic bulk mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The random interlayer sliding used to break symmetry and make the lattice realistic is assumed not to be a bulk scattering source that by itself produces the GOE statistics and the $1/\sqrt{N}$ Thouless-energy scaling; the paper does not average over sliding configurations to rule this out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $E_{\mathrm{Th}}\sim 1/\sqrt{N}$, then transport through twisted bilayer graphene nanoconstrictions is limited by edge scattering; ballistic behavior of the kind seen in monolayer graphene should be much harder to achieve.
  • The dimensionless conductance $g=E_{\mathrm{Th}}/\Delta$ sits near 1 for commensurate rhombic flakes and above 1 for incommensurate circular flakes, so commensurability can change the metallic character even when the angle and size are similar.
  • At small twist angles, where the moiré unit cell approaches the system size, chaos can also arise from mixing of different band indices inside the large unit cell, so border scattering is not the only route to chaos.
  • For systems larger than the mean free path, the paper expects a crossover from $E_{\mathrm{Th}}\sim 1/L$ to $E_{\mathrm{Th}}\sim 1/L^2$, which would expose intrinsic scattering lengths at other angles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the random interlayer sliding is applied without averaging over realizations, an ensemble average over slidings would be the cleanest check that the GOE statistics and the $\sim 1/\sqrt{N}$ slope are not artifacts of a single disorder configuration.
  • If borders are the cause, flakes with atomically smooth edges at fixed angle and size should show weakened level repulsion and a drift of $\langle r\rangle$ toward the Poisson value.
  • The same density-density correlator method could map border-induced versus intrinsic diffusion in other moiré materials, such as twisted transition-metal dichalcogenides, where the interlayer coupling is different.
  • At magic-angle sizes, the large unit cell should produce a regime where the $E_{\mathrm{Th}}$ versus $N$ slope is steeper; locating that crossover would separate moiré-cell chaos from edge chaos experimentally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies quantum chaos and diffusion in finite twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) flakes using a tight-binding model with open boundary conditions. The authors compute adjacent-gap-ratio statistics for circular and commensurate-supercell flakes at commensurate and incommensurate angles, always including a random interlayer sliding, and report GOE-like statistics across angles. They then extract the Thouless energy from the density-density correlator K(E) and study its scaling with system size for a θ≈21° incommensurate circular flake and a θ_com=21.8° commensurate supercell, finding E_Th ~ N^{-0.6}. They interpret this as E_Th ~ 1/L, hence a mean free path l~L, and conclude that border-induced scattering is the dominant single-particle chaotic and diffusive mechanism in the studied finite TBG systems.

Significance. If correct, this work identifies borders as a strong, angle-independent single-particle scattering mechanism in finite TBG flakes, which is directly relevant to transport measurements in mesoscopic twisted graphene. The paper's strengths are its systematic application of established spectral tools (GOE adjacent gap ratios and the K-correlator Thouless energy) to large tight-binding systems, including both commensurate and incommensurate geometries, and its explicit comparison of different flake shapes. However, the central mechanistic conclusion is conditional on an untested assumption about the random interlayer sliding: the sliding is introduced in all calculations and is not averaged over, and a control shown in the paper demonstrates that sliding alone can turn an integrable spectrum into a GOE-like one. The scaling analysis that supports the border-scattering claim is based on a short range of system sizes and a single sliding realization. The paper is therefore suggestive rather than conclusive, and the proposed mechanism needs additional controls before the central claim is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Figs. 2 and 3] The load-bearing assumption that the random sliding only breaks spurious symmetries without altering the scattering mechanism is not tested. In Section III the authors state that 'a random sliding between layers is introduced for all cases unless otherwise stated' and that they are 'without averaging over different slidings'. Figure 3 shows that a θ=0 circular flake without sliding is integrable, while Figure 2(a) shows the same geometry with sliding yields GOE-like statistics. This directly demonstrates that the sliding alone can generate the spectral signature used to infer chaos. Moreover, the no-sliding θ=0 control is not symmetry-resolved; for a highly symmetric circular flake, the full-spectrum adjacent-gap-ratio can be biased by degeneracies and by independent angular-momentum sectors, so the comparison conflates symmetry breaking with the generation of chaos. To support the paper's interpretation, the authors should: (i) average r and K over several independent slidings, (ii) compute symmetry-resolved level statistics for no-sliding flakes, and (iii) include a large-angle no-sliding control with explicit symmetry resolution.
  2. [Section IV B, Fig. 5] The central scaling result is fitted from five system sizes per geometry over only a factor of about 4.5 in N, and it uses a single sliding realization. The two criteria for E_Th provide a crude systematic uncertainty, but they do not include realization-to-realization fluctuations arising from the random sliding. With slopes −0.59±0.10 and −0.64±0.12, the data are consistent with the claimed E_Th~1/√N scaling, but the confidence intervals do not exclude a nearby exponent, and the error bars are not statistical errors over disorder. The fitted exponent alone therefore cannot distinguish a boundary-induced mechanism from a weak bulk disorder whose effective mean free path grows with L. The statement in Section IV B that the chaotic behavior is 'caused by borders' is underdetermined by the presented data. The authors should provide ensemble averages over slidings, report the distribution of fitted slopes, and ideally compare against a bulk-disorder model with a controlled mean free path.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (7)] The theoretical discriminant between intrinsic and boundary-induced chaos is presented as E_Th~1/L² versus E_Th~1/L, but the random sliding itself constitutes a bulk perturbation. A weak bulk disorder with mean free path l comparable to L would also produce E_Th~1/L~1/√N, with no role for boundaries. The paper does not provide any independent estimate of the scattering length associated with the sliding, and it does not vary the sliding amplitude or its spatial correlation length. Because Figure 3 shows that the sliding can by itself change the level statistics from Poisson-like to GOE-like, the alternative interpretation that the sliding acts as an effective bulk scattering source is not merely a formal possibility; it is a concrete competing explanation that the current data do not exclude.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typographical and grammatical errors: the abstract contains 'as a experimentally relevant single-particle scattering mechanism' (should be 'an experimentally relevant'), and the Introduction contains 'TBG cavities where also found' (should be 'were also found') and 'a a dominant trigonal-warping mechanism'.
  2. [References] References [65] and [69] appear to be the same article (Pino, Kravtsov, Altshuler, and Ioffe, Physical Review B 96, 214205 (2017)), and References [19] and [70] also appear to be the same ACS Nano article. Please consolidate the duplicates.
  3. [Section IV A, Eq. (8)] The definition of K(E) uses δ(E−E_α+E_β), which is confusing because E is later plotted on a negative logarithmic scale; the text should state explicitly that E is the energy difference between eigenstates and define the normalization used for the GOE plateau value I_2/3.
  4. [Section IV A, Fig. 4] The caption refers to a 'blue horizontal line is the average value of I^2/3', but the symbol I_2 is not defined in the text; please define I_2 and explain how its average is computed over the eigenstates.
  5. [Section III vs. Section V] Section III states 'we therefore do not find pseudo-integrable statistics as in Ref. [45]', but the Conclusions suggest that the small dimensionless conductance of the commensurate flake 'may be related to the non-integrable (but neither chaotic) character' of the rhombus billiard. This apparent tension should be reconciled either by softening one of the statements or by adding a quantitative comparison with the pseudo-integrable expectation.
  6. [Section IV B, Fig. 5] The text reports the number of system sizes only through the log(N) axis; it would improve transparency to state the actual number of data points per geometry and the corresponding linear sizes L, especially because the scaling conclusion rests on only a short range of N.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the E_Th scaling exponent is extracted from data against external GOE benchmarks, though a minor self-citation and an uncontrolled sliding parameter weaken the border-attribution claim.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The adjacent-gap-ratio statistics are compared with the external GOE/Poisson benchmarks (Eqs. 5-6). The Thouless energy is obtained from the K-correlator plateau using the GOE condition K(E_Th)=I_2/3, an external RMT criterion; the exponent is then obtained by fitting log E_Th vs log N (Fig. 5a), giving -0.59±0.10 and -0.64±0.12, which are compared with the theoretical values -1 (bulk scattering) and -1/2 (border-induced l~L). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the slope could have come out near -1 and would have falsified the border interpretation. The K-correlator method is cited to Refs. [65,67,68,69], including the authors' own [65,69], but this is a standard method, not tailored to TBG, and it does not encode the border conclusion. The main weakness is the random interlayer sliding: Section III states it is included in all cases without averaging, and Fig. 3 shows it alone converts integrable θ=0 spectra to GOE. Because the same sliding is present in the E_Th scaling data, the attribution of the observed ~1/sqrt(N) scaling to border-induced scattering is underdetermined; a sliding-induced bulk mechanism with size-growing mean free path could in principle produce the same scaling. However, this is an uncontrolled confound and an alternative explanation, not a circularity: the paper does not define border chaos in terms of the sliding, nor does it fit a parameter that forces the observed slope. Accordingly the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper; the tight-binding parameters are imported from Ref. [47]. The main modeling input that is ad hoc is the random interlayer sliding, which is introduced to break symmetries but not averaged over. No new physical entities are introduced. The axioms list the domain assumptions behind the GOE identification and the diffusive interpretation of the Thouless energy.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Nam-Koshino tight-binding Hamiltonian with parameters from Ref. [47] accurately captures the electronic structure of twisted bilayer graphene at the studied energies.
    Adopted as input without independent validation in this paper; all results depend on these parameter values.
  • standard math GOE random matrix predictions apply to a single finite Hamiltonian when averaging eigenstates over an energy window.
    Standard random matrix theory used to identify chaos from r and K(E).
  • domain assumption The relation E_Th = ℏ v l / (2 L^2) with l ~ L for boundary-induced chaos correctly describes diffusive transport in these flakes.
    The interpretation of the scaling exponent relies on this kinetic-theory relation and on the assumption of diffusive, not ballistic, motion.
  • ad hoc to paper The random sliding between layers breaks spurious symmetries without qualitatively changing the scattering mechanism being studied.
    The sliding is introduced specifically to break symmetries, but its possible role as a bulk source of chaos is not tested by averaging or by varying its magnitude.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chaos and Diffusion in Twisted Bilayer Graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5XGVBDK

@misc{pith2026260802916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chaos and Diffusion in Twisted Bilayer Graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5XGVBDK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02916}
}
read the original abstract

We numerically analyze chaos and diffusion in experimentally-relevant models of twisted bilayer graphene. Our results indicate that finite systems at both commensurate and incommensurate rotation angles exhibit chaos. We compute the Thouless energy of the system at intermediate twist angles to further understand the diffusive processes associated with the chaotic nature of the spectrum. We find that the mean free path of the non-interacting electrons scales with the system size, which is consistent with diffusive processes caused by border-induced scattering. In summary, our results show the role of borders as a experimentally relevant single-particle scattering mechanism, which is much stronger than in single-layer graphene and induces chaos and diffusion regardless of the rotation angle and the lattice commensurability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The two different types of TBG flakes studied in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Level statistics as a function of rotation angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Level statistics as a function of energy for circular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Eigenvector correlations as a function of energy for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scaling of the Thouless energy ET h for the same commensurate (blue) and incommensurate (black) flakes as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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, 80–84 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature556, 43–50 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    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, Nature Reviews Materials6, 201–206 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Zhang, K.-T

    X. Zhang, K.-T. Tsai, Z. Zhu, W. Ren, Y. Luo, S. Carr, M. Luskin, E. Kaxiras, and K. Wang, Physical Review Letters127, 10.1103/physrevlett.127.166802 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.166802 2021

  5. [5]

    Y. Cao, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies-Bigorda, J. M. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature583, 215–220 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Arroyo-Gascón, R

    O. Arroyo-Gascón, R. Fernández-Perea, E. Suárez Morell, C. Cabrillo, and L. Chico, Nano Letters20, 7588–7593 (2020). 8

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Arroyo-Gascón, R

    O. Arroyo-Gascón, R. Fernández-Perea, E. S. Morell, C. Cabrillo, and L. Chico, Carbon205, 394–401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    G. Chen, L. Jiang, S. Wu, B. Lyu, H. Li, B. L. Chittari, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Shi, J. Jung, Y. Zhang, and F. Wang, Nature Physics15, 237–241 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    E. C. Regan, D. Wang, C. Jin, M. I. Bakti Utama, B. Gao, X. Wei, S. Zhao, W. Zhao, Z. Zhang, K. Yu- migeta, M. Blei, J. D. Carlström, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Tongay, M. Crommie, A. Zettl, and F. Wang, Nature579, 359–363 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Shimazaki, I

    Y. Shimazaki, I. Schwartz, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Kroner, and A. Imamoğlu, Nature580, 472–477 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Wang, E.-M

    L. Wang, E.-M. Shih, A. Ghiotto, L. Xian, D. A. Rhodes, C. Tan, M. Claassen, D. M. Kennes, Y. Bai, B. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Zhu, J. Hone, A. Rubio, A. N. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Nature Materials19, 861–866 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    S. Carr, D. Massatt, S. Fang, P. Cazeaux, M. Luskin, and E. Kaxiras, Phys. Rev. B95, 075420 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Bistritzer and A

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

    2011

  6. [14]

    M. D. Porter, A. Barr, A. Barr, and L. E. Reichl, Phys. Rev. E95, 052213 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    where ballistic behavior arises in graphene, may be much more difficult to achieve in TBG due to the bor- der rugosity. On the theoretical side, our work demon- strates that TBG behaves in a more complex manner when boundaries are taken into account, which may af- fectaputativ...

  8. [16]

    Clericò, J

    V. Clericò, J. A. Delgado-Notario, M. Saiz-Bretín, A. V. Malyshev, Y. M. Meziani, P. Hidalgo, B. Méndez, M. Amado, F. Domínguez-Adame, and E. Diez, Scien- tific Reports9, 13572 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Estrada-Álvarez, J

    J. Estrada-Álvarez, J. Salvador-Sánchez, A. Pérez- Rodríguez, C. Sánchez-Sánchez, V. Clericò, D. Vaquero, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Diez, F. Domínguez- Adame,et al., Physical Review X15, 011039 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Holleis, D

    C.Zhang, E.Redekop, H.Stoyanov, J.H.Farrell, S.Kim, L. Holleis, D. Gong, A. Keough, Y. Choi, T. Taniguchi, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11175 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B. Deng, C. Ma, Q. Wang, S. Yuan, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Zhang, and F. Xia, Nature Photonics 14, 549 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    J. A. Delgado-Notario, S. R. Power, W. Knap, M. Pino, J. Cheng, D. Vaquero, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. E. Velázquez-Pérez, Y. M. Meziani,et al., ACS nano19, 27338 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Hwang and S

    E. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, Physical Review Research 2, 013342 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Birkbeck, J

    J. Birkbeck, J. Xiao, A. Inbar, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, E. Berg, L. Glazman, F. Guinea, F. von Oppen, and S. Ilani, Nature641, 345 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    N. Ray, M. Fleischmann, D. Weckbecker, S. Sharma, O. Pankratov, and S. Shallcross, Physical Review B94, 245403 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    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, Nature620, 762 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    G. Yu, Z. Wu, Z. Zhan, M. I. Katsnelson, and S. Yuan, npj Computational Materials5, 122 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    G. Yu, Z. Wu, Z. Zhan, M. I. Katsnelson, and S. Yuan, Physical Review B102, 115123 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    M. J. Park, H. S. Kim, and S. Lee, Physical Review B 99, 245401 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    K. J. U. Vidarte and C. Lewenkopf, Frontiers in Carbon 3, 10.3389/frcrb.2024.1496179 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    W. Yao, E. Wang, C. Bao, Y. Zhang, K. Zhang, K. Bao, C. K. Chan, C. Chen, J. Avila, M. C. Asensio, J. Zhu, and S. Zhou, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 6928 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    D. V. Chalin, D. I. Levshov, A. E. Myasnikova, and S. B. Rochal, Physical Review B105, 045402 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Koshino and P

    M. Koshino and P. Moon, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan84, 121001 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Koshino, New Journal of Physics17, 015014 (2015)

    M. Koshino, New Journal of Physics17, 015014 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Gonçalves, H

    M. Gonçalves, H. Z. Olyaei, B. Amorim, R. Mondaini, P. Ribeiro, and E. V. Castro, 2D Materials9, 011001 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    J. Lin, Y. Zhuang, A. M. Graf, E. J. Heller, and J. Keski- Rahkonen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences123, e2538081123 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    Hu, Z.-T

    J.-X. Hu, Z.-T. Sun, Y.-M. Xie, and K. Law, Physi- cal Review Letters130, 10.1103/physrevlett.130.266003 (2023)

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Y.-M. Xie, E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, A. F. Young, S. Nadj- Perge, and J. Alicea, Physical Review Letters131, 10.1103/physrevlett.131.146601 (2023)

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Moon and M

    P. Moon and M. Koshino, Physical Review B87, 205404 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Suárez Morell, J

    E. Suárez Morell, J. D. Correa, P. Vargas, M. Pacheco, and Z. Barticevic, Physical Review B82, 121407 (2010)

    2010

  31. [40]

    Trambly de Laissardière, D

    G. Trambly de Laissardière, D. Mayou, and L. Magaud, Nano Letters10, 804–808 (2010)

    2010

  32. [41]

    A. A. Hagberg, D. A. Schult, and P. J. Swart, inPro- ceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference, edited by G. Varoquaux, T. Vaught, and J. Millman (Pasadena, CA USA, 2008) pp. 11 – 15

    2008

  33. [42]

    X.Zhang, J.Che,andB.Dietz,Phys.Rev.E113,024214 (2026)

    2026

  34. [43]

    Suárez Morell, P

    E. Suárez Morell, P. Vargas, L. Chico, and L. Brey, Phys- ical Review B84, 10.1103/physrevb.84.195421 (2011)

    2011 doi

  35. [44]

    i. c. v. Lozej, G. Casati, and T. c. v. Prosen, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013138 (2022)

    2022

  36. [45]

    E. B. Bogomolny, U. Gerland, and C. Schmit, Phys. Rev. E59, R1315(R) (1999)

    1999

  37. [46]

    Grémaud and S

    B. Grémaud and S. R. Jain, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General31, L637 (1998)

    1998

  38. [47]

    Fang and E

    S. Fang and E. Kaxiras, Physical Review B93, 235153 (2016), publisher: American Physical Society

    2016

  39. [48]

    N. N. T. Nam and M. Koshino, Physical Review B96, 075311 (2017)

    2017

  40. [49]

    V.Hernandez, J.E.Roman,andV.Vidal,ACMTransac- tions on Mathematical Software (TOMS)31, 351 (2005)

    2005

  41. [50]

    G. Yu, M. Jiao, and L. Feng, New Journal of Physics26, 113006 (2024)

    2024

  42. [51]

    E. P. Wigner, SIAM review9, 1 (1967)

    1967

  43. [52]

    Bohigas, M

    O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Physical Review Letters52, 1–4 (1984)

    1984

  44. [53]

    M. L. Mehta,Random matrices, Vol. 142 (Elsevier, 2004)

    2004

  45. [54]

    Oganesyan and D

    V. Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics75, 155111 (2007)

    2007

  46. [55]

    Y. Y. Atas, E. Bogomolny, O. Giraud, and G. Roux, Physical Review Letters110, 10.1103/phys- revlett.110.084101 (2013)

    2013 doi

  47. [56]

    Giraud, N

    O. Giraud, N. Macé, E. Vernier, and F. Alet, Physical Review X12, 10.1103/physrevx.12.011006 (2022)

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    Rycerz, Physical Review B85, 245424 (2012)

    A. Rycerz, Physical Review B85, 245424 (2012)

    2012

  49. [58]

    Rycerz, Physical Review B87, 195431 (2013)

    A. Rycerz, Physical Review B87, 195431 (2013). 9

    2013

  50. [59]

    Libisch, C

    F. Libisch, C. Stampfer, and J. Burgdörfer, Physical Re- view B79, 115423 (2009)

    2009

  51. [60]

    Yu, Z.-Y

    P. Yu, Z.-Y. Li, H.-Y. Xu, L. Huang, B. Dietz, C. Gre- bogi, and Y.-C. Lai, Physical Review E94, 062214 (2016)

    2016

  52. [61]

    R. Bao, L. Huang, Y.-C. Lai, and C. Grebogi, Physical Review E92, 10.1103/physreve.92.012918 (2015)

    2015 doi

  53. [62]

    L. A. Ponomarenko, F. Schedin, M. I. Katsnelson, R. Yang, E. W. Hill, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Science320, 356–358 (2008)

    2008

  54. [63]

    J. T. Edwards and D. J. Thouless, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics5, 807 (1972)

    1972

  55. [64]

    Abrahams, P

    E. Abrahams, P. W. Anderson, D. C. Licciardello, and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Physical Review Letters42, 673 (1979)

    1979

  56. [65]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  57. [66]

    M. Pino, V. E. Kravtsov, B. L. Altshuler, and L. B. Ioffe, Physical Review B96, 214205 (2017)

    2017

  58. [67]

    Anderson and P

    P. Anderson and P. Lee, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement69, 212 (1980)

    1980

  59. [68]

    V. E. Kravtsov and K. A. Muttalib, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1913 (1997)

    1997

  60. [69]

    V. E. Kravtsov, I. M. Khaymovich, E. Cuevas, and M. Amini, New Journal of Physics17, 122002 (2015)

    2015

  61. [70]

    M. Pino, V. E. Kravtsov, B. L. Altshuler, and L. B. Ioffe, Phys. Rev. B96, 214205 (2017)

    2017

  62. [71]

    J. A. Delgado-Notario, S. R. Power, W. Knap, M. Pino, J. Cheng, D. Vaquero, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. E. Velázquez-Pérez, Y. M. Meziani, P. Alonso-González, and J. M. Caridad, ACS Nano19, 27338 (2025)

    2025

  63. [72]

    Watanabe, L.M.Campos, D.A

    L.Wang, I.Meric, P.Y.Huang, Q.Gao, Y.Gao, H.Tran, T.Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, L.M.Campos, D.A. Muller, J. Guo, P. Kim, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard, and C. R. Dean, Science342, 614 (2013)

    2013

  64. [73]

    Gonçalves, B

    M. Gonçalves, B. Amorim, E. V. Castro, and P. Ribeiro, Physical Review Letters131, 186303 (2023)

    2023

  65. [74]

    Gonçalves, B

    M. Gonçalves, B. Amorim, E. V. Castro, and P. Ribeiro, Physical Review B108, L100201 (2023)

    2023

  66. [75]

    Pino and J

    M. Pino and J. E. Roman, Physical Review B109, 184204 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.