Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

One-sided WS2 proximity acts as a surface-selective probe revealing spin-triplet superconductivity in rhombohedral graphene.

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 ↗

A one-sided WS2 layer suppresses superconductivity in rhombohedral pentalayer graphene precisely when the pairing carriers are pushed toward it, providing evidence for spin-triplet pairing.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Strong experimental paper with an honest, plausible interpretation that stops just short of proving its spin-triplet conclusion: the one-sided WS2 layer itself breaks the displacement-field symmetry it relies on, so the normal state at the suppressed mirror pockets needs a direct check before the pairing-spin claim becomes definitive. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.03870 v1 pith:OUPXXOIQ submitted 2026-08-04 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con

Surface-Selective Probe of Spin-Triplet Superconductivity in Rhombohedral Graphene

Kilian Kr\"otzsch , Zekang Zhou , Kry\v{s}tof Kol\'a\v{r} , Yonggen Li , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi , Moty Heiblum , Cyprian Lewandowski
show 1 more author
Mitali Banerjee
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con
keywords rhombohedral graphenespin-triplet superconductivityIsing spin-orbit couplingtransition metal dichalcogenide proximitydisplacement fieldpentalayer graphenequantum oscillationsgate-tracking
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

This paper asks whether the superconducting state in rhombohedral pentalayer graphene pairs electrons with parallel spins. The strategy is to place a single layer of WS2 on one surface, which induces a spin-orbit coupling that acts only on carriers localized near that interface. By tuning the displacement field, the authors push the superconducting carriers either toward or away from the WS2 layer and find that robust superconductivity survives only when the active carriers stay away from it. They interpret this surface-selective suppression as evidence for spin-triplet (same-spin intervalley) pairing, since Ising spin-orbit coupling should fight such pairs while leaving spin-singlet pairs unharmed. If correct, the work turns one-sided TMD proximity into a tunable probe of the spin structure of graphene superconductors.

Core claim

The central discovery is a strongly asymmetric superconducting phase diagram in WS2-proximized rhombohedral pentalayer graphene: two robust pockets, SC1 and SC2, appear only on mutually opposite signs of displacement field, while a third pocket, SC3, is substantially weaker. Gate-tracking features, quantum oscillations, and self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculations identify the layer polarization and Fermi-surface character of the relevant carriers. In every case, robust superconductivity is absent or strongly weakened when the active high-density-of-states carriers are polarized toward the WS2 interface, where the induced Ising spin-orbit coupling is strongest. The paper argues that because

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the one-sided WS2 proximity layer, which induces a valley-contrasting Ising spin-orbit coupling localized on the graphene surface adjacent to the TMD. Because the induced SOC locks opposite out-of-plane spins to the two valleys, it competes with same-spin intervalley triplet pairing while leaving spin-singlet pairing intact. The displacement field tunes the layer polarization of the superconducting carriers, thereby controlling their overlap with the SOC. Normal-state fermiology—bulk, single-surface, or dual-surface—is established by gate-tracking features and quantum oscillations, and self-consistent electrostatic and Hartree-Fock calculations show that the SOC pert

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single WS2 layer acts only as a weak, surface-localized Ising spin-orbit perturbation and does not otherwise break the displacement-field symmetry of the normal state through strain, screening, or band-structure changes—if it did, the asymmetric superconducting landscape would not uniquely implicate spin-triplet pairing.

What would settle it

A co-fabricated pristine R5G control device showing the same strongly asymmetric superconducting pockets under displacement-field reversal would falsify the surface-selective spin-orbit interpretation. Alternatively, an in-plane critical-field measurement that matches spin-singlet behavior for SC1 or SC2, or observation of the suppressed pockets reappearing when a spacing layer (e.g., hBN) is inserted between WS2 and graphene, would refute the claim.

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

If this is right

  • The surface-selective suppression identifies the high-DOS surface-polarized pockets as the active pairing bands for both SC1 (electron-like) and SC2 (hole-like).
  • One-sided TMD proximity becomes a displacement-field-tunable probe of superconducting spin structure in rhombohedral graphene, complementing magnetic-field-based evidence for triplet pairing.
  • The absence of a robust mirrored SC2 pocket, and the much weaker SC3, indicate that Ising SOC competes with the same-spin triplet instability by reducing the compatible spin component or stiffening spin-canting modes.
  • The field-induced superconducting 'river' of pristine R5G is expected to be absent or strongly modified on the TMD-proximate side because the Ising SOC opposes the common in-plane spin orientation rather than enhancing it.
  • The same hierarchy of robustness may serve as a fingerprint for distinguishing spin-triplet from spin-singlet pairing in other rhombohedral layer numbers or TMD-proximized graphene systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to proximitize both surfaces with WS2; the suppression pattern should then be symmetric under displacement-field reversal, which would further confirm the surface-selective mechanism.
  • A control measurement of the in-plane critical field anisotropy of SC1 and SC2 could test the triplet interpretation independently: a spin-triplet state with a common in-plane spin component should respond differently to an in-plane field than a singlet.
  • If the WS2 layer also modifies screening or strain in a displacement-sign-dependent way, the observed asymmetry could have a non-spin origin; a co-fabricated pristine R5G control device would isolate the SOC effect.
  • The probe may be generalizable: one-sided TMD proximity could be used to interrogate the spin structure of other correlated phases (e.g., the multiferroic or correlated-insulating states) by comparing surface-weighted and bulk-weighted fillings.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports transport measurements on rhombohedral pentalayer graphene (R5G) with a one-sided WS2 proximity layer. It identifies three superconducting pockets (SC1–SC3) in the n–D phase diagram, with a strongly asymmetric stability under displacement-field reversal: SC1 and SC2 are robust only for one sign of D relative to their expected pristine-R5G counterparts, while SC3 is much weaker. Using gate-tracking features, quantum oscillations, and self-consistent Hartree–Fock calculations, the authors assign layer polarization and Fermi-surface character for the relevant carriers. They argue that robust superconductivity is absent or weakened when the active high-DOS band has large weight on the WS2 interface, and interpret this as evidence that Ising SOC competes with same-spin intervalley triplet pairing. The paper includes a detailed model with Eq. (12) for the projected Ising SOC and extensive normal-state fermiology analysis.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper introduces a new surface-selective probe of superconducting spin structure in rhombohedral graphene, complementary to magnetic-field-based evidence for triplet pairing. The experimental dataset is rich: three superconducting pockets are characterized by differential resistance, temperature, perpendicular magnetic field, and critical current; the normal-state fermiology is analyzed via gate tracking and quantum oscillations; and the theoretical modeling includes self-consistent electrostatics and Hartree–Fock candidate states. The authors are also commendably explicit about several ambiguities, including band inversions and competing normal-state interpretations for SC1. The main weakness is that the central inference—the spin-triplet attribution—relies on an unverified correspondence between the robust and the suppressed mirror locations, and the manuscript itself concedes that the one-sided WS2 layer may alter the normal state. The observation itself is valuable, but its interpretation as 'additional evidence for spin-triplet superconductivity' needs stronger support or more cautious wording.

major comments (3)
  1. [Suppression of spin-triplet superconductivity by Ising-type SOC; Concluding Remarks] The central claim—that the D-asymmetry is caused by Ising-SOC pair-breaking of a same-spin triplet state—requires that the 'sup.' locations in Fig. 2a have the same normal-state parent as the corresponding robust pockets, differing only in the surface weight of the active band. No normal-state twin check is reported: the manuscript does not show gate-tracking orientation, quantum-oscillation frequencies, or flavor polarization at the suppressed points, and it cannot rely on pristine-R5G literature because the one-sided WS2 explicitly breaks D-reversal symmetry. The Concluding Remarks state that one-sided Ising SOC 'can modify the competition among nearby spin- and valley-polarized metallic states' and that SC3 'may reflect a local fermiology in which [the band structure/screening/polarization] has shifted.' If the suppressed points lie in a different normal-state phase, the asymmetry is
  2. [Effect of proximitized TMD, Eq. (12); Fig. 3b] The magnitude of the pair-breaking effect is not established. λI is fixed at 1 meV, but the effective SOC seen by the active band depends on its surface weight and is never quantified for each pocket. Fig. 3b shows that SOC does not qualitatively reorganize the fermiology, which is necessary but not sufficient to prove that the suppression is a spin-texture effect. No calculation of the pairing instability, spin-canting stiffness, or Tc suppression is presented; the discussion of projected SOC versus Hund/canting stiffness is qualitative. To support the 'strong evidence' claim, estimate the projected SOC for the SC1/SC2/SC3 active bands and show that it is of order the relevant spin-stiffness or pairing scale, or clearly present the interpretation as one possible scenario.
  3. [Superconductivity in WS2-proximitized R5G, Fig. 1] The experimental sensitivity at the 'sup.' locations is not specified. What is the detection threshold—minimum Tc, minimum critical current, or maximum resistance drop—below which a pocket would be undetectable? Asymmetric phases could also arise from trivial one-sided effects: WS2-induced doping (which shifts n and D independently of carrier polarization), strain, or modified dielectric screening. The comparison to pristine R5G literature is helpful but not a substitute for a co-fabricated control or explicit gate-resolved normal-state data at the suppressed mirror pockets. Please state the upper bounds and discuss how trivial mechanisms are ruled out.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 and first paragraph of 'Superconductivity in WS2-proximitized R5G'] The text references figure panels inconsistently with the caption. The paragraph beginning 'We first characterize' cites Fig. 1a,b as a schematic and micrograph and Fig. 1c as the resistance map, but the caption assigns a=resistance, b=schematic, c=device schematic, d=micrograph. Please correct the panel references.
  2. [Eq. (12)] The flavor index f is used in (-1)^f without a clear definition after the projection onto active bands. Please specify the flavor labeling (e.g., f=0,1 for the two projected flavors) to avoid confusion with the earlier N_f flavor notation.
  3. [Fig. 2a] The white dashed lines marking regime boundaries are difficult to distinguish from other resistive features. Consider adding explicit labels or arrows for Regions I, II, III and the 'sup.' locations.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'survive only on mutually opposite signs of displacement field' is ambiguous: it could be read as SC1 and SC2 appearing on opposite signs from each other, whereas the text indicates each appears on the side opposite its pristine-R5G counterpart. Please rephrase.
  5. [References] Several references are arXiv preprints with 2026 dates. For a formal submission, please update any that have been published in the interim or add a note indicating they are preprints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claim rests on an external empirical asymmetry, independent normal-state fermiology analysis, and standard external spin-orbit physics; self-citations are ancillary.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the observed displacement-field asymmetry of superconductivity in WS2-proximized R5G provides additional evidence for spin-triplet pairing. This chain is not circular. The asymmetry itself is an external experimental observation (SC1/SC2 robust on one side, suppressed on the mirror side). The identification of the relevant carriers' layer polarization and Fermi-surface character relies on gate-tracking, quantum oscillations, and self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculations, not on the superconducting data. The interpretive premise that Ising spin-orbit coupling competes with same-spin intervalley triplet pairing is supported by an independent external result (Ref. [45], Frigeri et al.) and by standard physical reasoning presented in the text; although one supporting reference (Ref. [27]) includes a coauthor, the argument does not reduce to that self-citation. The model's λI = 1 meV is taken from an external experiment (Ref. [28]), and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper itself flags a limitation in the Concluding Remarks: the one-sided Ising SOC 'can modify the competition among nearby spin- and valley-polarized metallic states,' and SC3 'may reflect a local fermiology' shifted relative to pristine R5G. This is a correctness/interpretation risk (the suppressed mirror pockets could sit in a different normal-state phase), but it does not make the derivation true by construction. No equation is equal to another by definition, and no known result is merely renamed. Hence the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities; it interprets observed superconductivity using existing spin-orbit and pairing theory. The key external inputs are the Ising SOC strength and the tight-binding parameters taken from prior literature, plus the theoretical prior that Ising SOC is pair-breaking for same-spin intervalley triplet states. The central argument depends on these assumptions rather than on any new fitted entity.

free parameters (3)
  • Ising SOC strength λI = 1 meV (taken from Ref [28])
    Assumed value for the projected Ising SOC in the Hartree-Fock calculations; the qualitative conclusion depends on SOC being weak enough not to reorganize the band structure but strong enough to pair-break triplet states.
  • rhombohedral tight-binding parameters (vF, v3, v4, t1, t2) = vF = -547 meV·nm, v3 = 61.66 meV·nm, v4 = 30.3 meV·nm, t1 = 356.1 meV, t2 = -4.15 meV (from Ref [55])
    Inputs to the band-structure model; the layer-polarization assignments and the conclusion that SOC does not reorganize fermiology depend on these.
  • dielectric constants ϵ⊥ and ϵ = ϵ⊥ = 3, ϵ = 10
    Phenomenological screening inputs for the electrostatic and Fock calculations; ϵ = 10 accounts for remote-band screening, chosen by the authors.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Ising SOC induced by WS2 is localized on the graphene layer adjacent to the TMD and, at λI of a few meV, does not qualitatively reorganize the Coulomb-dominated fermiology or layer polarization.
    Stated in the 'Suppression' section and supported by self-consistent calculations (Fig. 3b), but not measured directly; this is what allows the WS2 to be treated as a pure surface-selective spin perturbation.
  • domain assumption Ising SOC competes with same-spin intervalley triplet pairing by canting or pinning the parent spin texture.
    Invoked via Refs [27,45] and used to convert the observed suppression into evidence for triplet pairing. This is the key theoretical link that the paper does not derive.
  • domain assumption In pristine crystalline R5G, superconducting pockets appear approximately symmetrically at positive and negative displacement field.
    Baseline used to attribute the observed asymmetry to the WS2 layer; based on Refs [15,16], not on a control device in this work.
  • domain assumption Quantum-oscillation fringe orientation and gate-tracking features correctly identify the vertical layer polarization and Fermi-surface character of the relevant carriers.
    Used to assign which pocket is 'active' and where it is localized; the paper itself notes ambiguities (degeneracy, possible band inversions, alternative parent states).

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surface-Selective Probe of Spin-Triplet Superconductivity in Rhombohedral Graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUPXXOIQ

@misc{pith2026260803870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surface-Selective Probe of Spin-Triplet Superconductivity in Rhombohedral Graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUPXXOIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03870}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Superconductivity in rhombohedral graphene has been observed across many layer numbers, with mounting evidence pointing toward spin-triplet pairing, yet complementary probes of the superconducting spin structure remain needed. Here we use one-sided WS$_2$ proximity in rhombohedral pentalayer graphene (R5G) as a surface-selective spin-orbit probe. The induced Ising spin-orbit coupling is strongest for carriers localized near the WS$_2$ interface, allowing the displacement field to tune the overlap between superconducting carriers and the spin-orbit perturbation. We observe a strongly asymmetric superconducting landscape: two robust pockets, SC1 and SC2, survive only on mutually opposite signs of displacement field, while a third pocket, SC3, is substantially weaker. Gate-tracking features, quantum oscillations, and self-consistent band-structure calculations identify the layer polarization and Fermi-surface character of the relevant carriers. The robust superconducting states are absent or strongly weakened when the active high-DOS carriers are polarized toward the WS$_2$ interface. Since Ising spin-orbit coupling is compatible with time-reversed spin-singlet pairing but competes with same-spin intervalley triplet pairing by canting or pinning the parent spin texture, this surface-selective suppression provides additional evidence for spin-triplet superconductivity involving both hole-like and electron-like carriers. Our results establish one-sided TMD proximity as a displacement-field-tunable probe of superconducting spin structure in rhombohedral graphene.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03870 by Cyprian Lewandowski, Kenji Watanabe, Kilian Kr\"otzsch, Kry\v{s}tof Kol\'a\v{r}, Mitali Banerjee, Moty Heiblum, Takashi Taniguchi, Yonggen Li, Zekang Zhou.

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_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.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

57 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Koshino and E

    M. Koshino and E. McCann, Phys. Rev. B80, 165409 (2009)

    2009

  2. [2]

    Zhang, B

    F. Zhang, B. Sahu, H. Min, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B82, 035409 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, G. Scuri, J. Sung, J. Wang, T. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Park, and L. Ju, Nat. Nanotechnol.19, 181 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, Z. Hadjri, J. Yang, J. Seo, L. Shi, S. Ye, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and L. Ju, Nature 637, 1090 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Waters, A

    D. Waters, A. Okounkova, R. Su, B. Zhou, J. Yao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Xu, Y.-H. Zhang, J. Folk, and M. Yankowitz, Phys. Rev. X15, 011045 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    J. Xie, Z. Huo, X. Lu, Z. Feng, Z. Zhang, W. Wang, Q. Yang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Liu, Z. Song, X. C. Xie, J. Liu, and X. Lu, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2405.16944, 2405.16944

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Y. Choi, Y. Choi, M. Valentini, C. L. Patterson, L. F. W. Holleis, O. I. Sheekey, H. Stoyanov, X. Cheng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Nature 639, 342 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Qin, H.-T

    P. Qin, H.-T. Wu, R. Q. Nguyen, E. Morissette, N. J. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and J. I. A. Li, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2504.05129, 2504.05129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    J. Deng, J. Xie, H. Li, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Shan, K. F. Mak, and X. Liu, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2508.15909, 2508.15909

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    R. Q. Nguyen, H.-T. Wu, E. Morissette, N. J. Zhang, P. Qin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. W. Hui, D. E. Feldman, and J. I. A. Li, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2507.22026, 2507.22026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Kumar, D

    M. Kumar, D. Waleffe, A. Okounkova, R. Tejani, V. T. Phong, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Lewandowski, J. Folk, and M. Yankowitz, Nat. Phys.22, 862 (2026)

    work page 2026

  13. [13]

    Y. Guo, O. I. Sheekey, T. Arp, K. Kol´ aˇ r, T. Charpentier, L. Holleis, B. Foutty, A. Keough, M. Kang-Chou, M. E. Huber, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, C. Lewandowski, and A. F. Young, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2511.17423, 2511.17423

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Nature598, 434 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, Z. Hadjri, L. Shi, Z. Wu, W. Xu, Y. Yao, A. A. Cotten, O. S. Sedeh, H. Weldeyesus, J. Yang, J. Seo, S. Ye, M. Zhou, H. Liu, G. Shi, Z. Hua, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, P. Xiong, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, L. Fu, and 11 L. Ju, Nature643, 654 (2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    J. Seo, A. A. Cotten, S. Ye, M. Xu, O. S. Sedeh, H. Weldeyesus, T. Han, Z. Lu, Z. Wu, W. Xu, J. Yang, E. Aitken, P. P. Liong, P. Pattanakanvijit, Z. Hadjri, R. Gazizulin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Li, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, and L. Ju, Nature 10.1038/s41586-026-10815-x (2026)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10815-x 2026

  17. [17]

    Kumar, D

    M. Kumar, D. Waleffe, A. Okounkova, R. Tejani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, ´E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, J. Folk, and M. Yankowitz, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2511.16578, 2511.16578

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    J. Deng, J. Xie, H. Li, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, J. Shan, K. F. Mak, and X. Liu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.13498 (2026), arXiv:2603.13498 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    J. Xie, Z. Huo, Z. Chen, Z. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Lin, and X. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 176505 (2026)

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    A. M. Clogston, Phys. Rev. Lett.9, 266 (1962)

    1962

  21. [21]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar, Applied Physics Letters1, 7–8 (1962)

    work page 1962

  22. [22]

    N. R. Werthamer, E. Helfand, and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev.147, 295 (1966)

    work page 1966

  23. [23]

    Maki, Phys

    K. Maki, Phys. Rev.148, 362 (1966)

    work page 1966

  24. [24]

    R. A. Klemm, A. Luther, and M. R. Beasley, Phys. Rev. B12, 877 (1975)

    work page 1975

  25. [25]

    Fulde and R

    P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Phys. Rev.135, A550 (1964)

    1964

  26. [26]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Soviet Physics JETP 20, 762 (1965), zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1136–1146 (1964)

    work page 1965

  27. [27]

    H. Ma, D. V. Chichinadze, and C. Lewandowski, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2511.04480, 2511.04480

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Polski, A. Thomson, ´E. Lantagne- Hurtubise, C. Lewandowski, H. Zhou, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Alicea, and S. Nadj-Perge, Nature613, 268 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Holleis, C

    L. Holleis, C. L. Patterson, Y. Zhang, Y. Vituri, H. M. Yoo, H. Zhou, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Berg, S. Nadj-Perge, and A. F. Young, Nat. Phys.21, 444 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    C. Li, F. Xu, B. Li, J. Li, G. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Shen, L. Lu, J. Jia, F. Wu, X. Liu, and T. Li, Nature631, 300 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    C. L. Patterson, O. I. Sheekey, T. B. Arp, L. F. W. Holleis, J. M. Koh, Y. Choi, T. Xie, S. Xu, E. Re- dekop, G. Babikyan, H. Zhou, X. Cheng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, C. Jin, ´E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, J. Alicea, and A. F. Young, Nature641, 632 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Zhang, G

    Y. Zhang, G. Shavit, H. Ma, Y. Han, C. W. Siu, A. Mukherjee, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Hsieh, C. Lewandowski, F. von Oppen, Y. Oreg, and S. Nadj- Perge, Nature641, 625 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    J. Yang, X. Shi, S. Ye, C. Yoon, Z. Lu, V. Kakani, T. Han, J. Seo, L. Shi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Zhang, and L. Ju, Nat. Mater.24, 1058 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Wang, D.-K

    Z. Wang, D.-K. Ki, H. Chen, H. Berger, A. H. MacDon- ald, and A. F. Morpurgo, Nat. Commun.6, 8339 (2015)

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    Gmitra and J

    M. Gmitra and J. Fabian, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 146401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    J. O. Island, X. Cui, C. Lewandowski, J. Y. Khoo, E. M. Spanton, H. Zhou, D. Rhodes, J. C. Hone, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, L. S. Levitov, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Nature571, 85 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Naimer, K

    T. Naimer, K. Zollner, M. Gmitra, and J. Fabian, Phys. Rev. B104, 195156 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Gmitra and J

    M. Gmitra and J. Fabian, Phys. Rev. B92, 155403 (2015)

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, G. Scuri, J. Sung, J. Wang, T. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, H. Park, and L. Ju, Nature623, 41 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    K. Liu, J. Zheng, Y. Sha, B. Lyu, F. Li, Y. Park, Y. Ren, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Jia, W. Luo, Z. Shi, J. Jung, and G. Chen, Nat. Nanotechnol.19, 188 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Okounkova, A

    A. Okounkova, A. Sohm, T. Faehndrich, M. Kumar, D. Waleffe, J. Yan, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Folk, and M. Yankowitz, Anomalous metal and superconduct- ing phases in rhombohedral graphene (2026)

    work page 2026

  42. [42]

    Kol´ aˇ r, D

    K. Kol´ aˇ r, D. Waters, J. Folk, M. Yankowitz, and C. Lewandowski, Phys. Rev. B113, 075131 (2026)

    work page 2026

  43. [43]

    J. Yin, S. Slizovskiy, Y. Cao, S. Hu, Y. Yang, I. Lobanova, B. A. Piot, S.-K. Son, S. Ozdemir, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. S. Novoselov, F. Guinea, A. K. Geim, V. Fal’ko, and A. Mishchenko, Nature Physics15, 437–442 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Mazzucca, B

    N. Mazzucca, B. M. Kousa, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. H. MacDonald, and M. W. Bockrath, Physical Review Letters134, 10.1103/physrevlett.134.176302 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.176302 2025

  45. [45]

    P. A. Frigeri, D. F. Agterberg, A. Koga, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 097001 (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, Y. Yao, J. Yang, J. Seo, C. Yoon, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, F. Zhang, and L. Ju, Science384, 647 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    S. C. de la Barrera, M. R. Sinko, D. P. Gopalan, N. Sivadas, K. L. Seyler, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. W. Tsen, X. Xu, D. Xiao, and B. M. Hunt, Nature Communications9, 10.1038/s41467-018-03888-4 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03888-4 2018

  48. [48]

    J. M. Lu, O. Zheliuk, I. Leermakers, N. F. Q. Yuan, U. Zeitler, K. T. Law, and J. T. Ye, Science350, 1353–1357 (2015)

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    Y.-Z. Chou, F. Wu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B106, L180502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Dong, ´E

    Z. Dong, ´E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, and J. Alicea, Physical Review X16, 10.1103/2ts4-cxhs (2026)

    work page doi:10.1103/2ts4-cxhs 2026

  51. [51]

    J. M. Koh, J. Alicea, and E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, Phys. Rev. B109, 035113 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    McCann and V

    E. McCann and V. I. Fal’ko, Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006)

    work page 2006

  53. [53]

    Nilsson, A

    J. Nilsson, A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, and N. M. R. Peres, Phys. Rev. B78(2008)

    work page 2008

  54. [54]

    McCann and M

    E. McCann and M. Koshino, Reports on Progress in Physics76, 056503 (2013)

    2013

  55. [55]

    Y. Park, Y. Kim, B. L. Chittari, and J. Jung, Topologi- cal flat bands in rhombohedral tetralayer and multilayer graphene on hexagonal boron nitride moire superlattices (2023), arXiv:2304.12874 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Kol´ aˇ r, Y

    K. Kol´ aˇ r, Y. Zhang, S. Nadj-Perge, F. von Oppen, and C. Lewandowski, Physical Review B108, 195148 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Canc` es and C

    E. Canc` es and C. Le Bris, International Journal of Quan- tum Chemistry79, 82 (2000). Extended Data 12 Extended Data Figure 1.a,Longitudinal resistanceR xx as a function of carrier densitynand displacement fieldD/ε 0 at B= 0 T andT≈150 mK.b,Longitudinal resistanceR xx as a function of the bottom and top graphite gate voltages V1 and V2, respectively atB=...

    work page 2000

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.