Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Review of the tight-binding method applicable to the properties of moir\'e superlattices

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Atomistic tight-binding methods, built on Slater-Koster Hamiltonians and linear-scaling solvers, provide an accurate and computationally efficient framework for predicting the electronic, transport, and optical properties of moiré superlatt

desk verdict A useful compendium of TB methods for moiré materials, held back by a wrong Hartree–Fock equation that must be fixed before it is a reliable practical guide. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.04899 v1 pith:4HNXJNCA submitted 2025-11-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Xueheng Kuang , Federico Escudero , Pierre A. Pantaleón , Francisco Guinea , Zhen Zhan This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords tight-bindingmoirésuperlatticestwistedbilayergrapheneSlater-Kosterlinear-scalingmethodsTMDshBNlatticerelaxation
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

This review makes the case that atomistic tight-binding (TB) methods—constructed from Slater-Koster hopping integrals on a pz basis for graphene and hBN, or an 11-orbital basis for TMDs—are accurate and computationally efficient enough to predict the electronic, transport, and optical properties of moiré superlattices, including the effects of lattice relaxation. It assembles the concrete formulas, parameter tables, and linear-scaling numerical techniques (kernel polynomial method, tight-binding propagation method) needed to run such simulations. The paper argues that TB sits between density functional theory and continuum models: it retains atomic-level resolution and captures relaxation, while scaling to thousands or millions of atoms. If the claim holds, researchers can use the reviewed recipes as a practical guide for modeling twisted graphene, TMD, and hBN stacks without reinventing the machinery.

What carries the argument

The Slater-Koster hopping parametrization. It expresses hopping between orbitals as a sum of σ and π bond integrals weighted by directional cosines; for graphene and hBN a single pz orbital per site with Vppπ and Vppσ decay functions (Eqs. 4-7) carries the physics, while TMDs use an 11-orbital basis with p-p and p-d interlayer hoppings. This machinery converts atomic positions into Hamiltonian matrix elements, allowing relaxation, strain, external fields, and interactions to be folded in. The linear-scaling methods (kernel polynomial method and tight-binding propagation method) evaluate spectra and transport without full diagonalization, making large moiré supercells tractable.

What would settle it

Take one of the reviewed TB Hamiltonians, compute the band structure for a twist angle or stacking not used in the original parameter fits (for example, a heterobilayer with a different chalcogen species), and compare the flat-band positions and gaps against independent first-principles calculations or angle-resolved photoemission; a systematic mismatch beyond expected error would falsify the claim that the reviewed parameter set is a sufficient practical guide.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single atomistic TB framework—the Slater-Koster-parametrized pz-orbital Hamiltonian for graphene and hBN, and an 11-orbital d-p Hamiltonian for TMDs, with interlayer hoppings given by distance-dependent SK functions—reproduces the low-energy physics of moiré superlattices, including flat bands at magic angles, the influence of lattice relaxation, and interaction effects from Hartree and Hubbard terms. The paper further argues that linear-scaling random-state methods (KPM and TBPM) make these TB models practical for supercells with up to millions of atoms, and that continuum models can be systematically derived from the TB Hamiltonians, connecting atomistic and low

Load-bearing premise

The review takes for granted that the empirical tight-binding parameters collected in Table 1 (e.g., t0 = 2.7 eV, t1 = 0.48 eV, u0 = 0.0797 eV, u1 = 0.0975 eV) remain accurate across twist angles, stackings, and chemical compositions; their transferability is not tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Using the reviewed formulas and parameter tables, one can directly build TB Hamiltonians for twisted graphene, TMD, and hBN systems and compute band structures, densities of states, and conductivities.
  • Lattice relaxation can be included by updating Slater-Koster hoppings with relaxed atomic positions, reproducing gaps between flat and remote bands and the particle-hole asymmetry seen in relaxed twisted bilayer graphene.
  • The rescaling transformation (Eqs. 17-18) enables mean-field Hubbard/Hartree-Fock calculations at affordable supercell sizes, showing interaction-driven effects like Stoner splitting.
  • Linear-scaling KPM and TBPM methods compute optical and transport properties for moiré systems with up to millions of atoms, including incommensurate quasicrystalline structures.
  • Continuum moiré potentials—with effective interlayer hopping amplitudes and non-local corrections—can be derived from TB, so low-energy models inherit the atomistic accuracy of the TB description.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the empirical TB parameters transfer across twist angles and stackings, the compiled tables could serve as a drop-in starting point for unexplored moiré configurations, including heterostructures combining more than two layers or mixed chemical species.
  • The same machinery should extend to rectangular and kagome lattices (a future direction the paper lists); one testable prediction is that magic-angle flat bands in those lattices depend on the same ratio of interlayer to intralayer hopping strengths.
  • The emphasis on lattice relaxation suggests that rigid-lattice TB predictions for any new moiré material should be treated as provisional; the magnitude of relaxation-induced band changes could be used as a screening criterion for candidate systems.
  • Machine-learning approaches for generating accurate Hamiltonians could eventually replace the empirical parameter tables, but the review's practical utility remains the explicit Slater-Koster formulas, which are independent of training data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of atomistic tight-binding (TB) methods for moiré superlattices, covering graphene-, hBN-, and TMD-based systems. It compiles the standard Slater–Koster Hamiltonians, including distance-dependent hoppings and relaxation, and extends this to electronic interactions (Hartree, Hartree–Fock, Hubbard- U), linear-scaling numerical techniques (KPM, TBPM, machine-learned Hamiltonians), software packages, the derivation of low-energy continuum models from TB, and two worked examples (graphene quasicrystal and Rydberg moiré excitons). The stated goal is to serve as a theoretical and practical guide for researchers applying TB to moiré systems.

Significance. If the collected formulas and parameters are reliable, the review fills a useful niche: it gathers Slater–Koster parametrizations, relaxation potentials, linear-scaling algorithms, software tools, and continuum-model connections in one place. Its strengths are the breadth of material coverage, the explicit numerical parameter tables, and the worked examples that show the TB workflow. The derivation of the continuum model from the atomistic TB Hamiltonian in Section 4 is a particularly useful didactic bridge. However, the value of a 'practical guide' depends on the correctness and reproducibility of the key equations; one central expression (Eq. (14)) is, as printed, not a valid Hartree–Fock Hamiltonian, which compromises the usability of the correlated-electron part of the review.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2.2, Eq. (14)] The printed Hartree–Fock Hamiltonian is internally inconsistent. The Hartree term reads ∑_{i≠j,s,s'} V(r_i−r_j)⟨c†_{is}c_{is}⟩_0 c†_{is'}c_{is'}, i.e. the density is evaluated at site i and the operator it multiplies is also at i, so the site j contributes only through the Coulomb prefactor. This does not reproduce the self-consistent Hartree potential of Eqs. (9)–(11), where ϕ_i = ∑_j V(r_i−r_j)⟨δn(r_j)⟩; the decoupling should involve ⟨c†_{js}c_{js}⟩_0. The Fock term also contains an undefined r′_j (presumably r_i or r_j). Since Eq. (14) is cited as the basis for the interacting flat-band results in Fig. 2 and the review advertises itself as a practical guide, a reader implementing HF from this review cannot reproduce the method without consulting Refs. [101,144]. This is a load-bearing issue that must be corrected.
  2. [§5.1, 'Dedocagonal' example] The worked example is presented as demonstrating the power of TBPM + TB for quasicrystals, but the comparison between the TB result and the approximant is only qualitative. More importantly, the text states that 'we adopted a large round disk of graphene quasicrystal with ten million atoms' and then describes the DOS; no convergence parameters (number of random states, time window, disk radius) are given. As a practical-guide example, this omits the technical details that would let a reader reproduce the calculation. This is not a fatal flaw, but it weakens the illustrative value of an otherwise appealing case study.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] There are several typos and spelling errors: 'Dedocagonal' in the Section 5.1 heading, 'supperlatice', 'morié', 'varified', 'betwwen', 'potetials' in Table 1. These should be corrected.
  2. [§3.3, ML methods] The paragraph on DeepH/HamGNN says these methods produce 'ab initio accuracy' Hamiltonians; it would be helpful to note explicitly that these are non-orthogonal, overlaps are included, and the transferability to arbitrary twist angles is still an open question. The current discussion is brief and might leave a reader with an over-optimistic impression.
  3. [§3.4, Pybinding] Reference [230] is 'W. Jakob, pybind11 Documentation', which is incorrect for the TB package Pybinding. The correct reference is to the Pybinding software by D. Moldovan et al.; the current citation points to a different library (pybind11) and should be fixed.
  4. [§2.3.2, Eq. (26)] The directional cosines l, m, n are defined in the text after Eq. (26). For readability, define them just before the equation, since they are used immediately in the formula.
  5. [§2.2.2, Fig. 2] The sentence 'In Fig. 2 we show the results of Ref. 101, where a TB model with a Hartree potential gives filling dependent renormalized flat bands' is imprecise: part (a) is from Ref. [137] and part (b) from Ref. [101], and the latter uses Hartree–Fock, not just Hartree. Please adjust the wording to match the figure caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review compiles independently validated TB methodology; self-citations in the worked examples are illustrative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review article, not an original derivation. Its central claim is that atomistic tight-binding Hamiltonians and linear-scaling numerical methods constitute an accurate and practical framework for moiré materials. That claim is supported by external benchmarks: comparisons with DFT band structures (e.g., Fig. 1(b)), continuum-model results (e.g., Fig. 8(a)), and experimental observations (e.g., the magic-angle value near 1.1°, Refs. 11 and 76). No parameter is fitted within this paper and then relabeled as a prediction; the SK parameters in Table 1 are quoted from the cited primary literature and used as inputs to the reviewed models. Section 4 derives continuum models from TB transfer integrals by a mathematical coarse-graining procedure; the continuum parameters u0 and u1 are taken from Koshino et al. (Ref. 242), not derived from the review's own conclusions, so there is no self-definitional loop. The worked examples in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 summarize the authors' own prior works (Refs. 273 and 210), but they are presented as illustrations of the method and are validated by comparison with experiments, not by the review's own assertions. These self-citations are therefore not load-bearing. The Data Availability statement explicitly says 'No primary research results, software or code have been included and no new data were generated or analysed as part of this review,' which further confirms that no new prediction is being made. The apparent typographical inconsistency in the Hartree–Fock Hamiltonian in Eq. (14) is a correctness/usability defect, not a circularity: it does not make an output quantity equal to an input by construction. Similarly, the limited transferability of empirical TB parameters is an external-validity risk, not a circularity. Overall, the review's derivation chain is open and self-contained in the sense appropriate to a review, so the circularity burden is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no new fitted parameters or entities; the values listed are empirically fitted quantities imported from the cited primary literature. The review's claims about the utility of TB methods inherit the validity of those underlying fits, and the axioms are the standard approximations of the TB and continuum-model approaches.

free parameters (6)
  • t0 (in-plane pz hopping) = 2.7 eV
    Graphene in-plane hopping in Eqs. (5) and used in examples; fitted to DFT/experiment in the cited original works (Refs. 115-116).
  • t1 (interlayer hopping) = 0.48 eV
    Out-of-plane hopping in Eq. (6); together with t0 controls the magic angle value (Sec. 2.2.1) and is tuned in Refs. 93, 103.
  • q_pi/d = q_sigma/h decay factor = 2.218 Å^-1
    Decay constants in the Slater-Koster hoppings, Eqs. (5)-(6), fitted to DFT band structures in the original graphene TB literature.
  • Cutoff parameters rc, lc = rc=5.0 Å, lc=0.265 Å
    Smooth cutoff function Fc(r) in Eq. (7), chosen by hand to suppress long-range hoppings; a modeling choice not derived from first principles.
  • Continuum interlayer couplings u0, u1 = u0=0.0797 eV, u1=0.0975 eV
    Computed by Koshino et al. (Ref. 242) from TB transfer integrals; used in the continuum Hamiltonian (Eqs. 58-59) of Section 4.
  • Screened Coulomb potential prefactor = V(r)=1.438/(0.116+|r|) eV
    Model interaction in Eq. (12) used for Hartree self-consistency; a simplified screened interaction form, not derived within the review.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Slater-Koster two-center approximation
    All interlayer and intralayer hoppings are written via SK parameters (Eqs. 4-6); a standard quantum-chemical approximation assumed throughout Section 2.
  • domain assumption pz-orbital-only basis captures the low-energy physics of graphene and hBN moiré systems
    Used in Sections 2.2 and 2.4; assumes that s and d orbitals do not significantly affect the relevant flat bands. Justified only by prior DFT comparisons, not assessed in this review.
  • domain assumption Continuum model validity at low twist angles
    Section 4: the continuum description relies on the moiré scale being much larger than the atomic scale, so interlayer coupling is dominated by long-wavelength components. An approximation, not an exact reduction.
  • domain assumption Mean-field decoupling of electron-electron interactions
    Hartree, Hartree-Fock, and Hubbard-U mean-field approximations are used in Section 2.2; correlation effects beyond mean-field are stated to be out of scope, so the review inherits the usual limitations of these approximations.
  • ad hoc to paper Classical force-field relaxation potentials are transferable to moiré systems
    Table 1 and Section 2.2.1 recommend LAMMPS potentials (AIREBO, Kolmogorov-Crespi, Stillinger-Weber, etc.) to relax moiré structures; their accuracy is not validated in the review.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Review of the tight-binding method applicable to the properties of moir\'e superlattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4HNXJNCA

@misc{pith2026251104899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Review of the tight-binding method applicable to the properties of moir\'e superlattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4HNXJNCA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.04899}
}
read the original abstract

Moir\'e superlattices have emerged as a versatile platform for exploring a wide range of ex- otic quantum phenomena. Unlike angstrom-scale materials, the moir\'e length-scale system contains a large number of atoms, and its electronic structure is significantly modulated by the lattice relaxation. These features pose a huge theoretical challenge. Among the available theoretical approaches, tight-binding (TB) methods are widely employed to predict the electronic, transport, and optical properties of systems such as twisted graphene, twisted transition-metal dichalcogenides (TMDs), and related moir\'e materials. In this review, we pro- vide a comprehensive overview of atomistic TB Hamiltonians and the numerical techniques commonly used to model graphene-based, TMD-based and hBN-based moir\'e superlattices. We also discuss the connection between atomistic TB descriptions and effective low-energy continuum models. Two examples of different moir\'e materials and geometries are provided to emphasize the advantages of the TB methods. This review is intended to serve as a theoretical and practical guide for those seeking to apply TB methods to the study of various properties of moir\'e superlattices.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    1 E. Y. Andrei, D. K. Efetov, P. Jarillo-Herrero, A. H. Mac- Donald, K. F. Mak, T. Senthil, E. Tutuc, A. Yazdani and A. F. Young, Nature Reviews Materials, 2021, 6, 201–

    2021

  2. [5]

    140 C. T. Cheung, Z. A. Goodwin, V. Vitale, J. Lischner and A. A. Mostofi, Electronic Structure, 2022, 4, 025001. 141 F. Guinea and N. R. Walet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018, 115, 13174–13179. 142 T. Cea, N. R. Walet and F. Guinea, Physical Review B, 2019, 100, 205113. 143 T. Cea and F. Guinea,Phys. Rev. B, 2020, 102, 045107. 144 ...

    2022

  3. [14]

    129 D. Foo, Z. Zhan, M. M. Al Ezzi, L. Peng, S. Adam and F. Guinea, Physical Review Research, 2024, 6, 013165. 130 F. J. Culchac, R. Del Grande, M. G. Menezes and R. B. Capaz, Physical Review B, 2025, 111, 075111. 131 N. N. Nam and M. Koshino, Physical Review B, 2017, 96, 075311. 132 Y. Cao, J. Luo, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, J. Sanchez- Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, ...

    2024

  4. [28]

    Kuang, Z

    161 X. Kuang, Z. Zhan and S. Yuan, Physical Review B , 2022, 105, 245415. 162 H. Rostami, R. Roldán, E. Cappelluti, R. Asgari and F. Guinea, Physical Review B, 2015, 92, 195402. 163 V. Vitale, K. Atalar, A. A. Mostofi and J. Lischner, 2D Materials, 2021, 8, 045010. 164 S. J. Stuart, A. B. Tutein and J. A. Harrison, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics, 2000,...

    2022

  5. [48]

    252 P. A. Pantaleón, T. Low and F. Guinea,Physical Review B, 2021, 103, 205403. 253 F. Mesple, A. Missaoui, T. Cea, L. Huder, F. Guinea, G. Trambly de Laissardière, C. Chapelier and V. T. Re- nard, Physical Review Letters, 2021, 127, 126405. 254 A. Sinner, P. A. Pantaleón and F. Guinea, Physical Re- view Letters, 2023, 131, 166402. 255 O. Vafek and J. Kan...

    2021

  6. [73]

    179 M. Long, Z. Zhan, P. A. Pantaleón, J. Á. Silva-Guillén, F. Guinea and S. Yuan, Physical Review B, 2023, 107, 115140. 180 J. C. W. Song, A. V. Shytov and L. S. Levitov,Phys. Rev. Lett., 2013, 111, 266801. 181 F. Amet, J. R. Williams, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Physical Review Letters , 2013, 110, 216601. 182 B. Hunt, J. D. Sanch...

    2023

  7. [83]

    Zhang, Y

    154 Z. Zhang, Y. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Ueno, E. Tutuc and B. J. LeRoy , Nature Physics , 2020, 16, 1093–1096. 155 A. Weston, E. G. Castanon, V. Enaldiev, F. Fer- reira, S. Bhattacharjee, S. Xu, H. Corte-León, Z. Wu, N. Clark, A. Summerfield et al., Nature Nanotechnol- ogy, 2022, 17, 390–395. 156 E. C. Regan, D. Wang, C. Jin, M. I. Bakti Utam...

    2020

  8. [84]

    Yankowitz, S

    13 M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young and C. R. Dean, Science, 2019, 363, 1059–1064. 14 G. W. Burg, J. Zhu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. H. MacDonald and E. Tutuc, Physical Review Letters , 2019, 123, 197702. 15 Y. Saito, J. Ge, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi and A. F. + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S >...

    2019

Show all 44 references
  1. [122]

    274 M. He, J. Cai, H. Zheng, E. Seewald, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Yan, M. Yankowitz, A. Pasupathy , W. Yaoet al., Nature Materials, 2024, 23, 224–229. 275 V. H. Nguyen, D. Paszko, M. Lamparski, B. Van Troeye, V. Meunier and J.-C. Charlier, 2D Materials, 2021, 8, 035046. 2...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [182]

    Zhong, H

    224 Y. Zhong, H. Yu, J. Yang, X. Guo, H. Xiang and X. Gong, Chinese Physics Letters, 2024, 41, 077103. 225 Q. Gu, Z. Zhouyin, S. K. Pandey , P. Zhang, L. Zhang and W. E, Nature Communications, 2024, 15,

    2024

  3. [199]

    Papaconstantopoulos and M

    83 D. Papaconstantopoulos and M. Mehl, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2003, 15, R413. 84 Q. Cui and M. Elstner, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2014, 16, 14368–14377. 85 E. McCann and M. Koshino, Reports on Progress in physics, 2013, 76, 056503. 86 E. Cappelluti, R...

    2003

  4. [206]

    2 F. He, Y. Zhou, Z. Ye, S.-H. Cho, J. Jeong, X. Meng and Y. Wang,ACS nano, 2021, 15, 5944–5958. 3 E. Y. Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Nature materials, 2020, 19, 1265–1275. 4 L. Cai and G. Yu, Advanced Materials , 2021, 33, 2004974. 5 S. Carr, S. Fang and E. Kaxiras, Nature Rev...

    2021

  5. [248]

    228 A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolin- tineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. in ’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, R. Shan, M. J. Stevens, J. Tranchida, C. Trott and S. J. Plimp- ton, Computer Physics Communications , 2022, 271, 108171. ...

    2022 arXiv

  6. [262]

    Morales-Durán, N

    80 N. Morales-Durán, N. Wei, J. Shi and A. H. MacDon- ald, Physical Review Letters, 2024, 132, 096602. 81 W. M. C. Foulkes and R. Haydock, Physical Review B, 1989, 39, 12520. 82 D. Bowler, M. Aoki, C. Goringe, A. Horsfield and D. Pettifor, Modelling and Simulation in Materials...

    2024

  7. [273]

    Hsieh, D

    9 V. Hsieh, D. Halbertal, N. R. Finney , Z. Zhu, E. Gerber, M. Pizzochero, E. Kucukbenli, G. R. Schleder, M. An- geli, K. Watanabeet al., Nano Letters, 2023, 23, 3137–

    2023

  8. [347]

    Moon and M

    177 P. Moon and M. Koshino, Physical Review B, 2014, 90, 155406. 178 M. Long, P. A. Pantaleón, Z. Zhan, F. Guinea, J. Á. Silva-Guillén and S. Yuan, npj Computational Materi- als, 2022, 8,

    2014

  9. [371]

    95 Y.-N. Ren, Z. Zhan, Y.-W. Liu, C. Yan, S. Yuan and L. He, Nano Letters, 2023, 23, 1836–1842. 96 M. Mannaï and S. Haddad, Physical Review B , 2021, 103, L201112. 97 J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster,Physical Review, 1954, 94,

    2023

  10. [448]

    184 Z.-G. Chen, Z. Shi, W. Yang, X. Lu, Y. Lai, H. Yan, F. Wang, G. Zhang and Z. Li, Nature Communications, 2014, 5,

    2014

  11. [453]

    Trambly de Laissardière, D

    115 G. Trambly de Laissardière, D. Mayou and L. Magaud, Nano Letters, 2010, 10, 804–808. 116 G. Trambly de Laissardière, D. Mayou and L. Magaud, Physical Review B, 2012, 86, 125413. 117 F. Gargiulo and O. V. Yazyev, 2D Materials, 2017, 5, 015019. 118 F. Guinea and N. R. Walet,...

    2010

  12. [704]

    91 M. H. Rahman, S. Mitra and D. A. Redwan, 2020 + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S > < W P M > 1–26 | 21 2nd International Conference on Advanced Informa- tion and Communication Technology (ICAICT), 2020, pp. 207–212. 92 N. Leconte, S. Javvaji, J. An, A. Samudrala and J. Jung, P...

    2020

  13. [826]

    7 L. Wang, S. Yin, J. Yang and S. X. Dou, Small, 2023, 19, 2300165. 8 Y. Yu, K. Zhang, H. Parks, M. Babar, S. Carr, I. M. Craig, M. Van Winkle, A. Lyssenko, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe et al., Nature chemistry, 2022, 14, 267–

    2023

  14. [979]

    Bistritzer and A

    264 R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Physical Review B, 2010, 81, 245412. 265 P. San-Jose and E. Prada, Physical Review B, 2013, 88, 121408. 266 D. K. Efimkin and A. H. MacDonald, Physical Review B, 2018, 98, 035404. 267 C. De Beule, F. Dominguez and P. Recher, Physical Re- ...

    2010

  15. [1498]

    98 M. J. Mehl and D. A. Papaconstantopoulos, Physical Review B, 1996, 54, 4519–4530. 99 J.-M. Jancu, R. Scholz, F. Beltram and F. Bassani, Physical Review B, 1998, 57, 6493–6507. 100 R. Pons, A. Mielke and T. Stauber, Physical Review B, 2020, 102, 235101. 101 J. González and T...

    1996

  16. [1989]

    Rademaker, D

    137 L. Rademaker, D. A. Abanin and P. Mellado, Physical Review B, 2019, 100, 205114. 138 Z. A. Goodwin, V. Vitale, X. Liang, A. A. Mostofi and J. Lischner, Electronic Structure, 2020, 2, 034001. 139 A. Fischer, Z. A. Goodwin, A. A. Mostofi, J. Lischner, D. M. Kennes and L. Kle...

    2019

  17. [1998]

    Stathopoulos and J

    195 A. Stathopoulos and J. R. McCombs, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 2010, 37, 21:1–21:30. 196 V. Hernández, J. E. Román and V. Vidal,ACM Transac- tions on Mathematical Software, 2005, 31, 351–362. 197 R. Kubo, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 1957, 12, 5...

    2010

  18. [2013]

    Lanczos, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 1950, 45, 255–282

    191 C. Lanczos, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 1950, 45, 255–282. 192 E. R. Davidson, Journal of Computational Physics , 1975, 17, 87–94. 193 G. L. G. Sleijpen and H. A. van der Vorst,SIAM Review, 2000, 42, 267–293. 194 R. B. Lehoucq, D. C. Sorensen a...

    1950

  19. [2746]

    148 M. S. Sánchez, J. González and T. Stauber, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09197, 2025, 09197. 149 L. A. Gonzalez-Arraga, J. Lado, F. Guinea and P. San- Jose, Physical Review Letters, 2017, 119, 107201. 150 T. M. Wolf, J. L. Lado, G. Blatter and O. Zilberberg, Physical Review Le...

    2025 arXiv

  20. [2848]

    Zhong, H

    223 Y. Zhong, H. Yu, M. Su, X. Gong and H. Xiang, npj Computational Materials, 2023, 9,

    2023

  21. [2989]

    62 Z. Fu, X. Zhou and L. He, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter, 2024, 37, 073001. 63 G. Sfuncia, G. Nicotra, F. Giannazzo, B. Pécz, G. K. Gueorguiev and A. Kakanakova-Georgieva, CrystEng- Comm, 2023, 25, 5810–5817. 64 M. A. Machado Filho, W. Farmer, C.-L. Hsiao, R. B. dos...

    2024

  22. [3143]

    10 L. Yu, X. Liu, H. Zhang, B. Zhou, Z. Chen, H. Li and L. Zhang, Journal of the American Chemical Society , 2024, 146, 32816–32825. 11 Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature, 2018, 556, 43–50. 12 Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. ...

    2024

  23. [4055]

    103 Z. Wu, Z. Zhan and S. Yuan, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 2021, 64, 267811. 104 Y. Wang, G. Yu, M. Rösner, M. I. Katsnelson, H.-Q. Lin and S. Yuan, Physical Review X, 2022, 12, 021055. 105 S. Yuan, H. De Raedt and M. I. Katsnelson, Physical Review B, 2010, ...

    2021

  24. [4461]

    Yankowitz, J

    185 M. Yankowitz, J. Xue and B. J. LeRoy , Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2014, 26, 303201. 186 E. Wang, X. Lu, S. Ding, W. Yao, M. Yan, G. Wan, K. Deng, S. Wang, G. Chen, L. Ma, J. Jung, A. V. Fe- dorov, Y. Zhang, G. Zhang and S. Zhou,Nature Physics, 2016, 12, 1111–111...

    2014

  25. [4727]

    Mounet, M

    65 N. Mounet, M. Gibertini, P. Schwaller et al., Nature Nanotechnology, 2018, 13, 246–252. 66 S. Haastrup, M. Strange, M. Pandey et al., 2D Materi- als, 2018, 5, 042002. 67 F. Haddadi, Q. Wu, A. J. Kruchkov and O. V. Yazyev, Nano Letters, 2020, 20, 2410–2415. 68 X.-J. Zhao, Y....

    2018

  26. [5601]

    57 H. Li, S. Li, M. H. Naik, J. Xie, X. Li, J. Wang, E. Regan, D. Wang, W. Zhao, S. Zhao et al., Nature materials, 2021, 20, 945–950. 58 N. Tilak, G. Li, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe and E. Y. Andrei, Nano Letters, 2022, 23, 73–81. 59 D. Halbertal, S. Turkel, C. J. Ciccarino, J. ...

    2021

  27. [6200]

    32 J. Ding, H. Xiang, W. Zhou, N. Liu, Q. Chen, X. Fang, K. Wang, L. Wu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi et al., Na- ture Communications, 2024, 15,

    2024

  28. [6308]

    188 M. Lee, J. R. Wallbank, P. Gallagher, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, V. I. Fal’ko and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Science, 2016, 353, 1526–1529. 189 H. Kim, N. Leconte, B. L. Chittari, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. H. Macdonald, J. Jung and S. Jung, Nano Letters, 2018, 18, 7732–7741....

    2016

  29. [6730]

    Zhang, T

    72 Y. Zhang, T. Liu and L. Fu, Physical Review B , 2021, 103, 155142. 73 S. Kundu, M. H. Naik, H. Krishnamurthy and M. Jain, Physical Review B, 2022, 105, L081108. 74 Y. Jia, J. Yu, J. Liu, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, Z. Qi, H. Pi, N. Regnault, H. Weng, B. A. Bernevig and Q. Wu,Phys-...

    2021

  30. [6772]

    226 S. Naik, M. H. Naik, I. Maity and M. Jain, Computer Physics Communications, 2022, 271, 108184. 227 J. Liu, Z. Fang, H. Weng and Q. Wu,npj Computational Materials, 2025, 11,

    2022

  31. [7196]

    20 J. Yang, G. Chen, T. Han, Q. Zhang, Y.-H. Zhang, L. Jiang, B. Lyu, H. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchiet al., Science, 2022, 375, 1295–1299. 21 Y. Xu, S. Liu, D. A. Rhodes, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, V. Elser, K. F. Mak and J. Shan,Nature, 2020, 587, 214–218. 22 L. Wa...

    2022

  32. [7587]

    60 S. Zhao, Z. Li, X. Huang, A. Rupp, J. Göser, I. A. Vovk, S. Y. Kruchinin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, I. Bilgin et al., Nature Nanotechnology, 2023, 18, 572–579. 61 M. Van Winkle, I. M. Craig, S. Carr, M. Dandu, K. C. Bustillo, J. Ciston, C. Ophus, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- ab...

    2023

  33. [8437]

    Moon and M

    213 P. Moon and M. Koshino, Physical Review B, 2013, 87, 205404. 24 | 1–26 + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S > < W P M > 214 H. A. Le and V. N. Do, Physical Review B , 2018, 97, 125136. 215 S. Yang, J. Chen, C.-F. Liu and M. Chen, Physical Re- view B, 2024, 110, 235410. 216 D. L...

    2013

  34. [8815]

    221 M. H. Gobbo Khun, L. Silva and D. Bahamon, arXiv e-prints, 2025, arXiv–2502. 222 X. Gong, H. Li, N. Zou, R. Xu, W. Duan and Y. Xu, Nature Communications, 2023, 14,

    2025

  35. [8858]

    54 G. Zhan, B. Koek, Y. Yuan, Y. Liu, V. Mishra, V. Lenzi, K. Struty´nski, C. Li, R. Zhang, X. Zhou et al., Nature Chemistry, 2025, 1–7. 55 M. R. Rosenberger, H.-J. Chuang, M. Phillips, V. P. Oleshko, K. M. McCreary , S. V. Sivaram, C. S. Hellberg and B. T. Jonker, ACS Nano, 2...

    2025

  36. [9087]

    Serlin, C

    33 M. Serlin, C. Tschirhart, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Balents and A. Young, Science, 2020, 367, 900–903. 34 T. Li, S. Jiang, B. Shen, Y. Zhang, L. Li, Z. Tao, T. De- vakul, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu et al., Nature, 2021, 600, 641–646. ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.