Pith sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Charge transfer, not magnetism, boosts correlated insulation in graphene

2026-07-08 03:58 UTC pith:5D6VA7X4

load-bearing objection Real observation of reentrant correlated insulating state in TDBG/CrOCl, but the charge-transfer attribution is confounded by displacement field the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06492 v1 pith:5D6VA7X4 submitted 2026-07-07 cond-mat.mes-hall

Correlated Insulating States in Twisted Double Bilayer Graphene Enhanced by Interfacial Effect on CrOCl

Ning Ma , Zekang Zhou , Chiara Cocchi , Maurice Bal , Maarten van Delft , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi , Steffen Wiedmann
show 2 more authors
Jian-Hao Chen Mitali Banerjee
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.21.-b73.22.-f71.70.Di
keywords magneticstatescorrelatedeffectgrapheneenhancedmaterialstdbg
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.

This paper reports that when twisted double bilayer graphene (TDBG) is placed on the antiferromagnetic insulator CrOCl, the dominant interfacial effect is not magnetic exchange but charge transfer: electrons leak from the graphene into the CrOCl substrate, and the resulting interfacial charge order acts as a superlattice Coulomb potential on the graphene layers. The authors observe that in the charge-transfer region, the correlated insulating state at half-filling of the moiré band is strongly enhanced at ultrahigh magnetic fields around 20 T, with a thermal activation gap whose g-factor is 18.1 versus 11.8 in the region without charge transfer. They interpret the larger g-factor as evidence that charge transfer amplifies the valley polarization of the correlated state. The paper also reports a Chern insulator with C=2 emerging from the half-filling state, suppression of the half-filling state by in-plane magnetic field (suggesting valley-spin coupling), and reproducibility of the enhanced insulating state across different cooling cycles and gate-sweeping rates. The central claim is that interfacial charge transfer provides a route to manipulate correlated states in moiré graphene systems, distinct from and potentially more impactful than magnetic proximity effects.

Core claim

The paper's central finding is that charge transfer between TDBG and CrOCl enhances the valley-polarized correlated insulating state at half-filling, as demonstrated by a larger thermal activation gap (g=18.1 vs 11.8) and higher resistance at 20 T in the charge-transfer region compared to the region without charge transfer. The authors attribute this enhancement to a superlattice Coulomb potential generated by long-wavelength charge order at the CrOCl surface, which acts on the graphene layers and amplifies gap opening. Notably, no magnetic exchange effect from the antiferromagnetic substrate is detected; the interfacial charge-related effect dominates.

What carries the argument

The mechanism involves electrons transferring from TDBG into CrOCl, creating a long-wavelength electronic crystal (charge order) at the CrOCl surface. This charge order serves as a superlattice Coulomb potential on the graphene layers, enhancing bandgap opening at half-filling. The valley-polarized nature of the correlated state is diagnosed through the magnetic-field dependence of the thermal activation gap (Arrhenius fitting), yielding g-factors that quantify the coupling between the gap and the out-of-plane field. The comparison between charge-transfer and non-charge-transfer regions at different displacement fields (0.26 V/nm vs 0.5 V/nm) is the experimental lever used to isolate the two

Load-bearing premise

The paper compares the charge-transfer region (displacement field D=0.26 V/nm) with the non-charge-transfer region (D=0.5 V/nm) and attributes the enhanced insulating state to charge transfer, but the two regions differ in displacement field, which independently modifies TDBG band structure and correlated states. Without independently controlling displacement field from the charge-transfer boundary, the causal role of charge transfer is not cleanly separated from the effect

What would settle it

If the enhanced insulating state and larger g-factor could be reproduced at D=0.26 V/nm in a TDBG device on a non-charge-transferring substrate (e.g., plain hBN), the attribution to charge transfer would be undermined. Conversely, if the enhancement appears only in the presence of a charge-transferring substrate and scales with the degree of charge transfer, the claim is strengthened.

If this is right

  • If charge transfer is a generalizable knob for enhancing correlated states, other graphene/magnetic-insulator heterostructures previously studied for magnetic proximity effects may need re-examination through the lens of interfacial charge redistribution.
  • The superlattice Coulomb potential mechanism suggests that engineering the charge-transfer partner (substrate choice, interlayer spacing, twist angle relative to the substrate) could tune the strength and periodicity of the effective potential on the moiré bands.
  • The observed valley-spin coupling (suppression of the half-filling state by in-plane field) hints at a richer internal structure of the correlated state than pure valley polarization, which could be relevant for spin-valley entangled phases in moiré systems.
  • The reentrant insulating state at ultrahigh field (around 20 T, near half-flux per moiré unit cell) connects to the broader phenomenology of reentrant correlated insulators in twisted bilayer graphene, suggesting a shared mechanism across different moiré platforms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports transport measurements on twisted double bilayer graphene (TDBG, twist angle ~1.1°) fabricated on the antiferromagnetic insulator CrOCl. The authors observe a charge-transfer (CT) boundary in the dual-gate resistance map, separating regions where electrons are injected into CrOCl from those where they are not. The central experimental finding is an enhanced correlated insulating state at half-filling that reemerges at ultrahigh magnetic fields (~20 T) in the CT region, accompanied by a larger extracted g-factor (18.1 vs. 11.8) compared to the non-CT region. Reproducibility is demonstrated across different gate-sweep rates and cooling cycles (Figs. 5, 6). The authors attribute the enhancement to a superlattice Coulomb potential from charge transfer, while acknowledging that further experiments are needed to confirm the mechanism.

Significance. The study of interfacial charge-transfer effects on correlated states in moiré systems is a timely and relatively unexplored direction. The observation of a reentrant half-filling insulating state at ~20 T in TDBG/CrOCl is a genuine experimental result, and the reproducibility checks (Appendix A, Figs. 5–6) across sweep rates and a four-month-separated cooling cycle strengthen the claim that the feature is robust. The in-plane field suppression data (Fig. 4) provide a useful additional characterization. The work is a reasonable contribution to the emerging interface-engineering approach to moiré correlated states, though the causal attribution (see below) limits the strength of the conclusions at present.

major comments (3)
  1. §II, Figs. 2(a)–(b): The central claim that charge transfer enhances the half-filling insulating state rests on comparing D = 0.26 V/nm ('with CT') and D = 0.5 V/nm ('without CT'). These two points differ in displacement field, which is itself the primary tuning parameter for TDBG band structure and correlated states (the paper cites Refs. 31, 32 for this). The authors note that 'the features of both diagrams on the hole-doped side are quite similar,' but TDBG is known to exhibit strong electron–hole asymmetry in its D-dependent band structure, so similarity on the hole side does not control for D-dependent effects on the electron side where the enhancement is observed. This confound is load-bearing for the attribution of the enhanced insulating state to charge transfer rather than to the different displacement field. The authors should either (i) identify a comparison at the same (or相近)
  2. §II, Fig. 3(b) and surrounding text: The g-factor comparison (18.1 vs. 11.8) depends on fitting windows described only qualitatively as 'the range of magnetic field where the gap is developing and the valley polarization is dominant.' The specific field ranges used for each linear fit are not stated, and Fig. 3(b) appears to show non-monotonic gap behavior (rising to ~20 T then decreasing). The extracted g-factors are thus sensitive to the chosen window. The authors should specify the exact field ranges used for each fit, show the linear fits overlaid on the data, and provide error bars or sensitivity analysis (e.g., how the g-factor changes if the window is shifted by ±1–2 T). Without this, the 18.1 vs. 11.8 comparison—and the conclusion that CT enhances valley polarization—is not independently verifiable.
  3. §II, paragraph on mechanism: The paper offers two possible mechanisms (superlattice Coulomb potential from CT, and magnetic proximity hybridization) but does not present any evidence that would distinguish them or even favor one. Given that no magnetic-proximity-related phenomenon is observed (as the authors state), and the CT effect is the dominant observed interfacial effect, the attribution to the superlattice Coulomb potential is presented as the leading candidate but without direct evidence (e.g., dependence on CT strength, comparison across twist angles, or theoretical modeling of the expected gap enhancement). The authors' own statement that 'further experiments are needed' is appropriate, but the manuscript title and abstract ('Enhanced by Interfacial Effect') present a stronger causal claim than the data support. The authors should either temper the causal language or provide a控
minor comments (6)
  1. Appendix B, Eqs. for n and D: The definitions use n_0 and D_0 as offsets but do not state how these offsets were determined (e.g., from the CNP position at zero field). Please specify.
  2. Fig. 1(c): The red dashed CT boundary is described qualitatively. It would help to state the approximate carrier density or gate-voltage coordinates at which this boundary occurs.
  3. Fig. 1(d): The Chern insulator with C = 2 is mentioned and shown in Fig. 1(e), but the Hall plateau quantization in Fig. 1(e) is not clearly resolved to the precision typically expected for a Chern number extraction. Please comment on the plateau quality and how C = 2 was determined.
  4. §II, Fig. 4: The quarter-filling state is mentioned but not discussed in detail. A brief comment on its nature (valley-polarized? spin-polarized?) and why it survives in-plane field while the half-filling state does not would strengthen the narrative.
  5. Typographical: 'refridgerator' → 'refrigerator' (§II); 'enchanced' → 'enhanced' (Fig. 2 caption, Fig. 5 caption); 'comaparison' → 'comparison' (Appendix A); 'dahsed' → 'dashed' (Fig. 4 caption).
  6. The twist angle is stated as 'around 1.1 degrees' extracted from Brown-Zak oscillations. The Supplementary Materials are referenced but not provided; please ensure the angle extraction and its uncertainty are documented there.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and constructive comments. The referee raises three major points: (1) the displacement-field confound in the CT vs. non-CT comparison, (2) the need for explicit g-factor fitting windows and sensitivity analysis, and (3) the causal language in the title and abstract. We agree that points (1) and (2) require revision and that point (3) warrants tempering of the causal language. We address each below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §II, Figs. 2(a)–(b): The central claim that charge transfer enhances the half-filling insulating state rests on comparing D = 0.26 V/nm ('with CT') and D = 0.5 V/nm ('without CT'). These two points differ in displacement field, which is itself the primary tuning parameter for TDBG band structure and correlated states. The authors note that 'the features of both diagrams on the hole-doped side are quite similar,' but TDBG is known to exhibit strong electron–hole asymmetry in its D-dependent band structure, so similarity on the hole side does not control for D-dependent effects on the electron side where the enhancement is observed. This confound is load-bearing for the attribution of the enhanced insulating state to charge transfer rather than to the different displacement field. The authors should either (i) identify a comparison at the same (or相近) displacement field with and without CT,

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the comparison between D = 0.26 V/nm (with CT) and D = 0.5 V/nm (without CT) confounds the charge-transfer effect with the displacement-field dependence of the TDBG band structure. We acknowledge that the hole-side similarity does not rigorously control for D-dependent effects on the electron side, given the known electron–hole asymmetry in TDBG. Ideally, one would compare the same displacement field with and without CT; however, this is not possible within a single device because the CT boundary is fixed by the electrostatics of the TDBG–CrOCl interface. The CT region occupies a specific range of D, and the non-CT region necessarily lies at a different D. We will add an explicit discussion of this confound in the revised manuscript, acknowledging it as a limitation of the single-device comparison. We will also note that the most direct way to disentangle the two effects would be to compare against a TDBG-on-hBN control device at the same D, which we plan for future work. We agree this weakens the strength of the causal attribution and will adjust the language accordingly. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §II, Fig. 3(b) and surrounding text: The g-factor comparison (18.1 vs. 11.8) depends on fitting windows described only qualitatively as 'the range of magnetic field where the gap is developing and the valley polarization is dominant.' The specific field ranges used for each linear fit are not stated, and Fig. 3(b) appears to show non-monotonic gap behavior (rising to ~20 T then decreasing). The extracted g-factors are thus sensitive to the chosen window. The authors should specify the exact field ranges used for each fit, show the linear fits overlaid on the data, and provide error bars or sensitivity analysis (e.g., how the g-factor changes if the window is shifted by ±1–2 T). Without this, the 18.1 vs. 11.8 comparison—and the conclusion that CT enhances valley polarization—is not independently verifiable.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the fitting windows for the g-factor extraction are not specified and that the non-monotonic behavior of the gap makes the result sensitive to the chosen range. We will revise the manuscript to include: (i) the exact magnetic field ranges used for each linear fit, (ii) the linear fits overlaid on the data in Fig. 3(b), and (iii) a sensitivity analysis showing how the extracted g-factors change when the fitting window is shifted by ±1–2 T. We agree that without this information the comparison is not independently verifiable. If the sensitivity analysis shows substantial variation in the g-factors, we will accordingly temper the quantitative claim and emphasize the qualitative trend (larger gap in the CT region) rather than the precise numerical values. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §II, paragraph on mechanism: The paper offers two possible mechanisms (superlattice Coulomb potential from CT, and magnetic proximity hybridization) but does not present any evidence that would distinguish them or even favor one. Given that no magnetic-proximity-related phenomenon is observed (as the authors state), and the CT effect is the dominant observed interfacial effect, the attribution to the superlattice Coulomb potential is presented as the leading candidate but without direct evidence (e.g., dependence on CT strength, comparison across twist angles, or theoretical modeling of the expected gap enhancement). The authors' own statement that 'further experiments are needed' is appropriate, but the manuscript title and abstract ('Enhanced by Interfacial Effect') present a stronger causal claim than the data support. The authors should either temper the causal language or provide a控

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the title and abstract present a causal claim stronger than what the data rigorously support. The data show a correlation between the CT region and the enhanced insulating state, but we cannot definitively attribute the enhancement to the superlattice Coulomb potential mechanism without additional evidence (e.g., dependence on CT strength, twist-angle comparison, or theoretical modeling). We will temper the causal language in the title and abstract. Specifically, we will change the title to use 'Associated with' or 'Correlated with' rather than 'Enhanced by,' and we will revise the abstract to state that the enhanced insulating state is observed in the CT region and that the superlattice Coulomb potential is a candidate mechanism, while explicitly noting that a direct causal link is not established. We will retain the discussion of both candidate mechanisms and the statement that further experiments are needed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: experimental observations are directly measured, and the g-factor extraction is a standard linear fit, not a self-referential construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on direct experimental measurements (resistance maps, Landau fan diagrams, temperature-dependent gaps) that do not reduce to fitted inputs by construction. The g-factors (18.1 and 11.8) are extracted from slopes of thermal activation gap versus magnetic field — a standard Arrhenius analysis, not a circular definition. The charge-transfer mechanism is attributed via citations to prior work (Refs 11, 12, 16), but these are invoked as interpretive context, not as load-bearing premises that define the experimental results. While Refs 11, 12, and 16 share some authors with the present paper (J.-H. Chen appears on Refs 12 and 16), the cited works provide independent theoretical and experimental support for charge-transfer-induced superlattice Coulomb potentials in graphene/CrOCl systems, and the present paper's conclusions do not logically depend on those citations being true — the resistance enhancement and g-factor difference are measured directly. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the mechanism is not definitively established ('further experiments are needed'), which is a mark of scientific honesty rather than circular reasoning. The confound between displacement field and charge-transfer region (D=0.26 vs D=0.5 V/nm) is a correctness risk for the causal attribution, not a circularity issue. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by definition or by self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or postulated entities. The charge-transfer superlattice potential mechanism is borrowed from prior theoretical work (Ref 16, Lu et al.). The free parameters are experimental offsets and fitting choices standard in transport measurements, though the post-hoc fitting window selection for g-factor extraction is a concern.

free parameters (4)
  • n_0
    Offset carrier density accounting for residual doping, used in the definition of n in the charge-transfer region (Appendix B). Not explicitly reported.
  • D_0
    Offset displacement field, used in the definition of D in the charge-transfer region (Appendix B). Not explicitly reported.
  • twist angle = ~1.1 degrees
    Extracted from Brown-Zak oscillation minima; stated as approximate. Affects moiré band structure and correlated state positions.
  • Arrhenius fitting window
    The magnetic field range for g-factor extraction is chosen post-hoc: 'We chose the fitting windows for the valley-polarized gap within the range of magnetic field where the gap is developing and the valley polarization is dominant.'
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The enhanced insulating state at ~20 T is the same half-filling state observed at zero field, reentrant at high field.
    Stated in Section II: 'this insulating state is demonstrated as the half-filling state measured at zero field before, which reoccurs at ultrahigh field.' This identification is made by tracking the resistance peak position across the Landau fan diagram but is not independently confirmed by a separate measurement.
  • domain assumption The charge-transfer boundary in the dual-gate map separates regions with and without charge transfer to CrOCl.
    The red dashed line in Fig 1(c) defines this boundary qualitatively based on the bending of resistance strips. No quantitative criterion for the boundary location is given.
  • domain assumption The g-factor extraction from the linear slope of gap vs. B field reflects valley polarization of the correlated state.
    The linear fit of Δ vs B is interpreted as a g-factor, assuming the Zeeman-like splitting dominates in the chosen field window. The fitting window is selected where 'valley polarization is dominant,' which is itself an assumption about the ground state.
  • ad hoc to paper Comparing D=0.26 V/nm and D=0.5 V/nm isolates the charge-transfer effect.
    These two displacement fields correspond to regions inside and outside the charge-transfer boundary, but different D values independently modify TDBG band structure. The paper does not control for this confound.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 13344 in / 3147 out tokens · 461891 ms · 2026-07-08T03:58:49.477287+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Interaction between different two dimensional materials can give rise to many exotic physical phenomena which are rarely observed in intrinsic materials. Recently, several theoretical and experimental works have revealed that magnetic proximity effect between pristine graphene and magnetic substrates can lead to the emergence of quantum anomalous Hall states and quantum spin Hall states. However, interplay between correlated states in graphene-based systems and magnetic materials has seldom been studied. Here we perform the transport measurement at ultrahigh magnetic field of twisted double bilayer graphene (TDBG) on CrOCl (COC) substrate, which is an antiferromagnetic material. Instead of a magnetic-exchange effect on graphene, we observe an enhanced correlated insulating state at half-filling factor of TDBG as a result of the charge-transfer process between TDBG and COC. The temperature and magnetic field dependence of this enhanced state are further studied. Our results demonstrate the influence of charge-related effect at the interface, and shed a light on a new route for manipulating the correlated states in graphene-based moir\'e systems using interfacial engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06492 by Chiara Cocchi, Jian-Hao Chen, Kenji Watanabe, Maarten van Delft, Maurice Bal, Mitali Banerjee, Ning Ma, Steffen Wiedmann, Takashi Taniguchi, Zekang Zhou.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Charge transfer-enhanced correlated states at half [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Electrical measurement of TDBG-COC heterostruc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Valley polarized correlated insulating state at half [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Zoom-in Landau fan diagram measured at 0.6 K, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Zoom-in Landau fan diagram measured at 4.2 K, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.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

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Z. Qiao, S. A. Yang, W. Feng, W.-K. Tse, J. Ding, Y. Yao, J. Wang, and Q. Niu, Quantum anomalous Hall effect in graphene from Rashba and exchange effects, Physical Review B82, 161414 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Z. Qiao, W. Ren, H. Chen, L. Bellaiche, Z. Zhang, A. MacDonald, and Q. Niu, Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in Graphene Proximity Coupled to an Antiferro- magnetic Insulator, Physical Review Letters112, 116404 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Zhang, B

    J. Zhang, B. Zhao, Y. Yao, and Z. Yang, Robust quantum anomalous Hall effect in graphene-based van der Waals heterostructures, Physical Review B92, 165418 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    H¨ ogl, T

    P. H¨ ogl, T. Frank, K. Zollner, D. Kochan, M. Gmi- tra, and J. Fabian, Quantum Anomalous Hall Effects in Graphene from Proximity-Induced Uniform and Stag- gered Spin-Orbit and Exchange Coupling, Physical Re- view Letters124, 136403 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Quantum Spin Hall Effect in Graphene, Physical Review Letters95, 226801 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    T. P. Kaloni, L. Kou, T. Frauenheim, and U. Schwingen- schl¨ ogl, Quantum spin Hall states in graphene interacting with WS2 or WSe2, Applied Physics Letters105, 233112 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Hatsuda, H

    K. Hatsuda, H. Mine, T. Nakamura, J. Li, R. Wu, S. Kat- sumoto, and J. Haruyama, Evidence for a quantum spin Hall phase in graphene decorated with Bi 2Te3 nanopar- ticles, Science Advances4, eaau6915 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    T. S. Ghiasi, D. Petrosyan, J. Ingla-Ayn´ es, T. Bras, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Ma˜ nas-Valero, E. Coro- nado, K. Zollner, J. Fabian, P. Kim, and H. S. J. v. d. Zant, Quantum Spin Hall Effect in Magnetic Graphene (2024), arXiv:2312.07515 [cond-mat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    C. Tang, Z. Zhang, S. Lai, Q. Tan, and W.-b. Gao, Magnetic Proximity Effect in Graphene/CrBr 3 van der Waals Heterostructures, Advanced Materials32, 1908498 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Tseng, T

    C.-C. Tseng, T. Song, Q. Jiang, Z. Lin, C. Wang, J. Suh, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. A. McGuire, D. Xiao, J.-H. Chu, D. H. Cobden, X. Xu, and M. Yankowitz, Gate-Tunable Proximity Effects in Graphene on Layered Magnetic Insulators, Nano Letters22, 8495 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Y. Wang, X. Gao, K. Yang, P. Gu, X. Lu, S. Zhang, Y. Gao, N. Ren, B. Dong, Y. Jiang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Kang, W. Lou, J. Mao, J. Liu, Y. Ye, Z. Han, K. Chang, J. Zhang, and Z. Zhang, Quantum Hall phase in graphene engineered by interfacial charge coupling, Nature Nanotechnology17, 1272 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    K. Yang, X. Gao, Y. Wang, T. Zhang, Y. Gao, X. Lu, S. Zhang, J. Liu, P. Gu, Z. Luo, R. Zheng, S. Cao, H. Wang, X. Sun, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Li, J. Zhang, X. Dai, J.-H. Chen, Y. Ye, and Z. Han, Unconventional correlated insulator in CrOCl-interfaced Bernal bilayer graphene, Nature Communications14, 2136 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    B. Yang, B. Bhujel, D. G. Chica, E. J. Telford, X. Roy, F. Ibrahim, M. Chshiev, M. Cosset-Ch´ eneau, and B. J. v. Wees, Electrostatically controlled spin polarization in Graphene-CrSBr magnetic proximity heterostructures, Nature Communications15, 4459 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Y. Wu, G. Yin, L. Pan, A. J. Grutter, Q. Pan, A. Lee, D. A. Gilbert, J. A. Borchers, W. Ratcliff, A. Li, X.- d. Han, and K. L. Wang, Large exchange splitting in monolayer graphene magnetized by an antiferromagnet, Nature Electronics3, 604 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    X. Yi, Q. Chen, K. Wang, Y. Yu, Y. Yan, X. Jiang, C. Yan, and S. Wang, Exploring the interfacial coupling between graphene and the antiferromagnetic insulator MnPSe3, Physical Review B108, 125427 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    X. Lu, S. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Gao, K. Yang, Z. Guo, Y. Gao, Y. Ye, Z. Han, and J. Liu, Synergistic corre- lated states and nontrivial topology in coupled graphene- insulator heterostructures, Nature Communications14, 5550 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

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

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Serlin, C

    M. Serlin, C. L. Tschirhart, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Balents, and A. F. Young, Intrinsic quantized anomalous Hall effect in a moir´ e het- erostructure, Science367, 900 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Polshyn, J

    H. Polshyn, J. Zhu, M. A. Kumar, Y. Zhang, F. Yang, C. L. Tschirhart, M. Serlin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. H. MacDonald, and A. F. Young, Electrical switching of magnetic order in an orbital Chern insulator, Nature 588, 66 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    S. Xu, M. M. Al Ezzi, N. Balakrishnan, A. Garcia-Ruiz, B. Tsim, C. Mullan, J. Barrier, N. Xin, B. A. Piot, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. Carvalho, A. Mishchenko, A. K. Geim, V. I. Fal’ko, S. Adam, A. H. C. Neto, K. S. Novoselov, and Y. Shi, Tunable van Hove singular- ities and correlated states in twisted monolayer–bilayer graphene, Nature Physics17, 619 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    S.-y. Li, Z. Wang, Y. Xue, Y. Wang, S. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H.-j. Gao, Y. Jiang, and J. Mao, Imaging topological and correlated insulat- ing states in twisted monolayer-bilayer graphene, Nature Communications13, 4225 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Tseng, X

    C.-C. Tseng, X. Ma, Z. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J.-H. Chu, and M. Yankowitz, Anomalous Hall effect at half filling in twisted bilayer graphene, Nature Physics 18, 1038 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Zhang, T

    C. Zhang, T. Zhu, S. Kahn, S. Li, B. Yang, C. Herbig, X. Wu, H. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Cabrini, A. Zettl, M. P. Zaletel, F. Wang, and M. F. Crom- mie, Visualizing delocalized correlated electronic states 6 in twisted double bilayer graphene, Nature Communica- tions12, 2516 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    G. W. Burg, J. Zhu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. H. MacDonald, and E. Tutuc, Correlated Insulating States in Twisted Double Bilayer Graphene, Physical Review Letters123, 197702 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Y. Cao, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies-Bigorda, J. M. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Tunable correlated states and spin-polarized phases in twisted bilayer–bilayer graphene, Nature583, 215 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Saito, J

    Y. Saito, J. Ge, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. F. Young, Independent superconductors and correlated in- sulators in twisted bilayer graphene, Nature Physics16, 926 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    X. Liu, Z. Hao, E. Khalaf, J. Y. Lee, Y. Ronen, H. Yoo, D. Haei Najafabadi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vish- wanath, and P. Kim, Tunable spin-polarized correlated states in twisted double bilayer graphene, Nature583, 221 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    M. He, Y. Li, J. Cai, Y. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Xu, and M. Yankowitz, Symmetry breaking in twisted double bilayer graphene, Nature Physics17, 26 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    L. Liu, S. Zhang, Y. Chu, C. Shen, Y. Huang, Y. Yuan, J. Tian, J. Tang, Y. Ji, R. Yang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Shi, J. Liu, W. Yang, and G. Zhang, Isospin competitions and valley polarized correlated in- sulators in twisted double bilayer graphene, Nature Com- munications13, 3292 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Y. Wang, G. W. Burg, B. Lian, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. A. Bernevig, and E. Tutuc, Emer- gent Symmetry and Valley Chern Insulator in Twisted Double-Bilayer Graphene, Physical Review Letters133, 246401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Koshino, Band structure and topological properties of twisted double bilayer graphene, Physical Review B 99, 235406 (2019)

    M. Koshino, Band structure and topological properties of twisted double bilayer graphene, Physical Review B 99, 235406 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    N. R. Chebrolu, B. L. Chittari, and J. Jung, Flat bands in twisted double bilayer graphene, Physical Review B 99, 235417 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Zhang, Y

    T. Zhang, Y. Wang, H. Li, F. Zhong, J. Shi, M. Wu, Z. Sun, W. Shen, B. Wei, W. Hu, X. Liu, L. Huang, C. Hu, Z. Wang, C. Jiang, S. Yang, Q.-m. Zhang, and Z. Qu, Magnetism and Optical Anisotropy in van der Waals Antiferromagnetic Insulator CrOCl, ACS Nano 13, 11353 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    P. Gu, Y. Sun, C. Wang, Y. Peng, Y. Zhu, X. Cheng, K. Yuan, C. Lyu, X. Liu, Q. Tan, Q. Zhang, L. Gu, Z. Wang, H. Wang, Z. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Yang, J. Zhang, W. Ji, P.-H. Tan, and Y. Ye, Mag- netic Phase Transitions and Magnetoelastic Coupling in a Two-Dimensional Stripy Antiferromagnet, Nano Let- ters22, 1233 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Zhang, Q

    M. Zhang, Q. Hu, Y. Huang, C. Hua, M. Cheng, Z. Liu, S. Song, F. Wang, H. Lu, P. He, G.-H. Cao, Z.-A. Xu, Y. Lu, J. Yang, and Y. Zheng, Spin-Lattice Coupled Metamagnetism in Frustrated van der Waals Magnet CrOCl, Small19, 2300964 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Barrier, P

    J. Barrier, P. Kumaravadivel, R. Krishna Kumar, L. A. Ponomarenko, N. Xin, M. Holwill, C. Mullan, M. Kim, R. V. Gorbachev, M. D. Thompson, J. R. Prance, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, I. V. Grigorieva, K. S. Novoselov, A. Mishchenko, V. I. Fal’ko, A. K. Geim, and A. I. Berdyugin, Long-range ballistic transport of Brown- Zak fermions in graphene superlattices,...

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Huber, M.-N

    R. Huber, M.-N. Steffen, M. Drienovsky, A. Sandner, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Pfannkuche, D. Weiss, and J. Eroms, Band conductivity oscillations in a gate- tunable graphene superlattice, Nature Communications 13, 2856 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    I. Das, C. Shen, A. Jaoui, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, A. Chew, C.-W. Cho, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. A. Piot, B. A. Bernevig, and D. K. Efetov, Observation of Reentrant Correlated Insulators and Interaction-Driven Fermi-Surface Reconstructions at One Magnetic Flux Quantum per Moir´ e Unit Cell in Magic-Angle Twisted Bilayer Graphene, Physical Review Letters1...

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, A

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, A. Chew, D. K. Efetov, and B. A. Bernevig, Reentrant Correlated Insulators in Twisted Bi- layer Graphene at 25 T (2pi Flux), Physical Review Let- ters129, 076401 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Cardoso, A

    C. Cardoso, A. T. Costa, A. H. MacDonald, and J. Fern´ andez-Rossier, Strong magnetic proximity effect in van der Waals heterostructures driven by direct hy- bridization, Physical Review B108, 184423 (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Shi and A

    J. Shi and A. H. MacDonald, Magnetic states of graphene proximitized Kitaev materials, Physical Review B108, 064401 (2023). Acknowledgements We thank J.P.Liu for helpful discussions. We ac- knowledge the support of the HFML, member of the European Magnetic Field Laboratory (EMFL). M.B. ac- knowledges the support of SNSF (Eccellenza Grant No. PCEGP2 194528...

    work page 2023