Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Buckling and flat bands in twisted bilayer graphene

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Periodically buckled twisted bilayer graphene can have flatter low-energy bands than pristine TBG over a wide range of twist angles, with flatness comparable to pristine magic-angle TBG.

desk verdict A careful, honest tight-binding study showing buckling can flatten TBG bands away from the magic angle; the main caveat is the fixed-interlayer-distance approximation, which the authors acknowledge but do not test. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.13471 v1 pith:7GK2EGZX submitted 2025-10-15 cond-mat.mes-hall

Jannes van Poppelen , Annica M. Black-Schaffer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords twistedbilayergrapheneflatbandsbucklingpseudomagneticfieldmagicangledensityofstatesinversionsymmetrybreakingmoiresuperlattice
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

Twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) is famous for narrow 'flat bands' at a magic twist angle, where interactions can produce superconductivity and other correlated states. This paper asks whether adding a periodic out-of-plane buckle — already known to flatten monolayer graphene — can also flatten TBG. The central claim is that buckled TBG can exhibit flatter bands than pristine TBG over a wide range of twist angles, with a low-energy density of states comparable to pristine magic-angle TBG. Because the buckle is continuously tunable, this would make flat-band physics accessible away from the magic angle and robust to twist-angle disorder. The paper also finds that at the magic angle itself the two flattening mechanisms compete rather than add: buckling polarizes the sublattices, while moiré confinement prefers to keep them balanced.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the empirical periodic pseudomagnetic field B(r) = B0 Σ_i cos(b_i · (r − r0)), translated into lattice hopping modulations δt_i = −(√3 e v_F / 2π) L_m B0 sin(b_i · (r − r0)) on each layer. This field preserves time-reversal symmetry but couples oppositely to the two valleys, thereby breaking sublattice symmetry and, together with the twist, inversion symmetry. It localizes electrons near the buckle while interlayer hopping lowers their in-plane kinetic energy; the same construction is used to compare monolayer, AA, AB, and twisted bilayers on equal footing. The quantitative probe is the integrated density of states within a ±27 meV window, used as a proxy for the f

What would settle it

Measure the low-energy tunneling spectra of TBG at twist angles between roughly 1.3° and 2° on a buckled substrate as a function of buckling strength. If no Dirac-point gap opens and the integrated low-energy density of states does not roughly double relative to pristine TBG at the same angle, the paper's central claim fails. A clean numeric falsifier: at fixed LmB0, the IDOS enhancement should track the buckling strength and be largest around 1.5–1.9°, not at the magic angle.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors model periodic buckling through the pseudomagnetic field it generates, implemented as spatially varying intralayer nearest-neighbor hopping modulations in an atomistic tight-binding model of TBG. They report three connected results: (1) in large-angle TBG, buckling flattens the low-energy bands more than in monolayer graphene, because interlayer coupling enhances localization and because the twist plus buckle breaks inversion symmetry and opens a Dirac-point gap; (2) at the magic angle, buckling-induced sublattice polarization competes with twist-induced flattening, so the moiré bands become more dispersive instead of flatter, while a series of higher-energy isolated bands emerge

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on modeling a buckle purely as intralayer hopping modulations derived from an empirical pseudomagnetic field, while keeping atoms in unrelaxed positions and the interlayer distance strictly constant; if real buckling also changes interlayer coupling or local stacking, the predicted gap and density-of-states enhancements could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claims hold, buckled TBG is a continuously tunable flat-band platform: changing buckling strength adjusts the low-energy density of states without retwisting the sample.
  • At non-magic angles (roughly 1.3°–2°), buckled TBG can reach an integrated density of states comparable to pristine magic-angle TBG, so correlated phases predicted for magic-angle TBG may be reachable at other twist angles.
  • Because the effect persists over a range of twist angles, buckled TBG is substantially less sensitive to twist-angle disorder than pristine TBG.
  • Buckling at the magic angle does not produce even flatter moiré bands; it widens them, so the two mechanisms cannot be combined additively to beat the magic angle.
  • The higher-energy isolated flat bands, with bandwidths reduced by factors of 2–3 relative to buckled monolayer graphene, could serve as hosts for interaction-driven states even when the low-energy moiré bands are not used.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not say this, but the competition implies that any sublattice-symmetry-breaking strain pattern will tend to fight moiré flattening; symmetric strain fields would be a more promising route to beat the magic angle.
  • A direct experimental checkpoint: STM/STS on buckled TBG near 2° should show a Dirac-point gap and a low-energy tunneling conductance increased by roughly a factor of two relative to unbuckled TBG.
  • The model assumes identical buckles in both layers; a relaxed-atom simulation with real out-of-plane displacements would test whether interlayer coupling changes shift the predicted gap and integrated density of states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the combined effect of periodic buckling and twisting in bilayer graphene, using atomistic tight-binding calculations with a Slater–Koster parametrization and an intralayer hopping modulation derived from an empirical pseudomagnetic-field profile. It reports three main results: (i) for large twist angles (e.g., θ = 3.15°), buckling flattens the low-energy bands more effectively than in monolayer graphene, due to interlayer coupling and the opening of a Dirac-point gap from inversion-symmetry breaking; (ii) at the magic angle, buckling-induced band flattening competes with twist-induced flattening because buckling breaks sublattice symmetry, so the flat bands become more dispersive rather than flatter; (iii) at intermediate twist angles, buckling can more than double the integrated density of states (IDOS) near zero energy, and for certain parameters buckled TBG approaches or slightly exceeds the IDOS of pristine magic-angle TBG, making it less sensitive to twist-angle disorder. The conclusions are based on exact diagonalization across a range of twist angles and buckling strengths, with data and code deposited.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper establishes buckled twisted bilayer graphene as a tunable flat-band platform and identifies a new mechanism—Dirac-point gap opening via inversion-symmetry breaking under combined twist and buckling—that is absent in both monolayer graphene and untwisted bilayers. The work also makes a quantitative, falsifiable prediction that buckling can increase the low-energy IDOS by more than a factor of two away from the magic angle. The strengths include the use of a documented atomistic model with no fitted parameters for the target results, exact diagonalization, openly deposited code and data, and a clear symmetry-based interpretation of the numerical findings. The main caveat is that the buckling model is implemented only through intralayer hopping modulations, with the interlayer coupling held fixed; the authors explicitly acknowledge this limitation but do not test its robustness.

major comments (1)
  1. [II B / Eq. (7)] The buckling model is entirely encoded in the intralayer δt_i, with the interlayer Slater–Koster hopping t⊥ (Eq. 2) held constant by assuming identical buckles in each layer. The text explicitly states that “the deformation fields that generate the PMF are unknown” and that “we cannot directly modify the atomic positions.” This assumption is load-bearing for the central claims: in TBG, the flat bands and their flattening are controlled by interlayer hybridization. A real out-of-plane corrugation will change the local interlayer distance d0, and because t⊥ ∼ exp(−Δd/λ) with λ ≈ 0.26 Å, a 0.1 Å variation changes interlayer hopping by roughly 30%. The quantitative predictions—the IDOS enhancement in Fig. 6(a) and the statement in Sec. V that buckled TBG can rival pristine magic-angle TBG—are derived under this unvalidated assumption. I request a robustness check (for example, adding an inte
minor comments (5)
  1. [V / Fig. 6] The arrow indicating the IDOS of pristine magic-angle TBG is not defined in the caption; please add a legend or explicit label. Also specify exactly which twist angles and BM values are used for the curves, and clarify whether the “wide range” refers only to the 1.2°–1.9° window or also includes the 3.15° case.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A1)] The last term in the second line, “−α3b3,x cos(b2·r)”, appears to contain an index inconsistency (likely b3,y is intended). Please check and correct the expression.
  3. [II A] “Sixth-order nearest-neighbors” is imprecise; give the real-space cutoff radius for the interlayer hopping interactions.
  4. [II B] In Eq. (7), after “setting ℏ = 1”, B0 is in Tesla while δti is in eV; state the unit conversion factor explicitly so the reader can reproduce the hopping amplitudes.
  5. [IV] “describing the system in terms of moiré physics becomes unfitting” — consider “inappropriate” or “inadequate” for clearer formal prose.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: buckling enters as an externally anchored PMF/hopping input, and the band-flattening, gap, sublattice polarization, and IDOS results are independent computed outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from a standard Slater-Koster TBG Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1-2) with literature parameters and validates it against the known pristine magic-angle band structure (Fig. 1). Buckling enters only through the in-plane hopping modulations of Eq. 7, which are derived in Appendix A from the empirical PMF profile of Eq. 6 and the delta_t_i = alpha_i sin(b_i dot r) ansatz of Refs. [17-20]; B0 and r0 are model control parameters, not fitted to the outputs. The main claims—Dirac-point gap opening via inversion-symmetry breaking, sublattice polarization, competition between twist- and buckle-induced flattening, and the factor-of-two IDOS enhancement—are consequences of diagonalizing this Hamiltonian and are compared with the same model's un-buckled TBG and monolayer graphene limits. The IDOS energy window (Delta_EU = ±27 meV) is fixed from the projected Coulomb scale before scanning and is checked against 20 and 30 meV, so it is not chosen to force the flatness result. Self-citations (Refs. [6,36]) support the interlayer parameterization and a defect analogy, but the model is also anchored by external references and by the in-paper pristine TBG spectrum; no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation. The explicitly stated limitations—unknown deformation fields for Eq. 6 and the constant-interlayer-distance/identical-buckle assumption—are modeling caveats about physical validity, not circular reductions of the results to the inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its explanatory machinery is drawn from established TBG tight-binding models and the empirical buckled-monolayer pseudomagnetic-field construction. The free parameters are all control or comparison choices (B0, r0, ΔEU, LmB0 convention), not fitted to the target results.

free parameters (4)
  • PMF strength B0 = 0-250 T (large angle), 0-50 T (magic angle)
    Buckling strength control knob, set by hand across experimentally plausible ranges; not fitted to data. Central to all claims.
  • Equivalent buckling convention LmB0 = LmB0 = LM*BM with BM up to 50 T
    The authors hold the product LmB0 constant across twist angles to ensure similar hopping modulations; this is a comparison convention that affects quantitative IDOS maps.
  • IDOS energy window |ΔEU| = 27 meV ([-5,5]×10^-3 t0)
    Chosen to match the projected Coulomb interaction scale in TBG (20-30 meV). The IDOS-based flatness claims depend on this choice, though the authors check extremal values.
  • Buckle center r0 = 0 (AA-centered), with AB-centered case in Sec. IV
    The main results use a buckle centered in the AA-stacked region; the AB-centered case changes details but not the qualitative competition.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Slater-Koster distance-dependent hopping parameterization (Eq. 2) with t0=2.7 eV, t⊥=0.48 eV, λ=0.184ac
    Background TBG model cited to Refs 6,35,36,38; the central results inherit its magic-angle calibration.
  • domain assumption Strain-induced pseudomagnetic-field description (Eq. 5) and ansatz δti = αi sin(bi·r)
    Standard low-energy gauge-field description of strained graphene, used to convert the empirical PMF into hopping modulations.
  • domain assumption Empirical PMF profile B(r) = B0 Σ cos(bi·(r−r0)) (Eq. 6)
    Taken from the buckled-graphene literature (Refs 17-20); not derived from a specific atomic displacement field in this paper. This is the load-bearing input for all buckling effects.
  • domain assumption Identical buckles in both layers keep interlayer distance constant; atomic relaxation neglected
    Stated in Sec. II B. This protects the interlayer Slater-Koster term from buckling-induced changes and ignores relaxation known to renormalize the magic angle.
  • standard math C2zT symmetry protects Dirac-point degeneracy, and twisting plus buckling breaks inversion symmetry
    Symmetry argument used in Sec. III to explain the gap; relies on standard graphene point-group analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Buckling and flat bands in twisted bilayer graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7GK2EGZX

@misc{pith2026251013471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Buckling and flat bands in twisted bilayer graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7GK2EGZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.13471}
}
read the original abstract

Magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) with its flat bands provides a rich platform for exploring emergent electronic orders. Similarly, periodically buckled monolayer graphene has been proposed as a tunable alternative for realizing flat bands. Here, we investigate the combined effect of buckling and twisting in bilayer graphene. We find that periodic buckling in large-angle TBG initially enhances band flattening compared to monolayer graphene, but for sufficiently strong buckling, it instead increases the band dispersion. This occurs both because of the presence of interlayer coupling, which reduces the in-plane kinetic energy, and due to the opening of a gap at the Dirac point resulting from inversion-symmetry breaking. Additionally, we find that buckling-induced band flattening competes with twist-induced band flattening. While the former breaks sublattice symmetry, generating a sublattice polarization, the latter prefers to preserve it. This prevents buckling from generating even flatter bands at the magic angle. Nevertheless, we find that buckled TBG can exhibit flatter bands than pristine TBG over a wide range of twist angles, with a flatness similar to that of pristine magic-angle TBG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Band structure of magic-angle TBG (a), with zoom-in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Low-energy band structure of buckled monolayer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Low-energy band structure for pristine and buckled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Low-energy band structures (a-c) and corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. IDOS as a function of twist angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Low-energy band structure of pristine (a) and buckle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We identify 3 x y (c) Γ K K ′ Γ E [10 − 3t0] − 50 0 50 (a) x y AA AA AA AA AB BA (d) Γ K K′ Γ − 5 0 5 (b) 0 1 2 nm [10 − 3 e/site] − 3 2B0 0 3B0B(r) FIG

    and focus on the low energy region. We identify 3 x y (c) Γ K K ′ Γ E [10 − 3t0] − 50 0 50 (a) x y AA AA AA AA AB BA (d) Γ K K′ Γ − 5 0 5 (b) 0 1 2 nm [10 − 3 e/site] − 3 2B0 0 3B0B(r) FIG. 1. Band structure of magic-angle TBG (a), with zoom-in on moir´ e bands highlighted in red (b), charge density of the moir´ e bands (c), and the buckling-induced PMF o...

  2. [2]

    For substrate-induced buckling, this should be a good first approximation

    remains valid. For substrate-induced buckling, this should be a good first approximation. Taken together, we employ Eq. (

  3. [3]

    2(a) and the untwisted bilayers Fig

    In both monolayer graphene Fig. 2(a) and the untwisted bilayers Fig. 3(a,b), the Dirac points remain protected by com- bined C2zT symmetry [ 49], where the z-axis is defined perpendicular to the two graphene sheets. The induced PMF couples with opposite sign to the two valleys in graphene. This breaks the sublattice symmetry and in- duces a spatially inhom...

  4. [4]

    To investigate the effect of buckling on the electronic structure of magic-angle TBG, we plot in Fig

    We first choose to center the buckle in the AA-stacked region r0 = 0, with the idea to enhance the electron confinement that is already there from twisting, but later also center the buckle in the AB-stacked region, which, at the magic angle, has a negligible charge density [ 35]. To investigate the effect of buckling on the electronic structure of magic-ang...

    2020

  5. [5]

    M. Oh, K. P. Nuckolls, D. Wong, R. L. Lee, X. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. Yazdani, Evidence for unconventional superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Nature 600, 240 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Tseng, X

    C.-C. Tseng, X. Ma, Z. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J.-H. Chu, and M. Yankowitz, Anomalous hall ef- fect at half filling in twisted bilayer graphene, Nat. Phys. 18, 1038 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    ( 1) from large twist angles, down to the magic angle

    to introduce con- trolled periodic buckling in TBG given in Eq. ( 1) from large twist angles, down to the magic angle. We aim to investigate how buckling interacts with the moir´ e physics of TBG, especially focusing on possibilities to flatten the low-energy bands. To estimate that we are in the cor- rect parameter ranges, we compute the maximum modu- lat...

  8. [8]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, et al. , Correlated insulator be- haviour at half-filling in magic-angle graphene superlat- tices, Nature 556, 80 (2018)

    2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional su- perconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Yankowitz, S

    M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Tuning superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Science 363, 1059 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    L¨ othman, J

    T. L¨ othman, J. Schmidt, F. Parhizgar, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Nematic superconductivity in magic- angle twisted bilayer graphene from atomistic modeling, Nat. Commun. 5, 92 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Y. Cao, D. Chowdhury, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies- Bigorda, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Senthil, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Strange metal in magic- angle graphene with near planckian dissipation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 076801 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    K. P. Nuckolls, M. Oh, D. Wong, B. Lian, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Strongly correlated chern insulators in magic-angle twisted bilaye r graphene, Nature 588, 610 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Su´ arez Morell, J

    E. Su´ arez Morell, J. Correa, P. Vargas, M. Pacheco, and Z. Barticevic, Flat bands in slightly twisted bilayer graphene: Tight-binding calculations, Phys. Rev. B 82, 121407 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Moir´ e bands in twisted double-layer graphene, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 108, 12233 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Tarnopolsky, A

    G. Tarnopolsky, A. J. Kruchkov, and A. Vishwanath, Origin of magic angles in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 106405 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    L. A. Gonzalez-Arraga, J. Lado, F. Guinea, and P. San- Jose, Electrically controllable magnetism in twisted bi- layer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 107201 (2017) . 11

    2017

  10. [18]

    T. M. Wolf, J. L. Lado, G. Blatter, and O. Zilberberg, Electrically tunable flat bands and magnetism in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 096802 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    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, Nature 583, 215 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Guinea, M

    F. Guinea, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. Geim, Energy gaps and a zero-field quantum hall effect in graphene by strain engineering, Nat. Phys. 6, 30 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    N. Levy, S. Burke, K. Meaker, M. Panlasigui, A. Zettl, F. Guinea, A. C. Neto, and M. F. Crommie, Strain- induced pseudo–magnetic fields greater than 300 tesla in graphene nanobubbles, Science 329, 544 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Mao et al

    J. Mao et al. , Evidence of flat bands and cor- related states in buckled graphene superlattices, Nature 584, 215 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Milovanovi´ c, M

    S. Milovanovi´ c, M. Andjelkovi´ c, L. Covaci, and F. Peeters, Band flattening in buckled monolayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 102, 245427 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    A. L. Manesco, J. L. Lado, E. V. Ribeiro, G. We- ber, and D. Rodrigues Jr, Correlations in the elas- tic landau level of spontaneously buckled graphene, 2D Mater. 8, 015011 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    A. L. Manesco and J. L. Lado, Correlation-induced valley topology in buckled graphene superlattices, 2D Mater. 8, 035057 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    S. K. Jain, V. Juriˇ ci´ c, and G. T. Barkema, Structure of twisted and buckled bilayer graphene, 2D Mater. 4, 015018 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Rakib, P

    T. Rakib, P. Pochet, E. Ertekin, and H. T. Johnson, Corrugation-driven symmetry breaking in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene, Nat. Commun. 5, 242 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    J. Wang, A. Khosravi, A. Silva, M. Fabrizio, A. Vanossi, and E. Tosatti, Bending stiffness collapse, buckling, topo- logical bands of freestanding twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 108, L081407 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Wang and E

    J. Wang and E. Tosatti, Universal moir´ e buckling of freestanding 2D bilayers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 121, e2418390121 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Soares, R

    G. Soares, R. R. Barreto, R. Nadas, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. C. Campos, L. G. Cancado, and A. Malachias, Anisotropic strain observation in naturally occurring buckling on twisted bilayer graphene: A nano- raman study, J. Phys. Chem. C 129, 7508 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    N. P. Kazmierczak, M. Van Winkle, C. Ophus, K. C. Bustillo, S. Carr, H. G. Brown, J. Ciston, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and D. K. Bediako, Strain fields in twisted bilayer graphene, Nat. Mater. 20, 956 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    N. N. Nam and M. Koshino, Lattice relaxation and energy band modulation in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075311 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Lucignano, D

    P. Lucignano, D. Alf` e, V. Cataudella, D. Ninno, and G. Cantele, Crucial role of atomic corrugation on the flat bands and energy gaps of twisted bilayer graphene at the magic angle θ 1. 08 °, Phys. Rev. B 99, 195419 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Ho, C.-H

    S.-C. Ho, C.-H. Chang, Y.-C. Hsieh, S.-T. Lo, B. Huang, T.-H.-Y. Vu, C. Ortix, and T.-M. Chen, Hall effects in artificially corrugated bilayer graphene without breaking time-reversal symmetry, Nat. Electron. 4, 116 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Qiao, L.-J

    J.-B. Qiao, L.-J. Yin, and L. He, Twisted graphene bi- layer around the first magic angle engineered by heteros- train, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235402 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Huder, A

    L. Huder, A. Artaud, T. Le Quang, G. T. De Laissardi` ere, A. G. Jansen, G. Lapertot, C. Chapelier, and V. T. Re- nard, Electronic spectrum of twisted graphene layers un- der heterostrain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 156405 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Hou, Y.-X. Zhao, Z.-H. Guo, Y.- W. Liu, S.-Y. Li, Y.-N. Ren, Q.-F. Sun, and L. He, Correlation-induced valley splitting and or- bital magnetism in a strain-induced zero-energy flat- band in twisted bilayer graphene near the magic angle, Phys. Rev. B 102, 081403 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    S. Li, X. Shi, J. Li, C. He, T. Ouyang, C. Tang, and J. Zhong, Strain-induced flatbands in large-angle twisted bilayer graphene, J. Appl. Phys. 137 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    V. T. Phong and E. J. Mele, Boundary modes from pe- riodic magnetic and pseudomagnetic fields in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 176406 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Trambly de Laissardi` ere, D

    G. Trambly de Laissardi` ere, D. Mayou, and L. Magaud, Localization of dirac electrons in rotated graphene bilay- ers, Nano Lett. 10, 804 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Baldo, T

    L. Baldo, T. L¨ othman, P. Holmvall, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Defect-induced band restructur- ing and length scales in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 108, 125141 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    M. A. Vozmediano, M. Katsnelson, and F. Guinea, Gauge fields in graphene, Physics Reports 496, 109 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Moon and M

    P. Moon and M. Koshino, Optical absorption in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 87, 205404 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Shallcross, S

    S. Shallcross, S. Sharma, E. Kandelaki, and O. Pankra- tov, Electronic structure of turbostratic graphene, Phys. Rev. B 81, 165105 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    C. Si, Z. Sun, and F. Liu, Strain engineering of graphene: a review, Nanoscale 8, 3207 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    M. M. A. Ezzi, G. N. Pallewela, C. De Beule, E. Mele, and S. Adam, Analytical model for atomic relaxation in twisted moir´ e materials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 266201 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Analytical solu- tion for the relaxed atomic configuration of twisted bilayer graphene including heterostrain, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15154 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    E. Y. Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Graphene bilayers with a twist, Nat. Mater. 19, 1265 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    B. A. Bernevig, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault, and B. Lian, Twisted bilayer graphene. iii. in- teracting hamiltonian and exact symmetries, Phys. Rev. B 103, 205413 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Liu and B

    C.-X. Liu and B. A. Bernevig, Nodal nematic superconductivity in multiple flat-band systems, Phys. Rev. B 111, L020502 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Y. Hou, J. Zhou, M. Xue, M. Yu, Y. Han, Z. Zhang, and Y. Lu, Strain engineering of twisted bilayer graphene: The rise of strain-twistronics, Small , 2311185 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Moldovan, M

    D. Moldovan, M. Ramezani Masir, and F. Peeters, Elec- tronic states in a graphene flake strained by a gaussian bump, Phys. Rev. B 88, 035446 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Fujimoto, D

    M. Fujimoto, D. E. Parker, J. Dong, E. Khalaf, A. Vishwanath, and P. Ledwith, Higher vortexabil- ity: Zero-field realization of higher landau levels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 106502 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    H. C. Po, L. Zou, A. Vishwanath, and T. Senthil, Origin of mott insulating behavior and su- 12 perconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031089 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    M. Long, Z. Zhan, P. A. Pantale´ on, J. ´A. Silva- Guill´ en, F. Guinea, and S. Yuan, Electronic properties of twisted bilayer graphene suspended and encapsulated with hexagonal boron nitride, Phys. Rev. B 107, 115140 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    van Poppelen and A

    J. van Poppelen and A. M. Black-Schaffer, (2025), 10.5281/zenodo.17347584

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.