Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 43 references

Induced Zeeman effect of moir\'e surface states in topological insulators

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The orbital effect of a magnetic field induces an effective Zeeman term in moiré surface states, tilting the zeroth Landau level linearly with Bz.

desk verdict Clean analytic derivation of an orbital-induced Zeeman effect for moiré surface states, but the numerical support is in the wrong regime and leaves the central slope prediction untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04844 v1 pith:EKJTAEZV submitted 2025-07-07 cond-mat.mes-hall

Haijiao Ji , Noah F. Q. Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords inducedZeemaneffectmoirésurfacestatestopologicalinsulatorLandaulevelsorbitalDiracpointcouplingminimalzerothlevel
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

Surface electrons of a topological insulator can form moiré states when the top layer is rotationally misaligned, and these states host several Dirac points at the Brillouin-zone center. This paper shows that applying an out-of-plane magnetic field then produces more than the familiar orbital Landau quantization: through the non-commutativity of the minimal-coupling momenta, the coupling between coexisting Dirac points generates an effective Zeeman term in the low-energy Hamiltonian. The result is that the zeroth Landau level, which would otherwise stay pinned at the Dirac energy, tilts linearly with magnetic field, $E = E_0 - g_z B_z$. This matters because it makes the inter-Dirac-point coupling coefficients experimentally visible as a field-dependent shift of the $n=0$ level, with the slope $g_z$ computable from the band structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the projection (downfolding) of the full moiré Hamiltonian onto a single Dirac doublet, $H_{\rm eff}=H+V(E_0-H')^{-1}V^\dagger$, together with the minimal-coupling replacement $k\to\pi=k-eA/\hbar$ and the commutator $[\pi_\mu,\pi_\nu]=ie\hbar^{-1}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}B_\lambda$. The commutator is what converts the second-order-in-$\pi$ coupling correction into a zeroth-order Zeeman term; the g-factor formula (Eqs. 11 and 14) is the quantitative content, expressing $g_z$ as a sum over inter-Dirac-point coupling coefficients $V_l^{\alpha\beta}$ divided by energy separations $E_l-E_0$.

What would settle it

Measure the zeroth Landau level energy of a particle-hole-asymmetric moiré surface state versus out-of-plane field at weak field: the paper predicts $E=E_0-g_zB_z$; observing a flat, field-independent $n=0$ level, or a slope incompatible with Eq. (14), would rule out the induced-Zeeman mechanism. Alternatively, a tight-binding simulation at flux much smaller than one flux quantum per moiré cell should reproduce the analytic $g_z$; failure there would also falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a massless Dirac fermion in a periodic moiré potential, the paper writes the $\Gamma$-point Hamiltonian in the basis of Dirac doublets, $H_\Gamma = \begin{pmatrix} H & V \\ V^\dagger & H' \end{pmatrix}$, and projects onto the Dirac point at energy $E_0$. After minimal coupling $k\to\pi=k-eA/\hbar$, the correction $V(E_0-H')^{-1}V^\dagger$ is quadratic in $\pi$; using $[\pi_\mu,\pi_\nu]=ie\hbar^{-1}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}B_\lambda$, this quadratic form collapses to a zeroth-order spin-dependent term. The effective Hamiltonian becomes $H_{\rm eff}=E_0+\hbar v_0(\sigma\times\pi)\cdot\hat z + g_{\mu\nu}\sigma_\mu B_\nu$, with $g_{\mu\nu}$ given by a sum over the coupling coefficients $V_l^{\alpha\beta}$ and energy denominators $E_l-E_0$ (Eqs. 11 and 14). Under point group $C_{nv}$ the surviving term is $g_z\sigma_zB_z$, so the Landau levels are $E=E_0+\operatorname{sgn}(n)\sqrt{2ev_0^2|n|B_z\hbar+g_z^2B_z^2}$ and, for the zeroth level, $E=E_0-g_zB_z$. The paper also shows that a nonzero $g_z$ requires particle-hole asymmetry of the spectrum around $E_0$, so the square-lattice potential with only first harmonics gives $g_z=0$ whereas a triangular lattice or higher harmonics gives a finite tilt.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated in the paper's conclusion, is that the magnetic field is a weak perturbation to the moiré potential; if the field is strong enough that Landau quantization dominates over the superlattice potential, the downfolding to a Dirac doublet and the formula for $g_z$ no longer apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The zeroth Landau level of moiré surface states moves with out-of-plane magnetic field as $E_0 - g_zB_z$, giving a direct experimental signature of the induced Zeeman term.
  • A triangular moiré lattice, which breaks particle-hole symmetry of the first-harmonic square potential, should show a nonzero $g_z$, while a symmetric square lattice should not.
  • Only the out-of-plane component $B_z$ changes the Landau-level energies; in-plane components can be absorbed into a redefinition of the canonical momentum.
  • When the magnetic field becomes large compared with the moiré potential, the Landau levels are expected to broaden into Chern bands with finite bandwidth, beyond the perturbative regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the same commutator-based projection should generate an effective Zeeman-like term at any time-reversal-invariant momentum where multiple Dirac points coexist, so twisted surfaces of other Dirac semimetals may show a similar $B_z$ tilt of their zeroth level.
  • The slope $g_z$ could be used as a spectroscopic ruler: measuring the $n=0$ level shift as a function of $B_z$ extracts the inter-Dirac-point coupling coefficients $V_l^{\alpha\beta}$ that are otherwise hard to isolate.
  • The paper's tight-binding check uses a flux of $1/3$ flux quantum per moiré cell, where the magnetic field is not a weak perturbation; a quantitative test of Eq. (14) would need smaller flux, where the analytic perturbative formula should hold.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies moiré surface states of topological insulators in a magnetic field, modeled as a two-dimensional Dirac fermion in a periodic scalar potential with several Dirac points at the Γ point. Its central claim is that minimal coupling, combined with the noncommutativity of the canonical momentum [πμ,πν]=i(e/ℏ)εμνλBλ, converts the second-order downfolding correction V(E0−H′)−1V† into an effective spin-dependent term gμνσμBν in the projected Hamiltonian (Eqs. (7)–(11)). Symmetry reduction to the point group Cnv gives g∥(σxBx+σyBy)+gzσzBz (Eq. (12)), with gz expressed in terms of the inter-Dirac-point coupling matrices V_l^{αβ} and energies E_l (Eq. (14)). The physical consequence is that the zeroth Landau level of each moiré Dirac point, otherwise field-independent, disperses linearly as E = E0 − gzBz (Eq. (20)). The analytic part is followed by a tight-binding simulation of a three-dimensional BHZ slab with a Dirac-comb moiré potential on its top surface (Eqs. (22)–(25)), and by a brief symmetry classification of the Dirac doublets.

Significance. Assessed at face value, the mechanism is an elegant and physically interesting route to an orbital-field-induced spin splitting: the field enters through the commutator of the gauge-invariant momentum, and virtual inter-Dirac-point processes promote this orbital coupling to a spin-Zeeman term. The prediction is sharp and, in principle, falsifiable: the slope of the zeroth Landau level versus B is fixed by microscopic band-structure quantities (the V_l and E_l), and the tilt should be absent in particle-hole-symmetric moiré potentials. The Landau-level solution (Eqs. (15)–(20)) is transparent and internally consistent, and the choice of a three-dimensional lattice simulation rather than a two-dimensional tight-binding model is well motivated by the topological obstruction to purely two-dimensional surface models. The paper's strength lies in this clean, generic formulation. Its present weaknesses are that the central g-factor formula appears, on direct re-derivation, to carry an overall factor-of-two error, and that the numerical simulation is executed in a field regime where the theory's perturbative premise fails, so the headline prediction is not actually tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Tight-binding simulation (Eqs. (22)–(25); Fig. 1 caption)] The numerical simulation is performed at a magnetic flux of Φ0/3 per moiré unit cell (Fig. 1 caption), which gives a magnetic length l_B ≈ 0.69 L_m, comparable to the moiré period. In this regime the magnetic field is not a weak perturbation to the moiré potential, and the expansion behind Eq. (14), in which the field enters only through the commutator [πμ,πν] and the inter-Dirac-point coupling V is small relative to the energy separations E_l − E0, is uncontrolled; the paper itself identifies this as the opposite limit in the Conclusion ('When the magnetic field is large, the superlattice potential is instead a perturbation'). Because the simulation never evaluates Eq. (14) from zero-field eigenstates, never extracts gz from the slope of the zeroth Landau level as a function of B, and never compares a computed slope with the analytic formula, the central prediction (Eqs. (19)–(20)) is not validated in the regime where the derivation applies. I recommend adding a weak-field simulation (flux well below Φ0 per moiré cell) with an explicit linear fit of the zeroth-Landau-level energy and a comparison against Eq. (14); such a comparison must also separate the spin-independent O(π²) corrections generated by the same downfolding, whose expectation values are linear in B in the n = 0 Landau level.
  2. [Eqs. (11) and (14)] On direct evaluation of the downfolding in Eq. (7) with minimal coupling, the σzBz coefficient is (e/ℏ) Σ_l (E_l − E0)^(−1) Re[V_l^{xx}(V_l^{yy})* − V_l^{xy}(V_l^{yx})*], a factor of two smaller than Eq. (14). The check is simplest for a single high-energy level with V = v(σxπx + σyπy): the σz⊗Bz part of V V† is −(e/ℏ)v²σzBz (since σxσyπxπy + σyσxπyπx = iσz[πx,πy]), giving an induced coefficient v²(e/ℏ)/(E_l − E0), not 2v²(e/ℏ)/(E_l − E0). Equivalently, the contraction εαα′z εββ′z summed over the two orderings gives 2Re[V^{xx}V^{yy*} − V^{xy}V^{yx*}] but is multiplied by the factor 1/2 from the decomposition of πβπβ′ into symmetric and antisymmetric parts. Since Eq. (20) uses gz directly as the slope of the zeroth Landau level, this doubles the predicted tilt. I would ask the authors to re-derive Eq. (11) carefully and correct Eqs. (13) and (14) accordingly.
  3. [Eqs. (12)–(13)] The in-plane coefficient g∥ in Eq. (13) does not follow from the derivation of Eq. (11): in a strictly two-dimensional surface model the indices β and β′ in εββ′ν are in-plane only, so εββ′x = εββ′y = 0, and the mechanism of Eqs. (7)–(11) generates only the gzσzBz term, not g∥(σxBx + σyBy). Furthermore, the index structure of the displayed expression for g∥ (products such as V^{zx}V^{xy*}) is not compatible with the εαα′μ contraction in Eq. (11). Because the off-diagonal terms are later absorbed into a redefinition of π, this does not affect the final Landau levels (Eqs. (19)–(20)), but the statement that both g-factors arise from Dirac point coupling should either be corrected or be substantiated with an explicit three-dimensional mechanism.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Throughout] Replace 'session' with 'section' in 'To close this session', 'in previous sessions', and 'as elaborated in the session of tight-binding simulation'.
  2. [After Eq. (11)] In the sentence 'Here z denotes the complex conjugate of complex number z', the symbol should be written as z̄ (complex conjugate); as printed it is indistinguishable from the variable z.
  3. [Fig. 1] Panels (d) and (e) are described in the text as plotting the Landau levels, but they appear to be schematic illustrations of E versus Bz; please state explicitly which panels of Fig. 1 are simulation results and which are drawings.
  4. [Tight-binding model simulation] The stated motivation for abandoning the k·p model, that the vector potential 'could become divergent at long distances', is not the real reason; minimal coupling in a fixed gauge is standard and well behaved. The actual motivation (a lattice regularization that permits Peierls phases and handles strong fields) should be stated.
  5. [Eq. (23)] The units of U0 in the Dirac-comb potential are not specified; please give the strength in units of the hopping integral and state the effective on-site potential for the 2×2 moiré cell so that the simulation is reproducible.
  6. [Conclusion] The Introduction promises a discussion of experimental realizations and material candidates, but the Conclusion contains none; the only list of candidate materials appears in the tight-binding section. An order-of-magnitude estimate of gz from Eq. (14) with realistic parameters, and the corresponding field scale needed to observe the zeroth-Landau-level tilt, would strengthen the paper.
  7. [Eq. (21) and following] The double-group classification of Dirac doublets in the paragraph around Eq. (21) is not used elsewhere in the paper; using the angular-momentum labels to constrain the form of V_l^{αβ} would sharpen Eq. (14), or this paragraph could be shortened.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: gz is derived from zero-field moiré band parameters via Löwdin downfolding and the [πμ,πν] commutator, not fitted to the predicted Landau-level tilt; the self-citation to Ref. 17 is corroborated by the independent Ref. 18. The main weakness is a numerical validation gap in the strong-field regime, a correctness risk rather than circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction (paragraph 4) and 'Moiré surface states under magnetic field' section (around Eq. (2))]
    "The so-called moir´ e surface states will be formed, as proposed and studied by T. Wang et. al [17] and J. Cano et. al [18] independently, where multiple Dirac points are formed due to band folding and topological protection."

    Ref. [17] (T. Wang, N. F. Q. Yuan, L. Fu, PRX 11, 021024 (2021)) is the present second author's own prior work, cited for the existence and structure of moiré surface states and (alone) for the leading-order cosine potential Eq. (2). Those structural premises (multiple Dirac points at Γ, topological protection, renormalized velocity) are co-cited with the fully independent Ref. [18] (Cano et al., PRB 103, 155157 (2021)). Moreover, the central induced-Zeeman formula (Eqs. (10)-(11), (13)-(14)) is derived in-paper from the generic Γ-point doublet Hamiltonian (Eq. (3)) by Löwdin downfolding plus minimal coupling, without using the specific cosine potential, so the self-citation does not force the central result. This is a minor self-citation, not a load-bearing circular chain.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The induced Zeeman coefficient gz (Eq. (14)) is obtained by projecting the zero-field Γ-point Hamiltonian (Eq. (3)) onto the Dirac doublet at E0 with the Löwdin formula Heff = H + V(E0 - H')^{-1}V† (Eq. (7)), applying minimal substitution (Eq. (8)), and using [πμ,πν] = i(e/ℏ)εμνλBλ (Eq. (9)) to convert the quadratic π term into a zeroth-order σμBν term. gz is thereby expressed in terms of zero-field microscopic inputs {V^{αβ}_l, E_l, E0}; nothing is fitted to the Landau-level shift it predicts (Eqs. (19)-(20)), so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction and no self-definitional reduction. The n = 0 result E = E0 - gzBz follows by exactly solving Eq. (18) in the standard Landau-level ladder basis, which is the correct eigenbasis of Eq. (15). The only load-bearing citation to the authors' own work, Ref. [17], is corroborated by the independent Ref. [18] for the existence and structure of moiré surface states; the central formula does not depend on the specific own-cited potential U(r) = 2U Σ cos(Gi·r). One non-circular weakness is flagged and weighed: the only numerical spectrum (Fig. 1(b,c)) is computed at flux Φ0/3 per moiré cell, where l_B ≈ 0.69 L_m and the perturbation expansion behind Eq. (14) is uncontrolled; the Conclusion itself admits: 'Our theory treats the magnetic field as a perturbation to the moir´e potential. When the magnetic field is large, the superlattice potential is instead a perturbation...' and the paper never extracts gz from the numerics or compares a computed zeroth-Landau-level slope with Eq. (20). That is a correctness and validation gap in the claimed regime, not circularity, and does not raise the circularity score beyond the minor-self-citation anchor of 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted constants appear in the analytic g-factor: Eq. 11 expresses g in terms of band structure elements V_l and energies E_l, which are in principle computable. The circularity burden is low. The model parameters U0, flux, cell size, and layers are simulation choices, not fits to data.

free parameters (4)
  • moiré potential strength U0 in tight-binding simulation = 0.8
    Chosen for the TB calculation in Fig. 1; no experimental or ab initio determination.
  • magnetic flux per moiré unit cell = 1/3 of flux quantum
    Chosen for the simulation, a large-field value; not a weak-field parameter.
  • moiré cell size in simulation = 2x2 of original lattice
    Simulation geometry choice; affects the band structure and coupling coefficients.
  • bulk layer number in simulation = 5 layers
    Chosen for the TB calculation; finite-size effect not discussed.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Second-order Löwdin downfolding (Eq. 7) captures the leading effect of remote Dirac points; higher orders are negligible.
    Used to obtain Eq. 10; assumes V is small relative to energy denominators and the coupling is linear in k.
  • domain assumption Time-reversal symmetry is preserved by the moiré potential, so T = i sigma_y K and Dirac doublets are Kramers pairs.
    Stated before Eq. 1 and used in the symmetry analysis; twist misalignment without magnetism preserves T.
  • domain assumption Low-energy states near Gamma are fully described by Dirac doublets with inter-Dirac-point coupling linear in k (Eq. 6).
    This follows from Refs. 17 and 18 for moiré surface states; it is the input needed for the g-factor formula.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field enters only through minimal coupling, and intrinsic Zeeman is set to zero in the calculation.
    This isolates the induced effect; real materials have intrinsic g, so the prediction must be separated from the background.
  • domain assumption The BHZ model in Eq. 24 is a valid microscopic model for the TI surface and the top-layer moiré potential is a Dirac comb (Eq. 23).
    Used for the numerical simulation; a standard model in the field but does not include all material-specific details.
  • domain assumption Only the top surface carries the moiré potential; the bottom surface is unmodulated.
    Explicitly assumed for comparison in Fig. 1(a); if both surfaces are patterned the Landau level structure would differ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Induced Zeeman effect of moir\'e surface states in topological insulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EKJTAEZV

@misc{pith2026250704844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Induced Zeeman effect of moir\'e surface states in topological insulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EKJTAEZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04844}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, moir\'e superlattices have been found on the surface of topological insulators due to the rotational misalignment of topmost layers. In this work, we study the effects of moir\'e superlattices on the Landau levels of topological surface states. We find that an extra Zeeman term besides the intrinsic one can be induced by the orbital effect of the magnetic field in moir\'e surface states. As a result, the originally field-independent zeroth Landau level of moir\'e surface states could be tilted by the out-of-plane magnetic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04844 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) A schematic illustration of the moir´e superlattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The spectrum and multiple Dirac points of (a) square [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A117, 610 (1928)

    1928

  2. [2]

    For a square lattice in (a), in Eq. (2) we have two re- ciprocal vectors G1 = 2π/L(1, 0) and G2 = 2π/L(0, 1), the moir´ e surface state is particle-hole symmetric due to the emergent symmetry U (x + L/2, y+ L/2) = −U (x, y). On the other hand, for a triangular lattice in (b), in Eq. (2) we have three reciprocal vectors G1 = 2 π/L(0, 1) and G2,3 = 2 π/L(± ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A118, 351 (1928)

    work page 1928

  4. [4]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Nature 438, 197 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

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

    2009

  6. [6]

    L. Fu, C. L. Kane, and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 106803 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    Chao-Xing Liu, Xiao-Liang Qi, HaiJun Zhang, Xi Dai, Zhong Fang, and Shou-Cheng Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 82, 045122 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    M. O. Goerbig, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1193 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch, et al., Nature 497, 598–602 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Z. K. Liu, B. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Z. J. Wang, H. M. Weng, D. Prabhakaran, S. K. Mo, et al., Science 343, 864–867 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Y. J. Wang, S.-K. Mo, J. W. Hwang, X. J. Zhou, R. Sankar, F.-C. Chou, and A. Kaminski, Phys. Rev. B93, 121112(R) (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Zhang, Y

    L. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Z. Yuan, Z. Huang, M. Shi, L. Pi, Z. Xu, et al., Phys. Rev. B95, 085131 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 78, 195424 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    S. Ryu, A. P. Schnyder, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, New J. Phys.12, 065010 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    T. Wang, N. F. Q. Yuan, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021024 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    J. Cano, S. Fang, J. H. Pixley, and J. H. Wilson, Phys. Rev. B 103, 155157 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    H. C. Po, H. Watanabe, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Vish- wanath, Sci. Adv. 2, e1501782 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Brouder, G

    C. Brouder, G. Panati, M. Calandra, C. Mourougane, and N. Marzari, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 046402 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    A. A. Soluyanov and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 83, 035108 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    H. C. Po, A. Vishwanath, and H. Watanabe, Nat. Com- mun. 8, 50 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Bradlyn, L

    B. Bradlyn, L. Elcoro, J. Cano, M. G. Vergniory, Z. Wang, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig,Nature (London) 547, 298 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Peierls, Z

    R. Peierls, Z. Phys. 80, 763 (1933)

    1933

  18. [26]

    D. R. Hofstadter, Phys. Rev. B14, 2239 (1976)

    1976

  19. [27]

    Rammal, J

    R. Rammal, J. Phys. (Paris)46, 1345 (1985)

    1985

  20. [28]

    Moon and M

    P. Moon and M. Koshino, Phys. Rev. B 85, 195458 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    W.Y. He, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, and K. T. Law, Nature Communications 11, 1650 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Zhang, C.-X

    H. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and S.-C. Zhang, Nat. Phys. 5, 438 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Liu, X.-L

    C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, H. Zhang, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B82, 045122 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Mohelsk´ y, A

    I. Mohelsk´ y, A. Dubroka, J. Wyzula, A. Slobodeniuk, G. Martinez, Y. Krupko, et al., Phys. Rev. B 102, 085201 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    W. Miao, A. Rashidi, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 111, 045113 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    K. Yang, Z. Xu, Y. Feng, F. Schindler, Y. Xu, Z. Bi, et al., Nat. Commun. 15, 2670 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Li and F

    B. Li and F. Wu, Phys. Rev. B111, 125122 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    J. Dong, J. Wang, P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 136502 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    C.-E. Ahn, W. Lee, K. Yananose, Y. Kim, and G. Y. Cho, Phys. Rev. B110, L161109 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    C. Xu, N. Mao, T. Zeng, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 066601 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Wang, et al., arXiv:2312.12531 (2023)

    T. Wang, et al., arXiv:2312.12531 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Pfannkuche and R

    D. Pfannkuche and R. R. Gerhardts, Phys. Rev. B 46, 12606 (1992)

    1992

  33. [41]

    N. Paul, P. J. Crowley, T. Devakul, L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 116804 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    C. R. Kometter, J. Yu, T. Devakul, A. P. Reddy, Y. Zhang, B. A. Foutty, et al., Nat. Phys. 19, 1861–1867 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Paul*, P

    N. Paul*, P. J. D. Crowley*, L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 246402 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.