Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 60 references

Are LLM-Powered Social Media Bots Realistic?

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LLM bots stand out in network and language

desk verdict Plausible abstract, but the supplied full text is a different paper; if the manuscript matches the abstract, it deserves review after fixing the document mix-up. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00998 v2 pith:K5RQTFT2 submitted 2025-08-01 cs.SI cs.AI

Lynnette Hui Xian Ng , Kathleen M. Carley This is my paper
classification cs.SIcs.AI
keywords LLM-poweredbotssocialmediasyntheticnetworksnetworksciencelinguisticanalysisbotdetectionagentpersonas
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether large language models can power social-media bots that are realistic enough to blend in with organic accounts. The authors build synthetic bot networks by generating personas, tweets, and interactions with LLM assistance, then compare those networks with empirical data on real bots and humans. They report that the synthetic LLM bots differ from both wild bots and humans in network structure and in the language they use. If this holds, LLM-powered bots of the tested kind are detectably distinguishable from organic accounts, which matters for detection and for assessing how effective such bots can be.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a construction pipeline that couples LLM-driven generation of personas and tweets with network-science-driven generation of interactions, yielding a complete synthetic social network with both edges and text. The comparison then relies on network metrics and linguistic features to measure how far the synthetic networks sit from empirical bot and human baselines.

What would settle it

Compile an independently verified sample of real-world bot accounts that were not part of the training or validation process, measure the same network and linguistic features as the paper, and check whether their distributions overlap those of the synthetic LLM-generated networks; substantial overlap would falsify the claim that the two populations are distinguishable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LLM-powered social bot networks, constructed with current generation techniques, are measurably different from empirically observed bots and humans on both network-level and linguistic properties. The authors simulate full social media networks by combining manual persona design, network-based interaction generation, and LLM-written tweets, and then compare the resulting synthetic graphs and text against observed data. The differences support the conclusion that, at least for the configuration tested, LLM bots do not yet achieve full realism.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the empirical bot and human data used for comparison are accurately labeled and representative of true wild-bot and human populations; if this ground truth is noisy or biased, the reported differences may reflect flaws in the baseline rather than a realism gap in LLM bots.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bot detection systems can leverage a combination of network structure and language features to flag LLM-powered accounts.
  • The reported differences give a benchmark: current LLM bots are unlikely to sustain long-term influence because they leave detectable traces.
  • The synthetic network generation method offers a way to create labeled training examples for detectors without collecting live bots.
  • If the observed gap narrows as LLMs improve, detection methods will need continuous updating.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The differences may stem largely from the specific prompts and persona templates used rather than from the LLM itself, so ablating prompt design could isolate the source of the realism gap.
  • The same generation pipeline could be turned into an evaluation harness to test future LLMs before deployment, measuring how close each new model brings its bots to human or wild-bot baselines.
  • A natural testable extension is whether adding human-like reply timing or social-network rewiring rules closes the network-level gap, which would distinguish content realism from behavioral realism.
  • If the empirical baseline data are later found to be mislabeled, the reported differences might be partly an artifact of baseline noise rather than a true property of LLM bots.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript, based on its abstract, claims to investigate whether LLM-powered social media bots are realistic by constructing synthetic bot networks through a combination of manual effort, network science, and LLMs, and then comparing their network and linguistic properties against empirical bot/human data. The abstract concludes that both network and linguistic properties of LLM-Powered Bots differ from Wild Bots/Humans. However, the supplied full text is arXiv:2508.00986, an unrelated condensed-matter physics paper on rhombohedral graphene, containing none of the described bot-generation methodology, baseline datasets, feature definitions, statistical tests, or results. Consequently, the central claim cannot be technically evaluated from the submitted manuscript.

Significance. If the claimed result were established, it would be of practical interest to social-media platform security and bot-detection research, since it would indicate that current LLM-based bot pipelines remain distinguishable from organic and existing automated accounts. The comparison design described in the abstract—evaluating against external empirical baselines rather than fitting to a benchmark—is methodologically appropriate and avoids circularity. However, the absence of the actual paper text, effect sizes, sample sizes, significance tests, dataset-provenance details, and robustness checks means that no evaluable scientific contribution is present in this submission. The significance of the claim cannot outweigh the fact that it is entirely unverifiable as submitted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full text (all sections)] The supplied full text is arXiv:2508.00986, 'Nematic and partially polarized phases in rhombohedral graphene with varying number of layers: An extensive Hartree-Fock Study,' which is unrelated to the claimed topic. None of the LLM bot-generation pipeline, the empirical bot/human baseline data, the network or linguistic feature definitions, or the statistical comparisons appear anywhere in the manuscript. The central claim of the abstract is therefore unsupported by any inspectable evidence.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract reports that 'both network and linguistic properties of LLM-Powered Bots differ from Wild Bots/Humans,' but it provides no effect sizes, confidence intervals, sample sizes, number of simulated networks or accounts, or statistical significance tests. Without these quantitative details, the claim that the differences exist is not grounded in a measurable result.
  3. [Abstract (generation pipeline)] The claimed result is derived from a single construction method combining manual effort, network science, and LLMs. The title poses a general question about LLM-powered bots, but the abstract gives no evidence that the finding is robust across LLM architectures, prompt templates, persona-initialization schemes, or interaction-generation rules. The observed differences may be specific to this one pipeline rather than characteristic of LLM-powered bots in general.
  4. [Abstract (comparison baseline)] The load-bearing premise that the 'empirical bot/human data' are accurately labeled and representative of the true populations is neither stated nor verifiable from the abstract. If the baseline is noisy, mislabeled, or unrepresentative, the reported differences could reflect baseline deficiencies rather than a realism gap in LLM-generated accounts. The manuscript must justify the provenance and quality of the ground-truth dataset.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The term 'Wild Bots' is used without a definition; the paper should clarify whether it refers to non-LLM automated accounts previously detected on social platforms.
  2. [Title and full text] The title and abstract correspond to arXiv:2508.00998, while the body text is arXiv:2508.00986; this identifier mismatch needs to be resolved before any further review.
  3. [Full text (References)] All references in the supplied text pertain to condensed-matter physics and are irrelevant to the claimed social-media bot study; the reference list should be replaced with the actual bibliography of the submitted work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity found: the claimed differences are measured against external empirical baselines, not derived from the inputs.

full rationale

The abstract's load-bearing claim is that 'both network and linguistic properties of LLM-Powered Bots differ from Wild Bots/Humans' after 'comparing the generated networks against empirical bot/human data.' This is an external comparison: the empirical bot/human data are not fitted parameters of the model, and the observed differences are outcomes of the comparison, not constraints used to build the synthetic personas, tweets, or interactions. I could not identify any equation or construction in which a quantity is defined in terms of the very result it is said to predict. The only caveat is evidentiary: the supplied full text is an unrelated condensed-matter paper (arXiv:2508.00986, 'Nematic and partially polarized phases in rhombohedral graphene'), so the pipeline details, feature definitions, and statistical tests cannot be inspected. That unverifiability is a completeness and correctness risk, not a demonstrated circularity. Under the hard rules, circularity may only be flagged with a quoted specific reduction, and none is available. A mild residual risk would remain if the synthetic generation pipeline were later shown to have been calibrated on the same empirical benchmark, but no such reduction appears in the in-scope text; hence a low non-circularity score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; the full text is an unrelated paper. No explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified. The domain assumptions listed are the two load-bearing premises extracted from the abstract.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The empirical wild bot/human datasets used for comparison are accurately labeled and representative of real-world populations.
    The abstract states the generated networks are compared against empirical bot/human data; if the ground truth is mislabeled or non-representative, the reported differences are not about realism.
  • domain assumption The synthetic pipeline (manual personas + LLM tweets + network interactions) produces a fair sample of what LLM-powered bots would look like at scale.
    The abstract describes a specific construction method; the conclusion about LLM bot realism depends on this pipeline being a reasonable proxy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Are LLM-Powered Social Media Bots Realistic?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K5RQTFT2

@misc{pith2026250800998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Are LLM-Powered Social Media Bots Realistic?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K5RQTFT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00998}
}
read the original abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become more sophisticated, there is a possibility to harness LLMs to power social media bots. This work investigates the realism of generating LLM-Powered social media bot networks. Through a combination of manual effort, network science and LLMs, we create synthetic bot agent personas, their tweets and their interactions, thereby simulating social media networks. We compare the generated networks against empirical bot/human data, observing that both network and linguistic properties of LLM-Powered Bots differ from Wild Bots/Humans. This has implications towards the detection and effectiveness of LLM-Powered Bots.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    B. Zhou, H. Yang, and Y.-H. Zhang, Fractional quan- tum anomalous hall effect in rhombohedral multilayer graphene in the moir´ eless limit, Physical Review Letters 133, 206504 (2024)

    2024

  2. [3]

    Y.-C. Tsui, M. He, Y. Hu, E. Lake, T. Wang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Yazdani, Direct observation of a magnetic-field-induced wigner crystal, Nature 628, 287–292 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [4]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Superconductivity in rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Nature 598, 434 (2021)

    2021

  4. [5]

    H. Zhou, L. Holleis, Y. Saito, L. Cohen, W. Huynh, C. L. Patterson, F. Yang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Isospin magnetism and spin-polarized su- perconductivity in bernal bilayer graphene, Science 375, 774 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [6]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Polski, A. Thomson, ´E. Lantagne- Hurtubise, C. Lewandowski, H. Zhou, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, J. Alicea, and S. Nadj-Perge, En- hanced superconductivity in spin–orbit proximitized bi- layer graphene, Nature 613, 268 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [7]

    A. M. Seiler, F. R. Geisenhof, F. Winterer, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Xu, F. Zhang, and R. T. Weitz, Quan- tum cascade of correlated phases in trigonally warped bilayer graphene, Nature 608, 298 (2022)

    2022

  7. [8]

    S. C. de la Barrera, S. Aronson, Z. Zheng, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Q. Ma, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and R. Ashoori, Cascade of isospin phase transitions in bernal-stacked bi- layer graphene at zero magnetic field, Nature Physics 18, 771 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [9]

    A. M. Seiler, M. Statz, I. Weimer, N. Jacobsen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Dong, L. S. Levitov, and R. T. Weitz, Interaction-driven quasi-insulating ground states of gapped electron-doped bilayer graphene, Phys- ical Review Letters 133, 066301 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 60 references
  1. [10]

    Holleis, C

    L. Holleis, C. L. Patterson, Y. Zhang, Y. Vituri, H. M. Yoo, H. Zhou, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Berg, S. Nadj-Perge, and A. F. Young, Nematicity and orbital depairing in superconducting bernal bilayer graphene, Nature Physics 21, 444–450 (2025)

    2025

  2. [11]

    A. M. Seiler, Y. Zhumagulov, K. Zollner, C. Yoon, D. Ur- baniak, F. R. Geisenhof, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Fabian, F. Zhang, and R. T. Weitz, Layer-selective spin-orbit coupling and strong correlation in bilayer graphene, 2D Materials 12, 035009 (2025)

    2025

  3. [12]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, A. Ghazaryan, T. Holder, J. R. Ehrets, E. M. Spanton, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Berg, M. Serbyn, and A. F. Young, Half- and quarter-metals in rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Nature 598, 429 (2021)

    2021

  4. [13]

    T. Arp, O. Sheekey, H. Zhou, C. L. Tschirhart, C. L. Pat- terson, H. M. Yoo, L. Holleis, E. Redekop, G. Babikyan, T. Xie, J. Xiao, Y. Vituri, T. Holder, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. E. Huber, E. Berg, and A. F. Young, Intervalley coherence and intrinsic spin–orbit coupling in...

    2024

  5. [14]

    Kerelsky, C

    A. Kerelsky, C. Rubio-Verd´ u, L. Xian, D. H. Dante M. Kennes, N. Finney, L. Song, S. Turkel, L. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, C. Dean, D. N. Basov, A. Rubio, and A. N. Pasupathy, Moir´ eless cor- relations in abca graphene, Proceedings of the National Academy of S...

    2021

  6. [15]

    K. Liu, J. Zheng, Y. Sha, B. Lyu, F. Li, Y. Park, Y. Ren, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Jia, W. Luo, Z. Shi, J. Jung, and G. Chen, Spontaneous broken-symmetry in- sulator and metals in tetralayer rhombohedral graphene, Nature Nanotechnology 19, 188–195 (2023)

    2023

  7. [16]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, G. Scuri, J. Sung, J. Wang, T. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Park, and L. Ju, Cor- related insulator and chern insulators in pentalayer rhombohedral-stacked graphene, Nature Nanotechnology 19, 181–187 (2023)

    2023

  8. [17]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, G. Scuri, J. Sung, J. Wang, T. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, H. Park, and L. Ju, Orbital multiferroicity in pentalayer rhombohedral graphene, Nature 623, 41–47 (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    J. Xie, Z. Huo, X. Lu, Z. Feng, Z. Zhang, W. Wang, Q. Yang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Liu, Z. Song, X. C. Xie, J. Liu, and X. Lu, Tunable fractional chern in- sulators in rhombohedral graphene superlattices, arXiv: 2405.16944 10.48550/arxiv.2405.16944 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    Morissette, P

    E. Morissette, P. Qin, H.-T. Wu, N. J. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and J. I. A. Li, Super- conductivity, anomalous hall effect, and stripe order in rhombohedral hexalayer graphene, arXiv: 2504.05129 10.48550/arxiv.2504.05129 (2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    W. Zhou, J. Ding, J. Hua, L. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, W. Zhu, and S. Xu, Layer-polarized ferro- magnetism in rhombohedral multilayer graphene, Nature Communications 15, 2597 (2024)

    2024

  12. [21]

    J. Ding, H. Xiang, J. Hua, W. Zhou, N. Liu, L. Zhang, N. Xin, B. Wu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Sofer, W. Zhu, and S. Xu, Electric-field switchable chirality in rhombohedral graphene chern insulators stabilized by tungsten diselenide, Physical Review X 15, 011052 (2025)

    2025

  13. [22]

    Xiang, J

    H. Xiang, J. Ding, J. Hua, N. Liu, W. Zhou, Q. Chen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, N. Xin, W. Zhu, and S. Xu, Continuously tunable anomalous hall crystals in rhombo- hedral heptalayer graphene, arXiv: 2502.18031 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  14. [23]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, Y. Yao, L. Shi, J. Yang, J. Seo, S. Ye, Z. Wu, M. Zhou, H. Liu, G. Shi, Z. Hua, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Xiong, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Signatures 7 of chiral superconductivity in rhombohedral graphene, arXiv: 2408.15233 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Nam, D.-K

    Y. Nam, D.-K. Ki, D. Soler-Delgado, and A. F. Mor- purgo, A family of finite-temperature electronic phase transitions in graphene multilayers, Science 362, 324 (2018)

    2018

  16. [25]

    Y. Shi, S. Xu, Y. Yang, S. Slizovskiy, S. V. Morozov, S.- K. Son, S. Ozdemir, C. Mullan, J. Barrier, J. Yin, A. I. Berdyugin, B. A. Piot, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, V. I. Fal’ko, K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, and A. Mishchenko, Electronic phase separation in multilayer rhombohe...

    2020

  17. [26]

    Zhang, Q

    H. Zhang, Q. Li, M. G. Scheer, R. Wang, C. Tuo, N. Zou, W. Chen, J. Li, X. Cai, C. Bao, M.-R. Li, K. Deng, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Ye, P. Tang, Y. Xu, P. Yu, J. Avila, P. Dudin, J. D. Denlinger, H. Yao, B. Lian, W. Duan, and S. Zhou, Correlated topological flat bands in ...

    2024

  18. [27]

    H. Xiao, C. Chen, X. Sui, S. Zhang, M. Sun, H. Gao, Q. Jiang, Q. Li, L. Yang, M. Ye, F. Zhu, M. Wang, J. Liu, Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Chen, K. Liu, and Z. Liu, Thickness-dependent topological phases and flat bands in rhombohedral multilayer graphene, Science Bulletin 70, 1030–10...

    2025

  19. [28]

    Yang, Y.-C

    Y. Yang, Y.-C. Zou, C. R. Woods, Y. Shi, J. Yin, S. Xu, S. Ozdemir, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. K. Geim, K. S. Novoselov, S. J. Haigh, and A. Mishchenko, Stack- ing order in graphite films controlled by van der waals technology, Nano Letters 19, 8526 (2019)

    2019

  20. [29]

    Zhang, Y.-Y

    Y. Zhang, Y.-Y. Zhou, S. Zhang, H. Cai, L.-H. Tong, W.- Y. Liao, R.-J. Zou, S.-M. Xue, Y. Tian, T. Chen, Q. Tian, C. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Zou, X. Liu, Y. Hu, Y.-N. Ren, L. Zhang, L. Zhang, W.-X. Wang, L. He, L. Liao, Z. Qin, and L.-J. Yin, Layer-dependent evolution of electronic...

    2024

  21. [30]

    Xie and S

    M. Xie and S. Das Sarma, Flavor symmetry breaking in spin-orbit coupled bilayer graphene, Physical Review B 107, L201119 (2023)

    2023

  22. [31]

    J. M. Koh, A. Thomson, J. Alicea, and ´E. Lantagne- Hurtubise, Symmetry-broken metallic orders in spin- orbit-coupled bernal bilayer graphene, Physical Review B 110, 245118 (2024)

    2024

  23. [32]

    T. Wang, M. Vila, M. P. Zaletel, and S. Chatterjee, Electrical control of spin and valley in spin-orbit cou- pled graphene multilayers, Physical Review Letters 132, 116504 (2024)

    2024

  24. [33]

    Zhumagulov, D

    Y. Zhumagulov, D. Kochan, and J. Fabian, Swapping ex- change and spin-orbit induced correlated phases in prox- imitized bernal bilayer graphene, Physical Review B110, 045427 (2024)

    2024

  25. [34]

    Huang, T

    C. Huang, T. M. R. Wolf, W. Qin, N. Wei, I. V. Bli- nov, and A. H. MacDonald, Spin and orbital metallic magnetism in rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Physical Review B 107, L121405 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    J. M. Koh, J. Alicea, and ´E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, Corre- lated phases in spin-orbit-coupled rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Physical Review B 109, 035113 (2024)

    2024

  27. [36]

    Aguilar-M´ endez, T

    E. Aguilar-M´ endez, T. Neupert, and G. Wagner, Full, three-quarter, half and quarter wigner crystals in bernal bilayer graphene, arXiv: 2505.09685 (2025)

    2025

  28. [37]

    D. V. Chichinadze, L. Classen, Y. Wang, and A. V. Chubukov, Cascade of transitions in twisted and non- twisted graphene layers within the van hove scenario, npj Quantum Materials 7, 114 (2022)

    2022

  29. [38]

    Friedlan, H

    A. Friedlan, H. Li, and H.-Y. Kee, Valley polariza- tion, magnetization, and superconductivity in bilayer graphene near the van hove singularity, Physical Review B 111, 024504 (2025)

    2025

  30. [39]

    Ghazaryan, T

    A. Ghazaryan, T. Holder, M. Serbyn, and E. Berg, Un- conventional superconductivity in systems with annu- lar fermi surfaces: Application to rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Physical Review Letters 127, 247001 (2021)

    2021

  31. [40]

    Ghazaryan, T

    A. Ghazaryan, T. Holder, E. Berg, and M. Serbyn, Mul- tilayer graphenes as a platform for interaction-driven physics and topological superconductivity, Physical Re- view B 107, 104502 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    Z. Dong, A. V. Chubukov, and L. Levitov, Transformer spin-triplet superconductivity at the onset of isospin or- der in bilayer graphene, Physical Review B 107, 104502 (2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    Z. Dong, P. A. Lee, and L. S. Levitov, Signatures of cooper pair dynamics and quantum-critical superconduc- tivity in tunable carrier bands, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 120, e2305943120 (2023)

    2023

  34. [43]

    A. L. Szab´ o and B. Roy, Competing orders and cascade of degeneracy lifting in doped bernal bilayer graphene, Physical Review B 105, L201107 (2022)

    2022

  35. [44]

    R. D. Mayrhofer and A. V. Chubukov, Valley- and spin- polarized states in bernal bilayer graphene, Physical Re- view B 111, 245114 (2025)

    2025

  36. [45]

    Das and C

    M. Das and C. Huang, Quarter-metal phases in multi- layer graphene: Ising-xy and annular lifshitz transitions, Physical Review B 110, 035103 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    Jimeno-Pozo, H

    A. Jimeno-Pozo, H. Sainz-Cruz, T. Cea, P. A. Pantale´ on, and F. Guinea, Superconductivity from electronic inter- actions and spin-orbit enhancement in bilayer and tri- layer graphene, Physical Review B 107, L161106 (2023)

    2023

  38. [47]

    P. A. Pantale´ on, A. Jimeno-Pozo, H. Sainz-Cruz, V. T. Phong, T. Cea, and F. Guinea, Superconductivity and correlated phases in non-twisted bilayer and trilayer graphene, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 304 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    Z. Li, X. Kuang, A. Jimeno-Pozo, H. Sainz-Cruz, Z. Zhan, S. Yuan, and F. Guinea, Charge fluctuations, phonons, and superconductivity in multilayer graphene, Physical Review B 108, 045404 (2023)

    2023

  40. [49]

    Y.-Z. Chou, J. Zhu, and S. D. Sarma, Intravalley spin- polarized superconductivity in rhombohedral tetralayer graphene, arXiv: 2409.06701 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Geier, M

    M. Geier, M. Davydova, and L. Fu, Chiral and topo- logical superconductivity in isospin polarized multilayer graphene, arXiv: 2409.13829 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Parra-Martinez, A

    G. Parra-Martinez, A. Jimeno-Pozo, V. T. Phong, H. Sainz-Cruz, D. Kaplan, P. Emanuel, Y. Oreg, P. A. Pantaleon, J. A. Silva-Guillen, and F. Guinea, Band renormalization, quarter metals, and chiral supercon- ductivity in rhombohedral tetralayer graphene, arXiv: 2309.17436 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Chatterjee, T

    S. Chatterjee, T. Wang, E. Berg, and M. P. Zaletel, Inter- valley coherent order and isospin fluctuation mediated superconductivity in rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Nature Communications 13, 6013 (2022)

    2022

  44. [53]

    You and A

    Y.-Z. You and A. Vishwanath, Kohn-luttinger supercon- ductivity and intervalley coherence in rhombohedral tri- layer graphene, Physical Review B 105, 134524 (2022). 8

    2022

  45. [54]

    J. Yang, X. Shi, S. Ye, C. Yoon, Z. Lu, V. Kakani, T. Han, J. Seo, L. Shi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Zhang, and L. Ju, Impact of spin-orbit coupling on superconductivity in rhombohedral graphene, arXiv: 2408.09906 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    C. L. Patterson, O. I. Sheekey, T. B. Arp, L. F. W. Holleis, J. M. Koh, Y. Choi, T. Xie, S. Xu, Y. Guo, H. Stoyanov, E. Redekop, C. Zhang, G. Babikyan, D. Gong, H. Zhou, X. Cheng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, M. E. Huber, C. Jin, E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, J. Al- icea, and A. F. Y...

    2025

  47. [56]

    Zhang, G

    Y. Zhang, G. Shavit, H. Ma, Y. Han, C. W. Siu, A. Mukherjee, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Hsieh, C. Lewandowski, F. von Oppen, Y. Oreg, and S. Nadj-Perge, Twist-programmable superconductivity in spin–orbit-coupled bilayer graphene, Nature 641, 625–631 (2025)

    2025

  48. [57]

    See supplementary information which includes the band structure and density of states of the non-interacting bands for different number of layers

  49. [58]

    V. N. Kotov, B. Uchoa, V. M. Pereira, F. Guinea, and A. H. C. Neto, Electron-electron interactions in graphene: Current status and perspectives, Reviews of Modern Physics 84, 1067 (2012)

    2012

  50. [59]

    Min and A

    H. Min and A. H. MacDonald, Electronic structure of multilayer graphene, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 176, 227–252 (2008)

    2008

  51. [60]

    Min, Electronic properties of multilayer graphene, in Graphene Nanoelectronics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

    H. Min, Electronic properties of multilayer graphene, in Graphene Nanoelectronics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

  52. [61]

    A. A. Zibrov, P. Rao, C. Kometter, E. M. Spanton, J. I. A. Li, C. R. Dean, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. Serbyn, and A. F. Young, Emergent dirac gullies and gully-symmetry-breaking quantum hall states in aba trilayer graphene, Physical Review Letters 121, 167601 (2018). 9 N=2 ...

    2018

Pith tools

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