Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 64 references

hBN alignment orientation controls moir\'e strength in rhombohedral graphene

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 The 0° vs 180° orientation of the hBN crystal, not just the twist angle, decides how strong the moiré potential is in rhombohedral graphene and, with it, which correlated phases appear.

desk verdict A plausible but not yet established mechanism: the xi labeling is confounded with bottom-gate type and twist, so the core claim needs a cleaner test before it can carry the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20647 v1 pith:KZLVI5CQ submitted 2025-07-28 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

Matan Uzan , Weifeng Zhi , Matan Bocarsly , Junkai Dong , Surajit Dutta , Nadav Auerbach , Niladri Sekhar Kander , Mikhail Labendik
show 6 more authors
Yuri Myasoedov Martin E. Huber Kenji Watanabe Takashi Taniguchi Daniel E. Parker Eli Zeldov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords rhombohedralgraphenehBNalignmentorientationmoirépotentialcorrelatedinsulatorssymmetrybreakinglatticerelaxationSQUID-on-tipmagnetometryStonermodel
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

Rhombohedral-stacked pentalayer graphene on hBN is usually treated as a single moiré system characterized by its twist angle, but this paper tries to establish that a second, binary parameter—the hBN alignment orientation, whether the hBN crystal is rotated 0° or 180° relative to the graphene—decides how strong the moiré potential really is. The two orientations give the same moiré wavelength, yet in one orientation ($\xi=1$) the dominant stacking configuration puts carbon A1 sites over boron and produces a strong moiré potential, while in the other ($\xi=0$) those sites sit over hollow positions and the moiré is weak. Comparing four nearly identical devices with transport and SQUID-on-tip magnetometry, the authors find that $\xi=1$ devices develop robust correlated insulators at fillings $\nu=1,2,3,4$ with complex magnetic ordering, whereas $\xi=0$ devices behave more like unaligned graphene, with weak resistance peaks and a simpler magnetic sequence. A continuum model whose only free parameter is $\xi$, together with a Stoner model in which all interaction parameters are held fixed, reproduces the contrasting phase diagrams. This provides an explanation for device-to-device discrepancies in prior rhombohedral graphene/hBN experiments and makes alignment orientation a necessary control variable for moiré device design.

What carries the argument

The central object is the alignment orientation $\xi$, the binary choice of whether boron or nitrogen sits beneath the A1 carbon sublattice inside the carbon-over-boron (CB) stacking domains of the moiré unit cell. It acts through three combined ingredients: lattice relaxation enlarges the CB regions, the displacement field polarizes conduction electrons onto A1, and $\xi$ decides whether A1 sits over boron (efficient tunneling, strong moiré potential) or over an empty hollow site (suppressed tunneling, weak moiré potential). In the continuum model this is carried by the hBN tunneling block, with a tunneling asymmetry ratio $r_{BN}$ and an AA-region relaxation factor $\kappa_{hBN}$ taken from a model previously validated in Bernal bilayer graphene/hBN experiments; in the Stoner model $\xi$ enters only through the resulting single-particle band structure and the gap to the second conduction band, which controls whether the first band fills flavor by flavor or is partially bypassed.

What would settle it

Determine the actual local stacking beneath the A1 carbon sublattice in the carbon-over-boron domains of a device by a structural method such as cross-sectional scanning tunneling microscopy or second-harmonic generation, and compare the measured orientation with the transport signature. If a device with $\xi=0$ stacking shows strong insulating peaks at $\nu=3$ and $4$, or a device with $\xi=1$ stacking shows only weak peaks, the attribution fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Rhombohedral pentalayer graphene aligned to hBN is not one system but two. Because both crystals break in-plane twofold rotation symmetry, rotating the hBN by 180° leaves the moiré wavelength unchanged but swaps which carbon sublattice sits above boron; the authors label these orientations $\xi=1$ and $\xi=0$. Combined with lattice relaxation (which expands the carbon-over-boron stacking domain) and displacement-field-induced sublattice polarization (which puts conduction electrons on the A1 sublattice), $\xi=1$ places A1 over boron and gives efficient interlayer tunneling, while $\xi=0$ places A1 over a hollow site and suppresses tunneling. The predicted consequence—an isolated flat conduction band for $\xi=1$ and a partially overlapping, less isolated band for $\xi=0$—is borne out in transport: $\xi=1$ devices show robust correlated insulators at fillings $\nu=1,2,3$ and a band insulator at $\nu=4$, whereas $\xi=0$ devices show weak, short-lived resistance peaks and a phase sequence close to unaligned graphene. SQUID magnetometry adds an independent contrast: $\xi=1$ exhibits alternating valley-polarized magnetic lobes with an intervening weakly magnetic phase at high displacement field, while $\xi=0$ shows a simpler sequence with a large magnetization around $\nu=1$ and a possible Wigner crystal at low density.

Load-bearing premise

The $\xi$ labels are inferred from the transport phase diagrams themselves—the paper states that no experimental technique can determine $\xi$ during assembly—so if the two device classes instead differ in twist angle (0.06°/0.26° versus 0.29°), gate screening, or disorder, the attribution of their contrasting phase diagrams to alignment orientation would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Published rhombohedral graphene/hBN phase diagrams that look inconsistent can be reclassified by $\xi$: strong insulating behavior at fillings $\nu=3$ and $4$ on the electron-doped, moiré-proximate side marks $\xi=1$, and under this criterion the paper assigns nine of fourteen interfaces to $\xi=0$ and five to $\xi=1$.
  • In $\xi=1$ devices the conduction band is isolated and fills flavor by flavor, so strongly correlated insulators appear at every integer moiré filling; in $\xi=0$ devices the second conduction band starts to fill before the first is full, restoring a sequence closer to unaligned rhombohedral graphene.
  • A single atomic step in the hBN substrate flips $\xi$ locally, so spatial inhomogeneities in transport can originate from orientation domains rather than from disorder or twist-angle variation.
  • Chern insulators on the moiré-proximate side have been observed only in devices this framework assigns to $\xi=0$, while both orientations can host integer and fractional quantum anomalous Hall states on the moiré-distant side, suggesting $\xi$ also shifts which topological states are accessible.
  • The paper suggests the same logic may explain the rarity of the quantum anomalous Hall effect in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene aligned to hBN, where relaxation can break $C_{2z}$ and the $\xi=1$ orientation may be scarce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: A direct test of the attribution is to assemble devices from the same hBN flake rotated by 180° while keeping twist angle and gates fixed; the design rule would be that the phase diagram switches between the strong- and weak-moiré classes.
  • Editorial inference: Because monolayer hBN steps flip $\xi$ locally, the framework predicts sharp spatial boundaries between the strong- and weak-moiré phase diagrams near such steps, which existing SQUID-on-tip imaging could map directly.
  • Editorial inference: Theoretical searches for fractional Chern insulators in rhombohedral multilayer graphene/hBN should be run separately for $\xi=0$ and $\xi=1$, since the optimal twist angle and displacement-field ranges may differ between the two orientations.
  • Editorial inference: The paper's claim that $\xi=1$ is rarer in experiments could be tested statistically by measuring the distribution of strong- versus weak-moiré transport signatures across many nominally identical devices, separating fabrication statistics from intrinsic instability.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper reports a study of rhombohedral pentalayer graphene (R5LG) aligned to hexagonal boron nitride (hBN), focusing on a binary structural parameter, the hBN alignment orientation xi, which distinguishes 0-degree versus 180-degree relative orientations of the two C2z-breaking lattices. The authors present transport and scanning SQUID-on-tip magnetometry on four R5LG/hBN devices that, they argue, differ only in xi. Two devices labeled xi=1 show robust resistance peaks at all integer moiré fillings, a fully isolated C1 band in continuum theory, and more complex magnetic phase diagrams, while two devices labeled xi=0 show weak moiré effects reminiscent of non-aligned R5LG. A single-particle continuum model with lattice relaxation and sublattice polarization predicts that xi=1 gives a strong moiré potential and an isolated flat band, whereas xi=0 gives a weak potential and band overlap. A Stoner mean-field model with parameters taken from prior rhombohedral trilayer work reproduces the different flavor-filling sequences and magnetic lobes. The paper also reclassifies previously published RMG/hBN devices in Table 1, attributing sample-to-sample variability to xi.

Significance. If the central attribution is correct, the identification of xi as a controlling parameter would be an important advance for moiré engineering: it provides a natural explanation for longstanding device-to-device variability, gives a retrospective classification scheme, and has concrete implications for designing devices that target fractional and integer quantum anomalous Hall states. The experimental work has notable strengths: transport maps are reproducible within each class of two devices; the SQUID-on-tip measurements supply direct local magnetic signatures rather than relying solely on transport; and the authors explicitly test the sensitivity of the theoretical prediction to the moiré parameters in Extended Data Fig. 6. However, the paper's central comparative claim is weakened by device-level confounds that are visible in the Methods section, so the significance of the result is currently conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Device summary] The central comparison is confounded by device architecture. Devices A and B (labeled xi=1) use a Ti(2 nm)/Pt(10 nm) bottom gate and 36.6 nm bottom hBN, whereas devices C and D (labeled xi=0) use a graphite bottom gate and 27 nm bottom hBN. The bottom-gate material is therefore perfectly correlated with the xi label, and no device in the study has a graphite gate with strong-moiré transport or a metallic gate with weak-moiré transport. Because graphite and thin metal gates screen long-range Coulomb interactions differently, and because the Stoner/continuum model includes only a uniform displacement field and interaction parameters from non-moiré R3LG, the observed phase-diagram contrast cannot be uniquely attributed to alignment orientation. The statement in the Abstract that the devices 'differ only in alignment orientation' is not supported by the fabrication summary in Methods.
  2. [Transport measurements / Discussion] The xi labels are assigned post hoc from the same transport contrast that the theory is then used to explain. The main text states, 'Anticipating their microscopic origin, we label these classes by their alignment orientation,' and the Discussion concedes that no technique can determine xi during assembly. Table 1 then assigns xi to previously published devices based on the same empirical signature (robust insulating states at nu=3 and 4) that is later cited as evidence for the framework. This circularity weakens the claim that xi, rather than some other device property, is the cause of the two classes. A structural determination of xi or an out-of-sample prediction (e.g., a device whose xi is known independently of its transport) is needed to break the loop.
  3. [Methods, Device summary] Device A, the strongest xi=1 example, has twist angle theta approximately 0.06 degrees, whereas devices B, C, and D have theta approximately 0.26-0.29 degrees. Since the moiré potential amplitude grows with decreasing twist angle in the relaxational regime, the smaller twist of device A acts in the same direction as the claimed xi=1 classification and is not controlled for. Device B versus devices C/D provides a partial twist control, but even that comparison remains confounded by the bottom-gate material difference noted above.
  4. [Single-particle theory / Extended Data Fig. 6] The claim that the model has 'only free parameter is xi' (and later 'without any fitting parameters') is overstated. Extended Data Table 2 fixes eleven tight-binding and moiré parameters, and Extended Data Fig. 6 shows that the predicted xi asymmetry appears only when both r_BN=0.5 and kappa_hBN=0.5; with r_BN=kappa_hBN=1 the two orientations are nearly indistinguishable. Because these parameter values are inherited from a different system (R2LG/hBN) rather than independently constrained for R5LG/hBN, the theoretical support for the strong/weak dichotomy is conditional on their transferability.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The xi=1 transport map in Fig. 1a is measured at Ba=0 T and 500 mK, while the xi=0 map in Fig. 1b is measured at Ba=50 mT and 500 mK; the small field difference should be justified or explicitly stated to be negligible.
  2. [SQUID-on-tip magnetometry] The SOT maps for the two classes are acquired at different temperatures (20 mK for xi=1, 300 mK for xi=0) and with different ac modulation amplitudes; a comment on whether these differences affect the quantitative comparison of differential magnetization values would be helpful.
  3. [Weakly-magnetic phase] The Methods text explicitly acknowledges that the evidence for the IVC-spin-polarized interpretation of the weakly magnetic phase is insufficient and that alternatives cannot be ruled out; this caveat should be stated in the main-text phase-diagram discussion, not only in the Methods.
  4. [Stoner model, Eqs. (16)-(17)] The reference subtraction M_ref is chosen so that M(n) vanishes at charge neutrality; because this choice is not unique, its influence on the sign and magnitude of the calculated m_z lobes should be discussed.
  5. [Table 1] Table 1 lists several prior devices with different numbers of layers, twist angles, and gate geometries, but the criteria used to assign xi are summarized only as 'strong insulating behavior at nu=3 and 4'; a more explicit statement of the assignment rules and the uncertainties involved would improve transparency.
  6. [Methods, Continuum model, Eq. (9)] The physical definition of xi is given in prose as the alignment of (B,N) versus (N,B) under the (A1,B1) carbon sites; presenting this as an explicit equation or a table of the two stacking configurations would make the model easier to reproduce.
  7. [Discussion] The suggestion that xi=1 is less frequently realized because stronger moiré potential increases susceptibility to relaxation or disorder is presented without supporting evidence and should be clearly labeled as speculative.
  8. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous OCR-type artifacts (for example, 'orientafion', 'magnefizafion', and broken Greek letters) and would benefit from a careful proofread before publication.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The experimental demonstration is partly circular: the ξ labels are assigned from the transport contrast that is then attributed to ξ, and the Table 1 reclassification defines prior devices by the same resistance signature; the theoretical models are independently parameterized and are not themselves circular.

  1. self definitional [Transport measurements, p.3; Methods 'Device summary']
    "Despite their nearly identical twist angles, the devices exhibit qualitatively different behavior and naturally separate into two distinct classes (Extended Data Fig. 2). Anticipating their microscopic origin, we label these classes by their alignment orientation, ξ = 0 or ξ = 1."

    The structural parameter ξ is not measured by any structural technique; the paper itself concedes later that no technique can determine ξ during assembly. The class labels are assigned after seeing the transport contrast (strong versus weak integer-filling insulators), and the same contrast is then presented as the experimental consequence of ξ. Hence the central claim 'ξ=1 gives a strong moiré potential and robust insulators; ξ=0 gives a weak one' is enforced by the labeling rule rather than tested by it. The confound that devices A/B (ξ=1) use Ti/Pt bottom gates while C/D (ξ=0) use graphite gates means an alternative binary cause is also available, but even without that confound the label is not independent of the outcome.

  2. renaming known result [Discussion, p.10; Table 1]
    "In particular, strong insulating behavior at ν = 3 and 4 on the moiré-proximate side serves as a robust empirical signature of ξ = 1 devices, enabling reliable assignment of alignment orientation based on electron-side transport phase diagrams. As summarized in Table 1, this approach allows for consistent classification of nearly all published rhombohedral moiré graphene devices."

    The retrospective framework defines ξ=1 by the transport signature (robust ν=3,4 insulators) and then uses that classification to count how often ξ=1 occurs, to attribute topological-state differences to ξ, and to explain inconsistencies among prior reports. The resulting trend (ξ=1 is rarer; Chern insulators appear only in ξ=0) is a restatement of the same resistance-peak patterns used to assign the labels, not an independent confirmation of the moiré-orientation mechanism. The continuum and Stoner calculations are not used in this labeling step, so they do not break the circularity of the retrospective classification.

full rationale

The physics models in the paper are largely non-circular: the continuum model parameters are taken from prior bilayer-graphene work (ref. 32), the Stoner parameters from rhombohedral trilayer work (ref. 3), and Extended Data Fig. 6 shows the parameter dependence rather than fitting to the new devices. Those citations are self-citations for ref. 32, but they refer to an independent experimental system and are not the load-bearing step that makes the ξ contrast. The circularity lies in the experimental axis: ξ is an unmeasured binary attribute assigned to each device from the very transport/magnetometry behavior that is then explained by ξ ('Anticipating their microscopic origin, we label these classes by their alignment orientation'). In addition, the fabrication summary shows that the ξ=1 and ξ=0 device sets also differ in bottom-gate material (Ti/Pt vs graphite) and in twist angle for device A, so the 'differ only in alignment orientation' premise is not established. The Table 1 reclassification compounds this by defining ξ through the empirical signature and then citing the resulting distribution as support. Because the theory is separately parameterized and the qualitative band-structure contrast (isolated C1 band for ξ=1 vs overlapping C1/C2 for ξ=0) has independent content, the paper is only partially circular, not a pure definitional tautology; hence score 6 rather than 8-10.

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

The central claim draws heavily on prior fitted parameters and domain assumptions. The most important are the hBN tunneling ratio r_BN and relaxation factor kappa_hBN from Ref. [32], without which the xi asymmetry disappears; the sublattice polarization and CB stacking dominance assumptions; and Stoner interaction parameters from R3LG. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • r_BN = 0.5 (dimensionless)
    Ratio of nitrogen-carbon to boron-carbon tunneling, fitted in R2LG/hBN experiment [32]; Extended Data Fig. 6 shows the xi asymmetry only when r_BN<1.
  • kappa_hBN = 0.5 (dimensionless)
    Phenomenological suppression of AA-region tunneling due to lattice relaxation, from [32]; required together with r_BN to reproduce the xi contrast.
  • Stoner interaction strength S = 15 eV
    Flavor-diagonal interaction strength taken from R3LG [3]; same for both xi, but shapes the phase diagram.
  • Hund's coupling J = 4.5 eV
    Hund's coupling taken from R3LG [3]; controls the order of spin versus valley symmetry breaking.
  • Orbital magnetization reference subtraction M_ref = alpha-independent linear function chosen to zero M at charge neutrality
    Ad hoc subtraction in the orbital magnetization calculation; affects quantitative m_z values, not the phase sequence.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption RMG and hBN each break in-plane C2z symmetry, making xi=0 and xi=1 inequivalent.
    Foundation of the binary parameter; introduced in the transport measurement section and single-particle theory.
  • domain assumption CB stacking is energetically favorable and expands under lattice relaxation.
    Invoked in the single-particle theory; based on electronegativity arguments and prior elastic/ab initio references [12,29,38].
  • domain assumption Under displacement field, conduction electrons in the bottom graphene layer occupy primarily the A1 sublattice.
    Invoked in the single-particle theory; from prior RMG band structure work [1,39].
  • domain assumption Continuum model parameters from R2LG/hBN transfer quantitatively to R5LG/hBN.
    Methods state the model validity was established in simpler rhombohedral systems; the parameters are not independently fit in this paper.
  • standard math Stoner mean-field with contact interactions and trivial form factors captures flavor ordering.
    Eqs. 10-14; a phenomenological simplification (assumptions A1, A2, A3) following [63].
  • domain assumption Single-particle orbital magnetization with a chosen reference subtraction approximates the interacting magnetization.
    Methods section on orbital magnetization; no exact formula exists for interacting systems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of hBN alignment orientation controls moir\'e strength in rhombohedral graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KZLVI5CQ

@misc{pith2026250720647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: hBN alignment orientation controls moir\'e strength in rhombohedral graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KZLVI5CQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20647}
}
read the original abstract

Rhombohedral multilayer graphene hosts a rich landscape of correlated symmetry-broken phases, driven by strong interactions from its flat band edges. Aligning to hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) creates a moir\'e pattern, leading to recent observations of exotic ground states such as integer and fractional quantum anomalous Hall effects. Here, we show that the moir\'e effects and resulting correlated phase diagrams are critically influenced by a previously underestimated structural choice: the hBN alignment orientation. This binary parameter distinguishes between configurations where the rhombohedral graphene and hBN lattices are aligned near 0{\deg} or 180{\deg}, a distinction that arises only because both materials break inversion symmetry. Although the two orientations produce the same moir\'e wavelength, we find their distinct local stacking configurations result in markedly different moir\'e potential strengths. Using low-temperature transport and scanning SQUID-on-tip magnetometry, we compare nearly identical devices that differ only in alignment orientation and observe sharply contrasting sequences of symmetry-broken states. Theoretical analysis reveals a simple mechanism based on lattice relaxation and the atomic-scale electronic structure of rhombohedral graphene, supported by detailed modeling. These findings establish hBN alignment orientation as a key control parameter in moir\'e-engineered graphene systems and provide a framework for interpreting both prior and future experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20647 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of R5LG/hBN alignment orienta�ons 𝝃𝝃 in single-par�cle model. a, Schema�c side view of rhombohedral pentalayer graphene aligned to hBN and the hBN/R5LG moiré Brillouin zone (mBZ) with high-symmetry points 𝛤𝛤, 𝑋𝑋, 𝑌𝑌 and 𝑀𝑀. The subla�ce-polarized electronic wavefunc�ons at the top and botom graphene layers are shown schema�cally in purple. b, Stacking configura�ons in the AA (gray), CB (red), and CN (blue… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Local magne�c measurements and symmetry-broken phase diagrams. a, 𝐵𝐵𝑧𝑧 𝑎𝑎 (𝜈𝜈,𝐷𝐷) map for the 𝜉𝜉 = 1 device measured by the SOT in 𝐵𝐵𝑎𝑎 = 77 mT with 𝜈𝜈𝑎𝑎 = 0.079, revealing TRS broken states with large differen�al magne�za�on. b, Inferred schema�c phase diagram of R5LG/hBN for alignment orienta�on 𝜉𝜉 = 1 outlining main phases: 4-fold symmetric (Sym, gray), 2-fold valley-degenerate spin￾polarized (VD-SP, blue), 1-fol… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhang, B

    F. Zhang, B. Sahu, H. Min, and A. H. MacDonald, ''Band structure of ABC -stacked graphene trilayers'', Phys. Rev. B 82, 035409 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Ghazaryan, T

    A. Ghazaryan, T. Holder, E. Berg, and M. Serbyn, ''Mul�layer graphenes as a pla�orm for interac�on-driven physics and topological superconduc�vity'', Phys. Rev. B 107, 104502 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    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, 429–433 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    H. Zhou, L. Holleis, Y. Saito, L. Cohen, W. Huynh, C. L. Paterson, F. Yang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, ''Isospin magne�sm and spin-polarized superconduc�vity in Bernal bilayer graphene'', Science 375, 774–778 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Auerbach, S

    N. Auerbach, S. Duta, M. Uzan, Y. Vituri, Y. Zhou, A. Y. Meltzer, S. Grover, T. Holder, P. Emanuel, M. E. Huber, Y. Myasoedov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Oreg, E. Berg, and E. Zeldov, ''Isospin magne�c texture and intervalley exchange interac�on in rhombohedral tetralayer graphene'', arXiv:2503.14146 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, G. Scuri, J. Sung, J. Wang, T. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Park, and L. Ju, ''Correlated insulator and Chern insulators in pentalayer rhombohedral-stacked graphene'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 19, 181–187 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    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 insulator and metals in tetralayer rhombohedral graphene'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 19, 188–195 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    J. Jung, A. Raoux, Z. Qiao, and A. H. MacDonald, ''Ab ini�o theory of moiré superla�ce bands in layered two-dimensional materials'', Phys. Rev. B 89, 205414 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Moon and M

    P. Moon and M. Koshino, ''Electronic proper�es of graphene/hexagonal-boron-nitride moiré superla�ce'', Phys. Rev. B 90, 155406 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, Y

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, Y. Wang, J. Liu, P. M. Tam, Z. Qi, Y. Jia, D. K. Efetov, O. Vafek, N. Regnault, H. Weng, Q. Wu, B. A. Bernevig, and J. Yu, ''Moiré frac�onal Chern insulators. II. First-principles calcula�ons and con�nuum models of rhombohedral graphene superla�ces'', Phys...

    2024

  3. [11]

    J. Jung, A. M. DaSilva, A. H. MacDonald, and S. Adam, ''Origin of band gaps in graphene on hexagonal boron nitride'', Nat. Commun. 6, 6308 (2015). 13

    2015

  4. [12]

    L. P. A. Krisna and M. Koshino, ''Moiré phonons in graphene/hexagonal boron nitride moiré superla�ce'', Phys. Rev. B 107, 1–14 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Y. Park, Y. Kim, B. L. Chitari, and J. Jung, ''Topological flat bands in rhombohedral tetralayer and mul�layer graphene on hexagonal boron nitride moiré superla�ces'', Phys. Rev. B 108, 155406 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Repellin, Z

    C. Repellin, Z. Dong, Y.-H. Zhang, and T. Senthil, ''Ferromagne�sm in Narrow Bands of Moiré Superla�ces'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 187601 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Kolář, D

    K. Kolář, D. Waters, J. Folk, M. Yankowitz, and C. Lewandowski, ''Single-gate tracking behavior in flat-band mul�layer graphene devices'', arXiv:2503.10749 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Waters, A

    D. Waters, A. Okounkova, R. Su, B. Zhou, J. Yao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Xu, Y. H. Zhang, J. Folk, and M. Yankowitz, ''Chern Insulators at Integer and Frac�onal Filling in Moiré Pentalayer Graphene'', Phys. Rev. X 15, 11045 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    S. H. Aronson, T. Han, Z. Lu, Y. Yao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Ju, and R. C. Ashoori, ''Displacement field-controlled frac�onal Chern insulators and charge density waves in a graphene/hBN moiré superla�ce'', arXiv:2408.11220 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, A. P. Reddy, J. Yang, J. Seo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and L. Ju, ''Frac�onal quantum anomalous Hall effect in mul�layer graphene'', Nature 626, 759–764 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    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 frac�onal Chern insulators in rhombohedral graphene superla�ces'', Nat. Mater. 24, 1042–1048 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Z. Wang, Q. Liu, X. Han, Z. Li, W. Zhao, Z. Qu, C. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. V. Han, S. Zhou, B. Tong, G. Liu, L. Lu, J. Liu, F. Wu, and J. Lu, ''Electrical switching of Chern insulators in moiré rhombohedral heptalayer graphene'', arXiv:2503.00837 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    G. Chen, A. L. Sharpe, E. J. Fox, Y.-H. Zhang, S. Wang, L. Jiang, B. Lyu, H. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Shi, T. Senthil, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Y. Zhang, and F. Wang, ''Tunable correlated Chern insulator and ferromagne�sm in a moiré superla�ce'', Nature 579, 56–61 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Z. Dong, A. S. Patri, and T. Senthil, ''Theory of Quantum Anomalous Hall Phases in Pentalayer Rhombohedral Graphene Moiré Structures'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206502 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    B. Zhou, H. Yang, and Y. H. Zhang, ''Frac�onal Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in Rhombohedral Mul�layer Graphene in the Moiréless Limit'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206504 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    J. Dong, T. Wang, T. Wang, T. Soejima, M. P. Zaletel, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, ''Anomalous Hall Crystals in Rhombohedral Mul�layer Graphene. I. Interac�on-Driven Chern Bands and Frac�onal Quantum Hall States at Zero Magne�c Field'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206503 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Soejima, J

    T. Soejima, J. Dong, T. Wang, T. Wang, M. P. Zaletel, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, ''Anomalous Hall crystals in rhombohedral mul�layer graphene. II. General mechanism and a minimal model'', Phys. Rev. B 110, 205124 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Z. Guo, X. Lu, B. Xie, and J. Liu, ''Frac�onal Chern insulator states in mul�layer graphene moiré superla�ces'', Phys. Rev. B 110, 1–13 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    J. Yu, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, Y. H. Kwan, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, ''Moiré Frac�onal Chern Insulators IV: Fluctua�on-Driven Collapse of FCIs in Mul�-Band Exact Diagonaliza�on Calcula�ons on Rhombohedral Graphene'', arXiv:2407.13770 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Y. H. Kwan, J. Yu, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, D. K. Efetov, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, ''Moiré 14 Frac�onal Chern Insulators III: Hartree-Fock Phase Diagram, Magic Angle Regime for Chern Insulator States, the Role of the Moiré Poten�al and Goldstone Gaps in Rhombohedral Graphe...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Arrighi, V

    E. Arrighi, V. H. Nguyen, M. Di Luca, G. Maffione, Y. Hong, L. Farrar, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Mailly, J. C. Charlier, and R. Ribeiro-Palau, ''Non-iden�cal moiré twins in bilayer graphene'', Nat. Commun. 14, 1–7 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    L. S. Farrar, G. Maffione, V.-H. Nguyen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J.-C. Charlier, D. Mailly, and R. Ribeiro-Palau, ''Impact of the Angular Alignment on the Crystal Field and Intrinsic Doping of Bilayer Graphene/BN Heterostructures'', Nano Lett. 25, 2236–2241 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    K. P. Nuckolls and A. Yazdani, ''A microscopic perspec�ve on moiré materials'', Nat. Rev. Mater. 9, 460–480 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Bocarsly, M

    M. Bocarsly, M. Uzan, I. Roy, S. Grover, J. Xiao, Z. Dong, M. Labendik, A. Uri, M. E. Huber, Y. Myasoedov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Yan, L. S. Levitov, and E. Zeldov, ''De Haas–van Alphen spectroscopy and magne�c breakdown in moiré graphene'', Science 383, 42–48 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, and A. H. Macdonald, ''Hubbard Model Physics in Transi�on Metal Dichalcogenide Moiré Bands'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 26402 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    M. H. Naik and M. Jain, ''Ultraflatbands and Shear Solitons in Moiré Paterns of Twisted Bilayer Transi�on Metal Dichalcogenides'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 266401 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, I. Mar�n, and A. H. Macdonald, ''Topological Insulators in Twisted Transi�on Metal Dichalcogenide Homobilayers'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 86402 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Zhang, T

    Y. Zhang, T. Liu, and L. Fu, ''Electronic structures, charge transfer, and charge order in twisted transi�on metal dichalcogenide bilayers'', Phys. Rev. B 103, 1–6 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    C. R. Woods, L. Britnell, A. Eckmann, R. S. Ma, J. C. Lu, H. M. Guo, X. Lin, G. L. Yu, Y. Cao, R. V Gorbachev, A. V Kre�nin, J. Park, L. A. Ponomarenko, M. I. Katsnelson, Y. N. Gornostyrev, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Casiraghi, H.-J. Gao, A. K. Geim, and K. S. Novoselov, ''...

    2014

  30. [38]

    J. Jung, E. Laksono, A. M. Dasilva, A. H. Macdonald, M. Mucha-Kruczyński, and S. Adam, ''Moiré band model and band gaps of graphene on hexagonal boron nitride'', Phys. Rev. B 96, 1–14 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    R. Xiao, F. Tasnádi, K. Koepernik, J. W. F. Venderbos, M. Richter, and M. Taut, ''Density func�onal inves�ga�on of rhombohedral stacks of graphene: Topological surface states, nonlinear dielectric response, and bulk limit'', Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 84, 1–15 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Finkler, Y

    A. Finkler, Y. Segev, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, L. Ne’Eman, D. Vasyukov, E. Zeldov, M. E. Huber, J. Mar�n, and A. Yacoby, ''Self-aligned nanoscale SQUID on a �p'', Nano Lett. 10, 1046–1049 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Vasyukov, Y

    D. Vasyukov, Y. Anahory, L. Embon, D. Halbertal, J. Cuppens, L. Neeman, A. Finkler, Y. Segev, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, M. E. Huber, and E. Zeldov, ''A scanning superconduc�ng quantum interference device with single electron spin sensi�vity'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 639– 644 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Grover, M

    S. Grover, M. Bocarsly, A. Uri, P. Stepanov, G. Di Ba�sta, I. Roy, J. Xiao, A. Y. Meltzer, Y. Myasoedov, K. Pareek, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Yan, A. Stern, E. Berg, D. K. Efetov, and E. Zeldov, ''Chern mosaic and Berry-curvature magne�sm in magic-angle graphene'', Nat. Ph...

    2022

  35. [43]

    Y. Liu, A. Gupta, Y. Choi, Y. Vituri, H. Stoyanov, J. Xiao, Y. Wang, H. Zhou, B. Barick, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, B. Yan, E. Berg, A. F. Young, H. Beidenkopf, and N. Avraham, ''Visualizing incommensurate inter-valley coherent states in rhombohedral trilayer graphene'', arXiv...

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    T. Arp, O. Sheekey, H. Zhou, C. L. Tschirhart, C. L. Paterson, 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

  37. [45]

    Y. Choi, Y. Choi, M. Valen�ni, C. L. Paterson, L. F. W. Holleis, O. I. Sheekey, H. Stoyanov, X. Cheng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, ''Superconduc�vity and quan�zed anomalous Hall effect in rhombohedral graphene'', Nature 639, 342–347 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    C. Li, Z. Sun, K. Liu, L. Qiao, Y. Wei, C. Zheng, C. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Yang, D. Guan, L. Liu, S. Wang, Y. Li, H. Zheng, C. Liu, B. Tong, L. Lu, J. Jia, Z. Shi, J. Liu, G. Chen, T. Li, and X. Liu, ''Tunable Chern Insulators in Moiré-Distant and Moiré-Proximal...

    2025

  39. [47]

    W. Zhou, J. Ding, J. Hua, L. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, W. Zhu, and S. Xu, ''Layer- polarized ferromagne�sm in rhombohedral mul�layer graphene'', Nat. Commun. 15, 2597 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    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'', Phys. Rev. X 15, 1–10 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Serlin, C

    M. Serlin, C. L. Tschirhart, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Balents, and A. F. Young, ''Intrinsic quan�zed anomalous Hall effect in a moiré heterostructure'', Science 367, 900–903 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Y. Xie, A. T. Pierce, J. M. Park, D. E. Parker, E. Khalaf, P. Ledwith, Y. Cao, S. H. Lee, S. Chen, P. R. Forrester, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and A. Yacoby, ''Frac�onal Chern insulators in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene'', Nature 600, ...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Zhang, W.-P

    X. Zhang, W.-P. Han, X.-F. Qiao, Q.-H. Tan, Y.-F. Wang, J. Zhang, and P.-H. Tan, ''Raman characteriza�on of AB- and ABC-stacked few-layer graphene by interlayer shear modes'', Carbon N. Y. 99, 118–122 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Y. Li, Y. Rao, K. F. Mak, Y. You, S. Wang, C. R. Dean, and T. F. Heinz, ''Probing symmetry proper�es of few-layer MoS2 and h-BN by op�cal second-harmonic genera�on'', Nano Lett. 13, 3329–3333 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Y. Shan, Y. Li, D. Huang, Q. Tong, W. Yao, W. T. Liu, and S. Wu, ''Stacking symmetry governed second harmonic genera�on in graphene trilayers'', Sci. Adv. 4, 1–5 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Anahory, H

    Y. Anahory, H. R. Naren, E. O. Lachman, S. Buhbut Sinai, A. Uri, L. Embon, E. Yaakobi, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, R. Klajn, and E. Zeldov, ''SQUID-on-�p with single-electron spin sensi�vity for high-field and ultra-low temperature nanomagne�c imaging'', Nanoscale 12, 3174–3182 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    M. E. Huber, P. A. Neil, R. G. Benson, D. A. Burns, A. M. Corey, C. S. Flynn, Y. Kitaygorodskaya, O. Massihzadeh, J. M. Mar�nis, and G. C. Hilton, ''DC SQUID series array amplifiers with 120 MHz bandwidth'', IEEE Trans. Appiled Supercond. 11, 1251–1256 (2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    Finkler, D

    A. Finkler, D. Vasyukov, Y. Segev, L. Ne’eman, E. O. Lachman, M. L. Rappaport, Y. Myasoedov, E. Zeldov, and M. E. Huber, ''Scanning superconduc�ng quantum interference device on a �p for magne�c imaging of nanoscale phenomena'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83, 073702 (2012). 16

    2012

  49. [57]

    Halbertal, J

    D. Halbertal, J. Cuppens, M. Ben Shalom, L. Embon, N. Shadmi, Y. Anahory, H. R. Naren, J. Sarkar, A. Uri, Y. Ronen, Y. Myasoedov, L. S. Levitov, E. Joselevich, A. K. Geim, and E. Zeldov, ''Nanoscale thermal imaging of dissipa�on in quantum systems'', Nature 539, 407–410 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    A. Y. Meltzer, E. Levin, and E. Zeldov, ''Direct Reconstruc�on of Two-Dimensional Currents in Thin Films from Magne�c-Field Measurements'', Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 064030 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    A. E. E. Dubois, D. A. Broadway, A. Stark, M. A. Tschudin, A. J. Healey, S. D. Huber, J.-P. Te�enne, E. Greplova, and P. Male�nsky, ''Untrained Physically Informed Neural Network for Image Reconstruc�on of Magne�c Field Sources'', Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 064076 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Jung and A

    J. Jung and A. H. MacDonald, ''Gapped broken symmetry states in ABC-stacked trilayer graphene'', Phys. Rev. B 88, 075408 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    G. Chen, A. L. Sharpe, P. Gallagher, I. T. Rosen, E. J. Fox, L. Jiang, B. Lyu, H. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Jung, Z. Shi, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Y. Zhang, and F. Wang, ''Signatures of tunable superconduc�vity in a trilayer graphene moiré superla�ce'', Nature 572, 215–219 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Chaterjee, T

    S. Chaterjee, T. Wang, E. Berg, and M. P. Zaletel, ''Inter-valley coherent order and isospin fluctua�on mediated superconduc�vity in rhombohedral trilayer graphene'', Nat. Commun. 13, 6013 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Zondiner, A

    U. Zondiner, A. Rozen, D. Rodan-Legrain, Y. Cao, R. Queiroz, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Oreg, F. von Oppen, A. Stern, E. Berg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and S. Ilani, ''Cascade of phase transi�ons and Dirac revivals in magic-angle graphene'', Nature 582, 203–208 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    unpaired

    Y. Xie, A. T. Pierce, J. M. Park, D. E. Parker, J. Wang, P. Ledwith, Z. Cai, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Khalaf, A. Vishwanath, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and A. Yacoby, ''Strong interac�ons and isospin symmetry breaking in a supermoiré la�ce'', arXiv:2404.01372 (2024). 17 Methods ...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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