Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

The paper argues that charge transfer in rhombohedral graphene-insulator heterostructures can produce, via a Wigner-crystal substrate superlattice, topological flat bands, Chern insulators at integer fillings, and an interlayer excitonic in

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 10:13 UTC pith:NHIME4P4

load-bearing objection Solid screening model for the bent CNP; the Chern-insulator prediction rests on an unverified Wigner-crystal assumption. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.10530 v2 pith:NHIME4P4 submitted 2026-01-15 cond-mat.str-el

Correlated states in charge-transfer heterostructures based on rhombohedral multilayer graphene

Yanran Shi , Min Li , Xin Lu , Jianpeng Liu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords charge-transfer heterostructuresrhombohedral multilayer grapheneWigner crystalChern insulatorexcitonic insulatorelectrostatic screeningsuperlattice potentialCrOCl
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper develops a unified theoretical framework for charge-transfer heterostructures made of rhombohedral multilayer graphene on a heavy-band-edge insulating substrate. Its central claim is that transferred substrate carriers, when dilute and heavy, form a triangular Wigner crystal that imprints a long-wavelength superlattice potential on the graphene, flattening the low-energy bands into a topological band with Chern number one; spontaneous symmetry breaking inside that band yields Chern insulating ground states at fillings ν=1 and 2. When the substrate effective mass is comparable to graphene's, the same interlayer Coulomb interactions bind electrons and holes across the interface into an interlayer excitonic insulator at charge neutrality. A self-consistent electrostatic model that includes the exchange self-energy of transferred carriers also reproduces the experimentally observed bent, broadened charge-neutrality region. A sympathetic reader would care because the work offers a gate-tunable route to topological and excitonic correlated states without requiring moiré alignment.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the physics of RMG-insulator charge-transfer heterostructures is governed by the Coulomb interaction with carriers transferred to the substrate. When the substrate's conduction band edge is heavy and the transferred density is low (Wigner-Seitz radius r_s ≳ 31), those carriers are expected to form a triangular Wigner crystal with period L_s = sqrt(2/(sqrt(3) n_sub)). The interlayer Coulomb potential then acts as a superlattice potential on the graphene; for periods above about 10 nm the authors find an isolated lowest conduction band with Chern number |C|=1. Projecting Coulomb interactions onto these bands and performing a band-projected mean-field calcu

What carries the argument

Two coupled elements carry the argument. The first is the interlayer Coulomb coupling between substrate carriers and RMG electrons, whose Fourier transform V(|q|) = e^2/(2 ε0 εr Ω_d) e^{-|q| d}/|q| becomes, in the Hartree approximation, a superlattice potential with Fourier components proportional to e^{-|Q| d}/|Q|. This potential, called U_s(r), narrows the RMG bands and endows them with Chern number. The second is the self-consistent electrostatic screening model, which iterates layer-resolved Poisson electrostatics together with the exchange self-energy of the substrate band edge; the competition between the linear screening shift and the √n_sub exchange shift produces the bent charge-neu

Load-bearing premise

The entire Chern-insulator mechanism rests on the assumption that the dilute heavy carriers in the substrate actually form a long-range-ordered triangular Wigner crystal at the parameters used; if disorder or a different charge order (stripe, liquid, or pinned glass) wins, the superlattice potential and the topological flat bands disappear.

What would settle it

A concrete test: map the substrate's interface charge order with scanning tunneling microscopy at the densities used (n_sub below threshold, r_s ≈ 31). If the order is not triangular, or if gate-dependent transport shows insulating states at ν=1 and 2 that are inconsistent with the triangular period L_s = sqrt(2/(√3 n_sub)), the mechanism is falsified. Alternatively, a numerically exact quantum Monte Carlo study of the 2D electron gas at r_s ≈ 31 can check whether the triangular Wigner crystal is the true ground state under the dielectric screening assumed here.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Chern insulator phases with quantized Hall conductance should appear in transport at fillings ν=1 and 2 of the Wigner superlattice near the charge-transfer phase boundary where the period is longest.
  • The mechanism should work for bilayer and trilayer rhombohedral graphene and for any insulating substrate with a heavy, low-density band edge, making it a general design principle rather than specific to one material.
  • The self-consistent screening model predicts layer-resolved densities and the shape of the charge-neutrality region for arbitrary RMG thickness and gate field, enabling deliberate engineering of the CNP width.
  • At charge neutrality, the interlayer excitonic insulator is a gapped zero-doping state driven by spontaneous layer U(1) breaking, implying a finite gap in compressibility measurements at the CNP.
  • A full-band calculation without any imposed Wigner crystal reproduces the substrate charge order at finite doping, lending self-consistent support to the product-state treatment used in the Chern-insulator regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural untested extension is to search for fractional Chern states (e.g., ν=1/3 or 2/3) inside the isolated |C|=1 flat band; the paper does not explore fractional fillings, but its band structure suggests this possibility.
  • Because the superlattice period is controlled by the transferred carrier density, a single gate can continuously tune the system from dispersive to flat bands in situ—a knob conceptually distinct from moiré twist angle—allowing a sweep across the Chern-insulator boundary in one device.
  • The model assumes a rigid triangular Wigner crystal; allowing the RMG charge to back-react on the substrate order, or relaxing triangular symmetry, might shift phase boundaries or introduce competing charge-density-wave states.
  • The interlayer excitonic insulator, if realized, could be probed by interlayer tunneling spectroscopy, which should reveal a phase-coherence or superfluid-like signature; the paper proposes no specific measurement, leaving the experimental avenue open.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies charge-transfer heterostructures of rhombohedral multilayer graphene (RMG) with insulating substrates such as CrOCl. It presents a self-consistent electrostatic screening model, including a Fock self-energy correction for transferred substrate carriers, that reproduces the experimentally observed bent and broadened charge-neutrality region in BLG-CrOCl transport. The authors then argue that when the substrate effective mass is much larger than that of RMG, the dilute transferred carriers can form a triangular Wigner crystal, whose periodic potential generates topological flat bands in the RMG layer; band-projected Hartree-Fock calculations yield Chern-insulator ground states at integer fillings ν = 1, 2. For comparable effective masses, a full-band Hartree-Fock treatment is reported to stabilize an interlayer excitonic insulator at charge neutrality. The paper contains no code or data release.

Significance. If the central Wigner-superlattice mechanism holds, the paper would provide a unified picture connecting charge-transfer screening, substrate charge order, topological flat bands, and correlated Chern insulators, and would make concrete predictions for BLG-CrOCl and TriLG-CrOCl devices. The electrostatic screening model with Fock correction is a concrete, physically motivated contribution that is anchored to DFT values (E_CBM = -0.13 eV, m* = 1.3 m0) and to the qualitative transport features of Ref. [22]. The paper also provides Chern-number phase diagrams and explicit Hartree-Fock spectra for both BLG and TriLG, which is a useful level of detail. However, the paper does not ship code or quantitative fitting statistics, and the load-bearing Wigner-crystal premise is assumed rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Chern insulator boosted by Wigner crystallization'; Fig. 2(c,d)] The entire Chern-insulator mechanism rests on the assertion that the substrate carriers form a triangular Wigner crystal with period L_s = sqrt(2/(sqrt(3) n_sub)). The paper never reports the substrate density n_sub (or r_s) along the ν = 1 and ν = 2 iso-filling lines where CI states are claimed. With the CrOCl parameters used in the paper (m* = 1.3 m0, ε_r = 8), one has a_B* ≈ 0.326 nm and r_s ≥ 31 requires n_sub ≲ 3×10^11 cm^-2. If the CI points correspond to n_sub ~ 10^12 cm^-2, then r_s ≈ 17, below the ideal crystallization threshold used to justify the Wigner crystal. The text says CI states appear 'near the charge-transfer phase boundary, where the formed Wigner superlattice exhibits a long period due to the low transferred carrier density,' but no numerical values are given. This is a load-bearing quantitative gap: the predicted Chern insulators must be shown to lie in the paramet
  2. [Supplemental Material, 'Full-band Hartree-Fock method'] The full-band HF calculation is presented as providing 'strong self-consistent support' for the Wigner-superlattice scenario, but the method section states: 'We begin with trial initial states in which translational symmetry is weakly broken by introducing a trial superlattice potential, whose lattice constant is determined by sqrt(3) L_s^2 n_sub / 2 = 2.' This means the triangular superlattice period and its symmetry are inputs to the calculation, not emergent outputs. The HF iteration can therefore only test the stability of a state within the imposed superlattice ansatz; it cannot establish that the true ground state spontaneously orders with that period and symmetry. To support the claim, the authors should either perform unconstrained HF from uniform or random initial states, or explicitly re-label the calculation as a stability check of an assumed order rather than independent corr
  3. [Main text, 'Interlayer excitonic insulator'; Fig. 3; Supplemental 'Full-band Hartree-Fock method'] The IEI phase diagram of Fig. 3 is obtained for m*/m0 up to 0.25 and E_CBM down to -130 meV, whereas the CrOCl parameters used elsewhere in the paper are m* = 1.3 m0 and E_CBM = -130 meV. The IEI is therefore not directly relevant to the BLG-CrOCl experiments, and the paper should clarify whether it is intended as a general theoretical prediction for a different substrate. More importantly, the full-band HF procedure described in the Supplemental Material uses a seeded trial superlattice potential; if the same protocol was applied at charge neutrality for the IEI calculation, the seed could bias the system toward an inhomogeneous or charge-ordered state and artificially stabilize the excitonic condensate. The authors should specify the initial conditions used for the IEI calculations and report results from uniform initial states as a control.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1(c,d) and related text] The claimed quantitative reproduction of the experimental bent and broadened CNP region would be more convincing with a direct overlay of the calculated iso-doping lines with the transport data of Ref. [22], or at least a goodness-of-fit metric. As written, the agreement is qualitative.
  2. [Fig. 2 and text around Eq. (1)] The definition ν = sqrt(3) L_s^2 n_g / 2 is used for the filling factor, but the derivation of this relation and the choice of triangular superlattice geometry should be stated explicitly in the main text rather than only in the figure caption.
  3. [References] There are duplicate references: Drummond and Needs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 126402 (2009) appears as both Ref. [60] and Ref. [66]; similarly Refs. [61,62,75] overlap with Ref. [63,73,76]. Please consolidate.
  4. [Supplemental Material, 'Full-band Hartree-Fock method'] The description of the composite index λ and the block structure of ϵ_k in Eq. (S41) is dense and would benefit from a small clarifying sentence explaining the ordering of the blocks, especially for readers not working with the k·p model of rhombohedral graphene.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Full-band HF 'corroboration' of the Wigner crystal is seeded with a trial superlattice of exactly the assumed period; the central Chern-insulator derivation otherwise rests on an external Wigner-crystal assumption rather than a circular fit.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplemental Materials, Full-band Hartree-Fock Method (after Eq. S43)]
    "In our numerical calculations, We begin with trial initial states in which translational symmetry is weakly broken by introducing a trial superlattice potential, whose lattice constant is determined by √3L_s^2 n_sub/2 = 2, and then perform self-consistent Hartree-Fock iterations until convergence is reached."

    The trial superlattice potential directly encodes the triangular Wigner-crystal order with a period fixed by n_sub through the same formula used in the Born-Oppenheimer model. The converged HF state therefore cannot independently corroborate the Wigner-crystal scenario; the ordering symmetry and periodicity are imposed at the start. The main text uses this calculation to claim 'strong self-consistent support... without imposing the Born-Oppenheimer-type treatment,' but the decisive assumption of the Wigner-crystal superlattice has already been inserted via the trial state, so the corroboration is partly by construction.

full rationale

The paper's electrostatic screening model is not circular: it uses DFT-derived inputs (E_CBM=-0.13 eV, m*=1.3 m0) and is benchmarked against the experimentally observed bent and broadened CNP region, so the screening prediction has independent content. The central Chern-insulator mechanism is a conditional calculation: given a triangular Wigner-crystal superlattice of period L_s, the paper computes flat bands with Chern number |C|=1 and then Chern-insulating HF ground states at ν=1,2. That derivation is internally consistent and does not reduce to its inputs by definition; the Wigner-crystal premise is an external physical assumption (supported by the r_s≳31 QMC threshold and previous experiments), not a fitted parameter. The one identifiable circular element is the full-band HF 'corroboration' of the Wigner crystal: it is seeded with a trial superlattice whose lattice constant is determined by the Wigner-crystal formula, so the resulting ordered state is not an independent prediction. Because this circular corroboration is secondary rather than load-bearing for the main flat-band/Chern-insulator result, the overall circularity score is 4, not higher.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on several tunable inputs (E_CBM, m*, epsilon_r, L_s, kappa, cutoff energies) and on the assumption of a Wigner-crystal superlattice. The paper introduces no new entities, but its predictions depend on unverified ordering assumptions and on RG corrections taken from prior work. The free parameters are physical inputs or model choices, but their scanning in Fig. 3 means the IEI phase boundary is a parameter exploration, not a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • E_CBM (substrate CBM relative to RMG CNP) = -0.13 eV for CrOCl (from DFT); scanned -130 to -30 meV in Fig. 3
    Band alignment parameter controlling charge transfer; for CrOCl taken from cited DFT, but in the full-band HF phase diagram it is scanned as a free parameter.
  • m* (substrate carrier effective mass) = 1.3 m0 for CrOCl; scanned 0.05-0.25 m0 in Fig. 3
    Effective mass of the substrate's 2DEG. Controls Wigner crystal formation and IEI phase; scanned as a free parameter in the phase diagrams.
  • epsilon_r (dielectric constant) = 8 for BLG-CrOCl, 16 for TriLG-CrOCl
    Chosen per system to capture screening; the paper states it is chosen to reflect enhanced screening with layer number, effectively a tuning parameter.
  • Superlattice period L_s = determined by n_sub via sqrt(3) L_s^2 n_sub / 2 = nu
    The Wigner-crystal superlattice period is an input assumption; its relation to density is geometric, but the existence of triangular Wigner ordering is assumed.
  • kappa (inverse screening length) = 1/400 Å^-1
    Chosen screening length in the model Coulomb potential; no sensitivity analysis given.
  • E_C (energy cutoff) and E*_C (low-energy window) = not stated numerically
    Renormalization-group correction depends on these cutoffs, which are not specified quantitatively in the text.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Interlayer hopping between RMG and substrate is negligible, giving an emergent layer U(1) symmetry.
    Invoked in 'Electrostatic screening model' and used for the full-band HF and IEI; supported by cited DFT but not demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption The substrate's transferred carriers form a triangular Wigner crystal below a density threshold (r_s >= about 31).
    This is the premise for the superlattice potential in the Chern-insulator section; its validity is not derived, only asserted and partially corroborated by the full-band HF section.
  • domain assumption Wannier functions of RMG and substrate are so localized that the interlayer Coulomb coupling reduces to density-density at lattice sites.
    Used in the derivation of the superlattice potential (Supp. Eq. S18-S25); a standard approximation for long-wavelength superlattices.
  • domain assumption Coulomb interactions are density-density dominated; atomistic on-site Coulomb interactions are neglected.
    Used in band-projected HF (Supp. 'Band-projected Hartree-Fock Method') with the argument that low density makes onsite interaction weak.
  • standard math Renormalization of model parameters v_F and t_perp by remote-band electrons follows the perturbative RG formulas of Ref. [73].
    The paper does not derive these formulas, citing Ref. [73] (which shares authors); they are used to obtain flat bands.
  • domain assumption Intervalley Coulomb interactions are negligible (exponentially small or two orders of magnitude weaker).
    Used in deriving the superlattice Hamiltonian and in the band-projected HF interaction.
invented entities (1)
  • No new physical entities introduced no independent evidence
    purpose: The paper does not postulate new particles, fields, or dimensions; it uses established states (Wigner crystal, excitonic insulator, Chern insulator) in a new heterostructure context.
    The 'Wigner crystal of substrate carriers' is an assumed ordered state of known electrons, not a new entity. The 'interlayer exciton' is a bound electron-hole pair, not a new particle.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21457 in / 8864 out tokens · 69079 ms · 2026-08-03T10:13:50.567013+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Charge transfer is a common phenomenon in van der Waals heterostructures with proper work function mismatch, which enables electrostatic gating to control band alignment and interlayer charge distributions. This provides a tunable platform for studying coupled bilayer correlated electronic systems. Here, we theoretically investigate heterostructures of rhombohedral multilayer graphene (RMG) and an insulating substrate with gate-tunable band alignment. We first develop a self-consistent electrostatic theory for layer charge densities incorporating charge transfer, which reproduces the experimentally observed broadened and bent charge neutrality region. When the substrate's band edge has a much larger effective mass than RMG, its carriers may form a Wigner crystal at low densities. This generates a quantum superlattice that induces topological flat bands in the RMG layer through interlayer Coulomb interactions, which may further lead to Chern insulators driven by Coulomb interactions within the RMG layers. Conversely, with comparable effective masses, we find an interlayer excitonic insulator state at charge neutrality stabilized by interlayer Coulomb coupling. Our work establishes these charge-transfer heterostructures as a rich platform for topological and excitonic correlated states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.10530 by Jianpeng Liu, Min Li, Xin Lu, Yanran Shi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Upper panel: schematic image of device and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. HF single particle spectra for HF ground state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) HF ground state phase diagram of BLG-substrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. K. Geim and I. V. Grigorieva, Nature499, 419 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, A. Ghazaryan, T. Holder, J. R. Ehrets, E. M. Spanton, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Berg, M. Serbyn, et al., Nature598, 429 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Q. Tong, F. Liu, J. Xiao, and W. Yao, Nano Letters18, 7194 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Huang, T

    X. Huang, T. Wang, S. Miao, C. Wang, Z. Li, Z. Lian, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, S. Okamoto, D. Xiao, S.-F. Shi, and Y.-T. Cui, Nature Physics17, 715 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    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, Nature579, 56 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    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 insulators in rhombohedral graphene superlattices (2025), arXiv:2405.16944 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Y. Choi, Y. Choi, M. Valentini, C. L. Patterson, L. F. W. Holleis, O. I. Sheekey, H. Stoyanov, X. Cheng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Nature639, 342–347 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    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, Physical Review X15, 10.1103/physrevx.15.011045 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.15.011045 2025

  9. [9]

    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 rhombohedral heptalayer graphene (2025), arXiv:2502.18031 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, Z. Hadjri, J. Yang, J. Seo, L. Shi, S. Ye, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and L. Ju, Nature637, 1090 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    S. H. Aronson, T. Han, Z. Lu, Y. Yao, J. P. Butler, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Ju, and R. C. Ashoori, Physical Review X15, 10.1103/75gl-jzl6 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/75gl-jzl6 2025

  12. [12]

    W. Zhou, J. Ding, J. Hua, L. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, W. Zhu, and S. Xu, Nature Communications15, 2597 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    X. Han, Q. Liu, Y. Wang, R. Niu, Z. Qu, Z. Wang, Z. Li, C. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Song, J. Liu, J. Mao, Z. Han, B. L. Chittari, J. Jung, Z. Gan, and J. Lu, Nano Letters24, 6286 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    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, Physical Review X15, 10.1103/physrevx.15.011052 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.15.011052 2025

  15. [15]

    Zheng, S

    J. Zheng, S. Wu, K. Liu, B. Lyu, S. Liu, Y. Sha, Z. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Jia, Z. Shi, and G. Chen, Switchable chern insulator, isospin competitions and charge density waves in rhombohedral graphene moire superlattices (2024), arXiv:2412.09985 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    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 moire rhombohedral heptalayer graphene (2025), arXiv:2503.00837 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    E. C. Regan, D. Wang, C. Jin, M. I. Bakti Utama, B. Gao, X. Wei, S. Zhao, W. Zhao, Z. Zhang, K. Yumigeta, M. Blei, J. D. Carlstr¨ om, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Tongay, M. Crommie, A. Zettl, and F. Wang, Nature579, 359 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Y. Tang, L. Li, T. Li, Y. Xu, S. Liu, K. Barmak, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. H. MacDonald, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature579, 353 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Y. Xu, S. Liu, D. A. Rhodes, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, V. Elser, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature587, 214 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    X. Lu, S. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Gao, K. Yang, Z. Guo, Y. Gao, Y. Ye, Z. Han, and J. Liu, Nature Communications14, 5550 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Y. Wang, X. Gao, K. Yang, P. Gu, X. Lu, S. Zhang, Y. Gao, N. Ren, B. Dong, Y. Jiang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Kang, W. Lou, J. Mao, J. Liu, Y. Ye, Z. Han, K. Chang, J. Zhang, and Z. Zhang, Nature Nanotechnology17, 1272 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

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

    2023

  23. [23]

    Y. Guo, J. Li, X. Zhan, C. Wang, M. Li, B. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, K. Yang, H. Wang, W. Li, P. Gu, Z. Luo, Y. Liu, P. Liu, B. Chen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X.-Q. Chen, C. Qin, J. Chen, D. Sun, J. Zhang, R. Wang, J. Liu, Y. Ye, X. Li, Y. Hou, W. Zhou, H. Wang, and Z. Han, Nature630, 346 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Wigner, Phys

    E. Wigner, Phys. Rev.46, 1002 (1934). 17

    1934

  25. [25]

    E. Y. Andrei, D. K. Efetov, P. Jarillo-Herrero, A. H. MacDonald, K. F. Mak, T. Senthil, E. Tutuc, A. Yazdani, and A. F. Young, Nature Reviews Materials6, 201 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 12233 (2011), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1108174108

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1108174108 2011

  27. [27]

    Tenasini, D

    G. Tenasini, D. Soler-Delgado, Z. Wang, F. Yao, D. Dumcenco, E. Giannini, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Moulsdale, A. Garcia-Ruiz, V. I. Fal’ko, I. Guti´ errez-Lezama, and A. F. Morpurgo, Nano Letters22, 6760 (2022), pMID: 35930625

    2022

  28. [28]

    Tseng, T

    C.-C. Tseng, T. Song, Q. Jiang, Z. Lin, C. Wang, J. Suh, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. A. McGuire, D. Xiao, J.-H. Chu, D. H. Cobden, X. Xu, and M. Yankowitz, Nano Letters22, 8495 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Tilak, M

    N. Tilak, M. Altvater, S.-H. Hung, C.-J. Won, G. Li, T. Kaleem, S.-W. Cheong, C.-H. Chung, H.-T. Jeng, and E. Y. Andrei, Nature Communications15, 8056 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Nature598, 434 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    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, Nature584, 210 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Myhro, S

    K. Myhro, S. Che, Y. Shi, Y. Lee, K. Thilahar, K. Bleich, D. Smirnov, and C. N. Lau, 2D Materials5, 045013 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, G. Scuri, J. Sung, J. Wang, T. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, H. Park, and L. Ju, Nature623, 41 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, G. Scuri, J. Sung, J. Wang, T. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Park, and L. Ju, Nat. Nanotechnol. 19, 181 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, Y. Yao, J. Yang, J. Seo, C. Yoon, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, F. Zhang, and L. Ju, Science384, 647 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adk9749

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adk9749 2024

  36. [36]

    Y. Sha, J. Zheng, K. Liu, H. Du, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Jia, Z. Shi, R. Zhong, and G. Chen, Science384, 414 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adj8272

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adj8272 2024

  37. [37]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, Z. Hadjri, L. Shi, Z. Wu, W. Xu, Y. Yao, A. A. Cotten, O. Sharifi Sedeh, H. Weldeyesus, J. Yang, J. Seo, S. Ye, M. Zhou, H. Liu, G. Shi, Z. Hua, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Xiong, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature 643, 654 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    C. L. Patterson, O. I. Sheekey, T. B. Arp, L. F. W. Holleis, J. M. Koh, Y. Choi, T. Xie, S. Xu, E. Redekop, G. Babikyan, H. Zhou, X. Cheng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, C. Jin, E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, J. Alicea, and A. F. Young, Superconduc- tivity and spin canting in spin-orbit proximitized rhombohedral trilayer graphene (2024), arXiv:2408.10190 [cond-mat.m...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    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 (2025), arXiv:2408.09906 [cond-mat.supr- con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    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, Nature Nanotechnology19, 188 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    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, Nature Nanotechnology20, 222 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    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, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2410714121 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Guo and J

    Z. Guo and J. Liu, Nature Communications16, 11289 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    B. A. Bernevig and Y. H. Kwan, ”berry trashcan” model of interacting electrons in rhombohedral graphene (2025), arXiv:2503.09692 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi, A. Dunbrack, A. Abouelkomsan, J. Sun, X. Du, and J. Cano, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 196201 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi and J. Cano, Phys. Rev. B107, 195423 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    S. Wang, Z. Zhan, X. Fan, Y. Li, P. A. Pantale´ on, C. Ye, Z. He, L. Wei, L. Li, F. Guinea, S. Yuan, and C. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 066302 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Y. Zeng, T. M. R. Wolf, C. Huang, N. Wei, S. A. A. Ghorashi, A. H. MacDonald, and J. Cano, Phys. Rev. B109, 195406 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Z. Zhan, Y. Li, and P. A. Pantale´ on, Phys. Rev. B111, 045148 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Y. Shi, B. Xie, F. Ren, X. Cai, Z. Guo, Q. Li, X. Lu, N. Regnault, Z. Liu, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 256603 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    X. Zhu, P. B. Littlewood, M. S. Hybertsen, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1633 (1995)

    1995

  52. [52]

    D. I. Pikulin and T. Hyart, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 176403 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    Q. Zhu, M. W.-Y. Tu, Q. Tong, and W. Yao, Science Advances5, eaau6120 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    Seradjeh, J

    B. Seradjeh, J. E. Moore, and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 066402 (2009)

    2009

  55. [55]

    Shao and X

    Y. Shao and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. B109, 155107 (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    Zhu and S

    J. Zhu and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B109, 085129 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Zhu and S

    J. Zhu and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B112, 214521 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Zeng and A

    Y. Zeng and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B102, 085154 (2020)

    2020

  59. [59]

    See Supplemental Materials for details on: (i)k·pmodel of rhombohedral multilayer graphene; (ii) Fock self energy correction and (iii) self-consistent screening method incorporating charge transfer; (iv) continuum model describing rhom- bohedral multilayer graphene coupled to insulating substrate via interlayer Coulomb coupling; (v) renormalization of the...

  60. [61]

    Gonzalez, F

    J. Gonzalez, F. Guinea, and V. M. A. H., Nuclear Physics B424, 595 (1994)

    1994

  61. [64]

    Moon and M

    P. Moon and M. Koshino, Physical Review B87, 205404 (2013)

    2013

  62. [65]

    Moon and M

    P. Moon and M. Koshino, Phys. Rev. B90, 155406 (2014)

    2014

  63. [66]

    N. D. Drummond and R. J. Needs, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 126402 (2009)

    2009

  64. [67]

    Rapisarda and G

    F. Rapisarda and G. Senatore, Aust. J. Phys.49, 161–182 (1994)

    1994

  65. [68]

    Y. Jang, Y. Park, J. Jung, and H. Min, Phys. Rev. B108, L041101 (2023)

    2023

  66. [69]

    McCann, Phys

    E. McCann, Phys. Rev. B74, 161403 (2006)

    2006

  67. [70]

    A. A. Avetisyan, B. Partoens, and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B79, 035421 (2009)

    2009

  68. [71]

    A. A. Avetisyan, B. Partoens, and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B80, 195401 (2009)

    2009

  69. [72]

    Koshino and E

    M. Koshino and E. McCann, Phys. Rev. B79, 125443 (2009)

    2009

  70. [73]

    Z. Guo, X. Lu, B. Xie, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. B110, 075109 (2024)

    2024

  71. [74]

    D. C. Elias, R. Gorbachev, A. Mayorov, S. Morozov, A. Zhukov, P. Blake, L. Ponomarenko, I. Grigorieva, K. Novoselov, F. Guinea, et al., Nature Physics7, 701 (2011)

    2011

  72. [75]

    Vafek and J

    O. Vafek and J. Kang, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 257602 (2020)

    2020

  73. [76]

    Zhang, X

    S. Zhang, X. Dai, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 026403 (2022)

    2022