Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Driving electronic features of twisted bilayer zigzag-graphene nanoribbons

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The number of localized states in a twisted graphene nanoribbon junction is predetermined by the symmetry-distinct sites on the edge of its stacking region.

desk verdict Useful transport study of crossed bilayer zigzag GNRs, but the headline symmetry-counting rule is not yet operationally defined enough to be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06968 v1 pith:NOT2S4TB submitted 2025-05-11 cond-mat.other

Kevin J. U. Vidarte , A. B. Felix , A. Latgé This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.other
keywords twistedbilayergraphenezigzagnanoribbonslocalizededgestatestight-bindingmodellocaldensityofLandauer-Büttikertransportelectronbeamsplitterstackingsymmetry
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

The paper argues that in a junction of two crossed zigzag graphene nanoribbons, every symmetry-distinct site on the boundary of the overlap region hosts a localized electronic state. Counting those sites therefore predicts the number of low-energy LDOS peaks without diagonalizing the full system, a rule the authors find holds across twist angles from 90° to 15° and ribbon widths from 4 to 16. The same real-space tight-binding model shows that the twist angle, more than stacking offset or ribbon width, controls four-terminal conductance, including complete transmission suppression, energy filters, and 50/50 electron beam splitting. If correct, the count gives a simple geometric design rule for these devices and for the localized states already seen in scanning tunneling spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stacking region, the overlap of the two crossed nanoribbons, whose boundary sites are grouped into symmetry-equivalence classes using the region's mirror, C2, and 12-fold local symmetries. The load-bearing identity is the count: number of LDOS peaks equals number of non-equivalent edge sites. It is computed with an extended Slater–Koster tight-binding Hamiltonian with long-range hoppings, solved by the Haydock–Heine–Kelly recursive Green's function method for LDOS and by decimation-based Green's functions for Landauer–Büttiker transmission.

What would settle it

For a single TBZGNR configuration, e.g., a 14-TBZGNR at 90°, compute the LDOS with η ten times smaller and with the energy window defined by the full central band rather than a chosen miniband, then count resolved peaks on the stacking-region edge. If the count differs from the number of non-equivalent boundary sites, or if the peak count changes when η is halved, the claimed perfect correspondence fails. A complementary test: compare the predicted count with STS peak counts on an atomically characterized TBZGNR junction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a perfect correspondence: the number of non-equivalent sites on the edge of the stacking region equals the number of LDOS peaks in the central miniband near the Fermi level. The equivalence classes are set by the point-group symmetries of the overlap region, namely mirror lines, C2 rotations, and 12-fold local-symmetry patches. This is demonstrated for five stacking offsets at 90°, for twist angles from 90° down to 15°, and for ribbon widths n = 4 to 16, after excluding features that belong to bulk or outside-stacking states. The authors further show that twist angle is the strongest control knob: at θ = 45° the device splits an incoming current 50/50 toward one interlayer terminal, at θ = 15° the favored direction flips, and certain stackings give full three-terminal suppression. The transport follows from the same localized edge states that the counting rule enumerates.

Load-bearing premise

The counting rule assumes that peaks visible in the LDOS at a finite broadening η, inside an arbitrarily chosen energy window, give a stable enumeration of localized edge states; no convergence test for η or the window is reported, and some features are later excluded by hand in Appendix B.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The number of localized edge states in a twisted nanoribbon junction is fixed by geometry: count the symmetry-distinct boundary sites of the stacking region, and that is how many LDOS peaks to expect near the Fermi level.
  • Twist angle can act as a switch: at the same device, rotating from 45° to 15° changes which interlayer terminal receives the current and moves the 50/50 splitting energy.
  • In-plane stacking offsets that break mirror or C2 symmetry create extra localized states and change which terminals conduct, enabling complete blocking of all three outgoing terminals for electrons injected from lead 1 in Model A2.
  • Ribbon width tunes the correspondence by changing the number of non-equivalent sites, so wider ribbons have more localized states and sharper interlayer conductance onsets.
  • The same localized states that the counting rule predicts control four-terminal transport, so the rule doubles as a transport-design checklist.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The geometric nature of the count suggests it may survive beyond the specific tight-binding model: any method that preserves the symmetry of the stacking region should find the same number of boundary-localized states, a point that could be tested with a first-principles LDOS calculation on one of the modeled junctions.
  • The correspondence hints at a deeper symmetry-index statement: the number of edge-localized modes equals the number of orbits of the stacking-region boundary under its point group, which would make the rule a topological invariant rather than an empirical trend.
  • A practical extension the paper does not pursue is a design chart of beam-splitting energies versus twist angle and ribbon width, which would let experiments pick a geometry and doping level that place a 50/50 splitting at a desired energy.
  • A time-resolved wave-packet simulation could test the counting rule dynamically: inject a broad wave packet from one lead and count the distinct edge-bound modes it excites; that number should match the non-equivalent-site count.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies twisted bilayer zigzag-graphene nanoribbons (TBZGNRs) using an extended tight-binding Hamiltonian with Slater-Koster transfer integrals, HHK recursion for real-space LDOS, and Landauer-Buettiker transport calculations for four-terminal devices. The authors analyze how in-plane stacking offsets, twist angle, and ribbon width affect localized edge states and conductance. The central claim is a 'perfect correspondence' between the number of LDOS peaks in the central miniband and the number of non-equivalent edge sites at the boundary of the stacking region (Figs. 6, 7, 9), together with the finding that twist angle is a powerful control of transport, including 50/50 electronic beam-splitting behavior.

Significance. If the claimed correspondence and beam-splitting control are robust, the paper would provide simple design rules for TBZGNR nanodevices: counting symmetry-inequivalent edge sites would predict the number of localized states, and the twist angle would offer a tunable knob for routing electrons. The work uses a well-established tight-binding formalism with long-range hoppings and a real-space Green function method, and it systematically explores a wider stacking-configuration space than earlier studies. The strengths are the reproducibility of the methodology (standard recursive Green functions and HHK LDOS) and the explicit treatment of symmetry, which yields plausible qualitative trends. However, the central counting claim is currently not supported by a well-defined, falsifiable procedure, as detailed in the major comments. The numerical results are internally consistent within the specified model, but the headline 'perfect correspondence' remains a visually inferred pattern rather than a demonstrated law.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.C and Figs. 6, 7, 9] The central correspondence between the number of LDOS peaks and the number of non-equivalent edge sites is not well-defined because the LDOS regularization parameter eta is never specified. In Sec. II.C, rho_j(E) is defined with the formal limit eta -> 0^+, but the practical computation uses 'a finite eta value, used as a convenient regularization parameter,' and no actual value is reported anywhere in the text or captions. Since the number of resolved peaks in Figs. 6, 7, and 9 is the dependent variable of the main claim, a peak count is meaningful only if it is shown to be stable with respect to eta (for example, by repeating the count for a range of eta values or by resolving peak positions using a converged continued-fraction calculation with a stated tolerance). Without such a convergence test, the statement in Sec. III.B that 'the number of LDOS peaks revealed in the LDOS calculation is the same as the number of non-equivalent sites' is not a reproducible quantitative claim.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 7(a) and inset] The counting procedure for both sides of the correspondence is under-specified. The LDOS peaks are counted 'in the energy region of the central miniband' (Fig. 7(a) caption), but no criterion defines the boundaries of this window; for instance, whether the three 'emerging DOS peaks surrounding the central miniband' described for Model A in Sec. III.A are included is decided per figure. Likewise, the number of non-equivalent sites shown in the inset of Fig. 7(a) is presented as a visually determined integer, and no operational algorithm is given for incommensurate angles such as 50 degrees, where the stacking region is aperiodic and a rigorous equivalence test for edge sites is nontrivial. Without a priori rules for the energy window and for what makes two edge sites inequivalent, the claimed 'perfect correspondence' is not falsifiable as stated.
  3. [Appendix B and Sec. III.C, Fig. 9] The equality between the LDOS peak count and the non-equivalent-site count relies on post-hoc exclusion of peaks that are classified as not belonging to the edge of the stacking region. Appendix B explicitly removes the E - E_F = -0.17 eV feature of the 14-TBZGNR because it 'does not correspond to a state located at the edge line of the stacking region,' and also removes the 'linear bulk' state. Because this classification is performed after inspecting the LDOS spatial distribution, the subsequent comparison in Fig. 9(b)-(c), which keeps the count of 'edge states of the stacking limited regions' equal to the number of non-equivalent boundary sites, risks being circular. The authors should provide a pre-registered criterion (for example, a threshold on the integrated LDOS weight inside the geometric stacking region) for whether a DOS feature counts as an edge-stacking state, and apply that criterion uniformly to all widths and angles before comparing with the site count.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II.B.2 vs II.C] There is an inconsistency in the use of eta: Eq. (4) and the surrounding text call eta an 'infinitesimal number,' while Sec. II.C states that a finite eta is used as a regularization parameter. Please clarify the difference and report the actual value used in the LDOS calculations.
  2. [Section III.C, Fig. 9] The claim that the number of non-equivalent sites at the boundary increases with ribbon width (Fig. 9(c)) is given as a list of integers, but no explanation is given for the non-monotonic sequence (3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8) in terms of the dodecagonal-ring geometry; a short description of how these numbers are obtained would help.
  3. [Section III.B, Fig. 5] The '50/50' beam-splitting events at theta = 45 degrees (E - E_F ~ -0.28 eV) and theta = 15 degrees are asserted without a tolerance or a quantitative test; the authors should state how close T13 and T14 are to 0.5 and over what energy range the splitting holds.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. I] The phrase 'in accordance with reported scanning tunneling spectroscopy measurements' is only qualitatively supported by Ref. [11]; a direct comparison of calculated peak energies or relative intensities with the experimental spectra of that reference would strengthen the claim.
  5. [Appendix B] The term 'linear bulk state' is used without definition; please define it (or cite a reference) so that the exclusion rule in the peak-counting procedure is transparent.
  6. [General] No computational parameters are reported for the HHK recursion (number of Lanczos steps, continued-fraction truncation) or for the transport self-energies (convergence criterion). Adding these parameters is necessary for reproducibility of the numerical results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: TB Hamiltonian parameters are literature-based and the LDOS/transport are direct outputs; the peak-site correspondence is not fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the number of LDOS peaks equals the number of non-equivalent sites on the edges of the stacking region. This claim is not circular: the non-equivalent-site count is a geometric/symmetry input obtained from the atomic structure, while the LDOS peaks are computed outputs from a tight-binding Hamiltonian whose Slater-Koster parameters (V0_ppπ = -2.65 eV, V0_ppσ = 0.48 eV, r0 = 0.184a) are taken from earlier literature, not adjusted to reproduce the peak counts. The HHK recursive method and Landauer-Buttiker transport formalism are standard tools, and the self-citations to the authors' prior work are method citations or unrelated studies (e.g., quasicrystalline 30-degree twisted bilayer graphene), not authorities invoked to define the target result. The STS 'accordance' is qualitative and does not enter the model as fitted data. While the peak-counting procedure has potential robustness concerns (finite broadening eta, the central-miniband window, and the Appendix B exclusions), those are questions of numerical validation and falsifiability, not of self-definition or fitted-input-as-prediction. No equation or derivation step reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a standard tight-binding Hamiltonian with literature hopping parameters and a Landauer transport framework. No parameter is fitted to the target LDOS-peak count; however, the numerical broadening eta, the hopping cutoff, and the energy window used for peak counting are unstated, and lattice relaxation and electron-electron interactions are neglected. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • LDOS broadening eta
    Section II.C uses a finite eta as a 'convenient regularization parameter'; its value is not given, yet peak counting in Figs. 7 and 9 depends on it.
  • Long-range hopping cutoff / neighborhood size
    Equation (1) sums over all sites, but no cutoff distance is specified and no convergence test is reported for the 'wide atomic neighborhood' that the paper emphasizes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Landauer-Buttiker coherent transport with Green function self-energies correctly describes four-terminal conductance in these junctions.
    Invoked in Sec. II.B.2 without considering dephasing, temperature, or interactions.
  • domain assumption A Slater-Koster orthogonal pz tight-binding Hamiltonian with exponentially decaying hoppings captures low-energy electronic structure.
    Eqs. (2)-(3); parameters from literature, no DFT cross-check for these junction geometries.
  • domain assumption Lattice relaxation and out-of-plane bending have negligible effect on the Fermi-level physics.
    Sec. II.B.1 states this citing Ref. [11]; no relaxation is included in the model.
  • ad hoc to paper Zigzag-edge magnetism and electron-electron interactions can be ignored in the LDOS and conductance results.
    No Hubbard or mean-field term is included; the paper does not justify this despite known spin-polarized ZGNR edge states.
  • ad hoc to paper Resolved LDOS peaks correspond one-to-one with spatially localized edge states at the stacking boundary.
    The central count depends on this, but the broadening eta, energy window, and exclusion of 'bulk' states are chosen post hoc (Sec. III and Appendix B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Driving electronic features of twisted bilayer zigzag-graphene nanoribbons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOT2S4TB

@misc{pith2026250506968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Driving electronic features of twisted bilayer zigzag-graphene nanoribbons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOT2S4TB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06968}
}
read the original abstract

Novel physical properties have been reported recently by stacking graphene-like systems in different configurations. Here, we explore the nature of emergent localized states at the edges of twisted bilayer graphene nanoribbons. Based on an extended tight-binding Hamiltonian, which includes hopping energy within a wide atomic neighborhood, we investigate the nature of the electronic states responsible for the transport along the four graphene nanoribbon terminals. The emphasis is on discussing the role of the stacking region symmetries, the twisted angle between the crossed zigzag nanoribbons, and also the width of the ribbons in the electronic and transport responses of the four terminals. Our findings show a direct connection between the number of non-equivalent sites on the edge of the stacking region and the localized states, in accordance with reported scanning tunneling spectroscopy measurements. Within the parameters explored, the twist angle was revealed to be the most powerful tool to control transport responses in the investigated 4-terminal devices, including special electronic beam splitter phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Atomic structures of two crossed 6-ZGNRs with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Schematic view of the proposed transport de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Model A1. Local density of states at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. DOS and conductance results for angle-varying crossed zigzag graphene nanoribbons: (a) 60 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) LDOS peak energy spectra as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. LDOS for the edge sites of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. DOS and conductance results for 90 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) LDOS of the 5 different sites displayed at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    T. H. Vo, M. Shekhirev, D. A. Kunkel, M. D. Morton, E. Berglund, L. Kong, P. M. Wilson, P. A. Dowben, A. Enders, and A. Sinitskii, Large-scale solution synthe- sis of narrow graphene nanoribbons, Nature Communi- cations5, 3189 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    The sum in the Hamiltonian involves all the i and j sites of the TBZGNR

    Tight-binding model The low-energy electronic properties of TBZGNRs are obtained using a tight-binding model defined on an or- thogonal basis as [29, 30] H= X i,j t(Ri−Rj)|Ri⟩⟨Rj|+ h.c.,(1) where⟨r|R i⟩is the corresponding Wannierp z electronic orbital centered at theith atom at the positionR i. The sum in the Hamiltonian involves all the i and j sites of...

    work page

  3. [2]

    linear bulk

    Transport calculations Transport properties are investigated using the Landauer-B¨ uttiker approach and following the Green function formalism [21]. Each ribbon is decoupled into three parts: a central conductor and right and left leads forθ= 0 ◦ (or top and bottom leads forθ̸= 0 ◦) [36, 37], defined as two semi-infinite systems, perfectly fitting to 3 th...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Y.-W. Son, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Half-metallic graphene nanoribbons, Nature444, 349 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [4]

    Dutta, A

    S. Dutta, A. K. Manna, and S. K. Pati, Intrinsic half- metallicity in modified graphene nanoribbons, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 096601 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    R. E. Blackwell, F. Zhao, E. Brooks, J. Zhu, I. Piskun, S. Wang, Y.-L. Delgado, A. Lee, S. Louie, and F. R. Fischer, Spin splitting of dopant edge state in magnetic zigzag graphene nanoribbons, Nature600, 647 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Ouyang and J

    Y. Ouyang and J. Guo, A theoretical study on thermo- electric properties ofgraphene nanoribbons, Appl. Phys. Lett.94, 263107 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    D. C. M. Rodrigues, L. L. Lage, P. Venezuela, and A. Latg´ e, Exploring the enhancement of the thermoelec- tric properties of bilayer graphyne nanoribbons, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys24, 9324 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    J. Kim, H. Chang, G. Bae, M. Choi, and S. Jeo, Graphene-based thermoelectric materials: toward sus- tainable energy-harvesting systems, Chem. Commun.61, 5050 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    J. Cai, P. Ruffieux, R. Jaafar, M. Bieri, T. Braun, S. Blankenburg, M. Muoth, A. P. Seitsonen, M. Saleh, X. Feng, K. M¨ ullen, and R. Fasel, Atomically precise bottom-up fabrication of graphene nanoribbons, Nature 466, 470 (2010)

    2010

  3. [12]

    Ruffieux, S

    P. Ruffieux, S. Wang, B. Yang, C. S ˜A¡nchez-S˜A¡nchez, T. Liu, J.and Dienel, L. Talirz, P. Shinde, C. A. Pignedoli, D. Passerone, T. Dumslaff, K. Feng, X. M ˜A¼llen, and R. Fasel, On-surface synthesis of graphene nanoribbons with zigzag edge topology, Nature 531, 489 (2016)

    2016

  4. [13]

    Wang, D.-L

    D. Wang, D.-L. Bao, Q. Zheng, C.-T. Wang, S. Wang, P. Fan, S. Mishra, L. Tao, Y. Xiao, L. Huang, X. Feng, K. M¨ ullen, Y.-Y. Zhang, R. Fasel, P. Ruffieux, S. Du, and H.-J. Gao, Twisted bilayer zigzag-graphene nanoribbon junctions with tunable edge states, Nature Communica- tio...

    2023

  5. [14]

    M. Pelc, E. M. Su´ arez, L. Brey, and L. Chico, Electronic conductance of twisted bilayer nanoribbon flakes, The J. of Phys. Chem.119, 10076–10084 (2015)

    2015

  6. [15]

    S. Sanz, P. Brandimarte, G. Giedke, D. S´ anchez-Portal, and T. Frederiksen, Crossed graphene nanoribbons as beam splitters and mirrors for electron quantum optics, Phys. Rev. B102, 035436 (2020)

    2020

  7. [16]

    S. Sanz, N. Papior, G. Giedke, D. S´ anchez-Portal, M. Brandbyge, and T. Frederiksen, Spin-polarizing elec- tron beam splitter from crossed graphene nanoribbons, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 037701 (2022). 10

    2022

  8. [17]

    Brandimarte and et al., A tunable electronic beam splitter realized with crossed graphene nanoribbons, J

    P. Brandimarte and et al., A tunable electronic beam splitter realized with crossed graphene nanoribbons, J. Chem. Phys.146, 4092318 (2017)

    2017

  9. [18]

    L. Lima, A. R. Hernandez, F. A. Pinheiro, and C. Lewenkopf, 50/50 electronic beam splitter in graphene nanoribbons as a building block for electron optics, J. of Physics: Condensed Matter28, 505303 (2016)

    2016

  10. [19]

    S. Sanz, G. Giedke, D. S´ anchez-Portal, and T. Frederik- sen, Electron beam-splitting effect with crossed zigzag graphene nanoribbons in high-spin metallic states, APL Quantum1, 046122 (2024)

    2024

  11. [20]

    Haydock, V

    R. Haydock, V. Heine, and M. J. Kelly, Electronic struc- ture based on the local atomic environment for tight- binding bands, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.5, 2845 (1972)

    1972

  12. [21]

    Haydock, Comput

    R. Haydock, Comput. Phys. Commun.20, 11 (1980)

    1980

  13. [22]

    K. J. U. Vidarte and C. Lewenkopf, High-energy Landau levels in graphene beyond nearest-neighbor hopping pro- cesses: Corrections to the effective Dirac Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. B106, 155414 (2022)

    2022

  14. [23]

    Datta,In Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge, 1995)

    S. Datta,In Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  15. [24]

    W. Yao, E. Wang, C. Bao, Y. Zhang, K. Zhang, K. Bao, C. K. Chan, C. Chen, J. Avila, M. C. Asensio, J. Zhu, and S. Zhou, Quasicrystalline 30 ◦ twisted bilayer graphene as an incommensurate superlattice with strong interlayer coupling, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.115, 6928 (2018)

    2018

  16. [25]

    S. J. Ahn, P. Moon, T.-H. Kim, H.-W. Kim, H.-C. Shin, E. H. Kim, H. W. Cha, S.-J. Kahng, P. Kim, M. Koshino, Y.-W. Son, C.-W. Yang, and J. R. Ahn, Dirac electrons in a dodecagonal graphene quasicrystal, Science361, 782 (2018)

    2018

  17. [26]

    Yan, D.-L

    C. Yan, D.-L. Ma, J.-B. Qiao, H.-Y. Zhong, L. Yang, S.- Y. Li, Z.-Q. Fu, Y. Zhang, and L. He, Scanning tunneling microscopy study of the quasicrystalline 30 ◦ twisted bi- layer graphene, 2D Mater.6, 045041 (2019)

    2019

  18. [27]

    K. J. U. Vidarte and C. Lewenkopf, Quasicrystalline 30° twisted bilayer graphene: fractal patterns and electronic localization properties, Front. Carbon3, 1496179 (2024)

    2024

  19. [28]

    P. Moon, M. Koshino, and Y.-W. Son, Quasicrystalline electronic states in 30 ◦ rotated twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B99, 165430 (2019)

    2019

  20. [29]

    G. Yu, Z. Wu, Z. Zhan, M. I. Katsnelson, and S. Yuan, Dodecagonal bilayer graphene quasicrystal and its ap- proximants, npj Computational Materials5, 122 (2019)

    2019

  21. [30]

    Stampfli, A dodecagonal quasiperiodic lattice in two dimensions, Helv

    P. Stampfli, A dodecagonal quasiperiodic lattice in two dimensions, Helv. Phys. Acta59, 1260 (1986)

    1986

  22. [31]

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

    2009

  23. [32]

    Reich, J

    S. Reich, J. Maultzsch, C. Thomsen, and P. Ordej´ on, Tight-binding description of graphene, Phys. Rev. B66, 035412 (2002)

    2002

  24. [33]

    J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Simplified lcao method for the periodic potential problem, Phys. Rev.94, 1498 (1954)

    1954

  25. [34]

    Trambly de Laissardi` ere, D

    G. Trambly de Laissardi` ere, D. Mayou, and L. Magaud, Localization of dirac electrons in rotated graphene bi- layers, Nano Letters10, 804 (2010), pMID: 20121163, https://doi.org/10.1021/nl902948m

    2010 doi

  26. [35]

    Moon and M

    P. Moon and M. Koshino, Optical absorption in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B87, 205404 (2013)

    2013

  27. [36]

    Uryu, Electronic states and quantum transport in double-wall carbon nanotubes, Phys

    S. Uryu, Electronic states and quantum transport in double-wall carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B69, 075402 (2004)

    2004

  28. [37]

    K. J. U. Vidarte and C. Lewenkopf, Magnetic properties of low-angle twisted bilayer graphene at three-quarters filling (2024), arXiv:2404.08177 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Santos, A

    H. Santos, A. Latg´ e, L. Brey, and L. Chico, Spin- polarized currents in corrugated graphene nanoribbons, Carbon168, 1 (2020)

    2020

  30. [39]

    Chico, A

    L. Chico, A. Latg´ e, and L. Brey, Symmetries of quantum transport with rashba spin–orbit: graphene spintronics, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.17, 16469 (2015)

    2015

  31. [40]

    Haydock, V

    R. Haydock, V. Heine, and M. J. Kelly, Electronic struc- ture based on the local atomic environment for tight- binding bands: II, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.8, 2591 (1975)

    1975

  32. [41]

    C. G. Rocha, T. G. Dargam, and A. Latg´ e, Electronic states in zigzag carbon nanotube quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B65, 165431 (2002)

    2002

  33. [42]

    Torres, D

    V. Torres, D. Faria, and A. Latg´ e, Tuning transport prop- erties of graphene three-terminal structures by mechani- cal deformation, Phys. Rev. B97, 165429 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.