Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Stoner Transition at Finite Temperature in a 2D Isotropic Fermi Liquid

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 In a two-dimensional Stoner model with a flat dispersion, ferromagnetic order can disappear and then reappear as temperature increases once the dispersion exponent $\alpha$ exceeds 1.4.

desk verdict Sharp mean-field calculation of finite-T Stoner physics in 2D with a reentrant phase diagram that is likely an artifact of neglected spin fluctuations. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16026 v1 pith:VCS5ULHE submitted 2025-07-21 cond-mat.str-el

R. David Mayrhofer , Megan Schoenzeit , Andrey V. Chubukov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Stonertransitionferromagnetismtwo-dimensionalFermiliquidreentrantphaseflatdispersiongraphenemultilayersmean-fieldtheorypolylogarithm
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

At zero temperature, the Stoner transition into a ferromagnetic state in two dimensions is known to be either continuous or discontinuous depending on the exponent $\alpha$ in the dispersion $\varepsilon_k \propto k^{2\alpha}$. This paper extends that analysis to finite temperature and claims that for $\alpha > 1.4$ the phase diagram becomes reentrant: at a fixed coupling, the system can be ordered at low temperature, normal at intermediate temperature, and ordered again at higher temperature. The authors conjecture that this reentrance is a generic feature of the Stoner transition in two dimensions, not an artifact of the specific dispersion. If true, thermal fluctuations do not always oppose order; for flat bands they can make the effective coupling stronger.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the mean-field (ladder) approximation: the ferromagnetic order parameter is set by a self-consistent equation built from the static particle-hole bubble $\Pi_\alpha(T)$, and the phase boundary is found either where $g\Pi_\alpha(T)=1$ (second order) or where the free energies of the ordered and normal states are equal (first order). The temperature dependence enters through polylogarithms, and for $\alpha>1$ the bubble has a positive $T^2$ coefficient, $\Pi_\alpha(T)=\nu_{F,\alpha}[1 + (\pi^2/6)(\alpha-1)/\alpha\,(T/\varepsilon_F)^2 + \dots]$, so the susceptibility diverges at a smaller $\lambda$ as temperature grows. That non-monotonicity of the bubble is the seed of the reentrant behavior, with a tricritical point separating the first-order and second-order segments of the phase boundary.

What would settle it

A numerically exact calculation (for example, quantum Monte Carlo) of the single-valley 2D model with $\varepsilon_k \propto k^4$ at fixed coupling near $\lambda=1$: if the magnetization as a function of temperature shows only one ordered-to-normal boundary, the reentrant claim fails. A cleaner experimental test would measure the half-metal order parameter in a multilayer graphene sample while sweeping temperature at fixed density and displacement field and look for the ordered-normal-ordered sequence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the finite-temperature Stoner transition in a 2D isotropic Fermi liquid with $\varepsilon_k \propto k^{2\alpha}$ has a phase diagram whose topology depends strongly on $\alpha$. For $0<\alpha<1$ the transition is second order at all temperatures. For $1<\alpha<2$ it is first order at low temperature and second order at high temperature, and for $\alpha \gtrsim 1.4$ the boundary bends so that increasing temperature first destroys order, then restores it, then destroys it again. At $\alpha=2$ the reentrant boundary reaches down to $T=0$ with $\lambda_c(T)=1-0.377(T/\varepsilon_F)^{3/2}$; for $2<\alpha<2.15$ the reentrant first-order range is sandwiched between second-order segments, and for $\alpha \gtrsim 2.15$ the transition is second order everywhere with reentrance at low temperature. In the $\alpha \to \infty$ limit, the minimum critical coupling vanishes like $(e/\log \alpha)(1 - 1/\log \alpha)$, making ordering possible at infinitesimally weak coupling when the dispersion is almost completely flat.

Load-bearing premise

The phase diagram rests on the assumption that the ladder (mean-field) approximation, which neglects spin fluctuations, correctly gives the topology of the finite-temperature transition; if spin fluctuations are strong enough to eliminate the ordered regions, the reentrant phase would not exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Raising temperature can drive the system into the ordered state rather than out of it, so the conventional picture that thermal motion always suppresses ferromagnetism fails for flat dispersions.
  • The boundary between first-order and second-order transitions in $1<\alpha<2$ produces a tricritical point, and for $\alpha>1.4$ the same system can undergo two separate transitions upon warming at fixed coupling.
  • For $\alpha=2$, the reentrant transition line reaches down to $T=0$ with $\lambda_c(T)=1-0.377(T/\varepsilon_F)^{3/2}$, so reentrance persists arbitrarily close to the quantum critical point.
  • For very flat bands with $\alpha\to\infty$, ordering occurs at infinitesimally weak coupling, $\min \lambda_c(T) \sim (e/\log\alpha)(1-1/\log\alpha)$, making the effect strongest in multilayer graphene systems.
  • The results predict that in multilayer graphene, the critical displacement field for entering a half-metal state should vary non-monotonically with temperature at fixed density.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because a strictly two-dimensional system with continuous spin symmetry cannot sustain long-range order at finite temperature, the reentrant ordered phase should be read as a mean-field prediction; real flakes would need weak interlayer coupling or anisotropy to stabilize it, and a non-perturbative check would be the decisive next step.
  • Inference: If the reentrant effect survives beyond mean field, it suggests an entropy-driven mechanism: flattening the dispersion reduces the phase space for low-energy excitations, so increasing temperature can effectively enhance the density-of-states-weighted coupling and favor polarization, a route to order by warming in flat bands.
  • Inference: Experimentally, thermal cycling in rhombohedral or pentalayer graphene at fixed density could reveal two transitions upon warming, with abrupt reentry a clean signature; the absence of such reentry in samples with appreciable interlayer coupling would bound how much of the mean-field picture survives fluctuations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the finite-temperature Stoner transition in a two-dimensional isotropic Fermi liquid with dispersion ε_k ∝ k^{2α} within the mean-field (ladder) approximation. Using exact polylogarithm expressions for the polarization bubble, order parameter, and free energy, the authors derive low-temperature expansions for the transition line for several regimes of α (0<α≤1, 1<α<2, α=2, α→∞) and present numerical phase diagrams. The central finding is that for α>1.4 the phase boundary is reentrant: at a fixed coupling, the system is ordered at low T, becomes normal at intermediate T, and orders again at higher T. The authors conjecture that reentrant behavior is a fundamental feature of the Stoner transition in 2D and suggest relevance to multilayer graphene systems.

Significance. The manuscript contains useful analytic control: the polarization bubble in Eq. (11), the chemical potential in Eq. (17), and the transition lines in Eqs. (21), (26), (27), and (29) are derived from first principles of the model with no adjustable parameters, and the low-temperature expansions are internally consistent. The identification of the T^2 correction to the polarization as the mechanism for reentrance is clearly presented. However, the physical interpretation is undermined by the fact that the model is strictly two-dimensional with continuous SU(2) symmetry, for which the Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg theorem forbids any finite-temperature magnetic order. Because the mean-field approximation omits the relevant transverse spin fluctuations, the predicted reentrant ordered phases are likely artifacts; the conjecture of universality is therefore not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II (Hamiltonian, Eq. (1)) and Figs. 5–8] The Hamiltonian (1) describes a strictly two-dimensional system with continuous SU(2) spin symmetry and short-range interactions; by the Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg theorem, no spontaneous ferromagnetic order can exist at any finite temperature. The mean-field (ladder) approximation used in this work neglects the transverse spin fluctuations that are responsible for this theorem. Consequently, the finite-temperature ordered regions in Figs. 5–8 (e.g., Fig. 5(b), α=1.5, λ=0.978) are artifacts of the approximation rather than genuine thermodynamic phases. The acknowledgment in Sec. II that fluctuations 'tend to eliminate a Stoner instability' does not address the topological prohibition of long-range order in 2D. The authors should either demonstrate that weak three-dimensional coupling, magnetic anisotropy, or a finite-size cutoff makes the theorem inapplicable to their model, or explicitly state that the results are only a mean-field phase diagram and revise the claim that reentrance is a fundamental feature.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. IV (Conclusions)] The conjecture 'the reentrant behavior is the fundamental feature of the Stoner transition in 2D, not sensitive to the details of the electronic structure' overstates the findings. The analysis itself shows a strong dependence on α (reentrance appears only for α>1.4 and its range grows with α), and the entire calculation is within the ladder approximation, which is known to overestimate the tendency to order. Without a fluctuation analysis, the conjecture is speculative. The recommended revision is to replace this conjecture with a statement that reentrant behavior occurs within the ladder approximation for sufficiently flat dispersions.
  3. [Sec. IV (Conclusions, last paragraph)] The claimed relevance to multilayer graphene experiments is not supported by the model. The cited experiments (Refs. [12–15, 20, 21, 47, 48]) involve systems with valley degrees of freedom, spin-orbit coupling, and possible weak three-dimensional coupling, and their ordered states are observed at finite temperature. The present model is a single-valley, purely two-dimensional SU(2)-symmetric Fermi liquid with momentum-independent short-range interactions; the paper does not explain how the Mermin-Wagner theorem is evaded in those experimental systems or why the single-valley model captures the essential physics. A more detailed discussion of the mapping to graphene multilayers is needed before the results can be presented as directly relevant.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (9)] The expression for the free energy in the ordered state is stated without derivation; a short derivation of this ladder-approximation free energy, or a citation where it is derived, would improve clarity.
  2. [Sec. III.A, text around Fig. 3] The sentence 'the transition is second order, with the exception of T = 0, where the order parameter changes discontinuously' for α=1 is confusing because at finite T the order parameter is continuous but its T→0 limit is singular; consider rephrasing to distinguish the finite-T behavior from the T=0 limit.
  3. [Eq. (29) and Appendix B 4] In Eq. (29) the expression e/log α could be misread as e divided by log α versus e to the power log α; using an explicit fraction, e/(log α), or \(\frac{e}{\log\alpha}\) would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. I, last paragraph] The mention of 'reentrant behavior of Tc has been analyzed in the context of symmetry breaking in conformal field theories [50]' is only a passing citation; if the analogy is intended, it should be explained briefly, otherwise it may be omitted.
  5. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states that the polarization increases at low T and decreases at large T, but does not give the location or value of the maximum; stating these would make the figure more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the finite-T Stoner phase diagram is derived from explicit evaluation of the polarization bubble and free energy within the stated mean-field model, with no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The finite-T derivation is self-contained. The paper starts from the Hamiltonian (Eq. (1)) and dispersion (Eq. (2)), and within the explicitly stated mean-field/ladder approximation computes the static polarization bubble Π_α(T) analytically in Eq. (11) from the fermion Green's function, fixes the chemical potential by particle conservation (Eq. (13)), expands the polylogarithms (Appendix A) to obtain the derived T^2 correction in Eq. (18), and locates first- and second-order boundaries by comparing ordered and normal free energies (Eq. (14)). The reentrant behavior follows from the positive derived coefficient π^2(α−1)/(6α) in Π_α(T)/ν_{F,α} for α>1, not from any parameter adjusted to reproduce the target phase diagram. The α=2 result λ_c(T)=1−0.377(T/ε_F)^{3/2} is obtained by solving the self-consistency equation (B21) for the constant A, not by fitting; the α→∞ estimate follows from asymptotic evaluation of the same polarization integral. Citations to earlier T=0 work (Refs. 38, 44) and to Ref. 52 provide context and motivation for the mean-field treatment, but the finite-T equations and boundaries are recomputed here and do not reduce to those citations. The paper's stated limitation that the ladder approximation underestimates fluctuations (Ref. 51) is a physical-validity caveat, and the Mermin-Wagner objection is an external correctness question; neither is a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on the mean-field approximation in 2D at finite T, which neglects fluctuations that can destroy order; this is the main conceptual burden. The model has no fitted parameters: alpha, lambda, and epsilon_F are inputs, and all reported numerical constants (0.377, alpha threshold 1.4, A=1.4525) emerge from solving the self-consistent equations, not from fitting to data. The alpha to infinity result uses logarithmic-accuracy approximations.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field (ladder) approximation is valid for the finite-T phase diagram
    The paper adopts mean-field to compute the order parameter and free energy, acknowledging (via Ref. [51]) that it underestimates fluctuations; in 2D these fluctuations can destroy finite-T order, so the approximation is load-bearing. Sec. II after Eq. (4).
  • domain assumption Single-valley, isotropic dispersion epsilon_k = c(k^2/4pi)^alpha with short-range interaction g
    Model Hamiltonian Eqs. (1)-(2); real multilayer graphene has two valleys and more complex band structure, so this is a modeling simplification.
  • standard math Polylogarithm low-T expansion Eq. (15) is valid for z >> 1
    Used throughout Appendices A and B to obtain T^2 corrections; standard but valid only for z >> 1, i.e., mu/T >> 1.
  • domain assumption For 1 < alpha < 2, Delta > mu_bar so exponential corrections can be neglected
    Appendix B2; justified at T=0 by Delta = alpha lambda epsilon_F and mu_bar = epsilon_F(2alpha - alpha lambda), giving mu_bar - Delta < 0 for lambda > 1; by continuity at small T.
  • domain assumption Logarithmic-accuracy approximations in the alpha to infinity analysis
    Appendix B4: the chemical potential and polarization bubble are computed by keeping only leading log terms, yielding an approximate formula for min(lambda_c) that matches numerics reasonably but not exactly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stoner Transition at Finite Temperature in a 2D Isotropic Fermi Liquid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCS5ULHE

@misc{pith2026250716026,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stoner Transition at Finite Temperature in a 2D Isotropic Fermi Liquid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCS5ULHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16026}
}
abstract

We present the results of a mean-field analysis of the temperature evolution of a ferromagnetic Stoner transition in a two-dimensional (2D) system with an isotropic dispersion $\varepsilon_k \propto k^{2\alpha}$, which for $\alpha >1$ models flat dispersions in various multi-layer graphene systems in a displacement field. This study is an extension to a finite $T$ of previous studies at $T=0$, which found both first-order and second-order Stoner transitions, depending on the value of $\alpha$ and special behavior at $\alpha =1$ and $\alpha =2$. We find that the Stoner transition at a finite $T$ displays new features not seen at $T=0$. The most interesting one is the reentrant behavior, where the ordered state emerges as temperature is increased. This behavior develops at $\alpha >1.4$ and the range where it holds increases with $\alpha$. We conjecture that the reentrant behavior is the fundamental feature of the Stoner transition in 2D, not sensitive to the details of the electronic structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16026 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The polarization bubble plotted as a function of temperature for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We see that the range of T where the polarization ζ changes gradually shrinks as temperature decreases. At T = 0, one recovers the result that the system is fully polarized immediately below the onset of order. FIG. 3. The polarization ζ when α = 1. The transition throughout the phase diagram is second order, with the exception of T = 0, where the order parameter changes discontinuously. To confirm this is the case,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The polarization at fixed temperature at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Phase diagrams for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The phase diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Phase diagram for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The phase diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The minimum value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Stoner transitions beyond mean-field in two-dimensional electronic systems: a diagrammatic Monte Carlo study

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In 2D electron systems, Stoner order occurs only for interaction momentum cutoffs near the Fermi momentum; two-valley elliptic systems favor valley polarization and can show two transitions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    We first consider λ ∼ λc(T ), which will yield Eq

    α = 1 We present here the calculation of the order parameter for α = 1. We first consider λ ∼ λc(T ), which will yield Eq. (22) in the main text. We note that for α = 1 the self-consistent equations are simplified since Li 1(z) = − log(1 − z), and we can write ∆ λ = T 2 log 1 + e(¯µ+∆)/T 1 + e(¯µ−∆)/T , (B1) εF = T 2 log 1 + e(¯µ+∆)/T 1 + e(¯µ−∆)/T . (B2)...

    work page

  2. [2]

    To start, we add and subtract Eq

    1 < α <2 We next present the calculations of the results for 1 < α <2. To start, we add and subtract Eq. (12) and (13) to obtain two new equations, α + ∆ λεF = − T εF 1 α Γ 1 α Li 1 α −e(¯µ+∆)/T , (B13) α − ∆ λεF = − T εF 1 α Γ 1 α Li 1 α −e(¯µ−∆)/T . (B14) 19 To do this, we will first solve for the chemical potential of the system by examining Eq. (B13)....

    work page

  3. [3]

    To start, we make the ansatz ∆ λ = 2εF − A p εF T

    α = 2 We present the calculation of the critical interaction strength for α = 2. To start, we make the ansatz ∆ λ = 2εF − A p εF T . (B19) 20 In addition, we assume that λ = 1, since this is the location of the phase transition at T = 0. The critical λ will vary with temperature, however we will show that the corrections to the order parameter from the te...

    work page

  4. [4]

    α → ∞ We analyze the critical coupling in the limit α → ∞, and show how to obtain the minimum value of λc(T ) as written in Eq. (29). Since the transition is second order, it is sufficient to calculate the maximum value of polarization bubble as a function ofT . However, 21 to calculate Πα(T ), we first must determine the chemical potential of the system ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films, Science 306, 666 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1102896

    doi:10.1126/science.1102896 2004

  6. [6]

    K. S. Novoselov, D. Jiang, F. Schedin, T. Booth, V. Khotkevich, S. Morozov, and A. K. Geim, Two-dimensional atomic crystals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 10451 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    C. R. Dean, A. F. Young, I. Meric, C. Lee, L. Wang, S. Sorgenfrei, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Kim, K. L. Shepard, et al., Boron nitride substrates for high-quality graphene electronics, Nature nanotechnology 5, 722 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Radisavljevic, A

    B. Radisavljevic, A. Radenovic, J. Brivio, V. Giacometti, and A. Kis, Single-layer mos2 tran- sistors, Nature nanotechnology 6, 147 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    A. K. Geim and I. V. Grigorieva, Van der waals heterostructures, Nature 499, 419 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Correlated in- sulator behaviour at half-filling in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature 556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Yankowitz, S

    M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Tuning superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene, Science 363, 1059 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aav1910

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    X. Lu, P. Stepanov, W. Yang, M. Xie, M. A. Aamir, I. Das, C. Urgell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zhang, A. Bachtold, A. H. MacDonald, and D. K. Efetov, Superconduc- 24 tors, orbital magnets and correlated states in magic-angle bilayer graphene, Nature 574, 653 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    E. Y. Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Graphene bilayers with a twist, Nature Materials 19, 1265 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Y. Cao, D. Rodan-Legrain, J. M. Park, N. F. Q. Yuan, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. M. Fernandes, L. Fu, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nematicity and compet- ing orders in superconducting magic-angle graphene, Science 372, 264 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abc2836

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2021

  9. [17]

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

    2021

  10. [18]

    H. Zhou, L. Holleis, Y. Saito, L. Cohen, W. Huynh, C. L. Patterson, F. Yang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Isospin magnetism and spin- polarized superconductivity in bernal bilayer graphene, Science 375, 774 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abm8386

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

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

    2022

  12. [20]

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

    2025

  13. [21]

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

    2022

  14. [22]

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

    2023

  15. [23]

    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, 25 Nature Nanotechnology 19, 181 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    T. Arp, O. Sheekey, H. Zhou, C. L. Tschirhart, C. L. Patterson, 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 r...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Holleis, C

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

    2025

  18. [26]

    D. V. Chichinadze, L. Classen, Y. Wang, and A. V. Chubukov, Cascade of transitions in twisted and non-twisted graphene layers within the van hove scenario, npj Quantum Materials 7, 114 (2022); Su(4) symmetry in twisted bilayer graphene: An itinerant perspective, Phys. Rev. Let...

    2022

  19. [27]

    H. Hu, B. A. Bernevig, and A. M. Tsvelik, Kondo lattice model of magic-angle twisted-bilayer graphene: Hund’s rule, local-moment fluctuations, and low-energy effective theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 026502 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Xie and S

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

    2023

  21. [29]

    Y.-C. Lee, D. V. Chichinadze, and A. V. Chubukov, Crossover from ordinary to higher order van hove singularity in a honeycomb system: A parquet renormalization group analysis, Phys. Rev. B 109, 155118 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    J. M. Koh, J. Alicea, and E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, Correlated phases in spin-orbit-coupled rhombohedral trilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 109, 035113 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

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

    2024

  24. [32]

    T. Wang, M. Vila, M. P. Zaletel, and S. Chatterjee, Electrical control of spin and valley in spin-orbit coupled graphene multilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 116504 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Friedlan, H

    A. Friedlan, H. Li, and H.-Y. Kee, Valley polarization, magnetization, and superconductivity in bilayer graphene near the van hove singularity, Phys. Rev. B 111, 024504 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

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

    2025

  27. [35]

    E. C. Stoner, Collective electron ferromagnetism, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 165, 372 (1938). 26

    1938

  28. [36]

    Shimizu, Itinerant electron magnetism, Reports on Progress in Physics 44, 329 (1981)

    M. Shimizu, Itinerant electron magnetism, Reports on Progress in Physics 44, 329 (1981)

    1981

  29. [37]

    R. A. Duine and A. H. MacDonald, Itinerant ferromagnetism in an ultracold atom fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230403 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    He, X.-J

    L. He, X.-J. Liu, X.-G. Huang, and H. Hu, Stoner ferromagnetism of a strongly interacting fermi gas in the quasirepulsive regime, Phys. Rev. A 93, 063629 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Z. Zhu, D. N. Sheng, L. Fu, and I. Sodemann, Valley stoner instability of the composite fermi sea, Phys. Rev. B 98, 155104 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Valenti, V

    A. Valenti, V. Calvera, S. A. Kivelson, E. Berg, and S. D. Huber, Nematic metal in a multi- valley electron gas: Variational monte carlo analysis and application to alas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 266501 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Calvera, A

    V. Calvera, A. Valenti, S. D. Huber, E. Berg, and S. A. Kivelson, Theory of coulomb driven nematicity in a multivalley two-dimensional electron gas, Phys. Rev. B 111, 155135 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Z. M. Raines and A. V. Chubukov, Two-dimensional stoner transitions beyond mean field, Phys. Rev. B 110, 235433 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Shayegan, E

    M. Shayegan, E. P. De Poortere, O. Gunawan, Y. P. Shkolnikov, E. Tutuc, and K. Vakili, Two-dimensional electrons occupying multiple valleys in alas, physica status solidi (b) 243, 3629 (2006), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pssb.200642212

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    Gunawan, Y

    O. Gunawan, Y. P. Shkolnikov, K. Vakili, T. Gokmen, E. P. De Poortere, and M. Shayegan, Valley susceptibility of an interacting two-dimensional electron system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 186404 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    M. S. Hossain, M. K. Ma, K. A. V. Rosales, Y. J. Chung, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, K. W. Baldwin, and M. Shayegan, Observation of spontaneous ferromagnetism in a two- dimensional electron system, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 32244 (2020), https://www.p...

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    M. S. Hossain, M. K. Ma, K. A. Villegas-Rosales, Y. J. Chung, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, K. W. Baldwin, and M. Shayegan, Spontaneous valley polarization of itinerant electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 116601 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    M. S. Hossain, M. K. Ma, K. A. Villegas-Rosales, Y. J. Chung, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, K. W. Baldwin, and M. Shayegan, Anisotropic two-dimensional disordered wigner solid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 036601 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Z. M. Raines, L. I. Glazman, and A. V. Chubukov, Unconventional discontinuous transitions 27 in a two-dimensional system with spin and valley degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. B 110, 155402 (2024); Unconventional discontinuous transitions in isospin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133,...

    2024

  41. [49]

    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)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Min and A

    H. Min and A. H. MacDonald, Electronic structure of multilayer graphene, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 176, 227 (2008), https://academic.oup.com/ptps/article- pdf/doi/10.1143/PTPS.176.227/5322668/176-227.pdf

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    Zhang, R

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

    2023

  44. [52]

    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, Superconductivity and spin canting in spin-orbit pr...

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    There is an evidence that a half-metal state is spin-polarized [15, 17]

  46. [54]

    N. Chai, S. Chaudhuri, C. Choi, Z. Komargodski, E. Rabinovici, and M. Smolkin, Thermal order in conformal theories, Phys. Rev. D 102, 065014 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Kanamori, Electron Correlation and Ferromagnetism of Transition Metals, Prog

    J. Kanamori, Electron Correlation and Ferromagnetism of Transition Metals, Prog. Theor. Phys. 30, 275 (1963)

    1963

  48. [56]

    Z. M. Raines and A. V. Chubukov, Superconductivity via paramagnon and magnon exchange in a 2d near-ferromagnetic full metal and ferromagnetic half-metal (2025), arXiv:2507.00158 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Wood, The Computation of Polylogarithms, Tech

    D. Wood, The Computation of Polylogarithms, Tech. Rep. 15-92* (University of Kent, Com- puting Laboratory, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK, 1992). 28

    1992

Pith tools

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