Arxiv:2009.11301V2 [Cond-Mat.Mes-Hall] 27 Oct 2020

TBG I: Matrix Elements, Approximations, Perturbation Theory and a k · p 2-Band Model for Twisted Bilayer Graphene

B. Andrei Bernevig,1 Zhi-Da Song,1 Nicolas Regnault,1, 2 and Biao Lian1 1Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA 2Laboratoire de Physique de l’Ecole normale superieure, ENS, UniversitéPSL, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, UniversitéParis-Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité,Paris, France (Dated: October 28, 2020) We investigate the Twisted Bilayer Graphene (TBG) model of Bistritzer and MacDonald (BM) [1] to obtain an analytic understanding of its energetics and wavefunctions needed for many-body calculations. We provide an approximation scheme for the wavefunctions of the BM model, which first elucidates why the BM KM -point centered original calculation containing only 4 plane-waves ◦ provides a good analytical value for the first magic angle (θM ≈ 1 ). The approximation scheme also elucidates why most of the many-body matrix elements in the Coulomb Hamiltonian projected to the active bands can be neglected. By applying our approximation scheme at the first magic angle to a ΓM -point centered model of 6 plane-waves, we analytically understand the reason for the small ΓM -point gap between the active and passive bands in the isotropic limit w0 = w1. Furthermore, we analytically calculate the group velocities of the passive bands in the isotropic limit, and show that they are almost doubly degenerate, even away from the ΓM -point, where no symmetry forces them to be. Furthermore, moving away from the ΓM and KM points, we provide an explicit analytical perturbative understanding as to why the TBG bands are flat at the first magic angle, despite the first magic angle is defined by only requiring a vanishing KM -point Dirac velocity. p 2 p 2 We derive analytically a connected “magic manifold” w1 = 2 1 + w0 − 2 + 3w0, on which the bands remain extremely flat as w0 is tuned between the isotropic (w0 = w1) and chiral (w0 = 0) limits. We analytically show why going away from the isotropic limit by making w0 less (but not larger) than w1 increases the ΓM - point gap between the active and the passive bands. Finally, by perturbation theory, we provide an analytic ΓM point k · p 2-band model that reproduces the TBG band structure and eigenstates within a certain w0, w1 parameter range. Further refinement of this model are discussed (but not solved), which suggest a possible faithful representation of the TBG bands by a 2-band ΓM point k · p model in the full w0, w1 parameter range.

I. Introduction with the particle-hole (PH) symmetry defined in Ref. [43] is always stable topological, rather than fragile topological as revealed without PH symmetry [43–45, 76]. We fur- The interacting phases in twisted bilayer graphene ther study TBG with Coulomb interactions in Refs. [107– (TBG) are one of the most important new discoveries of 110]. In TBG III [107], we show that the TBG interac- the last few years in condensed matter physics [1–110]. tion Hamiltonian projected into any number of bands The theoretical prediction that interacting phases would is always a Kang-Vafek type [71] positive semi-definite appear in this system was made based on the appearance Hamiltonian (PSDH), and generically exhibit an enlarged of flat bands in the non-interacting Bistritzer-Macdonald U(4) symmetry in the flat band limit due to the PH sym- (BM) Hamiltonian [1]. This Hamiltonian is at the start- metry. This U(4) symmetry for the lowest 8 bands (2 per ing point of the understanding of every aspect of strongly spin-valley) was previously shown in Ref. [72]. We fur- correlated TBG (and other Moirésystems) physics [2– ther reveal two chiral-flat limits, in both of which the 27]. Remarkably, it even predicts quite accurately the symmetry is further enhanced into U(4)×U(4) for any so-called “magic angles” at which the bands become flat, number of flat bands. The U(4)×U(4) symmetry for the and is versatile enough to accommodate the presence of lowest 8 flat bands in the first chiral limit was first dis- different hoppings in between the AA and the AB stack- covered in Ref. [72]. With kinetic energy, the symmetry ing regions of the Moirélattice. The BM Hamiltonian in the chiral limits will be lowered into U(4). TBG in is in fact a large class of k · p models, which we will call

arXiv:2009.11301v2 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 27 Oct 2020 the second chiral limit is also proved in TBG II [106] to BM-like models, where translational symmetry emerges be a perfect metal without single-particle gaps [111]. In at small twist angle even though the actual sample does TBG IV [108], under a condition called flat metric con- not have an exact lattice commensuration. dition (FMC) which is defined in this paper (Eq. 20), This paper is the first of a series of six papers on TBG we derive a series of exact insulator ground/low-energy [106–110], for which we present a short summary here. states of the TBG PSDH within the lowest 8 bands at In this paper, we investigate the spectra and matrix el- integer fillings in the first chiral-flat limit and even fill- ements of the single-particle BM model by studying the ings in nonchiral-flat limit, which can be understood as k·p expansion of BM model at ΓM point of the MoiréBril- U(4)×U(4) or U(4) ferromagnets. We also examine their louin zone. In TBG II [106], we prove that the BM model perturbations away from these limits. In the first chiral- 2

flat limit, we find exactly degenerate ground states of Chern numbers νC = 4−|ν|, 2−|ν|, ··· , |ν|−4 at integer filling ν relative to the charge neutrality. Away from the chiral limit, we find the Chern number 0 (±1) state is fa- vored at even (odd) fillings. With kinetic energy further turned on, up to 2nd order perturbations, these states are intervalley coherent if their Chern number |νC | < 4 − |ν|, and are valley polarized if |νC | = 4− |ν|. At even fillings, this agrees with the K-IVC state proposed in Ref. [72]. At fillings ν = ±1, ±2, we also predict a first order phase transition from the lowest to the highest Chern number FIG. 1. Several quantitative characteristics of the Bistritzer states in magnetic field, which is supported by evidences MacDonald model that require explanation. In particular, an in recent experiments [14–16, 24–27]. In TBG V [109], we analytic understanding of the active band flatness is available further derive a series of exact charge 0, ±1, ±2 excited only in the chiral limit w0 = 0. However, the band is very flat states in the (first) chiral-flat and nonchiral-flat limits. In far away from the chiral limit. Several other features of the particular, the exact charge neutral excitations include bands are pointed out. the Goldstone modes (which are quadratic). This allows us to predict the charge gaps and Goldstone stiffness. In the last paper of our series TBG VI [110], we present which is not analytically understood. A further analytic a full Hilbert space exact diagonalization (ED) study at result is the discovery that, in a limit of vanishing AA- fillings ν = −3, −2, −1 of the projected TBG Hamilto- hopping, there are angles for which the band is exactly nian in the lowest 8 bands. In the (first) chiral-flat and flat. This limit, called the chiral limit [37], has an extra nonchiral-flat limits, our ED calculation with FMC ver- chiral symmetry. However, it is not analytically known ified that the exact ground states we derived in TBG why the bands remain flat in the whole range of AA cou- IV [108] are the only ground states at nonzero integer pling between the isotropic limit (AA=AB coupling) and fillings. We further show that in the (first) chiral-flat the chiral limit. We note that the realistic magic angle limit, the exact charge ±1 excitations we found in TBG TBG is in between these two limits due to lattice re- V[109] are the lowest excitations for almost all nonzero laxations [112–115]. A last analytical result is the proof integer fillings. In the nonchiral case with kinetic energy, that, when particle-hole symmetry is maintained in the we find the ν = −3 ground state to be Chern number BM model [43], the graphene active bands are topological ±1 insulators at small w0/w1 (ratio of AA and AB inter- [42–47, 76, 116, 117]. layer hoppings, see Eq.4), while undergo a phase transi- This leaves a large series of un-answered questions. tion to other phases at large w /w , in agreement with 0 1 Rather than listing them in writing, we find it more in- the recent density matrix renormalization group studies tuitive to visualize the questions in a plot of the band- [79, 80]. For ν = −2, while we are restricted within the structure of TBG in the isotropic limit at the magic angle fully valley polarized sectors, we find the ground state and away from it, towards the chiral limit. In Fig.1, we prefers ferromagnetic (spin singlet) in the nonchiral-flat plot the TBG low-energy band structure in the Moiré (chiral-nonflat) limit, in agreement with the perturbation analysis in Refs. [72, 108]. Brillouin zone, and the questions that will be answered in the current paper. To distinguish with the high sym- To date, most of our understanding of the BM-like metry points (Γ,M,K,K0) of the monolayer graphene models comes from numerical calculations of the flat Brillouin zone (BZ), we use a subindex M to denote the 0 bands, which can be performed in a momentum lattice high symmetry points (ΓM ,MM ,KM ,KM ) of the Moiré of many MoiréBrillouin zones, with a cutoff on their BZ (MBZ). Some salient feature of this band structure number. The finer details of the band structure so far are: (1) In the isotropic limit, around the first magic an- seem to be peculiarities that vary with different twisting gle, it is hard to obtain two separate flat bands; it is hard angles. However, with the advent of interacting calcula- to stabilize the gap to passive bands over a wide range tions, where the Coulomb interaction is projected into the of angles smaller than the first magic angle. In fact, active, flat bands of TBG, a deeper, analytic understand- Ref. [43] computes the active bands separated regions as ing of the flat bands in TBG is needed. In particular, a function of twist angle, and finds a large region of gap- there is a clear need for an understanding of what quan- less phases aroung the first magic angle. (2) The passive titative and qualitative properties are not band-structure bands in the isotropic limit are almost doubly degenerate, details. So far, the analytic methods have produced the even away from the ΓM -point, where no symmetry forces following results: by solving a model with only 4 plane them to be. Moreover, their group velocities seem very waves (momentum space lattice sites, on which the BM is high, i.e. they are very dispersive. (3) While the analytic defined), Bistritzer and MacDonald [1] found a value for calculation of the magic angle [1] shows that the Dirac the twist angle for which the Dirac velocity at the KM velocity√ vanishes in the isotropic limit at AA-coupling Moirépoint vanishes. This is called the magic angle. In w0 = 1/ 3 (in the appropriate units, see below), it does fact, the full band away from the KM point is flat, a fact not explain why the band is so flat even away from the 3

than 2-times the MoiréBZ (MBZ) momentum - at the first magic angle, irrespective of k, q. We then provide two approximate models involving a very small number of momentum lattice sites, the Tripod model (KM centered, also discussed in Ref. [1]), and a new, ΓM centered model. The Tripod model captures the physics around the KM point (but not around the ΓM point), and√ we show that the Dirac velocity vanishes when w1 = 1/ 3 irrespective of w0. The ΓM centered model captures the physics around the ΓM point extremely well, as well as the physics around the KM point. Moreover, an approximation of the ΓM centered model with only 6 plane waves, which we call the Hexagon model, has an analytic 6-fold exact degeneracy√ at the ΓM point in the isotropic limit w1 = w0 = 1/ 3, which is the reason for feature (1) FIG. 2. Matrix elements needed for the interacting prob- in Fig.1. By performing a further perturbation theory (η) in these 6 degenerate bands away from the Γ point, lem. Specifically, the form factors Mm,n (k, q + G) = M P P ∗ u (k + q) uQ,α;nη (k) , of the Coulomb we obtain a model with an exact flatband at zero en- α Q∈Q± Q−G,α;mη interaction are needed. They correspond to the overlap of the ergy on the ΓM − KM line, and almost flat bands on the Bloch state at momentum k, on the momentum lattice Q, ΓM − MM line, answering (3) in Fig.1. In the same per- uQ,α;nη (k) with the Bloch state at momentum q + k on the turbative model, the velocity of the dispersive bands - ∗ momentum lattice Q + G, uQ−G,α;mη (k + q). which can be shown to be degenerate - can be computed and found to be the same with the bare Dirac velocity (with some directional dependence), answering (2) in Fig.1. Away from the isotropic limit, our perturbative Dirac point, for example on the K − Γ − M − K M M M M model, which we still show to be valid for w ≤ w (but line. (4) Away from the isotropic limit, while keeping 0 1 √ not for w0 >> w1) allows for finding the analytic energy w1 = 1/ 3, the gap between the active and passive bands expressions at the Γ point, and seeing a strong depen- increases immediately, while the bandwidth of the active M dence on w0 answering (3) in Fig.1. At the same time, bands does not increase. (5) The√ flat bands remain flat, one can obtain all the eigenstates of the Hexagon model over the wide range of w ∈ [0, 1/ 3], from chiral to the 0 at the ΓM point after tedious algebra, which can serve as isotropic limit. Also, our observation (6) in Fig.1 shows the starting point of a perturbative k · p expansion of the that since the gap between the active and passive bands 2-active band Hamiltonians. With this, we provide an ap- is large in the chiral limit compared to the bandwidth of proximate 2-band continuum model of the active bands, active bands, a possible k · p Hamiltonian for the active p 2 p 2 and find the manifold w1(w0) = 2 1 + w − 2 + 3w bands might be possible. √ 0 0 with w0 ∈ [0, 1/ 3], where the bandwidth of the active A further motivation for the analytic investigation of bands is the smallest, in this approximation. The radius the TBG Bistritzer-MacDonald model is to understand (η) of convergence for the k · p expansion is great around the the behavior of the matrix elements Mm,n (k, q + G) = ΓM -point but is not particularly good around the KM P P u∗ (k + q) u (k) as a function α Q∈Q± Q−G,α;mη Q,α;nη point for all w0, w1 parameters, but can be improved by of G, which we call the form factor (or overlap matrix). adding more shells perturbatively, which we leave for fur- These are the overlaps of different Bloch states in the ther work. A series of useful matrix element conventions TBG momentum space lattice (see Fig.2) and their be- are also provided. havior is important for the form factors of the interacting problem [107, 108]. These will be of crucial importance for the many-body matrix elements [106, 110] as well as II. New Perturbation Theory Framework for Low for justifying the approximations made in obtaining ex- Energy States in k · p Continuum Models act analytic expressions for the many-body ground-states [108] and their excitations [109]. In this section, we provide a general perturbation the- We provide an analytic answer to all the above ques- ory for the k·p BM-type Hamiltonians that exist in Moiré tions and observations. We will focus on the vicinity of lattices. We exemplify it in the TBG BM model, but the the first magic angle. We first provide an analytic pertur- general characteristics of this model allow this perturba- bative framework in which to understand the BM model, tion theory to be generalizable to other Moirésystem. and show that for the two flat bands around the first The TBG BM Hamiltonian is defined on a momentum magic angle, only a very small number of momentum lattice of plane waves. Its symmetries and expressions shells is needed. We justify our framework analytically, have been extensively exposed in the literature (includ- and check it numerically. This perturbative framework ing in our paper [106]), and we only briefly mention them (η) also shows that Mm,n (k, q + G) is negligible for G more here for consitency. We first define kθ = 2|K| sin(θ/2) as 4

(a) (c) q2 sublattice space. k takes value in MBZ, and k = 0 corresponds to the ΓM point in the MoiréBZ. We define q1 as the difference between the K momentum of the lower θ q k �K b2 1 � 1 layer of graphene and the rotated K of the upper layer, K −1 and q2 and q3 as the C3z and C3z rotations of q1 (see q3 Fig.3). The Moiréreciprocal lattice Q0 is then gener- (b) ated by the Moiréreciprocal vectors bM1 = q3 − q1 and �K3 bM2 = q3 −q2, which contains the origin. We also define �K Q = q +Q and Q = −q +Q as the Moirérecipro- Г M 2 + 1 0 − 1 0 q1 M M bM2 cal lattices shifted by q1 and −q1 respectively. Q ∈ Q± b1 KM is then in the combined momentum lattice Q ⊕ Q , q2 q3 + − bM1 which is a honeycomb lattice. Since energy and momentum are measured in units of vF kθ and kθ, we have that |qi| = 1, and both w0 and w1 are dimensionless energies. FIG. 3. (a) The Brillouin Zones of two Graphene layers. The It should be noticed that, for infinite cutoff in the lattice grey solid line and red dots represent the BZ and Dirac cones Q, we have c† = c† 6= c† , as of top layer, and the grey dashed line and blue dots repre- k+bMi,Q,ηαs k,Q−bMi,ηαs k,Q,ηαs sent the BZ and Dirac cones of the bottom layer. (b) The proved in Refs. [43, 106]. In practice, we always choose lattice formed by adding q1,2,3 iteratively. Red and blue a finite cutoff for Q. circles represent Q+ and Q−, respectively. (c) Relation of It is the cutoff Q that we are after: we need to quantize graphene BZ and MoiréBZ in commensurate case. Here we what is the proper cutoff in order to obtain a fast con- take the graphene BZ reciprocal vectors b1 = 3bM1 + 2bM2, vergence of the Hamiltonian. We devise a perturbation b2 = −2bM1 + 5bM2. theory which gives us the error of taking a given cutoff in the diagonalization of Hamiltonian in Eq.3. For the first magic angle, we will see that this cutoff is particularly the momentum difference between K point of the lower small, allowing for analytic results. layer and K point of the upper layer of TBG, and denote the Dirac Fermi velocity of monolayer graphene as vF . To make the TBG BM model dimensionless, we measure A. Setting Up the Shell Numbering of the all the energies in units of vF kθ, and measure all the Momentum Lattice and Hamiltonian momentum in units of kθ. Namely, any quantity E (k) with the dimension of energy (momentum) is redefined as dimensionless parameters We now consider the question of what momentum shell cutoff should we keep in performing a perturbation theory of the BM model. In effect, considering an infinite E → E/(vF kθ) , k → k/kθ . (1) cutoff for the Q lattice, we can build the BM model cen- We will then work with the dimensionless single particle tered around any point k0 in the MBZ, by sending Hamiltonian for the valley η = + which in the second quantized form reads [1, 43, 106] k → k − k0 , Q → Q − k0 (5)

(+) X X X † ˆ in Eq.3; however, it makes sense to pick k0 as a high- H0 = HQα,Q0β (k) ck,Q,+,αsck,Q0,+,βs, 0 symmetry point in the MBZ, and try to impose a finite k∈MBZ sαβ QQ ∈Q± (2) cutoff in the shifted lattice Q. Two important shifted where MBZ stands for MoiréBZ, s =↑, ↓ is spin, and lattices k0 can be envisioned, see Fig.4. These lattices α, β denotes the 2 indices of A, B sublattices. Here the will be developed and analyzed in Sec.III; here we only focus on the perturbative framework of Eq.3, which is dimensionless first quantized Hamiltonian HQα,Q0β (k) is given by the same for either of these two lattices (and in fact, on a lattice with any k0 center).

HQα,Q0β (k) = δQ,Q0 ((k − Q) · σ)αβ We introduce a numbering of the “shells” in momen- 3 tum space Q on this lattice. In the KM -centered lattice X (3) 0 0 (Fig.4b) which is a set of Hexagonal lattices but cen- + δQ−Q ,qj + δQ −Q,qj (Tj)αβ, j=1 tered at one of the “sites” (the KM point, corresponding to the choice k0 = −q1), the sites of shells n are denoted where Ani, with n − 1 being the minimal graph distance (minimal number of bonds travelled on the honeycomb lattice 2π 2π T = w σ + w (cos (j − 1)σ + sin (j − 1)σ ), (4) from one site to another) from the center A1 , while i j 0 0 1 3 x 3 y 1 is the number of Q sites with the same graph distance with w0 being the interlayer AA-hopping and w1 the in- n − 1. The truncation in Q corresponds to a truncation terlayer AB-hopping, σ = (σx, σy), and σ0,x,y,z stand in the graph distance n − 1. In particular, with lattice for the identity and Pauli matrices in the 2-dimensional Q centered at the KM point, the momentum hopping 5

one. It however respects all the symmetries of the TBG (except Bloch periodicity, which is only fully recovered in the large Q limit) at any finite number of shells and not only in the large shell number limit. While not rele- vant for the perturbation theory described here, we find it useful to partition one shell n in the ΓM centered lattice into two sub-shells An and Bn, each of which has 6n sites. The first shell is A1 given by the 6 corners of the first MBZ; then we define An as the shell with a minimal graph distance 2(n − 1) to shell A1, and Bn as the shell with a minimal graph distance 2n − 1 to shell A1. Ani and Bni where i = 1,..., 6n is the index of sites in the sub-shell An or Bn. The partitioning in subshells is useful when we realize that the hopping Ti in the

FIG. 4. Lattices centered around momentum k0 on which one BM Hamiltonian Eq.3 can only happen between An and can calculate the TBG Hamiltonian.. a) The hexagon cen- Bn shells, between Bn and An + 1 shells, and within an tered model (ΓM -centered model, in which we build “shells” An shell, but not within the same Bn shell. In App.A by graph distance from the hexagon centered at the ΓM point. we provide an explicit efficient way of implementing the The circles denote the different shells, although going to larger scattering matrix elements of the BM Hamiltonian Eq.3, graph distance will make the circles into hexagons. There are and provide a Block matrix form of the BM Hamiltonian two different types of sub-shells in each shell, the A and the in the shell basis defined here. Written compactly, the B sub-shells in this model. The A shells connect to the B expanded matrix elements in App .A read: shells, but the A sites within a shells also contain hoppings within themselves. The B sites hop only to A sites. b) The ( triangle centered at the KM - point model, in which we build Tj if Q1 − Q2 = ±qj “shells” by graph distance from the K -point centered at the (HAn,An)Q ,Q = (6) M 1 2 0 otherwise origin. The circles denote the different shells, although going to larger graph distance will make the circles into triangles. for the hopping terms, and similarly for HAn,Bn where There are only one type of shells, the A shells in this model. Q , Q are the initial and final momenta in their respec- The A sites within a shell do not hop to other sites within 1 2 tive shells. Finally for k−dependent dispersion we take each shell. a linearized model:

(Hk,An/Bn)Q1Q2 = (k − Q1) · σδQ1Q2 . (7)

Ti in the BM Hamiltonian Eq.3 then only happens be- which is accurate in the small-angle low-energy approx- tween sites in two different shells n ↔ n + 1 but not imations we make. Recall that the momentum is mea- between sites in the same shell. The simplest version of sured in units of kθ = 2|K| sin(θ/2) with θ the twist an- this model, with a truncation at n = 2, with sites A11 gle, while the energy (and Hamiltonian matrix elements) and A21,A22,A23 was used by Bistritzer and MacDon- are in units of vF kθ. We may now write the dimensionless ald to show the presence of a “magic angle”- defined as BM Hamiltonian H(k) in Eq.3 in block form as the angle for which the Dirac velocity vanishes. We call HkA1 + HA1,A1 HA1,B1 0 ··· this the Tripod model. This truncated model (the Tri- † pod model) does not respect the exact C symmetry,  HA1,B1 HkB1 HB1,A2 ··· 2x   although it becomes asymptotically good as more shells H =  † ..   0 H HkA2 + HA2,A2 . are added. The magic angle also does not explain ana- B1,A2  . . .  lytically the flatness of bands, since it only considers the . 0 .. .. velocity vanishing at one point, KM . However, the value M1 N1 0 0 ... 0 0  obtained by BM [1] for the first magic angle is impres- † N1 M2 N2 0 ... 0 0  sive: despite considering only two shells (4 sites), and  †   0 N M N ... 0 0  despite obtaining this angle from the vanishing velocity ≡  2 3 3  (8) ......  of bands at only one point (KM in the BZ), the bands   do not change much after adding more shells. Moreover  0 0 0 0 ...ML−1 NL−1 † they are flat throughout the whole BZ, not only around 0 0 0 0 ...NL−1 ML the KM point. The Dirac velocity also does not change where L is the shell cutoff that we choose. In the considerably upon introducing more shells. above equation, the M,N block form of the matrix is We now introduced a yet unsolved lattice, the ΓM - a schematic, in the sense that both the ΓM -centered centered model in Fig.4a, which corresponds to the model Fig.4a and the KM -centered model Fig.4b can choice k0 = 0 in Eq. (5). This model, which we call be written in this form, albeit with different Mn,Nn, ΓM -centered was not solved by BM, perhaps because of n = 1,...L. Also, each Mn depends on k, which for the larger Hilbert space dimension than the KM -centered space purposes was not explicitly written in Eq.8. 6

B. General Hamiltonian Perturbation for Bands Ψn’s are the components of the wavefunction on the shells Close to Zero Energy with Ramp-Up Term n = 1, 2, 3,...,L − 1,L, and L is the cutoff shell. Notice that they likely have different dimensions: in the ΓM - In general, Eq.8, with generic matrices Mi,Ni repre- centered model, ψ1 is a 12-dimensional spinor (6 ver- sents any Hamiltonian with short range hopping (here tices of the first Hexagon momentum Q - for sub-shell on a momentum lattice), and not much progress can be A1i, i = 1 ... 6- times 2 for the αβ indices ) ψ2 is also made. However, for our BM-Hamiltonians, we know sev- a 12-dimensional spinor (6 legs coming out of the ver- eral facts which render them special: tices of the first Hexagon momentum Q - for sub-shell B1i, i = 1 ... 6- times 2 for the αβ indices), ψ3 is a 24- • The Hamiltonian in Eq.3 has very flat bands, at dimensional spinor (12 vertices of the momentum Q - for close to zero energy |E| ≤ 0.02vF kθ. Numerically, sub-shell A2i, i = 1 ... 12- times 2 for the αβ indices) and the energy of the flat bands w1 and w0, since nu- ψ4 is also a 24-dimensional spinor (12 legs coming out of merically we know that the first√ magic angle hap- the vertices of the previous momentum shell Q -for sub- pens at w1 (or w0) around 1/ 3. shell B2i, i = 1 ... 12 times 2 for the αβ indices), etc... To diagonalize H we write down the action of H in Eq.8 The block-diagonal terms M contain a ramping • n on the wavefunction ψ = (ψ , ψ , . . . , ψ ): up diagonal term Eq.7, of eigenvalue |k − Q|. The 1 2 L k momentum runs in the first MBZ, which means that |k| ≤ 1. Since Q for the n’th shell is pro- M ψ + N ψ = Eψ portional to n, higher order shells contribute larger 1 1 1 2 1 terms to the diagonal of the BM Hamiltonian. ... N † ψ + M ψ + N ψ = Eψ We now show that, despite the higher shell diagonal n−1 n−1 n n n n+1 n terms being the largest in the BM Hamiltonian, they ... † contribute exponentially little to the physics of the low NL−1ψL−1 + MLψL = EψL (9) energy (flat) bands. This should be a generic property of the Moirésystems. The Mn,Nn Block Hamiltonian Eq.8 acts on the and solve iteratively for ψ1 starting from the last shell. spinor wavefunction (ψ1, ψ2, ψ3, . . . , ψL−1, ψL) where the We find that

−1 † ψL = (E − ML) NL−1ψL−1 −1 † −1 † ψL−1 = (E − ML−1 − NL−1(E − ML) NL−1) NL−2ψL−2 −1 † −1 † −1 † ψL−2 = (E − ML−2 − NL−2(E − ML−1 − NL−1(E − ML) NL−1) NL−2) NL−3ψL−3 ... (10)

√ Notice that Mn is generically an invertable matrix with 1/ 3) hopping Hamiltonian HAn,An (see App.A). eigenvalues of the order ±n for the n’th shell: Mn is just Nonetheless, because the magnitude of the momen- the momentum-dependent ramp-up term if the shell is tum term increases linearly with |k − Q| 1 for of B type and has the additional hopping term HAnAn momenta Q outside the first two shells n > 2, while if the shell is A type. Because the magnitude of the the hopping term has constant magnitude, HkAn momentum term increases linearly with |k − Q| > |q1 − dominates the BM Hamiltonian. q2| for momenta outside the first two shells, while the Since we are interested in the flat bands E ≈ 0 hopping term has constant magnitude, HkAn dominates. • We notice three main properties: (E ≈ 0.02 in vF kθ), we can expand in E/Mn terms, especially after the first n > 2 shells, and keep only the zeroth and first order terms. We use • Mn ≈ n for large shells n 1, is generically an invertable matrix with eigenvalues of the order ±n (E − M)−1 ≈ −M −1 − M −1EM −1 (11) for the n-th shell. This is because Mn is just the ramp-up term, block diagonal with the diagonal be- if the eigenvalues of E are smaller than those of M ing (k−Q)·σ for Q in the n’th sub-shell of B type; E M. if the sub-shell is of A type, then the matrix is still generically invertible, as it contains the diagonal • For the first magic angle, the off-diagonal terms term (k − Q) · σ plus the small (since w0, w1 ≈ are also smaller than the diagonal terms, for the 7

(a) (b) Eigenvalues of first magic angle, and for |Q| ≥ 2, we have that 1.2 q=0 q=k /2 −1 † 1.0 |G|=0 M Nn−1Mn Nn−1 1 for n ≥ 2 and for w0, w1 ≈ |G|= √ 0.8 1/ 3 (more details on this will be given later). |G|=3 0.6 |G|= With these approximations, we obtain that the general 0.4 solution is 0.2 0 K � M K K � M K −1 † M M M M M M M M ψn = (EPn − Mn + Rn) Nn−1ψn−1 (12) FIG. 5. The magnitude of the form factor (overlap ma- where Pn is defined recursively as (η=+) trix) M (k, q + G), calculated for w0 = 0.4745 and w = 0.5931. (a) The colored dots are the G vec- P = N M −1 P M −1 N † + 1 (13) 1 L−n L−n L−n+1 L−n+1 L−n+1 L−n tors we consider in M (η=+)(k, q + G). Different colors represent different length of G. (b) The eigenvalues of subject to PL = 1 and Rn is M (η=+)†(k, q + G)M (η=+)(k, q + G) as functions of k. In 1 −1 −1 † the left and right panels we choose q = 0 and q = kM , re- RL−n =NL−nML−n+1RL−n+1ML−n+1NL−n 2 spectively, where kM is the MM momentum in the MoiréBZ. −1 † +NL−nML−n+1NL−n (14)

−1 † with RL = 0,RL−1 = NL−1ML NL−1,PL = 1. This of order 1/3!, 2!/4! times the components of the wavefunc- continues until the first shell, where we have tions on the subshells A1,B1. Hence we can restrict to small shell cutoff in the calculation of form factor matri- ψ = [EP − M + R ]−1N †ψ (15) 2 2 2 2 1 1 ces n0 = 1 (meaning only the subshells A1,B1 are taken into account), while paying at most a 15% error. Con- servatively, we can keep n0 = 2 and pay a much smaller C. Form Factors and Overlaps from the General error < 3%. Perturbation Framework Next, we ask for which G momenta are the function (η) Mm,n (k, q + G) considerably small. Employing Eq. 17, Notice that the wavefunction for the E ≈ 0 bands de- (η) 1 we see that Mm,n (k, q + G) falls off exponentially with cays exponentially (ψn ≈ n ψn−1) over the momentum space Q as we go to larger and larger shells. This is due increasing G, and certainly for |G| > 2|be1| they are neg- to the inverses in the linear ramp-up term Mn ∝ n of ligible. The largest contributions are for G = 0 and for Eq. 12 (a consequence of the Q term in Eq.7, This has |G| = |be1|, i.e. for G being one of the fundamental recip- immediate implications for the form factors. For exam- rocal lattice vectors. We hence make the approximation: ple, in Refs. [107–109] we have to compute (η) P P Mm,n (k, q + G) ≈ (η) X X ∗ α Q or Q−G∈A1,B1 Mm,n (k, q + G) = uQ−G,α;mη (k + q) uQ,α;nη (k) ∗ u (k + q) uQ,α;nη (k)(δG,0 + δ ) (19) Q−G,α;mη |G|,|be1| α Q∈Q± (16) for m, n the indices of the active bands, and for different This is one of the most important results of our per- G ∈ Q0. Notice that almost all |G| ≤ |Q| change the turbative scheme. In Refs. [107–110] we employ heavily shells (with the exception of |G| = 1): if Q is in the an approximation called the “flat metric condition” (see subshell An/Bn, while G is of order |G| ≥ 2|be1| with [109] for the link between this condition and the quan- be1 the moire reciprocal vector, then Q − G is not in tum metric tensor) to show that some exact eigenstates the subshell An/Bn. Hence, considering |Q − G| > |Q| of the interacting Hamiltonian are in fact, ground-states. without loss of generality, we have, for 2|be1| ≤ |G| ≤ |Q|: The flat metric condition requires that

∗ |Q|! ∗ uQ−G,α;mη (k + q) ≤ uQ,α;nη (k + q) (17) (η) |(Q − G)|! Flat Metric Condition: Mm,n (k, G) = ξ(G)δm,n (20) for any m, n. Since the wavefunctions of the active flat In light of our findings on the matrix elements Eq. 19, bands at (or close to) zero energy exponentially decay we see that the flat metric condition is satisfied for |G| ≥ with the shell distance from the center we can approxi- (η) 2|be1|, as the matrix element vanishes Mm,n (k, G) ≈ 0 → mate ξ(G) ≈ 0 for |G| ≥ 2|be1|. For G = 0, the condition (η) P P Eq. 20 is always satisfied, even without any approxima- Mm,n (k, q + G) ≈ α Q or Q−G∈An, Bn, n≤n 0 tion Eq. 19, as it represents the block wavefunction or- u∗ (k + q) u (k) (18) Q−G,α;mη Q,α;nη thonormality. Hence, the flat metric condition Eq. 20 is with n0 a cutoff. For any k, q, the (maximum of any com- almost always satisfied, with one exception: the only re- (η) ponents of the) wavefunctions on the subshells A2,B2 are quirement in the flat metric condition is Mm,n (k, G) = 8

◦ ξ(G)δm,n for |G| = |be1|. There are 6 G vectors that sat- • Now focusing on the first magic angle of 1 , from isfy this condition, namely G = ±be1, ±be2, ±(be2 − be1). numerical calculations we know that the energy of The overlaps are all related by symmetry. the active bands |E| < 60meV ≈ 0.3vF kθ. Hence −1 −1 −1 In Fig.5a we plot the eigenvalues at q = 0 of the EHkB1 < 0.3 and furthermore EHkBn,EHkAn < M †M matrix. We see clearly that these eigenvalues are 0.3n−1 for n ≥ 2. ˜ ˜ virtually negligible for |G| ≥ 2bi, and that for |G| = |bi| they are at most 1/3 of the value for |G| = 0. • This allows us to estimate Pn: 2 −2 Pn ∝ |Bn| |An+1| |Pn+1| + 1 2 2 −2 D. Further Application of General Perturbation ∝ (vF kθ) α (vF kθn) |Pn+1| + 1 (21) Framework to TBG 2 −2 = α n |Pn+1| + 1 (22) While Eqs. 12 and 14 represent the general pertur- For n ≥ 2 therefore Pn = 1 up to a correction bation theory of Hamiltonians with a linear (growing) term no more than α2n−2 < 0.1. Therefore we are ramping term for almost zero energy bands, we need fur- justified (up to a 10% error) of neglecting all Pn, ther simplifications to practically apply them to the TBG n ≥ 2 terms. This simplification arises due to the problem. However, the form of the (k − Q) · σ + HAn,An, dominance of the momentum term in relation to which is not nicely invertible (although it can be in- the hopping terms. verted), and the form of HBn−1,An (see App.A for the • Now we consider the Rn terms. Using these esti- notation of these matrix elements), which is not diag- mates and substituting into Eq. 14 we see that onal, makes the matrix manipulations difficult, and un- feasible analytically for more than 2 shells. Hence further α2 (v k )α2 |R | ≤ |R | + F θ (23) approximations are necessary in order to make analytic n (n + 1)2 n+1 (n + 1) progress: ≤ 0.04|Rn+1| + 0.09(vF kθ) (24) • To estimate the size of PL−n and RL−n terms in Eqs. 12 and 14, first note that HAnBn and when n ≥ 2 at the first magic angle α ≈ 0.6. Again HBn−1An are proportional to Tj, so they are of or- this will allow us to neglect the Rn term for n ≥ 2. This means that shells after the first one can be der α = w1/(vF kθ√). Near the first magic angle ◦ (θ ≈ 1 , or w1 ≈ 1/ 3 in units of vF kθ), α ≈ 0.6/θ neglected at the first magic angle. More generally, with the angle in degrees (hence smaller angles have only the first N shells will be needed for under- larger α). With this normalization, the energy is standing the N th magic angle. ◦ measured in units of vF kθ which for angle of 1 is around 180meV. • In order to see the approximations explicitly, it is instructive to write the 2-shell (A1,B1,A2,B2) • With these values, the diagonal terms HkAn are of Hamiltonian explicitly. A1 and B1 are 12- order |n − |k||, while the HkBn are of order |n + dimensional Hilbert spaces while A2 and B2 are 1 − |k|| with k in the first Brillouin zone (|k| < 1). 24-dimensional Hilbert spaces, see App.A. Further Therefore, HkB1 ≥ 1, HkA2 > 1, and all the other shells are only a generalization of the ones below. HkAn,HkBn are considerably larger. We write the eigenvalue equation:

(HkA1 + HA1,A1)ψA1 + HA1,B1ψB1 = EψA1 † HA1,B1ψA1 + HkB1ψB1 + HB1,A2ψA2 = EψB1 † HB1,A2ψB1 + (HkA2 + HA2,A2)ψA2 + HA2,B2ψB2 = EψA2 HA2,B2ψA2 + HkB2ψB2 = EψB2

We integrate out from the outer shell to the ﬁrst, to obtain the equations:

(HkA1 + HA1,A1)ψA1 + HA1,B1ψB1 = EψA1, † −1 † −1 † HA1,B1ψA1 + (HkB1 + HB1,A2(E − (HkA2 + HA2,A2) − HA2,B2(E − HkB2) HA2,B2) HB1,A2)ψB1 = EψB1(25)

to ﬁnally obtain:

−1 † −1 −1 † [HkA1+HA1,A1+HA1,B1(E−HkB1−HB1,A2(E−(HkA2+HA2,A2)−HA2,B2(E−HkB2) HA2,B2) ) HA1,B1]ψA1 = EψA1. (26) 9

Solving the above equation gives us the eigenstate n = 3. In particular, in order to obtain convergence energies, as well as the reduced eigenstate wave- for bands of energy E at angle θ, we can neglect the functions ψA1. However, even for two shells above, shells at distance n = 2+[E/vF kθ] (where x means this is not analytically solvable hence further ap- the integer part of x). Hence, as the twist angle is proximations are necessary. We implement our ap- decreased, and if we are interested in obtaining con- proximations here. vergent results for bands at a fixed energy, we will need to increase our shell cutoff to obtain a faith- −1 −1 −1 • The fact that |EHkBn|, |EHkAn| < 0.3n for n ≥ ful representation of the energy bands. If we keep 2 justifies the approximation around the first magic the number of shells fixed, we will obtain faithful angle that (meaning in good agreement with the infinite cutoff limit) energies only for bands in a smaller en- −1 −1 −2 (E − HkB1) = −HkB1 − EHkB1, (27) ergy window as we decrease the twist angle. Notice, again, that this approximation does not depend on and w0, w1 and hence it is not an approximation in the inter-layer coupling. −1 −1 −2 (E − Hk(A,B)n) = −Hk(A,B)n − EHk(A,B)n (28) • Our second approximation is in w0, w1: because for n ≥ 2. Region of validity of this approximation: α = w1/vF kθ ≈ 0.6 at the first magic angle, we can make a perturbation theory in the powers of α. this approximation is independent on w0, w1, the inter-layer tunneling. It however, depends on θ as We remark that Hk,Bn,Hk,An α for n ≥ 2 and ◦ −1 well as on the energy range of the bands we are try- θ = 1 . We also remark that Hk,B1α ≤ 0.6 for all k ing to approximate. For example, for θ = 0.3◦, an in the first BZ (the largest value, H−1 α = 0.6 KM ,B1 energy |E| ≤ 60meV would mean that |E/vF kθ| ≤ is reached for k at the KM corner of the Moiré −1 −1 −1 1. This gives |EHkBn|, |EHkAn| < n and hence BZ). As such, we can make the following approxi- we would only be able to neglect shells larger than mations:

−2 † −1 −2 † (1 − HAnBnHkA,BnHAnBn) = 1 + HAnBnHkA,BnHAnBn, (n ≥ 2) −2 † −1 −2 † (1 − HBnAn+1HkA,BnHBnAn+1) = 1 + HAnBnHkA,BnHAnBn, (n ≥ 2) −2 † −1 −2 † (1 − HB1A1HkB1HB1A1) = 1 + HA1B1HkB1HA1B1. (29)

It is hence a relatively good approximation to ne- E. Further Approximation of the 1-Shell (A1,B1) glect shells higher than n = 1 for angle θ = 1◦. For Hamiltonian in TBG example, at the KM point, neglecting the n = 2 shell will induce a less than 10% percent error In the previous section we claimed that, remarkably, −2 † (the order of magnitude of HB1A2HkA2HB1A2 ≈ a relatively good approximation of the low energy BM 0.62/3.) Region of validity of this approximation: model can be obtained by taking a cutoff of 1 shell, where Notice that as the twist angle is decreased, α in- we only consider the first A sub-shell and the first B sub- creases. In general we can neglect the shells for shell. The eigenvalue equations are which n α where should be considered twice (H + H )ψ + H ψ = Eψ the value of α. Hence, for an angle of 0.5◦ (α = 1.2) kA1 A1,A1 A1 A1,B1 B1 A1 † we can neglect all shells greater than 3, etc. For an- HA1,B1ψA1 + HkB1ψB1 = EψB1, (30) gle 1/n of the first magic angle we can neglect all which can be solved for ψ to obtain shells above n + 1. B1 −1 † ψB1 = (E − HkB1) HA1,B1ψA1. (31)

Eliminating ψB1 we find the eigenvalue equation for the • All previous remarks, which were made for the ΓM first A shell (which includes the coupling to the first B centered model, can also be extended to the KM - shell): centered model in Fig.4b. In particular, the Tri- −1 † pod model in Fig.8b, containing only the A1,A2 (HkA1+HA1,A1+HA1,B1(E−HkB1) HA1,B1)ψA1 = EψA1. shells, is a good approximation to the infinite model (32) around the Dirac point, giving the correct first This is a 12 × 12 non-linear eigenvalue equation in E. magic angle. At this point we will make a few assumptions in order to 10

F. Numerical Conﬁrmation of Our Perturbation Scheme

The series of approximations performed in Secs.IID andIIE are thoroughly numerically verified at length in App.B. We here present only a small part of the high- lights. In Fig.6 we present the n = 1, 2, 3 shells (one shell is made out of A, B sub=shells) results of the BM Hamil- tonian in Eq.3, for two values of w0, w1. We virtually see no change between 2 and 3 shells (see also App .B) we verify this for higher shells and for many more values of w0, w1, around - and away from, within some manifolds (w0, w1) explained in Sec.III - the magic angle. Hence our perturbation framework works well, and confirms the irrelevance of the n > 2 shells. The n = 1 shell FIG. 6. Comparison of the different cutoff chells of the BM band structure in Fig.6, while in excellent agreement model in Eq.3, for two values of w0, w1. (more data available to the n = 2 shells around the ΓM point, contains some in App.B). We clearly see that n = 2 has reached the infinite quantitative differences from the n = 2 shell (equal to the cutoff limit (the band structure does not change from n = 2 infinite cutoff) away from the ΓM point. However, the and n = 3, while n = 1 (only one shell, A1,B1 subshells) generic aspects of the band structure - low bandwidth, shows excellent agreement around the ΓM point, and good almost exact degeneracy (at n = 1, becoming exact with agreement even away from the Γ -point (for example see M machine precision in the n > 2) at the K point are the second row). M still present even in the n = 1 case, as our perturbative framework predicts in Secs.IID andIIE. Our approximations of the n = 1 shell Hamiltonain in Sec.IIE have brought us to the perturbative HApprox1(k) simplify the eigenvalue equation. In particular, we would in Eq. 34. Around the first magic angle, we claim that like to make this a linear matrix eigenvalue equation. this Hamiltonian is a good approximation to the band Since we are interested close to E = 0 we may assume structure of the n = 1 shell, especially away from MBZ that E HkB1. This allows us to treat the B shell boundary. The n = 1 shell is only a 15% difference on the perturbatively, obtaining n = 2 shell and that the n = 1 shell is within 5% of the thermodynamic limit, we then make the approximation that HApprox1 explains the band structure of TBG within about 20%. The approximations are visually presented −1 † (HkA1 + HA1,A1 − HA1,B1HkB1HA1,B1)ψA1 = EψA1. in Fig.8a, and the band structure of the approxima- (33) tion HApprox1 to the 1-shell Hamiltonian is presented in Our approximation Hamiltonian is Fig.7. We see that around the Γ M -point, the Hamilto- nian HApprox1(k) in Eq. 34 has very good match to the BM Hamiltonian Eq.3, while away from the Γ M point the qualitative agreement - small bandwidth, crossing at −1 † HApprox1(k) = HkA1 + HA1,A1 − HA1,B1HkB1HA1,B1. (close to) KM (the crossing is at KM for the infinite shell (34) cutoff by symmetry, but can deviate slightly from KM for We note that HApprox1(k) is a further perturbative finite cutoff). Hamiltonian for the n = 1 shell (A1,B1). For k small, In App.B we present many different tests which con- around the ΓM -point, we expect this to be an excel- firm all aspects of our perturbative framework, differ- lent approximation of the n = 1 shell Hamiltonian (and ent twist angles and AA, AB coupling. We test the since the n = 1 shell is a good approximation of the n = 1, 2, 3, 4,... shells, and also further test the valid- infinite shell, then HApprox1(k) is expected to be an ity of the approximation HApprox1(k) to the n = 1 shell excellent approximation of the full BM Hamiltonian Hamiltonian in Sec.IIE. close to the ΓM point). The good approximation is expected to deteriorate as k gets closer to the boundary −1 † of the MBZ, since HA1,B1HkB1HA1,B1 increases as k ap- III. Analytic Calculations on the BM Model: Story −1 of Two Lattices proaches the MBZ boundary. This is because HkB1 has larger terms as k approaches the MBZ boundary. How- ever, we expect still moderate qualitative agreement with We will now analytically study the approximate Hamil- the BM Hamiltonian. We also predict that taking 2 shells tonian in Eq. 34. While in Secs.IID andIIE we (A1,B1,A2,B2) would give an extremely good approxi- have focused on the ΓM -centered lattice, the same ap- mation to the infinite shell BM model. proximations can be made in the KM centered lattice, 11

in Sec.II. This is a 12 × 12 Hamiltonian, with no known analytic solutions, formed by shell 1: A1,B1, where the B part of the ﬁrst shell, B1 is taken into account pertur- −1 † batively, as HA1,B1HkB1HA1,B1.

A. The KM -centered “Tripod Model” and the First Magic Manifold

For completeness we solve for the magic angle in the FIG. 7. Band structure of the approximation HApprox1(k) model in the KM -centered Model of Fig.4 by taking only to the 1-shell Hamiltonian, versus√ the inﬁnite limit approxi- 4-sites, one in shell A1 and 3 in shell A2. We call this mation, for the w0 = w1 = 1/ 3 magic point. The n = 1- approximation, depicted in Fig.8b, the Tripod model. shell Hamiltonian band structure is undistinguishable from This model is identical to the one solved by Bistritzer HApprox1(k), and is plotted in the App.B. and Macdonald in the isotropic limit. However, we will solve for the Dirac velocity away from the isotropic limit, to ﬁnd a manifold w1(w0) where the Dirac velocity vanishes. The tripod Hamiltonian HTri(k, w0, w1), with k measured from the KM point, reads

HTri(k, w0, w1) = (35)

 k · σ T1(w0, w1) T2(w0, w1) T3(w0, w1)  T1(w0, w1)(k − q1) · σ 0 0  T2(w0, w1) 0 (k − q2) · σ 0  T3(w0, w1) 0 0 (k − q3) · σ

The Schrodinger equation in the basis

(ψA11 , ψA21 , ψA22 , ψA23 ) reads: k · σψ + P T (w , w )ψ = Eψ (36) FIG. 8. The two types of approximate models used for A11 i=1,2,3 i 0 1 A2i A11 analytics. (a) The shell 1 (A1, B1) model which we have the- TiψA11 + (k − qi) · σψA2i = EψA2i , i = 1, 2, 3. (37) oretically argued and numerically substantiated√ to represent a good approximation for values w0, w1 ≤ 1/ 3. Analyt- from the second equation we find ψA2i = (E − (k − qi) · −1 ically, we will first solve it by perturbation theory around σi) TiψA11 and plug it into the first equation to obtain: the Hexagon model, which involves only the A1 sites. The shell B1 will be added perturbatively to obtain H (k) 3 Approx1 X E + (k − qi) · σ in Eq. 34. (A second way to solve for this Hamiltonian will Eψ = k · σψ + T T ψ A11 A11 i E2 − (k − q )2 i A2i be presented later) (b) The Tripod model, which involves the i=1 i two shells A1 (also known as the KM point) and A2. Due to 3 X the same considerations as for the ΓM -centered model, this ≈ k · σψA11 − Ti(E + (k − qi) · σ)(1 + 2k · qi)TiψA2i should be a good√ approximation for the infinite shell model i=1 for w0, w1 ≤ 1/ 3. This is the same model as solved by (38) Bistritzer and MacDonald [1]. We find that the “magic angle” at which the√ Dirac velocity vanishes at the KM point is where we neglect E2 as small and expand the denomi- given by w = 1/ 3, ∀w . 1 0 nator to first order in k to focus on momenta near the KM Dirac point. Keeping only first order terms in E, k (not their product as they are both similarly small), and where the H (k) changes to H (k) = H + Approx1 Approx1 kA1 using that |qi| = 1, ∀i = 1, 2, 3, we find −1 † HA1,A2HkA2HA1,A2. The two types of approximations 2 2 2 are schematically in Fig.8 in the Γ M and KM -centered (1 − 3w1)k · σψA11 = (1 + 3(w0 + w1))EψA11 . (39) lattice. First, we start with the Tripod model Fig.8b, to extend the Bistritzer-Macdonald calculation of the magic and hence we find that the Dirac velocity vanishes on a manifold of w , w given by w = √1 and ∀w , which angle in the isotropic limit and find a “first magic man- 0 1 1 3 0 ifold”, where the Dirac velocity vanishes in the Tripod we call the first magic manifold. The angle for which model (and is very close to vanishing in the infinite shell the Dirac velocity vanishes at the KM point is hence BM model. We then solve the 1-shell ΓM -centered model not a magic angle but a magic manifold. However, a Fig.8a, defined by Eq. 34 which is supposed to faithfully further restriction needs to be imposed: w0 cannot be too describe TBG at and above the magic angle, as proved large, since from our approximation scheme in Secs.IID 12 √ andIIE, if w0 1/ 3, the Tripod model would not B. The ΓM -centered Hexagon Model and the be a good approximation for the BM model with√ a large Second Magic Manifold number of shells; hence we restrict to w0 ≤ 1/ 3, and define In Sec.IIE, we introduced a yet unsolved approximate 1 model HApprox1(k) in Eq. 34, the ΓM -centered model in First Magic Manifold: w0 ≤ w1 = √ . (40) Fig.4a. This model respects all the symmetries of TBG, 3 and we have showed in App.B that it represents a good The Tripod model, Fig.4b, in which we found the first approximation to the infinite cutoff limit. As we can see in Fig. 15, the band dispersions of the n = 1 shell model magic manifold, does not respect the exact C2x symmetry of the lattice, although it becomes asymptotically accu- is very similar to that of n = 2. After n = 2 shells rate as the number of shells increases. The magic angle the difference to the infinite cutoff band structure is not also does not explain analytically the flatness of bands, visible by eye. since it only considers the velocity vanishing at one point. An analytic solution for the 12 × 12 Hamiltonian However, the value obtained by BM for the magic angle HApprox1(k) in Eq. 34 is not possible at every k. We hence is impressive; despite considering only four sites and the separate the Hamiltonian into HHex(k, w0, w1) = HkA1 + −1 † K point, the bands do not change much after adding HA1,A1, then treat the smaller part HA1,B1H H M √ kB1 A1,B1 more shells, and they are flat throughout the whole Bril- perturbatively, for w0, w1 ≤ 3. We will try to solve the louin zone, not only around the KM point. Why is the first (largest) part of HApprox1(k): the A1 shell model- entire band so flat at this value? We answer this question HHex(k, w0, w1) = HkA1 + HA1,A1- which we call the by examining the ΓM -centered model below. Hexagon model:

(k − q1) · σ T2(w0, w1) 0 0 0 T3(w0, w1)   T2(w0, w1)(k + q3) · σ T1(w0, w1) 0 0 0   0 T (w , w )(k − q ) · σ T (w , w ) 0 0  H (k, w , w ) =  1 0 1 2 3 0 1  (41) Hex 0 1  0 0 T (w , w )(k + q ) · σ T (w , w ) 0   3 0 1 1 2 0 1   0 0 0 T2(w0, w1)(k − q3) · σ T1(w0, w1)  T3(w0, w1) 0 0 0 T1(w0, w1)(k + q2) · σ

Band Energy at k = 0 for any w , w w = w = √1 dege. This is still a 12×12 Hamiltonian and its eigenstates can- 0 1 0 1 3 p 2 not be analytically obtained at general k. In particular, E1 2w1 − 1 + w0 0 1 p 2 it is also not illuminating to focus on a 12 × 12 Hamil- E2 −2w1 + 1 + w0 0 1 tonian when we want to focus on the physics of the 2 1 p 2 p 2 2 E3,4 − 2 ( 4 + w0 − 9w0 + 4w1) 0 2 active bands and the low-energy physics of the dispersive 1 p 2 p 2 2 E5,6 2 ( 4 + w0 − 9w0 + 4w1) 0 2 passive bands. As such we make a series of approxima- 1 p 2 p 2 2 p E7,8 − 2 ( 4 + w0 + 9w0 + 4w1) − 13/3 2 tions, which also elucidate some of the questions posed E 1 (p4 + w2 + p9w2 + 4w2) p13/3 2 9,10 2 0 0 1 √ in Fig.1. We ﬁrst analytically ﬁnd a set of bands which E −2w − p1 + w2 −4/ 3 1 11 1 0 √ can act as a perturbation theory treatment. p 2 E12 2w1 + 1 + w0 4/ 3 1

TABLE I. Eigenvalues of the Hexagon model in Eq. (41) at 1. Energies of the Hexagon Model at k = 0 for arbitrary ΓM point (k = 0). The values for general w0, w1 and for 1 w0, w1 w = w = √ are given, and dege. is short for degeneracy. 0 1 3

The only momentum where the Hexagon model HHex(k, w0, w1) can be solved is the ΓM point. This is bands, not only around the KM point but everywhere fortunate, as this point preserves all the symmetries of in the MBZ. It also exhibits a very small gap (some- TBG, and is a good starting point for a perturbative the- times non-existent) between the active bands√ and the ory. We find the 12 eigenenergies of HHex(k = 0, w0, w1) passive bands, around the values w0 = w1 = 1/ 3. The given in Tab.I. Hexagon model HHex(k, w0, w1) explains both these ob- By analyzing these energies as a function of w0, w1, servations.√ We find that√ the eigenenergies of HHex(k = we can answer the question (1) in Fig.1 and give argu- 0, w0 = 1/ 3, w1 = 1/ 3) - in the isotropic limit - are ments for question (3) in Fig.1. Numerically, at (and given in the third column of Tab.I. Remarkably, in the around) the first magic angle√ - which as per the Tripod isotropic√ limit w0 = w1, and at the first magic angle model is defined as w1 = 1/ 3 - and in the isotropic w1 = 1/ 3, the bands at the ΓM point are 6-fold degen- limit w0 = w1, the system exhibits very flat active 2- erate at energy 0. The two active bands are degenerate 13 with the two passive bands above them and the two pas- KM point velocity, i.e. point (3) in Fig.1. We further sive bands below them. This degeneracy is fine-tuned, try to establish band properties away from the ΓM ,KM but the degeneracy breaking terms in the next shells points by performing a further perturbative treatment of (sub-shells B1,A2,B2,... etc) are perturbative. Hence HHex(k, w0, w1) using the eigenstates at ΓM . the gap between the active and the passive bands will remain small in the isotropic limit, answering question (1) in Fig.1. 2. k 6= 0 Six-Band approximation of the Hexagon Model In the Isotropic Limit From the Tripod model, the two active bands have √ energy zero at the KM point, and vanishing velocity In the isotropic limit at w0 = w1 = 1/ 3, the 6-fold 1 at w = √ . Moreover, they also have energy zero at degeneracy point of the Hexagon model HHex(k, w0, w1) 1 3 the Γ point in the Hexagon model (a good approx- at ΓM prevents the development of a Hamiltonian for the M two active bands. However, since the gap (= p13/3) be- imation for the infinite case at the ΓM point). This 1 1 tween the 6 zero modes E1...6(k = 0, w0 = √ , w1 = √ ) now gives us two points (ΓM ,KM ) in the MBZ where 3 3 the bands have zero energy; at one of those points, the in Tab.I and the rest of the bands E7...12(k = 0, w0 = √1 , w = √1 ) is large at Γ , we can build a 6-band k · p band velocity vanishes. This gives us more analytic argu- 3 1 3 M ments that the band structure remains flat than just the Hamiltonian away from the ΓM point:

H6 band(k) = hψ |H (k, w = w = √1 ) − H (k = 0, w = w = √1 )|ψ i = hψ |I ⊗ k · ~σ|ψ i , (42) ij Ei Hex 0 1 3 Hex 0 1 3 Ej Ei 6×6 Ej

where |ψEj i with j = 1,... 6 are the zero energy eigen- model (see Fig. 14): they are exactly degenerate in 1 states of HHex(k = 0, w0 = w1 = √ ). We find these the 6-band approximation to Hexagon model; cor- 3 rections to this approximation come from the re- eigenstates in App.C, where we place them in C3,C2x maining 6 bands of the Hexagon model, which re- eigenvalue multiplets. The 6×6 Hamiltonian is the small- p est effective Hamiltonian at the isotropic point, due to side extremely far (energy 13/3), or from the B1 shell, which we established is at most 20% in the the 6-fold degeneracy of bands at ΓM . The explicit form of the Hamiltonain H6 band(k) is MBZ - and smaller around the ΓM point. Thus, given in App.C, Eq. C7. Due to the large gap between the almost double degeneracy of the passive bands pointed out in (3) of Fig.1 is explained. the 6-bands (degenerate at ΓM ) and the rest of the bands, it should present a good approximation of the Hexagon √ • Along the ΓM − KM line we have kx = 0, ky = k model at finite k for w0 = w1 = 3. The approximate and hence the characteristic polynomial becomes H6 band(k) is still not generically diagonalizable (solvable) analytically. However, we can obtain several im- 3 2 2 ΓM − KM : (13E − 12kyE) = 0 (45) portant properties analytically. First, the characteristic polynomial This implies two further properties: (1) The “active” bands of the approximation of the Hexagon 6 band Det[E − H (k)] = 0 =⇒ mode are exactly flat at E = 0 for the whole 2 2 2 2 2 2 (13E − 12(kx + ky)E + kx(kx − 3ky)) = 0 (43) ΓM − KM line, thereby explaining their flatness for a range of momenta; notice that our prior deriva- Or, parametrizing (kx, ky) = k(cos θ, sin θ), where |k| = tions found that the active bands have zero energy k, we have at KM ,ΓM and√ vanishing Dirac velocity at KM for w = w = 3; our current derivation shows (13E3 − 12k2E + k3 cos(3θ))2 = 0 . (44) 0 1 that the approximately flat bands along the whole The characteristic polynomial reveals several properties ΓM − KM line originate from the doubly degener- of the 6-band approximation to the Hexagon model: ate zero energy bands of the Hexagon model. (2) The dispersive√ (doubly degenerate) passive bands, • The exponent of 2 in the characteristic polyno- for w0 = w1 = 3, have a linear dispersion mial reveals that all bands of this approximation p to the Hexagon model are exactly doubly degen- E = ± 12/13k (46) erate. This explains the almost degeneracy of the p flat bands (point (3) in Fig.1), but furthermore along ΓM −KM , with velocity 2 3/13 = 0.960769, it explains why the passive bands, even though close to the Dirac velocity. This explains property highly dispersive, are almost degenerate for a large (2) in Fig.1. Note that√ the velocity√ is equal to momentum range around the ΓM -point in the full 2/(E9,10(k = 0, w0 = 1/ 3, w1 = 1/ 3)) or two 14

over the gap to the ﬁrst excited state. This approximation is visually shown in Fig.9.

• Remarkably, the eigenstates along along the ΓM − KM line can also be obtained (See App.D). Along this line, the eigenstates of all bands of the H6 band Hamiltonian approximation to the Hexagon model are ky independent! (see App.D)

• Along the ΓM − MM line (kx = k, ky = 0) the characteristic polynomial becomes 6 band 2 2 2 2 FIG. 9. Band structure of the 6-band approximation√ H ΓM − MM :(k + E) (k − 13kE + 13E ) = 0. (47) to the Hexagon model for the w0 = w1 = 1/ 3 magic point. (a) The 6 zero energy eigenstates at ΓM marked by the red Hence the energies are: E = −k, a highly disper- circle are used to obtain a perturbative Hamiltonian for the 6 sive (doubly degenerate) hole branch passive band lowest bands across all the BZ. As the 6 bands are very well of velocity −1; E = 1 (1 + √3 )k (≈ 0.916025k), 2 13 separated from the other 6, we expect a good approximation another highly dispersive doubly degenerate elec- over a large part of the BZ. The active and passive bands tron branch passive band. This explains prop- in the dashed square are almost doubly degenerate. In the erty (2) in Fig.1. Notice that this velocity is right panel, the 6 lowest bands of the hexagon model, for a 1 1 √ √ smaller energy range, are shown. Notice the passive bands 2 (1 + ). The third dis- E9,10(k=0,w0=1/ 3,w1=1/ 3) are undistinguishably 2-fold degenerate by eye (not an exact persion is E = 1 (1 − √3 )k (≈ 0.0839749k), a 2 13 degeneracy, they split close to KM see left plot) Note the weakly dispersive doubly degenerate active bands. Dirac feature of the passive bands. The active bands split at This explains the very weak, but nonzero disper- KM in the hexagon model, but the B1 shell addition makes them degenerate. (b) The first order approximation to the sion of the bands on ΓM − MM . The eigenstates along this line can also be obtained (See App.D). Hexagon model using the 6 zero energy bands at the ΓM point gives exactly doubly degenerate bands over the whole BZ. It The approximation is visually shown in Fig.9. gives the correct velocity of the Dirac Nodes, zero dispersion of active bands on ΓM − KM and a small dispersion of active • Along the ΓM − MM , the eigenstates of all bands of the H6 band Hamiltonian approximation to the bands on ΓM −MM , with known velocities. Along these lines, all eigenstates are k-independent. Hexagon model are kx independent! (see App.D) In the 6-band model, eigenstates are independent √ • 2 1+w0 of k on the manifold kx = ky. Band Energy at k = 0 at w1 = 2 dege. E1,2 √ 0 √ 2 10w2+1− w2+4 E 0 0 2 3,4 √ 2 √ 3. Energies of the Hexagon Model at k = 0 Away From the 10w2+1− w2+4 E − 0 0 2 Isotropic Limit and the Second Magic Manifold. 5,6 √ 2 √ 10w2+1+ w2+4 E − 0 0 2 7,8 √ 2 √ 2 2 In the isotropic limit (which coincides with the magic 10w0 +1+ w0 +4 √ E9,10 2 2 angle of the Tripod model), w0 = w1 = 1/ 3, due to p 2 E11 −2 1 + w0 1 the 6-fold degeneracy of the ΓM point, it is impossible to E 2p1 + w2 1 obtain an approximate Hamiltonian that is less than a 12 0 6 × 6 matrix. Moving away from the isotropic limit, and TABLE II. Eigenvalues of the Hexagon model in Eq. (41) staying in the range of approximations w , w ≤ √1 , the 0 1 3 at√ ΓM point (k = 0) at the Second Magic Manifold w1 = 2 Hexagon model is a good starting point for a perturbative 1+w0 2 . The notation dege. is short for degeneracy. expansion. We now ask what values of w1, w0 might have a “simple”expression for√ their energies. 1+w2 We see that if w = 0 , the 6-fold degeneracy at 1 2 √ Although the perturbative addition of the B√1 shell will the ΓM point at zero energy for w1 = 1/ 3 splits into a 2 1+w0 2(enforced)+2(accidental)+2(enforced)-fold degeneracy. split the ΓM point E1,2(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) = There is an accidental 2-fold degeneracy of the active 0 degeneracy, we find that this zero energy doublet bands at zero energy, and a gap to the passive bands of the Hexagon model is particularly useful to calcu- which have an symmetry enforced degeneracy. The√ 2-fold late a k · p perturbation theory of the active bands, 1+w2 as many perturbative terms cancel. In particular, we accidental degeneracy at zero energy along w = 0 1 2 see that the gap between the active band zero energy is the important property of this manifold in parameter doublet√ and the passive bands (E3,4(k = 0, w0, w1 = space. The eigenvalues of the Hexagon model in this case 2 1+w0 are given in Tab.II. 2 )) of the Hexagon model becomes large in the chi- 15 √ 2 1+w0 ral limit(E3,4(k = 0, w0 = 0, w1 = 2 = 1/2) = −1/2). We note that this explains property (4) of Fig.1: from the Hexagon model, the gap between the active and the passive bands is, in effect, proportional to w1 − w0. Since the bandwidth of the TBG model is known to be smaller than this gap, we will use√ the ΓM point doublet 2 1+w0 of states E1,2(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) = 0 to perform a perturbative expansion. We define this paramter manifold as the “Second Magic Manifold”: √ 2 √ 1+w0 Second Magic Manifold: w1 = 2 , w0 ≤ 1/ 3. FIG. 10. Plots of the active√ bands band√ structure on the first magic manifold, w1 = 1/ 3, w0 ≤ 3, for a large number of shells. In the second row, the gap to the passive bands is IV. Two-Band Approximations on The Magic large and outside the range. The Dirac velocity is small for Manifolds all values of w0/w1 (it vanishes in the Tripod model, but has a finite value once further shells are included), and the bands are extremely flat. The ratio of active bands bandwidth to the 1. Differences between the First and Second Magic active-passive band gap decreases upon decreasing w0/w1. Manifolds √ 1+w2 We have defined two manifolds in parameter space 0 Second Magic Manifold: w1 = , w0 ≤ where the two active bands of the Hexagon model are √ 2 1/ 3 : separated from the passive bands. Hence, we can do a perturbative expansion in the inverse of the gap from the • The Hexagon model exhibits a doublet of zero en- passive to the active bands. We first briefly review the ergy active bands at ΓM along the entire second differences between the two Magic Manifolds√ magic manifold. First Magic Manifold: w0 ≤ w1 = 1/ 3 : • One end of the second√ magic manifold, the isotropic • For these values of w0, w1, the Dirac velocity at point w1 = w0 = 1/ 3 is also the end-point of the KM vanishes in the Tripod model, which is a good first magic manifold, and exhibits a 6-fold degen- approximation to the infinite cutoff model. Hence eracy at E = 0 at the ΓM point in the Hexagon the velocity at the KM point in the infinite model model and a vanishing Dirac velocity in the Tripod should be small. The Dirac node is at E = 0. model. Away from the isotropic point, on this manifold, • One end of the first√ magic manifold, the isotropic • point w0 = w1 = 1/ 3 is also the end-point of the the bands do not have a vanishing velocity at the second magic manifold, and exhibits the 6-fold de- Dirac point. generacy at E = 0 at the Γ point in the Hexagon M • The eigenstates of the active bands are simple (sim- model. pler than on the first magic manifold) on this man- • Away from the isotropic point, on the first magic ifold, with simple matrix elements (as proved be- manifold, a gap opens everywhere between the 6 low). A perturbation theory can be performed away from the Γ point and away from this mani- states of the Hexagon model. At the ΓM point, the M 6-fold degenerate bands at the isotropic limit split fold to obtain a general Hamiltonian for k, w0, w1. when going away from this limit, into a 2 (symme- The B1 shell can then also be included perturba- −1 † try enfroced) -1-1-2 (symmetry enforced) degener- tively as the term HA1,B1HkB1HA1,B1 in Eq. 34. acy configuration. Hence the two active bands, in The active bands are not the flattest on this mani- the Hexagon model, split from each other in the • fold. They are much less flat than on the first magic first magic manifold. manifold, due to the fact that the Dirac velocity • The splitting of the active bands in the Hexagon does not vanish (is not small) at the KM point on model in the first magic manifold is corrected the second magic manifold. by the addition of the B1 shell as the term −1 † HA1,B1H H in Eq. 34. kB1 A1,B1 A. Two-Band Approximation for the Active Bands • The active bands, when computed with the full of the Hexagon Model on the Second Magic Hamiltonian without approximation, are very flat Manifold on the first magic manifold (much flatter than on the second magic manifold), and there is a full, We now try to obtain a 2-band√ model on the manifold p 2 large gap to the passive bands (see Fig. 10). w1 = 1 + w0/2, ∀w0 ≤ 1/ 3, for which we use the 16 √ 2 1+w0 2. Second Order ΓM -point HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) as zeroth order Hamiltonian and perform a k · p expansion away from the ΓM point. The second order Hamiltonian is Fig. 10 shows that away from the isotropic limit, the 2 2 2 gap that opens at the ΓM point between the formerly (2) 4w0 kx + ky √ H 0 (k, w ) = − (σ + 3σ ). 6-fold degenerate bands can be much larger than the mm 0 p 2 2 y x 3 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1) bandwidth of the active bands even for modest devia- (50) tions from the isotropic limit. We have explained this from the behavior of the 6-band approximation to the Hexagon model, and from knowing the analytic form of 3. Third Order the ΓM -point energy levels in the Hexagon model. We have also obtained the eigenstates of all the ΓM -energy levels in App.E2. It is then sufficiently accurate to treat The third order Hamiltonian is the manifold of the two Γ -point zero energy states at √ √ M 1+w02 4k w w2 − 3 k2 − 3k2 w1 = , ∀w0 ≤ 1/ 3 as the bases of the perturba- (3) x 0 0 x y 2 H 0 (k, w0) = σ0 (51) tion theory. mm 2 2 p 2 9 (1 − 3w0) w0 + 1 To perform a 2-band model approximation to the Hexagon model, we take the unperturbed Hamiltonian p 2 to be HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = 1 + w0/2) (the Hexagon 4. Fourth Order model on the second magic manifold) in Eq. 41. For this Hamiltonian we are able to obtain all the eigenstates an- For the fourth order, there are two terms. The first alytically in App.E2. The perturbation Hamiltonian, on term is the second magic maifold is

√ (41) 2 Hmm0 (k, w0) = 1+w0 Hperturb(k, w0) = HHex(k, w0, w1 = 2 ) − 2 4 2 2 22 √ 8w w + 16w − 9 k + k √ (52) 2 0 0 0 x y 1+w0 (σy + 3σx) − HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = ) = I6×6 ⊗ k · ~σ.(48) 2 3/2 2 3 2 27 (w0 + 1) (3w0 − 1)

The manifold of states which are kept as “important” are The second term is the two zero energy eigenstates of HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = p 2 1 + w0/2), given in Eq. E7. This manifold will be de- (42) H 0 (k, w ) = noted as ψ with a band index m ∈ {1, 2}. The manifold mm 0 2 2 2 22 (53) of “excited” states, that will be integrated out, is made 16w0 17w0 + 9 kx + ky √ up of the eigenstates Eqs. E8, E9, E10 and E11, each 3 (σy + 3σx). 27pw2 + 1 (3w2 − 1) doubly degenerate and Eqs. E12 and E13, each nonde- 0 0 generate. This manifold will be denoted as ψ with a band index l ∈ {3, 4, ··· , 12}. We now give the expressions for Notice that so far, the eigenstates are√ k independent, the perturbation theory at each order. We here give only they are just the eigenstates of (σy + 3σx). the ﬁnal results, for the expression of the matrix elements computed in perturbation theory, see App.F2. 5. Fifth Order

1. First Order While the expressions for up to 4-th order perturbation theory are present in Ref. [118], the 5-th and higher orders are not. Hence we derive it in App.F, for the special case for which the manifold m of states we project (1) (1) in has the first order Hamiltonian Hmm0 (k, w0) = 0 and Hmm0 (k, w0) = hψm|Hperturb(k, w0)|ψm0 i = 0 (49) for which its energies are Em = 0. The fifth order also has two terms, just like the 4-th Hence there is no first order (linear) perturbation term! order (See App.F). The first term is This is a particular feature of the second magic manifold and renders the perturbation theory simple. Fur- (51) thermore, it implies that, on the second magic manifold, Hmm0 (k, w0) = the active bands of the Hexagon model have a quadratic 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 32kx w0 − 3 2w0 − 1 w0 kx − 3ky kx + ky touching at the ΓM point, as confirmed numerically. Due σ0. 2 3/2 2 4 to the vanishing of these matrix elements, one can per- 81 (w0 + 1) (3w0 − 1) form quite a large order perturbative expansion. (54) 17

The second term is and 4w2 d (k, w ) = 0 1 0 p 2 2 (52) 3 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1) Hmm0 (k, w0) = 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 h 2(35w0 + 68w0 + 9) kx + ky i 16kx 11w − 94w − 9 w0 k − 3k k + k 2 2 0 0 x y x y × − 1 + kx + ky , − σ0. 9 (w2 + 1) (3w2 − 1)2 27 pw2 + 1 (3w2 − 1)4 0 0 0 0 (57) (55) while the Pauli matrices σj here are in the basis defined in App. E2a (rather than the basis of graphene sublattice). We can clearly see the structure of the order n Hamil- In particular, we note that√ the eigenstates of the k · p 2 2 n−1 Hex 1+w0 tonian, as a perturbation in 1/(3w0 − 1) , with model H2band(k, w0, w1 = 2 ) are independent of k symmetry-preserving functions of k. up to the fifth order perturbation within the hexagon model. The full 2-band approximation to the Hexagon Hamil- tonian is, up to 5-th order, is better expressed as: B. 2-active Bands Approximation of the n = 1 Shell Model HApprox1(k) on the Second Magic p1 + w2 Manifold HHex (k, w , w = 0 ) = 2band 0 1 2 √ In Sec.IVA we have obtained an effective model for = d0(k, w0)σ0 + d1(k, w0)(σy + 3σx), the two active bands of the Hexagon model on the second √ √ magic manifold w = 1+w02 , ∀w ≤ 1/ 3 using the 1 2 √ 0 2 1+w0 where ΓM -point HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) as zeroth order Hamiltonian. We expect this to be valid around the ΓM point. We know that a good approximation of the TBG involves at least n = 1 shells: the A1 sub-shell, which is 4w0 h 2 d0(k, w0) = w − 3 − p 2 2 2 0 the Hexagon model, and the B1 sub-shell, which is taken 9 w0 + 1 (1 − 3w0) into account perturbatively in HApprox1(k) of Eq. 34. We 6 4 2 4 29w0 − 223w0 − 357w0 − 9 2 2 i 2 2 now compute the shell B1 perturbation Hamiltonian: k + k kx k − 3k , 2 2 2 x y x y 9 (1 − 3w0) (w0 + 1) (56) −1 † − HA1,B1HkB1HA1,B1(k, w0, w1) =

 T1(k−2q1)·σT1  2 0 0 0 0 0 |k−2q1|  T3(k+2q3)·σT3  0 2 0 0 0 0  |k+2q3|   T2(k−2q2)·σT2   0 0 2 0 0 0  (58) −  |k−2q2|  .  T1(k+2q1)·σT1  0 0 0 2 0 0  |k+2q1|   T3(k−2q3)·σT3   0 0 0 0 2 0   |k−2q3|  T2(k+2q2)·σT2 0 0 0 0 0 2 |k+2q2|

We now compute the perturbation Hamiltonian:

where √ √ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4kx(k −3k )(k +k +4) (k +k ) −4(k +k )+16 w0 w +1+w1+1 w +1+w1−1 x y x y x y x√ y 0 0 d0(k, w0, w1) = 2 (60) w0 +1

√ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 64kxky (kx−3ky )(3kx−ky )w0 w0 +1w1+w0 +w0 d (k, w , w ) = (61) z 0 1 2 3/2 (w0 +1) 18

dx(k, w0, w1) = √ √ √ √ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 3 w0 +1 −(ky (3kx−ky )) +(kx(kx−3ky )) +64 (w0 −w1 )−2kxky (kx−3ky )(3kx−ky ) w0 +1w1 +2w0 w1+ w0 +1w0 − 2 (62) w0 +1

dy(k, w0, w1) = √ √ √ √ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 w0 +1 −ky (3kx−ky ) +kx(kx−3ky ) +64 (w0 −w1 )+2 3kxky (3kx−ky )(kx−3ky ) w0 +1w1 +2w0 w1+ w0 +1w0 − 2 (63) w0 +1

This represents the first order HApprox1(k) projected We take the unperturbed Hamiltonian to be HHex(k = into the zero energy bands of the Hexagon model on the p 2 0, w0, w1 = 1 + w0/2) (the Hexagon model on the sec- second magic manifold. We note that the B1 shell per- ond magic manifold) in Eq. 41. For this Hamiltonian turbation expressions can only be obtained to first order. we are able to obtain all the eigenstates analytically in Second and higher orders are particularly tedious and App.E2. The perturbation Hamiltonian, away the sec- not illuminating. Note that, to first order in perturba- ond magic manifold is tion theory on the second magic manifold, only the term −1 † Hperturb(k, w0, w1) = HHex(k, w0, w1) − HA1,B1HkB1HA1,B1 contributes to the approximate 2- √ 2 band Hamiltonian. Also we obtained the perturbation of 1+w0 −1 † − HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) = HA1,B1H H for generic w0, w1 projected into the √ kB1 A1,B1 2 1+w0 second magic manifold ΓM point bands of the Hexagon = I6×6 ⊗ k · ~σ + HHex(k = 0, 0, w1 − ) (64) model. 2 We now give the expressions for the perturbation theory at each order. We here give only the final results, for the expression of the matrix elements computed in C. Away from the Second Magic Manifold: perturbation theory, see Apps.F2 andF3. 2-Band Active Bands Approximation of the Hexagon Model 1. Results up to the Fourth Order We now want to perform calculations away from the second magic manifold, and possibly connect the pertur- The first order Hamiltonian is bation theory with the first magic manifold. There are p 2 (1) w + 1 √ two ways of doing this, while still using the ΓM -point 0 H 0 (k, w0, w1) = ( − w1)(σy + 3σx) (65) wave-functions as a basis (we cannot solve the Hexagon mm 2 model exactly at any other k-point). One way is to solve Hence we find there is now a linear order term in the for the wave-functions at the ΓM -point for all w0, w1, and Hamiltonian - as it should since the two states degener- use these states to build a perturbation theory that way. ate at ΓM on the second magic manifold are no longer However, away from the special first and second magic- degenerate away from it. Because of this, many other manifolds, the expression of the ground-states is compli- terms in the further degree perturbation theory become cated. The second way, is to use the eigenstates already√ 2 nonzero, and the perturbation theory has a more compli- 1+w0 obtained for the second magic manifold w1 = 2 cated form. We present all details in App.F3 and here and obtain a perturbation away from the second magic show only the final result, up to fourth order. We can manifold. In this section we choose the latter. label the two band Hamiltonian as:

√ Hex H2band(k, w0, w1) = d0(k, w0, w1)σ0 + d1(k, w0, w1)(σy + 3σx) (66) where √ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4k w w −3 k −3k 8kxw0(w +21)(k −3k ) w +1−2w1 x 0( 0 )(√ x y ) 0 x y 0 d0(k, w0, w1) = 2 2 2 − 2 3 σ0 (67) 9(1−3w0 ) w0 +1 9(3w0 −1) and √ √ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 w +1 4w (k +k ) 2(7w0 +3)(kx+ky ) w0 +1−2w1 d (k, w , w ) = ( 0 − w ) − √ 0 x y − + 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 w0 +1(3w0 −1) 3(1−3w0 ) √ 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4(kx+ky ) 2w0 (35w0 +68w0 +9)(kx+ky )−9(w0 +1)(10w0 +9w0 +3) 2w1− w0 +1 + (68) 2 3/2 2 3 27(w0 +1) (3w0 −1) 19

bands at ΓM point and the numerics. We ﬁnd that the bandwidth of the ﬂat band is

∆(w0, w1) = 2|E±(w0, w1)| (71) This matches incredibly well with the actual values. In Fig. 11 we plot the ratio of actual active bandwidth from the large√ number of shell model√ to ∆ in Eq. 71, for values w0 < 1/ 3, w0 < w1 < 1/ 3. Note that even though we are sometimes going far from the second magic man- p 2 ifold values w0, w1 = 1 + w0/2 where the perturbation theory is valid, the ratio holds up well, and is actually never smaller than 0.8 or larger than 1. We are using w < w because the perturbation theory is around the FIG. 11. Plots of the ratio of the bandwidth of the active 0 1 p manifold w , w = 1 + w2/2 ≤ √1 for which w < w . bands for the large number of shells to the analytic band- 0 1 0 3 0 1 width ∆ in Eq. 71, for different values of w0, w1, including For w1 < w0 the approximation becomes worse, but is the two magic manifolds. In the regime of validity of our ap- outside of the validity regime. proximations, we can see that this ratio is substantially above For the two magic manifolds, also shown in Figs. 11 90%. and 12, the agreement is very good. We point out several consistency checks. First, remarkably, the set of approximations that led us to finding a 2-band Hamiltonian The perturbation is made on√ the zero energy eigenstates√ becomes exact at some points 2 2 1+w0 1+w0 √ of HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = ). If w1 = , 2 2 • The Bandwidth at w0 = w1 = 1/ 3 vanishes then the expressions reduce to our previous Hamilto- ∆( √1 , √1 ) = 0. This degeneracy reproduces the nian Eq. F19. Notice that so far, remarkably the eigen- 3 3 exact result, in the 1-shell model (See n = 1 in states are√ not k-dependent, they are just the eigenstates Fig. 14, the 6-fold degeneracy at the ΓM point). of (σy + 3σx). The approximate model of the 1-shell, HApprox1 of Eq. 34 also has an exact 6-fold√ degeneracy at the Γ point at w = w = 1/ 3 (the two bands D. 2-Band Approximation for the Active Bands of M 0 1 here being part of the 6-fold manifold). It is re- the n = 1 Shell Model HApprox1(k) in Eq. 34 for 1 any w0, w1 ≤ √ markable that our 2-band projection perturbation 3 approximation reproduces this degeneracy exactly, especially since√ it is supposed not to work close to We are now in a position to describe the 2 active bands w = w = 1/ 3 - where the gap to the active of the approximate Hamiltonain of the 1-shell model in 0 1 −1 † bands is 0 and the ΓM point becomes 6-fold degen- Eq. 34, HApprox1 = HkA1 +HA1,A1 −HA1,B1HkB1HA1,B1 erate. (B1) Hex by adding H (k, w0, w1) of Eq. 59 to H2band(k, w0, w1) of Eq. 66. We note that this is still perturbation theory • At w0 = w1 = 0, the bandwidth at ΓM is ∆(0, 0) = 2. This is again, an exact result for the infinite performed√ by using the ΓM -point HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 shell model. Indeed, at the ΓM point, the BM 1+w0 2 ) as zeroth order Hamiltonian: Hamiltonian with zero interlayer coupling has a gap = 2|q1| = 2. Hex (B1) H2band(k, w0, w1) = H2band(k, w0, w1)+H (k, w0, w1) (69) • We now ask: what is the w0, w1 manifold, under We now find some of the predictions of this Hamiltonian. this approximation, for which the ΓM point bandwidth is zero? This is easily solved to give:

1. ΓM point energetics of the two band model Zero bandwidth 2-band model at ΓM : q q 2 2 1 (72) The energies of the two bands of the Eq. 69 at ΓM w1 = 2 w0 + 1 − 3w0 + 2, w0 ∈ [0, √ ]. point are 3 Fig. 12 plots the ratio of the bandwidth of the full BM model on this manifold to the bandwidth at at p 2 2 2 1 −4 w + 1w1 + w0 + w1 + 2 the chiral limit w = 0, w = √ (which is already E (w , w ) = ±( 0 ) (70) 0 1 3 ± 0 1 p 2 2 w0 + 1 really√ small!). We can see that, for most of the w0 ∈ √ (0, 1/ 3) this ratio is below 0.1, showing us that over the full range of w0, w1 ≤ 1/ 3. Remarkably, we we have identiﬁed an extremely small bandwidth ﬁnd an amazing agreement between the energy of the manifold. 20

as in the two band model.

• Furthermore, at the chiral limit w0 =√ 0, the value p 2 p 2 w1 = 2 w0 + 1 − 3w0 + 2 = 2 − 2 for which the bandwidth is projected to be 0 in our two band model is in fact exact for the no-approximation Hamiltonian of the n = 1 shell Hamiltonian (of A1,B1√ subshells). We find√ its eigenvalues to 2 2 − 5w −6w1+9−w1−1 − 5w −6w1+9−w1−1 be 1 , 1 , √ 2 √ 2 2 2 − 5w −6w1+9+w1+1 − 5w −6w1+9+w1+1 1 , 1 , √ 2 √ 2 2 2 5w −6w1+9−w1−1 5w −6w1+9−w1−1 1 , 1 , √ 2 √ 2 2 2 5w −6w1+9+w1+1 5w −6w1+9+w1+1 1 , 1 , FIG. 12. Bandwidth of the active bands (large number √ 2 √ 2 2 2 p 2 − 5w1 +6w1+9−w1+1 − 5w1 +6w1+9−w1+1 of shells) on the manifold ∆(w0, w1) = 0 (w1 = 2 1 + w0 − 2 , 2 , p 2 √ √ 2 + 3w0) of zero analytic bandwidth (Eq. 71) divided by the 2 2 − 5w1 +6w1+9+w1−1 − 5w1 +6w1+9+w1−1 bandwidth of the active bands in the chiral limit ((w0, w1) = , , 1 √ 2 √ 2 (0, √ ). Note that this number is extremely small away from 2 2 3 5w1 +6w1+9−w1+1 5w1 +6w1+9−w1+1 1 w0 = w1 = √ , showing that our analytic manifold of smallest 2 , 2 , 3 √ √ 5w2+6w +9+w −1 5w2+6w +9+w −1 bandwidth (∆(w0, w1) = 0) also exhibits small bandwidth in 1 1 1 1 1 1 p 2 2 , 2 , the large cell number. Inset: the curve w1 = 2 1 + w − √ √ 0 − 8w2−12w +9−2w −1 − 8w2−12w +9+2w +1 p 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 + 3w for which ∆(w0, w1) = 0 for 0 ≤ w0 ≤ √ . Note , , 0 3 √ 2 √ 2 1 2 2 that w1 changes extremely little 1% (stays within 1% of √ ) 8w −12w1+9−2w1−1 8w −12w1+9+2w1+1 3 1 , 1 , during the entire sweeping of w0. √ 2 √ 2 2 2 − 8w +12w1+9−2w1+1 − 8w +12w1+9+2w1−1 1 , 1 , √ 2 √ 2 2 2 8w1 +12w1+9−2w1+1 8w1 +12w1+9+2w1−1 What are the values of w1 on this manifold? • 2 , 2 . Remarkably, as can be seen in Fig. 12, w1 = We see that the active√ bands have zero bandwidth 2pw2 + 1 − p3w2 + 2 is an almost fully constant 0 0 √ at w0 = 0, w1 = 2 − 2 in the n = 1 shell model. over the interval w0 ∈ (0, 1/ 3): it changes by around 1% only. Moreover, its values (0.578-586) p 2 p 2 √ • At w√0 = 0, the value w1 = 2 w0 + 1− 3w0 + 2 = are very close to 1/ 3 ≈ 0.57735. Hence our ap- 2− 2 for which the bandwidth of our approximate proximation explains the flatness of the bands over 2-band model is projected to be zero is numerically the emph first magic manifold, 0 ≤ w ≤ √1 , w = 0 3 1 very close to the value of 0.586 quoted for the first 1 √ : This manifold is almost the same with the magic angle in the chiral limit [37]. In fact, at w0 = 3 √ one for which our analytical approximate calcula- 0, w1 = 2 − 2 the bandwidth of the active bands tion gives zero gap. Hence property (6) of Fig.1 is is half of that at w1 = 0.586. answered.

p 2 p 2 E. Region of Validity of the 2-Band Model and • At w√0 = 0, the value w1 = 2 w0 + 1− 3w0 + 2 = 2 − 2 for which the bandwidth is projected to Further Fine-Tuning be 0 in our perturbative model coincides with the exact value for which the ΓM point band- The 2-band approximation to the n = 1 Shell Model width is zero in the approximation Hamil- has a radius of convergence in k space in the first MBZ. tonian HApprox1 of Eq. 34. We find the This radius of convergence is easily estimated from the ΓM point eigenenergies of the Hamiltonian following argument. In Tab.II, the (maximum) gap, at −1 † the Γ point, between the active and the passive bands HApprox1 = HkA1 + HA1,A1 − HA1,B1HkB1HA1,B1 M √ 2 (−w +4w1−2) in the Hexagon model (and in the region w0 ≤ 1/ 3) in Eq. 34 to be the following: 1 , 2 is at w0 = 0 and equals 1/2. The distance, in the MBZ 2 2 2 (w −4w1+2) (−w +2w1−2) (−w +2w1−2) 1 1 1 between ΓM and KM points equals to 1. Hence we expect 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 2 2 that our 2-band model will work for |k| 1/2, as our (w1 −2w1+2) (w1 −2w1+2) (−w1 −2w1−2) 2 , 2 , 2 , numerical results confirm. The form factor matrices can −w2−2w −2 w2+2w +2 w2+2w +2 ( 1 1 ) ( 1 1 ) ( 1 1 ) be computed for this range of k analytically, by using 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 2 the full Hexagon Hamiltonian in Eq. 66 plus the B1 (−w −4w1−2) (w +4w1+2) 1 , 1 . One sees the zero band- 2 2 √ shell perturbation in Eq. 59. They will be presented in width at the ΓM point for the same w1 = 2 − 2 a future publication. 21

limit. We hence propose this model as a ﬁrst, heuristic k·p model for the active bands on the w1(w0) manifold in Eq. 73. Importantly, this model will have (A) ﬂat bands with small bandwidth; (B) identical gap between the active bands at the ΓM point with the TBG BM model; (C) gap closing at the KM point.

V. Conclusions

In this paper we presented a series of analytically jus- FIG. 13. Comparison between (a) the active bands of the tified approximations to the physics of the BM model BM model at the w0 = 0, w1 ≈ 0.588 point and (b)the bands [1]. These approximations allow for an analytic explana- of the 2-band first order approximation to HApprox1(k) in Eq. tion of several properties of the BM model such as (1) 34. Notice that the bandwith at the ΓM point is virtually the difficulty to stabilize the gap, in the isotropic limit identical, that the bands are flat, and that they close gap at from active to passive bands over a wide range of an- the K point. M gles smaller than the first magic angle. (2) The almost double degeneracy of the passive bands in the isotropic limit, even away from the Γ -point, where no symmetry The k = K point is outside the range of validity of M M forces them to be. (3) The determination of the high the 2-band model, and hence this does not capture the group velocities of the passive bands. (4) The flatness of gapless Dirac point for all values of w , w . However, 0 1 the active bands even away from the Dirac point, around with some physical intuition, we can obtain a 2-band √ the magic angle which has w1 = 1/ 3. (5) The large model that has a gap closing at the KM point. In Fig. √ 9 we see that the Hexagon model does not have a gap gap, away from the isotropic limit, (with w1 = 1/ 3), between the active and passive bands, which increases closing between the active bands at the KM point. How- ever, in Figs. 18, 19, 20 we see that H (k) in Eq. immediately with decreasing w0, while the bandwidth of Approx1 the active bands does not increase. (6) The flatness of 34 has a gap closing close to, or almost at the KM -point. √ This means that one of the main roles of the B1 shell is bands over the wide range of w0 ∈ [0, 1/ 3], from chiral to the isotropic limit. Also, we provided a 2 × 2 k · p to close the KM gap, leading to the Dirac point. Hence we can use the 2-band model of the first or- Hamiltonian for the active bands, which allowed for an der approximation to the Hexagon model, Eq. 65, analytic manifold on which the bandwidth is extremely √ p 2 p 2 1 2 √ small: w1 = 2 w + 1 − 3w + 2, w0 ∈ [0, √ ]. (1) w0 +1 0 0 3 Hmm0 (k, w0, w1) = ( 2 − w1)(σy + 3σx) along with the 2-band model first order approximation for However, the most important feature uncovered in this (B1) the B1-shell H (k, w0, w1) to obtain a first order paper is the development of an analytic perturbation the- (1) 2 − band approximation Hamiltonian: H (k, w0, w1) + ory which justifies neglecting most of the matrix elements (B1) (1) H (k, w0, w1). Note that H (k, w0, w1), the 2-band (form factors/overlap matrices, see Eq. 19), which will first order approximation to the Hexagon model, has two appear in the Coulomb interaction [107]. The exponen- flat k independent bands. We now impose the condition: tial decay of these matrix elements with momentum will (1) (B1) H (k = KM , w0, w1) + H (k = KM , w0, w1) = 0 to justify the use of the “flat metric condition” in Eq. 20 and find the manifold (w1, w0) on which this condition hap- allow for the determination of exact Coulomb interaction pens. Notice that, a-priori, there is no guarantee that the ground-states and excitations [107–110]. result of this condition will give a manifold that is any- where near the values of w1, w0 considered in this paper, Future research in the BM model is likely to uncover for which our set of approximations√ is valid (i.e. w0, w1 many surprises. Despite the apparent complexity of the not much larger than 1/ 3). We find: model and the need for numerical diagonalization, one cannot help but think that there is a 2×2 k·p model valid (1) (B1) H (k = KM , w0, w1) + H (k = KM , w0, w1) = 0 over the whole area of the MBZ, for all w0, w1 around the =⇒ first magic angle. Our 2-band model is valid around the Γ point - for a large interval but not for the entire MBZ, w = 1 63pw2 + 1 − p2977w2 + 1953 (73) M 1 32 0 0 although we can fine tune to render the qualitative as- √ pects valid at the KM point also. A future goal is to find Remarkably, we note that as w0 √is tuned from 1/ 3 an approximate summation, based on our perturbative to 0, w1√only changes from (1/ 3 = 0.57735 and expansion, where outer shells can be taken into account 3 32 21 − 217 = 0.587726!. Hence the isotropic point is more carefully and possibly summed together in a closed- included in this manifold, and w1 changes by only about form series, thereby leading to a much more accurate k ·p 2% as w0 is tuned from the isotropic point to the chiral model. We leave this for future research. 22

Acknowledgments No. DMR 1643312, NSF-MRSEC No. DMR-1420541 and DMR-2011750, ONR No. N00014-20-1-2303, Gordon We thank Aditya Cowsik and Fang Xie for valuable and Betty Moore Foundation through Grant GBMF8685 discussions. B.A.B thanks Michael Zaletel, Christophe towards the Princeton theory program, BSF Israel US Mora and Oskar Vafek for fruitful discussions. This work foundation No. 2018226, and the Princeton Global Net- was supported by the DOE Grant No. DE-SC0016239, work Funds. B.L. acknowledge the support of Princeton the Schmidt Fund for Innovative Research, Simons In- Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in vestigator Grant No. 404513, and the Packard Founda- the early stage of this work. tion. Further support was provided by the NSF-EAGER

[1] Rafi Bistritzer and Allan H. MacDonald. Moirébands Chu, and et al. Superconductivity in metallic in twisted double-layer graphene. Proceedings of the Na- twisted bilayer graphene stabilized by wse2. Nature, tional Academy of Sciences, 108(30):12233–12237, July 583(7816):379–384, Jul 2020. 2011. [11] M. Serlin, C. L. Tschirhart, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, [2] Yuan Cao, Valla Fatemi, Ahmet Demir, Shiang Fang, J. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Balents, and Spencer L. Tomarken, Jason Y. Luo, Javier D. Sanchez- A. F. Young. Intrinsic quantized anomalous hall effect Yamagishi, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, in a moiréheterostructure. Science, 367(6480):900–903, Efthimios Kaxiras, Ray C. Ashoori, and Pablo Jarillo- Dec 2019. Herrero. Correlated insulator behaviour at half- [12] Yuan Cao, Debanjan Chowdhury, Daniel Rodan- filling in magic-angle graphene superlattices. Nature, Legrain, Oriol Rubies-Bigorda, Kenji Watanabe, 556(7699):80–84, April 2018. Takashi Taniguchi, T. Senthil, and Pablo Jarillo- [3] Yuan Cao, Valla Fatemi, Shiang Fang, Kenji Watan- Herrero. Strange metal in magic-angle graphene with abe, Takashi Taniguchi, Efthimios Kaxiras, and near planckian dissipation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:076801, Pablo Jarillo-Herrero. Unconventional superconduc- Feb 2020. tivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices. Nature, [13] Hryhoriy Polshyn, Matthew Yankowitz, Shaowen Chen, 556(7699):43–50, April 2018. Yuxuan Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Cory R. [4] Xiaobo Lu, Petr Stepanov, Wei Yang, Ming Xie, Mo- Dean, and Andrea F. Young. Large linear-in- hammed Ali Aamir, Ipsita Das, Carles Urgell, Kenji temperature resistivity in twisted bilayer graphene. Na- Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Guangyu Zhang, et al. ture Physics, 15(10):1011–1016, Aug 2019. Superconductors, orbital magnets and correlated states [14] Yu Saito, Jingyuan Ge, Louk Rademaker, Kenji Watan- in magic-angle bilayer graphene. Nature, 574(7780):653– abe, Takashi Taniguchi, Dmitry A. Abanin, and An- 657, 2019. drea F. Young. Hofstadter subband ferromagnetism [5] Matthew Yankowitz, Shaowen Chen, Hryhoriy Polshyn, and symmetry broken Chern insulators in twisted bi- Yuxuan Zhang, K Watanabe, T Taniguchi, David Graf, layer graphene. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2007.06115, Andrea F Young, and Cory R Dean. Tuning su- July 2020. perconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene. Science, [15] Ipsita Das, Xiaobo Lu, Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, Zhi- 363(6431):1059–1064, 2019. Da Song, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, B An- [6] Aaron L. Sharpe, Eli J. Fox, Arthur W. Barnard, Joe drei Bernevig, and Dmitri K Efetov. Symmetry broken Finney, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, M. A. chern insulators and magic series of rashba-like landau Kastner, and David Goldhaber-Gordon. Emergent fer- level crossings in magic angle bilayer graphene. arXiv romagnetism near three-quarters filling in twisted bi- preprint arXiv:2007.13390, 2020. layer graphene. Science, 365(6453):605–608, Jul 2019. [16] Shuang Wu, Zhenyuan Zhang, K. Watanabe, [7] Yu Saito, Jingyuan Ge, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi T. Taniguchi, and Eva Y. Andrei. Chern Insulators and Taniguchi, and Andrea F. Young. Independent super- Topological Flat-bands in Magic-angle Twisted Bilayer conductors and correlated insulators in twisted bilayer Graphene. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2007.03735, July graphene. Nature Physics, 16(9):926–930, Jun 2020. 2020. [8] Petr Stepanov, Ipsita Das, Xiaobo Lu, Ali Fahimniya, [17] Jeong Min Park, Yuan Cao, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Frank H. L. Taniguchi, and Pablo Jarillo-Herrero. Flavour hund’s Koppens, Johannes Lischner, Leonid Levitov, and coupling, correlated chern gaps, and diffusivity in moiré Dmitri K. Efetov. Untying the insulating and super- flat bands, 2020. conducting orders in magic-angle graphene. Nature, [18] Yonglong Xie, Biao Lian, Berthold Jäck, Xiaomeng Liu, 583(7816):375–378, Jul 2020. Cheng-Li Chiu, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, [9] Xiaoxue Liu, Zhi Wang, K Watanabe, T Taniguchi, B Andrei Bernevig, and Ali Yazdani. Spectroscopic Oskar Vafek, and JIA Li. Tuning electron correlation signatures of many-body correlations in magic-angle in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene using coulomb twisted bilayer graphene. Nature, 572(7767):101–105, screening. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.11072, 2020. 2019. [10] Harpreet Singh Arora, Robert Polski, Yiran Zhang, [19] Youngjoon Choi, Jeannette Kemmer, Yang Peng, Alex Alex Thomson, Youngjoon Choi, Hyunjin Kim, Zhong Thomson, Harpreet Arora, Robert Polski, Yiran Zhang, Lin, Ilham Zaky Wilson, Xiaodong Xu, Jiun-Haw Hechen Ren, Jason Alicea, Gil Refael, and et al. Elec- 23

tronic correlations in twisted bilayer graphene near the Bigorda, Jeong Min Park, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi magic angle. Nature Physics, 15(11):1174–1180, Aug Taniguchi, and Pablo Jarillo-Herrero. Tunable corre- 2019. lated states and spin-polarized phases in twisted bi- [20] Alexander Kerelsky, Leo J. McGilly, Dante M. Kennes, layer–bilayer graphene. Nature, pages 1–6, May 2020. Lede Xian, Matthew Yankowitz, Shaowen Chen, [32] Xiaomeng Liu, Zeyu Hao, Eslam Khalaf, Jong Yeon K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, James Hone, Cory Dean, Lee, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Ashvin Vish- and et al. Maximized electron interactions at the wanath, and Philip Kim. Spin-polarized Correlated In- magic angle in twisted bilayer graphene. Nature, sulator and Superconductor in Twisted Double Bilayer 572(7767):95–100, Jul 2019. Graphene. arXiv:1903.08130 [cond-mat], March 2019. [21] Yuhang Jiang, Xinyuan Lai, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi arXiv: 1903.08130. Taniguchi, Kristjan Haule, Jinhai Mao, and Eva Y. [33] Guorui Chen, Lili Jiang, Shuang Wu, Bosai Lyu, Andrei. Charge order and broken rotational symme- Hongyuan Li, Bheema Lingam Chittari, Kenji Watan- try in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene. Nature, abe, Takashi Taniguchi, Zhiwen Shi, Jeil Jung, Yuanbo 573(7772):91–95, Jul 2019. Zhang, and Feng Wang. Evidence of a gate-tunable [22] Dillon Wong, Kevin P. Nuckolls, Myungchul Oh, Biao Mott insulator in a trilayer graphene moirésuperlattice. Lian, Yonglong Xie, Sangjun Jeon, Kenji Watanabe, Nature Physics, 15(3):237, March 2019. Takashi Taniguchi, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Ali Yaz- [34] Guorui Chen, Aaron L. Sharpe, Patrick Gallagher, dani. Cascade of electronic transitions in magic-angle Ilan T. Rosen, Eli J. Fox, Lili Jiang, Bosai Lyu, twisted bilayer graphene. Nature, 582(7811):198–202, Hongyuan Li, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Jeil Jun 2020. Jung, Zhiwen Shi, David Goldhaber-Gordon, Yuanbo [23] U. Zondiner, A. Rozen, D. Rodan-Legrain, Y. Cao, Zhang, and Feng Wang. Signatures of tunable super- R. Queiroz, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Oreg, F. von conductivity in a trilayer graphene moirésuperlattice. Oppen, Ady Stern, and et al. Cascade of phase transi- Nature, 572(7768):215–219, August 2019. tions and dirac revivals in magic-angle graphene. Na- [35] Guorui Chen, Aaron L. Sharpe, Eli J. Fox, Ya-Hui ture, 582(7811):203–208, Jun 2020. Zhang, Shaoxin Wang, Lili Jiang, Bosai Lyu, Hongyuan [24] Kevin P. Nuckolls, Myungchul Oh, Dillon Wong, Biao Li, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Zhiwen Shi, Lian, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, B. Andrei T. Senthil, David Goldhaber-Gordon, Yuanbo Zhang, Bernevig, and Ali Yazdani. Strongly Correlated Chern and Feng Wang. Tunable correlated Chern insulator Insulators in Magic-Angle Twisted Bilayer Graphene. and ferromagnetism in a moirésuperlattice. Nature, arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2007.03810, July 2020. 579(7797):56–61, March 2020. [25] Youngjoon Choi, Hyunjin Kim, Yang Peng, Alex [36] G. William Burg, Biao Lian, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Thomson, Cyprian Lewandowski, Robert Polski, Yi- Watanabe, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Emanuel Tutuc. ran Zhang, Harpreet Singh Arora, Kenji Watanabe, Evidence of emergent symmetry and valley chern num- Takashi Taniguchi, Jason Alicea, and Stevan Nadj- ber in twisted double-bilayer graphene, 2020. Perge. Tracing out correlated chern insulators in magic [37] Grigory Tarnopolsky, Alex Jura Kruchkov, and Ashvin angle twisted bilayer graphene, 2020. Vishwanath. Origin of Magic Angles in Twisted Bilayer [26] Yu Saito, Jingyuan Ge, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Graphene. Physical Review Letters, 122(10):106405, Taniguchi, Erez Berg, and Andrea F. Young. Isospin March 2019. pomeranchuk effect and the entropy of collective exci- [38] Liujun Zou, Hoi Chun Po, Ashvin Vishwanath, and tations in twisted bilayer graphene, 2020. T. Senthil. Band structure of twisted bilayer graphene: [27] Asaf Rozen, Jeong Min Park, Uri Zondiner, Yuan Emergent symmetries, commensurate approximants, Cao, Daniel Rodan-Legrain, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji and wannier obstructions. Phys. Rev. B, 98:085435, Aug Watanabe, Yuval Oreg, Ady Stern, Erez Berg, Pablo 2018. Jarillo-Herrero, and Shahal Ilani. Entropic evidence for [39] Yixing Fu, E. J. König,J. H. Wilson, Yang-Zhi Chou, a pomeranchuk effect in magic angle graphene, 2020. and J. H. Pixley. Magic-angle semimetals, 2018. [28] Xiaobo Lu, Biao Lian, Gaurav Chaudhary, Ben- [40] Jianpeng Liu, Junwei Liu, and Xi Dai. Pseudo landau jamin A. Piot, Giulio Romagnoli, Kenji Watanabe, level representation of twisted bilayer graphene: Band Takashi Taniguchi, Martino Poggio, Allan H. MacDon- topology and implications on the correlated insulating ald, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Dmitri K. Efetov. Fin- phase. Physical Review B, 99(15):155415, 2019. gerprints of fragile topology in the hofstadter spectrum [41] Dmitry K. Efimkin and Allan H. MacDonald. Helical of twisted bilayer graphene close to the second magic network model for twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. angle, 2020. B, 98:035404, Jul 2018. [29] G. William Burg, Jihang Zhu, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji [42] Jian Kang and Oskar Vafek. Symmetry, Maximally Lo- Watanabe, Allan H. MacDonald, and Emanuel Tutuc. calized Wannier States, and a Low-Energy Model for Correlated insulating states in twisted double bilayer Twisted Bilayer Graphene Narrow Bands. Phys. Rev. graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:197702, Nov 2019. X, 8(3):031088, 2018. [30] Cheng Shen, Yanbang Chu, QuanSheng Wu, Na Li, [43] Zhida Song, Zhijun Wang, Wujun Shi, Gang Li, Chen Shuopei Wang, Yanchong Zhao, Jian Tang, Jieying Fang, and B. Andrei Bernevig. All Magic Angles in Liu, Jinpeng Tian, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Twisted Bilayer Graphene are Topological. Physical Re- Rong Yang, Zi Yang Meng, Dongxia Shi, Oleg V. view Letters, 123(3):036401, July 2019. Yazyev, and Guangyu Zhang. Correlated states in [44] Hoi Chun Po, Liujun Zou, T. Senthil, and Ashvin Vish- twisted double bilayer graphene. Nature Physics, wanath. Faithful tight-binding models and fragile topol- 16(5):520–525, May 2020. ogy of magic-angle bilayer graphene. Physical Review B, [31] Yuan Cao, Daniel Rodan-Legrain, Oriol Rubies- 99(19):195455, May 2019. 24

[45] Junyeong Ahn, Sungjoon Park, and Bohm-Jung Yang. tional superconductivity and density waves in twisted Failure of Nielsen-Ninomiya Theorem and Fragile bilayer graphene. Physical Review X, 8(4):041041, 2018. Topology in Two-Dimensional Systems with Space- [62] Cheng-Cheng Liu, Li-Da Zhang, Wei-Qiang Chen, and Time Inversion Symmetry: Application to Twisted Bi- Fan Yang. Chiral spin density wave and d+ i d supercon- layer Graphene at Magic Angle. Physical Review X, ductivity in the magic-angle-twisted bilayer graphene. 9(2):021013, April 2019. Physical review letters, 121(21):217001, 2018. [46] Adrien Bouhon, Annica M. Black-Schaffer, and Robert- [63] Nick Bultinck, Shubhayu Chatterjee, and Michael P. Za- Jan Slager. Wilson loop approach to fragile topology letel. Mechanism for anomalous hall ferromagnetism in of split elementary band representations and topologi- twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:166601, cal crystalline insulators with time-reversal symmetry. Apr 2020. Phys. Rev. B, 100:195135, Nov 2019. [64] Ya-Hui Zhang, Dan Mao, Yuan Cao, Pablo Jarillo- [47] Biao Lian, Fang Xie, and B. Andrei Bernevig. Landau Herrero, and T Senthil. Nearly flat chern bands in moiré level of fragile topology. Phys. Rev. B, 102:041402, Jul superlattices. Physical Review B, 99(7):075127, 2019. 2020. [65] Jianpeng Liu, Zhen Ma, Jinhua Gao, and Xi Dai. Quan- [48] Kasra Hejazi, Chunxiao Liu, Hassan Shapourian, Xiao tum valley hall effect, orbital magnetism, and anoma- Chen, and Leon Balents. Multiple topological transi- lous hall effect in twisted multilayer graphene systems. tions in twisted bilayer graphene near the first magic Physical Review X, 9(3):031021, 2019. angle. Phys. Rev. B, 99:035111, Jan 2019. [66] Xiao-Chuan Wu, Chao-Ming Jian, and Cenke Xu. [49] Kasra Hejazi, Chunxiao Liu, and Leon Balents. Lan- Coupled-wire description of the correlated physics in dau levels in twisted bilayer graphene and semiclassical twisted bilayer graphene. Physical Review B, 99(16), orbits. Physical Review B, 100(3), Jul 2019. Apr 2019. [50] Bikash Padhi, Apoorv Tiwari, Titus Neupert, and Shin- [67] Alex Thomson, Shubhayu Chatterjee, Subir Sachdev, sei Ryu. Transport across twist angle domains in moiré and Mathias S. Scheurer. Triangular antiferromag- graphene, 2020. netism on the honeycomb lattice of twisted bilayer [51] Cenke Xu and Leon Balents. Topological superconduc- graphene. Physical Review B, 98(7), Aug 2018. tivity in twisted multilayer graphene. Physical review [68] John F Dodaro, Steven A Kivelson, Yoni Schattner, letters, 121(8):087001, 2018. Xiao-Qi Sun, and Chao Wang. Phases of a phenomeno- [52] Mikito Koshino, Noah F. Q. Yuan, Takashi Koretsune, logical model of twisted bilayer graphene. Physical Re- Masayuki Ochi, Kazuhiko Kuroki, and Liang Fu. Maxi- view B, 98(7):075154, 2018. mally localized wannier orbitals and the extended hub- [69] Jose Gonzalez and Tobias Stauber. Kohn-luttinger su- bard model for twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. X, perconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene. Physical 8:031087, Sep 2018. review letters, 122(2):026801, 2019. [53] Masayuki Ochi, Mikito Koshino, and Kazuhiko Kuroki. [70] Noah FQ Yuan and Liang Fu. Model for the metal- Possible correlated insulating states in magic-angle insulator transition in graphene superlattices and be- twisted bilayer graphene under strongly competing in- yond. Physical Review B, 98(4):045103, 2018. teractions. Phys. Rev. B, 98:081102, Aug 2018. [71] Jian Kang and Oskar Vafek. Strong Coupling Phases [54] Xiao Yan Xu, K. T. Law, and Patrick A. Lee. Kekuléva- of Partially Filled Twisted Bilayer Graphene Narrow lence bond order in an extended hubbard model on the Bands. Physical Review Letters, 122(24):246401, June honeycomb lattice with possible applications to twisted 2019. bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B, 98:121406, Sep 2018. [72] Nick Bultinck, Eslam Khalaf, Shang Liu, Shubhayu [55] Francisco Guinea and Niels R. Walet. Electrostatic ef- Chatterjee, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Michael P. Za- fects, band distortions, and superconductivity in twisted letel. Ground state and hidden symmetry of magic- graphene bilayers. Proceedings of the National Academy angle graphene at even integer filling. Phys. Rev. X, of Sciences, 115(52):13174–13179, 2018. 10:031034, Aug 2020. [56] JörnW. F. Venderbos and Rafael M. Fernandes. Corre- [73] Kangjun Seo, Valeri N. Kotov, and Bruno Uchoa. Ferro- lations and electronic order in a two-orbital honeycomb magnetic mott state in twisted graphene bilayers at the lattice model for twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. magic angle. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:246402, Jun 2019. B, 98:245103, Dec 2018. [74] Kasra Hejazi, Xiao Chen, and Leon Balents. Hybrid [57] Y.-Z. You and A. Vishwanath. Superconductivity from wannier chern bands in magic angle twisted bilayer Valley Fluctuations and Approximate SO(4) Symme- graphene and the quantized anomalous hall effect, 2020. try in a Weak Coupling Theory of Twisted Bilayer [75] Eslam Khalaf, Shubhayu Chatterjee, Nick Bultinck, Graphene. npj Quantum Materials, 4:16, Apr 2019. Michael P. Zaletel, and Ashvin Vishwanath. Charged [58] Fengcheng Wu and Sankar Das Sarma. Collective skyrmions and topological origin of superconductivity excitations of quantum anomalous hall ferromagnets in magic angle graphene, 2020. in twisted bilayer graphene. Physical Review Letters, [76] Hoi Chun Po, Liujun Zou, Ashvin Vishwanath, and 124(4), Jan 2020. T. Senthil. Origin of Mott Insulating Behavior and Su- [59] Biao Lian, Zhijun Wang, and B. Andrei Bernevig. perconductivity in Twisted Bilayer Graphene. Physical Twisted bilayer graphene: A phonon-driven supercon- Review X, 8(3):031089, September 2018. ductor. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:257002, Jun 2019. [77] Fang Xie, Zhida Song, Biao Lian, and B. Andrei [60] Fengcheng Wu, A. H. MacDonald, and Ivar Mar- Bernevig. Topology-bounded superfluid weight in tin. Theory of phonon-mediated superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:167002, twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:257001, Apr 2020. Dec 2018. [78] A. Julku, T. J. Peltonen, L. Liang, T. T. Heikkilä, [61] Hiroki Isobe, Noah FQ Yuan, and Liang Fu. Unconven- and P. Törmä. Superfluid weight and berezinskii- 25

kosterlitz-thouless transition temperature of twisted bi- graphene with a two-leg ladder model. arXiv preprint layer graphene. Physical Review B, 101(6), Feb 2020. arXiv:2004.10325, 2020. [79] Jian Kang and Oskar Vafek. Non-abelian dirac node [96] Tongyun Huang, Lufeng Zhang, and Tianxing Ma. An- braiding and near-degeneracy of correlated phases tiferromagnetically ordered mott insulator and d+ id at odd integer filling in magic-angle twisted bilayer superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene: A quan- graphene. Phys. Rev. B, 102:035161, Jul 2020. tum monte carlo study. Science Bulletin, 64(5):310–314, [80] Tomohiro Soejima, Daniel E. Parker, Nick Bultinck, 2019. Johannes Hauschild, and Michael P. Zaletel. Efficient [97] Huaiming Guo, Xingchuan Zhu, Shiping Feng, and simulation of moire materials using the density matrix Richard T Scalettar. Pairing symmetry of interact- renormalization group, 2020. ing fermions on a twisted bilayer graphene superlattice. [81] Jed H. Pixley and Eva Y. Andrei. Ferromagnetism Physical Review B, 97(23):235453, 2018. in magic-angle graphene. Science, 365(6453):543–543, [98] Patrick J. Ledwith, Grigory Tarnopolsky, Eslam Kha- 2019. laf, and Ashvin Vishwanath. Fractional chern insulator [82] E. J. König,Piers Coleman, and A. M. Tsvelik. Spin states in twisted bilayer graphene: An analytical ap- magnetometry as a probe of stripe superconductivity in proach. Phys. Rev. Research, 2:023237, May 2020. twisted bilayer graphene, 2020. [99] Cécile Repellin, Zhihuan Dong, Ya-Hui Zhang, and [83] Maine Christos, Subir Sachdev, and Mathias Scheurer. T. Senthil. Ferromagnetism in narrow bands of moiré Superconductivity, correlated insulators, and wess- superlattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:187601, May 2020. zumino-witten terms in twisted bilayer graphene, 2020. [100] Ahmed Abouelkomsan, Zhao Liu, and Emil J. [84] Cyprian Lewandowski, Debanjan Chowdhury, and Bergholtz. Particle-hole duality, emergent fermi liquids, Jonathan Ruhman. Pairing in magic-angle twisted bi- and fractional chern insulators in moiréflatbands. Phys. layer graphene: role of phonon and plasmon umklapp, Rev. Lett., 124:106803, Mar 2020. 2020. [101] CécileRepellin and T. Senthil. Chern bands of twisted [85] Ming Xie and A. H. MacDonald. Nature of the corre- bilayer graphene: Fractional chern insulators and spin lated insulator states in twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. phase transition. Phys. Rev. Research, 2:023238, May Rev. Lett., 124:097601, Mar 2020. 2020. [86] Jianpeng Liu and Xi Dai. Theories for the correlated in- [102] Oskar Vafek and Jian Kang. Towards the hidden sym- sulating states and quantum anomalous hall phenomena metry in coulomb interacting twisted bilayer graphene: in twisted bilayer graphene, 2020. renormalization group approach, 2020. [87] Tommaso Cea and Francisco Guinea. Band structure [103] Rafael M. Fernandes and JörnW. F. Venderbos. Ne- and insulating states driven by coulomb interaction in maticity with a twist: Rotational symmetry breaking in twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B, 102:045107, Jul a moirésuperlattice. Science Advances, 6(32), 2020. 2020. [104] Justin H. Wilson, Yixing Fu, S. Das Sarma, and J. H. [88] Yi Zhang, Kun Jiang, Ziqiang Wang, and Fuchun Pixley. Disorder in twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. Zhang. Correlated insulating phases of twisted bilayer Research, 2:023325, Jun 2020. graphene at commensurate filling fractions: A hartree- [105] Jie Wang, Yunqin Zheng, Andrew J. Millis, and Jen- fock study. Phys. Rev. B, 102:035136, Jul 2020. nifer Cano. Chiral approximation to twisted bilayer [89] Shang Liu, Eslam Khalaf, Jong Yeon Lee, and Ashvin graphene: Exact intra-valley inversion symmetry, nodal Vishwanath. Nematic topological semimetal and insula- structure and implications for higher magic angles, tor in magic angle bilayer graphene at charge neutrality, 2020. 2020. [106] Zhi-Da Song, Biao Lian, Nicolas Regnault, and An- [90] Yuan Da Liao, Zi Yang Meng, and Xiao Yan Xu. Va- drei B. Bernevig. TBG II: Stable symmetry anomaly lence bond orders at charge neutrality in a possible in twisted bilayer graphene. arXiv e-prints, page two-orbital extended hubbard model for twisted bilayer arXiv:2009.11872, September 2020. graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:157601, Oct 2019. [107] B. Andrei Bernevig, Zhida Song, Nicolas Regnault, and [91] Yuan Da Liao, Jian Kang, Clara N. Breiø, Xiao Yan Xu, Biao Lian. TBG III: Interacting hamiltonian and exact Han-Qing Wu, Brian M. Andersen, Rafael M. Fernan- symmetries of twisted bilayer graphene. arXiv e-prints, des, and Zi Yang Meng. Correlation-induced insulating page arXiv:2009.12376, September 2020. topological phases at charge neutrality in twisted bilayer [108] Biao Lian, Zhi-Da Song, Nicolas Regnault, Dmitri K. graphene, 2020. Efetov, Ali Yazdani, and B. Andrei Bernevig. Tbg [92] Laura Classen, Carsten Honerkamp, and Michael M iv: Exact insulator ground states and phase diagram Scherer. Competing phases of interacting electrons on of twisted bilayer graphene. arXiv e-prints, page triangular lattices in moiréheterostructures. Physical arXiv:2009.13530, September 2020. Review B, 99(19):195120, 2019. [109] B. Andrei Bernevig, Biao Lian, Aditya Cowsik, Fang [93] Dante M Kennes, Johannes Lischner, and Christoph Xie, Nicolas Regnault, and Zhi-Da Song. TBG V: Ex- Karrasch. Strong correlations and d+ id superconduc- act analytic many-body excitations in twisted bilayer tivity in twisted bilayer graphene. Physical Review B, graphene coulomb hamiltonians: Charge gap, goldstone 98(24):241407, 2018. modes and absence of cooper pairing. arXiv e-prints, [94] P Myles Eugenio and Ceren B Da˘g. Dmrg study page arXiv:2009.14200, September 2020. of strongly interacting z2 flatbands: a toy model in- [110] Fang Xie, Aditya Cowsik, Zhida Son, Biao Lian, B. An- spired by twisted bilayer graphene. arXiv preprint drei Bernevig, and Nicolas Regnault. TBG VI: An ex- arXiv:2004.10363, 2020. act diagonalization study of twisted bilayer graphene [95] Yixuan Huang, Pavan Hosur, and Hridis K Pal. De- at non-zero integer fillings. arXiv e-prints, page constructing magic-angle physics in twisted bilayer arXiv:2010.00588, September 2020. 26

[111] Christophe Mora, Nicolas Regnault, and B. Andrei Barkema. Structure of twisted and buckled bilayer Bernevig. Flatbands and perfect metal in trilayer moiré graphene. 2D Materials, 4(1):015018, nov 2016. graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:026402, Jul 2019. [116] Hoi Chun Po, Haruki Watanabe, and Ashvin Vish- [112] Kazuyuki Uchida, Shinnosuke Furuya, Jun-Ichi Iwata, wanath. Fragile Topology and Wannier Obstructions. and Atsushi Oshiyama. Atomic corrugation and elec- Physical Review Letters, 121(12):126402, September tron localization due to moirépatterns in twisted bilayer 2018. graphenes. Phys. Rev. B, 90:155451, Oct 2014. [117] Jennifer Cano, Barry Bradlyn, Zhijun Wang, L. Elcoro, [113] M M van Wijk, A Schuring, M I Katsnelson, and A Fa- M. G. Vergniory, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. Andrei solino. Relaxation of moirépatterns for slightly mis- Bernevig. Topology of disconnected elementary band aligned identical lattices: graphene on graphite. 2D representations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:266401, Jun 2018. Materials, 2(3):034010, jul 2015. [118] “Quasi-Degenerate Perturbation Theory.” Spin Orbit [114] Shuyang Dai, Yang Xiang, and David J Srolovitz. Coupling Effects in Two-Dimensional Electron and Hole Twisted bilayer graphene: Moiréwith a twist. Nano Systems with 26 Tables, by Roland Winkler, Springer, letters, 16(9):5923–5927, 2016. 2003. [115] Sandeep K Jain, Vladimir Juriˇcić, and Gerard T

Contents

I. Introduction 1

II. New Perturbation Theory Framework for Low Energy States in k · p Continuum Models3 A. Setting Up the Shell Numbering of the Momentum Lattice and Hamiltonian4 B. General Hamiltonian Perturbation for Bands Close to Zero Energy with Ramp-Up Term6 C. Form Factors and Overlaps from the General Perturbation Framework7 D. Further Application of General Perturbation Framework to TBG8 E. Further Approximation of the 1-Shell (A1,B1) Hamiltonian in TBG9 F. Numerical Conﬁrmation of Our Perturbation Scheme 10

III. Analytic Calculations on the BM Model: Story of Two Lattices 10 A. The KM -centered “Tripod Model” and the First Magic Manifold 11 B. The ΓM -centered Hexagon Model and the Second Magic Manifold 12 1. Energies of the Hexagon Model at k = 0 for arbitrary w0, w1 12 2. k 6= 0 Six-Band approximation of the Hexagon Model In the Isotropic Limit 13 3. Energies of the Hexagon Model at k = 0 Away From the Isotropic Limit and the Second Magic Manifold. 14

IV. Two-Band Approximations on The Magic Manifolds 15 1. Diﬀerences between the First and Second Magic Manifolds 15 A. Two-Band Approximation for the Active Bands of the Hexagon Model on the Second Magic Manifold 15 1. First Order 16 2. Second Order 16 3. Third Order 16 4. Fourth Order 16 5. Fifth Order 16 B. 2-active Bands Approximation of the n = 1 Shell Model HApprox1(k) on the Second Magic Manifold 17 C. Away from the Second Magic Manifold: 2-Band Active Bands Approximation of the Hexagon Model 18 1. Results up to the Fourth Order 18 D. 2-Band Approximation for the Active Bands of the n = 1 Shell Model HApprox1(k) in Eq. 34 for any w , w ≤ √1 19 0 1 3 1. ΓM point energetics of the two band model 19 E. Region of Validity of the 2-Band Model and Further Fine-Tuning 20

V. Conclusions 21

References 22

A. Matrix Elements of the ΓM -Centered Model 27 27

B. Numerical Conﬁrmation of the Perturbative Framework 28

C. Eigenstates of the Hexagon Model at the ΓM point 31

D. Eigenstates of Along the ΓM − KM line kx = 0 and on the ΓM − MM line ky = 0 35 1. Eigenstates of H6 band(k = (0, k ), w = w = √1 ) 35 ij y 0 1 3 2. Eigenstates of H6 band(k = (k , 0), w = w = √1 ) 35 ij x 0 1 3 E. Solutions of Eigenstates for the Hexagon Model 36 1. Eigenstate solution at k = 0 for Arbitrary w0, w1 36 p 2 2. Eigenstate solution at k = 0 for on the second magic manifold w1 = 1 + w0/2 37 p 2 a. Zero Energy√ eigenstate solution at k = 0 for on the second magic manifold w1 = 1 + w0/2, w0 6= 1/ 3 37 p 2 b. Non-zero√ Energy Eigenstate solutions at k = 0 for on the second magic manifold w1 = 1 + w0/2, w0 6= 1/ 3 38 c. Zero Energy eigenstate solution√ at k = 0 for on the second magic manifold p 2 w1 = 1 + w0/2 = w0 = 1/ 3 40

(1) F. Perturbation Theory for Hmm0 (k, w0) = 0, Em = 0 manifold 40 1. Review Of Perturbation Theory 40 2. Calculations of the Hamiltonian Matrix Elements When First Order Vanishes 41 a. Second Order 41 b. Third Order 41 c. Fourth Order 42 d. Fifth Order 42 3. Calculations of the Hamiltonian Matrix Elements When First Order Does Not Vanish 43 a. First Order 43 b. Second Order 43 c. Third Order 43 d. Fourth Order 44

A. Matrix Elements of the ΓM -Centered Model

We introduce the shells in the ΓM -centered model. The Anj sites of the n’th A shell (see Fig.4a) are situated at

QAnj = (n − 1)(q1 − q2) + (j − 1)(q2 − q3) + q1, j = 1 . . . n

QAnn+j = C6QAnj = (n − 1)(q1 − q3) + (j − 1)(q2 − q1) − q3, j = 1 . . . n 2 QAn2n+j = C6 QAnj = (n − 1)(q2 − q3) + (j − 1)(q3 − q1) + q2, j = 1 . . . n 3 QAn3n+j = C6 QAnj = (n − 1)(q2 − q1) + (j − 1)(q3 − q2) − q1, j = 1 . . . n 4 QAn4n+j = C6 QAnj = (n − 1)(q3 − q1) + (j − 1)(q1 − q2) + q3, j = 1 . . . n 5 QAn5n+j = C6 QAnj = (n − 1)(q3 − q2) + (j − 1)(q1 − q3) − q2, j = 1 . . . n (A1)

There are 6n A sites in the n’th shell. The Bnj sites of the n’th B shell (see Fig.4a) are situated at

QBnj = QAnj + q1,QBnn+j = QAnn+j − q3,QBn2n+j = QAn2n+j + q2,

QBn3n+j = QAn3n+j − q1,QBn4n+j = QAn4n+j + q2,QBn5n+j = QAn5n+j − q2, j = 1 . . . n (A2) There are 6n B sites in the n’th shell. The basis we take for the BM Hamiltonian in Eq.3 is then (A1,B1,A2,B2, . . . AN, BN)

= (A11,A12,A13,A14,A15,A16,B11,B12,B13,B14,B15,B16,A21,A22,...) (A3) where N is the cutoﬀ in the number of shells that we take. Each shell n has 6n A sites and 6n B sites. The separation of shell n = 1 ... ∞ into A and B is necessary in the ΓM -centered model is necessary due to the structure of the matrix elements. Unlike in the KM -centered model, where diﬀerent shells hop from one to another 28 but not within a given shell, in the ΓM -centered model, the A-shells hop between themselves too. Explicitly, the nonzero matrix elements within the n’th A shell are called HAn,An:

HAn,An =

Ann ↔ Ann+1 : T2; An2n ↔ An2n+1 : T1; An3n ↔ An3n+1 : T3;

An4n ↔ An4n+1 : T2; An5n ↔ An5n+1 : T1; An6n ↔ An6n+1 : T3 (A4) In the B shell, there are no matrix elements between diﬀerent B sites, but there are matrix elements between the A and B sites in the same shell n. They are called HAn,Bn and the nonzero elements are:

HAn,Bn =

Anj ↔ Bnj : T1; Ann+j ↔ Bnn+j : T3; An2n+j ↔ Bn2n+j : T2;

An3n+j ↔ Bn3n+j : T1; An4n+j ↔ Bn4n+j : T3; An5n+j ↔ Bn5n+j : T2; j = 1 . . . n, n = 1 ... ∞ (A5)

Last set of couplings are between the n − 1’th B shelll Bn − 1 and the n’th shell An are HBn−1,An with nonzero matrix elements given by:

HBn−1,An =

Bn − 1j ↔ Anj : T2, j = 1 . . . n − 1; Bn − 1j−1 ↔ Anj : T3, j = 2 . . . n;

Bn − 1n+j ↔ Ann+j : T1, j = 1 . . . n − 1; Bn − 1n+j−1 ↔ Ann+j : T2, j = 2 . . . n;

Bn − 12n+j ↔ An2n+j : T3, j = 1 . . . n − 1; Bn − 12n+j−1 ↔ An2n+j : T1, j = 2 . . . n;

Bn − 13n+j ↔ An3n+j : T2, j = 1 . . . n − 1; Bn − 13n+j−1 ↔ An3n+j : T3, j = 2 . . . n;

Bn − 14n+j ↔ An4n+j : T1, j = 1 . . . n − 1; Bn − 14n+j−1 ↔ An4n+j : T2, j = 2 . . . n;

Bn − 15n+j ↔ An5n+j : T3, j = 1 . . . n − 1; Bn − 15n+j−1 ↔ An5n+j : T1, j = 2 . . . n; (A6)

0 The diagonal matrix elements are (k −Q)σδQ,Q0 where the Q ,Q’s are given by the shell distance: We call these HkAn or HkBn depending on whether the Q is on the A or B shell. Note that the Hamiltonian within the B shell is HkBn while the Hamiltonian within the A shell is HkAn + HAn,An. We now have deﬁned all the nonzero matrix elements of the Hamiltonian. In block-matrix form, it takes the expression   HkA1 + HA1,A1 HA1,B1 0 0 0 ··· †  H HkB1 HB1,A2 0 0 ···  A1,B1   0 H† H + H H 0 ···  B1,A2 kA2 A2,A2 A2,B2  H =  †   0 0 HA2,B2 HkB2 HB2,A3 ···  †   0 0 0 HB2,A3 HkA3 + HA3,A3 ···  . . . .  . . .. .

B. Numerical Conﬁrmation of the Perturbative Framework

What our discussion in Secs.IID andIIE shows is that (1) For the ﬁrst magic angle, we can neglect all shells greater than 2, while having a good approximation numerically. (2) For the next, smaller, magic angle, we need to keep more shells in order to obtain a good approximation. We have tested that machine precision convergence can be obtained for the active bands by choosing a cutoﬀ of 5-6 shells. We test this next, along with other conclusions of Secs.IID andIIE In particular:

• We first confirm our analytic conclusion that shells above n > 2 do not change the spectrum for the first magic angle (and for larger angles than the first magic angle). Figs. 14,15 and 16 show√ the spectrum for several values of w0, w1 around (or larger√ than) the first magic angle characterized by w0 = 1/ 3 for the KM -centered model and by w0 = w1 = 1/ 3 for the ΓM -centered model model in Sec.III). For the KM -centered model, the magic√ angle does not depend on w1 but for the ΓM -centered model it does, see Sec.III. For either w0 or w1 ≤ 1/ 3, we see that the spectrum looks completely unchanged from n = 2 to n = 4 shells. From n = 2 to n = 4 shells, the largest change is smaller than 1%, and invisible to the naked eye. Above n = 4 shells, the spectrum is numerically the same within machine precision. We confirm our first conclusion: To obtain a faithful model for 29

FIG. 14. Plots of the band structure for different parameters around the first magic angle, and for different ranges of the y-axis. Notice no change from n = 2 to n = 4, in agreement with the theoretical discussions

FIG. 15. Plots of the band structure for different parameters around the first magic angle, and for different ranges of the y-axis. Notice no change from n = 2 to n = 4, in agreement with the theoretical discussions

TBG around the ﬁrst magic angle, we can safely neglect all shells above n = 2. Keeping the n = 2 shells gives us a Hamiltonian which contains the A1,B1,A2,B2 shells in Fig.4a, giving a Hamiltonian that is a 72 × 72 matrix, too large for analytic tackling. Hence further approximations are necessary as per Secs.IID andIIE, which we further numerically conﬁrm.

• We confirmed our perturbation theory predictions of Secs.IID andIIE for angles smaller than the first magic angle. In Fig. 17 we confirm the analytic prediction that at angle 1/n times the first magic angle, we can neglect all the shells above n + 1.

• We confirmed√ our perturbation theory predictions Secs.IID andIIE that - for the first magic angle and below, (w0, w1 ≤ 1/ 3) - keeping only the first shell induces only a 20% error in the band structure. We have already established that keeping up to n = 2 shells at the first magic angle gives the correct band structure within less 30

FIG. 16. Plots of the band structure for different parameters around the first magic angle, and for different ranges of the y-axis. Notice no change from n = 2 to n = 4, in agreement with the theoretical discussions

than 5%. Figs. 14,15 and 16 also contain√ the n = 1 shells band structure for a range of angles around and above the first magic angle w0, w1 ≥ 1/ 3. We see that the band structures differ little to very little, while keeping the main characteristics, from n = 1 to n = 2. In particular, in the chiral limit of w0 = 0 and for w1 = 1/2 (along what we call the Second Magic Manifold, see Sec.IV) the band structures do not visibly differ at all (see Fig .15, lowest row) from n = 1 to n = 2. Hence for the first magic angle, to make analytic progress, we will consider only the n = 1 shell, to a good approximation. This gives a 24 × 24 Hamiltonian, which is still analytically unsolvable. Hence further approximations are necessary, such as HApprox1(k) in Eq. 34.

• We test the prediction that HApprox1(k) in Eq. 34 approximates well the band√ structure of TBG around (and for angles larger than) the magic angle for a series of values of w0, w1 ≤ 1/ 3. Figs. 18,19 and 20. We see remarkable agreement between HApprox1(k) and the n = 1 Hamiltonian. We also see good agreement with the 1 large shell limit. For values of the parameters w0 = 0, w1 = 2 in the Second Magic Manifold, (see Sec.IV), the HApprox1(k) and the n = 1, 2, 3 ... shells give rise to bands undistinguishable by eye(see Fig19, last row). We will hence use HApprox1(k) as our TBG hamiltonian. This is a 12 × 12 Hamiltonian that cannot be solved analytically. Hence further analytic approximations are necessary. 31

FIG. 17. Plots of the band structure for different parameters far away from the first magic angle: at half, a third and a fourth of the first magic angle. Notice that for and angle 1/n times the magic angle, we can neglect all shells above n + 1, which confirms our perturbation theory result. For the first magic angle, above n = 2 shells the band structure goes not change. For half the magic angle, the band structure above n = 3 shells does not change (but the band structure at n = 2 shells is changed compared to the n = 3 band structure). For a third of the magic angle, the band structure above n = 4 shells does not change (but the band structure at n = 2, 3 shells is changed compared to the n = 4 band structure. For a quarter of the magic angle, the band structure above n = 5 shells does not change (but the band structure at n = 2, 3, 4 shells is changed – dramatically – compared to the n = 6 band structure.

C. Eigenstates of the Hexagon Model at the ΓM point

√We provide the explicit expressions for the six band model approximation for the Hexagon model at w0 = w1 = 1/ 3. The basis we choose is made of simultaneous eigenstates of C3z and H for the states |ψj(k = 0, w0 = w1 = √1 )i = ψ j = 1 ... 6 in Eq. 42: 3 Ej   ζ1 −i(2π/3)σz  e η1   i(2π/3)σz   e ζ1  1 1 1 1 −i ψE1 =   , ζ1 = √ , η1 = √ (−2iσz − σy)ζ1 = √ , (C1)  η1  2 2 1 3 2 6 i  −i(2π/3)σz   e ζ1  i(2π/3)σz e η1

  ζ2 −i(2π/3)σz  e η2   i(2π/3)σz   e ζ2  1 1 1 1 −i ψE2 =   , ζ2 = √ , η2 = √ (−2iσz − σy)ζ2 = √ , (C2)  η2  2 6 −1 3 2 2 −i  −i(2π/3)σz   e ζ2  i(2π/3)σz e η2 32

FIG. 18. Plots of the band structure of HApprox1 for different parameters around the first magic angle, and for different ranges of the y-axis. For convenience, we also re-plot the n = 1, 2, 3 shells band structure. Notice the good agreement of HApprox1 with the n = 1 shell Hamiltonian,√ and, further-on, the good approximation of the n = 2, 3 band structures by this Hamiltonian. For p 2 the chiral limit w0 = 9/10 3, w1 = 1 + w0/2, the approximate HApprox1 is a remarkably good approximation of the n = 1 shell and a good approximation to the thermodynamic limit, albeit with the Dirac point slightly shifted.

  ζ3 −i(2π/3)(σz −σ0)  e η3   i(2π/3)(σz −σ0)   e ζ3  1 2√ ψE3 =   , ζ3 = ,  η3  q √ 3 − 13  −i(2π/3)(σz −σ0)  26(5 − 13)  e ζ3  (C3) i(2π/3)(σz −σ0) e η3 √ 1 σ 3i i 5 − 13 η = √ ( y + σ + iσ )ζ = √ , 3 2 2 x z 3 q √ 1 + 13 3 78(5 − 13)

  ζ4 −i(2π/3)(σz −σ0)  e η4   i(2π/3)(σz −σ0)   e ζ4  1 2√ ψE4 =   , ζ4 = ,  η4  q √ 3 + 13  −i(2π/3)(σz −σ0)  26(5 + 13)  e ζ4  (C4) i(2π/3)(σz −σ0) e η4 √ 1 σ 3i i 5 + 13 η = √ ( y + σ + iσ )ζ = √ , 4 2 2 x z 4 q √ 1 − 13 3 78(5 + 13) 33

FIG. 19. Plots of the band structure of HApprox1 for different parameters around the first magic angle, and for different ranges of the y-axis, which helps us focus on different bands. For convenience, we also re-plot the n = 1, 2, 3 shells band structure. Notice the remarkable (almost undistinguishable by eye) agreement of HApprox1 with the n = 1 shell Hamiltonian, and the further-on good approximation of the n = 2, 3 band structures by this Hamiltonian. For the chiral limit w0 = 0, w1 = 1/2, the approximate HApprox1 is a remarkably good approximation of the thermodynamic limit - undistinguishable by eye -, while for p 2 all other values it is a very good approximation. The Dirac point in the chiral limit w0 = 0, w1 = 1 + w0/2 is at KM even for the HApprox1.

  ζ5 −i(2π/3)(σz +σ0)  e η5  √  i(2π/3)(σz +σ0)   e ζ5  1 3 − 13 ψE5 =   , ζ5 = ,  η5  q √ 2  −i(2π/3)(σz +σ0)  26(5 − 13)  e ζ5  (C5) i(2π/3)(σz +σ0) e η5 √ 1 σ 3i −i 1 + 13 η = √ ( y − σ + iσ )ζ = √ , 5 2 2 x z 5 q √ 5 − 13 3 78(5 − 13)

  ζ6 −i(2π/3)(σz +σ0)  e η6  √  i(2π/3)(σz +σ0)   e ζ6  1 3 + 13 ψE6 =   , ζ6 = ,  η6  q √ 2  −i(2π/3)(σz +σ0)  26(5 + 13)  e ζ6  (C6) i(2π/3)(σz +σ0) e η6 √ 1 σ 3i −i 1 − 13 η = √ ( y + σ + iσ )ζ = √ . 6 2 2 x z 6 q √ 5 + 13 3 78(5 + 13) 34

FIG. 20. Plots of the band structure of HApprox1 for different parameters around the first magic angle, and for different ranges of the y-axis, which helps us focus on different bands. For convenience, we also re-plot the n = 1, 2, 3 shells band structure. Notice the remarkable (almost undistinguishable by eye) agreement of HApprox1 with the n = 1 shell Hamiltonian, and√ the further-on good approximation of the n = 2, 3 band structures by this Hamiltonian. For the chiral limit w0 = 0, w1 = 1/ 3, the approximate HApprox1 is a remarkably good approximation of the n = 1 Hamiltonian, and a good approximation to the thermodynamic limit. The Dirac point is slightly moved away from the KM point.

i2π/3 −i2π/3 The basis ψE1 , ψE2 has C3z = 1, the basis ψE3 , ψE4 has C3z = e , and the basis ψE5 , ψE6 has C3z = e . The 6 by 6 Hamiltonian in Eq. 42 under these 6 basis takes the form

 †  02 A1k− A2k+ 6 band 1 † Hij (k, w0 = w1 = √ ) =  A1k+ 02 A3k−  , (C7) 3 † A2k− A3k+ 02 where k± = kx ± iky, 02 is the 2 by 2 zero matrix, and

√ √ √  2 13−13 6 13+22−1  √ √ q √ A =  13 5− 13 13( 13+5)  , 1  √ p√ q √ q  1 13 − 13 13 + 5 1 13 + 4 − √3 52 26 13( 13+5) √ √ √  2 13−13 1 p  √ √ − 13 − 13 13 + 5 13 5− 13 52 A =  √ √ q √  , (C8) 2  6 13+22−1 1 q 3  q √ − 13 + 4 + √ 13( 13+5) 26 13( 13+5)  √ √ √ √ √  2 13−5 6 13+22+ 78 13+286+2 √1 √ 13 √ 52 3 √ A3 =  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  .  2 13−5 6 13+22+ 78 13+286+2 2( 13+8)− 6 13+22+ 78 13+286  √ − √ 52 3 26( 13+2)

p 2 We note that ψE1 , ψE2 also serves as the Gamma point basis of the 2-band approximation at w1 = 1 + w0/2 in Sec.IV. 35

D. Eigenstates of Along the ΓM − KM line kx = 0 and on the ΓM − MM line ky = 0

1. Eigenstates of H6 band(k = (0, k ), w = w = √1 ) ij y 0 1 3

On the ΓM − KM line, the energies (already mentioned in the main text) are

1 r 3 r 3 r 3 r 3 E6-band(k = (0, ky), w0 = w1 = √ ) = (−2 ky, −2 ky, 2 ky, 2 ky, 0, 0) (D1) 3 13 13 13 13

The energies have eigenstates (not orthonormalized yet)

ψ (k = (0, k ), w = w = √1 ) = 1;6-band y 0 1 3 q √ √ √ √ √ √ (− 1 1 5570051i 3 − 153112 13 + 1077176i 39 + 17078669, 191760161i 3+166713618√ 13−√59265370i 39−527508405 , 200 221 200 2074(13477 13−45994) √ √ √ √ √ √ 23i(26i−1222 3+86i 13+221 39) , −2437915i 3+698430√ 13+569554√ i 39−3303424 , √ , 0, 1) 100 22570(49 13−156) 1300 370 ψ (k = (0, k ), w = w = √1 ) = 2;6-band y 0 1 3 r √ √ √ √ q √ 1 q 1 23 705768 13−8i 39(886369537−160909896 13)+4606081 ( 200 (−23) 221 37641i 3 + 808 13 − 2136i 39 − 91159 , 100 26962 , √ √ √ √ √ √ 23(−881719i 3+56(−687+3704i 3) 13+52881) 104(775−596i 3)+529i(25 3+23i) 13 , √ √ , √ , 1, 0) 600 22570(49 13−156) 2600 370 ψ (k = (0, k ), w = w = √1 ) = 3;6-band y 0 1 3 q √ √ √ √ √ √ ( 1 1 5570051i 3 + 8 19139 − 134647i 3 13 + 17078669, −191760161i 3+166713618√ 13√−59265370i 39+527508405 , 200 221 200 2074(13477 13+45994) √ √ √ √ √ √ 23(−1222i 3+86 13−221i 39−26) , 2437915i 3+698430√ 13+569554√ i 39+3303424 , √ , 0, 1) 100 22570(49 13+156) 1300 370 ψ (k = (0, k ), w = w = √1 ) = 4;6-band y 0 1 3 r √ √ √ √ q √ 23 q 1 23 −705768 13+8i 39(160909896 13+886369537)+4606081 ( 200 221 i 91159i + 37641 3 + 808i 13 + 2136 39 , 100 26962 , √ √ √ √ √ √ 23i(52881i+881719 3+56 13(3704 3+687i)) 104(775−596i 3)+529(23−25i 3) 13 , √ √ , √ , 1, 0) 600 22570(49 13+156) 2600 370 ψ (k = (0, k ), w = w = √1 ) = 5;6-band y 0 1 3 √ √ √ √ 1 q 2 2 q 2 1 q 185 1 ( 529 51 710 − 19i 3 , 529 1037 −2732 + 659i 3 , − 529 61 2483 + 5763i 3 , 0, 46 47 − 19i 3 , 1) ψ (k = (0, k ), w = w = √1 ) = 6;6-band y 0 1 3 √ q √ q √ 3(31−46i 3) ( 1 185 5 3 + 11i , 1 185 −57 − 71i 3 , √ , 1, 0, 0) (D2) 46 17 46 1037 23 61

Fundamentally, what we notice is that the bands are ky independent!

2. Eigenstates of H6 band(k = (k , 0), w = w = √1 ) ij x 0 1 3

On the ΓM − MM line, the energies (already mentioned in the main text) are

1 E6-band(k = (kx, 0), w0 = w1 = √ ) = √ √ √ 3 √ 1 1 1 1 (−kx, −kx, 26 3 13 + 13 kx, 26 3 13 + 13 kx, − 26 3 13 − 13 kx, − 26 3 13 − 13 kx) (D3) 36

The energies have eigenstates (not orthonormalized yet) ψ (k = (k , 0), w = w = √1 ) = 1;6-band x 0 1 3 √ √ √ √ 3(1253+41i 3) 69(−5−3i 3) (− 219 √3+115i , 1609√−63i 3 , √ , √ , 0, 1) 52 34 52 2074 52 22570 52 370 ψ (k = (k , 0), w = w = √1 ) = 2;6-band x 0 1 3 √ √ √ √ 69 3 69(9−i 3) 23i( 3−151i) ( 34 , √ , − √ , 277−√112i 3 , 1, 0) 26 52 2074 52 22570 26 370 ψ (k = (k , 0), w = w = √1 ) = 3;6-band x 0 1 3 √ √ √ 7(−10569i 3+17434 13−2949i 39+62876) √ √ √ ( √ √ √ , 481425i 3+307265√ 13+145119√ i 39+1454167 , 34(3 3−i)(323 13−65) 4 2074(323 13−65) √ √ √ √ √ √ 9i(10385i+10526 3+4333i 13+736 39) 69(169i 3+8 13−45i 39+26) , √ √ , √ √ , 0, 1) 2 22570(61 13−247) 52 370(8 13−29) ψ (k = (k , 0), w = w = √1 ) = 4;6-band x 0 1 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ 69(−1679i 3+5303 13−457i 39+19129) 69(6479i 3+3374 13+1939i 39+12004) ( √ √ √ , √ √ , 2 34(3 3−i)(323 13−65) 2 2074(323 13−65) √ √ √ 23i(16877i+3295 3+4843i 13+2705 39) √ √ √ , √ √ , −36205i 3−14941√ 13+10699√ i 39+64675 , 1, 0) 4 22570(61 13−247) 104 370(8 13−29) ψ (k = (k , 0), w = w = √1 ) = 5;6-band x 0 1 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ 69(−1679i 3+5303 13−457i 39+19129) 69(6479i 3+3374 13+1939i 39+12004) ( √ √ √ , √ √ , 2 34(3 3−i)(323 13−65) 2 2074(323 13−65) √ √ √ 23i(16877i+3295 3+4843i 13+2705 39) √ √ √ , √ √ , −36205i 3−14941√ 13+10699√ i 39+64675 , 1, 0) 4 22570(61 13−247) 104 370(8 13−29) ψ (k = (k , 0), w = w = √1 ) = 6;6-band x 0 1 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ 69(1679i 3+5303 13−457i 39−19129) 69(−6479i 3+3374 13+1939i 39−12004) ( √ √ √ , √ √ , 2 34(3 3−i)(323 13+65) 2 2074(323 13+65) √ √ √ √ √ √ 23(−3295i 3−4843 13+2705i 39+16877) i(64675i+36205 3+14941i 13+10699 39) , √ √ , √ √ , 1, 0) (D4) 4 22570(61 13+247) 104 370(8 13+29)

Fundamentally, what we notice is that the bands are kx independent!

E. Solutions of Eigenstates for the Hexagon Model

We now solve the eigenvalue equation

HHex(k, w0, w1)ψ = Eψ (E1)

for the Hexagon model in Eq. 41 in the basis ψ(k, w0, w1) = (ψA11 , ψA12 , ψA13 , ψA14 , ψA15 , ψA16 )(k, w0, w1) where

each ψA1i (k, w0, w1) is a 2-component spinor of Fig.8, for diﬀerent values of k, w0, w1.

1. Eigenstate solution at k = 0 for Arbitrary w0, w1

The eigenvalue equation cannot be solved for general k, w0, w1 and we hence concentrate on several cases. First, we only can solve only the k = 0 point. Using |~qi · ~σ| = 1, we ﬁnd:

E+q2·σ ψ6 = E2−1 (T1ψ5 + T3ψ1)

E+q1·σ ψ4 = E2−1 (T3ψ3 + T2ψ5)

E+q3·σ ψ2 = E2−1 (T2ψ1 + T1ψ3) 2 2 2 [(E + q3 · σ)(E − 1) − E(T2 + T1 ) − T2q1 · σT2 − T1q2 · σT1]ψ5 = T2(E + q1 · σ)T3ψ3 + T1(E + q2 · σ)T3ψ1 2 2 2 [(E + q2 · σ)(E − 1) − E(T1 + T3 ) − T1q3 · σT1 − T3q1 · σT3]ψ3 = T1(E + q3 · σ)T2ψ1 + T3(E + q1 · σ)T2ψ5 2 2 2 [(E + q1 · σ)(E − 1) − E(T2 + T3 ) − T2q3 · σT2 − T3q2 · σT3]ψ1 = T2(E + q3 · σ)T1ψ3 + T3(E + q2 · σ)T1ψ5 (E2) 37

where shorthand notation Ti = Ti(w0, w1), ψi = ψA1i (k = 0, w0, w1). Using the expressions of Ti from Eq.4, we re-write the last 3 equations above as:

√ 2 2 2 2 2 2 [E(E − 1)σ0 + q3 · σ(E − 1 + w0 + 2w1) − E(2(w0 + w1)σ0 + w0w1(σx + 3σy)]ψ5 2 √ 2 w1 i 3 2 2 2 = {E[(w0 − 2 )σ0 − w0w1σx + 2 w1σz] + (w0 − w1)q1 · σ}ψ3 2 √ √ 2 w1 1 i 3 2 2 2 + {E[(w − )σ0 + w0w1 (σx − 3σy) − w σz] + (w − w )q2 · σ}ψ1, 0 2 2 2 1 0 1 √ 2 2 2 2 2 2 [E(E − 1)σ0 + q2 · σ(E − 1 + w0 + 2w1) − E(2(w0 + w1)σ0 + w0w1(σx − 3σy)]ψ3 2 √ √ 2 w1 1 i 3 2 2 2 = {E[(w0 − 2 )σ0 + w0w1 2 (σx + 3σy) + 2 w1σz] + (w0 − w1)q3 · σ}ψ1 2 √ 2 w1 i 3 2 2 2 + {E[(w0 − 2 )σ0 − w0w1σx − 2 w1σz] + (w0 − w1)q1 · σ}ψ5, 2 2 2 2 2 2 [E(E − 1)σ0 + q1 · σ(E − 1 + w0 + 2w1) − E(2(w0 + w1)σ0 − 2w0w1σx]ψ1 2 √ √ 2 w1 1 i 3 2 2 2 = {E[(w0 − 2 )σ0 + w0w1 2 (σx + 3σy) − 2 w1σz] + (w0 − w1)q3 · σ}ψ3 2 √ √ 2 w1 1 i 3 2 2 2 + {E[(w0 − 2 )σ0 + w0w1 2 (σx − 3σy) + 2 w1σz] + (w0 − w1)q2 · σ}ψ5. (E3)

Plugging in the expressions for the energy E, we can obtain the relations between ψi. However, these are messy, and we choose to ﬁnd the eigenstates on several, simpler, manifolds in the w0, w1 parameter space.

p 2 2. Eigenstate solution at k = 0 for on the second magic manifold w1 = 1 + w0/2 √ 2 1+w0 We ﬁrst solve for the two zero eigenstates E1,2(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) = 0 of Tab.I. Eq. E2 become: 2 2 (3w0 −1) (3w0 − 1)q3 · σψ5 = 2 (q1 · σψ3 + q2 · σψ1) 2 2 (3w0 −1) (3w0 − 1)q2 · σψ3 = 2 (q3 · σψ1 + q1 · σψ5) 2 2 (3w0 −1) (3w0 − 1)q1 · σψ1 = 2 (q3 · σψ3 + q2 · σψ5) (E4) We now have two cases

√ p 2 a. Zero Energy eigenstate solution at k = 0 for on the second magic manifold w1 = 1 + w0/2, w0 6= 1/ 3

2 In this case 3w0 − 1 6= 0 and Eq. E4 become: 1 1 1 q · σψ = (q · σψ + q · σψ ); q · σψ = (q · σψ + q · σψ ); q · σψ = (q · σψ + q · σψ ) (E5) 3 5 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 5 1 1 2 3 3 2 5 with solutions (for the two zero energy eigenstates)

ψ1 = (q3 · σ)(q2 · σ)ψ3;

ψ5 = (q2 · σ)(q3 · σ)ψ3;

ψ4 = −q1 · σ(T3 + T2(q2 · σ)(q3 · σ))ψ3;

ψ2 = −q3 · σ(T1 + T2(q3 · σ)(q2 · σ))ψ3;

ψ6 = −q2 · σ(T3(q3 · σ)(q2 · σ) + T1(q2 · σ)(q3 · σ))ψ3; (E6)

The two independent zero energy eigenstates on the second magic manifold can be obtained by taking ψ3 = (1, 0) and ψ3 = (0, 1), respectively. However, they are not orthonormal and a further Gram-Schmidt must be performed to orthogonalize them. We obtain: √ 2 1+w0 ψE1=0(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) = √ √ √6 5/6 5/6 √6 i( 3−i) −1 iw 1 (−1) (−1) w0 i( 3+i) i −1w (− √ √ , 0, − √ , √ √ 0 , √ √ , 0, − √ , − √ √ , √ √ , 0, √ , − √ √ 0 ) 2 6 w2+1 6 6 w2+1 6 w2+1 6 6 w2+1 2 6 w2+1 6 6 w2+1 0 0 0 √ 0 0 0 2 1+w0 ψE2=0(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) = √ √ √ 5/6 √ √ i( 3+i)w0 i( 3+i) (−1) 3 −1w 1 6 −1 w i( 3−i) i ( √ √ , √ , 0, √ √ , − √ √ 0 , √ , 0, √ √ , √ √ 0 , − √ , 0, − √ √ ) (E7) 2 2 6 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 6 w0 +1 6 w0 +1 6 w0 +1 6 w0 +1 6 w0 +1 6 w0 +1 38

√ p 2 b. Non-zero Energy Eigenstate solutions at k = 0 for on the second magic manifold w1 = 1 + w0/2, w0 6= 1/ 3

We can adopt the same strategy to build the other, non-zero energy orthonormal eigenstates. It is tedious (analytic diagonalization programs such as Mathematica fail to provide a result, hence the algebra must be performed by hand) to write the details, but the ﬁnal answer is, for the eigenstates of energies on the ﬁrst magic manifold given in Tab.II:

√ 2 1+w0 1 ψE (k = 0, w0, w1 = ) = √ 3 2 q 2 2 4 6 (w0 +4)(10w0 +1) √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 × ( 3 + 3i 3w0 + i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , 3 + 3i −2 10w0 + 1 + iw0 w0 + 1 , √ √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 2 , − 3 − 3i 2 w0 + 1 + 3w0 w0 + 4 − iw0 10w0 + 1 , −2i 3 w0 + 1 w0 + 4 + 6w0 , 12w0, 0, √ √ √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , − 3 + 3i −2 w0 + 1 + 3w0 w0 + 4 + iw0 10w0 + 1 , 3 − i 3 w0 + 1 w0 + 4 − 6w0 , √ √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 − 3i 3w0 − i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , −2 3 2 10w0 + 1 − iw0 w0 + 1 , −12w0 w0 + 4, −12 3 + i w0) √ 2 1+w0 1 ψE (k = 0, w0, w1 = ) = √ 4 2 q 2 2 4 6 (w0 +4)(10w0 +1) √ √ √ p 2 p 2 2 p 4 2 × (− 3 + i 2 10w0 + 1 + iw0 w0 + 1 , − 3 + i 3 3w0 + i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , √ √ √ p 4 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 2 w0 + 5w0 + 4 − 6 3w0 , 3 − i −2 w0 + 1 + 3 3w0 w0 + 4 − iw0 10w0 + 1 , √ √ 5/6 p 2 p 2 p 4 2 p 4 2 , 4(−1) 2 10w0 + 1 + iw0 w0 + 1 , 4 10w0 + 41w0 + 4, i 3 + i w0 + 5w0 + 4 − 6 3 − 3i w0, √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 + i 2 w0 + 1 + 3 3w0 w0 + 4 + iw0 10w0 + 1 , −2w0 w0 + 1 + 4i 10w0 + 1, √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 , − 3 − i 3 3w0 − i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , 2 1 + i 3 w0 + 5w0 + 4, −4w0 10w0 + 1 + 8i w0 + 1) (E8)

√ 2 1+w0 1 ψE (k = 0, w0, w1 = ) = √ 5 2 q 2 2 4 6 (w0 +4)(10w0 +1) √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 × ( 3 + 3i 3w0 + i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , 3 + 3i 2 10w0 + 1 + iw0 w0 + 1 , √ √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 2 , 3 − 3i −2 w0 + 1 + 3w0 w0 + 4 − iw0 10w0 + 1 , 2i 3 w0 + 1 w0 + 4 − 6w0 , 12w0, 0, √ √ √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 + 3i 2 w0 + 1 + 3w0 w0 + 4 + iw0 10w0 + 1 , i 3 + 3i w0 + 1 w0 + 4 − 6 3 − i w0, √ √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 − 3i 3w0 − i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , 2 3 2 10w0 + 1 + iw0 w0 + 1 , 12w0 w0 + 4, −12 3 + i w0) √ 2 1+w0 1 ψE (k = 0, w0, w1 = ) = √ 6 2 q 2 2 4 6 (w0 +4)(10w0 +1) √ √ √ 6 p 2 p 2 2 p 4 2 × (2 −1 2 10w0 + 1 − iw0 w0 + 1 , − 3 + i 3 3w0 + i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , √ √ √ p 4 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , −2 w0 + 5w0 + 4 + 6 3w0 , − 3 − i 2 w0 + 1 + 3 3w0 w0 + 4 − iw0 10w0 + 1 , √ √ 5/6 p 2 p 2 p 4 2 p 4 2 , −4(−1) 2 10w0 + 1 − iw0 w0 + 1 , 4 10w0 + 41w0 + 4, 1 − i 3 w0 + 5w0 + 4 − 6 3 − 3i w0, √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , − 3 + i −2 w0 + 1 + 3 3w0 w0 + 4 + iw0 10w0 + 1 , −2w0 w0 + 1 − 4i 10w0 + 1, √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 , − 3 − i 3 3w0 − i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , −2i 3 − i w0 + 5w0 + 4, 4w0 10w0 + 1 + 8i w0 + 1) (E9) 39 √ 2 1+w0 1 ψE (k = 0, w0, w1 = ) = √ 7 2 q 2 2 4 6 (w0 +4)(10w0 +1) √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 × ( 3 + 3i 3w0 − i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , 3 + 3i 2 10w0 + 1 + iw0 w0 + 1 , √ √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 2 , − 3 − 3i 2 w0 + 1 + 3w0 w0 + 4 + iw0 10w0 + 1 , −2i 3 w0 + 1 w0 + 4 + 6w0 , 12w0, 0, √ √ √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , − 3 + 3i −2 w0 + 1 + 3w0 w0 + 4 − iw0 10w0 + 1 , 3 − i 3 w0 + 1 w0 + 4 − 6w0 , √ √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 − 3i 3w0 + i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , 2 3 2 10w0 + 1 + iw0 w0 + 1 , −12w0 w0 + 4, −12 3 + i w0) √ 2 1+w0 1 ψE (k = 0, w0, w1 = ) = √ 8 2 q 2 2 4 6 (w0 +4)(10w0 +1) √ √ √ p 2 p 2 2 p 4 2 × (− 3 + i 2 10w0 + 1 − iw0 w0 + 1 , 3 + i 3 3w0 − i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , √ √ √ p 4 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , −2 w0 + 5w0 + 4 − 6 3w0 , − 3 − i −2 w0 + 1 + 3 3w0 w0 + 4 + iw0 10w0 + 1 , √ √ √ p 2 p 2 p 4 2 p 4 2 , −2 3 − i 2 10w0 + 1 − iw0 w0 + 1 , 4 10w0 + 41w0 + 4, 1 − i 3 w0 + 5w0 + 4 + 6 3 − 3i w0, √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , − 3 + i 2 w0 + 1 + 3 3w0 w0 + 4 − iw0 10w0 + 1 , 2w0 w0 + 1 + 4i 10w0 + 1, √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 − i 3 3w0 + i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , −2i 3 − i w0 + 5w0 + 4, −4w0 10w0 + 1 − 8i w0 + 1)(E10) √ 2 1+w0 1 ψE (k = 0, w0, w1 = ) = √ 9 2 q 2 2 4 6 (w0 +4)(10w0 +1) √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 × ( 3 + 3i 3w0 − i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , − 3 + 3i 2 10w0 + 1 − iw0 w0 + 1 , √ √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 2 , 3 − 3i −2 w0 + 1 + 3w0 w0 + 4 + iw0 10w0 + 1 , 2i 3 w0 + 1 w0 + 4 − 6w0 , 12w0, 0, √ √ √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 + 3i 2 w0 + 1 + 3w0 w0 + 4 − iw0 10w0 + 1 , − 3 − i 3 w0 + 1 w0 + 4 + 6w0 , √ √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 − 3i 3w0 + i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , −2 3 2 10w0 + 1 − iw0 w0 + 1 , 12w0 w0 + 4, −12 3 + i w0) √ 2 1+w0 1 ψE (k = 0, w0, w1 = ) = √ 10 2 q 2 2 4 6 (w0 +4)(10w0 +1) √ √ √ p 2 p 2 2 p 4 2 × ( 3 + i 2 10w0 + 1 + iw0 w0 + 1 , 3 + i 3 3w0 − i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , √ √ √ p 4 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 2 w0 + 5w0 + 4 + 6 3w0 , 3 − i 2 w0 + 1 + 3 3w0 w0 + 4 + iw0 10w0 + 1 , √ √ √ 3 p 2 p 2 p 4 2 p 4 2 , 4 −1 w0 w0 + 1 − 2i 10w0 + 1 , 4 10w0 + 41w0 + 4, i 3 + i w0 + 5w0 + 4 + 6 3 − 3i w0, √ √ p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 + i −2 w0 + 1 + 3 3w0 w0 + 4 − iw0 10w0 + 1 , 2w0 w0 + 1 − 4i 10w0 + 1, √ √ √ 2 p 4 2 p 4 2 p 2 p 2 , 3 − i 3 3w0 + i 10w0 + 41w0 + 4 , 2 1 + i 3 w0 + 5w0 + 4, 4w0 10w0 + 1 − 8i w0 + 1) (E11)

√ 2 1+w0 ψE11 (k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) = √ √ √ 3−3i (w +i) √ 3 3+3i (w +i) ( ) 0 1 1 −1(w0+i) ( ) 0 1 ( √ , − 3 + 3i , − √ , − √ √ , √ , √ , 2 12 2 3 2 2 2 3 12 w0 +1 2 3 w0 +1 12 w0 +1 √ √ 3−3i (w +i) √ √ 1 ( ) 0 w0+i 1 1 w0+i , 3 − 3i , − √ , − √ √ , − 3 − 3i , 3 + 3i , √ √ ) (E12) 12 2 2 12 12 2 12 w0 +1 2 3 w0 +1 2 3 w0 +1 √ 2 1+w0 ψE12 (k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) = √ √ √ ( 3−3i)(w0−i) √ ( 3+3i)(w0−i) ( 3+3i)(w0−i) ( √ , 1 − 3 + 3i , √1 , √ , √ , √1 , 2 12 2 3 2 2 2 3 12 w0 +1 12 w0 +1 12 w0 +1 √ √ 3−3i (w −i) √ √ 1 ( ) 0 w0−i 1 1 w0−i , − 3 + 3i , √ , − √ √ , − 3 − 3i , − 3 − 3i , − √ √ ) (E13) 12 2 2 12 12 2 12 w0 +1 2 3 w0 +1 2 3 w0 +1 40

√ p 2 c. Zero Energy eigenstate solution at k = 0 for on the second magic manifold w1 = 1 + w0/2 = w0 = 1/ 3 √ p 2 There are 6 zero Energies in Tab.I at this point w1 = 1 + w0/2 = w0 = 1/ 3. They have already been given in App.C.

(1) F. Perturbation Theory for Hmm0 (k, w0) = 0, Em = 0 manifold

1. Review Of Perturbation Theory

We review the perturbation theory being performed in the main text. This formalism was first presented in Ref. [118], but we go to higher order in current perturbation theory. We have a Hamiltonian H0 whose eigenstates we know, and is hence purely diagonal in its eigenstate basis. We also have a perturbation Hamiltonian H0, with both diagonal and off-diagonal elements. Amongst the eigenstates of H0 we have a set of eigenstates separated by a large gap from the others, which cannot be closed by the addition of H0, and they represent the manifold we want to project in. These states are indexed by m, m0, m00, m000,... while the rest of the eigenstates are indexed by l, l0, l00, l000,... . 0 These two form separate subspaces. We now want to find a Hamiltonian Hmm0 which incorporates the effects of H up 0 to any desired order. We separate H into a diagonal part H1 plus an off-diagonal part H2 between these manifolds: 0 H = H1 + H2 0 0 0 (H1)mm0 = hψm|H |ψm0 i;(H1)ll0 = hψl|H |ψl0 i;(H2)ml = hψm|H |ψli;(H2)mm0 = (H2)ll0 = (H1)ml = 0 (F1) We also have

H|ψmi = Em|ψmi,H|ψli = El|ψli (F2) We look for a unitary transformation:

H˜ = e−S(H0 + H0)eS (F3)

† where S(= −S ) has only matrix elements that are off-diagonal between the subspaces, i.e. Sml = 0. The unitary transformation is chosen such that the off-diagonal part of H˜ is zero to the desired order (Hml = 0). Since we know S, H2 are off diagonal and H1 is diagonal, we find that S can be obtained from the condition

∞ ∞ X 1 X 1 H˜ = [H0 + H ,S]2j+1 + [H ,S]2j = 0 (F4) “oﬀ-diagonal” (2j + 1)! 1 (2j)! 2 j=0 j=0

(the oﬀ-diagonal Hamiltonian is zero). Once S is found, the diagonal Hamiltonian is:

∞ ∞ X 1 X 1 H˜ = [H0 + H ,S]2j + [H ,S]2j+1 (F5) “diagonal” (2j)! 1 (2j + 1)! 2 j=0 j=0

j where [A, B] = [[[[[A, B],B],B],...],B] where the number of B’s is equal to j.We then parametrize S = S1 + S2 + 0 S3 + ..., where Sn is order n in perturbation theory, i.e. in H (or equivalently, in H1 or H2. The terms up to order 4 are derived in Winkler’s book [118], and for our simplified problem, they are presented in the main text. We have numerically checked their correctness. We here also present the fifth order term: this 0 term is tedious, but we use a particularly nice property of our eigenstate space that (H1)mm0 = hψm|H |ψm0 i = 0, 0 Em = 0 for m = 1, 2 property is true only for H = I6×6 ⊗ k · σ and for the zero energy eigenstates ψm, m = 1, 2 of p 2 H0=HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = 1 + w0/2). To the desired order, we find:

0 0 Hml Hlm (S1)ml = , (S1)lm = − El El H0 H0 H0 H0 P ml0 l0l P ll0 l0m (S2)ml = − 0 , (S2)lm = 0 l ElEl0 l ElEl0 0 H H 0 00 H 0 P ml0 l l l l 1 P 0 3 1 (S ) = 0 00 − 0 0 H 0 H 0 0 H 0 ( 2 + 2 ) 3 ml l ,l E E 0 E 00 3 l m ml l m m l E E 0 E E l l l l l l0 l 0 H H 0 00 H 00 P ll0 l l l m 1 P 0 3 1 (S ) = − 0 00 + 0 0 H 0 H 0 0 H 0 ( 2 + 2 ) (F6) 3 lm l ,l E E 0 E 00 3 l m lm m l l m E E 0 E E l l l l l l0 l 41

0 Due to our property (H1)mm0 = hψm|H |ψm0 i = 0, Em = 0 on the second magic manifold, we ﬁnd that the fourth order S4 is not needed in order to obtain the 5’th order diagonal Hamiltonian, as terms in the expression of the Hamiltonian that contain it cancel. We ﬁnd that the 5’th order Hamiltonian is: ˜ (5) 0 0 H“diagonal” = −S2H S3 − S3H S2 − S1H1S3 − S3H1S1 − S2H2S2 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 3 − 6 (S1H S1S2S1 + S1H S2S1 + S1H S1 S2 + S2H S1 + S1H1S1 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 + S1S2S1H S1 + S2S1 H S1 + S1 S2H S1 + S1 H S2 + S1 H1S1) 1 2 2 2 + 6 (H2S2S1 + H2S1 S2 + H2S1S2S1 + 3(S1S2H2S1 + S2S1H2S1 + S1 H2S2) 2 2 2 − (S2S1 H2 + S1 S2H2 + S1S2S1H2) − 3(S1H2S1S2 + S1H2S2S1 + S2H2S1 )) (F7) The matrix elements of these terms give: 1 2 2 2 2 6 (H2S2S1 + H2S1 S2 + H2S1S2S1 − (S2S1 H2 + S1 S2H2 + S1S2S1H2))mm0 0 0 (H H H 0 00 H 00 00 H 00 0 +H 0 00 H 00 00 H 00 0 H 0 H 1 P P ml ll0 l m m l l m m l l m m l l l lm 1 1 1 = − 0 00 00 ( + + ) (F8) 6 l,l ,l m ElEl0 El00 El El0 El00

1 2 2 6 (3(S1S2H2S1 + S2S1H2S1 + S1 H2S2) − 3(S1H2S1S2 + S1H2S2S1 + S2H2S1 ))mm0 0 0 (H H H 0 00 H 00 00 H 00 0 +H 0 00 H 00 00 H 00 0 H 0 H 1 P P ml ll0 l m m l l m m l l m m l l l lm 1 1 1 = − 0 00 00 ( + + ) (F9) 2 l,l ,l m ElEl0 El00 El El0 El00

1 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 3 − 6 (S1H S1S2S1 + S1H S2S1 + S1H S1 S2 + S2H S1 + S1H1S1 + 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 + S1S2S1H S1 + S2S1 H S1 + S1 S2H S1 + S1 H S2 + S1 H1S1) (H0 H0 H0 H0 H0 +H0 H0 H0 H0 H0 1 P P ml ll0 l0m00 m00l00 l00m0 m0l00 l00m00 m00l0 l0l lm 1 1 1 = 0 00 00 ( + + ) 6 l,l ,l m ElEl0 El00 El El0 El00

0 0 0 0 0 X HmlHll0 Hl0l00 Hl00l000 Hl000m0 (−S2H S3 − S3H S2 − S1H1S3 − S3H1S1 − S2H2S2)mm0 = (F10) ElEl0 El00 El000 l,l0,l00,l000 Hence 0 0 0 H H H H 00 000 H 000 0 ˜ (5) P ml ll0 l0l00 l l l m H = 0 00 000 “diagonal” l,l ,l ,l ElEl0 El00 El000 0 0 (H H H 0 00 H 00 00 H 00 0 +H 0 00 H 00 00 H 00 0 H 0 H 1 P P ml ll0 l m m l l m m l l m m l l l lm 1 1 1 − 0 00 00 ( + + ) (F11) 2 l,l ,l m ElEl0 El00 El El0 El00

2. Calculations of the Hamiltonian Matrix Elements When First Order Vanishes

a. Second Order

(2) P 1 H 0 (k, w0) = − hψm|Hperturb(k, w0)|ψlihψl|Hperturb(k, w0)|ψm0 i mm l=3...12 El 4w2 k2 + k2 √ = − 0 x y (σ + 3σ ) (F12) p 2 2 y x 3 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1)

b. Third Order

c. Fourth Order

For the fourth order, there are two terms: First,

2 4 2 2 22 8w0 w0 + 16w0 − 9 kx + ky √ = (σy + 3σx) (F14) 2 3/2 2 3 27 (w0 + 1) (3w0 − 1)

Second,

2 2 2 22 16w0 17w0 + 9 kx + ky √ = (σy + 3σx) (F15) p 2 2 3 27 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1) √ Notice that so far, the eigenstates are not k-dependent, they are just the eigenstates of (σy + 3σx).

d. Fifth Order

The fifth order perturbation theory is not available in any book. Hence we derived it in App.F, for the special case (1) for which the manifold m of states we project in has the first order Hamiltonian Hmm0 (k, w0) = 0 and for which its energies are Em = 0. The fifth order also has two terms, just like the 4-th order (See App.F). We find:

0 0 0 H H H H 00 000 H 000 0 P ml ll0 l0l00 l l l m 0 00 000 l,l ,l ,l ElEl0 El00 El000

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 32kx w0 − 3 2w0 − 1 w0 kx − 3ky kx + ky = σ0 (F16) 2 3/2 2 4 81 (w0 + 1) (3w0 − 1)

and

0 0 (H H H 0 00 H 00 00 H 00 0 +H 0 00 H 00 00 H 00 0 H 0 H 1 P P ml ll0 l m m l l m m l l m m l l l lm 1 1 1 − 0 00 00 ( + + ) 2 l,l ,l m ElEl0 El00 El El0 El00 4 2 2 2 2 2 16kx 11w0 − 94w0 − 9 w0 kx − 3ky kx + ky = − σ0 (F17) p 2 2 4 27 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1)

2 n−1 We can clearly see the structure of the order n Hamiltonian, as a perturbation in 1/(3w0 − 1) , with symmetry- preserving functions of k. The full 2-band approximation to the Hexagon Hamiltonian is, up to 5-th order, is √ 4 2 2 2 1+w2 4w2 2(35w +68w +9)(k +k ) √ HHex (k, w , w = 0 ) = √ 0 −1 + 0 0 x y k2 + k2 (σ + 3σ ) 2band 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 x y y x 3 w0 +1(3w0 −1) 9(w0 +1)(3w0 −1) 4(29w6−223w4−357w2−9) √ 4w0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 + 2 2 2 [ w0 − 3 − 2 2 2 kx + ky ]kx kx − 3ky σ0 (F18) 9 w0 +1(1−3w0 ) 9(1−3w0 ) (w0 +1) better expressed as:

p1 + w2 √ HHex (k, w , w = 0 ) = d (k, w )σ + d (k, w )(σ + 3σ ) (F19) 2band 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 y x 43 where 6 4 2 4w0 2 4 29w0 − 223w0 − 357w0 − 9 2 2 2 2 d0(k, w0) = [ w − 3 − k + k ]kx k − 3k (F20) p 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 x y x y 9 w0 + 1 (1 − 3w0) 9 (1 − 3w0) (w0 + 1) and

p 2 2 " 4 2 2 2# 1 + w0 4w0 2(35w0 + 68w0 + 9) kx + ky 2 2 d1(k, w0) = ) = −1 + k + k (F21) 2 p 2 2 2 2 2 x y 3 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1) 9 (w0 + 1) (3w0 − 1)

3. Calculations of the Hamiltonian Matrix Elements When First Order Does Not Vanish

p 2 We take the unperturbed Hamiltonian to be HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = 1 + w0/2) (the Hexagon model on the second magic manifold) in Eq. 41. For this Hamiltonian we are able to obtain all the eigenstates analytically in App.E2. The perturbation Hamiltonian, away the second magic manifold is

Hperturb(k, w0, w1) = √ √ 2 2 1+w0 1+w0 HHex(k, w0, w1) − HHex(k = 0, w0, w1 = 2 ) = I6×6 ⊗ k · ~σ + HHex(k = 0, 0, w1 − 2 ) (F22)

a. First Order

p 2 √ (1) w0 + 1 H 0 (k, w , w ) = hψ |H (k, w , w )|ψ 0 i = ( − w )(σ + 3σ ) (F23) mm 0 1 m perturb 0 1 m 2 1 y x Hence there is now a linear term in the Hamiltonian. Because of this, many other terms in the further degree perturbation theory become nonzero.

b. Second Order

(2) P 1 H 0 (k, w0, w1) = − hψm|Hperturb(k, w0)|ψlihψl|Hperturb(k, w0)|ψm0 i mm l=3...12 El 4w2 k2 + k2 √ = − 0 x y (σ + 3σ ) (F24) p 2 2 y x 3 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1) The second order perturbation theory is unchanged!

c. Third Order

There are now two third order terms, as the ﬁrst order perturbation terms do not vanish. First:

2 2 2 p 2 2 2 2 8w k + k w + 1 − 2w1 4kxw0 w0 − 3 kx − 3ky 0 x y 0 √ = σ0 − (σy + 3σx) (F25) 2 2 p 2 2 2 9 (1 − 3w0) w0 + 1 9 (1 − 3w0) Second:

(where h.c. is the Hermitian conjugate) The total third order Hamiltonian then reads:

2 2 2 p 2 2 2 2 2 7w + 3 k + k w + 1 − 2w1 4kxw0 w0 − 3 kx − 3ky 0 x y 0 √ σ0 − (σy + 3σx) (F27) 2 2 p 2 2 2 9 (1 − 3w0) w0 + 1 3 (1 − 3w0)

d. Fourth Order

For the fourth order, there are now four terms: First,

2 2 2 p 2 8w0 7w0 + 3 kx kx − 3ky 2w1 − w0 + 1 = σ0 2 3 27 (3w0 − 1)

2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 p 2 4w0 kx + ky 2 w0 + 16w0 − 9 kx + ky + w0 + 1 5w0 − 7 2w1 − w0 + 1 √ + (σy + 3σx) (F28) 2 3/2 2 3 27 (w0 + 1) (3w0 − 1) Second,

2 2 2 22 16w0 17w0 + 9 kx + ky √ = (σy + 3σx) (F29) p 2 2 3 27 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1)

0 Third, we have, adopting the notation hψm|Hperturb(k, w0)|ψli = Hml, etc:

(43) 1 P 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hmm0 (k, w0, w1) = − l,m00,m000 3 (Hmm00 Hm00m000 Hm000lHlm0 + HmlHlm00 Hm00m000 Hm000m0 ) 2 El 2 2 2 2 2 p 2 8w0 35w0 + 23 kx + ky w0 + 1 − 2w1 √ = − (σy + 3σx) (F30) p 2 2 3 27 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1)

(44) 1 P 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 (k, w0, w1) = 0 00 + (H H 0 H 0 00 Hm00m0 + H 00 H 00 H 0 H 0 0 ) mm 2 l,l ,m ElEl0 El El0 ml ll l m mm m l ll l m

2 2 2 p 2 32kxw0 w0 − 15 kx − 3ky w0 + 1 − 2w1 = σ0 2 3 27 (3w0 − 1)

2 4 2 2 2 p 2 4 25w0 + 28w0 + 27 kx + ky w0 + 1 − 2w1 √ + (σy + 3σx) (F31) 2 3 p 2 27 (1 − 3w0) w0 + 1

The full 4’th order Hamiltonian reads 45

2 2 2 p 2 8kxw0 w0 + 21 kx − 3ky w0 + 1 − 2w1 − σ0+ 2 3 9 (3w0 − 1)

2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 p 2 4 kx + ky 2w0 35w0 + 68w0 + 9 kx + ky − 9 w0 + 1 10w0 + 9w0 + 3 2w1 − w0 + 1 √ (σy + 3σ(F32)x) 2 3/2 2 3 27 (w0 + 1) (3w0 − 1) √ 2 1+w0 If w1 = 2 , then the expressions reduce to our previous Hamiltonian. We can label the two band Hamiltonian as: √ Hex H2band(k, w0, w1) = d0(k, w0, w1)σ0 + d1(k, w0, w1)(σy + 3σx) (F33) where

2 2 2 p 2 2 2 2 8kxw0 w + 21 k − 3k w + 1 − 2w1 4kxw0 w0 − 3 kx − 3ky 0 x y 0 d0(k, w0, w1) = − σ0 (F34) 2 2 p 2 2 3 9 (1 − 3w0) w0 + 1 9 (3w0 − 1) and

2 2 2 2 2 2 p 2 p 2 2 7w0 + 3 kx + ky w0 + 1 − 2w1 w0 + 1 4w0 kx + ky d1(k, w0, w1) = ( − w1) − − + 2 p 2 2 2 2 3 w0 + 1 (3w0 − 1) 3 (1 − 3w0)

2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 p 2 4 kx + ky 2w0 35w0 + 68w0 + 9 kx + ky − 9 w0 + 1 10w0 + 9w0 + 3 2w1 − w0 + 1 (F35) 2 3/2 2 3 27 (w0 + 1) (3w0 − 1) √ 1+w2 where the perturbation is made on the zero energy eigenstates of H (k = 0, w , w = 0 ). Hex 0 1 2 √ Notice that so far, remarkably the eigenstates are not k-dependent, they are just the eigenstates of (σy + 3σx). We did not obtain the ﬁfth order for this Hamiltonian: due to the fact that the ﬁrst order Hamiltonian does not cancel, this is not easy to do.