1. 1812.08462 : Giant magneto-elastic effect in d$^2$ pyrochlores and the formation of a spin-lattice liquid (Jackeli, arXiv)

  2. 1812.07949 : Manifestations of spin-orbit coupling in a cuprate superconductor (Galitski, arXiv)

  3. 1812.08054 : Multiscale approach to first-principles electron transport: Seamless integration of DFT and tight-binding (DFT-TB, arXiv)

  4. PhysRevB.98.235137 : Emergent D 6 symmetry in fully relaxed magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene (twisted bilayer graphene, PRB)

  5. 1812.07361 : Twists in Ferromagnetic Monolayers With Trigonal Prismatic Symmetry (Everschor-Sitte, DMI, arXiv)

  6. nphys s41567-018-0363-x : Strain-tunable magnetism at oxide domain walls (nphys)

  7. 1812.06006 : Isospin-phonon coupling and Fano-interference in spin-orbit Mott insulator Sr2IrO4 (phonon-pseudospin coupling iridate, arXiv)

  8. Physics v11 134 : Q&A: Standard Bearer (Steven Weinberg)

S. Weinberg refers Ben Lee. (Physics APS, Dec 21 2018)

Did having “standard” in the name imply certainty for you?

I was confident that the theory was right, but my confidence was partly shaken by data from a number of experiments in 1976 and 1977 that were hard to make sense of within the standard model. In the spring of 1977, I ended up canceling a trip I had planned with my wife and daughter to go to Yosemite. Instead, I spent that time working with my friend Ben Lee trying to find an alternative theory that could account for the experiments. I’m proud to say we failed, as it later turned out that the experiments were wrong.

In the end, the issue was settled by a 1978 experiment at SLAC that confirmed the prediction of parity violation in the interaction of electrons with nuclei. After that, I think everyone was convinced that the standard model was correct.