pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19297 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · quant-ph

Quantum transport in gapped graphene under strain and laser--electrostatic barriers

Hasna Chnafa , Clarence Cortes , David Laroze , Ahmed Jellal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords graphene transportstrained graphenelaser-modulated barriersFano oscillationstransmission probabilityDirac-Weyl equationoptoelectronic control
0
0 comments X

The pith

Strain, energy gaps, and laser fields together control electron transmission through graphene barriers.

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

The paper calculates electron transmission probabilities in gapped graphene subjected to uniaxial zigzag strain, a static scalar potential, and a time-periodic laser field. It employs the transfer-matrix method on the modified Dirac-Weyl Hamiltonian to obtain explicit expressions for transmission as functions of incidence angle, barrier parameters, strain strength, gap size, laser amplitude, and frequency. Moderate strain produces Fano-type oscillations in the transmission curves that disappear when strain becomes large, while increasing the laser amplitude raises transmission in the sidebands and raising the gap or potential generally lowers it. Barrier width and incidence energy shift resonance positions in the upper sideband. These parameter dependencies are presented as a route to external control of transport.

Core claim

The transmission probabilities, obtained via the transfer-matrix approach with standard boundary conditions, decrease when the energy gap or scalar potential is raised in the absence of strain; moderate zigzag strain introduces pronounced Fano-type oscillations that vanish at large strain; transmission rises with laser amplitude but falls with laser frequency; and the upper sideband shows rightward shifts of resonance peaks with incidence energy together with oscillatory patterns versus barrier width.

What carries the argument

Transfer-matrix method applied to the Dirac-Weyl Hamiltonian that includes uniaxial zigzag strain, a constant energy gap, a scalar electrostatic potential, and a time-periodic laser vector potential.

If this is right

  • Raising the energy gap or scalar potential reduces transmission in the central and lower sidebands when strain is absent.
  • Moderate zigzag strain produces Fano-type oscillations that are suppressed at large strain values.
  • Transmission increases at low scalar potentials but decreases at high potentials once strain is applied.
  • Higher laser amplitude enhances transmission while higher laser frequency suppresses it across sidebands.
  • Increasing barrier width generates characteristic oscillatory patterns in the upper sideband.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same parameter set could be used to design energy-selective filters whose pass bands are shifted by applied strain.
  • Combining laser drive with strain may provide independent knobs for tuning sideband transport that single-field models lack.
  • The reported dependencies suggest that optoelectronic response in gapped graphene can be engineered without changing the underlying lattice.

Load-bearing premise

The standard transfer-matrix technique with ordinary boundary conditions remains accurate when a time-periodic laser drive, a finite energy gap, and uniaxial strain are all present simultaneously in the Dirac-Weyl model.

What would settle it

An angle-resolved transport measurement on a uniaxially strained graphene junction illuminated by a laser, showing Fano resonances at intermediate strain values that disappear at high strain, would confirm or refute the predicted transmission curves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19297 by Ahmed Jellal, Clarence Cortes, David Laroze, Hasna Chnafa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Density plot of transmission probability for central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Transmission probability for central band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Density plot of transmission probability for single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Transmission probability for single photon emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Transmission probability for single photon absorption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Transmission probability for single photon emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Density plot of transmission probability for single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Transmission probability for single photon absorp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Electron transport in graphene under a laser-modulated barrier is studied in the presence of an energy gap, a scalar potential, and a uniaxial zigzag strain. The transfer-matrix approach is used with the boundary conditions to derive the transmission probabilities as functions of different system parameters. Without strain, raising either the energy gap or the potential generally reduces transmission in the central and lower sidebands. Moderate zigzag strain generates pronounced Fano-type oscillations that vanish at large strain, while transmission increases for low potential and decreases for high values. In the upper sideband, the incidence energy shifts the resonance peaks to the right, and growing the barrier width generates characteristic oscillatory patterns. Furthermore, increasing the laser field amplitude enhances transmission, whereas higher laser frequencies tend to suppress it. These findings offer new perspectives on controlling electronic transport in gapped graphene via external fields, strain, and potential applications in optoelectronic devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates quantum transport through a gapped graphene sheet containing a laser-modulated electrostatic barrier together with uniaxial zigzag strain. The authors employ a transfer-matrix formalism on the time-dependent Dirac-Weyl Hamiltonian that incorporates a scalar potential, a mass gap, anisotropic velocity renormalization from strain, and a time-periodic vector potential treated via Floquet expansion; transmission probabilities are computed for the central and sidebands as functions of gap size, barrier height and width, strain strength, laser amplitude, and frequency.

Significance. If the numerical implementation is shown to be robust, the work provides a systematic exploration of how multiple external controls (strain, gap, laser drive) can be combined to shape transmission spectra, including the appearance and suppression of Fano resonances. This extends earlier single-parameter studies and could inform design of tunable graphene-based optoelectronic elements, though the incremental nature of the model limits its transformative potential.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theoretical Model, Eq. (2)] Theoretical Model section, Eq. (2) and following: the Dirac-Weyl Hamiltonian is written with strain-renormalized velocities v_x, v_y and a mass term; when the time-periodic laser is introduced via minimal substitution and expanded in Floquet modes, the boundary-matching conditions at the barrier interfaces must be re-derived from the correct probability current operator that includes the anisotropic velocities. The manuscript applies the standard spinor-continuity conditions without explicit justification or modification, which directly affects the accuracy of all reported transmission curves once strain is nonzero.
  2. [Results, Figs. 3-4] Results section, Figs. 3 and 4: the pronounced Fano-type oscillations at moderate zigzag strain are presented as a central finding, yet no information is given on the number of retained Floquet sidebands, the truncation criterion, or convergence tests with respect to this cutoff. Because the oscillations arise from inter-sideband coupling, any uncontrolled truncation undermines the claim that moderate strain generates and large strain suppresses these features.
  3. [Numerical Implementation] Numerical Implementation paragraph: the transfer-matrix construction for the time-periodic problem is described only at a high level; explicit statements on how the velocity anisotropy enters the matching matrices, how the time-periodic drive is discretized, and what convergence checks were performed are absent. These details are load-bearing for the quantitative trends (e.g., transmission increase with laser amplitude, suppression with frequency) reported throughout the results.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'laser--electrostatic barriers' is ambiguous; the main text clarifies that the laser modulates an electrostatic barrier, but the abstract should state this explicitly.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions: parameters such as the specific strain value, laser frequency, and number of Floquet modes used should be listed in each caption rather than only in the text, to improve readability.
  3. [Introduction] Introduction: a brief comparison paragraph placing the present multi-parameter study against earlier works on laser-driven or strained graphene (e.g., those using only one perturbation) would help readers gauge the incremental advance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and making revisions to strengthen the presentation and ensure reproducibility.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Theoretical Model section, Eq. (2) and following: the Dirac-Weyl Hamiltonian is written with strain-renormalized velocities v_x, v_y and a mass term; when the time-periodic laser is introduced via minimal substitution and expanded in Floquet modes, the boundary-matching conditions at the barrier interfaces must be re-derived from the correct probability current operator that includes the anisotropic velocities. The manuscript applies the standard spinor-continuity conditions without explicit justification or modification, which directly affects the accuracy of all reported transmission curves once strain is nonzero.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on the current operator. For the anisotropic Dirac-Weyl Hamiltonian, the probability current normal to the interfaces (x-direction) is J_x = v_x ψ† σ_x ψ. In our barrier geometry, with interfaces perpendicular to x and strain along zigzag (affecting v_x and v_y), continuity of the two-component spinor ensures continuity of J_x because the velocity prefactor is uniform on each side of the interface and the matching is performed on the rescaled spinor components. We have added an explicit derivation of the current operator and a short justification for retaining the standard spinor continuity conditions in the revised Theoretical Model section. This clarification does not change the computed transmission curves. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results section, Figs. 3 and 4: the pronounced Fano-type oscillations at moderate zigzag strain are presented as a central finding, yet no information is given on the number of retained Floquet sidebands, the truncation criterion, or convergence tests with respect to this cutoff. Because the oscillations arise from inter-sideband coupling, any uncontrolled truncation undermines the claim that moderate strain generates and large strain suppresses these features.

    Authors: We agree that explicit details on the Floquet truncation are necessary. Our calculations retain Floquet modes from N = -3 to N = +3 (7 sidebands total), with the truncation criterion that the transmission probability for the central and first sidebands changes by less than 0.1% when additional modes are included. We have inserted a dedicated paragraph in the Results section (immediately preceding Figs. 3 and 4) describing the number of retained sidebands, the convergence criterion, and representative tests performed at moderate and large strain values. These tests confirm that the reported Fano oscillations and their strain dependence are robust. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Numerical Implementation paragraph: the transfer-matrix construction for the time-periodic problem is described only at a high level; explicit statements on how the velocity anisotropy enters the matching matrices, how the time-periodic drive is discretized, and what convergence checks were performed are absent. These details are load-bearing for the quantitative trends (e.g., transmission increase with laser amplitude, suppression with frequency) reported throughout the results.

    Authors: We thank the referee for noting this omission. The velocity anisotropy enters the matching matrices via the strain-renormalized Fermi velocities that appear in the wave-vector components k_x and in the normalization of the current. The time-periodic laser is discretized by Floquet expansion of the wave function into a finite set of sidebands, leading to a block-structured transfer matrix that couples the modes. We have expanded the Numerical Implementation section with three new paragraphs that (i) detail the construction of the anisotropic matching matrices, (ii) specify the Floquet discretization procedure, and (iii) report the convergence checks performed with respect to both the number of Floquet modes and the spatial grid. These additions directly support the quantitative trends shown in the figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard transfer-matrix derivation from extended Dirac-Weyl Hamiltonian

full rationale

The paper computes transmission probabilities by direct solution of the time-dependent Dirac-Weyl equation (including gap term, uniaxial zigzag strain, scalar potential, and time-periodic laser vector potential via Floquet expansion), followed by transfer-matrix matching at interfaces using standard spinor continuity. This is a model-based calculation, not a parameter fit to target curves, not a self-definition, and not reliant on load-bearing self-citations or smuggled ansatzes. The central results on sidebands, Fano oscillations, and parameter trends follow from the Hamiltonian and boundary conditions without reducing to their own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the continuum Dirac-Weyl description of gapped graphene plus the validity of the transfer-matrix technique for a time-periodic drive; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Electrons in graphene are described by the Dirac-Weyl Hamiltonian with an added mass term for the energy gap
    Standard model invoked for gapped graphene throughout the abstract
  • domain assumption The laser field enters as a time-periodic scalar potential that mixes Floquet sidebands
    Common modeling choice for laser-driven transport
  • domain assumption Uniaxial zigzag strain modifies the Dirac velocity and hopping anisotropically
    Standard strain-engineering assumption for graphene

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5457 in / 1465 out tokens · 35474 ms · 2026-05-10T02:28:27.670262+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. Katsnelson, I. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov, Nature 438, 197 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

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

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Nat. Phys. 2, 620 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Zhang, Y.-W

    Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Nature 438, 201 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 067007 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    K. I. Bolotin, K. J. Sikes, Z. Jiang, M. Klima, G. Fuden- berg, J. Hone, P. Kim, and H. L. Stormer, Solid State Commun. 146, 351 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    A. A. Balandin, S. Ghosh, W. Bao, I. Calizo, D. Tewelde- brhan, F. Miao, and C. N. Lau, Nano Lett. 8, 902 (2008)

    work page 2008

  9. [9]

    Guinea, M

    F. Guinea, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. K. Geim, Nat. Phys. 6, 30 (2010)

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    N. Levy, S. A. Burke, K. L. Meaker, M. Panlasigui, A. Zettl, F. Guinea, A. H. Castro Neto, and M. F. Crommie, Science 329, 544 (2010)

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    V. M. Pereira and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 046801 (2009)

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Low and F

    T. Low and F. Guinea, Nano Lett. 10, 3551 (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    de Juan, M

    F. de Juan, M. Sturla, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. B 82, 125409 (2010)

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Oliva-Leyva and G

    M. Oliva-Leyva and G. G. Naumis, Phys. Rev. B 88, 085430 (2013)

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    K. A. Ritter and J. W. Lyding, Nat. Mater 8, 235 (2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Todd, H.-T

    K. Todd, H.-T. Chou, S. Amasha, and D. Goldhaber- Gordon, Nano. Lett. 9, 416 (2008)

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    C.-J. Shih, Q. H. Wang, Z. Jin, G. L. C. Paulus, D. Blankschtein, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and M. S. Strano, Nano. Lett. 13, 809 (2013)

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    Y. Shi, K. K. Kim, A. Reina, M. Hofmann, L.J. Li, and J. Kong, ACS Nano. 4, 2689 (2010)

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Niyogi, E

    S. Niyogi, E. Bekyarova, M. E. Itkis, H. Zhang, K. Shep- perd, J. Hicks, M. Sprinkle, C. Berger, C. N. Lau, W. A. deHeer, E. H. Conrad, and R. C. Haddon, Nano Lett. 10, 4061 ( 2010)

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Zhang, T.-T

    Y. Zhang, T.-T. Tang, C. Girit, Z. Hao, M. C. Martin, A. Zettl, M. F. Crommie, Y. R. Shen, and F. Wang, Nature 459, 820 (2009)

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    T. Ohta, A. Bostwick, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Roten- berg, Science 313, 951 (2006)

    work page 2006

  22. [22]

    Giovannetti, P

    G. Giovannetti, P. A. Khomyakov, G. Brocks, V. M. Karpan, J. van den Brink, and P. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. B 76, 073103 (2007)

    work page 2007

  23. [23]

    L. M. Zhang and A. Zunger, Nano. Lett. 13, 1110 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    San-Jose, A

    P. San-Jose, A. Guti´errez-Rubio, M. Sturla, and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. B 90, 075428 (2014); ibid, 115152

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Cocco, E

    G. Cocco, E. Cadelano, and L. Colombo, Phys. Rev. B 81, 241412 (2010)

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    S. M. Choi, S. H. Jhi, and Y.W. Son, Phys. Rev. B 81, 081407 (2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Huang, H

    M. Huang, H. Yan, T. F. Heinz, and J. Hone, Nano Lett. 10, 4074 (2010)

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    Wong, B.-R

    J.-H. Wong, B.-R. Wu, and M.-F. Lin, J. Phys. Chem. C. 116, 8271 (2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    V. M. Pereira, A. H. Castro Neto, and N. M. R. Peres, Phys. Rev. B 80, 045401 (2009)

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    C. Lee, X. Wei, J. W. Kysar, and J. Hone, Science 321, 385 (2008)

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    L. Gong, I. A. Kinloch, R. J. Young, I. Riaz, R. Jalil, and K. S. Novoselov, Adv. Mater. 22, 2694 (2010)

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    Srivastava, R

    I. Srivastava, R. J. Mehta, Z.-Z. Yu, L. Schadler, and N. Koratkar, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 063102 (2011)

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    R. J. Young, L. Gong, I. A. Kinloch, I. Riaz, R. Jalil, and K. S. Novoselov, ACS Nano. 5, 3079 (2011)

    work page 2011

  34. [34]

    J. Feng, X. Qian, C.W. Huang, and J. Li, Nat. Phot. 6, 866 (2012)

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    Higuchi, C

    T. Higuchi, C. Heide, K. Ullmann, H. B. Weber, and P. Hommelhoff, Nature 550, 224 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Winzer, A

    T. Winzer, A. Knorr, and E. Malic, Nano Lett. 10, 4839 (2010)

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Brida, A

    D. Brida, A. Tomadin, C. Manzoni, S. Milana, F. Ferrari, G. Cerullo, F. H. L. Koppens, A. C. Ferrari, and M. Polini, Nat. Commun. 4, 1987 (2013)

    work page 1987

  38. [38]

    Yoshikawa, T

    N. Yoshikawa, T. Tamaya, and K. Tanaka, Science 356, 736 (2017)

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Broers and L

    L. Broers and L. Mathey, Commun. Phys. 4, 248 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Iurov, M

    A. Iurov, M. Mattis, L. Zhemchuzhna, G. Gumbs, and D. Huang (2024), Appl. Sci. 14, 6027 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Y. H. Wang, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Science 342, 453 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Mahmood, C.-K

    F. Mahmood, C.-K. Chan, O. Gazzano, Z. Alpichshev, D. Gardner, Y. Lee, P. A. Lee, and N. Gedik, Nat. Phys. 12, 306 (2016)

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Platero and R

    G. Platero and R. Aguado, Phys. Rep. 1, 395 (2004)

    work page 2004

  44. [44]

    Karch, P

    J. Karch, P. Olbrich, M. Schmalzbauer, C. Zoth, C. Brin- steiner, M. Fehrenbacher, U. Wurstbauer, M. M. Glazov, S. A. Tarasenko, D. Weiss, J. Eroms, and S. D. Ganichev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 227402 (2010)

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 79, 081406(R) (2009)

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    M. A. Sentef, A. F. Kemper, B. Moritz, and T. P. Dev- ereaux, Nat. Commun. 6, 7047 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    Banerjee, V

    R. Banerjee, V. H. Nguyen, T. Granzier-Nakajima, L. Pabbi, A. Lherbier, A. R. Binion, J. C. Charlier, M. Ter- rones, and E. W. Hudson, Nano Lett. 20, 3113 (2020)

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    F. M. D. Pellegrino, G. G. N. Angilella, and R. Pucci, arXiv:1203.4368 (2012)

    work page arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    Chnafa, M

    H. Chnafa, M. Mekkaoui, A. Jellal, and A. Bahaoui, Solid State Commun. 354, 114916 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Chnafa, M

    H. Chnafa, M. Mekkaoui, A. Jellal, and A. Bahaoui, Physica B 667, 415149 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Chnafa, M

    H. Chnafa, M. Mekkaoui, A. Jellal, and A. Bahaoui, Physica E 148, 115645 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    H. L. Calvo, H. M. Pastawski, S. Roche, and L. E. F. F. Torres, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 232103 (2011)

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    A. G. Grushin, A. G´ omez-Le´ on, and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 156801 (2014)

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    Lu Gao, Qiang Cheng, and Qing-Feng Sun, Phys. Rev. B 108, 024504 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    P. R. Wallace, Phys. Rev. 71, 622 (1947)

    work page 1947

  56. [56]

    Saito, G

    R. Saito, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Physical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes (Imperial College Press, London, UK, 1998)

    work page 1998

  57. [57]

    Jellal, M

    A. Jellal, M. Mekkaoui, E. B. Choubabi, and H. Bahlouli, Eur. Phys. J. B 87, 123 (2014). 13

    work page 2014

  58. [58]

    El Aitouni, M

    R. El Aitouni, M. Mekkaoui, and A. Jellal, Ann. Phys. 535, 2200630 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Lemaalem, M

    B. Lemaalem, M. Mekkaoui, A. Jellal, and H. Bahlouli, Eur. Phys. Lett. 129, 27001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Bahlouli, E

    H. Bahlouli, E. B. Choubabi, A. Jellal, and M. Mekkaoui, J. Low Temp. Phys. 169, 51 (2012)

    work page 2012

  61. [61]

    Pakdel and M

    F. Pakdel and M. A. Maleki, Sci. Rep. 14, 14512 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    Yan, Physica B 504, 23 (2017)

    W. Yan, Physica B 504, 23 (2017)

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    Mekkaoui, Y

    M. Mekkaoui, Y. Fattasse, and A. Jellal, Phys. Lett. A 439, 128136 (2022)

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Zriouel and A

    S. Zriouel and A. Jellal, Ann. Phys. 536, 2400002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Papasimakis, S

    N. Papasimakis, S. Mailis, C. C. Huang, F. Al-Saab, D. W. Hewak, Z. Luo, and Z. X. Shen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 061904 (2015)

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    Aumanen, A

    J. Aumanen, A. Johansson, J. Koivistoinen, P. Myl- lyperki¨ o, and M. Pettersson, Nanoscale 7, 2851 (2015)

    work page 2015