Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Strain and gate voltage act as independent knobs for spin- and valley-polarized current in monolayer MoS2, including pure electrostatic spin inversion.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 13:49 UTC pith:ZDZ6WBGT

load-bearing objection Solid, standard Dirac-scattering calculation that cleanly names dual-knob L/ε control and gate-only Ps sign reversal; novelty is moderate and the strongest claims sit inside the idealizations the authors themselves flag. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04766 v1 pith:ZDZ6WBGT submitted 2026-07-06 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Strain- and potential-controlled tunneling in monolayer MoS₂

Hasna Chnafa , Rachid El Aitouni , Clarence Cortes , David Laroze , Ahmed Jellal This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph PACS 72.80.Vp73.23.-b78.67.-n
keywords monolayer MoS2strainscalar potentialDirac equationtransmissionKlein tunnelingconductancepolarization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This theoretical paper shows that uniaxial mechanical strain and an electrostatic barrier, applied together to monolayer MoS2, give orthogonal control over how electrons tunnel through a short channel. Strain acts as a valley-dependent gauge field that splits the K and K' valleys and shifts Fabry–Pérot resonance conditions; the barrier height and width set the overall transmission envelope and the density of those resonances. The authors derive transmission, total conductance, and both spin and valley polarizations from a massive Dirac Hamiltonian that includes intrinsic spin–orbit coupling. Two concrete predictions follow: barrier width alone sets the frequency of conductance oscillations while strain sets their phase and amplitude, and at finite strain the sign of the spin polarization can be reversed purely by changing the gate voltage, without redesigning the device. If these dual-knob and spin-inversion effects survive in real devices, they supply a compact route to reconfigurable spin- and valley-filtering transistors in two-dimensional semiconductors.

Core claim

The simultaneous presence of uniaxial strain and a scalar rectangular barrier lifts spin–valley locking and produces two independently operable control schemes: (i) dual-knob conductance engineering in which barrier width sets oscillation frequency while strain sets phase and amplitude, and (ii) electrostatic spin inversion—a pure gate-voltage reversal of the sign of spin polarization Ps at fixed geometry and finite strain.

What carries the argument

Massive Dirac Hamiltonian with intrinsic spin–orbit coupling plus a strain-induced, valley-antisymmetric gauge field Ax = βε(1+ν) confined to the barrier region; transmission is obtained by matching continuum spinors at the sharp interfaces and integrating over transverse modes to obtain G, Pv and Ps.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes a perfect continuum Dirac model with a perfectly sharp rectangular barrier and completely uniform strain only inside that barrier, ignoring disorder, smooth interfaces, higher bands and temperature.

What would settle it

Fabricate a gated MoS2 channel on a flexible substrate, apply controlled uniaxial strain ε ≤ 0.3 and a local top-gate barrier of known width, and measure whether the low-temperature conductance oscillations shift in phase with strain while their frequency tracks barrier width, and whether the measured spin polarization reverses sign under pure gate-voltage sweeps at fixed strain.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Barrier width and strain can be used as separate design knobs to set the frequency versus the phase of conductance oscillations in a MoS2 tunnel device.
  • At finite strain a pure gate-voltage sweep can reverse which spin species dominates the transmitted current, enabling electrically reconfigurable spin filters without geometric redesign.
  • Valley polarization is strongest at low incident energy and can be switched off by raising carrier energy through the same gate, giving an on/off valley filter.
  • Strain orientation (sign of Ax) selectively enhances one valley while suppressing the other, providing a mechanical route to valley-polarized current.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted dual-knob and spin-inversion effects remain visible once interface smoothness and weak disorder are included, they would constitute a practical blueprint for a two-parameter reconfigurable spin–valley transistor.
  • The same valley-antisymmetric gauge mechanism should appear in other gapped transition-metal dichalcogenides, suggesting a materials-agnostic design rule for strain-tunable valley filters.
  • Because spin inversion requires only gate tuning at fixed strain, multi-gate architectures could implement local spin-logic operations without mechanical actuators.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a continuum massive-Dirac calculation of spin- and valley-resolved tunneling through a rectangular electrostatic barrier in monolayer MoS2, with uniaxial strain confined to the barrier region and encoded as a valley-odd gauge field Ax=βε(1+ν). Matching of eigenspinors yields a closed-form transmission probability; Landauer integration then produces total conductance and spin/valley polarizations. The central claims are (i) dual-knob control, in which barrier width L sets the frequency of Fabry–Pérot conductance oscillations while strain sets their phase and amplitude, and (ii) electrostatic spin inversion—a sign reversal of Ps by gate tuning at fixed geometry and finite strain—together with strain-induced valley filtering.

Significance. Combining uniaxial strain with a scalar barrier in MoS2 is a natural and still under-explored control scheme for spin–valley transport. Within the stated model the scattering problem is standard, transparent, and internally consistent: Hamiltonian, eigenspinors, closed-form T (Eq. 35), and Landauer G, Pv, Ps are derived without free fitting, and the figures systematically map the resonance condition qxL=nπ. The dual-knob picture and the possibility of gate-driven spin-channel exchange are concrete, falsifiable device concepts. Sec. V’s explicit discussion of continuum, disorder, interface, and temperature limitations is a strength. If the idealizations hold sufficiently well at experimentally accessible L and ε, the work would be useful for spintronic/valleytronic device design; the main open issue is how much of the sharp dual-knob and sign-reversal phenomenology survives beyond the rectangular-barrier continuum model.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract and Sec. IV/Conclusion claim “electrostatic spin inversion”—a Ps sign reversal “achievable purely by gate tuning at finite strain, requiring no geometric reconfiguration.” Figs. 10–11 primarily show Ps versus L or ε; the V0 comparison in Fig. 10 mainly collapses |Ps| by orders of magnitude rather than demonstrating a clean, usable sign flip at fixed L and ε. Please either (a) add a dedicated panel of Ps(V0) at fixed L, ε, E that exhibits a clear zero crossing with appreciable |Ps| on both sides, or (b) rephrase the claim to match what the present figures actually establish (strain-driven and L-driven sign structure at fixed gate).
  2. The continuum two-band Dirac model (Eqs. 1–7) is used with incident energies E∼2–4 eV and barrier heights V0 up to 6–7 eV (Figs. 3–7, 11), far above the gap Δ≃1.66 eV and the low-energy window where the massive-Dirac description is controlled. At these scales higher bands, intervalley scattering, and non-uniform strain response become important, which can destroy the sharp qxL=nπ fringes that underwrite dual-knob control and Ps reversals. Sec. V notes the continuum limitation but does not quantify the safe (E,V0) window. Please justify the parameter regime against the known validity range of the MoS2 Dirac Hamiltonian, and either restrict the main claims to near-edge energies or show that the dual-knob and spin-inversion features persist in a more conservative window (e.g., E−Δ/2 ≲ few 100 meV).
  3. Dual-knob control (L sets oscillation frequency; ε sets phase/amplitude; Figs. 6–7 and Sec. IV) and the “orthogonal, independently operable” language rest on perfect Fabry–Pérot phase coherence under a sharp rectangular V(x) and spatially uniform strain strictly limited to 0≤x≤L (Eqs. 2–6). Sec. V correctly states that smooth interfaces, disorder, and finite T broaden fringes and reduce peak polarizations. For the L∼10–25 nm used in the figures, any dephasing length ≲L would wash out L-controlled frequency and ε-controlled phase. The abstract/conclusion should be tempered to “within the coherent rectangular-barrier model,” and a short estimate of the required coherence length (or a smooth-barrier check) should be added so that the experimental-prospects claim is proportionate.
minor comments (6)
  1. Abstract: “a combination whose simultaneous unexplored” is ungrammatical; rephrase (e.g., “a combination that has remained largely unexplored”).
  2. Strain amplitudes up to ε=0.6 appear in several figures; the text notes that ε≤0.3 is most relevant. Prefer highlighting ε≤0.3 in main figures or clearly marking large-ε panels as exploratory, given known gap renormalization and possible semiconductor–metal trends under large uniaxial strain.
  3. In several panels (e.g., Fig. 8b, Fig. 10b) |Pv| and |Ps| drop to 10−3–10−4. Briefly discuss whether such polarizations are experimentally meaningful or mainly illustrate the formal spin–valley asymmetry.
  4. Notation: Δτsz is introduced after Eq. (10) but used with slightly varying spacing/typesetting; keep a single consistent definition. Also clarify s′=sign(E−V0) versus s=sign(E) when discussing electron- vs hole-like barrier states.
  5. Abstract mentions “Depending on the strain orientation…” but the calculation is restricted to uniaxial strain along x (uyy=−νε, uxy=0). Either add a brief orientation comparison or soften that sentence.
  6. A short comparison table or paragraph situating the dual-knob/spin-inversion results against prior barrier-only MoS2 tunneling works (e.g., Refs. [43–46]) would help readers see what is genuinely new versus expected Fabry–Pérot physics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: dual-knob control and electrostatic spin inversion are numerical outputs of a standard Dirac scattering calculation with literature parameters, not fits or self-defined quantities.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) is the standard massive Dirac model for monolayer MoS2 with literature values (Δ ≈ 1.66 eV, λ ≈ 75 meV, vF, β ≈ 2.4, ν = 0.25). Strain enters as a valley-odd gauge field Ax = βε(1+ν) (Eqs. 3–6) confined to the rectangular barrier V(x) (Eq. 2). Transmission T au sz follows from continuity of the eigenspinors at x = 0, L (Eqs. 26–35); conductance and polarizations are Landauer integrals of that T (Eqs. 36–40). The dual-knob claim (L sets oscillation frequency via phase accumulation eta(1+ν)L; ε sets phase/amplitude via Ax) and the Ps sign-reversal claim are direct numerical consequences of the resonance condition qx L = nπ with qx = τ √κ (Eqs. 12, 17) after ky integration; they are not fitted to data, not normalized to force a target, and not imported from a uniqueness theorem. Self-citations (e.g., El Aitouni/Jellal arXiv:2512.03863 and related works) supply background methods or parallel calculations; they do not underwrite the polarizations or the dual-knob/spin-inversion statements. Sec. V openly lists the idealizations (sharp barrier, uniform strain, no disorder/temperature), so the strongest claims are model-internal predictions, not circular reductions. Score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard low-energy MoS2 Dirac model plus idealized barrier/strain geometry. Material constants are taken from literature; no new particles or forces are introduced. Free parameters are literature values used as fixed inputs, not fitted to the polarizations claimed here.

free parameters (5)
  • Grüneisen parameter β = ≈2.4
    Fixed at ≈2.4 from cited literature; sets Ax=βε(1+ν) and thus all valley shifts. Not fitted to the paper’s transport curves.
  • Poisson ratio ν = 0.25
    Fixed at 0.25; enters Ax. Literature value, not optimized to polarizations.
  • Band gap Δ and SOC λ = Δ≃1.66 eV, λ≃75 meV
    Δ≃1.66 eV, λ≃75 meV from standard MoS2 values; set spin–valley splitting Δτsz. Inputs, not free fits to G or P.
  • Fermi velocity vF = ≈0.53e6 m/s
    vF≈0.53×10^6 m/s; scales all wave vectors. Literature input.
  • Strain amplitude range ε = 0–0.6 (focus ≤0.3)
    Scanned up to 0.6 (with note that ε≤0.3 is more physical); hand-chosen scan range that controls whether spin inversion and large Pv appear in figures.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Low-energy physics near K/K′ is described by the massive Dirac Hamiltonian with intrinsic SOC (Eq. 1).
    Standard for monolayer MoS2; invoked throughout Sec. II–IV. Breaks at high energy or large strain where higher bands and intervalley processes matter (Sec. V).
  • ad hoc to paper Electrostatic potential is a sharp rectangular barrier V0 on 0≤x≤L; strain gauge field is uniform and confined to the same region (Eqs. 2–6).
    Modeling choice enabling closed-form matching; Sec. V notes real gates/strain are smoother and would broaden resonances.
  • standard math Wave-function continuity at x=0 and x=L determines r and t; transmission is |t|^2 after current-density cancellation (Eqs. 26–35).
    Standard 1D Dirac scattering matching; used to derive all T, G, P results.
  • standard math Conductance is Landauer integral of T over ky; polarizations are relative contrasts of spin/valley conductances (Eqs. 36–40).
    Standard mesoscopic transport definitions; Sec. IV.
  • domain assumption No disorder, no intervalley scattering, zero temperature, no higher-band corrections.
    Implicit in continuum coherent calculation; explicitly listed as limitations in Sec. V.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 27676 in / 3387 out tokens · 28441 ms · 2026-07-11T13:49:50.695133+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a theoretical study of spin- and valley-resolved quantum transport in monolayer MoS$_2$ under the combined influence of mechanical strain and an external scalar potential, a combination whose simultaneous unexplored. Within an effective massive Dirac Hamiltonian that incorporates intrinsic spin--orbit coupling, strain induces valley-dependent momentum shifts that lift the degeneracy between the $K$ and $K'$ valleys and strongly modify the transport characteristics. The scalar potential modifies the tunneling spectrum, leading to pronounced changes in resonant transmission, Fabry--P\'erot interference, and conductance. We show that the interplay between strain and electrostatic potential enables efficient control of both valley and spin polarization of the transmitted current. In particular, we identify a dual-knob control scheme in which the barrier width governs the frequency of conductance oscillations while strain independently controls their phase and amplitude. Furthermore, we predict electrostatic spin inversion -- a sign reversal of spin polarization achievable purely by gate tuning at finite strain, requiring no geometric reconfiguration. Depending on the strain orientation, the transmission probability and conductance can be selectively suppressed or enhanced, resulting in highly tunable valley- and spin-polarized transport. These findings demonstrate that strain and potential engineering provide orthogonal and independently operable mechanisms for controlling conductance as well as spin and valley degrees of freedom in monolayer MoS$_2$, offering promising prospects for spintronic and valleytronic device applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04766 by Ahmed Jellal, Clarence Cortes, David Laroze, Hasna Chnafa, Rachid El Aitouni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of a molybdenum disulfide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: displays the energy E in region II versus the wave vector qx for a barrier height V0 = 1 eV and different strain values ε, with (a): valley K and (b): while valley K′ . In both cases, the bands exhibit a parabolic dis￾persion characteristic of massive carriers in MoS2, with a clear separation between the spin states sz = +1 and sz = −1, due to strong spin-orbit coupling [7, 42–44]. This separation depends … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Transmission probability versus the angle of incidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Transmission probability versus the barrier height [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Transmission probability versus the strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Total conductance versus the barrier width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Total conductance versus the strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: presents the valley polarization Pv versus the barrier width L for E = 2 eV, different strain val￾ues ε = (0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25), and two barrier heights: V0 = 3 eV in Fig. 8a and V0 = 3.5 eV in Fig. 8b. In￾deed, we notice that Pv varies oscillatorily with L: since Pv = (GK − GK′ )/(GK + GK′ ), any difference in the Fabry–P´erot resonance conditions between the two val￾leys directly translates into a nonze… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: illustrates the evolution of the valley polariza￾tion Pv versus the strain ε for a barrier height V0 = 3 eV. In Fig. 9a for E = 2 eV, L = (5, 10, 15, 20) nm, we observe that Pv is almost zero in the absence of defor￾mation, reflecting the equivalence of the K and K′ val￾leys: at ε = 0, the gauge field Ax = βε(1 + ν) = 0 vanishes identically, so that the Hamiltonian recovers its valley degeneracy and the tr… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Spin polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Spin polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗

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

60 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Radisavljevic, A

    B. Radisavljevic, A. Radenovic, J. Brivio, V. Giacometti, and A. Kis, Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 147 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Q. H. Wang, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, A. Kis, J. N. Coleman, and M. S. Strano, Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 699 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Lembke, S

    D. Lembke, S. Bertolazzi, and A. Kis, Acc. Chem. Res. 48, 100 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    K. F. Mak, C. Lee, J. Hone, J. Shan, and T. F. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 136805 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    C. Gong, Y. Zhang, W. Chen, J. Chu, T. Lei, J. Pu, L. Dai, C. Wu, Y. Cheng, T. Zhai, L. Li, and J. Xiong, Adv. Sci. 4, 1700231 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Pospischil and T

    A. Pospischil and T. Mueller, Appl. Sci. 6, 78 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 196802 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    E. C. Ahn, npj 2D Mater. Appl. 4, 17 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Y. P. Feng, W. Zhou, Y. Y. Tay, and J. Wang, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 7, e1313 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    K. S. Novoselov, D. Jiang, F. Schedin, T. J. Booth, V. V. Khotkevich, S.V. Morozov, and A. K. Geim, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 10451 (2005)

    2005

  11. [11]

    Splendiani, L

    A. Splendiani, L. Sun, Y. Zhang, T. Li, J. Kim, C.-Y. Chim, G. Galli, and F. Wang, Nano Lett. 10, 1271 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    H. Zeng, J. Dai, W. Yao, D. Xiao, and X. Cui, Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 490 (2012)

    2012

  13. [13]

    Cappelluti, R

    E. Cappelluti, R. Rold´ an, J. A. Silva-Guill´ en, P. Ordej´ on, and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. B 88, 075409 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    Korm´ anyos, G

    A. Korm´ anyos, G. Burkard, M. Gmitra, J. Fabian, V. Z´ olyomi, N. D. Drummond, and V. I. Fal’ko, 2D Mater. 2, 022001 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 236809 (2007)

    2007

  16. [16]

    Rycerz, J

    A. Rycerz, J. Tworzyd lo, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Nat. Phys. 3, 172 (2007)

    2007

  17. [17]

    Z. Zhu, Y. Cheng, and U. Schwingenschl¨ ogl, Nat. Phys. 8, 89 (2012)

    2012

  18. [18]

    El Aitouni, A

    R. El Aitouni, A. E. Naciri, C. Cortes, D. Laroze, A. Jellal, Ann. Phys. 486, 170348 (2026)

    2026

  19. [19]

    Manzeli, D

    S. Manzeli, D. Ovchinnikov, D. Pasquier, O. V. Yazyev, and A. Kis, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2, 17033 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    D. M. Guzman and A. Strachan, J. Appl. Phys. 115, 243701 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    Wang and X

    Y. Wang and X. Li, J. Appl. Phys. 121, 134301 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    N. Basu, R. Kumar, D. Manikandan, M. Ghosh Dastidar, P. Hedge, P. K. Nayak, and V. P. Bhallamudi, RSC Adv. 13, 16241 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    J. Liu, M. Fang, E.-H. Yang, and X. Zhang, Sci. Rep. 15, 1976 (2025)

    1976

  24. [24]

    Puneetha, S

    P. Puneetha, S. P. Reddy Mallem, K. S. Im, S. J. An, D. Y. Lee, H. Park, and K.-I. Park, Nano Energy 103, 107863 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Rahaman, R

    M. Rahaman, R. D. Rodriguez, G. Plechinger, S. Moras, C. Sch¨ uller, T. Korn, and D. R. T. Zahn, Nano Lett. 17, 6027 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Xiang, W

    J. Xiang, W. Wang, L. Feng, C. Feng, M. Huang, P. Liu, X. Ren, and B. Xiang, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 16, 31 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Plechinger, A

    G. Plechinger, A. Castellanos-Gomez, M. Buscema, H. S. J. van der Zant, G. A. Steele, A. Kuc, T. Heine, C. Sch¨ uller, and T. Korn, 2D Mater. 2, 015006 (2015)

    2015

  28. [28]

    Z. Liu, M. Amani, S. Najmaei, Q. Xu, X. Zou, W. Zhou, T. Yu, C. Qiu, A. G. Birdwell, F. J. Crowne, R. Vajtai, B. I. Yakobson, P. M. Ajayan, and J. Lou, Nat. Commun. 5, 5246 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Michail, N

    A. Michail, N. Delikoukos, J. Parthenios, C. Galiotis, and K. Papagelis, Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 173102 (2016)

    2016

  30. [30]

    A. Kuc, N. Zibouche, and T. Heine, Phys. Rev. B 83, 245213 (2011)

    2011

  31. [31]

    Cheiwchanchamnangij and W

    T. Cheiwchanchamnangij and W. R. L. Lambrecht, Phys. Rev. B 85, 205302 (2012)

    2012

  32. [32]

    E. S. Kadantsev and P. Hawrylak, Solid State Commun. 152, 909 (2012)

    2012

  33. [33]

    Dong, S.-D

    H.-M. Dong, S.-D. Guo, Y.-F. Duan, F. Huang, W. Xu, and J. Zhang, Front. Phys. 13, 137307 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    D. P. Rai, T. V. Vu, A. Laref, M. A. Hossain, E. Haque, S. Ahmad, and R. K. Thapa, RSC Adv. 10, 18830 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Beiranvand, H

    K. Beiranvand, H. Vosoughi, and A. Saffarzadeh, Physica B, 66 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    Beiranvand, H

    K. Beiranvand, H. Vosoughi, and A. Saffarzadeh, Super- latt. Microstruct. 120, 812 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    Shahriari, A

    M. Shahriari, A. Phirouznia, and P. Durganazar, Super- latt. Microstruct. 125, 34 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    X. Li, Y. Liu, H. Zhang, Z. Chen, and L. Wang, npj Quantum Mater. 9, 702 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Chan, C.-Y

    C.-W. Chan, C.-Y. Hsieh, F.-M. Chan, P.-J. Huang, and C.-Y. Yang, Materials 17, 3933 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    S. Fang, S. Carr, M. A. Cazalilla, and E. Kaxiras, Phys. Rev. B 98, 075106 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Q. Yue, J. Kang, Z. Shao, X. Zhang, S. Chang, G. Wang, S. Qin, and J. Li, Phys. Lett. A 376, 1166 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Jellal, N

    A. Jellal, N. Benlakhouy, P. D´ ıaz, and D. Laroze, Com- put. Mater. Sci. 259, 114130 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Zhai and K

    X.-F. Zhai and K. Chang, Phys. Rev. B 88, 235407 (2013)

    2013

  44. [44]

    Cheng, Y

    F. Cheng, Y. Ren, and J.-F. Sun, Chinese Phys. Lett. 32, 107301 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    Hao, R.-Y

    X.-J. Hao, R.-Y. Yuan, J.-J. Jin, and Y. Guo, Front. Phys. 15, 1 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Yuan, Q.-J

    R.-Y. Yuan, Q.-J. Yang, and Y. Guo, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 30, 355301 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    X. Chen, X. Yang, Q. Lou, Y. Zhang, Y. Chen, Y. Lu, L. Dong, and C.-X. Shan, Nano Res. 15, 4395 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    Z. Li, Y. Wang, X. Li, B. Zhong, W. Liu, and Z. Shen, Phys. Rev. B 111, 205414 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Landauer, IBM J

    R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. 1, 223 (1957)

    1957

  50. [50]

    D. C. Langreth and E. Abrahams, Phys. Rev. B 24, 2978 (1981)

    1981

  51. [51]

    A. F. Young and P. Kim, Nat. Phys. 5, 222 (2009)

    2009

  52. [52]

    P. M. Krstaji´ c, P. Vasilopoulos, and M. Tahir, Physica E 75, 317 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    El Aitouni, M

    R. El Aitouni, M. Mekkaoui, P. D´ ıaz, D. Laroze, and A. Jellal, arXiv:2512.03863 (2025), to appear in Applied Physics A (2026)

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Surrente, D

    A. Surrente, D. Dumcenco, Z. Yang, A. Kuc, Y. Jing, T. Heine, Y.-C. Kung, D. K. Maude, A. Kis, and P. Plo- chocka, Nano Lett. 17, 4130 (2017)

    2017

  55. [55]

    Kioseoglou, A

    G. Kioseoglou, A. T. Hanbicki, M. Currie, A. L. Fried- man, D. Gunlycke, and B. T. Jonker, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 221907 (2012)

    2012

  56. [56]

    Tworzyd lo, B

    J. Tworzyd lo, B. Trauzettel, M. Titov, A. Rycerz, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 246802 (2006)

    2006

  57. [57]

    Rickhaus, R

    P. Rickhaus, R. Maurand, M.-H. Liu, M. Weiss, K. Richter, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Nat. Commun. 4, 2342 (2013). 15

    2013

  58. [58]

    J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature Rev. Mater. 1, 16055 (2016)

    2016

  59. [59]

    Z. Y. Zhu, Y. C. Cheng, and U. Schwingenschl¨ ogl, Phys. Rev. B 84, 153402 (2011)

    2011

  60. [60]

    Castellanos-Gomez, R

    A. Castellanos-Gomez, R. Rold´ an, E. Cappelluti, M. Buscema, F. Guinea, H. S. J. van der Zant, and G. A. Steele, Nano Lett. 13, 5361 (2013)

    2013