Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Nanoscale imaging of equilibrium quantum Hall edge currents and of the magnetic monopole response in graphene

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum Hall edge states in graphene carry a pair of counterpropagating equilibrium currents, not a single chiral current, and the pure magnetic-monopole response exists only at isolated tuning points.

desk verdict First imaging of equilibrium QH edge currents is real science; add a null test and calibration before publishing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02466 v1 pith:QAT4FVYU submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.ins-detquant-ph

Aviram Uri , Youngwook Kim , Kousik Bagani , Cyprian K. Lewandowski , Sameer Grover , Nadav Auerbach , Ella O. Lachman , Yuri Myasoedov
show 4 more authors
Takashi Taniguchi Kenji Watanabe Jurgen Smet Eli Zeldov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.ins-detquant-ph PACS 73.43.-f75.85.+t
keywords quantumHalleffectgraphenemagnetoelectricmagneticmonopoleresponseSQUID-on-tipequilibriumcurrentsedgestatesscanningmagnetometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports direct nanoscale imaging of equilibrium electric currents in a graphene quantum Hall system, using a SQUID-on-tip that acts simultaneously as a scanning local charge and as a sensitive magnetometer. The central claim is that each quantum Hall edge state carries two counterpropagating currents: a topological downstream current in the incompressible strip and a nontopological upstream current in the adjacent compressible strip, of comparable magnitude, so the commonly assumed single chiral current is only half the story. The paper also claims that the pure mirror-magnetic-monopole response to a point charge occurs only at singular points of the phase diagram when the tip potential is near zero; for almost all parameters the response is a mixed magnetoelectric effect with a diamond-tiled phase diagram. A sympathetic reader would care because equilibrium orbital currents are usually invisible to transport and to probe techniques that measure only potentials, and imaging them locally exposes the microscopic current and energy flow that underpin quantum Hall edge physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is a SQUID-on-tip: a nanoscale superconducting quantum interference device on a pipette apex, used both as a tunable electric gate and as a magnetometer with roughly 30 nT/Hz$^{1/2}$ sensitivity. A quartz tuning fork oscillates the SQUID-on-tip parallel to the surface with amplitude $x_0$, and the lock-in signal $B_z'(x)=x_0\,dB_z/dx$ becomes, by the Biot-Savart law for a thin current strip, a peaked function whose height is proportional to the strip's total current, directly mapping $j_y(x)$. The theoretical decomposition is $\mathbf{j}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sigma_{xy}\mathbf{E}$ in incompressible regions and $\mathbf{j}_{\mathrm{nt}}=\nabla\times\mathbf{M}$ with $\mathbf{M}=n\boldsymbol{\mu}$ in compressible regions; both currents are computed self-consistently through electrostatic simulations of potential and density, and quantum-mechanical Dirac-equation simulations reproduce the semiclassical current patterns smeared over a magnetic length.

What would settle it

Scan the same electrostatically defined edge at several scan heights (for example 25, 40, and 60 nm) and deconvolve the measured $B_z'(x)$ with the known SQUID-on-tip sensing area: if the inferred $j_y(x)$ reproduces the same strip positions, widths, and currents up to the height-dependent point-spread function, the counterpropagating-current interpretation survives, whereas if the reconstructed pattern changes sign, shifts, or splits with height, the mapping from field derivative to current density is not unique; a second check is the predicted zero of the upstream current at the graphene $n=0$ Landau level in the same junction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the equilibrium quantum Hall edge state is not a single chiral channel but a current pair. In the incompressible region, where the filling factor is pinned at an integer, the in-plane electric field drives a topological current $\mathbf{j}_{\mathrm{t}} = \sigma_{xy}\mathbf{E}$ flowing downstream along the edge chirality. In the adjacent compressible region, screening produces a density gradient, and the resulting gradient of the local magnetization $\mathbf{M} = n\boldsymbol{\mu}$ generates a nontopological current $\mathbf{j}_{\mathrm{nt}} = \nabla\times\mathbf{M}$ flowing upstream; for graphene Landau levels with $|n|\ge 1$ this upstream current has magnitude comparable to the downstream one, while for the $n=0$ Landau level it vanishes. The measured images show these pairs directly, and show that the total equilibrium edge current does not grow with added Landau levels but oscillates as pairs of $j_{\mathrm{t}}$ and $j_{\mathrm{nt}}$ strips advance toward the edge. The same measurement of the magnetoelectric response to a tip charge yields a diamond-tiled phase diagram of the mixed magnetoelectric effect, with the pure monopole response confined to the vertices.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the measured $B_z'(x)=x_0\,dB_z/dx$ is a faithful local image of the current density $j_y(x)$: that the Biot-Savart forward model, the known sensing area and scan height, and the thin-strip current geometry uniquely convert each peak into one current strip with current proportional to peak height, so that if tip-induced gating, topographic crosstalk, or a non-striplike current distribution corrupts that conversion, the inferred counterpropagating pair could be a deconvolution artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each equilibrium quantum Hall edge state contains a downstream $j_{\mathrm{t}}$ strip and an upstream $j_{\mathrm{nt}}$ strip of comparable magnitude, so the net equilibrium edge current is close to zero and oscillates with filling rather than growing with Landau-level index.
  • Under an external bias the net downstream current becomes finite while the net upstream current stays zero, but locally both distributions change, offering a route to image nonequilibrium edge reconstruction and energy equilibration.
  • The pure mirror-magnetic-monopole response occurs only at the vertices of the diamond phase diagram near zero tip potential; elsewhere the response is a mixed magnetoelectric effect classified by two Landau-level quantum numbers.
  • A single electron charge on the tip, or very weak disorder in magnetically doped topological insulators, is enough to destroy the global incompressible state, making the monopole response extremely fragile.
  • The $n=0$ Landau level of graphene carries topological current but no nontopological current, in contrast to higher Landau levels, providing a clear internal control for the counterpropagating-current picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The local balance between $j_{\mathrm{t}}$ and $j_{\mathrm{nt}}$ is set by the local electrochemical potential and Landau-level occupation, so the same imaging technique could serve as a noninvasive nanoscale potentiometer or thermometer on quantum Hall edges under bias.
  • The predicted vanishing of $j_{\mathrm{nt}}$ at the graphene $n=0$ Landau level is a sharp internal test: if an upstream current is observed there, the magnetization-current mechanism would need revision.
  • Because the upstream current is invisible to transport and to potential-sensing probes, similar counterpropagating equilibrium currents may be present but unnoticed in other topological systems, including quantum anomalous Hall and fractional quantum Hall edges.
  • The diamond phase diagram suggests the magnetic monopole is a fine-tuned limit; a natural extension is to map the same diagram in fractional quantum Hall states, where the quantized Hall conductance would change the monopole charge unit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports scanning SQUID-on-tip experiments on hBN-encapsulated graphene in the quantum Hall regime, using the same tip as a tunable local electrostatic gate and as a nanoscale magnetometer, with a tuning-fork-induced vibration to record the spatial derivative of the out-of-plane magnetic field, Bz'_ac, interpreted as a local image of the current density j_y. The central claims are: (i) equilibrium quantum Hall edge states carry a pair of counterpropagating currents, a topological downstream current in the incompressible strip and a nontopological upstream current in the adjacent compressible strip, of comparable magnitude; and (ii) the topological mirror-magnetic-monopole response exists only at singular points of the phase diagram, with a nonlinear mixed magnetoelectric effect dominating elsewhere. The evidence combines two independent simulation approaches, semiclassical COMSOL electrostatics with Biot-Savart forward modeling and microscopic tight-binding calculations, together with spatial maps and gate-sweep line cuts across p-n junctions and electrostatically defined edges. The paper also argues that the monopole response is extremely fragile, requiring the entire sample to remain incompressible, and that a single electron charge is sufficient to destroy it in graphene as well as in magnetic topological insulators.

Significance. If established, the results would constitute a substantial advance: the first nanoscale imaging of equilibrium quantum Hall edge currents, the direct observation of the long-predicted nontopological upstream current, and the first phase diagram of the mixed magnetoelectric effect, including the demonstration that the pure mirror-monopole response is confined to isolated singular points. The paper is commendable for combining two independent simulation methods, for explicitly reporting all measurement and simulation parameters in SM14, and for making falsifiable predictions, most notably the absence of the nontopological current for the n=0 Landau level and its presence for higher Landau levels. The monopole-fragility argument for magnetic topological insulators is also a significant and testable conclusion. However, the central edge-current claim currently rests on a forward-model interpretation of Bz'_ac line profiles that has not been tested against the null hypothesis of a single downstream current strip; this is a load-bearing gap that must be closed before the counterpropagating-current claim is fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [SM5, Fig. 3f, Fig. S3] The central inference that opposite-signed Bz'_ac peaks correspond to two counterpropagating current strips is not tested against the null hypothesis of a single downstream strip. For a line current, dBz/dx is proportional to (x^2 - h^2)/(x^2 + h^2)^2, which has a central peak and opposite-sign sidelobes at |x| approximately sqrt(3)h with about one-eighth of the main amplitude. With h approximately 25-35 nm and vibration amplitude x0 = 35 nm rms in Fig. 3f (SM14), those sidelobes occur at 43-60 nm from the main peak, which is within the range of the reported red-blue pairs. The simulations in Figs. 3g-j already include both I_top and I_non, and Fig. S3 demonstrates resolution only for a prescribed three-strip input; no I_non = 0 forward model is shown. I request a quantitative residual comparison of the Fig. 3f line cuts and the Fig. S7f edge-state scans against a single-strip model, using the exact finite-vibration lock-in response rather than the small-x0 derivative approximation.
  2. [SM14, Figs. 3f-j and 4i] The quantitative claim that the topological and nontopological currents have 'comparable magnitude' is not supported by an absolute calibration of Bz'_ac to current density; the agreement between data and simulation is described qualitatively as 'in agreement' without residual statistics. Moreover, the p-n junction simulation parameters (top hBN thickness 2 nm, SOT height 32 nm above graphene) differ from the experimental device (Device B, top hBN approximately 11.5 nm, scan height 25 nm above the surface, i.e. approximately 36 nm above graphene), and the electrostatic screening and Biot-Savart kernel both depend on these distances. The paper should provide a calibration chain, a quantitative residual, and a sensitivity analysis over the device parameters and the Landau-level broadening used in the smoothed occupation function before the 'comparable magnitude' assertion is treated as demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [SM5] The expression Bz'_ac = x0 dBz/dx is an approximation valid for small vibration amplitude; since x0 is comparable to the scan height in several datasets, the paper should state this approximation explicitly and quantify its validity for each measurement.
  2. [Fig. 3f and Fig. S7f] The color scales of the line-cut panels are not shown, which makes it difficult to assess quantitatively the statement that the n=0 Landau level shows 'essentially no' nontopological current; a noise floor or color-bar scale should be provided.
  3. [Abstract and main text] The phrase 'directly image' the equilibrium currents should be qualified as 'image under a forward Biot-Savart model,' since the measured quantity is the field derivative, not the current distribution itself.
  4. [SM6] The derivation of the orbital magnetic moment for Dirac fermions would benefit from an explicit statement of the factor-of-two difference from the parabolic two-dimensional electron gas case and its sign convention, as this ratio is central to the predicted near-cancellation of I_top and I_non shown in Fig. S5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity found: raw imaging data plus external QH theory and parameter-free simulations carry the central claim; self-citations concern instrumentation only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central observation is the directly measured derivative signal Bz'_probe = x0 * dBz/dx obtained by vibrating the SQUID-on-tip; its sign changes with filling factor are raw data (Figs. 2i and 3f). The mapping from Bz' to current density j_y is a Biot-Savart forward calculation (SM5, Fig. S3) with independently stated geometry parameters (SM14), not a fit to the images. The decomposition into topological I_top = sigma_xy E and nontopological I_non = mu_LL curl M is taken from external prior work (Geller-Vignale, Ref. [4]), not from the authors' own papers, and the paper identifies clear falsifiable consequences, such as vanishing I_non for the graphene n=0 Landau level, opposite signs of I_top and I_non, and comparable magnitudes from Fig. S5. The simulations in Figs. 2j, 3g-j, and 4b-c are self-consistent electrostatic calculations whose inputs are device geometry, gate voltages, and the measured Landau-level density of states; no parameter of the current model is fitted to the measured Bz' images. A skeptical concern that the forward-model inversion was not tested against a no-upstream null model is a question of model validation and experimental systematics, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. The paper's self-citations are to the SQUID-on-tip instrumentation (Refs. 3, 37-40, 53) and to one prior quantum-simulation method paper (Ref. 31) with overlapping authorship; these are not load-bearing for the central counterpropagating-current claim, which rests on the raw sign patterns, the external Geller-Vignale theory, and parameter-free simulations.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The mirror magnetic monopole and the counterpropagating currents are pre-existing theoretical concepts (Qi et al. 2009; Geller and Vignale 1994). The 'mixed magnetoelectric effect' is a new label for a computed and measured phase diagram, not a new entity. The load-bearing physical input from outside the paper is the Geller-Vignale magnetization-current relation and the standard QH theory.

free parameters (1)
  • Landau level broadening (Gamma) = about 2 meV
    Chosen for the quantum mechanical simulations (SM13). It broadens the LL occupation function nu(V) used in the COMSOL electrostatics (SM12, Fig. S10d). It is not fitted to the experimental images, but it influences the width and amplitude of simulated current peaks and thus the apparent agreement with data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The current density in compressible quantum Hall regions is j_nt = curl(M), with M the local orbital magnetization (Geller-Vignale).
    SM6 and Fig. 2g. This relation is the basis for identifying the upstream current as a nontopological magnetization current; if it were wrong, the counterpropagating peak assignment would change.
  • standard math The incompressible-region current is the topological Hall current j_t = sigma_xy E with quantized sigma_xy = nu e^2/h.
    SM6, SM9. Used to associate the incompressible strip currents with the topological magnetoelectric effect.
  • standard math The Landau level dispersion in monolayer graphene is E_n = sign(n) v_F sqrt(2 hbar e B |n|).
    SM6. Used to compute LL energies and orbital magnetic moments, and in the quantum simulation Hamiltonian (SM13).
  • domain assumption The measured Bz'(x) equals the convolution of the true dBz/dx with the SOT sensing area, and Bz from the currents is computed via Biot-Savart.
    SM5 and Fig. S3. This forward model converts the raw magnetic signal into current maps; an error here would directly affect the inferred current positions and directions.
  • domain assumption Graphene charge density and potential are related by a self-consistent local approximation with a smoothed LL occupation function nu(V).
    SM12 Steps 1-2. All COMSOL simulations rely on this LDA-type closure; the degree of smoothing (Gamma) is chosen by hand.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nanoscale imaging of equilibrium quantum Hall edge currents and of the magnetic monopole response in graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QAT4FVYU

@misc{pith2026190802466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nanoscale imaging of equilibrium quantum Hall edge currents and of the magnetic monopole response in graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QAT4FVYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02466}
}
read the original abstract

The recently predicted topological magnetoelectric effect and the response to an electric charge that mimics an induced mirror magnetic monopole are fundamental attributes of topological states of matter with broken time reversal symmetry. Using a SQUID-on-tip, acting simultaneously as a tunable scanning electric charge and as ultrasensitive nanoscale magnetometer, we induce and directly image the microscopic currents generating the magnetic monopole response in a graphene quantum Hall electron system. We find a rich and complex nonlinear behavior governed by coexistence of topological and nontopological equilibrium currents that is not captured by the monopole models. Furthermore, by utilizing a tuning fork that induces nanoscale vibrations of the SQUID-on-tip, we directly image the equilibrium currents of individual quantum Hall edge states for the first time. We reveal that the edge states that are commonly assumed to carry only a chiral downstream current, in fact carry a pair of counterpropagating currents, in which the topological downstream current in the incompressible region is always counterbalanced by heretofore unobserved nontopological upstream current flowing in the adjacent compressible region. The intricate patterns of the counterpropagating equilibrium-state orbital currents provide new insights into the microscopic origins of the topological and nontopological charge and energy flow in quantum Hall systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Magnetic monopole response and the topologi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Topological and nontopological equilibrium currents in graphene in the presence of charge disorder. (a) Schematic setup showing an impurity charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Topological and nontopological QH edge state currents in a p-n junction. (a) Measurement setup with graphite and Si backgates allowing independent tuning of the left and right filling factors Hk and Hl. (b-e) 2D imaging of ; N ∝ 0 of a graphene p-n junction at different filling factors Hk and Hl. Blue and red arrows mark m  and m @ respectively and their direction. (b) In the zeroth LL no currents are present al… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Mapping the twist angle and unconventional Landau levels in magic angle graphene

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2019-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Local twist-angle maps in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene reveal 0.1-degree variations and gradients that generate unscreened electric fields and bulk quantum Hall edge states.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, ''Topol ogical field theory of time-reversal invariant insulators'', Phys. Rev. B 78 , 195424 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    X.-L. Qi, R. Li, J. Zang, and S.-C. Zhang, ''Ind ucing a Magnetic Monopole with Topological Surface States'', Science 323 , 1184 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Vasyukov, Y

    D. Vasyukov, Y. Anahory, L. Embon, D. Halbertal, J. Cuppens, L. Neeman, A. Finkler, Y. Segev, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, M. E. Huber, and E. Zeldov, ''A scanning superconducting quantum interference device with single electron spin sensitivity'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 639 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    M. R. Geller and G. Vignale, ''Currents in the c ompressible and incompressible regions of the two- dimensional electron gas'', Phys. Rev. B 50 , 11714 (1994)

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    S. T. Bramwell, S. R. Giblin, S. Calder, R. Aldu s, D. Prabhakaran, and T. Fennell, ''Measurement of the charge and current of magnetic monopoles in spin ice'', Nature 461 , 956 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    D. J. P. Morris, D. A. Tennant, S. A. Grigera, B . Klemke, C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, C. Czternasty, M. Meissner, K. C. Rule, J.-U. Hoffmann, K. Kiefer, S. Gerischer, D. Slobinsky, and R. S. Perry, ''Dirac Strings and Magnetic Monopoles in the Spin Ice Dy2Ti2O7'', Science 326 , 411 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    A. M. Essin, J. E. Moore, and D. Vanderbilt, ''M agnetoelectric Polarizability and Axion Electrodynamics in Crystalline Insulators'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , 146805 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Nomura and N

    K. Nomura and N. Nagaosa, ''Surface-Quantized An omalous Hall Current and the Magnetoelectric Effect in Magnetically Disordered Topological Insulators'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 , 166802 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continuous Media . Pergamon, Oxford, 1984

    1984

  2. [10]

    Fusil, V

    S. Fusil, V. Garcia, A. Barthélémy, and M. Bibe s, ''Magnetoelectric Devices for Spintronics'', Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 44 , 91 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Dziom, A

    V. Dziom, A. Shuvaev, A. Pimenov, G. V. Astakho v, C. Ames, K. Bendias, J. Böttcher, G. Tkachov, E. M. Hankiewicz, C. Brüne, H. Buhmann, and L. W. Molenkamp, ''Observation of the universal 12 magnetoelectric effect in a 3D topological insulator'', Nat. Commun. 8, 15197 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    D. A. Pesin and A. H. MacDonald, ''Topological Magnetoelectric Effect Decay'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 016801 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Q. N. Meier, M. Fechner, T. Nozaki, M. Sahashi, Z. Salman, T. Prokscha, A. Suter, P. Schoenherr, M. Lilienblum, P. Borisov, I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, M. Fiebig, H. Luetkens, and N. A. Spaldin, ''Search for the Magnetic Monopole at a Magnetoelectric Surface'', Phys. Rev. X 9, 011011 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Xi and W

    W. Xi and W. Ku, ''Hunting Down Magnetic Monopo les in 2D Topological Insulators'', arXiv:1802.05624 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. R. Dean, A. F. Young, I. Meric, C. Lee, L. W ang, S. Sorgenfrei, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Kim, K. L. Shepard, and J. Hone, ''Boron nitride substrates for high-quality graphene electronics'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 5, 722 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    A. S. Mayorov, R. V Gorbachev, S. V Morozov, L. Britnell, R. Jalil, L. A. Ponomarenko, P. Blake, K. S. Novoselov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. K. Geim, ''Micrometer-Scale Ballistic Transport in Encapsulated Graphene at Room Temperature'', Nano Lett. 11 , 2396 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    J. R. Williams, L. DiCarlo, and C. M. Marcus, ' 'Quantum Hall Effect in a Gate-Controlled p-n Junction of Graphene'', Science 317 , 638 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Özyilmaz, P

    B. Özyilmaz, P. Jarillo-Herrero, D. Efetov, D. A. Abanin, L. S. Levitov, and P. Kim, ''Electronic Transport and Quantum Hall Effect in Bipolar Graphene p-n-p Junctions'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 , 166804 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    Chang, J

    C.-Z. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. Zha ng, M. Guo, K. Li, Y. Ou, P. Wei, L.-L. Wang, Z.-Q. Ji, Y. Feng, S. Ji, X. Chen, J. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, Y. Wang, L. Lu, X.-C. Ma, and Q.-K. Xue, ''Experimental Observation of the Quantum Anomalous Hall Effec...

    2013

  12. [20]

    M. Mogi, M. Kawamura, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, Y. Kozuka, N. Shirakawa, K. S. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, ''A magnetic heterostructure of topological insulators as a candidate for an axion insulator'', Nat. Mater. 16 , 516 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    N. R. Cooper, B. I. Halperin, and I. M. Ruzin, ''Thermoelectric response of an interacting two- dimensional electron gas in a quantizing magnetic field'', Phys. Rev. B 55 , 2344 (1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    Weis and K

    J. Weis and K. von Klitzing, ''Metrology and mi croscopic picture of the integer quantum Hall effect'', Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 369 , 3954 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    B. E. Feldman, B. Krauss, J. H. Smet, and A. Ya coby, ''Unconventional Sequence of Fractional Quantum Hall States in Suspended Graphene'', Science 337 , 1196 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    M. E. Suddards, A. Baumgartner, M. Henini, and C. J. Mellor, ''Scanning capacitance imaging of compressible and incompressible quantum Hall effect edge strips'', New J. Phys. 14 , 083015 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Kim, ''Graphene and Relativistic Quantum Phy sics'', in Duplantier B., Rivasseau V., Fuchs JN

    P. Kim, ''Graphene and Relativistic Quantum Phy sics'', in Duplantier B., Rivasseau V., Fuchs JN. (eds) Dirac Matter. Progress in Mathematical Physics, vol 71. Birkhäuser, Cham , 2017, 1

    2017

  18. [26]

    D. B. Chklovskii, B. I. Shklovskii, and L. I. G lazman, ''Electrostatics of edge channels'', Phys. Rev. B 46 , 4026 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    Y.-T. Cui, B. Wen, E. Y. Ma, G. Diankov, Z. Han , F. Amet, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. Goldhaber- Gordon, C. R. Dean, and Z.-X. Shen, ''Unconventional Correlation between Quantum Hall Transport Quantization and Bulk State Filling in Gated Graphene Devices'', Phys. Rev. Lett....

    2016

  20. [28]

    K. Lai, W. Kundhikanjana, M. A. Kelly, Z.-X. Sh en, J. Shabani, and M. Shayegan, ''Imaging of Coulomb-Driven Quantum Hall Edge States'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 , 176809 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    N. M. Freitag, L. A. Chizhova, P. Nemes-Incze, C. R. Woods, R. V Gorbachev, Y. Cao, A. K. Geim, K. S. Novoselov, J. Burgdörfer, F. Libisch, and M. Morgenstern, ''Electrostatically Confined Monolayer Graphene Quantum Dots with Orbital and Valley Splittings'', Nano Lett. 16 , 57...

    2016

  22. [30]

    Ghahari, D

    F. Ghahari, D. Walkup, C. Gutiérrez, J. F. Rodr iguez-Nieva, Y. Zhao, J. Wyrick, F. D. Natterer, W. G. Cullen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. S. Levitov, N. B. Zhitenev, and J. A. Stroscio, ''An on/off Berry phase switch in circular graphene resonators'', Science 356 , 845 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Gutiérrez, D

    C. Gutiérrez, D. Walkup, F. Ghahari, C. Lewando wski, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. S. Levitov, N. B. Zhitenev, and J. A. Stroscio, ''Interaction-driven quantum Hall wedding cake–like structures in graphene quantum dots'', Science 361 , 789 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Y. Kim, A. C. Balram, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe , J. K. Jain, and J. H. Smet, ''Evidence for a new even-denominator fractional quantum Hall state in graphene'', arXiv:1807.08375 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Masubuchi, M

    S. Masubuchi, M. Morimoto, S. Morikawa, M. Onod era, Y. Asakawa, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and T. Machida, ''Autonomous robotic searching and assembly of two-dimensional crystals to build van der Waals superlattices'', Nat. Commun. 9, 1413 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Y. Kim, P. Herlinger, P. Moon, M. Koshino, T. T aniguchi, K. Watanabe, and J. H. Smet, ''Charge Inversion and Topological Phase Transition at a Twist Angle Induced van Hove Singularity of Bilayer Graphene'', Nano Lett. 16 , 5053 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    A. M. Goossens, V. E. Calado, A. Barreiro, K. W atanabe, T. Taniguchi, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, ''Mechanical cleaning of graphene'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 100 , 073110 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Lindvall, A

    N. Lindvall, A. Kalabukhov, and A. Yurgens, ''C leaning graphene using atomic force microscope'', J. Appl. Phys. 111 , 064904 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Halbertal, J

    D. Halbertal, J. Cuppens, M. Ben Shalom, L. Emb on, N. Shadmi, Y. Anahory, H. R. Naren, J. Sarkar, A. Uri, Y. Ronen, Y. Myasoedov, L. S. Levitov, E. Joselevich, A. K. Geim, and E. Zeldov, ''Nanoscale thermal imaging of dissipation in quantum systems'', Nature 539 , 407 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Halbertal, M

    D. Halbertal, M. Ben Shalom, A. Uri, K. Bagani, A. Y. Meltzer, I. Marcus, Y. Myasoedov, J. Birkbeck, L. S. Levitov, A. K. Geim, and E. Zeldov, ''Imaging resonant dissipation from individual atomic defects in graphene'', Science 358 , 1303 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Finkler, D

    A. Finkler, D. Vasyukov, Y. Segev, L. Ne’eman, E. O. Lachman, M. L. Rappaport, Y. Myasoedov, E. Zeldov, and M. E. Huber, ''Scanning superconducting quantum interference device on a tip for magnetic imaging of nanoscale phenomena'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83 , 073702 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    E. O. Lachman, A. F. Young, A. Richardella, J. Cuppens, H. R. Naren, Y. Anahory, A. Y. Meltzer, A. Kandala, S. Kempinger, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, N. Samarth, and E. Zeldov, ''Visualization of superparamagnetic dynamics in magnetic topological insulators'', Sci. Adv. 1, e150...

    2015

  33. [41]

    Kleinbaum and G

    E. Kleinbaum and G. A. Csáthy, ''Note: A transi mpedance amplifier for remotely located quartz tuning forks'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83 , 126101 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    P. G. Silvestrov and K. B. Efetov, ''Charge acc umulation at the boundaries of a graphene strip induced by a gate voltage: Electrostatic approach'', Phys. Rev. B 77 , 155436 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Hettmansperger, F

    H. Hettmansperger, F. Duerr, J. B. Oostinga, C. Gould, B. Trauzettel, and L. W. Molenkamp, ''Quantum Hall effect in narrow graphene ribbons'', Phys. Rev. B 86 , 195417 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    J. Chae, S. Jung, S. Woo, H. Baek, J. Ha, Y. J. Song, Y.-W. Son, N. B. Zhitenev, J. A. Stroscio, and Y. Kuk, ''Enhanced Carrier Transport along Edges of Graphene Devices'', Nano Lett. 12 , 1839 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Barraud, T

    C. Barraud, T. Choi, P. Butti, I. Shorubalko, T . Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, ''Field effect in the quantum Hall regime of a high mobility graphene wire'', J. Appl. Phys. 116 , 073705 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    S. Chen, R. Ribeiro-Palau, K. Yang, K. Watanabe , T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, M. O. Goerbig, and C. R. Dean, ''Competing Fractional Quantum Hall and Electron Solid Phases in Graphene'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 , 026802 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    K. Itoh, R. Nakazawa, T. Ota, M. Hashisaka, K. Muraki, and T. Fujisawa, ''Signatures of a Nonthermal Metastable State in Copropagating Quantum Hall Edge Channels'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 , 197701 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Venkatachalam, S

    V. Venkatachalam, S. Hart, L. Pfeiffer, K. West , and A. Yacoby, ''Local thermometry of neutral modes on the quantum Hall edge'', Nat. Phys. 8, 676 (2012). 14

    2012

  41. [49]

    Altimiras, H

    C. Altimiras, H. le Sueur, U. Gennser, A. Cavan na, D. Mailly, and F. Pierre, ''Tuning Energy Relaxation along Quantum Hall Channels'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 , 226804 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Chang, W

    C.-Z. Chang, W. Zhao, D. Y. Kim, P. Wei, J. K. Jain, C. Liu, M. H. W. Chan, and J. S. Moodera, ''Zero- Field Dissipationless Chiral Edge Transport and the Nature of Dissipation in the Quantum Anomalous Hall State'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 , 057206 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    M. Liu, W. Wang, A. R. Richardella, A. Kandala, J. Li, A. Yazdani, N. Samarth, and N. P. Ong, ''Large discrete jumps observed in the transition between Chern states in a ferromagnetic topological insulator'', Sci. Adv. 2, e1600167 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    E. J. Fox, I. T. Rosen, Y. Yang, G. R. Jones, R . E. Elmquist, X. Kou, L. Pan, K. L. Wang, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, ''Part-per-million quantization and current-induced breakdown of the quantum anomalous Hall effect'', Phys. Rev. B 98 , 075145 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    weddin g cake

    E. O. Lachman, M. Mogi, J. Sarkar, A. Uri, K. B agani, Y. Anahory, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, A. Tsukazaki, M. Kawasaki, Y. Tokura, and E. Zeldov, ''Observation of superparamagnetism in coexistence with quantum anomalous Hall C = ±1 and C = 0 Chern states'', npj Quantum Mater....

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.