Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Photoinduced polarization enhancement in biased bilayer graphene in the Landau level regime

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 In voltage-biased bilayer graphene, circularly polarized terahertz radiation creates a Landau-level-dependent bandgap $\Delta_n=U-(n-1)\xi$ that drives a finite, enhanced oscillating pseudospin polarization in the $n\ge2$ Landau levels.

desk verdict The paper's central observable is internally inconsistent—Eq. (25) and Eq. (40) disagree at first order in ξ—so the claimed photoinduced polarization enhancement is not established, though the qualitative idea is plausible. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05515 v1 pith:4V3O4KXY submitted 2019-08-15 cond-mat.mes-hall

Alexander López , Bertrand Berche , John Schliemann , Francisco Mireles , Benjamin Santos This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords bilayergrapheneLandaulevelsFloquettheorypseudospinpolarizationphotoinducedbandgapcircularlypolarizedlightcoherentstateterahertzradiation
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

Voltage-biased AB-stacked bilayer graphene in a magnetic field has Landau levels whose energy gap is set by the bias $U$, and the two lowest levels $n=0,1$ are degenerate in the layer (pseudospin) degree of freedom. The paper argues that circularly polarized terahertz radiation changes this: the effective Floquet bandgap becomes level-dependent, $\Delta_n=U-(n-1)\xi$ with $\xi$ the light-matter coupling, and for Landau levels $n\ge2$ the pseudospin polarization develops a finite time-averaged value plus an oscillation proportional to $\xi$. The level-dependent gap and the mixing of static and driven eigenstates make the polarization larger and longer-lived than in the static biased sample, so the laser becomes a tunable control knob for the layer-pseudospin degree of freedom. This matters because it offers a light-controlled route to manipulate pseudospin oscillations in a two-dimensional material, with possible terahertz-scale optoelectronic applications.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the level-dependent photoinduced bandgap $\Delta_n=U-(n-1)\xi$, with $\xi=eEv_F/\omega$ the effective light-matter coupling, which enters the Floquet quasienergies $\epsilon_{ns}=s\sqrt{\Delta_n^2+\Omega_c^2 n(n-1)}$. The bandgap is obtained by a Floquet unitary transformation generated by the antihermitian operator $I_-=a^\dagger\sigma_- - a\sigma_+$, which shifts the oscillator lowering operator to $b=a+\lambda$ ($\lambda=\xi/\omega_c$). This shift moves the radiation effect into the diagonal of the effective two-band Hamiltonian, so different Landau levels acquire different gaps, and the machinery then converts those gaps into pseudospin dynamics through the overlaps between static and driven eigenstates, producing the $\xi\cos(2\epsilon_n t)$ term.

What would settle it

Recompute $\langle\tau_z(t)\rangle$ for an initial static eigenstate to first order in $\xi$ without assuming $\langle m|n\rangle=\delta_{nm}$ for the shifted oscillator; if the coefficient of $\xi\cos(2\epsilon_n t)$ differs from Eq. (25) or disagrees with the appendix result, the claimed enhancement is not established. Experimentally, a pump-probe measurement of layer polarization in biased bilayer graphene at $B\approx10$ T with a terahertz drive should show an oscillation growing linearly with radiation intensity only for $n\ge2$; its absence would falsify the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the radiation field does not need to split the degenerate lowest Landau levels to control pseudospin; instead, the drive shifts the oscillator operators ($a\to b=a+\lambda$) and produces an effective two-band Floquet Hamiltonian with quasienergies $\epsilon_{ns}=s\sqrt{\Delta_n^2+\Omega_c^2 n(n-1)}$, where $\Delta_n=U-(n-1)\xi$. For an initial static eigenstate of level $n\ge2$, the paper derives $\langle\tau_z(t)\rangle = s\frac{\Delta_n}{E_n}\left(1+\frac{(n-1)\xi U}{\epsilon_n^2}\right) + s\frac{\Omega_c^2 n(n-1)^2}{E_n\epsilon_n^2}\xi\cos 2\epsilon_n t$, whose last term is a light-induced oscillation and whose time average remains finite and proportional to $\xi$. For coherent-state superpositions the same mechanism yields an averaged polarization that is enhanced relative to the static biased case and decays more slowly, and the authors argue the effect should be observable in pump-probe experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that after the unitary shift $b=a+\lambda$ the shifted-oscillator eigenstates overlap with the original Landau states as $\langle m|n\rangle=\delta_{nm}$ to leading order in $\lambda$, and that the main-text and appendix first-order derivations of $\langle\tau_z(t)\rangle$ agree; if either condition fails, the central enhanced-polarization formula is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $n=0,1$ Landau levels stay pseudospin-inert, so any finite radiation-induced polarization in a pure Landau level must come from $n\ge2$ transitions; experiments should target those higher levels.
  • Because $\Delta_n$ vanishes when $\xi=U/(n-1)$, tuning the laser amplitude or frequency can drive a chosen Landau level through a gapless point, giving a light-controlled semiconductor-to-metal-like transition in the Floquet spectrum.
  • For coherent-state superpositions, the time-averaged polarization grows with $\xi$ and the oscillations decay more slowly than in the static biased case, so the drive controls both the amplitude and lifetime of pseudospin oscillations.
  • At low magnetic fields the driven biased polarization is enhanced relative to both the undriven biased and the driven unbiased cases, making low-field experiments a promising place to look for the effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper does not pursue: because $\Delta_n$ depends linearly on the Landau index $n$, a frequency- or intensity-swept laser could selectively activate one high Landau level at a time, turning the pseudospin response into a spectroscopic probe of the level index.
  • The paper's superposition calculation sets the expansion coefficients $c_{n\tau}$ to be pseudospin-independent; allowing unequal weights would introduce additional cross-term oscillations proportional to $\xi\Delta_n/\epsilon_n^2$, which may permit layer-selective initialization of the pseudospin. This is a testable consequence the authors leave implicit.
  • The $\operatorname{sinc}(4\pi\epsilon_n/\omega)$ factor in the averaged polarization suggests that locking the drive frequency so that $2\epsilon_n$ is commensurate with $\omega$ would maximize the enhancement; a pump-probe scan across the drive frequency could reveal this resonance.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies biased AB-stacked bilayer graphene in a perpendicular magnetic field under monochromatic circularly polarized radiation. Within a two-band low-energy approximation and a Floquet perturbative treatment to first order in ξ (the light-matter coupling), the authors claim that the radiation induces a Landau-level-dependent bandgap Δ_n = U − (n−1)ξ, which leads to an enhanced, oscillating pseudospin polarization for Landau levels with n ≥ 2. They provide explicit formulas for ⟨τ_z(t)⟩ for an initial static eigenstate, for a general superposition, and for a coherent state, and they discuss parameter regimes for experimental realization. The central quantitative claim is Eq. (25), with the appendix derivation leading to Eq. (40).

Significance. If the central formula were correct, the paper would demonstrate a useful light-controlled enhancement of pseudospin polarization in bilayer graphene, with no fitted parameters and with potentially testable predictions for higher Landau levels. The analytical Floquet approach and the explicit level-dependent bandgap are attractive features, and the connection to coherent-state dynamics is a nice extension of the authors' earlier monolayer work. However, the main quantitative result is not self-consistent: the main-text expression (25) and the appendix expression (40) disagree at first order in ξ, and the spectral input Eq. (22) is not derived from the Hamiltonian (21) without an unexplained gauge shift. These issues affect the central claim, so the paper's conclusions are not established in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II Eq. (25) and Appendix Eq. (40)] The main-text polarization formula (25) and the appendix result (40) are presented as the same derivation but do not agree at first order in ξ. Expanding the constant part of Eq. (25) in ξ gives U/E_n − (n−1)ξ [Ω_c^2 n(n−1)]/E_n^3, whereas the constant part of Eq. (40) expands to U/E_n − (n−1)ξ [Ω_c^2 n(n−1)](2U^2+Ω_c^2 n(n−1))/E_n^5. These differ by the factor (2U^2+C)/(U^2+C) with C=Ω_c^2 n(n−1), unless U=0. Since the oscillatory terms coincide, the discrepancy lies precisely in the O(ξ) correction that constitutes the paper's main quantitative claim. No single formula for the central observable is therefore established.
  2. [§II, Eqs. (21)–(22)] The quasienergy spectrum (22) does not follow directly from the effective two-band Floquet Hamiltonian (21). Acting on the |n⟩, |n−2⟩ subspace, the diagonal elements of H2F are U − (n−1)(ξ+ω) and −U + (n−1)(ξ−ω), so the eigenvalues generically contain an ω-dependent shift, whereas Eq. (22) depends only on U, ξ, and Ω_c. The manuscript does not specify the unitary transformation or global shift that removes this ω dependence. Without that step, the spectrum used in the time evolution, Eqs. (25)–(26), is not justified.
  3. [Appendix, final paragraph] The appendix asserts that ⟨m|n⟩ = δ_nm between eigenstates of a†a and b†b holds to leading order in λ = ξ/ω_c. This is not correct at first order in λ: for b = a + λ, the eigenstates of b†b are displaced number states D(−λ)|m⟩, whose overlaps with |n⟩ acquire first-order off-diagonal terms proportional to λ(√(n+1) δ_{m,n+1} − √n δ_{m,n−1}). These off-diagonal overlaps contribute at the same order as the retained O(ξ) terms in Eqs. (25) and (40), so the claimed first-order corrections are not reliably computed. The discrepancy between Eq. (25) and Eq. (40) is consistent with this missing contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The notation "HF + 1ω" is unclear; it should presumably be HF + ω, with the identity matrix and the addition to the lower 2×2 block made explicit.
  2. [Section II, paragraph after Eq. (6)] There are typographical errors: "effective effective inter Landau level polarization polarization" and "neads" should be corrected.
  3. [Section III, first paragraph] The concluding paragraph states that "n≤ 2 LL transitions are crucial," which appears inconsistent with the abstract and the body, where the relevant transitions are n ≥ 2; this is presumably a typo and should be fixed.
  4. [Section II, after Eq. (30)] The assumption c_ns = c_n/√2 is described as "without loss of generality," but it does discard relative phases and amplitudes between the pseudospin sectors; the phrase should be softened or justified.
  5. [Appendix, final paragraph] The caveat about the overlap ⟨m|n⟩ = δ_nm is essential to the central result and should be flagged in the main text, rather than appearing only at the end of the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization enhancement is derived from a fixed model Hamiltonian with no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The paper starts from the static biased-bilayer Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), reduces it to the two-band model in Eq. (2), applies the Floquet transformation and a small-λ unitary rotation to obtain the effective Hamiltonian in Eqs. (16) and (21), and then computes the pseudospin polarization from the resulting quasienergy eigenstates in Eqs. (22)-(24), yielding Eq. (25). The inputs U, Ω_c, ξ, and γ are physical parameters; none is fitted to the target observable. The photoinduced bandgap Δ_n = U - (n-1)ξ is an output of the quasienergy calculation, not an input. Self-citations, notably Ref. 39 for monolayer graphene coherent-state dynamics, are contextual and independent; the bilayer calculation is performed in this paper rather than imported. Two caveats should be flagged as correctness risks rather than circularity: the appendix's final paragraph asserts, without proof, that shifted-oscillator overlaps satisfy ⟨m|n⟩ = δ_nm to leading order in λ, and the main-text Eq. (25) and appendix Eq. (40) appear to disagree at first order in ξ. These concern the validity and self-consistency of the perturbative derivation; neither is a reduction of a prediction to its own inputs, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses standard physical inputs (bias U, magnetic field via Ωc, laser amplitude via ξ) and no invented entities. The main auxiliary assumption is the oscillator overlap approximation, which is not fully justified.

free parameters (1)
  • Coherent state amplitude α = 1 and 5 (illustrative)
    Chosen by hand for the coherent state example in Fig. 4; not fitted to data and not needed for the main derivation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Low-energy effective two-band model is valid for |ε| << γ.
    Used to reduce the 4x4 Hamiltonian to Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption Trigonal warping and spin-orbit effects are neglected.
    Stated in Section II; they affect energies below 1 meV or require special conditions.
  • domain assumption Perturbative parameter λ = ξ/ωc is small.
    Justifies truncating terms of order λ^2 in Eqs. (18)-(19).
  • ad hoc to paper Overlaps ⟨m|n⟩ = δ_nm between shifted and unshifted oscillator states hold to leading order.
    Assumed in the Appendix (final paragraph) to leading order in λ; this is the point where the derivation becomes inconsistent with the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photoinduced polarization enhancement in biased bilayer graphene in the Landau level regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4V3O4KXY

@misc{pith2026190805515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photoinduced polarization enhancement in biased bilayer graphene in the Landau level regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4V3O4KXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05515}
}
abstract

We investigate the charge carrier dynamics in bilayer graphene subject to monochromatic laser irradiation within the Landau level quantization regime. Even though the radiation field does not lift the energy degeneracy of the lowest Landau levels (LLs), it nevertheless has a strong effect on the photoinduced pseudospin polarization response for higher LLs ($n\ge2$). Our results show that the photoinduced bandgaps lead to a finite response of the averaged pseudospin polarization with nontrivial oscillating behavior. It is shown that the contribution from these higher LL transitions turns out to be crucial to achieve an enhanced photoinduced polarization in radiated bilayer graphene. The experimental feasibility of our findings is also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Bernal stacking configuration with dimer states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Landau level spectrum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Averaged pseudospin polarization for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Averaged pseudospin polarization for the coherent state configuration. The black continuous line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Photovoltaic Hall effect in graphene Phys. Rev. B 79 , 081406(R) (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva and A. A. Firsov, Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films Science 306 , 666 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, The rise of graphene Nature Mater. 6 , 183 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

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

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. and Mele, Quantum spin Hall effect in graphene Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 , 226801 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    N. H. Lindner, G. Refael and V. Galinski, Floquet topological insulator in semiconductor quantum wells Nature Phys. 7 490 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    H. L. Calvo, H. M. Pastawski, S. Roche and L. E. F. Foa Torres, Tuning laser-induced band gaps in graphene Appl. Phys. Lett. 98 , 232103 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Karch, M

    J. Karch, M. Schmalzbauer, C. Zoth, C. Brinsteiner, M. Fehrenbacher, U. Wurstbauer, M. M. Glazov, S. A. Tarasenko, E. L. Ivchenko, D. Weiss, J. Eroms, R. Yakimova, S. Lara-Avila, S. Kubatkin, and S. D. Ganichev, Dynamic Hall effect driven by circularly polarized light in a graphene layer Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 , 227402 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Kitagawa, E

    T. Kitagawa, E. Berg, M. Rudner and E. Demler, Topological characterization of periodically driven quantum systems Phys. Rev. B 82 , 235114(2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Kitagawa, T

    T. Kitagawa, T. Oka, A. Brataas, L. Fu, and E. Demler, Transport properties of nonequilibrium systems under the application of light: Photoinduced quantum Hall insulators without Landau levels Phys. Rev. B 84 , 235108 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    G. Gu, H. A. Fertig, D. P. Arovas and A. Auerbach, Floquet spectrum and transport through an irradiated graphene ribbon Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 , 216601 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    D\' o ra, K

    B. D\' o ra, K. Ziegler, P. Thalmeier and M. Nakamura, Rabi oscillations in Landau-quantized graphene Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , 036803 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    T. M. Rusin and W. Zawadzki, Zitterbewegung of electrons in graphene in a magnetic field Phys. Rev. B 80 , 125419 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Aoki, Novel Landau level laser in the quantum Hall regime Appl

    H. Aoki, Novel Landau level laser in the quantum Hall regime Appl. Phys. Lett. 48 , 559 (1986)

    1986

  7. [15]

    Wendler and E

    F. Wendler and E. Malic, Towards a tunable graphene-based Landau level laser in the terahertz regime Sci. Rep. 5 , 12646 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Jiang, Y

    Z. Jiang, Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Quantum Hall effect in graphene, Solid State Comm. 143 , 14 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    D. S. L. Abergel and T. Chakraborty, Irradiated bilayer graphene Nanotech. 22 , 015203 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    E. S. Morel and L. E. F. Foa Torres, Radiation effects on the electronic properties of bilayer graphene Phys. Rev. B 86 , 125449 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    H. K. Avetissian, G. F. Mkrtchian, K. G. Batrakov, S. A. Maksimenko, and A. Hoffmann, Multiphoton resonant excitations and high-harmonic generation in bilayer graphene Phys. Rev. B 88 , 165411 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Dal Lago, E

    V. Dal Lago, E. S. Morell, and L. E. F. Foa Torres, One-way transport in laser-illuminated bilayer graphene: A Floquet isolator Phys. Rev. B 96 , 235409 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    I. V. Iorsh, K. Dini, O. V. Kibis, and I. A. Shelykh, Optically induced Lifshitz transition in bilayer graphene Phys. Rev. B 96 , 155432 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Nandkishore and L

    R. Nandkishore and L. Levitov, Polar Kerr effect and time reversal symmetry breaking in bilayer graphene Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 , 097402 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Mireles and J

    F. Mireles and J. Schliemann, Energy spectrum and Landau levels in bilayer graphene with spin–orbit interaction New J. Phys. 14 , 093026 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    J. B. Oostinga, H. B. Heersche, X. Liu, A. F. Morpurgo and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Gate-induced insulating state in bilayer graphene devices Nat. Mat. 7 , 151 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    K. S. Novoselov, E. McCann, S. V. Morozov, V. I. Fal'ko, M. I. Katsnelson, U. Zeitler, D. Jiang, F. Schedin and A. K. Geim, Unconventional quantum Hall effect and Berry’s phase of 2 in bilayer graphene Nat. Mat. 2 , 177 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    McCann and V

    E. McCann and V. I. Fal'ko, Landau-level degeneracy and quantum Hall effect in a graphite bilayer Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 , 086805 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    McCann, Asymmetry gap in the electronic band structure of bilayer graphene Phys

    E. McCann, Asymmetry gap in the electronic band structure of bilayer graphene Phys. Rev. B (R) 74 , 161403(2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    E. V. Castro, K. S. Novoselov, S. V. Morozov, N. M. R. Peres, J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, J. Nilsson, F. Guinea, A. K. Geim, and A. H. Castro Neto, Biased bilayer graphene: Semiconductor with a gap tunable by the electric field effect Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 , 216802(2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Polini, A

    M. Polini, A. Tomadin, R. Asgari, and A. H. MacDonald, Density functional theory of graphene sheets Phys. Rev. B 78 , 115426 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    McCann and M

    E. McCann and M. Koshino, The electronic properties of bilayer graphene Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 056503 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Grifoni and P

    M. Grifoni and P. H\" a nggi, Driven quantum tunneling Phys. Rep. 304 , 229 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    S.-I Chu and D. A. Telnov, Beyond the Floquet theorem: generalized Floquet formalisms and quasienergy methods for atomic and molecular multiphoton processes in intense laser fields Physics reports 390 , 1 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Kohler, J

    S. Kohler, J. Lehmann, and P. H\"anggi,Driven quantum transport on the nanoscale Phys. Rep. 406 , 379 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Platero and R

    G. Platero and R. Aguado, Photon-assisted transport in semiconductor nanostructures Phys. Rep. 395 , 1 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    Shirley, Solution of the Schr\"odinger equation with a Hamiltonian periodic in time, Phys

    J. Shirley, Solution of the Schr\"odinger equation with a Hamiltonian periodic in time, Phys. Rev. 138 , B979 (1965)

    1965

  28. [36]

    Sambe, Steady states and quasienergies of a quantum-mechanical system in an oscillating field Phys

    H. Sambe, Steady states and quasienergies of a quantum-mechanical system in an oscillating field Phys. Rev. A 7 , 2203 (1973)

    1973

  29. [37]

    Y. Xu, X. Li and J. Dong, Infrared and Raman spectra of AA-stacking bilayer , Nanotech. 21 , 065711 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    H. M. Abdullah, M. Al Ezzi, and H. Bahlouli, Electronic transport and Klein tunneling in gapped AA-stacked bilayer graphene, J. Appl. Phys. 124 , 204303 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Lopez, A

    A. Lopez, A. Di Teodoro, J. Schliemann, B. Santos and B. Berche, Laser-induced modulation of the Landau level structure in single-layer graphene Phys. Rev. B 92 , 235411 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    C. W. Nicholson, M. Puppin, A. L\"ucke, U. Gerstmann, M. Krenz, W. G. Schmidt, L. Rettig, R. Ernstorfer, and M. Wolf, Excited-state band mapping and momentum-resolved ultrafast population dynamics in In/Si(111) nanowires investigated with XUV-based time- and angle-resolved pho...

    2019

  33. [41]

    A. Zong, A. Kogar, Ya-Q. Bie, T. Rohwer, Ch. Lee, E. Baldini, E. Erge c en, M. B. Yilmaz, B. Freelon, E. J. Sie, H. Zhou, J. Straquadine, P. Walmsley, P. E. Dolgirev, A. V. Rozhkov, I. R. Fisher, P. Jarillo-Herrero, B. V. Fine, and N. Gedik, Evidence for topological defects in...

    2019

  34. [42]

    Terrones, R

    H. Terrones, R. Lv, M. Terrones, and M. S. Dresselhaus, The role of defects and doping in 2D graphene sheets and 1D nanoribbons, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75 062501 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Hashimoto, K

    A. Hashimoto, K. Suenaga, A. Gloter, K. Urita, and S. Iijima, Direct evidence for atomic defects in graphene layers, Nature 430 , 870 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    R. R. Nair, M. Sepioni, I-Ling Tsai, O. Lehtinen, J. Keinonen, A. V. Krasheninnikov, T. Thomson, A. K. Geim, and I. V. Grigorieva, Spin-half paramagnetism in graphene induced by point defects, Nature Phys. 8 , 199 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Banhart, J

    F. Banhart, J. Kotakoski, and A. V. Krasheninnikov, Structural defects in graphene, ACS Nano 5 , 26 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Y. Liu, B. N. Shivananju, Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, W. Yu, S. Xiao, T. Sun, W. Ma, H. Mu, S. Lin, H. Zhang, Y. Lu, C-W. Qiu, S. Li, and Q. Bao, Highly efficient and air-stable infrared photodetector based on 2D layered graphene-black phosphorus heterostructure, ACS Appl. Mater. Inter...

    2017

  39. [47]

    S. C. Dhanabalan, J. S. Ponraj, Z. Guo, S. Li, Q. Bao, and H. Zhang, Emerging trends in phosphorene fabrication towards next generation devices, Adv. Science 4 , 1600305 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    S. Liu, Z. Li, Y. Ge, H. Wang, R. Yue, X. Jiang, J. Li, Q. Wen, and H. Zhang, Graphene/phosphorene nano-heterojunction: facile synthesis, nonlinear optics, and ultrafast photonics applications with enhanced performance, Photonics Research 5 , 662 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

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