Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Relativistic Artificial Molecules Realized by Two Coupled Graphene Quantum Dots

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Coupled graphene dots form a relativistic artificial molecule

desk verdict Plausible first observation of a graphene quantum dot molecule, but the central splitting needs more control data before I'd call it definitive. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06580 v1 pith:CDQYOPBW submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Zhong-Qiu Fu , Yue-Ting Pan , Jiao-Jiao Zhou , Dong-Lin Ma , Yu Zhang , Jia-Bin Qiao , Haiwen Liu , Hua Jiang
show 1 more author
Lin He
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords graphenequantumdotsartificialmoleculesrelativisticDiracfermionsbondingandantibondingstatesscanningtunnelingspectroscopywhispering-gallerymodesKleinorbitalg-factor
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

The paper reports that two coupled circular graphene quantum dots behave as a relativistic artificial molecule, a molecule analogue whose electrons are massless Dirac fermions rather than ordinary Schrödinger electrons. It shows, with scanning tunneling spectroscopy, that the lowest quasibound state of the pair splits into a bonding and an antibonding state separated by about 30 meV, and that spatial maps of the local density of states directly image both molecular states. The same relativistic character makes the molecular levels respond to a magnetic field by lifting the $\pm m$ angular-momentum degeneracy, so each molecular peak splits into two with an effective orbital $g$-factor of about 40. The result is presented as the first coupled graphene quantum-dot molecule and a platform in which molecular orbitals are built from confined massless Dirac fermions.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the circular graphene p-n junction as a whispering-gallery cavity for massless Dirac fermions. A nanoscale sulfur island raises the local Dirac point by about 210 meV relative to the surrounding graphene, and Klein tunneling across the resulting p-n boundary traps electrons in quasibound states. In two coupled dots the molecular states are formed by the sum and difference of the individual dot wavefunctions, $\psi_\sigma \approx \psi_L + \psi_R$ and $\psi_{\sigma^*} \approx \psi_L - \psi_R$. The coupling is strongest for the lowest quasibound state because its long wavelength makes it least confined, so the splitting decreases with increasing energy. The theoretical support comes from lattice Green's function calculations of two circular QDs of radius 6 nm, separation 4 nm, and potential step 270 meV, and for the magnetic response a WKB treatment with fixed inter-dot coupling.

What would settle it

Measure tunneling spectra on a single isolated graphene dot made by the same sulfur-island method; if its lowest quasibound state also shows two peaks, the splitting is an intra-dot or tip effect rather than inter-dot bonding, and in a coupled pair the splitting should shrink as the inter-dot separation increases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is the hybridization of confined Dirac-fermion states across two adjacent graphene quantum dots. Each dot is a circular p-n junction formed by a nanoscale sulfur island between the graphene and the copper substrate; massless Dirac fermions are temporarily trapped in whispering-gallery quasibound states. When two such dots sit close together, the lowest quasibound state, the one least protected by whispering-gallery confinement, couples most strongly and splits into a lower bonding state and a higher antibonding state with a measured separation of about 30 meV. STS maps at the two peak energies show the two molecular orbitals, and theoretical lattice Green's function calculations reproduce both the level splitting and the spatial distributions. In a magnetic field each molecular level further splits linearly with field into opposite-angular-momentum sublevels, and fitting $\Delta E = g^*\mu_B B$ gives $g^* \approx 40$, indicating an orbital rather than spin origin. The authors take these observations as direct evidence that relativistic artificial molecules exist and behave qualitatively differently from their nonrelativistic counterparts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two dots are nearly identical and that the observed 30 meV splitting comes from inter-dot coupling rather than from differences in dot size, disorder, or tip-induced effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 30 meV bonding-antibonding splitting should appear as a robust double-peak feature in STS taken at the center of either dot.
  • The spatial contrast between bonding and antibonding STS maps provides a real-space fingerprint for identifying molecular states in coupled graphene dots.
  • Magnetic fields should split each molecular peak into two sublevels whose separation grows linearly with field while the bonding-antibonding separation stays nearly constant.
  • The effective orbital $g$-factor near 40 means modest magnetic fields can substantially retune the level structure of graphene-dot molecules.
  • Because coupling weakens for higher angular-momentum quasibound states, only the low-lying levels of coupled graphene dots are expected to show clear molecular hybridization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the molecular-orbital assignment is correct, varying the inter-dot separation while holding dot size fixed should tune the 30 meV splitting, providing a control experiment the current geometry does not perform.
  • Beyond the paper: the same fabrication and imaging route could be extended to three or more coupled dots, where the hybridization should form one-dimensional relativistic molecular bands.
  • Beyond the paper: because the measured $g^* \approx 40$ is orbital in origin, Dirac-dot-molecule devices aimed at spin-based quantum information would need to account for field-induced orbital level shifts rather than spin splitting alone.
  • Beyond the paper: the linear field dependence of the $\pm m$ splitting could serve as a local probe of the p-n junction potential profile, since sharper confinement should modify the orbital moment.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports STM/STS experiments on two coupled circular graphene quantum dots (QDs) formed by S nanoclusters underneath a graphene monolayer on Cu. The authors observe a ~30 meV splitting of the lowest quasibound state in the two coupled QDs, image two distinct LDOS maps that they assign to bonding (σ) and antibonding (σ*) molecular states, and find in magnetic fields that each molecular state further splits into two peaks with a linear field dependence, yielding an effective orbital g factor g* ≈ 40. These observations are compared with lattice Green's function calculations for two coupled circular QDs and with WKB calculations for the magnetic-field splitting. The paper concludes that this constitutes the first realization of a relativistic artificial molecule made of massless Dirac fermions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a notable advance: it would extend the artificial-molecule paradigm, previously limited to nonrelativistic fermions, to massless Dirac fermions in graphene QDs, and it would directly visualize bonding and antibonding states of such a molecule. The paper also reports a magnetic-field-induced lifting of orbital degeneracy in the molecular states, which is an interesting and falsifiable result. Strengths of the manuscript include the use of an independent lattice Green's function calculation that yields a split lowest quasibound state, the energy-dependent reduction of the splitting with increasing state energy (consistent with WGM confinement), and the direct real-space STS maps. However, the quantitative support is thin: no error bars are given for the splitting or the g* fit, the molecular-state assignment relies on a single pair of QDs without statistical replication, and the spatial maps are not subjected to a quantitative symmetry test. These issues are load-bearing for the main claim, so the paper requires substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2(c)-2(e) and surrounding text] The assignment of the ~30 meV doublet to bonding/antibonding molecular states requires that the two uncoupled QDs have nearly degenerate lowest quasibound levels. The only support given is the statement that the two QDs 'almost have identical size and structure' and that their spectra are 'almost the same'; no measured radii, area difference, or error bars on peak positions are provided. Using the authors' own estimate ΔE ≈ ħv_F/R ≈ 120 meV, a level detuning of 30 meV between uncoupled dots would require only a radius mismatch δR/R ≈ 25%, a difference that could easily escape visual inspection in a single STM image. Without a control experiment (e.g., a single QD of the same size and environment, or a pair with coupling intentionally varied) or a quantitative comparison of the two dots' dimensions and spectra, the doublet could equally arise from dot-to-dot variation or disorder. This is the central premise of the molecular-state claim and needs direct quantitative support.
  2. [Figures 2(f)-2(g) and 3(c)-3(d)] The LDOS maps are stated to 'directly demonstrate' the formation of bonding and antibonding states, but they were recorded only in the left QD, and no quantitative symmetry or nodal-plane analysis is presented. A bonding state should be symmetric about the inter-dot axis and an antibonding state antisymmetric (or vice versa depending on the basis), but the manuscript does not show that the measured maps possess the required symmetry, nor does it compare them quantitatively with the calculated LDOS in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d). Without such a test, the maps do not uniquely determine the molecular-orbital assignment; a single-dot asymmetric state or a tip-induced artifact could produce similar-looking spatial patterns.
  3. [Figure 4 and text on g*] The effective g factor g* ≈ 40 is extracted from a linear fit to the magnetic-field splitting, but no error bars, number of data points, or reproducibility across different dot pairs are reported. Furthermore, the WKB calculation explicitly assumes constant inter-dot coupling, and the model parameters (R = 6 nm, d = 4 nm, ΔV = 270 meV) are chosen ad hoc; no sensitivity analysis for these parameters is provided. The statement that the experimental values are 'slightly larger' than the theoretical calculation is only qualitative. These omissions limit the quantitative reliability of the large orbital g factor claim.
  4. [Magnetic-field degeneracy argument] The claim that 'the fourfold degeneracy of the first quasibound state also proves the formation of the artificial molecule' is not justified. The number of observed peaks in a magnetic field depends on the single-dot degeneracy structure (including orbital m, spin, and valley degeneracies) as well as on the inter-dot coupling; four peaks alone do not constitute a proof of molecular formation. A detailed level-counting and symmetry argument is needed before this statement can support the molecular-state assignment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Full text near 'S superlattice'] The sentence 'on top of the ordered S superlattice formed advanced' appears garbled; 'formed advanced' should likely be 'formed beforehand' or similar.
  2. [Full text, 'consisting with'] 'consisting with that of monolayer S atoms' should be 'consistent with that of monolayer S atoms'.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption uses 'red cycle' and 'dash squares'; these should read 'red circle' and 'dashed squares'.
  4. [Figure 4(a) markers] The symbols σ*_+, σ*_-, σ_+, σ_- are used in the text and figure but are not explicitly defined in the main text; the definition as the ±m sublevels of the bonding and antibonding states should be stated in the caption or main text.
  5. [Text near Fig. 2(c)] The phrase 'the split of the quasibound states decreases' would be clearer as 'the splitting of the quasibound states decreases'.
  6. [General] The main text repeatedly refers to supporting materials for critical data (e.g., isolated-dot control, FER measurements, Landau-level Dirac point); the key quantitative results from those sections should be summarized in the main text so the claims can be evaluated without accessing the SI.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central molecular-state claim is supported by an independent coupled-dot simulation and by experimental LDOS maps, not by a fitted input or a load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the paper reports a ~30 meV doublet in the lowest quasibound state of two coupled graphene QDs and assigns the two peaks to bonding and antibonding molecular states. The supporting theory is a lattice Green's function calculation of two coupled circular QDs with stated parameters (R = 6 nm, d = 4 nm, potential step 270 meV); the bonding/antibonding splitting and its decrease with energy emerge from that calculation rather than being imposed by fitting the observed 30 meV splitting. The magnetic-field WKB calculation takes the experimental constancy of the bonding-antibonding splitting as an input and then computes the field-induced splitting of the ±m sublevels; the effective g-factor is fitted to the data and reported as a fitted characterization, not renamed as an independent prediction. Self-citations ([29], [35], [40]) provide numerical methods and prior confinement results, but the molecular-state claim does not reduce to any of these citations; it rests on the STS spectra, the real-space maps, and an independent simulation. No equation is defined in terms of the target result, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a predicted quantity, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The weaker point of the paper is empirical: the two-dot equivalence and the absence of a control experiment leave alternative explanations for the doublet, but that is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mainly on the identification of the experimental splitting as molecular coupling. The theory uses chosen parameters R=6 nm, d=4 nm, and delta V=270 meV, so it supports the interpretation but is partly tuned. The fitted g* is an additional inferred quantity. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • delta V (theory potential step) = 270 meV
    Chosen for the lattice Green's function calculation. The experiment measures about 300 meV work-function difference and a Dirac point of about -90 meV off the dots, so 270 meV is close but not identical to an independently measured value.
  • R (theory dot radius) = 6 nm
    Chosen for simplicity in the coupled-dot calculation; the experimental dot radii are not stated explicitly.
  • d (theory inter-dot distance) = 4 nm
    Chosen for the calculation; Fig. S6 shows the splitting depends on this distance, so this parameter controls the central splitting magnitude.
  • g* (effective g factor) = approximately 40
    Obtained by fitting the linear magnetic-field splitting to Delta E = g* mu_B B. It is an inferred orbital g factor, not a parameter-free prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lattice Green's function method describes Dirac fermions in graphene with sharp p-n potential steps.
    Invoked in the theoretical section (Fig. 3) based on refs [29,35]. The validity of the sharp step and noninteracting treatment is assumed.
  • domain assumption The nanoscale S dots create a rigid shift of the Dirac point by about 300 meV inside the QD, so the Dirac point inside is about 210 meV.
    Inferred from FER work-function shift and Landau-level Dirac-point measurement; assumes no other doping or screening effects.
  • domain assumption The quasibound states arise from whispering-gallery-mode confinement with level spacing Delta E approximately hbar v_F / R.
    Used to identify the experimental peaks and to compare with the average 120 meV spacing; relies on refs [26-29].
  • domain assumption The two selected QDs are nearly identical in size and potential, so their uncoupled spectra are nearly degenerate.
    State in text: 'almost have identical size and structure.' This premise is required to interpret the two peaks as molecular splitting rather than as two different single-dot levels.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic field lifts +/-m degeneracy linearly and the orbital g factor can be modeled with WKB assuming constant inter-dot coupling.
    The WKB calculation in Fig. 4 assumes the coupling strength is constant because the experimental bonding-antibonding splitting is almost unchanged. This is an assumption fitted to the observation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic Artificial Molecules Realized by Two Coupled Graphene Quantum Dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDQYOPBW

@misc{pith2026190806580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic Artificial Molecules Realized by Two Coupled Graphene Quantum Dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDQYOPBW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06580}
}
read the original abstract

Coupled quantum dots (QDs), usually referred to as artificial molecules, are important not only in exploring fundamental physics of coupled quantum objects, but also in realizing advanced QD devices. However, previous studies have been limited to artificial molecules with nonrelativistic fermions. Here, we show that relativistic artificial molecules can be realized when two circular graphene QDs are coupled to each other. Using scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and spectroscopy (STS), we observe the formation of bonding and antibonding states of the relativistic artificial molecule and directly visualize these states of the two coupled graphene QDs. The formation of the relativistic molecular states strongly alters distributions of massless Dirac fermions confined in the graphene QDs. Because of the relativistic nature of the molecular states, our experiment demonstrates that the degeneracy of different angular-momentum states in the relativistic artificial molecule can be further lifted by external magnetic fields. Then, both the bonding and antibonding states are split into two peaks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schedelbeck, W

    G. Schedelbeck, W. Wegscheider, M. Bichler, and G. Abstreiter, Coupled Quantum Dots Fabricated by Cleaved Edge Overgrowth: From Artificial Atoms to Molecules. Science 278, 1792 (1997)

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    R. H. Blick, D. Pfannkuche, R. J. Haug, K. v. Klitzing, and K. Eberl, Formation of a Coherent Mode in a Double Quantum Dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4032 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Partoens and F

    B. Partoens and F. M. Peeters, Molecule-Type Phases and Hund’s Rule in Vertically Coupled Quantum Dots. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4433 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Dixon, L

    D. Dixon, L. P. Kouwenhoven, P. L. McEuen, Y . Nagamune, J. Motohisa, and H. Sakaki, Influence of energy level alignment on tunneling between coupled quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B 53, 12625 (1996)

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    F. R. Waugh, M. J. Berry, C. H. Crouch, C. Livermore, D. J. Mar, R. M. Westervelt, K. L. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Measuring interactions between tunnel-coupled quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B 53, 1413 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    T. H. Oosterkamp, T. Fujisawa, W. G. van der Wiel, K. Ishibashi, R. V . Hijman, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Microwave spectroscopy of a quantum -dot molecule. Nature 395, 873 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    A. W. Holleitner, R. H. Blick, A. K. Hü ttel, K. Eberl, and J. P. Kotthaus, Probing and Controlling the Bonds of an Artificial Molecule. Science 297, 70 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    N. J. Craig, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Lester, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Tunable Nonlocal Spin Control in a Coupled-Quantum Dot System. Science 304, 565 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Unold, K

    T. Unold, K. Mueller, C. Lienau, T. Elsaesser, and A. D. Wieck, Optical Control of Excitons in a Pair of Quantum Dots Coupled by the Dipole -Dipole Interaction. Phys. Re v. Lett. 94, 137404 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    A. P. Alivisatos, Semiconductor Clusters, Nanocrystals, and Quantum Dots. Science 271, 933 (1996)

    1996

  3. [11]

    R. E. Bailey and S. Nie, Alloyed Semiconductor Quantum Dots: Tuning the Optical Properties without Changing the Particle Size. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125, 7100 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    A. D. Yoffe, Semiconductor quantum dots and related systems: Electronic, optical, luminescence and related properties of low dimensional systems. Adv. Phys. 50, 1 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    Fujisawa, T

    T. Fujisawa, T. H. Oosterkamp, W. G. van der Wiel, B. W. Broer, R. Aguado, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Spontaneous Emission Spectrum in Double Quantum Dot Devices. Science 282, 932 (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    W. G. van der Wiel, S. De Franceschi, J. M. Elzerman, T. Fujisawa, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Electron transport through double quantum dots. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    I. L. Chuang, L. M. K. Vandersypen, X. Zhou, D. W. Leung, and S. Lloyd, Experimental realization of a quantum algorithm. Nature 393, 143 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    Bayer, P

    M. Bayer, P. Hawrylak, K. Hinzer, S. Fafard, M. Korkusinski, Z. R. Wasilewski, O. Stern, and A. Forchel, Coupling and Entangling of Quantum States in Quantum Dot Molecules. Science 291, 451 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    M. F. Doty, M. Scheibner, I. V . Ponomarev, E. A. Stinaff, A. S. Bracker, V . L. Korenev, T. L. Reinecke, and D. Gammon, Electrically Tunable g Factors in Quantum Dot Molecular Spin States. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 197202 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    E. A. Stinaff, M. Scheibner, A. S. Bracker, I. V . Ponomarev, V . L. Korenev, M. E. Ware, M. F. Doty, T. L. Reinecke, and D. Gammon, Optical Signatures of Coupled Quantum Dots. Science 311, 636 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Robledo, J

    L. Robledo, J. Elzerman, G. Jundt, M. Atatü re, A. Hö gele, S. Fä lt, and A. Imamoglu, Conditional Dynamics of Interacting Quantum Dots. Science 320, 772 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Scheibner, M

    M. Scheibner, M. Yakes, A. S. Bracker, I. V . Ponomarev, M. F. Doty, C. S. Hellberg, L. J. Whitman, T. L. Reinecke, and D. Gammon, Optically mapping the electronic structure of coupled quantum dots. Nat. Phys. 4, 291 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Lobo-Checa, M

    J. Lobo-Checa, M. Matena, K. Mü ller, J. H. Dil, F. Meier, L. H. Gade, T. A. Jung, and M. Stö hr, Band Formation from Coupled Quantum Dots Formed by a Nanoporous Network on a Copper Surface. Science 325, 300 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Fö lsch, J

    S. Fö lsch, J. Martí nez-Blanco, J. Yang, K. Kanisawa, and S. C. Erwin, Quantum dots with single-atom precision. Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 505 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Y . Pan, J. Yang, S. C. Erwin, K. Kanisawa, and S. Fö lsch, Reconfigurable Quantum -Dot Molecules Created by Atom Manipulation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 076803 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    C. R. Kagan and C. B. Murray, Charge transport in strongly coupled quantum dot solids. Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 1013 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Banszerus, B

    L. Banszerus, B. Frohn, A. Epping, D. Neumaier, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and C. Stampfer, Gate-Defined Electron-Hole Double Dots in Bilayer Graphene. Nano Lett. 18, 4785 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Y . Zhao, J. Wyrick, F. D. Natterer, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, C. Lewandowski, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. S. Levitov, N. B. Zhitenev, and J. A. Stroscio, Creating and probing electron whispering-gallery modes in graphene. Science 348, 672 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Gutié rrez, L

    C. Gutié rrez, L. Brown, C.-J. Kim, J. Park, and A. N. Pasupathy, Klein tunnelling and electron trapping in nanometre-scale graphene quantum dots. Nat. Phys. 12, 1069 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    J. Lee, D. Wong, J. V elasco Jr, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, S. Kahn, H.-Z. Tsai, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. Zettl, F. Wang, L. S. Levitov, and M. F. Crommie, Imaging electrostatically confined Dirac fermions in graphene quantum dots. Nat. Phys. 12, 1032 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    K.-K. Bai, J. -J. Zhou, Y .-C. Wei, J. -B. Qiao, Y .-W. Liu, H. -W. Liu, H. Ji ang, and L. He, Generating atomically sharp p-n junctions in graphene and testing quantum electron optics on the nanoscale. Phys. Rev. B 97, 045413 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Chiral tunnelling and the Klein paradox in graphene. Nat. Phys. 2, 620 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    D. Ma, Z. Fu, X. Sui, K. Bai, J. Qiao, C. Yan, Y . Zhang, J. Hu, Q. Xiao, X. Mao, W. Duan, and L. He, Modulating the Electronic Properties of Graphene by Self -Organized Sulfur Identical Nanoclusters and Atomic Superla ttices Confined at an Interface. ACS Nano 12, 10984 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    See supporting materials for more experimental data, analysis, details of calculations

  25. [33]

    Walen, D.-J

    H. Walen, D.-J. Liu, J. Oh, H. Lim, J. W. Evans, Y . Kim, and P. A. Thiel, Reconstruction of steps on the Cu(111) surface induced by sulfur. J. Chem. Phys. 142, 194711 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    A. F. Carley, P. R. Davies, R. V . Jones, K. R. Harikumar, G. U. Kulkarni, and M. W. Roberts, The structure of sulfur adlayers at Cu(110) surfaces: an STM and XPS study. Surf. Sci. 447, 39 (2000)

    2000

  27. [35]

    J. Zhou, S. Cheng, W. You, and H. Jiang, Numerical study of Klein quantum dots in graphene systems. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 67811 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    A. V . Shytov, M. S. Rudner, and L. S. Levitov, Klein Backscattering and Fabry -P\’erot Interference in Graphene Heterojunctions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 156804 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    A. F. Young and P. Kim, Quantum interference and Klein tunnelling in graphene heterojunctions. Nat. Phys. 5, 222 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Ghahari, D

    F. Ghahari, D. Walkup, C. Gutié rrez, J. F. Rodriguez-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

  31. [39]

    Gutié rrez, D

    C. Gutié rrez, D. Walkup, F. Ghahari, C. Lewandowski, 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

  32. [40]

    Z.-Q. Fu, Y . Zhang, J.-B. Qiao, D.-L. Ma, H. Liu, Z. -H. Guo, Y .-C. Wei, J.-Y . Hu, Q. Xiao, X.-R. Mao, and L. He, Spatial confinement, magnetic localization, and their interactio ns on massless Dirac fermions. Phys. Rev. B 98, 241401 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva and L. S. Levitov, Berry phase jumps and giant nonreciprocity in Dirac quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B 94, 235406 (2016). Figures Figure 1 Illustrations from hydrogen molecule to graphene quantum dots molecule. (a) The formation of hydrogen molecule from two h...

    2016

Pith tools

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