Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Extraordinary magnetoresistance in high-quality graphene devices with daisy chains and Fermi-level pinning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Daisy-chained graphene EMR devices achieve a room-temperature magnetoresistance of 4.6×10^7% and a sensitivity of 104 kΩ/T, performance comparable to cryogenic graphene Hall sensors.

desk verdict Record room-temperature EMR numbers in high-quality graphene, but the headline MR relies on an unquantified 0.02 Ω denominator and needs verification before being cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13075 v1 pith:IDQTE6N4 submitted 2024-11-20 cond-mat.mes-hall

Bowen Zhou , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords extraordinarymagnetoresistancegrapheneEMRdaisychainmagneticfieldsensitivityFermi-levelpinningencapsulatedballistictransportmagnetometry
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 tries to establish that the extraordinary magnetoresistance (EMR) effect, in which a metal shunt deflects current in a high-mobility conductor, can be pushed to record performance in encapsulated monolayer graphene at room temperature. It reports the highest EMR magnetoresistance to date, 4.6×$10^{7}$% at 9 T, and a two-terminal field sensitivity of 104 kΩ/T near 0.2 T, comparable to state-of-the-art graphene Hall sensors operated at 4.2 K. It further argues that connecting many EMR devices in a daisy chain multiplies sensitivity by the number of devices, while signal-to-noise ratio improves as the square root and noise-equivalent field drops as one over the square root. Finally, it proposes that metal-contact-induced Fermi-level pinning creates a higher-conductivity region near the shunt, and that a two-region finite-element model reproduces the measured resistance-versus-field traces. If correct, these results make room-temperature graphene EMR sensors a realistic alternative to cooled Hall sensors for high-performance magnetometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the daisy chain: N EMR devices connected in series on a single chip, whose total resistance is RN = N R1 by elementary series addition and whose sensitivity therefore obeys dRN/dB = N dR/dB; the paper verifies this with finite-element simulations of ten devices and notes that, unlike chained Hall bars, the two-terminal EMR geometry needs no complex interconnects. For the Fermi-level pinning part, the machinery is a two-region conductivity model: a uniform inner annulus around the metal shunt with higher conductivity and mobility, the FLP region, surrounded by normal graphene, fitted manually to experimental resistance-versus-field curves, with the fit degrading without the inner region. The very small zero-field resistance Rmin ≈ 0.02 Ω, attributed to room-temperature ballistic transport, is the denominator that makes the record MR ratio large.

What would settle it

Re-measure the same device at Vg = −7 V with a current-reversal or second lock-in technique and report Rmin with an uncertainty; a true zero-field resistance above about 0.05 Ω would cut the headline MR to below 2×$10^{7}$%, while a value near 0.02 Ω would confirm the record.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a small encapsulated-graphene EMR device with a metal shunt reaches a room-temperature magnetoresistance of more than 4.6×$10^{7}$% at 9 T that is still not saturated, the largest MR reported for any EMR device. The same devices, measured two-terminally as a series of three, give a magnetic-field sensitivity dR/dB of 104 kΩ/T at about −0.2 T near the charge neutrality point, exceeding the previous encapsulated-graphene EMR record by more than 300% and matching the best graphene Hall sensors at 4.2 K. The paper also claims that daisy-chaining N identical EMR devices scales the sensitivity linearly as N dR/dB, improves the signal-to-noise ratio as √N, and reduces the noise-equivalent field as 1/√N, with finite-element simulations supporting the linear scaling. On the physics side, it claims that Fermi-level pinning at the metal-graphene edge contact changes the local conductivity and mobility, and that a simplified two-region model with an inner, more conductive FLP region fits the measured resistance traces far better than a uniform model.

Load-bearing premise

The headline magnetoresistance divides by a measured zero-field resistance Rmin ≈ 0.02 Ω; if the true zero-field resistance is larger because of noise-floor, contact, or lead offsets, the 4.6×$10^{7}$% ratio shrinks sharply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A meander-shaped chain of 10^2–10^3 EMR devices can be packed into 0.5×0.5 mm^2 and yield sensitivities and signal-to-noise ratios orders of magnitude above a single device, with noise-equivalent field reduced by 1/√N.
  • Room-temperature graphene EMR sensors could replace cryogenic Hall sensors in applications such as magnetic navigation, electromagnetic non-destructive testing, and detection of weak neural or brain magnetic fields.
  • Operating near the charge neutrality point maximizes sensitivity because carrier density is lowest and mobility is highest there, a direct design rule for EMR magnetometry.
  • The EMR geometry, with current flowing along the metal-graphene interface, is sensitive to Fermi-level pinning and therefore offers a platform for studying metal-induced doping in two-dimensional materials.
  • For the MR record, the tiny Rmin attributed to room-temperature ballistic transport suggests that even higher MR could be reached in higher-quality or smaller devices, though the sign of the ballistic contribution to sensitivity remains open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An obvious next experiment is to measure Rmin with current reversal and a calibrated uncertainty budget: the headline MR ratio is inversely proportional to this value, so bounding it tightly would strengthen or soften the record claim.
  • The daisy-chain scaling assumes identical devices and negligible inter-device coupling; testing chains of 10, 100, and 1000 meandered devices would reveal whether contact resistance or current redistribution eventually saturates the linear gain.
  • The FLP two-region model is a simplified average; a more direct test would compare edge-contact and surface-contact devices, or use local resistance probes near the shunt edge, to see whether the inferred inner-region conductivity is real.
  • The EMR geometry could be used to map Fermi-level pinning in other two-dimensional materials and metal combinations, since the current hugs the metal shunt and amplifies near-interface effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports room-temperature extraordinary magnetoresistance (EMR) measurements on monolayer graphene encapsulated in h-BN, in devices that are electrically daisy-chained. The authors claim a record magnetoresistance of 4.6 × 10^7% at 9 T (4-terminal), a two-terminal sensitivity dR/dB of 104 kΩ/T near B = -0.2 T, a linear scaling of sensitivity with the number of series-connected EMR devices, and evidence for metal-contact-induced Fermi-level pinning from two-region finite-element simulations. The paper includes experimental methods, appendices with additional data, and a discussion of limitations, including an explicit statement that the FEM model does not support ballistic transport and that all simulations fail to reproduce the near-zero-field resistance.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive scrutiny, the reported room-temperature sensitivity would be a practical advance for graphene-based magnetometry, and the daisy-chain idea is a simple but potentially useful engineering route. The paper is careful in some respects: it performs both 2- and 4-terminal measurements, includes three devices, provides simulation details, and acknowledges that ballistic transport is not modeled. However, the headline MR record rests on an extremely small, uncharacterized denominator (Rmin ≈ 0.02 Ω), and the FLP interpretation is a manual fit to the very data it purports to explain. The sensitivity claim is less fragile than the MR claim, but it also lacks error bars and a documented differentiation procedure. The paper therefore has real potential, but its central quantitative statements are not currently supported to the standard of a journal publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experiment, Figure 1(d), Eq. (1)] The record MR value of 4.6 × 10^7% rests entirely on the denominator Rmin ≈ 0.02 Ω, but no uncertainty, calibration, or current-dependence check is provided for this value. The statement that Rmin 'can be accurately detected by a long measurement time to average out noise' does not rule out a systematic offset from the lock-in amplifier, contact or lead contributions, or a finite-field minimum rather than the zero-field R0. Because MR = [R(B) - Rmin]/Rmin ≈ R(9T)/Rmin, an absolute error of +0.01 Ω halves the claimed value, and +0.1 Ω reduces it below the 10^7% record cited from Ref. [6]. Moreover, the paper's own FLP simulation (inset of Fig. 4(a), p. 11) reports Rmin = 0.41 Ω and explicitly states that all simulations fail to reproduce the near-zero-field resistance, so the denominator is not explained by the model. Please provide a quantitative uncertainty budget for Rmin, including lock-in offset calibration, contact-resistance tests, repeated measurements, and a check that Rmin is not a noise-floor artifact. Without this, the headline record claim is not supported.
  2. [Fermi level pinning, Figure 4(c), Methods 3] The FLP conclusion is based on a manual fit with two ad hoc conductivity regions (σ_out, μ_out, σ_in, μ_in, w_FLP), and the text states the fits were obtained by 'inspecting the similarity after extensive parameter sweeps.' No fit metric or parameter uncertainty is given, and the paper concedes that all simulations fail to capture the small resistance near zero field. This makes the FLP interpretation a qualitative suggestion rather than a validated model. Please quantify the goodness of fit (e.g., a chi-square or residual metric over the B range), report parameter covariances or at least plausible ranges, and test the model on data not used in the fitting, such as a different gate voltage from Fig. 1(b) or the middle device. Until then, the claim that FLP is 'evidenced' is overstated.
  3. [The highest room temperature sensitivity, Figure 2] The principal sensitivity claim (104 kΩ/T near B = -0.2 T) is reported without error bars or a description of how dR/dB was numerically evaluated from the R(B) data. The peak sits at a slope-change ('critical point') where finite-difference estimates are particularly noise-sensitive, and the paper does not state the field step, smoothing, or number of sweeps. Please specify the differentiation procedure, report confidence intervals, and show that the peak value is robust to the analysis choices (e.g., field binning, finite-difference order, or smoothing). This is needed to substantiate the statement that the room-temperature sensitivity is comparable to state-of-the-art graphene Hall sensors at 4.2 K.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'graphehe' (p. 11), 'calcuations' (p. 7), 'indentical' (p. 19), and garbled superscripts in the carrier-density conversion equation in Methods 1. The citation '[6,17][44]' in the Experiment section appears malformed.
  2. [Equation (2) and (3)] The variables V and L in Eqs. (2) and (3) are not fully defined: V is presumably the input voltage and L the spacing of the current/voltage leads, but this should be stated explicitly when the symbols are first used.
  3. [Arbitrarily high sensitivity by daisy chaining devices] The paper correctly notes that dR_N/dB = N dR_1/dB follows trivially for series resistors, but the presentation could be tightened to distinguish this definitional scaling from the nontrivial part of the claim, which is the experimental/FEM demonstration that identical EMR devices in series preserve each device's current distribution.
  4. [Conclusion] The sentence 'The impact of metal-graphene contact-induced Fermi-level pinning on graphene properties and EMR behaviour is also very significant' is stronger than the evidence presented; consider rewording to reflect the tentative nature of the FLP interpretation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Daisy-chain sensitivity scaling is an algebraic identity for series resistors, and the Fermi-level-pinning 'evidence' comes from an in-sample fit; the headline MR and dR/dB records are independent measurements.

  1. self definitional [Simulations, Section 1: 'Arbitrarily high sensitivity by daisy chaining devices']
    "The higher sensitivity for N identical EMR devices connected in series follows trivially from dRN/dB = d(NR1)/dB = NdR/dB, where RN is the serial resistance of all N devices. The magnetoresistance, however, is not increased."

    RN is defined as the series sum NR1 of identical single-device resistances, so RN=NR1 and hence dRN/dB=N dR1/dB are algebraic identities following from the series-resistor definition, not consequences of EMR physics. The later claim that '1000 times enhancement in sensitivity could be reached in 1000 daisy-chained devices' is the same definitional scaling. The only non-definitional content is the FEM check that the devices are approximately identical and series-connected; the sensitivity multiplication itself is forced by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Simulations, Section 2: 'Fermi level pinning']
    "The fitting with experiment data was carried out manually by inspecting of the similarity after extensive parameter sweeps of conductivity and carrier mobility."

    The conductivity and mobility of the inner FLP region and the outer graphene are manually adjusted until the simulated resistance traces match the same experimental R(B) data from which the FLP conclusion is drawn. The simulation is therefore not an independent test of Fermi-level pinning: its agreement is manufactured by fitting the target data. The improved in-sample fit over the no-FLP model adds free parameters, so the better agreement is statistically expected and does not constitute independent evidence that metal-contact-induced Fermi-level pinning is present.

full rationale

The headline experimental claims, the 4.6e7% magnetoresistance and the 104 kOhm/T sensitivity, are direct measurements rather than model outputs, so they do not reduce to fitted inputs; the fragility of the 0.02 Ohm Rmin denominator is a measurement-uncertainty concern, not a circularity. The Fermi-level pinning section is a manual in-sample fit, and using that fit as evidence for FLP is circular in the sense that the model was tuned to the same data it is claimed to explain; the paper's own admission that 'all simulations fail to capture the small resistance near zero field' further shows the model does not independently reproduce the measured behavior. The daisy-chain sensitivity scaling is explicitly an identity for series resistors and is presented as a demonstrated route to 'arbitrarily high sensitivity,' which is definitionally true rather than a derived result. These are partial circularities: the measured record values remain independent, while two supporting sub-claims reduce to construction or in-sample fitting.

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

The central experimental records stand on measurement, while the FLP interpretation introduces several manually fitted parameters and an ad hoc two-region model. The daisy-chaining result is a trivial series-resistance identity and requires no new entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Outer-region graphene conductivity (σ_out) = 3.48×10^6 S/m (optimal1); 3.66×10^6 S/m (optimal2)
    Manually fitted to match experimental resistance vs B traces in Figure 4(c).
  • Outer-region graphene mobility (μ_out) = 10000 cm²/Vs (optimal1); 8500 cm²/Vs (optimal2)
    Manually fitted alongside σ_out in the two-region FLP model.
  • Inner FLP-region graphene conductivity (σ_in) = 1.74×10^7 S/m (optimal1); 2.44×10^7 S/m (optimal2)
    Manually fitted to represent Fermi-level-pinned graphene near the metal shunt.
  • Inner FLP-region graphene mobility (μ_in) = 30000 cm²/Vs (optimal1 and optimal2)
    Manually fitted for the inner FLP region.
  • FLP region width (w_FLP) = 0.5 μm fixed; best-fit radius r_FLP = 2-2.25 μm
    Width fixed at 0.5 μm; outer radius varied to fit the data, with best values 2-2.25 μm.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Classical drift-diffusion finite-element simulation describes the device magnetotransport.
    Used in COMSOL simulations; ballistic contributions are not supported and the paper notes all simulations fail to capture near-zero-field resistance (Methods section, 'FEM and tight binding').
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform conductivity in each of two graphene regions (FLP and non-FLP) with a sharp boundary.
    Simplified model for FLP, chosen for a reduced number of fitting parameters; the paper states 'we use the simplest possible model' (Simulations, Fermi level pinning section).
  • domain assumption Zero-field resistance Rmin ≈ 0.02 Ω is attributed to room-temperature ballistic transport.
    Relies on prior work [6,9,10]; the FEM model cannot reproduce it, and the paper acknowledges this (Simulations, Fermi level pinning section).
  • domain assumption Contact resistance is independent of magnetic field.
    Used to justify that 2-terminal dR/dB reflects the graphene response; contact resistances of terminals 5, 8, 11, 12 were measured in the 1-3 kΩ range (Appendix G).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extraordinary magnetoresistance in high-quality graphene devices with daisy chains and Fermi-level pinning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IDQTE6N4

@misc{pith2026241113075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extraordinary magnetoresistance in high-quality graphene devices with daisy chains and Fermi-level pinning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IDQTE6N4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13075}
}
read the original abstract

We studied daisy-chained extraordinary magnetoresistance (EMR) devices based on high quality monolayer graphene encapsulated in hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) at room temperature. The largest magnetoresistance (MR) achieved in our devices is 4.6 x 10^7 %, the record for EMR devices to date. The magnetic field sensitivity, dR/dB, reaches 104 kohm/T, exceeding the previous record set by encapsulated graphene by more than 300 %, and is comparable with state-of-the-art graphene Hall sensors at cryogenic temperatures (4.2 K). We demonstrate that daisy chaining multiple EMR devices is a new way to reach arbitrarily high sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio, and extremely small noise equivalent field for weak magnetic field detection. Finally, we show the evidence of metal contact-induced Fermi-level pinning in the sample and its influence on graphene properties, current distribution and EMR performance. We highlight the EMR geometry as an interesting alternative to the Hall geometry for fundamental physics studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13075 by the authors.

Figure 7
Figure 7. Near-zero-resistance range of resistance R as a function of magnetic field B at different gate voltages Vg from 4- terminal measurements corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Each EMR device has an outer diameter of 6.02 um and an inner diameter of 3.05 um

    Simulation details for daisy chaining We use the commonly-used metal gold in this model based on ref [3,5] to show more generic results. Each EMR device has an outer diameter of 6.02 um and an inner diameter of 3.05 um. The mobility, carrier density and conductivity (;n;) of the graphene and gold shunt are (0.7 m2/Vs ; 1.03 × 1025 m−3; 1.15 × 106 S/m) a...

    work page

  2. [1]

    All three samples were electron-doped with charge neutrality points (CNPs) close to − 9 V

    High record of magnetoresistance and charge neutrality points Figure 1(a) shows the room-temperature zero-field four-terminal resistance of the three devices, with the current flowing through all three devices from terminals 3 to 9 (the leftmost probe to the rightmost probe) via the two large connecting electrodes. All three samples were electron-doped wi...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Figure 2(a) shows the room-temperature serial resistance of all three devices as a function of B and Vg, measured in the 2-terminal configuration at terminals 3 and 9

    The highest room temperature sensitivity As previously reported [6,21], the 2-terminal sensitivity can be more than one order of magnitude larger than the 4-terminal sensitivity for the same EMR device. Figure 2(a) shows the room-temperature serial resistance of all three devices as a function of B and Vg, measured in the 2-terminal configuration at termi...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Arbitrarily high sensitivity by daisy chaining devices Since the 2-terminal sensitivity of three-device configuration is significantly higher than that of a single device (Appendix G), we consider the possibility of enhancement of sensitivity when daisy-chaining three EMR devices. In the simplest case, the resistance of three serially connected identical ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    optimal1

    Fermi level pinning Compared to conventional MR traces of semiconductor devices that tend to be parabolic below medium field [3], the resistance traces of encapsulated graphene EMR devices generally exhibit additional features and each seems to be the combination of two traces with different slopes, as clear from the experimental data for 𝑉𝑔 = −11 V (blac...

    work page

  6. [5]

    The hBN- graphene-hBN stacks were placed on highly p-doped Si substrates with a 300 nm thick SiO2 layer on top

    Experiment details The devices were manufactured from mechanically exfoliated monolayer graphene encapsulated in 30 nm thick hBN flakes using a dry-transfer technique [20]. The hBN- graphene-hBN stacks were placed on highly p-doped Si substrates with a 300 nm thick SiO2 layer on top. The device geometry was defined by electron beam lithography (EBL) follo...

    work page

  7. [7]

    optimal1

    Simulation details for FLP For this model, we use the metal aluminum for accuracy. The precise geometry of the three devices shown in the inset of Figure 1(a) was traced in CleWin5 and then imported into COMSOL (Figure 4(a)). The central metal is aluminum with carrier mobility and conductivity set to 0.0012 m²/(V·s) and 97.886 10 S/m . The conductivity f...

    work page

  8. [8]

    FEM and tight binding 15 The ballistic transport is not supported in our model of finite-element simulations. The idea of ballistic transport as an addition to the conventional EMR mechanism is an intriguing idea, as it is not clear whether an increasing ballistic contribution expected for higher quality samples or smaller-size EMR devices would lead to a...

    work page

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    W. F. Egelhoff et al., Magnetoresistance values exceeding 21% in symmetric spin valves, J Appl Phys 78, 273 (1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    S. Jin, M. McCormack, T. H. Tiefel, and R. Ramesh, Colossal magnetoresistance in La-Ca-Mn-O ferromagnetic thin films (invited), J Appl Phys 76, 6929 (1994)

    1994

  3. [11]

    S. A. Solin, T. Thio, D. R. Hines, and J. J. Heremans, Enhanced room-temperature geometric magnetoresistance in inhomogeneous narrow-gap semiconductors, Science (1979) 289, 1530 (2000)

    1979

  4. [12]

    S. A. Solin and T. Zhou, Extraordinary Magnetoresistance of an Off-Center van Der Pauw Disk, in (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    T. H. Hewett and F. V. Kusmartsev, Extraordinary magnetoresistance: Sensing the future, Central European Journal of Physics 10, 602 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    B. Zhou, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and E. A. Henriksen, Extraordinary magnetoresistance in encapsulated monolayer graphene devices, Appl Phys Lett 116, 053102 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    J. Lu, H. Zhang, W. Shi, Z. Wang, Y. Zheng, T. Zhang, N. Wang, Z. Tang, and P. Sheng, Graphene magnetoresistance device in van der pauw geometry, Nano Lett 11, 2973 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    T. H. Hewett and F. V. Kusmartsev, Geometrically enhanced extraordinary magnetoresistance in semiconductor-metal hybrids, Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 82, 212404 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    A. S. Mayorov et al., Micrometer-scale ballistic transport in encapsulated graphene at room temperature, Nano Lett 11, 2396 (2011). 22

    2011

  10. [18]

    Banszerus, M

    L. Banszerus, M. Schmitz, S. Engels, M. Goldsche, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Beschoten, and C. Stampfer, Ballistic Transport Exceeding 28 Um in CVD Grown Graphene, Nano letters

  11. [19]

    S. H. Bickel, Small signal compensation of magnetic fields resulting from aircraft maneuvers, IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst AES-15, (1979)

    1979

  12. [20]

    L. Tian, Z. Wang, W. Liu, Y. Cheng, F. E. Alsaadi, and X. Liu, An improved generative adversarial network with modified loss function for crack detection in electromagnetic nondestructive testing, Complex and Intelligent Systems 8, 467 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Isakovic, I

    J. Isakovic, I. Dobbs-dixon, D. Chaudhury, and D. Mitrecic, Modeling of inhomogeneous electromagnetic fields in the nervous system : a novel paradigm in understanding cell interactions , disease etiology and therapy, Sci Rep 1 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Drung, C

    D. Drung, C. Aßmann, J. Beyer, A. Kirste, M. Peters, F. Ruede, and T. Schurig, Highly Sensitive and Easy-to-Use SQUID Sensors, 17, 699 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    M. J. Brookes, J. Leggett, M. Rea, R. M. Hill, N. Holmes, E. Boto, and R. Bowtell, Neurosciences Magnetoencephalography with optically pumped magnetometers ( OPM-MEG ): the next generation of functional neuroimaging, Trends Neurosci 45, 621 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    B. T. Schaefer, L. Wang, A. Jarjour, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. L. McEuen, and K. C. Nowack, Magnetic field detection limits for ultraclean graphene Hall sensors, Nat Commun 11, 4163 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    L. Wang, P. Makk, S. Zihlmann, A. Baumgartner, D. I. Indolese, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and C. Schönenberger, Mobility Enhancement in Graphene by in situ Reduction of Random Strain Fluctuations, Phys Rev Lett 124, 157701 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    G. Song, M. Ranjbar, and R. A. Kiehl, Operation of graphene magnetic field sensors near the charge neutrality point, Commun Phys 2, 65 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Collomb, P

    D. Collomb, P. Li, and S. Bending, Frontiers of Graphene-Based Hall-Effect Sensors, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter

  20. [28]

    Wang et al., One-dimensional electrical contact to a two-dimensional material, Science (1979) 342, 614 (2013)

    L. Wang et al., One-dimensional electrical contact to a two-dimensional material, Science (1979) 342, 614 (2013). 23

    1979

  21. [29]

    J. Sun, C. P. Gooneratne, and J. Kosel, Design Study of a Bar-Type EMR Device, in IEEE Sensors Journal, Vol. 12 (2012), pp. 1356–1360

    2012

  22. [30]

    Dauber, A

    J. Dauber, A. A. Sagade, M. Oellers, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Neumaier, and C. Stampfer, Ultra-sensitive Hall sensors based on graphene encapsulated in hexagonal boron nitride, Appl Phys Lett 106, 193501 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Poirier and F

    W. Poirier and F. Schopfer, Resistance Metrology Based on the Quantum Hall Effect, European Physical Journal: Special Topics

  24. [32]

    Poirier, A

    W. Poirier, A. Bounouh, F. Piquemal, and J. P. André, A new generation of QHARS: Discussion about the technical criteria for quantization, Metrologia 41, 285 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Ortolano and L

    M. Ortolano and L. Callegaro, Matrix method analysis of quantum Hall effect device connections, Metrologia 49, 1 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Delahaye, Series and parallel connection of multiterminal quantum Hall-effect devices, J Appl Phys 73, 7914 (1993)

    F. Delahaye, Series and parallel connection of multiterminal quantum Hall-effect devices, J Appl Phys 73, 7914 (1993)

    1993

  27. [35]

    Woszczyna, M

    M. Woszczyna, M. Friedemann, T. Dziomba, T. Weimann, and F. J. Ahlers, Graphene p-n junction arrays as quantum-Hall resistance standards, Appl Phys Lett 99, 022112 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    El-Ahmar, W

    S. El-Ahmar, W. Koczorowski, A. A. Poźniak, P. Kuświk, W. Strupiński, and R. Czajka, Graphene-based magnetoresistance device utilizing strip pattern geometry, Appl Phys Lett 110, 043503 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Y. Shao, S. A. Solin, L. R. Ram-Mohan, and K. H. Yoo, Optimizing the physical contribution to the sensitivity and signal to noise ratio of extraordinary magnetoresistance quantum well structures, J Appl Phys 101, 123704 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    S. A. Solin, D. R. Hines, A. C. H. Rowe, J. S. Tsai, and Y. A. Pashkin, Nanoscopic magnetic field sensor based on extraordinary magnetoresistance, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing, Measurement, and Phenomena 21, 3002 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    S. A. Solin, Design and Properties of a scanning EMR probe Microscope, ArXiv:Cond-Mat/0602146 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    X. Liu, M. S. Choi, E. Hwang, W. J. Yoo, and J. Sun, Fermi Level Pinning Dependent 2D Semiconductor Devices: Challenges and Prospects, Advanced Materials. 24

  33. [41]

    P. A. Khomyakov, G. Giovannetti, P. C. Rusu, G. Brocks, J. Van Den Brink, and P. J. Kelly, First-principles study of the interaction and charge transfer between graphene and metals, Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 79, 195425 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    F. Xia, V. Perebeinos, Y. M. Lin, Y. Wu, and P. Avouris, The origins and limits of metal-graphene junction resistance, Nat Nanotechnol 6, 179 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Di Bartolomeo, S

    A. Di Bartolomeo, S. Santandrea, F. Giubileo, F. Romeo, M. Petrosino, R. Citro, P. Barbara, G. Lupina, T. Schroeder, and A. Rubino, Effect of back-gate on contact resistance and on channel conductance in graphene-based field-effect transistors, Diam Relat Mater 38, 19 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    S. M. Song, J. K. Park, O. J. Sul, and B. J. Cho, Determination of work function of graphene under a metal electrode and its role in contact resistance, Nano Lett 12, 3887 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    A. L. Friedman, J. T. Robinson, F. K. Perkins, and P. M. Campbell, Extraordinary magnetoresistance in shunted chemical vapor deposition grown graphene devices, Appl Phys Lett 99, 022108 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    end-contacted

    Y. Matsuda, W. Q. Deng, and W. A. Goddard, Contact resistance for “end-contacted” metal-graphene and metal-nanotube interfaces from quantum mechanics, Journal of Physical Chemistry C 114, 17845 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Gao and J

    Q. Gao and J. Guo, Role of chemical termination in edge contact to graphene, APL Mater 2, 056105 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    KLOKHOLM E, Intrinsic Stress in Evaporated Metal Films, J Vacuum Science & Technology 6, 138 (1969)

    1969

  41. [49]

    X. Miao, S. Tongay, and A. F. Hebard, Strain-induced suppression of weak localization in CVD-grown graphene, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter 24, 475304 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    N. J. G. Couto, D. Costanzo, S. Engels, D. K. Ki, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Stampfer, F. Guinea, and A. F. Morpurgo, Random strain fluctuations as dominant disorder source for high-quality on-substrate graphene devices, Phys Rev X 4, 041019 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Bøggild, J

    P. Bøggild, J. M. Caridad, C. Stampfer, G. Calogero, N. R. Papior, and M. Brandbyge, A two-dimensional Dirac fermion microscope, Nat Commun 8, 15783 (2017). 25

    2017

  44. [52]

    Extraordinary Magnetoresistance in Encapsulated Graphene Devices

    Zhou, Bowen, "Extraordinary Magnetoresistance in Encapsulated Graphene Devices" (2019). Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1801. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds/1801

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.