Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Giant Enhancement of Phonon Electron Coupling in Graphene under Femtosecond Laser Heating at Room Temperature

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that adding thermal lag and phonon-branch resolution to the two-temperature model makes graphene's hot electrons cool below the lattice temperature within 450 femtoseconds after a 190 fs laser pulse, a wave-like effect…

desk verdict The central equation is not derived correctly and the ZA coupling is internally inconsistent, so the wave-like cooling claims are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07114 v1 pith:NWV4AD7M submitted 2025-06-08 cond-mat.mes-hall

Houssem Rezgui This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords graphenefemtosecondlaserheatingelectron-phononcouplingtwo-temperaturemodelCattaneo-Vernottethermallagultrafastheattransportphononbranches
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 proposes an extended temperature model (ETM) for graphene under femtosecond laser heating that combines the Cattaneo–Vernotte delayed heat-flux law with a two-temperature energy balance resolved into three acoustic phonon branches (LA, TA, ZA). The model predicts that a 190 fs laser pulse heats electrons to about 1000 K, after which the electron population cools by phonon emission on a roughly 450 fs timescale, with the longitudinal acoustic branch dominating the energy transfer. In the ETM, the electron temperature briefly dips below the LA phonon temperature and exhibits wave-like oscillations reminiscent of second sound; the standard two-temperature model shows neither effect. The paper argues that branch-resolved coupling and thermal lag are necessary to capture ultrafast cooling in graphene.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Extended Temperature Model (ETM): a set of hyperbolic heat equations, one for the electron temperature and one for each acoustic phonon branch (LA, TA, ZA), formed by combining the Cattaneo–Vernotte delayed heat-flux law, $q+\tau\partial q/\partial t=-\kappa\nabla T$, with the two-temperature energy balance that includes normal ($G^{n}_{ep}$), supercollision ($G^{SC}_{ep}$), and phonon–phonon ($G_{pp}$) couplings. The lag times $\tau_e$ and $\tau_{p,i}$ convert the parabolic TTM into a hyperbolic system, which is what produces the wave-like temperature oscillations and the electron undercooling. The model also uses a lattice reservoir $T_{lat}$ to conserve energy among phonon branches.

What would settle it

Compute the divergence of the Cattaneo–Vernotte law with the full energy balance and check whether $-\tau_e C_e^{-1} \sum_i G_{ep,i}\,\partial_t(T_e-T_{p,i})$ is negligible compared with the retained coupling terms at the parameters of Table 2; if it is not, the predicted below-lattice electron temperature is an artifact of the incomplete equation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the standard two-temperature model (TTM) misses the dominant ultrafast cooling channel in graphene because it lumps all phonons into one reservoir and assumes instantaneous heat flux. The extended temperature model (ETM) assigns separate temperatures to electrons and to the LA, TA, and ZA phonon branches, and adds Cattaneo–Vernotte lag times so that heat propagates as a damped wave. With this model, the paper reports that after a 190 fs pulse the electron temperature falls below the LA phonon temperature on a ~450 fs timescale, with LA coupling producing a ~180 fs cooling time to 254 K while TA and ZA produce ~80 fs cooling. The wave-like electron-temperature oscillations weaken as pulse width increases, marking a crossover from wave-dominated to diffusion-dominated cooling that the TTM cannot reproduce.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the model's equations from the delayed heat-flow law and energy balance assumes that the electron–phonon coupling terms remain unchanged; if extra time-derivative terms appear and are not negligible, the predicted wave-like cooling is an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a 190 fs pump, the ETM predicts the electron temperature falls below the LA phonon temperature within roughly 450 fs, a signature the standard TTM cannot show.
  • The predicted cooling time depends on which phonon branch carries the coupling: ~180 fs for LA (reaching 254 K) versus ~80 fs for TA and ZA.
  • Wave-like electron-temperature oscillations weaken as the laser pulse lengthens, indicating a crossover from wave-dominated to diffusion-dominated cooling dynamics.
  • Phonon branches thermalize with each other at about 1.5 ps, with LA temperature overshooting before energy redistributes to TA and ZA.
  • Higher peak electron temperatures produce stronger wave-like transport, implying more efficient carrier cooling at higher excitation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental test would be a time-resolved probe (e.g., transient reflectivity or photoemission) of suspended graphene at room temperature after a 190 fs pump: the model predicts a dip in the electron temperature below the lattice around 450 fs.
  • The derivation of the ETM's electron equation appears to omit a term proportional to $\partial_t[\sum_i G_{ep,i}(T_e-T_{p,i})]$ that arises when the divergence of the Cattaneo–Vernotte law is combined with the energy balance; the magnitude of this term at the paper's parameters determines whether the predicted undercooling survives.
  • A consistency check between the near-zero ZA coupling in Table 2 and the reported ZA temperature dynamics would clarify whether the branch-resolved parameter set is internally consistent.
  • Applying the same ETM to optical phonon branches would connect this framework to three-temperature models used for graphite and could unify the two approaches.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an Extended Temperature Model (ETM) for ultrafast thermal transport in graphene under femtosecond laser excitation. The ETM combines Cattaneo–Vernotte (CV) heat-flux relaxation with a phonon-branch-resolved two-temperature model, including normal and supercollision electron–phonon coupling and phonon–phonon coupling to a lattice reservoir. The equations are solved numerically with COMSOL for a 60 nm × 160 nm graphene sheet. The authors report transient non-equilibrium among LA, TA, and ZA phonon branches, electron cooling on sub-picosecond timescales, wave-like electron temperature behavior, and an electron temperature undershoot below the phonon temperature, all of which they claim the classical two-temperature model cannot capture.

Significance. If the model and simulations were correct, the paper would offer a useful extension of the two-temperature model by combining branch-resolved electron–phonon coupling with thermal-lag effects, potentially relevant for interpreting ultrafast pump–probe experiments in graphene. The parameter set is taken from published first-principles calculations, and the reported cooling times are genuine model outputs rather than fits to the claimed effect. However, the central equation is derived incorrectly, and there are internal inconsistencies between the stated parameters and the reported simulations. Because all qualitative conclusions—wave-like cooling, electron undershoot, LA dominance—rest on numerical solutions of this incorrect equation, the significance of the results as presented is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Extended temperature model, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) does not follow from Eqs. (1) and (2) by combining them as stated. Taking the divergence of the Cattaneo–Vernotte law and substituting the energy balance yields, for the electrons, ∂Te/∂t + τ_e ∂²Te/∂t² = (κ_e/C_e)∇²Te − S_e/C_e − (τ_e/C_e)∂S_e/∂t, with S_e = Σ_i G_ep,i(Te − Tp,i), and for each phonon branch an analogous term −(τ_p,i/C_p,i)∂A_i/∂t, where A_i = G_ep,i(Te − Tp,i) + G_pp,i(Tlat − Tp,i). Equation (4) omits both source-relaxation terms. This omission is not benign: using Table 2, τ_e G_ep,LA/C_e ≈ (0.45 ps)(100 TW/m³K)/(0.00036 MJ/m³K) ≈ 0.125 and τ_p,LA G_pp,LA/C_p,LA ≈ (70.8 ps)(2700 TW/m³K)/(0.19 MJ/m³K) ≈ 1.0, so the missing terms are comparable in size to the retained coupling terms. Since all reported cooling curves, undershoots, and branch-resolved results in Figs. 2–4 and S2–S4 are numerical solutions of Eq. (4), the central claims are not supported by the stated model.
  2. [Table 2 and Fig. 3(c)] The parameter set is internally inconsistent with the reported simulations. Table 2 lists G^n_ep,ZA = 0 and G^SC_ep,ZA = 0, hence G_ep,ZA = 0, but Fig. 3(c) shows a distinct electron cooling curve labelled 'e-p ZA coupling, ETM' that reaches T = 277 K. With zero electron–ZA coupling, the electron temperature is unaffected by the ZA branch, so such a cooling curve cannot arise. Either the table or the simulation/legend is incorrect, and the branch-resolved conclusions based on these curves are unreliable.
  3. [Title and abstract: 'Giant Enhancement'] The title and abstract claim a 'Giant Enhancement' of phonon–electron coupling, but the manuscript provides no quantitative comparison to any baseline. Table 1 quotes a total graphene G of 1.59–3.1 × 10^15 W/m³K, whereas summing the Table 2 branch-resolved values gives approximately 1 × 10^14 W/m³K for LA and 1 × 10^12 W/m³K for TA (with ZA zero), i.e., about one to three orders of magnitude smaller. The paper should specify what quantity is enhanced relative to what reference; as written, the central claim of the title is unsupported.
  4. [Laser pulse implementation, Eqs. (2) and (4)] The model equations contain no laser source term, yet the text states that a Gaussian pulse with FWHM 190 fs or 381 fs is applied at the boundary and that electrons are heated to ΔTmax = 1000 K. The supplementary material does not provide the boundary condition or volumetric source used in the COMSOL implementation. Because the claimed 450 fs cooling time and the pulse-width dependence in Fig. S3 depend on how the pulse energy is deposited, the setup is not fully specified and the reported dynamics cannot be reproduced or evaluated independently.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and main text, cooling times] The abstract quotes a '450 fs' cooling timescale, while the main text reports cooling times of approximately 180 fs for e-pLA and 80 fs for e-pTA and e-pZA; these numbers should be reconciled or clarified.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The notation ∇∇T should be written as ∇²T for clarity.
  3. [Table 2 and text near Eq. (2)] The sentence 'we define a phonon-electron coupling factor, G_ep,i = G^n_ep,i + G^SC_ep,i, which allows for direct energy transfer between phonon branches' is misleading: G_ep is an electron–phonon coupling, not a phonon–phonon coupling.
  4. [Table 1] The entry for graphene '1.59− 3.1× 10^15' should use a standard range notation, e.g., '1.59–3.1 × 10^15', and specify the units clearly.
  5. [Supplementary Material, Fig. S3] The caption for Fig. S3 lists panel (c) as 'FWHM = 380 fs' in the text but the main text refers to 381 fs; the inconsistency should be fixed.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

ETM Eq. (4) is claimed to be 'derived by combining' Eqs. (1)-(2) but omits the source-relaxation terms that the combination produces; the LA-dominance cooling 'prediction' restates the input G_ep hierarchy from Ref. [9]; solver validation is self-cited to Refs. [32,52].

  1. other [Main text, paragraph introducing Eq. (4): 'The extended temperature model (ETM) can be derived by combining equations (1) and (2):' (Eq. (4) vs Eqs. (1)-(2))]
    "The extended temperature model (ETM) can be derived by combining equations (1) and (2): τe ∂2Te/∂t2 + ∂Te/∂t = κe/Ce ∇∇Te − Gn ep,i/Ce (Te−Tp,i) − GSC ep,i/Ce (Te−Tp,i), ... τp,i ∂2Tp,i/∂t2 + ∂Tp,i/∂t = κp,i/Cp,i ∇∇Tp,i + Gn ep,i/Cp,i (Te−Tp,i) + GSC ep,i/Cp,i (Te−Tp,i) + Gpp,i/Cp,i (Tlat−Tp,i). (4)"

    Performing the stated combination exactly — taking ∇· of Eq. (1) and substituting Eq. (2) — adds −(τ_e/C_e)∂S_e/∂t to the electron equation, S_e = Σ_i G_ep,i(T_e−T_p,i), and +(τ_p,i/C_p,i)∂A_i/∂t to each phonon equation, A_i = G_ep,i(T_e−T_p,i)+G_pp,i(T_lat−T_p,i). Equation (4) omits both source-relaxation terms. With Table 2 values, τ_e G^n_LA/C_e = (0.45 ps)(100 TW m⁻³K⁻¹)/(0.00036 MJ m⁻³K⁻¹) ≈ 0.125 and τ_p,LA G_pp,LA/C_p,LA = (70.8 ps)(2700 TW m⁻³K⁻¹)/(0.19 MJ m⁻³K⁻¹) ≈ 1.0, i.e., same order as the retained coupling terms. The claimed derivation is therefore invalid and the load-bearing prediction chain (1)-(2) ⇒ (4) ⇒ wave-like cooling breaks at its first step: Eq. (4) is an ansatz whose hyperbolic operator injects the oscillatory behavior, so the headline cooling curves (Figs.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Table 2 (G_ep rows) and main text discussing Figs. 3(c)–4; particularly the sentences reporting T = 254 K (LA), 267.7 K (TA), 277 K (ZA)]
    "The thermal properties and the (e−p) coupling factors,Gep and Gpp are obtained from [9] and listed in Table 2 ... For electron-longitudinal acoustic phonon (e−pLA) interactions, the cooling time is approximately 180 fs reaches a temperature T = 254 K. ... As shown in Figure 3 (c), the lowest temperatures reached are T = 267.7 K for (e−pTA) and T = 277 K for (e−pZA)."

    No parameter is fitted to these minima, so the numbers are genuine outputs; but the qualitative conclusion — e−p LA coupling dominates electron cooling while ZA is negligible — is exactly the input G_ep hierarchy imported from Ref. [9]: Table 2 lists G^n_ep = 100, 1, 0 TW m⁻³K⁻¹ and G^SC_ep = 93.9, 413.6, 0 MW m⁻³K⁻¹ for LA, TA, ZA. The output ordering of cooling efficiency (deepest minimum 254 K for LA, shallowest 277 K for ZA) re-states this input ordering by construction, so the emphasized 'dominant role' of LA phonons is an input-encoding rather than an emergent prediction. The comparison is also inconsistent with its stated inputs: with both ZA couplings equal to zero, the reported 'e−p ZA coupling, ETM' curve reaching T = 277 K in Fig.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Main text, paragraph: 'Equation (4) is solved numerically using the finite element method within the COMSOL Multiphysics software [52].']
    "Equation (4) is solved numerically using the finite element method within the COMSOL Multiphysics software [52]. Here, our FEM solver is validated for several geometries against both theoretical and experimental data. A detailed description of the FEM solver, including its formulation and validation, is provided in our earlier works [32, 52]."

    Refs. [32] and [52] are the present author's own prior papers (ACS Omega 8, 26 (2023); J. Phys. D 58, 025110 (2024)). Every reported cooling curve, undershoot, and branch-resolved minimum is produced by a solver whose validation is asserted here only by self-citation, with no validation reproduced in this Letter. This is a genuine self-citation, but it is not the load-bearing core of the physics claim — the physical conclusions do not reduce to the solver details — so it contributes only mildly to the circularity score.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative headline numbers are not fitted: the coupling factors G_ep, G_pp, and relaxation times are imported from external first-principles references ([9], [50], [53]), and the reported cooling times (450 fs; 180 fs for LA, 80 fs for TA/ZA) and minima (254/267.7/277 K) are genuine numeric solutions of Eq. (4). That keeps this paper below a full fit-and-predict circle. The circularity-relevant findings are threefold. First, the central derivation claim — 'the ETM can be derived by combining equations (1) and (2)' — is incomplete: the correct combination produces −(τ_e/C_e)∂S_e/∂t and +(τ_p,i/C_p,i)∂A_i/∂t terms that Eq. (4) drops, and with Table 2 parameters these omitted terms are the same order as the retained coupling (≈0.125 and ≈1.0). Eq. (4) is thus an ansatz presented as a derivation, and the wave-like cooling behavior is a built-in property of the assumed hyperbolic operator rather than a consequence of the stated physics; this is a derivation gap more than classic input-output circularity, but it breaks the chain from the model premises to the central prediction. Second, the qualitative conclusion that LA phonons dominate electron cooling is pre-encoded in the input G_ep hierarchy (100/1/0 TW m⁻³K⁻¹ for LA/TA/ZA), so the ordering of cooling minima restates its own inputs; the reported 'e−p ZA' cooling curve (Fig. 3(c)) with zero ZA coupling in Table 2 is internally inconsistent. Third, solver validation is self-cited to Refs. [32,52] (both by the present author), which is minor because the physics content is independent of the solver details. Because the quantitative core retains independent content and no parameter is fitted to the claimed timescales, the score is 4 rather than 6+.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the central predictions rest on externally supplied material parameters, a questionable omission in the derivation, and an internal inconsistency in the ZA coupling. No genuinely new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Laser pulse width FWHM = 190 fs (short), 381 fs (long); also 200, 280, 320 fs in S3
    Hand-chosen simulation parameter; pulse width controls whether wave-like or diffusion-like cooling appears.
  • Peak electron temperature rise Delta Tmax = 1000 K (varied 100-800 K in S4)
    Defines excitation amplitude; the paper reports cooling dynamics depend on it, so it is a scenario parameter, not an output.
  • Laser spot radius Lh = 35 nm
    Chosen hotspot size; spatial localization of the heat pulse depends on it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Cattaneo-Vernotte relation in Eq. (1) is an accurate constitutive law for heat flux in graphene at 297 K under femtosecond pulses.
    The paper starts from the CV model without deriving or justifying it for this material and timescale; it assumes finite-speed heat propagation applies.
  • domain assumption Each acoustic phonon branch and the hot-electron gas can be assigned a distinct temperature described by the multitemporal model of Ref. [9].
    The ETM inherits the multitemp assumption that each branch is internally equilibrated, which may fail during the first tens of femtoseconds.
  • domain assumption The material parameters in Table 2, taken from Refs. [9,50,53], are valid for the simulated single-layer graphene at 297 K.
    The qualitative results, especially LA dominance, are set by these input values. The paper does not recompute or validate them for its geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper The time-derivative terms arising from combining the CV law with the energy balance are negligible, so Eq. (4) is a valid model.
    A complete derivation adds terms like -(tau_e/C_e) d(sum G_i(Te-Tp,i))/dt to Eq. (4); the paper neither includes nor justifies dropping them.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic boundaries are appropriate for observing ultrafast lattice cooling.
    The paper states this is essential to observe the effect but provides no sensitivity analysis or comparison with open-boundary conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper The model can produce electron-ZA cooling with G_ep,ZA = 0 as listed in Table 2.
    The text and Figure 3 report e-p ZA cooling times and temperature dips, which are inconsistent with the zero coupling constants in Table 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Giant Enhancement of Phonon Electron Coupling in Graphene under Femtosecond Laser Heating at Room Temperature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NWV4AD7M

@misc{pith2026250607114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Giant Enhancement of Phonon Electron Coupling in Graphene under Femtosecond Laser Heating at Room Temperature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NWV4AD7M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07114}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, phonon electron carrier dragging has emerged as an innovative approach for modulating energy transfer in low dimensional systems. In this Letter, we explore the fundamental mechanisms of electron-phonon coupling and the role of thermal lag behavior in ultrafast heat transport. We present a theoretical investigation of non-equilibrium thermal dynamics in graphene under femtosecond laser excitation, emphasizing the role of phonon branch-resolved electron phonon coupling. This framework provides new insight into ultrafast energy transfer processes at femtosecond timescales and illustrates key deviations from the predictions of the classical two temperature model (TTM), particularly in spatially localized heat transport. Our results show that a 190 fs laser pulse induces a strong non-equilibrium state, followed by momentum redistribution among the excited carriers. This is then followed by effective cooling of the carrier distribution on a 450 fs timescale through phonon emission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ultrafast laser irradiation interacting with the graphene material. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of the temperature profiles according to the ETM for a pulse width of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the (a) T TM and (b) ETM. Evolution of the temperature of hot￾electrons accroding to the ETM and TTM at Y = 20 nm for different pulse width (c) FW HM = 190 fs and (d) FW HM = 381 fs. of the LA phonons. A negative dip forms in the region heated by the laser pulse, causing the tem￾perature to drop below its initial value. This behav￾ior is characteristic of the electron gas, as it relaxes f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Transient nanoscale mapping of hot-electron temperature for a short pulse width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z. Lu, A. Vallabhaneni, B. Y. Cao, and X. Ruan, Phonon branch-resolved electron-phonon coupling and the multitemperature model, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134309 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Miao and M

    W. Miao and M. Wang, Non-equilibrium effects on electron-phonon coupling constant in metals, Phys. Rev. B 103, 125412 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Waldecker, R

    L. Waldecker, R. Bertoni, J. Vorberger, and R. Ernstorfer, Electron-phonon coupling and energy flow in a simple metal beyond the two-temperature approximation, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021003 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Habibi, A

    M. Habibi, A. Beardo, and L. Cui, Near-field thermal radiation as a probe of nanoscale hot electron and phonon transport, ACS Nano 19, 6 (2025). 8

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Becerril, A

    D. Becerril, A. Camacho de la Rosa, and R. Esquivel-Sirvent, Transient effects in the coupling of thermal radiation and non-Fourier heat transport at the nano-scale, J. Appl. Phys. , 134, 084301 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Novko and M

    D. Novko and M. Kralj, Phonon-assisted processes in the ultraviolet- transient optical response of graphene, npj 2D Materials and Applications 3, 48 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    B. Yang, B. Song, F. J. G. de Abajo, and Q. Dai, Ultrafast thermal switching enabled by transient polaritons, ACS Nano, 19, 1490–1498 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Chen, Non-Fourier phonon heat conduction at the microscale and nanoscale, Nat

    G. Chen, Non-Fourier phonon heat conduction at the microscale and nanoscale, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 555–569 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 14 references
  1. [9]

    Guo and M

    Y. Guo and M. Wang, Phonon hydrodynamics for nanoscale heat transport at ordinary temperatures, Phys. Rev. B 97, 035421 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    D. Y. Tzou, The generalized lagging response in small-scale and high-rate heating, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. , 38(17), 3231–3240 (1995)

    1995

  3. [11]

    Cattaneo, A form of heat conduction equation which eliminates the paradox of instantaneous propagation, C

    C. Cattaneo, A form of heat conduction equation which eliminates the paradox of instantaneous propagation, C. R. Acad. Sci. , 247, 431 (1958)

    1958

  4. [12]

    Vernotte, Les paradoxes de la th´ eorie continue de l’´ equation de la chaleur, C

    P. Vernotte, Les paradoxes de la th´ eorie continue de l’´ equation de la chaleur, C. R. Acad. Sci. , 246, 3154–3155 (1958)

    1958

  5. [13]

    Anisimov, B

    I. Anisimov, B. L. Kapeliovich, and T. L. Perel’man, Electron emission from metal surfaces exposed to ultrashort laser pulses, Zh. ´Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 66, 776 (1974)

    1974

  6. [14]

    Cepellotti, G

    A. Cepellotti, G. Fugallo, L. Paulatto, M. Lazzeri, F. Mauri, and N. Marzari, Phonon hydrodynamics in two-dimensional materials, Nat. Com- mun., 6, 6400 (2015). 9

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.