Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 85 references

Tunable Dot Platform for Controlling Electron Flow in Graphene

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 3x3 array of independently gated quantum dots in graphene can be tuned to redirect or split an incident electron beam into chosen angular ranges, with differential evolution finding the required gate settings.

desk verdict A new optimization-driven twist on graphene electron optics, soundly executed within its idealized model, but the device-level claims outrun what the simulations support. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01585 v1 pith:A4SJA6NF submitted 2025-07-02 cond-mat.mes-hall

Fereshte Ildarabadi , Stephen R. Power This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords tunabledotplatformgraphenequantumdotselectronopticsMiescatteringmultipledifferentialevolutionbeamsplitting
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 introduces a 'tunable dot platform' (TDP): a 3x3 array of circular gated quantum dots embedded in graphene, where each dot's potential can be set independently. It argues that, because the dots scatter massless Dirac electrons like tunable Mie scatterers, the array can be configured to steer an incident electron beam into a chosen angular range, or to split it between two ranges, producing asymmetric angle-dependent current patterns that a single dot cannot create. The central technical claim is that a differential evolution search over the nine dot potentials reliably finds configurations that maximize a fitness function measuring how much scattered current lands in the target angles, both in the far field and near a fixed radius. If correct, the TDP would be a reconfigurable, all-electrostatic building block for graphene electron optics: one device that can be reprogrammed in situ to deflect, split, or locally deliver current.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tunable dot platform itself: a 3x3 array of circular potential steps in graphene, each with an independently adjustable potential. The carrying mechanism is generalized Mie scattering for multiple dots: the wavefunction is expanded in angular momentum modes around every dot, Graf's addition theorem translates scattered waves between dot-centered reference frames, and matching boundary conditions at all nine edges produces a linear system of size $MN \times MN$ for the scattering coefficients. The far-field scattered current is then built from effective TDP coefficients $S_m$ as $j_{\mathrm{sc},r}(r\to\infty,\theta)=\frac{2\eta_0}{\pi k r}\sum_{m,n}S_m S_n^* e^{i(m-n)\theta}$, and differential evolution maximizes a fitness function that rewards scattered current inside the target angular range while penalizing current outside it.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be a full tight-binding or experimental measurement of the angular current pattern for one of the paper's optimized 3x3 configurations: if the scattered current does not show a pronounced peak in the target angular range, for example because intervalley scattering, disorder, or the finite width of a focused beam destroys the plane-wave Mie prediction, the central claim fails. A simpler numerical falsifier is to compute the same optimized configuration with a multi-valley or tight-binding solver and compare the resulting angular scattering to the generalized Mie result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a small, gate-defined array of quantum dots in graphene can act as a programmable scatterer whose angular response is shaped by the pattern of dot potentials. Using a generalized Mie-theory multiple-scattering calculation for single-valley Dirac fermions, the authors show that a uniform 3x3 TDP behaves essentially like one larger effective dot, whereas non-uniform potential patterns break the left-right symmetry and produce scattering lobes in directions determined by the configuration. They then invert the design problem with differential evolution: for targets such as a single angular window or two simultaneous windows, the algorithm converges to dot configurations whose far-field scattered current is concentrated in the desired directions, with comparable success for near-field current at a chosen radius. The paper claims this makes the TDP a reconfigurable electron optic component capable of beam deflection, beam splitting, and local current delivery, with the same optimization framework applicable to other geometries, wave profiles, and physical quantities.

Load-bearing premise

The single-valley Dirac plane-wave scattering model, truncated to a small number of angular momentum modes, correctly predicts the current flow that a real gated device would produce despite finite contacts, focused beams, disorder, and possible intervalley scattering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single TDP can be reprogrammed in situ by changing gate voltages, so one device can serve as a beam deflector, a beam splitter, or a near-field current source without changing its geometry.
  • Because all parameters enter through products like $kR$, an optimized configuration can be rescaled to dot sizes, energies, and voltages within current fabrication tolerances, as the authors note.
  • The optimization is not limited to far-field angles: the same fitness approach can concentrate current along a circle of fixed radius, which matters when a detector or probe sits close to the scattering region.
  • The method generalizes to other dot geometries, incident wave profiles, and target physical quantities, so the TDP concept is a starting point for a broader class of programmable electron optics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-valley plane-wave idealization is relaxed, intervalley scattering and short-range disorder would likely blur the optimized angular peaks; the same fitness-and-evolution scheme could be rerun with a multi-valley or tight-binding forward model to test how much directionality survives.
  • The authors' observation that near-field and far-field patterns can disagree implies that an 'optimized' configuration is only optimal for the specific detection geometry; a device designer would need to choose the fitness function to match where the current is actually measured.
  • The exponential growth of the configuration space with array size suggests differential evolution is doing real work here, and larger arrays or continuous potential landscapes could be explored with the same method, although convergence may become harder.
  • Pairing the TDP with gapped or bilayer graphene regions, as suggested in the discussion, could turn the same optimization machinery into a valley-selective beam splitter; one testable extension is to define the fitness function on valley-resolved scattered current.
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 introduces a tunable dot platform (TDP), a 3x3 array of electrostatically gated quantum dots in graphene with independently adjustable potentials. Using a single-valley Dirac model and a generalized Mie-scattering formalism, the authors compute angular scattering patterns and use differential evolution to optimize the dot potentials so that the far-field scattered current is concentrated in chosen angular windows. They demonstrate single-angle targeting (Fig. 3(a)-(d)), two-angle beam splitting (Fig. 3(e)-(f)), and one example of near-field current optimization (Fig. 4). The paper claims that the TDP enables precise control of electron flow and is a promising platform for electron-optics devices. The Supporting Information provides the multiple-scattering derivation, the DE implementation details, and additional near-field maps, and it explicitly notes that near-field and far-field behaviors do not always correspond.

Significance. The proposal is timely: it combines an experimentally accessible architecture (independently gated dots in graphene) with a numerical optimization scheme (differential evolution) to design electron-optical functionality, extending earlier work on Dirac Mie scattering and multi-dot arrays. The comparison against random search in Fig. 2 is a good control for the optimizer, and the near-field optimization in Fig. 4 shows that the method can be adapted to a local observable. If the designed configurations are validated under realistic illumination (focused beams, finite detector distance, disorder), the platform could enable reprogrammable beam deflectors and splitters. However, the current manuscript's central claim is stronger than what is demonstrated, because the optimization metric is the far-field angular current for a plane wave, and the paper's own Supporting Information and Discussion concede that this metric does not necessarily transfer to near-field or finite-beam settings. The manuscript also lacks mode-convergence and robustness tests that are essential for numerical credibility.

major comments (4)
  1. [Optimization / Fig. S3] The central claim 'precise control of electron flow' is supported only for the far-field angular scattering of an infinite plane wave. The beam-splitter targets in Figs. 3(e)-(f) are optimized and evaluated exclusively through the far-field quantity in Eq. (5) / Eq. (S18). The near-field maps in Fig. S3 show cases where the real-space current flow does not match the far-field peaks, and the SI explicitly states that far-field-optimized configurations may not be suitable for probes near the scatterer. To make the stated claim, the authors should demonstrate that optimized configurations also produce the intended current flow for a finite-size or focused illumination and at finite detection distances, or at least qualify the claim accordingly.
  2. [Supporting Information, Details of the scattering theory] The manuscript does not report the truncation order M of the angular momentum expansion used in the calculations, nor does it provide any mode-convergence test. Since the far-field current in Eq. (S14) and the near-field maps both rely on truncated sums over m, the absence of such a test leaves the numerical results unvalidated. Please add a convergence study (e.g., showing jsc,r(θ) and selected near-field quantities for increasing M) for representative TDP configurations.
  3. [Optimization, Eq. (5)] The fitness function in Eq. (5) is the same quantity used to report success: the integrated far-field current in the target angular window. The optimized patterns therefore match the target by construction, so the demonstration that peaks appear in the target range is essentially a check that the optimizer works. The comparison with random search is a good control for the optimizer, but it does not test the physical generalization. The paper should evaluate the optimized configurations with an independent metric, such as the current transmitted through a finite angular sector at a finite radius, or the overlap of the real-space current density with a desired beam profile, to justify the claim of controlling electron flow.
  4. [Optimization and SI (DE parameters)] The DE results appear to come from a single run with a fixed population size (np=30), mutation factor F=0.3, fitness weight W=0.4, and discrete potential step δV=0.1. There is no reproducibility test across independent DE runs, no sensitivity analysis with respect to these hyperparameters, and no robustness test of the optimized configurations against small perturbations of the dot potentials. Given the run-to-run variability typical of evolutionary algorithms, the claim that DE 'reliably' finds suitable configurations needs support from multiple restarts and from stability checks of the reported solutions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Optimization] The stated configuration space of 2^19 for 9 dots with 21 potential levels is incorrect: the space has 21^9 ≈ 7.9×10^11 configurations. Please clarify the counting or correct the number.
  2. [Main text after Fig. 2(b)] The sentence 'This strong correspondence between near- and far-field scattering is not universal, and can be masked by interference with additional notes provided in the Supporting Information' is incomplete and should be rewritten.
  3. [Supporting Information] Please report the actual value of M used in all calculations, in addition to stating that low-order modes suffice.
  4. [References] The reference list is disordered and contains duplicate numbers; for example, refs. (7), (6), (1), and (3) appear more than once. This must be corrected.
  5. [Supporting Information, Eq. (S19)] Please justify why the first (reward) term in the near-field fitness uses ∆j(r,θ) while the second (penalty) term uses only its positive component ∆j+(r,θ); the asymmetry is not explained.
  6. [Discussion] The sentence stating that realistic devices will use focused beams should be reconciled with the central claim; consider adding a brief remark in the conclusions about how the far-field-optimized configurations can be translated to focused-beam settings.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The TDP scattering formalism is not circular, but the central demonstrations that the optimized configurations 'control' a beam are evaluated with the same angular scattering or Δj integrals that the DE fitness maximizes, so the match to target is partly by construction rather than an independent validation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Eq. (5) and Figs. 2(a), 3(e)-(f); fitness extension Eq. (S18)]
    "To find optimal solutions for the angular dependence of scattering within the 9-dimensional search space of the TDP structure, we define a fitness function Fitness = W ∫ θin jsc,r(θ)dθ − (1−W) ∫ θout jsc,r(θ)dθ ... As an example, we consider a TDP optimized to redirect far-field current into the target range π/4 ± π/8 ... The resultant current after 200 generations ... has a significant peak within the target range, as desired."

    The DE optimization selects dot potentials by maximizing exactly the integral of the far-field scattering current jsc,r over the target angular range θin and minimizing it over θout. The plotted 'result' in Fig. 2(a) is the same jsc,r entering the fitness, so a peak in the target range is the optimized objective restated, not an independent prediction. For the beam splitters, Eq. (S18) maximizes products of integrals of jsc,r over the two target ranges, so the two-peak patterns in Figs. 3(e)-(f) are likewise the fitness function itself. The only non-tautological content is that such configurations exist in the discrete 9-potential search space and that DE beats random search on this same metric.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Eq. (S19) and Fig. 4(c)]
    "Analogously to the far-field case, a corresponding fitness function can be formulated for near-field current control as Fitness = W ∫ θin ∆j(r, θ) dθ − (1−W) ∫ θout ∆j+(r, θ) dθ ... Fig. 4(a) shows a TDP with local current optimized for both a target angular range [π/3, π/2] ... After 200 generations of optimization (Fig. 4(b)), ∆j has a pronounced peak within the target range in Fig. 4(c)."

    The near-field demonstration evaluates the same position-dependent current difference ∆j(r,θ) that the near-field fitness maximizes, integrated at the same fixed radius r=100 used in the optimization. Fig. 4(c) therefore plots the optimized objective, not an independent measure of electron flow. This is the same objective-identity structure as the far-field case and does not validate transfer of the optimized configuration to other radii, beam profiles, or detection schemes.

full rationale

The multiple-scattering calculation itself is not circular: it is a standard single-valley Dirac Mie-type matching calculation with Graf addition theorems (Eqs. (1)-(4), S1-S15), and no load-bearing claim is imported from the authors' prior self-citations. The DE procedure is also implemented in a standard way (Eqs. S16-S17). The circularity concern is confined to validation: the fitness function (Eq. 5 and Eq. S19) is defined as the same far-field or near-field current integral that is later shown as evidence that the TDP 'controls' the beam, so matching the target is enforced by selection rather than discovered independently. The random-search comparison gives some independent content for the optimizer but is still scored with the same fitness metric. The paper itself concedes the broader external step is missing: the Discussion says realistic devices will use focused beams rather than the plane wave considered here, and the SI warns that near-field and far-field patterns need not correspond and that far-field optimization may be unsuitable for near probes. Thus the central claim of precise control of electron flow in a realistic graphene device is supported only within the idealized model used to define the fitness; this is a partial circularity rather than a fully forced derivation. If the paper were read purely as a design study (find configurations maximizing a stated angular-scattering objective), it would be essentially non-circular; the reduction-by-construction affects the stronger physical claim that electron flow is thereby controlled.

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

The central claim rests on the standard single-valley Dirac scattering model and on the optimization algorithm's choices. The free parameters (dot potentials and DE hyperparameters) are fitted or hand-picked, and the physical assumptions (plane wave, no disorder) are clear but unvalidated.

free parameters (4)
  • Dot potentials (9 values) = Ranges in [-1,1] with steps of 0.1, values found by DE
    The nine potential values are the optimization variables. They are fitted to maximize the fitness function, not derived from theory, and they directly determine the device behavior.
  • Fitness weight W = 0.4 for single-range far-field and near-field; 1.2 and 0.6 for two-range far-field
    The weights balance enhancement inside and suppression outside the target angular ranges. They are chosen by hand to ensure balanced optimization.
  • DE mutation factor F = 0.3
    A fixed differential evolution parameter controlling the mutation step size. Selected by the authors without a systematic study.
  • DE population size and generations = Population 30, generations 200 or 500
    These algorithmic settings are chosen to keep the optimization tractable; no convergence analysis with respect to these values is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Single-valley Dirac Hamiltonian for graphene at low energies
    The scattering theory assumes the low-energy single-valley Dirac equation, ignoring intervalley scattering and the full lattice structure. This is standard for graphene QD studies but is a simplification.
  • domain assumption Incident beam is a plane wave
    The optimization assumes a plane wave incident along the x direction. The authors note that realistic devices would use focused beams, so this assumption may not capture experimental conditions.
  • standard math Angular momentum expansion is truncated at low orders
    The numerical solution uses a finite number of angular momentum modes, with the authors stating that a few low-order modes suffice at the low energies considered. No convergence test is shown.
  • domain assumption Neglect of disorder, temperature, and inelastic scattering
    The model is fully coherent and ballistic. Real graphene devices will have some disorder and finite temperature, which could alter the optimized patterns.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable Dot Platform for Controlling Electron Flow in Graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4SJA6NF

@misc{pith2026250701585,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable Dot Platform for Controlling Electron Flow in Graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4SJA6NF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01585}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce an innovative graphene-based architecture to control electronic current flows. The tunable dot platform (TDP) consists of an array of gated dots, with independently adjustable potentials, embedded in graphene. Inspired by Mie theory, and leveraging multiscattering effects, we demonstrate that tailored current behavior can be achieved due to the variety of possible dot configurations. Optimization is performed using differential evolution, which identifies configurations that maximize specific objectives, such as directing or splitting an electron beam by tuning the angular dependence of scattering. Our results demonstrate the potential of the TDP to provide precise control over induced current flows in graphene, making it a promising component for next-generation electronic and electron optic devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01585 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the TDP architecture embedded in graphene. (b) Far-field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optimization of far-field scattering current using DE. (a) Far-field scattering cur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Far-field scattering current (rjsc,r/R) shown in polar coordinates and corresponding TDP configurations obtained by DE for different target angle ranges, shown with shaded areas to be maximized, over 200 generations. (a)-(d) show single target angle ranges, while (e)-(f) display two angle ranges as simultaneous targets. The color of the dots in the TDP indicates their potential values, with the matching color map sh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optimization of near-field current using DE. (a) Electron density (background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H.; Guinea, F.; Peres, N

    Castro Neto, A. H.; Guinea, F.; Peres, N. M.; Novoselov, K. S.; Geim, A. K. The electronic properties of graphene. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2009, 81, 109--162

    2009

  2. [2]

    Laser fabrication of graphene-based flexible electronics

    You, R.; Liu, Y.-Q.; Hao, Y.-L.; Han, D.-D.; Zhang, Y.-L.; You, Z. Laser fabrication of graphene-based flexible electronics. Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1901981

    2020

  3. [3]

    Graphene: Two Decades of Revolutionizing Material Science

    Xu, Y.; Liu, E. Graphene: Two Decades of Revolutionizing Material Science. Innov. Mater. 2024, 2, 100059

    2024

  4. [4]

    S.; Ma, C.; Chen, L.; Jiang, C.; Chen, C.; Xie, X.; Li, A.-P.; Wang, X

    Wang, H.; Wang, H. S.; Ma, C.; Chen, L.; Jiang, C.; Chen, C.; Xie, X.; Li, A.-P.; Wang, X. Graphene nanoribbons for quantum electronics. Nat. Rev. Phys. 2021, 3, 791--802

    2021

  5. [5]

    Graphene: fabrication, characterizations, properties and applications; Academic Press, 2017

    Zhu, H. Graphene: fabrication, characterizations, properties and applications; Academic Press, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    K.; Novoselov, K

    Geim, A. K.; Novoselov, K. S. The rise of graphene. Nat. Mater. 2007, 6, 183--191

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Berry 's phase and absence of back scattering in carbon nanotubes

    Ando, T.; Nakanishi, T.; Saito, R. Berry 's phase and absence of back scattering in carbon nanotubes. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 1998, 67, 2857--2862

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    Crossover from symplectic to orthogonal class in a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice

    Suzuura, H.; Ando, T. Crossover from symplectic to orthogonal class in a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 266603

    work page 2002

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    I.; Novoselov, K

    Katsnelson, M. I.; Novoselov, K. S.; Geim, A. K. Chiral tunnelling and the Klein paradox in graphene. Nat. Phys. 2006, 2, 620--625

    2006

  2. [10]

    E.; Fuchs, J.-N

    Allain, P. E.; Fuchs, J.-N. Klein tunneling in graphene: optics with massless electrons. Eur. Phys. J. B 2011, 83, 301--317

    2011

  3. [11]

    F.; Kim, P

    Young, A. F.; Kim, P. Quantum interference and Klein tunnelling in graphene heterojunctions. Nat. Phys. 2009, 5, 222--226

    2009

  4. [12]

    Evidence for Klein tunneling in graphene p-n junctions

    Stander, N.; Huard, B.; Goldhaber-Gordon, D. Evidence for Klein tunneling in graphene p-n junctions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 102, 026807

    2009

  5. [13]

    L.; Louie, S

    Park, C.-H.; Yang, L.; Son, Y.-W.; Cohen, M. L.; Louie, S. G. Anisotropic behaviours of massless Dirac fermions in graphene under periodic potentials. Nat. Phys. 2008, 4, 213--217

    2008

  6. [14]

    L.; Louie, S

    Park, C.-H.; Yang, L.; Son, Y.-W.; Cohen, M. L.; Louie, S. G. New generation of massless Dirac fermions in graphene under external periodic potentials. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 101, 126804

    2008

  7. [15]

    Forsythe, C.; Zhou, X.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Pasupathy, A.; Moon, P.; Koshino, M.; Kim, P.; Dean, C. R. Band structure engineering of 2D materials using patterned dielectric superlattices. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018, 13, 566--571

    2018

  8. [16]

    G.; Flindt, C.; Pedersen, J.; Mortensen, N

    Pedersen, T. G.; Flindt, C.; Pedersen, J.; Mortensen, N. A.; Jauho, A.-P.; Pedersen, K. Graphene Antidot Lattices: Designed Defects and Spin Qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 100, 136804

    2008

  9. [17]

    R.; Jauho, A.-P

    Power, S. R.; Jauho, A.-P. Electronic transport in disordered graphene antidot lattice devices. Phys. Rev. B 2014, 90, 115408

    2014

  10. [18]

    S.; Gammelgaard, L.; Thomsen, M

    Jessen, B. S.; Gammelgaard, L.; Thomsen, M. R.; Mackenzie, D. M.; Thomsen, J. D.; Caridad, J. M.; Duegaard, E.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Booth, T. J.; Pedersen, T. G.; Jauho, A.-P.; Bøggild, P. Lithographic band structure engineering of graphene. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14...

    2019

  11. [19]

    C.; Zettl, A.; Crommie, M

    Zhang, Y.; Tang, T.-T.; Girit, C.; Hao, Z.; Martin, M. C.; Zettl, A.; Crommie, M. F.; Shen, Y. R.; Wang, F. Direct observation of a widely tunable bandgap in bilayer graphene. Nature 2009, 459, 820--823

    2009

  12. [20]

    D.; Perconte, D.; Richter, K.; Roulleau, P.; Sac \'e p \'e , B.; Sch \"o nenberger, C.; Yang, W

    Chakraborti, H.; Gorini, C.; Knothe, A.; Liu, M.-H.; Makk, P.; Parmentier, F. D.; Perconte, D.; Richter, K.; Roulleau, P.; Sac \'e p \'e , B.; Sch \"o nenberger, C.; Yang, W. Electron wave and quantum optics in graphene. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter. 2024, 36, 393001

    2024

  13. [21]

    Electron Collimation in Twisted Bilayer Graphene via Gate-Defined Moir \'e Barriers

    Ren, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhu, Z.; Khan, M.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Kaxiras, E.; Luskin, M.; Wang, K. Electron Collimation in Twisted Bilayer Graphene via Gate-Defined Moir \'e Barriers. Nano lett. 2024, 24, 12508--12514

    2024

  14. [22]

    Yu, H.; Kutana, A.; Yakobson, B. I. Electron optics and valley hall effect of undulated graphene. Nano Letters 2022, 22, 2934--2940

    2022

  15. [23]

    W.; Cress, C

    LaGasse, S. W.; Cress, C. D. Unveiling electron optics in two-dimensional materials by nonlocal resistance mapping. Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 6623--6629

    2020

  16. [24]

    V.; Fal'ko, V.; Altshuler, B

    Cheianov, V. V.; Fal'ko, V.; Altshuler, B. The focusing of electron flow and a Veselago lens in graphene pn junctions. Science 2007, 315, 1252--1255

    2007

  17. [25]

    M.; Habib, K

    Chen, S.; Han, Z.; Elahi, M. M.; Habib, K. M.; Wang, L.; Wen, B.; Gao, Y.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Hone, J.; Ghosh, A. W.; Dean, C. R. Electron optics with pn junctions in ballistic graphene. Science 2016, 353, 1522--1525

    2016

  18. [26]

    R.; Kretz, B.; Garcia-Lekue, A.; Frederiksen, T.; Brandbyge, M

    Calogero, G.; Papior, N. R.; Kretz, B.; Garcia-Lekue, A.; Frederiksen, T.; Brandbyge, M. Electron transport in nanoporous graphene: probing the Talbot effect. Nano Lett. 2018, 19, 576--581

    2018

  19. [27]

    M.; Wang, L.; Habib, K

    Wang, K.; Elahi, M. M.; Wang, L.; Habib, K. M.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Hone, J.; Ghosh, A. W.; Lee, G.-H.; Kim, P. Graphene transistor based on tunable Dirac fermion optics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2019, 116, 6575--6579

    2019

  20. [28]

    L.; Ghiasi, T

    Ingla-Ayn \'e s, J.; Manesco, A. L.; Ghiasi, T. S.; Volosheniuk, S.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.; van der Zant, H. S. Specular electron focusing between gate-defined quantum point contacts in bilayer graphene. Nano Lett. 2023, 23, 5453--5459

    2023

  21. [29]

    N.; Ghosh, A

    Sajjad, R. N.; Ghosh, A. W. High efficiency switching using graphene based electron “optics”. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2011, 99

    2011

  22. [30]

    Electron metasurfaces in graphene

    Zhao, R.; Wan, P.; Zhou, L.; Huang, D.; Guo, H.; Xia, H.; Du, J. Electron metasurfaces in graphene. Phys. Rev. B 2023, 107, 155404

    2023

  23. [31]

    M.; Stampfer, C.; Calogero, G.; Papior, N

    B ggild, P.; Caridad, J. M.; Stampfer, C.; Calogero, G.; Papior, N. R.; Brandbyge, M. A two-dimensional Dirac fermion microscope. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15783

    2017

  24. [32]

    M.; Kusmartsev, F

    Forrester, D. M.; Kusmartsev, F. V. Electron quantum optics with beam splitters and waveguides in Dirac matter. Adv. Quantum Technol. 2023, 6, 2300112

    2023

  25. [33]

    A tunable electronic beam splitter realized with crossed graphene nanoribbons

    Brandimarte, P.; Engelund, M.; Papior, N.; Garcia-Lekue, A.; Frederiksen, T.; S \'a nchez-Portal, D. A tunable electronic beam splitter realized with crossed graphene nanoribbons. J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 146

    2017

  26. [34]

    W.; Hughes, A.; Sharpe, A

    Barnard, A. W.; Hughes, A.; Sharpe, A. L.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Goldhaber-Gordon, D. Absorptive pinhole collimators for ballistic Dirac fermions in graphene. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15418

    2017

  27. [35]

    Guiding of electrons in a few-mode ballistic graphene channel

    Rickhaus, P.; Liu, M.-H.; Makk, P.; Maurand, R.; Hess, S.; Zihlmann, S.; Weiss, M.; Richter, K.; Sch \"o nenberger, C. Guiding of electrons in a few-mode ballistic graphene channel. Nano Lett. 2015, 15, 5819--5825

    2015

  28. [36]

    Guti \'e rrez, C.; Brown, L.; Kim, C.-J.; Park, J.; Pasupathy, A. N. Klein tunnelling and electron trapping in nanometre-scale graphene quantum dots. Nat. Phys. 2016, 12, 1069--1075

    2016

  29. [37]

    Generating atomically sharp p-n junctions in graphene and testing quantum electron optics on the nanoscale

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

    2018

  30. [38]

    Mie scattering analog in graphene: Lensing, particle confinement, and depletion of Klein tunneling

    Heinisch, R.; Bronold, F.; Fehske, H. Mie scattering analog in graphene: Lensing, particle confinement, and depletion of Klein tunneling. Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2013, 87, 155409

    2013

  31. [39]

    M.; Van der Donck, M.; Bahlouli, H.; Peeters, F.; Van Duppen, B

    Abdullah, H. M.; Van der Donck, M.; Bahlouli, H.; Peeters, F.; Van Duppen, B. Graphene quantum blisters: A tunable system to confine charge carriers. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2018, 112

    2018

  32. [40]

    F.; Kahn, S.; Tsai, H.-Z.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Zettl, A.; Wang, F.; Levitov, L

    Lee, J.; Wong, D.; Velasco Jr, J.; Rodriguez-Nieva, J. F.; Kahn, S.; Tsai, H.-Z.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Zettl, A.; Wang, F.; Levitov, L. S.; Crommie, M. F. Imaging electrostatically confined Dirac fermions in graphene quantum dots. Nat. Phys. 2016, 12, 1032--1036

    2016

  33. [41]

    Matulis, A.; Peeters, F. M. Quasibound states of quantum dots in single and bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2008, 77, 115423

    2008

  34. [42]

    Gate-controlled quantum dots based on 2D materials

    Jing, F.-M.; Zhang, Z.-Z.; Qin, G.-Q.; Luo, G.; Cao, G.; Li, H.-O.; Song, X.-X.; Guo, G.-P. Gate-controlled quantum dots based on 2D materials. Adv. Quantum Technol. 2022, 5, 2100162

    2022

  35. [43]

    H.; Roche, S.; Jauho, A.-P.; Power, S

    Aktor, T.; Garcia, J. H.; Roche, S.; Jauho, A.-P.; Power, S. R. Valley Hall effect and nonlocal resistance in locally gapped graphene. Phys. Rev. B 2021, 103, 115406

    2021

  36. [44]

    Solomon, F.; Power, S. R. Valley current generation using biased bilayer graphene dots. Phys. Rev. B 2021, 103, 235435

    2021

  37. [45]

    Q.; Walls, J

    Vaishnav, J.; Anderson, J. Q.; Walls, J. D. Intravalley multiple scattering of quasiparticles in graphene. Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2011, 83, 165437

    2011

  38. [46]

    D.; Hadad, D

    Walls, J. D.; Hadad, D. The Talbot effect for two-dimensional massless Dirac fermions. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 26698

    2016

  39. [47]

    Effective medium theory for electron waves in a gate-defined quantum dot array in graphene

    Ren, Y.; Gao, Y.; Wan, P.; Wang, Q.; Huang, D.; Du, J. Effective medium theory for electron waves in a gate-defined quantum dot array in graphene. Phys. Rev. B 2019, 100, 045422

    2019

  40. [48]

    Dirac electron scattering from a cluster of electrostatically defined quantum dots in graphene

    Sadrara, M.; Miri, M. Dirac electron scattering from a cluster of electrostatically defined quantum dots in graphene. Phys. Rev. B 2019, 99, 155432

    2019

  41. [49]

    Collective cloaking of a cluster of electrostatically defined core--shell quantum dots in graphene

    Sadrara, M.; Miri, M. Collective cloaking of a cluster of electrostatically defined core--shell quantum dots in graphene. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2022, 34, 115703

    2022

  42. [50]

    a ge zur Optik tr \

    Mie, G. Beitr \"a ge zur Optik tr \"u ber Medien, speziell kolloidaler Metall \"o sungen. Annalen Der Physik 1908, 330, 377--445

    1908

  43. [51]

    Gate-defined electron--hole double dots in bilayer graphene

    Banszerus, L.; Frohn, B.; Epping, A.; Neumaier, D.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Stampfer, C. Gate-defined electron--hole double dots in bilayer graphene. Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 4785--4790

    2018

  44. [52]

    M.; Chizhova, L

    Freitag, N. M.; Chizhova, L. A.; Nemes-Incze, P.; Woods, C. R.; Gorbachev, R. V.; Cao, Y.; Geim, A. K.; Novoselov, K. S.; Burgd \"o orfer, J.; Libisch, F.; Morgenstern, M. Electrostatically confined monolayer graphene quantum dots with orbital and valley splittings. Nano Lett....

    2016

  45. [53]

    Quantum dots and spin qubits in graphene

    Recher, P.; Trauzettel, B. Quantum dots and spin qubits in graphene. Nanotechnology 2010, 21, 302001

    2010

  46. [54]

    R.; Davenport, J.; Giraldo, B.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Kobayashi, N

    Ge, Z.; Joucken, F.; Quezada, E.; da Costa, D. R.; Davenport, J.; Giraldo, B.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Kobayashi, N. P.; Low, T.; Velasco, J. J. Visualization and manipulation of bilayer graphene quantum dots with broken rotational symmetry and nontrivial topology. Nano L...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Differential evolution--a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces

    Storn, R.; Price, K. Differential evolution--a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Global Optim. 1997, 11, 341--359

    1997

  48. [56]

    M.; Lampinen, J

    Price, K.; Storn, R. M.; Lampinen, J. A. Differential evolution: a practical approach to global optimization; Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  49. [57]

    Chakraborty, U. K. Advances in differential evolution; Springer, 2008; Vol. 143

    2008

  50. [58]

    L.; Bronold, F

    Heinisch, R. L.; Bronold, F. X.; Fehske, H. Electron flow in circular graphene quantum dots. Quantum Matter 2015, 4, 346--351

    2015

  51. [59]

    Bounds for truncation errors of Graf’s and Neumann’s addition theorems

    Meng, W.; Wang, L. Bounds for truncation errors of Graf’s and Neumann’s addition theorems. Numer. Algorithms 2016, 72, 91--106

    2016

  52. [60]

    Differential evolution optimization of Rutherford backscattering spectra

    Heller, R.; Klingner, N.; Claessens, N.; Merckling, C.; Meersschaut, J. Differential evolution optimization of Rutherford backscattering spectra. J. Appl. Phys. 2022, 132

    2022

  53. [61]

    Application of the differential evolution for simulation of the linear optical response of photosynthetic pigments

    Pishchalnikov, R. Application of the differential evolution for simulation of the linear optical response of photosynthetic pigments. J. Comput. Phys. 2018, 372, 603--615

    2018

  54. [62]

    B.; Crosnier, C.; Perarnau-Llobet, M.; Sanders, B

    Lovett, N. B.; Crosnier, C.; Perarnau-Llobet, M.; Sanders, B. C. Differential evolution for many-particle adaptive quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 220501

    2013

  55. [63]

    Benchmarking five global optimization approaches for nano-optical shape optimization and parameter reconstruction

    Schneider, P.-I.; Garcia Santiago, X.; Soltwisch, V.; Hammerschmidt, M.; Burger, S.; Rockstuhl, C. Benchmarking five global optimization approaches for nano-optical shape optimization and parameter reconstruction. ACS Photonics 2019, 6, 2726--2733

    2019

  56. [64]

    G.; Ahmed, A.; Sagor, R

    Saber, M. G.; Ahmed, A.; Sagor, R. H. Performance analysis of a differential evolution algorithm in modeling parameter extraction of optical material. Silicon 2017, 9, 723--731

    2017

  57. [65]

    Differential evolution algorithm based photonic structure design: numerical and experimental verification of subwavelength /5 focusing of light

    Bor, E.; Turduev, M.; Kurt, H. Differential evolution algorithm based photonic structure design: numerical and experimental verification of subwavelength /5 focusing of light. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 30871

    2016

  58. [66]

    Regularized differential evolution for a blind phase retrieval problem in ultrashort laser pulse characterization

    Gerth, D.; Escoto, E.; Steinmeyer, G.; Hofmann, B. Regularized differential evolution for a blind phase retrieval problem in ultrashort laser pulse characterization. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2019, 90

    2019

  59. [67]

    Zahedinejad, E.; Schirmer, S.; Sanders, B. C. Evolutionary algorithms for hard quantum control. Phys. Rev. A 2014, 90, 032310

    2014

  60. [68]

    Differential evolution with equally-mixed strategies for robust control of open quantum systems

    Ma, H.; Chen, C.; Dong, D. Differential evolution with equally-mixed strategies for robust control of open quantum systems. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst., Man, Cybern. 2015; pp 2055--2060

    2015

  61. [69]

    An improved differential evolution algorithm for learning high-fidelity quantum controls

    Yang, X.; Li, J.; Peng, X. An improved differential evolution algorithm for learning high-fidelity quantum controls. Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 1402--1408

    2019

  62. [70]

    Mahesh, T.; Batra, P.; Ram, M. H. Quantum optimal control: Practical aspects and diverse methods. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 2023, 103, 591--607

    2023

  63. [71]

    J.; Capretti, A.; Miano, G.; Tamburrino, A.; Lee, S

    Forestiere, C.; Pasquale, A. J.; Capretti, A.; Miano, G.; Tamburrino, A.; Lee, S. Y.; Reinhard, B. M.; Dal Negro, L. Genetically engineered plasmonic nanoarrays. Nano Lett. 2012, 12, 2037--2044

    2012

  64. [72]

    Reliable design of THz absorbers based on graphene patterns: exploiting genetic algorithm

    Najafi, A.; Soltani, M.; Chaharmahali, I.; Biabanifard, S. Reliable design of THz absorbers based on graphene patterns: exploiting genetic algorithm. Optik 2020, 203, 163924

    2020

  65. [73]

    M.; Connaughton, S.; Ott, C.; Weber, H

    Caridad, J. M.; Connaughton, S.; Ott, C.; Weber, H. B.; Krsti \'c , V. An electrical analogy to Mie scattering. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12894

    2016

  66. [74]

    Dirac fermion metagratings in graphene

    Wan, P.; Ren, Y.; Wang, Q.; Huang, D.; Zhou, L.; Guo, H.; Du, J. Dirac fermion metagratings in graphene. npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2021, 5, 42

    2021

  67. [75]

    K.; Vistoli, L.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Bachtold, A.; Koppens, F

    Barcons Ruiz, D.; Herzig Sheinfux, H.; Hoffmann, R.; Torre, I.; Agarwal, H.; Kumar, R. K.; Vistoli, L.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Bachtold, A.; Koppens, F. H. L. Engineering high quality graphene superlattices via ion milled ultra-thin etching masks. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, ...

    2022

  68. [76]

    Mie scattering analog in graphene: Lensing, particle confinement, and depletion of Klein tunneling

    RL Heinisch, FX Bronold, and H Fehske. Mie scattering analog in graphene: Lensing, particle confinement, and depletion of Klein tunneling. Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. , 87(15):155409, 2013

    2013

  69. [77]

    Heinisch, Franz X

    Reinhold L. Heinisch, Franz X. Bronold, and Holger Fehske. Electron flow in circular graphene quantum dots. Quantum Matter , 4(4):346--351, 2015

    2015

  70. [78]

    Dirac electron scattering from a cluster of electrostatically defined quantum dots in graphene

    Mahdiyeh Sadrara and MirFaez Miri. Dirac electron scattering from a cluster of electrostatically defined quantum dots in graphene. Phys. Rev. B , 99(15):155432, 2019

    2019

  71. [79]

    Bounds for truncation errors of graf’s and neumann’s addition theorems

    Wenhui Meng and Liantang Wang. Bounds for truncation errors of graf’s and neumann’s addition theorems. Numer. Algorithms , 72:91--106, 2016

    2016

  72. [80]

    Generating atomically sharp p-n junctions in graphene and testing quantum electron optics on the nanoscale

    Ke-Ke Bai, Jiao-Jiao Zhou, Yi-Cong Wei, Jia-Bin Qiao, Yi-Wen Liu, Hai-Wen Liu, Hua Jiang, and Lin He. Generating atomically sharp p-n junctions in graphene and testing quantum electron optics on the nanoscale. Phys. Rev. B , 97(4):045413, 2018

    2018

  73. [81]

    Klein tunnelling and electron trapping in nanometre-scale graphene quantum dots

    Christopher Guti \'e rrez, Lola Brown, Cheol-Joo Kim, Jiwoong Park, and Abhay N Pasupathy. Klein tunnelling and electron trapping in nanometre-scale graphene quantum dots. Nat. Phys. , 12(11):1069--1075, 2016

    2016

  74. [82]

    Electron metasurfaces in graphene

    Ruihuang Zhao, Pengcheng Wan, Ling Zhou, Di Huang, Haiqin Guo, Hao Xia, and Junjie Du. Electron metasurfaces in graphene. Phys. Rev. B , 107(15):155404, 2023

    2023

  75. [83]

    Dirac fermion metagratings in graphene

    Pengcheng Wan, Yinghui Ren, Qianjing Wang, Di Huang, Ling Zhou, Haiqin Guo, and Junjie Du. Dirac fermion metagratings in graphene. npj 2D Mater. Appl. , 5(1):42, 2021

    2021

  76. [84]

    Differential evolution: a practical approach to global optimization

    Kenneth Price, Rainer M Storn, and Jouni A Lampinen. Differential evolution: a practical approach to global optimization . Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  77. [85]

    Differential evolution--a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces

    Rainer Storn and Kenneth Price. Differential evolution--a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Global Optim. , 11:341--359, 1997

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.