Dynamic Interfacial Quantum Dipoles in Charge Transfer Heterostructures

Angel Rubio; Cory R. Dean; David G. Mandrus; Dihao Sun; Emil Vi\~nas Bostr\"om; Jordan Pack; Kenji Watanabe; Matthew Cothrine; Takashi Taniguchi; Ziyu Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Dynamic Interfacial Quantum Dipoles in Charge Transfer Heterostructures

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Hysteresis in graphene/hBN/α-RuCl3 devices is driven by switchable interfacial quantum dipoles, not by charge traps.

desk verdict Strong new hysteresis data in GBR devices with a plausible dipole-switching mechanism, but the microscopic bistability is inferred, not shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01027 v1 pith:TA6VLMQN submitted 2025-08-01 cond-mat.mes-hall

Ziyu Liu , Emil Viñas Boström , Dihao Sun , Jordan Pack , Matthew Cothrine , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi , David G. Mandrus

show 2 more authors

Angel Rubio Cory R. Dean

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords hysteresisinterfacialquantumdipolechargetransferheterostructuregraphene/α-RuCl3vanderWaalsinterfacesgate-tunableferroelectricpilloweffectnonlineardynamics

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 sets out to explain a puzzlingly robust, low-temperature hysteresis in graphene/hBN/α-RuCl3 charge-transfer transistors. It claims the hysteresis is not caused by charge traps, mobile ions, or material phase transitions, but by interfacial quantum dipoles—distortions of electron wavefunctions at the van der Waals interfaces—that an external electric field can flip between two metastable orientations. Because the two dipole states persist after the field is removed, the heterostructure behaves like a switchable ferroelectric whose hysteresis window, loop position, and memory state can be tuned by gate history. If the mechanism is right, it offers a new route to non-volatile memory and programmable devices in materials that contain no traditional ferroelectric.

What carries the argument

The central object is the interfacial quantum dipole, an electric dipole formed at a van der Waals interface because quantum exchange interactions deform the local electron wavefunctions; it resembles the 'pillow effect' known at metal/organic interfaces, but here it is dynamic rather than static. The working identity is the electrostatic balance $\Delta W + eV_{\mathrm{CT}} + E_F + eV_{i1} + eV_{i2} = 0$, which fixes the equilibrium charge transfer and, when the interfacial potentials $V_{i1}, V_{i2}$ respond to the external field, produces two metastable configurations. First-principles calculations supply the field response of the dipoles and the barrier heights that set the critical temperature and the density swing.

What would settle it

Measure the interfacial dipole potential across the hBN/α-RuCl3 interface in situ while sweeping the bottom gate—for example, by Kelvin probe force microscopy or by tracking the surface work function with photoemission—and check whether the dipole flips between two states at the same gate voltages where the transport hysteresis closes. If the dipole orientation is unchanged across the loop, or if the hysteresis survives when the interface is deliberately made non-ideal, the proposed mechanism is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an interfacial quantum dipole—an electric dipole arising from quantum exchange distortion of electron orbitals across a clean van der Waals interface, without net charge transfer—can be dynamically controlled by an external field and relax into two long-lived metastable states. In the graphene/hBN/α-RuCl3 stack, the bottom gate sweeps the dipole potentials $V_{i1}$ and $V_{i2}$ so that electrons are alternately blocked or allowed to tunnel between graphene and α-RuCl3; when the sweep ends, the system settles into one of two density bounds differing by about $2.2\times10^{12}\ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$, corresponding to a $\pm0.26\ \mathrm{eV}$ change in interfacial dipole potential. The paper argues this reproduces the sharp onset of hysteresis near 40 K, the extracted nonlinear I-V curve with a $0.22\ \mathrm{eV}$ gap at 2 K, the independence from hBN spacer thickness, and the DFT-estimated dipole barrier of $0.1\text{–}0.2\ \mathrm{eV}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the interfacial quantum dipoles have two discrete metastable orientations that survive removal of the external field, with barriers around 0.1–0.2 eV; this bistability is inferred from DFT relaxations and used in the electrostatic model, but it is not measured directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The heterostructure can store one of two persistent polarization states, so it can function as a non-volatile memory element with a gate-tunable write window.
Hysteresis windows should be reproducible across devices and independent of hBN spacer thickness, since the mechanism is interfacial rather than barrier-limited.
The sharp temperature onset implies a thermally activated switching time $\tau \sim (\hbar/\epsilon)e^{U/k_BT}$, so device retention can be engineered by choosing interfaces with larger dipole barriers.
The same physics should appear in other charge-transfer van der Waals stacks that contain a narrow-band material to pin the Fermi level, such as α-RuCl3.
The mechanism offers a concrete microscopic picture for the 'gate doesn't work' anomaly reported in several graphene-based devices.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves open whether the two dipole orientations correspond to two well-defined structural registries or a continuum of field-dependent polarizations; if the latter, the 'metastable states' may be kinetic pinning rather than true bistability.
A direct corollary the authors do not develop: the same switchable dipole should show up as a gate-controllable work-function change at the top surface, measurable by Kelvin probe force microscopy or photoemission.
The model suggests a testable scaling law: the width of the hysteresis in density should track the graphene Fermi energy $\epsilon_F$ roughly as $\Delta n \approx 2 n(\epsilon_F) V_d/\epsilon_F$, so devices with lighter doping should show wider relative swings.
One could search for the same dynamic dipole in heterostructures where the Fermi-level pinning layer is replaced by another narrow-band material; observing the same tunable loop would confirm the mechanism is generic.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline: GBR devices show a clean, tunable hysteresis that looks like a genuinely new mechanism, and the paper does a good job arguing for interfacial quantum dipoles as the cause. But the key microscopic claim—that these dipoles form bistable states with a 0.1–0.2 eV barrier—rests on DFT relaxations that the main text doesn't actually display. It's a good paper, but the central mechanism isn't nailed down.

What's new: the dynamic field-tunability of the interfacial dipole, and the identification of this as the origin of the gate hysteresis. The pillow effect and static interfacial dipoles are known; the new piece is the switching behavior and the attendant hysteretic transport. The experimental work is solid: multiple devices, consistent Hall density response, sweep-rate dependence from which they extract a nonlinear I-V, and a sharp temperature onset that would be hard to explain with ordinary charge traps. The exclusions of charge traps, hBN memory, and α-RuCl3 phase transitions are reasonable.

Soft spots: as the stress-test says, the main text never shows a zero-field double well or a barrier profile. The imaginary-time relaxation after sudden field switch-off shows that a driven configuration relaxes, not that the final state is a local minimum. If the supplementary has the actual double-well scan, fine—but the main text should have at least one energy versus polarization curve. The density-swing estimate is acknowledged to be an upper bound and is only qualitative. The DFT uses LDA+U with ACBN0 U=2 eV, and the electrostatic model has a few parameters (epsilon, Vd) that are not tightly constrained. No error bars on the data, and no code or data deposit.

That said, the central argument is not circular in a damaging way. They use the measured density to set the Fermi energy, but the DFT gives the dipole values independently, and the comparison to the inferred density swing is labeled as such. The agreement is rough but suggestive.

Bottom line: this paper deserves serious refereeing. The experiment looks reproducible, the idea is falsifiable, and the soft spots are addressable in revision. I'd want the supplementary to show the double well prominently, and ideally a companion measurement (capacitance or optical probe). For a reading group, it would generate good discussion.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports hysteretic gate responses in graphene/hBN/α-RuCl3 charge-transfer heterostructures and attributes them to dynamic interfacial quantum dipoles driven by quantum exchange interactions. Experimentally, the authors show that the bottom-gate response switches on below a sharp temperature onset, exhibits metastable upper and lower density bounds, is tunable in position and width, and yields a nonlinear I-V characteristic with a gap-like feature at low temperature. Theoretically, they combine an electrostatic model, Eq. (1), with DFT+U calculations to argue that interfacial dipoles at the α-RuCl3/hBN and hBN/graphene interfaces are bistable under external fields, with barriers of roughly 0.1–0.2 eV, and that the two metastable orientations control the flow of charge across the heterostructure, thereby producing the observed hysteresis. The claim is that these quantum dipoles constitute a new ferroelectric-like mechanism distinct from charge traps, nonlinear hBN tunneling, and phase transitions in α-RuCl3.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, this work identifies a genuinely new source of hysteretic behavior in van der Waals heterostructures and provides a concrete microscopic picture for the unexplained 'gate doesn't work' anomaly. The experimental dataset is a clear strength: seven devices show consistent hysteretic behavior, the Hall density measurements directly resolve metastable density bounds, and the sweep-rate analysis yields a plausible nonlinear I-V curve. The manuscript also includes a first-principles parameterization of interface dipoles, which is a useful step beyond purely phenomenological descriptions. The central weakness is that the key microscopic ingredient—the zero-field bistability of the interfacial dipoles—is not directly demonstrated in the main text; it is inferred from DFT relaxations after field switch-off, and the quoted barrier appears only in the supplementary material.

major comments (4)

[Interfacial quantum dipole / Methods: First principles parameterization] The central mechanism requires two distinct metastable orientations of the interfacial quantum dipoles, separated by a barrier of roughly 0.1–0.2 eV, that persist after the external field is removed. The only computational evidence described in the main text is an imaginary-time relaxation starting from the finite-field density after a sudden switch-off of the electric field. That procedure demonstrates relaxation from a driven state, but it does not establish that the final configuration is a local minimum of the zero-field energy landscape, nor that trajectories from opposite field directions converge to distinct minima. The quoted barrier height appears only in a reference to Supplementary Sec. II.E. Please present the zero-field double-well energy profile (or an equivalent projection of the total energy onto the relevant dipole coordinate), show that relaxations from positive and negative fields converge to two different local minima, and specify how the 0.1–0.2 eV barrier was computed. Without this, Eq. (1) lacks a microscopic input for the history-dependent interfacial potentials Vi1 and Vi2, and the hysteresis could be accounted for by a generic nonlinear, history-dependent leakage mechanism.
[Hysteresis dynamics, Fig. 3c] The agreement between the DFT barrier (0.1–0.2 eV) and the I-V gap ΔVbias = 0.22 eV is presented as key evidence for the mechanism. However, the extraction of the I-V characteristic from the sweep-rate dependence is only described by reference to Supplementary Sec. III.C, and the value of the 'gap' depends on the assumed charging model. Please present the extraction procedure in sufficient detail in the main text, including the functional form used to convert saturated-density-versus-sweep-rate data into an I-V curve, and state explicitly whether the extracted gap is independent of the electrostatic model that already embodies the interfacial-dipole bistability. If the extraction is model-dependent, the agreement with the DFT barrier is a consistency check rather than an independent confirmation.
[Methods: Temperature dependence and density swing] The density-swing estimate Δn = n(ϵF)(2Vd/ϵF) = 3.5×10^12 cm^-2 is compared with the measured Δnh = 2.2×10^12 cm^-2 and termed an upper bound. The input Vd = 0.1 eV is not independently determined; it appears to be taken from the same DFT barrier estimate that the manuscript is trying to validate. Moreover, the measured density swing is used earlier in the 'Interfacial quantum dipole' section to infer ΔVi1 + ΔVi2 = ±0.26 eV, which is then compared with the DFT value ±0.3 eV. This comparison is therefore a self-consistency check between model inputs and outputs, not a parameter-free confirmation. Please state this explicitly and provide an independent estimate of Vd, or reframe the agreement as an internal consistency check.
[Discussions] The exclusion of charge traps as the origin of hysteresis is based on the argument that thermally activated charge traps are suppressed at low temperatures, while the observed hysteresis appears below ~40–80 K. Many trap-mediated hysteresis mechanisms persist at low temperature because trapping/detrapping kinetics become slow, and the supplementary claim of a 'large charge reservoir' is qualitative. The absence of hysteresis in devices without α-RuCl3 and the independence of the hBN spacer thickness are strong experimental controls; please state them more prominently and, if possible, provide a quantitative estimate of the trap density required to produce the observed density swing (Δnh ≈ 2.2×10^12 cm^-2) to make the exclusion more direct.

minor comments (4)

[Interfacial quantum dipole, Fig. 2c] The caption says the lower panel plots 'the corresponding electron density of states' but the text refers to the electron density; please correct this terminology.
[Interfacial quantum dipole] The inferred dipole-potential change is quoted as ΔVi1 + ΔVi2 = ±0.26 eV, while the I-V gap in Fig. 3c is quoted as ΔVbias = 0.22 eV; the relationship between these two quantities and the sign convention should be clarified in the main text.
[Methods: Device fabrication] The term 'half-edge Ti/Pd/Au contacts' is unclear; please specify the contact geometry more precisely.
[Methods: Electrostatic model] The electrostatic model fixes the zero of potential to the α-RuCl3 Fermi level and assumes a total height h = 300 nm, but the bottom-gate coupling through the 300 nm SiO2 layer may involve series capacitance with the hBN spacer; a sentence explaining how the field Eext = Vext/h is justified would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DFT dipole parameters are computed from first-principles stack calculations and then compared with, rather than fitted to, the measured hysteresis.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any predicted quantity to its own input by construction. The interfacial dipole potentials eVi1 and eVi2 are obtained from DFT by subtracting the charge densities and potentials of isolated subsystems from those of the full heterostructure (Methods, Eq. 2: "Delta n = n_RuCl3-hBN-Gr - n_RuCl3 - nhBN - nGr"), with no use of the measured hysteresis loop or measured density swing as input. The experimental estimate Delta(Vi1 + Vi2) = 0.26 eV is derived from the observed density-bounds splitting and is then compared with the independently computed DFT value of 0.30 eV; this is an agreement check, not a circular fit. Likewise, the density-swing estimate uses a DFT-derived potential Vd = 0.1 eV and the measured equilibrium density n(eps_F) through the explicit formula Delta n = n(eps_F)(2Vd/eps_F), is labeled "likely an upper bound", and overestimates rather than reproduces the measured 2.2e12 cm^-2, so it is not forced by construction. The critical-temperature estimate similarly uses the DFT barrier 0.1-0.2 eV in an Arrhenius expression and yields Tc ~ 50 K against the measured 40-80 K range, again independent rather than fitted. The only self-citations are to the Octopus DFT code and DFT+U implementation [49,50], which are standard, reuseable computational tools and are not invoked to supply a physical premise. The weakest physical assumption, that the imaginary-time relaxation after field switch-off identifies true zero-field metastable minima with a finite barrier, is a question of evidence and validation, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the hysteresis mechanism in terms of the DFT result or vice versa. Therefore no step meets the standard of exhibiting an equation that equals its own input or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

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

The central claim rests on a 1D electrostatic model, DFT interface dipoles, and an Arrhenius description of metastable lifetimes. The free parameters are mostly physically motivated or stated insensitive, but the DFT+U value is a choice that affects the computed barriers.

free parameters (3)

Hubbard U (ACBN0) = 2 eV
Chosen for the DFT+U treatment of Ru 4d electrons. It affects the computed interface dipoles and barrier energies, but is not fit to transport data.
Prefactor energy scale epsilon = 0.1 eV
Used in the Arrhenius lifetime formula for the metastable states. The authors state the results are insensitive to it because of the exponential dependence.
Potential drop Vd = 0.1 eV
Used to estimate the density swing between metastable states. Taken from the model and labeled a likely upper bound.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The α-RuCl3 Fermi level is pinned to its conduction band minimum due to a large density of states.
Invoked in the Methods section when fixing the zero of potential and in the charge transfer equilibrium condition.
domain assumption Interface polarizations are independent of the charge transfer density.
Stated in the Methods section and said to be verified via DFT, but the verification is in the supplementary.
domain assumption The heterostructure can be described by a one-dimensional electrostatic model averaged perpendicular to the stacking direction.
Adopted in the Methods section for simplicity and used to derive all balance equations and density estimates.
standard math The metastable-state lifetime follows the Arrhenius law with a single activation barrier.
Used to estimate the critical temperature; cites Hänggi et al. reaction-rate theory.
domain assumption Graphene density is a linear function of external bias in the gating regime.
Used to estimate the density swing; cites Kim et al. (2012).
domain assumption DFT within LDA+U with ACBN0 correctly captures the interface dipoles and their field dependence.
The theoretical input for dipole potentials and barriers rests on this; validation is only against two aggregate experimental quantities.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Interfacial Quantum Dipoles in Charge Transfer Heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TA6VLMQN

@misc{pith2026250801027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Interfacial Quantum Dipoles in Charge Transfer Heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TA6VLMQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01027}
}

abstract

Hysteretic gate responses of two-dimensional material heterostructures serve as sensitive probes of the underlying electronic states and hold significant promise for the development of novel nanoelectronic devices. Here we identify a new mechanism of hysteretic behavior in graphene/$h$BN/$\alpha$-$\mathrm{RuCl_3}$ charge transfer field effect devices. The hysteresis loop exhibits a sharp onset under low temperatures and evolves symmetrically relative to the charge transfer equilibrium. Unlike conventional flash memory devices, the charge transfer heterostructure features a transparent tunneling barrier and its hysteretic gate response is induced by the dynamic tuning of interfacial dipoles originating from quantum exchange interactions. The system acts effectively as a ferroelectric and gives rise to remarkable tunability of the hysteretic gate response under external electrical bias. Our work unveils a novel mechanism for engineering hysteretic behaviors via dynamic interfacial quantum dipoles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.01027 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

[1]

Novoselov, K. S. et al. Two-dimensional gas of massless dirac fermions in graphene. nature 438, 197–200 (2005)

work page 2005
[2]

Zhang, Y., Tan, Y.-W., Stormer, H. L. & Kim, P. Experi- mental observation of the quantum hall effect and berry’s phase in graphene. nature 438, 201–204 (2005)

work page 2005
[3]

Zhou, H. et al. Half-and quarter-metals in rhombohedral trilayer graphene. Nature 598, 429–433 (2021)

work page 2021
[4]

Zhou, H. et al. Isospin magnetism and spin-polarized superconductivity in bernal bilayer graphene. Science 375, 774–778 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

Lu, Z. et al. Fractional quantum anomalous hall effect in multilayer graphene. Nature 626, 759–764 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Li, C. et al. Tunable superconductivity in electron-and hole-doped bernal bilayer graphene. Nature 631, 300– 306 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Choi, Y. et al. Superconductivity and quantized anoma- lous hall effect in rhombohedral graphene. Nature 1–6 (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

M., Cao, Y., Watanabe, K., Taniguchi, T

Park, J. M., Cao, Y., Watanabe, K., Taniguchi, T. & Jarillo-Herrero, P. Tunable strongly coupled supercon- ductivity in magic-angle twisted trilayer graphene. Na- ture 590, 249–255 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 50 references

[9]

Kennes, D. M. et al. Moir´ e heterostructures as a condensed-matter quantum simulator. Nature Physics 17, 155–163 (2021)

2021
[10]

Wang, H., Wu, Y., Cong, C., Shang, J. & Yu, T. Hystere- sis of electronic transport in graphene transistors. ACS nano 4, 7221–7228 (2010)

2010
[11]

& Tadi- gadapa, S

Joshi, P., Romero, H., Neal, A., Toutam, V. & Tadi- gadapa, S. Intrinsic doping and gate hysteresis in graphene field effect devices fabricated on sio2 sub- strates. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 22, 334214 (2010)

2010
[12]

& Yu, D.-P

Liao, Z.-M., Han, B.-H., Zhou, Y.-B. & Yu, D.-P. Hys- teresis reversion in graphene field-effect transistors. The Journal of chemical physics 133 (2010)

2010
[13]

Ju, L. et al. Photoinduced doping in heterostructures of graphene and boron nitride. Nature nanotechnology 9, 348–352 (2014)

2014
[14]

Hong, A. J. et al. Graphene flash memory. ACS nano 5, 7812–7817 (2011)

2011
[15]

& Kis, A

Bertolazzi, S., Krasnozhon, D. & Kis, A. Nonvolatile memory cells based on mos2/graphene heterostructures. ACS nano 7, 3246–3252 (2013)

2013
[16]

Sup Choi, M. et al. Controlled charge trapping by molyb- denum disulphide and graphene in ultrathin heterostruc- tured memory devices. Nature communications 4, 1624 (2013)

2013
[17]

Vizner Stern, M. et al. Interfacial ferroelectricity by van der waals sliding. Science 372, 1462–1466 (2021)

2021
[18]

& Jarillo-Herrero, P

Yasuda, K., Wang, X., Watanabe, K., Taniguchi, T. & Jarillo-Herrero, P. Stacking-engineered ferroelectricity in bilayer boron nitride. Science 372, 1458–1462 (2021)

2021
[19]

Weston, A. et al. Interfacial ferroelectricity in marginally twisted 2d semiconductors. Nature nanotechnology 17, 390–395 (2022)

2022
[20]

Zheng, Z. et al. Unconventional ferroelectricity in moir´ e heterostructures. Nature 588, 71–76 (2020)

2020
[21]

Yan, X. et al. Moir´ e synaptic transistor with room- temperature neuromorphic functionality. Nature 624, 551–556 (2023)

2023
[22]

Zheng, Z. et al. Electronic ratchet effect in a moir \’e system: signatures of excitonic ferroelectricity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03922 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[23]

Waters, D. et al. Anomalous hysteresis in graphite/boron nitride transistors. Nano Letters (2025)

2025
[24]

& Yankowitz, M

Skinner, B. & Yankowitz, M. The curious case of the gate that doesn’t work. J. Club Condens. Matter 10.36471/JCCM October 2023 02

2023 doi
[25]

Rizzo, D. J. et al. Polaritonic probe of an emergent 2d dipole interface. Nano Letters 23, 8426–8435 (2023)

2023
[26]

S., Staemmler, V

Bagus, P. S., Staemmler, V. & W¨ oll, C. Exchange- like effects for closed-shell adsorbates: Interface dipole and work function. Physical Review Letters 89, 096104 (2002)

2002
[27]

& Flores, F

V´ azquez, H., Dappe, Y., Ortega, J. & Flores, F. Energy level alignment at metal/organic semiconductor inter- faces:“pillow” effect, induced density of interface states, and charge neutrality level. The Journal of chemical physics 126 (2007)

2007
[28]

Besse, R. et al. Beyond the anderson rule: importance of interfacial dipole and hybridization in van der waals heterostructures. 2D Materials 8, 041002 (2021)

2021
[29]

Mashhadi, S. et al. Spin-split band hybridization in graphene proximitized with α-rucl3 nanosheets. Nano letters 19, 4659–4665 (2019)

2019
[30]

Zhou, B. et al. Evidence for charge transfer and proxi- mate magnetism in graphene– α-rucl 3 heterostructures. Physical Review B 100, 165426 (2019)

2019
[31]

Wang, Y. et al. Modulation doping via a two-dimensional atomic crystalline acceptor. Nano letters 20, 8446–8452 (2020)

2020
[32]

Rizzo, D. J. et al. Nanometer-scale lateral p–n junctions in graphene/ α-rucl3 heterostructures. Nano letters 22, 1946–1953 (2022)

2022
[33]

Balgley, J. et al. Ultrasharp lateral p–n junctions in modulation-doped graphene. Nano Letters 22, 4124– 4130 (2022)

2022
[34]

Rossi, A. et al. Direct visualization of the charge transfer in a graphene/α-rucl3 heterostructure via angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. Nano Letters 23, 8000–8005 (2023)

2023
[35]

Wang, L. et al. One-dimensional electrical contact to a two-dimensional material. Science 342, 614–617 (2013)

2013
[36]

Kaushik, N. et al. Reversible hysteresis inversion in mos2 field effect transistors. npj 2D Materials and Applications 1, 34 (2017)

2017
[37]

Liu, L. et al. Ultrafast non-volatile flash memory based on van der waals heterostructures. Nature nanotechnol- ogy 16, 874–881 (2021)

2021
[38]

Wu, L. et al. Atomically sharp interface enabled ultrahigh-speed non-volatile memory devices. Nature nanotechnology 16, 882–887 (2021)

2021
[39]

Fowler, R. H. & Nordheim, L. Electron emission in in- tense electric fields. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 119, 173–181 (1928)

1928
[40]

On pre-breakdown phenomena in insulators and electronic semi-conductors

Frenkel, J. On pre-breakdown phenomena in insulators and electronic semi-conductors. Physical Review 54, 647 (1938)

1938
[41]

Banerjee, A. et al. Proximate kitaev quantum spin liquid behaviour in a honeycomb magnet. Nature materials 15, 10 733–740 (2016)

2016
[42]

Do, S.-H. et al. Majorana fermions in the kitaev quan- tum spin system α-rucl3. Nature Physics 13, 1079–1084 (2017)

2017
[43]

Zhang, Q. et al. Van der waals materials-based float- ing gate memory for neuromorphic computing. Chip 2, 100059 (2023)

2023
[44]

Yin, L., Cheng, R., Wen, Y., Liu, C. & He, J. Emerging 2d memory devices for in-memory computing. Advanced Materials 33, 2007081 (2021)

2021
[45]

A., Brocks, G., Zhong, Z

Bokdam, M., Khomyakov, P. A., Brocks, G., Zhong, Z. & Kelly, P. J. Electrostatic doping of graphene through ultrathin hexagonal boron nitride films. Nano Letters 11, 4631–4635 (2011). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ nl202131q

2011
[46]

Laturia, A., Van de Put, M. L. & Vandenberghe, W. G. Dielectric properties of hexagonal boron nitride and tran- sition metal dichalcogenides: from monolayer to bulk.npj 2D Materials and Applications 2 (2018)

2018
[47]

& Borkovec, M

H¨ anggi, P., Talkner, P. & Borkovec, M. Reaction-rate theory: fifty years after kramers. Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 251–341 (1990). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.62.251

1990
[48]

Kim, S. et al. Direct measurement of the fermi energy in graphene using a double-layer heterostructure. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 116404 (2012)

2012
[49]

Tancogne-Dejean, N., Oliveira, M. J. T. & Rubio, A. Self-consistent DFT+ U method for real-space time- dependent density functional theory calculations. Phys. Rev. B 96, 245133 (2017)

2017
[50]

Tancogne-Dejean, N. et al. Octopus, a computational framework for exploring light-driven phenomena and quantum dynamics in extended and finite systems. The Journal of Chemical Physics 152, 124119 (2020). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research is primarily supported by Programmable Quan...

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Novoselov, K. S. et al. Two-dimensional gas of massless dirac fermions in graphene. nature 438, 197–200 (2005)

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Zhang, Y., Tan, Y.-W., Stormer, H. L. & Kim, P. Experi- mental observation of the quantum hall effect and berry’s phase in graphene. nature 438, 201–204 (2005)

work page 2005

[3] [3]

Zhou, H. et al. Half-and quarter-metals in rhombohedral trilayer graphene. Nature 598, 429–433 (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Zhou, H. et al. Isospin magnetism and spin-polarized superconductivity in bernal bilayer graphene. Science 375, 774–778 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Lu, Z. et al. Fractional quantum anomalous hall effect in multilayer graphene. Nature 626, 759–764 (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Li, C. et al. Tunable superconductivity in electron-and hole-doped bernal bilayer graphene. Nature 631, 300– 306 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Choi, Y. et al. Superconductivity and quantized anoma- lous hall effect in rhombohedral graphene. Nature 1–6 (2025)

work page 2025

[8] [8]

M., Cao, Y., Watanabe, K., Taniguchi, T

Park, J. M., Cao, Y., Watanabe, K., Taniguchi, T. & Jarillo-Herrero, P. Tunable strongly coupled supercon- ductivity in magic-angle twisted trilayer graphene. Na- ture 590, 249–255 (2021)

work page 2021