Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Weak localization and antilocalization corrections to nonlinear transport: a semiclassical Boltzmann treatment

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weak antilocalization can flip the sign of nonlinear conductivity in two-dimensional systems.

desk verdict Solid algebra and an honest conjecture, but the second-order kernel is unvalidated and the experimental plot does not show the sign change the paper claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.02684 v2 pith:H5LJAROA submitted 2025-10-03 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

Dmitry V. Chichinadze This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el PACS 73.20.Fz
keywords weaklocalizationantilocalizationnonlineartransportsecond-orderconductivityBoltzmannequationwithnonlocalkernelCooperontrigonalwarpinggraphene
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 claims that weak localization and antilocalization—quantum interference corrections to impurity scattering—can change the sign and magnitude of second-order (quadratic-in-current) transport in two-dimensional conductors, and that this offers a microscopic explanation for sign-changing nonlinear conductivity seen in single-layer graphene heterostructures where no phase transition exists. The author shows this within the semiclassical Boltzmann framework by adding a time-nonlocal diffusion kernel that encodes the Cooperon contribution, solving the kinetic equation to second order in the electric field, and computing linear and nonlinear conductivity tensors for a Dirac fermion with trigonal warping. The central formula gives an explicit nonlinear conductivity tensor that vanishes and changes sign when the interference parameter satisfies α(0) = −5/(11τ), which happens on the antilocalization branch before an unphysical divergence. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete, testable mechanism connecting two phenomena that share a symmetry condition—broken inversion symmetry—and because it makes a concrete prediction about the density dependence of the nonlinear response.

What carries the argument

The time-nonlocal diffusion kernel α(t−t′) added to the semiclassical Boltzmann collision integral. In frequency space it equals the Cooperon integral α(ω) = ±(1/πν_Fτ) ∫ d²q/(2π)² [Dq²−iω+τ_φ⁻¹]⁻¹ (with plus for weak localization, minus for antilocalization), a standard object measuring the enhanced probability of a closed diffusion path. The kernel couples the distribution at opposite momenta, f(−p), and is what the paper is testing for nonlinear transport; it modifies the distribution function at zeroth, first and second order in the electric field. The paper's key step is solving the kinetic equation to second order without assuming f(p)=f(−p), which yields an f₂ term whose current integ

What would settle it

Compute the second-order conductivity from the diagrammatic Cooperon ladder (the microscopic origin of the kernel) for the same Dirac-plus-trigonal-warping dispersion and check whether the α(0) dependence takes the factorized form of Eq. (14). If a full microscopic calculation gives a different functional form, or if no zero crossing appears on the antilocalization branch, the paper's central claim is ruled out. Experimentally, tune the phase-coherence length (temperature or magnetic field) in a single-layer graphene Hall bar and track the density at which the second-harmonic response changes

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the second-order nonlinear conductivity tensor of a two-dimensional electron system with broken inversion symmetry is modified by weak (anti)localization through a time-nonlocal term in the Boltzmann collision integral, and that this modification can reverse the sign of the nonlinear response as a function of carrier density. Working with a minimal model—a spinless Dirac fermion with trigonal warping, ε_p = v_D|p| + c|p| cos 3θ—the author obtains the closed-form result σ̃_λμν = e³c(5/τ + 11α(0)) / [16π(1/τ−α(0))(1/τ+α(0))²] (τ³, −τ¹)_λ. The nonlinear conductivity therefore passes through zero at α(0) = −5/(11τ), which lies in the antilocalization

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the time-nonlocal kernel term α(t−t′)[f(−p,t′)−f_eq(p)] correctly represents genuine quantum interference corrections to the second-order distribution function—a form validated in linear response but applied here at second order; if the true vertex corrections to nonlinear transport do not factor this way, the sign-change condition α(0)=−5/(11τ) would not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, a sign change in nonlinear conductivity versus density is not evidence for a phase transition; quantum interference alone can produce it, so graphene (which has no transport phase transition) is a natural host.
  • The mechanism ties the nonlinear response to the phase-coherence length l_φ: changing l_φ (by temperature or magnetic field) must move the sign-change point, giving a direct experimental knob.
  • The two branches behave very differently: antilocalization (α<0) yields a sign change at finite density before the divergence, while localization (α>0) does not; therefore the effect should be searched for in systems with spin-orbit coupling and antilocalization.
  • In the limit α(0)=0 the ratio σ̃/σ² is scattering-time independent and sign-definite; deviations from that universal value are a direct measure of the interference correction, so even without observing a sign change the magnitude anomaly is explained.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same kernel used here in the relaxation-time approximation could be inserted into the full quantum kinetic equation or a diagrammatic calculation of the f₂ vertex; if a microscopic Cooperon ladder calculation for the second-order response factors differently, the specific sign-change condition α(0)=−5/(11τ) would shift, so the cleanest test is an exact vertex calculation.
  • Editorial inference: the paper assumes τ and l_φ are density-independent to estimate α(0)(μ), but in real graphene devices the mean-free path and phase-coherence length vary strongly with density; refining those dependences could move the predicted zero crossing, which is a testable quantitative correction to the density plots.
  • Editorial inference: since the sign change requires trigonal warping c, materials with stronger warping—such as TMD-proximitized graphene or transition-metal dichalcogenide monolayers—should show the effect at higher densities or with larger magnitude; a comparative study across materials would discriminate this mechanism from Berry-curvature-dipole and quantum-metric mechanisms that also contribu
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies second-order (nonlinear) transport in a two-dimensional electron system with broken inversion symmetry, using a Boltzmann equation in which the collision integral contains a time-nonlocal weak-(anti)localization kernel α(t−t′). The distribution function is expanded to second order in the electric field, and linear and nonlinear conductivity tensors are computed for a minimal trigonal-warped Dirac dispersion. The central result is Eq. (14): the nonlinear conductivity σ̃_λμν = e³c(5/τ + 11α(0)) / [16π(1/τ − α(0))(1/τ + α(0))²] (τ³, −τ¹)_λ, which changes sign when α(0) = −5/(11τ), i.e. on the antilocalization branch. The paper proposes that this sign change may explain sign changes of nonlinear conductivity observed in single-layer graphene devices, and compares the theoretical curve with data extracted from Ref. [8].

Significance. If the central assumption is granted, the paper offers a simple and explicit mechanism by which quantum interference corrections can alter the sign of nonlinear conductivity without any phase transition. The perturbative calculation is transparent, the model integrals are displayed, and the authors are careful to label the treatment as a toy model and a conjecture. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction: the sign-change location is controlled by α(0), and hence by the ratio l_φ/l and the density dependence of τ. However, the strength of the claim is limited by the fact that the time-nonlocal kernel is imported from linear response, and by the questionable experimental comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (1) and SI §I] The load-bearing assumption is that the same linear-response Cooperon kernel α(t−t′) entering Eq. (1) also controls the second-order distribution function f2. Refs [11–13] validate this form only for linear response, and the paper itself concedes that the Boltzmann treatment is “overly simplistic” for quantum interference. A microscopic derivation would be needed to show that the order-E² correction to the collision integral factorizes as α(t−t′)[f(−p,t′)−f_eq], rather than, say, involving a field-dressed Cooperon or a momentum-dependent kernel. Since the sign-change condition α(0) = −5/(11τ) in Eq. (14) is a direct consequence of this factorized form, it remains an assumption. The paper should either provide a derivation or materially soften the abstract and concluding claims.
  2. [Fig. 1f and Fig. S1c; “Experimental relevance and discussion”] The text and abstract claim that V_x^{2ω}/ρ_xx extracted from Ref. [8] “changes sign as a function of gate voltage.” However, the data shown in Fig. 1f (and Fig. S1c) is negative over the entire displayed gate range (V_g ≈ 10–60 V, with −V_x^{2ω}/ρ_xx between approximately 0 and −0.6 V/kΩ) and does not cross zero. The curve is non-monotonic, but no sign change is visible. This is a factual discrepancy between the stated claim and the presented data. The comparison should be revised to describe the data as non-monotonic, or the plotted quantity should be corrected, or a dataset that actually crosses zero should be provided.
  3. [Eq. (69) and Fig. 1d,e] The predicted density dependence of the sign change relies on Eq. (69), which assumes that τ and l_φ are independent of carrier density. In real graphene devices these quantities vary substantially with density, and this variation determines where the predicted sign change occurs. The authors call Eq. (69) a crude estimate, but Fig. 1e is then used as a direct comparison with Fig. 1f without any fitting or uncertainty estimate. This weakens the quantitative relevance of the comparison, even if the existence of a sign-change mechanism is accepted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The text says “The + sign in Eq. (21) corresponds…” but Eq. (21) appears in the Supplementary Information, not in the main text. Please renumber or add a pointer to the SI.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract mentions sign changes in TMDs and in single-layer graphene devices, but the experimental comparison in the paper is only with single-layer graphene (Device 4 of Ref. [8]). Either add TMD data or restrict the claim.
  3. [Fig. 1c caption] The caption describes “two types of discontinuities” but only one type (a pole at α = −1/τ and a pole at α = +1/τ) is actually discussed. Clarify the wording.
  4. [SI §IV] The extraction procedure in the SI uses V_0 and L, but the relation between V_0 and the injected current j_ω is not explicitly stated. Please spell out the assumptions so the proportionality in Eq. (71) is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derived quantity reduces to an input; the sign-change condition is a genuine consequence of the model. The only self-citation is motivational, and the main limitation is an unvalidated kernel extension, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation from Eq. (1) to Eqs. (9), (10) and (14) is deterministic algebra: α(0) is introduced as a control parameter, and the sign-change condition α(0) = −5/(11τ) follows from the computed integrals I^(2,1), I^(2,2), not from imposing the desired sign. The density dependence of α(0) is obtained from Eq. (21)/(69) with stated assumptions (τ, l_φ independent of density), and the experiment is compared by curve shape with stated parameter choices (ln(l_φ/l)=0.3, c=3.3e-2), so no parameter is fitted to the compared data and then renamed a prediction. The central input is the time-nonlocal kernel in Eq. (1), taken from Refs [11–13]; the paper states it has been validated only in linear response and explicitly concedes the Boltzmann treatment is 'overly simplistic' and the final proposal 'should be checked with exact microscopic calculations.' That is an unvalidated assumption—a correctness risk—not a circular reduction of the output to the input. Ref. [9] is a self-citation used to motivate the discrepancy in disk-shaped samples, but it is not load-bearing for any formula in the paper. A separate data-support concern, outside circularity, is that the plotted −V_x^{2ω}/ρ_xx in Fig. 1f is negative over the whole displayed range despite the caption and abstract claiming a sign change.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on inputs not purchased from this paper's own derivation: (i) the Boltzmann equation with the time-nonlocal collision integral as a correct description of WL/WAL at second order in the field; (ii) the single-valley, spinless, T=0 toy model as a proxy for graphene; (iii) the density-dependence estimate of α(0) with density-independent τ, l_φ. Free parameters: α(0) (explicitly a 'control parameter'), τ, c (warping strength), ln(l_φ/l). No invented entities. The α-kernel and its Cooperon integral are taken from Refs [11-13], so the paper adds no new microscopic objects; its contribution is the second-order solution and the sign-change condition.

free parameters (4)
  • α(0) (weak (anti)localization kernel at DC) = control parameter; estimated as ±(1/τ)(1/4π)ln(l_φ²/l²)
    Treated as a control parameter in the conductivity formulas (Eqs. 7-10); its density dependence is estimated via Eq. (69) assuming density-independent τ and l_φ. The sign-change condition α(0) = -5/(11τ) is a function of this parameter, so the paper's central plot is a scan over α.
  • τ (relaxation time) = plots use τ = 10 (v_D = 1 units)
    Kept as a parameter; results are expressed as ratios (ατ, 1/(1/τ±α)). The sign-change location relative to experiment depends on the ratio ατ, so τ sets the scale.
  • c (trigonal warping strength) = 3.3×10⁻² (Fig. 1b,c); expansion in c/v_D
    Model parameter controlling broken-inversion asymmetry; nonlinear conductivity ∝ c. The experimental comparison in Fig. 1e uses the same value without stating how it maps to the device.
  • ln(l_φ/l) (log of phase-coherence to mean-free-path ratio) = 0.3 (Fig. 1d,e)
    Sets the magnitude of α(0) vs density; the sign-change location (µ~0.2) depends on this choice. No error or density dependence considered despite WAL strength varying strongly with density in real graphene.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Boltzmann equation with the time-nonlocal collision integral (Eq. 1) plus kernel α(t-t') (Eq. 2)/(21) faithfully represents weak (anti)localization for f expanded to second order in E.
    This is the entire entry point of the WL/WAL effect. The author concedes 'the Boltzmann approach is overly simplistic to properly treat such quantum mechanical effects [12–17]' (Introduction); refs [11-13] validate it only for linear response.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium distribution is the T=0 Fermi function for the single-band dispersion ε_p, with no account of the multi-valley/spin structure of graphene.
    The single-valley toy model ε_p = v_D|p| + c|p|cos3θ (Eq. 12) is used to discuss graphene WAL, where intervalley scattering and chirality-dominated suppression of backscattering (Refs [15,32]) control WAL. The identification is conjectural.
  • domain assumption τ and l_φ are independent of carrier density.
    Stated in SI §III.D ('Assuming independence of scattering time and l_φ on density'); this assumption produces the α ∝ 1/µ scaling that fixes where the theoretical sign change appears relative to the experimental gate voltage series.
  • standard math Boundary terms in the conductivity integrals vanish (µ > 0, T=0).
    SI §III.B-C states the boundary contribution is empty at T=0 for electron doping; standard.
  • standard math The Cooperon integral (Eq. 21) with cutoffs l and l_φ gives the α(0) used in DC transport.
    Taken from Refs [11-13]; the integral is positive definite and evaluated at ω=0 (Eq. 22).
  • domain assumption Contributions from Berry curvature, local temperature gradients, and time-reversal-breaking effects are negligible for the claimed mechanism.
    Explicitly excluded in the Introduction ('we leave anomalous velocity out of consideration... local temperature... quantum geometric effects'); the experiment's nonlinearity in [8] is normally attributed to Berry curvature/chiral Bloch electrons, so excluding these may remove the dominant competing contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak localization and antilocalization corrections to nonlinear transport: a semiclassical Boltzmann treatment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H5LJAROA

@misc{pith2026251002684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak localization and antilocalization corrections to nonlinear transport: a semiclassical Boltzmann treatment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H5LJAROA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.02684}
}
read the original abstract

The nonlinear transport regime is manifested in the nonlinear current-voltage characteristic of the system. An example of such a nonlinear regime is a setup in which current is injected into the sample and the measured voltage drop is quadratic in the injected current. Such a quadratic nonlinear regime requires inversion symmetry to be broken. This is the same symmetry condition as one needs to observe weak antilocalization, which can be prominent in two-dimensional systems. Here, we study the effects of weak (anti)localization on second-order nonlinear transport in two-dimensional systems using the semiclassical Boltzmann approach. We solve for quasiparticle distribution function up to the second order in the applied external electric field and calculate linear and nonlinear conductivity tensors for a toy model. We find that localization effects could lead to a sign change of the nonlinear conductivity tensor -- a phenomenon observed in transition metal dichalcogenide and in single-layer graphene devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.02684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results for the minimal model and comparison with experiment: a) Fermi surface contours for the minimal model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Giant nonlinear conductivity in 2D electron gas from substrate-induced dipolar scattering

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Substrate-induced periodic dipolar scattering in 2D electron gases produces singular enhancement of nonlinear conductivity to a natural scale of 1 μm/ΩV due to strict 2D kinematic constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [8]

    P. He, G. K. W. Koon, H. Isobe, J. Y. Tan, J. Hu, A. H. C. Neto, L. Fu, and H. Yang, Graphene moiré superlattices with giant quantum nonlinearity of chiral bloch electrons, Nature Nanotechnology17, 378 (2022)

    2022

  2. [1]

    Genkin and P

    V. Genkin and P. Mednis, Contribution to the theory of nonlinear effects in crystals with account taken of par- tially filled bands, Sov. Phys. JETP27, 609 (1968)

    1968

  3. [2]

    Y. Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Field induced positional shift of bloch electrons and its dynamical implications, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 166601 (2014)

    2014

  4. [3]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Quantum nonlinear hall effect induced by berry curvature dipole in time-reversal in- variant materials, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  5. [4]

    E. J. König, M. Dzero, A. Levchenko, and D. A. Pesin, Gyrotropic hall effect in berry-curved materials, Phys. 5 Rev. B99, 155404 (2019)

    2019

  6. [5]

    Isobe, S.-Y

    H. Isobe, S.-Y. Xu, and L. Fu, High- frequency rectification via chiral bloch elec- trons, Science Advances6, eaay2497 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aay2497

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay2497 2020

  7. [6]

    C. Wang, Y. Gao, and D. Xiao, Intrinsic nonlinear hall effectinantiferromagnetictetragonalcumnas,Phys.Rev. Lett.127, 277201 (2021)

    2021

  8. [7]

    K. Das, S. Lahiri, R. B. Atencia, D. Culcer, and A. Agar- wal, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivities induced by the quantum metric, Phys. Rev. B108, L201405 (2023)

    2023

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    D. V. Chichinadze, N. J. Zhang, J.-X. Lin, E. Morissette, X. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, O. Vafek, and J. I. A. Li, Observation of giant nonlinear hall conductiv- ity in bernal bilayer graphene (2025), arXiv:2411.11156 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Z. Z. Du, C. M. Wang, H.-P. Sun, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Quantum theory of the nonlinear hall effect, Nature Communications12, 5038 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Hershfield and V

    S. Hershfield and V. Ambegaokar, Transport equation for weakly localized electrons, Phys. Rev. B34, 2147 (1986)

    1986

  4. [12]

    Kim, H.-J

    K.-S. Kim, H.-J. Kim, and M. Sasaki, Boltzmann equa- tion approach to anomalous transport in a weyl metal, Phys. Rev. B89, 195137 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    J.-H.HanandK.-S.Kim,Boltzmanntransporttheoryfor many-body localization, Phys. Rev. B97, 214206 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Schwab and R

    P. Schwab and R. Raimondi, Coherent transport in disor- dered metals out of equilibrium, The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems24, 525 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    McCann, K

    E. McCann, K. Kechedzhi, V. I. Fal’ko, H. Suzuura, T. Ando, and B. L. Altshuler, Weak-localization mag- netoresistance and valley symmetry in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 146805 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Garate and L

    I. Garate and L. Glazman, Weak localization and an- tilocalization in topological insulator thin films with co- herent bulk-surface coupling, Phys. Rev. B86, 035422 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Lu and S.-Q

    H.-Z. Lu and S.-Q. Shen, Weak antilocalization and lo- calization in disordered and interacting weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. B92, 035203 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Leadbeater, R

    M. Leadbeater, R. Raimondi, P. Schwab, and C. Castel- lani, Non-linear conductivity and quantum interference in disordered metals, The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems15, 277 (2000)

    2000

  11. [19]

    Bleibaumand D.Belitz, Weaklocalizationof electrons in an external electric field, Phys

    O. Bleibaumand D.Belitz, Weaklocalizationof electrons in an external electric field, Phys. Rev. B69, 075119 (2004)

    2004

  12. [20]

    J. B. Miller, D. M. Zumbühl, C. M. Marcus, Y. B. Lyanda-Geller, D.Goldhaber-Gordon, K.Campman,and A. C. Gossard, Gate-controlled spin-orbit quantum inter- ference effects in lateral transport, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 076807 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    Nihei, Y

    T. Nihei, Y. Suzuki, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Gate controlled crossover from weak localization to weak antilocalization in a narrow gap in0.8ga0.2as/inp heterostructure, physica status solidi c3, 4239 (2006), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pssc.200672827

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    F. V. Tikhonenko, D. W. Horsell, R. V. Gorbachev, and A. K. Savchenko, Weak localization in graphene flakes, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 056802 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    F. V. Tikhonenko, A. A. Kozikov, A. K. Savchenko, and R. V. Gorbachev, Transition between electron localiza- tion and antilocalization in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 226801 (2009)

    2009

  16. [25]

    Gmitra, S

    M. Gmitra, S. Konschuh, C. Ertler, C. Ambrosch-Draxl, and J. Fabian, Band-structure topologies of graphene: Spin-orbit coupling effects from first principles, Phys. Rev. B80, 235431 (2009)

    2009

  17. [26]

    Taniguchi, J

    J.Amann, T.Völkl, T.Rockinger, D.Kochan, K.Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, J. Fabian, D. Weiss, and J. Eroms, Counterintuitive gate dependence of weak antilocaliza- tion in bilayergraphene/wse 2 heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B105, 115425 (2022)

    2022

  18. [27]

    Gopinadhan, Y

    K. Gopinadhan, Y. J. Shin, I. Yudhistira, J. Niu, and H. Yang, Giant magnetoresistance in single-layer graphene flakes with a gate-voltage-tunable weak antilo- calization, Phys. Rev. B88, 195429 (2013)

    2013

  19. [28]

    Suárez-Rodríguez, F

    M. Suárez-Rodríguez, F. de Juan, I. Souza, M. Gobbi, F. Casanova, and L. E. Hueso, Nonlinear transport in non-centrosymmetric systems, Nature Materials24, 1005 (2025)

    2025

  20. [29]

    Hikami, A

    S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka, Spin-orbit interaction and magnetoresistance in the two dimen- sional random system, Progress of Theoretical Physics 63, 707 (1980), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/63/2/707/5336056/63-2-707.pdf

    1980

  21. [30]

    H. Zhou, L. Holleis, Y. Saito, L. Cohen, W. Huynh, C. L. Patterson, F. Yang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Isospin mag- netism and spin-polarized superconductivity in bernal bilayer graphene, Science375, 774 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abm8386

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    S. V. Morozov, K. S. Novoselov, M. I. Katsnel- son, F. Schedin, L. A. Ponomarenko, D. Jiang, and A. K. Geim, Strong suppression of weak localization in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 016801 (2006)

    2006

  23. [32]

    Weak localization and antilocalization corrections to nonlinear transport: a semiclassical Boltzmann treatment

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 109 (2009). 6 Supplementary Information for "Weak localization and antilocalization corrections to nonlinear transport: a semiclassical Bolt...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.