Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Tuning proximity-induced spin-orbit coupling in graphene/WSe$_{2}$ heterostructures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Twist angle between graphene and WSe2 controls the strength of proximity-induced spin-orbit coupling, and experiments now confirm it.

desk verdict Useful, first systematic test of twist-angle dependence in graphene/WSe2, but the 30° valley-Zeeman switch-off rests on a circular angle assignment and an underdetermined fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.02522 v2 pith:B24FGPNF submitted 2025-12-02 cond-mat.mes-hall

Tobias Rockinger , Bálint Szentpéteri , Szabolcs Csonka , Marina Marocko , Julia Amann , Ziyang Gan , Antony George , Andrey Turchanin
show 5 more authors
Kenji Watanabe Takashi Taniguchi Dieter Weiss Péter Makk Jonathan Eroms
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords twistangleproximityspin-orbitcouplinggrapheneWSe2weakantilocalizationRashbaSOCvalley-ZeemanvanderWaalsheterostructures
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

This paper reports experiments that put a theoretical prediction to the test: that rotating the crystal lattice of a WSe2 monolayer relative to graphene should change the strength of the proximity-induced spin-orbit coupling (SOC) in the graphene. From weak-antilocalization magnetotransport measurements on six graphene/WSe2/hBN heterostructures with known twist angles, the authors extract the Rashba coupling λ_R and the valley-Zeeman coupling λ_VZ. They find that the two samples with the same 15° twist angle give nearly identical SOC values, whereas different twist angles give clearly different values, and at 30° the valley-Zeeman term is essentially switched off. The angle dependence matches theoretical predictions in trend, and hydrostatic pressure of 1.9 GPa raises λ_R by about 40%, consistent with earlier findings. A sympathetic reader would see this as establishing twist angle as a practical knob for reproducible SOC engineering in graphene-based devices.

What carries the argument

Weak antilocalization (WAL) magnetoconductance is the central probe: the full five-parameter expression for the quantum correction to conductivity (Eq. 1) is fitted to gate-averaged magnetotransport data. The spin-orbit scattering times τ_asy and τ_sym extracted from the fit are converted to the physical SOC parameters via λ_R = ℏ√(4 τ_asy τ_p) and λ_VZ = ℏ√(4 τ_sym τ_iv). To make the five-parameter fit tractable, the authors assume that the total spin-orbit scattering rate scales linearly with the momentum relaxation rate (τ_SOC^{-1} ∝ τ_p) and that λ_R and λ_VZ are independent of carrier density. Twist angles are set by aligning fractured edges, and made unambiguous for three samples by cr

What would settle it

Measure λ_R and λ_VZ in the same samples with an independent, model-free probe—such as spin precession (Hanle) transport or angle-resolved photoemission—and compare with the WAL-derived values; if they do not reproduce the same twist-angle dependence, the WAL extraction is unreliable. Alternatively, fabricate a set of devices with twist angles in 5° steps under identical conditions and check whether the SOC values follow the smooth theoretical curves or scatter randomly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's terms, is that proximity-induced spin-orbit coupling in monolayer graphene on monolayer WSe2 depends strongly on the twist angle between the two crystal lattices, and that this dependence is now confirmed experimentally. The authors determine λ_R and λ_VZ for twist angles of about 11°, 15°, 22°, and 30° (with a 0°/30° ambiguity resolved by comparison with theory). The two 15° samples—one from exfoliated WSe2, one from CVD-grown WSe2—reproduce λ_R and λ_VZ well, while different angles yield different values. At 30° the valley-Zeeman coupling drops to approximately 0.05–0.06 meV, close to the predicted zero, indicating that this term can be switched off

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the assumption that the five-parameter weak-antilocalization fit, constrained by a linear spin-orbit scattering rate versus momentum relaxation rate and by density-independent SOC strengths, yields unique and physically correct values for λ_R and λ_VZ; if the fit is still degenerate, the reported twist-angle trend could be an artifact of the fitting procedure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Twist angle becomes a design parameter: devices with the same twist angle should have reproducible proximity SOC, removing a major source of sample-to-sample scatter.
  • Choosing a 30° twist turns off the valley-Zeeman SOC, leaving Rashba SOC dominant; this could be exploited to isolate Rashba physics in spin-transport experiments.
  • Pressure and twist angle act as two independent tuning knobs for SOC strength, enabling separate control of λ_R and λ_VZ.
  • The crystallographic etching method for determining graphene's zigzag axis can be transferred to other van der Waals heterostructures where precise angular alignment matters.
  • If the trend holds, twisted graphene/WSe2 devices for spin transistors, spin-orbit valves, or correlated states can be designed with expected SOC strengths from theory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is a fine scan of twist angle in small increments (e.g., 2°) to test whether λ_R and λ_VZ follow the continuous theoretical curves or show jumps due to lattice reconstruction or strain relaxation.
  • The vanishing of λ_VZ at 30° could be used as a clean experimental testbed for spin-charge conversion mechanisms that rely purely on Rashba coupling, with valley-Zeeman contributions removed.
  • If the same twist-angle control applies to bilayer graphene/WSe2 or to WSe2/graphene/WSe2 sandwiches, it could sharpen the search for spin-orbit-driven band inversion and topological phases.
  • The assumption underlying the WAL extraction—that the fit constraints yield unique SOC values—could be cross-checked by comparing with local Hall or quantum capacitance measurements on the same devices.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports magnetotransport measurements on six monolayer graphene/monolayer WSe2/hBN Hall bars with different twist angles between graphene and WSe2, determined either by fractured-edge alignment (samples 1–3) or by a new crystallographic-etching method (samples 4–6). From weak-antilocalization fits to Eq. (1), the authors extract Rashba (λ_R) and valley-Zeeman (λ_VZ) spin-orbit coupling parameters and claim a strong twist-angle dependence consistent with theory, including a near switch-off of λ_VZ at 30°, and reproducibility for equal twist angles. They also report a ~40% increase of λ_R under 1.9 GPa hydrostatic pressure on sample 1. The paper's central claim is that the experiments confirm theoretical predictions [22,24,25] for the twist-angle dependence of proximity-induced SOC.

Significance. If the twist-angle dependence and reproducibility are established, this would be a valuable step toward deterministic engineering of proximity SOC in graphene/TMDC heterostructures. The crystallographic-etching method for unambiguous twist-angle determination in the type (b) samples is a genuine methodological contribution, and the 15° reproducibility check (samples 2 and 6) is a useful internal control. However, the confirmation claim is currently weakened by the circular assignment of the twist angle for samples 1 and 3 and by the admitted degeneracy of the five-parameter WAL fit. The manuscript therefore needs substantial reanalysis or reframing before its main claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.E, Fig. 8] The assignment of α=30° for samples 1 and 3 is circular. The text states: 'λ_VZ ≈ 0.05–0.06 meV would clearly not match any theoretical prediction for α=0°. We therefore conclude that the true twist angle for both samples is α=30°.' This uses the fitted λ_VZ—the very quantity the experiment is meant to determine—to fix the independent variable α. The subsequent sentence, 'experiment confirms that valley-Zeeman-SOC can actually be switched off,' is therefore a consequence of the assignment, not an independent confirmation. Samples 1 and 3 are the only nominal 0°/30° points in Fig. 8, so removing them or assigning α=0° materially changes the comparison with theory. To support the switch-off claim, the authors need an independent structural determination of α (e.g., STM, Raman, or symmetry-resolved transport), or they must treat samples 1 and 3 as ambiguous and exclude them from the confirm
  2. [§II.C–II.D, Eqs. (1)–(4), Figs. 6–7] The five-parameter WAL fit is admitted to be non-unique: 'Fitting Eq. 1 only results in a range of interdependent parameters.' The error bars in Figs. 6–7 are described as 'the permitted range to yield acceptable fits,' not statistical or systematic uncertainties. The extraction is made unique only by imposing τ_SOC^{-1} ∝ τ_p (Ref. [11]) and density-independent λ_R, λ_VZ, but these assumptions are then presented as observations: Fig. 6(a) shows the linear τ_SOC^{-1}-τ_p relation and Fig. 7 shows flat λ_R, λ_VZ(n) as measured behavior. Unless the constraints are independently validated or the fit degeneracy is quantified (e.g., by a covariance analysis or by cross-checking against spin-precession or quantum-Hall measurements), the angle dependence extracted from this procedure could be an artifact of the fitting constraints. This concern is compounded by the authors' own note in §II.E th
  3. [Abstract, §IV] The abstract claims that the experiments 'confirm a strong twist angle dependence of the proximity-induced SOC in agreement with theoretical predictions.' As argued above, this claim rests on two load-bearing procedures that are not yet secure: the circular angle assignment for samples 1 and 3 and the degenerate, constraint-dependent WAL fit. The strongest evidence for angle dependence comes from the unambiguous type (b) samples 4–6 and the 15° reproducibility of samples 2 and 6. The paper should either provide independent angle determination for samples 1 and 3, or reframe the conclusions as a qualitative trend from the unambiguous samples and explicitly state that the 0°/30° data and the λ_VZ 'switch-off' are not independently confirmed. The 'switch-off' conclusion should be removed unless supported by independent evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'Rasbha-type SOC' should be 'Rashba-type SOC'.
  2. [Eqs. (3)–(4)] The notation 'ℏp4·τ_asy·τ_p' is nonstandard; presumably it means ℏ√(4 τ_asy τ_p). Please use standard square-root notation.
  3. [§II.A.1, Table I] No uncertainty is given for the twist angles determined by fractured-edge alignment. State the alignment tolerance, since the 15° samples are used as a reproducibility benchmark and the ambiguity between α and 30°−α is central to the paper.
  4. [Fig. 8] The figure legend is unclear: which theoretical curve corresponds to which reference is not immediately obvious, and the 'green curve' showing an error bar at 0° is ambiguous. Please clarify in the caption.
  5. [§II.E] The statement that λ_VZ = 0 at α=30° 'was predicted by all theories' should be supported by explicit values from Refs. [22,24,25], since Fig. 8 suggests some quantitative spread among theories.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Twist-angle assignment for samples 1 and 3 is theory-based, so the 30° λ_VZ 'switch-off' is not an independent experimental confirmation.

  1. self definitional [Section II.E (Discussion), after Fig. 8; ambiguity stated in Section II.A.1]
    "First, to resolve the possible ambiguity of the twist angle in samples 1 and 3, we note that λVZ ≈0.05−0.06 meV would clearly not match any theoretical prediction for α=0◦. We therefore conclude that the true twist angle for both samples is α=30◦, where λVZ = 0 was predicted by all theories and experiment confirms that valley-Zeeman-SOC can actually be switched off."

    The twist angle α is the independent variable whose effect on λVZ is being tested. For samples 1 and 3, fabrication leaves α ambiguous between 0° and 30°, as stated in Sec. II.A.1. The paper resolves this ambiguity by comparing the WAL-fitted λVZ (Eqs. 3–4) with theoretical predictions and rejecting α=0° because the fitted λVZ 'would clearly not match' it. The samples are then assigned to α=30°, where theory predicts λVZ=0, and the same fitted λVZ is used to claim that 'experiment confirms that valley-Zeeman-SOC can actually be switched off.' Thus the measured quantity is used to set the independent variable; the confirmation of λVZ≈0 at 30° is true by the assignment rule rather than by independent measurement, making the 'switch-off' claim circular for two of the six data points.

full rationale

The load-bearing circularity is confined to the twist-angle assignment of samples 1 and 3. Those samples are the only nominal 0°/30° points, and their 30° labels are chosen because the fitted λVZ matches the theoretical value at 30° and not at 0°; the subsequent claim that experiment confirms λVZ can be switched off at 30° is then a restatement of that labeling choice. This weakens the abstract's broad claim that the experiments 'confirm a strong twist angle dependence ... in agreement with theoretical predictions,' especially for the valley-Zeeman term. The paper does retain independent support from samples 2, 4, 5, and 6, whose twist angles are set unambiguously (15° for sample 2; 11°, 22°, and 15° by crystallographic etching for samples 4–6), so the general angle dependence is not entirely constructed. The admitted non-uniqueness of the WAL fit ('Fitting Eq. 1 only results in a range of interdependent parameters'; error bars are 'the permitted range to yield acceptable fits') is an identifiability caveat rather than circularity itself; it affects the security of the extracted SOC values but is not a self-referential reduction. The pressure section compares with earlier results of partly overlapping authorship, but it is an independent measurement on the same sample and is not used as a derivation, so it does not add to the circularity score. Overall, one central subclaim is forced by construction, meriting a 6 rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The extraction of the central SOC values relies on a degenerate five-parameter fit shaped by theory-imposed constraints and, for two samples, on a theory-based resolution of the twist-angle ambiguity. No new particles or interactions are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Five WAL scattering times (τ_φ, τ_asy, τ_sym, τ_iv, τ_intra) per density point = ranges in Figs. 6 and S4; not unique
    Fitted to magnetoconductance; authors state Eq. 1 gives only a range of interdependent parameters, so acceptable fits span a band (Sec. II.C).
  • Twist angle assignment for samples 1 and 3 = α = 30° (chosen)
    Type-(a) edge alignment gives α=0° or 30°; the paper selects 30° because theoretical predictions for α=0° would not match the extracted λ_VZ (Sec. II.D).
  • Constraints on fit: τ_SOC^−1 ∝ τ_p and density-independent λ_R, λ_VZ = slope from Ref. [11]; numerical value not stated
    Imposed to narrow the degenerate parameter space; the resulting density independence is later reported as a finding (Sec. II.C).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption McCann-Fal'ko WAL expression (Eq. 1) describes magnetoconductance of these graphene/WSe2/hBN devices with the five scattering times
    Used for all fits; paper notes a newer theory [46] predicts deviations when τ_asy ≈ τ_φ, which is admitted as a possible source of mismatch (Sec. II.E).
  • domain assumption Relations λ_R = ℏ/sqrt(4 τ_asy τ_p) and λ_VZ = ℏ/sqrt(4 τ_sym τ_iv) from Cummings et al. map fitted scattering times to SOC parameters
    Eqs. 3–4; these relations are themselves theoretical and not independently validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption τ_SOC^−1 depends linearly on τ_p with constant slope
    Taken from Ref. [11] and used to narrow fits; Fig. 6(a) then shows linearity, but it was partially assumed (Sec. II.C).
  • domain assumption Fractured edges of graphene and WSe2 align along zigzag or armchair directions; CVD WSe2 and etched holes expose zigzag edges
    Basis for twist-angle determination in Sec. II.A via Refs. [36–40]; for type (a) it does not distinguish 0° vs 30°.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tuning proximity-induced spin-orbit coupling in graphene/WSe$_{2}$ heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B24FGPNF

@misc{pith2026251202522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tuning proximity-induced spin-orbit coupling in graphene/WSe$_2$ heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B24FGPNF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.02522}
}
abstract

Recently, proximity-induced spin-orbit coupling (SOC) has been observed in heterostructures consisting of monolayer graphene (ML-G) and transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDCs) such as WSe$_{2}$. Successful tuning of SOC in graphene/WSe$_{2}$ heterostructures by applying mechanical pressure and electric fields was also demonstrated in previous studies. In addition, theoretical calculations predicted a strong dependence of the proximity-induced SOC on the twist angle between graphene and TMDC. Here, we put these predictions to experimental test in ML-G/ML-WSe$_{2}$/hBN-heterostructures, where the twist angle is determined by aligning fractured edges, and by crystallographic etching of graphene. By performing weak anti-localization measurements, we determine the strength of the Rasbha-type SOC ($\lambda_\mathrm{R}$) and the valley-Zeeman-type SOC ($\lambda_\mathrm{VZ}$). Our experiments confirm a strong twist angle dependence of the proximity-induced SOC in agreement with theoretical predictions. Finally, we demonstrate the tunability of the SOC strength via mechanical pressure, which is in agreement with earlier findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.02522 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b) [35]. Finally, edge contacts [35] made of 0.5 nm chromium (Cr) and 100 nm gold (Au) were evaporated using physical vapor deposition (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Schematic representation of a ML-WSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Four-point resistance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Measurements of the quantum mechanical correction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a)-(b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Momentum relaxation time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Measurements of the gate electric field effect on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a) τ −1 SOC as a function of τp for the two cases p = 0 GPa and p = 1.9 GPa. For the calculation of τ −1 SOC the average values of τasy and τsym were used. (b)-(f) Progression of τϕ, τasy, τsym, τiv and τintra as a function of the charge carrier density n fo…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. SOC parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references

  1. [11]

    V¨ olkl, T

    T. V¨ olkl, T. Rockinger, M. Drienovsky, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Weiss, and J. Eroms, Magnetotransport in heterostructures of transition metal dichalcogenides and graphene, Phys. Rev. B96, 125405 (2017)

    2017

  2. [1]

    2 (a)), a moir´ e pattern appears, and the resulting heterostructure has a C3 (120◦) symmetry [22]

    Twist angle determination for sample type (a) If two superimposed hexagonal crystal lattices are ro- tated with respect to each other (see Fig. 2 (a)), a moir´ e pattern appears, and the resulting heterostructure has a C3 (120◦) symmetry [22]. The range of twist angles yield- ing unique values for proximity-induced SOC, apart from a possible sign change o...

  3. [2]

    A CVD grown ML-WSe 2 was used, which forms zigzag edges during growth [37, 38], and we identified the zigzag orientation of graphene 3 by crystallographic etching [39, 40]

    Twist angle determination for sample type (b) For the type (b) samples, we developed a new method to determine the twist angle between ML-G and ML- WSe2 unambiguously. A CVD grown ML-WSe 2 was used, which forms zigzag edges during growth [37, 38], and we identified the zigzag orientation of graphene 3 by crystallographic etching [39, 40]. For this purpose...

    2024

  4. [3]

    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

  5. [4]

    W. Han, R. K. Kawakami, M. Gmitra, and J. Fabian, Graphene spintronics, Nature Nanotechnology9, 794 (2014)

    2014

  6. [5]

    Gmitra, D

    M. Gmitra, D. Kochan, P. H¨ ogl, and J. Fabian, Trivial and inverted dirac bands and the emergence of quantum spin hall states in graphene on transition-metal dichalco- genides, Phys. Rev. B93, 155104 (2016)

    2016

  7. [6]

    Gmitra and J

    M. Gmitra and J. Fabian, Graphene on transition-metal dichalcogenides: A platform for proximity spin-orbit physics and optospintronics, Phys. Rev. B92, 155403 9 (2015)

    2015

  8. [7]

    T. P. Kaloni, L. Kou, T. Frauenheim, and U. Schwingen- schl¨ ogl, Quantum spin hall states in graphene interacting with ws2 or wse2, Applied Physics Letters105, 233112 (2014)

    2014

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Avsar, J

    A. Avsar, J. Y. Tan, T. Taychatanapat, J. Balakrish- nan, G. Koon, Y. Yeo, J. Lahiri, A. Carvalho, A. S. Rodin, E. O’Farrell, G. Eda, A. H. Castro Neto, and B. ¨Ozyilmaz, Spin–orbit proximity effect in graphene, Nature Communications5, 4875 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Wang, D.-K

    Z. Wang, D.-K. Ki, J. Y. Khoo, D. Mauro, H. Berger, L. S. Levitov, and A. F. Morpurgo, Origin and magni- tude of ’designer’ spin-orbit interaction in graphene on semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. X6, 041020 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    Zihlmann, A

    S. Zihlmann, A. W. Cummings, J. H. Garcia, M. Kedves, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Sch¨ onenberger, and P. Makk, Large spin relaxation anisotropy and valley- zeeman spin-orbit coupling in wse2/graphene/h-bn het- erostructures, Phys. Rev. B97, 075434 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Wakamura, F

    T. Wakamura, F. Reale, P. Palczynski, M. Q. Zhao, A. T. C. Johnson, S. Gu´ eron, C. Mattevi, A. Ouerghi, and H. Bouchiat, Spin-orbit interaction induced in graphene by transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B99, 245402 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    A. W. Cummings, J. H. Garcia, J. Fabian, and S. Roche, Giant spin lifetime anisotropy in graphene induced by proximity effects, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 206601 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    L. A. Ben ´ ıtez, J. F. Sierra, W. Savero Torres, A. Arrighi, F. Bonell, M. V. Costache, and S. O. Valenzuela, Strongly anisotropic spin relaxation in graphene–transition metal dichalcogenide heterostructures at room temperature, Nature Physics14, 303 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    J. Y. Khoo, A. F. Morpurgo, and L. Levitov, On-demand spin-orbit interaction from which-layer tunability in bi- layer graphene, Nano Letters17, 7003 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Gmitra and J

    M. Gmitra and J. Fabian, Proximity effects in bilayer graphene on monolayer wse 2: Field-effect spin valley locking, spin-orbit valve, and spin transistor, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 146401 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    J. O. Island, X. Cui, C. Lewandowski, J. Y. Khoo, E. M. Spanton, H. Zhou, D. Rhodes, J. C. Hone, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, L. S. Levitov, M. P. Za- letel, and A. F. Young, Spin-orbit-driven band inversion in bilayer graphene by the van der waals proximity effect, Nature571, 85 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    D. Wang, S. Che, G. Cao, R. Lyu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. N. Lau, and M. Bockrath, Quantum hall effect measurement of spin-orbit coupling strengths in ultraclean bilayer graphene/wse2 heterostructures, Nano Letters19, 7028 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Amann, T

    J. Amann, T. V¨ olkl, T. Rockinger, D. Kochan, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, J. Fabian, D. Weiss, and J. Eroms, Counterintuitive gate dependence of weak antilocaliza- tion in bilayer graphene wse2 heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B105, 115425 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Dulisch, D

    H. Dulisch, D. Emmerich, E. Icking, K. Hecker, S. M¨ oller, L. M¨ uller, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Electric-field-tunable spin-orbit gap in a bi- layer graphene/wse2 quantum dot, Nano Lett.25, 10549 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    F¨ ul¨ op, A

    B. F¨ ul¨ op, A. M´ arffy, S. Zihlmann, M. Gmitra, E. T´ ov´ ari, B. Szentp´ eteri, M. Kedves, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Fabian, C. Sch¨ onenberger, P. Makk, and S. Csonka, Boosting proximity spin–orbit coupling in graphene/wse2 heterostructures via hydrostatic pressure, n...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Kedves, B

    M. Kedves, B. Szentp´ eteri, A. M´ arffy, E. T´ ov´ ari, N. Pa- padopoulos, P. K. Rout, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Goswami, S. Csonka, and P. Makk, Stabilizing the inverted phase of a wse2/blg/wse2 heterostructure via hydrostatic pressure, Nano Lett.23, 9508 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Szentp´ eteri, A

    B. Szentp´ eteri, A. M´ arffy, M. Kedves, E. T´ ov´ ari, B. F¨ ul¨ op, I. K¨ ukemezey, A. Magyarkuti, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, S. Csonka, and P. Makk, Increas- ing the proximity-induced spin-orbit coupling in bilayer graphene/wse2 heterostructures with pressure, Phys. Rev....

    2025

  16. [24]

    Li and M

    Y. Li and M. Koshino, Twist-angle dependence of the proximity spin-orbit coupling in graphene on transition- metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B99, 075438 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    David, P

    A. David, P. Rakyta, A. Korm´ anyos, and G. Burkard, In- duced spin-orbit coupling in twisted graphene–transition metal dichalcogenide heterobilayers: Twistronics meets spintronics, Phys. Rev. B100, 085412 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Naimer, K

    T. Naimer, K. Zollner, M. Gmitra, and J. Fabian, Twist- angle dependent proximity induced spin-orbit coupling in graphene/transition metal dichalcogenide heterostruc- tures, Phys. Rev. B104, 195156 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Zollner, S

    K. Zollner, S. a. M. Jo˜ ao, B. K. Nikoli´ c, and J. Fabian, Twist- and gate-tunable proximity spin-orbit coupling, spin relaxation anisotropy, and charge-to-spin conver- sion in heterostructures of graphene and transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B108, 235166 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    H. Yang, B. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa, J. Kim´ ak, E. Schmoranze- rov´ a, E. Dolan, Z. Chi, M. Gobbi, P. Nˇ emec, L. E. Hueso, and F. Casanova, Twist-angle-tunable spin texture in wse2/graphene van der waals heterostructures, Nature Materials23, 1502 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    McCann and V

    E. McCann and V. I. Fal’ko, z→−z symmetry of spin- orbit coupling and weak localization in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 166606 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Ili´ c, J

    S. Ili´ c, J. S. Meyer, and M. Houzet, Weak localization in transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers and their heterostructures with graphene, Phys. Rev. B99, 205407 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by pub- lisher] for further Data and results of pressure cell mea- surements

  24. [32]

    George, C

    A. George, C. Neumann, D. Kaiser, R. Mupparapu, T. Lehnert, U. H¨ ubner, Z. Tang, A. Winter, U. Kaiser, I. Staude, and A. Turchanin, Controlled growth of transi- tion metal dichalcogenide monolayers using knudsen-type effusion cells for the precursors, Journal of Physics: Ma- ...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Turchanin and A

    A. Turchanin and A. George, Tailored growth of transi- tion metal dichalcogenides’ monolayers by chemical vapor deposition, Small21, 2403089 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Pizzocchero, L

    F. Pizzocchero, L. Gammelgaard, B. S. Jessen, J. M. Caridad, L. Wang, J. Hone, P. Bøggild, and T. J. Booth, The hot pick-up technique for batch assembly of van der waals heterostructures, Nature Communications7, 11894 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Y. Kim, P. Herlinger, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and 10 J. H. Smet, Reliable postprocessing improvement of van der waals heterostructures, ACS Nano13, 14182 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    squeegee

    M. R. Rosenberger, H.-J. Chuang, K. M. McCreary, A. T. Hanbicki, S. V. Sivaram, and B. T. Jonker, Nano- “squeegee” for the creation of clean 2d material in- terfaces, ACS Applied Materials Interfaces10, 10379 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    L. Wang, I. Meric, P. Y. Huang, Q. Gao, Y. Gao, H. Tran, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, L. M. Campos, D. A. Muller, J. Guo, P. Kim, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard, and C. R. Dean, One-dimensional electrical contact to a two-dimensional material, Science342, 614 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Y. Guo, C. Liu, Q. Yin, C. Wei, S. Lin, T. B. Hoffman, Y. Zhao, J. H. Edgar, Q. Chen, S. P. Lau, J. Dai, H. Yao, H.-S. P. Wong, and Y. Chai, Distinctive in-plane cleav- age behaviors of two-dimensional layered materials, ACS Nano10, 8980 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    W. Fu, M. John, T. D. Maddumapatabandi, F. Bus- solotti, Y. S. Yau, M. Lin, and K. E. Johnson Goh, Toward edge engineering of two-dimensional layered transition-metal dichalcogenides by chemical vapor de- position, ACS Nano17, 16348 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    S. Wang, A. Robertson, and J. H. Warner, Atomic struc- ture of defects and dopants in 2d layered transition metal dichalcogenides, Chem. Soc. Rev.47, 6764 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Nemes-Incze, G

    P. Nemes-Incze, G. Magda, K. Kamar´ as, and L. P. Bir´ o, Crystallographically selective nanopatterning of graphene on sio2, Nano Res.3, 110 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Oberhuber, S

    F. Oberhuber, S. Blien, S. Heydrich, F. Yaghobian, T. Korn, C. Sch¨ uller, C. Strunk, D. Weiss, and J. Eroms, Weak localization and raman study of anisotropically etched graphene antidots, Applied Physics Letters103, 143111 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional super- conductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Na- ture556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    M. B. Lundeberg, R. Yang, J. Renard, and J. A. Folk, Defect-mediated spin relaxation and dephasing in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 156601 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    R. V. Gorbachev, F. V. Tikhonenko, A. S. Mayorov, D. W. Horsell, and A. K. Savchenko, Weak localization in bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 176805 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    L. E. Golub, Theory of weak localization in graphene with spin-orbit interaction, Phys. Rev. B109, L121407 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    F¨ ul¨ op, A

    B. F¨ ul¨ op, A. M´ arffy, E. T´ ov´ ari, M. Kedves, S. Zihlmann, D. Indolese, Z. Kov´ acs-Krausz, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, C. Sch¨ onenberger, I. K´ ezsm´ arki, P. Makk, and S. Csonka, New method of transport mea- surements on van der waals heterostructures under pres- su...

    2021

  42. [50]

    J. D. Gerber, E. Ersoy, M. Masseroni, M. Niese, M. Laumer, A. O. Denisov, H. Duprez, W. W. Huang, C. Adam, L. Ostertag, C. Tong, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, V. I. Fal’ko, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Knothe, Tun- able spin-orbit splitting in bilayer graphene/wse 2 quan- tum dev...

    2025

  43. [51]

    H. Ge, P. Koopmann, F. Mrcarica, O. T. P. Schmidt, I. Bouquet, M. Dossena, M. Luisier, and J. Cao, Ab initio simulation of spin-charge qubits based on bilayer graphene-wse2 quantum dots, npj 2D Materials and Ap- plications9, 47 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Polski, A. Thomson, E. Lantagne- Hurtubise, C. Lewandowski, H. Zhou, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, J. Alicea, and S. Nadj-Perge, En- hanced superconductivity in spin-orbit proximitized bi- layer graphene, Nature613, 268 (2023). Supplementary Material Tuning proximi...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.