Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Charge carrier flow through trimmed graphene nanoribbon junctions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Outer atoms of angled graphene nanoribbon junctions can be cut away without spoiling near-Fermi conductance, and remaining conductance is set by the armchair-to-zigzag edge ratio.

desk verdict Clean computational design rules for shrinking 60° AGNR junctions by outer trimming, with a linear size rule and an empirical edge-ratio model that holds inside standard 1NN TB. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08471 v1 pith:YQ4OZRQ5 submitted 2026-07-09 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Julien Leuenberger , Kristiāns Čerņevičs , Oleg V. Yazyev (Institute of Physics , EPFL , Lausanne , Switzerland) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 73.63.-b73.22.-f72.80.Vp
keywords graphenenanoribbonsangledjunctionsquantumtransportedgestatesconductancetight-bindinginterconnects
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

All-graphene nanoelectronics need angled junctions that turn ribbons on a plane without wasting area or killing ballistic transport. This work shows that probability current in 60-degree metallic armchair graphene nanoribbon junctions concentrates on the inner edge and center, so atoms at the outer tip carry almost no current. Small trims of that tip therefore leave near-Fermi conductance nearly perfect. Larger trims mix armchair and zigzag edge segments; the surviving conductance is then bounded by pure-armchair and pure-zigzag extremes and is predicted by a geometric-mean formula that uses only the edge-type ratio. The result supplies a concrete size-and-edge design rule for compact interconnects.

What carries the argument

The geometric-mean Ansatz G = G_a^{r_a} · G_z^{r_z} (together with the critical outer-cutoff length that keeps preserved conductance above a chosen threshold). It converts an edge-atom count into a quantitative prediction of near-Fermi transmission for any intermediate trim.

What would settle it

Fabricate or simulate the same family of trimmed 60-degree junctions with next-nearest-neighbor hoppings or Hubbard interactions included and check whether the outer-tip current remains negligible and whether the geometric-mean edge-ratio formula still tracks the measured or computed conductance near the Fermi level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In metallic N=3n+2 armchair graphene nanoribbon junctions at 60 degrees, the probability density current at the outer tip is negligible, so a modest outer cutoff leaves preserved conductance near 100 percent at the Fermi level. For larger cutoffs the conductance is controlled by the fraction of armchair versus zigzag edge atoms and is well approximated by the geometric mean of the pure-armchair and pure-zigzag conductances raised to those fractions, with the pure cases serving as upper and lower bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on a single-orbital nearest-neighbor tight-binding model with fixed hoppings, applied only to wide metallic armchair ribbons and ignoring spin, electron interactions, longer-range hoppings, and substrate or contact effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Junction footprints can be reduced by nearly half while still preserving at least 90 percent of the lead conductance near the Fermi level.
  • Designers obtain a linear rule relating critical outer cutoff to ribbon width for any chosen conductance threshold.
  • Minimizing zigzag edge segments becomes an explicit layout priority for high-transmission interconnects.
  • The same edge-ratio model supplies a quick estimate of conductance for arbitrary intermediate trims without a full transport recalculation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the outer-current localization persists under more realistic contacts, the same trimming recipe could be applied to multi-angle or multi-lead graphene routing networks.
  • Including spin degrees of freedom would test whether the same geometric-mean formula continues to bound magnetically polarized edge channels.
  • The design rule suggests that bottom-up synthesis routes should prioritize armchair-rich outer cuts when area is scarce.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies 60° junctions of metallic armchair graphene nanoribbons (N = 3n+2, widths 20–80) within a single-orbital nearest-neighbor tight-binding model and Landauer–Green’s-function transport (kwant). It shows that probability current concentrates on the inner edge and center of a sharp junction, so modest outer-tip trimming (small w_ext) leaves near-Fermi preserved conductance τ ≈ 100%. Larger trimmings introduce mixed armchair/zigzag edges; pure-armchair and pure-zigzag cut families bound the conductance of rounded junctions, and an empirical geometric-mean Ansatz G = G_a^{r_a} · G_z^{r_z} (Eq. 10) recovers the decay of τ and the location of the critical cutoff. A linear relation between the critical w_ext (for τ ≥ 90%) and ribbon width N is reported, yielding a practical size-optimization rule.

Significance. If the numerical trends hold under the stated model, the work supplies concrete, falsifiable design rules for compact all-graphene interconnects: how far the outer tip can be removed without loss of conductance, and how edge-type composition controls residual transport. The systematic current maps, bounding pure-edge families, and the simple geometric-mean formula are useful engineering tools that go beyond earlier qualitative statements about edge effects. The public Materials Cloud dataset further strengthens reproducibility. The principal limitation is the restricted Hamiltonian (1NN TB, no spin, no interactions, ideal edges), which the authors themselves flag; within that scope the results are coherent and actionable.

major comments (2)
  1. Method, Eq. (1) and the restriction to metallic N = 3n+2 AGNRs: the central claims (negligible tip current, armchair/zigzag bounds, linear w_crit(N)) rest entirely on a single-orbital 1NN TB model with fixed t = 2.75 eV. While this is standard near the Dirac point, zigzag-edge localization and Fano anti-resonances are known to be sensitive to next-nearest-neighbor hoppings, Hubbard interactions and spin polarization. A short robustness check (e.g., finite t' or a mean-field Hubbard term on a representative subset of junctions) would substantially strengthen the claim that the design rules survive beyond the minimal model; without it the scope of the conclusions should be stated more explicitly in the abstract and conclusion.
  2. Results, Eq. (10) and Fig. 6: the geometric-mean Ansatz is introduced after observing that round-junction conductance collapses with the zigzag bound, then validated on the same data set. The manuscript correctly notes that it does not capture anti-resonances and is less accurate away from E = 0. Because the formula is presented as a predictive model for arbitrary trimmings, the authors should either (i) quantify its domain of validity more sharply (e.g., maximum relative error versus N and δE, already partially shown in SI Figs. S2–S3) or (ii) test it on a few cut paths that are not pure round/armchair/zigzag, so that the edge-ratio weighting is not circular with the training families.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 2 caption states w_ext = 32 for the round junction while the main text and Fig. 4 use w_ext = 12 for the same N = 32 family; the figure itself appears consistent with a moderate trim. Please correct the caption.
  2. The definition of armchair/zigzag vertices (SI Fig. S1) is clear, but the main text never states how r_a is computed for a finite discrete edge; a one-sentence formula or reference to the SI would help readers reproduce the ratios used in Eq. (10).
  3. Preserved conductance τ is defined with an energy window δE (Eq. 9); the choice of the three windows shown in Figs. 3 and 5 is reasonable, yet a brief remark on why δE = 0.01 eV and 0.10 eV are representative of interconnect operation would improve clarity.
  4. Several figure panels (e.g., current maps) omit the lowest current values “for readability”; stating the cutoff threshold (or providing a logarithmic scale option) would make the maps more quantitative.
  5. Typographical inconsistencies appear in author names (Čern,evičs / Čern,evičs) and in the arXiv date line; these should be standardized before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: transport maps, bounds, and geometric-mean model are independent TB/kwant numerics, not forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Hamiltonian (Eq. 1), Green’s functions, Landauer conductance, LDOS and bond currents (Eqs. 2–8) are standard and independent of the later claims. Probability-current maps (Figs. 2d,h; 4d,h) are direct numerical outputs showing negligible outer-tip current; the observation that small w_ext leaves τ≈100% follows immediately and is not defined into existence. Pure-armchair and pure-zigzag junctions are simulated separately; their conductances Ga(E), Gz(E) are then used, together with the purely geometric edge ratios ra, rz of a mixed (round) junction, in the empirical Ansatz of Eq. 10. That Ansatz is motivated by the observed collapse of round-junction conductance with the zigzag bound, but it is not algebraically identical to the target data: Ga and Gz come from distinct structures, ra is counted from atomic coordinates, and the product is compared a posteriori to independently computed round-junction conductances (Figs. 5c, 6 and SI Figs. S2–S3). The linear w_crit(N) relation is likewise a numerical fit to the same independent runs. Self-citations ([33], [35]) supply background motivation and the definition of the descriptor τ; they are not required to obtain or justify the new current maps, bounds or Ansatz. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, no free parameter is fitted to the target and then re-presented as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Score 0 is therefore the honest finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claims rest on a standard single-orbital 1NN TB model, Landauer transport, a geometric definition of the trim (w_ext), and an empirical geometric-mean Ansatz. Free parameters are conventional hopping and the chosen thresholds/windows; no new particles or forces are introduced. The main invented constructs are the preserved-conductance descriptor, the trim families, and the edge-ratio model itself.

free parameters (4)
  • nearest-neighbor hopping t = 2.75 eV
    Fixed at 2.75 eV (Method); conventional graphene value, not fitted to the junction data, but the entire energy scale of conductance features depends on it.
  • on-site energy ε_0 = 0 eV
    Set to 0 eV throughout (Method); places the Fermi level at charge neutrality by construction.
  • preserved-conductance threshold for w_ext^(crit) = 90%
    τ = 90% is chosen by hand to define the critical cutoff plotted in Fig. 5(d); the linear design rule depends on this threshold.
  • energy window δE for τ = 0 / 0.01 / 0.10 eV
    Results are reported for δE = 0, 0.01, and 0.10 eV; the sharpness of the phase transition and the quality of the Ansatz depend on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-orbital nearest-neighbor tight-binding Hamiltonian accurately describes near-Fermi electronic structure and transport of AGNRs and their junctions.
    Stated in Method (Eq. 1) with citations to graphene/GNR TB literature; underpins all conductance, LDOS, and current maps.
  • domain assumption Landauer–Büttiker conductance from Green’s functions (or equivalent scattering matrix in kwant) equals the physical two-terminal conductance in the ballistic coherent regime.
    Eqs. 2–6; standard mesoscopic transport assumption for these systems.
  • domain assumption Leads with N = 3n+2 are metallic (or have negligible gap) in the 1NN model and are the relevant family for interconnects.
    Method section; restricts the entire study to one AGNR family.
  • ad hoc to paper Geometric mean of pure-armchair and pure-zigzag conductances weighted by edge-type fractions approximates mixed-junction conductance near the Fermi level.
    Eq. 10 (Ansatz); introduced to recover the zero-conductance bound and match simulated trends, not derived from the Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper Armchair and zigzag vertices defined by local signed-angle rules (SI Fig. S1) correctly quantify edge composition for arbitrary cut paths.
    Supplementary Information; used to compute r_a and r_z that enter the Ansatz.
invented entities (3)
  • Preserved conductance τ(E)
    purpose: Normalize junction conductance to pristine-lead conductance over an energy window so junctions of different N can be compared.
    Defined in Method Eq. 9; central figure of merit for all design rules.
  • Cutoff parameter w_ext and round/armchair/zigzag trim families
    purpose: Parameterize how much outer material is removed and control the resulting edge-type mix.
    Defined in Method and Fig. 1; the linear critical-cutoff claim is stated in terms of w_ext.
  • Geometric-mean edge-ratio Ansatz (Eq. 10)
    purpose: Predict mixed-junction conductance from pure-armchair and pure-zigzag bounds using r_a and r_z.
    Proposed in Results; validated only against the paper’s own simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charge carrier flow through trimmed graphene nanoribbon junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQ4OZRQ5

@misc{pith2026260708471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charge carrier flow through trimmed graphene nanoribbon junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQ4OZRQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08471}
}
read the original abstract

As Moore's law approaches its fundamental limits, the development of nanoelectronic devices using low-dimension materials has become a promising avenue for further miniaturization and performance improvements. Among the various novel materials, graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) have emerged as particularly attractive candidates due to their unique electronic properties, opening up a whole new nanoelectronics paradigm consisting of circuits made entirely of graphene. However, due to the technical constraints that naturally arise when working on a two-dimensional plane, the design of efficient nanoelectronic components with a minimal spatial footprint remains a significant challenge. In particular, connecting various components can be a real architectural challenge, comparable to that of the first printed circuit boards. This paper investigates strategies for designing optimal-sized nanoribbon junctions which allow connecting GNRs at an angle, by trimming the junction edge while maintaining favorable electronic properties. Specifically, we show that the probability density current at the tip of junctions is negligible, implying that a selection of atoms can safely be removed without significantly altering the conductance. More generally, we demonstrate that larger trimmings have impacts on the conductance channels, resulting in a conductance that is mainly dictated by the ratio of armchair and zigzag edges. Finally, we propose a simple model relating this ratio to the conductance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic view of the different N-AGNR junctions. From left to right: an armchair junction, a round junction, and a zigzag junction. Newly defined edges are colored. Blue and red edges correspond to armchair and zigzag edges re￾spectively. Leads’ edges are in black. The gray lines at the tip of the junctions represent the trimming process, quanti￾fied by the cutoff parameter wext. until the intersection point in ord… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Physical and electric properties of two types of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Preserved conductance as a function of the cutoff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Physical and electric properties of 32-AGNR junctions with wext = 12. (a) Edge structure of the armchair junction. The blue dots represent local armchairs while the red ones represent local zigzags. (b) Edge structure of the armchair junction. The dots correspond to th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Preserved conductance as a function of the cutoff parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Preserved conductances τ (black dots) and pre￾dictions (magenta triangles) as functions of the cutoff pa￾rameter wext using Eq. (10), for (a) δE = 0.01 eV and (b) δE = 0.10 eV. Lines are for readability. tails regarding the quality of the predictions can be found in th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Electronic properties and topological aspects of graphene nanohelicoids

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A tight-binding analysis of honeycomb lattices on helicoidal surfaces finds width-controlled gap oscillations and an alternating Zak phase, though the topological invariant depends on the chosen unit-cell convention.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    and GNRs [39, 40] near the Fermi level, enabling the systematic study of a wide range of junctions which in turn will make it possible to investigate certain topology- related trends. Making use of the second quantization, the well-known Hamiltonian for a given deviceˆHD reads ˆHD = X j ε0ˆc† j ˆcj −t X j,k (ˆc† j ˆck +h.c.),(1) wheret= 2.75eV is the near...

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    G. E. Moore, Cramming more components onto inte- grated circuits, Electronics , 114 (1965)

    work page 1965

  3. [3]

    G. E. Moore, Progress in digital integrated electronics, Proc.TechnicalDigestInt’lElectronDevicesMeeting21, 11 (1975). 7

    work page 1975

  4. [4]

    C. A. Mack, Fifty Years of Moore’s Law, IEEE Transac- tions on Semiconductor Manufacturing24, 202 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    J. R. Powell, The Quantum Limit to Moore’s Law, Pro- ceedings of the IEEE96, 1247 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    T. N. Theis and H.-S. P. Wong, The End of Moore’s Law: A New Beginning for Information Technology, Comput- ing in Science & Engineering19, 41 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films, Science306, 666 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Q. H. Wang, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, A. Kis, J. N. Cole- man, and M. S. Strano, Electronics and optoelectronics of two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides, Na- ture Nanotechnology7, 699 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Iannaccone, F

    G. Iannaccone, F. Bonaccorso, L. Colombo, and G. Fiori, Quantumengineeringoftransistorsbasedon2dmaterials heterostructures, Nature Nanotechnology13, 183 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    D. A. Areshkin and C. T. White, Building blocks for integrated graphene circuits, Nano Lett.7, 3253 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Chen, Y.-M

    Z. Chen, Y.-M. Lin, M. J. Rooks, and P. Avouris, Graphene nano-ribbon electronics, Physica E: Low- dimensional Systems and Nanostructures40, 228 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    P.Avouris,Graphene: Electronicandphotonicproperties and devices, Nano Lett.10, 4285 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Xie, A.-P

    H.Wang, H.S.Wang, C.Ma, L.Chen, C.Jiang, C.Chen, X. Xie, A.-P. Li, and X. Wang, Graphene nanoribbons for quantum electronics, Nature Reviews Physics3, 791 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Radsar, H

    T. Radsar, H. Khalesi, and V. Ghods, Graphene nanorib- bon field effect transistors analysis and applications, Su- perlattices and Microstructures153, 106869 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Nakada, M

    K. Nakada, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dressel- haus, Edge state in graphene ribbons: Nanometer size ef- fect and edge shape dependence, Phys. Rev. B54, 17954 (1996)

    1996

  8. [16]

    Y.-W. Son, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Energy gaps in graphene nanoribbons, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 216803 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Barone, O

    V. Barone, O. Hod, and G. E. Scuseria, Electronic struc- ture and stability of semiconducting graphene nanorib- bons, Nano Lett.6, 2748 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    O. V. Yazyev, A guide to the design of electronic proper- ties of graphene nanoribbons, Acc. Chem. Res46, 2319 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Y.-C. Chen, D. G. de Oteyza, Z. Pedramrazi, C. Chen, F. R. Fischer, and M. F. Crommie, Tuning the band gap of graphene nanoribbons synthesized from molecular pre- cursors, ACS Nano7, 6123 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Gröning, S

    O. Gröning, S. Wang, X. Yao, C. A. Pignedoli, G. B. Barin, C. Daniels, A. Cupo, V. Meunier, X. Feng, A. Narita, K. Mullen, P. Ruffieux, and R. Fasel, Engi- neeringofrobusttopologicalquantumphasesingraphene nanoribbons, Nature560, 209 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Pizzochero and E

    M. Pizzochero and E. Kaxiras, Hydrogen atoms on zigzag graphene nanoribbons: Chemistry and magnetism meet at the edge, Nano Lett.22, 1922 (2022)

    1922

  14. [22]

    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)

    2009

  15. [23]

    J. Cai, P. Ruffieux, R. Jaafar, M. Bieri, T. Braun, S. Blankenburg, M. Muoth, A. P. Seitsonen, M. Saleh, X. Feng, K. Mullen, and R. Fasel, Atomically precise bottom-up fabrication of graphene nanoribbons, Nature 466, 470 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    M. Y. Han, B. Ozyilmaz, Y. Zhang, and P. Kim, En- ergy Band-Gap Engineering of Graphene Nanoribbons, Physical Review Letters98, 206805 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    X. Li, X. Wang, L. Zhang, S. Lee, and H. Dai, Chemi- cally Derived, Ultrasmooth Graphene Nanoribbon Semi- conductors, Science319, 1229 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    S. S. Datta, D. R. Strachan, S. M. Khamis, and A. T. C. Johnson, Crystallographic Etching of Few-Layer Graphene, Nano Letters8, 1912 (2008)

    1912

  19. [27]

    J. Cai, C. A. Pignedoli, L. Talirz, P. Ruffieux, H. Söde, L. Liang, V. Meunier, R. Berger, R. Li, X. Feng, K. Müllen, and R. Fasel, Graphene nanoribbon hetero- junctions, Nature Nanotechnology9, 896 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    J. P. Llinas, A. Fairbrother, G. Borin Barin, W. Shi, K. Lee, S. Wu, B. Yong Choi, R. Braganza, J. Lear, N. Kau, W. Choi, C. Chen, Z. Pedramrazi, T. Dum- slaff, A. Narita, X. Feng, K. Müllen, F. Fischer, A. Zettl, P. Ruffieux, E. Yablonovitch, M. Crommie, R. Fasel, and J. Boko...

    2017

  21. [29]

    D. J. Rizzo, G. Veber, T. Cao, C. Bronner, T. Chen, F. Zhao, H. Rodriguez, S. G. Louie, M. F. Crommie, and F. R. Fischer, Topological band engineering of graphene nanoribbons, Nature560, 204 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    D. J. Rizzo, J. Jiang, D. Joshi, G. Veber, C. Bronner, R. A. Durr, P. H. Jacobse, T. Cao, A. Kalayjian, H. Ro- driguez, P. Butler, T. Chen, S. G. Louie, F. R. Fis- cher, and M. F. Crommie, Rationally designed topolog- ical quantum dots in bottom-up graphene nanoribbons, ACS Na...

    2021

  23. [31]

    R. E. Blackwell, F. Zhao, E. Brooks, J. Zhu, I. Piskun, S. Wang, A. Delgado, Y.-L. Lee, S. G. Louie, and F. R. Fischer, Spin splitting of dopant edge state in magnetic zigzag graphene nanoribbons, Nature600, 647 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Majhi, S

    J. Majhi, S. K. Maiti, and S. Ganguly, Enhanced current rectification in graphene nanoribbons: effects of geome- tries and orientations of nanopores, Nanotechnology33, 255704 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Borin Barin, Q

    G. Borin Barin, Q. Sun, M. Di Giovannantonio, C.-Z. Du, X.-Y. Wang, J. P. Llinas, Z. Mutlu, Y. Lin, J. Wilhelm, J. Overbeck, C. Daniels, M. Lamparski, H. Sahabudeen, M. L. Perrin, J. I. Urgel, S. Mishra, A. Kinikar, R. Wid- mer, S. Stolz, M. Bommert, C. Pignedoli, X. Feng, M. ...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Čern,evičs and O

    K. Čern,evičs and O. V. Yazyev, Designing interconnects based on graphene nanoribbon junctions (2023), in press

    2023

  27. [35]

    Chen, M.-H

    P.-A. Chen, M.-H. Chiang, and W.-C. Hsu, All-zigzag graphene nanoribbons for planar interconnect applica- tion, J. Appl. Phys.122, 034301 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Pizzochero, K

    M. Pizzochero, K. Čern,evičs, G. B. Barin, S. Wang, P. Ruffieux, R. Fasel, and O. V. Yazyev, Quantum elec- tronic transport across ‘bite’ defects in graphene nanorib- bons, 2D Materials8, 035025 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    X. Zhao, V. Geskin, and R. Stadler, Destructive quantum interference in electron transport: A reconciliation of the molecular orbital and the atomic orbital perspective, The Journal of Chemical Physics146, 092308 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Tsuji, E

    Y. Tsuji, E. Estrada, R. Movassagh, and R. Hoffmann, Quantum interference, graphs, walks, and polynomials, 8 Chemical Reviews118, 4887 (2018), pMID: 29630345

    2018

  31. [39]

    Kundu, Tight binding parameters for graphene, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0907.4264 (2009)

    R. Kundu, Tight binding parameters for graphene, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0907.4264 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Wimmer, I

    M. Wimmer, I. Adagideli, S. Berber, D. Tomanek, and K. Richter, Spin Currents in Rough Graphene Nanorib- bons: Universal Fluctuations and Spin Injection, Physi- cal Review Letters100, 177207 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Hancock, A

    Y. Hancock, A. Uppstu, K. Saloriutta, A. Harju, and M. J. Puska, Generalized tight-binding transport model for graphene nanoribbon-based systems, Phys. Rev. B 81, 245402 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Landauer, Spatial variation of currents and fields due tolocalizedscatterersinmetallicconduction,IBMJ.Res

    R. Landauer, Spatial variation of currents and fields due tolocalizedscatterersinmetallicconduction,IBMJ.Res. Dev.1, 0223 (1957)

    1957

  35. [43]

    C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, and X. Waintal, Kwant: a software package for quantum transport, New Journal of Physics16, 063065 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    D.S.FisherandP.A.Lee,Relationbetweenconductivity and transmission matrix, Physical Review B23, 6851 (1981)

    1981

  37. [45]

    Fujita, K

    M. Fujita, K. Wakabayashi, K. Nakada, and K. Kusak- abe, Peculiar localized state at zigzag graphite edge, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan65, 1920 (1996)

    1920

  38. [46]

    Yamaguchi, H

    J. Yamaguchi, H. Hayashi, H. Jippo, A. Shiotari, M. Ohtomo, M. Sakakura, N. Hieda, N. Aratani, M. Oh- fuchi, Y. Sugimoto, H. Yamada, and S. Sato, Small bandgap in atomically precise 17-atom-wide armchair- edged graphene nanoribbons, Communications Materials 1, 1 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Yang, C.-H

    L. Yang, C.-H. Park, Y.-W. Son, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Quasiparticle Energies and Band Gaps in Graphene Nanoribbons, Physical Review Letters99, 186801 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    Zhu and H

    X. Zhu and H. Su, Scaling of excitons in graphene nanoribbons with armchair shaped edges, J. Phys. Chem. A115, 11998 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Leuenberger, K

    J. Leuenberger, K. Čern ,evičs, and O. V. Yazyev, Trimmed graphene nanoribbon junctions dataset, Mate- rials Cloud Archive2024.X, 10.24435/materialscloud:jx- 02 (2024)

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    A. E. Miroshnichenko, S. Flach, and Y. S. Kivshar, Fano resonances in nanoscale structures, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2257 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    K.Wakabayashi, M.Fujita, H.Ajiki,andM.Sigrist,Elec- tronic and magnetic properties of nanographite ribbons, Phys. Rev. B59, 8271 (1999). Supplementary Information Julien Leuenberger, Kristi¯ ans Čern,evičs, and Oleg V. Yazyev∗ Institute of Physics, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale...

    1999

  44. [52]

    Leuenberger, K

    J. Leuenberger, K. Čern,evičs, and O. V. Yazyev, Trimmed graphene nanoribbon junctions dataset, Materials Cloud Archive 2024.X, 10.24435/materialscloud:jx-02 (2024)

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.