Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 54 references

Spin-orbit related power-law dependence of the diffusive conductivity on the carrier density in disordered Rashba two-dimensional electron systems

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a disordered two-dimensional electron gas with Rashba spin-orbit coupling, the low-density dc diffusive conductivity follows a power law in carrier density whose exponent is set linearly by the spin-orbit strength and is independent of…

desk verdict A serious numerical study that finds a novel disorder-independent, spin-orbit-dependent power-law exponent in the low-density Rashba conductivity, but the headline linear-in-alpha law is fitted to only three points and lacks a broadening-convergence check. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02186 v3 pith:3HXXMCVH submitted 2019-09-05 cond-mat.mes-hall

Weiwei Chen , Cong Xiao , Qinwei Shi , Qunxiang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Rashbaspin-orbitcouplingtwo-dimensionalelectrongasdisorderdiffusiveconductivitypower-lawscalingmultiplescatteringKuboformulaLanczosrecursivemethod
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 tries to establish that in a two-dimensional electron gas with Rashba spin-orbit coupling and scalar disorder, non-perturbative multiple impurity scattering turns the low-density dc diffusive conductivity into a power law of the carrier density, $\sigma/\sigma_0 = A(n/n_0)^{\nu}$, with exponent $\nu = -1.56\alpha/t + 1.66$. The exponent is claimed to be independent of both electron density and disorder strength, yet linearly dependent on the Rashba strength $\alpha$. If true, ordinary classical charge transport carries a quantitative spin-orbit fingerprint even after many impurity collisions, something that neither perturbative nor single-impurity T-matrix treatments show. This would be observable in tunable Rashba systems such as oxide interfaces and surface alloys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the momentum-space Lanczos recursive method for the disordered Green's function, feeding the Kubo formula. On an $8000 \times 8000$ tight-binding lattice with periodic boundary conditions, Gaussian on-site disorder of zero mean and variance $V_0^2$, and broadening $\eta = 0.001t$, the method evaluates the retarded and advanced Green's functions including all multiple-scattering events; the vertex correction is then solved from the integral vertex equation to obtain the diffusive conductivity $\sigma = \sigma_{RA} - \sigma_{RR}$. The key output is a numerically exact self-energy $\Sigma(k_s, E)$, found to be independent of $k$ and helicity $s$, whose imaginary part has a smooth tail toward the band edge, in contrast to the sharply vanishing tail of the self-consistent approximation.

What would settle it

Measure the dc longitudinal conductivity versus gate-tuned carrier density in a Rashba 2DES down to $n/n_0 \lesssim 0.05$; if the log-log slope of $\sigma/\sigma_0$ versus $n/n_0$ is not linear in $\alpha/t$ with a disorder-independent slope near $-1.56\alpha/t + 1.66$, the claim fails. In the simulation itself, varying the broadening $\eta$ or the lattice size must leave the fitted exponent unchanged; a systematic drift would indicate the power law is an artifact of numerical resolution rather than the physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an emergent power-law relation for the dc longitudinal conductivity of a disordered Rashba two-dimensional electron system in the low-density multiple-scattering regime: $\sigma/\sigma_0 = A(n/n_0)^{\nu}$, where the prefactor $A$ depends on both disorder and spin-orbit strengths, while the fitted exponent is $\nu = -1.56\alpha/t + 1.66$ over the simulated range $0.1 \le \alpha/t \le 0.4$. The exponent is independent of carrier density and of disorder strength across $\Gamma_0/E_R = 1/32, 1/16, 1/8, 1/4$, and varies linearly with $\alpha/t$. The paper reports that the same linear dependence holds for spin-conserved (with $\nu = -1.36\alpha/t + 1.41$) and spin-flipped (with $\nu = -2.42\alpha/t + 1.83$) short-range disorder, and that the relation is independent of impurity concentration. It attributes the effect to multiple-scattering processes that the perturbative, self-consistent, and T-matrix approximations miss, and notes that the retarded-retarded contribution $\sigma_{RR}$ becomes essential once $\sigma_{RR} \ge \sigma_{RA}/3$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated large lattice with a small artificial energy broadening reproduces the exact infinite-system diffusive conductivity of a metallic Rashba electron gas, so the fitted power law is not an artifact of localization, system size, or the broadening.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the low-density regime the semiclassical formula $\sigma/\sigma_0 = (n^4/n_0^4 + n^2/n_0^2)/2$ is replaced by a genuine power law, so conductivity measurements in tunable Rashba devices can be compared directly with Eq. (2).
  • The fitted exponent gives a disorder-independent readout of the Rashba strength: samples with different impurity concentrations should show the same log-log slope $\nu$ at fixed $\alpha/t$.
  • The $\sigma_{RR}$ contribution, usually neglected in semiclassical transport, becomes an indispensable part of the conductivity in the regime where the power law holds, namely when $\sigma_{RR} \ge \sigma_{RA}/3$.
  • Because the linear relation between $\nu$ and $\alpha/t$ persists for spin-conserving and spin-flipping short-range disorder with different constants, the power law is a robust signature of the scattering class, not an accident of scalar disorder.
  • The simulated self-energy reproduces the smooth density-of-states tail seen in experiments near the band edge, implying that low-density transport should be interpreted with multiple-scattering physics rather than single-impurity approximations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test whether the fitted relation $\nu = -1.56\alpha/t + 1.66$ is a universal scaling function of the dimensionless ratio $k_R a$ by running the same simulation at finer $\alpha$ steps; if it is, the exponent would become a practical calibration of Rashba coupling.
  • The near-linear constants suggest a possible analytic origin in the interplay between the two Rashba subbands and crossing-diagram self-energies; a future theory that derives the exponent from those diagrams would move the claim from numerical fit to mechanism.
  • If the same power law appears in other symplectic-class 2D systems with similar linear band crossings, such as topological surface states, the signature could be used to identify multi-scattering-dominated transport even where band parameters are less known.
  • In a gated system such as the LaAlO3/SrTiO3 interface, where both density and Rashba splitting are tunable, measuring the log-log slope at several gate voltages would directly test whether the exponent tracks the gate-tuned $\alpha$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports numerical simulations of the zero-temperature dc longitudinal conductivity of a disordered Rashba two-dimensional electron gas, treated with a Kubo formula whose Green's functions are computed by a momentum-space Lanczos recursive method. In the low-density regime the authors find a power-law dependence sigma/sigma0 = A(n/n0)^nu, with the exponent independent of carrier density and disorder strength but linearly dependent on the Rashba coupling strength: nu = -1.56 alpha/t + 1.66. They contrast this with Boltzmann and self-consistent Born results, argue that the behavior arises from non-perturbative multiple-scattering effects, and propose candidate experimental systems such as LaAlO3/SrTiO3 interfaces, bismuth tellurohalide surfaces, and BiPbSb/Ag(111) surface alloys.

Significance. If the central scaling law (Eqs. (2)-(3)) is correct, it is a striking result: a quantitatively spin-orbit-dependent power-law exponent in classical diffusive charge transport, absent from Boltzmann and T-matrix approaches and robust against disorder strength. The numerical method is non-perturbative, and the paper includes useful comparisons with approximate self-energies and with the experimental DOS tail of Bi/Ag(111). The claim is falsifiable and experimentally accessible in tunable Rashba systems. However, the credibility of the quantitative law depends on numerical convergence and statistical details that are not yet reported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Numerical methods and Fig. 2] The central power-law result (Eqs. (2)-(3)) is extracted from Kubo conductivities computed with a single broadening eta = 0.001t, yet no eta-convergence test is reported. For alpha/t = 0.2, ER = 0.02t and Gamma0 = ER/32 = 0.000625t, so the artificial broadening exceeds the nominal disorder linewidth for the weakest disorder studied; in the fitted window ln(n/n0) ≈ -4 to -1 the Fermi energy lies near or below the unperturbed band edge, precisely where the density of states is a disorder-induced tail controlled by the regularization. If the fitted exponent nu changes as eta is reduced (for example to 0.0005t or 0.0002t), the claimed spin-orbit fingerprint would be an artifact of the broadening. Please provide an eta-sweep for at least one alpha and one Gamma0, showing the fitted nu and A as functions of eta, or otherwise justify rigorously why eta > Gamma0 is acceptable for this observable.
  2. [Eq. (3) and Fig. 2(d)] Equation (3), one of the two central quantitative claims, is a linear fit to only three values of alpha/t (0.2, 0.3, 0.4). Three points cannot establish linearity, and no error bars, fit residuals, or goodness-of-fit measures are given. The authors should either compute additional alpha values (at least within the stated range 0.1 <= alpha/t <= 0.4, e.g., alpha/t = 0.1, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35) or explicitly restate Eq. (3) as an interpolation over the studied range with quantified uncertainty. The same comment applies to the analogous linear fits reported in the Supplemental Materials for spin-conserved and spin-flipped disorder.
  3. [Fig. 2(a-c) and Numerical methods] The claim that nu is independent of disorder strength rests on the visual parallelism of curves in Fig. 2(a-c), but no disorder-realization averaging or statistical errors are reported. On an 8000x8000 lattice self-averaging may be sufficient, but the manuscript should state this explicitly and provide error bars on the conductivity or at least on the fitted exponents, so that the parallel-curve assertion can be checked quantitatively.
  4. [Eqs. (8)-(13) and Numerical methods] The derivation of the vertex function and the simplified Kubo formulas relies on the statement in 'Numerical methods' that the self-energy Sigma(k,s;E) is independent of both k and s. This is presented as a numerical finding without supporting data or derivation. Because the reduction of the Bethe-Salpeter equation to Eq. (13) uses this property, the authors should either prove the k,s-independence for Gaussian white-noise disorder in the continuum limit or demonstrate numerically that the full momentum- and helicity-dependent self-energy gives the same conductivity.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, such as 'di usive' in the title and 'the the crossing wigwam' in the discussion of self-energy diagrams; these should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 2(d)] Figure 2(d) shows the fitted exponents nu without error bars or the raw fit limits; adding both would improve the transparency of the linear relation in Eq. (3).
  3. [Preliminaries] The mapping between the tight-binding and continuum models yields alpha/t = k_R a; it would be helpful to state explicitly the lattice constant a used in the numerical simulations and any finite-lattice corrections to this equality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the power-law exponent is a free numerical fit, and the only self-citation concerns a regime assumption, not the extracted relation.

full rationale

The central claims Eqs. (2) and (3) are explicitly numerical fits to the Lanczos-Kubo conductivity data, not quantities forced by the definitions of the model. Rescaling the axes by sigma0 and n0 is only an affine transformation of ln(sigma) versus ln(n), so it cannot impose the fitted exponent nu; the paper states 'This observation inspires us to use the power-law formula [Eq. (2)] to fit the results' and later 'Fitting the data, we obtain the linear scaling Eq. (3).' The derivation is otherwise self-contained: the Kubo formula with exact Green's functions from the Lanczos recursive method is stated in Eqs. (8)-(13), and the results are benchmarked against the Boltzmann limit, the SCBA, and the experimental DOS tail of Bi/Ag(111). No parameter is fitted to a subset and then renamed a prediction. The only self-reliance is the premise that the strong-spin-orbit, weak-disorder regime is metallic, justified by the authors' own Ref. [27] ('even the states a little below the band edge are guaranteed to be extended [27]'). That premise is an input about localization rather than the target conductivity exponent, it is corroborated by the independent symplectic-class references [24-26], and it does not enter the exponent extraction; it would at most affect the interpretation of the computed conductivity as the physical DC value. The fixed broadening eta=0.001t and the absence of an eta-convergence sweep are numerical-convergence risks, not circularity, since the broadening is a fixed regulator rather than a fitted parameter. Overall, no circular step reduces the central claim to its inputs.

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

The central numerical claim rests on the standard Kubo-formula framework, a Gaussian white-noise disorder model, the continuum mapping of the tight-binding Hamiltonian, a metallic-phase assumption imported from the authors' own Ref. [27], and the convergence of the Lanczos recursion on a finite lattice with a single broadening eta = 0.001t. The only entities introduced are fitted numbers: the slope and intercept of Eq. (3), the empirical A(alpha/t, V0/t) parametrization, and the implicit choice of fitting window. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • slope and intercept of the nu(alpha/t) fit = -1.56 and 1.66
    Eq. (3) is fitted to three numerically extracted exponents for alpha/t = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4; linearity is not independently confirmed.
  • coefficients of A(alpha/t, V0/t) = A = 0.47(alpha/t)^(-1.43)(V0/t) + 0.03(alpha/t)^(-1.1)
    Empirical parametrization of the prefactor in Eq. (2) over the simulated range; the constants 0.47, 0.03, -1.43, -1.1 are obtained by fitting the same data.
  • power-law fitting window in n/n0 = not specified numerically
    The low-density interval over which the log-log curves are fitted as linear is chosen by eye or post hoc; the paper later says the power law holds when sigma_RR >= sigma_RA/3, which is a diagnostic stated after the fact.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kubo linear-response formula relates the diffusive dc conductivity to Green's functions and the vertex-corrected velocity (Eqs. 8-10).
    Standard linear-response theory; assumed without derivation (Refs [50,51]).
  • domain assumption Gaussian white-noise disorder model: <V(r)V(r')> = n_imp V0^2 delta(r-r'), with impurity concentration ni = 1/a^2.
    Standard model for short-range disorder in 2D electron gases; the paper claims Eq. (3) holds for three disorder types but only scalar disorder is treated in the main text.
  • domain assumption The tight-binding Hamiltonian (Eqs. 4-5) maps to the continuum Rashba Hamiltonian (Eq. 6) with t = hbar^2/(ma^2) and alpha = alpha_R/a, valid in the low-density regime for alpha/t <= 0.4.
    The mapping is stated in the text and deferred to Supplemental; the low-density regime and the alpha/t <= 0.4 bound are relied on throughout.
  • domain assumption Strong spin-orbit coupling with weak scalar disorder keeps the system metallic below the band edge, so the diffusive Kubo conductivity is well defined in the fitted window.
    This is taken from the authors' own earlier work (Ref. [27]) and is load-bearing; if localization intrudes, the computed conductivity is not the physical DC one.
  • domain assumption The Lanczos recursive method with broadening eta = 0.001t on an 8000x8000 lattice reproduces the exact thermodynamic-limit Green's function of the disordered system.
    Numerical convergence is asserted based on eta >= delta_E and finite-size criterion (Refs [31-33,52]); no convergence tests vs eta or system size are shown in the arXiv text.
  • ad hoc to paper The self-energy Sigma(k,s;E) is independent of k and s.
    Found numerically ('Remarkably, ... the self-energy function is independent of both k and s') and then used to justify the vertex function solution in Eqs. (12-13); it is a numerical observation, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-orbit related power-law dependence of the diffusive conductivity on the carrier density in disordered Rashba two-dimensional electron systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HXXMCVH

@misc{pith2026190902186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-orbit related power-law dependence of the diffusive conductivity on the carrier density in disordered Rashba two-dimensional electron systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HXXMCVH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02186}
}
abstract

By using the momentum-space Lanczos recursive method which considers rigorously all multiple-scattering events, we unveil that the non-perturbative disorder effect has dramatic impact on the charge transport of a two-dimensional electron system with Rashba spin-orbit coupling in the low-density region. Our simulations find a power-law dependence of the dc longitudinal conductivity on the carrier density, with the exponent linearly dependent on the Rashba spin-orbit strength but independent of the disorder strength. Therefore, the classical charge transport influenced by complicated multiple-scattering processes also shows the characteristic feature of the spin-orbit coupling. This highly unconventional behavior is argued to be observable in systems with tunable carrier density and Rashba splitting, such as the LaAlO$_{3}$/SrTiO$_{3}$ interface, the heterostructure of Rashba semiconductors bismuth tellurohalides and the surface alloy Bi$_x$Pb$_y$Sb$_{1-x-y}$/Ag(111).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02186 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) The self-energy function versus energy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    W. Chen, C. Wang, Q. Shi, Q. Li, and X. R. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 100, 214201 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Z ˇuti´c, J

    I. Z ˇuti´c, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [2]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  4. [3]

    Sinova, Sergio O

    J. Sinova, Sergio O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1213 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    V . M. Edelstein, Sol. State Communs.73, 233 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [5]

    J. I. Inoue, G. E. W. Bauer, and L. W. Molenkamp, Phys. Rev. B 70, 041303(R) (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [6]

    Manchon, J

    A. Manchon, J. Zelezny, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035004 (2019)

    2019

  8. [7]

    Nitta, T

    J. Nitta, T. Akazaki, H. Takayanagi, and T. Enoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1335 (1997)

    1997

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    H. C. Koo, J. H. Kwon, J. Eom, J. Chang, S. H. Han, and M. Johnson, Science 325, 1515 (2009)

    2009

  2. [9]

    Manchon, H

    A. Manchon, H. C. Koo, J. Nitta, S. M. Frolov, and R. A. Duine, Nat. Mater. 14, 871 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    C. Xiao, D. Li, and Z. Ma, Phys. Rev. B 93, 075150 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    Brosco, L

    V . Brosco, L. Benfatto, E. Cappelluti, and C. Grimaldi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 166602 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Hutchinson, and J

    J. Hutchinson, and J. Maciejko, Phys. Rev. B 98, 195305 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    Xiao and D

    C. Xiao and D. Li, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 28, 235801 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    Suzuura and T

    H. Suzuura and T. Ando, Phys. Rev. B 94, 085303 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    H. Liu, E. Marcellina, A. R. Hamilton, and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 087701 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Xiao, and Q

    C. Xiao, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 96, 035423 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Cappelluti, C

    E. Cappelluti, C. Grimaldi, and F. Marsiglio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 167002 (2007)

    2007

  11. [18]

    B. I. Halperin and M. Lax, Phys. Rev. 148, 722 (1966)

    1966

  12. [19]

    Walls, Jian Huang, Robert M

    Jamie D. Walls, Jian Huang, Robert M. Westervelt, and Eric J. Heller Phys. Rev. B 73, 035325 (2006)

    2006

  13. [20]

    A. G. Galstyan and M. E. Raikh Phys. Rev. B 58, 6736 (1998)

    1998

  14. [21]

    C. M. Soukoulis, M. H. Cohen, and E. N. Economou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 616 (1984)

    1984

  15. [22]

    E. N. Economou, C. M. Soukoulis, M. H. Cohen, and A. D. Zdetsis, Phys. Rev. B 31, 6172 (1985)

    1985

  16. [23]

    Z. Q. Zhang, P. Sheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 909 (1986)

    1986

  17. [24]

    S. N. Evangelou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2550 (1995)

    1995

  18. [25]

    Asada, K

    Y . Asada, K. Slevin, and T. Ohtsuki Phys. Rev. B 70, 035115 (2004)

    2004

  19. [26]

    Orso, Phys

    G. Orso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 105301 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Onoda, N

    S. Onoda, N. Sugimoto, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 77, 165103 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Hirayama, Y

    H. Hirayama, Y . Aoki, and C. Kato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 027204 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    El-Kareh, P

    L. El-Kareh, P. Sessi, T. Bathon, and M. Bode Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 176803 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    W. Zhu, Q. W. Shi, X. R. Wang, X. P. Wang, J. L. Yang, J. Chen, and J. G. Hou, Phys. Rev. B 82, 153405 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    W. Zhu, W. Li, Q. W. Shi, X. R. Wang, X. P. Wang, J. L. Yang, and J. G. Hou, Phys. Rev. B 85, 073407 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    B. Fu, W. Zhu, Q. W. Shi, Q. X. Li, J. L. Yang, and Z. Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 146401 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    K. V . Shanavas and S. Satpathy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 086802 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    S. V . Eremeev, I. A. Nechaev, Y . M. Koroteev, P. M. Echenique, and E. V . Chulkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 246802 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Crepaldi, L

    A. Crepaldi, L. Moreschini, G. Autes, C. Tournier-Colletta, S. Moser, N. Virk, H. Berger, P. Bugnon, Y . J. Chang, K. Kern, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, O. V . Yazyev, and M. Grioni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 096803 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    J. B. Miller, D. M. Zumbuhl, C. M. Marcus, Y . B. Lyanda- Geller, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, K. Campman, and A. C. Gos- sard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 076807 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    L. Wu, J. Yang, S. Wang, P. Wei, J. Yang, W. Zhang, and L. Chen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 202115 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    A. D. Caviglia, M. Gabay, S. Gariglio, N. Reyren, C. Cancel- lieri, and J.-M. Triscone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 126803 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    M. S. Bahramy, B.-J. Yang, R. Arita, and N. Nagaosa, Nat. Commun. 3, 679 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    L. Ye, J. G. Checkelsky, F. Kagawa, and Y . Tokura, Phys. Rev. B 91, 201104(R) (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Mirhosseini, A

    H. Mirhosseini, A. Ernst, S. Ostanin, and J. Henk, J. Phys. Con- dens. Matter 22, 385501 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Gierz, F

    I. Gierz, F. Meier, J. H. Dil, K. Kern, and C. R. Ast, Phys. Rev. B 83, 195122 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    C. R. Ast, J. Henk, A. Ernst, L. Moreschini, M. C. Falub, D. Pacil´e, P. Bruno, K. Kern, and M. Grioni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 186807 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    See Supplemental Materials at http: //link.aps.org/supplemental for the details about the relationship between TB model and continuum model, the numerical method, the A− V0 curves for different spin-orbit strengths, the sensitivity of main con- clusions on disorder type and imp...

  38. [46]

    Topological Insulators: Dirac Equation in Con- densed Matters (Springer, 2013)

    Shen, S.-Q. Topological Insulators: Dirac Equation in Con- densed Matters (Springer, 2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Grosso and G

    G. Grosso and G. Parravicini, Solid State Physics, Academic Press, London, 2000

    2000

  40. [48]

    B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. 139, A104 (1965)

    1965

  41. [49]

    A. V . Shevelkov, E. V . Dikarev, R. V . Shpanchenko, and B. A. Popovkin, J. Solid State Chem. 114, 379 (1995)

    1995

  42. [50]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics, Springer,Berlin- Heidelberg, 2000

    2000

  43. [51]

    Bruus and C

    H. Bruus and C. Flenshberg, Many-Body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004

    2004

  44. [52]

    Ferreira and E

    A. Ferreira and E. R. Mucciolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 106601 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Imry, Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics, Oxford Univer- sity, New York, 1997

    Y . Imry, Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics, Oxford Univer- sity, New York, 1997

    1997

  46. [54]

    In the Supplemental Materials [45] we also show that, in the low-density regime the saturation behavior of the mobility ob- tained within the SCBA [11] disappears due to the full consid- eration of multiple-scattering events

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.