Disorder induced helical-edge transport near $\nu$=0 of monolayer graphene

Benedikt Brechtken; Christopher Belke; Johannes C. Rode; Rolf J. Haug; Sung Ju Hong

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Disorder induced helical-edge transport near $\nu$=0 of monolayer graphene

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Disorder turns graphene's ν=0 state into a helical conductor

desk verdict Solid experimental paper with a genuinely new result—helical edge transport in the CAF phase of monolayer graphene reached via disorder—though the quantitative case for why disorder closes the edge gap rests on a shaky extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02420 v1 pith:6YXNDG3A submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.mes-hall

Sung Ju Hong , Christopher Belke , Johannes C. Rode , Benedikt Brechtken , Rolf J. Haug This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords monolayergraphenefillingfactorν=0cantedantiferromagneticphasehelicaledgetransportquantumspinHalleffectLandaulevelbroadeningzerothnonlocal

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 that at the charge-neutrality point (filling factor $\nu=0$) of monolayer graphene, the insulating canted antiferromagnetic phase develops a metallic, helical edge transport regime below a critical perpendicular field $B_c\approx 8.9$ T. The authors attribute the metal–insulator transition to disorder-induced Landau level broadening, which effectively closes the edge gap in the canted antiferromagnetic phase. They support this with conductance saturation close to $2e^2/h$ or $e^2/h$ depending on contact configuration, a splitting of the zeroth Landau level, and nonlocal resistance patterns. If correct, the result implies that helical (quantum spin Hall-like) edge channels can be realized in pristine graphene without large parallel fields or proximity to magnetic materials.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the competition between the valley isospin anisotropy energy $u_\perp\approx 1$–$10B[T]$ K, which opens the CAF edge gap $\Delta_{\mathrm{edge}}$, and disorder-induced Landau level broadening $\Gamma\approx 67$ K, extracted from the zero-field intercept of the linear activation gap. When $\Gamma>\Delta_{\mathrm{edge}}$ (below $B_c$), the edge gap closes and helical edge states with oppositely canted antiferromagnetic spin textures form; the conductance for these states follows the contact-equilibration formula $G=e^2/h\left((N_1+1)^{-1}+(N_2+1)^{-1}\right)$.

What would settle it

Measure $B_c$ and the activation gap in a set of graphene devices with controlled disorder (for example, varying irradiation dose); if $B_c$ does not shift to lower fields as $\Gamma$ increases, or if a device with $\Gamma$ clearly below $u_\perp$ still shows conductance saturation near $2e^2/h$ below $B_c$, the disorder-closing mechanism is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the canted antiferromagnetic (CAF) phase of monolayer graphene at $\nu=0$, disorder-induced Landau level broadening $\Gamma\approx 67$ K exceeds the valley-isospin anisotropy energy that sets the edge gap for fields below $B_c\approx 8.9$ T. As a result the edge gap is effectively closed, leaving counter-propagating helical edge channels that carry quantized conductance. Evidence includes a metal–insulator transition in $R_{xx}$ and two-terminal conductance at the same $B_c$, a saturation of $G$ near $2e^2/h$ (one floating contact on each edge) and near $e^2/h$ (two floating contacts), the appearance of a zeroth-Landau-level splitting, and nonlocal resistance that is inconsistent with Ohmic or flavor-Hall origin but matches helical edge transport.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative foundation is the assumption that the zero-field intercept $\Gamma\approx 67$ K of the thermal-activation-gap fit truly measures the disorder broadening of the CAF edge gap, and that comparing this with $u_\perp$ correctly predicts the gap closure below $B_c$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Helical edge transport at $\nu=0$ can be obtained in pristine monolayer graphene by tuning disorder, without parallel magnetic fields or proximity to magnetic insulators.
The metal–insulator transition at $B_c\approx 8.9$ T reflects the crossover where the CAF edge gap is washed out by Landau-level broadening.
Conductance saturation values of $2e^2/h$ and $e^2/h$ in different contact geometries provide a quantitative fingerprint of helical edge modes with equilibration at floating contacts.
Nonlocal resistance measurements can distinguish helical edge transport from classical Ohmic and flavor Hall contributions, since the single- and double-peak evolution tracks the gap opening.
The reduction of the thermal activation gap under in-plane magnetic fields points to enhanced backscattering between the counter-propagating spin-textured edge states.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mechanism is generic, there should be an optimal disorder strength for helical transport: too clean a sample stays insulating, while too much disorder would localize the edge modes; this could be tested with graded-disorder devices.
The same gap-closing logic may apply to other quantum Hall ferromagnets where an isospin-anisotropy gap competes with disorder broadening, possibly explaining earlier reports of metallic $\nu=0$ behavior in lower-mobility samples.
The parallel-field-induced backscattering suggests the helical edge modes have a spin texture that can be manipulated magnetically; spin-resolved or noise measurements could directly probe this texture.
A quantitative re-analysis of the activation gap assuming a field-dependent $u_\perp$ might refine $B_c$ and produce a sharper prediction for where the conductance plateau should appear.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper reports a coherent set of experiments and a plausible new claim: in a single hBN-encapsulated monolayer graphene device, the ν=0 state undergoes a metal–insulator transition at Bc≈8.9 T, and below Bc the transport signatures—conductance saturation, zeroth Landau level splitting, nonlocal resistance—look like helical edge transport in the canted antiferromagnetic phase, with the edge gap closed by disorder rather than by proximity effects or large parallel fields. As far as I know, that specific observation is new, and it is a meaningful step toward simpler routes to helical edge channels in graphene.

The paper does several things well. The conductance saturation values in two different contact configurations (1.3 e²/h and e²/h) line up with the floating-contact formula for helical edges, which is a nice internal consistency check. The parallel-field experiments are a good control: Bc is invariant in perpendicular field and the activation gap shrinks with added parallel field, which argues against a Zeeman mechanism. The nonlocal data are at least qualitatively consistent with helical edge transport, and the authors explicitly rule out the classical Ohmic contribution and the flavor Hall effect. The writing is careful, and the claims are appropriately hedged.

Where it gets soft is the quantitative foundation. The disorder-closing mechanism rests on Γ≈67 K, extracted as the zero-field intercept of a linear fit to activation gaps measured only above Bc. That intercept is an extrapolation across a phase boundary, and no model connects the bulk activation gap to the edge gap Δ_edge. The comparison to u⊥≈1–10B[T] K from Kharitonov is a wide target: at B=8.9 T that is roughly 8–90 K, so whether 67 K actually exceeds the edge gap depends on which branch of theory you take. There are no error bars on Γ or Bc. The stress-test note is right that the inequality Γ>Δ_edge is not secure.

That said, the qualitative picture does not collapse without the inequality. The MIT itself is empirical, and the conductance saturation is the key observation; the Γ comparison is an interpretation of why the MIT occurs, not the evidence that it occurs. A revision that treats the quantitative analysis as suggestive rather than demonstrative, includes error propagation, and ideally shows a second device would make the paper much stronger.

I would send this to a serious referee. It is the kind of result that will be discussed and cited regardless, and a careful referee will help the authors sharpen the argument. My own verdict would be conditional on revision, not rejection.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports magnetotransport experiments on hexagonal boron nitride encapsulated monolayer graphene in an H-bar geometry, focusing on filling factor ν=0 as a function of perpendicular magnetic field. The authors observe a metal-insulator transition at Bc≈8.9 T. Above Bc, the behavior is consistent with the canted antiferromagnetic (CAF) insulating phase, with a thermal activation gap that increases linearly with field. Below Bc, the system is metallic: the zeroth Landau level splits, two-terminal conductance saturates near e2/h or 2e2/h depending on contact geometry, and nonlocal resistance shows a single-peak to double-peak evolution. The central claim is that the CAF edge gap is effectively closed by disorder-induced Landau level broadening (Γ≈67 K, extracted from the zero-field intercept of the activation-gap fit), so that helical edge transport appears without the need for large parallel fields or proximity effects. The parallel-field experiments show a reduction of a measured activation energy with tilt and enhanced backscattering, which the authors interpret as spin-related scattering between helical edge states.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper is significant: it proposes that a certain amount of disorder can turn the CAF phase at ν=0 into a platform for helical edge transport in pristine graphene, offering a simpler alternative to the FM phase induced by large parallel fields or by proximity to magnetic materials. The experimental dataset is rich, including local transport with two different contact configurations, parallel-field dependent measurements, and nonlocal resistance maps. The contact-geometry-dependent conductance saturation (close to 2e2/h and e2/h) is a concrete, nontrivial signature that is consistent with helical edge states, and the nonlocal data are checked against classical Ohmic and flavor-Hall alternatives. However, the quantitative foundation of the disorder-closing mechanism is not secure: the comparison between Γ and the edge gap relies on an indirect, extrapolated fit with no error bars and on a theoretical estimate for u⊥ that spans an order of magnitude. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on resolving this quantitative gap.

major comments (4)

[Section 2, paragraph after Fig. 1(b)] The identification of Γ≈67 K as the disorder-induced broadening of the CAF edge gap is an uncontrolled extrapolation. The activation data used for the linear fit exist only for fields above Bc≈8.9 T, where the insulating CAF phase is present, and the fit is extended through the metal-insulator transition down to B=0, into a regime where the gap is claimed to be closed. No error bars or confidence intervals are provided for Γ, Bc, or the activation energies, so the central inequality Γ>Δ_edge cannot be statistically assessed. The authors should provide a fit with uncertainties, justify the linear extrapolation, and preferably obtain Γ from a directly measured broadening, such as Landau-level linewidths or an independent transport probe.
[Section 2, same paragraph] The comparison with the valley isospin anisotropy energy u⊥≈1−10B[T] K from Ref. [21] does not, by itself, establish Γ>Δ_edge below Bc. At B≈Bc the theoretical estimate spans roughly 9–89 K, so Γ=67 K lies inside that range; the claim requires selecting the lower branch. The authors should specify which u⊥ value they use and why, or demonstrate that the conclusion is robust over the entire theoretical range. As written, the inequality is not decided by the cited theory.
[Sections 2–3] The activation gap Δ is extracted from bulk Rxx measurements (Fig. 1), whereas the disorder-closing claim concerns the edge gap Δ_edge. No model or experimental procedure connects the bulk activation intercept to the edge quantity; the schematic in Fig. 1(b) explicitly distinguishes bulk and edge, but this distinction is not carried through the analysis. This missing link is load-bearing because the central mechanism is specifically an edge-gap closure.
[Section 3, Fig. 3(c)] The activation energies measured at B⊥=5 T in the regime below Bc (59 K at 41.6° and 97 K at 90°) are in tension with the claim that disorder (Γ≈67 K) closes the edge gap: at 90° the measured activation energy exceeds Γ. If this activation energy corresponds to the edge gap, then Γ<Δ_edge and the mechanism fails; if it corresponds to a different gap (e.g., a bulk gap or a backscattering gap), the paper should state that explicitly and explain the physical distinction. As written, the two quantitative statements are not reconciled.

minor comments (5)

[Sample fabrication] There is a typo in the sample fabrication paragraph: 'perdiodic modulation' should be 'periodic modulation'.
[Section 2, Fig. 2 caption and text] The word 'conﬁguraten' in the text near Fig. 2(c) is a typo and should read 'configuration'.
[Abstract] The abstract contains an extra space in 'm etal-insulator transition'; please correct it.
[Fig. 1(b)] The axis label for the vertical axis of Fig. 1(b) appears corrupted in the manuscript rendering ('40/g39/g3 (K)'); please ensure the final figure has a legible label such as 'Δ (K)'.
[Section 2, contact resistance] The contact resistance correction (Rc≈0.3 kΩ) is matched at ν=−2 only; the sensitivity of the conductance plateaus in Fig. 2(c) and (d) to this correction should be stated so that the reader can judge the closeness of the saturation to e2/h and 2e2/h.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transport observations are independent of the disorder-broadening interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental observations—metal-insulator transition near Bc≈8.9 T, conductance saturation close to e2/h or 2e2/h, zeroth-Landau-level splitting, and nonlocal resistance evolution—interpreted with a disorder-induced Landau-level-broadening picture for the canted antiferromagnetic phase. The parameter Γ≈67 K is obtained from the zero-field intercept of a linear fit to the thermal activation gap, and the statement that the edge gap is 'effectively closed' (Γ>Δ_edge) compares this fitted Γ with the theoretical valley-isospin anisotropy energy u⊥≈1–10B[T] K from Ref. [21]. This is an interpretive consistency check, not a prediction forced by construction: the inequality is not guaranteed by any defining equation, and the transport data remain valid independent of whether the comparison is secure. The only self-citation (Ref. [39], R. J. Haug, for the equilibration formula G=e2/h((N1+1)^{-1}+(N2+1)^{-1})) concerns a standard multi-terminal conductance relation and is not load-bearing or used to exclude alternative explanations. The quantitative fragility of the Γ≈u⊥ comparison—including the wide theoretical range and the absence of error bars—is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on the CAF phase model and on the idea that the disorder broadening Gamma extracted from activation data can close the edge gap. These are taken from prior theoretical work, not derived in this paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Critical perpendicular field Bc = 8.9 T
Read off from the metal-insulator transition in Rxx(B) and consistent with the intercept of the linear fit to the activation gap in Fig. 1(b).
Disorder level broadening Gamma = 67 K
Extracted as the zero-field intercept of the linear fit to the thermal activation gap vs B in Fig. 1(b).
Thermal activation gap at 90 deg = 97 K
From Arrhenius fit at B_perp=5 T, Fig. 3(c).
Thermal activation gap at 41.6 deg = 59 K
From Arrhenius fit at B_perp=5 T, Fig. 3(c).
Contact resistance Rc = 0.3 kOhm
Corrected by matching the expected quantization at nu=-2; affects the absolute values of two-terminal conductance.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The nu=0 insulating state in monolayer graphene is the canted antiferromagnetic (CAF) phase.
Invoked throughout the paper to interpret the insulating gap and edge structure; based on Kharitonov [20,21] and Young et al. [24].
domain assumption The CAF edge gap is controlled by the valley isospin anisotropy energy u_perp ≈ 1-10 B[T] K.
Cited to Ref. [21] and used to compare with the fitted Gamma to argue that disorder closes the edge gap below Bc.
standard math The longitudinal resistance obeys Rxx ∝ exp(Delta/2T) with a single activation gap.
Used to extract Delta from temperature-dependent Rxx data.
standard math Two-terminal conductance of helical edge states with floating contacts is G = e^2/h [(N1+1)^-1 + (N2+1)^-1].
Used to predict conductance saturation values (e2/h and 2e2/h) for two different contact configurations; formula from Ref. [39].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disorder induced helical-edge transport near $\nu$=0 of monolayer graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YXNDG3A

@misc{pith2026190802420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disorder induced helical-edge transport near $\nu$=0 of monolayer graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YXNDG3A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02420}
}

abstract

The complex nature of filling factor $\nu$=0 of monolayer graphene is studied in magnetotransport experiments. As function of perpendicular magnetic field a metal-insulator transition is observed, which is attributed to disorder-induced Landau level broadening in the canted antiferromagnetic phase. In the metallic regime a separation of the zeroth Landau level appears and signs of the quantum spin Hall effect are seen near $\nu$=0. In addition to local transport, nonlocal transport experiments show results being consistent with helical edge transport.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02420 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (color) (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** (c)), which yields the double peaks. Therefore, the evolution of RNL is also supporting the helical transport property near ν=0 as discussed for the local transport results. Combining helical edge channels and superconductors [43] can give origin to majorana zero modes which are extremely interesting for applications in quantum computing. In the case of graphene, helical edge channels were only expected for the FM … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[21]

Kharitonov, Phys

M. Kharitonov, Phys. Rev. B 86, 075450 (2012)

work page 2012
[1]

K. S. Novoselov et al. , Nature 438, 197 (2005)

work page 2005
[2]

Zhang, Y.-W

Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Nature 438, 201 (2005)

2005
[3]

V. P. Gusynin and S. G. Sharapov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146801 (2005)

2005
[4]

Brey and H

L. Brey and H. A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B 73, 195408 (2006)

work page 2006
[5]

D. A. Abanin, P. A. Lee, and L. S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 176803 (2006)

work page 2006
[6]

H. A. Fertig and L. Brey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 116805 (2006)

work page 2006
[7]

D. A. Abanin, K. S. Novoselov, U. Zeitler, P. A. Lee, A. K. Geim, and L. S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 196806 (2007)

work page 2007

Show all 49 references

[8]

Zhang et al

Y. Zhang et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 136806 (2006)

2006
[9]

Fuchs and P

J.-N. Fuchs and P. Lederer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 016803 (2007)

2007
[10]

I. A. Luk’yanchuk and A. M. Bratkovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 176404 (2008)

2008
[11]

Y. Zhao, P. Cadden-Zimansky, F. Ghahari, and P. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 106804 (2012)

2012
[12]

Nomura and A

K. Nomura and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 256602 (2006)

2006
[13]

Jiang, Y

Z. Jiang, Y. Zhang, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 106802 (2007)

2007
[14]

J. G. Checkelsky, L. Li, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 206801 (2008)

2008
[15]

J. G. Checkelsky, L. Li, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B 79, 115434 (2009)

2009
[16]

A. J. M. Giesbers, L. A. Ponomarenko, K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, M. I. Katsnelson, J. C. Maan, and U. Zeitler, Phys. Rev. B 80, 201403 (2009)

2009
[17]

Jung and A

J. Jung and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 80, 235417 (2009)

2009
[18]

Zhang, Y

L. Zhang, Y. Zhang, M. Khodas, T. Valla, and I. A. Zaliznyak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 046804 (2010)

2010
[19]

W. Zhu, H. Y. Yuan, Q. W. Shi, J. G. Hou, and X. R. Wang, New J. of Phys. 13, 113008 (2011)

2011
[20]

Kharitonov, Phys

M. Kharitonov, Phys. Rev. B 85, 155439 (2012)

2012
[22]

A. F. Young et al. , Nature Phys. 8, 550 (2012)

2012
[23]

Chiappini, S

F. Chiappini, S. Wiedmann, K. Novoselov, A. Mishchenko, A. K. Geim, J. C. Maan, and U. Zeitler, Phys. Rev. B 92, 201412 (2015)

2015
[24]

A. F. Young, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, B. Hunt, S. H. Choi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 505, 528 (2014)

2014
[25]

P. K. Pyatkovskiy and V. A. Miransky, Phys. Rev. B 90, 195407 (2014)

2014
[26]

Murthy, E

G. Murthy, E. Shimshoni, and H. A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B 90, 241410 (2014)

2014
[27]

Knothe and T

A. Knothe and T. Jolicoeur, Phys. Rev. B 92, 165110 (2015)

2015
[28]

Murthy, E

G. Murthy, E. Shimshoni, and H. A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045105 (2016)

2016
[29]

Tikhonov, E

P. Tikhonov, E. Shimshoni, H. A. Fertig, and G. Murthy, Phys. Rev. B 93, 115137 (2016)

2016
[30]

Lukose and R

V. Lukose and R. Shankar, Phys. Rev. B 94, 085135 (2016)

2016
[31]

Feshami and H

B. Feshami and H. A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B 94, 245435 (2016)

2016
[32]

Takei, A

S. Takei, A. Yacoby, B. I. Halperin, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 216801 (2016)

2016
[33]

Stepanov et al

P. Stepanov et al. , Nature Phys. 14, 907 (2018)

2018
[34]

D. S. Wei, T. van der Sar, S. H. Lee, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. I. Halperin, and A. Yacoby, Science 362, 229 (2018)

2018
[35]

Wang et al

L. Wang et al. , Science 342, 614 (2013)

2013
[36]

D. A. Abanin, B. E. Feldman, A. Yacoby, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 88, 115407 (2013)

2013
[37]

B. Roy, M. P. Kennett, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 90, 201409 (2014)

2014
[38]

J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, J. Y. Luo, A. F. Young, B. M. Hunt, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature Nanotechnol. 12, 118 (2017)

2017
[39]

R. J. Haug, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 8, 131 (1993)

1993
[40]

D. A. Abanin et al. , Science 332, 328 (2011)

2011
[41]

Ribeiro, S

M. Ribeiro, S. R. Power, S. Roche, L. E. Hueso, and F. Casanova, Nature Commun. 8, 2198 (2017)

2017
[42]

A. Roth, C. Br¨ une, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, J. Maciejko, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 325, 294 (2009)

2009
[43]

In the case of graphene, helical edge channels were only expected for the FM phase since the intrinsic Zeeman energy is lower than the valley isospin anisotropy energy

can give origin to majorana zero modes which are extremely interesting for applications in quantum com- puting. In the case of graphene, helical edge channels were only expected for the FM phase since the intrinsic Zeeman energy is lower than the valley isospin anisotropy ener...
[44]

Ronen, Y

Y. Ronen, Y. Cohen, D. Banitt, M. Heiblum, and V. Umansky, Nature Phys. 14, 411 (2018)

2018
[45]

Wei et al

P. Wei et al. , Nature Mater. 15, 711 (2016)

2016
[46]

Song et al

H.-D. Song et al. , Nano Lett. 18, 2435 (2018)

2018
[47]

Wu et al

Y.-F. Wu et al. , Phys. Rev. B 95, 195426 (2017)

2017
[48]

Li et al

Y. Li et al. , arXiv:1905.06866 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[49]

Veyrat et al

L. Veyrat et al. , arXiv:1907.02299 (2019)

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [21]

Kharitonov, Phys

M. Kharitonov, Phys. Rev. B 86, 075450 (2012)

work page 2012

[2] [1]

K. S. Novoselov et al. , Nature 438, 197 (2005)

work page 2005

[3] [2]

Zhang, Y.-W

Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Nature 438, 201 (2005)

2005

[4] [3]

V. P. Gusynin and S. G. Sharapov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146801 (2005)

2005

[5] [4]

Brey and H

L. Brey and H. A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B 73, 195408 (2006)

work page 2006

[6] [5]

D. A. Abanin, P. A. Lee, and L. S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 176803 (2006)

work page 2006

[7] [6]

H. A. Fertig and L. Brey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 116805 (2006)

work page 2006

[8] [7]

D. A. Abanin, K. S. Novoselov, U. Zeitler, P. A. Lee, A. K. Geim, and L. S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 196806 (2007)

work page 2007