Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 22 references

Long lived localized defect states in monolayer WSe$_2$: Optical Lifetime distribution and thermal evolution

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

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

Pith's one-line read Defect emission in monolayer WSe2 decays via two power-law channels with ~9 ns and ~376 ns scales; a Bose-Einstein model yields ~60 meV activation, traced to selenium-vacancy states with weakly allowed transitions.

desk verdict A careful TRPL study that convincingly shows power-law, fluence-independent long-lived defect emission in monolayer WSe2, but the ~60 meV Bose–Einstein activation energy is not identified by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18423 v2 pith:LIUQBREI submitted 2026-07-20 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics

Immanuel Thekkooden , Susmitha Jana , Mrinal Deka , B.R.K. Nanda , V Praveen Bhallamudi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics
keywords monolayerWSe2defect-localizedemissiontime-resolvedphotoluminescencepower-lawdecaylifetimedistributionthermaldetrappingseleniumvacancyspin-forbiddentransitions
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 tries to establish how long-lived localized defect states in a single monolayer of WSe2 recombine, and why the decay is so slow. Time-resolved photoluminescence from 4 K to 120 K shows that defect emission follows one fast exponential (about 500 ps) plus two power-law components with characteristic times of about 9 ns and 376 ns. The authors argue the power-law shape comes from a continuous distribution of recombination rates: each defect sits in a slightly different local environment. They rule out many-body interactions because the slow rates do not shorten with laser fluence. Both slow rates follow a Bose-Einstein phonon-occupation model with a characteristic energy near 60 meV, which they interpret as phonon-assisted detrapping; the paper notes the faster value is an upper bound and the slower channel is resolvable only below about 57 K. Spin-resolved density-functional calculations for selenium vacancies, offered as the most likely defect rather than a definitive identification, show weakly allowed spin- and momentum-forbidden transitions that can explain the long lifetimes. If the interpretation holds, it gives a quantitative description of two distinct classes of slow defect recombination in a monolayer semiconductor.

What carries the argument

Two fitting models and one transform carry the argument. The decay law y(t) = a exp(−t/τ0) + m/(t+τ1) + e/(t+τ2) describes what no one- to four-exponential fit achieves. The inverse Laplace transform turns each 1/(t+τ) term into an exponential distribution of recombination rates, so τ1 ≈ 9 ns and τ2 ≈ 376 ns are scale parameters of two lifetime distributions peaking near half their values — converting a curve fit into a claim about ensembles of non-identical defects. A Bose-Einstein phonon-occupation term, Γ(T) = A + C/(exp(E/kBT) − 1), supplies the ~60 meV characteristic energy. Spin-resolved density-functional calculations for the selenium vacancy show two spin-split in-gap manifolds, with

What would settle it

Settle it from the fit itself: if the phonon term C/(exp(E/kBT) − 1) at 120 K is a small fraction of the constant rate A, then E is unconstrained and the ~60 meV claim is not data-supported. A direct measurement of 1/τ2 at many temperatures between 60 K and 120 K with about 0.1% precision would show whether the rate bends with the Bose-Einstein curvature or stays flat. Fitting the same series with Γ = A only and comparing goodness of fit settles the same question. A magnetic-field experiment that changes the spin channel's oscillator strength would test the DFT mechanism independently.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Defect PL in monolayer WSe2 is described by y(t) = a exp(−t/τ0) + m/(t+τ1) + e/(t+τ2), with τ0 ≈ 500 ps, τ1 ≈ 9 ns, τ2 ≈ 376 ns. Laplace inversion of each 1/(t+τ) term gives an exponential distribution of rates, so τ1 and τ2 are scales of broad lifetime distributions peaking near 4.5 ns and 188 ns, not discrete lifetimes. Since neither slow rate shortens with fluence, the power law signals inhomogeneous local environments, not many-body effects. Both slow rates follow a Bose-Einstein form with E ≈ 60 meV (paper's caveats: an upper bound for τ1; τ2 resolvable only below ~57 K). Spin-resolved density-functional calculations for the selenium vacancy show strong spin-allowed and weak opposite-sp

Load-bearing premise

The central quantitative claim — a characteristic energy near 60 meV — rests on the Bose-Einstein phonon term being constrained by the temperature series; over 4–120 K the phonon factor for 60 meV stays below 0.004, so unless the prefactor C is very large the fit is dominated by the constant rate A and E may be pinned by noise rather than real curvature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fitted times τ1 ≈ 9 ns and τ2 ≈ 376 ns correspond to lifetime distributions peaking near 4.5 ns and 188 ns, so the long-lived emission is inherently heterogeneous rather than a pair of discrete defect levels.
  • Laser-fluence studies up to exciton densities of order 10^13 cm^-2 show no shortening of the slow channels, which rules out exciton-exciton annihilation as the source of the power-law tail.
  • Both slow rates follow a Bose-Einstein model with a characteristic energy near 60 meV, pointing to phonon-assisted detrapping — plausibly a two-optical-phonon process — as the dominant relaxation of the long-lived channels between 4 K and 120 K.
  • The defect emission is fully quenched above about 120 K, so these long-lived distributed channels are a low-temperature resource for quantum and optoelectronic applications.
  • Spin-resolved density-functional calculations for the selenium vacancy yield strong same-spin and weak opposite-spin transitions, offering a microscopic reason that fast and slow channels coexist within one defect species.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the distribution-of-rates picture is correct, flattening the defect's environment — for instance encapsulating WSe2 in hexagonal boron nitride or using a smoother substrate — should narrow the lifetime distributions and push the decay toward exponentials; the paper does not report such a test.
  • The ~60 meV energy may be only weakly constrained: at 4–120 K the Bose-Einstein factor is below 0.004, so the fit could ride on the constant rate term. A sterner test is to fix E at a Raman-measured phonon energy and see whether the remaining two-parameter fit still tracks the temperature series.
  • Because the DFT attributes the slow channels to weakly allowed opposite-spin transitions, an applied magnetic field should alter the fast/slow branching or the circular polarization of the defect emission — a direct, testable consequence beyond the paper's measurements.
  • The same power-law-plus-distribution phenomenology should appear in other monolayer TMDCs with chalcogen vacancies; comparing WSe2 with MoS2, WS2, or MoSe2 on identical substrates would reveal whether two channel classes are generic to such defects.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports time-resolved photoluminescence (TRPL) studies of defect-related emission in monolayer WSe2 on SiO2/Si. The decay is fit by a model containing one exponential and two inverse-time (power-law) components, yielding a fast channel τ0≈0.5 ns and two long-lived channels τ1≈9 ns and τ2≈376 ns. The power-law components are interpreted as arising from continuous distributions of recombination rates due to inhomogeneous local environments, supported by fluence-independence of τ1 and τ2. Temperature-dependent rates of both long channels are fit to a Bose–Einstein occupancy model, giving a characteristic energy of ~60 meV. Spin-resolved DFT for Se vacancies is used to identify in-gap states and partially forbidden spin/momentum pathways that could explain the long lifetimes.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper provides a useful phenomenological description of two distinct long-lived defect-recombination channels in a monolayer TMDC, with relevance to quantum emitter and optoelectronic applications. The experimental methodology is a clear strength: the TRPL analysis includes IRF convolution, shot-noise and dark-count checks, a systematic comparison of one- to five-exponential fits, and a fluence study that provides independent evidence against exciton–exciton annihilation as the origin of the long-time power-law tails. The central qualitative observation—two well-separated and broadly distributed long-lived channels that are not dominated by many-body interactions—is well supported. However, the quantitative thermal-activation energy is not reliably identified by the data as presented, and the DFT spin-splitting values appear to be reversed relative to known monolayer WSe2 values, weakening the microscopic interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (11)] The Bose–Einstein fit yielding E≈60 meV is not identifiable with the data as presented. For E=60 meV, the phonon-occupation factor 1/(exp(E/kBT)−1) is ≤0.003 over the τ1 range up to 120 K, and ≤5×10⁻⁶ over the τ2 range up to 57 K, where the paper states τ2 is no longer reliably resolved. The phonon term is therefore a tiny, slowly varying perturbation on the constant A; the fitted E is constrained only by the small difference Γ−A, whose relative uncertainty is comparable to or larger than the effect being fit. The quoted error 60.43±2.23 meV is a covariance-based error under the assumed model and does not test identifiability. An alternative model such as Γ=A+BT or Γ=A+B exp(−T0/T) would likely fit the same sparse temperature points with comparable residuals. Since the abstract and conclusions rely on the ~60 meV characteristic energy and the two-phonon interpretation, this point is load
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 4] The DFT calculations report a valence-band spin splitting of 33 meV and a conduction-band spin splitting of 170 meV in monolayer WSe2. This is inconsistent with the well-established ordering in WSe2 (and other TMDCs), where the valence-band spin–orbit splitting is large (hundreds of meV) and the conduction-band splitting is small (tens of meV). The manuscript itself later uses the dark-exciton ground state and spin-selection rules to argue for weakly allowed transitions. If the spin splittings are reversed in the calculation, the identification of which transitions are spin-allowed versus spin-forbidden near the K valley is called into question. The authors should verify the sign and magnitude of their spin splittings, correct the text and interpretation, and check whether the qualitative conclusions about D1/D2 optical activity change.
  3. [§2.2, Eqs. (3)–(8)] The transformation from the power-law component 1/(t+τi) to an exponential distribution of rates is a mathematical identity (Laplace transform) and does not by itself constitute evidence for a distribution of lifetimes. The paper does provide independent fluence data that argue against EEA, which is the right kind of evidence. However, the wording in §2.2 and the abstract (“power-law is due to a distribution of life-times”) should be carefully qualified: the power-law is consistent with such a distribution, but the fit alone cannot discriminate between a distribution of rates and other non-exponential mechanisms (e.g., dispersive transport, donor–acceptor pairs). The ESI discussion (S3.5) already acknowledges this; the main text should reflect that nuance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., “intergrated”, “a otpical microscope”, “chanels”, “life-times” inconsistent hyphenation). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Fig. 3] The temperature-dependent data in Fig. 3 are shown without error bars or the number of independent measurements. Adding these would strengthen the identifiability discussion and allow readers to judge the fit quality.
  3. [§2.4] The sentence “The phonon energy scale obtained for both long-lived channels are closer to the combined energy of two optical phonons” is speculative because the BE fit is not uniquely identified and the specific phonon pathway is not independently evidenced. Please soften or remove this claim unless the fit identifiability is improved.
  4. [§3.1] The discussion of the microscopic origin of the defect states is well balanced and appropriately hedged. However, the phrase “most consistent with selenium-vacancy-related defect states” is repeated verbatim several times; condensing would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the power-law-to-lifetime-distribution mapping is an explicitly labeled Laplace identity, and the central physical claims rest on independent fluence, temperature, and DFT evidence.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the TRPL decay is fit by Eq. (1); the power-law terms are converted to lifetime distributions through the Laplace-transform identity (Eqs. 3-8); fluence-independence (Sec. 2.3) is used to argue against EEA; the temperature-dependent rates are fit to the Bose-Einstein form Eq. (11); and DFT supplies a microscopic plausibility argument. The only mathematically forced step is the power-law-to-distribution conversion: Pτ(τ)=τi/τ^2 exp(-τi/τ) is exactly the Laplace transform of the fitted m/(t+τ1)+e/(t+τ2) components, so the 'two distinct classes' and peak lifetimes τ1/2, τ2/2 are restatements of the fit, not independent outputs. The paper itself labels this 'Using the Laplace-transform identity,' and it does not rest the disorder interpretation solely on this identity: the fluence study (no systematic shortening of τ1, τ2 with increasing excitation) independently discriminates against EEA. The Bose-Einstein energy is a fitted parameter, not an input; however, the paper's own caveats (τ1 approaches the IRF limit, so 57 meV is an upper bound; τ2 is not reliably resolved above ~57 K) indicate an identifiability limitation on E≈60 meV, which is a correctness risk, not circularity. The only self-citation (ref. 3) appears in a general applications sentence in the Introduction and is not load-bearing. No circular step is identified; the central claims do not reduce to their inputs.

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

The central claims rest on fitted decay timescales (τ1, τ2) and a fitted thermal-activation energy E. These are not derived from first principles. The DFT calculations provide qualitative support but no quantitative lifetime prediction, and the assumed dominance of Se vacancies is taken from prior literature.

free parameters (6)
  • τ0 = ≈500 ps
    Fast exponential lifetime in Eq. (1); close to IRF, excluded from central analysis.
  • τ1 = ≈9 ns
    Characteristic timescale of the first power-law channel (Eq. 1); central to the claim of a few-ns long-lived channel.
  • τ2 = ≈376 ns
    Characteristic timescale of the second power-law channel (Eq. 1); central to the claim of a hundreds-ns long-lived channel.
  • a, m, e, baseline = not fully quoted
    Amplitudes and background in Eq. (1) determine the relative weights of decay channels.
  • A1, C1, E1 = E1≈57 meV
    Bose-Einstein fit parameters for the 1/τ1 rate (Eq. 11); A1 and C1 not reported.
  • A2, C2, E2 = E2=60.43±2.23 meV
    Bose-Einstein fit parameters for the 1/τ2 rate (Eq. 11); E2 is the headline '60 meV' energy scale.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption DFT-PBE with SOC gives accurate in-gap defect levels and transition dipoles for WSe2.
    The DFT section (Sec. 3.2, 4.4) uses PBE+SOC without benchmark against GW or experiment; the calculated transition energy near 1.1 eV is not reconciled with the ~1.65 eV defect PL.
  • domain assumption Selenium vacancies are the dominant native defect in the exfoliated sample.
    Based on literature formation energies (Sec. 3.1) and the observed n-type behavior; no atomic-resolution identification is provided.
  • domain assumption The long-lived power-law decay originates from a static distribution of recombination rates.
    The fluence independence is used to rule out EEA, but other mechanisms (e.g., dispersive transport, trap filling) are not tested directly.
  • domain assumption The Bose-Einstein model (Eq. 11) is the correct functional form for thermal detrapping.
    The model is fitted to the data; no independent measure of the phonon energy is used to constrain it.
  • domain assumption The 750 nm band-pass filter isolates the defect emission.
    The defect peak is at 747 nm; the filter FWHM is 10 nm, so it may exclude nearby trion/biexciton peaks, but this is not quantified.
  • standard math The Laplace transform identity maps 1/(t+τ) to an exponential distribution of rates.
    Used in Eqs. (3)-(8) to convert power-law decay to a lifetime distribution; mathematically exact, not a physical assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long lived localized defect states in monolayer WSe$_2$: Optical Lifetime distribution and thermal evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LIUQBREI

@misc{pith2026260718423,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long lived localized defect states in monolayer WSe$_2$: Optical Lifetime distribution and thermal evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LIUQBREI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18423}
}
abstract

We carefully investigate the recombination dynamics of localized defect emission in monolayer WSe$_2$ on SiO$_2$/Si substrate using time-resolved photoluminescence over the temperature range of 4 K to 120 K. We observe two long-lived optical lifetimes, one few nanosecond and one hundreds of nanoseconds. PL decay profile of these long lived states is fit well by a power-law, and based on laser fluence studies, the likely origin of the power-law is due to a distribution of life-times rather than many body interactions. Temperature-dependence of these rates shows that thermal detrapping governs these long-lived channels and we obtained a value of 60 meV for the characteristics energy in a Bose-Einstein model. We performed spin-resolved density functional calculations for selenium vacancies, the most likely source of native defects, to elucidate on spin- and momentum-forbidden pathways which are the likely origin of these long lifetimes. Such detailed understanding of long-lived defect states is crucial for quantum and optoelectronic applications.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [70]

    The sample and objective is in cryo- stat chamber (attoDRY800 closed Helium cryostat with base tem- perature of 4 kelvin on sample). The collected PL was filtered using a dichroic mirror and 550 long pass filter before focussing to Spectrometer(SpectraPro∗- SP2150 spectrograph from Teledyne Princeton Instruments) The grating of 300 lines per mm was chosen...

    2020

  2. [74]

    55 S. Deng, E. Shi, L. Yuan, L. Jin, L. Dou and L. Huang,Nature communications, 2020,11,

    2020

  3. [148]

    Zhang, V

    54 Y. Zhang, V. W. Brar, C. Girit, A. Zettl and M. F. Crommie,Nature Physics, 2010,6,

    2010

  4. [186]

    31 G. Wang, C. Robert, M. M. Glazov, F. Cadiz, E. Courtade, T. Amand, D. Lagarde, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, B. Urbaszek et al.,Physical review letters, 2017,119, 047401. 32 Y. Tang, K. F. Mak and J. Shan,Nature communications, 2019, 10,

    2017

  5. [196]

    Martorell, J

    47 J. Martorell, J. G. Muga and D. W. L. Sprung,Phys. Rev. A, 2008, 77, 042719. 48 M. Kuno, D. P. Fromm, H. F. Hamann, A. Gallagher and D. J. Nesbitt,The journal of chemical physics, 2000,112, 3117–3120. 49 J. Houel, Q. T. Doan, T. Cajgfinger, G. Ledoux, D. Amans, A. Aubret, A. Dominjon, S. Ferriol, R. Barbier, M. Nasilowski et al.,ACS nano, 2015,9, 886–8...

    2008

  6. [345]

    Zhang, C.-G

    57 S. Zhang, C.-G. Wang, M.-Y. Li, D. Huang, L.-J. Li, W. Ji and S. Wu,Physical review letters, 2017,119, 046101. 58 Y.-C. Lin, T. Björkman, H.-P. Komsa, P.-Y. Teng, C.-H. Yeh, F.-S. Huang, K.-H. Lin, J. Jadczak, Y.-S. Huang, P.-W. Chiuet al., Nature communications, 2015,6,

    2017

  7. [664]

    56 H. Wang, C. Zhang and F. Rana,Nano letters, 2015,15, 339–

    2015

  8. [1013]

    77 X. Ma, O. Roslyak, J. G. Duque, X. Pang, S. K. Doorn, A. Piry- atinski, D. H. Dunlap and H. Htoon,Phys. Rev. Lett., 2015,115, 017401. 78 L. Peng, M. Otten, A. Hazarika, I. Coropceanu, M. Cygorek, G. P. Wiederrecht, P. Hawrylak, D. V. Talapin and X. Ma,Phys. Rev. Mater., 2020,4, 056006. 79 D. V. Widder,The Laplace Transform, Princeton University Press,

    2015

Show all 22 references
  1. [1047]

    71 J. Lu, A. Carvalho, X. K. Chan, H. Liu, B. Liu, E. S. Tok, K. P. Loh, A. Castro Neto and C. H. Sow,Nano letters, 2015,15, 3524–3532. 72 Y. Zhao, X. Luo, H. Li, J. Zhang, P. T. Araujo, C. K. Gan, J. Wu, H. Zhang, S. Y. Quek, M. S. Dresselhaus and Q. Xiong,Phys. Rev. B, 2013,...

    2015

  2. [1941]

    Inokuti and F

    80 M. Inokuti and F. Hirayama,The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1965,43, 1978–1989. 81 S. Takagishi, J. Hashimoto and M. Nakayama,Journal of Lumi- nescence, 2007,122–123, 753–755. 82 J. E. Martin and L. E. Shea-Rohwer,Journal of Luminescence, 2008,128, 1407–1420. 83 M. A. Reshc...

    1965

  3. [2657]

    Steinleitner, P

    39 P. Steinleitner, P. Merkl, P. Nagler, J. Mornhinweg, C. Schüller, T. Korn, A. Chernikov and R. Huber,Nano Letters, 2017,17, 1455–1460. 40 H. Liu, C. Wang, D. Liu and J. Luo,Nanoscale, 2019,11, 7913–

    2017

  4. [3382]

    66 Y. J. Zheng, Y. Chen, Y. L. Huang, P. K. Gogoi, M.-Y. Li, L.-J. Li, P. E. Trevisanutto, Q. Wang, S. J. Pennycook, A. T. Weeet al., ACS nano, 2019,13, 6050–6059. 67 T. Sander and G. Kresse,The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2017, 146, 064110. 68 X. Yan, X. Han and J. He,The Jo...

    2019

  5. [3585]

    Li and E

    5 L. Li and E. A. Carter,Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2019,141, 10451–10461. 6 G. Moody, K. Tran, X. Lu, T. Autry, J. M. Fraser, R. P. Mirin, L. Yang, X. Li and K. L. Silverman,Physical review letters, 2018, 121, 057403. 7 J. Wagner, H. Kuhn, R. Bernhardt, J. Zhu ...

    2019

  6. [3718]

    Mouri, Y

    24 S. Mouri, Y. Miyauchi, M. Toh, W. Zhao, G. Eda and K. Matsuda, Physical Review B, 2014,90, 155449. 25 R. Phillips, D. Lovering, G. Denton and G. Smith,Physical Review B, 1992,45,

    2014

  7. [3719]

    20 E. Liu, J. van Baren, Z. Lu, M. M. Altaiary, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. Smirnov and C. H. Lui,Physical review let- ters, 2019,123, 027401. 21 Y. You, X.-X. Zhang, T. C. Berkelbach, M. S. Hybertsen, D. R. Reichman and T. F. Heinz,Nature Physics, 2015,11, 477–481. 22 G. Wa...

    2019

  8. [3721]

    Zhang, Y

    36 X.-X. Zhang, Y. You, S. Y. F. Zhao and T. F. Heinz,Physical review letters, 2015,115, 257403. 37 Ł. Kipczak, N. Zawadzka, D. Jana, I. Antoniazzi, M. Grzeszczyk, M. Zinkiewicz, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Potemski, C. Faugeraset al.,Nanophotonics, 2024,13, 4743–4749. 38 S....

    2015

  9. [4047]

    33 Y. Zhou, G. Scuri, D. S. Wild, A. A. High, A. Dibos, L. A. Jauregui, C. Shu, K. De Greve, K. Pistunova, A. Y. Joeet al.,Nature nanotechnology, 2017,12, 856–860. 34 T. W. Lo, X. Chen, Z. Zhang, Q. Zhang, C. W. Leung, A. V. Zayats and D. Lei,Nano Letters, 2022,22, 1915–1921. ...

    2017

  10. [4308]

    10 26 J. Kim, D. Wake and J. Wolfe,Physical Review B, 1994,50, 15099. 27 K. Ko´smider, J. W. González and J. Fernández-Rossier,Physical Review B, 2013,88, 245436. 28 L. Ren, C. Robert, H. Dery , M. He, P. Li, D. Van Tuan, P. Renucci, D. Lagarde, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabeet al....

    1994

  11. [6736]

    59 Y.-C. Lin, B. Jariwala, B. M. Bersch, K. Xu, Y. Nie, B. Wang, S. M. Eichfeld, X. Zhang, T. H. Choudhury, Y. Panet al.,ACS nano, 2018,12, 965–975. 11 60 M. Tosun, L. Chan, M. Amani, T. Roy, G. H. Ahn, P. Taheri, C. Carraro, J. W. Ager, R. Maboudian and A. Javey,ACS nano, 201...

    2018 arXiv

  12. [7691]

    Martin, N

    53 J. Martin, N. Akerman, G. Ulbricht, T. Lohmann, J. v. Smet, K. Von Klitzing and A. Yacoby,Nature physics, 2008,4, 144–

    2008

  13. [7920]

    41 Y. Li, J. Shi, H. Chen, R. Wang, Y. Mi, C. Zhang, W. Du, S. Zhang, Z. Liu, Q. Zhanget al.,Nanoscale, 2018,10, 17585–17592. 42 C. K. Dass, M. A. Khan, G. Clark, J. A. Simon, R. Gibson, S. Mou, X. Xu, M. N. Leuenberger and J. R. Hendrickson,Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2019...

    2018

  14. [8091]

    Scher and E

    84 H. Scher and E. W. Montroll,Physical Review B, 1975,12, 2455–

    1975

Pith tools

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