Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Magneto-photoelectric effect in graphene via tailored potential landscapes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In flat graphene, a tailored electrostatic potential can separate photo-excited electrons and holes under a perpendicular magnetic field.

desk verdict New bound-state mechanism and comb geometry for graphene charge separation, but 'efficient' is asserted, not computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04085 v1 pith:OBK5G5TY submitted 2025-06-04 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

Joris Josiek , Friedemann Queisser , Stephan Winnerl , Ralf Schützhold This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords graphenemagneto-photoelectriceffectchargeseparationDiracequationWKBapproximationboundstatespotentiallandscapemagneticfield
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 aims to show that a carefully shaped electrostatic potential $\phi(x)$ on a flat graphene sheet in a constant perpendicular magnetic field $B$ can separate light-created electrons from holes without folded graphene or etched edges. Its central claim is that when the electric field $E(x)=-\phi'(x)$ locally exceeds $v_F B$, the semiclassical dispersion relation admits a new class of bound states, called type II, whose motion in $y$ never reverses, so each such state carries a current of fixed sign and can be steered by the landscape. If true, this offers a route to graphene photodetectors and photovoltaics that avoids geometric constraints. The required field strength is of order $10^6\,\mathrm{V/m}$, which one volt across a sub-micrometre gate can supply, and the proposed double-comb barriers are within current fabrication practice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the WKB dispersion relation $p_x^2(x)+[k+qBx]^2=[\omega-q\phi(x)]^2/v_F^2$, with turning points where the curve $q\phi(x)$ cuts the straight lines $\omega \pm v_F(k+qBx)$. Type-II bound states occur exactly when $E(x)>v_FB$, because only then do two intersections lie on the same straight line, making $k+qBx$ sign-definite; this sign fixes the direction of the current $J_y$, via Eq. (9), whose leading term is $2v_F^2\int dx\,(k+qBx)\,|\psi_1|^2/(\omega-q\phi)$. The correction term $\propto q\phi'$ is opposite in the two equivalent expressions and is dropped in the semiclassical limit $p_x^2L^2\gg\hbar^2$. The Hamiltonian form $\hat H_k$ and the identity $d\hat H_k/dk=v_F\sigma_y$ show the current equals the group velocity, while the parity of $\phi(x)$ fixes how electron and hole solutions pair.

What would settle it

Solve the two coupled Dirac equations (Eq. 3) numerically for the double-comb potential of Fig. 6 at $\omega\approx1$ eV and $B=1$ T, and check whether the type-II bound states exist and whether the sign of $J_y$ and $d\omega/dk$ matches the WKB prediction; a null result, meaning no sign-definite bound states or currents with both signs, would show the proposed charge separation does not survive exact quantum treatment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is that super-threshold slopes of $\phi(x)$ add a second branch of localized solutions to the WKB dispersion relation. In the ordinary sub-threshold case the two turning points lie on different straight lines $\omega \pm v_F(k+qBx)$, and $k+qBx$ changes sign between them, producing cyclotron-like orbits whose $y$-velocity averages to zero in symmetric setups. In the super-threshold case there are two turning points on the same straight line, so $k+qBx$ keeps one sign throughout the classically allowed region; then the $y$-current, equivalently the group velocity $d\omega/dk$, is unidirectional. Since negative potential barriers reflect electrons while letting holes pass, and positive barriers do the reverse, a double-comb array of alternating barriers channels electrons and holes to different contacts. Symmetry arguments for odd and even $\phi(x)$ provide the design rule for pairing electron and hole trajectories with the desired direction.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that at the proposed operating point, namely optical-frequency carriers, $B\approx1$ T, and sub-micrometre barriers, the semiclassical approximation is accurate enough that the $q\phi'$ correction in the current formula can be neglected; if quantum corrections are substantial, the type-II states may not deliver the predicted one-way current.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the double-comb landscape, photo-excited electrons would be reflected by negative barriers and holes by positive barriers, so the two carrier types arrive at contacts on opposite sides of the device.
  • Because the threshold is only $E \approx 10^6\,\mathrm{V/m}$ at $B=1\,\mathrm{T}$, the effect should be reachable with gate voltages of order one volt across sub-micrometre structures.
  • The sign of the transverse current follows from the sign of $k+qBx$ in the allowed region, so the directed motion would be largely insensitive to small perturbations of the potential shape.
  • Lowering the magnetic field adapts the barrier spacing to smaller cyclotron radii, extending the scheme to lower-energy photons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural experimental test, not stated in the paper, is to reverse the magnetic field while keeping the potential landscape fixed: if the type-II states dominate, the sign of the net transverse photocurrent should flip.
  • The size of the neglected $q\phi'$ corrections sets a lower bound on the device scale; computing exact bound states for smooth barriers would tell how small the barriers can be before the one-way current breaks down.
  • Because the mechanism uses only the two-dimensional Dirac form, the same steering principle could be transferred to other massless-Dirac platforms, with the threshold field scaled by their Fermi velocity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a single-valley Dirac description of charge carriers in graphene subject to a constant perpendicular magnetic field and an electrostatic potential φ(x) that varies only in x. From a WKB dispersion relation, it distinguishes type-I solutions, for which k+qBx changes sign between turning points, from type-II solutions, for which it does not, and argues that type-II states therefore carry a unidirectional current J_y and have a non-zero group velocity. It then uses C, P, and T symmetry arguments for odd and even potentials and proposes a double-comb potential landscape with contacts to separate photogenerated electrons and holes. Experimental parameters around ω = O(eV), B = 1 T, and barrier widths of order 200 nm are discussed for a concrete device geometry.

Significance. If the type-II unidirectional bound states are realized as described, the paper identifies a contact-free mechanism for converting magnetic-field-driven motion into a directed carrier current in a tailored potential, which would be a useful addition to earlier schemes based on folds or edges [20,21]. The Dirac and WKB derivations are self-contained, no parameters are fitted to data, and the symmetry analysis is clean. The main weakness is that the quantitative device-level claim of efficient charge separation is not derived: the calculations stop at one-dimensional, y-translation-invariant states, while the proposed double-comb device explicitly breaks that symmetry. The paper is a credible conceptual proposal, but the headline claim in the abstract and conclusions is stronger than what the presented calculations support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Figs. 6-7] The paper's central claim of efficient charge separation is not derived. All of the quantum and semiclassical analysis in Secs. II-IV assumes a potential φ(x) that depends only on x and conserves k, the y-wavevector. The proposed double-comb structure and contact geometry in Figs. 6 and 7 explicitly break this y-translational invariance at the barrier ends and contacts, yet the manuscript presents no two-dimensional wavefunction or scattering calculation, no transmission or reflection coefficient at the comb terminations, and no estimate of photocurrent or separation efficiency. The schematic trajectories described in Sec. V illustrate a plausible mechanism, but they do not establish the magnitude or even the sign of the net device current after averaging over a photo-excited distribution of ω and k. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Sec. VII claim efficient charge separation.
  2. [Sec. V] The design principle that negative (positive) potential barriers reflect electrons (holes) while letting the opposite carrier through is used to justify the double comb, but it is supported only by classical-trajectory reasoning. For Dirac fermions in graphene, barrier transmission is strongly angle- and energy-dependent, and Klein tunneling gives near-unity transmission for near-normal incidence. The paper does not compute the transmission probability for the concrete barrier heights, widths, and magnetic field of Sec. VI, and it does not include intervalley effects at the barrier ends. A quantitative scattering or wave-packet calculation for a single barrier and for the comb termination is needed before the direction and efficiency of charge separation can be claimed.
  3. [Sec. II D, Eq. (9)] The sign argument for J_y relies on neglecting the qφ' term and the evanescent tails. At the parameters quoted in Sec. VI (ω of order 1 eV, B = 1 T, barrier width of order 200 nm), p_x L/hbar is of order 300, so the semiclassical neglect is not marginal; I do not regard WKB validity as the main obstacle. The point that actually needs support is the extrapolation of the unidirectional-bound-state picture to the y-dependent termination regions, where k is not conserved and the potential varies on short length scales. The 2D scattering calculation called for in the two previous comments is therefore not a cosmetic addition but a necessary check of the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. VI] The abstract reads "These finding" and should read "These findings"; in Sec. VI, "boron-nitrate layer" should be "boron-nitride layer."
  2. [Fig. 3] The dimensionless variables x̃ and ỹ used in the trajectory panels are not defined in the caption or the text, which makes the plots difficult to interpret quantitatively.
  3. [Sec. II D] The phrase "exponential tales" should read "exponential tails."
  4. [Eq. (9)] The two expressions for J_y are stated to be equivalent, but the equality is not shown; a one-line derivation using integration by parts and the equations of motion would help the reader verify the sign argument.
  5. [Sec. VI] The comparison of the cyclotron radius with the mean free path is made only qualitatively; since the mean free path in graphene depends strongly on sample quality and carrier density, a brief statement of the relevant range would strengthen the feasibility discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained from the Dirac equation, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from the effective Dirac equation (1) through the separation ansatz (2)–(3) and the WKB dispersion relation (4). The type-II solutions are a classification of turning-point structure from the same relation, not an input assumed in the derivation of Eq. (4). The central current result, Eq. (9), is computed directly from Eq. (3), and the identification of the current with the group velocity is re-derived in Sec. II E by differentiating the Hamiltonian (10), so the reference to prior work [21] is not load-bearing. The proposed potential landscape is an input, not a parameter fitted to the predicted charge-separation outcome; no empirical data are fitted and no 'prediction' reduces by construction to an earlier fit. Concerns about semiclassical validity or whether the 2D double-comb device actually achieves large charge-collection efficiency are correctness or robustness issues, not circularity. Under the stated rules, the absence of any exhibited self-referential reduction warrants a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its central claim rests on the semiclassical Dirac description, the WKB classification, and a set of qualitative design assumptions about barrier reflection; no data fitting is performed.

free parameters (1)
  • Comb potential profile (barrier heights, widths, spacing)
    Design input chosen by hand; the scheme requires super-threshold local fields E > vF B and barrier spacing of order the cyclotron radius (Sec. VI).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Effective 2+1D Dirac equation describes graphene carriers at energies well below 2.8 eV and scales far above 0.25 nm.
    Used in Sec. II to set up Eq. (1); the later choice of omega = O(eV) is not far below the hopping energy, straining the assumption.
  • standard math Separation ansatz with plane waves in y and Landau gauge A = [phi(x), 0, Bx].
    Eqs. (2) and (3) rely on translation invariance in y, which is broken by the proposed comb electrodes in practice.
  • domain assumption WKB approximation for turning points and the dispersion relation.
    Secs. II A-C require a slowly varying potential and large action; both are marginal at the proposed experimental parameters.
  • domain assumption Neglect of evanescent tails and the q phi' commutator term when fixing the sign of the y.current.
    Eq. (9) and Sec. II E; the sign conclusion for type-II currents depends on this neglect being quantitatively negligible.
  • domain assumption Barriers are high and wide enough to reflect one carrier species while transmitting the other.
    Sec. V states this qualitatively; no reflection or transmission calculation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magneto-photoelectric effect in graphene via tailored potential landscapes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OBK5G5TY

@misc{pith2026250604085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magneto-photoelectric effect in graphene via tailored potential landscapes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OBK5G5TY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04085}
}
abstract

We consider the propagation of charge carriers in planar graphene under the combined influence of a constant transversal magnetic field $B$ and an in-plane varying electric potential $\phi(x)$. By suitably designing the potential landscape $\phi(x)$, we may effectively steer charge carriers generated by photo-excitation, for example, in order to achieve an efficient charge separation. These finding may pave the way for transport schemes or photoelectric/photovoltaic applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04085 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of solutions to the dispersion relation for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Examples of semi-classical trajectories for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Examples for solutions of the dispersion relation (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Example of an odd potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Arranging positive and negative potential barriers in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Sketch of a geometry in order to collect the positive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Wang, J. Song, X. Mu, M. Sun,Optoelectronic and photoelectric properties and applications of graphene- based nanostructures, Materials Today Physics,13, 100196 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Patil, A

    V. Patil, A. Capone, S. Strauf, E.-H. Yang,Improved photoresponse with enhanced photoelectric contribution in fully suspended graphene photodetectors, Scientific Re- ports,3, 2791 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    S. V. Morozov, K. S. Novoselov, M. I. Katsnelson, F. Schedin, D. C. Elias, J. A. Jaszczak, and A. K. Geim, Giant Intrinsic Carrier Mobilities in Graphene and Its Bilayer, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 016602 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Z. Sun, T. Hasan, F. Torrisi, D. Popa, G. Privitera, F. Wang, F. Bonaccorso, D. M. Basko, and A. C. Fer- rari,Graphene Mode-Locked Ultrafast LaserACS Nano, 4, 803 (2010). 7

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Breusing, C

    M. Breusing, C. Ropers, and T. Elsaesser,Ultrafast Car- rier Dynamics in Graphite, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 086809 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Liu, Y.-C

    C.-H. Liu, Y.-C. Chang, T. B. Norris, and Z. Zhong, Graphene photodetectors with ultra-broadband and high responsivity at room temperature, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy9, 273 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Zhang, T

    Y. Zhang, T. Liu, B. Meng, X. Li, G. Liang, X. Hu, Q. J. Wang,Broadband high photoresponse from pure monolayer graphene photodetector, Nature Communica- tions4, 1811 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Bonaccorso, Z

    F. Bonaccorso, Z. Sun, T. Hasan, and A. C. Ferrari, Graphene photonics and optoelectronics, Nature Photon- ics4, 611 (2010)

    2010

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Brida, A

    D. Brida, A. Tomadin, C. Manzoni, Y. J. Kim, A. Lom- bardo, S. Milana, R. R. Nair, K. S. Novoselov, A. C. Fer- rari, G. Cerullo, and M. Polini,Ultrafast collinear scatter- ing and carrier multiplication in grapheneNature Com- munications4, 1987 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    S. M. Koepfli, M. Baumann, Y. Koyaz, R. Gadola, A. G¨ ung¨ or, K. Keller, Y. Horst, S. Nashashibi, R. Schwanninger, M. Doderer, E. Passerini, Y. Fedo- ryshyn, J. Leuthold,Metamaterial graphene photodetec- tor with bandwidth exceeding 500 gigahertz, Science380, 1169 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    J. Wang, W. Bo, Y. Ding, X. Wang, X. Mu,Optical, opto- electronic, and photoelectric properties in moir´ e superlat- tices of twist bilayer graphene, Materials Today Physics, 14, 100238 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Gosciniak, M

    J. Gosciniak, M. Rasras, and J. B. Khurgin,Ultrafast Plasmonic Graphene Photodetector Based on the Chan- nel Photothermoelectric Effect, ACS Photonics,7, 488 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Shautsova, T

    V. Shautsova, T. Sidiropoulos, X. Xiao, N. A. G¨ usken, N. C. G. Black, A. M. Gilbertson, V. Giannini, S. A. Maier, L. F. Cohen, and R. F. Oulton,Plasmon induced thermoelectric effect in graphene, Nature Com- munications9, 5190 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    K. J. Tielrooij, L. Piatkowski, M. Massicotte, A. Woess- ner, Q. Ma, Y. Lee, K. S. Myhro, C. N. Lau, P. Jarillo- Herrero, N. F. van Hulst, and F. H. L. Koppens,Gen- eration of photovoltage in graphene on a femtosecond timescale through efficient carrier heating, Nature Nan- ot...

    2015

  7. [15]

    S. Das, D. Pandey, J. Thomas, T. Roy,The Role of Graphene and Other 2D Materials in Solar Photovoltaics, Advanced Materials,31, 1802722 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    N. N. Rosli, M. A. Ibrahim, N. A. Ludin, M. A. M. Teridi, K. Sopian,A review of graphene based transparent con- ducting films for use in solar photovoltaic applications, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews99, 83 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Chien, P

    C.-T. Chien, P. Hiralal, D.-Y. Wang, I-S. Huang, C.- C. Chen, C.-W.Chen, G. A. J. Amaratunga,Graphene- Based Integrated Photovoltaic Energy Harvesting/Storage Device, Small11, 2929 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Mahmoudi, Y

    T. Mahmoudi, Y. Wang, Y.-B. Hahn,Graphene and its derivatives for solar cells application, Nano Energy47, 51 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Y. Wang, X. Chen, Y. Zhong, F. Zhu, K. P. Loh,Large area, continuous, few-layered graphene as anodes in or- ganic photovoltaic devices, Appl. Phys. Lett.95, 063302 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Sonntag, A

    J. Sonntag, A. Kurzmann, M. Geller, F. Queisser, A. Lorke and R. Sch¨ utzhold,Giant magneto-photoelectric effect in suspended graphene, New J. Phys.19, 063028 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Queisser and R

    F. Queisser and R. Sch¨ utzhold,Strong Magnetophoto- electric Effect in Folded Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 046601 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Queisser, S

    F. Queisser, S. Lang, and R. Sch¨ utzhold,Optical absorp- tion and carrier multiplication at graphene edges in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B108, 045403 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    X. Jia, J. Campos-Delgado, Ma. Terrones, V. Meuniere, and M. S. Dresselhaus,Graphene edges: a review of their fabrication and characterization, Nanoscale3, 86 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Shockley and H

    W. Shockley and H. J. Queisser,Detailed balance limit of efficiency of p–n junction solar cellsJ. Appl. Phys.32.3 510 (1961)

    1961

  17. [25]

    J. B. Oostinga, H. B. Heersche, X. Liu, A. F. Morpurgo, L. M. K. Vandersypen,Gate-induced insulating state in bilayer graphene devices, Nature Materials7, 151 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    Mittendorff, S

    M. Mittendorff, S. Winnerl, T. E. Murphy2D THz Op- toelectronics, Advanced Optical Materials,9, 2001500 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Das Sarma, S

    S. Das Sarma, S. Adam, E. H. Hwang, and E. Rossi,Electronic transport in two-dimensional graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 407 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Das Sarma, S

    S. Das Sarma, S. Adam, E. H. Hwang, and E. Rossi,Elec- tronic structure of gated graphene and graphene ribbons, Phys. Rev. B75, 205441 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    T. O. Wehling, K. S. Novoselov, S. V. Morozov, E. E. Vdovin, M. I. Katsnelson, A. K. Geim, and A. I. Lichtenstein,Molecular Doping of GrapheneNano Lett.8, 173 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Kumar, S

    R. Kumar, S. Sahoo, E. Joanni, R. K. Singh, K. Mae- gawa, W. K. Tan, G. Kawamura, K. K. Kar, A. Mat- suda,Heteroatom doped graphene engineering for energy storage and conversion, Materials Today,39, 47 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Balgley, J

    J. Balgley, J. Butler, S. Biswas, Z. Ge, S. Lagasse, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. Cothrine, D. G. Man- drus, J. Velasco Jr., R. Valent ´ ı, and E. A. Henriksen, Ultrasharp Lateral p–n Junctions in Modulation-Doped Graphene, Nano Lett.22, 4124 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    E. C. Peters, E. J. H. Lee, M. Burghard, K. Kern, Gate dependent photocurrents at a graphene p-n junction Appl. Phys. Lett.97, 193102 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    J. R. Williams, L. DiCarlo, and C. M. Marcus,Quan- tum Hall Effect in a Gate-Controlled p-n Junction of Graphene, Science317, 5838 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim,The electronic proper- ties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Sauter, ¨Uber das Verhalten eines Elektrons im homo- genen elektrischen Feld nach der relativistischen Theorie Diracs, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik69, 742 (1931)

    F. Sauter, ¨Uber das Verhalten eines Elektrons im homo- genen elektrischen Feld nach der relativistischen Theorie Diracs, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik69, 742 (1931)

    1931

  28. [36]

    Schwinger,On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polar- ization, Phys

    J. Schwinger,On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polar- ization, Phys. Rev.82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  29. [37]

    Z. Liu, L. Ma, G. Shi, W. Zhou, Y. Gong, S. Lei, X. Yang, J. Zhang, J. Yu, K. P. Hackenberg, A. Babakhani, J.- C. Idrobo, R. Vajtai, J. Lou, and P. M. Ajayan,In-plane heterostructures of graphene and hexagonal boron nitride with controlled domain sizes, Nature Nanotechnology8,...

    2013

  30. [38]

    M. P. Levendorf, C.-J. Kim, L. Brown, P. Y. Huang, R. W. Havener, D. A. Muller, and J. Park,Graphene 8 and boron nitride lateral heterostructures for atomically thin circuitry, Nature488, 627 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    M. B. Lundeberg, Y. Gao, A. Woessner, C. Tan, P. Alonso-Gonz´ alez, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, R. Hillenbrand, and F. H. L. Koppens,Ther- moelectric detection and imaging of propagating graphene plasmons, Nature Materials16, 204 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.