Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Influence of carrier density and disorder on the Quantum Hall plateau widths in epitaxial graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that carrier density and disorder jointly set the magnetic-field width of the ν=6 quantum Hall plateau in epitaxial graphene.

desk verdict A useful qualitative dataset on QHP widths in epitaxial graphene, but the density/disorder separation is incompletely controlled and the manuscript needs error bars before the quantitative claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07518 v2 pith:U23A3RA4 submitted 2025-01-13 cond-mat.mes-hall

Ignacio Figueruelo-Campanero , Yuriko Baba , Alejandro Jimeno-Pozo , Julia García-Pérez , Elvira M. González , Rodolfo Miranda , Francisco Guinea , Enrique Cánovas
show 4 more authors
Daniel Granados Pierre Pantaleón Pablo Burset Mariela Menghini
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.43.Qt73.63.-b72.80.Vp
keywords epitaxialgraphenequantumHalleffectplateauwidthcarrierdensitydisordermobilityAndersonLandauer-Büttiker
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 asks what controls the magnetic-field window over which the ν=6 quantum Hall plateau survives in epitaxial graphene. By letting oxygen adsorb and desorb on two regions of the same Hall bar, the authors changed carrier density without a gate, while the two regions kept clearly different mobilities and hence different disorder levels. They report that plateau width grows with carrier density in both regions, but for equal densities the cleaner region always shows wider plateaus, so density alone cannot explain the widths. Tight-binding transport simulations with Anderson disorder reproduce both trends, supporting the conclusion that disorder and carrier density jointly set the plateau width.

What carries the argument

The experimental machinery is a gate-free doping knob: molecular oxygen physisorbs weakly on graphene and acts as an electron acceptor, so vacuum storage desorbs it and raises electron density, while air storage re-adsorbs it and lowers density. The two device regions provide two disorder realizations within one wafer. The theoretical machinery is a scaled tight-binding model of a graphene Hall bar with nearest-neighbor hopping plus an Anderson on-site disorder potential $\epsilon_i \in [-\omega_A/2, \omega_A/2]$; conductance is computed with the Landauer-Büttiker formalism, and the plateau width is defined as the field range where the standard deviation of $R_{xy}$ stays below a threshold. Comparing experiment and simulation maps carrier density to plateau width for two disorder strengths.

What would settle it

Measure the width of the ν=6 plateau on an encapsulated graphene Hall bar where carrier density is tuned continuously with a gate while the surface is kept clean, so disorder cannot change with doping. If $\Delta B$ fails to grow with density, or if an oxygen-exposed device shows a different width at the same gate-set density, the claim that density and disorder act jointly would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the width $\Delta B$ of the $\nu=6$ quantum Hall plateau in epitaxial graphene is controlled by carrier density and by disorder together, not by carrier density alone. The evidence is a single Hall bar with two regions whose mobilities differ by an order of magnitude; storage in vacuum or air shifts the carrier density via oxygen adsorption and desorption. In the high-mobility region, $\Delta B$ grows from about 1 T to nearly 3 T as density rises; in the low-mobility region, $\Delta B$ shrinks and vanishes near a critical density $n_c \approx 2.3 \times 10^{11}\,\text{cm}^{-2}$, while the high-mobility region extrapolates to a larger $n_c \approx 3 \times 10^{11}\,\text{cm}^{-2}$. Landauer-Büttiker simulations on a scaled tight-binding model with Anderson disorder show the same qualitative behavior: $\Delta B$ increases almost linearly with carrier density, and stronger disorder reduces $\Delta B$ at every density. The paper therefore identifies impurity density and strength, as reflected in mobility, as an independent factor that must be included to predict the plateau width.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that storing the sample in vacuum or air changes only how many electrons the graphene holds, not how strongly it scatters them: molecular oxygen is taken to sit on the surface without directly becoming a scatterer, and the two device regions are assumed to contain the same kind of impurities, just at different densities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed disorder, raising carrier density widens the ν=6 plateau because the Landau levels move apart in field, so a density-tunable graphene device has a predictable operating window for quantized Hall resistance.
  • Sample storage history, by changing adsorbate coverage, is a hidden variable in quantum Hall metrology: identical devices aged differently will have different plateau widths at the same nominal density.
  • The critical density at which the plateau disappears, $n_c$, is itself a disorder metric: cleaner regions sustain the plateau down to lower carrier densities.
  • Devices designed with controlled, weak disorder should exhibit broader plateaus and therefore allow quantum resistance standards to operate at lower magnetic fields.
  • The Anderson-disorder simulation, despite being a scaled model, can be used to screen materials or treatments for their expected plateau width before fabrication.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not report is a gate-tunable experiment on a single region, which would separate the density effect from adsorbate-induced disorder completely; if $\Delta B$ still grows linearly with gate density in an encapsulated device, the density effect is intrinsic.
  • The same oxygen adsorption/desorption protocol could map the spatial disorder landscape of a wafer by measuring $\Delta B$ region by region, turning plateau width into a local diagnostic.
  • The relation between $n_c$, mobility, and impurity density suggests that plateau-width measurements could complement Hall mobility as a faster characterization of scattering in graphene devices.
  • Because molecular oxygen only weakly perturbs the graphene lattice, these results may extend to other weakly adsorbed species, implying that ambient history is a general control knob for quantum transport in air-sensitive 2D materials.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an experimental study of the width of the ν=6 quantum Hall plateau (QHP) in a single epitaxial graphene Hall bar with two regions of markedly different mobility. The carrier density is varied not by a gate but by storage in vacuum or air, which adsorbs/desorbs molecular oxygen from the graphene surface, with one additional UV-treatment step. The authors report that the QHP width ΔB increases with carrier density in both regions, but that at similar densities the high-mobility region shows broader plateaus than the low-mobility region. They interpret this as evidence that both carrier density and disorder/impurity density control the plateau extension. Supporting tight-binding transport simulations (Landauer-Büttiker with Anderson disorder, implemented in Kwant) reproduce the qualitative trends of mobility decreasing with density and disorder, and of plateau width increasing with density and decreasing with disorder. The central claim is that the plateau width in graphene is set by a combination of carrier density and impurity density/strength, not by carrier density alone.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a useful experimental dataset on how environment-driven carrier-density changes and local mobility variations affect the QHE in epitaxial graphene, with direct relevance to quantum metrology. The study's strengths include the long-term storage protocol that tunes carrier density without a gate, the two-region internal comparison, and the independent tight-binding simulations, which are documented and presumably reproducible through Kwant. The qualitative agreement between simulated and experimental trends is a positive feature. However, the paper's central attribution of the plateau-width differences to disorder rests on two explicit assumptions (oxygen physisorption without scattering, and equal scatterer strength in both regions) that are plausible but not independently verified. The absence of experimental error bars and the lack of a quantitative definition of the experimental ΔB further weaken the quantitative claims. The contribution is potentially significant, but the evidence currently falls short of conclusively separating density effects from disorder effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.1] The within-region interpretation relies on the statement that oxygen adatoms "only play the role of modulating the carrier density and have a minor effect in the scattering rates of the system." This is load-bearing because the same storage process changes both n and the surface environment. No quantum-lifetime (τ_q) or Dingle analysis of the SdH oscillations shown in Figs. 2b and 2e is presented, and the UV control is not clean: it increases n but also heats the sample, and the observed mobility increase is attributed to annealing. Without an independent probe of the scattering rate, the ΔB vs. n trends in Fig. 3b could be partly due to correlated changes in disorder rather than solely to carrier density. Please add a Dingle/quantum-lifetime analysis of the existing data, or a control experiment with gating at fixed adsorbate coverage, to support the assumption.
  2. [Fig. 3b, Section III.2] The experimental plateau widths are plotted without error bars, and the criterion used to define ΔB for the experimental data is not stated in the main text (a definition is given only for the simulations, via σ(Rxy)>10^-3 R0/3). The critical densities n_c^High ≈ 3×10^11 cm^-2 and n_c^Low ≈ 2.3×10^11 cm^-2 are derived by extrapolating linear fits through very few points, but no fit uncertainties or goodness-of-fit measures are reported. Consequently, the key between-region comparison—that high-mobility plateaus are broader and have a different intercept—is not quantitatively supported. Please report the plateau-width extraction procedure, error bars on ΔB, the number of data points per fit, and the fit parameters with uncertainties.
  3. [Section III.2] The argument that the mobility ratio τHigh/τLow ≈ 12 reflects an impurity-density difference assumes U0|Low ≈ U0|High and identical scattering mechanisms in the two regions. The authors themselves acknowledge that "it is not experimentally possible to disentangle the nature of the observed mobility differences." The Anderson-disorder simulations, while qualitatively supportive, are not fitted to the experimental ΔB values and use an arbitrary threshold; they therefore do not independently confirm that the between-region plateau-width difference is caused by impurity density rather than by a difference in scatterer type or scattering strength. An independent experimental probe of the scattering mechanism (e.g., temperature dependence of the quantum lifetime, or comparison of SdH amplitudes at matched densities) is needed to substantiate the disorder interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The term "absorption" is used where "adsorption" is meant (e.g., "absorption/desorption" in the abstract and Section III.1); please correct this terminology.
  2. [Section III.1] The sentence "In this case, the increase in carrier density accompanied by an increase in mobility could be attributed to thermal annealing effects due to laser heating" is somewhat vague; please specify the magnitude of the mobility change (the text later cites Δµ ≈ 50 cm^2/Vs) and how it compares to the overall mobility drift.
  3. [Section III.2] In Fig. 3a, the two regions are plotted with different mobility scales in the main panel and the inset; the fitting model µ(n) ∝ n^β is mentioned in the text but the explicit functional form and the uncertainties on the exponents β should be stated in the caption or in the text.
  4. [References] Reference [11] is cited as "(in press)" without volume or page numbers; please update to the published version if available.
  5. [Simulation section] The "scaled tight-binding model" is only referenced via Supplementary Information Section 1; a sentence summarizing the scaling procedure (e.g., how the magnetic field and disorder are rescaled) would improve the readability of the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the simulations are independent tight-binding Anderson-disorder calculations, the load-bearing assumptions are empirical premises rather than self-referential reductions, and the fitted trends are descriptive, not inputs that force the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the ν=6 quantum Hall plateau width differs between two regions of the same graphene Hall bar at similar carrier densities, and that this difference tracks mobility/disorder rather than carrier density alone. That comparison is a direct experimental measurement (Fig. 3b) and is not produced by any fitted parameter or by a self-citation. The transport calculations (Section III.2, Fig. 4) are independent Landauer-Büttiker tight-binding simulations with Anderson disorder performed with Kwant; the disorder strength ωA is not fitted to the experimental plateau widths, and the simulated plateau widths are compared to experiment only at a qualitative level. The power-law mobility-density fits (βHigh = −0.30, βLow = −0.57) and the linear plateau-width fits with critical-density intercepts are descriptive summaries of the data, not inputs that algebraically generate the claimed disorder dependence. The assumption that molecular oxygen only modulates carrier density and weakly affects scattering (Section III.1) and the assumption that both regions host similar scatterer types with comparable strength (Section III.2) are explicitly stated physical premises; they are empirically debatable and could weaken the interpretation, but they are not circular reductions and are not justified by self-citation. References [38], [39], [40], and [41] are external works by other groups, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the present authors' prior work. Even though the linear increase of plateau width with carrier density has a kinematic component from Landau-level filling positions, the paper's actual claim rests on the measured difference between regions at equal density and on the independent simulation result that disorder reduces the plateau width, neither of which is equivalent to its inputs by construction. No equation in the paper reduces to the target result by definition, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of fitted exponents and critical densities, chosen simulation parameters (Anderson disorder strength, chemical potential, plateau-width threshold), and two explicit assumptions about oxygen physisorption and scatterer similarity. No invented entities are introduced. The simulations are independent of the data used for the fit, so the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (7)
  • β_highmob = -0.30
    Exponent in mobility-carrier density power law fitted to the high mobility region data (Fig. 3a) using the model of Ref. [38].
  • β_lowmob = -0.57
    Exponent in mobility-carrier density power law fitted to the low mobility region data (Fig. 3a).
  • n_c_highmob = ≈3×10^11 cm^-2
    Critical carrier density at which the ν=6 plateau width extrapolates to zero, obtained by linear extrapolation of the Highmob data in Fig. 3b.
  • n_c_lowmob = ≈2.3×10^11 cm^-2
    Critical carrier density for plateau disappearance in the Lowmob region, obtained by extrapolating the experimental points in Fig. 3b.
  • ωA/t = 0.3
    Anderson on-site disorder strength used in the tight-binding simulations (Fig. 4). Chosen to represent a moderate disorder level; results for other strengths are not shown.
  • EF/t = 0.4 (also 0.3, 0.5 in Fig. 4a)
    Chemical potential values used in the transport calculations; chosen to probe different carrier densities.
  • plateau width threshold in simulation = σ(Rxy) > 10^-3 R0/3
    Simulation definition of plateau width; a chosen threshold on the standard deviation of Rxy over disorder realizations.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Nearest-neighbor tight-binding model for graphene
    Used for all transport calculations (Section II and SI Section 1).
  • domain assumption Anderson on-site disorder model
    Represents impurities as random on-site energies within [-ωA/2, ωA/2] (Section III.2).
  • standard math Landauer-Büttiker formalism
    Used to compute conductance/resistance matrices in Kwant (Section II).
  • domain assumption Drude model for carrier density and mobility extraction
    n and μ are extracted from low-field Hall slope and zero-field resistivity (Section III.1).
  • domain assumption Extended Drude model of Ref. [39] relating scattering rate to impurity density and strength
    Used to infer that mobility difference between regions implies impurity density difference with similar U0 (Section III.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Oxygen adsorbs/desorbs without directly contributing to scattering
    The paper argues molecular oxygen is weakly physisorbed and thus only modulates carrier density, not the disorder potential (Section III.1). This assumption is needed to attribute plateau-width trends to density rather than to changes in disorder.
  • ad hoc to paper Similar scatterer type in both regions (U0_low ≈ U0_high)
    Stated as 'reasonable' in Section III.2, allowing the mobility ratio to be interpreted as an impurity density ratio. If false, the two regions could differ in scatterer strength rather than density.
  • domain assumption Scaled tight-binding model of Ref. [40] faithfully captures graphene physics
    The simulations use a scaled model to reduce computational cost; its quantitative mapping to the experimental device is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of carrier density and disorder on the Quantum Hall plateau widths in epitaxial graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U23A3RA4

@misc{pith2026250107518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of carrier density and disorder on the Quantum Hall plateau widths in epitaxial graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U23A3RA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07518}
}
abstract

Since its discovery, graphene has been one of the most prominent 2D materials due to its unique properties and broad range of possible applications. In particular, the half-integer Quantum Hall Effect (HI-QHE) characterized by the quantization of Hall resistivity as a function of applied magnetic field, offers opportunities for advancements in quantum metrology and the understanding of topological quantum states in this 2D material. While the role of disorder in stabilizing quantum Hall plateaus (QHPs) is widely recognized, the precise interplay between the plateaus width, disorder, mobility and carrier density remains less explored. In this work, we investigate the width of the $\nu=6$ QHP in epitaxial graphene Hall bars, focusing on two distinct regions of the device with markedly different electronic mobilities. Depending on the storage conditions, it is possible to modify the carrier density of graphene QHE devices and consequently increase or reduce the mobility. Our experiments reveal mobility variations of up to 200$\%$ from their initial value. In particular, the sample storage time and ambient conditions cause also noticeable changes in the positions and extension of the QHPs. Our results show that the QHP extension for $\nu=6$ differs significantly between the two regions, influenced by both mobility and disorder, rather than solely by carrier density. Transport simulations based on the Landauer-B\"uttiker formalism with Anderson disorder in a scaled model reveal the critical role of impurities in shaping graphene transport properties defining the extension of the QHPs. This study provides valuable insights into the interplay between mobility, disorder, and quantum transport in graphene systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Optical microscope image of a W = L = 100 µm graphene Hall bridge. The SLG is indicated by the dotted area, blue contrast corresponds to SiC substrate and black regions correspond to Ti/Au (10/90 nm) contacts. The high mobility region corresponds to the green shaded area in the SLG, and low mobility corresponds to red one. b) Schematics of the configuration used for the longitudinal (VL) and Hall (VH) voltage mea… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) Hall resistivity and b) longitudinal resistivity as a function of the applied magnetic field for different vacuum storage times and for the UV treatment (red line) at 5 K. c) Evolution of carrier density (black dots) and mobility (blue dots) with vacuum storage time. Star shape markers correspond to UV treatment (387 nm, 5 s, 60 W/cm−2 ). d) Hall resistivity and e) longitudinal resistivity as a function of the ma… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Characteristic mobility as a function of carrier density for the high mobility region (left axis) and the low mobility region (right axis). Inset: Same as main panel but using the same scale of mobility for both regions. The continuous lines correspond to a fitting using the model described in [38], see text. b) QHP width for ν = 6 for different carrier densities for the high and low mobility regions. In both fig… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) Transversal resistance Rxy as a function of the magnetic field B for three different values of the chemical potential EF . The solid lines correspond to the case without disorder and the dashed lines show the mean value of the resistance over 100 realizations for ωA…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson, I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. 7 Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov. Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene. Nature, 438(7065):197–200, November 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim. The electronic properties of graphene.Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(1):109–162, January 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov. The rise of graphene. Nature Materials, 6(3):183–191, March 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    K. S. Novoselov, V. I. Fal’ko, L. Colombo, P. R. Gellert, M. G. Schwab, and K. Kim. A roadmap for graphene. Nature, 490(7419):192–200, oct 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    K. S. Novoselov, Z. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Moro- zov, H. L. Stormer, U. Zeitler, J. C. Maan, G. S. Boebinger, P. Kim, and A. K. Geim. Room- Temperature Quantum Hall Effect in Graphene.Sci- ence, 315(5817):1379–1379, March 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Stormer, and Philip Kim

    Yuanbo Zhang, Yan-Wen Tan, Horst L. Stormer, and Philip Kim. Experimental observation of the quan- tum Hall effect and Berry’s phase in graphene.Na- ture, 438(7065):201–204, November 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Reddy, Jixiang Yang, Junseok Seo, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Liang Fu, and Long Ju

    Zhengguang Lu, Tonghang Han, Yuxuan Yao, Aidan P. Reddy, Jixiang Yang, Junseok Seo, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Liang Fu, and Long Ju. FractionalquantumanomalousHalleffectinmul- tilayer graphene.Nature, 626(8000):759–764, Febru- ary 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Bolotin, Fereshte Ghahari, Michael D

    Kirill I. Bolotin, Fereshte Ghahari, Michael D. Shul- man, Horst L. Stormer, and Philip Kim. Observation ofthefractionalquantumHalleffectingraphene. Na- ture, 462(7270):196–199, November 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele. Quantum spin hall ef- fect in graphene. Physical Review Letters, 95(22), November 2005

    2005

  2. [10]

    Cage, Ronald F

    Marvin E. Cage, Ronald F. Dziuba, and Bruce F. Field. A Test of the Quantum Hall Effect as a Resis- tance Standard. IEEE Transactions on Instrumen- tation and Measurement, IM–34(2):301–303, June 1985

    1985

  3. [11]

    Y. Yin, M. Kruskopf, P. Gournay, B. Rolland, M. Götz, E. Pesel, T. Tschirner, D. Momeni, A. Chatterjee, F. Hohls, K. Pierz, H. Scherer, R.J. Haug, and H.W. Schumacher. (in press) graphene quantum hall resistance standard for realizing the unit of electrical resistance under re...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Avron, Daniel Osadchy, and Ruedi Seiler

    Joseph E. Avron, Daniel Osadchy, and Ruedi Seiler. A Topological Look at the Quantum Hall Effect. Physics Today, 56(8):38–42, August 2003

    2003

  5. [13]

    Topological aspects of the quantum Hall effect

    Y Hatsugai. Topological aspects of the quantum Hall effect. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9(12):2507–2549, March 1997

    1997

  6. [14]

    The width of the plateaus of the quantum Hall effect.Physica B: Con- densed Matter, 194–196:1249–1250, February 1994

    Atanas Groshev and Gerd Schön. The width of the plateaus of the quantum Hall effect.Physica B: Con- densed Matter, 194–196:1249–1250, February 1994

    1994

  7. [15]

    Kawaji, K

    S. Kawaji, K. Hirakawa, and M. Nagata. Device- width dependence of plateau width in quan- tum Hall states. Physica B: Condensed Matter, 184(1–4):17–20, February 1993

    1993

  8. [16]

    Schurr, J

    J. Schurr, J. Melcher, K. Pierz, G. Hein, and F.-J. Ahlers. The Width of AC Quantum Hall Plateaus. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Mea- surement, 53(3):826–829, June 2004

    2004

  9. [17]

    Sau, and Sankar Das Sarma

    Stuart Yi-Thomas, Yi Huang, Jay D. Sau, and Sankar Das Sarma. Integer quantum hall effect: Disorder, temperature, floating, and plateau width. arXiv, 2501.08273, January 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems

    Supriyo Datta. Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems. Cambridge University Press, September 1995

    1995

  11. [19]

    Kivelson

    Kyung-Su Kim and Steven A. Kivelson. The quan- tum Hall effect in the absence of disorder.npj Quan- tum Materials, 6(1), March 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Kwant: a soft- ware package for quantum transport

    Christoph W Groth, Michael Wimmer, Anton R Akhmerov, and Xavier Waintal. Kwant: a soft- ware package for quantum transport. New Journal of Physics, 16(6):063065, June 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    The role of contact resistance in graphene field-effect de- vices

    Filippo Giubileo and Antonio Di Bartolomeo. The role of contact resistance in graphene field-effect de- vices. Progress in Surface Science, 92(3):143–175, August 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Non- volatile photochemical gating of an epitaxial graphene/polymer heterostructure

    Samuel Lara-Avila, Kasper Moth-Poulsen, Rositza Yakimova, Thomas Bjørnholm, Vladimir Fal’ko, Alexander Tzalenchuk, and Sergey Kubatkin. Non- volatile photochemical gating of an epitaxial graphene/polymer heterostructure. Advanced Mate- rials, 23(7):878–882, January 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    Ajayan, Junichiro Kono, Masayoshi Tonouchi, and Iwao Kawayama

    Filchito Renee Bagsican, Andrew Winchester, Su- joy Ghosh, Xiang Zhang, Lulu Ma, Minjie Wang, Hironaru Murakami, Saikat Talapatra, Robert Va- jtai, Pulickel M. Ajayan, Junichiro Kono, Masayoshi Tonouchi, and Iwao Kawayama. Adsorption en- ergy of oxygen molecules on graphene an...

    2017

  16. [24]

    Childress, Ap- parao M

    Hongmei Li, Xu Han, Anthony S. Childress, Ap- parao M. Rao, and Goutam Koley. Investiga- tion of carrier density and mobility variations in graphene caused by surface adsorbates. Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures , 107:96–100, March 2019. 8

    2019

  17. [25]

    Flynn, and Louis E

    Sunmin Ryu, Li Liu, Stephane Berciaud, Young-Jun Yu, Haitao Liu, Philip Kim, George W. Flynn, and Louis E. Brus. Atmospheric oxygen binding and hole doping in deformed graphene on a SiO2 substrate. Nano Letters, 10(12):4944–4951, November 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Arseniy Lartsev, Tom Yager, Tobias Bergsten, Alexander Tzalenchuk, T. J. B. M Janssen, Rositza Yakimova, Samuel Lara-Avila, and Sergey Kubatkin. Tuning carrier density across Dirac point in epitax- ial graphene on SiC by corona discharge. Applied Physics Letters, 105(6), August 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Schumacher

    Yefei Yin, Atasi Chatterjee, Davood Momeni, Mat- tias Kruskopf, Martin Götz, Stefan Wundrack, Frank Hohls, Klaus Pierz, and Hans W. Schumacher. Tai- loring permanent charge carrier densities in epitaxial graphene on sic by functionalization with F4-TCNQ. Advanced Physics Resea...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Band Gap Opening of Bilayer Graphene by F4- TCNQ Molecular Doping and Externally Applied Electric Field

    Xiaoqing Tian, Jianbin Xu, and Xiaomu Wang. Band Gap Opening of Bilayer Graphene by F4- TCNQ Molecular Doping and Externally Applied Electric Field. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 114(35):11377–11381, August 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Uniform doping of graphene close to the Dirac point by polymer-assisted assembly of molecu- lar dopants

    HansHe, KyungHoKim, AndreyDanilov, Domenico Montemurro, Liyang Yu, Yung Woo Park, Flori- ana Lombardi, Thilo Bauch, Kasper Moth-Poulsen, Tihomir Iakimov, Rositsa Yakimova, Per Malm- berg, ChristianMüller, SergeyKubatkin, andSamuel Lara-Avila. Uniform doping of graphene close t...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Wang, Marie-Luise Braatz, Nils Richter, Klaas-Jan Tielrooij, Zoltan Mics, Hao Lu, Nils-Eike Weber, Klaus Müllen, Dmitry Turchinovich, Mathias Kläui, and Mischa Bonn

    Hai I. Wang, Marie-Luise Braatz, Nils Richter, Klaas-Jan Tielrooij, Zoltan Mics, Hao Lu, Nils-Eike Weber, Klaus Müllen, Dmitry Turchinovich, Mathias Kläui, and Mischa Bonn. Reversible photochemical control of doping levels in supported graphene.The Journal of Physical Chemistr...

    2017

  23. [31]

    E. H. Hwang, S. Adam, and S. Das Sarma. Carrier transport in two-dimensional graphene layers.Phys- ical Review Letters, 98(18), May 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Kentaro Nomura and A. H. MacDonald. Quantum transport of massless dirac fermions.Physical Review Letters, 98(7), February 2007

    2007

  25. [33]

    Mobility enhancement of CVD graphene by spatially corre- lated charges

    Lyudmila Turyanska, Oleg Makarovsky, Laurence Eaves, Amalia Patanè, and Nobuya Mori. Mobility enhancement of CVD graphene by spatially corre- lated charges. 2D Materials, 4(2):025026, February 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Enhancing opto- electronic properties of SiC-grown graphene by a sur- face layer of colloidal quantum dots.2D Materials, 4(3):031001, June 2017

    Oleg Makarovsky, Lyudmila Turyanska, Nobuya Mori, Mark Greenaway, Laurence Eaves, Amalia Patané, Mark Fromhold, Samuel Lara-Avila, Sergey Kubatkin, and Rositsa Yakimova. Enhancing opto- electronic properties of SiC-grown graphene by a sur- face layer of colloidal quantum dots....

    2017

  27. [35]

    Docherty, Cheng-Te Lin, Hannah J

    Callum J. Docherty, Cheng-Te Lin, Hannah J. Joyce, Robin J. Nicholas, Laura M. Herz, Lain-Jong Li, and Michael B. Johnston. Extreme sensitivity of graphene photoconductivity to environmental gases. Nature Communications, 3(1), November 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    Schedin, A

    F. Schedin, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, E. W. Hill, P. Blake, M. I. Katsnelson, and K. S. Novoselov. Detection of individual gas molecules adsorbed on graphene. Nature Materials, 6(9):652–655, July2007

  29. [37]

    R. B. Laughlin. Quantized Hall conductivity in two dimensions. Physical Review B, 23(10):5632–5633, May 1981

    1981

  30. [38]

    Quan- tum transport in two-dimensional graphite sys- tem

    Nguyen Hong Shon and Tsuneya Ando. Quan- tum transport in two-dimensional graphite sys- tem. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan , 67(7):2421–2429, July 1998

    1998

  31. [39]

    Gosling, Oleg Makarovsky, Feiran Wang, Nathan D

    Jonathan H. Gosling, Oleg Makarovsky, Feiran Wang, Nathan D. Cottam, Mark T. Greenaway, Amalia Patanè, Ricky D. Wildman, Christopher J. Tuck, Lyudmila Turyanska, and T. Mark Fromhold. Universal mobility characteristics of graphene origi- nating from charge scattering by ionise...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Scalable tight-binding model for graphene

    Ming-Hao Liu, Peter Rickhaus, Péter Makk, En- dre Tóvári, Romain Maurand, Fedor Tkatschenko, Markus Weiss, Christian Schönenberger, and Klaus Richter. Scalable tight-binding model for graphene. Physical Review Letters, 114(3), January 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Quantum transport in disor- dered graphene: A theoretical perspective

    Stephan Roche, Nicolas Leconte, Frank Ortmann, Aurélien Lherbier, David Soriano, and Jean- Christophe Charlier. Quantum transport in disor- dered graphene: A theoretical perspective. Solid State Communications, 152(15):1404–1410, August 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    P. M. Krstajić. Integer quantum Hall effect in single- layer graphene with tilted magnetic field.Journal of Applied Physics, 114(7), August 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Santos, Leandro R.F

    Tatiane P. Santos, Leandro R.F. Lima, and Caio H. Lewenkopf. An order n numerical method to ef- ficiently calculate the transport properties of large systems: An algorithm optimized for sparse lin- ear solvers. Journal of Computational Physics , 394:440–455, October 2019. 9

    2019

Pith tools

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