Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 71 references

A magnetic barrier on monolayer WSe2 lets the field tune lateral Goos-Hänchen shifts and group delay times differently for each spin and valley channel, enabling spatial and temporal separation of electronic wave packets.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 09:31 UTC pith:UWQ7WJ7N

load-bearing objection Solid continuum parameter study of magnetic GH/GDT control in WSe2; spin–valley contrast is real within the model, novelty is material-specific maps rather than method. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08315 v1 pith:UWQ7WJ7N submitted 2026-07-09 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Magnetic control of Goos-H\"anchen shifts and group delay time in monolayer WSe₂

Youssef Fattasse , Rachid El Aitouni , Miloud Mekkaoui , Pablo D\'iaz , David Laroze , Ahmed Jellal This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph PACS 73.22.Pr72.80.Vp73.63.-b
keywords monolayer WSe2Goos-Hänchen shiftgroup delay timemagnetic barrierspin-valley lockingDirac fermionsvalleytronicsspintronics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper shows that an external magnetic barrier strongly reshapes both the lateral Goos-Hänchen shift and the group delay time of Dirac-like carriers in monolayer WSe2. Solving the low-energy continuum Hamiltonian with Zeeman and spin-orbit terms yields transmission amplitudes whose phases give the shift and delay; both quantities oscillate with magnetic field, energy, angle and barrier width and differ sharply between the K and K' valleys and between spin orientations. Because the K' valley (in particular) develops large, spin-split shifts and delays while the K valley remains comparatively quiet, a single magnetic knob can steer each spin-valley channel onto a distinct trajectory and arrival time. A sympathetic reader cares because that selectivity supplies a concrete route to spin- and valley-filtering, temporal filtering and controlled wave-packet separation without requiring separate electrostatic gates for every degree of freedom. The same contrast is absent in graphene, underscoring why the intrinsic spin-valley locking of WSe2 matters for future devices.

Core claim

A magnetic barrier on monolayer WSe2 produces oscillatory, spin- and valley-dependent Goos-Hänchen shifts and group delay times that can be tuned by field strength, energy, angle and barrier width, thereby allowing selective spatial and temporal control of each spin-valley channel after transmission.

What carries the argument

The transmission phase of the continuum Dirac Hamiltonian with magnetic vector potential and Zeeman terms; its stationary-phase derivatives with respect to transverse momentum and energy directly supply the GH shift and group delay time for each spin-valley sector.

Load-bearing premise

The magnetic field is treated as a perfect rectangular barrier produced by two infinite ferromagnetic strips, edge effects are ignored, and only the low-energy continuum model is retained.

What would settle it

Measure the transmitted beam displacement and arrival-time spectrum versus magnetic field for a well-characterized WSe2 magnetic-barrier device; if the predicted dense, spin-split oscillations in the K' channel and near-vanishing response in the K channel are absent, the central claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies Goos–Hänchen (GH) shifts and group delay time (GDT) for Dirac-like carriers in monolayer WSe₂ subject to a magnetic barrier realized by two ferromagnetic strips. Starting from the continuum low-energy Hamiltonian that includes the band gap, intrinsic spin–orbit coupling, and valley- and spin-Zeeman terms (Eq. 1), the authors obtain the energy spectrum and eigenspinors in the three spatial regions, match them at the interfaces, and extract the transmission amplitude (Eq. 15). GH shifts and GDT are then defined via the stationary-phase derivatives of the transmission phase (Eqs. 26–29). Numerical scans versus magnetic field B, incident energy E, angle φ, and barrier width d show oscillatory, spin- and valley-dependent behavior, with a markedly stronger response in the K′ valley than in K. The authors conclude that magnetic barriers enable selective spatial and temporal control of spin–valley channels and may be useful for spintronic/valleytronic filtering.

Significance. If the continuum idealization holds, the work supplies a concrete, parameter-controlled route to spin–valley-selective lateral shifts and traversal times in a gapped TMD with strong SOC—something that is weaker or absent in graphene. The analytic transmission formula, unitarity check R+T=1, and systematic maps of St and τt versus B, E, φ, and d constitute a usable theoretical baseline for magnetic-barrier designs in WSe₂. The comparison with graphene (Sec. 5) usefully highlights the role of spin–valley locking. The main limitation is that the conclusions rest on an idealized piecewise-constant vector potential and plane-wave stationary-phase extraction; experimental accessibility of the predicted femtosecond-scale delays and large GH contrasts is asserted but not quantitatively demonstrated. Within those bounds the contribution is solid and of interest to the mesoscopic/2D-transport community.

major comments (3)
  1. The central claim of selective spin–valley control rests on the idealized magnetic barrier A_B = B l_B [Θ(x)−Θ(x−D)] (Sec. 2) and on extracting St, τt solely from the plane-wave transmission phase (Eqs. 26–29). Edge effects of finite ferromagnetic strips, non-uniform field profiles, and possible higher-band contributions are neglected. While this is standard, the manuscript should either (i) estimate the robustness of the K/K′ contrast under a smoothed or finite-width field profile, or (ii) clearly state that the predicted filtering is model-dependent and may be reduced by realistic fringing fields. Without such a caveat or test, the leap from ideal numerics to “nanoscale devices” (abstract, Sec. 6) overstates the evidence.
  2. Several figures report large negative GH shifts (e.g., St/λ ∼ −100 in Fig. 3c,d) and both positive and negative GDT (Figs. 4–6). The physical interpretation of negative group delay (superluminal or advanced transmission) and of GH shifts many times the Fermi wavelength is not discussed. A short paragraph clarifying that these are phase-derived quantities for monochromatic components (and how they would appear for a realistic wave packet) is needed so that the “tunable spatial and temporal separation” claim remains well-defined.
  3. The energy window used in the numerics (E ≈ 1.2–2.2 eV) sits well above the gap (Δ = 1.7 eV) and near or above the scale where the continuum two-band model is typically reliable. The manuscript should justify that higher bands or remote-band corrections do not wash out the reported spin–valley contrast, or restrict the discussion to energies closer to the band edges where the model is safer.
minor comments (6)
  1. Typos and spelling: “THEORITICAL MODEL”, “magentic field”, “groupe delay time”, “W Se 2”, inconsistent use of d vs D for barrier width, and “Goos–H¨ anchen” encoding artifacts throughout.
  2. Figure captions and labels: Fig. 2 caption says d = 60 nm while the text mentions 15 nm; Fig. 5a legend contains a garbled label “τt/τ0 18,K↑”. Axis ranges and line styles for K vs K′ should be made more readable.
  3. Notation: Ec, Ev are defined after Eq. (1) but then re-used with different meanings in the eigenvalue equations; kBy and lB conventions should be stated once and used consistently.
  4. Sec. 3 states that τγ is “the average of the group delay times of the two components” of the spinor; a one-line derivation or reference would clarify how the two-component structure enters Eqs. (28)–(29).
  5. The experimental accessibility paragraph (end of Sec. 3) cites ultrafast optics and interferometry but does not estimate the expected magnitude of St or τt in laboratory units for the parameters of Figs. 2–6; a short estimate would strengthen the device discussion.
  6. Self-citations to the authors’ prior GH work are appropriate, but a few more recent experimental or theoretical works on magnetic barriers or GH shifts in TMDs would better situate the novelty claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: GH shifts and GDT are computed forward from a stated continuum Hamiltonian and matching conditions; material parameters are literature values, not fitted to the output curves.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The low-energy Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with Zeeman and SOC terms is written down from standard continuum models of monolayer WSe2; the piecewise-constant vector potential is an explicit idealization of two ferromagnetic strips. Eigenvalues (Eq. 3), spinors in the three regions (Eqs. 6–10), and transmission/reflection amplitudes (Eqs. 15–16) follow by solving the Dirac equation and imposing continuity at the interfaces. GH shifts and group delay times are then obtained by the standard stationary-phase derivatives of the transmission phase (Eqs. 26–29). Numerical plots simply evaluate those expressions for literature values of Δ, λ c,v, g-factors, etc.; nothing is fitted to the GH/GDT curves themselves. Self-citations (e.g., prior GH work by the same group on other 2D systems) supply methodological context but do not force the present numerics or uniqueness claims. The central claim—that a magnetic barrier produces spin–valley-dependent oscillatory GH and GDT—is therefore a genuine forward calculation within the stated model, not a tautology or a re-labeling of inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the continuum Dirac-plus-SOC-plus-Zeeman model of WSe2, an idealised rectangular magnetic barrier from infinite strips, and the stationary-phase extraction of lateral shift and delay from the transmission phase. Material constants are literature inputs; plot parameters (B, E, φ, d) are free choices for illustration. No new particles or forces are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • Barrier width d and magnetic field B ranges used in figures = illustrative (e.g. d=15–60 nm, B~10–50 T)
    Chosen by hand (e.g. d = 15–60 nm, B up to ~50 T) to display oscillations; not fitted to data but control the reported contrast.
  • Incident energy E and angle φ scan points = illustrative discrete values in Figs. 2–6
    Selected for plots (E ~ 1.2–2.2 eV, φ = 10°–30° and above 30°); determine which resonances appear.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Low-energy continuum Hamiltonian for monolayer WSe2 including gap Δ, conduction/valence SOC λ_c,v, and Zeeman terms M_s, M_v (Eq. 1).
    Standard effective model near K/K'; validity assumes energies near the band edges and neglects remote bands and lattice-scale disorder.
  • domain assumption Magnetic barrier is a piecewise-constant vector potential from two infinite ferromagnetic strips; edge effects neglected (Sec. 2–3).
    Reduces the problem to 1D matching; real strips have fringing fields and finite length.
  • standard math Goos-Hänchen shift and group delay are given by stationary-phase derivatives of the transmission phase (Eqs. 26–29).
    Standard Wigner-Smith / stationary-phase treatment of wave-packet peaks; assumes narrow spectral packets and slowly varying amplitude.
  • domain assumption Literature values v_F = 5×10^5 m/s, Δ = 1.7 eV, λ_v = 112.5 meV, λ_c = 7.5 meV, g_s = 2, g_v = 4.
    Taken from cited TMD literature; quantitative peak positions depend on these inputs.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 21755 in / 3217 out tokens · 39089 ms · 2026-07-10T09:31:50.544013+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the influence of an external magnetic field on the Goos-H\"anchen (GH) shift and the group delay time (GDT) in monolayer WSe$_2$ in the presence of a magnetic barrier. The transport properties of Dirac-like carriers are obtained by solving the effective low-energy Hamiltonian and evaluating the corresponding transmission amplitudes. The GH shift and the GDT are subsequently extracted from the phase of the transmission coefficient. We systematically analyze their dependence on the magnetic field strength, incident energy, angle of incidence, and barrier width, with particular emphasis on the spin and valley degrees of freedom associated with the $K$ and $K'$ valleys. Our results show that the magnetic barrier strongly modulates both the GH shift and the GDT, leading to oscillatory behavior and pronounced spin-valley-dependent transport characteristics. Remarkably, the magnetic field enables selective control of the lateral shift and traversal time of carriers for each spin and valley channel, allowing for tunable spatial and temporal separation of electronic wave packets. This provides a mechanism for manipulating fermionic trajectories after transmission through the barrier in a highly controllable manner. Such tunability opens promising avenues for designing nanoscale devices based on spin and valley filtering, as well as for potential applications in information storage and processing within spintronic and valleytronic platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08315 by Ahmed Jellal, David Laroze, Miloud Mekkaoui, Pablo D\'iaz, Rachid El Aitouni, Youssef Fattasse.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The schematic of two ferromagnetic strips separated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: presents the variation of the Goos–H¨anchen (GH) shifts with the magnetic field B for electron waves propagat￾ing through the magnetic barrier in the K and K′ valleys. The plots are performed for E = 2.2 eV and d = 15 nm, con￾sidering four different incident angles, ϕ = 10◦ , 15◦ , 20◦ , and 30◦ . At a small incident angle, ϕ = 10◦ in Fig. 2a, the GH shifts in the K valley change smoothly with the magnetic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The GH shifts versus the incident angle for spin-up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The group delay time in transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The group delay time in transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    INTRODUCTION The research community currently views two- dimensional (2D) materials as an emerging field of sci- entific study. The ultra-thin structure of these mate- rials sparks fundamental scientific interest due to their enhanced properties, which show potential for future ap- plications in nanoelectronics, optoelectronics, and spin- tronics technolo...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    THEORITICAL MODEL FIG. 1. The schematic of two ferromagnetic strips separated by a distanceD, deposited on a tungsten diselenide sheet. This configuration defines three distinct regions induced by the presence of the two strips. We investigate tunneling, group delay time, and the Goos–H¨ anchen spatial shift through a magnetic barrier in tungsten diseleni...

    work page

  3. [3]

    This assumption simplifies the model by re- ducing the boundary conditions to a single relevant dimen- sion

    GH SHIFTS AND GDT The two ferromagnetic strips are considered infinite along they-direction, that is, their length is assumed to be much greater than the barrier widthD, in order to eliminate edge 4 effects [43, 44]. This assumption simplifies the model by re- ducing the boundary conditions to a single relevant dimen- sion. Thus, by taking into account th...

    work page

  4. [4]

    NUMERICAL RESULT After obtaining the analytical expressions for the transmis- sion amplitude, as well as the corresponding Goos–H¨ anchen shift and group delay time, we proceed to a detailed numerical analysis to explore their physical behavior under realistic con- ditions. By evaluating these quantities for a range of param- eters, including the magnetic...

    work page

  5. [5]

    TUNGSTEN DISELENIDE VS GRAPHENE The study of Goos–H¨ anchen (GH) shifts and group de- lay time (GDT) in two-dimensional Dirac materials has at- tracted significant interest because these quantities provide important information about the quantum transport behav- ior of charge carriers. The GH shift represents the lateral displacement of an electron beam a...

    work page

  6. [6]

    CONCLUSION We investigated the electronic transport properties of charge carriers in monolayer WSe 2 in the presence of a mag- netic barrier. In particular, we analyzed two fundamen- tal quantum transport quantities, namely the Goos–H¨ anchen (GH) shifts and the group delay time, as functions of the ex- ternal magnetic field for different physical paramet...

    work page

  7. [7]

    and [63]. In addition, several works have demonstrated that magnetic barriers can induce spin- and valley-dependent transport phenomena in two-dimensional materials, opening new possibilities for designing spin–valley filters and quantum electronic devices [64]. Therefore, the present study provides further insight into the quantum transport properties of...

    work page

  8. [8]

    F. Xia, H. Wang, D. Xiao, M. Dubey, and A. Ramasub- ramaniam, Nat. Photon. 8, 899 (2014)

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    Y. Liu, Y. Huang, and X. Duan, Nature 567, 323–333 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Chowdhury, E

    T. Chowdhury, E. C. Sadler, and T. J. Kempa, Chem. Rev. 120, 12563–12591 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Q. Fu, J. Han, X. Wang, P. Xu, T. Yao, J. Zhong, W. Zhong, S. Liu, T. Gao, Z. Zhang, L. Xu, B. Song Adv. Mater. 33, 1907818 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    R. Yang, Y. Fan, Y. Zhang, L. Mei, R. Zhu, J. Qin, J. Hu, Z. Chen, Y. H. Ng, D. Voiry, S. Li, Q. Lu, Q. Wang, J. C. Yu, and Z. Zeng, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 62, e202218016 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Q. Yun, L. Li, Z. Hu, Q. Lu, B. Chen, and H. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 32, 1903826 (2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Lembke, S

    D. Lembke, S. Bertolazzi, and A. Kis, Acc. Chem. Res. 48, 100 (2015)

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    C. H. Gong, Y. X. Zhang, W. Chen, J. W. Chu, T. Y. Lei, J. R. Pu, L. P. Dai, C. Y. Wu, Y. H. Cheng, T. Y. Zhai, L. Li, and J. Xiong, Adv. Sci. 4, 1700231 (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    K. F. Mak, J. Shan, and D. C. Ralph, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 646 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Premasiri and X

    K. Premasiri and X. P. Gao, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 31, 193001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Pospischil and T

    A. Pospischil and T. Mueller, Appl. Sci. 6, 78 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    W. Choi, N. Choudhary, G. H. Han, J. Park, D. Akin- wande, and Y. H. Lee, Mater. Today 20, 116 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Ahn, npj 2D Mater

    E.C. Ahn, npj 2D Mater. Appl. 4, 17 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Y. P. Feng, G. Zhang, Z. Wang, J. Kang, B. Peng, S. Wang, J. Wei, and W. Han, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 7, e1313 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Li and X

    X. Li and X. Wu, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 6, 441 (2016)

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Mater. 6, 183 (2007)

    work page 2007

  24. [24]

    A. K. Geim, Science 324, 1530 (2009)

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    D. R. Cooper, B. D’Anjou, N. Ghattamaneni, B. Harack, I. Hilke, A. Horth, N. Majlis, M. Massicotte, L. Vands- burger, E. Whiteway, and V. Yu, ISRN Nanotechnol. 2012, 501686 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Fattasse, M

    Y. Fattasse, M. Mekkaoui, A. Jellal, and A. Bahaoui, Physica E 134, 114924 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Fattasse, M

    Y. Fattasse, M. Mekkaoui, A. Jellal, and A. Bahaoui, Eur. Phys. J. B, 95, 128 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Mekkaoui, Y

    M. Mekkaoui, Y. Fattasse, and A. Jellal, Physics Letters A 439, 128136 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Fattasse, M

    Y. Fattasse, M. Mekkaoui, A. Jellal, and A. Bahaoui, Physica E 148,115634 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Jellal, R

    A. Jellal, R. EL Aitouni, P. D´ ıaz, and D. Laroze, Phys. Scr. 100, 045927 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Korm´ anyos, G

    A. Korm´ anyos, G. Burkard, M. Gmitra, J. Fabian, and V. Z´ olyomi, 2D Mater. 2, 049501 (2015)

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Chernikov, T

    A. Chernikov, T. C. Berkelbach, H. M. Hill, A. Rigosi, Y. Li, O. B. Aslan, D. R. Reichman, M. S. Hybertsen, and T. F. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 076802 (2014)

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    G. Wang, A. Chernikov, M. M. Glazov, T. F. Heinz, X. Marie, and B. Urbaszek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 021001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    B¨ uttiker, Phys

    M. B¨ uttiker, Phys. Rev. B 27, 6178 (1983)

    work page 1983

  35. [35]

    E. H. Hauge and J. A. Støvneng, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 917 (1989)

    work page 1989

  36. [36]

    Fattasse, H

    Y. Fattasse, H. Bahlouli, C. Cortes, D. Laroze, and A. Jellal. Ann. Phys., 538, e70194 (2026)

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    Ban, L.-J

    Y. Ban, L.-J. Wang, and X. Chen. J. Appl. Phys., 117, 164307 (2015)

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Nat. Phys. 2, 620 (2006)

    work page 2006

  39. [39]

    Y. Li, J. Ludwig, T. Low, A. Chernikov, X. Cui, G. Arefe, Y. D. Kim, A. M. van der Zande, A. Rigosi, H. M. Hill, S. H. Kim, J. Hone, Z. Li, D. Smirnov, and T. F. Heinz, Nat. Phys. 11, 148 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Hsu, Z.-A

    W.-T. Hsu, Z.-A. Zhao, L.-J. Li, C.-H. Chen, M.-H. Chiu, P.-S. Chang, Y.-C. Chou, and W.-H. Chang, Nat. Com- mun. 6, 8963 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    T. Yan, X. Qiao, X. Liu, P. Tan, and X. Zhang, Sci. Rep. 5, 15625 (2015)

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Zheng, Y

    S. Zheng, Y. Li, X. Zhang, and H. Zhao, Nano Res. 16, 12345 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Zhang, K

    J. Zhang, K. Wang, Y. Liu, and F. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    J. D. Lu, H. Y. Liu, and S. J. Peng, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 489, 165478 (2019)

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    J. D. Lu, B. Xu, Y. B. Li, H. Y. Liu, J. Li, and W. Zheng. Vacuum 96, 22 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Tahir, P

    M. Tahir, P. M. Krstaji´ c, and P. Vasilopoulos, Phys. Rev. B 95, 235402 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Sakai, H

    H. Sakai, H. Fujimura, S. Sakuragi, M. Ochi, R. Kurihara, A. Miyake, M. Tokunaga, T. Kojima, D. Hashizume, and T. Muro, Phys. Rev. B 101, 081104 (2020)

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Aivazian, Z

    G. Aivazian, Z. Gong, A. M. Jones, R.-L. Chu, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, C. Zhang, D. Cobden, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nat. Phys. 11, 148 (2015)

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    Srivastava, M

    A. Srivastava, M. Sidler, A. V. Allain, D. S. Lembke, A. Kis, and A. Imamoglu, Nat. Phys. 11, 141 (2015)

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Barbier, M

    M. Barbier, M. J. Pereira Jr., P. Vasilopoulos, and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B 77, 115446 (2008)

    work page 2008

  51. [51]

    Ramezani Masir, P

    M. Ramezani Masir, P. Vasilopoulos, and F. M. Peeters, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 22, 465302 (2010)

    work page 2010

  52. [52]

    Chen, C.-F

    X. Chen, C.-F. Li, and Y. Ban, Eur. Phys. J. B 62, 453 (2008)

    work page 2008

  53. [53]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, R. A. Sepkhanov, A. R. Akhmerov, and J. Tworzydlo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 146804 (2009)

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    A. M. Steinberg and R. Y. Chiao, Phys. Rev. A 49, 3283 (1994)

    work page 1994

  55. [55]

    Li, Phys

    C.-F. Li, Phys. Rev. A 65, 066101 (2002)

    work page 2002

  56. [56]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1337 (2008)

    work page 2008

  57. [57]

    Song, H.-C

    Y. Song, H.-C. Wu, and Y. Guo, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 253116 (2012)

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Nature 438, 197 (2005)

    work page 2005

  59. [59]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009)

    work page 2009

  60. [60]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005)

    work page 2005

  61. [61]

    Song and H.-C

    Y. Song and H.-C. Wu, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25, 355301 (2013)

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    W. Wu, W. Zhai, and Y. Yu, Superlattices Microstruct. 60, 240 (2013)

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Phys. 10 Rev. Lett. 108, 196802 (2012)

    work page 2012

  64. [64]

    K. F. Mak, K. He, J. Shan, and T. F. Heinz, Nat. Nan- otechnol. 7, 494 (2012)

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    X. Xu, W. Yao, D. Xiao, and T. F. Heinz, Nat. Phys. 10, 343 (2014)

    work page 2014

  66. [66]

    Zibouche, A

    N. Zibouche, A. Kuc, and T. Heine, Eur. Phys. J. B 85, 49 (2012)

    work page 2012

  67. [67]

    Avsar, T

    A. Avsar, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, R. Nair, G. F. Schneider, A. H. Castro Neto, B. ¨Ozyilmaz, and A. C. Ferrari, Nat. Commun. 5, 4875 (2014)

    work page 2014

  68. [68]

    J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, A. J. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 16055 (2016)

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    Chen, J.-W, Tao1, and Y

    X. Chen, J.-W, Tao1, and Y. Ban Eur. Phys. J. B 79, 203–208 (2011)

    work page 2011

  70. [70]

    Z. Wu, K. Chang, J. T. Liu, and X. J. Li, J. Appl. Phys. 105, 043702 (2009)

    work page 2009

  71. [71]

    Yesilyurt and S

    C. Yesilyurt and S. G. Tan, AIP Adv. 6, 056303 (2016)

    work page 2016