Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

A scanning single-spin quantum sensor directly images the Lorentz deflection of current at a graphene-metal interface under an out-of-plane bias field.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:05 UTC pith:YYFU6NWX

load-bearing objection First real imaging of magnetotransport with NV magnetometry; the central deflection claim is solid, but the quantitative mobility, current-fraction, and hydrodynamic interpretations rest on model assumptions that need tighter validation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.07181 v1 pith:YYFU6NWX submitted 2025-11-10 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Direct imaging of magnetotransport at graphene-metal interfaces with a single-spin quantum sensor

C. Ding , M. L. Palm , K. Kohli , T. Taniguchi , K. Watanabe , C. L. Degen This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords nitrogen-vacancy magnetometrycurrent imagingmagnetotransportHall effectLorentz deflectiongraphene-metal interfacecontact resistanceextraordinary magnetoresistance
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.

The paper aims to show that a scanning nitrogen-vacancy (NV) magnetometer can image magnetotransport at the nanoscale, specifically the Lorentz deflection of current near a graphene–metal interface under bias fields around 0.5 T. By reconstructing current-density maps from measured stray fields, the authors observe the injected current's center streamline bend left or right with the sign of the field—the spatial hallmark of the Hall effect. From the deflection angle they extract a carrier mobility of about 1.4 m²/(V·s), matching resistance-based estimates, and they map spatial variations in contact resistance across the interface. The work positions nanoscale current imaging as a way to probe transport mechanisms—such as the interplay of intrinsic Dirac-cone magnetoresistance, electron hydrodynamics, and interface resistance—that bulk resistance measurements cannot resolve.

Core claim

The central claim is that at elevated out-of-plane bias fields (~0.5 T) the current flowing from a metallic contact into a graphene annulus is visibly deflected by the Lorentz force, and that this deflection can be imaged directly with a scanning single-spin quantum magnetometer. The zero-contour of the measured out-of-plane stray-field component marks the current streamline; it shifts left or right with field sign, and the tangent of the resulting Hall angle gives a carrier mobility of ~1.4 m²/(V·s), consistent with transport data. The same imaging also reveals a counterintuitive current reorganization—less current in the graphene ring at higher fields—which the authors attribute to a combi

What carries the argument

The central object is a scanning NV single-spin magnetometer operated at high bias fields, which maps the out-of-plane stray field of the device current via spin-echo AC sensing. Current density maps are recovered by Fourier back-propagation of the stray field (Biot–Savart inversion), and the B_z = 0 contour serves as a direct visual proxy for the center streamline of the current. The deflection angle of this streamline under an applied field defines the Hall angle, whose tangent yields a direct spatial measurement of carrier mobility.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstructed current maps assume the current flows in a strictly two-dimensional sheet at the graphene layer, with a known standoff distance and no out-of-plane current or height variation between graphene and the metal disc; if that assumption breaks down, the deflections and contact-resistance maps are biased.

What would settle it

Image the same device at two standoff distances (e.g., z = 100 nm and z = 150 nm) and check that the reconstructed current distribution is unchanged; a systematic difference would falsify the 2D-sheet reconstruction and with it the extracted Hall mobility. Alternatively, replace the metal disc with a very thin conductor of precisely known height and compare the reconstructed current to a finite-element model.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Scanning NV magnetometry becomes a general tool to spatially resolve magnetotransport in hybrid devices at fields up to ~0.5 T and beyond.
  • The Hall-angle-from-streamline method provides a contact-free mobility measurement, valuable in devices where conventional four-terminal probes are difficult to fabricate.
  • Contact-resistance maps derived from the current density can diagnose non-uniform interfaces in two-dimensional-material devices, which bulk resistance alone cannot reveal.
  • The observed suppression of electron hydrodynamics by a magnetic field suggests a route to image viscous versus diffusive flow regimes in the same device.
  • The decomposition of magnetoresistance into intrinsic Dirac-cone MR, geometrical MR, and hydrodynamic contributions can be tested in other materials by comparing local current maps with global resistance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same imaging approach could be extended to ballistic and quantum-Hall regimes, where streamline deflection by edge states should appear as sharp current-channel shifts; the paper lists these as future directions.
  • The reconstruction's reliance on a known standoff distance and a 2D current sheet could be cross-checked by imaging the same device at multiple standoff heights—agreement would validate the assumption, disagreement would bias the extracted mobility.
  • Because the Hall-angle extraction uses only the streamline geometry, it may work in devices with strong inhomogeneity or disorder where contact-based Hall measurements are unreliable.
  • Combining this current-imaging method with simultaneous electrostatic-potential imaging would allow a direct, spatially resolved comparison between the Hall potential and current deflection in the same scan.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports scanning NV magnetometry imaging of current flow in a graphene–Cr/Au van der Pauw hybrid device at room temperature and out-of-plane bias fields up to ±0.53 T. The authors observe that the B_z=0 contour of the Oersted field near the injection contact deflects left or right depending on the sign of B_ext, interpret this as direct imaging of Lorentz deflection of current, and extract a Hall angle tangent of 0.5, translating to a carrier mobility μ ≈ 1.4 m^2/Vs. They additionally quantify a drop in the graphene-ring current fraction from ~26% to ~15% with field, and combine current images with resistance data and finite-element simulations to argue for a combination of intrinsic Dirac-plasma MR, carrier hydrodynamics, and spatially varying interface resistance. The paper includes a differential measurement scheme to reject back-gate leakage and presents a quantitative contact-resistance model.

Significance. The core observation—a current-path deflection that reverses with the sign of B_ext—is conceptually important and, if validated, demonstrates a new capability for nanoscale magnetotransport imaging at field strengths relevant to Hall physics. The use of (111)-oriented diamond tips and high-bias NV sensing is a technical advance. The odd-in-B behavior of the deflection provides internal evidence against a simple current-partition artifact, and the consistency of the extracted mobility with transport is encouraging. The manuscript also goes beyond a single snapshot by correlating local current maps with global MR and by simulating both diffusive and hydrodynamic transport, giving the claims a testable structure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3c-e, Eq. (1)] The mobility extraction relies on identifying the B_z=0 contour as the current's center streamline. For a finite-width current distribution at standoff z=100 nm, and especially with the Cr/Au disc carrying current ~21 nm above the graphene, the null contour of B_z is not generally the centroid streamline, and the back-propagation kernel in Methods Eqs. (6)-(8) treats all current as lying in one plane. No forward model or numerical phantom is used to show that the observed tangent 0.5 is an unbiased estimator of tan θ_H. The agreement with the two-carrier transport mobility is reassuring, but both estimates use the same two-carrier assumptions. Please provide a systematic uncertainty budget and an independent validation of the streamline identification.
  2. [Fig. 3e and Methods linecut analysis] Fig. 3e reports the graphene current fraction with no uncertainty. The linecut integration involves a boundary defined by where J_δ drops to zero, a tilt angle δ=-32.5°, and a reconstruction filter λ=2z; each of these choices can shift the fraction by several percent. Because the 26%→15% drop and its near-saturation above 0.1 T are used to argue against the EMR picture and to support the hydrodynamic/MR decomposition, the paper needs at least sensitivity analyses and pixel-level or scan-to-scan error bars for these values.
  3. [Electron hydrodynamics and single-carrier transport, Fig. 3e, Fig. 4a] The hydrodynamic explanation of the zero-field anomaly is supported by a single simulation point at Dν=0.1 µm and by qualitative visual agreement in Fig. 4a. There is no quantitative goodness-of-fit or uncertainty on Dν, and the field-dependent suppression is not modeled through a field-dependent Dν or D_H. Eq. (9) includes a Hall-viscosity length D_H, but its value and role in the simulations are not stated. Please clarify how the hydrodynamic-to-diffusive crossover with B is implemented and quantify the evidence for hydrodynamics.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Fig. S10 contact-resistance mapping] The interface conductance distribution is optimized to match the measured current maps, but no uniqueness or cross-validation analysis is provided. Since one of the paper's claims is quantitative mapping of contact resistance, the authors should show how sensitive the recovered conductance map is to the regularization, geometry assumptions, and starting parameters, and ideally validate against the independently measured two-terminal resistances.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Acknowledgments and Fig. 1 caption] Typo in Acknowledgments: 'nanofabriation' should be 'nanofabrication'. Also 'van-der-Pauw' in the Fig. 1 caption should be 'van der Pauw'.
  2. [Fig. 3c] The 'center streamlines' shown in Fig. 3c are not defined in the Methods. Please specify how they are extracted from the B_z maps and how the deflection angle is computed from them.
  3. [Methods, linecut analysis] The sign convention for δ (the linecut tilt angle) is not stated. Also clarify whether the same linecut is applied to all datasets or whether it is redefined per scan.
  4. [Fig. 1e] No error bars are shown for R(B_ext) or MR. The dotted and dashed lines in Fig. 1e are not fully explained in the caption; please define them explicitly.
  5. [Methods, Eq. (3)] The phase expression appears garbled in the text: it should be φ = γ (π/2) τ B_NV or similar. Please correct the typesetting.
  6. [Eq. (1)] The values n_e=0.34×10^11 cm^-2 and n_h=1.74×10^11 cm^-2 are quoted without uncertainty. State whether they come from the capacitance model, the two-carrier fit, or a combination, and give their estimated errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central Lorentz-deflection result is a direct measurement; minor self-citation and model inputs are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—direct imaging of Lorentz deflection and current redistribution—rests on measured NV stray-field maps (B_z) and Fourier back-propagation of those maps (Eqs. 6–8). The deflection of the B_z=0 contour is an observed, B-odd feature, not the output of a fitted model. The mobility estimate in Eq. (1) uses tanθ_H measured from the image together with carrier densities n_e, n_h from the two-carrier model; this is a standard conversion, and the Hall angle itself is an independent spatial observable, so the resulting mobility is not forced to equal the resistance-fit mobility by construction. The contact-resistance model is explicitly optimized to match current maps (a characterization, not a first-principles prediction), and the hydrodynamic simulation uses D_ν=0.1 µm from the authors' earlier work (Ref [7]) as a separate input; while this is a self-citation, it is not load-bearing for the main Lorentz-deflection result and is not presented as an ansatz unique to this paper. Any concern about the 2D-sheet/nonzero-height assumption in back-propagation affects quantitative accuracy of the current fraction and Hall-angle bias, but it is a correctness/assumption issue rather than circularity: the field maps are real data and the reconstruction is not defined in terms of the conclusions. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative conclusions about current fraction, contact resistance, and MR mechanism rest on several modeled parameters (interface conductances, µ_0, carrier densities, D_ν) rather than on the raw measurement alone. There are no newly invented physical entities; the main free parameters are fitted to the same resistance/current data, so the model agreement is not an independent validation.

free parameters (3)
  • Interface conductance distribution (contact resistances between Cr/Au disc and graphene) = Not stated in main text; adjustable conductivity in interface regions (Tables S1/S2)
    The FEM model includes a finite graphene-metal interface region with adjustable conductivity. The simulation is optimized by matching the experimental current-density maps (Fig. 2d), so these values are fitted to the imaging data rather than independently measured.
  • Zero-field graphene mobility µ_0 = 1.35 ± 0.25 m^2/(Vs)
    Estimated by comparing two-terminal resistance vs back-gate with FEM two-carrier simulations; used in transport model and to interpret MR. It is fitted to resistance data, not independently measured.
  • Carrier densities n_e, n_h near charge neutrality at V_BG=0 = n_e = 0.34e11 cm^-2, n_h = 1.74e11 cm^-2
    Used in Eq. (1) for Hall-angle mobility and in two-carrier model; these values come from the two-carrier model/back-gate capacitance, not from a direct density measurement.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Two-carrier macroscopic transport model for graphene (Eqs. 11-13): total current is sum of electron/hole currents with Drude conductivities and a magnetotransport mobility µ_B; electron-hole symmetry is assumed.
    Invoked in the Methods section 'Macroscopic model of semi-classical magnetotransport in graphene'; the model is imported from prior literature (Refs 23,24) and is used to simulate R(V_BG) and to attribute the MR near CNP to electron-hole coexistence.
  • domain assumption Macroscopic transport equation Eq. (9): -σ∇Φ = (1 - D_ν^2 ∇^2)J + µB_ext(1 + D_H^2 ∇^2)J × ẑ, with viscosity-related diffusion lengths D_ν, D_H.
    Adopted from Refs 23 and 7 to model hydrodynamic effects; D_ν = 0.1 µm is taken from the authors' prior work (Ref 7), not measured in this device.
  • domain assumption Current density reconstruction from magnetic field assumes a purely 2D current distribution in a plane at standoff z, via Eqs. (6)-(8) with k_z = -i|k| and Hann filter.
    Standard Biot-Savart inversion for a 2D current sheet; any out-of-plane currents or height offsets between metal disc and graphene would bias the reconstructed J maps and derived current fractions.
  • domain assumption Dirac-cone intrinsic magnetoresistance: MR ∝ (µ_B B)^2 at charge neutrality and vanishing MR in the single-carrier regime.
    Used to interpret the measured MR vs B_ext as being dominated by intrinsic electron-hole MR; attributed to Ref 24.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14049 in / 14338 out tokens · 146223 ms · 2026-08-03T23:05:23.614498+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct imaging of magnetotransport at graphene-metal interfaces with a single-spin quantum sensor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YYFU6NWX

@misc{pith2026251107181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct imaging of magnetotransport at graphene-metal interfaces with a single-spin quantum sensor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YYFU6NWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.07181}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Magnetotransport underlines many important phenomena in condensed matter physics, such as the Hall effect and magnetoresistance (MR) effect. Thus far, most magnetotransport studies are based on bulk resistance measurements without direct access to microscopic details of the spatial transport pattern. Here, we report nanoscale imaging of magnetotransport using a scanning single-spin quantum magnetometer, which is demonstrated in a graphene-metal hybrid device at room temperature. By visualizing the current flow at elevated magnetic fields (~0.5 T), we directly observe the Lorentz deflection of current near the graphene-metal interface, which is a hallmark of magnetotransport. Combining the local current distribution with global resistance measurements, we reveal that transport properties of the hybrid are governed by a complex interplay of intrinsic MR around the Dirac cone, carrier hydrodynamics, interface resistance, and the nanoscale device geometry. Furthermore, accessing the local transport pattern across the interface enables quantitative mapping of spatial variations in contact resistance, which is commonly present in electronic devices made from two-dimensional materials yet non-trivial to characterize. Our work demonstrates the potential of nanoscale current imaging techniques for studying complex electronic transport phenomena that are difficult to probe by resistance-based measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.07181 by C. Ding, C. L. Degen, K. Kohli, K. Watanabe, M. L. Palm, T. Taniguchi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Concept of the experiment and the graphene-metal hybrid device. a, Hall effect in a uniform semiconductor. No current deflection occurs because the Lorentz force and opposing Hall potential gradient are exactly balanced. Bext is the out-of-plane external magnetic field. b, In a semiconductor-metal hybrid, current is attracted to the metal disc at low field (left panel) while being deflected at elevated fie… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Imaging of current flow for various source-drain configurations at zero bias field around charge neutrality (VBG = 0). a, Schematic of source-drain configurations. Thick red (thin green) arcs indicate a high (low) contact resistance between the metal disc and the graphene annulus. See Fig. S10 for a quantitative model. b, Measured magnetic field maps (out-of-plane component Bz) induced by a current (amplit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Lorentz-force-induced deflection and current redistribution under an applied bias field around charge neutrality (VBG = 0). a,b, Bz maps and corresponding J maps measured at Bext = −0.53 T (top), −0.01 T (center) and +0.53 T (bottom). The dataset at Bext ∼ 0 is replotted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Electron hydrodynamics and carrier dependence of magnetotransport. a, Experimental data (second dataset measured at Bext ∼ 0) together with hydrodynamic (Dν = 0.1 µm) and diffusive transport simulations. The arrow indicates enhanced flow in the graphene ring for the hydrodynamic case. b, Two-terminal resistance R for the P-R source-drain configuration as a function of the back-gate voltage VBG and the corr… 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

47 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. H. Hall et al., On a new action of the magnet on electric currents, American Journal of Mathematics2, 287 (1879)

  2. [2]

    Solin, T

    S. Solin, T. Thio, D. Hines, and J. Heremans, Enhanced room-temperature geometric magnetoresistance in in- homogeneous narrow-gap semiconductors, Science289, 1530 (2000)

    2000

  3. [3]

    T. D. Pomar, R. Erlandsen, B. Zhou, L. Iliushyn, R. Bjork, and D. V. Christensen, Extraordinary magne- tometry: a review on extraordinary magnetoresistance, Applied Materials Today38, 102219 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    M. J. H. Ku, T. X. Zhou, Q. Li, Y. J. Shin, J. K. Shi, C. Burch, L. E. Anderson, A. T. Pierce, Y. Xie, A. Hamo, U. Vool, H. Zhang, F. Casola, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. M. Fogler, P. Kim, A. Yacoby, and R. L. Walsworth, Imaging viscous flow of the Dirac fluid in graphene, Nature583, 537 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    U. Vool, A. Hamo, G. Varnavides, Y. Wang, T. X. Zhou, N. Kumar, Y. Dovzhenko, Z. Qiu, C. A. C. Garcia, A. T. Pierce, J. Gooth, P. Anikeeva, C. Felser, P. Narang, and A. Yacoby, Imaging phonon-mediated hydrodynamic flow in WTe2, Nature Physics17, 1216 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    M. L. Palm, W. S. Huxter, P. Welter, S. Ernst, P. J. Scheidegger, S. Diesch, K. Chang, P. Rick- 10 haus, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. Ensslin, and C. L. Degen, Imaging of submicroampere currents in bi- layer graphene using a scanning diamond magnetome- ter, Physical Review Applied17, 10.1103/physrevap- plied.17.054008 (2022)

    doi:10.1103/physrevap- 2022

  7. [7]

    M. L. Palm, C. Ding, W. S. Huxter, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and C. L. Degen, Observation of current whirlpools in graphene at room temperature, Science 384, 465 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    See Supplementary Materials accompanying this manuscript

  9. [9]

    J. Lu, H. Zhang, W. Shi, Z. Wang, Y. Zheng, T. Zhang, N. Wang, Z. Tang, and P. Sheng, Graphene magnetore- sistance device in van der pauw geometry, Nano letters 11, 2973 (2011)

    2011

  10. [10]

    B. Zhou, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and E. A. Hen- riksen, Extraordinary magnetoresistance in encapsulated monolayer graphene devices, Applied Physics Letters 116, 10.1063/1.5142021 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5142021 2020

  11. [11]

    Rohner, J

    D. Rohner, J. Happacher, P. Reiser, M. A. Tschudin, A. Tallaire, J. Achard, B. J. Shields, and P. Maletinsky, (111)-oriented single crystal diamond tips for nanoscale scanning probe imaging of out-of-plane magnetic fields, Appl. Phys. Lett.115, 192401 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    R. J. Epstein, F. M. Mendoza, Y. K. Kato, and D. D. Awschalom, Anisotropic interactions of a single spin and dark-spin spectroscopy in diamond, Nat. Phys.1, 94 (2005)

    2005

  13. [13]

    Tetienne, L

    J. Tetienne, L. Rondin, P. Spinicelli, M. Chipaux, T. De- buisschert, J. Roch, and V. Jacques, Magnetic-field- dependent photodynamics of single NV defects in dia- mond: an application to qualitative all-optical magnetic imaging, New Journal of Physics14, 103033 (2012)

    2012

  14. [14]

    A. C. Neto, F. Guinea, N. Peres, K. Novoselov, and A. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  15. [15]

    B. J. Roth, N. G. Sepulveda, and J. P. Wikswo, Using a magnetometer to image a two-dimensional current dis- tribution, J. Appl. Phys.65, 361 (1989)

    1989

  16. [16]

    Chang, A

    K. Chang, A. Eichler, J. Rhensius, L. Lorenzelli, and C. L. Degen, Nanoscale imaging of current density with a single-spin magnetometer, Nano Letters17, 2367 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    M. Holz, O. Kronenwerth, and D. Grundler, Magnetore- sistance of semiconductor-metal hybrid structures: the effects of material parameters and contact resistance, Physical Review B67, 195312 (2003)

    2003

  18. [18]

    T. D. Pomar, T. Steegemans, S. Kumar, R. Bjork, Z. Lei, E. Cheah, R. Schott, P. Bogild, N. Pryds, W. Wegschei- der, and D. V. Christensen, Improving electrical contact quality and extraordinary magnetoresistance in high mo- bility iii-v semiconductors, arXiv:2410.17713 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    L. Wang, I. Meric, P. Y. Huang, Q. Gao, Y. Gao, H. Tran, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, L. M. Campos, D. A. Muller, J. Guo, P. Kim, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard, and C. R. Dean, One-dimensional electrical contact to a two-dimensional material, Science342, 614 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    Kwon, Y.-H

    G. Kwon, Y.-H. Choi, H. Lee, H.-S. Kim, J. Jeong, K. Jeong, M. Baik, H. Kwon, J. Ahn, E. Lee, et al., Interaction-and defect-free van der waals contacts be- tween metals and two-dimensional semiconductors, Na- ture Electronics5, 241 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    C. H. Moller, D. Grundler, O. Kronenwerth, C. Heyn, and D. Heitmann, Effect of the interface resistance on the extraordinary magnetoresistance of semiconduc- tor/metal hybrid structures, Journal of Superconductiv- ity16, 195 (2003)

    2003

  22. [22]

    M. Yang, Y. Liu, T. Fan, and D. Zhang, Metal-graphene interfaces in epitaxial and bulk systems: a review, Progress in Materials Science110, 100652 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    A. I. Berdyugin, S. G. Xu, F. M. D. Pellegrino, R. Kr- ishna Kumar, A. Principi, I. Torre, M. Ben Shalom, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, I. V. Grigorieva, M. Polini, A. K. Geim, and D. A. Bandurin, Measuring Hall viscos- ity of graphene’s electron fluid, Science364, 162 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    N. Xin, J. Lourembam, P. Kumaravadivel, A. Kazant- sev, Z. Wu, C. Mullan, J. Barrier, A. A. Geim, I. Grig- orieva, A. Mishchenko, et al., Giant magnetoresistance of dirac plasma in high-mobility graphene, Nature616, 270 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Torre, A

    I. Torre, A. Tomadin, A. K. Geim, and M. Polini, Non- local transport and the hydrodynamic shear viscosity in graphene, Phys. Rev. B92, 165433 (2015)

    2015

  26. [26]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. Macdonald, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous hall effect, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  27. [27]

    von Klitzing, T

    K. von Klitzing, T. Chakraborty, P. Kim, V. Madhavan, X. Dai, J. McIver, Y. Tokura, L. Savary, D. Smirnova, A. M. Rey, et al., 40 years of the quantum hall effect, Nature Reviews Physics2, 397 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    H. D. Chopra and S. Z. Hua, Ballistic magnetoresistance over 3000 in ni nanocontacts at room temperature, Phys- ical Review B66, 020403 (2002)

    2002

  29. [29]

    J. M. Caridad, S. R. Power, A. A. Shylau, L. Gammel- gaard, A. Jauho, and P. Boggild, Gate electrostatics and quantum capacitance in ballistic graphene devices, Phys- ical Review B99, 195408 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    J. R. Williams, T. Low, M. S. Lundstrom, and C. M. Marcus, Gate-controlled guiding of electrons in graphene, Nat. Nanotech.6, 222 (2011)

    2011

  31. [31]

    Bhandari, G

    S. Bhandari, G. H. Lee, A. Klales, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Heller, P. Kim, and R. M. Westervelt, Imaging cyclotron orbits of electrons in graphene, Nano Letters16, 1690 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    Taychatanapat, K

    T. Taychatanapat, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Electrically tunable transverse mag- netic focusing in graphene, Nature Physics9, 225 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    S. W. Chen, Z. Han, M. M. Elahi, K. M. M. Habib, L. Wang, B. Wen, Y. D. Gao, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, J. Hone, A. W. Ghosh, and C. R. Dean, Electron optics with p-n junctions in ballistic graphene, Science 353, 1522 (2016)

    2016

  34. [34]

    C. G. Tao, L. Y. Jiao, O. V. Yazyev, Y. C. Chen, J. J. Feng, X. W. Zhang, R. B. Capaz, J. M. Tour, A. Zettl, S. G. Louie, H. J. Dai, and M. F. Crommie, Spatially re- solving edge states of chiral graphene nanoribbons, Nat. Phys.7, 616 (2011)

    2011

  35. [35]

    Bhandari, G

    S. Bhandari, G. Lee, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Kim, and R. M. Westervelt, Imaging andreev reflection in graphene, Nano Letters20, 4890 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    A. S. Mayorov, R. V. Gorbachev, S. V. Morozov, L. Brit- nell, R. Jalil, L. A. Ponomarenko, P. Blake, K. S. Novoselov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. K. Geim, Micrometer-Scale Ballistic Transport in Encapsulated Graphene at Room Temperature, Nano Letters11, 2396 (2011)

    2011

  37. [37]

    Z. Xu, M. L. Palm, W. S. Huxter, K. Herb, J. M. Abendroth, K. Bouzehouane, O. Boulle, M. Gabor, J. Urrestarazu-Larranaga, A. Morales, J. Rhensius, G. F. 11 Puebla-Hellmann, and C. L. Degen, Minimizing sensor- sample distances in scanning nitrogen-vacancy magne- tometry, ACS Nano19, 8255 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    S. Z. Butler, S. M. Hollen, L. Y. Cao, Y. Cui, J. A. Gupta, H. R. Gutierrez, T. F. Heinz, S. S. Hong, J. X. Huang, A. F. Ismach, E. Johnston-halperin, M. Kuno, V. V. Plashnitsa, R. D. Robinson, R. S. Ruoff, S. Salahuddin, J. Shan, L. Shi, M. G. Spencer, M. Terrones, W. Windl, and J. E. Goldberger, Progress challenges and opportuni- ties in two-dimensional...

    2013

  39. [39]

    K. C. Nowack, E. M. Spanton, M. Baenninger, M. Konig, J. R. Kirtley, B. Kalisky, C. Ames, P. Leubner, C. Brune, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, and K. A. Moler, Imaging currents in HgTe quantum wells in the quantum spin hall regime, Nat. Mater.12, 787 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    Jenkins, S

    A. Jenkins, S. Baumann, H. Zhou, S. A. Meynell, D. Yang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Lucas, A. F. Young, and A. C. B. Jayich, Imaging the breakdown of ohmic transport in graphene, Physical Review Letters 129, 087701 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Aharon-Steinberg, T

    A. Aharon-Steinberg, T. V¨ olkl, A. Kaplan, A. K. Pariari, I. Roy, T. Holder, Y. Wolf, A. Y. Meltzer, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, et al., Direct observation of vortices in an electron fluid, Nature607, 74 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Ferguson, R

    G. Ferguson, R. Xiao, A. R. Richardella, D. Low, N. Samarth, and K. C. Nowack, Direct visualization of electronic transport in a quantum anomalous hall insu- lator, Nature Materials22, 1100 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    G. M. Ferguson, R. Xiao, A. R. Richardella, A. Kacz- marek, N. Samarth, and K. C. Nowack, Imaging signa- tures of edge currents in a magnetic topological insulator, arXiv:2501.11666 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Dockx, M

    K. Dockx, M. Buscema, S. Kumar, T. van Ree, A. Mo- htashami, L. van Dooren, G. Bulgarini, R. van Rijn, C. I. Osorio, and T. van der Sar, Imaging current flow and injection in scalable graphene devices through nv- magnetometry, arXiv:2502.11076 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Laturia, M

    A. Laturia, M. L. Van de Put, and W. G. Vandenberghe, Dielectric properties of hexagonal boron nitride and tran- sition metal dichalcogenides: from monolayer to bulk, npj 2D Materials and Applications2, 6 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    Welter, Microscopy of magnetic fields by scanning di- amond magnetometry, PhD Thesis, ETH Zurich, 2022 (2022)

    P. Welter, Microscopy of magnetic fields by scanning di- amond magnetometry, PhD Thesis, ETH Zurich, 2022 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    T. H. Hewett and F. V. Kusmartsev, Extraordinary mag- netoresistance: sensing the future, Central European Journal of Physics10, 602 (2012)

    2012