Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Insulating state in low-disorder graphene nanoribbons

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A perpendicular field around 3 T opens an interaction-driven insulating gap in hBN-encapsulated graphene nanoribbons, growing 3–4 meV per tesla and reaching up to 30 meV at 9 T.

desk verdict New observation of a B-induced insulating gap in narrow etched hBN-encapsulated graphene nanoribbons, with a 3-4 meV/T slope that is plausibly but not provably interaction-enhanced. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11079 v1 pith:ULVNWU6Z submitted 2019-08-29 cond-mat.mes-hall

A. Epping , C. Volk , F. Buckstegge , K. Watanabe , T. Taniguchi , C. Stampfer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords graphenenanoribbonshBNencapsulationinteraction-drivengapCoulombblockadequantumHallferromagnetismvalleysymmetrybreakingmagnetotransportlow-disorder
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 reports quantum transport measurements on two narrow graphene nanoribbons, about 35 and 40 nm wide, fully encapsulated in hexagonal boron nitride. It claims that at zero magnetic field these devices behave like previously studied nanoribbons but show a smaller transport gap, indicating lower disorder; above roughly 3 T, transport becomes completely suppressed by an energy gap that grows linearly with the field at a slope of about 3–4 meV/T, reaching 20–30 meV at 9 T. The authors attribute this insulating state to an electron-electron interaction driven, valley-symmetry-broken $\nu=0$ quantum Hall state, analogous to the one seen in high-mobility extended graphene but stronger because the transverse confinement enhances the interaction. A sympathetic reader should care because the result suggests that nanoribbon geometry can be used to control many-body magnetic gaps, and that etched, substrate-supported ribbons can reach the quality needed to see them.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $\nu=0$ quantum Hall state at the charge neutrality point: in a perpendicular magnetic field, the valley degeneracy of the zeroth Landau level is broken by interactions, producing an insulating gap that scales linearly with field. The diagnostic tool is finite-bias spectroscopy, where source-drain current is measured as a function of bias and gate voltage: at $B=0$ the device shows Coulomb diamonds with a charging energy around 14 meV, these shrink as Landau levels form near 1 T, and above about 3 T a large diamond opens whose vertical extent in bias is read as the energy gap. The quantitative comparison uses the magnetic length $l_B = \sqrt{\hbar/(eB)}$ and the Coulomb energy $E_c = e^2/(\epsilon_0\epsilon_r l_B)$, together with the higher-order valley-breaking term $\delta E_c = (a/l_B)E_c$, where $a$ is the carbon-carbon bond length; this term produces the linear-in-$B$ gap and gives about 1 meV/T in extended graphene, below the measured 3–3.75 meV/T.

What would settle it

Measure the temperature dependence of the conductance inside the insulating state: activated transport with an activation energy matching the bias-diamond size would confirm a true gap, while a much smaller activation energy would show that the diamond overestimates the gap. Alternatively, compare ribbons of different length or with different contact geometries; if the extracted gap changes with length or contact configuration, part of the 'gap' is a contact or edge artifact rather than the intrinsic $\nu=0$ state. A four-terminal measurement would directly test the assumption that the bias drops across the ribbon.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At magnetic fields around 2.5–3.5 T, transport through low-disorder hBN-encapsulated graphene nanoribbons crosses over from statistical Coulomb blockade to a fully insulating state. Finite-bias spectroscopy reveals a V-shaped suppressed region at the charge neutrality point that expands linearly with perpendicular field: roughly 3 meV/T in the 35 nm ribbon, up to 20 meV at 9 T, and about 3.75 meV/T in the 40 nm ribbon, up to 30 meV at 9 T. The paper identifies this as a $\nu=0$ state in which the magnetic field breaks valley symmetry and electron-electron interactions open a gap, the same physics found in high-mobility extended graphene; the measured slope is three to four times larger than the roughly 1 meV/T reported there. The enhancement is attributed to the stronger Coulomb interaction in a transversally confined ribbon.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the voltage range over which current is blocked in the bias measurements really equals the energy gap, meaning that essentially all source-drain bias drops across the ribbon rather than at the contacts, and that the magnetic-field-induced gap is the same electron-interaction state seen in high-quality extended graphene rather than an artifact of the etched edges or contacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A perpendicular field of about 3 T switches a nanoribbon from a weakly conducting Coulomb-blockaded island into a full insulator with a gap of up to 30 meV.
  • The linear slope of 3–4 meV/T means the insulating state persists across a wide field range, with the gap eventually exceeding the zero-field charging energy.
  • The three-to-four-fold slope enhancement over extended graphene implies transverse confinement strengthens the interaction-driven valley-symmetry-breaking gap.
  • Observing the state in an etched, hBN-encapsulated ribbon shows that this many-body insulator does not require suspended, ultrahigh-mobility graphene.
  • The smaller zero-field transport gap quantifies the disorder reduction from full encapsulation and gives a baseline for future nanoribbon devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the confinement-enhancement explanation is right, the slope should grow monotonically as ribbon width decreases; measuring devices with widths from about 20 to 60 nm would be a direct test.
  • The linear-in-field gap offers a practical handle: a moderate magnetic field could toggle transport in a nanoribbon on and off, with the gap size set by field strength rather than lithographic disorder.
  • It is worth checking whether the extracted gap depends on ribbon length and contact geometry; if it does, part of the measured gap would be a contact or edge artifact rather than the intrinsic $\nu=0$ state.
  • The same geometric enhancement of the interaction term might appear in other confined Dirac systems, such as constrictions or antidot lattices, where the field-induced valley-breaking gap should also steepen.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports two-terminal magnetotransport measurements on two hBN-encapsulated etched graphene nanoribbons (D1: 35 nm wide, 100 nm long; D2: 40 nm wide, 150 nm long). At zero magnetic field, the devices show statistical Coulomb blockade with a smaller transport gap than comparable ribbons on SiO2 or hBN, which the authors attribute to reduced disorder from encapsulation. With increasing perpendicular magnetic field, the averaged conductance first increases up to about 2 T, then above about 3 T a fully suppressed, 'insulating' transport region develops. Finite-bias spectroscopy (Figs. 4-6) shows a V-shaped suppressed-conductance diamond whose vertical extent increases roughly linearly with B, with slopes of about 3 meV/T (D1) and 3.75 meV/T (D2), reaching 20 meV and 30 meV at 9 T. The authors interpret this as a nu=0 valley-symmetry-broken, interaction-induced gap and note that the slope is three to four times larger than the delta_Ec ~ 1 meV/T estimate for extended graphene, suggesting confinement-enhanced interactions.

Significance. If substantiated, the observation would be an important step: it would demonstrate a magnetic-field-induced interaction-driven insulating state in low-disorder etched nanoribbons and provide quantitative evidence that confinement enhances the nu=0 gap relative to extended graphene by a factor of 3-4. The paper's strengths are the careful hBN encapsulation fabrication, the use of two independent devices, and the direct extraction of gap values from finite-bias spectroscopy rather than from a transport fit to theory, which makes the comparison to delta_Ec a genuine physical comparison rather than a circular fit. The central quantitative claim, however, rests on an uncalibrated conversion from bias-diamond height to energy, and the assignment to the nu=0 state is phenomenological; both need strengthening before the quantitative enhancement can be regarded as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Magnetotransport, Figs. 4-6] The central quantitative claim, that the magnetic-field-induced gap grows at 3-4 meV/T, is obtained by reading the vertical extent of the suppressed-conductance diamond in two-terminal bias spectroscopy. This conversion assumes that essentially the entire applied V_bias drops symmetrically across the nanoribbon and that the contacts, leads, and any lead-ribbon p-n junctions contribute no nonlinear voltage drop. The paper itself shows that contacts are not negligible: in Fig. 2(c) the nu=2 plateau is only visible after the two-terminal conductance is corrected by an estimated contact resistance. In the quantum Hall regime, contact or edge-state turn-on voltages can add to the measured threshold, so the extracted diamond height can overestimate the true ribbon gap. Because both the magnitude (20-30 meV) and the claimed three-to-fourfold enhancement over extended graphene depend on this conversion, the authors should calibrate the voltage division, for example by comparing the B=0 Coulomb-diamond charging energy with an independently determined lever arm, by reporting four-terminal measurements, or by otherwise quantifying the systematic uncertainty on the slopes.
  2. [Interpretation, final two paragraphs] The identification of the insulating state with the interaction-driven nu=0 state is not directly established. The filling factor is never measured: the devices are two-terminal, and the relation between V_BG and carrier density is inferred from an assumed nu=2 plateau after a contact-resistance correction. The suppressed transport region could in principle also arise from disorder-induced localization or from magnetic-field-driven charge rearrangement in the ribbon, and the paper reports no test that distinguishes these alternatives. A concrete check would be to measure the dependence of the gap on carrier density or on the lateral gate over a wider range, or to compare with a control device of different width and length; without such a test, the attribution to valley-symmetry breaking should be presented as one plausible interpretation rather than the conclusion.
  3. [Figs. 5-6 and slope extraction] The reported slopes ('roughly 3 meV/T' and '3.75 meV/T') are stated without error bars, without a description of the fitting procedure, and with only two devices. In Figs. 5(a) and 6(a), the gap is estimated from a single V_LG value for each device, and the 'maximum' values of 20 and 30 meV at 9 T are single points rather than averages over gate voltage. Given that the comparison to delta_Ec ~ 1 meV/T hinges on these slopes, the manuscript should show the extracted gap values as a function of B for both devices, with uncertainties from the diamond-edge definition, and should discuss device-to-device variability.
  4. [Theory comparison, penultimate paragraph] The comparison with delta_Ec = (a/l_B)E_c is made against a single quoted estimate from Ref. 16 with no uncertainty, and the model assumes a uniform dielectric environment (epsilon_r = 4) appropriate for extended graphene on hBN. In a nanoribbon with etched edges, the dielectric environment and the effective interaction are different, so the expected delta_Ec for the ribbon is not known to better than a factor of order unity. The observed factor-of-3-4 excess is therefore less significant than the manuscript implies unless the theoretical estimate is adapted to the ribbon geometry.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains the repeated phrase 'corrected corrected'; one occurrence should be deleted.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The phrase 'A extended diamond-like feature' should be 'An extended diamond-like feature'.
  3. [Fig. 3(b)] The x-axis label of Fig. 3(b) appears to span negative to positive magnetic-field values while the data shown are for B >= 0; please check the axis range and tick labels.
  4. [References] Reference 15 has a formatting error in the author list ('L. Wang H. Ren') and should be corrected.
  5. [Device characterization] The device dimensions are given only in the text; a table listing width, length, transport-gap size, and contact-resistance estimate for D1 and D2 would improve reproducibility and readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the high-field gap is read from bias-spectroscopy extents and compared with, not fitted to, the cited δE_c estimate.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim is obtained directly from two-terminal bias spectroscopy: the gap is the vertical extent of the suppressed-conductance diamond, quoted as “an energy gap increasing with roughly 3 meV/T up to 20 meV” and “3.75 meV/T up to 30 meV at 9 T.” No quantity entering those numbers is generated by the theory with which they are later compared. The paper explicitly compares its measured slope with the cited estimate δE_c ≈ 1 meV/T from Refs. 15–16 and states that this estimate is “roughly three to four times smaller compared to the value we extract.” That is a comparison of an independent measurement with an external theoretical estimate, not a fit or a prediction forced by construction. The only self-citations (e.g., Refs. 19, 32, 34) support device characterization, the statistical-Coulomb-blockade interpretation, and the reduced transport gap; they are not load-bearing for the high-B ν=0 gap claim. The valley-symmetry-breaking interpretation is imported from high-mobility graphene studies (Refs. 13–16) rather than derived here, and the fact that Watanabe and Taniguchi appear as co-authors on those cited papers reflects their role as hBN crystal suppliers, not as originators of the cited physics. The uncalibrated assumption that the full bias voltage drops across the ribbon is a measurement caveat and a correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction of the output to the input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observation uses only measured voltages and currents; the main assumed quantities are the gap-to-bias conversion, the nu=0 mechanism from prior literature, and the lever arm used for density estimates. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Gap slope device D1 = ~3 meV/T
    Obtained from linear fit by eye to the diamond half-height in bias spectroscopy versus B between 3.5 and 9 T (Fig 5a).
  • Gap slope device D2 = ~3.75 meV/T
    Obtained from similar bias spectroscopy data in Fig 6a, reaching 30 meV at 9 T.
  • Lever arm alpha = 1e11 cm^-2 V^-1
    Fixed by assuming the two-terminal conductance plateau above 6 T corresponds to filling factor nu=2; used for density and cyclotron radius estimates, not for the gap extraction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two-terminal conductance plateau G=2e^2/h corresponds to filling factor nu=2, which sets the lever arm.
    Standard for graphene quantum Hall in two-terminal geometry; used to infer density scale.
  • domain assumption The vertical extent of the suppressed-conductance diamond in bias spectroscopy equals the energy gap.
    Requires all source-drain bias to drop across the nanoribbon and symmetric capacitive coupling; not directly calibrated.
  • domain assumption The high-B insulating state is the same nu=0 valley-symmetry-broken interaction gap as in extended graphene (Refs 14-16).
    The paper uses the linear-in-B scaling and the delta-Ec formula to identify the mechanism, rather than measuring the order parameter.
  • domain assumption The higher-order valley-symmetry term delta-Ec=(a/lB)Ec from Refs [15,16] correctly describes the gap slope in graphene.
    Cited theoretical estimate used to compare with the measured 3-4 meV/T slope; the paper does not re-derive it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insulating state in low-disorder graphene nanoribbons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULVNWU6Z

@misc{pith2026190811079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insulating state in low-disorder graphene nanoribbons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULVNWU6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11079}
}
abstract

We report on quantum transport measurements on etched graphene nanoribbons encapsulated in hexagonal boron nitride (hBN). At zero magnetic field our devices behave qualitatively very similar to what has been reported for graphene nanoribbons on $\text{SiO}_2$ or hBN, but exhibit a considerable smaller transport gap. At magnetic fields of around $3~$T the transport behavior changes considerably and is dominated by a much larger energy gap induced by electron-electron interactions completely suppressing transport. This energy gap increases with a slope on the order of $3-4~ $meV/T reaching values of up to $ 30~\mathrm{meV} $ at $ 9~ $T.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11079 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the heterostructure including one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Transconductance d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Conductance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Finite bias spectroscopy measurements at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Finite bias spectroscopy as function of B-field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Finite bias spectroscopy as function of B-field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nakada, M

    K. Nakada, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dres- selhaus, Phys. Rev. B 54, 17954 (1996)

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    Brey and H

    L. Brey and H. A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B73, 235411 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Y.-W. Son, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 216803 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    Dutta, S

    S. Dutta, S. Lakshmi, and S. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. B 77, 073412 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    A. A. Shylau, I. V. Zozoulenko, H. Xu, and T. Heinzel, Phys. Rev. B 82, 121410(R) (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    A. A. Shylau and I. V. Zozoulenko, Phys. Rev. B 84, 075407 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    V. N. Kotov, B. Uchoa, V. M. Pereira, F. Guinea, and A. H. Castro Neto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1067 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    Ihnatsenka and G

    S. Ihnatsenka and G. Kirczenow, Phys. Rev. B 88, 125430 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    A. D. G¨ u¸ cl¨ u, M. Grabowski, and P. Hawrylak, Phys. Rev. B 87, 035435 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    S. S. Kahnoj, S. B. Touski, and M. Pourfath, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 103502 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. L. Shepard, J. Hone, and P. Kim, Nature 497, 598 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    L. A. Ponomarenko, R. V. Gorbachev, G. L. Yu, D. C. Elias, R. Jalil, A. A. Patel, A. Mishchenko, A. S. Mayorov, C. R. Woods, J. R. Wallbank, M. Mucha- Kruczynski, B. A. Piot, M. Potemski, I. V. Grigorieva, K. S. Novoselov, F. Guinea, V. I. Fal’ko, and A. K. Geim, Nature 497, 5...

    2013

  5. [13]

    X. Du, I. Skachko, F. Duerr, A. Luican, and E. Y. Andrei, Nature 462, 192 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    K. I. Bolotin, F. Ghahari, M. D. Shulman, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Nature 462, 196 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    A. F. Young, C. R. Dean, L. Wang H. Ren, P. Cadden- Zimansky, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard and P. Kim, Nat. Phys. 8, 550 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    F. Amet, J. R. Williams, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 216601 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    or larger dual-gated graphene sheets on hBN [16]. At magnetic fields around B≈ 1 T we observe a crossover from the Coulomb blockade regime to a regime of elevated average conductance due an increase of density of states at zero energy as the electrons condense into Landau lev- ...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Ki and A

    D.-K. Ki and A. F. Morpurgo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 266601 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Moser and A

    J. Moser and A. Bachtold, Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 173506 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Stampfer, J

    C. Stampfer, J. G¨ uttinger, S. Hellm¨ uller, F. Molitor, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 056403 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Todd, H.-T

    K. Todd, H.-T. Chou, S. Amasha and D. Goldhaber- Gordon, Nano Lett. 9, 416 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    X. Liu, J. B. Oostinga, A. F. Morpurgo, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Phys. Rev. B 80, 121407(R) (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Gallagher, K

    P. Gallagher, K. Todd, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Phys. Rev. B 81, 115409 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    J. B. Oostinga, B. Sac´ ep´ e, M. F. Craciun, and A. F. Morpurgo, Phys. Rev. B 81, 193408 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    M. Y. Han, J. C. Brant, and P. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 056801 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Bischoff, A

    D. Bischoff, A. Varlet, P. Simonet, M. Eich, H. C. Over- weg, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Appl. Phys. Rev. 2, 031301 (2015). 6

    2015

  19. [27]

    C. R. Dean, A. F. Young, I. Meric, C. Lee, L. Wang, S. Sorgenfrei, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Kim, K. L. Shepard, and J. Hone, Nat. Nanotechnol. 5, 722 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    J. Xue, J. Sanchez-Yamagishi, D. Bulmash, P. Jacquod, A. Deshpande, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Jarillo- Herrero, and B. J. LeRoy , Nat. Mater. 10, 282 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    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, C. R. Dean, Science 342, 614 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Lee, G.-H

    G.-H. Lee, G.-H. Park and H.-J. Lee, Nat. Phys. 11, 925 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Borzenets, F

    I.V. Borzenets, F. Amet, C.T. Ke, A.W. Draelos, M.T. Wei, A. Seredinski, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Bomze, M. Yamamoto, S. Tarucha, and G. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 237002 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Bischoff, T

    D. Bischoff, T. Kr¨ ahenmann, S. Dr¨ oscher, M. A. Gruner, C. Barraud, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 203103 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Engels, A

    S. Engels, A. Epping, C. Volk, S. Korte, B. Voigtlnder, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Trellenkamp, and C. Stampfer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 073113 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Herrmanna, C

    O. Herrmanna, C. Gould, and L. W. Molenkamp, J. Appl. Phys. 120, 164304 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Terr´ es, L

    B. Terr´ es, L. A. Chizhova, F. Libisch, J. Peiro, D. J¨ orger, S. Engels, A. Girschik, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. V. Rotkin, J. Burgd¨ orfer, and C. Stampfer, Nat. Commun. 7, 11528 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Somanchi, B

    S. Somanchi, B. Terr´ es, J. Peiro, M. Staggenborg, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Beschoten, and C. Stampfer, Ann. Phys. 529, 1700082 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Neumann, S

    C. Neumann, S. Reichardt, P. Venezuela, M. Dr¨ ogeler, L. Banszerus, M. Schmitz, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Mauri, B. Beschoten, S. V. Rotkin, and C. Stampfer, Nat. Commun. 6, 8429 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Forster, A

    F. Forster, A. Molina-Sanchez, S. Engels, A. Epping, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Wirtz, and C. Stampfer, Phys. Rev. B 88, 085419 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    G¨ uttinger, C

    J. G¨ uttinger, C. Stampfer, F. Libisch, T. Frey, J. Burgd¨ orfer, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 046810 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    G¨ uttinger, T

    J. G¨ uttinger, T. Frey, C. Stampfer, T. Ihn, and K. En- sslin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 116801 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    C. Volk, C. Neumann, S. Kazarski, S. Fringes, S. Engels, F. Haupt, A. M¨ uller and C. Stampfer, Nat. Commun.4, 1753 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Dauber, B

    J. Dauber, B. Terr´ es, C. Volk, S. Trellenkamp, and C. Stampfer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 083105 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Molitor, C

    F. Molitor, C. Stampfer, J. G¨ uttinger, A. Jacobsen, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 25, 034002 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Albrecht, J

    W. Albrecht, J. Moers, and B. Hermanns, Journal of Large-Scale Research Facilities 3, A122

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.