Plasmonic Cooper pairing in single layer graphene

Dietrich Elst; Jacques Tempere; Sergei N. Klimin

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Plasmonic Cooper pairing in single layer graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The paper derives a DFM gap equation for graphene's Dirac cone and predicts plasmon-mediated Cooper pairing with critical temperatures in the microkelvin-to-millikelvin range, with density dependence different from BCS.

desk verdict First DFM gap equation for a Dirac cone, with a real analytic observation, but a dimensionally sloppy cutoff and an uncontrolled BCS comparison weaken the numerical claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00609 v2 pith:D6BNU6YF submitted 2019-09-02 cond-mat.supr-con

Dietrich Elst , Sergei N. Klimin , Jacques Tempere This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-con

keywords graphenesuperconductivityplasmon-mediatedpairingdielectricfunctionmethodDiracconegapequationrandomphaseapproximationcriticaltemperaturelowcarrierdensitytwo-dimensional

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 applies the dielectric function method, a non-adiabatic weak-coupling formalism that does not assume a small Debye window around the Fermi level, to single-layer graphene. It derives the gap equation for graphene's linear Dirac dispersion and computes the critical temperature of plasmon-mediated Cooper pairing as a function of carrier density, using an RPA-screened Coulomb interaction that includes plasmons. For densities between $10^{10}$ and $10^{12}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$, the predicted critical temperatures lie in the microkelvin-to-millikelvin range, increase as the carrier density rises, and decrease when the environmental dielectric constant grows. The predicted density dependence is significantly gentler than the BCS result, which the paper takes as evidence that the dielectric function method is better suited than BCS or standard electron-phonon theory at low carrier densities.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the DFM kernel $K(\omega,\omega')$ in Eq. (4), which enters the gap equation (3) through the frequency-dependent interaction $V(q,i\Omega)=2\pi e^2/(|q|\epsilon(q,i\Omega))$. The RPA dielectric function (13) uses the zero-temperature graphene density-density response function (11) to supply screening and plasmon effects, while the linear Dirac dispersion manifests as a prefactor that makes the kernel vanish at the band edge, giving it a 3D-parabolic-like shape rather than the usual 2D shape. The normalized gap function follows from the integral equation (5), and $T_c$ is obtained from Eq. (6) with the coupling parameter $\lambda$ of Eq. (7).

What would settle it

Recompute the kernel (4) using an independent finite-temperature random-phase-approximation polarization function and a cutoff converted consistently as a wavevector, then compare the resulting $T_c$ versus density curve to Fig. 2; a material change in magnitude or density dependence would show that the predicted temperatures are artifacts of the screening model or the cutoff.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dielectric function method, applied to a Dirac cone and combined with the random-phase-approximation dielectric function, yields the correct weak-coupling description of superconductivity in low-doped single-layer graphene. The derived gap equation (3) with kernel (4) replaces the BCS Debye-window interaction by a frequency-dependent screened interaction, and solving the normalized gap equation gives critical temperatures in the millikelvin-to-microkelvin range. Unlike the BCS curve for Dirac electrons, the DFM critical temperature rises smoothly with carrier density and is suppressed by an increased dielectric constant, so the paper concludes that DFM is more appropriate than standard BCS and Migdal-Eliashberg approaches in this regime.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation rests on the zero-temperature random-phase-approximation screening model for graphene and on the conversion of the 8 eV lattice cutoff into a wavevector for an integral upper limit; if either input is wrong, the kernel and every computed critical temperature change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, clean single-layer graphene at densities near $10^{12}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ should show a superconducting transition around the millikelvin scale, with the transition temperature dropping as the sheet is placed on higher-dielectric-constant substrates.
The density dependence of $T_c$ is a fingerprint: DFM predicts a gentler, monotonic rise with carrier density, whereas the BCS curve for Dirac electrons rises more steeply for the same parameters.
The formalism extends BCS to interaction regions comparable to the Fermi energy, so low-density graphene becomes a test bed for non-adiabatic pairing rather than a violation of the small-window assumption.
Because the calculation addresses pair breaking, the actual 2D phase transition is expected to be BKT-limited; at weak coupling the BKT temperature should lie close to the computed $T_c$.

Reading between the lines

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

An experimental distinction could come from gate-tuning: measuring the slope of $T_c$ versus carrier density in a clean suspended sample would separate DFM from BCS without needing to resolve the absolute temperature scale.
The same Dirac-cone kernel construction should transfer to other two-dimensional Dirac and Weyl materials and to gapped Dirac systems; the vanishing of the kernel at the band edge is a structural prediction that any alternative theory should reproduce.
Because the RPA dielectric function is taken at zero temperature while the gap equation is used at small but finite $T_c$, a finite-temperature polarization function could shift the low-density results; this is a natural next calculation.
The BCS comparison uses a fixed Debye window and coupling constant; matching those parameters to graphene's actual phonon spectrum would test whether the reported discrepancy is structural or partly parametric.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is the first DFM gap equation for a Dirac cone, and it gives a genuine analytic observation—the kernel for graphene resembles the 3D parabolic case rather than the 2D parabolic one. That's worth remembering.

The paper is a straightforward application of a known formalism. The authors carry over the DFM machinery from Kirzhnits/Takada, replace the parabolic dispersion with the linear Dirac cone, and plug in the RPA polarization from Wunsch et al. The resulting Tc curves are microkelvin to millikelvin, rising with density and falling with dielectric constant. The physics is plausible, and the authors are careful to mention the BKT caveat and the neglect of flexural phonons. There is no sign of curve-fitting or self-citation abuse; the method itself is established.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The biggest is the cutoff Λ in Eq. (11). The text calls it a cutoff wavevector and then sets it to 8 eV. An energy is not a wavevector without a conversion factor. If the intent is Λ = 8 eV / ħ v_F ≈ 1.2 Å^-1, the paper should say so. The second integral in Eq. (11) runs to Λ/k_F, which at the lowest densities is hundreds of k_F. The magnitude of the polarization at those momenta will change with the cutoff, and since Tc depends exponentially on 1/λ, a factor-of-two uncertainty in the cutoff can change Tc by orders of magnitude. This is not a minor typo; it is a missing piece of the calculation. The stress-test note is right on this.

The second soft spot is the BCS comparison. They plot the Kopnin-Sonin result with fixed coupling (0.01) and Debye window (5 meV), which are not derived from the same electron-plasmon interaction. So the 'significantly different behaviour' is not a controlled comparison. It might well be true that DFM is better suited at low densities, but this figure doesn't demonstrate it. A BCS calculation using the same plasmon kernel with a small Debye window would make the point.

Eqs. (5) and (7) are asserted without derivation. They follow the Zubarev method, but the reader has to take them on faith. A short appendix or a few intermediate steps would help.

All in all, this is a solid piece of work with one load-bearing ambiguity. It deserves peer review, but the cutoff must be clarified and the comparison redone before the central claim is convincing.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript applies the dielectric function method (DFM) to calculate the critical temperature for plasmon-mediated Cooper pairing in single-layer graphene with a linear Dirac dispersion. The authors write down a DFM gap equation for the Dirac cone (Eqs. (3)-(4)), combine it with an RPA dielectric function that includes a lattice cutoff and a dielectric constant kappa (Eqs. (8)-(13)), and extract Tc versus carrier density from Eq. (6). Their central result is that Tc lies in the microkelvin-to-millikelvin range for n between 10^10 and 10^12 cm^-2 and has a weaker density dependence than the BCS result of Kopnin and Sonin, which they take as evidence that DFM is better suited than BCS at low doping. The paper also argues that the graphene kernel resembles that of a 3D parabolic band rather than a 2D parabolic band.

Significance. The question addressed is relevant: low-carrier-density superconductors are precisely the regime where DFM is designed to improve on BCS, and graphene provides a clean linear-dispersion model. The DFM/RPA formalism is established, the manuscript is largely self-contained, and I found no circularity in the argument: the input polarization function comes from the independent RPA literature. However, the numerical claim is not yet verifiable because the reduction from Eq. (10) to Eq. (11) is not shown, the cutoff in Eq. (11) is dimensionally inconsistent, and the BCS comparison in Fig. 2 is not controlled. If these points are fixed, the paper can be a useful contribution.

major comments (3)

[II.B, Eq. (11)] The definition and use of the cutoff Lambda are inconsistent. In Eq. (11) the variables q, Omega, k, and y are dimensionless, so the upper limit of the second integral over k must be a pure number. The text calls Lambda 'a cutoff wavevector' and then sets Lambda about 8 eV [25]. If Lambda is an energy, the dimensionless upper limit is Lambda/(hbar v_F k_F), which equals about 680 at n=10^10 cm^-2 (k_F about 1.8 x 10^7 m^-1, epsilon_F about 0.012 eV) and about 68 at n=10^12 cm^-2. If Lambda is intended as a wavevector, the value 8 eV is meaningless without a conversion via hbar v_F. This order-of-magnitude change in the upper limit across Fig. 2 affects the interband part of chi(q,iOmega), hence epsilon(q,iOmega), the kernel K(0,0), and every Tc through Eq. (6). The authors should state the units of Lambda, show the conversion used in the numerics, and check the sensitivity of Fig. 2 to the cutoff model; they should also justify evaluating the Dirac-cone and RPA expressions up to momenta of several hundred k_F at the lowest densities.
[II.A, Eqs. (3)-(7)] The passage from the general DFM gap equation (2) to the Dirac-cone equations (3)-(4), and then to the normalized-gap equation (5) and the coupling parameter lambda in Eq. (7), is not shown. The text states that after using the linear dispersion and converting the summation to integration the gap equation 'becomes' Eq. (3), and the Fredholm equation is simply written down. Because the prefactor (omega' + epsilon_F) in Eq. (4) and the Heaviside term in Eq. (7) are not self-evident, and because K and lambda directly determine Tc, a reader cannot reproduce the main numerical results without these derivations or explicit references that contain them in the same notation. I ask the authors to provide the missing steps or exact citations.
[III, Fig. 2] The comparison with BCS is not controlled. The caption of Fig. 2 states that the BCS curve is computed for a coupling constant of 0.01 and a Debye window of 5 meV, while the DFM curves are computed for kappa = 1.00-1.08 with no equivalent adjustable parameters. The abstract's claim of a 'significantly different behaviour' of Tc as a function of carrier density is therefore based on a comparison between two models that are not matched in band structure, screening, or interaction parameters. Please either recompute the BCS curve with the same Dirac dispersion and RPA screening as the DFM calculation, or explicitly present the BCS curve as an illustrative curve with its parameters clearly stated.

minor comments (4)

[II.A, Eq. (2)] The notation 'T <~ Tc' is unclear; the manuscript should use a precise inequality such as T much less than Tc or T <= Tc.
[II.A, Eqs. (1) and (6)] The symbol lambda is used both for the band index in Eq. (1) and for the coupling parameter in Eq. (6); please use different symbols to avoid ambiguity.
[III and Fig. 2] The text says the density range is 10^10-10^12 cm^-2, but the x-axis in Fig. 2 appears to start at 10^11 cm^-2; please make the text and figure consistent.
[References] Reference [3] contains a typo: 'quantim Hall effect' should be 'quantum Hall effect'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DFM gap equations and RPA polarization are taken from external sources, and the predicted Tc is not fitted to or equivalent to any input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The DFM gap equation, Eq. (2), is taken from Takada [15], and the graphene linear dispersion is inserted to obtain Eqs. (3)-(4), which is a legitimate re-derivation rather than a circular renaming. The interaction kernel uses the RPA dielectric function whose density response is taken from Wunsch et al. [24], an external reference, and the lattice dielectric contributions come from published phonon calculations [26, 27]. No parameter is fitted to the target critical temperature; the material inputs are the C-C bond length, hopping parameter, lattice cutoff, carrier density, and dielectric constant, and the Tc values in Fig. 2 are computed from Eqs. (5)-(7). The self-citations [17-19] are prior applications of DFM to other systems and are not load-bearing for the graphene derivation: they do not supply the gap equation, the polarization function, the phonon data, or the BCS comparison, and none is invoked as the sole justification of a premise. The BCS curve is an independent published result [11], so the claimed contrast with BCS is not manufactured by the present model. The only notable weakness, the description of the cutoff Lambda as a wavevector while assigning it the value 8 eV [25], is a dimensional or unit-convention issue affecting numerical accuracy, not a circular reduction of the central claim. Consequently, the central prediction that DFM gives microkelvin-to-millikelvin Tc values with a different density dependence than BCS is not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on: (i) the linear Dirac cone approximation, (ii) the weak-coupling DFM gap equation from Takada, (iii) the zero-temperature RPA polarization function, and (iv) the neglect of flexural phonons. The only hand-set parameter of the model is the dielectric constant kappa; the cutoff Lambda is taken from the literature but is dimensionally ambiguous. No new entities are introduced, and no data were fitted.

free parameters (2)

Dielectric constant kappa = 1.00 to 1.08 (varied)
Dielectric constant of the environment; not measured here, varied by hand to show screening effects. Set to 1 for isolated graphene.
Cutoff Lambda = 8 eV
Cutoff in the interband polarization integral (Eq. 11); attributed to lattice discreteness and cited to Peres et al. [25], but the text calls it a wavevector while assigning an energy value, leaving the dimensionless limit ambiguous.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Linear Dirac cone dispersion epsilon_{lambda,k} = lambda v_F |k| - epsilon_F is valid up to 10^12 cm^-2.
Used in Eq. (1); the paper states this is valid below 0.1 eV, neglecting warping and higher bands.
domain assumption The weak-coupling DFM gap equation (Eq. (2)) from Takada [15] applies to graphene's linear dispersion.
This is the central formalism; the adaptation to the Dirac cone is presented without re-deriving Eq. (2).
domain assumption Zero-temperature Fermi-Dirac occupancy (Heaviside) is valid in the relevant regime.
Used to evaluate chi(q,iOmega) in Eq. (11); the paper notes this is valid where Fermi energy is much larger than thermal energy.
domain assumption Flexural phonons contribute only at higher order and can be neglected.
Section II B, citing Mariani and von Oppen [29]; this removes a possible pairing channel.
standard math The Fredholm reduction from Zubarev's approach yields Eqs. (5)-(7).
Eqs. (5)-(7) are stated with citation to Zubarev [22] and not derived in the text.
domain assumption RPA polarization function from Wunsch et al. [24] is accurate for graphene at low doping.
Eq. (11) is the central input for the screening and plasmonic interaction; no comparison to improved approximations is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Plasmonic Cooper pairing in single layer graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6BNU6YF

@misc{pith2026190900609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Plasmonic Cooper pairing in single layer graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6BNU6YF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00609}
}

read the original abstract

The dielectric function method (DFM), which uses a non-adiabatic approach to calculate the critical temperatures for superconductivity, has been quite successful in describing superconductors at low carrier densities. This regime of carrier densities causes other theories, such as BCS and Migdal-Eliashberg theory, to violate their assumption of a small Debye window. We investigate the application of DFM to the linear dispersion of single layer graphene. We derive the gap equation of DFM for a Dirac cone and calculate the critical temperature as a function of carrier density. This is done using an interaction potential that utilizes the Random Phase Approximation dielectric function and thus allows for plasmonic interactions. Our results show a significantly different behaviour of the critical temperature as a function of carrier density when compared to the BCS result. Thus, we find the DFM approach to be better suited when considering graphene systems at low carrier densities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00609 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (Color online) Solid and dashed curves: critical temperatures as a function of carrier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[25]

Electronic properties of disordered two-dimensional carbon,

N. M. R. Peres, F. Guinea, and A. H. Castro Neto, “Electronic properties of disordered two-dimensional carbon,” Physical Review B 73, 125411 (2006)

work page 2006
[1]

Electric ﬁeld eﬀect in atomically thin carbon ﬁlms,

K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, “Electric ﬁeld eﬀect in atomically thin carbon ﬁlms,” Science 306 (2004)

work page 2004
[2]

Two-dimensional gas of massless dirac fermions in graphene,

K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov, “Two-dimensional gas of massless dirac fermions in graphene,” Nature 438 (2005)

work page 2005
[3]

Experimental observation of the quantim hall eﬀect and berry’s phase in graphene,

Y. Zhang, T. Yan-wen, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, “Experimental observation of the quantim hall eﬀect and berry’s phase in graphene,” Nature 438 (2005)

work page 2005
[4]

Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene,

C. Lee, W. Wei, J. W. Kysar, and J. Hone, “Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene,” Science 321 (2008). 10

work page 2008
[5]

Electromechanical robustness of monolayer graphene with extreme bending,

B. D. Briggs, B. Nagabhirava, G. Rao, R. Geer, H. Gao, Y. Xu, and B. Yu, “Electromechanical robustness of monolayer graphene with extreme bending,” Applied Physics Letters 97, 223102 (2010)

work page 2010
[6]

Bipolar supercurrent in graphene,

H. B. Heersche, P. Jarillo-Herero, J. B. Oostinga, L. M. Vandersypen, and A. F. Morpurgo, “Bipolar supercurrent in graphene,” Nature 446 (2007)

work page 2007
[7]

Josephson current and multiple andreev reﬂections in graphene sns junctions,

X. Du, I. Skachko, and E. Y. Andrei, “Josephson current and multiple andreev reﬂections in graphene sns junctions,” Physical Review B 77, 184507 (2008)

work page 2008

Show all 32 references

[8]

Quantum oscillations of the critical current and high-ﬁeld superconducting proximity in ballistic graphene,

M. B. Shalom, M. J. Zhu, V. I. Fal’ko, A. Mischenko, A. V. Kretinin, K. S. Novoselov, C. R. Woods, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. K. Geim, and J. R. Prance, “Quantum oscillations of the critical current and high-ﬁeld superconducting proximity in ballistic graphene,” Nature Phys...

2016
[9]

Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices,

Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, “Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices,” Nature 556, 43 (2018)

2018
[10]

Specular andreev reﬂection in graphene,

C. W. J. Beenakker, “Specular andreev reﬂection in graphene,” Physical Review Letters 97, 067007 (2006)

2006
[11]

BCS superconductivity of Dirac electrons in graphene layers,

N. B. Kopnin and E. B. Sonin, “BCS superconductivity of Dirac electrons in graphene layers,” Physical Review Letters 100, 246808 (2008)

2008
[12]

Superconducting state of pure and doped graphene,

B. Uchoa and A. H. Castro Neto, “Superconducting state of pure and doped graphene,” Physical Review Letters 98, 146801 (2007)

2007
[13]

Superconductivity from collective excitations in magic angle twisted bilayer graphene,

G. Sharma, M. Trushin, O. P. Sushkov, G. Vignale, and S. Adam, “Superconductivity from collective excitations in magic angle twisted bilayer graphene,” (2019), arXiv:1909.02574 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

2019 arXiv
[14]

The description of superconductivity in terms of dielectric response function,

D. A. Kirzhnits, E. G. Maksimov, and D. I. Khomskii, “The description of superconductivity in terms of dielectric response function,” Journal of Low Temperature Physics 10, 79 (1973)

1973
[15]

Plasmon mechanism of superconductivity in two- and three-dimensional electron systems,

Y. Takada, “Plasmon mechanism of superconductivity in two- and three-dimensional electron systems,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 45, 789 (1978)

1978
[16]

Superconductivity in the two- dimensional electron gas induced by high-energy optical phonon mode and large polarization of the SrTiO 3 substrate,

B. Rosenstein, B. Ya. Shapiro, I. Shapiro, and D. Li, “Superconductivity in the two- dimensional electron gas induced by high-energy optical phonon mode and large polarization of the SrTiO 3 substrate,” Physical Review B 94, 024505 (2016). 11

2016
[17]

Multiband superconductivity due to the electron-LO-phonon interaction in strontium titanate and on a SrTiO3/LaAlO3 interface,

S. N. Klimin, J. Tempere, J. T. Devreese, and D. van der Marel, “Multiband superconductivity due to the electron-LO-phonon interaction in strontium titanate and on a SrTiO3/LaAlO3 interface,” Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 30, 757 (2017)

2017
[18]

Super- conductivity in SrTiO3: Dielectric function method for non-parabolic bands,

S. N. Klimin, J. Tempere, J. T. Devreese, J. He, C. Franchini, and G. Kresse, “Super- conductivity in SrTiO3: Dielectric function method for non-parabolic bands,” Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948-019-5029-0, (published online)

2019 doi
[19]

Interface superconductivity in LaAlO3-SrTiO3 heterostructures,

S. N. Klimin, J. Tempere, J. T. Devreese, and D. van der Marel, “Interface superconductivity in LaAlO3-SrTiO3 heterostructures,” Physical Review B 89, 184514 (2014)

2014
[20]

Theory of superconductivity,

J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieﬀer, “Theory of superconductivity,” Physical Review 108, 1175 (1957)

1957
[21]

Interaction between electrons and lattice vibrations in a normal metal,

A. B. Migdal, “Interaction between electrons and lattice vibrations in a normal metal,” J. Exptl. Theoret. Phys. (U.S.S.R.) 34, 1438–1446 (1958)

1958
[22]

Double-time Green Functions in statistical physics,

D. N. Zubarev, “Double-time Green Functions in statistical physics,” Soviet Physics Uspekhi 3, 320 (1960), [Russian original: Usp. Fiz. Nauk 71, 71 (1960)]

1960
[23]

Nozi` eres and D

P. Nozi` eres and D. Pines,Theory of Quantum Liquids (Avalon Publishing, 1994)

1994
[24]

Dynamical polarization of graphene at ﬁnite doping,

B. Wunsch, T. Stauber, F. Sols, and F. Guinea, “Dynamical polarization of graphene at ﬁnite doping,” New Journal of Physics 8, 318 (2006)

2006
[26]

Phonon dispersion in graphite,

J. Maultzsch, S. Reich, C. Thomsen, H. Requardt, and P. Ordej´ on, “Phonon dispersion in graphite,” Physical Review Letters 92, 075501 (2004)

2004
[27]

First-principles determination of the structural, vibrational and thermodynamic properties of diamond, graphite and derivatives,

N. Mounet and N. Marzari, “First-principles determination of the structural, vibrational and thermodynamic properties of diamond, graphite and derivatives,” Physical Review B 71, 205214 (2005)

2005
[28]

Electronic compressibility of layer-polarized bilayer graphene,

A. F. Young, C. R. Dean, I. Meric, S. Sorgenfrei, H. Ren, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard, and P. Kim, “Electronic compressibility of layer-polarized bilayer graphene,” Physical Review B 85, 235458 (2012)

2012
[29]

Flexural phonons in free-standing graphene,

E. Mariani and F. von Oppen, “Flexural phonons in free-standing graphene,” Physical Review Letters 100, 076801 (2008). 12

2008
[30]

Observa- tion of electron-hole puddles in graphene using a scanning single-electron transistor,

J. Martin, G. Akerman, T. Lohmann, J. H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, and A. Yacoby, “Observa- tion of electron-hole puddles in graphene using a scanning single-electron transistor,” Nature Physics 4, 144–148 (2008)

2008
[31]

Destruction of long-range order in one-dimensional and two-dimensional systems with a continuous symmetry group. II. Quantum systems,

V. L. Berezinskii, “Destruction of long-range order in one-dimensional and two-dimensional systems with a continuous symmetry group. II. Quantum systems,” Sov. Phys. JETP 32, 493 (1971)

1971
[32]

Long range order and metastability in two dimensional solids and superﬂuids,

J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, “Long range order and metastability in two dimensional solids and superﬂuids,” J. Phys. C 5, L124 (1972). 13

1972

Pith tools

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

[1] [25]

Electronic properties of disordered two-dimensional carbon,

N. M. R. Peres, F. Guinea, and A. H. Castro Neto, “Electronic properties of disordered two-dimensional carbon,” Physical Review B 73, 125411 (2006)

work page 2006

[2] [1]

Electric ﬁeld eﬀect in atomically thin carbon ﬁlms,

K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, “Electric ﬁeld eﬀect in atomically thin carbon ﬁlms,” Science 306 (2004)

work page 2004

[3] [2]

Two-dimensional gas of massless dirac fermions in graphene,

K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov, “Two-dimensional gas of massless dirac fermions in graphene,” Nature 438 (2005)

work page 2005

[4] [3]

Experimental observation of the quantim hall eﬀect and berry’s phase in graphene,

Y. Zhang, T. Yan-wen, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, “Experimental observation of the quantim hall eﬀect and berry’s phase in graphene,” Nature 438 (2005)

work page 2005

[5] [4]

Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene,

C. Lee, W. Wei, J. W. Kysar, and J. Hone, “Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene,” Science 321 (2008). 10

work page 2008

[6] [5]

Electromechanical robustness of monolayer graphene with extreme bending,

B. D. Briggs, B. Nagabhirava, G. Rao, R. Geer, H. Gao, Y. Xu, and B. Yu, “Electromechanical robustness of monolayer graphene with extreme bending,” Applied Physics Letters 97, 223102 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [6]

Bipolar supercurrent in graphene,

H. B. Heersche, P. Jarillo-Herero, J. B. Oostinga, L. M. Vandersypen, and A. F. Morpurgo, “Bipolar supercurrent in graphene,” Nature 446 (2007)

work page 2007

[8] [7]

Josephson current and multiple andreev reﬂections in graphene sns junctions,

X. Du, I. Skachko, and E. Y. Andrei, “Josephson current and multiple andreev reﬂections in graphene sns junctions,” Physical Review B 77, 184507 (2008)

work page 2008