Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Light-induced dissipationless states in magnetic topological insulators with hexagonal warping

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Linearly polarized light can suppress the backscattering that magnetic dopants create in topological insulators, restoring a dissipationless quantized conductance channel.

desk verdict New transport application of a known Floquet term, but the dissipationless claim is computed at intensities where the Floquet expansion is uncontrolled. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10164 v1 pith:7YPBOD2T submitted 2025-02-14 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mohammad Shafiei , Milorad V. Milošević This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords topologicalinsulatormagneticimpuritiesbackscatteringhexagonalwarpinglinearlypolarizedlightFloquettheoryBerryphasequantizedconductance
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

Magnetic dopants in topological insulators destroy the helical spin-momentum locking that ordinarily protects surface states from backscattering, degrading the clean quantized conductance $e^2/h$ of the surface. This paper claims that shining high-frequency linearly polarized light (LPL) straight onto the surface can counteract that damage: the light couples to the hexagonal warping of the Fermi surface and, as its intensity is increased, the conductance climbs back to the dissipationless quantized value. The effect is tunable by both intensity and polarization angle, which the paper proposes as a route to ultra-low-power spintronics and to optical sensing that reads light as a resistance change.

What carries the argument

Hexagonal warping: the $k$-cubic anisotropy of the Fermi surface of Bi$_2$X$_3$ (X=Te,Se) surface states, stemming from $C_{3v}$ lattice symmetry, written as $\lambda_h(k_x^3-3k_y^2k_x)\sigma_z$. The load-bearing identity is the light-matter coupling term $3\lambda_h \tilde{A}_0^2/2 (\cos 2\theta\, k_x - \sin 2\theta\, k_y)\sigma_z$ in the effective Floquet Hamiltonian, obtained by the van Vleck high-frequency expansion of the time-periodic Hamiltonian under the Peierls substitution. This term is what makes LPL couple to the surface: without warping ($\lambda_h=0$) the coupling vanishes, and with warping it provides a polarization-dependent, momentum-dependent spin splitting that counteracts the impurity-induced Zeeman gap. The Berry phase deviation from $\pi$ is used as the diagnostic of backscattering strength, and Landauer-B\"uttiker conductance computes the transport observable.

What would settle it

Measure the longitudinal conductance of a Cr-doped Bi2Te3 nanoribbon or Hall bar at low temperature with normally incident linearly polarized light, sweeping intensity from dark to high fluence at fixed Fermi energy and polarization angle; observing no monotonic rise toward $e^2/h$, or a conductance that does not show the predicted $\pi$-periodic dependence on polarization angle, would rule out the claimed dissipationless restoration as a transport phenomenon.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the effective surface Hamiltonian of a magnetically doped Bi2Te3-type topological insulator, the paper derives, via the high-frequency van Vleck expansion of Floquet theory, an effective Floquet Hamiltonian in which linearly polarized light adds a term proportional to the hexagonal warping parameter $\lambda_h$, the square of the vector-potential amplitude, and $\cos 2\theta$/$\sin 2\theta$ of the polarization angle. This term acts as a momentum-dependent spin splitting that partially cancels the exchange gap opened by the magnetic impurities, restoring the helical spin texture and bringing the Berry phase back toward its quantized value $\pi$. In four-terminal Landauer transport simulations, increasing the light intensity at fixed Fermi energy and polarization restores the longitudinal conductance of the surface to $e^2/h$, i.e., an entirely dissipationless channel; similar restoration is found for the Berry phase, and both the required intensity and the achievable conductance swing depend predictably on material warping strength and on polarization angle.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that magnetic dopants act as a single uniform out-of-plane exchange field and that the Berry phase deviation from $\pi$ faithfully measures actual backscattering; if disordered dopant positions create scattering that the mean-field gap does not capture, the light-driven recovery toward $e^2/h$ may overstate what real samples would show.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed Fermi energy and light polarization, the longitudinal conductance of magnetically doped Bi2Te3 rises monotonically with LPL intensity and reaches the quantized value $e^2/h$, giving a light-switchable dissipationless channel.
  • The intensity needed to reach the dissipationless state scales inversely with the material's hexagonal warping, so Bi2Te3 requires a lower intensity ($\tilde{A}_0 \approx 7\,\mathrm{nm}^{-1}$) than Bi2Se3 ($\tilde{A}_0 \approx 10\,\mathrm{nm}^{-1}$).
  • By adjusting the polarization angle, the conductance can be tuned over a range of 10--15%, so the same device acts as a reconfigurable resistor and as an optical sensor that reads irradiation as a resistance change.
  • Because the effect rests on the warping-induced coupling rather than on circular polarization, it offers a distinct degree of control from the better-known Floquet gap-opening by circularly polarized light.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same cancellation mechanism could in principle compensate other perturbations that break helical spin locking, such as strain or substrate-induced Rashba fields, provided a matching Floquet term can be engineered; the paper only considers magnetic impurities.
  • The calculation is at zero temperature and ignores scattering from randomly positioned dopants beyond the mean-field exchange; disorder scattering of the kind that usually limits magnetic TI mobility may set a floor on how close to $e^2/h$ a real device can get, so the full suppression is a best-case scenario pending finite-temperature and disorder-resolved modeling.
  • A concrete next experiment would be a low-temperature magnetotransport measurement on a Cr-doped Bi2Te3 Hall bar under normally incident linearly polarized light, checking whether the resistance drop and its polarization-angle symmetry match the predicted $\cos 2\theta$ dependence.
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 studies magnetically doped Bi2Te3 and Bi2Se3 surface states with hexagonal warping under high-frequency linearly polarized light (LPL). It starts from the k.p Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), which combines the surface Dirac cone, the cubic hexagonal-warping term, a hybridization gap, and a uniform out-of-plane exchange field Mimp representing magnetic doping. Using Peierls substitution and a van Vleck high-frequency expansion, the authors obtain the effective Floquet Hamiltonian in Eq. (5), and then transcribe it to the real-space tight-binding Hamiltonian of Eq. (6). The paper reports Berry-phase calculations and Landauer-Buettiker conductance calculations as functions of light intensity, polarization angle, magnetization, and Fermi energy. The main claim is that increasing LPL intensity reduces backscattering in magnetic TIs and, at intensities A0 ~ 7 nm^-1 for Bi2Te3 and ~10 nm^-1 for Bi2Se3, produces an entirely dissipationless longitudinal conductance channel, restoring the conductance toward e^2/h.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper identifies a physically interesting and potentially useful mechanism: normally incident linearly polarized light can couple to surface Dirac states through the hexagonal warping term and partially undo the backscattering caused by magnetic doping. The manuscript has clear strengths: it combines a symmetry-based effective Hamiltonian with both Berry-phase and Landauer transport calculations, it makes falsifiable predictions for conductance versus intensity and versus polarization angle, and it connects the effect to specific material parameters of Bi2Te3 and Bi2Se3. However, the significance is conditional on two issues that are not resolved in the manuscript: the validity of the Floquet expansion in the intensity regime used for the headline result, and the faithfulness of the uniform-magnetization model to the claimed impurity-scattering mechanism. These issues are load-bearing for the central dissipationless-transport claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (4)-(5), Fig. 5(a)] The effective Floquet Hamiltonian in Eq. (5) is not controlled at the intensities used for the main dissipationless result. At A0 = 7 nm^-1 the reduced amplitude is \tilde A0 = eA0/hbar = 0.7 Å^-1, which is comparable to the Brillouin-zone scale (for a ~ 4.3 Å, \tilde A0 a ~ 3), so the Peierls excursion leaves the regime of validity of the low-energy k.p Hamiltonian in Eq. (1). More quantitatively, the cubic warping term of Eq. (1) generates a Fourier component at 3ω with amplitude λ_h \tilde A0^3 / 4 ≈ 21 eV for Bi2Te3, while the retained term (3/2) λ_h \tilde A0^2 k_F ≈ 5 eV at k_F = 0.026 Å^-1. Both scales are much larger than the magnetic gap Mimp ≈ 50 meV and the Fermi energy EF = 50 meV used in Fig. 5(a). The van Vleck expansion in Eq. (4) requires the off-resonant matrix elements to be small compared with ℏω, and no photon frequency ω is specified in the text, so the 'high-frequency' condition cannot be verified. A frequency large enough to make the expansion valid would be far above the bandwidth and outside the k.p description. The dissipationless regime shown in Fig. 5(a) therefore rests on an uncontrolled truncation, and the central claim is not established by the present calculation.
  2. [Eq. (1) and 'System and methods'] The manuscript equates magnetic doping with a uniform out-of-plane exchange field Mimp σz and computes transport on a clean, translationally invariant lattice. This does not directly model the disorder scattering from randomly distributed magnetic dopants that the introduction and conclusion invoke. In a clean system, increasing Mimp changes the band structure and Berry phase, but those changes are not the same as impurity-induced backscattering, and the conductance decrease in Fig. 3 can be a band-structure or mode-matching effect rather than dissipative impurity scattering. To support the claim that LPL suppresses backscattering on magnetic dopants, the authors would need to include explicit disorder (for example, random on-site Zeeman terms or random scalar potentials), average the conductance over impurity configurations, and show that LPL reduces that disorder-averaged backscattering. As written, the suppression of impurity backscattering is inferred from a mean-field proxy rather than computed from a disorder model.
  3. [Fig. 2(b), Fig. 5(b), 'Backbone phenomena'] The Berry phase deviation from π is presented as a direct indicator of backscattering strength, but no derivation connects the Berry phase of the occupied band to a backscattering rate or to the Landauer transmission. In a gapped Dirac system the Berry phase is a property of the Bloch band, whereas backscattering depends on the impurity potential matrix elements and the available final states. This matters because Fig. 5(b) is offered as confirmation of the transport result in Fig. 5(a), yet both are computed from the same effective Hamiltonian and therefore do not provide independent evidence. The relation between the Berry phase and the conductance should be established explicitly, for example by computing the disorder-averaged transmission within the same model.
  4. [Eq. (6), tight-binding implementation] The real-space implementation of the LPL coupling is described only verbally: terms proportional to cos2θ and sin2θ are 'added respectively to the hopping parameters along the x and y directions'. Since Eq. (5) contains terms linear in k, their real-space representation is nonlocal and requires a precise lattice transcription; the relation between the continuum coefficient (3/2)λ_h \tilde A0^2 and the added hopping constants is not given. Without this explicit definition, the conductance results in Figs. 3 and 5 cannot be reproduced or checked, and the sign and symmetry properties of the tight-binding term remain ambiguous.
minor comments (5)
  1. ['System and methods'] The photon frequency ω is never specified; the text states only that the photon energy should exceed the bandwidth. The authors should state the numerical values of ω used in the calculations and verify the high-frequency condition against the off-resonant amplitudes discussed above.
  2. [Figs. 2(b), 3(b)] The horizontal axes are labeled as 'magnetic impurity concentration' in the captions, but the model parameter is the magnetization Mimp in meV. Either define the relation between concentration and Mimp or relabel the axes.
  3. [Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is attributed to Ref. [35]; since the central results depend on the exact form of this effective Hamiltonian, a short derivation (or a supplementary section) showing the van Vleck commutators from Eq. (1) would improve transparency and allow the reader to verify the coefficient 3/2 and the absence of the 3ω component.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states the symmetries under θ → −θ and θ → θ + π without explaining them; a sentence relating these symmetries to the cos2θ and sin2θ terms in Eq. (5) would clarify the figure.
  5. [General presentation] There are several small typographical issues, such as missing spaces before θ in the introduction and inconsistent use of italic bold symbols; these should be cleaned up in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the light-induced restoration of e2/h conductance is a computed outcome of an imported Floquet Hamiltonian plus external tight-binding parameters, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The central chain is: Eq. (1) is an externally parameterized k·p Hamiltonian (vF and λh from Refs [26,28], hybridization gap from Refs [29,30]); Eq. (5) is the LPL-modified Floquet Hamiltonian imported from Ref [35] (prior work by other authors) through the van Vleck expansion; the real-space hopping parameters are fitted to ab initio data from Refs [23,37]; and the conductance and Berry phase are then computed by Landauer-Büttiker and momentum-space integration. Nothing in this chain fits a parameter to the target outcome Gxx = e2/h; the critical intensity A0 ≈ 7 nm^-1 emerges from the calculation. The Berry phase restoration is a consistency check on the same Hamiltonian, not an input forcing the transport result. The paper’s self-citations (Refs [9,10,30,32,40]) appear for background, the uniform-exchange model, the hybridization gap, photocurrent geometry, and CPL behavior; none is used as a uniqueness or existence proof for the dissipationless-light claim. The skeptic’s objection that the Floquet truncation is uncontrolled at A0 ≈ 7 nm^-1 is a validity/correctness concern about the assumed Hamiltonian, not a circularity, since the output does not reduce to the input by construction.

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

The central calculation rests on standard Floquet and Peierls machinery, the effective surface-state Hamiltonian from prior literature, and a mean-field treatment of magnetic dopants. No new particles or exotic entities are introduced. Material parameters (vF, lambda_h, tight-binding hoppings) are imported from earlier ab initio and experimental fits, while the unspecified hybridization gap is a residual free input. The main modeling assumptions are the uniform magnetization approximation and the Berry-phase proxy for backscattering.

free parameters (2)
  • Tight-binding parameters A∥, Az, E0, B∥, Bz = 0.5, 0.44, 0.3, 0.25, 0.25 eV
    Fitted to ab initio data for Bi2Te3 in Refs [23,37]; inherited from prior work, not fitted in this paper, but the transport results depend on them.
  • Hybridization gap Δh = not stated
    Appears in Eqs. (1) and (5); its value in the transport calculations is not given in the main text, so the band structure and conductance depend on an unspecified input.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The high-frequency Floquet expansion (van Vleck) truncated at leading order gives the correct effective Hamiltonian.
    Invoked in Eq. (4) following Refs [33,34,35]. Requires photon energy above the bandwidth and smallness of 1/omega corrections.
  • standard math Peierls substitution k -> k + eA/hbar captures the coupling of light to electrons.
    Used in Eq. (2) and throughout the Floquet derivation.
  • domain assumption Magnetic dopants in Bi2X3 are described by a uniform out-of-plane exchange term Mimp sigma_z.
    Used in Eq. (1); replaces disorder scattering by a mean-field gap.
  • domain assumption The hexagonal warping term lambda_h(kx^3 - 3ky^2 kx) sigma_z correctly models the C3v Fermi surface deformation of Bi2Te3/Bi2Se3.
    Taken from Refs [25,26,28], standard effective Hamiltonian for these surface states.
  • domain assumption The restoration of the Berry phase to pi implies suppression of magnetic-impurity backscattering.
    Used to connect Fig. 5(b) to transport; not directly derived from a scattering calculation.
  • domain assumption The Landauer-Buttiker conductance in the model with uniform Mimp reflects dissipation caused by magnetic impurities.
    Underlies the interpretation of Figs. 3 and 5(a) as measures of backscattering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light-induced dissipationless states in magnetic topological insulators with hexagonal warping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YPBOD2T

@misc{pith2026250210164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light-induced dissipationless states in magnetic topological insulators with hexagonal warping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YPBOD2T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10164}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic impurities in topological insulators (TIs) induce backscattering via magnetic torque, unlike pristine TIs where spin-orbit locking promotes dissipationless surface states. Here we reveal that one can suppress that unwanted backscattering and dissipation in magnetic TIs using high-frequency linearly polarized light (LPL). By carefully considering the hexagonal warping of the Fermi surface of the TI, we demonstrate how the coupling between Dirac surface states and LPL can effectively reduce backscattering on magnetic dopants, enhance carrier mobility and suppress resistance, even entirely. These findings open up avenues for designing ultra low-power sensing and spintronic technology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of backscattering in pristine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Contour plots of the surface band dispersion in momentum space of pristine Bi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Longitudinal conductance ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. Fu, C. L. Kane, and E. J. Mele, Physical Review Letters 98, 106803 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    M. Z. Hasan and J. E. Moore, Annu. Rev. Condens. Mat- ter Phys. 2, 55 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    W. Tian, W. Yu, J. Shi, and Y. Wang, Materials10, 814 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    SHEN, Topological Insulators: Dirac Equation in Condensed Matter (Springer, 2018)

    S.-Q. SHEN, Topological Insulators: Dirac Equation in Condensed Matter (Springer, 2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Tokura, K

    Y. Tokura, K. Yasuda, and A. Tsukazaki, Nature Re- views Physics 1, 126 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Chang, J

    C.-Z. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, K. Li, Y. Ou, P. Wei, L.-L. Wang,et al., Science 340, 167 (2013)

    2013

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Shafiei, F

    M. Shafiei, F. Fazileh, F. M. Peeters, and M. V. Miloše- vić, Physical Review Materials6, 074205 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Shafiei, F

    M. Shafiei, F. Fazileh, F. M. Peeters, and M. V. Miloše- vić, Physical Review B107, 195119 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Y.Fan, X.Kou, P.Upadhyaya, Q.Shao, L.Pan, M.Lang, X. Che, J. Tang, M. Montazeri, K. Murata,et al., Nature Nanotechnology 11, 352 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    X. Che, Q. Pan, B. Vareskic, J. Zou, L. Pan, P. Zhang, G. Yin, H. Wu, Q. Shao, P. Deng,et al., Advanced Ma- terials 32, 1907661 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    B. A. Bernevig, C. Felser, and H. Beidenkopf, Nature 603, 41 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    M. M. Otrokov, I. I. Klimovskikh, H. Bentmann, D. Es- tyunin, A.Zeugner, Z.S.Aliev, S.Gaß, A.Wolter, A.Ko- roleva, A. M. Shikin,et al., Nature 576, 416 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    M. He, H. Sun, and Q. L. He, Frontiers of Physics14, 1 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Liu and T

    J. Liu and T. Hesjedal, Advanced Materials35, 2102427 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    He, npj Quantum Materials5, 90 (2020)

    K. He, npj Quantum Materials5, 90 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. Teng, N. Liu, and Y. Li, Journal of Semiconductors 40, 081507 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Zhang, D

    W. Zhang, D. West, S. H. Lee, Y. Qiu, C.-Z. Chang, J. S. Moodera, Y. San Hor, S. Zhang, and W. Wu, Physical Review B 98, 115165 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Cayssol, B

    J. Cayssol, B. Dóra, F. Simon, and R. Moessner, phys- ica status solidi (RRL)–Rapid Research Letters 7, 101 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Gedik, Nature nanotechnology7, 96 (2012)

    J.McIver, D.Hsieh, H.Steinberg, P.Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Nature nanotechnology7, 96 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Zhang, P

    T. Zhang, P. Cheng, X. Chen, J.-F. Jia, X. Ma, K. He, L. Wang, H. Zhang, X. Dai, Z. Fang, et al. , Physical Review Letters 103, 266803 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Liu, X.-L

    C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, H. Zhang, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and S.-C. Zhang, Physical Review B82, 045122 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Zhang, C.-X

    H. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and 6 S.-C. Zhang, Nature Physics5, 438 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    Y. Chen, J. G. Analytis, J.-H. Chu, Z. Liu, S.-K. Mo, X.- L. Qi, H. Zhang, D. Lu, X. Dai, Z. Fang,et al., Science 325, 178 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Fu, Physical Review Letters103, 266801 (2009)

    L. Fu, Physical Review Letters103, 266801 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    K. W. Kim, T. Morimoto, and N. Nagaosa, Physical Review B 95, 035134 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Kuroda, M

    K. Kuroda, M. Arita, K. Miyamoto, M. Ye, J. Jiang, A. Kimura, E. Krasovskii, E. Chulkov, H. Iwasawa, T. Okuda, et al., Physical Review Letters 105, 076802 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Zhang, K

    Y. Zhang, K. He, C.-Z. Chang, C.-L. Song, L.-L. Wang, X. Chen, J.-F. Jia, Z. Fang, X. Dai, W.-Y. Shan,et al., Nature Physics 6, 584 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Shafiei, F

    M. Shafiei, F. Fazileh, F. M. Peeters, and M. V. Miloše- vić, Physical Review B106, 035119 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    T. Zhu, H. Wang, and H. Zhang, Physical Review B 107, 085151 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Shafiei, S

    M. Shafiei, S. S. Moayeri, and M. V. Milošević, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12040 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. Xu, J. Zhou, and J. Li, Advanced Science8, 2101508 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Mikami, S

    T. Mikami, S. Kitamura, K. Yasuda, N. Tsuji, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, Physical Review B93, 144307 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Choudhari and N

    T. Choudhari and N. Deo, Physical Review B 100, 035303 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Nam Do, V

    V. Nam Do, V. H. Nguyen, P. Dollfus, and A. Bournel, Journal of Applied Physics104 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    R.-L. Chu, J. Shi, and S.-Q. Shen, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics84, 085312 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    In Supplementary Material we show the corresponding calculations for Bi2Se3

  31. [39]

    Datta, Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    S. Datta, Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  32. [40]

    Shafiei, F

    M. Shafiei, F. Fazileh, F. M. Peeters, and M. V. Miloše- vić, SciPost Physics Core7, 024 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.