Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Revealing electron-lattice decoupling by Peltier thermometry and nanoscale thermal imaging in graphene

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Peltier thermometry reads electron temperature from lattice heat in graphene.

desk verdict Genuinely new Peltier-thermometry technique with a clever ratio extraction of Te; the quantitative claims need independent validation but the method deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21523 v1 pith:7AVK3HWW submitted 2025-06-26 cond-mat.mes-hall

Saurabh Kumar Srivastav , Tobias Völkl , Gary Quaresima , Yuri Myasoedov , Martin E. Huber , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi , L. S. Levitov
show 2 more authors
D. A. Pesin Eli Zeldov
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.50.Lw65.80.-g72.80.Vp07.20.Dt
keywords Peltierthermometryelectrontemperaturelatticegraphenep-njunctionelectron-phonondecouplingscanningthermalimagingJosephsonontipnonlinearthermoelectriceffect
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 introduces a scanning-probe thermometry that measures both the lattice and the electron temperature of a graphene device at cryogenic temperatures, which no existing technique can do simultaneously. By driving an alternating current through a gate-defined p-n junction and separating the odd-harmonic Peltier response from the even-harmonic Joule response, the authors show the lattice temperature signal alone yields the local electron temperature through a ratio that cancels all material parameters. The measurements reveal electron temperatures nearly three orders of magnitude above the lattice temperature at modest currents, and a cooling power that scales as the square of the electron temperature, indicating an unrecognized cooling pathway.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ratio identity $T_e(I) = T_0\sqrt{(T_{\mathrm{Pelt}}(I)/I)/(dT_{\mathrm{Pelt}}/dI|_{I=0})}$ (with the $2/3$ harmonic factor for alternating current), derived from $T_{\mathrm{Pelt}} = C\tilde{\Pi}\,T_e^2 I$, where $C$ is a thermal-conversion constant and $\tilde{\Pi}$ is the reduced Peltier coefficient. Its power is that $C$ and $\tilde{\Pi}$ cancel between the numerator and the low-current slope, so the electron temperature is determined purely by the measured current dependence of the lattice Peltier signal. The experimental companion is the junction-on-tip (JOT), a 50-nm superconducting Josephson junction scanned above the sample that records the local lattice temperature with sub-milliKelvin sensitivity, together with first- and second-harmonic lock-in separation of Peltier versus Joule heating.

What would settle it

Place an independently calibrated electron thermometer, such as a Johnson-noise or shot-noise thermometer, at the same p-n junction and compare its $T_e(I)$ to the formula with the $2/3$ harmonic factor; if the two diverge systematically, the proportionality $T_{\mathrm{Pelt}} \propto T_e^2 I$ and the cancellation of $C$ and $\tilde{\Pi}$ fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the electron temperature $T_e$ at a graphene p-n junction can be extracted directly from the measured nonlinear lattice temperature $T_{\mathrm{Pelt}}(I)$ without knowing any material-dependent constants. The derivation starts from the Mott form $\Pi = \tilde{\Pi}\,T_e^2$ and the local Peltier power $\dot{Q}_{\mathrm{Pelt}} = \tilde{\Pi}\,T_e^2 I$, which makes the junction's odd-harmonic lattice temperature $T_{\mathrm{Pelt}} = C\tilde{\Pi}\,T_e^2 I$. The unknown constant $C\tilde{\Pi}$ is eliminated by normalizing with the low-current derivative, giving $T_e(I) = T_0\sqrt{(T_{\mathrm{Pelt}}(I)/I)/(dT_{\mathrm{Pelt}}/dI|_{I=0})}$, with a factor $2/3$ entering in the harmonic expansion for an alternating drive. Using a nanoscale Josephson junction on a tip to image the first and second harmonics, the paper reports the first spatially resolved cryogenic maps of both $T_e$ and $T_l$ in graphene, with $T_e$ exceeding $T_l$ by nearly three orders of magnitude, and a cooling power scaling as $T_e^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the junction's odd-harmonic lattice-temperature signal is set purely by the local Peltier source, with one proportionality constant that stays the same at low and high current, and that the electronic Peltier coefficient follows the Mott square-in-$T_e$ form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method delivers simultaneous nanoscale maps of both electron and lattice temperatures at cryogenic temperatures, a capability that did not previously exist.
  • Because the extraction uses only measured ratios, it transfers to other van der Waals heterostructures without recalibration of material constants.
  • The observed $T_e^2$ cooling power, which decreases with carrier density, points to an electron-phonon cooling pathway not captured by existing models.
  • The cubic-in-current Peltier signal grows faster than the quadratic Joule heating, so under suitable bias nonlinear Peltier cooling could exceed Joule heating and enable absolute cooling at cryogenic temperatures.
  • Gate-defined p-n junctions embedded in Hall bars or moiré devices could probe local electron temperature at multiple points without perturbing the main transport channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $T_e^2$ cooling law holds generally, the same harmonic decomposition could map hot-carrier dynamics in twisted bilayer graphene, where local electron temperature is thought to control correlated phases.
  • Cross-validating the method against a Johnson-noise or shot-noise thermometer placed at the same junction would directly test the Mott-form assumption that underpins the cancellation of material parameters.
  • The $2/3$ harmonic correction could be checked by comparing ac-derived $T_e$ with a slowly swept quasi-dc measurement of the Peltier envelope.
  • Because $\tau_i$ is extracted locally at each doping, the same data could map spatial variations in defect-assisted cooling across a device, not just at a single junction.
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 introduces a scanning probe technique, Peltier thermometry, based on a MoRe Josephson junction on a tip (JOT), that images the lattice temperature of a graphene p-n junction device at cryogenic temperatures while extracting the local electron temperature from the nonlinear current dependence of the odd-harmonic Peltier signal. The central derivation, Eqs. (11)-(15), shows that the electron temperature T_e(I) can be obtained from the ratio of the measured lattice Peltier temperature T_Pelt(I) to its low-current slope, without knowledge of the thermal proportionality constant or the reduced Peltier coefficient. The paper reports spatial maps of T_Pelt and T_Joule for uniform and p-n-p/n-p-n doping configurations, reproduces them with two-step COMSOL simulations, and uses the extracted T_e(I) to infer an electron-phonon cooling power scaling as T_e^2 and a doping-dependent inelastic scattering time. The authors claim the first simultaneous cryogenic nanoscale imaging of electron and lattice temperatures, with electron temperatures exceeding lattice temperatures by up to three orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the central assumption holds, this is a significant experimental advance: it addresses a real gap in nanoscale cryogenic thermometry by providing simultaneous, spatially resolved access to both electron and lattice temperatures in a van der Waals heterostructure. The ratio-based extraction in Eq. (15) is elegant and parameter-free in the sense that it eliminates both C and Π~_j, and the JOT sensor offers high thermal sensitivity (2.6 µK/Hz^1/2) with demonstrated nanoscale imaging. The measured maps are qualitatively and quantitatively consistent with COMSOL simulations, and the work yields a falsifiable prediction about the T_e^2 cooling power. However, the load-bearing premise of the method is the factorization Π = Π~ T_e^2 with C and Π~ independent of current and electron temperature, and the numerical validation largely re-imports this same factorization. The paper's strongest new claim, the existence of a previously unrecognized T_e^2 cooling pathway, therefore rests on an assumption whose validity is not independently tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (6) and (15), section 'Derivation of electron temperature at p-n junction'] Equation (15) is algebraically correct only if C and Π~_j are independent of current I and of the electron temperature T_e. The paper states in Eq. (1) that corrections of order T_e^2/ε_F^2 are negligible, but it provides no quantitative bound. Given that the claimed T_e can exceed the lattice temperature by nearly three orders of magnitude, the Mott-form Π = Π~ T_e^2 could acquire T_e-dependent corrections that are not obviously small. A quantitative estimate of (T_e/ε_F)^2 at the highest bias, or an experimental check of the predicted T_Pelt ∝ T_e^2 scaling by varying the base temperature, is needed before the high-current T_e values and the extracted cooling exponent can be considered established.
  2. [Extended Data Figs. 6-8 and Methods Eq. (M7)] The two-step numerical validation is largely self-referential: the transport equation Eq. (M7) already contains the Peltier contribution with Π = Π~ T_e^2, and the COMSOL heat-diffusion step uses the same Peltier source term to produce the lattice temperature T_Pelt. The 'striking agreement' between the direct T_e from the electronic simulation and the indirect T_e derived from T_Pelt using Eq. (15) is therefore an internal consistency check rather than an independent test of the assumed factorization. An independent thermometry method, such as Johnson-Nyquist or shot-noise thermometry co-located at the junction, or a measurement that varies the base temperature T_0 over a range that changes T_e/T_0, would provide the missing external validation.
  3. [Methods, 'Heat transport equations', and Extended Data Fig. 5] The cooling-power exponent δ = 2 is selected by fitting T_Pelt(I) to the form T_Pelt(I) = β(α I^2 + T_0^δ)^(2/δ) I, which already assumes the T_e^2 dependence of the Peltier coefficient. The inelastic scattering time τ_i is then treated as a free parameter, extracted by fitting the simulated T_e(I) to the experimental values. Consequently, the reported 'previously unrecognized electron cooling pathway' with cooling power scaling as T_e^2 and τ_i ∝ |n| is a fit within the assumed model, not an independent determination. The manuscript should either provide a direct measurement of the cooling power that does not assume the Peltier factorization, or explicitly reframe these results as model-dependent inferences.
  4. [Page 4, text following Eq. (5)] Equation (6) relies on the assertion that the thermal relaxation length is short compared to the device length L, so that the local Peltier source at the p-n junction dominates over the Thomson contribution and the Au/graphene Peltier contributions. This assertion is not verified. If the thermal relaxation length were comparable to L, the odd-harmonic lattice temperature would include a nonlocal contribution and the simple proportionality T_Pelt = C Q_Pelt^j would fail. The authors should provide an estimate of the relaxation length from the extracted κ, τ_i, and thermal conductivities, or demonstrate the dominance experimentally by varying L or the junction position.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Extended Data Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a typo, 'Sama as (a)', which should read 'Same as (a)'.
  2. [Reference 62] The journal name 'IEEE Trans. Appiled Supercond.' contains a typographical error; it should be 'Applied'.
  3. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 captions] The notation for the Peltier temperature is inconsistent: the text uses T_Pelt, while some figure labels use T_PeltP (e.g., Fig. 2c,d and Fig. 4d-f). Please unify the notation.
  4. [Methods, Eq. (M20) and main text Eq. (15)] The main text presents Eq. (15) as the central result, but the actual data analysis uses Eq. (M20), which includes a factor 2/3 correction from the harmonic expansion of the ac current. The relationship between these two equations should be stated more prominently in the main text to avoid confusion about what is measured.
  5. [Data and code availability] The data and code availability statements say that materials are available 'on reasonable request' from the corresponding author; given the emphasis on the numerical validation, depositing the COMSOL models and analysis scripts in a public repository would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Simulation validation of Eq. 15 embeds the same Π~Te^2 and Te^2-cooling assumptions it claims to corroborate, and the Te^2 cooling-law 'confirmation' is a fitted input; the central self-calibration formula itself is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Numerical simulations (main text, pp. 12–13); Eqs. M4, M6, M7; Extended Data Fig. 6b]
    "the open diamonds show Te(I) derived from the surface lattice temperature TPelt calculated in the second step using Eq. 15. In this step, 3D heat diffusion equations are solved outside the graphene having only the energy relaxation rate as an input with no direct information on Te. The agreement between the two results is striking, corroborating the validity of the developed technique."

    The simulated 'direct' Te solves Eq. M7, which already contains Π = Π~Te^2 (Eq. M4) and the Te^2 cooling law (Eq. M6). The COMSOL lattice TPelt is then sourced from the same Q̇Pelt = Π~j Te^2 I and P_e-ph(Te). Equation 15 is just the algebraic inverse of TPelt = C Π~j Te^2 I, calibrated at low current. Hence the indirect Te reproduces the input Te by construction; the agreement tests nothing about whether Π~ or C are current/Te-independent or whether the Mott form holds at elevated Te.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Discussion (p. 13); Methods 'Heat transport equations'; Extended Data Fig. 5]
    "Figures 4e,f show that the measured Peltier signal has pure I3 dependence at high currents, which confirms the Te2 dependence of the cooling power as shown in Extended Data Fig. 5 and discussed in Methods."

    The δ=2 exponent is not measured independently: Extended Data Fig. 5 fits TPelt(I) to Eq. M14, a model that already assumes TPelt ∝ Π~Te^2 I. The observed I^3 high-current scaling implies δ=2 only under that assumed Π~Te^2 factorization; any Te-dependence of Π~ would shift the inferred δ. The same δ=2 law (Eq. M6) is then used in the simulations from which τ_i is fitted, so the subsequent claim that the cooling power scales as Te^2 and decreases with doping is a restatement of the fitted model, not an independent finding.

full rationale

The central extraction formula, Eq. 15, is derived by dividing Eq. 11 by its low-current derivative; algebraically it removes the unknown C and Π~j. This is a legitimate self-calibration, not a circular step by itself. The circularity enters in the paper's validation strategy and in the cooling-power claim. The two-step simulation starts from transport equations (Eq. M7) that already assume Π = Π~Te^2 (Eq. M4) and a Te^2 − T0^2 cooling law (Eq. M6); the COMSOL lattice-temperature step sources TPelt from the same Q̇Pelt = Π~j Te^2 I and P_e-ph(Te). Applying Eq. 15 to that simulated TPelt therefore returns the input Te by construction. The sentence 'the agreement between the two results is striking, corroborating the validity of the developed technique' overstates the support: the agreement tests the numerical implementation, not the physical premise that Π~ and the thermal-proportionality constant C are independent of current and Te. Similarly, the claim that the measured I^3 dependence 'confirms the Te^2 dependence of the cooling power' is not an independent confirmation; Extended Data Fig. 5 fits TPelt(I) to Eq. M14, a model built on the same TPelt ∝ Π~Te^2 I assumption, and the inferred δ = 2 is exactly what that model plus the I^3 scaling requires. The reported doping dependence of τ_i is subsequently obtained by matching simulations that use this same δ = 2 law to the experimental Te. None of this makes Eq. 15 wrong, but it means the paper's two headline extras—the simulation-based validation and the Te^2 cooling pathway—are partly guaranteed by the assumptions already in the model. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-from-authors pattern was found; references to prior work by the same group (e.g., [48,52]) support the interpretation of τ_i but are not the basis of the central derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The Peltier thermometry extraction rests on the Mott-form Peltier coefficient and the dominance of the local junction Peltier source; these are domain assumptions not independently validated. The cooling pathway claims rest on the ad hoc cooling-power form (Eq M6) and the fitted per-doping inelastic time tau_i. The material thermal conductivities in the COMSOL simulation are extrapolated from literature and are additional unverified inputs, but they do not enter the ratio-based Te extraction.

free parameters (3)
  • tau_i (inelastic scattering time) = Values in Fig 4n, roughly 1-100 ps depending on doping
    Per-doping free parameter in the cooling power (Eq M6), fitted by matching the simulated Te to the experimental Te curves (Figs 4h,j). The doping dependence of tau_i is reported as the main new physical finding.
  • a and b in TPelt = a(I + b I^3) = Not tabulated; per-curve fits in Figs 4e,f
    Fitting parameters used to obtain the smooth TPelt(I) curves and to derive Te via Eq M20. The cubic coefficient b carries the physics but is purely empirical.
  • delta (cooling-power exponent) = 2
    The cooling power ansatz P ~ (Te^delta - T0^delta) is fit to the data in Extended Data Fig 5; delta=2 is chosen because it gives the best fit. This is a model selection step that underlies the claim of a Te^2 cooling law.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Local electronic equilibrium with well-defined Te holds, and the Thomson relation Pi = S Te is valid even out of global equilibrium.
    Invoked before Eq 1 and in Methods around Eq M2; necessary for the whole Peltier-thermometry framework.
  • domain assumption The Mott formula for the Peltier coefficient, Pi = (pi^2 kB^2 Te^2 / 3e) d ln sigma/dn / nu(epsilon_F), applies in the experimental regime, with corrections of order Te^2/epsilon_F^2 negligible.
    Eq 1 is the foundation of Eqs 2-7 and the Te extraction; the validity at elevated Te is asserted but not independently tested.
  • domain assumption The phonon (lattice) bath remains at the base temperature T0, so the electron cooling term only couples to a cold reservoir.
    Stated in Methods, Heat transport equations: 'the phonon bath... always remains close to the base temperature'. This underpins the independent treatment of the electron and phonon subsystems.
  • domain assumption The thermal relaxation length is short compared to the device length, so the dominant odd-harmonic source at the junction is the local Peltier effect, not Thomson or contact effects.
    Page 4, after Eq 5: 'Provided that the thermal relaxation length is short compared to L, the dominant odd-harmonic power source at the p-n junctions is the local Peltier effect.' This justifies Eq 6 and the ratio method.
  • domain assumption Transport currents are linear in gradients (fluxes linear in electric field and temperature gradient), with transport coefficients that are functions of local Te; nonlinearity enters only through the Te dependence.
    Methods, Eqs M1-M3 and M7: the transport equations are derived assuming small deviations from local equilibrium. The authors note this is an assumption and that the equations are nevertheless used in the nonlinear regime.
  • ad hoc to paper The electron-phonon cooling power takes the form P = -(kB/2) nu(epsilon_F)/tau_i (Te^2 - T0^2) with a constant tau_i.
    Eq M6 is chosen 'to best fit the experimental data at low doping' and is deferred for justification; it is not derived from a microscopic model. This form is the basis for extracting tau_i and the claimed Te^2 cooling law.
  • domain assumption Electrochemical potential and Te are continuous across junctions; junction resistances are small compared to the sample resistance.
    Methods, after Eq M2: used to match solutions across the p-n junctions and to set boundary conditions at the Au contacts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing electron-lattice decoupling by Peltier thermometry and nanoscale thermal imaging in graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7AVK3HWW

@misc{pith2026250621523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing electron-lattice decoupling by Peltier thermometry and nanoscale thermal imaging in graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7AVK3HWW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21523}
}
read the original abstract

Electrical currents in low-dimensional quantum materials can drive electrons far from equilibrium, creating stark imbalance between electron and lattice temperatures. Yet, no existing methods enable simultaneous nanoscale mapping of both temperatures at cryogenic conditions. Here, we introduce a scanning probe technique that images the local lattice temperature and extracts electron temperature at gate-defined p-n junctions in graphene. By applying an alternating electrical current and analyzing first- and second-harmonic responses, we disentangle Joule heating from the Peltier effect-the latter encoding the local electron temperature. This enables the first spatially resolved cryogenic imaging of both phenomena in graphene. Even under modest current bias, the electron temperature increases by nearly three orders of magnitude more than the lattice temperature, revealing strong electron-phonon decoupling and indicating a previously unrecognized electron cooling pathway. Our minimally invasive method is broadly applicable to van der Waals heterostructures and opens new avenues for probing energy dissipation and non-equilibrium transport in correlated and hydrodynamic electron systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Imaging the Peltier effect at Au/graphene junctions. a, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Doping dependence of Joule dissipation and Peltier effect at p-n junction. a, Two-probe sample resistance 𝑅𝑅2𝑃𝑃 as a function of density in the central 𝑐𝑐 and outer 𝑟𝑟 = 𝑙𝑙 graphene regions. b, 𝑇𝑇Joule at the right p-n junction as a function of 𝑐𝑐 and 𝑟𝑟 = 𝑙𝑙, taken at 𝐼𝐼 = 17 µA rms. c, 𝑇𝑇Pelt at the right p-n junction measured simultaneously with (b). d, Linecuts of 𝑅𝑅2𝑃𝑃 along the black solid and dashed horizonta… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Nonlinear Peltier effect at graphene junction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Meric, M

    I. Meric, M. Y. Han, A. F. Young, B. Ozyilmaz, P. Kim, and K. L. Shepard, ''Current saturation in zero-bandgap, top-gated graphene field-effect transistors'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 3, 654–659 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    J. C. W. Song and L. S. Levitov, ''Energy flows in graphene: hot carrier dynamics and cooling'', J. Phys. Condens. Matter 27, 164201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    M. A. Yamoah, W. Yang, E. Pop, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, ''High-Velocity Saturation in Graphene Encapsulated by Hexagonal Boron Nitride'', ACS Nano 11, 9914–9919 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    D. K. Efetov, R.-J. Shiue, Y. Gao, B. Skinner, E. D. Walsh, H. Choi, J. Zheng, C. Tan, G. Grosso, C. Peng, J. Hone, K. C. Fong, and D. Englund, ''Fast thermal relaxation in cavity-coupled graphene bolometers with a Johnson noise read-out'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 797–801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    W. Yang, S. Berthou, X. Lu, Q. Wilmart, A. Denis, M. Rosticher, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, G. Fève, J.-M. Berroir, G. Zhang, C. Voisin, E. Baudin, and B. Plaçais, ''A graphene Zener–Klein transistor cooled by a hyperbolic substrate'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 47–52 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Massicotte, G

    M. Massicotte, G. Soavi, A. Principi, and K.-J. Tielrooij, ''Hot carriers in graphene – fundamentals and applications'', Nanoscale 13, 8376–8411 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A. I. Berdyugin, N. Xin, H. Gao, S. Slizovskiy, Z. Dong, S. Bhattacharjee, P. Kumaravadivel, S. Xu, L. A. Ponomarenko, M. Holwill, D. A. Bandurin, M. Kim, Y. Cao, M. T. Greenaway, K. S. Novoselov, I. V. Grigorieva, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, V. I. Fal’ko, L. S. Levitov, R. K. Kumar, and A. K. Geim, ''Out-of-equilibrium criticalities in graphene superlatti...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Schmitt, P

    A. Schmitt, P. Vallet, D. Mele, M. Rosticher, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Bocquillon, G. Fève, J. M. Berroir, C. Voisin, J. Cayssol, M. O. Goerbig, J. Troost, E. Baudin, and B. Plaçais, ''Mesoscopic Klein-Schwinger effect in graphene'', Nat. Phys. 19, 830–835 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Nathawat, I

    J. Nathawat, I. Mansaray, K. Sakanashi, N. Wada, M. D. Randle, S. Yin, K. He, N. Arabchigavkani, R. Dixit, B. Barut, M. Zhao, H. Ramamoorthy, R. Somphonsane, G.-H. Kim, K. 15 Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, N. Aoki, J. E. Han, and J. P. Bird, ''Signatures of hot carriers and hot phono...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, ''Correlated insulator behaviour at half-filling in magic-angle graphene superlattices'', Nature 556, 80–84 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    X. Lu, P. Stepanov, W. Yang, M. Xie, M. A. Aamir, I. Das, C. Urgell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zhang, A. Bachtold, A. H. MacDonald, and D. K. Efetov, ''Superconductors, orbital magnets and correlated states in magic-angle bilayer graphene'', Nature 574, 653–657 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    A. L. Sharpe, E. J. Fox, A. W. Barnard, J. Finney, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. A. Kastner, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, ''Emergent ferromagnetism near three-quarters filling in twisted bilayer graphene'', Science 365, 605–608 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, A. Ghazaryan, T. Holder, J. R. Ehrets, E. M. Spanton, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Berg, M. Serbyn, and A. F. Young, ''Half- and quarter-metals in rhombohedral trilayer graphene'', Nature 598, 429–433 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J.-H. Chu, T. Cao, L. Fu, W. Yao, C.-Z. Chang, D. Cobden, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, ''Observation of fractionally quantized anomalous Hall effect'', Nature 622, 7...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, A. P. Reddy, J. Yang, J. Seo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and L. Ju, ''Fractional quantum anomalous Hall effect in multilayer graphene'', Nature 626, 759–764 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    J. A. Sulpizio, L. Ella, A. Rozen, J. Birkbeck, D. J. Perello, D. Dutta, M. Ben-Shalom, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, T. Holder, R. Queiroz, A. Principi, A. Stern, T. Scaffidi, A. K. Geim, and S. Ilani, ''Visualizing Poiseuille flow of hydrodynamic electrons'', Nature 576, 75–79 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    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'...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Aharon-Steinberg, T

    A. Aharon-Steinberg, T. Völkl, A. Kaplan, A. K. Pariari, I. Roy, T. Holder, Y. Wolf, A. Y. Meltzer, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, B. Yan, G. Falkovich, L. S. Levitov, M. Hücker, and E. Zeldov, ''Direct observation of vortices in an electron fluid'', Nature 607, 74–80 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Talanov, J

    A. Talanov, J. Waissman, A. Hui, B. Skinner, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Kim, ''Observation of Electronic Viscous Dissipation in Graphene Magneto-thermal Transport'', arXiv:2406.13799 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Romagnoli, V

    M. Romagnoli, V. Sorianello, M. Midrio, F. H. L. Koppens, C. Huyghebaert, D. Neumaier, P. Galli, W. Templ, A. D’Errico, and A. C. Ferrari, ''Graphene-based integrated photonics for next- generation datacom and telecom'', Nat. Rev. Mater. 3, 392–414 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Y. Chen, Y. Li, Y. Zhao, H. Zhou, and H. Zhu, ''Highly efficient hot electron harvesting from graphene before electron-hole thermalization'', Sci. Adv. 5, eaax9958 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    C. D. S. Brites, P. P. Lima, N. J. O. Silva, A. Millán, V. S. Amaral, F. Palacio, and L. D. Carlos, ''Thermometry at the nanoscale'', Nanoscale 4, 4799 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    K. Kim, W. Jeong, W. Lee, and P. Reddy, ''Ultra-High Vacuum Scanning Thermal Microscopy for Nanometer Resolution Quantitative Thermometry'', ACS Nano 6, 4248–4257 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Zhang, W

    Y. Zhang, W. Zhu, F. Hui, M. Lanza, T. Borca-Tasciuc, and M. Muñoz Rojo, ''A Review on 16 Principles and Applications of Scanning Thermal Microscopy (SThM)'', Adv. Funct. Mater. 30, 1900892 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    J. S. Reparaz, E. Chavez-Angel, M. R. Wagner, B. Graczykowski, J. Gomis-Bresco, F. Alzina, and C. M. Sotomayor Torres, ''A novel contactless technique for thermal field mapping and thermal conductivity determination: Two-Laser Raman Thermometry'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 034901 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    A. C. Jones and M. B. Raschke, ''Thermal Infrared Near-Field Spectroscopy'', Nano Lett. 12, 1475–1481 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Kucsko, P

    G. Kucsko, P. C. Maurer, N. Y. Yao, M. Kubo, H. J. Noh, P. K. Lo, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, ''Nanometre-scale thermometry in a living cell'', Nature 500, 54–58 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Neumann, I

    P. Neumann, I. Jakobi, F. Dolde, C. Burk, R. Reuter, G. Waldherr, J. Honert, T. Wolf, A. Brunner, J. H. Shim, D. Suter, H. Sumiya, J. Isoya, and J. Wrachtrup, ''High-Precision Nanoscale Temperature Sensing Using Single Defects in Diamond'', Nano Lett. 13, 2738–2742 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Halbertal, J

    D. Halbertal, J. Cuppens, M. Ben Shalom, L. Embon, N. Shadmi, Y. Anahory, H. R. Naren, J. Sarkar, A. Uri, Y. Ronen, Y. Myasoedov, L. S. Levitov, E. Joselevich, A. K. Geim, and E. Zeldov, ''Nanoscale thermal imaging of dissipation in quantum systems'', Nature 539, 407–410 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Aharon-Steinberg, A

    A. Aharon-Steinberg, A. Marguerite, D. J. Perello, K. Bagani, T. Holder, Y. Myasoedov, L. S. Levitov, A. K. Geim, and E. Zeldov, ''Long-range nontopological edge currents in charge- neutral graphene'', Nature 593, 528–534 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Völkl, A

    T. Völkl, A. Aharon-Steinberg, T. Holder, E. Alpern, N. Banu, A. K. Pariari, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, M. Hücker, and E. Zeldov, ''Demonstration and imaging of cryogenic magneto- thermoelectric cooling in a van der Waals semimetal'', Nat. Phys. 20, 976–983 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    K. C. Fong and K. C. Schwab, ''Ultrasensitive and Wide-Bandwidth Thermal Measurements of Graphene at Low Temperatures'', Phys. Rev. X 2, 031006 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Jezouin, F

    S. Jezouin, F. D. Parmentier, A. Anthore, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, Y. Jin, and F. Pierre, ''Quantum Limit of Heat Flow Across a Single Electronic Channel'', Science 342, 601–604 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Banerjee, M

    M. Banerjee, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, D. E. Feldman, Y. Oreg, and A. Stern, ''Observation of half-integer thermal Hall conductance'', Nature 559, 205–210 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    S. K. Srivastav, M. R. Sahu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Banerjee, and A. Das, ''Universal quantized thermal conductance in graphene'', Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw5798 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Waissman, L

    J. Waissman, L. E. Anderson, A. V. Talanov, Z. Yan, Y. J. Shin, D. H. Najafabadi, M. Rezaee, X. Feng, D. G. Nocera, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, B. Skinner, K. A. Matveev, and P. Kim, ''Electronic thermal transport measurement in low-dimensional materials with graphene non- loca...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Spietz, K

    L. Spietz, K. W. Lehnert, I. Siddiqi, and R. J. Schoelkopf, ''Primary Electronic Thermometry Using the Shot Noise of a Tunnel Junction'', Science 300, 1929–1932 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Giazotto, T

    F. Giazotto, T. T. Heikkilä, A. Luukanen, A. M. Savin, and J. P. Pekola, ''Opportunities for mesoscopics in thermometry and refrigeration: Physics and applications'', Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 217–274 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Altimiras, H

    C. Altimiras, H. le Sueur, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, D. Mailly, and F. Pierre, ''Non-equilibrium edge-channel spectroscopy in the integer quantum Hall regime'', Nat. Phys. 6, 34–39 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Venkatachalam, S

    V. Venkatachalam, S. Hart, L. Pfeiffer, K. West, and A. Yacoby, ''Local thermometry of neutral 17 modes on the quantum Hall edge'', Nat. Phys. 8, 676–681 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Giazotto and M

    F. Giazotto and M. J. Martínez-Pérez, ''The Josephson heat interferometer'', Nature 492, 401– 405 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Faivre, D

    T. Faivre, D. Golubev, and J. P. Pekola, ''Josephson junction based thermometer and its application in bolometry'', J. Appl. Phys. 116, 094302 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    G.-H. Lee, D. K. Efetov, W. Jung, L. Ranzani, E. D. Walsh, T. A. Ohki, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, P. Kim, D. Englund, and K. C. Fong, ''Graphene-based Josephson junction microwave bolometer'', Nature 586, 42–46 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Katti, H

    R. Katti, H. S. Arora, O.-P. Saira, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. C. Schwab, M. L. Roukes, and S. Nadj-Perge, ''Hot Carrier Thermalization and Josephson Inductance Thermometry in a Graphene-Based Microwave Circuit'', Nano Lett. 23, 4136–4141 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Q. Weng, W. Deng, S. Komiyama, T. Sasaki, H. Imada, W. Lu, I. Hosako, and Y. Kim, ''Nanoscale thermal imaging of hot electrons by cryogenic terahertz scanning noise microscopy'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 95, 063705 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    I. J. Vera-Marun, J. J. van den Berg, F. K. Dejene, and B. J. van Wees, ''Direct electronic measurement of Peltier cooling and heating in graphene'', Nat. Commun. 7, 11525 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Dover Publications, 2006

    DKC MacDonald, Thermoelectricity: an introduction to the principles. Dover Publications, 2006

    2006

  40. [48]

    Halbertal, M

    D. Halbertal, M. Ben Shalom, A. Uri, K. Bagani, A. Y. Meltzer, I. Marcus, Y. Myasoedov, J. Birkbeck, L. S. Levitov, A. K. Geim, and E. Zeldov, ''Imaging resonant dissipation from individual atomic defects in graphene'', Science 358, 1303–1306 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    I. O. Kulik, ''Non-linear thermoelectricity and cooling effects in metallic constrictions'', J. Phys. Condens. Matter 6, 9737–9744 (1994)

    1994

  42. [50]

    Zebarjadi, K

    M. Zebarjadi, K. Esfarjani, and A. Shakouri, ''Nonlinear Peltier effect in semiconductors'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 122104 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    Marguerite, J

    A. Marguerite, J. Birkbeck, A. Aharon-Steinberg, D. Halbertal, K. Bagani, I. Marcus, Y. Myasoedov, A. K. Geim, D. J. Perello, and E. Zeldov, ''Imaging work and dissipation in the quantum Hall state in graphene'', Nature 575, 628–633 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    J. F. Kong, L. Levitov, D. Halbertal, and E. Zeldov, ''Resonant electron-lattice cooling in graphene'', Phys. Rev. B 97, 245416 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Krishna Kumar, G

    R. Krishna Kumar, G. Li, R. Bertini, S. Chaudhary, K. Nowakowski, J. M. Park, S. Castilla, Z. Zhan, P. A. Pantaleón, H. Agarwal, S. Batlle-Porro, E. Icking, M. Ceccanti, A. Reserbat-Plantey, G. Piccinini, J. Barrier, E. Khestanova, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, C. Stampfer, G. Re...

    2025

  46. [54]

    Vasyukov, Y

    D. Vasyukov, Y. Anahory, L. Embon, D. Halbertal, J. Cuppens, L. Neeman, A. Finkler, Y. Segev, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, M. E. Huber, and E. Zeldov, ''A scanning superconducting quantum interference device with single electron spin sensitivity'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 639– ...

    2013

  47. [55]

    M. Wyss, K. Bagani, D. Jetter, E. Marchiori, A. Vervelaki, B. Gross, J. Ridderbos, S. Gliga, C. Schönenberger, and M. Poggio, ''Magnetic, Thermal, and Topographic Imaging with a Nanometer-Scale SQUID-On-Lever Scanning Probe'', Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 034002 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    C. L. Tschirhart, M. Serlin, H. Polshyn, A. Shragai, Z. Xia, J. Zhu, Y. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. 18 Taniguchi, M. E. Huber, and A. F. Young, ''Imaging orbital ferromagnetism in a moiré Chern insulator'', Science 372, 1323–1327 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Grover, M

    S. Grover, M. Bocarsly, A. Uri, P. Stepanov, G. Di Battista, I. Roy, J. Xiao, A. Y. Meltzer, Y. Myasoedov, K. Pareek, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Yan, A. Stern, E. Berg, D. K. Efetov, and E. Zeldov, ''Chern mosaic and Berry-curvature magnetism in magic-angle graphene'', Nat....

    2022

  50. [58]

    A. Noah, H. Alpern, S. Singh, A. Gutfreund, G. Zisman, T. D. Feld, A. Vakahi, S. Remennik, Y. Paltiel, M. E. Huber, V. Barrena, H. Suderow, H. Steinberg, O. Millo, and Y. Anahory, ''Interior and Edge Magnetization in Thin Exfoliated CrGeTe3 Films'', Nano Lett. 22, 3165–3172 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Bocarsly, M

    M. Bocarsly, M. Uzan, I. Roy, S. Grover, J. Xiao, Z. Dong, M. Labendik, A. Uri, M. E. Huber, Y. Myasoedov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Yan, L. S. Levitov, and E. Zeldov, ''De Haas–van Alphen spectroscopy and magnetic breakdown in moiré graphene'', Science 383, 42–48 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Bocarsly, I

    M. Bocarsly, I. Roy, V. Bhardwaj, M. Uzan, P. Ledwith, G. Shavit, N. Banu, Y. Zhou, Y. Myasoedov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Oreg, D. E. Parker, Y. Ronen, and E. Zeldov, ''Coulomb interactions and migrating Dirac cones imaged by local quantum oscillations in twisted graphen...

    2025

  53. [61]

    Bagani, J

    K. Bagani, J. Sarkar, A. Uri, M. L. Rappaport, M. E. Huber, E. Zeldov, and Y. Myasoedov, ''Sputtered Mo66Re34 SQUID-on-Tip for High-Field Magnetic and Thermal Nanoimaging'', Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 044062 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    M. E. Huber, P. A. Neil, R. G. Benson, D. A. Burns, A. M. Corey, C. S. Flynn, Y. Kitaygorodskaya, O. Massihzadeh, J. M. Martinis, and G. C. Hilton, ''DC SQUID series array amplifiers with 120 MHz bandwidth'', IEEE Trans. Appiled Supercond. 11, 1251–1256 (2001)

    2001

  55. [63]

    E. H. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, ''Acoustic phonon scattering limited carrier mobility in two- dimensional extrinsic graphene'', Phys. Rev. B 77, 115449 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    Tse and S

    W.-K. Tse and S. Das Sarma, ''Energy relaxation of hot Dirac fermions in graphene'', Phys. Rev. B 79, 235406 (2009)

    2009

  57. [65]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, ''Electronic Cooling in Graphene'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 206410 (2009)

    2009

  58. [66]

    J. C. W. Song, M. Y. Reizer, and L. S. Levitov, ''Disorder-Assisted Electron-Phonon Scattering and Cooling Pathways in Graphene'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 106602 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    K. S. Tikhonov, I. V. Gornyi, V. Y. Kachorovskii, and A. D. Mirlin, ''Resonant supercollisions and electron-phonon heat transfer in graphene'', Phys. Rev. B 97, 085415 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Zheng, L

    J.-C. Zheng, L. Zhang, A. V Kretinin, S. V Morozov, Y. B. Wang, T. Wang, X. Li, F. Ren, J. Zhang, C.-Y. Lu, J.-C. Chen, M. Lu, H.-Q. Wang, A. K. Geim, and K. S. Novoselov, ''High thermal conductivity of hexagonal boron nitride laminates'', 2D Mater. 3, 011004 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    G. R. Jaffe, K. J. Smith, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. G. Lagally, M. A. Eriksson, and V. W. Brar, ''Thickness-Dependent Cross-Plane Thermal Conductivity Measurements of Exfoliated Hexagonal Boron Nitride'', ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 15, 12545–12550 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    E. K. Sichel, R. E. Miller, M. S. Abrahams, and C. J. Buiocchi, ''Heat capacity and thermal conductivity of hexagonal pyrolytic boron nitride'', Phys. Rev. B 13, 4607–4611 (1976)

    1976

  63. [71]

    S. J. Mason, D. J. Wesenberg, A. Hojem, M. Manno, C. Leighton, and B. L. Zink, ''Violation of the Wiedemann-Franz law through reduction of thermal conductivity in gold thin films'', Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 065003 (2020). 19

    2020

  64. [72]

    Yurgens, ''Temperature distribution in a large Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+ mesa'', Phys

    A. Yurgens, ''Temperature distribution in a large Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+ mesa'', Phys. Rev. B 83, 184501 (2011)

    2011

  65. [73]

    Winnerl, M

    S. Winnerl, M. Orlita, P. Plochocka, P. Kossacki, M. Potemski, T. Winzer, E. Malic, A. Knorr, M. Sprinkle, C. Berger, W. A. de Heer, H. Schneider, and M. Helm, ''Carrier Relaxation in Epitaxial Graphene Photoexcited Near the Dirac Point'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 237401 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    Tielrooij, N

    K.-J. Tielrooij, N. C. H. Hesp, A. Principi, M. B. Lundeberg, E. A. A. Pogna, L. Banszerus, Z. Mics, M. Massicotte, P. Schmidt, D. Davydovskaya, D. G. Purdie, I. Goykhman, G. Soavi, A. Lombardo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Bonn, D. Turchinovich, C. Stampfer, A. C. Ferrari, G...

    2018

  67. [75]

    We can then use the result ing 𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒(𝑥𝑥) to source the COMSOL 3D simulation as heat driven into the substrate in the 𝑧𝑧 direction at each point along the graphene according to Eq

    Thus, the 𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 solution along the graphene strip can be derived without reference to the rest of the system. We can then use the result ing 𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒(𝑥𝑥) to source the COMSOL 3D simulation as heat driven into the substrate in the 𝑧𝑧 direction at each point along the graphene accord...

  68. [76]

    In this scenario, most of the Joule heating 𝐽𝐽2 𝜎𝜎⁄ occurs in the outer regions where 𝐽𝐽2 𝜎𝜎⁄ > 𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒−𝑝𝑝ℎ. In contrast, the central region experiences relatively low local Joule heating, yet 𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒−𝑝𝑝ℎ > 𝐽𝐽2 𝜎𝜎⁄ due to heat conducted inward by electrons from the outer regions (Ex...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.