Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 85 references

Enhanced Screening in Epitaxial Graphene via Nearly Free-Electron Metal Intercalation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Intercalating a bilayer of indium under epitaxial graphene creates a strongly screening interface, with the substrate dielectric constant extracted as $\epsilon_s = 622 \pm 49$ from plasmaron band separations.

desk verdict Qualitative screening enhancement from bilayer In intercalation looks real, but the headline εs=622±49 is not reproducible from the paper's own calibration formula. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10580 v1 pith:GE5QKKQ5 submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Cedric Schmitt , Lukas Gehrig , Jonas Erhardt , Kilian Strau{ss} , Stefan Enzner , Martin Kamp , Timur Kim , Giorgio Sangiovanni
show 3 more authors
Jörg Schäfer Simon Moser Ralph Claessen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords graphenedielectricscreeningplasmaronindiumintercalationangle-resolvedphotoemissionspectroscopyepitaxialonSiCnearlyfree-electronmetalmany-bodyinteractions
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

This paper argues that inserting two layers of indium between epitaxial graphene and its silicon-carbide substrate turns the interface into an unusually strong dielectric screen, addressing a well-known weakness of the graphene-on-SiC platform. Using the energy separation between graphene's hole band and its plasmaron satellite in angle-resolved photoemission as a proxy for electron–electron coupling, the paper extracts an effective coupling $\alpha_G = 0.0089 \pm 0.0007$ and a substrate dielectric constant $\epsilon_s = 622 \pm 49$, an order of magnitude larger than earlier intercalant systems. Layer-resolved density functional theory attributes the effect to a division of labor: the first indium layer buffers the substrate potential, while the second forms a nearly free-electron metal that screens the graphene above. Comparison with single-layer indium, which gives $\epsilon_s \approx 57$, supports the claim that the second layer is essential.

What carries the argument

The central object is the plasmaron signature in ARPES: a satellite band created when a photoexcited hole propagates together with a plasmon, split off from the main hole band by an energy gap that grows with electron–electron coupling. The paper measures the normalized energy separation $\delta E = (E_2 - E_1)/E_1$ at the Dirac point and uses it as a proxy for the effective graphene coupling $\alpha_G$. The conversion is carried by an empirical power-law fit $\delta E = \alpha_G^p$, $p = 0.534$, calibrated to G0W0-RPA spectral-function calculations from the literature, and then by $\epsilon_s \approx 2\epsilon - 1$ to a substrate dielectric constant. A second piece of machinery is layer-resolved DFT, which separates the first indium layer (Rashba-split buffer) from the second (nearly free-electron screening layer) and motivates why the bilayer, not the monolayer, screens so strongly.

What would settle it

Calculate the graphene spectral function with G0W0-RPA at the reported effective coupling ($\alpha_G \approx 0.0089$, equivalently substrate screening $\epsilon_s \approx 622$) and at the experimental carrier density, and compare the predicted hole–plasmaron separation with the measured $\delta E = 0.0557$; a prediction that does not match $\delta E$ would show the calibration extrapolation, and hence the quoted $\epsilon_s$, is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dielectric environment of graphene on SiC can be engineered by intercalating a bilayer of indium, and that this bilayer provides substrate screening $\epsilon_s = 622 \pm 49$, far beyond what previous intercalants achieve. The quantitative evidence is the normalized energy separation $\delta E = 0.0557 \pm 0.0022$ between the extrapolated hole and plasmaron bands at the Dirac point, measured by angle-resolved photoemission. Calibrating $\delta E$ against G0W0-RPA spectral-function calculations through an empirical power law $\delta E = \alpha_G^p$ with $p = 0.534$ yields $\alpha_G = 0.0089 \pm 0.0007$, and the conversion $\epsilon = e^2/(4\pi \epsilon_0 \alpha_G \hbar v_F)$ with $\epsilon_s \approx 2\epsilon - 1$ gives $\epsilon = 312 \pm 25$. Layer-resolved DFT and ARPES identify the first indium layer as a buffer (Rashba splitting of 161 meV) and the second as a nearly free-electron metallic layer; graphene on a single indium layer shows much weaker screening ($\epsilon_s = 56.6 \pm 8.2$), confirming the second layer's essential role.

Load-bearing premise

The reported $\alpha_G = 0.0089$ and $\epsilon_s = 622$ hang entirely on the empirical calibration curve between plasmaron band separation and graphene coupling, which is fitted at much stronger coupling and then extrapolated far outside its fitted range; the paper's written curve $\delta E = \alpha_G^p$ with $p = 0.534$ does not by itself reproduce the reported $\alpha_G$ from the measured $\delta E = 0.0557$, so the calibration is the load-bearing and least-supported step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Graphene on bilayer indium/SiC should see sharply reduced long-range Coulomb scattering from the substrate: with $\epsilon_s \approx 622$, the substrate screening is roughly an order of magnitude larger than in previously studied intercalant systems.
  • The second indium layer is the operative ingredient, not a small correction: replacing it with a single layer drops the extracted screening from about $622$ to about $57$.
  • Because the normalized plasmaron separation is doping-independent, the same ARPES analysis can rank the dielectric quality of other graphene-substrate systems without retuning the carrier density.
  • The mechanism points to specific new materials: the paper identifies bilayer and trilayer gallium as predicted hosts of similar nearly free-electron states, and therefore as candidates for comparably strong screening.
  • The intercalation approach is compatible with wafer-scale epitaxial graphene on SiC, offering a scalable route to tailoring many-body interactions in large-area electronic devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural transport check follows: if $\epsilon_s \approx 622$ is physically real, charged-impurity scattering in this heterostructure should be strongly suppressed, so a four-probe mobility measurement on 2ML indium-intercalated graphene would directly test the ARPES-derived screening.
  • The reported $\alpha_G$ lies far below the lowest calibration point of the power-law fit, so a dedicated calculation of the plasmaron separation at $\alpha_G \approx 0.009$ would settle whether the extrapolated screening value is reliable.
  • The 'buffer plus nearly free-electron metal' design rule suggests that other two-layer intercalants whose first layer passivates the substrate potential and whose second layer forms a nearly free-electron band should reproduce the effect; this could be screened computationally before growth.
  • The same plasmaron-based calibration could become a general metrology for dielectric environments, turning ARPES tables like the paper's $\epsilon_s$ ranking into a design library for 2D material heterostructures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an ARPES and DFT study of graphene on SiC(0001) with intercalated bilayer indium. It finds that the first In layer buffers the substrate and the second In layer hosts nearly free-electron bands, and it uses the energy separation between the hole and plasmaron bands (δE = 0.0557 ± 0.0022) to extract an effective graphene coupling constant α_G = 0.0089 ± 0.0007 and substrate dielectric screening ε_s = 622 ± 49 for 2ML In, compared with α_G = 0.07 and ε_s = 56.6 for 1ML In. The authors conclude that 2ML In intercalation is a powerful route to engineer the dielectric environment of epitaxial graphene. The paper also reports a large Rashba splitting of the first In layer and a nearly free-electron band in the second layer.

Significance. The qualitative finding—that bilayer In screening is much stronger than monolayer In or other intercalants—is potentially valuable for the graphene-on-SiC platform, and the combination of ARPES, STEM, and layer-resolved DFT is appropriate. The use of an external G0W0-RPA calibration (Ref. [34]) is a reasonable strategy, and the raw δE comparison (0.17 vs 0.056) is a clear falsifiable statement. However, the central quantitative claim (α_G and ε_s) is not supported by the calibration as stated; the reported numbers are internally inconsistent with the fit formula, and the extrapolation is far outside the calibrated range. With the quantitative headline corrected or substantially qualified, the remaining qualitative and structural conclusions would still be of interest, but the paper in its current form overstates the precision of its main result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4b and the 'Graphene effective coupling constant' section] The stated calibration does not reproduce the quoted α_G. The text gives δE(α_G) = α_G^p with p = 0.534 ± 0.017; inserting the measured δE = 0.0557 ± 0.0022 yields α_G = (0.0557)^(1/0.534) ≈ 0.0045, not 0.0089 ± 0.0007. Conversely, α_G = 0.0089 predicts δE ≈ 0.080, well outside the experimental value. The same discrepancy appears for the 1ML In entry in Table I: δE = 0.17 with α_G = 0.07 would require δE ≈ 0.24 under the stated power law. This inconsistency is load-bearing because the abstract and conclusions base the 'unusual strong screening' claim on ε_s = 622 ± 49. The authors need to supply the actual fit (including any prefactor), show the calibration points, and recompute all derived quantities.
  2. [Fig. 4b extrapolation] The 2ML In point sits approximately an order of magnitude below the lowest calibration point of Ref. [34] (α_G ≈ 0.05), and the text itself notes that the functional form of δE(α_G) is not known a priori. The extrapolation of a fitted power law over this range is therefore a major source of systematic uncertainty, and the quoted ±0.0007 reflects only the experimental δE uncertainty. The manuscript should either restrict itself to the qualitative claim (2ML In has smaller δE than 1ML In) or provide an uncertainty budget that includes the calibration-form and parameter-covariance contributions.
  3. [Conversion from α_G to ε_s] The conversion ε = e^2/(4πϵ0 α_G ℏ v_F) and ε_s ≈ 2ε − 1 requires a value of the graphene Fermi velocity and a relation between the effective coupling constant and the substrate dielectric constant. Neither the v_F value nor its uncertainty is stated; the reported ε = 312 ± 25 is numerically sensitive to v_F, and the approximation ε_s ≈ 2ε − 1 from Ref. [34] may not hold for a metallic bilayer intercalant. Please state the parameters used and test the sensitivity of ε_s to reasonable variations in v_F and to the ε_s(ε) relation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The figure caption labels panels 'a' and 'c' only, but the text refers to 'Fig. 4b' for the calibration plot; please fix the panel labeling.
  2. [MDC fitting description] The description of the MDC fitting (Regions I–III) lacks the momentum and energy ranges, the number of spectra, and the goodness-of-fit values, so a reader cannot reproduce the δE extraction from the text alone.
  3. [Table I caption] Table I lists both δE and δk in the caption, but δk is never defined or used in the text; please remove it or define it.
  4. [Data Availability] The Data Availability section says 'To be published, WueData (2026)' rather than providing a repository identifier; a working link or DOI should be given if the data are meant to be openly available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: δE→αG→εs chain is anchored to external G0W0-RPA calibration and external dielectric relations, not to the paper's own fitted quantities.

full rationale

Walk of the derivation chain: (i) δE=0.0557±0.0022 is measured directly from Lorentzian-fitted MDCs and linear extrapolation of Regions II and III; (ii) αG is read from an empirical calibration δE(αG)=αG^p with p=0.534±0.017, fitted to G0W0-RPA data from the external Ref. [34]; (iii) ε and εs follow from αG via ε=e²/(4πε0αGℏvF) and εs≈2ε−1, also taken from Ref. [34]. Neither the calibration parameters nor the ε(αG) relation is fitted to the present 1ML/2ML In ARPES data, so the headline numbers are not forced by construction. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no self-citation chain carrying the load: the self-citations (e.g., Refs. [32,33,43] for indenene and the intercalation procedure) are contextual, while the stability of 2ML In is attributed to external first-principles calculations in Ref. [37]. The qualitative trend that 2ML In exhibits much smaller plasmaron splitting than 1ML In is supported by the raw spectra, and the honest scope limitation at the end ('leaving direct transport measurements beyond the scope of the present ARPES study') does not create circularity. There is, however, a serious correctness risk that is not circularity: using the stated calibration with the measured δE gives αG≈0.0045, not the quoted 0.0089, and the 2ML point is a long extrapolation below the lowest calibration point (αG≈0.05); the quoted error bars also ignore calibration-form covariance. These are arithmetic and extrapolation concerns that could invalidate the specific numbers, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its quantitative claim rests on a small number of fitted and assumed parameters: the empirical δE-α_G calibration (exponent p and an unstated prefactor) and an unstated graphene vF in the dielectric conversion. These are the main sources of uncertainty.

free parameters (3)
  • p (power-law exponent) = 0.534 ± 0.017
    Empirical fit exponent in δE = C·α_G^p calibrated to G0W0-RPA data from Ref. [34]; the central extraction of α_G from measured δE depends sensitively on p.
  • C (implicit prefactor in δE-α_G fit) = not stated (inferred near 0.7)
    The text states δE(α_G) = α_G^p, but the reported α_G from δE = 0.0557 matches an anchored curve with a prefactor near 0.7, so a hidden scale is used without being reported.
  • graphene Fermi velocity vF (in α_G-to-ε conversion) = not stated
    The conversion from α_G to ε and ε_s uses vF implicitly; vF = 1.0×10^6 m/s gives ε_s ≈ 491, whereas the reported 622 requires vF ≈ 0.75×10^6 m/s.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The G0W0-RPA relation between plasmaron energy separation δE and effective coupling α_G from Ref. [34] is quantitatively accurate and transferable to graphene on arbitrary substrates.
    The entire quantitative extraction rests on this calibration; no in-situ verification for the In intercalated system is provided.
  • domain assumption The normalized separation δE = (E2-E1)/E1 removes doping dependence because both E1 and E2 scale as sqrt(n).
    Invoked to justify comparing a strongly n-doped system to calibration data; the exact scaling may be modified by the strong screening.
  • domain assumption The second crossing observed in ARPES is a plasmaron band, not another quasiparticle or substrate band.
    Interpretation follows Ref. [47]; misidentification would invalidate the δE measurement.
  • standard math The relation ε_s ≈ 2ε - 1 between substrate and intrinsic dielectric constants holds for this heterostructure.
    Taken from Ref. [34]; used to convert α_G to the headline ε_s.
  • domain assumption PBE-DFT with the stated slab geometry correctly captures the adsorption sites and layer-resolved character of intercalated bilayer In.
    Used to support the buffer/free-electron picture; no hybrid functionals or vdW corrections are discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Screening in Epitaxial Graphene via Nearly Free-Electron Metal Intercalation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GE5QKKQ5

@misc{pith2026260810580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Screening in Epitaxial Graphene via Nearly Free-Electron Metal Intercalation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GE5QKKQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10580}
}
read the original abstract

Graphene exhibits extraordinarily high carrier mobility, making it a promising platform for next-generation electronics. Scalable growth on SiC, however, suffers from limited dielectric screening at the graphene-substrate interface, degrading electronic performance. In this work, we systematically enhance dielectric screening by intercalating a bilayer of indium at the graphene-SiC interface. Using graphene's plasmaronic signature observed in angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy as a proxy for interaction strength, we quantitatively demonstrate strong dielectric screening arising from the interplay of both indium layers. Layer-resolved density functional theory shows that the first indium layer acts as a buffer that absorbs substrate interactions, enabling the second layer to form a nearly free-electron system that efficiently screens the graphene layer above. Experiments with only a single intercalated indium layer reveal reduced screening, confirming the essential role of the second layer. Our results establish 2ML indium intercalation as a powerful route for engineering dielectric environments in graphene.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10580 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. b). This finding demonstrates the role of the first indium layer as a buffer, whose atoms mask the strong surface potential of the substrate, thereby providing an ideal environment for the nearly free electrons in the sec￾ond layer and thus screening for graphene above. Having established the properties of intercalated bi￾layer indium, we now turn to a quantitative ARPES anal￾ysis of graphene’s screening. To highlig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    A. L. Walter, A. Bostwick, K.-J. Jeon, F. Speck, M. Ostler, T. Seyller, L. Moreschini, Y. J. Chang, M. Polini, R. Asgari, A. H. MacDonald, K. Horn, and E. Rotenberg, Effective screening and the plasmaron bands in graphene, Phys. Rev. B84, 085410 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [1]

    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, Science306, 666 (2004)

    2004

  3. [2]

    K. S. Kim, Y. Zhao, H. Jang, S. Y. Lee, J. M. Kim, K. S. Kim, J.-H. Ahn, P. Kim, J.-Y. Choi, and B. H. Hong, Large-scale pattern growth of graphene films for stretch- able transparent electrodes, Nature457, 706 (2009)

    2009

  4. [3]

    B. Sun, J. Pang, Q. Cheng, S. Zhang, Y. Li, C. Zhang, D. Sun, B. Ibarlucea, Y. Li, D. Chen, H. Fan, Q. Han, M. Chao, H. Liu, J. Wang, G. Cuniberti, L. Han, and W. Zhou, Synthesis of Wafer-Scale Graphene with Chem- ical Vapor Deposition for Electronic Device Applications, Advanced Materials Technologies6, 2000744 (2021)

    2021

  5. [4]

    S. V. Morozov, K. S. Novoselov, M. I. Katsnelson, F. Schedin, D. C. Elias, J. A. Jaszczak, and A. K. Geim, Giant Intrinsic Carrier Mobilities in Graphene and Its Bilayer, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 016602 (2008)

    2008

  6. [5]

    A. K. M. Newaz, Y. S. Puzyrev, B. Wang, S. T. Pan- telides, and K. I. Bolotin, Probing charge scattering mechanisms in suspended graphene by varying its dielec- tric environment, Nature Communications3, 734 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    A. Li, Q. Chen, P. Wang, Y. Gan, T. Qi, P. Wang, F. Tang, J. Z. Wu, R. Chen, L. Zhang, and Y. Gong, Ultrahigh-Sensitive Broadband Photodetectors Based on Dielectric Shielded MoTe2/Graphene/SnS2 p–g–n Junc- tions, Advanced Materials31, 1805656 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    C. Jang, S. Adam, J.-H. Chen, E. D. Williams, S. Das Sarma, and M. S. Fuhrer, Tuning the Effective Fine Structure Constant in Graphene: Opposing Effects of Dielectric Screening on Short- and Long-Range Poten- tial Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 146805 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 85 references
  1. [8]

    E. H. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, Acoustic phonon scatter- ing limited carrier mobility in two-dimensional extrinsic graphene, Phys. Rev. B77, 115449 (2008)

    2008

  2. [9]

    Norimatsu, A Review on Carrier Mobilities of Epitax- ial Graphene on Silicon Carbide, Materials16(2023)

    W. Norimatsu, A Review on Carrier Mobilities of Epitax- ial Graphene on Silicon Carbide, Materials16(2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Bolotin, K

    K. Bolotin, K. Sikes, Z. Jiang, M. Klima, G. Fudenberg, J. Hone, P. Kim, and H. Stormer, Ultrahigh electron mo- bility in suspended graphene, Solid State Communica- 7 tions146, 351 (2008)

    2008

  4. [11]

    K. I. Bolotin, K. J. Sikes, J. Hone, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Temperature-Dependent Transport in Sus- pended Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 096802 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    F. Chen, J. Xia, D. K. Ferry, and N. Tao, Dielec- tric Screening Enhanced Performance in Graphene FET, Nano Letters9, 2571 (2009)

    2009

  6. [13]

    L. A. Ponomarenko, R. Yang, T. M. Mohiuddin, M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, S. V. Morozov, A. A. Zhukov, F. Schedin, E. W. Hill, and A. K. Geim, Effect of a High-κEnvironment on Charge Carrier Mobility in Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 206603 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    P. Wei, S. Lee, F. Lemaitre, L. Pinel, D. Cutaia, W. Cha, F. Katmis, Y. Zhu, D. Heiman, J. Hone, J. S. Moodera, and C.-T. Chen, Strong interfacial exchange field in the graphene/EuS heterostructure, Nature Materials15, 711 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    S. Kim, J. Nah, I. Jo, D. Shahrjerdi, L. Colombo, Z. Yao, E.Tutuc,andS.K.Banerjee,Realizationofahighmobil- ity dual-gated graphene field-effect transistor with Al2O3 dielectric, Applied Physics Letters94, 062107 (2009)

    2009

  9. [16]

    Zhang, S

    Y. Zhang, S. Wang, G. Hu, H. Huang, B. Zheng, Y. Zhou, Y. Feng, X. Ma, J. He, Y. Lu, M. Gu, Y.-L. Chueh, G. Chen, and B. Xiang, Giant Carrier Mobility in Graphene with Enhanced Shubnikov–de Haas Quantum Oscillations: Implications for Low-Power-Consumption Device Applications, ...

    2022

  10. [17]

    Domaretskiy, Z

    D. Domaretskiy, Z. Wu, V. H. Nguyen, N. Hayward, I. Babich, X. Li, E. Nguyen, J. Barrier, K. Indykiewicz, W. Wang, R. V. Gorbachev, N. Xin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Hague, V. I. Fal’ko, I. V. Grigorieva, L. A. Ponomarenko, A. I. Berdyugin, and A. K. Geim, Proximity screen...

    2025

  11. [18]

    W. A. de Heer, C. Berger, X. Wu, M. Sprinkle, Y. Hu, M. Ruan, J. A. Stroscio, P. N. First, R. Haddon, B. Piot, C. Faugeras, M. Potemski, and J.-S. Moon, Epitaxial graphene electronic structure and transport, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics43, 374007 (2010)

    2010

  12. [19]

    Riedl, C

    C. Riedl, C. Coletti, and U. Starke, Structural and elec- tronic properties of epitaxial graphene on SiC(0001): a review of growth, characterization, transfer doping and hydrogen intercalation, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics43, 374009 (2010)

    2010

  13. [20]

    Pallecchi, F

    E. Pallecchi, F. Lafont, V. Cavaliere, F. Schopfer, D.Mailly, W.Poirier,andA.Ouerghi,HighElectronMo- bility in Epitaxial Graphene on 4H-SiC(0001) via post- growth annealing under hydrogen, Scientific Reports4, 4558 (2014)

    2014

  14. [21]

    Speck, J

    F. Speck, J. Jobst, F. Fromm, M. Ostler, D. Wald- mann, M. Hundhausen, H. B. Weber, and T. Seyller, The quasi-free-standing nature of graphene on H-saturated SiC(0001), Applied Physics Letters99, 122106 (2011)

    2011

  15. [22]

    J. A. Robinson, M. Hollander, M. LaBella III, K. A. Trumbull, R. Cavalero, and D. W. Snyder, Epitaxial Graphene Transistors: Enhancing Performance via Hy- drogen Intercalation, Nano Letters11, 3875 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Rosenzweig and U

    P. Rosenzweig and U. Starke, Large-area synthesis of a semiconducting silver monolayer via intercalation of epi- taxial graphene, Phys. Rev. B101, 201407 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    Riedl, C

    C. Riedl, C. Coletti, T. Iwasaki, A. A. Zakharov, and U. Starke, Quasi-Free-Standing Epitaxial Graphene on SiC Obtained by Hydrogen Intercalation, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 246804 (2009)

    2009

  18. [25]

    Gehrig, C

    L. Gehrig, C. Schmitt, J. Erhardt, B. Liu, T. Wagner, M. Kamp, S. Moser, and R. Claessen, Bismuthene Under Cover: Graphene Intercalation of a Large Gap Quantum Spin Hall Insulator, Adv. Mater.37, 2502412 (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    Ghosal, M

    C. Ghosal, M. Gruschwitz, J. Koch, S. Gemming, and C. Tegenkamp, Proximity-Induced Gap Opening by Twisted Plumbene in Epitaxial Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 116802 (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    Matta, P

    B. Matta, P. Rosenzweig, O. Bolkenbaas, K. Küster, and U. Starke, Momentum microscopy of Pb-intercalated graphene on SiC: Charge neutrality and electronic struc- ture of interfacial Pb, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023250 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    Y.-R. Lin, S. Wolff, P. Schädlich, M. Hutter, S. Soubatch, T.-L. Lee, F. S. Tautz, T. Seyller, C. Kumpf, and F. m. c. C. Bocquet, Vertical structure of Sb-intercalated quasifreestanding graphene on SiC(0001), Phys. Rev. B 106, 155418 (2022)

    2022

  22. [29]

    Forti, S

    S. Forti, S. Link, A. Stöhr, Y. Niu, A. A. Zakharov, C. Coletti, and U. Starke, Semiconductor to metal tran- sition in two-dimensional gold and its van der waals heterostack with graphene, Nature Communications11, 2236 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    Virojanadara, S

    C. Virojanadara, S. Watcharinyanon, A. A. Zakharov, and L. I. Johansson, Epitaxial graphene on6H-SiC and Li intercalation, Phys. Rev. B82, 205402 (2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    Bisti, G

    F. Bisti, G. Profeta, H. Vita, M. Donarelli, F. Per- rozzi, P. M. Sheverdyaeva, P. Moras, K. Horn, and L. Ottaviano, Electronic and geometric structure of graphene/SiC(0001) decoupled by lithium intercalation, Phys. Rev. B91, 245411 (2015)

    2015

  25. [32]

    Schmitt, J

    C. Schmitt, J. Erhardt, P. Eck, M. Schmitt, K. Lee, P. Keßler, T. Wagner, M. Spring, B. Liu, S. Enzner, M. Kamp, V. Jovic, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Roten- berg, T. Kim, C. Cacho, T.-L. Lee, G. Sangiovanni, S. Moser, and R. Claessen, Achieving environmental sta- bility in an...

    2024

  26. [33]

    Schmitt, S

    C. Schmitt, S. Sotgiu, S. Enzner, J. Erhardt, E. Stellino, D. Di Sante, G. Sangiovanni, R. Claessen, S. Moser, and L. Baldassarre, All-optical quality control of indenene in- tercalation into graphene/SiC, Appl. Phys. Lett.125, 223102 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Turker, B

    F. Turker, B. Xu, C. Dong, M. Labella III, N. Nayir, N. Sheremetyeva, Z. J. Trdinich, D. Zhang, G. Ad- abasi, B. Pourbahari, L.-S. Lu, W. E. Auker, K. Wang, M. Baykara, V. Meunier, N. Bassim, A. C. T. van Duin, V. H. Crespi, and J. A. Robinson, 2D Indium Oxide at the Epitaxial...

    2026

  28. [36]

    Rajabpour, A

    S. Rajabpour, A. Vera, W. He, B. N. Katz, R. J. Koch, M. Lassaunière, X. Chen, C. Li, K. Nisi, H. El-Sherif, M. T. Wetherington, C. Dong, A. Bostwick, C. Jozwiak, A. C. T. van Duin, N. Bassim, J. Zhu, G.-C. Wang, U. Wurstbauer, E. Rotenberg, V. Crespi, S. Y. Quek, and J. A. Ro...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Briggs, B

    N. Briggs, B. Bersch, Y. Wang, J. Jiang, R. J. Koch, N. Nayir, K. Wang, M. Kolmer, W. Ko, A. De La Fuente Duran, S. Subramanian, C. Dong, J. Shallen- berger, M. Fu, Q. Zou, Y.-W. Chuang, Z. Gai, A.-P. Li, A. Bostwick, C. Jozwiak, C.-Z. Chang, E. Rotenberg, J. Zhu, A. C. T. van...

    2020

  30. [38]

    V. D. Pham, C. Dong, and J. A. Robinson, Atomic structures and interfacial engineering of ultrathin in- dium intercalated between graphene and a SiC substrate, Nanoscale Adv.5, 5601 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    T. Hu, D. Yang, W. Hu, Q. Xia, F. Ma, and K. Xu, The structure and mechanism of large-scale indium- intercalated graphene transferred from SiC buffer layer, Carbon171, 829 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    V. D. Pham, C. González, Y. J. Dappe, C. Dong, J. A. Robinson, A. Trampert, and R. Engel-Herbert, Scanning tunnelingmicroscopyofultrathinindiumintercalatedbe- tween graphene and sic using confinement heteroepitaxy, Appl. Phys. Lett.125, 181602 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    H. Kim, N. Tsogtbaatar, B. Tuvdendorj, A. Lkhagva- suren, and J. M. Seo, Effects of two kinds of interca- lated In films on quasi-free-standing monolayer graphene formed above SiC(0001), Carbon159, 229 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    K. Nisi, S. Subramanian, W. He, K. A. Ulman, H. El- Sherif, F. Sigger, M. Lassaunière, M. T. Wetherington, N. Briggs, J. Gray, A. W. Holleitner, N. Bassim, S. Y. Quek, J. A. Robinson, and U. Wurstbauer, Light–Matter Interaction in Quantum Confined 2D Polar Metals, Adv. Funct. ...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Bauernfeind, J

    M. Bauernfeind, J. Erhardt, P. Eck, P. K. Thakur, J. Gabel, T.-L. Lee, J. Schäfer, S. Moser, D. Di Sante, R. Claessen, and G. Sangiovanni, Design and realization of topological dirac fermions on a triangular lattice, Nat. Commun.12, 5396 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Bostwick, T

    A. Bostwick, T. Ohta, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Roten- berg, Quasiparticle dynamics in graphene, Nat. Phys.3, 36 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    J. L. McChesney, A. Bostwick, T. Ohta, K. Emt- sev, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Rotenberg, Self- consistent analysis of electron-phonon coupling param- eters of graphene, arXiv (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    B. I. Lundqvist, Single-particle spectrum of the degener- ate electron gas, Phys. kondens. Materie6, 193 (1967)

    1967

  39. [47]

    Bostwick, F

    A. Bostwick, F. Speck, T. Seyller, K. Horn, M. Polini, R. Asgari, A. H. MacDonald, and E. Rotenberg, Ob- servation of Plasmarons in Quasi-Freestanding Doped Graphene, Science328, 999 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Polini, R

    M. Polini, R. Asgari, G. Borghi, Y. Barlas, T. Pereg- Barnea, and A. H. MacDonald, Plasmons and the spec- tral function of graphene, Phys. Rev. B77, 081411 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    E. H. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, Quasiparticle spectral function in doped graphene: Electron-electron interac- tion effects in ARPES, Phys. Rev. B77, 081412 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    E. H. Hwang, B. Y.-K. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Inelastic carrier lifetime in graphene, Phys. Rev. B76, 115434 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    E. H. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, Dielectric function, screening, and plasmons in two-dimensional graphene, Phys. Rev. B75, 205418 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    emerges around the indiumMpoint. These metal- lic bands exhibit an exceptionally large Fermi velocity of approximately(1.13±0.18)×10 6 m s−1, exceeding that of graphene’sπstates [55, 56] and being compara- ble to In on Si(111) [57] and bilayer Ga intercalated at the graphene/S...

  45. [53]

    Erhardt, M

    J. Erhardt, M. Bauernfeind, P. Eck, M. Kamp, J. Gabel, T.-L. Lee, G. Sangiovanni, S. Moser, and R. Claessen, In- dium Epitaxy on SiC(0001): A Roadmap to Large Scale Growth of the Quantum Spin Hall Insulator Indenene, J. Phys. Chem. C126, 16289 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Erhardt, C

    J. Erhardt, C. Schmitt, P. Eck, M. Schmitt, P. Keßler, K. Lee, T. Kim, C. Cacho, I. Cojocariu, D. Baranowski, V. Feyer, L. Veyrat, G. Sangiovanni, R. Claessen, and S. Moser, Bias-Free Access to Orbital Angular Momen- tum in Two-Dimensional Quantum Materials, Phys. Rev. Lett.13...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Erhardt, M

    J. Erhardt, M. Iannetti, F. Dominguez, E. M. Han- kiewicz, B. Trauzettel, G. Profeta, D. Di Sante, G. San- giovanni, S. Moser, and R. Claessen, Backscattering in topological edge states despite time-reversal symmetry, Nature Communications16, 8209 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    L. Yang, J. Deslippe, C.-H. Park, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Excitonic Effects on the Optical Response of Graphene and Bilayer Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 186802 (2009)

    2009

  49. [57]

    Zhang, Y.-W

    Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Ex- perimental observation of the quantum Hall effect and Berry’s phase in graphene, Nature438, 201 (2005)

    2005

  50. [58]

    Yoshizawa, H

    S. Yoshizawa, H. Kim, Y. Hasegawa, and T. Uchihashi, Disorder-induced suppression of superconductivity in the Si(111)−( √ 7× √ 3)-In surface: Scanning tunneling mi- croscopy study, Phys. Rev. B92, 041410 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    Rotenberg, H

    E. Rotenberg, H. Koh, K. Rossnagel, H. W. Yeom, J. Schäfer, B. Krenzer, M. P. Rocha, and S. D. Kevan, In- dium √ 7× √ 3on Si(111): A Nearly Free Electron Metal in Two Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 246404 (2003)

    2003

  52. [60]

    J. W. Park and M. H. Kang, Single-Layer Limit of Metal- lic Indium Overlayers on Si(111), Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 116102 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    J. W. Park and M. H. Kang, Double-layer in structural model for theIn/Si(111)− √ 7× √ 3surface, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 166102 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    H. Yi, Y. Liu, C. Dong, Y. Yang, Z.-J. Yan, Z. Wang, L. Zhou, D. Wu, H. Chen, S. Paolini, B. Xia, B. Zhang, X. Liu, H. Rong, A. G. Wang, S. Mandal, K. Yang, B. N. Katz, L. Hu, J. Liu, T.-L. Lee, V. H. Crespi, Y. Wang, Y. Chen, J. A. Robinson, C.-X. Liu, and C.-Z. Chang, Orbita...

    2026

  55. [63]

    Petersen and P

    L. Petersen and P. Hedegård, A simple tight-binding model of spin-orbit splitting of sp-derived surface states, Surface Science459, 49 (2000)

    2000

  56. [64]

    LaShell, B

    S. LaShell, B. A. McDougall, and E. Jensen, Spin Split- ting of an Au(111) Surface State Band Observed with Angle Resolved Photoelectron Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3419 (1996)

    1996

  57. [65]

    S. R. Park, C. H. Kim, J. Yu, J. H. Han, and C. Kim, Orbital-Angular-Momentum Based Origin of Rashba- Type Surface Band Splitting, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 156803 (2011)

    2011

  58. [66]

    E. L. Shirley, L. J. Terminello, A. Santoni, and F. J. Himpsel, Brillouin-zone-selection effects in graphite pho- toelectron angular distributions, Phys. Rev. B51, 13614 (1995)

    1995

  59. [67]

    Daimon, S

    H. Daimon, S. Imada, H. Nishimoto, and S. Suga, Struc- ture factor in photoemission from valence band, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena76, 487 (1995), proceedings of the Sixth International Con- ference on Electron Spectroscopy

    1995

  60. [68]

    Mucha-Kruczyński, O

    M. Mucha-Kruczyński, O. Tsyplyatyev, A. Grishin, 9 E. McCann, V. I. Fal’ko, A. Bostwick, and E. Roten- berg, Characterization of graphene through anisotropy ofconstant-energymapsinangle-resolvedphotoemission, Phys. Rev. B77, 195403 (2008)

    2008

  61. [69]

    Gierz, J

    I. Gierz, J. Henk, H. Höchst, C. R. Ast, and K. Kern, Illuminating the dark corridor in graphene: Polarization dependenceofangle-resolvedphotoemissionspectroscopy on graphene, Phys. Rev. B83, 121408(R) (2011)

    2011

  62. [70]

    C. S. Kern, A. Haags, L. Egger, X. Yang, H. Kirschner, S. Wolff, T. Seyller, A. Gottwald, M. Richter, U. De Gio- vannini, A. Rubio, M. G. Ramsey, F. m. c. C. Bocquet, S. Soubatch, F. S. Tautz, P. Puschnig, and S. Moser, Sim- ple extension of the plane-wave final state in photo...

    2023

  63. [71]

    Calandra and F

    M. Calandra and F. Mauri, Electron-phonon coupling and electron self-energy in electron-doped graphene: Cal- culationofangular-resolvedphotoemissionspectra,Phys. Rev. B76, 205411 (2007)

    2007

  64. [72]

    Grimvall, The Electron Phonon Interaction in Metals, North Holland (1981)

    G. Grimvall, The Electron Phonon Interaction in Metals, North Holland (1981)

    1981

  65. [73]

    Bostwick, T

    A. Bostwick, T. Ohta, J. L. McChesney, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Rotenberg, Renormalization of graphene bands by many-body interactions, Solid State Communi- cations143, 63 (2007), exploring graphene

    2007

  66. [74]

    Tadich, M

    A. Tadich, M. T. Edmonds, L. Ley, F. Fromm, Y. Smets, Z. Mazej, J. Riley, C. I. Pakes, T. Seyller, and M. Wanke, Tuning the charge carriers in epitaxial graphene on SiC(0001) from electron to hole via molecular doping with c60f48, Applied Physics Letters102, 241601 (2013)

    2013

  67. [75]

    Datta, B

    S. Datta, B. Zheng, A. Jain, K. Küster, J. A. Robin- son, V. H. Crespi, and U. Starke, Phase-dependent elec- tronic structure of two-dimensional Ag layers at the graphene/SiC interface (2026), arXiv:2605.23855 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

    2026 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Rosenzweig, H

    P. Rosenzweig, H. Karakachian, D. Marchenko, and U. Starke, Surface charge-transfer doping a quantum- confined silver monolayer beneath epitaxial graphene, Phys. Rev. B105, 235428 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Y. Sohn, S. W. Jung, F. Göhler, W. J. Shin, S. Cha, T. Seyller, and K. S. Kim, Electronic band structure of Bi-intercalate layers in graphene and SiC(0001), J. Ko- rean Phys. Soc.78, 157 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Glass, F

    S. Glass, F. Reis, M. Bauernfeind, J. Aulbach, M. R. Scholz, F. Adler, L. Dudy, G. Li, R. Claessen, and J. Schäfer, Atomic-Scale Mapping of Layer-by-Layer Hy- drogen Etching and Passivation of SiC(0001) Substrates, J. Phys. Chem. C120, 10361 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    K. V. Emtsev, F. Speck, T. Seyller, L. Ley, and J. D. Riley, Interaction, growth, and ordering of epitaxial graphene on SiC{0001} surfaces: A comparative photo- electron spectroscopy study, Phys. Rev. B77, 155303 (2008)

    2008

  72. [80]

    Riedl, U

    C. Riedl, U. Starke, J. Bernhardt, M. Franke, and K. Heinz, Structural properties of the graphene- SiC(0001) interface as a key for the preparation of ho- mogeneous large-terrace graphene surfaces, Phys. Rev. B 76, 245406 (2007)

    2007

  73. [81]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopoten- tials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  74. [82]

    P. E. Blöchl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  75. [83]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradientapproximationmadesimple,Physicalreviewlet- ters77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  76. [84]

    Steiner, S

    S. Steiner, S. Khmelevskyi, M. Marsmann, and G. Kresse, Calculation of the magnetic anisotropy with projected-augmented-wave methodology and the case study of disorderedFe 1−xCox alloys, Phys. Rev. B93, 224425 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Schmitt, L

    C. Schmitt, L. Gehrig, and R. Claessen, To be published, WueData (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.