Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

This paper argues that in monolayer graphene with smooth finite-range disorder, the spatial radius of defects—not their potential strength—is the dominant parameter controlling thermoelectric response, and proves this by exact partial-wave

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:13 UTC pith:IEZTTZ6Q

load-bearing objection A solid, incremental extension of exact phase-shift transport to thermoelectric coefficients in graphene; the radius-dominance claim is plausible but needs a smoothing test before it can be generalized. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.17453 v1 pith:IEZTTZ6Q submitted 2026-02-19 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.other

Charge and energy transport in graphene with smooth finite-range disorder

Juan A. Ca\~nas , Daniel A. Bonilla , J. C. P\'erez-Pedraza , A. Mart\'in-Ruiz This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.other
keywords GrapheneBoltzmann transportThermoelectric effectsDefectsSoft-sphere potentialPartial-wave phase shiftsWiedemann-Franz lawSeebeck coefficient
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies charge and heat transport in monolayer graphene when disorder is smooth and finite-range, modeled as circular soft-sphere potentials of radius R and strength V0. It goes beyond the Born approximation by solving the scattering problem exactly via partial-wave phase shifts, then uses these in a Boltzmann transport framework to compute electrical and thermal conductivities, the Lorenz number, Seebeck coefficient, and figure of merit ZT. The central finding is that the spatial extent of the defects (R) controls key thermoelectric quantities—including Wiedemann-Franz law violations and ZT—while the potential strength V0 plays only a secondary role. This matters because real graphene disorder is often smooth and extended, and the result identifies defect size as a practical tuning knob for thermoelectric design.

Core claim

For a dilute ensemble of soft-sphere impurities in graphene, the exact scattering matrix yields transport relaxation times that increase monotonically with Fermi energy, with no resonant minima. The transport scattering time depends on differences between adjacent partial-wave phase shifts, reflecting pseudospin-momentum locking. Using these phase shifts in a linearized Boltzmann equation, the paper finds that the defect radius R—not the potential strength V0—dominates the magnitude and functional form of the deviation from the Wiedemann-Franz law, the Seebeck coefficient, and the figure of merit ZT. This dominance holds across the parameter ranges studied: larger spheres produce stronger WF

What carries the argument

Partial-wave phase shifts for Dirac fermions scattering off a circular constant potential. The phase shifts are obtained analytically by solving the Dirac equation in inner and outer regions and imposing continuity at r=R, giving tan δ_mj in terms of Bessel functions. The transport scattering time is then expressed as a sum over differences of adjacent phase shifts, 1/τ_tr = (2 n_imp v_F / k) Σ sin²(δ_{m+1} − δ_m). These energy-resolved phase shifts feed into the Boltzmann transport equation, producing closed-form low-temperature expressions for the Onsager coefficients, from which all transport and thermoelectric quantities follow.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes each defect is a sharp-edged circle of constant potential; real smooth disorder has no hard boundary, and this sharp edge could introduce spurious scattering that artificially makes the radius look more important than the strength.

What would settle it

Compute the same transport coefficients using a smooth finite-range profile without a hard edge (e.g., V(r)=V0 exp(−r²/R²) or a screened Coulomb potential) in the same partial-wave and Boltzmann framework. If the Lorenz-number deviation and Seebeck coefficient no longer scale primarily with R, or if V0 becomes comparably important, the central claim is falsified. Equivalently, an experiment varying defect radius at fixed potential strength should show the predicted dependence on R.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Defect radius becomes a practical design parameter for engineering graphene thermoelectrics, potentially more impactful than tuning impurity strength.
  • Smooth finite-range disorder alone can produce measurable Wiedemann-Franz violations at finite temperatures, with the magnitude controlled by R.
  • Nonperturbative treatment is essential: the Born approximation fails near charge neutrality and for strong or extended scatterers, so exact phase-shift methods give qualitatively different low-energy transport.
  • Predicted low-energy transparency (Ramsauer-Townsend-like) leads to a rising residual conductivity at low Fermi energy, a signature that could be tested in high-mobility samples.
  • Combined with phonon-suppression strategies (nanostructuring, isotope engineering), the electronic ZT enhancement from defect size could approach practically relevant values.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The sharp-edged step potential may amplify the role of radius: for smooth profiles like Gaussian bumps or screened Coulomb potentials without a hard boundary, the effective 'size' is a soft scale, so the claimed dominance of R over V0 could weaken or change—this is testable by recomputing with smoother potentials.
  • The absence of resonances is tied to the scalar soft-sphere potential; adding vector potentials (strain) or different potential shapes might reintroduce quasi-bound states and resonant thermoelectric features (cf. Dirac oscillator results), suggesting a broader design space.
  • The paper stays away from charge neutrality; near the Dirac point, bipolar diffusion and hydrodynamic effects could make the Lorenz number behave differently, so the WF-violation story may differ in that regime.
  • Experimental falsification could come from engineered samples (e.g., implanted ions or controlled nanobubbles) where defect size is varied at fixed potential strength: if Seebeck or Lorenz ratio does not scale with radius, the central claim fails.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an exact nonperturbative treatment of charge and heat transport in graphene with finite-range circular impurity potentials. The authors solve the two-dimensional Dirac equation for a step-like circular barrier, derive analytic partial-wave phase shifts (Eq. 14), construct the transport scattering time (Eq. 18), and then feed it into a semiclassical Boltzmann formalism. Using low-temperature Sommerfeld expansions they obtain the electrical conductivity, electronic thermal conductivity, Lorenz ratio, Seebeck coefficient, and figure of merit ZT. Numerical results are presented for parameters typical of graphene with impurity radii in the 1.5–5 nm range and potential strengths of 5–50 meV. The central claim is that the defect radius R controls the thermoelectric quantities, while the potential strength V0 plays a secondary role.

Significance. The exact-phase-shift approach is a strength: it goes beyond the Born approximation and provides a clear, internally consistent route from the Dirac equation to transport coefficients. If the claimed dominance of defect radius over potential strength were robust, it would offer a concrete design principle for impurity engineering in graphene thermoelectrics. The paper also carefully separates electronic from phononic contributions and correctly notes that its ZT values are upper bounds on the electronic part. However, the central claim is currently tied to a discontinuous step potential, which undermines the stated generalization to smooth disorder, and the numerical results contain a unit inconsistency that must be resolved before the quantitative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2 and Eq. (14)] The paper claims to model smooth finite-range disorder, but the potential V(r)=V0[Θ(r)−Θ(r−R)] is a hard step. A smooth profile has negligible Fourier weight at momenta ≫1/d, whereas the step has 1/q tails, so the partial-wave composition and the energy dependence of τ_tr can differ qualitatively. Since τ_tr feeds directly into S, L/L0, and ZT, the step-specific result does not by itself establish the title claim. Please test a smoothed profile (e.g., a tanh or Gaussian edge) at fixed R and V0, or explicitly restrict the conclusions to sharp circular barriers.
  2. [Sec. 5, Fig. 2; Eqs. (18) and (29)] Fig. 2 labels the relaxation time in picoseconds and shows values up to about 60 ps. However, with the stated parameters (n_imp=1e12 cm^-2, vF=1e6 m/s, EF=200 meV), Eq. (18) gives 1/τ ≈ 2 n_imp vF/k ≈ 6.6×10^13 s^-1, i.e., τ ≈ 15 fs. If τ were tens of ps, Eq. (29) would produce σ ≈ 0.1–1 S, which is five orders of magnitude larger than the values plotted in Fig. 3. The axis is presumably in femtoseconds; the figure, caption, and any derived quantities must be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 5, Figs. 3–7] The central claim that R is the dominant parameter and V0 is secondary is based on scans over R=1.5–5 nm and V0=5–50 meV. In Eq. (14), however, the phase shifts depend only on kR and V0R/ℏvF, and these two scan ranges vary the second combination by comparable factors. Fig. 3(b) also shows a significant change in conductivity with V0. To support the claimed dominance, provide broader scans, including V0 values comparable to EF, and discuss the dimensionless combination V0R/ℏvF rather than treating R and V0 as independent controls.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 7(a) caption] The caption states “scattering potential V0 = 15 nm”; this should be 15 meV.
  2. [Sec. 2, first paragraph] “refereed to as soft spheres” should be “referred to as soft spheres.”
  3. [Eq. (14) and surrounding text] The notation |k_in| is used, but the sign convention for k_in is defined only implicitly. Spell out that k_in = s k − V0/(χℏvF) before taking the absolute value, so the sign of V0 and the band/valley indices are unambiguous.
  4. [Fig. 3] The horizontal axes are unlabeled in the caption; specify units (nm for radius, meV for potential).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the phase-shift and Boltzmann derivation is self-contained; the only self-citation is comparative and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The scattering input is the exact solution of the Dirac equation for the step potential V(r)=V0(Theta(r)-Theta(r-R)) defined in Section 2, with phase shifts obtained by continuity at r=R in Eq. (14). No transport coefficient is used to define or fit the model parameters: R, V0, n_imp, v_F, and E_F are set from literature values (Section 5). The transport relaxation time, Eq. (18), follows from Fermi's golden rule and the phase-shift T-matrix; the Onsager coefficients, Eqs. (25)-(27), and the derived sigma, kappa, L, S, and ZT are standard Boltzmann-Sommerfeld expressions rather than renamings of inputs. The central claim that R dominates V0 is a numerical output, not an input: both R and V0 enter the phase shifts through kR and V0R/(hbar v_F), and the reported dependences are computed, not assumed. The only self-citation is Ref. [39], used to contrast the absence of resonant minima with a Dirac-oscillator model; this comparison does not support any load-bearing step in the derivation. The skeptical concern that a hard-step potential may not faithfully represent smooth disorder is a modeling-validity/correctness issue, not circularity, because the step model is not defined in terms of the predicted transport quantities and the model was not tuned to produce the R-dominance claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. The model parameters (R, V0, n_imp, E_F) are physically motivated inputs, not fitted to the target outputs. The main extra assumption is that a step-function potential captures smooth disorder.

free parameters (4)
  • impurity radius R = 1.5, 3, 5 nm (scanned)
    Model parameter defining the spatial extent of the soft-sphere potential; central claim depends on varying R.
  • potential strength V0 = 5-50 meV (scanned)
    Model parameter for the soft-sphere potential; shown to have secondary effect, but the scan is narrow.
  • impurity density n_imp = 1e12 cm^-2
    Sets the overall scattering rate; enters Eq. (18) linearly; cancels in ratios L/L0, S, ZT.
  • Fermi energy E_F = 200 meV
    Operating point; transport coefficients evaluated at this energy.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Continuum Dirac model valid up to ~1 eV; intervalley scattering suppressed for R ≫ a
    Section 2: expansion around Dirac points; R ≫ a ensures independent valleys.
  • domain assumption Dilute limit n_imp R^2 ≪ 1, independent scattering centers
    Section 2: allows Boltzmann averaging with n_imp factor.
  • ad hoc to paper Soft-sphere step potential models smooth finite-range disorder
    Section 2: the step potential is chosen as a tractable proxy; real smooth disorder may differ.
  • domain assumption Electron-electron and electron-phonon scattering neglected; elastic impurity scattering dominates
    Section 1: moderate T and clean encapsulated devices.
  • domain assumption Boltzmann relaxation-time approximation with a single energy-dependent τ_tr is valid; equivalence to Kubo in DC dilute limit
    Section 4: cites [34,35,25]; not derived in this paper.
  • standard math Standard partial-wave and Bessel function mathematics
    Section 3: solving the Dirac equation in polar coordinates.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17131 in / 19701 out tokens · 176616 ms · 2026-08-02T22:13:19.994752+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate charge and energy transport in monolayer graphene with smooth finite-range disorder, modeled by soft impurity potentials. Using a continuum Dirac model, we go beyond the Born approximation by computing the exact scattering matrix for individual impurities. This captures the full nonperturbative physics of smooth disorder. From the exact scattering data, we evaluate transport coefficients by solving the Boltzmann equation with energy-resolved phase shifts. We analyze electrical and electronic thermal conductivities versus carrier density and temperature, including deviations from the Wiedemann-Franz law. Our results reveal that finite-range disorder nontrivially modifies charge and heat currents, especially at low energies where perturbative methods fail. These findings provide a more accurate transport characterization for disordered Dirac materials and clarify how smooth disorder governs energy flow in graphene.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17453 by A. Mart\'in-Ruiz, Daniel A. Bonilla, J. C. P\'erez-Pedraza, Juan A. Ca\~nas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic of the proposed model. Soft￾sphere scatterer potentials are randomly distributed across a graphene sheet. The dilute impurity limit ensures statistically independent scattering centers with negligible overlap. extent. Within this framework, the transport properties are derived from the scattering transition rates induced by this perturbation [34, 35]. A schematic of randomly distributed soft-sp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Transport relaxation time (in picoseconds) as a function of the Fermi energy, calculated using Eq. (18) for a random distribution of 3 nm-radius soft spheres with a concentration of 𝑛imp = 1 × 1012 cm−2, and for various poten￾tials. The subfigure (a) corresponds to positive soft sphere potentials, whereas (b) corresponds to negative ones. -40 -20 0 20 40 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 (a) 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature dependence of the DC conductivity. The conductivity was calculated at a Fermi energy of ℰ𝐹 = 200 meV, for spheres distributed with density 𝑛imp = 1 × 1012 cm−2 and with: (a) a 3 nm-radius and (b) a 5 nm-radius. : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 12 of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DC conductivity versus the Fermi energy at zero temperature for a distribution of: (a) 1.5 nm-radius spheres, (b) 3 nm-radius spheres and (c) 5 nm-radius spheres. 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 (a) 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 20 40 60 (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature dependence of: (a) the thermal conductivity setting 𝑅 = 3 nm, and (b) the Lorenz number setting 𝑉0 = 15 meV. The graphs were computed for an impurity density of 𝑛imp = 1 × 1012 cm−2, and a Fermi energy of 200 meV. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 (a) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 (b) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V . Morozov, D. Jiang, Y . Zhang, S. V . Dubonos, I. V . Grigorieva, A. A. Firsov, Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films, Science 306 (5696) (2004) 666–669. doi:10.1126/science.1102896

    doi:10.1126/science.1102896 2004

  2. [2]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V . Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson, I. V . Grigorieva, S. V . Dubonos, A. A. Firsov, Two- dimensional gas of massless dirac fermions in graphene, Nature 438 (7065) (2005) 197–200.doi:10.1038/nature04233

    doi:10.1038/nature04233 2005

  3. [3]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Reviews of Modern Physics 81 (1) (2009) 109–162.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys. 81.109

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys 2009

  4. [5]

    A. A. Balandin, Thermal properties of graphene and nanostructured carbon materials, Nature Materials 10 (8) (2011) 569–581.doi: 10.1038/nmat3064

    doi:10.1038/nmat3064 2011

  5. [6]

    Y . M. Zuev, W. Chang, P. Kim, Thermoelectric and nernst effects in graphene, Physical Review Letters 102 (9) (2009) 096807.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.096807

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.096807 2009

  6. [7]

    P. Wei, W. Bao, Y . Pu, C. N. Lau, J. Shi, Anomalous thermoelectric transport in graphene, Physical Review Letters 102 (16) (2009) 166808.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.166808

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.166808 2009

  7. [8]

    McCann, Asymmetry gap in the electronic band structure of bilayer graphene, Phys

    E. McCann, Asymmetry gap in the electronic band structure of bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 086805.doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.96.086805

    2006

  8. [9]

    Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle :Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 8 of 10 graphene superlattices, Nature 556 (2018) 43–50.doi:10.1038/ nature26160

    2018

  9. [10]

    Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, S. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y . Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, P. Jarillo-Herrero, Correlated insulator behaviour at half-filling in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature 556 (2018) 80–84.doi: 10.1038/nature26154

    doi:10.1038/nature26154 2018

  10. [11]

    Rezania, M

    H. Rezania, M. Yarmohammadi, The effects of impurity doping on the optical properties of biased bilayer graphene, Optical Materi- als 57 (2016) 8–13.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. optmat.2016.04.005

    doi:10.1016/j 2016

  11. [12]

    Rezania, A

    H. Rezania, A. Abdi, Thermal conductivity of disordered aa-stacked bilayer graphene in the presence of bias voltage, The European Physical Journal B 88 (7) (2015) 173.doi:10.1140/epjb/ e2015-60133-3

    doi:10.1140/epjb/ 2015

  12. [13]

    H. Rezania, The effect of boron doping on the thermal con- ductivity of zigzag carbon nanotubes, International Journal of Modern Physics B 29 (05) (2015) 1550025.doi:10.1142/ S0217979215500253

    2015

  13. [14]

    Rezania, T

    H. Rezania, T. Kakavandi, Optical absorption rate in doped arm- chair graphene nanoribbon due to impurity atoms effects, Optical and Quantum Electronics 56 (6) (2024) 982.doi:10.1007/ s11082-024-06696-x

    2024

  14. [15]

    Kakavandi, H

    T. Kakavandi, H. Rezania, Impurity atoms effects on electronic properties and seebeck coefficient of armchair graphene like nanorib- bon, Applied Physics A 130 (5) (2024) 337.doi:10.1007/ s00339-024-07512-9

    2024

  15. [16]

    Rezania, M

    H. Rezania, M. Jamshidipour, M. Abdi, B. Astinchap, Thermody- namic properties of disordered kagome lattice due to spin–orbit interaction effects, Applied Physics A 131 (2) (2025) 94.doi: 10.1007/s00339-024-08231-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00339-024-08231-x 2025

  16. [17]

    S. Adam, E. H. Hwang, V . M. Galitski, S. Das Sarma, A self- consistent theory for graphene transport, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (47) (2007) 18392–18397.doi:10. 1073/pnas.0704772104

    2007

  17. [18]

    E. H. Hwang, S. Adam, S. Das Sarma, Carrier transport in two- dimensional graphene layers, Physical Review Letters 98 (18) (2007) 186806.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.186806

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.186806 2007

  18. [19]

    Martin, N

    J. Martin, N. Akerman, G. Ulbricht, T. Lohmann, J. H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, A. Yacoby, Observation of electron–hole puddles in graphene using a scanning single-electron transistor, Nature Physics 4 (2) (2008) 144–148.doi:10.1038/nphys781

    doi:10.1038/nphys781 2008

  19. [20]

    J. H. Chen, C. Jang, S. Adam, M. S. Fuhrer, E. D. Williams, M. Ishigami, Charged-impurity scattering in graphene, Nature Physics 4 (5) (2008) 377–381.doi:10.1038/nphys935

    doi:10.1038/nphys935 2008

  20. [21]

    S. Adam, E. Hwang, S. Das Sarma, Scattering mechanisms and boltzmann transport in graphene, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 40 (5) (2008) 1022–1025.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physe.2007.09.064. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1386947707005085

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physe.2007.09.064 2008

  21. [22]

    Inglot, A

    M. Inglot, A. Dyrdał, V . K. Dugaev, J. Barna´s, Thermoelectric effect enhanced by resonant states in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 91 (2015) 115410.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.91.115410. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 91.115410

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.91.115410 2015

  22. [23]

    D. K. Ferry, Short-range potential scattering and its effect on graphene mobility, Journal of Computational Electronics 12 (2) (2013) 76–84.doi:10.1007/s10825-012-0431-x. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10825-012-0431-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10825-012-0431-x 2013

  23. [24]

    J. C. Koepke, J. D. Wood, D. Estrada, Z.-Y . Ong, K. T. He, E. Pop, J. W. Lyding, Atomic-scale evidence for potential barriers and strong carrier scattering at graphene grain boundaries: A scanning tunneling microscopy study, ACS Nano 7 (1) (2013) 75–86.doi:10.1021/ nn302064p. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/nn302064p

    work page doi:10.1021/nn302064p 2013

  24. [25]

    J.-S. Wu, M. M. Fogler, Scattering of two-dimensional massless dirac electrons by a circular potential barrier, Physical Review B 90 (23) (2014) 235402.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.90.235402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.90.235402 2014

  25. [26]

    J. M. Caridad, S. Connaughton, C. Ott, H. B. Weber, V . Krsti ´c, An electrical analogy to mie scattering, Nature Communications 7 (2016) 12894.doi:10.1038/ncomms12894

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms12894 2016

  26. [27]

    N. M. R. Peres, Colloquium: The transport properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 2673–2700.doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.82.2673

    2010

  27. [28]

    N. H. Shon, T. Ando, Quantum transport in two-dimensional graphite system, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 67 (7) (1998) 2421–2429.arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1143/ JPSJ.67.2421,doi:10.1143/JPSJ.67.2421. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.67.2421

    doi:10.1143/jpsj.67.2421 1998

  28. [29]

    J. W. Kłos, I. V . Zozoulenko, Effect of short- and long-range scattering on the conductivity of graphene: Boltzmann approach vs tight-binding calculations, Phys. Rev. B 82 (2010) 081414.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.081414. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 82.081414

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.82.081414 2010

  29. [30]

    I. L. Aleiner, K. B. Efetov, Effect of disorder on transport in graphene, Physical Review Letters 97 (23) (2006) 236801.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.97.236801

    2006

  30. [31]

    P. M. Ostrovsky, I. V . Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, Electron transport in disordered graphene, Physical Review B 74 (23) (2006) 235443. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.74.235443

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.74.235443 2006

  31. [32]

    J. P. Robinson, H. Schomerus, L. Oroszlány, V . I. Fal’ko, Adsorbate- limited conductivity of graphene, Physical Review Letters 101 (19) (2008) 196803.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.196803

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.196803 2008

  32. [33]

    T. O. Wehling, S. Yuan, A. I. Lichtenstein, A. K. Geim, M. I. Katsnelson, Resonant scattering by realistic impurities in graphene, Physical Review Letters 105 (5) (2010) 056802.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.105.056802

    2010

  33. [34]

    D. S. Novikov, Elastic scattering theory and transport in graphene, Physical Review B 76 (24) (2007) 245435.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.76.245435

    2007

  34. [35]

    Ferreira, J

    A. Ferreira, J. Viana-Gomes, J. Nilsson, E. R. Mucciolo, N. M. R. Peres, A. H. Castro Neto, Unified description of the dc conductivity of monolayer and bilayer graphene at finite densities based on resonant scatterers, Physical Review B 83 (16) (2011) 165402.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.165402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.165402 2011

  35. [36]

    Reich, J

    S. Reich, J. Maultzsch, C. Thomsen, P. Ordejón, Tight-binding description of graphene, Physical Review B 66 (3) (2002) 035412. doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.035412. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.66.035412

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.035412 2002

  36. [37]

    P. R. Wallace, The band theory of graphite, Phys. Rev. 71 (1947) 622–634.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.71.622

    doi:10.1103/physrev.71.622 1947

  37. [38]

    M. R. Masir, A. Matulis, F. M. Peeters, Scattering of dirac electrons by circular mass barriers: Valley filter and resonant scattering, Physi- cal Review B 84 (24) (2011) 245413.doi:10.1103/physrevb. 84.245413. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.84.245413

    doi:10.1103/physrevb 2011

  38. [39]

    J. A. Cañas, D. A. Bonilla, A. Martín-Ruiz, Thermoelectric transport in graphene under strain fields modeled by dirac oscillators, Phys. Rev. B (2025) –doi:10.1103/3r17-kfy7. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/3r17-kfy7

    work page doi:10.1103/3r17-kfy7 2025

  39. [40]

    Ominato, M

    Y . Ominato, M. Koshino, Quantum transport in three-dimensional weyl electron system in the presence of charged impurity scattering, Phys. Rev. B 91 (2015) 035202.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.91. 035202. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 91.035202

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.91 2015

  40. [41]

    Nomura, A

    K. Nomura, A. H. MacDonald, Quantum hall ferromagnetism in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 256602.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.256602. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.96.256602

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.256602 2006

  41. [42]

    A. A. Burkov, M. D. Hook, L. Balents, Topological nodal semimetals, Phys. Rev. B 84 (2011) 235126.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.84. 235126. :Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 9 of 10 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 84.235126

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.84 2011

  42. [43]

    J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics, revised Edition, Addison- Wesley, 1994

    1994

  43. [44]

    J. M. Ziman, Electrons and Phonons: The Theory of Transport Phenomena, Oxford, Clanderon Press, London, 1960

    1960

  44. [45]

    J. M. Ziman, Principles of the Theory of Solids, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1972

    1972

  45. [46]

    C. R. Dean, A. F. Young, I. Meric, C. Lee, L. Wang, S. Sorgen- frei, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Kim, K. L. Shepard, J. Hone, Boron nitride substrates for high-quality graphene electronics, Nature Nanotechnology 5 (10) (2010) 722–726.doi:10.1038/nnano. 2010.172. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2010.172

    doi:10.1038/nnano 2010

  46. [47]

    J. Mao, Y . Jiang, D. Moldovan, G. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. R. Masir, F. M. Peeters, E. Y . Andrei, Realization of a tunable ar- tificial atom at a supercritically charged vacancy in graphene, Nature Physics 12 (6) (2016) 545–549.doi:10.1038/nphys3665. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3665

    doi:10.1038/nphys3665 2016

  47. [48]

    S. D. Sarma, S. Adam, E. H. Hwang, E. Rossi, Electronic transport in two-dimensional graphene, Reviews of Modern Physics 83 (2) (2011) 407–470.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.83.407. URLhttps://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10. 1103/RevModPhys.83.407

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.83.407 2011

  48. [49]

    Y .-W. Tan, Y . Zhang, K. Bolotin, Y . Zhao, S. Adam, E. H. Hwang, S. D. Sarma, H. L. Stormer, P. Kim, Measurement of scattering rate and minimum conductivity in graphene, Physical Review Letters 99 (24) (2007) 246803.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99. 246803. URLhttps://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.99.246803

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99 2007

  49. [50]

    Kim, J.-H

    M. Kim, J.-H. Choi, S.-H. Lee, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S.-H. Jhi, H.-J. Lee, Valley-symmetry-preserved transport in ballistic graphene with gate-defined carrier guiding, Nature Physics 12 (11) (2016) 1022–1026.doi:10.1038/nphys3804. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3804

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys3804 2016

  50. [51]

    Z. Han, X. Ruan, Thermal conductivity of monolayer graphene: Convergent and lower than diamond, Phys. Rev. B 108 (2023) L121412.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L121412. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 108.L121412

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.l121412 2023

  51. [52]

    A. A. Balandin, S. Ghosh, W. Bao, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, F. Miao, C. N. Lau, Superior thermal conductivity of single-layer graphene, Nano Letters 8 (3) (2008) 902–907.doi:10.1021/ nl0731872. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/nl0731872

    work page doi:10.1021/nl0731872 2008

  52. [53]

    M. Hase, D. Tanisawa, O. Norimasa, R. Kamemura, S. Miyake, M. Takashiri, Experimental study on the effect of impurity concentration on phonon and electronic transport properties of single-crystal silicon, Results in Physics 47 (2023) 106356.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2023.106356. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2211379723001493

    arXiv 2023

  53. [54]

    Crossno, J

    J. Crossno, J. K. Shi, K. Wang, X. Liu, A. Harzheim, A. Lucas, S. Sachdev, P. Kim, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, T. A. Ohki, K. C. Fong, Observation of the dirac fluid and the breakdown of the wiedemann-franz law in graphene, Science 351 (6277) (2016) 1058–1061.arXiv:https://www. science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aad0343, doi:10.1126/science.aad0343. URLht...

    doi:10.1126/science.aad0343 2016

  54. [55]

    Y .-T. Tu, S. Das Sarma, Wiedemann-franz law in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 107 (2023) 085401.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.107. 085401. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 107.085401

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.107 2023

  55. [56]

    Y .-T. Tu, S. Das Sarma, Wiedemann-franz law in graphene in the presence of a weak magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 108 (2023) 245415. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.108.245415. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 108.245415

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.245415 2023

  56. [57]

    Rycerz, Wiedemann–franz law for massless dirac fermions with implications for graphene, Materials 14 (11) (2021).doi:10

    A. Rycerz, Wiedemann–franz law for massless dirac fermions with implications for graphene, Materials 14 (11) (2021).doi:10. 3390/ma14112704. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/11/2704

    2021

  57. [58]

    H. J. Hwang, S.-Y . Kim, S. K. Lee, B. H. Lee, Large scale graphene thermoelectric device with high power factor using gradient doping profile, Carbon 201 (2023) 467–472.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2022.09.048. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0008622322007722

    work page doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2022.09.048 2023

  58. [59]

    Sadeghi, S

    H. Sadeghi, S. Sangtarash, C. J. Lambert, Enhancing the thermoelec- tric figure of merit in engineered graphene nanoribbons, Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology 6 (2015) 1176–1182.doi:10.3762/ bjnano.6.119. URLhttps://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.119

    work page doi:10.3762/bjnano.6.119 2015

  59. [60]

    Sevinçli, C

    H. Sevinçli, C. Sevik, T. Ça ˘gın, G. Cuniberti, A bottom-up route to enhance thermoelectric figures of merit in graphene nanoribbons, Sci- entific Reports 3 (1) (2013) 1228.doi:10.1038/srep01228. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/srep01228 :Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 10 of 10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (a) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 10 ...

    work page doi:10.1038/srep01228 2013