Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Superinsulating behavior in granular Pb film on gated few-layer MoS$_2$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Granular lead film on MoS2 shows superinsulating behavior below 7 K

desk verdict Plausible gate-tunable superinsulating-like behavior in a new hybrid platform, but the saturation/quantum-fluctuation claim is underdetermined by a single two-probe device with no conduction-path control. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17515 v1 pith:SLIKDMYY submitted 2025-05-23 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el

Suraina Gupta , Santu Prasad Jana , Pawan Kumar Gupta , Anjan K. Gupta This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords superinsulatingstategranularsuperconductorPb/MoS2hybridsuperconductor-insulatortransitiongate-tunabletransportquantumfluctuationsthresholdvoltageconductancesaturation
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 reports that a granular film of lead on a few-layer MoS2 channel behaves as a superinsulator below about 7 K, the superconducting transition temperature of bulk lead. In this state the device conducts almost nothing at low voltage and only becomes conductive above a threshold voltage that depends on the back-gate voltage. The authors show that the current-voltage characteristics and the temperature dependence of the conductance match a superinsulating picture: thermal activation of quasiparticles across an inter-grain barrier, plus a saturating contribution attributed to quantum fluctuations. If correct, the result adds a gate-tunable hybrid platform for studying the superconductor-insulator transition and its dual dissipationless states.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-terminal device consisting of a granular 40 nm lead film evaporated onto exfoliated few-layer MoS2 on a Si/SiO2 substrate, with a back-gate voltage. The superinsulating behavior is attributed to the weakly coupled Pb grains: below the superconducting transition of each grain, transport between grains is hindered by the energy cost of breaking Cooper pairs and moving quasiparticles across the inter-grain barrier, producing an exponential suppression of conductance. The threshold voltage is the dual of the critical current of a superconductor, marking the voltage at which the low-bias insulating behavior gives way to the normal-state resistance. The temperature dependence of the conductance is described by $G = (1/R_0 - 1/R_S)\exp(-U/k_B T) + 1/R_S$, in which the second term represents quantum tunneling or fluctuations that prevent the conductance from vanishing.

What would settle it

Measure the resistance versus temperature and current-voltage characteristics of a bare MoS2 device, and of a Pb film on SiO2 without MoS2, under identical conditions: if either shows a similar resistance rise below 7 K or a nonlinearity with a gate-dependent threshold, the superinsulating assignment would need to be revised. Alternatively, a four-probe measurement on the same device that removes contact resistance would directly test whether the effect is in the channel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Pb/MoS2 device enters a superinsulating state below the superconducting transition of the Pb grains, evidenced by a sharp rise in resistance around 7 K, a threshold voltage in the current-voltage characteristics below which the device is highly insulating, and a critical magnetic field above which the insulating features are suppressed. The threshold voltage decreases monotonically as the back-gate voltage is increased, while the depairing field, about 0.72 T at 1.3 K, is independent of gate voltage, as expected for an intra-grain property of lead. The low-temperature conductance does not fall to zero but saturates to a finite, field- and gate-dependent value, which the authors fit with a combination of thermal activation and quantum fluctuations over the full temperature range, in contrast to fits using charge-BKT or pure activation models.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation rests on the assumption that all current flows through the Pb islands on MoS2 and that the two gold contacts are Ohmic, so that the resistance rise and nonlinear voltage-current curves reflect the granular superconducting array itself rather than contact barriers or the bare MoS2 channel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below about 7 K the device acts as a voltage-tunable switch between an insulating state and the normal resistance of the lead grains, with the threshold set by the back-gate voltage.
  • Because the critical magnetic field does not depend on gate voltage, the superconducting properties of the Pb grains and the inter-grain coupling can be tuned separately, a useful property for studying the superconductor-insulator transition.
  • The conductance saturation at low temperature implies that the zero-temperature state is not a perfect insulator; rather, quantum fluctuations produce a residual conductivity that depends on gate and field.
  • The platform extends superinsulator studies to a semiconducting channel, where the Fermi level can be shifted with a gate, complementing experiments on amorphous InOx and TiN.
  • The failure of charge-BKT and pure activation fits, and the success of the combination fit, suggests that quantum fluctuations play a central role in the low-temperature transport of this hybrid system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next experiment is to measure at lower temperatures to see whether the quantum-tunneling term remains finite as temperature approaches zero, which would confirm the zero-temperature residual conductivity.
  • Because the gate voltage shifts the MoS2 Fermi level, the inter-grain barrier should be tunable over a wide range; combining gate voltage with magnetic field might drive a full superconductor-insulator transition in this device.
  • A control measurement on bare MoS2 or on the Pb film above 7 K would clarify whether the reported superinsulating signatures are intrinsic to the granular superconductor or contaminated by contact and Schottky effects.
  • If the residual conductance indeed originates from quantum tunneling, the saturation value could serve as a direct probe of the quantum-fluctuation amplitude controlling the superconductor-insulator transition in granular arrays.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports transport measurements on a single device consisting of a granular Pb film evaporated on exfoliated few-layer MoS2 with two-probe Au contacts and a Si back gate. Below the bulk Pb critical temperature TC≈7 K, the resistance increases, the current–voltage characteristics develop a threshold voltage Vth separating low-bias high-resistance from high-bias low-resistance behavior, and the zero-bias conductance saturates to a finite value at low temperature. Vth is gate-tunable; the magnetic field at which the nonlinearity disappears is approximately 0.72 T at 1.3 K and follows HC(T)=HC(0)[1-(T/TC)^2]. The conductance fits to Eq. (3), a thermally activated component plus a temperature-independent saturation term attributed to quantum fluctuations. The authors interpret these as signatures of a superinsulating state in the granular Pb array.

Significance. The qualitative phenomenology is self-consistent and, if the current path were established, would be an interesting addition: gate-tuned superinsulating-like behavior in a granular superconductor on a semiconducting TMD, with Vth tunable by gate and the critical field insensitive to gate. The strengths are that Vth and HC are extracted from raw data independently of the fitted models, and the data show a clear kink at TC and a saturation that is visibly incompatible with a pure Arrhenius or charge-BKT fit. However, the conclusions depend on an untested assumption that transport is dominated by the Pb island array and that the saturation term is intrinsic. Without a bare-MoS2 control, a four-terminal check, or a normal-state comparison, the evidence does not yet justify the 'quantum fluctuation' labeling; the paper is a plausible report of a new platform rather than a demonstration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II and Sec. IV.A (Figs. 2 and 3)] The assumption that 'electrical conduction occurs only through Pb islands on MoS2' (Sec. II) is not demonstrated. The SEM evidence shows island separation on SiO2, not on MoS2, and all measurements are two-probe across Au/MoS2/Pb islands, so the resistance rise below 7 K and the nonlinear V–I curves could arise from the MoS2 channel or from contact/Schottky barriers. No bare-MoS2 control, no four-terminal measurement, and no normal-state comparison are reported. Since the central claim is that this is an intrinsic superinsulating state of the granular Pb array, this current-path ambiguity is load-bearing. The paper itself concedes in Sec. V that the gate-tunable barrier may include the Schottky barrier and the MoS2 ECB−EF term, which further underscores the need for a control.
  2. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (3), and Sec. IV.A, Figs. 3(b–d)] Equation (3) is G = (1/R0 − 1/RS) exp(−U/kBT) + 1/RS, which is mathematically identical to a thermally activated conductance in parallel with a constant shunt of magnitude 1/RS. Therefore the observation that Eq. (3) fits the saturated low-temperature conductance cannot, by itself, distinguish quantum-fluctuation transport from a parallel leakage path through MoS2, the contacts, or a second conduction channel. The manuscript does not report fit uncertainties, residuals, or a comparison of RS with the normal-state resistance above TC or with a bare-MoS2 device. The claim that the saturation is due to quantum fluctuations (Sec. IV.A) is thus underdetermined by the data presented.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, Fig. 4] The critical field is extracted from visually identified 'kink-like features' in R(H) without a quantitative criterion (Figs. 4b–d), and the temperature dependence is fit to Eq. (4) with no uncertainty on HC(0)=0.738 T. In addition, all results come from a single device with no reproducibility or error estimates. While the qualitative magnetic-field dependence is plausible, these omissions weaken the quantitative support for the reported phase boundary.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1(c)] Add a scale bar and specify the image dimensions; the claim about island separation on SiO2 versus MoS2 cannot be assessed otherwise.
  2. [Figs. 3(e) and 5(e,f)] Report the number of fit points, the fit range, and error bars on U, R0, and RS; currently only point estimates are given.
  3. [Sec. IV.A] The statement that the data are 'inconsistent with the charge-BKT and the thermal activation models' is demonstrated only for Vg=−80 V (Fig. 3b); please show corresponding fits for at least Vg=0 and 80 V.
  4. [Sec. V] The phrase 'this needs to be more investigations' should read 'this needs further investigation'.
  5. [Sec. II] The sentence 'The high deposition rate ensures a high-quality interface between Pb and MoS2' is an assertion without supporting evidence; please clarify or remove. Also, the notation 'see the inset of Fig. 1(d)' does not match the figure caption, which describes no inset; please correct.
  6. [References] References 49 and 50 are formatted inconsistently with the rest of the reference list; check journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the threshold voltage, critical field, and resistance rise are direct data extractions; Eq. (3) is explicitly used as a fitting model, not as an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central observations, namely the threshold voltage in the V-I characteristics, the critical magnetic field, and the resistance increase below 7 K, are model-independent readouts of the measured transport data. The only place a model enters the central narrative is Eq. (3), G = (1/R0 - 1/RS) exp(-U/kBT) + 1/RS, which is used to describe the low-temperature conductance saturation. The paper explicitly says the equation 'fits well to the data' (Sec. IV A) and does not claim that Eq. (3) is derived from first principles or that the saturation is independently predicted by the model. The asymptotic value 1/RS is a free parameter of the fitting form, so the fit demonstrates mathematical consistency with the data rather than providing an independent confirmation of quantum fluctuations. This is a model-selection consideration, not circularity. The author-overlapping reference (Ref. 43, used for vortex-pinning deviations from BKT) is not load-bearing: it supports a qualitative remark about why the charge-BKT fit might fail, but the superinsulating interpretation rests on field- and temperature-dependent thresholds extracted directly from data, not on that remark. No self-definitional step, imported uniqueness theorem, or renamed known result is present. The paper is an experimental report whose main claims are direct observations, with Eq. (3) presented as a fitting model rather than as a predicted consequence.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on four fitted quantities (U, R0, RS from Eq. 3; HC(0) from Eq. 4) and on literature models (charge-BKT, thermal activation, quantum-fluctuation saturation) that are assumed to apply to this granular Pb/MoS2 system. No new entities are introduced. The main assumptions are that conduction is exclusively through Pb islands on MoS2, that bulk Pb TC=7 K marks the onset of grain superconductivity, and that Eq. 3's saturation term is the correct description of low-temperature transport.

free parameters (4)
  • U (activation energy) = extracted from fits, plotted in Fig. 3(e) and 5(e,f)
    Fit parameter in Eq. 3 for each gate voltage and magnetic field; central to the claim that conductance is activated plus saturated.
  • R0 (normal-state resistance prefactor) = extracted from fits, Fig. 3(e)
    Free prefactor in Eq. 3; absorbs contact and normal-state resistances.
  • RS (saturation resistance) = extracted from fits, Fig. 3(e) and 5(e,f)
    Saturation conductance term in Eq. 3; encodes the low-temperature plateau and is interpreted as quantum fluctuations.
  • HC(0) (zero-temperature critical field) = 0.738 T
    Fit of Eq. 4 to temperature-dependent critical field; used to support that superconductivity in Pb grains controls the effect.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Pb film forms weakly coupled superconducting grains with negligible Josephson coupling EJ compared to kBT and Coulomb energy EC, so charge transport is quasiparticle-like across barriers.
    Sec. III B/C and Sec. IV A; necessary for interpreting the resistance rise as superinsulating behavior rather than strong coupling effects.
  • domain assumption The activation-plus-saturation formula Eq. (3) from Delsing et al. describes quantum tunneling between grains in this granular system.
    Eq. 3 is adopted from literature; its validity for Pb/MoS2 is assumed when extracting U, R0, and RS.
  • domain assumption The temperature dependence of the critical field follows the empirical form HC(T)=HC(0)[1-(T/TC)^2].
    Used to fit the inset of Fig. 4(d) and to infer the depairing field of the Pb grains.
  • domain assumption Conduction occurs only through Pb islands on MoS2; Pb on surrounding SiO2 is electrically isolated.
    Sec. II; no control measurement is provided to verify this assumption.
  • domain assumption Bulk Pb critical temperature TC=7 K marks the onset of superconductivity in the Pb grains.
    Used to identify the onset of the supposed superinsulating behavior; grain-size effects could shift TC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superinsulating behavior in granular Pb film on gated few-layer MoS$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLIKDMYY

@misc{pith2026250517515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superinsulating behavior in granular Pb film on gated few-layer MoS$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLIKDMYY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17515}
}
abstract

We report a super-insulating behavior, in a device having granular Pb film on back-gated few-layer $\mathrm{MoS_2}$, below an onset temperature same as the critical temperature $T_{\rm C}\approx7$ K of bulk Pb. Below $T_{\rm C}$, the current-voltage characteristics exhibit a threshold voltage marking a crossover between the low-bias insulating and the high-bias normal-resistance states, consistent with the known super-insulating state behavior. A temperature dependent critical magnetic field is also found above which the insulating behavior is suppressed. The threshold voltage is found to vary with the gate-voltage but the critical field remains unchanged. With reducing temperature, the sample conductance saturates to a finite value, which depends on magnetic field and gate-voltage. This saturation behavior is found to be inconsistent with the charge-BKT and the thermal activation models but it can be fitted well to a combination of thermal activation and quantum fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) shows the Raman spectrum of the exfoliated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The filled squares in (a) and (b) show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (b) with charge-BKT transition, i.e. Eq. (1), as shown by the green dashed line. The equation fits well within a temperature range starting from TC and down to a certain temperature; below which, the fit deviates as the measured G saturates to a finite value at low tem￾peratures. This deviation could arise from the finite size of the sample, as suggested in the literature38, or from sample inhomogeneity, which leads… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) and (b) show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sondhi S L, Girvin S, Carini J and Shahar D 1997 Rev. Mod. Phys. 69 315

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Fisher M P A 1990 Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 923

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Tsen A, Hunt B, Kim Y, Yuan Z, Jia S, Cava R, Hone J, Kim P, Dean C and Pasupathy A 2016 Nat. Phys. 12 208--212

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Sharma C H, Surendran A P, Varma S S and Thalakulam M 2018 Commun. Phys. 1 90

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Allain A, Han Z and Bouchiat V 2012 Nat. Mater. 11 590--4

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Breznay N P, Tendulkar M, Zhang L, Lee S C and Kapitulnik A 2017 Phys. Rev. B 96 134522

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Xing Y, Zhang H M, Fu H L, Liu H, Sun Y, Peng J P, Wang F, Lin X, Ma X C, Xue Q K, Wang J and Xie X C 2015 Science 350 542--5

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    24 2444--50

    Chen F, Liu Y, Guo W, Wang T, Tian Z, Zhang M, Xue Z, Mu G, Zhang X and Di Z 2024 Nano Lett. 24 2444--50

    work page 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Nguyen H, Hollen S M, Stewart Jr M, Shainline J, Yin A, Xu J and Valles Jr J M 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 157001

    2009

  2. [10]

    Hollen S M, Fernandes G, Xu J and Valles Jr J 2014 Phys. Rev. B 90 140506

    2014

  3. [11]

    Baturina T, Mironov A Y, Vinokur V, Baklanov M and Strunk C 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 257003

    2007

  4. [12]

    Stewart Jr M, Yin A, Xu J and Valles Jr J M 2007 Science 318 1273--5

    2007

  5. [13]

    Khan S, Pedersen E, Kain B, Jordan A and Barber Jr R 2000 Phys. Rev. B 61 5909

    2000

  6. [14]

    Hen B, Zhang X, Shelukhin V, Kapitulnik A and Palevski A 2021 PNAS 118 e2015970118

    2021

  7. [15]

    van der Zant H S, Elion W J, Geerligs L J and Mooij J 1996 Phys. Rev. B 54 10081

    1996

  8. [16]

    Han Z, Allain A, Arjmandi-Tash H, Tikhonov K, Feigel'man M, Sac \'e p \'e B and Bouchiat V 2014 Nat. Phys. 10 380--6

    2014

  9. [17]

    Vinokur V M, Baturina T I, Fistul M V, Mironov A Y, Baklanov M R and Strunk C 2008 Nature 452 613--5

    2008

  10. [18]

    Fistul M, Vinokur V and Baturina T 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 086805

    2008

  11. [19]

    Baturina T I and Vinokur V M 2013 Ann. Phys. 331 236--57

    2013

  12. [20]

    Steiner M A, Breznay N P and Kapitulnik A 2008 Phys. Rev. B 77 212501

    2008

  13. [21]

    M D, Shainline J, Xu J M and Valles Jr J M 2011 Phys

    Hollen S M, Nguyen H Q, Rudisaile E, Stewart Jr. M D, Shainline J, Xu J M and Valles Jr J M 2011 Phys. Rev. B 84 064528

    2011

  14. [22]

    Valles Jr J M, Dynes R C and Garno J P 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 3567

    1992

  15. [23]

    Hsu S-Y and Valles Jr J M 1993 Phys. Rev. B 48 4164

    1993

  16. [24]

    Hollen S M, Fernandes G E, Xu J M and Valles Jr J M 2013 Phys. Rev. B 87 054512

    2013

  17. [25]

    Sambandamurthy G, Engel L, Johansson A and Shahar D 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 107005

    2004

  18. [26]

    Sambandamurthy G, Engel L, Johansson A, Peled E and Shahar D 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 017003

    2005

  19. [27]

    Beloborodov I S, Lopatin A V, Vinokur V M and Efetov K B 2007 Rev. Mod. Phys. 79 469--518

    2007

  20. [28]

    Syzranov S V, Efetov K B and Altshuler B L 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 127001

    2009

  21. [29]

    Nanotechnol

    Radisavljevic B, Radenovic A, Brivio J, Giacometti V and Kis A 2011 Nat. Nanotechnol. 6 147--50

    2011

  22. [30]

    11 3768--73

    Yoon Y, Ganapathi K and Salahuddin S 2011 Nano Lett. 11 3768--73

    2011

  23. [31]

    bf 1 011002

    Castellanos-Gomez A, Buscema M, Molenaar R, Singh V, Janssen L, Van Der Zant H S and Steele G A 2014 2D Mater. bf 1 011002

    2014

  24. [32]

    Chakraborty B, Bera A, Muthu D, Bhowmick S, Waghmare U V and Sood A 2012 Phys. Rev. B 85 161403

    2012

  25. [33]

    Lee C, Yan H, Brus L E, Heinz T F, Hone J and Ryu S 2010 ACS Nano 4 2695--700

    2010

  26. [34]

    Low Temp

    Halperin B and Nelson D R 1979 J. Low Temp. Phys. 36 599--616

    1979

  27. [35]

    Delsing P, Chen C, Haviland D, Harada Y and Claeson T 1994 Phys. Rev. B 50 3959

    1994

  28. [36]

    Mooij J, Van Wees B, Geerligs L, Peters M, Fazio R and Sch \"o n G 1990 Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 645

    1990

  29. [37]

    Fazio R and Sch \"o n G 1991 Phys. Rev. B 43 5307

    1991

  30. [38]

    Mironov A Y, Silevitch D M, Proslier T, Postolova S V, Burdastyh M V, Gutakovskii A K, Rosenbaum T F, Vinokur V V and Baturina T I 2018 Sci. Rep. 8 4082

    2018

  31. [39]

    Zhao W L, Zhu X, He Z H, Gao K H and Li Z Q 2020 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 33 105010

    2020

  32. [40]

    Saito Y, Kasahara Y, Ye J, Iwasa Y and Nojima T 2015 Science 350 409--13

    2015

  33. [41]

    165 59--63

    Zhao W, Wang Q, Liu M, Zhang W, Wang Y, Chen M, Guo Y, He K, Chen X, Wang Y, Wang J, Xie X, Niu Q, Wang L, Ma X, Jain J K, Chan M H W and Xue Q K 2013 Solid State Commun. 165 59--63

    2013

  34. [42]

    Weitzel A, Pfaffinger L, Maccari I, Kronfeldner K, Huber T, Fuchs L, Mallord J, Linzen S, Il’ichev E, Paradiso N and Strunk C 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 186002

    2023

  35. [43]

    Gupta S, Jana S P, Pervin R and Gupta A K 2024 Phys. Rev. B 110 024506

    2024

  36. [44]

    Benfatto L, Castellani C and Giamarchi T 2009 Phys. Rev. B 80 214506

    2009

  37. [45]

    Ikegami H and Nakamura Y 2022 Phys. Rev. B 106 184511

    2022

  38. [46]

    Matter 194 1123--4

    Katsumoto S and Kobayashi S 1994 Physica B: Condens. Matter 194 1123--4

    1994

  39. [47]

    Orr B G, Jaeger H M and Goldman A M 1985 Phys. Rev. B 32 7586

    1985

  40. [48]

    Jaeger H M, Haviland D B, Orr B G, and Goldman A M 1989 Phys. Rev. B 40 182

    1989

  41. [49]

    Zhang X, Palevski A and Kapitulnik A 2022 PNAS 119 e2202496119

    2022

  42. [50]

    Kim J J, Kim J and Lee H J 1992 Phys. Rev. B 46 11709

    1992

  43. [51]

    W.-H. Li, C. C. Yang, F. C. Tsao, and K. C. Lee, Phys. Rev. B \ bf 68 , 184507 (2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    Barber Jr R P, Hsu S Y, Valles Jr J M, Dynes R C and Glover III R E 2006 Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 73 134516

    2006

  45. [53]

    53 1--57

    Gantmakher V F and Dolgopolov V T 2010 Phys.–Usp. 53 1--57

    2010

  46. [54]

    Gerber A, Milner A, Deutscher G, Karpovsky M and Gladkikh A 1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 4277

    1997

  47. [55]

    Duan X Z, He Z H, Yang Y and Li Z Q 2019 Phys. Rev. B 99 094204

    2019

  48. [56]

    Saito, Y

    Y. Saito, Y. M. Itahashi, T. Nojima, and Y. Iwasa, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 074003 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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