Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Weak localization measurements of electronic scattering rates in Li-doped epitaxial graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weak localization measurements separately quantify intra- and intervalley scattering in Li-doped graphene, revealing a high-doping discrepancy with tight-binding theory.

desk verdict A careful WL study that cleanly separates intra- and intervalley scattering in Li-doped graphene; the low-doping sqrt(n) result is solid, but the high-doping 'beyond tight-binding' claim rests on an untested disorder-background assumption and lower-bound data points. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10893 v3 pith:TRYVCZB2 submitted 2019-08-28 cond-mat.mes-hall

Ali Khademi , Kristen Kaasbjerg , Pinder Dosanjh , Alexander Stöhr , Stiven Forti , Ulrich Starke , Joshua A. Folk This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords weaklocalizationlithiumadatomsintervalleyscatteringintravalleyepitaxialgraphenetight-bindingmodelcarrierdensityscalingmagnetoresistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that weak-localization magnetoresistance can separate the two scattering channels in graphene that ordinary conductivity blurs together, and that lithium adatoms affect both channels in measurable, partly predictable ways. In epitaxial graphene, adding Li increases the intravalley scattering rate as expected for Coulomb scattering off charged adatoms, and it also increases the intervalley rate in a way that at low doping follows $\tau_i^{-1}\propto\sqrt{n}$, the signature of extra carriers making pre-existing short-range defects more effective through the graphene density of states. A parameter-free tight-binding calculation that includes trigonal warping and band nonlinearity reproduces the mobility and the low-density intervalley data, but above $n\approx 5\times10^{13}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ the measured intervalley rate rises well above the calculation. The authors take that residual discrepancy as evidence that lithium at high coverage modifies the graphene band structure beyond simple Dirac-cone physics, consistent with photoemission reports; a sympathetic reader would care because it shows transport and photoemission can be connected through quantitatively separated scattering rates.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the graphene weak-localization formula $\Delta\sigma(B_\perp)=\frac{e^2}{\pi h}[F(\tau_B^{-1}/\tau_\phi^{-1}) - F(\tau_B^{-1}/(\tau_\phi^{-1}+2\tau_i^{-1})) - 2F(\tau_B^{-1}/(\tau_\phi^{-1}+\tau_*^{-1}+\tau_i^{-1}))]$, where $F(z)=\ln z+\psi(z^{-1}+\tfrac12)$ and $\tau_B^{-1}=4eDB_\perp/\hbar$; it converts magnetic-field scans into separate dephasing, intravalley, and intervalley rates. The interpretive counterpart is the Born-approximation scattering rate $\tau_\alpha^{-1}(\varepsilon_k)=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}n_\alpha\int \frac{dk'}{(2\pi)^2}|V^\alpha_{kk'}|^2\delta(\varepsilon_k-\varepsilon_{k'})$ evaluated on nearest-neighbor tight-binding bands, which supplies the parameter-free comparison via the residual-disorder strength $V_{\rm res}$ and the DFT-derived Coulomb potential of Li. The physical idea carrying the argument is that lithium doping changes only the carrier density, so the intervalley scattering from pre-existing defects scales with the graphene density of states $D(E_F)\propto\sqrt n$; any deviation from that scaling at high density is read as band-structure modification.

What would settle it

Prepare two graphene samples with very different initial defect densities, measure their intervalley rates as lithium is added, and check whether the low-density $\sqrt n$ portions scale with the initial defect density as the residual-disorder explanation predicts. If the high-density excess above the tight-binding curve appears at the same carrier density regardless of initial defects, the fixed-disorder picture is confirmed; if the excess instead tracks the amount of lithium deposited, new scatterers or adatom-induced band changes are responsible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that intervalley scattering in Li-doped epitaxial graphene is enhanced far more than a long-range Coulomb scatterer should cause, and that the enhancement splits into a low-density part that a fixed population of short-range defects can explain and a high-density part that it cannot. Fitting the weak-localization magnetoconductance to the standard graphene formula yields $\tau_i^{-1}$ that grows as $\sqrt n$ up to about $5\times10^{13}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$, exactly the density-of-states scaling expected when doping merely raises the Fermi energy while the density and strength of residual short-range scatterers stay fixed. The same fixed-defect assumption, evaluated on nearest-neighbor tight-binding bands, reproduces the measured mobility without free parameters. Above that density, the measured intervalley rate exceeds both the Dirac-model and tight-binding predictions, so the paper concludes that high-coverage Li induces band-structure modifications, such as a shifted van Hove singularity or an impurity band, that the model does not include.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the assumption that lithium deposition changes only the carrier density and leaves the number, positions, and scattering strengths of the pre-existing short-range defects untouched; if lithium creates new scatterers, screens the old ones, or reshapes the bands, the predicted $\sqrt n$ scaling and the size of the high-density discrepancy would both change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weak localization can resolve short-range intervalley scattering that conductivity measurements mask behind dominant Coulomb scattering, so the technique is a practical probe of adatom-induced disorder channels in graphene.
  • The observed $\tau_i^{-1}\propto\sqrt{n}$ behavior confirms that residual short-range disorder in epitaxial graphene is pre-existing and is not created or modified by low-coverage lithium deposition.
  • Above $n\approx5\times10^{13}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$, the intervalley rate exceeds tight-binding predictions even with trigonal warping, so high-density transport data carry information about band-structure changes that photoemission has also observed.
  • Because the mobility calculation matches experiment without free parameters while the intervalley rate does not, the combination of zero-field conductivity and weak localization is what exposes the missing physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test of the shifted-van-Hove explanation would be a continuous density sweep through $n\sim10^{14}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ to look for a kink in $\tau_i^{-1}$ when the Fermi level crosses the saddle point.
  • Comparing lithium with heavier alkali adatoms such as potassium or cesium would separate charge-transfer effects from adatom-specific band-structure effects, because all alkalis dope similarly but perturb the Dirac bands differently.
  • If the high-density excess is due to an impurity band, then its contribution to intervalley scattering should depend on temperature in a way that elastic scattering off fixed defects does not; low-temperature weak-localization measurements across a wider temperature range could reveal that.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports weak-localization magnetotransport measurements on Li-doped epitaxial graphene on SiC, from which the intravalley scattering rate τ_*^{-1} and intervalley scattering rate τ_i^{-1} are extracted separately as a function of the Li-induced carrier density Δn. The authors find that τ_i^{-1} grows approximately as √n for carrier densities below about 5×10^13 cm^-2, which they attribute to scattering off pre-existing short-range disorder whose rate is proportional to the graphene density of states. At higher densities, the extracted τ_i^{-1} (in several cases only a lower bound) lies above the predictions of both Dirac and tight-binding models computed with parameters fixed at Δn=0, and the authors suggest this may indicate adatom-induced band-structure modifications beyond the applied model, while explicitly listing alternative explanations. The paper includes detailed fits to the WL formula, a supplement documenting the error-bar procedure, and numerical tight-binding and Dirac calculations of scattering rates and mobility with no further free parameters after baseline fitting.

Significance. The paper's strongest contribution is the separate extraction of intra- and intervalley scattering channels in a controlled doping sequence, together with the demonstration that the intervalley rate follows a √n dependence consistent with density-of-states-enhanced scattering from residual short-range disorder. The comparison to theory is disciplined: the residual-disorder parameters are fixed at Δn=0, and the subsequent √n and tight-binding curves are genuine shape predictions rather than free fits. The careful reduced-χ2 analysis with an explicit error-bar definition is another strength, as is the transparent supplement that allows the fits to be reproduced. If the high-density discrepancy survives an experimental control for disorder modification by Li, the suggestion that alkali adatoms alter the graphene band structure beyond a rigid shift would be an important contribution to the adatom-graphene problem. However, one load-bearing assumption and the lower-bound character of the high-density points require attention before the central interpretation can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, paragraph following Eq. (2)] The conclusion that the high-density deviation in Fig. 3(a) points to band-structure modifications beyond the tight-binding model rests on the assumption, stated as 'Since Vres is explicitly not dependent on subsequent Li deposition', that the residual short-range disorder (density nres and strengths V0,i, V0,*) is unaffected by Li deposition. The manuscript excludes new short-range scatterers only by arguing that Li-graphene bonding is weak, which is a theoretical expectation rather than an experimental control. A desorption/re-dosing hysteresis measurement would directly test this assumption: if τ_i^-1 at a given carrier density differs when that density is approached by desorbing Li rather than by depositing it, the disorder background has been irreversibly modified, and the Fig. 3(a) comparison is not a clean test of band-structure effects. Without such a control, the high-density discrepancy is equally consistent with Li-induced modification of the residual disorder, so this point is load-bearing for the central interpretation.
  2. [Fig. 3(a) and Supplement D] At the highest carrier densities, the plotted values of τ_i^-1 are one-sided lower bounds: Supplement D explains that for these points the reduced chi-square flattens once Bi exceeds the accessible 100 mT range, so only a lower bound on Bi, and hence on τ_i^-1, can be determined. The main text should state this explicitly in the caption or body of Fig. 3(a), and the text 'the intervalley data lies well above the √n traces' should be rephrased as 'the lower bounds on the intervalley rate lie above the traces'. As it stands, the wording overstates the quantity actually measured, although the existence of a discrepancy in the sense of a lower bound above the theoretical curve is not in question.
  3. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (2); Supplement I] The phrase 'leaving us with no free fitting parameters in our theory' is stronger than the procedure warrants. The values of V0,i and V0,* are fitted per sample to the Δn=0 intervalley rate and mobility, and nres is assumed to be 10^12 cm^-2 (Supplement I, Table I). What is correct and valuable is that, once those baseline fits are made, the doping dependence of the theoretical curves is predicted without additional fitting. The wording should say that rather than implying a fully parameter-free calculation, so that readers do not overestimate the independence of the comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplement F.1] The first sentence of Section F.1 contains a duplicated article: 'The the charged Li adatoms' should read 'The charged Li adatoms'.
  2. [Supplement I] The sentence 'All parameters enterning the matrix element' contains a typo; 'enterning' should be 'entering'.
  3. [Supplement D and main text after Eq. (1)] The phrase 'the extracted τi was indistinguishable from zero' is confusing when read against the axes of Fig. 2(c) and Fig. 3(a), which plot τ_i^{-1}; consider rewording to 'the intervalley time τ_i was too short to resolve, so only a lower bound on τ_i^{-1} could be determined'.
  4. [Reference 17] Reference 17 is listed as 'Phys. Rev. XXX XXX, XXX (2019), arXiv:1904.08191'; if a published version now exists, the citation should be updated to the final journal reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: residual-disorder parameters are fixed at Δn=0, and the doping-dependent scattering rates are genuine parameter-free shape predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is not circular. The residual-disorder parameters (nres, V0,i, V0,*) are pinned at Δn=0 by the measured intervalley rate and mobility; the subsequent doping dependence is computed from Eq. (2) with a constant matrix element V_res and the tight-binding/Dirac density of states. The √n dependence is a consequence of D(E_F) ∝ √n, not of a fit at finite doping. A one-parameter anchor at Δn=0 cannot force the agreement over the whole doping range or the observed high-density excess, so those are genuine shape predictions. The Coulomb parameters ZLi=0.9 and d=1.78 Å come from a co-authored DFT paper, but that is independent first-principles input and does not encode the WL data, so it is not load-bearing self-citation. The main caveat—that Vres is assumed unchanged by Li deposition—is a physical assumption about the system, not an algebraic reduction; the paper explicitly lists alternative explanations and reports the high-density points as lower bounds, so the discrepancy is not a forced conclusion. No equation in the paper defines the predicted quantity in terms of the measured quantity at nonzero Δn, and no self-citation substitutes for an independent derivation of the central result.

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

The central quantitative claims rest on two fitted disorder strengths per sample and an assumed disorder density, plus material parameters inherited from prior DFT and literature. The predicted doping dependence is a genuine shape prediction, but the absolute scale of the intervalley curve is anchored to the zero-doping data.

free parameters (6)
  • Residual short-range disorder density nres = 1e12 cm^-2 (assumed)
    Chosen by hand before fitting disorder strengths; the predicted density dependence does not depend on this value, but the extracted V0 values do.
  • Intravalley short-range disorder strength V0,* = 75 eV Angstrom^2 (SiC4-700K), 107 eV Angstrom^2 (SiC3-900K)
    Fitted to the zero-doping mobility of each sample; used to predict the Li-induced mobility change.
  • Intervalley short-range disorder strength V0,i = 29 eV Angstrom^2 (SiC4-700K), 21 eV Angstrom^2 (SiC3-900K)
    Fitted to the zero-doping intervalley scattering rate; determines the absolute scale of the predicted intervalley curve.
  • Li valence ZLi = 0.9 (from DFT)
    Taken from a co-authored DFT calculation, not measured here; enters the Coulomb scattering rate.
  • Li-graphene distance d = 1.78 Angstrom (from DFT)
    Taken from a co-authored DFT calculation; suppresses intervalley Coulomb scattering via exp(-|K|d).
  • Substrate dielectric constant epsilon_SiC = 13.5 (from literature)
    Screens the Coulomb potential; from prior ellipsometry and transport literature.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The standard weak localization formula for graphene (Eq. 1) correctly describes the magnetoconductivity in these samples.
    Relies on the McCann et al. theory; assumes the scattering channels enter through tau_phi, tau_i, and tau_*.
  • domain assumption The intravalley scattering rate tau_* is so large that the third term in Eq. 1 can be omitted.
    Stated in the text after Eq. 1; based on prior work on epitaxial graphene, not verified for each Li dose.
  • domain assumption The density and scattering strengths of residual short-range disorder are independent of Li deposition.
    Stated in the main text; essential for the prediction that the intervalley rate scales as the graphene density of states.
  • domain assumption The only effect of Li on the band structure is to shift the Fermi level; the bands themselves are unchanged.
    Assumed in the Dirac and tight-binding model predictions; the paper questions this at high coverage.
  • domain assumption Scattering by Li adatoms is purely Coulombic, with G=0 umklapp terms neglected, and screening described by the Dirac-cone static dielectric function.
    Described in supplement F; neglects umklapp, nonlocal screening, and resonant scattering, which the paper discusses as possible causes of the discrepancy.
  • standard math The Born approximation and independent-impurity assumption apply.
    Used in the scattering rate calculation (supplement Eqs. S5-S17); standard for weak impurities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak localization measurements of electronic scattering rates in Li-doped epitaxial graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRYVCZB2

@misc{pith2026190810893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak localization measurements of electronic scattering rates in Li-doped epitaxial graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRYVCZB2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10893}
}
read the original abstract

Early experiments on alkali-doped graphene demonstrated that the dopant adatoms modify the conductivity of graphene significantly, as extra carriers enhance conductivity while Coulomb scattering off the adatoms suppresses it. However, conductivity probes the overall scattering rate, so a dominant channel associated with long-range Coulomb scattering will mask weaker short-range channels. We present weak localization measurements of epitaxial graphene with lithium adatoms that separately quantify intra- and intervalley scattering rates, then compare the measurements to tight-binding calculations of expected rates for this system. The intravalley rate is strongly enhanced by Li deposition, consistent with Coulomb scattering off the Li adatoms. A simultaneous enhancement of intervalley scattering is partially explained by extra carriers in the graphene interacting with residual disorder. But differences between measured and calculated rates at high Li coverage may indicate adatom-induced modifications to the band structure that go beyond the applied model. Similar adatom-induced modifications of the graphene bands have recently been observed in ARPES, but a full theoretical understanding of these effects is still in development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Intra- and intervalley scattering processes illus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The effect of Li deposition on magnetoconductiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    author author J. A. \ Flores-Livas \ and\ author A. Sanna ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.054508 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 91 ,\ pages 054508 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.91.054508 2015

  2. [3]

    Uchoa \ and\ author A

    author author B. Uchoa \ and\ author A. H. \ Castro Neto ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.146801 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 98 ,\ pages 146801 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.146801 2007

  3. [4]

    Nandkishore , author L

    author author R. Nandkishore , author L. S. \ Levitov , \ and\ author A. V. \ Chubukov ,\ 10.1038/nphys2208 journal journal Nat Phys \ volume 8 ,\ pages 158 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nphys2208 2012

  4. [5]

    Hong , author K

    author author X. Hong , author K. Zou , author B. Wang , author S.-H. \ Cheng , \ and\ author J. Zhu ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.226602 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 108 ,\ pages 226602 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.226602 2012

  5. [6]

    Eelbo , author M

    author author T. Eelbo , author M. Wa s \' s niowska , author P. Thakur , author M. Gyamfi , author B. Sachs , author T. O. \ Wehling , author S. Forti , author U. Starke , author C. Tieg , author A. I. \ Lichtenstein , \ and\ author R. Wiesendanger ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.136804 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 110 ,\ pages 136804 ( year 2013...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.136804

  6. [7]

    Weeks , author J

    author author C. Weeks , author J. Hu , author J. Alicea , author M. Franz , \ and\ author R. Wu ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.1.021001 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 1 ,\ pages 021001 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.1.021001 2011

  7. [8]

    Hu , author J

    author author J. Hu , author J. Alicea , author R. Wu , \ and\ author M. Franz ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.266801 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 109 ,\ pages 266801 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.266801 2012

  8. [9]

    \ Chen , author C

    author author J.-H. \ Chen , author C. Jang , author S. Adam , author M. S. \ Fuhrer , author E. D. \ Williams , \ and\ author M. Ishigami ,\ 10.1038/nphys935 journal journal Nat Phys \ volume 4 ,\ pages 377 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nphys935 2008

Show all 61 references
  1. [10]

    author author K. T. \ Chan , author J. B. \ Neaton , \ and\ author M. L. \ Cohen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.77.235430 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 77 ,\ pages 235430 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  2. [11]

    Liu , author C

    author author X. Liu , author C. Z. \ Wang , author Y. X. \ Yao , author W. C. \ Lu , author M. Hupalo , author M. C. \ Tringides , \ and\ author K. M. \ Ho ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.235411 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 83 ,\ pages 235411 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    doi

  3. [12]

    Katoch \ and\ author M

    author author J. Katoch \ and\ author M. Ishigami ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2011.11.003 journal journal Solid State Communications \ volume 152 ,\ pages 60 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  4. [13]

    Yan \ and\ author M

    author author J. Yan \ and\ author M. S. \ Fuhrer ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.206601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 107 ,\ pages 206601 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  5. [15]

    author author J. L. \ McChesney , author A. Bostwick , author T. Ohta , author T. Seyller , author K. Horn , author J. Gonz \'a lez , \ and\ author E. Rotenberg ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 104 ,\ pages 136803 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  6. [16]

    u chner , \ and\ author A. Gr \

    author author A. V. \ Fedorov , author N. I. \ Verbitskiy , author D. Haberer , author C. Struzzi , author L. Petaccia , author D. Usachov , author O. Y. \ Vilkov , author D. V. \ Vyalikh , author J. Fink , author M. Knupfer , author B. B \"u chner , \ and\ author A. Gr \"u ne...

    2014

  7. [17]

    Kaasbjerg \ and\ author A.-P

    author author K. Kaasbjerg \ and\ author A.-P. \ Jauho ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. XXX \ volume XXX ,\ pages XXX ( year 2019 ) ,\ note arXiv:1904.08191 NoStop

    2019 arXiv

  8. [18]

    K \"u hne , author F

    author author M. K \"u hne , author F. Paolucci , author J. Popovic , author P. M. \ Ostrovsky , author J. Maier , \ and\ author J. H. \ Smet ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Nanotechnology \ volume 12 ,\ pages 895 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  9. [20]

    Li , author L

    author author J. Li , author L. Lin , author D. Rui , author Q. Li , author J. Zhang , author N. Kang , author Y. Zhang , author H. Peng , author Z. Liu , \ and\ author H. Q. \ Xu ,\ 10.1021/acsnano.7b00313 journal journal ACS Nano \ volume 11 ,\ pages 4641 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi

  10. [21]

    Wellnhofer , author A

    author author S. Wellnhofer , author A. Stabile , author D. Kochan , author M. Gmitra , author Y.-W. \ Chuang , author J. Zhu , \ and\ author J. Fabian ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.035421 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 100 ,\ pages 035421 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

  11. [22]

    Forti , author K

    author author S. Forti , author K. V. \ Emtsev , author C. Coletti , author A. A. \ Zakharov , author C. Riedl , \ and\ author U. Starke ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.125449 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 84 ,\ pages 125449 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    doi

  12. [23]

    author author graphensic company ,\ http://graphensic.com/graphene-material/ note Epitaxial graphene on silicon carbide; http://graphensic.com NoStop

  13. [24]

    Khademi , author E

    author author A. Khademi , author E. Sajadi , author P. Dosanjh , author D. A. \ Bonn , author J. A. \ Folk , author A. St\"ohr , author U. Starke , \ and\ author S. Forti ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.201405 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 201405 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi

  14. [25]

    @noop note See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for for photographs of several samples on the stage, conductivity data for other samples, calculated contribution to the dephasing rate from electron-electron interactions, weak localization curves’ fitting procedure, theoretical tight-...

  15. [26]

    McCann , author K

    author author E. McCann , author K. Kechedzhi , author V. I. \ Fal'ko , author H. Suzuura , author T. Ando , \ and\ author B. L. \ Altshuler ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.146805 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 97 ,\ pages 146805 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    doi

  16. [27]

    \ Chen , author M.-H

    author author Y.-F. \ Chen , author M.-H. \ Bae , author C. Chialvo , author T. Dirks , author A. Bezryadin , \ and\ author N. Mason ,\ http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/22/i=20/a=205301 journal journal Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter \ volume 22 ,\ pages 205301 ( year 2010...

    2010

  17. [28]

    author author F. V. \ Tikhonenko , author D. W. \ Horsell , author R. V. \ Gorbachev , \ and\ author A. K. \ Savchenko ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.056802 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 100 ,\ pages 056802 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi

  18. [29]

    Lara-Avila , author S

    author author S. Lara-Avila , author S. Kubatkin , author O. Kashuba , author J. A. \ Folk , author S. L\"uscher , author R. Yakimova , author T. J. B. M. \ Janssen , author A. Tzalenchuk , \ and\ author V. Fal'ko ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.106602 journal journal Phys. Rev. Le...

    doi

  19. [30]

    Lara-Avila , author A

    author author S. Lara-Avila , author A. Tzalenchuk , author S. Kubatkin , author R. Yakimova , author T. J. B. M. \ Janssen , author K. Cedergren , author T. Bergsten , \ and\ author V. Fal'ko ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.166602 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 107 ,\ p...

    doi

  20. [31]

    Yan , author Q

    author author B. Yan , author Q. Han , author Z. Jia , author J. Niu , author T. Cai , author D. Yu , \ and\ author X. Wu ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.041407 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 93 ,\ pages 041407 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  21. [32]

    Mallet , author I

    author author P. Mallet , author I. Brihuega , author S. Bose , author M. M. \ Ugeda , author J. M. \ G\'omez-Rodr\' guez , author K. Kern , \ and\ author J. Y. \ Veuillen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.045444 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 86 ,\ pages 045444 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    doi

  22. [33]

    Fan , author W

    author author X. Fan , author W. T. \ Zheng , author J.-L. \ Kuo , \ and\ author D. J. \ Singh ,\ 10.1021/am401548c journal journal ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces \ volume 5 ,\ pages 7793 ( year 2013 ) ,\ note pMID: 23863039 NoStop

    2013 doi

  23. [34]

    Liu , author A

    author author M. Liu , author A. Kutana , author Y. Liu , \ and\ author B. I. \ Yakobson ,\ 10.1021/jz500199d journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters \ volume 5 ,\ pages 1225 ( year 2014 ) ,\ note pMID: 26274475 NoStop

    2014 doi

  24. [35]

    Valencia , author A

    author author F. Valencia , author A. H. \ Romero , author F. Ancilotto , \ and\ author P. L. \ Silvestrelli ,\ 10.1021/jp062126+ journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry B \ volume 110 ,\ pages 14832 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  25. [36]

    Farjam \ and\ author H

    author author M. Farjam \ and\ author H. Rafii-Tabar ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.045417 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 79 ,\ pages 045417 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  26. [37]

    author author T. O. \ Wehling , author M. I. \ Katsnelson , \ and\ author A. I. \ Lichtenstein ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.085428 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 80 ,\ pages 085428 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  27. [38]

    author author T. O. \ Wehling , author S. Yuan , author A. I. \ Lichtenstein , author A. K. \ Geim , \ and\ author M. I. \ Katsnelson ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.056802 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 105 ,\ pages 056802 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi

  28. [39]

    Irmer , author D

    author author S. Irmer , author D. Kochan , author J. Lee , \ and\ author J. Fabian ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.075417 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 97 ,\ pages 075417 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  29. [40]

    author author A. B. \ Fowler \ and\ author A. Hartstein ,\ 10.1080/01418638008222339 journal journal Philosophical Magazine B \ volume 42 ,\ pages 949 ( year 1980 ) NoStop

    1980 doi

  30. [41]

    Ando , author A

    author author T. Ando , author A. B. \ Fowler , \ and\ author F. Stern ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.54.437 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 54 ,\ pages 437 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    1982 doi

  31. [42]

    Boross \ and\ author A

    author author P. Boross \ and\ author A. P\'alyi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.035420 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 92 ,\ pages 035420 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  32. [43]

    Stauber , author P

    author author T. Stauber , author P. Parida , author M. Trushin , author M. V. \ Ulybyshev , author D. L. \ Boyda , \ and\ author J. Schliemann ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.266801 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 266801 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi

  33. [44]

    Chandni , author E

    author author U. Chandni , author E. A. \ Henriksen , \ and\ author J. P. \ Eisenstein ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.245402 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 91 ,\ pages 245402 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  34. [45]

    author author B. L. \ Altshuler , author D. Khmel'nitzkii , author A. I. \ Larkin , \ and\ author P. A. \ Lee ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.22.5142 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 22 ,\ pages 5142 ( year 1980 ) NoStop

    1980 doi

  35. [46]

    author author P. R. \ Bevington ,\ @noop title Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences \ ( publisher McGraw-Hill ,\ address New York ,\ year 1969 ) NoStop

    1969

  36. [47]

    author author E. H. \ Hwang , author S. Adam , \ and\ author S. D. \ Sarma ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 98 ,\ pages 186806 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  37. [48]

    Stauber , author P

    author author T. Stauber , author P. Parida , author M. Trushin , author M. V. \ Ulybyshev , author D. L. \ Boyda , \ and\ author J. Schliemann ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 266801 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  38. [49]

    Adam , author E

    author author S. Adam , author E. H. \ Hwang , author V. M. \ Galitski , \ and\ author S. Das Sarma ,\ 10.1073/pnas.0704772104 journal journal Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. \ volume 104 ,\ pages 18392 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  39. [50]

    Hwang , author D

    author author C. Hwang , author D. A. \ Siegel , author S.-K. \ Mo , author W. Regan , author A. Ismach , author Y. Zhang , author A. Zettl , \ and\ author A. Lanzara ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep00590 journal journal Sci Rep. \ volume 2 ,\ pages 590 EP ( year 2012 ) ,\ no...

    doi

  40. [51]

    Stra er , author B

    author author C. Stra er , author B. M. \ Ludbrook , author G. Levy , author A. J. \ Macdonald , author S. A. \ Burke , author T. O. \ Wehling , author K. Kern , author A. Damascelli , \ and\ author C. R. \ Ast ,\ 10.1021/nl504155f journal journal Nano Lett. \ volume 15 ,\ pag...

    doi

  41. [52]

    Profeta , author M

    author author G. Profeta , author M. Calandra , \ and\ author F. Mauri ,\ 10.1038/nphys2181 journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 8 ,\ pages 131 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  42. [53]

    author author B. M. \ Ludbrook , author G. Levy , author P. Nigge , author M. Zonno , author M. Schneider , author D. J. \ Dvorak , author C. N. \ Veenstra , author S. Zhdanovich , author D. Wong , author P. Dosanjh , author C. Stra er , author A. St\"ohr , author S. Forti , a...

    doi

  43. [54]

    Ichinokura , author K

    author author S. Ichinokura , author K. Sugawara , author A. Takayama , author T. Takahashi , \ and\ author S. Hasegawa ,\ 10.1021/acsnano.5b07848 journal journal ACS Nano \ volume 10 ,\ pages 2761 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  44. [55]

    author author B. R. \ Patton ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.27.1273 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 27 ,\ pages 1273 ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    1971 doi

  45. [56]

    Aslamasov \ and\ author A

    author author L. Aslamasov \ and\ author A. Larkin ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(68)90623-3 journal journal Phys. Lett. A \ volume 26 ,\ pages 238 ( year 1968 ) NoStop

    1968 doi

  46. [57]

    Hetel , author T

    author author I. Hetel , author T. R. \ Lemberger , \ and\ author M. Randeria ,\ 10.1038/nphys707 journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 3 ,\ pages 700 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  47. [58]

    author author V. M. \ Loktev \ and\ author V. Turkowski ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.233402 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 79 ,\ pages 233402 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  48. [59]

    Richter , author H

    author author C. Richter , author H. Boschker , author W. Dietsche , author E. Fillis-Tsirakis , author R. Jany , author F. Loder , author L. F. \ Kourkoutis , author D. A. \ Muller , author J. R. \ Kirtley , author C. W. \ Schneider , \ and\ author J. Mannhart ,\ http://dx.do...

    doi

  49. [60]

    author author B. M. \ Kessler , author i. m. c. O. \ Girit , author A. Zettl , \ and\ author V. Bouchiat ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.047001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 104 ,\ pages 047001 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  50. [61]

    Han , author A

    author author Z. Han , author A. Allain , author H. Arjmandi-Tash , author K. Tikhonov , author M. Feigelman , author B. Sacepe , \ and\ author V. Bouchiat ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2929 journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 10 ,\ pages 380 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    doi

  51. [62]

    author author M. R. \ Beasley , author J. E. \ Mooij , \ and\ author T. P. \ Orlando ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.1165 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 42 ,\ pages 1165 ( year 1979 ) NoStop

    1979 doi

  52. [63]

    author author C. C. \ Homes , author S. V. \ Dordevic , author M. Strongin , author D. A. \ Bonn , author R. Liang , author W. N. \ Hardy , author S. Komiya , author Y. Ando , author G. Yu , author N. Kaneko , author X. Zhao , author M. Greven , author D. N. \ Basov , \ and\ a...

    doi

  53. [64]

    @noop note Private communications NoStop

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.