Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Spin and valley-dependent tunneling in MoS$_2$ through magnetic barrier

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetic barrier in monolayer MoS2 produces spin- and valley-selective resonant tunneling, giving tunable spin- and valley-polarized currents.

desk verdict A standard magnetic-barrier calculation with a load-bearing algebraic error and figures that cannot follow from the stated model; the spin/valley idea is not new, and the numerics are unreproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10716 v1 pith:ZSCLFA74 submitted 2025-07-14 cond-mat.mes-hall

Ahmed Jellal , Nadia Benlakhouy , Pablo Díaz , David Laroze This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords monolayerMoS2magneticbarrierspin-valleycouplingresonanttunnelingFabry-Perotinterferencevalleypolarizationspinconductance
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 claims that a magnetic barrier in monolayer molybdenum disulfide acts as a spin and valley filter. In the model, the barrier shifts the transverse momentum of electrons inside it, producing Fabry-Perot resonances that appear as sharp transmission peaks; because spin-orbit coupling and the magnetic field break the degeneracy of the K and K' valleys, the resonance patterns differ channel by channel. The authors show that tuning the magnetic field, electron energy, barrier width, and transverse wave vector can selectively enhance or suppress particular spin and valley channels, yielding controllable spin-polarized and valley-polarized currents. The point of the work is that such a barrier could serve as an energy-efficient building block for spintronic and valleytronic devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the step-like vector potential $A_y(x) = B\ell_B[\theta(x)-\theta(x-L)]$ generated by two delta-function magnetic fields $B(x) = B\ell_B[\delta(x)-\delta(x-L)]$. Inside the barrier the magnetic field is zero, and its whole effect is to shift the transverse momentum $k_y \to k_y + \ell_B^{-1}$; this shift changes the longitudinal wave-vector component $q_x$ inside the barrier and sets up Fabry-Perot interference between the two interfaces. The transmission formula carries the argument: the oscillating terms $\cos(q_x L)$ and $\sin(q_x L)$ produce sharp resonances at $q_x L = n\pi$, and the spin-valley dependence enters through the energy dispersion that determines $q_x$ for each channel. This machinery converts a purely magnetic confinement effect into spin and valley discrimination.

What would settle it

Measure transmission or conductance of a monolayer MoS2 device with a ferromagnetic-stripe barrier at low temperature and fixed energy and transverse momentum: the step-like model predicts periodic Fabry-Perot peaks in the transmission versus barrier width at positions $q_x L = n\pi$, with a specific K/K' asymmetry; observing a different oscillation period, or no valley-dependent peak shift, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a magnetic barrier in monolayer MoS2 produces sharp, spin- and valley-selective resonant tunneling. The transmission probability takes the closed form $T = \frac{\cos^2\theta\cos^2\phi}{\cos^2(q_x L)\cos^2\theta\cos^2\phi + \sin^2(q_x L)(1-\sin\theta\sin\phi)^2}$, and resonances occur when $q_x L = n\pi$, where $q_x$ is the longitudinal wave vector inside the barrier, shifted by the magnetic vector potential. Because the intrinsic spin-orbit coupling splits the bands and the magnetic field breaks time-reversal symmetry, the effective barrier and the resonance condition differ between the K and K' valleys and between spin-up and spin-down channels. As a result, the K and K' valleys show complementary transmission patterns, and the conductance, integrated over incident angles, separates by spin and valley; the authors conclude that external parameters give precise control over spin- and valley-polarized currents.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the magnetic barrier can be replaced by two extremely thin magnetic-field spikes, with zero field and only a constant sideways momentum shift between them; if the actual magnetic fringe field is not step-like, the predicted resonance positions and spin/valley filtering would shift or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Transmission through the barrier is a periodic function of the barrier width through $q_x L$, so changing $L$ by a few nanometers can switch a channel from fully transmitting to strongly reflecting.
  • The K and K' valleys respond oppositely in certain parameter ranges, so a single barrier can act as a valley filter whose selectivity is tuned by the magnetic field.
  • Conductance curves separate by spin and valley above the bandgap, meaning spin- and valley-polarized currents can be generated without a ferromagnetic contact.
  • Because MoS2 has a 1.8 eV bandgap, the barrier blocks current below threshold and transmits above it, giving an energy-gated switch behavior that graphene's Klein tunneling does not offer.
  • The sharp resonance peaks are sensitive to small changes in B, E, L, and ky, which is the practical basis for tuning spin and valley polarization in a device.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the authors mention but do not compute: a periodic array of such barriers (a magnetic superlattice) would likely sharpen the spin/valley filtering into minibands and transport gaps, potentially stronger in MoS2 than in graphene because of intrinsic spin-valley coupling.
  • The delta-function-barrier assumption could be tested by solving the same Hamiltonian with a smooth, realistic fringe-field profile; if the step-like vector-potential approximation is the true source of the sharp resonances, the predictions would shift or wash out in that more realistic geometry.
  • At finite temperature, the sharp resonances and polarization are expected to survive below roughly 30 K but to be smoothed by phonon scattering and Fermi broadening, so low-temperature magnetotransport is the cleanest experimental test.
  • One experimental route implicit in the paper: a nonlocal valley Hall measurement in a MoS2 transistor under a patterned ferromagnetic gate could detect the predicted valley-polarized current directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies electron tunneling in monolayer MoS2 through a magnetic barrier represented by two delta-function fields, using a low-energy k·p Hamiltonian near the K and K' valleys. The authors derive the band dispersion in the three regions, match eigenspinors at the interfaces, and compute spin- and valley-resolved transmission and conductance as functions of energy, barrier width, transverse momentum, and magnetic field. The central claim is that tuning these external parameters permits precise control of spin-polarized and valley-polarized currents, and the paper compares the behavior with graphene.

Significance. If the numerical results were reproducible from the stated model, the paper would offer a concrete route to spin and valley filtering in monolayer MoS2 via magnetic barriers, which is of interest for spintronics and valleytronics. The manuscript also makes explicit falsifiable predictions for resonance positions and magnetic-field sensitivity. However, because the central dispersion relations contain a sign error and the displayed field-dependent resonances do not follow from the stated equations, the quantitative claims are not supported in the current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) is algebraically inconsistent with Eq. (6). Solving Eq. (6) for k^2 yields k^2 = [(E - Δ/2)(E - λτs + Δ/2)]/(ℏ^2 v_F^2) - k_y^2, not the product (E + Δ/2)(E - λτs + Δ/2) shown in Eq. (7). Consequently, at the conduction band edge E = Δ/2 and k_y = 0, Eq. (7) gives a nonzero k_x, whereas Eq. (6) gives k = 0. This error propagates into all subsequent resonance and transmission calculations.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (11)] Equation (11) repeats the same sign error: the correct expression is q_x^2 = [(E - Δ/2)(E - λτs + Δ/2)]/(ℏ^2 v_F^2) - (k_y + l_B^{-1})^2. As written, the barrier region supports propagating modes at the conduction band edge, and the phase accumulation q_x L entering Eq. (19) is computed with incorrect q_x values. The numerical results in Figs. 3–8 are therefore not reproducible from the stated model.
  3. [Section III, Figs. 5 and 7] The strong dependence of transmission on the magnetic field displayed in Figs. 5 and 7 cannot arise from Eq. (11) with the parameters quoted. For E = 2.5 eV, k_y = 0.5 nm^-1 and B = 0.1–0.4 T, l_B^{-1} ≈ 0.012–0.025 nm^-1 while q_x ≈ 9.6 nm^-1, so the change in the Fabry–Pérot phase q_x L is at most ≈ 0.05 rad for L = 50 nm; yet the figures show multiple resonance peaks and peak shifts of order π. In addition, the text in Sec. III states that q_x increases with B, whereas Eq. (11) (even after correction) shows q_x decreases as l_B^{-1} increases. This quantitative mismatch indicates that the plotted results were not generated by the model defined by Eqs. (1)–(19).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The notation 'BℓB' is confusing; it should be 'B l_B' (product of field strength and magnetic length), and the symbol for magnetic length should be consistent (l_B vs ℓ_B) throughout.
  2. [Section II, paragraph after Eq. (6)] The text says 'The Fermi level is given by v = at/ℏ'; this is the Fermi velocity, not the Fermi level, and should be rephrased.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 6] The caption and text refer to energies 'beyond the band gap', but the plotted energy axis ranges from 0 to 1.4 eV, below the Δ = 1.8 eV gap; please clarify the axis units or correct the text.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The model in Eq. (3) is a low-energy k·p Hamiltonian valid near the K and K' points, not a 'full-band continuum model'; the wording overstates the scope of the approximation.
  5. [Section V] The comparison with graphene, while interesting, is mostly qualitative and does not strengthen the quantitative predictions; consider trimming it or moving it to a discussion section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transport results are derived from an externally parameterized Hamiltonian and are not fitted to the predicted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity: it starts from a low-energy continuum Hamiltonian for monolayer MoS2 with parameters (Delta = 1.8 eV, lambda = 0.082 eV, v_F = 0.53 x 10^6 m/s) taken from prior literature, introduces a step-like vector potential for the magnetic barrier, solves the scattering problem via continuity conditions, and computes transmission and conductance. The central spin- and valley-dependent behavior follows from the lambda tau s_z term already present in the input Hamiltonian; it is a consequence drawn from the model, not a quantity fitted to the predicted transmission curves. No parameter in the paper is calibrated to the computed transmission, reflection, or conductance. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the reference list contains no papers by the current authors, and the cited works are external literature used for the MoS2 Hamiltonian, graphene comparisons, and experimental techniques. The only concerns raised by a close reading are mathematical or numerical reproducibility issues: Eq. (11) does not algebraically follow from Eq. (10), and the plotted B-induced resonance shifts appear too large for the stated vector-potential shift at the quoted parameters. Those are correctness or consistency problems, not cases where a prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. Because no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no self-citation is used to force the conclusion, the score is 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted to the computed transport. The Hamiltonian inputs Delta=1.8 eV, lambda=0.082 eV, and v_F=0.53e6 m/s are taken from prior literature (Refs. [35,36]); the magnetic field B and geometry L are control parameters, not fit parameters. No new physical entities are introduced; the magnetic barrier, spin channels, and valley channels are all standard concepts from the cited literature.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The two-band k.p Hamiltonian of Eq. (3), with parameters Delta, lambda, v_F, describes monolayer MoS2 transport near K and K'.
    This Hamiltonian is standard (Refs. [20,21,35,36]), but it neglects intervalley scattering, spin-flip processes, higher bands, and disorder, which would affect the predicted polarization.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetic barrier is represented by two delta-function fields with vector potential A_y=B*l_B*[theta(x)-theta(x-L)] (Eq. (2)), giving zero magnetic field inside the barrier.
    This idealized profile makes the wave matching analytically tractable and is borrowed from graphene magnetic-barrier studies (Refs. [33,34,45]); real ferromagnetic stripes produce extended fringe fields.
  • standard math Spinors in each region are plane waves (1, +/-e^{i theta}) and (1, +/-e^{i phi}) with mode matching at x=0,L (Eqs. (5), (9), (12)).
    This is the standard transfer-matrix procedure for piecewise-constant Hamiltonians; it assumes translational invariance along y and no mode conversion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin and valley-dependent tunneling in MoS$_2$ through magnetic barrier." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSCLFA74

@misc{pith2026250710716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin and valley-dependent tunneling in MoS$_2$ through magnetic barrier},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSCLFA74}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10716}
}
abstract

We study electron transport in monolayer molybdenum disulfide MoS$_2$ subjected to a magnetic barrier. Our analysis employs a full-band continuum model to capture the relevant physical phenomena. We focus on how electron energy, magnetic field strength, and the geometric characteristics of the barrier affect the transmission and conductance. We observe sharp resonant tunneling features emerging from quantum interference effects induced by magnetic confinement. A key outcome of our study is the discovery of distinct resonance patterns in the conduction and valence bands. These patterns are closely related to the intrinsic spin-orbit coupling in MoS$_2$ and the breaking of time-reversal symmetry by the magnetic field. This results in significant spin and valley selectivity in electron transport. We demonstrate that adjusting external parameters precisely controls spin-polarized and valley-polarized currents. We show that a magnetic barrier can control electron spin and valley in MoS$_2$, making it a promising platform for energy-efficient spintronic and valleytronic devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10716 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of a monolayer MoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the energy spectra (6) and (10) ver￾sus the wave vector components kx and qx. We choose B = 0 − 3 T to show how the system changes from spin￾orbit effects at low fields to clear Landau levels at high fields, where spin and valley splitting becomes visible. In regions I and III, the band structure of MoS2 is clearly visible. It is characterized by a large direct bandgap and a spin-orbit coupling splitting. The … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Spin and valley resolved transmission probability for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Transmission and reflection probabilities versus the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Transmission probability versus the magnetic barrier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Spin- and valley-dependent conductance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Transmission probability versus the magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Two-dimensional material nanophotonics,

    F. Xia, H. Wang, D. Xiao, M. Dubey, and A. Ramasub- ramaniam, “Two-dimensional material nanophotonics,” Nat. Photon. 8, 899–907 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Van der Waals inte- gration before and beyond two-dimensional materials,

    Y. Liu, Y. Huang, and X. Duan, “Van der Waals inte- gration before and beyond two-dimensional materials,” Nature 567, 323–333 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Progress and prospects in transition-metal dichalcogenide research beyond 2D,

    T. Chowdhury, E. C. Sadler, and T. J. Kempa, “Progress and prospects in transition-metal dichalcogenide research beyond 2D,” Chem. Rev. 120, 12563–12591 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    2D transition metal dichalcogenides: de- sign, modulation, and challenges in electrocatalysis,

    Q. Fu et al. , “2D transition metal dichalcogenides: de- sign, modulation, and challenges in electrocatalysis,” Adv. Mater. 33, 1907818 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2D transition metal dichalcogenides for photocatalysis,

    R. Yang et al. , “2D transition metal dichalcogenides for photocatalysis,” Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 135, e202218016 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Layered transition metal dichalcogenide- based nanomaterials for electrochemical energy storage,

    Q. Yun et al. , “Layered transition metal dichalcogenide- based nanomaterials for electrochemical energy storage,” Adv. Mater. 32, 1903826 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Transition metal dichalcogenides and be- yond: synthesis, properties, and applications of single- and few-layer nanosheets,

    R. Lv et al. , “Transition metal dichalcogenides and be- yond: synthesis, properties, and applications of single- and few-layer nanosheets,” Acc. Chem. Res. 48, 56–64 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Controlled synthesis of transition metal dichalcogenide thin films for electronic applica- tions,

    R. Gatensby et al. , “Controlled synthesis of transition metal dichalcogenide thin films for electronic applica- tions,” Appl. Surf. Sci. 297, 139–146 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Single-layer MoS2 electronics,

    D. Lembke, S. Bertolazzi, and A. Kis, “Single-layer MoS2 electronics,” Acc. Chem. Res. 48, 100–110 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Electronic and optoelectronic appli- cations based on 2D novel anisotropic transition metal dichalcogenides,

    C. Gong et al. , “Electronic and optoelectronic appli- cations based on 2D novel anisotropic transition metal dichalcogenides,” Adv. Sci. 4, 1700231 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Optoelectronic devices based on atomically thin transition metal dichalco- genides,

    A. Pospischil and T. Mueller, “Optoelectronic devices based on atomically thin transition metal dichalco- genides,” Appl. Sci. 6, 78 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Recent development of two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides and their applications,

    W. Choi et al., “Recent development of two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides and their applications,” Mater. Today 20, 116–130 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    2D materials for spintronic devices,

    E. C. Ahn, “2D materials for spintronic devices,” npj 2D Mater. Appl. 4, 17 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Prospects of spintronics based on 2D materials,

    Y. P. Feng et al. , “Prospects of spintronics based on 2D materials,” WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 7, e1313 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Two-dimensional monolayer designs for spintronics applications,

    X. Li and X. Wu, “Two-dimensional monolayer designs for spintronics applications,” WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 6, 441–455 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    The rise of graphene,

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, “The rise of graphene,” Nat. Mater. 6, 183–191 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Graphene: status and prospects,

    A. K. Geim, “Graphene: status and prospects,” Science 324, 1530–1534 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Experimental review of graphene,

    D. R. Cooper et al., “Experimental review of graphene,” ISRN Nanotechnol. 2012, 501686 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Emerging photoluminescence in monolayer MoS2,

    A. Splendiani et al. , “Emerging photoluminescence in monolayer MoS2,” Nano Lett. 10, 1271–1275 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Atomically thin MoS2: a new direct-gap semiconductor,

    K. F. Mak et al. , “Atomically thin MoS2: a new direct-gap semiconductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 136805 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Cou- pled spin and valley physics in monolayers of MoS2 and other group-VI dichalcogenides,

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, “Cou- pled spin and valley physics in monolayers of MoS2 and other group-VI dichalcogenides,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 196802 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Large-scale 2D electronics based on single-layer MoS2 grown by chemical vapor deposition,

    H. Wang et al. , “Large-scale 2D electronics based on single-layer MoS2 grown by chemical vapor deposition,” in IEDM Tech. Dig., 4–6 (IEEE, 2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Integrated circuits based on bilayer MoS2 transistors,

    H. Wang et al. , “Integrated circuits based on bilayer MoS2 transistors,” Nano Lett. 12, 4674–4680 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Synthesis of large-area MoS2 atomic layers with chemical vapor deposition,

    Y.-H. Lee et al. , “Synthesis of large-area MoS2 atomic layers with chemical vapor deposition,” arXiv:1202.5458 (2012). 9

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Growth of large-area and highly crys- talline MoS2 thin layers on insulating substrates,

    K.-K. Liu et al. , “Growth of large-area and highly crys- talline MoS2 thin layers on insulating substrates,” Nano Lett. 12, 1538–1544 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Large area vapor phase growth and characterization of MoS2 atomic layers on SiO2 substrate,

    Y. Zhan, Z. Liu, S. Najmaei, P. M. Ajayan, and J. Lou, “Large area vapor phase growth and characterization of MoS2 atomic layers on SiO2 substrate,” arXiv:1111.5072 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Single-layer MoS2 transistors,

    B. Radisavljevic et al. , “Single-layer MoS2 transistors,” Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 147–150 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Phonon-limited mobility in n-type single-layer MoS2 from first principles,

    K. Kaasbjerg, K. S. Thygesen, and K. W. Jacobsen, “Phonon-limited mobility in n-type single-layer MoS2 from first principles,” Phys. Rev. B 85, 115317 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Selective transmission of Dirac electrons and ballistic magnetoresistance of n-p junctions in graphene,

    V. V. Cheianov and V. I. Fal’ko, “Selective transmission of Dirac electrons and ballistic magnetoresistance of n-p junctions in graphene,” Phys. Rev. B 74, 041403 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Chi- ral tunnelling and the Klein paradox in graphene,

    M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, “Chi- ral tunnelling and the Klein paradox in graphene,” Nat. Phys. 2, 620–625 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Probing and controlling magnetic states in 2D layered magnetic ma- terials,

    K. F. Mak, J. Shan, and D. C. Ralph, “Probing and controlling magnetic states in 2D layered magnetic ma- terials,” Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 646–661 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Tuning spin-orbit coupling in 2D materials for spintronics: a topical review,

    K. Premasiri and X. P. Gao, “Tuning spin-orbit coupling in 2D materials for spintronics: a topical review,” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 31, 193001 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Resistance resonance effects through magnetic edge states,

    A. Nogaret, S. J. Bending, and M. Henini, “Resistance resonance effects through magnetic edge states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2231 (2000)

    2000

  26. [34]

    Spin filtering in a magnetic- electric barrier structure,

    G. Papp and F. M. Peeters, “Spin filtering in a magnetic- electric barrier structure,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 2184– 2186 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Unconventional quantum Hall effect and tunable spin Hall effect in Dirac materi- als: application to an isolated MoS2 trilayer,

    X. Li, F. Zhang, and Q. Niu, “Unconventional quantum Hall effect and tunable spin Hall effect in Dirac materi- als: application to an isolated MoS2 trilayer,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 066803 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    A generic tight-binding model for monolayer, bilayer and bulk MoS2,

    F. Zahid, L. Liu, Y. Zhu, J. Wang, and H. Guo, “A generic tight-binding model for monolayer, bilayer and bulk MoS2,” AIP Adv. 3, 052123 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Transport through a Single Barrier on Monolayer MoS2,

    F. Cheng, Y. Ren, and J.-F. Sun, “Transport through a Single Barrier on Monolayer MoS2,” Chin. Phys. Lett. 32, 107301 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    The valley Hall effect in MoS2 transistors,

    K. F. Mak, K. L. McGill, J. Park, and P. L. McEuen, “The valley Hall effect in MoS2 transistors,”Science 344, 1489–1492 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Influ- ence of the velocity barrier on the massive Dirac elec- tron transport in a monolayer MoS2 quantum structure,

    X.-J. Hao, R.-Y. Yuan, J.-J. Jin, and Y. Guo, “Influ- ence of the velocity barrier on the massive Dirac elec- tron transport in a monolayer MoS2 quantum structure,” Front. Phys. 15, 1–9 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Four-terminal phase-coherent conduc- tance,

    M. B¨ uttiker, “Four-terminal phase-coherent conduc- tance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1761 (1986)

    1986

  33. [41]

    Magnetooptics of Exciton Rydberg States in a Monolayer Semiconductor,

    A. V. Stier, N. P. Wilson, K. A. Velizhanin, J. Kono, X. Xu, and S. A. Crooker, “Magnetooptics of Exciton Rydberg States in a Monolayer Semiconductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 057405 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Intrinsic and Rashba spin- orbit interactions in graphene sheets,

    H. Min, J. E. Hill, N. A. Sinitsyn, B. R. Sahu, L. Klein- man, and A. H. MacDonald, “Intrinsic and Rashba spin- orbit interactions in graphene sheets,” Phys. Rev. B 74, 165310 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    The electronic properties of graphene,

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, “The electronic properties of graphene,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109–162 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    A roadmap for graphene,

    K. S. Novoselov, V. I. Fal’ko, L. Colombo, P. R. Gellert, M. G. Schwab, and K. Kim, “A roadmap for graphene,” Nature 490, 192–200 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Mag- netic barrier structures in graphene,

    M. R. Masir, P. Vasilopoulos, and F. M. Peeters, “Mag- netic barrier structures in graphene,” Phys. Rev. B 88, 245413 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Valleytronics in 2D materials,

    J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, “Valleytronics in 2D materials,” Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 16055 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Direct Imaging of Band Profile in Single Layer MoS2 on Graphite: Quasiparticle Energy Gap, Metallic Edge States, and Edge Band Bending,

    C. Zhang, A. Johnson, C.-L. Hsu, L.-J. Li, and C.-K. Shih, “Direct Imaging of Band Profile in Single Layer MoS2 on Graphite: Quasiparticle Energy Gap, Metallic Edge States, and Edge Band Bending,” Nano Lett. 14, 2443–2447 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Long-lived nanosecond spin relaxation and spin coherence of electrons in monolayer MoS2 and WS2,

    L. Yang, N. A. Sinitsyn, W. Chen, J. Yuan, J. Zhang, J. Lou, and S. A. Crooker, “Long-lived nanosecond spin relaxation and spin coherence of electrons in monolayer MoS2 and WS2,” Nat. Phys. 11, 830–834 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Intrinsic structural defects in monolayer molybdenum disulfide,

    W. Zhou, X. Zou, S. Najmaei, Z. Liu, Y. Shi, J. Kong, J. Lou, P. M. Ajayan, B. I. Yakobson, and J.-C. Idrobo, “Intrinsic structural defects in monolayer molybdenum disulfide,” Nano Lett. 13, 2615–2622 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

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