SciPost Submission Page
Non-linear photoconductivity of strongly driven graphene
by Lukas Broers, Ludwig Mathey
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Lukas Broers |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.13217v2 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2024-09-30 13:51 |
| Submitted by: | Broers, Lukas |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Theoretical, Computational |
Abstract
We present the non-linear DC photoconductivity of graphene under strong infra-red (IR) radiation. The photoconductivity is obtained as the response to a strong DC electric field, with field strengths outside of the linear-response regime, while the IR radiation is described by a strong AC electric field. The conductivity displays two distinct regimes in which either the DC or the AC field dominates. We explore these regimes and associate them with the dynamics of driven Landau-Zener quenches in the case of a large DC field. In the limit of large AC field, we describe the conductivity in a Floquet picture and compare the results to the closely related Tien-Gordon effect. We present analytical calculations for the non-linear differential photoconductivity, for both regimes based on the corresponding mechanisms. As part of this discussion of the non-equilibrium state of graphene, we present analytical estimates of the conductivity of undriven graphene as a function of temperature and DC bias field strength that show very good agreement with our simulations.
Author indications on fulfilling journal expectations
- Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas.
- Open a new pathway in an existing or a new research direction, with clear potential for multi-pronged follow-up work
- Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery
- Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block
List of changes
We have included references and discussions of the literature provided by the two referees, to better contextualize our work. We have included a clarifying remark regarding the formation of the current density patterns. We have further included remarks regarding the dissipation scaling, and we have reworked the text to increase the consistency of our terminology as suggested by one referee. We have fixed the typo and the reference list.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report
This is a single-blind review of once-revised SciPost Physics manuscript 2312.13217v2 titled "Non-linear photoconductivity of strongly driven graphene" by Lukas Broers and Ludwig Mathey. The revised manuscript is one page longer (from 27 to 28) and the bibliography has +13 entries (from 62 to 75), compared to the v1 submission; the number of figures and equations has not changed. The manuscript can be viewed in arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.13217v2.
The Authors have revised the manuscript but, apart from the increase in the bibliographic entries (requested by an easily guessable referee), the other changes were only textual improvements and minor elaborations. For that matter, a red-lined version would be more appropriate to locate these changes in the text, instead of having to read-and-compare the two manuscripts. Moreover, a number of the points I raised were off-loaded (read: "not sufficiently addressed") as possible/interesting future works/directions, and not for the improvement of the present manuscript. Specifically, concerning the points I raised in my first review:
A/ Apart from the mentioned qualitative comparison with existing literature on the topic, and any (short) textual discussions, what does "we find that they do not take away from our results" mean? Is there some quantitative comparison, even preliminary, to corroborate that claim? This is essential for the novelty of the paper. This comparison could be provided in a response letter or in a supplement (to the manuscript), i.e., it does not need to be "camera-ready".
B/ What I meant was to look in the literature for measured/experimental results that can be interpreted with this model, even qualitatively (e.g., does it predict the same trends?). Please note that one of the expectations for papers in SciPostPhys [ https://scipost.org/SciPostPhys/about#criteria ] is to "Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas", and such a comparison between theory and experiment would certainly comply with that criterion.
C/ Similarly to my comment B, a short/preliminary analysis on that matter (or at least something more than just "contextualization" in the text) would improve the manuscript's scope and positioning in the related state-of-the-art.
D/ Thank you for the clarification. Please also consider what I remark in my previous comments B and C.
Recommendation
Ask for minor revision