The reply claims the Tikhonov-Khrapai comment fails to find scientific errors and that its model, by requiring finite CAR, supports the original paper's conclusions.
Conductance measurements cannot distinguish crossed Andreev reflection from elastic co-tunneling in normal--superconductor--normal junctions
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
1
Pith paper citing it
abstract
We argue that the interpretation of the experiment [Nature Physics 21, 708-715 (2025)] is misleading in two respects. First, the bias voltages impact the non-local differential conductance randomly, rather than systematically, and the bias symmetry of the non-local conductance in Fig. 3 can be explained by a fine tuned self-gating effect. Second, the full knowledge of the conductance matrix is insufficient to conclude on the relative values of the crossed-Andreev and elastic cotunneling probabilities, in particular on the dominance of one of them.
citation-role summary
contradiction 1
citation-polarity summary
fields
cond-mat.mes-hall 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
contradiction 1polarities
refute 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Reply to the Comment by Tikhonov and Khrapai on "Long-range crossed Andreev reflection in a topological insulator nanowire proximitized by a superconductor"
The reply claims the Tikhonov-Khrapai comment fails to find scientific errors and that its model, by requiring finite CAR, supports the original paper's conclusions.