Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Re-entrant superconductivity at an oxide heterointerface

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports re-entrant superconductivity at a (110)-oriented LaTiO3-KTaO3 interface, where an in-plane magnetic field first suppresses the superconducting state and then lets it re-emerge, with a resistive peak pinned at 0.9 T.

desk verdict A credible new experimental observation of re-entrant superconductivity at an oxide interface, with a theoretical mechanism that is not yet derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.01682 v1 pith:OQ657DBG submitted 2025-10-02 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

D. Maryenko , M. Kawamura , I. V. Maznichenko , S. Ostanin , D. Zhang , M. Kriener , V. K. Dugaev , E. Ya. Sherman
show 2 more authors
A. Ernst M. Kawasaki
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords re-entrantsuperconductivityoxideheterointerfaceKTaO3LaTispin-orbitcouplingvanHovesingularitytwo-dimensionalgatetunability
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 reports that the superconducting state at a (110)-oriented LaTiO3-KTaO3 interface does not simply die as an in-plane magnetic field increases: it first disappears into a resistive state and then reappears at higher field, with a resistance peak pinned at 0.9 T across all gate voltages and temperatures. If correct, this is the first observation of re-entrant superconductivity in a two-dimensional oxide interface, and the first in any 2D system with strong spin-orbit coupling, the only prior 2D example being moiré graphene, which lacks strong SOC. The authors attribute the effect to a magnetic-field-driven deformation of an anisotropic Fermi surface with a van Hove singularity, combined with strong spin-orbit coupling, producing a non-monotonic superconducting transition temperature as a function of field. A sympathetic reader would care because it opens a gate-tunable oxide platform to study field-induced superconductivity and possible unconventional pairing, and suggests the phenomenon may be generic to flat-band systems with spin-orbit coupling.

What carries the argument

The theoretical machinery is an effective Hamiltonian for electrons near the extended saddle-point van Hove singularity at the zone boundary, H = −p_x²/2M + p_y²/2m + (βp_x + λB)σ_x, with M ≫ m and β < 0. The spin-orbit term and the in-plane field together deform the Fermi surface, preserving one minimum in p_y at px = βM while destroying the other at px = −βM beyond a field Mβ²/λ. This asymmetry produces pairing with nonzero total momentum and a competing density-of-states increase, yielding a non-monotonic Tc(B) with a minimum, which is the qualitative signature of re-entrant superconductivity.

What would settle it

Measure the Fermi surface directly (quantum oscillations, ARPES, or compressibility) at the (110) LaTiO3-KTaO3 interface: if there is no van Hove singularity at the zone boundary, or no field-induced deformation of the kind described, the proposed mechanism fails. A full self-consistent calculation of Tc(B) using the actual ab initio band structure and a realistic gap equation that yields no minimum would also falsify the attribution, even though the resistive peak at 0.9 T remains a valid experimental fact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that re-entrant superconductivity appears at the epitaxial (110) LaTiO3-KTaO3 interface: as the in-plane magnetic field is swept, the superconducting state is first suppressed (Rxx ≠ 0) and then re-emerges, with a resistive peak at B = 0.9 T that is independent of gate voltage and temperature. The peak sits near the Clogston-Chandrasekhar paramagnetic limit, but its gate independence and non-monotonic amplitude argue against a Zeeman or vortex origin. The authors attribute the behavior to a minimum in Tc(B) caused by the joint effect of a van Hove singularity at the Brillouin-zone boundary and Dresselhaus-like spin-orbit coupling: the field deforms the Fermi surface, shi

Load-bearing premise

The explanation stands or falls on the assumption that the (110) interface's real Fermi surface has the van Hove singularity at the Brillouin-zone boundary and that the field deforms it exactly as the model with β<0 and the chosen upper branch requires, with no direct measurements of β, λ, the effective masses, or the chemical potential to anchor the parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 0.9 T resistive peak marks a transient resistive state separating two superconducting phases at intermediate magnetic fields.
  • The peak position is independent of both temperature and gate voltage across a wide carrier-density range, while its amplitude varies non-monotonically with gate voltage.
  • The high parallel critical field, more than an order of magnitude above the perpendicular one, points to strong spin-orbit coupling as a key ingredient in protecting Cooper pairs from Zeeman breaking.
  • Gate tunability of carrier density makes the LaTiO3-KTaO3 (110) interface an in-situ tunable platform for exploring field-induced superconductivity.
  • The observation suggests that re-entrant superconductivity may occur in other 2D systems with flat bands and spin-orbit coupling, not only oxides.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the van Hove mechanism is correct, the 0.9 T peak should shift or split when the Fermi level is moved closer to or away from the singularity by stronger gating; the observed gate independence of the peak position may instead point to a band-structure-robust origin such as a field-induced Lifshitz transition.
  • The model predicts a field-dependent spin-texture asymmetry; a spin-polarized transport measurement or spin-resolved photoemission around 0.9 T could directly test whether the Fermi-surface deformation and spin orientation match Eq. (1).
  • The paper leaves open whether the re-entrant state has a different pairing symmetry; a Josephson or tunneling measurement across the 0.9 T transition could probe for a change in order-parameter symmetry.
  • Because the model calculation in Fig. 3b is illustrative and lacks a full gap equation, the same qualitative Tc(B) minimum could also be produced by field-suppressed magnetic fluctuations, which the paper mentions as an alternative; distinguishing these would require a quantitative fit to the measured Rxx(B) curves.
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. The paper reports the observation of re-entrant superconductivity at the epitaxial (110)-oriented LaTiO3–KTaO3 interface. In an in-plane magnetic field, the superconducting state is suppressed and then re-emerges, producing a resistive peak at B = 0.9 T that is reported to be independent of temperature and gate voltage over a wide VBG range. The authors attribute this behavior to the interplay of strong spin-orbit coupling and a magnetic-field-driven deformation of the Fermi surface near a van Hove singularity, modeled by the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (1). They argue against the Jaccarino–Peter mechanism and vortex penetration as the origin. If correct, this would be the first observation of re-entrant superconductivity in a 2D oxide heterointerface, with only moiré graphene previously known in 2D systems.

Significance. The experimental observation is potentially significant: a gate-independent, temperature-independent resistive peak at 0.9 T, qualitatively reproduced in a second sample, is an unusual and interesting transport feature in an oxide heterointerface. The gate tunability of the carrier density and Tc adds a useful control knob absent in bulk re-entrant superconductors. The paper also makes a clear falsifiable claim: the resistive peak corresponds to a non-monotonic Tc(B) with a minimum. However, the theoretical explanation as presented is not yet quantitatively supported: no gap equation is solved, no parameter values are given, and the calculated Tc(B) curve in Fig. 3b is not directly compared with the data. The manuscript's central empirical claim is credible, but the attribution to spin-orbit coupling and a van Hove singularity requires substantial further support before the paper's full conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Discussion, Eqs. (1)–(3) and Fig. 3b] The model is not derived quantitatively. The text states that the pairing pattern shown in Fig. 3b 'can lead to a decrease in the transition temperature' and that 'As a result, we obtain the required minimum in the Tc(B)-dependence,' but no gap equation is presented, no values for β, λ, M, m, or μ are given, and Fig. 3b appears to be a schematic curve without axes, parameter values, or an overlay on the experimental data. The claim that the model reproduces the 0.9 T feature is therefore not supported in a quantitative sense. Please provide the calculation, or explicitly label Fig. 3b as an illustration and temper the attribution.
  2. [Discussion, Eq. (2) and Fig. 2] There is a specific inconsistency between the model and the observed gate independence of the peak position. The data in Fig. 2b show B_peak ≈ 0.9 T for VBG from roughly −200 V to +180 V, while the carrier density and Tc vary substantially with VBG (Fig. 1e). In the model, the Fermi-surface minima are located at p_y^2/2m = μ − Mβ^2/2 ± λB (Eq. 2), so the field at which the van Hove-related DOS minimum occurs depends on μ − Mβ^2/2. Unless β, M, λ, and μ are tuned so that this combination is independent of gate voltage, B_min would be expected to shift with VBG. No such tuning or mechanism is given. The authors should either provide parameters and show that B_min is robust over the entire gate range, or identify a mechanism that pins μ relative to the band feature.
  3. [Discussion, Eq. (1)] The sign choice β < 0 and the selection of the upper spin branch in Eq. (2) are essential to the proposed Fermi-surface deformation and the resulting Tc(B) minimum. The manuscript does not provide an independent determination of β, its sign, or the branch occupation from the ab initio band structure or from experiment. Without this, the model risks being constructed to produce the observed phenomenon rather than explaining it. Please provide ab initio values or another independent constraint on β and the relevant branch, and show that the non-monotonic Tc(B) survives for a physically reasonable range of parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2b caption] The caption says 'as the temperature increases' but the panel shows two different temperatures. Please specify the temperatures for both panels and include the full color-scale label.
  2. [Main text, after Eq. (3)] There is a typo: 'at this low temperatur' should be 'at this low temperature.'
  3. [Reference [14]] Reference [14] appears to have an informal or placeholder title ('The electric-field-induced superconducting properties of MoS2 are investigated...'). Please replace it with the actual article title.
  4. [Fig. 2d] The definition of the 'amplitude of the resistive peak' should be specified (e.g., peak value minus the zero-field resistance or minus a background magnetoresistance). This would help the reader evaluate the non-monotonic VBG dependence in Fig. 2d.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 0.9 T peak is an empirical transport observation, and the proposed SOC/van Hove model is schematic but not equivalent by construction to that observation.

full rationale

The central claim is an experimental one: a gate- and temperature-independent resistive peak at B = 0.9 T in the (110) LaTiO3-KTaO3 interface, interpreted as re-entrant superconductivity. The proposed explanation is a qualitative model starting from ab initio flat bands near a van Hove singularity and an effective Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with an assumed negative spin-orbit constant and large mass anisotropy. The model is not fitted to the 0.9 T peak: no numerical values for beta, lambda, M, m, or mu are given, no gap equation for Tc(B) is presented, and the calculated minimum in Fig. 3b is not quantitatively compared with the data. This is a limitation of theoretical support and falsifiability, not a circular reduction. The same-author citation [24] is used only for sample growth and is not load-bearing for the RSC interpretation. The empirical observation could survive even if the proposed mechanism is wrong, so the derivation chain does not reduce to its own input.

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

The experimental observation is parameter-free, but the theoretical attribution rests on at least five hand-set parameters (μ, β, λ, M, m) plus an unspecified pairing calculation, none constrained by independent data or by a quantitative comparison to experiment. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Chemical potential μ (Fermi-surface branch choice) = not stated
    Eq. (2) fixes μ and selects the upper spin-split branch by hand; controls where the van Hove singularity sits relative to the Fermi level.
  • Spin-orbit coupling constant β = β<0 (value not stated)
    Eq. (1) and the mention 'β<0, cf. Supplemental Material'; sign and magnitude chosen to place FS minima at px=±βM and produce the Tc(B) minimum.
  • Effective Landé factor λ = not stated
    Appears in Eq. (1) as the magnetic-field coupling; determines the field scale at which the FS minimum at px=-βM disappears, so it sets Bmin.
  • Effective masses M and m = M≫m, values not stated
    Anisotropic saddle-point Hamiltonian Eq. (1); large M is needed to make the FS deformation pronounced.
  • Pairing/transition-temperature calculation parameters = not stated
    The numerical Tc(B) curve in Fig. 3b is introduced without a gap equation or interaction strength; these unknowns set the depth and position of the minimum.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Transition temperature is controlled by the density of states at the Fermi surface; a raise in DOS increases Tc.
    Used implicitly when the shifted FS minima are said to 'increase the density of states' and thus restore superconductivity; no explicit Eliashberg/BCS equation is given.
  • domain assumption The ab initio flat bands near Γ–X form an extended saddle point relevant to pairing at this interface.
    Invoked in the Discussion and Fig. 1b; if the superconducting electrons are not on these bands, the model's starting Hamiltonian is not relevant.
  • domain assumption Dresselhaus-like spin-orbit coupling, rather than magnetic order, dominates the Zeeman response.
    Eq. (1) uses βpx σx; the sign β<0 is only referenced to the SI, and the absence of magnetic order is inferred from the absence of hysteresis.
  • domain assumption The resistive peak at 0.9 T is not caused by flux penetration; the estimate B∥ξw≈φ0 with w≈45 nm excludes vortices.
    Discussion section; depends on the coherence length from perpendicular-field measurements and on the assumed vortex criterion, with no quoted uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Re-entrant superconductivity at an oxide heterointerface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQ657DBG

@misc{pith2026251001682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Re-entrant superconductivity at an oxide heterointerface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQ657DBG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.01682}
}
read the original abstract

A magnetic field typically suppresses superconductivity by either breaking Cooper pairs via the Zeeman effect or inducing vortex formation. However, under certain circumstances, a magnetic field can stabilize superconductivity instead. This seemingly counterintuitive phenomenon is associated with magnetic interactions and has been extensively studied in three-dimensional materials. By contrast, this phenomenon, hinting at unconventional superconductivity, remains largely unexplored in two-dimensional systems, with moir\'e-patterned graphene being the only known example. Here, we report the observation of re-entrant superconductivity (RSC) at the epitaxial (110)-oriented LaTiO3-KTaO3 interface. This phenomenon occurs across a wide range of charge carrier densities, which, unlike in three-dimensional materials, can be tuned in-situ via electrostatic gating. We attribute the re-entrant superconductivity to the interplay between a strong spin-orbit coupling and a magnetic-field driven modification of the Fermi surface. Our findings offer new insights into re-entrant superconductivity and establish a robust platform for exploring novel effects in two-dimensional superconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.01682 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Reentrant Superconductivity in Zeeman Fields

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A spin-triplet superconductor model exhibits reentrant superconductivity in Zeeman fields when the d-vector, spin-orbit interaction, and magnetic field are perpendicular, with spin-orbit coupling suppressing pairing a...

  2. Pair-Breaking and Dimensionality in Spin-Orbit Coupled Superconductors

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Analysis of LaBi2 thin films using the Kharitonov-Feigel'man framework resolves field-enhanced superconductivity in the thin limit and estimates spin exchange scattering's role alongside other depairing mechanisms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    This asymmetry is r eflected in the band dispersions plotted in Fig

    and [1 10] crystal directions are no longer equivalent. This asymmetry is r eflected in the band dispersions plotted in Fig. 1b along Γ–X and Γ–Y. For the rec iprocal direction Γ-Y, which is related to the lattice vector [1 10], all bands crossing the Fermi energy EF possess relatively high velocities. However, for Γ-X, the two lowest conduction bands be- ...

  2. [2]

    Konoike, S

    T. Konoike, S. Uji, T. Terashima, M. Nishimura, S. Yasuzu ka, K. Enomoto, H. Fujiwara, B. Zhang, and H. Kobayashi, Magnetic-field-induced superco nductivity in the antiferromag- netic organic superconductor κ−(BETS)2FeBr4, Phys. Rev. B 70, 094514 (2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    H. W. Meul, C. Rossel, M. Decroux, O. Fischer, G. Remenyi, and A. Briggs, Observation of Magnetic-Field-Induced Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 53, 497 (1984)

    1984

  4. [4]

    L´ evy, I

    F. L´ evy, I. Sheikin, B. Grenier, and A. D. Huxley, Magnet ic field-induced superconductivity in the ferromagnet URhGe, Science 309, 1343 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Jaccarino and M

    V. Jaccarino and M. Peter, Ultra-High-Field Supercondu ctivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 290 (1962)

    1962

  6. [6]

    J. J. Sanchez, G. Fabbris, Y. Choi, J. M. DeStefano, E. Ros enberg, Y. Shi, P. Malinowski, Y. Huang, I. I. Mazin, J.-W. Kim, J.-H. Chu, and P. J. Ryan, Str ain-switchable field-induced superconductivity, Science Advances 9, eadj5200 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Ran, I.-L

    S. Ran, I.-L. Liu, Y. S. Eo, D. J. Campbell, P. M. Neves, W. T . Fuhrman, S. R. Saha, C. Eckberg, H. Kim, D. Graf, F. Balakirev, J. Singleton, J. Pa glione, and N. P. Butch, Extreme magnetic field-boosted superconductivity, Nature Physics 15, 1250 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    S. Uji, H. Shinagawa, T. Terashima, T. Yakabe, Y. Terai, M . Tokumoto, A. Kobayashi, H. Tanaka, and H. Kobayashi, Magnetic-field-induced superc onductivity in a two-dimensional organic conductor, Nature 410, 908 (2001)

    2001

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    S. Khim, J. F. Landaeta, J. Banda, N. Bannor, M. Brando, P. M. R. Brydon, D. Hafner, R. K¨ uchler, R. Cardoso-Gil, U. Stockert, A. P. Mackenzie, D . F. Agterberg, C. Geibel, and E. Hassinger, Field-induced transition within the superco nducting state of CeRh 2As2, Science 373,...

    2021

  2. [10]

    T. Helm, M. Kimata, K. Sudo, A. Miyata, J. Stirnat, T. F¨ o rster, J. Hornung, M. K¨ onig, I. Sheikin, A. Pourret, G. Lapertot, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, J. Wo snitza, and J.-P. Brison, Field-induced compensation of magnetic exchange as the pos sible origin of reentrant super- condu...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Y. Cao, J. M. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jaril lo-Herrero, Pauli-limit violation and re-entrant superconductivity in moir´ e graphene, Nature 595, 526 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    J. M. Lu, O. Zheliuk, I. Leermakers, N. F. Q. Yuan, U. Zeit ler, K. T. Law, and J. T. Ye, Ev- idence for two-dimensional Ising superconductivity in gat ed MoS 2, Science 350, 1353 (2015). 12

    2015

  5. [13]

    L. P. Gor’kov and E. I. Rashba, Superconducting 2D Syste m with Lifted Spin Degeneracy: Mixed Singlet-Triplet State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 037004 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    Saito, Y

    Y. Saito, Y. Nakamura, M. S. Bahramy, Y. Kohama, J. Ye, Y. Kasahara, Y. Nakagawa, M. Onga, M. Tokunaga, T. Nojima, Y. Yanase, and Y. Iwasa, The e lectric-field-induced super- conducting properties of MoS 2 are investigated by means of magneto-transport measuremen ts, uncovering...

    2016

  7. [15]

    X. Xi, Z. Wang, W. Zhao, J.-H. Park, K. T. Law, H. Berger, L . Forr´ o, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Ising pairing in superconducting NbSe 2 atomic layers, Nature Physics 12, 139 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Saito, T

    Y. Saito, T. Nojima, and Y. Iwasa, Highly crystalline 2D superconductors, Nature Reviews Materials 2, 16094 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Smidman, M

    M. Smidman, M. B. Salamon, H. Q. Yuan, and D. F. Agterberg , Superconductivity and spin–orbit coupling in non-centrosymmetric materials: a r eview, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 036501 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    P. Wan, O. Zheliuk, N. F. Q. Yuan, X. Peng, L. Zhang, M. Lia ng, U. Zeitler, S. Wiedmann, N. E. Hussey, T. T. M. Palstra, and J. Ye, Orbital Fulde–Ferre ll–Larkin–Ovchinnikov state in an Ising superconductor, Nature 619, 46 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphen e superlattices, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  12. [21]

    C. Liu, X. Yan, D. Jin, Y. Ma, H.-W. Hsiao, Y. Lin, T. M. Bre tz-Sullivan, X. Zhou, J. Pearson, B. Fisher, J. S. Jiang, W. Han, J.-M. Zuo, J. Wen, D. D. Fong, J. Sun, H. Zhou, and A. Bhat- tacharya, Two-dimensional superconductivity and anisotr opic transport at KTaO 3(111) in...

    2021

  13. [22]

    Zhang, L

    G. Zhang, L. Wang, J. Wang, G. Li, G. Huang, G. Yang, H. Xue , Z. Ning, Y. Wu, J.-P. Xu, Y. Song, Z. An, C. Zheng, J. Shen, J. Li, Y. Chen, and W. Li, S pontaneous rotational symmetry breaking in KTaO 3 heterointerface superconductors, Nature Communications 14, 3046 (2023). 13

    2023

  14. [23]

    Z. Chen, Z. Liu, Y. Sun, X. Chen, Y. Liu, H. Zhang, H. Li, M. Zhang, S. Hong, T. Ren, C. Zhang, H. Tian, Y. Zhou, J. Sun, and Y. Xie, Two-Dimensiona l Superconductivity at the LaAlO3/KTaO3(110) Heterointerface, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 026802 (2021)

    2021

  15. [24]

    Maryenko, I

    D. Maryenko, I. V. Maznichenko, S. Ostanin, M. Kawamura , K. S. Takahashi, M. Nakamura, V. K. Dugaev, E. Y. Sherman, A. Ernst, and M. Kawasaki, Superc onductivity at epitaxial LaTiO3–KTaO3 interfaces, APL Materials 11, 061102 (2023)

    2023

  16. [25]

    X. Hua, Z. Zeng, F. Meng, H. Yao, Z. Huang, X. Long, Z. Li, Y . Wang, Z. Wang, T. Wu, Z. Weng, Y. Wang, Z. Liu, Z. Xiang, and X. Chen, Superconducti ng stripes induced by ferromagnetic proximity in an oxide heterostructure, Natu re Physics 20, 957 (2024)

    2024

  17. [26]

    A. M. Clogston, Upper Limit for the Critical Field in Har d Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 266 (1962)

    1962

  18. [27]

    C. Liu, X. Zhou, D. Hong, B. Fisher, H. Zheng, J. Pearson, J. S. Jiang, D. Jin, M. R. Norman, and A. Bhattacharya, Tunable superconductivity and its ori gin at KTaO 3 interfaces, Nature Communications 14, 951 (2023)

    2023

  19. [28]

    L. Li, C. Richter, J. Mannhart, and R. C. Ashoori, Coexis tence of magnetic order and two- dimensional superconductivity at LaAlO 3/SrTiO3 interfaces, Nature Physics 7, 762 (2011)

    2011

  20. [29]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar, A note on the maximum critical field of high-field superconductors, Applied Physics Letters 1, 7 (1962)

    1962

  21. [30]

    Krebs and P

    O. Krebs and P. Voisin, Giant optical anisotropy of semi conductor heterostructures with no common atom and the quantum-confined pockels effect, Phys. Rev . Lett. 77, 1829 (1996)

    1996

  22. [31]

    J. A. Bert, B. Kalisky, C. Bell, M. Kim, Y. Hikita, H. Y. Hw ang, and K. A. Moler, Direct imaging of the coexistence of ferromagnetism and supercond uctivity at the LaAlO 3/SrTiO3 interface, Nature Physics 7, 767 (2011)

    2011

  23. [32]

    L. E. Golub and E. L. Ivchenko, Spin splitting in symmetr ical SiGe quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B 69, 115333 (2004). 14

    2004

  24. [33]

    R¨ ossler and J

    U. R¨ ossler and J. Kainz, Microscopic interface asymme try and spin-splitting of electron sub- bands in semiconductor quantum structures, Solid State Com munication 121, 313 (2002)

    2002

  25. [110]

    A way of makin g Europe

    and [100]. The effects of the spin-orbit coupling, magnetic exch ange interactions, and spin noncollinearity, which were included in the ab-initio calculations, determine the flat-band splitting and detailed Fermi surface, as well as its spin tex ture (see Fig. S1 in SI). FIG. 2...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.