Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Superconducting Diode Effect in Selectively-Grown Topological Insulator based Josephson Junctions

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

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

Pith's one-line read Selectively grown Nb/Bi0.8Sb1.2Te3/Nb Josephson junctions show a direction-dependent critical current, with up to 7% rectification, which the paper attributes to ballistic topological surface states.

desk verdict Credible first diode-effect measurement in selectively-grown 3D TI junctions; the surface-state mechanism is plausible but not forced by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08220 v1 pith:3CVDB7RH submitted 2025-02-12 cond-mat.mes-hall

Gerrit Behner , Abdur Rehman Jalil , Detlev Grützmacher , Thomas Schäpers This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 74.50.+r85.25.Cp73.20.At
keywords JosephsondiodeeffecttopologicalinsulatorBi0.8Sb1.2Te3surfacestatescurrent-phaserelationShapirostepsselective-areagrowthsuperconductingproximity
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

Selectively grown Nb/Bi0.8Sb1.2Te3/Nb Josephson junctions rectify supercurrent: under an in-plane magnetic field perpendicular to the current, the positive and negative critical currents differ by up to 7%, and the rectification polarity flips when the field is reversed. The paper argues that this Josephson diode effect arises from a ballistic supercurrent component carried by proximitized topological surface states, whose non-sinusoidal current-phase relation combines with an anomalous phase shift created by Zeeman splitting and strong spin-orbit coupling. If the attribution holds, topological-insulator weak links become both a controllable diode platform and a candidate probe in the search for Majorana zero modes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ballistic supercurrent channel formed by proximitized topological surface states in the 100-nm Bi0.8Sb1.2Te3 weak link. Three linked signatures carry the argument: (i) the critical-current temperature trace is decomposed into a Usadel diffusive term and a clean-limit Eilenberger ballistic term, with the ballistic term dominating above roughly 0.7 K; (ii) half-integer Shapiro steps show that the current-phase relation contains higher harmonics; and (iii) the magnetic-field dependence matches the finite-momentum Cooper pairing scenario in which spin-orbit coupling plus a Zeeman field produce an anomalous phase shift. Together these make the current-phase relation skewed in a way that distinguishes positive from negative bias, producing the diode effect.

What would settle it

A control experiment with the same junction geometry and comparable spin-orbit coupling but no topological surface states, for example a trivial Rashba two-dimensional electron gas or a gated topological-insulator film with the surface channels depleted, would settle the claim: if the ballistic critical-current contribution, half-integer Shapiro steps, and a diode efficiency of several percent persist when topological surface states are absent or quenched, the paper's attribution to surface states is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the direction-dependent critical current observed in these junctions is a signature of the topological surface states themselves, not a trivial geometric or interface artifact. The evidence chain is: the temperature dependence of the critical current is fit as a diffusive contribution (Usadel equations) plus a ballistic contribution (clean-limit Eilenberger equations), with the ballistic part persisting above about 0.7 K; half-integer Shapiro steps at n = ±0.5 and ±1.5 indicate a non-sinusoidal current-phase relation; and the diode appears only when the in-plane magnetic field is perpendicular to the current direction, reversing sign with field reversal. The paper interprets this as finite-momentum Cooper pairing produced by Zeeman shift of the spin-orbit-coupled surface-state Fermi contours, which yields an anomalous phase shift and a skewed current-phase relation with different positive and negative branches.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central explanation assumes that the ballistic part of the measured critical-current temperature curve is carried by the topological surface states, and that this decomposition is identifiable from a single temperature trace; if the ballistic channel is actually bulk or trivial interface modes, the surface-state origin of the diode effect collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the surface-state origin is correct, selectively grown Nb/Bi0.8Sb1.2Te3/Nb junctions become a platform for studying and controlling the Josephson diode effect in a topological material.
  • The observed diode persists up to roughly 400 mK and over in-plane fields of order ±1 T, with stability across switching cycles, making it a usable nonreciprocal superconducting element.
  • Only two of five geometrically identical junctions exhibited the effect, consistent with the theoretical requirement of a large number of transport channels and indicating that defect density in the selectively grown weak link controls the diode yield.
  • The combination of a ballistic critical-current component and half-integer Shapiro steps provides an experimental route for identifying non-sinusoidal current-phase relations in topological weak links.
  • Because the proposed mechanism involves proximitized surface states, the diode effect could serve as an additional experimental probe in the ongoing search for Majorana zero modes, where 4π-periodic contributions are predicted to enhance rectification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a testable consequence is that electrostatically gating the Fermi level into the bulk band gap should enhance the relative diode efficiency, while moving the Fermi level into bulk bands should suppress the ballistic surface-state channel; the paper does not report gate dependence.
  • Editorial inference: the periodic sign reversal of the diode efficiency with out-of-plane field seen in junction JJ2, attributed to higher harmonics of the current-phase relation, suggests a way to switch diode polarity without reversing the applied field direction, though the paper leaves this mechanism underdetermined.
  • Editorial inference: if defect density is what prevents most junctions from showing the effect, improving the crystalline quality of the selectively grown weak link could make the diode a routine, rather than occasional, property of this platform.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports measurements of the Josephson diode effect in selectively grown Nb/Bi0.8Sb1.2Te3/Nb Josephson junctions. The authors observe a direction-dependent critical current under in-plane magnetic fields perpendicular to the current direction, with rectification efficiencies up to 7% for one junction (JJ1), and they reproduce the effect in a second junction (JJ2). They attribute the effect to a non-sinusoidal current-phase relation and an anomalous phase shift produced by a ballistic supercurrent component carried by proximitized topological surface states. Evidence presented includes temperature-dependent critical current data modeled as the sum of ballistic and diffusive contributions, fractional Shapiro steps, and field-direction-dependent diode efficiency maps. A Fraunhofer pattern and statistical histograms of switching currents are provided in the Supplemental Material.

Significance. If the mechanism claim were established, the paper would provide a clean, reproducible platform for the superconducting diode effect in a topological insulator weak link and a potential diagnostic for surface-state transport. The experimental observation of the diode effect itself is supported by repeated IV curves, histograms of 100 switching events, and a clean dependence on the direction of the in-plane magnetic field; that part is credible. The weakness is the mechanism attribution: the decomposition of the measured Ic(T) into ballistic and diffusive channels is not fully documented, and the Eilenberger/Usadel distinction does not discriminate topological surface states from bulk or trivial interface modes. The core observation is therefore likely to survive, but the central explanatory claim needs substantially stronger support or a more careful framing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 4a; Supplemental Note 3A] The central claim that the diode effect originates from a ballistic supercurrent component carried by topological surface states rests on the decomposition of a single Ic(T) trace in Fig. 4a. The manuscript provides no equations for the clean-limit Eilenberger and Usadel fits, no fitted parameter values or uncertainties, and no comparison with alternative models; the Supplement refers only to Ref. [S5] for calculation details. A single Ic(T) trace is unlikely to identify uniquely the relative weights of ballistic and diffusive channels, the coherence length, and the superconducting gap, and the ballistic/diffusive distinction is based on elastic scattering length rather than topology. Please provide the full fitting model and parameters with confidence intervals, and show that the extracted ballistic component cannot be reproduced by a bulk or trivial interface channel.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 4b-c] The half-integer Shapiro steps are presented as evidence for a non-sinusoidal current-phase relation, but the dips at n = ±0.5 and ±1.5 are weak and no quantitative model of the Shapiro pattern is given. Fractional steps can arise from phase dynamics or microwave effects even when the CPR is nearly sinusoidal, and a non-sinusoidal CPR alone is not sufficient for a diode effect anyway because an anomalous phase shift is also required. Please either provide a quantitative CPR extraction or reduce the strength of the conclusion drawn from these data.
  3. [Section III, 'It is therefore plausible...'] The attribution of the ballistic channel to topological surface states is supported only by Aharonov-Bohm measurements on ring structures from Ref. [50], which are not made on these junctions, and by the transparency value of about 68%, which does not directly establish a long ballistic channel. The sentence in the Introduction stating that 'the supercurrent is carried to a large extent by topological surface states' therefore overstates what the data can support. Please present direct evidence for the surface-state channel in these devices, or explicitly label this as an inference with its limitations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The spelling 'proximized' should be 'proximitized' (see, e.g., the Abstract and Section II).
  2. [Section III, definition of eta] The notation I− and |I−| is used interchangeably; please define the convention once when defining the rectification factor.
  3. [Supplemental Note 3B and Figure S6] The text and the caption of Figure S6 do not agree on which panels are frequency maps and which are linecuts; please correct the cross-references.
  4. [Section III and Supplemental Note 3] The term 'fractional Shapiro steps' is used for half-integer steps; please specify 'half-integer' where appropriate, since the discussion concerns n = ±0.5 and ±1.5.
  5. [Fig. 1 caption] The phrase 'Oscillating current of ±600 nA' would be clearer as 'Bias current swept between ±600 nA'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the diode effect is a direct measurement, and the surface-state attribution is an interpretation supported by independent evidence, not an input recycled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central observation, nonreciprocal critical currents under an in-plane magnetic field, is a direct electrical measurement presented in Figs. 1 and 2, not a prediction derived from a fitted model. The mechanism section fits the temperature dependence of the critical current with clean-limit Eilenberger (ballistic) and Usadel (diffusive) contributions following Schueffelgen et al. [30]; this is a standard model fit used to infer a ballistic component, and the attribution of that component to topological surface states is an interpretation supported by additional evidence, including half-integer Shapiro steps (Fig. 4 and Supplemental Figs. S4-S6) and, for prior ring structures, the authors' own Aharonov-Bohm measurements [50]. The self-citation to [50] is supporting rather than load-bearing: the diode data, the model fit, and the Shapiro-step signatures stand independently, and no quantity in the paper is defined in terms of the claim it purports to establish. The anomalous phase shift is inferred from the coexistence of the measured diode effect and a non-sinusoidal current-phase relation, not obtained by fitting or by circular definition. The fit's identifiability and the surface-state assignment are legitimate correctness concerns, but underdetermination is not circularity. Supplemental Note 3D explicitly flags that the out-of-plane sign reversal would need to be studied more extensively to gain an unambiguous conclusion, which is a stated limitation rather than a circular loop. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity, and no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim about the surface-state origin rests on two fits (transparency and the ballistic/diffusive decomposition) and on the CPR interpretation of fractional Shapiro steps. No new particles or forces are introduced; the assumptions are standard transport models and established SDE theory, but the specific applicability to this material is asserted rather than independently verified.

free parameters (2)
  • transparency tau = 68.61%
    Obtained by fitting the OTBK-based analytical model of Niebler et al. to the excess current and IV characteristics. It is presented as a single number with no uncertainty and is used to characterize interface quality.
  • ballistic/diffusive decomposition parameters (relative weights, coherence length, gap) = not disclosed
    The temperature dependence of IC in Fig. 4a is fit by a sum of ballistic (Eilenberger) and diffusive (Usadel) contributions. The parameter values and uncertainty are not given, yet the decomposition is the basis for attributing the ballistic channel to surface states.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Eilenberger and Usadel equations describe the ballistic and diffusive supercurrent contributions in a proximitized TI weak link.
    Invoked in the IC(T) analysis in Section III to separate ballistic and diffusive channels; no independent validation that these models apply to Bi0.8Sb1.2Te3 junctions in this parameter regime.
  • domain assumption Half-integer Shapiro steps imply a non-sinusoidal current-phase relation.
    Used in Section III to conclude the CPR is non-sinusoidal. Fractional Shapiro steps can also be produced by junction dynamics, noise, or other harmonics, so the inference is not unique.
  • domain assumption The junction is in the long ballistic junction limit because L=100 nm is much larger than the coherence length of Nb of about 10 nm.
    Stated in Section III. The relevant coherence length for the proximitized TI surface states may differ from that of Nb; this assumption underpins the expected skewed CPR.
  • domain assumption The diode effect requires both time-reversal and inversion symmetry breaking, with a non-sinusoidal CPR plus an anomalous phase shift.
    Standard theory from references [17-23], used in Section III to link the observations to the proposed mechanism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superconducting Diode Effect in Selectively-Grown Topological Insulator based Josephson Junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3CVDB7RH

@misc{pith2026250208220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superconducting Diode Effect in Selectively-Grown Topological Insulator based Josephson Junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3CVDB7RH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08220}
}
abstract

The Josephson diode effect, where the critical current magnitude depends on its direction, arises when both time-reversal and inversion symmetries are broken - often achieved by a combination of spin-orbit interaction and applied magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the strong spin-orbit coupling inherent in three-dimensional topological insulators, we study this phenomenon in Nb/Bi$_{0.8}$Sb$_{1.2}$Te$_3$/Nb Josephson weak-link junctions. Under an in-plane magnetic field perpendicular to the current direction, we observe a pronounced Josephson diode effect with efficiencies up to 7%. A crucial component of this behavior is the non-sinusoidal current-phase relationship and an anomalous phase shift, which we attribute to the presence of a ballistic supercurrent component due to the surface states. These findings open up new avenues for harnessing and controlling the Josephson diode effect in topological material systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08220 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sample layout and measurement of the Josephson diode effect of junction JJ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Full analysis of the Josephson diode effect in JJ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. a) Critical currents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Behner, A

    G. Behner, A. R. Jalil, D. Heffels, J. K¨ olzer, K. Moors, J. Mertens, E. Zimmermann, G. Mussler, P. Sch¨ uffelgen, H. L¨ uth, D. Gr¨ utzmacher, and T. Sch¨ apers, Nano Let- ters 23, 6347 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 3045–3067 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    Ando, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82, 102001 (2013)

    Y. Ando, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82, 102001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    Breunig and Y

    O. Breunig and Y. Ando, Nature Reviews Physics , 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    R. M. Lutchyn, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, P. Krogstrup, C. M. Marcus, and Y. Oreg, Nature Re- views Materials 3, 52 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  7. [6]

    Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 076501 (2012)

    J. Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 076501 (2012)

    2012

  8. [7]

    Hyart, B

    T. Hyart, B. van Heck, I. C. Fulga, M. Burrello, A. R. Akhmerov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Physical Review B 88 (2013), 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.035121

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.88.035121 2013

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    S. D. Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, npj Quantum Information 1 (2015), 10.1038/npjqi.2015.1

    2015 doi

  2. [9]

    Aasen, M

    D. Aasen, M. Hell, R. V. Mishmash, A. Higginbotham, J. Danon, M. Leijnse, T. S. Jespersen, J. A. Folk, C. M. Marcus, K. Flensberg, and J. Alicea, Physical Review X 6 (2016), 10.1103/physrevx.6.031016

    2016 doi

  3. [10]

    Nadeem, M

    M. Nadeem, M. S. Fuhrer, and X. Wang, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 558 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Baumgartner, L

    C. Baumgartner, L. Fuchs, A. Costa, S. Reinhardt, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. J. Manfra, P. E. Faria Junior, D. Kochan, et al. , Nature Nanotech- nology 17, 39 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Turini, S

    B. Turini, S. Salimian, M. Carrega, A. Iorio, E. Stram- bini, F. Giazotto, V. Zannier, L. Sorba, and S. Heun, Nano Letters 22, 8502 (2022), pMID: 36285780

    2022

  6. [13]

    Costa, C

    A. Costa, C. Baumgartner, S. Reinhardt, J. Berger, S. Gronin, G. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. Manfra, J. Fabian, D. Kochan, et al., Nature Nanotechnology 18, 1266 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    Lotfizadeh, W

    N. Lotfizadeh, W. F. Schiela, B. Pekerten, P. Yu, B. H. Elfeky, W. M. Strickland, A. Matos-Abiague, and J. Sha- bani, Communications Physics 7, 120 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    B. Pal, A. Chakraborty, P. K. Sivakumar, M. Davydova, A. K. Gopi, A. K. Pandeya, J. A. Krieger, Y. Zhang, M. Date, S. Ju, et al. , Nature Physics 18, 1228 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    B. Lu, S. Ikegaya, P. Burset, Y. Tanaka, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 096001 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    A. A. Reynoso, G. Usaj, C. A. Balseiro, D. Feinberg, and M. Avignon, Phys. Rev. B 86, 214519 (2012)

    2012

  11. [18]

    Yokoyama, M

    T. Yokoyama, M. Eto, and Y. V. Nazarov, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82, 054703 (2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    Yokoyama, M

    T. Yokoyama, M. Eto, and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B 89, 195407 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    Dolcini, M

    F. Dolcini, M. Houzet, and J. S. Meyer, Phys. Rev. B 92, 035428 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    N. F. Q. Yuan and L. Fu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2119548119 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    Z. Liu, L. Huang, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 110, 014519 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    J. S. Meyer and M. Houzet, Applied Physics Letters 125, 022603 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    R. S. Souto, M. Leijnse, and C. Schrade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 267702 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    Nikodem, J

    E. Nikodem, J. Schluck, M. Geier, M. Papaj, H. F. Legg, J. Feng, M. Bagchi, L. Fu, and Y. Ando, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16569 (2024), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.16569

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [26]

    Gupta, G

    M. Gupta, G. V. Graziano, M. Pendharkar, J. T. Dong, C. P. Dempsey, C. Palmstr¨ om, and V. S. Pribiag, Nature Communications 14, 3078 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    Behner, A

    G. Behner, A. R. Jalil, A. Rupp, H. L¨ uth, D. Gr¨ utzmacher, and T. Sch¨ apers, ACS Nano19, 3878 (2025)

    2025

  21. [28]

    Coraiola, A

    M. Coraiola, A. E. Svetogorov, D. Z. Haxell, D. Sabo- nis, M. Hinderling, S. C. ten Kate, E. Cheah, F. Krizek, R. Schott, W. Wegscheider, J. C. Cuevas, W. Belzig, and 7 F. Nichele, ACS Nano 18, 9221 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Physical Review B 108, 155433 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    Sch¨ uffelgen, D

    P. Sch¨ uffelgen, D. Rosenbach, C. Li, T. W. Schmitt, M. Schleenvoigt, A. R. Jalil, S. Schmitt, J. K¨ olzer, M. Wang, B. Bennemann, U. Parlak, L. Kibkalo, S. Trel- lenkamp, T. Grap, D. Meertens, M. Luysberg, G. Mus- sler, E. Berenschot, N. Tas, A. A. Golubov, A. Brinkman, T. S...

    2019

  24. [31]

    A. R. Jalil, P. Sch¨ uffelgen, H. Valencia, M. Schleenvoigt, C. Ringkamp, G. Mussler, M. Luysberg, J. Mayer, and D. Gr¨ utzmacher, Nanomaterials13, 354 (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    T. W. Schmitt, B. Frohn, W. Wittl, A. R. Jalil, M. Schleenvoigt, E. Zimmermann, A. Schmidt, T. Sch¨ apers, J. C. Cuevas, A. Brinkman, D. Gr¨ utzmacher, and P. Sch¨ uffelgen, Superconductor Science and Technology 36, 024002 (2022)

    2022

  26. [33]

    J. P. Carbotte, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 1027 (1990)

    1990

  27. [34]

    Niebler, G

    G. Niebler, G. Cuniberti, and T. Novotn´ y, Superconduc- tor Science and Technology 22, 085016 (2009)

    2009

  28. [35]

    Octavio, M

    M. Octavio, M. Tinkham, G. E. Blonder, and T. M. Klapwijk, Physical Review B 27, 6739 (1983)

    1983

  29. [36]

    Flensberg, J

    K. Flensberg, J. B. Hansen, and M. Octavio, Phys. Rev. B 38, 8707 (1988)

    1988

  30. [38]

    A. R. Jalil, T. W. Schmitt, P. R¨ ußmann, X. Wei, B. Frohn, M. Schleenvoigt, W. Wittl, X. Hou, A. Schmidt, K. Underwood, G. Bihlmayer, M. Luysberg, J. Mayer, S. Bl¨ ugel, D. Gr¨ utzmacher, and P. Sch¨ uffelgen, Advanced Quantum Technologies , 2400343 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    J. C. Cuevas and F. S. Bergeret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 217002 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    H. Y. G¨ unel, I. E. Batov, H. Hardtdegen, K. Sladek, A. Winden, K. Weis, G. Panaitov, D. Gr¨ utzmacher, and T. Sch¨ apers, Journal of Applied Physics 112, 034316 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Kayyalha, A

    M. Kayyalha, A. Kazakov, I. Miotkowski, S. Khlebnikov, L. P. Rokhinson, and Y. P. Chen, npj Quantum Mate- rials 5, 7 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Eilenberger, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and nu- clei 214, 195 (1968)

    G. Eilenberger, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and nu- clei 214, 195 (1968)

    1968

  35. [43]

    A. V. Galaktionov and A. D. Zaikin, Phys. Rev. B 65, 184507 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    K. D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 507 (1970)

    1970

  37. [45]

    A. A. Golubov, M. Y. Kupriyanov, and E. Il’ichev, Re- views of Modern Physics 76, 411 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    R. A. Snyder, C. J. Trimble, C. C. Rong, P. A. Folkes, P. J. Taylor, and J. R. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 097701 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    B. Raes, N. Tubsrinuan, R. Sreedhar, D. S. Guala, R. Panghotra, H. Dausy, C. C. de Souza Silva, and J. Van de Vondel, Phys. Rev. B 102, 054507 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    K¨ olzer, A

    J. K¨ olzer, A. R. Jalil, D. Rosenbach, L. Arndt, G. Mus- sler, P. Sch¨ uffelgen, D. Gr¨ utzmacher, H. L¨ uth, and T. Sch¨ apers, Nanomaterials13, 293 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Iorio, A

    A. Iorio, A. Crippa, B. Turini, S. Salimian, M. Carrega, L. Chirolli, V. Zannier, L. Sorba, E. Strambini, F. Gia- zotto, and S. Heun, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033015 (2023)

    2023

  42. [51]

    Asada and H

    Y. Asada and H. Nos´ e, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 26, 347–354 (1969)

    1969

  43. [52]

    Sch¨ apers,Superconductor/Semiconductor Junctions , Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, Vol

    T. Sch¨ apers,Superconductor/Semiconductor Junctions , Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, Vol. 174 (Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2001)

    2001

  44. [53]

    A. Murani, Superconducting proximity effect in monocrystalline bismuth nanowires , Phd thesis, Uni- versit´ e Paris Saclay, Paris, France (2017), available at https://theses.hal.science/tel-02057273v1

    2017

  45. [54]

    A. P. Surendran, D. Montemurro, G. Kunakova, X. Palermo, K. Niherysh, E. Trabaldo, D. S. Golubev, J. Andzane, D. Erts, F. Lombardi, and T. Bauch, Su- perconductor Science and Technology 36, 064003 (2023)

    2023

  46. [55]

    A. Q. Chen, M. J. Park, S. T. Gill, Y. Xiao, D. Reig-i Plessis, G. J. MacDougall, M. J. Gilbert, and N. Mason, Nature Communications 9, 3478 (2018)

    2018

  47. [56]

    Assouline, C

    A. Assouline, C. Feuillet-Palma, N. Bergeal, T. Zhang, A. Mottaghizadeh, A. Zimmers, E. Lhuillier, M. Eddrie, P. Atkinson, M. Aprili, and H. Aubin, Nature Commu- nications 10, 126 (2019). 1 Supplemental Material: Superconducting Diode Effect in Selectively-Grown Topological In...

    2019 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.