Frustrated edge currents in bilayers formed of s- and d-wave superconductors

Marcel Franz; Nirek Brahmbhatt; Oguzhan Can; Vedangi Pathak

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Frustrated edge currents in bilayers formed of s- and d-wave superconductors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 d/s bilayer can carry large non-chiral edge currents without any bulk topology, with corner frustration resolved by bulk superflow.

desk verdict Solid, interesting prediction of non-chiral edge currents in a topologically trivial d+is bilayer; needs a free-energy check to confirm the d±is phase is the ground state. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21482 v1 pith:DYIBYA65 submitted 2025-06-26 cond-mat.supr-con

Vedangi Pathak , Oguzhan Can , Nirek Brahmbhatt , Marcel Franz This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-con MSC 82D55 PACS 74.20.-z74.25.-q74.25.Ha

keywords d-wavesuperconductors-wavetime-reversalsymmetrybreakingedgecurrentsGinzburg-LandautheoryBogoliubov-deGennesscanningSQUIDd+is

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 argues that placing an s-wave superconducting island on a d-wave superconducting substrate can create a d_xy + i s state whose two superconducting components are locked at a quarter-cycle phase difference, spontaneously breaking time-reversal symmetry. Although this state has no bulk topology—no Chern number and no protected chiral edge modes—it supports large persistent supercurrents along edges aligned with the nodal directions of the d-wave order. Adjacent perpendicular edges carry currents in opposite directions, so the pattern appears frustrated at corners, as if charge were being created and destroyed. Using fully self-consistent Bogoliubov–de Gennes and Ginzburg–Landau calculations, the paper shows that the true ground state conserves current by sending superflow through the bulk, producing vortex-like magnetic flux patterns. For a Bi-2212 substrate with an iron-based s-wave island, the estimated stray fields are strong enough for state-of-the-art scanning SQUID magnetometry.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mixed gradient coupling $\gamma_v$ in the Ginzburg-Landau free energy, the term $\gamma_v[(\Pi_x s)^*(\Pi_y d)+(\Pi_y s)^*(\Pi_x d)+\mathrm{c.c.}]$. This term makes currents flow perpendicular to gradients of the other order parameter, so it converts the local suppression of the s order at an island edge into tangential supercurrent. On the microscopic side the equivalent machinery is the self-consistent BdG gap equation together with the bond-current operator; in a translationally invariant strip the current can be expressed through the spectral function $A_k(y,\omega)$ of the BdG Hamiltonian, and the sign of the $k$-integral is controlled by whether the occupied spectrum is asymmetric in $k$. In $d_{xy}+is$ the occupied states contribute predominantly at one sign of $k$, producing a net current; in $d_{x^2-y^2}+is$ the occupied states are symmetric, and the odd $\sin k$ factor in the current expression cancels the integral.

What would settle it

Map the stray field of a single square s-wave island on a d_xy substrate with a scanning SQUID: the paper predicts a quadrupolar field pattern with opposite currents on adjacent edges and bulk return flow, at peak fields of 0.1–0.6 µT for sensor heights near 30 nm. A null result at that sensitivity, or an equally strong signal when the same island is placed on a d_x2-y2 substrate, where the paper predicts no edge currents in this geometry, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a d_xy ± i s superconductor—realized when an s-wave island sits on a d_xy substrate—produces large edge currents along (100) and (010) directions despite being topologically trivial, and that those currents are not chiral but frustrated. The mechanism is a mixed gradient term in the Ginzburg-Landau free energy that couples spatial gradients of the s- and d-order parameters crosswise: an x-gradient of one order drives a y-directed current in the other, and vice versa. Near an edge, where the s-order parameter is suppressed, this crosswise coupling yields opposite-directed supercurrents on adjacent perpendicular edges, so the currents seem to emanate from two corners and sink into the other two. Fully self-consistent BdG and GL solutions show that charge conservation is restored by bulk superflow, with the return currents forming geometry-dependent patterns: quadrupolar flux for a square island, dipolar for a triangle, unipolar for a rectangle, and a vortex-antivortex-like texture for an array of islands. The microscopic calculation also explains the orientation dependence: in a strip geometry, d_xy + i s has an asymmetric occupied spectral function in momentum, so the current integral does not cancel, whereas d_x2-y2 + i s has a symmetric spectrum and produces no edge current in this setup.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative Ginzburg-Landau current formula assumes a nonzero mixed-gradient coupling between the two superconducting order parameters, and the paper takes it positive without computing its value from the microscopic model; the BdG calculation independently produces the edge currents, so the phenomenon does not rest on that constant, but the GL estimates do.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, a topologically trivial superconductor can produce edge currents of comparable character to chiral topological ones, so edge currents alone cannot be read as evidence of bulk topology in d/s heterostructures.
For a BSCCO substrate with an iron-based s-wave island, the predicted edge currents produce peak magnetic fields of order 0.1–0.6 µT at a 30 nm sensor height, within reach of scanning SQUID microscopes; a null or much weaker signal would rule out the d_xy + i s phase in that geometry.
The apparent corner frustration is resolved by bulk superflow, so magnetometry images of finite islands should show vortex-like flux patterns rather than purely edge-localized fields, with the pattern's character encoding the island's shape.
Because the current reverses with edge orientation, the same bilayer geometry can serve as a directional diagnostic of the underlying d-wave component: d_xy + i s edges carry currents in this setup, while d_x2-y2 + i s edges do not.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural test the paper does not run is to pattern two adjacent s-wave islands of different orientations on the same d-wave substrate and use SQUID maps of the bulk return flow to infer the sign of the mixed-gradient coupling; the current direction around each corner encodes whether the phase is d + i s or d − i s.
If a microscopic estimate of the mixed-gradient coupling were computed, the Ginzburg-Landau current magnitudes could be made fully quantitative; until then the microscopic BdG results, not the GL estimate, are the firmer quantitative anchor for the edge current amplitude.
The island-array idea points toward a tunable platform for frustration engineering: by choosing island shapes and separations, one could deliberately design unquantized vortex-antivortex-like current patterns that mimic classical or quantum spin models.
Stacking an s-wave island with topological surface states, as in some iron-based superconductors, would superpose these bulk-superflow currents with Majorana physics; whether the two effects interfere or simply coexist is left open by the paper.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this paper. It predicts something genuinely new: a d_xy+is superconductor realized in a d/s bilayer supports large edge currents that flow in opposite directions on adjacent edges, look frustrated at corners, and are resolved by bulk vorticity. All of that happens despite the system being topologically trivial. The contrast with d_x2-y2+is, which shows no such currents, is explained cleanly by symmetry and by the spectral-function argument. The authors back the claim with two independent methods: GL theory with a mixed-gradient coupling, and fully self-consistent BdG on lattice clusters with explicit current conservation. The BdG and GL results agree qualitatively, and the SQUID estimates (0.1–0.6 µT at 30 nm) are in a detectable range. This is careful, physical work.

My main reservation is about the stability of the d±is phase. The GL analysis assumes C>0 in the quartic Josephson term, and nowhere do the authors derive C from the microscopic model or compare the free energies of the φ=0, π, ±π/2 solutions. The BdG self-consistent solutions converge to d+is, but a converged stationary point is not obviously the global minimum. If for the parameters used in Figs. 2 and 4 the real-phase solution has lower free energy, the edge currents would not occur in equilibrium. The prior literature (Ref. [15]) argues d+is is a robust phase in d/s bilayers, so my prior is that the phase is fine, but the authors should have checked. This is a genuine, referee-addressable gap, and it is the only load-bearing one.

The assumed value of γ_v (the mixed gradient coefficient) is a secondary concern. The BdG currents do not rely on it, so the existence of the phenomenon is secure; only the quantitative GL estimates and the interpretation via Eq. (4) depend on it. It would be good to compute γ_v from the BdG model, but I wouldn't call it fatal.

Other minor points: the periodic boundary conditions for the d-wave layer avoid pair-breaking edge states, and real samples may have additional extended s-wave order, but the authors explicitly state this and design the s-wave island to isolate the effect. That is acceptable.

Overall, the central claim holds up, with a missing free-energy comparison that should be requested rather than treated as a dealbreaker. The paper deserves a serious referee; I'd send it out.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies heterostructures formed by an s-wave superconductor island on a d-wave superconducting substrate, focusing on the resulting d±is state. The authors argue from a Ginzburg-Landau free energy that this state spontaneously breaks time-reversal symmetry and, despite being topologically trivial, supports large edge currents for d_xy+is order along certain edge orientations, while d_x2−y2+is does not. They support this with fully self-consistent BdG lattice calculations in strip and island geometries, showing that edge currents are frustrated at corners and resolve through bulk superflow into vortex-like patterns, and they estimate that the resulting magnetic fields are detectable by scanning SQUID for BSCCO/iron-based superconductor parameters.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper establishes a conceptually important result: time-reversal-symmetry-breaking superconductors can host sizable edge currents without any nontrivial bulk topology, and the corner frustration provides a concrete experimental fingerprint. The BdG calculations are a strength: they are fully self-consistent, explicitly enforce current conservation, and the contrast between d_xy+is and d_x2−y2+is is supported by a spectral-function argument. The experimental estimates for SQUID-visible magnetic fields (0.1–0.6 μT at 30 nm height) make the prediction falsifiable. The main gaps are that the stabilization of the d±is phase itself is assumed rather than demonstrated from the microscopic model, and the mixed-gradient coupling γ_v that drives the GL edge-current mechanism is not derived from the BdG theory.

major comments (3)

[Sec. I, Eq. (1)–(2); Sec. III, Eq. (11); Figs. 2 and 4] The paper assumes C>0 in the Josephson free energy f(φ)=E0+2C|s|^2|d|^2 cos 2φ, which selects the time-reversal-symmetry-breaking minima at φ=±π/2. However, C is never computed from the microscopic BdG model, and the self-consistent dxy+is solutions in Figs. 2 and 4 are stationary points, not necessarily global minima. If C<0 for those parameters, the equilibrium state would be a real relative phase (φ=0 or π) with no spontaneous TRS breaking, and the predicted edge currents would not occur. Please compute the BdG free energies of the φ=0, π, and ±π/2 solutions (or equivalently derive C from the microscopic parameters g, V_s, V_d, etc.) and demonstrate that the complex-phase solution is the global minimum for the parameters used in Figs. 2, 4, and 7.
[Sec. II, Eq. (4); Sec. IV A; Sec. V] The GL edge-current expressions in Eq. (4) and the GL vortex patterns in Fig. 6 depend on the mixed-gradient coefficient γ_v, which is assumed positive but never derived from the BdG model. The BdG simulations independently show edge currents, so the central phenomenon does not collapse without γ_v, but the quantitative GL estimates and the interpretation that 'these supercurrents originate from mixed gradient terms' (Fig. 1 caption) are contingent on the sign and magnitude of a coupling that is not computed. Please estimate γ_v from the microscopic model or otherwise establish its sign and magnitude for the parameters of Sec. V, or clearly state that the GL analysis is schematic while the microscopic calculation provides the quantitative prediction.
[Sec. IV C, Eqs. (27)–(28)] The projection of the GL current onto a solenoidal field, j=∇×h with h obtained from −∇^2 h=∇×j, is introduced to enforce current conservation after discretization. While this is a reasonable numerical procedure, the paper does not quantify the divergence of the raw current before projection or verify that the projected current agrees with the raw current away from discontinuities. If the projection substantially modifies the current pattern, the 'vortex-like' structures in Fig. 6 could be artifacts of the projection rather than physical. Please provide a comparison of raw and projected currents, or an estimate of ∇·j before projection, to validate the method.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'spontea-neously' in the Introduction, 'Threfore' after Eq. (4), 'ans−wave' in the Fig. 1 caption, and 'µd = µd' in the Fig. 7 caption (presumably µ_s = µ_d = −1.2 t_d).
[Sec. III B, Fig. 3] The spectral-function argument for the absence of edge currents in d_x2−y2+is is qualitative: the statement that occupied modes appear symmetrically for positive and negative k is not quantified. A short quantitative statement (e.g., the integrated contribution to Eq. (16) for the two order parameters) would make the explanation more convincing.
[Sec. V] The net supercurrent I_net is defined as a sum over half the strip width, but the strip contains two step edges. Please specify whether this quantity includes only one edge and whether the two edges carry equal and opposite currents, as implied by current conservation.
[Sec. V, Eq. (29)] The estimate treats the edge current as an infinitely thin line current and ignores the magnetic back-action on the superconducting order parameters. For the small fields predicted this is likely negligible, but a sentence explicitly justifying this approximation would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: edge currents are outputs of an independent BdG calculation, and the GL ansatz is transparent and not fitted to the predicted currents.

full rationale

The paper's central edge-current prediction does not reduce to its inputs. The GL argument in Sec. II introduces the mixed-gradient term with coefficient γ_v in Eq. (3) and then derives the current from it in Eq. (4); however γ_v is not fitted to the edge-current result, its sign is explicitly assumed ('we also assume γ_v > 0'), and the bulk d±is phase is installed by parameter choice ('Parameters are chosen such that in the bulk the order parameter is dxy+is'). This makes the GL calculation conditional, but not circular. The microscopic BdG calculation in Sec. III is independent: it starts from the lattice Hamiltonian Eqs. (6)-(8), fixes V_s and V_d to reproduce the bulk gaps (Δ_d ≈ 50 meV, Δ_s ≈ 18 meV), and obtains the dxy+is order parameter and the edge-current patterns self-consistently through Eqs. (18)-(19). The frustrated currents and the bulk superflow that resolves them are unconstrained outputs, not inputs. Self-citations (Refs. [12], [15], [20], [21]) supply a spectral-function expression, context, and a GL solution method; the central current result is corroborated directly by the BdG calculation in Appendix A, so these citations are not load-bearing in a circular way. The remaining concerns—that C>0 in Eq. (2) is assumed rather than derived and that no global free-energy comparison among φ=0, π, ±π/2 BdG solutions is shown—are assumptions or completeness gaps about which phase is the equilibrium state, not reductions of the predicted currents to the model inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on six free parameters or parameter groups (mixed gradient coupling, interlayer tunneling, interaction strengths, band parameters, GL coefficients, and the sign of the Josephson coupling) and six stated axioms covering the BdG mean-field treatment, the GL free energy form, the exclusion of d-wave edge effects, the current-conservation projection, and the single-band s-wave description of iron-based superconductors.

free parameters (6)

γ_v (mixed gradient coefficient) = unknown; assumed positive
The GL edge currents in Sec. II vanish if γ_v = 0. The paper assumes γ_v > 0 (Sec. IV A) but never derives its value from the microscopic BdG model, so the GL estimate is not quantitatively tied to microscopic parameters.
Interlayer coupling g = 3.8-34.2 meV in Sec. V
Sets the magnitude of the induced s-wave component and the edge currents; chosen over a range rather than fixed by experiment.
Interaction strengths V_s, V_d = V_d = 0.22 eV, V_s = 0.09 eV
Chosen to reproduce bulk gaps Δ_d ≈ 50 meV (BSCCO) and Δ_s ≈ 18 meV (iron-based); they fix the bulk state, not the edge current.
Band parameters t_s, t_d, μ_s, μ_d = t_d = 0.38 eV, t_s = 0.2 eV, μ = -1.2 t
Normal-state tight-binding parameters give near-circular Fermi surfaces; conventional and not fitted to the edge effect.
GL coefficients α, β, γ_s, γ_d = α_d = -1, α_s = ∓1, γ_s = γ_d = 1, β_i = 1
Dimensionless GL lattice parameters (Fig. 5 caption) chosen for convenience; not derived from a microscopic model.
Josephson coupling coefficient C = assumed C > 0
Sign of C determines TRS-breaking minima φ = ±π/2 in Eq. (2); the BdG self-consistent solution supports this sign.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The attractive interactions produce s-wave pairing in one layer and d_xy (or d_x2-y2) pairing in the other.
Basis of the BdG model, Eq. (8); pairing symmetries are known experimentally for cuprates and iron-based superconductors.
standard math The mean-field BdG decoupling of Eq. (8) is valid.
Standard mean-field treatment of superconducting pairing; used in Eqs. (9)-(11) and Appendix A.
ad hoc to paper The GL free energy Eq. (3), including the mixed gradient term, describes the long-wavelength physics.
The mixed gradient term is symmetry-allowed but its presence and magnitude are assumed; the BdG model gives indirect support but no direct mapping.
ad hoc to paper The d-wave layer is treated with periodic boundary conditions, so only the s-wave island edges produce currents.
Sec. III B and III C impose periodic boundary conditions to exclude subdominant s-wave order at d-wave edges, acknowledged in Sec. I.
ad hoc to paper Current conservation in the GL lattice solution is restored by projecting onto j = ∇ × h.
Sec. IV C prescribes this because discretization breaks ∇·j = 0 at discontinuities; this modifies the computed currents at those points.
ad hoc to paper Iron-based superconductors are modeled as single-band s-wave superconductors.
Sec. V states this simplification; real iron-based superconductors have multi-band Fermi surfaces and possible subdominant pairing channels.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frustrated edge currents in bilayers formed of s- and d-wave superconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DYIBYA65

@misc{pith2026250621482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frustrated edge currents in bilayers formed of s- and d-wave superconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DYIBYA65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21482}
}

abstract

We explore edge currents in heterostructures formed of a high-$T_c$ cuprate and a conventional $s$-wave superconductors. The resulting $d\pm is$ superconductor spontaneously breaks time reversal symmetry and, remarkably, exhibits large edge currents along certain edge directions in spite of being topologically trivial. In addition we find that the edge currents are frustrated such that they appear to emerge from or flow into sample corners, seemingly violating charge conservation. Careful self-consistent solutions that guarantee charge conservation are required to understand how this frustration is resolved in physical systems. Calculations within the Ginzburg-Landau theory framework and fully self-consistent microscopic lattice models reveal intriguing patterns of current reversals depending on edge orientation, accompanied by spontaneous formation of magnetic flux patterns which can be used to detect these phenomena experimentally. Our study illuminates the interplay between time-reversal symmetry breaking and unconventional superconductivity in high-$T_c$ superconducting heterostructures, and shows that sizable edge currents are possible even in the absence of non-trivial bulk topology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21482 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Order parameters and supercurrents on a long-strip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Spectral functions Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Supercurrents from microscopic model for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Self-consistent solutions of the Ginzburg-Landau equations on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Supercurrents obtained on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Order parameters, supercurrents, and magnetic fields for d/s bilayer system comprising proximity coupled BSCCO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[15]

Patel, V

H. Patel, V. Pathak, O. Can, A. C. Potter, and M. Franz, d-mon: A transmon with strong anharmonicity based on planarc-axis tunneling junction betweend-wave and s-wave superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 017002 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

J. D. Sau, R. M. Lutchyn, S. Tewari, and S. Das Sarma, Generic new platform for topological quantum compu- tation using semiconductor heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 040502 (2010)

2010
[2]

Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Helical liquids and majorana bound states in quantum wires, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 177002 (2010)

2010
[3]

Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional su- perconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature556, 43 (2018)

2018
[4]

E. Y. Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Graphene bilay- ers with a twist, Nature Materials19, 1265 (2020), arXiv:2008.08129

arXiv 2020
[5]

L. Wang, E. M. Shih, A. Ghiotto, L. Xian, D. A. Rhodes, C. Tan, M. Claassen, D. M. Kennes, Y. Bai, B. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Zhu, J. Hone, A. Ru- bio, A. N. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Correlated elec- tronic phases in twisted bilayer transition metal dichalco- genides, Nature Materials19, 861 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

Y. Yu, L. Ma, P. Cai, R. Zhong, C. Ye, J. Shen, G. D. Gu, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, High-temperature su- perconductivity in monolayer bi2sr2cacu2o8+δ, Nature 575, 156 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

O. Can, T. Tummuru, R. P. Day, I. Elfimov, A. Damas- celli, and M. Franz, High-temperature topological super- conductivity in twisted double-layer copper oxides, Na- ture Physics17, 519 (2021)

2021

Show all 46 references

[8]

Tummuru, S

T. Tummuru, S. Plugge, and M. Franz, Josephson effects in twisted cuprate bilayers, Phys. Rev. B105, 064501 (2022)

2022
[9]

P. A. Volkov, ´Etienne Lantagne-Hurtubise, T. Tum- muru, S. Plugge, J. H. Pixley, and M. Franz, Josephson diode effects in twisted nodal superconductors (2023), arXiv:2307.01261 [cond-mat.supr-con]

2023 arXiv
[10]

Can, X.-X

O. Can, X.-X. Zhang, C. Kallin, and M. Franz, Prob- ing time reversal symmetry breaking topological super- conductivity in twisted double layer copper oxides with polar kerr effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 157001 (2021)

2021
[11]

Holmvall, N

P. Holmvall, N. Wall-Wennerdal, and A. M. Black- Schaffer, Robust and tunable coreless vortices and frac- tional vortices in chirald-wave superconductors, Phys. Rev. B108, 094511 (2023)

2023
[12]

Pathak, O

V. Pathak, O. Can, and M. Franz, Edge currents as probe of topology in twisted cuprate bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 110, 014506 (2024)

2024
[13]

S. Y. F. Zhao, X. Cui, P. A. Volkov, H. Yoo, S. Lee, J. A. Gardener, A. J. Akey, R. Engelke, Y. Ronen, R. Zhong, G. Gu, S. Plugge, T. Tummuru, M. Kim, M. Franz, J. H. Pixley, N. Poccia, and P. Kim, Time-reversal symmetry breaking superconductivity between twisted cuprate su- p...

2023
[14]

Mercado, S

A. Mercado, S. Sahoo, and M. Franz, High-temperature majorana zero modes, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 137002 (2022)

2022
[16]

Kallin and J

C. Kallin and J. Berlinsky, Chiral superconductors, Re- ports on Progress in Physics79, 054502 (2016)

2016
[17]

X. Wang, Z. Wang, and C. Kallin, Spontaneous edge current in higher chirality superconductors, Phys. Rev. B98, 094501 (2018)

2018
[18]

Holmvall, A

P. Holmvall, A. B. Vorontsov, M. Fogelstr¨ om, and T. L¨ ofwander, Broken translational symmetry at edges of high-temperature superconductors, Nature Communi- cations9, 2190 (2018)

2018
[19]

Holmvall, A

P. Holmvall, A. B. Vorontsov, M. Fogelstr¨ om, and T. L¨ ofwander, Spontaneous symmetry breaking at sur- faces ofd-wave superconductors: Influence of geometry and surface ruggedness, Phys. Rev. B99, 184511 (2019)

2019
[20]

Berlinsky, A

A. Berlinsky, A. Fetter, M. Franz, C. Kallin, and P. Soini- nen, Ginzburg-landau theory of vortices in d-wave super- conductors, Physical review letters75, 2200 (1995)

1995
[21]

Franz, C

M. Franz, C. Kallin, P. Soininen, A. Berlinsky, and A. Fetter, Vortex state in a d-wave superconductor, Physical Review B53, 5795 (1996)

1996
[22]

R. M. Fernandes, A. I. Coldea, H. Ding, I. R. Fisher, P. J. Hirschfeld, and G. Kotliar, Iron pnictides and chalco- genides: a new paradigm for superconductivity, Nature 601, 35 (2022)

2022
[23]

Hartmann, Magnetic force microscopy, Annual Re- view of Materials Science29, 53 (1999)

U. Hartmann, Magnetic force microscopy, Annual Re- view of Materials Science29, 53 (1999)

1999
[24]

Casola, T

F. Casola, T. van der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Probing condensed matter physics with magnetometry based on 14 nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamond, Nature Reviews Materials3, 17088 (2018)

2018
[25]

J. R. Kirtley, Fundamental studies of superconductors using scanning magnetic imaging, Reports on Progress in Physics73, 126501 (2010)

2010
[26]

C. C. Tsuei, J. R. Kirtley, C. C. Chi, L. S. Yu-Jahnes, A. Gupta, T. Shaw, J. Z. Sun, and M. B. Ketchen, Pair- ing symmetry and flux quantization in a tricrystal super- conducting ring of Yba2cu3o7−δ, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 593 (1994)

1994
[27]

Kalisky, J

B. Kalisky, J. R. Kirtley, J. G. Analytis, J.-H. Chu, I. R. Fisher, and K. A. Moler, Behavior of vortices near twin boundaries in underdoped ba(fe 1−xcox)2as2, Phys. Rev. B83, 064511 (2011)

2011
[28]

D. V. Christensen, Y. Frenkel, Y. Z. Chen, Y. W. Xie, Z. Y. Chen, Y. Hikita, A. Smith, L. Klein, H. Y. Hwang, N. Pryds, and B. Kalisky, Strain-tunable magnetism at oxide domain walls, Nature Physics15, 269 (2019)

2019
[29]

A. Uri, Y. Kim, K. Bagani, C. K. Lewandowski, S. Grover, N. Auerbach, E. O. Lachman, Y. Myasoe- dov, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Smet, and E. Zel- dov, Nanoscale imaging of equilibrium quantum Hall edge currents and of the magnetic monopole response in graphene, Nature Physi...

2020
[30]

Persky, I

E. Persky, I. Sochnikov, and B. Kalisky, Studying quan- tum materials with scanning squid microscopy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics13, 385 (2022)

2022
[31]

J. R. Kirtley, L. Paulius, A. J. Rosenberg, J. C. Palm- strom, C. M. Holland, E. M. Spanton, D. Schiessl, C. L. Jermain, J. Gibbons, Y.-K.-K. Fung, M. E. Huber, D. C. Ralph, M. B. Ketchen, J. Gibson, Gerald W., and K. A. Moler, Scanning SQUID susceptometers with sub-micron spa...

2016
[32]

Z. Cui, J. R. Kirtley, Y. Wang, P. A. Kratz, A. J. Rosenberg, C. A. Watson, J. Gibson, Gerald W., M. B. Ketchen, and K. A. Moler, Scanning SQUID sampler with 40-ps time resolution, Review of Scientific Instru- ments88, 083703 (2017)

2017
[33]

Vasyukov, Y

D. Vasyukov, Y. Anahory, L. Embon, D. Halbertal, J. Cuppens, L. Neeman, A. Finkler, Y. Segev, Y. Mya- soedov, M. L. Rappaport, M. E. Huber, and E. Zeldov, A scanning superconducting quantum interference device with single electron spin sensitivity, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy8, 639 (2013)

2013
[34]

Savary and L

L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2016)

2016
[35]

D. Wang, L. Kong, P. Fan, H. Chen, S. Zhu, W. Liu, L. Cao, Y. Sun, S. Du, J. Schneeloch, R. Zhong, G. Gu, L. Fu, H. Ding, and H.-J. Gao, Evidence for majorana bound states in an iron-based superconductor, Science 362, 333 (2018)

2018
[36]

Zhang, K

P. Zhang, K. Yaji, T. Hashimoto, Y. Ota, T. Kondo, K. Okazaki, Z. Wang, J. Wen, G. D. Gu, H. Ding, and S. Shin, Observation of topological superconductivity on the surface of an iron-based superconductor, Science360, 182 (2018)

2018
[37]

Machida, Y

T. Machida, Y. Sun, S. Pyon, S. Takeda, Y. Kohsaka, T. Hanaguri, T. Sasagawa, and T. Tamegai, Zero-energy vortex bound state in the superconducting topological surface state of fe (se, te), Nature materials , 1 (2019)

2019
[38]

L. Kong, L. Cao, S. Zhu, M. Papaj, G. Dai, G. Li, P. Fan, W. Liu, F. Yang, X. Wang, S. Du, C. Jin, L. Fu, H. J. Gao, and H. Ding, Majorana zero modes in impurity- assisted vortex of LiFeAs superconductor, Nature Com- munications12, 1 (2021)

2021
[39]

C.-K. Chiu, T. Machida, Y. Huang, T. Hanaguri, and F.- C. Zhang, Scalable majorana vortex modes in iron-based superconductors, Science Advances6, eaay0443 (2020)

2020
[40]

Jiang, X

K. Jiang, X. Dai, and Z. Wang, Quantum anomalous vortex and majorana zero mode in iron-based supercon- ductor fe(te,se), Phys. Rev. X9, 011033 (2019)

2019
[41]

Pathak, S

V. Pathak, S. Plugge, and M. Franz, Majorana bound states in vortex lattices on iron-based superconductors, Annals of Physics435, 168431 (2021), special issue on Philip W. Anderson

2021
[42]

Mascot, S

E. Mascot, S. Cocklin, M. Graham, M. Mashkoori, S. Rachel, and D. K. Morr, Topological surface supercon- ductivity in FeSe0.45Te0.55, Communications Physics5, 188 (2022)

2022
[43]

A.-M. Tremblay, A refresher in many-body theory, CIF AR-PITP International Summer School on Numer- ical Methods for Correlated Systems in Condensed Mat- ter, Sherbrooke (2008) 15 Appendix A: Self-consistent calculations in the BdG model

2008
[44]

We define the unitary oper- atorUthat diagonalizes the hamiltonianHsuch that U †HU=EwhereEis a diagonal matrix of eigen- values

Self-consistent treatment on a lattice and the supercurrent Assuming singlet pairing only, the gap equation for order parameter ∆ ij for attractive interaction potential Vij between sitesiandjis given by: ∆ij =−V ijTr " ∂h ∂∆∗ ij 1 β X ωn G(iωn) # (A1) which can be derived as ...
[45]

Note that we derive this operator before we do the MF decoupling since pairing terms in the SC Hamiltonian will generate addi- tional terms

Current operator Using the Heisenberg equation of motiondN/dt= i/ℏ[H, N] we compute the charge flow from the degree of freedomµ= (r, α, σ) where we packed position, orbital and spin indices together.N=c † µcµ And the net charge flow forµus given by dQ dt =e dN dt = ie ℏ [H, N]...
[46]

and the Matsubara frequency space representation G(τ) =β −1 P n G(iωn)e−iωnτ we can show that the ex- pectation value of the bond current is given by ⟨Jij⟩= ie ℏ tij 1 β X n,α h Gαα ij (iωn)eiωn0+ − Gαα ji (iωn)eiωn0+ i (A11) Note that this expression appears in A11 and when c...

Pith tools

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

[1] [15]

Patel, V

H. Patel, V. Pathak, O. Can, A. C. Potter, and M. Franz, d-mon: A transmon with strong anharmonicity based on planarc-axis tunneling junction betweend-wave and s-wave superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 017002 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

J. D. Sau, R. M. Lutchyn, S. Tewari, and S. Das Sarma, Generic new platform for topological quantum compu- tation using semiconductor heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 040502 (2010)

2010

[3] [2]

Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Helical liquids and majorana bound states in quantum wires, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 177002 (2010)

2010

[4] [3]

Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional su- perconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature556, 43 (2018)

2018

[5] [4]

E. Y. Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Graphene bilay- ers with a twist, Nature Materials19, 1265 (2020), arXiv:2008.08129

arXiv 2020

[6] [5]

L. Wang, E. M. Shih, A. Ghiotto, L. Xian, D. A. Rhodes, C. Tan, M. Claassen, D. M. Kennes, Y. Bai, B. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Zhu, J. Hone, A. Ru- bio, A. N. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Correlated elec- tronic phases in twisted bilayer transition metal dichalco- genides, Nature Materials19, 861 (2020)

work page 2020

[7] [6]

Y. Yu, L. Ma, P. Cai, R. Zhong, C. Ye, J. Shen, G. D. Gu, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, High-temperature su- perconductivity in monolayer bi2sr2cacu2o8+δ, Nature 575, 156 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [7]

O. Can, T. Tummuru, R. P. Day, I. Elfimov, A. Damas- celli, and M. Franz, High-temperature topological super- conductivity in twisted double-layer copper oxides, Na- ture Physics17, 519 (2021)

2021