Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Josephson diode effect: a phenomenological perspective

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that the Josephson diode effect divides into three symmetry-defined classes—intrinsic, extrinsic, and pseudo—all captured by a single generalized RCSJ model.

desk verdict A useful symmetry-based classification of Josephson diode effects in a generalized RCSJ model, but the Shapiro-step test is only validated for the C3 pseudo diode, not for the full pseudo class it claims to cover. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23200 v1 pith:VG6A7RBU submitted 2025-06-29 cond-mat.supr-con

Da Wang , Qiang-Hua Wang , Congjun Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords JosephsondiodeeffectRCSJmodeltime-reversalsymmetryinversioncriticalcurrentretrappingShapirostepsnonreciprocalsupercurrent
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 seeks a unified phenomenological understanding of the Josephson diode effect, in which a superconducting junction carries more supercurrent in one direction than the other. It constructs a generalized resistively-capacitively-shunted-junction (RCSJ) model whose Lagrangian contains every low-order term allowed by symmetry, and shows that this single model reproduces the three known types of diode behavior. The ideal diode effect, defined by unequal critical currents |Ic+| ≠ |Ic−|, splits into an intrinsic class, from time-reversal breaking of the junction itself, and an extrinsic class, from time-reversal breaking introduced by the measuring current. A separate pseudo-diode class has equal critical currents but unequal retrapping currents |Ir+| ≠ |Ir−|, and the paper shows that noise converts this into an apparent critical-current asymmetry, explaining zero-field diode observations. The significance is that one model provides both a classification and experimental discriminators, since the three classes produce different Shapiro-step patterns.

What carries the argument

Central object is the generalized RCSJ Lagrangian, Eq. (1): L = (1/2)C φ̇² + (1/3)C3 φ̇³ + (1/4)C4 φ̇⁴ + Iext φ + Σ_n (1/n)[(Jn + bn Iext) cos(nφ) + Kn sin(nφ)], with φ the phase difference across the junction, C the capacitance, C3 and C4 asymmetric and stabilizing charge-energy corrections, Jn the time-reversal-even Josephson energy, Kn the time-reversal-odd Josephson energy, and bn the coupling of external current to the Josephson energy. The classification is carried by which symmetry class each term belongs to: Kn terms are intrinsic diodes, bn terms extrinsic diodes, and C3-type terms pseudo diodes. The equation of motion derived from this Lagrangian, supplemented by Rayleigh dissipation, noise, and ac driving, produces the current-voltage curves that define the three classes and their Shapiro-step fingerprints.

What would settle it

For a junction whose measured current-phase relation is purely first-harmonic, Eq. (3) predicts |Ic+| = |Ic−| whenever bn = 0; observing unequal critical currents in such a single-harmonic, time-reversal-symmetric junction would refute the model. Alternatively, a junction with controlled asymmetric charge energy (C3) and no time-reversal breaking is predicted to show |Ic+| = |Ic−| along with |Ir+| ≠ |Ir−|, so observing the opposite would falsify the pseudo-diode mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the low-energy physics of any Josephson junction is captured by the generalized RCSJ Lagrangian of Eq. (1), which augments the standard capacitance, resistance, and cos(nφ) Josephson terms with inversion-breaking charge-energy terms (C3 φ̇³, C3 φ̇³ cos(nφ)), with time-reversal-odd Josephson terms (Kn sin(nφ)), and with external-current-dependent terms (bn Iext cos(nφ) and Iext φ̇²). Solving the resulting equation of motion shows that |Ic+| ≠ |Ic−| occurs if and only if either Kn or bn is nonzero: the Kn terms produce the intrinsic diode, requiring anharmonic current-phase relations, while the bn terms produce the extrinsic diode, where the junction effectively changes under current reversal without intrinsic time-reversal breaking. In contrast, the C3-type terms leave |Ic+| = |Ic−| but split the retrapping currents |Ir+| ≠ |Ir−|, defining the pseudo diode, and adding noise to such an underdamped junction yields an effective critical-current asymmetry |I_noise_c+| ≠ |I_noise_c−|. Under rf driving, Shapiro steps appear in all three classes, but the intrinsic diode keeps a zero-voltage step crossing zero bias, the extrinsic diode shifts steps away from the origin, and the pseudo diode shows asymmetric step distributions, giving a practical way to identify which class a junction belongs to.

Load-bearing premise

The classification assumes that the truncated Lagrangian in Eq. (1), with its handful of low-order terms and a strictly linear dependence of the coefficients on the external current, is the complete low-energy description of a generic junction, so a real junction with significant higher-order or strongly current-dependent terms could fall outside the three predicted classes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any junction with unequal critical currents must break both inversion and time-reversal symmetry, either in the junction itself or through the external measurement current.
  • Zero-field diode experiments need not imply intrinsic time-reversal breaking; they can arise from the extrinsic bn terms or from noise acting on a pseudo diode.
  • A gap between the ideal critical-current asymmetry and the retrapping-current asymmetry can be exploited: pseudo diodes become functional only under noise or slow voltage sweeps, while ideal diodes work at the critical-current level.
  • Shapiro-step patterns give an experimental fingerprint that distinguishes intrinsic, extrinsic, and pseudo diode classes in a single measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the model is purely phenomenological, the three classes are mechanism-agnostic, so the same classification could be applied to junctions whose microscopic origin is topological, multiband, or strongly correlated, replacing the coefficients Kn, bn, and C3 by computed values.
  • The noise-induced pseudo diode suggests that the apparent diode quality factor measured in experiments depends on the noise temperature and the measurement bandwidth, so comparing I_noise_c± at different temperatures would separate noise-induced from intrinsic asymmetry.
  • The Shapiro-step discriminators could be combined with phase-sensitive measurements to extract the coefficients J1, K1, C3, and b1 directly, turning the classification into a parameter-extraction protocol for circuit design.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. Wang, Wang, and Wu construct a generalized resistively and capacitively shunted junction (RCSJ) model as a low-energy phenomenological theory of a generic Josephson junction. Starting from symmetry-allowed terms in a phase-only Lagrangian (Eq. (1)), they classify Josephson diode effects into three classes: intrinsic (time-reversal-breaking Josephson terms Kn sin(nφ) with |Ic+|≠|Ic−|), extrinsic (current-dependent Josephson terms bn Iext cos(nφ), also with unequal critical currents), and pseudo (asymmetric dynamics such as C3 φ̇³ or Iext φ̇² with equal critical currents but unequal retrapping currents). The static critical-current analysis from Eq. (3) is used to justify the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction, and numerical solutions of the generalized RCSJ equations are presented for DC, noise, and AC driven cases. They show that noise converts a pseudo diode into an apparent critical-current asymmetry for an underdamped junction, and they argue that Shapiro-step patterns can distinguish the three classes.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a useful organizing framework for the rapidly growing Josephson diode literature. Its explicit separation of intrinsic versus extrinsic time-reversal breaking, and its emphasis on the pseudo diode defined by retrapping-current asymmetry, clarify how 'zero-field' diode observations can occur without intrinsic time-reversal breaking. The noise-induced apparent diode effect is a concrete, falsifiable mechanism, and the symmetry-based derivation avoids fitting to data. The numerical calculations are described with enough parameter detail to be reproduced. The principal weakness is that the AC Shapiro-step discriminator is tested only for the C3 member of the pseudo class and with a limited parameter scan for the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction, so parts of the central classification claim are not yet backed by the presented evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [AC effect, Table I, Eq. (1)] The Shapiro-step discriminator is not established for the pseudo-diode class as a whole. Table I and the model discussion list Iext φ̇² as a pseudo-diode term (|Ic+|=|Ic−| but |Ir+|≠|Ir−|), yet Eq. (1) omits this term and all AC simulations in Fig. 3 use only the C3 φ̇³ pseudo term. For a Lagrangian term (g/2) Iext φ̇², the equation of motion gains g Iext φ̈ + g (dIext/dt) φ̇; the second contribution is a velocity-dependent force proportional to the time derivative of the bias, which is absent for C3 and can produce rectification or Vdc–Idc shifts under AC drive. The C3 and Iext φ̇² terms have different reversal properties, so the reversal-symmetric Shapiro response shown for C3 cannot be asserted for the pseudo class as a whole. Please either include Iext φ̇² in the AC simulations or restrict the conclusion to the terms actually retained in Eq. (1).
  2. [AC effect, Fig. 3] The proposed distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic ideal diodes relies on the statement that 'the zero-voltage Shapiro step always crosses the origin (Idc=0) for the intrinsic diode case, but may be pushed totally away from the origin for the extrinsic diode case.' No symmetry argument is given for the 'always', and the numerical evidence is a single parameter set (K1=0.2, b1=0.2) at ω=0.1JcR. Similarly, the underdamped pseudo-diode discriminator (different Shapiro-step distributions for positive and negative Vdc) is presented for one parameter set with 200 stochastic initial conditions but without error bars or a quantitative criterion. Since distinguishing the three classes is a central claim, these discriminators need either a symmetry-based derivation or a systematic scan over parameters and AC amplitudes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [DC effect, Eq. (4)] The sentence '|Ic+|≠|Ic−| in general, unless Kn=bn=0' is imprecise: a purely harmonic intrinsic CPR with only K1 gives equal critical-current magnitudes; the following anharmonicity caveat is the operative condition for the Kn terms, while for the bn terms even the harmonic b1 term suffices. Please separate the two cases explicitly.
  2. [Model, Eq. (1)] The parameter choices C4=0.1C3 and K2=0.8K1 are stated but not varied; at least a brief comment on the robustness of the qualitative classification to these choices would help the reader assess the generality of the numerical conclusions.
  3. [Noise effect, Fig. 2] In Fig. 2(a), the two coexisting solutions at the same Idc are not defined precisely (for example, the initial conditions are not specified); adding this information would aid reproducibility.
  4. [General] Minor language: 'In the following of this work' should read 'In the following'; and the underdamped AC data at βc=256 are described as 'randomly visited', but the 200 measurements are not summarized with histograms or standard deviations, making the claimed positive/negative voltage difference difficult to assess.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the three-way classification and Shapiro discriminators are outputs of the stated generalized RCSJ equations, and the only self-citation ([39]) is a background symmetry constraint, not a load-bearing reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (1) is a symmetry-allowed Lagrangian with independent coefficients; Eq. (2) is its Euler-Lagrange equation; Eq. (3) is the static current-phase relation obtained by setting phi-dot = 0; Eq. (4) defines the critical currents as the bounds of that relation. The intrinsic/extrinsic split is read directly off Eq. (3): the text states 'It is clearly seen that |Ic+| != |Ic-| in general, unless Kn = bn = 0', so the distinction between sine (intrinsic) and bn (extrinsic) terms is a consequence of the model, not an input. The pseudo class enters through phi-dot-dependent terms such as C3 phi-dot^3, which modify retrapping but not the static bounds; the analytical estimate |Ir+|-|Ir-| proportional to Jc C3/C^2 follows from an effective capacitance correction. The noise and AC Shapiro results are numerical solutions of Eq. (2) with parameters set by hand (C4 = 0.1 C3, K2 = 0.8 K1, etc.), and no target quantity is obtained by fitting the same quantity. The only apparent self-citation is [39], used to state a prior symmetry constraint; however, the model-specific condition needed here is independently visible in Eq. (3), and the paper's new claims (extrinsic bn term, pseudo noise conversion, Shapiro discriminators) are not asserted in [39]. A non-circularity caveat: Table I lists Iext phi-dot^2 as a pseudo mechanism, but Eq. (1) and the AC simulations omit it, so the Shapiro-step discriminator for the pseudo class is demonstrated only for the C3 member; this is a generality gap, not a circular reduction. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Phenomenological paper; the coefficients C3, C4, b1, K1, K2, beta_c, and D are chosen by hand for illustration, not fitted to data. The symmetry assignments and the static critical-current criterion are domain assumptions. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • C3 = 0.2 in Fig. 1(b) and Fig. 2
    Asymmetric charge energy coefficient that controls the pseudo diode via unequal retrapping currents; chosen by hand to illustrate the effect.
  • C4 = 0.1 C3
    Quartic charge energy coefficient introduced ad hoc to keep the charge energy positive when the C3 term is present.
  • b1 = 0.2 in Fig. 1(c)
    Coupling of external current to Josephson energy, setting the extrinsic diode amplitude; chosen by hand.
  • K1 = 0.2 in Fig. 1(d)
    Amplitude of the first intrinsic time-reversal-breaking Josephson harmonic; chosen by hand.
  • K2 = 0.8 K1
    Second intrinsic time-reversal-breaking harmonic; ratio chosen by hand to provide anharmonic current-phase relation.
  • beta_c (Stewart-McCumber parameter) = 0.25, 4, 256
    Damping parameter scanned to compare overdamped and underdamped regimes; standard RCSJ control parameter, not fitted to data.
  • D (noise strength) = 0.5 and 4 in Fig. 2
    Noise intensity chosen to show weak versus strong noise effects in the pseudo diode.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption phi and Iext are odd under both inversion I and time-reversal T, while phi-dot is I-odd and T-even.
    Underlies the symmetry classification in Table I and the allowed terms in Eq. (1). This is standard for a single junction phase but assumes the external circuit transforms simply under current reversion.
  • domain assumption The truncated Lagrangian Eq. (1), with low-order kinetic terms and a few Josephson harmonics, captures all relevant junction physics.
    No microscopic derivation guarantees that higher-order terms, dispersive capacitance, or current-dependent nonlinearities beyond bn Iext are negligible for real small junctions.
  • domain assumption Critical currents are obtained from the extrema of the static current-phase relation Eq. (3).
    Assumes switching occurs when no static solution exists; the paper itself shows underdamped junctions and noise violate this simple picture for retrapping, so it is an approximation for critical currents as well.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Josephson diode effect: a phenomenological perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VG6A7RBU

@misc{pith2026250623200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Josephson diode effect: a phenomenological perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VG6A7RBU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23200}
}
abstract

As a novel quantum phenomenon with nonreciprocal supercurrent, the Josephson diode effect was intensively studied in recent years. Here, we construct a generalized resistively capacitance shunted junction (RCSJ) model as a low-energy effective/phenomenological theory for a general Josephson junction. For the ideal diode effect defined by unequal critical currents $|I_{c+}|\ne|I_{c-}|$, both inversion $\mathcal{I}$ and time-reversal $\mathcal{T}$ symmetries are required to be broken. It can be further divided into two classes: intrinsic ($\mathcal{T}$-breaking for the junction itself) and extrinsic ($\mathcal{T}$-breaking under external current reversion). In addition, a pseudo diode effect ($\mathcal{T}$-breaking not necessary) can be defined by $|I_{c+}|=|I_{c-}|$ but unequal retrapping currents $|I_{r+}|\ne|I_{r-}|$, for which noise current is further shown to produce the diode feature effectively. Finally, when radio-frequency AC external current exists, the Shapiro steps appear and can be used to distinguish the above three types of the diode effect. Our work provides a unified framework for studying the Josephson diode effect and can be applied to design workable superconducting circuits incorporating the Josephson diode as a fundamental circuit element.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23200 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Noise effect for an underdamped junction with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Typical results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    Wang, Q.-H

    D. Wang, Q.-H. Wang, and C. Wu, arXiv:2209.12646 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    J. Hu, C. Wu, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 067004 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    Jiang and J

    K. Jiang and J. Hu, Nat. Phys. 18, 1145 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Nadeem, M

    M. Nadeem, M. S. Fuhrer, and X. Wang, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 558 (2023)

    2023

  5. [4]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Yanase, Annu. Rev. Conden. Ma. P. 15, 63 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    F. Ando, Y. Miyasaka, T. Li, J. Ishizuka, T. Arakawa, Y. Shiota, T. Moriyama, Y. Yanase, and T. Ono, Nature 584, 373 (2020)

    2020

  7. [6]

    Y.-Y. Lyu, J. Jiang, Y.-L. Wang, Z.-L. Xiao, S. Dong, Q.-H. Chen, M. V. Miloˇ sevi´ c, H. Wang, R. Divan, J. E. Pearson, P. Wu, F. M. Peeters, and W.-K. Kwok, Nat. Commun. 12, 2703 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Turini, S

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

    2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Strambini, M

    E. Strambini, M. Spies, N. Ligato, S. Ilic, M. Rouco, C. Gonzalez-Orellana, M. Ilyn, C. Rogero, F. S. Berg- eret, J. S. Moodera, P. Virtanen, T. T. Heikkila, and F. Giazotto, Nat. Commun. 13, 2431 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Golod and V

    T. Golod and V. M. Krasnov, Nat. Commun. 13, 3658 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Jeon, J.-K

    K.-R. Jeon, J.-K. Kim, J. Yoon, J.-C. Jeon, H. Han, A. Cottet, T. Kontos, and S. S. P. Parkin, Nat. Mater. 21, 1008 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    Narita, J

    H. Narita, J. Ishizuka, R. Kawarazaki, D. Kan, Y. Sh- iota, T. Moriyama, Y. Shimakawa, A. V. Ognev, A. S. Samardak, Y. Yanase, and T. Ono, Nat. Nanotechnol. 17, 823 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    J.-X. Lin, P. Siriviboon, H. D. Scammell, S. Liu, D. Rhodes, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, M. S. Scheurer, and J. I. A. Li, Nat. Phys. 18, 1221 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    B. Pal, A. Chakraborty, P. K. Sivakumar, M. Davydova, A. K. Gopi, A. K. Pandeya, J. A. Krieger, Y. Zhang, M. Date, S. Ju, N. Yuan, N. B. M. Schr¨ oter, L. Fu, and S. S. P. Parkin, Nat. Phys. 18, 1228 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    H. Wu, Y. Wang, Y. Xu, P. K. Sivakumar, C. Pasco, U. Filippozzi, S. S. P. Parkin, Y.-J. Zeng, T. McQueen, and M. N. Ali, Nature 604, 653 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Jiang, M

    J. Jiang, M. Miloˇ sevi´ c, Y.-L. Wang, Z.-L. Xiao, F. Peeters, and Q.-H. Chen, Phys. Rev. Applied 18, 034064 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    Chiles, E

    J. Chiles, E. G. Arnault, C.-C. Chen, T. F. Q. Lar- son, L. Zhao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Amet, and G. Finkelstein, Nano Lett. 23, 5257 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Gupta, G

    M. Gupta, G. V. Graziano, M. Pendharkar, J. T. Dong, C. P. Dempsey, C. Palmstrom, and V. S. Pribiag, Nat. Commun. 14, 3078 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    Diez-Merida, A

    J. Diez-Merida, A. Diez-Carlon, S. Y. Yang, Y. M. Xie, X. J. Gao, J. Senior, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Lu, A. P. Higginbotham, K. T. Law, and D. K. Efetov, Nat. Commun. 14, 2396 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Gutfreund, H

    A. Gutfreund, H. Matsuki, V. Plastovets, A. Noah, L. Gorzawski, N. Fridman, G. Yang, A. Buzdin, O. Millo, J. W. A. Robinson, and Y. Anahory, Nat. Commun. 14, 1630 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Matsuo, T

    S. Matsuo, T. Imoto, T. Yokoyama, Y. Sato, T. Lin- demann, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, and S. Tarucha, Nat. Phys. 19, 1636 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    Trahms, L

    M. Trahms, L. Melischek, J. F. Steiner, B. Mahendru, I. Tamir, N. Bogdanoff, O. Peters, G. Reecht, C. B. Winkelmann, F. von Oppen, and K. J. Franke, Nature 615, 628 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Y. Hou, F. Nichele, H. Chi, A. Lodesani, Y. Wu, M. F. Ritter, D. Haxell, M. Davydova, S. Ili´ c, O. Glezakou- Elbert, A. Varambally, F. S. Bergeret, A. Kamra, L. Fu, P. A. Lee, and J. S. Moodera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 027001 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    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, Science 382, 1422 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    S. Li, Y. Deng, D. Hu, C. Zhu, Z. Yang, W. Tian, X. Wang, M. Yue, Q. Wu, Z. Liu, and X. Renshaw Wang, ACS Nano 18, 31076 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Y. Li, D. Yan, Y. Hong, H. Sheng, A. Wang, Z. Dou, X. Guo, X. Shi, Z. Su, Z. Lyu, T. Qian, G. Liu, F. Qu, K. Jiang, Z. Wang, Y. Shi, Z.-A. Xu, J. Hu, L. Lu, and J. Shen, Nat. Commun. 15, 9031 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Reinhardt, T

    S. Reinhardt, T. Ascherl, A. Costa, J. Berger, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. J. Manfra, J. Fabian, D. Kochan, C. Strunk, and N. Paradiso, Nat. Commun. 15, 4413 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Valentini, O

    M. Valentini, O. Sagi, L. Baghumyan, T. de Gi- jsel, J. Jung, S. Calcaterra, A. Ballabio, J. Aguil- era Servin, K. Aggarwal, M. Janik, T. Adletzberger, R. Seoane Souto, M. Leijnse, J. Danon, C. Schrade, E. Bakkers, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, and G. Katsaros, Nat. Commun. 15, 169 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    L. D. Anh, K. Ishihara, T. Hotta, K. Inagaki, H. Maki, T. Saeki, M. Kobayashi, and M. Tanaka, Nat. Commun. 15, 8014 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    Ghosh, V

    S. Ghosh, V. Patil, A. Basu, Kuldeep, A. Dutta, D. A. Jangade, R. Kulkarni, A. Thamizhavel, J. F. Steiner, F. von Oppen, and M. M. Deshmukh, Nat. Mater. 23, 612 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    T. Le, Z. Pan, Z. Xu, J. Liu, J. Wang, Z. Lou, X. Yang, 6 Z. Wang, Y. Yao, C. Wu, and X. Lin, Nature 630, 64 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Z. Wan, G. Qiu, H. Ren, Q. Qian, Y. Li, D. Xu, J. Zhou, J. Zhou, B. Zhou, L. Wang, T.-H. Yang, Z. Sofer, Y. Huang, K. L. Wang, and X. Duan, Nature 632, 69 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    F. Liu, Y. M. Itahashi, S. Aoki, Y. Dong, Z. Wang, N. Ogawa, T. Ideue, and Y. Iwasa, Sci. Adv.10, eado1502 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    S. Qi, J. Ge, C. Ji, Y. Ai, G. Ma, Z. Wang, Z. Cui, Y. Liu, Z. Wang, and J. Wang, Nat. Commun. 16, 531 (2025)

    2025

  27. [34]

    Nagata, M

    U. Nagata, M. Aoki, A. Daido, S. Kasahara, Y. Kasa- hara, R. Ohshima, Y. Ando, Y. Yanase, Y. Matsuda, and M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 236703 (2025)

    2025

  28. [35]

    Kudriashov, X

    A. Kudriashov, X. Zhou, R. A. Hovhannisyan, A. S. Frolov, L. Elesin, Y. B. Wang, E. V. Zharkova, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Z. Liu, K. S. Novoselov, L. V. Yashina, X. Zhou, and D. A. Bandurin, Sci. Adv. 11, eadw6925 (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    X. Shi, Z. Dou, D. Pan, G. Li, Y. Li, A. Wang, Z. Zhang, X. Guo, X. Deng, B. Tong, Z. Lyu, P. Li, F. Qu, G. Liu, J. Zhao, J. Hu, L. Lu, and J. Shen, arXiv:2505.18330 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Misaki and N

    K. Misaki and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 103, 245302 (2021)

    2021

  31. [38]

    H. D. Scammell, J. I. A. Li, and M. S. Scheurer, 2D Mater. 9, 025027 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    J. J. He, Y. Tanaka, and N. Nagaosa, New J. Phys. 24, 053014 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B 106, 104501 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Y. V. Fominov and D. S. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. B 106, 134514 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    T. H. Kokkeler, A. A. Golubov, and F. S. Bergeret, Phys. Rev. B 106, 214504 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Daido, Y

    A. Daido, Y. Ikeda, and Y. Yanase, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 037001 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

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

    2022

  38. [46]

    Zinkl, K

    B. Zinkl, K. Hamamoto, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033167 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Gu, P. Li, J. Hu, and K. Jiang, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041013 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    N. F. Q. Yuan and L. Fu, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2119548119 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Davydova, S

    M. Davydova, S. Prembabu, and L. Fu, Sci. Adv. 8, eabo0309 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    J. J. He, Y. Tanaka, and N. Nagaosa, Nat. Commun. 14, 3330 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Hu, Z.-T

    J.-X. Hu, Z.-T. Sun, Y.-M. Xie, and K. Law, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 266003 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    J. F. Steiner, L. Melischek, M. Trahms, K. J. Franke, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 177002 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

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

    2023

  46. [54]

    Banerjee and M

    S. Banerjee and M. S. Scheurer, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024503 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Banerjee and M

    S. Banerjee and M. S. Scheurer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 046003 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Virtanen and T

    P. Virtanen and T. T. Heikkilae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 046002 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Y. Mao, Q. Yan, Y. C. Zhuang, and Q.-F. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 216001 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Zeng, Phys

    W. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 176002 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1996)

    M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1996)

    1996

Pith tools

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