Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Phase-sensitive non-reciprocal transport in high-temperature superconductor

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that a planar s-wave/d-wave/s-wave Josephson junction with asymmetric interface couplings can act as a direct, phase-sensitive probe of d-wave pairing symmetry, with diode polarity and efficiency controlled by the d-wave

desk verdict A credible field-free Josephson diode proposal in s-d-s junctions whose polarity claims to probe d-wave pairing details, but the load-bearing phase-locking assumption is asserted rather than proven in the two-interface geometry. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.02752 v1 pith:YMGGETKG submitted 2025-12-02 cond-mat.supr-con

Guo-Liang Guo , Xin Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.50.+r74.72.-h74.20.Rp
keywords superconductingdiodeeffectJosephsond-wavepairinghigh-temperaturesuperconductivitytime-reversalsymmetrybreakingjunctionphase-sensitiveprobenonreciprocaltransport
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 proposes that a planar s-wave/d-wave/s-wave Josephson junction with asymmetric interface couplings can act as a direct, phase-sensitive probe of d-wave pairing symmetry in high-temperature superconductors. Asymmetry breaks inversion symmetry and, together with the d-wave gap structure, locks one phase difference spontaneously to π/2, breaking time-reversal symmetry without a magnetic field. In this regime a Josephson diode effect emerges, with efficiency up to 1/3; its polarity tracks the sign of an isotropic s-wave admixture relative to the d-wave gap, and the critical angle at which polarity reverses shifts accordingly. This would turn non-reciprocal transport into a diagnostic tool for identifying pairing-symmetry components.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 1D Josephson potential of Eq. (6), E(φ1) = E_J1^(2) cos2φ1 + E_J1^(1) cosφ1 ± E_Js^(1) sinφ1. The cos2φ1 term comes from double-Cooper-pair co-tunneling and is always positive; the cosφ1 term is single-Cooper-pair tunneling that becomes allowed when the d-wave lobe angle deviates from π/4 or when an s-wave component Δds is present; the sinφ1 term is the effective s-s coupling mediated by the d-wave layer, with sign set by whether φ2 is pinned at π/2 or 3π/2. The coexistence of cosφ1 and sinφ1 is what breaks all Z2 symmetries and produces the diode effect. The pinning of φ2 near π/2 by the stronger interface coupling is what justifies reducing the 2D potential t

What would settle it

Measure the current-phase relation or critical currents of an s-d-s junction with asymmetric barriers while rotating the d-wave lobe angle through π/4. If the junction shows no nonzero diode effect at θ = π/4 even with a finite s-wave admixture, or if the diode polarity does not reverse at the predicted critical angle θc, the central claim would be contradicted. Equivalently, observing that the potential minimum at φ2 departs from π/2 as θ moves away from π/4 beyond the computed range would invalidate the 1D reduction in Eq. (6).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Josephson diode effect (JDE) in a planar s-d-s junction arises when asymmetric s-d couplings pin the stronger interface phase to φ2 = π/2, spontaneously breaking time-reversal symmetry, and when single-Cooper-pair tunneling is enabled at the weakly coupled interface. The resulting 1D potential, E(φ1) = E_J1^(2) cos2φ1 + E_J1^(1) cosφ1 ± E_Js^(1) sinφ1, contains coexisting cosφ1 and sinφ1 terms that break all Z2 symmetries and yield unequal forward and backward critical currents. The maximal diode efficiency approaches 1/3, and its polarity reverses across a critical angle θc; with zero s-wave admixture (Δds = 0), θc = π/4, while Δds > 0 shifts θc below π/4 and Δ

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on the stronger s-d interface coupling pinning the phase difference φ2 to π/2 across the whole range of lobe angles and s-wave admixtures used to compute the diode efficiency; if φ2 shifts away from π/2, the relation between diode polarity and θ or Δds could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A field-free Josephson diode can be realized in a planar s-d-s junction by engineering asymmetric s-d interface couplings, without any magnetic field.
  • The diode efficiency can be tuned up to η ≈ 1/3 by rotating the d-wave crystallographic orientation or by adjusting the s-wave admixture Δds/Δd.
  • The polarity of the diode effect reverses at a critical angle θc; measuring θc relative to π/4 gives a direct readout of the sign of Δds/Δd.
  • A nonzero diode effect at θ = π/4 serves as a phase-sensitive signature of an s-wave component coexisting with d-wave pairing.
  • Stronger s-d interface coupling widens the range of lobe angles over which the spontaneously time-reversal-broken state persists, making the probe more robust to misalignment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this picture holds, a similar JDE measurement on other unconventional superconductors (e.g., candidate p-wave or d+is systems) could map out their pairing symmetry through the sign and magnitude of the diode efficiency as a function of crystallographic orientation.
  • A practical testable extension: fabricate a cuprate s-d-s junction with a tunable barrier on one side, sweep the lobe angle through π/4, and check that the diode efficiency crosses zero at θc; the displacement of θc from π/4 would directly estimate Δds/Δd.
  • The predicted maximum η ≈ 1/3 could serve as a quantitative benchmark to distinguish intrinsic pairing-symmetry-driven JDE from extrinsic asymmetry effects such as unintentional disorder or current inhomogeneity.
  • Since the sinφ1 term depends on the d-wave layer length Ld, varying Ld should change η in a predictable way; this length dependence is a clean test that could separate the proposed mechanism from alternative JDE routes.
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 proposes a field-free Josephson diode effect in a planar s-wave/d-wave/s-wave junction as a phase-sensitive probe of d-wave pairing. Using Ginzburg-Landau and tight-binding models with asymmetric interface couplings, the authors argue that for a d-wave lobe angle θ=π/4 the double-Cooper-pair cos2φ term dominates and locks the stronger-interface phase to ±π/2, spontaneously breaking time-reversal symmetry. When single-Cooper-pair tunneling is activated by rotating θ away from π/4 or by adding an s-wave admixture Δds, the effective 1D potential (Eq. 6) contains both cosφ1 and sinφ1 terms, producing a diode effect with efficiency up to 1/3. The polarity is predicted to reverse at a critical angle θ_c and to track the sign of Δds/Δd, which is put forward as a direct phase-sensitive diagnostic of pairing symmetry.

Significance. If the central assumptions hold, this is an original and falsifiable proposal: it derives a specific transport asymmetry from a model Hamiltonian with explicit symmetry constraints, rather than fitting to experimental data, and it makes crisp predictions linking the sign of the diode efficiency to the sign of an s-wave admixture in a d-wave superconductor. The GL expansion is transparent, and the use of the sign change of the d-wave gap at θ=π/4 to suppress odd harmonics is a standard and sound symmetry argument. However, the quantitative claims currently rest on an unproven phase-locking assumption in the two-interface geometry and on numerical results whose details are relegated to a missing supplementary section; both issues are repairable but are load-bearing for the paper's central diagnostic claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [JDE in planar s-d-s junction, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The reduction of the 2D Josephson potential to the 1D form in Eq. (6) sets φ2=π/2, but the pinning argument elaborated in the next section is derived for a single s-d junction, not for the s-d-s potential V(φ1,φ2). In the s-d-s case, minimizing C2 cos2φ2 + A2 cosφ2 + D cos(φ1−φ2) gives φ2≈π/2+δ with δ≈−(A2+D cosφ1)/(4C2) to first order. This δ is nonzero for essentially all θ≠π/4 and for Δds≠0, and it produces an extra −D δ cosφ1 contribution that renormalizes the coefficient of the cosφ1 term in Eq. (6), which controls diode polarity. Figures 2(e) and 4(c,d) are computed with φ2 fixed to π/2, as stated in the text. A numerical minimization of φ2(φ1) over the parameter ranges used in those figures, or an analytic bound showing δ is negligible, is required before the predicted θ_c and the sign of η versus Δds can be accepted.
  2. [Supplementary material, Ref. [40]] A large part of the paper's quantitative content comes from tight-binding numerics: the Fourier coefficients in Figs. 3(b)-(c) and 4(b), the phase-minimum plots in Figs. 3(d) and 4(a), and the diode-efficiency maps in Figs. 2(e) and 4(c,d). All of these are attributed to Ref. [40], whose text is simply 'See supplemental materials for:' with no content. Without the supplemental material, these results are not reproducible and the numerical verification of the phase-locking assumption cannot be checked. This is a load-bearing omission, not a presentational one.
  3. [Eq. (6) and text near Fig. 2(e)] The claim that the maximal diode efficiency η approaches 1/3 is not derived. For the potential (6), the current is (2e/ℏ)(−2E_J,1^(2) sin2φ1 − E_J,1 cos? sin? etc.); no closed-form expression for η in terms of E_J,1^(2), E_J,1, and E_J,s is provided, and the parameter values that realize η=1/3 are not stated. Since this quantitative bound appears in the abstract and Introduction, a derivation or the explicit numerical coefficient values used in Fig. 2(e) should be supplied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the last term should read 2D|ψs1||ψs2| cos(φ1−φ2), not 2D|ψs1||ψd| cos(φ1−φ2); the ψd factor is a typo that affects a foundational formula.
  2. [Eq. (5)] In Eq. (5), the first term is written as E_J,2^(2) cos2φ1, but in Eq. (4) the coefficient of cos2φ1 is E_J,1^(2). Please correct the label or reconcile the notation.
  3. [Text near Fig. 2(d)] The sentence 'the term E_J,s^(1) sinφ2 represents the effective coupling of the two s-wave superconductors' should presumably read 'sinφ1' or be rephrased, since after fixing φ2=π/2 the coupling term in Eq. (6) is ∓E_J,s sinφ1.
  4. [Fig. 2] Figure 2 contains two panels labeled '(d)': the contour plot of the 1D potential and the efficiency map. The caption needs renumbering.
  5. [Discussion and summary] The phrase 'the polarity of η tracks the sign of the sign of Δds/Δd' contains a duplicated 'sign of'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the JDE and polarity relations are derived from the model Hamiltonian and symmetry constraints, with no fitted data; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the microscopic Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) and the GL free energy in Eq. (1), with d-wave gap structure Δ(d)=Δd cos2(α−θ)+Δds as an input. The 1D Josephson potentials in Eqs. (5)–(6) are obtained by fixing φ2=π/2; this is an explicit modeling assumption ('we thus set φ2=π/2'), discussed and partially justified by the separate s-d junction pinning calculation around Fig. 3, rather than a parameter fitted to the diode efficiency it later predicts. The central result—that a nonzero JDE at θ=π/4 signals nonzero Δds/Δd and that the polarity tracks its sign—is derived from the sign structure of the single-Cooper-pair cosφ1 term in Eq. (6), not from any fitted or renamed output. The only self-citation is Ref. [43], used for the standard TRS-breaking inequality r=|E_J^(1)/E_J^(2)|<4, which is also attributed to Refs. [28,31] and is an elementary property of A cosφ+B cos2φ; it is not load-bearing for the paper's new claim. The missing supplemental material and the unproven robustness of the φ2 pinning in the full s-d-s geometry are evidence gaps or physics assumptions, but they do not make the derivation circular. No experimental data are fitted, and no predicted quantity is equal to an input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper has no free parameters fitted to experimental data; all listed are hand-chosen model inputs in the numerics. The axioms are standard symmetry and gap-model assumptions from the d-wave superconductivity literature, plus a load-bearing phase-locking assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • t_c2/t_c1 = 4
    Asymmetric interface coupling ratio chosen to break inversion symmetry; illustrative value used in numerics (Fig. 2).
  • L_d (d-wave superconductor length) = 26a, 30a
    Set in tight-binding calculations; affects the sin φ1 term in the Josephson potential (Fig. 2b,e).
  • θ (d-wave lobe angle) = scanned around π/4
    Crystallographic orientation of d-wave gap; key control parameter for JDE polarity.
  • Δ_ds/Δ_d (s-wave admixture ratio) = ±10%, ±15% in Fig. 4
    Isotropic s-wave component in the d-wave superconductor; central parameter probed by the junction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Tetragonal symmetry of the d-wave superconductor forces the single-Cooper-pair tunneling coefficient B_1(2) to vanish at θ=π/4
    Invoked after Eq. (1); based on Ref. [38] (Xiang and Wu).
  • domain assumption Tunneling amplitude at each s-d interface is T ≈ t_c cos α
    Used in Eqs. (3) and (7); cited to Ref. [38].
  • domain assumption d-wave pairing gap is Δ_d cos 2(α-θ) + Δ_ds
    Model for the d-wave order parameter with possible s-wave admixture; stated in the Model Hamiltonian section.
  • domain assumption The stronger interface coupling t_c2 pins φ2 near π/2, reducing the 2D potential to 1D
    Central to deriving Eqs. (5)-(6); argued via numerical pinning in Fig. 3 for a single s-d junction, but not rigorously proven in the full s-d-s geometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-sensitive non-reciprocal transport in high-temperature superconductor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMGGETKG

@misc{pith2026251202752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-sensitive non-reciprocal transport in high-temperature superconductor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMGGETKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.02752}
}
read the original abstract

We propose the superconducting diode effect (SDE) in a planar s-wave/d-wave/s-wave Josephson junction as a direct phase-sensitive probe of the d-wave pairing function in high-Tc superconductors. Asymmetric interface coupling breaks inversion symmetry and induces a spontaneous Pi/2 phase difference, thereby breaking time-reversal symmetry without a magnetic field. In this TRS-broken state, the SDE emerges when single-Cooper-pair tunneling is enabled at the s-d interfaces, with its polarity and efficiency controllable by rotating the d-wave crystallographic orientation or perturbing its intrinsic C4 symmetry. Our results reveal a robust link between nonreciprocal Josephson transport and pairing symmetry, establishing the SDE as a powerful diagnostic tool for high-Tc superconductors and a tunable element for superconducting electronics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.02752 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of planar s-d-s Josephson junc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The 2D Josephson potential of s-d-s junction (normalized to 0.25) with the condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The Josephson potential of the s-d junction with [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. For the s-d junction (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [40]

    See supplemental materials for:

  2. [1]

    J. H. Scaff and R. S. Ohl, The Bell System Technical Journal26, 1 (1947)

    1947

  3. [2]

    Shockley, Bell System Technical Journal28, 435 (1949)

    W. Shockley, Bell System Technical Journal28, 435 (1949)

    1949

  4. [3]

    Jiang and J

    K. Jiang and J. Hu, Nature Physics18, 1145 (2022)

    2022

  5. [4]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Gu, P. Li, J. Hu, and K. Jiang, Phys. Rev. X12, 041013 (2022)

    2022

  6. [5]

    Nadeem, M

    M. Nadeem, M. S. Fuhrer, and X. Wang, Nature Reviews Physics5, 558 (2023)

    2023

  7. [6]

    Kochan, A

    D. Kochan, A. Costa, I. Zhumagulov, and I.Zuti´ c, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2303.11975 (2023), arXiv:2303.11975 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    J. Mei, S. Qin, and J. Hu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.15788 (2025), arXiv:2510.15788 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Wang, Z.-K

    B.-Z. Wang, Z.-K. Li, Z.-D. Li, and X.-J. Liu, arXiv 6 e-prints , arXiv:2510.05772 (2025), arXiv:2510.05772 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    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, Nature Physics18, 1228 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Davydova, S

    M. Davydova, S. Prembabu, and L. Fu, Science Advances 8, eabo0309 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

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

    2023

  5. [12]

    Maiani, K

    A. Maiani, K. Flensberg, M. Leijnse, C. Schrade, S. Vaitiek˙ enas, and R. Seoane Souto, Phys. Rev. B107, 245415 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    N. F. Q. Yuan and L. Fu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2119548119 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B106, 104501 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Narita, J

    H. Narita, J. Ishizuka, R. Kawarazaki, D. Kan, Y. Shiota, T. Moriyama, Y. Shimakawa, A. V. Ognev, A. S. Samar- dak, Y. Yanase, and T. Ono, Nature Nanotechnology17, 823 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    H. F. Legg, K. Laubscher, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B108, 214520 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

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

    2023

  11. [18]

    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, Nature Physics18, 1221 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Hu, Z.-T

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

    2023

  13. [20]

    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, Nature604, 653 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    P. J. Hirschfeld and N. Goldenfeld, Phys. Rev. B48, 4219 (1993)

    1993

  15. [22]

    McElroy, D.-H

    K. McElroy, D.-H. Lee, J. E. Hoffman, K. M. Lang, J. Lee, E. W. Hudson, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 197005 (2005)

    2005

  16. [23]

    X. Leng, J. Garcia-Barriocanal, B. Yang, Y. Lee, J. Kin- ney, and A. M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 067004 (2012)

    2012

  17. [24]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 457 (2015)

    2015

  18. [25]

    P. Cai, W. Ruan, Y. Peng, C. Ye, X. Li, Z. Hao, X. Zhou, D.-H. Lee, and Y. Wang, Nature Physics12, 1047 (2016)

    2016

  19. [26]

    Jacobs, Y

    T. Jacobs, Y. Simsek, Y. Koval, P. M¨ uller, and V. M. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 067001 (2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    M. Liao, Y. Zhu, J. Zhang, R. Zhong, J. Schneeloch, G. Gu, K. Jiang, D. Zhang, X. Ma, and Q.-K. Xue, Nano Lett.18, 5660 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Tummuru, S

    T. Tummuru, S. Plugge, and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. B 105, 064501 (2022)

    2022

  22. [29]

    Y. Zhu, H. Wang, Z. Wang, S. Hu, G. Gu, J. Zhu, D. Zhang, and Q.-K. Xue, Phys. Rev. B108, 174508 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    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, Science382, 1422 (2023)

    2023

  24. [31]

    P. A. Volkov, E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, T. Tummuru, S. Plugge, J. H. Pixley, and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. B109, 094518 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    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, Nature Materials 23, 612 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    H. Wang, Y. Zhu, Z. Bai, Z. Lyu, J. Yang, L. Zhao, X. J. Zhou, G. Gu, Q.-K. Xue, and D. Zhang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.24764 (2025), arXiv:2509.24764 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2025

  27. [34]

    C. C. Tsuei and J. R. Kirtley, Rev. Mod. Phys.72, 969 (2000)

    2000

  28. [35]

    Y. Zhu, M. Liao, Q. Zhang, H.-Y. Xie, F. Meng, Y. Liu, Z. Bai, S. Ji, J. Zhang, K. Jiang, R. Zhong, J. Schneeloch, G. Gu, L. Gu, X. Ma, D. Zhang, and Q.-K. Xue, Phys. Rev. X11, 031011 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    H. Wang, Y. Zhu, Z. Bai, Z. Wang, S. Hu, H.-Y. Xie, X. Hu, J. Cui, M. Huang, J. Chen, Y. Ding, L. Zhao, X. Li, Q. Zhang, L. Gu, X. J. Zhou, J. Zhu, D. Zhang, and Q.-K. Xue, Nature Communications14, 5201 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    Zheng, T

    W. Zheng, T. Cheng, Z.-Y. Yue, F.-C. Zhang, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.22473 (2025), arXiv:2509.22473 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  31. [38]

    Xiang and C

    T. Xiang and C. Wu, D-wave Superconductivity (Cam- bridge University Press, 2022)

    2022

  32. [39]

    Patel, V

    H. Patel, V. Pathak, O. Can, A. C. Potter, and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 017002 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Banerjee, M

    A. Banerjee, M. Geier, M. A. Rahman, C. Thomas, T. Wang, M. J. Manfra, K. Flensberg, and C. M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 196301 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    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, Nature Commu- nications15, 4413 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Guo, X.-H

    G.-L. Guo, X.-H. Pan, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. B112, 014509 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    L. B. Ioffe, V. B. Geshkenbein, M. V. Feigel’man, A. L. Fauch` ere, and G. Blatter, Nature398, 679 (1999)

    1999

  37. [45]

    Y. Sato, S. Kasahara, H. Murayama, Y. Kasahara, E.- G. Moon, T. Nishizaki, T. Loew, J. Porras, B. Keimer, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, Nature Physics13, 1074 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.