pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17594 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-19 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.mes-hall

Anisotropic Superconducting Diode Effect in Planar Josephson Junctions

Abhishek Chilampankunnel Prasannan , Baris Pekerten , Nowar Alashkar , Alex Matos-Abiague This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 05:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords superconducting diode effectJosephson junctionsspin-orbit couplinganisotropyZeeman interactionplanar junctionsnonreciprocal transport
0
0 comments X

The pith

Symmetry analysis shows that in planar Josephson junctions the superconducting diode effect vanishes for specific alignments of magnetic field and crystal axes, independent of field strength.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that in proximitized planar Josephson junctions containing both Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit couplings, certain orientations of an in-plane magnetic field relative to the crystallographic axes cause the superconducting diode effect to disappear completely. This suppression occurs regardless of how strong the magnetic field becomes. The finding comes from a symmetry analysis that isolates the geometric conditions under which the interplay between spin-orbit coupling and the Zeeman interaction cancels nonreciprocal transport. The work also presents a phenomenological model in which diode efficiency tracks the relative angle between spin-orbit and magnetic fields, and uses analytic and numerical methods to connect the observed anisotropies to distortions of the Fermi surface and the momentum carried by Cooper pairs.

Core claim

In planar Josephson junctions with coexisting Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit couplings under an in-plane magnetic field, a symmetry analysis identifies geometric constraints on magnetic-field and crystallographic orientations for which the superconducting diode effect is suppressed independently of field strength. These constraints arise from the interplay between spin-orbit coupling and Zeeman interaction. A phenomenological model shows that diode efficiency depends on the relative alignment of spin-orbit and magnetic fields. In the narrow-junction low-field limit an analytic treatment links the anisotropy to spin-orbit-induced Fermi-surface distortions and anisotropic Cooper-pair superc

What carries the argument

Geometric constraints on magnetic-field and crystallographic orientations that suppress the superconducting diode effect independently of field strength, identified through symmetry analysis of the interplay between spin-orbit and Zeeman terms.

If this is right

  • Diode efficiency is controlled by the angle between the spin-orbit field and the applied magnetic field.
  • Electrostatic gating can reverse the polarity of the diode effect in the low-field regime even when only Rashba spin-orbit coupling is present.
  • Additional polarity reversals appear for particular combinations of field orientation, junction geometry, and relative Rashba-Dresselhaus strength.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Rotating the magnetic field or tuning gate voltage could allow experimental switching of the direction of nonreciprocal supercurrent flow.
  • The suppression conditions offer a route to distinguish the separate contributions of Rashba and Dresselhaus couplings in semiconductor-based junctions.

Load-bearing premise

The narrow-junction low-field regime and the specific Rashba-to-Dresselhaus ratios used in the derivations and simulations remain valid for the experimental devices.

What would settle it

Apply an in-plane magnetic field along a high-symmetry crystallographic direction in a planar Josephson junction and measure the critical-current asymmetry as a function of increasing field strength; if the asymmetry stays zero across the low-to-moderate field range, the predicted suppression is confirmed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17594 by Abhishek Chilampankunnel Prasannan, Alex Matos-Abiague, Baris Pekerten, Nowar Alashkar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of a gated planar JJ formed from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Diode efficiency as a function of the junction orien [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Magnetic-field dependence of the diode efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Magnetic-field dependence of the forward ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Crystalline anisotropy of the SDE in an Al/InSb junc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Crystalline anisotropy of the SDE in a Dresselhaus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Diode efficiency from numerical simulations as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We theoretically investigate the magnetic and crystalline anisotropies of the superconducting diode effect (SDE) in proximitized planar Josephson junctions (JJs) with coexisting Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit couplings (SOCs) under an in-plane magnetic field. A symmetry analysis identifies geometric constraints on magnetic-field and crystallographic orientations for which the SDE is suppressed independently of field strength, providing experimentally testable signatures of the interplay between SOC and Zeeman interaction. We develop a phenomenological model showing that the diode efficiency depends on the relative alignment between spin-orbit and magnetic fields, and corroborate this behavior in the narrow-junction, low-field regime using an analytical approach that links the anisotropy of the diode response to SOC-induced Fermi surface distortions and anisotropic Cooper pair momentum. These findings are supported by tight-binding simulations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation, which reproduce recent experimental trends. The simulations reveal that electrostatic gating can induce polarity reversals of the SDE in the low-field regime even with only Rashba SOC, consistent with recent experiments, and predict additional reversals for specific field orientations, junction geometries, and SOC ratios. Our results elucidate the origin of anisotropic nonreciprocal superconducting transport and provide guidance for experimentally probing the mechanisms underlying the SDE in semiconductor-based planar JJs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript theoretically investigates the magnetic and crystalline anisotropies of the superconducting diode effect (SDE) in proximitized planar Josephson junctions with coexisting Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit couplings under an in-plane magnetic field. A symmetry analysis identifies geometric constraints on magnetic-field and crystallographic orientations for which the SDE is suppressed independently of field strength. This is supported by a phenomenological model, an analytic derivation in the narrow-junction low-field regime linking the anisotropy to SOC-induced Fermi-surface distortions and anisotropic Cooper-pair momentum, and tight-binding Bogoliubov-de Gennes simulations that reproduce experimental trends including electrostatic gating-induced polarity reversals even with pure Rashba SOC.

Significance. If the symmetry-protected suppression of the SDE holds, the work supplies experimentally testable signatures of the SOC-Zeeman interplay and guidance for probing nonreciprocal transport mechanisms in semiconductor-based planar Josephson junctions. The combination of symmetry analysis, analytic narrow-junction expressions, and simulations that match recent experiments strengthens the utility of the results for device design.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (phenomenological model and analytic derivation): The central claim that the SDE is suppressed 'independently of field strength' for specific orientations is derived explicitly under the narrow-junction, low-field approximation. The manuscript does not demonstrate that this cancellation survives higher-order Zeeman terms, finite-junction-width corrections, or field-induced Fermi-surface changes, which directly affects the robustness of the proposed experimentally testable signatures.
  2. [§4] §4 (BdG simulations): The reported polarity reversals and anisotropy predictions are shown for specific Rashba/Dresselhaus SOC ratios and junction geometries. Without a systematic scan over these free parameters (listed in the axiom ledger), it remains unclear whether the additional reversals predicted for certain field orientations are generic or tied to the chosen ratios.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction should explicitly qualify the field-strength independence as holding within the narrow-junction low-field regime to avoid overstatement of the symmetry result.
  2. [§2] Notation for the diode efficiency and the relative alignment angle between SOC and magnetic fields could be defined once in the main text with a clear reference to the phenomenological model equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (phenomenological model and analytic derivation): The central claim that the SDE is suppressed 'independently of field strength' for specific orientations is derived explicitly under the narrow-junction, low-field approximation. The manuscript does not demonstrate that this cancellation survives higher-order Zeeman terms, finite-junction-width corrections, or field-induced Fermi-surface changes, which directly affects the robustness of the proposed experimentally testable signatures.

    Authors: The symmetry analysis in Section 2 is fully general and independent of the narrow-junction or low-field limits; it follows directly from the transformation properties under combined time-reversal and spatial operations and shows that the diode efficiency must vanish identically for the identified orientations at any field strength. The analytic expressions in Section 3 are derived only in the narrow low-field regime to provide a transparent link to Fermi-surface anisotropy and pair momentum. The BdG simulations of Section 4 already incorporate finite junction width, higher-order Zeeman effects, and self-consistent electrostatics, and they confirm the suppression for those orientations. We will revise the abstract and the opening of Section 3 to clearly separate the general symmetry result from the approximate analytic formulas. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (BdG simulations): The reported polarity reversals and anisotropy predictions are shown for specific Rashba/Dresselhaus SOC ratios and junction geometries. Without a systematic scan over these free parameters (listed in the axiom ledger), it remains unclear whether the additional reversals predicted for certain field orientations are generic or tied to the chosen ratios.

    Authors: We agree that the presented simulations use representative parameter values chosen to match recent experiments. To demonstrate robustness, the revised manuscript will include additional BdG scans over Rashba/Dresselhaus ratios spanning pure Rashba to comparable strengths and over a range of junction widths. These extended results show that the polarity reversals at specific field orientations and the overall anisotropy pattern remain qualitatively unchanged across the scanned parameter space, consistent with the symmetry constraints. The new data will appear in an expanded Section 4 together with supplementary figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation from standard BdG symmetry and analytics is self-contained

full rationale

The paper's symmetry analysis and phenomenological model are constructed from the Bogoliubov-de Gennes framework and explicit symmetry considerations under the stated narrow-junction low-field regime. The analytic link between diode anisotropy, Fermi-surface distortions, and Cooper-pair momentum follows directly from those inputs without redefining the target SDE suppression as an input. Simulations corroborate trends but do not serve as the derivation source. No load-bearing self-citations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard Bogoliubov-de Gennes framework for proximitized junctions plus a phenomenological dependence of diode efficiency on SOC-Zeeman alignment; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Rashba/Dresselhaus SOC ratio
    Chosen to match experimental trends and to explore polarity reversal conditions.
  • Junction width and electrostatic gate potential
    Treated as tunable parameters in the narrow-junction limit and gating predictions.
axioms (2)
  • standard math The system is described by the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation with Rashba and Dresselhaus terms plus Zeeman field.
    Invoked throughout the analytic and numerical sections as the microscopic starting point.
  • domain assumption In the narrow-junction low-field limit the diode response can be linked to Fermi-surface distortions and Cooper-pair momentum.
    Used to obtain the analytic expression for anisotropy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5551 in / 1458 out tokens · 44867 ms · 2026-05-10T05:06:44.970796+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yokoyama, M

    T. Yokoyama, M. Eto, and Y. V. Nazarov, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.82, 054703 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Yokoyama, M

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

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Wakatsuki and N

    R. Wakatsuki and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 026601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    D. Y. Vodolazov, A. Y. Aladyshkin, E. E. Pestov, S. N. Vdovichev, S. S. Ustavshikov, M. Y. Levichev, A. V. Putilov, P. A. Yunin, A. I. El’kina, N. N. Bukharov, and A. M. Klushin, Supercond. Sci. Technol.31, 115004 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    C.-Z. Chen, J. J. He, M. N. Ali, G.-H. Lee, K. C. Fong, and K. T. Law, Phys. Rev. B98, 075430 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Pal and C

    S. Pal and C. Benjamin, Europhys. Lett.126, 57002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

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

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Baumgartner, L

    C. Baumgartner, L. Fuchs, A. Costa, S. Reinhardt, S. Gronin, G. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. Manfra, P. Faria Junior, D. Kochan, J. Fabian, N. Paradiso, and C. Strunk, Nat. Nano.17, 39 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Baumgartner, L

    C. Baumgartner, L. Fuchs, A. Costa, J. Pic´ o-Cort´ es, S. Reinhardt, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, T. Lindemann, 12 M. J. Manfra, P. E. Faria Junior, D. Kochan, J. Fabian, N. Paradiso, and C. Strunk, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 34, 154005 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    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)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    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)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    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(2022)

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    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)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Bauriedl, C

    L. Bauriedl, C. B¨ auml, L. Fuchs, C. Baumgartner, N. Paulik, J. M. Bauer, K.-Q. Lin, J. M. Lupton, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, C. Strunk, and N. Paradiso, Nat. Commun.13, 4266 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Tanaka, B

    Y. Tanaka, B. Lu, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B106, 214524 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    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)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Y. Hou, F. Nichele, H. Chi, A. Lodesani, Y. Wu, M. F. Ritter, D. Z. 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)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Costa, C

    A. Costa, C. Baumgartner, S. Reinhardt, J. Berger, S. Gronin, G. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. Manfra, J. Fabian, D. Kochan, N. Paradiso, and C. Strunk, Nat. Nanotechnol.18, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    D´ ıez-M´ erida, A

    J. D´ ıez-M´ erida, A. D´ ıez-Carl´ on, 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)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    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)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

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

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

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

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    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)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Lotfizadeh, W

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

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    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)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    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)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    P.-H. Fu, Y. Xu, S. A. Yang, C. H. Lee, Y. S. Ang, and J.-F. Liu, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 054057 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Cayao, N

    J. Cayao, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. B109, L081405 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    J. S. Meyer and M. Houzet, Appl. Phys. Lett.125, 022603 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Debnath and P

    D. Debnath and P. Dutta, Phys. Rev. B109, 174511 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Banerjee and M

    S. Banerjee and M. S. Scheurer, Phys. Rev. B110, 024503 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Zhang, L.-H

    S.-B. Zhang, L.-H. Hu, and T. Neupert, Nat. Commun. 15, 1801 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Scharf, D

    B. Scharf, D. Kochan, and A. Matos-Abiague, Phys. Rev. B110, 134511 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Zhong, D

    H. Zhong, D. Kochan, I. Zutic, and Y. Wu, Twisted su- perconducting quantum diodes: Towards anharmonicity and high fidelity (2025), arXiv:2510.19627 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Davydova, S

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

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Fracassi, S

    S. Fracassi, S. Traverso, N. Traverso Ziani, M. Carrega, S. Heun, and M. Sassetti, Appl. Phys. Lett.124, 242601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Shaffer and A

    D. Shaffer and A. Levchenko, Theories of supercon- ducting diode effects (2025), arXiv:2510.25864 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    W. F. Schiela, M. Mikalsen, D. Crawford, S. Ili´ c, W. M. Strickland, F. S. Bergeret, and J. Shabani, arXiv (2025), 2504.21470

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    V. M. Edelstein, Sov. Phys. - JETP68, 1244 (1989)

    work page 1989

  40. [40]

    Smith, A

    M. Smith, A. V. Andreev, and B. Z. Spivak, Phys. Rev. B104, L220504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Daido, Y

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

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

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

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

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

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Ili´ c and F

    S. Ili´ c and F. S. Bergeret, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 177001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Fuchs, D

    L. Fuchs, D. Kochan, J. Schmidt, N. H¨ uttner, C. Baum- gartner, S. Reinhardt, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, T. Lin- demann, M. J. Manfra, C. Strunk, and N. Paradiso, Phys. Rev. X12, 041020 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    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)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    de Picoli, Z

    T. de Picoli, Z. Blood, Y. Lyanda-Geller, and J. I. V¨ ayrynen, Phys. Rev. B107, 224518 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Sundaresh, J

    A. Sundaresh, J. I. V¨ ayrynen, Y. Lyanda-Geller, and L. P. Rokhinson, Nat. Commun.14, 1628 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Kochan, A

    D. Kochan, A. Costa, I. Zhumagulov, and I. ˇZuti´ c, Phe- nomenological Theory of the Supercurrent Diode Effect: The Lifshitz Invariant (2023), arXiv:2303.11975 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Costa, J

    A. Costa, J. Fabian, and D. Kochan, Phys. Rev. B108, 054522 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Pekerten, A

    B. Pekerten, A. C. Prasannan, and A. Matos-Abiague, Signatures of topological superconductivity and joseph- son diode effects on the magnetocurrent-phase relation of planar josephson junctions (2026), arXiv:2603.07638 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Fracassi, S

    S. Fracassi, S. Traverso, S. Heun, M. Sassetti, M. Car- rega, and N. T. Ziani, Intrinsic and tunable supercon- ducting diode effect in quantum spin hall systems (2025), arXiv:2512.02575 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Mazur, N

    G. Mazur, N. van Loo, D. van Driel, J.-Y. Wang, G. Badawy, S. Gazibegovic, E. Bakkers, and L. Kouwen- 13 hoven, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 054034 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    P. Yu, H. Fu, W. F. Schiela, W. Strickland, B. H. Elfeky, S. M. Farzaneh, J. Issokson, W. Pan, E. Rossi, and J. Shabani, Enhanced superconducting diode effect in hy- brid Josephson junctions (2025), arXiv:2512.19017 [cond- mat.mes-Hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Pekerten, D

    B. Pekerten, D. S. Brand˜ ao, B. Bussiere, D. Monroe, T. Zhou, J. E. Han, J. Shabani, A.-M. Abiague, and I. ˇZuti´ c, Appl. Phys. Lett.124, 252602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    W. F. Schiela, P. Yu, and J. Shabani, PRX Quantum5, 030102 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    W. F. Schiela, M. Mikalsen, W. M. Strickland, and J. Shabani, arXiv (2025), 2502.12400

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Lombardi, G

    A. Lombardi, G. Shukla, G. Bucci, S. Salimian, V. Zan- nier, S. Traverso, S. Fracassi, N. Traverso Ziani, M. Sas- setti, M. Carrega, F. Beltram, L. Sorba, and S. Heun, Commun. Mater.6, 272 (2025)

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Y. A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, JETP Lett.39, 66 (1984)

    work page 1984

  60. [60]

    ˇZuti´ c, J

    I. ˇZuti´ c, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004)

    work page 2004

  61. [61]

    Fabian, A

    J. Fabian, A. Matos-Abiague, C. Ertler, P. Stano, and I. ˇZuti´ c, Acta Phys. Slovaca57(2007)

    work page 2007

  62. [62]

    Dresselhaus, Phys

    G. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev.100, 580 (1955)

    work page 1955

  63. [63]

    Scharf, F

    B. Scharf, F. Pientka, H. Ren, A. Yacoby, and E. M. Hankiewicz, Phys. Rev. B99, 214503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, and X. Waintal, New J. Phys16, 063065 (2014)

    work page 2014