Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Nucleation and Enhancement of Superconductivity under Tip-Induced Strain Fields

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Pressing a metal tip onto a crystal nucleates superconductivity

desk verdict Solid framework with a real parameter-free success for Class I; Class III is extraction, not measurement read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07210 v1 pith:AMZEWIS6 submitted 2026-07-08 cond-mat.supr-con

Ghulam Mohmad , Vishal Tripathi , Goutam Sheet This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.20.De74.62.Fj74.45.+c62.20.Qp
keywords tip-inducedsuperconductivityuniaxialstrainHertziancontactmechanicsGinzburg-Landautheorytopologicalsemimetalsnucleationcriterionpointspectroscopy
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

When a sharp metallic tip presses onto a material that is not superconducting (or only weakly so), superconductivity often appears exclusively under the contact. This paper argues that the cause is the spatially inhomogeneous, predominantly uniaxial stress field produced by the tip. Unlike uniform hydrostatic pressure, uniaxial strain along the contact axis couples to electronic structure in a qualitatively different and often much stronger way — for instance, by separating Dirac or Weyl band-crossing nodes in topological semimetals, which shifts the density of states at the Fermi level and can dramatically raise the superconducting transition temperature. The authors combine Hertzian contact mechanics (which gives the stress profile under a spherical tip) with a Ginzburg-Landau variational analysis (which treats the superconducting order parameter as a bound state in the strain-induced potential well). The result is a nucleation criterion: the local temperature enhancement must exceed a threshold set by the ratio of the stress-field width to the superconducting coherence length, plus a constant offset. When this criterion is met, a self-sustained superconducting pocket forms under the tip even if the bulk material is non-superconducting. For three topological semimetals with ungapped band crossings (Cd3As2, TaAs, Pb0.6Sn0.4Te), the framework predicts the observed transition temperatures with no free parameters, using independently known strain-sensitivities. For the remaining eighteen materials, the authors invert the framework to extract an experimentally measured uniaxial coupling scale, which quantifies how strongly uniaxial strain couples to superconductivity in each material. The paper also predicts and confirms tip-induced superconductivity in elemental antimony (~2.8 K) and yttrium (up to ~12 K).

What carries the argument

Three components carry the argument. First, Hertzian contact mechanics converts a tip's load and geometry into a spatially varying, predominantly uniaxial subsurface stress field, approximated by a matched Gaussian. Second, a linear coupling assumption maps this stress field to a local Tc shift via a single strain-sensitivity coefficient C, giving a spatially varying attractive potential for the superconducting order parameter. Third, a Ginzburg-Landau variational analysis with a Gaussian trial function reduces the nucleation question to whether this potential well supports a bound state, yielding the threshold criterion in Eq. (10). For Class I materials, C is computed independently from Mc

What would settle it

Measure the tip-load scaling of the observed Tc in a Class III material. If Tc does not scale as F^(1/3) as predicted by Eq. (10), or if different tip materials (hard vs. soft) produce the same Tc at the same load despite different stress profiles, the strain-driven nucleation mechanism would be undermined for that material.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central object is a nucleation criterion derived from mapping the strain-enhanced superconducting region to a quantum-mechanical bound-state problem. The local transition-temperature enhancement creates an attractive potential well whose depth is set by the strain-coupling strength and whose width is set by the contact radius. A superconducting pocket nucleates if and only if this well is deep and wide enough to support a bound state against the kinetic cost of confining the order parameter. The criterion reads: the maximum local Tc enhancement must exceed (1.84 + 2.76 ξ²/σ²)(T − Tc0), where ξ is the superconducting coherence length and σ is the stress-field width. For topological semim

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that the local superconducting transition temperature shifts linearly with local strain through a single coupling constant C. For the three Class I topological semimetals, this linearity is independently justified by the McMillan formula and known node-separation physics. For the other eighteen materials, the coupling constant is extracted by inverting the linear relation against the observed Tc rather than predicted from first principles, so if the true

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The load-scaling prediction Tc ∝ F^(1/3) provides a direct, parameter-free experimental test: if TISC/TESC is strain-driven, the observed transition temperature should scale with the cube root of the applied tip force.
  • The extracted Cexp values for Class III materials (ranging from ~18 K to ~1520 K) serve as quantitative targets that any microscopic theory of pairing in those systems must reproduce.
  • The framework applies to any confined stress field, not just point contacts — dislocations, grain boundaries, and patterned substrates could nucleate superconducting pockets by the same mechanism.
  • Materials with strong uniaxial strain sensitivity but weak hydrostatic response, such as hcp metals with peaked density of states near the Fermi level, are candidates for tip-induced superconductivity at experimentally accessible pressures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear coupling assumption breaks down for Class II–III materials, the extracted Cexp values would still be useful as phenomenological summaries of the observed Tc enhancement, but they would lose their interpretation as a true uniaxial strain sensitivity — they would become effective parameters mixing multiple mechanisms.
  • The framework could be extended to anisotropic or multi-component order parameters by generalizing the trial function in the variational analysis, which might lower the nucleation threshold and explain why some materials show TISC at lower pressures than the isotropic criterion predicts.
  • The distinction between Class I (parameter-free prediction) and Class III (phenomenological extraction) suggests a natural experimental program: finding new topological semimetals with ungapped crossings would yield additional no-free-parameter tests, while spectroscopic identification of the coupling mechanism in Class III materials would promote them to Class II.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a unified theoretical framework for tip-induced and tip-enhanced superconductivity (TISC/TESC) by combining Hertzian contact mechanics with a Ginzburg-Landau variational analysis. The central result is a nucleation criterion (Eq. 10) that determines when a spatially confined stress field can sustain a superconducting pocket against the kinetic cost of order-parameter confinement. The framework is applied to twenty-one materials, classified into three groups: Class I (topological semimetals with ungapped band crossings, where the theory is parameter-free), Class II (where an independent non-strain mechanism is already identified), and Class III (where the uniaxial coupling scale C^exp is extracted from observed Tc values). The paper also predicts and reports preliminary confirmation of TISC in elemental Sb and Y.

Significance. The manuscript addresses a genuine gap in the literature: despite a growing body of experimental TISC/TESC observations, no unified theoretical description existed. The key conceptual contribution—that the spatially inhomogeneous, predominantly uniaxial nature of the tip stress field is fundamental, as opposed to the previously used hydrostatic pressure analogy—is well-motivated and physically sound. The Class I results are a genuine strength: C^th is computed independently from node-separation strain dependence via the McMillan formula (Refs. 21-23), and the agreement with experimentally observed Tc values for Cd3As2, TaAs, and Pb0.6Sn0.4Te constitutes a parameter-free validation. The falsifiable load-scaling prediction (Tc proportional to F^{1/3}) is a valuable experimental test. The framework is also generalizable beyond point contacts to dislocations and grain boundaries, broadening its potential impact.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and framing of Class III (Table I and associated text): The abstract states that for all non-Class-I materials, C^exp 'provides a direct experimental determination of the uniaxial strain sensitivity.' For Class III (11 of 21 materials), this claim is circular. C^exp is defined as Delta T_c^obs * K / p_max (inverting Eq. 4), which re-expresses the observed Tc in different units; it is not an independent measurement of uniaxial strain sensitivity unless strain is independently verified as the operative mechanism. The paper itself acknowledges this for ZrSiS, where C^exp ~ 356 K is attributed to 'local DOS enhancement' rather than strain. The authors should reframe Class III C^exp values as effective coupling scales conditional on the strain hypothesis, not as determinations of uniaxial strain sensitivity. The abstract should be revised to reflect this distinction. This is a load-b
  2. ZrSiS internal inconsistency (Class III discussion): The text states that ZrSiS has C_uni <= 1 K based on uniaxial strain experiments (Ref. 43) and no bulk superconductivity to 20 GPa (Ref. 44), yet the tip-induced Tc ~ 7.5 K gives C^exp ~ 356 K. The authors attribute this to 'local DOS enhancement' (Ref. 10), which is a non-strain mechanism. This directly contradicts the framework's premise that TISC arises from uniaxial strain coupling. If ZrSiS is included in the table, the framework should clarify how non-strain mechanisms fit within or are excluded from its scope. Alternatively, ZrSiS should be separated out as a known exception. The current presentation leaves it ambiguous whether the framework claims to explain ZrSiS or not.
minor comments (5)
  1. The load-scaling prediction Tc proportional to F^{1/3} is highlighted as a universal test, but no quantitative comparison with experimental load-dependent data is provided. The wide Tc spread in Y (1.5-12 K) is qualitatively attributed to junction-to-junction variation in contact force, but a quantitative check (e.g., whether the observed spread is consistent with realistic force ranges) would strengthen the argument. The authors should at minimum note this explicitly.
  2. Eq. (2): the factor 0.96 is stated for nu_s ~ 0.25. Since the materials in Table I span a range of Poisson ratios, the sensitivity of this factor to nu_s should be noted, or the approximation should be justified for the full set of materials.
  3. Table I: the column headers and units are somewhat compressed. A footnote clarifying how the ranges (e.g., p_max = 2-4 GPa) were determined, and whether they reflect different experimental conditions across different junctions, would improve readability. The C^exp column for Y lists a range (160-600 K); the origin of this range versus the Tc range should be clarified.
  4. The Gaussian approximation to the Hertz profile (Eq. 3) is validated in Fig. 1 as accurate to within 5%. It would help to state explicitly in the text (not only the figure caption) that this error propagates to Delta Tc(r) at the same level, since this underpins the quantitative Class I comparisons.
  5. Several minor typographical issues: 'reportedd' (first paragraph of main text), 'expeimental' (conclusion), and the phrase 'these important features are fundamentally important' (end of second paragraph) is redundant.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Mild circularity in Class III: C^exp is defined by inverting Eq. (4) assuming strain is the mechanism, then presented as 'determining' the strain coupling scale — but the paper is partially transparent about this, and Class I results plus Sb/Y predictions are genuinely non-circular.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (4) and surrounding text; Class III discussion]
    "Cexp ≈ ΔTc^obs · K/pmax is the uniaxial coupling scale inferred by inverting Eq. (4) against the experimentally observed Tc. ... For all others, Cexp provides a direct experimental determination of the uniaxial strain sensitivity and a target scale for microscopic theories."

    C^exp is defined by inverting Eq. (4): ΔTc = (C/K)·p_eff. Eq. (4) assumes strain is the coupling mechanism (linear response of Tc to strain). For Class III materials, the paper itself states 'no independent experimental signature has identified the responsible mechanism yet.' Yet it calls C^exp 'a direct experimental determination of the uniaxial strain sensitivity.' This is self-definitional: the 'determination' of the strain coupling scale assumes strain is the coupling channel. If the mechanism is not strain (as acknowledged for ZrSiS: 'attributed to local DOS enhancement'), C^exp is merely a re-parameterization of the observed Tc using known K and pmax, carrying no independent information about strain sensitivity. The circularity is mitigated by the paper's partial honesty: it frames C

full rationale

The paper's core derivation (Hertzian mechanics → GL variational analysis → nucleation criterion Eq. 10) is self-contained and non-circular. For Class I materials (Cd3As2, TaAs, Pb0.6Sn0.4Te), C^th is computed independently from node-separation strain data (Refs. 21-23) via the McMillan formula, and C^exp from observed Tc is compared to C^th without fitting — a genuine non-circular verification. The Sb and Y predictions are based on physical analogies (isostructural similarity, DOS peak sensitivity to c/a ratio), not on inverting the framework against the same data. The mild circularity is confined to Class III (11 materials): C^exp = ΔTc^obs · K/pmax is a re-expression of the observed Tc that assumes strain is the mechanism, yet is presented as 'determining' the uniaxial strain coupling. The paper partially acknowledges this ('the microscopic origin remains to be identified spectroscopically'), and for ZrSiS explicitly admits the mechanism may be local DOS enhancement rather than strain. This prevents the circularity from being load-bearing for the paper's central claims, which rest on Class I and the Sb/Y predictions. Score 3 reflects this limited, partially-acknowledged circularity in the framing of Class III extractions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. C^exp is a re-parameterization of observed data, not a new entity.

free parameters (3)
  • C (strain-sensitivity coefficient) = varies by material; 18–1520 K across Classes II–III
    For Class I, C is computed from independent strain-dependence data, not fitted. For Classes II–III, C^exp is extracted from observed Tc via Eq. 4 inversion — effectively a fitted parameter per material.
  • σ (Gaussian width) = a/√5
    Fixed by matching the second moment of the Hertz surface pressure distribution. Not a free parameter in the usual sense, but a modeling choice.
  • β (variational width) = determined by minimizing Q(β)
    Variational parameter in the GL analysis; determined self-consistently from Eq. 9, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linear coupling: ΔTc(r) = C·ε(r) (Eq. 4)
    Assumes Tc shift is linearly proportional to local strain. Justified for Class I via McMillan formula; unverified for Classes II–III. Load-bearing for the entire framework.
  • domain assumption Hertzian continuum mechanics valid at nanoscale contact radii (1–4 nm)
    The contact radii in Table I are 1–4 nm, where continuum mechanics may break down. The paper does not discuss this limitation.
  • domain assumption Observed contact Tc corresponds to maximum strain at contact centre
    Stated in the text: 'Tc^obs corresponds to the point of maximum strain at the contact centre, since superconductivity persists until the last and most strongly coupled region becomes normal.' This is physically reasonable but unverified.
  • standard math GL theory applicable near Tc for these mesoscopic contacts
    Standard Ginzburg-Landau framework; the variational analysis is a standard technique.
  • domain assumption Isotropic Gaussian trial function adequate for anisotropic stress field
    The paper notes an anisotropic trial function lowers the threshold by at most 8%, citing this as a conservative bound. This is a variational estimate, not a rigorous result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nucleation and Enhancement of Superconductivity under Tip-Induced Strain Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AMZEWIS6

@misc{pith2026260707210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nucleation and Enhancement of Superconductivity under Tip-Induced Strain Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AMZEWIS6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07210}
}
abstract

A metallic point contact formed on a non-superconducting or weakly superconducting material often nucleates or enhances superconductivity confined under the contact. However, no unified theoretical description of the phenomenon exists. We show that the spatially inhomogeneous, predominantly uniaxial nature of the stress field under a point contact is fundamental for such tip-induced and tip-enhanced superconductivity (TISC/TESC). We also show that the coupling of such a stress field to the electronic structure can be estimated through an experimentally measurable uniaxial coupling scale $C^{\mathrm{exp}}$. Combining Hertzian contact mechanics with a Ginzburg-Landau variational analysis, we derive a criterion for the nucleation of TISC/TESC and determine $C^{\mathrm{exp}}$ for twenty-one materials. For topological semimetals with ungapped band crossings, the framework explains observed critical temperatures with no free parameters and for all others, $C^{\mathrm{exp}}$ provides a direct experimental determination of the uniaxial strain sensitivity and a target scale for microscopic theories.The work predicts TISC in elemental Sb and Y with $T_c \approx 2.8$\,K and $T_c \approx 12$\,K respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07210 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Hertzian pressure profile and matched Gaussian ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rayleigh-Ritz functional Q(β) for several σ/ξ ratios; nucleation sets in when Q = 0. Inset: optimal width β ∗ vs. σ/ξ. −ξ 2∇2ψ + [1 − s(r)]ψ = 0 (6) 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Nucleation threshold s crit 0 = ∆T max c /(T −Tc0) vs. σ/ξ (Eq. (10)); other lines show ∆T max c for representative T − Tc0. through Eq. (4). For a meaningful classification of the materials we first define various coupling scales used in the table. Cuni ≡ dTc/dεzz is the uniaxial strain sensitivity. Cvol ≡ K dTc/dP is the volumetric sensitivity extracted from hydrostatic pressure experiments. This gives a conservat… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aggarwal, A

    L. Aggarwal, A. Gaurav, G. S. Thakur, Z. Haque, A. K. Ganguli, and G. Sheet, Unconventional superconductivity at mesoscopic point contacts on the 3D Dirac semimetal Cd3As2,Nature Materials15, 32 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    H. Wang, H. Wang, H. Liu, H. Lu, W. Yang, S. Jia, X.-J. Liu, X. C. Xie, J. Wei, and J. Wang, Observation of superconductivity induced by a point contact on 3D Dirac semimetal Cd3As2 11 crystals,Nature Materials15, 38 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    H. Wang, L. Ma, and J. Wang, Point contact spectroscopy of topological semimetals,Science Bulletin63, 1141 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Howlader and G

    S. Howlader and G. Sheet, Mesoscopic superconductivity induced at point contacts: A review, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter33, 403002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Aggarwal, S

    L. Aggarwal, S. Gayen, S. Das, R. Kumar, V. Süß, C. Felser, C. Shekhar, and G. Sheet, Mesoscopic superconductivity and high spin polarization coexisting at metallic point contacts on Weyl semimetal TaAs,Nature Communications8, 13974 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    X.Y. Hou, Z. Wang, Y.D. Gu, J.B. He, D. Chen, W.L. Zhu, M.D. Zhang, F. Zhang, Y.F. Xu, and S. Zhang, Tip-induced superconductivity in the topological semimetal WC,Physical Re- view B100, 235109 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Zhang, X.Y

    M.D. Zhang, X.Y. Hou, Q. Wang, Y.Y. Wang, L.X. Zhao, Z. Wang, Y.D. Gu, F. Zhang, T.L. Xia, and Z.A. Ren, Superconductivity above 2.5 K in point contacts of the topological semimetals TaAs2 and NbAs2,Physical Review B102, 085139 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    S. Das, L. Aggarwal, S. Roychowdhury, M. Aslam, S. Gayen, K. Biswas, and G. Sheet, Unex- pected superconductivity at nanoscale junctions made on the topological crystalline insulator Pb0.6Sn0.4Te,Applied Physics Letters109, 132601 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, Q

    M.D. Zhang, Q. Wang, X.Y. Hou, J.B. He, Z. Wang, L.X. Zhao, G.F. Chen, and Z.A. Ren, Anisotropic tip-induced superconductivity in rhombohedral grey arsenic,Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy66, 10.1007/s11433-023-2165-5 (2023)

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Aggarwal, C

    L. Aggarwal, C. K. Singh, M. Aslam, R. Singha, A. Pariari, S. Gayen, M. Kabir, P. Mandal, and G. Sheet, Tip-induced superconductivity in the topological nodal-line semimetal ZrSiS, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter31, 485707 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    H. Wang, W. Lou, J. Luo, J. Wei, Y. Liu, J. E. Ortmann, and Z. Q. Mao, Enhanced super- conductivity at the interface of W/Sr2RuO4 point contacts,Physical Review B91, 184514 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    X. Xing, Z. Wang, W. Wang, X. Liu, C. Zhang, X. Gui, W. Xie, Z. Wang, and J. Wang, Superconductivity in topologically nontrivial material Au2Pb,npj Quantum Materials1, 16005 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Zhang, S

    M.-D. Zhang, S. Xu, X.-Y. Hou, Y.-D. Gu, F. Zhang, T.-L. Xia, Z.-A. Ren, G.-F. Chen, N. Hao, and L. Shan, Tip-induced superconductivity commonly existing in the family of transition- 12 metal dipnictidesM P n2,Chinese Physics B30, 017304 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    P. G. de Gennes, Boundary effects in superconductors,Reviews of Modern Physics36, 225 (1964)

    1964

  7. [15]

    H. J. Fink and W. C. H. Joiner, Surface nucleation and boundary conditions in superconduc- tors,Physical Review Letters23, 120 (1969)

    1969

  8. [16]

    K. L. Johnson,Contact Mechanics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985)

    1985

  9. [17]

    V. L. Popov, M. Heß, and E. Willert,Handbook of Contact Mechanics, 10.1007/978-3-662- 58709-6, (Springer, Berlin, 2019)

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Zhu, Tutorial on Hertz Contact Stress, Technical Document, University of Arizona Op- tomechanics (2012)

    X. Zhu, Tutorial on Hertz Contact Stress, Technical Document, University of Arizona Op- tomechanics (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    P. G. de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys(Westview Press, 1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    L. P. He, Y. T. Jia, S. J. Zhang, X. C. Hong, C. Q. Jin, and S. Y. Li, Pressure-induced superconductivity in the three-dimensional topological Dirac semimetal Cd3As2,npj Quantum Materials1, 16014 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    and Bermejo-Ortiz, J

    Krizman, G. and Bermejo-Ortiz, J. and Goyal, M. and Lygo, A. C. and Wang, J. and Zhang, Z. and Assaf, B. A. and Stemmer, S. and de Vaulchier, L. A. and Guldner, Y., Enhanced Dirac node separation in strained Cd3As2 topological semimetal,Physical Review B106, 165202 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Jiang, Y

    W. Jiang, Y. Guo, X. Wang, F. Wan, and Y. Li, Strain modulation of the transport properties of Weyl semimetal TaAs,Physica E128, 114600 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Pandey and S

    V. Pandey and S. K. Pandey, An ab-initio study of nodal-arcs, axial strain effects on nodal-lines and Weyl nodes in TaAs class of Weyl semimetals, arXiv:2403.18169 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Buckeridge, D

    J. Buckeridge, D. Jevdokimovs, C. R. A. Catlow, and A. A. Sokol, Elastic properties and electronic structure of the Weyl semimetal TaAs,Physical Review B93, 125205 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Fu, Topological crystalline insulators,Physical Review Letters106, 106802 (2011)

    L. Fu, Topological crystalline insulators,Physical Review Letters106, 106802 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    S.-Y. Xu, C. Liu, N. Alidoust, M. Neupane, D. Qian, I. Belopolski, J. D. Denlinger, Y. J. Wang, H. Lin, L. A. Wray, G. Landolt, B. Slomski, J. H. Dil, A. Marcinkova, E. Morosan, Q. Gibson, R. Sankar, F. C. Chou, R. J. Cava, A. Bansil, and M. Z. Hasan, Observation of a topologi...

    2012

  19. [27]

    Liang, Satya Kushwaha, J

    T. Liang, Satya Kushwaha, J. Kim, Q. Gibson, J. Lin, N. Kioussis, R.J. Cava and N. Phuan 13 Ong , A pressure-induced topological phase with large Berry curvature in Pb1−xSnxTe,Science Advances3, e1602510 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    C. Chen, Q. Liu, W. Bao, Z. Yuan, T. Chen, Q. Yang, and Z. Ren, Tip-enhanced supercon- ductivity driven by a Lifshitz transition in PdSb,Physical Review B106, 174520 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Paglione, C

    J. Paglione, C. Lupien, W. A. MacFarlane, J. M. Perz, L. Taillefer, Z. Q. Mao, and Y. Maeno, Elastic tensor of Sr2RuO4,Physical Review B65, 220506(R) (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Steppke, L

    A. Steppke, L. Zhao, M. E. Barber, T. Scaffidi, F. Jerzembeck, H. Rosner, A. S. Gibbs, Y. Maeno, S. H. Simon, A. P. Mackenzie, and C. W. Hicks, Strong peak inTc of Sr2RuO4 under uniaxial pressure,Science355, eaaf9398 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Sirohi, Anshu and Gayen, Sirshendu and Aslam, Mohammad and Sheet, Goutam, Mesoscopic superconductivity above 10K in silicon point contacts, Appl. Phys. Lett.113, 242601 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Gamayunova, N. V. and Kuzmiak, M. and Szabó, P. and Samuely, P. and Naidyuk, Yu. G., Superconductivity in hole-doped germanium point contacts, Low Temp. Phys. ,48(2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Zhang, Z

    X. Zhang, Z. Liu, Q. Lu, H. Zeng, X. Wang, H. Liu, Q. Li, and Y. Tian, High-pressure phase transitions and electronic properties of TaAs Weyl semimetal,Solid State Communications 236, 44 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    X Di, H Ji, W Gao, M Tian, H Wang, J Wang, Interface superconductivity in the point contact between topological semimetals polymorphicP tBi2 and ferromagnetic tips.,Quantum Frontiers3, 18 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    H. Wang, Y. Liu, M. Gong, H. Jiang, X. Gao, X. Ma, X. Luo, X. Ji, J. Ge, S. Jia, P. Gao, Z. Wang, X. C. Xie and J. Wang, Emergent superconductivity in topological-kagome- magnet/metal heterostructures,Nature Communications14, 6998 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Aslam M, Singh CK, Das S, Kumar R, Datta S, Halder S, Gayen S, Kabir M, Sheet G, Enhancement of superconductivity in Zr at mesoscopic point contacts,Applied Physics Letters 113, 012601 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Monish , N.S

    M. Monish , N.S. Mehta, Ghulam Mohmad and G Sheet, Enhancement of superconductivity at mesoscopic point contacts on Ti,Applied Physics Letters138, 233902 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Y. N. Zhang, D. J. Su,*, Z. Y. Shan, Z. H. Yang, J. W. Zhang, R. Li, M. Smidman, and H. Q. Yuan, Superconductivity of cerium under pressures up to 54 GPa, Physics Review B108, 094502(2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    J. W. Allen and R. M. Martin, Kondo volume collapse and theγ→αtransition in cerium, 14 Physical Review Letters49, 1106 (1982)

    1982

  32. [40]

    Tabassum, S

    M. Tabassum, S. Barua, Md.T. Rashid and I.M. Syed, Exploring the structural, electronic, mechanical and optical behavior of two phases of topological superconductor candidate Au2Pb by first-principles calculations,Physica B706, 417112 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Ghulam Mohmad, Vishal Tripathi and Goutam Sheet, Tip-induced superconductivity in ele- mental antimony and yttrium,Physical Review B(2026), (unpublished)

    2026

  34. [42]

    L. M. Schoop, M. N. Ali, C. Straßer, A. Topp, A. Varykhalov, D. Marchenko, V. Duppel, S. S. P. Parkin, B. V. Lotsch, and C. R. Ast, Dirac cone protected by non-symmorphic symme- try and three-dimensional Dirac line node in ZrSiS,Nature Communications7, 11696 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Lorenz, J. P. and Linnartz, J. F. and Kool, A. and van Delft, M. R. and Guo, W. and Aguilera, I. and Singha, R. and Schoop, L. M. and Hussey, N. E. and Wiedmann, S. and de Visser, A., Uniaxial strain effects on the Fermi surface and quantum mobility of the Dirac nodal-line sem...

    2024

  36. [44]

    VanGennep, T

    D. VanGennep, T. A. Paul, C. W. Yerger, S. T. Weir, Y. K. Vohra, and J. J. Hamlin, Possi- ble pressure-induced topological quantum phase transition in the nodal line semimetal ZrSiS, Physical Review B99, 085204 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    K. D. Litasov, A. Shatskiy, Y. Fei, A. Suzuki, E. Ohtani, and K. Funakoshi, Pressure-volume- temperature equation of state of tungsten carbide to 32 GPa and 1673 K,Journal of Applied Physics108, 053513 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Eichler and W

    A. Eichler and W. Gey, Superconductivity inα- andω-zirconium under high pressure, Zeitschrift für Physik251, 321 (1972)

    1972

  39. [47]

    Hsieh, D

    D. Hsieh, D. Qian, L. Wray, Y. Xia, Y. S. Hor, R. J. Cava, and M. Z. Hasan, A topological Dirac insulator in a quantum spin Hall phase,Nature452, 970 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    G. Yao, Z. Luo, F. Pan, W. Xu, Y. P. Feng, and X.-s. Wang, Evolution of topological surface states in antimony ultra-thin films,Scientific Reports3, 2010 (2013)

    2010

  41. [49]

    T. R. R. McDonald, E. Gregory, G. S. Barberich, D. B. McWhan, T. H. Geballe, and G. W. Hull, Superconductivity of antimony at high pressures,Physics Letters14, 16 (1965)

    1965

  42. [50]

    H. Cynn, C. S. Yoo, B. Barrv, V. Iota-Herbei, A. K. McMahan, M. Nicol, and S. Carlson, Martensitic fcc-to-hR24 transformation observed in xenon at high pressure,Physical Review Letters86, 4552 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    Probst and J

    C. Probst and J. Wittig, Superconductivity: metals, alloys and compounds, inHandbook on 15 the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths, vol. 1, p. 749 (1978)

    1978

  44. [52]

    Vohra, YK and Olijnik, H and Grosshans, W and Holzapfel, WB, Structural phase transitions in yttrium under pressure,Physical Review Letters47,1065 (1981)

    1981

  45. [53]

    Monish, N

    M. Monish, N. S. Mehta, M. Garg, and G. Sheet, Conventional superconductivity above 20 K in cerium point contacts,Physical Review B113, 134522 (2026). 16

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.