Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 53 references

At f=1, only a closely spaced super-honeycomb Josephson array shows a critical-current minimum under in-plane field, a signature the authors attribute to super-honeycomb vortex geometry combined with Andreev bound-state hybridization.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A closely spaced super-honeycomb Josephson junction array shows a critical-current minimum at filling factor f=1 under an in-plane magnetic field, absent in square and large-spacing control arrays.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A credible new experimental signature, but the paper's central causal claim about ABS hybridization outruns the evidence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16500 v1 pith:6APVS3DI submitted 2026-07-17 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Observation of Critical Current Minimum in Super-Honeycomb Josephson Junction Arrays

Melissa Mikalsen , Alexander-Georg Penner , Samuel D. Escribano , Nadav Drechsler , Arunav Bordoloi , Jacob Issokson , Felix von Oppen , Yuval Oreg
show 1 more author
Javad Shabani
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords Josephson junction arraysAndreev bound statesAndreev crystal regimesuper-honeycomb latticecritical current minimumin-plane magnetic fieldRashba spin-orbit couplingvortex frustration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 reports transport measurements on three Al-InAs Josephson junction arrays: a square array, a super-honeycomb array with junction spacing smaller than the Andreev bound-state coherence length (ξ_ABS > d_JJ), and a larger-spacing super-honeycomb control with ξ_ABS ≲ d_JJ. Under an out-of-plane field, all arrays show critical-current peaks at rational flux frustrations, reflecting stable vortex configurations. The key new claim is that at frustration f=1, the dense super-honeycomb array's critical current drops to a minimum near 100 mT in-plane field and then partially recovers before full depletion, while the square array and the large-spacing control show no such minimum. The authors interpret this as evidence that the signature is created jointly by the broken vortex-lattice symmetry of the super-honeycomb geometry and by hybridization of Andreev bound states across neighboring junctions—the so-called Andreev crystal regime. If correct, the in-plane-field dependence of the critical current becomes a diagnostic for inter-junction hybridization in strongly coupled superconductor-semiconductor arrays.

Core claim

The central claim is that at f=1 (one flux quantum per unit cell), the closely spaced super-honeycomb array exhibits a distinct minimum in its critical current as the magnitude of the in-plane magnetic field increases, followed by a re-emergence of supercurrent, whereas the square array and the larger-spaced super-honeycomb control do not. At zero frustration (f=0), the dense super-honeycomb array behaves like the square array, with critical current decreasing monotonically with in-plane field. The minimum appears only at f=1, where the super-honeycomb vortex lattice breaks symmetry: vortices sit in the six-junction plaquettes, and a uniform flux shift would move them to three-junction plaqu

What carries the argument

The argument hinges on two ingredients. First, the super-honeycomb lattice itself: its unit cell contains three hexagonal plaquettes, one-third of which are threaded by six Josephson junctions and two-thirds by three junctions, so the vortex configurations at different frustrations are not related by simple symmetry—at f=1 vortices localize to six-junction plaquettes, and adding one flux quantum per plaquette forces them into three-junction plaquettes. Second, the length-scale condition ξ_ABS > d_JJ, which places the dense devices in the Andreev crystal regime where Andreev bound states from neighboring junctions overlap and hybridize; the large-spacing control lies outside this regime. The

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that the only meaningful difference between the small and large super-honeycomb devices is the junction-spacing-to-coherence-length ratio, so the large device's lack of the f=1 minimum can be blamed on missing Andreev bound-state hybridization; if device-to-device disorder or a fabrication difference is responsible instead, the claim fails.

What would settle it

Fabricate a series of super-honeycomb arrays with identical geometry but junction spacing d_JJ straddling ξ_ABS ≈ 671 nm (e.g., 235 nm to 1.3 μm), and measure the f=1 critical current versus in-plane field. If the minimum persists for d_JJ ≳ ξ_ABS, the hybridization-length-scale attribution is wrong; if it appears only for d_JJ ≲ ξ_ABS, the attribution is supported.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At f=1, in-plane field suppresses and then partially restores the supercurrent in the dense super-honeycomb array, with the minimum near 100 mT; the square array and large-spacing control show monotonic suppression.
  • The f=1 minimum cannot be a Fraunhofer interference artifact, since the estimated first node is of order a few tesla and the feature is geometry- and filling-factor-dependent.
  • The frustrated XY model with φ0 phase shifts captures stable vortex locations (6-junction plaquettes at f=1, 3-junction at f=2) and the disordering effect of in-plane field, but not the minimum, pointing to physics beyond nearest-neighbor XY coupling.
  • The observation provides an experimental handle on the Andreev crystal regime: in-plane field at finite frustration distinguishes hybridized from non-hybridized arrays.
  • The device geometry was chosen with proposals for two-dimensional chiral topological superconducting phases in mind; the authors state that reaching that phase will require electrostatic gating, which the current un-gated devices do not have.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the hybridization explanation would be to grade d_JJ continuously around ξ_ABS ≈ 671 nm while holding the super-honeycomb geometry fixed; the minimum's depth should track the hybridization strength if the paper's interpretation is right.
  • The same f=1 minimum might be reproduced in a square array if its two sublattices were made inequivalent; this would separate the role of lattice symmetry from the role of the hexagonal plaquette shape.
  • Because the minimum appears at fields far below the single-junction topological phase transition scale, it may serve as a low-field indicator for collective topological behavior if the proposed chiral superconducting phase is eventually realized in gated versions of these arrays—a step the authors do not take themselves.
  • If the in-plane-field direction is rotated away from the bond axes, the minimum should shift or split according to which set of junctions dominates the hybridization; measuring the full angular dependence at f=1 could map the spatial structure of the hybridized states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports magnetotransport measurements on three Al-InAs Josephson junction arrays: a square array, a small super-honeycomb array with estimated Andreev-bound-state coherence length exceeding the inter-junction spacing (ξABS > dJJ), and a larger-spacing super-honeycomb control (ξABS ≲ dJJ). Out-of-plane field maps show commensurate critical-current peaks at rational frustrations; in-plane field angle sweeps show periodic critical-current oscillations attributed to Rashba spin-orbit coupling. The central new observation is that, at frustration f = 1, the small super-honeycomb array exhibits a nonmonotonic dependence of the critical current on the magnitude of the in-plane field, with a minimum near 100 mT, whereas this feature is reported as absent in the square array and in the large super-honeycomb control. The authors interpret this as a signature jointly produced by the super-honeycomb geometry and long-range inter-junction Andreev bound-state hybridization. A frustrated XY/RCSJ model reproduces stable vortex configurations and in-plane-field-induced vortex disorder, but the text concedes that the model does not reproduce the f = 1 minimum.

Significance. If the observation is robust, it adds a new geometry- and length-scale-dependent magnetotransport fingerprint in strongly coupled superconductor-semiconductor Josephson junction arrays, a regime relevant to proposals for two-dimensional topological superconducting phases. The experimental work is careful, and the comparison among three array geometries is a useful step. However, the manuscript's central causal attribution—that the f = 1 minimum is jointly caused by super-honeycomb geometry and long-range ABS hybridization—is not supported by the presented evidence: the XY model does not reproduce the feature, no hybridization-inclusive calculation is provided, and each geometry is represented by a single device. The stated conclusion therefore exceeds what the data and simulations currently justify.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; text after Fig. 4; Conclusion] The abstract attributes the f = 1 minimum to long-range inter-junction hybridization, but the paper explicitly states that the XY model, Eq. (1), is insufficient to explain the minimum and suggests that this is because the model omits next-nearest-neighbor coupling. No calculation or model that includes ABS hybridization or NNN couplings is presented. The causal attribution to hybridization is therefore unsupported. Either add a concrete model (e.g., NNN Josephson couplings or an ABS band-structure calculation) that reproduces the nonmonotonic behavior, or restrict the central claim to an observation of a geometry- and length-scale-dependent minimum without a specific microscopic origin.
  2. [Fig. 1(b,c); Fig. 3(e,f); parameter estimates around xi_ABS ~ 671 nm] The central comparison is a single device per geometry. The absence of the minimum in the large super-honeycomb control is a single-device null result and could reflect uncontrolled device-to-device differences (disorder, contact configuration, normal-state resistance, fabrication scatter) rather than the intended xi_ABS/d_JJ variation. Moreover, the length-scale separation is marginal: the 6-JJ plaquettes of the control device have d_JJ ~ 670 nm, essentially equal to the estimated xi_ABS ~ 671 nm, so the control is not cleanly in the xi_ABS less than d_JJ regime. The claim that the minimum is governed by the Andreev-crystal length scale requires additional devices and/or a direct measure of inter-junction hybridization.
  3. [Fig. 3(e); discussion of full suppression and re-emergence] The f = 1 minimum is described as a suppression and re-emergence of the supercurrent, but the displayed data show a dip near 100 mT followed by partial recovery before eventual depletion. The quantitative depth, width, and reproducibility of the feature are not extracted. The paper would be strengthened by reporting dI_c/I_c(B||=0) at the minimum, showing the full in-plane-field range, and demonstrating repeatability across cooldowns or nominally identical devices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Text after Fig. 4] The text contains the typo 'xiABC' where 'xiABS' is clearly intended.
  2. [Throughout] Numerous references to supplementary sections appear as unresolved placeholders 'S.??'. For a journal submission these must be replaced with actual section numbers.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The phi0 phase shift is defined only up to a proportionality. Please give the full expression, including the proportionality constant, the sign convention, and the definitions of E_z and L_ij.
  4. [Introduction and parameter estimate] The estimate xi_ABS = sqrt(xi_0 l) = 671 nm should be reconciled with the earlier formula xi_ABS = xi/(sqrt(T_N) |sin(phi/2)|). The values of T_N and phi used for the estimate are not stated.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] Typo: 'wih' should be 'with'.
  6. [Fig. 2 discussion] The explanation of the 0/180 versus 90/270 asymmetry in terms of contact injection is plausible but qualitative; a more quantitative account (e.g., an effective series-junction model with contact widths) would improve the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the f=1 minimum is an independent experimental observation that the XY model explicitly fails to reproduce; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claimed result, the critical-current minimum at f=1 in the closely spaced super-honeycomb array, is raw experimental data (Fig. 3(e)); no model parameter is fitted to it and the paper explicitly concedes: 'the XY model presented here is insufficient to explain the minimum in the critical current at f=1'. The vortex-lattice predictions (vortices on 6-junction plaquettes at f=1, 3-junction plaquettes at f=2) come from a frustrated XY model whose geometry is fixed by SEM and whose frustration is fixed by the measured unit-cell area, so the observed peaks are independent consistency checks rather than constructed outputs. The regime classification uses an independently estimated xi_ABS = sqrt(xi0 l) based on measured l, n, Tc and literature m*, with d_JJ from SEM; this classification is not equivalent to the observed minimum. Self-citations ([34] 'Andreev crystal', [35] heterostructure, [36,46] spin-orbit effects) supply terminology, platform, and single-junction phenomenology; none is the sole evidence for the minimum. The paper itself hedges the causal attribution ('may relate to', 'presumably because'), and the single-device control comparison is an inference-strength/confounding concern, not a circular reduction. No quotation exhibits a load-bearing step whose conclusion equals its input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the estimated Andreev coherence length, the assumed domain validity of the XY model with phi0 shifts, and the unstated premise that single devices represent their geometry class. The model does not reproduce the key anomaly, so the main explanatory weight falls on the interpretation rather than on a closed derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • xi_ABS (Andreev coherence length estimate) = ~671 nm
    Estimated as sqrt(xi_0*l) using xi_0 ~ 1.66 um, l=271 nm, Delta ~ 160 ueV, and m*=0.024 me; the classification of the small device as xi_ABS > d_JJ and the hybridization interpretation depend on this estimate.
  • Spin-orbit length l_SO = ~300 nm (Ref. [36])
    Used to attribute the angle-dependent Ic oscillations to Rashba spin-orbit coupling; not measured in these devices.
  • E_J and junction-length disorder parameters in XY/RCSJ simulations = unspecified
    Eq. (1) fixes E_J as the energy scale; in Eq. (2), L_ij are drawn from an unspecified normal distribution. These parameters govern the simulated vortex configurations and disorder.
  • Rashba coefficient alpha / phi0 prefactor = unspecified
    Eq. (2) defines phi0 as proportional to alpha E_Z L_ij sin(theta_ij); no numerical value is given, so the in-plane-field simulation predictions are not quantitatively fixed.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Frustration f = B_perp A_uc / Phi_0 with commensurate vortex lattice determines critical-current peaks.
    Standard JJA description; used throughout Fig. 1 and to assign f.
  • domain assumption The condition xi_ABS > d_JJ implies neighboring Andreev states hybridize into an 'Andreev crystal'.
    Central interpretive framework; based on Refs. [29-34], not directly measured here.
  • domain assumption In-plane magnetic field enters via a phi0 phase shift proportional to Rashba strength, with structural disorder in junction lengths.
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(2) for simulations; no microscopic derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Single devices are representative of their geometry/length-scale class.
    The three arrays are compared without replication or statistical error bars; the conclusion relies on this.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of Critical Current Minimum in Super-Honeycomb Josephson Junction Arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6APVS3DI

@misc{pith2026260716500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of Critical Current Minimum in Super-Honeycomb Josephson Junction Arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6APVS3DI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16500}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Superconductor-semiconductor Josephson junction arrays are a uniquely tunable platform for studying collective quantum phenomena, particularly in the regime where localized Andreev bound states can hybridize across the lattice when the physical separation between adjacent junctions is smaller than their coherence length ($\xi_{\text{ABS}}>d_{\text{JJ}}$). Here, we investigate three distinct Al-InAs Josephson junction arrays: a square array and super-honeycomb array fabricated within this ${\xi_{\text{ABS}}>d_{\text{JJ}}}$ regime, as well as a larger-spacing super-honeycomb control device designed such that $\xi_{\text{ABS}}\lesssim\!~d_{\text{JJ}}$. Under an out-of-plane field, critical current peaks emerge at rational filling factors, reflecting stable vortex configurations in the lattices. In the super-honeycomb lattice, vortices localize to distinct non-identical plaquettes at different filling factors, as predicted by frustrated XY model simulations. A rotating in-plane field yields periodic critical current oscillations that reflect the Rashba spin-orbit coupling inherent to the InAs quantum well. Surprisingly, at $f = 1$, the closely spaced super-honeycomb array exhibits a distinct critical current minimum as the magnitude of the in-plane field increases, a signature absent in the square array and large-spacing super-honeycomb array. These results indicate that this signature is jointly influenced by the unique geometry of the super-honeycomb vortex lattice and by long-range inter-junction hybridization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16500 by Alexander-Georg Penner, Arunav Bordoloi, Felix von Oppen, Jacob Issokson, Javad Shabani, Melissa Mikalsen, Nadav Drechsler, Samuel D. Escribano, Yuval Oreg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

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

53 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Resnick, J

    D. Resnick, J. Garland, J. Boyd, S. Shoemaker, and R. Newrock, Physical Review Letters47, 1542 (1981)

    1981

  2. [2]

    Cosmic, K

    R. Cosmic, K. Kawabata, Y. Ashida, H. Ikegami, S. Fu- rukawa, P. Patil, J. Taylor, and Y. Nakamura, Physical Review B102, 094509 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Van Wees, H

    B. Van Wees, H. Van der Zant, and J. Mooij, Physical Review B35, 7291 (1987)

    1987

  4. [4]

    D. W. Abraham, C. Lobb, M. Tinkham, and T. Klapwijk, Physical Review B26, 5268 (1982)

    1982

  5. [5]

    Martinoli and C

    P. Martinoli and C. Leemann, Journal of Low Tempera- ture Physics118, 699 (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    Newrock, C

    R. Newrock, C. Lobb, U. Geigenm¨ uller, and M. Octavio, inSolid state physics, Vol. 54 (Elsevier, 2000) pp. 263– 512

    2000

  7. [7]

    Fazio and H

    R. Fazio and H. Van Der Zant, Physics Reports355, 235 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    Bøttcher, F

    C. Bøttcher, F. Nichele, M. Kjaergaard, H. Suomi- nen, J. Shabani, C. Palmstrøm, and C. Marcus, Nature Physics14, 1138 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Teitel and C

    S. Teitel and C. Jayaprakash, Physical Review B27, 598 (1983)

    1983

  10. [10]

    Ashrafuzzaman, M

    M. Ashrafuzzaman, M. Capezzali, and H. Beck, Physical Review B68, 052502 (2003)

    2003

  11. [11]

    Van der Zant, F

    H. Van der Zant, F. Fritschy, W. Elion, L. Geerligs, and J. Mooij, Physical review letters69, 2971 (1992)

    1992

  12. [12]

    Trias, J

    E. Trias, J. Phillips, H. van der Zant, and T. Orlando, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity5, 2707 (1995)

    1995

  13. [13]

    Bøttcher, F

    C. Bøttcher, F. Nichele, J. Shabani, C. Palmstrøm, and C. Marcus, Physical Review B108, 134517 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Bøttcher, F

    C. Bøttcher, F. Nichele, J. Shabani, C. Palmstrøm, and C. Marcus, Physical Review B110, L180502 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Sasmal, M

    S. Sasmal, M. Efthymiou-Tsironi, G. Nagda, E. Fugl, L. Olsen, F. Krizek, C. Marcus, and S. Vaitiek˙ enas, Phys- ical Review Letters135, 156301 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Reinhardt, A.-G

    S. Reinhardt, A.-G. Penner, J. Berger, C. Baumgartner, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. J. Manfra, L. I. Glazman, F. von Oppen,et al., Physical Review B 112, 224503 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Baumgartner, L

    C. Baumgartner, L. Fuchs, A. Costa, S. Reinhardt, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. J. Manfra, P. E. Faria Junior, D. Kochan,et al., Nature nanotech- nology17, 39 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Teitel and C

    S. Teitel and C. Jayaprakash, Physical review letters51, 1999 (1983)

    1999

  19. [19]

    Tinkham, D

    M. Tinkham, D. W. Abraham, and C. Lobb, Physical Review B28, 6578 (1983)

    1983

  20. [20]

    T. C. Halsey, Physical Review B31, 5728 (1985)

    1985

  21. [21]

    Lin and F

    Y.-L. Lin and F. Nori, Physical Review B65, 214504 (2002)

    2002

  22. [22]

    Park and D

    K. Park and D. A. Huse, Physical Review B64, 134522 (2001)

    2001

  23. [23]

    Teller, C

    J. Teller, C. Sch¨ afer, K. Moors, B. Bennemann, M. Ly- atti, F. Lentz, D. Gr¨ utzmacher, R.-P. Riwar, and T. Sch¨ apers, Physical review letters135, 156002 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Bondar, L

    J. Bondar, L. Banszerus, W. Marshall, T. Lindemann, T. Zhang, M. Manfra, C. Marcus, and S. Vaitiek˙ enas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07412 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Tinkham,Introduction to superconductivity(Courier Corporation, 2004)

    M. Tinkham,Introduction to superconductivity(Courier Corporation, 2004)

    2004

  26. [26]

    Andreevet al., Sov

    A. Andreevet al., Sov. Phys. JETP20, 1490 (1965)

    1965

  27. [27]

    Blonder, m

    G. Blonder, m. M. Tinkham, and T. Klapwijk, Physical Review B25, 4515 (1982)

    1982

  28. [28]

    Prada, P

    E. Prada, P. San-Jose, M. W. de Moor, A. Geresdi, E. J. Lee, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, J. Nyg ˚ ard, R. Aguado, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Nature Reviews Physics2, 575 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    Pillet, V

    J.-D. Pillet, V. Benzoni, J. Griesmar, J.-L. Smirr, and C. O. Girit, Nano letters19, 7138 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Pillet, V

    J.-D. Pillet, V. Benzoni, J. Griesmar, J.-L. Smirr, and C ¸ . Girit, SciPost Physics Core2, 009 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Kornich, H

    V. Kornich, H. S. Barakov, and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033004 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    D. Z. Haxell, M. Coraiola, M. Hinderling, S. C. Ten Kate, D. Sabonis, A. E. Svetogorov, W. Belzig, E. Cheah, F. Krizek, R. Schott,et al., Nano Letters23, 7532 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Matsuo, T

    S. Matsuo, T. Imoto, T. Yokoyama, Y. Sato, T. Linde- mann, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, S. Nakosai, Y. Tanaka, M. J. Manfra,et al., Nature Communications14, 8271 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    A. E. Dahl, A. Maiani, M. Geier, J. Shabani, and K. Flensberg, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11768 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Shabani, M

    J. Shabani, M. Kjærgaard, H. J. Suominen, Y. Kim, F. Nichele, K. Pakrouski, T. Stankevic, R. M. Lutchyn, P. Krogstrup, R. Feidenhans’l,et al., Physical Review B 93, 155402 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Farzaneh, M

    S. Farzaneh, M. Hatefipour, W. F. Schiela, N. Lotfizadeh, P. Yu, B. H. Elfeky, W. M. Strickland, A. Matos-Abiague, and J. Shabani, Physical Review Research6, 013039 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Lesser, A

    O. Lesser, A. Stern, and Y. Oreg, Physical Review B109, 144519 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    K. S. Wickramasinghe, W. Mayer, J. Yuan, T. Nguyen, L. Jiao, V. Manucharyan, and J. Shabani, Applied Physics Letters113(2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    Adachi,Properties of semiconductor alloys: group-IV, III-V and II-VI semiconductors(John Wiley & Sons, 2009)

    S. Adachi,Properties of semiconductor alloys: group-IV, III-V and II-VI semiconductors(John Wiley & Sons, 2009)

    2009

  40. [40]

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

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Mayer, J

    W. Mayer, J. Yuan, K. S. Wickramasinghe, T. Nguyen, M. C. Dartiailh, and J. Shabani, Applied Physics Letters 8 114(2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    Lankhorst, A

    M. Lankhorst, A. Brinkman, H. Hilgenkamp, N. Poccia, and A. Golubov, Condensed Matter3, 19 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Rzchowski, S

    M. Rzchowski, S. Benz, M. Tinkham, and C. Lobb, Phys- ical Review B42, 2041 (1990)

    2041

  44. [44]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Physical review letters100, 096407 (2008)

    2008

  45. [46]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [47]

    Buzdin, Physical review letters101, 107005 (2008)

    A. Buzdin, Physical review letters101, 107005 (2008)

    2008

  47. [48]

    Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Physical review letters105, 177002 (2010)

    2010

  48. [49]

    R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Physical review letters105, 077001 (2010)

    2010

  49. [50]

    Pientka, A

    F. Pientka, A. Keselman, E. Berg, A. Yacoby, A. Stern, and B. I. Halperin, Physical Review X7, 021032 (2017)

    2017

  50. [51]

    M. Hell, M. Leijnse, and K. Flensberg, Physical review letters118, 107701 (2017)

    2017

  51. [52]

    H. Ren, F. Pientka, S. Hart, A. T. Pierce, M. Kosowsky, L. Lunczer, R. Schlereth, B. Scharf, E. M. Hankiewicz, L. W. Molenkamp,et al., Nature569, 93 (2019)

    2019

  52. [53]

    Fornieri, A

    A. Fornieri, A. M. Whiticar, F. Setiawan, E. Portol´ es, A. C. Drachmann, A. Keselman, S. Gronin, C. Thomas, T. Wang, R. Kallaher,et al., Nature569, 89 (2019)

    2019

  53. [54]

    M. C. Dartiailh, W. Mayer, J. Yuan, K. S. Wickramas- inghe, A. Matos-Abiague, I. ˇZuti´ c, and J. Shabani, Phys- ical Review Letters126, 036802 (2021)

    2021

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.