Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Edge superconductivity in Multilayer WTe2 Josephson junction

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that in thin multilayer WTe2 Josephson junctions the supercurrent is confined to edge channels up to 1.4 μm wide, while thick flakes carry it uniformly through the bulk.

desk verdict A believable qualitative edge-vs-bulk supercurrent result in multilayer WTe2, whose quantitative extraction is model-dependent and should be read with caution. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02433 v2 pith:6CJ5LPR3 submitted 2019-09-05 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall PACS 74.50.+r73.20.-r
keywords WTe2type-IIWeylsemimetalJosephsonjunctionedgesuperconductivitysuperconductingquantuminterferenceFraunhoferpatternSQUIDasymmetriceffect
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

Using critical-current interference in Nb/WTe2/Nb Josephson junctions, the paper shows that the supercurrent distribution changes with WTe2 thickness. In thick flakes (~60 nm) the supercurrent is uniform across the junction and the interference pattern is a standard Fraunhofer single-slit pattern. In thin flakes (~10–13 nm) the supercurrent is localized near the sample edges, with edge channels about 1.3–1.4 μm wide and an edge/bulk supercurrent density ratio up to 2.76. The authors are careful to state that this edge superconductivity is not claimed to be carried by topological edge modes and does not by itself evidence a topological superconducting phase. The result offers a thickness-controlled way to separate edge from bulk supercurrent in a type-II Weyl semimetal candidate and to probe inversion-symmetry-breaking effects through the asymmetric critical current.

What carries the argument

The central object is the superconducting-quantum-interference relation $I_c^{\max}(B) = \left|\int J_c(x) \cos(2\pi L_{\mathrm{eff}} B x / \Phi_0)\, dx\right|$, which converts the magnetic-field dependence of the critical current into a real-space map of supercurrent density, given an effective junction length $L_{\mathrm{eff}}$ that accounts for flux focusing and London penetration. The paper uses the uniform-density limit (Fraunhofer formula) for thick flakes and an edge-stepped current-density model for thin flakes; this transform-type machinery is what lets a transport measurement claim spatial localization.

What would settle it

A scanning SQUID microscope image of the magnetic field above a thin (≈10 nm) device biased near its critical current would show two localized current filaments near the physical edges if edge superconductivity is real; a uniform or central distribution would falsify the claim. Alternatively, chemically etching away the mesa edges of a thin device should remove the SQUID-like side lobes from $I_c(B)$ if edge channels carry the supercurrent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a lateral Nb/WTe2/Nb Josephson junction made from a thin (about 10 nm) WTe2 flake carries its supercurrent predominantly through regions near the two mesa edges, not through the interior, and that this edge domination disappears when the flake is thick (about 60 nm). The evidence comes from the magnetic-field dependence of the critical current: thick flakes show symmetric Fraunhofer oscillations consistent with uniform $J_c$, while thin flakes show a mixture of Fraunhofer and SQUID-like lobes, which the authors fit with an edge-stepped supercurrent model to extract edge channels 1.3–1.4 μm wide. The paper further shows that a 16 nm junction with two electrode pairs conducts only when the electrodes cross the edge, and that the critical current in thin devices is asymmetric in the swept current direction ($|I_c^+(B)| \neq |I_c^-(B)|$), which they attribute to the two edges having different Fermi velocities under inversion-symmetry breaking. Finally, they explicitly state that the edge superconductivity is not equivalent to topological edge-mode superconductivity and is not evidence of a topological superconducting phase.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the measured critical-current oscillations are accurately described by the cosine-transform integral with a reliably known effective junction length $L_{\mathrm{eff}}$, so that the edge widths extracted from the fit reflect the true supercurrent distribution; incorrect $L_{\mathrm{eff}}$, flux-focusing artifacts, or inhomogeneous interfaces would undermine the edge-localization conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thickness is a control knob: the edge/bulk supercurrent ratio rises as WTe2 is thinned, with the estimated crossover from bulk- to edge-dominated superconductivity at 16–20 nm.
  • Edge-crossing electrode pairs show Josephson coupling while edge-untouched pairs on the same flake do not, so junction geometry can be used to couple selectively to edge channels.
  • The asymmetric critical-current response $|I_c^+(B)| \neq |I_c^-(B)|$ in thin samples is an observable signature of inversion-symmetry breaking at the edges, and the bulk contribution to this asymmetry is excluded by the symmetric response of thick flakes.
  • The same SQI mapping method can be applied to other layered semimetals with surface or edge states to search for analogous edge superconductivity.
  • If the edge channels are eventually tied to topological boundary states, Josephson junctions on thin WTe2 become a candidate platform for topological superconductivity and Majorana bound states; the present work does not itself establish that.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to use Shapiro-step measurements on edge-dominated junctions: a topological edge supercurrent should produce a 4π-periodic a.c. Josephson response, whereas a trivial edge channel would not; the paper mentions this as a future direction, so the test is concrete.
  • The extracted edge width of 1.3–1.4 μm is much larger than an atomic one-dimensional channel, suggesting the 'edge' is a mesoscopic region—possibly Fermi-arc surface states, a finite proximity coherence length, or bulk states weakly coupled to the edge. Experiments on narrower junctions or with gate-defined edges could disentangle these.
  • The asymmetry in $I_c(B)$ could be made a quantitative probe of inversion breaking: reversing the crystal orientation or applying an in-plane magnetic field should swap or modify the $I_1$ vs $I_2$ imbalance in the two-edge Josephson formula.
  • One could test the crossover thickness prediction (16–20 nm) by fabricating a thickness-gradient device and mapping the supercurrent distribution continuously with SQI, avoiding sample-to-sample variation.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports superconducting quantum interference (SQI) measurements on Nb/WTe2/Nb Josephson junctions made from multilayer WTe2 flakes of different thicknesses. In thick flakes (~60 nm), the critical-current modulation is a Fraunhofer-like pattern and the inferred supercurrent density is approximately uniform across the junction. In thin flakes (10–16 nm), the pattern becomes a mixture of Fraunhofer and SQUID-like oscillations with a narrower central lobe, which the authors interpret as supercurrent confined to edge channels of width 1.3–1.4 μm, with an edge/bulk supercurrent density ratio up to 2.76. The authors also report an asymmetry |Ic+(B)| ≠ |Ic−(B)| in thin devices, and an R1/R2 comparison where an edge-crossing junction is superconducting while an edge-untouched junction is not. The paper is careful to state that the observed edge superconductivity is not evidence of topological edge modes or a topological superconducting phase.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a clear thickness-controlled crossover from bulk-dominated to edge-dominated supercurrent in a type-II Weyl semimetal, which is of genuine interest for proposals to realize topological superconductivity in WTe2. The study benefits from several strengths: SQI data are shown for multiple devices of different thicknesses; the Fraunhofer-to-SQUID-like crossover is read directly from the interference patterns and does not depend on the fitted model; devices #1, #2, and #3 reproduce the edge-dominated pattern; the R1/R2 control junction in Fig. 3 is a useful additional comparison; and the authors explicitly disclaim any inference about topological edge modes. The quantitative edge width and edge/bulk amplitude ratio, however, depend on an assumed current-density profile and are not supported by uncertainty estimates or model comparison, which limits the strength of the quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [The superconducting quantum interference measurements; SI Section VI] Equation (1) records only the modulus of a Fourier transform of J_c(x), so many different spatial profiles produce the same I_c(B) envelope. The extracted edge widths of 1.3–1.4 μm and the edge/bulk ratio of 2.76 in Fig. 4 are obtained by fitting the edge-stepped model of SI Section VI to device #2, and no error bars, raw data residuals, or comparison with alternative J_c(x) profiles are provided. The Discussion itself concedes that trivial edge states and inhomogeneous interfaces can also produce a similar non-uniform supercurrent. Since the quantitative edge-confinement claims rest on this model, the authors should either provide model comparison and uncertainties or explicitly relegate the quantitative widths and ratios to illustrative status.
  2. [Figure 3 and accompanying text] The R1/R2 comparison confounds edge-crossing geometry with junction length: the edge-crossing channel R1 has L_b~0.4 μm, while the edge-untouched channel R2 has L_s~4 μm on the edge side. The stronger coupling of R1 is therefore expected from its shorter electrode separation even without any edge-specific conduction. To support the edge-specific claim, the authors need a control with comparable junction lengths or quantitative modeling that accounts for the geometric difference.
  3. [Discussion, paragraph on |Ic+(B)| ≠ |Ic−(B)|] The claim that the non-symmetric critical current is an intrinsic property of inversion-symmetry-broken edges, expressed through Eq. (2) with I1 ≠ I2, is presented as the likely explanation, but the authors list vortex trapping and vortex motion as alternative possibilities. The observation of symmetric behavior in the thick sample reduces but does not eliminate these alternatives for the thin junctions, because flux trapping and vortex configurations depend on junction dimensions and edge properties. This point should be framed as a conjecture rather than a conclusion, or supported by additional measurements such as repeated field sweeps or a systematic comparison of symmetric and asymmetric devices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Discussion] The sentence 'we need to point out that the edge superconductivity we observed is not equivalent to the superconductivity in the edge modes nor any evidence of toplogical super conducting phase' contains a typo ('toplogical') and should be rephrased for clarity.
  2. [Discussion, paragraph on trivial effects] The phrase 'the affection by the SiO2 substrate and the capping layer' should be changed to 'the effect of the SiO2 substrate and the capping layer'.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] In subpanel (e), the text says the supercurrent is carried by the helical edge states, but the Discussion later states that the observed edge superconductivity is not evidence of topological edge modes. The caption should use language consistent with that caveat, e.g., 'putative edge states' or 'edge channels'.
  4. [Introduction, paragraph 2] The phrase 'It is then necessary to make them distinct from the coexisting bulk ones' is awkward; consider 'It is therefore necessary to distinguish them from the coexisting bulk states'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: the edge/bulk distinction is read from the measured Fraunhofer-to-SQUID crossover, and the fitted edge parameters are model-dependent extractions, not predictions defined by the data.

full rationale

Walk of the derivation chain: the two central observational claims are (i) a Fraunhofer pattern in ~60 nm WTe2, indicating uniform bulk supercurrent, and (ii) a mixed Fraunhofer/SQUID pattern in ~10 nm WTe2, indicating edge-dominated supercurrent. Claim (i) is read directly from the single-slit envelope and its inverse Fourier transform. Claim (ii)'s qualitative content, the sub-2-Phi0 central lobe with Phi0 side lobes, is likewise read directly from the measured interference map in Fig. 2f; the edge-stepped nonuniform supercurrent model is then used to reproduce that pattern and extract the edge widths (1.3-1.4 um) and later the edge/bulk ratio (2.76). Those quantitative outputs are obtained by fitting an assumed current profile to the same Ic(B) data, so they inherit the model's assumptions and are not independently tested, but this is ordinary parameter extraction rather than circularity: the edge-step parameters are not defined in terms of the measured pattern, and the extracted profile is not used to predict the same pattern from which it was fitted. The paper also explicitly concedes the model non-uniqueness: 'it is difficult to exclude other trivial effects such as trivial edge states. Moreover, the other trivial mechanisms can also lead to a similar non-uniform supercurrent such as an inhomogeneous interface,' and it disclaims the stronger topological interpretation: 'the edge superconductivity we observed is not equivalent to the superconductivity in the edge modes nor any evidence of toplogical super conducting phase.' The self-citations (refs. 13 and 36) concern crystal growth and proximity-effect studies and are not load-bearing for the SQI inference; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as an independent prediction. The only minor factor is the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations, so the score is 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard SQI analysis, a fitted edge-stepped current profile, and assumptions about bulk uniformity and isotropy of WTe2 resistance. These are reasonable but not all independently verified, which is why the quantitative edge width and edge/bulk ratio carry more uncertainty than the qualitative Fraunhofer-to-SQUID crossover.

free parameters (3)
  • edge supercurrent channel width = 1.3 - 1.4 um
    Fitted from the edge-stepped supercurrent model to reproduce the SQI pattern in thin WTe2 devices (Fig. 2f-g, SI Section VI).
  • edge/bulk supercurrent density amplitude ratio = up to 2.76 in 10 nm WTe2
    Estimated from the extracted position-dependent supercurrent density; enters Fig. 4 and supports the thickness-dependence conclusion.
  • effective junction length L_eff = about 1.0 um for device #8 with a 240 nm physical length
    Obtained from the SQI oscillation period and flux-focusing corrections; used in the Fourier relation to convert Ic(B) to Jc(x). Its value depends on London penetration depth and flux-focusing assumptions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The critical current interference pattern is governed by Ic_max(B) = |integral Jc(x) cos(2 pi L_eff B x / Phi0) dx|
    Standard SQI relation from ref 21, used to invert the measured pattern into supercurrent density. It assumes a phase-coherent junction with current flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field and an effective length L_eff; SI Section V.
  • domain assumption Supercurrent density in thick WTe2 is approximately uniform across the junction width
    Underlies the interpretation of the single-slit Fraunhofer pattern for the 60 nm device in Fig. 2b-c.
  • domain assumption Bulk resistance of WTe2 in the control device is isotropic and inversely proportional to junction width
    Used to interpret R1 versus R2 in the 16 nm device as isolating edge versus bulk coupling in Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. 2c-d.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-uniform supercurrent can be modeled by an edge-stepped profile with two edge channels and a bulk plateau
    The fit model in SI Section VI is chosen to reproduce the mixture of Fraunhofer and SQUID patterns; it is an assumed functional form, not derived from the microphysics of WTe2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Edge superconductivity in Multilayer WTe2 Josephson junction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6CJ5LPR3

@misc{pith2026190902433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Edge superconductivity in Multilayer WTe2 Josephson junction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6CJ5LPR3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02433}
}
abstract

WTe2, as a type-II Weyl semimetal, has 2D Fermi arcs on the (001) surface in the bulk and 1D helical edge states in its monolayer. These features have recently attracted wide attention in condensed matter physics. However, in the intermediate regime between the bulk and monolayer, the edge states have not been resolved owing to its closed band gap which makes the bulk states dominant. Here, we report the signatures of the edge superconductivity by superconducting quantum interference measurements in multilayer WTe2 Josephson junctions and we directly map the localized supercurrent. In thick WTe2 (~60 nm), the supercurrent is uniformly distributed by bulk states with symmetric Josephson effect ($\left|I_c^+(B)\right|=\left|I_c^-(B)\right|$). In thin WTe2 (10 nm), however, the supercurrent becomes confined to the edge and its width reaches up to 1.4 um and exhibits non-symmetric behavior $\left|I_c^+(B)\right|\neq \left|I_c^-(B)\right|$. The ability to tune the edge domination by changing thickness and the edge superconductivity establishes WTe2 as a promising topological system with exotic quantum phases and a rich physics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Type-II Weyl semimetals

    Soluyanov AA, Gresch D, Wang Z, et al. Type-II Weyl semimetals. Nature. 2015; 495-498: 495

  2. [2]

    Evidence for topological type -II Weyl semimetal WTe2

    Li P, Wen Y , He X, et al. Evidence for topological type -II Weyl semimetal WTe2. Nat Commun. 2017; 8(1): 2150

  3. [3]

    Custodial glide symmetry of quantum spin Hall edge modes in monolayer WTe2

    Ok S, Muechler L, Di Sante D , et al. Custodial glide symmetry of quantum spin Hall edge modes in monolayer WTe2. Phys Rev B. 2019; 99(12): 121105

  4. [4]

    Edge conduction in monolayer WTe2

    Fei Z, Palomaki T, Wu S, et al. Edge conduction in monolayer WTe2. Nat Phys. 2017; 13: 677-82

  5. [5]

    Observation of the quantum spin Hall effect up to 100 kelvin in a monolayer crystal

    Wu S, Fatemi V , Gibson QD, et al. Observation of the quantum spin Hall effect up to 100 kelvin in a monolayer crystal. Science. 2018; 359(6371): 76-9

  6. [6]

    Discovery of a Weyl Fermion Semimetal and Topological Fermi Arcs

    Xu S-Y , Belopolski I, Alidoust N, et al. Discovery of a Weyl Fermion Semimetal and Topological Fermi Arcs. Science. 2015; 349(6248): 613-7

  7. [7]

    Quantum spin Hall state in monolayer 1T'-WTe2

    Tang S, Zhang C, Wong D, et al. Quantum spin Hall state in monolayer 1T'-WTe2. Nat Phys. 2017; 13: 683-7

  8. [8]

    Electric-field-tuned topological phase transition in ultrathin Na3Bi

    Collins JL, Tadich A, Wu W , et al. Electric-field-tuned topological phase transition in ultrathin Na3Bi. Nature. 2018; 564(7736): 390-4

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Imaging quantum spin Hall ed ges in monolayer WTe2

    Shi Y , Kahn J, Niu B, et al. Imaging quantum spin Hall ed ges in monolayer WTe2. Sci Adv. 2019; 5(2): eaat8799

  2. [10]

    Higher-Order Topology, Monopole Nodal Lines, and the Origin of Large Fermi Arcs in Transition Metal Dichalcogenides XTe2(X=Mo,W)

    Wang Z, Wieder BJ, Li J, et al. Higher-Order Topology, Monopole Nodal Lines, and the Origin of Large Fermi Arcs in Transition Metal Dichalcogenides XTe2(X=Mo,W). Phys Rev Lett. 2019; 123(18): 186401

  3. [11]

    Realization of a Double-Slit SQUID Geometry by Fermi Arc Surface States in a WTe2 Weyl Semimetal

    Shvetsov OO, Kononov A, Timonina A V, et al. Realization of a Double-Slit SQUID Geometry by Fermi Arc Surface States in a WTe2 Weyl Semimetal. JETP Letters. 2018; 107(12): 774-9

  4. [12]

    Subharmonic Shapiro steps in the a.c

    Shvetsov OO, Kononov A, Timonina A V, et al. Subharmonic Shapiro steps in the a.c. Josephson effect for a three-dimensional Weyl semimetal WTe2. EPL (Europhysics Letters). 2018; 124(4): 47003

  5. [13]

    Proximity-induced surface superconductivity in Dirac semimetal Cd3As2

    Huang C, Zhou BT, Zhang H , et al. Proximity-induced surface superconductivity in Dirac semimetal Cd3As2. Nat Commun. 2019; 10(1): 2217

  6. [14]

    Josephson supercurrent through a topological insulator surface state

    Veldhorst M, Snelder M, Hoek M , et al. Josephson supercurrent through a topological insulator surface state. Nat Mater. 2012; 11: 417-21

  7. [15]

    Induced superconductivity in the quantum spin Hall edge

    Hart S, Ren H, Wagner T, et al. Induced superconductivity in the quantum spin Hall edge. Nat Phys. 2014; 10: 638-43

  8. [16]

    Local and Nonlocal Fraunhofer-like Pattern from an Edge-Stepped Topological Surface Josephson Current Distribution

    Lee JH, Lee G-H, Park J, et al. Local and Nonlocal Fraunhofer-like Pattern from an Edge-Stepped Topological Surface Josephson Current Distribution. Nano Lett. 2014; 14(9): 5029-34

  9. [17]

    Supercurrent in the quantum Hall regime

    Amet F, Ke CT, Borzenets IV , et al. Supercurrent in the quantum Hall regime. Science. 2016; 352(6288): 966-9

  10. [18]

    Josephson critical current in a long mesoscopic S -N-S junction

    Dubos P, Courtois H, Pannetier B , et al. Josephson critical current in a long mesoscopic S -N-S junction. Physical Review B. 2001; 63(6): 064502

  11. [19]

    Quantum oscillations of the critical current and high-field superconducting proximity in ballistic graphene

    Ben Shalom M, Zhu MJ, Fal’ko VI, et al. Quantum oscillations of the critical current and high-field superconducting proximity in ballistic graphene. Nat Phys. 2015; 12: 318-22

  12. [20]

    Josephson Currents through Junctions with Normal Metal Barriers

    Ishii C. Josephson Currents through Junctions with Normal Metal Barriers. Progress of Theoretical Physics. 1970; 44(6): 1525-47

  13. [21]

    Introduction to superconductivity

    Tinkham M. Introduction to superconductivity. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1975

  14. [22]

    Anomalous Fraunhofer interference in epitaxial superconductor-semiconductor Josephson junctions

    Suominen HJ, Danon J, Kjaergaard M , et al. Anomalous Fraunhofer interference in epitaxial superconductor-semiconductor Josephson junctions. Phys Rev B. 2017; 95(3): 035307

  15. [23]

    Pb/InAs Nanowire Josephson Junction with High Critical Current and Magnetic Flux Focusing

    Paajaste J, Amado M, Roddaro S , et al. Pb/InAs Nanowire Josephson Junction with High Critical Current and Magnetic Flux Focusing. Nano Lett. 2015; 15(3): 1803-8

  16. [24]

    h/e Superconducting Quantum Interference through Trivial Edge States in InAs

    de Vries FK, Timmerman T, Ostroukh VP, et al. h/e Superconducting Quantum Interference through Trivial Edge States in InAs. Phys Rev Lett. 2018; 120(4): 047702

  17. [25]

    Edge-mode superconductivity in a two -dimensional topological insulator

    Pribiag VS, Beukman AJA, Qu F , et al. Edge-mode superconductivity in a two -dimensional topological insulator. Nature Nanotechnology. 2015; 10(7): 593-7

  18. [26]

    Superconductor/Semiconductor Junctions

    Schä pers T. Superconductor/Semiconductor Junctions. Julich, Germany: Springer; 2001

  19. [27]

    Asymmetric Josephson effect in inversion symmetry breaking topological materials

    Chen C, He JJ, Ali MN , et al. Asymmetric Josephson effect in inversion symmetry breaking topological materials. Phys Rev B. 2018; 98(7): 075430

  20. [28]

    Josephson current in s -wave-superconductor Sr2RuO4 junctions

    Asano Y , Tanaka Y , Sigrist M , et al. Josephson current in s -wave-superconductor Sr2RuO4 junctions. Phys Rev B. 2003; 67(18): 184505

  21. [29]

    Evidence of higher -order topology in multil ayer WTe2 from Josephson coupling through anisotropic hinge states

    Choi Y-B, Xie Y , Chen C-Z, et al. Evidence of higher -order topology in multil ayer WTe2 from Josephson coupling through anisotropic hinge states. Nat Mater. 2020; 19(9): 974-9

  22. [30]

    One-Dimensional Edge Transport in Few -Layer WTe2

    Kononov A, Abulizi G, Qu K, et al. One-Dimensional Edge Transport in Few -Layer WTe2. Nano Lett. 2020; 20(6): 4228-33

  23. [31]

    Observation of Weyl nodes in TaAs

    Lv BQ, Xu N, Weng HM, et al. Observation of Weyl nodes in TaAs. Nat Phys. 2015; 11: 724-7

  24. [32]

    Experimental observation of topological Fermi arcs in type-II Weyl 13 / 13 semimetal MoTe2

    Deng K, Wan G, Deng P, et al. Experimental observation of topological Fermi arcs in type-II Weyl 13 / 13 semimetal MoTe2. Nat Phys. 2016; 12: 1105-10

  25. [33]

    Correlation effects and quantum oscillations in topological nodal-loop semimetals

    Liu J, Balents L. Correlation effects and quantum oscillations in topological nodal-loop semimetals. Phys Rev B. 2017; 95(7): 075426

  26. [34]

    Josephson current and noise at a superconductor/quantum -spin-Hall- insulator/superconductor junction

    Fu L, Kane CL. Josephson current and noise at a superconductor/quantum -spin-Hall- insulator/superconductor junction. Phys Rev B. 2009; 79(16): 161408

  27. [35]

    Josephson current signatures of Majorana flat bands on the surface of time-reversal-invariant Weyl and Dirac semimetals

    Chen A, Pikulin DI, Franz M. Josephson current signatures of Majorana flat bands on the surface of time-reversal-invariant Weyl and Dirac semimetals. Phys Rev B. 2017; 95(17): 174505

  28. [36]

    Inducing Strong Superconductivity in W Te2 by a Proximity Effect

    Huang C, Narayan A, Zhang E , et al. Inducing Strong Superconductivity in W Te2 by a Proximity Effect. ACS Nano. 2018; 12(7): 7185-96

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.