Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Manipulation of helical states revealed by crossed Andreev reflection

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nonlocal conductance near a superconducting gap reads out the Rashba-induced spin rotation angle of quantum spin Hall edge states.

desk verdict The proposed CAR probe of Rashba-induced spin rotation is physically appealing, but the NEGF derivation as written does not produce the advertised θ dependence. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17220 v2 pith:FEHO2TFS submitted 2024-11-26 cond-mat.mes-hall

Wei Luo , Yating Zhang , Wei Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumspinHallinsulatorcrossedAndreevreflectionRashbaspin-orbitcouplinghelicaledgestatesnonlocalconductancenon-equilibriumGreen'sfunctionrotationanglesuperconductorjunction
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

This paper proposes a practical way to measure how much a perpendicular electric field can rotate the spin direction of the helical edge states of a quantum spin Hall insulator, a two-dimensional topological material whose one-dimensional edge states lock spin to momentum. The scheme couples two closely spaced helical edges to a common s-wave superconductor and reads the nonlocal conductance produced by crossed Andreev reflection, in which an electron entering on one edge grabs a partner from the other edge to form a Cooper pair. The paper derives that the crossed Andreev reflection probability scales as $\sin^2(\theta/2)$, the normal transmission probability as $\cos^2(\theta/2)$, and that near the superconducting gap the nonlocal conductance is proportional to $-\cos\theta$, where $\theta$ is the relative spin rotation angle induced by Rashba spin-orbit coupling. If this is right, a gate-voltage sweep that tunes the Rashba coupling would map out $\theta$ directly in an electrical measurement, solving a long-standing experimental challenge in spintronics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the relative spin rotation angle $\theta = \theta_1 + \theta_2$, where each edge's rotation angle is $\theta_\alpha = \arctan(\lambda_\alpha/v)$ in terms of the Rashba coefficient $\lambda_\alpha$ and the helical Fermi velocity $v$. This angle enters all transport coefficients through the two spin-overlap amplitudes $\langle m|-n\rangle = \cos(\theta/2)$ and $\langle -m|-n\rangle = \sin(\theta/2)$ between the rotated spin eigenstates of the two edges; these amplitudes are what carry the argument from the Rashba-induced spin rotation to the measurable transmission, crossed Andreev reflection, and conductance.

What would settle it

Measure the nonlocal differential conductance $G_2$ of a quantum spin Hall edge–superconductor junction as a function of gate voltage, holding the incident energy near the superconducting gap. If the model is correct, $G_2$ should follow $-(e^2/\hbar)(\Gamma_1\Gamma_2/\Gamma^2)$ times the cosine of $\arctan(\lambda_1/v) + \arctan(\lambda_2/v)$, passing through zero at $\theta = \pi/2$ and saturating as $\lambda/v$ grows; a different gate-voltage dependence, or a nonzero $G_2$ with no applied electric field, would falsify the one-parameter rotation picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: a junction of two quantum spin Hall insulator edges covered by a common $s$-wave superconductor converts the relative spin rotation angle $\theta$ into a measurable conductance. Because the $s$-wave superconductor pairs electrons of opposite spin, the amplitude for crossed Andreev reflection between the two edges is set by the overlap $\sin(\theta/2)$ between the rotated spin states, while the amplitude for ordinary electron transmission is set by the orthogonal overlap $\cos(\theta/2)$. Using non-equilibrium Green's functions, the paper shows that with incident energy at the superconducting gap the nonlocal differential conductance of the second edge reduces to $G_2 = -(e^2/\hbar)(\Gamma_1\Gamma_2/\Gamma^2)\cos\theta$, so the spin rotation angle is read out directly from the conductance.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that a perpendicular electric field produces a simple momentum-independent Rashba spin-flip term whose only effect on each edge is to rotate the spin quantization axis by an angle $\arctan(\lambda/v)$, with the two edges rotating in opposite directions; if the real spin texture of the edge states is more complex, the measured conductance will not be simply proportional to $-\cos\theta$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near the superconducting gap, sweeping the gate voltage should trace out a $-\cos\theta$ curve, giving a direct electrical readout of the relative spin rotation angle $\theta$.
  • The ratio $T_{\mathrm{CAR}}/T_N = \tan^2(\theta/2)$ at $\epsilon \to \Delta$ is independent of the tunneling linewidths and the superconducting density of states, providing a parameter-free angular measurement.
  • At $\theta = 0$ crossed Andreev reflection is completely suppressed and only normal transmission survives; at $\theta = \pi$ the roles reverse, so the sign of the conductance itself encodes the rotation angle.
  • The three-terminal setup (two helical edges plus a grounded superconductor) uses only gate-tunable Rashba coupling and standard transport measurement, so the prediction is directly testable in current experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same spin-overlap mechanism should also appear in other nonlocal processes between helical edges, such as nonlocal spin injection or spin-polarized tunneling, so a cosine-type conductance signature may generalize beyond superconducting contacts.
  • A clean dataset could simultaneously calibrate the tunnel coupling asymmetry between the two edges, since the near-gap conductance depends on $\Gamma_1\Gamma_2/\Gamma^2$ as well as $\cos\theta$ — an issue the paper does not address.
  • If the calculation were repeated with momentum-dependent Rashba coupling, the measurement would probe the full spin texture rather than a single rotation angle, yielding a more detailed image of the edge-state spins.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a non-equilibrium Green's function calculation of transport through a quantum spin Hall insulator–superconductor junction with Rashba spin-orbit coupling, and claims that the crossed Andreev reflection probability, normal transmission probability, and nonlocal differential conductance depend on the relative spin rotation angle θ between the two helical edges, with G2 ∝ −cos θ near the superconducting gap. The paper suggests measuring G2 as a function of gate voltage as a direct probe of spin manipulation. The model is presented in Sec. II, the analytic formulas are given in Eqs. (28)-(31), and the numerical plots in Sec. III are based on those formulas.

Significance. If the central relation were established, the paper would offer an experimentally simple, falsifiable probe of spin-orbit-induced spin rotation in helical edge states: a nonlocal conductance measurement with a predicted cos θ dependence and no fitting parameters. The model is transparent and the NEGF framework is standard. However, the derivation gap described below means the central prediction is not currently supported by the calculation as written, and the numerical figures inherit the unproven analytic formulas. With a corrected mode-resolved derivation, the proposed experimental scheme could be valuable.

major comments (2)
  1. [II, Eqs. (12)-(20) and (28)-(29)] The angular factors in Eqs. (28)-(29) do not follow from the stated trace formulas. After Eq. (12) the linewidth Γ2 is defined with entries Γ_{2e}^m = 2πT[ρ_{2n} sin²(θ/2)+ρ_{2\bar n} cos²(θ/2)] and Γ_{2e}^{\bar m} = 2πT[ρ_{2n} cos²(θ/2)+ρ_{2\bar n} sin²(θ/2)]; the text immediately uses time-reversal symmetry to set ρ_{2n}=ρ_{2\bar n}, so both entries equal Γ2 and Γ2 ∝ I. Γ1 is also proportional to I. The self-energy in Eq. (16) is then spin-diagonal and proportional to I, and the ee block of the Green's function obtained from Eq. (27) is a scalar times I, because the τ_yσ_y term has no ee block. Inserting these into the trace in Eq. (19) yields T_N = Γ1Γ2 |g|² Tr[I] = 2Γ1Γ2 |g|², with no cos²(θ/2); an analogous calculation gives T_CAR with no sin²(θ/2). The cos² and sin² factors can only be obtained by projecting the trace onto the incoming mode |m⟩ at edge 1 and the outgoing mode |\bar n⟩ at edge 2, but no such projectors appear in Γ1 or Γ2 as defined. Since Eqs. (28)-(29) are the basis for Eq. (30) and the central result Eq. (31), this is a load-bearing gap in the derivation.
  2. [III, Eq. (31)] The ε → Δ limit of Eqs. (28)-(29) is not reproduced. Setting ε = Δ gives T_N = cos²(θ/2) Γ1Γ2 (πρ_S)²/(1+πρ_SΓ)² and T_CAR = sin²(θ/2) Γ1Γ2 (πρ_S)²/(1+πρ_SΓ)². Both contain the common factor (πρ_S)²/(1+πρ_SΓ)². Eq. (31) drops this factor, so the quantitative coefficient of −cos θ is wrong unless πρ_SΓ ≪ 1 and πρ_S = 1 in the units used, neither of which is stated. The corrected expression is G2 = −(e²/ℏ) cosθ Γ1Γ2 (πρ_S)²/(1+πρ_SΓ)².
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract and Sec. IV say 'quantum spin Hall isolators'; this should be 'quantum spin Hall insulators'. Also, 'Sev. IV' in the introduction should be 'Sec. IV'.
  2. [Eq. (9)] There is a bracket typo in 'G^<_{k2p}(t,t)]' in the sentence after Eq. (9); the notation G^<_{kk'} is also introduced without defining its arguments consistently.
  3. [After Eq. (6)] 'Numba bases' should be 'Nambu bases'.
  4. [After Eq. (31)] The text says 'TA = sin²(θ/2)Γ1Γ2/Γ²'; this should be 'T_CAR' rather than 'TA'.
  5. [Figs. 2 and 3] The linewidth parameters are stated as Γ1 = Γ2 = 0.1 without units; since the prefactor in Eq. (31) depends on πρ_SΓ, the authors should specify the parameter regime used in the plots.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the θ-dependence is an analytic overlap effect of the model's spin eigenstates, not a fit or a self-citation chain; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central result G2 ∝ −cosθ is not obtained by fitting any transport datum. It follows from the model's spin-rotated eigenstates |m⟩, |n⟩ and the spin-singlet pairing condition: the overlaps ⟨−m|−n⟩ = sin(θ/2) and ⟨m|−n⟩ = cos(θ/2) are evaluated analytically from the Hamiltonian in Eqs. (2)-(3), and the NEGF trace formulas (19)-(20) are then used to package these overlaps. The self-citations to prior QSH/CAR work are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem, fitted parameter, or unverified ansatz from those papers is invoked to force the result. A genuine derivation gap exists: after imposing time-reversal symmetry ρ2n=ρ2\bar n (passage following Eq. (12)), the linewidth Γ2 becomes equal in the SC spin basis, so the fully spin-summed trace in Eq. (19) as written would not itself generate the cos²(θ/2) and sin²(θ/2) factors in Eqs. (28)-(29); those factors require an implicit projection onto the outgoing helical mode that is not written out. This is a correctness/derivation concern, not a circular reduction of the output to fitted inputs. The prediction is self-contained with respect to the stated model assumptions, so the circularity score is low despite the derivation gap.

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

The central claim rests on the standard helical edge model plus a specific Rashba model whose eigenstates determine the angular factors. No new particles or entities are introduced, and no parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Helical edge states are described by the 1D linear Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) with opposite helicities for the two edges.
    Standard model of QSHI edge states used throughout the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper A perpendicular electric field induces Rashba SOC of the form in Eq. (3), with spin eigenstates rotated by θ_i = arctan(λ_i/v) in opposite directions for the two edges.
    This specific form of the Rashba effect on helical edges is assumed and is load-bearing for the angular dependence of all transport coefficients.
  • domain assumption The superconductor is a BCS s-wave SC with a constant density of states, and the distance between the edges is smaller than the coherence length so the SC is treated as uniform.
    Used in Eq. (26) for the sum of the bare Green's functions.
  • domain assumption Time-reversal symmetry holds, so the densities of states for the two spin species in each edge are equal.
    Invoked in the text to justify the diagonal form of the linewidth function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Manipulation of helical states revealed by crossed Andreev reflection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEHO2TFS

@misc{pith2026241117220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Manipulation of helical states revealed by crossed Andreev reflection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEHO2TFS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17220}
}
abstract

The edge states of a quantum spin Hall insulator exhibit helical properties, which has generated significant interest in the field of spintronics. Although it is predicted theoretically that Rashba spin-orbit coupling can effectively regulate edge state spin, experimental characterization of this spin control remains challenging. Here, we propose utilizing crossed Andreev reflection to probe the efficiency of gate voltage control on edge state spin. We calculate the transport properties of the quantum spin Hall isolators-superconductor heterojunction by using non-equilibrium Green's function method. We find that the probabilities of crossed Andreev reflection, electron transmission, and non-local conductance all include the relative spin rotation angle $\theta$ caused by the Rashba spin-orbit coupling in the helical edge states. Notably, when the incident energy is close to the superconducting gap, the differential conductance $G_2\propto-\cos{\theta}$. Thus, the influence of Rashba spin-orbit coupling on edge state spin can be quantitatively characterized by crossed Andreev reflection, which provides a feasible scheme for experimental testing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17220 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Schematic illustration of the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) The CAR probability (a) and normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Differential conductance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The electrons in states |m⟩ have spins parallel to the direction m = ⟨m|σ|m⟩ = (sin θ1, 0, cos θ1), while the electrons in | −m⟩ have oppo- site spins

    The corresponding eigenstates are given by |m⟩ = cos θ1 2 | ↑⟩+ sin θ1 2 | ↓⟩, | −m⟩ = − sin θ1 2 | ↑⟩+ cos θ1 2 | ↓⟩, with θ1 = arctan( λ1/v). The electrons in states |m⟩ have spins parallel to the direction m = ⟨m|σ|m⟩ = (sin θ1, 0, cos θ1), while the electrons in | −m⟩ have oppo- site spins. The Rashba SOC induces a clockwise rotation of the spins of e...

    work page

  2. [2]

    For edge 2, Rashba SOC causes a counterclockwise rotation of the spin by an angle θ2, as shown Fig

    The corresponding eigenstates are |n⟩ = sin θ2 2 | ↑⟩+ cos θ2 2 | ↓⟩, | −n⟩ = cos θ2 2 | ↑⟩ −sin θ2 2 | ↓⟩, with spins pointing to n = (sin θ2, 0, − cos θ2) and −n, re- spectively, where θ2 = arctan(λ2/v). For edge 2, Rashba SOC causes a counterclockwise rotation of the spin by an angle θ2, as shown Fig. 1(b). A two-dimensional SC is deposited on the righ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Colloquium: Topological insulators,

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, “Colloquium: Topological insulators,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Topological insulators and superconductors,

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, “Topological insulators and superconductors,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Quan- tum spin hall effect and topological phase transition in hgte quantum wells,

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, “Quan- tum spin hall effect and topological phase transition in hgte quantum wells,” Science 314, 1757 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Quantum spin hall insulator state in hgte quantum wells,

    M. K¨ onig, S. Wiedmann, C. Bruene, A. Roth, H. Buh- mann, L. W. Molenkamp, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, “Quantum spin hall insulator state in hgte quantum wells,” Science 318, 766 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Nonlocal trans- port in the quantum spin hall state,

    A. Roth, C. Bruene, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, J. Maciejko, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, “Nonlocal trans- port in the quantum spin hall state,” Science 325, 294 (2009). 7

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Quantum spin hall effect in graphene,

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, “Quantum spin hall effect in graphene,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Helical liquid and the edge of quantum spin hall systems,

    C. Wu, B. A. Bernevig, and S.-C. Zhang, “Helical liquid and the edge of quantum spin hall systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 106401 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Topological field theory of time-reversal invariant insulators,

    X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, “Topological field theory of time-reversal invariant insulators,” Phys. Rev. B 78, 195424 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Spin aharonov- bohm effect and topological spin transistor,

    J. Maciejko, E.-A. Kim, and X.-L. Qi, “Spin aharonov- bohm effect and topological spin transistor,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 195409 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Switching spin and charge between edge states in topological insulator constric- tions,

    V. Krueckl and K. Richter, “Switching spin and charge between edge states in topological insulator constric- tions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 086803 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Full electrical control of charge and spin con- ductance through interferometry of edge states in topo- logical insulators,

    F. Dolcini, “Full electrical control of charge and spin con- ductance through interferometry of edge states in topo- logical insulators,” Phys. Rev. B 83, 165304 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Spin injection into a metal from a topological insulator,

    S. Modak, K. Sengupta, and D. Sen, “Spin injection into a metal from a topological insulator,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 205114 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Spintronics: A spin-based elec- tronics vision for the future,

    S. A. Wolf, D. D. Awschalom, R. A. Buhrman, J. M. Daughton, S. von Molnr, M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelka- nova, and D. M. Treger, “Spintronics: A spin-based elec- tronics vision for the future,” Science 294, 1488 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    Spintronics: Fundamentals and applications,

    I. Zutic, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, “Spintronics: Fundamentals and applications,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    Magnetic domain-wall racetrack memory,

    S. S. P. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and M. Hayashi, “Magnetic domain-wall racetrack memory,” Science320, 190 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Stretch- able magnetoelectronics,

    Florian Meier, Jeremy Levy, and Daniel Loss, “Stretch- able magnetoelectronics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 047901 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    Magnetic domain-wall racetrack mem- ory,

    M. Melzer, D. Makarov, A. Calvimontes, D. Kar- naushenko, S. Baunack, R. Kaltofen, R. Kaltofen, and O. G. Schmidt, “Magnetic domain-wall racetrack mem- ory,” Nano Lett. 11, 2522 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Fin- gerprint of different spin-orbit terms for spin transport in hgte quantum wells,

    D. G. Rothe, R. W. Reinthaler, C.-X. Liu, L. W. Molenkamp, S. C. Zhang, and E. M. Hankiewicz, “Fin- gerprint of different spin-orbit terms for spin transport in hgte quantum wells,” New J. Phys. 12, 065012 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Edge dynamics in a quantum spin hall state: Effects from rashba spin-orbit interaction,

    A. Strom, H. Johannesson, and G. I. Japaridze, “Edge dynamics in a quantum spin hall state: Effects from rashba spin-orbit interaction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 256804 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Electrical manipulation and measurement of spin properties of quantum spin hall edge states,

    J. I. Vayrynen and T. Ojanen, “Electrical manipulation and measurement of spin properties of quantum spin hall edge states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 076803 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Tunnel junction of helical edge states: Determining and controlling spin-preserving and spin-flipping processes through transconductance,

    P. Sternativo and F. Dolcini, “Tunnel junction of helical edge states: Determining and controlling spin-preserving and spin-flipping processes through transconductance,” Phys. Rev. B 89, 035415 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    π spin berry phase in a quantum-spin- hall-insulator-based interferometer: Evidence for the he- lical spin texture of the edge states,

    W. Chen, W.-Y. Deng, J.-M. Hou, D. N. Shi, L. Sheng, and D. Y. Xing, “ π spin berry phase in a quantum-spin- hall-insulator-based interferometer: Evidence for the he- lical spin texture of the edge states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 076802 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Spin-thermoelectric transport induced by interactions and spin-flip processes in two-dimensional topological insulators,

    F. Ronetti, L. Vannucci, G. Dolcetto, M. Carrega, and M. Sassetti, “Spin-thermoelectric transport induced by interactions and spin-flip processes in two-dimensional topological insulators,” Phys. Rev. B 93, 165414 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Generic helical edge states due to rashba spin-orbit cou- pling in a topological insulator,

    L. Ortiz, R. A. Molina, G. Platero, and A. M. Lunde, “Generic helical edge states due to rashba spin-orbit cou- pling in a topological insulator,” Phys. Rev. B93, 205431 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Electrical control of spin-polarized topological currents in monolayer wte2,

    J. H. Garcia, J. You, M. Garc ´ ıa-Mota, P. Koval, P. Or- dej´ on, R. Cuadrado, M. J. Verstraete, Z. Zanolli, and S. Roche, “Electrical control of spin-polarized topological currents in monolayer wte2,” Phys. Rev. B 106, L161410 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Properties of semiconductors with an ex- tremum loop. i. cyclotron and combinational resonance in a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the loop,

    E. I. Rashba, “Properties of semiconductors with an ex- tremum loop. i. cyclotron and combinational resonance in a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the loop,” Sov. Phys. Solid State 2, 1109 (1960)

    1960

  21. [29]

    Probing spatial correla- tions with nanoscale two-contact tunneling,

    J. M. Byers and M. E. Flatt´ e, “Probing spatial correla- tions with nanoscale two-contact tunneling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 306–309 (1995)

    1995

  22. [30]

    Coupling superconducting-ferromagnetic point contacts by andreev reflections,

    G. Deutscher and D. Feinberg, “Coupling superconducting-ferromagnetic point contacts by andreev reflections,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 487 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    Electronic entanglement in the vicinity of a superconductor,

    G. B. Lesovik, T. Martin, and G. Blatter, “Electronic entanglement in the vicinity of a superconductor,” Eur. Phys. J. B 24, 287 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Andreev tunneling, Coulomb blockade, and resonant transport of nonlocal spin-entangled electrons,

    P. Recher, E. V. Sukhorukov, and D. Loss, “Andreev tunneling, Coulomb blockade, and resonant transport of nonlocal spin-entangled electrons,” Phys. Rev. B 63, 165314 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    Resonant nonlocal andreev reflection in a narrow quantum spin hall system,

    W. Chen, R. Shen, L. Sheng, B. G. Wang, and D. Y. Xing, “Resonant nonlocal andreev reflection in a narrow quantum spin hall system,” Phys. Rev. B 84, 115420 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Electron entanglement detected by quantum spin hall systems,

    W. Chen, R. Shen, L. Sheng, B. G. Wang, and D. Y. Xing, “Electron entanglement detected by quantum spin hall systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 036802 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Entanglement of nambu spinors and bell inequality test without beam splitters,

    W. Luo, H. Geng, D. Y. Xing, G. Blatter, and W. Chen, “Entanglement of nambu spinors and bell inequality test without beam splitters,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 120507 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Crossed andreev reflection in al- termagnets,

    S. Das and A. Soori, “Crossed andreev reflection in al- termagnets,” Phys. Rev. B 109, 245424 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Pure crossed andreev reflection assisted transverse valley currents in α − T3 lattices,

    W. Zeng and R. Shen, “Pure crossed andreev reflection assisted transverse valley currents in α − T3 lattices,” Phys. Rev. B 106, 094503 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Crossed andreev reflection in topological insu- lator nanowire t junctions,

    J. Fuchs, M. Barth, C. Gorini, I. Adagideli, and K. Richter, “Crossed andreev reflection in topological insu- lator nanowire t junctions,” Phys. Rev. B 104, 085415 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Tran- sition from metallic to tunneling regimes in supercon- ducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge im- balance, and supercurrent conversion,

    G. E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, “Tran- sition from metallic to tunneling regimes in supercon- ducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge im- balance, and supercurrent conversion,” Phys. Rev. B 25, 4515–4532 (1982)

    1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.