Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 42 references

Coherent superposition of m=1/2 and m=3/2 sectors in Rarita-Schwinger semi-metals produces T(ky) ≠ T(-ky) in barrier tunneling through phase interference, creating an Imbert-Fedorov analog without dispersion anisotropy.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-07-02 21:46 UTC pith:FXRVS7G2

load-bearing objection The paper derives analytic amplitudes showing that coherent mixed incidence on the two Rarita-Schwinger channels produces T(ky) ≠ T(-ky) from phase interference alone, while single-channel cases stay symmetric. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.23095 v2 pith:FXRVS7G2 submitted 2026-06-22 cond-mat.mes-hall

Fingerprints of an Imbert-Fedorov-like effect in the tunneling transmission of Rarita-Schwinger semi-metals

Otman Bouladiane , Ahmed Jellal , Hocine Bahlouli , A. Al Luhaibi , Michael Vogl This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Rarita-Schwinger semi-metaltunneling transmissionImbert-Fedorov effectmirror symmetry breakingmultichannel scatteringspin projection sectorsphase interference
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 paper establishes that tunneling through a square barrier in a rotationally symmetric Rarita-Schwinger semi-metal yields directional asymmetry in transmission when the incident state is a coherent mix of the two spin-projection sectors. This T(ky) ≠ T(-ky) effect stems from differing interface and propagation phases between the m=1/2 and m=3/2 components, which interfere only in the mixed case and break mirror symmetry. A sympathetic reader would care because the result shows such asymmetry can appear in an idealized isotropic multiband system, so observed transport asymmetries need not be attributed solely to explicit band anisotropy.

Core claim

The central claim is that the problem is intrinsically multichannel, with analytic transmission amplitudes showing that single-channel injection preserves mirror symmetry while coherent mixed-incidence injection produces directional asymmetry arising from the phase structure of the multicomponent scattering states. At high energy the transmission biases toward the m=3/2 sector. The interference term generated by interface-induced phase differences between the internal wave components is identified as the cause of the broken mirror symmetry, furnishing an analog of the Imbert-Fedorov effect at the level of these phases.

What carries the argument

The interference term generated by differing scattering and barrier-propagation phases between the m=1/2 and m=3/2 components in coherent superposition.

Load-bearing premise

A coherent superposition of the m=1/2 and m=3/2 sectors can be prepared and maintained across the barrier without decoherence or extra scattering channels.

What would settle it

Measuring identical transmission probabilities T(ky) = T(-ky) for both single-channel and coherent mixed-incidence cases would falsify the claim that phase interference from the two sectors produces the asymmetry.

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

If this is right

  • Transmission remains symmetric under mirror transformation for single-channel injection but becomes asymmetric for coherent mixed incidence.
  • High-energy tunneling exhibits a bias toward scattering into m=3/2 contributions.
  • The directional asymmetry originates from phase differences rather than any anisotropy in the dispersion relation.
  • Asymmetric tunneling can occur in transport experiments even inside an idealized, isotropic multiband system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar phase-interference asymmetries could appear in other multiband systems whenever multiple propagating modes with distinct scattering phases coexist.
  • Varying barrier width or height would modulate the relative phases and thereby tune the strength of the observed directional asymmetry.
  • Preparation of coherent superpositions at interfaces might be detectable in mesoscopic transport setups without requiring external anisotropy.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies tunneling through a square barrier in a rotationally symmetric Rarita-Schwinger semi-metal, which is intrinsically multichannel due to two propagating sectors with spin projections m=1/2 and m=3/2. Analytic transmission amplitudes are derived and compared for single-channel versus coherent mixed-incidence cases. Single-channel transmission remains symmetric under ky to -ky, while coherent superposition yields T(ky) ≠ T(-ky) due to differing scattering and barrier-propagation phases between sectors; this interference is identified as an Imbert-Fedorov analog arising from interface-induced phase differences rather than dispersion anisotropy. High-energy bias toward m=3/2 contributions is also noted.

Significance. If the analytic derivation and phase analysis hold, the result demonstrates that directional asymmetry in tunneling transmission can occur in idealized isotropic multiband systems purely from multicomponent interference, without requiring explicit band anisotropy. This provides a clean mathematical example with no free parameters, strengthening the case that such effects in transport experiments need not be attributed solely to anisotropy. The distinction between single-channel symmetry and coherent-case asymmetry is a clear, falsifiable prediction within the model.

major comments (2)
  1. [analytic derivation of transmission amplitudes] The central claim rests on the analytic transmission amplitudes and their phase structure producing the interference term that breaks mirror symmetry under coherent incidence. However, the explicit forms of these amplitudes (including the scattering phases and propagation phases for each sector) are not displayed, preventing direct verification that the asymmetry arises solely from the stated phase differences rather than from an implicit anisotropy or boundary-condition artifact.
  2. [comparison of single-channel and coherent mixed-incidence cases] The comparison of single-channel versus coherent mixed-incidence cases assumes a coherent superposition of the m=1/2 and m=3/2 sectors can be prepared and maintained across the barrier. While valid as a mathematical setup, this assumption is load-bearing for the reported asymmetry; the manuscript should explicitly state the conditions (e.g., absence of additional scattering channels or decoherence terms) under which the coherent case remains within the model's scope.
minor comments (2)
  1. [high-energy regime] The abstract states a bias toward m=3/2 contributions at high energy; this should be supported by a quantitative plot or limiting-case expression showing the transmission probabilities as a function of energy.
  2. [model setup] Notation for the Rarita-Schwinger spin projections (m=1/2, m=3/2) and the multichannel wave-function components should include a brief definition or reference to the underlying Dirac-like equation to aid readers unfamiliar with the formalism.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and the detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and plan to revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [analytic derivation of transmission amplitudes] The central claim rests on the analytic transmission amplitudes and their phase structure producing the interference term that breaks mirror symmetry under coherent incidence. However, the explicit forms of these amplitudes (including the scattering phases and propagation phases for each sector) are not displayed, preventing direct verification that the asymmetry arises solely from the stated phase differences rather than from an implicit anisotropy or boundary-condition artifact.

    Authors: We agree that displaying the explicit forms of the transmission amplitudes would facilitate verification. In the revised manuscript, we will include the analytic expressions for the transmission amplitudes for both sectors, along with the scattering phases and propagation phases. This will allow readers to directly confirm that the asymmetry originates from the phase differences in the coherent superposition. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [comparison of single-channel and coherent mixed-incidence cases] The comparison of single-channel versus coherent mixed-incidence cases assumes a coherent superposition of the m=1/2 and m=3/2 sectors can be prepared and maintained across the barrier. While valid as a mathematical setup, this assumption is load-bearing for the reported asymmetry; the manuscript should explicitly state the conditions (e.g., absence of additional scattering channels or decoherence terms) under which the coherent case remains within the model's scope.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the coherent superposition is a key assumption. In the revision, we will explicitly state the conditions under which this holds, namely in the absence of decoherence or additional scattering mechanisms that would mix the sectors incoherently. This clarifies the scope of the mathematical model. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper derives transmission amplitudes analytically from the multichannel scattering problem for the Rarita-Schwinger Hamiltonian. The reported directional asymmetry T(ky) ≠ T(-ky) under coherent superposition follows directly from the differing propagation and scattering phases of the m=1/2 and m=3/2 sectors; no parameters are fitted to data, no predictions are constructed from subsets of the same calculation, and no self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is invoked to justify the result. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the model's own equations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard multichannel scattering formalism applied to the Rarita-Schwinger Hamiltonian under the assumption of rotational symmetry and a square barrier; no free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The system is described by the Rarita-Schwinger equation with two propagating sectors (m=1/2 and m=3/2) under rotational symmetry.
    Stated in the setup of the tunneling problem.
  • domain assumption A coherent superposition of the two sectors can be prepared and its transmission probability computed without decoherence.
    Required for the mixed-incidence case that exhibits the asymmetry.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5830 in / 1410 out tokens · 23241 ms · 2026-07-02T21:46:43.977677+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study tunneling through a square barrier in a rotationally symmetric Rarita-Schwinger semi-metal and identify fingerprints of an Imbert-Fedorov-like effect in the tunneling transmission. The problem is intrinsically multichannel at all energies because there exist two propagating sectors with spin projections $m=1/2$ and $m=3/2$. We derive the transmission amplitudes analytically and compare the single-channel and coherent mixed-incidence cases in the two channels. Interestingly, we observe that tunneling at high energy shows a bias towards scattering into spin projection $3/2$ contributions. For single-channel injection, we find that the transmission remains symmetric under a mirror transformation of the incident angle. In contrast, for the coherent superposition, we find a directional asymmetry in the transmission probability $T(k_y)\neq T(-k_y)$. Importantly, this effect does not originate from an anisotropy of the dispersion. Instead, it arises from the phase structure of the multicomponent scattering states. The two spin projection sectors exhibit different scattering and barrier-propagation phases, which enter as interference terms when both channels appear as a coherent superposition. This interference term is identified as the cause of the broken mirror symmetry. We therefore discover an analog of the Imbert-Fedorov effect, at the level of interface-induced phase differences between internal wave components. Our result demonstrates that asymmetric tunneling can already occur in transport experiments, even in an idealized, isotropic multiband system, and should therefore not be automatically attributed solely to explicit band anisotropy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23095 by A. Al Luhaibi, Ahmed Jellal, Hocine Bahlouli, Michael Vogl, Otman Bouladiane.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Tunneling setup for three choices of incoming states: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Energy dispersion of the spin-3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Transmission probabilities of spin 1/2, 3/2 and the to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The asymmetry function as represented in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Transmission disparity (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The transmission disparity at high energy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. A density plot of the transmission disparity at high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We can now analytically prove that δ3/2 δ1/2 = 1 3 corre- sponds to unbiased transmission in the high-energy limit, thereby strengthening our discussion

    We therefore see that 1/6 of the area is dominated by spin 1/2, and the remaining 5/6 by spin 3/2, clearly showing a bias towards the 3/2 projection in the transmission amplitude. We can now analytically prove that δ3/2 δ1/2 = 1 3 corre- sponds to unbiased transmission in the high-energy limit, thereby strengthening our discussion. Indeed, in the large en...

    work page

  2. [2]

    C. W. J. Beenakker. Colloquium: Andreev reflection and klein tunneling in graphene.Rev. Mod. Phys., 80:1337– 1354, Oct 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Chiral tun- neling in a twisted graphene bilayer.Phys

    Wen-Yu He, Zhao-Dong Chu, and Lin He. Chiral tun- neling in a twisted graphene bilayer.Phys. Rev. Lett., 111:066803, Aug 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Pe¸ ca, Leon Balents, and Kay J¨ org Wiese

    Claudia S. Pe¸ ca, Leon Balents, and Kay J¨ org Wiese. Fabry-perot interference and spin filtering in carbon nan- otubes.Phys. Rev. B, 68:205423, Nov 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Dyakov, Natalia S

    Sergey A. Dyakov, Natalia S. Salakhova, Alexey V. Ig- natov, Ilia M. Fradkin, Vitaly P. Panov, Jang-Kun Song, and Nikolay A. Gippius. Chiral light in twisted fabry– p´ erot cavities.Advanced Optical Materials, 12:2302502, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Transport in two-dimensional topolog- ical materials: recent developments in experiment and theory.2D Materials, 7(2):022007, 2020

    Dimitrie Culcer, Aydın Cem Keser, Yongqing Li, and Grigory Tkachov. Transport in two-dimensional topolog- ical materials: recent developments in experiment and theory.2D Materials, 7(2):022007, 2020. Topical Re- view, Open Access

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Wieder, Frank Schindler, Daniel S

    Guoqing Chang, Benjamin J. Wieder, Frank Schindler, Daniel S. Sanchez, Ilya Belopolski, Shengyuan Huang, Bahadur Singh, Di Wu, Tay-Rong Chang, Titus Neupert, Su-Yang Xu, and M. Zahid Hasan. Topological quantum properties of chiral crystals.Nature Materials, 17:978– 985, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov. Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films.Science, 306(5696):666–669, 2004

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov. The rise of graphene. Nature Materials, 6:183–191, 2007

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim. Chi- ral tunnelling and the klein paradox in graphene.Nature Physics, 2:620–625, 2006

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim. The electronic properties of graphene.Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:109–162, Jan 2009

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Dombey and A

    N. Dombey and A. Calogeracos. Seventy years of the klein paradox.Physics Reports, 315(1):41–58, 1999

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    Klein tunneling in single and multiple barri- ers in graphene.Semiconductor Science and Technology, 25(3):033002, feb 2010

    J M Pereira, F M Peeters, A Chaves, and G A Farias. Klein tunneling in single and multiple barri- ers in graphene.Semiconductor Science and Technology, 25(3):033002, feb 2010

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Young and Philip Kim

    Andrea F. Young and Philip Kim. Quantum interference and klein tunnelling in graphene heterojunctions.Nature Physics, 5(3):222–226, 2009

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    M. I. Katsnelson. Zitterbewegung, chirality, and minimal conductivity in graphene.European Physical Journal B, 51:157–160, 2006

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and Ashvin Vishwanath. Weyl and dirac semimetals in three-dimensional solids. Rev. Mod. Phys., 90:015001, Jan 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Thermal and gravita- tional chiral anomaly induced magneto-transport in weyl semimetals.Phys

    Kamal Das and Amit Agarwal. Thermal and gravita- tional chiral anomaly induced magneto-transport in weyl semimetals.Phys. Rev. Res., 2:013088, Jan 2020

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Tunneling in an anisotropic cubic dirac semi-metal.Annals of Physics, 432:168563, 2021

    Ahmed Bouhlal, Ahmed Jellal, Hocine Bahlouli, and Michael Vogl. Tunneling in an anisotropic cubic dirac semi-metal.Annals of Physics, 432:168563, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Anomalous transport of weyl fermions in weyl semimetals.Phys

    Karl Landsteiner. Anomalous transport of weyl fermions in weyl semimetals.Phys. Rev. B, 89:075124, Feb 2014

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Tunneling phase diagrams in anisotropic multi-weyl semimetals.Annalen der Physik, 534(11), 2022

    Ahmed Bouhlal, Adel Abbout, Ahmed Jellal, Hocine Bahlouli, and Michael Vogl. Tunneling phase diagrams in anisotropic multi-weyl semimetals.Annalen der Physik, 534(11), 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Topological nodal line semimetals with and without spin- orbital coupling.Phys

    Chen Fang, Yige Chen, Hae-Young Kee, and Liang Fu. Topological nodal line semimetals with and without spin- orbital coupling.Phys. Rev. B, 92:081201, Aug 2015

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Transmission in pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-3/2 semimetals with linear dispersion through scalar and vector potential barriers.Physics Letters A, 384(27):126666, 2020

    Ipsita Mandal. Transmission in pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-3/2 semimetals with linear dispersion through scalar and vector potential barriers.Physics Letters A, 384(27):126666, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Transmission and conductance across junctions of isotropic and anisotropic three-dimensional semimetals.The European Physical Journal Plus, 138(11):1039, Nov 2023

    Ipsita Mandal. Transmission and conductance across junctions of isotropic and anisotropic three-dimensional semimetals.The European Physical Journal Plus, 138(11):1039, Nov 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Link, Igor Boettcher, and Igor F

    Julia M. Link, Igor Boettcher, and Igor F. Herbut.d- wave superconductivity and bogoliubov-fermi surfaces in rarita-schwinger-weyl semimetals.Phys. Rev. B, 11 101:184503, May 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, R. A. Sepkhanov, A. R. Akhmerov, and J. Tworzyd lo. Quantum goos-h¨ anchen effect in graphene.Phys. Rev. Lett., 102:146804, Apr 2009

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    M. Notomi. Theory of light propagation in strongly modulated photonic crystals: Refractionlike behavior in the vicinity of the photonic band gap.Phys. Rev. B, 62:10696–10705, Oct 2000

    work page 2000

  27. [27]

    Goos-h¨ anchen shifts in transition metal dichalcogenides

    Mohsin Raza, Shamsher Ali, and Muzamil Shah. Goos-h¨ anchen shifts in transition metal dichalcogenides. Physics Letters A, 531:130167, 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Bliokh and Yury P

    Konstantin Yu. Bliokh and Yury P. Bliokh. Conserva- tion of angular momentum, transverse shift, and spin hall effect in reflection and refraction of an electromagnetic wave packet.Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:073903, Feb 2006

    work page 2006

  29. [29]

    Hall effect of light.Phys

    Masaru Onoda, Shuichi Murakami, and Naoto Nagaosa. Hall effect of light.Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:083901, Aug 2004

    work page 2004

  30. [30]

    Calculation and experimental proof of the transverse shift induced by total internal reflection of a circularly polarized light beam.Phys

    Christian Imbert. Calculation and experimental proof of the transverse shift induced by total internal reflection of a circularly polarized light beam.Phys. Rev. D, 5:787– 796, Feb 1972

    work page 1972

  31. [31]

    To the theory of total reflection*.Jour- nal of Optics, 15(1):014002, jan 2013

    Fedor I Fedorov. To the theory of total reflection*.Jour- nal of Optics, 15(1):014002, jan 2013

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Interplay of topology and electron- electron interactions in rarita-schwinger-weyl semimet- als.Phys

    Igor Boettcher. Interplay of topology and electron- electron interactions in rarita-schwinger-weyl semimet- als.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:127602, Mar 2020

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Andreev bound states in superconductor- barrier-superconductor junctions of rarita-schwinger- weyl semimetals.Physics Letters A, 503:129410, April 2024

    Ipsita Mandal. Andreev bound states in superconductor- barrier-superconductor junctions of rarita-schwinger- weyl semimetals.Physics Letters A, 503:129410, April 2024

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Circular dichroism as a probe for topology in three-dimensional semimetals

    Sajid Sekh and Ipsita Mandal. Circular dichroism as a probe for topology in three-dimensional semimetals. Phys. Rev. B, 105:235403, Jun 2022

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    B. Q. Lv, Z.-L. Feng, J.-Z. Zhao, Noah F. Q. Yuan, A. Zong, K. F. Luo, R. Yu, Y.-B. Huang, V. N. Stro- cov, A. Chikina, A. A. Soluyanov, N. Gedik, Y.-G. Shi, T. Qian, and H. Ding. Observation of multiple types of topological fermions in pdbise.Phys. Rev. B, 99:241104, Jun 2019

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Mul- tiple types of topological fermions in transition metal sili- cides.Phys

    Peizhe Tang, Quan Zhou, and Shou-Cheng Zhang. Mul- tiple types of topological fermions in transition metal sili- cides.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:206402, Nov 2017

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Barry Bradlyn, Jennifer Cano, Zhijun Wang, M. G. Vergniory, C. Felser, R. J. Cava, and B. Andrei Bernevig. Beyond dirac and weyl fermions: Unconven- tional quasiparticles in conventional crystals.Science, 353(6299):aaf5037, 2016

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Semimetal with both rarita- schwinger-weyl and weyl excitations.Phys

    Long Liang and Yue Yu. Semimetal with both rarita- schwinger-weyl and weyl excitations.Phys. Rev. B, 93:045113, Jan 2016

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Momenta and energies are restricted to what is allowed by the dispersion relation

    work page

  40. [40]

    Transport properties of the pseudospin- 3/2 dirac–weyl fermions in the double-barrier-modulated two-dimensional system.Annals of Physics, 485:170301, 2026

    Rui Zhu. Transport properties of the pseudospin- 3/2 dirac–weyl fermions in the double-barrier-modulated two-dimensional system.Annals of Physics, 485:170301, 2026

    work page 2026

  41. [41]

    Qing-Dong Jiang, Hua Jiang, Haiwen Liu, Qing-Feng Sun, and X. C. Xie. Topological imbert-fedorov shift in weyl semimetals.Phys. Rev. Lett., 115:156602, Oct 2015

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Imbert-fedorov shift in weyl semimetals: Dependence on monopole charge and intervalley scattering.Phys

    Luyang Wang and Shao-Kai Jian. Imbert-fedorov shift in weyl semimetals: Dependence on monopole charge and intervalley scattering.Phys. Rev. B, 96:115448, Sep 2017. Appendix A: Details of mode-matching formulation In this appendix we discuss tunneling properties of the Rarita-Schwinger semi-metal in more technical detail. First we recall that in each regio...

    work page 2017