Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 64 references

Localized Edge States in Stacked Al/Ni Multilayers: Possible Evidence of Chiral Hinge Modes

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stack of ten ordinary aluminium/nickel bilayers produces Josephson interference patterns the authors interpret as chiral edge currents.

desk verdict Solid edge-current evidence, but the chiral 2Φ0 claim leans on a permeability choice rather than a direct measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20616 v1 pith:LD7KXJ4J submitted 2025-07-28 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

M. Belogolovskii , I. P. Nevirkovets This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall PACS 74.50.+r74.78.Fk73.20.At75.70.Cn
keywords JosephsoninterferometrychiraledgestatesAndreevreflectionAl/NimultilayersSQUID-likeoscillationshigher-ordertopologicalinsulatorsupercurrentdensityperioddoubling
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

What the authors try to establish is that a Josephson junction whose weak link is a stack of ten alternating nanometre layers of aluminium and nickel carries its supercurrent almost entirely along the sample edges, and that those edge currents are chiral. The evidence is a set of interference patterns: instead of the usual Fraunhofer lobes, the maximum supercurrent $I_c$ oscillates periodically like a SQUID (a superconducting quantum interference device) with an upward shift and a period close to twice the superconducting flux quantum $2\Phi_0$. The authors attribute the doubled period to electron and hole branches flowing on opposite edges and coupled by crossed Andreev reflection, the signature of chiral Andreev edge or hinge states. If this is right, such states appear in ordinary metals with no strong spin-orbit coupling and no intrinsic topological band structure, implying that stacking nonmagnetic and ferromagnetic layers is itself a route to topologically protected edge transport.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the Josephson interferogram itself. Since the measured $I_c(H)$ is the Fourier transform of the supercurrent-density profile $J_s(y)$, the shape of the interference pattern tells where current flows: uniform current gives Fraunhofer lobes, edge-localized current gives SQUID-like oscillations, and asymmetric edge current shifts the pattern upward. To convert field period into flux period, the authors use the effective magnetic thickness $t = \mu d_B + \lambda_{\mathrm{Nb}}[\tanh(d_{S1}/2\lambda_{\mathrm{Nb}}) + \tanh(d_{S2}/2\lambda_{\mathrm{Nb}})]$ with $\lambda_{\mathrm{Nb}} = 82$ nm. The decisive theoretical input is the predicted contrast between helical and chiral edge states: helical modes give period $\Phi_0$, whereas chiral modes, whose electron and hole amplitudes live on opposite edges and are connected by crossed Andreev reflection, give period $2\Phi_0$ together with a positive background. This period-doubling rule is the criterion that carries the chirality claim.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetic permeability or susceptibility of the actual 10-bilayer junction, or of a sample with identical layer thicknesses and area, rather than importing $\mu \approx 5$ from the 70-bilayer film, and recompute the flux period from the measured effective thickness; a value near $\Phi_0$ instead of $2\Phi_0$ would remove the period-doubling evidence while leaving the SQUID-like pattern intact. A second decisive check is a local probe of the current or magnetic field at the junction edges, or controlled damage of one edge, which should suppress the chiral contribution if the current truly flows there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the supercurrent through a Josephson junction whose weak link is a stack of ten alternating nanometre-thick Al and Ni layers is carried by one-dimensional modes localised at the lateral boundaries of the stack, and that these modes are chiral. The evidence is a set of interference patterns in the maximum supercurrent versus in-plane magnetic field: instead of the Fraunhofer lobes expected for uniform current, the authors observe SQUID-like oscillations with an upwardly displaced background, a slowly decaying envelope, and a field period $\Delta H \approx 7.8$ Oe. Using an effective magnetic thickness $t = 560$ nm derived from a measured permeability $\mu \approx 5$, this period corresponds to $\Delta\Phi \approx 4.4 \times 10^{-7}$ G cm$^2$, approximately twice the superconducting flux quantum $\Phi_0 = hc/2e$. The authors interpret the doubled period as the signature of chiral Andreev edge states, in which an electron on one edge is converted by crossed Andreev reflection into a hole on the opposite edge, so that the interference period is set by $hc/e$ rather than $hc/2e$. Reconstructed supercurrent-density profiles place the current at the edges, and an inner conventional $S'IS'$ junction placed between two multilayers shows a Fraunhofer pattern, which the authors read as the edge current spreading uniformly when it enters a normal superconducting tunnel junction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the effective magnetic thickness of the 10-bilayer junction is $t = 560$ nm, computed with a permeability $\mu \approx 5$ measured on a much larger 70-bilayer sample; if the real permeability or sensing area differs, the observed period is no longer twice the flux quantum and the chirality signature vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A tunable tabletop source of chiral edge states would emerge: stacking chosen nonmagnetic/ferromagnetic pairs could replace topological single crystals as the platform for studying protected edge transport.
  • Edge-localized supercurrent means the junctions' magnetic response is concentrated at the boundary, so the interference pattern acts as a built-in probe of edge integrity and local symmetry breaking.
  • The reversion to a Fraunhofer pattern in the inner $S'IS'$ junction implies that chiral edge current can be coherently converted into ordinary bulk supercurrent, which may matter for wiring edge channels into conventional superconducting circuits.
  • The onset of SQUID-like behaviour with increasing bilayer number $n$ suggests a collective threshold: enough N/F periods are required to suppress bulk transport and leave edge modes dominant, so varying $n$ is a control knob.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Replacing Ni with a nonmagnetic metal such as Cu in the same geometry would provide a clean control: if the SQUID-like pattern persists, edge localization does not require ferromagnetic time-reversal breaking; if it vanishes, the Ni magnetization is the active ingredient.
  • Edge-damage experiments, such as cutting or notching one side of the junction, should suppress one of the two edge channels; a chiral mode would respond differently from a symmetric SQUID formed by two equal edge paths, allowing the two interpretations to be separated.
  • The photonic-alloy analogy suggests a broader design rule: periodic stacks of magnetically ordered and nonmagnetic layers with local time-reversal breaking may show hinge-like modes at larger bilayer counts, which could be tested in other N/F material pairs without requiring topological band structure.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports magnetic-field-dependent critical current measurements on Nb-based Josephson junctions whose weak links contain stacked (Al/Ni)n multilayers with n up to 10. For the S(NF)10NI(NF)10NS geometry the authors observe SQUID-like Ic(H) oscillations with an upward-shifted background instead of the conventional Fraunhofer pattern, and they reconstruct edge-localized supercurrent density profiles Js(y) from the interference data. They interpret the roughly 2Φ0 oscillation period, together with the edge-localized profiles, as evidence for chiral Andreev edge or hinge modes in a system of ordinary Al and Ni films without intrinsic topological band structure, and they support this interpretation with an analogy to topological photonic alloys. Measurements on devices with an embedded S'IS' trilayer are presented as a control showing conversion of edge-dominated flow into a more uniform Fraunhofer-like supercurrent distribution. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the chirality interpretation is tentative and that independent magnetic characterization of the multilayers remains necessary.

Significance. If the chiral hinge-mode interpretation were established, the work would be significant: it would demonstrate a synthetic, materials-based route to topological edge transport in stacks of ordinary metals, with potential implications for dissipationless interconnects and topological metamaterials. The paper has real strengths: it uses a phase-sensitive Josephson interferometry method suited to probing current distributions, it studies three complementary junction geometries, it reports reproducibility across six nominally identical devices (Fig. A7), and it includes TEM imaging and a detailed Fourier-reconstruction framework in Appendix C. The observed SQUID-like, edge-dominated interference patterns themselves appear to be a robust experimental finding that extends the authors' earlier work. However, the added claim of chirality rests on a single quantitative signature, the 2Φ0 period, whose calibration currently depends on a permeability value taken from a different sample and selected post hoc. As presented, the evidence supports edge-localized supercurrent but does not independently establish chiral directionality.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.B and Appendix A] The central quantitative evidence for chirality, the claimed 2Φ0 period of the Fig. 1c oscillations, is not parameter-free. The field period ΔH ≈ 7.8 Oe is converted to ΔΦ ≈ 4.4 × 10^-7 G·cm^2 using the effective magnetic thickness t = 560 nm from Eq. (1) with μ ≈ 5, a permeability obtained from a different, much larger (Al/Ni)70 sample. Appendix A states that for each sample the authors use μ = 1 and μ = 5 and select the value giving the best fit. With μ = 1 the same Eq. (1) gives t ≈ 220 nm (as used in Appendix D) and ΔΦ ≈ 1.7 × 10^-7 G·cm^2 ≈ 0.8Φ0, i.e., the ordinary Φ0 period expected for non-chiral edge or bulk transport. The period-doubling claim therefore rests on an externally adopted and sample-selected permeability rather than on a direct measurement. An independent determination of μ, or of the effective sensing area, for the actual 10-bilayer devices is required before the chiral interpretation can be sustained.
  2. [Appendix D.3] The argument in Appendix D.3 is circular. From ΔH = 13.0 Oe and w = 5 μm the authors obtain t = 320 nm using the standard Φ0/s relation, whereas Eq. (1) gives t = 220 nm for μ = 1 and t = 565 nm for μ ≈ 5. They then write that 'if we follow the assumption of chirality of the edge currents, then the relation for the period ΔH from Φ0/s transforms to 2Φ0/s,' which doubles the inferred thickness to 640 nm and brings it into agreement with μ ≈ 5. The chirality hypothesis is thus used to select μ, and the selected μ is then quoted as supporting chirality. This does not provide independent confirmation and should be removed or reframed as a consistency check only.
  3. [Appendix C and Figs. 1d, 2d, 3d] The reconstructed supercurrent density profiles are obtained by least-squares fitting an assumed functional form to the same Ic(H) data that they are then used to explain. As Appendix C itself demonstrates in Figs. A2 and A3, an asymmetric edge-dominated current distribution is sufficient to produce an upward-shifted SQUID-like pattern, regardless of whether the edge channels are chiral or not. The Js(y) profiles therefore corroborate edge localization but cannot by themselves distinguish chiral from helical or non-chiral edge currents; the only distinguishing feature discussed in the paper is the oscillation period, whose calibration is the issue raised above.
  4. [IV and Ref. [32]] The proposal that local time-reversal-symmetry breaking by superparamagnetic Ni layers can produce topologically protected chiral Andreev hinge modes is based on an analogy to photonic alloys (Ref. [32]); no electronic tight-binding, scattering, or Andreev-spectrum calculation for the Al/Ni multilayer is provided. Given that the experimental period evidence is inconclusive, the manuscript should either present a concrete model demonstrating a topological invariant or chiral Andreev bound states in this parameter regime, or soften the central claim to edge-localized supercurrent with unresolved directionality.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section II / Eq. (1)] For reproducibility, please provide the explicit layer-thickness sums used in Eq. (1) for each of the three device types; the values t = 560 nm and the sensing areas are quoted without a clear breakdown of dB for the full multilayer stacks.
  2. [Section III.B] The statement that the period is 'approximately twice' Φ0 would benefit from an uncertainty estimate for ΔH and for the resulting ΔΦ, since the period is the main quantitative basis for the chirality claim.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'transfer o Cooper pairs' in Section IV, 'illustrating ... illustrating' in the Fig. 2b caption, and 'oscilation' and 'smaal' in Appendix D and the Fig. A7 caption.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The chiral 2Φ0 period-doubling claim is not an independent prediction: the permeability μ is chosen per sample to give the best fit, and the Appendix D consistency check doubles the flux period by assuming chirality before declaring agreement with the μ≈5 calculation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.B (Fig. 1c) and Appendix A]
    "Setting μ ≈ 5 obtained previously for (Al/Ni)n multilayers [21], we find t = 560 nm, the sensing area s = 5.6×10^-8 cm2 and, finally, the experimental value ΔΦ = ΔH·s = 4.4×10^-7 G·cm2 which is approximately twice the magnetic flux quantum Φ0. ... Therefore, for each sample analyzed below, we will use two limiting values μ = 1 and μ = 5 and consider the one that gives the best fitting with the corresponding experiment."

    The claimed 2Φ0 period is not directly measured. It is obtained by multiplying the measured ΔH by the sensing area s = t·w, where t in Eq. (1) is proportional to the assumed permeability μ. Appendix A states that μ is not measured for the actual 10-bilayer device; instead, the two limiting values μ = 1 and μ = 5 are tried and the one giving the best fit is selected. Choosing μ ≈ 5 gives t = 560 nm and hence ΔΦ ≈ 2Φ0. Using the paper's own μ = 1 estimate of t ≈ 220 nm (Appendix D) would give ΔΦ ≈ 1.7×10^-7 G·cm2 ≈ 0.8Φ0 for the same Fig. 1c period. The period-doubling signature is therefore a result of the post-hoc μ choice, not an independently predicted consequence of the data.

  2. self definitional [Appendix D.2, discussion of six 5 µm junctions after Fig. A7]
    "If we follow the assumption of chirality of the edge currents, then the relation for the period ΔH from Φ0/s transforms to 2Φ0/s (see the main text), the value of s found from the experimental curves in Fig. A7 is doubled and becomes equal to 640 nm, in quite satisfactory agreement with t = 565 nm calculated above for μ ≈ 5."

    The 'satisfactory agreement' is manufactured by the chirality assumption itself. The same experimental period is first converted with Φ0/s to give t = 320 nm; then, solely on the assumption of chirality, the period is redefined as 2Φ0/s, doubling s to 640 nm. This doubled value is then compared with the μ ≈ 5 calculation and presented as confirmation of chirality. The comparison presupposes the very period relation it is meant to establish, so it cannot provide independent evidence for chiral edge modes.

full rationale

The paper contains genuine, non-circular empirical content: the measured Ic(H) patterns are SQUID-like rather than Fraunhofer, the background is upwardly displaced, and the inner S'IS' junction shows a Φ0 Fraunhofer period consistent with uniform supercurrent flow after the edge channels enter a conventional trilayer. These observations support edge-localized supercurrent transport independently of the chiral interpretation. However, the specific quantitative claim that distinguishes chiral from non-chiral edge currents—the 2Φ0 period in Fig. 1c—depends on the effective magnetic thickness t in Eq. (1), which scales with the assumed permeability μ. The paper's own Appendix A states that μ is not measured for each small device; instead μ = 1 and μ = 5 are tried and the value giving the best fit is adopted. With μ = 5, the same ΔH becomes ≈2Φ0; with μ = 1 it becomes ≈0.8Φ0. Thus the period-doubling 'hallmark of chiral Andreev edge transport' is a fitted output rather than a prediction. The circularity is explicit in Appendix D.2, where the period is first converted using Φ0/s and then doubled by assuming chirality before declaring agreement with the μ ≈ 5 t value. The magnetization measurement of the (Al/Ni)70 sample in the authors' prior work is not by itself circular, but transferring it to the 10-bilayer devices is justified by fit quality, making the resulting flux period a fitted input. Overall, the edge-localized transport conclusion is well supported by the pattern shape, but the chiral 2Φ0 signature is not; hence a moderate circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Josephson interferometry formulas plus a small number of fitted quantities, most importantly the magnetic permeability μ and the London penetration depth of Nb. The chiral interpretation requires an additional, unproven analogy to photonic alloys and a specific model of chiral Andreev transport, neither of which is independently verified.

free parameters (3)
  • Magnetic permeability μ of Al/Ni multilayer = μ ≈ 5 (limiting cases 1 and 5 considered)
    Determined from a large-area (Al/Ni)70 sample in Ref. [21]; Appendix A says the value that gives best fitting is chosen for each sample. The ΔΦ ≈ 2Φ0 result for Fig. 1c uses μ ≈ 5 and t = 560 nm.
  • London penetration depth λ_Nb = 82 nm
    Fit to the SNINS control junction with Ic(0) and sensing area as free parameters (Appendix D.1); enters every effective magnetic thickness t.
  • Js(y) profile fitting parameters = Several unspecified parameters per device
    Appendix C: 'we guess the approximate form... select a suitable mathematical equivalent with several unknown parameters, and find them with least squares fitting'. Profiles in Figs. 1d, 2d, 3d are outputs of this fit.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Dynes-Fulton Fourier relation between Ic(H) and Js(y) (Eq. A2)
    Basis for converting interference patterns into supercurrent-density profiles; standard result [27].
  • standard math Effective magnetic thickness formula Eq. (1)/(A3) with tanh London-depth terms
    Used to convert field period to flux period; standard for SIS/SNS junctions, but depends on μ and λ_Nb.
  • domain assumption The Al/Ni stack at 4.2 K is a superparamagnet with locally broken time-reversal symmetry
    Inferred for a large-area (Al/Ni)70 film in Ref. [21], not measured on the actual junctions; used to argue for chiral edge modes.
  • ad hoc to paper Local TRS breaking plus stacking is sufficient to create topologically protected chiral edge modes (photonic-alloy analogy)
    No electronic model or topological invariant is derived; the argument is by analogy to a topological photonic alloy [32].
  • domain assumption Chiral Andreev edge states give period 2Φ0 and upward Ic shift (Ref. [6])
    Interpretive template for period doubling; applied rather than derived for this system.
invented entities (1)
  • Chiral Andreev edge/hinge modes in non-topological Al/Ni multilayers
    purpose: Explain SQUID-like, upward-shifted Ic(H) with period near 2Φ0 and edge-localized Js(y).
    No independent measurement (nonlocal transport, direct edge imaging, spin or thermal signature) and no predicted bulk topological invariant; the supporting observations are the same Josephson data being interpreted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Localized Edge States in Stacked Al/Ni Multilayers: Possible Evidence of Chiral Hinge Modes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LD7KXJ4J

@misc{pith2026250720616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Localized Edge States in Stacked Al/Ni Multilayers: Possible Evidence of Chiral Hinge Modes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LD7KXJ4J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20616}
}
read the original abstract

Here, we report experimental evidence suggesting the emergence of robust, possibly chiral, edge states in artificially engineered multilayers composed of alternating nanometer-thick layers of nonmagnetic aluminum (Al) and ferromagnetic nickel (Ni). Using phase-sensitive Josephson interferometry, we observed distinct SQUID-like oscillations (instead of the conventional Fraunhofer patterns) in the maximum supercurrent versus in-plane probing magnetic field patterns, which can be associated with one-dimensional current-carrying modes localized at the sample boundaries. These results were obtained for multilayers consisting of up to ten Al/Ni bilayers sandwiched between superconducting Nb electrodes to form Josephson junctions. The spatially confined flow of supercurrent suggests the possible presence of chiral Andreev edge states reminiscent of those found in higher-order topological insulators, despite the absence of strong spin-orbit coupling or intrinsic topological band structure. The discovery of edge-localized charge transport in structures made of materials without intrinsic topological order challenges the prevailing understanding of topological phenomena and highlights the possibility of developing topological metamaterials as a tunable platform for exploring nontrivial edge physics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Qu, M.Wang, X

    T. Qu, M.Wang, X. Cheng, X. Cui, R.-Y. Zhang, Z.-Q. Zhang, L. Zhang, J. Chen, and C. T. Chan, Topological photonic alloy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 223802 (2024). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.223802]

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.223802 2024

  2. [1]

    Prada, P

    E. Prada, P. San-Jose, M. W. A. de Moor, A. Geresdi, E. J. H. Lee, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, J. Nygård, R. Aguado, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, From Andreev to Majorana bound states in hybrid superconductor–semiconductor nanowires, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 575 (2020). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0228-y]

    doi:10.1038/s42254-020-0228-y 2020

  3. [2]

    Barone and G

    A. Barone and G. Paternò, Physics and Applications of the Josephson Effect (Wiley, New York, 1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [3]

    Gross, A

    R. Gross, A. Marx, and F. Deppe, Applied Superconductivity: Josephson Effect and Superconducting Electronics (De Gruyter, Berlin, 2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Citro, C

    R. Citro, C. Guarcello, and S. Pagano, Josephson junctions, superconducting circuits, and qubits for quantum technologies, in New Trends and Platforms for Quantum Technologies, edited by R. Aguado, R. Citro, M. Lewenstein, and M. Stern (Springer, Cham, 2024), p. 1. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55657-9_1]

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-55657-9_1 2024

  6. [5]

    Qi, C.-Z

    J. Qi, C.-Z. Chen, J. Song, J. Liu, K. He, Q.-F. Sun, and X. C. Xie, Edge supercurrent in Josephson junctions based on topological materials, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 227401 (2025). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-024-2520-9]

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2520-9 2025

  7. [6]

    Mason, Superconductivity on the edge, Science 352, 891 (2016)

    N. Mason, Superconductivity on the edge, Science 352, 891 (2016). [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf6604]

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf6604 2016

  8. [7]

    Moessner and A

    R. Moessner and A. P. Mackenzie, Topological Phases of Matter (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021). [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316226308]

    doi:10.1017/9781316226308 2021

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Anirban, 15 years of topological insulators, Nat

    A. Anirban, 15 years of topological insulators, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 267 (2023). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-023-00587-y]

    2023 doi

  2. [9]

    Ando and L

    Y. Ando and L. Fu, Topological crystalline insulators and topological superconductors: From concepts to materials, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 361 (2015). [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031214-014501]

    2015 doi

  3. [10]

    Liu and W

    B. Liu and W. Zhang, Research progress of topological quantum materials: From first-order to higher-order, Symmetry 15, 1651 (2023). [https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15091651]

    2023 doi

  4. [11]

    Breunig and Y

    O. Breunig and Y. Ando, Opportunities in topological insulator devices, Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 184 (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00402-6]

    2022 doi

  5. [12]

    Yang, J.-H

    Y.-B. Yang, J.-H. Wang, K. Li, and Y. Xu, Higher-order topological phases in crystalline and non-crystalline systems: A review, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 36, 283002 (2024). [https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/ad3abd]

    2024 doi

  6. [13]

    Y. Shen, Z. Li, Q. Niu, and Z. Qiao, Disorder-induced phase transitions in three- dimensional chiral second-order topological insulator, Phys. Rev. B 109, 035303 (2024). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.035303]

    2024 doi

  7. [14]

    Noguchi, T

    R. Noguchi, T. Takahashi, K. Kuroda, T. Ochi, T. Shirasawa, M. Sakano, C. Bareille, M. Nakayama, M. D. Watson, K. Yaji, A. Harasawa, H. Iwasawa, P. Dudin, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, V. Kandyba, A. Barinov, T. Sasagawa, T. Kondo, and T. Sato, Evidence for a higher-order topological ...

    2021 doi

  8. [15]

    Xiong, R.-Y

    Z. Xiong, R.-Y. Zhang, R. Yu, C. T. Chan, and Y. Chen, Hidden symmetry-enforced nexus points of nodal lines in layer-stacked dielectric photonic crystals, Light Sci. Appl. 9, 176 (2020). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-020-00403-0]

    2020 doi

  9. [16]

    Z. Wang, D. Liu, H. T. Teo, Q. Wang, H. Xue, and B. Zhang, Higher-order Dirac semimetal in a photonic crystal, Phys. Rev. B 105, L060101 (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.105.L060101]

    2022 doi

  10. [17]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Tang, X. Dai, S. Zhang, and Y. Xiang, Higher-order nodal ring photonic semimetal, Opt. Lett. 47, 5885 (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.475147]

    2022 doi

  11. [18]

    Xia, J.-Z

    H.-R. Xia, J.-Z. Li, S.-Y. Yuan, and M. Xiao, Photonic realization of chiral hinge states in a Chern-insulator stack, Phys. Rev. B 111, L041112 (2025). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.111.L041112]

    2025 doi

  12. [19]

    Wang, Y.-B

    J.-H. Wang, Y.-B. Yang, N. Dai, and Y. Xu, Structural-disorder-induced second-order topological insulators in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 206404 (2021). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.206404]

    2021 doi

  13. [20]

    Meyer, L

    H.-G. Meyer, L. Fritzsch, S. Anders, M. Schmelz, J. Kunert, and G. Oelsner, Josephson junctions, in Applied Superconductivity: Handbook on Devices and Applications, edited by P. Seidel (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2015), Vol. 1, p. 281

    2015

  14. [21]

    I. P. Nevirkovets, M. A. Belogolovskii, and J. B. Ketterson, Josephson junctions with artificial superparamagnetic barrier: A promising avenue for nanoscale magnetometry, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 014092 (2020). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.014092]

    2020 doi

  15. [22]

    Mani and C

    A. Mani and C. Benjamin, Probing helicity and the topological origins of helicity via non- local Hanbury-Brown and Twiss correlations, Sci. Rep. 7, 6954 (2017). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06820-w]

    2017 doi

  16. [23]

    Knüpfer, C

    H. Knüpfer, C. B. Muratov, and F. Nolte, Magnetic domains in thin ferromagnetic films with strong perpendicular anisotropy, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 232, 727 (2019). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-018-1332-3]

    2019 doi

  17. [24]

    Z. B. Guo, W. B. Mi, Q. Zhang, R. Zhang, O. Aboljadayel, and X. X. Zhang, Anomalous Hall effect in polycrystalline Ni films, Solid State Commun. 152, 220 (2012). [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2011.10.039]

    2012 doi

  18. [25]

    Delacour, L

    C. Delacour, L. Ortega, M. Faucher, T. Crozes, T. Fournier, B. Pannetier, and V. Bouchiat, Persistence of superconductivity in niobium ultrathin films grown on R-plane sapphire, Phys. Rev. B 83, 144504 (2011). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.144504]

    2011 doi

  19. [26]

    I. P. Nevirkovets, A superconducting transistor with improved isolation between the input and output terminals, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 22, 105009 (2009). [https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/22/10/105009]

    2009 doi

  20. [27]

    R. C. Dynes and T. A. Fulton, Supercurrent density distribution in Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B 3, 3015 (1971). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.3.3015] 18

    1971 doi

  21. [28]

    Weihnacht, Influence of film thickness on D.C

    M. Weihnacht, Influence of film thickness on D.C. Josephson current, Phys. Status Solidi B 32, K169 (1969). [https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.19690320259]

    1969 doi

  22. [29]

    G. Wild, C. Probst, A. Marx, and R. Gross, Josephson coupling and Fiske dynamics in ferromagnetic tunnel junctions, Eur. Phys. J. B 78, 509 (2010). [https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2010-10636-4]

    2010 doi

  23. [30]

    A. R.-P. Montblanch, M. Barbone, I. Aharonovich, M. Atatüre, and A. C. Ferrari, Layered materials as a platform for quantum technologies, Nat. Nanotechnol. 18, 555 (2023). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-023-01354-x]

    2023 doi

  24. [31]

    S. Li, M. Gong, S. Cheng, H. Jiang, and X. C. Xie, Dissipationless layertronics in axion insulator MnBi₂Te₄, Natl. Sci. Rev. 11, nwad262 (2023). [https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwad262]

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    I. L. Aleiner, A. V. Andreev, and V. M. Vinokur, Aharonov-Bohm oscillations in singly connected disordered conductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 076802 (2015). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.076802]

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    X. Lu, J. Zou, J. M. Pham, A. A. Rana, C.-T. Liao, E. C. Subramanian, X. Wu, Y. H. Lo, C. S. Bevis, R. M. Karl, Jr., S. Lepadatu, Y.-S. Yu, Y. Tserkovnyak, T. P. Russell, D. A. Shapiro, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, R. Streubel, and J. Miao, Visualizing magnetic order in self-...

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    M. J. Gilbert, Topological electronics, Commun. Phys. 4, 70 (2021). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-021-00569-5]

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Reda, 3D integration advances computing, Nature 547, 38 (2017)

    S. Reda, 3D integration advances computing, Nature 547, 38 (2017). [https://doi.org/10.1038/547038a]

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    J. H. Kang, J. Choe, D. Kim, J. Lee, G. Lee, H. Kim, Y.-M. Kim, E. Choi, B. H. Park, and H. S. Lee, Monolithic 3D integration of 2D materials-based electronics towards ultimate edge computing solutions, Nat. Mater. 22, 1470 (2023). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-023-01704-z]

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Sáenz-Trevizo and A

    A. Sáenz-Trevizo and A. M. Hodge, Nanomaterials by design: A review of nanoscale metallic multilayers, Nanotechnology 31, 292002 (2020). [https://doi.org/10.1088/1361- 6528/ab7b2a]

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Rizal, B

    C. Rizal, B. Moa, and B. B. Niraula, Ferromagnetic multilayers: Magnetoresistance, magnetic anisotropy, and beyond, Magnetochemistry 2, 22 (2016). [https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry2020022]

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    M. Wang, L. Qiu, X. Zhao, Y. Li, T. Rao, S. He, L. Qin, and J. Tao, Multilayered Al/Ni energetic structural materials with high energy density and mechanical properties prepared by a facile approach of electrodeposition and hot pressing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 757, 23 (2019). [htt...

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    S. S. Riegler, Y. H. S. Camposano, K. Jaekel, M. Frey, C. Neemann, S. Matthes, E. Vardo, M. R. Chegeni, H. Bartsch, R. Busch, J. Müller, P. Schaaf, and I. Gallino, Nanocalorimetry of 19 nanoscaled Ni/Al multilayer films: On the methodology to determine reaction kinetics for hi...

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Le Guen, G

    K. Le Guen, G. Gamblin, P. Jonnard, M. Salou, J. Ben Youssef, S. Rioual, and B. Rouvellou, Spectroscopic study of interfaces in Al/Ni periodic multilayers, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 45, 20502 (2009). [https://doi.org/10.1051/epjap/2009027]

    2009

  35. [43]

    Kaplan, H

    N. Kaplan, H. Kuru, and H. Köçkar, Investigation of the influence of Al layer and total film thicknesses on structural and related magnetic properties in sputtered Ni/Al multilayer thin films, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 35, 302 (2024). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-023-11940-0]

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Karpuz, H

    A. Karpuz, H. Köçkar, and S. Çolmekçi, Structural and corresponding magnetic properties of sputtered Ni/Al multilayer films: Effect of Ni layer thickness, Acta Phys. Pol. A 134, 1180 (2018). [https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.134.1180]

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    I. P. Nevirkovets and O. A. Mukhanov, Memory cell for high-density arrays based on a multiterminal superconducting-ferromagnetic device, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 034013 (2018). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.034013]

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    R. P. Cowburn, Property variation with shape in magnetic nanoelements, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 33, R1 (2000). [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/33/1/201]

    2000 doi

  39. [47]

    C. A. Neugebauer, Saturation magnetization of nickel films of thickness less than 100 Å, Phys. Rev. 116, 1441 (1959). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.116.1441]

    1959 doi

  40. [48]

    I. P. Nevirkovets and O. A. Mukhanov, Peculiar interference pattern of Josephson junctions involving periodic ferromagnet-normal metal structure, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 31, 03LT01 (2018). [https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/aaa9f8]

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Bedanta and W

    S. Bedanta and W. Kleemann, Supermagnetism, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 42, 013001 (2009). [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/42/1/013001]

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    Sharma, N

    A. Sharma, N. Theodoropoulou, T. Haillard, R. Acharyya, R. Loloee, W. P. Pratt, Jr., J. Zhang, and M. A. Crimp, Current-perpendicular-to-plane magnetoresistance of ferromagnetic F/Al interfaces (F = Py, Co, Fe, and Co₉₁Fe₉) and structural studies of Co/Al and Py/Al, Phys. Rev....

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    Y. Wang, Z. Xing, Y. Qiao, H. Jiang, X. Yu, F. Ye, Y. Li, L. Wang, and B. Liu, Asymmetric atomic diffusion and phase growth at the Al/Ni and Ni/Al interfaces in the Al-Ni multilayers obtained by magnetron deposition, J. Alloys Compd. 789, 887 (2019). [https://doi.org/10.1016/j...

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    A. I. Braginski, Superconductor electronics: Status and outlook, J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 32, 23 (2019). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948-018-4884-7]

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    K. R. Joshi, S. Ghimire, M. A. Tanatar, A. Datta, J.-S. Oh, L. Zhou, C. J. Kopas, J. Marshall, J. Y. Mutus, J. Slaughter, M. J. Kramer, J. A. Sauls, and R. Prozorov, Quasiparticle spectroscopy, transport, and magnetic properties of Nb films used in superconducting qubits, Phys...

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    K. M. Ryan, C. G. Torres-Castanedo, D. P. Goronzy, D. A. G. Wetten, M. Field, C. J. Kopas, J. Marshall, M. J. Reagor, M. J. Bedzyk, M. C. Hersam, and V. Chandrasekhar, Characterization of Nb films for superconducting qubits using phase boundary measurements, Appl. Phys. Lett. ...

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    R. M. L. McFadden, M. Asaduzzaman, T. Prokscha, Z. Salman, A. Suter, and T. Junginger, Depth-resolved measurements of the Meissner screening profile in surface-treated Nb, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 044018 (2023). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.044018]

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    R. M. L. McFadden and T. Junginger, Search for inhomogeneous Meissner screening in Nb induced by low-temperature surface treatments, AIP Adv. 14, 095320 (2024). [https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0226022]

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    T. S. Khaire, W. P. Pratt, Jr., and N. O. Birge, Critical current behavior in Josephson junctions with the weak ferromagnet PdNi, Phys. Rev. B 79, 094523 (2009). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.094523]

    2009 doi

  50. [58]

    Niedzielski, E

    V. Niedzielski, E. C. Gingrich, R. Loloee, W. P. Pratt, Jr., and N. O. Birge, S/F/S Josephson junctions with single-domain ferromagnets for memory applications, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 28, 085012 (2015). [https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/8/085012]

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    J. M. Rowell, Magnetic field dependence of the Josephson tunnel current, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 200 (1963). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11.200]

    1963 doi

  52. [60]

    N. O. Birge and N. Satchell, Ferromagnetic materials for Josephson π junctions, APL Mater. 12, 041105 (2024). [https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0200544]

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    I. P. Nevirkovets, Observation of fractional vortices and π phases in Josephson junctions involving periodic magnetic layers, Phys. Rev. B 108, 024503 (2023). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.024503]

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    I. P. Nevirkovets, M. A. Belogolovskii, O. A. Mukhanov, and J. B. Ketterson, Magnetic field sensor based on a single Josephson junction with a multilayer ferromagnet/normal metal barrier, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 31, 1800205 (2021). [https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2021.3050224]

    2021

  55. [63]

    A. W. Kleinsasser, High performance Nb Josephson devices for petaflops computing, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 11, 1043 (2001). [https://doi.org/10.1109/77.919545]

    2001 doi

  56. [64]

    background

    X. He, W. Zhong, C.-T. Au, and Y. Du, Size dependence of the magnetic properties of Ni nanoparticles prepared by thermal decomposition method, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 8, 446 (2013). [https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-8-446] 21 APPENDICES Appendix A: Magnetic and electrical charac...

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.