Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Crystalline Group-IV Josephson Junction

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates a fully epitaxial gallium-doped germanium / silicon / gallium-doped germanium Josephson junction platform, and attributes an unconventional magnetic-field rise in switching current to quasiparticle-assisted cooling…

desk verdict New, credible epitaxial group-IV Josephson junction platform, but the quasiparticle-cooling explanation for the field-enhanced switching current is underdetermined and oversold in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08500 v1 pith:FKD6UTYK submitted 2026-08-09 cond-mat.mes-hall

Frederik H. Knudsen , Axel Leblanc , Patrick J. Strohbeen , Jechiel van Dijk , Yiliu Li , Logan Kusher , Arunav Bordoloi , Alisa Danilenko
show 3 more authors
Xiangchao Ma Salva Salmani-Rezaie Javad Shabani
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 74.50.+r
keywords Josephsonjunctionssuperconductivitygallium-dopedgermaniumcrystallinesemiconductormolecularbeamepitaxyswitchingcurrentquasiparticlethermalizationquantumcomputing
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

Ordinary Josephson junctions rely on an amorphous aluminum-oxide barrier whose atomic disorder is thought to host two-level-system defects that shorten qubit coherence. This paper claims that a fully crystalline alternative can be grown in one molecular-beam-epitaxy run: a superconducting gallium-doped germanium layer, a half-nanometer silicon weak link, and another gallium-doped germanium layer, all with atomically sharp interfaces. In six junctions with different areas the authors find strong Josephson coupling, with $eR_N I_{SW}/\Delta$ near the ideal tunnel value and below the ballistic short-junction limit, and $I_{SW}$ scaling with area while $R_N$ scales inversely. The paper's central experimental finding is a rise in switching current under an in-plane magnetic field, opposite to the usual suppression, which the authors attribute to quasiparticles generated in the aluminum contacts that open a cooling channel for the top Ga:Ge layer. The stack thereby offers a low-disorder, CMOS-compatible route to merged-element transmon qubits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the vertical crystalline stack Ga:Ge/Si/Ga:Ge: two 10 nm superconducting Ga:Ge films separated by a coherently strained 0.5 nm Si barrier, grown by molecular-beam epitaxy with no post-growth junction definition. The measurable that carries the coupling argument is the dimensionless product $eR_N I_{SW}/\Delta$, which separates tunnel junctions (with value $\pi/2$) from fully transparent ballistic superconductor–normal–superconductor (SNS) junctions (with value $\pi$); the six devices scatter between the two, placing them in the short, moderately transparent SNS regime. The magnetic-field effect is carried by a two-channel thermalization picture: at zero field the top Ga:Ge layer cools mainly through electron-phonon coupling, while an in-plane field creates in-gap quasiparticles in the aluminum contacts and opens a second cooling path, so that $I_{SW}$ can rise with field until the aluminum critical field cuts the channel off.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to add a tunnel-junction thermometer to the top Ga:Ge layer and measure its electronic temperature versus $B_\parallel$: the quasiparticle-assisted-thermalization explanation predicts a correlated drop in electron temperature as $I_{SW}$ rises, plus the disappearance of the enhancement when the aluminum leads are exchanged for a superconductor with a much higher critical field.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that heavily gallium-doped germanium, made superconducting by extreme substitutional doping, can serve as both the electrodes and the crystalline environment of a Josephson junction, with a 0.5 nm silicon barrier acting as the weak link. The paper reports that the Ga:Ge/Si/Ga:Ge tri-layer, grown entirely in situ, survives device fabrication with coherent lattice contrast across the junction, and that all six measured devices show a supercurrent branch with $eR_N I_{SW}/\Delta$ clustering around the ideal tunnel-junction value $\pi/2$ and below the ballistic short-junction value $\pi$. It then reports that an in-plane magnetic field around 80 mT enhances the switching current, accompanied by growing hysteresis, while a perpendicular field only suppresses it. After excluding magnetic impurities, vortices, and $\pi$-junction behavior, the authors conclude that field-generated in-gap quasiparticles in the aluminum leads enhance thermalization of the top Ga:Ge layer, an interpretation supported by the temperature dependence: at $B_\parallel = 160$ mT the switching current continues to rise down to base temperature, and a disordered short ballistic superconductor–normal–superconductor model with transparency $\tau=0.8$ reproduces the data.

Load-bearing premise

The central explanation assumes that the top Ga:Ge layer loses heat mainly through the aluminum contacts and that in-gap quasiparticles created by the magnetic field open a cooling channel strong enough to overcome the field's direct suppression of the supercurrent, an assumption not tested by a quantitative model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Amorphous AlO$_x$ barriers can be replaced by a crystalline group-IV weak link grown in situ, eliminating the multi-step fabrication and interface contamination that usually compromise epitaxial junctions.
  • The vertical geometry and monolayer control of the silicon barrier thickness give direct tunability of the junction's electrical parameters, including the $E_J/E_C$ ratio needed for charge-noise-insensitive operation.
  • The reproducible rise of switching current with in-plane field, seen in all six devices and vanishing above about 250 mK, is a concrete signature of quasiparticle-assisted thermalization in this geometry.
  • Because the stack uses only CMOS-compatible germanium processing, the same growth scheme can be scaled to wafer-scale, densely integrated superconducting qubits with a small footprint and expected low two-level-system density.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the quasiparticle-cooling interpretation is right, the switching current itself becomes a built-in probe of non-equilibrium quasiparticle density in the aluminum leads, since any change in cooling rate would appear as a shift in $I_{SW}$ at fixed field.
  • The field-enhanced regime could be deliberately used in qubit operation: parking a transmon near the in-plane field that maximizes cooling would lower the effective electronic temperature at the cost of flux sensitivity, a trade-off the paper does not quantify.
  • A direct extension would be to replace the aluminum contacts with a higher-critical-field superconductor: the mechanism implies the enhancement peak should move to that material's critical field, offering a clean test of the thermalization channel.
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 fully epitaxial Josephson junctions grown by molecular beam epitaxy, consisting of a 0.5 nm Si barrier sandwiched between two Ga-doped Ge superconducting layers, with Al contacts. Six devices with different junction areas are characterized by four-terminal DC transport. The junctions show a clear supercurrent, and the product eR_N I_SW/Delta lies between the Ambegaokar-Baratoff and short-ballistic limits. The central new observation is an enhancement of the switching current at in-plane magnetic fields around 80 mT, together with the emergence of hysteresis at low temperature. The authors attribute this enhancement to quasiparticle-assisted thermalization from the Al contacts, supported by temperature-dependent measurements at zero and 160 mT and a fit to a disordered short ballistic SNS model. The paper concludes with a discussion of the platform's potential for merged-element transmon qubits.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the work demonstrates a structurally clean, fully epitaxial, CMOS-compatible Josephson junction platform with strong coupling, which is a meaningful advance for low-disorder superconducting quantum devices. The strengths are the in-situ MBE growth, atomic-scale interface characterization by STEM, the systematic scaling of I_SW and R_N with junction area across six devices, and the clear observation of a reproducible magnetic-field-induced enhancement. The main significance is currently limited by the fact that the headline physical mechanism is supported only qualitatively; the platform demonstration itself is solid and would remain valuable even if the proposed thermalization mechanism were softened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Magnetic field enhancement of the switching current and thermalization process (Fig. 3, Fig. 4a)] The central attribution of the switching-current enhancement to quasiparticle-assisted thermalization is underdetermined. The paper states 'We therefore attribute the I_SW-enhancement to enhanced thermalization of the junction by QPs' and assumes that the top Ga:Ge layer 'relies on the Al leads as thermalization path,' but no quantitative model of I_SW(B) is provided, and the thermal isolation of the top layer from the substrate is asserted rather than demonstrated. A fit of I_SW(T) at a single field value (B_parallel = 160 mT) cannot distinguish a genuine cooling channel from other field-dependent effects, such as an increase in quasiparticle conductance or a change in the junction's dynamical damping that moves the switching current closer to the true critical current. A quantitative estimate of the QP cooling power relative to the electron-phonon coupling, and a predicted field dependence that can be compared with Fig. 4b, would be needed to support the central claim.
  2. [Fig. 4a and Table 1] The quantitative support for the QP-cooling interpretation is a fit of I_SW(T) at B_parallel = 160 mT to a disordered short ballistic SNS model with transparency tau = 0.8, and the superconducting gap is estimated from T_C = 365 mK 'as extracted from the fit in FIG 4a.' Because the switching current is used as a proxy for the critical current, and because tau and T_C are extracted from the same trace that is then used to infer a reduced effective electron temperature, the fit is a circular consistency check rather than an independent test of the cooling scenario. I recommend either obtaining tau and T_C from independent measurements (e.g., normal-state characterization or tunnel-junction spectroscopy) or explicitly constructing the model so that the switching-current dynamics and the field-dependent quasiparticle distribution are treated separately.
  3. [Magnetic field enhancement: exclusion of alternative mechanisms] The arguments against magnetic impurities, vortices, and pi-junction behavior are negative: no magnetic impurities are known, no Fraunhofer pattern is observed, and no field hysteresis is seen. The absence of these signatures does not positively establish that field-generated quasiparticles in the Al leads cool the junction. The paper should provide a falsifiable prediction of the QP-assisted thermalization model—for example, the expected field scale and magnitude of the enhancement, its scaling with contact area and lead volume, and the temperature at which the enhancement should vanish—and compare that prediction with the data in Fig. 4b. Without such a quantitative link, the abstract's claim that the enhancement is 'attributed to quasiparticle-assisted thermalization processes' overstates the evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3c] The caption defines the shaded regions as non-hysteretic, transition, and hysteretic, but the exact field values delimiting these regions are not stated; please provide the numerical boundaries.
  2. [Fig. 4a] The legend text appears truncated ('ISW IR'); the curves should be labeled explicitly as I_SW and I_R, and the symbols for the data points should be defined.
  3. [Supplementary references] Several claims refer to supplementary sections (SI IV, SI V, SI VI, SI IX) that are not included in the manuscript; please ensure these are available and that each referenced section is clearly linked.
  4. [Introduction] The phrase 'Cl-terminate the Ga:Ge films in HCl' is used without further explanation; a brief description or a reference for the surface passivation procedure would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Quantitative support for the quasiparticle-cooling interpretation is partly in-sample: the effective electron temperature and gap are extracted from the same switching-current data they are used to explain, though the epitaxial device demonstration itself is self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Magnetic field enhancement of the switching current and thermalization process', FIG 4a discussion]
    "When B∥=160 mT, saturation sets in at a significantly lower bath temperature and we notice the appearance of hysteresis in the IVs at T < 150 mK. We attribute this to a reduction in the effective electronic temperature reached when B∥=160 mT. This picture aligns with our previous argument on the opening of a QP cooling channel at a finite field. Furthermore, a disordered short ballistic SNS JJ model33 successfully reproduces the data at B∥=160 mT (black dashed line) with transparency, τ=0.8."

    The 'effective electronic temperature' is not measured independently; it is the temperature variable in an SNS model fitted to the switching current ISW(T) at B∥=160 mT. The phenomenon to be explained is the enhancement of ISW at finite field, and the proposed cause (QP cooling lowering the effective electron temperature) is inferred from the same ISW(T) curve that the SNS model was fitted to reproduce. The model's agreement is therefore an in-sample fit, not an out-of-sample prediction, and the lowered effective temperature is a restatement of the higher ISW rather than independent evidence for a QP thermalization channel.

full rationale

The central materials/device result—fully epitaxial Ga:Ge/Si/Ga:Ge Josephson junctions with atomically sharp interfaces and strong coupling—is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The attribution of the magnetic-field switching-current enhancement to quasiparticle-assisted thermalization, however, rests on a circular quantitative argument: the only quantitative support is a fit of ISW(T) at B∥=160 mT to a disordered short ballistic SNS model, and the 'reduction in effective electronic temperature' invoked as the cause of the enhanced ISW is read off from that same fitted curve. The paper also estimates Δ from TC=365 mK obtained from the same Fig. 4a fit and then uses this Δ to compute eRNISW/Δ in Table 1 for comparison with Ambegaokar-Baratoff and short-ballistic limits; that comparison is thus partly in-sample rather than an independent check. The exclusions of magnetic impurities, π-junction, and vortex mechanisms are negative arguments and do not independently establish the QP-cooling channel. However, this circularity is confined to the explanatory framework for one transport feature; it does not undermine the demonstrated epitaxial junction platform, so the overall score is moderate (3/10) rather than higher. No self-citation is load-bearing in a way that forces the conclusions: references [14,15] supply the prior demonstration of Ga:Ge superconductivity, which is external published evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central device result rests on the prior demonstration of superconductivity in Ga:Ge (refs 14,15), standard BCS and SNS transport models, and the interpreted STEM/EDS structural data. The quantitative interpretation adds two fitted parameters, the SNS transparency τ=0.8 and the superconducting TC=365 mK used to set Δ, both extracted from fits to the transport data they are then used to explain. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • junction transparency tau = 0.8
    Fitted to the disordered short ballistic SNS model to reproduce ISW(T) at B_perp = 160 mT (FIG 4a). It is a model parameter, not independently measured.
  • superconducting critical temperature TC = 365 mK
    Used to set the superconducting gap Δ via BCS relation. The text states TC is 'extracted from the fit in FIG 4a', so it is model-dependent rather than an independent resistive transition measurement.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math BCS gap relation Δ = 1.764 k_B T_C
    Used to convert the fitted TC to a superconducting gap for comparing eRNISW/Δ with model limits.
  • domain assumption Disordered short ballistic SNS model of Beenakker (ref 33)
    Used to fit the temperature dependence of ISW at finite field and to extract TC and transparency.
  • domain assumption Prior established superconductivity of Ga-doped Ge (refs 14,15)
    The junction relies on the carrier concentration and superconducting phase of the MBE-grown Ga:Ge films, taken as established from earlier publications.
  • domain assumption Coherent strain and crystallinity of the 0.5 nm Si barrier
    Transport and the SNS interpretation assume the Si barrier is a coherent crystalline tunnel barrier; supported by STEM but not independently verified in transport.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Crystalline Group-IV Josephson Junction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FKD6UTYK

@misc{pith2026260808500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Crystalline Group-IV Josephson Junction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FKD6UTYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08500}
}
abstract

Conventional superconducting quantum electronics rely on well-established Josephson junctions made of Al/AlO$_{x}$ where the weak link AlO$_{x}$ is amorphous and is believed to host two-level systems that limit coherence. Crystalline Josephson junctions exhibit atomically ordered interface quality but remain constrained by complex fabrication and intrinsic asymmetry of epitaxial growth. Here, we demonstrate a fully epitaxial approach based on superconductivity in gallium-doped germanium, enabling the realization of Josephson junctions entirely grown in situ by molecular beam epitaxy. These devices feature atomically sharp interfaces and crystalline weak links, resulting in strong Josephson coupling in the ultra-short regime. We observe an unconventional enhancement of the switching current under applied magnetic field, which we attribute to quasiparticle-assisted thermalization processes from the Al contacts. This platform combines structural coherence, fabrication simplicity, and scalability, offering a promising route toward low-disorder, CMOS-compatible superconducting qubits in a merged element transmon architecture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08500 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Ga:Ge vertical crystalline Josephson junction. a, The 10 nm superconducting hyperdoped Ga:Ge films are grown on a Ge substrate and separated by a 0.5 nm Si barrier. The heterostructure is capped by 1 nm of Si. b, Superconducting Al leads contact the top and bottom Ga:Ge films, allowing transport measurements through the junction, the Josephson current IJ direction is indicated by the arrow. c, False color Scanning… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Junction Characteristics. a, Differential resistance as a function of the applied magnetic field perpendicular to the substrate, B⊥ (Device A). Inset: device schematic indicating the current path and field orientation. b, Top: eRN ISW /∆ for the six JJs with varying junction area, scattered around the Ambegaokar-Baratoff limit, and below the short ballistic limit with perfect transparency (τ = 1) for SNS junctions. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnetic-Field-Enhanced Switching Current. a, Differential resistance as a function of the in-plane magnetic field, B∥, and the bias current, IDC . Inset, left: device schematic indicating the field orientation. Inset, right: zoom of the region around the enhanced switching current. b, IV traces extracted from a at the field values indicated by the colored ticks. c, The ratio of the switching current, ISW , to the r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temperature Dependence. a, Bath-temperature dependence of the switching and retrapping currents, ISW and IR. At zero field, both ISW and IR saturate below 150 mK, whereas at an in-plane field B∥ = 160 mT ISW continue to rise down to the base temperature while IR satura…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A.; Devoret, M

    Clerk, A. A.; Devoret, M. H.; Girvin, S. M.; Marquardt, F.; Schoelkopf, R. J.Reviews of Modern Physics 2010,82, 1155–1208

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    M.; Gambetta, J.; Houck, A

    Koch, J.; Yu, T. M.; Gambetta, J.; Houck, A. A.; Schuster, D. I.; Majer, J.; Blais, A.; Devoret, M. H.; Girvin, S. M.; Schoelkopf, R. J.Physical Review A2007,76, 042319, Number: 4

    work page

  3. [3]

    V.; Chakram, S.; He, K.; Agrawal, A.; Naik, R

    Dixit, A. V.; Chakram, S.; He, K.; Agrawal, A.; Naik, R. K.; Schuster, D. I.; Chou, A.Physical Review Letters2021,126, 141302. 7

    work page

  4. [4]

    Bland, M. P. et al.Nature2025,647, 343–348

    work page

  5. [5]

    A.; Xiong, H.; Kuzmin, R.; Manucharyan, V

    Somoroff, A.; Ficheux, Q.; Mencia, R. A.; Xiong, H.; Kuzmin, R.; Manucharyan, V. E.Physical Review Letters2023,130, 267001, Number: 26

    work page

  6. [6]

    M.; Poletto, S.; Plourde, B

    Rigetti, C.; Gambetta, J. M.; Poletto, S.; Plourde, B. L. T.; Chow, J. M.; Córcoles, A. D.; Smolin, J. A.; Merkel, S. T.; Rozen, J. R.; Keefe, G. A.; Rothwell, M. B.; Ketchen, M. B.; Steffen, M.Physical Review B2012,86, 100506, Number: 10

    work page

  7. [7]

    O.; Steele, G

    Island, J. O.; Steele, G. A.; Zant, H. S. J. v. d.; Castellanos-Gomez, A.2D Materials2016,3, 031002

    work page

  8. [8]

    G.; Gustafsson, M

    Balgley, J.; Park, J.; Chu, X.; Arnault, E. G.; Gustafsson, M. V.; Ranzani, L.; Holbrook, M.; He, Y.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Rhodes, D.; Perebeinos, V.; Hone, J.; Fong, K. C.Phys. Rev. Appl.2025, 24, 034016

    work page 2025

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Lee, G.-H.; Kim, S.; Jhi, S.-H.; Lee, H.-J.Nature Communications2015,6, 6181

  2. [10]

    Lachowski, A.; Wolny, P.; Dybko, K.; Skierbiszewski, C.Communications Materials2025,6, 169

  3. [11]

    Communications Materials2021,2, 98

    Kim, S.; Terai, H.; Yamashita, T.; Qiu, W.; Fuse, T.; Yoshihara, F.; Ashhab, S.; Inomata, K.; Semba, K. Communications Materials2021,2, 98

  4. [12]

    P.; Zhao, T.; Inbar, H.; Dong, J

    Goswami, A.; McFadden, A. P.; Zhao, T.; Inbar, H.; Dong, J. T.; Zhao, R.; McRae, C. R. H.; Sim- monds, R. W.; Palmstrøm, C. J.; Pappas, D. P.Applied Physics Letters2022,121, 064001

  5. [13]

    Shim, Y.-P.; Tahan, C.Nature Communications2016,7, 11059

  6. [14]

    A.; Strohbeen, P

    Steele, J. A.; Strohbeen, P. J.; Verdi, C.; Baktash, A.; Danilenko, A.; Chen, Y.-H.; van Dijk, J.; Knudsen, F. H.; Leblanc, A.; Perconte, D.; Wang, L.; Demler, E.; Salmani-Rezaie, S.; Jacobson, P.; Shabani, J.Nature Nanotechnology2025, 1–7

  7. [15]

    J.; Brook, A

    Strohbeen, P. J.; Brook, A. M.; Sarney, W. L.; Shabani, J.AIP Advances2023,13

  8. [16]

    A.; Loss, D.; Myronov, M.; Zhang, J.-J.; De Franceschi, S.; Katsaros, G.; Veldhorst, M.Nature Reviews Materials2021,6, 926–943, Number: 10

    Scappucci, G.; Kloeffel, C.; Zwanenburg, F. A.; Loss, D.; Myronov, M.; Zhang, J.-J.; De Franceschi, S.; Katsaros, G.; Veldhorst, M.Nature Reviews Materials2021,6, 926–943, Number: 10

  9. [17]

    D.ECS Transactions2023,111, 53, Number: 1

    Hartmann, J.-M.; Bernier, N.; Pierre, F.; Barnes, J.-P.; Mazzocchi, V.; Krawczyk, J.; Lima, G.; Kiyooka, E.; Franceschi, S. D.ECS Transactions2023,111, 53, Number: 1

  10. [18]

    S.; Goswami, S.; Andersen, C

    Pita-Vidal, M.; Souto, R. S.; Goswami, S.; Andersen, C. K.; Katsaros, G.; Shabani, J.; Aguado, R. Novel qubits in hybrid semiconductor-superconductor nanostructures. 2025;https://arxiv.org/abs/2512. 23336

    2025

  11. [19]

    W.; Franke, D

    Hendrickx, N. W.; Franke, D. P.; Sammak, A.; Scappucci, G.; Veldhorst, M.Nature2020,577, 487–491, Number: 7791

  12. [20]

    W.; Lawrie, W

    Hendrickx, N. W.; Lawrie, W. I. L.; Russ, M.; van Riggelen, F.; de Snoo, S. L.; Schouten, R. N.; Sammak, A.; Scappucci, G.; Veldhorst, M.Nature2021,591, 580–585, Number: 7851

  13. [21]

    Sagi, O.; Crippa, A.; Valentini, M.; Janik, M.; Baghumyan, L.; Fabris, G.; Kapoor, L.; Hassani, F.; Fink, J.; Calcaterra, S.; Chrastina, D.; Isella, G.; Katsaros, G.Nature Communications2024,15, 6400

  14. [22]

    Kiyooka, E.; Tangchingchai, C.; Noirot, L.; Leblanc, A.; Brun, B.; Zihlmann, S.; Maurand, R.; Schmitt, V.; Dumur, Ã.; Hartmann, J.-M.; Lefloch, F.; De Franceschi, S.Nano Letters2025,25, 562–568, Number: 1

  15. [23]

    et al.Nature Communications2024,15, 169, Number: 1

    Valentini, M. et al.Nature Communications2024,15, 169, Number: 1

  16. [24]

    Leblanc, A.; Tangchingchai, C.; Sadre Momtaz, Z.; Kiyooka, E.; Hartmann, J.-M.; Gustavo, F.; Thomassin, J.-L.; Brun, B.; Schmitt, V.; Zihlmann, S.; Maurand, R.; Dumur, É.; De Franceschi, S.; Lefloch, F.Nature Communications2025,16, 1010, Number: 1. 8

  17. [25]

    Ambegaokar, V.; Baratoff, A.Phys. Rev. Lett.1963,10, 486–489

    1963

  18. [26]

    O.; Omelyanchouk, A

    Kulik, I. O.; Omelyanchouk, A. N.Le Journal de Physique Colloques1978,39, C6–546–C6–547, Number: C6

  19. [27]

    Beenakker, C. W. J.; Van Houten, H.Physical Review Letters1991,66, 3056–3059, Number: 23

  20. [28]

    T.; Goldbart, P

    Rogachev, A.; Wei, T.-C.; Pekker, D.; Bollinger, A. T.; Goldbart, P. M.; Bezryadin, A.Physical Review Letters2006,97, 137001

  21. [29]

    V.Physical Review B2014,89, 195407, Number: 19

    Yokoyama, T.; Eto, M.; Nazarov, Y. V.Physical Review B2014,89, 195407, Number: 19

  22. [30]

    Physical Review Letters2022,128, 207001

    Sato, Y.; Ueda, K.; Takeshige, Y.; Kamata, H.; Li, K.; Samuelson, L.; Xu, H.; Matsuo, S.; Tarucha, S. Physical Review Letters2022,128, 207001

  23. [31]

    Physical Review B2020,102

    Murani,A.; Sengupta1,S.; Kasumov,A.; Deblock,R.; Celle,C.; Simonato,J.-P.; Bouchiat,H.; GuÃľron,S. Physical Review B2020,102

  24. [32]

    A.; Zwanenburg, F

    Wu, Z.; Ridderbos, J.; Li, A.; Golubov, A. A.; Zwanenburg, F. A.; Bakkers, E. P. A. M.; Brinkman, A.; Li, C.Applied Physics Letters2024,125, 012603

  25. [33]

    Beenakker, C. W. J.Physical Review Letters1991,67, 3836–3839. Acknowledgments We acknowledge support from National Science Foundation Clemson (2137776) and Air Force Office of Scientific Research Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (Stanford, FA9550-25-1-0289). El...

Pith tools

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