Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Crystalline superconductor-semiconductor Josephson junctions for compact superconducting qubits

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the thickness of a semiconducting weak link in a vertical van der Waals Josephson junction controls whether the junction behaves as a proximity-type or tunneling-type element, with the crossover near seven atomic…

desk verdict A creditable DC transport study with a genuine thickness-driven crossover, but the 'accurate qubit design' claim rests on one device and unpropagated ±1-layer thickness uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14969 v2 pith:SUNRYWT2 submitted 2025-01-24 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Jesse Balgley , Jinho Park , Xuanjing Chu , Ethan G. Arnault , Martin V. Gustafsson , Leonardo Ranzani , Madisen Holbrook , Yangchen He
show 6 more authors
Kenji Watanabe Takashi Taniguchi Daniel Rhodes Vasili Perebeinos James Hone Kin Chung Fong
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords JosephsonjunctionsvanderWaalsheterostructuresWSe2NbSe2transmonqubitsproximityeffecttunnelingmerged-element
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports a systematic study of vertical Josephson junctions made by sandwiching semiconducting WSe2 between superconducting NbSe2 electrodes. As the WSe2 weak link is thickened from 3 to 18 atomic layers, the junction switches from proximity-type behavior, where the weak link is conductive, to tunneling-type behavior, where it acts as an insulating barrier, with the crossover near seven layers. The authors use the exponential dependence of critical current on layer count to predict the transition frequency of a compact 'merged-element' transmon qubit, and a prototype built with a 17-layer weak link comes within 10% of the predicted frequency. This suggests that crystalline van der Waals junctions can serve as reproducible, compact superconducting qubit elements.

What carries the argument

The central object is the vertical van der Waals Josephson junction NbSe2/WSe2/NbSe2, in which the WSe2 layer count acts as a thickness knob. The mechanism carrying the argument is band-alignment-driven charge transfer: ab initio estimates place the NbSe2 Fermi level 1.07 eV below the WSe2 valence band edge, so each electrode hole-dopes about three WSe2 layers, making thin weak links fully conductive (proximity-type) while thicker weak links leave an undoped central tunnel barrier (tunneling-type). The paper also uses the Ambegaokar–Baratoff limit and the RCSJ washboard model to interpret the crossover, and the standard transmon formula $f_{01} = (\sqrt{8E_JE_C}-E_C)/h$ to turn the measured $j_{s0}$ into a qubit frequency.

What would settle it

Measure the actual carrier density profile across a WSe2 stack (e.g., by scanning capacitance or momentum-resolved photoemission) and determine the layer count by a non-AFM technique such as second-harmonic generation; if the doped-layer count is not about three per electrode, or if the crossover moves away from seven layers when thickness is reassigned, the design rule fails. A simpler check is to fabricate a second MET from an independently measured JJ and see whether the predicted $f_{01}$ still falls within 10%.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in NbSe2/WSe2/NbSe2 vertical Josephson junctions, the number of WSe2 atomic layers controls the junction regime: below about seven layers the junction is proximity-type with a conductive, hole-doped weak link, and above seven layers it is tunneling-type with an undoped semiconducting barrier. The crossover is evidenced by switching-to-retrapping current ratios near unity for thin weak links, exponentially growing hysteresis for thicker ones, and the temperature dependence of the critical-current–resistance product crossing the Ambegaokar–Baratoff limit near the same thickness. The underlying mechanism is proposed to be band-alignment-driven charge transfer, with each NbSe2 electrode hole-doping roughly three WSe2 layers; the remaining undoped layers form the tunnel barrier. Because the critical current density varies exponentially with layer count over six orders of magnitude, the DC transport data can be used to design qubit frequencies, and a prototype all-crystalline merged-element transmon with a 17-layer WSe2 weak link shows a 0→1 transition at about 5.30 GHz, within 10% of the calculated value.

Load-bearing premise

The design rule assumes that each NbSe2 electrode hole-dopes roughly three WSe2 layers, a number inferred from the same DC transport data rather than measured directly, and that the AFM-determined layer counts are accurate to about one layer; the paper's own Thomas-Fermi model does not predict the crossover.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the crossover at ~7 layers is a general feature of superconducting/semiconducting vdW pairs, then the thickness of a semiconducting weak link alone can be used to select between a low-loss tunnel junction and a highly transmissive proximity junction.
  • The exponential dependence of $j_{s0}$ on layer count means qubit transition frequencies can be tuned across 1–15 GHz by choosing 15–20 layers of WSe2, with a footprint set by the junction's own capacitance.
  • The measured $f_{01}$ within 10% of prediction validates that DC transport characterization of vdW JJs can be used as a design tool for superconducting qubits.
  • Because $Q^*$ (the hysteresis-derived quality factor) grows exponentially with WSe2 thickness up to ~$10^4$, thicker barriers may offer lower microwave loss, though Joule heating limits the DC estimate.
  • Substituting MoS2 for WSe2 shifts the crossover to a smaller thickness, indicating that band alignment, not just barrier height, controls junction damping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct measurement of the carrier density profile across the WSe2 stack (e.g., by capacitance or angle-resolved photoemission) would test the inferred ~3-layer doping per electrode; if the doped-layer count is actually larger or smaller, the layer-number design rule for transmon frequencies would shift.
  • The crossover may be exploitable as a materials-design principle: choosing a semiconductor with a different valence-band offset relative to NbSe2 should move the proximity-to-tunneling threshold, as the MoS2 comparison suggests, offering a second knob beside thickness.
  • If the low-damping tunnel regime is confirmed in microwave spectroscopy (e.g., through qubit coherence times), crystalline vdW junctions could replace amorphous AlOx barriers in compact transmon architectures, reducing two-level-system losses from grain boundaries and pinholes.
  • Independent layer-count determination via second-harmonic generation or cross-sectional imaging would tighten the design rule, since AFM thickness uncertainty of about one layer is comparable to the crossover width.
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 manuscript reports a systematic dc transport study of vertical NbSe2/WSe2/NbSe2 Josephson junctions with WSe2 weak links from 3 to 18 atomic layers. The authors identify a crossover from proximity-type to tunneling-type behavior around 7 layers based on three correlated signatures: the switching-to-retrapping current ratio, the I_cR_n product relative to the Ambegaokar-Baratoff limit, and the temperature dependence of the retrapping current. They interpret the crossover via interfacial charge transfer and hole doping of the WSe2 near each NbSe2 electrode, with roughly 3 layers doped per electrode. Using the exponential thickness dependence of the switching current density, they design a merged-element transmon, fabricate a 17-layer device, and report a measured f01 within 10% of the predicted value, along with dispersive readout and anharmonicity consistent with a transmon.

Significance. If the design rule is quantitatively reliable, this work establishes a promising path toward compact, low-loss superconducting qubits with crystalline, atomically uniform semiconductor barriers. The crossover observation itself is well supported by multiple independent signatures and is an interesting physics result for superconductor-semiconductor heterostructures. The manuscript also contains an explicit control experiment with MoS2 weak links that supports the band-alignment interpretation, and the device demonstration includes two-tone spectroscopy and dispersive coupling. These strengths make the paper potentially influential for the 2D-materials quantum device community. The central empirical crossover observation does not depend on the fitting model, and the paper is transparent about the Thomas-Fermi model's inability to predict the crossover.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Fig. 1(c), Fig. 4(a), Section II] The claim that DC transport characterization can be used to accurately design transmon qubits is not yet established given the uncertainty budget. Appendix A states a typical AFM thickness uncertainty of ±1 atomic layer. From Fig. 1(c), j_s0 changes by roughly six orders of magnitude over 3–18 layers, about a factor of 2.5 per layer. Because f01 depends on sqrt(E_J) ∝ sqrt(j_s0) in the formula f01 = (sqrt(8E_J E_C) - E_C)/h, a one-layer uncertainty changes f01 by roughly 60%, not 10%. The reported validation is a single 17-layer device with no propagated errors from layer count, junction area, capacitance, or the switching-current proxy described in Appendix B. The authors should either propagate these uncertainties and test more devices, or explicitly soften the design-accuracy claim.
  2. [Appendix D, Fig. 1(d), Section II, Conclusion] The Thomas-Fermi model is not an independent validation of the transport data. It contains fit parameters (ε = 5.5, G_M, and the Fermi-level position reported as 28.4 meV in Section II) that are adjusted to the same R_nA data shown in Fig. 1(d). The model also imposes zero-potential boundary conditions at the contacts, which effectively assumes hole doping rather than predicting it. The Conclusion correctly acknowledges that the model does not predict the crossover, but the earlier statement of 'quantitative agreement' should be framed as a fit, and the model's explanatory role should be restricted to the exponential resistance trend in the tunneling regime.
  3. [Section II, paragraph beginning 'In the superconducting state...'] The inference that '≈3 layers of WSe2 are doped by each NbSe2 electrode' is not directly measured but is inferred from the same dc datasets that show the crossover. This is a plausible and useful hypothesis, but it is not a direct determination. The wording should be softened to indicate that the 3-layer doping depth is an inferred value consistent with the crossover, not a measured quantity. This distinction matters because the designed 17-layer junction relies on the exponential j_s0 dependence, which does not require the 3-layer inference to be correct, whereas the mechanistic narrative does.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'demonstratedispersive' should be 'demonstrate dispersive'.
  2. [Section II, Fig. 2(discussion)] In the sentence describing the 13L device, the stray word 'red' appears after the switching current value and should be removed.
  3. [Appendix B, Section II] The extracted capacitance C_J = 53 fF in Appendix B is presented as if it were a measured geometric capacitance, while Section II uses an 'expected geometric junction parallel-plate capacitance' for the calculation in Fig. 4(a). The relation between these two values should be clarified, and the model-dependence of the 53 fF extraction should be stated.
  4. [Throughout] The term 'Thomas-Fermi' should use an en dash ('Thomas–Fermi') in the final version, and the hyphenated form should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the crossover observation and the MET f01 comparison are genuine empirical tests; only the Thomas-Fermi 'quantitative agreement' is a transparent fit of the Fermi level to the same R_nA data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II, paragraph beginning 'The relative band alignment...' and Appendix D]
    "The slope of the resistance in the semi-logarithmic plot of Fig. 1(d) is determined by the Fermi level position inside the tunnel junction, which we determine to be 28.4 meV above the valence band of WSe2 based on the fit to the data. Considering the individual material properties and relative band alignments, we find quantitative agreement between the measured and calculated tunneling resistance in NbSe2/WSe2/NbSe2 JJs."

    The 'quantitative agreement' is not an independent prediction of the model: the Fermi-level position is adjusted to fit the very R_nA-vs-thickness curve whose slope the model then reproduces, and Appendix D lists epsilon and G_M as additional fit parameters. Thus the calculated curve is built from the same data it is said to agree with. The step is peripheral rather than load-bearing: the central crossover claim and the qubit validation do not depend on this particular model agreement, and the paper itself acknowledges the Thomas-Fermi model does not predict the crossover.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical and do not reduce to their inputs. The crossover from proximity- to tunneling-type behavior near 7 WSe2 layers is supported by multiple independent DC measurements: the hysteresis ratio Is0/Ir0, the IsRn product relative to the Ambegaokar-Baratoff limit, and the temperature dependence of the retrapping current. These observations do not depend on any fitted parameter. The explanation in terms of roughly 3 doped layers per NbSe2 electrode is transparently labeled as an inference from the data ('we infer from the data that ≈3 layers...'), not as a derived prediction, and the paper explicitly states that the Thomas-Fermi model does not predict the crossover. The MET frequency calculation uses the exponential fit of j_s0 from Fig. 1(c) and compares it with a microwave measurement of a different device; since f01 was not used to construct the fit, this is a genuine, though single-point, predictive check. The concern that ±1-layer AFM uncertainty or lack of propagated error bars weakens the 10% validation is a correctness and statistics issue, not circularity. The one self-citation to prior group work [11] concerns fabrication methods and is not load-bearing for the scientific claims. The only identified circularity-adjacent step is the Thomas-Fermi 'quantitative agreement,' which is a transparent fit rather than an independent test; accordingly the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a fitted Thomas-Fermi/WKB model with epsilon, G_M, and the Fermi-level position as free parameters, plus literature band alignment and masses, AFM layer counting, and an exponential fit to j_s0 used to predict qubit frequency. No new physical entities are postulated. The crossover mechanism is inferred from the same DC data rather than measured directly.

free parameters (5)
  • Out-of-plane dielectric constant epsilon = 5.5 for WSe2 and MoS2
    Fit parameter in the Thomas-Fermi Poisson solver in Appendix D; the reported agreement with R_nA data depends on it.
  • Interface conductance prefactor G_M = 1.6 S·um^-2 for WSe2, 0.026 S·um^-2 for MoS2
    Fit parameter in the WKB conductance model representing NbSe2 ballistic conductance times interface scattering, Appendix D.
  • Fermi level position relative to WSe2 valence band = 28.4 meV above the valence band
    Determined by fitting the slope of the simulated resistance to the R_nA data in Fig. 1(d); controls the exponential thickness dependence.
  • Exponential fit to switching current density j_s0 = Not stated numerically in text
    Used in Fig. 4(a) to calculate MET f01 versus WSe2 layer number; the prediction is built on fitted DC data.
  • Junction capacitance C_J for the 17-layer device = 53 fF
    Extracted in Appendix B from a thermally activated switching model; used for the switching-rate estimate, not the main f01 prediction.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math BCS density of states and the Ambegaokar-Baratoff formula relate IcRn to the superconducting gap for an ideal tunnel junction.
    Used as the benchmark line in Fig. 3(a) to separate proximity-type from tunneling-type behavior.
  • standard math RCSJ model and the Chen-Fisher-Leggett quasiparticle tunneling model describe phase-particle dynamics and damping.
    Invoked in Section II to explain the magnitude and temperature dependence of hysteresis in the retrapping current.
  • domain assumption Thomas-Fermi/Poisson electrostatics with a continuum dielectric describe the self-consistent potential across layered WSe2.
    Appendix D models carrier density per layer and band bending; continuity of electrostatics across discrete vdW layers is assumed.
  • domain assumption WKB approximation gives the tunneling conductance through the self-consistent barrier.
    Appendix D, Eq. 4; tunneling through the semiconductor barrier is treated semiclassically.
  • domain assumption Band alignment values from ab initio and literature: Delta W = 1.07 eV for NbSe2/WSe2 and 0.34 eV for NbSe2/MoS2.
    Section II and Appendix D; determines whether the Fermi energy intersects the semiconductor valence band and sets charge transfer.
  • domain assumption Effective hole masses 0.53 m_e for WSe2 and 0.64 m_e for MoS2 from literature.
    Inputs to the carrier density and WKB transmission calculations in Appendix D.
  • domain assumption Exfoliated flake thickness measured by AFM determines the WSe2 layer number with about +/- 1 layer uncertainty.
    Appendix A; all thickness trends and the MET design prediction depend on the assigned layer count.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian broadening sigma = 3 A and zero-potential boundary conditions at the contacts mimic charge spread and hole doping.
    Appendix D, Eq. 2 and boundary condition; chosen to reproduce observed resistance trends without independent justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Crystalline superconductor-semiconductor Josephson junctions for compact superconducting qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUNRYWT2

@misc{pith2026250114969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Crystalline superconductor-semiconductor Josephson junctions for compact superconducting qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUNRYWT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14969}
}
abstract

The narrow bandgap of semiconductors allows for thick, uniform Josephson junction barriers, potentially enabling reproducible, stable, and compact superconducting qubits. We study vertically stacked van der Waals Josephson junctions with semiconducting weak links, whose crystalline structures and clean interfaces offer a promising platform for quantum devices. We observe robust Josephson coupling across 2--12 nm (3--18 atomic layers) of semiconducting WSe$_2$ and, notably, a crossover from proximity- to tunneling-type behavior with increasing weak link thickness. Building on these results, we fabricate a prototype all-crystalline merged-element transmon qubit with transmon frequency and anharmonicity closely matching design parameters. We demonstrate dispersive coupling between this transmon and a microwave resonator, highlighting the potential of crystalline superconductor-semiconductor structures for compact, tailored superconducting quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Josephson junction characterization. (a) Optical image of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Hysteresis in a vertical superconductor-semiconductor Josephson junction. (a), (b) DC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Temperature dependence of Josephson junction properties. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. van der Waals merged-element transmon. (a) Calculated MET 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Additional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of different semiconducting crystalline weak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Shim and C

    Y.-P. Shim and C. Tahan, Nature Communications5, 4225 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Willsch, D

    D. Willsch, D. Rieger, P. Winkel, M. Willsch, C. Dickel, J. Krause, Y. Ando, R. Lescanne, Z. Leghtas, N. T. Bronn, P. Deb, O. Lanes, Z. K. Minev, B. Dennig, S. Geisert, S. Gün- zler, S. Ihssen, P. Paluch, T. Reisinger, R. Hanna, J. H. Bae, P.Schüffelgen,D.Grützmacher,L.Buimaga-Iarinca,C.Morari, W. Wernsdorfer, D. P. DiVincenzo, K. Michielsen, G. Catelani,...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    R. Zhao, S. Park, T. Zhao, M. Bal, C. McRae, J. Long, and D. Pappas, Physical Review Applied14, 064006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    D.I.Olaya,J.Biesecker,M.A.Castellanos-Beltran,A.J.Sirois, P.F.Hopkins,P.D.Dresselhaus,andS.P.Benz,AppliedPhysics Letters 122, 182601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    N. P. de Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. S. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman, Science372, 253 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    S. Oh, K. Cicak, J. S. Kline, M. A. Sillanpää, K. D. Osborn, J. D. Whittaker, R. W. Simmonds, and D. P. Pappas, Physical Review B74, 100502 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Shabani, M

    J. Shabani, M. Kjaergaard, H. J. Suominen, Y. Kim, F. Nichele, K.Pakrouski,T.Stankevic,R.M.Lutchyn,P.Krogstrup,R.Fei- denhans’l,S.Kraemer,C.Nayak,M.Troyer,C.M.Marcus,and C. J. Palmstrøm, Physical Review B93, 155402 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    C. J. K. Richardson, A. Alexander, C. G. Weddle, B. Arey, and M. Olszta, Journal of Applied Physics127, 235302 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Goswami, A

    A. Goswami, A. P. McFadden, T. Zhao, H. Inbar, J. T. Dong, R. Zhao, C. R. H. McRae, R. W. Simmonds, C. J. Palmstrøm, and D. P. Pappas, Applied Physics Letters121, 064001 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Antony, M

    A. Antony, M. V. Gustafsson, A. Rajendran, A. Benyamini, G. Ribeill, T. A. Ohki, J. Hone, and K. C. Fong, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter34, 103001 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    J. I. Wang, M. A. Yamoah, Q. Li, A. H. Karamlou, T. Dinh, B. Kannan, J. Braumüller, D. Kim, A. J. Melville, S. E. Muschinske, B. M. Niedzielski, K. Serniak, Y. Sung, R. Winik, J. L. Yoder, M. E. Schwartz, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, P. Jarillo-Herr...

    2022

  5. [13]

    L. Wang, I. Meric, P. Y. Huang, Q. Gao, Y. Gao, H. Tran, T.Taniguchi,K.Watanabe,L.M.Campos,D.A.Muller,J.Guo, P. Kim, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard, and C. R. Dean, Science342, 614 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Katoch, M

    C.R.Dean,L.Wang,P.Maher,C.Forsythe,F.Ghahari,Y.Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. L. Shepard, J. Hone, and P. Kim, Nature497, 598 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    G. H. Lee, S. Kim, S. H. Jhi, and H. J. Lee, Nature Communi- cations 6, 6181 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    J. O. Island, G. A. Steele, H. S. J. van der Zant, and A. Castellanos-Gomez, 2D Materials3, 031002 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Kim, G.-H

    M. Kim, G.-H. Park, J. Lee, J. H. Lee, J. Park, H. Lee, G.-H. Lee, and H.-J. Lee, Nano Letters17, 6125 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    K. H. Lee, S. Chakram, S. E. Kim, F. Mujid, A. Ray, H. Gao, C. Park, Y. Zhong, D. A. Muller, D. I. Schuster, and J. Park, Nano Letters19, 8287 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    C.Boix-Constant,S.Mañas-Valero,R.Córdoba,andE.Coron- ado, Advanced Electronic Materials7, 2000987 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    McDermott, and Y

    J.Tian,L.A.Jauregui,C.D.Wilen,A.F.Rigosi,D.B.Newell, R. McDermott, and Y. P. Chen, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 33, 495301 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    X. Du, I. Skachko, and E. Y. Andrei, Physical Review B77, 184507 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    F.Miao,W.Bao,H.Zhang,andC.N.Lau,SolidStateCommu- nications 149, 1046 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    G. H. Lee, D. Jeong, J. H. Choi, Y. J. Doh, and H. J. Lee, Physical Review Letters107, 146605 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Ohtomo, R

    M. Ohtomo, R. S. Deacon, M. Hosoda, N. Fushimi, H. Hosoi, M. D. Randle, M. Ohfuchi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Ishibashi, and S. Sato, Applied Physics Express15, 075003 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Endres, A

    M. Endres, A. Kononov, H. S. Arachchige, J. Yan, D. Mandrus, K.Watanabe,T.Taniguchi,andC.Schönenberger,NanoLetters 23, 4654 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Guillamon, H

    I. Guillamon, H. Suderow, F. Guinea, and S. Vieira, Physical Review B77, 134505 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    K.K.KamandB.A.Parkinson,TheJournalofPhysicalChem- istry 86, 463 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    Britnell, R

    L. Britnell, R. V. Gorbachev, R. Jalil, B. D. Belle, F. Schedin, M. I. Katsnelson, L. Eaves, S. V. Morozov, A. S. Mayorov, N. M. R. Peres, A. H. Castro Neto, J. Leist, A. K. Geim, L. A. Ponomarenko, and K. S. Novoselov, Nano Letters12, 1707 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    T. A. Fulton and L. N. Dunkleberger, Phys. Rev. B9, 4760 (1974)

    1974

  22. [30]

    We acknowledge that the 7L device exhibits two switching events: the first is the switching of the junction and the sec- ond is likely due to one of the NbSe2 flakes being driven out of its superconducting state due to the application of a large (∼ 1 mA) bias current

  23. [31]

    H.Courtois,M.Meschke,J.T.Peltonen,andJ.P.Pekola,Phys- ical Review Letters101, 067002 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    W. C. Stewart, Applied Physics Letters12, 277 (1968)

    1968

  25. [33]

    D. E. McCumber, Journal of Applied Physics39, 3113 (1968)

    1968

  26. [34]

    Ambegaokar and A

    V. Ambegaokar and A. Baratoff, Physical Review Letters11, 104 (1963)

    1963

  27. [35]

    Gross, B

    F. Gross, B. S. Chandrasekhar, D. Einzel, K. Andres, P. J. Hirschfeld, H. R. Ott, J. Beuers, Z. Fisk, and J. L. Smith, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter64, 175 (1986)

    1986

  28. [36]

    Kulik and A

    I. Kulik and A. Omel’yanchuk, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters21, 96 (1975)

    1975

  29. [37]

    Haberkorn, H

    W. Haberkorn, H. Knauer, and J. Richter, Physica Status Solidi (a) 47, K161 (1978)

    1978

  30. [38]

    A. A. Golubov, M. Y. Kupriyanov, and E. Il’ichev, Reviews of Modern Physics76, 411 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    A.GolubovandM.Y.Kupriyanov,SovietPhysicsJETP 69,805 (1989)

    1989

  32. [40]

    A. A. Golubov, M. A. Gurvich, M. Y. Kupriyanov, and S. V. Polonskii,JournalofExperimentalandTheoreticalPhysicsLet- ters 76, 915 (1993)

    1993

  33. [41]

    A. A. Golubov, E. P. Houwman, J. G. Gijsbertsen, V. M. Kras- nov, J. Flokstra, H. Rogalla, and M. Y. Kupriyanov, Physical Review B51, 1073 (1995). 10

    1995

  34. [42]

    Y.C.Chen,M.P.A.Fisher,andA.J.Leggett,JournalofApplied Physics 64, 3119 (1988)

    1988

  35. [43]

    T.Shimada,F.S.Ohuchi,andB.A.Parkinson,JapaneseJournal of Applied Physics33, 2696 (1994)

    1994

  36. [44]

    Guo and J

    Y. Guo and J. Robertson, Applied Physics Letters108, 233104 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Guan, H.-J

    J. Guan, H.-J. Chuang, Z. Zhou, and D. Tománek, ACS Nano 11, 3904 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Y. Sata, R. Moriya, S. Masubuchi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and T. Machida, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 56, 04CK09 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Anferov, F

    A. Anferov, F. Wan, S. P. Harvey, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, PRX Quantum6, 020336 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    S. Liu, Y. Liu, L. Holtzman, B. Li, M. Holbrook, J. Pack, T.Taniguchi,K.Watanabe,C.R.Dean,A.N.Pasupathy,K.Bar- mak, D. A. Rhodes, and J. Hone, ACS Nano17, 16587 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Kenaz, S

    R. Kenaz, S. Ghosh, P. Ramachandran, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Steinberg, and R. Rapaport, ACS Nano17, 9188 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Heinz, Nano Letters13, 3329 (2013)

    Y.Li,Y.Rao,K.F.Mak,Y.You,S.Wang,C.R.Dean,andT.F. Heinz, Nano Letters13, 3329 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    F. A. Cevallos, S. Guo, H. Heo, G. Scuri, Y. Zhou, J. Sung, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, P. Kim, H. Park, and R. J. Cava, Cryst. Growth Des.19, 5762 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Laturia, M

    A. Laturia, M. L. Van de Put, and W. G. Vandenberghe, npj 2D Mater. Appl.2, 6 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Belete, S

    M. Belete, S. Kataria, U. Koch, M. Kruth, C. Engelhard, J. Mayer, O. Engström, and M. C. Lemme, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 1, 6197 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Y. Hou, G. Wang, C. Ma, Z. Feng, Y. Chen, and T. Filleter, Materials Characterization193, 112313 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    W. Zhao, Y. Huang, C. Shen, C. Li, Y. Cai, Y. Xu, H. Rong, Q. Gao,Y.Wang,L.Zhao,L.Bao,Q.Wang,G.Zhang,H.Gao,Z. Xu,X.Zhao,andG.Liu,NanoResearch 12,3095–3100(2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Kormányos, G

    A. Kormányos, G. Burkard, M. Gmitra, J. Fabian, V. Zólyomi, N.D.Drummond,andV.Fal’ko,2DMaterials 2,049501(2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.