Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Unconventional Josephson junctions with topological Kondo insulator weak links

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper reports that niobium leads on a samarium hexaboride crystal form a Josephson junction whose supercurrent flows through topological surface states and whose shifted, hysteretic magnetic diffraction patterns signal surface…

desk verdict Solid experiment, credible supercurrent and Shapiro steps in SmB6 weak links, but the Kondo-breakdown ferromagnetism interpretation is a hypothesis that the data do not directly test. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02343 v1 pith:25FQ3SUJ submitted 2019-08-06 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Xuecheng Ye , Jacob Cook , Erik D. Huemiller , Aaron D. K. Finck , Pouyan Ghaemi , Thomas Vojta , Vivekananda Adiga , Shanta R. Saha
show 2 more authors
Johnpierre Paglione Cihan Kurter
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall PACS 85.25.Dq74.45.+c74.90.+n
keywords topologicalKondoinsulatorsamariumhexaboride(SmB6)Josephsonjunctionproximity-inducedsuperconductivityFraunhoferdiffractionpatternShapirostepssurfaceferromagnetismbreakdown
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

The paper reports Josephson junctions made by placing two superconducting niobium leads close together on the surface of a samarium hexaboride (SmB6) crystal, and argues that the supercurrent flows through the crystal's topological surface states rather than through a metallic bulk. The key observations are a robust critical current that persists to several kelvin, Shapiro steps under microwave radiation, and magnetic diffraction patterns that deviate strongly from the standard Fraunhofer pattern: missing side lobes, a central peak shifted away from zero field, and hysteresis that depends on field sweep direction. The authors interpret these deviations as evidence that the SmB6 surface develops ferromagnetic domains at low temperature, produced by a Kondo breakdown that frees f-electron moments near the surface. If correct, SmB6 becomes a platform where surface ferromagnetism and proximity-induced superconductivity coexist, which matters for proposals that put Majorana bound states at the interface between superconductors and topological surfaces.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the lateral Nb–SmB6–Nb junction: two sputtered niobium electrodes separated by 50–200 nm on a polished SmB6 crystal, with an in-situ argon mill applied immediately before deposition to obtain a clean interface. Its function is to force the proximity supercurrent through the SmB6 surface rather than through a bulk channel, making the junction a phase-sensitive interferometer for anything living on that surface. The interpretive machinery is the Kondo-breakdown picture of the SmB6 surface, which supplies the ferromagnetic flux: near the crystal boundary, reduced screening lowers the Kondo temperature so that f-electron moments break out of singlets, order ferromagnetically, and imprint extra flux on the junction. The diffraction pattern is then read as a balance between applied field and internal magnetization, which naturally explains both the shifted central peak and the sweep-direction hysteresis.

What would settle it

A decisive check: place a polished SmB6 crystal of the same provenance in a SQUID magnetometer or under a magnetic force microscope and cycle the out-of-plane field through ±150 mT at base temperature. The Kondo-breakdown picture predicts a hysteretic remanent surface moment large enough to shift the junction's central diffraction peak by a few mT; if no such surface magnetization is resolved, the anomalous Fraunhofer patterns must instead be assigned to geometric asymmetry, self-fields, or flux redistribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that the low-temperature supercurrent in these Nb/SmB6/Nb junctions is carried by the topological surface states of SmB6, and that the junctions' response to out-of-plane magnetic field reveals the coexistence of surface magnetism and induced superconductivity. Concretely, the devices show critical currents up to 3–6 K, Shapiro steps at voltage spacing $hf/2e$ for microwave frequency $f$, and magnetic diffraction patterns that deviate from the standard Fraunhofer form $I_c(\Phi)=I_c(0)|\sin(\pi\Phi/\Phi_0)/(\pi\Phi/\Phi_0)|$: the side lobes can be absent, the central maximum can sit at $\pm 5$ mT rather than zero, and the critical current at zero field depends on the direction of the field sweep. Because warming to 20 K and recooling do not restore the zero-field critical current, the paper rules out trapped vortices as the cause and instead attributes the extra flux to ferromagnetic surface states. The proposed microscopic origin is Kondo breakdown: at the outermost layers, the reduced screening of f-electron moments frees them from Kondo singlets, and these moments form ferromagnetic domains that generate the flux. The same Kondo-breakdown picture is used to explain the anomalous rise of critical current between 300 mK and 1.6 K and the butterfly-shaped, sweep-rate-dependent magnetoresistance with minima near $\pm 24$ mT.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the anomalous diffraction patterns and hysteresis are caused by ferromagnetic surface states generated by Kondo breakdown, since the paper offers no direct magnetization measurement and does not exclude the geometric, self-field, flux-trapping, magnetocaloric, or impurity-scattering alternatives it lists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the supercurrent in SmB6 junctions survives to 3–6 K, topological-surface weak links become usable in a temperature range far more accessible than the sub-1 K operation typical of Nb/Bi2Se3 junctions.
  • The offset and hysteresis of the magnetic diffraction pattern give a junction-based readout of surface magnetization: the applied field needed to maximize $I_c$ cancels the flux from the ferromagnetic surface.
  • The data support a three-regime temperature picture of Kondo breakdown—surface singlet transport at the base, extra trivial-carrier supercurrent between ~0.3 K and ~1.6 K, and supercurrent suppression above ~1.6 K by freed moments.
  • If the surface is truly ferromagnetic while proximity-superconducting, SmB6 junctions are a setting in which magnetism and superconductivity meet at a topological surface, one of the ingredients proposed for topological superconductivity and Majorana bound states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending beyond the paper: a control Nb/Cu/Nb junction with the same lithographic geometry and field protocol would isolate the SmB6 surface contribution from geometric asymmetry and self-field effects.
  • Extending beyond the paper: if Kondo breakdown controls the surface magnetism, the hysteresis and peak shift should vary systematically with surface termination and polishing quality, since the polar (001) surface and polish-induced disorder directly set the breakdown layer thickness.
  • Extending beyond the paper: direct probes of surface magnetization on the same crystals—spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy, anomalous Hall effect, or magnetic torque—could confirm the ferromagnetic domains and turn the junction into a calibrated local magnetometer.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports fabrication and low-temperature transport measurements of lateral Josephson junctions in which superconducting Nb leads are coupled to the (001)-polished surface of SmB6 single crystals. The authors demonstrate a supercurrent that persists up to 3-6 K, observe Shapiro steps under microwave irradiation with voltage spacing consistent with hf/2e, and measure critical-current diffraction patterns in an out-of-plane magnetic field. One junction shows a Fraunhofer-like pattern; two other junctions show missing side lobes, a central peak shifted by approximately ±5 mT, and hysteresis with field sweep direction. A fourth junction shows a nonmonotonic temperature dependence of Ic and hysteretic, sweep-rate-dependent normal-state magnetoresistance. The authors attribute these anomalies to ferromagnetism on the SmB6 surface arising from Kondo breakdown, coexisting with proximity-induced superconductivity.

Significance. The direct observation of a Josephson supercurrent and Shapiro steps in Nb/SmB6/Nb junctions is a useful experimental contribution that supports the promise of topological Kondo insulators as clean weak links with an insulating bulk. If the ferromagnetism interpretation were firmly established, the result would point to a new coexistence regime of surface magnetism and proximity superconductivity. However, the paper's central claim is currently an inference from transport data alone. The manuscript itself lists several alternative mechanisms—geometric asymmetry, self-field effects, magnetocaloric effects, and magnetic impurity scattering—and does not quantitatively rule them out. The significance of the paper as a claim about unconventional Josephson behavior is therefore contingent on additional evidence that is not provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3(b)-(d) and the 'magnetic field response' paragraph] The attribution of the shifted central peak and sweep-direction hysteresis to ferromagnetic surface states is not uniquely supported by the presented data. The manuscript explicitly lists geometric asymmetry, self-field effects, magnetocaloric effects, and magnetic impurity scattering as possible causes, but provides no quantitative estimate or control experiment to exclude them. The warm-up-to-20-K test only rules out trapped flux in the Nb electrodes and the magnet; it does not address the other mechanisms. Without a direct magnetization measurement, a nonmagnetic control junction, or a quantitative model that links the ±5 mT shift and the hysteresis direction to a specific ferromagnetic domain configuration, the coexistence claim remains an unsupported inference.
  2. [Fig. 3(a) inset] The theoretical Fraunhofer overlay is not sufficiently specified. If the effective junction area used to compute the flux period is a fitted parameter, the 'reasonable agreement' between the data and the Fraunhofer curve does little to establish that junction-3 is conventional; if it is measured, the geometric dimensions and any field-focusing corrections should be stated. This comparison underlies the contrast between conventional and anomalous devices and needs to be transparent for the reader to assess the significance of the deviations.
  3. [Device statistics and reproducibility] Only four junctions are reported, and each anomalous diffraction pattern or hysteresis curve is shown for a single device without repeated sweeps, error bars, or sample-to-sample statistics. Since the text itself notes uncontrolled variations in polishing and nanofabrication as possible causes of surface modification, it is not possible to distinguish intrinsic SmB6 surface behavior from device-specific artifacts without either multiple devices showing consistent anomalies or a control junction with a nonmagnetic weak link.
  4. [Fig. 4 and the 'temperature dependence' paragraph] The nonmonotonic Ic(T) with an increase between 300 mK and 1.6 K is presented as 'could be consistent with' Kondo breakdown and thermal activation of trivial carriers, but no model, calculation, or independent measurement is given to support this assignment. Similarly, the normal-state butterfly hysteresis is acknowledged to be possibly due to magnetocaloric effects or magnetic impurity scattering; the connection of these data to the supercurrent anomalies is not established by any quantitative comparison. These interpretive steps are load-bearing for the claim that Kondo-breakdown ferromagnetism coexists with the induced supercurrent.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The name 'Shaphiro steps' appears repeatedly and should be corrected to 'Shapiro steps.'
  2. [Title and abstract] There is a spacing error in 'Kond o' in the title; this should be corrected.
  3. [Methods/Measurement details] The voltage criterion used to define Ic from the IV characteristics is not stated; this should be specified for reproducibility.
  4. [Fig. 2 and AC Josephson effect] The claim of 2π periodicity rests on observing the fundamental Shapiro spacing hf/2e; explicitly showing the absence of half-integer steps (i.e., no features at hf/e) would strengthen this conclusion.
  5. [Introduction] The phrase 'There has been an evidence of helical nature of such states' should be reworded, for example to 'Evidence for the helical nature of such states has been reported.'
  6. [Conclusion] The statement that the work will advance understanding of 'topologically nontrivial superconductors' overreaches, as no evidence for topological superconductivity or Majorana modes is presented; the claim should be toned down to match the demonstrated results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental observations are independent measurements, and the Kondo-breakdown interpretation is an attribution rather than a prediction derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central experimental content is self-contained transport data: measured critical currents, Shapiro steps, magnetic diffraction patterns, and normal-state magnetoresistance. The text explicitly shows a measured Fraunhofer-like pattern in Fig. 3(a) with a standard formula, and for the anomalous junctions it states: 'We attribute this shift in applied field axis with respect to the ideal Fraunhofer diffraction pattern to the existence of magnetization in the SmB6 surface states.' This is an interpretive step, not a circular derivation: the shift is observed data, and the magnetization is a proposed cause. The paper then invokes Kondo breakdown as a mechanism: 'We can explain the appearance of ferromagnetic behavior by invoking a Kondo breakdown [38, 39], which liberates a large number of randomly oriented magnetic moments.' Those references are external theoretical works, not derivations from the present measurements, and no parameter from the present data is fitted so that the theory is reproduced by construction. The paper also explicitly acknowledges alternatives: 'one must also consider trivial explanations for such magnetic hysteresis, including magnetocaloric effects or magnetic impurity scattering on the surface of the material.' Because the authors do not claim a uniqueness theorem, do not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction, and do not define the central quantities in terms of each other, the interpretation remains an inference rather than a circular reduction. If the lack of a direct magnetization measurement makes the conclusion uncertain, that is an evidence-strength concern, not a circularity concern under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is primarily experimental; it introduces no new numeric fitting parameters beyond the undisclosed scale of the Fraunhofer overlay. Its load-bearing assumptions are the nature of SmB6 transport and the Kondo-breakdown explanation, the latter borrowed from the authors' own theory work.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective junction area (flux period) used in the theoretical Fraunhofer overlay = not stated
    The inset of Fig. 3(a) overlays a theoretical Fraunhofer pattern with the measured data. Matching the theoretical curve requires an effective area or flux period; the value is not reported, so the agreement is unquantified and the scale is effectively fitted by eye.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SmB6 is a topological Kondo insulator whose bulk is insulating at low temperatures and whose transport is dominated by topological surface states.
    Adopted from refs [25-32]. The attribution of the supercurrent and of the magnetic anomalies to surface states depends on this premise.
  • ad hoc to paper Kondo breakdown occurs near the surface due to broken translational symmetry, liberating local moments that form ferromagnetic domains.
    Invoked in the paragraph discussing the origin of the ferromagnetism (cites refs [38,39]). Ref [39] is coauthored by a present coauthor (P. Ghaemi). No direct experimental evidence in this paper supports this specific mechanism.
  • domain assumption The ideal Fraunhofer pattern with uniform current density is the correct reference; deviations are assigned to sample magnetization rather than to geometric effects.
    The paper compares I_c(B) to the standard formula without quantifying the expected field period from the junction dimensions and does not model self-field or asymmetric current distributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unconventional Josephson junctions with topological Kondo insulator weak links." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25FQ3SUJ

@misc{pith2026190802343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unconventional Josephson junctions with topological Kondo insulator weak links},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25FQ3SUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02343}
}
abstract

Proximity-induced superconductivity in three dimensional (3D) topological insulators forms a new quantum phase of matter and accommodates exotic quasiparticles such as Majorana bound states. One of the biggest drawbacks of the commonly studied 3D topological insulators is the presence of conducting bulk that obscures both surface states and low energy bound states. Introducing superconductivity in topological Kondo insulators such as SmB$_6$, however, is promising due to their true insulating bulk at low temperatures. In this work, we develop an unconventional Josephson junction by coupling superconducting Nb leads to the surface states of a SmB$_6$ crystal. We observe a robust critical current at low temperatures that responds to the application of an out-of-plane magnetic field with significant deviations from usual Fraunhofer patterns. The appearance of Shaphiro steps under microwave radiation gives further evidence of a Josephson effect. Moreover, we explore the effects of Kondo breakdown in our devices, such as ferromagnetism at the surface and anomalous temperature dependence of supercurrent. Particularly, the magnetic diffraction patterns show an anomalous hysteresis with the field sweep direction suggesting the coexistence of magnetism with superconductivity at the SmB$_6$ surface. The experimental work will advance the current understanding of topologically nontrivial superconductors and emergent states associated with such unconventional superconducting phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) (a) Scanning electron microscopy SEM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) (a) AC Josephson effect giving rise to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) (a), (b) Magnetic diffraction pattern [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) (a) Color plot of dV/dI vs bias current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y. Ando, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 076501 (2017), URL http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/80/i=7/a=076501

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Majorana, Nuovo Cimento 14, 171 (1937)

    E. Majorana, Nuovo Cimento 14, 171 (1937)

    1937

  3. [3]

    Wilczek, Nat

    F. Wilczek, Nat. Phys. 5, 614 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Alicea, Rep

    J. Alicea, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 076501 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Beenakker, Annu

    C. Beenakker, Annu. Rev. Con. Mat. Phys. 4, 113 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Grosfeld and A

    E. Grosfeld and A. Stern, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 108, 11810 (2011), http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11810.full.pdf+html, URL http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11810.abstract

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Semicond. Sci. and Technol. 27, 124003 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 096407 (2008)

    2008

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    J. R. Williams, A. J. Bestwick, P. Gallagher, S. S. Hong, Y. Cui, A. S. Bleich, J. G. Ana- lytis, I. R. Fisher, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 056803 (2012), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.056803

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Kurter, A

    C. Kurter, A. D. K. Finck, Y. S. Hor, and D. J. Van Har- lingen, Nat. Commun. 6, 7130 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    M. P. Stehno, V. Orlyanchik, C. D. Nugroho, P. Ghaemi, M. Brahlek, N. Koirala, S. Oh, and D. J. Van Harlingen, Phys. Rev. B 93, 035307 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    S. Cho, B. Dellabetta, A. Yang, J. Schneeloch, Z. Xu, T. Valla, G. Gu, M. J. Gilbert, and N. Mason, Nat. Commun. 4, 1689 (2013), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2701

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Wang, C.-Z

    J. Wang, C.-Z. Chang, H. Li, K. He, D. Zhang, M. Singh, X.-C. Ma, N. Samarth, M. Xie, Q.-K. Xue, et al., Phys. Rev. B 85, 045415 (2012), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.045415

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Veldhorst, M

    M. Veldhorst, M. Snelder, M. Hoek, T. Gang, V. K. Guduru, X. L. Wang, U. Zeitler, W. G. van der Wiel, A. A. Golubov, H. Hilgenkamp, et al., Nat. Mater. 11, 417 (2012), URL dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat3255

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    F. Qu, F. Yang, J. Shen, Y. Ding, J. Chen, Z. Ji, G. Liu, J. Fan, X. Jing, C. Yang, et al., Sci. Rep. 2, 339 (2012), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep00339

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Sac´ ep´ e, J

    B. Sac´ ep´ e, J. B. Oostinga, J. Li, A. Ubaldini, N. J. Couto, E. Giannini, and A. F. Morpurgo, Nat. Commun. 2, 575 (2011), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1586

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    Zhang, J

    D. Zhang, J. Wang, A. M. DaSilva, J. S. Lee, H. R. Gutierrez, M. H. W. Chan, J. Jain, and N. Samarth, Phys. Rev. B 84, 165120 (2011), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.165120

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Steinberg, D

    H. Steinberg, D. R. Gardner, Y. S. Lee, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nano Lett. 10, 5032 (2010), http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl1032183, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl1032183

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    Kurter, A

    C. Kurter, A. D. K. Finck, P. Ghaemi, Y. S. Hor, and D. J. Van Harlingen, Phys. Rev. B 90, 014501 (2014), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.014501

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Dzero, K

    M. Dzero, K. Sun, V. Galitski, and P. Cole- man, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 106408 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.106408

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    Dzero, K

    M. Dzero, K. Sun, P. Coleman, and V. Gal- itski, Phys. Rev. B 85, 045130 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.045130

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Dzero, J

    M. Dzero, J. Xia, V. Galitski, and P. Coleman, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 7, 249 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- conmatphys-031214-014749, URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031214-014749

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Zhang, N

    X. Zhang, N. P. Butch, P. Syers, S. Ziemak, R. L. Greene, and J. Paglione, Phys. Rev. X 3, 011011 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.3.011011

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    J. W. Allen, B. Batlogg, and P. Wachter, Phys. Rev. B 20, 4807 (1979), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.20.4807

    1979 doi

  17. [25]

    D. J. Kim, J. Xia, and Z. Fisk, Nature Mater. 13, 466 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Neupane, N

    M. Neupane, N. Alidoust, S.-Y. Xu, T. Kondo, Y. Ishida, D. J. Kim, C. Liu, I. Belopolski, Y. J. Jo, T.-R. Chang, et al., Nature Commun. 4, 2991 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Nakajima, P

    Y. Nakajima, P. Syers, R. Wang, Xiangfeng abd Wang, and J. Paglione, Nature Phys. 12, 213 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    D. J. Kim, S. Thomas, T. Grant, J. Botimer, Z. Fisk, and J. Xia, Sci. Rep. 3, 3150 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    J. Kim, C. Jang, X. Wang, J. Paglione, S. Hong, and D. Kim, arXiv:1809.04977 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. Lee, V. Stanev, X. Zhang, D. Stasak, J. Flowers, J. S. Higgins, S. Dai, T. Blum, X. Pan, V. M. Yakovenko, et al., Nature 570, 344 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    N. Xu, P. K. Biswas, J. H. Dil, R. S. Dhaka, G. Landolt, S. Muff, C. E. Matt, X. Shi, N. C. Plumb, M. Radovic, et al., Nat. Commun. 5, 4566 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    W. Ruan, C. Ye, M. Guo, F. Chen, X. Chen, G.-M. Zhang, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 136401 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.136401

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    S. Lee, X. Zhang, Y. Liang, S. W. Fackler, J. Yong, X. Wang, J. Paglione, R. L. Greene, and I. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031031 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031031

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    R. A. Snyder, C. J. Trimble, C. C. Rong, P. A. Folkes, P. J. Taylor, and J. R. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 097701 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.097701

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Kidwingira, J

    F. Kidwingira, J. D. Strand, D. J. Van Harlingen, and Y. Maeno, Science 314, 1267 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    T. S. Khaire, W. P. Pratt, and N. O. Birge, Phys. Rev. B 79, 094523 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.094523

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    J. G. Checkelsky, J. Ye, Y. Onone, Y. Iwasa, and Y. Tokura, Nature Phys. 8, 729 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Alexandrov, P

    V. Alexandrov, P. Coleman, and O. Erten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 177202 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.177202

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    Erten, P

    O. Erten, P. Ghaemi, and P. Coleman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 046403 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.046403

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Z.-H. Zhu, A. Nicolaou, G. Levy, N. P. Butch, P. Syers, X. F. Wang, J. Paglione, G. A. 6 Sawatzky, I. S. Elfimov, and A. Damascelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 216402 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.216402

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    L. Jiao, S. Robler, D. J. Kim, L. H. Tjeng, Z. Fisk, F. Steglich, and S. Wirth, Nat. Commun. 7, 13762 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    X. He, H. Gan, Z. Du, B. Ye, L. Zhou, Y. Tian, S. Deng, G. Guo, H. Lu, F. Liu, et al., Advanced Science 5, 1700753 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Wolgast, Y

    S. Wolgast, Y. S. Eo, T. ¨Ozt¨ urk, G. Li, Z. Xiang, C. Tinsman, T. Asaba, B. Lawson, F. Yu, J. W. Allen, et al., Phys. Rev. B 92, 115110 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.115110

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Z. Lin, Y. Zhou, L.-J. Kong, D. Tang, H.-Z. Lu, S.-M. Huang, R. Zhu, J. Xu, F. Lin, J. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. B 96, 165408 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.165408

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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