pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02694 · v1 · pith:HDE4JOKMnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.mes-hall

Dynamical Josephson Effect Between a Singlet and a Triplet Superconductor

Morten Amundsen , Niladri Banerjee , Igor \v{Z}uti\'c This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 12:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Josephson effectsinglet-triplet superconductordynamical Josephson effectspin-orbit couplingtime-dependent gate voltagecos phi component2DEGsuperconducting junction
0
0 comments X

The pith

A time-dependent gate voltage induces an oscillatory cos φ Josephson current between singlet and triplet superconductors that is absent when the voltage is static.

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

The paper establishes that symmetry selection rules for Josephson currents are not fixed by the pairing types of the two superconductors alone. When a gate voltage is modulated over time in a junction that includes a two-dimensional electron gas, the resulting spin-orbit coupling allows a cos φ term to appear in the current-phase relation. This term produces both a dissipationless supercurrent and a dissipative component that fades at low temperatures. The effect matters because it removes the need for static symmetry matching and suggests new control methods for hybrid superconducting circuits.

Core claim

Modeling a Josephson junction between a spin-singlet and a spin-triplet superconductor separated by a 2DEG shows that harmonic modulation of the gate voltage generates an oscillatory cos φ Josephson component through the time-dependent spin-orbit coupling; this component is forbidden and vanishes in the static limit. The total charge current then includes both dissipationless and dissipative parts, with the dissipative part strongly suppressed at low temperatures.

What carries the argument

Time-dependent gate-controlled spin-orbit coupling in the 2DEG, treated as a perturbation that changes the symmetry selection rules for the Josephson current.

If this is right

  • A cos φ Josephson component appears under dynamic conditions even when singlet-triplet symmetry rules forbid it in equilibrium.
  • The total charge current acquires both dissipationless and dissipative contributions under gate modulation.
  • The dissipative contribution is strongly suppressed at low temperatures.
  • The effect enables use of such junctions as sources of spin-triplet currents and as platforms for proximity effects.
  • Dynamic control via gate voltage can be applied to qubit architectures that rely on Josephson junctions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same time-dependent perturbation approach may apply to other hybrid junctions where static symmetry forbids current flow.
  • Experimental tests could focus on the temperature dependence of the dissipative component to isolate the dynamical contribution.
  • If the modulation frequency can be tuned independently of decoherence rates, the effect might provide a new handle on phase coherence in hybrid devices.

Load-bearing premise

Gate-controlled spin-orbit coupling in the 2DEG can be modeled as a time-dependent perturbation that alters symmetry rules without introducing decoherence or heating that would eliminate the new current component.

What would settle it

Apply a harmonic gate-voltage modulation across the junction and check whether an oscillatory cos φ term appears in the measured current-phase relation but disappears when the modulation amplitude is set to zero.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02694 by Igor \v{Z}uti\'c, Morten Amundsen, Niladri Banerjee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the studied planar Josephson junction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic of the phase accumulated by electrons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The dissipationless (dissipative) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: What the phenomenological analysis of the tun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Phase-sensitive Josephson effect has long been central to identifying unconventional pairing symmetries in superconductors. Although the selection rules governing Josephson junctions (JJs) are generally determined by the symmetries of the constituent superconductors, we demonstrate that this paradigm is modified in the dynamic regime. By modeling a JJ where spin-singlet and spin-triplet superconductors are separated by a two-dimensional electron gas, we show that a time-dependent gate voltage qualitatively changes the underlying selection rules. This modification arises as a consequence of the gate-controlled spin-orbit coupling. A harmonic modulation of the gate voltage generates an oscillatory $\cos \phi$ Josephson component which vanishes in the static limit. The resulting charge current contains both dissipationless and dissipative components, with the latter strongly suppressed at low temperatures. This dynamical Josephson effect could transform the use of JJs in qubits, as sources of spin-triplet currents, and as platforms for proximity effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript models a Josephson junction between a spin-singlet and a spin-triplet superconductor separated by a 2DEG. It claims that harmonic modulation of a gate voltage, acting through time-dependent spin-orbit coupling, generates an oscillatory cos φ Josephson current component absent in the static limit. The total charge current contains both dissipationless and dissipative contributions, with the dissipative part strongly suppressed at low temperatures. This is presented as a consequence of modified symmetry selection rules under the dynamic perturbation.

Significance. If the central derivation holds, the result identifies a mechanism for dynamically altering Josephson selection rules without static symmetry breaking, which could enable new control protocols for superconducting qubits and triplet-current sources. The explicit vanishing of the cos φ term in the static limit and the low-temperature suppression of dissipation are falsifiable signatures that strengthen the claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [modeling section] The modeling section deriving the current from the time-dependent SOC Hamiltonian must explicitly demonstrate that the cos φ term arises only from the dynamic term and vanishes identically when the modulation amplitude is set to zero; without this step the central claim that the effect is absent in the static limit remains unverified.
  2. [modeling section] The treatment of the gate voltage as a clean time-dependent perturbation (no heating or decoherence channels) is load-bearing for the survival of the oscillatory component; the manuscript should quantify the frequency and amplitude regime where this approximation remains valid relative to the superconducting gap and relaxation rates.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract states modeling results but supplies no equations or error estimates; a one-sentence summary of the Hamiltonian or the order of the perturbative treatment would improve accessibility.
  2. Notation for the phase difference φ and the modulation frequency should be defined at first use and kept consistent throughout the text and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation and the recommendation of minor revision. The two comments identify useful clarifications in the modeling section. We address each point below and will incorporate the requested additions in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [modeling section] The modeling section deriving the current from the time-dependent SOC Hamiltonian must explicitly demonstrate that the cos φ term arises only from the dynamic term and vanishes identically when the modulation amplitude is set to zero; without this step the central claim that the effect is absent in the static limit remains unverified.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration strengthens the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a short subsection (or appendix paragraph) that takes the static limit by setting the modulation amplitude to zero and shows analytically that the cos φ component vanishes identically, recovering the known selection rules for the static singlet-triplet junction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [modeling section] The treatment of the gate voltage as a clean time-dependent perturbation (no heating or decoherence channels) is load-bearing for the survival of the oscillatory component; the manuscript should quantify the frequency and amplitude regime where this approximation remains valid relative to the superconducting gap and relaxation rates.

    Authors: We concur that the validity regime of the clean-perturbation approximation should be quantified. In the revision we will insert a paragraph that compares the modulation frequency and amplitude to the superconducting gap Δ and to typical quasiparticle relaxation rates in 2DEG systems, thereby delineating the parameter window in which the oscillatory cos φ term survives. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation follows from time-dependent perturbation model

full rationale

The paper presents a model of a Josephson junction with time-dependent gate voltage modulating spin-orbit coupling between singlet and triplet superconductors. The oscillatory cos φ component is derived as a direct consequence of the dynamic term altering symmetry selection rules, explicitly vanishing in the static limit. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatzes imported via prior work are present. The central claim is a modeled outcome of the time-dependent Hamiltonian without reduction to its own inputs by construction. This is the expected non-circular outcome for a theoretical proposal based on explicit perturbation modeling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the modeling implicitly relies on standard BCS pairing symmetries and a phenomenological treatment of gate-induced spin-orbit coupling whose detailed form is not stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5699 in / 1095 out tokens · 22100 ms · 2026-06-28T12:05:31.050178+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    B. D. Josephson, Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling, Phys. Lett.1, 251 (1962)

    1962

  2. [2]

    Tafuri (ed.),Fundamentals and Frontiers of the Josephson Effect(Springer Nature, Cham, 2019)

    F. Tafuri (ed.),Fundamentals and Frontiers of the Josephson Effect(Springer Nature, Cham, 2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    R. F. Voss and R. A. Webb, Macroscopic quantum tun- neling in 1−µm Nb Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 265, 47 (1981)

    1981

  4. [4]

    M. H. Devoret, J. M. Martinis, and J. Clarke, Mea- surement of macroscopic quantum tunneling out of a zero-voltage state of a current-biased Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1908 (1985)

    1908

  5. [5]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    H. Kim, G. Jang, S. Jin, D. Shin, H.-J. Shin, J. Luo, I. Siddiqi, Y. Kim, H. Hahn Yoon, and L. B. Nguyen, Josephson junctions in the age of quantum discovery, arXiv:2505.12724 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    ˇZuti´ c, J

    I. ˇZuti´ c, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Spintronics: Fun- damentals and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 323 (2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    L. P. Gor’kov and E. I. Rashba, Superconducting 2D sys- tem with lifted spin degeneracy: Mixed singlet-triplet state, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 037004 (2001)

    2001

  9. [9]

    Linder and J

    J. Linder and J. W. A. Robinson, Superconducting spin- tronics, Nat. Phys.11, 307 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    Amundsen, J

    M. Amundsen, J. Linder, J. W. A. Robinson, I. ˇZuti´ c, and N. Banerjee, Colloquium: Spin-orbit effects in su- perconducting hybrid structures, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 021003 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Eschrig, Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintronics, Phys

    M. Eschrig, Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintronics, Phys. Today64, 43 (2011)

    2011

  12. [12]

    Martinez, P

    I. Martinez, P. H¨ ogl, C. Gonz´ alez-Ruano, J. P. Cascales, C. Tiusan, Y. Lu, M. Hehn, A. Matos-Abiague, J. Fabian, I. ˇZuti´ c, and F. G. Aliev, Interfacial spin-orbit coupling: A platform for superconducting spintronics, Phys. Rev. Applied13, 014030 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Nadeem, M

    M. Nadeem, M. S. Fuhrer, and X. Wang, The supercon- ducting diode effect, Nat. Rev. Phys.5, 558 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    M. C. Dartiailh, W. Mayer, J. Yuan, K. S. Wickra- masinghe, A. Matos-Abiague, I. ˇZuti´ c, and J. Shabani, Phase signature of topological transition in Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 036802 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    H. Ren, F. Pientka, S. Hart, A. T. Pierce, M. Kosowsky, L. Lunczer, R. Schlereth, B. Scharf, E. M. Hankiewicz, L. W. Molenkamp, B. I. Halperin, and A. Yacoby, Topo- logical superconductivity in a phase-controlled Josephson junction, Nature569, 93 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Fornieri, A

    A. Fornieri, A. M. Whiticar, F. Setiawan, E. Por- tol´ es, A. C. C. Drachmann, A. Keselman, S. Gronin, C. Thomas, T. Wang, R. Kallaher, G. C. Gardner, E. Berg, M. J. Manfra, A. Stern, C. M. Marcus, and F. Nichele, Evidence of topological superconductivity in planar Josephson junctions, Nature569, 89 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Das Sarma, M

    S. Das Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, Majorana zero modes and topological quantum computation, npj Quant. Inf.1, 150001 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    Flensberg, F

    K. Flensberg, F. von Oppen, and A. Stern, Engineered platforms for topological superconductivity and Majo- rana zero modes, Nat. Rev. Mater.6, 944 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    T. Zhou, M. C. Dartiailh, K. Sardashti, J. E. Han, A. Matos-Abiague, J. Shabani, and I. ˇZuti´ c, Fusion of Majorana bound states with mini-gate control in two- dimensional systems, Nat. Commun.13, 1738 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    ˇZuti´ c, A

    I. ˇZuti´ c, A. Matos-Abiague, B. Scharf, H. Dery, and 6 K. Belashchenko, Proximitized materials, Mater. Today 22, 85 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    A. I. Buzdin, Proximity effects in superconductor- ferromagnet heterostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 935 (2005)

    2005

  22. [22]

    H. R. Ott, H. Rudigier, Z. Fisk, and J. L. Smith, UBe 13: An unconventional actinide superconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1595 (1983)

    1983

  23. [23]

    G. R. Stewart, Z. Fisk, J. O. Willis, and J. L. Smith, Pos- sibility of coexistence of bulk superconductivity and spin fluctuations in UPt 3, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 679 (1984)

    1984

  24. [24]

    S. S. Saxena, P. Agarwal, K. Ahilan, F. M. Grosche, R. K. W. Haselwimmer, M. J. Steiner, E. Pugh, I. R. Walker, S. R. Julian, P. Monthoux, G. G. Lonzarich, A. Huxley, I. Sheikin, D. Braithwaite, and J. Flouquet, Superconductivity on the border of itinerant-electron fer- romagnetism in UGe 2, Nature406, 587 (2000)

    2000

  25. [25]

    S. Ran, C. Eckberg, Q.-P. Ding, Y. Furukawa, T. Metz, S. R. Saha, I.-L. Liu, M. Zic, H. Kim, J. Paglione, and N. P. Butch, Nearly ferromagnetic spin-triplet supercon- ductivity, Science365, 684 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    L. Jiao, S. Howard, S. Ran, Z. Wang, J. O. Rodriguez, M. Sigrist, Z. Wang, N. P. Butch, and V. Madhavan, Chiral superconductivity in heavy-fermion metal UTe 2, Nature579, 523 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Kinjo, H

    K. Kinjo, H. Fujibayashi, H. Matsumura, F. Hori, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, Y. Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, A. Nakamura, Y. Shimizu, Y. Homma, D. Li, F. Honda, and D. Aoki, Superconducting spin reorien- tation in spin-triplet multiple superconducting phases of UTe2, Science Advances9, eadg2736 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    H. Yoon, Y. S. Eo, J. Park, J. A. Horn, R. G. Dor- man, S. R. Saha, I. M. Hayes, I. Takeuchi, P. M. R. Brydon, and J. Paglione, Probingp-wave superconduc- tivity in UTe2 via point-contact junctions, npj Quantum Mater.9, 91 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Z. Li, C. M. Moir, N. J. McKee, E. Lee-Wong, R. E. Baumbach, M. B. Maple, and Y. Liu, Observation of odd- parity superconductivity in UTe2, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.122(2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    L. V. Levitin, J. Knapp, P. Knappov´ a, M. Lucas, J. Ny´ eki, P. Heikkinen, V. Antonov, A. Casey, A. F. Ho, P. Coleman, C. Geibel, A. Steppke, K. Kliemt, C. Krell- ner, M. Brando, and J. Saunders, Odd-parity supercon- ductivity underpinned by antiferromagnetism in heavy fermion metal YbRh 2Si2, arXiv:2502.06420

    work page arXiv

  31. [31]

    J. A. Pals and W. van Haeringen, On the Josephson ef- fect between superconductors in singlet and triplet spin- pairing states, Physica B+C92, 360 (1977)

    1977

  32. [32]

    heavy-fermion

    V. B. Geshkenbein, A. I. Larkin, and A. Barone, Vor- tices with half magnetic flux quanta in “heavy-fermion” superconductors, Phys. Rev. B36, 235 (1987)

    1987

  33. [33]

    K. D. Nelson, Z. Q. Mao, Y. Maeno, and Y. Liu, Odd- Parity Superconductivity in Sr2RuO4, Science306, 1151 (2004)

    2004

  34. [34]

    ˇZuti´ c and I

    I. ˇZuti´ c and I. Mazin, Phase-sensitive tests of the pairing state symmetry in Sr2RuO4, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 217004 (2005)

    2005

  35. [35]

    X. Xu, Y. Li, and C. L. Chien, Observation of odd-parity superconductivity with the Geshkenbein-Larkin-Barone composite rings, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 056001 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Yamaki and Y

    K. Yamaki and Y. Asano, Singlet/triplet Josephson junc- tion on a substrate, Phys. Rev. B111, 214505 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Linder and A

    J. Linder and A. V. Balatsky, Odd-frequency supercon- ductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045005 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Triola and A

    C. Triola and A. V. Balatsky, Odd-frequency supercon- ductivity in driven systems, Phys. Rev. B94, 094518 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    Triola and A

    C. Triola and A. V. Balatsky, Pair symmetry conversion in driven multiband superconductors, Phys. Rev. B95, 224518 (2017)

    2017

  40. [40]

    Cayao, C

    J. Cayao, C. Triola, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Floquet engineering bulk odd-frequency superconducting pairs, Phys. Rev. B103, 104505 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    Mayer, M

    W. Mayer, M. C. Dartiailh, J. Yuan, K. S. Wickramas- inghe, E. Rossi, and J. Shabani, Gate controlled anoma- lous phase shift in Al/InAs Josephson junctions, Nat. Commun95, 212 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Monroe, M

    D. Monroe, M. Alidoust, and I. ˇZuti´ c, Tunable planar Josephson junctions driven by time-dependent spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, L031001 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Monroe, C

    D. Monroe, C. Shen, D. Tringali, M. Alidoust, T. Zhou, and I. ˇZuti´ c, Phase jumps in Josephson junctions with time-dependent spin–orbit coupling, Appl. Phys. Lett. 125, 012601 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    S. J. Papadakis, E. P. De Poortere, H. C. Manoharan, M. Shayegan, and R. Winkler, The effect of spin splitting of a two-dimensional system, Science283, 2056 (1999)

    2056

  45. [45]

    Van Tuan, B

    D. Van Tuan, B. Scharf, Z. Wang, J. Shan, K. F. Mak, I. ˇZuti´ c, and H. Dery, Probing many-body interactions in monolayer transition-metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B99, 085301 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Polski, A. Thomson, E. Lantagne- Hurtubise, C. Lewandowski, H. Zhou, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, J. Alicea, and S. Nadj-Perge, En- hanced superconductivity in spin–orbit proximitized bi- layer graphene, Nature613, 268 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    G. D. Mahan,Many-Particle Physics, 3rd ed. (Springer, New York, NY, 2000)

    2000

  48. [48]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun,Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions, illustrated ed. (Martino Fine Books, 2014)

    2014

  49. [49]

    See Supplemental Material for a discussion of feasible material parameters, a detailed derivation of the current, and results for thes-wave–d-wave Josephson effect

  50. [50]

    A. M. Zagoskin,Quantum Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, NY, 2014)

    2014

  51. [51]

    Ambegaokar and A

    V. Ambegaokar and A. Baratoff, Tunneling Between Su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 486 (1963)

    1963

  52. [52]

    R. C. Dynes, V. Narayanamurti, and J. P. Garno, Di- rect measurement of quasiparticle-lifetime broadening in a strong-coupled superconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 1509 (1978)

    1978

  53. [53]

    Zhang, W.-Y

    X. Zhang, W.-Y. Shan, and D. Xiao, Optical selection rule of excitons in gapped chiral fermion systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 077401 (2018)

    2018

  54. [54]

    T. Cao, M. Wu, and S. G. Louie, Unifying optical selec- tion rules for excitons in two dimensions: Band topol- ogy and winding numbers, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 087402 (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    G. Xu, T. Zhou, B. Scharf, and I.ˇZuti´ c, Optically probing tunable band topology in atomic monolayers, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 157402 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    S. Liu, A. Bordoloi, J. Issokson, I. Levy, M. G. Vavilov, J. Shabani, and V. Manucharyan, Strongly-anharmonic gateless gatemon qubits based on InAs/Al 2D het- erostructure, arXiv:2503.12288 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Scharf, F

    B. Scharf, F. Pientka, H. Ren, A. Yacoby, and E. M. Han- 7 kiewicz, Tuning topological superconductivity in phase- controlled Josephson junctions with Rashba and Dressel- haus spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B99, 214503 (2019)

    2019

  58. [58]

    Alidoust, C

    M. Alidoust, C. Shen, and I. ˇZuti´ c, Cubic spin-orbit cou- pling and anomalous Josephson effect in planar junctions, Phys. Rev. B103, L060503 (2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    Y.-M. Xie, E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, A. F. Young, S. Nadj- Perge, and J. Alicea, Gate-defined topological Josephson junctions in bernal bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 146601 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Kontos, M

    T. Kontos, M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, and X. Grison, Os- cillations of the superconducting order parameter in a ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 304 (2001)

    2001

  61. [61]

    Banerjee, J

    N. Banerjee, J. W. A. Robinson, and M. G. Blamire, Reversible control of spin-polarised supercurrents in fer- romagnetic Josephson junctions, Nat. Commun.5, 4771 (2014)

    2014

  62. [62]

    J. W. A. Robinson, N. Banerjee, and M. G. Blamire, Triplet pair correlations and nonmonotonic supercurrent decay with Cr thickness in Nb/Cr/Fe/Nb Josephson de- vices, Phys. Rev. B89, 104505 (2014)

    2014

  63. [63]

    Singh, S

    A. Singh, S. Voltan, K. Lahabi, and J. Aarts, Colossal proximity effect in a superconducting triplet spin valve based on the half-metallic ferromagnet CrO 2, Phys. Rev. X5, 021019 (2015)

    2015

  64. [64]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena in superconductor-ferromagnet structures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1321 (2005)

    2005

  65. [65]

    K.-R. Jeon, B. K. Hazra, J.-K. Kim, J.-C. Jeon, H. Han, H. L. Meyerheim, T. Kontos, A. Cottet, and S. S. P. Parkin, Chiral antiferromagnetic Josephson junctions as spin-triplet supercurrent spin valves and d.c. SQUIDs, Nat. Nanotechnol.18, 747 (2023)

    2023

  66. [66]

    J. A. Ouassou, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, dc Joseph- son effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 076003 (2023)

    2023

  67. [67]

    Z. Zhu, R. Huang, X. Chen, X. Duan, J. Zhang, I. ˇZuti´ c, and T. Zhou, Altermagnetic proximity effect, arXiv:2509.06790 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    F. Amet, C. T. Ke, I. V. Borzenets, Y.-M. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. S. Deacon, M. Ya- mamoto, Y. Bomze, S. Tarucha, and G. Finkelstein, Su- percurrent in the quantum Hall regime, Science352, 966 (2016)

    2016

  69. [69]

    Gonz´ alez-Ruano, C

    C. Gonz´ alez-Ruano, C. Shen, P. Tuero, C. Tiusan, Y. Lu, J. E. Han, I. ˇZuti´ c, and F. G. Aliev, Giant shot noise in superconductor/ferromagnet junctions with orbital- symmetry-controlled spin-orbit coupling, Nat. Commun. 16, 9524 (2025)

    2025