Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Vortex Dynamics in Magic-Angle Twisted Graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A Josephson junction in twisted graphene tracks single vortices switching from thermal creep to quantum tunneling below ~80 mK.

desk verdict Solid multi-vortex rate analysis on a real device; the thermal-to-MQT claim is carefully hedged and rests on a model-dependent voltage-to-state map that is the main soft spot, not a collapse. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08585 v1 pith:AM6U2JNN submitted 2026-07-09 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Marta Perego , Peter Koopmann , Clara Galante Agero , Alexandra Mestre Torà , Takashi Taniguchi , Kenji Watanabe , Vadim Geshkenbein , Gianni Blatter
show 2 more authors
Thomas Ihn Klaus Ensslin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords PearlvorticesJosephsonjunctionsensortelegraphnoisevortexcreepmacroscopicquantumtunnelingmagic-angletwistedgrapheneFraunhoferpatternthin-filmsuperconductivity
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 authors build a gate-defined Josephson junction in magic-angle twisted four-layer graphene and use it as a local sensor for individual Pearl vortices in the superconducting leads. Vortex entry or exit shifts the Fraunhofer pattern of the junction critical current; the same events appear as telegraph noise in the junction voltage when the bias is held fixed. By separating two distinct timescales in the voltage traces—fast fluctuations near the junction and slower distant vortices that reshape the barriers—they extract entry and exit rates as a function of temperature from 7 mK to 120 mK. Above roughly 100 mK the rates follow thermal activation over barriers of a few kelvin; below about 80 mK the rates saturate, which the authors interpret as a crossover to macroscopic quantum tunneling of vortices. The result turns a bulk, ensemble phenomenon into a single-vortex, transport-based measurement and supplies concrete numbers for barriers, attempt frequencies and tunneling actions in a two-dimensional superconductor.

What carries the argument

The gate-defined Josephson junction as single-vortex sensor: a vortex in a lead alters the phase difference across the junction, shifting the Fraunhofer pattern of Ic(B) and thereby switching the junction between superconducting and dissipative voltage levels at fixed bias, which appears as telegraph noise whose waiting times yield the dynamical rates.

What would settle it

If the low-temperature saturation of rates disappeared when the same device is remeasured with a different fixed field B* or with an independent vortex-imaging technique that confirms the absence of distant trapped vortices, the multi-vortex interpretation and the quantum-tunneling claim would both be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Measurements of Ic(B) and V(t) in a weak-leads Josephson device reveal multi-vortex processes in which fast nearby fluctuations are modulated by quasi-stationary distant vortices; the temperature dependence of the extracted rates shows thermal activation above ~100 mK and saturation below ~80 mK that the authors attribute to macroscopic quantum tunneling of Pearl vortices.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping of distinct voltage levels and waiting-time clusters onto specific multi-vortex configurations (pristine lead versus distant trapped vortex) depends on the relative position of the measurement field to the first Fraunhofer zero and on calculated phase shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-vortex entry and exit rates can be tracked versus carrier density, magnetic field and temperature in the same device.
  • Edge barriers of a few kelvin and tunneling actions S/ℏ ≈ 24–27 are now measured quantities for Pearl vortices in twisted graphene.
  • The same sensor architecture can be integrated into superconducting circuits that use or control individual vortices.
  • The observed crossover temperature (~80–100 mK) sets a practical bound between classical creep and quantum motion in this material.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ability to gate-tune the superfluid density continuously suggests a route to map how the thermal-to-quantum crossover temperature scales with barrier height in a single sample.
  • Because the sensor is purely transport-based, the same protocol could be applied to other two-dimensional superconductors where scanning probes are harder to implement.
  • If the distant quasi-stationary vortices can themselves be manipulated by local gates, the device becomes a controllable multi-vortex register rather than a passive detector.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a gate-defined Josephson junction fabricated in magic-angle twisted four-layer graphene that functions as a single-vortex sensor. Shifts in the Fraunhofer pattern of Ic(B) and telegraph noise in voltage time traces Vd(t) are interpreted as multi-vortex processes in which fast fluctuations of nearby Pearl vortices are modulated by quasi-stationary distant vortices. Waiting-time analysis of the two distinct clusters in the τnv–τv correlation plots yields four rates (Γfast_nv, Γslow_v, Γslow_nv, Γfast_v). Their temperature dependence between 7 mK and 120 mK is fitted to Arrhenius activation above ≈100 mK and saturates below ≈80 mK; the saturation is presented as evidence for a crossover to macroscopic quantum tunneling of vortices. Barriers U/kB of a few kelvin and actions S/ℏ ≈ 24–27 are extracted and shown to be consistent with the free-energy landscape of a Pearl vortex in a weakly screening strip.

Significance. If the multi-vortex assignment and the thermal-to-quantum interpretation hold, the work supplies a rare transport-based probe of individual Pearl-vortex entry/exit events and their rates in a tunable 2D superconductor. The careful post-processing pipeline (Yuzhelevski digitization, Freedman–Diaconis binning, bi-exponential fits, finite-bandwidth correction) and the public data release strengthen reproducibility. Consistency of the extracted U and S with the theoretical edge-barrier landscape of Ref. [63] and with independent estimates of ρs and λL constitutes a non-trivial check. Observation of macroscopic quantum tunneling of vortices would be of broad interest for quantum creep and for vortex-based superconducting electronics.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. IV A–B and Figs. 3(c), 5(c): the four rates that underwrite the thermal/MQT claim are obtained only after the two clusters in the τnv–τv plots are assigned to “pristine lead + nearby fluctuating vortex” versus “distant quasi-stationary vortex + nearby fluctuating vortex.” That assignment rests on (i) the relative position of the fixed measurement field B* = 2 mT with respect to the fitted first zero B0(T) (Fig. 2f) and (ii) the sign of the slope of V(B) at B* (Fig. 4b). Both ingredients are model-dependent: B0 is extracted by fitting Eq. (2) with a temperature-dependent effective width Weff(T) that itself increases from 1.16 µm to 1.5 µm, and the voltage-level ordering is inferred from a calculated vortex-induced phase shift of ~0.4 mT. The paper notes that the signal becomes unusable near T ≈ 45 mK where B* ≈ B0, underscoring the sensitivity of the mapping. Alternative assignments
  2. Sec. V and Eqs. (3)–(4): the claim of a “sharp transition” to macroscopic quantum tunneling is based on the saturation of the four rates below ≈80 mK. While the data are consistent with a crossover from thermal activation to quantum tunneling, the temperature window is narrow, the attempt frequency ν0 is taken from the literature range rather than measured, and no independent signature (e.g., magnetic-field dependence of the action or a clear T0 matching condition) is provided. A more cautious phrasing—“suggestive of a crossover”—together with an explicit discussion of alternative saturation mechanisms (e.g., residual heating, detector bandwidth, or multi-vortex pinning) would better match the strength of the evidence.
  3. Sec. III and Fig. 2(f): the observed decrease of B0 with temperature is outside the generic weakly-screening model of Ref. [49] and is attributed to a speculative temperature-dependent suppression of superfluid density near the junction. Because B0(T) directly controls the voltage-to-state mapping used for all rate extractions, a more quantitative model (or at least a systematic uncertainty band on Weff(T)) is needed; otherwise the temperature evolution of the rates inherits an uncontrolled systematic.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 1(c) and throughout: the top axis is labeled ΦW/Φ0 while the text uses ΦW = B W^{2}; a consistent definition and a brief reminder of the weakly-screening flux-to-field conversion would help readers unfamiliar with Ref. [49].
  2. Appendix C: the finite-bandwidth correction formulae (C2)–(C3) are taken from Ref. [70]; stating the measured Γdet = 1098(93) Hz already in the main text (rather than only in the appendix) would make the rate values easier to assess.
  3. Sec. II A: the argument that the junction is short (W ≲ 2ξJ) is clear, yet a short numerical table of the estimated lengths (ξ, λL, Λ, ξJ, W) would make the conclusion more immediately verifiable.
  4. Several figure panels contain residual OCR artifacts (m¯ for mT, Cou¯ts, etc.); these should be cleaned before final production.
  5. The relation of the present multi-vortex analysis to the earlier single-vortex reports [46,47] could be stated more explicitly in the introduction so that the incremental contribution is transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: rates and their T-dependence are extracted from data; Arrhenius/MQT interpretation and consistency checks with free-energy landscape are not forced by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V, Eqs. (3)–(4) and Figs. 6(c)–(d)]
    "Fitting the high-temperature part of the rates with such an Arrhenius law, we can extract u0 in the range o10^11 Hz o and barriers U/kB of a few Kelvin; e.g., o Uslow_v/kB o2.6 K and u0 o2.0 imes10^11 Hz. o Figures 6(c) and (d) show the rates plotted in terms of Snv,v/ u=ln( u'0/ u nv,v) with u'0= u0."

    The attempt frequency u0 is obtained by fitting the high-T thermal rates; the identical numerical value is then inserted into the definition of the quantum action S/ u at low T. The plotted saturation values of S/ u therefore inherit the fitted u0 by construction. The raw rate saturation itself remains independent of this conversion, so the circularity is only partial and non-load-bearing for the thermal-to-MQT claim.

full rationale

The central claim rests on measured voltage time traces Vd(t) digitized into waiting times au nv, au v, binned into histograms, and fit to (bi-)exponentials to obtain four rates \Gamma (Sec. IV, Figs. 3 and 5). The observed saturation of those rates below ~80 mK and rapid rise above ~100 mK are direct experimental facts independent of any model input. Assignment of the two clusters to pristine vs. distant-vortex-modulated configurations uses the measured B0(T) trajectory (fit of main lobe to the weakly-screening Fraunhofer formula Eq. 2) and the sign of the measured V(B) slope at B* (Fig. 4); this is model-dependent interpretation, not a tautology that forces the rates themselves. High-T Arrhenius fits supply U and u0; the same u0 is then used to convert low-T rates into S/ u (Figs. 6c,d). That conversion is conventional and does not manufacture the saturation. Subsequent comparison of U ~ ho s and of S with the external free-energy landscape of Ref. [63] is a consistency check, not a prediction derived from the fit. Self-citations to the authors’ prior sensor papers [46,47] supply context and earlier single-vortex observations but are not load-bearing for the new multi-vortex rate extraction or the T-dependence reported here. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. Score 1 reflects only the mild, non-central reuse of the thermally fitted u0 when quoting numerical values of S/ u.

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

The central claim rests on standard thin-film vortex theory plus a small number of fitted vortex positions and attempt frequencies; no new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are those needed to convert raw waiting times into physical barriers and actions.

free parameters (4)
  • attempt frequency ν0 = ~2×10^11 Hz (pristine exit); ~7×10^11 Hz (penetrated exit)
    Taken in the range ~10^11 Hz from literature and then fixed (e.g. 2×10^11 Hz) to convert measured rates into dimensionless actions S/ℏ; directly affects the quoted S values.
  • vortex positions (xv, yv) = 0.67 W / 0 and 0.055 W / 0.12 W
    Fitted to the termination line of the noisy Fraunhofer pattern and to the second peak (xv=0.67 W, yv=0 and xv=0.055 W, yv=0.12 W); used to justify the multi-vortex interpretation.
  • effective junction width Weff(T) = 1.16 µm (7 mK) to 1.5 µm (120 mK)
    Extracted by fitting the main Fraunhofer lobe to Clem’s weak-screening formula; produces the observed B0(T) decrease that reverses the voltage-level assignment around 40 mK.
  • edge barriers U/kB = ≈2.6 K (slow exit), ≈2.0 K (fast exit)
    Obtained from Arrhenius fits to the high-T rates; used both as phenomenological parameters and for consistency with ε0 d.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The device is in the short-junction limit (W ≤ 2 ξJ), so observed jumps arise from Pearl vortices in the leads rather than metastable Josephson-vortex states.
    Sec. II A; calculated phase-core size 2 ξJ ≈ 3 µm > W = 1.1 µm.
  • domain assumption Free-energy landscape G(y) of a Pearl vortex crossing a thin strip is given by the Bean–Livingston surface barrier plus magnetic and transport-current terms (Ref. [63]).
    Sec. V; used to estimate barrier height ≈ ε0 d and tunneling distance ~ W/8.
  • ad hoc to paper Voltage levels in the telegraph noise map uniquely onto presence/absence of nearby versus distant vortices according to the sign of (B* – B0).
    Sec. IV A–B and Fig. 1(d); required for labeling Γnv versus Γv.
  • standard math Standard Arrhenius and Caldeira–Leggett/Larkin–Ovchinnikov forms for thermally activated and dissipative quantum tunneling rates.
    Eqs. (3)–(4); used to extract U and S.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vortex Dynamics in Magic-Angle Twisted Graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AM6U2JNN

@misc{pith2026260708585,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vortex Dynamics in Magic-Angle Twisted Graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AM6U2JNN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08585}
}
abstract

We use a gate-defined Josephson junction (JJ) device made from twisted-layer graphene for studying vortex dynamics in two dimensions. The JJ sensor signals the presence of individual vortices in the superconducting leads nearby the junction through shifts in the Fraunhofer interference pattern of the magnetic-field-dependent critical current $I_c(B)$ across the junction. Rapid vortex fluctuations manifest as telegraph-type noise in time traces of the junction voltage $V(t)$. Measurements of $I_c(B)$ and $V(t)$ are interpreted in terms of multi-vortex processes where fast vortex fluctuations in the leads are modulated by quasi-stationary vortices trapped in the leads. The different timescales associated with these processes allow for their disentangling and quantitative analysis. Tracking the temperature dependence of the vortex-dynamical rates between $T = 7$ mK and $T = 120$ mK, we find that the creep type vortex motion is thermally activated above $T \approx 100$ mK, while the saturation of rates below $T \approx 80$ mK is suggestive of a sharp transition to macroscopic quantum tunneling of vortices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08585 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of twisted-layer graphene device with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Fraunhofer interference pattern of the device with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Telegraph noise measured at low temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Telegraph noise measured at high temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) and (b) Temperature evolution of rates for vortex-entry into- (Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [63]

    Freedman and P

    D. Freedman and P. Diaconis, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrschein- lichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete57, 453 (1981)

    work page 1981

  2. [49]

    Pearl, Applied Physics Letters5, 65 (1964)

    J. Pearl, Applied Physics Letters5, 65 (1964)

    work page 1964

  3. [1]

    enabling detection of individual Pearl-vortices [44] penetrating or leaving the superconducting leads. Our study adds a new transport-based probe for observing in- dividual vortex penetration and dynamics, yielding rates of vortex motion as a function of experimental param- eters such as carrier density, temperature, or magnetic field. Our findings show a...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  4. [2]

    Thus we have to check whether we deal with a ‘short’ or a ‘long’ Josephson junction

    that could produce jumps in the Fraunhofer pattern. Thus we have to check whether we deal with a ‘short’ or a ‘long’ Josephson junction. Our junction device involves thin, weakly-screening leads and a rather strong-coupling junction. This com- bination renders the structure of (dynamical) Josephson vortices non-trivial. The situation is similar to the one...

    work page doi:10.3929/ethz-c-000802057 2020

  5. [3]

    Since the relevant signal information is confined below 100 Hz, we apply a second-order digital low-pass filter with a cut- off off LP = 200 Hz

    Post-processing Voltage tracesV d(t) are first filtered using a notch filter atf cable = 661(20) Hz to remove cabling noise. Since the relevant signal information is confined below 100 Hz, we apply a second-order digital low-pass filter with a cut- off off LP = 200 Hz. The data are then resampled at fresample = 3 kHz to optimize computational efficiency; ...

    work page

  6. [4]

    As shown in Fig

    Fitting procedure Waiting time statistics are analysed by binning the data according to the Freedman-Diaconis rule [58], with manual adjustments made for cases of severe under- or over-binning. As shown in Fig. 3(d), the distributions exhibit a bi-exponential dependence rather than a single decay, characterized by a fast timescale in the initial bins and ...

    work page

  7. [5]

    In a two-level system, the detector may miss rapid sequential transitions between the two true states,AandB

    Finite-bandwidth correction Extracted rates are bandwidth-corrected to account for the systematic underestimation caused by finite detector response times [70]. In a two-level system, the detector may miss rapid sequential transitions between the two true states,AandB. If a fluctuation (e.g.,A→B→A) occurs faster than the detection rate Γdet, the system fa...

    work page

  8. [6]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras,et al., Nature556, 80 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 75 references
  1. [7]

    Yankowitz, S

    M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, D. Graf, A. F. Young, and C. R. Dean, Science363, 1059 (2019)

    2019

  2. [8]

    X. Lu, P. Stepanov, W. Yang, M. Xie, M. A. Aamir, I. Das, C. Urgell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zhang, 12 cryogenic temperatures TG FG hBN MAT4G Graphite Al2O3 Vbias R1 + – Filter fBW = 1.1 kHz Ibias NI BNC-2110 Data Acquisition (DAQ) card V DC amp x 1000 gain amp x 30k Com...

    2019

  3. [9]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  4. [10]

    J. M. Parket al., Nature590, 249 (2021)

    2021

  5. [11]

    Z. Hao, A. Zimmerman, P. Ledwith, E. Khalaf, D. H. Najafabadi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, and P. Kim, Science371, 1133 (2021)

    2021

  6. [12]

    S. Carr, D. Massatt, S. Fang, P. Cazeaux, M. Luskin, and E. Kaxiras, Physical Review B95, 075420 (2017)

    2017

  7. [13]

    J. M. Parket al., Nature Materials21, 877 (2022)

    2022

  8. [14]

    H. Kim, Y. Choi, C. Lewandowski, A. Thomson, Y. Zhang, R. Polski, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Al- icea, and S. Nadj-Perge, Nature606, 494 (2022)

    2022

  9. [15]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Polski, C. Lewandowski, A. Thomson, Y. Peng, Y. Choi, H. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Alicea,et al., Science377, 1538 (2022)

    2022

  10. [16]

    G. W. Burg, E. Khalaf, Y. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and E. Tutuc, Nature Materials21, 884 (2022)

    2022

  11. [17]

    Mukherjee, S

    A. Mukherjee, S. Layek, S. Sinha, R. Kundu, A. H. Mar- chawala, M. Hingankar, J. Sarkar, L. Sangani, H. Agar- wal, S. Ghosh,et al., Nature Materials , 1 (2025)

    2025

  12. [18]

    Rodan-Legrain, Y

    D. Rodan-Legrain, Y. Cao, J. M. Park, S. C. de la Barrera, M. T. Randeria, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature Nanotechnology16, 769 (2021)

    2021

  13. [19]

    F. K. de Vries, E. Portol´ es, G. Zheng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and P. Rickhaus, Na- ture Nanotechnology16, 760 (2021)

    2021

  14. [20]

    D´ ıez-M´ erida, A

    J. D´ ıez-M´ erida, A. D´ ıez-Carl´ on, S. Yang, Y.-M. Xie, X.- J. Gao, J. Senior, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Lu, A. P. Higginbotham,et al., Nature Communications14, 2396 (2023)

    2023

  15. [21]

    Portol´ es, S

    E. Portol´ es, S. Iwakiri, G. Zheng, P. Rickhaus, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and F. K. de Vries, Nature Nanotechnology17, 1159 (2022)

    2022

  16. [22]

    D´ ıez-Carl´ on, J

    A. D´ ıez-Carl´ on, J. D´ ıez-M´ erida, P. Rout, D. Sedov, P. Virtanen, S. Banerjee, R. P. S. Penttil¨ a, P. Altpeter, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S.-Y. Yang, K. T. Law, T. T. Heikkil¨ a, P. T¨ orm¨ a, M. S. Scheurer, and D. K. Efetov, Phys. Rev. X15, 041033 (2025)

    2025

  17. [23]

    Ronen, V

    Y. Ronen, V. Bhardwaj, L. Rajagopal, L. Arici, M. Bo- carsly, A. Ilin, G. Shavit, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Oreg, and T. Holder, unpublished (2025), 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5756127/v1

    2025 doi

  18. [24]

    Iwakiri, A

    S. Iwakiri, A. Mestre-Tor` a, E. Portol´ es, M. Visscher, M. Perego, G. Zheng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. Sigrist, T. Ihn,et al., Nature Communications15, 390 (2024)

    2024

  19. [25]

    Zheng, E

    G. Zheng, E. Portol´ es, A. Mestre-Tor` a, M. Perego, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, P. Rickhaus, F. K. de Vries, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin,et al., Physical Review Research6, L012051 (2024)

    2024

  20. [26]

    Rothstein, A

    A. Rothstein, A. Fischer, A. Achtermann, E. Icking, K. Hecker, L. Banszerus, M. Otto, S. Trellenkamp, F. Lentz, K. Watanabe,et al., Nano Letters25, 6429 (2025)

    2025

  21. [27]

    R. Jha, M. Endres, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Banerjee, C. Sch¨ onenberger, and P. Karnatak, Phys- ical Review Letters134, 216001 (2025)

    2025

  22. [28]

    Blatter, M

    G. Blatter, M. V. Feigel’man, V. B. Geshkenbein, A. I. Larkin, and V. M. Vinokur, Rev. Mod. Phys.66, 1125 (1994)

    1994

  23. [29]

    A. A. Abrikosov, [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.32, 1442 (1957)] JETP5, 1174 (1957)

    1957

  24. [30]

    Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity(Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2004)

    M. Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity(Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2004)

    2004

  25. [31]

    S. J. Bending, Advances in Physics48, 449 (1999)

    1999

  26. [32]

    H. F. Hess, R. B. Robinson, and J. V. Waszczak, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 2711 (1990)

    1990

  27. [33]

    Tonomura, H

    A. Tonomura, H. Kasai, O. Kamimura, T. Matsuda, K. Harada, Y. Nakayama, J. Shimoyama, K. Kishio, T. Hanaguri, K. Kitazawa, M. Sasase, and S. Okayasu, Nature412, 620 (2001)

    2001

  28. [34]

    Embon, Y

    L. Embon, Y. Anahory, A. Suhov, D. Halbertal, J. Cup- pens, A. Yakovenko, A. Uri, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappa- port, M. E. Huber, A. Gurevich, and E. Zeldov, Scientific Reports5, 7598 (2015)

    2015

  29. [35]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett.9, 309 (1962)

    1962

  30. [36]

    P. W. ANDERSON and Y. B. KIM, Rev. Mod. Phys.36, 39 (1964)

    1964

  31. [37]

    M. R. Beasley, R. Labusch, and W. W. Webb, Phys. Rev.181, 682 (1969)

    1969

  32. [38]

    Yeshurun and A

    Y. Yeshurun and A. P. Malozemoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 2202 (1988)

    1988

  33. [39]

    I. A. Campbell, L. Fruchter, and R. Cabanel, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 1561 (1990)

    1990

  34. [40]

    M. P. Maley, J. O. Willis, H. Lessure, and M. E. McHenry, Phys. Rev. B42, 2639 (1990). 13

    1990

  35. [41]

    Yeshurun, A

    Y. Yeshurun, A. P. Malozemoff, and A. Shaulov, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 911 (1996)

    1996

  36. [42]

    A. Mota, G. Juri, A. Pollini, K. Aupke, T. Teruzzi, P. Visani, and B. Hilti, Physica Scripta1992, 69 (1992)

    1992

  37. [43]

    Mota, inThe Vortex State(Springer, 1994) pp

    A. Mota, inThe Vortex State(Springer, 1994) pp. 265– 280

    1994

  38. [44]

    Fruchter, A

    L. Fruchter, A. Malozemoff, I. Campbell, J. Sanchez, M. Konczykowski, R. Griessen, and F. Holtzberg, Phys- ical Review B43, 8709 (1991)

    1991

  39. [45]

    A. T. Hoekstra, A. Testa, G. Doornbos, J. Martinez, B. Dam, R. Griessen, B. Ivlev, M. Brinkmann, K. Wester- holt, W. Kwok,et al., Physical Review B59, 7222 (1999)

    1999

  40. [46]

    Glazman and N

    L. Glazman and N. Y. Fogel’, Soviet Journal of Low Tem- perature Physics10, 51 (1984)

    1984

  41. [47]

    Blatter, V

    G. Blatter, V. B. Geshkenbein, and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 3297 (1991)

    1991

  42. [48]

    Buchacek, Z

    M. Buchacek, Z. L. Xiao, S. Dutta, E. Y. Andrei, P. Ray- chaudhuri, V. B. Geshkenbein, and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. B100, 224502 (2019)

    2019

  43. [50]

    Tafuri, J

    F. Tafuri, J. Kirtley, D. Born, D. Stornaiuolo, P. Medaglia, P. Orgiani, G. Balestrino, and V. Kogan, Europhysics letters73, 948 (2006)

    2006

  44. [51]

    Perego, C

    M. Perego, C. Galante Agero, A. Mestre Tor´ a, E. Por- tol´ es, A. O. Denisov, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, F. Gag- gioli, V. Geshkenbein, G. Blatter, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Nature Communications16, 10259 (2025)

    2025

  45. [52]

    Pearl-vortex tunneling in magic-angle twisted graphene,

    M. Perego, P. Koopmann, C. G. Agero, A. M. Tora’, A. O. Denisov, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, V. Geshken- bein, G. Blatter, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, “Pearl-vortex tunneling in magic-angle twisted graphene,” (2026), arXiv:2601.21735 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2026

  46. [53]

    Golod, A

    T. Golod, A. Rydh, and V. M. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 227003 (2010)

    2010

  47. [54]

    J. R. Clem, Physical Review B81, 144515 (2010)

    2010

  48. [55]

    J. R. Clem, Phys. Rev. B84, 134502 (2011)

    2011

  49. [56]

    Kogan and R

    V. Kogan and R. Mints, Physical Review B89, 014516 (2014)

    2014

  50. [57]

    Kogan and R

    V. Kogan and R. Mints, Physica C502, 58 (2014)

    2014

  51. [58]

    C. S. Owen and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev.164, 538 (1967)

    1967

  52. [59]

    Gurevich, Phys

    A. Gurevich, Phys. Rev. B46, 3187 (1992)

    1992

  53. [60]

    V. G. Kogan, V. V. Dobrovitski, J. R. Clem, Y. Mawatari, and R. G. Mints, Phys. Rev. B63, 144501 (2001)

    2001

  54. [61]

    S. Hart, H. Ren, T. Wagner, P. Leubner, M. M¨ uhlbauer, C. Br¨ une, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, and A. Ya- coby, Nature Physics10, 638 (2014)

    2014

  55. [62]

    Yuzhelevski, M

    Y. Yuzhelevski, M. Yuzhelevski, and G. Jung, Review of Scientific Instruments71, 1681 (2000), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/71/4/1681/19183923/1681 1 online.pdf

    2000

  56. [64]

    A. P. Malozemoff and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B42, 6784 (1990)

    1990

  57. [65]

    Kopylovet al., Physica C170, 291 (1990)

    V. Kopylovet al., Physica C170, 291 (1990)

    1990

  58. [66]

    A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Annals of physics149, 374 (1983)

    1983

  59. [67]

    Larkin and Y

    A. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 86, 726 (1984)

    1984

  60. [68]

    Stejic, A

    G. Stejic, A. Gurevich, E. Kadyrov, D. Christen, R. Joynt, and D. C. Larbalestier, Phys. Rev. B49, 1274 (1994)

    1994

  61. [69]

    C. P. Bean and J. D. Livingston, Physical Review Letters 12, 14 (1964)

    1964

  62. [70]

    Banerjee, Z

    A. Banerjee, Z. Hao, M. Kreidel, P. Ledwith, I. Phinney, J. M. Park, A. Zimmerman, M. E. Wesson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi,et al., Nature638, 93 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Tanaka, J

    M. Tanaka, J. ˆI.-j. Wang, T. H. Dinh, D. Rodan-Legrain, S. Zaman, M. Hays, A. Almanakly, B. Kannan, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski,et al., Nature638, 99 (2025)

    2025

  64. [72]

    Golod and V

    T. Golod and V. M. Krasnov, Nature Communications 13, 3658 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    M¨ arki, B

    P. M¨ arki, B. A. Braem, and T. Ihn, Review of Scientific Instruments88(2017), 10.1063/1.4997963

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    Gustavsson,Time-resolved single-electron detection in semiconductor nanostructures, Ph.D

    S. Gustavsson,Time-resolved single-electron detection in semiconductor nanostructures, Ph.D. thesis, Eid- gen¨ ossische Technische Hochschule Z¨ urich (2008)

    2008

  67. [75]

    Naaman and J

    O. Naaman and J. Aumentado, Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.100201

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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