Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Transverse Spin Supercurrent at p-wave magnetic Josephson Junctions

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Josephson junction with a p-wave magnet is predicted to carry a pure transverse spin supercurrent along its interfaces, with zero transverse charge supercurrent.

desk verdict Plausible new effect, but the central equations are too inconsistent to be trusted as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11397 v1 pith:Q4XYXSN5 submitted 2025-07-15 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Morteza Salehi This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords p-wavemagnetJosephsonjunctionAndreevboundstatesmodesspinsupercurrenttransversecurrentsuperconductingspintronicss-wavesuperconductor
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 predicts that inserting a p-wave magnet between two s-wave superconductors produces a purely transverse spin supercurrent: spin flows along the junction's interfaces while no charge flows in that direction. The effect comes from the perpendicular component of the magnet's strength vector, which shifts the electron and hole Fermi circles in opposite directions in momentum space. Where those circles overlap, Andreev bound states become propagating Andreev modes. The two spin sectors contribute equal and opposite transverse charge currents that cancel, leaving a doubled spin current. If the prediction is right, it offers a dissipationless spin source for superconducting spintronics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the p-wave magnet strength vector, whose transverse component $\alpha_y$ shifts the dispersion of electrons and holes in opposite directions in $k$-space. The shifted Fermi circles overlap only over a window of propagation directions, and the paper uses that window to define the allowed Andreev modes. The junction is described by the Bogoliubov–de Gennes Hamiltonian $H_\pm(k)$, with wave functions matched at the two interfaces under boundary conditions that conserve probability. Setting the determinant of the eight matching equations to zero yields the energy-phase relation $\varepsilon_\pm(\delta\phi)$ of the Andreev modes; the transverse spin supercurrent is then the phase derivative of these energies weighted by $\sin\theta$, summed over the two spin sectors, while the transverse charge contributions cancel.

What would settle it

A first-principles derivation of the energy-phase relation from the eight boundary-condition equations, with the sign error in Eq. (11) corrected, would settle the matter: if the corrected relation differs from Eq. (12), the predicted magnitude and sign of the transverse spin supercurrent change. Experimentally, a transverse spin-current measurement across the interface of a p-wave magnet Josephson junction, looking for a signal near $3.1 \times 10^6 \, \hbar/\mathrm{s}$ with zero transverse charge current, would test the effect directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the perpendicular component of the p-wave magnet's strength vector, $\alpha_y$, converts the Andreev bound states of an s-wave/p-wave-magnet/s-wave Josephson junction into propagating Andreev modes that travel parallel to the interfaces. In the model, spin-$\uparrow$ electrons and spin-$\downarrow$ holes have Fermi circles shifted one way in $k$-space, while spin-$\downarrow$ electrons and spin-$\uparrow$ holes are shifted the other way. Andreev processes occur only in the overlap zone of the two circles, and the allowed propagation angles lie between the critical angles of Eq. (4). The two spin sectors give opposite contributions to the transverse charge supercurrent and identical contributions to the transverse spin supercurrent, so the charge cancels and the spin adds. For typical junction parameters the predicted transverse spin supercurrent is $I_t^s \sim 3.1 \times 10^6 \, \hbar/\mathrm{s}$, with zero transverse charge supercurrent.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's quantitative prediction rests on the energy-phase relation quoted in Eq. (12) and on neglecting evanescent co-tunneling channels; that relation is asserted without derivation, and the equations leading to it contain apparent sign and typographical errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Josephson junction made of s-wave superconductor / p-wave magnet / s-wave superconductor should show a spin supercurrent flowing parallel to the interfaces with no charge current in that direction.
  • The magnitude of the transverse spin supercurrent depends non-monotonically on the transverse component $\alpha_y$: it grows from zero, peaks near $\alpha_y \sim k_F/2$, and vanishes as the Fermi-circle overlap disappears at $\alpha_y \sim k_F$.
  • The ordinary charge supercurrent through the junction is suppressed by $\alpha_y$ but never changes sign, so the model does not predict a 0–$\pi$ transition for this geometry.
  • With a 1 µm junction, a gap $\Delta_0 \sim 1$ meV and a Fermi wave vector $k_F \sim 1.33 \times 10^8 \, \mathrm{m}^{-1}$, the transverse spin supercurrent is estimated at roughly $3.1 \times 10^6 \, \hbar/\mathrm{s}$, which the paper argues is detectable with current instruments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cancellation of the transverse charge currents is a symmetry statement of the two spin sectors; if it survives finite temperature and moderate scattering, the same junction could serve as a pure spin source in superconducting circuits, with the sign of the spin current set by the sign of $\alpha_y$.
  • Since the mechanism relies on the momentum-space shift of Fermi circles rather than on spin-orbit coupling, it may persist in p-wave magnets with weak spin-orbit interaction, where conventional spin-current generators fail.
  • A natural extension is the finite-length and finite-bias regime: the short-junction ballistic calculation leaves open whether the spin current survives quasiparticle poisoning and whether the transverse charge cancellation remains exact when $\mu$ and $\epsilon$ are not in the short-junction limit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The Letter studies a two-dimensional Josephson junction in which an s-wave superconductor is interrupted by a p-wave magnet with strength vector alpha. The author argues that the perpendicular component alpha_y shifts the electron and hole Fermi circles in opposite directions in k-space, restricting Andreev processes to an overlap zone. Within that zone, Andreev bound states become propagating modes along the interface; the two spin sectors then give transverse spin supercurrents that add while their transverse charge supercurrents cancel. Using a BdG determinant, the author arrives at the energy-phase relation in Eq. (12), computes the charge current in Eq. (14) and the transverse currents in Eqs. (15) and (17), and estimates a transverse spin supercurrent of about 3.1 x 10^6 hbar/s for a 1 micrometer junction. The central claim is that a pure transverse spin supercurrent flows with no transverse charge current.

Significance. If the effect were established, the proposal would be a concrete and timely superconducting spintronics device: a dissipationless spin current along the junction interfaces with no transverse charge leakage. The starting BdG model is explicit, no transport parameter is fitted to force the spin supercurrent, and the experimental estimate uses plausible device parameters, so the prediction is in principle falsifiable. However, the existence of the effect currently rests on an unexplained sign factor in Eq. (17), an unverified central energy-phase relation in Eq. (12), and a scattering wave function with a typo in Eq. (7). Because these issues are load-bearing, the significance of the claimed result cannot be assessed from the manuscript as written.

major comments (5)
  1. [Spin Supercurrent, Eq. (17)] The factor gamma introduced in Eq. (17) is not derived and is inconsistent with the prose that precedes it. The text states that the contribution of the epsilon- mode is +hbar(-d epsilon-/d delta_phi)(sin theta_down - S sin theta'_up)/2, whereas Eq. (17) with gamma=-1 gives the negative of this expression. In the short-junction limit the mode geometry gives sin theta'_down = sin theta_up - 2 alpha_y/q and sin theta'_up = sin theta_down + 2 alpha_y/q; hence the raw brackets in Eq. (17) are +2 alpha_y/q for the epsilon+ mode and -2 alpha_y/q for the epsilon- mode. With the natural gamma=+1 the two contributions cancel, and only the unexplained gamma=-1 makes them add. The text also says the epsilon- mode produces a negative spin supercurrent in the -y direction, but Eq. (17) with gamma=-1 produces a positive contribution from that mode. The existence of the transverse spin supercurrent, the central result of the Letter, is therefore not established.
  2. [EPR, Eq. (12)] The central energy-phase relation Eq. (12) is presented without a derivation. The text says that the EPR can be calculated with the simplification of the determinant, but the intermediate steps, the short-junction expansion, and the definitions needed to reduce the 8x8 determinant to Eq. (12) are not shown. Because all current formulas, Eqs. (14)-(17), are obtained from derivatives of epsilon_gamma with respect to delta_phi, this unverified expression is load-bearing and cannot be checked from the manuscript.
  3. [Model and formalism, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) contains a typo that corrupts the scattering problem: the wave function in the pM region is written with a3 psi+_h,down + a4 psi+_h,down, so the left-moving hole state psi-_h,down is missing and one state is counted twice. Since Eqs. (10) and (11) use this wave function to impose boundary conditions at each interface, the resulting 8x8 determinant is not the determinant of the physical scattering problem. This must be corrected before Eq. (12) can be trusted.
  4. [Model and formalism, Eq. (11)] The second line of Eq. (11) states V_e(h),x Psi_pM(x=L) = V_S Psi_S^R(x=0), but the right side should be evaluated at x=L to match the right interface. As written, the boundary condition equates a quantity at x=L to a wave function at x=0, which is inconsistent and makes the determinant calculation ill-defined.
  5. [Charge Supercurrent, Eq. (15)] The cancellation of the transverse charge supercurrent between the epsilon+ and epsilon- contributions is asserted, not demonstrated. The text says this is obvious from Fig. 1, but the figure only illustrates the Fermi-circle shifts; it does not show the integrated currents. Because the cancellation is the basis for the claim of a pure transverse spin supercurrent, an explicit evaluation or symmetry argument for Eq. (15) is required. The related assumption that evanescent co-tunneling channels outside the overlap zone are negligible, stated after Eq. (14), is also made without an estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Discussion after Eq. (13)] The reference to part (a) of Fig. 1 should be to Fig. 2(a): Fig. 1 shows the junction geometry and Fermi circles, not the energy-phase relation.
  2. [Eqs. (14)-(17)] The compressed notation theta_up(down) and theta'_down(up) is not fully defined for the two spin sectors; the angle correspondence for epsilon+ and epsilon- should be written out explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (4)] Equation (4) introduces theta^+-_min and theta^+-_max without stating which index corresponds to H+(k) and which to H-(k); the thresholds used later in the Spin Supercurrent section should be derived from Eq. (4).
  4. [Abstract and Eq. (10)] There are typographical errors, including 'atp-wave' in the abstract and a double comma in Eq. (10); these should be corrected.
  5. [Experimental estimate] The estimate I_t^s ~ 3.1 x 10^6 hbar/s is obtained from the same model with assumed device parameters; the text should state more clearly that this is an illustrative extrapolation rather than an independent test of the theory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transverse spin supercurrent is derived from the BdG model, with self-citations only for standard method details.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from the BdG Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) to the energy-phase relation Eq. (12) via the boundary conditions Eqs. (10)-(11), and then to the charge and spin supercurrent formulas Eqs. (14)-(17) as standard sums over Andreev-mode contributions. No parameter is fitted to force the transverse spin supercurrent; the experimental estimate uses assumed device parameters (L, W, Δ0, μ) purely as an illustration, not as a validation. The author's self-citations [47], [49], [53] are method citations for Fermi-circle overlap, ballistic supercurrent formulas, and probability-conservation boundary conditions; none of these supplies the central argument that the ε+ and ε− Andreev modes combine to give a pure transverse spin supercurrent. That argument is geometric, based on the opposite Fermi-circle shifts produced by αy, and is testable from the stated model. The unexplained sign factor γ in Eq. (17) is a correctness and reproducibility concern, not a circularity: it is neither fitted to data nor defined in terms of the predicted spin current. Therefore, no circular step is present.

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

The model is a standard BdG scattering calculation. No parameter is fitted to the target result; the pM strength alpha_y, Fermi-energy ratio q, and junction length L are chosen for the plots, and the experimental prediction uses typical device values. The main assumptions are the simplified p-wave magnet dispersion, ballistic transport with ky conservation, and neglect of co-tunneling. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha_y (transverse pM strength) = 0.3 kappa0 in Figs. 2-4; varied up to kappa0 in Fig. 3; up to ~k_F/2 in Fig. 5
    Chosen by hand to illustrate the effect; not fitted to data. The central claim depends on alpha_y != 0.
  • q = sqrt(mu/mu_S) = 1/sqrt(10) ~ 0.316 in the figures (mu = Delta0, mu_S = 10 Delta0)
    Set in the figures; affects the Fermi-circle overlap and the EPR.
  • L (junction length) = kappa0^{-1} in the figures
    Set to a short-junction value; the EPR depends on k_x L.
  • Experimental device parameters (L, W, Delta0, mu) = L ~ 1 um, W ~ 1 um, Delta0 ~ 1 meV, mu ~ Delta0
    Used for the order-of-magnitude prediction I_t^s ~ 3.1 x 10^6 hbar/s; these are typical values, not measured.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bogoliubov-de Gennes formalism with s-wave spin-singlet pairing and no spin-mixing potential
    Invoked in the Model and formalism section; the entire calculation rests on this Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Ballistic transport; energy and ky are conserved during Andreev scattering
    Stated in the Model and formalism section; used to define the Fermi-circle overlap and critical angles.
  • domain assumption Only propagating Andreev modes contribute to the supercurrents; evanescent co-tunneling channels are negligible
    Stated in the Charge Supercurrent section: 'there is a negligible chance of co-tunneling... that we ignore'.
  • domain assumption The p-wave magnet is modeled by spin-dependent parabola shifts (k +/- alpha)^2
    Taken from the pM literature (Refs [34-39]); the paper uses this without deriving it from a microscopic lattice model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transverse Spin Supercurrent at p-wave magnetic Josephson Junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4XYXSN5

@misc{pith2026250711397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transverse Spin Supercurrent at p-wave magnetic Josephson Junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4XYXSN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11397}
}
read the original abstract

We theoretically study a Josephson junction consisting of s-wave superconductors and a p-wave magnet. We find that in the presence of a strength vector of p-wave magnet, the electrons' and holes' dispersion relation shifts in the k-space. Additionally, we demonstrate that the perpendicular component of the strength vector converts Andreev bound states into Andreev modes that can propagate along the junction's interfaces. These modes create a transverse spin supercurrent while their transverse charge supercurrent is zero. These features open an opportunity to design superconducting spintronics devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11397 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The p-wave magnet Josephson junction in real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The EPR of the Josephson junction in the absence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The charge supercurrent that passes through the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The critical values of transverse spin supercurrent vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Nonrelativistic Spin-Orbit-Coupling Effects in Odd-Parity Coplanar Magnets

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Bilayer odd-parity coplanar magnets constructed from altermagnets realize tunable nonrelativistic SOC spin textures equivalent to relativistic counterparts.

  2. Odd-Parity Altermagnetism Originated from Orbital Orders

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A symmetry-based stacking strategy with layer-flip realizes odd-parity altermagnetism from nonrelativistic orbital orders, hosting quantum spin Hall phases with helical edge states.

  3. Sub-spin-flop switching of a fully compensated antiferromagnet by magnetic field

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Low-field domain selection in CeNiAsO enables giant reversible in-plane resistivity anisotropy up to 35 percent in both Néel and spin-density-wave phases.

  4. Competition and coexistence of superconducting symmetries in $p$-wave magnets

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Self-consistent BdG calculations on a p-wave magnet model show magnetic coupling drives transitions from dominant s-wave to mixed p_x-wave and then to equal-spin p_y-wave superconductivity with coexistence and competi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Mazin and D

    I. Mazin and D. J. Singh, Ferromagnetic spin fluctuation induced superconductivity in Sr 2 RuO 4,Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 733 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    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)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    A. F. Volkov, F. S. Bergeret, and K. B. Efe- tov, Odd Triplet Superconductivity in Superconductor- Ferromagnet Multilayered Structures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 117006 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y. Ando, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 076501 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Jung- wirth, and J

    Libor ˇSmejkal, Rafael Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jung- wirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous Hall effect in collinear anti- ferromagnets, Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8809

    work page

  7. [7]

    Igor Mazin and P. R. X. Editors The, Editorial: Altermagnetism—A New Punch Line of Fundamental Magnetism, Phys Rev X 12, 040002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Tomas Jungwirth, Rafael M Fernandes, Jairo Sinova, and Libor Smejkal, Altermagnets and beyond: Nodal magnetically-ordered phases, arXiv:2409.10034 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    T Jungwirth, RM Fernandes, E Fradkin, AH MacDon- ald, J Sinova, and L Smejkal, Altermagnetism: an uncon- ventional spin-ordered phase of matter, arXiv:2411.00717 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Libor ˇSmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, Emerging Research Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys Rev X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Libor ˇSmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, Be- yond Conventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromag- netism: A Phase with Nonrelativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Antonenko, J¨ orn W

    Qian Song, Srdjan Stavri´ c, Paolo Barone, Andrea Droghetti, Daniil S. Antonenko, J¨ orn W. F. Venderbos, Connor A. Occhialini, Batyr Ilyas, Emre Erge¸ cen, Nuh Gedik, Sang-Wook Cheong, Rafael M. Fernandes, Silvia Picozzi, and Riccardo Comin, Electrical switching of a p-wave m...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Bjørnulf Brekke, Pavlo Sukhachov, Hans Gløckner Giil, Arne Brataas, and Jacob Linder, Minimal Models and Transport Properties of Unconventional p-Wave Mag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 236703 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Anna Birk Hellenes, Tom´ aˇ s Jungwirth, Rodrigo Jaeschke-Ubiergo, Atasi Chakraborty, Jairo Sinova, and Libor ˇSmejkal, P-wave magnets, arXiv 2309.01607v01603 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Javier Sivianes, Flaviano Jos´ e dos Santos, and Julen Iba˜ nez-Azpiroz, Optical Signatures of Spin Symme- tries in Unconventional Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 196907 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    ˇZuti´ c, J

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

    2004

  9. [17]

    H. Chen, Z. Wang, P. Qin, Z. Meng, X. Zhou, X. Wang, L. Liu, G. Zhao, Z. Duan, T. Zhang, J. Liu, D. Shao, C. 6 Jiang, and Z. Liu, Spin-Splitting Magnetoresistance in Altermagnetic RuO2 Thin Films, Adv. Mater., 2507764

  10. [18]

    Brekke, A

    B. Brekke, A. Brataas, and A. Sudbø, Two-dimensional altermagnets: Superconductivity in a minimal micro- scopic model, Phys. Rev. B 108, 224421 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Song-Bo Zhang, Lun-Hui Hu, and Titus Neupert, Finite- momentum Cooper pairing in proximitized altermagnets, Nat. Commun. 15, 1801 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    B. Lu, K. Maeda, H. Ito, K. Yada, and Y. Tanaka, ϕ- Josephson Junction Induced by Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 226002 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Jabir Ali Ouassou, Arne Brataas, and Jacob Linder, dc Josephson Effect in Altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 076003 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    C. W. J. Beenakker and T. Vakhtel, Phase-shifted An- dreev levels in an altermagnet Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. B 108, 075425 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    H. P. Sun, S. B. Zhang, C. A. Li, and B. Trauzettel, Tun- able second harmonic in altermagnetic Josephson junc- tions, Phys. Rev. B 111, 165406 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Cheng and Q

    Q. Cheng and Q. F. Sun, Orientation- dependent Josephson effect in spin-singlet superconductor/altermagnet/spin-triplet supercon- ductor junctions, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024517 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Sim and J

    G. Sim and J. Knolle, Pair density waves and super- current diode effect in altermagnets, arXiv:2407.01513 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Banerjee and M

    S. Banerjee and M. S. Scheurer, Altermagnetic supercon- ducting diode effect, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024503 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Cheng, Y

    Q. Cheng, Y. Mao, and Q. F. Sun, Field-free Josephson diode effect in altermagnet/normal metal/altermagnet junctions, Phys. Rev. B 110, 014518 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Chi Sun, Arne Brataas, and Jacob Linder, Andreev reflection in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 108, 054511 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Micha l Papaj, Andreev reflection at the altermagnet- superconductor interface, Phys. Rev. B 108, L060508 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Schnyder, and Satoshi Ikegaya, Spin-polarized specular Andreev reflections in altermagnets, Phys

    Yutaro Nagae, Andreas P. Schnyder, and Satoshi Ikegaya, Spin-polarized specular Andreev reflections in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 111, L100507 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Sachchidanand Das and Abhiram Soori, Crossed Andreev reflection in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 109, 245424 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Zhi Ping Niu and Yong Mei Zhang, Electrically controlled crossed Andreev reflection in altermag- net/superconductor/altermagnet junctions, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 37, 055012 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Chakraborty and A

    D. Chakraborty and A. M Black-Schaffer, Con- straints on superconducting pairing in altermagnets, arXiv:2408.03999 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Fukaya, K

    Y. Fukaya, K. Maeda, K. Yada, J. Cayao, Y. Tanaka, and B. Lu, Josephson effect and odd-frequency pairing in superconducting junctions with unconventional magnets, Phys. Rev. B 111, 064502 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Maeda, Y

    K. Maeda, Y. Fukaya, K. Yada, B. Lu, Y. Tanaka, and J. Cayao, Classification of pair symmetries in superconduc- tors with unconventional magnetism, Phys. Rev. B 111, 144508 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Maeda, B

    K. Maeda, B. Lu, K. Yada, and Y. Tanaka, Theory of Tunneling Spectroscopy in Unconventional p-Wave Magnet-Superconductor Hybrid Structures, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 93, 114703 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Nagae, L

    Y. Nagae, L. Katayama, and S. Ikegaya, Majo- rana flat bands and anomalous proximity effects in p-wave magnet–superconductor hybrid systems, arXiv:2502.02053 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. Hong, M. J. Park, and K. Kim, Unconventional p-wave and finite-momentum superconductivity induced by al- termagnetism through the formation of Bogoliubov Fermi surface, Phys. Rev. B 111, 054501 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Z. Sun, X. Feng, Y. Xie, B. T. Zhou, J. Hu, and K. T. Law, Pseudo-Ising superconductivity induced by p-wave magnetism, arXiv:2501.10960 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Linder and J

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

    2015

  33. [41]

    P. G. deGennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Al- loys.(CRC Press, 1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    Pavlo Sukhachov, Hans Gløckner Giil, Bjørnulf Brekke, and Jacob Linder, Coexistence of p-wave magnetism and superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B 111, L220403 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

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

    1962

  36. [44]

    AF Andreev, Thermal conductivity of the intermediate state of superconductors, Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1490 (1965)

    1965

  37. [45]

    Letters 4 (1963)

    PG De Gennes and Daniel Saint-James, Elementary exci- tations in the vicinity of a normal metal-superconducting metal contact,Phys. Letters 4 (1963)

    1963

  38. [46]

    Guy Deutscher, Andreev–Saint-James reflections: A probe of cuprate superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys 77, 109 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Morteza Salehi, Anisotropic angle-dependent Andreev reflection at the ferromagnet/superconductor junction on the surface of topological insulators, Phys. Scr. 98, 025822 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Titov, A

    M. Titov, A. Ossipov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Exci- tation gap of a graphene channel with superconducting boundaries, Phys. Rev. B 75, 045417 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    Morteza Salehi, Planar Hall supercurrent and δϕ-shift in the topological Josephson junction, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 621, 172915 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Specular Andreev Reflection in Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 067007 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    Sengupta, Josephson effect in graphene superconductor/barrier/superconductor junc- tions: Oscillatory behavior of the Josephson current, Phys

    Moitri Maiti and K. Sengupta, Josephson effect in graphene superconductor/barrier/superconductor junc- tions: Oscillatory behavior of the Josephson current, Phys. Rev. B 76, 054513 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    R. A. Sepkhanov, Ya B. Bazaliy, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Extremal transmission at the Dirac point of a photonic band structure, Phys. Rev. A 75, 063813 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Salehi and S

    M. Salehi and S. A. Jafari, Quantum transport through 3D Dirac materials, Ann. Phys. 359, 64 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Jacob Linder, Takehito Yokoyama, Daniel Huertas- Hernando, and Asle Sudbø, Supercurrent Switch in Graphene pi Junctions,Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 187004 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    78, 299-302 (1991)

    Akira Furusaki and Masaru Tsukada, Dc Josephson effect and Andreev reflection, Solid State Commun. 78, 299-302 (1991)

    1991

  48. [56]

    Proki´ c, A

    V. Proki´ c, A. I. Buzdin, and L. Dobrosavljevi´ c-Gruji´ c, Theory of the pi junctions formed in atomic-scale super- conductor/ferromagnet superlattices, Phys. Rev. B 59, 587 (1999)

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.