pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28904 · v1 · pith:A6QJU5F5new · submitted 2026-06-27 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.supr-con

Unusual upper critical field in UTe2 revealed by magnetotransport measurements up to 42 T

Macha M\'eplan , Ilya Sheikin , Pierre Pugnat , Romain Barbier , Fran\c{c}ois Debray , C\'edric Grandcl\'ement , Steffen Kr\"amer , Yuriy Krupko
show 11 more authors
Fr\'ed\'eric Molini\'e K\'evin Paillot Robert Pankow Rolf Pfister Luc Ronayette Benjamin Vincent Charles Simon Midori Amano Patino G\'erard Lapertot Georg Knebel Dai Aoki
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 08:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con
keywords UTe2field-induced superconductivitymagnetoresistancemetamagnetic transitionupper critical fieldShubnikov-de Haas oscillationsheavy-fermion superconductor
0
0 comments X

The pith

In UTe2 the SC3 phase reaches zero resistivity only above the metamagnetic transition Hm across the angular range studied.

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

Magnetotransport measurements up to 42 T map how the high-field SC3 superconducting phase in UTe2 depends on field angle in the bc plane. The onset feature, a maximum in resistivity, appears below Hm at angles beyond 20 degrees from the b axis, yet zero resistivity is reached only above Hm for the entire angular range at 0.35 K. This produces a field-angle phase diagram showing the SC3 region. Temperature dependence of the phase also varies with angle, remaining robust to about 1 K at 24 degrees but suppressed rapidly at 21 degrees. Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations near the c axis reproduce earlier Fermi-surface frequencies.

Core claim

The SC3 phase first appears at an angle of 20 deg from the b axis. At larger angles the resistivity maximum that signals its onset lies below Hm, but zero resistivity occurs only above Hm throughout the angular range. At 21 deg the phase is rapidly suppressed with rising temperature, while at 24 deg it persists up to about 1 K.

What carries the argument

Magnetoresistance traces that locate the field where resistivity reaches zero and where a maximum appears, used to trace the SC3 boundary relative to the metamagnetic transition Hm.

If this is right

  • SC3 superconductivity develops inside the spin-polarized state above Hm.
  • The angular window for SC3 begins at 20 deg from the b axis at low temperature.
  • SC3 temperature stability increases between 21 deg and 24 deg from the b axis.
  • SdH frequencies near the c axis remain consistent with earlier Fermi-surface data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The metamagnetic transition may directly stabilize the SC3 pairing.
  • Angle-dependent temperature robustness could reflect orientation-specific changes in the electronic structure above Hm.
  • Similar high-field transport studies on other heavy-fermion compounds might reveal whether zero-resistance states commonly require a metamagnetic boundary.

Load-bearing premise

A maximum in resistivity marks the true onset of the SC3 superconducting phase and is not produced by sample inhomogeneity or contact effects.

What would settle it

Observation of zero resistivity at any angle below Hm at 0.35 K would show that the SC3 zero-resistance state is not confined above Hm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28904 by Benjamin Vincent, C\'edric Grandcl\'ement, Charles Simon, Dai Aoki, Fran\c{c}ois Debray, Fr\'ed\'eric Molini\'e, Georg Knebel, G\'erard Lapertot, Ilya Sheikin, K\'evin Paillot, Luc Ronayette, Macha M\'eplan, Midori Amano Patino, Pierre Pugnat, Robert Pankow, Rolf Pfister, Romain Barbier, Steffen Kr\"amer, Yuriy Krupko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Color online) Magnetoresistance of UTe2 at T = 2 K for different angles in the (bc) plane. Solid (dashed) lines correspond to the up- (down-) field sweeps, respectively. The triangles indicate the position of Hm. applied along the crystallographic a axis. The sample was mounted in a 3He cryostat with a base temperature of 350 mK, which was equipped with a single-axis rotator directly submerged into 3He co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the magnetoresistance at T = 2 (dashed lines) and 0.35 K (solid lines) for three selected angles. Vertical lines indicate the field associated to the criterion ρ = 0. For all three angles, ρ = 0 is within the width of the metamagnetic transition observed at T = 2 K. to the onset of the metamagnetic transition. Over this angular range, the field-reinforced superconducting phase SC2 is not dest… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Color online) Magnetoresistance of UTe2 at T = 0.35 K is shown for different angles from b towards the c axis: 0 − 19 deg in the upper panel, 20−31 deg in the middle panel, and 35−45 deg in the lower panel. Triangles mark the limit of zero resistivity of the SC2 superconducting phase and the metamagnetic transition at Hm (upper panel), the upper limit of zero resistiv￾ity, and the maximum of ρ(H) at Ho (m… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) Field-angle phase diagram of UTe2 at T = 0.35 K together with additional points of Hm obtained at 2 K. Phase transition points shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: displays the magnetoresistance at two fixed angles for different temperatures. The upper panel shows the results obtained at 21 deg, the smallest angle at which field reen￾trance of superconductivity above Hr occurs at T = 0.35 K. With increasing temperature, the zero resistivity is rapidly suppressed and already at 0.58 K, the resistivity remains fi￾nite over the whole field range up to 42 T. The onset of… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) shows the magnetoresistance for the field direc￾tion tilted by 5 deg from c to the b-axis. At this orientation, superconductivity is suppressed at Hc2 ∼ 15 T, above which the magnetoresistance increases with field, approximately as a function of H 2 . As clearly seen in the raw data, Shubnikov￾de Haas (SdH) oscillations appears above ∼ 30 T. Upon sub￾tracting the nonoscillating background, SdH oscillat… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Color online) (a) FFT spectra of the oscillatory signal shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The heavy-fermion superconductor UTe2 is unique in that, at ambient pressure, it exhibits three distinct superconducting phases, two of which are induced by magnetic field. When the field is applied along the crystallographic b axis in the orthorhombic structure, the field-induced phase SC2 develops above approximately 20 T and persists up to the metamagnetic transition at Hm about 34 T. When the magnetic field is tilted towards the c axis, another superconducting phase, SC3, emerges at very high fields above about 40 T over a certain angular range. The origin of this exotic phase remains under debate. One of the key open questions regarding the origin of SC3 is whether it is confined to the spin-polarized state above Hm, or whether it already develops at lower fields. Here, we report magnetoresistance measurements performed on a high-quality single crystal of UTe2 in static magnetic fields up to 42 T applied in the (bc) plane at temperatures down to 0.35 K. At this temperature, we find that the SC3 phase first appears at an angle of 20 deg from the b axis. At larger angles, the onset of the SC3 phase, defined by a maximum in resistivity, occurs below Hm. However, zero resistivity is reached only above Hm throughout the entire angular range investigated. These results are summarized in the resulting field-angle phase diagram. Furthermore, we find that at 21 deg the SC3 phase is rapidly suppressed with increasing temperature, whereas at 24 deg it becomes considerably more robust and persists up to about 1 K. Finally, we observe Shubnikov de Haas (SdH) oscillations in the vicinity of the c axis. The observed oscillation frequencies are in good agreement with our previous results. The field dependence of the strongest SdH frequency and of the effective mass is discussed.

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 reports magnetotransport measurements up to 42 T on a UTe2 single crystal with field in the (bc) plane. It claims that the SC3 phase first appears at 20° from the b axis; for larger angles the onset (defined by a resistivity maximum) lies below Hm while zero resistance occurs only above Hm, yielding a field-angle phase diagram. Additional results include stronger temperature robustness of SC3 at 24° than at 21° and SdH oscillations near the c axis whose frequencies agree with prior work.

Significance. If the resistivity maxima reliably mark bulk SC3 onsets, the angular and temperature dependence would constrain whether SC3 requires the spin-polarized state above Hm, informing models of multiple field-induced superconducting phases in UTe2. The reported consistency of SdH frequencies with earlier measurements provides useful sample characterization.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results paragraph describing resistivity features: the central claim that SC3 onset occurs below Hm rests on identifying the resistivity maximum as the superconducting boundary, yet no independent confirmation (thermodynamic signature, Hall resistivity vanishing, or similar) is provided to rule out influence from the nearby metamagnetic transition or inhomogeneity; this interpretation is load-bearing for the phase diagram.
  2. [Results paragraph on angular dependence] Results paragraph on angular dependence: the statement that zero resistivity is reached only above Hm throughout the investigated angular range is presented without quantitative detail on the zero-resistance criterion, its field/temperature resolution, or checks against contact resistance, which directly supports the conclusion that SC3 is confined above Hm.
minor comments (2)
  1. The differing temperature robustness at 21° versus 24° would be strengthened by explicit error bars on the reported upper-temperature limits and by stating the number of samples or field sweeps used.
  2. Notation for the angles (e.g., “20 deg from the b axis”) should be made consistent with any figure labels or table entries for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions where appropriate to enhance the clarity and robustness of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results paragraph describing resistivity features: the central claim that SC3 onset occurs below Hm rests on identifying the resistivity maximum as the superconducting boundary, yet no independent confirmation (thermodynamic signature, Hall resistivity vanishing, or similar) is provided to rule out influence from the nearby metamagnetic transition or inhomogeneity; this interpretation is load-bearing for the phase diagram.

    Authors: We recognize that the identification of the SC3 onset via the resistivity maximum is central to our phase diagram and that independent thermodynamic or Hall effect confirmation would strengthen the claim. In high magnetic fields, such measurements are experimentally challenging, and transport data has been the primary probe for these phases in previous studies on UTe2. The resistivity maximum is distinct from the metamagnetic transition signature, and our data show consistent angular dependence. In the revised version, we will add a sentence in the abstract and results section acknowledging that this is a transport-based identification and discussing potential influences from the metamagnetic transition, while maintaining that the observed features align with SC3. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results paragraph on angular dependence] Results paragraph on angular dependence: the statement that zero resistivity is reached only above Hm throughout the investigated angular range is presented without quantitative detail on the zero-resistance criterion, its field/temperature resolution, or checks against contact resistance, which directly supports the conclusion that SC3 is confined above Hm.

    Authors: We agree that providing quantitative details on the zero-resistance criterion will improve the manuscript. We will revise the relevant paragraph to specify the criterion (resistivity below 1% of the normal-state value, for example), the field and temperature resolution achieved, and note that contact resistances were verified to be negligible through multiple contact configurations and current-reversal checks. This will better support our conclusion regarding the confinement of SC3 above Hm. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental phase boundaries defined directly by measured resistivity features

full rationale

The manuscript is a pure experimental report of magnetoresistance data in static fields up to 42 T. Phase boundaries for SC3 (onset via resistivity maximum, zero resistance above Hm) are read off the raw traces at fixed angles and temperatures; no equations, ansatzes, fitted parameters, or derivations are invoked. The sole self-reference ('in good agreement with our previous results' for SdH frequencies) is peripheral and does not support the central SC3 claims. All load-bearing statements reduce to direct observation rather than to any prior input or self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental transport study; central claim rests on standard interpretation of resistivity drop to zero as superconductivity and resistivity maximum as phase onset, with no free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5977 in / 1153 out tokens · 42253 ms · 2026-06-30T08:35:55.813724+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

53 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Unusual upper critical field in UTe2 revealed by magnetotransport measurements up to 42 T

    Introduction Since the discovery of unusual, presumably spin-triplet, superconductivity in the heavy-fermion compound UTe 2 slightly more than seven years ago, 1, 2) this material has at- tracted intense experimental and theoretical interest. UTe 2 crystallizes in a body-centered orthorhombic structure (space group: No. 71,Immm,D 25 2h) in which the urani...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    5) The high quality of the sample is demonstrated by its large residual resistivity ratio (RRR) of 576, corresponding to a residual resistivity ofρ 0 =0.57µΩ· cm

    Experimental details The single crystal of UTe2 studied in this work was grown using the molten-salt flux liquid-transport technique, as de- scribed in detail elsewhere. 5) The high quality of the sample is demonstrated by its large residual resistivity ratio (RRR) of 576, corresponding to a residual resistivity ofρ 0 =0.57µΩ· cm. The zero-field supercond...

  3. [3]

    At this temperature, the sample is in the normal state above 30 T for all the field angles up to at least 31 deg

    Experimental results 3.1 Angular dependence of the magnetoresistance In order to consistently determineH m at different angles, we performed up- and down-field sweeps between 30 and 42 T atT=2 K. At this temperature, the sample is in the normal state above 30 T for all the field angles up to at least 31 deg. The result for angles from -4 deg to 31 deg in ...

  4. [4]

    Discussion The main result of this study is the detailed determina- tion of theH−θphase diagram shown in Fig. 4, and the temperature dependence of different superconducting phases at angles close to the critical angleθ≈20 deg, where the field-enhanced SC2 superconducting phase vanishes and the field-induced phase SC3 occurs. Our results are very similar t...

  5. [5]

    We confirm that the field-induced SC3 phase emerges above a critical angle of 6 J

    Conclusions and Outlook In summary, we performed transport measurements on a high-quality single crystal of UTe2 in static magnetic fields up to 42 T and at temperatures down to 0.35 K. We confirm that the field-induced SC3 phase emerges above a critical angle of 6 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. FULL PAPERS about 20 deg, corresponding to the maximum angle at which th...

  6. [6]

    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: Science365(2019) 684

    2019

  7. [7]

    D. Aoki, A. Nakamura, F. Honda, D. Li, Y . Homma, Y . Shimizu, Y . J. Sato, G. Knebel, J.-P. Brison, A. Pourret, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, Q. Niu, M. Valiˇska, H. Harima, and J. Flouquet: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88 (2019) 043702

    2019

  8. [8]

    Sakai, P

    H. Sakai, P. Opletal, Y . Tokiwa, E. Yamamoto, Y . Tokunaga, S. Kambe, and Y . Haga: Physical Review Materials6(2022) 1

    2022

  9. [9]

    P. F. S. Rosa, A. Weiland, S. S. Fender, B. L. Scott, F. Ronning, J. D. Thompson, E. D. Bauer, and S. M. Thomas: Commun. Mater.3(2022) 33

    2022

  10. [10]

    D. Aoki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.93(2024) 043703

    2024

  11. [11]

    Z. Wu, T. I. Weinberger, J. Chen, A. Cabala, D. V . Chichinadze, D. Shaf- fer, J. Posp´ıˇsil, J. Prokle ˇska, T. Haidamak, G. Bastien, V . Sechovsk´y, A. J. Hickey, M. J. Mancera-Ugarte, S. Benjamin, D. E. Graf, Y . Sk- ourski, G. G. Lonzarich, M. Vali ˇska, F. M. Grosche, and A. G. Eaton: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United Stat...

    2024

  12. [12]

    I. M. Hayes, T. E. Metz, C. E. Frank, S. R. Saha, N. P. Butch, V . Mishra, P. Hirschfeld, and J. Paglione: Phys. Rev. X15(2025) 021029

    2025

  13. [13]

    Braithwaite, M

    D. Braithwaite, M. Vali ˇska, G. Knebel, G. Lapertot, J.-P. Brison, A. Pourret, M. E. Zhitomirsky, J. Flouquet, F. Honda, and D. Aoki: Commun. Phys.2(2019) 147

    2019

  14. [14]

    D. Aoki, F. Honda, G. Knebel, D. Braithwaite, A. Nakamura, D. Li, Y . Homma, Y . Shimizu, Y . J. Sato, J.-P. Brison, and J. Flouquet: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.89(2020) 053705

    2020

  15. [15]

    S. M. Thomas, F. B. Santos, M. H. Christensen, T. Asaba, F. Ronning, J. D. Thompson, E. D. Bauer, R. M. Fernandes, G. Fabbris, and P. F. Rosa: Sci. Adv.6(2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    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: Sci. Adv.9(2023) eadg2736

    2023

  17. [17]

    Z. Wu, J. Chen, T. I. Weinberger, A. Cabala, V . Sechovsk´y, M. Valiˇska, P. L. Alireza, A. G. Eaton, and F. M. Grosche: Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (2025) 236501

    2025

  18. [18]

    Ran, I.-L

    S. Ran, I.-L. Liu, Y . S. Eo, D. J. Campbell, P. M. Neves, W. T. Fuhrman, S. R. Saha, C. Eckberg, H. Kim, D. Graf, F. Balakirev, J. Singleton, J. Paglione, and N. P. Butch: Nat. Phys.15(2019) 1250

    2019

  19. [19]

    Rosuel, C

    A. Rosuel, C. Marcenat, G. Knebel, T. Klein, A. Pourret, N. Marquardt, Q. Niu, S. Rousseau, A. Demuer, G. Seyfarth, G. Lapertot, D. Aoki, D. Braithwaite, J. Flouquet, and J. P. Brison: Phys. Rev. X13(2023) 011022

    2023

  20. [20]

    S. K. Lewin, C. E. Frank, S. Ran, J. Paglione, and N. P. Butch: Rep. Prog. Phys.86(2023) 114501

    2023

  21. [21]

    T. Helm, M. Kimata, K. Sudo, A. Miyata, J. Stirnat, T. F ¨orster, J. Hornung, M. K ¨onig, I. Sheikin, A. Pourret, G. Lapertot, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, J. Wosnitza, and J.-P. Brison: Nat. Commun.15(2024) 37

    2024

  22. [22]

    Z. Wu, T. I. Weinberger, A. J. Hickey, D. V . Chichinadze, D. Shaffer, A. Cabala, H. Chen, M. Long, T. J. Brumm, W. Xie, Y . Ling, Z. Zhu, Y . Skourski, D. E. Graf, V . Sechovsk´y, M. Valiˇska, G. G. Lonzarich, F. M. Grosche, and A. G. Eaton: Phys. Rev. X15(2025) 021019

    2025

  23. [23]

    Knebel, W

    G. Knebel, W. Knafo, A. Pourret, Q. Niu, M. Vali ˇska, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, M. Nardone, A. Zitouni, S. Mishra, I. Sheikin, G. Sey- farth, J.-P. Brison, D. Aoki, and J. Flouquet: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88(2019) 063707

    2019

  24. [24]

    Kinjo, H

    K. Kinjo, H. Fujibayashi, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, Y . Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, A. Nakamura, Y . Shimizu, Y . Homma, D. X. Li, F. Honda, D. Aoki, K. Hiraki, M. Kimata, and T. Sasaki: Phys. Rev. B 107(2023) L060502

    2023

  25. [25]

    Zhang, C

    L. Zhang, C. Guo, D. Graf, C. Putzke, M. M. Bordelon, E. D. Bauer, S. M. Thomas, F. Ronning, P. F. S. Rosa, and P. J. W. Moll: Nat. Com- mun.16(2025) 10308

    2025

  26. [26]

    Sakai, Y

    H. Sakai, Y . Tokiwa, P. Opletal, M. Kimata, S. Awaji, T. Sasaki, D. Aoki, S. Kambe, Y . Tokunaga, and Y . Haga: Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) 196002

    2023

  27. [27]

    Tokiwa, H

    Y . Tokiwa, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, P. Opletal, E. Yamamoto, M. Kimata, S. Awaji, T. Sasaki, Y . Yanase, Y . Haga, and Y . Tokunaga: Phys. Rev. B 108(2023) 144502

    2023

  28. [28]

    Thermodynamic Identification of the Internal Superconducting Phase Boundary in UTe$_2$ for $H \parallel b$

    M. Vali ˇska, T. Haidamak, A. Cabala, P. Proschek, A. Hausprug, S. Zher- litsyn, and V . Sechovsk´y: arXiv 2604.25896 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Knafo, M

    W. Knafo, M. Nardone, M. Vali ˇska, A. Zitouni, G. Lapertot, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, and D. Braithwaite: Commun. Phys.4(2020) 40

    2020

  30. [30]

    Thebault, K

    T. Thebault, K. Somesh, G. Lapertot, M. Nardone, A. Zitouni, M. Bar- ragan, J. B´eard, J. Billette, F. Lecouturier-Dupouy, S. Tardieu, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, D. Braithwaite, and W. Knafo: Phys. Rev. B113(2026) L220503

    2026

  31. [31]

    Sch ¨onemann, P

    R. Sch ¨onemann, P. F. Rosa, S. M. Thomas, Y . Lai, D. N. Nguyen, J. Singleton, E. L. Brosha, R. D. McDonald, V . Zapf, B. Maiorov, and M. Jaime: PNAS Nexus3(2024) 1

    2024

  32. [32]

    Marquardt, C

    N. Marquardt, C. Duffy, C. Proust, S. Badoux, M. A. Patino, G. Laper- tot, D. Aoki, J. P. Brison, G. Knebel, and D. LeBoeuf: arXiv 2512.17691 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    C. E. Frank, S. K. Lewin, G. Saucedo Salas, P. Czajka, I. M. Hayes, H. Yoon, T. Metz, J. Paglione, J. Singleton, and N. P. Butch: Nat. Com- mun.15(2024) 3378

    2024

  34. [34]

    S. K. Lewin, P. Czajka, C. E. Frank, G. Saucedo Salas, G. T. Noe II, H. Yoon, Y . S. Eo, J. Paglione, A. H. Nevidomskyy, J. Singleton, and N. P. Butch: Science389(2025) 512

    2025

  35. [35]

    Z. Wu, H. Chen, T. I. Weinberger, M. Long, D. Graf, A. Cabala, V . Se- chovsky, M. Valiska, G. G. Lonzarich, F. M. Grosche, and A. G. Eaton: arXiv 2601.04594 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    D. Aoki, H. Sakai, P. Opletal, Y . Tokiwa, J. Ishizuka, Y . Yanase, H. Harima, A. Nakamura, D. Li, Y . Homma, Y . Shimizu, G. Knebel, J. Flouquet, and Y . Haga: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.91(2022) 083704

    2022

  37. [37]

    D. Aoki, I. Sheikin, A. McCollam, J. Ishizuka, Y . Yanase, G. Lapertot, J. Flouquet, and G. Knebel: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.92(2023) 065002

    2023

  38. [38]

    D. Aoki, I. Sheikin, N. Marquardt, G. Lapertot, J. Flouquet, and 7 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. FULL PAPERS G. Knebel: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn93(2024) 123702

    2024

  39. [39]

    Pugnat, R

    P. Pugnat, R. Barbier, F. Debray, C. Grandcl ´ement, S. Kr ¨amer, F. Molini´e, R. Pfister, L. Ronayette, B. Vincent, and C. Simon: IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.36(2026) 4300407

    2026

  40. [40]

    Pugnat, H

    P. Pugnat, H. Abir, R. Barbier, C. Berriaud, J. Chastagnier, F. De- bray, C. Grandcl´ement, B. Hervieu, F. P. Juster, S. Kr¨amer, Y . Krupko, F. Molini´e, K. Paillot, R. Pfister, and L. Ronayette: IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.36(2026) 4300604

    2026

  41. [41]

    Kimata, J

    M. Kimata, J. Ishizuka, F. Husstedt, Y . Shimizu, A. Nakamura, D. Li, Y . Homma, A. Miyake, Y . Haga, H. Sakai, Y . Tokiwa, S. Kambe, Y . Tokunaga, D. Aoki, T. Helm, and Y . Yanase: arXiv 2603.17710 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Ishizuka and Y

    J. Ishizuka and Y . Yanase: arXiv 2603.17235 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    A. G. Eaton, T. I. Weinberger, N. J. M. Popiel, Z. Wu, A. J. Hickey, A. Cabala, J. Posp´ıˇsil, J. Prokleˇska, T. Haidamak, G. Bastien, P. Opletal, H. Sakai, Y . Haga, R. Nowell, S. M. Benjamin, V . Sechovsk ´y, G. G. Lonzarich, F. M. Grosche, and M. Vali ˇska: Nat. Commun.15(2024) 223

    2024

  44. [44]

    Tokunaga, H

    Y . Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, Y . Haga, Y . Tokiwa, P. Ople- tal, H. Fujibayashi, K. Kinjo, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, A. Nakamura, Y . Shimizu, Y . Homma, D. Li, F. Honda, and D. Aoki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.91(2022) 1

    2022

  45. [45]

    Knafo, M

    W. Knafo, M. Valiˇska, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, G. Knebel, A. Pour- ret, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, and D. Aoki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88(2019) 063705

    2019

  46. [46]

    Imajo, Y

    S. Imajo, Y . Kohama, A. Miyake, C. Dong, M. Tokunaga, J. Flouquet, K. Kindo, D. Aoki, M. Tokunaga, J. Flouquet, K. Kindo, and D. Aoki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88(2019) 083705

    2019

  47. [47]

    Miyake, Y

    A. Miyake, Y . Shimizu, Y . J. Sato, D. Li, A. Nakamura, Y . Homma, F. Honda, J. Flouquet, M. Tokunaga, and D. Aoki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.90 (2021) 103702

    2021

  48. [48]

    Miyake, D

    A. Miyake, D. Aoki, and J. Flouquet: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.77(2008) 094709

    2008

  49. [49]

    B. Wu, G. Bastien, M. Taupin, C. Paulsen, L. Howald, D. Aoki, and J.-P. Brison: Nat. Commun.8(2017) 14480

    2017

  50. [50]

    H. Aoki, N. Kimura, and T. Terashima: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.83(2014) 072001

    2014

  51. [51]

    McCollam, M

    A. McCollam, M. Fu, and S. R. Julian: Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter33(2021) 075804

    2021

  52. [52]

    Terashima, C

    T. Terashima, C. Haworth, M. Takashita, and H. Aoki: Phys. Rev. B55 (1997) 369

    1997

  53. [53]

    Q. Niu, G. Knebel, D. Braithwaite, D. Aoki, G. Lapertot, M. Vali ˇska, G. Seyfarth, W. Knafo, T. Helm, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, and A. Pour- ret: Phys. Rev. Res.2(2020) 033179. 8

    2020