Reply to the Comment by Tikhonov and Khrapai on "Long-range crossed Andreev reflection in a topological insulator nanowire proximitized by a superconductor"

Junya Feng; Henry F. Legg; Mahasweta Bagchi; Daniel Loss; Jelena Klinovaja; Yoichi Ando

← Back to search

Reply to the Comment by Tikhonov and Khrapai on "Long-range crossed Andreev reflection in a topological insulator nanowire proximitized by a superconductor"

Junya Feng, Henry F. Legg, Mahasweta Bagchi, Daniel Loss, Jelena Klinovaja, Yoichi Ando

arXiv:2509.05153 · 2025-09-05

T3

Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval

Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.

Abstract

The comment (arXiv:2505.23490) fails to identify any scientific errors and its central arguments actually support the main conclusions of our publication [Nat. Phys. 21, 708 (2025)]. Firstly, the whole argument of the comment to try to explain our data explicitly relies on the existence of a large crossed Andreev reflection (CAR) effect. The presence of a sizable CAR transmission probability over a surprisingly long distance is the first conclusion of our publication. Secondly, the comment discusses the complex interplay of CAR and elastic co-tunneling, especially in the presence of local effects. This complex interplay is precisely the second conclusion of our publication. In essence, the comment amounts to merely pointing out that there is a broader sense in the notion of "dominant CAR" when nonlinear effects become relevant.