Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Phase-dependent Spin Polarization of Cooper Pairs in Magnetic Josephson Junctions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that the magnetic moment induced in a superconductor by an adjacent ferromagnet depends on the Josephson phase, oscillates at the Josephson frequency under bias, and measurably reshapes the Fraunhofer pattern of SFS…

desk verdict Solid Usadel-based prediction of phase-dependent induced magnetization, but the headline experimental claim only survives in a parameter window the authors do not actually reach. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08460 v1 pith:5R534JKG submitted 2019-08-22 cond-mat.supr-con

Samme M. Dahir , Anatoly F. Volkov , Ilya M. Eremin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.50.+r74.45.+c
keywords inverseproximityeffectspinpolarizationofCooperpairsSFSJosephsonjunctionFraunhoferpatternUsadelequationsinducedmagnetizationfrequencysuperconductor-ferromagnethybrid
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

A key prediction of the inverse proximity effect still lacks unambiguous experimental confirmation. This paper argues that the magnetic moment $M_S$ induced in a superconductor by contact with a ferromagnet is not a static quantity: in a superconductor–ferromagnet–superconductor (SFS) Josephson junction it depends on the phase difference $\varphi$ between the two superconducting banks. Because a voltage-biased junction drives $\varphi(t)=2eVt/\hbar$, the induced magnetization should oscillate at the Josephson frequency. The same phase-dependent spin polarization enters the magnetostatics through a $p\cos^2(\varphi/2)$ term in the Ferrell–Prange equation, which shifts and broadens the Fraunhofer pattern of the critical current. Josephson interferometry is therefore a direct experimental window on a spin effect that has so far been masked by orbital magnetic fields.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin component $\delta g^{(S)}_{33}$ of the small correction to the superconducting Green's function, obtained by linearizing the Usadel equation around the bulk solution; its trace defines the induced magnetization $M_S(z)=\sum_\omega m_S(\varphi)\exp(-\kappa_{S,\omega}|z\mp d_F|)$, with $\kappa_{S,\omega}=\sqrt{2\sqrt{\omega^2+\Delta^2}/D_S}$. The $\varphi$ dependence enters through the anomalous Green's function in the ferromagnet, which contains $\cos(\varphi/2)$ and $\sin(\varphi/2)$ terms. Inserting this magnetization into the Maxwell–London equations for the junction produces the modified Ferrell–Prange equation $\partial_{\tilde{x}}\varphi=2\pi[\tilde{\Phi}_m-p\cos^2(\varphi/2)]$, where $p$ measures the strength of the spin polarization and is the parameter responsible for the predicted shift and broadening of the Fraunhofer lobes.

What would settle it

Measure the critical current of a low-interface-resistance SFS junction as a function of in-plane magnetic field at low temperature. The standard Fraunhofer pattern has a central lobe whose width is set by the total flux, whereas the theory predicts an extra broadening and a $p/2$ displacement of the maximum that grow with the spin-polarization strength and disappear at large $\Phi_m/\Phi_0$. A pattern with the standard width and only the ferromagnetic shift at all fluxes would rule out the phase-dependent spin polarization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the diffusive limit described by Usadel equations, the paper shows that in an SFS junction the inverse proximity effect creates a magnetic moment $M_S(z)$ inside both superconducting electrodes whose magnitude depends on $\varphi$. In the strong-proximity regime the local contribution has the form $m_S(\varphi)\propto \cos^2(\varphi/2)/(\tilde\omega^2+\cos^2(\varphi/2))^{3/2}$, and at zero temperature the total moment equals $-2d_FM_0$ for all $\varphi\neq\pi$, a complete screening of the ferromagnet's moment. When the junction is biased above its critical current, $\varphi(t)=2eVt/\hbar$, so $M_S$ oscillates at the Josephson frequency. Coupling this magnetization to the London response yields a modified Ferrell–Prange equation $\partial_{\tilde{x}}\varphi=2\pi[\tilde{\Phi}_m-p\cos^2(\varphi/2)]$. In the strong-polarization limit $p\gg\sqrt{r}$ the main Fraunhofer maximum shifts by $p/2$ and, most distinctively, the central peak broadens; the broadening is a direct consequence of the inverse proximity effect. For the Nb/CuNi/Nb parameters estimated in the paper the effect is small, but the theory identifies the first series of peaks as the place to look for it.

Load-bearing premise

The central calculation assumes the superconductor is only weakly disturbed by the adjacent ferromagnet, so the induced spin polarization can be treated as a small correction and the change in the superconducting gap can be ignored; if that weak-perturbation condition fails, the predicted phase dependence and its Fraunhofer signature would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the junction is biased above $I_c$, the phase-dependent $M_S$ oscillates at $\omega_J=2eV/\hbar$, converting the static inverse proximity effect into an alternating spin signal.
  • At low temperature and low interface resistance the total magnetic moment of the ferromagnet can be fully screened by the superconducting leads, canceling the usual ferromagnetic shift of the Fraunhofer pattern.
  • The spin polarization broadens the central Fraunhofer peak and shifts it by $p/2$; the broadening has no counterpart in the standard theory, making it a direct signature of the inverse proximity effect.
  • The deviations from the standard Fraunhofer pattern are largest at small magnetic flux, so the first series of interference peaks is the most promising place for an experimental search.
  • For the Nb/CuNi/Nb parameters used in the paper, $p$ is small enough that the predicted changes are minor, so the effect is best sought in low-resistance samples or materials with stronger spin polarization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted alternating magnetization is real, a junction biased above $I_c$ should also generate a time-dependent spin current or spin accumulation in an adjacent normal-metal contact, giving a non-optical detection channel.
  • Existing published $I_c(H_{\rm ext})$ curves for magnetic Josephson junctions could be re-examined for anomalously broad first lobes; the theory predicts the broadening to grow with $\gamma_0$ and to fade at high flux.
  • The analogy drawn with the voltage in a point contact suggests the same parameter $p$ could be extracted from time-dependent voltage traces or Shapiro steps, not only from static interference patterns.
  • For a nonuniform ferromagnetic texture such as a skyrmion, the mirrored magnetization induced in the superconductor should produce local phase-gradient signatures in a scanning Josephson probe, extending the uniform-magnetization calculation.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the inverse proximity effect in an SFS Josephson junction using the diffusive Usadel formalism. It derives expressions for the magnetization M_S induced in the superconducting electrodes in the strong- and weak-proximity limits and shows that M_S depends on the Josephson phase φ. From this it predicts that M_S oscillates at the Josephson frequency for a biased junction, and it derives a modified Ferrell-Prange equation containing a phase-dependent back-action term p cos²(φ/2). The paper then studies how this term modifies the Fraunhofer pattern, focusing on the limiting cases p ≪ √r and p ≫ √r, and estimates parameters for Nb/CuNi/Nb junctions.

Significance. If the predictions are robust in an experimentally reachable regime, the paper offers a route to detect the inverse proximity effect through Josephson interferometry, which would be a valuable contribution. The calculation has real strengths: it is analytic, it uses no fitted parameters, and it reproduces the known T=0 full spin-screening result in the strong-proximity limit (Eq. (11)). The derivation is largely self-contained, and the linearization concern about the order-parameter variation δΔ is not load-bearing because the δΔ term in Eq. (7) is orthogonal to the X33 component that determines M_S. However, the central advertised claims—the phase dependence of M_S and the easily observable Fraunhofer modification—are not supported by the manuscript's own formulas and parameter estimates over the full parameter range. The phase dependence is confined to a restricted window, and the experimental-accessibility claim is in tension with the paper's own estimates. The central theoretical framework is defensible, but the presentation and the domain of validity need substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section I, Eq. (11) and Fig. 2; Appendix B, Eq. (B14)] The abstract's unqualified statement that "the induced magnetic moment M_S does depend on the phase difference φ" is not supported by the model in the parameter regimes that the paper itself emphasizes. In the strong-proximity limit at T=0, Eq. (11) gives M_S = -2d_F M_0 for every φ ≠ π, so there is no continuous phase dependence; Fig. 2 shows that even at T/T_c = 0.1 the dependence is nearly flat. In the weak-proximity limit, the bracket in Eq. (B14) tends to Im{1/(1+i)} = -1/2 when d_F/ξ_F ≫ 1, since tanh(θ_Fc) ≈ 1, making γ_φ independent of φ. Thus the phase dependence exists only in a restricted window (temperatures close to T_c and d_F ≲ ξ_F). The Josephson-frequency oscillation claim and the Fraunhofer modification both rely on this phase-dependent term, so the domain of validity must be stated explicitly and the abstract must be qualified.
  2. [Section II, parameter estimates after Eq. (26)] The abstract's claim of a "significant change... easily accessed experimentally" is difficult to reconcile with the manuscript's own statement that for the Nb/CuNi/Nb junction "the factor p appears to be small compared to r, so that the induced magnetization M_S leads to rather small changes in the Josephson effect." The control parameter identified in Eq. (26) is p/√r, not p/r, so the paper should report p/√r for the benchmark junction and for any proposed alternative parameter set. Without such a quantitative demonstration that p ≫ √r can be reached, the experimental-accessibility claim in the abstract is not a consequence of the model.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (25) and Appendix B, Eq. (B14)] The approximation γ_φ ≈ γ_0 cos²(φ/2), used to pass from Eq. (19) to Eq. (25), is not justified in the weak-proximity regime. Equation (B14) contains the factor Im{[cos²(φ/2)+sin²(φ/2)tanh²(θ_Fc)]/[(1+i)tanh(θ_Fc)]}, which reduces to a φ-independent constant for d_F/ξ_F ≳ 1. Consequently the p cos²(φ/2) back-action term in Eq. (25), and all of the Fraunhofer modifications in Section III that are derived from it, are not consequences of the model in this regime. The authors should either state the precise validity condition for Eq. (25) or treat the phase-dependent coefficient without assuming this specific factorization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The claims that M_S oscillates with the Josephson frequency and that the Fraunhofer pattern change is easily accessible should be tempered to indicate the restricted parameter window (T near T_c and d_F ≲ ξ_F) established in the body of the paper.
  2. [Eq. (30)] The first expression for the logarithmic term appears to have a typographical imbalance of parentheses; the equivalent second expression is much clearer and should be used alone.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption defines ilde T = T/T_c and labels the curves by ilde T values; this is understandable, but stating the physical temperatures alongside the normalized values would improve readability.
  4. [References] Reference 50 is formatted inconsistently with the other references; the journal abbreviation and title style should be made uniform.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the phase-dependent magnetization and the modified Fraunhofer equation are derived from the Usadel calculation, not fitted or assumed; prior self-citations supply only background formalism.

full rationale

The central chain is a derivation, not a tautology. The Usadel equations (1)-(2) with boundary conditions (3) and the stated weak-proximity ansatz (4) are used to compute the induced magnetization mS(phi) in Eqs. (9) and (10); the phase dependence enters through the cos(phi/2) and sin(phi/2) terms in the boundary conditions and is a calculated consequence. This mS(phi) then feeds the London/Maxwell equation (14) and produces the modified Ferrell-Prange equation (25), with the coefficient p fixed by Eqs. (21)-(22) and Appendices A and B. No parameter is fitted to the Fraunhofer pattern, and the p cos^2(phi/2) term is the near-Tc asymptotic form of the derived gamma_phi, not an imposed ansatz. The self-citations to Refs. 30 and 38, which share author Volkov, supply the inverse-proximity formalism and the magnetostatic expression for the vector potential in the F film, but neither prior reference contains the phase-dependent magnetization or its effect on the Fraunhofer pattern; those results are derived here. The skeptical concern that the Nb/CuNi/Nb parameter window gives p much smaller than sqrt(r), so the predicted change is small, and that gamma_phi may become phi-independent for large dF/xi_F, is a robustness or over-claim issue, not circularity: the derivation would be limited in that regime, but it would not be equivalent to its inputs. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard dirty-limit Usadel theory and several domain assumptions. No free parameters are fitted to the target result; physical inputs such as exchange energy and resistances are taken from the cited Nb/CuNi/Nb experiment. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dirty limit applies, so Usadel equations describe the Green's functions.
    Used in Section I, Eqs. (1)-(2).
  • domain assumption Green's functions in the S films are only weakly perturbed by the proximity effect, so linearization around the bulk solution is valid.
    Invoked before Eq. (4) and used to derive Eq. (7); requires R_b□ >> ϱS ξS for strong PE.
  • domain assumption For strong proximity effect, the F layer is thin, dF << ξF.
    Assumed after Eq. (4) to integrate Eq. (2) over z and obtain Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption The S film thickness is much larger than the London penetration depth and ξS << λS.
    Used in Section II to neglect the short-range magnetization component and simplify the magnetostatics.
  • domain assumption Analytic results obtained near Tc remain qualitatively valid for all T ≤ Tc.
    Stated in Section II: 'The obtained results remain qualitatively unchanged for any T ≤ Tc.'
  • domain assumption The ferromagnet magnetization MF is uniform and unaffected by proximity corrections beyond neglecting small corrections.
    Stated in Appendix C: 'we set MF ≈ M0 since corrections to M0 in the F film due to the proximity effect are small.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-dependent Spin Polarization of Cooper Pairs in Magnetic Josephson Junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5R534JKG

@misc{pith2026190808460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-dependent Spin Polarization of Cooper Pairs in Magnetic Josephson Junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5R534JKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08460}
}
abstract

Superconductor-Ferromagnet hybrid structures (SF) have attracted much interest in the last decades, due to a variety of interesting phenomena predicted and observed in these structures. One of them is the so-called inverse proximity effect. It is described by a spin polarization of Cooper pairs, which occurs not only in the ferromagnet (F), but also in the superconductor (S) yielding a finite magnetic moment $M_{\text{S}}$ inside the superconductor. This effect has been predicted and experimentally studied. However, interpretation of the experimental data is mostly ambiguous. Here, we study theoretically the impact of the spin polarized Cooper pairs on the Josephson effect in an SFS junction. We show that the induced magnetic moment $M_{\text{S}}$ does depend on the phase difference $\varphi$ and therefore, will oscillate in time with the Josephson frequency $2eV/\hbar$ if the current exceeds a critical value. Most importantly, the spin polarization in the superconductor causes a significant change in the Fraunhofer pattern, which can be easily accessed experimentally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08460 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Schematic representation of the con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) The phase dependence of the total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) a) The dependence of the critical current [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. (Color online) Comparison of the dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Comparison of the solution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Coordinate dependence of the phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author A. A. \ Golubov , author M. Y. \ Kupriyanov , \ and\ author E. Il’ichev ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.411 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 76 ,\ pages 411 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.76.411 2004

  2. [2]

    author author A. I. \ Buzdin ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.935 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 77 ,\ pages 935 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.77.935 2005

  3. [3]

    author author F. S. \ Bergeret , author A. F. \ Volkov , \ and\ author K. B. \ Efetov ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1321 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 77 ,\ pages 1321 ( year 2005 a ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.77.1321 2005

  4. [4]

    Eschrig ,\ 10.1088/0034-4885/78/10/104501 journal journal Rep

    author author M. Eschrig ,\ 10.1088/0034-4885/78/10/104501 journal journal Rep. Prog. Phys. \ volume 78 ,\ pages 104501 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/78/10/104501 2015

  5. [5]

    Linder \ and\ author J

    author author J. Linder \ and\ author J. W. A. \ Robinson ,\ 10.1038/nphys3242 journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 11 ,\ pages 307 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nphys3242 2015

  6. [6]

    Linder \ and\ author A

    author author J. Linder \ and\ author A. Balatsky ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.03986 journal journal arXiv:1709.03986 \ ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    author author A. I. \ Buzdin , author L. Bulaevskii , \ and\ author S. Panyukov ,\ @noop journal journal JETP Lett \ volume 35 ,\ pages 147 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    author author A. I. \ Buzdin \ and\ author M. Y. \ Kupriyanov ,\ @noop journal journal JETP Lett \ volume 53 ,\ pages 321 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    work page 1991

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    author author V. V. \ Ryazanov , author V. A. \ Oboznov , author A. Y. \ Rusanov , author A. V. \ Veretennikov , author A. A. \ Golubov , \ and\ author J. Aarts ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.2427 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 86 ,\ pages 2427 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    doi

  2. [10]

    Kontos , author M

    author author T. Kontos , author M. Aprili , author J. Lesueur , author F. Genêt , author B. Stephanidis , \ and\ author R. Boursier ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.137007 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 89 ,\ pages 137007 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    doi

  3. [11]

    Sellier , author C

    author author H. Sellier , author C. Baraduc , author F. Lefloch , \ and\ author R. Calemczuk ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.054531 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 68 ,\ pages 054531 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    author author V. A. \ Oboznov , author V. V. \ Bol’ginov , author A. K. \ Feofanov , author V. V. \ Ryazanov , \ and\ author A. I. \ Buzdin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.197003 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 96 ,\ pages 197003 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    doi

  5. [13]

    author author F. S. \ Bergeret , author A. F. \ Volkov , \ and\ author K. B. \ Efetov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3140 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 86 ,\ pages 3140 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001 doi

  6. [14]

    author author R. S. \ Keizer , author S. T. B. \ Goennenwein , author T. M. \ Klapwijk , author G. Miao , author G. Xiao , \ and\ author A. Gupta ,\ 10.1038/nature04499 journal journal Nature \ volume 439 ,\ pages 825 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    doi

  7. [15]

    Sosnin , author H

    author author I. Sosnin , author H. Cho , author V. T. \ Petrashov , \ and\ author A. F. \ Volkov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.157002 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 96 ,\ pages 157002 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    author author T. S. \ Khaire , author M. A. \ Khasawneh , author W. P. \ Pratt , \ and\ author N. O. \ Birge ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.137002 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 104 ,\ pages 137002 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    author author M. S. \ Anwar , author F. Czeschka , author M. Hesselberth , author M. Porcu , \ and\ author J. Aarts ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.100501 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 82 ,\ pages 100501 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    author author M. S. \ Anwar , author M. Veldhorst , author A. Brinkman , \ and\ author J. Aarts ,\ 10.1063/1.3681138 journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volume 100 ,\ pages 052602 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Sprungmann , author K

    author author D. Sprungmann , author K. Westerholt , author H. Zabel , author M. Weides , \ and\ author H. Kohlstedt ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.060505 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 82 ,\ pages 060505 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    author author J. W. A. \ Robinson , author G. B. \ Halász , author A. I. \ Buzdin , \ and\ author M. G. \ Blamire ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.207001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 104 ,\ pages 207001 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    author author M. G. \ Blamire \ and\ author J. W. A. \ Robinson ,\ 10.1088/0953-8984/26/45/453201 journal journal J. Phys.: Condens. Matter \ volume 26 ,\ pages 453201 NoStop

    doi

  14. [22]

    Massarotti , author N

    author author D. Massarotti , author N. Banerjee , author R. Caruso , author G. Rotoli , author M. G. \ Blamire , \ and\ author F. Tafuri ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.144516 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 144516 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi

  15. [23]

    author author M. S. \ Kalenkov , author A. D. \ Zaikin , \ and\ author V. T. \ Petrashov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.087003 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 107 ,\ pages 087003 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    Klose , author T

    author author C. Klose , author T. S. \ Khaire , author Y. Wang , author W. P. \ Pratt , author N. O. \ Birge , author B. J. \ McMorran , author T. P. \ Ginley , author J. A. \ Borchers , author B. J. \ Kirby , author B. B. \ Maranville , \ and\ author J. Unguris ,\ 10.1103/Ph...

    doi

  17. [25]

    author author W. M. \ Martinez , author W. Pratt , \ and\ author N. O. \ Birge ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.077001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 116 ,\ pages 077001 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    author author B. M. \ Niedzielski , author T. J. \ Bertus , author J. A. \ Glick , author R. Loloee , author W. P. \ Pratt , \ and\ author N. O. \ Birge ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.024517 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 97 ,\ pages 024517 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi

  19. [27]

    Caruso , author D

    author author R. Caruso , author D. Massarotti , author G. Campagnano , author A. Pal , author H. Ahmad , author P. Lucignano , author M. Eschrig , author M. Blamire , \ and\ author F. Tafuri ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.047002 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 122 ,\ pa...

    doi

  20. [28]

    author author V. N. \ Krivoruchko \ and\ author E. A. \ Koshina ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.014521 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 66 ,\ pages 014521 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    author author F. S. \ Bergeret , author A. F. \ Volkov , \ and\ author K. B. \ Efetov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.064513 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 68 ,\ pages 064513 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    author author F. S. \ Bergeret , author A. F. \ Volkov , \ and\ author K. B. \ Efetov ,\ 10.1209/epl/i2004-10003-3 journal journal EPL \ volume 66 ,\ pages 111 ( year 2004 a ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    author author F. S. \ Bergeret , author A. F. \ Volkov , \ and\ author K. B. \ Efetov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.69.174504 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 69 ,\ pages 174504 ( year 2004 b ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    L\" o fwander , author T

    author author T. L\" o fwander , author T. Champel , author J. Durst , \ and\ author M. Eschrig ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.187003 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 95 ,\ pages 187003 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    Faur\'e , author A

    author author M. Faur\'e , author A. Buzdin , \ and\ author D. Gusakova ,\ 10.1016/j.physc.2007.01.013 journal journal Physica C: Superconductivity \ volume 454 ,\ pages 61 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    author author F. S. \ Bergeret , author A. L. \ Yeyati , \ and\ author A. Martín-Rodero ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.064524 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 72 ,\ pages 064524 ( year 2005 b ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    author author M. Y. \ Kharitonov , author A. F. \ Volkov , \ and\ author K. B. \ Efetov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.73.054511 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 73 ,\ pages 054511 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    author author R. I. \ Salikhov , author I. A. \ Garifullin , author N. N. \ Garif’yanov , author L. R. \ Tagirov , author K. Theis-Bröhl , author K. Westerholt , \ and\ author H. Zabel ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.087003 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 102 ,\ pages 087...

    doi

  29. [37]

    Xia , author V

    author author J. Xia , author V. Shelukhin , author M. Karpovski , author A. Kapitulnik , \ and\ author A. Palevski ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.087004 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 102 ,\ pages 087004 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    author author A. F. \ Volkov , author F. S. \ Bergeret , \ and\ author K. B. \ Efetov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.144506 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 144506 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Mironov , author A

    author author S. Mironov , author A. S. \ Mel'nikov , \ and\ author A. Buzdin ,\ 10.1063/1.5037074 journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volume 113 ,\ pages 022601 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Devizorova , author S

    author author Z. Devizorova , author S. V. \ Mironov , author A. S. \ Mel'nikov , \ and\ author A. Buzdin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.104519 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 104519 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    author author M. Y. \ Kurpianov \ and\ author V. F. \ Lukichev ,\ @noop journal journal Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz \ volume 94 ,\ pages 1163 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

    1988

  34. [42]

    Yao , author L

    author author N. Yao , author L. Glazman , author E. Demler , author M. Lukin , \ and\ author J. Sau ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.087202 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 113 ,\ pages 087202 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    author author R. A. \ Ferrell \ and\ author R. E. \ Prange ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.479 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 10 ,\ pages 479 ( year 1963 ) NoStop

    1963 doi

  36. [44]

    author author I. O. \ Kulik \ and\ author I. K. \ Yanson ,\ @noop title Josephson Effect in Superconducting Tunnerling Structures \ ( publisher John Wiley & Sons, incorporated ,\ year 1972 ) NoStop

    1972

  37. [45]

    author author K. K. \ Likharev ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.51.101 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 51 ,\ pages 101 ( year 1979 ) NoStop

    1979 doi

  38. [46]

    Barone \ and\ author G

    author author A. Barone \ and\ author G. Paterno ,\ @noop title Physics and Applications of the Josephson Effect \ ( publisher Wiley, New York ,\ year 1982 ) NoStop

    1982

  39. [47]

    Banerjee , author J

    author author N. Banerjee , author J. W. A. \ Robinson , \ and\ author M. G. \ Blamire ,\ 10.1038/ncomms5771 journal journal Nature Communications \ volume 5 ,\ pages 4771 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    author author J. A. \ Glick , author M. A. \ Khasawneh , author B. M. \ Niedzielski , author R. Loloee , author W. P. \ Pratt , author N. O. \ Birge , author E. C. \ Gingrich , author P. G. \ Kotula , \ and\ author N. Missert ,\ 10.1063/1.4989392 journal journal Journal of App...

    doi

  41. [49]

    Satchell \ and\ author N

    author author N. Satchell \ and\ author N. O. \ Birge ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.214509 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 97 ,\ pages 214509 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    author author L. G. \ Aslamazov \ and\ author A. I. \ Larkin ,\ @noop journal journal ZhETF Pis. Red \ volume 9 ,\ pages 150 ( year 1969 ) NoStop

    1969

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.