Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Theoretical explanation of electric field-induced superconductive critical temperature shifts in Indium thin films

T0 review · 4 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 A nanometre-thin charged surface layer is enough to explain the measured electric-field shifts in superconducting indium films.

desk verdict New ab initio results for indium, but the 'no free parameters' claim fails: the surface-layer thickness is tuned to hit the target shift, so the paper is a conditional validation rather than a parameter-free explanation. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00990 v1 pith:LVQQSHWP submitted 2019-09-03 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Giovanni Alberto Ummarino , Davide Romanin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 74.45.+c74.62.-c74.20.Fg
keywords electricfieldeffectsuperconductivityindiumthinfilmsproximityEliashbergtheoryThomas-Fermiscreeningcriticaltemperatureshiftabinitiocalculation
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 paper aims to explain a decades-old puzzle: why a static electric field shifts the superconducting transition temperature of indium films by about $10^{-4}$ K. It argues that the field dopes a thin surface layer, changing its local critical temperature, and that proximity coupling between that layer and the untouched bulk controls the film's overall $T_c$. All microscopic inputs, including electron-phonon spectral functions, Fermi-energy shifts, and densities of states, are computed from first principles, leaving only the surface-layer thickness as an adjustable parameter. In the weak-field limit the Thomas-Fermi screening length fixes that thickness, and with it the calculation reproduces the experimental sign, magnitude, and thickness dependence of the shifts, even for induced charge densities of about $3\times10^{-5}$ electrons per atom that are usually dismissed as negligible.

What carries the argument

The working engine is a set of four coupled imaginary-axis Eliashberg equations for two subsystems: a field-perturbed surface layer of thickness $d_s$ with its own lower critical temperature $T_{c,s}$, and an unperturbed bulk of thickness $d-d_s$ with bulk $T_{c,b}$. A proximity parameter couples the two, so the surface gap and the bulk gap renormalize each other, and the equations are solved together for the effective $T_c$ of the film. The surface layer is treated as uniformly doped bulk indium, with its doping level set by the induced sheet charge divided by $d_s$, and in the weak-field limit $d_s$ is identified with the Thomas-Fermi screening length, about $0.114$ nm. This machinery converts a small change in surface carrier density into a measurable shift of the film's critical temperature, and it lets the paper compute the shift from first principles rather than fit it.

What would settle it

Measure the field-induced $T_c$ shift on indium films of several well-characterized thicknesses while independently extracting the surface charge profile; the model fails if a single $d_s$ cannot fit all thicknesses, if the shift vanishes when the induced charge is below a few times $10^{-5}$ electrons per atom, or if hole doping does not produce the opposite shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a static electric field does not dope the entire indium film uniformly; it changes the carrier density only in a surface layer roughly a tenth of a nanometre thick, and the coupling between this layer and the untouched bulk produces the observed shift of the superconducting critical temperature. Solving the one-band s-wave Eliashberg equations with proximity effect, with all microscopic inputs for doped bulk indium, gives a decrease of $T_c$ with electron accumulation that matches the old measurements in sign and size. The induced charge involved is tiny, about $3\times10^{-5}$ electrons per atom, and the paper's point is that such small doping is still enough to matter because the proximity effect concentrates its influence. The predicted shift also shrinks as the total film thickness grows, matching the thickness trend in the data. The one fitted parameter, the surface-layer thickness, comes out at $0.165$ nm, close to the Thomas-Fermi screening length of $0.114$ nm, which the paper reads as validating the parameter-free weak-field limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the electric field acts only by converting the surface of the film into a uniformly doped slab whose thickness is a free parameter and whose electron-phonon spectrum is the same as bulk indium; the exact match requires $d_s=0.165$ nm rather than the derived Thomas-Fermi value of $0.114$ nm, so this slab picture, not the measured data, carries the weight.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, electric-field control of metallic superconductivity is a genuine surface-doping effect: induced charge densities around $3\times10^{-5}$ electrons per atom measurably lower $T_c$ in thin films.
  • Thinner films should show larger field-induced shifts; the calculation gives a clear hierarchy from $d=3$ nm to $d=7$ nm at fixed doping, so thickness can be used to amplify or suppress the effect.
  • In the weak-field limit the model has no free parameters once the Thomas-Fermi length is used, meaning the same framework can predict field-effect $T_c$ shifts for other elemental superconductors from first-principles inputs alone.
  • The successful reproduction of the six-decade-old indium data supplies a concrete case where small charge doping, previously dismissed as negligible, quantitatively controls superconductivity, reinforcing the physical picture behind recent field-effect experiments on metallic superconductors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would infer a sharp test the paper does not perform: positive charging (hole doping) should shift $T_c$ in the opposite direction from electron doping if the mechanism is purely electrostatic, and measuring that sign reversal would separate this model from heating or strain artifacts.
  • Because the exact fit requires $d_s=0.165$ nm rather than the derived $0.114$ nm, an independent measurement of the near-surface charge profile would convert the calculation from one-parameter to zero-parameter; in the meantime, $0.165$ nm is best read as an effective thickness that absorbs phonon and interface effects.
  • The model keeps bulk phonons in the thin surface layer; a fully self-consistent treatment with surface-modified phonons might absorb the remaining difference between $d_s$ and $d_{TF}$, which is a natural theoretical extension.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a theoretical explanation of the electric-field-induced superconducting critical-temperature shifts measured by Glover and Sherrill in 1960 for indium thin films. The authors model the field-perturbed surface layer and the unperturbed bulk as a superconductor/normal-metal junction described by proximity-effect Eliashberg equations. Inputs such as electron-phonon spectral functions, densities of states, and Fermi-energy shifts are computed with DFT for bulk and uniformly doped bulk indium. The paper's central claim is that in the weak-field limit the surface-layer thickness equals the Thomas-Fermi screening length, leaving no free parameters, and that the model then reproduces the measured Tc shift for electron doping x=3e-5.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would resolve a long-standing puzzle by connecting ab initio DFT inputs with a proximity-Eliashberg mechanism, and it would provide a falsifiable prediction of the film-thickness dependence of the Tc shift. The computational pipeline is a strength: the DFT-derived spectral function is benchmarked against tunneling data, and the same framework has previously been applied to Pb and MgB2. The paper also gives explicit credit to the limitations of the bulk-phonon assumption for monolayer films. However, the advertised parameter-free reproduction of the data is not supported by the manuscript as written, because the surface-layer thickness is adjusted to the target experimental shift and at least one other input is tuned or borrowed; the thickness-dependence prediction is therefore conditional on a fitted parameter.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 4, Abstract, Conclusions] The 'no free parameters' claim is contradicted by the fitting of ds. The paper computes dTF=0.114 nm and then states that 'in order to exactly reproduce the superconductive critical temperature shift measured in Ref. [27], ds = 0.165 nm', a 45% adjustment of the parameter that controls the overall magnitude of the proximity effect. At x=3e-5 the homogeneous Tc,s is 3.39683 K (Table 1), only 3.2 mK below Tc,b, so the bilayer shift is essentially this small difference multiplied by a surface/bulk dilution factor controlled by ds. The manuscript does not report the predicted shift at ds=dTF, so the reader cannot judge whether the disagreement is within experimental uncertainty. The abstract's and conclusion's parameter-free claim therefore fails as written; at best the paper demonstrates a one-parameter fit.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (7), Sec. 2] The bulk Coulomb pseudopotential mu*_b is tuned to reproduce the experimental Tc,b=3.4 K ('forcing Tc,b to its experimental value', Section 4), which is an additional fitted parameter beyond ds. In addition, the junction area A=10^-6 m^2 is taken from Ref. [29] rather than from the Glover-Sherrill experiment; since Gamma_s and Gamma_b in Eq. (7) are proportional to A, the predicted Delta-Tc depends on this choice unless an explicit cancellation is demonstrated. The statement in Sec. 2 that d and A are experimental data is not accurate for A in this context.
  3. [Section 4, Fig. 5, monolayer caveat] The surface layer is treated as uniformly doped bulk indium, but the fitted ds=0.165 nm is smaller than the indium lattice constant (a=3.25 Å), and even dTF=0.114 nm is sub-unit-cell. Using the bulk alpha^2F for such a sub-monolayer region assumes bulk phonons in a region where they are unlikely to exist. The paper itself notes that monolayer films would require a different spectral function (Sec. 4, Ref. [51]), yet applies the bulk alpha^2F to ds=0.165 nm in all of Fig. 5. This approximation is load-bearing because the sign and magnitude of the homogeneous Tc change are controlled by a delicate competition between lambda and omega_ln (Table 1).
  4. [Fig. 5 and Conclusions] Fig. 5 uses ds=0.165 nm for all film thicknesses, while the conclusion states that in the weak-field limit ds equals the Thomas-Fermi screening length dTF and thus no free parameters remain. These two statements are mutually inconsistent. The thickness-dependence prediction of Fig. 5 is therefore not a parameter-free prediction; it is conditioned on the fitted ds. The authors should either renounce the parameter-free claim or provide an independent determination of ds and demonstrate that the experimental shift is reproduced without adjustment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, Fig. 3, Sec. 3, Conclusions] There are several typos: 'shoed' should be 'showed', 'Paneal' should be 'Panel', 'Ernxerhof' should be 'Ernzerhof', and 'emplyed' should be 'employed'.
  2. [Sec. 3, Sec. 4] Units are missing or inconsistent in a few places: 'aexp = 3.25[46]' and 'ath = 3.30 A' should include angstroms, and the text alternates between 'unitary cell' and 'unit cell' for the same quantity.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states 'The red line is the experimental data. [27]', but the original experiment reported five films with thicknesses in the 60–120 Å range; the figure should identify which film or film thickness the comparison refers to, and ideally show the experimental uncertainty.
  4. [Eq. (11)] The phrase 'total density of space per spin at the Fermi energy' should be 'density of states per spin at the Fermi energy'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed parameter-free reproduction of the Glover-Sherrill Tc shift is a one-parameter fit: ds is raised from dTF = 0.114 nm to 0.165 nm specifically to match the measured shift, so the flagship quantitative prediction is partly fitted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Results and Discussion), text preceding Fig. 4 and caption of Fig. 5]
    "However, in order to exactly reproduce the superconductive critical temperature shift measured in Ref. [27], ds = 0.165 nm (see Fig. 4) that is nevertheless in agreement with the theoretical value of dTF . This also justifies the Thomas-Fermi approximation for our calculations."

    The paper first derives dTF = 0.114 nm and claims this leaves no free parameters, then increases ds by about 45% to 0.165 nm specifically so that the calculated DeltaTc matches the experimental shift from Ref. [27]. In the proximity equations the surface-to-bulk coupling Gammab is proportional to ds (Eq. 7 plus the Gammas/Gammab relation), and the homogeneous input difference is only Tc,b - Tc,s = 3.4 - 3.39683 = 3.2 mK (Table 1); the bilayer shift is essentially this small difference diluted by the ds/d ratio. Hence the very datum the paper claims to explain fixes the magnitude of the predicted shift. Fig. 5 then reuses ds = 0.165 nm for all thicknesses even though the surrounding text asserts ds = dTF, so the plotted 'predictions' are not parameter-free outputs of the Thomas-Fermi value.

full rationale

The phonon-side inputs are genuinely ab initio: alpha2F, lambda, omega_ln, N(0), and DeltaEF come from DFT/DFPT with stated convergence parameters, and the sign of the doping-induced Tc change follows from the computed lambda and omega_ln trends. The homogeneous Tc,s values in Table 1 are therefore independent content. However, the central quantitative claim—reproducing the measured Tc shift without free parameters—is not self-contained. The paper computes dTF = 0.114 nm but then explicitly chooses ds = 0.165 nm 'in order to exactly reproduce' the experimental shift; that is a one-parameter fit to the target datum, not a prediction. Because the proximity shift magnitude is controlled by ds/d and the small homogeneous difference Tc,b - Tc,s, the fitted ds sets the scale of the headline result. The abstract and conclusions state that no free parameters remain because ds = dTF, but the calculation shown uses a different, fitted ds. This is partial circularity: the sign and qualitative trend come from ab initio physics, while the quantitative reproduction reduces to the adjusted ds. The bulk mu* is also calibrated to reproduce Tc,b = 3.4 K, but that is a standard normalization and does not by itself force the shift. Overall, the paper demonstrates a one-parameter proximity model can match one measured shift, not the advertised parameter-free reproduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The model relies on a geometric surface layer with a fitted thickness, a tuned Coulomb pseudopotential, and an arbitrary junction area, all of which are free parameters in the quantitative prediction.

free parameters (3)
  • Bulk Coulomb pseudopotential mu*_b = 0.170807
    Tuned so the undoped Eliashberg equations reproduce the experimental bulk Tc = 3.4 K (Section 4).
  • Surface layer thickness ds = 0.165 nm
    Adjusted to exactly reproduce the measured Tc shift from Ref. [27]; the independently computed Thomas-Fermi length is 0.114 nm (Section 4, Fig. 4).
  • Junction area A = 1e-6 m^2
    Taken from previous work [29], not from the Glover-Sherrill films; the absolute proximity couplings depend on this value.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Proximity Eliashberg equations (Eqs. 1-8) describe the coupled surface/bulk system.
    Assumed valid for a superconductor/normal-metal junction.
  • domain assumption The field-perturbed layer can be modeled as bulk indium with a uniform charge shift (jellium model).
    Used in Section 3 to compute doped electron-phonon properties; ignores band-bending and surface states.
  • domain assumption Thomas-Fermi approximation gives the surface layer thickness for weak fields.
    Used in Sections 2 and 4; contradicted in practice by the fitted ds = 0.165 nm.
  • domain assumption The interface transparency |t|^2 = 1.
    Justified by NbN experiments [3], not by direct measurement in indium films.
  • domain assumption mu*_s = mu*_b because Delta_EF is small.
    Stated in Section 2; neglects possible surface-specific screening.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theoretical explanation of electric field-induced superconductive critical temperature shifts in Indium thin films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVQQSHWP

@misc{pith2026190900990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theoretical explanation of electric field-induced superconductive critical temperature shifts in Indium thin films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVQQSHWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00990}
}
read the original abstract

We calculate the effect of a static electric field on the superconductive critical temperature of Indium thin films in the framework of proximity effect Eliashberg theory, in order to explain 60 years old experimental data. Since in the theoretical model we employ all quantities of interest can be computed ab-initio (i.e. electronic densities of states, Fermi energy shifts and Eliashberg spectral functions), the only free parameter is in general the thickness of the surface layer where the electric field acts. However, in the weak electrostatic field limit Thomas-Fermi approximation is still valid and therefore no free parameters are left, as this perturbed layer is known to have a thickness of the order of the Thomas-Fermi screening length. We show that the theoretical model can reproduce experimental data, even when the magnitude of the induced charge densities are so small to be usually neglected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00990 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) Atomic structure of body-centered tetragonal Indium. Red dashed lines denotes the lattice parameter. is treated assuming that the additional carriers spread uniformly inside the surface layer of thickness ds, which is justified for not too high values of the applied electric field: indeed, in this case Thomas-Fermi approximation is still valid and the thickness of the perturbed surface layer is taken … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) Calculated electron-phonon spectral function of Indium for five different values of charge doping (electrons/unitary cell): 0.00 (red solid line), 3 · 10−5 (blue solid line), 3 · 10−4 (violet solid line), 3 · 10−3 (green solid line) 3 · 10−2 (orange solid line). We also show the experimental electron-phonon spectral function determined via tunneling measurements [44] (black solid line). All curves are… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) Paneal a: calculated critical temperature versus charge doping x (the scale is x + 3 · 10−6 for graphic reasons) for a system without proximity effect; panel b: calculated electron-phonon coupling constant versus charge doping; panel c: calculated representative energy ωln versus charge doping; panel d: calculated normal density of states at the Fermi level versus charge doping. All lines act as guide… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) Calculated critical temperature versus surface layer thickness ds (black line) for a film of thickness d = 7 nm and charge doping (electrons/unitary cell) x = 0.00003. The red line is the experimental data. [27] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online) Calculated critical temperature versus charge doping x (the scale is x + 3 · 10−6 ) with surface layer thickness ds = 0.165 nm for three different values of film thickness d = 3 nm (black squares), d = 5 nm (red circles), d = 7 nm (blue up triangles). Al…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Ghinovker, V.B

    M. Ghinovker, V.B. Sandomirsky, and B.Ya. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. B 51, 8404 (1995)

    work page 1995

  2. [29]

    De Simoni, F

    G. De Simoni, F. Paolucci, P. Solinas, E. Strambini and F. Giazotto, Nature Nanotechnology 13, 802-805 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [51]

    J. F. Smith and V. L. Schneider, J. Less. Common Met. 7, 17-22 (1964)

    work page 1964

  4. [1]

    INTRODUCTION In recent years, electrostatic fields have emerged as a powerful tool to control the physical properties of many different superconductive materials in the field-effect transistor (FET) architecture. Significant successes have been obtained by means of the field-induced ultrahigh surface charge doping attainable via the ionic gating technique, whic...

    work page 1960

  5. [2]

    In this case four coupled equations for the renormalization functionsZs,b(iωn) and gaps ∆s,b(iωn) have to be solved (ωn denotes the Matsubara frequencies)

    MODEL: PROXIMITY ELIASHBERG EQUATIONS The model we employ calculates the critical temperature of the system by solving the one band s-wave Eliashberg equations [31, 32] with proximity effect. In this case four coupled equations for the renormalization functionsZs,b(iωn) and gaps ∆s,b(iωn) have to be solved (ωn denotes the Matsubara frequencies). The set of...

    work page

  6. [3]

    Electronic and vibrational properties for both sub- systems are computed for bulk Indium in its body-centered tetragonal structure, which has one atom per unit cell (see Fig

    AB-INITIO CALCULATION OF α2 s(b)F (Ω), ∆EF and Ns(b)(0) We model our system as a junction between a perturbed surface layer and an unperturbed underlying bulk. Electronic and vibrational properties for both sub- systems are computed for bulk Indium in its body-centered tetragonal structure, which has one atom per unit cell (see Fig. 1. For the affected sur...

    work page

  7. [4]

    the representative phonon energy) and the electron-phonon coupling constant λ

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In Eliashberg theory the superconductive critical temperature is an increasing function of both ωln (i.e. the representative phonon energy) and the electron-phonon coupling constant λ. This is can be better seen in the semi-empirical Allen-Dynes formula[48], which is a limit of Eliashberg theory: Tc = ωln 1.2exp ( 1.04(1 +λ) λ−µ∗(1 ...

    work page

  8. [5]

    In order to do so we solved one band s-wave Eliashberg equations with proximity effect, whose input parameters were computed by means of density functional theory (DFT)

    CONCLUSIONS In this work we have given a theoretical explanation to superconductive transition temperature shifts due to a static electric field measured in Indium thin films[27]. In order to do so we solved one band s-wave Eliashberg equations with proximity effect, whose input parameters were computed by means of density functional theory (DFT). The system...

    work page

Show all 56 references
  1. [6]

    J. Choi, R. Pradheesh, H. Kin, H. Im, Y. Chong and D. H. Chae, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 012601 (2014)

    2014

  2. [7]

    Piatti, A

    E. Piatti, A. Sola, D. Daghero, G.A. Ummarino, F. Laviano, J.R. Nair, C. Gerbaldi, R. Cristiano, A. Casaburi and R.S. Gonnell, J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 29, 587 (2016)

    2016

  3. [8]

    Piatti, D

    E. Piatti, D. Daghero, G.A. Ummarino, F. Laviano, J.R. Nair, R. Cristiano, A. Casaburi, C. Portesi, A. Sola, and R.S. Gonnelli, Phys. Rev. B 95, 140501 (2017)

    2017

  4. [9]

    L. J. Li, E. C. T. O?Farrell, K. P. Loh, G. Eda, B. Ozyilmaz and A. H. Castro Neto, Nature 529, 185-189 (2016)

    2016

  5. [10]

    X. Xi, H. Berger, L. Forro, J. Shan and K. F. Mak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 106801 (2016)

    2016

  6. [11]

    Yoshida, J

    M. Yoshida, J. Ye, T. Nishizaki, N. Kobayashi and Y. Iwasa,Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 202602 (2016)

    2016

  7. [12]

    L. Li, C. Chen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Zheng, Z. Xu, Vi. M. Pereira, K. P. Loh and A. H. Castro Neto, Nano Lett. 6, 4126-4133 (2019)

    2019

  8. [13]

    Shiogai, Y

    J. Shiogai, Y. Ito, T. Mitsuhashi, T. Nojima and A. Tsukazaki, Nature Physics 12, 42-46 (2016)

    2016

  9. [14]

    Lei, J.H

    B. Lei, J.H. Cui, Z.J. Xiang, C. Shang, N.Z. Wang, G.J. Ye, X.G. Luo, T. Wu, Z. Sun and X.H. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 077002 (2016)

    2016

  10. [15]

    Hanzawa, H

    K. Hanzawa, H. Sato, H. Hiramatsu, T. Kamiya and H. Hosono, PNAS 113 (15) , 3986- 3990 (2016)

    2016

  11. [16]

    C. S. Zhu, J. H. Cui, B. Lei, N. Z. Wang, C. Shang, F.B. Meng, L.K. Ma, X.G. Luo, T. Wu, Z. Sun and X. H. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 95, 174513 (2017)

    2017

  12. [17]

    Tomoki Miyakawa, Junichi Shiogai, Sunao Shimizu, Michio Matsumoto, Yukihiro Ito, Takayuki Harada, Kohei Fujiwara, Tsutomu Nojima, Yoshimitsu Itoh, Takuzo Aida, Yoshihiro Iwasa and Atsushi Tsukazaki, Phys. Rev. Materials 2, 031801(R) (2018)

    2018

  13. [18]

    Kouno, Y

    S. Kouno, Y. Sato, Y. Katayama, A. Ichinose, D. Asami, F. Nabeshima, Y. Imai, A. Maeda and Kazunori Ueno , Sci. Rep. 8, 14731 (2018)

    2018

  14. [19]

    Gonnelli, Phys

    Erik Piatti, Takafumi Hatano, Dario Daghero, Francesco Galanti, Claudio Gerbaldi, Salvatore Guastella, Chiara Portesi, Ibuki Nakamura, Ryosuke Fujimoto, Kazumasa Iida, Hiroshi Ikuta and Renato S. Gonnelli, Phys. Rev. Materials 3, 044801 (2019)

    2019

  15. [20]

    Bollinger, G

    A.T. Bollinger, G. Dubuis, J. Yoon, D. Pavuna, J. Misewich and I. Bozovic, Nature (London) 472, 458 (2011)

    2011

  16. [21]

    X. Leng, J. Garcia-Barriocanal, S. Bose, Y. Lee, and A.M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 027001 (2011). Theoretical explanation of electric field-induced superconductive critical temperature shifts in Indium thin films12

    2011

  17. [22]

    X. Leng, J. Garcia-Barriocanal, B. Yang, Y. Lee, J. Kinney, and A.M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 067004 (2012)

    2012

  18. [23]

    Maruyama, J

    S. Maruyama, J. Shin, X. Zhang, R. Suchoski, S. Yasui, K. Jin, R.L. Greene, and I. Takeuchi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 142602 (2015)

    2015

  19. [24]

    K. Jin, W. Hu, B. Zhu, J. Yuan, Y. Sun, T. Xiang, M.S. Fuhrer, I. Takeuchi, and R.L. Greene, Sci. Rep. 6, 26642 (2016)

    2016

  20. [25]

    A. Fte, L. Rossi, A. Augieri, and C. Senatore, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 192601 (2016)

    2016

  21. [26]

    Burlachkov, I.B

    L. Burlachkov, I.B. Khalfin, and B.Ya. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. B 48, 1156 (1993)

    1993

  22. [28]

    Walter, H

    J. Walter, H. Wang, B. Luo, C.D. Frisbie, and C. Leighton, ACS Nano 10, 7799 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    Paolucci, G

    F. Paolucci, G. De Simoni, E. Strambini, P. Solinas and F. Giazotto, Nano Lett. 7, 4195- 4199 (2018)

    2018

  24. [31]

    Paolucci, G

    F. Paolucci, G. De Simoni, P. Solinas, E. Strambini, N. Ligato, P. Virtanen, A. Braggio and F. Giazotto, Phys. Rev. Applied 11, 024061 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    Glover, III and M.D

    R.E. Glover, III and M.D. Sherrill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 248 (1960)

    1960

  26. [33]

    Ummarino, E

    G.A. Ummarino, E. Piatti, D. Daghero, R.S. Gonnelli, Irina Yu. Sklyadneva, E.V. Chulkov and R. Heid, Phys. Rev. B 96, 064509 (2017)

    2017

  27. [34]

    Ummarino and D

    G.A. Ummarino and D. Romanin, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 31, 024001 (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    Romanin, Th

    D. Romanin, Th. Sohier, D. Daghero, F. Mauri, R.S. Gonnelli and M. Calandra, Appl. Surf. Sci. , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.143709 (2019)

    2019

  29. [36]

    Carbotte, Rev

    J.P. Carbotte, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 1027 (1990)

    1990

  30. [37]

    Ummarino, Eliashberg Theory

    G.A. Ummarino, Eliashberg Theory. In: Emergent Phenomena in Correlated Matter , edited by E. Pavarini, E. Koch, and U. Schollw¨ ock, Forschungszentrum J¨ ulich GmbH and Institute for Advanced Simulations, pp.13.1-13.36 (2013) ISBN 978-3-89336-884-6

    2013

  31. [38]

    Piatti, D

    E. Piatti, D. Romanin, R.S. Gonnelli and D. Daghero, Appl. Surf. Sci. 461, 17-22 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    McMillan, Phys

    W.L. McMillan, Phys. Rev. 175, 537, (1968)

    1968

  33. [40]

    Schachinger and J.P

    E. Schachinger and J.P. Carbotte, J. Low Temp. Phys. 54, 129 (1984)

    1984

  34. [41]

    Zarate and J.P

    H.G. Zarate and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B 35, 3256, (1987)

    1987

  35. [42]

    Zarate and J.P

    H.G. Zarate and J.P. Carbotte, Physica B+ C 135, 203 (1985)

    1985

  36. [43]

    Kresin, H

    V.Z. Kresin, H. Morawitz, and S A. Wolf, Mechanisms of Conventional and High Tc Superconductivity, Oxford University Press (1999)

    1999

  37. [44]

    Pines and P

    D. Pines and P. Nozieres, The theory of quantum liquids , Benjamin, New York (1966)

    1966

  38. [45]

    Brumme, M

    T. Brumme, M. Calandra, and F. Mauri, Phys Rev. B 91, 155436 (2015)

    2015

  39. [46]

    Sohier, M.Calandra, F.Mauri, Phys

    Th. Sohier, M.Calandra, F.Mauri, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075448 (2017)

    2017

  40. [47]

    Matter 21, 395502 (2009)

    P.Giannozzi, et al, J.Phys.: Condens. Matter 21, 395502 (2009)

    2009

  41. [48]

    Matter 29, 465901 (2017)

    P.Giannozzi, et al, J.Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  42. [49]

    Rudin, R

    Sven P. Rudin, R. Bauer, Amy Y. Liu and J. K. Freericks, Phys. Rev. B 58, 14511 (1998)

    1998

  43. [50]

    Methfessel and A

    M. Methfessel and A. T. Paxton, Phys. Rev. B 40, 3616 (1989)

    1989

  44. [52]

    Wierzbowska, S

    M. Wierzbowska, S. de Gironcoli and P. Giannozzi, arXiv:cond-mat/0504077 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Allen and R

    P.B. Allen and R. C. Dynes, Phys. Rev. B 12, 905 (1975)

    1975

  46. [54]

    Hirsch, Phys

    J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B 70, 226504 (2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    Eichele, W

    R. Eichele, W. Kern, and R.P. Huebener, Appl. Phys. 25, 95 (1981)

    1981

  48. [56]

    S. Bose, C. Galande, S. P. Chockalingam, R. Banerjee, P. Raychaudhuri, and P. Ayyub, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 21, 205702 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

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