Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Microscopic equivalence of the vortex-entry current and the depairing current in a superconducting thin-film strip

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In an ideal superconducting strip, the vortex-entry current and the depairing current are the same at every temperature.

desk verdict Full-temperature Usadel derivation makes vortex entry and depairing the same spinodal for the ideal dirty strip; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.11518 v2 pith:STRBAAJP submitted 2026-07-13 cond-mat.supr-con physics.ins-det

Takayuki Kubo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-conphysics.ins-det
keywords vortex-entrycurrentdepairingUsadeltheoryfixed-currentGibbsfunctionalspinodalinstabilitythin-filmsuperconductingstripsaddle-nodebifurcationPearl–London
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 aims to prove that, for an ideal homogeneous dirty-limit superconducting thin-film strip carrying a dc current in zero applied field, the current at which a vortex can first enter from the edge is exactly the depairing current—the current at which the superconducting condensate can no longer sustain the superflow—at every temperature below T_c. Previous phenomenological estimates of vortex entry relied on a hand-set core cutoff and could not determine the temperature dependence. The paper reformulates vortex entry as the loss of local stability of the vortex-free current-carrying state in the fixed-current Gibbs functional of Usadel theory, which is valid over the full temperature range. It finds that the barrier-disappearance condition is algebraically identical to the depairing condition dJ/dQ=0, so both describe the same spinodal. If correct, this gives a cutoff-free determination of J_v(T) and unifies two previously separate critical currents.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fixed-current Gibbs functional G = F − √π J_ext ∫Q_y of dirty-limit Usadel theory, valid at all temperatures below T_c. The central identity is Eq. (28), which connects the minimized curvature of the uniform-mode second variation (KL−M²) to the slope dJ/dQ of the self-consistent current–momentum curve. Combined with the saddle-node bifurcation argument—the entry barrier disappears when the vortex-free local minimum and a saddle merge—and the proof that nonuniform cosine/Fourier modes with Neumann boundary conditions only add positive stiffness, this identity forces J_v = J_dp.

What would settle it

Compute the fully nonlinear saddle-point solution of the current-biased Usadel Gibbs functional for an ideal strip: if the barrier-removal (saddle-node) current occurs below the current where dJ/dQ=0, the equality fails. Equivalently, an experiment detecting vortex entry below the depairing current in a clean, homogeneous narrow strip would disprove J_v(T)=J_dp(T).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The microscopic calculation shows that the condition for disappearance of the vortex-entry barrier and the depairing condition are not independent: Eq. (28) establishes the identity dJ/dQ = (2J_s0/√π K)(KL − M²), so the barrier-disappearance criterion KL−M²=0 is exactly the vanishing of the slope of the self-consistent current–momentum curve, the depairing condition. Both identify the same loss of local stability of the vortex-free current-carrying state—the same spinodal. A separate analysis of spatially nonuniform perturbations shows they carry additional positive stiffness and cannot become unstable before the uniform mode, so the uniform mode sets the vortex-entry current. Consequently J

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the vortex-entry barrier disappears exactly when the vortex-free state loses linear stability through the uniform mode, and that no spatially nonuniform or finite-amplitude configuration creates a lower threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The temperature dependence of the vortex-entry current is now fixed by the well-studied depairing curve, with no free cutoff.
  • The edge barrier in an ideal strip vanishes exactly at the depairing spinodal; below that current the vortex-free state is locally stable against all small perturbations.
  • In ideal narrow strips, dissipative vortex entry and pair-breaking onset coincide, so measurements of one can constrain the other.
  • The same stability/spinodal logic used for the superheating field is extended to the vortex-entry problem, giving a unified picture of metastability limits.
  • The Pearl–London core-cutoff ambiguity in J_v is resolved by the microscopic derivation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • For realistic strips with current crowding, edge roughness, or self-field effects, the equivalence is expected to break; vortex entry should occur at a lower current, so J_v ≤ J_dp generally.
  • A finite-amplitude sub-spinodal 'doorway' configuration connecting the vortex-free state to a vortex state, not captured by linear stability analysis, would also violate the equality; numerically searching for such solutions is a direct test.
  • The equality offers a practical calibration: in narrow-strip devices such as nanowire detectors, vortex-assisted dark-count onset should track J_dp(T) if the strip is ideal, providing a check on material quality.
  • The same fixed-current functional method could be adapted to finite applied fields or to clean-limit strips, where the spinodal structure may differ.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies an ideal dirty-limit superconducting thin-film strip at zero applied field, with self-field effects neglected, using the fixed-current Usadel Gibbs functional. It analyzes the second variation of the vortex-free current-carrying state under both uniform and nonuniform perturbations, derives the identity Eq. (28) relating the uniform-mode stability condition KL−M^2=0 to the depairing condition dJ/dQ=0, and concludes that the vortex-entry current and the depairing current coincide for all 0<T<T_c. The algebra is internally consistent and the nonuniform-mode stability argument is carefully presented, but the physical identification of the vortex-entry current with the loss of local stability of the vortex-free state is the load-bearing assumption of the paper.

Significance. If established, the result would remove the core-cutoff ambiguity of Pearl–London theory and determine the full temperature dependence of the vortex-entry current. The paper is valuable for its explicit microscopic treatment of the second variation of the Usadel functional and for the clean algebraic identity connecting the uniform stability limit to dJ/dQ. The nonuniform-mode argument, showing that the uniform mode is the first infinitesimal instability, is a useful contribution. However, the significance is conditional: the paper proves an equivalence between two stability conditions, not that the conventional finite-amplitude vortex-entry barrier disappears at that same current.

major comments (2)
  1. [§I and §II.D, Eq. (29)] The central identification of the vortex-entry current with the spinodal of the vortex-free state is not established. The saddle-node argument in §I assumes that the vortex-entry saddle annihilates with the vortex-free state. In the standard edge-barrier problem, the barrier is a finite-amplitude saddle located at a finite distance from the edge; the barrier can disappear when this saddle merges with the edge/boundary solution while the vortex-free state remains a strict local minimum. The proof in §II.C that no nonuniform linear mode becomes soft before the uniform mode does not exclude such a finite-amplitude saddle at lower current. A strict local minimum can coexist with a finite-amplitude barrier to a topologically distinct state. Therefore Eq. (28), while algebraically correct, does not by itself imply Eq. (29); one would need to compute the actual Usadel (or, near T_c, GL) saddle
  2. [Abstract and Eq. (28)] The stated equivalence is substantially definitional. The abstract defines vortex entry as 'the loss of local stability of the vortex-free current-carrying state,' and Eq. (28) then shows that this condition is algebraically identical to dJ/dQ=0. With that definition, J_v=J_dp is not an independent discovery but a consequence of the definition. The conclusion that the result is 'not merely that two current densities have the same value' is undercut: the two criteria are made the same by construction. To make the claimed physical equivalence meaningful, J_v should be defined independently—for example as the current at which the finite-amplitude barrier for vortex nucleation at the edge vanishes—and then computed within the same microscopic functional.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Page 5 below Eq. (21)] The claim that the cosine/Fourier basis is 'complete for all allowed small perturbations' is plausible for δθ_n with Neumann boundary conditions, but δ∆ has no stated boundary condition and is merely expanded in the same cosine basis. A short justification of why this is admissible would improve clarity.
  2. [Eq. (28)] J(Q) is defined in the text as the positive magnitude of the dimensionless current density. Since the derivative dJ/dQ can be negative on the far side of the maximum, the sign and absolute-value convention should be stated before Eq. (28), otherwise the reader may question the sign of the identity.
  3. [§I, Pearl–London discussion] The paper would benefit from an explicit statement that the Pearl–London barrier profile G(X;I) is a prescribed-vortex-coordinate energy, not a path in the full order-parameter functional, to make the distinction between the finite-amplitude edge barrier and the linear stability limit clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (28) is a derived identity, not an input; vortex-entry barrier disappearance is linked to loss of stability by saddle-node theory, not by definition.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The paper defines the vortex-entry current physically as the current at which the edge barrier for vortex entry disappears (a finite-saddle barrier), then uses a standard saddle-node argument to relate barrier disappearance to loss of local stability of the vortex-free state: while the state is a strict local minimum, any continuous vortex-entry path must first climb in energy, so the barrier cannot vanish. This is a mathematical theorem, not a definitional equivalent. The paper then computes the quadratic curvature of the fixed-current Usadel Gibbs functional, minimizes over the gap and spectral-angle perturbations, and shows the minimized curvature is (KL-M^2)/K. It separately proves that all nonuniform modes have strictly larger curvature, so the uniform mode sets the stability limit. Finally, Eq. (28) is an explicitly derived identity, dJ/dQ = (2 J_s0 / sqrt(pi) K)(KL-M^2), obtained by differentiating the self-consistent current-momentum relation along the physical solution branch. This identity is the result of a calculation, not an assumed equivalence: it shows algebraically that the barrier-disappearance condition KL-M^2=0 and the depairing condition dJ/dQ=0 coincide. The depairing current is independently defined as the maximum of the current-momentum curve, and the vortex-entry barrier is independently defined by the saddle-node picture; their equality is the paper's claim, not its premise. No parameters are fitted, no result is imported as a black box, and the self-citations (e.g., Refs. [11,13,14]) are used only for conventions or previously established J_dp(T) curves, not to force the central equivalence. The main assumptions (ideal homogeneous strip, self-field neglected, cosine/Fourier completeness) are stated scope limitations rather than circular inputs. Therefore no circular step can be identified by quoting a specific reduction of the conclusion to its own inputs.

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

The derivation is a self-contained calculation within an existing microscopic theory; no free parameters are fitted to data and no entities are invented. What the argument pulls from prior literature or postulates without independent verification: the validity of the dirty-limit Usadel functional over the full temperature range, the fixed-current Legendre (Gibbs) construction as the correct ensemble, the identification of vortex-entry barrier disappearance with loss of local stability (saddle-node argument, borrowed from superheating-field analyses [19–22]), and the assumption that the cosine/Fourier mode basis with Neumann boundary conditions captures all destabilizing perturbations. The inequalities d_n>0, K>0 on the physical branch are stated and justified by sign analysis. None of these is a fitted constant; each is a stated modeling assumption.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Usadel (dirty-limit quasiclassical) theory is the correct microscopic description of the strip for 0<T<Tc
    The entire calculation operates inside this framework; dirty-limit s-wave BCS with the local functional Eq. (4). Standard for the stated regime (ideal homogeneous dirty strip) but not derived here.
  • domain assumption The fixed-current Gibbs functional G = F − √π J_ext ∫ Q_y (Eq. 5) is the correct variational principle for the current-biased problem
    Legendre transform with respect to the longitudinal phase gradient; a standard construction but a modeling choice whose consequences the equivalence result inherits.
  • domain assumption Vortex-entry barrier disappearance coincides with loss of local stability of the vortex-free state (saddle-node bifurcation)
    Argued in §I and §II.D via continuity and merging of minimum with saddle, following the superheating-field logic [19–22]; the saddle is never computed directly, so the barrier itself is never evaluated.
  • domain assumption Allowed perturbations are generated by the cosine/Fourier basis with Neumann conditions; δQ is curl-free; δ∆ has no independent boundary condition
    §II.C. Relies on ideal insulating edges, no edge roughness, and the self-field-free condition. Completeness is asserted for 'all allowed small perturbations'.
  • standard math On the physical branch, d_n = Ω_n/c_n + Q²c_n² > 0 and K = (∂h/∂∆)_Q > 0
    Sign analysis from the uniform Usadel equation and the gap-equation slope; needed for the stiffness-ordering inequalities and for the elimination of η and α_n to give a minimum.
  • domain assumption Self-field neglect is justified by W ≪ Λ (Pearl length)
    §II.A: 'the magnetic self-field of the transport current can be neglected.' This is what makes Q uniform in the vortex-free state, and it confines the result to narrow strips.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic equivalence of the vortex-entry current and the depairing current in a superconducting thin-film strip." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/STRBAAJP

@misc{pith2026260711518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic equivalence of the vortex-entry current and the depairing current in a superconducting thin-film strip},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/STRBAAJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11518}
}
abstract

The vortex-entry current density $J_{\rm v}$ of a superconducting strip is usually defined, within phenomenological Pearl--London theory, as the current density at which the edge barrier for vortex entry disappears. In that approach, $J_{\rm v}$ depends on a short-distance core cutoff introduced by hand, and its temperature dependence cannot be determined within the same framework. To remove this cutoff ambiguity and determine the temperature dependence, one needs a microscopic calculation of the vortex-entry current. Nevertheless, such a microscopic calculation has never been carried out. Here, we formulate and solve this problem for an ideal homogeneous dirty-limit superconducting thin-film strip at zero applied field, with self-field effects neglected. Vortex entry is treated as the loss of local stability of the vortex-free current-carrying state. The calculation uses the fixed-current Gibbs functional of Usadel theory, which is valid over the full temperature range $0<T<T_c$, and examines both spatially uniform and nonuniform perturbations. The microscopic calculation shows that the condition for disappearance of the vortex-entry barrier is identical to the depairing condition. The central result is not merely that two current densities have the same value. The criterion for disappearance of the vortex-entry barrier and the depairing criterion are not independent conditions. Both identify the same loss of local stability of the vortex-free current-carrying state, namely, the same spinodal. Consequently, $J_{\rm v}(T)=J_{\rm dp}(T)$ for all $0<T<T_c$. This result determines the temperature dependence of $J_{\rm v}$, removes the Pearl--London core-cutoff ambiguity, and establishes the microscopic equivalence of the vortex-entry and depairing current criteria.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Microscopic theory of the field-induced instability of the vortex-free state in superconducting thin-film strips

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A Usadel-theory stability analysis determines the vortex-free-state instability field of a superconducting thin-film strip without a core cutoff, yielding three width regimes and B_s proportional to 1/W in wide strips.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K. K. Likharev, The formation of a mixed state in planar semiconductor films, Radiophys. Quantum Electron.6, 722 (1972)

    1972

  2. [2]

    G. M. Maksimova, Mixed state and critical current in narrow semiconducting films, Phys. Solid State40, 1607 (1998)

    1998

  3. [3]

    Bartolf, A

    H. Bartolf, A. Engel, A. Schilling, K. Il’in, M. Siegel, H.- W. H¨ ubers, and A. Semenov, Current-assisted thermally activated flux liberation in ultrathin nanopatterned NbN superconducting meander structures, Phys. Rev. B81, 024502 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Yamashita, S

    T. Yamashita, S. Miki, K. Makise, W. Qiu, H. Terai, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, and Z. Wang, Origin of intrinsic dark count in superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Appl. Phys. Lett.99, 161105 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Tafuri, J

    F. Tafuri, J. R. Kirtley, D. Born, D. Stornaiuolo, P. G. Medaglia, P. Orgiani, G. Balestrino, and V. G. Kogan, Dissipation in ultra-thin current-carrying superconduct- ing bridges; evidence for quantum tunneling of Pearl vor- tices, Europhys. Lett.,73, 948 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    L. N. Bulaevskii, M. J. Graf, and V. G. Kogan, Vortex- assisted photon counts and their magnetic field depen- dence in single-photon superconducting detectors, Phys. Rev. B85, 014505 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Kubo, Tuning Critical Field, Critical Current, and Diode Effect of Narrow Thin-Film Superconductors through Engineering Inhomogeneous Pearl Length, Phys

    T. Kubo, Tuning Critical Field, Critical Current, and Diode Effect of Narrow Thin-Film Superconductors through Engineering Inhomogeneous Pearl Length, Phys. Rev. Applied20, 034033 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Maki, On Persistent Currents in a Superconducting Alloy

    K. Maki, On Persistent Currents in a Superconducting Alloy. I, Prog. Theor. Phys.29, 10 (1963)

    1963

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    M. Yu. Kupriyanov and V. F. Lukichev, Temperature dependence of pair-breaking current in superconductors, Fiz. Nizk. Temp.6, 445 (1980) [Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. 6, 210 (1980)]

    1980

  2. [10]

    J. R. Clem and V. G. Kogan, Kinetic impedance and de- pairing in thin and narrow superconducting films, Phys. Rev. B86, 174521 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Kubo, Superfluid flow in disordered superconductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depairing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating field, Phys

    T. Kubo, Superfluid flow in disordered superconductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depairing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating field, Phys. Rev. Research2, 033203 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Kubo, Erratum: Superfluid flow in disordered super- conductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depair- ing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating field [Phys

    T. Kubo, Erratum: Superfluid flow in disordered super- conductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depair- ing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating field [Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033203 (2020)], Phys. Rev. Re- search6, 039002(E) (2024)

    2020

  5. [13]

    T. Kubo, Effects of Nonmagnetic Impurities and Subgap States on the Kinetic Inductance, Complex Conductivity, Quality Factor, and Depairing Current Density, Physical Review Applied17, 014018 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Kubo, Higgs-mode-induced instability and kinetic in- ductance in strongly dc-biased dirty-limit superconduc- tors, Physical Review Applied23, 054091 (2025)

    T. Kubo, Higgs-mode-induced instability and kinetic in- ductance in strongly dc-biased dirty-limit superconduc- tors, Physical Review Applied23, 054091 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    B. J. Baelus, F. M. Peeters, and V. A. Schweigert, Saddle- point states and energy barriers for vortex entrance and exit in superconducting disks and rings, Phys. Rev. B63, 144517 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    D. Y. Vodolazov, I. L. Maksimov, and E. H. Brandt, Vor- tex entry conditions in type-II superconductors: Effect of surface defects, Physica C384, 211 (2003). 6

    2003

  9. [17]

    D. Y. Vodolazov, Saddle point states in two-dimensional superconducting films biased near the depairing current, Phys. Rev. B 85, 174507 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    S. H. Strogatz,Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engi- neering, 3rd ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    M. K. Transtrum, G. Catelani, and J. P. Sethna, Su- perheating field of superconductors within Ginzburg– Landau theory, Phys. Rev. B83, 094505 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    W. P. M. R. Pathirana and A. Gurevich, Superheating Field in Superconductors with Nanostructured Surfaces, Front. Electron. Mater.3, 1246016 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Catelani and James P

    G. Catelani and James P. Sethna, Temperature depen- dence of the superheating field for superconductors in the high-κLondon limit, Phys. Rev. B78, 224509 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    T. Kubo, Superheating field of clean superconductors near the type-I–type-II boundary: the low-temperature Meissner stability limit of niobium, arXiv:2606.10420 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gurevich and T

    A. Gurevich and T. Kubo, Surface impedance and op- timum surface resistance of a superconductor with an imperfect surface, Phys. Rev. B96, 184515 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Buzdin and M

    A. Buzdin and M. Daumens, Electromagnetic pinning of vortices on different types of defects, Physica C294, 257 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    A. Yu. Aladyshkin, A. S. Melnikov, I. A. Shereshevsky, and I. D. Tokman, What is the best gate for vortex entry into type-II superconductor? Physica C361, 67 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    T. Kubo, Field limit and nano-scale surface topography of superconducting radio-frequency cavity made of ex- treme type II superconductor, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2015, 063G01 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    E. M. Lechner, O. Trofimova, J. W. Angle, M. C. DiGu- ilio, and U. Pudasaini, Analysis of thermal grooving ef- fects on vortex penetration in vapor-diffused Nb3Sn, Su- perconductor Science and Technology38, 01LT01 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    A. J. Kerman, E. A. Dauler, J. K. W. Yang, K. M. Ros- fjord, V. Anant, K. K. Berggren, G. Gol’tsman, and B. Voronov, Constriction-limited detection efficiency of su- perconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Appl. Phys. Lett.90, 101110 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    H. L. Hortensius, E. F. C. Driessen, T. M. Klapwijk, K. K. Berggren, and J. R. Clem, Critical-current reduction in thin superconducting wires due to current crowding, Appl. Phys. Lett.100, 182602 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    J. R. Clem and K. K. Berggren, Geometry-dependent critical currents in superconducting nanocircuits, Phys. Rev. B84, 174510 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    J. R. Clem, Y. Mawatari, G. R. Berdiyorov, and F. M. Peeters, Predicted field-dependent increase of criti- cal currents in asymmetric superconducting nanocircuits, Phys. Rev. B85, 144511 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Baghdadi, E

    R. Baghdadi, E. Schmidt, S. Jahani, I. Charaev, M. G. W. Muller, M. Colangelo, D. Zhu, K. Ilin, A. D. Semenov, Z. Jacob, M. Siegel, and K. K. Berggren, Enhancing the performance of superconducting nanowire-based detec- tors with high-filling factor by using variable thickness,...

    2021

  25. [33]

    J¨ onsson, R

    M. J¨ onsson, R. Vedin, S. Gyger, J. A. Sutton, S. Stein- hauer, V. Zwiller, M. Wallin, and J. Lidmar, Cur- rent Crowding in Nanoscale Superconductors within the Ginzburg–Landau Model, Phys. Rev. Applied17, 064046 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Jahani, L.-P

    S. Jahani, L.-P. Yang, A. Buganza Tepole, J. C. Bardin, H. X. Tang, and Z. Jacob, Probabilistic vortex crossing criterion for superconducting nanowire single-photon de- tectors, J. Appl. Phys.127, 143101 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    T. Kubo, An Encouraging of Paternity Leave: A Physi- cist Who Has Become a Stay-at-Home Dad in New York, KASOKUKI,20, 50 (2023) [Journal of the Particle Ac- celerator Society of Japan20, 50 (2023)]

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.