Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Phase-controlled spin and charge currents in superconductor-ferromagnet hybrids

T0 review · 2 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 four-terminal superconductor–ferromagnet device can generate equal-spin triplet Cooper pairs and detect them as a net charge current between the ferromagnets.

desk verdict A new four-terminal S/F device concept with a clever spin-mixing-induced triplet detector, but the detection claim is not controlled against ordinary interfacial asymmetry—the missing Δ=0 baseline is the main issue. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09610 v1 pith:CR7SPR5K submitted 2019-08-26 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Ali Rezaei , Robert Hussein , Akashdeep Kamra , Wolfgang Belzig This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords superconductingspintronicsequal-spintripletcorrelationsspin-mixingconductanceJosephson0-pitransitioncircuittheorysuperconductor-ferromagnethybridCooperpairschargecurrentdetection
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 analyzes a four-terminal diffusive circuit: a central node connected to two superconductors and two ferromagnets. It claims that voltage-biasing the ferromagnetic contacts creates spin-triplet correlations on the node, can flip the sign of the Josephson current between the two superconductors, and generates spin currents whose size and direction are controlled by the angle $\theta$ between the two magnetizations. The central new claim is that when the two ferromagnet interfaces have different spin-mixing conductances, the noncollinear magnetizations produce equal-spin triplet correlations on the node, and those correlations show up as a net charge current between the two ferromagnetic terminals. This would make the normally elusive equal-spin triplet Cooper pairs directly visible in an ordinary charge-current measurement, without spin-sensitive detection.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by quasiclassical circuit theory. The device is reduced to a single central node whose $8\times 8$ Keldysh–Nambu–spin Green function $\check G_c$ is fixed by the matrix-current conservation condition $\sum_n \check I_n = 0$ together with the normalization $\check G_c^2 = 1$. Each terminal contributes a matrix current $\check I_n = [\check M_n, \check G_c]$: the superconductors supply BCS Green functions with phases $\pm\phi/2$ and gap $\Delta$, the ferromagnets are described by boundary matrices containing the polarization $P$ and the spin-mixing conductances $G^\phi_\alpha$, and a leakage terminal models the loss of superconducting correlations. From the resulting Green function one extracts the charge and spin currents as traces of Keldysh components, and the pairing amplitudes $f_{ss'}$ whose positive-energy integrals define the singlet, mixed-triplet, and equal-spin triplet correlation functions. The mechanism behind the central finding is the asymmetry $G^\phi_1 \neq G^\phi_2$: it unbalances the two spin channels, so the noncollinear magnetization geometry converts into equal-spin triplet weight on the node that appears as a measurable charge imbalance between the ferromagnets.

What would settle it

Build a four-terminal sample with deliberately unequal spin-mixing conductances at the two ferromagnet interfaces, hold the superconductors at zero voltage, apply equal voltage $V>\Delta/e$ to both ferromagnets, and measure the charge current between the ferromagnetic terminals as the angle $\theta$ is rotated. The claim predicts a net $I_F$ that is zero at $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\pi$, reaches a maximum at intermediate angles, tracks the equal-spin triplet amplitudes, and reverses when $G^\phi_1$ and $G^\phi_2$ are interchanged; a well-characterized device showing no such current would refute the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a diffusive superconductor–ferromagnet heterostructure with one common node and two superconducting plus two ferromagnetic terminals can generate, control, and detect equal-spin triplet Cooper pairs. Solving the matrix-current conservation equations for the node Green function, the authors find that a voltage $V$ applied to the ferromagnets, combined with a noncollinear relative magnetization $0<\theta<\pi$, induces triplet correlations that can reverse the current–phase relation between the superconductors and drive net spin currents into both the superconducting and ferromagnetic terminals. The new result is that unequal spin-mixing conductances at the two ferromagnet interfaces, $G^\phi_1\neq G^\phi_2$, break the balance between spin channels and create equal-spin triplet amplitudes $|F_{T\uparrow}|$ and $|F_{T\downarrow}|$ on the node. These equal-spin correlations are accompanied by a net charge current $I_F$ between the ferromagnets, with the same dependence on $\theta$ as the triplet amplitudes; the current is zero for parallel and antiparallel magnetizations, survives at zero Josephson phase, and reverses when the two spin-mixing conductances are exchanged. The authors therefore propose $I_F$ as a direct electrical signature of equal-spin triplet superconductivity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ferromagnet–superconductor interfaces are fully polarized ($P=1$) and obey a boundary condition with energy-independent spin-mixing conductances plus a simple leakage term; if real interfaces have lower polarization or stronger energy dependence, the predicted equal-spin triplet charge current could shrink substantially or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A voltage bias on the ferromagnetic contacts can reverse the Josephson current between the superconductors, so the same structure works as a voltage-controlled $0$–$\pi$ switch.
  • The relative magnetization angle $\theta$ tunes the ratio of the spin current sent into the superconductors versus the ferromagnets, allowing the circuit to route spin flow between different terminals.
  • Equal-spin triplet correlations, which usually demand spin-sensitive or long-range supercurrent detection, become visible as a net charge current $I_F$ between the ferromagnets whenever $G^\phi_1 \neq G^\phi_2$ and $0<\theta<\pi$.
  • The predicted charge signal persists at zero Josephson phase and inverts under an exchange $G^\phi_1 \leftrightarrow G^\phi_2$, giving a sharp, controllable signature for experiments.
  • In the small-island limit ($\epsilon_{\mathrm{Th}}\gg\Delta$) the signal scales with $\Delta$, while in the large-island limit ($\epsilon_{\mathrm{Th}}\ll\Delta$) it scales with $\epsilon_{\mathrm{Th}}$, so it should be observable in two very different device sizes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is that any superconducting node attached to two ferromagnet interfaces with different spin-mixing conductances should show the same triplet-induced charge imbalance, not only the specific four-terminal layout calculated here.
  • A testable extension would be to compare $I_F$ with tunneling-spectroscopy measurements of $|F_{T\uparrow}|$ and $|F_{T\downarrow}|$ on the node; the paper's own plots suggest $I_F$ should track the difference of these two amplitudes.
  • If the effect survives with realistic $P<1$ polarization, it could serve as a simple electrical probe of the spin-mixing conductance itself, since the predicted current depends on the mismatch $|G^\phi_1 - G^\phi_2|$.
  • Relaxing the assumption of fully polarized contacts would tell how large the asymmetry must be for conventional ferromagnet–insulator–superconductor interfaces to show the effect, which is the natural next step before building a device.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. Using the Keldysh–Nambu circuit theory of diffusive superconducting hybrid structures, the authors analyze a four-terminal device in which a central node is connected to two superconductors with phase difference φ and two ferromagnets with relative magnetization angle θ. They solve the matrix-current conservation equations for the node Green function, compute charge and spin currents into the terminals, and extract singlet and triplet pairing correlators. The results show voltage-induced 0–π transitions in the supercurrent, voltage-tunable spin currents into the ferromagnetic and superconducting terminals, and, for unequal spin-mixing conductances at the two ferromagnetic interfaces, a finite net charge current IF between the ferromagnets that follows the θ-dependence of the equal-spin triplet correlators. The central claim is that this charge current provides a convenient experimental detection of equal-spin triplet correlations.

Significance. If the detection claim holds, the proposed four-terminal circuit is a minimal and practical platform for generating and measuring equal-spin triplet correlations, an important goal in superconducting spintronics. The theoretical framework is standard and the numerical results are internally consistent: the equilibrium limit reproduces a sinusoidal current–phase relation, the supercurrent scales as εTh and Δ in the respective limits, and the sign inversion of IF under interchange of the two spin-mixing conductances reflects the expected exchange symmetry. The proposal is concrete and falsifiable, predicting a specific θ-dependence and a specific sign for IF. Its impact depends on the control calculation identified in the major comments below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Spin-mixing induced charge current, Fig. 3(a)] The central detection claim, that the net ferromagnetic charge current IF is a signature of equal-spin triplet correlations, is not controlled against normal-state transport. Because the two ferromagnetic contacts are deliberately asymmetric (Gφ1 = 0, Gφ2 = 2GN), a nonzero IF can already exist at Δ = 0 simply because the two contacts have different interface properties; the reported behavior IF → −IF under Gφ1 ↔ Gφ2 only reflects the exchange symmetry of the two contacts and does not by itself establish a triplet origin. The Letter reports no Δ = 0 calculation anywhere in the text or figures. The authors should compute IF(θ) with the superconducting gap set to zero (or with the superconducting terminals in the normal state) for the same parameters, and show that the triplet-induced part is obtained after subtracting this baseline. If a comparable IF(θ) survives in the normal state, the central claim must be substantially weakened or reframed as a differential measurement with a normal-state baseline.
  2. [Method, ferromagnetic boundary condition; Fig. 3] All numerical results, including the key figure Fig. 3, are obtained for fully polarized contacts, P = 1, and for the single value Gφ2 = 2GN. Since the stated goal is experimental detection of equal-spin triplet correlations, the robustness of the predicted signal to more realistic contact parameters should be quantified. The authors should add at least one panel or a clear statement showing how IF and the equal-spin correlators |FT↑| and |FT↓| vary with P (e.g., P = 0.5) and with the magnitude of the spin-mixing asymmetry Gφ2/GN. Without such a check, the experimental relevance of the effect is not demonstrated and the conclusions are tied to the fully polarized limit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] Typographical error: 'magnetic Josepshon junctions' should read 'magnetic Josephson junctions'.
  2. [Method, boundary condition for ferromagnets] The sentence containing 'κ̂α = 112⊗σz⊗ (mα·σ) is te spin matrix' contains a typo ('te' should be 'the'), and the same paragraph would benefit from a reminder that κ̂α is diagonal in Keldysh space after the Keldysh component is introduced.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption lists four quantities IS, IF, IzS, and IzF but does not identify which line style corresponds to which quantity; a legend or an explicit mapping (black solid, red dot-dashed, blue dashed, green dotted) would make the figure self-contained.
  4. [References] Reference [62] is listed as 'Y. N. O. A. I. Larkin', which appears garbled; the author list should be corrected, and the reference should be checked against the intended paper on quasiclassical transport theory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the circuit-theory equations are solved with stated inputs, and the triplet correlations and charge currents are computed outputs, not fitted parameters or renamed inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity check. The paper solves the conservation equation 0_8 = sum_n I_n with stated terminal Green functions (BCS in Eq. 1, ferromagnetic contacts with spin-mixing term, and a leakage terminal), computes node correlations and currents via Eqs. (2) and (3), and then reads off IS, IF, Iz, and the correlation functions FS, FT0, FTup, FTdown from the same solution. The central new claim — that unequal spin-mixing conductances produce equal-spin triplet correlations and a net ferromagnetic charge current — is an output of the numerical solution, not an input; no parameter is fitted to the plotted curves, and no prediction is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to explain. Self-citations to prior circuit-theory work by the same group provide the boundary-condition formalism, but that formalism is an independent modeling input with stated assumptions (e.g., P=1, the form of M_Leak) and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives. The concern that a Delta=0 normal-state baseline is missing is a robustness or interpretation issue for the detection claim, not a circularity: it does not identify any equation in which the predicted IF is equivalent by construction to the input asymmetry or to the triplet-correlation definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard circuit theory plus a specific spin-mixing boundary condition and idealized contact parameters. No new physical particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Spin-mixing conductance asymmetry = G_phi1 = 0, G_phi2 = 2 G_N
    Chosen by hand to demonstrate the key detection effect; no experimental fit.
  • Dynes broadening = Gamma = 10^-3 Delta
    Numerical smoothing of the superconducting gap in Eq. (1); affects subgap transport details.
  • Contact conductance ratio = G_S = G_N
    Equal conductances chosen for the symmetric base configuration.
  • Contact spin polarization = P = 1
    Fully polarized contacts assumed; a strong idealization for the proposed experimental device.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Nazarov diffusive circuit theory: matrix current conservation and normalization determine the node Green function.
    The central transport calculation relies on this framework; it is standard for mesoscopic superconductors but not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption BCS bulk Green functions with a Dynes broadening Gamma=10^-3 Delta describe the superconducting terminals.
    Eq. (1) and the surrounding text. This is the standard quasiclassical description of a superconducting reservoir.
  • domain assumption Ferromagnet boundary condition includes the spin-mixing term -i G^phi_alpha kappa_alpha and P=1 full polarization.
    Method section, expression for M_Falpha and the statement 'We further consider fully polarized ferromagnetic contacts, i.e. P=1'. The key detection effect is sensitive to this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Leakage terminal with M_Leak = -i G_S (epsilon/epsilon_Th) models loss of superconducting correlations.
    The linear-in-energy leakage is introduced 'to account for losses of superconducting correlations' without derivation; it sets the large-island and small-island crossover scale.
  • domain assumption Zero temperature, equal biases V_F1=V_F2, equal contact conductances G_S=G_N.
    Setup parameters stated in the Method section. They simplify the numerics and are not claimed to be optimal experimentally.
  • standard math Triplet pairing correlations are odd functions of energy, so integration over epsilon>0 characterizes them.
    Used in the definitions of F_S, F_T0, F_Ts; this is a standard symmetry property of the anomalous Green function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-controlled spin and charge currents in superconductor-ferromagnet hybrids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CR7SPR5K

@misc{pith2026190809610,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-controlled spin and charge currents in superconductor-ferromagnet hybrids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CR7SPR5K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09610}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate spin-dependent quasiparticle and Cooper-pair transport through a central node interfaced with two superconductors and two ferromagnets. We demonstrate that voltage biasing of the ferromagnetic contacts induces superconducting triplet correlations on the node and reverses the supercurrent flowing between the two superconducting contacts. We further find that such triplet correlations can mediate a tunable spin current flow into the ferromagnetic contacts. Our key finding is that unequal spin-mixing conductances for the two interfaces with the ferromagnets result in equal-spin triplet correlations on the node, detectable via a net charge current between the two magnets. Our proposed device thus enables the generation, control, and detection of the typically elusive equal-spin triplet Cooper pairs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09610 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) 4-terminal circuit consisting of two supercon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Modulus of the net supercurrent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Net charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Meissner, Phys

    H. Meissner, Phys. Rev. 117, 672 (1960)

    work page 1960

  2. [2]

    Where, this feature is attributed to the cre- ation of an imbalance in the ferromagnetic spin chan- nels, see Fig. 1(c). This effect also persists for vanishing Josephson phase ϕ. Under a mutual exchange of the spin-mixing conductances ( Gφ 1 ↔ Gφ 2), the net charge current IF just inverts. An experimentally measurable charge current IF serves also in the ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    P. G. De Gennes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36, 225 (1964)

    work page 1964

  4. [4]

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

    work page 1968

  5. [5]

    T. M. Klapwijk, J. Supercond. 17, 593 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    A. I. Buzdin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 935 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Machon, M

    P. Machon, M. Eschrig, and W. Belzig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 047002 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Machon, M

    P. Machon, M. Eschrig, and W. Belzig, New J. Phys. 16, 073002 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Ozaeta, P

    A. Ozaeta, P. Virtanen, F. S. Bergeret, and T. T. Heikkil¨ a, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 057001 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Giazotto, P

    F. Giazotto, P. Solinas, A. Braggio, and F. S. Bergeret, Phys. Rev. Applied 4, 044016 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Kolenda, M

    S. Kolenda, M. J. Wolf, and D. Beckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 097001 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Kolenda, P

    S. Kolenda, P. Machon, D. Beckmann, and W. Belzig, Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 7, 1579 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Kolenda, C

    S. Kolenda, C. S¨ urgers, G. Fischer, and D. Beckmann, Phys. Rev. B 95, 224505 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Rezaei, A

    A. Rezaei, A. Kamra, P. Machon, and W. Belzig, New J. Phys. 20, 073034 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    S´ anchez, P

    R. S´ anchez, P. Burset, and A. L. Yeyati, Phys. Rev. B 98, 241414 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Hussein, M

    R. Hussein, M. Governale, S. Kohler, W. Belzig, F. Gia- zotto, and A. Braggio, Phys. Rev. B 99, 075429 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    N. S. Kirsanov, Z. B. Tan, D. S. Golubev, P. J. Hakonen, and G. B. Lesovik, Phys. Rev. B 99, 115127 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Linder and M

    J. Linder and M. E. Bathen, Phys. Rev. B 93, 224509 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    M. E. Bathen and J. Linder, Sci. Rep. 7, 41409 (2017). 5

    2017

  12. [20]

    W. S. Cole, S. Das Sarma, and T. D. Stanescu, Phys. Rev. B 92, 174511 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    C.-K. Chiu, W. S. Cole, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 94, 125304 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Halterman and M

    K. Halterman and M. Alidoust, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134510 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    H. Ren, F. Pientka, S. Hart, A. T. Pierce, M. Kosowsky, L. Lunczer, R. Schlereth, B. Scharf, E. M. Hankiewicz, L. W. Molenkamp, B. I. Halperin, and A. Yacoby, Nature 569, 93 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Blasi, F

    G. Blasi, F. Taddei, V. Giovannetti, and A. Braggio, Phys. Rev. B 99, 064514 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Kiendl, F

    T. Kiendl, F. von Oppen, and P. W. Brouwer, arXiv:1902.09798 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Johnson, Appl

    M. Johnson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 65, 1460 (1994)

    1994

  19. [27]

    C. H. L. Quay, D. Chevallier, C. Bena, and M. Aprili, Nat. Phys. 9, 84 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    F. S. Bergeret, M. Silaev, P. Virtanen, and T. T. Heikkil¨ a, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 041001 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    T. T. Heikkil¨ a, M. Silaev, P. Virtanen, and F. S. Berg- eret, arXiv:1902.09297 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kamra, A

    A. Kamra, A. Rezaei, and W. Belzig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 247702 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    M. J. Wolf, F. H¨ ubler, S. Kolenda, H. v. L¨ ohneysen, and D. Beckmann, Phys. Rev. B 87, 024517 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    B. D. Josephson, Adv. Phys. 14, 419 (1965)

    1965

  25. [33]

    Bloch, Phys

    F. Bloch, Phys. Rev. B 2, 109 (1970)

    1970

  26. [34]

    Three “universal

    C. W. J. Beenakker, “Three “universal” mesoscopic josephson effects,” in Transport Phenomena in Meso- scopic Systems: Proceedings of the 14th Taniguchi Sym- posium, Shima, Japan, November 10–14, 1991 , edited by H. Fukuyama and T. Ando (Springer, 1992) p. 235

    1991

  27. [35]

    V. V. Ryazanov, V. A. Oboznov, A. Y. Rusanov, A. V. Veretennikov, A. A. Golubov, and J. Aarts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2427 (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    R. S. Keizer, S. T. B. Goennenwein, T. M. Klapwijk, G. Miao, G. Xiao, and A. Gupta, Nature 439, 825 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Eschrig and T

    M. Eschrig and T. L¨ ofwander, Nat. Phys.4, 138 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    I. V. Bobkova and A. M. Bobkov, Phys. Rev. B 82, 024515 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    J. W. A. Robinson, J. D. S. Witt, and M. G. Blamire, Science 329, 59 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    M. S. Anwar, F. Czeschka, M. Hesselberth, M. Porcu, and J. Aarts, Phys. Rev. B 82, 100501 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    T. S. Khaire, M. A. Khasawneh, W. P. Pratt, and N. O. Birge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 137002 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    M. S. Anwar, M. Veldhorst, A. Brinkman, and J. Aarts, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 052602 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    A. A. Golubov, M. Y. Kupriyanov, and E. Il’ichev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 411 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    L. Klam, A. Epp, W. Chen, M. Sigrist, and D. Manske, Phys. Rev. B 89, 174505 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Delagrange, R

    R. Delagrange, R. Weil, A. Kasumov, M. Ferrier, H. Bouchiat, and R. Deblock, Physica B 536, 211 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    J. J. A. Baselmans, A. F. Morpurgo, B. J. van Wees, and T. M. Klapwijk, Superlattices Microstruct. 25, 973 (1999)

    1999

  39. [47]

    Kontos, M

    T. Kontos, M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, F. Genˆ et, B. Stephani- dis, and R. Boursier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137007 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Houzet and A

    M. Houzet and A. I. Buzdin, Phys. Rev. B 76, 060504 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    Blatter, V

    G. Blatter, V. B. Geshkenbein, and L. B. Ioffe, Phys. Rev. B 63, 174511 (2001)

    2001

  42. [50]

    Yamashita, K

    T. Yamashita, K. Tanikawa, S. Takahashi, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 097001 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    B. M. Niedzielski, E. C. Gingrich, R. Loloee, W. P. Pratt, and N. O. Birge, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 28, 085012 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    E. C. Gingrich, B. M. Niedzielski, J. A. Glick, Y. Wang, D. L. Miller, R. Loloee, W. P. Pratt Jr., and N. O. Birge, Nat. Phys. 12, 564 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Diesch, P

    S. Diesch, P. Machon, M. Wolz, C. S¨ urgers, D. Beck- mann, W. Belzig, and E. Scheer, Nat. Commun. 9, 5248 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Kadigrobov, R

    A. Kadigrobov, R. I. Shekhter, and M. Jonson, Euro- phys. Lett. 54, 394 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4096 (2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev. B 64, 134506 (2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    A. F. Volkov, F. S. Bergeret, and K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 117006 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1321 (2005)

    2005

  51. [59]

    T. E. Baker, A. Richie-Halford, and A. Bill, New J. Phys. 16, 093048 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    Eschrig, Phys

    M. Eschrig, Phys. Today 64, 43 (2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    Linder and J

    J. Linder and J. W. A. Robinson, Nat. Phys. 11, 307 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Eschrig, Rep

    M. Eschrig, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 104501 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    Y. N. O. A. I. Larkin, JETP 28, 1200 (1969)

    1969

  56. [64]

    A. L. Shelankov, J. Low Temp. Phys. 60, 29 (1985)

    1985

  57. [65]

    Rammer and H

    J. Rammer and H. Smith, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 323 (1986)

    1986

  58. [66]

    C. J. Lambert and R. Raimondi, J. Phys. 10, 901 (1998)

    1998

  59. [67]

    Belzig, F

    W. Belzig, F. K. Wilhelm, C. Bruder, G. Sch¨ on, and A. D. Zaikin, Superlattices Microstruct. 25, 1251 (1999)

    1999

  60. [68]

    Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1420 (1994)

    1994

  61. [69]

    Y. V. Nazarov, Superlattices Microstruct. 25, 1221 (1999)

    1999

  62. [70]

    indicates the Keldysh⊗Nambu⊗spin space of dimension 8× 8

    The symbol 0 n (11n) labels the zero (identity) matrix in n×n dimensions and the superscript ˇ... indicates the Keldysh⊗Nambu⊗spin space of dimension 8× 8

  63. [71]

    R. C. Dynes, J. P. Garno, G. B. Hertel, and T. P. Or- lando, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 2437 (1984)

    1984

  64. [72]

    J. P. Morten, D. Huertas-Hernando, W. Belzig, and A. Brataas, Phys. Rev. B 78, 224515 (2008)

    2008

  65. [73]

    Alidoust, J

    M. Alidoust, J. Linder, G. Rashedi, T. Yokoyama, and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. B 81, 014512 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    Halterman and M

    K. Halterman and M. Alidoust, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 29, 055007 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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