Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Characterization of Flux Trapping in and Fabrication of Large-Scale Superconductor Circuits Using AC-Biased Shift Registers With 108500 Josephson Junctions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Circuits with 108,500 Josephson junctions stay fully operational in every cooldown when guarded by 0.3-micron slit moats.

desk verdict A large, genuinely useful flux-trapping dataset with likely-correct design rules, but the '100% of cooldowns' and 'tc=0.6 µm' claims need cooldown counts and a better-validated margin proxy before they should be quoted as hard numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03343 v1 pith:UGD27NRC submitted 2025-01-06 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph

Evan B. Golden (1) , Neel A. Parmar (1) , Vasili K. Semenov (2) , Sergey K. Tolpygo (1) ((1) Lincoln Laboratory , Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Lexington , MA , USA
show 6 more authors
(2) Department of Physics Astronomy Stony Brook University Stony Brook NY USA)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph PACS 85.25.Cp74.25.Wx
keywords fluxtrappingsuperconductingintegratedcircuitsSFQshiftregistersmoatsJosephsonjunctionsgroundplanespacingfabricationyieldac-poweredregister
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

Flux trapping—magnetic vortices frozen into superconducting films as a chip cools—is one of the main barriers to scaling superconductor digital circuits beyond a few hundred thousand Josephson junctions. This paper demonstrates that the barrier can be removed at very large scale by testing six ac-powered single-flux-quantum shift registers per chip, totaling 108,500 Josephson junctions on each 5 mm by 5 mm chip, across dozens of cooldowns. Its central result is a design rule: congruent slit moats only 0.3 µm wide, occupying less than 2% of circuit area, sequestered all detrimental flux and left circuits fully operational in 100% of cooldowns at a residual field near 1.2 µT. A second rule follows from the same experiments: ground planes spaced closer than about 0.6 µm strongly enhance flux trapping and made circuits nonoperational in every cooldown, while per-cell margin statistics across more than three million junctions put the fabrication spread of junction critical currents near 1.6% and flagged roughly one defect per million junctions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ac-powered single-flux-quantum shift register, split into six parallel 4513-bit registers with a common clock, whose per-cell positive and negative lower and upper clock thresholds (PL, PU, NL, NU) are read out by the method of the authors' earlier work. Because the lower thresholds PL and NL are approximately linear functions of individual junction critical currents (with sensitivity coefficients, e.g., about 4.4 µA of threshold change per 1 µA of $I_{c2}$), the distribution of cell thresholds maps onto the distribution of junction critical currents; the variance budget in Eq. (9) separates fabrication spread from thermal, test, and moat-flux contributions. The moats themselves—slit-type and square cuts in the two active ground planes—are the flux-sequestration mechanism, and the critical spacing $t_c$ between ground planes is the geometric parameter that determines whether vortex expulsion or collective pinning wins.

What would settle it

Re-cool a batch of the 0.3-µm slit-moat chips at a residual field close to the measured expulsion field (around 5–10 µT, where SQUID images begin to show vortices) at the same 0.5 K/min cooling rate; if a substantial fraction of cooldowns then shows flux trapping outside the moats, the blanket 100% operability claim would need an explicit field bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a properly configured moat system—long, congruent slit cuts in the two active ground planes, as narrow as 0.3 µm, arrayed between rows of cells—provides essentially complete protection against flux trapping in deep-submicron multilayer niobium circuits at the 108,500-junction scale. In the authors' terms, the probability of detrimental flux trapping outside the moats was negligible; circuits with such moats were fully operational in 100% of cooldowns, with the slits occupying under 2% of circuit area. A second discovery is the existence of a critical inter-ground-plane distance $t_c=0.6$ µm: adding dummy ground planes or other patterned superconducting layers closer than this to the active ground plane made flux trapping so strong that the registers were nonoperational in 100% of cooldowns, whereas planes farther than about 1 µm had no detectable effect. The same register platform, through per-cell clock-margin measurements, yielded a statistical characterization of fabrication quality: roughly 1.6% rms variation in junction critical currents and the detection of roughly one defect per million Josephson junctions, mostly manifesting as flux trapping in the affected cell.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of bad flux trapping rests on treating a register as fully functional only when its global clock margins stay within ±10% of nominal, and on subtracting measured thermal, test, and moat-flux variances from the total cell-to-cell margin variance to isolate a fabrication contribution; if those noise estimates are off, the derived 1.6% junction spread and the one-defect-per-million rate would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A concrete design rule follows: protect VLSI-scale superconductor logic with congruent slit moats of minimum lithographic width (0.3 µm in this process) placed between rows; the area penalty is under 2% and full operation is preserved across repeated cooldowns at about 1.2 µT residual field.
  • A second design rule: keep any pair of superconducting ground planes at least about 0.6 µm apart; below that spacing, bad flux trapping became certain (100% of cooldowns) rather than occasional.
  • Noncongruent moats—slits offset by 15 µm between the top and bottom ground planes—caused flux trapping in 100% of cooldowns, so moat congruence across ground planes is a requirement for the protective scheme.
  • Per-cell margin screening scales: the same shift-register measurement can characterize millions of junctions, giving a fabrication-spread estimate of about 1.6% rms in critical current and flagging outliers corresponding to roughly one defect per million junctions.
  • Square and rectangular moats from 3 µm to 5 µm on 10–20 µm pitch performed comparably to slit moats in 45 cooldowns, indicating that moat shape flexibility is available for logic-cell tiling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 0.6 µm threshold reflects interlayer vortex coupling rather than a process-specific artifact, it becomes a floor for dielectric thickness between any two superconducting layers in future multi-ground-plane processes, independent of moat density.
  • The roughly one defect per million junctions rate implies that a 10-million-junction processor would contain several flux-trapping-prone defects, so practical yield engineering may need redundancy, margin-aware cell placement, or thermal-cycling-tolerant designs.
  • Because moat width was limited only by lithography in this study, testing even narrower slits (0.15–0.25 µm) at residual fields near the expulsion field (several µT) would directly probe whether the under-2% area claim extends to the process minimum.
  • The reported increase of expulsion field with moat length (about 0.36 µT per µm) suggests designers can trade moat length against moat density, using longer slits to raise the field at which vortices first appear in the film.
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 paper reports the design, fabrication, and testing of a 5 mm x 5 mm diagnostic chip containing six ac-powered SFQ shift registers with 4513 bits each and about 108,500 Josephson junctions per chip, fabricated in the MIT Lincoln Laboratory SFQ5ee process. Using cell-level clock-threshold measurements, the authors characterize fabrication-induced parameter spread, detect fabrication defects, and study flux trapping under varying moat geometries, multiple ground planes, cooling rates, and residual magnetic fields. The two headline claims are that circuits with 0.3-um-wide slit moats occupying less than 2% of the circuit area were fully operational in 100% of cooldowns, and that a critical ground-plane spacing of t_c = 0.6 um exists below which the presence of multiple ground planes renders circuits nonoperational in 100% of cooldowns.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides practical design rules for flux-trapping protection in superconductor VLSI circuits at the 100,000-junction scale, and demonstrates a scalable diagnostic for process-yield and parameter-spread characterization. The experimental effort is unusually large: 30 chips, over 3 million Josephson junctions, hundreds of registers, controlled cooldown protocols, and a direct validation of the threshold-to-critical-current mapping using intentionally modified junctions (Table IX). The finding that 0.3-um slit moats are as effective as wider moats is practically important, and the observation of enhanced flux trapping in closely spaced ground planes is a useful and non-obvious result. However, the statistical grounding of the headline percentages and the interpolation underlying t_c need to be strengthened before the design rules can be considered established. The paper ships no code or data, but the measurement methodology is described in enough detail to be reproduced.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-C] The binary classification of 'fully functional' versus 'bad flux trapping' rests on the assumption that a shift of global clock margins by more than +/-10% from the benchmark 'definitely indicates flux trapping outside of the moats.' This proxy is not validated against direct flux imaging of the tested shift-register chips: the SQUID images in Sec. IV-A are of a separate ground-plane coupon, and the intentional-junction experiment in Sec. IV-F validates sensitivity of thresholds to critical current, not to vortex location. Since Sec. IV-G shows that hard fabrication defects can produce outlier cells with strongly shifted thresholds, a >10% margin shift could in principle arise from a non-flux defect. The paper should either provide direct imaging on the tested chips or explicitly state this as an assumption and bound its false-positive rate using the measured fabrication spread (sigma_margin ~= 16 uA, ~2.5%) and flux-induced threshold variance (sigma_flux^2 ~= 36 uA^2). This point is load-bearing because all flux-trapping probabilities in Secs. IV-C through IV-H are derived from this criterion.
  2. [Tables VI and VIII; abstract] The headline claims of 'fully operational in 100% of cooldowns' (0.3-um slit moats) and 'nonoperational in 100% of cooldowns' (ground-plane spacing below t_c) are not accompanied by the number of cooldowns per configuration. The text itself states in Sec. IV-C that at the average 2.5% bad-trapping probability, a single event requires about 40 cooldowns on average, and that some moat variants had fewer cooldowns. Without per-row denominators, a '100%' result based on a handful of cooldowns is not statistically meaningful, and the reader cannot assess the confidence of the claimed zero-event results. Please add the number of cooldowns (and the cooling rate and residual field) for every row in Tables VI-VIII, and report binomial confidence intervals for the resulting probabilities.
  3. [Sec. IV-E, Fig. 16, Sec. VI] The critical distance t_c = 0.6 um is presented in the abstract and conclusion as a determined value, but the text in Sec. IV-E reports only that a dummy ground plane at 200 nm spacing (M3) causes complete nonfunctionality, while layers at >1000 nm spacing (M1/M0) have no detectable effect. If the only supporting data are these discrete process-defined spacings (or at most a few such values), t_c = 0.6 um is an interpolation, not a direct determination. The manuscript should present the intermediate spacing data, if any, and otherwise state that t_c lies between 200 nm and the next available layer spacing, showing explicitly how the 0.6 um value is obtained from Fig. 16 and Table VIII.
  4. [Abstract, Introduction, Sec. IV-G] The number of registers measured is given inconsistently as 138 (abstract), 180 (Introduction), and 168 (Sec. IV-G). Since the defect-detection statistics and yield estimates depend directly on the number of registers and Josephson junctions, please reconcile these numbers and state exactly how many registers were used for each analysis (margin distributions, flux-trapping probabilities, defect detection), along with the corresponding total number of junctions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.B (second subsection)] There are two subsections labeled 'B' in Sec. II: 'Flux Trapping Protection: Moats and Moat Shapes' and 'Moat Number Density and Distance Between Moats.' The second should be renumbered (e.g., C) and subsequent subsection letters adjusted.
  2. [Sec. IV-C, Table VI] The text says 'for the slit-type moat of different length and width'; consider 'slit-type moats of different lengths and widths,' and ensure Table VI column headers explicitly define all quantities and state the operating-margin criterion used to classify bad flux trapping.
  3. [Sec. IV-B and Fig. 11] In the Fig. 11 caption, the symbols for the Gaussian mean and standard deviation are missing the Greek mu and sigma, and the unit 'A' should be 'uA' (microampere). Please correct the typography and define all symbols in the caption.
  4. [Sec. IV-F] In the formula for the average relative change in PL threshold, the summation index and limits are not specified; please write it as an explicit average over the cells in the modified row to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an operational characterization whose key quantities are directly measured, and its main self-cited diagnostic is independently validated.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental characterization rather than a derivation. The central design rules (0.3-um slit moats at <2% area; t_c approximately 0.6 um for ground-plane spacing) are read off cooldown behavior of fabricated shift registers, not derived from an equation whose inputs already contain the outputs. The only self-cited load-bearing tool is the cell-margin extraction method of ref. [2]; however, the paper independently validates the threshold-to-critical-current mapping by fabricating rows with intentionally altered JJ areas (Sec. IV-F, Table IX) and by comparing the inferred 1.6% JJ critical-current spread with direct Ic statistics from refs. [48,49,55]. The 'bad flux trapping' classification (Sec. IV-C) is an explicit operational definition: a register is deemed fully functional if global margins stay within +/-10% of the benchmark, and a larger shift is categorized as bad flux trapping. That is a transparent measurement proxy, not a quantity derived from itself; the physical inference that large margin shifts indicate flux outside the moats is supported by the small measured cooldown-to-cooldown threshold variance (about 1%) and by SQUID imaging of moat behavior, and it is not disguised as a prediction. The t_c=0.6 um value is an interpolation between discrete layer spacings (200 nm bad, >=1000 nm good) and is statistically underdetermined given unreported per-row cooldown counts; the paper itself notes that some rows had fewer than the roughly 40 cooldowns needed to expect one event at a 2.5% probability. Underdetermination is a robustness and reporting concern, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on standard vortex physics, the shift-register margin diagnostic of ref. [2], and a discrete set of process-defined layer spacings. No new physical entities are introduced. The main hand-chosen or fitted inputs are the t_c threshold, the +/-10% operability criterion, the Gaussian margin sigma, and the subtracted noise variance. The multi-ground-plane mechanism is explained using known vortex coupling and pinning concepts rather than a new force or particle.

free parameters (4)
  • critical ground-plane spacing t_c = 0.6 um
    Inferred from binary pass/fail outcomes at discrete process-defined layer spacings between M4 and dummy ground planes (Table VIII, Fig. 16), not predicted from a model or resolved continuously.
  • operability criterion for bad flux trapping = global clock margins within +-10% of nominal
    Chosen in Sec. IV-C because +/-10% is much larger than expected shifts from flux in moats. The reported cooldown success probabilities and the 2.5% bad-trapping rate depend on this cutoff.
  • Gaussian sigma of PL threshold distribution = 16 uA (4481 row cells, excluding perimeter cells)
    Fit to the cell-margin histogram in Fig. 11; used together with subtracted noise variance to derive the 1.6% JJ critical-current spread.
  • thermal plus test noise variance = 9 uA^2 (1 uA step) / 100 uA^2 (10 uA step)
    Estimated from repeated measurements of the same cell and subtracted from total variance in Eq. (9) to isolate fabrication-induced spread. The resulting sigma_fab = 11 uA depends on this subtraction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Vortex trapping and expulsion in 200-nm Nb films follows standard type-II critical-field and Pearl-vortex physics described by Eqs. (1)-(4) and (7)-(8).
    Used in Secs. II and IV-A to estimate vortex density, expulsion field, and the required moat density for given residual fields.
  • domain assumption The four threshold-variation contributions in Eq. (9) are independent and additive.
    Required to separate fabrication spread from thermal and test noise. The paper reports the decomposition but does not independently verify independence.
  • domain assumption The ac-powered shift-register PL and NL thresholds map linearly to Josephson-junction critical currents with the sensitivity coefficients of Table V from ref. [2].
    All parameter-spread and defect-detection claims rest on this mapping. It is partially validated in Sec. IV-F by rows with intentionally altered JJs.
  • domain assumption Layer critical temperatures in the SFQ5ee process are ordered T_c,M7 > ... > T_c,M0 with differences up to about 0.3 K, so adjacent layers expel and pin flux collectively.
    Invoked in Sec. V-B to explain enhanced flux trapping for closely spaced ground planes and noncongruent moats, but not directly measured in this work.
  • ad hoc to paper A shift register is considered to have bad flux trapping if global operating margins shift by more than +/-10% from nominal.
    Stated in Sec. IV-C. The headline probabilities (0% bad trapping for slit moats in some designs, 100% for close ground planes) are conditional on this user-defined threshold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization of Flux Trapping in and Fabrication of Large-Scale Superconductor Circuits Using AC-Biased Shift Registers With 108500 Josephson Junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UGD27NRC

@misc{pith2026250103343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization of Flux Trapping in and Fabrication of Large-Scale Superconductor Circuits Using AC-Biased Shift Registers With 108500 Josephson Junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UGD27NRC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03343}
}
abstract

A variety of superconductor integrated circuits comprising six ac-powered SFQ shift registers with a total of 27078 bits and 108500 Josephson junctions (JJs) per 5 mm x 5 mm chip have been designed, fabricated, and tested to characterize flux trapping, fabrication process yield, and parameter spread. The six 4513-bit registers in the circuits have a common single-phase ac clock and individual input/output drivers enabling their parallel testing. We have investigated flux trapping in the circuits with various geometry, size, and distance between moats in two active ground planes (GPs), and containing up to three additional 'dummy' GPs, using multiple cooldowns through the critical temperature with various cooling rates and residual magnetic fields up to ~1.2 $\mu$T. For the slit-type and square moats arrayed along the sides of the register cells, we have found a negligible effect of flux sequestered in the moats on the operating margins of the registers, and negligible probability of detrimental flux trapping outside of the moats. Circuits with 0.3-$\mu$m-wide slit moats occupying <2% of the circuit area were fully operational in 100% of cooldowns, supporting the viability of VLSI superconductor digital circuits. We have found a strong enhancement of flux trapping outside of the moats in circuits with closely spaced GPs and determined a critical distance, t$_c$=0.6 $\mu$m, between them. The presence of GPs spaced below t$_c$ rendered the circuits nonoperational in 100% of cooldowns. We have measured 30 chips with >3M JJs and determined individual cell margins in 138 registers to characterize the fabrication-related parameter spread and detect fabrication defects and flux-trapping events. By finding outlier cells in the statistical distribution of the individual cell margins, we detected about one defect per million JJs, in most cases causing magnetic flux trapping in the affected cell.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    The effect of quantized flux on AQFP circuits for a double -active-layered niobium fabrication process,

    L. Schindler, C. L. Ayala, N. Takeuchi, and N. Yoshikawa, "The effect of quantized flux on AQFP circuits for a double -active-layered niobium fabrication process," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1-8, May 2024, Art no. 1100908, doi: 10.109/TASC.2024.3354687

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    D -Wave Previews Next -Generation Quantum Computing Platform | D -Wave Systems

    Advantage 5000 qubit processor "D -Wave Previews Next -Generation Quantum Computing Platform | D -Wave Systems." www.dwavesys.com. Archived from the original on 2019-03-19. Retrieved 2019-03-19 D-Wave 2000Q system

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    AC -Biased shift registers as fabrication process benchmark circuits and flux trapping diagnostic tool,

    V. K. Semenov, Y. A. Polyakov, and S. K. Tolpygo, "AC -Biased shift registers as fabrication process benchmark circuits and flux trapping diagnostic tool," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1-9, June 2017, Art no. 1301409, doi: 10.1109/TASC. 2017.2669585

    arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    Yield evaluation of 10 -kA/cm2 Nb multi -layer fabrication process using conventional superconducting RAMs,

    S. Nagasawa, T. Satoh, K. Hinode, Y. Kitagawa, and M. Hidaka, "Yield evaluation of 10 -kA/cm2 Nb multi -layer fabrication process using conventional superconducting RAMs," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 177-180, June 2007, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2007.898050

    work page arXiv 2007

  5. [4]

    Nb 9 -layer fabrication process for superconducting large-scale SFQ circuits and its pro cess evaluation,

    S. Nagasawa et al ., “Nb 9 -layer fabrication process for superconducting large-scale SFQ circuits and its pro cess evaluation,” IEICE Trans. Electron., vol. E97 –C, no. 3, pp. 132 -140, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.1587/transele.E97.C.132

    doi:10.1587/transele.e97.c.132 2014

  6. [5]

    New ac -powered SFQ digital circuits,

    V. K. Semenov, Y. A. Polyakov, and S. K. Tolpygo, "New ac -powered SFQ digital circuits," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1- 7, June 2015, Art no. 1301507, doi:10.1109/TASC.2014.2382665

    work page arXiv 2015

  7. [6]

    Reproducible operating margins on a 72800-device digital superconducting chip,

    Q. P Herr et al., “Reproducible operating margins on a 72800-device digital superconducting chip,” Supercond. Sci. Technol., vol. 28, no. 12, Art. no. 124003, 2015, doi: 10.1088/0953-2048/28/12/124003

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-2048/28/12/124003 2015

  8. [7]

    Fabrication process for superconducting digital circuits,

    M. Hidaka and S . Nagasawa, “Fabrication process for superconducting digital circuits,” EICE Trans. Electron., vol. E104–C, no. 9, pp. 405 -410, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1587/transele.2020SUI0002

    work page doi:10.1587/transele.2020sui0002 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

    MANA: A m onolithic adiabatic i ntegration architecture microprocessor using 1.4 -zJ/op unshunted superconductor Josephson junction devices,

    C. L. Ayala, T. Tanaka, R. Saito, M. Nozoe, N. Takeuchi , and N. Yoshikawa, "MANA: A m onolithic adiabatic i ntegration architecture microprocessor using 1.4 -zJ/op unshunted superconductor Josephson junction devices," IEEE J. Sol.-State Circ., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1152 -1165, ...

    2021

  2. [9]

    On -line

    Josephson junction count . On -line. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_junction_count

  3. [10]

    Superconductor electronics: scalability and energy efficiency issues,

    S.K. Tolpygo, “Superconductor electronics: scalability and energy efficiency issues,” Low Temp. Phys., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 361-379, May 2016, doi: 10.1063/1.4948618

    2016 doi

  4. [11]

    Scalability of superconductor electronics: Limitations imposed by ac clock and flux bias transformers,

    S. K. Tolpygo, "Scalability of superconductor electronics: Limitations imposed by ac clock and flux bias transformers," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 1 -19, March 2023, Art no. 1300419, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2022.3230373

    2023

  5. [12]

    How moats protect superconductor films from flux trapping ,

    V. K. Semenov, M. M. Khapaev, "How moats protect superconductor films from flux trapping ," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. , vol. 26, no. 3, pp.1-10, Apr. 2016, Art. no. 1300710, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2016.2547218

    2016

  6. [13]

    Flux t rapping in superconducting circuits,

    Y. Polyakov, S. Narayana and V. K. Semenov, "Flux t rapping in superconducting circuits," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 520-525, June 2007, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2007.898707

    2007

  7. [14]

    Evaluation of flux trapping in superconducting circuits,

    S. Narayana, Y. A. Polyakov and V. K. Semenov, "Evaluation of flux trapping in superconducting circuits," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 640-643, June 2009, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2009.2018248

    2009

  8. [15]

    RSFQ 1024-bit shift register for acquisition memory,

    O. A. Mukhanov, "RSFQ 1024-bit shift register for acquisition memory," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3102-3113, Dec. 1993, doi: 10.1109/77.251810

    1993 doi

  9. [16]

    A compact AQFP logic cell design using an 8 -metal layer superconductor process,

    Y. He et al ., “A compact AQFP logic cell design using an 8 -metal layer superconductor process,” Supercond. Sci. Technol ., vol. 33, no. 3, Feb. 2020, Art. no. 035010, doi: 10.1088/1361-6668/ab6feb

    2020 doi

  10. [17]

    The magnetic properties of superconducting alloys,

    A. A. Abrikosov, "The magnetic properties of superconducting alloys," J. Phys. Chem. Solids, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 199 -208, 1957, doi: 10.1016/0022 - 3697(57)90083-5

    1957 doi

  11. [18]

    Physics or Superconductors,

    V.V. Schmidt, “Physics or Superconductors,” P. Müller and A.V. Ustinov eds., Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1997, ch. 5, pp.105-107

    1997

  12. [19]

    The lower critical field in the Ginzburg -Landau theory of superconductivity,

    J.L Harden and V. Arp, “The lower critical field in the Ginzburg -Landau theory of superconductivity,” Cryogenics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 105 -108, June 1963, doi: 10.1016/0011-2275(63)90029-8

    1963 doi

  13. [20]

    The structure of a vortex line and the lower critical field in superconducting alloys,

    L. Neumann and L. Tewordt, “The structure of a vortex line and the lower critical field in superconducting alloys,” Z. Physik., vol. 189, pp. 55 –66, Feb. 1966, doi: 10.1007/BF01343319

    1966 doi

  14. [21]

    b ad flux trapping

    with sl owly decaying as 𝑟𝑟−1 screening currents and attraction force to the film edge 𝑓𝑓~𝜇𝜇0Φ0 2/(4𝑎𝑎2) [21], [24] at 𝑟𝑟, 𝑎𝑎 ≫ Λ , where 𝑟𝑟 is the distance from the vortex center and Λ = 2 𝜆𝜆(𝑇𝑇)2 𝑑𝑑⁄ . Using the standard two- fluid expression 𝜆𝜆 (𝑇𝑇) = 𝜆𝜆(0)/(1 − 𝑇𝑇4 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 4)...

  15. [22]

    Current distribution in superconducting films carrying quantized fluxoids,

    J. Pearl, "Current distribution in superconducting films carrying quantized fluxoids," Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 65-66, Aug. 1964, doi: 10.1063/1.1754056

    1964 doi

  16. [23]

    The formation of a mixed state in planar superconductor films,

    K.K. Likharev, “The formation of a mixed state in planar superconductor films,” Radiophys. Quantum Electron ., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 722 -727, June 1971, doi: 10.1007/BF01033185

    1971 doi

  17. [24]

    Flux penetration in a thin superconducting disk,

    A.L. Fetter, “Flux penetration in a thin superconducting disk,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1200 –1213, Aug. 1980, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.22.1200

    1980 doi

  18. [25]

    Pearl's vortex near the film edge,

    V. G. Kogan, “Pearl's vortex near the film edge,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 49, no. 22, pp. 15874 -15878, June 1994, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.15874. Erratum: Phys. Rev. B , vol. 75, Art. no. 069902, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.069902

    1994 doi

  19. [26]

    Mixed state and critical current in narrow semiconducting films,

    G.M. Maksimova, "Mixed state and critical current in narrow semiconducting films," Phys. Solid State , vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 1607 -1610, Oct. 1998, doi: 10.1134/1.1130618 16 3EPo1E-02

    1998 doi

  20. [27]

    Properties of mesoscopic superconducting thin-film rings: London approach,

    V. G. Kogan, J . R. Clem, and R. G. Mints, “Properties of mesoscopic superconducting thin-film rings: London approach,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 69, 064516, Feb. 2004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.69.064516

    2004 doi

  21. [28]

    Surface barrier in type- II superconductors,

    C. P. Bean and J. D. Livingston, “Surface barrier in type- II superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 14-16, Jan. 1964, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.12.14

    1964 doi

  22. [29]

    Destruction of long -range order in one -dimensional and tow-dimensional systems possessing a continuous symmetry group. II. Quantum systems,

    V. L. Berezinskii, “Destruction of long -range order in one -dimensional and tow-dimensional systems possessing a continuous symmetry group. II. Quantum systems,” Sov. Phys. JETP, vol. 34, p. 610-616, Mar. 1972

    1972

  23. [30]

    Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems,

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, “Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems,” J. Phys. C, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 1181- 1203, 1973, 1doi: 0.1088/0022-3719/6/7/010

    1973

  24. [31]

    Critical field for complete vortex expulsion from narrow superconducting strips,

    G. Stan, Stuart B. Field, and J. M. Martinis, “Critical field for complete vortex expulsion from narrow superconducting strips,” Phys. Rev. Lett ., vol. 92, p. 097003, Mar. 2004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.097003

    2004 doi

  25. [32]

    Vortex trapping and expulsion in thin -film YBaCuO strips,

    K. H. Kuit, J. R. Kirtley, W. van der Veur, C. G. Molenaar, F. J. G. Roesthuis, A. G. P. Troeman, J. R. Clem, H. Hilgenkamp, H. Rogalla, and J. Flokstra, “Vortex trapping and expulsion in thin -film YBaCuO strips,” Phys. Rev . B, vol. 77, p. 134504, April 2008, doi: 10.1103/Ph...

    2008 doi

  26. [33]

    Vortex trapping and expulsion in thin -film type-II superconducting strips,

    K. H. Kuit, J. R. Kirtley, J. R. Clem, H. Rogalla and J. Fl okstra, "Vortex trapping and expulsion in thin -film type-II superconducting strips," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond ., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 3537 -3540, June 2009, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2009.2018080

    2009

  27. [34]

    Critical fields for vortex expulsion from narrow superconducting strips,

    P. Sánchez-Lotero and J. J. Palacios, “Critical fields for vortex expulsion from narrow superconducting strips,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 75, 214505, June 2007, doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.75.214505

    2007 doi

  28. [35]

    Collective pinning,

    A.I. Larkin and Yu.N. Ovchinnikov, “Collective pinning,” Physica B+C, vol. 126, no. 1 –3, pp. 187 -192, Nov. 1984, doi: 10.1016/0378 - 4363(84)90162-1

    1984 doi

  29. [36]

    Meissner response of superconductors with inhomogeneous penetration depths,

    V. G. Kogan and J. R. Kirtley, “Meissner response of superconductors with inhomogeneous penetration depths,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 83, p. 214521, June 2011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.214521

    2011 doi

  30. [37]

    Moat-guarded Josephson SQUIDs,

    S. Bermon and T. Gheewala , "Moat-guarded Josephson SQUIDs," IEEE Trans. Magn., , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1160 -1164, May 1983, doi: 10.1109/TMAG.1983.1062291

    1983

  31. [38]

    Magnetic imaging of moat‐guarded superconducting electronic circuits,

    M. Jeffery, T. Van Duzer, J. R. Kirtley, and M. B. Ketchen, “Magnetic imaging of moat‐guarded superconducting electronic circuits,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 1769–1771, Sep. 1995, doi.org/10.1063/1.114377

    1995 doi

  32. [39]

    Imaging magnetic fields,

    J. Kirtley, "Imaging magnetic fields," IEEE Spectrum, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 40-43, Dec. 1996, doi: 10.1109/6.546498

    1996 doi

  33. [40]

    M. B. Ketchen, D. J. Herrell, and C. J. Anderson, J. Appl. Phys. 57, 2550, 1985

    1985

  34. [41]

    Experimental verification of moat design and flux trapping analysis,

    C. J. Fourie, K. Jackman, "Experimental verification of moat design and flux trapping analysis,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1-7, Aug. 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Extraction and simulation of the impact of flux trapping in moats on ac-biased shift registers,

    S. E. Meninger and S. K. Tolpygo, “Extraction and simulation of the impact of flux trapping in moats on ac-biased shift registers,” Submitted to IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 2024; arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02749

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Characterization of A diabatic Quantum- Flux-Parametrons in the MIT LL SFQ5ee+ p rocess,

    S. K. Tolpygo, E. B. Golden, C. L. Ayala, L. Schindler, M. A. Johnston, N. Parmar, and N. Yoshikawa, “Characterization of A diabatic Quantum- Flux-Parametrons in the MIT LL SFQ5ee+ p rocess,” submitted to IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    3D active demagnetization of cold magnetic shields,

    Y. A. Polyakov, V. K. Semenov and S. K. Tolpygo, "3D active demagnetization of cold magnetic shields," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 724-727, June 2011, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2010.2091384

    2011

  38. [46]

    Inductance of superconductor integrated circuit features with sizes down to 120 nm,

    S. K. Tolpygo, E. B. Golden, T. J. Weir, and V. Bolkhovsky, “Inductance of superconductor integrated circuit features with sizes down to 120 nm,” Supercond. Sci. Technol ., vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1 -24, June 2021, Art. no. 085005, doi: 10.1088/1361-6668/ac04b9

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    Mutual and self-Inductance in planarized multilayered superconductor integrated circuits: Microstrips, striplines, bends, meanders, ground plane perforations,

    S. K. Tolpygo, E. B. Golden, T. J. Weir, and V. Bolkhovsky, "Mutual and self-Inductance in planarized multilayered superconductor integrated circuits: Microstrips, striplines, bends, meanders, ground plane perforations," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1-31, A...

    2022

  40. [48]

    Superconductor electronics fabrication process with MoNx kinetic inductors and s elf-shunted Josephson j unctions,

    S. K. Tolpygo et al., "Superconductor electronics fabrication process with MoNx kinetic inductors and s elf-shunted Josephson j unctions," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1 -12, June 2018, Art no. 1100212, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2018.2809442

    2018

  41. [49]

    Advanced fabrication processes for superconducting very large-scale integrated circuits,

    S. K. Tolpygo et al., "Advanced fabrication processes for superconducting very large-scale integrated circuits," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond ., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1 -10, April 2016, Art no. 1100110, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2016.2519388

    2016

  42. [50]

    Advanced fabrication processes for superconductor electronics: Current s tatus and new developments,

    S. K. Tolpygo et al., "Advanced fabrication processes for superconductor electronics: Current s tatus and new developments," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1 -13, Aug. 2019, Art no. 1102513, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2019.2904919

    2019

  43. [51]

    A 150-nm node of an eight-Nb-layer fully planarized process for superconductor electronics ,

    S.K. Tolpygo et al., “A 150-nm node of an eight-Nb-layer fully planarized process for superconductor electronics ,” Proceedings of the Applied Superconductivity Conference, ASC 2020 Virtual Conference. IEEE CSC & ESAS SUPERCONDUCTIVITY NEWS FORUM (Global Edition), vol. 49, no....

    2020

  44. [52]

    Increasing integration scale of superconductor electronics beyond one million Josephson junctions,

    S.K Tolpygo and V. K. Semenov, “Increasing integration scale of superconductor electronics beyond one million Josephson junctions,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser ., vol. 1559, pp. 1 -3, Art. no. 012002, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1559/1/012002

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    A. Wynn, E. Golden, and S.K. Tolpygo, unpublished

  46. [54]

    Available: http://www.redhitech.com/

    OCTOPUX - automated setup for testing superconductor circuits , Research Electronics Development, Inc., [Online]. Available: http://www.redhitech.com/

  47. [55]

    Inductance of c ircuit structures for MIT LL superconductor electronics fabrication process with 8 niobium layers,

    S. K. Tolpygo et al ., "Inductance of c ircuit structures for MIT LL superconductor electronics fabrication process with 8 niobium layers," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1 -5, June 2015, Art no. 1100905, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2014.2369213

    2015

  48. [56]

    Fabrication p rocess and properties of fully-planarized deep-submicron Nb/Al– AlO x/Nb Josephson junctions for VLSI circuits,

    S. K. Tolpygo, V. Bolkhovsky, T. J. Weir, L. M. Johnson, M. A. Gouker and W. D. Oliver, "Fabrication p rocess and properties of fully-planarized deep-submicron Nb/Al– AlO x/Nb Josephson junctions for VLSI circuits," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1-12, June ...

    2015

  49. [57]

    Structure of superconductive vortices near a metal-air interface,

    J. Pearl, “Structure of superconductive vortices near a metal-air interface,” J. App l. Phys ., vol. 37, no.11, pp. 4139 -4141, Oct. 1966, doi: 10.1063/1.1707989

    1966 doi

  50. [58]

    Magnetic coupling between two adjacent type- II superconductors,

    I. Giaever, “Magnetic coupling between two adjacent type- II superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 15, no. 21, pp. 825-827, Nov. 1965, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.15.825

    1965 doi

  51. [59]

    Flux pinning and flux-flow resistivity in magnetically coupled superconducting films,

    I. Giaever, “Flux pinning and flux-flow resistivity in magnetically coupled superconducting films,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 460-462, Mar. 1966, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.16.460

    1966 doi

  52. [60]

    Fluxon coupling in dual thin films,

    M.D. Sherrill, “Fluxon coupling in dual thin films,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1908-1912, Mar. 1973, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.7.1908

    1908 doi

  53. [61]

    Superconducting dc transformer coupling,

    M.D. Sherrill and W.A. Lindstrom, “Superconducting dc transformer coupling,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1125 -1130, Feb. 1975, do i: 10.1103/PhysRevB.11.1125

    1975 doi

  54. [62]

    Theory of magnetically coupled type -II superconducting films,

    J.R. Clem, “Theory of magnetically coupled type -II superconducting films,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 898 -911, Feb. 1974, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.9.898

    1974 doi

  55. [63]

    Theory of the coupling in magnetically coupled type -II superconducting films,

    J. R. Clem, “ Theory of the coupling in magnetically coupled type -II superconducting films,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1742 -1752, Sep. 1975, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.12.1742

    1975 doi

  56. [64]

    Two-dimensional vortices in a stack of thin superconducting films: A model for high -temperature superconducting multilayers,

    J.R. Clem, “Two-dimensional vortices in a stack of thin superconducting films: A model for high -temperature superconducting multilayers,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 7837 -7846, Apr. 1991, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.7837

    1991 doi

  57. [65]

    Geometrical edge barriers and magnetization in superconducting strips with slits,

    Y. Mawatari and J.R. Clem, “Geometrical edge barriers and magnetization in superconducting strips with slits,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 68, Art. no. 024505, July 2003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.024505

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.