pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09504 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.mes-hall

Superconducting orbital diode effect in SN bilayers

Yuriy A. Dmitrievtsev , Yakov V. Fominov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords superconducting diode effectSN bilayerorbital mechanisminterface resistanceMeissner currentsdiffusive regimenonideal interface
0
0 comments X

The pith

In thin SN bilayers, a nonideal interface with finite resistance can strengthen the orbital superconducting diode effect beyond the ideal case.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines the orbital superconducting diode effect in a diffusive SN bilayer under an in-plane magnetic field, where supercurrent flows along the layers. The diode effect arises because Meissner currents become inhomogeneous due to a spatially varying superfluid density. Using analytical methods for weak intralayer inhomogeneities, the authors show that the strength of this asymmetry depends nonmonotonically on the resistance at the SN interface. When the bilayer thickness is much smaller than the coherence length, a finite interface resistance actually increases the diode efficiency compared to a perfect interface. This result indicates that interface quality can be used to tune the asymmetry in critical currents and kinetic inductance.

Core claim

In the diffusive regime with weak intralayer inhomogeneities, the superconducting diode effect in an SN bilayer depends nonmonotonically on the resistance of the SN interface; when the bilayer thickness is much smaller than the coherence length, this dependence allows a nonideal interface to produce a stronger diode effect than an ideal one.

What carries the argument

The orbital mechanism arising from the inhomogeneous distribution of Meissner currents due to spatially varying superfluid density, modulated by finite resistance at the SN interface.

If this is right

  • The diode effect strength varies nonmonotonically with interface resistance for thin bilayers.
  • Finite interface resistance can produce higher diode efficiency than a perfect interface.
  • The asymmetry appears in both critical current and kinetic inductance.
  • The effect holds only within the limit of weak intralayer inhomogeneities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Practical SN devices with imperfect interfaces may show stronger diode behavior than ideal-interface calculations predict.
  • Varying interface transparency in experiments on thin bilayers could map the predicted nonmonotonic curve.
  • Interface engineering might be applied to other hybrid superconducting structures to optimize current-direction asymmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes only weak intralayer inhomogeneities in the diffusive regime.

What would settle it

Measure the ratio of critical currents for opposite directions in fabricated SN bilayers with tunable interface resistance and thickness much less than the coherence length to check for nonmonotonic enhancement at finite resistance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09504 by Yakov V. Fominov, Yuriy A. Dmitrievtsev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. SN bilayer in the form of a strip in the in-plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the first-order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic representation of the first-order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Diode efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Zero-temperature kinetic inductance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Supercurrent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Diode efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Kinetic inductance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Characteristic value (see text) of the diode efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Characteristic value (see text) of the diode efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the superconducting diode effect (SDE) in a diffusive superconductor - normal metal (SN) bilayer subjected to an in-plane magnetic field. The supercurrent flows along the layers, perpendicular to the field. The SDE, manifested as an asymmetry in the critical (depairing) currents and kinetic inductance for opposite current directions, arises from an orbital mechanism due to the inhomogeneous distribution of the Meissner currents caused by a spatially varying superfluid density. Recently, Levichev et al. [Phys. Rev. B 108, 094517 (2023)] demonstrated the realization of this effect in such a structure, supporting numerical calculations for an ideal interface with an experiment. In this work, we investigate the influence of a nonideal interface with finite resistance on the SDE. Employing an analytical approach, we focus on limiting cases corresponding to weak intralayer inhomogeneities. We find that the strength of the SDE depends nonmonotonically on the interface resistance when the bilayer thickness is small compared to the coherence length. Remarkably, a nonideal interface can enhance the SDE compared to the ideal case.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analytically investigates the superconducting orbital diode effect (SDE) in diffusive SN bilayers under an in-plane magnetic field, focusing on the role of a nonideal interface with finite resistance. Building on prior numerical work for ideal interfaces, it restricts to limiting cases of weak intralayer inhomogeneities and derives that the SDE strength depends nonmonotonically on interface resistance when the bilayer thickness d is much smaller than the coherence length ξ; remarkably, nonideal interfaces can enhance the SDE relative to the ideal case.

Significance. If the analytical results hold within the stated approximations, the work provides controlled limiting-case expressions that clarify how interface resistance modulates the orbital SDE arising from inhomogeneous Meissner currents and spatially varying superfluid density. This extends the numerical findings of Levichev et al. and offers potential guidance for tuning SDE in thin hybrid structures, though the enhancement effect is tied to the weak-inhomogeneity diffusive regime.

major comments (1)
  1. The central nonmonotonic dependence and enhancement claim are derived only under the weak-inhomogeneity approximation (abstract and §3); the manuscript should explicitly state the range of validity (e.g., quantitative bound on the inhomogeneity parameter) and note that the result does not necessarily extrapolate beyond d ≪ ξ or to strong inhomogeneities, as this is load-bearing for the 'remarkably' enhancement statement.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the interface resistance parameter (likely denoted R or similar in the boundary conditions) should be introduced earlier and used consistently with the Usadel equations referenced from prior work.
  2. Figure captions (if present) would benefit from explicit labels indicating which curves correspond to ideal vs. nonideal interfaces and the specific limiting-case parameters used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive suggestion. We agree that the validity range of the weak-inhomogeneity approximation should be stated more explicitly and will revise the text accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central nonmonotonic dependence and enhancement claim are derived only under the weak-inhomogeneity approximation (abstract and §3); the manuscript should explicitly state the range of validity (e.g., quantitative bound on the inhomogeneity parameter) and note that the result does not necessarily extrapolate beyond d ≪ ξ or to strong inhomogeneities, as this is load-bearing for the 'remarkably' enhancement statement.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the nonmonotonic dependence on interface resistance and the possibility of enhancement are obtained within the weak-inhomogeneity limit. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit statement in the abstract and at the beginning of §3 clarifying the range of validity: the analytical expressions hold when the inhomogeneity parameter (defined via the relative variation of the superfluid density across the bilayer) remains small enough for the perturbative expansion to be controlled, and we will note that the results are derived under the assumption d ≪ ξ. We will also caution that the enhancement effect is not guaranteed to persist outside this regime or for strong inhomogeneities, thereby qualifying the 'remarkably' phrasing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained in standard Usadel framework

full rationale

The paper derives the nonmonotonic SDE dependence analytically from the standard diffusive Usadel equations with interface boundary conditions, restricted to explicit limiting cases of weak intralayer inhomogeneities when d ≪ ξ. No parameters are fitted to data and then relabeled as predictions, no self-citation chain bears the central claim, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The result follows directly from solving the governing equations under the stated approximations without reduction to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on the diffusive-limit model of SN bilayers and the assumption that weak-inhomogeneity limiting cases capture the essential physics; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Diffusive regime applies to the SN bilayer
    Stated in abstract as the framework for the study.
  • ad hoc to paper Weak intralayer inhomogeneities allow analytical treatment
    Explicitly chosen limiting cases for the calculation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5507 in / 1195 out tokens · 41391 ms · 2026-05-10T16:00:04.670350+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (26) and (59)]

    Despite the fact that the superfluid densityn(x) in this case is a steplike function, theτcorrections make the ratio between the densitiesn S0/nN0 sensitive to the current and magnetic field, which implies variation of the profile [see Eqs. (26) and (59)]. D. Conditions of applicability Now we discuss the applicability conditions of the above solutions. T...

    work page

  2. [2]

    We also assume that the respective parameters of the layers are of the same order:d S ∼ dN ∼d,σ S ∼σ N, andτ S ∼τ N ∼τ

    Limit of thin layers To begin with, we consider the case of thin layers, dS(N) ≪ξ S(N) . We also assume that the respective parameters of the layers are of the same order:d S ∼ dN ∼d,σ S ∼σ N, andτ S ∼τ N ∼τ. In this case, the primary corrections responsible for the SDE are δnS,d ∼δn S,τ(dS/ξS)2 andδn N,τ ∼δn S,τ(τ∆) −1. The corresponding asymmetric corre...

    work page

  3. [3]

    In this regime, thedcorrection in the S layer dominates over the corrections in the N layer,δn S,d ≫δn N,τ , δnN,d

    Limit of moderately thick layers Now, we consider the case, in which at least one of the layers is moderately thick,d S(N) ∼ξ S (recall thatξ S ≪ ξN in the strongly resistive limit, which we consider now). In this regime, thedcorrection in the S layer dominates over the corrections in the N layer,δn S,d ≫δn N,τ , δnN,d. Consequently, the contribution to t...

    work page

  4. [4]

    strength

    =L k(x= 1, B= 0) [note thatI= 0 corresponds to x= 1 in Eq. (97)]. AtB= 0, the dependence is symmetric, Lk(I) =L k(−I), and thus the SDE is absent. In contrast, atB̸= 0 (the green curve corresponds toB= 0.6B c), this reciprocity is broken, resulting inL k(I)̸=L k(−I). Equation (97) together with Eq. (85) parametrically de- fines theL k(I, B) dependence (wi...

    work page

  5. [5]

    vortex” currents generated by the magnetic fieldB. First, if we apply the magnetic fieldBeven in the absence of the transport currentI, “vortex

    Derivation The kinetic inductance is defined through the relation between the kinetic energy per unit length and the total current. In the simplest linear case and in the absence of a magnetic field, this relation takes the form: Ek =L kI2/2.(A2) Linearity here implies that the density does not depend on the current or momentum, i.e.,n x = const q, leadin...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Relation to experiment We can rewrite Eq. (A3) for the kinetic energy as a work for acceleration of superconducting electrons with powerIEduring timet: Ek = Z t 0 IEdt,E=L k dI dt .(A9) Here,Eis the electric field (voltage per unit length) that accelerates electrons. The relation betweenEandIcor- responds to the kinetic contribution to the impedance Zk =−...

    work page

  7. [7]

    III, which led to Eq

    Effective self-consistency equation Consideration in Sec. III, which led to Eq. (40), should be supplemented by discussion of the self-consistency equation. Its effective form can be obtained from Eq. (9) with homogeneousθ S(x) =θand ∆(x) = ∆. In terms of the effective order parameterE g [see Eq. (41)], the effective self-consistency equation can be writt...

    work page

  8. [8]

    At the critical value, a phase transition occurs and superconductivity disap- pears:θ(Γ→Γ c)→0 andE g(Γ→Γ c)→0

    Critical pair-breaking parameter Equation (40) is valid for the pair-breaking parameter less than the critical value Γ c(T). At the critical value, a phase transition occurs and superconductivity disap- pears:θ(Γ→Γ c)→0 andE g(Γ→Γ c)→0. In this limit, Eq. (B1) produces the following equation for the critical pair-breaking parameter: ln Tc0 T =ψ 1 2 + Γc(T...

    work page

  9. [9]

    (B1) with an integral and calculate it explicitly

    Zero-temperature limit At zero temperature, we can replace the sum in Eq. (B1) with an integral and calculate it explicitly. We ob- tain the dependence of the effective order parameter on the pair-breaking parameter,E g(Γ), determined by the following equation: ln(Eg/Eg0) +f(Γ/E g) = 0,(B5) with theffunction defined as f(z) =    πz/4, z <1, arccoshz+ z...

    work page

  10. [10]

    (40) and solve the self-consistency Eq

    Vicinity of the phase transition In the vicinity of the phase transition (θ→0,E g →0), we can find an explicit functionθ(ω n >0) from Eq. (40) and solve the self-consistency Eq. (B1): θ(ωn)≈ Eg Γ +ω n − E3 g ωn 2(Γ +ω n)4 ,(B9) E2 g(T,Γ) = eE2 g(T) 1−Γ/Γ c(T) .(B10) Here, the temperature-dependent prefactor is given by eE2 g(T) =TΓ c(T)Ξ Γc(T) 2πT ,(B11) ...

    work page

  11. [11]

    I. O. Kulik and I. K. Yanson,Josephson Effect In Super- conducting Tunneling Structures(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1972)

    work page 1972

  12. [12]

    Barone and G

    A. Barone and G. Paterno,Physics and Applications of the Josephson Effect(Wiley, New York, 1982)

    work page 1982

  13. [13]

    P. J. W. Moll and V. B. Geshkenbein, Evolution of su- perconducting diodes, Nat. Phys.19, 1379 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    L. S. Levitov, Yu. V. Nazarov, and G. M. Eliashberg, Magnetostatics of superconductors without an inversion center, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.41, 365 (1985), [JETP Lett.41, 445 (1985)]

    work page 1985

  15. [15]

    V. M. Edelstein, The Ginzburg–Landau equation for su- perconductors of polar symmetry, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter8, 339 (1996)

    work page 1996

  16. [16]

    V. M. Krasnov, V. A. Oboznov, and N. F. Pedersen, Fluxon dynamics in long Josephson junctions in the pres- ence of a temperature gradient or spatial nonuniformity, Phys. Rev. B55, 14486 (1997)

    work page 1997

  17. [17]

    J. B. Majer, J. Peguiron, M. Grifoni, M. Tusveld, and J. E. Mooij, Quantum ratchet effect for vortices, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 056802 (2003)

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    J. E. Villegas, S. Savel’ev, F. Nori, E. M. Gonzalez, J. V. Anguita, R. Garc´ ıa, and J. L. Vicent, A superconducting reversible rectifier that controls the motion of magnetic flux quanta, Science302, 1188 (2003)

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    D. Y. Vodolazov, B. A. Gribkov, S. A. Gusev, A. Yu. Klimov, Yu. N. Nozdrin, V. V. Rogov, and S. N. Vdovichev, Considerable enhancement of the critical cur- rent in a superconducting film by a magnetized magnetic strip, Phys. Rev. B72, 064509 (2005)

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    C. C. de Souza Silva, J. Van de Vondel, M. Morelle, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Controlled multiple reversals of a ratchet effect, Nature440, 651 (2006)

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Morelle and V

    M. Morelle and V. V. Moshchalkov, Enhanced criti- cal currents through field compensation with magnetic strips, Appl. Phys. Lett.88, 172507 (2006)

    work page 2006

  22. [22]

    A. Yu. Aladyshkin, D. Yu. Vodolazov, J. Fritzsche, R. B. G. Kramer, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Reverse- domain superconductivity in superconductor- ferromagnet hybrids: Effect of a vortex-free channel on the symmetry ofI-Vcharacteristics, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 052501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    M. A. Silaev, A. Yu. Aladyshkin, M. V. Silaeva, and A. S. Aladyshkina, The diode effect induced by domain-wall superconductivity, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter26, 095702 (2014)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    Yokoyama, M

    T. Yokoyama, M. Eto, and Yu. V. Nazarov, Anomalous Josephson effect induced by spin-orbit interaction and Zeeman effect in semiconductor nanowires, Phys. Rev. B 89, 195407 (2014)

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Wakatsuki, Y

    R. Wakatsuki, Y. Saito, S. Hoshino, Y. M. Itahashi, T. Ideue, M. Ezawa, Y. Iwasa, and N. Nagaosa, Nonre- ciprocal charge transport in noncentrosymmetric super- conductors, Sci. Adv.3, e1602390 (2017)

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    C.-Z. Chen, J. J. He, M. N. Ali, G.-H. Lee, K. C. Fong, and K. T. Law, Asymmetric Josephson effect in inversion symmetry breaking topological materials, Phys. Rev. B 98, 075430 (2018)

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Nadeem, M

    M. Nadeem, M. S. Fuhrer, and X. Wang, The supercon- ducting diode effect, Nat. Rev. Phys.5, 558 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Yanase, Nonreciprocal transport and optical phenomena in quantum materials, Annu. Rev. 20 Condens. Matter Phys.15, 63 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Shaffer and A

    D. Shaffer and A. Levchenko, Theories of superconduct- ing diode effects, arXiv:2510.25864

    work page arXiv

  30. [30]

    M. Yu. Levichev, I. Yu. Pashenkin, N. S. Gusev, and D. Yu. Vodolazov, Finite momentum superconductivity in superconducting hybrids: Orbital mechanism, Phys. Rev. B108, 094517 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Baumgartner, L

    C. Baumgartner, L. Fuchs, A. Costa, S. Reinhardt, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. J. Manfra, P. E. Faria Junior, D. Kochan, J. Fabian, N. Paradiso, and C. Strunk, Supercurrent rectification and magne- tochiral effects in symmetric Josephson junctions, Nat. Nanotechnol.17, 39 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    K. D. Usadel, Generalized diffusion equation for super- conducting alloys, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 507 (1970)

    work page 1970

  33. [33]

    Belzig, F

    W. Belzig, F. K. Wilhelm, C. Bruder, G. Sch¨ on, and A. D. Zaikin, Quasiclassical Green’s function approach to mesoscopic superconductivity, Superlattices Microstruct. 25, 1251 (1999)

    work page 1999

  34. [34]

    L. N. Cooper, Superconductivity in the neighborhood of metallic contacts, Phys. Rev. Lett.6, 689 (1961)

    work page 1961

  35. [35]

    P. G. de Gennes, Boundary effects in superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.36, 225 (1964)

    work page 1964

  36. [36]

    W. L. McMillan, Tunneling model of the superconducting proximity effect, Phys. Rev.175, 537 (1968)

    work page 1968

  37. [37]

    A. A. Golubov and M. Yu. Kupriyanov, Josephson effect in SNINS and SNIS tunnel structures with finite trans- parency of the SN boundaries, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.96, 1420 (1989), [Sov. Phys. JETP69, 805 (1989)]

    work page 1989

  38. [38]

    A. A. Golubov, Proximity effect in dirty N/S multilayers, inSuperconducting Superlattices and Multilayers, Vol. 2157, edited by I. Bozovic (SPIE, 1994) pp. 353–362

    work page 1994

  39. [39]

    Ya. V. Fominov and M. V. Feigel’man, Superconductive properties of thin dirty superconductor–normal-metal bi- layers, Phys. Rev. B63, 094518 (2001)

    work page 2001

  40. [40]

    A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, Vortex motion in superconductors, inNonequilibrium Superconductivity, edited by D. N. Langenberg and A. I. Larkin (Elsevier, New York, 1986) p. 530

    work page 1986

  41. [41]

    A. D. Zaikin and G. F. Zharkov, Theory of wide dirty SNSjunctions, Fiz. Nizk. Temp.7, 375 (1981), [Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys.7, 184 (1981)]

    work page 1981

  42. [42]

    M. Yu. Kuprianov and V. F. Lukichev, Influence of boundary transparency on the critical current of “dirty” SS′S structures, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.94, 139 (1988), [Sov. Phys. JETP67, 1163 (1988)]

    work page 1988

  43. [43]

    finite-momentum

    To avoid confusion, we note that in Ref. [20], the quan- tityq [20] 0 , chosen as an independent variable characteriz- ing the distribution of the condensate momenta inside the SN bilayer, is the thickness-averaged momentum: q[20] 0 = R qs(x)dx/d. AtB̸= 0 andI= 0, the current distribution is such thatq [20] 0 ̸= 0, therefore this state was referred to as ...

    work page

  44. [44]

    (25), can be es- timated asτ S(N) ∼ T −1dS(N) /vS(N) , whereTis the transparency of the interface andv S(N) are the Fermi velocities in the layers

    Theτ S(N) parameters defined in Eq. (25), can be es- timated asτ S(N) ∼ T −1dS(N) /vS(N) , whereTis the transparency of the interface andv S(N) are the Fermi velocities in the layers. Note thatτ S(N) do not depend on the mean free pathsl S(N) in the layers and contain the ballistic timesd S(N) /vS(N) of passage across the lay- ers. If the transverse resis...

    work page

  45. [45]

    A. A. Abrikosov and L. P. Gor’kov, Contribution to the theory of superconducting alloys with paramagnetic im- purities, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.39, 1781 (1960), [Sov. Phys. JETP12, 1243 (1961)]

    work page 1960

  46. [46]

    Using the relationσ= 2e 2νDbetween the conductivity and the diffusion constant, we can rewrite Eq. (43) in terms of the total (volume-integrated) density of states νS(N) VS(N) or in terms of the level spacingsδ S(N) : ⟨F⟩= FSνSVS +F N νN VN νSVS +ν N VN = FSδ−1 S +F N δ−1 N δ−1 S +δ −1 N

    work page

  47. [47]

    J. H. Claassen, J. E. Evetts, R. E. Somekh, and Z. H. Barber, Observation of the superconducting proximity effect from kinetic-inductance measurements, Phys. Rev. B44, 9605 (1991)

    work page 1991

  48. [48]

    A. A. Neilo, S. V. Bakurskiy, N. V. Klenov, I. I. Soloviev, and M. Yu. Kupriyanov, Magnetic control of the kinetic inductance in elements of superconducting electronics, JETP Lett.121, 58 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Maki, Gapless superconductivity, inSuperconductiv- ity, Vol

    K. Maki, Gapless superconductivity, inSuperconductiv- ity, Vol. 2, edited by R. D. Parks (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1969) Chap. 18

    work page 1969

  50. [50]

    Ya. V. Fominov, N. M. Chtchelkatchev, and A. A. Gol- ubov, Nonmonotonic critical temperature in supercon- ductor/ferromagnet bilayers, Phys. Rev. B66, 014507 (2002)

    work page 2002