Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Ultrathin NbN films show a power-law suppression of superfluid stiffness that conventional Mattis–Bardeen theory cannot explain; the crossover is set by the ratio of stiffness to pairing energy, Θ(0)/T_c.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

NbN films 2.8-25 nm thick show a power-law (T/T0)^b suppression of microwave superfluid stiffness at low T, with a crossover to Mattis-Bardeen behavior set by Θ(0)/Tc.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Real, well-evidenced power-law stiffness suppression in NbN; the Θ(0)/Tc crossover claim needs a direct absolute-calibration cross-check. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20096 v1 pith:U7W5ATQC submitted 2026-07-22 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Power-Law Suppression of Superfluid Stiffness in High-Kinetic-Inductance NbN Films

Meenakshi Sharma , Hrishikesh Borah , Sandeep Singh , Berit H. Goodge , Edouard Lesne , Sandra Nestler , Surinder P. Singh , Haolin Jin
show 3 more authors
Yejin Lee Bernd B\"uchner Uri Vool
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords superfluid stiffnesskinetic inductanceNbN thin filmsMattis–Bardeenpower-law responseBerezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless transitionphase fluctuationsmicrowave resonators
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the low-temperature electrodynamics of disordered niobium-nitride films, from 25 nm down to 2.8 nm thick, is not the exponentially activated response of ordinary BCS superconductors. Instead, the resonant-frequency shift follows a power law δf/f = -(T/T0)^b with b ≈ 2.3–2.8, which points to low-energy collective excitations that conventional Mattis–Bardeen theory cannot account for. The same films recover conventional gap-dominated behavior at higher temperatures, and the crossover is governed by the ratio of the zero-temperature superfluid stiffness to the pairing temperature, Θ(0)/Tc. If this is right, very large kinetic inductance in NbN is inherently tied to a phase-fluctuation-dominated condensate response, and the stiffness-to-pairing ratio—not disorder alone—becomes the parameter that decides which electrodynamics a film exhibits.

Core claim

Across a thickness series from 25 nm to 2.8 nm, NbN microwave resonators show a low-temperature fractional frequency shift δf/f = -(T/T0)^b with b ≈ 2.3–2.8, departing from the exponential Mattis–Bardeen form. The thinnest film, with sheet kinetic inductance up to 300 pH per square, also shows transport signatures of a Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless transition—the two-dimensional vortex-unbinding mechanism by which local pairing persists while long-range phase order is lost. As thickness increases, the power-law regime narrows (from T ≲ 0.35 Tc to T ≲ 0.15 Tc) and the response crosses continuously into conventional, quasiparticle-dominated electrodynamics. The authors interpret the power la

What carries the argument

The central object is the superfluid-stiffness-to-pairing ratio Θ(0)/Tc, where Θ(0) is the two-dimensional superfluid stiffness obtained from the measured sheet kinetic inductance via Θ(0) = (ħ/2e)^2/[kB Lk,□(0)]. The kinetic inductance itself is set through the Mattis–Bardeen relation Lk,□(0) = ħR□/[πΔ(0)] with Δ(0) = 1.764 kBTc, which serves as the baseline against which the anomalous response is measured. The power-law form δf/f = -(T/T0)^b, combined with the Mattis–Bardeen term for higher temperatures, is the mechanism that separates the anomalous low-energy depletion of stiffness from ordinary thermal quasiparticles. The ratio Θ(0)/Tc ranges from 3.4 to 48 across the series and is used

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the absolute stiffness scale Θ(0) is accurately given by the Mattis–Bardeen relation with a BCS gap Δ(0) = 1.764 kBTc; if NbN has a different gap ratio or if zero-point phase fluctuations already suppress the zero-temperature condensate, then the Θ(0)/Tc values and the 10 K offset in the fit would shift.

What would settle it

Measure the actual pairing gap and an independent superfluid stiffness (for example, through tunneling or optical conductivity for the gap, and lower-critical-field or mutual-inductance screening for the stiffness) on the same 2.8 nm and 25 nm NbN films, then re-plot T0 versus Θ(0); if the BCS gap factor is wrong, the linear relation and the Θ(0)/Tc crossover would fail or the offset would change.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • All films in the series, including the 25 nm film whose resonance is still mostly kinetic-inductance dominated, show the same two-regime response, so high kinetic inductance in NbN comes with an intrinsic anomalous low-temperature channel.
  • The exponent b stays nearly constant (2.3–2.8) while T0 varies by a factor of five, so the shape of the low-energy excitation spectrum is essentially thickness-independent while its energy scale tracks the superfluid stiffness.
  • The temperature window of the anomalous regime shrinks with thickness, from about 35% of Tc in the 2.8 nm film to about 15% of Tc in the 25 nm film, making thicker films progressively more conventional.
  • The critical temperatures extracted independently from transport and from the Mattis–Bardeen component of the microwave fit agree, indicating that the two-regime fit reflects a real crossover rather than a fitting artifact.
  • At intermediate thickness (25 nm), resonators retain internal quality factors around 10^5 with no strong low-temperature power dependence, so large kinetic inductance and low loss can coexist away from the extreme ultrathin limit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear relation T0 ≈ 0.18 Θ(0) + 10 K with the offset near Tc holds beyond this series, then the anomalous suppression would persist even for very stiff films, and the pairing scale would ultimately set the floor for T0; extending the thickness series above 25 nm would test this.
  • Because Θ(0) is inferred through the same Mattis–Bardeen relation containing the BCS gap factor, an independent measurement of the pairing gap (tunneling or optical conductivity) or of the stiffness (lower critical field or two-coil mutual inductance) on identical films would either confirm the crossover parameter or reveal a systematic offset.
  • The twin-domain microstructure suggests a growth-control handle: varying domain size or crystalline texture should change the exponent b and the offset if the pairing-amplitude distribution is the underlying mechanism, which would separate microstructural from purely compositional disorder.
  • The Θ(0)/Tc classification may transfer to other high-kinetic-inductance superconductors, meaning the ratio could serve as a general design guide for compact high-impedance quantum circuits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a thickness series of NbN superconducting microwave resonators (25–2.8 nm) with sheet kinetic inductance up to 300 pH/□. The central experimental claim is that the low-temperature fractional frequency shift follows a robust power law δf/f = −(T/T0)^b with b ≈ 2.3–2.8, in contrast to the exponential Mattis–Bardeen (M–B) prediction, and that this anomalous regime crosses over to conventional M–B electrodynamics at higher temperatures. The authors associate the power law with phase-fluctuation/collective-mode physics and organize the crossover using the ratio Θ(0)/Tc, where Θ(0) is the zero-temperature superfluid stiffness derived from the M–B kinetic-inductance formula. A linear relation T0 ≈ 0.18Θ(0) + 10 K is presented, with the offset tentatively interpreted as a pairing scale. Transport data on the 2.8 nm film show BKT-like excess conductivity, and STEM shows twin-domain nanocrystalline structure. The paper also reports microwave loss analysis separating TLS-like, quasiparticle, and residual channels.

Significance. If correct, the results would be an important experimental step: they identify a robust power-law suppression of superfluid stiffness in a technologically relevant high-kinetic-inductance material and propose a dimensionless ratio, Θ(0)/Tc, as a controlling parameter for the crossover between phase-fluctuation-dominated and gap-dominated electrodynamics. The strengths are the clean resonator platform, the systematic thickness series, the internal consistency of microwave and transport Tc values, and the inclusion of multiple modes for some films. These features make the anomalous power-law observation credible. The main weakness is that the absolute stiffness scale Θ(0)—and therefore the quantitative form of Eq. (5) and the Θ(0)/Tc classification—rests on the weak-coupling BCS gap ratio 1.764 in Eq. (1), which is simultaneously acknowledged not to describe the films. Without an independent calibration of Lk,□, the crossover parameter is not quantitatively established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (1) and after; Table I; Fig. 3(c); Eq. (5)] The absolute scale Θ(0) is obtained from Lk,□(0) = ℏR□/[πΔ(0)] with Δ(0)=1.764 kBTc, and Eq. (1) is explicitly called a baseline, not a description of the films. Yet the same Θ(0) is then used as the physical superfluid stiffness entering Θ(0)/Tc and the linear fit of Eq. (5). A strong-coupling gap ratio different from 1.764, or zero-temperature phase-fluctuation corrections to Lk,□, would systematically shift all Θ(0) values; because Lk,□ enters inversely, a gap ratio of ~2.0 would change Θ(0) by ~13%, and if the correction varies with thickness/disorder, the intercept Toff≈10 K could move by several kelvin. The measured resonator f0 and the known Lg, C provide an independent geometry-based cross-check of Lk,□, but this is not reported. Please provide this cross-check or otherwise justify the gap ratio and the use of the M–B baseline as the physical stiffness scale.
  2. [Table I; Eq. (5)] Table I reports T0, b, and Θ(0) without uncertainties, and Eq. (5) is fitted to only four thickness points. The statement that Toff≈10 K is 'comparable to the average critical temperature' is post hoc without confidence intervals or scatter from the nominally identical films mentioned in the text. Please report fit uncertainties, sample-to-sample scatter, and a goodness-of-fit/confidence analysis for the intercept. As it stands, the identification of the offset with a pairing scale is not quantitatively supported.
  3. [Main text, 'Fig. 3(b)' and 'Table I'; SM Fig. S8(a)] The main text states that b remains within ≈2.3–2.8 with no clear systematic thickness dependence. However, the SM reports b=3.2490 for an additional mode of the 5 nm film (Fig. S8(a)), outside that range, and the sister-sample 2.8/3 nm modes in Fig. S7 give b≈2.43–2.46, whereas Table I lists b=2.79 for the 2.8 nm film. This internal inconsistency suggests mode-to-mode and sample-to-sample variability that is not reflected in the claim of a robust common exponent. Please clarify selection criteria, report all fitted modes, and discuss whether the exponent is truly thickness-insensitive.
  4. [Main text, Eq. (4) and Fig. 3(c), upper panel] The decomposition into a power-law term plus an M–B term is validated by the independent microwave Tc agreeing with transport Tc. However, the M–B term in Eq. (4) itself contains a free amplitude and gap scale, and the power-law term has its own amplitude and exponent, so the two components could partially compensate. The reported agreement of Tc helps, but a residual-plot or parameter-covariance analysis would strengthen the claim that the two-regime form is not merely a flexible fitting function. Please show the fit residuals and, if possible, the cross-correlation between T0, b, and the M–B amplitude.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1(b) and Table I] For the 2.8 nm film, Tc is taken from the Aslamazov–Larkin fit (7.72 K), while the text says that elsewhere Tc denotes the resistive-transition midpoint. Please state explicitly which definition of Tc enters Table I for each film and why the AL value is used for the 2.8 nm film.
  2. [SM, Eq. (2)] The AL paraconductivity expression appears to contain a possible typographical error: the denominator should likely be ε (or sinh(ε)) with the appropriate coefficient, not the form printed. Please check the formula and its derivation.
  3. [Main text, Eq. (6) and End Matter] The loss model has four free parameters for each mode. The text already cautions that the TLS-like temperature dependence does not uniquely identify the microscopic origin. This is fine, but the abstract and conclusions would benefit from a similarly cautious phrasing regarding the 'TLS' label.
  4. [SM, Fig. S7] The caption says the sister samples are 3 nm, while the text refers to 2.8 nm NbN films and discusses 'sister samples of 2.8 nm'. Please reconcile the thickness labeling.
  5. [Main text, Fig. 3(c)] The error bars on T0, b, and Θ(0) are absent from Table I and Fig. 3(c). At minimum, add error bars to the Θ(0) axes and T0 values, even if they are fit-only uncertainties.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Θ(0)/Tc as organizing parameter reduces by construction to a rescaling of R□ under the paper's own BCS calibration; the power-law observation itself is independent.

specific steps
  1. renaming known result [Main text Eq. (1), Θ(0) definition after Eq. (2), Table I, Fig. 3(c), Eq. (5), and abstract/conclusion]
    "L_{k,□}(T) = ℏR_□/[π∆(0)] ... ∆(0)≈1.764k_BT_c ... Equation (1) serves not as a description of the films, but as the Mattis–Bardeen (mean-field BCS) baseline ... We therefore convert the zero-temperature sheet kinetic inductance into the 2-D superfluid stiffness, Θ(0) = (ℏ/2e)^2/[k_BL_{k,□}(0)] ... Overall, the crossover is governed by the ratio of superfluid stiffness to pairing energy, Θ(0)/T_c"

    Substituting Eq. (1) at T=0 into the Θ(0) definition gives Θ(0)/T_c = [π·1.764/(2e)^2]/R_□: the T_c cancels exactly. Thus the 'stiffness-to-pairing ratio' contains no independently measured pairing scale; it is a constant divided by the normal-state sheet resistance, i.e. a rescaling of the same disorder/thickness input used to define the series. The claim that Θ(0)/T_c governs the crossover is therefore equivalent by construction to saying R_□ governs it. What is presented as a physical ratio of two energy scales is a reparameterization of the sheet resistance, so the headline organizing-parameter conclusion reduces to the R_□ input. The low-temperature power-law data themselves are independent of this step; only the final unification claim is affected.

full rationale

The central empirical observation is not circular: the power-law δf/f = -(T/T0)^b and the crossover to Mattis-Bardeen behavior are fits to raw resonance-frequency data, supported by log-log linearity and by consistent exponents across additional modes (SM Figs. S7-S9). The BKT identification rests on Aslamazov-Larkin and Halperin-Nelson fits, not on a self-citation chain; the crossover form Eq. (4) is adopted from external Refs. [47,48]. Self-citations (e.g., Sharma et al. 2026 in the SM) are not load-bearing. The genuine circular-content burden is confined to the final organizing parameter. Using Eq. (1) at T=0 with Δ(0)=1.764k_BT_c, Θ(0)/T_c = [π·1.764/(2e)^2]/R_□, so the ratio is a constant divided by the normal-state sheet resistance; the T_c dependence cancels. Consequently, the abstract's claim that the crossover is governed by Θ(0)/T_c is, under the paper's own calibration, a restatement of control by R_□ rather than an independently measured ratio of stiffness to pairing energy. The offset T_off≈10 K in Eq. (5) is an empirical fit intercept; the paper itself flags the pairing-scale interpretation as a 'possibility' and states that a broader range and larger sample set are needed, so that part is a stated limitation rather than a hidden circular derivation. Score 4: the raw power-law claim has independent grounding, but the headline Θ(0)/T_c unification reduces by construction to the R_□ input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new microscopic entities. Its main load-bearing inputs are the BCS/Mattis-Bardeen relation used to define Θ(0), the cited collective-mode theory, and the single-film STEM extrapolation. The free parameters T0 and b are empirical fit outputs, and Eq. (5) adds two more fitted constants that are then given a physical interpretation.

free parameters (5)
  • T0 (power-law scale per film) = 20.9, 22.9, 36.8, 115 K
    Fit parameter in Eq. (3), central to the T0 vs Θ(0) scaling claim.
  • b (power-law exponent per film) = 2.79, 2.82, 2.58, 2.33
    Fit parameter in Eq. (3); interpreted via the low-energy excitation spectrum; no uncertainties reported.
  • Slope and offset in Eq. (5) = 0.18 and ~10 K
    Linear fit T0 ≈ 0.18Θ(0)+Toff to four thickness points; the offset is interpreted as a pairing-related scale.
  • Mattis-Bardeen amplitude and gap in Eq. (4) = not quoted
    The high-temperature M-B crossover component has fitted amplitude and gap scale; microwave Tc is checked against transport but errors are not given.
  • Loss-model parameters (QTLS,0, QQP,0, Δ0, Qother) = e.g., 5.99e3, 1.31e4, 4.53e5, 2.85e6
    End-matter fit to Qi(T) via Eq. (6); not central to the main frequency-shift claim.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Dirty-limit Mattis-Bardeen relation Eq. (1) with Δ(0)=1.764kBTc gives Lk,□(0) and hence Θ(0).
    Used to define the absolute stiffness Θ(0) and Θ(0)/Tc; validity in strongly disordered, phase-fluctuating films is not established.
  • domain assumption δf/f ≈ -(α/2)δΘ/Θ(0) with α constant.
    Assumes the resonance frequency shift is entirely due to kinetic inductance changes; TLS dispersive shift is estimated to be small.
  • domain assumption Power-law suppression is caused by collective modes from spatial pairing-amplitude variations (Ref. 48).
    Cited theory, not derived in this paper; used to interpret the meaning of b and T0.
  • domain assumption AL/HN paraconductivity analysis identifies a BKT transition in the 2.8 nm film.
    Standard fluctuation theory; the fit gives TBKT = 6.959 K, but the analysis depends on the normal-state background subtraction.
  • domain assumption The 5 nm STEM microstructure is characteristic of all thicknesses in the series.
    Only a representative film was imaged by cross-sectional STEM; it is used to explain the nearly thickness-independent b.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Power-Law Suppression of Superfluid Stiffness in High-Kinetic-Inductance NbN Films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7W5ATQC

@misc{pith2026260720096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Power-Law Suppression of Superfluid Stiffness in High-Kinetic-Inductance NbN Films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7W5ATQC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20096}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Disorder is a powerful route to high kinetic inductance in superconducting ultrathin films, enabling compact high-impedance quantum circuits. This functionality, however, comes at the cost of reduced phase rigidity and potentially anomalous electrodynamics. Here, we use NbN microwave resonators with thicknesses down to 2.8 nm and sheet kinetic inductance up to 300 pH per square to probe how this trade-off reshapes the superconducting response. In the thinnest films, transport shows signatures of a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition, while the microwave response reveals a pronounced low-temperature power-law suppression of the superfluid stiffness, inconsistent with Mattis-Bardeen theory. With increasing thickness, this anomalous regime is progressively suppressed, marking a continuous crossover toward conventional, gap-dominated electrodynamics. Cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy reveals a nanocrystalline twin-domain structure, pointing to oriented microstructural disorder as a crucial factor in the observed response. Overall, the crossover is governed by the ratio of superfluid stiffness to pairing energy, Theta(0)/Tc, identifying this ratio as a parameter governing the boundary between phase-fluctuation-dominated and gap-dominated superconducting electrodynamics in disordered nanofilms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20096 by Berit H. Goodge, Bernd B\"uchner, Edouard Lesne, Haolin Jin, Hrishikesh Borah, Meenakshi Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Sandra Nestler, Surinder P. Singh, Uri Vool, Yejin Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) Cross-sectional ADF-STEM images of a representative 5 nm NbN film on Al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) Optical image of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) Fractional resonance frequency shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

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

81 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Zmuidzinas, Annu

    J. Zmuidzinas, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.3, 169 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Science326, 113 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    H. G. Leduc, B. Bumble, P. K. Day, B. H. Eom, J. Gao, S. Golwala, B. A. Mazin, S. McHugh, A. Merrill, D. C. Moore, et al., Applied Physics Letters97(2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Jouanny, S

    V. Jouanny, S. Frasca, V. J. Weibel, L. Peyruchat, M. Scigliuzzo, F. Oppliger, F. De Palma, D. Sbroggi` o, G. Beaulieu, O. Zilberberg, et al., Nature Communica- tions16, 3396 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Niepce, J

    D. Niepce, J. Burnett, and J. Bylander, Physical Review Applied11, 044014 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Frasca, I

    S. Frasca, I. N. Arabadzhiev, S. Y. Bros de Puechre- don, F. Oppliger, V. Jouanny, R. Musio, M. Scigliuzzo, F. Minganti, P. Scarlino, and E. Charbon, Physical Re- view Applied20, 044021 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    N. A. Masluk, I. M. Pop, A. Kamal, Z. K. Minev, and M. H. Devoret, Physical Review Letters109, 137002 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    M. Bell, I. Sadovskyy, L. Ioffe, A. Y. Kitaev, and M. Ger- shenson, Physical Review Letters109, 137003 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    X. Wei, J. Jiang, W. Xu, T. Guo, K. Zhang, Z. Li, T. Zhou, Y. Sheng, C. Cao, G. Sun, and P. Wu, Applied 6 Physics Letters123, 154005 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    A. J. Annunziata, D. F. Santavicca, L. Frunzio, G. Cate- lani, M. J. Rooks, A. Frydman, and D. E. Prober, Nan- otechnology21, 445202 (2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    Khorramshahi, M

    M. Khorramshahi, M. Spiecker, P. Paluch, S. Geisert, N. Gosling, N. Zapata, L. Brauch, C. K¨ ubel, S. Dehm, R. Krupke, et al., Physical Review Applied24, 024066 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Gr¨ unhaupt, N

    L. Gr¨ unhaupt, N. Maleeva, S. T. Skacel, M. Calvo, F. Levy-Bertrand, A. V. Ustinov, H. Rotzinger, A. Mon- fardini, G. Catelani, and I. M. Pop, Physical Review Let- ters121, 117001 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Gr¨ unhaupt, M

    L. Gr¨ unhaupt, M. Spiecker, D. Gusenkova, N. Maleeva, S. T. Skacel, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, H. Rotzinger, W. Wernsdorfer, et al., Nature materials 18, 816 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    Maleeva, L

    N. Maleeva, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, T. Klein, F. Levy-Bertrand, O. Dupre, M. Calvo, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, F. Friedrich, W. Wernsdorfer, et al., Nature communications9, 3889 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Rieger, S

    D. Rieger, S. G¨ unzler, M. Spiecker, P. Paluch, P. Winkel, L. Hahn, J. Hohmann, A. Bacher, W. Wernsdorfer, and I. Pop, Nature Materials22, 194 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Bøttcher, E

    C. Bøttcher, E. ¨Onder, T. Connolly, J. Zhao, C. Kvande, D. Wang, P. Kurilovich, S. Vaitiek˙ enas, L. Glazman, H. Tang, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19983 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Samkharadze, A

    N. Samkharadze, A. Bruno, P. Scarlino, G. Zheng, D. Di- Vincenzo, L. DiCarlo, and L. Vandersypen, Physical Re- view Applied5, 044004 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    J. G. Kroll, F. Borsoi, K. Van Der Enden, W. Uil- hoorn, D. De Jong, M. Quintero-P´ erez, D. Van Woerkom, A. Bruno, S. Plissard, D. Car, et al., Physical Review Ap- plied11, 064053 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    C. X. Yu, S. Zihlmann, G. Troncoso Fern´ andez-Bada, J.- L. Thomassin, F. Gustavo, ´E. Dumur, and R. Maurand, Applied Physics Letters118(2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Borisov, D

    K. Borisov, D. Rieger, P. Winkel, F. Henriques, F. Valenti, A. Ionita, M. Wessbecher, M. Spiecker, D. Gusenkova, I. Pop, et al., Applied Physics Letters 117(2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    C. Roy, S. Frasca, and P. Scarlino, Physical Review Ap- plied25, 014069 (2026)

    2026

  22. [22]

    Frasca, C

    S. Frasca, C. Roy, G. Beaulieu, and P. Scarlino, Physical Review Applied21, 024011 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Winkel, K

    P. Winkel, K. Borisov, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, D. Rieger, M. Spiecker, F. Valenti, A. V. Ustinov, W. Wernsdorfer, and I. M. Pop, Physical Review X10, 031032 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    S. Yu, L. Yang, X. Yan, R. Fan, X. Dai, Z. Mai, Z. Shi, Y. Wang, M. Zhang, Y. Hong, et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics215, 276 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Ho Eom, P

    B. Ho Eom, P. K. Day, H. G. LeDuc, and J. Zmuidzinas, Nature Physics8, 623 (2012)

    2012

  26. [26]

    P. K. Day, H. G. LeDuc, B. A. Mazin, A. Vayonakis, and J. Zmuidzinas, Nature425, 817 (2003)

    2003

  27. [27]

    D. J. Parker, M. Savytskyi, W. Vine, A. Laucht, T. Duty, A. Morello, A. L. Grimsmo, and J. J. Pla, Physical Re- view Applied17, 034064 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    M. R. Vissers, J. Hubmayr, M. Sandberg, S. Chaudhuri, C. Bockstiegel, and J. Gao, Applied Physics Letters107 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    Adamyan, S

    A. Adamyan, S. Kubatkin, and A. Danilov, Applied Physics Letters108(2016)

    2016

  30. [30]

    Lee and T

    J. Lee and T. R. Lemberger, Applied physics letters62, 2419 (1993)

    1993

  31. [31]

    M. Xu, R. Cheng, Y. Wu, G. Liu, and H. X. Tang, PRX Quantum4, 010322 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    E. F. Driessen, P. Coumou, R. Tromp, P. De Visser, and T. Klapwijk, Physical Review Letters109, 107003 (2012)

    2012

  33. [33]

    F. Wang, K. Lu, H. Zhan, L. Ma, F. Wu, H. Sun, H. Deng, Y. Bai, F. Bao, X. Chang, et al., Physical Re- view Applied23, 044064 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Chockalingam, M

    S. Chockalingam, M. Chand, J. Jesudasan, V. Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics77, 214503 (2008)

    2008

  35. [35]

    Sharma, M

    M. Sharma, M. Singh, R. K. Rakshit, S. P. Singh, M. Fretto, N. De Leo, A. Perali, and N. Pinto, Nano- materials12, 4109 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Mondal, A

    M. Mondal, A. Kamlapure, M. Chand, G. Saraswat, S. Kumar, J. Jesudasan, L. Benfatto, V. Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Physical Review Letters106, 047001 (2011)

    2011

  37. [37]

    J. Yong, T. Lemberger, L. Benfatto, K. Ilin, and M. Siegel, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics87, 184505 (2013)

    2013

  38. [38]

    Weitzel, L

    A. Weitzel, L. Pfaffinger, I. Maccari, K. Kronfeldner, T. Huber, L. Fuchs, J. Mallord, S. Linzen, E. Il’ichev, N. Paradiso, et al., Physical Review Letters131, 186002 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    Raychaudhuri and S

    P. Raychaudhuri and S. Dutta, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter34, 083001 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    G. M. Eliashberg, G. V. Klimovitch, and A. V. Rylyakov, Journal of Superconductivity4, 393 (1991)

    1991

  41. [41]

    Sac´ ep´ e, C

    B. Sac´ ep´ e, C. Chapelier, T. I. Baturina, V. M. Vinokur, M. R. Baklanov, and M. Sanquer, Nature Communica- tions1, 140 (2010)

    2010

  42. [42]

    Charpentier, D

    T. Charpentier, D. Perconte, S. L´ eger, K. R. Amin, F. Blondelle, F. Gay, O. Buisson, L. Ioffe, A. Khvalyuk, I. Poboiko, et al., Nature Physics21, 104 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  44. [44]

    Bartolf, A

    H. Bartolf, A. Engel, A. Schilling, K. Il’in, M. Siegel, H.-W. H¨ ubers, and A. Semenov, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics81, 024502 (2010)

    2010

  45. [45]

    Benfatto, C

    L. Benfatto, C. Castellani, and T. Giamarchi, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics80, 214506 (2009)

    2009

  46. [46]

    Z. Hu, Z. Ma, Y.-D. Liao, H. Li, C. Ma, Y. Cui, Y. Shang- guan, Z. Huang, Y. Qi, W. Li, et al., Nature communi- cations11, 5631 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    P. C. J. J. Coumou, A. M. Baryshev, A. A. Golubov, H. Rogalla, and T. M. Klapwijk, Physical Review B88, 180505 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

    A. V. Khvalyuk, T. Charpentier, N. Roch, B. Sac´ ep´ e, and M. V. Feigel’man, Physical Review B109, 144501 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    A. V. Khvalyuk and M. V. Feigel’man, Physical Review Letters136, 256001 (2026)

    2026

  50. [50]

    S. Kern, P. Neilinger, M. Pol´ aˇ ckov´ a, T. Bar´ anek, T. Plecenik, T. Roch, and M. Grajcar, Physical Review B110, 245131 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    L. M. Joshi, A. Verma, A. Gupta, P. Rout, S. Husale, and R. Budhani, AIP Advances8(2018)

    2018

  52. [52]

    Semenov, B

    A. Semenov, B. G¨ unther, U. B¨ ottger, H.-W. H¨ ubers, H. Bartolf, A. Engel, A. Schilling, K. Ilin, M. Siegel, R. Schneider, et al., Physical Review B—Condensed Mat- 7 ter and Materials Physics80, 054510 (2009)

    2009

  53. [53]

    S. L. Chu, A. T. Bollinger, and A. Bezryadin, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics70, 214506 (2004)

    2004

  54. [54]

    Aslamasov and A

    L. Aslamasov and A. Larkin, Physics Letters A26, 238 (1968)

    1968

  55. [55]

    Halperin and D

    B. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, Journal of low temperature physics36, 599 (1979)

    1979

  56. [56]

    Venditti, J

    G. Venditti, J. Biscaras, S. Hurand, N. Bergeal, J. Lesueur, A. Dogra, R. Budhani, M. Mondal, J. Jesu- dasan, P. Raychaudhuri, et al., Physical Review B100, 064506 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, K. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P. Pappas, R. W. Simmonds, et al., Physical Review Letters95, 210503 (2005)

    2005

  58. [58]

    M¨ uller, J

    C. M¨ uller, J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 124501 (2019)

    2019

  59. [59]

    Megrant, C

    A. Megrant, C. Neill, R. Barends, B. Chiaro, Y. Chen, L. Feigl, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, P. J. O’Malley, et al., Applied Physics Letters100(2012)

    2012

  60. [60]

    C. R. H. McRae, H. Wang, J. Gao, M. R. Vissers, T. Brecht, A. Dunsworth, D. P. Pappas, and J. Mutus, Review of Scientific Instruments91(2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    D. P. Pappas, M. R. Vissers, D. S. Wisbey, J. S. Kline, and J. Gao, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconduc- tivity21, 871 (2011)

    2011

  62. [62]

    Kumar, J

    S. Kumar, J. Gao, J. Zmuidzinas, B. A. Mazin, H. G. LeDuc, and P. K. Day, Applied Physics Letters92(2008)

    2008

  63. [63]

    Kirsh, E

    N. Kirsh, E. Svetitsky, A. L. Burin, M. Schechter, and N. Katz, Physical Review Materials1, 012601 (2017)

    2017

  64. [64]

    D. C. Mattis and J. Bardeen, Physical Review111, 412 (1958). End Matter: Microwave Loss Mechanisms Beyond the reactive electrodynamic response encoded in the resonant-frequency shift, the internal quality factorQ i provides complementary information on the dissipative channels that limit the performance of high- kinetic-inductance NbN resonators. Figure 4...

    1958

  65. [65]

    S. P. Chockalingam, M. Chand, J. Jesudasan, V . Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Physical Review B77, 214503 (2008)

    2008

  66. [66]

    S. Kern, P. Neilinger, M. Poláˇcková, T. Baránek, T. Plecenik, T. Roch, and M. Grajcar, Physical Review B110, 245131 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    L. M. Joshi, A. Verma, A. Gupta, P. Rout, S. Husale, and R. Budhani, AIP Advances8, 055005 (2018)

    2018

  68. [68]

    Probst, F

    S. Probst, F. B. Song, P. A. Bushev, A. V . Ustinov, and M. Weides, Efficient and robust analysis of complex scattering data under noise in microwave resonators, Rev. Sci. Instrum.86, 024706 (2015)

    2015

  69. [69]

    M. S. Khalil, M. J. A. Stoutimore, F. C. Wellstood, and K. D. Osborn, An analysis method for asymmetric resonator transmission applied to superconducting devices, J. Appl. Phys.111, 054510 (2012)

    2012

  70. [70]

    R. N. Simons,Coplanar Waveguide Circuits, Components, and Systems, Wiley, New York (2001)

    2001

  71. [71]

    J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, K. D. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P. Pappas, R. W. Simmonds, and C. C. Yu,Decoherence in Josephson Qubits from Dielectric Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210503 (2005)

    2005

  72. [72]

    Gao,The Physics of Superconducting Microwave Resonators, Ph.D

    J. Gao,The Physics of Superconducting Microwave Resonators, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (2008)

    2008

  73. [73]

    L. G. Aslamazov and A. I. Larkin,The influence of fluctuation pairing of electrons on the conductivity of normal metal, Phys. Lett. A26, 238 (1968)

    1968

  74. [74]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless,Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  75. [75]

    D. R. Nelson and J. M. Kosterlitz,Universal jump in the superfluid density of two-dimensional superfluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 1201 (1977)

    1977

  76. [76]

    Sharma, S

    M. Sharma, S. Caprara, A. Perali, S. P. Singh, S. Singh, M. Fretto, N. De Leo, and N. Pinto,Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless to BCS-like superconducting fluctuation crossover driven by weak magnetic fields in ultra-thin NbN films, Superconductivity , 100256 (2026)

    2026

  77. [77]

    D. C. Mattis and J. Bardeen,Theory of the Anomalous Skin Effect in Normal and Superconducting Metals, Phys. Rev.111, 412 (1958)

    1958

  78. [78]

    Zmuidzinas,Superconducting Microresonators: Physics and Applications, Annu

    J. Zmuidzinas,Superconducting Microresonators: Physics and Applications, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.3, 169 (2012)

    2012

  79. [79]

    J. Gao, M. Daal, A. Vayonakis, S. Kumar, J. Zmuidzinas, B. Sadoulet, B. A. Mazin, P. K. Day, and H. G. Leduc,Experimental evidence for a surface distribution of two-level systems in superconducting lithographed microwave resonators, Appl. Phys. Lett.92, 152505 (2008)

    2008

  80. [80]

    H. Jin, G. Serpico, Y . Lee, T. Confalone, C. N. Saggau, F. Lo Sardo, G. Gu, B. H. Goodge, E. Lesne, D. Montemurro, K. Nielsch, N. Poccia, and U. V ool,Exploring van der Waals Cuprate Superconductors Using a Hybrid Microwave Circuit, Nano Lett.25, 3191 (2025)

    2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.