Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Expanding the operational temperature window of a superconducting spin valve

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a superconducting spin valve in which the same Heusler alloy, deposited in two different magnetic states, produces a triplet spin-valve effect above 1 K and an operational temperature window near 0.6 K.

desk verdict A genuine step forward in superconducting spin valves, but the headline numbers rest on an unmeasured pinning assumption and a parameter-matched theory fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17352 v1 pith:RU3DQSBN submitted 2024-11-26 cond-mat.supr-con

A.A. Kamashev , N.N. Garif'yanov , A.A. Validov , V. Kataev , A.S. Osin , Ya.V. Fominov , I.A. Garifullin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords superconductingspinvalvetripletspin-valveeffectlong-rangecomponentHeusleralloyhalf-metalproximitycriticaltemperatureferromagnet/superconductorheterostructure
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

The paper reports a superconducting spin valve that switches between normal and superconducting states over a temperature window about 0.6 K wide, roughly twice the best previous value. The device is a thin-film stack in which a half-metallic Heusler alloy layer and a weakly ferromagnetic layer of the same alloy flank a lead superconductor. The authors argue that this material pairing maximizes the long-range triplet component of the superconducting condensate, which suppresses superconductivity strongly when the two magnetic layers are perpendicular. If the claim holds, the structure offers a practical route to wider-temperature-range superconducting logic elements made from a single tunable magnetic material.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the long-range triplet component (LRTC) of the superconducting condensate: a spin-triplet pairing channel that can survive far inside a ferromagnet and whose generation requires a non-collinearity of the two ferromagnetic exchange fields. In this stack the LRTC is turned on when the half-metallic F1 layer is rotated to an orthogonal orientation relative to the pinned weak-ferromagnetic F2 layer, opening an extra Cooper-pair leakage channel that pushes Tc to its minimum. The material device that carries the argument is the two magnetic layers being the same Heusler alloy, Co2Cr1−xFexAly, deposited hot (half-metallic F1) and at room temperature (weak-ferromagnetic F2), which the authors exploit as a tunable design for maximizing the effect.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the F2 magnetization inside the full HA hot/Al/HA RT/Al/Pb stack (for example, by polarized neutron reflectometry or element-specific X-ray magnetic circular dichroism) while rotating a 4 kOe in-plane field would settle the issue: if F2 rotates by more than a few degrees, the attribution of the 0.6 K window to the triplet spin-valve effect is compromised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a F1/F2/S spin valve in which both ferromagnetic layers are the Heusler alloy Co2Cr1−xFexAly, used in two deliberately different deposition states, achieves the largest reported operational temperature window for a superconducting spin valve. The half-metallic high-temperature-deposited form (HA hot) serves as the strongly spin-polarized F1 layer, while the room-temperature-deposited form (HA RT) serves as a weak ferromagnet in the F2 role. In the stack HA hot/Al/HA RT/Al/Pb, the critical temperature Tc passes through a deep minimum when the two magnetizations are perpendicular (α = 90°), which the authors attribute to the generation of the long-range triplet component of the condensate; the measured triplet effect $ΔTc^{{trip}}$ = Tc(0°) − Tc(90°) exceeds 1 K, and the operational window $ΔTc^{{full}}$ reaches ~0.6 K, with the ordinary antiparallel-parallel effect remaining at ~85 mK. The authors conclude that this dual-role use of one alloy sets a benchmark for spin-valve design and for applications in superconducting spintronics.

Load-bearing premise

The central result assumes that the weakly ferromagnetic F2 layer remains magnetically pinned while the measuring field rotates the F1 layer, even though the field is several times larger than F2's single-film coercive field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 0.6 K operational window is reproduced in other labs, the F1/F2/S spin valve becomes a practical cryogenic switch that can toggle the superconducting state over a temperature range compatible with simple helium-bath regulation.
  • The deep Tc(α) minimum at perpendicular orientation is a direct experimental signature of long-range triplet correlations, strengthening the case that triplet channels can be engineered in all-metallic spin-valve stacks.
  • The finding that increasing the rotating field from 2 to 4 kOe enlarges the triplet effect even while suppressing the absolute Tc suggests that magnetic saturation of the F layers is an independent control knob for spin-valve performance.
  • Using one material for both magnetic layers simplifies fabrication, because no antiferromagnetic pinning layer is needed, and points to a route for scaling to device arrays.
  • The combination of a half-metal and a weak ferromagnet may serve as a template for other superconducting spin-valve materials, since the two magnetic roles can be tuned separately.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the F2 pinning is as robust as inferred, the same dual-role Heusler design could be tested with a thicker or higher-coercivity F2 layer to push the operational window further, a variable the present work leaves unexplored.
  • A direct measurement of F2 magnetization inside the full stack would settle the pinning assumption; until then, the possibility that the high-field data mix in an ordinary field-pair-breaking contribution remains open.
  • The apparent field-boosting effect suggests that materials with near-perfect saturation might generate even larger triplet windows, implying that the present 0.6 K is not necessarily an intrinsic ceiling.
  • The same architecture might work with other type-I or weak type-II superconductors if the spacer is re-optimized, suggesting that the result could generalize beyond Pb.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a superconducting spin valve of the F1/F2/S type in which both ferromagnetic layers are made from the same Heusler alloy Co2Cr1-xFexAly: a half-metallic high-temperature-deposited layer (HA hot, F1) and a weakly ferromagnetic room-temperature-deposited layer (HA RT, F2), with Pb as the superconductor. The authors measure the critical temperature Tc as a function of the in-plane magnetic field orientation α relative to a cooling-field direction and observe a minimum near the nominally orthogonal configuration, which they attribute to the long-range triplet component. For the best sample, HA hot(20 nm)/Al(4 nm)/HA RT(5 nm)/Al(1.2 nm)/Pb(60 nm), they report a triplet spin-valve effect ΔTc^trip = Tc(0°) − Tc(90°) of more than 1 K and an operational temperature window ΔTc^full of about 0.6 K at H0 = 4 kOe. A Usadel-theory fit is presented for the 1 kOe data, and the paper argues that the combination of a half-metallic F1 and a weak ferromagnet F2 boosts the triplet effect.

Significance. If the magnetic-configuration assumption holds, the reported values would be a clear record for a superconducting spin valve and would strengthen the case for triplet-based superconducting spintronics. The conceptual idea of using one parent Heusler alloy in two deposition regimes is elegant and, as the authors note, simplifies fabrication relative to designs with different F1 and F2 materials. The experimental data appear internally consistent: the Tc(α) curves show a pronounced, reproducible minimum near 90°, and the 0° and 360° traces coincide, indicating controlled field rotation. However, the central quantitative claim at 4 kOe depends on the F2 layer remaining pinned in fields far above the single-layer coercivity, and this is supported only by indirect evidence. The theoretical fit is explicitly parameter-guided and is not applied to the benchmark field, so it serves as a consistency check rather than independent confirmation. The manuscript would be significantly strengthened by direct magnetization measurements of the embedded F2 layer at operating temperatures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Figs. 2 and 3(c)] The identification of α with the angle between the F1 and F2 magnetizations requires that the HA RT (F2) layer remain pinned in an in-plane field H0 = 4 kOe. The single-layer HA RT coercive field is about 0.5 kOe at 30 K, and the manuscript offers only indirect evidence for pinning: the 360° periodicity of Tc(α), the qualitative field-independence of its form, and the ordinary spin-valve effect Tc(180°) > Tc(0°). A reversible partial rotation of F2 would also produce a 360° periodicity, while the actual angle between the two magnetizations would deviate from α; the 4 kOe values of ΔTc^trip and ΔTc^full would then mix in ordinary orbital pair-breaking and would not be cleanly attributable to a spin-valve orientation. I request a direct magnetization measurement of the F2 layer inside the actual multilayer at the operating temperature, or an element-specific probe (e.g., XMCD or polarized neutron reflectometry) that resolves the F2 direction under a rotating 4 kOe field.
  2. [Sec. IV, fitting paragraph] The Usadel-theory fit is presented as support for the triplet interpretation, but the manuscript states that the exchange fields h1 and h2, the interface transparency γbFS, and the coherence lengths ξF1 = ξF2 were chosen to produce the required nonmonotonic Tc(α) dependence, with γbFS adjusted to set the overall Tc level. Moreover, the fit is performed only for the 1 kOe data in Fig. 3(a), while the benchmark claims at 4 kOe are outside the theory, as the authors acknowledge. This means the theory provides a consistency check, not a quantitative prediction or an independent confirmation of the triplet mechanism at the reported record fields. The paper should state this limitation more prominently and avoid implying that the 4 kOe benchmark is theoretically explained.
  3. [Sec. III, Figs. 3 and 4] The central quantitative claims, ΔTc^trip > 1 K and ΔTc^full ≈ 0.6 K, are reported without uncertainty estimates. Since Tc is defined as the midpoint of a resistive transition, the transition width δTc directly affects the operational window and the accuracy of the effect magnitude; the manuscript does not report δTc for the relevant curves or the reproducibility across nominally identical samples. Error bars and a description of how many independent measurements underlie Fig. 3(c) are needed to support the benchmark statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, text near Fig. 4] The text refers to the ordinary spin-valve effect magnitude as 'several tenths mK', while Fig. 4 reports ΔTc = Tc(180°) − Tc(0°) ≈ 85 mK; this appears to be a typo for 'several tens of mK' and should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. V] In the conclusions, the deposition temperature is given as '∼700°' without the unit; it should read '∼700 K' to match Sec. II.
  3. [Throughout] The notation ΔTc^trip, ΔTc^full, and δTc is introduced informally; a concise definition of each quantity at first use would improve readability, especially for readers who are not specialists in spin-valve terminology.
  4. [Reference list] Reference [54] has a formatting error in the journal citation (missing closing parenthesis and inconsistent page/issue formatting); please check all references for completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the benchmark ΔTc values are direct measurements, and the Usadel comparison is explicitly a fit rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The paper’s central quantitative claims, ΔTc^trip > 1 K and ΔTc^full ≈ 0.6 K, are extracted directly from resistive Tc(α) measurements in Figs. 3 and 4; no theoretical parameter is required to obtain those numbers. The Usadel calculation in Sec. IV is explicitly a fitting exercise: the authors state that parameter values “were chosen in order to provide the required nonmonotonic dependence of Tc(α)” and they concede that “the Usadel equations that we employ are formally not valid in this case.” This candor means the theoretical agreement is not presented as an out-of-sample prediction, and it is not the source of the measured effect. The interpretation that a Tc minimum near orthogonal magnetization indicates a long-range triplet component is grounded in general prior theory by Bergeret et al. (Ref. 46) and in the independent experimental work of Singh et al. (Ref. 37), not solely in a self-citation chain. The main assumption, that the F2 layer remains pinned at H0 = 4 kOe despite the single-layer coercive field of about 0.5 kOe, is supported only indirectly by the 360° periodicity and field-independence of Tc(α); this is a substantive experimental assumption that could be tested with direct low-temperature magnetization measurements of the embedded F2 layer, but it is a physical auxiliary assumption rather than a definitional or fitted-input circularity. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

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

The central experimental claim does not depend on a new theory, but the interpretation as a triplet spin-valve effect rests on several assumptions. The Usadel fit is calibrated with free parameters chosen to reproduce the nonmonotonic Tc(α) curve, so it cannot by itself prove the triplet mechanism. The most fragile unverified premise is that the F2 layer stays pinned at operational fields. No new physical entities are introduced; the long-range triplet component is a prior theoretical prediction.

free parameters (5)
  • Exchange fields h1 and h2 = h1=0.3 eV, h2=0.1 eV
    Sec. IV: chosen so that h1/h2 ~ 2-3 and to reproduce the nonmonotonic Tc(α) dependence; not independently measured for these layers.
  • Interface transparency parameter γbFS = 1.13
    Sec. IV: taken to match the overall Tc level; corresponds to an effective transparency notably below unity.
  • Ferromagnetic coherence lengths ξF1=ξF2 = 8 nm
    Sec. IV: estimated from resistivity and adjusted to produce the required interference effects in the fit.
  • Materials-matching parameter γFS = 0.1
    Sec. IV: estimated from ξF2/ξS under simplifying assumptions; used in the fit rather than measured.
  • Interface parameters γFF=1, γbFF=0 = 1 and 0
    Sec. IV: set by assuming nearly identical ferromagnetic transport properties and an ideal F1/F2 interface.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Usadel equations remain adequate for the proximity effect in the fabricated structures despite strong ferromagnets and high spin polarization.
    Sec. IV: the authors state the theory is "formally not valid" for strong ferromagnets with significant DSP but still use it; agreement with one fitted curve is not independent validation.
  • domain assumption The F2 layer stays magnetically pinned during field rotation even when the applied field exceeds its single-layer coercive field.
    Sec. III: inferred from the 360° periodicity of Tc(α) and from assumed interface anisotropy; no direct magnetization measurement of F2 in the multilayer is provided.
  • domain assumption The Al interlayers are purely technological, decoupling the magnetic layers without substantially modifying superconducting correlations.
    Sec. II: Al thicknesses are chosen from previous work and assumed thin compared with coherence lengths; no direct check of interlayer transparency is reported.
  • domain assumption A Tc minimum at orthogonal magnetization orientation is unambiguous evidence for generation of the long-range triplet component.
    Sec. III and Sec. IV: based on the theory of Ref. [25]; the paper does not fully separate this signature from magnetic-field pair-breaking effects, especially at 4 kOe.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Expanding the operational temperature window of a superconducting spin valve." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RU3DQSBN

@misc{pith2026241117352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Expanding the operational temperature window of a superconducting spin valve},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RU3DQSBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17352}
}
abstract

To increase the efficiency of the superconducting spin valve (SSV), special attention should be paid to the choice of ferromagnetic materials for the F1/F2/S SSV multilayer. Here, we report the preparation and the superconducting properties of the SSV heterostructures where Pb is used as the superconducting S layer. In the magnetic part of the structure, we use the same starting material, the Heusler alloy Co$_2$Cr$_{1-x}$Fe$_x$Al$_{y}$, for both F1 and F2 layers. We utilize the tunability of the magnetic properties of this alloy, which, depending on the deposition conditions, forms either an almost fully spin-polarized half-metallic F1 layer or a weakly ferromagnetic F2 layer. We demonstrate that the combination of the distinct properties of these two layers boosts the generation of the long-range triplet component of the superconducting condensate in the fabricated SSV structures and yields superior values of the triplet spin-valve effect of more than 1 K and of the operational temperature window of the SSV up to 0.6 K.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17352 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Design of the prepared SSV heterostructures (see the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Magnetic hysteresis loops for the HA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Superconducting transition curves for the P ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1 eV, γbFF = 0, and γbFS = 1. 13. The values of ξF1, ξF2, γFS, and the h1/h 2 ratio are consistent with the estimates discussed above. Their spe- cific values were chosen in order to provide the required nonmonotonic dependence of Tc(α ). This behavior is sensitive to the interference effects due to the oscillat- ing nature of the proximity-induced condensa...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Linder and J

    J. Linder and J. W. A. Robinson, Superconducting spin- tronics, Nature Physics 11, 307 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    ˇZuti´ c, J

    I. ˇZuti´ c, J. Fabian and S. Das Sarma, Spin- tronics: Fundamentals and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    K. B. Efetov, I. A. Garifullin, A. F. Volkov and K. West- erholt, Magnetic Heterostructures Advances and Per- spectives in Spinstructures and Spintransport, edited by Z. Hartmut and D. B. Samuel, Vol. 227, Springer (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    K. B. Efetov, I. A. Garifullin, A. F. Volkov and K. Westerholt, Spin-Polarized Electrons in the superconduc- tor/ferromagnet hybrid structures: Magnetic Nanostruc- tures. Spin Dynamic and Spin Transport., edited by H. Zabel and M. Farle, Vol. 246, Springer-Verlag Berlin Hei- delberg (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    L. B. Ioffe, V. B. Geshkenbein, M. V. Feigel’man, A. L. Fauch` ere and G. Blatter, Environmentally decoupled sds-wave Josephson junctions for quantum computing, Nature 398, 679 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    M. V. Feigel’man, A quantum bit based on a Josephson contact between conventional and high-temperature su- perconductors (theory), Physics-Uspekhi 42, 823 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    A. I. Buzdin, Proximity effects in superconductor-ferromagnet heterostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 935 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov and K. B. Efetov, Odd triplet superconductivity and related phe- nomena in superconductor-ferromagnet structures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1321 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    M. G. Blamire and J. W. A. Robinson, The interface between superconductivity and mag- netism: understanding and device prospects, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 26, 453201 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Eschrig, Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintronics: a review of current progress, Rep

    M. Eschrig, Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintronics: a review of current progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 104501 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    V. V. Ryazanov, Josephson superconductor-ferromagne t- superconductor π -contact as an element of a quantum bit (experiment), Physics-Uspekhi 42, 825 (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    A. V. Veretennikov, V. V. Ryazanov, V. A. Oboznov, A. Yu. Rusanov, V. A. Larkin and J. Aarts, Supercurrents through the superconductor- ferromagnet-superconductor (SFS) junctions, Phys. B: Condens. Matter 284-288, 495 (2000)

    2000

  6. [14]

    V. V. Ryazanov, V. A. Oboznov, A. V. Veretennikov and A. Yu. Rusanov, Intrinsically frustrated superconduct- ing array of superconductor-ferromagnet-superconductor π junctions, Phys. Rev. B 65, 020501(R) (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Ryazanov, V.A

    V.V. Ryazanov, V.A. Oboznov, A.Yu. Rusanov, A.V. Veretennikov, A.A. Golubov and J. Aarts, Coupling of Two Superconductors through a Ferromagnet: Evidence for a π Junction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2427 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    Kontos, M

    T. Kontos, M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, F. Genet, B. Stephani- dis and R. Boursier, Josephson Junction through a Thin Ferromagnetic Layer: Negative Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137007 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    I. A. Garifullin, Proximity effects in fer- romagnet/superconductor heterostructures, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 240, 571 ( 2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Demler, G.B

    E.A. Demler, G.B. Arnold and M.R. Beasley, Su- perconducting proximity effects in magnetic metals, Phys. Rev. B 55, 15174 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    Linder, T

    J. Linder, T. Yokoyama and A. Sudbo, Spin-transfer torque and magnetoresistance in superconducting spin 8 valves, Phys. Rev. B 79, 224504 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    R. R. Gaifullin, R. G. Deminov, M. N. Aliyev and L. R. Tagirov, Superconducting spin-valves in spintron- ics, Magn. Reson. Solids 21, 19304 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    M. J. A. Stoutimore, A. N. Rossolenko, V. V. Bolgi- nov, V. A. Oboznov, A. Y. Rusanov, D. S. Baranov, N. G. Pugach, S. M. Frolov, V. V. Ryazanov and D. J. Van Harlingen, Second-Harmonic Current-Phase Rela- tion in Josephson Junctions with Ferromagnetic Barriers, Phys. Rev. Let...

    2018

  14. [22]

    N. G. Pugach, M. Yu. Kupriyanov, A. V. Vedyayev, C. Lacroix, E. Goldobin, D. Koelle, R. Kleiner and A. S. Sidorenko, Ferromagnetic Josephson junctions with steplike interface transparency, Phys. Rev. B 80, 134516 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    S. Oh, D. Youm and M. R. Beasley, A superconductive magnetoresistive memory element using controlled ex- change interaction, Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 2376 (1997)

    1997

  16. [24]

    L. R. Tagirov, Low-field superconducting spin switch based on a superconductor/ferromagnet multilayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2058 (1999)

    1999

  17. [25]

    A. I. Buzdin, A. V. Vedyayev and N. V. Ryzhanova, Spin-orientation–dependent superconductivity in F/S/F structures, Europhys. Lett. 48, 686 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Fominov, A.A

    Ya.V. Fominov, A.A. Golubov, T.Yu. Karmin- skaya, M.Yu. Kupriyanov, R.G. Deminov and L.R. Tagirov, Superconducting triplet spin valve, JETP Lett. 91, 308 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Mironov and A

    S.V. Mironov and A. Buzdin, Standard, inverse, and triplet spin-valve effects in F 1/S/F2 systems, Phys. Rev. B 89, 144505 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    J. Y. Gu, C.-Y. You, J. S. Jiang, J. Pearson, Ya. B. Baza- liy and S. D. Bader, Magnetization-Orientation Depen- dence of the Superconducting Transition Temperature in the Ferromagnet-Superconductor-Ferromagnet System: CuNi/Nb/CuNi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 267001 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    I. C. Moraru, W. P. Pratt and N. O. Birge, Magnetization-Dependent Tc Shift in Ferromagnet/Superconductor/Ferromagnet Trilayers with a Strong Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 037004 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Potenza and C

    A. Potenza and C. H. Marrows, Superconductor- ferromagnet CuNi/Nb/CuNi trilayers as su- perconducting spin-valve core structures, Phys. Rev. B 72, 069901(E) (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    P. V. Leksin, N. N. Garif’yanov, I. A. Garifullin, J. Schumann, H. Vinzelberg, V. Kataev, R. Klin- geler, O. G. Schmidt and B. B¨ uchner, Full spin switch effect for the superconducting current in a superconductor/ferromagnet thin film heterostructure, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 1025...

    2010

  24. [32]

    Grein, T

    R. Grein, T. L¨ ofwander and M. Eschrig, Inverse proximity effect and influence of disorder on triplet supercurrents in strongly spin-polarized ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 88, 054502 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Flokstra, T.C

    M.G. Flokstra, T.C. Cunningham, J. Kim, N. Satchell, G. Burnell, P.J. Curran, S.J. Bending, C.J. Ki- nane, J.F.K. Cooper, S. Langridge, A. Isidori, N.G. Pugach, M. Eschrig and S.L. Lee, Controlled suppression of superconductivity by the generation of polarized Cooper pairs in ...

    2015

  26. [34]

    Montiel and M

    X. Montiel and M. Eschrig, Generation of pure super- conducting spin current in magnetic heterostructures via nonlocally induced magnetism due to Landau Fermi liq- uid effects, Phys. Rev. B 98, 104513 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Banerjee, J

    N. Banerjee, J. A. Ouassou, Y. Zhu, N. A. Stel- mashenko, J. Linder and M. G. Blamire, Controlling the superconducting transition by spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 97, 184521 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Y. Gu, G. B. Halasz, J. W. A. Robinson and M. G. Blamire, Large superconducting spin valve effect and ultrasmall exchange splitting in epitaxial rare-earth- niobium trilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 067201 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Pugach, M.O

    N.G. Pugach, M.O. Safonchik, V.I. Belotelov, T. Ziman and T. Champel, Superconducting Spin Valves Based on a Single Spiral Magnetic Layer, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 054002 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Singh, S

    A. Singh, S. Voltan, K. Lahabi and J. Aarts, Colos- sal Proximity Effect in a Superconducting Triplet Spin Valve Based on the Half-Metallic Ferromagnet CrO 2, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021019 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    P. V. Leksin, N. N. Garif’yanov, I. A. Gari- fullin, J. Schumann, V. Kataev, O. G. Schmidt and B. B¨ uchner, Manifestation of new interference effects in a superconductor-ferromagnet spin valve, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 067005 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    P. V. Leksin, N. N. Garif’yanov, I. A. Garifullin, Ya. V. Fominov, J. Schumann, Y. Krupskaya, V. Kataev, O. G. Schmidt and B. B¨ uchner, Evidence for Triplet Supercon- ductivity in a Superconductor-Ferromagnet Spin Valve, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 057005 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    P. V. Leksin, N. N. Garif’yanov, A. A. Kama- shev, Ya. V. Fominov, J. Schumann, C. Hess, V. Kataev, B. B¨ uchner and I. A. Garifullin, Su- perconducting spin-valve effect and triplet super- conductivity in CoO x/Fe1/Cu/Fe2/Cu/Pb multilayer, Phys. Rev. B 91, 214508 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Garifullin, P.V

    I.A. Garifullin, P.V. Leksin, N.N. Garif’yanov, A.A. K a- mashev, Ya.V. Fominov J. Schumann, Y. Krupskaya, V. Kataev, O.G. Schmidt and B. B¨ uchner, The su- perconducting spin valve and triplet superconductivity, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 373, 18 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    P. V. Leksin, N. N. Garif’yanov, A. A. Kamashev, A. A. Validov, Ya. V. Fominov, J. Schumann, V. Kataev, J. Thomas, B. B¨ uchner and I. A. Gari- fullin, Isolation of proximity-induced triplet pairing channel in a superconductor/ferromagnet spin valve, Phys. Rev. B 93, 100502(R) (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Kamashev, P.V

    A.A. Kamashev, P.V. Leksin, N.N. Garif’yanov, A.A. Validov, J. Schumann, V. Kataev, B. B¨ uchner and I.A. Garifullin, Superconducting spin-valve effect in a het- erostructure containing the Heusler alloy as a ferromag- netic layer, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 459, 7 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    A. A. Kamashev, N. N. Garif’yanov, A. A. Vali- dov, J. Schumann, V. Kataev, B. B¨ uchner, Ya. V. Fominov and I. A. Garifullin, Superconduct- ing switching due to a triplet component in the Pb/Cu/Ni/Cu/Co2 Cr1−xFexAly spin-valve structure, Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 10, 1458 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    A. A. Kamashev, N. N. Garif’yanov, A. A. Validov, J. Schumann, V. Kataev, B. B¨ uchner, Ya. V. Fominov and I. A. Garifullin, Superconducting spin-valve effect in heterostructures with ferromagnetic Heusler alloy layers , Phys. Rev. B 100, 134511 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov and K. B. Efetov, Long- Range Proximity Effects in Superconductor-Ferromagnet Structures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4096 (2001). 9

    2001

  40. [48]

    C.-T. Wu, O. T. Valls and K. Halterman, Prox- imity effects and triplet correlations in ferromag- net/ferromagnet/superconductor nanostructures, Phys. Rev. B 86, 014523 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Halterman and M

    K. Halterman and M. Alidoust, Induced energy gap in finite-sized superconductor/ferromagnet hybrids, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134510 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Alidoust and K

    M. Alidoust and K. Halterman, Half-metallic superconducting triplet spin multivalves, Phys. Rev. B 97, 064517 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Srivastava, L

    A. Srivastava, L. A. B. Olde Olthof, A. Di Bernardo, S. Komori, M. Amado, C. Palomares-Garcia, M. Ali- doust, K. Halterman, M.G. Blamire, and J. W. A. Robin- son, Magnetization Control and Transfer of Spin- Polarized Cooper Pairs into a Half-Metal Manganite, Phys. Rev. Appl. 8...

    2017

  44. [52]

    Halterman and M

    K. Halterman and M. Alidoust, Half- metallic superconducting triplet spin valve, Phys. Rev. B 94, 064503 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Alidoust, K

    M. Alidoust, K. Halterman and Oriol T. Valls, ero- energy peak and triplet correlations in nanoscale superconductor/ferromagnet/ferromagnet spin valves, Phys. Rev. B 92, 014508 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    A. A. Kamashev, P. V. Leksin, J. Schumann, V. Kataev, J. Thomas, T. Gemming, B. B¨ uchner and I. A. Garifullin, Proximity effect between a super- conductor and a partially spin-polarized ferromagnet: Case study of the Pb/Cu/Co 2Cr1−xFexAl trilayer, Phys. Rev. B 96, 024512 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Husain, S

    S. Husain, S. Akansel, A. Kumar, P. Svedlindh and S. Chaudhary, Growth of Co 2FeAl Heusler alloy thin films on Si(100) having very small Gilbert damping by Ion beam sputtering, Sci. Rep. 6, 28692 2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Leksin, A.A

    P.V. Leksin, A.A. Kamashev, J. Schumann, V.E. Kataev, J. Thomas, B. B¨ uchner and I.A. Garifullin, Boosting the superconducting spin valve effect in a metallic superconductor/ferromagnet heterostructure, Nano Research 9, 1005 ( 2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    In- verse

    P. V. Leksin, R. I. Salikhov, I. A. Garifullin, H. Vinzelberg, V. Kataev, R. Klingeler, L. R. Tagirov and B. B¨ uchner, Observation of the “In- verse” spin valve effect in a Ni/V/Ni trilayer system, JETP Lett. 90, 59 ( 2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Moraru, W.P

    I.C. Moraru, W.P. Pratt, Jr. and N.O. Birge, Ob- servation of standard spin-switch effects in ferromag- net/superconductor/ferromagnet trilayers with a strong ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 74, 220507(R) ( 2006)

    2006

  51. [59]

    D. A. Ivanov, Ya. V. Fominov, M. A. Skvortsov and P. M. Ostrovsky, Effective spin-flip scattering in diffusive su- perconducting proximity systems with magnetic disorder, Phys. Rev. B 80, 134501 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    A. A. Kamashev, N. N. Garif’yanov, A. A. Validov,Ya. V. Fominov and I. A. Garifullin, Superconducting Spin- Valve Effect in Structures with a Ferromagnetic Heusler Alloy Layer, JETP Lett. 131, 311 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.