pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12742 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con

Josephson coupling through a magnetic racetrack

A. A. Mazanik , F. S. Bergeret This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 13:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con
keywords Josephson couplingdomain wallBloch wall0-pi transitionferromagnetic racetracksupercurrenthybrid devicesracetrack memory
0
0 comments X

The pith

The position of a Bloch domain wall in a ferromagnetic racetrack controls the Josephson critical current between superconductors and enables tunable 0-π transitions.

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

This paper examines Josephson coupling between two superconducting electrodes connected by a ferromagnetic racetrack that hosts a Bloch-like domain wall. The domain wall produces complex supercurrent distributions with loops whose patterns depend on the wall's position and orientation. Consequently the critical current Ic varies strongly with domain wall location and displays controllable 0-π transitions. A reader would care because the mechanism supplies design rules for hybrid superconducting-magnetic devices and positions domain walls as active elements in racetrack memory readout.

Core claim

The interplay between superconductivity and the Bloch-like domain wall in the ferromagnetic racetrack produces highly non-trivial spatial distributions of the supercurrent, including the formation of current loops and a strong sensitivity to the domain wall position and orientation. The Josephson critical current Ic can be efficiently controlled by the domain wall position along the racetrack, exhibiting pronounced variations and tunable 0–π transitions. These results provide clear design principles for superconducting racetrack devices and establish domain walls as a viable control element for readout schemes in racetrack memory architectures.

What carries the argument

Bloch-like domain wall in the ferromagnetic racetrack, whose magnetization profile interacts with the superconducting order parameter to set supercurrent distributions and phase shifts.

If this is right

  • Supercurrent forms loops whose patterns depend on domain wall position and orientation.
  • Critical current Ic shows pronounced variations when the domain wall moves along the racetrack.
  • Tunable 0-π transitions occur as the domain wall position changes.
  • Domain walls act as control elements for readout in racetrack memory architectures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Hybrid structures of this type could allow magnetic control of superconducting circuits with low dissipation.
  • Comparable effects may occur with other magnetic textures such as skyrmions or vortices in Josephson junctions.
  • Experiments could test the effect by fabricating the racetrack, positioning the wall with external fields or currents, and recording Ic versus wall location.

Load-bearing premise

The ferromagnetic racetrack hosts a stable Bloch-like domain wall whose magnetization profile interacts with the superconducting order parameter to produce the reported current distributions and phase shifts.

What would settle it

Measuring the Josephson critical current while displacing the domain wall along the racetrack and observing no significant variations or 0-π transitions would falsify the control mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12742 by A. A. Mazanik, F. S. Bergeret.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Josephson ferromagnetic racetrack under considera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Snapshots of supercurrent distributions for a race [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Snapshots of supercurrent distributions when the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Snapshots of supercurrent distributions for the do [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Critical current dependencies on the DW posi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the Josephson coupling between two superconducting electrodes connected by a ferromagnetic racetrack hosting a Bloch-like domain wall (DW). We show that the interplay between superconductivity and the DW leads to highly non-trivial spatial distributions of the supercurrent, including the formation of current loops and a strong sensitivity to the DW position and orientation. We further demonstrate that the Josephson critical current $I_c$ can be efficiently controlled by the DW position along the racetrack, exhibiting pronounced variations and tunable $0$--$\pi$ transitions. These results provide clear design principles for superconducting racetrack devices and establish domain walls as a viable control element for readout schemes in racetrack memory architectures.

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 manuscript investigates Josephson coupling between two superconducting electrodes linked by a ferromagnetic racetrack containing a Bloch-like domain wall. It reports that the superconductivity-domain-wall interplay produces non-trivial supercurrent distributions (including loops), strong sensitivity to domain-wall position and orientation, and efficient control of the critical current Ic via domain-wall position, with pronounced variations and tunable 0-π transitions. The work aims to provide design principles for superconducting racetrack devices.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the results would offer a concrete mechanism for using magnetic domain walls to tune Josephson junctions, with potential applications in hybrid superconducting-spintronic readout schemes for racetrack memory. The numerical demonstration of position-dependent Ic and 0-π switching constitutes a falsifiable prediction that could guide experiments, though its robustness hinges on the validity of the fixed-magnetization approximation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods / Results (DW profile and supercurrent calculation)] The central claim that Ic can be efficiently controlled by DW position (with tunable 0-π transitions) rests on fixing the Bloch-like DW magnetization texture from separate micromagnetic runs and solving only the superconducting problem (likely Usadel or Eilenberger) atop this static profile. No self-consistent treatment of the back-action of the supercurrent on the DW structure is performed. In the regime where the exchange field is comparable to the superconducting gap, this fixed-profile approximation is load-bearing; any current-induced deformation or pinning of the DW would invalidate the reported spatial current loops and phase-shift tunability. The manuscript should either justify why the fixed approximation remains valid or present at least a qualitative estimate of the deformation scale.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the results without any reference to the underlying equations, numerical method, or parameter regime; adding a single sentence on the model (e.g., “within the Usadel formalism with a fixed micromagnetic DW profile”) would improve clarity for readers.
  2. [Figures and captions] Notation for the domain-wall orientation and position should be defined once in the text and used consistently in all figures; several panels appear to use different conventions for the racetrack coordinate.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comment on the fixed-magnetization approximation. We address this point in detail below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional justification and a qualitative estimate of possible deformations, as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that Ic can be efficiently controlled by DW position (with tunable 0-π transitions) rests on fixing the Bloch-like DW magnetization texture from separate micromagnetic runs and solving only the superconducting problem (likely Usadel or Eilenberger) atop this static profile. No self-consistent treatment of the back-action of the supercurrent on the DW structure is performed. In the regime where the exchange field is comparable to the superconducting gap, this fixed-profile approximation is load-bearing; any current-induced deformation or pinning of the DW would invalidate the reported spatial current loops and phase-shift tunability. The manuscript should either justify why the fixed approximation remains valid or present at least a qualitative estimate of the deformation scale.

    Authors: We agree that the fixed-profile approximation is central to our numerical approach and that a fully self-consistent treatment of supercurrent back-action on the domain-wall magnetization would be ideal. Our calculations determine the Bloch DW texture from separate micromagnetic simulations (with strong shape anisotropy and pinning) and then solve the Usadel equations on this static background. To address the concern, we have added a new subsection (II.C) in the revised manuscript that provides a qualitative estimate of the deformation scale. We model the torque exerted by the Josephson current on the local magnetization via the exchange interaction and compare it to the DW pinning and anisotropy energies. For the parameters used (exchange field ~ Δ, racetrack dimensions, and typical supercurrent densities below the DW depinning threshold), the estimated angular deviation of the magnetization is <5°, which does not alter the qualitative supercurrent loops, position dependence of Ic, or the 0-π transitions. We also note that the reported effects remain robust under small perturbations to the DW profile. This addition clarifies the regime of validity without requiring new full simulations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: computed outcomes from fixed-profile model

full rationale

The paper solves the superconducting problem (Usadel/Eilenberger equations) on a magnetization texture obtained from separate micromagnetic simulations of a Bloch domain wall. The reported Ic(DW position) variations and 0-pi transitions are direct numerical outputs of this two-step procedure. No self-definitional relations appear, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, which does not specify any free parameters, background axioms, or newly postulated entities used in the modeling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5406 in / 1078 out tokens · 60777 ms · 2026-05-10T13:58:32.656883+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

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. S. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and L. Thomas, science320, 190 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    K.-S. Ryu, L. Thomas, S.-H. Yang, and S. Parkin, Nature nanotechnology8, 527 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Parkin and S.-H

    S. Parkin and S.-H. Yang, Nature nanotechnology10, 195 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Yamaguchi, T

    A. Yamaguchi, T. Ono, S. Nasu, K. Miyake, K. Mibu, and T. Shinjo, Physical review letters92, 077205 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Rabinovich, I

    D. Rabinovich, I. Bobkova, A. Bobkov, and M. Silaev, Physical Review B98, 184511 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Rabinovich, I

    D. Rabinovich, I. Bobkova, A. Bobkov, and M. Silaev, Physical Review Letters123, 207001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    R. Hess, H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Physical Review B108, 174516 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Kokkeler, I

    T. Kokkeler, I. Tokatly, and F. S. Bergeret, SciPost Phys. 18, 178 (2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    M. Y. Kuprianov and V. Lukichev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 94, 149 (1988)

    work page 1988

  10. [10]

    I. A. Baratta, J. P. Dean, J. S. Dokken, M. Habera, J. S. Hale, C. N. Richardson, M. E. Rognes, M. W. Scroggs, N. Sime, and G. N. Wells, DOLFINx: the next generation FEniCS problem solving environment, preprint (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    M. W. Scroggs, J. S. Dokken, C. N. Richardson, and G. N. Wells, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Soft- ware48, 10.1145/3524456 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1145/3524456 2022

  12. [12]

    M. W. Scroggs, I. A. Baratta, C. N. Richardson, and G. N. Wells, Journal of Open Source Software7, 3982 (2022). FIG. 5. Critical current dependencies on the DW posi- tion along the racetrack,I c(y0), for two different values of the exchange field. Vertical dashed lines represent the re- gion|y 0|< W/2. The simulation parameters are as follows: w= 0.5ξ, Γ ...

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    M. S. Alnaes, A. Logg, K. B. Ølgaard, M. E. Rognes, and G. N. Wells, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software40, 10.1145/2566630 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1145/2566630 2014

  14. [14]

    Bergeret, A

    F. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. Efetov, Physical review letters86, 4096 (2001)

    work page 2001

  15. [15]

    Bergeret, A

    F. Bergeret, A. Volkov, and K. Efetov, Physical Review B64, 134506 (2001)

    work page 2001

  16. [16]

    Bergeret, A

    F. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Reviews of modern physics77, 1321 (2005)

    work page 2005

  17. [17]

    Y. V. Fominov, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev. B75, 104509 (2007)

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    A. I. Buzdin, A. S. Mel’nikov, and N. G. Pugach, Phys. Rev. B83, 144515 (2011)

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    J. W. A. Robinson, F. Chiodi, M. Egilmez, G. B. Hal´ asz, and M. G. Blamire, Scientific Reports2, 699 (2012)

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    F. S. Bergeret and I. Tokatly, Physical review letters110, 117003 (2013)

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    E. S. Andriyakhina, S. Apostoloff, and I. S. Burmistrov, JETP Letters116, 825 (2022)

    work page 2022