Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 72 references

A Voltage-Controlled Josephson Frequency Comb

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A gate-tunable SNS Josephson junction, operated as a resistively shunted relaxation oscillator, is proposed as a compact source of phase-coherent microwave frequency combs whose spacing, frequencies, and power are continuously controlled by

desk verdict A plausible new device concept — a gate-tunable SNS relaxation oscillator producing a microwave comb — but the quantitative model has internal inconsistencies and the central no-hysteresis assumption is asserted, not demonstrated. Worth peer review, not desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17992 v1 pith:F7XSXDOU submitted 2026-07-20 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Giorgio De Simoni , Francesco Giazotto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall PACS 74.50.+r85.25.Cp
keywords frequencycombJosephsonjunctionSNSrelaxationoscillatorgatetunabilitymicrowavesourcesuperconductivityKO-2current-phaserelation
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 tries to establish that a single mesoscopic superconductor–semiconductor–superconductor (SNS) Josephson junction, when operated as a resistively shunted relaxation oscillator (a JRO), emits a periodic train of voltage pulses whose Fourier spectrum is a phase-coherent frequency comb. Crucially, because the junction is a field-effect transistor, its critical current and Josephson inductance can be tuned electrostatically, so the comb line spacing, mode frequencies, and power distribution can all be set by a control voltage rather than by magnetic fields or cavity engineering. For a realistic Al/InAs device, circuit simulations show continuous spectral coverage from 1 to 10 GHz, with at least one comb line at any target frequency in that band. The concept also extends to niobium electrodes, where the mode span grows to about 100 GHz and operation at a few kelvin becomes feasible.

What carries the argument

The device is a gate-tunable Josephson field-effect transistor—a ballistic SNS junction with a two-dimensional electron gas as the weak link—operated as a resistively shunted relaxation oscillator. The Josephson branch obeys the KO-2 current–phase relation, whose strongly non-sinusoidal shape and temperature dependence set the oscillation waveform. The gate electrode modulates the carrier density, hence the number of ballistic channels, the critical current, and the normal-state resistance; the comb timing is set by the relaxation period, which is controlled by the ratio of bias current to critical current and by the dynamically varying Josephson inductance whose divergence during each cycle

What would settle it

Measure the current–voltage characteristic and time-resolved voltage of a resistively shunted Al/InAs SNS junction (shunt resistance about 1 ohm, normal-state resistance about 10 ohms, temperature 20 mK) under constant current bias from 12 to 20 microamperes; if the I–V curve remains hysteretic or the voltage trace shows no periodic relaxation oscillation, the proposed comb mechanism is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a gate-tunable ballistic SNS junction in the short-junction limit, with its current–phase relation described by the ballistic Kulik–Omelyanchuk theory, can be embedded in a resistively shunted circuit and biased with a constant current to produce stable, self-sustained relaxation oscillations. Each oscillation cycle consists of a rapid switching of the junction to the normal state and a slower relaxation governed by the evolving Josephson inductance, which diverges near the inversion point of the Josephson current. The resulting periodic waveform yields an equidistant comb of spectral lines spaced by Δf = 1/τ, and because the critical current (and hence τ) is set by

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that adding a shunt resistor much smaller than the junction's normal-state resistance completely removes the junction's hysteresis while still permitting stable, self-sustained relaxation oscillations; this operating regime is asserted but not experimentally validated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At least one comb line can be placed at any desired frequency in the 1–10 GHz band purely by adjusting the gate voltage, without changing the bias current.
  • Comb spacing and power can be tuned dynamically during operation, because the gate electrode acts as a real-time control knob.
  • The comb requires no magnetic field, no cavity, and no chain of junctions, so a single mesoscopic junction is the entire source.
  • Higher-Tc electrodes such as niobium shift the accessible span to roughly 100 GHz and allow operation at few-kelvin temperatures achievable with closed-cycle cryocoolers.
  • The same physical mechanism—gate-controlled relaxation oscillation in a weak link—should transfer to other gate-tunable superconductor–semiconductor systems such as nanowire and graphene junctions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the described regime is realized, the JRO could serve as a simple voltage-programmable microwave source for multiplexed readout of superconducting detectors and qubits, bypassing the need for external microwave generators.
  • The gate-voltage dependence of the comb mode power is non-monotonic in the Al case; this suggests a design rule: operate near the power maximum (about Vg = 0.4 V in the simulation) when flat power across modes is wanted, or near pinch-off when a wide spacing is desired.
  • The authors treat the shunt resistor as an unavoidable power-splitting element; a natural extension is to engineer normal-state resistance above 50 ohms so that the load receives most of the oscillator power and the shunt can be eliminated.
  • A testable prediction is that modulating the gate voltage at frequencies much lower than the oscillation frequency will frequency-modulate the comb, potentially enabling a continuous frequency-swept microwave source.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Josephson relaxation oscillator (JRO) formed by a gate-tunable ballistic SNS junction shunted by a small resistor. Using SPICE transient simulations with a KO-2 current-phase relation, the authors show that constant-current bias produces periodic voltage pulses whose Fourier spectrum is a harmonic frequency comb; the gate voltage controls the critical current and hence the comb spacing, mode frequencies, and modal powers. A representative Al/InAs device is claimed to provide continuous coverage of 1–10 GHz, and a Nb-based version is projected to extend operation to ~100 GHz. The manuscript is a numerical proposal and contains no experimental data.

Significance. If the results are correct, the JRO is a promising compact microwave comb source with a unique electrical tuning knob. The comb is not obtained by fitting a target spectrum: it follows directly from the periodic noiseless waveform, and the SPICE implementation with a phase-dynamics loop is a transparent way to handle the second Josephson relation. However, several quantitative inconsistencies in the device parameters and in the spectral post-processing, together with an unvalidated assumption about the operating regime, presently compromise the central quantitative claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (1)–(3); Section III] The stated material parameters do not reproduce the quoted Ic and RN. Taking n0=10^16 m^-2 and W=1 μm, the Fermi wavelength is λ_F=2π/√(2π n0) ≈ 25 nm, so N=W/λ_F ≈ 40. Equation (1) with Δ(0)=1.764 k_B T_c gives eΔ/ħ ≈ 4.4×10^-8 A, hence Ic ≈ 1.8 μA at T=0, not the quoted 10–12 μA. Equation (3) gives R_N=h/(2e^2 N) ≈ 320 Ω, not 10 Ω; obtaining R_N=10 Ω would require N≈1290, which in turn gives Ic≈57 μA. Also, Eq. (2) as written is dimensionally inconsistent: W/λ_f with λ_f=2π/k_F equals W√(2πn)/(2π), not 2πW/√(2πn). The quantitative figures (gate-voltage range, bias currents, power levels) therefore rest on an inconsistent parameter set. The auxiliary estimates are also off: E_j ≈ 240 k_B T_c for Ic=12 μA (not 2×10^3), and C_g=εWL/d ≈ 0.23 fF for W=1 μm, L=100 nm, d=50 nm, ε_r=13 (not 2.3 fF). These inconsistencies must be corrected and the simulations rerun with a self-consistent parame
  2. [Section III] The claim that adding R_S << R_N 'renders the junction overdamped [71] and thereby removes the hysteresis' and that 'the condition I_r=I_c is automatically fulfilled' is not demonstrated. The hysteresis identified for SNS junctions is attributed to carrier heating, a dynamical electron-temperature effect, not to the McCumber–Stewart capacitance. A low-resistance shunt reduces Joule power and can aid cooling, but whether I_r actually equals I_c depends on the ratio of the electron relaxation time to the oscillation period and on the operating temperature. The SPICE model uses a non-hysteretic RSJ element from the start, so the simulations in Figs. 2–6 cannot validate this operating point. If residual hysteresis remains, the bias window for relaxation oscillations shrinks or disappears, and the comb-generation mechanism is not realized. The authors should either incorporate a thermal model
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (11)] The analytic expression for the Josephson inductance is dimensionally inconsistent. Equation (10) defines L_j = (ħ/2e)(∂i_j/∂δφ)^{-1}; using Eq. (6) this yields a prefactor ħ/(e I_c), not I_c/2. As written, Eq. (11) has units of current (I_c times a dimensionless bracket) and cannot produce the pH–nH values discussed in Fig. 4. The correct expression should be L_j = (ħ/(e I_c)) [ ... ]^{-1}. The error affects the claim that L_j diverges and spans three orders of magnitude, which is invoked to explain the relaxation dynamics.
  4. [Section IV, Eqs. (12)–(13); Figs. 5–7] The 'emission power spectrum' is computed as the DFT of the instantaneous power P(t)=V_out(t)i_l(t), not as the spectral power of the output voltage. For a periodic voltage waveform, the power delivered to the load at each comb frequency is proportional to |V_k|^2/R_l, where V_k is the Fourier coefficient of V_out. The DFT of P(t) is a convolution of the voltage spectrum: it has lines at the same comb frequencies, but its amplitudes are not the emitted power per mode. The quantitative mode powers and their gate/temperature dependence in Figs. 5–7 are therefore not the physically meaningful spectral powers. Please recompute the spectra from the voltage FFT (including the proper one-sided normalization) and update all power-related claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3] The text refers to 'panels f to g' for the temperature cut lines; the panels should be labeled consistently (likely 'e and f').
  2. [Section IV] In the discussion of P_1(i), 'i≳15 A' should read '15 μA'.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The definition of R0 is garbled ('R0 ≡ h/(2e2 W n2)'); please define it with correct units and notation.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption skips panel (e) and the text references panels (f)/(g); the panel labels need to be made consistent.
  5. [Abstract and Section IV] The phrase 'continuous frequency coverage... at least one emission mode at any desired frequency' is stronger than what the displayed finite mode set demonstrates. A more precise statement, or an analytic argument for coverage of the 1–10 GHz band, would be appropriate.
  6. [Section III] The manuscript states that a sub-picosecond time step was used but does not report convergence checks; a brief convergence test would increase confidence in the SPICE results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the comb spectrum is a computed output of an externally-based SPICE model; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external, citable physics. Ic and the current–phase relation (Eqs. 1 and 6) are taken from Beenakker–van Houten and Kulik–Omelyanchuk theory; the gate-charge relation n = n0 + CgVg/e (Eqs. 4–5) is the standard capacitor model from [67]; the RSJ circuit and second Josephson relation (Eqs. 7–9) are standard. The time-domain waveforms are numerical solutions of this explicit model, and the comb in Fig. 5 is the discrete FFT of the periodic output waveform, not a fitted target. Gate, bias, and temperature dependences are genuine outputs of the model, not imposed by construction. The only self-citations ([23], [24], [40]) occur in the introduction as context on SQUID combs and thermal tuning; none supplies a premise of the voltage-controlled JRO mechanism, so none is load-bearing. One caveat is a physical, not circular, limitation: Sec. III asserts that a shunt RS << RN 'renders the junction overdamped [71] and thereby removes the hysteresis' and that 'condition Ir = Ic is automatically fulfilled'; the simulations assume a non-hysteretic RSJ, so the relaxation-oscillation regime itself is assumed rather than proven. This is an unvalidated modeling assumption (and Eq. 11 also appears dimensionally inconsistent), but it is not a circular reduction of the output to a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard RSJ/SPICE modeling plus several stated idealizations (full transparency, no hysteresis after shunting, noiseless operation). The quantitative 1–10 GHz coverage is tied to hand-picked circuit parameters (Rs = 1Ω, LT = 100 nH, CT = 30 nF, n0 = 1e16 m^-2) rather than derived from a unique device design. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • 2DEG density n0 = 1e16 m^-2 (10^12 cm^-2)
    Sets Ic and RN scales; chosen to mimic typical InAs quantum wells.
  • junction geometry W, L = W = 1 um, L = 100 nm
    Chosen to satisfy the ballistic short-junction limit and the target gate capacitance.
  • gate dielectric thickness d and relative permittivity eps_r = d = 50 nm, eps_r = 13
    Sets Cg = 2.3 fF and the gate-tunability range.
  • superconductor critical temperature Tc = 1.2 K (Al), 9.2 K (Nb)
    Defines the gap and temperature scales; the Nb case assumes the same geometry.
  • shunt resistance Rs = 1 ohm
    Chosen so Rs << RN (~10 ohm) to remove hysteresis; directly sets damping and output power.
  • bias-tee inductance LT, capacitance CT, and load resistance Rl = LT = 100 nH, CT = 30 nF, Rl = 50 ohm
    Chosen to separate DC bias and to set the 1–10 GHz band; comb spacing depends on the resulting L/R time constant.
  • bias current i = 15–20 uA
    Operational point; comb spacing is tuned via the i/Ic ratio.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The junction is in the ballistic, short-junction, fully transparent limit, so Ic = N eΔ/ℏ (Eq. 1) and the KO-2 CPR (Eq. 6) apply.
    Invoked in Section II for the Al/InAs example; real junctions have finite transparency and disorder, which modify the CPR and Ic.
  • domain assumption The junction capacitance is negligible and the gate capacitance can be attached at the midpoint of the resistive branch.
    Section III states this choice is 'an approximation introduced for analytical convenience.'
  • domain assumption A shunt resistor RS << RN removes hysteresis (sets Ir = Ic) while preserving stable relaxation oscillations.
    Section III; no experimental validation; the entire comb-generation mechanism depends on this operating regime.
  • domain assumption The simulated circuit is noiseless; thermal, shot, and 1/f noise are not included.
    No noise sources appear in the model, yet the comb is called phase-coherent; jitter and linewidth are not computed.
  • standard math The phase-capacitor equivalence (Eqs. 8–9) correctly enforces the second Josephson relation in SPICE.
    Standard technique referenced to Kiviranta (ref [70]); assumed correct.
  • domain assumption Bias-tee elements behave as ideal lumped components up to 10–100 GHz.
    Section IV; the authors themselves note non-idealities may appear at higher frequencies.
  • standard math The BCS gap approximation Δ(T) is adequate for Al and Nb.
    Used in Eqs. (1), (6), (11); standard, not a custom assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Voltage-Controlled Josephson Frequency Comb." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7XSXDOU

@misc{pith2026260717992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Voltage-Controlled Josephson Frequency Comb},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7XSXDOU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17992}
}
abstract

Microwave frequency combs constitute promising resources for quantum technologies, cryogenic electronics, and multiplexed sensing architectures. In this work, we propose a frequency-comb generator based on a Josephson field-effect transistor operated in a relaxation-oscillation regime. The device comprises a gate-tunable ballistic superconductor-semiconductor-superconductor junction embedded in a resistively shunted circuit, in which electrostatic control of the carrier density enables in situ tuning of both the critical current and the Josephson inductance. Time-domain circuit simulations indicate that the resulting oscillator produces coherent voltage pulses whose Fourier spectrum forms a microwave frequency comb. In contrast to conventional Josephson-based comb architectures, the proposed platform provides direct electrical control of the comb spacing, emission frequencies, and modal power distribution via a gate electrode. For a representative Al/InAs implementation, we demonstrate continuous frequency coverage in the technologically relevant 1-10 GHz range. Furthermore, the concept is shown to be compatible with higher-$T_c$ superconductors, underscoring its potential as a compact and scalable microwave source for cryogenic quantum information and sensing applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of a gate-tunable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time-dependent response of a shunted, gate-tunable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time-domain evolution of the JRO output voltage as a function of bias current, gate voltage, and temperature. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Josephson inductance of a ballistic SNS junction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Microwave frequency-comb generation in the Joseph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Gate-, current-, and temperature-dependent control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Performance characteristics of a niobium-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [71]

    Barone and G

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

    1982

  2. [1]

    T. Udem, R. Holzwarth, and T. W. Hänsch, Nature416, 233 (2002)

    2002

  3. [2]

    Burghoff, Y

    D. Burghoff, Y. Yang, D. J. Hayton, J.-R. Gao, J. L. Reno, and Q. Hu, Opt. Express23, 1190 (2015)

    2015

  4. [3]

    Hillbrand, D

    J. Hillbrand, D. Auth, M. Piccardo, N. Opačak, E. Gornik, G. Strasser, F. Capasso, S. Breuer, and B. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 023901 (2020)

    2020

  5. [4]

    Hänsch and H

    T. Hänsch and H. Walther, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, S242 (1999)

    1999

  6. [5]

    Bloembergen, Rev

    N. Bloembergen, Rev. Mod. Phys.54, 685 (1982)

    1982

  7. [6]

    T. W. Hänsch and M. Inguscio,Frontiers in Laser Spec- troscopy, Vol. 120 (North Holland, 1994)

    1994

  8. [7]

    S. M. Foreman, K. W. Holman, D. D. Hudson, D. J. Jones, and J. Ye, Rev. Sci. Instrum.78, 021101 (2007)

    2007

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    Picqué and T

    N. Picqué and T. W. Hänsch, Nature Photonics13, 146 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, D. Sank, E. Jef- frey, Y. Chen, Y. Yin, B. Chiaro, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Roushan, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 080502 (2013)

    2013

  3. [10]

    Crippaet al., Nature Communications10, 2776 (2019)

    A. Crippaet al., Nature Communications10, 2776 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    V. P. Koshelets and S. V. Shitov, Supercond. Sci. Tech- nol.13, R53 (2000)

    2000

  5. [12]

    M. A. Galin, A. M. Klushin, V. V. Kurin, S. V. Seliver- stov, M.I.Finkel, G.N.Goltsman, F.Müller, T.Scheller, and A. D. Semenov, Supercond. Sci. Technol.28, 055002 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Solinas, R

    P. Solinas, R. Bosisio, and F. Giazotto, Journal of Ap- plied Physics118, 113901 (2015)

    2015

  7. [14]

    Solinas, S

    P. Solinas, S. Gasparinetti, D. Golubev, and F. Giazotto, Scientific Reports5, 12260 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    S. P. Benz and C. A. Hamilton, IEEE Trans. Appl. Su- percond.8, 42 (1998)

    1998

  9. [16]

    G. A. Oakeset al., PRX Quantum4, 020346 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Lähteenmäki, G

    P. Lähteenmäki, G. S. Paraoanu, J. Hassel, and P. J. Hakonen, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences110, 4234 (2013), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1212705110

    2013 doi

  11. [18]

    C. Yan, J. Hassel, V. Vesterinen, J. Zhang, J. Ikonen, L. Groenberg, J. Goetz, and M. Moettoenen, Nature Electronics4, 885 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    Astafiev, K

    O. Astafiev, K. Inomata, A. O. Niskanen, T. Yamamoto, Y. A. Pashkin, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Nature449, 588 (2007)

    2007

  13. [20]

    M. C. Cassidy, A. Bruno, S. Rubbert, M. Irfan, J. Kammhuber, R. N. Schouten, A. R. Akhmerov, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Science355, 939 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    Y.-Y. Liu, J. Stehlik, C. Eichler, M. J. Gullans, J. M. Taylor, and J. R. Petta, Science347, 285 (2015)

    2015

  15. [22]

    You and F

    J.-Q. You and F. Nori, Nature474, 589 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Greco, X

    A. Greco, X. Ballu, F. Giazotto, and A. Crippa, Nature Communications17, 2972 (2026)

    2026

  17. [24]

    Greco, J.-P

    A. Greco, J.-P. Kaikkonen, L. Chirolli, A. Ronzani, J. Senior, F. Giazotto, and A. Crippa, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08890 (2026), arXiv:2602.08890 [quant-ph]

    2026

  18. [25]

    A. A. Babenko, A. S. Boaventura, N. E. Flowers-Jacobs, J. A. Brevik, A. E. Fox, D. F. Williams, Z. Popovic, P. D. Dresselhaus, and S. P. Benz, in2020 IEEE/MTT-S In- ternational Microwave Symposium (IMS)(Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2020) pp. 936–939

    2020

  19. [26]

    Benz and P

    S. Benz and P. Booi, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control42, 964 (1995)

    1995

  20. [27]

    R.P.Erickson, M.R.Vissers, M.Sandberg, S.R.Jefferts, and D. P. Pappas, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 187002 (2014)

    2014

  21. [28]

    S.-P. Wang, Z. Chen, and T. Li, Chinese Physics B30, 048501 (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    J. Shin, Y. Ryu, M.-A. Miri, S.-B. Shim, H. Choi, A. Alu, J. Suh, and J. Cha, Nano Letters22, 5459 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    C.-G. Wang, W. Xu, C. Li, L. Shi, J. Jiang, T. Guo, W.-C. Yue, T. Li, P. Zhang, Y.-Y. Lyu, J. Pan, X. Deng, Y. Dong, X. Tu, S. Dong, C. Cao, L. Zhang, X. Jia, G. Sun, L. Kang, J. Chen, Y.-L. Wang, H. Wang, and P. Wu, Nature Communications15, 4009 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Han, C.-L

    X. Han, C.-L. Zou, W. Fu, M. Xu, Y. Xu, and H. X. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 107701 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    Z. Bao, Y. Li, Z. Wang, J. Wang, J. Yang, H. Xiong, Y. Song, Y. Wu, H. Zhang, and L. Duan, Nature Com- munications15, 5958 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    Toomey, Q.-Y

    E. Toomey, Q.-Y. Zhao, A. N. McCaughan, and K. K. Berggren, Phys. Rev. Appl.9, 064021 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Toomey, Microwave Response of Nonlinear Oscilla- tions in Resistively Shunted Superconducting Nanowires (2017)

    E. Toomey, Microwave Response of Nonlinear Oscilla- tions in Resistively Shunted Superconducting Nanowires (2017)

    2017

  28. [35]

    K. K. Likharev and V. K. Semenov, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity1, 3 (1991)

    1991

  29. [36]

    Toomey, K

    E. Toomey, K. Segall, and K. K. Berggren, Frontiers in Neuroscience13, 933 (2019)

    2019

  30. [37]

    A. N. McCaughan and K. K. Berggren, Nano Letters14, 5748 (2014)

    2014

  31. [38]

    Baghdadi, J

    R. Baghdadi, J. P. Allmaras, B. A. Butters, A. E. Dane, S. Iqbal, A. N. McCaughan, E. A. Toomey, Q.-Y. Zhao, A. G. Kozorezov, and K. K. Berggren, Physical Review Applied14, 054011 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    A. J. Kerman, J. K. W. Yang, R. J. Molnar, E. A. Dauler, and K. K. Berggren, Phys. Rev. B79, 100509 (2009)

    2009

  33. [40]

    Trupiano, G

    G. Trupiano, G. De Simoni, and F. Giazotto, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 014046 (2025). 13

    2025

  34. [41]

    Y.-J. Doh, J. A. van Dam, A. L. Roest, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and S. D. Franceschi, Science309, 272 (2005), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1113523

    2005 doi

  35. [42]

    S. Abay, D. Persson, H. Nilsson, F. Wu, H. Q. Xu, M. Fo- gelström, V. Shumeiko, and P. Delsing, Phys. Rev. B89, 214508 (2014)

    2014

  36. [43]

    Paajaste, M

    J. Paajaste, M. Amado, S. Roddaro, F. S. Bergeret, D. Ercolani, L. Sorba, and F. Giazotto, Nano Letters 15, 1803 (2015)

    2015

  37. [44]

    Kousar, D

    B. Kousar, D. J. Carrad, L. Stampfer, P. Krogstrup, J. Nygård, and T. S. Jespersen, Nano Letters22, 8845 (2022)

    2022

  38. [45]

    Roddaro, A

    S. Roddaro, A. Pescaglini, D. Ercolani, L. Sorba, F. Gi- azotto, and F. Beltram, Nano Research4, 259 (2011)

    2011

  39. [46]

    Spathis, S

    P. Spathis, S. Biswas, S. Roddaro, L. Sorba, F. Giazotto, and F. Beltram, Nanotechnology22, 105201 (2011)

    2011

  40. [47]

    Strambini, A

    E. Strambini, A. Iorio, O. Durante, R. Citro, C. Sanz- Fernández, C. Guarcello, I. V. Tokatly, A. Braggio, M. Rocci, N. Ligato,et al., Nature Nanotechnology15, 656 (2020)

    2020

  41. [48]

    Iorio, M

    A. Iorio, M. Rocci, L. Bours, M. Carrega, V. Zannier, L. Sorba, S. Roddaro, F. Giazotto, and E. Strambini, Nano letters19, 652 (2018)

    2018

  42. [49]

    H. B. Heersche, P. Jarillo-Herrero, J. B. Oostinga, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and A. F. Morpurgo, Nature446, 56 (2007)

    2007

  43. [50]

    Nguyen, J

    C. Nguyen, J. Werking, H. Kroemer, and E. L. Hu, Ap- plied Physics Letters57, 87 (1990)

    1990

  44. [51]

    M. Sütő, T. Prok, P. Makk, M. Kirti, G. Biasiol, S. Csonka, and E. Tóvári, Phys. Rev. B106, 235404 (2022)

    2022

  45. [52]

    Paghi, G

    A. Paghi, G. Trupiano, G. D. Simoni, O. Arif, L. Sorba, and F. Giazotto, Advanced Functional Materials35, 2416957 (2025)

    2025

  46. [53]

    Battisti, G

    S. Battisti, G. De Simoni, A. Braggio, A. Paghi, L. Sorba, and F. Giazotto, Applied Physics Letters125, 202601 (2024)

    2024

  47. [54]

    Paghi, L

    A. Paghi, L. Borgongino, S. Battisti, S. Tortorella, G. Trupiano, G. D. Simoni, E. Strambini, L. Sorba, and F. Giazotto, ACS Applied Electronic Materials7, 3756 (2025)

    2025

  48. [55]

    Paghi, L

    A. Paghi, L. Borgongino, S. Tortorella, G. D. Simoni, E. Strambini, L. Sorba, and F. Giazotto, Nature Com- munications16, 8442 (2025)

    2025

  49. [56]

    Capotondi, G

    F. Capotondi, G. Biasiol, I. Vobornik, L. Sorba, F. Gia- zotto, A. Cavallini, and B. Fraboni, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanome- terStructuresProcessing, Measurement, andPhenomena 22, 702 (2004)

    2004

  50. [57]

    Desrat, F

    W. Desrat, F. Giazotto, V. Pellegrini, F. Beltram, F. Capotondi, G. Biasiol, L. Sorba, and D. Maude, Phys- ical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 69, 245324 (2004)

    2004

  51. [58]

    Kawakami and H

    T. Kawakami and H. Takayanagi, Applied Physics Let- ters46, 92 (1985)

    1985

  52. [59]

    Chrestin and U

    A. Chrestin and U. Merkt, Applied Physics Letters70, 3149 (1997)

    1997

  53. [60]

    Mayer, W

    W. Mayer, W. F. Schiela, J. Yuan, M. Hatefipour, W. L. Sarney, S. P. Svensson, A. C. Leff, T. Campos, K. S. Wickramasinghe, M. C. Dartiailh, I. Žutić, and J. Sha- bani, ACS Applied Electronic Materials2, 2351 (2020)

    2020

  54. [61]

    Amado, A

    M. Amado, A. Fornieri, F. Carillo, G. Biasiol, L. Sorba, V. Pellegrini, and F. Giazotto, Physical Re- view B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics87, 134506 (2013)

    2013

  55. [62]

    Amado, A

    M. Amado, A. Fornieri, G. Biasiol, L. Sorba, and F. Gi- azotto, Applied Physics Letters104(2014)

    2014

  56. [63]

    A. F. Andreev, Soviet Physics JETP19, 1228 (1964)

    1964

  57. [64]

    Pannetier and H

    B. Pannetier and H. Courtois, Journal of Low Tempera- ture Physics118, 599 (2000)

    2000

  58. [65]

    A. A. Golubov, M. Y. Kupriyanov, and E. Il’ichev, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 411 (2004)

    2004

  59. [66]

    C. W. J. Beenakker and H. van Houten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 3056 (1991)

    1991

  60. [67]

    F. Wen, J. Shabani, and E. Tutuc, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices66, 5367 (2019)

    2019

  61. [68]

    Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed

    M. Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996)

    1996

  62. [69]

    Analog Devices, LTspice XVII, circuit simulation soft- ware

  63. [70]

    Kiviranta, arXiv:2103.11465 (2021)

    M. Kiviranta, arXiv:2103.11465 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Hao, Q.-Y

    H. Hao, Q.-Y. Zhao, Y.-H. Huang, J. Deng, F. Yang, S.- Y. Ru, Z. Liu, C. Wan, H. Liu, Z.-J. Li, H.-B. Wang, X.-C. Tu, L.-B. Zhang, X.-Q. Jia, X.-L. Wu, J. Chen, L. Kang, and P.-H. Wu, Light: Science & Applications 13, 25 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.