Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Thickness-Driven Superconductor-Insulator Transition in (Cu,C)-1234 and Proximity-Induced Superconductivity Recovery in (Cu,C)-1234/YBCO Heterostructure

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Proximity to superconducting YBCO restores zero resistance in an 18-nm (Cu,C)-1234 layer that is otherwise insulating, evidence that interfacial coupling re-establishes lost phase coherence.

desk verdict Interesting thickness-driven SIT in (Cu,C)-1234 with a plausible but unproven proximity-recovery claim; needs a shunting control before the headline result is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11707 v1 pith:5C4RM2PK submitted 2026-08-12 cond-mat.supr-con

Zhihang Xu , Detian Yang , Ping Zhu , Ruoxian Sun , Xiaoyang Cai , Yanqun Guo , Chuanbing Cai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords superconductingproximityeffectsuperconductor-insulatortransitioncuprateheterostructure(CuC)-1234thinfilmYBCOphasecoherencepulsedlaserdepositionthickness-drivenSIT
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

This paper asks whether a thickness-driven superconductor–insulator transition in a cuprate film can be reversed by placing that film on top of a superconductor. The authors find that isolated (Cu,C)-1234 films stop superconducting below roughly 18 nm thickness and become insulating, but the same insulating film in a (Cu,C)-1234/YBCO heterostructure shows restored zero resistance, with a transition near 62 K. At thickness near 1.2 nm, only a degraded superconducting state appears, with a transition near 19 K and an insulating normal state. The experiments support a picture in which disorder and dimensional confinement destroy long-range phase coherence while local Cooper pairing survives, and the neighboring YBCO re-imposes phase coherence through the proximity effect. The result connects two usually separate research lines—proximity effects and thickness-tuned quantum phase transitions—and suggests interfaces can switch superconductivity on in an otherwise insulating cuprate.

What carries the argument

The operative mechanism is the superconducting proximity effect acting as a phase reference between two superconductors, in a regime where the top film's Cooper pairs are localized by thickness-driven disorder. In the authors' picture, isolated (Cu,C)-1234 retains local pairing into the insulating state, but the pairs lack a common phase; contacting it with YBCO, whose condensate has a well-defined phase, re-locks the phases and restores zero resistance. The experimental machinery is a shadow-mask growth layout that produces four regions on one substrate—bare LAO, sole YBCO, sole (Cu,C)-1234, and the heterostructure—so that thickness effects and interface effects are measured under identical growth conditions.

What would settle it

Remove the top (Cu,C)-1234 layer from the heterostructure in the region between the voltage probes and remeasure the interface circuit: if zero resistance persists, the signal is carried by YBCO alone, not by a recovered (Cu,C)-1234 channel. Alternatively, apply a magnetic field strong enough to suppress YBCO superconductivity at the operating temperature and check whether the recovered zero-resistance state disappears with the same field scale as the top layer's expected response.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that superconductivity is re-established in transport through the interface when an insulating ultrathin (Cu,C)-1234 layer is coupled to a thicker superconducting YBCO layer. Isolated (Cu,C)-1234 films show a clear thickness-driven SIT: the 188 nm film has a transition near 73.5 K, the 87 nm film near 60 K, and the 18 nm film is an insulator with resistance diverging at low temperature. In the heterostructure, the interface circuits S1–S3 (188, 87, and 18 nm top layers) all show zero resistance with transition temperatures of 67.5 K, 60.0 K, and 62.3 K, respectively; the nominally insulating 18 nm film has recovered superconductivity. For S4 with an estimated 1.2 nm top layer, the onset is still near 87 K but the zero-resistance transition drops to 18.7 K and the normal state has a negative temperature coefficient, which the authors take as evidence that pairing itself degrades when the thickness is comparable to the coherence length. The mechanism proposed is that YBCO provides a phase reference rather than simply injecting Cooper pairs, re-establishing long-range coherence among already-existing localized Cooper pairs in (Cu,C)-1234.

Load-bearing premise

The measured 'interface' superconductivity would not demonstrate recovery in (Cu,C)-1234 if the four-probe circuit is actually shunted by the underlying YBCO film, and the paper provides no control measurement—such as driving YBCO normal or measuring with the top layer removed—to rule out this shunt.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In isolated (Cu,C)-1234, superconductivity is lost between 87 nm and 18 nm; the 18 nm film shows insulating resistance that diverges at low temperature.
  • In the heterostructure, the 18 nm insulating layer shows zero resistance with a transition near 62.3 K, close to the values of the thicker heterostructures, which is what the phase-reference mechanism predicts for recovery of coherence rather than for simple pair injection.
  • At 1.2 nm thickness, comparable to the cuprate coherence length, the recovered transition is suppressed to 18.7 K and the normal state becomes insulating-like, indicating that pairing, not only coherence, is damaged.
  • The shadow-mask growth on a single substrate allows the isolated films and the interface to be measured under the same conditions, making the comparison between the insulating top layer and the recovered state direct.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the phase-reference mechanism is general, the same recovery should occur with other stiff superconductors in place of YBCO; testing a conventional s-wave contact would separate the phase-reference effect from d-wave pairing compatibility.
  • The picture predicts local pairing in the 18 nm isolated film should be visible spectroscopically as a pseudogap or precursor diamagnetism above the SIT, even though the resistance is insulating.
  • A thickness series with finer steps between 18 nm and 1.2 nm would map the spatial length scale over which the interface can re-establish coherence and locate where pair breaking begins.
  • The S4 behavior suggests that, at sub-coherence-length thickness, the bilayer behaves as a superconductor/insulator hybrid whose normal state is dominated by the top layer, so interface resistance measurements could quantify the leakage of YBCO phase stiffness into the disordered layer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a thickness-driven superconductor-insulator transition (SIT) in isolated (Cu,C)-1234 films and claims that superconductivity is re-established in (Cu,C)-1234 when it is coupled to a YBCO bottom layer in a shadow-masked heterostructure. The authors grow YBCO (150 nm) and (Cu,C)-1234 top layers with nominal thicknesses 188, 87, 18, and ~1.2 nm, and measure four-probe resistance of the isolated films and of a circuit intended to pass current through the (Cu,C)-1234/YBCO interface. Isolated films show a SIT between 87 nm and 18 nm, with the 18 nm film insulating. In the interface circuit, samples S1-S3 show zero resistance with Tc0 = 67.5, 60.0, and 62.3 K, while S4 shows a much lower Tc0 of 18.7 K and a negative temperature coefficient. The authors interpret the S3/S4 behavior as superconducting proximity recovery in an insulating cuprate, with thickness-dependent disorder and confined pairing explaining the suppression at ~1.2 nm.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is a valuable experimental contribution: it would demonstrate that a strongly disordered, phase-incoherent cuprate can regain long-range phase coherence through proximity coupling to a robust superconductor, and it introduces a cuprate S-S' heterostructure platform with a thickness-tunable crossover. The isolated-film SIT in (Cu,C)-1234 is itself an interesting result, and the simultaneous growth of component films and heterostructure regions on one substrate is a good experimental design. The structural characterization (XRD, SEM, HAADF-STEM/FFT) is a genuine strength. However, the proximity-recovery claim currently rests on an unverified assumption about current path in the interface circuit, and the thinnest-sample evidence is incomplete.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, Fig. 4] The central claim that S3 and S4 show superconductivity re-established in the (Cu,C)-1234 layer is not supported without a control against shunting by the underlying YBCO film. The statement "To avoid possible parallel conduction [20] and ensure the current flows through the interface, the process in Fig. 1 was taken" describes only a spatial separation of growth regions; it does not make the YBCO layer non-conducting in the overlap region. In the interface four-probe geometry, current injected into a resistive top layer can enter the superconducting YBCO at one contact, travel through YBCO, and leave through another contact, so the inner voltage contacts can read near zero whenever YBCO is superconducting, regardless of the state of the (Cu,C)-1234 layer. The fact that Tc0(S3)=62.3 K and Tc0(S4)=18.7 K lie below the isolated-YBCO value of 78 K is not decisive, because the YBCO underneath the top layer is not measured independently and could be locally degraded by the second deposition. I request at least one of the following controls: (i) an identical interface circuit measured after removal of the top layer; (ii) an interface circuit with an insulating, non-superconducting top layer of similar thickness; or (iii) measurement of the S3/S4 interface circuit with the YBCO layer driven normal by magnetic field or by operating above its Tc. Without such a control, the S3/S4 zero-resistance states are fully consistent with YBCO shunting.
  2. [Section 3.2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4(b)] The evidence for the thinnest sample is incomplete. The thickness of S4 is only "estimated by others" (Section 3.3), and the transport data for the isolated ~1.2 nm (Cu,C)-1234 film are not shown ("unavoidable test error", Section 3.2). Consequently, the claim that the S4 top layer is itself insulating, and that its low Tc0 of 18.7 K reflects pairing degradation in (Cu,C)-1234 rather than a property of the YBCO or interface, is not directly established. Direct thickness determination (e.g., cross-sectional STEM or X-ray reflectivity) and an R(T) trace for the isolated ultrathin film are needed to substantiate Figs. 5(d) and the discussion of S4.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4] The sentence "The recovery of superconductivity in S3 is stronger than S4 which is inconsistentwith" is grammatically incomplete and should be finished; as written it obscures the argument against a simple Cooper-pair-injection picture.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption reads "10Kⅹ SEM image" and should be "10k× SEM image"; in addition, the many panels (a)-(h) are not all explained in the caption, making the figure difficult to interpret.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including "Tnset" for "Tconset", "coherent length" for "coherence length", and "4.5md" for "4.5 mm" in Section 2.2; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [Section 3.3, reference [20]] Reference [20], concerning Bi2223 tapes in parallel connection, does not support the claim that the procedure in Fig. 1 avoids parallel conduction; the citation should be replaced or removed.
  5. [Fig. 4(a)] The normalization convention for the normalized R-T curves is not stated; the authors should specify the normalization point (e.g., value at 300 K) so that the curves can be compared quantitatively.
  6. [Section 3.2] For the 188 nm isolated film, the comment that the R-T curve "got fluctuation because of connection problem" is concerning; if contact instabilities were present, the reported Tc0 for that sample should be qualified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the transport comparison is self-contained; no fitted parameter or cited premise is reused as the predicted result.

full rationale

This is an experimental growth-and-transport paper with no parameter fitting, no derivation from a model, and no quantity that is defined in terms of the claim it is supposed to support. The central observation is a direct comparison between isolated (Cu,C)-1234 films, which become insulating at 18 nm, and the heterostructure interface circuit, which exhibits zero resistance at the same nominal top-layer thicknesses. The interpretation draws on well-known concepts of Cooper-pair localization and phase coherence, citing Fisher [29] and a prior (Cu,C)-1234 film-quality benchmark [23], but neither citation defines the measured resistance-temperature curves; they serve only as background physics and a quality reference. The paper does not fit a parameter to a subset of data and then call it a prediction, nor does it import a uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work. The only serious concern raised by the text is whether the 'interface' circuit could be shunted by the underlying superconducting YBCO film, since the paper states that the shadow-mask process was chosen 'To avoid possible parallel conduction [20] and ensure the current flows through the interface' but does not provide a top-layer-removed or YBCO-driven-normal control. That concern is an experimental-validity issue, not a circularity: if shunting occurred, the observed zero resistance would describe YBCO rather than the heterostructure, but it would not be a conclusion that reduces to the paper's own inputs. Under the circularity definitions used in this pass, no load-bearing step is circular, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the measurement geometry isolating the top layer, the estimated thickness values, and the physical interpretation of the SIT as disorder-driven Cooper pair localization. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced. The main unrecognized risk is the parallel conduction assumption.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four-probe circuit labeled 'interface' measures current that passes through the (Cu,C)-1234 layer and the interface, rather than being shunted by the underlying YBCO layer.
    Section 2.2 and 3.3: the shadow-mask geometry is asserted to avoid parallel conduction, but no control measurement is shown.
  • domain assumption The nominal thicknesses (188, 87, 18, 1.2 nm) correspond to continuous, uniform (Cu,C)-1234 layers with the intended thickness; in particular the 1.2 nm layer is estimated, not measured.
    Section 3.2 and 3.3: thickness for S4 is 'estimated by others' and the isolated 1.2 nm film data are omitted due to test error.
  • domain assumption The thickness-driven SIT in isolated (Cu,C)-1234 is caused by disorder-enhanced localization of Cooper pairs and loss of phase coherence, not by chemical decomposition or phase segregation.
    Discussion: the interpretation relies on disorder and localization arguments; no microscopic verification such as STEM-EDS or XPS is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thickness-Driven Superconductor-Insulator Transition in (Cu,C)-1234 and Proximity-Induced Superconductivity Recovery in (Cu,C)-1234/YBCO Heterostructure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5C4RM2PK

@misc{pith2026260811707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thickness-Driven Superconductor-Insulator Transition in (Cu,C)-1234 and Proximity-Induced Superconductivity Recovery in (Cu,C)-1234/YBCO Heterostructure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5C4RM2PK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11707}
}
read the original abstract

Superconducting proximity effect and related thickness-driven property evolution remain an important issue in understanding high temperature superconductors. Among proximity systems, superconductor-superconductor (S-S') is special for the existence of intrinsic superconductivity in both materials. Such platform allows the different superconducting orders to compete, couple and reconstruct at the interface. In this paper, (Cu,C)-1234/YBCO heterostructure grown on LAO (001) with fixed thickness of bottom YBCO layer as 150 nm and varied thickness of top (Cu,C)-1234 layer as 188nm, 87 nm, 18nm and estimated 1.2 nm were fabricated and component films were preserved. Electrical transport characterization indicated that as the thickness decrease the (Cu,C)-1234 film degrades and underwent the superconductor-insulator transition (SIT) from thicker to less than 18 nm. In contrast, superconductivity is re-established in transport measurements when the insulating (Cu,C)-1234 layer is coupled to superconducting YBCO As the (Cu,C)-1234 thickness is further reduced to approximately 1.2 nm, the recovered superconductivity is strongly suppressed. The observed thickness dependence is consistent with a scenario in which interfacial coupling restores superconductivity over a finite thickness range before increasing disorder and dimensional confinement dominate in the two-dimensional limit. This work establishes a promising platform for investigating interfacial coupling between cuprate superconductors and provides new insight into the superconducting proximity effect in high-temperature superconducting heterostructures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Current–voltage characteristic of Bi2223 multifilamentary tapesinparallelconnection.SupercondSciTechnol2006;19:1225–8

    Wang Y, Guan X, Dai S, et al. Current–voltage characteristic of Bi2223 multifilamentary tapesinparallelconnection.SupercondSciTechnol2006;19:1225–8

    work page

  2. [1]

    Phys Rev B 2023;108:054510

    BobkovGA,BobkovaIV,BobkovAM.Proximityeffectinsuperconductor/antiferromagnet hybrids: Néel triplets and impurity suppression of superconductivity. Phys Rev B 2023;108:054510

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Syntropic spin alignment at the interface between ferromagneticandsuperconductingnitrides.NationalScienceReview2024;11:nwae107

    Jin Q, Zhang Q, Bai H, et al. Syntropic spin alignment at the interface between ferromagneticandsuperconductingnitrides.NationalScienceReview2024;11:nwae107

    work page

  4. [3]

    Enhanced proximity effect near the submonolayer terrace of the high-TcsuperconductorFe(Te,Se).PhysRevB2024;109:174527

    He G, Li Y, Lei Y, et al. Enhanced proximity effect near the submonolayer terrace of the high-TcsuperconductorFe(Te,Se).PhysRevB2024;109:174527

    work page

  5. [4]

    ChenY,ZhangY,HuangZ,etal.VisualizationofMacroscopicIsingSuperconductingState inSuperconductor‐GrapheneJunctions.AdvQuantumTech2023;6:2300087

    work page

  6. [5]

    ZhangY, Zhao W, Zhang C, et al.Anomalous Superconducting Proximity Effect in Bi2Se3 /FeSe0.5Te0.5Thin‐FilmHeterojunctions.AdvancedMaterials2022;34:2107799

    work page

  7. [6]

    LüpkeF,WatersD,De LaBarrera SC,et al.Proximity-inducedsuperconductinggap in the quantumspinHalledgestateofmonolayerWTe2.NatPhys2020;16:526–30

    work page

  8. [7]

    Majorana Corner Modes in a High-Temperature Platform

    Yan Z, Song F, Wang Z. Majorana Corner Modes in a High-Temperature Platform. Phys RevLett2018;121:096803

    work page

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    Phys RevLett2023;130:096901

    StensbergJ,HanX,LeeS,etal.ObservationoftheSuperconductingProximityEffectfrom Surface States in SmB6/YB6 Thin Film Heterostructures via Terahertz Spectroscopy. Phys RevLett2023;130:096901

  2. [9]

    Artificial Topological Superconductor by the Proximity Effect.PhysRevLett2014;112:217001

    Xu J-P, Liu C, Wang M-X, et al. Artificial Topological Superconductor by the Proximity Effect.PhysRevLett2014;112:217001

  3. [10]

    Twofold symmetry of proximity-induced superconductivity in Bi2Te3/Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ heterostructures revealed by scanning tunneling microscopy

    Wan S, Gu Q, Li H, et al. Twofold symmetry of proximity-induced superconductivity in Bi2Te3/Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ heterostructures revealed by scanning tunneling microscopy. Phys RevB2020;101:220503

  4. [11]

    Proximity Effect between Two Superconductors SpatiallyResolvedbyScanningTunnelingSpectroscopy.PhysRevX2014;4:011033

    Cherkez V, Cuevas JC, Brun C, et al. Proximity Effect between Two Superconductors SpatiallyResolvedbyScanningTunnelingSpectroscopy.PhysRevX2014;4:011033

  5. [12]

    WangR-F,XiongY-L,ZhuQ,etal.Anomaloussuperconductingproximity effectofplanar Pb–RhPb2heterojunctionsinthecleanlimit.NpjQuantumMater2022;7:116

  6. [13]

    Nanoscale Proximity Effect in the High-Temperature Superconductor Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ Using a Scanning Tunneling Microscope.PhysRevLett2010;104:117001

    Parker CV, Pushp A, Pasupathy AN, et al. Nanoscale Proximity Effect in the High-Temperature Superconductor Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ Using a Scanning Tunneling Microscope.PhysRevLett2010;104:117001

  7. [14]

    High-temperature superconductivity in monolayer Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ.Nature2019;575:156–63

    Yu Y, Ma L, Cai P, et al. High-temperature superconductivity in monolayer Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ.Nature2019;575:156–63

  8. [15]

    Ultrathin Limit on the Anisotropic Superconductivity of Single-LayeredCuprateFilms.ChinesePhysLett2024;41:027401

    Ran F, Chen P, Li D, et al. Ultrathin Limit on the Anisotropic Superconductivity of Single-LayeredCuprateFilms.ChinesePhysLett2024;41:027401

  9. [16]

    Superconductor–insulator transitions in the two-dimensional limit

    Goldman AM, Sarkar T, Das Sarma S, el al. Superconductor–insulator transitions in the two-dimensional limit. Physica E: Low-Dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 2003;18:1–6

    2003

  10. [17]

    Spectroscopic Evidence of Disorder-Induced Quantum Phase Transitions in Monolayer Fe(Te,Se) Superconductor

    He GY, Wang ZQ, Pan LX, et al. Spectroscopic Evidence of Disorder-Induced Quantum Phase Transitions in Monolayer Fe(Te,Se) Superconductor. Phys. Rev. Lett.2026;136,176001

    2026

  11. [18]

    Experimental Evidence of a Dimensional CrossoverinY1Ba2Cu3O7-δ.Phys.Rev.Lett1990;64

    Farrell DE, Rice JP, Ginsberg DM, et al. Experimental Evidence of a Dimensional CrossoverinY1Ba2Cu3O7-δ.Phys.Rev.Lett1990;64

  12. [19]

    Unconventional Proximity Effect and Inverse Spin-Switch Behavior in a Model Manganite-Cuprate-Manganite Trilayer System

    Salafranca J, Okamoto S. Unconventional Proximity Effect and Inverse Spin-Switch Behavior in a Model Manganite-Cuprate-Manganite Trilayer System. Phys Rev Lett 2010;105:256804

    2010

  13. [21]

    Quantum superconductor-insulator transition in titanium monoxidethinfilmswithawiderangeofoxygencontents.PhysRevB2018;98:064501

    Fan YJ, Ma C, Wang TY, et al. Quantum superconductor-insulator transition in titanium monoxidethinfilmswithawiderangeofoxygencontents.PhysRevB2018;98:064501

  14. [22]

    Systematic evolution of temperature-dependent resistivityinLa2−xSrxCuO4.PhysRevLett1992;69:2975–8

    Takagi H, Batlogg B, Kao HL, et al. Systematic evolution of temperature-dependent resistivityinLa2−xSrxCuO4.PhysRevLett1992;69:2975–8

  15. [23]

    Preparation and superconducting properties of the (Cu,C)Ba2Ca3Cu4O11+y films with zero-resistance transition temperature of 96 K

    Duan T, Hao J, Chu H, et al. Preparation and superconducting properties of the (Cu,C)Ba2Ca3Cu4O11+y films with zero-resistance transition temperature of 96 K. SupercondSciTechnol2020;33:025009

  16. [24]

    Resistivity saturation in an electron-dopedcuprate.PHYSICALREVIEWB2021

    Poniatowski NR, Tarapada Sarkar, Sankar Das Sarma, et al. Resistivity saturation in an electron-dopedcuprate.PHYSICALREVIEWB2021

  17. [25]

    Semicond.1960;4:237

    IoffeAF,RegelAR.Non-crystalline,amorphousandliquidelectronicsemiconductors.Prog. Semicond.1960;4:237

    1960

  18. [26]

    Conduction in non-crystalline systems

    Mott NF. Conduction in non-crystalline systems. IX. The minimum metallic conductivity, Philos.Mag.A1972;26:1249

  19. [27]

    MicroscopicTheoryof Superconductivity.Phys Rev, 1957;106:162–164

    BardeenJ,CooperLN, SchriefferJR. MicroscopicTheoryof Superconductivity.Phys Rev, 1957;106:162–164

    1957

  20. [28]

    Theory of Superconductivity

    Bardeen J, Cooper LN, Schrieffer JR. Theory of Superconductivity. Phys Rev, 1957;108:1175–204

    1957

  21. [29]

    Quantum phase transitions in disordered two-dimensional superconductors

    Fisher MPA. Quantum phase transitions in disordered two-dimensional superconductors. PhysRevLett1990;65:923–6

  22. [30]

    Spectroscopic Signatures of Defect-Induced Pair BreakinginBi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x.PhysRevLett1999;82:3128–31

    Vobornik I, Berger H, Pavuna D, et al. Spectroscopic Signatures of Defect-Induced Pair BreakinginBi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x.PhysRevLett1999;82:3128–31

  23. [31]

    Pair breaking by chain oxygen disorder in light-ion irradiatedYBa2Cu3Oxthinfilms.PhysRevB2003;68:094515

    Arias D, Sefrioui Z, Loos GD, et al. Pair breaking by chain oxygen disorder in light-ion irradiatedYBa2Cu3Oxthinfilms.PhysRevB2003;68:094515

  24. [32]

    Quantum breakdown of superconductivity in low-dimensionalmaterials.NatPhys2020;16:734–46

    Sacépé B, Feigel’man M, Klapwijk TM. Quantum breakdown of superconductivity in low-dimensionalmaterials.NatPhys2020;16:734–46

  25. [33]

    Phase Coherence of Pairs of Cooper Pairs as Quasi-Long-Range Order of Half-Vortex Pairs in a Two-Dimensional Bilayer System

    Song FF, Zhang GM. Phase Coherence of Pairs of Cooper Pairs as Quasi-Long-Range Order of Half-Vortex Pairs in a Two-Dimensional Bilayer System. Phys Rev Lett 2022;128:195301

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.