Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Disorder and Critical Current Variability in Josephson Junctions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that vacancies and atomic-scale thickness fluctuations in the oxide layer, rather than pinholes, are the most plausible sources of critical-current variation in Nb/Al–AlOx/Nb Josephson junctions.

desk verdict Honest, useful BdG comparison of three disorder mechanisms in Nb/Al-AlOx/Nb junctions: the qualitative ranking is convincing, but the quantitative P(Ic) match to experiment rests on an unvalidated Gaussian assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08360 v2 pith:7BGQV3YK submitted 2019-08-22 cond-mat.supr-con

Miguel Antonio Sulangi , T.A. Weingartner , N. Pokhrel , E. Patrick , M. Law , P. J. Hirschfeld This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.50.+r
keywords Josephsonjunctionscriticalcurrentdisordervacanciesbarrierthicknesspinholescurrent-phaserelationBogoliubov-deGennes
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 identify which microscopic defects cause the run-to-run spread in critical currents observed in Nb/Al–AlOx/Nb Josephson junctions. Using self-consistent Bogoliubov–de Gennes calculations on a model superconductor–normal-metal–insulator–superconductor junction, it compares three disorder types: atomic vacancies in the aluminum layer, thickness variations in the oxide barrier, and pinholes. It finds that vacancies and small thickness fluctuations suppress the critical current by plausible amounts and can reproduce the observed variation, while pinholes, even at 10% density, approximately double the critical current and bend the current-phase relation toward a sawtooth. The conclusion matters for superconducting circuit design because it identifies which defects to control in fabrication and which are likely responsible for device failures.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the self-consistent Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) treatment of a two-dimensional square-lattice SNIS junction, with the superconducting order parameter determined self-consistently from the BdG eigenstates and the Josephson current computed from the resulting wavefunctions for a fixed phase difference $\varphi$ across the junction. Disorder is introduced as strong on-site potentials (vacancies), locally thickened oxide regions, or zero-barrier pinhole sites, and the current-phase relation is obtained by sweeping $\varphi$. The self-consistency lets the order parameter respond locally to disorder, and the resulting shape of the current-phase relation—sinusoidal versus sawtooth—is the diagnostic that distinguishes tunnel-like behavior from pinhole-dominated behavior.

What would settle it

Direct low-temperature measurement of the current-phase relation of many nominally identical junctions, for example by embedding them in SQUID loops, would settle the pinhole question: a sinusoidal CPR with maximum near $\varphi=\pi/2$ rules out pinholes, while a sawtooth CPR with maximum approaching $\pi$ confirms them. Separately, examining non-functioning devices with transmission electron microscopy for pinholes would test the claim that pinholes cause device failures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that observed critical-current variations in Nb/Al–AlOx/Nb junctions are most plausibly caused by vacancies in the Al layer and by barrier-thickness fluctuations on the scale of one lattice spacing, not by pinholes. In the model, a 10% vacancy concentration suppresses the critical current by about 20%; thick-oxide segments make the critical current fall roughly as $\exp(-L_{\rm avg})$, with $L_{\rm avg}$ the average barrier thickness; and a 10% pinhole density doubles the critical current while changing the current-phase relation from sinusoidal to sawtooth-like, characteristic of superconductor–normal-metal–superconductor junctions. The paper therefore argues that pinholes are an unlikely source of the modest variability seen in working devices but a plausible cause of device failures, since even small pinhole densities produce large currents.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's statistical predictions assume junction-to-junction defect concentrations are normally distributed with a 5% standard deviation; if the real growth process yields a broader, skewed, or correlated distribution, the predicted critical-current spreads and the conclusion that vacancies and thickness variations dominate could be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If vacancies and thickness fluctuations are the dominant variability sources, controlling oxidation and metal-deposition uniformity should narrow the critical-current distribution.
  • Pinhole-free fabrication should be prioritized: even a 10% pinhole density roughly doubles the critical current and changes the current-phase relation, so pinholes likely cause device failures rather than gradual variability.
  • The linear dependence of $I_c$ on vacancy concentration means a Gaussian spread in vacancy concentration yields a Gaussian spread in $I_c$, whereas the nonlinear dependence on thick-oxide density yields skewed, low-current-tailed distributions.
  • Direct measurement of the current-phase relation, for example with a SQUID, can discriminate pinhole-free tunnel junctions (sinusoidal, peak near $\varphi=\pi/2$) from pinhole-dominated junctions (sawtooth, peak approaching $\pi$).
  • Junction-to-junction variability is attributed mainly to differences in disorder level between samples, not to different configurations at a fixed disorder concentration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: in a three-dimensional barrier, the exponential thickness dependence would likely persist, but the pinhole density at which the CPR turns sawtooth could shift because conduction paths percolate differently in 3D.
  • Beyond the paper: the predicted low-side skew from thickness variations and high-side skew from pinholes suggests that the skew direction of measured $P(I_c)$ distributions could serve as a quick diagnostic for which defect class dominates a given fabrication run.
  • Beyond the paper: if pinholes are the main device-failure mechanism, then screening non-functional junctions for pinholes, for example by transmission electron microscopy, could directly improve yield modeling and process control; this is a testable consequence the paper does not itself develop.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses self-consistent Bogoliubov–de Gennes calculations on a 30×30 lattice model of an Nb/Al-AlOx/Nb SNIS junction to study three disorder mechanisms: vacancies in the Al layer, thickness fluctuations in the AlOx barrier, and pinholes in the barrier. For each mechanism it computes current-phase relations and critical currents, then estimates junction-to-junction critical-current distributions by assuming Gaussian distributions of defect concentrations with a fixed standard deviation of 5%. The authors find that 10% vacancies suppress Ic by about 20%, that thick-oxide-region effects scale roughly as exp(-L_avg), and that even a small pinhole density markedly enhances Ic and changes the CPR to a sawtooth form. They conclude that vacancies and small thickness fluctuations are the most likely explanations for the experimentally observed Ic variability, while pinholes are more likely to cause device failures.

Significance. The paper provides a useful, systematic microscopic comparison of three distinct disorder mechanisms in a technologically relevant junction type, and it makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction: a sawtooth-like current-phase relation is a signature of pinhole-dominated transport. The self-consistent BdG treatment and the side-by-side comparison of mechanisms are strengths, and the authors are appropriately candid about the illustrative nature of their models. However, the central attribution of observed Ic variability to vacancies and thickness fluctuations rests on an unvalidated statistical assumption about junction-to-junction defect-concentration distributions, and the paper's own discussion acknowledges that no quantitative information about disorder levels exists. The qualitative trends and the pinhole scenario are robust, but the quantitative P(Ic) predictions and the resulting attribution claims need either experimental grounding or a sensitivity analysis before they can be considered conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. III–IV, Figs. 7 and 10] The central comparison with experiment assumes that vacancy concentrations n and thick-oxide-segment concentrations nb are normally distributed across junctions with a standard deviation of 5%. This assumption is introduced without experimental evidence or sensitivity analysis, and the paper explicitly states in Sec. VI that "there is no quantitative information ... about the level of disorder present." If the true distribution is broader, narrower, skewed, or correlated with other defects, the predicted P(Ic) shapes and the conclusion that vacancies and thickness variations dominate the variability could change substantially. For example, the fixed-concentration configuration disorder estimated in Sec. III (6% standard deviation at 10% vacancies) could dominate if the concentration spread is narrower than assumed. The authors should either provide a sensitivity analysis over plausible distribution shapes and widths, or explicitly reframe the P(Ic) results and the attribution as illustrative rather than evidential.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 10 and Sec. VI] The paper acknowledges in Sec. IV that the thickness-fluctuation P(Ic) is skewed to the low-Ic side, whereas the experimental Nb/Al-AlOx/Nb distributions are skewed to high Ic. It then suggests that pinholes or other defects could produce the high-Ic skew, but it does not present a quantitative combined model of thickness fluctuations plus pinholes or any estimate of the required pinhole concentration. As a result, the claim in Sec. VI that thickness variations are among the "likeliest explanations" for the observed variability is not fully supported by the presented evidence; at most, the paper shows that thickness variations alone cannot reproduce the experimental skew without an additional, unquantified mechanism.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 6] The statement that Ic(n) is proportional to n is only approximate; Fig. 6 shows clear curvature at concentrations above about 10–15%. The derivation of a Gaussian P(Ic) in Sec. III relies on this linearity. The authors should quantify the error introduced by the curvature for the mean concentrations used in Fig. 7, particularly for n0 = 20–25%, or restrict the Gaussian-shape claim to the dilute regime.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The text says "transmission emission microscopy (TEM)"; the correct term is "transmission electron microscopy."
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (5)] There is a typo: "the dependence of of nb on Ic" should read "the dependence of nb on Ic."
  3. [Secs. III and IV] The standard deviation σ = 5% should be defined precisely: is it 5 percentage points in concentration, or 5% of the mean concentration? The captions of Figs. 7 and 10 should state this explicitly, since the resulting P(Ic) widths depend on the interpretation.
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 10 caption] In the caption, "segement" should be "segment."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantitative results are forward BdG simulations; auxiliary fitting and Gaussian assumptions are explicitly stated hypotheses, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain for the seven circularity patterns and found none that reduce a central claim to its own inputs. The paper's quantitative results (10% vacancies suppressing Ic by ~20%; Ic scaling with exp(-L_avg) for thickness variations; 10% pinholes doubling Ic) are obtained by self-consistent BdG diagonalization of a microscopic Hamiltonian with stated parameters (V=2, t=1, U=4t, 30x30 lattice). These are forward model outputs, not fits to the experimental critical-current data. The P(Ic) estimates in Sections III and IV do assume Gaussian junction-to-junction defect concentration distributions with sigma=5%, but the paper explicitly labels this as an assumption ('if we assume that the junction-to-junction vacancy concentrations are distributed in some known fashion') and does not claim to have measured or fitted sigma. The curve fit in Eq. 5 is an interpolation of the paper's own numerical Ic(nb) dependence, used only to illustrate possible P(Ic) shapes, and the text explicitly states that 'the precise functional form is not relevant—similar results can be obtained by a quadratic fit.' This is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper is also candid about the limits of its inference: it states 'there is no quantitative information ... about the level of disorder present' and notes that the thickness-variation P(Ic) is skewed opposite to experiment, requiring additional mechanisms. Self-citations (Refs. 10, 11, 13, 15, 20-27) are methodological support for BdG techniques and disorder effects in superconductors; they are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatz justifications. No self-definitional step, imported uniqueness claim, or renaming of a known empirical pattern was found. The main scientific weakness is underdetermination from unvalidated distributional assumptions, which is a correctness or external-validity concern, not a circularity concern under the stated criteria.

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

The main qualitative physics (suppression by vacancies and thickness variations, enhancement by pinholes) is computed from a microscopic model with hand-chosen parameters rather than fitted to the target experimental distributions. However, the quantitative P(Ic) predictions depend on an assumed Gaussian distribution of defect concentrations and on a curve fit, which are the least grounded elements. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • pairing interaction V = 2 (in units of t)
    Chosen by hand to make the superconducting coherence length parametrically larger than the oxide barrier thickness; not derived from independent experimental data.
  • barrier height U = 4t
    Model parameter for the AlOx barrier representing an insulating barrier; no direct experimental calibration for this specific junction is given.
  • Gaussian width sigma for defect concentration = 5%
    Assumed standard deviation of the normal distribution for defect concentrations across junctions, used to compute P(Ic); no experimental or theoretical justification is provided for this value.
  • curve-fit parameters A, B, p, q (Eq. 5) = not specified in the paper
    Fitted to the simulation data for Ic versus thick-oxide density in order to approximate the functional dependence and generate P(Ic) distributions; the paper states the precise form is not crucial.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bogoliubov-de Gennes mean-field theory adequately describes a single Josephson junction with s-wave pairing at T->0
    Invoked in Section II, Eqs. (2)-(4), to compute energy levels, order parameter, and currents; a standard but approximate framework for inhomogeneous superconductors.
  • domain assumption The junction can be modeled on a 2D square lattice with periodic boundary conditions along the barrier and open boundary conditions across it
    Section II defines a 30x30 lattice; the simplification from 3D to 2D and the finite width may affect quantitative disorder averaging.
  • ad hoc to paper Defect concentrations across junctions are normally distributed with sigma=5%
    Used in the P(Ic) estimates of Sections III and IV; no independent evidence supports normality or the chosen width.
  • domain assumption The pairing interaction V=0 in the normal metal and insulator regions
    Standard modeling of S/N/S and S/I/S junctions, stated in Section II.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disorder and Critical Current Variability in Josephson Junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BGQV3YK

@misc{pith2026190808360,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disorder and Critical Current Variability in Josephson Junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BGQV3YK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08360}
}
abstract

We investigate theoretically the origins of observed variations in the critical currents of Nb/Al-AlO$_x$/Nb Josephson junctions in terms of various types of disorder. We consider the following disorder sources: vacancies within the Al layer; thickness variations in the AlO$_x$ layer; and "pinholes" (i.e., point contacts) within the AlO$_x$ layer. The calculations are all performed by solving the microscopic Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian self-consistently. It is found that a small concentration of vacancies within the Al layer is sufficient to suppress the critical current, while the presence of a small number of thick regions of the oxide layer induces a similar effect as well. The pinhole scenario is found to result in anomalous behavior that resembles neither that of a pure tunnel junction nor that of an SNS junction, but a regime that interpolates between these two limits. We comment on the degree to which each of the three scenarios describes the actual situation present in these junctions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08360 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of a Nb/Al-AlO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Current-phase relation of a SNIS junction with 10% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Disorder scenarios studied in this paper. Shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Current-phase relation of a SNIS junction with 1/6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Distributions of critical currents for varying mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Critical current versus number of thick oxide barrier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Critical current versus the exponential of minus the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Current-phase relation of SNIS junctions with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author A. N. \ McCaughan \ and\ author K. K. \ Berggren ,\ 10.1021/nl502629x journal journal Nano Letters \ volume 14 ,\ pages 5748 ( year 2014 ) ,\ note pMID: 25233488 ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1021/nl502629x https://doi.org/10.1021/nl502629x NoStop

    doi:10.1021/nl502629x 2014

  2. [2]

    author author S. K. \ Tolpygo ,\ @noop journal journal Low Temperature Physics \ volume 42 ,\ pages 361 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Gurvitch , author M

    author author M. Gurvitch , author M. A. \ Washington , \ and\ author H. A. \ Huggins ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 42 ,\ pages 472 ( year 1983 ) NoStop

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    author author S. K. \ Tolpygo , author V. Bolkhovsky , author T. J. \ Weir , author L. M. \ Johnson , author M. A. \ Gouker , \ and\ author W. D. \ Oliver ,\ @noop journal journal IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity \ volume 25 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    author author D. S. \ Holmes \ and\ author J. McHenry ,\ @noop journal journal IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity \ volume 27 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    author author G. E. \ Blonder , author M. Tinkham , \ and\ author T. M. \ Klapwijk ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 25 ,\ pages 4515 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Furusaki ,\ @noop journal journal Physica B: Condensed Matter \ volume 203 ,\ pages 214 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    author author A. Furusaki ,\ @noop journal journal Physica B: Condensed Matter \ volume 203 ,\ pages 214 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Asano ,\ @noop journal journal Phys

    author author Y. Asano ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 63 ,\ pages 052512 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    work page 2001

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    author author B. K. \ Nikoli \'c , author J. K. \ Freericks , \ and\ author P. Miller ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 65 ,\ pages 064529 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002

  2. [10]

    author author B. M. \ Andersen , author I. V. \ Bobkova , author P. J. \ Hirschfeld , \ and\ author Y. S. \ Barash ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 72 ,\ pages 184510 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  3. [11]

    author author B. M. \ Andersen , author I. V. \ Bobkova , author P. J. \ Hirschfeld , \ and\ author Y. S. \ Barash ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 96 ,\ pages 117005 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  4. [12]

    Covaci \ and\ author F

    author author L. Covaci \ and\ author F. Marsiglio ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 73 ,\ pages 014503 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  5. [13]

    author author B. M. \ Andersen , author Y. S. \ Barash , author S. Graser , \ and\ author P. J. \ Hirschfeld ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 77 ,\ pages 054501 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  6. [14]

    author author A. M. \ Black-Schaffer \ and\ author S. Doniach ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 78 ,\ pages 024504 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  7. [15]

    Graser , author P

    author author S. Graser , author P. J. \ Hirschfeld , author T. Kopp , author R. Gutser , author B. M. \ Andersen , \ and\ author J. Mannhart ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 6 ,\ pages 609 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  8. [16]

    author author F. A. \ Wolf , author S. Graser , author F. Loder , \ and\ author T. Kopp ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 108 ,\ pages 117002 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  9. [17]

    \ Kim , author R

    author author Y.-J. \ Kim , author R. Tao , author R. F. \ Klie , \ and\ author D. N. \ Seidman ,\ @noop journal journal ACS Nano \ volume 7 ,\ pages 732 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  10. [18]

    author author M. L. \ Grossbeck \ and\ author H. K. \ Birnbaum ,\ @noop journal journal Acta Metallurgica \ volume 25 ,\ pages 135 ( year 1977 ) NoStop

    1977

  11. [19]

    Abrahams \ and\ author C

    author author E. Abrahams \ and\ author C. M. \ Varma ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 97 ,\ pages 5714 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  12. [20]

    Zhu , author P

    author author L. Zhu , author P. J. \ Hirschfeld , \ and\ author D. J. \ Scalapino ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.214503 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 70 ,\ pages 214503 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    author author T. S. \ Nunner , author B. M. \ Andersen , author A. Melikyan , \ and\ author P. J. \ Hirschfeld ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 95 ,\ pages 177003 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  14. [22]

    author author T. S. \ Nunner \ and\ author P. J. \ Hirschfeld ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 72 ,\ pages 014514 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  15. [23]

    author author T. S. \ Nunner , author W. Chen , author B. M. \ Andersen , author A. Melikyan , \ and\ author P. J. \ Hirschfeld ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 73 ,\ pages 104511 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  16. [24]

    He , author T

    author author Y. He , author T. S. \ Nunner , author P. J. \ Hirschfeld , \ and\ author H.-P. \ Cheng ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 96 ,\ pages 197002 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  17. [25]

    author author D. J. \ Scalapino , author T. Nunner , \ and\ author P. J. \ Hirschfeld ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids \ volume 67 ,\ pages 6 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  18. [26]

    author author M. A. \ Sulangi , author M. P. \ Allan , \ and\ author J. Zaanen ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 96 ,\ pages 134507 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  19. [27]

    author author M. A. \ Sulangi \ and\ author J. Zaanen ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 97 ,\ pages 144512 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  20. [28]

    author author S. K. \ Tolpygo , author E. Cimpoiasu , author X. Liu , author N. Simonian , author Y. A. \ Polyakov , author J. E. \ Lukens , \ and\ author K. K. \ Likharev ,\ @noop journal journal IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity \ volume 13 ,\ pages 99 ( year 20...

    2003

  21. [29]

    author author L. J. \ Zeng , author S. Nik , author T. Greibe , author P. Krantz , author C. M. \ Wilson , author P. Delsing , \ and\ author E. Olsson ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics \ volume 48 ,\ pages 395308 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  22. [30]

    Ishii ,\ @noop journal journal Progress of Theoretical Physics \ volume 44 ,\ pages 1525 ( year 1970 ) NoStop

    author author C. Ishii ,\ @noop journal journal Progress of Theoretical Physics \ volume 44 ,\ pages 1525 ( year 1970 ) NoStop

    1970

  23. [31]

    author author A. A. \ Golubov , author M. Y. \ Kupriyanov , \ and\ author E. Il’Ichev ,\ @noop journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 76 ,\ pages 411 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004

  24. [32]

    author author C. W. J. \ Beenakker ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 67 ,\ pages 3836 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    1991

  25. [33]

    author author D. S. \ Holmes ,\ @noop howpublished personal communication NoStop

  26. [34]

    Haberkorn , author H

    author author W. Haberkorn , author H. Knauer , \ and\ author J. Richter ,\ @noop journal journal physica status solidi (a) \ volume 47 ,\ pages K161 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    1978

  27. [35]

    Il'Ichev , author V

    author author E. Il'Ichev , author V. Zakosarenko , author R. P. J. \ IJsselsteijn , author V. Schultze , author H.-G. \ Meyer , author H. E. \ Hoenig , author H. Hilgenkamp , \ and\ author J. Mannhart ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 81 ,\ pages 894 ( year 1...

    1998

  28. [36]

    Il’ichev , author V

    author author E. Il’ichev , author V. Zakosarenko , author R. P. J. \ IJsselsteijn , author H. E. \ Hoenig , author V. Schultze , author H.-G. \ Meyer , author M. Grajcar , \ and\ author R. Hlubina ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 60 ,\ pages 3096 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999

  29. [37]

    Il’ichev , author V

    author author E. Il’ichev , author V. Zakosarenko , author V. Schultze , author H. E. \ Hoenig , author H.-G. \ Meyer , author K. O. \ Subke , author H. Burkhardt , \ and\ author M. Schilling ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 76 ,\ pages 100 ( year 2000...

    2000

  30. [38]

    G \"o tz , author M

    author author M. G \"o tz , author M. Grajcar , author E. Il’ichev , author V. V. \ Khanin , author A. B. \ Zorin , author J. Niemeyer , \ and\ author H.-G. \ Meyer ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 62 ,\ pages R14645 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  31. [39]

    Il'Ichev , author M

    author author E. Il'Ichev , author M. Grajcar , author R. Hlubina , author R. P. J. \ IJsselsteijn , author H. Hoenig , author H.-G. \ Meyer , author A. Golubov , author M. H. S. \ Amin , author A. M. \ Zagoskin , author A. N. \ Omelyanchouk , \ and\ author M. Y. \ Kupriyanov ...

    2001

  32. [40]

    Il'ichev , author H

    author author E. Il'ichev , author H. E. \ Hoenig , author H.-G. \ Meyer , author A. B. \ Zorin , author V. Khanin , author M. G \"o tz , author A. B. \ Pavolotsky , \ and\ author J. Niemeyer ,\ @noop journal journal Physica C: Superconductivity \ volume 352 ,\ pages 141 ( yea...

    2001

  33. [41]

    Il’ichev , author V

    author author E. Il’ichev , author V. Zakosarenko , author L. Fritzsch , author R. Stolz , author H. E. \ Hoenig , author H.-G. \ Meyer , author M. G \"o tz , author A. B. \ Zorin , author V. Khanin , author A. B. \ Pavolotsky , \ and\ author J. Niemeyer ,\ @noop journal journ...

    2001

  34. [42]

    Komissinski , author E

    author author P. Komissinski , author E. Il'ichev , author G. Ovsyannikov , author S. Kovtonyuk , author M. Grajcar , author R. Hlubina , author Z. Ivanov , author Y. Tanaka , author N. Yoshida , \ and\ author S. Kashiwaya ,\ @noop journal journal EPL (Europhysics Letters) \ v...

    2002

  35. [43]

    Grajcar , author M

    author author M. Grajcar , author M. Ebel , author E. Il'ichev , author R. K \"u rsten , author T. Matsuyama , \ and\ author U. Merkt ,\ @noop journal journal Physica C: Superconductivity \ volume 372 ,\ pages 27 ( year 2002 a ) NoStop

    2002

  36. [44]

    Grajcar , author R

    author author M. Grajcar , author R. Hlubina , author E. Il'ichev , \ and\ author H.-G. \ Meyer ,\ @noop journal journal Physica C: Superconductivity \ volume 368 ,\ pages 267 ( year 2002 b ) NoStop

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.